Laboratory Study of Alkyl Ether Sulfonates for Improved Oil Recovery in High-Salinity Carbonate Reservoirs: A Case Study
Лабораторное исследование алкилэфирсульфонатов для повышения нефтеотдачи высокоминерализованных карбонатных коллекторов: исследование на примере месторождения
2010-05-25
SCID: 54.1/cugjxzmu
Discuss with AI
alkyl ether sulfonatesdynamic interfacial tensionenhanced oil recoveryhigh-salinity carbonate reservoirssurfactant flooding
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
Yibal oil reservoir, a fractured carbonate formation located in the north of Oman and characterized by high salinity brine and high temperatures, is a potential candidate for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects. This experimental study focused on the possibility to use surfactant injection as an EOR process in the Yiabl field. On the basis of the results from our previous investigations, ethoxylated sulfonates and amphoteric surfactants were used in this study. Selected surfactants showed a great tolerance to high salinity and temperatures. All surfactant systems displayed dynamic interfacial tension (IFT) behavior, in which transient ultra-low IFTs were detected. Dilute surfactant solutions (0.1 wt %) were considered for core-flooding tests on limestone plugs. In one set of experiments, surfactant solutions were injected into a fully water-flooded core (surfactant tertiary recovery). In another set, surfactant solutions were injected without pre-water-flooding (surfactant-modified water-flooding or surfactant secondary recovery). Results of tertiary recovery were found to be between 1 and 7% of original oil in place (OOIP), which correspond to 6 and 24% of residual oil in place (percentage based on the remaining oil in place after water-flooding). Tertiary surfactant injection therefore appears to be an attractive option for pre-water-flooded zones for additional oil recovery. In the other hand, results of secondary recovery for some surfactants showed significant oil recovery compared to water-flooding, whereas for other surfactants, water-flooding was more effective. Secondary surfactant recovery resulted in faster rate recovery as compared to water-flooding. Thus, minimum pore volume (PV) injected at ultimate oil recovery for 7-58 surfactant was found to be significantly lower (2.3 PV) than the corresponding PV in water-flooding (9.1 PV).
Key Findings
1
All tested surfactant systems exhibited dynamic interfacial-tension behavior with transient ultra-low IFT values.
2
Dilute 0.1 wt% surfactant solutions achieved 1–7% OOIP tertiary recovery, equivalent to 6–24% of residual oil after water flooding.
3
Ethoxylated sulfonate and amphoteric surfactants showed strong tolerance to the high salinity and temperature conditions of the Yibal carbonate reservoir.
4
Secondary recovery performance was surfactant-dependent: some surfactants substantially outperformed water flooding, whereas others were less effective.
5
Secondary surfactant flooding produced faster recovery than water flooding; for 7-58 surfactant, ultimate recovery required 2.3 PV versus 9.1 PV for water flooding.
6
Tertiary surfactant injection appears promising for recovering additional oil from zones that have already undergone water flooding.
Research Object
surfactant injection into fractured, high-salinity carbonate oil reservoirs, represented by the Yibal field and limestone core plugs
Research Subject
enhanced oil recovery performance, including interfacial-tension reduction, oil-recovery yield, recovery rate, and pore-volume requirements under tertiary and secondary surfactant flooding
Publication Details
Publication Date
2010-05-25
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest