Mitigation of Gas Condensate Banking Using Thermochemical Fluids and Gemini Surfactant: A Comparison Study

Amjed Hassan, M. Mahmoud, M. Kamal, A. Al-Majed, A. Al-Nakhli, S. M. S. Hussain, S. Patil
{"title":"Mitigation of Gas Condensate Banking Using Thermochemical Fluids and Gemini Surfactant: A Comparison Study","authors":"Amjed Hassan, M. Mahmoud, M. Kamal, A. Al-Majed, A. Al-Nakhli, S. M. S. Hussain, S. Patil","doi":"10.2118/206023-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Accumulation of condensate liquid around the production well can cause a significant reduction in gas production. Several methods are used to mitigate the condensate bank and maintain the gas production. The most effective approaches are altering the rock wettability or inducing multiple fractures around the wellbore. This paper presents a comparison study for two effective approaches in mitigating the condensate bank. The performance of thermochemical fluids (TCF) and gemini surfactant (GS) in removing the condensate liquid and improve the formation productivity is studied.\n In this work, several experiments were carried out including coreflooding, capillary pressure, and relative permeability measurements. The profiles of condensate saturations show that GS can mitigate the condensate bank by 84%, while TCF removed around 63% of the condensate liquid. Also, GS and TCF treatments can increase the relative permeability to condensate liquid by factors of 1.89 and 1.22 respectively, due to the wettability alteration mechanism. Capillary pressure calculations show that GS can reduce the capillary pressure by around 40% on average, while TCF leads to a 70% reduction in the capillary forces.\n Overall, injection of GS into the condensate region can lead to changing the wettability condition due to the chemical adsorption of GS on the pore surface, and thereby reduce the capillary forces and improve the condensate mobility. On the other hand, TCF injection can improve rock permeability and reduce capillary pressure. Both treatments (GS and TCF) showed very attractive performance in mitigating the condensate bank and improving the formation production for the long term. Finally, an integrated approach is presented that can mitigate the condensate damage by around 95%, utilizing the effective mechanisms of GS and TCF chemicals.","PeriodicalId":10965,"journal":{"name":"Day 3 Thu, September 23, 2021","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 3 Thu, September 23, 2021","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/206023-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accumulation of condensate liquid around the production well can cause a significant reduction in gas production. Several methods are used to mitigate the condensate bank and maintain the gas production. The most effective approaches are altering the rock wettability or inducing multiple fractures around the wellbore. This paper presents a comparison study for two effective approaches in mitigating the condensate bank. The performance of thermochemical fluids (TCF) and gemini surfactant (GS) in removing the condensate liquid and improve the formation productivity is studied. In this work, several experiments were carried out including coreflooding, capillary pressure, and relative permeability measurements. The profiles of condensate saturations show that GS can mitigate the condensate bank by 84%, while TCF removed around 63% of the condensate liquid. Also, GS and TCF treatments can increase the relative permeability to condensate liquid by factors of 1.89 and 1.22 respectively, due to the wettability alteration mechanism. Capillary pressure calculations show that GS can reduce the capillary pressure by around 40% on average, while TCF leads to a 70% reduction in the capillary forces. Overall, injection of GS into the condensate region can lead to changing the wettability condition due to the chemical adsorption of GS on the pore surface, and thereby reduce the capillary forces and improve the condensate mobility. On the other hand, TCF injection can improve rock permeability and reduce capillary pressure. Both treatments (GS and TCF) showed very attractive performance in mitigating the condensate bank and improving the formation production for the long term. Finally, an integrated approach is presented that can mitigate the condensate damage by around 95%, utilizing the effective mechanisms of GS and TCF chemicals.
热化学流体与Gemini表面活性剂缓解凝析气堆积的比较研究
凝析液在生产井周围的积聚会导致天然气产量的显著降低。有几种方法可以缓解凝析气库并保持天然气产量。最有效的方法是改变岩石的润湿性或在井筒周围诱发多道裂缝。本文对缓解凝析油库的两种有效方法进行了比较研究。研究了热化学流体(TCF)和gemini表面活性剂(GS)在去除凝析液和提高地层产能方面的作用。在这项工作中,进行了几个实验,包括岩心驱替、毛管压力和相对渗透率测量。凝析液饱和度曲线显示,GS可以减少84%的凝析液,而TCF可以去除约63%的凝析液。GS和TCF处理可使凝析液相对渗透率分别提高1.89和1.22倍,这是由于润湿性改变机制所致。毛细管压力计算表明,GS可使毛细管压力平均降低40%左右,而TCF可使毛细管力降低70%。综上所述,将GS注入凝析区,可以通过GS在孔隙表面的化学吸附,改变其润湿性条件,从而降低毛细力,提高凝析液流动性。另一方面,注入TCF可以提高岩石渗透率,降低毛细压力。两种处理(GS和TCF)在缓解凝析油堆积和长期提高地层产量方面都表现出非常有吸引力的效果。最后,提出了一种综合方法,利用GS和TCF化学品的有效机制,可以减少约95%的凝析油损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信