Comparison of huff-n-puff gas injection and solvent injection in large-scale shale gas condensate reservoirs

被引:13
|
作者
Sharma, Sharanya [1 ]
Sheng, James J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Texas Tech Univ, Lubbock, TX 79409 USA
关键词
Shale gas-condensate reservoir; Methane; Ethane; Methanol; Isopropanol; Huff-n-puff; OIL PRODUCTION; POROUS-MEDIA; NANOPORE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jngse.2017.10.007
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
A compositional simulation approach is utilized to compare huff-n-puff gas and solvent injection in a shale gas condensate reservoir. Each injection process is analyzed in terms of the least cost, shortest payback period, smallest injected pore volume and maximized recovery of the condensate components. Two gases (methane and ethane) and two solvents (methanol and isopropanol) are chosen for the comparison. The reservoir model is calibrated based on available published rock and fluid properties, and history matching is carried out with production data. The model consists of heterogeneities representative of a shale reservoir such as a stimulated rock volume (SRV) and a non-stimulated rock volume (NSRV) that is intersected by a network of natural fractures. The reference model is used to understand and establish the basic recovery mechanisms of the four injection fluids while highlighting the principal differences between them. The effects of injection pressure, initial reservoir pressure, injection and production time, the gas-condensate composition and nanopore confinement are evaluated. Analysis of the performances of the four injection fluids are based on the total hydrocarbon recovery factors, combining the liquid and gas phases, calculated within the same operation time. Results demonstrate ethane to be a superior injection fluid with a high recovery factor for most scenarios, accompanied by a relatively higher profit to investment ratio and shorter payback period. Ethane injection recovers the heavy condensate components more efficiently compared to methane and solvent injection for a given gas condensate composition. This advantage is complemented by ethane's capability to equally recover all of other hydrocarbon components from the reservoir. The recovery performance of solvent huff-n-puff for a leaner gas condensate fluid is significantly greater than that for the richer gas-condensate reservoir fluid. The main difference in the optimization of gas and solvent performance is highlighted. Gases require longer injection and production time, whereas solvents perform better with shorter injection time and longer production time.
引用
收藏
页码:434 / 453
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Recovery Mechanisms for Cyclic (Huff-n-Puff) Gas Injection in Unconventional Reservoirs: A Quantitative Evaluation Using Numerical Simulation
    Hoffman, B. Todd
    Reichhardt, David
    ENERGIES, 2020, 13 (18)
  • [22] Integrated Study on Carbon Dioxide Geological Sequestration and Gas Injection Huff-n-Puff to Enhance Shale Oil Recovery
    Wang, Lei
    Cai, Shengyao
    Chen, Wenli
    Lei, Gang
    ENERGIES, 2024, 17 (08)
  • [23] In situ fluid and injection gas compatibility of huff-n-puff gas EOR in a low-permeability shale-sand-carbonate reservoir
    Junira, Adi
    Biancardi, Steven
    Ganjdanesh, Reza
    Sepehrnoori, Kamy
    Yu, Wei
    Ambrose, Raymond
    JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2022, 208
  • [24] Cyclic gas injection huff-n-puff in multi-stage fracturing horizontal wells to improve recovery of shale oil and gas reservoirs: Taking Eagle Ford Shale in North America as an example
    Wang Y.
    Tang Y.
    Li S.
    Liu X.
    Natural Gas Industry, 2023, 43 (01) : 153 - 161
  • [25] Investigating the role of diffusion in hydrocarbon gas huff-n-puff injection-an Eagle Ford study
    Fu, Qinwen
    Cudjoe, Sherifa
    Ghahfarokhi, Reza Barati
    Tsau, Jyun-Syung
    Li, Xiaoli
    Peltier, K.
    Mohrbacher, D.
    Baldwin, A.
    Nicoud, B.
    Bradford, K.
    JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2021, 198
  • [26] Huff ‘n’ puff EOR proves effective in gas-condensate reservoirs
    Carpenter, Chris
    JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2019, 71 (11): : 76 - 77
  • [27] Investigating the role of diffusion in hydrocarbon gas huff-n-puff injection- an Eagle Ford study
    Fu, Qinwen
    Cudjoe, Sherifa
    Barati Ghahfarokhi, Reza
    Tsau, Jyun-Syung
    Li, Xiaoli
    Peltier, K.
    Mohrbacher, D.
    Baldwin, A.
    Nicoud, B.
    Bradford, K.
    Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2021, 198
  • [28] Effect of hydraulic fracture deformation hysteresis on CO2 huff-n-puff performance in shale gas reservoirs
    Yan, Xia
    Liu, Pi-yang
    Huang, Zhao-qin
    Sun, Hai
    Zhang, Kai
    Wang, Jun-feng
    Yao, Jun
    JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY-SCIENCE A, 2023, 24 (01): : 37 - 55
  • [29] Laboratory experiments of field gas huff-n-puff for improving oil recovery from Eagle Ford Shale reservoirs
    Chao-yu Sie
    Quoc Nguyen
    Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2022, 15 (21)
  • [30] Compositional Simulation of Geological and Engineering Controls on Gas Huff-n-Puff in Duvernay Shale Volatile Oil Reservoirs, Canada
    Kong, Xiangwen
    Wang, Hongjun
    Yu, Wei
    Wang, Ping
    Miao, Jijun
    Fiallos-Torres, Mauricio
    ENERGIES, 2021, 14 (08)