MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3199648462 · doi:10.48336/gemm-wn75

Mathematical modeling and simulation of water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection

2022· dissertation· en· W3199648462 sur OpenAlexafffund
Shokufe Afzali

Notice bibliographique

RevueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésPetroleum engineeringCapillary pressureRelative permeabilityPorous mediumPermeability (electromagnetism)Viscous fingeringSaturation (graph theory)Enhanced oil recoveryMultiphase flowCapillary actionReservoir simulationWater injection (oil production)HysteresisGeologyPorosityMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceChemistryMathematics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection is a relatively mature oil recovery technique in hydrocarbon reservoirs that has attracted the interest of the oil and gas industry due to its successful performance. The main goal of a WAG process is to control the mobility and to decrease the problem of viscous fingering, leading to improved oil recovery by combining the benefits of gas injection (GI) and waterflooding (WF). Mathematical modeling and simulation of three-phase flow in porous media involve complexities related to the three-phase relative permeability, capillary pressure, and hysteresis effects that are cycle-dependent. Extensive theoretical studies are available in the literature, simulating immiscible and miscible WAG processes; however, the simulation study on near-miscible WAG is overlooked. Also, the majority of WAG simulation studies lack the cycle-dependent three-phase hysteresis that appears in the relative permeability and capillary pressure models. Production from naturally fractured reservoirs (NFRs) is more complicated (compared to homogeneous reservoirs) due to the flow communication between the matrix and fracture in fractured porous media. The implementation of water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection in NFRs also features inherent complexities related to the three-phase flow, the saturation history, and cycle-dependent hysteresis of the individual phases. Moreover, the experimental evaluation of WAG injection in a fractured system is expensive and time-consuming, if not impractical. In this research work, the three-phase flow modeling of near-miscible WAG process for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) implication is studied, using implicit pressure explicit saturation (IMPES) method. The mathematical model simulates a WAG case study in a strongly water-wet Berea core, using synthetic oil and brine at 38゚C and 12.7 MPa. The recovery data from the mathematical model is in excellent agreement with the experimental data of near-miscible WAG process. For instance, the absolute relative error is less than 1.7% while estimating the ultimate recovery factor of the oil in WF and GI stages of all three cycles. The effects of main variables such as injection rate, WAG ratio, slug size (PV) injection, crude oil viscosity, and core absolute permeability on the WAG performance are also studied. The findings from this study can help for better understanding of WAG injection at near-miscible condition for various scenarios under various conditions in terms of operational condition and rock and fluid’s characteristics. This work is also intended to simulate WAG injection in a fractured system through a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach. We evaluate the impacts of hysteresis, fracture characteristics (aperture, orientation, and fracture density in the network), and the three-phase relative permeability of phases during the WAG injection using COMSOL Multiphysics®. The model simulates an immiscible WAG injection, and the modeling results are compared to the experimental data in a strong water-wet sand-pack. Similar to the experiments, we simulate Maroon crude as the oil phase, synthetic brine, and pure CO₂ at 100゚C and atmospheric pressure. The results from our model are in excellent agreement with the experimental data. The absolute relative error is less than 12 % while predicting the ultimate recovery factors (RF) of the oil in water flooding (WF) and gas injection (GI) cycles. Including three-phase hysteresis significantly increases the accuracy of a WAG process simulation. Excluding the hysteresis remarkably decreases the instantaneous RFs at each cycle (especially GI cycles) and also the ultimate RF by 4%. The simulation results can help to manage and design the optimum operation of immiscible WAG in fractured reservoirs. In the fourth phase of the work, a total number of 1457 data points to predict three sets of two-phase relative permeabilities involved in the WAG injection process, and in a strongly water-wet sandstone core where smart tools such as least squares-support vector machine (LSSVM) and adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) are employed. The statistical parameters including coefficient of determination, root mean square error, mean error, and standard deviation are used to examine the predictive models. The LSSVM shows a better performance compared to ANFIS in estimating relative permeabilities. The analysis based on relative importance of parameters shows that for the LSSVM model, water saturation is the most influencing input for gas-water and oil-water systems, while gas saturation is the most important input parameter in the gas-oil system. Final RF of WAG process after three cycles of water-and gas injection is 93.6%. Forecasting WAG flooding performance using fast and robust models is of great importance to obtain a better understanding of the process future, optimize the operational design procedure, and avoid high-cost blind tests in laboratory or pilot scales. In the last phase of this work, a novel correlation to predict the performance of near-miscible WAG injection is presented in strongly water-wet sandstones. An analytical correlation using gene expression programming (GEP) technique is developed. Dimensional analysis technique is applied and generated dimensionless numbers using eight key parameters with the aid of the Buckingham’s π theorem. Based on the error analysis, the newly developed GEP-based correlation leads to the predictions, which are in a good match with the target data so that R²= 92.85 % and MSE=1.38e-3 are obtained for the training phase; and the testing phase results in R²= 91.93 % and MSE=4.30e-3. The correlation proposed in this phase can be used to forecast the RF of a WAG injection process before committing to expensive and time-consuming laboratory and pilot tests.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,030

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,271
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Même sujetEnhanced Oil Recovery TechniquesTravaux en français237 207