CMTC 151183

Simulation Study of CO2-assisted Waterflooding for Enhanced Heavy Oil

Recovery and Geological Storage
M. Derakhshanfar, M. Nasehi, SPE, IPAC-CO2 Research Inc., K. Asghari, SPE, Husky Energy Inc.

Copyright 2012, Carbon Management Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Carbon Management Technology Conference held in Orlando, Florida, USA, 79 February 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by a CMTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Carbon Management Technology Conference, its officers, or members.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Carbon Management Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of CMTC copyright.

Abstract
CO2 injection has been used in the oil industry as an effective technique for enhanced recovery of light to medium oils.
However, its utilization for heavy oil recovery has not gained enough attention because of the immiscible nature of heavy oil
and CO2. Due to high solubility of CO2 in both water and oil, the overall heavy oil recovery from waterflooding can be
improved by adding CO2 to the injected water. CO2 injection for the geological storage in heavy oil reservoirs can also reduce
its emissions and contribute towards development of clean fossil fuel production and climate change mitigation.
This paper presents the simulation study of injecting CO 2 to improve the efficiency of heavy oil waterflooding and evaluate
the potential of CO2 geological storage as a part of this process. In this study, a compositional simulation model was built
based on a previous experimental work and validated by comparing the simulation results with experimental data. The
sensitivity analysis was run on the validated model to examine the effects of different parameters including injection scheme
(separate slugs of pure CO2/carbonated water and continuous carbonated waterflooding), injection pressure, and CO 2 slug
size on the heavy oil recovery and CO2 storage capacity.
This study shows that CO2 can enhance the efficiency of heavy oil waterfloofing and a considerable amount of CO2 can
be stored inside the porous media. Additional recovery factors up to 28% OOIP were achieved by injecting CO 2 in
combination with water while CO2 storage capacity of 22.593.6% of the injected CO 2 was obtained. It was found that
depending on CO2 injection pressure, different injection schemes can lead to variant accumulative heavy oil productions and
CO2 storage capacities. In general, continuous carbonated waterflooding resulted in a higher amount of CO 2 to be injected
and stored inside the simulation model. In addition, it was observed that increase in the CO 2 injection pressure enhances the
heavy oil recovery and subsequently causes more CO2 to be stored. Moreover, injecting a larger CO2 slug size did not
considerably change the ultimate accumulative heavy oil production and CO2 storage capacity.

Introduction
Western Canada has tremendous heavy oil deposits which are mainly located in east-central Alberta and extended into
western Saskatchewan1. These heavy oil deposits are amongst the largest in the world with the estimated OOIP of more than
5201 million m3.2 Effective and economical recovery of such heavy oil deposits has gained considerable attention due to
increase in demand for hydrocarbon fuels and decline in production from conventional light and medium oil resources. The
primary recovery factor from heavy oil reservoirs is typically as low as 68% of the original-oil-in-place (OOIP) which is
mainly because of the extremely high viscosities and almost immobile conditions of the heavy oils under the actual reservoir
conditions3,4. Waterflooding as a secondary recovery method is often employed in heavy oil reservoirs after the primary
recovery period to displace the heavy oil towards the production well. In comparison with the other enhanced oil recovery
processes, waterflooding is certainly cheaper and simpler to employ. However, low recovery factors and poor sweep
efficiencies associated with the high mobility difference between the injected water and the heavy oil, set an economic limit
to the waterflooding process in heavy oil reservoirs5,6.
Over the past six decades, CO2 flooding as a tertiary recovery technique has been successfully applied to enhance the oil
production after the secondary waterflooding7,8. In addition, numerous laboratory studies and numerical simulations have
been conducted to better understand the mechanisms under which CO 2 increases the oil production9,10,11. The performance of
a CO2 flooding process is strongly dependent on the oil viscosity reduction, oil swelling effect, and interfacial property
changes between the crude oil and CO211,12,13. In general, CO2 flooding can be classified as miscible or immiscible processes
2 CMTC 151183

depending on the properties of reservoir fluids under the actual conditions. Under the miscible conditions, the interfacial
tension (IFT) between the crude oil and CO2 is reduced to zero which results in a very low residual oil saturation in the swept
zone. However, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the miscibility conditions in heavy oil reservoirs due to the
high minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) which is sometimes even higher than the reservoir pressure 14. Many researchers
have explained that immiscible CO2 flooding is an important, field-proven heavy oil recovery method, particularly suited for
thin marginal, or otherwise poor heavy oil reservoirs. The displacement is not a miscible process but the favourable effects of
CO2 on heavy oil can still improve the heavy oil recovery15. Immiscible CO2 flooding in heavy oil reservoirs can result in
decreasing the IFT, reducing the heavy oil viscosity, and swelling of the oil 16. The extent of these effects is less pronounced
in comparison with miscible CO2 flooding in light to medium oil reservoirs. The main problem associated with CO2 EOR in
heavy oil reservoirs is due to the extremely high mobility of CO 2 in comparison with that of the original heavy oil. As a
result, the injected CO2 tends to create channels through the oil zone which leaves a large portion of the reservoir untouched.
Injecting CO2 along with water takes advantages of both the CO2 and water flooding processes. The injected CO2 reduces
the oil viscosity while water sweeps the mobilized oil to the production well 17. More specifically, when gas is injected into
the reservoir it acts usually as a non-wetting phase and because of its higher mobility compared with the oil, it tends to
penetrate in low flow resistant regions and it displaces the oil piston-like. However, it does not invade in the whole region
and just tends to pass through high permeability zones. Once water is injected after the CO 2 slug, its mobility is reduced. This
is because the injected CO2 as the non-wetting phase tends to occupy larger pores inside the porous media. Accordingly, the
water entry pressure into these pores is increased and consequently the injected water is forced to enter the lower
permeability regions. As a result, the injected water displaces the remaining oil and also compresses the CO 2 inside the pores
in front of the water slug18. CO2 can also be mixed with water and injected as carbonated water. In this case, CO 2 is more
evenly distributed within the reservoir and thus results in a later CO 2 breakthrough time and an increased sweep efficiency19.
In recent years, the global increasing use of crude oil, natural gas and coal as the main sources of power generation has
caused considerable increase in the CO2 level in the atmosphere. CO2 is considered as the major greenhouse gas that is
emitted both naturally through the carbon cycle and also from human activities such as burning of the fossil fuels. Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) is a promising approach to mitigate global climate change by reducing CO 2 emissions into the
atmosphere. In CCS, CO2 is captured from different industrial processes (e.g., flue gasses, synfuel production), transported,
and injected into deep geological formations for permanent storage. In general, the potential sinks for CO2 storage can be
categorized as its injection for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and storage in oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline aquifers, coal
beds, and salt caverns. Despite having a low estimated CO2 storage capacity in comparison with the other options, EOR
projects are considered as one of the most favourable candidates for CO2 geological storage. This is because the geology of
hydrocarbon reservoirs is generally well understood and the additional oil recovery can offset the cost of CO 2 capture,
transportation, and storage.
In this study, a compositional simulation model is built and run by using CMG GEM module to study the heavy oil
recovery through CO2-assisted waterflooding and also evaluate the potential of CO2 geological storage as a part of this
process. The simulation model is validated by comparing the simulation results with experimental data from a previous study.
The sensitivity analysis is run on the validated model to examine the effects of different parameters including injection
scheme (separate slugs of pure CO2/carbonated water and continuous carbonated waterflooding), injection pressure, and CO2
slug size on the heavy oil recovery and CO2 storage capacity.

Experimental Model
A one-dimensional experimental model was used by Nasehi et al. 20, to conduct the laboratory tests of CO2-assisted
waterflooding on heavy oil-saturated sand-packs. The experimental setup consisted of a Hassler type high-pressure sand-pack
core holder, three transfer cylinders (used to store and deliver the crude oil, water, and CO2, respectively), a syringe pump, a
manual displacement pump, a back pressure regulator, a pressure indicator, and a temperature controller. The core holder was
2.5 cm in internal diameter and 25 cm in length and was packed with un-consolidated sand grains. Prior to each test, the
porosity and permeability of the sand-pack was measured to be in the range of = 3638% and k = 1218.5, respectively.
The initial oil saturation at the connate water saturation prior to waterflooding was in the range of Soi = 9194%. The
sandpack was contained in a rubber sleeve and distilled water was pumped by using a manual displacement pump to apply
the so-called overburden pressure. The experiments were carried out in an air bath and a constant temperature of 30C was
maintained throughout the experiments by using an electric heater and a temperature controller. The fluids were injected into
the sand pack by using the syringe pump and produced through the back pressure regulator which was used to adjust and
maintain the constant pressure of 1 MPa at the effluent. The details of experimental preparations and procedures are reported
elsewhere20.

Simulation Model
In this study, a compositional simulation model was built by using CMG GEM module (Version 2009.11, Computer
Modelling Group Limited, Canada). The simulation model was a 1D Cartesian model and had a total of 2511 grid blocks
with the corresponding dimensions of 12.52.5 cm. The grid size was determined from the performed sensitivity analysis
with respect to the size and number of the grids during the waterflooding. Figure 1 shows the 3D view of the simulation
model used in this study. The simulation model was assumed to have homogeneous porosity and permeability in all
CMTC 151183 3

directions. The injector and producer were positioned at the very left and right grid blocks in the horizontal direction,
respectively. For the heavy crude oil used in laboratory tests, the available data include its composition, density, and
viscosity. The PVT model was constructed by using CMG Winprop module (Version 2009.11) and tuned based on the
available information. The relative permeability curves incorporated in the simulation model are also shown in Figure 2. The
model temperature in all the simulation runs was selected to be T = 30C, based on the experimental coreflooding tests. The
general properties of the simulation model are presented in Table 1.
In order to simulate the initial waterflooding in the sand-pack coreflooding tests, water was injected at a rate of qw = 0.133
cc/min which corresponds to the injection velocity of vw =1 ft/day and terminated after 24 h. In the simulation runs where a
pure CO2 slug was injected after the initial waterflooding, CO2 flooding was commenced right after waterflooding at two
different injection pressures of P = 3600 and 6900 kPa. CO2 was injected at a rate of qco2 = 0.019 cc/min and continued for 12
h until approximately 0.25 P.V. of CO2 was injected into the simulation model. The injected CO2 slug was followed by
waterflooding at the pre-specified water injection rate. In the simulation runs where carbonated water was injected after the
initial waterflooding, two separate injectors were defined and set to simultaneously inject two streams of CO 2 and water.
Similar to the pure CO2 slug injection, water and CO2 were simultaneously injected at the injection rates of qw = 0.133 cc/min
and qco2 = 0.019 cc/min, respectively. The carbonated waterflooding continued for 12 h until approximately 0.25 P.V. of CO 2
was injected into the simulation model. In the continuous carbonated waterflooding runs, the simultaneous water and CO2
injection started after the initial waterflooding and continued until the end of the simulation. The simulations runs were
terminated after 4 days from the beginning of the initial waterflooding in all the cases.

History Matching
In order to validate the numerical simulation model, the experimental data from a previous study 20 has been used. The
available experimental data include accumulative heavy oil, water, and CO 2 productions, watercut, and GOR during the
whole process. The main modifications were made on the three phase relative permeability curves to match the simulation
model results with the experimental data. Figure 3 shows the final history matching results of the accumulative heavy oil
production for three representative tests including injection of a pure CO 2 slug at two different injection pressures of P =
3450 and 6900 kPa and injection of a carbonated water slug at P = 6900 kPa. After the simulation model results were
validated, the sensitivity analysis was run on the validated model to examine the effects of different parameters including
injection scheme (separate slugs of pure CO2/carbonated water and continuous carbonated waterflooding), injection pressure,
and CO2 slug size on the heavy oil recovery and CO2 storage capacity.

Simulation Results and Discussion

In this paper, the simulation results were obtained for three different injection schemes including injecting a separate slug of
pure CO2 or carbonated water for 12 h followed by a continuous final waterflooding period for 60 h, and continuous
carbonated waterflooding for 72 h. It is worthwhile to point out that the all the simulation runs were subject to an initial
waterflooding period for 24 h as mentioned earlier in this paper. In addition, the effects of injection pressure and CO 2 slug
size on both the accumulative heavy oil production and the amount of CO 2 stored inside the model were examined. A new
keyword INVENTORY CO2 was implemented to obtain the exact amount of stored CO2 inside the simulation model.

Effect of injection scheme

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results of simulation runs in terms of accumulative heavy oil production, Qo, recovery factor,
(RF), and the amount of CO2 stored inside the model for three different injection schemes and the injection pressures of 3450
and 6900 kPa, respectively. The accumulative heavy oil production and stored CO 2 curves for these simulation runs are also
shown in Figures 4 and 5.
At P = 3450 kPa, as it can be seen from Table 2 and Figure 4(a), continuous carbonated waterflooding resulted in a higher
accumulative heavy oil production than that in the pure CO 2 and carbonated water slug injection cases. Moreover, injection
of carbonated water slug led to a higher accumulative heavy oil production in comparison with that in the injection of pure
CO2 slug. However, in the runs performed at a higher injection pressure of P = 6900 kPa as presented in Table 3 and Figure
4(b), injection of pure CO2 slug resulted in a slightly higher accumulative heavy oil production in comparison with that in the
injection of carbonated water CO2 slug and continuous carbonated waterflooding. It is speculated that at a low injection
pressure, injection of a carbonated water slug leads to a better macroscopic sweep efficiency that that in injection of pure CO2
slug, since the carbonated water is more evenly distributed inside the porous medium. Nevertheless, higher CO 2 injection
pressure enhances the CO2 swelling effect and thus increases the microscopic sweep efficiency. As a result at a higher CO2
injection pressure, the accumulative heavy oil production in the injection of a pure CO 2 slug is higher than that in the other
two injection schemes. It was also observed that in the runs where a pure CO 2 slug was injected into the model, the
accumulative heavy oil production increased more quickly at the beginning of CO 2 injection in comparison with the runs
where carbonated water was injected into the model.
It was noted that continuous carbonated waterflooding resulted in more CO2 to be injected and also stored inside the
model in comparison with the other injection schemes. In addition, comparison of the amount of CO 2 stored inside the model
shows that at a lower CO2 injection pressure, injection of a pure CO 2 slug resulted in a higher mass of CO2 to be stored inside
the simulation model in comparison with that in injection of carbonated water slug, as presented in Table 2 and Figure 5(a).
4 CMTC 151183

However, at higher CO2 injection pressure, the amount of CO2 stored inside the model is higher in carbonated water slug
injection in comparison with that in pure CO2 slug injection. This is probably because at a higher pressure, more CO 2 will be
dissolved into both the injection water stream therefore causes more CO 2 to be stored inside the simulation model.

Effect of injection pressure

In order to study the effect of injection pressure, the simulations were run at pressures of P = 3000, 4000, 5000, and 6000
kPa for each CO2 injection scheme as mentioned earlier in this paper. The accumulative heavy oil production results are
shown in Figures 6(a)(c). During the initial waterflooding, the accumulative heavy oil production did not change
considerably with increasing the injection pressure. However, higher CO 2 injection pressure resulted in a higher accumulative
heavy oil production. This is due to an increase in CO 2 solubility into the heavy oil at a higher pressure which leads to a
higher oil swelling effect and more viscosity reduction as well. It can also be seen from Figures 6(a)(c) that the effect of
CO2 injection pressure is more pronounced in the run where a pure CO 2 slug was injected into the simulation model in
comparison with the other injection schemes.
Figures 7(a)(c) show the effect of CO2 injection pressure on the amount of CO2 stored inside the simulation model for
three injection schemes. As it can be seen from these figures, an increase in the CO 2 injection pressure leads to a
corresponding increase in the amount of CO2 stored inside the simulation model. It was observed that in the run where a pure
CO2 slug was injected into the model, the amount of CO2 stored inside the model increased sharply at the beginning of CO 2
injection (before CO2 breakthrough) and started to decline (after CO 2 breakthrough) until it reached an almost stabilized
value. At lower CO2 injection pressure, the initial sharp increase in the amount of CO 2 stored is less pronounced. It is
worthwhile to mention that CO2 breakthrough occurred at a relatively later time in carbonated waterflooding runs in
comparison with that in pure CO2 injection runs.

Effect of CO2 slug size

In this paper, the effect of CO2 slug size on the accumulative heavy oil production and amount of CO 2 stored inside the model
was studied by injecting two different slug sizes of 0.25 and 0.5 P.V. for both the pure CO 2 and carbonated water slug
injection cases at P = 6000 kPa. Figures 8(a) and (b) show the accumulative heavy oil production results for the pure CO 2
slug and carbonated water slug injections, respectively. It was observed that a larger CO2 slug size can enhance the oil
production only at the beginning of CO 2 injection. The results clearly show that the final accumulative heavy oil production
curves reached a similar value at the end of each run. This is because higher injected CO2 volume is mainly produced along
with the heavy oil and did not contribute to additional oil production.
Figures 9(a) and (b) show the effect of CO2 slug size on the amount of CO2 stored inside the simulation model for both
the pure CO2 and carbonated water slug injection cases at P = 6000 kPa. It can be seen from Figure 9(a) that a higher CO 2
slug size did not cause a noticeable change in the amount of CO 2 stored for the pure CO2 slug injection case while it slightly
reduced the amount of CO2 stored inside the simulation for the carbonated waterflooding case, as shown in Figure 9(b).

Conclusions
In this study, a compositional simulation model was built and run by using CMG GEM module to study the heavy oil
recovery through CO2-assisted waterflooding and also evaluate the potential of CO2 geological storage as a part of this
process. The effects of different parameters including injection scheme (separate slugs of pure CO 2/carbonated water and
continuous carbonated waterflooding), injection pressure, and CO2 slug size on the heavy oil recovery and CO2 storage
capacity was examined. It is concluded that CO 2-assisted waterflooding can significantly enhance the heavy oil production
rate. The incremental heavy oil recovery factors up to 28% of OOIP along with the CO2 storage capacities of 22.593.6% of
the injected CO2 were achieved. At a lower pressure, continuous carbonated waterflooding results in a higher accumulative
heavy oil production in comparison with that in the pure CO 2 and carbonated water slug injection cases. However, at a higher
CO2 injection pressure, injection of pure CO2 slug resulted in a slightly higher accumulative heavy oil production in
comparison with that in the injection of carbonated water slug and continuous carbonated waterflooding. In general, it was
observed that continuous carbonated waterflooding resulted in more CO 2 to be injected and also stored inside the model in
comparison with other injection schemes. Moreover, higher CO 2 injection pressure caused an increase in the amount of CO2
stored inside the model. It was observed that a larger CO2 slug size can enhance the oil production only at the beginning of
CO2 injection. A higher CO2 slug size did not cause a noticeable change in the amount of CO 2 stored inside the model for the
pure CO2 slug case while it resulted in an even lower amount of CO2 to be stored for the carbonated water slug injection case.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the Computer Modelling Group (CMG) for granting the simulation software license to
IPAC-CO2 Research Inc. Technical assistance from Ms. Fakhteh Ahmadi and Ms. Zhuldyzay Baimyrza are also highly
appreciated.
CMTC 151183 5

References
1. Petroleum Communication Foundation, Canadas Oil Sands and Heavy Oil, Petroleum Communication Foundation,
Calgary, Alberta, 2000.
2. Bradley W. Brice, , and G. Renouf, Increasing Oil Recovery From Heavy Oil Waterfloods, Paper SPE 117327-MS,
presented at SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, 20-23 October 2008, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
3. Borregales, C.J., Production Characteristics and Oil Recovery in the Orinoco Oil Belt, Proceedings of the 1 st UNITAR
Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 498509, June 412, 1979.
4. Butler, R.M., and Mokrys, I.J., A New Process (VAPEX) for Recovering Heavy Oils Using Hot Water and
Hydrocarbon Vapour, J. Can. Pet. Technol., 30(1), 97106, 1991.
5. Kumar, M., Hoang, V., Satik, C., and Rojas, D.H., High Mobility Ratio Water Flood Performance Prediction:
Challenges and New Insights, Paper SPE 97671, The SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia
Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 56, 2005.
6. Green, D.W., and Willhite, G.P., Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE Textbook Series, Volume 6, Richardson, Texas, 1998.
7. Stalkup Jr., F.I., Miscible Displacement, SPE Monograph Series, Volume 8, Richardson, TX, 1983.
8. Farouq Ali, S.M., and Thomas, S., The Promise and Problems of Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods, J. Can. Pet.
Technol., 35 (9), 5763, 1996.
9. Chung, F.T.H., Jones, R.A., and Burchfield, T.E., Recovery of Viscous Oil under High Pressure by CO 2 Displacement:
A Laboratory Study, Paper SPE 17588, SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China,
November 14 1988.
10. Lackland, S.D., and Hurford, G.T., Advanced Technology Improves Recovery at Fairway, J. Pet.Technol., 25 (3),
354358, 1973.
11. Srivastava, R.K., and Huang, S.S., Technical Feasibility of CO2 Flooding in Weyburn ReservoirA Laboratory
Investigation, J. Can. Pet. Technol., 36 (10), 4855, 1997.
12. Farouq Ali, S.M., and Thomas, S., Enhanced Oil Recovery-What We Have Learned, J. Can. Pet. Technol., 39 (2), 7
11, 2000.
13. Simon, R., Graue, D.J., Generalized Correlations for Predicting Solubility, Swelling and Viscosity Behavior of Crude
OilCO2 Systems, J. Pet. Technol., 17 (1), 102106, 1965.
14. Chung, F.T.H., Jones, R.A., and Burchfield, T.E., Recovery of Viscous Oil under High Pressure by CO2 Displacement:
A laboratory Study, Paper SPE SPE 17588, SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China,
November 1-4, 1988.
15. Al-Quraini, A., Sohrabi, M. and Jamiolahmadi, Heavy Oil Recovery by Liquid CO 2/Water Injection, Paper SPE
107163, EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and Exhibition, London, UK., June 11-14, 2007.
16. Holm, L.W., and Josendal, V.A., Effect of Oil Composition on Miscible-type Displacement by Carbon Dioxide, SPE
Journal 22(1), 8798, 1982.
17. Ghedan, S., Global Laboratory Experience of CO2EOR Flooding, Paper SPE 125581, SPE/EAGE Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, October 1921 2009.
18. Christensen, J.R., Stenby, E.H., and Skauge, A., Review of WAG Field Experience, SPE Res. Eval. & Eng., 4(2), 97
106, 2001.
19. Kechut, N.I., Sohrabi, M., and Jamiolahmady, M., Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of Carbonated Water
Injection (CWI) for Improved Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage, Paper SPE 143005, SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual
Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, May 2326, 2011.
20. Nasehi, M., Asghari, K., Use of CO2 in Heavy Oil Waterflooding, Paper SPE 139672, SPE International Conference on
CO2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 1012 November 2010
6 CMTC 151183

Table 1: Reservoir model and fluid properties.

Property Value
Length (cm) 25
Width (cm) 2.5
Height (cm) 2.5
Grid blocks (LWH) 2511
Permeability (Darcy) 12
Porosity (%) 36
Connate water saturation (%) 10
Initial temperature (C) 30
Initial pressure (kPa) 3450
Oil density (kg/m3) 0.986
Oil viscosity (mPas) 2000

Table 2: Summary of the simulation results in terms of cumulative oil production and CO 2 storage capacity for
different injection scenarios at P = 3450.
P = 3450 kPa
Waterflooding Whole process CO2 injected CO2 stored CO2 stored
Injection scheme Qo RF Qo RF
(cc) (%) (cc) (%) (g) (g) (%)
water+CO2 slug+water 21.3 19.2 46.6 42.0 2.2 1.9 86.3
water+carbonated water slug+water 21.3 19.2 53.2 47.9 2.2 1.7 77.2
water+continuous carbonated water 21.2 19.1 54.0 48.6 9.9 2.2 22.2

Table 3: Summary of the simulation results in terms of cumulative oil production and CO 2 storage capacity for
different injection scenarios at P = 6900 kPa.

P = 6900 kPa
Waterflooding Whole process CO2 injected CO2 stored CO2 stored
Injection scheme Qo RF Qo RF
(cc) (%) (cc) (%) (g) (g) (%)
water+CO2 slug+water 23.1 20.8 56.7 51.1 4.7 4.3 91.4
water+carbonated water slug+water 23.2 20.9 56.3 50.7 4.7 4.4 93.6
water+continuous carbonated water 23.2 20.9 56.0 50.4 26.2 5.9 22.5
CMTC 151183 7

Figure 1. 3-D view of the numerical simulation model with the injection and production wells locations.

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Relative permeability curves for (a) oil/water and (b) oil/gas systems.
8 CMTC 151183

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 3. History matching results of the accumulative heavy oil production for (a) injection of a pure CO 2 slug at P =
3450, (b) injection of a pure CO2 slug at P = 6900 kPa, and (c) injection of a carbonated water slug at P = 6900 kPa.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. The accumulative heavy oil production curves for three different CO 2 injection schemes at (a) P = 3450 and
(b) P = 6900 kPa.
CMTC 151183 9

(a) (b)
Figure 5. The amount of CO2 stored inside the simulation model for three different CO 2 injection schemes at (a) P =
3450 and (b) P = 6900 kPa.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 6. The accumulative heavy oil production curves at different injection pressures for (a) pure CO 2 slug
injection, (b) carbonated water slug injection, and (c) continuous carbonated waterflooding.
10 CMTC 151183

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 7. The amount of CO2 stored inside the simulation model at different injection pressures for (a) pure CO 2 slug
injection, (b) carbonated water slug injection, and (c) continuous carbonated waterflooding.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. The accumulative heavy oil production curves with different CO2 slug sizes of 0.25 and 0.5 P.V. for (a) pure
CO2 slug injection and (b) carbonated water slug injection.
CMTC 151183 11

(a) (b)
Figure 9. The amount of CO2 stored inside the simulation model with different CO 2 slug sizes of 0.25 and 0.5 P.V. for
(a) pure CO2 slug injection and (b) carbonated water slug injection.