SPE 62562 Experimental Study of Surfactant Alkaline Steam Flood Through Vertical Wells

Shedid Ali Shedid, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain 17555, UAE El Abbas A. Abbas, Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute (EPRI), Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting held in Long Beach, California, 1923 June 2000. 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, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract Continued research and field application of steam flooding have confirmed an early conclusion that the process is a powerful method for recovering heavy and intermediate gravity crude oils. This experimental study investigates the feasibility of using low concentrated solution of alkaline or surfactant as an additive to steam flooding for water flooded reservoirs. This research is also designed to search for optimization the process of steam flood through recovering additional oil via using a steam with low concentration of alkaline-surfactant mixture. This process is designed as surfactant alkaline steam flood. To achieve these goals, four flow experiments are conducted as follows: (1) conventional steam flood (SF) (2) surfactant steam flood (SSF) (3) alkaline steam flood (ASF) and (4) low concentrated surfactant alkaline steam flood (SASF). The results of this study confirmed using steam flooding for a substantial improvement of oil recovery. Using low concentrated alkaline into steam drive recovered additional oil than conventional steam flooding. Mixing steam flooding with surfactant improved oil recovery than either conventional steam drive or alkaline steam flood. The proposed technique of surfactant alkaline

steam flood (SASF) significantly enhanced oil recovery. A comparison of the obtained results of the four undertaken experiments results in two major conclusions, which are (1) addition of 3 % wt. of surfactant or alkaline into steam drive improves its performance and consequently recovers additional oil than conventional steam flood, and (2) using low concentrated surfactant alkaline (1.5 % wt. for both) into steam flood produces the highest oil recovery. The results of this study have validated the proposed technique of surfactant alkaline steam flooding. Furthermore, this technique is expected to have a significant impact to attain potential oil recovery, if applied in current projects of conventional steam flood and/or water flooded reservoirs. Introduction and Review The increasing costs of discovering new oil fields and the finite limits of conventional oil reserves provide active incentive for more efficient recovery methods. Research1-3 is currently being done to maximize oil recovery while minimizing the cost of the used chemical(s). Steam flooding provides the bulk production of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes. Steam drive1 is well documented to be one of the potential improved methods for oil recovery. Steam flooding produces of 30 to 60 % of residual oil in place (ROIP). On the other side, surfactant flooding produces almost of 15 to 40 % ROIP while alkaline flooding produces of 2 to 5 % ROIP. These ranges of oil production are documented1 based on actual data of many successful field projects.

S. A. SHEDID and A. B. ABBAS

SPE 62562

Although steam flood enjoys higher productivity, it suffers from some drawbacks, including (1) channeling of steam through high permeability zones, and (2) gravity override which leads to early breakthrough and reduce the displacement efficiency. Earlier laboratory work and field applications1-6 indicated that injection of water-soluble or alkaline into the steam used in cyclic steam stimulation operations often gave improved oil production. Tiab et al. 3 investigated the applicability of caustic (sodium soda) into steam flood to reduce the residual oil saturation in the lower portion of the reservoir (usually overridden by steam). The results of this study showed that using sodium soda in steam leads to an improvement of flow efficiency and consequently increases the oil recovery over conventional steam flood. Blair et al. 4 evaluated the injection of some interfacially active chemicals into some wells in Kern County, CA, immediately before and during the huff and puff steaming cycle. This chemical steam treatment was documented to give significant increases in oil production. Al-Khafaji et al. 5 conducted two experiments under static and dynamic conditions, respectively. The dynamic experiment investigated heat transfer through porous medium and mobility of surfactant steam flood. The results showed that steam mobility was reduced when surfactant was used. Therefore, this current study is designed to investigate the oil recovery using different chemical steam methods (including surfactant steam, alkaline steam, and surfactant alkaline steam techniques). Wu et al.6 included chemical concentration and permeability field realization (vertical and horizontal permeability ratio) into a sensitivity analysis to design and optimize a low cost-chemical flooding. The results showed that the process of designing chemical floods could be improved using combination of current EOR processes. Our current study is designed to combine two chemical processes (alkaline and surfactant) with steam flood. Larson et al. 7 characterized the elementary mechanisms of chemical flooding as (1) mechanism altering oleic rate in comparison to aqueous rate through the rock (including: reduction of interfacial tension, wettability alteration, viscosity alteration,

and pore plugging) and (2) mechanisms changing composition of phases (including miscibility, sweelling, and solubilization). Ching8 identified steam flooding mechanisms to be: steam drive, insitu solvent drive, viscosity reduction, thermal permeability and capillary pressure variations, thermal expansion, gravity segregation, solution-gas drive, and emulsion drive. Based on the authors review, using mixed solution of surfactant and alkaline into the steam drive has not been presented before for improvement of oil recovery. This represents an active motivation to investigate the feasibility of a technique combining the effectiveness of alkaline (to improve sweep efficiency of steam), surfactant (to reduce interfacial tension and improve steam mobility) and steam (to reduce oil viscosity). The combined potential of the three components of surfactant, alkaline, and steam in surfactant alkaline steam flood (SASF) should complement each other and results in significant improvement of oil recovery over either single process. This proposed technique is expected to be applicable to water flooded reservoirs, steam flooded reservoirs, and other reservoirs which are not attainable by other EOR methods. Experimental Apparatus and Procedure Several experimental runs are carried out to investigate the feasibility of using chemical additives (surfactant, alkaline, and surfactant alkaline solutions) into the steam current to improve oil recovery. The experimental model is schematically described in Fig. 1. It is mainly a sandpack with average permeability of 1,735 md and average porosity of 30.76 %. The sandpack is mainly contained in a stainless tube (105 cm long and 3.8 cm inside diameter), that is filled with carefully seized sand. To prevent heat loss, two precaution steps are carried-out: (1) the stainless tube is surrounded by an oil bath (jacket), which has a constant temperature of 90 oC, and (2) calibrated heater tapes are rapped around the outer oil bath. Other experimental set up elements are used, Fig. 1, including manometers, valves, liquid reservoirs, one injection port along the axis, steam generator, and

SPE 62562

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SURFACTANT ALKALINE STEAM FLOOD THROUGH VERTICAL WELLS

thermostat. Table 1 shows the physical data of the used experimental model and flowing fluids. The used strategy and applied experimental procedure are generally similar and can be described as follows: 1. Carefully seized sand particles (in the average range from 315 to 450 microns) are washed using low concentrated solution of sodium hydroxide and then re-washed using distilled water. The sand particles are dried and packed (under constant vibration for almost 7 hours) into the stainless steel cylinder. Then the sandpack is evacuated for almost 24 hours. 2. Actual water formation of East Aghar field, Egypt, is used to fully saturate the sandpack. Values of porosity and permeability are calculated for each experiment. (a steady-state condition is well established before permeability calculation). 3. Actual crude oil (East Aghar oil field, Egypt) is used to saturate the sandpack. Variation of viscosity of this crude oil with temperature is presented in Table 2. Then, water flooding is started using a flow rate of 1.734 cc/min. Water flooding is continued until no more oil is produced (or 100 % water production is attained). The effluent volumes of oil and water are collected with their corresponding time intervals. The cumulative oil recovery for each experiment of the four undertaken experiments is calculated and plotted versus pore volume injected. 4. Steam is generated in the steam generator (boiler) using distilled water and injected into the water-flooded sandpack with a rate of 1.952 cc/min and under a constant pressure drop of 25.7 psi. In the first experiment of steam flood (SF), pressure drop between the injector and production ports is measured of 19.7 psi. This pressure drop increases during the three other experiments of chemical steam floods (SSF, ASF, and SASF) to almost 34.3 psi. The reason is related to the micro-mechanism of oil recovery in which the steam gravity is increased due to addition of alkaline, and foam is generated due to addition of surfactant.

5. The conventional steam flood experiment is considered as the baseline of this study. The temperature difference between the injection and production ports is recorded of 19 oF. The steam rate was measured from the used volumes of distilled water and their corresponding time intervals. 6. Different chemical solutions are prepared and injected into the steam current. These solutions include: (a) surfactant (Triton, X-100, 3.0 % wt. concentration) for run # 2 of surfactant steam flood (SSF), (b) alkaline (NaOH, 3.0 % wt. concentration) for run # 3 of alkaline steam flood (ASF), and (c) surfactant (Triton, X-100, 1.5 % wt. concentration) with alkaline (NaOH, 1.5 % wt. concentration) for run # 4 of surfactant alkaline steam flood (SASF). The selection of chemical type and concentration is based upon the previous measurements of interfacial tension between East Aghar crude oil and these chemicals. Table 3 shows all IFT measurements versus temperature. In addition, Fig. 2 compares the IFT between the crude oil and different used chemicals (surfactant of 3 % wt., alkaline of 3.0 % wt. and a mixture of surfactant of 1.5 % wt. and alkaline of 1.5 % wt.). This figure, Fig. 2, shows that the surfactant alkaline mixture provides the lowest IFT. 7. Produced emulsions/liquids are collected eventually and their corresponding time intervals are recorded. These products are separated to measure water-oil ratio. 8. All experiments of steam and/or chemical steam injection are started after a complete water flooding is performed and the condition of residual oil saturation is assured. Actual crude oil and water formation of East Aghar field (Egypt) is used to achieve the objective(s) of this study. The crude oil has a 12 o API (at room temperature 70 oF) while the water formation concentration has salinity of 133,370 ppm of NaCl. As preparation of this study, six preliminary experiments were performed to (a) select the suitable brine flow rate as 1.73 cc/min. and a steam rate to be 1.95 cc/min (the used flow

S. A. SHEDID and A. B. ABBAS

SPE 62562

rates provide the required steady-state condition), and (b) secure no leakage in and/or out of the flow system. Results and Discussion Four experiments were undertaken sequentially with the sandpack in a horizontal orientation. These experiments investigated the displacement of heavy crude oil using steam flood (without chemical additive), surfactant steam flood, alkaline steam flood, and surfactant alkaline steam flood, respectively. The general strategy was similar for all experiments. In each experiment, after a complete waterflood was achieved and no more oil production is attained, an equal amount of steam (steam slug size = 1.80 PV) having identical steam quality was injected into the sandpack. This steam slug was driven by a hot waterflood (heated to 90 o C) until no additional oil production is attained. The reasons for using this sequence of steam and hot water were as follows: (1) to secure the injection of equal steam slug sizes in all experiments, (2) to reduce the amount of injected steam, which will help to make the process economically feasible, and (3) to drive the condensed steam zone by hot water, which may help to reduce the steam override problem. Waterflooding has different slug sizes for different experiments, but this is to secure the condition of residual oil saturation (no more oil production by waterflooding, which may be erroneously added to steam flood oil recovery). Another reason for different slug sizes of waterflooding is that if more pore volumes of water were injected to have equal injected pore volumes, no more oil would not be produced, which has no meaning. The same explanation can be used for hot waterflooding after the injection of steam slug. The results of the four conducted experimental runs have been summarized in Table 4. The ultimate oil recovery by waterflooding for the four undertaken experiments ranges from 48.50 to 51.23 % IOIP when formation water volumes in the range of 2.5 to 3.1 PV is injected to secure well-established residual oil condition. Fig. 3 demonstrates and presents the oil recovery by waterflooding versus pore volume injected (PVI)

for the four previously mentioned runs. The values of residual oil saturation before and after waterflooding for each experiment are presented in Table 4. The higher oil recovery of waterflooding can be attributed to the homogeneity of the porous medium (sandpack) and to the ideal flow conditions (constant and low flow rate of injection, water injection rate = 1.73 cc/min). The oil displacement efficiency9 is defined as the ratio of the amount of oil displaced to the amount of oil contacted by displacing agent. Symbolically, displacement efficiency is given by ED, where ED ={(Soi Sor)/(Soi)}. This higher recovery of water flood is also reflected into the average value of the oil displacement efficiency for the four runs, which is calculated to be 48.49 %. The oil recovery of steam flood experiment (without chemical additive) is 16.92 % IOIP after a complete waterflood has been performed. Fig. 4. This figure, Fig.4, shows the combined oil recovery by both water and steam injection versus pore volume injected. The increment of oil recovery is mainly attributed to the viscosity reduction of the crude oil, as shown in Table 2. The consistency of oil production increment is attributed to the selection of suitable steam rate (which delays the steam breakthrough and provides higher oil recovery). The oil displacement efficiency of steam flood is calculated to be 32.86 % . With respect to the surfactant steam flood (SSF), the co-injection of surfactant (as an interfacially active chemical) with steam into the sandpack provides a significant increase (almost 7.0 % IOIP) in oil production than that of steam flood. Fig. 5 shows the combined oil recovery by water and surfactant steam floods versus pore volume injected. The recovery mechanism is a combination of viscosity reduction, as shown in Table 2, and IFT reduction, as shown in Table 3. It is documented1,4 that sweep efficiency of steam can be improved by injecting surfactant with steam. The reason5 is the enhancement of steam mobility due to addition of surfactant. The enhancement of sweep efficiency is reflected in the improvement of displacement efficiency of surfactant steam flood. The displacement efficiency (ED) of this process is estimated to be 45.79 % (it has 12.93 %

SPE 62562

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SURFACTANT ALKALINE STEAM FLOOD THROUGH VERTICAL WELLS

improvement than the case of steam flood, 32.86 %). The reason may be that surfactant steam mixture generates foam in the reservoir and improves oil recovery efficiency of steam flooding by diverting steam to high oil saturation zones. The results of alkaline steam flood experiment are presented in Fig. 6. The oil recovery of alkaline steam flood shows an improvement in comparison of that of steam flood (run # 1). This improvement is attributed again to viscosity reduction and lower values of IFT, as presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. In addition, the addition of alkaline to the steam increases its gravity and reduces its mobility, which helps to reduce the tendency of steam to override causing early breakthrough. Alkaline steam process has better displacement efficiency (ED = 36.24 %) than that of steam drive (ED = 32.86 %). Comparison of surfactant steam and alkaline steam processes shows higher oil recovery by surfactant steam. This is because surfactant solution shows lower IFT values with crude oil than that shown by alkaline one (when both have the same concentration of 3.0 wt. % and at different temperatures), as shown in Fig.2. The proposed technique of surfactant alkaline steam flood (SASF) is a scientific trial to combine effectiveness and mechanisms of surfactant, alkaline and steam processes, Fig. 7. This is by incorporating small and low concentrated surfactant (1.5 % wt. of Triton, X-100) and alkaline (1.5 % wt of sodium hydroxide) solutions along with injected steam. Surfactant is used to decrease interfacial tension, Fig. 2, and thus the capillary forces at the condensed water displacement front. Alkaline improves displacement efficiency, Table 4, and steam reduces the oil viscosity, Table 2, and thus viscous forces. The result is a significant reduction in capillary number and a potential increment in oil recovery of almost 10.55 % IOIP than conventional steam flood (SF). This potential increment in oil recovery is mainly attributed to the following two reasons: (1) combined effective mechanisms of oil recovery (reduction of oil viscosity, reduction of interfacial tension, and emulsification) and (2) better displacement efficiency of that process, Table 4 (the SASF shows

17.84 % improvement in displacement efficiency than conventional steam flood). Based on the experimental results of this study, a general conclusion can be drawn that alkaline steam or surfactant steam is an effective technique that can produce additional oil recovery than conventional steam flood. Furthermore, the surfactant alkaline steam flood demonstrated higher and recoverable oil production than other chemical steam techniques. The superiority of surfactant alkaline steam technique over other chemical steam floods (alkaline steam and surfactant steam) is mainly due to some drawbacks of these methods. For instance, alkaline steam flood suffers from active reaction of alkaline with reservoir rocks, while surfactant is an expensive material. The new technique is expected to be applicable to reservoirs subjected to waterflooding, steam flooded reservoirs and many other reservoirs that are not amenable to other EOR processes. Conclusions 1. A water flooded reservoir(s) having high gravity crude oil can successfully be exploited by steam or chemical steam flood(s). 2. A conventional steam flood and three other chemical steam techniques are experimentally investigated. These three techniques are surfactant steam, alkaline steam, and surfactant alkaline steam floods. The results provide a general conclusion that chemical steam flood(s) recover(s) additional oil than conventional steam process. 3. Addition of surfactant or alkaline to current steam drive improves oil recovery of the process. Surfactant steam flood recovers more oil than alkaline steam flood, when both processes are applied under identical flow conditions and considering an equal concentration of surfactant and alkaline. 4. A new technique of surfactant alkaline steam flood is presented. This technique has been proven effective and improved oil recovery. The proposed technique could be applicable to water flooded reservoirs and/or current conventional steam projects. 5. The surfactant alkaline steam technique

S. A. SHEDID and A. B. ABBAS

SPE 62562

improves displacement efficiency significantly than another chemical steam method (surfactant steam or alkaline steam) does. In the mean time, either surfactant steam flood or alkaline steam flood shows better displacement efficiency than steam drive. References 1. Hammershaimb, E. C., Kuuskraa, V. A., and Stosur, G. "Recovery Efficiency of Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods: A Review of Significant Field Tests," SPE 12114 presented at the 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA, Oct. 5-8 (1983). 2. Farouq Ali, S. M., and Meldau, R. F.: "Current Steam Flooding Technology," Journal of Petroleum Technology, (Oct.1979), p.1332-42. 3. Tiab, D, Okoye, C. U., and Osman, M. M.: "Caustic Steam Flooding," Journal of Petroleum Technology (August, 1982). 4. Blair Jr., C., M, Richard, S. and Charles A., "Chemical Enhancement of Oil Production by Cyclic Steam Injection," SPE 10700, presented at the 50th Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME held in Log Angeles, California, April 9-11, (1980). 5. Al-Khafaji, A. H., Fred, W. P., Castanier, L. M., and Brigham, W. E., "Steam Surfactant at Reservoir Conditions," SPE 10777, presented at the California Regional Meeting of Soc. Of Pet. Eng held in San Francisco, CA, Marech 24-26 (1982). 6. Wu, W. Vaskas, A., Delshad, M., Pope, G. A., and Sepehmoori, K., "Design and Optimization of Low-Cost Chemical Flooding," SPE/DOE 35355, presented at the SPE/DOE Tenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, OK, April 21-24 (1996) p. 109-125. 7. Larson, R. G., Davis, H. T., and Scriven, L. E., "Elementary Mechanisms of Oil Recovery by Chemical Methods," Journal of Petroleum Technology (Feb. 1982) p. 243-56. 8. Ching, W. H., "A Critical Review of Steamflood Mechanisms," SPE 6550, presented at the 47th Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME held

in bakersfield, California, April 13-15 (1977). 9. Lake, L. W.:Enhanced Oil Recovery: PrenticeHall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1989), p.128. Symbols ED Displacement efficiency, (%) EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery IFT Interfacial tension, (dyne/cm). IOIP Initial oil-in-place, (cc) PV Pore volume, (cc) PVI Pore volume injected, (cc) ROIP Residual oil-in-place, (cc) Soi Initial oil saturation, (% PV) Sor Residual oil saturation, (% PV) Swir Irreducible water saturation, (% PV) T Temperature (oC).
Subscripts i initial ir irreducible o oil r residual w water

SPE 62562

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SURFACTANT ALKALINE STEAM FLOOD THROUGH VERTICAL WELLS

Table 1. Physical data of the used experimental model and fluids.

Experimental Model - Length - Diameter - Average porosity - Average permeability

105 cm 3.08 cm 30.76 % 1,735 md

Fluids Run # 1 Conventional steam flood (SF) -Distilled water for steam generation (superheated at 54.7 psi and saturated temperature of 150 oC) Run # 2 Surfactant steam flood (SSF) -Distilled water for steam generation (superheated at 54.7 psi and saturated temperature of 150 oC) -Surfactant (Triton X-100, concentration 3.0 % wt.) Run # 3 Alkaline steam flood (ASF) -Distilled water for steam generation (superheated at54.7 psi and saturated temperature of 150 oC) -Alkaline (NaOH, concentration 3.0 % wt.) Run # 4 Surfactant alkaline steam flood (SASF) -Distilled water for steam generation (superheated at54.7 psi and saturated temperature of 150 oC) -Surfactant (Triton X-100, concentration 1.5 % wt.) -Alkaline (NaOH, concentration 1.5 % wt.).

Table 2 Variation of crude-oil viscosity with temperature. Viscosity, cp 3120 2035 887.4 o Temp., F 78 100 122

493 140

Table 3 Variation of interfacial tension (IFT) between the used chemicals and the crude oil at different temperatures.
Surfactant concentration (SC) = 0.50 wt. % IFT, dyne/cm T, oC AC= 0.25 AC=0.50 AC=1.0 AC=1.5 30 0.438 0.237 0.065 0.043 50 0.383 0.214 0.055 0.026 70 0.379 0.204 0.049 0.022 Surfactant concentration (SC) = 1.50 wt. % IFT, dyne/cm T, oC AC= 0.25 AC=0.50 AC=1.0 30 0.350 0.200 0.043 50 0.361 0.194 0.034 70 0.359 0.187 0.038 AC=1.5 0.033 0.021 0.017 Surfactant concentration (SC) = 1.0 wt. % IFT, dyne/cm T, oC AC= 0.25 AC=0.50 AC=1.0 AC=1.5 30 0.383 0.213 0.053 0.035 50 0.371 0.201 0.048 0.023 70 0.367 0.200 0.043 0.018 Alkaline concentration = AC, wt. % Surfactant concentration = SC, wt. % IFT, dyne/cm T, oC AC= 3.0 SC= 3.0 AC=1.5 & SC=1.5 30 0.0360 0.0351 0.033 50 0.0243 0.0232 0.021 70 0.0198 0.0185 0.017

S. A. SHEDID and A. B. ABBAS

SPE 62562

Table 4 Experimental results of steam, alkaline steam, surfactant steam, and surfactant alkaline steam flood (SASF) experiments.
Crude oil Formation water
EOR Process Sor at start of Waterflood, (%) Sor at start of Thermal flood (%) Sor after Thermal flood (%) Swirr (%) Water Flood Recovery (%IOIP) Thermal Process Recovery (%IOIP) Total Recovery (%IOIP) Thermal Displacement Efficiency (ED) %

East Aghar, Egypt (12 oAPI) East Aghar, Egypt (salinity = 133,370 ppm of TDS) Steam Flood (SF) 80.29 41.35 27.76 19.71 Alkaline Steam Flood (ASF) 71.20 34.93 22.27 28.80 Surfactant Steam Flood (SSF) 74.87 38.08 20.64 25.13 Surfactant Alkaline Steam (SASF) 80.28 39.15 19.30 19.72

48.50

50.94

49.14

51.23

16.92 65.42 32.86

17.79 68.73 36.24

23.28 72.42 45.79

24.74 75.97 50.70 .

8 Nitrogen Flow 6 4 7 Crude Oil Formation Water Chemical Solution 11

Boiler

12

5 3 1

13 3

Experimental Set-Up: 1&2 3 4,5 &6 7 8 Valves. Physical Linear Model and Oil bath (Jacket) 9 Graduated cylinder. Manometers T &P Temperature and Pressure Container of Crude Oil, Formation Water and 11 Steam Generator (Boiler) Chemical solutions 12 Regulator Nitrogen Cylinder 13 Thermostat Dimension of Physical Linear Model (Inner Dimension): 105-cmx3.8-cm.

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the used experimental model

SPE 62562

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SURFACTANT ALKALINE STEAM FLOOD THROUGH VERTICAL WELLS

AC=3.0 wt. %

SC = 3.0 wt. %

SAC = 1.5 wt. % (both)

0.04 0.035 0.03 IFT, dyne/cm 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 20 30 40 50 Temperature, oC Fig. 2 Variation of IFT with temperature for surfactant (3 wt. %), alklaine (3 wt. %) and surfactant-alkaline (1.5 wt. % for both) solutions. 60 70 80

60.0 Run # 2 Run # 3 Run # 4

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 Run # 1

Cumulative Oil Recovery, %IOIP, Run #1 Cumulative Oil Recovery, %IOIP, Run #2 Cumulative Oil Recovery, %IOIP, Run #3 Cumulative Oil Recovery, %IOIP, Run #4 Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, %, Run #1 Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, %, Run #2

40.0

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0

30.0

20.0

Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, %, Run #3 Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, % , Run #4

10.0

0.0 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50 2.00 Pore Volumes Injected, fraction PV

2.50

3.00

0.0 3.50

F ig. 3 C omparsion of cumulative oil recovery and effluent oil percentage in product for different pore volumes injected of water flooding (L inear M odel, Runs #1 , 2, 3 and 4).

100.0 90.0 Cumulative Oil Recovery, % IOIP 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0

Cumulative Oil Recovery, % IOIP Run No. 1: Steam Flooding without Chemical Additives

Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, %

100.0 90.0 Percentage Oil in Product effluent, % 80.0

Run No. 1

70.0 60.0 50.0

30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Water Flooding

Steam Flooding

40.0

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 5.0

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Pore Volumes Injected, fraction PV

4.0

4.5

Fig.4 Cumulative Oil Recovery and Effluent Oil Percentage Versus Pore Volumes Injected of Water and Steam Flooding without Chemical Additives (Linear Model Run # 1).

Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, %

50.0 Cumulative Oil Recovery, %IOIP

10

S. A. SHEDID and A. B. ABBAS

SPE 62562

Cumulative Oil Recovery, % IOIP

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 Run No. 2: Steam Flooding with Surfactant Additive

Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, %

100.0 90.0 80.0
Run No.2

70.0 60.0 50.0

30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Water Flooding

Surfactant Steam Flooding

40.0

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

2.0 3.0 4.0 Pore Volumes Injected, fraction PV

5.0

6.0

Fig. 5 Cumulative Oil Recovery and Effluent Oil Percentage Versus Pore Volumes Injected of Water and Steam Flooding with Surfactant Additive (Linear Model Run # 2).

100.0 90.0 80.0 Cumulative Oil Recovery, % IOIP 70.0 60.0 50.0

Cumulative Oil Recovery, %IOIP Run No. 3: Steam Flooding with Caustic Additive

Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, %

100.0 90.0 Pe rcentage Oil in Product effluent, %

Percentage Oil in Product effluent, %

80.0
Run No.3 70.0

60.0 50.0 Water Flooding Caustic Steam Flooding 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 7.0

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0 4.0 Pore Volumes Injected, fraction PV

5.0

6.0

Fig. 6 Cumulative Oil Recovery and Effluent Oil Percentage Versus Pore Volumes Injected of Water and Steam Flooding with Caustic Additive (Linear Model Run #3).

100.0 90.0 Cumulative Oil Recovery, % IOIP 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0

Cumulative Oil Recovery, % IOIP Run No. 4: Steam Flooding with Surfactant Caustic Additives

Effluent Oil Percentage in Product, %

100.0 90.0

Run No.4

80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0

30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

Water Flooding

40.0

Surfactant Caustic Steam Flooding

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

3.0 4.0 Pore Volumes Injected, fraction PV

5.0

6.0

7.0

Fig. 7 Cumulative Oil Recovery and Effluent Oil Percentage Versus Pore Volumes Injected of Water and Steam Flooding with Surfactant C austic Additive (Linear Model Run # 4).

Percentage Oil in Product effluent, %

Cumulative Oil Recovery, %IOIP