4.5 Article

CO2 foam flooding for improved oil recovery: Reservoir simulation models and influencing factors

期刊

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
卷 133, 期 -, 页码 838-850

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2015.04.003

关键词

CO2 foam flooding; mechanistic model; IOR mechanisms; influencing factor; CO2 injection

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51174225]
  2. Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research [IRT1294, 1086]
  3. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A mechanistic model of CO2 foam that allows for direct simulation of foam generation, propagation, coalescence and collapse was described in this study. The controlling parameters, such as reaction rate factors for foam generation, coalescence and collapse in presence of oil, the viscosity of foaming components and surfactant adsorption, were adjusted to match the experimental results of CO2 foam coreflooding. A three dimensional heterogeneous conceptual reservoir model was then built to study the mechanisms of CO2 foam flooding based the foam model. The simulation results show that CO2 foam flooding can improve oil recovery through a combination of various mechanisms, including selective blocking and conformance control, gas up flow effect, reservoir energy support, and the improvement of displacement efficiency. The sensitivity and the effect of different influencing factors on the performance of CO2 foam flooding were investigated via the simulation models on various scenarios. CO2 foam flooding can achieve a better oil recovery in comparison with water flooding, CO2 flooding and WAG (water alternating gas) processes. Early CO2 foam injection is conducive to the improvement of oil recovery and the success of the project. CO2 foam flooding technique can be applied in a wide range of complex reservoirs, especially for highly heterogeneous reservoirs with high permeability channels, and reservoirs with different sedimentary sequences. (C) 2015 Elsevier BY. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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