Page 102 - Hybrid Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Smart Waterflooding

94 Hybrid Enhanced Oil Recovery using Smart Waterflooding

(A)
100 1800
SW LS LSS
90
1600
80
1400
70
WBT = 0.41 1200
Oil recovery [% OOIP] 50 1000 dP [mbar]
60

800
Oil recovery
40
WBT
600
30 dP
400
20
10 200
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Injected volume [PV]
(B)
100 5000
SW OS OSS
90 4500
80 4000
WBT = 0.43
70 3500
Oil recovery [% OOIP] 50 2500 dP [mbar]
60
3000
40
2000
30 1500
20 Oil recovery 1000
WBT
10 500
dP
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Injected volume [PV]
FIG. 4.23 The comparison between coreflooding experiments of (A) hybrid low salinity surfactant flood and
(B) optimum salinity surfactant flood. (Credit: From Johannessen, A. M., & Spildo, K. (2013). Enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) by combining surfactant with low salinity injection. Energy and Fuels, 27(10):5738e5749.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ef400596b.)

are observed during LSSF compared with the optimum Khanamiri, Torsæter, and Stensen (2015) investi-
salinity surfactant flood (Fig. 4.24). The average reten- gated whether the hybrid process of LSSF or the combi-
tions are 0.39 mg surfactant/g rock for optimum nation process of LSWF and optimum salinity
salinity surfactant flood and 0.24 mg surfactant/g rock surfactant flood injection shows higher EOR potential.
for LSSF. It is concluded that the hybrid LSSF produces The in situ brine, NaCl brine, and KI brine are manufac-
higher oil recovery comparable with the optimum tured for Berea sandstone coreflooding. The surfactant
salinity surfactant flood with less surfactant retention. of sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS) is used to