Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
much lower for DCEOR, than for steam flood. Non-energy O&M costs for
DCEOR are also much lower than those for steam flood. DCEOR equip-
ment is virtually maintenance free, and can be monitored remotely. This
also translates into longer equipment life expectancy and lower operating
costs than that needed for steam injection technologies.
3.13.3
Comparison of DCEOR to Other EOR Technologies
Table 3.10 compares DCEOR to other emerging, as well as commercial
EOR technologies. DCEOR appears to have the following advantages:
• Heat is generated in-situ, via joule heating
• It does not use a working fluid
• It does not need a significant water supply
• It reduces water cut
• It is independent of permeability
• There are no Thief Zone concerns
• There is no apparent depth limit
• There are no emissions concerns
• There are no hazardous chemical concerns
• It increases apparent permeability
• Electro-kinetics positively influence produced fluids and
low
The biggest DCEOR limitation, to date, appears to be its limited field appli-
cation portfolio. This will change with additional field experience.
3.14 Summary
The following conclusions can be drawn, about DCEOR:
• There have been three encouraging field demonstrations, to
date
• It appears to facilitate beneficial chemical changes in the
produced fluids
•
It appears to be cost competitive, to steam flood, for shallow
reservoirs, and less expensive for deeper reservoirs
•
There are no Tight Zone or Thief Zone problems
•
There is no water or other working fluid requirement
•
It reduces water cut
Search WWH ::
Custom Search