Análise da modelagem experimental da perda de injetividade

• Ano de defesa: 2012
• Autor(a) principal: Bonato, Adriano José do Amaral Mello
• Orientador(a): Santos, Adriano dos
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência e Engenharia do Petróleo
• Departamento: Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento em Ciência e Engenharia de Petróleo
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Transporte de suspensões. Retenção de partículas. Dano à formação. Filtração profunda. Reboco externo. Perda de injetividade
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Suspension transport. Particle retention. Formation damage. Deep bed filtration. Cake filtration. Injectivity decline
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::ENGENHARIAS::ENGENHARIA QUIMICA::TECNOLOGIA QUIMICA::PETROLEO E PETROQUIMICA
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/12984

Injectivity decline, which can be caused by particle retention, generally occurs during water injection or reinjection in oil fields. Several mechanisms, including straining, are responsible for particle retention and pore blocking causing formation damage and injectivity decline. Predicting formation damage and injectivity decline is essential in waterflooding projects. The Classic Model (CM), which incorporates filtration coefficients and formation damage functions, has been widely used to predict injectivity decline. However, various authors have reported significant discrepancies between Classical Model and experimental results, motivating the development of deep bed filtration models considering multiple particle retention mechanisms (Santos & Barros, 2010; SBM). In this dissertation, inverse problem solution was studied and a software for experimental data treatment was developed. Finally, experimental data were fitted using both the CM and SBM. The results showed that, depending on the formation damage function, the predictions for injectivity decline using CM and SBM models can be significantly different