2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123370
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical Trend Analysis for Factors Affecting EOR Performance and CO2 Storage in Tight Oil Reservoirs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Compared with tight core C-1 (crude oil), the pore volume of tight core saturated with fluorocarbon oil is 0.178 cm 3 smaller, while the CO 2 injection volume increases by 0.03 cm 3 , indicating that the CO 2 dissolution and diffusion capacity are slightly stronger in the fluorocarbon oil. Simultaneously, through the comparison of CO 2 storage, the CO 2 storage ratio of tight core C-2 is slightly increased (about 1.61%∼1.82%), which may be due to the stronger dissolution and diffusion in fluorocarbon oil …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Compared with tight core C-1 (crude oil), the pore volume of tight core saturated with fluorocarbon oil is 0.178 cm 3 smaller, while the CO 2 injection volume increases by 0.03 cm 3 , indicating that the CO 2 dissolution and diffusion capacity are slightly stronger in the fluorocarbon oil. Simultaneously, through the comparison of CO 2 storage, the CO 2 storage ratio of tight core C-2 is slightly increased (about 1.61%∼1.82%), which may be due to the stronger dissolution and diffusion in fluorocarbon oil …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Simultaneously, through the comparison of CO 2 storage, the CO 2 storage ratio of tight core C-2 is slightly increased (about 1.61%∼1.82%), which may be due to the stronger dissolution and diffusion in fluorocarbon oil. 48 3.3.3. Core Permeability.…”
Section: Oil Compositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, some of the reported field trials produced mixed results. Another numerical flow simulation study by Syed et al revealed that increased cycles (up to four) and injection over 50% pore volume lead to about 6% trapped CO2 volume [66]. In this context, citing different studies, Du and Nojabaei (2019) presented experimental study results of oil recovery ranging from 8 to 48% for the Bakken and 56% for the Eagle Ford rock samples with CO2 huff-n-puff.…”
Section: Figure 20mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Injection of carbon dioxide in the sub-surface oilbearing formations not only improves the oil recovery but also reduces the carbon footprint from the planet. In [14,15], the issues of demonstration the simultaneous effect of multiple hydraulic fracture parameters and the CO 2 injection volume for the directional EOR and CO 2 trapping performance are considered. However, due to the high cost and the insufficiently high potential productivity of the wells of the Verey facilities in general, this technology is currently unprofitable and does not yet have experience in using Verey deposits.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%