Active carbonated water imbibition improves recovery in tight oil reservoirs, highlighting the effects of pore-scale mechanisms and surfactants.
Active carbonated water (ACW) imbibition has emerged as a promising enhanced oil recovery method. Nevertheless, the mechanism is insufficiently understood, particularly as pore-scale oil displacement characterization remains unexplored. Furthermore, the influence of key factors on ACW imbibition performance requires systematic investigation. This study employs a custom visualization imbibition apparatus combined with nuclear magnetic resonance scanning to elucidate the pore-scale oil displacement mechanisms in ACW, and subsequently to investigate the effects of key factors on its performance. The results show that water imbibition yields a low recovery of 16.18%, with higher recovery observed in mesopores and macropores. In contrast, carbonated water (CW) imbibition increases recovery by 15.01% compared to water imbibition, with the greatest improvement in micropores, though mesopores and macropores still show higher recovery. The recovery for ACW is further enhanced to 39.22%, with recoveries of 37.16%, 38.33%, and 40.47% in macropores, mesopores, and micropores, respectively. Imbibition recovery increases with surfactant concentration, albeit with diminishing increments. Specifically, recovery increases by 6.96% when surfactant concentration is increased from 0.01 to 0.10 wt. %, and by 2.38% from 0.10 to 0.20 wt. %. Recovery also improves with increased boundary openness and permeability. Notably, the all-faces-open boundary resulted in a 16.64% higher recovery than the two-ends-open condition. Higher permeability further enhances recovery, with improvements of 8.44% and 13.18% observed at 0.31 and 1.19 mD, respectively, relative to 0.08 mD. This study provides new insights into ACW imbibition and offers valuable guidance for its application in tight oil.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: