EOS Simulation for CO2 Huff-n-Puff Process
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract An EOS based simulation approach has been developed to examine various oil recovery mechanisms for CO2 huff-n-puff process and to carry out the production evaluation using this process for oil reservoirs. These recovery mechanisms include the swelling effect, viscosity reduction, relative permeability effect, miscibility effect, gas solubility, gas extraction and diffusion, CO2 impurity effect, gas penetration depth, and injection and production scheme considerations. The EOS huffn- puff simulation incorporates the relative permeability curves to account for mobility effect as well as the effects of different depletion schemes. A modeling procedure is described performing these mechanistic analyses and the huff-n-puff process simulation. The procedure provides quick evaluations for predicting the potential oil recovery, examining design parameters and optimizing the production scheme to maximize the oil recovery of the process. It also allows for quick screening of reservoir candidates for such a process. The results indicate that EOS simulation is a useful tool for evaluating gas Huff-n-Puff processes both in design stage and in production optimization. Introduction The enhanced oil recovery using CO2 injection has been applied in the petroleum industry for decades. Miscible CO2 flooding is the process of choice for many enhanced recovery projects and is well documented in the literature. The CO2 huffn- puff process has received a lot of attentions because the process is easy to implement and doesn't require a large up front capital commitments. This process is basically preformed by injecting CO2 into aproducing well and the well is opened for production after a relatively short period of soaking time to allow for CO2 interacting with the formation oil. The first CO2 huff-n-puff project reported in the literature was conducted in 1960's [1]. The interest in such a process was renewed in 1980's in an attempt to recover additional oil from water-flooded, light oil and heavy oil reservoirs through immiscible CO2 injection [2]. Laboratory research and field experience indicated that the process was quite positive economically for various types of reservoir. Production responses suggested that there are a number of mechanisms involved in the oil recovery process [3][4]. An optimal field implementation is very much dependent on the specific field situation and on understanding dominant factors in the oil recovery process by having them effectively work together. The challenges may include the availability of gas source, an excessive cost of delivering it to the wellhead, the control of corrosion rate in the surface and subsurface equipment, and recycling of production gas without releasing into atmosphere etc [5]. Thus, it is beneficial to have a quick evaluation methodology accessible to engineers for analyzing the feasibility of CO2 huff-n-puff project in terms of reservoir engineering. While the process is a proven enhanced oil recovery technology in different reservoirs, there is increasing interest in CO2 huff-n-puff injection into single wells and its variations to inject flue-gas, exhaust gas and CO2 rich gases. The reason is partly because of the process being relatively easy to apply and comparatively inexpensive [6], and partly because of the government incentives to reduce the green house gas release to minimize the environmental impact from the CO2 production.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle