Modeling of surfactant and surfactant–polymer flooding for enhanced oil recovery using STARS (CMG) software

Chemical flooding methods are now getting importance in enhanced oil recovery to recover the trapped oil after conventional recovery. Investigation has been made to characterize the surfactant solution in terms of its ability to reduce the surface tension and the interaction between surfactant and polymer in its aqueous solution. A series of flooding experiments have been carried out to find the additional recovery using surfactant and surfactant–polymer slug. Approximately 0.5 pore volume (PV) surfactant (sodium dodecylsulfate) slug was injected in surfactant flooding, while 0.3 PV surfactant slug and 0.2 PV polymer (partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide) slug were injected for surfactant–polymer flooding. In each case, chase water was used to maintain the pressure gradient. The present work sought to determine whether or not a commercially available simulator could accurately simulate results from core flooding experiments. The adherence to physically realistic input values with respect to experimentally derived parameters was of primary importance during the development of the models. When specific values were not available for certain simulation parameters, a reasonable range of assumptions was made and both the water cut and cumulative oil production were successfully matched. Ultimately, understanding how to simulate the surfactant and polymer behavior on a core scale will improve the ability to model polymer floods on the field scale.

[1]  Gary A. Pope,et al.  Mechanistic Interpretation and Utilization of Viscoelastic Behavior of Polymer Solutions for Improved Polymer-Flood Efficiency , 2008 .

[2]  G. L. Stegemeier,et al.  Aqueous Surfactant Systems For Oil Recovery , 1973 .

[3]  A. Neto,et al.  New antenna modelling using wavelets for heavy oil thermal recovering methods , 2011 .

[4]  R. S. Schechter,et al.  Modeling Crude Oils for Low Interfacial Tension , 1976 .

[5]  Kamy Sepehrnoori,et al.  Development of a Three Phase, Fully Implicit, Parallel Chemical Flood Simulator , 2009 .

[6]  Gary A. Pope,et al.  A Simplified Predictive Model for Micellar-Polymer Flooding , 1982 .

[7]  R. L. Reed,et al.  Physsicochemical Aspects of Microemulsion Flooding , 1974 .

[8]  R. Seright,et al.  EOR Screening Criteria Revisited - Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects , 1997 .

[9]  K. Ojha,et al.  Interfacial tension and phase behavior of surfactant-brine–oil system , 2011 .

[10]  Gary A. Pope,et al.  Chemical flooding compositional simulator , 1978 .

[11]  Kamy Sepehrnoori,et al.  A Fully Implicit, Parallel, Compositional Chemical Flooding Simulator , 2007 .

[12]  Peter H. Doe,et al.  Polymer flooding review , 1987 .

[13]  R. Flumerfelt,et al.  A Cyclic Surfactant-Based Imbibition/Solution Gas Drive Process for Low-Permeability, Fractured Reservoirs , 1993 .

[14]  K. Taugbøl,et al.  Physicochemical principles of low tension polymer flood , 1994 .

[15]  D. W. Corbishley,et al.  Design of an ASP Pilot for the Mangala Field: Laboratory Evaluations and Simulation Studies , 2008 .

[16]  W. M. Schulte,et al.  Enhanced waterflooding design with dilute surfactant concentrations for North Sea conditions , 1996 .

[17]  Gary A. Pope,et al.  MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF HIGH pH CHEMICAL FLOODING. , 1990 .

[18]  Kamy Sepehrnoori,et al.  Description of an Improved Compositional Micellar/Polymer Simulator , 1987 .