See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272817158

Enhanced Oil Recovery by CO2 Injection in Carbonate Reservoirs

Conference Paper  in  WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment · December 2014

DOI: 10.2495/ESUS140481

CITATIONS READS

2 4,581

2 authors:

Haval Hawez Zheno Ahmed

Robert Gordon University The American University of Iraq, Sulaimani
3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Polymer flood application in heavy oil reservoirs. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Haval Hawez on 15 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy and Sustainability V 547

Enhanced oil recovery by CO2 injection

in carbonate reservoirs
H. Hawez & Z. Ahmed
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering,
Koya University, Iraq

Abstract
The majority of carbonate reservoirs have low porosity and permeability in general
because of having a high amount of matrixes that make a heterogeneous reservoir,
however high permeable layers are fractured. This study shows the effect of carbon
dioxide injection on the oil recovery factor using an ECLIPSE 300 compositional
reservoir simulator for 3D modelling and the change of carbonate components
reaction during CO2 injection in experimental work. In addition, a high recovery
factor has been recorded during miscible CO2 injection compared to immiscible
injection. Water alternative gas (WAG) has been used as an enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) method to overcome an unfavourable mobility ratio of CO2 flooding.
Miscible CO2 injection with the aid of WAG has also had a great impact on the
dissolution of carbonate components in dissolving calcite and dolomite
components. Consequently, CO2 flooding has a relatively low recovery factor
without any EOR techniques such as gravity stable displacement, WAG or
mobility control. CO2 injection below minimum miscibility pressure (MMP)
reduces CO2 emission, while it takes too long time to maintain reservoir pressure.
On the other hand, CO2 flooding above MMP improves pressure maintenance;
causes oil swelling, and increases the oil density.
Keywords: miscibility, MMP, CO2 and WAG injections, carbonate reactivity.

1 Introduction
Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, in the atmosphere has
resulted in climate change and aggravation of global warming which are big
concerns for human beings in recent years [1]. In addition, there are number of
ways which are mentioned by the authors to reduce the amount of CO2 in the

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
doi:10.2495/ESUS140481
548 Energy and Sustainability V

atmosphere, one of them is CO2 geological sequestration in oil reservoirs.

Researchers have discussed that this method cannot only minimise the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it can also improve additional oil recovery
by CO2 flooding as a method of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) [2, 3].
It has been stated that CO2 flooding has been started for some decades [4].
Worldwide CO2 injection have been applied as an EOR method at 76 sites and 67
among them are in the US (50 of these in the west Texas and New Mexico) and
the rest in Turkey, Canada and Trinidad [2].
CO2 flooding has been introduced as injecting a big volume of CO2, roughly
30% or more of the hydrocarbon pore volume (PV) as shown in Figure 1 [4].

Figure 1: CO2 flooding process.

Moreover, the main mechanisms of recovery oil by CO2 injection are identified
as; reducing viscosity of oil; swelling the crude oil; lowering the interfacial
tension between the oil and the CO2/oil phase in the near miscible regions; It also
produce miscibility since it has lower MMP: and Solubility process [5]. It has been
estimated that 40% of the worldwide oil reservoirs are carbonate reservoirs which
mostly contain about 1.6 trillion barrel in place of heavy oil [6]. Most of the
carbonate reservoirs have been recognised as having heterogeneous, vugs, cavities
and comprising fracture in their structures. Having very low permeability and
porosity matrix of carbonate reservoirs makes it difficult for the oil to flow through
it during primary and secondary recovery methods and it results in very low oil
recovery [7].
It is also revealed that water injection is not appropriate candidate to recover
oil in the carbonate reservoirs because they are commonly (80%) mixed-wet or oil
wet and it causes high water relative permeability [8]. Subsequently, carbonate
reservoirs have been selected as good candidates for CO2 enhanced oil recovery,
since CO2 can obtain miscibility with the oil at low minimum miscibility pressure

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
 Energy and Sustainability V 549

300 bars [9]. Although, immiscible CO2 flooding is not operative in carbonate
reservoirs, it is more effective than water flooding in these reservoirs [4]. On the
other hand, sometimes early CO2 breakthrough and poor macroscopic sweep
efficiency are resulted in due to viscous fingering and gravity override which are
caused by unfavourable CO2 mobility and reservoir heterogenic in carbonate
reservoirs [6]. The injection specified volumes, or slugs, of water and gas
alternately is a developed technique to overcome this problem and the method is
these called the water-alternating-gas (WAG) process [10].
WAG process has been introduced as a control method to improve vertical
sweep efficiency and solve gas fingering because the mobility of each face can be
declined by simultaneous flow of the two phases (water and CO2) and the stability
of flood front can improve. The author also mentioned that at immiscible condition
with CO2, WAG can improve oil recovery efficiently and this experienced in some
oil fields for both miscible and immiscible processes, for instance, Lick Creek,
Kuparuk River, Brage and Gullfaks and in some countries (USA, Canada and
recently in Norway) [11].
The aim of this paper is to show the effect of CO2 flooding on improving the
recovery factor and changing porosity and permeability in the carbonate
reservoirs. In addition, using of WAG flooding as a control method to minimise
fingering and mobility control.

2 Miscibility and minimum miscibility pressure (MMP)

During CO2 injection, miscibility between the injected gas (CO2) and residual oil
can be created at a higher pressure (at a constant temperature and composition).
The pressure which can develop miscibility between the two phases is called
minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) which is schematically shown in Figure 2
[12].

Figure 2: Schematic illustration showing minimum miscibility pressure for CO2

for a fixed oil composition (Skarrestad and Skauge, 2011 [12]).

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
550 Energy and Sustainability V

CO2 is not miscible in the first contact with the reservoir oil, however, dynamic
miscibility with the oil can be obtained when CO2 pressure is high sufficient
(depends on oil composition and reservoir temperature). Based on this theory,
Vaporization occurs at temperatures where the fluid at the displacement front is a
CO2-rich gas, and extraction occurs at temperatures where the fluid at the
displacement front is a CO2-rich liquid [13].
It has been argued that the main factors which impact on miscibility pressure
are: 1) high density of CO2 results in dynamic miscibility as it can dissolve the
C5-through-C30 components in the hydrocarbons oil reservoir. 2) Higher
miscibility pressure can be attained as a result of high (constant) temperature.
3) Having large percentage of C5-through-C30 fraction causes reducing miscibility
pressure. 4) Light components in hydrocarbon crude oils, such as (methane and C2
through C4) do not have impaction on the achieving MMP [14].
It has been evidenced that pressure is the principal criterion during CO2
injection since CO2 pressure need to be significant to impact on the hydrocarbon
components [15]. In order to make distinguish between the two CO2 flooding
(miscible and immiscible) processes, the Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP)
needs to be known.
The relative values of the reservoir pressure and MMP can be used to
distinguish the immiscible and miscible CO2 injection processes. Furthermore,
dynamic miscibility of CO2 injection can be attended, if reservoir pressure is above
MMP. In order to reach dynamic miscibility, reservoir pressure can be increased,
although, reservoir fracturing is the big concern of this concept [15].
If MMP is unknown, immiscible CO2 injection can be achievable, when the oil
gravity and the injected pressure are lower than 25o API and 1450 psi, respectively.
Otherwise, if the pressure greater than 3600 psi and oil gravity is higher than 40o
API, then, miscible CO2 displacement will be practicable [16].
Temperature is another important principle in the successfulness of CO2
flooding and achieving miscibility since the solubility and density of CO2 decrease
with increasing temperature. Therefore, MMP necessary for given oil have to be
increased with normal rising temperature in the reservoir.

3 Simulational strategy and scenarios

Three dimensional (3D) models were constructed in order to analyse CO2
behaviour in a carbonate reservoir as shown in Figure 3. There were applied
different features of the carbonate reservoir in terms of characterize rock
properties (permeability, porosity, compressibility) and fluid properties (viscosity,
density) of a typical carbonate reservoir. The compositional reservoir simulator
(Eclipse 300) model was applying to predict and monitor the effect of CO2
injection on field oil efficiency and the reservoir behaviour using five spot models
involve four injectors (A,B,C,D wells)and single producer (Well P) as illustrated
in Figure 3.

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
 Energy and Sustainability V 551

Figure 3: FloViz visualization shows well locations.

CO2 gas injection was set up to inject under reservoir condition and the wells
were located based on the five spot systems. In addition, WAG flooding was
performed on the same system in order to compare their results with the two CO2
flooding processes. The model consisted of four injectors and single producer
wells with 20 x 20 x 6 cells. The model included several low porous and permeable
layers of the hydrocarbon reservoir. The initial reservoir pressure was about 4000
psi at 5390 ft at temperature of 219°C. The input porosity is ranged about 0.07 to
0.18 with changeable permeability according to X, Y and Z directions. In addition,
the model consists of seven numbers of comments (MC1, MC2, M C3, MC4, MC5,
CO2, and N2). The total injection and production period was about 20 years, and
the other input data are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Input parameters to study of the carbonate reservoir.

Parameter Value
No. of global cells 2400 (20 x 20 x 6)
Porosity 0.07 to 0.18
Permeability (x,y,z) [mD] 10 to 77
Initial reservoir pressure [Psia] 4000
Initial oil saturation 0.7
Initial water saturation 0.2
Depth [ft] 6109
Bottom hole pressure [Psia] 3000
CO2 [MSCFD] 10
Injection rate
Water [STBD] 200
Oil density [lb/ft3] 49
Water density [lb/ft3] 63
CO2 density [lb/ft3] 0.117

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
552 Energy and Sustainability V

The oil-wet characteristic is considered in the carbonate rock reservoir for

fluid and rock properties by the oil-water relative permeability curve as shown in
Figure 4.

1.00
Krw Kro
0.80
Permeability
Relative

0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water saturation

Figure 4: Relative permeability curve for oil–wet (carbonate reservoir).

There was assumed that the reservoir fluid involve oil, gas and water, but,
without free gas and solution gas. The gas existing in the reservoir represents only
CO2 gas. When CO2 gas is injected into the reservoir, CO2 becomes immiscible
with oil at the first contact [7].

4 Geochemical interactions between CO2, reservoir rocks and

pore-waters
Various chemical reactions are another concern of injecting reactive gas (CO2)
into the reservoirs. When, CO2 is injected into the reservoirs, chemical reaction
can occur as a result of interaction between CO2, cup rocks and reservoir rocks
and CO2 dissolution into pore-water. In addition, the interaction between CO2,
water and the rocks might have positive or deleterious impact on the capacity of
CO2 storage and injectivity process. The carbonate reactivity and its interaction
with the rock and pore-water are illustrated in Figure 5 [17, 18].

Figure 5: Shows rock fluid interaction (Sengul, M., 2007 [5]).

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
 Energy and Sustainability V 553

There have been discussed that several trapping are produced as a

consequences of the chemical and mineralogical reactions of CO2 storage in the
deep underground with water and rocks. The mechanisms of the CO2 trapping are
shortened in Table 2 and they are introduced hereafter [7].

Table 2: Possible trapping mechanisms associated with the deep underground

storage of supercritical CO2.
 Physical trapping Increasing
CO2 ‘bubble’: dense supercritical CO2 phase importance with
 Chemical trapping time
 Solubility trapping: CO2 (aq) or H2CO3
 Ionic trapping: HCO3-, CaHCO3+, NaHCO3
 Mineral trapping: CaCO3 (calcite), CaMg (CO3)2(dolomite)
MgCO3 (magnetite), FeCO3 (siderite), NaAlCO3 (OH)2 (dawsonite)

Physical trapping is produced by buoyant supercritical CO2 ‘bubble’, however,

reaction between formation water and CO2 could create solubility trapping.
Moreover, decreasing PH and enhancing solubility trapping associated with
interaction of the dissolved CO2 and minerals in the host formation results in ionic
trapping. In addition, mineral trapping could be induced as a consequence of
reaction between dissolved CO2 and non-carbonate calcium-rich minerals [7].
It has mentioned that permeability and porosity modification is a big
consequence of reaction between CO2, reservoir rocks and pore-water, the change
can delay the process of CO2 injection or enhance its migration out of the storage
volume. For instance, mineral precipitation around the target zone might block the
pathways of injection flow and high injection rate maintenance is required,
although, injectivity around the wellbore might increase rapidly as a result of
calcite dissolution. The main factors that aid geochemical reactions are fluid
chemistry, precise mineralogy, temperature and pressure of the host formation and
time [19].

5 Results and discussion

It can be noticed that the field oil efficiency increased significantly during miscible
CO2 injection. Whereas, there is a moderated increase during immiscible CO2
injection, because miscible CO2 helps the oil as a pressure support to dissolve and
expand, and then go through the reservoir matrix and the production well. Figure
6 shows the effect of oil recovery with respect to the amount of CO2 gas injected
into the field. It can be clearly seen that as CO2 miscible gas is injected into the
reservoir, the efficiency of oil recovery increases significantly.

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
554 Energy and Sustainability V

Figure 6: Field oil efficiency versus time (years).

Furthermore, CO2 flows to the high permeable layers because of unfavourable

mobility ratio as shown in Figure 7. Also, the low recovery records because of low
density that can cause gravity override of the CO2 only recovering the attic oil .The
added effect of CO2 gas dropping through the lower layers due to gravity and thus
creating a better sweeping action can explain the improved efficiency achieved
with high permeability in the top layer. Comparison on the speed of frontal
advance showed that a faster advance will produce better oil recovery with
amounts of CO2 micsible injection, but results in the smaller overall efficiency as
a lower advance during immicible CO2 injection.
In addition, there is also noticed some unsweep zones during CO2 miscible
injection as a result of the unfavourable mobility ratio. CO2 flows through high
permeable zones and leaves low permeable zones (unsweep zones) because of
unfavourable mobility ratio as shown in Figure 7. Moreover , the highest gas
production was recorded during miscible CO2 injection into carbonate reservoir
because CO2 disolves and decreases the viscoisity of oil that might cause fingering
and gravity segregation. While no gas production was recorded during immicible
gas injection within 20 years as shown in Figure 8. Because immiscible CO2
injection can cause push the oil horizonally that becomes pressure support and less
sweep effeciency. On the other hand, Miscible CO2 injection has better sweep
efficiency and reduces the oil density in order to push the oil into the production
well.

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
 Energy and Sustainability V 555

Figure 7: Floviz visualization during miscible CO2 injection.

Figure 8: Field gas production total versus field gas injection total.

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
556 Energy and Sustainability V

Furthermore, CO2 makes some problems during reaction with reservoir fluid
and rocks such as, fingeing, gravity segregation and early breackthroygh as
illustrated in Figure 7. Therefore, WAG injection is preferred to inject into
carbonate reservoirs because it reduces fingering. WAG injection controls
mobility ratio that makes later time breakthrough. CO2 injection has lower
recovery effeciency compared to WAG injection that is related to increasing
visosity, controlling mobility ratio, increasing desnsity as shown in Figure 9.

 
Figure 9: Field oil efficiency versus time (years).

6 Conclusion
1. CO2 injection is a good candidate to recover oil in carbonate reservoirs.
2. Miscible CO2 injection has better recovery factor than immiscible CO2
injection into carbonate reservoirs.
3. Highest gas production total was recorded during miscible CO2 injection.
4. CO2 injection might cause physical and chemical trapping
5. Geochemical interactions between CO2, pore-water and reservoir rocks can
change the permeability and porosity of carbonate reservoir either reducing or
improving them.
6. WAG process can control sweep efficiency during CO2 injection, but it can
also react with the carbonate components.

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
 Energy and Sustainability V 557

7 Recommendation for further work

More studies should be considered in order to investigate the combined
mechanisms to maximize oil recovery factor. Further research should be done to
examine the effect of CO2 injection with the aid of water even using other chemical
additives into the carbonate reservoirs.

References
[1] Liao, X et al. (2012) ‘Assessment of CO2 EOR and Its Geo-Storage
Potential in Mature Oil Reservoirs, Changing Oil field, China’, Carbon
Management Technology Conference. Orlando, Florida, USA, 7-9
February. USA: CMTC, pp. 1-6.
[2] Shaw, J. and Bachu, S. (2002) ‘Screening, Evaluation, and Ranking of Oil
Reservoirs Suitable for CO2-Flood EOR and Carbon Dioxide
Sequestration’, JCPT, 41(9), pp. 51-56.
[3] Wo, S., Whitman, L. D. and Steidtmann, J. R. (2009) ‘Estimates of Potential
CO2 Demand for CO2 EOR in Wyoming Basins’, SPE Rocky Mountain
Petroleum Technology Conference. Denver, Colorado, USA, 14-18 April.
USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers, pp. 1-2.
[4] Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D. and Seright, R. S. (1997) ‘EOR Screening Criteria
Revisited-Part 2: Application and Impact of Oil Prices’, SPE/DO Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma 21-24 April. Tulsa: SPE
Reservoir Engineering, pp. 199-201.
[5] Sengul, M. (2007) ‘Perspective for Carbonate Reservoirs’, Schlumberger
Carbon Services MEA. Kuwait 14-15 May. Kuwait: MEA, pp. 9-15.
[6] Choi, M. et al. (2013) ‘Analysis of oil flow in fractured oil reservoir using
carbon dioxide (CO2) foam injection’, Journal of Petroleum and Gas
Engineering, 4(6), pp. 143-144.
[7] Rohehl, P. O. (1985) Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs.
[8] Hirasaki, G. & Zhang, D. L. 2004. Surface Chemistry of Oil Recovery from
Fractured. Oil-wet, Carbonate Formations. SPE Journal, 9, 151-162.
[9] Skjaeveland, S. M. & Kleppe, J. 1992. SPOR - Recent Advances in
Improved Oil Recovery Methods For North Sea Sandstone Reservoirs.
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Chapter 9, 207-250.
[10] Carcoana, A. (1992) Applied Enhance Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall.
[11] Manrique E., Calderon G., Mayo L. and Stirpe M. T., (1998)’ Water-
Alternating-Gas Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates Screening
Criteria of International Field Experiences’, SPE European Petroleum
Conference. The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22 October. Hague: Society
of Petroleum Engineers Inc., pp. 161-162.
[12] Skarrestad and Skauge, A. (2011) ‘Fluid Properties and Recovery
Methods’.
[13] Stalkup, F. J. Miscible Displacement, SPE Monograph 8, 1983.
[14] Lake, L. W. (1989) Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, N. J.

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)
 558 Energy and Sustainability V

[15] Guerillot, D. R. (1988) ‘EOR Screening with an Expert System’, SPE

Symposium on Petroleum Industry Application of Microcomputers. San
Jose, California June 27-29. California: Society of Petroleum Engineers,
pp. 138-139.
[16] Guerillot, D. R. and Bessis, F. (1988) ‘Sarah-Diezol: un systeme de
diagnostic en recuperation assistee dehydrocarbures’, Revure de Institiut
Francais Petrole, 41(6), pp. 759-771.
[17] Czernichowski-Lauriol, I. et al. (1996); Geochemical Interactions between
CO2, Pore-Waters and Reservoir Rocks’.
[18] Rochelle, C.A., Czernichowski-Lauriol, I., and Milodowski, A.E., (2004)
‘The impact of chemical reactions on CO2 storage in geological formations:
a brief review. In: Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide’, S.J. Baines and
R.H. Worden eds., Special Publication of the Geological Society of London
no. 233, pp. 87-106.
[19] Bachu, S., Gunter, W.D., and Perkins, E.H. (1994) ‘Aquifer disposal of
CO2: hydrodynamic and mineral trapping’, Energy Conversion and
Management, 35, pp. 69-279.

WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 186, © 2014 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)

View publication stats