A comparative study of huff-n-puff gas and solvent injection in a shale gas condensate core

Sharma, Sharanya; Sheng, James J.

doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2017.01.012

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One simulation work [105] examined three injectants (CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 ) for huff-n-puff on enhanced condensate recovery performance and indicated that CO 2 and CH 4 injections resulted in almost the same oil recovery factor (42%), and both CO 2 and CH 4 outperformed N 2 injection (recovery factor of 29%) as it was difficult to mix N 2 with the condensate. In another research study, Sharma and Sheng [108] performed a core-scale simulation based on a lab study to examine a huff-n-puff gas injection on shale condensate recovery by using four injectants (methane, ethane, methanol, and isopropanol), and it was reported that ethane resulted in higher and faster recovery. Both methane and ethane could effectively re-vaporize the condensate, but ethane also reduced dew point pressure and resulted in the same recovery factor as methane, with a relatively small injectant volume and time.…”

Section: Huff-n-puff Gas Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While most simulation studies on huff-n-puff gas injection in condensate shale reservoirs did not consider molecular diffusion and nanoconfinement effects in their models [104,105,108], Jiang and Younis [107] combined these two effects as well as gas sorption in their compositional simulation model. The results indicated that inclusion of the capillary pressure effect increased the overall dew point pressure, which was consistent with a previous study [109], resulting in a more severe condensate blockage.…”

Section: Huff-n-puff Gas Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Gas Injection in Shale Reservoirs: Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery Approaches and Greenhouse Gas Control

Nojabaei

2019

Energies

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shale oil and gas resources contribute significantly to the energy production in the U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions come from combustion of fossil fuels from potential sources of power plants, oil refineries, and flaring or venting of produced gas (primarily methane) in oilfields. Economic utilization of greenhouse gases in shale reservoirs not only increases oil or gas recovery, but also contributes to CO2 sequestration. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of gas injection approaches, including huff-n-puff injection and gas flooding in shale oil/gas/condensate reservoirs are discussed based on the results of in-situ pilots, and experimental and simulation studies. In each section, one type of shale reservoir is discussed, with the following aspects covered: (1) Experimental and simulation results for different gas injection approaches; (2) mechanisms of different gas injection approaches; and (3) field pilots for gas injection enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and enhanced gas recovery (EGR). Based on the experimental and simulation studies, as well as some successful field trials, gas injection is deemed as a potential approach for EOR and EGR in shale reservoirs. The enhanced recovery factor varies for different experiments with different rock/fluid properties or models incorporating different effects and shale complexities. Based on the simulation studies and successful field pilots, CO2 could be successfully captured in shale gas reservoirs through gas injection and huff-n-puff regimes. The status of flaring gas emissions in oilfields and the outlook of economic utilization of greenhouse gases for enhanced oil or gas recovery and CO2 storage were given in the last section. The storage capacity varies in different simulation studies and is associated with well design, gas injection scheme and operation parameters, gas adsorption, molecular diffusion, and the modelling approaches.

show abstract

Section: Huff-n-puff Gas Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Huff-n-puff Gas Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Gas Injection in Shale Reservoirs: Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery Approaches and Greenhouse Gas Control

Nojabaei

2019

Energies

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yu and Sheng (2016) investigated that cyclic gas injection provided a steadier and continuous recovery performance Edited by Yan-Hua Sun than cyclic water injection. Sharma and Sheng (2017) compared the recovery factor of methane and ethane huff-n-puff with methyl alcohol and isopropanol huff-n-puff, the result showed that the production rate and ultimate recovery factor of gas huff-n-puff are both best. A series of experiments and simulations have been conducted on the Wolfcamp shale to study the effect of different gases on the gas huff-n-puff in the shale, and the results show that the recovery factor of CO 2 huff-n-puff is better than CH 4 and nitrogen huff-n-puff (Li et al 2017a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental study of enhanced oil recovery by CO2 huff-n-puff in shales and tight sandstones with fractures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fractures and kerogen, which generally exist in the shale, are significant to the CO2 huff-n-puff in the shale reservoir. It is important to study the effects of fractures and kerogen on oil recovery during CO2 huff-n-puff operations in the fracture–matrix system. In this study, a modified CO2 huff-n-puff experiment method is developed to estimate the recovery factors and the CO2 injectivity in the fractured organic-rich shales and tight sandstones. The effects of rock properties, injection pressure, and injection time on the recovery factors and CO2 usage efficiency in shales and sandstones are discussed, respectively. The results show that although the CO2 injectivity in the shale is higher than that in the sandstone with the same porosity; besides, the recovery factors of two shale samples are much lower than that of two sandstone samples. This demonstrates that compared with the tight sandstone, more cycles are needed for the shale to reach a higher recovery factor. Furthermore, there are optimal injection pressures (close to the minimum miscible pressure) and CO2 injection volumes for CO2 huff-n-puff in the shale. Since the optimal CO2 injection volume in the shale is higher than that in the sandstone, more injection time is needed to enhance the oil recovery in the shale. There is a reference sense for CO2 huff-n-puff in the fractured shale oil reservoir for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) purposes.

show abstract

“…Recently, solvent injection has been investigated to mitigate condensate blockage in shale gas condensate reservoir. Solvent injection could reduce the overall dew point pressure to delay the formation of condensate [36]. However, the efficiency and cost of solvent injection is questionable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of CO2 Huff-n-Puff Gas Injection in Shale Gas Condensate Reservoirs

Meng

et al. 2018

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the reservoir pressure is decreased lower than the dew point pressure in shale gas condensate reservoirs, condensate would be formed in the formation. Condensate accumulation severely reduces the commercial production of shale gas condensate reservoirs. Seeking ways to mitigate condensate in the formation and enhance both condensate and gas recovery in shale reservoirs has important significance. Very few related studies have been done. In this paper, both experimental and numerical studies were conducted to evaluate the performance of CO2 huff-n-puff to enhance the condensate recovery in shale reservoirs. Experimentally, CO2 huff-n-puff tests on shale core were conducted. A theoretical field scale simulation model was constructed. The effects of injection pressure, injection time, and soaking time on the efficiency of CO2 huff-n-puff were examined. Experimental results indicate that condensate recovery was enhanced to 30.36% after 5 cycles of CO2 huff-n-puff. In addition, simulation results indicate that the injection period and injection pressure should be optimized to ensure that the pressure of the main condensate region remains higher than the dew point pressure. The soaking process should be determined based on the injection pressure. This work may shed light on a better understanding of the CO2 huff-n-puff- enhanced oil recovery (EOR) strategy in shale gas condensate reservoirs.

show abstract

A comparative study of huff-n-puff gas and solvent injection in a shale gas condensate core

Cited by 23 publications

References 22 publications

A Review of Gas Injection in Shale Reservoirs: Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery Approaches and Greenhouse Gas Control

A Review of Gas Injection in Shale Reservoirs: Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery Approaches and Greenhouse Gas Control

Experimental study of enhanced oil recovery by CO2 huff-n-puff in shales and tight sandstones with fractures

Performance Evaluation of CO2 Huff-n-Puff Gas Injection in Shale Gas Condensate Reservoirs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About