Experimental Setup, Material and Procedure

Chapter
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

A major part of the experimental work related to this research, consisting of a number of different types of core-flooding experiments, was carried out using the state-of-the-art, high pressure-high temperature, three-phase steady-state core-flooding apparatus located within the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Curtin University. To be able to achieve the objectives of this research program, various types of flooding experiments were designed and carried out using the above-mentioned core-flooding rig. In the first part of this chapter a detailed description of the experimental apparatus and its various components is presented.

Keywords

Relative Permeability Overburden Pressure Flooding Experiment Composite Core Gravity Segregation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    NIST (2010) Thermophysical properties of fluid systems. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/, US National Institute of Standards and Technology. Accessed 17 June 2010
  2. 2.
    Zhenhao Duan Research Group (2010) Interactive online models. http://www.geochem-model.org/models.htm, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Accessed 25 June 2010
  3. 3.
    Leet LD, Judson S (1971) Physical geology. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharma S, Cook P, Berly T, Lees M (2009) The CO2-CRC otway project: overcoming challenges from planning to execution of Australia’s first CCS project. Energy Procedia 1:1965–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knackstedt MA, Dance T, Kumar M, Averdunk H, Paterson L (2010) Enumerating permeability, surface areas, and residual capillary trapping of CO2 in 3D: digital analysis of CO2CRC otway project core, SPE 134625, SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spencer L, Xu Q, LaPedalina F, Weir G (2006) Site characterization of the Otway Basin Storage Pilot in Australia. Proceeding of the 8th international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gluyas J, Swarbrick R (2004) Petroleum geoscience. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byrne M, Patey I (2004) Core sample preparation—an insight into new procedures. International symposium of the society of core analysts, Abu Dhabi, UAEGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen J, Hirasaki GJ, Flaum M (2006) NMR wettability indices. Effect of OBM on wettability and NMR responses. J Pet Sci Eng 52:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleury M, Deflandre F (2003) Quantitative evaluation of porous media wettability using NMR relaxometry. Magn Reson Imaging 21:385–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson WG (1986) Wettability literature survey–Part 1: rock/oil/brine interactions and the effects of core handling on wettability: SPE 13932. SPE J Pet Technol 38:1125–1144Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wendell DJ, Anderson WG, Meyers JD (1987) Restored-state core analysis for the hutton reservoir: SPE 14298. SPE Form Eval 2:509–517Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mungan N (1966) Certain wettability effects in laboratory waterfloods: SPE 1203. SPE J Pet Technol 18:247–252Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coates GR, Xiao L, Prammer MG (1999) NMR logging-principles and applications. Halliburton Energy Services, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clennell B, Raven M, Borysenko A, Sedev R, Dewhurst D (2006) Shale petrophysics: electrical, dielectric and nuclear magnetic resonance studies of mudrocks and clays. SPWLA 47th annual logging symposium, Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts, Veracruz, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen Q, Kinzelbach W, Ye C, Yue Y (2002) Variations of permeability and pore size distribution of porous media with pressure. J Environ Qual 31:500–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ennis-King J, Paterson L (2007) Coupling of geochemical reactions and convective mixing in the long-term geological storage of carbon dioxide. Int J Greenh Gas Control 1:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ennis-King J, Paterson L, Gale J, Kaya Y (2003) Rate of dissolution due to convective mixing in the underground storage of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas control technologies—6th international conference, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ali JK (1997) Developments in measurement and interpretation techniques in coreflood tests to determine relative permeabilities, SPE 39016. Latin American and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boukadi FH, Bemani AS, Babadagli T (2005) Investigating uncertainties in relative permeability measurements. Energy Sources Part A: Recovery Util Environ Eff 27:719–728Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heaviside J, Black CJJ (1983) Fundamentals of relative permeability: experimental and theoretical considerations, SPE 12173. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Honarpour M, Koederitz L, Harvey AH (1986) Relative permeability of petroleum reservoirs. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Craig FFJ, Sanderlin JL, Moore DW, Geffen TM (1957) A laboratory study of gravity segregation in frontal drives: SPE 676-G. Pet Trans AIME 210:275–282Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guo Y Nilsen V, Hovland F (1991) Gravity effect under steady-state and unsteady-state core flooding and criteria to avoid it. The second society of core analysts european core analysis symposium London, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bed Jr BA, Nunes CS (1984) Velocity and gravity effects in relative permeability measurements. MSc theses, The Department of Petroleum Engineering Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kinzel LD, Hill GA (1989) Experimental study of dispersion in a consolidated sandstone. Can J Chem Eng 67:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buckley SE, Leverett MC (1942) Mechanism of fluid displacement in sands: SPE 942107. Pet Trans AIME 146:107–116Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Donnez P (2007) Essentials of reservoir engineering. Editions Technip, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang DD, Honarpour MM (1998) Capillary end effects in coreflood calculations. J Pet Sci Eng 19:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rapoport LA, Leas WJ (1953) Properties of linear waterfloods: SPE 213-G. Pet Trans AIME 198:139–148Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haugen J (1990) Scaling criterion for relative permeability experiments on samples with intermediate wettability. Society of core analysts symposium, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peters EJ, Flock DL (1981) The onset of instability during two-phase immiscible displacement in porous media: SPE 8371. SPE J 21:249–258Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chuoke RL, van Meurs P, van der Poel C (1959) The instability of slow, immiscible, viscous liquid-liquid displacements in permeable media: SPE 1141. Pet Trans AIME 216:188–194Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peters EJ, Khataniar S (1987) The effect of instability on relative permeability curves obtained by the dynamic-displacement method: SPE 14713. SPE Form Eval 2:469–474Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huppler JD (1969) Waterflood relative permeabilities in composite cores. J Pet Technol 21:539–540Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Langaas K, Ekrann S, Ebeltoft E (1998) A criterion for ordering individuals in a composite core. J Pet Sci Eng 19:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leverett MC (1941) Capillary behavior in porous solids: SPE 941152. Pet Trans AIME 142:152–169Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Abu-Khamsin SA, Ayub M, Al-Marhoun MA, Menouar H (1993) Waterflooding in a tarmat reservoir laboratory model. J Pet Sci Eng 9:251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hinkley RE, Davis LA (1986) Capillary pressure discontinuities and end effects in homogeneous composite cores: effect of flow rate and wettability, SPE 15596. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Copyright 1986, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc, New Orleans, LouisianaGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Øyno L, Uleberg K, Whitson CH (1995) Dry gas injection in fractured chalk reservoirs–An experimental approach. Society of Core Analysts Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zekri AY, Almehaideb RA (2006) Relative permeability measurements of composite cores: An experimental approach. Pet Sci Technol 24:717–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Honarpour M, Mahmood SM (1988) Relative-permeability measurements: an overview: SPE 18565. SPE J Pet Technol 40:963–966Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Johnson EF, Bossler DP, Naumann VO (1959) Calculation of relative permeability from displacement experiments. Pet Trans AIME 216:370–372Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jones SC, Roszelle WO (1978) Graphical techniques for determining relative permeability from displacement experiments: SPE 6045. SPE J Pet Technol 30:807–817Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Archer JS, Wong SW (1973) Use of a reservoir simulator to interpret laboratory waterflood data: SPE 3551. SPE J 13:343–347Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Spronsen E (1982) Three-phase relative permeability measurements using the centrifuge method, SPE 10688. SPE Enhanced oil recovery symposium, Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hagoort J (1980) Oil recovery by gravity drainage: SPE 7424. SPE J 20:139–150Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bennion B, Bachu S (2008) Drainage and imbibition relative permeability relationships for supercritical CO2/brine and H2S/brine systems in intergranular sandstone, carbonate, shale, and anhydrite rocks: SPE 99326. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 11:487–496Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Petroleum EngineeringCurtin UniversityKensingtonAustralia

Personalised recommendations