Advertisement

Transport in Porous Media

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 239–257 | Cite as

Visualisation of Residual Oil Recovery by Near-miscible Gas and SWAG Injection Using High-pressure Micromodels

  • M. Sohrabi
  • A. Danesh
  • M. Jamiolahmady
Article

Abstract

We present results of high-pressure micromodel visualizations of pore-scale fluid distribution and displacement mechanisms during the recovery of residual oil by near-miscible hydrocarbon gas and SWAG (simultaneous water and gas) injection under conditions of very low gas–oil IFT (interfacial tension), negligible gravity forces and water-wet porous medium. We demonstrate that a significant amount of residual oil left behind after waterflooding can be recovered by both near-miscible gas and SWAG injection. In particular, we show that in both processes, the recovery of the contacted residual oil continues behind the main gas front and ultimately all of the oil that can be contacted by the gas will be recovered. This oil is recovered by a microscopic mechanism, which is strongly linked to the low IFT between the oil and gas and to the perfect spreading of the oil over water, both of which occur as the critical point of the gas–oil system is approached. Ultimate oil recovery by near-miscible SWAG injection was as high as near-miscible gas injection with SWAG injection using much less gas compared to gas injection. Comparison of the results of SWAG experiments with two different gas fractional flow values (SWAG ratio) of 0.5 and 0.2 shows that fractional flow of the near-miscible gas injected simultaneously with water is not a crucial factor for ultimate oil recovery. This makes SWAG injection an attractive IOR (improved oil recovery) process especially for reservoirs, where continuous and high-rate gas injection is not possible (e.g. due to supply constraint).

Keywords

SWAG injection Gas injection Near-miscible Micromodel Pore-scale mechanisms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asar, H., Handy, L.L.: Influence of interfacial tension on gas/oil relative permeability in a gas-condensate system. SPE 11740, SPERE 3(1), 264–275 (1988)Google Scholar
  2. Attanucci, V., Asbsen, K.S., Hejl, K.A., Wright, C.A.: WAG process optimization in the rangely carbon dioxide miscible flood, paper SPE 2662, SPE 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3–6 October, 1993Google Scholar
  3. Bakke, S., Øren, P.E.: 3D pore-scale modeling of sandstones and flow simulations in the pore networks. SPE 35479, SPEJ 2(2), 136–149 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. Bardon, C., Longeron, D.G.: Influence of very low interfacial tension on relative permeability. SPE 7609, SPEJ 20(5), 391–401 (1980)Google Scholar
  5. Berg, L.I., Stensen, J.A., Crapez, B., Quale, A.: SWAG behavior based on Siri field data, paper SPE 75126, SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 13–17, 2002Google Scholar
  6. Burger, J.E., Bhogeswara, R., Mohanty, K.K.: Effect of phase behaviour on bypassing in enriched gasfloods. SPE 25254, SPERE 9(2), 112–118 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. Cahn, J.W.: Critical point wetting. J. Chem. Phys. 66, 3667 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatzis, I., Dullien, F.A.L.: Dynamic immiscible displacement mechanisms in pore doublets: theory vs. experiment. Colloid Interface Sci. 91, 199 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatzis, I., Kantzas, A., Dullien, F.A.L.: On the investigation of gravity-assisted inert gas injection using Micromodels, long berea sandstone cores, and computer-assisted tomography, paper SPE 18284, 63rd Annual technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, October, 2–5, 1988Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, J.R., Stenby, E.H., Skauge, A.: Compositional and relative permeability hysteresis effects on near miscible WAG, SPE/DOE Improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 19–22 April 1998Google Scholar
  11. Dong, M., Dullien, F.A.L., Chatzis, I.: Imbibition of oil in film form over water present in edges of capillaries with an angular cross section. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 172, 21–36 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Peden, J.M.: Measurement and correlation of gas condensate relative permeability by the steady-state method. SPEJ, 191–201 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H.: Effect of positive rate sensitivity and inertia on gas condensate relative permeability at high velocity. Petrol. Geosci. 7, 45–50 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Duncane, D.B.: A mechanistic model of gas-condensate flow in pores. Transp. Porous Media 41, 17–46 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Duncan, D.B.: Positive effect of flow velocity on gas-condensate relative permeability: Network modelling and comparison with experimental results. Transp. Porous Media. Transp. Porous Media 52(2), 159–183 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A, Tehrani, D.H., Sohrabi, M.: Variations of gas-condensate relative permeability with production rate at near wellbore conditions: A general correlation. SPE Reserv. Eng. Eval. J. 9(6), 688–697 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. Kantzas, A., Chatzis, I., Dullien, F.A.L.: Enhanced oil recovery by inert gas injection, SPE 17379, SPE/DOE Symposium on enhanced oil recovery, Tulsa, OK, 17–20 April 1988aGoogle Scholar
  18. Kantzas, A., Chatzis, I., Dullien, F.A.L.: Mechanisms of capillary displacement of residual oil by gravity-assisted inert gas injection, SPE 17506, Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, WY, 11–13 May 1988bGoogle Scholar
  19. Larsen, J.K., Skauge, A.: Simulation of the immiscible WAG process using cycle-dependent three-phase relative permeabilities, SPE 56745, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3–6 October, 1999Google Scholar
  20. Larsen, J.K., Bech, N., Winter, A.: Three-phase immiscible WAG injection: Micromodel experiments and network models, SPE/DOE Improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 3–5 April 2000Google Scholar
  21. Lenormand, R., Zarcone, C., Sarr, A.: Mechanisms of displacement of one fluid by another in a network of capillary ducts. J. Fluid Mech. 135, 337 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenormand, R., Zarcone, C.: Role of roughness and edges during imbibition in square capillaries. SPE 13264, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 16–19 September 1984Google Scholar
  23. Li, X., Yortsos, Y.C.: Visualization and simulation of bubble. Growth in pore networks. AIChE J. 41, 214–222 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma, T.D., Rugen, J.A., Youngren, G.K.: Simultaneuous water and gas injection pilot at the Kupamk River Field, Reservoir Impact, paper SPE 30726, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 1995Google Scholar
  25. Mattax, C.C., Kyte, J.R.: Ever see waterflood?. Oil Gas J. 59, 115 (1961)Google Scholar
  26. Minssieux, L., Duquerroix, J.P.: Water-alternating-gas flow mechanisms in presence of residual oil, 69th Ann. SPE Tech. Conf., New Orleans, 25–28 September 1994Google Scholar
  27. Øren, P.E., Pinczewski, W.V.: The effect of film flow on the mobilisation of waterflood residual oil by gas flooding, European IOR Symposium, Stavanger, May 21–23, 1991Google Scholar
  28. Øren, P.E., Billiotte, J., Pinczewski, W.V.: Mobilisation of waterflood residual oil by gas injection for water-wet conditions. SPE Form. Eval. 7(1), 70–78 (1992)Google Scholar
  29. Øren, P.E., Bakke, S., Arntzen, O.J.: Extending predictive capabilities to network models. SPEJ 324 (1998)Google Scholar
  30. Øren, P.E., Bakke, S.: Process-based construction of sandstones and prediction of transport properties. Transp. Porous Media 46, 311 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pande, K.K.: Effects of gravity and viscous crossflow on hydrocarbon miscible flood performance in heterogeneous reservoirs, SPE 24935, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington D.C., 4–7 October 1992Google Scholar
  32. Quale, E.A., Crapez, B., Stensen, J.A., Berge, L.I.: SWAG njection on the Siri Field – An optimized injection system for less cost, paper SPE 65165, SPE European Petroleum Conference, October 2000Google Scholar
  33. Reamer, H.H., Olds, R.H., Sage, B.H., Lacey, W.: Phase equilibria in hydrocarbon systems. Methane-Decane Syst, Indus Eng Chem 34(12), 1526–1531 (1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shyeh-Yung, J.J.: Mechanisms of miscible oil recovery: Effects of pressure on miscible and near-miscible displacements of oil by carbon dioxide, SPE 22651, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 6–9 October 1991Google Scholar
  35. Skauge, A., Aarra, M.: Effect of wettability on oil recovery by WAG, 7th EAPG IOR Europe, 452–458, Moscow, Russia, 27–29 October 1993Google Scholar
  36. Stephenson, D.J., Graham, A.G., Luhning R.W.: Mobility control experience in the Joffre Viking miscible carbon dioxide flood. SPE Reserv Eng, 183–188 (1993)Google Scholar
  37. Sohrabi, M., Tehrani, D.H., Danesh, A., Henderson, G.D.: Visulisation of oil recovery by Water Alternating Gas (WAG) injection using high pressure micromodels – Water-Wet System, SPE 63000, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October 2000Google Scholar
  38. Sohrabi, M., Tehrani, D.H., Danesh, A., Henderson, G.D.: Visualisation of oil recovery by Water Alternating Gas (WAG) injection using high pressure micromodels - Oil-Wet & Mixed-Wet Systems, SPE 71494, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001Google Scholar
  39. Sohrabi, M., Tehrani, D.H., Danesh, A., Henderson, G.D.: Visualisation of oil recovery by Water Alternating Gas (WAG) injection using high pressure micromodels. SPEJ 89000 9, 290–301 (2004)Google Scholar
  40. Sohrabi, M., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Jamiolahmady, M.: Microscopic mechanisms of oil recovery by near-miscible gas injection. Transp. Porous Media. doi:  10.1007/s11242-007-9154-z (2007)
  41. Stoisits, R.F., Krist G.J., Ma, T.D., Rugen, J.A., Kolpak M.M., Payne, R.L.: Simultaniuous water and gas injection pilot the Kuparuk River Field, Surface Line Impact, Paper SPE 30645, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 1995Google Scholar
  42. Thomas, F.B, Holowach, N., Zhou, X., Bennion, D.B., Benion, D.W.: Miscible or near-miscible gas injection, which is better?, SPE 27811, SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 17–20 April 1994Google Scholar
  43. Williams, J.K., Dawe, R.A.: Photographic observations of unusual flow phenomena in porous media at interfacial tensions below 0.1 mNm-1. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 124(2), 691–696 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zekri, A. Y., Natuh, A.A.: Laboratory study of the effects of miscible WAG process on tertiary oil recovery, 5th Abu Dhabi Nat. Oil Co./SPE Conf., Abu Dhabi, UAE, 18–20 May 1992Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Petroleum EngineeringHeriot-Watt University, RiccartonEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations