4.4 Article

An Experimental Investigation of mmiscible-CO2-Flooding Efficiency in Sandstone Reservoirs: Influence of Permeability Heterogeneity

期刊

SPE RESERVOIR EVALUATION & ENGINEERING
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 990-997

出版社

SOC PETROLEUM ENG
DOI: 10.2118/190876-PA

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reservoir heterogeneity plays a critical role in determining the success of enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) processes, but its effect rarely has been comprehensively quantified in the laboratory. This work presents the results of an experimental study on the effects of various carbon dioxide (CO2) injection modes on immiscible-flooding performance in heterogeneous-sandstone porous media. Thus, the results of this study can be insightful in overcoming the current challenges in capturing the importance of geological uncertainties in current and future EOR projects. Coreflooding experiments were conducted for n-decane/synthetic-brine/CO2 systems at a 9.6-MPa backpressure and at 343 K to attain immiscible-flooding conditions [minimum-miscibility pressure (MMP) of CO2 in n-decane is 12.4 MPa]. For this purpose, two sets of heterogeneous-sandstone core samples were assembled with heterogeneity either parallel to (layered samples) or perpendicular to (composite samples) the flow. The results obtained for both composite and layered core samples indicated that heterogeneity tremendously influences the outcome of the CO2 EOR. Oil recovery decreases dramatically with an increase in the heterogeneity level or permeability ratio (PR). In addition, the crossflow in the layered core sample is found to have a noticeable effect on the ultimate oil recovery (increasing oil recovery up to 5%). Also, it is worth noting that for the composite samples, when we arranged the plugs by putting the low-permeability segments closer to the sample outlets, the recovery factor increased. However, regardless of the segment arrangements, the recoveries in composite cores are lower than those obtained from the homogeneous core sample.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据