The effect of pore compressibility on
CO2 storage
t
and
d EOR in
i Croatia
C
ti
Domagoj Vulin
y of Minig,
g Geology
gy and Petroleum Engineering,
g
g
Faculty
University of Zagreb
[email protected]
do
agoj u @ g
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
1
The effect of pore compressibility on CO2
storage and EOR in Croatia
This presentation is based on three previously published/presented works:
1) Goričnik, B. (INA-Naftaplin, University of Zagreb), 2000.:
EOR by CO2 Injection
Injection - Potential in Croatian Oilfields
2) Domitrović, D., Šunjerga, S. (INA-Naftaplin) & Goričnik D., Vulin, D.
(University of Zagreb)
Zagreb), 2005
2005.::
Simulation Study of CO2 Retention During Tertiary EOR Flood in Ivanić Oil Field
j , T.,, ((Universityy of Zagreb),
g ), 2011.:
3)) Vulin,, D.,, Kolenković,, I.,, Kurevija,
The Effect of Mechanical Rock Properties on CO2 Storage Capacity
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
2
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Goricnik B.,
B Domitrovic D.,
D Sarapa M
M. (1999.):
(1999 ): “Possible
Possible improvements of CO2CO2
flood performance in Ivanić oilfield, R. Croatia”,
• Laboratory tests - since late 1977
• Pilot CO2 injection project at Ivanić field (from1993 to
1995,, and from 2005-))
• CO2 injection study - Ivanić and Žutica in 1997
• Simulation studies from 2000
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
3
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
• Laboratory tests - since late 1977
Phase 1 - Field Screening
(General criteria, supported by
related basic lab testing)
Phase 2 - Detailed Lab Studies
(Potential of CO2 process
in selected fields)
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
4
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Phase 1 - Field Screening
•
Using published criteria* on reservoir and fluid
property requirements for CO2 implementation as well
as location considerations, 14 fields were singled out;
•
Fluid samples from these reservoirs were tested to
determine physical and PVT properties of current
reservoir fluid in each case, i.e.:
-
Effect of CO2 in terms of CO2 solubility, oil swelling
and oil viscosity reduction,
-
Oil displacement efficiency of CO2 as obtained by
the basic slim tube test
*(e.g. Geffen,1973;
Lewin&Ass.,1976; NPC,1976; Klins,1980; Taber&Martin. 1983 )
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
5
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Phase 2 - Detailed Lab Studies
•
Additional PVT on CO2 : oil mixtures,,
related to current depletion status.
EOS modeling of phase behavior.
•
Related more detailed slim-tube oil
displacement tests. Simulation
of the displacement tests.
tests
•
Core flood tests at reservoir conditions
and
d diff
differentt CO2 process implementation
i
l
t ti
scenarios.
*(e.g. Geffen,1973;
Lewin&Ass.,1976; NPC,1976; Klins,1980; Taber&Martin. 1983 )
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
6
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Locations of oilfields ( ), selected by preliminary
screening for subsequent laboratory testing:
VAR AŽDIN
Mura depres si on
KRA PINA
K O PRI VN ICA
L epavin a
Jagn jedova c
Hrva ts ko za gorj e
BJELOVAR
Ša ndrov ac
ZAGR EB
VIRO VITIC A
Dra va dep ressio n
Ivanić
Bunjani
Beni čanci
Šte vkovic a
Žutica
Obod
SI S AK
Str užec
MramorBrdo
Požeg a bas in
Sla vonsko - srij emska de pressi on
Sav a d epr ession
PO ŽE GA
K ozarica
0
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
50 km
7
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Results of laboratory testing . . .
(Sensitivity of oils examined to CO2 injection)
CO2 solubility in oil
Bunjani
Jagnjedovac
Kozarica
Lepavina
Ivanic
Žutica
Šandrovac
Stružec
Števkovica
Obod
Benicanci
180
160
140
120
100
3
3
CO2 solub
bility, m / m reservoir oil a
at Pb and TR
200
80
60
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
pressure, bar
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
8
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Results of laboratory testing . . .
Oil swelling
lli
Sw
welling factor of reservoir o
oil at TR
1.5
Števkovica
Obod
Stružec
Šandrovac
Žutica
Ivaniæ
Kozarica
Lepavina
Jagnjedovac
Bunjani
1.4
1.3
1.2
11
1.1
1.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
pressure, bar
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
9
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Results of laboratory testing . . .
Oil viscosity
i
it
Viscositty reduction o
of reservoir oiil at TR , mP
Pas
20
Kozarica
Jagnjedovac
Lepavina
Bunjani
Benièanci
Števkovica
Obod
Ivaniæ
Žutica
Stružec
Šandrovac
10
5
2
1
0.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
CO2 injection pressure, bar
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
10
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Summaryy of the lab screening
g data
CO2 process type assignments
for the selected oilfields:
Mura depre ssi on
 miscible
 near-miscible
 immiscible
K RA PI NA
KOPR IVNI CA
Lep av ina
Jagnjed ovac
tsko za gorj e
B JELOVAR
Ša ndrovac
ZA GREB
VIRO VITIC A
K loštar
Iva nic
Dr ava depr essio n
Bun ja ni
Beni ca nci
Š tevkovic a
Z utica
Obod
S ISAK
Struzec
Mram orBrd o
Pož ega ba sin
Slavon sko - srije m sk a depr ess ion
S av a depr es sion
50 km
0
Kozar ica
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
P OŽEG A
11
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
EOS Modeling of Phase Behavior
•
Peng-Robinson EOS
•
EOS was tuned to experimental oil PVT
(CCE, DLE, Sep.Test) and oil swelling data
•
Several compositional formulations i.e. oil+CO2
mixtures were examined
•
Proper EOS description of a mixture phase
behavior validated (through multiple
multiple-contact
contact
vaporization calculations and slim-tube
displacement simulations).
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
12
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Example validation of regression tuned PR EOS
(Ivanić oil + CO2; 5-component model)
Slim-tube oil recovery
Minimum miscibility pressure
100
100
experimental
calculated
90
Oil reco
overy, % P.V.
Oil reco
overy, % P.V.
80
60
40
80
70
Experimental
Calculated
60
20
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Pore volumes of CO2 injected
j
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
1.2
1.3
1.4
50
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
CO2 injection
j
pressure, bar
p
13
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Coreflood Scenarios
Initial conditions: Core saturated with live oil
at Swi
and “aged” for 48 hr at TR
1. Secondary CO2 - oil displacement tests
•CO
CO2 continuously injected at a constant
pressure
•Incremental fluid recovery measured and final
saturations determined
2. Tertiary CO2 - oil displacement tests
a) Core waterflooded to Sor
b) CO2 injected
•continuously
•alternatively with water (WAG)
Incremental fluid recovery measured and final
saturations determined
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
14
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
TEST SEQUENCE
1 Waterflood at 150 bar to Sor
D = 9.8
9 8 cm
k = 73
73.3
3 mD Swi = 31 % PV
1 Repressuring
R
i tto 200 b
bar with
ith water
t
L = 17.8 cm
 = 20.2 %
Sor (WF) = 38 % OOIP
1 Continuous injection of CO2
Continuous CO2 Injection Coreflood Test (Ivanic)
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
30
20
Waterc ut
Oil recovery
30
20
H2O
CO2
10
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
40
Water cut, %
100
Start of C O2 i njectio n
Oil recovery, % OOIP
CORE DATA:
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
Pore volumes of fluids (water, CO 2 ) injected
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
2.6
2.8
0
3.0
15
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
CORE DATA:
k = 36.7
36 7 mD
 = 21.6 %
Results of a WAG CO2 Injection
j
Coreflood Test
(Ivanic)
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
water cut
oil recover y
St art of CO2 inject ion
Oil recovery, % OOIP
O
100
40
30
20
40
30
20
CO2 H2O CO2 H2O CO2 HO
CO2 H2 O H 2O H2O
2
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Water cutt, %
D=9
9.8
8 cm
L = 18.3 cm
TEST SEQUENCE:
1) Waterflood at 150 bar to Sor
Swii = 34 % PV
2) Repressuring to 200 bar with water
Sor (WF) = 42 % OOIP
3) WAG injection of water and CO2
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Pore volumes of fluids (water, CO2 ) injected
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
2.4
2.6
2.8
10
0
3.0
16
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
The outcome of the laboratory study for Sava depression oilfields
Mura depre ssi on
K RA PI NA
KOPR IVNI CA
Lep av ina
Jagnjed ovac
tsko za gorj e
 miscible
 near-miscible
 immiscible
B JELOVAR
Ša ndrovac
ZA GREB
VIRO VITIC A
K loštar
Iva nic
Dr ava depr essio n
Bun ja ni
Beni ca nci
Š tevkovic a
Z utica
Obod
S ISAK
Struzec
Mram orBrd o
Pož ega ba sin
Slavon sko - srije m sk a depr ess ion
S av a depr es sion
50 km
0
Kozar ica
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
P OŽEG A
17
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Ivanić – New Geological model (part of simulation studies started in 2000)
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
18
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
Ivanić – g
geological
g
setting
g
New
Old
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
19
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
6 prediction scenarios
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
20
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
6 prediction scenarios
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
21
Overview of EOR Efforts in Croatia
6 prediction scenarios
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
22
The effect of pore compressibility on
CO2 storage
t
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
23
Volumetric approach
USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy) Carbon
Sequestration Atlas of United States and Canada, 2006, 86 p.
mCO 2  A  h    E  CO 2  p ,T 
CSLF (Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum) Estimation of CO2 storage
capacity in geological media, June 2007, 43 p.
VCO 2t  Vtrap    (1 – S wirr )  A  h    (1 – S wirr )
The effective storage volume
VCO 2 e  Cc  VCO 2t
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
24
Poroelastic definition of rock
Van der Meer,, LGH,, Yavuz,, H.
H CO2 storage
g capacity
p
y calculations
for the Dutch subsurface. Energy Procedia 1 2009, pp. 2615-2622.
There are three kinds of compressibility:
compressibility:
•rock matrix compressibility
cr 
1
Vr
 Vr

 p

1  V

  r
Vr  
   p 


   p 
1  Vb 
•bulk compressibility cb   

Vb    p
•pore compressibility
1
cp  
Vp
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
 V p

 




p
25
Poroelastic definition of rock
By applying instantaneous pore compressibility
for changed (effective) pressure
pressure::
V p  Vp 0  1  c p pe 
  0  1  c p pe 
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
26
Laboratory pore compressibility
measurement
p
2
1
4
pob
3
2
5
6
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
27
Typical (theoretical) pe-Vp curve
Formation compressibility type curves for a three different degrees of
consolidation (Yale et
et. al
al.,1993.)
1993 )
1  dV p 
cp 


V p  dpe  p
ob
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
28
Typical (theoretical) pe-Vp curve
pe-Vp plot for one sample (from Lipovljani oil field)
5.5
1  dV p 
cp 


V p  dpe  p
ob
5.4
53
5.3
Vp, cm
m3
5.2
51
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
pe, bar
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
29
Extrapolation of measured data to
regional aquifer
Lipovljani oil field
EU GeoCapacity,
p
y, 2007,, Assessingg European
p
Capacity
p
y for Geological
g
Storage
g of Carbon Dioxide,,
Technical reports, FP-518318.: Storage Capacities. WP2.3 D12, 2009.
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
30
Extrapolation of measured data to
regional aquifer
0.00070
5.5
3
2
Vp = -5E-09pe + 7E-06pe - 0.0036pe + 5.4347
0.00065
5.4
0.00060
5.3
5.0
cp
p
0.00050
cp - fitted
0.00045
-1
1
5.1
Vp - fitted
cp, bar
3
Vp, cm
0.00055
Vp
5.2
0.00040
49
4.9
0.00035
4.8
0.00030
4.7
0.00025
cp = -8E-13pe3 + 1E-10pe2 + 9E-07pe - 0.0007
4.6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.00020
700
pe, bar
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
31
Extrapolation of measured data to
regional aquifer
0 030
0.030
0.025
rel. e
error
0.020
0 015
0.015
0.010
0.005
0 000
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
pe, bar
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
32
Extrapolation of measured data to
regional aquifer
Depth (h) vs. cp (bar-1) and porosity (fi,%).
100
pe=0 bar
pe=50 bar
pe=100 bar
pe=150 bar
p
pe=200 bar
h-Ф(%)
Linear (h-Ф(%))
0.0014
0.0012
90
80
70
0.0010
0.0008
50
0.0006

cp, bar-1
60
40
30
0.0004
20
0.0002
10
0.0000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
0
1800
h, m
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
33
Extrapolation of measured data to
regional aquifer
Aquifer Sava – central
Net area, km2
517
Average depth - H,
H m
1700
Net to gross thickness - Hef, m
550
porosity.
i
0 18
0.18
Storage capacity coefficient, E
0.03
average pressure, bar
198
Average temperature
temperature, °C
C
87
Density of CO2, kg/m3
545.5
Storage capacity, Mt CO2
837.6
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
34
Extrapolation of measured data to
regional aquifer
p bar
p,
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
hydrostatic pressure
500
petrostatic presure,
ro=2900kg/m3
oil fields
1000
gas fields
g
h, m
1500
petrostatic pressure,
ro=2200kg/m3
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
35
Extrapolation of measured data to
regional aquifer
Storage capacities without pore compressibility and
with pore compressibility
When cp included
p
pe
cp

Vp
 CO2
mCO2
mCO2 increase
bar
bar
bar-1
%
106m3
kg/m3
Mt
%
198 286 0.000316
18.00
51183
548.07
837.55
0.0
199 285 0.000317
18.02
51252
560.70
842.70
0.6
204 280 0.000319
18.04
51297
572.68
862.87
3.0
214 270 0.000325
18.07
51388
594.80
900.37
7.5
224 260 0.000330
18.10
51481
614.76
934.44
11.6
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
36
Conclusions
• Pore compressibility increases with increased amount of injected fluid,
i.e. with aquifer pressure: for first 10 bars increase in table 2, the pore
volume will increase by 0.175%,
0 175% for next 10 bars,
bars pore volume will
increase by 0.179%.
• The changes in percents do not seem so dramatic,
dramatic however results can
be compared as capacity with pore compressibility vs. capacity without
pore compressibility included:
 The analysis is conducted as pessimistic – petrostatic pressure is
probably lower (which would result in higher pore compressibility),
the chosen pore compressibility curve is the one with the lowest
average compressibility of 6 available curves
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
37
Conclusions
 the brine compressibility can be taken into account (also by using
pessimistic approach to obtain minimum brine compressibility) by
using one of the many published correlations (also adjusted for the
actual brine), for example:
•Meehan, DN. A Correlation for Water Compressibility, Pet. Eng., 1980, pp.
125-126.
•Kutasov, IM. Correlation
C
S
Simplifies
f
Obtaining
O
Downhole Brine Density, Oil
O &
Gas J., 1991, pp. 48-49.
•Numbere, D, Brigham, WE, and Standing, MB. Correlation of Physical
Properties of Petroleum Reservoir Brines. Stanford University Petroleum
Research Institute, 1977.
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Zagreb
38