Dr. Ir. Dedy Kristanto, M.

Sc

CHEMICAL FLOODING

CHEMICAL EOR HOLDS

A BRIGHT FUTURE
- Conventional oil RF < 33%, worldwide

Much of it is recoverable by chemical methods

- Chemical methods are attractive:

Burgeoning energy demand and high oil prices,

most likely for the long-term

Field data proves chemical flooding is an effective

way to recover residual oil

Advancements in technologies

Better understanding of failed projects

New chemical and processes open the door for

new opportunities

DK - 2 -

THE CASE FOR CHEMICAL

FLOODING
Escalating energy demand, declining reserves
Two trillion bbl oil remaining, mostly in depleted
reservoirs or those nearing depletion
Infill drilling often meets the well spacing required
Fewer candidate reservoirs for CO2 and miscible
Opportunities exist under current economic
conditions
Improved technical knowledge, better risk
assessment and implementation techniques

DK - 3 -

7
3
3 0.9
0.3 0.2

Germany
France

0.6

Romania

140

Denmark

Dubai

0
4
UK

India

160

Oman

Norway

Brazil

12 10 10

Canada

Mexico

Qatar

20

China

Nigeria

Libya

40

Russia

60

Venezuela

Abu Dhabi

80

Kuwait

84

Iraq

Iran

100

USA

180

S. Arabia

Billion Bbls

CHEMICAL EOR TARGET IN

SELECTED COUNTRIES
173

:
.
.

120

100
77
63 61
51
40
26 24

DK - 4 -

Chemical Floods CURRENT STATUS WORLDWIDE

Indonesia

Venezuela

USA

India
France

China

Total Number of Projects: 27

DK - 5 -

Chemical Floods PRODUCTION WORLDWIDE

France

Indonesia

USA

China

Total oil production: 300,000 B/D

DK - 6 -

CHEMICAL METHODS
Chemical EOR methods utilize:
- Alkaline
- Surfactants
- Polymer
- Combinations of such chemicals

ASP (Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer) flooding

MP (Micellar-Polymer) flooding

SS (Smart / Super Surfactant) flooding

DK - 7 -

OBJECTIVES OF CHEMICAL
FLOODING
Increase the Capillary Number Nc to
mobilize residual oil
Decrease the Mobility Ratio M for better
sweep
Emulsification of oil to facilitate
production

DK - 8 -

Chemical Flooding GENERAL LIMITATIONS

Cost of chemicals
Excessive chemical loss: adsorption, reactions
with clay and brines, dilution
Gravity segregation
Lack of control in large well spacing
Geology is unforgiving
Great variation in the process mechanism, both
areal and cross-sectional

DK - 9 -

ALKALINE FLOODING
Process depends on mixing of alkali and oil
- Oil must have acid components
Emulsification of oil, drop entrainment and
entrapment occur
- Effect on displacement and sweep
efficiencies
Polymer slugs used in some cases
Polymer alkali reactions must be
accounted
Complex process to design

mixing
zones
drive
water

low
caustic IFT
slug zone
residual oil

water
oil

Alkaline Flood

DK - 10 -

CHARACTERISTICS OF ALKALINE
FLOODING
A solution of inorganic alkaline substance (NaOH,
KOH) is injected into the reservoir.
NaOH
KOH

Na+ + OHK+ + OH-

OH- + Acid hydrocarbon components

Surfactants

In-situ generated surfactants reduce interfacial

tension and hence lowering Sor.
May alter the wettability towards water wet.
Help form emulsions near the displacement front.

DK - 11 -

Alkaline flooding FIELD PERFORMANCE

Field

Slug Size Conc. Oil Satn. Consum. Oil Rec.

% PV
wt%
%PV mg/g rock %OIP
1 Whittier
8
0.2
51 2.4-11.2
4
2 Singleton
8
2.0
40
5
3 N. Ward Estes
15
4.9
64
17.2
8
4 L. A. Basin
5
0.4
30
3
5 Orcutt Hill
2
0.42
50
0.5
2
6 Van
12
0.14 25-35 0.6-1.2
3
7 Kern River
48
0.15
52
1.3 none
8 Harrisburg
9
2.0 30-40
6
9 Brea-Olinda
1.2
0.12 50-60
2
DK - 12 -

SURFACTANT FLOODING
Variations
- Surfactant-Polymer Flood (SP)
- Low Tension Polymer Flood (LTPF)
Adsorption on rock surface
Slug dissipation due to dispersion
Slug dilution by water
Formation of emulsions
- Treatment and disposal problems
drive
water

mixing zone

surfactant
slug

water
oil

residual oil

Surfactant Flood

DK - 13 -

CHARACTERISTICS OF
SURFACTANT FLOODING
A surface active agents which reduce interfacial
tension at the oil-water interface.
Formation of emulsions
- These are anionic compounds, where:
Surfactant + Water (Inorganic Cation)++ +
(hydrocarbon sulfonate anion)-- They resist adsorption
- More stable than cationic surfactants
- Easier and cheaper to manufacture
DK - 14 -

CHARACTERISTICS OF
SURFACTANT FLOODING
Water salinity (specially divalent cations such as
Ca++ and Mg++) play an important role in
performance.
Minimum interfacial tensions occurs at optimal
salinity at which an optimum microemulsions is
developed and the surfactant is equally soluble in
water and oil.

DK - 15 -

Surfactant Flooding
Surfactant
Injection Water
Solution From Well Injection
Pump
Mixing Plant

Separation and
Storage Facilities

Oil Zone

Surfactant

Polymer
Solution

Production Well

Drive Water

DK - 16 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 17 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 18 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 19 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 20 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 21 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 22 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 23 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 24 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 25 -

Surfactant Flooding
Description
Consists of injecting a slug containing water,
surfactant, electrolyte (salt), usually a co-solvent
(alcohol), and possibly a hydrocarbon (oil), followed
by polymer-thickened water
Mechanisms That Improve Recovery Efficiency
Interfacial tension reduction (improves
displacement sweep efficiency)
Mobility control (improves volumetric sweep
efficiency)
DK - 26 -

Surfactant Flooding
Limitations
Areal sweep more than 50% for waterflood is desired
Relatively homogeneous formation
High amounts of anhydrite, gypsum, or clays are undesirable
Available systems provide optimum behavior within narrow set
of conditions
With commercially available surfactants, formation water
chlorides should be < 20,000 ppm and divalent ions (Ca ++ and
Mg++) < 500 ppm
Challenges
Complex and expensive
Possibility of chromatographic separation of chemicals
High adsorption of surfactant
Interactions between surfactant and polymer
Degradation of chemicals at high temperature

DK - 27 -

Surfactant Flooding
Screening Parameters
Gravity
Viscosity
Composition
Oil saturation
Formation type
Net thickness
Average permeability
Transmissibility
Depth
Temperature
Salinity of formation brine

> 25 API
< 20 cp
light intermediates
> 20% PV
sandstone
> 10 feet
> 20 md
not critical
< 8,000 feet
< 225 F
< 150,000 ppm TDS
DK - 28 -

Surfactant flood FIELD PERFORMANCE

Glenn Pool Field, Oklahoma

O IL

1 ,0 0 0

100
W OR
10

1984

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

DK - 29 -

POLYMER FLOODING
Loss to rock by adsorption, entrapment, salt
reactions
Loss of injectivity
Lack of control of in situ advance
High velocity shear (near wellbore), ageing, crosslinking, formation plugging
Often applied late in waterflood
mixing zone
drive
water

polymer slug
residual oil

Polymer Flood

water
oil

DK - 30 -

Polymer Flooding
Polymer
Injection
Solution From Well
Mixing Plant

Water
Injection
Pump

Oil Zone

Separation and
Storage Facilities

Polymer Solution

Production
Well

Drive Water

DK - 31 -

CHARACTERISTICS OF
POLYMER FLOODING
Polymer solutions have high viscosity, hence
improve the mobility ratio.
Some polymers are used for reducing the rock
permeability due to their retention and
viscoelastic properties. Hence, could be used as
plugging agents for profile control.
Increasing sweep efficiency.

DK - 32 -

Polymer Flooding
Description
Consists of adding water soluble polymers to water before it is injected in reservoir
Mechanisms That Improve Recovery Efficiency
Mobility control (improves volumetric sweep efficiency)
Limitations
High oil viscosities require higher polymer concentration
Results normally better if polymer flood started before water-oil ratio becomes
excessively high
Clays increase polymer adsorption
Some heterogeneity is acceptable, but avoid extensive fractures
If fractures are present, crosslinked or gelled polymer techniques may be applicable

DK - 33 -

Polymer Flooding
Challenges
Lower injectivity than with water can adversely
affect oil production rates in early stages of
polymer flood
Acrylamide-type polymers loose viscosity due to
sheer degradation, or it increases in salinity and
divalent ions
Xanthan gum polymers cost more, are subject to
microbial degradation, and have greater potential
for wellbore plugging

DK - 34 -

POLYMER RETENTION
Polymer solutions are retained mainly by adsorbtion
and sometimes by pore trapping in reservoir rocks.
Pore trapping is significant in low permeability rocks.
Undesirable for polymer flood but desirable for profile
control and thief zone plugging.
Field observation indicates retention in the range of 7150 g/m3 of rock.
Acceptable retention level is less than 20 g/m 3 of rock.
Polyacrilamides show higher retention level than biopolymer due to their ionic nature and shear thickening.

DK - 35 -

ESTIMATING POLYMER
CONCENTRATION

Polymer concentrations depends on type

and required solutions viscosity.
Required viscosity is determined from
maximum mobility ratio and shear rate.

DK - 36 -

ESTIMATING POLYMER
CONCENTRATION

DK - 37 -

ESTIMATING POLYMER
CONCENTRATION

DK - 38 -

ESTIMATING POLYMER SLUG SIZES

DK - 39 -

REQUIRED POLYMER SLUG SIZES

DK - 40 -

Polymer Flooding
Screening Parameters
Gravity

> 18 API

Viscosity

< 200 cp

Composition

not critical

Oil saturation

> 10% PV mobile oil

Formation type

sandstone / carbonate

Net thickness

not critical

Average permeability

> 20 md

Transmissibility

not critical

Depth

< 9,000 feet

Temperature

< 225 F

DK - 41 -

Polymer Flood FIELD PERFORMANCE

Sanand Field,
India

125
100

650
620

EOR OIL

75

Projected

590

50

560

25

530

0
1989

500
1991

1993

1995

DK - 42 -

Polymer Flood
FIELD PROJECTS
Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Taber Manville South

Pembina
Wilmington
East Colinga
Skull Creek South
Skull Creek Newcastle
Oerrel
Hankensbuettel
Owasco
Vernon
Northeast Hallsville
Hamm
Sage Spring Cr. Unit A
West Semlek
Stewart Ranch
Kummerfeld
Huntington Beach
North Stanley
Eliasville Caddo
North Burbank

Flood Type Formation Polymer Rec., %OIP

Secondary
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary

Sandstone
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Carbonate
Sandstone
"
"
"
"
"
"
Carbonate
Carbonate

PAA
"
"
Biopolymer
PAA
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

2
0
0
0
8
10
23
13
7
30
13
9
1.2
5
8
6
4
1.1
1.8
2.5

DK - 43 -

ALKALINE-POLYMER FLOOD
David Field, Alberta
1000

100
Oil Cut

100

10

10

Oil Rate

1
Waterflood

Alkaline-Polymer
Flood

Primary
1
0.1
1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

DK - 44 -

ASP: ALKALINE-SURFACTANTPOLYMER FLOODING

Several variations:

- PAS

drive
water

water

polymer

oil
bank

- SAP

Injected as
premixed
slugs or in
sequence

alkali Surf

- ASP

oil

ASP Flood

Field tests have been encouraging

Successful in banking and producing
residual oil
Mechanisms was fully understood

DK - 45 -

ASP CHEMICAL CONTENTS

Alkaline
Type of Alkaline for ASP is Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) and Sodium
Carbonate (Na2CO3)
Surfactant
Type of surfactant in ASP are:
1. Alkyl Benzene Sulfonates
2. Petroleum Sulfonates
3. Lignosulfonates
4. Petroleum Carboxylates
5. Biologically Produced Surfactants
Polymer
In ASP flooding, types of polymer is Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide
(HPAM)

DK - 46 -

SCREENING CRITERIA ASP

FLOODING
-

Preferred for sandstones reservoir

Reservoir Temperature less than 200 F

Lower Ca++ and Mg++ contents

Formation relatively homogeneous

Oil Viscosity < 35 cp and API Gravity > 20 API

Oil composition is light to intermediate components

Oil Saturation > 35 % PV

Average Permeability > 10 md

Reservoir Depth less than 9000 ft.

DK - 47 -

ASP PILOT

Daqing, China

100
Oil Rate
50

Oil Cut
20

10
1993

1994

1995

1996

DK - 48 -

MICELLAR FLOODING
Utilizes microemulsion and polymer
buffer slugs
Miscible-type displacement
Successful in banking and producing
residual oil
Process Limitations:
- Chemical slugs are costly
- Small well spacing required
- High salinity, temperature and clay

Micellar
Flood

- Considerable delay in response

drive
water

polymer

- Emulsion production

mixing
zone

micellar
slug

oil
bank

water
oil

mixing zone

DK - 49 -

MICELLAR FLOODING PROCESSES

Injection Well

Chase
Water

Mobility
Taper

Producer Well

Polymer
Slug

Micellar
Slug

Preflush Reservoir
Solution
Fluids

Displacement
Chase water, to displace injected fluids
Mobility taper, to achieve gradual decrease in viscosity of displacing
fluids.
Polymer slug, for mobility control.
Micellar slug, to reduce the interfacial tension and hence lowering the
residual oil saturation (Sor).
Preflush solution, to precondition the reservoir and obtain optimal
salinity.

DK - 50 -

MICELLAR FLOODING

DK - 51 -

MICELLAR FLOODING

DK - 52 -

MICELLAR FLOODING

DK - 53 -

MICELLAR FLOODING

DK - 54 -

ASP vs MICELLAR FLOOD Lab Results Mitsue Oil Core Floods

ASP Flood

Micellar Flood
100

Slug 5% Buffer 50%

80

92% OIP
Oil Cut,%; Cum. Recovery,% OIP

Oil Cut,%; Cum. Recovery,% OIP

100

Soi 32%

60
40

Oil Cut

20

80

Alkali 5%,Surfactant 10%,Polymer 60%

Soi 38%

80% OIP

60
40

Oil Cut

20
0

0
0

0.5

1.5

Pore Volumes Injected

2.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Pore Volumes Injected

Earlier oil breakthrough and quicker recovery in micellar

DK - 55 -

Micellar flood
TYPICAL PERFORMANCE
Bradford Special Project
No. 8

1,000

10

Oil Cut
1

100

Oil Rate
10
Dec. 81 Dec. 82

Dec. 83

Dec. 84

Dec. 85

0.1

micellar
injection

DK - 56 -

Micellar floods FIELD TESTS

100

Henry S

80

Henry E & Henry W

119-R

Wilkins

60
40

Dedrick

20
0

10

12

14

Micellar Slug Size, %PV

DK - 57 -

ASP AND MP FIELD PROJECTS

ASP Floods
Started
Appln.
David, Alberta
1986 Tertiary
West Kiehl, Wyoming
1987
"
Gudong, China
1992
"
Cambridge, Wyoming
1993
"
Daqing, China
1994
"
Karamay, China
1996
"
Viraj, India
2002
"
Micellar Floods
Dedrick (IL)
1962 Secondary
Robinson, 119-R (IL)
1968 Tertiary
Benton (IL) Shell
1972
"
Robinson, 219-R (IL)
1974
"
North Burbank (OK)
1976
"
Robinson, M1 (IL)
1977
"
Bradford (PA)
1980
"
Salem Unit (IL)
1981
"
Louden (IL)
1977
"
Louden (IL)
1980
"
Chateaurenard, (France)
1983
"

Acre Rec., %OIP

252
*21
106
34.4
766
29.4
72
*26.8
8.4
23.9
766
*24
68
*24
2.5
40
160
113
90
407
47
200
40
80
2.5

*49.7
39
29
27
11
50
50
47
27
33
67

DK - 58 -

SMART SURFACTANT (SS)

Super Effective
- Ultra-Low concentration required (0.02% - 0.3%)
- Provides ultra-low IFT
Super Convenient
- No alkali is required
- No water treatment is required
Super Tolerant
- High TDS brine
- High divalent cations
- High temperatures
Super Savings
- Water treatment
- Sludge disposal
- Surface equipment
- Potential scale formation
- Equipment maintenance

DK - 59 -

Interfacial TensionSMART SURFACTANT (SS)

SS in High Salinity Brine
TDS ~190,000ppm,
Ca, Mg ~ 95,000 ppm
Temp. ~ 50 C, API Gravity ~ 35

SS in High Temperature
Heavy Crude
TDS ~ 250 ppm,
Temp. ~ 100 C, API Gravity ~ 15

1.0000

IFT, m
N/m

0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

SS-B2550, WT%

DK - 60 -

SMART SURFACTANT
Injector

Producer

DK - 61 -

SMART SURFACTANT
Injector

Producer

DK - 62 -

SMART SURFACTANT
Injector

Producer

DK - 63 -

SMART SURFACTANT
Injector

Producer

DK - 64 -

SMART SURFACTANT
Injector

Producer

DK - 65 -

SMART SURFACTANT
Injector

Producer

DK - 66 -

SMART SURFACTANT
Injector

Producer

DK - 67 -

SMART SURFACTANT
Injector

Producer

DK - 68 -

Oil Recovery Comparisons

35000 TDS, 1700 Ca/Mg
0.1% surfactant
0.3% smart surfactant
80
% Recovery OOIP

70
60

15 PV surfactant

50

13 PV water

%OOIP

40

CUM,%

30
20

15 PV water
15 PV water

10

2 PV smart surfactant

0
0

25

50

75

PV Injected

SPE 84075

DK - 69 -

Recycling Surfactant Effluent

Residual surfactant present in the effluent
Process identifies surfactant in effluent and recycles
back to reservoir
Savings on surfactant costs
Savings on disposal and treatment costs
Recovers additional oil

SPE 84075

DK - 70 -

REASONS FOR FAILURE

Low oil prices in the past
Insufficient description of reservoir geology
- Permeability heterogeneities
- Excessive clay content
- High water saturation
- Bottom water or gas cap
- Fractures
Inadequate understanding of process mechanisms
Unavailability of chemicals in large quantities
Heavy reliance on un-scaled lab experiments

DK - 71 -

SCALE-UP METHODS
Require:
- Knowledge of process variables or complete
simulation description
- Model experiments
- Scale-up of model results to field
Greater confidence to extend lab results to field

DK - 72 -

RESULTS:
PREDICTION vs ACTUAL
Oil Recov ery, %OIP

60
Actual

50
40
30
Predicted

20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Pore Volumes Produced

DK - 73 -

CHEMICAL EOR AND HEAVY OIL

Applicable methods:
- Surfactant flooding unsuccessful
- Alkaline flooding
unsuccessful
- CO2 immiscible; cyclic stimulation Limited
success with WAG
Problems:
- Unfavourable mobility ratio
- Gravity segregation
- Rock-fluid reactions, chemical loss, dilution
- Lack of scaling criteria, inadequate simulation
- Often used where steam is not suitable
DK - 74 -

EOR SCREENING CRITERIA FOR

CHEMICAL FLOODING
Most important: geology and mineralogy
Oil viscosity < 35 cp
Oil API gravity > 30 API

Formation sand stone preferred

Permeability 100 md
Porosity
15%

Stratification desirable

Temperature < 150 F

Depth
< 9,000 ft
Pressure not critical
Oil saturation 45%
Oil in place at process start
600 Bbl/acre-ft

Thickness

20-30 ft

Clay content < 5%

Salinity < 20,000 ppm
Hardness

< 500 ppm

Oil composition Light,

intermediates & organic acids
desirable
No bottom water or gas cap

DK - 75 -

COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL
FLOODING USAGE
Properties

ASP

AP

SP

Surfactant
Concentration

0.1 0.2%

0%

0.1 0.2%

Interfacial Tension
(mN/m)

10 2

~10 0 - 10 1

10 -2

Alkali Requirement

Yes

Yes

Potential Alkali
reaction in
formation

2NaOH + Ca+2 2Na+ + Ca OH)2

Same as ASP

None

Same as ASP

~ 500 -1,000
ppm

No

2NaOH + Mg+2 2Na++ Mg(OH)2

Na2CO3 + Ca+2 2Na+ + Ca CO3
Na2CO3 + Mg+2 2Na+ + Mg CO3

Polymer
concentration

~1,000 ppm 2,000 ppm. The

polymer concentration needs to
be adjusted based on the alkali
conc. and the brine salinity. In
general, 1% alkali will reduce the
polymer viscosity by 50%. This
means more polymer will be
needed.

DK - 76 -

COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL
FLOODING USAGE
Properties

ASP

AP

SP

Water Treatment for

higher divalent
cations brine

Yes

Yes

No

Water treatment
cost

High

High

None

Additional cost due

Yes

Yes

No

to the use of alkali

Including water
treatment, alkali cost,
shipping, storage,
equipment, water
treatment, hazardous
material handling,
potential scale/
emulsion/ corrosion
problems. More polymer
is required, etc.

Same as ASP

DK - 77 -

COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL
FLOODING USAGE
Properties
Adsorption onto
Formation

ASP

AP

SP

Na2CO3 will be
preferentially adsorbed
due to its common ion
onto the formation and
reduce the polymer and
the surfactant adsorption.
NaOH will also be
adsorbed and reduce the
adsorption of the polymer
and surfactant but to a
lower extent

Same as ASP

In general, the
surfactant
adsorption of SP
is higher than ASP
due to the
absence of alkali.
The adsorption
problem can be
minimized by
proper design of
the surfactant
structures and
also the flood
injection design

Potential
Yes
Yes
Minimized to none
corrosion /scale
problems in the
pipeline and
equipment
Note : ASP (Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer); AP (AlkalinePolymer)
SP (Surfactant-Polymer)

DK - 78 -

Depth Limitation for Enhanced

Oil Recovery Methods
EOR Method

Depth (ft)
4,000
6,000

2,000

8,000

10,000

HydrocarbonMiscible

Deep Enough for Required Pressure

Nitrogen and
Flue Gas

Deep Enough for Required Pressure

CO2 Flooding
Surfactant/
Polymer

Deep Enough for Required Pressure

Limited by Temperature

Polymer

Limited by Temperature

Alkaline
Fire Flood
Steam Drive

High
Consumption

Preferred Zone
Deep Enough for Required Pressure
Normal Range

(Possible)
RREW-4-2-EORMethodsVG1-79

DK - 79 -

Preferred Oil Viscosity Ranges for

Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods
Oil Viscosity - Centipoise at Reservoir Conditions

EOR Method
HydrocarbonMiscible

0.1

1.0

Very Good

Nitrogen and
Flue Gas
CO2 Flooding

Very Good

Mining and
Extraction

Good

100,000

1,000,000

More Difficult
Very
Difficult

Fair
Fair
Good

May Not Be Possible

(Can Be Waterflooded)

Special Thermal:
Shafts, Fractures,
Drainholes, etc.

1,000

More Difficult

Good

Alkaline

1000

More Difficult

Good

Polymer

Steam Drive

Good

100

Good

Surfactant/
Polymer

Fire Flood

10

Fair

Not Feasible

Difficult
Very
Difficult

Good

Not Feasible

Not Feasible
Not Feasible

Good
Various Techniques Possible

Not
Feasible

No Established Limits
RREW-4-2-EORMethodsVG1-80

DK - 80 -

Permeability Guides for Enhanced

Oil Recovery Methods
Permeability (millidarcy)
EOR Method

0.1

10

HydrocarbonMiscible

Alkaline
Fire Flood
Steam Drive

10,000

- Not Critical if
Uniform
- High Enough For Good Injection Rates -

Surfactant/
Polymer
Polymer

1000

- Not Critical if
Uniform

Nitrogen and
Flue Gas
CO2 Flooding

100

Preferred Zone
Possible

Preferred Zone
Preferred Zone
Preferred Zone
Preferred Zone
RREW-4-2-EORMethodsVG1-81

DK - 81 -

Oil Gravity Guides for Enhanced

Oil Recovery Methods
0

10

Oil Gravity oAPI

20
30

40

50

60

N2 & Flue Gas

Hydrocarbon
CO2 - Miscible
Immiscible Gas
Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer
Polymer Flooding
Gel Treatments
In situ Combustion
Steam Flooding
Mining

DK - 82 -

Summary of Screening Criteria for

IOR and EOR Methods

N.C. = Not Critical

*Transmissibility >20 md ft/cp
**Transmissibility > 100 md ft/cp

DK - 83 -

HOW TO PLAN A FLOOD ?

Choose a process likely to succeed in a candidate
reservoir
Determine the reasons for success or failure of
past projects of the process
Research to fill in the blanks
- Determine process mechanisms
- Derive necessary scaling criteria
- Carry out lab and simulation studies
Field based research
Establish chemical supply
Financial incentives essential

DK - 84 -

HOW TO REACH SUCCESS ?

Select the proper project
Utilize the expertise of all involved
Chemical optimization
Cost efficiency
Evaluate the lab and simulation results
Select the best process
Start the pilot project

DK - 85 -

DETAIL STUDY ACTIVITIES

Data colecting, evaluating and analysis
Review and update the Geophysics and Geology Study
previously and QC
Detail Study of Reservoir Engineering
Laboratory Core Analysis (Routine and SCAL)
Chemical Laboratory Flooding Test
Detail Study of Production Engineering
Reservoir Simulation
Economic Analysis
Recommendations

DK - 86 -

IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Integrated Reservoir Model
- Geological Model (Static Data)
- Production History (Dynamic Data)
- Fluid and Rock Properties (Laboratory Data)
History Matching
- Validating the Geological Model
- Predicting the Present Fluid Distributions
Forecasting Future Performance
- Evaluating the Method
- Optimizing Injection Schemes

DK - 87 -

PROCESS EVALUATION
- Compare field results with lab (numerical)
predictions
- Relative permeability changes ?
- Mobility control ?
- Fluid injectivity ?
- Extent of areal and vertical sweep ?
- Oil saturations from post-flood cores ?

DK - 88 -

COST OF CHEMICALS
As the oil prices rise, so does the cost of chemicals, but
not in the same proportion
Typical Costs:
- Polymer

- $3/lb

- Surfactant

- $1.20/lb

- Crude oil

- $60/bbl

- Caustic

- $0.60/lb

- Isopropanol

- $20/gallon

- Micellar slug

- $25/bbl

Process Efficiency: volume of oil recovered per unit

volume (or mass) of chemical slug injected

DK - 89 -