Comprehensive review of carbonated water injection for enhanced oil recovery

Esene, Cleverson; Rezaei, Nima; Aborig, Amer; Zendehboudi, Sohrab

doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2018.08.106

Cited by 118 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 120 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a number of mechanisms of CO 2 sequestration: (1) geological trapping, (2) solubility trapping, (3) residual trapping, and (4) mineral trapping . The amount of dissolved CO 2 in water corresponds to the CO 2 storage via the solubility trapping mechanism …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides, there is a high risk of CO 2 gas leakage due to the fact that CO 2 is free and highly mobile in reservoirs during CO 2 gas injection . To overcome the challenging problems, various designs of CO 2 EOR have been developed such as water‐alternating‐gas (WAG), simultaneous water and gas (SWAG), and carbonated waterflood (CWF) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although WAG and SWAG processes improve sweep efficiency, they could have inherent adverse effects such as high water saturation and water shielding in water‐flooded reservoirs. The existence of a water barrier due to the adverse effects mitigates the CO 2 mass transfer into the oil phase, resulting in less oil viscosity reduction and swelling . In addition, the time scale for CO 2 diffusion in the oil can be longer due to the low sweep efficiency and gravity segregation during WAG and SWAG processes .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…carbonated water (CW). The CWF can alleviate the adverse effects because of mixing of CW and the residual water . This promising CWF process has been investigated since the late 1940s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From commercial application of CWF deployed in Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas in 1958, considerable improvements in oil recovery and injectivity were monitored. Recently, experimental works and numerical simulation have demonstrated the potential of CWF to enhance oil recovery and CO 2 storage . Seyyedi and Sohrabi observed oil swelling, oil viscosity reduction, mineral dissolution, and contact angle change contributing to the oil production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of geochemistry and interphase transport of CO₂on hybrid carbonated low salinity waterflood to improve oil recovery and CO₂sequestration

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hybrid process of carbonated low salinity waterflood (CLSWF) integrating low salinity waterflood (LSWF) and carbonated waterflood (CWF) is proposed as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) incorporating CO2 storage. Based on the understanding of the mechanisms of LSWF and CWF, the hybrid technology is simulated with a fully‐coupled model of fluid flow, geochemical reactions, and equation of state, which describes chemical interactions in the oil/brine/rock system. The comprehensive simulations confirm the synergetic effects of the hybrid CLSWF when compared to waterflooding (WF) and LSWF. In addition, optimum designs of cost‐efficient CLSWF securing CO2 storage are drawn via optimization and sensitivity studies. First, CLSWF enhances wettability modification effect, when compared to LSWF. In CLSWF, extensive mineral dissolution causes more cation exchange. Following the multicomponent ion exchange theory of the wettability modification mechanism, CLSWF produces more residual oil than LSWF with an increasing equivalent fraction of cation. Consequently, it enhances oil recovery by 6.9% and 2.5%, compared with WF and LSWF. Second, the interphase transport of CO2 introduces the oil viscosity reduction effect, which improves the injectivity of CLSWF. Lastly, it sequestrates 25% of the injected CO2 in the depleted reservoir via the solubility‐trapping mechanism. In optimization and sensitivity studies, the optimum design of CLSWF is determined to produce more oil recovery by 9.9% and more net present value by 35% over WF. In addition, 33% of the injected CO2 becomes sequestrated in the reservoirs. This study clarifies that hybrid CLSWF improves EOR, injectivity, and CO2 storage. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…carbonated water (CW). The CWF can alleviate the adverse effects because of mixing of CW and the residual water . This promising CWF process has been investigated since the late 1940s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of geochemistry and interphase transport of CO₂on hybrid carbonated low salinity waterflood to improve oil recovery and CO₂sequestration

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A review of scale inhibitor methods during modified smart water injection

Ardakani,

Hosseini,

Kazemzadeh

2024

Can J Chem Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhancing oil recovery (EOR) through water flooding methods, including smart water injection, low salinity water injection, polymer injection, and surfactant injection has become a pivotal strategy for enhancing productivity. Despite their promising outcomes, these methods often encounter challenges such as scaling formation and deposition, impacting reservoir permeability and production rates. A comprehensive understanding of scaling formation is crucial for effective implementation of these methods. This article explores various scaling types prevalent in the field, examining key parameters (temperature, pressure, and pH) that influence scaling formation. Additionally, it presents a diverse range of inhibitors employing both chemical and mechanical methods to mitigate and prevent scaling, thus safeguarding reservoir performance. The efficiency of inhibitors is scrutinized concerning chemical composition and performance maintenance under different temperature and pressure conditions. This study serves as a valuable resource for researchers, engineers, and industry experts involved in the oil industry and reservoir management. By elucidating scaling mechanisms, delineating consequences, and offering extensive solutions, it enhances comprehension and provides a foundation for improving oil recovery strategies. The findings of this study contribute to a better understanding of scaling mechanisms, providing insights that can be applied to optimize oil recovery processes, mitigate reservoir challenges, and improve overall reservoir management strategies.

show abstract

Advanced EOR screening methodology based on LightGBM and random forest: A classification problem with imbalanced data

Seyyedattar,

Afshar,

Zendehboudi

et al. 2024

Can J Chem Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an unstable oil market with volatile prices due to various natural and geopolitical factors, it is crucial for oil‐producing companies to enhance the value of their assets by improving the recovery factors of petroleum reservoirs. Primary recovery through natural depletion or artificial lift and secondary recovery using waterflooding and immiscible gas injection typically recover no more than 10%–40% of the available reserves. A significant portion of the hydrocarbons remain unproduced if enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods are not implemented. EOR projects are extremely costly, complex, and usually have long lead times from the decision‐making and design phases to pilot and full‐field implementations. Therefore, oil and gas operator companies need reliable insights into the best possible EOR options from the early stages of any field development planning. Since screening potential EOR choices is the first step in deciding future production scenarios, a smart EOR screening tool can add significant value by streamlining the EOR decision‐making process. In this study, we developed an EOR screening tool based on two advanced machine learning classification algorithms, random forest and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM). These tree‐based ensemble learning classifiers were trained on an extensive dataset of 1384 worldwide EOR implementations, encompassing various reservoir conditions and reservoir rock and fluid properties as the feature space, to predict the EOR type as the class label. Considering EOR screening as a classification problem, an essential aspect of model development would be addressing the data imbalance of EOR datasets. To tackle this issue, the adaptive synthetic (ADASYN) sampling method was used to reduce classification bias by oversampling the training sets to achieve uniform class distributions. We designed an iterative model development procedure in which the classifiers were trained and tested on various training and test subsets split by stratified random sampling. For each classifier, the classification results at each iteration were used to build the confusion matrix and calculate model evaluation metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1–score), which were then averaged over all independent runs to provide a fair assessment of classification performance. Moreover, binary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the classifier predictions and improvements obtained by oversampling. The results showed that both random forest and LightGBM classifiers made accurate class predictions, with LightGBM achieving slightly better classification performance in each modelling scenario (with or without oversampling). In both cases, the oversampling of the training dataset resulted in significant improvement of the classifiers, as evidenced by higher values of the evaluation metrics, leading to considerably more accurate EOR type predictions; specifically, oversampling boosted the prediction accuracy of the random forest model from 78.3% to 89.5% and the LightGBM model from 77.5% to 90.2%. Additionally, feature importance rankings provided valuable insights into which input variables had the greatest impact on model development.

show abstract

Comprehensive review of carbonated water injection for enhanced oil recovery

Cited by 118 publications

References 120 publications

Effects of geochemistry and interphase transport of CO₂on hybrid carbonated low salinity waterflood to improve oil recovery and CO₂sequestration

Effects of geochemistry and interphase transport of CO₂on hybrid carbonated low salinity waterflood to improve oil recovery and CO₂sequestration

A review of scale inhibitor methods during modified smart water injection

Advanced EOR screening methodology based on LightGBM and random forest: A classification problem with imbalanced data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comprehensive review of carbonated water injection for enhanced oil recovery

Cited by 118 publications

References 120 publications

Effects of geochemistry and interphase transport of CO2on hybrid carbonated low salinity waterflood to improve oil recovery and CO2sequestration

Effects of geochemistry and interphase transport of CO2on hybrid carbonated low salinity waterflood to improve oil recovery and CO2sequestration

A review of scale inhibitor methods during modified smart water injection

Advanced EOR screening methodology based on LightGBM and random forest: A classification problem with imbalanced data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effects of geochemistry and interphase transport of CO₂on hybrid carbonated low salinity waterflood to improve oil recovery and CO₂sequestration

Effects of geochemistry and interphase transport of CO₂on hybrid carbonated low salinity waterflood to improve oil recovery and CO₂sequestration