Improved Heavy Oil Recovery by CO2 Injection Augmented with Chemicals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improved Heavy Oil Recovery by CO2 Injection Augmented with Chemicals Y. P. Zhang; Y. P. Zhang Saskatchewan Research Council Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar P.. Luo; P.. Luo Saskatchewan Research Council Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar S.. Huang S.. Huang Saskatchewan Research Council Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, June 2010. Paper Number: SPE-131368-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/131368-MS Published: June 08 2010 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Zhang, Y. P., Luo, P.. , and S.. Huang. "Improved Heavy Oil Recovery by CO2 Injection Augmented with Chemicals." Paper presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, June 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/131368-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China Search Advanced Search Abstract During water-alternating-gas (WAG) flooding for heavy oil reservoirs, the adverse mobility ratio leads to a considerable amount of injection gas fingering through and overriding the oil zone. To improve the recovery efficiency of the WAG process in a Saskatchewan (Canada) heavy oil reservoir, the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) conducted a laboratory feasibility study of augmenting the injection water with chemicals (alkaline/surfactant/polymer). The resulting process is known as CAG, or chemical-alternating-gas (CO2 or flue gas). SRC's integrated approach included interfacial tension (IFT) and rheology measurements, phase behaviour studies, micromodel displacements, and corefloods to evaluate the effectiveness of the CAG process. The results showed that addition of ASP into the injection water could significantly lower IFT (to 10−2 mN/m) and improve mobility. The phase behaviour studies indicated that CO2 could be dissolved readily into reservoir heavy oil at moderate pressures (3.4–6.4 MPa), resulting in dramatic oil expansion (1.2–8.1%) and viscosity reduction (45–88%). It was also demonstrated that the presence of 70% N2 in the CO2 stream (i.e., flue gas) greatly reduced the gas solubility, causing negligible oil swelling and viscosity reduction at the reservoir pressure. It was observed from micromodel displacement tests that CO2 viscous fingering and breakthrough occurred quickly even at a low pressure of 2.3 MPa, indicating the need to lower the capillary pressure between the heavy oil and porous media and add a mobility buffer between the CO2 and heavy oil. The coreflood results showed that a conventional CO2-WAG process recovered more incremental oil than a flue gas-WAG (9.43 vs. 3.58% OOIP), whereas a CO2-CAG and a flue gas-CAG recovered incremental oil of 27.43 and 22.07% OOIP, respectively. The comprehensive studies suggest that the CO2-CAG process holds promise for recovering Saskatchewan's tremendous heavy oil resources. Keywords: heavy oil recovery, waterflood, ioip, oil recovery, interfacial tension, saturation pressure, viscosity, gas injection method, reservoir temperature, immiscible co 2 Subjects: Improved and Enhanced Recovery, Gas-injection methods, Chemical flooding methods Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".