Performance evaluation of injectivity for water-alternating-CO2 processes in tight oil formations

Yang, Daoyong; Song, Chengyao; Zhang, Jiguo; Zhang, Guangqing; Ji, Yanmin; Gao, Junmin

doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.08.033

Cited by 63 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The commonly used injection gases or solvents are N 2, CO 2 , CH 4 , C 2 H 6 , andCH 4 /C 2 H 6 mixture. The core plug samples were mostly selected from Eagle Ford [9,28], Bakken [10,11,29,30], and Barnett and Marcos [31]. As shown in Table 1, Middle Bakken has a relatively large permeability [10,29,30] compared to other shales.…”

Section: Huff-n-puff Gas Injection Performance Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Gas Injection in Shale Reservoirs: Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery Approaches and Greenhouse Gas Control

Nojabaei

2019

Energies

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shale oil and gas resources contribute significantly to the energy production in the U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions come from combustion of fossil fuels from potential sources of power plants, oil refineries, and flaring or venting of produced gas (primarily methane) in oilfields. Economic utilization of greenhouse gases in shale reservoirs not only increases oil or gas recovery, but also contributes to CO2 sequestration. In this paper, the feasibility and efficiency of gas injection approaches, including huff-n-puff injection and gas flooding in shale oil/gas/condensate reservoirs are discussed based on the results of in-situ pilots, and experimental and simulation studies. In each section, one type of shale reservoir is discussed, with the following aspects covered: (1) Experimental and simulation results for different gas injection approaches; (2) mechanisms of different gas injection approaches; and (3) field pilots for gas injection enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and enhanced gas recovery (EGR). Based on the experimental and simulation studies, as well as some successful field trials, gas injection is deemed as a potential approach for EOR and EGR in shale reservoirs. The enhanced recovery factor varies for different experiments with different rock/fluid properties or models incorporating different effects and shale complexities. Based on the simulation studies and successful field pilots, CO2 could be successfully captured in shale gas reservoirs through gas injection and huff-n-puff regimes. The status of flaring gas emissions in oilfields and the outlook of economic utilization of greenhouse gases for enhanced oil or gas recovery and CO2 storage were given in the last section. The storage capacity varies in different simulation studies and is associated with well design, gas injection scheme and operation parameters, gas adsorption, molecular diffusion, and the modelling approaches.

show abstract

Section: Huff-n-puff Gas Injection Performance Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The core plug samples were mostly selected from Eagle Ford [9,28], Bakken [10,11,29,30], and Barnett and Marcos [31]. As shown in Table 1, Middle Bakken has a relatively large permeability [10,29,30] compared to other shales. Bakken [10,11,29,30], and Barnett and Marcos [31].…”

Section: Huff-n-puff Gas Injection Performance Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Gas Injection in Shale Reservoirs: Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery Approaches and Greenhouse Gas Control

Nojabaei

2019

Energies

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yang et al . 8 investigated the fluid injectivity and oil recovery of water-alternating-CO 2 processes in tight oil formations. Ma et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flow behavior of N2 huff and puff process for enhanced oil recovery in tight oil reservoirs

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present work, the potential of N2 huff and puff process to enhance the recovery of tight oil reservoir was evaluated. N2 huff and puff experiments were performed in micromodels and cores to investigate the flow behaviors of different cycles. The results showed that, in the first cycle, N2 was dispersed in the oil, forming the foamy oil flow. In the second cycle, the dispersed gas bubbles gradually coalesced into the continuous gas phase. In the third cycle, N2 was produced in the form of continuous gas phase. The results from the coreflood tests showed that, the primary recovery was only 5.32%, while the recoveries for the three N2 huff and puff cycles were 15.1%, 8.53% and 3.22%, respectively.The recovery and the pressure gradient in the first cycle were high. With the increase of huff and puff cycles, and the oil recovery and the pressure gradient rapidly decreased. The oil recovery of N2 huff and puff has been found to increase as the N2 injection pressure and the soaking time increased. These results showed that, the properly designed and controlled N2 huff and puff process can lead to enhanced recovery of tight oil reservoirs.

show abstract

“…They argued that incremental oil recovery from WAG process in tight formation can reach as high as 20%. Yang et al (2015) experimentally evaluated the fluid injectivity and oil recovery of WAG processes in tight formations and found the fluid injectivity was significantly improved by injecting CO 2 during WAG processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation and Optimization of CO2 Huff-and-Puff Processes in Tight Oil Reservoirs

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As one of the unconventional resources, tight oil has become one of the most important contributor of oil reserves and production growth. The successful commercial production of tight oil is mainly reliant on the advancement in horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing technique. Development of tight oil reservoirs remains in an early stage. Primary oil recovery factor in these reservoirs is very low, leaving substantial volume of oil trapped underground due to the low porosity, low permeability characteristic of tight oil reservoirs. Thus, investigation of enhanced oil recovery methods is more than imperative in tight oil reservoirs. CO 2 Huff-and-Puff technology has been effectively applied in conventional reservoirs and can be tailored to adapt for the characteristics of tight oil reservoirs.In this study, the performance of water flooding in tight oil reservoir is studied and compared with that of the CO 2 Huff-and-Puff process. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the performance of CO 2 Huff-and-Puff is more sensitive to the length of gas injection and production step in each cycle, compared to the soaking time. The CO 2 Huff-and-Puff process is optimized and an adaptive CO 2 Huff-and-Puff process is conducted for tight oil reservoirs after primary production. Simulation results show that the adaptive cycle length CO 2 Huff-and-Puff process can improve the incremental oil recovery by 11.1% over a fixed cycle length process. Finally, the inter-well interference during CO 2 Huff-and-Puff is studied, and it is found that a multi-well asynchronous CO 2 Huff-and-Puff pattern can improve the incremental oil recovery by 31.6% over that of a synchronous pattern.

show abstract

Performance evaluation of injectivity for water-alternating-CO2 processes in tight oil formations

Cited by 63 publications

References 12 publications

A Review of Gas Injection in Shale Reservoirs: Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery Approaches and Greenhouse Gas Control

A Review of Gas Injection in Shale Reservoirs: Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery Approaches and Greenhouse Gas Control

Flow behavior of N2 huff and puff process for enhanced oil recovery in tight oil reservoirs

Simulation and Optimization of CO2 Huff-and-Puff Processes in Tight Oil Reservoirs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About