Economic Analysis for Enhanced CO2 Injection and Sequestration Using Horizontal Wells
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Carbon dioxide flooding has been recognized widely as one of the most effective enhanced oil recovery processes applicable for light to medium oil reservoirs. Moreover, the injection of CO2 into an oil reservoir is a promising technology for reducing greenhouse emissions while increasing the ultimate recovery of oil. Numerical reservoir simulation is an important and inexpensive tool for designing EOR CO2 projects and predicting optimal operational parameters. In this work, reservoir simulations performed with a compositional simulator were applied to investigate the macroscopic mechanisms of a CO2 injection process. Horizontal injectors were used to increase injectivity. Compared to traditional vertical wells, horizontal wells are more attractive to improve CO2 flooding economics by increasing injection rate, improving areal sweep and increasing CO2 storage. The effects of several important parameters on the performance of the CO2 process were studied to optimize the process. Operational parameters such as different production schemes, the injector pressure and injection rate were investigated to determine the optimal - operating conditions for simultaneous objectives of higher recovery and higher CO2 storage. The application of CO2 flooding using horizontal wells can shorten- project life, which is critical to its economics. The simulation results served as the basic input parameters for the economic analysis performed. Furthermore, net present value (NPV) and profitability index results were used to optimize the profitability of the project and to compare the CO2 application using vertical and horizontal wells. The analysis used actual design parameters, including equipment and operating costs. The evaluation emphasized the importance of reservoir characteristics, optimum design of operation parameters and economic factors in the economic feasibility of CO2 injection projects for enhanced oil recovery and sequestration. Introduction The carbon dioxide flooding process can increase oil recovery by means of swelling, evaporating and lowering oil viscosity(1, 2). Many injection schemes using CO2 have been applied(3), including CO2 gas injection (continuously), CO2 gas slug followed by water, and others. There are some important factors to be considered during the design of CO2 flooding, including the availability and amount of CO2 to inject, the reservoir conditions, whether mobility control techniques are required and other general operating conditions(4, 5). Among these factors, the knowledge of reservoir conditions is essential to the injection/production process and, thereafter, the economic success of the project. These include the reservoir temperature and pressure, reservoir permeability and porosity, fractures and faults, etc. Field tests of CO2 floods have shown that reservoir heterogeneities, such as fractures, strata discontinuities and pinch-outs, can reduce the effectiveness of the process. CO2 is a highly mobile fluid because of its low viscosity, so fingering and channeling of CO2 or bypassing of oil can affect the volumetric sweep efficiency in CO2 flooding. In this case, mobility control becomes an important issue for the improvement of CO2 applications(6). With the increase of productivity performance and the decrease of drilling and completion costs, horizontal wells became more cost effective. This paper compares the conventional CO2 flooding process using vertica
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 | 0,003 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».