Carbon dioxide (CO2) injection has been used as a commercial process for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) since the 1970's. Recently, a new in-situ CO2 gas generation technology has been developed but not well studied. We conducted experiments to observe the dynamics of the system with different temperatures, injection sequences of chemical agents, chemical additives, and behavior of CO2 generation with respect to these varying factors and comparison of the actual CO2 pressure with the calculated values. Experiments on generation of CO2 gas as a result of reactions of gas forming and gas yielding solutions were carried out. It is shown that the injection sequence of the chemicals affects the reaction characteristics, but the total amount of CO2 gas generated does not vary significantly. Regardless of the injected solution (either gas forming or gas yielding) the maximum attainable pressures are less than the calculated pressures as a result of chemical equilibrium in the system; so this difference should be considered while calculating the size of the slug in the field applications. The brine concentration has an impact on CO2 solubility in water and so on CO2 pressure. Because of this impact, brine concentration of formation water should be considered in addition to the brine which is introduced to the system by the reaction.

Volume Subject Area:
Fluids Engineering
Topics:
Carbon dioxide, Engineering simulation, Simulation, Pressure, Tertiary petroleum recovery, Water, Dynamics (Mechanics), Equilibrium (Physics), Slug flows, Temperature
1.
Liu, Y., Grigg R. B., and Svec, R. K., 2005, “CO2-Foam Behavior: Influence of Temperature, Pressure, and Concentration of Surfactant”, SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, April 17–19, 2005, Paper SPE 94307, pp. 1–13.
2.
Bond, D. C., and Holbrook, O. C., 1958, “Gas Drive Oil Recovery Process”, U.S. Patent No. 2 866 507.
3.
Nikolove, A. D., Wasan, D. T., Huang, D. W., and Edwards, D. A., 1986, “The Effect of Oil on Foam Stability: Mechanisms and Implications for Oil Displacement by Foam in Porous Media”, SPE 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, October 5–8, 1986, Paper SPE 15443.
4.
Chambers, K. T., and Radke, C. J., 1991, Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery, eds. N. R. Morrow, Marcel Dekker, New York.
5.
Ransohoff
T. C.
, and
Radke
C. J.
,
1988
,
SPE Reservoir Eng.
,
3
, p.
573
573
.
6.
Ettinger
R. A.
and
Radke
C. J.
,
1992
,
SPE Reservoir Eng.
,
7
, p.
83
83
.
7.
Aronson
A. S.
,
Bergeron
V.
,
Fagan
M. E.
, and
Radke
C. J.
,
1994
, “
The Influence of Disjoining Pressure on Foam Stability and Flow in Porous Media
”,
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects
,
83
, pp.
109
–
120
.
8.
Holt, T., Vassenden, F., and Ghaderi, A., 2000, “Use of Foam for Flow Control of Gas”, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, Paper SPE 59284, pp. 1–7.
9.
Suffridge, F. E., Raterman, K. T., and Russell, G. C., 1989, “Foam Performance under Reservoir Conditions”, SPE 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, October 8–11, 1989, Paper SPE 19691, pp. 635–643.
10.
Yang, S. H., and Reed, R. L., 1989, “Mobility Control Using CO2 Foams”, SPE 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, October 8–11, 1989, Paper SPE 19689, pp. 603–618.
11.
Liu, Y., Grigg, R. B., and Bai, B., 2005, “Salinity, pH, and Surfactant Concentration Effects on CO2-Foam”, SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, February 2–4, 2005, Paper SPE 93095, pp. 1–11.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 2006
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.