Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Volume 50, Number 7, July 2011, pp. 61-66

SPE-148752-PA

CO2 Breakthrough vs. Gas-Processing Facilities: Qualitative Appraisal

View full textPDF ( 504 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/148752-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/148752-PA

Citation

  • Belhaj, H. and Abdulwahab, H. 2011. CO2 Breakthrough vs. Gas-Processing Facilities: Qualitative Appraisal. J Can Pet Technol  50 (7/8): 61-66. SPE-148752-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/148752-PA.

Discipline Categories

  • 4.1.1 Process Simulation
  • 4.11 Fundamental Research in Projects, Facilities and Construction
  • 5.3.1 Well Candidate Recognition
  • 6.4.2 Gas-Injection Methods
  • 6.4.7 Miscible Methods

Keywords

  • CO2 injection, breakthrough, gas processing, production facilities, economic feasibility

Summary

This study describes how gas-processing facilities are impacted by injected CO2 returning to surface through production streams, with the goal to improve profitability of the enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) project by postponing the expenses of handling returning CO2. In the short term, mixing the incremental oil that has a higher CO2 content with the remaining production streams of lower CO2 content will allow the existing gas-processing facilities to accommodate the returning CO2. In the long term, the compression capacity should be increased and acid gas should be enriched with H2S before being fed to sulphur-recovery units. Another alternative is to isolate the impact of CO2 on the existing facilities by using an exclusive separation train, reinjecting the associated gas (or the acid part of it) and sending the sweet part to existing facilities for natural-gas-liquid (NGL) recovery--provided that the capacity is available. Enrichment units can be used to extract H2S from acid gas for sulphur recovery in existing units, provided that the capacity is available, while pure CO2 can be injected. Cryogenic fractionation will be required to separate mixtures of ethane and CO2.

© 2011. Society of Petroleum Engineers

View full textPDF ( 504 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 11 October 2010
  • Revised manuscript received: 2 April 2011
  • Manuscript approved: 6 April 2011
  • Published online: 1 July 2011
  • Version of record: 14 July 2011