Enhanced Oil Recovery Experiments in Wolfcamp Outcrop Cores and Synthetic Cores to Assess Contribution of Pore-Scale Processes

Abstract

Abstract This paper assesses the pore- and field-scale enhanced oil recovery (EOR) mechanisms by gas injection for low permeability shale reservoirs. We performed compression-decompression laboratory experiments in ultratight outcrop cores of the Permian Basin as well as in ceramic cores using n-dodecane for oil. The EOR assessment strategy involved determining the quantity of oil produced after injection of helium (He), nitrogen (N2), methane (CH4), and methane/carbon dioxide (CH4/CO2) gas mixtures into unfractured and fractured cores followed by depressurization. Using the oil recovery volumes from cores with different number of fractures, we quantified the effect of fractures on oil recovery—both for Wolfcamp outcrop cores and several ceramic cores. We observed that the amount of oil recovered was significantly affected by the pore-network complexity and pore-size distribution. We conducted laboratory EOR tests at pore pressure of 1500 psia and temperature of 160°F using a unique coreflooding apparatus capable of measuring small volumes of the effluent oil less than 1 cm3. The laboratory procedure consisted of (1) injecting pure n-dodecane (n-C12H26) into a vessel containing a core which had been moistened hygroscopically and vacuumed, and raising and maintaining pressure at 1500 psia for several days or weeks to saturate the core with n-dodecane; (2) dropping the vessel pressure and temperature to laboratory ambient conditions to determine how much oil had entered the core; (3) injecting gas into the n-dodecane saturated core at 1500 psia for several days or weeks; (4) shutting in the core flooding system for several days or weeks to allow gas in the fractures to interact with the matrix oil; (5) finally, producing the EOR oil by depressurization to room pressure and temperature. Thus, the gas injection EOR is a ‘huff-and-puff’ process. The primary expansion-drive oil production with no dissolved gas from fractured Wolfcamp cores was 5% of the initial oil in place (IOIP) and 3.6% of IOIP in stacked synthetic cores. After injecting CH4/CO2 gas mixtures, the EOR oil recovery by expansion-drive in Wolfcamp core was 12% of IOIP and 8.2% of IOIP in stacked synthetic cores. It is to be noted that the volume of the produced oil from Wolfcamp cores was 0.27 cm3 while it was 6.98 cm3 in stacked synthetic cores. Thus, while synthetic cores do not necessarily represent shale reservoir cores under expansion drive and gas-injection EOR, these experiments provide a means to quantify the oil recovery mechanism of expansion-drive in shale reservoirs. The gas injection EOR oil recovery in Wolfcamp cores with no fractures yielded 7.1% of IOIP compared to the case of one fracture and two fractures which produced 11.9% and 17.6% of OIP, respectively. Furthermore, in the no-fracture, one-fracture, and two-fracture cores, more EOR oil was produced by increasing the CO2fraction in the injection gas mixture. This research provides a basis for interpreting core flooding oil recovery results under expansion drive and gas injection EOR—both in presence and absence of interconnected micro- and macro-fractures in the flow path. Finally, the CO2 injection results quantify the CCUS efficacy in regard to the amount of sequestered CO2 from pore trapping in the early reservoir life. For the long-term CO2 trapping, one needs to include the chemical interaction of CO2 with the formation brine and rock matrix.