SPE 113965

Using Co-Solvents to Provide Gradients and Improve Oil Recovery during

Chemical Flooding in a Light Oil Reservoir
V. Dwarakanath, SPE, Chevron; T. Chaturvedi, SPE, Chevron; A.C. J ackson, SPE, Chevron; T. Malik, SPE,
Chevron; A. Siregar; SPE, Chevron; and P. Zhao, SPE, Chevron
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923 April 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.


Abstract
The effect of co-solvent on phase behavior was evaluated and an optimal surfactant/co-solvent formulation was selected
based upon a combination of simulations and laboratory experiments. The co-solvent altered phase behavior, thereby
necessitating a different approach for inducing effective salinity gradients. We present an approach where the hydrophilic
nature of the co-solvent is used to maintain effective salinity gradients to optimize surfactant behavior but more importantly
mitigate viscous microemulsions and reduce surfactant retention. By using a combination of laboratory experiments and
simulations to match co-solvent behavior in UTCHEM, Using an understanding into co-solvent partitioning was developed
such that the optimal conditions of ultra-low interfacial tensions are maintained for a longer duration during chemical
flooding. We demonstrated that by adding the appropriate co-solvent and the correct amount of electrolyte in the chase
solutions, we could maintain Winsor type III conditions for extended durations even with a small surfactant slug. The
optimal co-solvent/electrolyte gradient recovered more than 90% of the residual oil in laboratory corefloods. The result
illustrate the importance of characterizing the effect of co-solvent on surfactant phase behavior and the need for numerical
modeling to optimize chemical flood design when co-solvent is used.

Introduction
The success of surfactant flooding rests on the ability of surfactant-oil mixtures to rapidly coalesce to form fluid and stable
microemulsions with ultra-low tensions. Recent developments in the area of surfactant synthesis and screening have allowed
the selection of high performance surfactant formulations for enhanced oil recovery.
1, 2
These high-performance surfactant
formulations require co-solvents to (a) improve phase behavior; (b) reduce microemulsion viscosity; and (c) ensure
surfactant-polymer compatibility.
1, 2
Such surfactant/co-solvent formulations show high oil recovery and low surfactant
retention in corefloods.

Numerical simulations are an important component to scale-up chemical flooding from lab to field-scale. Numerical
simulations require matches of surfactant phase behavior and corefloods to obtain parameters for field-scale simulation. In
typical simulation studies, the effect of co-solvent is usually neglected
3, 4, 5
and gross surfactant parameters are often used to
capture chemical phase behavior. While this approach may be appropriate for formulations that use no co-solvent a design
that includes the effect of co-solvent on surfactant phase behavior is preferred for accurate field-scale predictions.

Co-solvents used for oil recovery are amphiphiles
6, 7
and have the ability to partition into aqueous, oleic and microemulsion
phases. The ability to partition between the three phases allows co-solvents to significantly alter phase behavior. When a
hydrophilic co-solvent is mixed with an anionic surfactant, an increase in optimal salinity is observed. Conversely, a
lipophilic co-solvent will induce a reduction in optimal salinity. From these observations, Hedges
8
used co-solvent scans to
identify the appropriate co-solvent for a fixed optimal salinity. While co-solvents have been used widely in surfactant trials,
their effect on phase behavior is often neglected due to the complexity of experimental measurements and incorporation into
numerical simulation. An adverse consequence of ignoring co-solvent behavior could be chromatographic separation from
the surfactant due to preferential partitioning. Such separation would induce changes in overall surfactant/co-solvent
compositions along a dilution path and undesirable phase behavior.

Modeling the effect of co-solvents in surfactant phase behavior is well established in literature.
6, 7
Prouvost developed a
2 SPE 113965
thermodynamic model that captures the effect of co-solvent as a pseudo-component in surfactant phase behavior. The
Prouvost model was implemented in UTCHEM
9
and used by Saad
10
, to evaluate the effect of isobutanol partitioning on
surfactant propagation during the Big Muddy pilot. Saad
10
used decane as a surrogate oil to determine isobutanol partition
coefficients to match field data from the Big Muddy pilot. However, they did not evaluate the effect of co-solvent on
surfactant phase behavior with crude oil as well as co-solvent effects on salinity gradients during chemical flooding.

A typical surfactant flood is generally designed with a salinity gradientError! Bookmark not defined.
, 10
such that the
leading edge is close to Winsor Type II+(over optimal salinity) and the trailing edge is Winsor type II- (under optimal
salinity). Under these conditions, the surfactant is transported in the aqueous phase and optimal salinity occurs near the peak
of surfactant concentration. This is effective when the surfactant optimal salinity can be designed to be close to or below the
reservoir salinity.

We present an approach where a co-solvent is used to induce gradients to optimize surfactant behavior and mitigate
microemulsion phase trapping as well as reduce surfactant retention in conditions where the optimal salinity is much higher
than reservoir salinity. This approach is based upon a combination of phase behavior experiments and numerical simulations
to fully characterize the effect of co-solvent on surfactant behavior. We demonstrate that a large volume of oil can be
recovered with a small surfactant slug, provided the correct co-solvent/electrolyte, i.e. chemical gradient is employed.

Overview and Approach
The crude oil for this work was obtained from a high permeability sandstone reservoir in Central Sumatra, Indonesia. The
reservoir temperature for the area of interest was 85C (185F) and the oil viscosity is 3.4 cp. The formation brine salinity in
the area of interest is 2,850 mg/L TDS. The crude oil and reservoir properties are summarized in Table 1. The equivalent
alkane carbon number for the crude oil was 16 and thereby required a very hydrophobic surfactant. The cation exchange
capacity of the reservoir rock is less than 0.5 meq/100 g. Sodium carbonate was used as the electrolyte to improve phase
behavior based upon the work by J ackson
13
. Since the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the reservoir rock is very low,
cation exchange was ignored in all simulations.

The approach followed was to first conduct the phase behavior experiments at different co-solvent concentrations and
determine optimal salinity and solubilization at different co-solvent concentrations. The phase behavior results were
calibrated with UTCHEM using the methodology developed by Satoh
14
. The co-solvent partitioning parameters from Satoh
were used as a first approximation and both phase behavior results and co-solvent partitioning results were history matched to
define the best parameters to characterize surfactant co-solvent phase behavior. The final test was the use of the phase
behavior parameters in coreflood matching and evaluation. In addition to oil recovery and oil cuts, the effluent co-solvent
concentrations were matched to corefloods conducted in Briarhill sandstone. Once good matches were obtained for the
Briarhill corefloods, UTCHEM simulations were used to design a coreflood in reservoir rock.

Experimental Procedures and Results

Phase Behavior Experiments. The surfactants for phase behavior experiments were provided by Chevron Oronite. Phase
behavior procedures were similar to those described by Levitt
2
. Two mL of oil was mixed with 2 mL of surfactant in a
borosilicate glass pipette at different salinities. The pipettes were sealed and the allowed to equilibrate in an oven at 85C
and mixed once thermal equilibrium was reached. Visual observations were taken at periodic intervals to note phase volumes
until phase equilibrium was established. The oil-microemulsion and microemulsion-water interfaces were recorded for use in
calculating the solubilization ratios of oil and water. The surfactant concentration was set at 2 wt% and co-solvent
concentration was varied in different experiments. The goal was to determine the effect of co-solvent on both optimal
salinity and optimal solubilization parameters. Once experimental data were obtained, they were history matched using
UTCHEM to develop simulation parameters for future coreflood design, testing and interpretation.

Phase Behavior Results. Figure 1 shows a comparison of experimental versus UTCHEM simulated phase behavior of 2
wt% surfactant, 3 wt% co-solvent and electrolyte. The UTCHEM simulations incorporate the effect of co-solvent
partitioning using the Prouvost model. The electrolyte concentration is normalized with the optimal salinity. The apparent
solubilization parameter of the oil decreases until a normalized salinity of 0.5 as the co-solvent partitions into the oil and
increases its apparent volume. Figures 2 and 3 show the effect of co-solvent on optimal salinity and optimal solubilization
parameters respectively. As the co-solvent concentration in the surfactant formulation is increased, an increase in optimal
salinity is observed. At 3 wt% co-solvent the apparent optimal salinity is 1.8 times the optimal salinity with no co-solvent.
Conversely the optimal solubilization parameter decreases from 26 at 0 wt% co-solvent to 11 at 3 wt% co-solvent. The close
match between the UTCHEM simulated and experimental measured values of optimal salinities and solubilization parameters
in Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the ability of UTCHEM to model the effect of co-solvent partitioning on surfactant phase
behavior.

SPE 113965 3

Co-Solvent Partitioning. The partition coefficient of the co-solvent was measured with crude oil and reservoir brine and is
shown in Figure 4. The relative partitioning of the co-solvent between the microemulsion and aqueous phases is shown in
Figure 5. An excellent match is observed for the co-solvent concentration in the aqueous phase. In order to analyze the co-
solvent concentration in microemulsion, the samples were extracted in the oven and diluted with 100% IPA to ensure a single
phase solution. This solution was injected into a gas chromatograph with flame ionization detector. Such analyses are prone
to errors of 15% of the measured concentration. For aqueous samples no IPA extraction was used and hence the data were
of higher quality. In general, the trends for co-solvent partitioning are well matched by UTCHEM simulations and the phase
behavior-matched parameters were used for coreflood simulations.

Microemulsion Viscosity. Micremulsion viscosities were measured at different oil fractions in the microemulsion at varying
surfactant and co-solvent concentrations. Figure 6 shows the viscosity as a function of the fraction of oil in the
microemulsion for formulations with 2 wt% surfactant and 3 wt% co-solvent at optimal salinity. Microemulsions were
prepared with solutions derived from mixing various ratios of the optimal surfactant and chase solutions containing
electrolyte and co-solvent. The goal was to identify the optimal chase solution that would provide microemulsion viscosities
of less than three times the oil viscosity or 9 cp. Low microemulsion viscosities were observed when the surfactant slug was
diluted with chase solutions containing co-solvent and electrolyte. If no co-solvent was used in the chase solutions low
viscosities were observed only when no additional electrolyte was added. Based upon these observations two chase solutions
were considered as candidates for coreflood testing. The first solution contained 1.5 wt% co-solvent at 80% of optimal
salinity, the other chase solution was reservoir brine containing no co-solvent. Table 2 shows the microemulsion viscosity
for the best chase formulation.

Coreflood Preparation. Briarhill sandstone was used as a surrogate rock for the reservoir because of its similar rock
properties, sample to sample consistency, and availability. The permeability of the Briarhill sandstone varied between 1.2-
2.0 Darcy and the cation exchange capacity was 1 meq/100g. These cores were considered to be good surrogates for the
reservoir rock. Cores were assembled and potted in epoxy using the procedure described in Levitt
2
. with taps to measure
differential pressure in and across the core. The cores were initially saturated with synthetic reservoir brine at reservoir
temperature and the brine permeability was calculated from measured pressure drops and flow rates and recorded. Following
the brine flood the cores were oil flooded with the crude oil at a relatively high pressure gradient (70 psi/ft) until there was
less than 2% water cut in the effluent. The cores were then water flooded at a low pressure gradient (1 psi/ft) which
translates to a flow rate of approximately 1 ft/day. The effluent fluid samples and pressure drops were observed until there
was no oil in the effluent and the pressure drop across the core stabilized. The reservoir core was prepared by stacking 9 core
plugs in core holder and applying 500 psi of confining pressure. The cores were saturated under back-pressure and flooded
with sodium dithionite (Wang et al.,) to achieve reducing conditions. A tracer test was conducted with IPA to determine the
quality of the stacked core and estimate pore volume. The oil saturation and waterflooding procedures were similar to those
of the Briarhill core. In addition to maximizing oil recovery, another objective of the corefloods was to achieve high
recoveries with pressure drops of approximately 1 psi/ft at a flow rate of roughly 1 ft/day. A summary of the corefloods
presenting the core properties, slug size, chase formulations and oil recovery is given in Table 3. The surfactant slugs used in
all the corefloods contained an AMPS co-polymer produced by SNF. The concentrations of polymer in the surfactant slug
and drives were varied to achieve a nominal viscosity of 10 cp at 10 sec
-1
to provide mobility control. Experimental results
and simulation matches of three corefloods are presented as follows.

Briarhill Coreflood Experiments. Since one of the objectives was to maintain low pressure drops during surfactant
flooding, Coreflood A used a 0.15 PV surfactant slug at optimal salinity followed by 0.15 PV of polymer chase containing
1.5 wt% co-solvent at 80% of optimal salinity. This was finally followed by polymer chase made with synthetic reservoir
brine. The pressure drop in this experiment was less than 1 psi/ft at a rate of 1 ft/day. The oil recovery was greater than 90%
for Coreflood A. Figure 7 shows the oil recovery and oil cuts for Coreflood A as well as the simulation comparisons. Figure
8 shows the match of simulated versus experimental values of produced co-solvent. Coreflood B was similar to coreflood A
but the surfactant slug was followed by polymer mixed in reservoir brine as this option was also favorable in terms of
microemulsion viscosity. The pressure drop for Coreflood B was also less than 1 psi/ft and the oil recovery was greater than
90%. Figure 9 shows the oil recovery and oil cuts for Coreflood B as well as the simulation comparisons. These results
highlight UTCHEMs capabilities in modeling surfactant/co-solvent flooding for oil recovery. The excellent match of the co-
solvent breakthrough in Coreflood A indicates that co-solvent partitioning was estimated correctly during phase behavior
matching. In both corefloods no measurable concentration of surfactant was observed in the effluent. This was attributed to
poor analytical techniques. The high oil recovery in both corefloods and the simulation matches estimate surfactant
adsorption to be around 0.1 mg/g which is consistent with values reported by Levitt
2
.

Reservoir Rock Coreflood. Coreflood C was similar to Coreflood A and used a 0.20 PV surfactant slug at optimal salinity
followed by 0.20 PV polymer containing 1.5% co-solvent at 80% of optimal salinity, finally followed by polymer chase in
reservoir brine. A larger surfactant slug was used to increase surfactant mass injected and ensure surfactant production to
4 SPE 113965
better characterize retention in the core by increasing detection capability. The effluent samples were sent to The University
of Texas at Austin for surfactant analysis. As in the Briarhill corefloods, the oil recovery was greater than 90% for Coreflood
C. Figure 10 shows the oil recovery and oil cuts for Coreflood C as well as the simulation comparisons. Figure 11 shows the
match of simulated versus experimental values of produced surfactant and co-solvent. An excellent match between simulated
and measured surfactant is observed for Coreflood C. The co-solvent matches are acceptable. A second peak in oil recovery
is observed in the simulations while a broad plateau is observed in the experimental data after 0.9 PV. This is attributable to
oil trapping in the back-pressure regulator. An additional UTCHEM simulation was conducted to further interpret Coreflood
C. In this simulation, the surfactant slug was chased by polymer mixed in reservoir brine. A profile of the effective salinity
plotted against normalized core length at 0.5 PV is presented in Figure 12. From this figure, it is evident that for the case
when no co-solvent and electrolyte is added to the chase, the formulation is well below optimum and stays in the Winsor type
III region for only 0.03 PV. For the case when a co-solvent and electrolyte mix is used, the formulation stays in the Winsor
type III region for 0.45 PV. These results also indicate that using the water-soluble co-solvent reduces the normalized
effective salinity. However for the given oil and the phase behavior we are constrained to use co-solvent to mitigate viscous
phases and the loss of surfactant performance is an acceptable compromise. The advantage of using the hydrophilic co-
solvent is that the formulation never goes over-optimum under all conditions. In essence the co-solvent acts to provide a
salinity gradient and maintains a flat effective salinity for an extended period of time.

Conclusions
Well designed chemical formulations can recover more than 90% of the oil in corefloods. We have shown that co-solvent
and electrolyte combinations can be tailored to provide effective gradients to minimize surfactant retention and maximize oil
recovery for relatively small surfactant slugs. This is achieved by the following means:
Careful characterization of the surfactant, co-solvent and electrolyte phase behavior and the partitioning of the
co-solvent
Numerical simulation matches for the chemical parameters including co-solvent obtained by phase behavior
Use of phase behavior results and numerical simulations to design corefloods to understand the dynamic
behavior of the formulation
Systematic interpretation of the coreflood results with additional numerical simulations to develop field-scale
designs
Using these methods we can conclude that co-solvent/electrolyte combinations can be used to design effective gradients for
chemical floods. Concerns about co-solvent partitioning can be assuaged by estimating the static and dynamic partition
coefficients from co-solvent partitioning experiments as well as history matching a large number of phase behavior
experiments. The resulting formulations containing co-solvent were shown to maintain Winsor type III behavior for longer
than the surfactant injection period, effectively making the surfactant slug seem larger. The design of such optimal co-
solvent gradients requires a mechanistic simulator capable of modeling the effect of co-solvent on surfactant phase behavior.
UTCHEM can capture these effects on surfactant phase behavior and can be used to design and interpret corefloods. The
chemical parameters obtained through these means are therefore calibrated to corefloods and can be scaled up with a high
level of confidence.

Acknowledgements
This study was made possible by the financial support of CPI and chemicals supplied by Chevron Oronite and SNF Floerger.
We would like to thank the several members of Chevron ETC, including Nellie Miranda, for microemulsion viscosity and
partitioning coefficient measurements. We also gratefully acknowledge Sophany Thach and Dr. Gabriel Prukop of Chevron
for their insightful discussions on surfactant phase behavior. Chris Britton from the University of Texas assisted with
surfactant analysis. Finally, we would like to thank the management of Chevron ETC and Chevron Pacific Indonesia for
permission to publish.

References
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1
First Annual Technical Report on Surfactant Based Enhanced Oil Recovery and Foam Mobility Control; prepared for U.S.
DOE (DE-FC26-03NT15406), Rice University, Houston, TX (J une 2004).

2
Levitt, D.B., J ackson, A.C., Heinson, C., Britton, L.N., Malik, T., Dwarakanath, V., Pope, G.A.: Identification and
Evaluation of High Performance EOR Surfactants, SPE 100089, presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved
Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Okalahoma, April 2006.

3
Anderson, G., Delshad, M., King, C. B., Mohammadi, H. and Pope, G. A.: Optimization of Chemical Flooding in a Mixed-
Wet Dolomite Reservoir, paper SPE 100082, presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Okalahoma, April 2006.

SPE 113965 5

4
Bourdarot, G., Sardin, M. and Putz, A.: Chateaurenard Field Test Recovery Mechanisms and Interpretation, SPE 39610,
presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE 4th Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Okalahoma, U.S.A., April.

5
Chapotin, D., Lomer, J .-F., Putz, A.: The Chateaurenard (France) Industrial Microemulsion Pilot Design and
Performance, SPE 14955, presented at the 1986 SPE/DOE 5th Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery held in Tulsa,
Okalahoma, April 1986.

6
Prouvost, L., Pope, G. A., and Rouse, B. A.: Microemulsion Phase Behavior: A Thermodynamic Modeling of the Phase
Partitioning of Amphiphilic Species, SPEJ (October 1985) 25 No. 5, 693-703.

7
Prouvost, L., Satoh, T., Pope, G. A. and Sepehrnoori, K.: A New Micellar Phase-Behavior Model for Simulating Systems
With Up to Three Amphiphilic Species, SPE 13031, Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Houston, Texas, September 1984.

8
Hedges, J . H. and Glinsmann, G. R.: Compositional Effects on Surfactantflood Optimization, SPE 8324, presented at the
54th Annual Fail Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Las Vegas, Nevada,
September 1979.

9
UTCHEM-9.0 A Three-Dimensional Chemical Flood Simulator, Volumes 1 and 2, Reservoir Engineering Research
Program, Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, J uly 2000.

10
Hirasaki, G. J ., van Domselaar, H. R. and Nelson, R. C.: Evaluation of the Salinity Gradient Concept in Surfactant
Flooding, SPEJ (June 1983) 23, No. 3, 486-500.

11
J ackson, A.C.: Experimental Study of the Benefits of Sodium Carbonate on Surfactants for Enhanced Oil Recovery,
M.S. Thesis, University of Texas, December 2006.

12
Satoh, T.: Treatment of Phase Behavior and Associated Properties Used in a Micellar-Polymer Flood Simulator, M.S.
thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1984.

13
Wang, F. H. L.: Effects of Reservoir Anaerobic, Reducing Conditions on Surfactant Retention in Chemical Flooding,
J SPE (May 1993) 8, No. 2, 108-116.

6 SPE 113965

Tables

Table 1. Crude Oil and Reservoir Properties

Crude Oil Properties
Viscosity 3.4 cp
EACN 16
Reservoir Properties
Permeability 1+darcy
Rock Sandstone
Temperature 85C
TDS 2,850mg/L
CEC <0.5meq/100g







Table 2. Microemulsion Viscosity of Selected Formulation

Normalized
Electrolyte
Concentration
Surfactant
(wt %)
Co-solvent
(wt %)
Microemulsion
Viscosity (cp)
1.00 2.00% 3.00% 5.15
0.98 1.80% 2.85% 4.89
0.95 1.60% 2.70% 4.89
0.93 1.40% 2.55% 5.21
0.88 1.00% 2.25% 1.54
0.86 0.80% 2.10% 1.49
0.84 0.60% 1.95% 1.49
0.81 0.40% 1.80% 1.49
0.79 0.20% 1.65% 1.49

Table 3. Summary of Corefloods
Core ID A B C
Rock Briarhill Briarhill Field Core
Pore Vol. (mL) 131 137 225
Length (cm) 30.5 30.5 59.4
Brine Perm. (md) 1,064 1,536 1,400
Sorw 33.8% 35.3% 24.9%
So 0.6% 2.1% 0.9%
Recovery 98.2% 94.1% 93.2%
DP (psi/ft @ 1 ft/day) 0.50 0.30 0.80
PV 0.15 0.10 0.20
Surfactant
Components 2% surfactant, 3% co-solvent, 100% optimal salinity
PV 0.15 0.20
Drive 1
Components
1.5% co-solvent,
80% optimal salinity
None
1.5% co-solvent, 80%
optimal salinity
PV 1.30 1.30 1.30
Drive 2
Components 0% co-solvent, 0% optimal salinity

7 SPE 113965

Figures

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normalized Electrolyte Concentration
S
o
l
u
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
i
o
,

c
c
/
c
c



.
Exp. Oil
Sim. Oil
Exp. Water
Sim. Water
2% Surfactant,
3% Co-solvent

Figure 1. Comparison of Experimental versus Simulated Phase Behavior

0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Co-solvent Concentration, wt%
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

O
p
t
i
m
a
l

S
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
,

S
*






.
Optimal Salinity
Simulated Optimal Salinity

Figure 2. Effect of Co-solvent on Optimal Salinity

8 SPE 113965
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Co-solvent Concentration, wt%
O
p
t
i
m
a
l

S
o
l
u
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
i
o
,

c
c
/
c
c





.
Solubilization Ratio
Simulated Solubilization Ratio

Figure 3. Effect of Co-solvent on Optimal Solubilization Ratio

0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Co-solvent Concentration in Water, ppm
C
o
-
s
o
l
v
e
n
t

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

O
i
l
,

p
p
m
Partition Coefficient =0.31

Figure 4. Partition Coefficient of the Co-solvent with Formation Water and Oil

SPE 113965 9
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized Electrolyte Concentration
C
o
-
s
o
l
v
e
n
t

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
p
m





.
Aqueous
Simulated Aqueous
Microemulsion
Simulated Microemulsion

Figure 5. Co-solvent Partitioning Between Water and Microemulsion

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Fraction of Oil in Microemulsion
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

a
t

1
0

s
e
c
-
1
,

c
p



.

Figure 6. Microemulsion Viscosity as a Function of the Fraction of Oil in the Microemulsion at Optimum Salinity

10 SPE 113965
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pore Volumes
O
i
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

a
n
d

O
i
l

C
u
t

Oil Recovery
Simulated Oil Recovery
Oil Cut
Simulated Oil Cut

Figure 7. Comparison of Coreflood A Data and Simulated Cumulative Oil Recovery and Oil Cut

0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Pore Volumes
C
o
-
s
o
l
v
e
n
t

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
p
m




.
Coreflood A
Simulated

Figure 8. Comparison of Coreflood A Data and Simulated Co-solvent Production

SPE 113965 11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pore Volumes
O
i
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

a
n
d

O
i
l

C
u
t





.
Oil Recovery
Simulated Oil Recovery
Oil Cut
Simulated Oil Cut

Figure 9. Comparison of Coreflood B Data and Simulated Cumulative Oil Recovery and Oil Cut

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Pore Volumes
O
i
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

a
n
d

O
i
l

C
u
t



.
Oil Recovery
Simulated Oil Recovery
Oil Cut
Simulated Oil Cut

Figure 10. Comparison of Coreflood C Data and Simulated Cumulative Oil Recovery and Oil Cut
12 SPE 113965
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Pore Volumes
C
o
-
s
o
l
v
e
n
t

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
p
m



.
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
S
u
r
f
a
c
t
a
n
t

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co-solvent
Simulated Co-solvent
Surfactant
Simulated Surfactant

Figure 11. Comparison of Coreflood C Data and Simulated Surfactant and Co-solvent Concentrations

0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Length
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

S
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
Co-solvent and Electrolyte
No Co-solvent and Electrolyte
Winsor
type III
window
Winsor
type II+
Winsor
type II-

Figure 12. Snapshot of Effective Salinity in Coreflood C at 0.5PV