Download PDF

Effects of CO2 and acid gas injection on enhanced gas recovery and storage

Open Access
Original Paper - Production Engineering
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Sequestration of CO2 and other associated waste gases in natural gas reservoirs is an option to mitigate greenhouse gases and enhanced gas recovery. This paper examines strategies to maximize enhanced gas recovery in a natural gas reservoir via subsurface storage of potential associated waste gases such as CO2 and H2S. Numerical simulations are performed with a compositional reservoir simulator ‘Tempest’ using experimental data initially produced by Clean Gas Technology Australia (CGTA) at Curtin University in 2009. The simulation results shows that additional gas is recovered by gas-gas displacement after injecting CO2 and acid gas (CO2–H2S) in two separate scenarios. Importantly, when pure CO2 is injected, CO2 breakthrough at the production well occurred faster than the breakthrough under mixed CO2–H2S injection.

Keywords

Gas injection CO2 breakthrough CO2 storage Enhanced gas recovery 

Introduction

Greenhouse gas injection into geological formations is often considered when attempting to mitigate atmospheric emissions and enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. Sequestrating CO2 to mitigate CO2 atmospheric emissions is available and technologically feasible because of experience gained in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) by CO2 injection. The majority of these operations are located in Canada and United States (Bachu et al. 2003). In particular, during the past decade, oil and gas producers in the Alberta basin of western Canada are increasingly being required to reduce atmospheric emissions by injecting acid gas into deep geological formations (Huerta et al. 2012).

The concept of CO2-EOR, is now considered to be matured, in Canada for conventional oil reservoirs, and has been successfully applied in Zama (Huerta et al. 2012). Additionally, there are several current and planned projects for CO2-EOR that involve the separation and geological storage of CO2. The Sleipner gas field in the North Sea (operated by Statoil) is one such pilot project where separated CO2 is injected into an underground saline aquifer for sequestration purposes. Other commercial projects are based in central Algeria in Salah (operated by BP) (Algharaib and Abu Al-Soof 2008). Similarly, similar processes are under consideration for sour reservoirs being produced in the Arabian Gulf and central Asia. In particular, producers in Iran, Arab Emirates and Kazakhstan are turning to acid gas disposal by deep injection.

However, data on these operations are only available for the CO2 injection of enhanced oil recovery and storage, mostly in the Permian basin in west Texas (Bennion and Bachu 2008). Experimental data on impure acid gas injection into natural gas reservoirs for enhanced gas recovery and storage are not yet available. While some published simulation studies attempt to investigate the CO2-EGR and storage processes, the focus of these studies is to achieve this task in depleted natural gas reservoirs. In addition, several studies are limited to considering only the economic aspects of CO2 capture and storage. However, Hussen et al. (2012), Khan et al. (2012) simulate experimental data and outline factors that are favourable to enhanced gas recovery and the storage of CO2 under supercritical CO2 injection.

This study intends to examine the effects of pure CO2 and acid gas injection into known natural gas reservoirs in Western Australia, and the displacement of native gases to better understand the mechanisms involved in enhanced gas recovery regarding geological storage.

Reservoir simulation model

A detailed geological study that examines both upper and lower reservoir layers, and characterizes the reservoir through the study on core plugs experimentally, is produced by CGTA. In particular, the CGTA study was focused on rock chrematistics such as porosity, permeability, critical gas and water saturation carried out on core plugs from a known field located in the northwest shelf of Western Australia at a depth of 3,650 m (see Fig. 1). The model reservoir in this study has four layers of different thicknesses and represents alternative geological characterizations of core plugs (see Table 1). The dimensions of the geological model are 1.7 × 2.2 × 0.3 km. In the X direction, 34 cells are used, while in the Y direction 44 cells are employed. The divisions in the Z direction vary by layer, with 8, 10, 12 and 8 cells, formed to represent layers L1, L2, L3 and L4, respectively. In terms of gas-water contact, reference depth of the reservoir, pressure and temperature at the reference depth and depth specifying the water-gas contact is calibrated to achieve equilibrium initialisation. This approach provides an indication of the transition zone between gas and water. The simulator employs these values to stabilize the initial aquifer zone, which is allocated within depths of the bottom cells in the gas reservoir model. Beneath of this aquifer zones lays the target for drilling and completion of the injector wells, and is where the injection strategies are proposed.
Open image in new window
Fig. 1

Hypothetical gas reservoir model

Table 1

General reservoir characteristics by layer

Layers (1–4)

Very low

High

Medium

Low

Core plugs

S_A_4

S_A_1

S_A_2

S_A_3

Swcr

0.120

0.175

0.145

0.100

Sgcr

0.05

0.03

0.04

0.05

Porosity (%)

0.04

0.17

0.14

0.09

K z (md)

4

370

100

6

K y (md)

6

390

115

8.5

K x (md)

6

390

115

8.5

Z direction (cells)

8

10

12

8

Z thickness (m)

50

70

120

60

The initial pressure of the reservoir model is set at 406 bar, with temperature of 160 °C (see Table 2). PVT-Software is used to generate the necessary PVT data for this simulation. Relative permeability curves are generated for the core plugs using modified Darcy’s Law to achieve required displacement between the gases. The gas reservoir model typically contains 0.09 of carbon dioxide, 0.9 of methane, 0.005 of butane and 0.005 of propane on a volumetric or molar basis. The base-case development plan calls for three vertical production wells, allocated and perforated in the upper layers of the reservoir. In addition, two injection wells are perforated in the bottom layer of the reservoir to allow for gravitational forces. These production wells are expected to produce natural gas at same rate of 320 × 1,000 m3/day. In general, the production wells are controlled as a function of the maximum gas production rate per day and a minimum producing bottom-hole pressure for each well.
Table 2

Reservoir model parameters

Property

Value

Reservoir type

Sandstone

Reservoir depth

3,650 m

Area (X–Y direction)

1,700 m X, 2,300 m Y

Thickness (Z direction)

300 m

Grids in X direction

32

Grids in Y direction

44

Grids in Z direction

8, 10, 12 and 8 for L1, L2, L3 and L4

Relative permeability

JBN method and Darcy’s law

Initial reservoir temperature

160 °C

Initial reservoir pressure

406 bar

Well injector pressure (maximum)

450 bar

Well producer pressure (minimum)

50 bar

Injection rate

1,250 × 1,000 m3/day

Maximum gas production rate

9,600 × 1,000 m3/day

Enhance gas production

Hussen et al. (2012) and Khan et al. (2012) investigated the CO2 injection process for enhanced gas recovery and storage to predict optimal trade-offs between maximum methane production and CO2 storage. In this study, the layers of the reservoir model are arranged from top to bottom as very low, high medium and low quality of rock, respectively. The investigation assesses the effects of reservoir re-pressurization on the injectivity of CO2 and distribution of the injected CO2 as a function of permeability. Other operating parameters considered are the solubility factor of the injected gas mixture, vertical injection well pattern, higher injection pressure compared to the initial reservoir pressure. The objective of this study is to compare the effects of pure CO2 injection and acid gas on enhanced methane recovery and storage, in addition to illustrating the mixing of injected gas with native gases in the reservoir. To examine the effect of CO2 injection on gas production, natural gas production is simulated without injection as a base-case under normal production for 15 years. Consequently, proposed development cases are optimized for different level of reservoir uncertainty to illustrate the sweep efficiency of gas injection. For this scenario, cumulative methane and CO2 production ‘lb-mole’ and bottom-hole pressure ‘bar’ are estimated for select periods (see Fig. 2). This scenario is intended as the base for comparison, so as to illustrate the acceleration of methane production, and lower CO2 production under a case of injection as a function of a given gas injection rate.
Open image in new window
Fig. 2

Cumulative gas production and average bottom-hole

Next, CO2 is injected at the rate of 1,250 × 100 m3/day for reservoir re-pressurization, thus enhancing gas recovery and storage of the injected CO2. Similarly, for this scenario, simulations are conducted using impure CO2 containing 30 % of H2S as an acid injection gas. For both cases under gas injection, acid gas and CO2 breakthrough occurs at the production wells as expected. Figure 2 compares the injection scenarios as a function of enhanced gas recovery. Comparison of the injections indicates that the gas recovery factor under the CO2 injection rate is greater than that for both the acid gas CO2–H2S injection case, and the base-case. Accordingly, the bottom-hole pressure decline is less gentle than under CO2 injection. Conversely, Fig. 3 CO2 breakthrough under alternative injection rates, and shows that the CO2 injection rate results in earlier breakthroughs compared to gas acid injection. As a result, the simulation suggests that although gas injection involves excessive gas mixing; it does have potential to increase incremental gas recovery.
Open image in new window
Fig. 3

CO2 and acid gas breakthrough

Storage of gas injection

Storage volumes of CO2 and acid gas are documented by mass balance methods developed through reservoir simulation results. This method quantifies the initial CO2 volume and maps any changes in producible volumes as a reservoir management technique, when CO2 injection is applied over the field life. CO2 storage estimates are based on the notion that CO2 and acid gas breakthrough for production wells. Further, it is assumed that 9 and 0 % of CO2 and H2S respectively are present in the reservoir, along with 90 % for methane. Figure 3 also depicts the total CO2 produced and the acid gas fraction in the reservoir, when different CO2 and acid gases are used for injection. The scenario illustrates that the produced fraction of CO2 and acid gas increase with the produced fraction of injected gases. During injection process, the fraction of produced CO2 and acid gas exceed the CO2 and H2S fractions initially in the reservoir. These excess amounts represent the produced fraction of the injected CO2 and acid gas and are shown in Fig. 4.
Open image in new window
Fig. 4

Produced fraction of different injected gas

The simulation results indicate that the production of the injected gas under the acid gas injection scenario is low as compared to that under pure CO2 injection. Thus, the greater is the produced fraction of the injected gases the lower is the stored volume of the injected gas. Figure 5 shows alternative gas injections rates for both cases, and also illustrates gradual increases in the injection rates until they reach the required injection rate. Under the acid gas injection scenario, the injected acid gas due to higher injectivity, reaches to the required rate of injection fastest. The reason this speed could be due to the physical properties of H2S. For instance, the solubility of H2S is almost double that of CO2 (Pooladi-Darvish et al. 2009).
Open image in new window
Fig. 5

Injection rate and production rate of the injected gas

Furthermore, CO2 and CO2–H2S storage is evaluated after breakthrough is illustrated for both scenarios in terms of the produced fraction of injected CO2 and H2S–CO2 after allowing for the initial gas reservoir conditions. After estimating the produced fraction of the injected gas for both cases, production rates of the injected gas are calculated by multiplying the produced fraction of the injected gas from each well by production rate of CO2 or H2S–CO2 (at the same time during the injection). Additionally, the total production rates of injected CO2 or H2S–CO2 are compared, after allowing for the injection rate under alternative storage scenarios. Figure 5 shows that pure CO2 injection leads to greater production rates of injected gas when compared to acid gas injection scenario. In addition, during the CO2 injection process some of the injected CO2 dissolves in the formation of water. Finally, acid gas injection because of favourable H2S solubility requires smaller volumes of injected gas to be available in the gas reservoir to mix. This will lead to delay breakthrough and results in more storage.

Results and discussion

While injected solvent and extant gases mix and contaminate production, the best strategy to employ depends on the physical properties of solvents when compare to those of methane, the natural gas in the reservoir. In this study, the physical properties of methane, H2S and CO2 are studied at different pressures and temperatures using HYSYS software. The simulation results indicate that H2S has higher viscosity and density compared to CO2 and methane. Another physical property is the solubility factor. Al-Hashami et al. (2005) claim carbon dioxide is potentially more soluble than methane. The current simulation study and other laboratory experiments (Pooladi-Darvish et al. 2009) confirm that the solubility of H2S is higher than CO2 solubility.

Furthermore, injected gas whether CO2 or/and H2S–CO2 is migrated downward due to gravity, and these forces will stabilize the displacement between the injected gas and methane initially in place because of low mobility ratio of CO2 and acid gas, respectively. Additionally, higher acid gas solubility in forming water compared to that for pure CO2 injection delays breakthrough. Any of these gases as injection considered could potentially provide favourable reservoir re-pressurization without extensive gas-gas mixing, and benefit the enhanced gas recovery (EGR) and storage process. Therefore, gas-gas mixing technically could be supervised via good reservoir management and production control measures, because these physical properties of the solvents undergo large changes as the pressure increases.

Figure 6 displays efficient acid gas injection downward flows that stabilize the displacement of native gas caused by the pressure gradient and gravitational forces. Clearly, after some injection period, the grids around the production wells are covered with the initial natural gas while the reservoir lower portion is partially filled with injected CO2–H2S. The heterogeneity of reservoir flows of CO2 and H2S from the bottom layer toward the production wells depends on permeability of the layers, especially the second and third layers from bottom of the reservoir (high permeable). This preferential flow can be favourable for CO2–H2S injection and allows greater amounts of CO2–H2S to be injected. Eventually, breakthrough will be caused based on the physical properties of the layers and enhanced gas recovery effects through time.
Open image in new window
Fig. 6

Injection sweep efficiency

Under H2S–CO2 and pure CO2 mixing in the injection stream, the potential for EGR and storage are investigated at an injection rate of 1,250 × 100 m3/day. Under CO2 injection, slightly higher methane production is recovered because CO2 is more mobile (less viscous) compared to H2S in forming water. Therefore, pure CO2 injection is expected to rise to the upper layers more quickly than impure CO2 injection. In this instance, the injected gases are expected to overrun native gases in the production wells faster. Although, this scenario will affect sweep efficiency at some time, to that stage reservoir re-pressurization will occur faster.

Conclusion

This paper develops a true gas reservoir model using the reservoir simulation software Tempest and true reservoir experimental data produced by CGTA. The simulation indicates that gas injection for enhanced gas recovery and storage is technically feasible for this particular reservoir. Even though, reservoir heterogeneity can cause increase in CO2 or/H2S–CO2 breakthrough, reservoir re-pressurization can be considered a support against the concept of breakthrough. A benefit of re-pressurization is that it can occur prior to CO2 and acid gas breakthrough. Accordingly, an optimal strategy is to benefit from the high viscosity, density and solubility of injected gases, reservoir re-pressurization by injecting gas into the lower portions of the reservoir to drive out the out natural gas from the bottom reservoir layers, while minimizing mixing and contamination in the upper parts of the reservoir.

References

  1. Algharaib M, Abu Al-Soof N (2008) Economical modelling of CO2 capturing and storage project. In: SPE paper 120815, presented at SPE Saudi Arabia section technical symposium, Alknobar, Saudi ArabiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Hashami A, Ren S, Tohidi B (2005) CO2 injection for enhanced gas recovery and geo-storage: reservoir simulation and economics. In: SPE paper 94129, presented at the SPE Europe/EAGE annual conference, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachu S, Adams J, Michael K, Buschkuehle B (2003) Acid gas injection in the Alberta Basin: a commercial-scale analogue for CO2 geological sequestration in sedimentary basins, In: Presented at second annual conference on carbon sequestration, Alexandria, USA. https://www.zotero.org/haduong/items/MTWTATGQ
  4. Bennion D, Bachu S (2008) Drainage and imbibition relative permeability relationships for supercritical CO2 and H2S-brine systems in inter-granular sandstone, carbonate, shale and anhydrite rocks. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 11:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huerta M, Alvarez J, Jossy E, Forshner K (2012) Use of acid gas (CO2/H2S) for the cyclic solvent injection (CSI) process for heavy oil reservoirs. In: SPE paper 157825, presented at the SPE heavy oil conference Canada, Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Hussen C, Amin R, Madden G, Evans B (2012) Reservoir simulation for enhanced gas recovery: an economic evaluation. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 5: 42–50. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187551001200011XGoogle Scholar
  7. Khan C, Amin R, Madden G (2012) Economic modelling of CO2 injection for enhanced gas recovery and storage: a reservoir simulation study of operational parameters. Energy Environ Res 2:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pooladi-Darvish M, Hong H, Stocker R, Bennion B, Theys S, Bachu S (2009) Chromatographic partitioning of H2S and CO2 in acid gas disposal. J Can Pet Technol 48:52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Petroleum EngineeringCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Clean Gas Technology AustraliaCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Econometrics and Quantitative ModellingCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations