首页> 外文会议>AIChE Annual Meeting >COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY EFFICIENCY BY CO2 INJECTION AND CO2 HUFF-N-PUFF IN STIMULATED SHALE OIL RESERVOIRS
【24h】

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY EFFICIENCY BY CO2 INJECTION AND CO2 HUFF-N-PUFF IN STIMULATED SHALE OIL RESERVOIRS

机译:CO2注射液增强利油效率和CO2 Huff-N-Puff在刺激的页岩油藏中的比较研究

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Multi-stage fracturing applied in horizontal wells is considered as the most effective method for producing shale gas/oil reservoirs. However, the primary oil recovery from natural depletion is only few percent. The low recovery rates and the abundance of shale resource plays provide huge potential for enhanced oil recovery. Gas or oil production performance from nano-Darcy permeable shale rocks is characterized by steep decline rates. The primary shale oil recovery from hydraulically fractured horizontal wells is around 5%. Without enhancement of oil production from secondary recovery by solvent or gas injection, the huge cost of hydraulic fracturing treatment makes it economically unviable to produce shale oil reservoirs. It is imperative that we implement an enhanced oil recovery method in going beyond conventional natural depletion means to achieve profitable production. In this paper, we will compare the improved oil recovery efficiency in shale oil reservoirs by designed cyclic gas injection in a fractured horizontal well and gas flooding in two fractured wells. The biggest challenge for gas flooding in fractured shale oil reservoirs is that the injected solvent may break through to production well via the fracture network or fissures. In contrast, cyclic gas injection is a good candidate for fractured reservoirs that is not subject to earlier breakthrough. The oil recovery factor obtained from these two injection approaches were compared under both miscible and immiscible displacements. Our composition simulation results showed that under miscible flooding condition cyclic gas injection is more effective than gas flooding given at the same injection pore volume and identical fracture spacing. One reason for low recovery in gas flooding is the loss of injected fluids and decrease of displacement efficiency due to earlier breakthrough to the producer via natural or hydraulic fractures. Oil response from cyclic gas injection well performed steadily even after many cycles in shale oil reservoirs, but oil rate from gas flooding falls off rapidly. Considering the existence of natural fractures, the oil recovery by cyclic CO2 injection increased from primary 5% to ultimate 18% after 10 cycles in two hydraulically fractured horizontal well. On the other hand, the enhanced oil recovery by CO2 flooding is only 11%. The disadvantage of cyclic gas injection is that it consumes more time than gas flooding because injection and production processes are separate. If the injection time is too long, oil will be pushed far away from the fractures that makes it more difficult to produce back. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the IOR performance of cyclic gas injection and gas flooding approach in shale oil reservoirs.
机译:在水平孔中施加的多级压裂被认为是生产页岩气/储物液的最有效方法。然而,来自天然耗尽的主要油恢复仅为百分比。低收回率和库存资源剧本的丰富度为增强的采油提供了巨大的潜力。纳米达西可渗透的页岩岩石的气体或石油生产性能的特点是陡峭的衰退。从液压破碎的水平孔中回收主要页岩油约为5%。如果通过溶剂或气体注射从二级恢复的次级恢复的增强,液压压裂处理的巨大成本使得经济不可行,以生产页岩油藏。必须在超越传统的自然耗尽手段方面实施增强的采油方法,以实现有利可图的生产。在本文中,我们将通过设计循环气体注入在两个裂缝井中设计的循环气体注入和煤气泛滥的循环气体喷射来比较页岩油藏的提高。骨折页岩油藏气体洪水的最大挑战是注入的溶剂可以通过断裂网络或裂缝突破生产井。相比之下,循环气体注入是裂缝储层的良好候选者,不受早期突破的影响。在可混溶和不混溶的位移下比较了从这两种注射方法获得的石油回收率。我们的构图仿真结果表明,在混溶性洪水条件下,循环气体注入比在同一注射孔体积和相同的骨折间距中给出的气体泛气更有效。气体洪水恢复的一个原因是由于早期通过天然或液压骨折而导致生产者的突破性损失和置换效率的降低。来自循环气体喷射的油响应甚至在页岩油储存器中许多循环后稳定地进行,但是来自气体洪水的油速率迅速下降。考虑到自然骨折的存在,循环二氧化碳注射的循环恢复从初级5%增加到最终18%,在两个液压裂缝水平井中的10个循环后。另一方面,二氧化碳洪水的增强型石油恢复仅为11%。循环气体注入的缺点是它比煤气洪水消耗更多的时间,因为注射和生产过程是分开的。如果喷射时间太长,油将远离裂缝的油,使其更加难以产生回来。本文的目的是评估页岩油藏循环气体喷射和气体泛滥方法的IOR性能。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号