Che Abdul Nasser Bakri Che Mamat
Please Note
6 records found
1
Effect of superficial velocity on liquid injectivity in SAG foam EOR. Part 1
Experimental study
Surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) is a preferred method of foam injection, which is a promising means of enhanced oil recovery. Liquid injectivity in a SAG process is commonly problematic. Our previous studies suggest that the liquid injectivity can be better than expected due to the existence of a collapsed-foam region formed during the gas-injection period ahead of the liquid-injection period. A single superficial velocity was used in those studies to examine the flow behavior during gas- and liquid-injection periods, separately. However, in radial flow from an injection well, superficial velocity decreases with distance from the injection well. Understanding the effect of superficial velocity on gas and liquid injectivities is important, but remains unexplored. In this study, we first examine gas injection at different superficial velocities following foam injection. We then study the effect of liquid superficial velocity on the liquid injectivity following a similar volume of gas injection. Our results show that during a prolonged period of gas injection following foam, the propagation velocity and the total mobility of the collapsed-foam bank are not significantly affected by the gas superficial velocity. During liquid injection after a period of gas injection, the dimensionless propagation velocities and the total mobilities of the forced-imbibition bank and the gas-dissolution bank follow a power-law dependence on the liquid superficial velocity. Liquid fingering through the weakened-foam region shows strongly shear-thinning behavior. It is also observed from X-ray computer-tomography experiments that the liquid fingers are wider if the liquid superficial velocity is greater. The impact of the shear-thinning behavior on the estimation of liquid injectivity in a field application is the subject of a companion paper.
A surfactant alternating gas (SAG) process is often the injection method for foam, on the basis of its improved injectivity over direct foam injection. In a previous study, we reported coreflood experiments on liquid injectivity after foam flooding and liquid injectivity after injection of a gas slug following steady-state foam. Results showed that a period of gas injection is important for the subsequent liquid injectivity. However, the effects of multiple gas and liquid slugs were not explored. In this paper, we present a coreflood study of injectivities of multiple gas and liquid slugs in an SAG process in a field core. Nitrogen and surfactant solution are either coinjected or injected separately into the sandstone core sample. The experiments are conducted at an elevated temperature of 90℃ with a backpressure of 40 bar. Differential pressures are measured to quantify gas and liquid injectivities. Computed tomography (CT) scanning is applied to relate water saturation to mobility. During the injection of a large gas slug following foam, a bank in which foam completely collapses or greatly weakens forms near the inlet and propagates slowly downstream. During the subsequent period of liquid injection, liquid flows through the collapsed-foam bank much more easily than further downstream. Beyond the collapsed-foam region, liquid first imbibes into the whole cross section. In this region, liquid flows mainly through a finger of high liquid saturation. Our CT results suggest a revision of our earlier interpretation; the process of gas dissolution does not merely follow fingering but is evidently directly involved in the fingering process. Our results suggest that, in radial flow, the small region of foam collapse very near the well greatly improves injectivity. The subsequent gas and liquid slugs behave near the wellbore, affecting injectivity, in a way similar to the first slugs. Thus, the behavior and modeling of the first gas slug and first subsequent liquid slug is representative of near-well behavior in an SAG process. The trends observed in our previous work are reproduced in a low-permeability field core.
Surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) is a favored method of foam injection, which has been proved as an efficient way for enhancing oil recovery. However, foam flow is extremely complicated, and there are still unsolved problems for foam application. One is liquid injectivity. Our previous studies suggest that the injectivity in a SAG process is determined by propagation of several banks near the injection well that are not represented by current foam models. Uniform bank properties were assumed. However, in a companion paper, our experimental results show that the dimensionless propagation velocity and the total mobility of banks during the liquid-injection period depends on superficial velocity. Shearing-thinning behavior is observed. In radial flow, the superficial velocity varies with distance from the well. In this study, we scale-up the experimental results using a radial bank-propagation model. The comparison of liquid injectivity estimated from conventional foam simulators (Peaceman equation) and the bank-propagation model show that the conventional foam models cannot represent the effect of the superficial-velocity-dependent fluid properties during liquid injection in a SAG process. The shear-thinning behavior can lead to much better liquid injectivity than expected, which should be accounted for in a field application of a SAG foam process.
In this paper, we propose a modeling approach for gas and liquid injectivity in a SAG process on the basis of our experimental findings. The model represents the propagation of various banks during gas and liquid injection. We first compare the model predictions for linear flow with the coreflood results and obtain good agreement. We then propose a radial-flow model for scaling up the core-scale behavior to the field. The comparison between the results of the radial-propagation model and the Peaceman equation shows that a conventional simulator based on the Peaceman equation greatly underestimates both gas and liquid injectivities in a SAG process. The conventional simulator cannot represent the effect of gas injection on the subsequent liquid injectivity, especially the propagation of a relatively small region of collapsed foam near an injection well. The conventional simulator’s results can be brought closer to the radial-flow-model predictions by applying a constant negative skin factor.
The work flow described in this study can be applied to future field applications. The model we propose is based on a number of simplifying assumptions. In addition, the model would need to be fitted to coreflood data for the particular surfactant formulation, porous medium, and field conditions of a particular application. The adjustment of the simulator to better fit the radial-flow model also would depend, in part, on the grid resolution of the near-well region in the simulation. ...
In this paper, we propose a modeling approach for gas and liquid injectivity in a SAG process on the basis of our experimental findings. The model represents the propagation of various banks during gas and liquid injection. We first compare the model predictions for linear flow with the coreflood results and obtain good agreement. We then propose a radial-flow model for scaling up the core-scale behavior to the field. The comparison between the results of the radial-propagation model and the Peaceman equation shows that a conventional simulator based on the Peaceman equation greatly underestimates both gas and liquid injectivities in a SAG process. The conventional simulator cannot represent the effect of gas injection on the subsequent liquid injectivity, especially the propagation of a relatively small region of collapsed foam near an injection well. The conventional simulator’s results can be brought closer to the radial-flow-model predictions by applying a constant negative skin factor.
The work flow described in this study can be applied to future field applications. The model we propose is based on a number of simplifying assumptions. In addition, the model would need to be fitted to coreflood data for the particular surfactant formulation, porous medium, and field conditions of a particular application. The adjustment of the simulator to better fit the radial-flow model also would depend, in part, on the grid resolution of the near-well region in the simulation.