Current overview of css

www.jpsr.org Journal of Petroleum Science Research Volume 2 Issue 3, July 2013
Current Overview of Cyclic Steam Injection
Process
Johannes Alvarez*1, Sungyun Han*2
*Co-first authors are listed in alphabetical order.
1,2 Texas A&M University, Department of Petroleum Engineering, College Station, Texas, 77843, USA
1 johannes.alvarez@pe.tamu.edu; 2sungyun.han@pe.tamu.edu
Abstract
Cyclic Steam Injection (CSI) is an effective thermal recovery
process, in which, several driving mechanisms define the
success of the process; i.e. viscosity reduction, wettability
alteration, gas expansion, etc. This process was first applied
in late 1950s. Then, it has been applied world‐wide
successfully to both light and heavy oil reservoirs. To
increase the effectiveness of CSI, process was varied by
chemical addition to steam, application of horizontal wells
and introduction of hydraulic fracturing. With these modern
technologies, average 15% of recovery factor of conventional
CSI producers back in 1980’s boosted up to approximately
40%. The method is attractive because it gives quick payout
at relatively high success rate due to cumulative field
development experiences. However, this is still
uncompetitive in terms of ultimate recovery factor
compared to that of other steam drive methods such as
steam flooding (50‐60% OOIP) or SAGD (60‐70% OOIP).
Recent studies related to the CSI have focused on either the
optimization of chemical additives and fracture design or
questioning on geomechanical solutions to poroelastic
effects. In addition, most papers discuss about follow‐up
process posterior to CSI such as in‐situ combustion, CO2
injection and steam flooding. This study is oriented to
overview of the past and current status of CSI process in
technical aspects with discussion of commercial cases
throughout the world. A summarized review is given on the
potential importance of encouragement of further
investigation of Cyclic Steam Injection.
Keywords
Cyclic Steam Injection; Cyclic Steam Stimulation; Huff n’ Puff;
Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery
Introduction
Cyclic Steam Injection, also called Huff n’ Puff, is a
thermal recovery method which involves periodical
injection of steam with purpose of heating the
reservoir near wellbore, in which, one well is used as
both injector and producer, and a cycle consisting of 3
stages, injection, soaking and production, repeats to
enhance the oil production rate as shown in Fig. 1.
116
Steam is injected into the well for certain period of
time to heat the oil in the surrounding reservoir to a
temperature at which it flows (200~300°C under 1
MPa of injection pressure). When enough amount of
steam has been injected, the well is shut down and the
steam is left to soak for some time no more than few
days. This stage is called soaking stage. The reservoir
is heated by steam, consequently oil viscosity
decreases. The well is opened and production stage is
triggered by natural flow at first and then by artificial
lift. The reservoir temperature reverts to the level at
which oil flow rate reduces. Then, another cycle is
repeated until the production reaches an economically
determined level.
FIG. 1 CYCLIC STEAM INEJCTINO PROCESS (FROM UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WASHINGTON DC.)
Typical CSI process is well suited for the formation
thickness greater than 30 ft and depth of reservoir less
than 3000 ft with high porosity (>0.3) and oil
saturation greater than 40%. Near‐wellbore geology is
critical in CSI for steam distribution as well as capture
of the mobilized oil. Unconsolidated sand with low
clay content is favorable. Above 10 API gravity and
viscosity of oil between 1000 to 4000 cp is considerable
while permeability should be at least 100 md (Thomas,
2008; and Speight, 2007).

Journal of Petroleum Science Research (JPSR) Volume 2 Issue 3, July 2013 www.jpsr.org
117
Underlying Technology
CSI includes three stages; injection, soaking and
production, which are repeated until the oil
production turns uneconomic (Prats, 1985, and
Thomas, 2008). Application of CSI, like other EOR
methods, targets to reduce the formation residual oil
saturation by several driving mechanisms: viscosity
reduction, changes in wettability and thermal and
solution gas expansion (Prats, 1978) which depend on
reservoir rock and fluid properties. For instance,
viscosity reduction can be explained by mobility ratio
which is the ratio of effective permeability to viscosity.
In addition, during CSI many chemical reactions occur
which mainly form gaseous components such as
carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen
during steam injection (Hongfu et al., 2002); and these
reactions include decarboxylation of the crude,
formation of H2S from sulfur in the crude, formation
of H2, CO, CH4 and CO2 from reactions between water
and crude and formation of CO2 by decomposition
and reactions of carbonates minerals (Prats, 1985).
The produced gases formed during the CSI create
additional driving mechanism which can be named as
gas drive. Also, these visbreaking reactions reduce the
oil viscosity by increasing the oil mobility (Pahlavan et
al., 1995, Hongfu et al., 2002, and Prats, 1985). Hongfu
et al., in 2002 reported a reduction of heavy oil
viscosity between 28 and 42% after CSI.
Reservoir Properties Changes with CSI
Every stimulation that is performed in the reservoir
has consequences; introducing heat into the formation
by CSI produces stress and deformation in oil sand
formations. The resulting pore volume changes affect
the reservoir permeability and consequently water
mobility. Scott et al., in 1994, claimed that the volume
and permeability changes are the results of three
effects: change in the mean principal effective stress,
change in the shear stress and change in temperature.
The increase in temperature causes thermal expansion
of the sand grains and sand structure. In addition,
studies conducted in Cold Lake field in Canada
concluded that, during steam injection, the increase of
pore pressure decreases the effective confining stress
and causes an unloading of the reservoir (Scott et al.,
1994).
In the Clearwater formation in Canada, the effects of
the volumetric expansion, during CSI, were
transferred to the reservoir surrounding and the
surface (Walters et al., 2000). This is sometimes
observed as small elevations of the surface near the
well, usually in shallow reservoirs. In addition,
Walters et al., 2002 explained pressure changes in an
isolated aquifer overlying the Clearwater formation as
the result of poroelastic effects during CSI. However,
these geomechanical deformations and failure
mechanisms produced by CSI give the initial
injectivity required for steam injection and the drive
energy needed for the oil production (Yuan et al.,
2011).
CSI, due to the injection of a hot fluid into the
formation, causes shear dilation (Wong et al., 2001).
Hence, the pore rock characteristics change by means
of enlarging their volume. This increases permeability
which affects directly steam and hydrocarbon
movements in the reservoir. Wong et al.. developed a
model that provided a quantitative estimation of the
permeability changes caused by shear dilation.
Yale et al. affirmed that the most significant impact of
dilation due to CSI is an increase in the permeability
to water. This increase of the pore space is caused
dilatation and mobility of the injected fluid. Further,
condensation of hot water from steam ahead of the
steam front pressurized the reservoir (Yale et al., 2010).
Moreover, CSI induced displacements in the reservoir
due to dilation and the recovery of these original
conditions during production operations is a point of
supply of reservoir drive energy.
Gronseth, in 1989, studied the distribution of the
injected fluids during CSI in the Clearwater formation,
and found that if the injection rates are faster than
diffusion rates into the matrix, the reservoir volume
increases to adjust the volume of the injected fluid.
This volume increase is translated into a pressure
increase. Later, during production, reservoir pressure
reduces and effective stresses increases, so the
reservoir contracts and a portion, but not the entire
increased reservoir volume, is recovered (Gronseth,
1989).
There are techniques used to monitor reservoir
deformation. These measures are important to
optimize production and design parameters such as
well length, well spacing, injection rate, cycle time,
among others. In CSI, inclinometers and tilt‐meters,
based on surface deformation, are used to monitor
steam migration and formation dilation (Du et al.,
2005). However, tilt‐meters are more accurate than
inclinometers by more than one order of magnitude
(Dusseault et al., 2002).

History: Commercial Cases
CSI was first used fortuitously in Venezuela in 1959.
By that time, one of the steam injector wells began to
produce, after a blowout, in much better conditions
than the surrounding production wells (Trebolle and
Chalot, 1993). Since then, this method has been
applied in many fields such as Bolivar Coastal and
Santa Barbara in Venezuela (Valera et al., 1999), Cold
Lake Oil Sands in Canada, Xinjiang and Liaohe in
China (Liguo et al., 2012), Midway‐sunset in
California (Jones et al., 1990), among other heavy oil
fields.
At the early stages of CSI application, CSI was
considered as an old‐school oil production method in
which operations are ahead of research developments
(Ramey et al., 1969). The literature shows that many
publications, explaining CSI processes, were based on
field experiences rather than research work. There are
a lot of unknowns about the process parameters such
as the number of stimulation cycles, well orientation
and number of wells, operating condition, the increase
of water cut, among others. Therefore, on early CSI
field applications, the process was performed as trial‐and‐
118
error field‐scale experiment (Ramey, 1967). After
many research studies and field experiences,
important technology problems were reduced.
First, the number of stimulation cycles increased by
time. By 1974, CSI has an average of three stimulation
cycles with a maximum reported of 22 (Ali et al., 1974).
In 1990, in the Midway‐Sunset field, California, there
was already a well with 39 cycles. Also, out of 1500
wells, there were 75 wells with more than 30 cycles,
and 350 wells with more than 20 cycles (Jones et al.,
1990). This increment in the number of cycles was
accomplished by getting better understanding of
steam properties, reservoir characteristics, and
injection conditions.
Second, well orientation and number of wells were
improving by time. In Trinidad and Tobago, slim‐hole
injectors, insulated tubing and packers, and limited
entry perforations have been used to combat gravity
segregation consequences (Khan, 1992). As well,
steam was injected with foam‐diverting agents to
control water breakthrough resulting from high
injectivity.
In addition, in the Cold Lake oil sands, Canada, steam
distribution in horizontal wells was improved by
using screen sections, which facilitated contact
between the well and the reservoir. Also, inside these
screen sections, small flow orifices were used to
control the flow between the inner pipe and the
reservoir to enhance oil production and reduce steam
consumption (Oil and Gas Journal report by Bob
Tippee, 2012).
In China, the most up to date methods and techniques
used in CSI include: high‐efficient steam injection by
automatic controlling steam generation, insulating
surface pipeline and multi‐zone steam injection; as
well as artificial lifting, sand control, CSI with
chemical additives, re‐entry drilling technology, and
process control systems (Haiyan et al., 2005). In
addition, steam distribution has been improved by
using separated‐zone steam injection techniques such
as selected, dual and multi zone injection, either
sequentially or simultaneously. This method showed,
in field testing to 76 wells of the Liaohe oil field, an
increase up to 70% of the steam zone (Liguo et al.,
2012). Moreover, as well in horizontal well, the tubing
and annulus of the same well have been applied to
inject to in the toe and heel separately (Liguo et al.,
2012).
Third, operating conditions of pressure and
temperature have adjusted to each case based on
reservoir properties and well design. In the Cold Lake
field, CSI has been achieved by injection at pressures
high enough to fracture the formation (Beattie et al.,
1991). In California, specifically in Potter sands in the
Midway‐Sunset field, a sequential steaming process
was implemented. This approach involved heating the
reservoir rather than heating each well separately
(Jones et al., 1990). The wells were stimulated in rows
from down to up dip of the reservoir. Using this
methodology, the production per well increased up to
a rate of 30% per year (Jones et al., 1990).
Another technique, in pilot stage and successfully
simulated, is the use of Top‐Injection Bottom‐
Production (TINBOP) whose principle is to inject
steam at the top of the reservoir using the short well
string and produced from the bottom of the reservoir
using the long well string. (Morlot et al., 2007).
Simulation studies, conducted by Morlot et al. showed
TINBOP increased oil recovery by 57 to 93%,
compared to conventional CSI (Morlot et al., 2007).
One feature of this method is that there is no soaking
period.
Fourth, the increase of water cut is also addressed. In
CSI, each succeeding cycle normally increases water
cuts (Ali et al., 1974). Consequently, in the late 70’s
there was a trend to convert these operations into

119
steam drives due to the decrement in oil recovery
(Prats, 1978). This trend has changed in the last years
with the use of chemical additives on CSI.
Recently, there have been important progresses in oil
recovery using chemical addition. Although CSI
increases oil recovery, chemical addition with CSI
increases it even further (Ramey et al., 1967).
Nowadays, in CSI processes, co‐injection of steam
with gels, foams, and surfactants, among other
chemicals, are used to increase oil production and
reduce water production. In Russia, specifically in the
Permian‐Carboniferous reservoirs of the Usinsk field,
gels and foams have been injected with CSI from 2007
to 2011, and an increase of 20‐30% oil rate and
decreased 33‐35% water cut (Taraskin et al., 2012)
have been observed.
In Canada, Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing
Recovery (LASER) has been field‐tested for a single
cycle at Cold Lake field. Previous work indicated that,
if successful, the LASER process could increase the
recovery factor by 3 – 6% OOIP (Leaute et al., 2007).
Similarly in Canada, other processes have been tested
to increase CSI performance such as air injection,
achieving 15% incremental in addition to the 12‐20%
recovery with high pressure CSI (Jiang et al., 2010),
and biodiesel and carbamide injection (Babadagli et al.,
2010 and Zhang et al., 2009), both used as surfactants
to enhance the CSI efficiency.
The field tests in Henan Oil Field, China, using
carbamide increased oil recovery by 7% and decreased
Residual Oil Saturation (SOR) almost by 1% (Zhang et
al., 2009). As well, in the Bachaquero field in
Venezuela, an ionic‐alkyl‐aryl sulfonate surfactant
(LAAS) has been used to generate foams that enhance
steam distribution more evenly in the reservoir by
restricting steam to the areas with higher permeability.
This technique has improved the production per cycle
from 15 to 40% (Valera et al., 1999). Moreover,
solvents have been used to improve steam injectivity
by removing organic deposits from the rock and
changing its wettability in Costa Bolivar, Zulia,
Venezuela (Mendez et al., 1992).
Finally, wettability changes in CSI due to temperature
increase have been studied by several authors with
different results. On one hand, there is a line of
thought which assures that as temperature increases,
the system oil‐water‐rock becomes more water‐wet
(Prats, 1985, Schembre et al., 2006, Kovscek et al., 2008,
and Poston et al., 1970). On the other hand, another
tendency advocates that the system becomes more oil‐wet
as temperature increases (Rao and Karyampudi,
1999, Escrochi et al., 2008, and Rao, 1999); also, there is
a third line of thought explaining that wettability is
independent of temperature changes (Miller and
Ramey, 1985, and Pollkar et al., 1989).
Studies with Diatomaceous rocks and Berea
sandstones conducted by Schembre et al., 2006,
showed that both diatomaceous and Berea cores
become more water‐wet as temperature increases
(from 100 to 200°C). This behavior was attributed to
fines detachment, in low salinity and high pH steam
condensate fluid, which stabilizes a thin water film
that covers the rock surface avoiding contact with the
oil phase. This fines detachment depends on
temperature and mineralogy; for example, wettability
changes are reached faster in silica than that in clays
(Schembre et al., 2006). In addition, Poston et al., 1970,
conducted similar studies using unconsolidated sands
from Houston sands and Midway‐Sunset field,
California, reaching the conclusion that increasing
temperature (from 25 to 150°C) is determined in
improving water‐wetness in the unconsolidated sands.
On the other hand, Rao and Karyampudi, 1999, and
Rao, 1999, conducted CSI lab and field test in the
heavy oil and bitumen Elk Point Cummings formation,
Canada. Their results showed that at high
temperatures (162 to 196–°C), the formation, which is
mainly silica (87%), became oil‐wet. Moreover, they
also discover that salt deposition, mainly calcium
carbonate (CaCO3), in one of the core layers prevented
oil‐wet behavior at high temperatures, changing the
wettability to water‐wet. This effect was proved in
core flooding and field test in which increment in oil
rate and decrement in water cut were observed (from
22 BPD and 83% in the fourth cycle to 51 BPD and 77%
in the five cycle) (Rao and Karyampudi, 1999).
Wettability reversal effect at high temperatures is also
attributed to asphaltene precipitation. Using
Athabasca bitumen and live oil sample with 5% and
3.17% asphaltene respectively, Escrochi et al., 2008,
showed that from 150 to 400 °C the system shifted to
oil‐wet until asphaltene precipitation was completed
and then wettability was changed to water‐wet.
Moreover, in the literature, results showed that
temperature do not impact wettability during CSI,
and Miller and Ramey, 1985 tested the unconsolidated
Ottawa Silica Sand and a consolidated Berea
Sandstone with temperatures from 25 to 150° C,
concluding that there were not changes in residual

saturations that imply variance in wettability. The
same results were reached in the unconsolidated silica
sands at 125 to 175 °C by Pollkar et al., 1989.
Consequently, when CSI is applied, there are different
positions in describing wettability mechanism and
their changes with temperature. However, it is
important to point out that these results mainly
depend on the chemical properties of fluids injected,
asphaltene content and the mineralogy of the
reservoir.
From its early stages until today, CSI has evolved
significantly from a process discovered by chance
where trial and error governed the operations with
little number of cycles and low recovery factor to
state‐of‐the‐art applications with a great variety of
chemical additives and well geometries which
increase the number of cycles and the ultimate oil
recovery. However, more research needs to be done in
evaluating wettability changes at field scale to
determine the factors that influence early water break
and reduce oil production at different mineralogy and
injection temperatures.
Current State-of-the-art: Applications
The method is quite effective, especially in the first
few cycles providing quick payout. However, ultimate
recovery by cyclic steam injection is low (10‐40% of
Original Oil in Place, OOIP), compared to that of
steam flooding and Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD) which are over 50% of OOIP (Thomas, 2008;
Speight, 2007; Xia and Greaves, 2006) as shown in
TABLE. 1. Therefore, it is quite common for wells to
be produced in the cyclic steam manner for a few
cycles before put on a steam flooding regime with
other wells (Alikhlalov et al., 2011).
TABLE 1 OIL RECOVERY RATE OF THERMAL EOR METHODS
120
Oil Recovery Factors
(successful projects)
Thermal EOR % of OOIP
CSI 10 ‐ 40
Steam flooding 50 ‐ 60
SAGD 60 ‐ 70
In‐situ Combustion* 70 ‐ 80
*In‐situ Combustion using THAI—‘Toe‐to‐Heel Air Injection’
Conventional CSI process usually has average
recovery factor lower than 20%. However, this can be
doubled with combination of unconventional
technologies which have become profitable including
co‐injection of steam with chemical additives,
directional drilling, and hydraulic fracturing. Recently,
technical aspects like injected steam/produced oil ratio,
presence of water cut in the producing well and
excessive heat losses have required special attention.
Many literatures have presented studies on these
areas at laboratory scale (i.e, Castro et al., 2010).
Investigations have been optimizing the cyclic steam
injection technology by chemical addition to the steam.
Currently, the performance of CSI is enhanced by co‐injection
of steam with chemicals such as surfactants,
solvents, miscible and immiscible gases.
CSI with Chemical Additives
Since 1960, investigations on cyclic steam injection
technology have been conducted to improve recovery
factor by adding chemical additives to steam,
fracturing, and placing horizontal wells for different
types of reservoir. In the reservoir, the chemical
additives enhance the production by increasing the
mobility of oil and enabling condensed water to carry
higher loading of oil. Numerous studies on chemical
additives to steam have been conducted to affect
heavy oil properties favorably such as solvents,
surfactants, miscible and immiscible gases.
1) Solvents
The idea of adding solvents to the steam to reduce
the oil viscosity has been reported in the literature
since 1970s. Previously, solvents and light crudes
had been used as diluents to optimize pumping
and pipeline transportation of heavy crudes. Both
laboratory and field tests later years proved that
the use of solvent as an additive to steam during
in‐situ recovery improved the mobility ratio of
displacing and displaced fluid and sweep
efficiency. The mechanism is following: the
vaporized solvent is co‐injected with steam and
travels with the steam front. It condenses and
mixes with the oil in the cooler regions of reservoir
creating a transition zone of lower‐viscosity fluid
between steam and oil. Consequently, the mobility
ratio between steam and oil increases, resulting in
higher production rate.
The success of process depends on the solvent type,
treatment size and the solvent placement. It was
concluded that the use of small quantities of
medium volatile solvent (no more than 10% of
steam volume) creates the best effectiveness in
increasing total oil production (Shu and Hartman,
1988). In many of the previous researches, naphtha

121
was employed quite frequently which was found
to be highly effective in opening a steam flow path
due to its high volatility. Other solvents that were
used in recent researches include CO2, ethane, and
a mixture of gases (Yongtao et al., 2011), kerosene,
and even some effluents from some refinery
processes (Castro et al., 2010).
2) Surfactants
Although adding solvents to steam can increase
production recovery up to 30% upon earlier cycles,
high injection volumes are required to reduce the
viscosity of oil appreciably thereby necessitating
solvent recovery, which leads to high operational
costs. Therefore, adding surfactants to injected
steam to reduce oil‐water interfacial tension and
alter wettability and therefore increase recovery
was introduced. Most widely used agent is called
Thin Film Spreading Agents (TFSA). TFSA
compounds reduce interfacial tension by the
application of a spreading film strong enough to
overcome the emulsifying agents naturally found
between the oil‐water and oil‐rock interfaces. By
reduction of the interfacial energies between the
oil‐rock and water‐rock, water wetting of the rock
results, leading to the release of oil particles from
the rock surface improving oil mobility (Adkins et
al., 1983). Successful field applications of TFSA in
California and Alberta were reported with
indication of significant improvement in heavy oil
recovery factor up to 20% (Srivastava and Castro,
2011).
The capability of the steam‐surfactant mixture to
divert steam entry into the sands varies directly
with the concentration of the surfactant present,
steam quality and the addition of a non‐condensable
gas. Some pilot tests in Bolivar Coast,
Venezuela, reported the optimum level of
surfactant concentration in the steam liquid phase
1 to 1.3 % (Robaina et al., 1988) above which no
additional diversion was obtained. Most
conventional surfactant injection projects, steam
quality maintained averagely 60 to 70% (Blair et al
1982; Adkins et al., 1983). Co‐injections of more
efficient surfactants were also tested; however,
they required high steam quality as 80 to 90%,
which causes higher operating costs. Srivastava
and Castro reported that TFSA requires only small
amount of concentration (250 ppm) while
sustaining steam quality as below 70% (Srivastava
and Castro, 2011). Additionally, some laboratory
tests demonstrated that introducing non‐condensable
gases (i.e nitrogen) helps to stabilize
the foam, affording greater plugging of the porous
media consequently (Robaina et al., 1988).
CSI with Horizontal Well
Due to the presence of certain sand volumes at the
bottom of the reservoir which is not recoverable by
using vertical wells, the idea of horizontal well was
introduced to the CSI process. The main advantages of
the horizontal wells are improved sweep efficiency,
increased producible reserves as well as steam
injectivity, and decreased number of well required for
field development (Joshi, 1991). Although most of
simulation studies proved notable advantages of
horizontal well over vertical well (Adegbesan 1992,
and Chang et al., 2009), CSI with horizontal well had
little success in fields before 2000s. The main reason
was the extra operating costs which were double that
of vertical wells back then. Other factors include
geological/reservoir characteristics and operational
aspects such as uneven steam distribution and sand
productions. For example, the activity of horizontal
drilling in Bachaquero field in Venezuela where high
oil viscosity (~18000 cp) encountered did not appear
profitable, causing a low annular fluid level (Mendoza
et al., 1997). A simulation study later on also showed
that the application of horizontal well in same field
was not economically attractive (Escobar et al., 2000).
On the other hand, few pilot tests in early 2000s had
success on horizontal well application; and indeed,
those horizontal producers in comparison to typical
vertical ones in each area improved production
performance and thermal efficiency as well as
operating costs. Representative pilots are in South
Midway‐Sunset field (McKay et al., 2003) and
Cymric/McKittric field in California (Cline et al., 2002).
Both fields showed about 20 to 50% improvement in
production over results from vertical wells and
benefited from maximum 45% of directional drilling
cost reduction relative to that of a decade ago.
Despite the reduced drilling costs, operating costs for
generating steam still remains high due to greater heat
loss when steam injection is schemed to horizontal
well application. Further investigations inquire
possibilities to address the solutions to this problem.
Chang et al., examined in his simulation study the co‐injection
with solvent (n‐hexane C6H14) and alternate
solvent/steam cycles to reduce total number of cycles.
(Chang et al,. 2009).

CSI with Hydraulic Fracturing
The idea of combining cyclic steam stimulation with
hydraulic fracturing came out when both steam
injection and completion (i.e, sand control completion)
techniques generated potential formation damage
thus, the permeability near the wellbore creating a
choke was lowered that further reduces the oil
mobility. Creating fractures allows a more efficient
placement of injected steam, heating up larger volume
of reservoir and reducing residual oil saturation. This
combination is usually considered for low‐permeability
122
heavy oil reservoirs like California
diatomite (0.1‐0.5 md) or Athabasca oil sands (~2.5 d).
Several studies reported desirable results (Manrique et
al., 1996, and Settari et al., 1981).
Fines and sand production problems are found
commonly during cyclic steam injection. The recent
study investigated the efficiency of fracturing with
viscoelastic surfactant fluid instead of water which
worsens the sand and fine production. It was
concluded that anionic surfactant fluids minimize gel
damage and maintain favourable proppant
transportation (Gomez et al., 2012).
Follow Up Methods: Post CSI
CSI is widely used in oil recovery due to its quick
response; however, recovery factors are relatively low
(10‐40% OOIP) compared to other thermal methods
such as steam flooding (50‐60% OOIP) or in‐situ
combustion (70‐80% OOIP) (Thomas, 2008). This is
because the natural energy of the reservoir, as well as
oil production, decreases and, when several cycles are
reached, oil production tends to decrease even more
with decreasing pressure and increasing water
production. Consequently, some follow‐up processes
are used after the implementation of CSI to improve
oil recovery, such as CO2 injection (Luo et al., 2005),
steam flooding (Yang, 2007), and air injection as in‐situ
combustion (Gates et al., 2011, and Hajdo et al.,
1985), among others.
One example of CO2 injection after CSI is in the
Lengjiabao heavy oil reservoir, in which CO2 was
injected in extra heavy oil (10,000 ‐50,000 mPa.s at
50°C) after 3 cycles of CSI with satisfactory results;
increasing oil mobility with CO2 utilization ratio from
3.0 to 6.0 tons oil /tons CO2 and oil recovery from 10 to
35% (Luo et al., 2005). However, in other wells tested
with low permeability, porosity and oil saturation, the
injection of CO2 did not increase oil production.
Another thermal method frequently used as a follow
up process for CSI is steam flooding. One of the
experiences reported was in the Guantao formation
(porosity and permeability relatively high and extra
heavy oil with viscosities of 230,000 mPa∙s at 50°C) in
the Liaohe Oil Field, China, where CSI was applied
previously. Steam flooding was adapted by using
horizontal wells placed between current vertical CSI
wells (Yang, 2007). These vertical wells produced for 3
cycles by CSI and then some of them were switched to
steam flood as soon as the horizontal‐vertical wells
communication was identified. Yang in 2007 reported
that the wells have been producing since February
2005 by steam flooding favored by gravity drainage
forces. Initially, the predicted oil recovery by CSI was
29% of OOIP, and, with steam flooding follow up after
CSS, the forecasted oil recovery was 56% (Yang, 2007).
However, steam flooding is not the right recipe as
follow‐up after CSI for all types of formations. Every
reservoir has its own characteristics such as vertical
and horizontal permeabilities, reservoir properties
changes caused by CSI, reservoir thickness, and
viscosity of the fluids, among others, which have to be
evaluated before steam flooding is implemented after
CSI (He et al., 1995).
In the Bachaquero‐01 reservoir in western Venezuela,
CSI has been used since 1965 and currently the
production wells have more than 6 cycles. An
Extended Cyclic Steam Injection, which is a
combination of steam injection and steam flooding,
was evaluated numerically. The prediction cases were
simulated for 7 cycles of 14 months each and
approximately 9 months of steam flooding in different
well patters (Chourio et al., 2011). The simulated
results showed that there was an additional recovery
of 3.7%, reaching the highest recovery in the area of
24.3% of OOIP (Chourio et al., 2011). The pilot test for
this project was planned in 2012.
Finally, in‐situ combustion performance has also been
numerically investigated as a follow up process for
CSI (Gates et al., 2011). In Canada, in the Margarite
Lake, in wells with a depth of 1476 feet and thickness
of 112 feet (Hajdo et al., 1985) and Morgan Field, with
wells with a depth of 670 feet and thickness of 30 feet
(Marjerrison and Fassihi, 1995), air injection pilots
were performed after CSI and the process were
proved to be successful (Gates et al., 2011, Hajdo et al.,
1985 and Marjerrison and Fassihi, 1995). In addition,
CSI was implemented in the Cold Lake oil sands, and
the oil recovery was recorded to be 15‐20% of the

123
OOIP (Nzekwu et al., 1990). Consequently, an in‐situ
combustion process was implemented. The results,
presented by Nzekwu et al. showed that the average
reservoir temperature and heated zone increased after
in‐situ combustion which consequently would
increase oil recovery. In addition, in the heavy oil
reservoir of Midway Field in California, a successful
in‐situ combustion pilot was conducted in a section
subjected to CSI for seven years (Counihan, 1977). The
previous CSI cycles helped injectors to prevent
burnout, clean the perforations and reduce
spontaneous ignition.
Currently, the most used follow up process after CSI
is steam flooding. One reason is because it utilizes the
installed equipment into the well and on surface
which reduces capital cost. However, the most
important ground is due to its attribute to sweep the
remaining oil to a specific production well. Moreover,
CO2 flooding has been proved to be successful in
limited areas and further research must be done to
fully develop this technique; likewise, initial
investment and CO2 utilization affects directly capital
cost. Finally, air injection has been efficient in some
places as well, but it is a process very complicated for
simulation and field tested.
Conclusions
- CSI has improved since its discovery in 1959, little
number of cycles and low recovery factor have
been increased by the use of chemical additives
and by better understanding of the geometry and
mineralogy of the wells. However, more research
needs to be done in understanding relative
permeability and wettability changes with
temperature at field scale in different formations
to increase ultimate oil recovery.
- Cyclic Steam Injection combined with
unconventional technologies such as co‐injection
with chemical additives, horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing have been highly successful,
improving its conventional recovery factor up to
40%. Recent studies showed that this can be
increased even higher.
- Cyclic Steam Injection with horizontal well has
had considerable success thanks to reduced
directional drilling cost and improved sweep
efficiency, although further economic evaluations
need to be considered.
- CSI with Hydraulic fracturing has shown good
results for low‐permeability formation. Further
investigation on fracturing fluid needs to be
acquired to solve sand productions during the
operation.
- In many cases, follow up processes after CSI are
convenient solutions to increase reservoir ultimate
recovery. However, these processes must be
evaluated carefully considering reservoir
properties and mineralogy and fluid interaction
before fully implemented. In addition, in follow
up process selection, economic viability is a major
issue, so the increase in oil recovery must be
sufficient to cover capital cost and maintain the
project profitable during the forecasted time.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. Berna Hascakir
for her guidance and encouragement to write this
paper.
REFERENCES
Adegbesan, K. G. (1992). “Reservoir Simulation Study of a
Thermal Horizontal Well Pilot in the Cold Lake Oil
Sands.” SPE Reservoir Engineering 7(4): 403‐406.
Adkins, J. D. (1983). “Field Results of Adding Surfactant to
Cyclic Steam Wells.” SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition. San Francisco, California, Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Ahmed, Tarek, D., Meehan, and Nathan. (2012). “Advanced
Reservoir Management and Engineering (Second
Edition).” Pages 541‐585.
Ali, Farouq S. M. (1974). “Current Status of Steam Injection
as a Heavy Oil Recovery Method.” Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology. Volume 13, Number 1.
Alikhlalov, K. and Dindoruk B. (2011). “Conversion of
Cyclic Steam Injection to Continous Steam Injection.”
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Denver, Colorado, USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Babadagli, T., Er, V., Naderi, K., Burkus, Z., and Ozum, B.
(2010). “Use of Biodiesel as an Additive in Thermal
Recovery of Heavy Oil and Bitumen.” Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology. Volume 49, Number
11.
Beattie, C.I., Boberg, T.C., and McNab, G.S. (1991).
“Reservoir Simulation of Cyclic Steam Stimulation in
the Cold Lake Oil Sands.” SPE Reservoir Engineering.
Volume 6, Number 2.

Blair Jr., C. M., Scribner, R. E., and Stout, C. A. (1982).
124
“Chemical Enhancement of Oil Production by Cyclic
Steam Injection.” Journal of Petroleum Technology 34
(12): 2757‐2762.
Castro, Y. E., Veliz, A. M., Sanchez, D. A., Rodriguez, M. M.,
Rondon, N. G., Rivero, S., and Cortez, M.L. (2010).
“Cyclic Steam Injection with Solvents as Method of
Thermal Recovery for Heavy and Extraheavy Oils:
Laboratory Tests.” Canadian Unconventional Resources
and International Petroleum Conference. Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Chang, J., Ivory, J., and Rajan, R. S. V. (2009). “Cyclic Steam‐
Solvent Stimulation Using Horizontal Wells.” Canadian
International Petroleum Conference. Calgary, Alberta,
Petroleum Society of Canada.
Chourio, Geragg; Bracho, Jose and Mohtad, Mehrdad. (2011).
“Evaluation and Application of the Extended Cyclic
Steam Injection as a New Concept for Bachaquero‐01
Reservoir in West Venezuela.” SPE 148083‐MS.
Cline, V. J. and M. Basham. (2002). “Improving Project
Performance in a Heavy Oil Horizontal Well Project in
the San Joaquin Valley, California.” SPE International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and
International Horizontal Well Technology Conference.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Counihan, and Thomas M. A. (1977). “Successful In‐Situ
Combustion Pilot in the Midway‐Sunset Field,
California.” SPE 6525‐MS.
Du, J., Brissenden, S.J., McGillivray, P., Bourne, S., Hofstra,
P., and Davis, E.J., Roadarmel, W.H., Wolhart, S.L.,
Marsic, S., Gusek, and R., Wright, C.A. (2005).
“Mapping Reservoir Volume Changes During Cyclic
Steam Stimulation Using Tiltmeter Based Surface
Deformation Measurements.” SPE 97848‐MS.
Dusseault, M.B. and Rothenburg, L. (2002). “Analysis of
Deformation Measurements for Reservoir Management.”
Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP, Vol. 57.
No. 5, pp. 539‐554.
Escobar, E., Valko, P., Lee, W. J., and Rodriguez, M.G. (2000).
“Optimization Methodology for Cyclic Steam Injection
with Horizontal Wells.” SPE/CIM International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology. Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.
Escrochi, M., Nabipour, M., Ayatollahi, Sh., and Mehranbod,
N. (2008). “Wettability Alteration at Elevated
Temperatures: The Consequenses of Asphaltene
Precipitation.” 2008 SPE Internatiomal Symposium and
Exibitionon Formation Damage held in Lafayette,
Luisiana, USA. SPE 112428.
Gates, Ian D. and Wang, Jacky. (2011). “Evolution of In Situ
Oil Sands Recovery Technology in the Field: What
Happened and Whatʹs New?” SPE 150686‐MS.
Gomez, J., Morales, H., Toyo, D., and Bracho, J. (2012).
“Fracturing With Viscoelastic Surfactant Fluid in Cyclic
Steam Injection Wells ‐ A Synergy for Heavy Oil
Recovery.” SPE 153536‐MS.
Gronseth, J.M. (1989). “Geomechanics Monitoring of Cyclic
Steam Stimulation Operations In the Clearwater
Formation.” International Society for Rock Mechanics
IS‐1989‐166.
Haiyan, H., Shuhong, W., Yitang, Z., Dingmin, W., and
Zhong, G. (2005). “State‐of‐the‐Art of Heavy‐Oil
Development in China and Its Technology Challenges.”
SPE 10617‐MS.
Hajdo, L.E., Hallam, R.J., and Vorndran. (1985). “Hydrogen
Generation During In‐Situ Combustion.” SPE 13661‐MS.
He, Z., Zhang, R., Pu, H. Y., and Ren, X. (1995). “The
Feasible Conditions Study of Steamflooding for Heavy
Oil Reservoirs In China After Cyclic Steam Injection.”
SPE 30303‐MS.
Hongfu, F., Yongjian, L., Liying, S., and Xiaofei, Z. (2002).
“The Study on Composition Changes of Heavy oils
during Steam Stimulation Processes.” ELSEVIER. Fuel
81. p.p 1733‐1738 .
Jiang, Q., Thornton, B., Russel‐Houston, J., and Spence, S.
(2010). “Review of Thermal Recovery Technologies for
the Clearwater and Lower Grand Rapids Formations in
the Cold Lake Area in Alberta.” Journal of Canadian
Jones, Jeff and Cawthon, Gary J. (1990). “Sequential Steam:
An Engineered Cyclic Steaming Method.” Journal of
Joshi, S. D. (1991). “Thermal Oil Recovery With Horizontal
Wells (includes associated papers 24403 and 24957).”
Journal of Petroleum Technology 43(11): 1302‐1304.

125
Khan, Jamaludin and Parag, Dhanpaul. (1992). “Twenty‐
Five Years of Oil Recovery by Steam Injection.” SPE
24198‐MS.
Kovscek, A.R., Schembre,, J.M. and Tang, G.‐Q. (2008).
“Authors’ Reply to Discussion of Interrelationship of
Temperature and Wettability on the Relative
Permeability of Heavy Oil in Diatomaceous Rocks.”
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. Volume 11,
Number 3. p.p. 437‐438.
Leaute, R. P. and Carey, B. S. (2007). “Liquid Addition to
Steam for Enhancing Recovery (LASER) of Bitumen
with CSS: Results from the First Pilot Cycle.” Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology. Volume 46, Number 9.
Liguo, Zhong; Shoujun, Zhang; Fei, Wu; Baoshan, Lang;
Heng, Liu and Shuai, Gai. (2012). “Improved Heavy‐Oil
Recovery by Separated‐Zones Horizontal‐Well Steam
Stimulation.” Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology. Volume 51, Number 2.
Luo, R., Cheng, L.‐S., and Peng, J.‐C. (2005). “Feasibility
Study of CO2 Injection for Heavy Oil Reservoir after
Cyclic Steam Stimulation: Liaohe oilfield test.” SPE
97462‐MS.
Manrique, J. F. (1996). “Optimization of Thermal Processes
Through Combined Application of Horizontal Wells
and Hydraulic Fracturing Technology.” International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology. Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
Marjerrison, D.M. and Fassihi, M.R. (1995). “Morgan
pressure cycling in‐situ combustion project:
performance and modeling.” Geological Society,
London, Special Publications. V.84. p. 275‐286.
McKay, C., Jones, J., Pomerene, J. (2003). “Successful
Horizontal Producers in Midway‐Sunset Thermal
Operations.” SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific
Section Joint Meeting. Long Beach, California, Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Mendez, Z., Alvarez, J. M., Escobar, E., Colonomos, P., and
Campos, P. (1992). “Cyclic Steam Injection With
Additives: Laboratory and Field Test Results of
Steam/Foam and Steam/Solvent Processes.” SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Washington, D.C.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. SPE 24632‐MS
Mendoza, H., Padron, A., and Portillo, F. (1997). “Steam
Stimulation In Horizontal Wells Pilot Test In Venezuela.”
Annual Technical Meeting. Calgary, Alberta, Petroleum
Society of Canada.
Miller, Mark A., and Ramey Jr., H.J. (1985). “Effect of
Temperature on Oil/Water Relative Permeabilities of
Unconsolidated and Consolidated Sands.” SPE Journal.
Volume 25, Number 6. p.p. 945‐953.
Morlot, C. D. and Mamora, D. (2007). “TINBOP Cyclic
Steam Injection Enhances Oil Recovery in Mature
Steamfloods.” Petroleum Society of Canada.
Nzekwu, Ben I., Hallam, Richard J., and Williams, G.J.J.
(1990). “Interpretation of Temperature Observations
From a Cyclic‐Steam/ In‐Situ‐Combustion Project.” SPE
Reservoir Engineering. Volume 5, Number 2.
Oil and Gas Journal by Bob Tippee. (2012). “ExxonMobil
licenses oil sands steam system.” Houston, Feb. 2, 2012.
http://www.ogj.com/content/ogj/en/articles/2012/02/exx
onmobil‐licenses‐oil‐sands‐steam‐system.html.
Pahlavan, Hamid and Rafiqul, Islam. (1995). “Laboratory
simulation of geochemical changes of heavy crude oils
during thermal oil recovery.” Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering. Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages
219–231.
Pollkar, Marcel, Puttagunta, V. R., Decastro, V., Ali, and
Farouq S. M.. (1989). “Relative Permeability Curves For
Bitumen And Water In Oil Sand Systems.” Journal of
Poston, S.W., Ysrael, SHossain, A.K.M.S., Montgomery III,
E.F., and Ramey Jr., H.J. (1970). “The Effect of
Temperature on Irreducible Water Saturation and
Relative Permeability of Unconsolidated Sands.” SPE
Journal. Volume 10, Number 2. p.p. 171‐180.
Prats, Michael. (1978). “A Current Appraisal of Thermal
Recovery.” Journal of Petroleum Technology. Volume
30, Number 8.
Prats, Michael. (1985). “Thermal Recovery.” SPE Monograph
Volume 7. Chapter 6. 1985.
Ramey Jr., H. J. A. (1967). “Current Review of Oil Recovery
by Steam Injection.” SPE 12247.
Ramey Jr., Henry J. (1969). “A Current Look at Thermal
Recovery.” SPE 2739‐MS.

Rao, Dandina N. (1999). “Wettability Effects in Thermal
126
Recovery Operations.” SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. Vol.
2, No. 5.
Rao, Dandina N., and Karyampudi, R.S. (1999).
“Productivity Enhancing Wettability Control
Technology for Cicluc Steam Process in the Elk Point
Cummings Formation. “ Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology. Special Edition 1999, Volume 38, Number
13.
Reis, J. C. (1990). “Studies of Fractures Induced During
Cyclic Steam Injection.” SPE California Regional
Meeting. Ventura, California, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Inc.
Robaina, R. M. and J. L. Ziritt (1988). “Evaluation of a
Surfactant: Steam‐Soak Pilot Test in the Bolivar Coast,
Venezuela.” SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1988.
Schembre, J.M., Tang, G.‐Q., and Kovscek, A.R. (2006).
“Interrelationship of Temperature and Wettability on
the Relative Permeability of Heavy Oil in Diatomaceous
Rocks (includes associated discussion and reply).” SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. Volume 9,
Number 3. p.p. 239‐250.
Scott, J. D., S. Proskin, A., and Adhikary, D. P. (1994).
“Volume And Permeability Changes Associated With
Steam Stimulation In an Oil Sands Reservoir.” Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology. Volume 33,
Number 7.
Settari, A. and J. M. Raisbeck. (1981). “Analysis and
Numerical Modeling of Hydraulic Fracturing During
Cyclic Steam Stimulation in Oil Sands.” Journal of
Petroleum Technology 33 (11): 2201‐2212.
Shu, W. R. and K. J. Hartman. (1988). “Effect of Solvent on
Steam Recovery of Heavy Oil.” SPE Reservoir
Engineering 3(2): 457‐465.
Speight, J. G. (2007). “The Chemistry and Technology of
Petroleum.” CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. 4th Edition,
Volume 114, Chapter 6.
Srivastava, P. and Castro, L. U. (2011). “Successful Field
Application of Surfactant Additives to Enhance
Thermal Recovery of Heavy Oil.” SPE Middle East Oil
and Gas Show and Conference. Manama, Bahrain,
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Taraskin, Evgeniy; Ursegov, Stanislav; Pechor, N., Muliak,
Vladimir; Chertenkov, Mikhail, and Alabushin, Andrey.
(2012). “Thirty Years of Experience in the Application of
Thermal Methods of Heavy Oil Recovery in the
Permian‐Carboniferous Reservoir of the Usinsk Field.”
SPE 160759‐MS.
Thomas, S. (2008). “Enhanced Oil Recovery – An Overview.”
Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP, Vol. 63.
No. 1, pp. 9‐19.
Trebolle, R. L., Chalot, J. P., and Colmenares, R. (1993). “The
Orinoco Heavy‐Oil Belt Pilot Projects and Development
Strategy.” SPE International Thermal Operations
Symposium. Bakersfield, California, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
Valera, Cesar A., Escobar, Manuel A., and Iturbe, Yrene J.
(1999). “Use of Surfactants in Cyclic Steam Injection in
Bachaquero‐01 Reservoir.” SPE 54020‐MS.
Walters, D.A., Settari, A., and Kry, P.R. (2000). “Poroelastic
Effects of Cyclic Steam Stimulation in the Cold Lake
Reservoir.” SPE 62590‐MS.
Walters, D.A., Settari, A., and Kry, P.R. (2002). “Coupled
Geomechanical and Reservoir Modeling Investigating
Poroelastic Effects of Cyclic Steam Stimulation in the
Cold Lake Reservoir.” SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering. Volume 5, Number 6.
Wong, R. C. K. and Li, Y. (2001). “A Deformation‐
Dependent Model for Permeability Changes in Oil Sand
due to Shear Dilation.” Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology. Volume 40, Number 8.
www.netl.doe.gov. “FIG. 1 CYCLIC STEAM INJECTION
PROCESS.” United States Department of Energy,
Washington D.C.
Xia, T. X., Greaves, M. (2006). “In Situ Upgrading of
Athabasca Tar Sand Bitumen Using THAI.” Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, Volume 84, Issue 9,
September 2006, page 856‐864
Yale, David P., Mayer, Todd, and Wang, Jianlin. (2010).
“Geomechanics of Oil Sands under Injection.”
American Rock Mechanics Association 10‐257.
Yang, L. (2007). “Field Test of SAGD as Follow‐Up Process
to CSS in Liaohe Oil Field of China.” Journal of

127
Yongtao, Sun, Lichang, Zhao, Liguo, Zhong, Di, and Yu, Lin.
(2011). “Enhance Offshore Heavy Oil Recovery by
Cyclic Steam‐Gas‐Chemical Co‐stimulation.” SPE
149831‐MS.
Yuan, Yanguang, Xu, Bin, and Yang, Baohong. (2011).
“Geomechanics for the Thermal Stimulation of Heavy
Oil Reservoirs‐Canadian Experience.” SPE 150293‐MS.
Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Yue, Q., Gao, Y., and Shen, D. (2009).
“Conformance Control of CSS and Steam Drive Process
with a Carbamide Surfactant.” Journal of Canadian
Johannes Alvarez is a PhD student at
Texas A&M University in Petroleum
Engineering. He holds a B.Sc. degree
from Universidad Simon Bolivar,
Venezuela, and a M.Sc. degree from
Stanford University, USA, both in
Chemical Engineering. His research
interests include fracture fluid
performance with surfactant additives in oil shale, enhance
oil recovery in shale formations, surface chemistry, and X‐Ray
tomography methods. Previously, he worked for 11
years in Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) as Process
and Infrastructure Engineer, Production Engineering
Superintendent, Production Engineering District Manager
and lately as Planning Division Manager. Mr. Alvarez is a
member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Sungyun Han, Goyang Gyeonggi,
Republic of Korea, is a MSc student in
Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas. He
is currently researching on in‐situ
combustion process. His research
interests include seismic interpretation
and numerical modeling of thermal
enhanced oil recovery. He received a B.Sc. degree of
Petroleum Engineering from Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, in 2012. He has worked as a teaching
assistant in Department of Petroleum Engineering,
instructing laboratory assignments of numerical methods
used in oil and gas industry. He is also a research assistant
in Ramey’s Thermal Laboratory where he is conducting
thermal EOR, In‐situ combustion, experiments. Mr. Han is a
member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Current overview of css

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Current overview of css

Recently uploaded

Current overview of css