1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

A Laboratory Study of Hot Carbon Dioxide Injection

into Fractured and Conventional Cores
Mohammad Javad Dorostkar
M. Sc. Student, Chemical Engineering Department, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
Ali Mohebbi, Amir Sarrafi, Ataollah Sotani Goharizi
Academic Staff, Chemical Engineering Department, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerm

Abstract:
CO 2 injection into oil reservoirs has been widely accepted as an effective technique for
enhanced oil recovery. This study deals with a new Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) EOR technique,
HOT CO 2 injection in conventional and fractured cores which includes combination of
thermal and drive mechanisms. Laboratory tests were conducted on conventional and
fractured cores. Permeability and porosity of conventional and fractured cores were measured.
CO 2 gas with low and constant rate was injected into the cores and injection continued until
no oil produced, the process was immiscible. After that hot CO 2 with the same condition
injected into the cores and enhanced oil recovery from each core was determined. Also hot
CO 2 with the same condition injected into the cores which flooded by water (brine)
completely previous and enhanced oil recovery from each cores was determined to study
which reservoirs were better candidate for hot CO 2 injection. The results showed that
injection of hot CO 2 into the cores that flooded with CO 2 previously was more feasible and
could recover residual oil significantly. Also, results showed that hot CO 2 injection was
feasible method to enhanced oil recovery in conventional core but in fractured it was not.
Produced oil was increased by using Soak-Alternating-Gas method (SAG) in fractured core.
R

Keywords:
Hot CO 2 ; EOR; Immiscible; Fractured core; Conventional core; Soaking
R

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

1. Introduction
Carbon dioxide flooding is an effective enhanced oil recovery process. It appeared in 1930s
and had a great development in 1970s [1]. Over 30 years production practice, CO 2 flooding
has become the leading enhanced oil recovery techniques for light and medium oils [2]. CO 2
injection has been widely used for recovering oil from reservoirs due to its easy solubility in
crude oil and its ability to swell the net volume of oil and thereby reduce oil viscosity by a
vaporizing-gas-drive mechanism [3]. The quantity of hydrocarbons that can be recovered
from a reservoir is influenced by several characteristics of the reservoir including reservoir
rock properties, reservoir pressure and temperature, physical and compositional properties of
fluid and structural relief, to name a few. However, the predominant factor in deciding the
success of a CO 2 flood is the reservoir heterogeneity. Injected gas tends to flow in the highly
permeable fractures, instead of the normally expected displacement path. These fractures are
often responsible for early and excessive breakthrough of CO 2 , thus greatly affecting the
economics of the project [4]. The physical properties and PVT behavior of CO 2 with most
reservoir oils is qualitatively different from other gases considered in gas injection IOR
projects. Pure CO 2 has a critical point at a temperature and pressure 1071 psia and 87.91 F
respectively, which is within the temperature range of light oil and medium oils which cooled
by water flooding and the shallower viscous oil fields. CO 2 densities can approach 1g/cc and
may be greater than oil at most reservoir conditions, giving scope for designing different
types of injection strategy.
Many factors have been found contributory to the oil recovery in CO 2 flooding. These mainly
include:
Low interface tensions
Viscosity reduction
Oil swelling
Formation permeability improvement
Solution gas flooding
Density change of oil and water [2].
Hot CO 2 flooding heats the reservoir at the same time in partially miscible with oil. The
operating temperature of hot CO 2 depends upon the reservoir temperature and oil properties.
It is above the critical point of CO 2 phase diagram as shown in three phase diagram in Figure
1 [7].
R

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

Figure 1. Pressure-Temperature phase diagram for CO 2 [7]

R

The main objective of this work has been to investigate the feasibility of hot CO 2 injection
and Soak-Alternating-Gas method (SAG) by using hot CO 2 in conventional and fractured
core, focusing on the heat transfer of hot CO 2 and hydrocarbons in conventional core and on
the heat transfer of hot CO 2 and hydrocarbons between the fracture and the matrix. Also hot
CO 2 injects into the cores which are flooded with water and CO 2 previous, to study which
reservoirs are better candidate for hot CO 2 injection. In this study a new method has been
used for fracturing the cores.
R

2. Materials and Methods

For a reservoir with along CO 2 injection history, the reservoir temperature will be reduced a
little. The highest reduction is seen in the proximity of injection wells. In this study, the
temperature set at 100 C to represent the temperature of the CO 2 flooded zones. The pressure
was one atmosphere because the process was immiscible. The full details of the core samples,
fluids and experimental set up are given in the following sections.
2.1. Core samples
In this study, two cores were used. The structure of two cores was the same with length of 35
cm and diameter of 4.2 cm. One of the cores as a fractured model contains a fracture in its
middle. The properties and dimensions of the cores are summarized in Table 1.
R

Table 1

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

Model properties
Sample
Permeability
Area
Bulk
(D)
volume ( cm 3 )
( cm 2 )
Conventional
13.854

0.11

Porosity
(%)

Connate
water (%)

Diameter

Length

( cm )

( cm )

20

15.66

4.2

35

28

15.06

4.2

35

484.904

Fractured

0.5
13.854

484.904

2.2. Fluid samples

Oil which was used in all experiments in this study was prepared from Maroon reservoir at
south of Iran. Oil composition was given in Table 2. Brine was prepared in laboratory. The
composition of brine was given in Table 3 which is similar to the composition of reservoir
brine. Injected gas was pure CO 2 .
R

Table 2
Oil composition (%)

C1

C2
CO2

C3

48.45

9.223
0

5.144
0

NC4

IC 4

0.867

IC5

2.507

NC5

1.032

C6

1.289

C7

2.129

H 2S

29.36

Table 3
Brine composition
Component

KCl

CaCl2

MgCl2

NaCl

H 2O

Total
Weight (g)
927.4

0.3

4.3

32

36

1000

2.3. Matrix and fracture system

Both cores were conventional at the first. For fabricating a fractured core, one of the cores
was selected and was cut in the middle and the space between two half of the core was filled
by glass wool with 2 mm diameter. The artificial fracture acted similar to actual fracture. The
glass wool had no effect on the surface area of the middle of core and did not affect on the
fluid which was used later for saturating the core. This was investigated by measuring core
permeability before and after using glass wool. The middle of core was filled with sealing
material had zero permeability and core had its initial permeability of o.11 D. The glass wool
was a porous media with high permeability so in the middle of the core it was acted like a real
fracture.

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

2.4. Initial Saturations
The pore volume was measured by saturating cores with brine. The oil with a composition as
shown in Table 2 was then injected into the cores at a rate of 0.5 cm 3 / min . In this case the
cores were vertically and oil was injected from the top of the cores. In the conventional core,
oil break through was observed after 69.06 cm 3 of brine were produced. The total volume of
oil was injected into the core was 145.5 cm 3 (1.5 PV) and the total volume of brine was
produced from the conventional core was 81.8 cm 3 . In the fractured core, oil break through
was observed after 97.78 cm 3 of brine were produced. The total volume of oil was injected
into the core was 204.28 cm 3 (1.5 PV) and the total volume of brine was produced from the
fractured core was 115.3 cm 3 . Thus, the initial water saturation, Swi for conventional and
fractured cores were 15.66% and 15.06% respectively. Also, initial oil saturation, Soi for
conventional and fractured cores were 84.34% and 84.94% respectively. This initialization
was done at 25 C and the pressure was one atmosphere.

2.5. Experiments
Highly heterogeneous reservoirs with variable lateral and vertical permeability characteristics
can cause potential problems during CO 2 injection. The injection gas tends to finger ahead
into areas with high mobility ratios. This results in the gas forming preferential paths and
bypassing large volumes of oil [5], [6]. CO 2 Flooding process involves very complicated
phase behavior, which depends on the temperature, pressure and fluids properties of a certain
reservoir.
The potential of CO 2 storage combining EOR is high; approximately 60 %PV injected CO 2
can be retained in the reservoir at the CO 2 breakthrough if reinjection is not considered. This
suggests a gross CO 2 retention efficiency of approximately 60 %PV at CO 2 breakthrough if
separation and reinjection is not considered after the breakthrough. Reservoirs with high
concentrations of vertical fractures should be avoided due to CO 2 injection losses out of zone
and, or early CO 2 breakthrough reducing sweep efficiency [7]. To generate accurate
predictions by field simulations of CO 2 injection into conventional and fractured reservoirs, a
set of CO 2 injection experiments at condition near reservoirs conditions should be performed
to check EOR mechanisms.
The cores were placed horizontally in the oven. The whole setup is shown in Figure 2.
R

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

Figure 2. Schematic of set up

In the first step the conventional core was targeted. The temperature of oven was set at
100 C and CO 2 which was at room temperature (25 C) was injected into the conventional
core at a rate of 0.5 cm 3 / min . The volume of injected CO 2 and cumulative produced fluids
and break through time were measured. The CO 2 injection was continued until no oil
produced in outlet. After that the heater which was in the direction of CO 2 injection turned on
and CO 2 temperature increased to 120 C. Hot CO 2 was injected into the conventional core
and the volume of injected CO 2 and cumulative produced fluids and break through were
measured too. Results showed that the amount of produced oil and water significantly
increased and the break through time was reduced slightly. Next experiment was done on the
fractured core to indicate feasibility of hot CO 2 injection in fractured core. The temperature of
oven was set at 100 C and CO 2 was injected into the fractured core at a rate of 0.5 cm3 / min
R

and 25 C. All the process was similar to the conventional core runs. The volume of injected
CO 2 and cumulative produced fluids and break through were measured. The CO 2 injection
was continued until no oil was produced in outlet. After that the heater which was in the
direction of CO 2 injection turned on and CO 2 temperature increased to 120 C. Hot CO 2 was
injected into the fractured core and the volume of injected CO 2 and cumulative produced
fluids which consist of oil, water and CO 2 were measured too. Unexpected results were
observed; after finishing CO 2 injection and starting the hot CO 2 injection, the produced oil
was low. It showed that the fracture was acted as a channel and hot CO 2 moved in the fracture
because of high permeability of fracture and low viscosity of hot CO 2 .
The best candidate to produce residual oil in the matrix is a new method which is SoakAlternating-Gas (SAG). SAG method has been conceptualized based on continuous CO 2
flooding, cyclic CO 2 stimulation, and WAG techniques for conditions where water injectivity
is low and the mobility ratio is poor and water is not available. The goal of this new method is
to optimize the CO 2 process by using periodic soak periods in a continuous flood to maintain
the effectiveness of transition zone at the flood front, maximize the amount of oil
swelling/mobilizing behind the flood front, and cause the oil mobilization behind the flood
front to occur as close to the flood front as possible, thus forming an extended flood front.
This would create greater mobility control in the CO 2 flooding process without the use of
WAG, reduce the travel distance needed to achieve optimal miscibility, and increase the mass
transfer between CO 2 and oil without adding additional CO 2 [8]. SAG method was used in
R

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

fractured core. Hot CO 2 was injected into the fractured core which had been flooded with
CO 2 completely. In the next step, input and output of the core holder were closed and soaking
happened. Heat transferred from hot CO 2 to matrix around the fracture and viscosity of oil in
the matrix decreased, also a little miscibility occurred because of high temperature so mobility
of oil increased and oil started to move into the fracture. Figure 3 shows heat transfer from
fracture to matrix and oil movement schematically. After 30 minutes the injection of hot CO 2
was restarted and oil started to produce again.
R

Figure 3. Heat transfer and oil movement

Next experiment was done on the conventional and fractured cores to study which reservoirs
were candidate for hot CO 2 injection. Initial saturation was done on the two cores like
previous experiment. The temperature of oven was set at 100 C and brine which was at room
temperature (25 C) was injected into the conventional core at a rate of 0.5 cm3 / min . The
volume of injected brine and cumulative produced fluids and break through time were
measured. The water injection was continued until no oil produced in outlet. After that hot
CO 2 at 120 C was injected into the conventional core and the volume of injected CO 2 and
cumulative produced fluids and break through were measured too. These processes were done
on the fractured core and volume of cumulative injected and produced fluids and break
through were measured too. These data compared to each other to distinguish which
reservoirs were better candidate for hot CO 2 injection, the reservoirs which flooded with
water or CO 2 .
R

3. Results and Discussions:

The results show that CO 2 injection is feasible method to enhanced oil recovery in
conventional core. Figure 4 shows the cumulative oil which has produced by flooding CO 2 at
a rate of 0.5 cm3 / min in conventional core. This figure represents in conventional core after
295 %PV of CO 2 injection, cumulative produced oil is 50.8 %PV.
R

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

60

Produced oil, %PV

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

CO2 Injection, %PV

Figure 4. Produced oil versus CO 2 injection in conventional core

R

The break through of CO 2 has happened after 61 %PV of CO 2 injection. Early break through
is the most problem of CO 2 injection. Figure 5 shows the volume of oil which has produced
by flooding hot CO 2 in conventional core. As Figure 5 shows after 295 %PV of CO2
injection, the cumulative produced oil is 11.8 %PV. The break through of hot CO 2 has
happened after 45 %PV of hot CO 2 injection. Thus, hot CO 2 breakthrough occurs earlier than
CO 2 . High mobility of hot CO 2 causes the earlier break through. These results represent that
CO 2 and hot CO 2 injection are proper methods in conventional core.
R

14

Produced oil, %PV

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Hot CO2 Injection, %PV

Figure 5. Enhanced oil recovery versus hot CO 2 injection in conventional core after flooding by CO 2 injection.
R

This was for the first time hot CO 2 injected into the fractured core. Figure 6 shows the
cumulative oil which was produced by flooding CO 2 at a rate of 0.5 cm3 / min in fractured
core. This figure shows that in the fractured core after 260 %PV of CO 2 injection, cumulative
produced oil is 44.6 %PV. The CO 2 break through happened after 32 %PV of CO 2 injection.
In this case, fracture with high permeability causes rapid break through of CO 2 .
R

www.petroman.ir

Produced oil, %PV

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

CO2 Injection, %PV

Figure 6. Produced oil versus CO 2 injection in fractured core

R

After fractured core was flooded by CO 2 completely, hot CO 2 injected into the fractured core.
Produced oil was low, so SAG method was used and after soaking the fractured core by hot
CO 2 , oil started to produce. Figure 7 shows cumulative produced oil after soaking the core for
30 minutes. This figure shows after 77 %PV of hot CO 2 injection, the produced oil is 4 %PV
and after 257 %PV hot CO 2 injection, the produced oil is 4.57 %PV. This is for the first time
SAG method was used in fractured core by hot CO 2 and results show that hot CO 2 injection
by use of the SAG method is feasible EOR process in fractured reservoirs.
R

Produced oil, %PV

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Hot CO2 Injection, %PV

Figure 7. Enhanced oil recovery versus hot CO 2 injection in fractured core after soaking period.
R

Also the results show that hot CO 2 injection is more feasible method to enhanced oil recovery
in the reservoirs that floods by CO 2 previously. Hot CO 2 injected into the conventional core
which had flooded with water previously. Figure 8 shows the cumulative oil which was
produced by water flooding at a rate of 0.5 cm3 / min in conventional core and Figure 9 shows
it in fractured core. These figures represent that in conventional core after 347 %PV of water
injection, cumulative produced oil is 58 %PV and in fractured core after 285 %PV of water
injection cumulative produced oil is 50 %PV.
R

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

70

produced oil, %PV

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Water injection, %PV

Figure 8. Produced oil versus water injection in conventional core.

60

produced oil, %PV

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

Water injection, %PV

Figure 9. Produced oil versus water injection in fractured core.

10

www.petroman.ir

250

300

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

The break through of water happened after 73 %PV in conventional and 62 %PV in fractured
core. Figure 10 shows the volume of oil which was produced by hot CO 2 flooding in
conventional core which completely flooded by water previously. As Figure 10 shows after
295 %PV of hot CO 2 injection, the cumulative produced oil is 5.3 %PV.
R

produced oil, %PV

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Hot CO2 injection, %PV

Figure 10. Enhanced oil recovery versus hot CO 2 injection in conventional core after
R

flooding by water injection.

The break through of hot CO 2 happened after 48 %PV injection. Hot CO 2 injected into the
fractured core which was flooded by water previous too. The results show that the produced
oil after hot CO 2 flooding is low. These results represent that cores which are flooded with
CO 2 previous are better candidate for hot CO 2 injection than the cores which are flooded by
water. Water injection reduces reservoirs temperature so in thermal processes the reservoirs
which are flooded with water, the CO 2 injection are not feasible.
Hot CO 2 Flooding can cover wide range of oil which includes high API gravity oil; also it can
be applied to variety of reservoir which includes sandstone, dolomites and cherts. Mobility of
hot CO 2 is more than CO 2 so it can flood the zones that CO 2 can not. Hot CO 2 flooding
increases the mobility of oil comparative to CO 2 flooding. In fractured reservoirs, SAG
method by using the hot CO 2 is feasible method especially in shallow reservoirs and the
reservoirs which injection and production wells distance are small because of heat loses.
All EOR process has limitations on their applicability. These limitations have derived
partially from laboratory test.
1. Naturally and economically availability of CO 2 .
2. High permeable zones and fractures reduce break through time and also decrease efficiency
of hot CO 2 injection.
3. High temperature of CO 2 causes corrosive problems.
4. Heating CO 2 has high cost.
5. A large gas cap or aquifer is usually an unfavorable factor.
R

11

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

4. Conclusions
CO 2 gas has been injected into the conventional and fractured cores and amount of produced
fluids and breakthrough time have been measured. After that hot CO 2 was injected into the
each core and enhanced oil recovery and breakthrough time were determined. Results show
that hot CO 2 injection is a feasible method to enhanced oil recovery in conventional core but
in the fractured is not feasible. Recovery was increased by soaking the fractured core with hot
CO 2 . Therefore, soaking with hot CO 2 can be a feasible EOR process in fractured reservoirs.
Results show that hot CO 2 injection is a good candidate in the reservoirs that floods with CO 2
previous but in the reservoirs those floods with water is not feasible method to enhanced oil
recovery because water injection reduces the reservoir temperature.
Heat content of CO 2 is low so hot CO 2 injection is not feasible method in deep reservoirs
because of heat losses. Application of hot CO 2 flooding shows that it reduces the viscosity of
medium or heavy oils and partially mixes with oil to increase the swelling factor which
ultimately increases the recovery factor with respect to CO 2 flooding. Also, soaking hot CO 2
method can be uses in the fractured reservoirs which distance of injection and production
wells are small. In this study for the first time, hot CO 2 was injected into a fractured core and
SAG method by hot CO 2 was used in this core.
R

12

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Fractured Reservoirs Development Congress

References:
[1]- Brock, W.R., Bryan, L.A., 1987. Summary Results of CO 2 EOR Field Tests, Exxon Co.
U.S.A. SPE 18977.
[2]- Yongmao, Hao., Zenggui, Wu., Binshan Chen Yueming, Ju., 2004. Laboratory
Investigation of CO 2 Flooding. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 88883
[3]- Martin, D.F. and Taber, J.J, Carbon Dioxide Flooding, JPT (April 1992)394
[4]- Gozalpour, F., S.R. Ren, Tohidi B., 2005. CO 2 EOR and Storage in Oil Reservoirs. Oil
& Gas Science and Technology Rev. IFP, Vol. 60 (2005), No. 3, pp. 537-546.
[5]- Chakravarthy, D., Muralidaharan, V., Putra, Kinder Morgan, E., Hidayati, Chevron, L.P.;
D.T., Schechter, D.S., 2006. Mitigating Oil Bypassed in Fractured Cores During CO 2
Flooding Using WAG and Polymer Gel Injections. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE
97228
[6]- Uleberg, K . and Hoier, L., Miscible Gas Injection in Fractured Reservoirs, Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 13-17. SPE 75136 2002
[7]- Mahesh Shrichand Picha, SPE, Reliance Industries Ltd, Enhanced Oil Recovery by hot
CO 2 Flooding , SPE 105425. 2007
[8]- Malcolm D. Murray., Scott M. Frailey., Akanni S. Lawal., 2001. New Approach to CO 2
Flood: Soak Alternating Gas. SPE 70023.
6TU

U6T

R6TU

U6T

13

www.petroman.ir