CO and Flue Gas Sequestration During Tertiary Oil Recovery: Optimal Injection Strategies and Importance of Operational Parameters
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In today's industrialized world, the generation and emission of greenhouse gases, more specifically CO2 and flue gas, are likely to continue. One of the solutions to the reduction of the emission is to store those gases permanently inunderground reservoirs. Sequestration of CO2 and/or flue gas is not cheap, however, the injection of those gases into oil or gas reservoirs to enhance production may offset some of the associated costs of doing this. The use of CO2 for purely enhanced oil recovery purpose versus injection of CO2 primarily for sequestration aretechnically two different problems. In conventional CO2 EOR projects, the main purpose is to increase the amount of oil roduced per amount of CO2 injected. In this particular case, i.e., injection of CO2 for sequestration, the optimization problem turns out to be produce maximum oil with the highest amount of CO2 storage. In this paper we investigated the optimality of CO2 storage process into oil fields using field scale numerical modeling.The amount of greenhouse gas sequestered during tertiary oil recovery for a West Texas reservoir using a commercial compositional simulator (CMG-GEM) was studied. Differentinjection strategies such as (1) miscible flooding, (2) immiscible flooding, 3) water altering gas (WAG) flood and 4) flue gas injection were considered. The influences of operational parameters such as injection pressure, composition of the gas (pure CO2 or flue gas), WAG ratios, injection rate, injection and production well constraints (completion), vertical heterogeneity, and injector location on maximum oil production with maximized gas storage were analyzed. Also considered were the effect of the amount ofwater in reservoir (history of production) and the relative permeabilities. The evaluations were performed at two points:the breakthrough of CO2, andabandonment gas-oil ratio. Optimum injection strategies yielding maximum oil recovery and maximum CO2 storage were evaluated. The evaluation was performed not only for the amounts of oil recovery and CO2 storage but also the economics of the process. We provided a calculation procedure to estimate the cut-off point at which the governmental incentives become more critical compared to the revenue obtained from incremental oil recovery. Introduction Fossil fuels are likely to remain a major primary source of world's energy supply in today's industrialized world becauseof their inherent advantages such as availability, competitive cost, ease of transportation and storage, and well-advanced technology over other energy sources [1,2]. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy is the major source of anthropogenic CO2 and will likely continue over the next century. The concentrations of CO2 in the atmospherehave increased by 31 percent since 1750 [3]. Of the total CO2 emissions in the United States in 2002, approximately 98% resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas). Industrial processes, including gas flaring and cement production, accounted for the other 2 percent [4]. Fossil fuel combustion for electricity generation is the largest contributor to CO2 emissions in the United States followed by fossil fuel combustion for transportation.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».