Simulation of O/W Emulsion

Flow in Alkaline/Surfactant
Flood for Heavy Oil Recovery
J. Wang*, M. Dong, University of Calgary
* now with Core Laboratories Canada Lid.

Dong(5) and Dong et al.(6) reported comprehensive studies of the

Abstract alkaline/surfactant (A/S) flood potential for three West Canadian
The formation and flow of emulsions during alkaline flooding heavy oils. Extensive emulsification tests, interfacial tension (IFT)
process play an important role for improving heavy oil recovery. measurements, micromodel experiments and sandpack flood tests
In this study alkaline/surfactant (A/S) flood tests were per- were conducted. Their results showed that the IFT could be re-
formed in sandpacks to demonstrate the effectiveness of sweep duced to be lower than 0.01 mN/m by an alkaline solution and
efficiency improvement by the in-situ generated oil-in-water a very dilute concentration of surfactant, leading to easy emul-
(O/W) emulsion. High tertiary oil recoveries were obtained in sification of heavy oil in formation brine under slight interfacial
sandpack flood tests. Experimental results were history matched disturbance. Tertiary oil recovery in sandpack flood tests reached
by including the mechanisms of in-situ generation and flow of more than 20% original oil in place (OOIP). Liu et al.(7) studied
O/W emulsion, as well as the chemical adsorption and the re- the synergy of alkali and surfactant in emulsifying a heavy oil in
duction of interfacial tension involved in the chemical flooding brine. Liu et al.(8) also presented a study of enhanced heavy oil
process. The decrease in local water phase permeability caused recovery by the in-situ produced O/W emulsion. They conducted
by the entrapment of emulsion droplets was modelled using the A/S flooding tests for five Western Canadian heavy oils with vis-
filtration theory. Both the pressure response and the oil recovery cosities ranging from 650 to 18,000 mPa.s, and promising results
improvement were fairly matched. Field-scale simulations were were obtained for all the oils.
conducted to investigate the potential of A/S flooding for heavy Numerically modelling the alkaline flooding for heavy oil re-
oil reservoirs. Simulations showed promising results of chemical covery is far from satisfactory. Unlike the case of conventional oil,
flooding for heavy oils. It was indicated that a certain length of ultra-low oil/water interfacial tension is not always the dominant
waterflooding time would benefit the final oil recovery, and there mechanism during alkaline flooding for heavy oils. Emulsion flow
existed an optimum chemical slug size. These laboratory results becomes one of the main characteristics which must be included in
and the simulation technique are helpful in the simulation and the simulator for this type of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) process.
design of field-scale projects of chemical flooding for enhanced Generally, there are three theories describing the flow of emulsion
heavy oil recovery. in porous media: the homogenous model, the droplet retardation
model and the filtration model. The simple bulk viscosity model
was developed by Alvarado(9) and Alvarado and Marsden(10), in
Introduction which emulsion was viewed as a homogeneous, single-phase fluid.
This model was suitable for the description of the flow of emul-
Both field and laboratory studies showed that caustic flood sions with smaller drop-size to pore-size ratio where the flow could
could effectively improve oil recovery for moderately viscous reach steady state quickly. Abou-Kassem and Farouq Ali(11) modi-
oils. Johnson(1) summarized four main mechanisms of oil recovery fied the viscosity model to describe both Newtonian and non-New-
improvement by alkaline flooding: dispersion and entrainment, tonian fluids, and their model was suitable for numerical simulation
wettability reversal from oil-wet to water-wet, or vice versa, and of EOR processes. They provided a quantitative description of the
emulsification and entrapment. In the case of heavy oils, the emul- effect on flow of pore size distribution and tortuosity of porous
sification and entrapment during alkaline flooding have been rec- media. Based on the mechanism postulated by McAuliffe(12), De-
ognized as the dominant mechanism(2–4), which can efficiently vereux(13) proposed a droplet retardation model for describing the
improve sweep efficiency. Jennings et al.(2) demonstrated this flow of stable O/W emulsions in porous media. In this model, the
mechanism through extensive experimental studies. Visual ex- dispersed drops flow slower than the continuous phase because of
periments clearly showed that the areal sweep efficiency was im- the capillary retarding force that is encountered when the drops are
proved by the in-situ generated emulsions, and the oil recovery at flowing through the pore throats smaller than drops themselves.
breakthrough was doubled compar���������������������������������
ed�������������������������������
to that obtained in the water- The retardation model can arrive at larger permeability reduction
flooding test. Coreflooding tests demonstrated the increase in oil with lower flow rate and higher drop size-to-pore size ratio; how-
recovery and the decrease in instantaneous water/oil ratio (WOR). ever, it cannot predict the permanent permeability reduction ob-
The mechanism was summarized as: a drastic reduction of oil/ served in laboratory. Soo and Radke(14–16) proposed a model for
water interfacial tension (below approximately 0.01 mN/m) by describing the flow of stable, dilute emulsions in unconsolidated
the caustic activation of potentially surface-active organic acids in porous media based on deep-bed filtration concepts. In this model,
the crude oil, in-situ production of the O/W emulsions that tended dispersed drops can be captured in pores by both straining and in-
to lower the mobility of the injected water and damp viscous fin- terception, resulting in permeability reduction. Of all these models,
gering, and the diversion of the flow of injected water to give im- the filtration model is the most successful in representing all the
proved sweep efficiency. experimental observations.
46 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 The objective of this study is to experimentally demonstrate 10

the improvement in heavy oil recovery by A/S flooding, and to

conduct a history match of the experimental results by including

Interfacial Tension, mN/m

the main flow mechanisms in the numerical simulation. Based on 1
the results of the history match, field-scale simulations are con-
ducted to investigate the potential of A/S flooding for heavy oil
reservoirs. 0.1

Alkaline/Surfactant Flooding Tests in 0.01

Sandpacks
Alkaline/surfactant flood tests were performed in sandpacks to 0.001
demonstrate the effectiveness of sweep efficiency improvement 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
through the in-situ formed O/W emulsions, and more importantly, Combined Alkaline Concentration, wt%
to provide experimental data for history matching in the further
numerical simulation study. The heavy oil sample and the forma- FIGURE 1: Interfacial tensions of heavy oil/brine as a function of
combined alkaline concentration. Weight ratio of Na2CO3/NaOH being
tion brine used in this study were from a heavy oil reservoir in 1:1, and surfactant concentration in brine being 100 mg/L.
Saskatchewan, Canada. The oil sample was centrifuged at 10,000
rpm under 35°C for 2 hours to remove water and solids. The vis- of the sandpacks was around 36.3% and the absolute permeability
cosity and density of the oil sample at 25°C were determined to be ranged from 5.5 – 7.0 µm2.
1,370 mPa.s and 961.8 kg/m3, respectively. The acid number of the The wet-packed sandpack was flooded with the heavy oil to es-
oil sample was 1.32 mg KOH/g-oil. The salinity of the formation tablish initial water saturation. The oil injection was conducted
brine was 27,286 mg/L in terms of total dissolved solids (TDS), at the velocity of 0.4 m/d and continued until water production
with 410 mg/L of Ca2+ and 256 mg/L of Mg2+. ceased (water cut less than 1.0%). The initial water saturation was
Emulsification tests(7) showed that the oil ��������������������
sample could
�������������
be dis- determined on the basis of mass balance. After that, waterflooding
persed into the formation brine by the synergy of alkali and surfac- was conducted by injecting formation brine at a constant injection
tant. The combined application of NaOH and Na2CO3 was chosen flow rate. Waterflooding was continued until oil production be-
as the alkaline agent from the screening tests. An anionic surfac- came negligible (oil cut less than 1.0%), and then A/S flooding was
tant, alkyl ether sulphate (Stepan, Canada), was selected as the ad- started. A 0.3 pore volume (PV) preflush slug (0.10 wt% Na2CO3
ditive because it provided the better emulsification result for the in brine) was used before the injection of alkaline/surfactant slug
studied heavy oil/brine system. Oil/water interfacial tensions were in order to reduce surfactant loss and to provide a Ca2+-free cir-
measured using a spinning-drop tensiometer (Model 510, Temco, cumstance for emulsification of oil. Following the injection of a
USA). Figure 1 presents the IFT as a function of the combined chemical slug, an extended waterflood was carried out until the oil
alkaline concentration with the weight ratio of Na2CO3/NaOH
production became negligible.
being 1:1, in the presence of 100 mg/L surfactant. A minimum
The parameters of ���������������������������������������
the �����������������������������������
sandpacks and the results of water-
IFT was observed at around 0.4 wt% combined alkalis. With the
flooding and chemical flooding are summarized in Table 1. Ini-
consideration of chemical loss, 0.6 wt% combined alkalis and 300
ppm surfactant were used in sandpack flood tests. tial oil saturation ranged from 69.3 – 87.0%, and waterflooding oil
recovery varied from 29.0 – 34.1% OOIP. Varied injection flow
Three alkaline/surfactant flooding tests were carried out in this rates, chemical slug sizes and sandpack lengths were used in these
study. The sandpack holder used in alkaline flood tests was 4.25
three A/S flooding tests, and all tests showed significant improve-
cm in diameter. Two of the three sandpacks were 14.2 cm in length
ment in oil recovery after the chemical ���������������������������
flooding�������������������
. The injection ve-
and the other one had a length of 90.4 cm in order to investigate
the effect of sandpack length on oil recovery. Both ends of the locity was 0.4 m/d for Run1 and Run 3, and 0.8 m/d for Run 2. The
sandpack holder were equipped with flow distributors, upon which chemical slug sizes were 0.5 PV for Run 1 and Run 3, and 1.2 PV
200-mesh stainless steel screens were spot-welded to prevent fine for Run 2. The same sandpack length was used in Run 1 and Run
sand from flowing out and to provide more even distribution of the 2, while a longer sandpack with more than six times of that length
injected fluid. Ottawa sand was wet-packed in the sandpack holder. was used in Run 3. Test results showed there was no evident dif-
The packing procedure was as follows: 60−100 mesh sand was ference in tertiary oil recovery for these three tests, which ranged
poured into the sandpack holder, which was vertically mounted from 22.4% – 24.4% OOIP. This indicates that the injection rate
on a vibrator and filled with formation brine. The sandpack holder has an insignificant effect on oil recovery in the studied flow-rate
was fully filled at a time and was vibrated for 1 hour. The porosity range. With approximately a same tertiary oil recovery, the 0.5 PV

Table 1: Summary of alkaline/surfactant flooding tests.

Run number 1 2 3
Sandpack Length, cm 14.2 14.2 90.4
Porosity, % 36.6 36.8 35.4
Permeability, µm2 5.5 6.5 7.0
Initial oil saturation, % 69.6 69.3 87.0
Waterflooding recovery, %OOIP 29.0 34.1 34.0
Injection velocity, m/d 0.4 0.8 0.4
0.3 wt% Na2CO3 0.3 wt% Na2CO3 0.3 wt% Na2CO3

Chemical formula + 0.3 wt% NaOH + 0.3 wt% NaOH + 0.3 wt% NaOH
+ 300 ppm Surfactant + 300 ppm Surfactant + 300 ppm Surfactant
Chemical slug size, PV 0.5 1.2 0.5
Tertiary recovery, %OOIP 22.4 24.4 23.4
Final oil recovery, %OOIP 51.4 58.5 57.4

June 2010, Volume 49, No. 6 47

 Cumulative Oil Production, Experimental
200
gridblock size of 0.904 cm×2.837 cm×1 cm. Uniformly distributed
40 Cumulative Oil Production, Simulated
Injection Pressure, Experimental permeabilities were assigned to the grids, with the average values
Cumulative Oil Production, cm3
Injection Pressure, Simulated being the same as the measured data.
Waterflooding 180 Five components were used in the simulation: water, chemical

Injection Pressure, kPa

30
(alkali/surfactant) and O/W emulsion in aqueous phase, dead oil
in oil phase, and trapped oil in solid phase. The concentration of
160
each component in each grid was calculated from the conserva-
20 tion equation of the component. There was an adsorption term in
Waterflooding 140 the conservation equation for chemical component. Before the in-
Chemical Slug jection of chemical slug, the concentrations of the three compo-
10 nents—chemical, emulsion and trapped oil, in each grid were zero.
120
During chemical slug injection, chemical concentration gradually
increased in each grid. The production of O/W emulsion was rep-
0 100 resented by a reaction of water, oil and alkali [CMG STARS us-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 er’s guide(17)]:
Time, days

FIGURE 2: Experimental and simulated cumulative oil production and Water + Chemical + Dead Oil → O / W Emulsion ................................. (1)
pressure drop for test Run 1 of A/S flooding in sandpack.

chemical slug size is more economical compared to the 1.2 PV of The capture of emulsion drops by porous media was represented
chemical slug. The oil recovery efficiency was not reduced with by a chemical reaction:
the increase in sandpack length, which indicated a great potential
for upscaling the laboratory tests to field applications. O / W Emulsion → Trapped Oil ............................................................ (2)
The curves of cumulative oil production and pressure drop of
these three flood tests are presented in Figures 2 through 4 (in In the grids with a higher alkaline concentration, more emul-
squares). It can be seen that the increase in oil recovery during sion is produced. The trapped oil was generated when the in-situ
A/S slug injection is accompanied by an increase in pressure drop. formed O/W emulsion drops were trapped, and then the local water
The mechanism involves the ultralow IFT and formation and flow phase permeability was decreased by adding a resistance factor (>
of O/W emulsions. The injected chemicals react with the organic 1.0). Trapping is more likely happen in lower permeability region.
acids in the oil, leading to a significant reduction in IFT, and emul- To represent this trapping tendency, the reaction rate parameter
sification of heavy oil in brine. Some oil is entrained in the con- used in the reaction in Equation (2) was a function of permeability,
tinuous water phase and flows out in the form of O/W emulsion. which was higher in lower permeability region(17).
The flowing emulsion droplets may be trapped when arriving at The measured oil/water interfacial tension (Figure 1) was input
smaller pore throats, which will lower the local mobility of water into the simulation. Langmuir isotherm curve was used to describe
phase and divert the injected water to un-swept regions. This en- the chemical adsorption. Tests performed in sandpacks by Liu(18)
trapment mechanism accounts for the increase in pressure drop and showed that the maximum NaOH loss on sand was approximately
improvement in oil recovery. 2.0 µmol/g-sand. This value was used to estimate the maximum
adsorption value in the simulation.
Oil/water two-phase relative permeability curves used for
History Match of Sandpack Flood Tests matching three sandpack flood tests are shown in Figures 5
through 7. To represent the effect of IFT reduction on two-phase
Based on the experimental studies, laboratory-scale numer- flow, the relative permeability was interpolated as a function of
ical simulations were conducted to match the production histories capillary number. Two sets of relative permeability curves, cor-
of the sandpack flood tests. CMG STARS was used to simulate responding to high IFT (during waterflooding) and low IFT cases,
the alkaline/surfactant flooding processes. The in-situ formation were used in the simulation. The capillary numbers for these two
of O/W emulsion was represented by a reaction of oil, water and cases were 2.5×10–7 and 3.2×10–3, respectively. Both oil-phase
chemicals. Filtration Theory was used to simulate the emulsion and water-phase relative permeabilities increased during chemical
capture in porous media. A grid system of 25×25×1 was used flooding. The water-phase permeability in the grids where emul-
to represent the 14.2-cm-long sandpacks in the tests, with the sion drops were trapped was decreased by including a water phase
gridblock size of 0.568 cm×0.567 cm×1 cm. The longer sand- resistance factor. The reaction rates, resistance factors and relative
pack was modelled using a grid system of 100×5×1, with the Cumulative Oil Production, Experimental
Cumulative Oil Production, Simulated
Cumulative Oil Production, Experimental Injection Pressure, Experimental
40 Cumulative Oil Production, Simulated 300 250 Injection Pressure, Simulated
500
Injection Pressure, Experimental
Cumulative Oil Production, cm3

Waterflooding
Cumulative Oil Production, cm3

Injection Pressure, Simulated

200
Injection Pressure, kPa
Injection Pressure, kPa

30 250 400

Waterflooding Waterflooding
150
Waterflooding
20 200 Chemical 300
Chemical Slug Slug
100

10 150 200
50

0 100 0 100
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time, days Time, days

FIGURE 3: Experimental and simulated cumulative oil production and FIGURE 4: Experimental and simulated cumulative oil production and
pressure drop for test Run 2 of A/S flooding in sandpack. pressure drop for test Run 3 of A/S flooding in sandpack.
48 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 1

Waterflooding
Ca = 3.2E-3
0.8
Kro

0.6
Kr

0.4
Krw

0.2

FIGURE 8: 3D view of reservoir model with uniformly distributed

0 permeabilities.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sw permeability curves were tuned parameters during history matching

process.
FIGURE 5: Simulation used oil-water two-phase relative permeability The history-matching results for the three flood tests are shown
curves for test Run 1 of A/S flooding.
in Figures 2 through 4 (in lines) in comparison with experimental
1 results. In general, the simulated oil production and pressure drop
values were very close to the test values. During alkaline flooding,
Waterflooding
Ca = 3.2E-3 pressure drop was increased because of the local water permea-
0.8
bility decrease resulted from entrapment of emulsion droplets. Oil
Kro
recovery was increased mainly because of the improvement in
sweep efficiency.

0.6

Field-Scale Reservoir Simulation

Kr

0.4
Based on the history matching of the alkaline/surfactant flooding
tests, field-scale numerical reservoir simulations were conducted
Krw to investigate the potential of field application of the EOR process.
Field simulations were performed on a rectangular area of 450 m
0.2 long and 400 m wide with a pay thickness of 4.5 m. Parallel hori-
zontal wells spaced 200 m were used as injectors and producers.
Table 2 lists the production parameters of the field model. A grid
system of 21×10×5 was used to represent this reservoir model,
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
with the gridblock size of 20 m×50 m×0.9 m. Figure 8 is a 3D
view of the reservoir model with colour scale showing the perme-
Sw
ability distribution. Uniformly distributed permeabilities, ranging
FIGURE 6: Simulation used oil-water two-phase relative permeability from 1.0 µm2 to 10.0 µm2, were assigned to these 1,050 grids with
curves for test Run 2 of A/S flooding. the average permeability of 5.57 µm2.
1 The reservoir model shown in Figure 8 was used to study var-
ious production scenarios, including varied time lengths of wa-
terflooding before chemical injection, and varied time lengths of
chemical injection (chemical slug sizes). Components, chemicals
Waterflooding
0.8 Ca = 3.2E-3
Kro
80

0.6
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR

Waterflooding 3 years
60 Waterflooding 2 years
Kr

Waterflooding 1 year

0.4
40

Krw
0.2
20

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Sw Time, date
FIGURE 7: Simulation used oil-water two-phase relative permeability
curves for test Run 3 of A/S flooding. FIGURE 9: Effect of waterflooding time on oil recovery.
June 2010, Volume 49, No. 6 49
Table 2: Parameters of field-scale model.

Pattern Line drive Kh, µm2 5.57

Injectors Horizontal Kv/Kh 0.5
Producers Horizontal Initial Oil, Soi 0.755
Length, m 450 Oil Viscisity, mPa.s 1000
Width, m 400 Initial Pressure, kPa 2500
Thickness, m 4.5 Maximum Injection Pressure, kPa 10,000
Depth, m 400 Injection rate, m3/d 150
Porosity 0.3 Production rate, m3/d 200

and reactions were the same as those used for the simulation of the injection resulted in a higher oil recovery. However, when the
test Run 2 in the previous section. chemical injection time was longer than 8 months, the oil recovery
The effect of waterflooding time on oil recovery is shown in did not show evident increase with increasing chemical injection
Figure 9, which compares the oil recoveries for the cases with time. Although this time may vary for specific reservoir condi-
waterflooding period of 1, 2 and 3 years. There was no primary tions, the simulation results indicate that there exists an optimum
production prior to initial waterflood for all these three cases. chemical slug size.
Chemical flooding was continued for 8 months, and then switched The previously described reservoir simulation model was used
to extended waterflood. The production well was shut off when the to study the variations in oil recovery, reservoir pressure and
water cut was higher than 98%. The simulation results showed that water cut after chemical injection. Reservoir production started
for the case with longer time of waterflood, the oil recovery was at 1 January 2000, and there was no primary production. Wa-
lower at first; however, the final oil recovery was relatively higher. terflooding was continued for 3 years before chemical flooding.
This may indicate that a certain length of time of waterflood before After 8 months of chemical injection (corresponding to 0.15 PV
chemical injection would benefit for the final oil recovery. chemical slug injection), waterflood was resumed until water cut
The effect of chemical slug size on oil recovery was studied in production well was higher than 98%. The simulated oil re-
by simulating and comparing five cases with varied time lengths covery, average reservoir pressure and water cut in production
of chemical injection ranging from 0 – 12 months. There was well are plotted as a function of time, and shown in Figure 11.
no primary production, and waterflood was continued for three The oil recovery with only waterflood (no chemical injection) is
years for all these cases. The production well was shut-off when also plotted in this figure for comparison. It can be seen that after
the water cut was higher than 98%. The simulation results are chemical injection reservoir pressure was increased, and water cut in
shown in Figure 10. It can be seen that a longer time of chemical
80
Chemical injection 1 year
Chemical injection 8 months
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR

Chemical injection 4 months

Chemical injection 1 month
60 Waterflooding only

40

20

0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Time, date
FIGURE 10: Effect of chemical slug size on oil recovery.

Water cut in producer, %

Oil recovery, waterflood + A/S flood
Oil recovery, waterflood only 10,000
100
Average reservoir pressure
Ave Pres POVO SCTR, kPa
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR

80
8,000

60

6,000

40

4,000
20

0 2,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Time, date
FIGURE 12: Oil saturation distributions in the middle layer of the
FIGURE 11: Simulation results for A/S flooding in homogeneous reservoir model. Chemical slug was injected during 1 January – 31
reservoir. Chemical slug was injected during 1 January – 31 August August 2003. (a) At the end of initial waterflood; (b) 11 months of
2003. extended waterflood after chemical injection.
50 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
production well was effectively decreased. Oil recovery was greatly
improved by the chemical flooding. The tertiary oil recovery was
as high as the waterflood’s recovery; that is, oil recovery was
doubled after chemical flooding. Comparing to the final oil re-
covery in the case without chemical injection, the oil recovery im-
provement by chemical flooding was approximately 20% OOIP.
Figure 12 compares the oil saturation distribution in the middle
layer of the reservoir at the time just before chemical injection (or
at the end of waterflooding) and at one time point of extended wa-
terflood after chemical injection. It shows that oil bank was formed
in the displacement front after the chemical injection. The corre-
sponding pressure distribution in this layer of the reservoir is
shown in Figure 13. It shows that the pressure around the injec-
tion well and the pressure gradient in the displacement front are in-
creased during the chemical flooding process.

Conclusions
Three alkaline/surfactant flooding tests were conducted in sand-
packs using a heavy oil to demonstrate the effectiveness of sweep
efficiency improvement by the in-situ generated O/W emulsions,
as well as to provide experimental data for numerical simulation
study. Numerical simulation was performed to match production
history by including the in-situ generation and flow of the O/W
emulsions. Using the parameters obtained in history matching,
field-scale simulations were conducted. On the basis of experi-
mental and simulation results, the following conclusions were
drawn:
1. A properly designed alkaline flooding for heavy oil recovery
could effectively improve sweep efficiency through in-situ
generated O/W emulsion. The formation of O/W emulsion
lowered the mobility of water phase, diverted the injected
water to un-swept regions and improved oil recovery. The
injection flow rate had insignificant effect on oil recovery in
the studied range corresponding to the flow velocity of 0.4 to
0.8 m/d. The oil recovery efficiency was not reduced with the FIGURE 13: Reservoir pressure distributions in the middle layer of
increase in sandpack length, which showed a great potential the reservoir model. Chemical slug was injected during 1 January –
for upscaling the laboratory tests to field applications. 31 August 2003. (a) At the end of initial waterflood; (b) 11 months of
extended waterflood after chemical injection.
2. Laboratory-scale numerical simulations, including the ad-
sorption of chemicals, interfacial tension reduction, and in-
3. Farouq Ali, S.M., Figueroa, J.M., Azuaje, E.A., and Farquharson,
situ generation and flow of emulsions fairly simulated the
R.G. 1979. Recovery of Lloydminster and Morichal crudes by
pressure response and oil recovery improvement in chemical
caustic, acid and emulsion floods. J Can Pet Technol 18 (January–
flooding tests in sandpacks. The entrapment of oil drops was
March): 53–59.
represented by decreased local water phase permeability.
4. Bryan, J. and Kantzas, A. 2007. Enhanced Heavy-Oil Recovery by
3. Field-scale simulations showed promising results of chem-
ical flooding for heavy oils. It was indicated that a certain Alkali-Surfactant Flooding. Paper SPE 110738 presented at the SPE
length of time for water injection would benefit for the final Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California,
oil recovery, and there existed an optimum chemical slug USA, 11–14 November. doi: 10.2118/110738-MS.
size. For the studied case in this study, 0.15 PV of chemical 5. Dong, M. 2004. Displacement of Heavy Oil through Interfacial Insta-
slug would achieve more economical results, and nearly a bility—A Study of an EOR Method for Murphy East Bodo Heavy Oil
doubled oil recovery was obtained by the application of alka- Reservoir. Technical report, Petroleum Technology Research Centre
line/surfactant flooding. (PTRC), Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
6. Dong, M., Liu, Q., Ma, S., and Zhou, W. 2005. Displacement of
Heavy Oil Through Interfacial Instability: A Study of an EOR
Acknowledgements Method for CNRL Brintnell Heavy Oil Reservoir. Technical report,
Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC), Regina, Saskatch-
The authors acknowledge with thanks the Petroleum Technology ewan, Canada.
Research Centre (PTRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering 7. Liu, Q., Dong, M., Yue, X., and Hou, J. 2006. Synergy of alkali
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Canada Foundation for and surfactant in emulsification of heavy oil in brine. Colloids and
Innovation (CFI) for the financial support of this study. Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 273 (1–3):
219–228. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2005.10.016.

References 8. Liu, Q., Dong, M., and Ma, S. 2006. Alkaline/Surfactant Flood Po-
tential in Western Canadian Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Paper SPE 99791
1. Johnson, C.E. Jr. 1976. Status of Caustic and Emulsion Methods. presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
J Pet Technol 28 (1): 85–92. SPE-5561-PA. doi: 10.2118/5561-PA. Tulsa, 22–26 April. doi: 10.2118/99791-MS.
2. Jennings, H.Y. Jr., Johnson, C.E. Jr., and McAuliffe, C.D. 1974. A 9. Alvarado, D.A. 1975. The Flow of Macroemulsion Through Porous
Caustic Waterflooding Process for Heavy Oils. J Pet Technol 26 (12): Media. PhD thesis, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford
1344–1352. SPE-4741-PA. doi: 10.2118/4741-PA. University, Stanford, California.
June 2010, Volume 49, No. 6 51
 10. Alvarado, D.A. and Marsden, S.S. Jr. 1979. Flow Of Oil-in-Water
Emulsions Through Tubes and Porous Media. SPE J. 19 (6): 369– Authors’ Biographies
377. SPE-5859-PA. doi: 10.2118/5859-PA.
11. Abou-Kassem, J.H. and Farouq Ali, S.M. 1995. Modelling of Emul- Jinxun Wang is currently a project engi-
sion Flow in Porous Media. J Can Pet Technol 34 (6): 30–38. neer with Core Laboratories Canada Ltd.
12. McAuliffe, C.D. 1973. Oil-in-Water Emulsions and Their Flow Prop- He is a Ph.D. candidate in chemical engi-
erties in Porous Media. J Pet Technol 25 (6): 727–733. SPE-4369-PA. neering at the University of Calgary. His re-
doi: 10.2118/4369-PA. search interests include multiphase flow in
13. Devereux, O.F. 1974. Emulsion flow in porous solids: I. a flow model. porous media, enhanced oil recovery, res-
The Chemical Engineering Journal 7 (2): 121–128. doi:10.1016/0300- ervoir simulation and phase behaviour of
9467(74)85005-7. reservoir fluids. He holds B.Sc. and M.Sc.
14. Soo, H. and Radke, C.J. 1984. The Flow Mechanism Of Dilute, degrees in petroleum engineering. Wang is
Stable Emulsions In Porous Media. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamen. 23 a member of SPE.
(3): 342–347. doi:10.1021/i100015a014.
15. Soo, H. and Radke, C.J. 1986. A filtration model for the flow of dilute
stable emulsions in porous media—I. Theory. Chemical Engineering
Science 41 (2): 263–272. doi:10.1016/0009-2509(86)87007-5. Mingzhe Dong is a professor in the De-
16. Soo, H., Williams, M.C., and Radke, C.J. 1986. A filtration model partment of Chemical and Petroleum Engi-
for the flow of dilute stable emulsions in porous media—II. Param- neering at the University of Calgary. Prior
eter evaluation and estimation. Chemical Engineering Science 41 (2): to the appointment at the University of Cal-
273–281. doi:10.1016/0009-2509(86)87008-7. gary in 2007, he held a faculty position in
17. STARS User Guide. 2007. Calgary, Alberta: Computer Modelling
the Faculty of Engineering at the Univer-
Group (CMG).
sity of Regina (2001 – 2007). His research
18. Liu, Q. 2006. Interfacial Phenomena in Enhanced Heavy Oil Re-
interests include multiphase flow in porous
covery by Alkaline Flood. Ph.D thesis, University of Regina, Regina,
media, enhanced oil recovery, phase behav-
Saskatchewan.
iour in gas injection, reservoir simulation,
and interfacial phenomena in oil recovery
This paper (2009-066) was accepted for presentation at the 10th Canadian processes. He holds a B.A.Sc. degree from
International Petroleum Conference (the 60th Annual Technical Meeting Northwest University, Xi’an; an M.A.Sc.
of the Petroleum Society), Calgary, 16-18 June, 2009, and revised for degree from the University of Petroleum, Beijing; and a Ph.D.
publication. Original manuscript received for review 24 March 2009. degree from the University of Waterloo, Ontario, all in chemical
Revised paper received for review 18 April 2010. Paper peer approved 20 engineering. He is a member of SPE and APEGGA and is a regis-
April 2010 as SPE Paper 138969. tered professional engineer in the province of Alberta.