US20120292025A1 - Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas - Google Patents

Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas Download PDF

Info

Publication number
US20120292025A1
US20120292025A1 US13/522,595 US201113522595A US2012292025A1 US 20120292025 A1 US20120292025 A1 US 20120292025A1 US 201113522595 A US201113522595 A US 201113522595A US 2012292025 A1 US2012292025 A1 US 2012292025A1
Authority
US
United States
Prior art keywords
oil
well
formation
mixture
optimum
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Abandoned
Application number
US13/522,595
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Werner Martin Stoll
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Shell USA Inc
Original Assignee
Individual
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Individual filed Critical Individual
Priority to US13/522,595 priority Critical patent/US20120292025A1/en
Assigned to SHELL OIL COMPANY reassignment SHELL OIL COMPANY ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: STOLL, WERNER MARTIN
Publication of US20120292025A1 publication Critical patent/US20120292025A1/en
Abandoned legal-status Critical Current

Links

Images

Classifications

    • E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
    • E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
    • E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
    • E21B43/00—Methods or apparatus for obtaining oil, gas, water, soluble or meltable materials or a slurry of minerals from wells
    • E21B43/16—Enhanced recovery methods for obtaining hydrocarbons
    • E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
    • E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
    • E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
    • E21B49/00—Testing the nature of borehole walls; Formation testing; Methods or apparatus for obtaining samples of soil or well fluids, specially adapted to earth drilling or wells
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01V—GEOPHYSICS; GRAVITATIONAL MEASUREMENTS; DETECTING MASSES OR OBJECTS; TAGS
    • G01V11/00—Prospecting or detecting by methods combining techniques covered by two or more of main groups G01V1/00 - G01V9/00
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G01—MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01V—GEOPHYSICS; GRAVITATIONAL MEASUREMENTS; DETECTING MASSES OR OBJECTS; TAGS
    • G01V2210/00—Details of seismic processing or analysis
    • G01V2210/60—Analysis
    • G01V2210/66—Subsurface modeling

Definitions

  • the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas.
  • EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
  • thermal thermal
  • chemical/polymer chemical/polymer
  • gas injection gas injection
  • Thermal enhanced recovery works by adding heat to the reservoir.
  • the most widely practised form is a steamdrive, which reduces oil viscosity so that can flow to the producing wells.
  • Chemical flooding increases recovery by reducing the capillary forces that trap residual oil and/or by reducing the interfacial tension between oil and water.
  • Polymer flooding improves the sweep efficiency of injected water. Miscible injection works by creating a mixture of the injectant and the oil that flows more easily towards the production well than the oil by itself.
  • System 100 includes underground formation 102 , underground formation 104 , underground formation 106 , and underground formation 108 .
  • Production facility 110 is provided at the surface.
  • Well 112 traverses formations 102 and 104 , and terminates in formation 106 .
  • the portion of formation 106 is shown at 114 .
  • Oil and gas are produced from formation portion 114 through well 112 , to production facility 110 .
  • Gas and liquid are separated from each other, gas is stored in gas storage 116 and liquid is stored in liquid storage 118 .
  • U.S. Pat. No. 6,022,834 discloses a concentrated surfactant formulation and process for the recovery of residual oil from subterranean petroleum reservoirs, and more particularly an alkali surfactant flooding process which results in ultra-low interfacial tensions between the injected material and the residual oil, wherein the concentrated surfactant formulation is supplied at a concentration above, at, or, below its CMC, also providing in situ formation of surface active material formed from the reaction of naturally occurring organic acidic components with the injected alkali material which serves to increase the efficiency of oil recovery.
  • U.S. Pat. No. 6,022,834 is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
  • U.S. Pat. No. 5,068,043 discloses an aqueous alkaline flood for recovering oil from a reservoir containing acidic oil which includes adding to the injected aqueous alkaline solution both a stoichiometric excess of the alkaline material and a kind and amount of preformed cosurfactant material that increases the salinity of that solution so that, in contact with the oil in the reservoir, it will form a surfactant system having a salinity requirement which minimizes the interfacial tension between it and the oil.
  • U.S. Pat. No. 5,068,043 is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
  • Optimum salinity type and optimum salinity in surfactant/polymer flooding is determined by core-flood experiments so that a variety of multiphase flow parameters such as relative permeability and phase trapping that affects oil recovery factor, influences the determination of the optimum salinity type and optimum salinity.
  • the optimum salinity determined preferably corresponds to the highest oil recovery factor.
  • U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0194276 is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
  • U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0194281 discloses an optimum salinity profile in surfactant/polymer flooding from formation water to post-flush drive that leads to the highest oil recovery factor.
  • the optimum salinity determined from core-flooding experiments may be used in the surfactant slug.
  • the surfactant slug is protected from deterioration by the injection of cushion slugs immediately before and after the injection of the surfactant slug in a reservoir wherein the cushion slugs have the same salinity or about the same salinity as the surfactant slug.
  • a salinity lower may be used in the post-flush drive, while formation water could be of any salinity.
  • U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0194281 is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
  • the invention provides a method for producing oil and/or gas from an underground formation comprising locating a suitable reservoir in a subsurface formation; creating a model of the reservoir; populating the model with laboratory data; modeling the reservoir to determine fluid displacements based on fluids injected and fluids produced; determining an optimum fluid mixture for the fluids to be injected based on a series of sensitivity analyses performed with the model; drilling a first well in the formation; injecting the optimum fluid mixture into the first well; drilling a second well in the formation; and producing oil and/or gas from the second well.
  • FIG. 1 illustrates an oil and/or gas production system.
  • FIG. 2 a illustrates a well pattern
  • FIGS. 2 b and 2 c illustrate the well pattern of FIG. 2 a during enhanced oil recovery processes.
  • FIG. 3 illustrates oil and/or gas production systems.
  • FIG. 4 illustrates a well pattern
  • FIG. 5 illustrates mixtures of crude oil and brine.
  • FIG. 6 illustrates mixtures of crude oil and brine.
  • FIG. 7 illustrates results of a core flood experiment.
  • FIG. 8 illustrates results of a core flood experiment.
  • FIG. 9 illustrates results of a core flood experiment.
  • FIG. 10 illustrates a simulation of a pilot ASP flood.
  • FIG. 11 illustrates a relationship between the optimal salinity of a surfactant and the optimal salinity of a soap.
  • FIG. 12 illustrates the partitioning of soap and surfactant based on salinity.
  • FIG. 13 illustrates the results of a well log.
  • FIG. 14 illustrates field data from a Single-Well Chemical tracer test.
  • FIG. 15 illustrates field data from a Single-Well Chemical tracer test.
  • FIG. 16 illustrates a simulation of a pilot ASP flood.
  • FIG. 2 a
  • Array 200 includes well group 202 (denoted by horizontal lines) and well group 204 (denoted by diagonal lines).
  • Array 200 defines a production area, enclosed by the rectangle. Array 200 defines an interior of the system. Exterior to array 200 may be located a plurality of containment wells 250 .
  • Each well in well group 202 has horizontal distance 230 from the adjacent well in well group 202 .
  • Each well in well group 202 has vertical distance 232 from the adjacent well in well group 202 .
  • Each well in well group 204 has horizontal distance 236 from the adjacent well in well group 204 .
  • Each well in well group 204 has vertical distance 238 from the adjacent well in well group 204 .
  • horizontal distance 230 and horizontal distance 236 refer to a distance from left to right of the paper
  • vertical distance 232 and vertical distance 238 refer to a distance from up to down of the paper.
  • array may be composed of vertical wells that are perpendicular to the earth's surface, horizontal wells that are parallel to the earth's surface, or wells that are inclined at some other angle, for example 30 to 60 degrees with respect to the earth's surface.
  • Each well in well group 202 is distance 234 from the adjacent wells in well group 204 .
  • Each well in well group 204 is distance 234 from the adjacent wells in well group 202 .
  • each well in well group 202 is surrounded by four wells in well group 204 . In some embodiments, each well in well group 204 is surrounded by four wells in well group 202 .
  • horizontal distance 230 is from about 25 to about 1000 meters, or from about 30 to about 500 meters, or from about 35 to about 250 meters, or from about 40 to about 100 meters, or from about 45 to about 75 meters, or from about 50 to about 60 meters.
  • vertical distance 232 is from about 25 to about 1000 meters, or from about 30 to about 500 meters, or from about 35 to about 250 meters, or from about 40 to about 100 meters, or from about 45 to about 75 meters, or from about 50 to about 60 meters.
  • horizontal distance 236 is from about 25 to about 1000 meters, or from about 30 to about 500 meters, or from about 35 to about 250 meters, or from about 40 to about 100 meters, or from about 45 to about 75 meters, or from about 50 to about 60 meters.
  • vertical distance 238 is from about 25 to about 1000 meters, or from about 30 to about 500 meters, or from about 35 to about 250 meters, or from about 40 to about 100 meters, or from about 45 to about 75 meters, or from about 50 to about 60 meters.
  • distance 234 is from about 15 to about 750 meters, or from about 20 to about 500 meters, or from about 25 to about 250 meters, or from about 30 to about 100 meters, or from about 35 to about 75 meters, or from about 40 to about 50 meters.
  • array of wells 200 may have from about 10 to about 1000 wells, for example from about 5 to about 500 wells in well group 202 , and from about 5 to about 500 wells in well group 204 .
  • array of wells 200 is seen as a top view with well group 202 and well group 204 being vertical wells spaced on a piece of land. In some embodiments, array of wells 200 is seen as a cross-sectional side view with well group 202 and well group 204 being horizontal wells spaced within a formation.
  • the recovery of oil and/or gas with array of wells 200 from an underground formation may be accomplished by any known method. Suitable methods include subsea production, surface production, primary, secondary, or tertiary production.
  • the selection of the method used to recover the oil and/or gas from the underground formation is not critical.
  • the containment of oil and/or gas and/or an enhanced oil recovery agent with containment wells 250 may be accomplished by any known method. Suitable methods include pumping water, steam, produced connate water, sea water, carbon dioxide, natural gas or other gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons, nitrogen, air, brine, or other liquids or gases into containment wells 250 .
  • containment wells 250 may be used to create a freeze wall barrier.
  • One suitable freeze wall barrier is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,225,866 is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. The selection of the method used to contain oil and/or gas and/or an enhanced oil recovery agent with containment wells 250 is not critical.
  • oil and/or gas may be recovered from a formation into a well, and flow through the well and flowline to a facility.
  • enhanced oil recovery with the use of an ASP mixture for example a mixture of water, an alkali, a surfactant, and a polymer, may be used to increase the flow of oil and/or gas from the formation.
  • FIG. 2 b
  • array of wells 200 is illustrated.
  • Array 200 includes well group 202 (denoted by horizontal lines) and well group 204 (denoted by diagonal lines).
  • Optional containment wells 250 are provided about array of wells 200 .
  • an ASP mixture is injected into well group 204 , and oil is recovered from well group 202 .
  • the ASP mixture has injection profile 208 , and oil recovery profile 206 is being produced to well group 202 .
  • a containment agent is injected into containment wells 250 .
  • the containment agent has an injection profile about each of the containment wells 250 . Containment agent may be used to force ASP mixture and/or oil and/or gas towards producing well group 202 .
  • ASP mixture is injected into well group 202 , and oil is recovered from well group 204 .
  • the ASP mixture has injection profile 206 , and oil recovery profile 208 is being produced to well group 204 .
  • a containment agent is injected into containment wells 250 .
  • the containment agent has an injection profile about each of the containment wells 250 . Containment agent may be used to force ASP mixture and/or oil and/or gas towards producing well group 204 .
  • well group 202 may be used for injecting an ASP mixture, and well group 204 may be used for producing oil and/or gas from the formation for a first time period; then well group 204 may be used for injecting an ASP mixture, and well group 202 may be used for producing oil and/or gas from the formation for a second time period, where the first and second time periods comprise a cycle.
  • an ASP mixture or a mixture including an ASP mixture may be injected at the beginning of a cycle, and water optionally with added polymer may be injected at the end of the cycle to push the ASP mixture towards the producing wells.
  • the beginning of a cycle may be the first 10% to about 80% of a cycle, or the first 20% to about 60% of a cycle, the first 25% to about 40% of a cycle, and the end may be the remainder of the cycle.
  • water optionally with added polymer may be used as a containment agent and injected into containment wells 250 .
  • ASP mixtures injected into the formation may be recovered from the produced oil and/or gas and re-injected into the formation.
  • oil as present in the formation prior to the injection of any enhanced oil recovery agents has a viscosity of at least about 5 centipoise, or at least about 10 centipoise, or at least about 25 centipoise, or at least about 50 centipoise, or at least about 75 centipoise, or at least about 90 centipoise. In some embodiments, oil as present in the formation prior to the injection of any enhanced oil recovery agents has a viscosity of up to about 125 centipoise, or up to about 200 centipoise, or up to about 500 centipoise, or up to about 1000 centipoise.
  • FIG. 2 c
  • array of wells 200 is illustrated.
  • Array 200 includes well group 202 (denoted by horizontal lines) and well group 204 (denoted by diagonal lines). Containment wells 250 are located exterior to array 200 to form a perimeter about array 200 .
  • an ASP mixture is injected into well group 204 , and oil is recovered from well group 202 .
  • the ASP mixture has injection profile 208 with overlap 210 with oil recovery profile 206 , which is being produced to well group 202 .
  • a containment agent is injected into containment wells 250 .
  • the containment agent has an injection profile about each of the containment wells 250 . Containment agent may be used to force ASP mixture and/or oil and/or gas towards producing well group 202 .
  • containment agent injection profile may overlap with one or more of injection profile 208 and oil recovery profile 206 so that enhanced oil recovery agent is contained within array 200 ; and/or so that oil and/or gas is contained within array 200 ; and/or so that containment agent is produced to well group 202 .
  • an ASP mixture is injected into well group 202 , and oil is recovered from well group 204 .
  • the ASP mixture has injection profile 206 with overlap 210 with oil recovery profile 208 , which is being produced to well group 204 .
  • a containment agent is injected into containment wells 250 .
  • the containment agent has an injection profile about each of the containment wells 250 . Containment agent may be used to force ASP mixture and/or oil and/or gas towards producing well group 204 .
  • containment agent injection profile may overlap with one or more of injection profile 208 and oil recovery profile 206 so that enhanced oil recovery agent is contained within array 200 ; and/or so that oil and/or gas is contained within array 200 ; and/or so that containment agent is produced to well group 204 .
  • Releasing at least a portion of the ASP mixture and/or other liquids and/or gases may be accomplished by any known method.
  • One suitable method is injecting the ASP mixture into a first well, and pumping out at least a portion of the ASP mixture with gas and/or liquids through a second well.
  • the selection of the method used to inject at least a portion of the ASP mixture and/or other liquids and/or gases is not critical.
  • the ASP mixture and/or other liquids and/or gases may be pumped into a formation at a pressure up to the fracture pressure of the formation.
  • the ASP mixture may be mixed in with oil and/or gas in a formation to form a mixture which may be recovered from a well.
  • a quantity of the ASP mixture may be injected into a well, followed by another component to force the ASP mixture across the formation.
  • another component for example water in liquid or vapor form, water with a dissolved polymer to increase its viscosity, carbon dioxide, other gases, other liquids, and/or mixtures thereof may be used to force the ASP mixture across the formation.
  • from about 0.1 to about 5 pore volumes of the ASP mixture may be injected, for example from about 0.2 to about 2 pore volumes, or from about 0.3 to about 1 pore volumes of the ASP mixture may be injected.
  • the injection of the ASP mixture may be followed by from about 2 to about 10 pore volumes of a polymer water mixture, for example from about 3 to about 8 pore volumes of the polymer-water mixture.
  • the inject of a polymer water mixture may be followed with water from about 1 to about 10 pore volumes.
  • FIG. 3 is a diagrammatic representation of FIG. 3 :
  • System 400 includes underground formation 402 , formation 404 , formation 406 , and formation 408 .
  • Production facility 410 is provided at the surface.
  • Well 412 traverses formation 402 and 404 has openings at formation 406 .
  • Portions of formation 414 may be optionally fractured and/or perforated.
  • Gas and liquid may be separated, and gas may be sent to gas storage 416 , and liquid may be sent to liquid storage 418 .
  • Production facility 410 is able to mix, produce and/or store ASP mixture, which may be produced and stored in production/storage 430 .
  • ASP mixture is pumped down well 432 , to portions 434 of formation 406 .
  • ASP mixture traverses formation 406 to aid in the production of oil and gas, and then the ASP mixture, oil and/or gas may all be produced to well 412 , to production facility 410 .
  • ASP mixture may then be recycled, for example by utilizing a oil-water gravity separator, centrifuge, demulsifiers, boiling, condensing, filtering, and other separation methods as are known in the art, then re-injecting the ASP mixture into well 432 .
  • Containment well 450 with injection mechanism 452 and containment well 460 with injection mechanism 462 may be provided to contain ASP mixture between containment well 450 and containment well 460 .
  • Injection mechanisms 452 and 462 may be used to inject a containment agent, for example a refrigerant to create a freeze wall, or a liquid or gas such as water, water mixed with a viscosifier, water mixed with an alkali, water mixed with a surfactant, carbon dioxide, natural gas, other C 1 -C 15 hydrocarbons, nitrogen, or air, or mixtures thereof.
  • a containment agent for example a refrigerant to create a freeze wall, or a liquid or gas such as water, water mixed with a viscosifier, water mixed with an alkali, water mixed with a surfactant, carbon dioxide, natural gas, other C 1 -C 15 hydrocarbons, nitrogen, or air, or mixtures thereof.
  • a quantity of ASP mixture or ASP mixture mixed with other components may be injected into well 432 , followed by another component to force ASP mixture or ASP mixture mixed with other components across formation 406 , for example water in gas or liquid form; water mixed with one or more salts, polymers, alkalis, and/or surfactants; carbon dioxide; other gases; other liquids; and/or mixtures thereof.
  • from about 0.1 to about 2 for example from about 0.25 to about 1 pore volumes of ASP mixture may be injected into well 432 .
  • from about 0.5 to about 10 for example from about 1 to about 5 pore volumes of a polymer-water mixture having a viscosity within about 25%, for example within about 10% of the viscosity of the ASP mixture may be injected into well 432 .
  • from about 1 to about 10 pore volumes of water may be injected into well 432 .
  • well 412 which is producing oil and/or gas is representative of a well in well group 202
  • well 432 which is being used to inject ASP mixture is representative of a well in well group 204 .
  • well 412 which is producing oil and/or gas is representative of a well in well group 204
  • well 432 which is being used to inject ASP mixture is representative of a well in well group 202 .
  • FIG. 4
  • Process 500 includes determining the optimum salinity for the surfactant 502 , determining the optimum salinity for the soap 504 , determining the viscosity of the mixture due to the added polymer 506 , creating a model for the ASP flood including formation, chemical, and oil properties 508 , correlating the model with known data 510 , and designing the ASP flood using the model 512 . Further details of each of the steps will be set forth below.
  • the ASP process is a combination of two earlier chemical flooding techniques: the surfactant-polymer flood and the alkaline flood.
  • the task of the chemicals injected in these processes is two-fold: firstly, to reduce the interfacial tension between oil and water in order to liberate oil trapped by capillary forces; and secondly, to stabilise the displacement, when necessary, by increasing the water viscosity through the addition of a polymer.
  • the reduction of the interfacial tension is achieved by the injected surfactant.
  • the alkali e.g. NaOH or Na2CO3
  • raises the pH of the brine which, in turn, leads to a saponification of crude-borne oleic acids to generate a natural surfactant in-situ, commonly referred to as “soap.”
  • the injected surfactant in the following referred to in short as “the surfactant”
  • the in-situ generated surfactant referred to as “the soap”
  • the surfactant and the soap are chemically rather different, they share the general property that their interfacial activity depends on the environment, for example on salinity. At otherwise constant external conditions, there exists an optimum brine salinity at which the surfactant or the soap reduce the oil-water interfacial tension most strongly.
  • the reduction of interfacial tension is less.
  • the surfactant and the soap partition favourably into the brine phase; in the over-optimum regime they partition favourably into the oil phase; only near their respective optimum salinities are they able to generate a third, separate “micro-emulsion” phase that exhibits very low interfacial tensions with both the water and the oil phases.
  • the optimum salinity is surfactant-specific; the optimum salinity of soap is generally significantly lower than that of typical injected surfactants
  • the ASP mixture may be designed such that the optimum salinity of the chemical slug is at or close to the actual brine salinity of the injected water in order to achieve a low oil-water interfacial tension.
  • a high or a low salinity will cause the surfactant or the soap to be pushed ineffectively to the producing wells (under-optimum case) or to be partitioned into immobile oil, i. e. to be retained, and thus lost (over-optimum case).
  • the ASP mixture may include alkali, surfactant and polymer which are injected together as one slug.
  • the alkali and the surfactant will generally travel at (slightly) different velocities: the surfactant is subject to partitioning into any remaining oil and to matrix adsorption while the alkali is consumed by the saponification, by precipitation of carbonates and possibly by exchange reactions with the matrix.
  • the phase behaviour of the ASP slug is under-optimum or near optimum.
  • the saponification process leads to a reduction of the optimum salinity in the region where soap is generated such that the phase behaviour locally changes to over-optimum.
  • a gradient in optimum salinity from over-optimum at the front of the chemical slug to (under-)optimum at the rear of the chemical slug establishes which serves to confine the chemical slug and limit dispersive dilution.
  • This inherent gradient can be progressed through the reservoir, moving, in principle, an optimally interfacially active zone though the reservoir which leaves no oil behind.
  • test tubes In order to determine the chemical phase behavior of a surfactant, an array of samples with different concentrations of alkali and sodium chloride, for example test tubes may be used.
  • the test tubes which generate a separate emulsion phase may be inferred to be at or near the optimum salinity such that the interfacial tension reduction is at a maximum.
  • the soap is a reactive product of alkali or, more specifically, hydroxide with oleic acid. As such, the amount of soap generated is dependent on the amount of alkali added to the brine.
  • HA o represents the oil-borne acids and A ⁇ represents the soap. Since HA o +OH ⁇ reside in oil and water, respectively, the latter reaction is understood to occur at the interface between oil and water.
  • TAN total acid number
  • samples with varying salinities may have a given volume of polymer added to them, and then the viscosity of the samples determined.
  • increasing salinity leads to a lower viscosity, while an increased volume of polymer leads to a higher viscosity.
  • the mobility ratio of the ASP mixture is matched to the oil in the formation.
  • the mobility ratio of the ASP mixture and of the oil is a function of the viscosity. Therefore, polymer is added to the ASP mixture until the viscosity of the mixture is similar to that of the oil.
  • the ASP mixture has a viscosity value within 50% of the viscosity value of the oil, for example within 20%, or within 10%.
  • the model is a two-phase (water and oil) multi-component (surfactant, acid, soap, polymer, aqueous chemistry) description of the ASP process including brine chemistry, compositionally dependent partitioning of the chemicals, adsorption and viscosity modification.
  • the model contains two liquid phases (water and oil) over which it partitions the surfactant and the soap depending on the ratio of salinity versus optimum salinity, and one stationary solid phase.
  • Both the surfactant and the soap are allowed to partition over water and oil as a function of the local chemical concentrations (phase composition). This partitioning determines the flow of the surfactant and the soap. Underlying the partitioning model is the qualitative observation that the surfactant and the soap partition strongly into either water or oil as the local composition is under-optimum or over-optimum, respectively. At optimum salinity, however, surfactant and soap partition into both water and oil in equal parts. Since an ASP flood may be over-optimum ahead of the surfactant bank and under-optimum inside the bank, the exact nature of the partitioning coefficient may be less relevant.
  • An interfacial tension correlation is provided in the model. This correlation assumes that a user-defined minimum interfacial tension is obtained at optimum salinity. Moreover, at a high ratio of soap to surfactant concentration, a minimum interfacial tension due to the soap is established. Finally, minimum interfacial tension can only be achieved if the total surfactant concentration (i.e. the sum of the surfactant and soap concentrations) is at or above the critical micelle concentration. As the total concentration of soap and surfactant is reduced, the interfacial tension gradually approaches the unmodified oil-water value.
  • the model has a viscosity model taking into account viscosity dependence on polymer mass fraction in water and on effective salinity.
  • the extent of saponification depends on the local concentration of alkali. Therefore, tracking this as well as the concentrations of acid and other components that affect the soap generation is a feature of the ASP model.
  • the number of reactants may be kept as small as possible in order not to inflate simulation time, involving the saponification equations set forth above.
  • the complexity of an ASP flood and of the ASP model alongside with the necessary simplifications of the model require a validation of the forecasts generated by the model.
  • detailed one-dimensional simulations may be carried out and the resulting chemical and production profiles compared to other models or other known data.
  • experimental ASP core flood data may be history matched in order to correlate the model with the data generated by the core-floods.
  • the model may then be further improved by using field trial and commercial scale data obtained from a reservoir.
  • the model may be used to determine the components for an ASP mixture. Given the complexity of the number of parameters and the complex chemistry, one suitable starting point would be a previously used ASP mixture chemistry, or to use the optimum mixture chemistry determined from the laboratory experiments discussed above. From there, the salinity of the mixture can be varied, as well as the concentration of surfactant, the concentration of polymer, and the concentration of alkali can be varied. The model may require further calibration with the use of additional lab tests and experiments in order to properly model varied salinity, surfactant concentration, polymer concentration, and/or alkali concentration.
  • a sensitivity analysis for the surfactant concentration may be completed first to achieve the optimum surfactant concentration, followed by the same analysis for the alkali, then the polymer.
  • the order is not critical.
  • the incremental oil recovery is compared to the cost of the chemicals to come up with the optimum mixture.
  • oil and/or gas produced may be transported to a refinery and/or a treatment facility.
  • the oil and/or gas may be processed to produce commercial products such as transportation fuels such as gasoline and diesel, heating fuel, lubricants, chemicals, and/or polymers.
  • Processing may include distilling and/or fractionally distilling the oil and/or gas to produce one or more distillate fractions.
  • the oil and/or gas, and/or the one or more distillate fractions may be subjected to a process of one or more of the following: catalytic cracking, hydrocracking, hydrotreating, coking, thermal cracking, distilling, reforming, polymerization, isomerization, alkylation, blending, and dewaxing.
  • a suite of laboratory experiments is required to quantify the behaviour of an ASP formulation. Initially, the phase behaviour of the surfactant mixture and the polymer viscosity behaviour are analysed independently. Thereafter, the two are combined in a core-flood experiment to study oil recovery for a given combination, and to calibrate a flow simulation for subsequent forecasting.
  • the surfactant mixture may be considered as consisting of two independent species: the manufactured injected surfactant and the in-situ generated petroleum soaps. Although these two are, in principle, of rather different molecular structure, they share the ability to reduce the interfacial tension between crude oil and brine, albeit at different brine salinities, all other thermodynamic properties assuming to be determined by the reservoir.
  • the salinity at which a given surfactant achieves the lowest interfacial tension is referred to as its optimum salinity.
  • a low interfacial tension promotes the generation of an oil-brine emulsion phase, which, in turn, may be used as evidence for the achievement of optimum salinity.
  • the partitioning of a surfactant between the oil, brine and emulsion phases depends on salinity: at optimum salinity the surfactant partitions into the emulsion phase; at a salinity lower than the optimum salinity (under-optimum case) the surfactant partitions predominantly into brine; at a salinity higher than the optimum salinity (over-optimum case) the surfactant partitions predominantly into oil.
  • Petroleum soaps originate from naturally occurring petroleum acids, which are saponified by raising the alkalinity of the brine (pH) through the addition of an alkali, such as sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate. As such, however, the intentional saponification comes jointly with an unintentional rise in salinity (sodium concentration) with a possibility of rendering the environment for the generated petroleum soaps over-optimum, i.e. less effective in reducing oil-water interfacial tension. This interdependence means that plain alkali floods can be difficult to control.
  • Manufactured surfactants can be tailored to a desired optimum salinity. Originating from industrial chemical synthesis, these molecules are, however, significantly more costly than petroleum soaps which come at the cost of the injected alkali only. Moreover, a dominant loss mechanism for manufactured surfactants is adsorption to the reservoir rock.
  • the optimum salinity behaviour of the petroleum soaps alone can be determined by test tube experiments where oil and brine are combined in different ratios, and where alkali is subsequently added in varying concentrations.
  • One such set of test tubes is displayed in FIG. 5 from which the optimum salinity of the petroleum soaps of the particular crude can be inferred to be about 0.22 mol/l Na + .
  • An independent but similar analysis for a manufactured surfactant mixture selected for this particular crude resulted in a value of 0.76 mol/l Na + .
  • Reference source not found. shows an alkali scan using oil and brine at a volume ratio of 50/50. The brine contains 0.3 wt. % of the manufactured surfactant mixture.
  • the optimum salinity for the combination of surfactants and petroleum soaps can be inferred to be 0.31 mol/l Na + , i.e. in-between the individual values of the petroleum soaps and the manufactured surfactant mixture.
  • an ASP formulation is tested in core flood experiments to prove its ability to liberate and mobilise remaining oil. These experiments provide information about the adsorption characteristics of the chemical components as well as the displacement stability of the (internal) polymer drive.
  • Error! Reference source not found. through Error! Reference source not found. show experimental data of a core flood carried out on a 30 cm long outcrop sandstone core with a diameter of 5 cm.
  • the flooding sequence in this experiment was as follows: a 2.2 PV waterflood; a 0.3 PV ASP flood; a 2.6 PV polymer drive.
  • the ASP formulation consisted of 0.3 wt. % manufactured surfactant, 1 wt. % Na 2 CO 3 , and a 27 mPa.s polymer solution.
  • the polymer drive also had a viscosity of 27 mPa.s.
  • the effluent surfactant concentration (Error! Reference source not found. 9) allows determining the adsorption characteristics of the surfactant by way of its breakthrough time. For the present case, a maximum adsorption as low as 2 ⁇ g (amount of surfactant per amount of porous medium) was found, representative for the very clean outcrop core.
  • the simulation model does not reproduce the magnitude of the experimentally determined effluent surfactant concentration. This is likely owing to the fact that only water-borne surfactant was measured whereas the larger fraction of the surfactant was expected to be produced in the emulsion or oil phase. Our simulation, however, does not model the emulsion phase but uses a simplified phase behaviour:
  • the optimum salinity (cf. Error! Reference source not found. 11) is calculated from a thermodynamic mixing rule as
  • SWCT Single-Well Chemical Tracer tests
  • each concentration profile exhibits a single maximum.
  • the separation between the maxima of the two profiles relates to the remaining oil saturation through an explicit analytical formula. Deviations from this ideal situation can be caused, for example, by poor well integrity, or by any subsurface rearrangement, during the shut-in period, of the chemical slug, such as well-bore cross-flow or fluid drift.
  • the selection criteria for a well undergoing an SWCT include, therefore, good well integrity as well as a short, single-zone perforation interval and a safe distance from active wells to avoid any interference.
  • Error! Reference source not found 13 shows the reservoir description log of a well in a PDO sandstone reservoir that was tested by an SWCT. Like most other candidate wells taken into consideration in this field, the selected well features a 30 m wire-wrapped screen completion interval that accesses more than one reservoir. Pressure and rate data as well as the effluent tracer concentration profiles recorded during the SWCT are displayed in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found., respectively. Error! Reference source not found.
  • FIG. 13 shows the individual flow periods during the SWCT: a 3000 m 3 water-flood followed by a short perforation clean-out production; a 30 m 3 chemical tracer slug containing 1 wt.% ethyl formate (EtF) as the injected tracer chemical as well as 0.5 wt. % normal propyl alcohol (NPA) to earmark this slug; a 120 m 3 water slug driving the chemical out to 3 m from the well-bore; a two day shut-in period during which EtF partially hydrolyses to from ethanol (EtOH); a 1.2 day back-production period.
  • EtF ethyl formate
  • NPA normal propyl alcohol
  • the cross-flow required to achieve the match displayed in Error! Reference source not found. amounts to about 10 m 3 out of the 6.5 m thick layer, and 4 m 3 out of the thick 5.0 m layer, both into the top-most 13.5 m thick layer (cf. caption of Error! Reference source not found.).
  • the second well received a smaller ASP slug (44 m 3 ) followed by a polymer drive (131 m 3 ), a short tapered polymer drive (20 m 3 ) and, finally, a long water drive (830 m 3 ).
  • a polymer drive 131 m 3
  • a short tapered polymer drive 20 m 3
  • a long water drive 830 m 3
  • the base-line SWCT for this second well resulted in a similar remaining oil saturation (25%) as the first well
  • the final SWCT was interpreted to yield an oil saturation of 23%.
  • this apparent lack of desaturation was unexpected from the experimental core flood results.
  • the Single-Well Chemical Tracer test series provided evidence for the subsurface desaturation efficiency of the selected ASP formulations it cannot, by design, verify the robustness of the ASP process in a typical flooding application: the stability of the chemicals in the subsurface throughout the duration of a pattern flood; the formation of an oil bank and the stable displacement thereof; the susceptibility to reservoir heterogeneity; the maximum sustainable injection rate of an ASP slug and a polymer drive without uncontrolled fracturing of the reservoir; the commercially optimal volume of these slugs.
  • the main criteria for this work are: the maximisation of data acquisition, such as injectivity, desaturation and recovery factor; the robustness against well or equipment failure; the quantification and mitigation of emulsion and scale formation; a representative geological setting; a feasible pilot duration.
  • Identified risks include the contamination of near-by production wells with ASP chemicals as well as uncontrolled fracturing.
  • an inverted five-spot pattern (one central injector surrounded by four corner producers) with an edge length of the order of 75 m ⁇ 75 m is considered the best compromise. Moreover, if desired, this pattern allows an extension of the pilot toward a larger pattern size by converting the corner producers into injectors and drilling four new corner producers at a larger distance surrounding the original pilot pattern.
  • ASP forecast simulations have been carried out starting from a current “history-matched” fine-gridded field model. The injection and production rate results are displayed in Error! Reference source not found. 16 while the expected effluent concentration profiles are shown in Error! Reference source not found.
  • a method producing oil and/or gas from an underground formation comprising locating a suitable reservoir in a subsurface formation; creating a model of the reservoir; populating the model with laboratory data; modeling the reservoir to determine fluid displacements based on fluids injected and fluids produced; determining an optimum fluid mixture for the fluids to be injected based on a series of sensitivity analyses performed with the model; drilling a first well in the formation; injecting the optimum fluid mixture into the first well; drilling a second well in the formation; and producing oil and/or gas from the second well.
  • the first well is at a distance of 25 meters to 1 kilometer from the second well.
  • the optimum fluid mixture comprises water, a surfactant, a polymer, and an alkali.
  • the method also includes a mechanism for injecting a water based mixture into the formation, after the optimum fluid mixture has been released into the formation.
  • populating the model with laboratory data further comprises determining an optimum salinity of a surfactant in the optimum fluid mixture.
  • populating the model with laboratory data further comprises determining an optimum salinity of a soap formed by a reaction of an alkali in the optimum fluid mixture with the oil in the formation.
  • drilling a first well further comprises drilling a first array of wells comprising from 5 to 500 wells
  • drilling a second well further comprises drilling a second array of wells comprising from 5 to 500 wells.
  • populating the model with laboratory data further comprises determining a viscosity of the optimum fluid mixture based on a volume of polymer added to the mixture.
  • the method also includes mixing the optimum fluid mixture prior to injecting the mixture.
  • the underground formation comprises an oil having a viscosity from 0.5 to 250 centipoise, prior to the injection of the optimum fluid mixture.
  • the first well comprises a ASP mixture profile in the formation
  • the second well comprises an oil recovery profile in the formation
  • the method further comprising an overlap between the ASP mixture profile and the oil recovery profile.
  • populating the model with laboratory data further comprises performing a core flood experiment with a core sample from the formation comprising oil from the formation.
  • performing the series of sensitivity analyses with the model comprises modifying each ingredient in the mixture and determining an optimum value for each said ingredients.
  • the oil in the formation comprises a first viscosity
  • the optimum fluid mixture comprises a second viscosity
  • the first viscosity is within 75 centipoise of the second viscosity.
  • the oil in the formation comprises a first viscosity
  • the optimum fluid mixture comprises a second viscosity
  • the second viscosity is from about 25% to about 200% of the first viscosity.
  • the second well produces the optimum fluid mixture, and oil and/or gas.
  • the method also includes recovering the optimum fluid mixture from the oil and/or gas, if present, and then optionally re-injecting at least a portion of the recovered optimum fluid mixture into the formation.
  • the optimum fluid mixture is injected at a pressure from 0 to 37,000 kilopascals above the initial reservoir pressure, measured prior to when injection begins.
  • the underground formation comprises a permeability from 0.0001 to 15 Darcies, for example a permeability from 0.001 to 1 Darcy.
  • the method also includes converting at least a portion of the recovered oil and/or gas into a material selected from the group consisting of transportation fuels such as gasoline and diesel, heating fuel, lubricants, chemicals, and/or polymers.

Landscapes

  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Geology (AREA)
  • Mining & Mineral Resources (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Environmental & Geological Engineering (AREA)
  • Fluid Mechanics (AREA)
  • General Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Geochemistry & Mineralogy (AREA)
  • Physical Or Chemical Processes And Apparatus (AREA)
  • Production Of Liquid Hydrocarbon Mixture For Refining Petroleum (AREA)
  • Lubricants (AREA)
US13/522,595 2010-01-20 2011-01-18 Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas Abandoned US20120292025A1 (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US13/522,595 US20120292025A1 (en) 2010-01-20 2011-01-18 Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas

Applications Claiming Priority (3)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US29667710P 2010-01-20 2010-01-20
US13/522,595 US20120292025A1 (en) 2010-01-20 2011-01-18 Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas
PCT/US2011/021493 WO2011090921A1 (en) 2010-01-20 2011-01-18 Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
US20120292025A1 true US20120292025A1 (en) 2012-11-22

Family

ID=44307153

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US13/522,595 Abandoned US20120292025A1 (en) 2010-01-20 2011-01-18 Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas

Country Status (5)

Country Link
US (1) US20120292025A1 (ru)
CN (1) CN102763118B (ru)
CA (1) CA2784910A1 (ru)
RU (1) RU2012135549A (ru)
WO (1) WO2011090921A1 (ru)

Cited By (13)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20130126158A1 (en) * 2011-11-22 2013-05-23 Baker Hughes Incorporated Method of using controlled release tracers
US20140053637A1 (en) * 2011-04-11 2014-02-27 Bernard Quillien Device for measuring and controlling on-line viscosity at high pressure
CN103939078A (zh) * 2014-03-27 2014-07-23 上海井拓石油开发技术有限公司 等流度驱油与压裂一体化技术
WO2014151289A1 (en) * 2013-03-15 2014-09-25 Meadwestvaco Corporation Method and composition for enhanced oil recovery using phosphorus-tagged surfactants
WO2014151284A1 (en) * 2013-03-15 2014-09-25 Meadwestvaco Corporation Method and composition for hydraulic fracturing
CN108266182A (zh) * 2016-12-30 2018-07-10 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 水平井分段压裂的裂缝布缝模式的选择方法和装置
US20190094199A1 (en) * 2017-09-22 2019-03-28 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Method for reducing unphysical solutions in chemical enhanced oil recovery simulations
US10641083B2 (en) 2016-06-02 2020-05-05 Baker Hughes, A Ge Company, Llc Method of monitoring fluid flow from a reservoir using well treatment agents
US10815416B2 (en) * 2018-04-09 2020-10-27 Alchemy Sciences, Inc. Multi-functional surfactant solution for improving hydrocarbon recovery
US10961444B1 (en) 2019-11-01 2021-03-30 Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Llc Method of using coated composites containing delayed release agent in a well treatment operation
US11254861B2 (en) 2017-07-13 2022-02-22 Baker Hughes Holdings Llc Delivery system for oil-soluble well treatment agents and methods of using the same
US11254850B2 (en) 2017-11-03 2022-02-22 Baker Hughes Holdings Llc Treatment methods using aqueous fluids containing oil-soluble treatment agents
US20220254455A1 (en) * 2021-02-11 2022-08-11 Saudi Arabian Oil Company Utilizing hydraulic simulation to evaluate quality of water in salt water disposal systems

Families Citing this family (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2014113445A1 (en) 2013-01-16 2014-07-24 Shell Oil Company Method, system and composition for producing oil
US20170362493A1 (en) 2014-12-15 2017-12-21 Shell Oil Company Process and composition for alkaline surfactant polymer flooding
US11434758B2 (en) * 2020-05-17 2022-09-06 North Oil Company Method of assessing an oil recovery process

Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7426460B2 (en) * 2003-01-16 2008-09-16 Institut Francais Du Petrole Method for determining zones in a stratified medium where the interface between a fluid in place in the medium and a flushing fluid moves in a stationary manner
US20090188669A1 (en) * 2007-10-31 2009-07-30 Steffen Berg Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas

Family Cites Families (8)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4613631A (en) * 1985-05-24 1986-09-23 Mobil Oil Corporation Crosslinked polymers for enhanced oil recovery
US5068043A (en) * 1985-11-12 1991-11-26 Shell Oil Company Preformed surfactant-optimized aqueous alkaline flood
US6022834A (en) * 1996-05-24 2000-02-08 Oil Chem Technologies, Inc. Alkaline surfactant polymer flooding composition and process
US6980940B1 (en) * 2000-02-22 2005-12-27 Schlumberger Technology Corp. Intergrated reservoir optimization
US8215392B2 (en) * 2005-04-08 2012-07-10 Board Of Supervisors Of Louisiana State University And Agricultural And Mechanical College Gas-assisted gravity drainage (GAGD) process for improved oil recovery
US7588081B2 (en) * 2006-05-17 2009-09-15 Schlumberger Technology Corporation Method of modifying permeability between injection and production wells
US20090194276A1 (en) * 2008-01-31 2009-08-06 Total E&P Usa, Inc. Determination of an actual optimum salinity and an actual optimum type of microemulsion for surfactant/polymer flooding
US8214186B2 (en) * 2008-02-04 2012-07-03 Schlumberger Technology Corporation Oilfield emulator

Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7426460B2 (en) * 2003-01-16 2008-09-16 Institut Francais Du Petrole Method for determining zones in a stratified medium where the interface between a fluid in place in the medium and a flushing fluid moves in a stationary manner
US20090188669A1 (en) * 2007-10-31 2009-07-30 Steffen Berg Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas

Cited By (19)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20140053637A1 (en) * 2011-04-11 2014-02-27 Bernard Quillien Device for measuring and controlling on-line viscosity at high pressure
US10551290B2 (en) * 2011-04-11 2020-02-04 S.P.C.M. Sa Device for measuring and controlling on-line viscosity at high pressure
US10989040B2 (en) * 2011-11-22 2021-04-27 Baker Hughes, LLC Method of using controlled release tracers
US9874080B2 (en) * 2011-11-22 2018-01-23 Baker Hughes, A Ge Company, Llc Method of using controlled release tracers
US20180135403A1 (en) * 2011-11-22 2018-05-17 Baker Hughes, A Ge Company, Llc Method of using controlled release tracers
US20130126158A1 (en) * 2011-11-22 2013-05-23 Baker Hughes Incorporated Method of using controlled release tracers
WO2014151289A1 (en) * 2013-03-15 2014-09-25 Meadwestvaco Corporation Method and composition for enhanced oil recovery using phosphorus-tagged surfactants
WO2014151284A1 (en) * 2013-03-15 2014-09-25 Meadwestvaco Corporation Method and composition for hydraulic fracturing
CN103939078A (zh) * 2014-03-27 2014-07-23 上海井拓石油开发技术有限公司 等流度驱油与压裂一体化技术
US10641083B2 (en) 2016-06-02 2020-05-05 Baker Hughes, A Ge Company, Llc Method of monitoring fluid flow from a reservoir using well treatment agents
CN108266182A (zh) * 2016-12-30 2018-07-10 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 水平井分段压裂的裂缝布缝模式的选择方法和装置
US11254861B2 (en) 2017-07-13 2022-02-22 Baker Hughes Holdings Llc Delivery system for oil-soluble well treatment agents and methods of using the same
US20190094199A1 (en) * 2017-09-22 2019-03-28 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Method for reducing unphysical solutions in chemical enhanced oil recovery simulations
US11567058B2 (en) * 2017-09-22 2023-01-31 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Process for optimized chemical enhanced recovery
US11254850B2 (en) 2017-11-03 2022-02-22 Baker Hughes Holdings Llc Treatment methods using aqueous fluids containing oil-soluble treatment agents
US11236265B2 (en) * 2018-04-09 2022-02-01 Alchemy Sciences, Inc. Multi-functional surfactant solution for improving hydrocarbon recovery
US10815416B2 (en) * 2018-04-09 2020-10-27 Alchemy Sciences, Inc. Multi-functional surfactant solution for improving hydrocarbon recovery
US10961444B1 (en) 2019-11-01 2021-03-30 Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Llc Method of using coated composites containing delayed release agent in a well treatment operation
US20220254455A1 (en) * 2021-02-11 2022-08-11 Saudi Arabian Oil Company Utilizing hydraulic simulation to evaluate quality of water in salt water disposal systems

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
WO2011090921A1 (en) 2011-07-28
CN102763118A (zh) 2012-10-31
CA2784910A1 (en) 2011-07-28
RU2012135549A (ru) 2014-02-27
CN102763118B (zh) 2015-02-11

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US20120292025A1 (en) Systems and methods for producing oil and/or gas
Rogers et al. A literature analysis of the WAG injectivity abnormalities in the CO2 process
US8215392B2 (en) Gas-assisted gravity drainage (GAGD) process for improved oil recovery
Stoll et al. Alkaline/surfactant/polymer flood: From the laboratory to the field
Verma Fundamentals of carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery (CO 2-EOR): a supporting document of the assessment methodology for hydrocarbon recovery using CO 2-EOR associated with carbon sequestration
Dang et al. Modeling and optimization of alkaline-surfactant-polymer flooding and hybrid enhanced oil recovery processes
CA2672487C (en) Preconditioning an oilfield reservoir
EP2812409B1 (en) Enhanced oil recovery process using low salinity water
Gogarty Status of surfactant or micellar methods
Karpan et al. West Salym ASP pilot: Project front-end engineering
Sheng Surfactant–polymer flooding
Guo et al. Microscopic transport and phase behaviors of CO2 injection in heterogeneous formations using microfluidics
Al-Amrie et al. The first successful chemical EOR pilot in the UAE: One spot pilot in high temperature, high salinity carbonate reservoir
Matthews Carbon dioxide flooding
Kulkarni Multiphase mechanisms and fluid dynamics in gas injection enhanced oil recovery processes
Mwangi An experimental study of surfactant enhanced waterflooding
Ataceri et al. Surfactant Enhanced Oil Recovery Improves Oil Recovery in a Depleted Eagle Ford Unconventional Well: A Case Study
Han Optimum Water-Alternating-Gas (CO 2-WAG) Injection in the Bakken Formation
Khanifar et al. Maximizing oil recovery using a chemical application in offshore environment-case study
Dindoruk et al. Gas flooding: Gas Enhanced Oil Recovery (G-EOR) to CO2 sequestration
Davoodi et al. Carbon dioxide sequestration through enhanced oil recovery: A review of storage mechanisms and technological applications
Alcorn et al. Upscaling CO2 Foam for EOR as CCUS from On-To Offshore
Panahov et al. Control of capillary instability under hydrodynamic impact on the reservoir
Zakaria et al. An Integrated Approach in Designing an Optimum Single Well Chemical Tracer Test of Hardness Tolerance Surfactant-Polymer, First in Offshore Malaysia
US20220049589A1 (en) Method of deploying carbon dioxide foam flooding in an oil reservoir

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AS Assignment

Owner name: SHELL OIL COMPANY, TEXAS

Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:STOLL, WERNER MARTIN;REEL/FRAME:028567/0093

Effective date: 20111022

STCB Information on status: application discontinuation

Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO PAY ISSUE FEE