Journal o f Petroleum Science and Engineering, 5 ( 1991 ) 105-126 105

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

Mathematical modelling of enhanced oil recovery by alkali

solutions in the presence of cosurfactant and polymer

M.R. Islam a and A. Chakma b

aEMERTEC Developments Inc., 139 Edforth Place NW, Calgary, Alta. T3A 3 V3, Canada
F'Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta. T2N IN4, Canada
(Received March 28, 1990; revised and accepted June 3, 1990)

ABSTRACT

Islam, M.R. and Chakma, A., 1991. Mathematical modelling of enhanced oil recovery by alkali solutions in the presence
ofcosurfactant and polymer. J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 5: 105-126.

A mathematical model describing oil recovery by alkali solutions in the presence of cosurfactants and polymers is pre-
sented. According to previously published experimental results, oil recovery is sensitive to transient interfacial tension
(IFT) particularly near ultra low IFT values. Unlike previously published models, the present work accounts for the
transient interracial tension and nonequilibrium mass transfer phenomena. Adsorption at the solid/liquid interface has
been described by a surface excess model. Over thirty simulation runs have been performed to investigate the effects of
alkali, cosurfactant and polymer concentrations, chemical slug size and dynamic IFT on oil recovery. The model was
found to be sensitive to initial alkali, cosurfactant and polymer concentrations. For the cases studied, a 0.1% alkali, 0.1%
polymer and 0.01% cosurfactant solution yielded the highest oil recovery. The presence of optimal concentration was
recognized for cosurfactant. This optimum behaviour was attributed to dynamic interfacial tensions.

Introduction tration of alkali required to achieve the lowest

Alkaline flooding, consisting of injection of
dilute solutions of alkali (usually about 1 wt% )
into the reservoir, is an enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) m e t h o d particularly suitable for acidic
crude oils. The injected alkali reacts with the
fatty acid components of the crude oil and
generates surfactants which lowers the inter-
facial tension and results in increased oil re-
covery. The lowest interfacial tension usually
occurs with very low alkali concentration. Part
of the injected alkali is, however, consumed by
the rocks as it propagates through the reservoir
due to its reaction with rock minerals. This
makes the propagation of such a dilute solu-
tion extremely slow and thus renders the oil
displacement efficiency low. Addition of pre-
formed surfactants, as opposed to those formed
in-situ, to the alkali solution raises the concen-
possible interfacial tension. This permits
higher concentration of alkali to be used with-
out affecting the interfacial tension. This pro-
cess is known as Cosurfactant Enhanced Al-
kaline Flooding. High molecular-weight water-
soluble polymers, when injected with water,
improve the oil/water mobility ratio by in-
creasing water viscosity and reducing rock
permeability in the invading zones (Mungan,
1971; Chang, 1978). This also increases the
sweep efficiency by mobility control. When
polymers are added to a cosurfactant-alkali
system, the process is termed Cosurfactant En-
hanced Alkaline Polymer Flooding. The over-
all objective of this process is to recover the
residual oil (following a waterflood) trapped
by capillary forces which can not be otherwise
recovered by conventional methods. This pro-
cess has been gaining increasing interest in re-

0920-4105/91/$03.50 © 1991 - - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

106 M.R. ISLAM AND A. CHAKMA

cent years. A recent laboratory study suggests Nomenclature

that the alkaline polymer system can recover B, F o r m a t i o n volume factor for phase i
approximately 30% more original oil-in-place C Concentration (mg ml-~ )
than simple waterflooding. The addition of 0.1 Cws Concentration of surfactant in the water phase (rag
ml -) )
wt% of surfactant can increase this recovery by Cwp Concentration of polymer in the water phase (rag
over 47% as compared to conventional water- ml -I )
flooding (Lin et al., 1987). IOIP Initial oil-in-place
k Absolute permeability (#m 2)
The overall process of cosurfactant en- kri Relative permeability of phase i (units)
hanced residual oil recovery is a complex one. Kj Rate constant of adsorption ( 1 h - l )
For simple alkaline flooding, Johnson ( 1975 ) K2 Rate constant for desorption ( 1 h - ~)
m~ Quantity of c o m p o n e n t i for monolayer coverage of
postulated four mechanisms: ( 1 ) emulsifica-
the adsorbent surface (mg g - ~)
tion and entrainement, in which the crude oil is n A m o u n t of fluid in the bulk phase per unit mass of
emulsified and entrained by the flowing alka- adsorbent (mg g - ~)
n' A m o u n t of fluid adsorbed per unit mass of adsorbent
line solution; (2) wettability reversal from ( m g g -1 )
water-wet to oil-wet, in which rock wettability n, A m o u n t of c o m p o n e n t i in the bulk phase per unit
is changed from water-wet to oil-wet and this mass of adsorbent (mg g-~ )
n', A m o u n t of c o m p o n e n t i adsorbed per unit mass of
results in an increased oil recovery due to fa-
adsorbent ( mg g - ~)
vourable changes in permeability; (3) wetta- no Total a m o u n t of adsorbing fluid per unit mass of
bility reversal from oil-wet to water-wet, in adsorbent ( mg g - ~)
n° Total a m o u n t of c o m p o n e n t i per unit mass of
which low residual oil saturation is attained
adsorbent (mg g-~ )
through a combined effect of low interfacial n~ Equilibrium surface excess for c o m p o n e n t i per unit
tension and viscous water in oil emulsion; and mass of adsorbent (mg g-~ )
n~a Instant surface excess for c o m p o n e n t i per unit mass
(4) emulsification and entrapment, in which
of adsorbent (mg g-~ )
emulsified oil droplets block the smaller pore P V Pore volume
throats and thereby increase sweep efficiency. q~ Injection or production rate of c o m p o n e n t i (unit)
However, interfacial tension reduction due to Rs~ Solution gas ratio in phase i
S, Saturation of the phase i
in-situ generation of surfactant is believed to Swr Irreducible water saturation
be the most important mechanism (Borwan- t Time ( u n i t )
kar and Wasan, 1986 ). In the case of cosurfac- x~ Bulk phase mass fraction of c o m p o n e n t i
Adsorbed phase mass fraction of c o m p o n e n t i
tant enhanced alkali polymer process this in- x° Overall mass fraction of c o m p o n e n t i
volves transfer of cosurfactant from water to ll, Viscosity of phase i ( m P a s )
oil phase, in-situ generation of surfactants due 0 Porosity
to reactions between the alkali and acidic qb Potential to the phase i
p~ Density of phase i ( m g m l -~ )
components of the crude oil, adsorption of a Interracial tension
surfactants and polymers into the reservoir Subscripts
rocks and rock-alkali interactions under flow a Alkali
conditions through a heterogeneous porous g Gas
r Rock
medium. Furthermore, when the crude oil is
s Cosurfactant
contacted with the alkali, the interfacial ten- w Water
sion of the system continuously changes with
time until equilibrium condition is reached,
frequently displaying dynamic interfacial ten- Radke, 1980; Trujillo, 1983; Islam and Tay-
sion minima (Borwankar and Wasan, 1986 ). lor, 1988; Taylor et al., 1990).
Similar observations have also been reported Perhaps, the most important parameter
by others (McCaffery, 1976; Rubin and which needs to be determined for the modell-
MODELLING OF EOR BY ALKALI SOLUTIONS WITH COSURFACTANT AND POLYMER 107

ing of cosurfactant enhanced alkali polymer

process is the value of the interfacial tension V ( ~ V q b o ) + q ° O[ So'~
prevailing under reservoir conditions. Most of
the existing mathematical models (Pope and Gas:
Nelson, 1978; Larson, 1979; Fleming et al., 17( kkrg 17~g4 Rswkkrwvq~w+es°kkr°17qbo~+
1981 ) have focussed on phase behavior of a \l~gBg t~Bw ltwBw J
surfactant/oil system neglecting the effect of
transient IFT on oil recovery. Furthermore, q~ + qwRsw + qoRso = (3)
these models do not take into account the un- 0/ RswSw RsoSo
steady flow behaviour of fluids and capillary
pressure between the phases. The transport
mechanisms of the individual phases are pre- Also to account for chemical transport in the
sented by employing fractional flow formula, porous medium, an additional equation was
combined with Darcy's law. The model of Bang written as:
and Cauddle (1984) took unsteady fluid flow
behaviour and the effect of surfactant concen-
17(C~rw~7+w)'~-lT(C°ikkr°v+o)
tration on interfacial tension into account and
as such represents some improvement over O/ Sw_ So_'
previous models. However, like the previous qwCw~+ qo Co~ = ~tq~ww Cwi+ 0~ooCol) +
models, their model also neglected the effect
of transient IFT on oil recovery. p~(1 ""Onea
- 0 ) ~- (4)
The mathematical model presented in this
paper accounts for transient interfacial ten- where i stands for surfactant, alkali or poly-
sion and couples it with capillary pressure and mer. In this equation, we consider adsorption
relative permeability. Furthermore, a thermo- and convection terms, but neglect dispersion/
dynamically consistent surface excess model is diffusion of the surfactant. Dispersion/diffu-
used to describe surfactant adsorption onto the sion of surfactant for the system considered is
reservoir rock. Model predictions on the effect negligible since the system under considera-
of transient IFT on mobilizing residual oil, the tion is essentially an immiscible system. In ad-
effect of polymer on surfactant enhanced al- dition to the above relationship, effective
kali floods are presented. permeabilities to gas, oil and water are consid-
ered to be unique functions of each phase. That
Theory and mathematical formulations is-

=kro(So,a) (5)
Flow equations
krw =krw(Sw,Cv,a) (6)
The flow equations were derived within the krg=krg(Sg) (7)
framework of three-phase, three-dimensional In this manner, relative permeability to oil was
flow consisting of oil, water and gas phases. allowed to be a function ofoil saturation as well
The resulting equations are presented below. as interfacial tension. Since polymers are
Water: known to affect relative permeability to water
only (Islam and Farouq Ali, 1987; Islam,
V( kk~ V ~ w ] + Sw "~
=/0==-_"/0[ (1 )
J qw=o, wJ 1987), relative permeability to water was al-
lowed to be a function of interfacial tension
Oil: and polymer concentration as well. The notion
108
of dynamic interfacial tension was introduced
through the following orthogonal polynomial
equation which was obtained by a curve fit of
the experimental data of Taylor et al. ( 1990):
N i+l
log(o.)= ~ ~ a , j ( C S ) J - ' ( T S ) '-j+'
i=0j=l
for 0.01%<Cws<0.5%, and 3 m i n < t < 1 0 0
rnin.
log(Cws) --1og(Cwsmin)
CS-
l o g ( Cwsmax ) - l o g (Cwsmin)
where:
log(Cw~) - log(Cwsmin)
CS-
log(Cwsmax) -1og(Cw~mi,)
log(t) --1og(tmin)
TS=log(tmax) -- 1og(t~in)
and O.was held constant for t > 100 min.
The IFT, O., was expressed as a function of
surfactant concentration in the water phase,
Cws as well as time, t, in the above formula-
tions. The parameter O-ij, is characteristic of
each system and needs to be evaluated from
experimental data. Considerable experimental
data on the variation of IFT, O., with alkali
concentration exists in the open literature
(Jennings, 1975; McCaffery, 1976; Chan and
Yen, 1982; Chan et al., 1982; Ramakrishnan
and Wasan, 1983 ). However, only limited data
on the transient I F T of crude oil systems are
available. Trujillo (1983) provided time-de-
pendent IFT data for several crude oils
(Alaska, California, Illinois, Wyoming crude
oils). Rubin and Radke (1980) also provided
some experimental data on dynamic I F T for
an acidic crude oil (Long Beach, California)
in NaOH solutions. Issacs and Smolek ( 1983 )
reported dynamic I F T data on Athabasca bi-
t u m e n / N a O H system. Babu et al. (1984) pro-
vide dynamic IFT data on two Canadian heavy
oils (Cold Lake and Lloydminister). No
chemical model exists which predicts the con-
centrations of various species present in a co-
surfactant-alkali-polymer system. Borwankar
MR. ISLAMAND A. CHAKMA
and Wasan (1986) developed a chemical dif-
fusion kinetic model to determine the concen-
tration of surface-active species for a crude oil/
caustic system. We found it useful to calculate
the concentration of surface active species by
(8) using the Borwankar and Wasan model
( 1986 ). The resulting data were then fitted to
obtain an orthogonal polynomial function for
the prediction ofaij. The coefficients of the or-
thogonal polynomial function are given in Ta-
ble 1. Only available IFT data on the cosurfac-
tant-alkali system are those of Taylor et al.
( 1990 ). Figure 1 compares the resulting model
prediction with the experimental results re-
ported by these authors, for salinity of 0.5%.
(9)
According to Taylor et al. ( 1990 ) salinity does
not have a significant effect on IFT behaviour
(10) unless miscibility has been achieved. In this
paper, we consider immiscible displacement
with dynamic IFT. Even though ultralow IFT
is reached for a short time period, a miscible
phase is never reached (Taylor et al., 1990).
Consequently, salinity, which is an important
parameter in the miscible displacement pro-
cess, such as micellar flood, does not have an
impact on the results presented here. Also it is
assumed that polymer does not affect the na-
ture of dynamic IFT. Experimental results
support this assumption (Islam and Taylor,
1988).
In order to couple interfacial tension with rel-
ative permeabilities, the following relation-
ships were used:
( O'max -- (7)
kro =k o(So) + [So-k o] (11)
O'max
TABLE 1
The coefficients of orthogonal polynomial for the evaluation
of a,js
-0.45965 -0.77617 -1.21718
av= 2.21317 2.46408
-2.83115
MODELLING OF EOR BY ALKALI SOLUTIONS WITH COSURFACTANT AND POLYMER
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.2
0.16
"; 0.12
0.08
0.04
' 012
Surfactant
Fig. 1. Comparison of experimentaland theoretical transient IFT.
krw=[k~,(Sw)+(Sw-k,.w) (ama----3-x
~ f (----
C a)
o)o.max
(12)
Equation 11 is a modified version of an equa-
tion originally proposed by Bang and Caudle
( 1984 ), who developed a mathematical model
for micellar flood experiments. In the above
formulation, it is assumed that the relative
permeabilities to water and oil are straight lines
(extending from 0 to 1 ) when the interfacial
tension is zero. These sets of relative permea-
bilities are approached as the interracial ten-
sion approaches zero. In order to model the ef-
fect of polymer, the relative permeability to the
aqueous phase was modified in Eq. 12. Islam
and Farouq All (1987) have shown that the
preferential mobility control of the aqueous
phase by the presence of polymer may be af-
fectively modelled by coupling the relative
permeability to water with polymer concentra-
tions. Their approach showed very good agree-
ment between experimental and numerical re-
suits. Such a good agreement was not achieved
using the resistance factor concept which as-
sumes that the absolute permeability, rather
109
t=lO0nail
t=30 rain t,
t=20 min
0
t=lO rain
t=6 rain
D
• t = 3 ruin
' 014
concentration, 96 m a s s fraction
than the relative permeability to water alone,
is altered.
The modified function f(C o) allows one to
modify relative permeability to water without
changing that to oil. For the purpose of
the present study, a linear function
f ( C p ) = 1 -DCp was used, where D is a con-
stant and C o is polymer concentration in water.
When C o is zero, f ( C p ) = 1. A more compli-
cated function may be used in order to obtain
a better match with the experimental data.
The following capillary pressure function was
used in order to incorporate the dependency
of the capillary pressure on a( Cws,t):
Pc[tr(Cws,t)] = P l Pc (O'max,Sw) [tT(Cws,t)/tTmax]
(13)
where P~ is a proportionality constant with
0 < PI > 1 and Pc ( O ' m a x , S w ) is the capillary pres-
sure at the m a x i m u m IFT corresponding to a
conventional waterflood. A steady-state ver-
sion of the above equation was proposed by
Bang and Caudle (1984). This form assumes
that the capillary pressure is linearly propor-
tional to the interfacial tension which is a func-
1 10 M.R. ISLAM AND A. CHAKMA

45
I
03
0 40
Q_
E 35

•~ 3o
0
U
~ 25
>
I1) 20
if)
c-
~ 15-

~ 10
0
~ 5
< J
.w-ii------
0
o 2oo 4o0 6oo aoo looo 1 o 14oo 1 o laoo 20oo
Polymer concentration, ppm

Fig. 2. Comparison of experimental and curve-fittedpolymer viscosityversus concentration.

tion of time and surfactant concentration. tant in the aqueous phase is given by:
Apparent viscosity to water was considered
n~=Swn°(x°-Xws) (15)
to be a function of polymer concentration. The
data of Islam (1987) were fitted to obtain a The above equation assumes that the only
virial expansion of the following form for pre- phase which is in contact with the adsorbent is
dicting aqueous phase viscosity as a function the aqueous phase. This assumption is only
of polymer concentration: valid for water-wet porous media. A total ma-
terial balance for water and surfactant gives:
]~w ( C p ) = fl,w f l l - ~ f l 2 C p - ~ - f l 3 C2 (14)
Swn°=Swn+n ' (16)
where, fli= 1 103 107:i=1,3.
Figure 2 shows the aqueous phase viscosity (no oil is adsorbed on the rock surface )
versus polymer concentration and the fit of the
above virial expansion type correlation to ex- n°=Cwsns+n's (17)
perimental data. Substituting Eqs. 16 and 17 in Eq. 15, gives:

Adsorption model
ns=' ns+ne 'Xws (18)
Equation 18 provides a relationship between
A surface excess function also the descrip- the surface excess and the total a m o u n t of sur-
tion of adsorption at the solid/liquid interface factant adsorbed. Using the monolayer model
in a thermodynamically consistent m a n n e r of adsorption, the surface excess can be di-
(Sircar et al., 1972 ). In this work a surface ex- vided between the bulk and the adsorbed
cess model has been derived for the solid ad- phases as follows:
sorbent (reservoir rock), the adsorbed liquid
phase and the bulk liquid phase in a multicom-
lln'=~lm~+X'w/mw (19)
ponent system. The surface excess of surfac- where ms and mw represent the amounts of
MODELLING OF EOR BY ALKALI SOLUTIONS WITH COSURFACTANT AND POLYMER 1 1I

surfactant and water, respectively, which are Results and discussion

needed to provide full monolayer coverage of
the solid phase. It is, however, important to
determine the relative distribution of the sur-
factant in the bulk and the adsorbed phases.
This can be expressed by introducing a selec-
tivity term, S, defined as:
S= [.~/X'w]/[Cws/(1- Cws) ]
Selectivity as defined above, is a measure of
relative compositions in the bulk and the ad-
sorbed phases. Combining Eqs. 18, 19 and 20,
one obtains:
msCw~(1-Cw~)(S-l)
ne -SCw~+ (mJmw) (1 -Cws)
This equation is, however, valid only for a sin-
gle c o m p o n e n t in solution. For multicompo-
nent systems such as those containing alkali,
polymer and surfactants, Eq. 21 becomes:
m~ Cwi( 1 -27Cw, )"(.
~ Cwi(-1-----~Cwi~lxw
n~-
~/X'w mi
Cw, + ( 1 - Y-,Cw~ )
CwJ ( 1 - ZCwi ) mw
Modelparameters
The mathematical model was applied to a
rectangular reservoir core section. The param-
eters describing the core section are given in
Table 2. The adsorption model parameters
(20) used throughout this study are given in Table
3. Figure 3 shows the outlet composition of
different components in a single phase multi-
component system. Due to the lack of pub-
lished adsorption data on alkali, polymer, co-
surfactant systems, we had to rely on
qualitative results (Farouq Ali, pers. com-
(21) mun., 1989; Islam and Taylor, 1988). The re-
sults shown in Fig. 3 provide a basis for further
experimental investigation. A coreflood with
single phase multicomponent flow will pro-
vide such curves experimentally. Parameters in
the adsorption equation may be adjusted in
order to obtain a match between experimental
) 1) and numerical results.
Figure 4 shows relative permeabilities to oil
TABLE2

(22) Reservoir model parameters

The term One/Otis calculated as follows: Length of the core (cm) 122
Width of the core (cm) 5.08
One/&=ki(n~ - r/ea ) (23) Height of the core (cm) 7.62
Number of nodes 10
ki=kl for adsorption, and ki=k2 for Porosity (%) 37
desorption. Absolute permeability (tim 2 ) 16
Oil density at standard conditions (g ml-1 ) 0.8
The above equation was used for describing
Water density at standard conditions (g m l - ~) 1.0
adsorption of surfactant and other chemicals Oil viscosity (mPa s) 50
into the reservoir rocks. The above mathemat- Water viscosity [mPa s (no polymer) ] 1.0
ical model for multicomponent adsorption Sw, (%) 20

may be used to determine a concentration pro-

file for each species. If the inlet and outlet con- TABLE 3
centrations are known for a rock/fluid system,
Adsorption model parameters
the above formulation may be used to deter-
mine values such as, S, k l , k2, ml/mo and m l / Cosurfactant Alkali Polymer
m2. For the present study, we have determined S 200 300 280
these parameters in order to obtain the best m/n ° 0.003 0.003 0.003
match with results in a Berea sandstone. In or- m/mw 5 12 7
kl 1.2 1.0 1.2
der to plan a field project, one should conduct
k2 0.001 0.001 0.001
similar experiments on field rock samples.
I 12 M . R . I S L A M A N D A. C H A K M A

1
Z 0
O
13
0.9
r~
b--
Z
,,, 0.8
f.)
Z 8
0.7
..J
F- 0.6
m
Z 0.5
_o
I..-
'~
rr
0.4 o c o-surfactant
I--
Z • alkali
tu 0.3
0
z D Polymer
0
(J 0.2

.,.I O
F- 0.1
O O
0 [ i 12 t [ ~ L i !
0.4 08 1. 16 2 2.4 ' 218
PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID INJECTED

Fig. 3. Multicomponent adsorption in a single phase.

0.9

0.8

.j 0.7
m
< 0.6

tr 0.5
W
D.
iii 0.4
_>
I--
,~ 0.3

I1~ 0.2

0.1

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
WATER SATURATION
Fig. 4. Relative permeabilities to oil and water.

and water as determined experimentally by Is-
lam ( 1 9 8 7 ) . He obtained this set of relative
permeabilities in a sand-packed core using a
50 m P a s viscosity oil and water system. These
relative permeabilities were used to numeri-
cally simulate waterflood experiments, free of
any alkali, surfactant or polymer. Choosing a
different set o f permeabilities may give differ-
ent results. The objective of this paper, how-
ever, is examination of the effect o f dynamic
I F T on oil recovery, and the results presented
here may be considered as a measure of how
MODELLINGOFEORBYALKALISOLUTIONSWITHCOSURFACTANTANDPOLYMER 1 13

dynamic IFT alters the oil recovery perform-
ance. Figure 5 shows the oil/water capillary
pressure curve used in this study. Again, this
curve was obtained from Islam (1987). The
gas saturation was assumed to be zero in all
the cases studied. In all runs, the ratio of the
concentration of each species in water to that
in oil ( Cwi/Co, ) used, was in the range of 1000.
This assumes that only a very small fraction of
each of the species actually is present in the oil
phase. Such an assumption is justified for the
type ofcosurfactant studied here (Taylor et al.,
1990).
Model solution
Equations 9-12 were solved by the implicit
pressure-explicit saturation formulation. De-
tails of the solution scheme is given by Islam
( 1987 ). Thirty four numerical simulation runs
were conducted in this study. Results of these
runs are summarized in Table 4. Note that the
ultimate recovery is considered to be the total
oil recovery (during waterflood and chemical
flood combined) when the water-oil ratio is
100. This is often considered to be the eco-
nomic limit for producing petroleum reser-
voirs. All chemical flood runs were conducted
to simulate tertiary recovery. That is, the ini-
tial condition for all chemical floods was a wa-
terflood core.
Alkali/cosurfactant injection
The first set of numerical simulation runs
was conducted using conventional waterflood.
Figure 6 shows the results of R u n 1 and Run 2.
R u n 1 was a conventional waterflood up to 2.2
pore volumes. Run 2 was a cosurfactant/alkali
flood at the end of the waterflood. For Run 2,
alkali and cosurfactant-surfactant concentra-
tions were set to 0.1 and 0.01 wt%, respectively.
As can be seen from Fig. 6, oil recovery was
very low at theJend of the waterflood. At this
point, alkali/cosurfactant flood was carried out
in order to simulate chemical injection during
tertiary stages ofoil recovery. Note that cosur-
factant/alkali injection increases the oil recov-
ery substantially. Also the injection pressure
declines as the chemical injection starts. This
results in a higher injectivity. Similar behav-
iour was also reported by Patel and Greaves
(1987), who suggested that such a decline in
injection pressure is related to the mobiliza-

45

40
I).
35
n-
30-
O0
25-
n-

>-
n-
20
5
.J 15
0.
o
10
5
~ L
0
0 012 0.4 0.6 0.8
WATER SATURATION

Fig. 5. Capillary pressure for oil/water system (no cosurfactant).

114 M.R. ISLAMAND A. CHAKMA

TABLE 4

Summary of the numerical runs

Run Description Alkali Cosurfactant Polymer Ultimate oil

conc. conc. conc. recovery
(%) (%) (%) (%OOIP)

1 Waterflood 0 0 0 40
2 Alkali/cosurfactant 0.1 0.01 0 74.5
3 Extended waterflood 0 0 0 43.5
4 Ultralow IFT Hypothetical 60.7
5 Alkali 0.1 0 0 57.8
6 Alkali/cosurfactant 0.1 0.05 0 70.4
7 Alkali/cosurfactant 0.1 0.001 0 58.1
8 Alkali/cosurfactant 0.1 0.1 0 51.8
9 Alkali/cosurfactant 0.1 0.003 0 68.6
10 alkali/cosurfactant 0.01 0.01 0 56.7
11 Cosurfactant 0 0.01 0 55.3
12 Alkali/cosurfactant 0.2 0.01 0 71.5
13 Alkali/cosurfactant 0.05 0.1 0 67.1
14 Alkali/cosurfactant/polymer 0.1 0.01 0.1 89.3
15 Alkali / cosurfactant / polymer O. 1 0.01 0.05 77.2
16 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.01 0.08 86.2
17 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.01 0.001 74.2
18 Alkali/cosurfactant/polymer 0.1 0.01 0.01 74.4
19 Alkali/cosurfactant/polymer 0.2 0.01 0.! 83.6
20 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.01 0.01 0.1 64.0
21 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.05 0.01 0.1 74.4
22 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.08 0.01 0.1 85.4
23 Polymer only 0 0 0.1 45.8
24 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.02 0.1 87.6
25 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.05 0.1 81.0
26 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.1 0.1 68.4
27 Alkali/cosurfactant/polymer 0.1 0.005 0.1 74.4
28 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.01 0.08 (25% PV) 65.0
29 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.01 0.08 (50% PV) 77.0
30 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.01 0.08 (60% PV) 82.0
31 Alkali/cosurfactant/polymer 0.1 0.01 0.08 (80% PV) 84.0
32 Alkali/cosurfactant/polymer 0.1 0.01 0.00 (25% PV) 59.0
33 Alkali / cosurfactan t / polymer O. 1 0.01 0.00 (50% PV) 74.0
34 Alkali/cosurfactant / polymer 0.1 0.01 0.00 (40% PV) 72.0

tion of oil due to favourable IFT near the well
bore. Figure 6 also indicates a certain delay for
the oil recovery to increase after the start of
the alkali/surfactant injection which is consis-
tent with experimental observations in poly-
mer and emulsion floods (Islam and Farouq
Ali, 1989). This delay in response is simply
caused by the time required for the displace-
ment front to create an oil bank which needs
to travel along the core to increase oil produc-
tion. This process depends on how quickly
surfactant travels in the system and therefore
should be affected by surfactant diffusion. We
have studied this effect for a single phase, sin-
gle component case and found this effect to be
negligible for the cosurfactant in question. This
finding provided us with the justification for
neglecting the dispersion term from the surfac-
tant flow equation for simplicity. In Run 2, the
oil cut increases up to 45% due to alkali/co-
surfactant injection. Since the cosurfactant
plays an important role in mobilizing residual
oil, the surfactant type, which affects the ad-
sorption parameters, will determine the mag-
M O D E L L I N G O F E O R BY ALKALI S O L U T I O N S W I T H C O S U R F A C T A N T A N D P O L Y M E R 1 15

F-
t~ 100
.J 0
Alkoli/cosurfoc rant Inj. (C si =0.01 ~, C ai = 0.1 ~)
0
0
90
iii 0 o Pressure (kPa)
tr
• Cum, Oil R e c o v e r y
80
i,i
-- Oil c u t
IX
a. 70
a. V
_5 6o 0 0
0 0
O •

~-
IIC
5O
0o 0 0 0 0 0 o

0 4O
0
W
IIC I ' I
...1
0
3O L_
__ 20
Run 2

L_
o o:s i ,15 212 215 3:5
PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID RECOVERED
Fig. 6. Recovery performance ofwaterflood and subsequent alkali/cosurfactant injection.

nitude of oil recovery. In order to determine
the role of dynamic interfacial tension, two
additional numerical runs were performed.
Run 3 was an extended waterflood and Run 4
was a simulated ultralow I F T run. In Run 4,
the value of the ultralow I F T was chosen such
that relative permeability lines ranging from 0
to 1 were straight and the capillary pressure was
set to zero. Figure 7 compares Runs 2, 3 and
4. Note that in this figure, the abscissa repre-
sents pore volume after initial waterflood. This
figure shows clearly that the dynamic I F T (ul-
tralow to moderately high value caused by the
presence of cosurfactant) is more effective in
the recovery of oil than nontransient high or
ultralow IFT. For the non-transient IFT, a
straight line relative permeability curve was
used in the calculations whereas for the tran-
sient IFT, variable relative permeabilities were
used. Since the fractional oil flow depended on
the mobility ratio for each saturation, allowing
the relative permeability to vary for the tran-
sient case resulted in better recovery than the
nontransient ultralow I F T case, according to
this model. This shows the effectiveness of co-
surfactant enhanced alkali flood. This result
conforms with recent experimental findings of
Islam and Taylor (1988) and Taylor et al.
( 1990 ). Even though researchers, such as Nel-
son et al. (1984), have shown the usefulness
of cosurfactant-enhanced alkali flooding, only
recently Islam and Taylor ( 1988 ) and Taylor
et al. (1990) linked this improvement to dy-
namic I F T caused by the presence of the co-
surfactant. This paper confirms that
hypothesis.
Effect of cosurfactant concentration
Runs 5 through 9 were conducted using co-
surfactant concentrations of 0%, 0.05%,
0.001%, 0.1%, and 0.01%, respectively. For all
these runs, alkali concentration was kept con-
stant at 0.1% and the alkali flood was initiated
after an initial waterflood. Figure 8 compares
oil recovery curves for various cosurfactant
concentrations which show that the highest oil
recovery is obtained with 0.1% alkali and
0.01% cosurfactant concentrations. For higher
cosurfactant concentration of 0.1%, transient
I F T increases for a given time. Consequently
the relative permeability curves do not follow
straight line behaviour for a long time. On the
other hand, when the surfactant concentration
is very low (0.001%), they do not travel far
1 16 M.R. ISLAM A N D A. C H A K M A

A
n • Run 2: v o r i o b l e IFT
80
5i o Run 3: Const. high LFT
o Run 4: Const. u l t r o l o w IF-F
>,.

ILl 70
>
0
0
tJJ
CC
,-I 60 O O O O 0 O 0
• 0
w O

0
50

0 •

o o o o
o
o
o
40 o
i r i i r r r
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID RECOVERED

Fig. 7. Comparison of recovery performance (post waterflood) core for various types of IFT.

• Run 2: C . = 0.01% • •
A Sl
e Run 5: Alkoli flood •
_5 70 a Run 6: C . = 0.05% • o
D D

sI
• Run 7: C . = 0.001% • o • •
st •
n-
o Run 8: C . = 0.1%
W SI • n •
>
0 60 • Run 9: C s i = 0.003%
0 o •
I.U
• A n •i AI An
-i o • • n • |
An
w • o o
13 • o •11 o o o o Q o o
50
°$

• n

O
40
i 0 I. 5 i i i i i r
0 1.0 1.5 2.0

PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID RECOVERED

Fig. 8. Comparison of recovery performance for various cosurfactant concentrations in alkali/cosurfactant injection.

enough to decrease I F T along the length of the very low cosurfactant concentration (0.001
reservoir core. In a chemical flooding process, wt% ), very little additional oil is recovered as
the most expensive ingredient is the cosurfac- c o m p a r e d to no cosurfactant. As the cosurfac-
tant. In this regard, incremental oil recovery as rant concentration is increased to 0.01%, in-
a function o f cosurfactant c o n s u m p t i o n will cremental oil recovery increases to the highest
indicate o p t i m u m cosurfactant concentration. value o f all the cases studied. As the concen-
Figure 9 shows incremental oil recovery as a tration is increased further, however, the in-
function of the mass o f the cosurfactant. At cremental oil recovery decreases. Note that the
MODELLING OF EOR BY ALKALI SOLUTIONS WITH COSURFACTANT AND POLYMER 1 17

480
E
~==
n,- 440
ILl
O 400
0
1,1,,I
fl" 360
--I
0 320
-,I

280
z o
W
240
uJ
n-
~ ' ~ Corresponds to Csl=O wt%
O 200
Z
160 o
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l l I i T
0.01 0.1 1.0

AMOUNT OF COSURFACTANT INJECTED, g

Fig. 9. Incremental oil recovery for various amounts of cosurfactant in alkali/cosurfactant injection.

nature of the dynamic interfacial tension ver- factant) and 0.01% (with cosurfactant at
sus cosurfactant concentration curves dictates 0.01%), and the other with alkali concentra-
the location of the optimum concentration in tions of 0.1% and 0.2%. The concentration of
the curve shown in Fig. 9. As higher surfactant 0.05% of alkali yields recovery somewhere in
concentration is approached, the dynamic IFT between these two clusters. It is evident from
curve becomes less steep leading to less effi- Fig. 10 that the addition of alkali beyond a
cient mobilization of residual oil left by the concentration of 0.1% does not yield any sub-
waterflood. As the same trend follows, the least stantial improvement on oil recovery. Inas-
amount of oil is recovered by a cosurfactant much as the principal recovery mechanism in-
concentration of 0.1 wt%. For this particular volves transient interfacial tension introduced
concentration, the oil recovery is less than that by the presence of the cosurfactant, the main
recovered by without any cosurfactant. Once contribution of alkali is to decrease the ad-
again, such a behaviour may be explained by sorption of the cosurfactant. Beyond a certain
the fact that the transient IFT in the presence concentration of alkali, however, the selective
of 0.1% cosurfactant was actually higher than adsorption of the cosurfactant becomes less
that at 0%. sensitive to the presence of alkali. This leads
to similar ultimate recovery with 0.1% and
Effect of alkali concentration 0.2% alkali concentration. Figure 11 compares
Runs 10 through 13 were conducted in or- the ultimate recoveries for these runs as a
der to investigate the effect of alkali concen- function of the amount of alkali injection. This
tration. For these runs, cosurfactant concen- figure indicates that very low alkali concentra-
tration was kept constant at 0.01 wt%. This tion (0.01 wt% or 0.35 g total mass) adds very
value was found optimum in the preceding in- little to the recovery in addition to what is re-
vestigation of the effect of cosurfactant con- covered with no 0.2% alkali. At very low con-
centration. Alkali concentrations were 0.01%, centration, alkali solution does not travel far
0%, 0.2%, and 0.05%, respectively. The results enough to act as the sacrificial agent to the co-
are shown in Fig. 10. Note that two distinctly surfactant solution. As can be seen in the slope
different clusters are formed: one with alkali of the curve in Fig. 11, the highest incremental
concentration of 0%, 0.01% (without cosur- oil recovery is observed when alkali concen-
118 M.R. ISLAM %ND A, CHAKMA

• Run 2: Cai = 0 . 1 %
f, &e
IX
= Run 5: Alkoli f l o o d (Col = 0.1~.)
5 70- o Run 10: Cai = 0.01%
A

>- ,~.Run 11: C o l = O,Og

I,LI & R u n 12: Col = 0,27.

> 0
0 o Run 1,3: Cai = 0 , 0 5 7 * dfi e
0 60-
I,LI z~a
--I 0 I I 0 II o 0
A o • • •
5 0
o |
I,tl o I
>
p~ o J •
50

O o•
M
AOo l
0 a •

40
1'
i i i i0 i r i i
0.5 1. 1.5 2.0

PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID RECOVERED

Fig. 10. Comparison of recovery performance for various alkali concentrations in alkali/cosurfactant injection.

480

440

W
>
0 400
0
tU
n"
,,j 360

5
.J
~ 320

z
W
~ 28o
W
n-
O
Z 240
o

o ~1-- Corresponds t o C o l = 0 wl*/,

2oo - i i r i i i i i i t i ~ i 1 i i
0.1 1.0 10.

AMOUNT OF ALKALI INJECTED, g

Fig. 11. I n c r e m e n t a l oil recovery for various amounts of alkali in alkali/cosurfactant injection.

tration is increased from 0.01 wt% (0.35 g to- increased from 0.1 wt% to 0.2 wt% (6.99 g).
tal mass) to 0.05 wt% (1.75 g total mass). Evidently, the very little improvement in re-
Even though, the slope becomes less steep, covery by the 0.2 wt% does not justify the use
substantial oil is recovered when alkali con- of such a high concentration. Consequently, a
centration is increased from 0.05 to 0.1 wt% concentration of 0.1 wt% appears to be the op-
(3.49 g). The slope of the recovery curve be- timum one. This is consistent with the experi-
comes very small when alkali concentration is mental findings of Taylor et al. ( 1990 ).
M O D E L L I N G O F EOR BY ALKALI S O L U T I O N S W I T H C O S U R F A C T A N T A N D P O L Y M E R
Alkali/cosurfactant/polymer injection
Run 14 was conducted in order to model al-
kali/polymer/cosurfactant injection follow-
ing a waterflood. Figure 12 shows the recovery
performance of alkali/cosurfactant/polymer
( A - S - P ) injection after an initial waterflood
with 2.2 pore volumes of water injected. Dur-
ing the early stages of A - S - P injection, oil re-
covery continues to drop for about 0.4 pore
volume, following which it increases dramati-
cally to a very high value. Consequently, cu-
mulative oil recovery increases rapidly. With
continued A - S - P injection, however, oil re-
covery declines eventually. During this pe-
riod, injection pressure increases continuously
and eventually drops along with a drop in oil
recovery. Such an increase in the injection
pressure is expected because of the high vis-
cosity of the polymer injected. Alkali/cosur-
factant/polymer injection recovers over 20%
more initial oil-in-place than alkali/cosurfac-
tant injection.
Effect of polymer concentration in A-S-P
injection
Runs 14 through 18 were conducted in or-
der to investigate the effect of polymer con-
.~ 100
0 Alkali/cosurfac tant/polymer Inj. (C si=O.O1~., Coi =0.1 ~., Cpi =0.1 ~)
.J
~ 9o
~ 8o
~: 70
a.
_ 60
--.q
~ 50-
0
0
~ 3o
0 20
k-
~ 0
0 o
Fig. 12. Recovery performance ofwaterflood and subsequent alkali/polymer/cosurfactant injection.
1 19
centration in the injection fluid on oil recov-
ery after an initial waterflood. For all these
runs, alkali and cosurfactant concentrations
were fixed at 0.1% and 0.01%, respectively,
which were the o p t i m u m concentration found
in the preceding investigation. Polymer con-
centrations of 0.1%, 0.05%, 0.08%, 0.001%,
and 0.01% were used for Runs 14 through 18,
respectively. Figure 13 compares oil recovery
curves for these runs. Remarkably, all concen-
trations yield a very similar recovery until 0.4
pore volume of chemical injection. This be-
haviour is expected in a chemical flood pro-
cess. Initially, it took at least 0.4 pore volume
of chemical to offset any effect at the outlet of
the core. Following this initial period, how-
ever, recovery performance depends largely on
polymer concentrations. As can be seen in Fig.
13, the recovery is distinctly the highest for the
polymer concentration of 0.1 wt%. This is fol-
lowed by 0.08 wt% and 0.05 wt%. The lowest
recovery is shown by 0.001 wt% polymer con-
centration. Note, however, that very little in-
cremental oil is recovered when polymer con-
centration is increased from 0.001% to 0.01%.
Polymer adsorption limits the propagation of
low concentration polymers beyond a certain
o Pressure (kPa) • •
• Cum. Oil Recovery
-- Oil c u t
o
Run 14 [
~. k_
o15 ; 11~ 212 215 ~ 315 ,
PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID RECOVERED
120 M.R. ISLAM AND A. CHAKMA

• Run 14: C p i = 0 . 1 ~
A
~. 90-
o Run 15: C p i = 0 . 0 5 ~

o Run 16: Cpi = 0 . 0 8 ~ • O {3

• [] D [3
• Run 17: C p i = 0 . 0 0 1 ~
~" a0- • Run 18: C p i = 0 . 0 1 ~
O
O o
W D O
o • • • •
Am
0 O
0
LLI 70-
n" o
...I o
o
II,I 60-
>
I,.- o
50-

40-
0. ' 0;5. ~ 1.0
' ~ 1.5
' ~ 2.0

PORE V O L U M E S OF FLUID RECOVERED

Fig. 13. Comparison of recovery performance for various polymer concentrations in A - S - P injection.

length of the core during initial stages of the a function of polymer volume. It indicates that
displacement test. However, during this time the polymer concentration has very subtle im-
cosurfactant solution lowers the IFT to the pact on oil recovery until 0.5 wt% concentra-
lowest value. By the time polymer solution ef- tion ( 1.75 g) is reached. Beyond this concen-
fectively breaks through the outlet, the IFT tration, the effect of polymer concentration on
value is already high and oil mobilization is not incremental oil recovery is dramatic. For in-
further affected by the presence of polymer. stance, close to 30% improvement in oil recov-
Figure 14 compares ultimate oil recoveries as ery is observed for a concentration rise from

690 -

670 -

>:
650 "
uJ
530
0
O
610

590 •

570 "

z 550 "
w
530 •
I,U
n-
O ,510 •

490

470
0.01 ........ ~.1 ....... ,'0
A M O U N T OF POLYMER INJECTED, g

Fig. 14. Incremental oil recovery for various amounts of polymer in A - S - P injection.
MODELLING OF EOR BY ALKALI SOLUTIONS WITH COSURFACTANT AND POLYMER 121

0.05% to 0.08% (2.79 g). This effect is some- terfacial tension rises to several orders of mag-
what less intense for higher value. It is inter- nitude within an hour of surfactant addition.
esting to note that previous experimental stud- It appears, however, that a sustained ultra low
ies (Islam, 1987) reported that the o p t i m u m interfacial tension value is not required since
polymer concentration lies somewhere be- a mobilized oil bank forms a front which
tween 0.5% and 0.1% value. maintains an oil saturation high enough to
avoid re-entrapment.
Effect of alkali concentration in A - S - P It can be seen from Fig. 15 that the highest
injection oil recovery is given by an alkali concentration
Runs 14 and 19-22 were conducted to in- of 0.2 wt%. However, 0.I wt% yields a recov-
vestigate the effect of alkali concentration in a ery very close to that of 0.1 wt%. Similar re-
alkali/polymer/cosurfactant ( A - S - P ) sys- sults were observed in the absence of polymer.
tem. Alkali concentrations of 0.1%, 0.2%, Once again, sensitivity to alkali concentration
0.01% 0.05%, and 0.08% were used in Runs 14 is minimal beyond alkali concentration of 0.1
and 19-22, respectively. These runs may be wt%. A considerable drop in recovery takes
compared with Run 23 which was conducted place when the alkali concentration drops from
with 0.1% polymer without any alkali or co- 0.1 wt% to 0.08 wt%. This drop continues as
surfactant. Figure 15 compares recovery curves the alkali concentration is decreased to even
for all these runs. Without alkali or cosurfac- lower values. However, even a solution of 0.01
tant, polymer recovers very little additional oil wt% of alkali and 0.01 wt% of cosurfactant im-
in the tertiary stage. It is important to note here proves oil recovery over polymer flood alone
that the addition of alkali in the aqueous phase substantially.
decreases the oil-water interfacial tension to
some extent but ultra low IFT is reached only Effect of cosurfactant concentration in A - S -
when cosurfactant is added. Cosurfactant low- P injection
ers interfacial tension to ultra low values but Runs 14 and 24-27 were conducted with co-
does that only temporarily. In all the cases, in- surfactant concentrations of 0.02, 0.05, 0.1,

• Run 14: C o l - 0.1Z

n 90 o Run 19: C o l - 0.2~
o Run 20: Coln 0.01~ o o • °
• Run 21: C o l - O.05X oo
• Run 22: Col= 0.08~ o
~" 80 ~, Run 23: C o l - OX, Cml= O~
W
oo
0
Inn 70 o

J
D 0 D

o • •
MI 60
&e

o • D
• o
~ 50
o& ° 0
•x A A ~ A /x ZX ,~
An
A
40
O. 015 r 110 i 1,51 i 210

PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID RECOVERED

Fig. 15. Comparison of recovery performance for various alkali concentrations in A - S - P injection.
122 M.R. ISLAM AND A. CHAKMA

and 0.005, respectively. Polymer and alkali following an initial waterflood. These runs
concentrations were kept constant at 0.1%. All consisted of alkali/cosurfactant/polymer in-
these runs are compared with Run 23 for which jection as well as alkali/cosurfactant runs. The
both alkali and cosurfactant concentration results are discussed in the following section.
have been set to zero. The comparison in oil
recovery is shown in Fig. 16. As can be seen in Effect of slug size in A-S-P injection
this figure, distinctly the highest oil recovery is Runs 28-31 were conducted along with Run
shown by concentration of 0.02% and 0.01 16 (continuous alkali/cosurfactant/polymer
wt%. Similar to previous observations in the injection up to 2 pore volumes) in order to in-
absence of polymer, an o p t i m u m concentra- vestigate the effect of slug size on A - S - P injec-
tion is evident around 0.01% cosurfactant tion. All these runs had polymer, alkali and co-
concentration. Explanation of such behaviour surfactant concentrations of 0.08%, 0.1%, and
is provided earlier. The presence of optimal 0.01%, respectively. Slug sizes of 0.25, 0.50,
concentration is further elucidated by plotting 0.60, and 0.80 pore volumes were used for
incremental oil recoveries as a function of co- Runs 28-31, respectively. Waterflood was
surfactant concentration (Fig. 17). A sharp conducted following each chemical slug injec-
increase in oil recovery takes place when co- tion. Results of these runs are compared with
surfactant concentration is increased from continuous A - S - P injection (Run 16) in Fig.
0.005 wt% to 0.01 wt%. As the concentration 18. The lowest recovery is shown by R u n 28
is increased further, the oil recovery drops (0.25 PV of A - S - P slug). This value is, how-
slowly. ever, still substantial improvement over a wa-
terflood (by more than 50%). As the slug size
Effect of slug size is increased to 0.50 pore volume, oil recovery
went up considerably. With further increase in
A series of numerical runs was conducted to the slug size, recovery became less sensitive to
investigate the effect of chemical slug size. All the size of the chemical slug. By changing the
these runs were simulated chemical injection, chemical slug size from 0.80 pore volume to 2

• Run 14: C j l = O.01Z

A
a. 90 /I Run 23: Csl = OX, Cslm OX
o o oo
0 Run 24: C ~ = 0.02•
o • •
• Run 2,5: C i l = O.05Z O •
>. • Run 26: C s l - 0.1Z o
~ 80 V Run 27: C==s 0.005~
o
v v
O v
o • V v
W 70 V
• v •

i°° V
o

v •
•

0 i V•
50
V
0 Vg • A /4 A £X ~ ZX A JX
/X A
40
~A Ae
0. 0 5 i ' i
10 . . 1.5 . . 2.0

PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID RECOVERED

Fig. 16. Comparison of recovery performance for variuous cosurfactant concentrations in A - S - P injection.
MODELLING OF EOR BY ALKALISOLUTIONS WITH COSURFACTANT AND POLYMER 123

700-

~ 660- O

~ 620-

8LLI 580-
"
n"

•==l 540 -
O
500-

Z
tU
460
uJ
n-
O 420

0
380 i , i i r i , i i i i r i I I [
0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1
C O S U R F A C T A N T CONCENTRATION, wt%

Fig. 17. Incremental oil recovery for various amounts of cosurfactant in A - S - P injection.

a Run 115: continuous injection

A 90 o Run 28: slug s i z e = 0 . 2 5 PV
D.
• Run 29: slug s i z e = 0 . 5 0 PV
• Run 30: slug s i z e = 0 . 6 0 PV O
D
• Run ,31: slug s i z e = 0 . 8 0 PV o °A A° •
80
o A • • • • • •
W o
>
0 oI
O 70
w
n-
J O

0
60
0
O
k-
0

50
0
O
0
40 I i r I ~ I r I
0 5 1.0 1.5 2.0

PORE V O L U M E S OF FLUID RECOVERED

Fig. 18. Comparison of recovery performance for various slug sizes in A - S - P injection.

pore volumes, very little improvement is ob- volume is economical. Such a point will be lo-
tained in oil recovery. Figure 19 compares ul- cated where the slope of the ultimate oil recov-
timate recovery for various runs as a function e l l versus slug size curve starts decreasing rap-
of A - S - P slug sizes. As can be seen in this fig- idly. In this regard, 0.6 pore volume of A - S - P
ure, for smaller slugs, the ultimate oil recovery appears to be optimal.
increases linearly as the slug size increases. For
higher values, however, the improvement is Effect of slug size on alkali/cosurfactant
less pronounced. In this context, it is prudent process
to choose an optimal polymer slug size for Runs 32-34 were conducted to investigate
which the ultimate recovery is high, yet the slug the effect of slug size on alkali/cosurfactant
124 M.R. ISLAM AND A. CHAKMA

i Run 2: continuous injection

A
n Run 32: slug size=0.25 PV
_5 so Run 3,:3: slug s i z e = 0 . 5 0 PV
e Run 34: s l u g s i z e = 0 . 4 0 PV
). n O
n- I]
w O
I
I II
70 I
o
0 I
0 o I
u,I
n,- ,0 ,
,,d o
~ 60 o o o
u,I o
o
• I o
o
o
o
~ 5o

40
01.5 I 110 ' 11.5 21o
PORE VOLUMES OF FLUID RECOVERED

Fig. 19. Incremental recovery for various slug sizes of alkali/cosurfactant/polymer.

45

4s

4~
W
0 39
0
IAI 37
rr
.J
~ ~5
..I
'~ 33
k-
Z
.I 31

w
I'~ 29
0
z
~ 27

25

0.25 0.5 0.6 0.8

C H E M I C A L SLUG SIZE IN A-S-P P R O C E S S , P O R E VOLUME

Fig. 20. Comparison of recovery performance for various slug sizes in alkali/cosurfactant injection.

injection. Results o f these runs may be com- gives the lowest ultimate recovery. However,
pared with Run 2 which was conducted with this is still a considerable improvement over a
continuous alkali/cosurfactant injection. For waterflood (more than 15%). As the slug size
all these runs, alkali and cosurfactant concen- is increased, a cluster is formed for slug sizes
trations were set to 0.1 wt% and 0.01 wt%, re- of 0.4 and 0.5 pore volumes and continuous
spectively. Results o f these runs are compared alkali/cosurfactant injection. Ultimate recov-
in Fig. 20. Run 32 (0.25 pore volume slug) eries for these runs are plotted as a function of
M O D E L L I N G O F E OR BY ALKALI S O L U T I O N S W I T H C O S U R F A C T A N T A N D P O L Y M E R 125

42

_ 40
0
o~ 3B
>.7 36
tr
IIJ O
34
0
0 32 o
W
fr
_j 30

28
.J
~ 26
z
~w 24

w
¢r 22

Z 2o
o
18 , , , J/
0.25 0.4 0.5

CHEMICAL SLUG SIZE IN ALKALI/COSURFACTANT PROCESS, PORE VOLUME

Fig. 21. Incremental recovery for various slug sizes of alkali/cosurfactant.

slug size in Fig. 21. It is evident from this fig- covery. For a given alkali/cosurfactant con-
ure that beyond 0.4 pore volume the slope of centration, a 0.08% polymer appears to be the
the ultimate recovery vs. slug size curve is very most effective. A slug size of 40% and 60% of
small. This effect is very encouraging for any pore volume were found to be o p t i m u m for al-
field application since a more relative slug size kali/cosurfactant/polymer and alkali/cosur-
for field application is less than 0.6 pore vol- factant systems, respectively.
ume. Following similar analysis as in the A - S - Although the results presented here are for
P case, it appears that a slug size of 0.5 pore unidimensional flow, the generalized model
volume is o p t i m u m for alkali/cosurfactant equations are also applicable to multidimen-
injection. sional flow situations.

Conclusions
A mathematical model of enhanced oil re-
covery by alkali solutions in the presence of
cosurfactant and polymer has been developed
which incorporates a surface excess model for
describing adsorption of injected chemicals
onto the reservoir rocks and, more impor-
tantly, incorporates dynamic interfacial ten-
sion, resistance factor and unsteady-state flow.
Many numerical runs have been conducted
to study the effect of different variables. The
model predictions were sensitive to alkali, co-
surfactant and polymer concentration. For the
cases studied, a 0.1% alkali, 0.1% polymer and
0.01% cosurfactant yielded the highest oil re-
Acknowledgement
The financial assistance provided by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) in support of this
work is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Babu, D.R., Hornoff, V. and Neale, G., 1984. Effects of
temperature and time on interfacial tension behav-
iour between heavy oils and alkaline solutions. Can. J.
Chem. Eng., 62: 156-159.
Bang, H.W. and Caudle, B.H., 1984. Modelling o f a mi-
cellar/polymer process. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 24:617-627.
Borwankar, R.P. and Wasan, D.T., 1986. Dynamic inter-
facial tensions in acidic crude oil/caustic systems, Part
I: A chemical diffusion-kinetic model. AIChE J.,
32(3): 455-466.
126
Chan, M. and Yen, T.F., 1982. A chemical equilibrium
model for interfacial activity of crude oil in aqueous
alkaline solution: The effects of pH, alkali and salt.
Can. J. Chem. Eng., 60: 305-308.
Chan, M., Sharma, M.M. and Yen, T.F., 1982. Acids in
crude oil for generation of surface active caustic flood-
ing enhanced oil recovery. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process
Des. Dev., 21: 580-583.
Chang, H.L., 1978. Polymer flooding technology- Yes-
terday, today and tomorrow. J. Pet. Technol., 30:1113-
1128.
Fleming, P.D., Thomas, C.P. and Winter, W.K., 1981.
Formulation of a general multiphase multicomponent
chemical flood model. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 21: 63-76.
Islam, M.R., 1987. Mobility control in waterflooding oil
reservoirs with a bottom-water zone. Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. ,Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Islam, M.R. and Farouq Ali, S.M., 1987. Mobility control
in waterflooding oil reservoirs with bottom-water zone.
J. Can. Pet. Tech., 26(6): 40-53.
Islam, M.R. and Farouq Ali, S.M., 1989. Waterflooding
oil reservoirs with bottom water. J. Can. Pet. Technol.,
28(3): 59-66.
Islam, M.R. and Taylor, K., 1988. The role of dynamic
interfacial tension in cosurfactant enhanced alkaline/
polymer floods. 38th Can. Chem. Eng. Conf. Book of
Abstracts. Can. Soc. Chem. Eng. Publications, Ot-
tawa, Ont., Pap. 32-d, p. 155.
Issacs, E.E. and Smolek, K.F., 1983. Interfacial tension
behaviour of Athabasca bitumen/aqueous surfactant
systems. Can. J. Chem. Eng., 61: 233-240.
Jennings, H.Y., 1975. A study of caustic solution-crude
oil interfacial tensions. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 15: 197-202.
Johnson, C.E., Jr., 1975. Status of caustic and emulsion
method. SPE 5561, presented at 50th Annu. SPE Tech.
Conf. Exib., Dallas, Tex.
M.R. ISLAM AND A. CHAKMA
Larson, R.G., 1979. The influence of phase behaviour on
surfactant flooding. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 19:411-422.
Lin, F.F.J., Besserer, G.J. and Pitts, M.J., 1987. Labora-
tory evaluation of crosslinked polymer and alkaline-
polymer-surfactant flood. J. Can. Pet. Technol., 6: 54-
65.
McCaffery, F.G., 1976. Interfacial tension and aging be-
haviour of some crude oils against caustic solutions. J.
Can. Pet. Technol., 11 (3): 71-74.
Mungan, N., 1971. Improved waterflooding through mo-
bility control. Can. J. Chem. Eng., 49: 32-37.
Patel, K. and Greaves, M., 1987. Role of capillary and
viscous forces in mobilization of residual oil. Can. J.
Chem. Eng., 65: 676-679.
Pope, G.A. and Nelson, R.C., 1978. A chemical flooding
compositional simulator. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 18: 339-
354.
Ramakrishnan, T.S. and Wasan, D.T., 1983. A model for
interfacial activity of acidic crude oil/caustic systems
for alkaline flooding. Soc. Pet. Eng., J., 23:602-612.
Rubin, E. and Radke, C.J., 1980. Dynamic interfacial
tension minima in finite systems. Chem. Eng. Sci., 35:
1129-1138.
Sircar, S., Novasad, J. and Meyers, A.L., 1972. Adsorp-
tion from liquid mixtures on solids. Thermodynamics
of excess properties and their temperature coeffi-
cients. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 11: 249-254.
Sparlin, D.D., 1976. An evaluation of polyacrylamides for
reducing water production. J. Pet. Technol., 28: 906-
914.
Taylor, K., Hawkins, B.F. and Islam, M . R , 1990. Dy-
namic interfacial tension in surfactant enhanced al-
kaline flooding. J. Can. Pet. Technol., 29( 1 ): 50-55.
Trujillo, E.M., 1983. The static and dynamic interfacial
tensions between crude oils and caustic solutions. Soc.
Pet. Eng. J., 23: 645-656.