Mohsen Askari
INJECTING CO2 AS AN ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY TECHNIQUE IN CARBONATE
RESERVOIRS AND ITS EFFECT ON
RECOVERY FACTOR
Declaration
Date: 21/08/2011
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&
Acknowledgment
I am really thankful to my beloved family for all their support and love throughout my
life without whom I would not be standing in the position which I am now.
I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Mehran Sohrabi for all his valuable guidance
throughout the project.
I am also sincerely thankful to Dr.Gillian Pickup for all her guidance and help in the
simulation part of the project and her dedication to answering questions and emails.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr.Alireza Kazemi for his help in the simulation model
of the project.
And last but definitely not the least I want to express my gratitude to Debbie Williams for
all the efforts and guidance throughout the course.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
'
Contents
(
) *
+ "
&
/
"
/
0
&
' (
1
-
&
0 4
%
$
"
( ," 5
/
6
"
3!
3 3
&
3!
'
$ " 3
"
&
$ " 3
- 4
&
&
'
$ " 3
! #
"
&
&&
)7 5+
&'
)7 5
&1
&
&
&
&
,3
&
"
7 "
&
"
&
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&& ( 3
&'
&&
%
"
&'
&1
&1
&-
)7
&2
&-
)7
&2
&/
&/
&0 (
&0
&
'
'
1
'
8 %
''
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
1. Executive summary
Fast consummation and demand for sources of energy have been growing quite rapidly in
the recent years. More or less about 50% of the world energy is supplied by fossil fuel.
As the conventional reservoirs have been already explored and produced the new
methods of recovery need to be introduced for depletion of unconventional reservoirs
such as shale gas, tight gas and heavy oil reservoirs in order to fulfill the world demand
for energy.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
2. Literature review
2.1. Carbonate reservoir
Around 3000 billion barrels of oil and 3000 trillion cubic feet of gas in place are stored in
carbonate reservoirs which make around 60% of oil and 40% gas of the worlds
hydrocarbon reserves. This will create great challenges for exploration and production in
terms of technology and methods for increasing the recovery. This is more feasible and
applicable in Middle East which contains around 62% of worlds proven oil reservoirs
out of which more than 70% are in carbonate reservoirs and 40% of worlds gas
reservoirs out of which more than 90% are reserved in carbonate reservoirs.
2.1.1. Introduction
Carbonates are marine environment deposited sediments which have a biological origin
and are greatly sensitive to environmental changes. There is also the effect of temperature
which affects the biogenic activity and therefore the sediment production.
The main components of carbonate rocks are fragments of marine organism, coral,
skeletons, algae and some calcium carbonate. This will make the carbonate rocks
chemically more reactive as compared to sandstones. The other factor that differentiates
between sandstone and carbonates is the distance where they have been formed and the
place they have been deposited. Carbonates are generally deposited closed to the place
where they have been formed where sands can move hundreds of kilometers down the
stream or river before the final deposition. At the beginning of deposition carbonate rocks
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
contain a relatively high porosity of around 30% to 70%. But as mentioned before due to
high level of chemical and physical reaction the porosity will decrease.
2.1.2. Mineralogy
Unlike most of the carbonate reservoir properties mineralogy is quite simple. The main
minerals are calcite, dolomite and minor clay. Secondary mineral consist of quarts, chert
and anhydrite. Although depending on the depositional environment other minerals such
as phosphate, siderite, pyrite feldspar and clay minerals could also be present which are
called accessory minerals.
2.1.3. Heterogeneity
In general carbonate reservoir rocks have been proved to be more heterogeneous than
sandstone reservoirs. They normally contain a wider range of pore classes and therefore
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
more likely for the multiphase properties to be different. This is one of the greatest
challenges in evaluation of carbonate rocks in early stages.
2.1.4. Diagenesis
Basically Diagenesis refers to the changes that happen to a sedimentary structure after it
is deposited and before it is metamorphosed. That includes changes in shape, volume,
size or chemical composition after the crystalline constituents or detrital biogenic have
been deposited. There are different types of Diagenesis mechanisms. It could be either
mechanical, biological, chemical or a combination of all. A simple example for
mechanical mechanism is the reduction of volume during the burial.
Biological diagenesis consists of rasping, grinding or erosion of the rock surfaces by
animals or plants.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
2.1.5. Porosity
The pore space inside the rock grains which is the potential space for containing the
hydrocarbon is called porosity. The total porosity refers to the total pore space regardless
of connectivity of the pores. But reservoir specialists are concerned about the
interconnected pores which have the capability of fluid transmission. This is called
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
effective porosity. Porosity generally varies with several factors such as fabric, fracture
geometry and texture. In a fractured rock the porosity is determined with fracture width,
spacing of the fracture and presence or absence of mineralization. In biogenic rocks the
growth fabric and skeletal microstructure have the greatest affect on porosity and in other
rocks grain shape. Sorting and packing are the affective factors. Diagenesis which is the
chemical and physical change of the reservoir properties could either decrease or increase
the porosity. It can decrease it by plugging the pores with cement or closing them by
compaction or it can increase the porosity by dissolution or even creation of new porosity
by recrystalization or replacement.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&
As mentioned earlier the porosity in carbonate rocks are either created or altered by
depositional processes, diagenetic process or mechanical fracturing. A genetic
classification of different porosity, the causes and effects, the factors affecting porosity
and the result of it could be illustrated in a triangular diagram presented below:
2.1.6. Permeability
The importance of permeability as a property of the rock is that it is directly related to the
rate at which hydrocarbon could be produced. There is a vast range of permeability from
0.01 millidarcy to over 1 Darcy. Although the permeability of 0.1 millidarcy is the
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
'
minimum desired permeability needed for oil production. Permeability is derived from
Darcys law:
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
2.1.7. Wettability
In general wettability is the tendency of one fluid to be attracted to a solid surface which
in case of the reservoir is the rock rather than another fluid present.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
that another term should be used for them. The term is called effective radius which is
calculated using the below formula:
Where
contact angle and Pc is the capillary pressure. In carbonate reservoirs which are normally
oil wet the capillary pressure is a function of four factors:
Pore size
Pore structure
Interfacial tension
Contact angle
"
"
%%
! #
%
Fractures in carbonate rock could be formed in very different scales. It could be from
microscopic scale to fractures with length of kilometers which are called swarms. The
presence of these different scale fractures creates a very complex flow network in
carbonate reservoirs. In spite of the mentioned problem there is a good side of fractures
as well. Fractures can increase the porosity and Permeability which can lead to better
recovery of the reservoir. But a reservoir is defined as a naturally fractured reservoir if
only there is presence of a network of fractures with various degrees of distribution
throughout the reservoir. There are several factors that make difference between a
carbonate reservoir and a normal conventional one and they are as follow:
1-Anisotropy: carbonate reservoirs are formed after the chemical and physical reactions
of the sediments. Considering the diagenesis and the fractures porosity and permeability
would be altered which makes an irregular permeability and porosity distribution. Hence
there is a big difference between horizontal and vertical permeability.
2-Porosity and permeability: as explained before porosity and permeability in carbonate
reservoirs differ from the ones in clastic reservoir which is mainly due to depositional
condition. The porosity in carbonate rocks are either connected porosity which is the
interconnected pores between the grains or vugs which is the unconnected pores that are
formed during the diagenesis of the rock or fracture porosity or dual porosity which is
formed due to stress and on the formation.
3-Micro fracture: micro fractures are very small fractures in the rock in the term of
length and width. Although micro fractures do not have a big affect on porosity but they
surly help in better recovery by increasing the matrix permeability.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
4-Transition zone: generally the transition zone is not formed in fractured carbonate
reservoirs because the capillary pressure is neglected therefore the fluid will be in
equilibrium at oil water contact (OWC) and gas oil contact (GOC) base on density and
gravity.
5-fracture gas cap: the gas cap is formed generally by liberation of the gas from the oil
and its movement toward the upper part of the fracture network. This is a phenomenon
that occurs when the pressure gradient of the flow is very low toward the wellbore which
is totally different with the situation where the liberated gas moves toward the wellbore
due to high mobility and low viscosity of the fluid.
6- Super K: the term of super K refers to the situation where there are big fractures in the
reservoir with very high permeability. In the first glance it looks to be an advantage but in
the case where injection is used for increasing the recovery it becomes a big disadvantage
as it causes the fingering of the injected fluid and therefore early breakthrough of the
injected fluid.
7-fluid contact: compared to matrix the fluid contact remains stable in carbonate
reservoirs due to negligible capillary pressure. But there is a bigger chance of coning due
to much higher permeability of the fractures.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
2- Oil viscosity reduction: viscosity of the oil decreases once it is mixed with CO2 and
hence will flow more easily as the mobility increases as the viscosity decreases.
3-Oil density reduction: solubility of CO2 in oil will decrease the density and therefore
increased the mobility of the oil.
4-Vaporization: vaporization of CO2 can extract some portion of the oil and enhance the
recovery.
5-Interfacial tension reduction: by reducing the interfacial tension between oil and
water it makes the displacement more effective.
6-Miscibility generation: Miscibility could be regenerated if it is lost during the process.
"
"
%%
! #
%
&
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
'
be into consideration is that the primary slug should be miscible in the secondary on. This
will prevent the material trapping in the reservoir caused by primary slug of CO2.
2-Mulitiple contact miscibility (MCM): the difference between MCM and FCM is that
in MCM the miscibility does not occur at the first contact. The process will take place
when several contacts are formed between the injected CO2 and the reservoir oil. In the
other term MCM occurs as a result of in-situ compositional changes and mass transfer
between the injected CO2 and the reservoir oil.
In the reservoir the mechanism of miscibility is as follow: at the beginning CO2
condensates into the reservoir oil and makes it lighter. This happens because the methane
is extracted from the oil. Now at this stage the light components of the oil vaporize and
mix into the CO2 phase. This mass transfer process between CO2 and the oil continues
till eventually both fluid are mixed and become indistinguishable in term of properties.
The key point in the process is that for miscibility high pressure is needed. Generally
because the reservoir pressure is high enough for the process the CO2 should be
compressed in such way to reach the desired density which makes it miscible in reservoir
oil. This pressure is called minimum miscible pressure (MMP). In other term this
pressure is the minimum pressure needed for CO2 and oil to be miscible together.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
There are some advantages and disadvantages for continuous CO2 injection:
Advantages:
Quick response in production recovery due to mobility factor
Easier and faster achievement in stable injection rate
Minimization of water blocking
Disadvantages:
Poor sweep efficiency
CO2 usage in a less efficient manner
Difficulties and challenges of gas handling
Early CO2 water breakthrough resulting less recovery
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&
3. Simulation experiments
3.1. Introduction
C. Kerans et al (1994) have done an integrated characterization of carbonate ramp
reservoirs using Permian San Andres formation outcrop analogs. The San Andres
Formation of the Permian basin is representative of carbonate ramp reservoirs in that it
has highly stratified character, complex facies and permeability structure, and generally
low recovery efficiencies of 30% of original oil in place.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&
As shown in the figure above an injector and a producer well have been located in the
edges of the model in vertical position. They would be used in order to simulate different
scenarios on the model. Only in CO2 SWAG injection the producer well will be replaced
by another injector well and the producer well will be located in the middle of the model.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&&
This is because the SWAG experiment done in the model is unconventional and therefore
two injector wells were needed.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&'
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&1
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&-
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&2
"
"
%%
! #
%
&/
All the cases recovery factor is illustrated in one graph in the below picture:
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
&0
Fig 24: All cases recovery factor after 25% increase in injection rate
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
'
Fig 25: All cases recovery factor after 25% decrease in injection rate
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
'
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
'
4. Conclusion
The purpose of this project was to determine the effect of different methods of CO2
injection on reservoir performance and recovery facto. This study showed that CO2
injection can help in increasing the reservoir oil recovery. But it should be considered
that for CO2 injection a stable source of CO2 is needed. The other factor that needs to be
taken into consideration is the difficulties associated with CO2 injection such as
reduction of permeability or pipe choking caused by power carbon. But considering all
this factors CO2 injection have proved to be one of the best techniques for increasing oil
recovery as well as reduction of green house gas effect using the available technology.
The model that has been used in this project is a 52 x 1 x 55 2D model based on the
research paper done by C. Kerans et al (1994) on San Andres outcrop. Different recovery
techniques were experienced on the model and CO2 SWAG injection proved to have the
best recovery of around 40% followed by CO2 WAG injection with a recovery of 36%
and CO2 continuous injection with a recovery of around 25%.
Sensitivity analysis on injection rate showed the biggest impact on CO2 WAG injection.
This is probably due to the cycle in CO2 and water injection. The ratio between the
injected fluids need more research in order to achieve the best ratio for the optimum
recovery.
N2 impurity of the injected CO2 up to 20% did not have a considerable effect on the
recovery but as mentioned before it could have an effect on the MMP and causing
difficulties in miscibility process.
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
'&
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
''
5. References
1. Carbon Dioxide miscible flooding: past, present and outlook for future.
F.I Stalkup, SPE-AIME, Atlantic Richfield Co.
2. A single Co2 injection well Minitest in a low permeability carbonate reservoir.
Royal J. Watts, SPE. U.S. DOE. James B. Gehr, SPE, Allegheny land & Mineral
Co.
3. Evaluation of the carbon dioxide flooding processes. L. Wally Holm, SPE,
Unocal Science and technology Div.
4. Comparison between CO2, CO2 WAG and CO2 SWAG injection. Nwajiaku
Stanley N.
5. Carbon dioxide flooding. F. David Martin, SPE, and J.J. Taber, SPE, New Mexico
petroleum recovery research center.
6. CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. www.CO2.nu
7. Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Experiences in Carbonate Reservoirs in the United
States. Eduardo Manrique, Mariano Gurfinkel, Viviana Muci
8. Screening, Evaluation, and Ranking of Oil Reservoirs Suitable for CO2-Flood
EOR and Carbon Dioxide Sequestration. J. SHAW Adams Pearson Associates
S. BACHU Alberta Geological Survey
9. The impact of injection strategy in carbonate reservoir using CO2. Syed
Muhammad Danish Abbas
10. CO2 injection in carbonates. O. Izgec and B. Demiral
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%
'1
11. EOR field experiences in carbonate reservoirs in the United States. E.J Manrique,
Norwest Questa engineering
12. CO2 EOR potential in naturally fractured Haft Kel field, Iran. Sayyed Ahmad
Alavian, NTNU, and Curtis H. Whitson, SPE, NTNU/PERA
13. Integrated Characterization of Carbonate Ramp Reservoirs Using Permian San
Andres Formation Outcrop Analogs. C. Kerans, F. Jerry Lucia, and R. K. Senger
14. Rock-Fluid characterization for miscible CO2 injection: Residual oil zone,
Seminole field, Permian basin. M.M. Honarpour, N.R. Nagarajan
15. Tertiary oil recovery and CO2 sequestration by carbonated water injection (CWI)
N.I. Kechut. SPE, M.Riazi, SPE.
16. www.slb.com
17. www.mendeley.com/research/co2-injection-carbonates/
18. www.enhancedoilrecovery.com/co2-eor.htm
19. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050110091718.htm
20. www.fekete.com/aboutus/index.asp
!
$
"
"
%%
! #
%