IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/greenh/v7y2017i1p128-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co‐optimization of CO 2 ‐EOR and storage processes in mature oil reservoirs

Author

Listed:
  • William Ampomah
  • Robert S. Balch
  • Reid B. Grigg
  • Brian McPherson
  • Robert A. Will
  • Si‐Yong Lee
  • Zhenxue Dai
  • Feng Pan

Abstract

This paper presents an optimization methodology for CO 2 enhanced oil recovery in partially depleted reservoirs. A field‐scale compositional reservoir flow model was developed for assessing the performance history of an active CO 2 flood and for optimizing both oil production and CO 2 storage in the Farnsworth Unit (FWU), Ochiltree County, Texas. A geological framework model constructed from geophysical, geological, and engineering data acquired from the FWU was the basis for all reservoir simulations and the optimization method. An equation of state was calibrated with laboratory fluid analyses and subsequently used to predict the thermodynamic minimum miscible pressure (MMP). Initial history calibrations of primary, secondary and tertiary recovery were conducted as the basis for the study. After a good match was achieved, an optimization approach consisting of a proxy or surrogate model was constructed with a polynomial response surface method (PRSM). The PRSM utilized an objective function that maximized both oil recovery and CO 2 storage. Experimental design was used to link uncertain parameters to the objective function. Control variables considered in this study included: water alternating gas cycle and ratio, production rates and bottom‐hole pressure of injectors and producers. Other key parameters considered in the modeling process were CO 2 purchase, gas recycle and addition of infill wells and/or patterns. The PRSM proxy model was ‘trained’ or calibrated with a series of training simulations. This involved an iterative process until the surrogate model reached a specific validation criterion. A sensitivity analysis was first conducted to ascertain which of these control variables to retain in the surrogate model. A genetic algorithm with a mixed‐integer capability optimization approach was employed to determine the optimum developmental strategy to maximize both oil recovery and CO 2 storage. The proxy model reduced the computational cost significantly. The validation criteria of the reduced order model ensured accuracy in the dynamic modeling results. The prediction outcome suggested robustness and reliability of the genetic algorithm for optimizing both oil recovery and CO 2 storage. The reservoir modeling approach used in this study illustrates an improved approach to optimizing oil production and CO 2 storage within partially depleted oil reservoirs such as FWU. This study may serve as a benchmark for potential CO 2 –EOR projects in the Anadarko basin and/or geologically similar basins throughout the world. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • William Ampomah & Robert S. Balch & Reid B. Grigg & Brian McPherson & Robert A. Will & Si‐Yong Lee & Zhenxue Dai & Feng Pan, 2017. "Co‐optimization of CO 2 ‐EOR and storage processes in mature oil reservoirs," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 7(1), pages 128-142, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:greenh:v:7:y:2017:i:1:p:128-142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/ghg.1618
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Biagi, James & Agarwal, Ramesh & Zhang, Zheming, 2016. "Simulation and optimization of enhanced gas recovery utilizing CO2," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 78-86.
    2. Leach, Andrew & Mason, Charles F. & Veld, Klaas van ‘t, 2011. "Co-optimization of enhanced oil recovery and carbon sequestration," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 893-912.
    3. Lipowski, Adam & Lipowska, Dorota, 2012. "Roulette-wheel selection via stochastic acceptance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 391(6), pages 2193-2196.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. You, Junyu & Ampomah, William & Sun, Qian, 2020. "Co-optimizing water-alternating-carbon dioxide injection projects using a machine learning assisted computational framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Ali Goudarzi & Seyyed A. Hosseini & Diana Sava & Jean†Philippe Nicot, 2018. "Simulation and 4D seismic studies of pressure management and CO2 plume control by means of brine extraction and monitoring at the Devine Test Site, South Texas, USA," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 8(1), pages 185-204, February.
    3. Wang, Xiao & van ’t Veld, Klaas & Marcy, Peter & Huzurbazar, Snehalata & Alvarado, Vladimir, 2018. "Economic co-optimization of oil recovery and CO2 sequestration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 132-147.
    4. Ren, Bo & Duncan, Ian J., 2021. "Maximizing oil production from water alternating gas (CO2) injection into residual oil zones: The impact of oil saturation and heterogeneity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leach, Andrew & Mason, Charles F. & Veld, Klaas van ‘t, 2011. "Co-optimization of enhanced oil recovery and carbon sequestration," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 893-912.
    2. Dana M. Abdulbaqi & Carol A. Dahl & Mohammed R. AlShaikh, 2018. "Enhanced oil recovery as a stepping stone to carbon capture and sequestration," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 31(1), pages 239-251, May.
    3. You, Junyu & Ampomah, William & Sun, Qian, 2020. "Co-optimizing water-alternating-carbon dioxide injection projects using a machine learning assisted computational framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    4. Andrés Alfonso Rosales-Muñoz & Luis Fernando Grisales-Noreña & Jhon Montano & Oscar Danilo Montoya & Alberto-Jesus Perea-Moreno, 2021. "Application of the Multiverse Optimization Method to Solve the Optimal Power Flow Problem in Direct Current Electrical Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-28, August.
    5. Özge .Ic{s}legen & Stefan Reichelstein, 2011. "Carbon Capture by Fossil Fuel Power Plants: An Economic Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 21-39, January.
    6. Hu, Yusha & Li, Jigeng & Hong, Mengna & Ren, Jingzheng & Lin, Ruojue & Liu, Yue & Liu, Mengru & Man, Yi, 2019. "Short term electric load forecasting model and its verification for process industrial enterprises based on hybrid GA-PSO-BPNN algorithm—A case study of papermaking process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1215-1227.
    7. Mehmet Burak Şenol & Ekrem Alper Murat, 2023. "A sequential solution heuristic for continuous facility layout problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 320(1), pages 355-377, January.
    8. Cheng Cao & Hejuan Liu & Zhengmeng Hou & Faisal Mehmood & Jianxing Liao & Wentao Feng, 2020. "A Review of CO 2 Storage in View of Safety and Cost-Effectiveness," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-45, January.
    9. Compernolle, T. & Welkenhuysen, K. & Huisman, K. & Piessens, K. & Kort, P., 2017. "Off-shore enhanced oil recovery in the North Sea: The impact of price uncertainty on the investment decisions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 123-137.
    10. Baowei Wang & Peng Zhao, 2020. "An Adaptive Image Watermarking Method Combining SVD and Wang-Landau Sampling in DWT Domain," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-20, May.
    11. 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, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 80-92.
    12. Puyan Bakhshi & Riyaz Kharrat & Abdolnabi Hashemi & Mehdi Zallaghi, 2018. "Experimental evaluation of carbonated waterflooding: A practical process for enhanced oil recovery and geological CO2 storage," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 8(2), pages 238-256, April.
    13. Fathy, Ahmed, 2022. "A novel artificial hummingbird algorithm for integrating renewable based biomass distributed generators in radial distribution systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    14. Pascal P Klamser & Pawel Romanczuk, 2021. "Collective predator evasion: Putting the criticality hypothesis to the test," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Niko Jaakkola, 2012. "Monopolistic sequestration of European carbon emissions," OxCarre Working Papers 098, Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford.
    16. Siddharth Misra & Rui Liu & Aditya Chakravarty & Keyla Gonzalez, 2022. "Machine Learning Tools for Fossil and Geothermal Energy Production and Carbon Geo-sequestration—a Step Towards Energy Digitization and Geoscientific Digitalization," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    17. Wang, Xiao & van ’t Veld, Klaas & Marcy, Peter & Huzurbazar, Snehalata & Alvarado, Vladimir, 2018. "Economic co-optimization of oil recovery and CO2 sequestration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 132-147.
    18. Tayari, Farid & Blumsack, Seth, 2020. "A real options approach to production and injection timing under uncertainty for CO2 sequestration in depleted shale gas reservoirs," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    19. Ojer, Jaume & López, Álvaro G. & Used, Javier & Sanjuán, Miguel A.F., 2022. "A stochastic hybrid model with a fast concentration bias for chemotactic cellular attraction," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    20. Ismail Ismail & Vassilis Gaganis, 2023. "Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage in Saline Aquifers: Subsurface Policies, Development Plans, Well Control Strategies and Optimization Approaches—A Review," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-29, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:greenh:v:7:y:2017:i:1:p:128-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2152-3878 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.