1 Intro EOR Introduction Arne Skauge

FORCE - EOR Competence Building seminar, 6-7 November, Stavanger
1 3
EOR - Introduction20
o v
7 N
Arne Skauge
6 -
p
Centre for IntegratedoPetroleum Research
s h
r k
w o
EOR fundamentals and toolbox
r c e
F o
CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

FORCE - EOR Competence Building seminar, 6-7 November, Stavanger
Structure of presentation 3
0 1
v 2
EOR basics
N o
- 7
EOR experience North Sea
6
p reservoirs
h o
r k s
Gas injection EOR w o
r c e
o
F EOR
Waterflood
Way forward

1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6-
EOR basics
p
h o
r k s
w o
r ce
F o

Recovery Mechanisms
(conventional view)
Primary 1 3
Recovery 2 0
o v
Artificial Lift
Natural Flow
7 N
Pump - Gas Lift - Etc.
6 - Conventional
Secondary o p Recovery
s h
Recovery
o rk Pressure
e w
Waterflood Maintenance
r c Water - Gas Reinjection
F o
Tertiary
Recovery
Thermal Chemical Enhanced
Recovery
Solvent Other
Source: Adapted from the Oil & Gas Journal, Apr. 23, 1990
Target Oil for EOR
Some definitions:
- Primary oil recovery is where the wells in13a reservoir
2
produce under the natural reservoir energy 0 (pressure)
ovin place
- typical oil recovery from 1-10% ofNoil
- 7
p 6
h o
- Secondary oil recovery r k s
is where we inject water (nearly
always) to displace w
o
the oil = waterflooding; same effect if
strong aquifer driver c e
F o
- typical oil recovery from 15-60% of oil in place
- Improved or Enhanced oil recovery (EOR; IOR) is where

we do something more advanced to obtain the
oil left in the reservoir after secondary recovery
CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH 5

Oil recovery efficiency = ED x EA x EV
E A x EV
1
Connate water 1 3
Soi = 1- Swi 2 0
ov
Saturation, S
7 N
6 -
Oil o p Unswept area
s h
Recoverable r k
w o
reserves
e
r c
Sor F o
ED Residual oil
0 1
Np = [ 1/Bo · Vp · ( Soi – Sor)] · EA · EV Porevolum, Vp

Oil recovery efficiency = ED x EA x EV
E A x EV
1
Connate water 1 3
Soi = 1- Swi 2 0
ov
Saturation, S
7 N
6 -
Oil o p Unswept area
s h
Recoverable r k
w o
reserves
e
r c
Sor F o
ED Residual oil
0 1
Np = [ 1/Bo · Vp · ( Soi – Sor)] · EA · EV Porevolum, Vp

Trapped (residual) oil & Bypassed Oil:
the targets for EOR
1 3
2 0 Produce
Inject Trapped v
water Oil N o oil
7
(10 --30%) Bypassed Oil +
p6 (20 - 60%) Water
h o
r k s
w o
r ce
F o
St Monance Outcrop, Fife

Residual oil saturation
Trapped Oil at the Pore Scale in a Rock
Rock grains (~10 - 100µm) 3

Rock pores (~0.1 - 100µm)
1
2 0
o v
7 N This is the capillary
-
o p6 trapped oil or
residual oil, Sor
s h
r k … consider the
w o
e mechanism of trapping
r c
F o
N.B. lengthscales
Particulary …
Rock pores ~0.1 - 100µm

trapped oil “ganglia” (or blobs)

Trapped Oil at the Pore Scale in a Rock:
trapping by “snap-off”
1 3
0
this oil2filament is
N ov and “snaps”
unstable
-7
p 6
h o
r ks
w o oil escapes
r ce through
F o continuous
oil phase
SAND
GRAINS

trapping by “snap-off”
1 3
2 0
v
“snap-off”
o
7 N
6 -
op
s h
r k
w o oil escapes
r ce through
F o continuous
oil phase
SAND
GRAINS

pressure to mobilise oil into a smaller pore
1 3
SO WHAT CAN WE CHANGE TO 2
Pressure gradient
0to mobilise oil
vo
MOVE RESIDUAL OIL ?? N
Oil pressure
7 = Po2
6 -
1 - 1 R1op
∆P = 2 σ
∆x R2 R1 s h water
R2
∆x
o rk oil
e w
r c ∆x Water pressure = Pw
F o

1 3
Pressure gradient
0to mobilise oil
vo
Oil pressure
7 = Po2
6 -
1 - 1 R1op
∆P = 2 σ
R2
∆x
o rk oil
e w
F o
Possibly LOWER interfacial tension, σ, but HOW ??
- Surfactant - “soaps” lower σ
- Inject gas (CH4, CO2 etc..) which can lower σ and do other things

1 3
Pressure gradient
0to mobilise oil
vo
Oil pressure
7 = Po2
6 -
1 - 1 R1op
∆P = 2 σ
R2
∆x
o rk oil
e w
F o
LOWER interfacial tension, σ, but BY HOW MUCH ??

v.µ
µ
Define Capillary Number, Nc, as - Nc =
σ
(v = velocity; µ = viscosity; σ = interfacial tension)

Residual oil mobilisation at increased Capillary No.
1 3
2 0 v.µ
µ
v Nc =
N o σ
-7
Reduction
p 6 Note that
h o Nc
in Sor as
r ks
o as
Nc w
r c e σ
Fo
(After Morrow & Chatzis)

Sweep
Areal sweep
M=
K’rw/µw
1 3
M=17
K’ro/µo
2 0
ov
7 N
M < 1 stable front
6 -
o p
s h
Vertical sweepk r k
w o k
r
Super- c e
Fo
homogen Tunnel
D D
k k
Worst case
Random
D D

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
Enhanced Oil Recovery process
overview
1 3
20
Thermal Chemical
o v Miscible
7 N
6 -
Steam
p
Alkaline/Caustic
o
CO2
s h
rk
wo
In-situ combustion Polymer and polymer particles Inert gas N2
r c e
Hot water Fo Surfactant - polymer Miscible hydrocarbon slug
Low salinity water flood Enrich gas

Foam
WAG
Hybrid processes
High pressure lean gas

1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
EOR experience North p Sea reservoirs
h o
r k s
w o
r c e
F o

Maximizing oil recovery for Norwegian oil and
3 gas fields
0 1
v 2
N o
Challenges - 7
p 6
h o
Identify undrained area
r k s
w o
Well distance
r ce
F o
Well placement
Logistics

Maximizing oil recovery for Norwegian oil 3and gas fields
0 1
v 2
N o
Challenges Actions - 7
p 6
o
h seismic and EM
rk s
4D
w o
Well distance
rce drill cheap/fast new wells
Well placement
Fo sidetrack injectors into the oil zone
Logistics minimize the amount of chemicals for EOR

Maximizing oil recovery for Norwegian oil 3and gas fields
0 1
v 2
N o
Challenges Actions - 7
p 6
o
h seismic and EM
rk s
4D
w o
Well distance
rce drill cheap/fast new wells
Well placement
Fo sidetrack injectors into the oil zone
Logistics minimize the amount of chemicals for EOR
Use solved challenges to activate EOR

Experience with field implementation of EOR
Surfactant
1 3
Single Well Tracer Tests (Gullfaks, Oseberg)
Surfactant Single Well Test (Gullfaks, Oseberg) 20
ov
Other SWTT
7 N
6 -
Gas Single Well Tracer Test (implemented on Oseberg)
o p
Low salinity SWTT
s h
(Heidrun, Snorre) r k
wo
Conformance controlc
r e
(Gullfaks, Snorre, ++)
F o
WAG
(many fields)
Foam and FAWAG

(Brage, Oseberg, Snorre, Veslefrikk, ++)

1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
o p
h
ks
Gas rinjection EOR
w o
r c e
Fo

Gas processes
1 3
Miscible gas 2 0
o v
WAG N
- 7
Foam p 6
h o
r k s
CO2 (EOR and sequestration)
w o
r ce
F o

Multi-contact miscible gas injection
1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
op
s h
r k
wo
Vaporizing r ce Condensing
F o

Viscous fingering
1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
op
s h
r k
w o
r ce
F o

Sandstone Carbonates
1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
op
s h
r k
w o
r ce
F o

WAG field applications Not classified
8%
Not classified Average increased recovery : 5-10
Immiscible
3%
% OOIP
18%
Hydrocarbon
42%
Miscible applications : 9.7 %

1 3
Immiscible applications : 6.4 % 2 0 CO2
o v 47%
Miscible
79%
7 N N2/Exhaust
Miscible/Immiscible 6 - 3%
WAG op
s h
r k
wo Gases injected in WAG
Not classified
Carbonate 5%
r ce
10%
F o Average increased recovery : 5-10 % OOIP
CO2 applications : 8 %
Dolomite
Hydrocarbon applications : 5 %
20%
Sand
57% Carbonates / Dolomites have higher
average recovery than sandstones
Limestone
8%
Formation
Gas based methods, example
STATFJORD RECOMMENDED
FUTURE DRAINAGE STRATEGY 1 3
Oil production
2 0
BRENT v
No
BRENT
RESERVOIR EAST FLANK
WAG injection
- 7
p 6
U P PE R
BR E N
T
h o
LO W E
R BR E
NT
r k s W&G injection
w o Oil production
WAG injection
Oil production
r c e
F o ORD
STATFJ
UPPER
JO RD
ST A T F
LO W ER
STATFJORD
RESERVOIR

Gas and water improving vertical sweep
Down-dip injection: Sweeping attic oil with gas
1 3
20
ov
7 N
6 -
o p
s h
r k
w o
r ce
F o

Gas and water improving vertical sweep
Up-dip injection: Sweeping cellar oil with water1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
op
s h
r k
w o
r ce
F o

Stone - Jenkins
Calculation of extent of the WAG three-phase zone based on two-phase flow only
3
Statement: Jenkins analytical model underestimates the WAG three-phase zone
1
when compared to three-phase flow simulation results
2 0
injector o v producer
7 N
6 -L
o p
s h hg(x)
o rk G
e w
r c
Fo G+W h
hs W
hw(x)
LG
BUT Som (3ph) << Sor (2 ph)

krg
WAG Model requirement
- Gas modeling
must include gas trapping 1 3
gas rel perm must be able to vary with: 2 0
v (Sgt)2
(Sgt)1
No
W G
- increasing / decreasing gas saturation
- water saturation - 7 (Sgi)2
p6
Sw Swi (Sgi)1 Sg
- gas trapping history
ho
O
3-Phase Gas Relative Permeability
r k s
- Water modeling o
w
water relative permeability must vary with:
e
c
r water saturation
- increasing/decreasing
- gas saturation F
o
- Oil modeling
residual oil must be allowed to change with trapped gas
oil relative permeability should be history dependent
WAG Hysteresis model recommended (developed by Larsen and Skauge)
Available in ECLIPSE
Immiscible WAG: mechanism -
redistribution
1 3
RED 2 0
- oil
o v
7 N
BLUE
6 -
- water
op
s h
WHITE/
r k
YELLOW
- gas w o
r ce
F o
σgo=15 mN/m
network model micromodel network model micromodel

first gas flood fifth gas flood
WAG modelling 3
0 1
v 2
N o
-7
p 6
h o
r ks
w o
r ce
F o
Larsen and Skauge, SPEJ

Skauge and Dale, SPE 111435
three-phase Pc (go)

Example - Extension of three-phase zone Injector Producer
More detailed fluid flow description

Leads to:
Larger three-phase zone Som << Sor
115% increase in three phase zone, 35% increase in recovery Skauge and Dale, SPE 111435
1 3
Case 1
2 0
v
oonly 2-phase rel perm
7 N
Case 2
6 -
op 2-phase rel perm including Pc
s h
r k
Case 3 w o
r ce 3-phase rel perm hysteresis and
F o gas trapping
Case 4
3-phase rel perm hysteresis and

gas trapping including Pc
Case 5
3-phase rel perm hysteresis and
gas trapping including Pc and the
effect of Pc on rel perms
Foam
1 3
2 0
o v
Structured two phase,
N
6 -7compressible fluid
o p
s h Hexagonal foam texture
o rk
e w
r c Large gas volume dispersed as
F o bubbles in a continuous liquid
phase
Liquid film is stabilized by

surfactants to prevent bubble
coalescence

Foam Applications
OGOC
Near the producer: GOC GOC
a) Gas coning. 1 3
oil 20
b) Gas cusping.
ov
c) Gas channelling in fractures 7 N
6 -
Foam blocking op
a gas cone s h
r k
wo
e A demonstration of foam
r c gas blocking
gas
F o
foam
oil

Foam trials North Sea Area
1 3
Production well treatments 2 0 control
Foam for mobility
o v
Oseberg N
Snorre
7 Central Fault Block
-
p6
B-27 1994
B-38 1996 h o (P-25-P18A) 1997/98
r ks
w o
Beryl Western Fault Block
r ce
B-30z 1994
F o (P32-P39)
1999/2000
Snorre
P-18 1996 Brage 1998

1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
p
o
s
Waterflood h EOR
r k
w o
r c e
Fo

Waterflooding EOR
Low salinity 1 3
2 0
Hybrid EOR o v
N
Surfactants (lower IFT) 6-7
Polymer flooding (sweep o p ++)
s h
r k
LPS (microscopic w o diverging)
c e
Diverging techniques
r
F o
MIOR
and more

Conventional Chemical Methods for Enhanced
Oil Recovery
3
Surfactants to lower the interfacial 1tension
2 0
between the oil and water or change
v the
wettability of the rock N o
7 -
p 6
Water soluble polymers h o to increase the viscosity
of the water r k s
w o
e
Polymer gelsrcfor blocking or diverting flow
Fo
Combinations of chemicals and different
methods

How surfactant floods are applied in the field
residual oil, Sor 3 oil

oil lenses or bypassed
1
2 0
o v oil & water
7 N
6 -
o p
sh
1. Situation after some timerk
of waterflooding; Sor and bypassed oil
w o
r e
cbank formation
Inject Fo
Oil
surfactant
solution oil & water
2. Inject aqueous surfactant solution - mobilise oil - form “oil bank”

How surfactant floods are applied in the field
Surfactant Growing oil bank 3

Inject slug 0 1
viscous v 2
polymer N o oil & water
solution -7
p 6
h o
rk s
3. Post-flush with viscousopolymer solution for mobility control
Polymer e w
r c Surfactant Oil bank
F o
slug
slug
Inject low
µ water
postflush oil & water
4. Later water injection may lead to some fingering through polymer

Surfactant floods - frontal structure of oil bank
Note the profile of the oil saturation in 1D 3

0 1
Polymer
Surfactant v 2
Oil bank
Inject low
slug
slug N o
µ water -7
postflush p 6 oil & water
h o
r ks
w o
e
To help protect y our priv acy , PowerPoint prev ented this external picture from being automatically downloaded. To download and display this picture, click Options in the Message Bar, and then click Enable external content.
r c
F o
Oil bank
Surfactant
slug
Classical Surfactant Enhanced Oil Recovery
1 3
2 0
Surfactants has been used to lower the interfacial
v tension between
No of the rock
the oil and water and / or change the wettability
7
Water soluble polymers to increase 6
-
the viscosity of the water
o p
Alkaline chemicals such as k s h
sodium carbonate to react with crude oil
o
and generate surface activityr plus increase pH
e w
r c
Combinations of chemicals and methods
F o
MF - MPF - SF - SPF - LTPF - AF - APF - ASPF …………..

Conventional Surfactant Polymer (SP) Flooding
& Alkali (A) Flooding
1 3
0
• Surfactant + Cosurfactant (S): applied2to give a low o/w
IFT at some optimal salinity; o v
=> high Capillary Number 7 N
-
6 oil – reduces Sor
p
=> mobilises previously trapped
o
s h
rk
o the injected brine and give mobility
• Polymer (P): viscosifies
e w
control behind thecsurfactant slug
o r
F
• Alkali (A): high pH alkali solution applied to cause “soap”
formation (saponification) with acids in oil – these “soaps”
reduce o/w IFT and cause reduced Sor

Alkali (A) Surfactant (S) Polymer (P) Flooding
ASP
1 3
2 0
ov
KEY aspects of ASP flooding SHORT SUMMARY
Noil – natural surfactants
1. In situ “soap” generation by Alkali + crude
- 7
6
opCrude/brine/”soap”+Surfactant
2. Appropriate phase behaviour with
h
rk s
w o
3. LOW IFTs with Crude/brine/”soap”+Surfactant – optimal salinity
affected by both [Surfactant]
e and [“Soap”]
r c
o
F Adsorption at higher pH
4. LOWER surfactant
5. OTHER Reservoir Chemistry

- The CARBONATE/ALKALI System
- ION EXCHANGE with clays – mainly H+/Na+ , Ca2+ etc..
- MINERAL REACTIONS dissolution/precipitation

Surfactant Types
Anionic surfactants preferred 1 3
2 0
o
Low adsorption at neutral to high pH on v
both sandstones and
carbonates 7 N
6 -
p
o of conditions
Can be tailored to a wide range
s h
Widely available at lowr kcost in special cases
w o
Sulfates for lowce
temperature applications
o r
F
Sulfonates for high temperature applications
Cationics can be used as co-surfactants
Non-ionic surfactants have not performed as well for EOR

as anionic surfactants

1 3
2 0
I will argue why: o v
N
Conventional surfactant flooding never7 will become a widely used
6-
EOR process for North Sea oil reservoirs
p
h o
Statement:
r k s
Ultralow interfacial tensionois counteracted by poor flow properties
w (retention)
and high surfactanteloss
r c
o
The presentationFwill give evidence to this statement and indicate a
way forward

Some challenges related to field applications
Finding a suitable surfactant (and polymer) 1 3
2 0
Low cost (polymer and surfactant) ov
7 N
-
Manageable logistics (polymer and surfactant)
6
Good injectivity (polymer)o p
s h
r k
Low adsorption / loss (polymer and surfactant)
w o
Optimal phase behaviour at reservoir conditions (surfactant)
e
r c
o
Fo
Salinity
o Temperature
o Pressure

Classical Micellar Polymer Flooding
13
Optimizing a surfactant flooding process is a compromise
0 between
v 2
Ultralow IFT N o
7
Low retention 6-
Injectivity (solution properties) op
phase viscosity s h
r k
w o
c e
Is it possible to have good
r solution properties at conditions where we
o IFT?
can achieve ultralow
F
Can we achieve low adsorption/retention at conditions where we can
achieve ultralow IFT?

Surfactants
Phase behaviour and IFT as functions of salinity

10
WII- WIII
1 3
WII +
0
IFT/(mN/m)
1
EOP/MEP
v 2
No
0,1 MEP/EWP
0,01
- 7
0,001
p 6
0 1 2 3 4
h o
5 6 7 8 9 10
k s
r NaCl/wt%
w o S*
NaCl % 0 1 2
r c e 3 4 5 6 6,6 7 8 9 10
Phase
II- II- FII- o II- II- II- III III III II+ II+ II+
behaviour
IFT/(mN/m) 2,18 0,46 0,21 0,075 0,077 0,05 ~0,013 0,0015 ~0,006 0,013 0,023 0,061
Phase behaviour against heptane follows usual trends.

II- phase behaviour gives low IFT near the three-phase region
EOP: excess oil phase

MEP: microemulsion phase
Correlation between solubility, retention and phase behaviour
1 3
2 0
NaCl
v
No
wt%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Appearance C C C C P P - 7 T P P P O
p 6
Activity 100 100 100 100 79 o
h 97 100 98 98 98 11
r k s
Retention
(mg/g)
0,14
w o
0,15 1,5 1,76
c e
r 0,075 0,077 0,05
IFT (mN/m) 2,18
F o
0,46 0,21 0,0015* 0,013 0,023 0,061
Phase
behaviour
WII- WIII WIII WII+ WII+ WII+
* IFT at S* = 6.6
Alternative? Ultralow IFT, BUT

poor solution properties and high retention
Other use of surfactants for reducing IFT
may be more efficient and economical
than classical MPF or surfactant flooding
Polymers
Improving Vertical and Areal Sweep Efficiency:

by increasing water 100 3
viscosity using 0 1
2
polymers ov N
-7 Xanthan
p 6
h o
Comparison of viscosities of r ks
three types of polymers in w o 50
HPAM
1.0% NaCl at 74oF
r c e
F o Solution
viscosity
(cp) HEC
Xanthan - a biopolymer
HPAM - hydrolysed poly
acrylamide
HEC - hydroxy ethyl 0
cellulose 800 1600 2400
Polymer concentration (ppm)
Lessons Learned:
• Higher initial water cut results in
Daqing Polymer Injection lower incremental gains in
recovery (see figure to left)
• The total cost of polymer
1 3
flooding ($6.60/bbl inc. oil) is
actually less than for
2 0
waterflooding ($7.85/bbl inc. oil)
o v
due to decreased water
7 Nproduction and increased oil
6 - production.
p • More heterogeneous reservoir:
h o – larger increase in sweep
r ks efficiency
w o – shorter response time to
polymer flooding
r ce – strongest influence on
Project Description:
F o recovery is connectivity of
• Over 2000 wells now injecting pay zones
polymer at Daqing • To obtain higher recovery with
• Typical slug size is 0.6 PV polymer flooding:
• Most well patterns are 5-spot – lower producer WHP
• about 30-50% of injected – stimulate producers
polymer is produced – increase polymer
• maximum produced polymer concentration
conc. is approx. 2/3 of injected – increase polymer molecular
weight
Waterflooding at high adverse mobility ratio
1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
o p
s h
r k Mohanty et al 2012
w o
r c e
F o
Skauge, A., Ormehaug, P:A., Gurholt, T., Vik, B., Bondino, I., and Hamon, G., 2-D Visualisation of Unstable Waterflood
and Polymer Flood for Displacement of Heavy Oil, SPE 154292, paper prepared for presentation at the
Eighteenth SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symp. Tulsa, 2012

Water- and polymer flood of viscous oils
70
1 3
60
2 0
ov
Oil Recovery (% OOIP)
50
7 N
40 6 -
o p
30
s h
r k
20
w o E7000
E2000
r c e
10
F o
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Injected Volume (PV)
Skauge, A., Ormehaug, P:A., Gurholt, T., Vik, B., Bondino, I., and Hamon, G., 2-D Visualisation of Unstable Waterflood
and Polymer Flood for Displacement of Heavy Oil, SPE 154292, paper prepared for presentation at the
Eighteenth SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symp. Tulsa, 2012

Losal – Designer water – Smart water, etc
1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
op
s h
r k
w o
r ce
F o
From Morrow et al paper SPE 154209, Tulsa 2012

Low salinity waterflood
The key parameters or factors claimed to explain

low salinity mechanisms for sandstones are: 1 3
0 2
o v
Multicomponent ion exchange 7 N
Double layer expansion 6 -
o p
Fines migration s h
Wettability alteration ork
Microscopically diverted e w flow
c
rflooding
Impact of alkaline
F o
pH driven wettability change
Plus about 20 other suggestions in the literature

Low Salinity Simulation Approach: Eclipse
Brine Tracking option 1 3
2 0
Salinity can modify brine propertiesv
N o
Low Salinity option -7
p 6
• o
Two sets of relative permeability
h and capillary
pressure curves orks
• w
F1 and F2 is weighting
e factor
r c
F o kri
kri = F k + (1 − F1 )k
L
1 ri
H
ri
Pcij = F P + (1− F2 ) P
L
2 cij
H
cij
Sw

Sensitivity tests on the rel perm
F1 - factor
1 3
0
kri = F k + (1 − F1 )k
L
1 ri
H
ri ov 2
7 N
6 -
op
s h
r k
wo
r c e
F o
Salt concentration (g/cc)

Surfactants
New combination of EOR methods

1 3
Low salinity waterflood may give only modest 2 0 improved oil
recovery for many sandstone reservoirs o v
7 N
Cost of reducing water salinity may -
6 be a show stopper
o p
s h
Recent research has made k
r a combined low salinity and
surfactant flooding a wayw o of boosting oil recovery and
improve the economy c e
r of this EOR process
F o
Source:
Alagic and Skauge (CIPR): “Change to Low Salinity Brine Injection in Combination with
Surfactant Flooding,” presented at 15th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery
— Paris, France, 27 – 29 April 2009

Low Salinity Surfactant Flooding
1 3
Surfactants targets the residual oil by reducing IFT
0 2
o v
Advantages in low salinity environment 7 N
6 -
o p
s h
Combined effect (lowrksalinity effects at low IFT)
w
May reduce re-trapping
o of mobilized oil
r c e
Reduced adsorption
o / retention
F
More low cost surfactants available

UTCHEM Simulations: LS flood LS surfactant flood
Experimental Data Best Fit LS-S flood on Core B2
100
1 3
90
2 0
80
o v
70
N
Oil Recovery [%]

60
- 7
50
p 6
h o 40 2nd step LS-S flood
r k s 30
1
w o 20
0.9
rc e 10 1st step LS flood
Fo
0.8
0
OIL Final:
Relative permeability
0.7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Low Salinity
0.6 PV injected
Water Wetting
Condition
0.5 Initial :
High Salinity
Good simulation match
0.4
0.3
Connate Water
Wetting
of production data
Condition WATER Skauge, A., Ghorbani, Z., and Delshad, M., Simulation of
0.2 Combined Low Salinity Brine and Surfactant Flooding, (Sub
ID: 9874), the EAGE IOR Symposium 12th – 14th April 2011
0.1 in Cambridge, UK.
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
WaterCIPR
saturation
– CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH
Surfactants
Advantage of the combined EOR methods
Low salinity reduces surfactant retention

1 3
The combined process can mobilize most of the oil 2 0in place in lab core
flood experiments
o v
Low cost surfactants can be used at these 7 N
salinities
6 -
p
Low sal surfactant
o
s h
r k Experimental Data Best Fit LS-S flood on Core B2
w o 100
90
r c e 80
LSS
Fo 70
Oil Recovery [%]
60
LS
50
HS
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
PV injected
Low sal surfactant Polymer for heavy oil recovery
Experimental Data Best Fit LS-S flood on Core B2
100 Oil recovery from water and polymer injection
90
100
80 90
O il Reco very (% )
70 80
3
Oil Recovery [%]
70
60
60
0 1
50 50
40
v 2
40
30
30
20 N o Oil Rec(%)
20
- 10 7 Oil Recovery, Polymer
10
p 6 0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
0
h o Injected volume (PV)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PV injected
8 9 10 11
r k s12 13
Nano polymer particles for EOR

Extending polymers for high sal og temp
w o 0.9
rc e 0.8
Fo
0.7
waterflooding
Oil Recovery (HCPV)

0.6
0.5
CDG/LPS
0.4
0.3
Waterflooding
0.2
0.1
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Volume injected (PV)

Nano particles mechanisms sweep improvement, but also..
1 3
2
SEM photograph 0 of CDG particles
o v
Microscopic diversion
7 N
6 - Scale 2 µm
op
s h
r k
wo
c
Linked Polymer solutions
r e
Spherical particles F o
Typical size 50-100 nm
Pre-generated particles;
1. Less likely to be adsorbed

2. Expect less chromatographic separation

LPS in core flood
Sandstone reservoir core (fresh core), K=900 mD
0.9 1 3
2 0
0.8
o v
7 N
0.7
6 -waterflooding
Oil Recovery (HCPV)
0.6 o p
s h Qi=0.1 cc/min (3.7 PV)
0.5 r k Qi=1.0 cc/min (4.0 PV)
wo
0.4
r c e CDG
Qi=1.0cc/min (13.4 PV)
0.3 F o
Waterflooding
0.2 Qi = 1.0 cc/min (6.0 PV)
waterflood LPS
0.1
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Volum e injected (PV)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Coiled
polymer (LPS)
Al3+
- - - -
- Al3+ - -
- - - -
- -
particles
-
3
- - - Al3+
- - - - -
- Al3+
1
- - - - - - -
- -
-
0
- - -
-
-
2
-
-
- -
-
-
-
ov
N
-
- -
- - - - - - -
Al 3+
-
- - - - - -
7
- - - -
Al 3+ Al3+ - -
-
-
- - -
- - - - - -
- Al3+ - - - -
- -
6
- - - - - - - Al3+
- - - - - - Al 3+
- - - - -
- -
Al 3+
-
-
-
-
Coil
- - - - - - - - -
p
- - -
Al3+ -
- -
- - Al3+ - - - - - - - - -
o
- -
Aggregates
- - -
- - --
- - - -
- -
h
- -
- -
- - -
-
s
-
- - - -
Al 3+
- -
rk
- -
- - Al3+
- - - -
- - - - -
- - -
o
Al 3+
- - - - -
- Al3+
- -
- - - - - - -
w
- -
- - - -
-
-
- -
e
-
HPAM
r c
F o Al3+
-
-
- Al3+
-
-
- Al3+
-
Al3+
- Polymer gel
-
-
-
- -
-
Intra-molecular aggregate is preferred

LPS flooding in a glass model
1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
Heterogeneous etched pores on glass plates
6 -
o p
s h
o rk
e w
r c
F o
L：
：625 mm W：
：100 mm Gap：
：50-100 µm
Experiments show that water after LPS injection is following

new pathways and is mobilising bypassed oil
1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
op
Waterflooding at adverse mobility ratioks
h
o r
e w
r c
F o
After LPS injection water is contacting

Initially bypassed pores

Way forward
3
01
We will see more advanced flood sequences…
2
o v
7 N
Polymer - new development and-possibilities (Yes)
Low salinity (?) p 6
h o
Classical surfactant flooding
r k s (?)
w o
c e
Hybrid EOR – YESor
F
Low Salinity Surfactant – Low Salinity Polymer even LSASP
– Low Salinity Low Tension Gas - Nano particle polymers
Foam/Polymer – Nano stabilized foam- Low Tension Gas –
WAG – Foam Assisted WAG (FAWAG) and more…..

Thank you
1 3
2 0
o v
7 N
6 -
op
s h
r k
w o
r ce
F o

1 Intro EOR Introduction Arne Skauge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Intro EOR Introduction Arne Skauge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORCE - EOR Competence Building seminar, 6-7 November, Stavanger

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

- Improved or Enhanced oil recovery (EOR; IOR) is where

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH 5

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

St Monance Outcrop, Fife

Rock grains (~10 - 100µm) 3

Rock pores ~0.1 - 100µm

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

- Surfactant - “soaps” lower σ

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

LOWER interfacial tension, σ, but BY HOW MUCH ??

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

(After Morrow & Chatzis)

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

Low salinity water flood Enrich gas

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

Logistics minimize the amount of chemicals for EOR

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

Logistics minimize the amount of chemicals for EOR

Use solved challenges to activate EOR

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

Foam and FAWAG

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

Miscible applications : 9.7 %

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

network model micromodel network model micromodel

Larsen and Skauge, SPEJ

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

More detailed fluid flow description

3-phase rel perm hysteresis and

Liquid film is stabilized by

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH

residual oil, Sor 3 oil

2. Inject aqueous surfactant solution - mobilise oil - form “oil bank”

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH 43

Surfactant Growing oil bank 3

4. Later water injection may lead to some fingering through polymer

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH 44

Note the profile of the oil saturation in 1D 3

CIPR – CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED PETROLEUM RESEARCH