Upload
vannhu
View
216
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Maximize Liquid Oil Production
from Shale Oil and Gas Condensate Reservoirs
by Cyclic Gas Injection
Project Number: DE-FE0024311
James Sheng
Texas Tech University
U.S. Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory
Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology, Innovation and Collaboration:
Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting
August 16-18, 2016
2
Presentation Outline
• Benefits to the program
• Project overview
• Technical Status
• Accomplishments to date
• Synergy opportunities
• Project summary
3
Benefit to the Program
Program goals
• Minimize environmental impacts of UOG development
• Maximizing its economic and national energy security
benefits.
This project goals
• Develop cyclic gas injection technology to maximize
liquid oil production from shale oil and condensate
reservoirs.
Impacts
• Reduce flared gas, sequester CO2, save water, and drill
less wells, while increasing oil production.
4
Project Overview: Goals and Objectives
• Overall goal: evaluate gas injection EOR
potential
– confirmed in lab and reservoir-scale modeling
• Environmental impacts
– Sequester CO2
– Reduce gas flaring, water usage
• Technical goals/status
– Much more achieved than proposed
– Details to follow next
Technical Status
• Experimental setup
– Cyclic gas injection for shale oil and condensate experiments
worked
– Microfludic setup worked
• Fundamental studies
– Many experimental and modeling studies (details to follow)
• Field pilot tests
– Completed pilot location selection, facility design and modeling
work for a Wolfcamp reservoir
– Modeling work performed for an Eagle Ford condensate
reservoir
– Current status: tests suspended.
• More new studies initiated
– Asphaltene, air injection, water huff-n-puff, chemical or solvents 5
6
Conditions:• Soaking time 1 hr
• Production time 3 hrs
• Soaking pressure 1000 psi
Observations:• In the beginning, same oil recovery.
• Later, Huff-n-puff had higher oil recovery than flooding.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Oil r
eco
very
facto
r
Time (hour)
N2 flooding
N2 huff-n-puff
Gas huff-n-puff vs. gas flooding
7
Conditions:• Soaking time 1 hr
• Production time 3 hrs
• Soaking pressure 1000 psi
Observations:• N2 huff-n-puff had higher oil recovery than water.
Gas huff-n-puff vs. water huff-n-puff
8
Effect of Water Saturation on Cyclic N2 and CO2 Injection
Water and oil could not be split, define liquid recovery:
Results:
• Liquid RF < oil RF – water saturation negative effect!
• Confirmed CO2 RF > N2 RF
• More flow back desirable?
9
Re-vaporization mechanism of huff-n-puff gas injection in a condensate system
10
Effect of soaking time on gas huff-n-puff
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Oil
Rec
over
y F
act
or
Number of Injection Cycles for 4-inch diameter
soak time = 1 hrsoak time = 4 hrssoak time = 12 hrssoak time = 24 hrssoak time = 48hrssoak time = 72hrs
Core Samples
Saturation time
One cycle for 1
One cycle
for 2
One cycle
for 3Operation time: 8days
With a cycle,
Longer soaking time
Higher oil recovery
With the same operation time,
Longer soaking time
Lower oil recovery
11
Optimization of huff-n-puff gas injection
Oil RF: 15% OIL RF 21%
Conclusions:
• Huff time: Injection reaches max. allowed
• Puff time: Production pressure reaches min. allowed
& puff time& puff time
12
Height 2 inches
Different diameters
Core size effect on gas huff-n-puff
13
Upscale methodology for gas huff-n-puff process in shale oil reservoirs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
40.0 400.0
Oil
Rec
over
y F
act
or
Dimensionless time, tD
0.125*0.167 (tD)1.25*1.67 (tD)12.5 * 16.7 (tD)125 * 167 (tD)
𝑡𝐷 =𝐶𝑘𝑡
∅𝜇𝑐𝑡(𝐿2)(𝑃𝐷
2
𝑃D = 𝑃huff − 𝑃puff
= 0𝑡huff 𝑃avg𝑑𝑡
𝑆huff−
0𝑡puff 𝑃avg𝑑𝑡
𝑆puff
Puff periodHuff period
S4
S2
S3
S1
Dimensionless time:
Dimensionless pressure:
14
Asphaltene aggregation and deposition during CO2 and CH4 injection in shale
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.02%
0.03%
0.03%
0.04%
0.04%
0.05%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%
Tota
l asp
hal
ten
e w
t%
Dissolved gas, Mole%
Asphaltene deposition during gas injection
CO2
CH4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
3.6
-4.0
4.0
-5.0
5.0
-6.0
6.0
-7.0
7.0
-8.0
8.0
-9.0
9.0
-10
.0
10
.0-2
0.0
20
.0-3
0.0
30
.0-4
0.0
40
.0-5
0.0
50
.0-6
0.0
60
.0-7
0.0
70
.0-8
0.0
80
.0-9
0.0
90
.0-1
00.0
10
0.0
-200
.0
20
0.0
-300
.0
30
0.0
-400
.0
40
0.0
-500
.0
50
0.0
-600
.0
60
0.0
-700
.0
70
0.0
-800
.0
80
0.0
-900
.0
90
0.0
-100
0.0
10
00
.0-2
00
0.0
20
00
.0-3
00
0.0
30
00
.0-4
00
0.0
40
00
.0-5
00
0.0
50
00
.0-6
00
0.0
60
00
.0-7
00
0.0
70
00
.0-8
00
0.0
80
00
.0-9
00
0.0
90
00
.0-1
00
00.0
10000.0-…
Vo
lum
e p
erc
en
tage
[%
]
Pore size range [nm]
Before H&P
After H&P
As more gas dissolved,
more asphletne aggregation
After 6 cycles of huff-n-puff,
Large pores (100-500 nm) decreased,
Smaller pores (< 100 nm) increased.
Indicating pores blocked by deposition.
Permeability reduced from 127 to 78.5 nD
15
Air injection
Conducted laboratory screening tests and simulation study
• TG and DSC tests
• Small batch reactor
Work done:
• Estimated kinetic parameters:
• Reaction order and activation energy etc. for Wolfcamp oil
• Studied low-temperature oxidation
Differential Scanning Calorimetry(DSC)
Thermogravimetry (TG)
Accomplishments to Date
• Publications:
• 2 patent disclosures filed
• 14 peer-reviewed journal papers published
• 17 papers submitted for review
• 21 conference papers presented
• Graduated students:
• 3 PhDs
• 2 Masters
16
Synergy Opportunities
– We focus more on macroscale (reservoir)
– LBNL focus more microscale (molecular, nano-
scale simulation)
– Wish for future collaboration
• Joint proposals
• Summer interns for students (co-supervise students)
• Collaboration with the industry
– We are looking for:
• micro- or nano- CT
• Instruments to measure diffusion
• Combustion facilities for air injection 17
Summary
– Key Findings
• Confirmed gas injection EOR potential
• Gas injection better than water injection
• Huff-n-puff injection mode better than gas flooding
• CO2 has higher recovery than other gases
– Lessons Learned
• A field test will take a long time to execute
– Future Plans
• More studies to compare with other methods
• Fundamental studies of mechanisms
• Field data collection and analysis18
Appendix
19
20
Organization Chart
• Texas Tech University (contractor)– Responsible for fundamental studies, field test design
and data analysis
– PI: James Sheng, Co-PI: Marshall Watson, Students,
Postdocs
• Apache Corporation (partner)
– Field tests, cost share
• Los Alamos National Lab (subcontractor)
– Microscale experiments and modeling
– Hari Viswanathan and Mark Porter
21
Gantt Chart
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Maximize oil production from shale oil reservoirs
Fundamental research (lab and simulation)
Pilot test design
Field pilot test data acquisition & analysis
Maximize oil production from condensate reservoirs
Fundamental research (lab and simulation)
Design pilot test
Field pilot test data acquisition & analysis
Gas injection pore-scale experiments and simulation
Project schedule
10/14-9/15 10/15-9/16 10/16-9/17
Now
Bibliography
22
1. Huang, S., Jia, H., and Sheng, J.J. 2016. Exothermicity and oxidation behavior of tight oil with cuttings from the Wolfcamp
shale reservoir, Petroleum Science and Technology, accepted.
2. Meng, X., *Sheng, J.J., and Yu, Y. 2016. Experimental and Numerical Study on Enhanced Condensate Recovery by Huff-n-Puff
Gas Injection in Shale Gas Condensate Reservoirs, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering-Reservoir Engineering, accepted.
3. Li, L. and *Sheng, J.J. 2016. Experimental Study of Core Size Effect on Methane Huff-n-Puff Enhanced Oil Recovery Method in
Liquid-rich Shale Reservoirs, J. of Natural Gas Science and and Engineering, accepted.
4. Yu, Y., Meng, X., and Sheng, J.J. 2016. Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of the Potential of Improving Oil Recoveryfrom Shale Plugs by Nitrogen Gas Flooding, The Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, 15, 56-65.
5. Zhang, Y. and Sheng, J.J. 2016. Oxidation Kinetics Study of the Wolfcamp Light Oil, Petroleum Science and Technology, in press.
6. Huang, S., Jia, H., and Sheng, J.J. 2016. Research on Oxidation Kinetics of Tight Oil of Wolfcamp Field, Petroleum Science and Technology, 34(10), 903-910.
7. Huang, S., Jia, H., and Sheng, J.J. 2016. Effect of shale core on combustion reactions of tight oil from Wolfcamp reservoir, Petroleum Science and Technology, in press.
8. Jia, H. and Sheng, J.J. 2016. Numerical modeling on air injection in a light oil reservoir: Recovery mechanism and scheme optimization, Fuel, 172, 70-80.
9. Jimenez-Martinez, J., M.L Porter, J.D Hyman, J.W. Carey, and H.S. Viswanathan, 2015. Mixing in a three-phase system: Enhanced production of oil-wet reservoirs by CO2. Geophysical Research Letters. doi: 10.1002/2015GL066787.
10. Sheng, J.J., Mody, F., Griffith, P.J., and Barnes, W.N. 2016. Potential to increase condensate oil production by huff-n-puff
gas injection in a shale condensate reservoir, J. of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 28, 46-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.11.031
11. Sheng, J.J. 2015. Increase liquid oil production by huff-n-puff of produced gas in shale gas condensate reservoirs, Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, 11, 19-26. Downloaded 384 times by Dec. 10, 2015.
12. Sheng, J.J. 2015. Enhanced oil recovery in shale reservoirs by gas injection, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineerin, 22, 252-259 (invited review). Downloaded 2079 times since its publication (Dec. 2, 2014) to Feb. 1, 2016.
Bibliography
13. Hyman, J.D, J. Jimenez-Martinez, M.L. Porter , S. Karra, J.W. Carey, and H.S. Viswanathan, 2016. Understanding hydraulic
fracturing: A multi-scale problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Accepted.
14. Porter, M.L., J. Jimenez-Martinez, R. Martinez, Q. McCulloch, J.W. Carey, and H.S. Viswanathan, 2015b. Geo-material
microfluidics at reservoir conditions for subsurface energy resource applications. Lab on a Chip, 15, 4044-4053. doi:
10.1039/C5LC00704F.
23