0
Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

Micro-Emulsion Phase Behavior of a Cationic Surfactant at Intermediate Interfacial Tension in Sandstone and Carbonate Rocks

[+] Author and Article Information
Mahmood Reza Yassin

Department of Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering,
Sharif University of Technology,
Azadi Street,
P.O. Box 11365-9465,
Tehran, Iran
e-mail: yassin.mahmoodreza@gmail.com

Shahab Ayatollahi

Department of Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering,
Sharif University of Technology,
Azadi Street,
P.O. Box 11365-9465,
Tehran, Iran
e-mail: shahab@sharif.ir

Behzad Rostami

Institute of Petroleum Engineering,
School of Chemical Engineering,
College of Engineering,
University of Tehran,
Karegar Street,
P.O. Box 11365-4563,
Tehran, Iran
e-mail: brostami@ut.ac.ir

Kamran Hassani

Institute of Petroleum Engineering,
School of Chemical Engineering,
College of Engineering,
University of Tehran,
Karegar Street,
P.O. Box 11365-4563,
Tehran, Iran
e-mail: kamranhassani@ut.ac.ir

Vahid Taghikhani

Department of Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering,
Sharif University of Technology,
Azadi Street,
P.O. Box 11365-9465,
Tehran, Iran
e-mail: taghikhani@sharif.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 21, 2014; final manuscript received June 15, 2014; published online December 17, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Sarma V. Pisupati.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 137(1), 012905 (Jan 01, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: JERT-14-1123; doi: 10.1115/1.4029267 History: Received April 21, 2014; Revised June 15, 2014; Online December 17, 2014

Based on the conventional approach, the trapped oil in rock pores can be easily displaced when a Winsor type (III) micro-emulsion is formed in the reservoir during surfactant flooding. On the other hand, the Winsor type (III) involves three phase flow of water, oil, and micro-emulsion that causes considerable oil phase trapping and surfactant retention. This work presents an experimental study on the effect of micro-emulsion phase behavior during surfactant flooding in sandstone and carbonate core samples. In this study, after accomplishing salinity scan of a cationic surfactant (C16–N(CH3)3Br), the effects of Winsor (I), Winsor (III) and Winsor (II) on oil recovery factor, differential pressure drop, relative permeability, and relative permeability ratio were investigated extensively. To carry out a comparative study, homogeneous and similar sandstone and carbonate rocks were selected and the effects of wettability alteration and dynamic surfactant adsorption were studied on them. The results of oil recovery factor in both rock types showed that Winsor (I) and Winsor (III) are preferred compared to Winsor (II) phase behavior. In addition, comparison of normalized relative permeability ratio at high water saturations revealed that Winsor (I) has more appropriate oil and water relative permeability than Winsor (II). The results presented in this paper demonstrate that optimum salinity which results in higher recovery factor and better oil displacement may occur at salinities out of Winsor (III) range. Therefore, the best way to specify optimum salinity is to perform core flood experiments at several salinities, which cover all phase behaviors of Winsor (I), Winsor (III), and Winsor (II).

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Porosity profiles generated by X-ray apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of core flood apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pipette test at 3000 ppm C16-TAB concentration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Different types of micro-emulsions and their nomenclatures [11]: low salinity, intermediate salinity, and high salinity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Workflow chart for all experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

History matching of oil production data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

History matching of differential pressure data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Recovery factor of sandstone cores at different salinities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Differential pressure of sandstone cores at different salinities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Micro-emulsion production at Winsor (III) phase behavior

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Relative permeability of sandstone cores

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Normalized relative permeability ratio of sandstone cores

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Recovery factor of carbonate cores at different salinities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Differential pressure of carbonate cores at different salinities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Relative permeability of carbonate cores

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Normalized relative permeability ratio of carbonate cores

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of recovery factor between sandstone and carbonate tests, Winsor (I), Winsor (II), and Winsor (III)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of relative permeability ratio between sandstone and carbonate tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Effluent fluids at 1.5 pore volumes of injected surfactant: (a) sandstone and (b) carbonate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Spontaneous imbibition of surfactant and brine in sandstone core

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Contact angle of n-heptane drop for carbonate slice before and after soaking in surfactant, CB—oil wet θ = 165 and CB—2 h soaking θ = 62

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In