Enhanced Gas Recovery by CO2 Injection and Sequestration Effects of

SPE-192699-MS
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/18ADIP/4-18ADIP/D042S202R002/1197607/spe-192699-ms.pdf/1 by The University of West Indies - St Augustine user on 20 February 2023
Enhanced Gas Recovery by CO2 Injection and Sequestration: Effects of
Temperature, Vertical and Horizontal Orientations on Dispersion Coefficient
Muhammad Kabir Abba, Abubakar Jibrin Abbas, Athari Al-Otaibi, and Ghasem Ghavami Nasr, The University of
Salford, Manchester
Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November 2018.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.
Abstract
Enhanced gas recovery (EGR) by CO2 injection and sequestration is receiving increased attention within
the research community. This is as a result of its potential to be an avenue for the simultaneous additional
recovery of natural gas from the reservoir and provide a safe CO2 sequestration site. However, the major
problem with this technology lies in the excessive mixing of the injected CO2 and the nascent natural gas
(CH4) during the displacement process. This excessive mixing is the reason why the technology has not
been widely patronised, given that the recovered CH4 will be heavily contaminated with the injected CO2
thereby making it "lacking" as sales gas after recovery. This hinders the market value of the recovered CH4
and eventually renders it not viable economically. Hence, highlighting the factors responsible for the mixing
could provide technical solution to minimise the mixing phenomenon during EGR. This research focuses
on the temperature effects and the orientation of the injection pattern of the technique. An experimental
core flooding simulation was carried out at a temperature of 50°C and a pressure of 1300 psig and varying
injection rates of 0.2 - 0.5 ml/min on Grey Berea sandstone core sample with the sample situated in both
vertical and horizontal orientations. It was observed that at higher temperature (50°C) suitable for many gas
reservoirs, the disperstion coefficient increased significantly compared to our earlier work (Abba, Abbas,
& Nasr, 2017) at 40°C by a factor of 2.3. This trend was due to the increased energy of the gas molecules
at the observed conditions, thereby increasing their mobilities. Conversely, the dispersion coefficient also
increased significantly by a factor of 3.4 in the horizontal orientation at lower injection rates compared
to the vertical core flooding with the concentration profiles showing significant capillary tailing effects at
higher flowrates. This signified the effect of gravity in the horizontal orientation was more pronounced at
lower injection rates during the injection of CO2 and this will have tremendous effect on the flow behavior
of supercritical CO2 during the gas-gas displacement process.
Introduction
With the growing concerns over global warming, technologies and methods to alleviate the increasing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (chiefly CO2), due to technological advancements in manufacturing and
2 SPE-192699-MS
oil and gas industries have taken centre stage. The effect of the increasing emission of the GHG is detrimental
to the environment as it brings about global warming. Chief amongst these top greenhouse gas emission
sources is the oil and gas industry. Curbing the greenhouse gas emissions from these industries means
reduction in the output capacity which could eventually lead to an economic set back. Therefore, a potential
solution to the reduction of CO2 in the atmostphere with a preceding economic merit, is in the form Carbon
Capture and underground storage, which is gaining substantial recognition (Ganjdanesh & Hosseini, 2017;
Raza et al., 2017). These underground storage methods stem from deep saline acquifers to oil and gas
reservoirs. Adopting the underground storage technique in the oil and gas reservoirs comes with its economic
incentives through Enhanced Oil/Gas recovery techniques; more specifically miscible injection where CO2
is injected into the oil/gas reservoir for the purpose of additional recovery of the hydrocarbon resource when
the energy required to drive it to the surface has waned significally. However, natural gas reservoirs provide a
better potential over oil reservoirs for a number of reasons, commonest amongst which is its proven integrity
for storing natural gas for thousands of years without the fear of leaks to the surface, and in the case of CO2
underground storage; no potential contamination of the adjacent fresh water acquifers (Kalra & Wu, 2014).
Enhanced gas recovery by CO2 injection and sequestration is the simultaneous injection of captured CO2 into
a natural gas reservoir for storage and additional recovery of nascent natural gas. The technique embodies a
gasgas displacement mechanism which is one of the drawbacks associated with the process. The excessive
mixing during the displacement makes the technique widely unaccepted. These gases are miscible in all
conditions relevant to the EGR given their thermodynamic properties (Feather & Archer, 2010; Hughes et
al., 2012; Jikich, Smith, Neal Sams, & Bromhal, 2003; Kalantari-Dahaghi, Mohaghegh, & He, 2013).
In order to make this technique widely acceptable, the mixing between the injected CO2 and the insitu CH4
should be minimised to the lowest acceptable amount of contamination. This can only be achieved through
a thorough understanding of the mechanisms and the parameters which play roles during the displacement.
Several authors have documented some of the factors that influence the mixing of the gases during EGR and
have given insights into the extent to which they affect the desirability of the technique. (Mamora & Seo,
2002) conducted an experiment to investigate the feasibility of the using supercritical CO2 to displace CH4
and their finding indicated that the technique has potential to not only sequester CO2 in the gas reservoir,
but will also serve as a form of reservoir repressurisation which will eventually lead to additional recovery
of the hydrocarbon resource. Furthermore, they investigated the effects of injected flue gas impurities on
the displacement of CH4 and suggested that the pure CO2 has a better displacement efficiency over the flue
gas comprising of other impurities (Nogueira & Mamora, 2005). (Turta, Sim, Singhal, & Hawkins, 2007)
also carried out a basic investigation on enhanced gas recovery through gas-gas displacement where they
focused on the breakthrough of the produced CH4 and the factors that affect them (Sim, Turta, Singhal,
& Hawkins, 2009b), such as the reservoir heterogeneity effect on the displacement of the CH4 by CO2
(Sim, Turta, Singhal, & Hawkins, 2009a). Hughes et al., (2012) presented a new method of dispersion
coefficient measurements and presented the systematics for a better representation of the parameter and its
measurement. The investigation on effect of the parameter of irreducible water inclusion in a binary system
(CO2 & CH4) was also carried out by (Honari et al., 2016) and they inferred that it affected the dispersion of
the gases in question. (Abba et al., 2017) investigated the effects of connate water salinity on the dispersion
of the supercritical CO2 in in situ CH4 experimentally and showed the influence of the connate water density
variation on dispersion coefficient. All these investigations tried to evaluate the interplay between the fluids
properties, the porous media, and the effects operational conditions with respect to mixing in-situ, which
have provided in-depth data towards reduction of mixing of the two gases.
This study however focuses on the effects on temperature and core orientation on the dispersion
coefficient and displacement efficiency. This is important as it displays the importance of these dynamics
during the CH 4displacement by CO2 in order to factor in all the possible parameters which have influence
on the mixing of these gases when they come in contact under reservoir conditions.
SPE-192699-MS 3
Concept of Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR)

The irreversible mixing that ensues during fluids displacement by miscible process is termed dispersion
(Adepoju, Lake, & Johns, 2013). This mixing occurs when miscible fluids come in contact with one another
and their molecules interact at conditions that encourage the thermodynamic instability between them.
Molecular diffusion and mechanical dispersion are the two mechanisms that simultaneously play roles in the
mixing between two miscible fluids as astated by (Perkins & Johnston, 1963). They defined the mixing that
occurs in the porous medium as a diffusion-like process which is a function of the velocity and concentration
gradients.
1 D Advection Dispersion equation. Based on the definition of mixing in porous media by (Perkins
& Johnston, 1963, Newberg & Foh, 1988) described the 1D Advection Dispersion equation for the gas
transport through porous media along the direction of flow mathematically as follows:
(1)
Where, C is the CO2 concentration at location x at time t, Kl is the coefficient of longitudinal dispersion,
and u is the interstitial velocity. EGR gas specie transport is governed by this model to describe the CH4
displacment by supercritical CO2. This model evaluates the longitudinal dispersion (mixing along the axis
of transport) coefficient, Kl, in EGR which is the measure of the rate of mixing between the fluids. Equation
1 can be re-written in dimensionless form and presented in Eq. 2:
(2)
Where;
, Peclet number (ratio of convection to dispersion), L is length of core
, dimensionless time
, dimensionless distance, and
u, interstitial velociy, =
Q is superficial velocity
ϕ is porosity
Kl is Longitudinal dispersion
Since the carbon dioxide injection inlet is atx = 0,
Initial condition: C = 0 at tD = 0,
Boundary conditions: C = 1 at xD = 0, C → 0 as xD → ∞
Therefore, the solution to (Equation 2) maybe presented as follows:
(3)
The analytical solution to the 1D AD equation presented as Equation 3 is used to fit the concentration
profiles obtained from the experimental data in order to evaluate the ensuing dispersion coefficient.
However, the fluid flow of the single gas (CO2) can be described by the Darcy law which is used to evaluate
the variation in injection orientation from horizontal to vertical.
4 SPE-192699-MS
Darcy’s Law. Darcy law states that the rate of fluid flow in a porous medium is proportional to the protential
energy gradient in that fluid and expresses it mathematically in Equation 4 below:
(4)
(5)
Where q is flowrate (cm3/s), μ is fluid viscosity (cP), A is cross sectional area of core (cm2), ΔP is
differential pressure across the core sample (atm), and k is the constant of proportionality termed Darcy
permeability (md). This permeability is a property of borth the moving fluid and the porous medium through
which the fluid is transported (Thusyanthan & Madabushi, 2003). A relationship, however, between the
permeability as a function of the weight of the fluid was established by Muskat (1937) and givena as:
(6)
Where K is the intrinsic permeability (a function of arrangement, diameter and shape of the porous
medium, ρ is the density of the fluid, μ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid, and g is acceleration due to
gravity. Given the nature of the fluids (CH4 and CO2) under investigation, there is a significant difference in
their densities and overall properties and invariably their weights and viscosities which will obviously alter
their flow behavior and transport properties. This will be highlighted in the preceding sections of the work.
As aforementioned, this research is geared to experimentally investigate the effects of injection orientation
of the CO2 to displace the CH4 and followed a series of steps using high purity materials and intricate
methodology to carry out the experiments.
Experimental methodology
The core sample was sourced from Kocurek Industries USA and its dimensions and petrophysical properties
are shown in Table 1. Research grade CH4 and CO2 with a standard purity of 99.999% were supplied by
BOC UK.
Table 1—Petrophysical properties and dimensions
Core sample Length (cm) Diameter (cm) Porosity (%) Permeability (md)
Grey Berea 7.62 2.53 20.3 217
Apparatus and procedure

The apparatus description, set up and procedure followed the same configuration as detailed in our previous
work (Abba et al., 2017). The difference was in the orientation of the core holder which was changed in
relation to the experimental proceedings as shown in Figure 1 and also the flow rates which was varied
from 0.2 ml/min to 0.5 ml/min. The same experiments were carried out with the core holder positioned
vertically and horizontally.
SPE-192699-MS 5
Figure 1—Schematics of experimental set up with difference core holder orientations
Results and Discussion

Repeatability evaluation
Prior to every set of the experiments (vertical and horizontal orientations), test runs were carried out to
ascertain the repeatability of the experiments. Two experimental runs were carried out at the same conditions
of 0.5 ml/min injection rate, a pressure of 1400 psig, and at a temperature of 50°C. Concentration profile
was generated and fitted to the solution to the 1D AD equation (Equation 3) using least squares regression
analysis and shown Figure 2. The dispersion coefficients were evaluated for Test Runs 2 and 4 and 5 as
3.73, 3.85 and 3.80 ×10-8 m2/s respectively. The standard deviation of the dispersion coefficients from the
repeatability experimental results is 6.04% which is small and is indicative that the methods employed and
experimental set up have good reproducibility of results. The curve fitting agrees with the experimental
data. Subsequent experimental runs followed the same template and procedural example from these runs
to carry out the investigations.
6 SPE-192699-MS
Figure 2—Concentration profile for repeatibility experiments at test conditions
Flow behavior of supercritical CO2 in EGR

The flow behavior of supercritical CO2 as it transverses the pore spaces within the core sample to displace the
nacent CH4 is complex. Analysing these complexities of CO2 with respect to the CH4 is vital in understanding
the trends and outcomes of the displacement process given that CO2 in its supercritical state has a unique
behavior of exhibiting the density of a liquid but will still retain the viscosity of a gas. Both gases are in
their supercritical phases at conditions relevant to EGR. The critical points of CH4 in the phase envelope
are -82°C and 46 bar (667 psi) and for CO2 are 31°C and 74 bar (1070 psi) temperatures and pressures
respectively as shown in Figure 3. And for our expriments, the operation conditions are 1400 psig and 50°C
which are well above the critical points of these gas species.
SPE-192699-MS 7
Figure 3—Phase envelope of CO2 and CH4 (generated from PVTsim 20)
Another good indication of the behavior of these fluids is the response of their transport properties to
changes from ambient conditions to the conditions of EGR. A simulation of their properties at elevated
conditions were carried out using PVTSim 8 to show case the variation of viscosities and densities of the
gas species at those conditions. These are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5 and respectively. There is
significantl difference in these properties of the gases with CO2 transport properties being much higher and
more drastic than those of CH4. This will grossly affect the flow behavior of the gases as will be presented
in the subsequent sections.
Figure 4—CH4 and CO2 viscosities as functions of temperature at 1400 psig (PVTsim 20)
8 SPE-192699-MS
Figure 5—CH4 and CO2 densities as fuctions of temperature at 1400 psig (PVTsim 20)
Dispersion coefficients
After the repeatability tests of the set up and methods of the core flooding experiementation, the actual runs
were carried out with varying injection rates as aforementioned with the core holder situated in both vertical
and horizontal orientations.
Horizontal dispersion coefficient evaluation. Four displacement runs were performed each representing
the test injection rates (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 ml/min) and their experimental results were curve fitted with Eq. 3
and their individual dispersion coefficients were analysed and tabulated in Table 2. Their CO2 concentration
profiles during the runs are presented in Figure 6 which shows the expected trends and the effects of injection
rates variation on the breakthrough of CO2 during the displacement process. This trend was also presented
in the works of (S. Liu et al., 2015) where the breakthrough time decreased with increasing injection rates.
Table 2—Dispersion coefficient of different injection rates in horizontal orientation
Temperature
Q (ml/min) Pressure (psig) u (10-5 m/s) KL (10-8 m2/s)
(°C)
0.2 1300 50 3.31 2.23
0.3 1300 50 5.01 3.01
0.4 1300 50 6.66 3.82
0.5 1300 50 8.33 5.35

SPE-192699-MS 9
Figure 6—Concentration profiles of the experimental runs at different injection rates in the horizontal orientation
As shown in Figure 3, the fitting was not very good as this is attributed to the exit effects as detailed in
the works (Hughes et al., 2012) and (S. Liu et al., 2015). This affects the production of the CH4 as some of
the volume is trapped outside the flow stream of the injected CO2 from the top edges of inlet of the core
sample and the outlet.
Superimposing all the CO2 concentration profiles for the different injection rates will provide the clear
effects of variation of the injection rates in terms of CO2 breakthrough. This is presented in Figure 7.
10 SPE-192699-MS
Figure 7—Comparison of varying CO2 concentration profiles of experimental runs for horizontal orientation
Vertical dispersion coefficient evaluation. The same procedure was carried out in the vertically orientated
core holder and the injection rates were varied from 0.2 to 0.5 ml/min in a 0.1 ml/min step. What was more
prominent in the results obtained was that the dispersion coefficient evaluated in this orientation appeared
to be less that those evaluated in the horizontal orientation. The results are shown in Table 3. The tailing
effects and curve fitting at the late breakthrough as evident in the concentration profile for the vertical runs
is not as pronounced as those in the horizontal orientation. This is shown in Figure 8. The good agreement
between the experimental data and the Eq. 3 is as a result of the gravity effect which acts on the insitu
CH4 and pulls it into the flow stream of the injected CO2 thereby proving a better sweep efficiency during
displacement by CO2.
Table 3—Dispersion coefficient of different injection rates in vertical orientation
Temperature
Q (ml/min) Pressure (psig) u (10-5 m/s) KL (10-8 m2/s)
(°C)
0.2 1300 50 3.31 1.67
0.3 1300 50 5.01 1.95
0.4 1300 50 6.66 3.11
0.5 1300 50 8.33 4.92

SPE-192699-MS 11
Figure 8—Comparison of varying CO2 concentration profiles of experimental runs for vertical orientation
This difference in the values will be discussed next and an explanation as to why this trend was observed
will be presented by comparing the transport properties with the variation of the injection orientation.
Comparison of vertical and horizontal orientation results

The difference between the horizontal and vertical longitudinal dispersion coefficients of the experimental
runs are shown in Table 4. A way of detailing and explaining this difference in dispersion coefficient is
to analyse the flow of supercritical CO2 through the core sample. This can be achieved by analysing the
differential pressure (dP) of individual runs during the displacement process and use Darcy law to establish
the relationship between the dP and the permeability of the rock and fluids. It is obvious that permeability
is inversely proportional to the dP and directly proportional the flowrate from Eq. 5. This invariably means
the higher the injected fluid permeability to the core sample the higher the rate of mixing.
Table 4—Comparison of vertical and horizontal longitudinal dispersion coefficients
KL (10-8 m2/s)
Q (ml/min) Pressure (psig) Temperature (°C)
Horizontal Vertical
0.2 1300 50 2.23 1.67
0.3 1300 50 3.01 1.95
0.4 1300 50 3.82 3.11
0.5 1300 50 5.35 4.92
A depiction of longitudinal dispersion coefficient as a function of injection rate for both vertical
and horizontal orientations is shown in Figure 9. This represents the linear relationship between these
parameters. In essence, the higher the injection rate the higher the dispersion coefficient. When the influx
of the displacement fluid increases, the mixing between the gases increases too which leads to more
12 SPE-192699-MS
contamination of the nascent CH4. So finding the optimum injection rate with less mixing and better
displacement efficiency is pivotal in obtaining the desired objective of pitching the viability of EGR.
Figure 9—Dispersion coefficients as fuctions of injection rate for both orientations
From Table 4, the difference in dispersion coefficient for both orientations is more at lower flowrates (0.2
and 0.3 ml/min) compared to their values at higher flowrates (0.4 and 0.5 ml/min). The reason behind this is
that when supercritical CO2 is injected into a core sample in the horizontal orientation, due to its increased
density, it tends to sink or segregate to the buttom part of the pore spaces thereby limiting its mobility
through the core sample and the residence time is significantly increased which increases the contact time
between the two gases and hence higher mixing. This segregation of supercritical CO2 to the bottom of the
core sample was investigated by (K. Liu, Yu, Saeedi, & Esteban, 2015) who presented the effect of gravity
and other properties on supercritical CO2 as a displacement medium. At low injection rates, the sinking
propagates more slowly in the horizontal orientation in that its path from the inlet to the outlet are longer and
the permeability of the CO2 to the core sample decreases. Flow is gravity driven in this case as postulated
by (Kalra & Wu, 2014) as opposed to viscous driven flow. And as such, permeability tends to be lower in
the horizontal orientation because of this phenomenon as seen in the comparative dP as functions of time
plots shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11 for 0.2 and 0.3 ml/min injection rates respectively.
SPE-192699-MS 13
Figure 10—Comparison of dP as a function of time for vertical and horizontal orientations at 0.2 ml/min
It can be observed that the permeability variation was not much and noticeably similar in both orientations
at higher flowrates of 0.4 and 0.5 ml/min as depicted in Figure 12 and Figure 13 respectively compared to
the large divergence in the dP trends in 0.2 and 0.3 ml/min experimental runs.
14 SPE-192699-MS
Consequently, the closeness in permeabilities at higher flowrates (0.4 and 0.5 ml/min) explains the close
difference in dispersion coefficient in both orientations as observed. CO2 disperses in CH4 at almost the
same rate at injection rates of 0.4 and 0.5 ml/min irrespective of injection orientation which can be attributed
to their similarity in flow behaviour through the porous medium.
SPE-192699-MS 15
Temperature effects on dispersion coefficients are well documented in literature (Hughes et al., 2012; S.
Liu et al., 2015; Turta et al., 2007). In this work, a comparison was made with the between our previous work
which was at a temperature of 40°C and this work carried out at 50°C to investigate the effects of varying
the temperature. The obvious increase in the energy of the molecules due to the increase in temperature led
to the higher dispersion coefficient and hence the increase in mixing. Factoring in temperature variation will
also pave way to adopting the most suitable injection scenario for EGR. A comparison of the dispersion
coefficients as functions of injection rate at different temperatures was made between our previous work
and the current one and the trends are shown in Figure 14 below.
Figure 14—Comparison of Dispersion Coefficient as a function of injection rates at 40 and 50 C
Conclusion
The results obtained from the experiments showcased the effects of temperature and injection orientation on
dispersion coefficient. Dispersion coefficient was significantly higher in the horizontal orientation compared
to that in the vertical orientation at lower injection rates. This was as result of the segregation of the
supercritical CO2 to the bottom of the core sample which impeded the permeability and that will essentially
increase the residence time of the fluid. At higher flowrates, the dispersion coefficient was not significantly
different in both orientations given that the the flow was more viscosity driven than gravity and hence
mixing was not pronounced at the said flowarates. Temperature effects on dispersion coefficient are such
that with increasing temperature, the gas molecules are energised and that increases their chaotic movements
and hence increases the fluid interaction with one another and then eventually lead to increase in dispersion
coefficient. The significance of this finding will help chose the optimum dip angle for the injection well
which will aid in a better CO2 plume sweep efficiency during EGR.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Petroleum Technology Development Fund, PTDF Nigeria, for their
support and studentship.
16 SPE-192699-MS
Nomenclature
C = CO2 mole fraction
D = Diffusion coefficient, m2/s
d = medium characteristic length scale, m
dx
= equivalent circle diameter, μm
KL = longitudinal dispersion, m2/s
L = core sample length, mm
Lexp = experimental length as suggested by Hughes et al, m
P = Pressure, psig
Pe = Peclet number
Pem = medium Peclet number
Q = flowrate, ml/min
r = radius of core sample, mm
T = Temperature, °C
t = time, min
tD = dimensionless time, defined in eqn 3
u = interstitial velocity, mm2/s
x = distance from the upstream of the core face, m
xD = dimensionless distance, defined in eqn 3
ϕ = core porosity
References
Abba, M. K., Abbas, A. J., & Nasr, G. G. (2017). Enhanced Gas Recovery by CO2 Injection and Sequestration:
Effect of Connate Water Salinity on Displacement Efficiency. SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition &
Conference. 10.2118/188930-MS
Adepoju, O. O., Lake, L. W., & Johns, R. T. (2013). Investigation of Anisotropic Mixing in Miscible Displacements. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 16(1), 85–96.
Feather, B., & Archer, R. A. (2010). Enhanced Natural Gas Recovery by Carbon Dioxide Injection for Storage Purposes,
(December).
Ganjdanesh, R., & Hosseini, S. A. (2017). Geologic Carbon Storage Capacity Estimation Using Enhanced Analytical
Simulation Tool (EASiTool). Energy Procedia, 114(November 2016), 4690–4696. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1601
Honari, A., Zecca, M., Vogt, S. J., Iglauer, S., Bijeljic, B., Johns, M. L., & May, E. F. (2016). The impact of residual water
on CH4-CO2 dispersion in consolidated rock cores. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 50, 100–111.
10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.04.004
Hughes, T. J., Honari, A., Graham, B. F., Chauhan, A. S., Johns, M. L., & May, E. F. (2012). CO2 sequestration for
enhanced gas recovery: New measurements of supercritical CO2–CH4 dispersion in porous media and a review of
recent research. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 9, 457–468. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.05.011
Jikich, S., Smith, D., Neal Sams, W., & Bromhal, G. (2003). Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR) with Carbon Dioxide
Sequestration: A Simulation Study of Effects of Injection Strategy and Operational Parameters. SPE Eastern
Regional Conference Proceedings, 31–39. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/scopus/inward/record.url?eid=2-
s2.0-1842589493&partnerID=40
Kalantari-Dahaghi, A., Mohaghegh, S., & He, Q. (2013). CO2-Driven Enhanced Gas Recovery and Storage in Depleted
Shale Reservoir- A Numerical Simulation Study. Carbon Management Technology Conference Proceedings, c.
Kalra, S., & Wu, X. (2014). CO2 injection for Enhanced Gas Recovery. SPE Western North American and Rocky Mountain
…, (April), 16–18. Retrieved from https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-169578-MS
Liu, K., Yu, Z., Saeedi, A., & Esteban, L. (2015). Effects of permeability, heterogeneity and gravity on supercritical CO2
displacing gas under reservoir conditions. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery
Conference, EORC 2015.
Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Xing, W., Jian, W., Liu, Z., Li, T., & Song, Y. (2015). Laboratory experiment of CO2-CH4 displacement
and dispersion in sandpacks in enhanced gas recovery. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 26,
1585–1594. 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.021
SPE-192699-MS 17
Mamora, D. D., & Seo, J. G. (2002). Enhanced Recovery by Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Depleted Gas Reservoirs.
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1–9.
Newberg, M.., & Foh, S.. (1988). Measurement of Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficients for Gas Flowing Through Porous
Media. SPE, 5–9.
Nogueira, M., & Mamora, D. D. (2005). Effect of Flue-Gas Impurities on the Process of Injection and Storage of CO2 in
Depleted Gas Reservoirs. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 130(1), 013301. 10.1115/1.2825174
Perkins, T.., & Johnston, O.. (1963). A Review of Diffusion and Dispersion in Porous Media. Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, 3(01), 70–84. 10.2118/480-PA
Raza, A., Gholami, R., Rezaee, R., Bing, C. H., Nagarajan, R., & Hamid, M. A. (2017). Preliminary assessment of
CO2injectivity in carbonate storage sites. Petroleum, 3(1), 144–154. 10.1016/j.petlm.2016.11.008
Sim, S., Turta, A. T., Singhal, A., & Hawkins, B. F. (2009a). Enhanced Gas Recovery: Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneity
on Gas-Gas Displacement. Candian International Petroleum Conference, (June), 1–14. 10.2118/2009-023
Sim, S., Turta, A. T., Singhal, A. K., & Hawkins, B. F. (2009b). Enhanced gas recovery: Factors affecting gas-gas
displacement efficiency. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 48(8), 49–55. 10.2118/09-08-49
Thusyanthan, N. I., & Madabushi, S. P. G. (2003). Scaling of Seepage Flow Velocity in Centrifuge Models. Engineering,
326(March).
Turta, A. T., Sim, S. S. K., Singhal, A. K., & Hawkins, B. F. (2007). Basic Investigations on Enhanced Gas Recovery
by Gas-Gas Displacement.

Enhanced Gas Recovery by CO2 Injection and Sequestration Effects of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enhanced Gas Recovery by CO2 Injection and Sequestration Effects of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-192699-MS

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Concept of Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR)

, dimensionless distance, and

Table 1—Petrophysical properties and dimensions

Grey Berea 7.62 2.53 20.3 217

Apparatus and procedure

Results and Discussion

Flow behavior of supercritical CO2 in EGR

Table 2—Dispersion coefficient of different injection rates in horizontal orientation

0.2 1300 50 3.31 2.23

0.3 1300 50 5.01 3.01

0.4 1300 50 6.66 3.82

0.5 1300 50 8.33 5.35

Table 3—Dispersion coefficient of different injection rates in vertical orientation

0.2 1300 50 3.31 1.67

0.3 1300 50 5.01 1.95

0.4 1300 50 6.66 3.11

0.5 1300 50 8.33 4.92

Comparison of vertical and horizontal orientation results

Table 4—Comparison of vertical and horizontal longitudinal dispersion coefficients

0.2 1300 50 2.23 1.67

0.3 1300 50 3.01 1.95

0.4 1300 50 3.82 3.11

0.5 1300 50 5.35 4.92

Figure 14—Comparison of Dispersion Coefficient as a function of injection rates at 40 and 50 C

You might also like