Challenges of CO 2 Injection in Middle E PDF

Teesside University
School of Science and Engineering
MSc. Petroleum Engineering
Challenges of CO2 Injection in Middle East

Carbonate Reservoirs
An enhanced oil recovery technique in heterogeneous
reservoirs
By: Nwaiche Jason Chinedu
Supervisor: Dr Sina Gomari
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of Master of Science Degree in
Petroleum Engineering
September 2015
SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that the work is entirely my own and not of any other person, unless
explicitly acknowledged (including citation of published and unpublished sources). The
work has not previously been submitted in any form to the Teesside University or to any
other institution for assessment for any other purpose.
Signed _________________________________________________
Date ___________________________________________________
ii
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to God Almighty and in memory of my lovely dad- Late Sir
Jason Nwaiche.
iii
ABSTRACT
The growing global campaign and awareness on global warming and climate change
and ways of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere has raised a lot
of concern towards ways of possibly reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2)
which is a major contributor to global warming within the environment. Over the past
few decades, the injection and trapping of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas into petroleum
reservoirs like sandstones, shale and carbonates have become a globally accepted
enhanced oil recovery technique and an efficient carbon storage process.
Carbonate reservoirs have been studied to contain most of the world’s oil and gas, with
the Middle East as one of the major zones dominated by carbonate formations. With
carbonate reservoirs understood to have large volumes of oil, there still exist some
challenges regarding the recovery of these oil from carbonate reservoirs due to their
heterogeneous nature. Some of the challenges identified included early gas
breakthrough due to viscous fingering effect of CO2, acid effect of carbonates when in
contact with CO2 and reservoir brine, oil recovery challenges due to the effects of CO2
on the reservoir permeability, CO2 injection rates on oil recovery, injection effect of
CO2 on oil viscosity and CO2 injection effect on the relative permeability of oil.
This research has been carried out using a typical carbonate reservoir data from a
Middle East field. A carbonate reservoir model was developed using Eclipse reservoir
simulator software and based on some of the available field data, so as to investigate
some of the challenging scenarios experienced in carbonate formations during CO2
injection and their effects on oil recovery factor from the reservoir. The developed
eclipse model was set to run on a time-step of 10 years so as to predict the performance
of the reservoir over time. Sensitivity studies on oil recovery factor was carried out to
examine how changes in CO2 injection rate, CO2 density and reservoir oil density can
affect the oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs and to know the most critical effect
regarding oil recovery during CO2 flooding. The result shows that CO2 density has the
most significant oil recovery at 17.05% followed by the CO2 injection rate with a
recovery factor of 16.5% after 10years of production while the oil density has no
influence on oil recovery during CO2 injection.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................................. ii

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. xi
ACRONYM TERMS ...................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Problem Identification and Justification ............................................................ 3
1.3 Dissertation Structure ......................................................................................... 4
1.4 Objectives of the Project .................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 6
2.1 Definition of Fundamental Reservoir and Fluid Parameters.............................. 7
2.1.1 Porosity ....................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Permeability ................................................................................................ 7
2.1.3 Fluid Saturation........................................................................................... 8
2.1.4 Interfacial Tension ...................................................................................... 9
2.1.5 Wettability ................................................................................................ 10
2.1.6 Relative Permeability ................................................................................ 12
2.1.7 Miscibility ................................................................................................. 13
2.1.8 Viscosity ................................................................................................... 14
2.2 General Overview and Description of Carbonate Reservoirs .......................... 15
2.2.1 Classification of Carbonate Reservoirs..................................................... 15
2.2.2 Carbonate Reservoir Characterization ...................................................... 17
2.2.3 Major Problems Associated with Carbonate Reservoirs .......................... 20
2.2.4 Mechanisms of Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs ....................... 22
2.3 Process of Oil Recovery from Reservoirs ........................................................ 23
2.3.1 Primary Recovery Stage ........................................................................... 23
v
2.3.2 Secondary Recovery Stage ....................................................................... 23

2.3.3 Tertiary Recovery Stage ........................................................................... 24
2.4 Current Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods ....................................................... 25
2.4.1 Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery .............................................................. 26
2.4.2 Gas Injection Enhanced Oil Recovery ...................................................... 26
2.4.3 Chemical Injection Enhanced Oil Recovery ............................................. 27
2.4.4 Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) ............................................ 27
2.5 EOR Screening Criteria.................................................................................... 28
2.5.1 EOR Screening Method ............................................................................ 29
2.5.2 MMP Estimation for CO2 Gas Injection ................................................... 29
2.6 Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR) .................................... 32
2.6.1 General Overview of CO2-EOR ............................................................... 32
2.6.2 Application of CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in Carbonate Reservoirs .... 33
2.6.3 Mechanisms of CO2 Oil Recovery ........................................................... 35
2.6.4 CO2 Injection Techniques ......................................................................... 35
2.6.5 General Benefits of CO2-EOR ................................................................. 38
2.6.6 Some General Challenges of CO2-EOR .................................................. 38
2.7 Review of Current and Future CO2-EOR in the Middle East ......................... 40
2.7.1 Some Identified Challenges in Middle East Reservoirs ........................... 41
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 43
3.1 Reservoir Description....................................................................................... 44
3.1.1 Reservoir and Fluid Properties ....................................................................... 44
3.1.2 Model Description .................................................................................... 46
3.2 Modelling of Carbonate Reservoir Using Eclipse Simulator ........................... 47
3.2.1 Data Requirements for Eclipse Modelling of a Carbonate Reservoir ...... 48
3.3 Description of Scenarios Investigated .............................................................. 51
3.3.1 Base Case .................................................................................................. 51
3.3.2 Scenario 1a- Effect of CO2 Injection on Oil Recovery Factor ................. 52
3.3.3 Scenario 1b- Effect of CO2 Injection on Carbonate Reservoir Permeability
52
3.3.4 Scenario 2- Effects of CO2 Injection on Oil Relative Permeability ......... 53
3.3.5 Scenario 3- Viscosity effects of CO2 Injection Rates on Oil Viscosity .... 53
3.4 Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................... 54
Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................... 55
vi
4.1 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................... 56

4.2 Effect of CO2 on Overall Oil Recovery Factor ............................................... 57
4.3 Effect of CO2 on Carbonate Reservoir Permeability ....................................... 58
4.4 Effect of CO2 on Relative Permeability .......................................................... 62
4.5 Sensitivity Analysis on Oil Recovery Factor ................................................... 64
4.5.1 Sensitivity on CO2 Injection Rates ........................................................... 65
4.5.2 Sensitivity on CO2 Density ...................................................................... 66
4.5.3 Sensitivity on Oil Density ......................................................................... 67
Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 68
5.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 69
5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 70
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 76
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2. 1 Graphical method of estimating absolute permeability.................................. 8
Figure 2. 2 Surface tension existing between oil, water and reservoir surface ................ 9
Figure 2. 3 Wettability determinations by contact angle ................................................ 11
Figure 2. 4 A typical 2-phase relative permeability plot of a water-wet and oil-wet
reservoir ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2. 5 Limestone composed of calcites from Tyrone, Pennsylvania ...................... 16
Figure 2. 6 Dolomite crystals from Penfield, New York ................................................ 16
Figure 2. 7 Middle East fractured carbonate rock from Ras Al Khaimah ...................... 18
Figure 2. 8 Different wettability scenarios experienced in hydrocarbon reservoirs ....... 21
Figure 2. 9 Stages of Oil recovery from a reservoir. ..................................................... 24
Figure 2. 10 Various techniques and classifications of oil recovery ............................ 25
Figure 2. 11 Summary of the general EOR selection criteria ......................................... 28
Figure 2. 12 Overview of the miscible CO2-EOR process ............................................. 32
Figure 2. 13 Slim-tube laboratory method for estimating MMP showing the effects of
pressure on oil recovery. .............................................................................. 34
Figure 2. 14 Gantt chart showing the various CO2 injection techniques and plans ....... 37
Figure 2. 15 Middle East CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2005 ....................................... 40
Figure 2. 16 Some of the current and future EOR projects in the Middle East . ........... 41
Figure 2. 17 Summary of some technical challenges facing most Middle East countrie
...................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3. 1 Oil PVT data of the modelled reservoir (Odeh, 1981)

Figure 3. 2 Gas PVT Data of the modelled reservoir .................................................... 45
Figure 3. 3 Oil-Gas Relative permeability data modelled .............................................. 45

Figure 3. 4 Modelled reservoir grid definition and well locations ................................. 46
Figure 3. 5 Overview of the modelled reservoir at various saturations .......................... 47
Figure 3. 6 Designed project flowchart for CO2 modelling in Eclipse .......................... 48
Figure 3. 7 Reservoir modelling process using Eclipse .................................................. 49
Figure 3. 8 Modelled reservoir flowviz showing the location of wells and gas saturation
...................................................................................................................... 51
viii
Figure 3. 9 Model 2-phase relative permeability data used in base case model (Odeh,
1981) ............................................................................................................ 52
Figure 4. 1 Effect of CO2 on overall oil recovery factor ................................................ 57

Figure 4. 2 Effect of CO2 on the reservoir pressure........................................................ 58
Figure 4. 3 Oil recovery from low permeable (k=0.9) reservoir at 0%, 15%, 50% and
100% CO2 Injection rates............................................................................. 59
Figure 4. 4 Oil recovery from low permeable (k=12) reservoir at 0%, 15%, 50% and
Figure 4. 6 Calculated relative permeability data using Corey’s equation applied in
scenario 2 ..................................................................................................... 62
Figure 4. 7 Effect of CO2 on relative permeability in Base Case and Scenario 2 .......... 63
Figure 4. 8 Sensitivity of ±20% CO2 injection rate on Oil Recovery ............................. 65
Figure 4. 9 Sensitivity of ±20% CO2 gas density on oil recovery .................................. 66
Figure 4. 10 Sensitivity of ±20% oil density on oil recovery ......................................... 67
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2. 1 Wettability determination using Craig rule of thumb ................................... 11
Table 2. 2 Physical properties of some carbonate rocks ................................................. 17
Table 2. 3 Typical carbonate reservoir characteristics for CO2-EOR............................. 19
Table 2. 4 Screening criteria for Miscible or Immiscible CO2 Flooding………………29
Table 2. 5 Summary of the best-fit coefficients used in Eq. 2.13 for pure CO2 MMP ... 30
Table 2. 6 Summary of the best-fit coefficients used in Eq. 2.14 for impure CO2 MMP
...................................................................................................................... 31
Table 2. 7 Basic comparison of CO2-EOR Injection Options ....................................... 33
Table 3. 1 Reservoir of study with well properties ......................................................... 44

Table 3. 2 Sensitivity analysis (± 20%) values for investigated parameters .................. 54
Table 4. 1 Oil recovery factor (%) from ± 20% sensitivity analysis .............................. 64
Table 4. 2 Result of oil recovery volumes (bbls) for ± 20% sensitivity analysis ........... 64
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to once again express my gratitude to God Almighty for his grace and support
throughout course of my programme and for the life and provisions he sustained me
with.
I cannot thank enough also my unique and adorable family for all your support; morally,
financially and spiritually. Indeed I hold you all to a high esteem.
To Teesside University, I cannot thank you enough for the provision of a sound
academic and learning environment, mentoring, and support especially for the provision
of the Schlumberger Eclipse and Petrel licenses that enabled this work to be done. To
all the Library and Learning hub staff especially Mr. Anthony Flint, that were of great
positive influence and support to me, I say thank you.
I remain most grateful to you Dr. Sina Rezaei-Gomari, for in you I did not only find a
supervisor for this study, I was also among those lucky to have you as a father, a
mentor, a brother and a friend. Your advices, commitment, supports, encouragement
and thorough supervision remain a part of me and made the positive difference in this
research. I cannot thank you enough but in all I pray God grants you more wisdom and
continues to uplift you into higher grounds.
To my colleagues and mates especially Pavelly, Anthony, Nic, Anthonio, Jamil, Theo,
Sophia, Clinton, Afam, Dubem and Bunmi, it was indeed an honour meeting you all and
you made my short stay at Teesside University warm and memorable. I remember the
days of our studying together, tutorials, vacations and lots more and in another world, I
would still choose you all as friends, brothers and sisters because each one of you left a
positive influence on me.
xi
ACRONYM TERMS
: Gas density
: Porosity
Bg: Gas formation volume factor
BHP: Bottom Hole Pressure
CCS: Carbon Capture and Sequestration
GHG: Green House Gases
GOC: Gas Oil Contact
E-100: Eclipse 100 Reservoir Simulator
EOR: Enhanced Oil Recovery
HCPV: Hydrocarbon pore volume
IFT: Interfacial tension
k: Reservoir permeability
Kr: Relative permeability
MMP: Minimum Miscibility Pressure
OOIP: Original Oil in Place
Sor Residual oil saturation

WOC: Water Oil Contact
: Viscosity
xii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Background
Carbon dioxide has been considered one of the challenging greenhouse gases (GHG)
causing global warming in the world today (Reichle et al., 1999). Over the years, the
storage of CO2 as a sequestration process (CCS) has however been considered as a
viable technique not just for the reduction in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 gas,
but also for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the petroleum and gas industry. Usually,
these volumes of injected CO2 in the depleted oil and gas reservoirs or water aquifers,
finds their way through an injector well down to the formation where they are either
stored permanently or used to maintain depleted reservoir pressure to enhance the
recovery of oil.
However, the history of the use CO2 gas as an EOR technique dates back to the early
50’s when the early use of CO2 in carbonated water-flooding and oil recovery was
carried out (McPherson et al., 2001). Ever since then, studies have been carried out and
are still being carried out to investigate the best and most efficient but economical ways
of sequestrating CO2 so as to be useful in oil recovery.
Injecting CO2 into geological reservoirs like the carbonates, sandstones, shale and deep
saline reservoirs have been applied in the following mechanisms that allow CO2 to
displace initially saturated rock pores as a free gas or as a dissolved gas. These
mechanisms are; hydrodynamic trapping, solubility trapping (Reichle et al., 1999) and
mineral trapping (McPherson et al., 2001 and Goldberg et.al, 2001). Therefore
suggesting that major CO2 storage can be ideally carried out in depleted oil and gas
reservoirs.
The Middle East region has been characterized mainly with carbonate reservoir
formations and over the years have been seen as a major global oil producing area,
which accounts for about a quarter of the entire global oil production total (Petroleum
Economist Magazine, 2010 and Al-Mutairi, Menahi and Kokal, 2011). With this
promising trend, there has been an increase in the availability of CO2 for EOR purposes
in most Middle East countries thereby helping to reduce atmospheric concentration of
GHGs in these affected areas. For example, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), targets
have been set to reduce the atmospheric CO2 by 14-15% with a view towards achieving
that through CO2-EOR techniques (Canty, 2011).
2
Although the global trend in the use of CO2 as an EOR technique continues to increase
due to the ability of CO2 to recover about 60% or more of the original oil in place, there
may be some challenges posed by this gas when injected into carbonate reservoirs. This
however may be due to the heterogeneous nature of carbonate rock matrices and the
tight pore distribution generally (Manaar, 2013). CO2 on its own has some other
impending problems associated to its use in carbonate reservoirs and some of these
problems may include: early gas breakthrough of the injected CO2 due to viscosity
fingering and may lead to little or no oil recovery; corrosion related problems due to
CO2 acid effects when in contact with fluids within drilled wells and the economic
problems resulting from large volume of CO2 gas used in the EOR (Salman, Juma and
Matrouk, 2007).
1.2 Problem Identification and Justification
The heterogeneous nature of most, if not all carbonate reservoirs have always been a
problem in reservoir engineering and enhanced oil recovery. In order to investigate
some of these challenges facing carbonate reservoirs, modelling a typical carbonate
reservoir from the Middle East using a field development and production data is
important so as to investigate some issues regarding oil recovery from carbonate
reservoirs like carbonate reservoir permeability, reservoir wettability, CO2 injection
rate, and the mechanisms of injection have all been considered in this research so as to
identify the most challenging property facing carbonate reservoirs during CO2 injection
for enhanced oil recovery; especially those located within the Middle East.
3
1.3 Dissertation Structure
This research project is structured in the following order;
 Chapter 1 highlights on the general background of enhanced oil recovery using

gas injection technique in carbonate reservoirs. It also shows the structure of the
research as well as the research objectives.
 Chapter 2 provides a detailed overview of literatures on carbonate reservoirs;
properties and types, carbon dioxide (CO2) injection into depleted reservoirs for
enhanced oil recovery and some of the current EOR practises in the Middle East.
 Chapter 3 provides detailed procedures involved in modelling a typical Middle
East carbonate reservoir and the various data required for the simulation run. It
also involved the scenarios modified so as to investigate effects of CO2-EOR on
carbonates as well as the sensitivity analysis carried out on oil recovery factor.
 Chapter 4 provides interpretation of the simulation results and discussions on
scenarios modelled in Chapter 3 with critical and technical reasoning in
comparison with some other previous and existing researches reviewed.
 Chapter 5 highlights some of the conclusions drawn from the study and possible
recommendations for subsequent researches on CO2-EOR in carbonate
formations.
4
1.4 Objectives of the Project
The objectives of this project have been streamlined to:
1. Model a typical Middle East carbonate reservoir for CO2 injection using
Schlumberger Eclipse (E-100) simulation software so as to have a clear
understanding of the behaviour of the carbonate reservoirs to CO2 gas.
2. Investigate the effects of CO2 injection on carbonate reservoirs’ permeability
and oil recovery.
3. Create scenarios to investigate the effects of CO2 on oil relative permeability in
fractured reservoirs.
4. Investigate the effects of injecting CO2 gas at different concentrations on the
reservoir oil viscosity.
5. Evaluate the reservoir performance at different scenarios and sensitivities to oil
recovery factor in order to propose the best possible working scenario to be used
for CO2-EOR projects in carbonate reservoirs.
5
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
6
2.1 Definition of Fundamental Reservoir and Fluid Parameters
The flow of fluid in reservoir systems is one considered as flow through porous media
and it is governed by the general Darcy’s law (Zolotukhin, 2000). In view of this
principle, some of the fluid and reservoir properties controlling the general flow of oil,
water and gas in a porous reservoir during CO2-EOR are discussed as follows;
2.1.1 Porosity
Porosity is simply a reservoir property used in calculating the volume of pores located
within reservoir geometry. It is mathematically expressed as the volume of pores in a
reservoir over the total volume of the reservoir. This makes porosity a unit less
parameter and thus express in percentage (%). Usually, the pore volume of a reservoir is
saturated with fluids e.g. gas, oil and water at different levels of saturation (Selley, 1998
and Ahmed, 2010). Although there are many types of porosity, the general form of it is
expressed mathematically as:
(eq. 2.1)
When estimating the overall volume of fluid located within (i.e. fluid in place) a
particular reservoir, porosity is considered a very important parameter. Porosity can
exist in two (2) major forms within a reservoir and these are effective and absolute
porosities. While effective porosity is simply the porosity ratio of the connected pores
within a reservoir, the absolute porosity is however the porosity ratio of the total volume
of pores against the overall rock volume as seen in eq.1 (Selley, 1998).
2.1.2 Permeability
Permeability is also a very important reservoir parameter which describes the rate or
ability of fluids to flow through a porous layer (i.e. network of connected pores).
Permeability and porosity are usually directly proportional to each other (i.e. they can
be affected by similar factors) (Zolotukhin, 2000). Permeability measurement is in
milli-darcy (mD) or in darcy (D) and it is denoted by the letter ‘k’. Similar to porosity,
the general form of permeability is known as the absolute permeability which is defined
as the permeability of a reservoir at one fluid phase saturation and it is calculated
mathematically from Darcy’s law in equation (2) (Ahmed, 2010):
7
(eq. 2.2)
Another method for estimating absolute permeability of a reservoir is by plotting the

rate of change of in a porous medium over pressure change. The slope of this graphical
plot gives the estimation for absolute permeability Figure 2.1 (Tiab, 2012).
Figure 2. 1 Graphical method of estimating absolute permeability (Zolotukhin, 2000)
Generally, the proper definition and combination of porosity and permeability of any
reservoir is very important in estimating the potential of a reservoir in terms of its
overall fluid in place.
2.1.3 Fluid Saturation

Fluid saturation is also an important reservoir property which expresses the proportion
of gas, oil and water present within the pores of a reservoir. Similar to porosity and
permeability, fluid saturation within a reservoir is also important in evaluating the
reservoir potential. At any reservoir condition, the overall saturation of fluids is
considered to be 100 percent and thus can be expressed mathematically as (Buckley and
Leverett, 1942; Han and Batzle, 2004 and Komeev et. al., 2004);
(eq. 2.3)
(eq. 2.4)
(eq. 2.5)
(eq. 2.6)
8
Equation (3) is used to estimate the general form of fluid saturation for a three (3) phase
fluid saturation in a reservoir comprising of gas saturation (Sg), oil saturation (So) and
water saturation (Sw). Equations 4, 5 and 6 on the other hand are the simple forms of
saturation for two (2) phase fluid saturations within a porous reservoir.
According to Ezekwe (2010), the overall oil in place for a reservoir is a function of the
fluid saturation, porosity, and reservoir volume and this is expressed mathematically as;
(eq. 2.7)
OR
Porosity * ( ) (eq. 2.8)
2.1.4 Interfacial Tension

Between immiscible fluids and the reservoir rock surface, there exists a surface tension
which tries to balance forces horizontally Figure 2.2.
Figure 2. 2 Surface tension existing between oil, water and reservoir surface (Willhite,
1986; Anderson, 1986)
Using Young’s equation (eq. 9), these forces can be balanced horizontally to give;
(eq. 2.9)
The interfacial forces existing between the fluid phases present in the reservoir are
denoted by (oil and reservoir surface), (water and reservoir surface) and
9
(oil and water). It is however important to note that fluid-to-fluid interfacial tension and
contact angle can be measured while fluid-to-reservoir interfacial tension may not be
measurable (Willhite, 1986).
2.1.5 Wettability
Abdallah Wael et.al (1986), described wettability as the ability of a solid material
(reservoir) having much preference for the fluid it is in contact with, over the ones it is
not in contact with.
According to Anderson (1987), wettability has been observed to affect relative
permeability because wettability plays a key role in the location, migration and trapping
of fluids within reservoirs.
Methods of Measuring Wettability
There are a lot of methods used in determining the wettability of a reservoir or rock.
According to Anderson (1986), methods for determining wettability can be categorized
as either quantitative or qualitative.
The quantitative methods include;
- Contact Angle Measurement
This is one of the widely used quantitative methods for determining reservoir
wettability and is usually applied for variations in temperature, pressure and water
chemistry inartificial reservoirs with pure fluids.
For reservoirs to be classified as water-wet, contact angle ranges from 00 to 750. For
neutrally-wet reservoirs, it is around 750 to 1200 and while for oil-wet cases, contact
angle is measured around 1200 to 1800 (Anderson, 1986). Figure 2.3 tries to show the
various contact angle variations for wettability measurement.
Other forms of quantitative measurement of wettability includes; Amott, US Bureau of
Mines (USBM), Electrical resistivity.
On the other hand, the qualitative measurement of wettability involves methods such as
relative permeability, recovery curves and flotation method.
Another widely used method for determining wettability is the ‘Craig rule of thumb’
and is highlighted in Table 2.1.
10
Figure 2. 3 Wettability determinations by contact angle (Anderson, 1986)
Table 2. 1 Wettability determination using Craig rule of thumb (Satter, Iqbal, and
Buchwalter, 2008)
WATER-WET OIL- WET
Connate Water Saturation > 20%-25% PV In general, <15%

PV and frequently
<10%
Saturation at which > 50% PV of Water < 50% PV of water
Kro = Krw Saturation saturation
Krw at maximum water In general, <30% > 50% and
saturation approaches 100%
(i.e. at floodout)
11
2.1.6 Relative Permeability

Relative permeability is another important property that explains the ability of one fluid
to flow in the presence on one or more immiscible fluid phases. That is to say that it
governs the flow of fluids in porous media. Relative permeability therefore tries to
explain the behaviour of a reservoir or sold surface towards the flow of two or more
fluids; which is add-on to Darcy’s law for fluid flow in porous media. Mathematically,
it is represented as ‘Kr’ and is expressed in terms of the ratio of the fluid phase effective
permeability present in a given reservoir to the reservoir’s absolute permeability.
(eq. 2.10)
The measurement of relative permeability of any fluid type can be determined

empirically in the laboratory or through certain mathematical correlations. Estimation of
relative permeability using production data and history matching can also be a way of
determining relative permeability, although this method is characterized by high error
margins due to the inaccuracy of field production data.
Figure 2. 4 A typical 2-phase relative permeability plot of a water-wet and oil-wet

reservoir (Anderson, 1986)
12
2.1.7 Miscibility
Miscibility is one of the fluid properties that affect the recovery of oil from reservoir. It
is different form solubility in various ways. By definition, while solubility entails the
ability for a substance to mix with another substance so as to form one single substance.
Miscibility does however vary in that it involves the mixture of two or more fluid
substances in order to form one single fluid phase (Holm, 1986). It is also important to
note that during CO2 gas injection for oil recovery, miscibility can be heavily affected
by the presence or absence of Interfacial forces (IFT). For example, the presence of
interfacial tension makes the two fluid unable to mix and thus can be regarded as
immiscible.
The determination of miscibility of fluids within a reservoir can be done as a function of

the temperature and pressure (known as MMP) within the reservoir of interest. MMP is
an acronym for ‘Minimum Miscibility Pressure’. This is defined as the minimum
pressure required for ‘first-contact or more miscibility to be achieved’ (i.e. two or more
fluids to be homogeneously mixed into one fluid phase) at zero interfacial tension and
can be determined experimentally or by mathematical correlations (Schlumberger,
2015).
13
2.1.8 Viscosity
Viscosity of a reservoir oil or fluid has been studied by so many researchers and is seen
as an ability of a fluid to resist flow (Terry, 2001). It is a fluid property which affects
the rate of oil recovery or migration from one place to another. Usually in gas injection
EOR, the difference in viscosity and density of the displacing fluid (gas) and the
displaced fluid (oil) results in poor mobility within the reservoir.
Although with the injection of CO2 gas for EOR, the viscosity of the reservoir oil is
highly reduced due to the solubility of CO2 in oil, some concerns on oil viscosity and
recovery does exist with regards to how the gas is injected into the reservoir and the
nature of the reservoir. Directly injecting the gas may result in an early production of
gas from the producer wells and a gravity override due to viscous fingering. This is
mainly one of the problems experienced during gas flooding. But by increasing the
density of the injected gas using brine, in an alternating injection technique with the gas
(WAG), this effect may be reduced as excess gas may lead to an early gas breakthrough
while the corresponding excess water may result in the reservoir oil entrapment by
water (Terry, 2001).
14
2.2 General Overview and Description of Carbonate Reservoirs
Carbonate reservoirs are sedimentary rocks made from the decomposition and
deposition of biogenic organisms (.i.e. organisms that live within the soil and water eco
system which can secrete calcium carbonates). Due to their biogenic nature, carbonate
rocks are mostly seen as natural sediments and reefs in oceans as well as important
reservoirs for the accumulation and storage of minerals.
Chemically, carbonate reservoirs are considered to be complex materials of metallic

cations including Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Barium (Ba), Zinc (Zn), Iron (Fe)
and in combination to the carbonate group (CO3)2-. There exists the presence of an
internal bond between the carbonate groups (CO3)2-, although this bond is considered a
stronger bond than the bond between the cations and the carbonates, it is still considered
a weaker bond compared to the covalent bond existing between molecules of carbon
dioxide (CO2). According to (Ahr 2011), carbonates can easily decompose in the
presence of hydrogen ions to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. An example of this
can be seen in the reaction of limestone (CaCO3) with a strong acid as written in eq.1.
…………… (eq. 2.11)
This reaction above is a major test used in differentiating carbonates from clastics and
other non-carbonate rocks and is therefore known as a ‘fizz test’ (Ahr 2011). The fizz
test can also be used in differentiating the classes of carbonate rocks (e.g. limestones
and dolostones) from one another. Limestones are considered to react rapidly (fizz) than
the dolomites or dolostones (Ahr 2011).
2.2.1 Classification of Carbonate Reservoirs

Carbonate reservoirs are usually classified based on the arrangement of atoms within
their core or the crystal structure of the carbonates. Calcites and dolomites are the most
dominant and notable classes of carbonate reservoirs and they have their chemical their
structures as hexagons (King, 2015).
 Calcite
Calcites are basically minerals that help in the formation of rocks. They are found
virtually in every rock type ranging from sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks.
They have their chemical formula as CaCO3. Limestone and marble (Figure 2.1) are
15
among the common sedimentary rocks predominantly composed of calcites (King,

2015).
Figure 2. 5 Limestone composed of calcites from Tyrone, Pennsylvania (King, 2015)
 Dolomites
Dolomites are also rock forming minerals that are typical of carbonates. They are
primarily composed of calcium and magnesium together with the carbonate group. They
have their chemical formula as CaMg(CO3)2 (King, 2015).
Figure 2. 6 Dolomite crystals from Penfield, New York (King, 2015)
16
Calcite and dolomite carbonate reservoirs have comparable minerals but can be
different in terms of their hardness. While the dolomites are made up of calcium-
magnesium carbonates (CaMg(CO3)2) which makes them a little harder than calcites at
a hardness range of 3.5- 4, the calcites on their own are composed of calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) and have a hardness of 3 (King, 2015). Table 2.1 summarises some of the
physical properties of some major carbonate rocks in relation to their component
minerals.
Table 2. 2 Physical properties of some carbonate rocks (Freas, Hayden et al. 2006)
Mineral Properties Colour

Calcite (CaCO3) - Hexagonal crystal structure White
- Mohs hardness of 3 or
- Specific gravity of 2.72 Colourless
Dolomite - Hexagonal crystal structure White
(CaCO3.MgCO3) - Mohs hardness range of 3.5 – 4.0 or
- Specific gravity of 2.87 Pink
Aragonite - Orthorhombic crystal structure White, Colourless or
(CaCO3) - Mohs hardness of 3.5 – 4.0 Yellow
- Specific gravity of 2.93 – 2.95
Siderite - Hexagonal crystal structure Black
(FeCO3) - Mohs hardness of 3.5 – 4.0 or
- Specific gravity of 3.79 – 3.9 Brown
Ankerite - Hexagonal crystal structure White,
(Ca2MgFe(CO3)4) - Mohs hardness range of 3.5 – 4.0 Pink or
- Specific gravity of 2.9 Grey
Magnesite - Hexagonal granular structure White
(MgCO3) - Mohs hardness range of 3.5 – 4.5 or
- Specific gravity of 2.96 – 3.1 Yellow
2.2.2 Carbonate Reservoir Characterization

Hydrocarbon reservoirs have all been described as porous and permeable storage
reservoirs which contain hydrocarbons and other minerals in economic quantities (Ahr
2011). Usually the presence of these pores and permeability within hydrocarbon
reservoirs have all been attributed to the degree of fracturing within the rock core and
their diagenetic processes after the rock sediments have been deposited and formed
(Ahr 2011). A typical fractured carbonate rock is shown in Figure 2.3, highlighting
some of the visible cross-sectional fractures on the rock matrix.
17
Figure 2. 7 Middle East fractured carbonate rock from Ras Al Khaimah (Statoil, 2013)
However, with the emphasis of this work based on the enhanced oil recovery from
carbonate reservoirs by the injection of carbon dioxide gas (CO2), previous studies have
shown that most of the fractured and porous carbonate reservoirs are good groundwater
aquifers as well as high storage traps for petroleum hydrocarbons and natural gas (Ahr
2011). Further researches (Sheng, 2013) have shown that carbonate reservoirs are
known to have very complex formation heterogeneity due to the biogenic nature of their
deposition and diagenetic formation processes, their wettability (usually oil-wet or
mixed wet) and their average low permeability, thereby making their description
complex most times to understand as well as difficult for the production of oil and gas
from its pore spaces than in the case of sandstone formations although this can be
improved with a good and detailed effective description of its fractures or vugs
(Denney, 2013). In most carbonate reservoirs, the presence of these fractures, diagenetic
processes, varying porosity have all contributed in making it difficult for the exploration
and production of oil from its reserves. Often in the past, geologists and reservoir
engineers have tried to solve this complex problem of the carbonate reservoirs through a
systematic approach involving reservoir description by the classification in terms of
porosity, permeability, Mohs hardness, compressibility and development of reservoir
grid models (Denney, 2013).
Conventionally, the use of multiple geologic data is required for a comprehensive

description and characterization of a reservoir so as to describe its physical properties in
18
terms of porosity (storage) and permeability (production) (Slatt, 2006). And by

following this conventional method, carbonate reservoir descriptions therefore must try
to highlight;
 Sound description of the various lithological facies of the reservoir.
 Formation of porosity and permeability within reservoir through diagenetic
processes.
 The fracture and fault history of the formation.
 Fluid saturations within a particular reservoir
The implementation of these descriptions together with a good petrophysical and
seismic geologic data can then assist in understanding the heterogeneity of carbonates
(Garland et al., 2012) and may provide some assistance in building a typical model of
carbonate geology.
Table 2. 3 Typical carbonate reservoir characteristics for CO2-EOR (Bourdarot and

Ghedan, 2011)
PARAMETER DESCRITPION
Reservoir- Carbonate Limestone with
dolomites
Permeability: Good (Above 50mD)
Bad (Below 50 mD)
High salinity formation water 220-240 g/l
High temperature Above 220 oF
Relatively high pressure 3800 – 4950 psi
Relatively light oil (API) 35o – 40o
Low viscosity Below 0.5 cp
Heterogeneous reservoirs Fractured: 1
Not fractured: 2
Some are saturated with gas caps while some are under-
saturated
19
2.2.3 Major Problems Associated with Carbonate Reservoirs

Conventionally, the average recovery factor for carbonate and sandstone reservoirs has
been estimated to be around 35% (Sheng, 2013). Although in this combined average,
recovery factor in sandstones have been studied to be above recovery factor in
carbonates because the pore size and scale distribution in sandstones are considered to
be higher than those of carbonates. This therefore suggests that on average scale, the
recovery factor in most carbonate reservoirs is considered to be below 35% (Sheng,
2013).
Due to their complex heterogeneity in terms of their complex pore network and texture,
porosity classification in carbonates may be categorised into three (3):
 Connected porosity- basically the connected pores in-between carbonate grains

and matrices.
 Vugs- usually the unconnected pores due to diagenetic dissolution of calcites in
brine.
 Fracture porosity- pores resulting from stress during deposition.
Generally, in carbonate reservoirs, the dissolution of calcites (diagenesis) may result in
the formation of horizontal flow path barriers which invariably impedes on the
effectiveness of hydrocarbon recovery. This however may be considered as one of the
demerits of injecting acid gases (e.g. CO2) into carbonate formations having brine
(Mohamed, He and Nasr-El-Din, 2011 and Sheng, 2013) as described in eq.2.
….…………… (eq. 2.12)
However, it should be also noted that in most formations where gas fingering, water
breakthrough and mud loss during drilling are experienced, these problems are usually
as a result of the presence of pore fractures within formation matrices. The combination
of these porosity challenges causes fluid flow problems within carbonates and thus may
lead to well productivity decline (Sheng, 2013).
Another important problem experienced often in most carbonate reservoirs is the issue
of wettability. According to Abdallah Wael et.al (1986), wettability is simply seen as
the ability of a solid material (reservoir) having much preference for the fluid it is in
contact with, over the ones it is not in contact with. There are therefore three (3) basic
wettability scenarios experienced in hydrocarbon reservoirs and they are; oil-wet, water-
20
wet and mixed-wet. Most sandstone reservoirs are naturally water-wet, while the
carbonate reservoirs experience either a mixed-wet or oil-wet. This problem therefore
explains why oil recovery from carbonates may be considered to be more difficult than
in sandstones because the oil adheres to the smaller pores of the carbonates (in direct
contact with the reservoir) making them difficult to be accessed or recovered during
flooding (Sheng, 2013).
Figure 2. 8 Different wettability scenarios experienced in hydrocarbon reservoirs

(Abdallah et.al., 1986)
21
2.2.4 Mechanisms of Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs

According to Statoil (2014), most carbonate reservoirs are characterized with dual
porosity and permeability, with their porosity providing storage traps for oil while the
permeable layers act as pathways for oil to flow within carbonate reservoirs. The dual
heterogeneous property of carbonates is therefore the major reason behind carbonate
reservoirs considered as difficult reservoirs to produce from. However, various
mechanisms have been studied to understand how hydrocarbons are often recovered
from carbonate reservoirs. These mechanisms generally involve the recovery of oil from
naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs based on the pressure difference (capillarity)
between the carbonate reservoir and its fractures and the nature of the displacing fluid
(Firoozabadi, 2000; Haugen, 2006).
The 4 basic oil recovery mechanisms form carbonate reservoirs according to Haugen
(2006) include:
 Gravity drainage
 Viscous effect
 Natural or spontaneous imbibition
 Molecular diffusion
However, it is important to note that most carbonate reservoirs are characterized to be
either neutrally-wet or oil-wet, which supports CO2 imbibition but retards natural water
imbibition (Fernø, 2012). This is mainly the reason why in oil-wet carbonate reservoirs,
gas may be considered as the preferred displacing fluid or by a possible re-orientation of
the wettability by injecting chemicals and surfactants to make it water-wet (i.e. where
gas may be considered as expensive) while for the water-wet reservoirs, water is most
preferred. Usually, if at oil-wet conditions, the injected gas is at immiscible conditions
with the reservoir oil, oil recovery from the carbonate reservoir would be mainly by
gravity drainage (Golabi, 2012).
22
2.3 Process of Oil Recovery from Reservoirs
The general process for the production of oil from most reservoirs involves the
displacement of oil from the reservoir (i.e. formation) towards the producing wellbore.
This however is controlled primarily by pressure differential between the producing
well and the reservoir. As oil, just like any other fluid tends to flow from an area of high
pressure (reservoir) to an area of low pressure (wellhead) without any form of external
pressure assistance, the reservoir is said to be engaged in a primary production; thereby
utilizing its own internal energy and pressure to displace fluids. The reduction in the oil
saturation within the reservoir as production is going on, results in the loss of pressure
within the reservoir and this pressure decline continues until it gets below the
production well bottom-hole pressure, at which oil and other reservoir fluids ceases to
be produced from the reservoir at its primary recovery energy. This challenge therefore
requires an artificial form of energy or pressure support (i.e. a secondary form of
recovery) in order to assist the reservoir produce more of its original oil in place (Andrei
et.al, 2010; Jelmert et.al, 2010).
2.3.1 Primary Recovery Stage

This is simply the conventional and initial production of a reservoir using its natural
ability known as a ‘natural drive’. It involves a production based on setting differential
pressures between the reservoir pressure and the producer well bottom-hole pressure.
Normally in the primary recovery phase, pumps are used to support the reservoir
pressure as its pressure tends to drop but this phase of recovery is said to be completed
when the reservoir pressure drops this its lowest point. The primary recovery therefore
can account for about 5% - 25% of the original oil in place (OOIP) depending on the
reservoir characteristics (Andrei et.al, 2010).
2.3.2 Secondary Recovery Stage

The secondary recovery phase of hydrocarbons from a reservoir is usually applied after
the primary recovery phase, when the reservoir pressure drop has reached a point where
it cannot produce anymore on its own. Conventionally, water and other forms of liquids
or even gases are injected into the reservoir to build up and maintain its depleted
pressure in what is called an ‘artificial drive’ mechanism. CO2 gas is one of the
successful gases that have been used effectively and successfully in this recovery phase.
23
Also depending on the reservoir characteristics and description, this phase can account
for about 6% – 30 % of the OOIP
2.3.3 Tertiary Recovery Stage

This phase is typically referred to as the Enhanced Oil Recovery or in most cases,
improved Oil Recovery (IOR). Depending on how it is reviewed, the EOR phase has
shown to be productive in a reservoir, thereby accounting for about two-third (60%) of
the OOIP (Denney 2013). It is basically applied to improve the flow of oil from the
reservoir through the production well (Andrei et.al, 2010) by altering the viscosity of
the displaced fluid (oil) so as to make the oil lighter and allow the immobile oil in place
to be displaced easily (Denney 2013). One of the widely used EOR techniques being
CO2 injection would be considered as the case of this project.
However, the choice and type of EOR technique(s) to be applied in any hydrocarbon
reservoir field depends widely on the screening criteria applied (Shuker, Buriro et al.
2012) during the field development plans of the project.
Figure 2. 9 Stages of Oil recovery from a reservoir (Jelmert et.al, 2010)
24
2.4 Current Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods
Recovery of oil from hydrocarbon reservoirs involves various techniques and processes.
Enhanced oil recovery or as is it is popularly called ‘EOR’ is one of the various
techniques used to describe the secondary or tertiary oil recovery from a given reservoir
as it approaches its life span. Andrei et.al (2011) however expressed EOR as an oil
recovery process carried out in depleted reservoirs beyond primary production and
secondary water-flooding.
(Denney 2013) in his report on the ‘EOR potential in the Middle East: Current and
Future Trends’, highlighted that while the conventional primary and secondary recovery
of oil focused on the natural ability of the reservoir to produce the mobile oil within its
pores in regards to capillary pressures and viscosity, the EOR techniques are more
focused on recovering more of the immobile oil. Also, EOR hugely depends on the
economics of developing a field as well as the price of oil in the market. This is so
because the primary and secondary recoveries have been estimated to recover about 1/3
(i.e. 33-40%) of the total oil in place within a reservoir, while the EOR accounts for a
huge 2/3 (i.e. about 60%) of the oil reserves within the reservoir (Denney 2013).
Figure 2. 10 Various techniques and classifications of oil recovery (Kokal and Al-
Kaabi, 2010)
25
There are various methods of carrying out primary, secondary or tertiary enhanced oil
recovery with all of these methods aimed at decreasing the mobility ratio of the
displacing fluid, increasing oil relative permeability, increasing capillary number,
reducing oil viscosity and reducing the residual oil saturation from a reservoir (Andrei
et.al, 2011).
In view of this, EOR methods are therefore grouped into four (4) different categories
according to the type and nature of the fluid injected or used in the recovery process.
2.4.1 Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery

This category of EOR involves the use of heat or thermal energy and is focused majorly
on the recovery of the heavy and viscous hydrocarbons. By using the thermal EOR
technique, heat is introduced in the formation in the form of steam or by an in-situ
combustion of the viscous oil within the formation, thereby increasing the temperature
of the oil and while its viscosity is reduced (Kokal and Al-Kaabi, 2010).
Depending on the type of formation, steam injection is being widely used worldwide in
sandstone reservoirs with heavy oil with most active projects located within Venezuela,
Canada, Indonesia and Oman.
On the other hand of thermal EOR, air is injected into the reservoir at high pressure and
usually at deeper reservoirs using the in-situ combustion method. This is geared towards
igniting the highly viscous oil within the formation so as to generate some heat which
are used to produce some combustion gases that aids in the overall recovery process
(Kokal and Al-Kaabi, 2010).
2.4.2 Gas Injection Enhanced Oil Recovery

This is one of the popular and widely practised EOR techniques in the world.
Depending on the nature and properties of the gas used, this technique can be most
times referred to as miscible gas EOR, solvent gas flooding or in general gas flooding.
CO2 is basically used as an EOR technique for light oil because it reduces the viscosity
of the oil, thereby making it lighter in other to be recovered. It is also important to note
that the effectiveness of CO2-EOR projects depends hugely on the reservoir properties
like temperature, pressure and fluid composition in place.
26
2.4.3 Chemical Injection Enhanced Oil Recovery

The process of injecting chemicals into reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery is one
technique that is basically applied in fields so as to reduce the IFT between reservoir
fluids. Chemicals injected for this EOR technique are mostly surfactants and polymers
which are injected during water flooding so as to reduce the impacts and presence of
IFT as well as increase the water viscosity while the oil viscosity is reduced. This action
of surfactants and polymers helps to make the oil easily recoverable (Andrei et.al,
2011).
2.4.4 Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)

Microbial enhanced oil recovery is also one of the tertiary oil recovery mechanisms that
involve the use of microbes like bacteria which have the ability to survive under
reservoir conditions. These anaerobic (i.e. in absence of oxygen) microorganisms are
injected to modify the fluid (oil and water) properties within the reservoir so as to
increase the oil recovery (mobility of oil) from the reservoir (Donaldson, Chilingarian
and Yen, 1989;Youl, 2007). Some of the limitations associated with this EOR technique
is basically in terms of its applicability as it is not a widely practised method. Although
there are recent advances aimed at developing this tertiary oil recovery mechanism.
27
2.5 EOR Screening Criteria
The global increase in energy demand in the recent years has highlighted the need also
for efficient recovery of remaining reserves in an oilfield. This demand has therefore
pushed most oil and gas operating companies to not only consider EOR as a tertiary
recovery mechanism, but also plan and implement from the start of the production life
of a reservoir (Bourdarot and Ghedan, 2011). Although EOR projects are regarded as
high-risk projects and therefore require huge capital to be implemented, virtually many
of the projects are proposed to pass through certain criteria so as to be considerable in a
particular field. These criteria include:
 EOR screening review

 Laboratory analysis
 Reservoir simulation analysis
 EOR pilot projects
 Full EOR application in field if pilot project is successful
Figure 2. 11 Summary of the general EOR selection criteria (Terry, 2001)
For the case of carbonate reservoirs, prior to their laboratory and simulation studies,
identifying future and promising techniques as well as the posing challenges of
implementing different EOR techniques has been adopted also in EOR screening
(Bourdarot and Ghedan, 2011).
28
In summary, for an optimal EOR process, Figure 2.11 shows the criteria for selection of
EOR technique depending on the reservoir and fluid properties. While for miscible and
immiscible CO2 flooding, Table 2.4 summarizes some of the considered screening
criteria as modified from USGS.
Table 2. 4 Screening criteria for Miscible or Immiscible CO2 Flooding (USGS, 2014)
Screening Criteria Immiscible Miscible

Oil API ( 0 ) 13 to 22 >25
Oil Viscosity (cp) < 10
Reservoir Pressure (psia) MMP ≤ Fracture pressure -
400
Depth (ft) > 1400 ft
2.5.1 EOR Screening Method

The benefits of EOR screening to petroleum engineers in order to make appropriate
decisions as to the type of EOR technique to be applied, lies in the aim of optimizing
the recovery of oil from reservoirs while achieving profit. Stalkup (1983) and Taber
(1990) were both of the opinion that optimum profit in the application of EOR can be
achieved with less volume (barrels) of injection fluids, producing one barrel (1bbl) of
oil at reservoir conditions.
After a global review of some EOR projects with emphasis on the successfully applied
EOR projects, Taber, Martin and Seright (1997) in their studies came up with a
screening criterion known as ‘Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP)’. Schlumberger
(2015) defined it as ‘the lowest achievable pressure to which first or multiple-contact
miscibility can be achieved (.i.e. it is the minimum miscible pressure at which the
interfacial tension between two separate phase fluids is considered to be zero).
2.5.2 MMP Estimation for CO2 Gas Injection

Yuan et.al (2005) developed the correlation for the estimation of MMP for CO2 gas
injection into reservoirs using ‘quadratic fits of analytical MMP with temperature’. This
correlation was developed from 70 analytical MMP data calculated with equation of
state (EOS) characterization for 9 oils and 41 experimented slim-tube MMPs so as to
account for prediction accuracy.
29
( )
(eq. 2.13)
Where
MMPpure = Estimated MMP from correlation of pure CO2 gas injection

a1- a10 = Coefficients from a regression of the data
MC7+ = Molecular weight of C7+
PC2-6 = Total mole percent of C2-C6 composition in injected gas (%)
T = Temperature of the reservoir ( )
It is also important to note that the values of MC7+ and PC2-6 ranges from 139 - 319 and
2.0 – 40.3% respectively, while the reservoir temperature ranges from 71 - 300
(Bourdarot and Ghedan, 2011).
Table 2. 5 Summary of the best-fit coefficients used in Eq. 2.13 for pure CO2 MMP
developed from (Bourdarot and Ghedan, 2011)
a1 = -1.4634E+03 a2 = 6.612E+00 a3 = -4.4979E+01 a4 = 2.139E+00 a5 = 1.1667E-01
a6 = 8.1661E+03 a7 = -1.2258E-01 a8 = 1.2283E-03 a9 = -4.0152E-06 a10 = -9.2577E+04
However, to account for impurities in the composition of the injected gas, which may be
as a result of methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) contents in the
CO2 gas stream due to inefficiency in separation and recycling, a new correlation was
developed (Bourdarot and Ghedan, 2011) to account for only CO2 gas streams with up
to 40% CH4 in it.
(eq. 2.14)
Where,
m= ( )
While the corresponding values of a1 to a10 are gotten from Table 2.5.
30
Table 2. 6 Summary of the best-fit coefficients used in Eq. 2.14 for impure CO2 MMP
developed from (Bourdarot and Ghedan, 2011)
a1 = -6.5996E-02 a2 = -1.5246E-04 a3 = -1.3807E-03 a4 = 6.2384E-04 a5 = -6.7725E-07
a6 = -2.7344E-02 a7 = -2.6953E-06 a8 = 1.7279E-08 a9 = -3.1436E-11 a10 = -1.9566E-08
31
2.6 Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)
2.6.1 General Overview of CO2-EOR

CO2-EOR is a tertiary enhanced oil recovery technique which involves the use of CO 2
gas in in recovering hydrocarbon fluids (oil and gas) from reservoirs under a very high
injection pressure. This is achieved by injecting the CO2 gas so as to get it in contact
with the remaining oil in the reservoir ‘by increasing the reservoir volumetric oil sweep
(Ev) and displacement (Ed) efficiencies respectively’ (Verma, 2015).
In other to improve the recovery efficiency of the CO2-EOR process, often times the
CO2 gas is injected alongside water and because CO2 is highly soluble in water, the both
fluids are then injected in alternating order with the water primarily focused on
increasing all swelling while the CO2 takes care of the oil viscosity reduction thereby
making it easier for the reservoir oil to flow.
Figure 2. 12 Overview of the miscible CO2-EOR process (Verma, 2015)
However, at the point of recovery or production, not all the CO2 injected into the
reservoir are recovered from the production zone as some of the injected volumes of
CO2 finds themselves permanently stored in the reservoir (Perhsad et.al, 2012). By
continuously injecting CO2 in the reservoir, the volume of saturated oil within the
reservoir reduces as the CO2 gas saturation on the other hand increases. This has proven
as one major way of sequestrating atmospheric CO2 concentration thereby using it to
32
improve oil recovery (Metz et.al, 2005). Injecting CO2 for EOR practise focuses
primarily on the recovery of the residual oil saturation within a reservoir after primary
production of the reservoir and secondary injection of water have been carried out with
CO2 able to recover about 54% of the original oil in place within the reservoir (Ghedan,
2009).
2.6.2 Application of CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in Carbonate Reservoirs

The application of CO2-EOR is usually carried out in two (2) options as either a
miscible flooding option or an immiscible flooding option.
Table 2. 7 Basic comparison of CO2-EOR Injection Options (Andrei et. al, 2011)
Miscible Option Immiscible Option

Potential for Oil recovery Less at (4 – 12)% OOIP More at about 18% OOIP
Applied Project Scale Small scale Large scale
Oil production timing Early (< 3years) Late (> 5years)
EOR Duration Short Long
Mechanism of Oil recovery Complex Simple
Injection Period Prior to water flood or Usually after water flood
after
Storage potential of CO2 Low High
 Miscible Option
This one of the major CO2 injection options applied in carbonate reservoirs. It involves
injecting the CO2 gas at pressure known as the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP).
At this pressure, about 80% of the reservoir OOIP can be effectively produced when the
injected CO2 gas breaks through (Holm and Josendal, 1974). However, recent
developments in research surrounding CO2-EOR continues to show more recovery
potentials existing for CO2-EOR projects and the conceptual rule of thumb being
applied today (Yellig and Metcalfe, 1980) for estimating the minimum miscible
pressure shows that injecting CO2 at about 1.2 HCPV, can recover as much as up to
90% OOIP this is true because at increased pressure; either through injected gas (CO2)
or within the reservoir, oil recovery is also increased as seen in Figure 2.4.
33
Figure 2. 13 Slim-tube laboratory method for estimating MMP showing the effects of
pressure on oil recovery (Yellig and Metcalfe, 1980)
 Immiscible Option
Unlike the miscible option, the immiscible CO2 injection is often applied to reservoirs
with heavier oil or when the reservoir pressure drops below the minimum miscibility
pressure which makes it impossible for homogeneous mixing of the fluids due to the
presence of interfacial tension between the oil and other fluids within the reservoir.
In an immiscible CO2 process, part of the injected CO2 is absorbed into the reservoir
fluids and part forms a free-gas phase in the reservoir.
34
2.6.3 Mechanisms of CO2 Oil Recovery

For CO2 enhanced oil recovery efficiency, large volume of CO2 gas is initially injected
into the reservoir which is usually about 30% and above of the HCPV (oil in place). At
this high volume and injection, the following mechanisms have been observed and
studied to enhance oil recovery (Taber, Martin and Seright, 1997):
 CO2 dissolves in the reservoir oil due to its solubility with oil and causes the oil
to swell.
 CO2 reduces the oil viscosity of the formation fluid.
 CO2 reduces the existence of IFT between the oil and gas phases thereby
encouraging miscibility.
 CO2 attains miscibility with the reservoir oil at high pressure thereby enhancing
the oil recovery.
2.6.4 CO2 Injection Techniques
Injecting CO2 gas into reservoirs for oil recovery depends on a lot of factors. Some of
these are the nature of the reservoir, the composition and properties of fluids in place
within the reservoir, well location and pattern. Some of the basic CO2 injection
techniques applied today include (Jarrell, 2002; Verma 2015):
 Continuous or Dry CO2 Injection Technique

This injection technique makes use of the constant injection of only a known
volume of CO2 gas into the reservoir. It may also be supplemented with the
injection of lighter gases for gravity segregation effects. Continuous CO2
injection is most suitable for strong water-wet reservoirs and reservoirs having
medium to light oil because the dry injected CO2 gas can help in gravity
drainage thereby allowing for more oil to be recovered or drained.
 Water Alternating Gas Injection Technique (WAG)

This is usually considered as the conventional technique for injecting CO2 into
most reservoirs because it involves an intermittent injection of gas and water
which has a better sweep efficiency than other techniques. It is also beneficial
because of its ability to overcome the effects of early gas breakthrough due
35
gravity fingering effect, thereby allowing for a better contact and sweeping of
the residual oil within the reservoir. WAG is most suitable for reservoirs like
carbonates that have varying vertical permeability.
 Continuous CO2 Injection Plus Water
This technique is quite similar to the dry or continuous CO2 injection technique
and the WAG, but here a fixed volume of CO2 gas is injected into the reservoir
and after the known volume has been injected, a chase water is then injected to
help the injected gas have a good sweep effect of oil when it comes in contact
with the reservoir oil. Continuous CO2 plus water technique can be applied in
slightly homogeneous and tight (low permeable) reservoirs like the shale.
 Tapered Water Alternating Gas Injection Technique (Tapered WAG)
Tapered WAG as a technique of injecting CO2 is comparable to WAG. It is
primarily used to enhance the CO2 utilization and sweep efficiency at lower
volumes of injected CO2 thereby limiting the volume of recycled CO2 into the
reservoir. The CO2 utilization is thus described as the total volume of gas (CO2)
needed to recover one barrel (1bbl) of oil from a reservoir.
 WAG plus Gas
This is simply a modified injection technique of the conventional WAG. Here,
air, nitrogen or other inexpensive gases are injected after a large volume of CO2
and water has been injected at intervals. It is mainly used for improved sweeping
and oil drainage in very tight formations.
36
Figure 2. 14 Gantt chart showing the various CO2 injection techniques and plans (Jarrel
(2002)
37
2.6.5 General Benefits of CO2-EOR

Although the application of CO2 injection for EOR purposes in carbonate reservoirs is
not widely being used because of some economics regarding the cost of efficiently
capturing CO2 or industrially generating CO2 for EOR purpose, there still exist some
merits associated with this technique, especially in carbonate formations. According to
Hughes (2006), some of these identified advantages include:
 The suitability of CO2 to be applied in a variety of reservoirs unlike other

injected fluids.
 CO2 can easily attain miscibility with reservoir oil at very low MMP, which is
unlikely of other gases such as N2 and natural gases.
 When injected together with water in a WAG technique, CO2 has a very high
displacement efficiency on reservoir oil because it is soluble in water and helps
make the oil denser through swelling while the water helps in residual oil
contact drainage.
 CO2-EOR helps in the reduction of the interfacial forces existing between the oil
and water phases thereby increasing miscibility.
 Unlike other fluids and gases, CO2 can be applied in reservoirs with heavy
hydrocarbons (i.e. C15 to C30).
 The application of CO2-EOR through injection of CO2 helps reduce global
warming effects through reduction in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
gases.
2.6.6 Some General Challenges of CO2-EOR

Contrarily to the numerous advantages experienced in the CO2-EOR process, Salman,
Juma and Al Matrouk (2007) were of the opinion that there exist some other challenges
with regards to CO2 injection and its interaction with fluids within the reservoir. Some
of these problems include:
 The huge economic demand for large volumes of CO2 to be injected in order to
displace oil makes CO2-EOR a limited practise.
 Early CO2 gas breakthrough, which is experienced mostly during dry gas
injection, due to the fingering effect CO2 has on reservoir oil during injection.
38
When this is experienced, usually there is a reduction or complete drop in the

volume of oil recovered from the reservoir.
 CO2 gas can possibly result in some flow assurance problems like corrosion of
pipelines during transportation to the reservoir.
 In carbonate reservoirs, injected CO2 when in contact with the formation brine
can undergo a chemical reaction to form a carbonic acid which although helps in
the fracturing of carbonate calcites, may afterwards migrate to block other
permeable layers within the reservoir, thereby reducing their permeability and
consequently affecting oil recovery negatively (Mohamed, He and Nasr, 2011).
39
2.7 Review of Current and Future CO2-EOR in the Middle East
There still exist some limitations towards the use of CO2 in the Middle East world,
irrespective of the world’s largest volume of hydrocarbon located in the Middle East
carbonate reservoirs. Although most Middle East countries are utilizing CO2 for other
industrial purposes like in the food and beverage processing, pharmaceutical and
chemical industries (Wright, 2007), resulting in high CO2 emissions from Middle East
(Figure 2.14).
Figure 2. 15 Middle East CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2005 (Algharaib, 2013)
However, other countries within the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait
and UAE have all contributed to about $750 million towards cutting down on CO2
emissions from the area while the likes of Abu Dhabi (Ghawar), Turkey (Bati Raman)
and UAE (Masdar) have all invested in current projects aimed at capturing CO2 from
key emission sources and injecting it into reservoirs for EOR purposes (Figure 2.15),
with future projects expected within areas like Oman, Iran, Qatar and Dubai (Algharaib,
2013; Manaar, 2013).
40
Figure 2. 16 Some of the current and future EOR projects in the Middle East (Manaar,
2013)
2.7.1 Some Identified Challenges in Middle East Reservoirs

Technically, some of the identified problems associated with most Middle East
reservoirs; which are characterized to be mostly carbonate formations include (Manaar,
2013):
 Middle East reservoirs are highly heterogeneous and contain mostly heavy oils
which are found in carbonates.
 Most carbonate reservoirs in the Middle East are fractured.
 Most of their carbonate reservoirs experience complicated flow through their
permeable layers (fractures).
 The most dominant EOR techniques applied in the Middle East are the steam
flooding, CO2 injection and miscible gas injections due to the gravity of oil and
each of these techniques require a sound knowledge and comprehension of the
fractured networks within the carbonate formations.
 Fracture networks (permeability) within Middle East carbonates can vary greatly
due to the injection and production techniques applied.
41
 While the carbonate reservoir permeability may support some of the EOR
processes like the steam injection by increasing the temperature of the reservoir
oil, it does however hinder some other EOR techniques like the CO2 injection by
leading to early gas breakthrough due to CO2 viscous fingering.
Figure 2. 17 Summary of some technical challenges facing most Middle East countries
(Manaar, 2013)
42
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY
43
3.1 Reservoir Description
3.1.1 Reservoir and Fluid Properties

The reservoir of study is from an under-saturated Middle East carbonate field (Oheh,
1981). The reservoir description and some other properties are described in Table 3.1.
Fluid properties including PVT data, relative permeability data are also highlighted in
Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. However, modifications were made to these reservoir
properties so at to properly ensure its effectiveness towards CO2 injection and was
modelled using the Eclipse Blackoil Simulation software by Schlumberger Ltd. The
initial problem of the reservoir involved the oil production from its pores and thus it was
considered to be under-saturated (i.e. the reservoir pressure was observed to be greater
than the oil bubble point).
The reservoir was characterized to have three layers of varying permeability
highlighting the heterogeneity of carbonate reservoirs.
Table 3. 1 Reservoir of study with well properties
CARBONATE RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
Reservoir Type Carbonate

Parameters Value Units
Original Pressure at Datum (8400ft) 4800 psia
Minimum miscibility pressure 1000 psia
Porosity 0.3 -
Permeability Range (along X, Y and Z directions) 35 – 200 mD
Rock Compressibility 3.0x10-5 psi-1
Temperature 200 0
F
Capillary pressure 0 -
Wellbore Diameter 0.5 ft
CO2 Injection Rate 100 MMSCF/D
Minimum Oil Production Rate 1000 STB/D
Maximum Oil Production Rate 20000 STB/D
O
Oil API O Gravity 32.75 (degrees)
Gas Density 0.06054 lb/ft3
Gas Specific Gravity 0.792 -
Skin 0 -
Initial oil saturation 0.88 -
44
Figure 3.1 Oil PVT Data of the modelled reservoir (Odeh, 1981)
Figure 3. 2 Gas PVT Data of the modelled reservoir
Figure 3. 3 Oil-Gas Relative permeability data modelled
45
3.1.2 Model Description
Figure 3. 4 Modelled reservoir grid definition and well locations
The simulated reservoir was modelled using the Eclipse Cartesian gridding system to
have 300 grids blocks distributed (as 10x10x3) along X, Y and Z directions respectively
Figure 3.1. Two vertical wells (one injector and one producer) were developed in the
model using the direct line injection pattern where the wells were directly situated
opposite each other with the injector well located at grid (1, 1) and the producer well
located at grid (1, 10).
The reservoir depth was modelled at 8400ft having a pressure of 4200psia and the gas-
oil contact (GOC) and oil-water contact (OWC) were at 8200ft and 8500ft respectively.
CO2 gas was then injected at the top layer of the reservoir at a BHP depth of 8335ft to
allow the reservoir oil to swell and for the CO2 to sweep the oil towards the producer
well, while the produced oil was from the bottom at a depth of 8400ft.
The producer was modelled at a target production rate of 20000 STB/Day and a
minimum bottom-hole pressure of 1000psi whereas the CO2 Injector well was modelled
to constantly inject large volume of CO2 gas at 100000 Mscf/day so as to allow enough
volume of gas to effectively sweep the oil to the producer. Figure 3.2 shows the various
saturation profiles of the reservoir at initial conditions.
46
Figure 3. 5 Overview of the modelled reservoir at various saturations
3.2 Modelling of Carbonate Reservoir Using Eclipse Simulator
Schlumberger’s licensed reservoir simulator software known as Eclipse was chosen for
the modelling part of this research work based on the software’s vast industrial use in
major oil and gas companies in the world. It also consists of a user-friendly approach
towards data computation, processing and human readable result prints which are also
compatible with other reservoir modelling & description and data processing software
like Petrel, CMG, and Microsoft Excel.
Reservoir model was built as a black-oil model using Eclipse 100 (E-100). While some
input parameters were provided by Odeh (1981), some other parameters like the pore
size distribution, permeability, oil API gravity were modelled to depict a typical Middle
East Carbonate reservoir.
The modelling flowchart followed in the building of the carbonate reservoir model is
described in Figure 3.3 alongside some of the data input steps using E-100
(Schlumberger, 2013).
47
Figure 3. 6 Designed project flowchart for CO2 modelling in Eclipse
3.2.1 Data Requirements for Eclipse Modelling of a Carbonate Reservoir

One of the important approaches towards building a good reservoir involves an
understanding of the data collection process of a simulator because a good reservoir
data can positively affect the outcome of the simulated model and may also be of
economic importance towards cost (Satter et.al, 2008).
The general input data required for building a reservoir varies a lot depending on the
type and nature of formation to be modelled. Eclipse 100 uses a systematic approach for
modelling as described in Figure 3.4. It involves building the reservoir models in eight
(8) segments, viz; ‘Runspec, Grid, Edit, Props, Regions, Solutions, Summary and
Schedule sections’.
48
Figure 3. 7 Reservoir modelling process using Eclipse
 RUNSPEC
This is usually the beginning section when building an Eclipse data file and it
highlights features like the title of the model, dimensions of the grid blocks used
in the model, the units of measurement, simulation run start date, the fluid
phases present in the model, etc.
Usually, as it is peculiar to eclipse data files, associated data of basic eclipse
keywords are accompanied by a forward slash (/) which marks the end or
termination of a specific keyword.
 GRID
This is the section of an Eclipse 100 simulation data input file that involves the
definition of the reservoir geometric features like the porosity, permeability, net-
to-gross ratios (NTG) for the individual grid cells in the reservoir block model.
Eclipse understands two (2) grid options, either the radial grid geometry or the
Cartesian grid geometry and the choice of grid options affects the type and
choice of keywords to be used in this Grid Section (Schlumberger, 2004).
49
 EDIT
This section of the input data file is primarily focused on commands for defining
the pore volume, transmissibility, diffusivity and non-neighbour connections of
the grid data entered in the Grid Section. It is also important to state that this
Edit input section is an optional section in eclipse data compilation and thus can
be automatically computed by eclipse during the running of the programme.
 PROPS
This section is primarily used for inputting the carbonate reservoir properties
like relative permeability, pressure, compressibility, volume and temperature as
well as basic fluid properties like the fluid viscosity, density. It is among the
required or compulsory sections in eclipse data file.
 REGIONS
The regions section is an optional section in eclipse data file, but it is however
important for models that have different relative permeability data.
 SOLUTION
This section is mainly used for the initialization of the model and equilibrating
the data file prior to simulation. It is also a required section for eclipse data
compilation.
 SUMMARY
The summary section though is an optional section, but is very useful in defining
the expected result print and outputs from simulation runs that would be written
to the report files.
 SCHEDULE
The schedule section is the last section in eclipse data file used in defining well
properties like the well locations, the type of injection fluids, techniques of
injection, injection rates, production fluid type, rate of production, and the
duration of simulation run (time-step).
50
3.3 Description of Scenarios Investigated
3.3.1 Base Case

By modifying the geologic field data from the described Middle East carbonate
reservoir, a Base Case Model was developed for this study and ran using the Blackoil
reservoir simulator Eclipse developed by Schlumberger Ltd. The base case was
developed to have the reservoir produce at Primary recovery using its own natural
energy and initial pressure of 4800psia by shutting the gas injector well located at grid
(1,1) while oil is allowed to be produced from the producer well at a target rate of
20000 STB/Day from the grid (10,10). The base case model was also characterized to
have an effective porosity of 30% (0.30) all over the reservoir while the Permeability in
the X and Y directions were modelled at 200mD for the top layer (Z1), 80mD for the
middle layer (Z2) and 35md for the bottom layer (Z3) as shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3. 8 Modelled reservoir flowviz showing the location of wells and gas saturation
51
Base Case Oil-Wet Relative Permability

1.2
1
Rlative Permeability, Kr
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Sg
Krg Kro
Figure 3. 9 Model 2-phase relative permeability data used in base case model (Odeh,
1981)
3.3.2 Scenario 1a- Effect of CO2 Injection on Oil Recovery Factor

In other to investigate the effect of the injected CO2 gas on the overall oil recovery rate
from the reservoir, the base case model was modified to have CO2 injected at a 100%
high volume rate of 100000MScf/Day, with the recovery factors of the base case and
scenario 1a compared.
3.3.3 Scenario 1b- Effect of CO2 Injection on Carbonate Reservoir Permeability

Due to the limitations of Eclipse simulator to estimate changes on rock permeability in
its output files, the Scenario 1a was modified by altering the permeability near the
producer wellbore to high permeability (100mD), average permeability (12mD) and low
permeability (0.9mD) and also having CO2 gas injected at various pore-volume rates of
0%, 15%, 50% and 100% saturation into the carbonate reservoir. The outcome of this
modification was termed ‘Scenario 1b’. This scenario was primarily developed to
investigate the prevailing effects of rock permeability and CO2 injection rates on oil
recovery thereby highlighting the resultant effects of CO2 injection rates on the
carbonate reservoir permeability.
52
3.3.4 Scenario 2- Effects of CO2 Injection on Oil Relative Permeability

Scenario 2 was developed by modifying the oil-wet relative permeability data initially
used in the base case with a new relative permeability end point data from a CO 2 core
flood experiment on low permeable carbonate reservoirs conducted by Chukwudeme
and Hamouda (2009). A 2-Phase Relative permeability data for Scenario 2 was however
developed using Corey’s Exponential equation (Eq. 3.3 and 3.4) and applying the end
point relative permeability (Kro = 1.0 and Krg = 1.58) at 800C and 140bar from
experiment by Chukwudeme and Hamouda (2009).
For Drainage relative permeability (eq. 3.1)
For Imbibition relative permeability (eq. 3.2)
(eq. 3.3)
[ ] (eq. 3.4)
This scenario was primarily developed to investigate the effects of injecting CO 2 gas at
different volume rates and its resulting effects on the oil relative permeability (Kro).
3.3.5 Scenario 3- Viscosity effects of CO2 Injection Rates on Oil Viscosity

To study the effects of CO2 and its various injection rates highlighted in scenario 2 on
the oil viscosity, Scenario 3 was developed by using the new CO2 relative permeability
data derived from the Corey’s correlation and implementing it into Scenario 1b by
injecting CO2 at 0%, 15%, 50% and 100% saturations so as to study its effect on the
reservoir oil viscosity and influence on oil recovery.
However, owing to these developed scenarios (Base, 1a, 1b, 2 and 3), a general oil
recovery factor comparative analysis was carried out on each of the scenarios and the
base case to investigate the overall effects of using CO2 gas as an EOR fluid. This
analysis was followed by a sensitivity analysis on CO2 gas injection rates, carbonate
53
reservoir permeability, oil relative permeability and reservoir oil viscosity to find out
the most and least effective parameter(s) that affects CO2-EOR most and which could
be considered when planning and developing CO2-EOR projects for carbonate reservoir
fields, especially in Middle East formations.
3.4 Sensitivity Analysis
In order to evaluate the impacts of positive and negative variations in CO2 injection rate,
oil density and CO2 density on overall oil recovery, 20% sensitivity analysis was carried
out on these parameters to determine how their changes can affect oil recovery from
carbonate reservoirs. This yielded a low, base and high case for each of these
parameters. Table 3.1 shows the various parameter values at ± 20%.
Table 3. 2 Sensitivity analysis (± 20%) values for investigated parameters
Parameter Low Base High
CO2 Injection Rate 80000 100000 120000

MMSCF/Day MMSCF/Day MMSCF/Day
Oil Density 39.28 49.1 58.92
CO2 Density 0.04843 0.06054 0.07265
54
Chapter 4 RESULTS AND

DISCUSSION
55
4.1 Results and Discussion
The estimation of reservoir original oil in place from the modelled reservoir properties
like porosity, reservoir volume (area and depth) and residual oil saturation using Eq. 4.1
shows that at initial saturations, the reservoir of interest is saturated with hydrocarbon
oil within its pore volumes of about 394,971,428 barrels.
Eq. 4.1
Where
A- Area of reservoir geometry (ft2)
h- Depth of reservoir (ft)
ø- Reservoir porosity
Soi - Residual or initial oil saturation
56
4.2 Effect of CO2 on Overall Oil Recovery Factor
The field oil recovery efficiency plot in Figure 4.1 clearly shows the effect of CO 2 gas
injection on the overall oil recovery from the modelled carbonate reservoir over time
period of 10 years. From this plot, the recovery factor of the base case producing at a
primarily production rate after 10years is estimated at 4.8% of the OOIP and the results
shown in Figure 4.1 while the effect of the same reservoir to recover oil after 10 years
of injection of CO2 gas is estimated at 16% of the OOIP. The recovery factors for the
other years of production are also highlighted on Table 4.2.
The outcome of this result shows that the efficient injection of CO2 gas into a carbonate
reservoir can be deployed successfully to enhance the recovery of oil from carbonate
reservoirs by 11.2%. Although this recovery factor is in line with Canty’s findings
(Canty, 2011), it however varies significantly from Sheng’s claim of oil recovery at
around 35% of the OOIP. It is also important to highlight that this recovery did not take
into cognisance of the reservoir permeability near the producer wellbore and the CO2
injection rates.
Figure 4. 1 Effect of CO2 on overall oil recovery factor
57
Furthermore, this effect is also reflected from the field pressure profile in Figure 4.2
which shows that the CO2 helps boost and maintain the formation pressure within the
reservoir during production.
Figure 4. 2 Effect of CO2 on the reservoir pressure
4.3 Effect of CO2 on Carbonate Reservoir Permeability
The effects of the modelled carbonate reservoir permeability near the producer wellbore
(grid 10, 10, 3) from 35mD to various permeability ranges is explained in Scenario 1b.
From Figure 4.3; showing the oil recovery factor from the reservoir assuming it to have a
very low permeability (k=0.9mD), averagely low permeability (k=12mD) and high
permeability (k=100mD) near the producer wellbore respectively at 0%, 15%, 50% and
100% injection rates, the following can be deduced from Figure 4.3:
58
Figure 4. 3 Oil recovery from low permeable (k=0.9) reservoir at 0%, 15%, 50% and
100% CO2 Injection rates
At a very low permeability of less than 1mD, injecting CO2 at about 50% injection rate
yields a better oil recovery (both economically and technically) compared to the other rates
of injection; especially the optimal injection at 100% CO2 saturation. This is because of the
possible effect of an early gas breakthrough in the 100% CO2 injection rate which occurred
around 8years after injection compared to the other injection rates. The breakthrough was
as a result of the viscous effect of CO2 (gas fingering) during a continuous dry gas
injection at high rate into a reservoir with low permeability near the producer wellbore.
This effect was observed for a tstep of 10 years.
Another possible effect of the drop in oil recovery from the tight carbonate reservoir zone
is as a result of the acid effect of the CO2 with carbonates (CaCO3) usually when in contact
with formation brine (eq. 4.2). The reactiveness of CO2, brine and carbonates results in the
formation of carbonic acid which helps in the dissolution of large chunks of calcites around
the injector well but these dissolved calcites finds their way through the effective
permeability within the reservoir away from the point of injection and towards the point of
59
exit (producer). By so doing, although a large volume of the CO2 has dissolved a fair
enough volume of the carbonate reservoir permeability, this acidizing effect does not
actually yield more oil from the producing well, suggesting claims to the findings of
Mohamed, He and Nasr (2011) that permeability near the injector wellbore always
increases due to the effect of carbonic acid on carbonate reservoirs which helps to improve
their permeability, but with increased injection temperature and continuous injection, the
dissolved calcites re-precipitates along other permeable paths within the reservoir leading
to a reduction in carbonate reservoir permeability and a subsequent reduction in volume of
oil produced.
H2O + CO2 + CaCO3 Ca (HCO3)2 (eq. 4.2)
60
Contrarily to the observed effects in Figure 4.3 at a low permeability, Figures 4.4 and 4.5
both shows that at an improved average permeability or a high permeability of carbonate
reservoirs near the wellbore, oil recovery could be improved and which is directly
proportional to the volume and injection rate of the displacing fluid (CO2) injected. With
this outcome, acidizing or fracturing of the reservoir near the producer well can be applied
under reviewed economic and technical basis to effectively and efficiently recover more
hydrocarbon fluid in place with the carbonate reservoir irrespective of the volume of CO 2
gas injected.
However, by comparing this oil recovery efficiency effect to the oil production rate in
bbl/day for 10 years, injecting 100% CO2 into the reservoir having high permeability near
the producer wellbore yielded about 16.8% of the OOIP but this is marred by an early gas
breakthrough around 3 years after production started, causing the drop in oil production
from 20000 bbl/day to 8000 bbl/day after 10 years (Figure 4.6). It could also be as a result
of pressure drop due to the high rate of reservoir depletion.
61
4.4 Effect of CO2 on Relative Permeability
Scenario 2 Relative Permeability

1.400
1.200
Relative permeability, Kr
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sg
Krg Kro
Figure 4. 6 Calculated relative permeability data using Corey’s equation applied in

scenario 2
The outcome of Scenario 2 as shown in Figure 4.7 shows that increasing the saturation
of the non-wetting phase (in this case SCO2), increases its relative permeability and
therefore results in the reduction in saturation of the wetting fluid (oil) (drainage
process); which is one of the primary reasons of EOR as found by Anderson (1986) and
who also correlated wettability to relative permeability.
Although this effect is observed due to the tertiary dry and continuous gas injection
technique applied in the two scenarios. It is however important to note that in water-wet
carbonate reservoirs, continuous dry gas injection could result in the higher relative
permeability of the non-wetting phase (CO2) at increased saturation rates of the gas.
62
Figure 4. 7 Effect of CO2 on relative permeability in Base Case and Scenario 2
63
4.5 Sensitivity Analysis on Oil Recovery Factor
The outcome of the 20% sensitivity analysis on oil recovery factor as a factor of
variations and changes in CO2 injection rates, CO2 density and reservoir oil density is
highlighted on Table 4.1. The corresponding volume of oil recovered from the
sensitivity analysis is also expressed in Table 4.2
Table 4. 1 Oil recovery factor (%) from ± 20% sensitivity analysis
Recovery Factor (%)
Parameter Low Base High
CO2 Injection Rate 15.24 15.94 16.50
Oil Density 15.94 15.94 15.94
CO2 Density 14.63 15.94 17.05
Table 4. 2 Result of oil recovery volumes (bbls) for ± 20% sensitivity analysis
Volume of recovered oil (bbl) CO2 Injection CO2 Oil Density

Rate Density
High (120%) 65170285.71 67342628.57 62958445.71
Base (100%) 62958445.71 62958445.71 62958445.71
Low (80%) 60193645.71 57784320 62958445.71
64
4.5.1 Sensitivity on CO2 Injection Rates
Figure 4. 8 Sensitivity of ±20% CO2 injection rate on Oil Recovery
At the Base case, injecting CO2 at 100000 MMSCF/Day has an oil recovery factor of
16% OOIP after 10 years of injection (Figure 4.8). However, by injecting the same CO2
gas at ±20% (i.e. 120000MMSCF/Day and 800000MMSCF/Day), Figure 4.8 shows no
significant difference in oil recovery for the 3 injection rates after the first 6 years of
injection, as all injection rates yielded a recovery factor of 7.5% OOIP. Afterwards, oil
recovery increased with increase in CO2 injection rate and after 10years of production,
the 20% increase in CO2 injection rate showed have the best yield in oil recovery.
The significance of this sensitivity shows therefore that for economic reasons, injecting
CO2 from the early stages of production at 80000MMSCF/Day may be advisable
because the same volume of oil can be recovered from the reservoir even at
100000MMSCF/Day and 120000MMSCF/Day injection rates respectively.
65
The sensitivity also shows that for improved oil recovery, CO2 injection may be
implemented after 6 years of production thereby improving the recovery of oil from
7.5% to 16.5% (over 100% OOIP).
4.5.2 Sensitivity on CO2 Density
Figure 4. 9 Sensitivity of ±20% CO2 gas density on oil recovery
The outcome of the sensitivity of oil recovery due to the CO2 gas density shows (Fig.
4.9) that for 5 years of oil production, the injected CO2 density has no effect on oil
recovery because the reservoir was still at an initial under-saturated state but as the
reservoir oil is depleted, the effects of injecting CO2 gas is observed from 6 years of
production. With the base case CO2 density at 0.06054 at 100000MMSCF/Day, oil
recovery factor measured 14.63%.
The importance of this sensitivity therefore highlights on the injection technique of the
CO2 gas. Suggesting that possible water alternating gas (WAG) injection technique can
be utilized instead of the dry gas injection in carbonate reservoirs so as to increase the
density of the gas. Although injecting water alongside the gas should only be carried out
66
from 6 years of production as the reservoir approaches a saturated state as shown in

Figure 4.9.
4.5.3 Sensitivity on Oil Density
Figure 4. 10 Sensitivity of ±20% oil density on oil recovery
The results of the sensitivity analysis carried out on oil recovery based on ±20%
variations in oil density (figure 4.10) shows that increasing or decreasing the oil density
has no actual effect on oil recovery as the three (3) cases show an equivalent oil
recovery after 10 years of oil production. This shows that provided the reservoir oil and
the injected CO2 gas are in a miscible stat volume of oil recovered irrespective of how
dense or light the reservoir oil is, remains the same.
67
Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
68
5.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn after carrying out this research;
 Applying CO2 injection in carbonate reservoirs, especially the oil-wet

carbonates in Middle East is a good and positive EOR technique.
 At miscible conditions, the sensitivity of CO2 injection rates proves the most
influencing parameter on oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs.
 The injections rates of CO2 can affect the recovery factor of a reservoir
depending on its permeability variations near the production wells.
 Relative permeability of CO2 gas in an oil-gas phase and the reservoir
wettability are two (2) key properties that can affect the mobility of oil from
carbonate reservoirs and its residual oil after secondary and tertiary production
phases.
 Direct dry gas injection of CO2 in carbonate reservoirs can lead to an early gas
breakthrough due to CO2 viscous fingering on reservoir oil which results in
reduction of the volume of oil recovered as well as flow assurance problem like
corrosion of the pipeline.
 Water alternating gas (WAG) injection technique can be applied alongside CO2
in the higher permeable zones within a carbonate reservoir than in low
permeable (tight) zones so as to mitigate the impacts of viscous fingering,
gravity settling and early gas breakthrough experienced during dry and
continuous CO2 gas injection.
69
5.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings of this research, the following are recommended for future study;
 Compositional fluid properties should be considered when modelling CO2

injection for EOR in carbonate reservoirs using Eclipse 300.
 Effects of temperature variations during CO2 injection should be considered for
accurate evaluation of CO2 injection effects on oil viscosity.
 To avoid early gas breakthrough and due to CO2 fingering, WAG should be
applied for more porous and permeable reservoirs.
 For oilfields with single injector and single producers, injecting CO2 at super
critical rates should be considered for ultimate oil recovery instead of drilling
more injector wells due to the economic implications of new wells.
70
REFERENCES
Abdallah, W., Buckley, J.S., Carnegie, A., Edwards, J., Herold, B., Fordham, E., Graue,
A., Habashy, T., Seleznev, N. and Signer, C. (1986) 'Fundamentals of wettability',
Technology, 38(1125-1144), pp. 268.
Abdallah, W., Buckley, J.S., Carnegie, A., Edwards, J., Herold, B., Fordham, E., Graue,
A., Habashy, T., Seleznev, N. and Signer, C. (1986) 'Fundamentals of wettability',
Technology, 38(1125-1144), pp. 268.
Ahmed, T.H., Ahmed, T. and Meehan, D.N. (2011) Advanced reservoir management
and engineering. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Ahr, W.M. (2011) Geology of carbonate reservoirs: the identification, description and
characterization of hydrocarbon reservoirs in carbonate rocks. John Wiley & Sons.
Algharaib, M. (2013) 'Potential research of carbon (iv) oxide enhanced oil recovery
(CO2-EOR) in Middle East', Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, 5(4),
pp. 87-103.
Algharaib, M.K. (2009) 'Potential Applications of CO2-EOR in the Middle East', SPE
Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Ali, S. and Thomas, S. (1989) 'The Promise And Problems Of Enhanced Oil Recovery
Methods', Technical Meeting/Petroleum Conference Of The South Saskatchewan
Section. Petroleum Society of Canada.
Al-Mutairi, S.M. and Kokal, S.L. (2011) 'EOR Potential in the Middle East: Current and
Future Trends', SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Anderson, W. (1986) 'Wettability literature survey-part 2: Wettability measurement',

Journal of Petroleum Technology, 38(11), pp. 1,246-1,262.
Andrei, M. and Simoni, M. (2010) 'Enhanced oil recovery with CO2 capture and
sequestration', Congress Paper, Eni, Italy.
Biranvand, B. (2006) 'Characterization of reservoir rock types in a heterogeneous clastic

and carbonate reservoir'.
Bourdarot, G. and Ghedan, S.G. (2011) 'Modified EOR Screening Criteria as Applied to
a Group of Offshore Carbonate Oil Reservoirs.', SPE Reservoir Characterisation and
Simulation Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M. (1942) 'Mechanism of fluid displacement in sands',

Transactions of the AIME, 146(01), pp. 107-116.
71
Canty, D. (2011) Ultimate Recovery: EOR in the Middle East. Available at:
http://www.arabianoilandgas.com/article-9375-ultimate-recovery-eor-in-the-middle-
east/2/ (Accessed: 26 June 2015).
Chukwudeme, E.A. and Hamouda, A.A. (2009) 'Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) by
miscible CO2 and water flooding of asphaltenic and non-asphaltenic oils', Energies,
2(3), pp. 714-737.
Denney, D. (2013) 'Carbonate-Reservoir Characterization: Wide-Azimuth-Seismic

Processing', Journal of Petroleum Technology, 65(03), pp. 157-159.
Donaldson, E.C., Chilingarian, G.V. and Yen, T.F. (1989) Microbial enhanced oil
recovery. Newnes.
Eydinov, D., Gao, G., Li, G. and Reynolds, A. (2009) 'Simultaneous estimation of
relative permeability and porosity/permeability fields by history matching production
data', Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 48(12), pp. 13-25.
Fernø, M.A. (2012) Enhanced Oil Recovery in Fractured Reservoirs. INTECH Open
Access Publisher.
Freas, R.C., Hayden, J.S. and Pryor Jr, C.A. (2006) 'Limestone and dolomite', Industrial
Minerals and Rocks: Commodities, Markets and Uses (Seventh Ed.), Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, pp. 581-597.
Garland, J., Neilson, J., Laubach, S.E. and Whidden, K.J. (2012) 'Advances in carbonate
exploration and reservoir analysis', Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
370(1), pp. 1-15.
Ghedan, S. (2009) 'Global laboratory experience of CO2-EOR flooding', SPE/EAGE

Reservoir Characterization & Simulation Conference.
Golabi, E., Seyedeyn Azad, F., Ayatollahi, S., Hosseini, N. and Akhlaghi, N. (2012)
'Experimental Study of Wettability Alteration of Limestone Rock from Oil Wet to
Water Wet by Applying Various Surfactants', SPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Goldberg, P., Chen, Z., Walters, R. and Ziock, H. (2001) 'CO2 mineral sequestration
studies', in the US”, paper presented at the First National Conference on Carbon
Sequestration. Citeseer.
Hagoort, J. (1980) 'Oil recovery by gravity drainage', Society of Petroleum Engineers

Journal, 20(03), pp. 139-150.
Han, D. and Batzle, M.L. (2004) 'Gassmann's equation and fluid-saturation effects on
seismic velocities', Geophysics, 69(2), pp. 398-405.
Holm, L. (1986) 'Miscibility and miscible displacement', Journal of Petroleum

Technology, 38(08), pp. 817-818.
72
Holm, L. and Josendal, V. (1974) 'Mechanisms of oil displacement by carbon dioxide',

Journal of Petroleum Technology, 26(12), pp. 1,427-1,438.
Honarpour, M., Koederitz, F. and Herbert, A. (1986) 'Relative permeability of

petroleum reservoirs'.
Jardine, D. (1987) 'Carbonate reservoir description'.
Jarrell, P.M. (2002) Practical aspects of CO2 flooding. Richardson, Tex.: Henry L.
Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Jelmert, T.A., Chang, N., Høier, L., Pwaga, S., Iluore, C., Hundseth, Ø., Perales, F.J.
and Idrees, M.U. (2010) 'Comparative Study of Different EOR Methods', Norwegian
University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
King, M.H. (2015) Calcite. Available at: http://geology.com/minerals/calcite.shtml

(Accessed: 22 June 2015).
King, M.H. (2015) Dolomite. Available at: http://geology.com/minerals/dolomite.shtml

(Accessed: 23 June 2015).
King, M.H. (2015) Sedimentary rocks. Available at:

http://geology.com/rocks/sedimentary-rocks.shtml (Accessed: 23 June 2015).
Kokal, S. and Al-Kaabi, A. (2010) 'Enhanced oil recovery: challenges & opportunities',
World Petroleum Council: Official Publication, pp. 64-68.
Korneev, V.A., Goloshubin, G.M., Daley, T.M. and Silin, D.B. (2004) 'Seismic low-
frequency effects in monitoring fluid-saturated reservoirs', Geophysics, 69(2), pp. 522-
532.
Lucia, F.J., Kerans, C. and Jennings Jr, J.W. (2003) 'Carbonate reservoir
characterization', Journal of Petroleum Technology, 55(06), pp. 70-72.
McPherson, B. and Lichtner, P.C. (2001) 'CO2 sequestration in deep aquifers',

Proceedings: first national conference on carbon sequestration, Washington, DC.
Citeseer.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., Loos, M. and Meyer, L. (2005) 'Carbon dioxide
capture and storage'.
Mohamed, I.M., He, J. and Nasr-El-Din, H.A. (2011) 'Permeability Change during CO2
Injection in Carbonate Aquifers: Experimental Study', SPE Americas E&P Health,
Safety, Security, and Environmental Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Pershad, H., Durusut, E., Crerar, A., Black, D., Mackay, E. and Olden, P. (2012)
'Economic impacts of CO2-enhanced oil recovery for Scotland: Final report', Element
Energy Limited Dundas Consultants Heriot Watt University, pp. 111.
73
Raza, S., Treiber, L. and Archer, D. (1968) 'Wettability of reservoir rocks and its
evaluation', Prod.Mon.;(United States), 32(4).
Reichle, D., Houghton, J., Kane, B. and Ekmann, J. (1999) Carbon Sequestration
Research and Development.
Roehl, P.O. and Choquette, P.W. (1985) Carbonate petroleum reservoirs. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Romero-Zerón, L. (2012) Advances in Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes. INTECH

Open Access Publisher.
Rubin, E.S. (2006) 'IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage', RITE
International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage.
Satter, A., Iqbal, G.M. and Buchwalter, J.L. (2008) Practical enhanced reservoir
engineering: assisted with simulation software. Pennwell Books.
Schlumberger (2007) Carbonate reservoirs. Available at:

http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/industry_challenges/carbonates/brochures/cb_carbon
ate_reservoirs_07os003.pdf (Accessed: 23 June 2015).
Schlumberger (2008) Characterization of Fractured Reservoirs- reliable, predictive

models to optimize carbonate reservoir performance. Available at:
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/industry_challenges/carbonates/brochures/cb_charact
erization_09os0003.pdf (Accessed: 23 June 2015).
Schlumberger, G. (2004) 'ECLIPSE Reference Manual 2004'.
Sheng, J.J. (2013) 'Review of Surfactant Enhanced Oil Recovery in Carbonate

Reservoirs', Advances in Petroleum Exploration and Development, 6(1), pp. 1-10.
Shuker, M.T., Buriro, M.A. and Hamza, M.M. (2012) 'Enhanced Oil Recovery: A
Future for Pakistan', SPE/PAPG Annual Technical Conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Skopec, R. (1992) 'Recent advances in rock characterization', The Log Analyst, 33(03).
Stalkup Jr, F.I. (1983) 'Status of miscible displacement', Journal of Petroleum

Technology, 35(04), pp. 815-826.
Statoil (2014) Improved oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs. Available at:
http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/OptimizingReservoirRecovery/Recov
eryMethods/TightFracturedGasAndCarbonateReservoirs/Pages/ImprovedOilRecoveryF
romCarbonateReservoirs.aspx (Accessed: 03 July 2015).
Taber, J., Martin, F. and Seright, R. (1997) 'EOR screening criteria revisited—Part 2:
Applications and impact of oil prices', SPE Reservoir Engineering, 12(03), pp. 199-206.
74
Taber, J.J. (1990) 'Environmental improvements and better economics in EOR

operations', In Situ;(USA), 14(4).
Taber, J.J., Martin, F. and Seright, R. (1997) 'EOR screening criteria revisited-Part 1:
Introduction to screening criteria and enhanced recovery field projects', SPE Reservoir
Engineering, 12(03), pp. 189-198.
Terry, R.E. (2001) 'Enhanced oil recovery', Encyclopedia of Physical Science and
Technology, 18, pp. 503-518.
Verma, M.K. (2015) Fundamentals of Carbon Dioxide-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO 2-

EOR): A Supporting Document of the Assessment Methodology for Hydrocarbon
Recovery using CO 2-EOR Associated with Carbon Sequestration.
Warwick, P.D. and US Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Resources

Assessment Team (2014) 'Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Resource Studies at the
U.S. Geological Survey', The 12th Annual EOR Carbon Management Workshop.
Midland, Texas, 8-12 December, 2014. U.S Geological Survey Department of the
Interior.
Watson, A., Gavalas, G. and Seinfeld, J. (1984) 'Identifiability of estimates of two-

phase reservoir properties in history matching', Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
24(06), pp. 697-706.
Wright, I.W. (2007) 'The In Salah gas CO2 storage project', IPTC 2007: International
Petroleum Technology Conference.
Xu, C., Heidari, Z. and Torres-Verdin, C. (2012) 'Rock classification in carbonate

reservoirs based on static and dynamic petrophysical properties estimated from
conventional well logs', SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Yellig, W. and Metcalfe, R. (1980) 'Determination and Prediction of CO2 Minimum

Miscibility Pressures (includes associated paper 8876)', Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 32(01), pp. 160-168.
Youl, S. (2007) 'Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery'.
Yuan, H., Johns, R.T., Egwuenu, A.M. and Dindoruk, B. (2005) 'Improved MMP
correlation for CO2 floods using analytical theory', SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, 8(05), pp. 418-425.
75
APPENDIX
Estimated relative permeability values using Corey’s equation
At Sg =1, So = 0
= (0.0) = 0
( ) [ ]= [ ]=0
At Sg = 0.5, So= 0.5

= (0.5)4 = 0.0625
( ) [ ]= [ ] = 0.1875
At Sg =0.15, So = 0.85
= (0.85) = 0.5220
( ) [ ]= [ ] = 0.706
At Sg =0, So = 1
= (0.0) = 1
( ) [ ]= [ ]=1
76
Base Case Eclipse Model Data File
77
78

Challenges of CO 2 Injection in Middle E PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenges of CO 2 Injection in Middle E PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenges of CO 2 Injection in Middle E PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teesside University

School of Science and Engineering

MSc. Petroleum Engineering

Challenges of CO2 Injection in Middle East

By: Nwaiche Jason Chinedu

Supervisor: Dr Sina Gomari

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................................. ii

2.3.2 Secondary Recovery Stage ....................................................................... 23

4.1 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................... 56

Figure 3. 1 Oil PVT data of the modelled reservoir (Odeh, 1981)

Figure 3. 3 Oil-Gas Relative permeability data modelled .............................................. 45

Figure 4. 1 Effect of CO2 on overall oil recovery factor ................................................ 57

Table 3. 1 Reservoir of study with well properties ......................................................... 44

GHG: Green House Gases

GOC: Gas Oil Contact

E-100: Eclipse 100 Reservoir Simulator

EOR: Enhanced Oil Recovery

HCPV: Hydrocarbon pore volume

IFT: Interfacial tension

Sor Residual oil saturation

1.2 Problem Identification and Justification

1.3 Dissertation Structure

This research project is structured in the following order;

 Chapter 1 highlights on the general background of enhanced oil recovery using

1.4 Objectives of the Project

The objectives of this project have been streamlined to:

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of Fundamental Reservoir and Fluid Parameters

Another method for estimating absolute permeability of a reservoir is by plotting the

Figure 2. 1 Graphical method of estimating absolute permeability (Zolotukhin, 2000)

2.1.3 Fluid Saturation

Porosity * ( ) (eq. 2.8)

2.1.4 Interfacial Tension

Methods of Measuring Wettability

Figure 2. 3 Wettability determinations by contact angle (Anderson, 1986)

WATER-WET OIL- WET

Connate Water Saturation > 20%-25% PV In general, <15%

2.1.6 Relative Permeability

The measurement of relative permeability of any fluid type can be determined

Figure 2. 4 A typical 2-phase relative permeability plot of a water-wet and oil-wet

The determination of miscibility of fluids within a reservoir can be done as a function of

2.2 General Overview and Description of Carbonate Reservoirs

Chemically, carbonate reservoirs are considered to be complex materials of metallic

…………… (eq. 2.11)

2.2.1 Classification of Carbonate Reservoirs

among the common sedimentary rocks predominantly composed of calcites (King,

Figure 2. 5 Limestone composed of calcites from Tyrone, Pennsylvania (King, 2015)

Figure 2. 6 Dolomite crystals from Penfield, New York (King, 2015)

Mineral Properties Colour

2.2.2 Carbonate Reservoir Characterization

Conventionally, the use of multiple geologic data is required for a comprehensive

terms of porosity (storage) and permeability (production) (Slatt, 2006). And by

Table 2. 3 Typical carbonate reservoir characteristics for CO2-EOR (Bourdarot and

2.2.3 Major Problems Associated with Carbonate Reservoirs

 Connected porosity- basically the connected pores in-between carbonate grains

….…………… (eq. 2.12)

Figure 2. 8 Different wettability scenarios experienced in hydrocarbon reservoirs

2.2.4 Mechanisms of Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs