Page 111 - Hybrid Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Smart Waterflooding
P. 111

CHAPTER 4   Hybrid Chemical EOR Using Low-Salinity and Smart Waterflood  103



                            H 2 O                          8
                   Na +     A –         ROCK               7
                                        –
                 OH –                   M                  6
                       HA o             I
                                        H                  5
                         OIL
                                    NaOH                 Interfacial Tension mN/m  4
                            HA o             H 2 O         3

                                     –
                            HA w    A + H +                2
                                                           1
          FIG. 4.33 The schematic description of reactions of
          alkaline recovery process. (Credit: From deZabala, E. F.,  0
                                                            0      1       2      3       4      5
          Vislocky, J. M., Rubin, E., & Radke, C. J. (1982). A chemical
                                                                    Chemical Concentration (wt %)
          theory for linear alkaline flooding. SPE Journal, 22(02),
                                                                          SDS   NaOH
          245e258. https://doi.org/10.2118/8997-PA.)
                                                        FIG. 4.34 Comparison of IFT between alkaline and
                                                        surfactant solution in low salinity condition. (Credit: From
          and Na 2 CO 3 have a risk to precipitate with divalent cat-  Shaddel, S., & Tabatabae-Nejad, S. A. (2015). Alkali/
                                                        surfactant improved low-salinity waterflooding. Transport in
          ions. In carbonate reservoirs, the presence of anhydrite,
                                                        Porous Media, 106(3), 621e642. https://doi.org/10.1007/
          CaSO 4 , or gypsum, CaSO 4 $2H 2 O, can make precipita-
                                                        s11242-014-0417-1.)
          tion when NaOH or Na 2 CO 3 is added. Higher content
          of divalent cations in formation water also leads to
          the precipitation during the alkaline injection. To avoid
          the precipitation problem, the agents of sodium bicar-  chemicals significantly reduce the IFT, and surfactant
          bonate (NaHCO 3 ) and sodium sulfate (Na 2 SO 4 ) are  addition shows slightly higher reduction compared
          added with alkali agents. In addition, alkali has attrac-  with the alkali addition (Fig. 4.34). Although the surfac-
          tion to the reservoir rock. Similar to the description of  tant has higher potential to reduce IFT than alkali, it is
          cation exchange in previous chapter, the alkaline un-  clearly observed that in situ surfactant generation
          dergoes ion-exchange reactions. Another significant re-  from the interaction between alkali and crude oil also
          action is the direct reaction between specific mineral  decreases IFT and potentially recovers the trapped oil.
          and alkali agent. The alkali agent has reactivity with a  The experiments of coreflooding compare the tertiary
          number of minerals and results in the dissolution or  recovery of LSSF and LSAF after secondary conventional
          precipitation.                                waterflood. The LSSF and LSAF enhance the oil recovery
                                                        by 22% and 12.3%, respectively. In addition, the overall
          Low Salinityeaugmented Alkaline Flood         pressure of injection is higher in LSSF and LSAF
          Because higher pH increases the ionic strength and the  compared with the LSWF. Because the preliminary
          effects of ionic strength or salinity on the performance  study estimates less swelling of clay in the low-salinity
          of alkaline flood are relatively less predominant, a few  water condition, it is explained that higher pressure is
          studies have investigated the hybrid process of low  attributed to the release of extra oil and slightly higher
          salinityeaugmented alkaline flood (LSAF). Shaddel  viscosity of chemical solutions during LSSF and LSAF.
          and Tabatabae-Nejad (2015) designed the hybrid pro-  The study drew a couple of conclusions regarding the
          cess of LSSF and LSAF and evaluated the synergetic ef-  LSAF. Although the LSAF shows less EOR potential
          fects of LSAF compared with that of LSSF. The alkalis  than LSSF, the lower cost of alkali agent has benefits
          of NaOH and anionic surfactant are prepared. The eval-  on the EOR implementation. In addition to the
          uations ignore the use of cosurfactant or cosolvent. The  reducing chemical cost, the alkali agent injection could
          formation brine has 209,853 ppm TDS, and the dilu-  prevent the adsorption of in situ generated petroleum
          tion of the formation brine by factors of 10 and 100  surfactant.
          makes the low-salinity brines. The two different crude  The studies (Suleimanov, Latifov, Veliyev, &
          oils are used for the experiments. IFT measurement  Frampton, 2017, 2018) have investigated the low-
          and coreflooding illustrate the performance of LSSF  salinity and low-hardness alkali as the EOR process in
          and LSAF. The slight reduction in IFT is observed with  terms of IFT, contact angle, emulsion stability, adsorp-
          a decrease in salinity. Additions of surfactant and alkali  tion, clay swelling using bentonite, and secondary and
   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116