Doe/netl-2012/1540 Mobility And Conformance Control For Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (Co2-Eor) Via Thickeners, Foams, And Gels - U.s. Department Of Energy Page 203

ADVERTISEMENT

19.
Field Tests of Crosslinkable Polymer Solutions and Crosslinkable
Monomer Solutions with CO
2
Phillips’ Lick Creek Field, Bradley and Union Counties, Arkansas; 1978; Conformance
Control; Crosslinkable Anionic Polymer Gel [Woods et al., 1986].
The Lick Creek Meakin Sand Unit contains 61 wells on 20 acre spacing. Production comes from
the unconsolidated, fine-grained Meakin Sand of the Ozan formation of the Cretaceous age. This
formation is 2,550 ft. deep and about 8’ thick, with an average permeability, porosity, and initial
o
water saturation of 1200 mD, 0.30, and 40%, respectively. The viscosity of the 17
API crude oil
o
at initial reservoir conditions of 118
F and 1,200 psia was 160 cP. The field was discovered in
1957 and primary oil production ensued until 1976. CO
injection began in February 1976, and
2
WAG was established for mobility control in January 1979.
By 1978 it was evident that channeling was resulting in diminished oil recovery. Thief zones
with permeability values as great as 3,000 D were detected. Initially the use of foams was
considered for conformance control, but tests indicated that the foams would not be effective in
sands with permeability values greater than 150 D.
Therefore, a crosslinkable anionic polymer was employed in 1978 in an attempt to block the thief
zones via in situ gelation of the polymer-crosslinker solution. Although gelation did occur,
conformance control was effective for only a few WAG cycles. It was thought that the gel,
which was based on an anionic polymer, may not have been able to withstand the acidic
environment caused by the dissociation of a small amount of the dissolved CO
, which forms
2
carbonic acid. Subsequently, Phillips injected a monomer solution that formed a non-ionic
polymer in situ, which then crosslinked to form a gel (see the next section).
Phillips’ Lick Creek Field, Bradley and Union Counties, Arkansas; 1984–1985;
Conformance Control; In situ Polymerization and Crosslinking Gelation [Woods et al.,
1986].
Initial attempts to attain conformance control in the Lick Creek field were focused on CO
foams
2
and in situ gelation of an anionic polymer (see the prior section). When it became apparent that
neither of these techniques was suitable for this field, Phillips decided to use a low viscosity,
aqueous monomer solution that contained an organic crosslinker. It was thought that the gelation
of a non-ionic polymer would yield a gel that was more robust in the low pH, high salinity
environment of an aqueous phase in contact with high-pressure CO
. Both the polymerization of
2
the monomers into a non-ionic polymer and the crosslinking of the polymer occurred in situ.
Two problematic injection wells, 27-3 and 4-1, were identified and gel treatment slugs of 500
barrels and 400 barrels, respectively, were injected. The treatment, which occurred during the
injection of a water half-cycle during WAG, consisted of 4 bbl. of a 1,000 ppm fluorescein dye
solution, a 50 bbl. spacer, the gel solution, and a 2% KCl post flush capable of displacing the
solution from the entire wellbore. When dye was detected in a producer, the well was shut-in for
172

ADVERTISEMENT

00 votes

Related Articles

Related forms

Related Categories

Parent category: Legal
Go
Page of 267