HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

Supervisor: Prof. Mehran Sohrabi

MSc Petroleum Engineering

Project Report 2010-2011

Mohsen Askari
INJECTING CO2 AS AN ENHANCED OIL
RECOVERY TECHNIQUE IN CARBONATE
RESERVOIRS AND ITS EFFECT ON
RECOVERY FACTOR

Declaration

I, Mohsen Askari, confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my

own and is expressed in my own words. Any uses made within it of the
works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, equations, figures, text,
tables, programs) are properly acknowledged at the point of their use. A
list of the references employed is included.

Signed: Mohsen Askari

Date: 21/08/2011

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&

Acknowledgment
I am really thankful to my beloved family for all their support and love throughout my
life without whom I would not be standing in the position which I am now.
I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Mehran Sohrabi for all his valuable guidance
throughout the project.
I am also sincerely thankful to Dr.Gillian Pickup for all her guidance and help in the
simulation part of the project and her dedication to answering questions and emails.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr.Alireza Kazemi for his help in the simulation model
of the project.
And last but definitely not the least I want to express my gratitude to Debbie Williams for
all the efforts and guidance throughout the course.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

'

Contents
(
) *

+ "

&

/
"

/
0

&

' (
1
-

&

0 4

%
$

"

( ," 5

/
6

"
3!

3 3

&

3!

'

$ " 3

"
&

$ " 3

- 4
&
&

'

$ " 3

! #

"

&

&&

)7 5+

&'

)7 5

&1
&
&
&

&

,3

&

"
7 "

&
"

&

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&& ( 3
&'

&&
%

"

&'

&1

&1

&-

)7

&2

&-

)7

&2

&/

&/

&0 (

&0

&

'

'
1

'
8 %

''

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

1. Executive summary
Fast consummation and demand for sources of energy have been growing quite rapidly in
the recent years. More or less about 50% of the world energy is supplied by fossil fuel.
As the conventional reservoirs have been already explored and produced the new
methods of recovery need to be introduced for depletion of unconventional reservoirs
such as shale gas, tight gas and heavy oil reservoirs in order to fulfill the world demand
for energy.

Fig 1: World proven oil reservoirs (2006)

There are many methods of increasing the recovery, EOR (enhanced oil recovery) among
all CO2 (carbon dioxide) injection has been proved to be one of the most effective ones.
This is not just because of the good recovery achieved by CO2 injection but also the issue
of green house gases and the importance of CO2 sequestration under subsurface as an
effective method of reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

The natural depletion of a reservoir would give a recovery of around 15 to 30%.with

using IOR (improved oil recovery) techniques it could increase to about 40 to
45%.considering both recoveries still around 50 to 60% of the oil would be left in
reservoir. Therefore the main objective nowadays is to increase the recovery efficiency of
the reservoir and extract the remaining oil. Having in mind that almost half of the world
reservoirs are made of carbonate rocks with relatively low recovery, different EOR
techniques need to be used out of which CO2 injection is one of the most efficient ones.
As both carbonate reservoirs and CO2 have complex characteristics the idea of using
CO2 injection as a technique for EOR purpose could be really complicated. This could
become even worse when the environmental hazards and economical viability are the
concerns.
CO2 injection can increase the recovery efficiency in three ways:
Reservoir pressure maintenance
Piston like displacement (Immiscible displacement)
Altering oil properties (miscible displacement)
In my project I will be investigating the properties of carbonate reservoirs and the
challenges and difficulties associated with it as well as the investigation of CO2, its
displacement methods and injection schemes.
I will also perform some experiments on a carbonate model using CMG IMEX and GEM.
The experiments on the model would be natural depletion, waterflooding, continues CO2
injection, CO2 WAG injection and CO2 SWAG injection.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

2. Literature review
2.1. Carbonate reservoir
Around 3000 billion barrels of oil and 3000 trillion cubic feet of gas in place are stored in
carbonate reservoirs which make around 60% of oil and 40% gas of the worlds
hydrocarbon reserves. This will create great challenges for exploration and production in
terms of technology and methods for increasing the recovery. This is more feasible and
applicable in Middle East which contains around 62% of worlds proven oil reservoirs
out of which more than 70% are in carbonate reservoirs and 40% of worlds gas
reservoirs out of which more than 90% are reserved in carbonate reservoirs.

2.1.1. Introduction
Carbonates are marine environment deposited sediments which have a biological origin
and are greatly sensitive to environmental changes. There is also the effect of temperature
which affects the biogenic activity and therefore the sediment production.
The main components of carbonate rocks are fragments of marine organism, coral,
skeletons, algae and some calcium carbonate. This will make the carbonate rocks
chemically more reactive as compared to sandstones. The other factor that differentiates
between sandstone and carbonates is the distance where they have been formed and the
place they have been deposited. Carbonates are generally deposited closed to the place
where they have been formed where sands can move hundreds of kilometers down the
stream or river before the final deposition. At the beginning of deposition carbonate rocks

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

contain a relatively high porosity of around 30% to 70%. But as mentioned before due to
high level of chemical and physical reaction the porosity will decrease.

Fig 2: components of carbonate rocks

2.1.2. Mineralogy
Unlike most of the carbonate reservoir properties mineralogy is quite simple. The main
minerals are calcite, dolomite and minor clay. Secondary mineral consist of quarts, chert
and anhydrite. Although depending on the depositional environment other minerals such
as phosphate, siderite, pyrite feldspar and clay minerals could also be present which are
called accessory minerals.

2.1.3. Heterogeneity
In general carbonate reservoir rocks have been proved to be more heterogeneous than
sandstone reservoirs. They normally contain a wider range of pore classes and therefore

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

more likely for the multiphase properties to be different. This is one of the greatest
challenges in evaluation of carbonate rocks in early stages.

Fig 3: Heterogeneity in carbonate reservoir rocks

2.1.4. Diagenesis
Basically Diagenesis refers to the changes that happen to a sedimentary structure after it
is deposited and before it is metamorphosed. That includes changes in shape, volume,
size or chemical composition after the crystalline constituents or detrital biogenic have
been deposited. There are different types of Diagenesis mechanisms. It could be either
mechanical, biological, chemical or a combination of all. A simple example for
mechanical mechanism is the reduction of volume during the burial.
Biological diagenesis consists of rasping, grinding or erosion of the rock surfaces by
animals or plants.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

In carbonate reservoirs chemical diagenesis is by far the most important mechanism. It

basically is the interaction of water and rock which proceeds in rates dictated by rockwater equilibrium. The main processes involve dissolution, cementation, recrystalization
and replacement. Diagenesis has quite a dramatic effect on porosity and permeability in
carbonate rocks. Carbonate sediments have quite a high porosity and permeability range
(30%-70%) at deposition stage. But after burial in reservoir depth and sediment alter the
properties will sharply decrease, resulting large abrupt variations in rock type distribution
in carbonate reservoirs.

Fig 4: Diagenesis in carbonate reservoirs

2.1.5. Porosity
The pore space inside the rock grains which is the potential space for containing the
hydrocarbon is called porosity. The total porosity refers to the total pore space regardless
of connectivity of the pores. But reservoir specialists are concerned about the
interconnected pores which have the capability of fluid transmission. This is called

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

effective porosity. Porosity generally varies with several factors such as fabric, fracture
geometry and texture. In a fractured rock the porosity is determined with fracture width,
spacing of the fracture and presence or absence of mineralization. In biogenic rocks the
growth fabric and skeletal microstructure have the greatest affect on porosity and in other
rocks grain shape. Sorting and packing are the affective factors. Diagenesis which is the
chemical and physical change of the reservoir properties could either decrease or increase
the porosity. It can decrease it by plugging the pores with cement or closing them by
compaction or it can increase the porosity by dissolution or even creation of new porosity
by recrystalization or replacement.

Fig 5: Porosity in carbonate rocks

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&

As mentioned earlier the porosity in carbonate rocks are either created or altered by
depositional processes, diagenetic process or mechanical fracturing. A genetic
classification of different porosity, the causes and effects, the factors affecting porosity
and the result of it could be illustrated in a triangular diagram presented below:

Fig 6: Triangular diagram of carbonate rock porosity

2.1.6. Permeability
The importance of permeability as a property of the rock is that it is directly related to the
rate at which hydrocarbon could be produced. There is a vast range of permeability from
0.01 millidarcy to over 1 Darcy. Although the permeability of 0.1 millidarcy is the

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

'

minimum desired permeability needed for oil production. Permeability is derived from
Darcys law:

Where Q is rate of flow, k is permeability,

is fluid viscosity, (dP)/L is the potential drop

across a horizontal sample, and A is the cross-sectional area of the sample.

Fig 7: permeability in a rock

Permeability is generally expressed in 3 different ways:
1-Specific permeability: this is the permeability of a rock to a single fluid. It is normally
done on core samples in laboratories.
2-effective permeability: this is the permeability to another fluid where the reservoir
rock is saturated. This is the effective permeability of the rock to oil when the rock is
saturated with water.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

3-relative permeability: This is the effective permeability ratio at a specific saturation to

absolute permeability at 100% saturation.
The similarity between porosity and permeability is the effect of variations in fabric and
texture of a reservoir rock. Sometimes a small change in porosity can cause a dramatic
change in permeability. For example in a Siliciclastic sandstone reservoir 1% increase in
porosity can change permeability by a factor of 7 to 10%.
But unlike the porosity grain size has a big effect on permeability as well as packing,
sorting and fabric. For example in a fine grained rock with high intergranular porosity the
permeability is relatively lower.
In an ideal situation where the rock grain size is uniform and the porosity is intergranular
the permeability would be varying as the forth power of the average pore radius or in the
other term as the square of the grain diameter.
In real situations especially in carbonate reservoirs this is not the case. The various
genetic pore types and pore-pore throat geometries are the factors which greatly affect the
permeability. This is because permeability depends on the geometry of the pore throats
rather than the size of the pore. Although this is not a fixed rule and in some cases the
pore dimensions changes could be predictable by pore throat dimensions.

2.1.7. Wettability
In general wettability is the tendency of one fluid to be attracted to a solid surface which
in case of the reservoir is the rock rather than another fluid present.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

Fig 8: Oil wet and water wet reservoirs

In comparison with sandstone reservoirs, Spontaneous imbibitions do not happen or is
slower in carbonate reservoirs. Based on the researches on equilibrated water contact
angels oils in carbonate reservoirs it has been proven that around 85% of carbonate rocks
are oil wet and the remaining 15% are either water wet or intermediate. This clearly
shows that majority of the carbonate reservoirs are oil wet which means the oil is tending
to be attracted to the rock grains and hence much harder to recover. As mentioned before
in the heterogeneity section the heterogeneous properties of carbonate rocks makes the
issue of wettability a part of it. The effecting factors on reservoir wettability are:
Surface compounds
Brine Chemistry
Temperature and pressure
Brine PH
Mineralogy

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

2.1.8. Capillary pressure

Based on the American Heritage Dictionary (1992) the definition of capillary pressure is:
The force that results from greater adhesion of a liquid to a solid surface than internal
cohesion of the liquid itself and that causes the liquid to be raised against a vertical
surface, as water is in a clean glass tube. It is the force that allows a porous material to
soak up a liquid.
Surface tension and wettability which as mentioned before is the tendency of a liquid to
attract to a solid surface are the two factors that affect the interactive tension mentioned
above.

Fig 9: Capillary pressure

In the term of recovery capillary pressure can be a force to drive the non wetting fluid
through the pore throats where the reservoir is already saturated with a wetting fluid.
As we know capillary pressure is inversely related to pore throat radius. But this is
applicable for a model with cylindrical pore throats which is not the case in carbonate
reservoirs. Carbonate reservoirs have much more complex geometries and heterogeneity

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

that another term should be used for them. The term is called effective radius which is
calculated using the below formula:

Where

is the interfacial tension of the air-mercury system,

is the air-mercury solid

contact angle and Pc is the capillary pressure. In carbonate reservoirs which are normally
oil wet the capillary pressure is a function of four factors:
Pore size
Pore structure
Interfacial tension
Contact angle

2.1.9. Naturally fractured reservoir

One of the properties of carbonate rocks is that they are more brittle and fragile compared
to sandstones when they are exposed to stress. This is the main reason most of the
carbonate reservoirs are naturally fractured.

Fig 10: Fractures in carbonate rock core sample

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

Fractures in carbonate rock could be formed in very different scales. It could be from
microscopic scale to fractures with length of kilometers which are called swarms. The
presence of these different scale fractures creates a very complex flow network in
carbonate reservoirs. In spite of the mentioned problem there is a good side of fractures
as well. Fractures can increase the porosity and Permeability which can lead to better
recovery of the reservoir. But a reservoir is defined as a naturally fractured reservoir if
only there is presence of a network of fractures with various degrees of distribution
throughout the reservoir. There are several factors that make difference between a
carbonate reservoir and a normal conventional one and they are as follow:
1-Anisotropy: carbonate reservoirs are formed after the chemical and physical reactions
of the sediments. Considering the diagenesis and the fractures porosity and permeability
would be altered which makes an irregular permeability and porosity distribution. Hence
there is a big difference between horizontal and vertical permeability.
2-Porosity and permeability: as explained before porosity and permeability in carbonate
reservoirs differ from the ones in clastic reservoir which is mainly due to depositional
condition. The porosity in carbonate rocks are either connected porosity which is the
interconnected pores between the grains or vugs which is the unconnected pores that are
formed during the diagenesis of the rock or fracture porosity or dual porosity which is
formed due to stress and on the formation.
3-Micro fracture: micro fractures are very small fractures in the rock in the term of
length and width. Although micro fractures do not have a big affect on porosity but they
surly help in better recovery by increasing the matrix permeability.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

4-Transition zone: generally the transition zone is not formed in fractured carbonate
reservoirs because the capillary pressure is neglected therefore the fluid will be in
equilibrium at oil water contact (OWC) and gas oil contact (GOC) base on density and
gravity.
5-fracture gas cap: the gas cap is formed generally by liberation of the gas from the oil
and its movement toward the upper part of the fracture network. This is a phenomenon
that occurs when the pressure gradient of the flow is very low toward the wellbore which
is totally different with the situation where the liberated gas moves toward the wellbore
due to high mobility and low viscosity of the fluid.
6- Super K: the term of super K refers to the situation where there are big fractures in the
reservoir with very high permeability. In the first glance it looks to be an advantage but in
the case where injection is used for increasing the recovery it becomes a big disadvantage
as it causes the fingering of the injected fluid and therefore early breakthrough of the
injected fluid.
7-fluid contact: compared to matrix the fluid contact remains stable in carbonate
reservoirs due to negligible capillary pressure. But there is a bigger chance of coning due
to much higher permeability of the fractures.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

2.2. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

2.2.1. Introduction
CO2 injection is one of the methods which are used for enhanced oil recovery. This
technique can be useful in two different aspects. The first benefit is the increase in the
recovery and hydrocarbon production which will lead to more revenue. The other aspect
is sequestration of CO2 under the subsurface as CO2 is one of the main gases involved in
global warming and green house gas effect.
In carbonate reservoirs due to presence of high permeability fractures sequestration of
CO2 could be more interesting compared to clastic reservoirs. But there are other factors
which affect this process that need to be taken into account.
In the case of CO2 injection for miscibility process and enhanced recovery the
characterization of the reservoir has the biggest impact. Using the simulation models and
experimenting different scenarios perhaps is the best available option to gather extra
evidence on reservoir behavior.

2.2.2. CO2 physical properties

CO2 is a colorless, non combustible and odorless gas which is Inert at surface
temperature and finds liquid properties once exposed to reservoir condition. Pure CO2
has a critical temperature of 88 degree Fahrenheit and a critical pressure of 1070 Psia.
There are many ways in which CO2 can help in better recovery:
1-Oil Swelling: the forming of bubbles in oil by CO2 which ultimately enhances the oil
displacement at the pore scale is one of the ways for better recovery.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

2- Oil viscosity reduction: viscosity of the oil decreases once it is mixed with CO2 and
hence will flow more easily as the mobility increases as the viscosity decreases.
3-Oil density reduction: solubility of CO2 in oil will decrease the density and therefore
increased the mobility of the oil.
4-Vaporization: vaporization of CO2 can extract some portion of the oil and enhance the
recovery.
5-Interfacial tension reduction: by reducing the interfacial tension between oil and
water it makes the displacement more effective.
6-Miscibility generation: Miscibility could be regenerated if it is lost during the process.

2.2.3. CO2 phase diagram

Due to increase in the oil price and CO2 injection projects which started in 1960 study of
CO2 phase behavior has been done in order to determine the maximum miscible pressure
(MMP). These investigations which have been done on both pure and impure CO2 have
been carried out during the last 50 years. In a case where a compositional simulator is
used to predict the performance of a reservoir with volatile oil or condensate phase
behavior study of CO2 would be very important

Fig 11: CO2 phase diagram

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&

2.2.4. Miscible displacement

Miscibility is the ability of two fluids or materials to form a single fluid. In other term
when interfacial tension between the oil in the reservoir and the displacement fluid equals
zero which makes the swept zones residual oil saturation equal zero then miscible
displacement is taking place.

Fig 12: Carbon dioxide miscible displacement

Miscible displacement could be categorized in two categories:
1-First contact miscibility (FCM): this means when injecting the CO2 all the properties
will mix with reservoir oil. In this case any amount of CO2 injected will remain as a
single phase with the reservoir oil. In practical term generally a primary slug of CO2 will
be injected in small volume with the ability of miscibility in the oil. This slug then would
be followed by the larger slug known as secondary slug. The factor that plays a big role
in determination of size of primary slug is the economics. The other factor that needs to

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

'

be into consideration is that the primary slug should be miscible in the secondary on. This
will prevent the material trapping in the reservoir caused by primary slug of CO2.
2-Mulitiple contact miscibility (MCM): the difference between MCM and FCM is that
in MCM the miscibility does not occur at the first contact. The process will take place
when several contacts are formed between the injected CO2 and the reservoir oil. In the
other term MCM occurs as a result of in-situ compositional changes and mass transfer
between the injected CO2 and the reservoir oil.
In the reservoir the mechanism of miscibility is as follow: at the beginning CO2
condensates into the reservoir oil and makes it lighter. This happens because the methane
is extracted from the oil. Now at this stage the light components of the oil vaporize and
mix into the CO2 phase. This mass transfer process between CO2 and the oil continues
till eventually both fluid are mixed and become indistinguishable in term of properties.
The key point in the process is that for miscibility high pressure is needed. Generally
because the reservoir pressure is high enough for the process the CO2 should be
compressed in such way to reach the desired density which makes it miscible in reservoir
oil. This pressure is called minimum miscible pressure (MMP). In other term this
pressure is the minimum pressure needed for CO2 and oil to be miscible together.

2.2.5. Immiscible displacement

In immiscible displacement unlike miscible displacement there is no phase change
between injected CO2 and the reservoir oil. The main reason immiscible displacement is
applied is to maintain the pressure in the reservoir in order to maintain the recovery.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

Fig 13: Carbon dioxide immiscible displacement

Basically immiscible displacement method is applied in 4 different ways:
Improving the recovery drainage
Recovering attic oil above uppermost perforation
Vaporization of light hydrocarbons in volatile oil or condensate reservoirs
Prevention of oil migration into gas cap in natural water drive reservoirs

2.2.6. Near miscible displacement

Near miscible displacement is an improved recovery technique that happens when the
reservoir fluid pressure is increase to just below minimum miscible pressure. The
recovery in this case is better than immiscible displacement but not as good as miscible
displacement. This technique is best suitable for the cases where there is a lack of
injection fluid due to many reasons such as remote location of injection facilities. The
other advantage of near miscible displacement is its better recovery compared to
waterflooding technique.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

2.3. Injection techniques

2.3.1. Introduction
In the previous chapter the miscibility process and CO2 reaction with the reservoir oil
was studied. In this chapter different method of CO2 injection, the challenges associated
with each, advantages and disadvantages will be investigated.

2.3.2. Continues CO2 injection

In this method CO2 would be injected in the reservoir from the injection well in a
continuous process. In other term CO2 would be injected as the displacing fluid. The
displacement process would be either in miscible, immiscible or near miscible
displacement.

Fig 14: continues CO2 injection

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

There are some advantages and disadvantages for continuous CO2 injection:
Advantages:
Quick response in production recovery due to mobility factor
Easier and faster achievement in stable injection rate
Minimization of water blocking
Disadvantages:
Poor sweep efficiency
CO2 usage in a less efficient manner
Difficulties and challenges of gas handling
Early CO2 water breakthrough resulting less recovery

2.3.3. CO2 WAG (water alternating gas) injection

Generally CO2 Wag injection is a more popular and demanding technique as it has a
better recovery in comparison with pure CO2 or water injection. This is because it is
combined by the advantage of CO2 injection which is good displacement efficiency and
advantage of waterflooding which is good macroscopic sweep efficiency which
ultimately leads to a better recovery and reservoir performance. In other term better
mobility control and improved macroscopic displacement in this method is the
mechanism that results in better recovery.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

Fig 15: CO2 WAG injection

Advantages:
Improved sweep efficiency
Better reservoir performance and recovery
Better CO2 utility
Disadvantages:
Longer response time from oil in comparison with continues CO2 injection.
Existence of high mobile water in a reservoir which has been waterflooded can
lead to a less efficiency even if injection process is above MMP.
Injection loss
Higher possibilities of water blocking

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

2.3.4. CO2 SWAG (simultaneously water alternating

gas) injection
The SWAG method consists of simultaneously injecting water alternating CO2. This
method itself consists of two different methods: Conventional and unconventional.
In conventional method water and CO2 are injected together in the reservoir from the
same well. In unconventional method CO2 is injected to the bottom of the reservoir
where water is injected in the upper part of the reservoir using different injection wells.
The unconventional method is used expecting CO2 to migrate to the top of the reservoir
and water slumps down to the bottom of the reservoir and hence increasing the sweep
efficiency.
Advantages:
Proved to have the best recovery in some scenarios
Provides more stable GOR and easier gas handling
Disadvantages:
More complex operation compared to other techniques
Need of more accurate monitoring of injection systems

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&

2.3.5. CO2 Super critical injection

In super critical phase CO2 has a very unique phase behavior. It acts both as liquid and
gas. This helps in better recovery using the density property of the liquid phase and
viscosity property of the gas.
This method is the most applied technique in the industry due to the best achievable
recovery.
In order to achieve the super critical properties the pressure should be above 1500 Psia
and temperature above 80 degree Fahrenheit.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&

3. Simulation experiments
3.1. Introduction
C. Kerans et al (1994) have done an integrated characterization of carbonate ramp
reservoirs using Permian San Andres formation outcrop analogs. The San Andres
Formation of the Permian basin is representative of carbonate ramp reservoirs in that it
has highly stratified character, complex facies and permeability structure, and generally
low recovery efficiencies of 30% of original oil in place.

Fig 16: Rock fabric flow units in San Andres outcrop

The data obtained in this research have been used by Alireza Kazemi in Heriot-Watt
University in order to make a 2D model for simulation experiments.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&

3.2. Grid Model

The grid model that has been used for experiments in the simulation part of the project is
52 x 1 x 55 2D model. This model best fits the simulation because of very heterogeneous
characteristics of the reservoir and the time which was needed for CMG GEM software to
run the simulations.

Fig 17: 2D grid model

As shown in the figure above an injector and a producer well have been located in the
edges of the model in vertical position. They would be used in order to simulate different
scenarios on the model. Only in CO2 SWAG injection the producer well will be replaced
by another injector well and the producer well will be located in the middle of the model.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&&

This is because the SWAG experiment done in the model is unconventional and therefore
two injector wells were needed.

3.3. Depletion case

In the depletion case the reservoir is depleted in natural drive condition. The production
is done by a single well set to produce at 100 bbl/day from all the layers. The simulation
starts at first of January 2011 and ends up on first of January 2032.
The recovery proves to be poor around 17 %. This is probably due to very low
permeability of the reservoir and absence of aquifer support.

Fig 18: depletion drive case recovery factor

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&'

3.4. Waterflooding case

In the water flooding case the water is injected into the reservoir using an injection well
at the rate of 30 bbls/day. Both production and injection starts at first of January 2011 and
end up at the beginning of 2032. The recovery factor increases in comparison with the
natural depletion drive case up to around 21%. This is because of the reservoir pressure
maintenance achieved by water injection. The other factor that is causing the recovery to
increase is the increase in sweep efficiency. The injected water slumps due to gravity and
pushes the oil toward the production well.

Fig 19: Waterflooding case recovery factor

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&1

3.5. Continues CO2 injection

In the CO2 injection method CO2 is injected into the reservoir continually at the rate of
1700 ft3/day. This is 3 times of the production rate of 100 bbls/day. Both injection and
production start at the beginning of 2011 and end up at the start of 2032. The recovery
increases up to around 24.5% and therefore better than natural depletion and
waterflooding case. This clearly shows that CO2 injection could be a better option
compared to the other scenarios. The reason for better recovery is probably the pressure
maintenance of the reservoir as a result of injection. But the other factor which is the
more important one is the miscibility of CO2 into the reservoir oil. This causes the
density and viscosity of the oil to decrease and oil mobility to increase and therefore
results in better recovery.

Fig 20: Continuous CO2 injection case recovery factor

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&-

3.6. CO2 WAG injection

Same as other scenarios the injection of CO2 and water has been done using an injection
well. Water has been injected at 22 bbls/day and CO2 has been injected at the rate of 400
ft3/day. The alternating cycle has been set for every six months and same as other cases
production starts at 2011 and finishes at 2032. As shown in the picture recovery increases
up to around 36%. This proves a significant decrease in CO2 injection rate needed. This
could be due to effect of water acting like a piston that pushes the oil toward the wellbore
and increase in sweep efficiency due to water slumping. Miscibility of CO2 with oil and
increasing the mobility ration is also an important factor in increasing recovery.

Fig 21: CO2 WAG injection case recovery factor

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&2

3.7. CO2 SWAG injection

In this case unlike the other scenarios two injection wells have been used for
unconventional SWAG CO2 injection. First injector well is injecting CO2 at the rate of
300 ft3/day at the bottom layers of the reservoir. The second injector is injecting water at
the rate of 26 bbls/day at the top layers of the reservoir. The production well has been
positioned at the center of the model. This scenario shows the best recovery factor of
about 40% among all cases and even a less amount of injected CO2 needed. This is
because when CO2 is injected at the bottom layers it tends to move upwards due to
gravity and with the miscibility effect it helps in increasing the recovery. In the other
hand the water that has been injected on the top layers slumps down toward the bottom of
the reservoir due to gravity and increases the sweep efficiency and hence increasing the
recovery factor.

Fig 22: CO2 SWAG injection case recovery factor

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&/

All the cases recovery factor is illustrated in one graph in the below picture:

Fig 23: All cases recovery factor

3.8. Increasing injection rate

As a sensitivity analysis the injection rate in waterflooding, continuous CO2 injection,
CO2 WAG injection and CO2 SWAG injection cases have been increased by 25% of the
original rates. The experiment proves that increasing the injection rate by 25% has the
biggest impact on CO2 WAG injection case. The recovery increases for about 3% and
gives a total recovery almost as much as SWAG injection case. This suggests that by
increasing the injection rate in some cases a better recovery could be achieved but other
considerations such as early breakthrough, water fingering and rate stability control need
to be taken into account.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

&0

Fig 24: All cases recovery factor after 25% increase in injection rate

3.9. Decreasing injection rate

The same scenario for sensitivity has been done but this time with 25% decrease in
injection rate. The outputs show the same results as above and prove the CO2 WAG
injection scenario to be the most sensitive case to injection rate changes with a change of
around 4.5%.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

'

Fig 25: All cases recovery factor after 25% decrease in injection rate

3.10. Impurity of CO2

Sensitivity analysis was done on the cases with CO2 injection to see the effect of N2
impurity. The results show that up to 20% of N2 impurity in the injected CO2 does not
have a big influence on recovery factor.
As illustrated in the below graph 20% N2 impurity has the biggest affect on continuous
CO2 injection case of less than 1%. In other cases the effect is almost negligible. One of
the ways that N2 impurity can affect recovery factor is that it will increase the MMP and
causes the miscibility in the reservoir to be lost and hence decrease the recovery factor.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

'

Fig 26: Effect of N2 impurity on recovery factor

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

'

4. Conclusion
The purpose of this project was to determine the effect of different methods of CO2
injection on reservoir performance and recovery facto. This study showed that CO2
injection can help in increasing the reservoir oil recovery. But it should be considered
that for CO2 injection a stable source of CO2 is needed. The other factor that needs to be
taken into consideration is the difficulties associated with CO2 injection such as
reduction of permeability or pipe choking caused by power carbon. But considering all
this factors CO2 injection have proved to be one of the best techniques for increasing oil
recovery as well as reduction of green house gas effect using the available technology.
The model that has been used in this project is a 52 x 1 x 55 2D model based on the
research paper done by C. Kerans et al (1994) on San Andres outcrop. Different recovery
techniques were experienced on the model and CO2 SWAG injection proved to have the
best recovery of around 40% followed by CO2 WAG injection with a recovery of 36%
and CO2 continuous injection with a recovery of around 25%.
Sensitivity analysis on injection rate showed the biggest impact on CO2 WAG injection.
This is probably due to the cycle in CO2 and water injection. The ratio between the
injected fluids need more research in order to achieve the best ratio for the optimum
recovery.
N2 impurity of the injected CO2 up to 20% did not have a considerable effect on the
recovery but as mentioned before it could have an effect on the MMP and causing
difficulties in miscibility process.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

'&

There are few points for more investigations:

As mentioned above a more detailed investigation and research is recommended
in order to come up with the best injected fluids ratio in WAG and SWAG
injection method.
Effect of impurity could be investigated more especially taking into account the
impurity caused by N2, H2S and C2-C4 components.
Grid size effect on recovery factor is another area that could be studied even in
more details.
Miscibility process and the effect of different factors on it also need a much more
detailed investigation which was not done in this project due to lack of time.

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

''

5. References
1. Carbon Dioxide miscible flooding: past, present and outlook for future.
F.I Stalkup, SPE-AIME, Atlantic Richfield Co.
2. A single Co2 injection well Minitest in a low permeability carbonate reservoir.
Royal J. Watts, SPE. U.S. DOE. James B. Gehr, SPE, Allegheny land & Mineral
Co.
3. Evaluation of the carbon dioxide flooding processes. L. Wally Holm, SPE,
Unocal Science and technology Div.
4. Comparison between CO2, CO2 WAG and CO2 SWAG injection. Nwajiaku
Stanley N.
5. Carbon dioxide flooding. F. David Martin, SPE, and J.J. Taber, SPE, New Mexico
petroleum recovery research center.
6. CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. www.CO2.nu
7. Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Experiences in Carbonate Reservoirs in the United
States. Eduardo Manrique, Mariano Gurfinkel, Viviana Muci
8. Screening, Evaluation, and Ranking of Oil Reservoirs Suitable for CO2-Flood
EOR and Carbon Dioxide Sequestration. J. SHAW Adams Pearson Associates
S. BACHU Alberta Geological Survey
9. The impact of injection strategy in carbonate reservoir using CO2. Syed
Muhammad Danish Abbas
10. CO2 injection in carbonates. O. Izgec and B. Demiral

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%

'1

11. EOR field experiences in carbonate reservoirs in the United States. E.J Manrique,
Norwest Questa engineering
12. CO2 EOR potential in naturally fractured Haft Kel field, Iran. Sayyed Ahmad
Alavian, NTNU, and Curtis H. Whitson, SPE, NTNU/PERA
13. Integrated Characterization of Carbonate Ramp Reservoirs Using Permian San
Andres Formation Outcrop Analogs. C. Kerans, F. Jerry Lucia, and R. K. Senger
14. Rock-Fluid characterization for miscible CO2 injection: Residual oil zone,
Seminole field, Permian basin. M.M. Honarpour, N.R. Nagarajan
15. Tertiary oil recovery and CO2 sequestration by carbonated water injection (CWI)
N.I. Kechut. SPE, M.Riazi, SPE.
16. www.slb.com
17. www.mendeley.com/research/co2-injection-carbonates/
18. www.enhancedoilrecovery.com/co2-eor.htm
19. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050110091718.htm
20. www.fekete.com/aboutus/index.asp

!
$

"
"

%%

! #
%