- Email: [email protected]
CO2 Utilization for Enhance Oil Recovery with Huff-N-Puff Process in Depleting Heterogeneous Reservoir
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Availableonline onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com Available
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Energy (2017) 000–000 184–188 EnergyProcedia Procedia141 00 (2017) www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29 2017, Berlin, Germany 4th International Conference September on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29 September 2017, Berlin, Germany
CO2 Utilization for Enhance Oil on Recovery withandHuff-N-Puff The 15th International Symposium District Heating Cooling CO2 Utilization for Enhance Oil Recovery with Huff-N-Puff Process in Depleting Heterogeneous Reservoir Assessing theinfeasibility using the heat demand-outdoor Process DepletingofHeterogeneous Reservoir a a, a Hutthapong Yoosook , Kreangkrai Maneeintr *, Thitisak temperature function afor a long-term district heat Boonpramote demand forecast a, a
a a a
Hutthapong Yoosook , Kreangkrai Maneeintr *, Thitisak Boonpramote I. Andrić *, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournier ., B. Lacarrière , O. Le Corre
Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization Research Laboratory, Department of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, a,b,c a a b Thailand. c c Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330 Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization Research Laboratory, Department of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330 Thailand. IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal b Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France c Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France Abstract a
Abstract Currently, the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO22) emission has been increasingly concerned by many industries because CO22 is recognizedthe as one of the of main greenhouse oil industries applied concerned commercialbyprocesses to enhance oil recovery emission has been have increasingly many industries because CO2 is Currently, reduction carbon dioxidegases. (CO2)Some Abstract oil recovery (CO22have -EOR). And commercial one of the effective methods is theoil cyclic CO22 and reduce greenhouse known as CO22 enhanced recognized as one of thegas main greenhouse gases. Some oil industries applied processes to enhance recovery injection CO22 Huff-n-Puff. Thisas method is applied CO22 to extract additional oil from reservoirisbythereducing oil2 oil recovery (CO2-EOR). And one of thedepleting effective methods cyclic CO and reduceorgreenhouse gas known CO2 enhanced District heating networks reservoir are commonly addressed in the CO literature as oneisofthe thekey most effective solutions decreasing the viscosity andCO maintaining pressure. Accordingly, factor to success the for CO Huff-n-Puff additional oil from depleting reservoir by22 reducing oil injection or 22 utilization 2 Huff-n-Puff. This method is applied CO2 to extract greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require highresearch investments which are returnedthe through the heat process in depleting oil reservoir. Consequently, it becomes the objective of this which is to investigate sensitivity of viscosity and maintaining reservoir pressure. Accordingly, CO2 utilization is the key factor to success the CO2 Huff-n-Puff sales. Due to the climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could by decrease, and changed to reservoir. evaluate the performance of CO in depleting reservoir using CO 22 utilization 22 Huff-n-Puff process in depleting oil Consequently, it becomes the objectiveprocess of this research whichheterogeneous is to investigate the sensitivity of prolonging the investment return period. numerical simulation. the the simulation, the results that the highest sensitive parameter of CO utilization is CO 2 and toFrom evaluate performance of COreport Huff-n-Puff process in depleting heterogeneous reservoir by using CO2 utilization 2 22 2 The main scope of thisby paper is to assesstime, the feasibility of using the heatthe demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand andresults number of cycle. other sensitive hand, the parameter lowest sensitivity soaking time due2 injection rate, followed COthe numerical simulation. From simulation, the report that On the highest of CO2isutilization is CO 22 injection The district Alvalade, locatedreservoir. in Lisbon (Portugal), was CO used as a case can study. The district consistedofofCO 665 toforecast. low pressure buildupof depleting Moreover, higher be obtained by isis increasing 22 utilization time, and number of cycle. On the other hand, the lowest sensitivity soaking time due22 injection rate, followed byrate CO2ininjection buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district injection rate andbuildup time. Likewise, the increasing of Moreover, CO22 Huff-n-Puff can rise CO duebytoincreasing the expansion 22 utilization can be obtained of COof2 to low pressure rate in depleting reservoir. higher cycle CO2 utilization renovation scenarios werepressure developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were utilization drainage support. Finally, capture and storage technologies can help reduce CO 2 injection area rate and and reservoir time. Likewise, the increasing of the COcarbon Huff-n-Puff cycle can rise CO utilization due to the expansion of 2 2 2 compared withprocess results by from a dynamicof heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors. of Huff-n-Puff re-injecting CO in subsequent cycles and storing of CO into depleted reservoir after crude oil is drainage area and reservoir pressure support. Finally, the carbon capture and storage technologies can help reduce CO2 utilization 22 22 The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications not economically produced. of Huff-n-Puff process by re-injecting of CO2 in subsequent cycles and storing of CO2 into depleted reservoir after crude oil is error annual Published demand was than ©(the 2017 TheinAuthors. by lower Elsevier Ltd.20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation not economically produced. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. scenarios, the error value increased up to 59.5% (dependingofonCPESE the weather Peer-review under responsibility of Elsevier the organizing committee 2017. and renovation scenarios combination considered). © 2017 The Authors. Published by Ltd. committee Peer-review under responsibility the scientific of the International Conference ondecade, Power and The value of slope coefficient of increased on average within the4th range of 3.8% up to 8% per thatEnergy corresponds to the Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017. Systems Engineering. decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination Keywords: Greenhouse gas; Carbon dioxide; CO22 Huff-n-Puff; Enhance oil recovery; CO22 utilization; Carbon capture and storage of weather and renovation scenariosgas; considered). On the hand, function intercept for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the Keywords: Greenhouse Carbon dioxide; CO2other Huff-n-Puff; Enhance oil recovery;increased CO2 utilization; Carbon capture and storage coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and the accuracy of heat demand estimations. 1.improve Introduction
1. Introduction © In 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier recent years, many industries haveLtd. been highly concerned about the reduction in greenhouse gases emission, Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and ) due to the threat of climate change [1].the Thereduction used of CO oilemission, recovery especially carbon dioxide (CO In recent years, many industries have been highly concerned about in greenhouse gases 2 2 for enhanced 2 2 Cooling. has a capability to enhance oil recovery that possibly increase oil recovery (EOR) is effective method because CO especially carbon dioxide (CO2) due to 22the threat of climate change [1]. The used of CO2 for enhanced (EOR) is effective method because Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate CO change 2 has a capability to enhance oil recovery that possibly increase oil recovery * Corresponding author. Tel.: 6622186854 E-mail address:author. [email protected] * Corresponding Tel.: 6622186854 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. E-mail address: Peer-review under [email protected] responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling. 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Power and Energy Peer-review the organizing committee 1876-6102 ©under 2017responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier Ltd. of CPESE 2017. Systems Engineering. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.035
Hutthapong Yoosook et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 184–188 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
185
by approximately 5-20% beyond typically achievable using conventional recovery processes [2]. Accordingly, using of CO2 for EOR exceedingly benefits to improve oil production with extending of project’s life. Also, it helps minimize environmental impact by reducing CO2 emission in atmosphere. CO2 Huff-n-Puff is a cyclic process of CO2 injection into oil well, alternating with production from the same well to recover residual oil inside the oil reservoir. The CO2 Huff-n-Puff operation is compressing CO2 and injecting it into oil reservoir until reach the desired slug volume. After that, the injection well is shut in for a designated soak period that should be two to four weeks based on the different reservoir conditions and reservoir fluid properties. During soaking period, the injected CO2 dissolve into crude oil that results in oil swelling, reduced viscosity, and miscible mechanism [3]. After soaking period, the well is opened to produce back both oil and CO2. And, these processes are repeated between two to five cycles or operated until insufficient oil production [4]. CO2 Huff-n-Puff is proved to be the most suitable for reservoirs with relatively small pool size and poor flowability between injector and producer [5]. In addition, the application of CO2 Huff-n-Puff required a smaller amount of CO2 consumption, comparing to CO2 flooding. This process can also provide quicker payout with lower capital investment [3]. Finally, CO2 utilization is an important economic indicator presented of successful applications. It defined as the amount of injected CO2 per unit volume of incremental oil production that in unit of Mscf/stb. The favorable range of CO2 utilization is between 0.5 to 0.8 Mscf/stb [6]. 2. Reservoir model To evaluate the performance of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process and investigate the sensitivity of CO2 utilization, it requires numerical simulation in a created reservoir model. Therefore, the compositional reservoir simulator (CMG: GEM) is used as a tool for creating 3D reservoir model, evaluating the performance, and conducting sensitivity analysis of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process in various scenarios [7]. The heterogeneous reservoir model is created based on a reservoir segment in Fang oil field, Thailand as shown in Fig. 1. Also, reservoir properties, including porosity, horizontal permeability, and vertical permeability are varied individually in 3,750 grids of sandstone formation as summarized in Table 1. The total area of this model was 1,562,500 ft2 or 35.87 acres (145,161 m2) with total thickness of 90 ft. (27.4 m) which include 30 ft. (9.1 m) of above and below shale formation, and 30 ft. (9.1 m) of sandstone formation. And this model consisted 2 well that the spacing was 1,768 ft. (538.9 m).
Fig. 1. Created heterogeneous reservoir model and location of two Huff-n-Puff wells
Hutthapong Yoosook et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 184–188 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
186
Table 1. Reservoir properties using for created reservoir model Parameter Grid dimension Top of reservoir Reservoir thickness Average porosity Average horizontal permeability Average vertical permeability Rock compressibility Reservoir pressure Reservoir temperature
Values
Unit
25 x 25 x 6 4420 30 0.25 150 15 0.000003 680 144
block ft ft fraction mD mD 1/psi psi o F
However, some data cannot be provided. They can be assumed and calculated from literature such as fracture pressure [8-11].The maximum pressure has been calculated on the basis of 90% of fracture pressure to prevent the caprock breaking [8]. Fracture pressure is calculated from the theory by the Hubbert and Willis Equation [11] as shown in Eq 1. Fmin =
1 2P 1 + 3 D
(1)
3. Result and discussion 3.1. Effect of Number of Cycle The effect of CO2 Huff-n-Puff cycle on CO2 utilization is investigated by performing four runs of 0, 3, 6, and 9 cycles within 5 years of total operating period. Fig. 2 presents the relationship between CO2 utilization and number of cycle. The results show that the more number of cycles of CO2 Huff-n-Puff can increase CO2 utilization because the recovery of additional oil that placed far away from wellbore requires more number of cycles to drive the injected CO2 for drainage area expansion around the wellbore. However, extra numbers of cycle require more amount of CO2 injected that also effect CO2 utilization. According to these results, the number of CO2 Huff-n-Puff cycle of 3, 6, and 9 provide 0.41, 0.54, and 0.62 Mscf/stb, respectively. When the number of cycle is continuously added up, incremental rate of CO2 utilization is growth due to constant increasing of CO2 injection but decreasing of oil recovery.
Fig. 2. Effect of number of cycle on CO2 utilization
3.2. Effect of injection rate and injection time CO2 injection rate and time have effects on the performance of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process based on CO2 utilization. The CO2 injection rate and time are necessary to investigate because they impact significantly both amount of CO2 injection and amount of oil production in that these two factors used for estimating of CO utilization. Accordingly,
Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
indicated that higher CO2 utilization can be obtained by increasing of CO2 injection rate and time. This is because indicated that amount higher CO utilization can be obtained byProcedia increasing of CO 2 injection rate and time. This is because Yoosook et al./ Energy 00 (2017) 000–000 further away wellbore and itinjection provide higher pressure maintenance. the excessive of 22CO 2 can diffuse indicated that higher CO utilization can be obtained by increasing of CO rate and time. This is because 2141 Hutthapong Yoosook etfrom al. / Energy Procedia (2017) 184–188 187 can diffuse further away from wellbore and provide higher maintenance. the excessive amount of CO indicated that higher CO utilization can be obtained by increasing of CO injection rate andpressure time. effect. This isHowever, because 2 2 2 it Yoosooktime et al./for Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 diffusion and crude oil viscosity reduction Also, more injection time provide adequate CO 2 can diffuse further away from wellbore and it provide higher pressure maintenance. the excessive amount of CO 2 diffusion and crude oil viscosity reduction effect. However, Also, more injection time provide adequate time for CO can diffuse further away from wellbore and it provide higher pressure maintenance. the excessive amount of CO 2 increasing of CO2 injection rate and time. This is because 2 indicated that higher CO2 provide utilization canrequire betime obtained by The highest CO2 utilization of 0.92 the increasing of injection rate andadequate time larger amount of CO2 injection. crude oil viscosity reduction effect. However, Also, more injection time for CO 2 diffusion and Theofhighest of 0.92 the increasing of injection rate and time require larger amount of CO diffusion and crude oil viscosity reduction effect. Also, more injection time provide adequate time for CO 2 utilization 2from indicated that higher CO utilization can be obtained by increasing of2 injection. CO injection rate andCO time. This isHowever, because can diffuse further away wellbore and120 provide higher pressure maintenance. the excessive amount of CO 2 2 it 2 Furthermore, days injection provide the highest Mscf/stb is obtained by using 400 Mscf/d of COlarger 2 injection. injection. The highest CO utilization of the increasing of injection rate and time require amount of CO 2 2 injection. Furthermore, 120 days of injection provide the highest Mscf/stb is obtained by using 400 Mscf/d of CO injection. The highest CO utilization of 0.92 0.92 the increasing of injection rate and time require larger amount of CO 2 away 2 diffuse further wellbore and itoil provide higher pressure maintenance. excessive amount of CO diffusion and2 crude viscosity reduction effect. However, Also, more injection time provide time for CO2from 2 can adequate of 0.76 Mscf/stb. CO 2 utilization injection. Furthermore, 120 days of injection provide the highest Mscf/stb is obtained by using 400 Mscf/d of CO 2 utilization of 0.76 Mscf/stb. CO injection. Furthermore, 120 days of injection provide the highest Mscf/stb is obtained by using 400 Mscf/d of CO 2increasing 2 CO and2 injection. crude oil viscosity reduction effect. However, Also, more injection time provide time larger for The highest CO2 utilization of 0.92 the ofofinjection rate andadequate time require amount of CO 2 diffusion utilization 0.76 Mscf/stb. CO utilization 0.76 CO22increasing Theofhighest CO2provide utilization of 0.92 the ofofinjection rate400 and Mscf/d time require amount of CO2 injection. Furthermore, 120 days injection the highest Mscf/stb is obtained byMscf/stb. using of COlarger 2 injection. Mscf/stb is obtained byMscf/stb. using 400 Mscf/d of CO2 injection. Furthermore, 120 days of injection provide the highest of 0.76 CO2 utilization CO2 utilization of 0.76 Mscf/stb.
Fig. 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization Fig. 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization Fig. 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization Fig. 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization
(b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization (b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization (b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization (b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization
3.3. Sensitivity analysis 3.3. Sensitivity Fig.analysis 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization (b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization 3.3. Sensitivity analysis 3.3.There Sensitivity analysis 3. (a) operating Effect of CO2 injection rateinonCO CO2 utilization (b) Effect ofthat CO2effect injection CO2 utilization are Fig. several parameters Huff-n-Puff process ontime COon 2 2 utilization. Therefore, the are several operating parameters in CO 2 Huff-n-Puff process that effect on CO2 utilization. Therefore, the 3.3.There Sensitivity analysis sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate the impacts of these operating parameters on the performance of CO 2 There are several parameters in Huff-n-Puff process that on CO Therefore, the sensitivity analysis isoperating conducted to investigate the22 impacts of these operating parameters the performance of CO are several operating parameters in CO CO Huff-n-Puff process that effect effect on Huff-n-Puff CO22onutilization. utilization. Therefore, the2 3.3.There Sensitivity analysis utilization in CO process. Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of CO 2 operating parameters 2 sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate the impacts of these on the performance of CO 2 in CO process. Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of of these CO sensitivity analysis conducted to investigate the2 impacts operating parameters the performance of CO 2 utilization There are severalisoperating parameters in CO Huff-n-Puff process that effect on2 Huff-n-Puff CO2onutilization. Therefore, the2 Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of CO 2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process. in CO process. Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of of these CO 2 utilization There are severalisoperating parameters in CO Huff-n-Puff process that effect on2 Huff-n-Puff CO2onutilization. Therefore, the2 sensitivity analysis conducted to investigate the2 impacts operating parameters the performance of CO sensitivity analysis conducted to investigate the impacts operating parameters on the performance in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process. of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process.isFig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of of these CO2 utilization Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process.
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process
From Fig.4, the highest sensitive parameter is CO2 injection rate, followed by CO2 injection time, and number of From the highest sensitive parameter is CO followed by on CO 2 injection 2 injection time, and number of Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process utilization based these two parameters would not cycle. OilFig.4, production rate and time show low sensitivity to CO rate, From Fig.4, the highest sensitive parameter is CO 2 injection2 rate, followed by CO2 injection time, and number of utilization based on these two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low sensitivity to CO From Fig.4, the highest sensitive parameter is CO injection rate, followed by CO time, and number of 2 in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process 2 2 injection Fig. 4.CO Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization injection that is a main factor to estimate CO utilization. Hence, the higher impact much on the cumulative 2 2 two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low sensitivity to CO 2 utilization based on these injection that is a main factor to estimate CO utilization. Hence, the higher impact much on the cumulative CO utilization based on these two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low sensitivity to CO 2 Frommuch Fig.4, the highest sensitive parameter isthat COis2 injection rate, followed by CO CO time, and number of 2 injection The 2factor lowest sensitivity is 22soaking time because pressure production rate and time provide lower CO2 utilization. aa main to estimate utilization. Hence, the higher impact on the cumulative CO 2 injection utilization. The lowest isofthese time because pressure production rate and time provide lower CO that main factor tosensitivity estimate CO utilization. Hence, the higher impact much onthe thehighest cumulative CO 2sensitivity 2 injection 2soaking From Fig.4, sensitive parameter isresulting COis2 injection followed by on injection time, and number of utilization based two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low to CO 2oil 2 rate, buildup rate of depleting reservoir is very low in insignificant changing recovery. Accordingly, the production rate and time provide lower CO 2 utilization. The lowest sensitivity is soaking time because pressure buildup rate of depleting reservoir is very low resulting inThe insignificant changing oil recovery. Accordingly, the utilization. lowest sensitivity isofMscf/stb soaking time because pressure production rate and time provide lower CO 2sensitivity utilization based on these two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low to CO injection that is a main to estimate CO utilization. Hence, the higher impact much on the cumulative CO 2factor 2 2 utilization for EOR by using CO Huff-n-Puff process is between 0.31 and 0.74 Mscf/stb. range of CO 2of depleting reservoir is very low2 resulting in insignificant changing of oil recovery. Accordingly, the buildup rate utilization for EOR CO bylower CO Huff-n-Puff process istobetween 0.31 and Mscf/stb. range ofmuch COrate buildup rate reservoir isusing low resulting inThe insignificant changing oil recovery. Accordingly, the 2of injection that is a main factor estimate CO utilization. Hence, thepressure higher impact ondepleting the time cumulative lowest sensitivity isofMscf/stb time0.74 because production and provide CO 2 very 2soaking 2 2 utilization. range of CO 2 utilization for EOR by using CO2 Huff-n-Puff process is between 0.31 Mscf/stb and 0.74 Mscf/stb. utilization for EOR by using CO Huff-n-Puff process is between 0.31 Mscf/stb and 0.74 Mscf/stb. range of CO 2of depleting lowest sensitivity time because pressure production and time reservoir provide lower buildup raterate is veryCO low resulting inThe insignificant changing isofsoaking oil recovery. Accordingly, the 2 2 utilization. 4. Conclusion 4. Conclusion buildup rate depletingfor reservoir isusing very CO low2 Huff-n-Puff resulting in insignificant changing ofMscf/stb oil recovery. Accordingly, the utilization EOR by process is between 0.31 and 0.74 Mscf/stb. range of CO 2of 4. 4. Conclusion Conclusion for EOR by using CO2for Huff-n-Puff process is between Mscf/stb 0.74 Mscf/stb. range CO2 utilization Theofperformance of reservoir simulations CO2 Huff-n-Puff process for0.31 enhanced oiland recovery in depleting The performance of reservoir simulations 2 Huff-n-Puff process for enhanced oil recovery in depleting 4. Conclusion heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded thatfor theCO injection of CO with Huff-n-Puff process is able to enhance oil The performance of reservoir simulations for CO 2 Huff-n-Puff2 process for enhanced oil recovery in depleting with Huff-n-Puff process is able to in enhance heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded that the injection of CO2 process The performance of reservoir simulations for CO formaintenance, enhanced oiland recovery depleting 2 Huff-n-Puff 4. Conclusion recovery in depleting oil reservoir via viscosity reduction, reservoir pressure oil swelling due oil to heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded that the injection of CO 2 with Huff-n-Puff process is able to enhance oil recovery in depleting oil reservoir via viscosity reduction, reservoir pressure maintenance, and oil swelling due oil to with Huff-n-Puff process is able to enhance heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded that the injection of CO The performance of reservoir simulations for CO 2 Huff-n-Puff2 process for enhanced oil recovery in depleting recovery in depleting oil reservoir via viscosity reduction, reservoir pressure maintenance, and oil swelling due to recovery in depleting oil reservoir via viscosity reduction, reservoir pressure maintenance, and oil swelling due to The performance of reservoir simulations for enhanced oil recovery depleting with Huff-n-Puff process is able to in enhance oil heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded thatfor theCO injection of CO2 process 2 Huff-n-Puff
188
Hutthapong Yoosook et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 184–188 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
dissolution of CO2 in crude oil. Moreover, the most important parameters for CO2 Huff-n-Puff process is CO2 injection rate, followed by CO2 injection time, and number of cycles. This is because amount of injected CO2 into reservoir, which is mainly dominated by injection rate, injection time, and number of cycles, can provide additional oil recovery due to the expansion of drainage area around wellbores. However, other operating parameters of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process such as production rate, production time, and soaking time are less sensitivity on CO2 utilization. Accordingly, the range of CO2 utilization using Huff-n-Puff process at five years of total operating period is obtained between 0.31 Mscf/stb and 0.74 Mscf/stb. Finally, CO2 utilization of Huff-n-Puff process can be extremely reduced by applying of carbon capture technologies to capture CO2 and re-inject into reservoir in subsequent cycles. Likewise, CO2 sequestration can be applied in later stage of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process to permanently store CO2 in depleted reservoir. This simulation study is a preliminary study aimed to apply to the Fang oilfield in the north of Thailand in the future for both enhanced oil recovery and CO2 sequestration to reduce CO2 and produce more oil and to add the value of the project. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Ratchadapisek Sompoch Endowment Fund (2016), Chulalongkorn University (CU-59-003-IC) and Chevron Thailand Exploration and Production, Ltd. for financial support of this study. References [1] Le GallocY, Couillens P, and Manai T, CO2 Sequestration in Depleted Oil or Gas Reservoirs, 2002. [2] Hargreaves J, Platform Re-Design for CO2 Re-injection: Process and Safety Engineering Challenges, 2009. [3] Whittaker S and Perkins E, Technical Aspects of CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery and Associated Carbon Storage, 2013. [4] Mohammed-Singh L J, Singhal A K, and Sim S, Screening Criteria for CO2 Huff 'n' Puff Operations, 2006. [5] Song C and Yang D, Performance Evaluation of CO2 Huff-n-Puff Processes in Tight Oil Formations, 2013. [6] Wang Z et al., Optimizing Cyclic CO2 Injection for Low- permeability Oil Reservoirs through Experimental Study, 2013. [7] User's Guide GEM, Advanced Compositional and GHG Reservoir Simulator, 1987-2011 Computer Modelling Group Ltd, 2011 [8] Mathias SA, Roberts AW. A Lambert W function solution for estimating sustainable injection rates for storage of CO2 in brine aquifers. J Greenhouse Gas Control 2013; 17: 546-548. [9] Chasseta C, Jarsjö J, Erlströmc M, Cvetkovicd V, Destounia G. Scenario simulations of CO2 injection feasibility, plume migration and storage in a saline aquifer, Scania, Sweden. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2011; 5: 1303–1318. [10] Gorecki CD, Sorensen JA, Bremer JM, Knudsen DJ, Smith SA, Steadman EN, Harju JA. Development of storage coefficients for determining the effective CO2 storage resource in deep saline formations, International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage and Utilization held in San Diego, California, USA. November 2-4, 2009. [11] Bourgoyne AT, Millheim KK, Chenevert ME, Young FS. Applied drilling engineering. Texas: SPE; 1986.
Availableonline onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com Available
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Energy (2017) 000–000 184–188 EnergyProcedia Procedia141 00 (2017) www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
4th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29 2017, Berlin, Germany 4th International Conference September on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2017, 25-29 September 2017, Berlin, Germany
CO2 Utilization for Enhance Oil on Recovery withandHuff-N-Puff The 15th International Symposium District Heating Cooling CO2 Utilization for Enhance Oil Recovery with Huff-N-Puff Process in Depleting Heterogeneous Reservoir Assessing theinfeasibility using the heat demand-outdoor Process DepletingofHeterogeneous Reservoir a a, a Hutthapong Yoosook , Kreangkrai Maneeintr *, Thitisak temperature function afor a long-term district heat Boonpramote demand forecast a, a
a a a
Hutthapong Yoosook , Kreangkrai Maneeintr *, Thitisak Boonpramote I. Andrić *, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournier ., B. Lacarrière , O. Le Corre
Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization Research Laboratory, Department of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, a,b,c a a b Thailand. c c Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330 Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization Research Laboratory, Department of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330 Thailand. IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal b Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France c Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France Abstract a
Abstract Currently, the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO22) emission has been increasingly concerned by many industries because CO22 is recognizedthe as one of the of main greenhouse oil industries applied concerned commercialbyprocesses to enhance oil recovery emission has been have increasingly many industries because CO2 is Currently, reduction carbon dioxidegases. (CO2)Some Abstract oil recovery (CO22have -EOR). And commercial one of the effective methods is theoil cyclic CO22 and reduce greenhouse known as CO22 enhanced recognized as one of thegas main greenhouse gases. Some oil industries applied processes to enhance recovery injection CO22 Huff-n-Puff. Thisas method is applied CO22 to extract additional oil from reservoirisbythereducing oil2 oil recovery (CO2-EOR). And one of thedepleting effective methods cyclic CO and reduceorgreenhouse gas known CO2 enhanced District heating networks reservoir are commonly addressed in the CO literature as oneisofthe thekey most effective solutions decreasing the viscosity andCO maintaining pressure. Accordingly, factor to success the for CO Huff-n-Puff additional oil from depleting reservoir by22 reducing oil injection or 22 utilization 2 Huff-n-Puff. This method is applied CO2 to extract greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require highresearch investments which are returnedthe through the heat process in depleting oil reservoir. Consequently, it becomes the objective of this which is to investigate sensitivity of viscosity and maintaining reservoir pressure. Accordingly, CO2 utilization is the key factor to success the CO2 Huff-n-Puff sales. Due to the climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could by decrease, and changed to reservoir. evaluate the performance of CO in depleting reservoir using CO 22 utilization 22 Huff-n-Puff process in depleting oil Consequently, it becomes the objectiveprocess of this research whichheterogeneous is to investigate the sensitivity of prolonging the investment return period. numerical simulation. the the simulation, the results that the highest sensitive parameter of CO utilization is CO 2 and toFrom evaluate performance of COreport Huff-n-Puff process in depleting heterogeneous reservoir by using CO2 utilization 2 22 2 The main scope of thisby paper is to assesstime, the feasibility of using the heatthe demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand andresults number of cycle. other sensitive hand, the parameter lowest sensitivity soaking time due2 injection rate, followed COthe numerical simulation. From simulation, the report that On the highest of CO2isutilization is CO 22 injection The district Alvalade, locatedreservoir. in Lisbon (Portugal), was CO used as a case can study. The district consistedofofCO 665 toforecast. low pressure buildupof depleting Moreover, higher be obtained by isis increasing 22 utilization time, and number of cycle. On the other hand, the lowest sensitivity soaking time due22 injection rate, followed byrate CO2ininjection buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district injection rate andbuildup time. Likewise, the increasing of Moreover, CO22 Huff-n-Puff can rise CO duebytoincreasing the expansion 22 utilization can be obtained of COof2 to low pressure rate in depleting reservoir. higher cycle CO2 utilization renovation scenarios werepressure developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were utilization drainage support. Finally, capture and storage technologies can help reduce CO 2 injection area rate and and reservoir time. Likewise, the increasing of the COcarbon Huff-n-Puff cycle can rise CO utilization due to the expansion of 2 2 2 compared withprocess results by from a dynamicof heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors. of Huff-n-Puff re-injecting CO in subsequent cycles and storing of CO into depleted reservoir after crude oil is drainage area and reservoir pressure support. Finally, the carbon capture and storage technologies can help reduce CO2 utilization 22 22 The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications not economically produced. of Huff-n-Puff process by re-injecting of CO2 in subsequent cycles and storing of CO2 into depleted reservoir after crude oil is error annual Published demand was than ©(the 2017 TheinAuthors. by lower Elsevier Ltd.20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation not economically produced. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. scenarios, the error value increased up to 59.5% (dependingofonCPESE the weather Peer-review under responsibility of Elsevier the organizing committee 2017. and renovation scenarios combination considered). © 2017 The Authors. Published by Ltd. committee Peer-review under responsibility the scientific of the International Conference ondecade, Power and The value of slope coefficient of increased on average within the4th range of 3.8% up to 8% per thatEnergy corresponds to the Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017. Systems Engineering. decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination Keywords: Greenhouse gas; Carbon dioxide; CO22 Huff-n-Puff; Enhance oil recovery; CO22 utilization; Carbon capture and storage of weather and renovation scenariosgas; considered). On the hand, function intercept for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the Keywords: Greenhouse Carbon dioxide; CO2other Huff-n-Puff; Enhance oil recovery;increased CO2 utilization; Carbon capture and storage coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and the accuracy of heat demand estimations. 1.improve Introduction
1. Introduction © In 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier recent years, many industries haveLtd. been highly concerned about the reduction in greenhouse gases emission, Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and ) due to the threat of climate change [1].the Thereduction used of CO oilemission, recovery especially carbon dioxide (CO In recent years, many industries have been highly concerned about in greenhouse gases 2 2 for enhanced 2 2 Cooling. has a capability to enhance oil recovery that possibly increase oil recovery (EOR) is effective method because CO especially carbon dioxide (CO2) due to 22the threat of climate change [1]. The used of CO2 for enhanced (EOR) is effective method because Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate CO change 2 has a capability to enhance oil recovery that possibly increase oil recovery * Corresponding author. Tel.: 6622186854 E-mail address:author. [email protected] * Corresponding Tel.: 6622186854 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. E-mail address: Peer-review under [email protected] responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling. 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Power and Energy Peer-review the organizing committee 1876-6102 ©under 2017responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier Ltd. of CPESE 2017. Systems Engineering. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2017. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.035
Hutthapong Yoosook et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 184–188 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
185
by approximately 5-20% beyond typically achievable using conventional recovery processes [2]. Accordingly, using of CO2 for EOR exceedingly benefits to improve oil production with extending of project’s life. Also, it helps minimize environmental impact by reducing CO2 emission in atmosphere. CO2 Huff-n-Puff is a cyclic process of CO2 injection into oil well, alternating with production from the same well to recover residual oil inside the oil reservoir. The CO2 Huff-n-Puff operation is compressing CO2 and injecting it into oil reservoir until reach the desired slug volume. After that, the injection well is shut in for a designated soak period that should be two to four weeks based on the different reservoir conditions and reservoir fluid properties. During soaking period, the injected CO2 dissolve into crude oil that results in oil swelling, reduced viscosity, and miscible mechanism [3]. After soaking period, the well is opened to produce back both oil and CO2. And, these processes are repeated between two to five cycles or operated until insufficient oil production [4]. CO2 Huff-n-Puff is proved to be the most suitable for reservoirs with relatively small pool size and poor flowability between injector and producer [5]. In addition, the application of CO2 Huff-n-Puff required a smaller amount of CO2 consumption, comparing to CO2 flooding. This process can also provide quicker payout with lower capital investment [3]. Finally, CO2 utilization is an important economic indicator presented of successful applications. It defined as the amount of injected CO2 per unit volume of incremental oil production that in unit of Mscf/stb. The favorable range of CO2 utilization is between 0.5 to 0.8 Mscf/stb [6]. 2. Reservoir model To evaluate the performance of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process and investigate the sensitivity of CO2 utilization, it requires numerical simulation in a created reservoir model. Therefore, the compositional reservoir simulator (CMG: GEM) is used as a tool for creating 3D reservoir model, evaluating the performance, and conducting sensitivity analysis of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process in various scenarios [7]. The heterogeneous reservoir model is created based on a reservoir segment in Fang oil field, Thailand as shown in Fig. 1. Also, reservoir properties, including porosity, horizontal permeability, and vertical permeability are varied individually in 3,750 grids of sandstone formation as summarized in Table 1. The total area of this model was 1,562,500 ft2 or 35.87 acres (145,161 m2) with total thickness of 90 ft. (27.4 m) which include 30 ft. (9.1 m) of above and below shale formation, and 30 ft. (9.1 m) of sandstone formation. And this model consisted 2 well that the spacing was 1,768 ft. (538.9 m).
Fig. 1. Created heterogeneous reservoir model and location of two Huff-n-Puff wells
Hutthapong Yoosook et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 184–188 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
186
Table 1. Reservoir properties using for created reservoir model Parameter Grid dimension Top of reservoir Reservoir thickness Average porosity Average horizontal permeability Average vertical permeability Rock compressibility Reservoir pressure Reservoir temperature
Values
Unit
25 x 25 x 6 4420 30 0.25 150 15 0.000003 680 144
block ft ft fraction mD mD 1/psi psi o F
However, some data cannot be provided. They can be assumed and calculated from literature such as fracture pressure [8-11].The maximum pressure has been calculated on the basis of 90% of fracture pressure to prevent the caprock breaking [8]. Fracture pressure is calculated from the theory by the Hubbert and Willis Equation [11] as shown in Eq 1. Fmin =
1 2P 1 + 3 D
(1)
3. Result and discussion 3.1. Effect of Number of Cycle The effect of CO2 Huff-n-Puff cycle on CO2 utilization is investigated by performing four runs of 0, 3, 6, and 9 cycles within 5 years of total operating period. Fig. 2 presents the relationship between CO2 utilization and number of cycle. The results show that the more number of cycles of CO2 Huff-n-Puff can increase CO2 utilization because the recovery of additional oil that placed far away from wellbore requires more number of cycles to drive the injected CO2 for drainage area expansion around the wellbore. However, extra numbers of cycle require more amount of CO2 injected that also effect CO2 utilization. According to these results, the number of CO2 Huff-n-Puff cycle of 3, 6, and 9 provide 0.41, 0.54, and 0.62 Mscf/stb, respectively. When the number of cycle is continuously added up, incremental rate of CO2 utilization is growth due to constant increasing of CO2 injection but decreasing of oil recovery.
Fig. 2. Effect of number of cycle on CO2 utilization
3.2. Effect of injection rate and injection time CO2 injection rate and time have effects on the performance of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process based on CO2 utilization. The CO2 injection rate and time are necessary to investigate because they impact significantly both amount of CO2 injection and amount of oil production in that these two factors used for estimating of CO utilization. Accordingly,
Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
indicated that higher CO2 utilization can be obtained by increasing of CO2 injection rate and time. This is because indicated that amount higher CO utilization can be obtained byProcedia increasing of CO 2 injection rate and time. This is because Yoosook et al./ Energy 00 (2017) 000–000 further away wellbore and itinjection provide higher pressure maintenance. the excessive of 22CO 2 can diffuse indicated that higher CO utilization can be obtained by increasing of CO rate and time. This is because 2141 Hutthapong Yoosook etfrom al. / Energy Procedia (2017) 184–188 187 can diffuse further away from wellbore and provide higher maintenance. the excessive amount of CO indicated that higher CO utilization can be obtained by increasing of CO injection rate andpressure time. effect. This isHowever, because 2 2 2 it Yoosooktime et al./for Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 diffusion and crude oil viscosity reduction Also, more injection time provide adequate CO 2 can diffuse further away from wellbore and it provide higher pressure maintenance. the excessive amount of CO 2 diffusion and crude oil viscosity reduction effect. However, Also, more injection time provide adequate time for CO can diffuse further away from wellbore and it provide higher pressure maintenance. the excessive amount of CO 2 increasing of CO2 injection rate and time. This is because 2 indicated that higher CO2 provide utilization canrequire betime obtained by The highest CO2 utilization of 0.92 the increasing of injection rate andadequate time larger amount of CO2 injection. crude oil viscosity reduction effect. However, Also, more injection time for CO 2 diffusion and Theofhighest of 0.92 the increasing of injection rate and time require larger amount of CO diffusion and crude oil viscosity reduction effect. Also, more injection time provide adequate time for CO 2 utilization 2from indicated that higher CO utilization can be obtained by increasing of2 injection. CO injection rate andCO time. This isHowever, because can diffuse further away wellbore and120 provide higher pressure maintenance. the excessive amount of CO 2 2 it 2 Furthermore, days injection provide the highest Mscf/stb is obtained by using 400 Mscf/d of COlarger 2 injection. injection. The highest CO utilization of the increasing of injection rate and time require amount of CO 2 2 injection. Furthermore, 120 days of injection provide the highest Mscf/stb is obtained by using 400 Mscf/d of CO injection. The highest CO utilization of 0.92 0.92 the increasing of injection rate and time require larger amount of CO 2 away 2 diffuse further wellbore and itoil provide higher pressure maintenance. excessive amount of CO diffusion and2 crude viscosity reduction effect. However, Also, more injection time provide time for CO2from 2 can adequate of 0.76 Mscf/stb. CO 2 utilization injection. Furthermore, 120 days of injection provide the highest Mscf/stb is obtained by using 400 Mscf/d of CO 2 utilization of 0.76 Mscf/stb. CO injection. Furthermore, 120 days of injection provide the highest Mscf/stb is obtained by using 400 Mscf/d of CO 2increasing 2 CO and2 injection. crude oil viscosity reduction effect. However, Also, more injection time provide time larger for The highest CO2 utilization of 0.92 the ofofinjection rate andadequate time require amount of CO 2 diffusion utilization 0.76 Mscf/stb. CO utilization 0.76 CO22increasing Theofhighest CO2provide utilization of 0.92 the ofofinjection rate400 and Mscf/d time require amount of CO2 injection. Furthermore, 120 days injection the highest Mscf/stb is obtained byMscf/stb. using of COlarger 2 injection. Mscf/stb is obtained byMscf/stb. using 400 Mscf/d of CO2 injection. Furthermore, 120 days of injection provide the highest of 0.76 CO2 utilization CO2 utilization of 0.76 Mscf/stb.
Fig. 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization Fig. 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization Fig. 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization Fig. 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization
(b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization (b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization (b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization (b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization
3.3. Sensitivity analysis 3.3. Sensitivity Fig.analysis 3. (a) Effect of CO2 injection rate on CO2 utilization (b) Effect of CO2 injection time on CO2 utilization 3.3. Sensitivity analysis 3.3.There Sensitivity analysis 3. (a) operating Effect of CO2 injection rateinonCO CO2 utilization (b) Effect ofthat CO2effect injection CO2 utilization are Fig. several parameters Huff-n-Puff process ontime COon 2 2 utilization. Therefore, the are several operating parameters in CO 2 Huff-n-Puff process that effect on CO2 utilization. Therefore, the 3.3.There Sensitivity analysis sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate the impacts of these operating parameters on the performance of CO 2 There are several parameters in Huff-n-Puff process that on CO Therefore, the sensitivity analysis isoperating conducted to investigate the22 impacts of these operating parameters the performance of CO are several operating parameters in CO CO Huff-n-Puff process that effect effect on Huff-n-Puff CO22onutilization. utilization. Therefore, the2 3.3.There Sensitivity analysis utilization in CO process. Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of CO 2 operating parameters 2 sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate the impacts of these on the performance of CO 2 in CO process. Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of of these CO sensitivity analysis conducted to investigate the2 impacts operating parameters the performance of CO 2 utilization There are severalisoperating parameters in CO Huff-n-Puff process that effect on2 Huff-n-Puff CO2onutilization. Therefore, the2 Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of CO 2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process. in CO process. Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of of these CO 2 utilization There are severalisoperating parameters in CO Huff-n-Puff process that effect on2 Huff-n-Puff CO2onutilization. Therefore, the2 sensitivity analysis conducted to investigate the2 impacts operating parameters the performance of CO sensitivity analysis conducted to investigate the impacts operating parameters on the performance in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process. of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process.isFig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of of these CO2 utilization Huff-n-Puff process. Fig. 4 presents the sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process.
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process
From Fig.4, the highest sensitive parameter is CO2 injection rate, followed by CO2 injection time, and number of From the highest sensitive parameter is CO followed by on CO 2 injection 2 injection time, and number of Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process utilization based these two parameters would not cycle. OilFig.4, production rate and time show low sensitivity to CO rate, From Fig.4, the highest sensitive parameter is CO 2 injection2 rate, followed by CO2 injection time, and number of utilization based on these two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low sensitivity to CO From Fig.4, the highest sensitive parameter is CO injection rate, followed by CO time, and number of 2 in CO2 Huff-n-Puff process 2 2 injection Fig. 4.CO Sensitivity analysis of CO2 utilization injection that is a main factor to estimate CO utilization. Hence, the higher impact much on the cumulative 2 2 two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low sensitivity to CO 2 utilization based on these injection that is a main factor to estimate CO utilization. Hence, the higher impact much on the cumulative CO utilization based on these two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low sensitivity to CO 2 Frommuch Fig.4, the highest sensitive parameter isthat COis2 injection rate, followed by CO CO time, and number of 2 injection The 2factor lowest sensitivity is 22soaking time because pressure production rate and time provide lower CO2 utilization. aa main to estimate utilization. Hence, the higher impact on the cumulative CO 2 injection utilization. The lowest isofthese time because pressure production rate and time provide lower CO that main factor tosensitivity estimate CO utilization. Hence, the higher impact much onthe thehighest cumulative CO 2sensitivity 2 injection 2soaking From Fig.4, sensitive parameter isresulting COis2 injection followed by on injection time, and number of utilization based two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low to CO 2oil 2 rate, buildup rate of depleting reservoir is very low in insignificant changing recovery. Accordingly, the production rate and time provide lower CO 2 utilization. The lowest sensitivity is soaking time because pressure buildup rate of depleting reservoir is very low resulting inThe insignificant changing oil recovery. Accordingly, the utilization. lowest sensitivity isofMscf/stb soaking time because pressure production rate and time provide lower CO 2sensitivity utilization based on these two parameters would not cycle. Oil production rate and time show low to CO injection that is a main to estimate CO utilization. Hence, the higher impact much on the cumulative CO 2factor 2 2 utilization for EOR by using CO Huff-n-Puff process is between 0.31 and 0.74 Mscf/stb. range of CO 2of depleting reservoir is very low2 resulting in insignificant changing of oil recovery. Accordingly, the buildup rate utilization for EOR CO bylower CO Huff-n-Puff process istobetween 0.31 and Mscf/stb. range ofmuch COrate buildup rate reservoir isusing low resulting inThe insignificant changing oil recovery. Accordingly, the 2of injection that is a main factor estimate CO utilization. Hence, thepressure higher impact ondepleting the time cumulative lowest sensitivity isofMscf/stb time0.74 because production and provide CO 2 very 2soaking 2 2 utilization. range of CO 2 utilization for EOR by using CO2 Huff-n-Puff process is between 0.31 Mscf/stb and 0.74 Mscf/stb. utilization for EOR by using CO Huff-n-Puff process is between 0.31 Mscf/stb and 0.74 Mscf/stb. range of CO 2of depleting lowest sensitivity time because pressure production and time reservoir provide lower buildup raterate is veryCO low resulting inThe insignificant changing isofsoaking oil recovery. Accordingly, the 2 2 utilization. 4. Conclusion 4. Conclusion buildup rate depletingfor reservoir isusing very CO low2 Huff-n-Puff resulting in insignificant changing ofMscf/stb oil recovery. Accordingly, the utilization EOR by process is between 0.31 and 0.74 Mscf/stb. range of CO 2of 4. 4. Conclusion Conclusion for EOR by using CO2for Huff-n-Puff process is between Mscf/stb 0.74 Mscf/stb. range CO2 utilization Theofperformance of reservoir simulations CO2 Huff-n-Puff process for0.31 enhanced oiland recovery in depleting The performance of reservoir simulations 2 Huff-n-Puff process for enhanced oil recovery in depleting 4. Conclusion heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded thatfor theCO injection of CO with Huff-n-Puff process is able to enhance oil The performance of reservoir simulations for CO 2 Huff-n-Puff2 process for enhanced oil recovery in depleting with Huff-n-Puff process is able to in enhance heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded that the injection of CO2 process The performance of reservoir simulations for CO formaintenance, enhanced oiland recovery depleting 2 Huff-n-Puff 4. Conclusion recovery in depleting oil reservoir via viscosity reduction, reservoir pressure oil swelling due oil to heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded that the injection of CO 2 with Huff-n-Puff process is able to enhance oil recovery in depleting oil reservoir via viscosity reduction, reservoir pressure maintenance, and oil swelling due oil to with Huff-n-Puff process is able to enhance heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded that the injection of CO The performance of reservoir simulations for CO 2 Huff-n-Puff2 process for enhanced oil recovery in depleting recovery in depleting oil reservoir via viscosity reduction, reservoir pressure maintenance, and oil swelling due to recovery in depleting oil reservoir via viscosity reduction, reservoir pressure maintenance, and oil swelling due to The performance of reservoir simulations for enhanced oil recovery depleting with Huff-n-Puff process is able to in enhance oil heterogeneous reservoir can be concluded thatfor theCO injection of CO2 process 2 Huff-n-Puff
188
Hutthapong Yoosook et al. / Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 184–188 Yoosook et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
dissolution of CO2 in crude oil. Moreover, the most important parameters for CO2 Huff-n-Puff process is CO2 injection rate, followed by CO2 injection time, and number of cycles. This is because amount of injected CO2 into reservoir, which is mainly dominated by injection rate, injection time, and number of cycles, can provide additional oil recovery due to the expansion of drainage area around wellbores. However, other operating parameters of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process such as production rate, production time, and soaking time are less sensitivity on CO2 utilization. Accordingly, the range of CO2 utilization using Huff-n-Puff process at five years of total operating period is obtained between 0.31 Mscf/stb and 0.74 Mscf/stb. Finally, CO2 utilization of Huff-n-Puff process can be extremely reduced by applying of carbon capture technologies to capture CO2 and re-inject into reservoir in subsequent cycles. Likewise, CO2 sequestration can be applied in later stage of CO2 Huff-n-Puff process to permanently store CO2 in depleted reservoir. This simulation study is a preliminary study aimed to apply to the Fang oilfield in the north of Thailand in the future for both enhanced oil recovery and CO2 sequestration to reduce CO2 and produce more oil and to add the value of the project. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Ratchadapisek Sompoch Endowment Fund (2016), Chulalongkorn University (CU-59-003-IC) and Chevron Thailand Exploration and Production, Ltd. for financial support of this study. References [1] Le GallocY, Couillens P, and Manai T, CO2 Sequestration in Depleted Oil or Gas Reservoirs, 2002. [2] Hargreaves J, Platform Re-Design for CO2 Re-injection: Process and Safety Engineering Challenges, 2009. [3] Whittaker S and Perkins E, Technical Aspects of CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery and Associated Carbon Storage, 2013. [4] Mohammed-Singh L J, Singhal A K, and Sim S, Screening Criteria for CO2 Huff 'n' Puff Operations, 2006. [5] Song C and Yang D, Performance Evaluation of CO2 Huff-n-Puff Processes in Tight Oil Formations, 2013. [6] Wang Z et al., Optimizing Cyclic CO2 Injection for Low- permeability Oil Reservoirs through Experimental Study, 2013. [7] User's Guide GEM, Advanced Compositional and GHG Reservoir Simulator, 1987-2011 Computer Modelling Group Ltd, 2011 [8] Mathias SA, Roberts AW. A Lambert W function solution for estimating sustainable injection rates for storage of CO2 in brine aquifers. J Greenhouse Gas Control 2013; 17: 546-548. [9] Chasseta C, Jarsjö J, Erlströmc M, Cvetkovicd V, Destounia G. Scenario simulations of CO2 injection feasibility, plume migration and storage in a saline aquifer, Scania, Sweden. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2011; 5: 1303–1318. [10] Gorecki CD, Sorensen JA, Bremer JM, Knudsen DJ, Smith SA, Steadman EN, Harju JA. Development of storage coefficients for determining the effective CO2 storage resource in deep saline formations, International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage and Utilization held in San Diego, California, USA. November 2-4, 2009. [11] Bourgoyne AT, Millheim KK, Chenevert ME, Young FS. Applied drilling engineering. Texas: SPE; 1986.