Fuol 331 2023) 12567 Contents lists available nt ScienceDirect Fuel ELSEVIER Journal homepage: wr. elsevier.comilocatesfuel Full Length Article Experimental evaluation of enhanced oil recovery in unconventional reservoirs using cyclic hydrocarbon gas injection M. Akbarabadi", A.H. Alizadeh’, M. Piri”, N. Nagarajan” {Pe Teel, 16 ied ees tnner of Mom, Une Sas ARTICLE INFO apsTRact Rowers Enhanced of esses Uncomvetona shale ees Hutfane pl paations Proce as ‘The significant amount of ge prods! fom unconventional reservoirs inthe US in wecent are has reared ‘marker prles for hydrocabon gas and exeated an opportunity for using low eos gas in enhanced ol reeovery (OR) projets. adeition ots availabilty in large quantities and at low cost injeeting produce gas back ino te reservoir prevents Maing the gas, ecg exvitonnetal concen associated with greenhouse gs ems sions othe atmosphere. Furthermore, wile CO has sho tremendous cess as an EO ijetant in hut ane Duff operations in tight qui leh shales, the le of sufficient pipeline ifasurutute supplying low ost CO, as Well as operational issues (eg, comosion) has fared fed operators to consider other gas options, such as okie! gs, to subsite fou or mix with OO2 ‘Wile Hite, experimental and mimesical sities conducted on produced gas hfe pf in unconven: ‘nal resources have shown promising eslts and highlighted he grear potential ofthis technique for enhanced cl ecovery fom ulc-ight shale resouees. The objective ofthe eueat work ist investigate the feast of rove! gas tan pt operations in ou ofthe major oik producing shale formations in North Ametica futher by performing Several fw experiments using various mixtures of hydrocarbon gases. Three reservoir condition core looing expernients are earflly designed and exzeuted on shale core plugs in the absence nd pleseace of proppantfilled Gactues. After establishing inital two-phase binellcondions lathe ere Samples, hydocatbon gas i injected into the medium through abu and-pul approach, The cele af injection Seaking production s repeated multiple times in each experiment, The results show thatthe use of hyocarben {rin hu and pf operations hs great poten sila to CO. for efanced ol ecovey from ight sale rocks fd ca lee to remathable oll covery, The ydrocazboa gas autre fo the fractuse petetates the max due ‘o presse and concentation gradients during the ijeton and soaking periods and foxces the ol to leave the rating the dcpresureation proces, tis observed tht the ate fol prodiction i high in he fst cycle int decrees in sere eyes ns the rte of rns transfer andthe amon ofl reaining in the mate ecrese, The average ol producion due othe eelle ga injection process in an intact and actsed composite fork sample was move than 48 and 21%, respectively. The results show that even dough the wait fr ‘mations ould be hesvly factted, a oper cele gas injection EOR scheme could potentially improve oll recovery from the shale ol reservoirs, significantly. 1. Introduetion "unconventional shale reservolrs Is often extremely low, of the order of| Ihundreds of nano Darcies to a few nile Darcies, and hence primary Tight hydrocarbor-bearing formations, such as oil shales, have become & major source of ol production in the United Stace in the last, theo decades to meet the growing demand for energy Resources and “offset the deline inthe production rte of conventions reservoirs (10) Despite the enortows volumes of oil in plaee, the permexbility of * Conesponding author mall addres slzade@unyo.ca (A. Azadeh) sp do. org/10.1016 fe. 2022.125676 production can mainly be achieved through horizontal wells with nn stage hydraulle fracuring, Nevertheless, the primary recovery factor from these Resources itil ow inthe range ofS-10%6 of te original oi n place [3.17.54], highlighting the need for enhanced oll recovery (OR) techniques to extrac a least a portion of the hydrocarbons Tet Received 8 Janay 2022; Received in revised form 13 July 2023; Accepted 15 August 2022 Available online 1 Seprember 2022 (0016-23618 2022 Eee Lic All ight sewedbehind inthe subsurface. Therefore, itis essential to evaluate vaio processes that can enhance oll recovery, especially in old wells CConspared to conventional reservoirs, enhanced oil recovery in shale reservoits is more challenging owing to the presence of highly conduc tive natural and hydraulic fraecires as well as the significant contrast between fracture and matrix permeabilities. These two factors combined preclude injection fluids from invading the mateix effectively and dis placing its ol into the fracture network. Thus, uaike conventional res fervoirs where the main objective is to improve sweep eificiency, Injection uids and recovery techniques in tight shale reservoirs shoul mainly be selected to enhance matrx-faeture teractions. OF various ‘ll recovery processes targeting the remaining oll in the subsurace after primary production, waterflooding has been the mast commonly used ‘method in conventional reservoirs to maintain reservoir pressure and displace ofl toward production wells. Thi secondary recovery tech nig, however, may nor be @ viable option in unconventional liquid reservoits due fo the fractured oil-wet rock, ultrlow matrix perme: bility, and high clay content (7,19,50,44,47|. AS an alternative (0 Wwaterflooding, eyelic gas injection has shown tremendous success in liqhidrich shale plays, end available experimental, merical, and feld data have verified the effectiveness ofthis technique 16,9,11,12,14,15,16,80,36,37,39,40,42,401 ‘The extremely low permeability and poor pore conductivity of shale rocks make nse of wel{o-well schemes practically impossible, requiring ‘il producers to primarily rely on singl-well hnffand puff operations In this approach, a opposed to injection-production well patterns, ols ‘produced from the stnie well into which the EOR agent is injected. A sosking period is often considered berween injection and produetion steps in hand puff processes as well co give the EOR agent in the fracture siffcient time to interact with the oi in the matrix rock. n the hh phase of « hl and-putf operation, a solveat, such as hydrocsebon ‘5, I injected into a well and is transported to matix-fracture in terfaces through the nerwork of natural and hydric frenures. During injection and early stages of soaking, the pressure difference between the matrix, which has already been depleted in primary recovery, and the fracture result in the intial penetration ofthe gas into the mattix ‘While advective flow caused by pressure gradient is dominated at early UUmes ofthe suaking period, molecular diffusion mass transport caused by concentration gradient becomes the controlling mechanism as the soaking period continues, whieh causes the solvent to penetrate deeper into the matrix, The combination of these mechanisuis may lead to oil viscosity reduction, oll swelling, snd IFT reduction. During the put ‘phase in which dhe well i depressurized, the expansion ofthe dissolved ‘gt forces the oll to leave the mintrix and flow throng the fracture network along with the gas (9,41). The injection soaking production cycle may be repeated multiple times over the life of a vell, depend Ing on the deine rates of oll produetion and well pressure during the depressurization process. Although the single-well approach requires less equipment and lower npfromt investment [1 and hence ecomom leally an atrative option co the majority of feld operators, ts success mostly relies onthe aceessbility ofthe injected EOR agent to residing oi Inthe rock matrix. Thisin turn depends on some other Factorssueh asthe rock permeability, conductivity of natural facture networks, solvent type, and duration of injection, ‘Among. gases available for cycle gas injection, CO2 has received more attention mainly due to its low minimum miscibility pressure, whet makes huf-and-puf gas injection to be feasible under a bronder range of pressure and temperature conditions in sale reservoirs (8). Laboratory and simulation studies performed on CO; huff-and:puif op: ‘erations and recovery pecformance in shale reservoirs reported a great potential for increasing oil recovery using this EOR injectant [12,16,19,2,30)- However, asphaltene precipitation from erude ofl and corrosion are among common problems that may oceur during CO in jection into unconventional reservoirs, similar to conventional reser. ‘oirs (92,9915). Despite the high displacenent efficiency of CO and ‘environmental benefits of its sequestration in underground geologic ‘ul 21 (2029125676 formations, the lack of adequate infrastructure supplying the high de rand in the U.S, 28 well s the increasing pre of CO, has been forcing oil field operators to evaluate the utilization of ctlier available gases, such as produced ges, or thelr combinations with CO>. Reinjection of, produced gas ean also prevent from flaring of a nassive amownr of gas produced from shale plays every day, mitigating environmental con comms regarding greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere and saving tan essential source of energy that can be recovered and used in the future (18,28,27,28,29,93,45). Furthermore, studies that examined the feasibility of hydrocarbon fas injection into shale formation indicated that the likelihood of achieving misebility with erude oil wider reservoir conditions Is hgh ‘ding this process nd inereases with enriching the injected gis, f voring oil recovery (1,18,27, 40,43]. Hofiman (17) investigated the Impact of diffrent gas injection schenies, including carbon dioxide, immiscible hydrocarbon, and miseible hydrocarbon, fr dhe Elm Coulee field in easter Montana using a numerical reservoir simulator and re Dorced that both COg aud miscible hydrocarbon gs injection led to ‘pproximately 14 9 inerease in recovery efficiency. In a simulation study of huff and-puf operations in the Bakken Shale, Sanchez: Rivera eC a, (50) showed that injection of Coz enriched hydrocarbon gases can be a technically and economically viable option and may improve the profle margins of huftand:puit operations. They reported that ajecting # mixture of approximately 50 m0l% COp and 50 161% pro duced gas resulted in better oil recovery perfarmnce compared to 100 % COs injection, Jin et al (29) measured the minimum misebility pressures of CO, CH, and CoH with Bakken crude ol and concluded that Bakken produced gas would be miscble with the erude ol under reservoir conditions (greater than 34.47 MPa and 230 °C). The mint rim miscibility pressate was the lowest for Cat (9.27 MPa) followed by 00s (17.43 MPa) and CHe (81.11 MPa) The recovery performance of the gases was evalusted ina series of ol extraction experiments as well where Bakken core plugs were placed in an extrnetion cell in contact With the desired gas. 1r was observed that both ethane and carbon di oxide vere able to extract most ofthe ol from the rock. The researchers also conducted simulation study and observed that, similar to CO, an 85/15 CH4/CoHe mixture could significantly inerease oil production after primary recovery. The simulation results indicated that the ct tuulative ofl production die to bath COs hu-and-puf and CHy/CaHle hu ané-puffeoul4 increase as high as 50 %. Although it has been re ported in the literature dha ethane has more solubility in crude oi and Tower minimum misetility pressures han Op, and thus @ good injec tant eandiat for liquid ieh shales [19,25,27), the seletion of hye: fatbon gas to be reinjsted into the reserve primarily relies on the composition of the produced gas as well as other available gas Resources in the field. Recently, multiple experimental studies have been published on the efficaey of the eyelie gas injection on improving the ofl recovery from tight formations, including Duvernay, Montney, and Haynesville 115,20.) Thomas et al, (98) designed seven eyelie gs injection EOR projects to investigate the impact of factors such as IFT, oil swelling, rock geology, and sozking/hulf ime on the efficacy ofthe gas injection EOR. The ators created m stack of the whole-core composite core sample consisting of several core samples with an average porosity of six percent and an inital water saturation of 209. The core samples were Lhoroughly cleaned with solvents, and the native wettability state was restored. The core samples were then fractured with specific design. In ne ofthe projects, the researchers eatred out six tess, and in eae experiment, the primary depletion was followed by several cycles of, hu ane. puf gas injections. Due to the extremely low petmenblity of the core samples, the radial flow-type Nooding scheme was implemented this work. The primary produetion for these tests varied from 5 r0 50, 5, nd the early cycles produced mostof the OOIP. They concluded that optimum injection pressure plays a eriticel role in the effectiveness of the Insane pull process. The effect of rock mineralogy was aso re ported prominent in one of their studies. Mazari eta. (26) conducted‘neo huf-and-puff studies using hydrocarbon gasas the FOR agenton the reservoir core samples obtained from the Haynesville shale formation. ‘The core plugs were used in the experiment "as received” without any pre-treatment. The core samples were saturated with the live or dend ‘rude oi inthis study. The modified core-holder enabled the researchers to fracture the core plugs in situ by increasing the pore pressure sur passing overburden pressure. The intrinsic water saturation Was est mated as 11 % (1.3 0), For the frst experiment, the core sample was saturated with the live ofl and tne Sy: didnot change during this step. ‘Seven cycles of huff-and-puff gas injection were conducted, and the oil recovery factors were obtained, The result showed that mest ofthe ofl was produced during the fs ree eyeles, total oll recovery of 48 9 was reported at this stage. At the end of the seventh eyele, the over Durden pressure increased ssch thar the fraeture permenbiity beeame ‘lose tothe matrix permeability. The gas was then continously injected Into the mateix to obtain a piston ike displacement mechanisa for oil recovery, The results illustrated that the evaporation mechanism also played a role along with the frontal advance displacement. This stage slelded an extra 6.5 9 ofl recovery. The second core was saturated with ‘oad oil and then fractured in stn. snilar procedure as the frst test, ‘was followed, and the results demonstrated that most of the oil was produced during the first two eyeles. The ultimate oll recovery was re Ported as 33 96, which was 15 9 lower than the recovery ofthe first ‘experiment. The solution ges in dhe live of and its impact on displacing the ol fromthe pore space during the production period was assunied to be one of the aan contebuting factors to this difference. Ghanizadeh ‘etal. (15) performed simulation and experimental hu and-pulf tests on frmetured Duvernay formation Alberta, West Canada) rock samples. The core samples were fractured throngh applying stress on the core plugs (CO) and lean gas were sed asthe EOR agents, and the Daverney for. mation dead crude oll was used asthe oll phase. The coe samples were ly saturated with dead oil before gas injection. No intial water ‘snuration wasestblished, and the core samples were used “as received” ‘widhout any pretreatment. Before the experiments, the simulation test ‘was conducted to optimize parameters such as the injection pressure used within the experimental studies. After fous eyeles of hf and put stops, the recovery factors of 45 and 30 % of the OOIP were obtained utlzing CO. and lean gas, respectively. They also reported that most oi recovery was achieved during the fist two eyeles. While limited, the results of the above-mentioned experimental and numerical studies show the great potential of produced gas hnf-and- DUT and justify farther investigation of the oll recovery performance ‘ofthis EOR scheme, Hence, inthis stdy, we exannined the feasibility of hyérocarhon gas injection asa process to enksnce oll recavery from one ‘of the major oll producing unconventional shale reservoirs in North “America. We designed and conducted reservoir condition coreflooding ‘experiments on preserved rock samples collected from niajor liquid rich shale formation using reservoir erude oil and several hydrocarbon _g88 combinations. The generated experimental data were also history matched for internal use and future feld development, whose rests are not reported here. This work was followed by another set of core flooding experiments conducted on the reservoir whole ore samples whose results wil be presented in nnother paper tthe following sec Hons, we frst provide details of the materils aid experiniental appa ratus and procedures used to perform che experiments and then discuss the results and observed trends. Finally, ke conclude our work with aset of key remaths, 2. Materials and methods ‘Three reservoir-condition core-looding experiments were conducted ‘on nativestate reservoir core samples using diferent brine/erude cil/ ‘gas uid systems and at varying initia saturation conditions. The frst, theo experiments were performed on core samples with no fractures, whereas the third one was carried out ona composite coe containing & longitudinal facture filled with proppant sands. ‘ul 21 (2029125676 2.1. Core samples ‘Three core samples, 3.78 ca in diameter and 7.82 to 9.07 em long, wore selected from two different wells dried into tight formetion Prior to the experiments the eore plugs, hereafter referred ro as Samples A,B, and C, were X-ray imaged using a medical CT scanner at ares lution of 250 x 250 x 1000 junto examine thei integrity and homo- geneity. No major heterogeneity was observed in the core plugs. Table 1 Provides the properties ofthe three core samples. Experiments 1 and 2 were performed on Samples A and B, respec: Lively. The porosity of Sample A was frst estimated using a companion core sample drilled from the same well. Porosity of the companion sample measured with helium gas &t 2.07 MPa net confining pressure was 35 96; however, the porosity of Samples B and G was measured using the same sample and were reported as 4.8 and 4.69. The porosity of Sample A was also estimated by X-tay iniaging a small piece of the ‘core plug using atio-CT seanner at resolution of 64 um. ig. | shows ‘wo examples ofthe nano-CP images. Analysis of the images yielded & porosity of3.3%. Inaddition co the porosity measuremtent, the aano-CT images were milied to generate the poresize distribution of the rock sample As observed in ig. 2, the majority ofthe pore sizes range from 100 to 500 um, However, it was observed thatthe use of higher reso lution imaging techniques (eg, Focused Ton Beam Scanning Eleeton Microscopy (F1B-SEMD with a resolution of | nn) would shift the peak of the curve toward lower pore size ranges. While conducting Experiment 1, several rock pieces collected fom diferent locations of the target formation were imaged using SEM to characterize pore elements and their conductivity. The SEM images revealed a significant amon of oid sal precipicated inthe pore space ‘The salt precipitate had covered the pore walls and partially (rin some cases fully) plugged the pore elements making some parts ofthe pore space inaccesible to flow. It is usually postulated that salt precipitation i rock formations with hypersaline brine occurs when the pressure In the vicinity of produetion wells drops below the bubble point pressure leading to water evaporation into the gas stream or when equilibrium pressure and temperature conditions of fuids inthe rock change during coring processes [20 22,85). Fig. 3 exemplifies SEM images taken from ‘ane ofthe stamps, Thus it was essential to remove the salt precipitates from the core samples before using them in the subsequent core flooding experiments In order to extract the salt precipitates from Sample B, the core plug was placed In a core holder under 1.38 Mpa net confining stress and saturated wich methanol. Soveral pore volumes of methanol were then Injected into the pig ata pore pressure and temperature of §.17 MPa and 05 °C, respectively, During the cleaning process, che pressure drop across the core plug decreased andthe ability ofthe porous media to transmit the solvent gradually increased, both indicating the efecive ness ofthe solvent injetion for salt removal). The permeability to riethnol, which was intially arovind4.42E-19 m? (0.448 uD), increased by almost an order of magnitude and reached a relatively stable value of 1.368-18 mi? (1.38 wD) atthe end of the cleaning proces. kn addition to ‘Table 1 Peuophysical properties ofthe rock samples used in ths study perpen! Somple—Imagth Dinner Peron Raced oe ae ‘Mensur with elim porosimeter ata net confining presse of2.07 MPa. Measured ona sister core (3.1 cm in diameter and 6-8 en log) using the bendop AP6OS potesimeter- permeameter unit obtained fom Xray mages generated using a nano-CT scanner (90 ‘confining presse was on the tock pce).(@) (b) Fig. 1. ExamplesofX ay inages of Sample A obtained wsng a nano CT scanner at solution of 64 mn. The images were used o estimate dhe potest and poe sie clsuibution ofthe spl Pore 820 range Fig. 2, Pove sve dlsibuton of Sample A estinated sing nano-CT images, the permeability measurement, the salinity of the methanol effuent from the core simple was monitored during the cleaning process, The methanol injection was continued until the salt concentration in the effiuent reached a specified cutoff value. Thereafter, the stmple was ‘shed with helium gas to remove the bulk of methanol and then oven: dried in-sitt nder vneitim at 65 °C for several days. The sample vas placed in an oven and ts weight was monitored periodically antl weight Stabilization was achieved over two 48-hour readings. More details of the cleaning procedure can be found elsewhere (7-5 (se also Supple: mentary Materia. Aiter drying, the porosity of Sample B was measured with helium under 2.07 MDa net confining pressite (see Tle 1). Since pote volumes of Samples A and Bin Experiments 1 and 2 were very low (approximately 4 em"), it was decided to use a composite core for Experiment 3. For this purpose, Sample B (already used in Exper ‘ment 2) and Sample C were butted together to form a compesite. Before raking the composite core, Samples 8 end C were separately cleaned with methanol nd dried, aad then thelr porosities were measired with heli under 2.07 MPa net confining pressure (Fable 1). 2.2, Fluids ‘The experiments were performed using various brine/erude ol/gns Fig, . SEM mivogiaphs of salt crystals (ight gray minetls) both oa the sutface and in the poce elements ofthe rock observed from backseater ele ‘tons (BSE) sing a TLD in immersion mode at KV ad 0.1 08 ‘Avid systems. The min dferences among the fd systems were the oi phase (stock tank of live ol) and the gas phase (various mixtures) For Experiments 1 and 3, stock tank oil was used asthe ol phase, whereas live oll was used in Experiment 2. The lve oll was prepared by recom Dining the stork tank oll (STO) aud a synthetically prepared seperacor gs closely matching te field gas composition. It vas ensured that basic PVT properties, such as the bubble point pressure, eil density, oll vs cosity, and solution gas-oil ratio (GOR), were matched as elosely as possible. An eqtation of state-based fuid model fr the reservoir oll and EOR injectant was doveloped matching the basie PVT properties and vailabe swelling test and minimum misibiity pressure (MMP) dat. ‘The stock tank oil was italy filtered with «0.5m fer and then centrifuged at $500 xpi for 2 to reniove solid particles and trapped brine if any. No trapped water was detected in the ol. To make up the live oil, syheticmixture of hydrocarbon gases (60 mol96 Cy, 22 mol¥6 11.5 m0l%6 Cs, nl 6.5 mol96 Cy) representing the Feld separator ens was prepared in a recombination cell, A specified volume of thecentrifged and filtered stock tank ol was later added to it to obsain & solution gas-oll ratio of around 600 SCF/STB the in sits solution GOR). ‘The recombination cell pressure was then raised to 13.79 MPa to reach a single-phase condivion, and the cell was rocked overnight using. & rocking stand to ensure well mixing of the ofl and gas and attain ‘equilibration. The synthetic formation brine for each experiment vas prepared by dissolving given amounts of NaCl, CaCl6HA0, and MgCls in distilled water, Table 2 stuumarizes the composition of the bs solutions. 1m order to prepare the injection gas mixtures, the required compo: nents were added gravimetrically (based on pre-specified welghts) to @ high-pressure cell starting with the component withthe lowest storage pressure followed by other components inthe order of ineressing sor ‘age pressures, The inal gas mixture compositions were alyzed using a ‘gts chromintograph an find ro be within —1 % ofthe target valle, “Table ists the composition of he gas phase used for injection ino the core samples in each experiment. 2.3. Experimental senp and procedures A core-looding setup sas designed and fabricated in-house to perform the gas injection experiments using live Muids at reservoir conditions. The setup was composed of dual-cylinder Quizix pumps, Rosemount pressure transducers, a verteally mounted Hassler type core holder, a three-phase separator, live fluid recombination cells and mechanical convection ovens, All flow lines used in the setup were 10.3175 en (1/8 in.) except those delivering produced fluids from the ‘core sample 1 the separator. They Were 0.1587 en (1/16 in.) in size 10 minimize the desd volume and hence the liquid hold-yp vole be: toveen the eore exit and the separator. This would help minimize un certainties in produced oil volumes as the pore volumes of the core ‘samples were considerably low compared to conventional core plugs Separate dual pumps were assigned for injecting different fluds (the stork tank oll, the live ol, ofthe gas) into the core plugs and maintaining the separator (the core outlet) and the overburden pressures. In Exper iment 1, a separator with no windows was used and therefore it had tobe depressurized and Mushed with a solveat atthe end of the experiment to collet produce ofl This separator, however, was replaced with a fll sapphire visual cll for Experiments 2 and 3. Fig. shows a detailed schematic diagram: of te core-fooding setup One of the challenges in Experiment 1 was latroduced by the aiff ‘sion ofthe injected hydrocarbon gas into the confining Nu aough the ‘Viton sleeve. To mitigate this problem, the core samples in Experiments 2 and 3 were wrapped with Teflon cape and dhen placed in a hea shrink Ibe. The shrink tube was further wrapped with «layer of Alumsinmm tape. Inadaition, the Viton sleeve was replaced with a custom: built Aas sleove to minimize gas diffusion, andthe new sleeve was Finally wrapped with a ayer of lea tape. This combination of the protective layers and the Aflas sleeve fully eliminated gas Toss co overburden fluid in the course of core-looding experiments. ‘The core samples were weighed and then mounted in the core holder ‘The samples were saturated with the stock tank oil and the absolute permeability 10 ei for Samples B and C was measured duting this step for Experiments 2 and 3. The permeability was 3.02E-18 m? (8.06 yD) (in Experiment 2) and .03E-18 m? (3.07 yb) (in Experiment 3) for ‘Sample B and was 4548-18 m1 (4.6 wD) for Sample C. At this poin the sanples were depressurized slowly, taken out of the core holder, and “Table 2 {Composton of brine soturons pene NaCl Gat OMT cogs oe Gap mea ‘ul 21 (2029125676 ‘Table ‘Composition ofthe injection gas mixture perinent Methane Bane Popane —_-eButne (mie) __twolew)__tnoten)_tnole) weighed. Two distinct initial water saturation (Sy) Vales were estab lished 10 cover the observed range of initial water saturation. To establish intial water saturation in Experiments 1 and 2, the core sples were separately placed in imbibicion cells filled with the sy thetic formation brine at ambient temperature. The weight measure ‘ment indicated the initial waver saturation in stmple A and Sample B was 11.50% (4:<0.1 9) and 37-526 (40.1 98), respectively. Shown in Fig. 5s the volume of ot produced from Sample B as &funetion of tine during the spontaneous imbibition. in Experiment 3 where gas injection was intended to be performed in the presence of fractures, each plug (Samples B and ©) was frst separately saturated withthe stock tank oi tnd then cu lengthwise inthe middle into two piecesin order to create a fracture running from one end ofthe pug to the other end, The pieces, hereafter, are labeled as Samples BA, BB, CA, and CB, We created the fractures in Samples B and C closely perpendicular tothe bedding plsins thar were previously identified fom the X-ray images taken at the beginning of his study. After ereating the fatures, desire initial water saturation was established by placing each individual piece (Le, Sam- ples BA, BB, CA, and CB) in a separate imbibition cell filled with brine Since the individual rock pieces might attain the desired initial water saturation around 11 %)ealier than the other pleces, we had to remove those pieces that hed reached the target Sy from the imbibition cll and store them in the stock tank oil until the other pieces reached similar {nical water saturation Iwas found thatthe weigh of the pieces) that were stored in the stock tak il decreased in that perio, implying that the rock ad imbibed oil and as « result expelled some brine. This phenomenon can be observed in Fig. © where the last two points (top rightmost for Samples CA and CB show lower values. The variation in the established initial water saturations was considered in the final saturation for each piece, The final Sy values Were 10.64, 9.51, 12:98, and 12.40 9 (0.1 9) for Samples BA, BB, CA, and CB, respectively ‘The experimental procedure to establish two-phase saruration was explained inthe Supplementary Maeril. After establishing the initial water saturation in Samples BA, BE, CA, and CB, the fracture surface of one piece fom each core plug. was ‘covered witha chin layer (around three layers) of proppant sand of 40/ ‘0 mesh and then the corresponding plece was placed on top ofthe frst Dieee. The composite core along with the core holder's end pieces was then covered with «heat shrink ube. A layer of Aluminum tape was also ‘wrapped on the shrink tube, This process is explained in detail in the Supplementary Materia. After establishing the inital water serration, the core ph) along with the core holder's end pieces was wrapped with the protective layers (Ge, Teflon tape, heat shrink tube, and Aluminum. tape) as described eater and then placed in the core holder. After placing Sample Ain the core holder in Experiment 1, the pore pressure was increased (0 24.13 [MP by injecting the stock rank o into both end ofthe core plig while maintaining a net confining pressure of 6.89 MPa, Out intial exam nation ofthe core samples during helium porosity measurements ind fated that the pore volumes of the plugs decreased slightly with increasing confining presse, The reduetin in the pore volume de to Increasing confining pressure in each experiment may have resulted in the production of some of the resident fds (Le. brine and/or eil from the pore space, In dis study, it was assumed that the reduetion of the pore volunie du to stress ln the samme impact ou the volumes of bot brine and oil, mesning tac their intial saturations did not change. During the rest of Experinient 1, the core outlet pressite was kept athed BF Se4 ‘ul 21 (2029125676 an eg e o a. Bow k. Te i ka fos Ee vow. Time (bs) Fig. 8. The volume of ol production fiom Sample B versus dave dung spon taneous nbibiion of brine 24.19 MPa and the confining pressure was staf 31.02 MPa (Le, 6.89 IMPs above the out pressure). Alter establishing he ital pressure conditions in Experiment tthe pug was looed with the tock tank oi to mesure efetive ofl permeability. The measured efetve perme bt ool mt Sy was 2.718-19 mi (0.275 pD)- Pir to gas injeton, the temperane ofthe system was increased 116 Cand then the ines patents and downstream ofthe core sample were fished with the iyarocarbon gas ste bypasing the core sample —corenove exces cil left in thes from the lst offMood nnd excl is volume fom ei recovery calculations 1 Expernent 2 after placing Sample Bin the core holder, te pore pressure (by injecting the stock ak ol) and confining pressure were inereased 10 17.24 MPa and 62.05 MPa, respectively. These presses oe mw mw wD WTO I HO HO Time (hs) ig 6. The volume of oi podiced fom Samples BA, BB, CA, ad CB vers tie dung spontaneous icon of une, Staples CA aad CB weve ited in crude ol ale teaching the deste inital water saturation, which resulted in the imbibison of sone ol by ech and light reson in thee inal water sseurtions Were chosen 10 matel closely the conditions of the reservoir and well from which Sample B was obtained. Neat, the stock tank oil in the core plug was displaced withthe live oll at 17.24 MPa and the temperature was increased to 80 °C, Effective permeability to live oil at Syi was measured a 6.916-19 m1? (0.7 pi). Silla to Experinent 1, che ol (ere the lve ofl) in the injection and production ines was removed with the fas intended to be used in the experiment before the start of gas injection In Experiment 3, the fractured compesite core sample was put inthe core holder under 6.89 MPa confining presse, and then the proppantpack was lightly vacuumed and saturated with the stock tank ol, Daring the stock tank ol injection, the pore pressure, confining pressure, and temperature were slowly inereased to 17.24 MPa, 62.05 MPa, and 196.1 °G, respectively. Prior to gas injection, the remaining oll in the Injection and production lines was fished ost with the injetion gas at 17.24 MPa bypassing the core sample. Around 4 fracture pore volumes ‘of gas were also injected into the fracture to displace ol present in the propped fracture. This was accomplished ata relatively high low rateto prevent any’ interaction between the fluids in the matrix and the frac tue, The fence poze Volume was devermined earlier by examining the (CT innages using Avizo software, The average facture aperites and fracture pore volumes of Samples Baud C wete 1.46 aud 1.22 mum and 1.94 and 1.96 ea, respectively. Therefore the total facture pore vo ume ofthe composite core was 3.9 em. The porosity of the proppant pack was assinied to be SO sot posable to measure the porosity ‘of the propped fracture with CT scanning because the core holder used ‘during the experiments was made of Hastelloy (.e,,on-scansable) to tolerate 62.05 MPa confining pressure; hence, the frntured composite ‘core was seated without che core holder der no conning presse, ‘The gas injection steps in all three corelooding experiments were carried out using the huff-and:pulf approach, As described earlier, & Inulf-and pall process involves injecting gas into the core saple to build up the pore pressure to a prespecified valve, soaking the core for & specified duration to let the injected gas penecrate ito the matrix and Interact with the resident fui in the pore space, and producing fromthe core by reducing the pore pressure to a specific pressure. In each ‘experiment, the injection-soeking-production cycle was repeated three to four times, and the lst eyele was followed by blow down process to ambient conditions. Although, as described in the experimental setup, the eluent was collected ina separator maintained at the same pressure 2s the core outle, it was impossible o measure the ol tecovery in each, ‘cle forthe following reasous:() The produced fds in the separator were at live conditions and we sere unable to flash the separator on: Tent ro measure the produced STO volumes in each eyele without dis ‘connecting the separator from the core flood setup It ns suspected that {his would lead (0 further experimental challenges and large measure ment uncertainties. (i) It was difficult to estimate the variations of oil sturation in the core sample (Le, ineremental oil recovery) from the amount of produced ol in the separator as the latter was a byproduct of ‘gas dissolution in the resident ofl and vaporization of lighter compo: rents from the resident oil as wells in-sit ol expansion, viscosity and IFT reduetion, and local mseiilty development. Instead, the final ol recovery in exch ofthe experiments was ealeulared based on te weight ‘of the core sample atthe start ofthe experiment and st the end of nl the Injection soaking production cycles and the inal blow-down. Although we followed sinilar huf-and-pulf procedures in all experiments, there were some minor diferences among them that will be discussed In the v. (i) These types of core looding experiments in neon ‘ventional tight racks were condicted for the fis tive in this Inborarry. ‘This posed several challenges while implementing some steps of the procedures. Therefore, it was necessary to modify the procedure for subsequent experiments based on the learnings from previous exper rents. Gv) We aso consciously decided not o inerease the complexity ‘of the experiments by inching too many variables ina given test. The procedures were constrained (0 thls limitation, (9) And more impor tantly, the foeus of these experiments was more geared toward eval ating the Impact of various injection gases om ultimate recovery that would aid in acquiring base design parameters for a Fatute Feld pilot ‘and not investigating the impact of large suite of test parameters. 3. Results and discussion ‘To start the gas injection process in Experiment 1, the outlet of the core (the bottom of the core holder) was isolated. The gas phase (a nixture of G; through C,) was then injected from the top ofthe core at average flow rate of 0.002 em*/in for approximately 43h, resulting ‘ul 21 (2029125676 ian increase in the inet pressure fom ts nit valu of 24.13 MPa to 26.20 Mea, Weintally injected gas alow rate of 0.005 m/min, bt the inlet pressure increased very rapidly in short period die to the ‘uloaow permeability of the rock. The gs Now ate Was then adjsted to slow down the ile presse bla. Thereafter, the gs pnp was Seta constant pressure to maintain te inlet presse a 26.20 Ma ith automatie adjustment ofthe injeton ate The core was then allowed soale with the Duis init for round 72 h. During the injection and soaking periods, stor of 1.82 pore volumes of gases injected nt the ore. However, we believed that al the injected as did nat go though the core considering the efent volume mensirenents at the core outlet as well ste pote pressure. While part of the volume discrepancy ‘ould be stibuted to the compression ofthe gs ding pressure Bild ‘tp, mght not Fall account for the large injection vokume. A major source for hisdiserepancycould have stesmed from the diffusion ofthe tas pase othe overburden Hid trough the Viton sleeve, Indeed, is tras confirmed by the continuous retraction of the confining preanire Dump Cand discharging the overburcen mineral ol and ges into a ump ess) and by continuing gas injection (he ow eae of the ges pump never dropped toward 2e0 and reniined at around 0.002 emi). “The ts lasso the overburden Mud was completly eliminated in Ex periments? and by using w customized Alas sleeve and several layers Of protection, as desribed earlier. Despite the gas los by difsion through the sleeve, althongh very shall we conned wih Experiment 1'since the plan was to esinate the ulimate (otal) recovery by weighing the core sample a the end of the tes, After sonking, the core holder was isolated from the gas injection pump, the separstor wes presstized with nitogen v0 26.20 MPa, and the outlet valve berween the core holder md the separator was opened. The change inthe sepa rator pressure was minimal indicating thatthe core outlet pressure had Also seached the presse of 26.20 MPa ia the couse of gas inection “This inerease in the core outlet pressure showed the ability ofthe hy droearbon gto penetrate the ileslow: permeability rock Ce. mates) due tothe pres gradient. During the production step, tie oudet pressure ofthe core was gradually decreased fom 26.20 MPa to 24.13, MPe within 7 by reacting fluids fom the bottom of dhe core holder using dhe hack pressure pump. After 7b, we could have set the core butler peesize a 24.13 Ma wnt the back pressure pun retraction rate became 2ro to enste thatthe core Would not produce any more Aids and the pressure everywhere in the pare space was depleted to 24.18 MPa. We di not follow this procedure due to the concern about possible steve fle, which would esl it the los ofthe experiment However, in Experiments 2 and 3, sine the sleve ise wes resolved, long production periods were considered. After the prodiction ele was completed in Experiment 1, te outlet valve between the coe holder and separator was closed andthe inlet valve was opened. The injection soaking prodetion eyele was repeted two more ties sng similar pocede. The variations f the pressure dreighou the dre eyeles ae Shown nig 7. ‘After conpleton ofthe chi eyele the low-down step was inated by reducing the separator pressure (tthe core plug outed). The blow down was eontine in steps reducing the pore presi from 2413 ¢9 6.89 MPa. When the pore pressure reached 6.89 MP, both sjstem presure and temperature were reduced t0 ambient conditions 10 dismantle che core hldes, weigh he cove sample and caleulate the fina oil recovery. The ol recovery factor elelated based on the weight of the core sample before and after gs injetion indicated that approx! tuately 84 6 ofthe orgie! in place was recovered by za nection. “he outlet ine and the bind separator clin Experiment 1 were Sshed ‘ith solvents to coletthe produced oi The effluent was found to be brow implying dat in sin oil was produced during the experinuent.X ray inages of the core afer the experiment didnot show any” visible Changes in the stactre ofthe oek While theo recovery factor in Experiment 1 was promising, there imighchave been several factors that edo sich high vale. Itshould be noted dat when hydrocarbon gas isin contact wih dead in the preton tte) 5 : Sg een) et een Sep er se) . et i © 100 10 a0 50 ado 260 ado 400 500 880 Time (re) ig. 7. Vasialoas of inleoulet pressures of the core wih tne fom the begining of the Bist cyte tothe end of the Blowdown process kn Exper ment 1 space, the oil swells due to gas dissolution contributing to additional recovery as the core pressure is decreased to bubble point pressre. The formation volume factor forthe target formation is around 1.7 10 1.8 at the bubble point pressure, which means the ol can expand 70 0 80% in volume from desd ofl ive ol tthe bubble point, contributing to the ‘observed recavery. Furthermore, decteasing. the reservoir pressure below a certain bortom-hole pressive (approximately 700 ro 1000 psig — the abandonent pressure) is not practical inthe field, Dropping the ‘experimental pressure and temperature ote ambient conditions inthis study had ta be done inorder to remove the core samples and measure ‘heir weights In addition to the above-mentioned factors, we shold recognize sone uncertainties associated with the measurements. In the calela ons, i was assumed thatthe pore space originally ld aliost no lig uids, and therefore no brine or ol was evaporated during vacuuming the core plug and the weight of the core remained unchanged. ‘This ‘assumption was partly supported by the nano-CT images of small pieces ‘of the rock that showes a small amount of oll and no brine in the pore space, Nonetheless, this observation might not simply be applied 1 all, parts of the core pli, particularly the central sections sway from the ‘outer faces where the smal pieces were cu, The other uncertainty that ‘could have afocted the results was associated with changes in the pore volume dive to inereasing confining pressure. Aliiough it was assumed thar stressing the core plug would have the same impact on the inital ‘water and ol saturations, this might be more plasble in Experiment 2 ‘where both water and ol saturations were high. ln Experiments 1 and 3, the initial water saturation was low and hence it was likely that ‘aueezing the pore space might have resulted in expelling ofl more than, Drine. See also Supplementary Material for extra disenssion on this esl Experiment 2 was performed following a similar procedure used in Experiment 1. The main diferences were thatthe ol was at live eo ditions and the gas phase was pure propane, Propane was lguld x the prevailing experimental conditions. n adlition, the blind separator was teplaced witha fully visual cell, The starting pressure for ges injection ‘was also set at 17-24 MPa (compared to Experiment 1 that was started from an intial pressure of 24.13 MPa). The chosen pressure for Exper iment 2 (.e,, 17.24 MPa) was closer to the pressure ofthe forauation after primary depletion, prior 1 gas injection. Learning gained through Experiment 1 was also use to improve the procedures for Experiment 2, ‘Similar to Experiment 1, the outlet (Le, bottom) ofthe core was closed ‘and propane was injected from the top to increase the inlet pressure from 17-24 to 26.20 MPa. After te inlet pressure reacied 26.20 MPa, ‘ul 21 (2029125676 the pump was set to maintain the inlet pressure, thereby supplying more propane into the medium and displacing more oll from the pore ele ments of the core sample. We maintained the inlet pressure during soaking since we believe that only a small amount of propane should have invaded the medium during the injection eyele because of the liquid state ofthe injectant atthe test pressure and temperature condi tions. The soaking period was continued until the flow rate of the in jection pump reached near zero. This indicated that the outlet pressure ofthe core increase 0-26.20 MPa and no more propane dssohtion in the oil oceurred, After soaking, the production step was commenced. “The separntor was pressurized With nitrogen to 26.20 MPa, the inlet valve was closed, aud den the outlet valve between the core holder and the separator was opened. The change in the pressure ofthe separator was minimal, again confirming that the core outle pressure had reached the pore pressite of 26.20 MPs, The separator pressure wns gradually decreased in 3h to 26.13 MPa. However, unlike in Experiment 1, the produetion step was continued until both the retraction flow rate of the pump (maintaining the separator pressure at 24.13 MP8) and the pres sure drop aeross the core sample reached near zero. Variations of the pressure drop actos the core during production in the fist cycle vers ‘ime are plotted ini 8. The graph starts aczeco pressure drop because, prior tothe production step, both the inlet and outlet were at the same pressure of 26.20 MPs. No oll was produce in the separator atthe end ofthe Fist eyele, However his does noc mean that ol was not produced from the core plug because the oll might have entered the production lines but was not enough in Volume to reach the separator. No attempt was made in the middle of tae experiment to Mush the production ines bypassing the core to collect the possible produce oll in the separator. ‘This was however considered in Experiment 3 as wil be diseussed later. “The secon and third injection-soaking-production cycles were carried ‘ut using the same procedure. No visible oll was produced inthe sep ator until the third eyle, wiaen some oi was observed inthe visual cell (ig. 9). While Experiment 1 éid not provide conchisive evidence for oi production before blow-down, Experiment 2 demonstrated that oil could be produced due to hydrocarbon gas huffand-puff. After completion of all three cycles, the blow-dovn process was started by reducing the pressure ofthe separator in steps from 24.13 106.89 MPa. Fig. 10 shows the variations of the inlet/outlet pressures wih time "houghout the experiment before decreasing. the temperature and pressure fo atmospheric conditions. When the pore pressure reached 6.89 MPa, both pressure and temperature of the system were brought down ro ambient conditions to take ont the core sample and measure is weight Fig. 11 (@) to (6 lustrate the contents ofthe separator at various 14 Pressure crop (MPa) oo. Time (rs) Fig. Vatation of pressure dop with tne dusing the production step ofthe Fs eye in Experiment 2.9, Photo ofthe separator (ssl eld taken atthe end of the hid eyele befove the blow-down process in Expetnient 2 Litton rte) 6 TE sak nt en Eres ein) ° Hi 0 80 100” 190 00” 250 wo 50 at 450 50” 550 Time (hs) 10. Vainio of inletoutet presses ofthe core with cme fom the begining ofthe fst cycle to the end of the blow down process kn Expet! stages ofthe blow down proces. I should be noted thatthe oll volume in the separator did uot represent the volume of ol et the core because it was expanded by the dissolution of propane in the in-situ oll. This ‘caused the color of the oll to gradually change ftom a darker Coa lighter bine, After remioving fom the care holder, che core seuple was weighed and X-ray imaged. The CT images did not show any damage tothe core ‘during the flooding process, The ultimate oil recovery factor i tis test, based on che weights of the core plug before and after the test was be tween 48:51 9% and 75.56 %. The higher value reslted from the ‘assumption that no brine had been produced from the core (final water ‘saturation remind at 37.52 9) aud all the weight loss to the core was ‘due toil production. However, i was noticed tat, at dieend of the tes the intial volume of brine in the separator fad increased a ile ‘While this exeess brine might have been in the production lines at the ‘ul 21 (2029125676 start of the gas injection process (the separator filed with brine and ritrogen was connected to the outlet (bottom) of the core holden), it could also have been produced from the medium due to high water saturation inthis experiment. Considering that all the excess brine in the Separator was prodiced from the core, the ol recovery factor Was 48.51 6, The same uncertainties in oll recovery factor calculations in Experi ‘ment 1 apply to Experiment 2 as well Although oll recovery in Exper iment 2 was high similar to Experiment 1, there were some differences berween the 10 experiments hat could have impaeted their perfor mances, The differences in recovery performance might have stemmed from several factors including diferent core properties (Le, the degree of heterogeneity), diferent inital water saturations (11.50 % vs $7.52 5), higher confining pressure (62.05 MPa vs 31.02 MPa), different In Jection gas composition, and the use of live el vs dead oil in these ex periments. The use of dead erude oil slong with @ leaner gas mixture in Experiment 1 might have led to considerable gas dissolution in the of compared to Experinent 2. Ths could also have caused higher oil vs cosy reduction nd ol swelling. [n adltion, the gas expansion mech ‘nism should have been more effective in Experiment 1 during the putt phase, forcing mote cil to leave the rock. Higher water saturation in the matrix may also reduce the rate of gas penetration into the rock. Despite all the differences, the high oil recovery factors in both experiments uicate that che use of hydrocarbon gas in huff ant pnif operations ean result in signitiean ol progiction from ight liquid tich she reservoirs Experiment 3 was also performed following similar procedures as Experiments 1 and 2 with a few modifications necessary to addtess the presence of a propped hydraulic fracture, As mentioned earlier, after establishing the intial conditions in the composite eore and prior to starting the gas injection process, the ol resident in dhe fracture was displaced with the injection hydrocarbon gas at 17.24 MPa and a high rate (<1 em°/min) to avoid any matrix fracture interactions. Subse ‘quently, the core outlet was closed and hydrocarbon gas was injected from the top to inerease the pressure to 27-58 MPs, While the range of| pressurization and depressurization in the fist two experiments was between 24.19 and 26.20 MPa it was set between 20.68 and 27.58 MPa to be closer to operational conditions ia the field, Due to the high con: ductivity of the fracture (and the proppant pack) running from one end ofthe composite core tothe other end, gas initially invaded the fracture fad therefore the pressure of the facture inereased quicker than the pressure of the matrix, Hence, the injection steps ofall the eycles were conducted relatively fst (in about an hour). One of the other differences berween Experiment $ and Experiments 1 and 2 was that the gas in ection pump was disconnected from the core and no ations gus was provided during the soaking. periods. In the earlier experiments, continuing gas injection dung soaking was necessary Because the gas Injected during the previous step (Le, the injetion step) hardly invaded the ultra Jow permeability matrix and mainly inereased the ine pres suite, Thus, the injected gus was not adequate to compensate for the pressure drop during the soak steps. However, in Experiment 3, the gas filled fracture provided suficent additional gas to make up for most of the pressure loss due to gas diffusion to and dissolution in oil in the adjacent matrix During soaking, as gas dissolved in the olin the adjacent macix and ‘moved further deep into the matrix initially at 17.24 MPa), the fracture pressure dropped. The pressure drop, however, was relatively fast in the soaking step ofthe fist cycle because of sual leakage from a iting. After twas fixe, the rte of pressute drop decreased. The soak duration ial eyces was approximately 48 h, To sige the production step, the pressure of the separator ws increased tothe pressure of the fracture tnd then the core holder was connected to the separator. During peo: duction, the separator pressure was gradually reduced to 20.68 MPa in three hours and then miintaned at this pressure for suficent period (14 10 161) for Further matrix-fracture interactions until the flow rate of the separator pump was almost zero, When the pressure reached 20.68 MPa, the fracture was Mushed with four fraetute pore volumes of the hydrocarbon gas to collet produced oil from the matri, if any, in the©. ‘ul 21 (2029125676 Fig. 1 Photos of the separator visual el taken ding he blow dona process in Experian 2a the separator presses of) 20.68, (b) 13.79, and (0 6.89 MPa ‘separator. Fig. 12 (@) shows the separator ache en of the is eyele. AS ‘observed, hydrocarbon gas injection into a fraetured core sample suc cessfully resulted in ol production from the nacrix, Although the results obtained in Experiments 1 and 2 were remarkable, the results and ob ‘servations of Experiment 3 were more Important because the formation Investigated in this study is heavily fractured (ineluding natural and hydraulic fractures) and most el production should be obtained from the interaction ofthe gas phase in the propped or wnpropped fractures with the crude ol in the matrix. Experiment 3 demonstrated the feas- bility of hydrocarbon gas ni and putf in the target formation. Experiment 3 was continued by conducting dree more cycles —| ‘yele more compared to Experiments 1 and 2. As seen in Fig. 12 @)(0 (@), the rate of production decreased in subsequent cycles due co & continuous decrease of the remaining olin the matex. After completion of te fourth cycle, the blow down process was started by reducing the pressure of the separator from 20.68 10 13.79 and then 6.89 MPa and Finny to atmospheric pressure In ench sep, che separator pressite was decreased gradually tothe next value and then maintained for a suff ‘cient period for further matrix faeture interactions. Kt should be noed that, in Experiment 3, at the eud of each pressure reduction step, the fracture was Nushed with four feature pore volumes of gas to collect any produced oil in the separator. The variations of the fracture pressure with time throughout the experiment are shown in Fig. 13. Ce end of the test, the composite core sample was removed from the care holder, X-ray imaged, and then taken apart to separate che proppant pack and weigh each piece separately, A couple of new macro-fractures were observed in the pieces, which were perpendienar to the main frature We believe they might have been ereated due o the non-uniformity of the proppane pack across the core and the high confining pressure (62.05 MPa) applied in de experiment. Using the weight of each piece before and after the experiment and ‘assuming no brine was produeed during the experiment, the ol recovery factors of Sample BA, BB, CA, and CB were 36.85, $2.82, 6.89, and 10.15 26, respectively. Although dhe ecovery factors for SanplesB and C were promising, they were quite differen for the sake of discussion, we here compate Sample B with Sample C, no individual pieces) One could expect thatthe ol recovery from Sample C would be larger due to its higher absolute permeability (4.54618 n® (4.6 uD)) compared to Sample (3.03E-18 n (3.07 pD)}; while che recovery factor shows the opposite. Iris worth mentioning thatthe experiment (similar to Exper iments 1 and 2) was performed vertically and, inthe composite core, Sample B eas located on top of Sample C. In other words, although oil was recovered from both Saniples Band C, i was probable that produced oil from Sample B (the top sample) dropped on Sample C, esuling in‘ul 21 (2029125676 @ Fig. 12. Photos ofthe separator (usa cel in Experiment 3 a the en of) ist CD) second () tic, a fourth yee °. 1 2” ao” 60 Fig. 13. Vaations of inletouret presses ofthe core with cme fom the beim ofthe ist eye tothe ene of te blow- down proces in Exper meat lnbibing olf into Sample € and dhus «Tower ultimate recovery. A recent ‘sidy [2] conducted on the same batch of reservoir eae samples we sed showed that both formation brine and crude oil could imbibe into the rock, Similar to the previous experiments, che obtained recovery fetors in Experiment 3 might have been affected by several uncertainties. In ‘addition o those mentioned ester, embedment ofthe proppantson the surfaces ofthe faecure due ro the large net confining pressure (ranging from 54.47 t0 62.05 MPa) could be another source of uncertainty by Increasing the weight of each piece after the experiment, Arshad eta. {) investigated the embedment of proppants on fracture surfaces using Injerocomography and observed that inereasing the net confining pres ste led to notiesable deformation of the rock surface nnd proppant bmibedmient The embedment of proppant sands in our sud might have Increased he weight of the rock sample, impacting the final recovery results. The results ilustrate thatthe average recovery ofthe huff an puff process in the composite fractured core sample was approx tuately 22 94. One of the texsons the lowest recovery was observed in Experiment 5 is that even though the fracture provides a better gas/ liquid contacting interface, the gas sill needs to penetrate deep into the sample to displace the oil. However, in Experiments 1 and 2, the EOR agent directly Is injected into the matrix and displaces ol efictenty (One should note that this efficient displacement might be a viable re covery process inthe lab scale, where the length ofthe core sample is 2- Spuembecd ont 1.218 /1604 an TO, Sheng, Solna 1, Menoun H, Wet 1 Eales An {xperinetl ay fee COs hleton wo poe shale aleve. Pet Sho eoita pesemed othe SPE proved eon aympetsn 201% Song nati eos me Ghandodeh A Song Hand H, Cason CR. Experimental a amen fvauao of ct set mscton in factred eight hacen eso ep zona Gb-t2 hoe /ssany Tonos o1s98 02166213 Gong You. taper of water an COs foodie the Uh aa ay Gopsaia Be hep aovng oa acceergne sole Sone ¥ 0a sce CO, nanos nec an ger (C02 SWAG) ito the bale fan, ters Fuck 2015291939656. hoy Tostat scott 90116 athe 5, Goel CD, Soren JA Stadia EN, Hai JA Mele 5 Ftinan Bt Comyarionof aras Cae for Ebanced Recovery ro Stal i iRinn bSoambrgs Hanoi CQ The efi einjatng ead of Sa Srern Jk, Horne 88, Sot SA, Bvt NW, Bron Kel Ee. Anvestigation. in: Paper SPE 78948 presented athe SPE International Conference {tahbon on fomncon Dag Con 2016 ips s12 10-28" retin: appreech and limitations. SPE 2099:28(5}2209-20. hips okie! init, Dish Role XH see oman nr oro wel {hem Ea es bes 20060199528 eased mace Fei W Roel, isach The Prcpiion ofS in Gat rds Wells apts 0959 presented athe SP Eopean Formation Damase eens Hague, The Relate 00), 2129 ay 10311687593, fot eA Sth A; Muay CT, Arndt AR. Peete ak ove SE Geopige nesta sion @yastr-an hep cs tote” vice A, Tat 6, Ves. Expeinenalnvenigton of cover fom Seow le by Cov econ. Pape SPE 119679 resented a the SPE Anal ‘econ Cnference and ston, Denes, Cleo, USA: 2008, 2-24 hic pon Experinetal Nase Stuy. ape SPE e506 plese atthe BPE Unconventional emus Conference hin lu, Alerts, Cas 2017 Iaboratory oveigatn of utp gt neon for shale oils unde realistic bicoie PL, Oho R. Gout Tle LN fhm bed EDR: an noni a Preowte the Pe improves Ol Recovery Cneence 2016 npn he! Toate 756508.ps es) roo} in 4 es) wa 9) (oe) 1 Prenat Al Dy DE, Eeaoai Coe A Sine HC Hecabian A, Zou Ye a Oi an {singe ona qui i foe land inthe heen repo on evi fhe ‘Sens quay study and Set rrr Aor Chem Pp 2GH(301401 6 psa og/10190 se. 16 14012 oct R PnP, Deo Me Reig gu sing 0 rodution to sales Enea) Foc 20]6s09)7524 31 pa T0l020 IT aod pl opecsne athe Balen Sab Foe 20030900 96 Ss sea/ 1010160 201512062 Saves Schenwerk PA, Molo JM. Eabansenenc of Reid Of Racoery {ng Mise of Nope MeaneDltnd wih aon Dio nA Sag Wel tjcoa Proce US pent 3735054; 1998, ‘See 2 Sheng. Eepsinetl sd ame stay of pemesbliy reaction fused by aspen recpation aod dept uring COs ba nd pall Inject in egle ford le, Fel 201821149245, hte 10053. iatvanrv os Seng. ute ele of ld EOR projects i shale ad igh eevee Set Eng 201745943005 hp door. tot) pel 0 02022. Sboalb Satan BTC; Facing he En Coulee Hei. Pger SPE 199176 rented a he 2009 PE Roky Mourn Perle Techaloy Coleen, Smpon GA. Fishnen NS Unconventional TipstO Reeves A Cal fo New peered at te ternational Symptom ofthe Society of Cte Anal, St Sons Newounland and abd, Cand 2013, 16-21 ANUS REDE Jemsercom SCA 201 SCA2015.022 9a Sener JA, binunberer Lie SmuthSA Hewtorne SA Stadia Hae In. chaatriaton sod crlution ofthe Baen pleat ym for COs, ‘ehanee l eeoer. Poe SPE 178650 URTWG 2169871 presented the ‘neato! Resouces Technolgy Confrence, San Anton Tes USA, 20. 21 dy 2015 102116170689 me Canydo, USA 2016, 5 ay 102118150270 ‘ul 21 (2029125676 [98] Thome 8, Piva M,Nosooe M, GW, Main: hang H. Expesient {SCEOR Socey of erie Segincers SPE Canada Unsarenonl Resourcer {Confrence 200, UNCE 2020 202, 1-28 10.2187 199994 ms “ora FO, Bolt MI, Schecter DS. Gs eto fo BOR Pac optaona! pilose ape SP 190328 prsatd at he SPE lnproved ul Recovery Confrence 2018 spe envy 10418 90822 MS, nvr I Scece Ds asin for EO in rani ich sae ‘Unconventional Resouces Tecnology Confrence. 2018, ‘Tan 8 Yossn MR. Eual 5 Doaneherd MH, Debhsopou H. Quanieg 0 ‘ecovery medals drag otal ur Hull "Pl experten on ut tore page SPE J 2004 2601}496-544 hip aLargVo.sT16 20034 PA Sous saleby Me COs inet, Paes SPE SS? perenne SPE ‘onan Techies! Confrence and Etibion Ftene, i 2010, 18-22, sled aoc cg tin ap SP ts ee ‘pel 102116169008 m0 z nin oetinn tion, SP Reserv Enel Ho 2012 108)95°705, peau t0.ati8 sac Px ‘Wan, Tin, Yu X Wang, Yoo B Wan Seal Advances in nproned Een al vecover technol fr Ha an see tess ue 2017210 ase tore 10 10167 fr 201708095. Witon& Modeting of EO in hel eevee stated by cy ge econ Pema! Fenn ISENOI IST sees suse losiiw/onis0s I. ‘EW, Lasher H,Sophrnct KSmltion wy of CO Hut a pos fn Ten ih ol eee, per SPE 169670 presented the SPE West North ‘ean ed ey Mut Ree! in Bn Cl Zhang K. Experimental and sumerical investigation of oil recovery from baker fermatn by mile COs jeton. se Tes, Sao Unerty, Sanoe cima, USh 006, 1oatTe/IeNebe ate 91 wor a ea we wa 3) 81 wn ws