4.7 Article

CO2-based heavy oil recovery processes for post-CHOPS reservoirs

期刊

JOURNAL OF CO2 UTILIZATION
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 238-246

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2017.03.019

关键词

Heavy oil; Cold production of heavy oil with sand; Post-CHOPS; CO2 injection; Follow-up recovery processes

资金

  1. Petroleum Technology Research Centre Saskatchewan (PTRC)
  2. Computer Modelling Group Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS) is currently the process of choice for recovery from unconsolidated solution-gas rich heavy oil reservoirs. Compared to waterflood and thermal recovery processes, primary processes such as CHOPS have relatively low energy and emission intensities; in other words, they can be considered as relatively 'clean' fossil fuel energy recovery processes. However, with recovery factors between 5 and 15% at the end of its economic life, there is a search for follow-up processes that yield additional oil from these reservoirs with continued low energy and emission intensities. One option is CO2-based enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes - CO2 can lower oil viscosity and if some fraction of the injected CO2 is sequestered in the reservoir, then the process can be considered a CO2 storage process in addition to an oil follow-up recovery process. Here, we evaluate the energy return and CO2 sequestered in cyclic CO2 and cyclic CO2-hot water injection processes in a post-CHOPS heavy oil field. The results reveal that overall recovery factors can be raised through appropriate design of the CO2 follow-up process. Cyclic CO2 injection achieves an incremental 2.4% recovery factor (over four years of operation) with high energy return ratio whereas CO2-hot water processes achieve higher recovery factors with lower energy return ratios. In these processes, the amount of CO2 that remains sequestered in the reservoir is small, typically less than 5%. Thus, these EOR processes are not strong candidates for CO2 sequestration.

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

4.7
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