Machine Learning-Assisted Prediction of Oil Production and CO2 Storage Effect in CO2-Water-Alternating-Gas Injection (CO2-WAG)
Source abstract
Abstract
In recent years, CO2 flooding has emerged as an efficient method for improving oil recovery. It also has the advantage of storing CO2 underground. As one of the promising types of CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR), CO2 water-alternating-gas injection (CO2-WAG) can suppress CO2 fingering and early breakthrough problems that occur during oil recovery by CO2 flooding. However, the evaluation of CO2-WAG is strongly dependent on the injection parameters, which in turn renders numerical simulations computationally expensive. So, in this work, machine learning is used to help predict how well CO2-WAG will work when different injection parameters are used. A total of 216 models were built by using CMG numerical simulation software to represent CO2-WAG development scenarios of various injection parameters where 70% of them were used as training sets and 30% as testing sets. A random forest regression algorithm was used to predict CO2-WAG performance in terms of oil production, CO2 storage amount, and CO2 storage efficiency. The CO2-WAG period, CO2 injection rate, and water–gas ratio were chosen as the three main characteristics of injection parameters. The prediction results showed that the predicted value of the test set was very close to the true value. The average absolute prediction deviations of cumulative oil production, CO2 storage amount, and CO2 storage efficiency were 1.10%, 3.04%, and 2.24%, respectively. Furthermore, it only takes about 10 s to predict the results of all 216 scenarios by using machine learning methods, while the CMG simulation method spends about 108 min. It demonstrated that the proposed machine-learning method can rapidly predict CO2-WAG performance with high accuracy and high computational efficiency under conditions of various injection parameters. This work gives more insights into the optimization of the injection parameters for CO2-EOR.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques · Reservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods · CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Key Laboratory of Unconventional Oil & Gas Development, China University of Petroleum (East China), Ministry of Education, Qingdao 266580, China
School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation · Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. Gao, J., and Lv, J. (2009). Problem analysis on low permeability reservoir water flooding. Inn. Mong. Petrochem. Ind., 48–51.
2. Present situation and development trend of CO2 injection enhanced oil recovery technology
3. Prospects and key scientific issues of CO2 near-miscible flooding
4. CO2 storage with enhanced gas recovery (CSEGR): A review of experimental and numerical studies10.1016/j.petsci.2021.12.009 ↗
5. Laboratory study of CO2 channeling characteristics in ultra-low-permeability oil reservoirs
6. Characteristics and mechanisms of supercritical CO2 flooding under different factors in low-permeability reservoirs10.1016/j.petsci.2022.01.016 ↗
7. Effect of water and gas alternate injection on CO2 flooding
8. Sanchez, N.L. (1999, January 21–23). Management of water alternating gas (WAG) injection projects. Proceedings of the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela.10.2523/53714-MS ↗
9. Review of WAG field experience10.2118/71203-PA ↗
10. Carbon capture potential and costs in Brazil10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.033 ↗
11. Enhanced oil recovery with carbon dioxide geosequestration: First steps at Pre-salt in Brazil
12. Kengessova, A. (2020). Prediction efficiency of immiscible Water Alternating Gas Performance by LSSVM-PSO algorithms. [Master’s Thesis, University of Stavanger].
13. Optimization of hydrocarbon water alternating gas in the Norne field: Application of evolutionary algorithms10.1016/j.fuel.2018.01.138 ↗
14. Bender, S., and Yilmaz, M. (2014, January 12–16). Full-Field Simulation and Optimization Study of Mature IWAG Injection in a Heavy Oil Carbonate Reservoir. Proceedings of the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA.10.2118/169117-MS ↗
15. Johns, R.T., and Bermudez, L. (2003, January 5–8). WAG optimization for gas floods above the MME. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA.10.2523/84366-MS ↗
16. Optimal parametric design for water-alternating-gas (WAG) process in a CO2-miscible flooding reservoir10.2118/141650-PA ↗
17. Mousavi Mirkalaei, S.M., and Hosseini, S.J. (2011, January 19–21). Investigation of Different I-WAG Schemes Toward Optimization of Displacement Efficiency. Proceedings of the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.10.2118/144891-MS ↗
18. Ghaderi, S.M., and Clarkson, C.R. (2012, January 20–22). Evaluation of recovery performance of miscible displacement and WAG process in tight oil formations. Proceedings of the SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria.10.2118/152084-MS ↗
19. You, J., and Ampomah, W. (2019, January 3–6). Assessment of Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage Capacity Using Machine learning and Optimization Framework. Proceedings of the SPE Europec featured at 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, London, England, UK.10.2118/195490-MS ↗
20. Zhou, D., and Yan, M. (2012, January 14–18). Optimization of a mature CO2 flood—From continuous injection to WAG. Proceedings of the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA.10.2118/154181-MS ↗
21. Rodrigues, H., Mackay, E., Arnold, D., and Silva, D. (2019, January 29–31). Optimization of CO2-WAG and Calcite Scale Management in Pre-Salt Carbonate Reservoirs. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.10.4043/29823-MS ↗
22. A Review of the Application Progress of Machine Learning in Oil and Gas Industry
23. Application of machine learning in hydraulic fracturing
24. Bilgesu, H.I., and Al-Rashidi, A.F. (2001, January 17–20). An unconventional approach for drill-bit selection. Proceedings of the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Manama, Bahrain.10.2523/68089-MS ↗
25. Leite Cristofaro, R.A., and Longhin, G.A. (2017, January 24–26). Artificial Intelligence Strategy Minimizes Lost Circulation Non-Productive Time in Brazilian Deep Water Pre-Salt. Proceedings of the OTC Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.10.4043/28034-MS ↗
26. Joint optimization method of well location and injection-production parameters based on machine learning10.3724/SP.J.1249.2022.02126 ↗
27. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
28. Predicting Total Organic Carbon Content by Random Forest Regression Algorithm
29. Research of medium and long term precipitation forecasting model based on random forest
30. Water demand prediction model based on random forests model and its application
31. A review of random forests algorithm
32. PM2.5 concentration prediction model based on random forest regression analysis
33. Zhang, Y. (2017). The Study on Reservoir Description and Remaining Oil Distribution on the 4th–6th Sandstone Beds of the Second Member in the Shahejie Formation of Tuo 28 Block in Shengtuo Oilfield, China University of Petroleum.
34. Miao, C. (2016). Reservoir Description on the 1st–3rd Sandstone Beds of the Second Member in the Shahejie Formation of the Tuo 28 Block in Shengtuo Oilfield, China University of Petroleum.
35. Zhang, C., and Ma, Y. (2012). Random Forests. Ensemble Machine Learning, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-9326-7 ↗
36. A Review of Technologies on Random Forests
37. Bagging weak predictors10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.05.002 ↗
38. Criminisi, A., and Shotton, J. (2013). Decision Forests for Computer Vision and Medical Image Analysis, Springer Science & Business Media.10.1007/978-1-4471-4929-3 ↗