Performance of Air Injection vs. CO2/Water Injection in a Tight, Light-Oil Reservoir: A Laboratory Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary This paper outlines the results of an early-stage comparative study of air-injection-based and immiscible-carbon-dioxide (CO2)/water-injection-based enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) processes for a 30+ °API tight, light-oil reservoir. This was accomplished by embedding multiple low-permeability core plugs in crushed reservoir-core material to create a composite core that was contained in a 1.84-m-long core holder. The objectives of this unscaled experimental work were to understand the suitability of each EOR process for a low-permeability reservoir; to define process parameters before a potential field pilot; and to understand the relative merits of each EOR process to mobilize light oil from a tight matrix to a fracture network. A detailed experimental investigation was conducted at realistic reservoir conditions to evaluate the feasibility of an air-injection-based EOR process. The air-injection results were compared with those from an immiscible CO2/water-injection EOR experiment using the same experimental setup and reservoir conditions. Both the air- and CO2/water-coreflood tests were performed at 10 340 kPag (1,500 psig) and 99°C in a 100-mm diameter, 1.84-m-long composite-core holder using 38-mm-diameter reservoir core plugs (that represented the matrix) mounted within the crushed reservoir-core material (that represented the fracture); inert helium gas was used to pressure up the core holder to reservoir pressure. Permeability of the core plugs was from 0.3 to 3 md, while the permeability of the crushed core material was 1 to 3 darcies. Air injection was performed as a standard, one-dimensional combustion-tube test with injection of 2.3 pore volumes (PVs) of air to burn 71% of the packed core length (including helium, a total of 4.3 PV of gas injected). The CO2/water coreflood was performed with the injection of 2.86 PV of CO2 followed by an extended soak period, then a second injection of an additional 2.86 PV of CO2, followed by the injection of 2.6 PV of water. The pretest and post-test core-plug measurements of oil saturation show that the air-injection process removed significantly larger quantities of hydrocarbons than the immiscible-CO2/water-injection process. Relative to the initial conditions of the core plugs for the air-injection experiment, more than 95% of the hydrocarbons were removed (note that some fraction of original oil was consumed as fuel). In the post-test CO2/water-injection core plugs, oil recovery was in the range of 30 to 55% of initial oil in place (IOIP). These findings suggest that, under an appropriate field design, both processes have the potential to recover incremental oil from tight reservoirs. However, the air-injection process might be better suited to mobilize oil, because of thermal expansion, than the CO2/waterflood process.
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».