Tuesday: 15:15-15:40

Simulation of combined low salinity

and surfactant injection
Arne Skauge1, Gro Kallevik1, Zhaleh Ghorbani1 and Mojdeh Delshad2

1. CIPR, Centre for Integrated Petroleum Research, U of Bergen, Norway

2. U. of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA

IEA EOR Workshop & Symposium 18-20 Oct. 2010

Saturation development during waterflood and surfactant flooding

Swi (SW) Sor (SW)

B7

0,23

B2

0,22

0,35

Sor (LS) Sor (LSS)

0,29

0,09

0,28

0,04

K=600 mD
Berea cores aged with North Sea crude oil for 10 weeks at 90C

SW

Ion

Ca2+
Mg2+
K+
Na+
ClHCO3SO42-

Concentration
(ppm)
471
1 329
349
11 159
20 130
142
2 740

Retention: 0,2 0,3 mg/g

IFT
SW-oil: 23,5 mN/m
LS-oil: 16,5 mN/m
LSS-oil: 0,012 mN/m

LS
5000 ppm NaCl

Salt concentration in effluent brine

Case: SW to Sor than LS (dSo = 6 s.u.)
SW

LS

0,012
Eclipse Results

Salinity (Na+ (g/l))

0,01

experimental data

0,008
0,006
0,004
0,002
0
0

10

pv injected

15

20

Oil production
Mixing of the brine due to both hydrodynamic mixing (dispersion) and two-phase prod
Matched by increase in the numerical dispersion (fewer grid blocks)

B7 waterflood with SW
followed with LS water

0,012

0,012

0,010

0,01
Salinity (Na+ (g/l))

Salinity Na, g/l

B2 waterflood with LS
Producing first connate water (SW)

0,008
0,006
0,004

0,006
0,004
0,002

0,002
0,000
0,00

0,008

2,00

4,00

6,00

10
pv injected

pv injected

Na+
Na+

11 159 ppm (SW)

1982 ppm (LS)

B7 waterflood with SW
60

60

50

50

Oil Recovery [%]

Oil Recovery [%]

B2 waterflood with LS
70

40
30
20

40
30
20
10

10
0

0
0

PV Injected

PV injected
45

Differential pressure [mbar]

45
40
35

dP [mbar]

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

PV Injected

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

PV Injected

Less two-phase production with LS, (more water wet)

but higher dp at endpoint saturation (more water wet (lower krw)
(or reduced permeability)

2+

mcum /m 0 for Mg and Ca

Mg2+ is strongly retained

in the aged cores during
the course of low
salinity water injections.

2+

Fluids rock interactions

Continuous elution of
Ca2+ from the core
samples is most likely
due to the calcite
dissolution.

8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

B1 Mg2+
B1 Ca2+
B6 Mg2+
B6 Ca2+

0.0

2.0

4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

Volume produced water phase [PV]

B1: core aged with crude

B6: core without aging with crude

Permeability reduction:
Change in wettability or release of fines?
350

300

D P [mbar]

Irregularities in pressure drop

profiles could be associated
with accumulation of fines in
pore constrictions and/or clay
swelling.

aged

250

200

Not aged
B5
B6

150

100
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Volume injected [PV]

4.0

4.5

5.0

100
90
80

Transmittance [%]

More pronounced turbidity in

the effluent from the unaged
core (B6) higher quantity
of fine particles

70
60
50
40
30
20

B5
B6

10
0
0.0

0.5

1.0
1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Volume produced water phase [PV]

4.5

Capillary number relationship

LS and SW flood

LS-S without preflush

LS-S with LS preflush

Garnes, Mathisen, Scheie, Skauge, Capillary Number Relations for

Some North Sea Reservoir Sandstones," SPE 20264, (1990)

Low Salinity Waterflood

possible mechanisms

Wettability alteration

Alteration of wettability due to changes in salinity

Fines migration

Detachment of clay particles from rock surface

Dissolution of minerals

Multicomponent ionic exchange (MIE)

Destabilization of bonding between clay surface

and polar components in crude

Low Salinity Waterflood

most likely mechanisms

Wettability alteration (possible)

Alteration of wettability due to changes in salinity

Fines migration (possible)

Detachment of clay particles from rock surface

Dissolution of minerals (yes, Ca2+ generated)

Multicomponent ionic exchange (MIE) (??)

Destabilization of bonding between clay surface and

polar components in crude

Observations

Multiscale modelling of low salinity and surfactant

Network model approach
Wettability alteration coupled to salinity

Fines migration (blocking and diversion)

Simulation continuum scale

Inverse method history match of waterfloods (SW or LS)
- Generate kr and Pc

UTCHEM low salinity model

ECLIPSE low salinity model
tune on relperm after change in salinity

UTCHEM surfactant
ECLIPSE surfactant

Network approach
Wettability change (analogue to relperm
shift) gives a fair match, but .

so does fines migration (blocking and

diversion) with reduction in absolute
permeability without change in water
relperm

60

B7 waterflood with SW
Oil Recovery [%]

40
30
Experimental data

20

history match
10
0
0

PV injected
45

Differential pressure [mbar]

History match using Sendra

50

40

Experimental Data

35

history match

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

PV Injected

B7 waterflood with SW

Relative permeability

0,9
0,8

Derived relperm and Pc

0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4

OIL

0,3
0,2

WATER

0,1
0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

Water saturation
1,6

1
0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

1,4
1,2

0,1

1
0,8

Pc [Psia]

Relative permeability

0,01
OIL

0,6
0,4
0,2
0

0,001

WATER

-0,2 0
-0,4
-0,6

0,0001

Water saturation

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

Water Saturation

0,6

0,7

0,8

Simulation Approach:
UTCHEM Wettability Alteration Model
Two set of

Relative permeability curves

Capillary pressure curves

Interpolation

actual

final

C 5initial C 5gridblock
initial
C5
C 5injected

original

UTCHEM simulations: SW flood LS flood

70

1
0.9

60
OIL

0.7

50

Oil Recovery [% ]

Relative Permeability

0.8

0.6
0.5
0.4

LS fl ood

SSW
fl ood

0.3

1st step:
SSW flood

40

2nd Step:
LS flood

30
20

Experimental data

0.2

Included wettability alteration

Best Fit

10

WATER

0.1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Water saturation

B7

0.6

0.7

0.8

10

PV Injected

12

14

16

Simulation Approach: Eclipse

Get estimate of the initial set of relative

permeabilities and capillary pressures by use of
Sendra

Brine Tracking option

Salinity can modify brine properties

Low Salinity option

Simulation Approach:
Eclipse Low Salinity option

Two sets of relative permeability and capillary

pressure curves
F1 and F2 is weighting factor

kri F k 1 F1 k
L
1 ri

Pcij F P 1 F2 P
L
2 cij

H
ri

H
cij

Eclipse Simulations: SW flood LS flood

1
0.9

1245
12

SSW
Fl ood
SSW
Flood
SSW
Fl ood

LS
Fl ood
LSLSFlood
Fl ood

Pressure [mbar]
Differential
Oil Recovery
[mbar]
Pressure[mL]
Differential

40
1010
35

Relative Permeability

0.8

830
8
Experimental Data
Data
Experimental
Experimental Data
Eclipse
Eclipse Best
Best Fit
Fit
Eclipse Best Fit

25
6
6
20

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

WATER

SSW
fl ood

0.2
0.1
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Water Saturation

10
2
2
5

40

0
0

5
5
5

10
10
10

15
15
15

20
20
20

25 30 35 40
25 30 35 40
25 Time
30 [hour]
35 40

Time [hour]
[hour]
Time

45
45
45

50
50
50

55
55
55

60
60
60

65
65
65

Capillary Pressure [mbar]

50

0
00

LS
fl ood

0.7

415
4

OIL

SSW
fl ood

30
20

LS
fl ood

10
0
0
-10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Water saturation

0.6

0.7

0.8

High Salinity Connate Water

Low Salinity Brine Injection

Two set relative permeability and

capillary pressure curves

50

0.9

LS flood
Best Fit Eclipse
simulation

OIL

Capillary Pressure [mbar]

Relative Permeability

0.8

40

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

0.2

WATER

10
0

-20

0.1

-30

-40

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Water Saturation

0.6

0.7

0.8

LS flood Best
Fit Eclipse
simulation

20

-10

Assumed for
high salinty
connate water

0.3

30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Water Saturation
Assumed for
high salinty
connate water

0.6

0.7

0.8

High Salinity Waterflood followed by Low Salinity Brine Injection

Tes t 2

0.04

Tes t 1

Salt Consentration [g/cc]

0.035

Two set relative permeability and

capillary pressure curves

0.03

0.025
0.02

0.015

Lookup
table

0.01

0.005
0

HS

Experimental data

Test 1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

LS

Weighing Factor F

Test 2

12

Experimental data

Test 1

Test 2

45
40

Differential Pressure [mbar]

Oil Recovery [mL]

10
8
6
4
2

WBT

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

0
0

10

12

Time [hours]

14

16

18

20

10

12

Time [hours]

Strong sensitivity to the weighing factor

14

16

18

20

What if we only used one set of

relperm and Pc?

Eclipse Simulations: LS flood

One set relative permeability curves

45

12

WBT

40

Differential Pressure [mbar]

Oil Recovery [mL]

10
8

6
Experimental data

Best Fit
2

35
30
25
20
15
Experimental data
10
Best Fit
5

0
0

10

12

Time [hours]

14

16

18

20

10

12

Time [hours]

14

16

18

Low Salinity Surfactant Flooding

Surfactants targets the residual oil by
reducing IFT
Advantages in low salinity environment

Combined effect (low salinity effects at low IFT)

May reduce re-trapping of mobilized oil
Reduced adsorption / retention
More low cost surfactants available

Surfactant: 1wt% surfactant, 1wt% isoamyl alcohol

Simulation Approach:
UTCHEM Surfactant flooding
Type II(-) (water external microemulsion)
Surfactant properties

Surfactant adsorption

IFT

Microemulsion viscosity
Microemulsion phase behaviour

UTCHEM Simulations: LS flood LS surfactant flood

Experimental Data

Best Fit LS-S flood on Core B2

100
90

Oil Recovery [%]

80

60
50
40

2nd step LS-S flood

30
20

0.9

1st step LS flood

10

0.8

Relative permeability

70

OIL

0.7
0.6

Initial :
High Salinity
Connate Water
Wetting
Condition

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Final:
Low Salinity
Water Wetting
Condition

WATER

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Water saturation

0.6

0.7

PV injected

0.1
0

0.8

10

11

12

13

Conclusions 1
Wettability transitions (change in relative permeability and
capillary pressure towards more water wet) are able to match
oil recovery and differential pressure in core flood with
salinity change
Warning: Non-unique match so no mechanisms is thereby
confirmed
Increased differential pressure and sometimes gradually
increasing towards the end of the low salinity flood may be
due to lowering of absolute permeability (fines migration?)
Use of only one set of relative permeability with change in Sor
can give a fair history match, and including absolute
permeability reduction improves the match further
Underlying mechanisms for the low salinity process is likely
more complex than only wettability alteration model

Conclusions 2
More experimental information is needed to
distinguish between possible low salinity mechanisms
Surfactant flooding at low salinity show better results
than expected from the capillary number relationship

Injection of surfactant in combination with low

salinity brine has been proved to be a very effective
oil recovery method

Thank you for your attention

Acknowledgement
to the PETROMAKS program
at the Norwegian Research Council