Gas Selection for Huff-n-Puff EOR in Shale Oil Reservoirs Based upon Experimental and Numerical Study
- Lei Li (Texas Tech University) | James J. Sheng (Texas Tech University) | Jinze Xu (University of Calgary)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, 15-16 February, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2017. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.2.2 Fluid Modeling, Equations of State, 5 Reservoir Desciption & Dynamics, 4 Facilities Design, Construction and Operation, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 5.8.4 Shale Oil, 5.8 Unconventional and Complex Reservoirs, 5.4 Improved and Enhanced Recovery, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods, 5.4 Improved and Enhanced Recovery, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 5.2 Fluid Characterization, 4.1 Processing Systems and Design, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing
- gas huff-n-puff, gas selection, Shale oil reservoir
- 6 in the last 30 days
- 780 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
Huff-n-Puff gas injection is a method originally used in heavy oil reservoir to reduce oil viscosity, increase mobility and displacement efficiency to enhance oil recovery. Now this method has been applied to enhance unconventional oil recovery in shale or tight reservoirs in recent years and proved to be effective in experiment study. N2, C1, CO2 or other rich gases are used in shale oil EOR. The purpose of this paper is to compare the EOR potential of different gas and provide a guide to choose gas based on the Wolfcamp shale oil reservoir.
The composition of crude oil from Wolfcamp was analyzed by Gas Chromatography (GC). First, the core plugs from Wolfcamp with diameters of 1.5 inches were saturated with crude oil. Then gas huff-n-puff experiments using N2, C1, and CO2 were conducted in the laboratory with the same injection pressure of 2000 psi. Based on laboratory results, a compositional model is built and used to analyze the performance of gas huff-n-puff. The EOR capacity of gas mixture (N2, C1, CO2) and some solvents such as C3-CO2 mixture, the separator gases C1 to C4 from the field production were investigated using the simulation method.
From the experiment results of the three kinds of gas injections, the oil recovery in the first two injection cycles were large. The incremental oil recovery decreased as the increase in number of injection cycles. Comparing the three kinds of gas EOR effects on Wolfcamp core samples, CO2 EOR result was the best, followed by N2 and C1. Coupling the equation of state method with GC analysis, 24 components of crude oil were achieved and then lumped into 5 pseudo components for simulation. The EOR effects of other gas mixture and solvents are investigated using the field model. The results show that the EOR effect of mixture of C1, C2 and C4 is the most favorite, followed by CO2-C3 mixture, produced gas, C1-CO2 mixture, and N2-CO2 mixture. Combined all of these results with economic factors, a comparison of gas capacity is proposed.
This investigation is focused on injection gas selection for shale oil production and helps to provide us a screening criterion to choose effective and convenient gas when conducting huff-n-puff gas injection in shale oil development. Cheaper gas with higher EOR potential will reduce the production cost and bring huge economic benefits to oil company especially in this low oil price period.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||15|
Alharthy, N., Teklu, T., Kazemi, H., Graves, R. 2015. Enhanced Oil Recovery in Liquid-Rich Shale Reservoirs: Laboratory to Field. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 28-30 September. SPE-175034-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/175034-MS
Bardon, C., Corlay, P., Longeron, D., and Miller, B. 1994. CO2 Huff ‘n’ Puff Revives Shallow Light-Oil-Depleted Reservoirs. SPE Res Eng 9 (02): 92-100. SPE-22650-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/22650-PA.
Gamadi, T.D., Sheng, J.J., and Soliman, M.Y. 2013. An Experimental Study of Cyclic Gas Injection to Improve Shale Oil Recovery. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September-2 October. SPE-166334-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/166334-MS.
Gamadi, T.D., Sheng, J.J., Soliman, M.Y. 2014. An Experimental Study of Cyclic CO2 Injection to Improve Shale Oil Recovery. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12-16 April. SPE-169142-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169142-MS.
Li, L., and Sheng, J. J. 2016. Experimental study of core size effect on CH4 huff-n-puff enhanced oil recovery in liquid-rich shale reservoirs. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 34: 1392-1402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.08.028.
Li, L., Sheng, J. J., and Sheng, J. 2016. Optimization of Huff-n-Puff Gas Injection to Enhance Oil Recovery in Shale Reservoirs. Presented at SPE Low Perm Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5-6 May. SPE-180219-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/180219-MS.
Mohammed-Singh, L. J., Singhal, A. K., and Sim, S. S. K. 2006. Screening Criteria for CO2 Huff‘n’Puff Operations. Presented at the SPE/DOE symposium on improved oil recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22-26 April. SPE-100044-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/100044-MS.
Shayegi, S., Jin, Z., Schenewerk, P., and Wolcott, J. 1996. Improved Cyclic Stimulation Using Gas Mixtures. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 6-9 October. SPE-36687-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36687-MS.
Sheng, J.J. 2014. Enhanced Oil Recovery in Shale Reservoirs by Gas Injection. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 22: 252-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.12.002.
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 Nat Gas Sci Eng 28 : 46-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.11.031
Simpson, M. R. 1988. The CO2 Huff ‘n’ Puff Process in a Bottomwater-Drive Reservoir. J Pet Technol 40 (07): 887-893. SPE-16720-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16720-PA.
Wan, T., Meng, X., Sheng, J. J., and Watson, M. 2014. Compositional Modeling of EOR Process in Stimulated Shale Oil Reservoirs by Cyclic Gas Injection. Presented at SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12-16 April. SPE-169069-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169069-MS.
Wan, T., Sheng, J.J. 2015. Compositional Modelling of the Diffusion Effect on EOR Process in Fractured Shale-Oil Reservoirs by Gas Flooding. J Can Pet Technol 54 (2): 107-115. SPE-2014-1891403-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2014-1891403-PA.
Yu, Y., Li, L., and Sheng, J. J. 2016. Further Discuss the Roles of Soaking Time and Pressure Depletion Rate in Gas Huff-n-Puff Process in Fractured Liquid-Rich Shale Reservoirs. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September. SPE-181471-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/181471-MS.
Yu, Y., and Sheng, J.J. 2015. An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Pressure Depletion Rate on Oil Recovery from Shale Cores by Cyclic N2 Injection. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 20-22 July. SPE-178494-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/178494-MS.
Yu, Y., Meng, X. and Sheng, J.J. 2016. Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of the Potential of Improving Oil Recovery from Shale Plugs by Nitrogen Gas Flooding. J Unconven Oil Gas Resour 15: 56-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juogr.2016.05.003.
Zhang, Y. P., Sayegh, S. G., Huang, S., and Dong, M. 2006. Laboratory Investigation of Enhanced Light-Oil Recovery by CO2/Flue Gas Huff-n-Puff Process. J Can Pet Technol 45 (2): 24-32. PETSOC-06-02-01. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/06-02-01.