Simulation of Chemical Flooding for Enhanced Oil Recovery based on

Experimental Data

by

Nur Faiqa binti Mohd Fuad

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
(Chemical Engineering)
JANUARY 2013

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

Bandar Seri Iskandar
31750 Tronoh
Perak Darul Ridzuan
 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

Simulation of Chemical Flooding for Enhanced Oil Recovery based on

Experimental Data

by

Nur Faiqa binti Mohd Fuad

A project dissertation submitted to the

Chemical Engineering Programme
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (Hons)
(CHEMICAL ENGINEERING)

Approved by,

_____________________
(DR NURUL HASAN)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

TRONOH, PERAK
January 2013

i
 CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the
original work is my own except as specified in the references and
acknowledgements, and that the original work contained herein have not been
undertaken or done by unspecified sources or persons.

___________________________________________

NUR FAIQA BINTI MOHD FUAD

ii
 ABSTRACT

The study of chemical flooding for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in

experiments can help in understanding the reservoir behavior. The reservoir behavior
and the results from experiments can be scaled up for demonstrating the real oil field
using simulation. However, before being scaled up, the experiment is first simulated
or history matched; until the simulation results match the experimental results. This
is performed to adjust the simulation model to match with experimental reservoir
model. The objective of this project is to gather the knowledge on history matching
for simulating the experimental results of chemical flooding for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) and to apply the knowledge on experimental results that is yet to be
simulated. Two case studies on experimental results that have been successfully
history matched will be used as references for this project. The simulation, or the
technique for history matching, performed in these studies is to be investigated.
Then, the history matching technique is to be applied on experimental results of
chemical flooding that are yet to be proven. However, in this project, the complete
history matching technique is not obtained. Nevertheless, through the project work,
the basics required for history matching of experimental results of chemical flooding
has been obtained. This knowledge can be utilized for continuation of the research.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All praises to God the Almighty that in His guidance and blessings I am able
to work on this Final Year Research Project. I would like to express my earnest
gratitude to Dr Nurul Hasan, the supervisor for my Final Year Research Project, for
his good supervisions and continuous support and motivation throughout this project.
I would also like to extend my appreciation towards the course coordinator, Dr
Nurhayati Mellon, all lecturers and staffs of Chemical Engineering Department,
staffs of Information Resource Center (IRC) and fellow students, for their
cooperation in giving valuable information and suggestion on this project. Last but
not least, this acknowledgement goes to my family and friends that has given their
love, care and continuous support at all times; and for all who have been a
tremendous help throughout this course, directly or indirectly.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL ………….……………………………………..i

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY ………………………………………..…...ii

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. viii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURES ..................................................... x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Study ..................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 General Overview ............................................................................... 1

1.1.2 Research Topic ................................................................................... 2

1.1.3 Previous Related Research .................................................................. 3

1.2 Problem Statement ..................................................................................... 4

1.3 Objective ................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 4

1.5 Relevancy and Feasibility of Project .......................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY ........................................ 6

2. Literature Review and Theory ........................................................................... 6

2.1 Literature Review ...................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Simulation of Alkaline Flooding ......................................................... 6

2.1.2 Simulation of Alkaline-Surfactant Flooding ........................................ 9

2.1.3 Experimental Study on Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP) Flooding .. 10

2.2 Theory ..................................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 Chemical Flooding Experiment using Sandpack ............................... 13

2.2.2 History Match of Sandpack Flood Tests............................................ 13

v
 2.2.3 Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP) Flooding ................................... 14

2.3 Summary ................................................................................................. 15

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 16

3. Methodology .................................................................................................. 16

3.1 Research Methodology ............................................................................ 16

3.1.1 Project Flow Chart ........................................................................... 16

3.2 Project Activities ..................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 Research Analysis ............................................................................ 17

3.2.2 Understanding Software Requirements and Capabilities ................... 17

3.3 Research/Analysis Software..................................................................... 17

3.3.1 Simulation Framework ..................................................................... 18

3.4 Gantt Chart .............................................................................................. 19

CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION ........................................................ 21

4. Result and Discussion ..................................................................................... 21

4.1 History Matching the Experimental Results of Case I .............................. 21

4.2 History Matching the Experimental Results of Case II ............................. 25

4.3 History Matching the Experimental Results of Case III ............................ 25

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................ 26

5. Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................... 26

5.1 Conclusion............................................................................................... 26

5.2 Recommendation ..................................................................................... 26

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 28

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX 1: Relative Permeability Data and Interfacial Values for Case I ...... 30

APPENDIX 2: Relative Permeability Data and Interfacial Values for Case II ..... 33

APPENDIX 3: Interfacial Tension Data for Case III ........................................... 35

APPENDIX 4: Equation for Relative Permeability ............................................. 36

vi
APPENDIX 5: Equation for Percentage of Recovery .......................................... 37

APPENDIX 6: Data File for Case I Simulation................................................... 38

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of channeled sandpack for Case I................................ 7

Figure 2: Schematic diagram for simulation grid system. ......................................... 7
Figure 3: Experimental and simulated pressure drop and oil recovery as functions of
fluid injected for Case I (Wang, et al., 2010) ..................................................... 8
Figure 4: Experimental and simulated pressure drop and oil recovery as functions of
time for Case II ............................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Schematic of experimental set -up for polymer flooding in sandpack for
Case III ........................................................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Geometry size of sand -packing model (core in Figure 5). ....................... 11
Figure 7: Cumulative oil recovery using alkali, surfactant, polymer, surfactant-
polymer and alkali-surfactant-polymer flooding for Case 3 ............................. 13
Figure 8: Alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding process. ............................. 15
Figure 9: Flow chart for the project ........................................................................ 16
Figure 10: Simulation framework........................................................................... 18
Figure 11: Gantt Chart for FYP I............................................................................ 19
Figure 12: Gantt Chart for FYP II .......................................................................... 20
Figure 13: Simulation results for Case II ................................................................ 24
Figure 14: Relative permeability curves for simulation of Case 1 (for high
permeability zone) .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 15: Relative permeability curves for simulation of Case 1 (for low
permeability zone) .......................................................................................... 31
Figure 16: Interfacial tension values for Case I ...................................................... 31
Figure 17: Interfacial tension values for Case I ...................................................... 32
Figure 18: Relative permeability curves for simulation of Case II .......................... 33
Figure 19: Interfacial tension values for Case II ..................................................... 34
Figure 20: Interfacial tension with the presence of surfactant (SDS), polymer
(PHPAM) and alkali (NaOH). ......................................................................... 35

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Reservoir components for Case I ................................................................ 8

Table 2: Simulation data for Case 1 ......................................................................... 8
Table 3: Reservoir components for Case II............................................................... 9
Table 4: Simulation data for Case II ....................................................................... 10
Table 5: Reservoir components for Case III ........................................................... 12
Table 6: Simulation data for Case III...................................................................... 12
Table 7: Simulation reservoir properties for Case I................................................. 22
Table 8: Component properties for Case I .............................................................. 22
Table 9: Description for relative permeability correlations for Case I ..................... 23

ix
 ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURES

AS : Alkali - surfactant
ASP : Alkali - surfactant - polymer
EOR : Enhanced oil recovery
IFT : Interfacial tension, mN / m
K : Permeability
K r : Relative permeability, fraction
K ro : Oil relative permeability, fraction
K rocw : Oil relative permeability at connate water, fraction
K rw : Water relative permeability, fraction
K rwiro : Water relative permeability at irreducible oil, fraction
m/d : meter per day
N ow : Exponent for calculating K row from K rocw
N w : Exponent for calculating K rw from K rwiro
NaOH : Sodium hydroxide
Na 2 CO3 : Sodium carbonate
OOIP : Original oil in place, %
PHPAM: Partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
ppm : parts per million
PV : Pore volume, fraction
RC : Recovery, %
SDS : Sodium dodecyl sulfate, C12 H 24SO 4 Na
So : Saturation of oil
Soirw : Endpoint saturation - irreducible oil for water-oil table
Sorw : Endpoint saturation - residual oil for water-oil table
Sw : Saturation of water
Swcon : Endpoint saturation - connate water
Swcrit : Endpoint saturation - critical water

x
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction

This chapter provides the background, problem statement, objective and scope of
work of this project. In background study, the overview of the field in which this
project is involved in is described generally before focusing on the specific topic of
the research. Previous research on similar topic as of this project is then discussed. In
problem statement, problem that has been found from analyzing the previous
research and the solution for the said problem is proposed. Following that, the
objective of this research is set out and scope of work on this research is defined
with respect to the objective.

1.1 Background Study

1.1.1 General Overview

Petroleum or also known as crude oil and natural gases have been contributing
largely as a source of energy and in economic growth (Marques, Avansi, Trevisan, &
Schiozer, 2012). However, in order to use them as a source of energy, they need to
be extracted or recovered from the earth first. There are three phases in recovering
oil and gas reserves, namely primary recovery, secondary recovery and tertiary
recovery.

Primary recovery is the recovery through natural production (Stosur, Hite, Carnahan,
& Miller, 2003). It is the first stage or initial hydrocarbons (crude oil and natural
gases) production in which natural reservoir energy, such as expansion of gas or
water displaces hydrocarbons from the reservoir. The hydrocarbons then move into
the wellbore and being lifted up to the surface (Lyons & Plisga, 2005). After a
certain time, a reservoir reaches its economic production limit by primary recovery
(Wingen & Johnston, 1946). Therefore, secondary recovery, a method of injecting
water and/or gas is performed to supplement the natural reservoir energy that has
been used up after a certain period of time in primary recovery (Sajjadian, Ataabadi,
& Dalaei, 2012). However, the primary and secondary recovery usually recovers on
the average only one third of the original oil in place (OOIP) in the reservoir (Henry,
1978). Thus, a method to recover the remaining trapped oil is introduced; which is

1
tertiary recovery or also known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Tertiary recovery
or enhanced oil recovery (EOR) occurs when fluid mobility within the reservoir is
increased through certain methods and means such as the injection of water, steam,
gases or chemicals into underground oil reservoirs to cause the trapped oil to flow
toward producing wells (Cleveland & Morris, 2009).

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods have focused on recovering the remaining oil
from a reservoir that has been depleted of energy during the application of primary
and secondary recovery methods (Speight, 2009). With the increasing demand and
depletion of source, EOR is important in contributing to additional oil supply to be
recovered (Huang, Zhang, & Dong, 2005). Three common techniques for EOR are
thermal flooding, gas injection and chemical flooding (Lakatos, 2005). EOR are
performed based on three basic mechanisms. The mechanisms are; reduction of the
interfacial tension (IFT) between oil and the displacing fluid, reduction of oil
viscosity and improvement of sweep efficiency (Alkafeef & Zaid, 2007).

1.1.2 Research Topic

This project revolves mainly on enhanced oil recovery (EOR) through chemical
flooding. Chemical flooding for EOR is done by injecting alkali, surfactant (surface
active agent), polymer or any combination of them. The key mechanism of the
process is to reduce the interfacial tension (IFT) between oil and the displacing fluid
through surfactant flooding and achieve additional recovery (Sheng, 2011). If
chemical flooding is done through alkali injection, the alkali reacts with acid in the
oil and form in-situ soaps which acts as surface active agent or surfactant (Pei, et al.,
2012). Surfactant reduces the interfacial tension between oil and water and help to
mobilize the oil (Sandersen, Stenby, & Solms, 2011). Polymer flooding helps
increase the water’s viscosity and thus creates a better mobility ratio and enhanced
the oil recovery (Adegbesan, Liu, & Bai, 2012).

In order to obtain optimum recovery, the relationship between the cost for chemical
flooding and the additional recovery achieved is important. Detailed researches are
required before this technology can be implemented in real oil field, as they are
relatively new and there are many aspects of chemical flooding that are yet being
fully understood (Sulaiman & Lee, 2012). Thus, researchers conduct laboratory

2
experiments to study the chemical flooding phenomenon. However, it is completely
different in scale, to compare the real oil field works and laboratory experiments.
Therefore, through simulation, the experimental model is history matched. History
matching is, according to Varhaug (2012),
The act of adjusting a model of a reservoir until it closely reproduces the past
behavior of a reservoir. The historical production and pressures are matched
as closely as possible. The accuracy of the history matching depends on the
quality of the reservoir model and the quality and quantity of pressure and
production data. Once a model has been history matched, it can be used to
simulate future reservoir behavior with a higher degree of confidence,
particularly if the adjustments are constrained by known geological
properties in the reservoir. (Varhaug, 2012)
Using the experimental study, the model of the reservoir that needs to be adjusted in
the simulation is the experimental model and its results. Once the experimental
model has been history matched, it can be scaled up and used to simulate field scale
reservoir at increased accuracy (Maneeintr, Sasaki, & Sugai, 2010). These numerical
simulation studies for field scale reservoir are often used as part of evaluation of an
oil recovery project as it is more economical in determining whether good potential
of oil recovery exist (Manrique, Kamouei, Kitchen, & Alvarado, 2008).

1.1.3 Previous Related Research

Many journals have been published discussing on experimental works in

understanding the mechanism or situation behind chemical flooding for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR). Alkaline flooding for improving oil recovery has been studied
experimentally using sandpack and simulated using CMG STARS, an advanced
process simulator (Wang, Dong, & Arhuoma, 2010). Alkaline-surfactant flooding
has also been studied experimentally using sandpack and history-matched using
CMG STARS (Dong & Wang, 2010). The alkaline-surfactant (AS) flooding has
resulted with better percentage of oil recovery than alkaline flooding. Alkaline-
surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding, has been experimentally tested, also using
sandpack, and results with higher additional oil recovery compared to alkaline
flooding and alkaline-surfactant flooding (Bera, Samanta, Ojha, & Mandal, 2012).
However, this experimental result for ASP flooding is yet to be history matched.

3
1.2 Problem Statement

Alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding has been proved experimentally to

achieve the highest additional oil recovery compared to alkaline flooding and
alkaline-surfactant flooding (Bera, et al., 2012). However, the experimental results
for this ASP flooding is yet to be history matched. Without this history matching, the
behavior of a field scale reservoir during ASP flooding cannot be simulated. This
project proposes to history match the experimental results of the chemical flooding
using simulator software.

1.3 Objective

• To gather the knowledge on history matching for simulating the experimental

results of chemical flooding for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and to apply
the knowledge on experimental results that is yet to be simulated.

1.4 Scope of Work

The alkaline flooding (Wang, et al., 2010) and alkaline-surfactant flooding (Dong &
Wang, 2010) has been successfully simulated. These two case studies will be used as
references for this project. The simulation, or the technique for history matching,
performed in these studies is to be learned. History matching will require a lot of
trial and error effort. The knowledge gained is to be applied in simulating other
experimental work on chemical flooding that is yet to be simulated. The scope of
work for this project is as listed as follows.

• Investigate the theory of chemical flooding.

• Investigate the history matching technique from simulated chemical flooding
experimental results.
• Applying the knowledge gained from the simulation work on experimental
results of chemical flooding that are yet to be proven.

1.5 Relevancy and Feasibility of Project

This project is relevant with the current industry needs. There are still a lot of areas
in enhanced oil recovery that is unknown. History matching of experimental results
of chemical flooding may help the industry to understand the phenomenon in

4
chemical flooding to achieve more economic values in oil recovery. Through this
project, knowledge on history matching the experimental results is gained. With this
knowledge, simulation of field scale reservoir can be performed.

This project is a simulation-based project. With the raw data availability, this project
can focus mainly on the simulation itself and should be feasible to be performed
within the allocated time. However, as work for the project is progressing, there are
limited resources that can help on the scope of work to be performed. As the author
is not familiar with the field background of the research project given, that is
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and reservoir modeling software; a lot of time is spent
on studying these subjects, before project work can be started.

5
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY

2. Literature Review and Theory

This chapter is divided into two main part; literature review and theory. In literature
review, three journals will be mainly discussed. Two of them, one on alkaline
flooding (Wang, et al., 2010) and another on alkaline-surfactant flooding (Dong &
Wang, 2010), as has been mentioned in Chapter 1, will be used to aid this research to
gain the knowledge on simulating the experimental results. The third journal is on
experimental results of alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding (Bera, et al.,
2012). In the next section after literature review, the theory used for this research
project is discussed.

2.1 Literature Review

2.1.1 Simulation of Alkaline Flooding

Wang, et al., 2010, has performed experimental and numerical study of improving
heavy oil recovery by alkaline flooding in channeled sandpack. This journal, from
this onward referred as Case I, is one of the main journals that is used as a reference
to aid in achieving the objectives of this project. In the journal, four experiments
have been conducted. However, for this project purpose, only one experiment is
simulated. The details of the experiment used for is summarized in Table 2.

The alkaline flooding in channeled sandpack is done based on actual reservoir

properties, which is heterogeneous. Injecting chemical solutions into the reservoir
might result with the injected chemicals to flow through more permeable areas and
bypass areas with residual oil (Ma, Dong, Li, & Shirif, 2007). In demonstrating this
phenomenon, channeled sandpack, as shown in Figure 1, is used to show different
level of permeability in a reservoir through the usage of different size of sands.

The channeled sandpack is designed to be in cylinder form with fine sand that
represents high permeability zone in the annulus; and coarse sand poured inside the
cylinder around the annulus, represents low permeability zone. Both of these zones
are separated by 120-mesh screen holder, which is formed into the annulus of the
cylinder. Usage of 120-mesh screen holder allows the communication of the fluid

6
through the screen. The channeled sandpack is injected with water to demonstrate
waterflooding followed by injection of alkali to demonstrate alkaline flooding to
recover the trapped oil.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of channeled sandpack for Case I.

Figure 2: Schematic diagram for simulation grid system.

For simulation of this alkaline flooding, Figure 1 is transformed into grid as shown
in Figure 2. There are two zones; low permeability zone and high permeability zone.
These two zones are created to simulate the channeled sandpacks, which have
different type of sands in the annulus and the area of cylinder around the annulus. In
the simulation, the channeled sandpacks of 14.2 cm length is divided into 25 grids.
There are two layers created, the bottom layer represent the condition inside the
annulus (high permeability zone) and the upper layer represent the condition around
the annulus of the channeled sandpacks (low permeability zone).

Table 1 summarized the components for the reservoir modeling and the alkali
injected that is to be used for the simulation. The alkaline flooding is simulated using

7
the data as in Table 2. The relative permeability data used are attached in Appendix
1. The simulation results should match Figure 3.

Table 1: Reservoir components for Case I

Components Molecular Weight Details

Viscosity: 1360 mPa s
Crude oil 380
Density: 966.5 kg/m3
Viscosity: 1002 mPa s
Water 18
Density: 1000 kg/m3
Alkali (NaOH + Na2CO3) 73 N/A
Emulsion 350 Viscosity: 6000 mPa s

Table 2: Simulation data for Case 1

Case 1
Sandpack length, cm 14.20
Porosity, % 37.40
Permeability, µm2
16.50
(High permeability region)
Permeability, µm2
4.00
(Low permeability region)
Initial oil saturation, % 86.40
Waterflooding recovery, % OOIP 11.10
Chemical formula 3000 ppm Na2CO3 + 3000 ppm NaOH
Chemical slug size, PV 0.90
Tertiary recovery, % OOIP 14.90
Final oil recovery, % OOIP 26.00

Figure 3: Experimental and simulated pressure drop and oil recovery as functions of fluid
injected for Case I (Wang, et al., 2010)

8
 2.1.2 Simulation of Alkaline-Surfactant Flooding

Dong & Wang, 2010, has performed a study that experimentally demonstrates heavy
oil recovery, which is improved by alkaline-surfactant flooding. History match is
conducted for the experimental results in a numerical simulation study. This journal,
from this onward referred as Case II, is also one of the main journals, besides Case I,
that is used as a reference to aid in achieving the objectives of this project. In the
journal, three experiments have been conducted. However, for this project purpose,
only one experiment is simulated.

In Case II, the experimental data is obtained through experiment of alkaline-

surfactant flooding performed using sandpack. The sandpack used is 14.2 cm in
length and 4.25 cm in diameter. The sandpack is prepared to have the properties of
reservoir and water flooding is conducted at velocity of 0.4 m/d. Following that,
alkaline-surfactant flooding is conducted by injection of chemical slug consisting
alkali and surfactant.

For simulation, a grid system of 25 × 25 × 1 with grid block size 0.568 cm × 0.567
cm × 1 cm is used to represent the 14.2 cm length sandpack. Table 3 summarized
the components for the reservoir modeling and the chemical injected that is to be
used for the simulation. The alkaline-surfactant flooding is simulated using the data
as in Table 3. The relative permeability data used is attached in Appendix 2. The
same as Case I, there are two relative permeability sets; each for before and after
chemical flooding is performed. The simulation results should match Figure 4.

Table 3: Reservoir components for Case II

Components Molecular Weight Details

Viscosity: 1370 mPa s
Crude oil N/A
Density: 961.8 kg/m3
Viscosity: 1002 mPa s
Water 18
Density: 1000 kg/m3
Alkali (NaOH + Na2CO3) 73 N/A
Surfactant (Alkyl ether
N/A N/A
sulphate)
Emulsion 350 Viscosity: 6000 mPa s

9
 Table 4: Simulation data for Case II

Case 2
Sandpack length, cm 14.200
Porosity, % 36.800
Permeability, µm2 6.500
Initial oil saturation, % 69.300
Waterflooding recovery, %OOIP 34.100
3000 ppm Na2CO3 + 3000 ppm NaOH +
Chemical formula
300 ppm Surfactant
Chemical slug size, PV 1.200
Tertiary recovery, % OOIP 24.400
Final oil recovery, % OOIP 58.500

Figure 4: Experimental and simulated pressure drop and oil recovery as functions of time for
Case II

2.1.3 Experimental Study on Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP)

Flooding

Bera, et al., 2012, has done comparative studies between alkaline flooding, alkaline-
surfactant flooding and alkaline-surfactant-polymer flooding. This case, from
onward referred as Case III, is an analysis made to determine the optimum
composition of the alkali-surfactant-polymer (ASP) system to be used for tertiary
recovery of oil. It consists of several experiments with different combinations of

10
alkali, surfactant and polymer concentration. The percentage of tertiary recovery,
%OOIP, is recorded and the optimum composition is then determined from the
highest percentage of tertiary recovery, %OOIP, obtained. According to the journal,
14 experiments have been performed. However, for this project purpose, only one
experiment is to be simulated.

Physical model used in experiment is homogenous sand-packing model vertically

positive rhythm. Positive rhythm is composed of several sand layers with the sand
diameter declining from bottom to top, i.e. the permeability declines in the vertical
profile from bottom to top (Liu, Wang, & Wang, 2012).

Figure 5: Schematic of experimental set -up for polymer flooding in sandpack for Case III

Figure 6: Geometry size of sand -packing model (core in Figure 5).

In the experiment, the sandpack is fully filled with brine to get wet-packed sandpack.
Then, crude oil is injected until water production is negligible. The initial water

11
saturation is determined. After that, water flooding is conducted followed by 0.5 PV
chemical flooding injection and 2.0 PV water injection (as chase water) is used. The
details of the reservoir (experiment) components and the fluid injected into the
sandpack are as listed in Table 5. The simulation should be history matched with the
experiment to get results as in Figure 7.

Table 5: Reservoir components for Case III

Components Molecular Weight Details

Crude oil N/A Viscosity: 50.12 mPa s
Viscosity: 1002 mPa s
Water 18
Density: 1000 kg/m3
Alkali (NaOH) 40 N/A
Surfactant (Sodium dodecyl
287.42 N/A
sulfate, C12H24SO4Na)
Polymer (Partially hydrolyzed
N/A N/A
polyacrylamide)

Table 6: Simulation data for Case III

Case 3
Sandpack length, cm 35.000
Porosity, % 37.265
Permeability, µm2 5.267
Initial oil saturation, % 82.716
Waterflooding recovery, %OOIP 52.900
5000 ppm NaOH + 1000 ppm Surfactant +
Chemical formula
2500 ppm Polymer + 2500 ppm Buffer
Chemical slug size, PV 0.500
Tertiary recovery, %OOIP 24.200
Final oil recovery, %OOIP 77.100

12
 Case III
110

100

Oil Recovery (% OOIP), Water Cut (%)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30 Oil Recovery (% OOIP)

Water Cut (%)
20

10

-10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Injected Pore Volume (PV)

Figure 7: Cumulative oil recovery using alkali, surfactant, polymer, surfactant-polymer and
alkali-surfactant-polymer flooding for Case 3

2.2 Theory

2.2.1 Chemical Flooding Experiment using Sandpack

Experimental investigation and history match of the laboratory tests were aimed at
providing proper flow mechanisms and simulation parameters for designing and
predicting the field performance (Wang, et al., 2010). The tertiary oil recovery is
unaffected by the sandpack length thus this shows that experimental results using
sandpack is applicable for field-scale numerical simulation (Tu, Liu, Dong, & Ma,
2007) (Wang, et al., 2010).

2.2.2 History Match of Sandpack Flood Tests

In simulating the experimental data, history matching is required as part of the

process. History matching is the act of adjusting the parameters in a model of a
reservoir in order to make the model fit the production data observed in the field
previously (Silva, et al., 2005). The historical production and pressures are matched

13
as closely as possible (Varhaug, 2012). For this project, history matching will be
based on production data in the experiment using sandpack.

There is very limited information available publicly on history matching. This is

because; the simulation techniques consist of many small items that are considered
unworthy to be published. Besides, the practitioners of the history matching would
be too occupied with the research studies to spend time in explaining procedures of
history matching (Galas, 2003). History matching requires trial and error (Carlson,
2006). There are no specific guidelines in history matching due to the different
properties and complexity of each case. Therefore, in order to gain knowledge on
history matching, experimental data with successful history matching simulation
results are used as part of the learning process, by reproducing the same simulation
results using the data available.

2.2.3 Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP) Flooding

Alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding resulted due to effort in finding a

method to reduce the amount of injected chemicals and to fully explore the synergy
of different processes (Sheng, 2011). The outcome of ASP flooding is better than
chemical flooding of single component - alkali, polymer or surfactant (Xia & Ma,
2010). Figure 8 illustrates the typical stages in an ASP flooding process. The
chemicals are injected as slugs instead of continuous injection due to the cost of the
chemicals (Vicente, Priimenko, & Pires, 2012). A preflush of brine is performed to
lower the salinity of the reservoir. ASP solution is used to reduce the interfacial
tension between the aqueous and oleic phases. A polymer solution is injected to
perform a uniform sweep of the oil and the previous slugs. Finally, chase water is
injected to finally drive the oil and the chemicals to the producer well (Zerpa,
Queipo, Pintos, & Salager, 2005).

14
 Figure 8: Alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding process.

In ASP flooding, the surfactant is responsible for reducing the interfacial tension
between oil and water phases to a level that promotes the mobilization of trapped oil
drops (Zerpa, et al., 2005). The alkaline agent is intended to react with the acids to
generate in situ formation of surfactants, which in turn decreases the interfacial
tension between oil and water for better oil recovery (Samanta, Ojha, & Mandal,
2011). By the addition of surfactant in the chemical formula, the interfacial tension
(IFT) of oil and water is significantly reduced and the oil is more easily dispersed in
formation brine and thus oil recovery made more efficient (Tu, et al., 2007). Adding
the polymer increases the viscosity, which restricts the diffusion of the alkaline,
surfactant, and in situ-formed surface-active species, reducing the mobility ratio and
hence allowing a greater volumetric swept efficiency (Zhang, Dong, & Zhao, 2012).

2.3 Summary

This project will be based on the literature review and theory discussed. The
framework of the project and the general procedure for simulating the chemical
flooding experimental model is further discussed in the next chapter.

15
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3. Methodology

In Methodology, research process is explained in form of flow chart. There are two
flow charts. One is the overview of the overall project research process and the other
one is the framework for simulation.

3.1 Research Methodology

3.1.1 Project Flow Chart

Figure 9: Flow chart for the project

16
3.2 Project Activities

3.2.1 Research Analysis

The objective of this project is to gather the knowledge on history matching for
simulating the experimental results of chemical flooding and to apply the knowledge
on experimental results that is yet to be simulated. In achieving this objective, two
main journals specified in Literature Review, Case I and Case II, that have perform
both experiment and simulation are made as reference. This is to ensure that the
simulation to be carried out on the experimental data in the third journal or Case III
is performed correctly. The simulations in Case I and Case II are to be reproduced,
with the purpose to understand the right simulation procedures. For this purpose,
experimental data and its properties are analyzed.

3.2.2 Understanding Software Requirements and Capabilities

In achieving the desired outcome, this project requires knowledge of doing

simulation using a reservoir modeling software. Since the author has never been
exposed to any reservoir modeling software, several practices are performed using
simple tutorial provided in the simulator package. This enables the author to
familiarize with the software and study the software requirements and capabilities.

3.3 Research/Analysis Software

The simulation software used for this project is reservoir simulator package by
Computer Modelling Group Ltd (CMG), which contain STARS (Advanced Process
and Thermal Reservoir Simulator). CMG STARS is capable to model reservoir
process involving chemical flooding (Gaytan, 2009). The reservoir model is first to
be build in CMG Builder with STARS (Advanced Process and Thermal Reservoir
Simulator) platform. The completed model is then run in CMG STARS for results.
Graphical results can be obtained from CMG ResultsGraph. In assisting the
simulation data preparation and analysis, DigitizeIt, Microsoft Excel, AutoCAD and
Tecplot are also used.

17
 3.3.1 Simulation Framework

In CMG STARS, to run the simulation and obtain the graph of results, several stages
have to be completed. The framework for the general procedures of the simulation is
shown in Figure 10.

Yes

Figure 10: Simulation framework

18
3.4 Gantt Chart

Gantt Chart for Final Year Project (FYP) I

Month/Week No
Project Activities for
May June July August
FYP I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
First meeting with
coordinator and
supervisors
Literature review on
journals containing
experiment data
Experimental data
analysis
Domain creation
Boundary condition
settings
Model equation
settings
Solve cases using
simulation
Comparison with
experimental data
Submission of Interim
Draft Report
Submission of Interim
Report

Figure 11: Gantt Chart for FYP I

19
Gantt Chart for Final Year Project (FYP) II

Week No
Project Activities for
Sept October November December
FYP II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Experimental data
analysis
Domain creation
Boundary condition
settings
Model equation
settings
Solve cases using
simulation
Comparison with
experimental data
Submission of
Progress Report
PRE-SEDEX
Submission of Draft
Report
Submission of
Dissertation (soft
bound)
Submission of
Technical Paper
Oral Presentation
Submission of
Dissertation

Figure 12: Gantt Chart for FYP II

20
 CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4. Result and Discussion

This chapter discusses on the results obtained from the project work. As explained in
previous chapters, three cases of simulation need to be completed. Simulation of
Case I and Case II can be done in parallel however; these cases have to be completed
first to investigate the history matching technique before Case III can be simulated
using the technique developed.

4.1 History Matching the Experimental Results of Case I

The simulation of Case I have been able to be run using CMG STARS, means the
input data required is sufficient. However, the simulation results, shown in Figure
13, are far from the experiment results. This means that the history matching is yet to
be fully completed due to missing steps or inaccurate input values. The history
matching steps or technique the author used is as follows. The data file of the
simulation is attached in the appendices.

1. Reservoir Simulator Settings

The reservoir model is developed in CMG Builder. In reservoir simulator settings,

the simulator chosen is STARS (Advanced Process and Thermal Reservoir
Simulator). The porosity of the reservoir is single porosity and the simulation start
on 1st January, 2000.

2. Reservoir Settings

The grid system of the reservoir (the sandpack model) is created using orthogonal
corner point grid. The number of grid blocks in I-J-K direction is specified as 25 ×
25 × 2 with grid block size 0.568 m × 0.567 m for I and J direction. This represents
the 14.2 cm sandpack length scaled up in meter, as values in centimeter are too small
for simulation. In K direction there is two layers, Layer 1 for low permeability
region and Layer 2 for high permeability region. The properties of the reservoir are
set as in Table 7.

21
 Table 7: Simulation reservoir properties for Case I

Grid Thickness Porosity Permeability

Layer 1 3 0.374 4000
Layer 2 1 0.374 16000

3. Components/Phase Properties

There are four components used in this equation. The properties of the components
are as in Table 8. The values with asterisk are assumed values. These values listed in
the tables are the final values used for the simulation after many trials to get the best
result.

Table 8: Component properties for Case I

Molecular Weight Density Liquid phase

Components Phase
(kg/gmole) (kg/m3) viscosities (cp)
Water Aqueous 18 100.0 1002
Alkali Aqueous 73 900.0* 800*
Oil Oil 380 966.5 1360
Emulsion Oil 350 200.0* 6000
*Assumed/ Trial values

The formation of emulsion is represented by Equation 1. This equation is added into

the simulation and the mass balance of the reaction must have no error.

Equation 1

8.0515 Water + 0.001 Alkali + 1.0 Oil → 1.5 Emulsion

4. Rock/Fluid Settings

Relative permeability for Case I is shown in Appendix 1. There are two sets of rock
types; before and after chemical flooding. Using Appendix 1, the relative
permeability of each rock types is developed using correlations as in Appendix 4.
For both rocktype, well-sorted consolidated sandstone is chosen, with exponent
values equals 3.0.

For this simulation, alkali is defined as adsorption component. The adsorption is set
to be independent of temperature.

22
 Table 9: Description for relative permeability correlations for Case I

Description Values
SWCON - Endpoint Saturation: Connate Water 0.1
SWCRIT - Endpoint Saturation: Critical Water 0.1
SOIRW - Endpoint Saturation: Irreducible Oil for Water-Oil Table 0.3
SORW - Endpoint Saturation: Residual Oil for Water-Oil Table 0.3
SOIRG - Endpoint Saturation: Irreducible Oil for Gas-Liquid Table 0.1*
SORG - Endpoint Saturation: Residual Oil for Gas-Liquid Table 0.2*
SGCON - Endpoint Saturation: Connate Gas 0.1*
SGCRIT - Endpoint Saturation: Critical Gas 0.2*
KROCW - Kro at Connate Water 1
KRWIRO - Krw at Irreducible Oil 0.35
KRGCL - Krg at Connate Liquid 1*
Exponent for calculating Krw from KRWIRO 3
Exponent for calculating Krow from KROCW 3
Exponent for calculating Krog from KROGCG 3
Exponent for calculating Krg from KRGCL 3
*Assumed/ Trial values

5. Chemical Flooding Process Wizard

Process wizard in Builder with STARS platform, use the existing fluid model and
add required data to simulate the process desired. For this case, “alkali, surfactant
and/or polymer model” is chosen as the process desired. Surfactant flood is chosen
as the model as only one chemical component is used in the chemical flooding
(alkali, which later reacts to form surfactant). The options for the model are two
relative permeability sets is selected and rock type chosen is sandstone with density
of 2.65 g/cm3. A rock fluid region is set for capillary number relative permeability
interpolation. Interfacial values are set based on the figure shown in Appendix 1.

6. Initial Conditions

The initial conditions of the reservoir are set. The reference pressure is 500 kPa and
the reference depth is 4 m. The values of the reference pressure are trial values. It is
believed that this part is critical, however, from this project work; the suitable
reference pressure to be used is not obtained.

7 .Numerical Controls

In numerical controls, the step size for calculation is defined as 1 day.

23
8. Wells & Recurrent

Demonstrating the experiment model, the well perforations for injector is performed
at the most left of the reservoir model and for producer at the most right grid of the
model. For injector, three periods are defined. The first period is for injection of
water for water flooding. The second period is for chemical injection. The third
period is again for water injection to drive the oil out of the reservoir. The chemical
injected is defined in each period. Each period is defined in parallel with the pore
volume used in the experiment.

Results

The result of the simulation is shown in Figure 13. The history matching technique is
far from satisfactory, as the simulated results do not even match the curves shape of
the experimental results as shown in Figure 3. For oil recovery, the curve does not
signify increased production after chemical injection. For pressure drop curve, it
supposed to signify change in pressure, however, the pressure increase from zero
before it remains as constant in short time after simulation is started.

300 1.60e-8
Well Mobility-Weighted Datum Pressure (kPa)

1.40e-8

1.20e-8

200 Cumulative Oil SC (m3)

1.00e-8

8.00e-9

6.00e-9
100

4.00e-9

2.00e-9

0 0.00e+0
2000-1-1 2000-1-11 2000-1-21 2000-1-31 2000-2-10 2000-2-20 2000-3-1
Time (Date)
Well Mobility-Weighted Datum Pressure
Cumulative Oil SC

Figure 13: Simulation results for Case II

24
4.2 History Matching the Experimental Results of Case II

The steps as has been discussed in Case I is also applied in Case II using the data as
provided in the journal and choosing alkali-surfactant flood as the model for the
simulation. However, no results can be displayed as the software will not run with
the reaction has mass balance error. The material balance for the reaction, as shown
in Equation 2, requires a lot of trial and error to get a reaction with balanced mass.
Without the correct material balance, the simulation works cannot proceed to
completion.

Equation 2

Water + Chemical + Dead Oil → O / W Emulsion  Reaction 1

O / W Emulsion → Trapped Oil  Reaction 2

At first, it has been attempted to remove the error by changing the coefficients or
reactants. However, through a series of trial and error, 0% percentage of error still
cannot be obtained. Unless there is no percentage of error in the material balance, the
simulation could not be run. Attempt on using Excel Solver to get the optimum value
for the material balance also does not succeed, and the best percentage of error
obtained using the value from Excel Solver is 6 × 10−5 %. This is however still
unacceptable, as the simulator only run if the material balance is proportioned in
mass.

4.3 History Matching the Experimental Results of Case III

The history matching of experimental results of Case III is not performed, as the
history matching technique developed is still unsatisfactory. Upon further analysis,
as the journal mainly discussed on the comparison of oil recovery between several
combinations of chemicals’ concentrations, the data of the experiment properties
provided are not in details. Thus, if history-matching technique is obtained, still, a lot
of time will need to be spent on trial and error.

25
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1 Conclusion

This project is relevant to the current needs with its objective to gather the
knowledge on history matching for simulating the experimental results of chemical
flooding for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and to apply the knowledge on
experimental results that is yet to be simulated. A simulated experimental result on
chemical flooding can provide a good platform for designing a field-scale
simulation.

However, upon project progress, several challenges rise and thus the objectives are
not fully completed. Through project work, the history matching on experimental
results of Case I and Case II is not satisfactory enough. In the journals of Case I and
Case II, the simulation results have shown a close match with the experimental
results. However, this project’s works, that is to investigate the history matching
technique and produce close match of simulation result and experimental results, as
has been achieved in the journals of Case I and Case II; is not fully successful in
exploring the technique of the history matching. The simulation results obtained is
far from the experimental results. The history matching technique developed
throughout this project work is not convincing enough as the desired output is not
achieved. Thus, simulation on experimental results of alkali-surfactant-polymer that
are yet to be history matched could not be performed. Nevertheless, within the
limited time left, the author will continue on the project to achieve the desired
objective.

5.2 Recommendation

Throughout the project work, it has been found out that history matching require a
lot of trial and error. This means a lot of time has to be spent. Lack of essential raw
data can also largely contribute to inaccuracy of history matching. In fact, even if the
history matching technique can be fully developed as per objective of this project,
there is a possibility that Case III cannot be properly history matched, unless through
a long series of trial and error. This is because, after progressing with the project’s

26
work, it is found out that the data from the journal chosen is not sufficient for history
matching. Therefore, it is recommended that history matching be performed using
detailed experimental data and results. Data and results from journal are very
limited. It might be better if both experiment and simulation is performed in one
research project, so that for history matching purpose, all the data required is within
the researcher’s knowledge. This could also saves the time on history matching as
trial and error of data input could be reduced.

It has been a challenge to understand in depth the concept of the chemical flooding
for enhanced oil recovery; and to do simulation on reservoir modeling, in which both
the author has never been exposed to before. There are also very limited resources
that could help giving information on simulating chemical flooding using CMG
STARS. Thus, it is recommended that this project work be continued by student who
has at least a basic petroleum engineering background for a more thorough
understanding of the project.

27
 REFERENCES

Adegbesan, K. O., Liu, J., & Bai, J. (2012). Suffield Area, Alberta, Canada - Caen Polymer
Flood Pilot Project. Paper presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada.
Alkafeef, S. F., & Zaid, A. M. (2007). Review of and Outlook for Enhanced Oil Recovery
Techniques in Kuwait Oil Reservoirs. Paper presented at the International Petroleum
Technology Conference.
Bera, A., Samanta, A., Ojha, K., & Mandal, A. (2012). Comparative studies on enhanced oil
recovery by alkali–surfactant and polymer flooding.
Carlson, M. R. (2006). Practical Reservoir Simulation - Using, Assessing, and Developing
Results: PennWell.
Cleveland, C. J., & Morris, C. (2009). Dictionary of Energy (Expanded Edition): Elsevier.
Dong, M., & Wang, J. (2010). Simulation of O/W Emulsion Flow in Alkaline/Surfactant
Flood for Heavy Oil Recovery. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 49(6),
pp. 46-52.
Galas, C. M. F. (2003). The Art of History Matching-Modelling Water Production Under
Primary Recovery. Paper presented at the Canadian International Petroleum
Conference.
Gaytan, S. (2009). CMG STARS Fact Sheet: Computer Modelling Group Ltd.
Henry, J. D. (1978). Incentives For Tertiary Recovery.
Huang, S., Zhang, Y. P., & Dong, M. (2005). Determining the Most Profitable ASP Flood
Strategy for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
44(2).
Lakatos, I. (2005). Role of Chemical IOR/EOR Methods In the 21st Century.
Liu, H., Wang, J., & Wang, Z. (2012). Quantitative Models of Development Laws for
Heterogeneous Sandstone Reservoirs by Water Flooding. The Open Petroleum
Engineering Journal, 5.
Lyons, W. C., & Plisga, G. J. (2005). Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Engineering (2nd Edition) (pp. 158): Elsevier.
Ma, S., Dong, M., Li, Z., & Shirif, E. (2007). Evaluation of the effectiveness of chemical
flooding using heterogeneous sandpack flood test. [doi:
10.1016/j.petrol.2006.05.002]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
55(3–4), 294-300.
Maneeintr, K., Sasaki, K., & Sugai, Y. (2010). Experiment and Numerical Simulation of
Japanese Heavy Oil Recovery. Journal of Novel Carbon Resource Sciences, Vol.
2(Sep. 2010).
Manrique, E. J., Kamouei, M. I., Kitchen, C. D., & Alvarado, V. (2008). Effective EOR
Decision Strategies With Limited Data: Field Cases Demonstration. Paper presented
at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery.
Marques, J. B., Avansi, G. D., Trevisan, O. V., & Schiozer, D. J. (2012). Impact of the
Future Exploration and Oil Production in the Brazilian Energy Matrix. Paper
presented at the SPETT 2012 Energy Conference and Exhibition.
Pei, H., Zhang, G., Ge, J., Ding, L., Ma, C., & Shen, J. (2012). Application of Droplet Flow
in Alkaline Flooding to Improve Sweep Efficiency in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Paper
presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada.
Sajjadian, S., Ataabadi, V. M., & Dalaei, M. (2012). Technical Evaluation of Secondary Oil
Recovery Methods, A Case Study on One of the Iranian HPHT Carbonate
Reservoirs. Paper presented at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and
Exhibition.
Samanta, A., Ojha, K., & Mandal, A. (2011). Interactions between Acidic Crude Oil and
Alkali and Their Effects on Enhanced Oil Recovery. [doi: 10.1021/ef101729f].
Energy & Fuels, 25(4), 1642-1649.
Sandersen, S. B., Stenby, E. H., & Solms, N. v. (2011). Phase Behavior in EOR Surfactant
Flooding. Paper presented at the Thermodynamics 2011.

28
Sheng, J. J. (2011). Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery - Theory and Practice (pp. 2):
Elsevier.
Silva, F. P. T. D., Rodrigues, J., Paraizo, P. L. B., Romeu, R. K., Peres, A. M., Oliveira, R.
M., et al. (2005). Novel Ways of Parameterizing the History Matching Problem.
Paper presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference.
Stosur, G. J., Hite, J. R., Carnahan, N. F., & Miller, K. (2003). The Alphabet Soup of IOR,
EOR and AOR: Effective Communication Requires a Definition of Terms. Paper
presented at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia
Pacific.
Sulaiman, W. R. W., & Lee, E. S. (2012). Simulation of surfactant based enhanced oil
recovery. Journal of Petroleum and Gas Engineering, 3(4), 58-73.
Tu, Y., Liu, Q., Dong, M., & Ma, S. (2007). Surfactant enhanced alkaline flooding for
Western Canadian heavy oil recovery. [doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2006.07.013].
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 293(1–3), 63-
71.
Varhaug, M. (Ed.) (2012) Oilfield Glossary. Schlumberger Limited.
Vicente, B. J., Priimenko, V. I., & Pires, A. P. (2012). Streamlines Simulation of Polymer
Slugs Injection in Petroleum Reservoirs. Paper presented at the SPE Latin America
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference.
Wang, J., Dong, M., & Arhuoma, M. (2010). Experimental and Numerical Study of
Improving Heavy Oil Recovery by Alkaline Flooding in Sandpacks. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, 49(3), 51-57.
Wingen, N. V., & Johnston, N. (1946). Current Concepts Of Secondary Recovery And Their
Application To California Reservoirs.
Xia, H., & Ma, W. (2010). The Effect of Rheological Properties of Alkali-Surfactant-
Polymer System on Residual Oil Recovery Rate After Water Flooding. Paper
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition.
Zerpa, L. E., Queipo, N. V., Pintos, S., & Salager, J.-L. (2005). An optimization
methodology of alkaline–surfactant–polymer flooding processes using field scale
numerical simulation and multiple surrogates. [doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2005.03.002].
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 47(3–4), 197-208.
Zhang, H., Dong, M., & Zhao, S. (2012). Experimental Study of the Interaction between
NaOH, Surfactant, and Polymer in Reducing Court Heavy Oil/Brine Interfacial
Tension. [doi: 10.1021/ef300498r]. Energy & Fuels, 26(6), 3644-3650.

29
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Relative Permeability Data and Interfacial Values for Case I

The relative permeability curves, which show the relative permeability before
chemical injection (waterflooding) and after alkaline-surfactant flooding (Capillary
number = 3.2E-3), that should be obtained from the simulation is as shown in, Figure
18. The curves show that after the alkaline-surfactant flooding, the relative
permeability increases compared to before chemical injection takes place. The
relative permeability curves are calculated based on the equations as shown in
Appendix 4.

Case I (High Permeability Region)

1
High IFT
Low IFT

0.8

0.6
Kr

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw

Figure 14: Relative permeability curves for simulation of Case 1 (for high permeability zone)

30
 Case I (Low Permeability Region)

1
High IFT
Low IFT

0.8

0.6
Kr

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw

Figure 15: Relative permeability curves for simulation of Case 1 (for low permeability zone)

101

100
IFT, mN/m

1000 ppm Na2CO3

-1
10

-2
10
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
NaOH Concentration, ppm

Figure 16: Interfacial tension values for Case I

31
 100

2000 ppm NaOH

IFT, mN/m

10-1

-2
10
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Na2CO3 concentration, ppm

Figure 17: Interfacial tension values for Case I

32
APPENDIX 2: Relative Permeability Data and Interfacial Values for Case II

The relative permeability curves, which show the relative permeability before
chemical injection (waterflooding) and after alkaline-surfactant flooding (Capillary
number = 3.2E-3), that should be obtained from the simulation is as shown in, Figure
18. The curves show that after the alkaline-surfactant flooding, the relative
permeability increases compared to before chemical injection takes place. The
relative permeability curves are calculated based on the equations as shown in
Appendix 4.

Case II

1
Ca=3.2E-2
Waterflood

Kro
0.8

0.6
Kr

0.4

0.2
Krw

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw

Figure 18: Relative permeability curves for simulation of Case II

33
 0.1

0.08

0.06
Interfacial Tension, mN/m

0.04

0.02

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Combined Alkali Concentration (ppm)

Figure 19: Interfacial tension values for Case II

34
APPENDIX 3: Interfacial Tension Data for Case III

Interfacial tension values against concentration of surfactant (SDS) are available

from Figure 20 to be used in the simulation as input data.

38

36
Interfacial Tension (mN/m)

34
1500 ppm polymer PHPAM + 10000 ppm NaOH

32

30

28

26
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Concentration of Surfactant SDS (ppm)

Figure 20: Interfacial tension with the presence of surfactant (SDS), polymer (PHPAM) and
alkali (NaOH).

35
APPENDIX 4: Equation for Relative Permeability

For relative permeability, K r , versus saturation of water, Sw plot:

So = 1 − Sw
Nw
 ( Sw − Swcrit ) 
K rw = K rwiro  
 (1.0 − Swcrit − Soirw ) 
Now
 ( So − Sorw ) 
K row = K rocw  
 (1.0 − Swcon − Sorw ) 
Nog
 ( SI − Sorg − Swcon ) 
K rog = K rogcg  
 (1.0 − Sg con − Sorg − Swcon ) 
Ng
 ( Sg − Sgcrit ) 
K rg = K rgcl  
 (1.0 − Sg crit − Soirg − Swcon ) 

36
APPENDIX 5: Equation for Percentage of Recovery

Percentage recovery

(cumulative production - cumulative injection)

% RC =
initial material in place (OOIP)

37
APPENDIX 6: Data File for Case I Simulation

RESULTS SIMULATOR STARS 200900

INUNIT SI
WSRF WELL 1
WSRF GRID TIME
WSRF SECTOR TIME
OUTSRF GRID PRES SG SO SW TEMP
OUTSRF WELL LAYER NONE
WPRN GRID 0
OUTPRN GRID NONE
OUTPRN RES NONE
**$ Distance units: m
RESULTS XOFFSET 0.0000
RESULTS YOFFSET 0.0000
RESULTS ROTATION 0.0000 **$ (DEGREES)
RESULTS AXES-DIRECTIONS 1.0 -1.0 1.0
**$ ***************************************************************************
**$ Definition of fundamental corner point grid
**$ ***************************************************************************
GRID CORNER 25 25 2
DI IVAR 0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568
0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568
0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568
0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568
0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568 0.568
0.568
DJ JVAR 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567
0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567
0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567
0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567
0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567
0.567
ZCORN
2500*0.0000 5000*3.0000 2500*4.0000
**$ Property: NULL Blocks Max: 1 Min: 1
**$ 0 = null block, 1 = active block
NULL CON 1
**$ Property: Porosity Max: 0.374 Min: 0.374
POR CON 0.374
**$ Property: Permeability I (md) Max: 16500 Min: 4000
PERMI KVAR
4000 16500
PERMJ EQUALSI
PERMK EQUALSI
**$ Property: Pinchout Array Max: 1 Min: 1
**$ 0 = pinched block, 1 = active block
PINCHOUTARRAY CON 1
END-GRID
**$ Model and number of components
**$ Model and number of components
**$ Model and number of components
**$ Model and number of components
**$ Model and number of components
MODEL 4 4 4 2
COMPNAME 'Alkali' 'Water' 'Oil' 'Emulsion'
CMM
73 18 380 350
PCRIT
0 22106 0 0
TCRIT
0 374.111 0 0
MASSDEN
900 1000 966.5 200
VISCTABLE
**$ temp
35 800 1002 1360 6000
**$ Reaction specification
**$ Reaction specification
**$ Reaction specification
STOREAC
0.001 8.0515 1 0
STOPROD

38
0 0 0 1.5
FREQFAC 5
ROCKFLUID
RPT 1 WATWET
INTCOMP 'Alkali' *WATER
IFTTABLE
**$ Composition of component/phase Interfacial tension
0 10
0.0004 2.5
0.001 1
0.002 0.8
0.003 0.1
0.004 0.15
0.005 0.2
INTLOG
KRINTRP 1
DTRAPW -5
DTRAPN -5
**$ Sw krw krow
SWT
0.1 0 1
0.1375 8.54492e-005 0.823975
0.175 0.000683594 0.669922
0.2125 0.00230713 0.536377
0.25 0.00546875 0.421875
0.2875 0.0106812 0.324951
0.325 0.018457 0.244141
0.3625 0.0293091 0.177979
0.4 0.04375 0.125
0.4375 0.0622925 0.0837402
0.475 0.0854492 0.0527344
0.5125 0.113733 0.0305176
0.55 0.147656 0.015625
0.5875 0.187732 0.0065918
0.625 0.234473 0.00195312
0.6625 0.288391 0.000244141
0.7 0.35 0
**$ Sl krg krog
SLT
0.2 1 0
0.25 0.770255 0
0.3 0.578704 0
0.33125 0.476837 0.000141285
0.3625 0.387686 0.00113028
0.39375 0.310403 0.0038147
0.425 0.244141 0.00904225
0.45625 0.18805 0.0176606
0.4875 0.141285 0.0305176
0.51875 0.102997 0.0484608
0.55 0.072338 0.072338
0.58125 0.0484608 0.102997
0.6125 0.0305176 0.141285
0.64375 0.0176606 0.18805
0.675 0.00904225 0.244141
0.70625 0.0038147 0.310403
0.7375 0.00113028 0.387686
0.76875 0.000141285 0.476837
0.8 0 0.578704
0.85 0 0.770255
0.9 0 1
KRINTRP 2
DTRAPW -2
DTRAPN -2
**$ Sw krw krow
**$ Sw krw krow
SWT
0.1 0 1
0.999 1 0
1 1 0
**$ Sl krg krog
**$ Sl krg krog
SLT
0.101 1 0
1 0 1
RPT 2 WATWET

39
INTCOMP 'Alkali' *WATER
IFTTABLE
**$ Composition of component/phase Interfacial tension
0 18.2
0.0005 0.5
0.001 0.028
0.002 0.028
0.004 0.0057
0.006 0.00121
0.008 0.00037
0.01 0.5
INTLOG
FMGCP 0.0032
KRINTRP 1
DTRAPW -5
DTRAPN -5
**$ Sw krw krow
SWT
0.1 0 1
0.1375 8.54492e-005 0.823975
0.175 0.000683594 0.669922
0.2125 0.00230713 0.536377
0.25 0.00546875 0.421875
0.2875 0.0106812 0.324951
0.325 0.018457 0.244141
0.3625 0.0293091 0.177979
0.4 0.04375 0.125
0.4375 0.0622925 0.0837402
0.475 0.0854492 0.0527344
0.5125 0.113733 0.0305176
0.55 0.147656 0.015625
0.5875 0.187732 0.0065918
0.625 0.234473 0.00195312
0.6625 0.288391 0.000244141
0.7 0.35 0
**$ Sl krg krog
SLT
0.15 0.35 0
0.175 0.311149 0
0.2 0.275284 0
0.2375 0.226827 0.000244141
0.275 0.184419 0.00195312
0.3125 0.147656 0.0065918
0.35 0.116136 0.015625
0.3875 0.089454 0.0305176
0.425 0.0672081 0.0527344
0.4625 0.0489947 0.0837402
0.5 0.0344106 0.125
0.5375 0.0230524 0.177979
0.575 0.014517 0.244141
0.6125 0.00840102 0.324951
0.65 0.00430132 0.421875
0.6875 0.00181462 0.536377
0.725 0.000537665 0.669922
0.7625 6.72081e-005 0.823975
0.8 0 1
KRINTRP 2
DTRAPW -2
DTRAPN -2
**$ Sw krw krow
SWT
0.1 0 1
0.1375 8.54492e-005 0.823975
0.175 0.000683594 0.669922
0.2125 0.00230713 0.536377
0.25 0.00546875 0.421875
0.2875 0.0106812 0.324951
0.325 0.018457 0.244141
0.3625 0.0293091 0.177979
0.4 0.04375 0.125
0.4375 0.0622925 0.0837402
0.475 0.0854492 0.0527344
0.5125 0.113733 0.0305176
0.55 0.147656 0.015625
0.5875 0.187732 0.0065918

40
 0.625 0.234473 0.00195312
0.6625 0.288391 0.000244141
0.7 0.35 0
**$ Sl krg krog
SLT
0.15 0.35 0
0.175 0.311149 0
0.2 0.275284 0
0.2375 0.226827 0.000244141
0.275 0.184419 0.00195312
0.3125 0.147656 0.0065918
0.35 0.116136 0.015625
0.3875 0.089454 0.0305176
0.425 0.0672081 0.0527344
0.4625 0.0489947 0.0837402
0.5 0.0344106 0.125
0.5375 0.0230524 0.177979
0.575 0.014517 0.244141
0.6125 0.00840102 0.324951
0.65 0.00430132 0.421875
0.6875 0.00181462 0.536377
0.725 0.000537665 0.669922
0.7625 6.72081e-005 0.823975
0.8 0 1
ADSCOMP 'Alkali' WATER
ADSTABLE
**$ Mole Fraction Adsorbed moles per unit pore volume
**$ Mole Fraction Adsorbed moles per unit pore volume
**$ Mole Fraction Adsorbed moles per unit pore volume
0 0
0.001 0.03004469631
ADMAXT 0.0300447
**$ Property: Rel Perm Set Number Max: 2 Min: 1
KRTYPE KVAR
21
INITIAL
VERTICAL DEPTH_AVE

INITREGION 1
REFPRES 500
REFDEPTH 4
NUMERICAL
DTMAX 1
DTMIN 0.05
RUN
DATE 2000 1 1
DTWELL 1
**$
**$
WELL 'Injector' FRAC 0.8
INJECTOR MOBWEIGHT EXPLICIT 'Injector'
INCOMP WATER 0. 1. 0. 0.
TINJW 35.
PINJW 250.
OPERATE MAX BHP 300. CONT REPEAT
OPERATE MAX BHW 0.00025 CONT REPEAT
**$ rad geofac wfrac skin
GEOMETRY K 0.086 0.249 1. 0.
PERF GEOA 'Injector'
**$ UBA ff Status Connection
2 14 1 1. OPEN FLOW-FROM 'SURFACE'
**$
WELL 'Producer'
PRODUCER 'Producer'
OPERATE MIN BHP 300. CONT REPEAT
OPERATE MAX STL 0.00025 CONT REPEAT
**$ rad geofac wfrac skin
GEOMETRY K 0.086 0.249 1. 0.
PERF GEOA 'Producer'
**$ UBA ff Status Connection
25 14 1 1. OPEN FLOW-TO 'SURFACE'
DATE 2000 1 3.79999
DATE 2000 1 6.00000
DATE 2000 1 29.00000
**$

41
WELL 'Injector' FRAC 0.8
INJECTOR MOBWEIGHT EXPLICIT 'Injector'
INCOMP WATER 1. 0. 0. 0.
TINJW 35.
PINJW 190.
OPERATE MAX BHP 300. CONT REPEAT
OPERATE MAX BHW 0.00025 CONT REPEAT
DATE 2000 2 7.00000
**$
WELL 'Injector' FRAC 0.8
INJECTOR MOBWEIGHT EXPLICIT 'Injector'
INCOMP WATER 0. 1. 0. 0.
TINJW 35.
PINJW 200.
OPERATE MAX BHP 300. CONT REPEAT
OPERATE MAX BHW 0.00025 CONT REPEAT
DATE 2000 3 1.00000
STOP
DATE 2000 4 1.00000
DATE 2001 1 1.00000
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NUMROCKTYPE 2
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.2
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS 1 0.35 0.35 -99999 3 3 3 3
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS_HONARPOUR -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NOSWC false
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CALINDEX 3
RESULTS RELPERMCORR STOP
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NUMROCKTYPE 2
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NUMISET 2
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.2
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS 1 0.35 0.35 -99999 3 3 3 3
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS_HONARPOUR -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NOSWC false
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CALINDEX 0
RESULTS RELPERMCORR STOP
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NUMROCKTYPE 1
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS 1 0.35 1 -99999 3 3 3 3
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS_HONARPOUR -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NOSWC false
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CALINDEX 3
RESULTS RELPERMCORR STOP
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NUMROCKTYPE 1
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NUMISET 2
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS 1 0.35 1 -99999 3 3 3 3
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CORRVALS_HONARPOUR -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999 -99999
RESULTS RELPERMCORR NOSWC false
RESULTS RELPERMCORR CALINDEX 0
RESULTS RELPERMCORR STOP

RESULTS SPEC 'Rel Perm Set Number'

RESULTS SPEC SPECNOTCALCVAL -99999
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'Layer 2 - Whole layer'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_LAYER'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 2
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC CON 1
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'Layer 1 - Whole layer'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_LAYER'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 1
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC CON 2
RESULTS SPEC STOP

RESULTS SPEC 'Permeability I'

RESULTS SPEC SPECNOTCALCVAL -99999
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'Layer 1 - Whole layer'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_LAYER'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 1
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC CON 4000
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'Layer 2 - Whole layer'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_LAYER'

42
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 2
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC CON 16500
RESULTS SPEC STOP

RESULTS SPEC 'Permeability J'

RESULTS SPEC SPECNOTCALCVAL -99999
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'All Layers (Whole Grid)'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_WHOLEGRID'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 0
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC EQUALSI 0 1
RESULTS SPEC STOP

RESULTS SPEC 'Permeability K'

RESULTS SPEC SPECNOTCALCVAL -99999
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'All Layers (Whole Grid)'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_WHOLEGRID'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 0
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC EQUALSI 0 1
RESULTS SPEC STOP

RESULTS SPEC 'Porosity'

RESULTS SPEC SPECNOTCALCVAL -99999
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'Layer 1 - Whole layer'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_LAYER'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 1
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC CON 0.374
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'Layer 2 - Whole layer'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_LAYER'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 2
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC CON 0.374
RESULTS SPEC STOP

RESULTS SPEC 'Grid Thickness'

RESULTS SPEC SPECNOTCALCVAL -99999
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'Layer 1 - Whole layer'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_LAYER'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 1
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC CON 3
RESULTS SPEC REGION 'Layer 2 - Whole layer'
RESULTS SPEC REGIONTYPE 'REGION_LAYER'
RESULTS SPEC LAYERNUMB 2
RESULTS SPEC PORTYPE 1
RESULTS SPEC CON 1
RESULTS SPEC STOP

43