Review and Analysis of Past and Ongoing Carbon Dioxide Injection Field Tests

Abstract

Under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy, Gruy Federal, Inc. has prepared comprehensive review reports for 19 projects in 16 fields in which carbon dioxide miscible injection was used to enhance oil recovery. information from the geological and engineering literature, raw data from public records, and limited information supplied by public records, and limited information supplied by project operators allowed nonproprietary review and project operators allowed nonproprietary review and analysis of 7 full-scale (i.e., commercial intent) field projects and 12 pilot projects. Abbreviated summaries of the field reviews for the full-scale projects are presented in this paper. Analysis and projects are presented in this paper. Analysis and synthesis of the data and information from the field projects is also related to published CO2 flooding projects is also related to published CO2 flooding technology. These data indicate that injection of CO2 is a technically efficient enhanced oil recovery process over a wide range of geologic and reservoir conditions. Hence, published technical guidelines for judging applicability of CO2 injection are probably too restrictive. probably too restrictive Introduction This paper is a condensation of a report submitted to the U.S. Department (A Energy (DOE) as part of the work required to fulfill a contract part of the work required to fulfill a contract awarded to Gruy Federal, Inc. in 1979 and administered by, the Morgantown (W. Va.) Energy Technology Center. The contract was a part of a U.S. Government effort to accelerate applications of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques and thus increase domestic oil production. The original report (and hence this paper) was prepared utilizing information from the geological prepared utilizing information from the geological and engineering literature, raw data from public records (Texas Railroad Commission, Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, etc.), and limited information supplied by some project operators. It included reasonably comprehensive field reports for projects in each of the fields listed in Table 1. The impetus for this work stemmed from the long-recognized technical potential of carbon dioxide injection for increasing recovery from underground accumulations of crude oil. Early work using CO2 as a means of enhancing recovery considered two technically different processes:Injection of CO2 dissolved in water—termed "carbonated water flooding"or the "ORCO" process.Injection of CO2 as a solvent for the crude oil in place in the pores—analogous to LPG injection—as a variation of"miscible" displacement. The ORCO process was never widely applied and is not currently used as an EOR technique. Hence, it will not be considered to be within the scope of CO2 miscible flooding field application. By contrast with carbonated-water flooding, displacement of oil by CO2 at pressures above the so-called "miscibility" pressure appears to be a promising technique for substantially increasing oil promising technique for substantially increasing oil recovery in both secondary and tertiary recovery applications. At pressures greater than miscibility pressure, Us can extract a substantial portion of the pressure, Us can extract a substantial portion of the oil contacted, leaving a residual saturation of only 3 to 5 percent of pore space. A study of field applications k this technique n related to basic CO2 displacement technology is the subject of this paper. The discussion that follows summarizes available reference material to provide an understanding of (1) the basic physical behavior of carbon dioxide, (2) the behavior of mixtures of carbon dioxide and crude oil, (3) present knowledge about the displacement/extraction process that occurs when CO2 contacts and moves oil in a porous medium, and (4) the relationship of these data to the field projects.

Enhanced Oil Recovery: Potentialities of the WAG injection (Water Alternating Gas)

“…A falta de conhecimento geológico pode levar a fuga do CO 2 injetado para fora da área do projeto. 48…”