A Calculation Method for Carbonated Water Flooding

Abstract

DE NEVERS, NOEL, CALIFORNIA RESEARCH CORP., LA HABRA, CALIF. Abstract A calculation method has been developed for carbonated water flooding. This method takes into account the effects of oil viscosity reduction and oil swelling, due to carbon dioxide transferred to the reservoir oil from the carbonated flood water. It shows the effect of changes in carbonation pressure and carbonated water slug size. The method is based on a Buckley-Leverett- type linear flow model. The mathematical approach is similar to that developed by Welge, et al, for enriched gas drives. However, it contains a very important advance over the previous papers in its solution to the problem of injection of a "slug" of carbonated water rather than continuous injection of fluid of constant composition. The method also shows the chromatographic nature of the transport of CO2 in a carbonated water flood. Sample calculations indicate that viscosity reduction is the most important source of incremental oil recovery. Swelling contributes to a lesser extent. Raising the carbonation pressure increases recovery, but this effect diminishes as pressure is increased. Increasing the slug size also increases recovery, but again this effect diminishes as slug size is increased. Introduction In recent years there has been considerable interest in carbonated water flooding as a secondary recovery method. Several carbonated waterflood field tests are now in progress. Yet there is no published method for predicting the results of a carbonated water flood. This paper presents a method for predicting the oil recovery for a carbonated water flood.In a carbonated water flood, a carbonated water slug is injected into the reservoir. Then this slug is driven forward by injecting plain water behind it. The field operator must choose the carbonated water slug size and the CO2:water ratio in the slug. The calculation method presented here shows the effects of both slug size and CO2:water ratio on oil recovery. REASONS FOR CARBONATED WATER FLOODING The calculation assumes that the addition of carbon dioxide to flood water increases the oil recovery by two mechanisms:Carbon dioxide transfers from the flood water to the oil, thereby reducing the viscosity of the oil. At the lower viscosity, the oil flows more readily and is more easily swept out by flood water.The carbon dioxide which transfers to the oil phase causes the oil phase to swell. Assume that the residual oil saturation (volume per cent of pore space) is the same whether the oil is carbonated or not. Then the same volume will contain less stock tank oil if it is carbonated, due to oil swelling. The plain water driving the carbonated water slug forward will strip the CO2 out of this residual oil, causing this oil to shrink. This swelling-followed-by-shrinking leaves behind a lower residual oil saturation than would have been left behind by a plain water flood. Since some oils swell to almost twice their original volume at reasonable CO2 pressures, this effect may be large. Two additional benefits sometimes claimed for carbonated water flooding are:Adding CO2 to flood water greatly increases the water injectivity in some cases. (Injectivity = BPD of water injected/ft of sand x differential bottom-hole pressure, psi.) CO2 forms a weak acid in water; injecting carbonated water is, therefore, somewhat like acid treating. If a formation responds to acid treating, it will probably have a higher injectivity for carbonated water than for plain water. Although the increased injectivity increases the profitability of a carbonated water flood over a plain water flood, it does not change the production curve based on total fluid injected. Therefore, the method presented here does not show any effect of increased injectivity.It is claimed in one patent that carbon dioxide will react with some constituents of the oil to form detergents. These detergents are expected to increase the oil recovery. There is little data available to support this idea. The calculation method presented here takes no credit for extra oil recovery due to the formation of any such detergents. SPEJ P. 9^