Reservoir Simulation of CO 2 Flooding vs. CO 2 Huff-and-Puff in Shale Formations: Comparative Analysis of Storage and Recovery Mechanisms

Nazerke Zhumakhanova (), Kamy Sepehrnoori, Dinara Delikesheva, Jamilyam Ismailova and Fadi Khagag
Additional contact information
Nazerke Zhumakhanova: Petroleum Engineering Department, Satbayev University, Almaty 05000, Kazakhstan
Kamy Sepehrnoori: Hildebrand Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Dinara Delikesheva: Petroleum Engineering Department, Satbayev University, Almaty 05000, Kazakhstan
Jamilyam Ismailova: Petroleum Engineering Department, Satbayev University, Almaty 05000, Kazakhstan
Fadi Khagag: Petroleum Engineering Department, Satbayev University, Almaty 05000, Kazakhstan

Energies, 2025, vol. 18, issue 13, 1-21

Abstract: Anthropogenic CO 2 emissions are a major driver of climate change, highlighting the urgent need for effective mitigation strategies. Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) offers a promising approach, particularly through CO 2 -enhanced gas recovery (EGR) in shale reservoirs, which enables simultaneous hydrocarbon production and CO 2 sequestration. This study employs a numerical simulation model to compare two injection strategies: CO 2 flooding and huff-and-puff (H&P). The results indicate that, without accounting for key mechanisms such as adsorption and molecular diffusion, CO 2 H&P provides minimal improvement in methane recovery. When adsorption is included, methane recovery increases by 9%, with 14% of the injected CO 2 stored over 40 years. Incorporating diffusion enhances recovery by 19%, although with limited storage potential. In contrast, CO 2 flooding improves methane production by 26% and retains up to 94% of the injected CO 2 . Higher storage efficiency is observed in reservoirs with high porosity and low permeability, particularly in nano-scale pore systems. Overall, CO 2 H&P may be a viable EGR option when adsorption and diffusion are considered, while CO 2 flooding demonstrates greater effectiveness for both enhanced gas recovery and long-term CO 2 storage in shale formations.

Keywords: CO 2 sequestration; CO 2 injection; shale gas; reservoir simulation; enhanced gas recovery (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/13/3337/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/13/3337/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:18:y:2025:i:13:p:3337-:d:1687379

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().