group u2 kyle demel keaton hamm bryan holekamp rachel houk n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Group U2 : Kyle Demel Keaton Hamm Bryan Holekamp Rachel Houk PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Group U2 : Kyle Demel Keaton Hamm Bryan Holekamp Rachel Houk

Group U2 : Kyle Demel Keaton Hamm Bryan Holekamp Rachel Houk

90 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Group U2 : Kyle Demel Keaton Hamm Bryan Holekamp Rachel Houk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Group U2: Kyle Demel Keaton Hamm Bryan Holekamp Rachel Houk Nanotechnology in Reservoir Engineering

  2. Presentation Topics • Introduction • Research Article • Background • Experiment • Applications • Summary • Further Applications • Additional Research

  3. Enhanced Recovery Techniques Gas injection Ultrasonic stimulation Waterflooding/Water injection

  4. Wetting • Ability of liquid to maintain contact with a surface • Adhesive forces determine contact angle

  5. Research Article • “Experimental study and mathematical model of nanoparticle transport in porous media” • BinshanJu, TailiangFan -The following information and graphics are from the listed article unless cited otherwise.

  6. Research Topics Studied two-phase fluid flow through sandstone (which has low permeability) Experimented with wetting using polysiliconnanoparticles to achieve better flow through oil reservoirs for enhanced recovery Developed mathematical model for flow through random porous media

  7. Experimental Studies • Two classes by wettability • LHPN-lipophobic hydrophilic polysiliconnanoparticles • HLPN-hydrophobic lipophilicpolysiliconnanoparticles

  8. Particle and Pore Characteristics • Particle size from 10 to 500 nm • Mean size ~ 70 nm • Roughly spherical • Pore throat size from 0.5 to 5,000 nm • Pore chambers from 5,000 to 63,000 nm

  9. Effects of PN on Porous Media Pore throat HLPN • Large PN can block pore throats • Smaller PN can bridge to block pore throats • PN can also adsorb to pore walls • Wettability of porous material can be altered by adsorption of PN PoreWall

  10. Wettability Change • (A) Wetting angle much larger than π/2 • (B) Wetting angle much smaller than π/2

  11. Flowability Change • Sandstone cores are taken from drilling wells in H.Z.J. oil field in China • Effective permeability is measured before and after treatment with HLPN • Effective permeabilities increase 1.6 to 2.1 times

  12. Mathematical Model

  13. Solution Method • Mass balance is solved for pressure differential • Velocity is determined by Darcy’s law • PN concentration distribution is obtained from the convection-diffusion-adsorption equation • Calculate new values for porosity, absolute permeability, and relative permeability and iterate

  14. Application: Water Injection • Using hydrophobic lipophilicpolysiliconnanoparticles (HLPN) made the surfaces oil-wet • Tested on sandstone • Used as a method to maintain reservoir pressure • Constraints on high and low flow rates • Must be economical • Cannot damage reservoir

  15. Application: Water Injection The porosity and permeability decline as injection volume increase due to particle adsorption onto pore walls Water injection capacity increases from 0-1.8 PV and then starts to decrease, indicating a possible saturation of the core with particles

  16. Application: Water Injection Optimum at 1.8 PV

  17. Application: Enhanced Oil Recovery Used lipophobic hydrophilic polysiliconnanoparticles to make the reservoir water-wet Goal to recover more oil by using water to “push” the oil out

  18. Application: Enhanced Oil Recovery The relations between oil recovery and injecting volume of LHPN.

  19. Comparison of Experiment and Model The comparison of permeability ratios between experimental and numerical results.

  20. Summary of Article • Analysis of method to enhance oil recovery • studied two-phase fluid flow • experimented with wetting • Nanoparticles of 10 to 500 nm • Pore radii of sandstone was 6 to 63,000 nm • from mercury injection tests • Wettability of surface sandstone changes by adsorbing nanoparticles • LHPN • HLPN

  21. Summary of Article • Nanoparticles can be adsorbed on pore surfaces and reduce the pore radii • changes wettability of surface • Sandstone’s effective permeability of water increases from 1.6 to 2.1 times original value • The mathematical model, numerical results, and experimental data match each other • HLPN can enhance water injection capacity • LHPN can improve oil recovery

  22. Applications of Nanoparticle Transport • Water injection • Oil recovery • Aerosol instruments • Microelectronics • Xerography • Pharmaceuticals • Atmospheric dispersion

  23. Additional Research Needed • Address assumptions • one-dimensional flow under isothermal conditions • negligible force of gravity • constant viscosity and density of fluids • all fluids behave as Newtonian fluids • Wettability effects in other materials • Improvements to nano- • particles

  24. More Reservoir Nanotechnology • Improve oil and gas production • Produce lighter and stronger equipment • Reduce pollution of processing • Increase types of smart fluids • advanced drag reduction • wettability alteration • anticorrosive coatings • magnetic properties • Introduce new sensors • temperature and pressure ratings • fluid-flow monitoring and recognition

  25. Reservoir Nanotechnology Future • Short-term: • Enhance gas-to-liquids technology • Improve LNG quality and recovery • Mid-term • Develop superpipelines • Transport compressed natural gas • Long-term • Process methane hydrates • Integrate electric plants and processing plants

  26. Questions?

  27. Rebuttal Group from U2

  28. Rebuttal from Group U2: Applications of Nanotechnology In Reservoir Engineering Group U2: -Kyle Demel -Keaton Hamm -Bryan Holekamp -Rachael Houk

  29. We agree that: • The article was appropriate (A+) • The introduction was good • Slides contained adequate information • The pictures complemented the topic • Adequate eye contact was given • Improvements for us to work on: • Focus less on detailed equations • Do a better job clarifying the logic and purpose of the nanotechnology • Make graphics bigger • Have less text in some slides • Improvements for critiques: • Include better/more pictures • Do not just repeat what we said; explain how we can improve; • Find motivation to actually critique

  30. The group did a fine job picking an appropriate article on the subject, but there was a lot of confusion at first as to what the technology actually did. They seemed to have a hard time explaining that to us.The introduction to the topic was good, and they provided a lot of information about why there is a need for better recovery processes.They had some good pictures that helped accentuate the topic and then there were some pictures that were really generic.After the Q&A session we had a better idea of how the technology works, and the group did a good job overall. Review by Group U1- Kamal, John, Robert, Rodrigo to U2 Reservoir Engineering

  31. Nanotechnology in Reservoir Engineering Group 3: Krista Melish James Kancewick Phillip Keller Mike Jones Review

  32. Presentation Review: Ugrad #2 Presentation Review Material Review Article relevant to the application of nanotechnology in reservoir engineering Use of hydrophobic lipophilicpolysiliconnanoparticles (HLPN) made the surfaces oil-wet Goal to recover more oil by using water to “push” the oil out Questions for further research: What are the disposal methods for hydrophobic lipophilicpolysiliconnanoparticles ? What are the effects of HLPN on materials other than sandstone? • Good presentation format • Introduction, article, applications, further research • Moderate amount of eye contact • One of the presenters looked mostly at the slides during presentation • Adequate use of figures • Inconsistency in font sizing • Some cases having the font size too small • Low to moderate use of “filler phrases” • Such as “like” and “uhhhh” • Overall Grade: 90

  33. Review Group U4 Nanotechnology in Reservoir Engineering Reviewer: Group U4

  34. The Presentation Main Points • Nanoparticles can be used to enhance the percentage of oil recovered from the ground. • This is done by changing the wettability of the oil reservoir , making it easier for water injection techniques to be used. • Effective use of images to describe concepts. • Slides contained the information necessary to understand the topic.

  35. Nanotechnology in reservoir engineering • Review of Team U2 by Team U5 – Jaynesh Shah, Greg Pudewell, Edwin L. Youmsi Pete and John Pack.

  36. Oral and Quality of Slides Review • The speakers did a good job of speaking without many pauses or filler words • They were knowledgeable on the subject, showing they did a lot of research • The slides had a consistent theme • Try n0t reading off the slides as much • At times, a bit wordy

  37. Technical Review • The presentation was a bit confusing technically • Good use of technical jargon • Paper selection was relevant and recent • There were a lot of equations • Highlight the important ones

  38. Of the lecture presented by Group U2 - Kyle Demel, Keaton Hamm, Bryan Holekamp, Rachel Houk Reviewed by Group U6 - PavitraTimbalia, Michael Trevathan, Jared Walker Nanotechnology in Reservoir Engineering

  39. Review – Slides and Oral Presentation • Great use of illustrations; they had them on almost every slide. • They all dressed nicely and were knowledgeable about their topic. They also maintained eye contact with the audience. • There were too many equations presented for us to understand the most relevant ones.

  40. Review - Technical • The technology presented was using nanoparticles which were either hydrophobic or lycophobic to increase production of oil in a reservoir. The particular particle used would depend on a specific situation. • Further research is needed to determine the effects of the nanoparticles on the casing and tubing. • Applications could include using this technology in other formations besides sandstone.