High-temperature high-pressure microfluidic system for rapid screening of supercritical CO2 foaming agents

Abstract

CO2 foam helps to increase the viscosity of CO2 flood fluid and thus improve the process efficiency of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas’s subsurface utilization and sequestration. Successful CO2 foam formation mandates the development of high-performance chemicals at close to reservoir conditions, which in turn requires extensive laboratory tests and evaluations. This work demonstrates the utilization of a microfluidic reservoir analogue for rapid evaluation and screening of commercial surfactants (i.e., Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine, Lauramidopropyl Betaine, Tallow Amine Ethoxylate, N,N,N′ Trimethyl-N′-Tallow-1,3-diaminopropane, and Sodium Alpha Olefin Sulfonate) based on their performance to produce supercritical CO2 foam at high salinity, temperature, and pressure conditions. The microfluidic analogue was designed to represent the pore sizes of the geologic reservoir rock and to operate at 100 °C and 13.8 MPa. Values of the pressure drop across the microfluidic analogue during flow of the CO2 foam through its pore network was used to evaluate the strength of the generated foam and utilized only milliliters of liquid. The transparent microfluidic pore network allows in-situ quantitative visualization of CO2 foam to calculate its half-life under static conditions while observing if there is any damage to the pore network due to precipitation and blockage. The microfluidic mobility reduction results agree with those of foam loop rheometer measurements, however, the microfluidic approach provided more accurate foam stability data to differentiate the foaming agent as compared with conventional balk testing. The results obtained here supports the utility of microfluidic systems for rapid screening of chemicals for carbon sequestration or enhanced oil recovery operations.

Perspectives of Foam Generation Techniques and Future Directions of Nanoparticle-Stabilized CO2 Foam for Enhanced Oil Recovery

“…and section transformations (vaporization, cavitations, frothiness, etc.). Chemical methods use a gas-liberating chemical or electrochemical process (electrolysis) to make bubbles, whereas biological methods rely on gas-producing organisms, like fungus. , These varied procedures result in either a one- or two-step foaming process. In a single step, the process that generates air pockets results in foam containing an extremely fine gas particle.…”

Past, Present, and Future of Microfluidic Fluid Analysis in the Energy Industry

“…Schlumberger has commercialized SARA analysis using microfluidics. Interface Fluidics has commercialized analyses such as flow back tests as applicable to the shale oil industry, , foam studies for enhanced oil recovery, ,, and minimum miscibility pressure measurementsall based on a microfluidics platform.…”

“…Microfluidic measurements have been applied broadly in chemical, biological, and physical processes that are relevant to sensing, such as glass micromodels, capillary electrophoresis, and gas chromatography. In the area of fluid property measurement , microfluidics has enabled high accuracy measurements of phase and thermophysical properties such as bubble and dew points, − solution gas-oil ratios, solubility and diffusivity, − minimum miscibility pressures, , wax crystallization, , and asphaltenes precipitation. − Microfluidics has also been applied to resolve the pore-scale dynamics of in situ reservoir processes such as polymer flooding, , fluid rheology, chemical and foam injection, − gas flooding, − and thermal-solvent processes. − …”

Progress in research of sulfobetaine surfactants used in tertiary oil recovery

“…The foam stability improved by the enhanced of disjoining pressure, which is because of the large steric repulsion between bubble lamellae provided by the great surfactant adsorption. CO 2 foam can help improve the viscosity of CO 2 flooding fluid and thus improves the process efficiency of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas's subsurface utilization and sequestration (Gizzatov et al, 2021).…”