Experimental and numerical studies of rich gas Huff-n-Puff injection in tight formation

Shilov, Evgeny; Dorhjie, Desmond Batsa; Mukhina, Elena; Zvada, Maya; Kasyanenko, Anton

doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109420

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the reported studies of cyclic injection enhanced oil recovery (EOR) were implemented extensively using CO 2 in shale and tight reservoirs − and others used lean gas, methane, rich gas, or gas mixture. − Very little research was conducted using cyclic N 2 injection. − Yu and Sheng conducted an experimental study using N 2 and Eagle Ford shale cores. They soaked the cores in mineral oil before conducting the experiments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asphaltene Precipitation and Deposition during Nitrogen Gas Cyclic Miscible and Immiscible Injection in Eagle Ford Shale and Its Impact on Oil Recovery

Elturki

Imqam

2022

Energy Fuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cyclic gas injection methods have been shown to improve oil recovery in conventional reservoirs. Even though similar technologies have been used in unconventional reservoirs with some success stories in shale resources, cyclic gas injection enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is still a little-understood subject in boosting oil recovery from unconventional reservoirs. During gas injection, asphaltenes start to deposit and precipitate, which causes pore plugging and reduces oil recovery. Studies of asphaltene deposition challenges during cyclic nitrogen (N 2 ) gas injection and oil production in unconventional reservoirs are yet relatively limited. Therefore, a comprehensive experimental study was conducted using 12 Eagle Ford shale cores (dynamic mode), and filter paper membranes (static mode) were used to evaluate whether miscible and immiscible huff-n-puff (cyclic) N 2 injection increases oil recovery and aggravates asphaltene precipitation. To ensure that miscibility can be examined in cyclic experiments, N 2 minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) was determined using a slim tube technique. The factors studied included the injection pressure, number of cycles, production time, and injection cyclic mode, all conducted at 70 °C. The findings showed that a high asphaltene weight percent was calculated during static experiments (i.e., using filter membranes), and this increase was severe on smaller pore size structures. Dynamic tests (i.e., using shale cores) showed that miscibility increased oil recovery, but a stronger intermediate-wet system was observed when measuring the wettability of cores after N 2 cyclic tests. When starting with shorter soaking times, more oil recovery could be achieved. Oil recovery reduction and asphaltene depositions were observed at later cycles. Microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging of the Eagle Ford cores showed asphaltene clusters inside the cores after cyclic tests. A mercury porosimeter emphasized the degree of pore plugging after cyclic tests, and the findings revealed a smaller pore size distribution after N 2 tests due to the asphaltene deposition process when compared to cores that had not been pressured. This extensive study focuses on the effects of asphaltene deposition on oil recovery under cyclic N 2 -miscible and immiscible conditions in shale resources.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asphaltene Precipitation and Deposition during Nitrogen Gas Cyclic Miscible and Immiscible Injection in Eagle Ford Shale and Its Impact on Oil Recovery

Elturki

Imqam

2022

Energy Fuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies aim to understand the impact of factors such as reservoir temperature and depth on the injection process, as well as to develop strategies for optimizing the overall performance of flue gas injection methods. 39,142 Wang et al 130 investigated the WAG injection in an oil reservoir with flue gas injection in Xinjiang Oilfield. In accordance with the imaging methods such as scanning electron microscope and energy spectrum analysis, flue gas injection increased the oil recovery factor by about 20% compared to traditional water injection method.…”

Section: Pilot and Field Scale Studies Related To Flue Gas Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancements, Challenges, and Perspectives of Flue Gas Injection in Subsurface Formations: A Comprehensive Review

Nassabeh,

Iglauer,

Keshavarz

et al. 2023

Energy Fuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flue gas injection into subsurface formations has emerged as a promising approach for enhanced oil and gas recovery, as well as geological carbon sequestration. Extensive numerical and experimental studies have been conducted to explore the effectiveness of flue gas injection. In this comprehensive review, we organize an overview of the main sources of flue gas and their compositions across various industries. We examine different flue gas injection types coupled with enhanced oil and gas recovery methods. Additionally, we summarize the evaluation methods for gas storage capacity found in the literature, which can guide the development of advanced theoretical models and simulation tools. The impact of flue gas injection patterns on recovery factor is analyzed, encompassing both continuous and cyclic flue gas injection strategies. Furthermore, we investigate the effects of fracture and matrix permeability during flue gas injection, as well as the impact of flue gas composition on oil recovery. Moreover, we discuss the intricate geochemical reactions that occur between flue gas compositions, formation brine, and rock. These reactions can lead to significant changes in the chemical equilibrium, affecting the overall process. Recent advancements in numeric modeling techniques are reviewed, including the application of various simulators such as Eclipse, CMG, Petrel, TOUGH2 V2, PHREEQC, and COMSOL to simulate flue gas injection scenarios. These models offer valuable insights by considering the main factors and mechanisms involved. Finally, we address the existing knowledge gaps and provide recommendations for future studies in this field. By further investigating these areas, we can enhance our understanding of flue gas injection processes and optimize their implementation for enhanced gas and oil recovery and carbon sequestration.

show abstract

“…They also showed that higher oil recovery could be achieved because of the higher injection rate of CO 2 . Shilov et al 21 investigated the performance of associated gas huff-n puff and validated their observation with numerical study. Based on their numerical study, injection pressure influenced the oil recovery, especially in near miscible and miscible conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Different mechanisms such as mineral precipitation/dissolution, resin precipitation, compaction, and asphaltene precipitation can be the reasons for this reduction 7 . The performance of associate gas huff-n-puff in organic-rich shale core was evaluated by Shilov et al 21 . Based on their observation in non-miscible conditions, oil recovery increased from 29 to 79.55%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling of the movement of rich gas in a porous medium in immiscible, near miscible and miscible conditions

Mehrjoo

Safaei

Kazemzadeh

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gas injection is one of the most common enhanced oil recovery techniques in oil reservoirs. In this regard, pure gas, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), and methane (CH4) was employed in EOR process. The performance of pure gases in EOR have been investigated numerically, but till now, numerical simulation of injection of rich gases has been scared. As rich gases are more economical and can result in acceptable oil recovery, numerical study of the performance of rich gases in EOR can be an interesting subject. Accordingly, in the present work the performance of rich gases in the gas injection process was investigated. Methane has been riched in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas liquid (NGL), and Naphtha. Afterwards, the process of gas injection was simulated and the effect of injection fluids on the relative permeability, saturation profile of gas, and fractional flow of gas was studied. Our results showed that as naphtha is a heavier gas than the two other ones, IFT of oil-rich gas with naphtha is lower than other two systems. Based our results, gas oil ratio (GOR) and injection pressure did not affect the final performance of injection gas that has been riched in NGL and LPG. However, when GOR was 1.25 MSCF/STB, rich gas with naphtha moved with a higher speed in the domain and the relative permeability of each fluid and fractional flow of gas were affected. The same result was achieved at higher injection pressure. When injection pressure was 2000 psi, movement of gas with higher speed in the domain, alteration of relative permeability and changes in the fractional flow of gas were obvious. Therefore, based on our result, injection of naphtha with low pressure and high GOR was suggested for considered oil.

show abstract

Experimental and numerical studies of rich gas Huff-n-Puff injection in tight formation

Cited by 14 publications

References 44 publications

Asphaltene Precipitation and Deposition during Nitrogen Gas Cyclic Miscible and Immiscible Injection in Eagle Ford Shale and Its Impact on Oil Recovery

Asphaltene Precipitation and Deposition during Nitrogen Gas Cyclic Miscible and Immiscible Injection in Eagle Ford Shale and Its Impact on Oil Recovery

Advancements, Challenges, and Perspectives of Flue Gas Injection in Subsurface Formations: A Comprehensive Review

Modeling of the movement of rich gas in a porous medium in immiscible, near miscible and miscible conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About