SPE 112424

A Numerical Simulation Study on Surfactant Flooding and it’s Field

Application in Daqing Oilfield
Daiyin Yin, Key Laboratory of Enhanced Oil Recovery of Ministry of Education, Daqing Petroleum Institute; and
Hui Pu, SPE, University of Wyoming

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Rome, Italy, 9–12 June 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Based on the non-Darcy flow characteristics of surfactant flooding, considering the changes of threshold pressure and
influence of surfactant on convection, diffusion, adsorption and retention, a surfactant flooding mathematical model of three-
dimensional, two-phase, three-component was established. A new method for the treatement of relative permeability curve
and theoretical calculation equation for adsorption quantity of surfactant were derived, which enhances the matching degree
between mathematical model and field practice. The method of implicit pressure, explicit saturation, and implicit
concentration was used to solve equations and a simulator was developed. This simulator was used to perform the numerical
simulation study for the pilot test of surfactant flooding in Chao 522 Block of Daqing oilfield, the optimal injection scheme
was selected. After the optimized plan was carried out in oilfield, the desirable effects, like pressure-reducing, injection rate
increase, and oil recovery increase, were achieved. The average oil increase for single well reaches 30%, the ratio of cost to
revenue is above 1:3, so the very good development effect and economic effect were obtained.
Introduction
The indoor experiments show that the surfactant flooding can lower the threshold pressure and increase the oil recovery
efficiency of low permeability oilfield(Liu et al. 1987). Several pilot tests of surfactant flooding were carried out in Daqing’s
low permeability oilfields, such as Yushulin oilfield and Chaoyanggou oilfield, the objectives of pilot tests are to reduce the
injection pressure, to increase the injection rate and to enhance the oil recovery. The experimental screening of surfactant was
finished, but the theoretical study on surfactant flooding in low permeability oilfield is few, and the reservoir simulation
software that include the threshold pressure is not reported(Sun et al., 1996). Because the cost of surfactant is comparatively
high, the amount of surfactant used should be first determined for the field application to obtain the maximum economic
benefit, so it is very important to conduct reservoir numerical simulation study. On the basis of compositional model, a
mathematical model of surfactant flooding was established, in which the changes of threshold pressure and relative
permeability which are caused by surfactant flooding, and influence of adsorption and retention of surfactant in the reservoir
are included in the model. This model was used to optimize the injection plan for pilot test of surfactant flooding in
Chaoyanggou oilfield of Daqing, in order to provide a theoretical basis of decision for the development of oilfield.

Experiment of Surfactant Flooding on Low Permeability Cores

Experimental Results
In order to study the non-Darcy flow characteristics of surfactant flooding in low permeability reservoir, the surfactant
flooding experiment on reservoir cores was conducted. The displacing liquid is solution of nonionic alkanol acid amide
surfactant and auxiliary agent, which can reduce the interfacial tension between crude oil and water of Chaoyanggou oilfield
to reach ultra low interfacial tension(IFT). The experimental results are shown in Table 1. As we can see from Table 1, after
injecting the displacing liquid of surfactant, the pressure of succeeding waterflood reduced by 40% compared with value of
pre-injection of surfactant solution, so the displacing pressure was significantly reduced, compared with waterflood, the
recovery efficiency is enhanced by 5%. In order to further determine the effect of surfactant concentration on the threshold
pressure gradient, the relationship between surfactant concentration, water saturation and threshold pressure gradient were
measured(Fig. 1). As is shown in Fig. 1, with the increase of surfactant concentration and water saturation, the threshold
pressure gradient reduces gradually, but the decrease extent becomes smaller.
Mechanism Analysis
In the process of surfactant flooding, the surfactant adsorbs onto the oil-water interface and surface of rock, therefore, the
2 SPE 112424

interfacial tension and wettability of rock are changed(Kang et al., 1996). The surfactant plays the following roles:
(1)reduction of interfacial tension(IFT), making residual oil become movable oil. The experiment shows that the oil drops
are becoming easier to deform when the oil-water interfacial tension reduces, so the resistant force lowers when the oil drops
flow through the pore throat.
(2)increase of dispersion of crude oil in the water. With the decrease of IFT, the crude oil can disperse in the surfactant
solution, meantime, the surface of oil drops are charged after adsorption, so the oil drops are not easy to stick onto the surface
of rock particles.
Mathematical Model of Surfactant Flooding
Prerequisite of Model
Three components, oil, water, and surfactant, are simulated; non-Darcy flow of oil and water; the reservoir rock and fluids are
compressible; the reservoir is anisotropic and heterogeneous; the changes of threshold pressure are included; influence of
convection, diffusion and adsorption on rock are also included; the influences of capillary force and gravity effect are also
considered.
Basic Equations
The flow equation of two-phase, three-component is used to describe the process of surfactant flooding, 1 denotes the oil
component, 2 stands for the water, and 3 represents the surfactant. The downward direction is positive direction of z-axis,
then the mathematical model of surfactant flooding is as follows:
KK ro ρ o v KK w ρ w v
∇ ⋅[ C o1 (∇p o − ρ o g∇z ± Dp e ) + C w1 (∇p w − ρ w g∇z ± Dp e )] =
μo μw
(1)
∂
φ ( ρ o s o C o1 + ρ w s w C w1 ) − ρ o q o C o1 − ρ w q w C w1
∂t
KK ro ρ o v KK rw ρ w v
∇ ⋅[ C o 2 (∇p o − ρ o g∇z ± Dp e ) + C w 2 (∇p w − ρ w g∇z ± Dp e )] =
μo μw
(2)
∂
φ ( ρ o so C o 2 + ρ w s w C w 2 ) − ρ o qo Co 2 − ρ w q w C w 2
∂t
K ro ρ 3
∇ ⋅ φ [ Do 3 s o ∇( ρ 3 C o 3 ) + Dw 3 s w ∇( ρ 3 C w 3 )] + ∇ ⋅ K [ C o 3 (∇p o −
μo
v K rw ρ 3 v ∂
ρ o g∇ z ± D p e ) + C w 3 (∇p w − ρ w g∇z ± Dp e )] = (φρ 3 s o C o 3 + ρ 3 a o 3 + (3)
μw ∂t
φρ 3 s w C w 3 + ρ 3 a w 3 ) − ρ 3 q o C o 3 − ρ 3 q w C w 3
pc = po − p w (4)
so + s w = 1 (5)
M = C o3 / C w 3 (6)
For the process of surfactant flooding, it is assumed that the volume percentage of water component in oleic phase,
C o 2 , is equal to 0, and the volume percentage of oil component in aqueous phase, C w1 , is 0 too, and C o1 + C o3 = 1 ,
C w 2 + C w3 = 1 . Then the above model can be simplified, and the block-center difference can be used to solve equation.
Numerical Solution of Mathematical Model
Difference equations

KK ro ρ o v r
Δ ⋅[ C o1 (Δp o − ρ o gk ± Dp e ) = Δ t φ ( ρ o s o C o1 ) − ρ o q o C o1 (7)
μo
KK rw ρ w v v
Δ ⋅[ C w 2 (Δp w − ρ w gk ± Dp e )] = Δ t φ ( ρ w s w C w 2 ) − ρ w q w C w 2 (8)
μw
SPE 112424 3

Δ ⋅ φ[Do3 so Δ( ρ3 MCw3 ) + Dw3 s w Δ( ρ3Cw3 )]

K ρ v v K ρ v v
+ Δ ⋅ K[ ro 3 MCw3 (Δpo − ρ o gk ± Dp e ) + rw 3 Cw3 (Δpw − ρ w gk ± Dp e )] (9)
μo μw
= Δ t (φρ3 so MCw3 + ρ3 ao3 + φρ3 s w Cw3 + ρ3 aw3 ) − ρ3 qo MCw3 − ρ3 qw Cw3

Where Δ is spatial difference operator,

ϕ i+ − ϕ i− r ϕ j + − ϕ j − v ϕ k + − ϕ k − v
1 1 1 1 1 1

Δϕ = 2 2
i+ 2 2
j+ 2 2
k
Δxi Δy j Δz k
ϕ in, +j ,1k − ϕ in, j ,k v v v v v
Δ t is time difference operator, Δ t ϕ = ; e is unit vector, e = i + j + k .
Δt n

The choose of positive or negative sign for threshold pressure is determined by the signs of Δ l p
n
l=x, y, z , the signs
between them are always opposite to guarantee that the threshold pressure gradient is always the resistance force.
Method of Solution
The method of implicit pressure, explicit saturation, and implicit concentration is used to solve equation, the steps are as
follows:
(1)difference Eqs. (7), (8), (4) and (5) are used to implicitly calculate pressure;
(2)the values of pressure are substituted into difference Eq. (8) to explicitly calculate values of water saturation;
(3)then substituting pressure value p o and value of saturation s w into Eqs. (9) and (6) to implicitly compute values of
concentration C o3 , C w3 .

Treatment of Adsorption of Surfactant

The isothermal equation of Langmuir adsorption is used to describe the adsorption process. The effects of salinity,
concentration of surfactant and rock permeability on adsorption are considered. The isothermal equation is(Liao et al., 1999):
C r = bC rm C /(1 + bC ) (10)
The concentration C in isothermal equation of Langmuir adsorption is the average concentration of surfactant in
different phases of liquids in pores. This will cause major error in calculation. Because the saturations of oleic, and aqueous
phases are always changing in the process of surfactant flooding, the concentration of surfactant in each phase is different and
changes with the time. Therefore, in this study, the adsorption from oil phase and adsorption from water phase are calculated
separately. A function Bi ( s i ) is used to adjust the adsorption calculation due to the partial contact between solid particles
and phase i. The calculation equation of surfactant adsorption in oleic phase and aqueous phase are:
a o3 = Bo ( s o )C or (C o3 ) (11)
a w3 = Bw (s w )C wr (C w3 ) (12)
where: bo , C orm , bw , C wrm and dimensionless function Bi ( s i ) are determined by experiments, and they meet the
following conditions: Bi (0) = 0 , Bi (1) = 1 .

Treatment of Relative Permeability Curve

The mechanism of surfactant flooding is to reduce interfacial tension(IFT) between oil phase and water phase.
Macroscopically, this mechanism reflects that relative permeability curve of oleic phase is moved up. Therefore, correct
representation of relationship between the oleic and aqueous phases’ relative permeabilities and surfactant concentrations is
very important for accurate simulation of surfactant flooding. In the process of simulator development, two methods to
determine the relative permeability of oil and water phases at different surfactant concentrations are provided. The first is
obtained through the interpolation of relative permeability curves which are measured at the various surfactant
concentrations. The second method is the theoretical calculation equation. The interpolation method is based on the
experimental data, and can represent the real situation more accurately. Therefore, this method is recommended. However the
interpolation method also needs large amount of experimental data. When the enough experimental data are not available, the
theoretical formula can be used. The following is the introduction of interpolation method.
Inputting N different relative permeability curves determined at different surfactant concentrations into the simulator,
assuming that the surfactant concentration corresponding to ith relative permeability curve is C w3i . The curve is treated with
saturation normalization:
4 SPE 112424

s o − s ori
s oNi = (13)
1 − s wc − s ori
When the surfactant concentration in some place of oil reservoir is C w3 x , which is between C w3i and C w3i +1 , the
interpolation method is applied to calculate relative permeability at C w3 x . First, the residual oil saturation
s orx corresponding to the this concentration is calculated:
C − C w3i
s orx = s ori + w3 x ( s ori +1 − s ori ) (14)
C w3i +1 − C w3i
The value of s oNx is used to consult the ith and (i+1)th relative permeability curves to obtain the relative permeability of
oleic phase, K roxi and K roxi +1 , the oil phase relative permeability corresponding to concentration C w3 x and saturation s o is:
C − C w3i
K rox = K roxi + w3 x ( K roxi +1 − K roxi ) (15)
C w3i +1 − C w3i
The interpolation method of relative permeability of water phase is the same as the oil phase.
Numerical Simulation Study for Surfactant Flooding Pilot Test
A simulator was developed based on the above theoretical model, and then it is applied to pilot test of surfactant flooding in
Chao 522 Block of Chaoyanggou low permeability oilfield in Daqing.
Before numerical simulation of surfactant flooding, the history match of water flooding was first conducted. The
calculated water saturation and pressure field are initial values for the surfactant flooding research, the predicted ultimate
recovery efficiency of conventional water flooding is 32.34%.
Optimization of Surfactant Injection
Determination of surfactant concentration. The calculation results of development indexes and economic indexes of
surfactant injection schemes are shown in Table 2. With the increase of surfactant concentration, the bottomhole flowing
pressure of injection wells decreases, the water injection rate increases, the recovery efficiency increases, but the extent of
increase becomes smaller. Because the production cost increases due to the increase of amount of surfactant used, based on
the economic evaluation, the reasonable slug concentration is 1.0%.
Determination of surfactant slug volume. As the surfactant concentration is kept at 1.0% of Scheme 2, the slug volumes of
Plans 5~8 are 0.05 PV, 0.10 PV, 0.20 PV and 0.30 PV, respectively, the calculation results of development indexes and
economic indexes are summarized in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, with the increase of slug volume, recovery efficiency
also increases, but the increase becomes smaller, and the cost goes up. Through the economic evaluation, the reasonable slug
volume is 0.10 PV of Scheme 6, the net benefit is the largest.
Determination of slug combination mode. Scheme 8 and 9 are based on the Scheme 6, the injection slugs are 2, 3 and 4,
respectively, the calculation results are shown in Table 4. The results show that the effect of multiple slugs is better than that
of one slug injection, this is because the multi-slug injection mode can prolong the displacement time of surfactant, reducing
the inefficient flow of surfactant in the reservoir. Comparing multi-slug injection mode with the one slug injection mode, the
former has higher recovery efficiency, this is because the multi-slug injection mode can prolong the displacement time of
surfactant, reducing the ineffective flow of surfactant in the reservoir. But the multiple slugs injection mode has complicated
operation process, which increases the operation cost, considering that there is no obvious difference in economic benefit
between Scheme 9 and Scheme 10, in order to have an easier field operation, the Scheme 9 is chosen.
Injection scheme of surfactant flooding. The optimized surfactant injection scheme is as follows: the concentration of
surfactant solution is 1.0%, slug volume is 0.10 PV, and 2 slugs, that is, slug of surfactant solution + water flooding+ slug of
surfactant solution + waterflood.
Pilot Test
The pilot test is located in the Chao 82-152 well block, there are four injecting wells and 10 production wells, the average
permeability is 18.5×10-3μm2, the geological reserve is 24.6×104t, the comprehensive watercut is 82.9%, the average daily oil
production rate per well is 2.95/d. Four injection wells were put into production in January of 2002, as of January of 2005,
just before the start of pilot test, the allocated water injection rate is 122.5 m3/d, the actual water injection is 98.3 m3/d, the
bottomhole flowing pressure of water injection wells is 23.4 MPa, which is close to the fracturing pressure, but the allocated
injection rate cannot be achieved(Table 5, 6 and Fig. 2), therefore, this block was selected as the pilot test of surfactant
flooding, aiming to reduce the injection pressure and to increase injection.
Results of Pilot Test and Model Verification
(1) Lowering of threshold pressure, increase of water injectivity. The pilot test of surfactant flooding started in January
of 2005, the effect of surfactant flooding was seen in injectors after one month of surfactant injection, the average bottomhole
flowing pressure of injectors decreased to 22.9 MPa, and the daily water injection rate increased to 124.8 m3/d, the allocated
SPE 112424 5

injection rate was met, the extent of increase of water injection is 27.3%, so the effect of pressure-reducing and increase of
injection rate is significantly obvious. For June of 2006 to June of 2007, the predicted value of average bottomhole flowing
pressure is 22.3 MPa, the actual value is 22.7 MPa, the relative error is 2.3%; the predicted average daily water injection rate
is 122.5 m3/d, the actual value is 128.9 m3/d, the relative error is 5.2%.
The comparison of water injection profile before and after surfactant for well Chao 82-152 show that the water absorbing
thickness increased 2 m, the daily water injection increased from 14 m3 to 22 m3, which increased by 57.1%. Especially, the
water injection rate of FІ 72 layers increased from 0 m3 to 2 m3(Fig. 3).
(2)Increase of displacement of low permeability zones. In the condition of normal production, the pressure difference
between injectors and producers is about 22 MPa, in the condition of 300m well pattern, the displacement pressure difference
is 0.073 MPa/m, the zones, which have higher threshold pressure than 0.073 MPa/m, cannot be displaced in the condition of
conventional waterflood. On average, the 18 zones are drilled through by wells, 11 zones can be displaced by conventional
waterflood, accounting for 60%. The simulation predicted results show that 14 zones can be displaced by surfactant flooding,
actually, 15 pay zones were displaced, increased by 22%, indicating that water can be injected into some low permeable
zones after surfactant flooding because of decrease of threshold pressure.
(3)Decline of watercut, and obvious increase of oil production. Up to December of 2004, the injection of first slug was
finished. The predicted watercut is 75.5%, the actual watercut is 74.2%, the absolute error is 1.3%, the water cut decreased by
8.7% over the pre-pilot test; the simulation predicted daily oil production is 3.72t/d, the actual value is 3.89t/d, and the
relative error is 4.2%, the increase of daily oil production is 0.94t/d compared with that of pre-pilot test, the average increase
of oil for single well is 31.5%, and the cumulative increase of oil is 3479.0t.
(4)Economic benefit. the price of crude oil is 1450.0 yuan/t, the operation cost is 550.0 yuan/t, deducting 86.0×104 yuan
of investment, as of December 2006, the net economic benefit is 261.9×104yuan, the ratio of cost to revenue is 1:3, so the
economic benefit is very obvious.
The comparison between simulation results and pilot test show that the calculation error of main development indexes is
within 6%, meeting the requirement of engineering calculation. The mathematical model presented in this paper includes the
threshold pressure gradient, and can be used to simulate such characteristics of surfactant flooding in low permeability
reservoir as effect of pressure-reducing and injection- increase, and increase of displaced payzones, the conventional
chemical flooding simulators do not have this function.
Conclusions
1. The laboratory experiments show that the surfactant flooding can lower the threshold pressure by more than 40% and
increase the oil recovery efficiency of low permeability by 5%OOIP;
2.Three dimensional, two-phase, three-component mathematical model of surfactant flooding is established, which includes
the changes of threshold pressure, influence of convection, diffusion and adsorption of surfactant on rock;
3. The method to calculate surfactant adsorption quantity and treatment of relative permeability curve are improved, which
increase the matching between simulation results and field application, the calculation error of main development indexes is
within 6%.
4.The pilot test shows that surfactant flooding can decrease water injection pressure, increase the water injectivity in low
permeable layers, and increase number of displaced zones, increase the oil production rate, the extent of increase reaches
3.%;
References
1. Liu, Q. N.; Jiang, Y. L., The Application of Surfactant in Oilfield Development, Petroleum Industry Press, 1987.
2. Sun, K. P. et al., Theory Basis of Reservoir Numerical Simulation, Petroleum Industry Press, 1996.
3. Kang, W. L. et al., Mechanism of Tertiary Oil Recovery, Chemistry Industry Press, 1996.
4. Liao, G. Z., Wang, Q. M., Wang, D. M., Principles of Chemical Combination Flooding ant its Application, Petroleum Industry Press,
1999
6 SPE 112424

Table 1 Experimental results of core flooding

K S0i Injection Injected Initial injection Final injection Decrease of Increase of
Core No. Ø(%) -3 2
(10 µm ) (%) rate(%) PV pressure(MPa) pressure(MPa) pressure(%) recovery(%)
1 20.0 21.6 64.1 0.5 2.8 2.2 0.91 53.6 5.4
2 17.1 15.7 66.2 0.5 3.5 2.6 1.28 51.5 5.3
3 14.2 9.8 59.5 0.5 4.1 2.1 1.20 42.8 4.8
4 12.5 4.3 63.6 0.5 2.7 2.7 1.55 42.6 5.0
5 10.7 2.1 58.6 0.5 3.9 2.7 1.60 40.7 4.6

Table 2 Net benefit of different schemes in condition of different slug concentration

Injection Recovery Cumulative Revenue Net benefit
Concentration Slug volume Cost increase
Scheme 4 increase increase oil increase increase increase
(%) (PV) (10 yuan) 4 3 4 4 4
(10 m ) (%) (10 t) (10 yuan) (10 yuan)
1 0.5 0.02 16.9 0.974 0.88 0.216 245.1 228.2
2 1.0 0.02 33.8 1.331 1.37 0.336 381.6 347.8
3 1.5 0.02 50.7 1.428 1.42 0.348 395.5 344.7
4 2.0 0.02 67.6 1.504 1.47 0.360 409.5 341.8

Table 3 Development indexes and economic indexes of Schemes at the different slug volumes
Injection Recovery Cumulative Revenue Net benefit
Concentration Slug volume Cost increase
Scheme 4 increase increase oil increase increase increase
(%) (PV) (10 yuan) 4 3 4 4 4
(10 m ) (%) (10 t) (10 yuan) (10 yuan)
5 1.0 0.05 84.6 1.822 1.94 0.476 540.3 455.7
6 1.0 0.10 169.2 2.716 3.17 0.778 882.8 713.6
7 1.0 0.20 338.4 3.451 3.69 0.905 1027.6 689.2
8 1.0 0.40 676.8 3.874 4.05 1.017 1126.9 450.1

Table 4 The net benefit of Schemes with different slugs

Cost Recovery Cumulative Revenue Net benefit
Concentration Slug volume
Scheme Slug mode increase increase oil increase increase increase
(%) (PV) 4 4 4 4
(10 yuan) (%) (10 t) (10 yuan) (10 yuan)
9 1.0 0.10 2 172.5 3.23 0.793 899.5 727.8
10 1.0 0.10 3 179.0 3.27 0.802 911.8 732.4
11 1.0 0.10 4 188.0 3.30 0.810 919.0 631.0

Table 5 Comparison of water injection History for Chao 522 Block

Major Oil Layers Non-major layers Non-connected layers Total
Per. of water Per. of water Per. of water Per. of water Per. of water Per. of water Per. of water Per. of water
Year absorbing absorbing absorbing absorbing absorbing absorbing absorbing absorbing
thickness(%) layers(%) thickness(%) layers(%) thickness(%) layers(%) thickness(%) layers(%)
1995 88.5 82.2 91.0 85.7 48.1 50.0 87.8 81.4
1996 90.1 87.1 59.7 61.1 52.9 33.3 82.2 76.6
1997 81.7 78.5 61.1 52.1 85.1 75.0 76.0 69.5
1998 74.6 75.2 55.9 47.3 67.1 61.1
1999 70.1 66.6 60.3 56.5 45.2 40.0 63.8 61.4
2000 55.7 52.6 64.1 57.1 40.9 30.0 59.3 54.6
2001 62.6 58.5 61.3 58.5 56.6 50.0 60.9 57.7

Table 6 Classification of water injection for Chao 522 Block

Water
Water Thickness Fracturing Injection Allocated Actual
Effective injection
injection No. of wells of connected pressure pressure injection injection
3 thickness(m) 3 3 intensity
(m /d ) layers(m) (MPa) (MPa) (m ) (m ) 3
(m /d·m)
<10 8 8.5 6.5 14.1 14.6 110 60 0.88
10-20 15 9.2 7.6 14.1 14.2 310 267 1.93
20-30 14 9.3 7.1 13.9 13.5 420 401 3.08
>30 9 10.1 7.8 14.0 13.9 480 442 4.86
total 46 9.3 7.3 14.0 14.0 1320 1170 2.73
SPE 112424 7

16 2000
1999
15
1998
14
1997
13
0 50 100 150
Water injection(m3)

Fig. 1 Relation between threshold pressure and surfactant Fig. 2 Water injection IPR curve for Well Chao 84-144
concentration, water saturation

Fig. 3 Comparison of water injection for different payzones

for Well Chao 82-152