If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Extending the Life of Oil Fields, Revitalizing Waterfloods Using Pulsed Injection

It is anticipated that the average price at the gas pump in the US may climb as high as $5 per gallon by summer’s peak driving season. Understandably, many are worried that continuing turbulence in the Middle East could propel prices even higher. However, a process known as pulsed injection offers potential new life for US oil fields that were previously believed to be past their productive lifetimes, permitting additional barrels to be extracted domestically. In total, the US Department of Energy estimates that there might be as much as 430 billion barrels of oil that is technically recoverable in the US.

Before the development of pulsed injection, an oil company tasked with extracting additional oil from an older field would inject various fluids, mainly water, underground to help recover it—an operation known as secondary recovery. But there exists an overall drawback to this approach: Injected fluids have a tendency to seek the path of least resistance through porous media, tracing a different trajectory followed by the inaccessible oil and resulting in lower overall oil recovery rates.

In opposition to this conventional approach lies a process known as pulsed injection, which is comparable to what occurs when a kink is released from a garden hose. Specialized equipment oscillates the flow of water on and off, building up kinetic energy that will impel more water to come into contact with oil. Each surge of water and energy puts additional oil in contact with water when it might otherwise have stayed out of reach.

This process can enhance oil recovery using two main mechanisms: First, the pulsed injection of water overcomes the path of least resistance and enhances the so-called “finger density” of oil through the field. Second, the momentum of the pulsed fluid breaks up residual oil globules that exist underground. Both of these mechanisms make it far simpler for oil to be recovered from the field.

The potential prize of improving rates of recovery with pulsed injection is considerable. A one-percent increase in recovery equals 2 billion barrels of additional reserves globally; a five-percent increase in recovery—a conservative increase thought to be achievable—would produce an extra 300 to 600 billion barrels. Ultimately, the use of pulsed injection can result in enhanced oil recovery from a field of between 5 and 10 percent depending on reservoir conditions.

The use of pulsed injection processes similarly reframes the argument over “peak oil.” In his 2010 book When Oil Peaked, geologist Kenneth Deffeyes wrote that world oil production traces a bell-shaped curve, with the maximum occurring sometime within the last decade. The supergiant oil fields that supply much of our oil, he wrote, are aging and decreasing in production; furthermore, the oil fields we have found to date contain 95 percent of all the oil we will ever find. In making these points, Deffeyes was following the lead of his mentor, the “peak oil” pioneer M. King Hubbert.

Yet Deffeyes and all the other “peak oil” theorists who have emerged since Hubbert first published his claims in 1956 have failed to ponder one major influence on oil production: the advent of innovative technology. The fact is that continuing innovation in oil extraction, including the use of pulsed injection processes, offers fresh life for oil fields once believed to be depleted, making it difficult to identify a past or future “peak” in production.

A related application of pulsed injection is designed to aide in-ground environmental groundwater remediation cleanup strategies. This variant process has been shown to be a highly fruitful approach for introducing remedial fluids into aquifers. Verified as an effective environmental remedial strategy by Environment Canada’s Environmental Technology Verification Program, this process is capable of obtaining results that are unattainable by conventional injection methods. It helps treat environmental sites quickly and at minimal cost by broadly distributing remedial fluids throughout the aquifer.

The pulsating action forces remedial fluids into contaminated underground sites to effectively reach contaminates. The technology works within a wide range of soil and rock conditions and can access hard-to-reach locations, even under buildings. It offers several advantages in an environmental cleanup. First, it eliminates or greatly reduces problematic remedial fluid surfacing (daylighting) during injection. Second, the pulsating action produces a momentary expansion of the effective porosity, allowing injected fluid to enter pore networks not accessible to conventional pumping technologies. Third, the low-maintenance design of pulsed injection tools allows for on-the-fly adjustments to match site-specific characteristics. Finally, operators can use standard piping/fitting to connect pulsed injection tools between the injection pump and a standard injection well or direct push injection point.

In conclusion, pulsed injection processes can assist in maximizing ultimate oil recovery from existing and new oil fields and facilitating groundwater remediation efforts.

Brett Davidson is President and CEO of Wavefront Technology Solutions Inc., an Edmonton-based leader in fluid injection optimization for improved performance and profitability in the oil and environmental sectors. He can be reached at brettd@onthewavefront.com.

10 Tactics of Successful Energy Managers
Sponsored By: EnergyCap, Inc.

  
Practical Guide to Transforming Energy Data into Better Buildings
Sponsored By: Lucid

  
6 Things to Consider When Deciding Whether to Build or Buy Software
Sponsored By: Progressly

  
The Corporate Sustainability Professional's Guide to Better Data Management
Sponsored By: Urjanet

  

5 thoughts on “Extending the Life of Oil Fields, Revitalizing Waterfloods Using Pulsed Injection

  1. This narrative is simply silly. Almost not worth commenting. The author is talking nonsense about peak oil and trying to deceive by calling it a theory. Peal oil has never been a theory, not even a hypothesis. It is a simple observation. Non-renewable resources deplete and in the process they always peak. No exceptions.

    Thousands of fields have already peaked. 80% of the producing countries have already peaked. That is not a theory you can disprove by a hand waving argument. We have data – and it is simple data. Peak oil for any field or any country is a graph. And the global graph of oil production flattened seven years ago after 150 years of growth.

    Come back when the graph starts growing at 3% per year again.

    The author claims (without presenting data) that his pulsed injection technology will increase recovery. That is not our problem. Peak oil is about only one thing – production rate. Show us your Data.

  2. Thank you Jim

    I did visit their website. Very interesting videos talking about pulsed injection. It looks like an exciting technology for cleaning up residual oil out of fields ready to be abandoned.

    But again – and this is an important but – there was no evidence of how this technology would impact peak oil. Residual recovery of old fields might extract the last of those fields at a faster rate – but this would not even be an issue if not for the fact that we are now living in the peak and experiencing record high oil prices as a result.

    It reminds of the old joke about the fisherman who realizes that the fish population is declining and announces – “We just need to fish faster”.

    Peak oil is not a theory – it is an observable fact around the world. If these guys want to claim they are tackling peak oil they need to show that it will increase the global oil extraction rate on a sustainable basis.

    Posing peak oil as a theory is a rhetorical trick to get people to not look at the global graph. Peak oil is a graph. And the graph is a little scary. Especially when it is accompanied by the global oil price doubling three times since 1998.

  3. See this BS all the time. Finally wrote a letter about it published this month in the Journal of Petroleum Technology (pg 16, April 2012 edition http://www.jptonline.org/ ). Peak oil is old news – we reached ~75 MMBOPD about 6 years ago and it has not gone up despite the price of the product doubling.

  4. Dear Brett

    If this technology is that great you would not feel the need to rubbish the work of competent scientists.

    The UK could certainly do with your help, the forties field used to produce 500,000 barrels a day. Now it produces 70,000 to even imply that this peak could be reversed is borderline dishonest. All technology extends and increases field production but a peak cannot be avoided.

Leave a Comment