FINAL REPORT

Fractional Flow Analysis for Chemical Flooding

in Enhanced Oil Recovery

NAME: JIN JIANG PHUAH

ID NO: 12173
SUPERVISOR: DR.WILLIAM PAO
COORDINATOR: DR. MASDI

i
Table of Content

1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...1
1.1 Background of Study……………………………….…………………………………1
1.2 Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………….2
1.3 Significance of Project………………………………………………………………...2
1.4 Objective………………………………………………………………………………2
1.5 Scope of Study………………………………………………………………………...3
1.6 Relevance of Study………………………………………………………………...….3

2 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………..…4

3 Theory………………………………………………………………………………………..10
3.1 Surfactant Retention………………………………………………………………....10
3.2 Target Oil Calculation………………………………………………………………..11
3.3 Oil Recovery Efficiency……………………………………………………………..11
3.4 Linear Displacement Efficiency………………………………………………..……12
3.5 Vertical Sweep Efficiency…………………………………………………………...12
3.6 Polymer Sweep Efficiency…………………………………………………………...13
3.7 Oil Production Curve……………………………………………………………..….13
3.8 Chemical Injection Schedule………………………………………………………...16

4 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………....17
4.1 Project Flow Chart…………………………………………………………………...17
4.2 Screening Program Flowchart…………………………………………………….….18
4.3 Gantt Chart…………………………………………………………………………...19
4.4 Key Milestones…………………………………………………………………...….19

5 Model Verification and Discussion.........................................................................................20

6 Results......................................................................................................................................23

7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………...31

References………………………………………………………………………………………..32

ii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Functioning mechanism of conventional water flooding………………………..……...1

Figure 3: Curve of recovery efficiency versus target oil…………………………………….......13

Figure 3.1: Fractional flow diagram……………………………………………………………..14

Figure 4: Project execution methodology.……...………..…………………………………...…17

Figure 4.1: Program execution flow.……………..…………………………………………...…18

Figure 5: Sloss field test, Nebraska………………………………………………………………20

Figure 5.1: Big Muddy pilot, Wyoming…………………………………………………………21

Figure 5.2: 219-R project, La Selle anticline, Illinois……………………………………………21

Figure 6: Oil relative permeability vs. water relative permeability……………………………...24

Figure 6.1: Fractional flow of water……………………………………………………………..24

Figure 6.2: Derivatives of fractional flow over saturation of water……………………………..25

Figure 6.3: Oil and gas production rates…………………………………………………………25

Figure 6.4: Cumulative oil and gas production…………………………………………………..26

Figure 6.5: Oil and gas production rates…………………………………………………………26

Figure 6.6: Cumulative water production………………………………………………………..27

Figure 6.7: Loading interface of chemical flooding predictive module…………………………27

Figure 6.8: Well data input……………………………………………………………………....28

Figure 6.9: Relative permeability curves………………………………………………………...29

Figure 6.10: Calculated analysis summary………………………………………………………30

Figure 6.11: Calculated production rates………………………………………………………...31

iii
List of Tables

Table 2: Tabulated list of literature reviews from 1954 to 2011………………………………….9

Table 4: Gantt chart………………………………………………………………………..…….19

Table 6: List of Generated Results………………………………………………………………23

iv
Abstract

The context of this project is focused on analyzing how fractional flow governs efficiency in
enhanced oil recovery and behavior of a reservoir upon chemical flooding. The study of the
project is pursued mainly in the sense of manipulation of capillary number; mobility ratio and
conformance which is further extrapolated through the calculation of target oil, rate and capillary
number, surfactant retention, oil recovery algorithms and production functions. End results of
this project are presented with graphical user interface, GUI that provides an efficient screening
method of reservoir potentiality and recovery efficiency. Finally, the project is concluded with a
detailed list of analysis summary which includes reservoir recovery efficiency as well as
cumulative gas, oil and water produced from the reservoir.

v
1 Introduction

1.1 Background of Study

Conventional water flooding includes injection of water in high pressure making pressure within
targeted zone rises which later displaces the oil. However water has low viscosity, which causes
fingering effect. Pressure front of water divides as a direct result of fingering effect and hence
reduces oil recovery efficiency.

In chemical flooding, polymer/chemical is added to water which raises the viscosity of the
flooding medium. Flooding agent later forces oil out as a single pressure front hence increasing
oil recovery efficiency.

Contemporary primary and secondary recovery technique can only recover 30% - 50 % of
original hydrocarbon in place while tertiary recovery technique can generally recover up to
another 35% of hydrocarbon. Chemical flooding is among one of the popular tertiary recovery
techniques in enhanced oil recovery, EOR. It involves injection of chemical, surfactant, polymer
or alkaline agents into reservoir to increase oil production when secondary recovery process i.e.
conventional water flooding is no longer effective.

1
 Figure 1: Overview of 5-spot injection process into a reservoir.

The functioning mechanism of chemical flooding can be simplified and broken down into 3
factors:

i) Increasing the capillary number mainly by making the interfacial tension (IFT)
between the displacing and the displaced phases small to mobilize residual oil.
ii) Decreasing mobility ratio hence making the mobility of the displacing flood less than
or equal to the mobility of the displaced fluid for better sweep efficiency and
improving conformance in heterogeneous reservoirs for better sweep efficiency.
iii) Formation of macro and micro-emulsions to improve the mobility ratio through drop
entrainment and entrapment.

Other factors such as formation of precipitates, wettability changes, relative permeability shifts
surfactant adsorption occurs on the rock surface and changing rock wettability are also taken into
consideration

Alkaline flood or caustic-waterflood is generally an extension of chemical flooding concept. It

functions by letting sodium hydroxide reacts with naturally occurring acids in crude oil to
produce ‘soaps’. As a result of neutralization, altered mobility causes the lowering of interfacial
tension between fluids. Wettability changes due to emulsification and entrainment and
emulsification with entrapment also promotes fluid mobility and ultimately oil recovery.

1.2 Problem Statement

Despite many works on modeling of chemical flood, they seem to lack a method that is easily
accessible and understandable by all to conduct enhanced oil recovery screening. There is also
one too many selections of approaches in the modeling and screening of chemical flood. Varying
parameters are also focused on different studies.

1.3 Significance of Project

The creation of this project would greatly simplify the task of conducting a reservoirs’ chemical
flooding enhanced oil recovery calculation apart from providing an In-situ holistic overview.
Engineers would be able to decide on further actions taken unto the reservoir based on the data
generated from the project.

1.4 Objectives

The main objective of this study is a direct solution to the problem statement of this study.

i) Study the functioning mechanism of chemical flooding.

ii) Selection, compilation and enhancement of previous model to formulate a simplified
chemical flood model based on (Paul et al, 1982) for rapid evaluation and screening
for in chemical flooding.
2
 iii) Translate the simplified model into an integrated toolkit with graphical user interface
that interpret the data input and perform the solution and post-process retrieval.

1.5 Scope of Study

The project covers the scope of reservoir engineering, in particular the fractional flow theory,
chemical flood model and its implementation. Developer’s skills are needed as well from theory,
development and deployment cycle to commence software architecture, and GUI engineering.

1.6 Relevance of Study

The project can be directly related to the current major the candidate is pursuing in term of
Drilling and Production Technology as well as Petroleum Exploration and it relates back to the
programming course that have been previously undertaken. Candidate’s tasks are then taken a
step further as the project incorporates theoretical studies with real time software
implementation.

3
2 Literature Review

The project presents an analytical approach in reservoir screening through the application of
various mathematical equations that are used in previous studies and predictive model. It also
includes a study of an existing predictive model based on a study presented by Paul and Lake et
al, (1982).

Predictive models have been used in literature as a fast way to forecast the EOR processes
(Paton, (1969); Paul (1982) and (1984); Giordano, (1987); Lake, (1978); Sayarpour, (2008))
Each EOR process is modeled analytically to include different features of the process. Many ha d
tried to develop analytical models to forecast EOR performance such as production rates,
recovery efficiency and economic evaluation to identify reservoir potentiality for desired EOR
method.

Patton, (1971) presented an analytical model to predict polymer flood performance (incremental
oil recovery) which also provides quick estimate of additional oil recovery by polymer flood.
Paul and Lake et al., (1982) developed a predictive model to forecast the chemical flood EOR
performance which was used by the Department of Energy for identifying candidate reservoirs
for chemical flooding. The model predicts recovery efficiency and oil rate as functions of
relevant reservoir and fluid properties.

There are several steps in evaluating EOR methods for field application such as binary screening,
forecasting, numerical simulation, pilot and field EOR deployment.

In binary screening, reservoirs are selected on the basis of reservoir average rock and fluid
properties. Binary screenings are found to be more consulted for initial determination of EOR
applicability. The challenge present in the sense that quick quantitative comparisons and
performance predictions of selected EOR processes that are performed in forecasting step of
EOR studies are more important and complicated than EOR screening.

In EOR forecasting, we look for ways to get quick and robust quantitative results of the
performance of different EOR processes before detailed numerical simulations of the reservoirs
under study. This is necessary in screening the potential reservoirs for EOR processes because it
is neither possible nor logical to do a detailed engineering study on all of the EOR candidate
reservoirs. To reach to these goals we need fast forecasting of the performance of different EOR
methods using analytical models that include the relevant aspects of the process and also show
the relative advantages of various design scenarios. It is equally important that the models be as
alike as possible lest any differences in results be caused by differences in the model rather than
differences in the processes.

As mentioned above, a big part of this project is subjected under the influence of the works of
Paul and Lake et al, (1982). The final outcome of the project is based on understanding of Paul

4
and Lake et al works and further cross referencing with the works of others to design a screening
method that encompass vital factors and parameters.

Numerous works on modeling of chemical flooding have been conducted and in the case of this
project, studies incorporate works that ranges from 1978 to 2011. Studies concluded that they are
more than one approach in modeling a predictive model for chemical flood. Careful
considerations are necessary to ensure parameters incorporated compliments one another.

Larson et al, (1978) created a model that applies fractional flow theory which analyses the
physical mechanism in work during surfactant flooding. The model is an extension of Buckley-
Leverett analysis to include mass-transfer effect that occurs during chemical flooding. The model
was used to investigate the relationship between system parameters (mobility ratio, partition
coefficient, adsorption) and performance variable (oil cut, chemical breakthrough, recovery
efficiency). The main variables of their model includes adsorption of chemical onto the rock,
partitioning of chemical into oleic phases and swelling of oleic phase with water and chemical.
Their model assumes homogeneous 1-d system, absence of dispersion, equilibrium mass transfer
and constant composition injection (infinite slug). The model predicted that large partition
coefficients and high salinity causes retardation of chemical front velocity and delay of oil
recovery. The model also predicted that through swelling of residual oleic phase with chemical
and water, good recovery could be attained without requiring low value of chemical flood
residual oleic phase saturation if the partition coefficient was low enough to avoid retardation of
chemical front velocity.

Paul et al, (1982) created a simple predictive model for micellar-polymer flooding. An oil
recovery algorithm is developed from theory and the results are depicted in term of numerical
simulation. The model contains correlations factors impacting oil recovery to reservoir and
process data: capillary number (permeability, depth, spacing), heterogeneity (Dykstra-Parsons
coefficient), cross flow (k v/k h), surfactant adsorption (clay fraction) and wettability (relative
permeability). Oil breakthrough, peak oil rate and project life are estimated from oil-water
fractional flow theory, augmented with an effective mobility ratio to represent heterogeneity. The
chemical flood predictive model CFPM was developed for sandstone reservoirs, and only two
technical constraints were used - formation temperature and salinity (total dissolved solids).
Numerical simulation was used to construct and validate the predictive model. The simulations
incorporated, among other things, oil-water-surfactant-salinity dependent equilibrium, three-
phase relative permeability, capillary pressure, and compositional dependent fluid properties and
chemical adsorption.

Their predictive model is governed by five main calculations. They include

- Target Oil Calculation
- Rate and Capillary Number
- Surfactant Retention on Sandstone

5
 - Oil Recovery Algorithms (Displacement Efficiency, Vertical Sweep Efficiency, Mobility
Buffer Sweep Efficiency)
- Production Function (Homogeneous Media, Heterogeneous Media, Correction of Cross
Flow)

Later, Ramakrishnan et al, (1989) created a fractional flow model that is devoted to caustic-
flooding. They incorporated earlier works on fluid-fluid interaction of acidic crude oil caustic
system that take into consideration of chemical reaction equilibrium and interfacial tension, IFT.
Their model takes into consideration of four main variables namely viscosity ratio, reference
capillary number, injected fluid pH and salinity. The paper is aimed at describing chemical
equilibria and evaluating IFT at any given composition. The model is able to identify influences
of optimum region and identifies over-optimum composition when injected. In the paper, the
lowering of IFT is incorporated in identifying oil recovery efficiency assuming water as the
wetting medium for all composition. The reason is lowering of IFT alters viscous to capillary
force ratio and cause partial or complete mobilization of blobs left behind by ordinary water
flooding. In the removal of continuous oil (displacement) as opposed to mobilization of
disconnected blobs, enhancement in capillary number can be more effective in reducing ultimate
amount of oil trapped. The models assumes simplest condition of secondary and tertiary injection
where in secondary the reservoir is only filled with oil and in tertiary only residual oil left by
water exist in the reservoir and no adsorption or reactions are considered. Their study concluded
that low IFT at intermediate normalized injection of sodium concentration values plays a
dominate role in determining oil recovery. As long as viscosity ratio is favorable, dominance of
IFT prevails. Other parameters such as injection pH, salinity and overall velocity have little
influence in determining recovery.

Hou et al, (2007) proposed a different approach: streamline-based model for potentiality
prediction of enhanced oil recovery. Their model is aimed at correcting assumptions and defects
made on previous models. The highlighted concern on previous model includes fixed five-point
pattern that was used in calculation and the impact of well pattern and formation boundary on the
result of the prediction were not considered. At the same time, the mechanisms of diffusion,
chemical consumption and variation of relative permeability were neglected. Due to the feature
of analytical solution, constant component was supposed to be injected continuously when
solving the equations. Errors often occurred in application, especially in the variation tendency
of production with time, which directly affect the results of economic evaluation. The usage of
streamlined method instead of finite difference method for large-scale reservoir simulation has
advantages such as quickness and good convergence. In 1962, Higgins and Leighton proposed
approximate stream-tube simulation method. They illustrated that fixed streamline distribution
can be adopted to calculate performance of five-point waterflooding pattern through the usage of
Buckley-Leverett theory to calculate displacement method. Later Martin and Wegner found that
if mobility ratio varies from 0.1 to 10, result of prediction for areal pattern behavior can satisfy

6
the requirement of engineering calculation with assumption of fixed streamline distribution.
They too approach modeling of chemical flooding with the phase behavior theory which holds
the third micro-emulsion phase. Through usage of a practical mathematical model, a model that
satisfies engineering calculation need, fewer input parameters and faster speed is created. It
assumes a water-oil only phases and neglecting micro-emulsion phase to fit flooding with low
pH values. Five components are considered, namely water, oil, alkaline, surfactant and polymer
and no chemical reactions among them. Chemical consumptions are considered including
adsorption, chemical degradation, ion exchange and dissolution yet the impacts of ion exchange
and dissolution reaction on porosity and permeability are ignored.

Fadili et al, (2009) presented a paper on Smart Integrated Chemical EOR Simulation. They have
a very similar approach as Larson et al, yet more detailed research are conducted. Their
simulation model utilizes the approach of calculating effective salinites through models of brine,
surfactant, foam and alkaline. Their surfactant model encompasses properties such as: surfactant
as water phase component, oil and water IFT as a function of surfactant concentration,
adsorption (with salinity and permeability dependence), change of wettability as a function of
surfactant adsorption and partitioning between the water and oil phases. They stated that oil
recovery is closely related to correct balance of capillary, gravity and viscous forces to provide
stable front advancement and maximizing contact between EOR agent and reservoir oil. In other
words reservoir conformance doesn’t solely depends on the intrinsic properties of EOR agent but
also depends on velocities of displacement taking place There is also a strong dependence
between EOR agent density and reservoir rock quality distribution even under viscous dominant
flow. Early breakthrough of EOR agent translates to poor hydrocarbon sweeping. There is also
highlight of surfactant phase regimes and their effects on oil recovery efficiency. Surfactant
changes phase regimes depending on surfactant concentration and brine salinity. Low salinity
translates to surfactant in aqueous phase while high salinity partitions it to oleic phase. Lowest
IFT is achieved during the intermediate phase whereby intermediate salinities generate micro-
emulsion in the system and henceforth being the most optimal condition for hydrocarbon
recovery. They later proposed that through a smart injection technique that utilizes the same
amount of chemical as conventional chemical flood injection technique efficiency could be
increased by 10%.

Bataweel et al, (2011) conducted a study on computerized tomography (CT) scan study on fluid
flow characterization of chemical flooding. The study is conducted with sandstone cores at room
temperature on four different chemical flood processes namely polymer, surfactant, surfactant-
polymer (SP) and alkali-surfactant-polymer (ASP). Oil recovery and oil distribution in the core
were of main interest for evaluation after chemical flood. During chemical flooding four flow
regions are established. They encompass initial two-phase flow at Sorw, oil bank with increase in
saturation, two or three phase flow of oil, water and micro-emulsion and single-phase flow of the
chasing fluid. They later arrived at the conclusion that ASP and SP flooding yield the best

7
recovery with some residual reduction in permeability caused by usage of polymers. They also
mentioned that the lowest recovery was obtained during surfactant flooding, which prove that
IFT reduction is highly dependent on mobility control by polymers.

Year Author Title Remarks

Effeciency of Fluid Fisplacement in Water

1954 R.M.S Reed Wet Porous Media as Affected by Interfacial
Tension and Pressure

Investigate the relationship between system

R. G. Larson Analysis of Physical Mechanism in parameters and performance variable
1978
et al Surfactant Flooding through partitioning, adsorption and oleic
phases.

Main literature review, much mathematical

G.W. Paul et A Simplified Predictive Model for
1982 calculation are extrapolated based on their
al Micellar Polymer Flooding
study

Measurement of Relative Permeability for

1984 J. Hagoort
Computer Modelling/ Reservoir Simulation

T.S. Conducted fractional flow modelling for

Fractional Flow Model for High pH
1989 Ramakrishnan chemical flooding an relating it to chemical
Flooding
et al equilibrium properties

S.M. Farouq The Promise and Problems of Enhanced Oil

1989
Ali et al Recovery Method

C.U. Okoye et An Improved Linear Chemical Model for

1991
al Alkaline Steamflooding

S.M. Farouq Micellar Flooding and ASP Chemical

1999
Ali et al Methods for Enhanced Oil Recovery

A.A. Shapiro et A New Method for Analytical Modelling of

2004
al Chemical Flooding

A Streamlined Based Model for

Proposed streamlined modelling for chemical
2007 J. Hou et al Potentiality Prediction of Enhanced Oil
flooding instead of finite difference method
Recovery

Developing A Chemical EOR Pilot Strategy

A.J.P. Flecthcer
2008 for A Complex, Low Permeability Water
et al
Flood

8
 Conducted study on reservoir conformance
Smart Integrated Chemical EOR based on intrinsic properties of EOR agent
2009 A. Fadili et al
Simulation and extrinsic properties such as velocity and
gravitational forces.

Selection Methodology for Screening

2010 M. Trujillo et al Evaluation of Enhanced Oil Recovery
Methods

2011 H. Mohan et al The EOR Potential of United States

General Isothermal Enhanced Oil Recovery

2011 A. Mollaei et al
and Waterflood Forecasting Model

Conducted computerized tomography (CT)

M.A. Bataweel Fluid Flow Characterization of Chemical
2011 scan study on fluid flow characterization of
et al EOR Flooding
chemical flooding

Table 2: Tabulated list of literature reviews from 1954 to 2011.

9
3 Theory

As mentioned above, mobility ratio and capillary number plays an important role in analyzing
behavior of oil recovery efficiency.

Mobility ratio is defined as the ratio of displacing fluid mobility over displaced fluid mobility. If
M>1, clearly the displacing fluid, e.g., water in a water flood, moves more easily than the
displaced liquid, i.e., oil. This is not desirable because the displacing fluid will flow past much of
the displaced fluid, displacing it inefficiently. Thus, the mobility ratio influences displacement
efficiency. For maximum displacement efficiency, M should be <1, or more generally denoted as
‘favorable mobility ratio’. Mobility ratio M can be made smaller or improved, by lowering the
viscosity of oil, increasing the viscosity of the displacing fluid, increasing the effective
permeability to oil, and decreasing the effective permeability to the displacing fluid.

The capillary number, Nc, is defined as a product displaced fluid viscosity, pore velocity, and
interfacial tension (IFT) between the displaced and the displacing fluids. Hagoort (1984) pointed
out that the capillary number can be increased, and thereby the residual oil saturation decreased,
by reducing oil viscosity, or increasing pressure gradient, but more than anything, by decreasing
the IFT. In an earlier work, Reed (1954), showed that residual oil saturation depicts significant
decrease during very low IFT's.

Much alike displacement efficiency, areal sweep efficiency as well as conformance (or vertical
sweep efficiency) decrease as the mobility ratio increases. In other words, if the displacing fluid
flows more readily than oil, the displacement is inefficient.
The following summarizes the theory and mathematical functions that have been chosen and
incorporated in commissioning the project.

3.1 Surfactant Retention

Surfactant retention, Rsurf is composed of surfactant adsorption onto clays, surfactant trapping
and other surfactant loss mechanisms. In the project, surfactant retention reflects clay adsorption
only, with

where Wclay is the weight fraction of clay. Equation 3.1.1 was developed from literature values
for sulfonate surfactant adsorption onto sandstone (DOE, 1980).

In the project, it is more convenient to express surfactant retention, R in units of pore volumes of
surfactant injected, Vsurf,

10
where ɸ is porosity, and are the densities (g/ml) of rock and surfactant, respectively, and
Vsurf’ is the volume fraction surfactant in the injected slug.

3.2 Target Oil Calculation

In the project, target oil, Toil is defined as the oil remaining in the waterswept portion of the
reservoir. It is further reduced by the fraction of the reservoir below bottom water, Fw , and above
a gas cap Fg, and a positive value for the original oil-in-place, Ooil is provided.

If original oil in place specified is less or equals to 0 then,

where Sorw is the residual oil saturation to waters, Soi is the initial oil saturation, Swc is the connate
water saturation, Coil, is the cumulative oil produced at the end of waterflooding, and Bi and Bf
are the initial (pre-waterflood) and final (post-waterflood, pre-chemical flood), oil formation
volume factors RB/STB, respectively.

The floodable pore volume Vflood for all patterns follows from

and area to be developed, Adev is

where Tpay is the net reservoir pay thickness.

Number of patterns, npat can be obtained through

where Apat is the pattern area.

3.3 Oil Recovery Efficiency

The volume of target oil recoverable, Vrec is given by

where E is the tertiary oil recovery efficiency. E may be expressed as the product of the linear
(1-D) displacement efficiency, Elin, the vertical sweep efficiency, Evert, and the chase polymer
sweep efficiency, Epoly

11
3.4 Linear Displacement Efficiency

The 1-D, linear displacement efficiency, Elin, is computed as a function of the capillary number,
ncap

where Cinj, is an injectivity coefficient, K, is permeability, d, is reservoir depth, and is

the well spacing. The calculation was developed for confined five-spot patterns (Lake et al,
1979). In the project, the n cap is adjusted as a function of the ratio of relative permeability end-
points, Rperm as well as to the equivalent n cap for water-wet (Berea) rock.

Elin is then determined from the digitized capillary desaturation curves for Berea (Gupta et al,
1979).

3.5 Vertical Sweep Efficiency

The dimensionless surfactant slug size, D, is the ratio of the pore volumes slug injected, Vslug, to
Vsurf, the surfactant retention in pore volumes

Evert, vertical sweep efficiency is given by

where Cstor and Cflow are the storage capacity and flow capacity, respectively

Eff’ is the effective mobility ratio, introduced to account for heterogeneity in layered reservoirs
and is calculated empirically (Paul et al, 1982) from the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient, Vdp

Eff’ is similar to the Koval (1963) "H”-factor which is used to represent the fingers developed in
homogeneous media during unstable miscible displacement.

12
3.6 Polymer Sweep Efficiency

The polymer (mobility buffer) sweep efficiency, EMB, is defined as capture efficiency, or
volume oil produced over volume oil mobilized.

( )

where Vpoly is the pore volumes of polymer slug injected, and

3.7 Oil Production Curve

The oil production curve, is assumed triangular with base determined by the time of oil
breakthrough, tbreak and time to sweep out to zero oil rate tsout, and the apex by the peak oil rate
Qpeak, as shown

OIL RATE,

Qrate

Vrec = E xToil

tbreak tsout

Figure 3: Curve of recovery efficiency versus target oil.

The dimensionless surfactant velocity is

where .

13
 1.0

(1-Sorc,1)
0.8
fw

0.6

0.4

0.2

(-DS,0)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
SW
Figure 3.1: Fractional flow diagram.

The model next computes the intersection (FWB, SWB) of the straight line passing through the
points ( and with the water-oil
fractional flow curve. The stabilized oil bank saturation and fractional flow are Sob and fob
respectively.

The velocity of the oil bank is

The dimensionless breakthrough times (fractional pore volumes) of the oil bank, tbreak and
surfactant tsurf are then

and

The peak oil fractional flow is

where

and

14
 ( )

Using the formula for a triangle of Vrec = E xToil, the dimensionless time at zero oil rate, tzero is

The overall recovery efficiency E is increased to a value E’ to account for the effects of
crossflow where

where cf is the dimensionless crossflow number, bounded from below by 0.025.

In order to convert the dimensionless production curve to a real-time basis, a steady-state

injection/production rate for a five-spot pattern must be estimated. This rate, Qss may be
specified or defaulted from the following equation:

where μoil is the viscosity of oil.

The peak oil rate is

and the times (day) of oil breakthrough, tob peak oil rate, tpo and sweep out, tso are, respectively,

and

where Vpflood is the pattern floodable pore volume (MMRB).

3.8 Chemical Injection Schedule

The volume of surfactant slug injected per pattern is

15
Note that the volume of surfactant slug injected is independent of the surfactant concentration in
the slug. The time (year) over which surfactant injection occurs is then

The polymer (mobility buffer) slug, which follows the surfactant slug, is graded (decreased) in
polymer concentration from an initial concentration cpoly until the entire polymer has been
injected. cpoly is calculated internally as a function of mobility (viscosity) ratio and a measure of
the wettability,

( )

where

if Rperm < 0.1

if 0.10 < Rperm <10

and

if Rperm >10

where

( )

μoil and μwater are the viscosities of oil and water, respectively, and Korw and Koro are the water and
oil relative permeability endpoints

16
4 Methodology

4.1 Project Flow Chart

The flow of this project can be separated into 4 distinct phases.

Project Initiation

Software Literature
Nomination Research

Model
Assumptions

Equation
Formulation
& Selection

Engineering
Software
Mainframe

Designing
Data Graphic
Validation Interface

Report,
Documentation &
Presentation

Figure 4: Project execution methodology.

17
4.2 Screening Program Flow Chart

A more detailed flow of the overall concept of chemical flooding screening and program holistic
flow.

Figure 4.1: Program execution flow.

18
4.3 Gantt Chart

Table 4: Gantt Chart

Denotes milestones in Gantt Chart

4.4 Key Milestones

1) Approval of project feasibility in defense presentation.

2) Equation validation of screening model.
3) Successful coding of VBA mainframe.
4) Incorporation of Graphical User Interface, GUI.
5) Production of program guide.
6) Completion of dissertation and technical paper

19
5 Model Verification and Discussions

The results generated from the software are cross referenced with actual reservoir generated data
to validate accuracy of results obtained. The end results are quite satisfactory. The software is
compared with Sloss field test, Nebraska, Big Muddy pilot, Casper, Wyoming and 219-R project
at La Selle anticline, Illinois.

cForce

Figure 5: Sloss field test, Nebraska.

For Sloss, the cForce overestimates oil recovery, perhaps due to productivity problems in the
field. When compared with Big Muddy the cForce is low on recovery, probably because
crossflow was not considered. For both these tests, oil timing is predicted well within acceptable
limits for economic calculations.

20
 cForce

Figure 5.1: Big Muddy pilot, Wyoming.

cForce

Figure 5.2: 219-R project, La Selle anticline, Illinois.

21
For 219R, the predicted efficiency of 0.31 agrees well with the field estimate of 0.27 - 0.33.
Figure 5.2 shows that the cForce approximates the magnitude of peak oil rate and project life,
but misses on peak rate location and oil breakthrough. There may be several reasons for this:

1. Great uncertainty in the retention and relative permeability data.

2. The simplified fractional flow treatment in the cForce may be a poor approximation for
viscous, relatively high oil content micellar slugs, for which a more specific procedure is
available.11

3. The symmetrical character of the field curve, with a heterogeneity factor of 0.62, may
reflect the effects of high vertical crossflow.

Considering the assumptions made in the development of the cForce, and the uncertainty of
much of the data required for its application, the comparative results are good. In addition, the
above comparisons indicate that the cForce might be used as a history matching or design tool to
precede more costly, fully compositional simulations.

22
6 Results

The project presents data in various forms which includes singular calculated results as well as
graphed reservoir performance. Calculated results can be grouped into 3 main summary namely,
recovery efficiency, analysis summary and production summary.

Recovery Efficiency Analysis Summary Production Summary

Field Capillary Number Total Developed Area Pattern Surfactant Slug
Displacement Efficiency No. of Effective Patterns Initial Polymer Concentration
Cross flow Number Pattern Floodable Pore Pattern Polymer
Surfactant Retention Pattern Target Oil Dimensionless Surfactant
Dimensionless Surfactant Project Target Oil Dimensionless Oil Bank
Surfactant Slug Size Total Oil Recovery Oil Breakthrough Pore
Pore Volume Mobility Buffer Peak Rate Pore Volume
Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient Sweep Out Pore Volume
Effective Mobility Ratio Oil Breakthrough Time
Flow Capacity of Layer Peak Rate Time
Vertical Sweep Efficiency Total Pattern Life
Mobility Sweep Buffer Fractional Flow of Oil At Peak
Cross flow Performance Injectivity Coefficient
Tertiary Oil Recovery Steady State Pattern Rate
Oil Rate At Peak
Water Saturation In Bank
Water Fractional Flow
Pattern Spacing
Starting Oil Saturation
Project Floodable Pore

Table 6: List of Generated Results.

Results are later graphed to depict reservoir performance and behavior. In this project 7 graphs
are plotted namely relative permeability of water and oil, fractional flow curve, derivatives of
fractional flow, water production rate, cumulative water production, oil and gas production rate
as well as cumulative oil and gas production. Examples of graphs generated are attached as
follows.

23
Figure 6: Oil relative permeability vs. water relative permeability.

Figure 6.1: Fractional flow of water.

24
Figure 6.2: Derivatives of fractional flow over saturation of water.

Figure 6.3: Oil and gas production rates.

25
Figure 6.4: Cumulative oil and gas production.

Figure 6.5: Water production rates.

26
 Figure 6.6: Cumulative water production.

The project is later presented in the form of graphical user interface to enhance ease of use and
data retrieval. The graphical user interface can be separated into 5 main stages namely loading
interface, well data input , pre-processing, solution stage as well as post-processing.

Stage 1 – Loading Interface

Users are greeted with a descriptive interface once the software has been loaded. Clicking RUN
would prompt user into the 2 nd stage, well data input.

Figure 6.7: Loading interface of chemical flooding predictive module.

27
Stage 2 – Well Data Input

As mentioned earlier, a loading screen would appear directing users to input well parameters
accordingly to formation properties, permeability and saturation, well initial conditions as well as
case controls.

Figure 6.8: Well data input.

28
Stage 3 – pre-Processing

Upon clicking default on well data interface, cForce would automatically initialize calculation
with a set of preloaded data. Users are free to amend details in the well data and re-analyze the
calculation. 3 distinct curves are formed in the pre-processing stage namely relative permeability
curves, fractional flow curve as well as derivative curve.

Figure 6.9: Relative permeability curves.

29
Stage 4 – Solution

Upon completion of pre-processing, numerical solutions of cForce are presented in an analysis

summary interface. Solutions can be separated into recovery efficiency, analysis summary as
well as well production summary.

Figure 6.10: Calculated analysis summary.

30
Stage 5 – post-Processing

A more detailed analysis of cForce can be found in the pattern production summary interface.
Here, respective production rate as well as cumulative production of oil, gas and water can be
seen clearly in a graphed manner. Users can even retrieve specific information of production rate
or cumulative production on a certain year.

Figure 6.11: Calculated production rates.

31
7 Conclusion

In conclusion, chemical flooding in enhanced oil recovery is definitely a wide applied tertiary
recovery technique that would much attract interest of contemporary engineers. The software
based simple screening model proved to be a powerful tool for all to have an initial overview
over the reservoir. It provides visualization of In-situ reservoir behavior as well as crucial
parameters and deduction for further reservoir development. Users would be able to have an
overview through efficiency, predicted production as well as cumulative production and how
they relate to each other.

32
References

1 R. G. Larson, G. J. Hirasaki, (1978). Analysis of Physical Mechanism in Surfactant

Flooding, Vol. 18, pg 42-58, SPE 6003-PA.
2 T. S. Ramakrishnan, D. T. Wasan (1989). Fractional Flow Model for High PH Flooding,
Vol. 4, pg 59-68, SPE 14950-PA.
3 E. Ashoori, T. L. M. van der Heijden, W. R. Rossen (2009). Fractional Flow Theory of
Foam Displacement with Oil, SPE 121579-MS.
4 Shapiro, A.A., Pires, A. P., (2004). A New Method for Analytical Modeling of Chemical
Flooding, SPE 88461-MS.
5 Alireza Mollaei, Mojdeh Delshad, (2011). General Isothermal Enhanced Oil Recovery
and Waterflood Forecasting Model, SPE 143925-MS.
6 A. Fadili, M. R. Kristensen, J. Moreno, (2009). Smart Integrated Chemical EOR
Simulation, SPE 13762-MS.
7 S. M. Farouq Ali, S. Thomas, (1989). The Promise and Problems of Enhanced Oil
Recovery Method, Vol 35, SPE 96-07-07.
8 Hagoort. J, (1984). Measurement of Relative Permeability for Computer Modeling/
Reservoir Simulation, Chap 3, pg 62-68, Fundamentals of Gas Reservoir Engineering.
9 C. U. Okoye, W. Ping-Hu, A. Hayatdavoudi, (1991). An Improved Linear Chemical
Model for Alkaline Steamflooding, SPE 21763-MS.
10 Jian Hou, Shun-kang Zhang, (2007). A Streamline Based Model for Potentiality
Prediction of Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE 105246-MS.
11 A. J. P. Fletcher, G. R. Morrison, (2008). Developing A Chemical EOR Pilot Strategy for
A Complex, Low Permeability Water Flood, SPE 112793-MS.
12 M. Trujillo, D. Mercado, G. Maya, R. Castro, C. Soto, H. Perez, V. Gomez, J. Sandoval,
(2010). Selection Methodology for Screening Evaluation of Enhanced Oil Recovery
Methods, SPE 139222-MS.
13 S. Thomas, S. M. Farouq Ali, (1999). Micellar Flooding and ASP – Chemical Methods
for Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE 99-73.
14 Hitesh Mohan, Khosrow Biglarbigi, Marshall Carolus, Dana Van Wagener, (2011).
Assesing The EOR Potential of United States, SPE 145073-MS.
15 M. A. Bataweel, H. A. Nasr-El-Din, D. S. Schechter, (2011). Fluid Flow Characterization
of Chemical EOR Flooding: A Computerized Tomography (CT) Scan Study, SPE
149066-MS.
16 George W. Paul, Larry W. Lake, Gary A. Pope, Genevieve B. Young, (1982). A
Simplified Predictive Model for Micellar-Polymer Flooding, SPE 10799-MS.

33