油气泡沫提高采收率现场试验碳足迹评价

Orlando Castellanos Diaz, Amit Katiyar, A. Hassanzadeh, Matthew S Crosley, Troy Knight, P. Rozowski
{"title":"油气泡沫提高采收率现场试验碳足迹评价","authors":"Orlando Castellanos Diaz, Amit Katiyar, A. Hassanzadeh, Matthew S Crosley, Troy Knight, P. Rozowski","doi":"10.2118/209366-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n EOR intervention methods, such as surfactant injection for in-situ foam as a conformance improvement, help increase energy efficiency of the EOR process. However, it is very important to have a calculation framework that identifies actual values to these energy efficiency benefits and contrast them with the energy requirements of making the EOR intervention methods work in the field. Such a calculation framework was introduced in this work with a life cycle thinking approach. To showcase the calculation methodology, a foam assisted gas-EOR process trial was used as an example of a successful EOR intervention technology, specifically a field pilot from a trial between Dow Chemical and MD America Energy (SPE 201199). Injection and production data, together with industry averages on electricity generation, gas compression, and water treatment, were utilized to calculate energy input into the process prior, during, and post-trial. Energy differences due to the foam technology deployment were translated into carbon footprint equivalence and contrasted with the carbon footprint of manufacturing and transporting the surfactant. A benefit-to-burden carbon footprint ratio of 21 was obtained, which means that for every carbon units emitted while producing the foaming agent 21 carbon units would be saved when implementing the technology as opposed to not implementing it. On a per barrel basis, the carbon footprint of the technology is reduced by more than 50% when using the foam additive than the baseline, even including the carbon footprint of making the material. The calculations also showed that the gas compression and separation steps dominate the energy inputs of the EOR intervention method.","PeriodicalId":10935,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Mon, April 25, 2022","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Carbon Footprint for a Hydrocarbon Foam EOR Field Pilot\",\"authors\":\"Orlando Castellanos Diaz, Amit Katiyar, A. Hassanzadeh, Matthew S Crosley, Troy Knight, P. Rozowski\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/209366-ms\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n EOR intervention methods, such as surfactant injection for in-situ foam as a conformance improvement, help increase energy efficiency of the EOR process. However, it is very important to have a calculation framework that identifies actual values to these energy efficiency benefits and contrast them with the energy requirements of making the EOR intervention methods work in the field. Such a calculation framework was introduced in this work with a life cycle thinking approach. To showcase the calculation methodology, a foam assisted gas-EOR process trial was used as an example of a successful EOR intervention technology, specifically a field pilot from a trial between Dow Chemical and MD America Energy (SPE 201199). Injection and production data, together with industry averages on electricity generation, gas compression, and water treatment, were utilized to calculate energy input into the process prior, during, and post-trial. Energy differences due to the foam technology deployment were translated into carbon footprint equivalence and contrasted with the carbon footprint of manufacturing and transporting the surfactant. A benefit-to-burden carbon footprint ratio of 21 was obtained, which means that for every carbon units emitted while producing the foaming agent 21 carbon units would be saved when implementing the technology as opposed to not implementing it. On a per barrel basis, the carbon footprint of the technology is reduced by more than 50% when using the foam additive than the baseline, even including the carbon footprint of making the material. The calculations also showed that the gas compression and separation steps dominate the energy inputs of the EOR intervention method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10935,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 1 Mon, April 25, 2022\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 1 Mon, April 25, 2022\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/209366-ms\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Mon, April 25, 2022","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/209366-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

提高采收率的干预措施,如注入表面活性剂来改善原位泡沫,有助于提高提高采收率过程的能源效率。然而,重要的是要有一个计算框架来确定这些能源效率效益的实际值,并将其与使EOR干预方法在现场发挥作用的能源需求进行比较。这种计算框架在本工作中以生命周期思维方法引入。为了展示计算方法,本文以泡沫辅助气驱EOR工艺试验为例,介绍了一种成功的EOR干预技术,特别是陶氏化学公司和MD美国能源公司的现场试验(SPE 201199)。注入和生产数据,以及发电、气体压缩和水处理的行业平均数据,被用来计算试验前、试验中和试验后的能量输入。由于泡沫技术部署造成的能量差异被转化为碳足迹当量,并与制造和运输表面活性剂的碳足迹进行对比。得到的效益-负担碳足迹比为21,这意味着在生产发泡剂时每排放一个碳单位,实施该技术将比不实施该技术节省21个碳单位。以每桶为基础,使用泡沫添加剂时,该技术的碳足迹比基线减少了50%以上,甚至包括制造材料的碳足迹。计算还表明,气体压缩和分离步骤主导了提高采收率干预方法的能量输入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of Carbon Footprint for a Hydrocarbon Foam EOR Field Pilot
EOR intervention methods, such as surfactant injection for in-situ foam as a conformance improvement, help increase energy efficiency of the EOR process. However, it is very important to have a calculation framework that identifies actual values to these energy efficiency benefits and contrast them with the energy requirements of making the EOR intervention methods work in the field. Such a calculation framework was introduced in this work with a life cycle thinking approach. To showcase the calculation methodology, a foam assisted gas-EOR process trial was used as an example of a successful EOR intervention technology, specifically a field pilot from a trial between Dow Chemical and MD America Energy (SPE 201199). Injection and production data, together with industry averages on electricity generation, gas compression, and water treatment, were utilized to calculate energy input into the process prior, during, and post-trial. Energy differences due to the foam technology deployment were translated into carbon footprint equivalence and contrasted with the carbon footprint of manufacturing and transporting the surfactant. A benefit-to-burden carbon footprint ratio of 21 was obtained, which means that for every carbon units emitted while producing the foaming agent 21 carbon units would be saved when implementing the technology as opposed to not implementing it. On a per barrel basis, the carbon footprint of the technology is reduced by more than 50% when using the foam additive than the baseline, even including the carbon footprint of making the material. The calculations also showed that the gas compression and separation steps dominate the energy inputs of the EOR intervention method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Determination of Transmission Coefficient and Electric Field Distribution of Rice Husk/ Pcl Composites Using Finite Element Method for Microwave Devices Mechanical Properties Evaluation in Friction Stir Welding of Different Pipes The chemistry of aluminum salts in papermaking Comparative study of guar gum and its cationic derivatives as pre-flocculating polymers for PCC fillers in papermaking applications Ultrastructural behavior of cell wall polysaccharides
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1