Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) by Combining Surfactant with Low Salinity Injection

Johannessen, Annette Meland; Spildo, Kristine

doi:10.1021/ef400596b

Cited by 110 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results showed that significantly more oil was mobilised by the hybrid process (IFT reduction and low salinity) compared to what is expected from a sole reduction in IFT (increase in capillary number) due to the added surfactant. This has later been confirmed by Spildo et al (2012) and Johannessen and Spildo (2013).…”

Section: Low Salinity Surfactant Injectionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…With a low cost, efficient surfactant injection process in mind, selecting a formulation that gives significantly lower retention may outweigh the disadvantage of interfacial tensions being low but not ultralow. As an example, Johannessen and Spildo (2013) recently reported surfactant injection experiments where roughly the same ultimate recovery resulted from low salinity surfactant injection at low IFTs (Winsor I system) and surfactant injection at optimal salinity and ultralow IFTs (Winsor III system). The retention, however, was roughly a factor two higher for the ultralow IFT system.…”

Section: Clear Turbidmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Strategy for Low Cost, Effective Surfactant Injection

Spildo¹,

Djurhuus²,

Sun³

et al. 2011

Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords: surfactant solubility phase behaviour microemulsion interfacial tension retention a b s t r a c t Ideally, in a chemical flooding process, one would like to inject a surfactant solution that has good solubility at the relevant conditions, ultralow interfacial tension (efficient oil mobilisation) and low loss of surfactant (better economics) in the porous medium. The key question is -can you have low loss of surfactant, i.e. low retention, at ultralow interfacial tension?To answer this question, we have undertaken a systematic study of surfactant solubility, phase behaviour, interfacial tension and retention as a function of salinity for a given surfactant formulation. The idea is to explore the interrelationship between these properties and find the best condition(s) for combined low interfacial tension and low retention in a surfactant flooding process.For the investigated surfactant formulation, ultra-low interfacial tensions ( o0.01 mN/m) can be found in the Winsor III region at optimal salinity. The aqueous solution at optimal salinity is, however, turbid, and retention values are high. On the other hand, for light oils, there are regions in the Winsor I area where (i) interfacial tensions are low (0.01 mN/m o IFT o0.1 mN/m), but not ultralow, (ii) aqueous solutions are clear and (iii) retention is 10 times lower than at optimal salinity. The search for an optimum surfactant formulation has to consider solution properties and retention in addition to the low interfacial tension. Based on our result, we therefore propose that Winsor I phase behaviour is the best option for a compromise between the properties in question.

show abstract

Section: Low Salinity Surfactant Injectionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Clear Turbidmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Strategy for Low Cost, Effective Surfactant Injection

Spildo¹,

Djurhuus²,

Sun³

et al. 2011

Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, it can be noted that 3:1 APS/IOS with SBA was used in a previous study with crude BM1. 23 With crude BM1, S* was at 15 000 ppm diluted SW, as opposed to around 27 000 ppm with crude BM2. S* is known to increase with an increasing hydrophobic character of the oil phase.…”

Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…One should be careful in defining absolute limits for when the LSE is present or not, given that the mechanisms behind are In a previous study, we used SW dilutions with a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of 2500 ppm (LS) and 15 000 ppm (HS), respectively. 23 Thus, these were the brine compositions of choice in the present study as well. As will be discussed later, however, to achieve a low enough IFT with crude BM1, a higher salinity brine (26 000 ppm) had to be used for this experiment (core HS2).…”

Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Lowering the Injection Brine Salinity Further Increase Oil Recovery by Surfactant Injection under Otherwise Similar Conditions?

Johannessen

Spildo

2014

Energy Fuels

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well-established that injecting water with significantly lower salinity than the formation water salinity may give increased oil recovery. Although less well studied, the observed low-salinity effect has drawn attention to possible benefits from combining low-salinity water with traditional enhanced oil recovery techniques, such as surfactant, polymer, alkali, etc., to make the overall recovery process more efficient. Surfactant injection, for example, reduces the interfacial tension (IFT) between the injected surfactant solution and the oil, thus mobilizing capillary trapped oil and/or reducing the tendency for capillary trapping. The majority of literature on the topic of low salinity and surfactant flooding primarily addresses one or the other. This study, however, compares the combined effect of reduction in IFT and low-salinity conditions to the effect of a sole reduction in IFT on oil recovery in intermediate-wet Berea sandstone cores. We find that reductions in residual oil saturation, at similar capillary numbers and phase behavior conditions, are higher for the low-salinity surfactant injection experiments compared to regular surfactant injection experiments. This strongly indicates that there is a combined effect of IFT reduction and low salinity on recovery compared to that from a reduction in IFT alone.

show abstract

“…Surfactants in the form of micelles are widely used in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) [1][2][3][4][5]. Oil recovery in oil drilling industry is usually carried out by flooding the reservoir with gas or water in order to flush out the oil by pressure [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasonic transformation of micelle structures: Effect of frequency and power

Yusof

Ashokkumar

2015

Ultrasonics Sonochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comprehensive investigation on the effect of ultrasonic frequency and power on the structural transformation of CTABr/NaSal micelles has been carried out. Sonication of this micelle system at various ultrasonic frequencies and power resulted in the formation and separation of two types of micelles. High viscoelastic threadlike micelles of ∼ 2 nm in diameter and several μm in length and tubular micelles possessing a viscosity slightly above that of water with ∼ 30-50 nm diameter and few hundred nm length. The structural transformation of micelles was induced by the shear forces generated during acoustic cavitation. At a fixed acoustic power of 40 W, the structural transformation was found to decrease from 211 to 647 kHz frequency due to the decreasing shear forces generated, as evidenced by rheological measurements and cryo-TEM images. At 355 kHz, an increase in the structural transformation was observed with an increase in acoustic power. These findings provide a knowledge base that could be useful for the manipulation of viscosity of micelles that may have applications in oil industry.

show abstract

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) by Combining Surfactant with Low Salinity Injection

Cited by 110 publications

References 41 publications

A Strategy for Low Cost, Effective Surfactant Injection

A Strategy for Low Cost, Effective Surfactant Injection

Can Lowering the Injection Brine Salinity Further Increase Oil Recovery by Surfactant Injection under Otherwise Similar Conditions?

Ultrasonic transformation of micelle structures: Effect of frequency and power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About