URTeC: 2870010

Miscible EOR Process Assessment for Unconventional Reservoirs:

Understanding Key Mechanisms for Optimal Field Test Design
Vinay Sahni*, Shunhua Liu; Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation
Copyright 2018, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2018-2870010

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 23-25 July 2018.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper
have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein . All information is the responsibility of, and, is
subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper by anyone other than the author without the written consent of URTeC
is prohibited.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to design an optimal Huff-n-Puff enhanced oil recovery (EOR) scheme for a field test
in unconventional reservoirs. Using an integrated workflow for process assessment, our study indicates that carbon
dioxide (CO2) Huff-and-Puff may be a technically feasible EOR method for unconventional reservoirs. The main
recovery mechanisms are: 1) vaporization of lighter oil components, and 2) interfacial tension (IFT) reduction at
pressures above the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP). Moreover, the presence of hydraulic and natural fractures
may provide a large contact area for injected gas to penetrate into the ultra-low permeability matrix. The effect of
molecular diffusion was also investigated, but this did not appear to have a major impact on recovery for the modeled
conditions at the field scale. The cycling scheme evaluation indicates that oil recovery is proportional to the mass of
CO2 injected, and longer soak times do not greatly affect the amount of oil recovered from a Huff-and-Puff cycle. We
found that the time to switch a well back to injection was when oil production returns to the pre-treatment base decline
rate. The modeling also indicates that optimizing the cycles can result in a reasonable increase in oil production at
acceptable utilization ratios. These results suggest that miscible Huff-and-Puff could be a technically feasible EOR
method for unconventional reservoirs.

Introduction

Miscible Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) mechanisms in unconventional, tight reservoirs may be substantially different
than those associated with miscible gas flooding in conventional reservoirs [1]. Due to potentially low cross-well
throughput in ultra-low permeability rock, the single-well Huff-n-Puff process is being considered within the industry
for application in unconventional reservoirs [1-7]. Below the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP), CO2 improves oil
recovery through the mechanisms of oil phase swelling, viscosity reduction, and gas-oil displacement. At pressures
above the MMP, miscibility results in high displacement efficiency due to ultra-low capillary forces [8-9].

CO2 Huff-and-Puff is a single-well process and has been successfully implemented in various conventional reservoirs.
If a tailored application of this technique was successful in organic-rich mudstones, the process would have the
potential to increase recovery factors in unconventional reservoirs much higher than is currently being achieved
through primary production [10]. CO2 Huff-n-Puff is a three-step process, and an inherent advantage is the near-
wellbore pressure changes (i.e., increase in pressure because of injection) that may help improve CO2 penetration into
the tight matrix of unconventional reservoirs.

 Step 1: CO2 is injected in the production well.

 Step 2: The well is shut in for a predetermined time called the “soak period.”
 Step 3: The well is returned to production, and oil flows toward the wellbore because of a pressure sink.
URTeC 2870010 2

In the mid-1990s, Texaco conducted early conventional CO2 Huff-n-Puff trials in the Permian Grayburg and San
Andres formations [11]. The Central Vacuum Unit (CVU) trial did not meet expectations, and the incremental oil was
equivalent to deferred production. However, experience from the CVU trial was used to design the second trial at the
Sundown Slaughter Unit (SSU) in the San Andres formation. The test was technically a success and produced 1,400
bbl of incremental oil, which equates to a utilization of 25 Mscf/bbl; however, the project at that time was considered
uneconomic with oil prices at $12-15/bbl [11]. The target utilization needed to make the project economical was 8
Mscf/bbl.

In 2008, experiments conducted using Monterey siliceous shale reservoir cores for depleted pressure, near-miscible,
and miscible conditions revealed that around 54% recovery can be achieved with miscible CO2 injection under
laboratory conditions [12, 13]. Experimental results showed that CO2 injection may be a technically feasible EOR method
for unconventional reservoirs (a tight matrix system with natural and propped fractures). Moreover, a detailed review
of more than 70 CO2 Huff-n-Puff projects implemented in Jiangsu oilfield showed that wells with poor inter-well
communication and low-perm fractured producers showed better performance than wells with good inter-well
communication or wells that were a part of a pattern flood [14]. Huff-n-Puff is a practical process with lots of unknowns
and requires extensive field experience (trial and error) for optimizing the process variables (cycle number,
soak/injection/production times). Laboratory experiments conducted using Mancos and Eagle Ford cores showed that
CO2 Huff-n-Puff can improve oil recovery 33% to 85%, depending on the core type and operational parameters [7].

Methodology

The methodology followed in this study to understand miscible CO2 Huff-n-Puff process mechanisms consisted of an
integrated workflow that utilized Design of Experiments (DOE). This approach, often used to scope newly discovered
oil and gas developments, was adopted to design an injection-soak-production scheme for a Huff-n-Puff to be
implemented in an unconventional reservoir. Figure 1 shows the method followed to design an optimal Huff-n-Puff
cycle scheme for field trials.

CO2 Supply Lne

Uncertainty Assessment

Huff-n-Puff Cycle Optimization

Assisted History Match Design for CO2 Huff-n-Puff Field Tests

MMP

Base Compositional Model

Figure 1: Workflow followed for optimal Huff-n-Puff design

URTeC 2870010 3

Mechanistic Model Description

The workflow we used to understand the process utilizes a simple mechanistic compositional model that incorporates
a reasonable description of the expected rock and fluid properties and hydraulic fractures. Figure 2 shows
characteristics of the base case (initial realization) of the mechanistic model used to study the Huff-n-Puff process
mechanisms. The base model included a single vertical well with 275 ft of fracture half-length (Xf). The hydraulic
fractures were modeled using local grid refinement (LGR). Furthermore, the cells surrounding the fracture were also
refined to capture the elliptical pressure profiles typically associated with hydraulic fractures.

Figure 2: Mechanistic model description

Fluid Characterization:

The compositional model had 11 components and used the Peng-Robinson Equation of State (PR EOS). A complete
pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) report with black oil (BO) laboratory tests for the light oil was used for EOS
modeling. Figure 3 shows the match for EOS and laboratory results. Because the swelling data was not available, the
EOS was tuned only to BO tests, and the MMP predicted from the model was compared to pure CO 2 correlations [15].
URTeC 2870010 4

Figure 3: Fluid characterization for Huff-n-Puff study: the green points show laboratory data, and the red line represents modeled EOS.

Model Calibration and Forecast:

The base case mechanistic model was calibrated to the primary production performance trend for the target
unconventional formation using assisted history matching. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the primary and CO2 Huff-n-
Puff (HNP) forecast for the calibrated base case. The cycle scheme for the non-optimized (base case) Huff-n-Puff
forecast assumes a schedule of 10 days of injection at 1.0 MMscfd, 7 days of soaking, and 180 days of production.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show that the incremental oil realized was around 23% over a period of 2 years, and the gross
utilization was around 22 Mscf/bbl.

Figure 4: Base case (non-optimized) Huff-n-Puff forecast rates

URTeC 2870010 5

Figure 5: Base case (non-optimized) Huff-n-Puff forecast volumes

Effect of Molecular Diffusion:

The literature indicates that molecular diffusivity is an important parameter needed to capture the “real physics” during
CO2 injection in tight oil reservoirs [6], so the effect of molecular diffusion was evaluated in our study. The Sigmund
method was used to model molecular diffusion for oil and gas phases [16]. This method uses correlations to calculate
the molecular diffusivities using the specified components’ critical properties [20]. The coefficients of molecular
diffusion can also be determined in laboratory experiments [17-19]. The simulation runs conducted show that, for the
modeled reservoir conditions and fluid characteristics, molecular diffusion had no major effect on incremental
recovery. However, the run time increased 8- to 10- fold. Since the effect on recovery was minimal, molecular
diffusion was not included in our cycle optimization work.

Cycle Scheme Optimization

Optimizing the injection-soak-production design greatly influences CO2 Huff-n-Puff performance. Net present value
(NPV) was chosen as the objective function for CO2 Huff-n-Puff cycle scheme optimization. Reasonable assumptions
for oil and CO2 prices were used for the NPV calculations. Figure 6 shows the simulation run results, which indicate
that an increase in CO2 injection time improves the NPV. A detailed review of all the runs showed that increases in
CO2 injection volume improved incremental Huff-n-Puff oil recovery and the resulting project NPV. Figure 7 shows
that larger soak times had no major impact on project performance, and Figure 8 shows no strong correlation between
NPV and production time, since Huff-n-Puff cycle production time was dependent on injection time.
URTeC 2870010 6

35

30

Injection Time (Days)

25

20

15

10

0
400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000
Field NPV $
General Solution Base Case Optimal Solution

Figure 6: Cycle scheme optimization results – injection time vs. field NPV

35

30
Soak Time (Days)

25

20

15

10

0
400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000
Field NPV $
General Solution Base Case Optimal Solution

Figure 7: Cycle scheme optimization results – soak time vs. field NPV

250
Production Time (Days)

200

150

100

50

0
400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000
Field NPV $
General Solution Base Case Optimal Solution

Figure 8: Cycle scheme optimization results – production time vs. field NPV
URTeC 2870010 7

Figure 9 shows the results for the optimized Huff-n-Puff cycle scheme compared with the primary depletion forecast.
The optimized cycle scheme involved 22 days of injection at 1.0 MMscfd, 2 days of soaking, and 80 days of
production. The Huff-n-Puff wedge was 81% higher than primary production (compared with 23% for the non-
optimized case, Figure 4 and Figure 5). In addition, the gross utilization calculated was 25 Mscf/bbl (compared with
22 Mscf/bbl for the non-optimized case).

Figure 9: Huff-n-Puff forecast volumes for optimized cycle scheme

Uncertainty Assessment

After the optimal cycle design was selected for field implementation, the main objective of the uncertainty study was
to identify the key input parameters that affected the best operating scheme. The uncertain parameters studied included
hydraulic fracture conductivity (md-ft), water saturation (%), average reservoir pressure (psi), matrix porosity (%),
Kv/Kh (fraction), and CO2 injection volume (MMscf). Figure 10 shows the uncertainty assessment results using the
optimal cycle scheme. The black line shows the oil production for the optimal cycle using the initial input parameters,
and the blue lines represent the simulation runs conducted to capture the uncertainty matrix. Figure 10 also shows that
for all cases, the CO2 Huff-n-Puff efficiency decreases with process maturity or cycle number. Therefore, for future
studies a variable cycle scheme, similar to a tapered water-alternating-gas (WAG) flood deployed in conventional
fields, should be investigated to further optimize Huff-n-Puff EOR performance in unconventional fields.

Uncertainty assessment also revealed that project NPV and incremental oil production are sensitive mainly to (a) water
saturation, (b) reservoir pressure, and (c) injection rate. The other parameters investigated did not have a major impact
on NPV. For example, an increase in fracture permeability did not have any major effect on incremental oil recovery.
Figure 11 shows that higher reservoir pressure has a strong influence on increased oil production, as this improves the
EOR process extraction efficiency. Figure 12 shows that an increase in water saturation lowers the resulting oil
production and project NPV. In addition, analysis of the effect of injection rate revealed that the total mass of CO2
injected (the combined effect of rate and time) was proportional to incremental oil production and resulting project
NPV.
URTeC 2870010 8

Figure 10: Uncertainty assessment for CO2 Huff-n-Puff using the optimal cycle scheme

6,000

5,500
Reservoir Pressure (psi)

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Field NPV $
Base Case General Solution

Figure 11: Uncertainty assessment results – reservoir pressure vs. field NPV

70%
65%
60%
55%
Water Saturation

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Field NPV $
Base Case General Solution

Figure 12: Uncertainty assessment results – water saturation vs. field NPV
URTeC 2870010 9

Effect of Natural Fractures on Process Performance

The presence of hydraulic and natural fractures provides a large contact area for injected gas to penetrate into the low-
permeability matrix to improve recovery. Therefore, the effect of natural fractures on Huff-n-Puff process performance
was evaluated using our model. Figure 13 shows the description of a low-pressure naturally fractured reservoir system
to be compared with the hydraulically fractured formation described in Figure 2. The fluid characteristics were same
for both, as described in Figure 3. The Huff-n-Puff cycle scheme modeled involved 30 days of injection at 1.0 MMscfd,
2 days of soaking, followed by 40 days of production. Figure 14 shows the Huff-n-Puff wedge was 250% higher than
primary production for the naturally fractured reservoir, compared to 81% higher for the optimized hydraulically
fractured case (Figure 9). In addition, the calculated gross utilization was 18 Mscf/bbl for the naturally fractured case,
compared to 25 Mscf/bbl for the optimized hydraulically fractured case (Figure 9).

Figure 13: Low-pressure, fractured mechanistic model description

Figure 14: Huff-n-Puff forecast volumes for low-pressure, fractured mechanistic model
URTeC 2870010 10

Effect of Injection Gas Composition on Process Performance

The effect of injection gas composition on incremental oil production was evaluated next. The injectants evaluated
included CO2, wet gas (C1 ~ 65 mole %, C2 ~ 15 mole %, C3+ ~ 20 mole %), and methane (CH4). The optimized
hydraulically fractured case, Figure 9, was used for performance comparison. Figure 15 shows that CO2 had the
highest recovery efficiency. For CH4 injection, the incremental oil wedge could not even make up for deferred
production (injection and soak steps). For wet gas injection, a slight improvement in performance was observed when
compared with the no injection case.

Figure 15: Effect of injection gas composition on incremental oil production

Conclusion

A detailed literature review and the integrated workflow study indicate that:

 CO2 Huff-n-Puff may be a technically feasible EOR method for unconventional reservoirs. This is a single
well process for which well-to-well connectivity is not required. It is not influenced by well design and may
have applications in various unconventional plays.
 Our study indicates vaporization of lighter oil components and IFT reduction (at pressures above the MMP)
are the main recovery mechanisms. The effect of diffusion was investigated using the Sigmund method
(molecular diffusivities were calculated using the specified components’ critical properties), and it was
concluded that molecular diffusion had no major effect on incremental recovery for the modeled reservoir
and fluid conditions.
 The study suggests that incremental oil recovery is proportional to the mass of injected CO2, and longer soak
times have no major impact on project performance for the modeled reservoir conditions and fluid
characteristics.
 Optimization of cycles is critical and can result in reasonable increase in oil production at acceptable
utilization ratios. An optimal cycle scheme was selected for field trials. Once data from initial field trails is
available, a variable cycle scheme will be investigated to further optimize Huff-n-Puff EOR performance
 A reasonable time to switch a well back to injection was found to be when the oil production returns to the
pre-treatment base decline rate.
URTeC 2870010 11

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the management of Occidental Petroleum Corporation for permission to publish this paper.
Thanks also go to Jeanne Perdue for editing this manuscript.

References
1. Carpenter, C. (2014). Enhanced Recovery in Unconventional Liquid Reservoirs by Use of CO₂. Journal of
Petroleum Technology (July), pp. 138-141.

2. Sun, J., Zou, A., and Schechter, D. (2016). Experimental and Numerical Studies of CO₂ EOR in
Unconventional Liquid Reservoirs with Complex Fracture Networks. SPE-179634-MS. Presented at the
SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Tulsa Oklahoma, USA, 11-13 April 2016.

3. Wan, T., Sheng, J J., and Soliman, M. (2013). Evaluate EOR Potential in Fractured Shale Oil Reservoirs by
Cyclic Gas Injection. SPE 168880 / URTeC 1611383. Presented at the Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 12-14 August 2013.

4. Jia, B., Tsau, J.-S., and Barati, R. (2017). Role of Molecular Diffusion in Heterogeneous Shale Reservoirs
During CO₂ Huff-n-puff. SPE-185797-MS. Presented at the SPE Europec featured at 79th EAGE
Conference and Exhibition held in Paris, France, 12-15 June 2017.

5. Kanfar, M.S., and Clarkson, C.R. (2017). Factors Affecting Huff-n-Puff Efficiency in Hydraulically
Fractured Tight Reservoirs. SPE-185062-MS. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference
held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15-16 February 2017.

6. Alfarge, D., Wei, M., Bai, B., and Almansour, A. (2017). Effect of Molecular-Diffusion Mechanisim on
CO₂ Huff-n-Puff Process in Shale-Oil Reservoirs. SPE-188003-MS. Presented at the SPE Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 24-27 April
2017.

7. Gamadi, T.D., Sheng, J.J., Soliman, M.Y., Menouar, H., Watson, M.C., and Emadibaladehi, H. (2014). An
Experimental Study of Cyclic CO₂ Injection to Improve Shale Oil Recovery. SPE-169142-MS. Presented
at the SPE Improved Of Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12-16 April 2014.

8. Liu, S., Sahni, V., and Hsu, C.-F. (2014). A Novel Method of Forecasting CO₂ Flood Performance for
Various WAG Injection Schemes by Analyzing Injection Pulses. SPE-169086-MS. Presented at the SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12-16 April 2014.

9. Lake, L.W. (1989). Enhanced Oil Recovery. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

10. Liu, S., Sahni, V., Tan, J., Beckett, D., and Vo, T., (2018). Laboratory Investigation for EOR techniques for
Organic Rich Shales in the Permian Basin. URTeC-2890074, presented at the Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 23-25 July 2018.

11. Wehner, S. C., & Kovar, M. (1997). CO₂ Huff-n-Puff Process in a Light Oil Shallow Shelf Carbonate
Reservoir. Annual Technical Progress Report, January 1998.

12. Kovscek, A.R., Tang, G.Q., and Vega, B. (2008). Experimental Investigation of Oil Recovery from
Siliceous Shale by CO₂ Injection. SPE 115679. Presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 Sept 2008.
URTeC 2870010 12

13. Vega, B., O'Brian, W.J., and Kovscek, A.R. (2010). Experimental Investigation of Oil Recovery from
Siliceous Shale by Miscible CO₂ Injection. SPE 135627. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19-22 Sept 2010.

14. Yang, F., Deng, J., and Xue, Y. (2010). Jiangsu Oilfield's Carbon Dioxide Cyclic Stimulation Operations:
Lessons Learned and Experiences Gained. SPE 139599. Presented at the SPE International Conference on
CO₂ Capture, Storage, and Utilization held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 10-12 November 2010.

15. Yuan, H., Johns, R.T., Egwuenu, A.M., and Dindoruk, H. (2008). Improved MMP Correlations for CO2
Floods Using Analytical Gasflooding Theory. SPE-89359. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 2004.

16. Sigmund, P.M. (1976). Prediction of Molecular Diffusion at Reservoir Conditions. Part II - Estimating the
Effects of Molecular Diffusion and Convective Mixing in Multicomponent Systems. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology.

17. Le Romancer, J.-F., and Fernandes, G. (1994). Mechanism of Oil Recovery by Gas Diffusion in Fractured
Reservoir in Presence of Water. SPE-27746-MS. Presented at the PE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 1994.

18. Lagalaye, Y., Nectoux, A., and Ames, N. (2002). Characterization of Acid Gas Diffusion in a Carbonate
Fractured Reservoir Through Experimental Studies, Numerical Simulation and Field Pilots. SPE-77339-
MS. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 2002.

19. Darvish, G.R., Lindeberg, E.G., Holt, T., Kleppe, J., and Utne, S.A. (2006). Reservoir Conditions
Laboratory Experiments of CO2 Injection into Fractured Cores. SPE-99649-MS. Presented at the SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 2006.

20. CMG user guide, (2016). Computer Modeling Group LTD.