1. Mihailo Jankov, Olav Aursjø, Henning Knutsen, Grunde Løvoll and Knut Jørgen Måløy, UiO Renaud Toussaint, Universite Louis Pasteur de Strasbourg Steve Pride, Lawrence Berkeley Labs Eirik G. Flekkøy, University of Oslo Seismic stimulation for enhanced oil production

2. Outline Field observations Pore scale intro and elements of theory Lattice Boltzmann and experiments Moving up from pore scale: Network models and experiments Transversal versus longitudinal stimulation Effects of compressibility

3. FIELD EVIDENCE FOR SEISMIC STIMULATION Oil Cut Oil Production Oil Production (B/day ) Oil cut % Increase in Oil Production after Stimulation at Occidental’s Elk Hills Field, California stimulation applied Oil Cut Oil Production Oil Production (B/day ) Oil cut % Increase in Oil Production after Stimulation at Occidental’s Elk Hills Field, California stimulation applied FIELD EVIDENCE FOR SEISMIC STIMULATION Earthquakes or hammers, as in this case:

4. Water extraction wells:

5. Context: As much as 70% of the world’s oil is in known reservoirs but is trapped on capillary barriers and is effectively “stuck”. Seismic Stimulation : A seismic wave is to “shake the stuck oil loose” and get it flowing again toward a production well.

6. Lattice Boltzmann model Hydrodynamics comes from mass- and momentum conservation: G. McNamara and G. Zanetti 1986

7. NOTES No green arrow = no applied forcing Single green arrow = production-gradient only Double green arrow = two periods of seismic stress + production-gradient “when stimulation is applied, bubbles coalesce creating a longer stream of oil that flows even in absence of stimulation” Lattice-Boltzmann Movie

8. Snapshots and average oil speed during the four stages of a typical “production run”: running average

9. A tiny experiment:

10. Lattice Boltzmann and experiments

11. The condition for a stuck oil bubble: “the production pressure drop along the bubble is just balanced by a capillary-pressure increase” Beresnev et al., 2005 n

12. The production-gradient force that always acts on the fluids: “ acceleration of grains ” Poroelasticity determines the seismic force acting on the fluids: “ wavelength-scale fluid-pressure gradient” where is the seismic strain rate.

13. The seismic force adds to the production gradient and can overcome the capillary barrier whenever: “stimulation criterion” where dimensionless “stimulation number” (a type of capillary number) “critical threshold of stimulation number” (purely geometry dependent) and where k is permeability and  is porosity.

14. Six different realization of same porosity:

15. Total volume of oil production with (solid symbols) and without (open symbols) three cycles of stimulation applied (F s = F o ): Less of a stimulation effect because at 33% saturation, oil cannot form a continuous stream across system. More of a stimulation effect because at 50% saturation, coalescence can result in oil forming a continuous stream across system

16. Towards larger scales: Experiments:

17. Displacement structures depend on velocity and viscosities and gravity:

18. Experimental setup:

19. Experiment movie- no oscillations

20. Experiment, parallel oscillations a=0.8 g

21. Parallel oscillations with a=2.6 g

22. Corresponding network simulations: a=1.0 g f= 10Hz

23. ..and with transverse oscillations: a=1.0 g f=10Hz

24. No oscillations Parallel osc: Transverse osc: The different frequencies and accelerations:

25. Lattice Boltzmann Longitudinal and transverse oscillations

26. Resulting, end saturations of wetting fluid:

27. An experiment with compressibility: Q=const. 35 cm 20 cm

28. Linear elastic response of both air and local plate displacements may model fluid compressibility under much higher pressures.

29. Elastic response gives finite skin-depth: Diffusion equation D For damped oscillations:

30. Results Pressure amplitude (Pa) 0.2 Hz 0.9 Hz 4.0 Hz Flow direction lowhigh f / Hz x /cm 0.252 0.923 411

31. Frequency (Hz) Amplitude (Pa) Phase diagram 2

32. Closer look Fragments Coexistence of both phases in pore spaces- foam

33. Conclusions Transverse stimulation more efficient than parallel stimulation, at least for high fractions of invading fluid Smaller scale coalescence potentially more efficient at higher volume fractions Compressibility gives skin-depth  stimulation range depends on frequency. Simplified (network) and 2D simulations (Lattice Boltzmann) capture experiments Quantification, analysis and scaling laws still lacking