Advertisement

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 139, Issue 2, pp 1161–1169 | Cite as

Experimental study of CO2 solubility on the oil recovery enhancement of heavy oil reservoirs

  • Afshin DavarpanahEmail author
  • Behnam Mirshekari
Article

Abstract

The sufficient energy to transfer the crude oil to the surficial wellbore facilities would be reduced dramatically which was done by CO2, especially for heavy and super-heavy oil reservoirs. The objective of this comprehensive study is to measure the considerable influence of CO2 solubility on the recovery factor, density, viscosity at different pressures and temperatures. According to the results of this study, recovery factor at the pressure of 0.2 MPa and 0.5 MPa experienced the lowest recovery factor among other pressures. They were about 38.37% and 43.81% after the injection of about 15 pore volumes of CO2. For the pressures of 1 MPa, 2 MPa, 3 MPa, and 4 MPa, at the first stages of CO2 injection (up to 3 pore volumes of CO2 injection), the recovery factor experienced the same value. Since then, by the increase in pressure from 1 to 4 MPa, the recovery factor was increased slightly. Moreover, recovery factor at the temperature of 333 K was measured about 34.5%. The measured recovery factor for other temperatures was 40.17%, 47.68%, 51.97%, 58.42%, and 63.54% at the temperature of 363 K, 393 K, 423 K, 453 K, and 483 K, respectively. On the other hand, the density of heavy oil which was saturated with CO2 was decreased with the increase in pressure and temperature and the higher temperatures caused the lower effect on the viscosity and density of heavy oil. Consequently, the dissolution of CO2 had decreased the heavy oil viscosity in the higher temperatures and pressures, and due to the increase in pressure and temperature, the heavy oil recovery factor was increased. Furthermore, the recovery factor for the 70 mL min−1 of CO2 injection was lower than the 700 mL min−1 of CO2 injection.

Keywords

CO2 injection Heavy oil reservoir CO2 solubility Recovery factor High temperatures 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Bayati D, Saeedi A, Myers M, et al. Insight investigation of miscible SCCO2 water alternating gas (WAG) injection performance in heterogeneous sandstone reservoirs. J CO2 Util. 2018;28:255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ampomah W, Balch R, Cather M, et al. Optimum design of CO2 storage and oil recovery under geological uncertainty. Appl Energy. 2017;195:80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayat Ali E, Junin R, Hejri S, et al. Application of CO2-based vapor extraction process for high pressure and temperature heavy oil reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng. 2015;135:280–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayestehparvin B, Abedi J, Ali S. Non-equilibrium reservoir simulation of solvent-steam processes, based on mass and heat transfer inside a pore. In: SPE reservoir simulation conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2017.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bera A, Mandal A. Microemulsions: a novel approach to enhanced oil recovery: a review. J Pet Explor Prod Technol. 2015;5:255–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen S, Li H, Yang D. Optimization of production performance in a CO2 flooding reservoir under uncertainty. J Can Pet Technol. 2010;49:71–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colonna S, Bastianini M, Sisani M, et al. CO2 adsorption and desorption properties of calcined layered double hydroxides. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018;133:869–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cui M, Wang R, Lv C, et al. Research on microscopic oil displacement mechanism of CO2 EOR in extra-high water cut reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng. 2017;154:315–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davarpanah A. Feasible analysis of reusing flowback produced water in the operational performances of oil reservoirs. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25:35387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davarpanah A. A feasible visual investigation for associative foam > polymer injectivity performances in the oil recovery enhancement. Eur Poly J. 2018;105:405–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davarpanah A. The integrated feasibility analysis of water reuse management in the petroleum exploration performances of unconventional shale reservoirs. Appl Water Sci. 2018;8:75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davarpanah A, Akbari E, Doudman-Kushki M, et al. Simultaneous feasible injectivity of foam and hydrolyzed polyacrylamide to optimize the oil recovery enhancement. Energy Explor Exploit. 2019;37:44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B. Experimental study and field application of appropriate selective calculation methods in gas lift design. Pet Res. 2018;3:239–47.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B. A simulation study to control the oil production rate of oil-rim reservoir under different injectivity scenarios. Energy Rep. 2018;4:664–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B, Behbahani TJ, Hemmati M. Integrated production logging tools approach for convenient experimental individual layer permeability measurements in a multi-layered fractured reservoir. J Pet Explor Prod Technol. 2018;8(3):743–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B. Mathematical modeling of injectivity damage with oil droplets in the waste produced water re-injection of the linear flow. Eur Phys J Plus. 2019;134(4):180.  https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12546-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davarpanah A, Shirmohammadi R, Mirshekari B. Experimental evaluation of polymer-enhanced foam transportation on the foam stabilization in the porous media. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02280-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deng J, Song J-J, Zhao J-Y, et al. Gases and thermal behavior during high-temperature oxidation of weathered coal. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-08103-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ding M, Yuan F, Wang Y, et al. Oil recovery from a CO2 injection in heterogeneous reservoirs: the influence of permeability heterogeneity, CO2–oil miscibility and injection pattern. J Nat Gas Sci Eng. 2017;44:140–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ebadati A, Akbari E, Davarpanah A. An experimental study of alternative hot water alternating gas injection in a fractured model. Energy Explor Exploit. 2018;37(3):945–59.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598718815247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ebadati A, Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B. Stimulated-based characterization recovery enhancement feedback of oil-rim reservoirs. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util Environ Eff. 2018;40:2528–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ganjkhanlou Y, Bulánek R, Kikhtyanin O, et al. Study on thermal stabilities and symmetries of chemisorbed species formed on K-zeolites upon CO2 adsorption by TPD and in situ IR spectroscopy. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018;133:355–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giraldo L, Moreno-Piraján JC. CO2 adsorption on activated carbon prepared from mangosteen peel. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018;133:337–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gu H, Cheng L, Huang S, et al. Steam injection for heavy oil recovery: modeling of wellbore heat efficiency and analysis of steam injection performance. Energy Convers Manag. 2015;97:166–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    He L, Ping-ping S, Xin-wei L, Qi-Chao G, Cheng-sheng W, Fangfang L. Study on CO2 EOR and its geological sequestration potential in oil field around Yulin city. J Pet Sci Eng. 2015;134:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang S, Cao M, Cheng L. Experimental study on the mechanism of enhanced oil recovery by multi-thermal fluid in offshore heavy oil. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2018;122:1074–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jadhawar PS, Sarma HK. Effect of well pattern and injection well type on the CO2-assisted gravity drainage enhanced oil recovery. J Pet Sci Eng. 2012;98–99:83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kamari A, Sattari M, Mohammadi AH, et al. Reliable method for the determination of surfactant retention in porous media during chemical flooding oil recovery. Fuel. 2015;158:122–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kavousi A, Torabi F, Chan CW, et al. Experimental measurement and parametric study of CO2 solubility and molecular diffusivity in heavy crude oil systems. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2014;371:57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kristóf J, Inczédy J. Continuous determination of carbon dioxide evolved during thermal decomposition reactions. J Therm Anal. 1993;40:993–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lei H, Yang S, Zu L, et al. Oil recovery performance and CO2 storage potential of CO2 water-alternating-gas injection after continuous CO2 injection in a multilayer formation. Energy Fuels. 2016;30:8922–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu Y, Han X, Zou J, et al. New progress of the offshore thermal recovery technologies in Bohai Bay, China. In: SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific oil & gas conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2017.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mazarei M, Davarpanah A, Ebadati A, et al. The feasibility analysis of underground gas storage during an integration of improved condensate recovery processes. J Pet Explor Prod Technol. 2019;9:397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neves Junior A, Dweck J, Filho RDT, et al. Determination of CO2 capture during accelerated carbonation of engineered cementitious composite pastes by thermogravimetry. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-08210-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pang Z-x, Z-b Wu, Zhao M. A novel method to calculate consumption of non-condensate gas during steam assistant gravity drainage in heavy oil reservoirs. Energy. 2017;130:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pang Z, Lyu X, Zhang F, et al. The macroscopic and microscopic analysis on the performance of steam foams during thermal recovery in heavy oil reservoirs. Fuel. 2018;233:166–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Park S, Lee ES, Sulaiman WRW. Adsorption behaviors of surfactants for chemical flooding in enhanced oil recovery. J Ind Eng Chem. 2015;21:1239–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Seyyedsar SM, Sohrabi M. Intermittent CO2 and viscosity-reducing gas (VRG) injection for enhanced heavy oil recovery. Fuel Process Technol. 2017;164:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Singh H, Cai J. Screening improved recovery methods in tight-oil formations by injecting and producing through fractures. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2018;116:977–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sohrabi M, Jamiolahmady M, Al Quraini A. Heavy oil recovery by liquid CO2/water injection. In: EUROPEC/EAGE conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2007.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stalgorova E, Babadagli T. Modified Random Walk–Particle Tracking method to model early time behavior of EOR and sequestration of CO2 in naturally fractured oil reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng. 2015;127:65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sun F, Yao Y, Chen M, et al. Performance analysis of superheated steam injection for heavy oil recovery and modeling of wellbore heat efficiency. Energy. 2017;125:795–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tavakoli HM, Jamialahmadi M, Kord S, et al. Experimental investigation of the effect of silica nanoparticles on the kinetics of barium sulfate scaling during water injection process. J Pet Sci Eng. 2018;169:344–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang Y, Ren S, Zhang L, et al. Numerical study of air assisted cyclic steam stimulation process for heavy oil reservoirs: recovery performance and energy efficiency analysis. Fuel. 2018;211:471–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wu Y, Liu X, Xing D. Case study of hot water foam flooding in deep heavy oil reservoirs. In: SPE Asia Pacific enhanced oil recovery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2015.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhao DW, Wang J, Gates ID. Thermal recovery strategies for thin heavy oil reservoirs. Fuel. 2014;117:431–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zheng S, Li H, Yang D. Pressure maintenance and improving oil recovery with immiscible CO2 injection in thin heavy oil reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng. 2013;112:139–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhu Y. Current developments and remaining challenges of chemical flooding EOR techniques in China. In: SPE Asia Pacific enhanced oil recovery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2015.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Petroleum Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations