The Evaluation of Variable-Injection Rate Waterflooding, Immiscible CO2 Flooding, and Water-alternating-CO2 Injection for Heavy Oil Recovery

Despite the existence of studies for separate evaluation of waterflooding, immiscible CO 2 flooding, and CO 2 water-alternating gas (WAG) for heavy oil recovery, there is a lack of an experimental, comparative evaluation of these three methods. The authors conducted tests for comparative evaluation...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Petroleum science and technology 2012-01, Vol.30 (16), p.1656-1669
Main Authors: Torabi, F., Jamaloei, B. Yadali, Zarivnyy, O., Paquin, B. A., Rumpel, N. J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Applied sciences
Carbon dioxide
Crude oil
Crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products
Energy
Exact sciences and technology
flood
Flooding
Floods
Fuels
heavy oil
immiscible CO
Natural gas
Oil recovery
oil viscosity
permeability
Petroleum products, gas and fuels. Motor fuels, lubricants and asphalts
Processing of crude oil and oils from shales and tar sands. Processes. Equipment. Refinery and treatment units
Slugs
Viscosity
WAG
waterflood
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Despite the existence of studies for separate evaluation of waterflooding, immiscible CO 2 flooding, and CO 2 water-alternating gas (WAG) for heavy oil recovery, there is a lack of an experimental, comparative evaluation of these three methods. The authors conducted tests for comparative evaluation of variable-injection rate waterflood (VIWF), immiscible CO 2 flood, and CO 2 WAG. The results illustrate the (a) effectiveness of VIWF, immiscible CO 2 flood, and CO 2 WAG; (b) effect of permeability and oil viscosity on VIWF, immiscible CO 2 flood, and CO 2 WAG; (c) effect of injection rate on VIWF; and (d) effect of slug ratio on CO 2 WAG.
ISSN:1091-6466
1532-2459
DOI:10.1080/10916466.2010.509067