Objective
The object of this pilot was to :
- confirm and reevaluate the possibilities of the heavy oil reservoirs evidenced between 1947 and 1950 by eight wells drilled by S.N.P.L.M. Hence two new survey wells were drilled : MAR 101 and MAR 104.
- to assess the productivitiy gain that may provide a steam boost on this type of reservoir which is formed by very compact but cracked lime. Therefore, a cyclic steam injection test "huff and puff" was run on the best well, MAR 101. Three cycles of different lengths were carried out to materialize the phenomenon.
- to evaluate the possibility of a profitable development of this reservoir.
The main data provided by the steam injection test on MAR 101 were the following :
- The first cycle provided good results (productivity doubled), but was too short to be representative.
- During the second cycle of injection, leaks were detected in the tubings column. During the production phase, important problems occured before it was possible to obtain a constant flowrate from the well and it believed that this loss of time, thus of calories in the formation, made this second cycle also non representative.
- On the other hand, during the third cycle, the steam plug that was injected in the terrain was 3 or 4 times more important than that of the first cycle. This time there was no loss of time before the pumping operation. The results of this cycle may thus be considered as rather representative; however, they are very negative as the daily production curve, although of similar aspect to that of the first cycle, shows that the decline is more important and after 12 days it very rapidly goes below the estimated primary production rate. This reveals a very poor well feed.
A pressure raise of measurement made right after this production period showed that the static pressure of the reservoir at the end of the test was only of 28 bars whereas it was initially of 76 bars and that more than 1500 tons of the water injected in the form of steam remained in the formation. Observations made at the surface showed that there were probably fluid leaks along a fault passing near the injection well.
In any case, the St Jean de Maruejols reservoir proved to be unapt to steam recovery (very low matricial porosity, too many faults).
From the technological standpoint, high pressure anf high temperatures steam injection (90 bars - 300 deg.C) was a succes and, except for a few leaks at the packer, the equipment operated satisfactorily.
The project comprised 2 phases :
- Phase 1 : Feasibility
Phase 2 : Construction of a pilot.
The main stages of phase 1 were :
a) Studies
These consisted :
- in the compilation of data relative to this accumulation, on the steam injection technique, and in the precise definition of tasks to be undertaken
- in the analysis of documents and previous tests (1947 to 1952) run by S.N.P.L.M.
- henceforth, in the establishment of a technical memoire covering all existing data on this structure
- in the drilling programme for the two survey wells
- in the programme for the recovery of this well in view of its fitting up for the steam phase
b) Preliminary tests
- After drilling, fitting and boosting of both wells between August and mid-October 1980, production start up by primary recovery (pumping at the rods and swabbings) so to assess their initial potential. This period which took place over seven months, between October and April 1981, has made it possible to select wellMAR 101 as being the best potential well for the steam injection test and to determine its primary productivity which turned out to be very near 2 m3/d of oil.
- Recovery of well MAR 101, so it could be fitted for the steam phase, which required very specific equipment that needed to hold very high temperatures (350 deg.C) and very high pressures (173 bars).
- At the same time, surface installations required for this operation were layed out, that is namely a steam generator and a water treatment system on trailer.
c) Huff and puff test
Three huff and puff cycles of unequal periods (2,5 - 21 and days respectively) were then run (between May and December 1981). During these injection periods, continuous surveillance was ensured by the staff in place.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
This project has not yet been classified with EuroSciVoc.
Be the first one to suggest relevant scientific fields and help us improve our classification service
You need to log in or register to use this function
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Data not available
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Coordinator
92500 Rueil Malmaison
France
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.