CANADIAN HEAVY

OIL ASSOCIATION

SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97462
PS2005-307

Feasibility Study of CO2 Injection for Heavy Oil Reservoir After Cyclic Steam
Stimulation: Liaohe Oil Field Test
R. Luo, SPE, and L.-S. Cheng, China U. of Petroleum, and J.-C. Peng, Research Inst. of Zhundong Production Co. and
Xinjiang Oilfield Co.

Copyright 2005, SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium
reservoirs for which steam stimulateon is not suitable.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations It has been known for many years that as CO2 dissolves in
and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1–3 November 2005.
oil, it swells the oil and reduces oi viscosity. In 1945
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA Program Committee
following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of
Poettmann and Katz discussed phase behavior of CO2 and
the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, paraffin systems1. They estimate that for a heavy crude there is
Petroleum Society–Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum, or the Canadian
Heavy Oil Association and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as 10 to 22 percent augmentation in oil volume, and the crude
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA meetings are subject to publication
viscosity reduces to less than 0.1 of its original value at
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
120F(49℃) and 800 to 1200 psi (55 to 83 bars) 2. At lower
consent of the SPE or PS-CIM/CHOA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is temperature, the augmentation in volume is greater.
restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was In China, CO2 injection technology has been applied to oil
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax production only recently, the major reason being lack of rich
01-972-952-9435.
CO2 resource. In recent years, some medium and small CO2
reservoirs have been found in Jiangsu oilfield, Shengli oilfield
ABSTRACT
and Jilin oil field, etc. Meanwhile, most of oilfields in east
Because of the favorable properties of CO2, it has been used
China are entering the late-life production and requiring
to enhance the recovery of oil for a long time. But this
appropriate EOR technologies. Hence, CO2 injection is
technology is under slow development in China for lack of
becoming more attractive in China. CO2 injection technology
rich CO2 resource until some CO2 reservoirs were found in
has been studied in China since the late 1980’s, and pilot tests
recent years.
were conducted in the eastern Sanan of Daqing oilfield,
Using simulation and reservoir-engineering method, this
Jiangsu oilfield and Xinli 288 area of Jilin oilfield3-5 and
paper presents the feasibility study of CO2 injection for heavy
satisfactory results were obtained. Unfortunately, there has
oil reservoirs following cyclic steam stimulation. Pilot tests
been little study of injection CO2 for heavy oil reservoir in
were conducted to several wells in Lengjiabao heavy oil
China so far, especially for reservoirs at their late stage of
reservoirs in Liaohe oilfield, China. Some wells got good
cyclic steam stimulation.
effect, while some wells got poor effect. And the results from
For heavy oil, the major EOR mechanisms of CO2
the simulation and field pilot tests are evaluated economically.
injection are viscosity reduction and volume swelling. Three
Study shows that for common heavy oil reservoir after cyclic
blocks of Lengjiaobao heavy oil reservoir are selected for our
steam stimulation, the higher the oil viscosity, the greater the
study: block Leng 41, block Leng 42, and block Leng 43. The
CO2 utilization ratio, and the more feasible CO2 stimulation
range of crude oil viscosities of these three blocks varies
process; for extra-super heavy oil, 1-3 cycles steam huff-n-
widely (from 327mPa.s to72700 mPa.s), and several cyclic
puff were performed as necessary, followed by CO2
steam stimulation have been conducted in these three blocks.
stimulation process so that good benefit could be gained.
Several problems exist in the production of these blocks:
These results are of significance for field operation and
(1) Back production of injected water is low, which is
production of heavy oil.
harmful to improving the effect of steam huff-n-puff at late
stage;
Introduction
(2) Wells completed with non-thermal technology can not
In recent years, many heavy oil reservoirs or blocks in
produce normally using steam injection for more than a few
China have entered their late stage of cyclic steam stimulation.
cycles;
With the increasing of steam huff-n-puff cycles, the cost is
(3) Oil production is affected by invasion of edge and
getting higher and the profit is getting poorer, hence, the
bottom water in the western edge of blocks;
development effects are getting worse. The technology of
(4)Some wells produce sand.
steam huff-n-puff can not meet the needs of heavy oil
production. While, there is no mature technology to substitute
it. It is necessary to seek new methods to exploit heavy oil
2 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOAA97462

NUMERICAL SIMULATION Fig.1 presents the simulation result of super-heavy oil

Establishing numerical model and reservoir reserveoir in stratum S32 of Block Leng41(average oil
parameters viscosity is assumed as 69863mPa.s at 50℃). For super-heavy
Basic reservoir parameters of these three blocks are listed oil reservoir, there is no oil production by natural depletion.
in table1. From table 1, we can learn that reservoir of block From fig.1, we can see the CO2 utilization ratios of project1 to
Leng 41 and Leng 42 are very deep, more than 1850m. All project 5 are all high. With the increase of steam huff-n-puff
blocks have high original oil saturation. cycle, CO2 utilization ratio increases gradually. Except for
A three-dimensional model of 15 × 15 × 3=675 was project1, the oil-CO2 ratio of project 2 to project 5 also
established. A thermal 3-D and 3-phases numerical simulator increases gradually. The reason for this phenomenon is that
is applied. Projects design is shown is table 2. crude oil mobility is improved greatly by steam injected
Blocks with different crude oil viscosity were designed to before CO2 huff-n-puff cycles, which is helpful to increase
produce with different natural depletion periods. Blocks with CO2 utilization ratio. For super-heavy oil reservoir, crude oil
crude viscosity less than 500mpa.s has 2 years of natural viscosity is extremely high and the mobility of crude oil is
depletion; Blocks with crude viscosity between 500mpa.s to very poor under reservoir condition, so it is necessary to apply
50000mpa.s has 1 year of natural depletion; Blocks with crude steam huff-n-puff for 2-3 cycles before CO2 huff-n-puff .
viscosity higher than 50000mpa.s do not use natural depletion. Simulation result of common heavy oil reservoir of Block
After natural depletion, stimulation technology of CO2 Leng42 is shown in table 4(average oil viscosity is assumed as
injection and steam injection is applied. Steam injection 6000mPa.s at 50℃). From this table we can see, in spite of the
quantity in each cycle is 2000t per well and injection rate is fact that, with the increasing of steam huff-n-puff cycles,
200t/day at 340℃. Steam quality at bottom hole varies with CO2 utilization ratio reduces gradually, CO2 utilization ratio is
reservoir depths. The deeper the reservoir is, the lower the still more than 2.0t/t after 4 cycles of steam huff-n-puff. Thus
steam quality becomes. After steam injection, wells are shut- for this kind of reservoir, the feasibility to apply CO2 huff-n-
down for 10 days, and then are open to produce for 180 days. puff processs is relative good.
In CO2 injection process, CO2 injection quantity is 120t per Fig.2 and fig.3 present simulation result of common heavy
well in each cycle and injection rate is 40t/day, with the same oil reserveoir in stratum S32 of Block Leng43 (average oil
shut-down time and producing time to that of steam injectiton viscosity is assumed as 327mPa.s at 50℃). Oil viscosity of
processs. As shown in table 2, for project 1-5, there is a CO2 this stratum is far lower than that of Block Leng42. From
huff-n-puff cycle in each project, while the CO2 injection time fig.2, we can see with the increase of steam huff-n-puff
is differed in turn; for project 6, steam is injected in each cycles, CO2 utilization ratio of each project reduces
cycle; for project 7, CO2 is injected in each cycle. gradually.When steam huff-n-puff applied before CO2
CO2 utilization ratio is defined as increased oil production injection is more than 3 cycles, CO2 utilization ratio is less
divided by CO2 injection quantity per cycle, with unit of t/t; than1.0t/t, which indicates that oil increased by CO2
oil-CO2 ratio is defined as total oil production divided by CO2 stimulation is limited. However, the oil-CO2 ratio is quite
injection injection quantity per cycle, with unit of t/t; and high, which indicates that the oil production of natural
increased oil production is the cumulative oil production less depletion is high. For this kind of heavy oil reservoir with low
oil production by natural deplation. oil viscosity, optimum benefitial result can be obtained by
applying conventional recovery schemes (natural depletion
Simulation Results followed by water-flooding). From fig.3 we can see, for
Simulation result of extra-heavy oil reservoir in stratum S32 project 7 (CO2 is injected in each cycle), CO2 utilization ratio
of Block Leng41is shown in table 3(average oil viscosity is is larger than 3.0 and oil-CO2 ratio is more than 17.0 in each
assumed as 36568mPa.s at 50℃). For this block, the reservoir cycle. If abundant CO2 can be provided, after natural
is pretty deep, which usually means very low steam utilization depletion, this kind of reservoir can be stimulated directly by
ratio (steam utilization is difined as increased oil production CO2 huff-n-puff, and high rate of oil production would be
divided by steam injection quantity per cycle), and even gotten.
worse, in some cycles the steam utilization ratio is negative. Fig.4 presents numerical simulation result of extra-heavy
The major reason of poor effect of thermal recovery is that oil reserveoir in stratum S1+2 of Block Leng43 (average oil
most of steam has become water when it reaches bottom hole, viscosity is assumed as 15326mPa.s at 50℃). The variation of
so that the steam quality at bottom hole is very low, which CO2 utilization in fig.4 is the same as that of fig.1 (super-
causes the slow expansion of the heated-zone at bottom hole heavy oil of Block Leng41)--with the increase of steam
and quick increase of water saturation near wellbore zone . stimulation cycles, CO2 utilization ratio and oil-CO2 ratio are
Thus the effect of steam huff-n-puff is actually more like hot- all increased. Therefore, for extra-heavy oil reservoir, it is
water huff-n-puff. CO2 huff-n-puff following steam huff-n- necessary to inject steam at the early exploitation stage to
puff is feasible for this kind of deep extra-heavy oil reservoir, improve oil mobility, so that efficient CO2 utilization ratio
and the CO2 utilization ratio is more than 1.7t/t. If only could be obtained later.
thermal recovery method is applied, the development effect
will be poor. For this kind of reservoir, the optimum FIELD PILOT TESTS
development scheme is to inject CO2 directly (prior to natural Pilot tests of CO2 huff-n-puff was conducted firstly in
production or steam stimulation). The simulation indicates that Lengjiabao oilfield in year 2001 and some effect has been
for the first 5 cycles, CO2 utilization ratio is all more than achieved by late 2003, more than 60 wells were stimulated by
2.5t/t.
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOAA97462 3

CO2 huff-n-puff in this oilfield, and more than 90% of wells result. After shutting-in for several days, the well was injected
produced more oil than before being stimulated by CO2 6-7. by 2000t steam with high steam quality, then, it was shut-in
Pilot test results of three wells are presented in this paper. for a short time. After it was opened again, 366.2t oil was
Basic parameters of these wells are shown in table5. produced in the first 37 days, and the highest daily oil
production was 18.1t/d. How to explain this phenomenon?
Production condition of test wells before CO2 The reason can be that the formation temperature was reduced
injection greatly by CO2 injected, which caused wax to separate out
Well Leng 37-37-590 was put into production in July 1998. from crude oil. Finally, formation was plugged by wax.
It had produced in conventional recovery method for 109 days However, the heat of initially injected steam was not enough
firstly. The cumulative oil production was 211t, and the water to relieve the formation plugging. After 2000t steam being
cut was 66.7%. Before injected by CO2, this well had been injected, the formation pressure was increased greatly, and
stimulated by steam injection for two cycles. then the formation plugging was relieved by natural flow.
Well Leng 37-35-588 was put into production in early Thus, for heavy oil reservoir with high wax content, CO2
1998. Its cumulative oil production was 2602t and stimulation and steam stimulation should be applied togther.
cumulateive water production was 286t. Before injected by
CO2, this well had been stimulated by steam injection for three ECONOMIC EVALUATION
cycles, and cumulative oil production in steam huff-n-puff Investment of CO2 injection mainly includes cost of well
cycles was 6334t. operation C1 (including the rent of gas injection equipment,
Well Leng 37-51-582 was put into production in 1998. It cost of anticorrosive additive, power cost et al.), unit cost of
was stimulated by steam huff-n-puff for two cycles before carbon dioxide C2 , unit cost of oil extraction C3, and other
CO2 simulation. But the effect of steam stimulation is very costs C4(including cost of management , sales, et al). assumed
poor. Back production of injected water is only 6% and this CO2 injection rate as Q1, oil production as Q2, crude oil
well had stopped producing for a long time. price as P . Therefor, the total cost C =C1+C2×Q1+(C3+C4)
×Q2, and income=P×Q2. The data mentioned above are
Results of CO2 Stimulation pilot tests listed in table8. Input-output ratio is defined as the ratio of
investment to imcome.
1. Well Leng 37-37-590
Production time of well Leng 37-37-590 in first CO2 huff-n- Economic evaluation for numerical simulation result
puff cycle was 143 days, and cumulative liquid production of block Leng 42
was 2161.4m3, and cumulative oil production was 971.9t, and Numerical simulation results of block Leng 42 are shown in
the increased oil production was 820t. CO2 utilization ratio in table 4. According to these data, input-output ratio of project
this cycle was 6.47t/t. Compared with last steam huff-n-puff 4 and project 5 are analyzed. For project 4, the forth cycle is
cycle, the increased oil production was 46.9t, and back CO2 huff-n-puff cycle, and CO2 utilization is 2.375 t/t, and oil-
production of injected water is enhanced by 24%. Production CO2 is 7.476t/t. In this cycle, net income is 66.96×104RMB
data are shown in table 6. and input-output ratio is 1:2.04. For project 5, the forth cycle
is steam huff-n-puff cycle, and steam utilization is 0.056t/t,
2. Well Leng 37-35-588 and oil-steam ratio is 0.440t/t. In this cycle, net income is
Production data of well 37-35-588 after CO2 stimulation is 47.93×104RMB and input-output ratio is 1:1.87. It is evident
shown in table7. In 54days, cumulative liquid production was that CO2 huff-n-puff is more advantageous than steam huff-n-
1180.6m3, and cumulative oil production was 700.4t. The puff.
highest daily liquid production was 28.9 m3, and the highest
daily oil production was 15.9t. Compared with the last steam Economic evaluation for test well Leng 37-37-590
huff-n-puff cycle, increased liquid production was141.6t, and Accoding to table6 and table8, input-output ratio of CO2
increased oil production was 313t. Compared with that of huff-n-puff of well Leng 37-37-590 is calculated. In this cycle,
steam huff-n-puff, the initial oil rate of CO2 huff-n-puff is the net income was 54.24×104RMB and input-output ratio is
higher and more stable. 1:1.91.
3. Well Leng37-51-582 For theCO2 Stimulation pilot tests in block Leng 42, CO2
CO2 stimulation did not make an impact onWell Leng 37-
was purchased from a chemical plant which loated in
51-582. The reasons are assumed as follows:
1) Permeability , porosity and oil saturation of this well Changchun city. The distance between Chuangchun and block
are all is low; Leng 42 is about 200 km. Proportion of carriage to the whole
2) The well had been shut-in for a long time and cost of CO2 is about 40%. The input-output ratio is sensitive to
reservoir driving energy was deficient ; the cost of CO2, so abundant and cheap CO2 resource is a very
3) Freezing point of crude oil is quite low due to high important precondition for CO2 stimulation processs.
wax content. Therefore, the formation may have been
plugged by wax. CONCLUSION
30t steam with low steam quality was injected into this well Through numerical simulation and field pilot test, we can
to relieve wax pluging. However, it did not produce desired conclude that it is feasible to exploit heavy oil reservoir by
4 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOAA97462

CO2 injection after cyclic steam stimulation. Specific Injection. [J]. China Offshore Oil and
conclusion is listed as following: Gas( Geology),2003,17(5):312-316
1. For common heavy oil reservoir with oil viscosity 7. SHENG De-huang, ZHANG Yi-tang, et al. Study on
lower than 500mPa.s, if it has been stimulated by steam Cylic Carbon Dioxide Injection after Steam Soak in
for more than 3 cycles, it is not suggested to be Heavy Oil Reservoir[J]. ACTA 2005 ,26 (1) :83-86
stimulated by CO2. For this kind of reservoir,
conventional recovery method is the more
recommended. Given abundant carbon dioxide source
high oil rate can be obtained if CO2 stimulation was
applied directly after natural depletion.
2. For common heavy oil reservoir with oil viscosity
between 2000-10000 mPa.s, if it had been stimulated
by steam for 3-5 cycles in the early stage, some effect
can be obtained by CO2 stimulation, and CO2
utilization will be about 1.0t/t .
3. For etra-heavy oil reservoir with oil viscosity between
10000-50000 mPa.s, crude oil mobility can be
improved greatly by 1-2 steam huff-n-puff cycles at the
early stage, which is benefit to the following CO2
stimulation. CO2 utilization will be more than 3.0t/t.
4. For super-heavy oil reservoir, 2-3 cycles steam huff-n-
puff at early stage is necessary. Crude oil mobility can
be dramatically improved by steam stimulation and
CO2 utiliation will be more than 6.0t/t.
Compared with steam stimulation, CO2 stimulation has
following advantages:
1. CO2 stimulation is not sensitive to reservoir depth. For
deep heavy oil reservoir which is not suitable to steam
stimulation, CO2 stimulation is an attractive
technology.
2. For water-sensitive formation, CO2 stimulation can be
applied instead of steam stimulation.
3. Overall oil production cost of CO2 huff-n-puff is lower
than that of steam huff-n-puff.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is funded by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (50276040).

REFERENCE
1. Poettmann, F.H. and Katz, D.L: “Phase Behavoir of
Binary Carbon Dioxide-Paraffin Systems”, Ind. Eng.
Chem. (1945) 37,847
2. Beeson, D.M. and Orthloff, G.O.: “A Laboratory
Investigation of the Water-Driven Carbon Dioxide
Process for Oil Recovery”, Trans.AIME (1959) 216
3. XIONG Yu, SUN Liang-tian, SUN Lei et al. A new
Intigrative Evaluation Way for Candidate of Carbon
Dioside Misible Flooding Reservoirs Based on Fuzzy
Analytical Hierarchy Process [J]. ACTA 2002,23(6):60-
62
4. XIE Shangxian, HAN Peihui, Qian Yu. A pilot test and
research on o il displacement by injecting CO2 in eastern
Sanan of Daqing o ilfield [J]. OGRT, 1997, 4 (3) : 13- 19
5. LIU Bingguan, ZHU Ping, YONG Zhiqiang et al. Pilot
Test on Miscible CO2 Flooding in Jiangsu Oil Field [J].
ACTA 2002 ,23 (4) :56-60
6. LUO Ruilan, CHENG Linsong. A feasibility Study on
Exploitation of Deep Heavy-oil Reservoir by CO2
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOAA97462 5

Table 1
Basic Reservoir Parameters of Three Blocks of Lengjiabao Oilfield

Strata &Block Depth Average net Porosity Perm. Initial Temp. Oil viscosity at Original formation
(m) pay thickness (%) (10-3μm2) saturation (℃) 50℃ pressure
(m) (%) (mPa.s) (MPa)
Strata S13 of
1920 67.8 20.2 437 65 65.4 3989-44730 19.5
block Leng 41
Strata S23 of
1535 70 17.8 1338 70 48-53 38370-72700 15.7
block Leng 41
Block Leng42
1850 50 20 448 60 63.0 6000-16300 17.28
2
Strata S 3 of
1795 87.7 16.5 478 62 63.0 327-4500 17.5
block Leng 43
Strata S1+2 of
1330 45 22 623 65 48.0 11435-23506 12.9
block Leng 43

Table 2
Project design

Production stage Project1 Project2 Project3 Project4 Project5 Project6 Project7

Depletion production 0-2 year

The first cycle CO2 Steam Steam Steam Steam Steam CO2

The second cycle Steam CO2 Steam Steam Steam Steam CO2

The third cycle Steam Steam CO2 Steam Steam Steam CO2

The forth cycle Steam Steam Steam CO2 Steam Steam CO2

The fifth cycle Steam Steam Steam Steam CO2 Steam CO2

Table 3
CO2/steam utilization for super heavy oil in strata S23 of block Leng 41 t/t
Production stage Project1 Project2 Project3 Project4 Project5 Project6 Project7

The first cycle 3.22 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 3.220

The second cycle 0.165 1.992 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 5.680

The third cycle -0.013 0.046 1.763 -0.025 -0.025 -0.025 3.418

The forth cycle -0.02 -0.021 0.054 2.355 0.014 0.014 2.902

The fifth cycle 0.046 -0.004 0.043 0.137 3.217 0.085 2.582

Table 4
CO2/steam utilization for super heavy oil in s block Leng 42 t/t

Project1 Project2 Project3 Project4 Project5 Project6 Project7

Production stage
CO2 Ratio of oil CO2 Ratio of oil CO2 Ratio of oil CO2 Ratio of oil CO2 Ratio of oil CO2 Ratio of oil CO2 Ratio of oil
utilization and CO2 utilization and CO2 utilization and CO2 utilization and CO2 utilization and CO2 utilization and CO2 utilization and CO2

The first cycle 3.619 8.267 0.194 0.542 0.194 0.542 0.194 0.542 0.194 0.542 0.194 0.542 3.619 8.267

The second cycle 0.133 0.494 2.961 7.764 0.105 0.465 0.105 0.465 0.105 0.465 0.105 0.465 2.917 7.720

The third cycle 0.070 0.442 0.086 0.458 2.563 7.523 0.070 0.442 0.070 0.442 0.070 0.442 2.211 7.171

The forth cycle 0.048 0.432 0.043 0.426 0.066 0.450 2.357 7.476 0.056 0.440 0.056 0.440 1.736 6.855

The fifth cycle 0.053 0.437 0.047 0.431 0.044 0.428 0.448 0.448 2.164 7.437 0.044 0.440 1.620 6.739
6 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOAA97462

Table 5
Basic parameters of CO2 injection wells

Well No. Leng 37-37-590 Leng 37-35-588 Leng 37-51-582

Well depth (m) 1985 1900 1875

Reservoir thickness (m) 49.8 38.2 44.3

Perm. (10-3μm2) 897 448 201

Porosity (%) 24.49 20.00 16.20

Oil saturation (%) 72 56.5 50.0

Oil viscosity at 50℃(mPa.s) 16300 17200 6324

Solidification point(℃) 11 12 7

Table 6
Production data of well Leng 37-37-590

Cumulative Cumulative oil

Injection Production Daily oil
Stimulation liquid production production
quantity(t) time(day) 3 production(t/d)
(m ) (t)
Last Steam huff-n-puff cycle 2410 147 1577.5 925 6.29

CO2 huff-n-puff cycle 150 143 2161.4 971.9 6.79

Table 7
Production data of well Leng 37-35-588
Cumulative Cumulative oil
Injection Production Daily oil
Stimulation liquid production production
quantity(t) time(day) 3 production(t/d)
(m ) (t)
Last Steam huff-n-puff cycle 2512 54 1039.0 387.4 7.17

CO2 huff-n-puff cycle 150 54 1180.6 700.4 12.97

Table 8
Cost of CO2 huff-n-puff process
Item Price

Cost of Well operation C1 120000RMB per well

Unit cost of CO2 C2 1100RMB/t

Unit cost of oil extraction C3 233RMB/t

Other cost C4 90RMB/t

Crude oil price P 1174 RMB/t

SPE/PS-CIM/CHOAA97462 7

Figure 1
CO2 utilization and oil-CO2 ratio of project1 to project5 of block Leng 41 S23

18.0
project1

CO2 utilization/oil-CO2
project5
16.0 project2 project3 project4

ratio(t/t)
14.0 CO2 utilization
oil-CO2 ratio
12.0

10.0 project5
project4
project3
8.0 project2
project1
6.0

project

Figure 2
CO2 utilization and oil-CO2 ratio of project1 to project5 of block Leng 43
(Common heavy oil)
10.0
9.0 project4 project5
project2 project3
CO2 utilization/oil-CO2

8.0
poject1
7.0
ratio(t/t)

6.0
project5
5.0 project4
4.0 project3
project2
3.0 project1
CO2
2.0 utilization
1.0 oil-CO2 ratio
0.0
project

Figure 3
CO2 utilization and oil-CO2 ratio of project7 of block Leng 43
20.0
cycle1 cycle2 cycle3 cycle4 cycle5
18.0
CO2 utilization/oil-CO2

16.0
14.0 CO2 utilization
oil-CO2 ratio
ratio(t/t)

12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0 cycle1 cycle2 cycle3 cycle4 cycle5
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
cycle
8 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOAA97462

Figure 4
CO2 utilization and oil-CO2 ratio of project1 to project5 of block Leng 43
(extra-heavy oil)

10.0
9.0 project4 project5
project2 project3

CO2 utilization/oil-CO2
8.0
poject1
7.0

ratio(t/t)
6.0
project5
5.0 project4
4.0 project3
project2
3.0 project1
CO2
2.0 utilization
1.0 oil-CO2 ratio
0.0
project