A parametric investigation of the cyclic CO2 injection process

Wolcott, Joanne; Schenewerk, P.A.; Berzins, T.V.; Karim, Fatma

doi:10.1016/0920-4105(95)00020-8

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Black oil simulation of cyclic CO 2 stimulation in low-pressure gas solution drive wells shows that relative permeability hysteresis and reservoir pressure increase are the main mechanisms during the CO 2 huff-and-puff process . Some studies on performance of CO 2 huff-and-puff in shallow light oil depleted reservoirs also indicate that oil swelling and viscosity reduction effects combined with changes in gas–oil relative permeabilities resulted in improvement of oil recovery. − It has also been reported that the CO 2 huff-and-puff process benefited from the presence of gas cap, gravity segregation, and higher remaining oil saturation. − In addition, the effect of injected CO 2 volume or slug size on the oil recovery during CO 2 huff-and-puff has been investigated, and it has been observed that higher CO 2 volume injected into the reservoir is able to recover more oil. − …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO₂ Huff-and-Puff Processes

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recovery performance of immiscible and miscible CO2 huff-and-puff processes for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in a light crude oil sample was experimentally investigated. The minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) of the original light crude oil–CO2 system was determined by means of the vanishing interfacial tension technique and found to be MMP = 9.18 MPa. Then, the solubility of the CO2 in the light crude oil and oil swelling factor due to the CO2 dissolution in the oil phase were determined at T = 30 °C and various equilibrium pressures ranging from atmospheric pressure to P eq = 12.55 MPa. Later, series of immiscible and miscible CO2 huff-and-puff tests were designed and carried out at various operating pressures (i.e., P op = 5.38–10.34 MPa). The results of the experiments showed that for secondary CO2 huff-and-puff tests performed at the operating pressures below the MMP, the ultimate oil recovery factor is quite low. It was also found that in immiscible CO2 huff-and-puff (i.e., P op < MMP) scenarios, the oil recovery factor substantially increased as the operating pressure approached near-miscible conditions. The oil recovery factor almost reached its maximum value at operating pressure near MMP (i.e., miscible condition), and further increase of operating pressure beyond MMP did not improve the recovery factor at all. The tertiary mode of miscible CO2 huff-and-puff was also examined, and it was revealed that the oil recovery is significantly improved after a waterflooding process. The oil recovery mechanisms during the CO2 huff-and-puff were mainly recognized to be interfacial tension reduction, oil swelling, and extraction of lighter components by CO2, especially during miscible CO2 injections. In addition, the average asphaltene content of produced oil and the permeability reduction of the porous medium as a result of asphaltene precipitation were measured in each test. It was found that the amount of precipitated asphaltene in the porous medium as well as permeability reduction are considerably higher in near-miscible and miscible CO2 huff-and-puff tests compared to those in immiscible cases. The compositional analysis of remaining oil from CO2 huff-and-puff tests at immiscible and miscible conditions also showed that lighter components of oil are extracted by CO2, leading the remaining oil to become heavier with greater amounts of heavy hydrocarbons (i.e., C30+). However, it was observed that the extraction of lighter components during miscible injection processes is more predominant than that during immiscible injections, resulting in the production of higher quality oil.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO₂ Huff-and-Puff Processes

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have been conducted to determine the effect of different operating parameters on the performance of the cyclic CO 2 injection process. Additional studies on the performance of some field-scale cyclic CO 2 injection in USA (e.g., Paradis, West Cote, Timbalier, Magnet, Picket Ridge, and Thompson, Bati field projects) revealed that the presence of a gas cap, gravity segregation, and a higher remaining oil saturation can improve the recovery of the cyclic injection process. − Furthermore, changes in gas–oil relative permeability curves may support the oil production near the well-bore. − Further studies on the effect of CO 2 slug size also revealed that a higher volume of CO 2 injected into the reservoir is able to recover more oil under some specific conditions during the cyclic injection process. , It has also been reported that the cyclic CO 2 injection process profited by lower crude oil viscosity since the diffusion of CO 2 into the oil is accelerated . Experimental study on the cyclic injection of mixtures of CO 2 with hydrocarbon and flue gases also showed that such mixtures increase the oil recovery if they are injected in a particular range of volumetric ratio. − A laboratory and field evaluation of the cyclic CO 2 injection process indicated that a high permeability of the reservoir rock as well as viscous fingering phenomena plays a positive role in the recovery efficiency .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parametric Study of the Cyclic CO₂ Injection Process in Light Oil Systems

Abedini

Torabi

2013

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance of cyclic CO 2 injection as an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique in a light crude oil system was experimentally investigated. Series of cyclic CO 2 injection tests were designed and carried out at various operating conditions. Effects of parameters including operating pressure (P op ), injection time (t inj ), soaking period (t soaking ) and connate water saturation (S wc ) were investigated on the oil recovery factor (RF) of cyclic injection tests. First, the CO 2 solubility in the crude oil sample and the oil swelling factor as a result of CO 2 dissolution into the oil phase for the crude oil−CO 2 system at temperatures T = 21 and 30 °C were determined. Second, the equilibrium interfacial tension of the crude oil−CO 2 system at T = 30 °C was measured. Afterward, the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) between crude oil and CO 2 was calculated by means of the vanishing interfacial tension (VIT) technique and found to be MMP = 9.18 MPa. Finally, a total of 12 cyclic CO 2 injection tests were performed at operating pressures P op = 5.38, 6.55, and 8.27 MPa (i.e., immiscible to near-miscible conditions), and constant temperature T = 30 °C and in the presence and absence of connate water saturation. CO 2 injection time and soaking period were varied at each operating pressure in order to determine how these parameters might affect the performance of cyclic CO 2 injection. According to the obtained experimental results, it was found that the oil recovery factor of the cyclic CO 2 injection technique increases considerably with increased operating pressure (e.g., from RF = 32.6% at P op = 5.38 MPa to RF = 54.4% at P op = 8.27 MPa). The results also demonstrated that the oil recovery factor increases by a longer soaking period particularly if the cyclic CO 2 injection performed at lower operating pressures. Moreover, it was observed that the oil recovery factor is independent of CO 2 injection time. In addition, at each operating pressure, the oil recovery factor obtained in the presence of connate water saturation was found to be more than that when there was no connate water saturation in the system.

show abstract

“…This involves injection of CO 2 into the injector well, shutting off the well for a predetermined period for soaking of CO 2 , allowing methane to desorb, and then producing methane from the production well . Investigations conducted on oil recovery using the “huff and puff” scheme with cyclic CO 2 injection reported that this combined method increases the overall oil recovery even at lower reservoir pressures , The cyclic CO 2 injection and its effects, preferential sorption behavior of CO 2 over methane, and their interactions with different coal type are also analyzed. The gas production from the conventional pure gas adsorption results are compared to methane-displacement test results to compare the gas recovery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation into the Methane Displacement Behavior by Cyclic, Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection in Dry, Powdered, Bituminous Indian Coals

Bhowmik

Dutta

2011

Energy Fuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding competitive sorption effects for the carbon dioxideÀmethane system in coal is essential for the implementation of enhanced methane production with concomitant CO 2 sequestration in coal. The paper discusses the methane displacement behavior of a set of eight dry, powdered Indian bituminous coal samples when subjected to cyclic, pure CO 2 injection, employing a "huff and puff" scheme. The coal samples were partially saturated with methane, and CO 2 was then injected at a fixed pressure. This was followed by gas drainage to reduce pressure to the pre-injection level, and about 12À15 such cycles of CO 2 injection and gas drainage were carried out. In general, the process successfully displaced the adsorbed methane. The adsorption ratio of CO 2 /methane was found to be higher than pure gas sorption capacities at the same pressure. Carbon dioxide was preferentially adsorbed into the coals, and during gas drainage, preferential desorption of methane was observed for all coals. The coals also exhibited different methane displacement behavior. For three coal samples, it was possible to recover 1 mol of methane by injecting less than 1 mol of CO 2 . For the other coal samples, 1.5À2 mol of CO 2 was required for 1 mol of methane. However, no relationship could be established between the methane release characteristics of the coals and their petrographic composition.

show abstract

A parametric investigation of the cyclic CO2 injection process

Cited by 14 publications

References 8 publications

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO₂ Huff-and-Puff Processes

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO₂ Huff-and-Puff Processes

Parametric Study of the Cyclic CO₂ Injection Process in Light Oil Systems

Investigation into the Methane Displacement Behavior by Cyclic, Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection in Dry, Powdered, Bituminous Indian Coals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A parametric investigation of the cyclic CO2 injection process

Cited by 14 publications

References 8 publications

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO2 Huff-and-Puff Processes

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO2 Huff-and-Puff Processes

Parametric Study of the Cyclic CO2 Injection Process in Light Oil Systems

Investigation into the Methane Displacement Behavior by Cyclic, Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection in Dry, Powdered, Bituminous Indian Coals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO₂ Huff-and-Puff Processes

Oil Recovery Performance of Immiscible and Miscible CO₂ Huff-and-Puff Processes

Parametric Study of the Cyclic CO₂ Injection Process in Light Oil Systems