Laboratory Investigation of Enhanced Light-Oil Recovery by CO/Flue Gas Huff-n-Puff Process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract This paper reports on the feasibility of using carbon dioxide and flue gas in huff-n-puff cyclic gas injection to enhance light oil recovery from a waterflooded reservoir. Phase behaviour measurements were carried out on recombined reservoir oil/CO2 mixtures in a cyclic pressure mode to simulate field application of the process. Significant amounts of CO2 dissolved in the oil causing oil swelling and viscosity reduction. During pressure depletion (puff cycle) the oil retained CO2 preferentially to methane; thus, the beneficial swelling and viscosity effects were maintained over an extended portion of this cycle. The Peng-Robinson equation of state was successfully tuned to match the laboratory phase behaviour data in both pressure-increasing and -decreasing modes. Corefloods were performed in the huff-n-puff mode to investigate the effect of waterflood residual oil saturation and injection gas composition (CO2 and enriched flue gas) on oil recovery. Incremental oil recovery was observed to be sensitive to waterflood residual oil saturation and to the process application scheme. Gas utilization factors of these tests varied from as high as 17.2 Mscf/STB to as low as 2.8 Mscf/STB. These results suggest that the process is feasible, but that field application factors have to be optimized for maximum economic benefit. Introduction Elswick East Midale field, located in southeast Saskatchewan, was discovered in 1965. As shown in Figure 1, oil production from the field did not occur until 1987. Waterflooding began in late 1991; oil production increased significantly as a result, but decreased sharply after 1994. Additional development of horizontal wells within the field in later 1998 raised the monthly oil production again. However, until September 2003, Elswick East Midale field had produced only about 19.1% of the initial oil in place (IOIP).(1) The water cut has currently exceeded 85%, therefore enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods are needed for increasing the recovery factor. Various technologies have been applied in tertiary oil recovery processes, such as gas miscible/immiscible injection and chemical flooding. Among these EOR methods, the huff-npuff process has been reported to be economic at an oil price of less than US$20/STB and CO2 costs of US$40/ton.(2) For example, it was shown in a flue-gas huff-n-puff project(3) that oil production rates stabilized, and the project proved to be costeffective with small investment requirements and low operating costs. In another case,(4) the CO2 huff-n-puff process was not successful in increasing incremental oil recovery. However, there during the injection, soak, and flow phases, which were beneficial to the project. The principal obstacle to developing EOR technologies is economics, which is affected by the special features of petroleum reservoirs. It is essential to develop cost-effective EOR technologies and to accelerate technology transfer to the field so that more oil resources can be recovered. There is increasing interest in CO2/flue-gas huff-n-puff injection into single wells because the process is relatively easy to apply and comparatively inexpensive. Although the huff-n-puff process is showing substantial oil recoveries in some oil reservoirs, experimental work has to be conducted to characterize the interaction of the injected gas with the crude oil under the candidate reservoir conditions before a field pilot starts.
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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».