Journal of Petroleum Science and Technology

Journal of Petroleum Science and Technology

Performance of water injection and CO2 injection into oil reservoirs based on field data: using ANNs to predict in the selected scenario

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Bardiya Yazdani 1
Pouya Vaziri 2
Behnam Sedaee Sola 2
1 Petroleum Engineering Department, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
10.22078/jpst.2023.4974.1842
Abstract
As carbon dioxide emissions rise worldwide, the world is still experiencing many consequences of these emissions. This challenge can be addressed using carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). Energy transfer generally requires a good program in which CCUS plays a crucial role. CO2-EOR, which allows for storing carbon dioxide (CO2), is a suitable option in this area. It provides economic returns from oil that could not be recovered before without this method and has environmental benefits, which shows its importance compared to other EOR methods. In this study, an oil reservoir is simulated using field data to compare this method with the water injection method and natural depletion method of the reservoir. Water and CO2 injection increased oil recovery by 8.4% and 12.7%, compared to natural depletion. The surrogate reservoir model was built using the machine learning (ML) technique by choosing the scenario of CO2 injection to reduce the computational load and the possibility of using it in optimization tasks. Therefore, using the data-driven model, we can reproduce the data related to the CO2-EOR process in a much shorter period of time, thereby allowing us to select the most efficient parameters and their ranges for different processes. The numerical simulator was run 250 times to extract the necessary data. The ANN is applied to the data and trained after the database is built and the hyper-parameters have been optimized. ANN consists of two hidden layers with 81 and 51 neurons, respectively, and a 0.05 learning rate after optimization. The trained two-objective ANN was a MAPE of less than 2.5% in the test data for both objectives, i.e., oil recovery and carbon dioxide storage. To further validate and ensure the accuracy of the trained ANN, the numerical simulator was run randomly ten times and compared with the values predicted by the ANN. MAPE for both objectives was less than 2.6%. Therefore, the ANN that makes predictions in a fraction of a second has a suitable accuracy that can be used as a surrogate reservoir model.
 
Keywords
Enhanced Oil Recovery, CO2-EOR
Simulation, Oil Reservoirs, Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), Water Injection
  1. Ranathunga A S, Perera M S A, Ranjith P G (2014) Deep coal seams as a greener energy source: a review, Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 11, 6: 063001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/11/6/063001.##
  2. Perera M S A, Ranjith P G (2012) Carbon dioxide sequestration effects on coal's hydro‐mechanical properties: a review, International Journal of Energy Research, 36, 10: 1015-1031, https://doi.org/10.1002/er.2921. ##
  3. Perera M S A, Ranjith P G, Choi S K, Bouazza A, Kodikara J, Airey D (2011) A review of coal properties pertinent to carbon dioxide sequestration in coal seams: with special reference to Victorian brown coals, Environmental Earth Sciences, 64: 223-235, doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0841-7. ##
  4. Schrag D P (2007) Preparing to capture carbon, Science, 315, 5813: 812-813 812-813, DOI: 10.1126/science.1137632. ##
  5. Change I C (2007) Mitigation of climate change—summary for policymakers. working group iii contributions to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Bangkok, Thailand. ##
  6. Agency I E (2021) Global energy review: CO2 emissions in 2021 Global emissions rebound sharply to highest ever level, International Energy Agency, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c3086240-732b-4f6a-89d7-db01be018f5e. ##
  7. Ettehadtavakkol A, Lake L W, Bryant S L (2014) CO2-EOR and storage design optimization, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 25: 79-92, doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.04.006. ##
  8. Bui M, Adjiman C S, Bardow A, Anthony E J, Boston A, Brown S, Fennell P S, Fuss S, Galindo A, Hackett L A (2018) Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward, Energy and Environmental Science, 11, 5: 1062-1176. 11, 1062–1176. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EE02342A. ##
  9. Lake L, Johns R T, Rossen W R, Pope G A (2014) Fundamentals of enhanced oil recovery, Society of Petroleum Engineer, https://doi.org/10.2118/9781613993286. ##
  10. Green D W, Willhite G P (2018) Enhanced oil recovery, Society of Petroleum Engineers, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2118/9781613994948. ##
  11. Marston P M (2017) Incidentally speaking: a systematic assessment and comparison of incidental storage of CO2 during EOR with other near-term storage options, Energy Procedia, 114: 7422-7430, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1872. ##
  12. Cooney G, Littlefield J, Marriott J, Skone T J (2015) Evaluating the climate benefits of CO2-enhanced oil recovery using life cycle analysis, Environmental science and technology, 49, 12: 7491-7500, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00700. ##
  13. Jaramillo P, Griffin W M, McCoy S T (2009) Life cycle inventory of CO2 in an enhanced oil recovery system, 8027-8032, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1021/es902006h. ##
  14. Holm, L. W. (1986) Miscibility and miscible displacement. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 38, 08: 817-818, https://doi.org/10.2118/15794-PA. ##
  15. Kulkarni M M (2003) Immiscible and miscible gas-oil displacements in porous media, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, https://doi.org/10.31390/gradschool_theses, 259. ##
  16. Martin D F, Taber J J (1992) Carbon dioxide flooding, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 44, 04: 396-400, https://doi.org/10.2118/23564-PA. ##
  17. Liya Z, Jin P, Shishi T (2012) CO2-Rich Associated gas re-injection miscible flooding mechanism research, In 2012 Fourth International Conference on Computational and Information Sciences, 1297-1299, IEEE, doi: 10.1109/ICCIS.2012.101. ##
  18. Dong J, Wu S, Xing G, Fan T, Li H, Wang B (2019) Factors affecting water alternating hydrocarbon gas miscible flooding in a low permeability reservoir, In International Petroleum Technology Conference, OnePetro, https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-19063-MS. ##
  19. Weyburn-Midale Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/weyburn.html. ##
  20. Jensen G (2022) Assessing the Potential for CO2 EOR and CO2 Storage in Depleted Oil Pools in Southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4298632. ##
  21. Farouq Ali S M, Thomas S (1994) A realistic look at enhanced oil recovery. Scientia Iranica, 1: 3. ##
  22. Hashemi S M H, Sedaee B (2022) Mechanistic simulation of fracture effects on miscible CO2 injection, Petroleum Research, 7, 4: 437-447, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptlrs.2022.01.006. ##
  23. Jarrell P M, Fox C E, Stein M H, Webb S L (2002) Practical aspects of CO2 flooding, 22: 13-35, Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers, doi.org/10.2118/9781555630966. ##
  24. Alian S S, Alta'ee A F, Omar A A, Hani I (2011) Study of asphaltene precipitation during CO2 injection for Malaysian light oil reservoirs, In 2011 National Postgraduate Conference, 1-5, IEEE, doi: 10.1109/NatPC.2011.6136535. ##
  25. Okhovat M R, Hassani K, Rostami B, Khosravi M (2020) Experimental studies of CO2-brine-rock interaction effects on permeability alteration during CO2-EOR, Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 10: 2293-2301, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-020-00883-8. ##
  26. Emera M K, Sarma H K (2007) Prediction of CO2 solubility in oil and the effects on the oil physical properties. Energy Sources, Part A, 29, 13: 1233-1242, https://doi.org/10.1080/00908310500434481. ##
  27. Al-Jarba M, Al-Anazi B D (2009) A comparison study of the of the CO2-oil physical properties literature correlations accuracy using visual basic modelling technique, Nafta, 60, 5: 292-295. ##
  28. Rojas G, Ali S F (1986) Scaled model studies of carbon dioxide/brine injection strategies for heavy oil recovery from thin formations, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 25, 01: https://doi.org/10.2118/86-01-07. ##
  29. Tunio S Q, Tunio A H, Ghirano N A, El Adawy Z M (2011) Comparison of different enhanced oil recovery techniques for better oil productivity, International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 1: 5. ##
  30. Ampomah W, Balch R S, Cather M, Will R, Gunda D, Dai Z, Soltanian M R (2017) Optimum design of CO2 storage and oil recovery under geological uncertainty, Applied Energy, 195: 80-92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.017. ##
  31. He J, Xie J, Wen X H, Chen W (2015) Improved proxy for history matching using proxy-for-data approach and reduced order modeling, In SPE Western Regional Meeting, OnePetro, https://doi.org/10.2118/174055-MS. ##
  32. Haghshenas Y, Niri M E, Amini S, Kolajoobi R A (2021) A physically-supported data-driven proxy modeling based on machine learning classification methods: Application to water front movement prediction, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 196: 107828, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107828. ##
  33. Kim M, Shin H (2020) Machine learning-based prediction of the shale barrier size and spatial location using key features of SAGD production curves, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 191: 107205, 916-928, DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.012. ##
  34. El-Sebakhy E A (2009) Forecasting PVT properties of crude oil systems based on support vector machines modeling scheme, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 64, 1-4: 25-34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2008.12.006. ##
  35. Ahmadi M A (2012) Neural network based unified particle swarm optimization for prediction of asphaltene precipitation, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 314: 46-51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2011.10.016. ##
  36. You J, Ampomah W, Sun Q (2020) Development and application of a machine learning based multi-objective optimization workflow for CO2-EOR projects, Fuel, 264: 116758, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116758. ##
  37. Amini S, Mohaghegh S, Gaskari R, Bromhal G (2012) Uncertainty analysis of a CO2 sequestration project using surrogate reservoir modeling technique, In SPE Western Regional Meeting, OnePetro, https://doi.org/10.2118/153843-MS. ##
  38. Gaspar A T, Santos A, Maschio C, Avansi G, Schiozer D (2015) UNISIM-IM: study case for management variables optimization of reservoir exploitation strategy, International Journal of Modeling and Simulation for the Petroleum Industry, 9: 1-7. ##
  39. John F O (2015) Optimization of a water alternating gas injection compositional fluid flow simulation with water alternating gas injection optimization on the upscaled synthetic reservoir CERENA-I, Master of Science Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa. ##
  40. Yeap W J (2018) Study of EOR-CO2 miscible flooding performance using compositional reservoir simulation with local grid refinement, Master's Thesis, Texas A and M University, https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/173312. ##
  41. Novak Mavar K, Gaurina-Međimurec N, Hrnčević L (2021) Significance of enhanced oil recovery in carbon dioxide emission reduction. Sustainability, 13, 4: 1800, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041800. ##
  42. Gaurina-Međimurec N, Mavar K N (2019) Carbon capture and storage (CCS): geological sequestration of CO2, CO2 Sequestration, 1-21. ##
  43. Lake L W, Lotfollahi M, Bryant S L (2019) CO2 enhanced oil recovery experience and its messages for CO2 storage, In Science of Carbon Storage in Deep Saline Formations 15-31, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812752-0.00002-2. ##
  44. Ren D, Wang X, Kou Z, Wang S, Wang H, Wang X, Zhang R (2023) Feasibility evaluation of CO2 EOR and storage in tight oil reservoirs: a demonstration project in the Ordos Basin, Fuel, 331: 125652, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125652. ##