Author
Listed:
- Curtis Oldenburg
- Lehua Pan
- Quanlin Zhou
- Laura Dobeck
- Lee Spangler
Abstract
Carbon dioxide (CO2) extraction from deep reservoirs is currently important in CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and may become more important in the future if interim CO2 storage becomes common. In late 2014, we were involved in a production test of liquid CO2 from the Middle Duperow dolostone at Kevin Dome, Montana. The test resulted in lowering the temperature at the well bottom to ∼2 °C, and showed that the well and reservoir had very low CO2 productivity. We have used the CO2 modeling capabilities of the TOUGH codes to simulate the test and to show that liquid CO2 in the reservoir changes to gas phase as the pressure is lowered in the well during production testing. The associated phase change and decompression combine to drastically lower the bottom‐hole temperature, creating the potential for water ice or CO2 hydrate to form. By hypothesizing a relatively high‐permeability damage zone near the well surrounded by lower permeability reservoir rock, we can match the observed pressure, temperature, and production rate. Moving from the Kevin Dome test to the question of CO2 extraction from deep reservoirs in general, we carried out a parametric study to investigate the effects of reservoir depth and transmissivity on CO2 production rate for a prototypical reservoir. Simulations show that depth and high transmissivity favor productivity. Complex phase changes within the ranges of P‐T encountered in typical CO2 production wells affect production rates. The results of our parametric study may be useful for the preliminary feasibility assessment of CO2 extraction from deep reservoirs. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Suggested Citation
Curtis Oldenburg & Lehua Pan & Quanlin Zhou & Laura Dobeck & Lee Spangler, 2019.
"On producing CO2 from subsurface reservoirs: simulations of liquid‐gas phase change caused by decompression,"
Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 9(2), pages 194-208, April.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:greenh:v:9:y:2019:i:2:p:194-208
DOI: 10.1002/ghg.1852
Download full text from publisher
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:9:y:2019:i:2:p:194-208. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.