CMTC 150031

Assessment of CO
2
EOR and Its Geo-Storage Potential in Mature Oil
Reservoirs, Changqing Oil Field, China
Xinwei Liao, SPE, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Chunning Gao, Pingcang Wu, Changqing Oil Field,
Petrochina, Kun Su, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Yangnan Shangguan, Changqing Oil Field, Petrochina
Copyright 2012, Carbon Management Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Carbon Management Technology Conference held in Orlando, Florida, USA, 79 February 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by a CMTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Carbon Management Technology Conference, its officers, or members.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Carbon Management Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of CMTC copyright.


Abstract
Most oil reservoirs in the Changqing Oilfield area are low permeability and have entered middle development stages after
several ten years of production, and they are suitable for applying CO
2
EOR and carbon storage techniques. This study is
aimed at assessing the potential of CO
2
EOR and storage in Changqing oil fields based on the data of 261 mature oil
reservoirs. The assessments include a regional geology assessment, storage site screening, and reservoir screening for CO
2

EOR and EOR potential and storage capacity calculations. Of 261 reservoirs, 113 are suitable both for miscible or near-
miscible flooding EOR and storage while 148 reservoirs are found suitable for immiscible flooding EOR and storage. The
total EOR potential could be 9,836.03!10
4
t and the CO
2
storage potential could reach 23,920.34!10
4
t. The average
incremental oil recovery rate in reservoirs suitable for miscible or near-miscible flooding could be 12.19%. The average
incremental oil recovery rate in reservoirs suitable for immiscible could be 6.63%. The greater OOIP the oil reservoir has, the
greater potential for CO
2
EOR and storage it will have, and the more suitable for large-scale storage projects it will be. Those
oil reservoirs suitable for CO
2
EOR with large OOIP will be the preferred sites for CO
2
storage.

Introduction
The mitigation of green gas emission, especially CO
2
, has drawn worldwide attention as the aggravation of global warming
and climate change. CO
2
geological sequestration in oil reservoirs can not only decrease CO
2
concentration in atmosphere,
but also enhance oil recovery by CO
2
flooding (CO
2
-EOR). In North American countries, application of CO
2
-EOR have been
maturely developed for decades. For those in China, where reservoirs are mainly characterized as heterogeneous layers and
viscous crude oil, proper evaluation criteria for CO
2
-EOR and sequestration should be developed. Changqing Oilfield, which
is also the second largest oilfield in China, is targeted to check newly established criteria and then recovery increment and
sequestration potential can be researched. Characterized as low permeability, water flooding method benefits turned down
during last decades in this field. Considering unique advantages of CO
2
solvent over water, including feasible injectivity and
high displacing efficiency, CO
2
flooding in Changqing Oilfield is expected for extra oil production and sequestration as well.
By then, an evaluation criterion of sequestration is developed based on 261 production layers and then potential benefits are
predicted via that.

1. Evaluation criteria of CO
2
-EOR and sequestration in China oil reservoirs
1.1 criteria establishment
JJ.Taber et al (1997) concluded screening criteria of CO
2
flooding on the analysis of successful field application. Bradshaw J
et al (2002) also suggested screening parameters over previous researches and ranked candidate reservoirs by setting
optimum value and parametric weight, which proved ideal application in Alberta reservoirs. In China, similar researches
(ZHENG Yun-Chuan et al,2005; LEI Huai-Yan et al, 2008; Zeng Shun-Peng et al, 2005; Zhang Liang,et al,2009)have also
been processed which is helpful for reservoir screening. Based on those above, screening criteria of CO
2
-EOR and
sequestration in Changqing Oilfield can be obtained as in Table 1.


2 CMTC 150031
1.2 Evaluation method of CO
2
application
CO
2
sequestration is widely evaluated using CO
2
utilization coefficient in American and European countries, which is
defined as total sequestration amount divided by cumulative oil production(Bradshaw J et al.,2005,2007,2008;Shen Pingping
et al. 2009). Here to predict storage potentials, we defined it as below:
N R M
CO CO
! =
2 2
1
In which,
2 CO
M CO
2
storage potentials10
4
tons
2 CO
R Sequestration coefficientdimensionlessN
OOIP10
4
tons
Sequestration coefficient can be calculated by either numerical simulation or streamline simulation. By such methods
respectively, two typical pilots in Changqing Oilfield are predicted on EOR increment and sequestration coefficient.
(1) Huang 116 Block
PVT test and slim tube observation has been taken for Chang 6
1
1
formation, the principal producing zone in Huang 116
block, and then fluid properties could be obtained in Table 2. Initial formation pressure(18MPa), which is less than minimum
miscible pressure (19.5MPa), indicates immiscible performance by CO
2
flood.
As illustrated in Figure 1, well group pattern is inverted nine-point, of which well space and line space are 540!130 meters
respectively. Geological properties of each grid of the model are interpolated by Kriging method based on data including well
deviation, porosity and permeability, etc. Then geological model dimensioned as 29!16!3 is obtained, of which size of each
cell is 50(X)!50(Y)!4.5(Z) meters. Reservoir permeability varied from 0.1 to 0.8 mD, and 0.42 mD on average. For porosity,
it ranges from 11.53% to 12.38%, and the average value is 13.72%. Immobile water saturation is 37.58%, and average
thickness of sand body and production layer is 17.5/13.5 meters respectively.
Solvents (Water and solvent) injection rate are both 35 m
3
under reservoir condition, and bottom pressure of production
well is set to be above 8 MPa (others see Table 3). By two methods mentioned above, total amount of oil production and CO
2

sequestration during flooding are predicted after water flooding (Table 4).
As is shown in table 4, another 9.2 percent of oil would be produced by CO
2
over water solvent, and sequestration
coefficient is 0.232 meantime.
(2) Muo-1 Block
As for another typical reservoir in Changqing Oilfield, Muo 1 Block, of which the main zone is Chang 8
1
1
layer, was
processed by indoor experiments to obtain fluid properties under reservoir condition (Table 5). CO
2
flooding performance in
this Block is miscible for lower minimum miscible pressure(19.8MPa) than initial pressure (22MPa).
The same group pattern with previous one, illustrated in Figure 2,well and line space are changed to 480!150 meters. The
dimension and size of geological model are 28!39!3 and 30m(X)!30m(Y) !3m(Z) for each grid. Reservoir permeability
ranges from 0.1mD to 0.6mD and its average is 0.58mD. As to porosity, it ranges from 6% to 11% and average thickness of
sand body and production layer are 13.7/10.5 meters.
In this block, the daily injection rate of each solvent is 40 m
3
(under reservoir condition), and bottom pressure is set
above 10 MPa (others is shown in Table 6). So, oil production and sequestration amount can be predicted by numerical
and stream tube simulation method (Table 7).
As is shown in Table 7, recovery increment of CO
2
can be 13.8 percent over water flooding, and its sequestration
coefficient is predicted as 0.237 in this block.
As illustrated in Table 4 and Table 7, the error on oil recovery factor and sequestration coefficient between the two
methods is tolerable. Considering far more details are need by former method comparing with stream tube, the latter
one is chosen to evaluate CO
2
application.
Given OOIP of Huang 116 Block and Muo 1 Block, oil production increment by CO
2
over water is 172.5!10
4
tons and
765.4!10
4
tons respectively, during which their CO
2
sequestration amount could see 435.0!10
4
tons and 1338.2!10
4

tons.
1.3 Evaluation procedure of CO
2
-EOR and sequestration
To evaluate CO
2
application in oil reservoirs, screening among candidate reservoirs should be taken following Table 1. And
then, oil recovery increment as well as sequestration coefficient in target blocks can be calculated by stream tube simulation.
After, predicted sequestration potentials in each block will be predicted via Formula (1), which adds to the cumulative
potentials of entire oilfield.

2. Evaluation of CO
2
application in Changqing Oilfield
2.1 Prediction of Minimum miscible pressure
Compared with the slim tube observation on field oil, empirical method developed by NPC (Robl, F.W., 1986) is adjusted as
below:
( 329.558 (7.727* *1.005 ) (4.377* )) /145
T
MMP MW MW = ! + ! 2
0.988
8864.9
MW
G
! "
=
# $
% &
3

CMTC 150031 3
0
141.5
131.5 G
!
= " 4
In which,MMPminimum miscible pressureMPaMWmolar weight of C
5+
dimensionlessGgravity of
tank oilAPI
o
! relative density of tank oildimensionlessTreservoir temperature

2.2 Evaluation results of CO
2
application in Changqing Oilfield
Evaluation on Changqing Oilfield indicates 26 out of 30 fields, which are constituted of 261 production layers, are proper for
CO
2
application. Among them, 14 fields (113 production layers) could fulfill miscible flooding, and immiscible flooding in
other 12 ones (148 production layers).
Followed by the procedure discussed above, evaluation on miscible areas, 14 fields (113 production layers), proved 22.42
percent oil would be produced by water flooding, comparing 34.61 percent by CO
2
flooding. Moreover, total oil production
increment and CO
2
sequestration amount can reach about 48 million tons and about 103 million tons respectively, detail
shown in Table 8.
For immiscible areas, 12 fields (148 production layers), CO
2
flooding (27.63%) will obtain 6.63 percent more oil than water
solvent(20.78%). By average sequestration coefficient (0.19), cumulative oil production increment is about 50 million tons
and CO
2
sequestration potentials are about 136 million tons, detail shown in Table 9.

3. Conclusions
In this paper, a reliable screening criterion is firstly established and quick evaluation method is discussed. By such, 30 fields
in Changqing Oilfield are checked for CO
2
application, and 26 ones among them are proved to be feasible for CO
2
-EOR and
sequestration. Furthermore, after predicting flooding performance according adjusted empirical method from NPC, miscible
blocks (113 layers in 14 fields) can expect about 48 Mt of oil production increment and about 103 Mt of CO
2
sequestration
during that application, comparing about 50 Mt of oil increment and about 136 Mt of sequestration in immiscible blocks (148
layers in 12 fields). Considering complication by developed faults in Changqing Oilfield, CO
2
sequestration during CO
2
-EOR
is strong recommended to meet environmental and economic benefits to prevent risk especially for reservoirs which are small
in sequestration potential and far away from emission source.

Acknowledgments
We thank the supports from the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, Grant No. 2011CB707302) and
Chinese National Major Science and Technology Projects(2011ZX05016-006). We also thank the help of experts from
Changqing Oilfield for their correlation study.

Reference
TABER, J.J., MARTIN, F.D., and SERIGHT, R.S., EOR Screening Criteria RevisitedPart 1: Introduction, to Screening
Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects; SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol.12, No. 3, pp. 189-198, 1997
Bradshaw J, BACHU, S., Screening, Evaluation, and Ranking of Oil Reservoirs Suitable for CO2-Flood EOR and Carbon
Dioxide Sequestration. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol.41, No. 9, pp. 51-61, 2002
ZHENG Yun-Chuan, XIONG Yu, Hou Tian-Jiang, Screening Method Based On Fuzzy Optimum for Gas Injection In
Candidate Reservoir. Journal of Southwest Petroleum Institute, Vol.27, No.1, pp.44-47, 2005(ISSN1000-2634. In
Chinese)
LEI Huai-Yan, GONG Cheng-Lin, GUAN Bao-Cong, New Screening Method for Reservoir by CO
2
Injection Miscible
Flooding. Journal of China University of Petroleum, Vol.32, No.1, pp. 72-76, (in Chinese)
ZENG Shun-Peng, YANG Xiu-Wen. et al. Fuzzy Hierarchy Analysis-Based Selection of Oil Reservoirs for Gas Storage and
Gas Injection. Henan Petroleum, Vol. 19, No.4, pp.40-46, (in Chinese)
Robl, F. W., Emanuel, A.S. and Van Meter Jr., O.E., The 1984 Natl. Petroleum Council Estimate of Potential EOR for
Miscible Processes, Journal of Petroleum Technology, August 1986, pp. 875-882.
Bradshaw J, Bachu S, Bonijoly D, et al. A taskforce for review and development of standards with regards to storage capacity
measurement [DB/OL]. http://www.cslforum.org/documents/Taskforce_Storage_Capacity_Estimation_Version_2.pdf,
2005
Bradshaw J, Bachu S, Bonijoly D, et al. Estimation of CO
2
storage capacity in geological media[DB/OL].
http://www.cslforum.org/documents/PhaseIIReportStorageCapacityMeasurementTaskForce.pdf, 2007.
Bradshaw J, Bachu S, Bonijoly D, et al. Comparison between methodologies recommended for estimation of CO
2
storage
capacity in geological media [DB/OL].
http://www.cslforum.org/documents/PhaseIIIReportStorageCapacityEstimationTaskForce0408.pdf, 2008.
Shen Pingping, Liao Xinwei, Liu Qiujie. Methodology for estimation of CO
2
storage capacity in reservoirs[J]. Petroleum
Exploration and Development, 2009, 36(2): 216-220.
Zhang Liang, Wang Shu, Zhang Li, Ren Shaoran, Guo Qing. Assessment of CO2 EOR and its geo2storage potential in
mature oil reservoirs , Shengl i Oilf ield , China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2009, 36(6): 737-741.
4 CMTC 150031

Tables
Table 1 screening criteria for CO
2
application

Screening parameters Miscible Immiscible Evaluated target
Crude oil
properties
density <0.9 <0.95 Miscibility
viscosity <10 <600
Miscible performance
inject ability
components rich in C
2
C
10
- Miscibility
Reservoir
characters
depth 9003000 >900 Miscibility
permeability <10md NC inject ability
temperature <90 - Miscibility
oil saturation >50 >50 EOR potential
variation coefficient <0.75 <0.75 Sweeping efficiency
K
v
/K
h
<0.1 <0.1 Floating effect
K
h
>10
-13
10
-14
>10
-13
10
-14
inject ability
So*" >0.05 >0.05 Sequestration potentials
pressure P>MMP - Miscible requirement
cap
formation
characters
seal Cap fractures are undeveloped security
leakiness
Less than 0.05%
in 300 thousand years
security


Table 2 PVT and MMP observation of Well H-1

Reservoir conditions
Initial formation pressure 18.0 MPa
Initial formation temperature 71.56
Formation fluid properties
Fluid type black oil
Saturation pressure71.56 5.60 MPa
Gas oil ratioflashed gas/ flashed oil 37.8m
3
/m
3

Formation volume factor71.5618.0MPa 1.1372
Initial densityf71.5618.0Mpa 0.7751 g/cm
3

viscosity71.5618.0MPa 1.64 mPas
Tank oil0.101MPa20 0.8414 g/cm
3

MMP71.56 19.5MPa
Fluid components mole fraction
C
1
+N
2
18.79%
CO
2
+C
2
C
10
37.82%
C
11+
43.39%


Table 3 Scenario design in Huang 116 Block

Scenario Injection rate Cumulative injected volume Production period (year)
Water flooding 35m
3
0.6PV 20
CO
2
flooding 11000m
3
0.6PV 20


Table 4 Prediction results of Huang 116 Block

Methods
Recovery factor
after water flooding
Recovery factor
after CO
2
flooding
Recovery
increment
Sequestration
coefficient
Numerical simulation 21.6 29.8 8.2 0.264
Stream tube simulation 22.7 31.9 9.2 0.232
CMTC 150031 5

Table 5 PVT and MMP observation of Well M-1

Reservoir conditons
Initial formation pressure 22 MPa
Initial formation temperature 92.0
Formation fluid properties
Fluid type Black oil
Saturation pressure92.0 9.25 MPa
Gas oil ratioflashed gas/ flashed oil 65.1m
3
/m
3

Formation volume factor92.022.0MPa 1.2523
Initial density92.022.0Mpa 0.7295 g/cm
3

viscosity92.022.0MPa 1.35 mPa.s
Tank oil0.101MPa20 0.8311 g/cm
3

MMP92.0 19.8MPa
Fluid components mole fraction
C
1
+N
2
26.67 %
CO
2
+C
2
C
10
38.99 %
C
11+
34.34 %



Table 6 scenario design

Scenario Injection rate Cumulative injected volume Production period (year)
Water flooding 40m
3
0.6PV 20
CO2 flooding 11000m
3
0.6PV 20



Table 7 prediction results of Muo 1 Block

Methods
Recovery factor
after water flooding
Recovery factor
after CO
2
flooding
Recovery
increment
Sequestration
coefficient
Numerical simulation 22.24 35.13 12.9 0.258
Stream tube simulation 22.78 36.58 13.8 0.237



Table 8 Evaluation results of miscible areas in Changqing Oilfield

Oil field
OOIP
Recovery
by water flooding
Recovery by CO2
flooding
Recovery
increment
sequestration
coefficent
Oil production
increment
Sequestration
potentials
10
4
tons % % % t/t 10
4
tons 10
4
tons
DHZ 113.09 20.45 34.42 13.97 0.36 15.80 40.71
BYJ 478.14 23.71 36.67 12.96 0.24 61.97 114.75
DSK 398.20 21.36 30.49 9.11 0.24 36.28 93.58
FJC 1599.48 22.06 35.15 13.09 0.25 209.37 399.87
HJZ 1470.13 24.91 38.10 13.20 0.25 194.06 367.53
JY 7421.49 25.60 39.66 14.07 0.30 1044.20 2226.45
MF 1069.81 22.97 36.72 13.76 0.27 147.21 288.85
ML 8478.78 21.51 33.90 12.39 0.26 1050.52 2204.48
NL 2711.01 19.74 30.43 10.70 0.26 290.08 704.86
XF 12683.20 23.65 33.92 10.28 0.24 1303.83 3043.97
YW 219.92 23.02 36.87 13.85 0.29 30.46 63.78
WJ 415.91 19.58 30.42 10.85 0.20 45.13 83.18
YC 1819.23 21.64 32.31 10.67 0.20 194.11 363.85
BB 1415.14 23.73 35.47 11.75 0.23 166.28 325.48
6 CMTC 150031

Table 9 Evaluation results of immiscible areas in Changqing Oilfield

Oil field
OOIP
Recovery
by water flooding
Recovery by
CO
2
flooding
Recovery
increment
sequestration
coefficient
Oil production
increment
Sequestration
potentials
10
4
tons % % % t/t 10
4
tons 10
4
tons
AS 26037.8 21.36 27.61 6.25 0.18 1627.36 4686.80
CH 1107.48 20.69 30.81 10.12 0.24 112.08 265.80
HJS 1664.53 20.51 27.52 7.01 0.18 116.68 299.62
HC 4477.83 21 27.76 6.75 0.18 302.25 806.01
JA 29323.3 21 29.05 8.06 0.21 2363.46 6157.89
WWZ 355.35 20.65 29.8 9.15 0.22 32.51 78.18
WQ 2332.58 20.1 27.31 7.21 0.2 168.18 466.52
LZZ 149.59 19.73 23.55 3.81 0.12 5.70 17.95
YFZ 2334.26 20.02 28.72 8.7 0.19 203.08 443.51
SJ 1526.48 21.89 25.97 4.09 0.18 62.43 274.77
ZL 1528.98 21.21 25.19 3.36 0.06 51.37 91.74
MW 31.91 21.2 28.3 5.1 0.32 1.63 10.21

Figures

Fig.1 Grid model illustration of group pattern in Huang 116 block



Fig.2 Grid model illustration of group pattern in Muo 1 Block