CO2 Huff 'n' Puff Field Case: Five-Year Program Update

Miller, Bernie J.; Bardon, C.; Corlay, P.

doi:10.2118/27677-ms

Cited by 19 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this technique, after the injection of CO 2 into the reservoir, the well would be shut in for a predetermined period of time (i.e., soaking period) depending on the reservoir conditions (i.e., reservoir rock and fluid properties). , Then the oil production initiates by converting the injection well to a producer. The injected CO 2 has the ability to change and modify the reservoir rock and fluid properties, ending up enhancing the oil recovery process. , Mechanisms contributing to increased oil recovery in the huff-and-puff process include oil viscosity reduction, oil swelling due to dissolution of gas in crude oil, solution gas drive aided by gravity drainage in thick reservoirs, vaporization of lighter components of oil, interfacial tension reduction, and relative permeability effects. − …”

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

“…The CO 2 utilization for 0.15PV is 0.431Mscf/STB. The CO 2 utilization achieved in this study seems to be more favorable than those of some field treatments (Brock and Bryan, 1989;Haskin and Alston, 1989;Thomas and Monger-McClure, 1991;Miller et al, 1994) since CO 2 huff 'n' puff process is more successful in pressure-depleted reservoirs than in water-drive reservoirs (Monger-McClure et al, 1991). Figure 5 can also be used to examine the role of slug size in CO 2 huff 'n puff process.…”

Section: Effects Of Slug Sizementioning

confidence: 73%

CO2 Huff 'n' Puff Revives Shallow Light-Oil-Depleted Reservoirs

Bardon

Corlay

Longeron

et al. 1994

SPE Reservoir Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cyclic CO 2 huff 'n' puff process in diverse reservoir conditions, such as immiscible, near-miscible, and miscible, has been tested in the laboratory and applied in the fields as a viable secondary or tertiary means to recover the residual oil in water flooded reservoirs or pressure depleted reservoirs. Recently, petroleum operators have shown increasingly interest in taking CO 2 huff 'n' puff process as a preferred option to extract light oil in low-pressure and low-permeability reservoirs.In this paper, experimental results from a series of coreflood tests are presented and operation strategies for cyclic CO 2 injection are optimized to maximize the light oil recovery factor in a low-permeability reservoir with low original reservoir pressure and while, minimize CO 2 utilization. 6 cyclic coreflood tests, 20 cycles in total, are conducted in a 973 mm-long composite core with an average porosity of 9.6% and an average permeability of 2.3mD. The reservoir pressure is 12.9MPa, far below the measured MMP value of 23MPa, which indicates that the reservoir has no sufficient energy support to do primary production. The impacts of primary operational parameters, such as slug size, injection pressure, chasing gas (N 2 ) and CO 2 injection rate on the performance have been investigated.It is concluded that, on the basis of experimental data, 0.1PV seems to be an optimal slug size for the first cycle, with a cycle recovery factor as high as 14.52% when reservoir pressure depleted to 8MPa. The recovery factor is suggested to be sensitive to the maximum pressure and the maximum pressure should be built up to as high as formation permits. In the following cycles, injecting N 2 as chasing gas after CO 2 injection seems to improve the cycle performance significantly and concurrently reduce the CO 2 utilization. The optimal operation should have three cycles and the ultimate recovery factor for these three cycles could reach above 30%. The findings of this paper extend the understanding of cyclic CO 2 operation and may be employed as technique reference for cyclic CO 2 process operations in low-pressure and low-permeability closed boundary reservoirs.

show abstract

CO2 Huff 'n' Puff Field Case: Five-Year Program Update

Cited by 19 publications

References 1 publication

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

CO2 Huff 'n' Puff Revives Shallow Light-Oil-Depleted Reservoirs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CO2 Huff 'n' Puff Field Case: Five-Year Program Update

Cited by 19 publications

References 1 publication

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

CO2 Huff 'n' Puff Revives Shallow Light-Oil-Depleted Reservoirs

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