Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SPE29904
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in Beijing, PR China, 14-17 November 1995.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented,
have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subjected to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom
the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. (Facsimile 214-952-9435).
• Controlling mobility: the injection of polymer can • Chemical dispersion and dilution which cause the
increase aqueous phase viscosity and decrease its concentration decrease of chemcial slug.
effective permeability to enlarge sweeping volume. • Polymer solution behavior such as viscosity,
• Reducing chemical losses: the adsorption losses of rheology, residual resistance factor, inaccessible
surfactant and polymer can be greatly decreased by porous volume, further hydrolysis by alkali, etc.
alkali. • Ion exchange between fluid and rock, causing
• Mechanisms of alkali flooding such as emulsion and variation of salinity environment.
entrapment, emulsion and entrainment, wettability • Salinity and its variation which effect 1FT, chemical
reverse, spontaneous emulsion and coalescence, rigid adsorption, phase behavior, polymer solution viscosity,
film dissolution, etc. etc.
In above mechanisms, the first three were considered • Others such as viscous fingering, flu!.d and rock
as the most important ones. The main mass-transfer compressibilities, compatibility of chemicals,
phenomena in such chemical flooding processes are as precibitation, clay swelling, etc.
follows: It is shown that the mechanisms and physico-
• Convection chemical phenomena involved in ASP flooding
• Diffusion-dispersion process are very complicated. Even though the
• Transfer between liquid-liquid phases method has shown some advantages (better oil
• Transfer between liquid-solid phases recovery and economic efficiency) over classic
• Chemical reactions chemical flooding in theory and in laboratory, there
A lot of physico-chemical phenomena are involved in are no many examples of successful field application.
above mass-transfer processes, mainly as follows: A lot of research works including experiments,
• 1FT reduction: this is a determinate effect for theorical study, pilot tests have been carried out for
mobilizing residual oil. According to recent researches, understanding the process and for putting it in use
there are some relationships between oil mobilization earlier. Some attempt of numerical study has been
and dynamical 1FT. made with considerable advances, which plays a very
• Alkali loss: this affects greatly the oil recovery important role in mechanism study, factor sensibility
effeciency because alkali is a major chemical agent in analyses, pilot design, petformance forecast, field '
ASP flooding (other chemicals are of very low application guide, etc.
concentration). There are many factors causing fast The numerical simulation of ASP flooding is very
and long-term alkali losses in reservoir such as difficult due to its complication. Although some works
exchange between Na+ in alkali and H+, Ca 2+, Mg2+, have been done, they are not applicable enough for
etc. in rock, acid component in oil, divalent cations, well simulating oilfield cases because of their
C0 2 in fluid, reactions between alkali and polymer simplicity and/or preference in laboratory use. We will
(long-term hydrolysis), and between alkali ... and rock. present below a compositional ASP flooding numerical
• Sutfactant and polymer losses by adsorption- simulator which takes into consideration all important
retention. mechanisms and phenomena involved in the process,
• Phase behavior: phase equilibria and properties will and which is more capable to simulate real problems
be variant because of chemical additives, but in very and more practical in use.
low concentration, the variation effect of phase
equilibria is less important.
• Residual saturation variation: residual saturations for NUMERICAL SIM:ULATOR
each phase will be decreased owing to 1FT reduction.
The enhanced oil recovery is essentially contributed by !.Equation system:
residual oil saturation reduction.
• Relative permeability variation due to 1FT and * Basic assumptions:
residual saturation variation, emulsion formation, • Reservoir is isothermal.
polymer injection, etc. • Local equilibrium exists.
140
SPE 29904 YUAN SHIYI YANG PU HUA DAl ZHONG QIU SHEN KUI YOU 3
Dispersion term
This is a very complicated equation system which is
nonlinear and coupled with a lot of variable
parameters. We need complimental functional
Accumulation term
relationships describing phenomenological parameters
Source/ sink term
and numerical solution techniques to solve the
system.
• By definition(n,+2)
2.Pbenomenological parameters
Ejsj =1 (2)
Ei zi = 1 (3)
E.v1J.. = 1' J. = 1' ... '.-...,>
n (4) The important parameters and their description will be
I
given as follows:
* Alkali concentration conversion
• Relationships among Zi, Y u and Sj (n, •nc-1)
Alkali types used in ASP flooding may be NaOH,
. Y 1J.. =Y IJ..(Zk) Na 2 C03 , Na 2 Si03 , Na 2 Si04 , Na3P04 , and so on in
(5)
which OH- produced by alkali dissolution in water
i=} ... n-1
' ' c plays a key role.
k= 1 ... n
' ' c The OH- concentration can be obtained directly for
j = 1, .. ·,n,
141 NaOH, and convertibly for Na2 C03 by following
4 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF ALKALI/SURFACTANT/POLYMER FLOODING
equations:
where
"-"-OH- loss
r-loss quantity in unit volume
n-n influential factors This loss can be calculated by solubility product K.
The similar treatment is for the losses by Mg2+, etc.
Main factors are as follows: * Adsorption of injected surfactant
• r 1 : fast alkali loss caused by ion exchange between • The adsorption can be modelled by the following
N a+ in alkali and W on rock surface. According to equation for Langmuir type
Re£ 10, this loss can be represented approximatively
by an equation similar to Langmuir type adsorption
function:
where
~ 1 -adsorption for pH=7.
142
SPE 29904 YUAN SlllYI YANG PU HUA DAI ZHONG QIU SHEN KUI YOU 5
Pl\nax-pH in injected alkali concentration. where ~t and ej are end-point values and exponents
bs-coefficient. respectively.
* Capillary pressure
* Polymer adsorption
Its description is similar to the above treatment.
* Other component consumption
The comsumptions ofNa+, IfAo, C02, Ca2+, Mg2+, and
so on can be converted and calculated from r 1, r 2 , r 4, where
r 5 and ion exchange.
*Ion exchange
The exchange between monovalent cation c+ in
aqueous phase and divalent cation C2+ on rock surface
P row ( S n ) = C pc·
lf. a
·(1-S n)
N
pc
143
6 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF ALKALI/SURFACTANT/POLYMER FLOODING
p 0-density at P 0
P-compressibility coefficient
(R:-x - 1) qp
Rk = 1 + ---,-----=-
max
qp *Component dispersion coefficient Dij
SIMULATION EXAMPLES
mobilization. We have prepared am too for adsorption, reservoir heterogeneity, and so on are very
investigating its effect. The am values are about 10 important and difficult to be modeled by core test.
times lower than a e in most cases. An important decision to be made before field
• Residual saturation and relativ~ permeability: application is to determine the system of 3 or 2
Table 1 for 3 Nc values (Nee and Ncm in the table are chemical agents to be injected in the same investment
calculated by using ae and am respectively). of chemicals. The ASP flooding will be used only in
• Alkali loss: 3.2mg/g rock for CA=2%. cases of its oil recovery and economic efficiency much
• Surfactant adsorption: 2.3mg/g rock for Cs=0.4%. better than those of AP flooding because of surfactant
• Polymer adsorption: 34ug/g rock for Cp=0.1 %. expensiveness and much more problems of ASP
• Polymer solution viscosity: Fig.3 for different CA. compatibility. We will select the formulation system
• Fluid properties: Table 2. to be injected by simulation study.
A cross-section of reservoir with stratified
2.Simulation of laboratory experiment heterogeneity (Table 3) is designed for considing
oilfield condition. The starting conditions for ASP
Experiment flooding are 44.3% of oil recovery and 98.6% of
watercut.
The experiment was completed on an oilfield core with A lot of runs have been serially performed for
the following process: different study purposes. The results of principal runs
• Saturating oil (Soi=0.67) are given in Table 4 (for f(J) =98% ).
• Waterflooding to residual oil saturation (S 0 r1=0.33)
• Alkali/polymer flooding to residual oil saturation Injection formulation system:
(Sor2=0.20)
• Alkali/surfactant/polymer flooding to residual oil We can see under oil field conditions, the oil recovery
saturation (Sor3 =0.09) by ASP flooding is not much better than that by AP
Data about the core and test are given in Table 2. 'f4e flooding( see li 1, li3 or li2, li4 ) because of limited slug
oil recovecy and watercut for 3 phases of displacement size, more chemical losses, etc. But the chemical cost
are presented in Fig. 4. The incremental recoveries of for one ton of incremental.oil is much higher so that
AP and ASP floodings in comparison with the injection of AP system is preferable in these
waterflooding are 20% and 3 7% respectively. reservoir conditions.
4. 3-D simulation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following presentation is about main forecasting
results of a real AP flooding pilot test by using our We are very thankful to President Shen Pingping and
simulator. Chief Engineer Han Dakuang of Research Institute of
The pilot zone is in a stratified sandstone reseiVoir Petroleum Exploration & Development (RIPED), and
vvith the properties between homogeneous and professor
heterogeneous characteristics of the above cross- Liu Pu of Beijing Petroleum University for their
sectional model. 4 wells (Fig. 5, 3 chemical injectors direction and help in various aspects.
and 1 producer) are involved in the center, and 7
equilibrium wells in the rounding zone.
According to the above results, the AP system was REFERENCES
choose to be injected. We have performed about 40
runs for selecting operation parameters such asAP [1] Nelson R C et al. Cosurfactant-enhanced alkaline
injection concentrations, slug size, injection flooding. SPE/DOE 12672. April1984.
opportunity, rate and strategy, and so on, and for
studying effects of different factors such as 1FT ( oe, [2]Mihcakan I M et al. Blending alkaline and polymer
oJ, viscosity reduction caused by pump, pipeline, well solution together into a single slug improves EOR.
hole and perforation, etc. The simulations involve oil SPE 15158. May 1986.
recovery forecasting and economic analysing for both
the center triangle and total pilot zone. [3]Schuler P J et al. Improving chemical flood
Based on the above research, the pilot test has been efficiency vvith Micellar/Alkaline/Polymer Processes.
designed with the main injection parameters selected as SPE/DOE 14934. April 1986. ,,
follows:
• Alkali concentration:2% [4]Islam M R et al. Mathematical modeling of
• Polymer concentration: 0.1% enhanced oil recovery by alkali solutions in the
• Slug size:0.35PV presence ofcosurfactant and polymer. JPSE. 5. 1991.
Under the above conditions, the forecasting
incremental oil recovery will be between 6. 7 6~7. 58% [5]Breit V Setal. An easily applied black oil model of
forecasted by using a e and am' and the chemical cost caustic waterflooding. SPE 7999. April 1979.
for one ton of incremental oil is between ¥425~379.
The forecast performence is given in Fig.6. Now, the [6]Ramakrishnan T Setal. Fractional-flow model for
pilot is underway. high pH flooding. SPERE. Feb. 1989.
NOMENCLATURE
C-concentration
E-cation strength
g-gravity acceleration
K-absolute permeability or reaction constant
~-relative permeability
HA-acid component
Q-mass rate in unit porous volume
q-adsorption in unit porous volume
R-reaction rate
S-saturation
s..-residual saturation
V-Darcy velocity
Yij-mass fraction of component i in phase j
Zi-overal1 mass fraction of component i
147
Table 1. Relative permeability data
K~w 0.07 0. 11 0. 16
Core data:
Length : 11. 4cm
Diameter: 2. Scm
Porosity: 29. 9%
Permeability (air): 1. 01t-tm2
(water) : 0. 66t-tm2
Fluid properties:
Temperature: 58 ·c
Water viscosity: 0. 48mPa • s
Oil viscosity: 18. 2mPa • s (Surface)
6. 3mPa • s (Reservoir)
Injection rate: 0. 2mllmin
Injection formulation:
AlP: 2%Na 2C0 3+800ppmAC530
AlSIP: 2%Na2C03+o. 125%LPS6+800ppmAC530
3 30.5 1. 000 1. 65
4 30.5 3. 000 1. 65
Note :Distance between injector and producer= 200m
148
Table 4. Simulation results
Chemical slug l]o C%) / Chemical cost C¥)
Run No. Notes
Total PV 6oil(t)
CaC%) Cs(%) t:pCppm) PV
ll 7 2 0 0 0. 3 45.2/0.85 1172
149
0.4
O.J
§ 0.2
J
0.1
0.0 -r:::;:=;~;=r,-~~~~:.:r=;:::=;i=i=i=:.;:;=r=r~~T"'""T'""'T"~~
0.0
CA(%)
I
f"l
\
0.04
150
25
CA=O.O%
20
-
c.a
o;j
p..
15
CA=0.5%
-
s
Ill
::1. 10 CA=l. O%
c. . . =2. O%
--
~
~
ct-4 60
- ~40
0
r::- - Experiment
· · · Simulation
5 10 15 20
PV
151
Ia
0
-a 8
(T)
• a ........
~···
0 lD
~
N 0
,
::E
>-
c....
Q.)
~
>
0
u
~
Cl)
Q.)
0
a:
b. A - WF
0 e- A/PF
'-J
0 0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (year)
152