SPE 166334

An Experimental Study of Cyclic Gas Injection to Improve Shale Oil

Recovery
T.D. Gamadi, J.J. Sheng, Soliman, M.Y, Texas Tech University

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Low oil recovery in shale oil reservoirs and vast shale reservoir volumes stimulate our efforts to investigate the application of
enhanced oil recovery methods in shale oil reservoirs. A recent numerical study has indicated that cyclic gas injection could
be an effective method to increase the oil recovery of shale oil reservoirs, and gas channeling can be mitigated. This paper
presents our experimental verification and quantification of the potential to improve oil recovery by cyclic gas injection in
shale oil reservoirs. Core plugs of Barnett, Marcos and Eagle Ford shales were used. The oil used was Mineral oil (Soltrol
130) and the gas used was Nitrogen. Unfractured cores were used in the experiments. The effects of cyclic time and injection
pressure on oil recovery, among other parameters, were investigated. Our results also showed that cycle gas injection could
increase the recovery from 10 to 50% depending on the injection pressure and shale core type. This study shows that one of
the important mechanisms of cyclic gas injection is the pressure effect that causes a large pressure drawdown during the
production phase. The cyclic gas injection provides an effective and practical method to improve oil recovery in shale
reservoirs because the gas needed is available in liquid-rich shale plays.

Introduction

With the advances in technology, the drop in hydrocarbon production from unconventional resources and the escalation in
demand of fuel, we shift our R&D focus toward unconventional resources. Unconventional reservoirs cannot be produced at
economic flow rates without massive stimulation treatments or implementation of enhanced oil recovery processes and
advanced technologies. Massive stimulation treatments are the primary solution to recover efficient amount of oil from these
reservoirs. After theses stimulation treatments, the recovery factors from these kinds of reservoirs are expected to be around
5-10%. In unconventional reservoirs, cyclic gas injection using various gases could be an effective technique. Since it is a
single-well process, well-to-well connectivity is not required. The hydraulic fracturing provides a large contact area for the
injected gas to penetrate and diffuse into the low-permeability matrix. A fracture system which includes hydraulic fractures
and natural fracture complexity provides the pathways for both injected gas and produced oil. The payback period of the
cyclic gas injection process is rather short compared with that of the field- scale flooding process. This makes the single-well
cyclic injection process a low-risk process. Cyclic gas injection in oil reservoirs typically starts with the injection of gas into
a single well. This is followed by a shut-in or soaking period to allow the gas to dissolve into the oil, swell its volume, and
reduce its viscosity. Then the well is returned to production and the response is monitored. The mechanisms involved in the
production of oil during cyclic gas injection are varied and complex. The following mechanisms have been reported in the
literature1-9: Oil viscosity reduction, oil swelling, and relative permeability hysteresis due to reduced water saturation,
wettability alternation, repressurization, diffusion, and interfacial tension reduction in the zone near the wellbore. The huff-n-
puff idea to enhance oil recovery from conventional oil reservoirs has been studied by numerous researchers through
laboratory studies.1- 4 as well as field tests5-9. One of the successful field applications of cyclic gas recovery of light oil using
carbon dioxide and nitrogen was reported in the Big Sinking Field of castern Kentucky5. This technique has been found one
of the active and economic methods to enhanced oil recovery from conventional reservoirs. Most of the results reported,
either in laboratory or field trials, are limited to the conventional reservoirs.

There is a deficiency of studying the potential and performance of huff-and-puff process in unconventional reservoirs
2 SPE 166334

specifically shale oil reservoirs using various gases such as CO2 and nitrogen. However, recent numerical studies10, 11 have
indicated that cyclic gas injection could be an effective method to increase the oil recovery of shale oil reservoirs.

In order of studying the feasibility of using enhance oil recovery methods on shale oil reservoirs, experimental work has been
done to explore the possibility of implementing the huff-n-puff method and to find the role of key parameters with respect to
the success or failure of this technique if applied to shale oil reservoirs. The initial production potential of cyclic various
gases was examined via lab-scale experiments.

Experimental

Materials

Three different shale cores were used in our study: Barnett, Marcos, and Engle Ford with the same dimensions of 1.5” in
diameter and 2” in length. Mineral oil soltrol 130 was used. Before conducting each experiment at each core, the cores were
named and dry weighed then vacuumed for 3 days. After that, they were saturated with the Soltrol 130. The cores were
saturated under high pressure 2000 psig for 48 hours. Fig.1 shows the set up used in the saturation process. The saturated oil
volume in each core was calculated using the difference between the saturated weight and dry weight divided by the density
of Soltrol 130. The temperature of 35 oC was maintained throughout all the experimental stages. After the cores were
saturated and wet weights were recorded, they were put in the core holders and the huff-n-puff procedures were started.

Cyclic CO2 has had a lot of attention; however, in most cases the cost of purchasing and injecting the CO2 is too high for the
process to be economic, or the delivery of CO2 is not possible because of lack of a pipe-line devilry system in some fields.
Therefore, we used nitrogen in our study because of its low cost and availability. However, CO2 cycle injection experiment
will be conducted in the future work and results will be compared to current work.

Coreflooding apparatus

A schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus is shown in fig.2 with the main components as follows: three high-
pressure stainless steel core holders, two and three-way valves, shale cores, nitrogen and CO2 cylinders; a pressure regulator;
and a big oven to control the temperature. Three pressure gauges, directly connected to the top of the core holder, were used
to record the pressure around the core throughout each experiment. They were also used to observe the pressure depletion
after the soaking or shut-in period.

Huff-n-puff procedure

The experiments carried out in this study were designed to simulate the sequence that occurs during a typical huff-n-puff
process. Huff-n-puff operations begin with pressurization of the three core holders including the saturated cores during gas
injection stage. A soaking period allows the gas to dissolve into the oil. Finally, depressurization of the core holders occur
during the production stage (puff) controlled by backpressure dome. All of these steps were done under constant temperature
35 oC. The range of pressures investigated covers both the immiscible (at low pressures) and near miscible conditions (at high
pressures). In order to study the effect of operating pressure on the ultimate recovery, the soaking pressure of 1000, 2000,
3000, 3500 Psig were applied. Also, the effect of soak period was investigated by using different soaking times.

Results and Discussion

In order to evaluate the feasibility of gas cyclic injection in shale cores, the effect of operating pressure on performance of
huff-and-puff recovery process in shale cores was investigated. Injection of nitrogen at low pressure, i.e. immiscible
conditions, was compared with near miscible cases.

Effect of operating pressure

Tables 1 and 2 include the recovery factors of nitrogen huff-n-puff process for Barnett and Marcos shale cores at different
operating pressures. Cores were put in contact with nitrogen at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 3500 psig for one day shut in period
followed by a production period. The process was repeated with the same pressures but shut-in period was changed to two
days and three days to investigate the effect of shut-in period on the operating pressure performance in cycling process.
Comparison of the recovery factors at different pressures clearly shows that oil production was increased drastically when the
operating pressure was changed from 1000 psig, i.e. immiscible conditions to what we believe to be the near miscible at 3000
psig operating pressure.

The results indicate that recovery factor of Barnett shale cores increased from about 6.5% at 1000 psig to near 14.91 % at
SPE 166334 3

3000 psig by using one day shut-in period and from 7.53% at 1000 psig to 20.65% by using three-day shut-in period. Also,
the results of using Marcos shale cores indicate that recovery factor has increased from about 8.38 % at 1000 psig to near
13.5 % at 3000 psig by using one day shut-in periods and from 9% at 1000 psig to 19.59 % at 3000 psig by using three days
shut-in period. Curves in figure 3 and figure 4 indicate that injection of nitrogen at a pressure near miscible conditions had
strong effect on the ultimate recovery. However, the oil recovery differences at different pressure seemed to more obvious
from these data. These data indicates repressurization appeared to be the important oil recovery mechanism in the nitrogen
huff-n-puff process. This observation is consistent with one conclusion made from a simulation study in our research group.10

Table 1 – Operating pressure effect on RF using Barnett

Barnett Shale Cores 1day 2 days 3 days
Pressure Psig RF % RF % RF %
1000 6.50 7.08 7.53
2000 11.23 13.14 17.24
3000 14.91 16.152 20.650
3500 17.79 - -

Table 2. Operating pressure effect on RF using Marcos

Marcos Shale Cores 1day 2 days 3 days
Pressure Psig RF % RF % RF %
1000 8.38 8.57 9.05
2000 12.28 12.55 14.66
3000 13.50 16.96 19.59
3500 15.00 - -

Effect of soaking period (shut-in time)

In order to investigate the effect of shut-in period on the huff-n-puff process, cores were put under different operating
pressures; these pressures were fixed and shut-in times were changed. Tables 3 and 4 illustrate results of soaking period
effect on the recovery factor. At an immiscible condition of 1000 psig, soaking period did not effect on the recovery factor
even when soaking period was changed from two to three or four days . When the pressure reached to near miscible
conditions, slightly effect of the shut-in period was observed. When the soaking period was changed from one day to three
days at 3000 psig, the recovery factors increased to about 5 %. Also R.F increased from 13.5 % with one day shut-in period
to 22.46 % after 5 days. This means that soaking period did affect the recovery factor when the operating pressure reached to
miscible conditions where more shut-in time was needed. Results also indicate that recovery factor was stabilized after 5 days
of shut-in period at near miscible conditions. Similar results were observed by using Barnett and Marcos shale cores. Figure
4 and 5 illustrate the effect of soaking period on recovery factor at different operating pressures.

Table 3. Effect of soaking period on recovery factor of Marcos cores

Marcos cores Pressure
1000 Psig 2000 Psig 3000 Psig
Time hrs
RF % RF % RF %
24 4.00 11.23 13.5
48 6.50 13.14 16.96
72 7.08 17.24 19.59
96 7.53 20.43 22.46
120 9.00 21.13 23.33
144 - 21.98 23.91
168 - 22.24 24.47

Tables 4 Effect of Soaking period on recovery of Barnett cores at differing operating pressures
4 SPE 166334

Barnett cores Pressure

1000 psig 2000 psig 3000 psig
Time hrs
RF % RF % RF %
3 6.56 6.52 14.909
6 8.10 7.72 16.960
12 8.38 9.05 19.592
24 8.57 13.28 21.256
48 9.05 15.55 22.412
72 - 15.656 22.860
96 - 16.25 -

Effect of number of cycles

Table 5 and 6 demonstrate the influence of number of cycles on recovery factor at different operating pressures. Figure 8 at
operating pressures 2000 Psig, the peak of production was in the first cycle 11.23 % and kept increasing at average of 3% at
every cycle till it equilibrated after the 7th cycle at average of 32.5 %. Figure 9 at pressure near to miscible conditions 3500
Psig, the peak of oil production was at the first and second cycle and begins to increase slightly by 2% or less after the 2th
cycle till it stabilized after the 6th cycle at average of 32.15 %, 56.26 % and 71.2 % respectively base on shale cores as shown
in table 6. The effect of the operating pressure on the amount of produced oil has also affected the number of cycles needed
to extract the highest amount of oil.

Table 5. Recovery factor of Barnett core at operating pressure 2000 Psig

No. of cycles 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
R.F % of
Barnett cores 12.23% 15.20% 19.65% 22.64% 24.78% 28.02% 32.06% 33.15%

Table 6. Recovery factor at operating pressure near miscible conditions 3500 Psig
No. of cycles 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
R.F % of
Marcos Cores 22.18% 24.52% 26.86% 28.92% 30.99% 31.87% 32.75% 33.00%
R.F % of
Barnett Cores 32.13% 37.36% 42.58% 47.91% 53.23% 55.53% 57.83% 58.46%
R.F % of Eagle
Ford cores 30.00% 35.02% 51.00% 66.12% 70.20% 72.31% - -

Conclusion
1. Nitrogen cyclic gas injection process can be used as an effective means of improving the recovery in fractured shale oil
reservoirs.
2. Average laboratory recovery factors were high when the injection pressure was near the nitrogen miscible conditions.
3. Near miscible conditions, the oil recovery factors peaked at the first and second cycles and increased slightly by 2% or
less after the 2th cycle till it stabilized after the 6th cycle.
4. Repressurization appeared to be an important oil recovery mechanism for the huff-n-puff process in shale oil reservoirs.
5. Recovery factors were high in Eagle ford shale cores compared to Barnett and Marcos shale cores which is a good
indication for the high potential of nitrogen huff-and-puff process in Eagle ford shale oil reservoirs.

References
SPE 166334 5

1. Haines, H. K, and Monger, T. G. 1990. A Laboratory Study of Natural Gas Huff-n-Puff. Paper 90-78, Presented at the
1990 CIM/SPE International Technical Meeting, Calgary, 10-13 June.
2. Monger, T.G., and Coma, J.M. 1988. A laboratory and field evaluation of the CO2 process for light oil recovery. SPE
Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 3(4), 1168-1176.
3. Torabi, F., Qazvini Firouz, A., Kavousi, A. Asghari, K. 2012. Comparative Evaluation of Immiscible, Near Miscible and
Miscible CO2 Huff-n-Puff to Enhance Oil Recovery from a Single-Fracture System (Experimental and Simulation
Studies). Fuel, Vol. 93, 443-453, March 2012.
4. Torabi, F., and Asghari, K. 2010. Effect of operating pressure, matrix permeability and connate water saturation on
performance of CO2 Huff-n-puff process in matrix-fracture experimental model, Fuel, Vol. 89(10), 2985-2990.
5. Bernard, J, and Miller, G. P. 1998, Field Case: Cyclic Gas Recovery for Light Oil-Using Carbon Dioxide/
Nitrogen/ Natural Gas, SPE 49169, Presented at the 1998/ SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA 27-30 September.
6. Schenewerk, P. A, Thomas, J., Bassiouni, Z. A, Wolcott, Joanne 1992. Evaluation of a South Louisiana CO2 Huff-n-Puff
Field Test. SPE 24143-MS, Presented at the 1992 SPE/ DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
USA, 22-24 April.
7. Miller, B. and Gaudin, R. 2000. Nitrogen Huff and Puff Process Breathes New Life into Old Field. World Oil Magazine.
8. Thomas, G. A., and Monger-McClure, T. G. 1991. Feasibility of cyclic CO2 injection for light-oil recovery. Paper Number
20208-Pa, SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol.6 (2), 179-184.
9. Artun E., Ertekin T. and Watson R., 2008. Optimized Design of Cyclic Pressure Pulsing in a Depleted Naturally Fractured
Reservoir, SPE117762, Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, USA, 11-15 October.
10. Wan, T., Sheng, J.J., and Soliman, M.Y. 2013. Evaluation of the EOR Potential in Shale Oil Reservoirs by
Cyclic Gas Injection, paper SPWLA-D-12-00119 presented at the SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium
held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 22-26 June.
11. Chen, C., Balhoff, B., Mohanty, K. K., 2013. Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneity on Improved Shale Oil Recovery by CO2
Huff-n-Puff, SPE 164553-MS, presented at 2013 SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Woodlands, Texas, USA,
10-12 Apr
6 SPE 166334

Figure 1- Diagram of the Set up Used in the Saturation Process

Figure 2: Diagram of Huff-n-Puff Coreflood Apparatus

SPE 166334 7

Figure 3. Recovery Factor for the Experiments Using Barnett Cores at Various Operating Pressures

Figure 4. Recovery Factor for the Experiments Using Marcos Cores at Various Operating Pressures
8 SPE 166334

Figure 5. Recovery factor for the experiments using Marcos Cores at various Soaking Periods

Figure 6. Recovery factor for the experiments using Barnett Cores at various Soaking Periods
SPE 166334 9

Figure 7. Performance of Nitrogen Huff-n-Puff at immiscible conditions as function of number of cycles

Figure 8. Performance of Nitrogen Huff-n-Puff at near miscible conditions as function of number of cycles