1887

Abstract

Summary

CO2-EOR offshore, has the benefit of CO2 storage in addition to EOR. CO2 flooding in the offshore groups of reservoirs, will be different from the past experience of CO2 flooding onshore. Offshore developments are characterised by fewer wells, larger well spacing and higher rates per well. In this study, different aspects of CO2 flooding in these two groups of reservoirs are identified and compared, and possible opportunities for CO2 flooding offshore are identified.

To evaluate potential differences, CO2 flooding in a geological model was simulated under two different development scenarios (offshore vs onshore). Results show that both models are similarly affected by gravity. Offshore, because of larger inter well spacing, a greater degree of heterogeneity can be identified between well pairs. This makes the flow pattern more stable offshore which means that flow correcting mechanisms will be required to a lesser extent offshore.

The requirement for compression is also greater offshore. There are positive consequences for CO2 flooding offshore. The microscopic sweep efficiency increases due to higher miscibility development; the density difference between CO2 and other reservoir fluids decreases and net CO2 utilisation efficiency will be higher. This makes offshore reservoirs better candidates for coupled EOR and CCS CO2 flooding.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700278
2017-04-24
2020-07-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Awan, A., Teigland, R., & Kleppe, J.
    (2008). A survey of North Sea Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Projects Initiated During the Years 1975 to 2005. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 497–512. doi:10.2118/99546‑PA
    https://doi.org/10.2118/99546-PA [Google Scholar]
  2. Brock, W., & Bryan, L.
    (1989). Summary Results of CO2-EOR Field Tests, 1972–1987. SPE Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium. Denver. doi:10.2118/18977‑MS
    https://doi.org/10.2118/18977-MS [Google Scholar]
  3. CMG-GEM
    . (2014.10). Computer Modelling Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dria, D., Pope, G., & Sepehrnoori, K.
    (1993). Three Phase Gas/Oil/Brine Realtive Permeability Measured Under CO2 Flooding Conditions. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 143–150. doi:10.2118/20184‑PA
    https://doi.org/10.2118/20184-PA [Google Scholar]
  5. United States Energy Information Adminnistration website
    . Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28492
  6. Khan, S., Pope, G., & Sepehrnoori, K.
    (1992). Fluid Characterization for Three-Phase CO2/Oil Mixture. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/24130‑MS. Tulsa.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/24130-MS [Google Scholar]
  7. Macgregor, A., Trussel, P., Lauver, S., Bedrock, M., Bryce, J., & Moulds, T.
    (2005). The Magnus Field: Extending field life through good reservoir management and enhanced oil recovery. Petroleum Geology Conference Series, 469–475.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Mizenko, G.
    (1992). North Cross Devonian Unit CO2 Flood: Status Report. SPE/DOE Eightth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. Tulsa. doi: 10.2118/24210‑MS
    https://doi.org/10.2118/24210-MS [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700278
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700278
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error