SPE-182836-MS

Simulation of Ionic Liquid Flooding for Chemical Enhance Oil Recovery

Using CMG STARS Software
Mabkhot S. Bin Dahbag, Department of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals,
College of Petroleum and Geosciences; M. Enamul Hossain, Department of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals, College of Petroleum and Geosciences, Department of Process
Engineering, Oil & Gas Program, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 25–28
April 2016.

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
A significant portion of crude oil remains in the reservoir after the application of conventional recovery.
To meet the growing demand for energy, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods should be used efficiently
to recover the extra amount of trapped crude oil after water flooding. Surfactant flooding is one of
chemical EOR methods that can be implemented to recover oil from the remaining oil-in-place. Ionic
liquids (ILs) which are salts having a melting point below 100 °C, can be considered as a prospective
alternative to surfactant because of their superiority on surfactant in different points. Ionic liquids have
unique advantages such as low cost, low toxicity, recyclable and high ability to work in harsh environ-
ments. In this work, three simulation runs were conducted to simulate core flooding experiments with an
ionic liquid solution at different scenarios. Surfactant flood model (SFM) which is available in CMG
STARS software was used to match the simulation results of oil recovery, well bottom-hole pressure, and
imbibition relative permeability curves with flooding experimental results. The purpose of this paper is to
prove the validity of core flooding experiments with ionic solutions to be simulated with SFM model. In
addition, transfer the experimental work to simulation in order to facilitate the performance of other
scenarios and to predict the future results through flooding with an ionic liquid solution. All three
scenarios have given a good matching between simulation and real data of oil recovery, well bottom-hole
pressure and imbibition relative permeability curves. Both simulation and experimental results indicated
that secondary continuous flooding with IL solution gives oil recovery (71% original oil in place, OOIP)
greater than secondary slug size flooding (64% OOIP); whereas tertiary flooding with IL solution was the
lowest one with 48% OOIP.

Introduction
Enhanced oil recovery is gaining more importance day by day due to large quantities of crude oil remain
in the reservoir after traditional recovery (primary and secondary). In addition, new techniques are
developed at present to recover extra crude oil. One of the most important EOR techniques is the chemical
2 SPE-182836-MS

flooding because it is capable of reducing interfacial tension (IFT) between crude oil and brine. It can also
control mobility ratio of oil and brine. Unfortunately, chemical flooding technique (e.g. surfactants) has
disadvantages such as high toxicity, high cost, and they lose their ability to recover crude oil at harsh
environments (e.g. high salinity or high temperature) (Benzagouta et al. 2013).
Ionic liquids are a good alternative to surfactants because they have many advantages over surfactants
such as environment-friendly, cheap, recyclable, non-corrosive, stabile and soluble in water and solvents.
In addition, ability to work in harsh conditions is the most important feature (Dharaskar Swapnil 2012;
Domańska 2005). Ionic liquids are organic salts having a melting point less than 100 centigrades (Xiao
and Malhotra 2004) and they found in a liquid state at room temperature (Domańska 2005; Simoni et al.
2008). Ionic liquids can be classified depending on molecule composition into three categories: 1) organic
cations such as alkyl- phosphonium, alkyl-sulphonium, N-dialkyl imidazolium, alkylammonium, N- alkyl
pyridinium and thiazolium; 2) inorganic anions such as halide, tetra-fluoroborates [BF4]-, tetra-
chloroaluminate [AlCl4]-, bis(trifluoro-methyl-sulfonyl), imide [(CF3SO2)2N]-, hexa-fluorophosphate
[PF6]-, and acetate [CH3CO2] -; 3) organic anions such as methanesulfonate [R3C-S-O3]-, tosylate
[C7H7O3S] and alkyl sulfate [R-O-SO3-]. Ionic liquids characterize by unique properties such as non-
flammability under ambient circumstances, low volatility, high heat capacity, high polarity, high density,
negligible vapor pressure, high thermal conductivity, and thermal stability (Bermúdez et al. 2009;
Domańska 2005; Johnson 2007; Siedlecka et al. 2011). Ionic liquids’ properties can be controlled based
on the number of cations and anions that should be used to form the ionic liquid molecule which made
the ionic liquids a good candidate for many petrochemical industries (Murillo-Hernández et al. 2011;
Siedlecka et al. 2011).
Different applications in petroleum industry utilize ILs such as upgrading heavy and extra-heavy crude
oil, in refining processes, by cracking long asphaltene chains to smaller ones (Fan et al. 2007; Fan et al.
2009). ILs also can be used in oil transportation to prevent asphaltene and paraffin aggregation inside
pipelines; in addition, to separate and desalt water and salts from oil-water emulsions (Lemos et al. 2010).
Inhibiting of asphaltene precipitation in the reservoir during CO2 flooding was studied using simulation
(Hu et al. 2004). The obtained results indicated that only small amount of asphaltene can deposit in pores
in the presence of ILs preventing pore plugging problems. ILs also can be used as a competitor to organic
surfactant in demulsifying water-oil emulsion during refining process (Guzmán-Lucero et al. 2010).
Different studies such as ability of ILs to hydrate crude oil, micelle formation, self-organization and other
surface properties were reported too (Murillo-Hernández et al. 2011; Murillo-Hernández et al. 2009;
Painter et al. 2010). Lately, heavy crude oil recovery from tar sand using ILs was investigated and the
obtained results indicated that 90% of OOIP can be recovered with 5 times IL recyclability with no losses
of efficiency (Painter et al., 2010; Painter et al. 2009). Recently, three core flooding experiments were
conducted at different scenarios using ILs solution with medium crude oil at harsh conditions (high
salinity, high temperature and high pressure) (Bin-Dahbag et al. 2013; Bin Dahbag et al. 2014). Berea
sandstone was used as a porous medium for these experiments. The finding indicated that extra amount
of crude oil can be recovered whether secondary or tertiary flooding is applied.
In this work, a three successful simulation runs have been carried out to simulate and compare the core
flood experimental results that have been completed in the laboratory (Bin-Dahbag et al. 2013; Bin
Dahbag et al. 2014). The simulation runs were carried out using STARS (CMG) software and the results
were matched with real experimental data. All of oil recovery, relative permeability curves, and inlet
pressure were successfully matched. The purpose of these core flooding simulations is to help us to model
ILs flooding on a field scale.
Flooding experiments section
Sodium chloride (NaCl) and Calcium chloride (CaCl2) with ratio 83:17 respectively were used as salts to
prepare brine and ionic liquid (IL) solution. The salinity of both brine and IL solution was 20% (w/w) to
SPE-182836-MS 3

simulate Saudi reservoirs. To prepare brine, salts are added to distilled water then; the mixture is put on
a magnetic stirrer about 6 hours to insure that all the salts dissolved in water. To prepare IL solution, 500
part per million (ppm) of tetra alkyl ammonium sulfate (known as Ammoeng 102) was added to the brine
to prepare brine solution and then, the solution was mixed about 1 hour with a magnetic stirrer. Different
ionic liquids were screened initially depending on interfacial tension between IL solution and medium
crude oil. The screening results indicate that Ammoeng 102 is the best one with 250 ppm critical micellar
concentration (CMC). To overcome the effect of ionic liquid adsorption on the rock surface, 500 ppm of
Ammoeng 102 was used instead of 250 ppm. Tables 1–3 show some physical properties of brine and IL
solution respectively at different conditions.

Table 1—Density versus temperature of 20% (w/w) salinity brine at atmospheric pressure
Temperature, °C 23 30 40 50 60 70 80
Density, gm/cm3 1.15096 1.14651 1.14043 1.13402 1.12790 1.12211 1.11616

Table 2—Viscosity versus pressure of 20% (w/w) salinity brine at 60 °C

temperature
Pressure, psi 14.7 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
viscosity, cp 1.273 1.1128 1.0125 0.9776 0.9643 0.9571 0.9499

Table 3—IFT versus IL concentration of 20% (w/w) salinity at 60 °C

and 2000 psi
IL concentration, ppm 0 250 500 1000 2000
IFT for IL solution, mN/m 14.65 3.02 2.14 1.73 1.65

Saudi medium crude oil, with 28.37 API, 0.8851 specific gravity, and 9.6% asphaltene content was
used as an oleic phase. Density was measured for this crude oil at atmospheric pressure and different
temperatures using Anton Paar density meter while the viscosity of this crude oil was measured at
different pressures and temperatures using Cambridge Viscometer. Tables 4 and 5 present density and
viscosity of Saudi crude oil respectively.

Table 4 —Density of Saudi medium crude oil at different temperatures and

atmospheric pressure
Temperature, °C 23 30 40 50 60 70
Density, gm/cm3 0.88289 0.87809 0.87196 0.86475 0.85761 085050

Table 5—Viscosity of Saudi medium crude oil at different pressures and different
temperatures
Temperature, °C 21 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Viscosity at 14.7 psi, cp 16.2 12.1 8.5 5.9 4.6 2.8 2.3 2
Viscosity at 2000 psi, cp 19.8 14.5 10.4 7 5.5 4.4 3.6 3
Viscosity at 4000 psi, cp 24.1 17 12.8 8.8 6.6 5.2 4.1 3.5

Three core samples, with a 1.5 inch diameter, of Berea sandstone were utilized as a porous medium to
carry out flooding experiments. Saturation porosity and absolute permeability, at 100% brine saturation,
were measured for all core samples before flooding experiments. Table 6 describes some physical
properties of core samples.
4 SPE-182836-MS

Table 6 —Petrophysical properties of Berea sandstone core samples

length and pore volume porosity and Irreducible water Residual oil
Run No. diameter (cm) (cm3) permeability saturation saturation

1 7.28 cm, 3.72 cm 17.19 21.7%, 263 md 0.261 0.384

2 6.35 cm, 3.74 cm 15.22 21.7%, 304 md 0.264 0.314
3 6.5 cm, 3.79 cm 15.46 21%, 243.7 md 0.263 0.291

A sophisticated and full-automated core flooding system from Core test Company was used to carry
out all flooding experiments at a temperature of 60 °C, and 5000 psia, 2000 psia overburden, and pore
pressure respectively. More details on core flooding unit are illustrated in Fig 1. The core sample was
saturated initially with brine, after taking its physical properties; then, it was weighed again to calculate
porosity and pore volume using the difference between saturated weight and dry weight of the sample.
Then, the core sample was placed in a core holder and different flow rates ranging from 1-6 cm3/min were
applied on this sample at reservoir condition, 60 °C, 5000 psia overburden, and 2000 psia pore pressure
to measure absolute permeability. Next, core sample was saturated with crude oil at the same reservoir
condition until irreducible water saturation (Swi). The irreducible water saturation was calculated using
material balance equation. After saturated with crude oil, three scenarios – one for each core sample, were
applied horizontally on core samples at 1 cm3/min flow rate to study the effect of IL solution on oil
recovery. These scenarios are explained in details in simulation section in order to help in understanding
the simulation correctly. All absolute permeabilities (k), effective permeabilities of oil and water (ko and
kw) were determined at 100% water saturation, irreducible water saturation (Swi) and residual oil
saturation (Sor) respectively. Darcy’s law was used to calculate these kinds of permeability as the
following:
(1)

(2)

Figure 1—Full-automated core flooding system unit by Core Test Company (Bin Dahbag, 2013)
SPE-182836-MS 5

Where: k is absolute rock permeability at 100% brine saturation, ko,w is oil and water effective
permeability at Swi and Sor respectively, q is injection flow rate in cm3/min. ␮o,w is dynamic viscosity of
oil and water in cp. L is core sample length in cm. A is cross sectional area of core sample in cm2 and
⌬p is pressure drop during core sample in atm. Recovery factor in secondary and tertiary flooding was
computed using material balance equation. The total recovery factor of flooding experiment was
calculated by summation of secondary and tertiary recovery factors together as the following:
(3)

Where: RFT, RFSF, and RFTF are total recovery factor %, recovery factor during secondary flooding %,
and recovery factor during tertiary flooding % respectively.
Simulation section
In this section, experiments procedure and scenarios are explained; then, simulation results are described
in details.
First scenario (Tertiary flooding with IL solution)
In this scenario, core sample was saturated with 20% (w/w) brine salinity (83% NaCl, 17% CaCl2) and
placed in the core-flooding unit at reservoir condition (i.e. 60 °C, 5000 psia overburden, and 2000 psia
pore pressure). Same brine was injected into the core sample at different flow rates ranging from 1-6
cm3/min to calculate absolute permeability which was 263 mD. The drainage cycle was started by
injecting the core sample with Saudi medium crude oil, API ⫽28.37, at 1 cm3/min to remove water from
core sample to reach irreducible water saturation (Swi ⫽ 0.261). Imbibition cycle was started by flooding
the core sample with same brine at 1 cm3/min until no oil is produced (Sw ⫽ 0.583). The imbibition cycle
lasted 53 minutes until water cut up to 100%. IL solution, 500 ppm of Ammoeng 102 diluted in brine was
injected into the core sample at 1 cm3/min as tertiary flooding until no oil is produced (Sor ⫽ 0.384). This
process continued for 86 minutes.
The Same procedure was applied in STARS (CMG) software where CMG file was set with lab units
except pressure in psia. To simplify, the core sample was assumed to have a cuboidal shape instead of
cylindrical shape with the same volume and same cross-sectional area of the cylinder. The cuboid was
divided into 10 equal blocks (10⫻0.7285 cm in length) in X-axis, 1 block (3.2968 cm in width) in Y-axis
and 1 block (3.2968 cm in height) in Z-axis; in addition, injection and production wells were located in
the first and tenth section respectively as shown in Fig 2. All reservoir properties, components properties
(e.g. brine, crude oil, and surfactant), and wellbores characteristics were entered into CMG software.
Porosity map of a homogenous Berea core sample was presented in Fig 3.

Figure 2—Cartesian grid design for ionic liquids flooding

6 SPE-182836-MS

Figure 3—Porosity map of homogeneous Berea sandstone core sample

Flooding time in simulation process was set at 53 minutes for secondary flooding with brine (3 PV)
and 86 minutes for tertiary flooding with IL solution (5 PV). SFM model was chosen as a process wizard
in CMG software during the flooding with IL solution. Oil saturation maps at the beginning of water
flooding, at the end of water flooding (beginning of IL solution flooding) and at the end of IL solution
flooding were depicted in Figs 4–6. At the beginning of water flooding, core sample was uniformly
saturated with initial oil saturation (Soi ⫽ 0.739) as indicated in Fig 4. However, after taking 53 minutes
to inject 3 PV of brine, the oil saturation was reduced into 0.4168 as presented in Fig 5. Fig 5 shows that
sweep efficiency of brine is uniform where brine flooding sweeps all crude oil that can be found in large
pores. This finding occurs due to the homogeneity of the core sample and continuity of water flooding
until 100% water cut.

Figure 4 —Oil saturation at the beginning of water flooding

SPE-182836-MS 7

Figure 5—Oil saturation at the end of water flooding (beginning of IL solution flooding)

Figure 6 —Oil saturation at the end of IL solution flooding

Second scenario (secondary flooding with 0.4 PV of IL solution)

A core sample with 304 mD absolute permeability was prepared and saturated with crude oil (Swi ⫽
0.264) as explained in the first scenario. A slug size (0.4 PV) of IL solution was injected into core sample
up to breakthrough at 1 cm3/min flow rate and was followed with same salinity brine as a chase water
flooding. The flooding process was continued 5 minutes (0.4 PV) of IL solution flooding and 82 minutes
(5.2 PV) of chase water flooding until 100% water cut (Sor ⫽ 0.314). Same style of the first scenario was
used in simulation process where the core sample was divided into 10 blocks in length (10⫻0.6354 cm)
and one block in both of width and height (3.3189 cm). Same real time of the experiment was entered into
the simulator to simulate flooding process. Figs 7 and 8 illustrate oil saturation maps before the flooding
with IL solution, and at the end of chase water flooding.

Figure 7—Oil saturation before the flooding with 0.4 PV of IL solution

8 SPE-182836-MS

Figure 8 —Oil saturation at the end of chase water flooding

Third scenario (secondary continuous flooding with IL solution)

This scenario is similar to the second one except the flooding with IL solution was continued until the end
of the flooding process. Core sample with an absolute permeability of 243.7 mD was saturated with crude
oil (Swi⫽ 0.263) and flooded with IL solution at 1 cm3/mine flow rate from the beginning to the end of
the flooding process (Sor ⫽ 0.291). The flooding process took 69 minutes to inject 4.5 PV of IL solutions
until 100% water cut. The core sample was divided into ten blocks (10⫻0.65 cm) in length and 1 block
(3.3588 cm) in both of width and height. The simulator was set at 69 minutes of flooding process with
IL solution. Figs 9 and 10 depict oil saturation maps before and after flooding with IL solution.

Figure 9 —Oil saturation before the flooding with continuous IL solution

Figure 10 —Oil saturation at the end of continuous flooding with IL solution

SPE-182836-MS 9

Results and discussion

Fig 11 presents real and simulated data of both crude oil recovery and well bottom-hole pressure of the
first scenario. In this scenario, secondary flooding with brine (from 1-3 PV on X-axis) and tertiary
flooding with IL solution (from 3-8 PV on X-axis) was done. Figure 11 shows an excellent matching
between real and simulated data of oil recovery during secondary and tertiary flooding. Both of real and
simulated data have represented an early breakthrough at only 0.23 PV of secondary flooding with brine
because of high mobility of brine compared to crude oil. The high mobility of brine can be attributed to
low viscosity it’s owned 1.273 cp compared to 5.5 cp of crude oil. Simulated results have shown that
tertiary flooding with IL solution is able to recover 5% of OOIP extra above secondary recovery which
is 43% of OOIP, and this is the same as what was produced by the experiment. This result agrees with
finding described in the literature (Rai et al. 2014). Real and simulated data of well bottom-hole pressure
appears an acceptable matching with some difference between them during secondary flooding with brine
as illustrated in Fig 11. To make sure that the simulation agrees with experiment, imbibition relative
permeability curves of oil and water of both real and simulated data were drawn versus water saturation
during secondary flooding with brine as represented in Fig 12. Relative permeability curves have shown
that there is a good matching between simulation and experiment data.

Figure 11—Experimental and simulated data of both oil recovery and well bottom-hole pressure of the first scenario

Figure 12—Oil and water relative permeabilities of real and simulated data of the first scenario

Figs 13 and 14 depict all of oil recovery/bottom-hole pressure, and imbibition relative permeability
curves of the second scenario, and 0.4 PV slug size of IL solution. Both Figs 13 and 14 present a
10 SPE-182836-MS

magnificent compatibility of simulation data with the real experiment during the flooding process. Figs
15 and 16 show the simulated and experimental data of third scenario (secondary continuous flooding with
IL solution) where the figures show a good match between the two data.

Figure 13—Real and simulated data of both oil recovery and well bottom-hole pressure of the second scenario

Figure 14 —Oil and water relative permeabilities of real and simulated data of the second scenario

Figure 15—Real and simulated data of both oil recovery and well bottom-hole pressure of the third scenario
SPE-182836-MS 11

Figure 16 —Oil and water relative permeabilities of real and simulated data of the third scenario

Around 64% OOIP was produced in the secondary flooding with 0.4 PV of IL solution (second
scenario) while 71% OOIP was recovered using secondary continuous flooding with IL solution (third
scenario). Simulation results have presented the same results of experiments in both scenarios promoting
the possibility of using surfactant flood model (SFM) to simulate ILs flooding processes. Figs 13 and 15
represent experimental and simulated data of oil recovery and well the bottom-hole pressure of both
second and third scenarios respectively. By comparing oil recovery for all scenarios, secondary contin-
uous flooding with IL solution recovers 71% OOIP compared to 64% OOIP of secondary slug flooding.
In contrary, only 48% OOIP is the ultimate recovery of tertiary flooding with IL solution (first scenario).
Obviously, secondary continuous flooding can recover 7% additional OOIP over secondary slug size
flooding. This finding indicates that 0.4 PV is not the optimum slug size of IL solution. In addition, the
reduction in oil recovery can be attributed to dilution process that occurs to IL solution during chasing
with brine. Other researchers in the literature have obtained same result (Skauge et al. 1992). Furthermore,
secondary flooding in both cases (i.e. continuous and slug size) provides 23% and 16% OOIP additional
recovery respectively than tertiary flooding with IL solution. The superiority of secondary flooding with
IL solution on tertiary flooding can be attributed to rock samples with low water content. At low water
saturation (Swi), IL solution is more efficient to reduce IFT and alter rock wettability to more water wet
compared to high water saturation (i.e. Sw at the end of water flooding) (Bin Dahbag et al. 2013;
Bennetzen et al. 2014).
One of the most important advantages of secondary flooding with IL solution is that the IL solution can
delay breakthrough to 0.48 PV in both cases of secondary flooding (i.e. continuous and slug size). In
contrast, secondary flooding with brine in the first part of the first scenario has a breakthrough at 0.23 PV
as shown in Figs 11, 13 and 15. To explain this phenomenon, IL molecules aggregate together around
small droplets of crude oil to form micelles. These micelles work as a polymer leading to improve the
overall sweep efficiency. In addition, micelles reduce the IFT between crude oil and brine leading to more
reduction in capillary pressure during small pores and consequently improving displacement efficiency of
ionic solution (Kamranfar and Jamialahmadi 2014; Mwangi 2010; Wang et al. 2004).
Well bottom-hole pressure in both secondary continuous flooding and slug size flooding with IL
solution provides a good agreement between simulated and experimental data as illustrated in Figs 13 and
15. This result confirms the accuracy of surfactant flood model in simulating ionic liquid flooding process.
In both experimental and simulated data shown in Figs 11, 13 and 15, well bottom-hole pressure increases
up to breakthrough points and starts to decline and then stabilized as discussed earlier. This increment in
well bottom-hole pressure is a result from the formation of water/oil emulsion in rock pores where water
saturation increases during water flooding. Water/oil emulsion has a high viscosity and thus restricts water
12 SPE-182836-MS

mobility through oil phase leading to an increment in well bottom-hole pressure. This finding agrees with
results found by previous investigators (Dong 2008).
Finally, Figs 14 and 16 depict imbibition relative permeability curves of secondary slug size flooding
and secondary continuous flooding with IL respectively. Both figures show an excellent match between
simulated and experimental data. The intersection between oil and water relative permeability curves for
both simulated and experimental data occurs at Sw ⫽ 0.55 and 0.64 for secondary slug size flooding (i.e.
second scenario) and secondary continuous flooding with IL solution (i.e. third scenario) respectively.
This means that continuous IL solution flooding changes the wettability of rock to more water wet
compared with slug size IL solution followed by brine. This finding explains the superiority of continuous
flooding on slug size flooding.

Conclusion
In this study, CMG STARS simulator software for surfactant Flood Model is used to compare the
experimental data. Three core flood experiments with IL solution were modeled and matched success-
fully. Oil recovery, well bottom-hole pressure and imbibition relative permeability curves are used as
matching parameters. All these parameters show an excellent match between simulated and experimental
data. This finding confirms the possibility of simulation of ionic solution flooding with surfactant flood
model (SFM). The first experiment was conducted by injecting IL solution as a tertiary flooding to core
sample containing crude oil. Both simulated and experimental finding indicate that tertiary flooding with
IL solution gives 5% additional OOIP on secondary flooding with brine. The second scenario was carried
out by flooding core sample with 0.4 PV IL solutions from the beginning as secondary flooding followed
by chase brine. The obtained results from simulation and experiment indicate that secondary flooding with
IL solution recovers 16% OOIP which is much higher than tertiary flooding with same IL solution.
Finally, secondary continuous flooding with IL solution was carried out on a core sample saturated
initially with crude oil since the beginning. Simulated and experimental outcomes of this study illustrate
that secondary continuous flooding recover 7% OOIP which is better than 0.4 PV slug size flooding.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and technical support of King Abdulaziz City for
Science and Technology (KACST). Appreciation extends to the Department of Petroleum Engineering,
King Fahad University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) for their technical support.

Nomenclature
A ⫽ cross-sectional area of core sample, cm2
API ⫽ American petroleum institute
CMC ⫽ critical micellar concentration
EOR ⫽ enhanced oil recovery
IFT ⫽ the interfacial tension between crude oil and brine, mN/m
ILs ⫽ ionic liquids
k ⫽ absolute permeability od rock, md
ko ⫽ oil effective permeability, md
kw ⫽ water effective permeability, md
L ⫽ core sample length, cm
OOIP ⫽ original oil in place, %
ppm ⫽ a part per million
PV ⫽ pore volume injected
q ⫽ oil flow rate, cm3/min
SPE-182836-MS 13

RFSF ⫽ recovery factor during secondary flooding %

RFT ⫽ total recovery factor %
RFTF ⫽ recovery factor during tertiary flooding %
Sor ⫽ residual oil saturation
Sw ⫽ water saturation at the end of water flooding process.
Swi ⫽ irreducible water saturation, fraction
w/w ⫽ the weight of salt/weight of the total solution
␮o ⫽ dynamic oil viscosity, cp
␮w ⫽ dynamic water viscosity, md
⌬p ⫽ pressure drop during core sample, atm

References
Bennetzen, M. V., Mogensen, K., Frank, S., and Mohanty, K. 2014. Dilute Surfactant Flooding Studies in a Low-
Permeability Oil-Wet Middle East Carbonate. Paper presented at the IPTC 2014: International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Doha, 19-22 January. IPTC-17656-MS.
Benzagouta, M. S., AlNashef, I. M., Karnanda, W., and Al-Khidir, K. 2013. Ionic liquids as novel surfactants for potential
use in enhanced oil recovery. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 30(11), 2108 –2117.
Bermúdez, M. D., Jiménez, A. E., Sanes, J., and Carrión, F.J. 2009. Ionic liquids as advanced lubricant fluids. Molecules,
14(8), 2888 –2908.
Bin-Dahbag, M. S., Al-Qurishi, A. A., Benzagouta, M. S., Kinawy, M. M., Al-Nashif, I. M. and Al-Mushigeh, I. 2013.
Experimental Study of Use of Ionic Liquids in Enhanced Oil Recovery. Journal of Petroleum and Environment
Biotechnoly, 4(165), 2.
Bin Dahbag, M. S., AlQuraishi, A. A., and Benzagouta, M. S. 2014. Efficiency of ionic liquids for chemically enhanced
oil recovery. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 1–9.
Bi Dahbag, M. S. 2013. Effect of Ionic Liquids on the Efficiency of Crude Oil Recovery. Master thesis, King Saud
University.
Dharaskar S. A. 2012. Ionic liquids (a review): The green solvents for petroleum and hydrocarbon industries. Research
Journal of Chemical Sciences ISSN, 2231, 606X.
Domańska, U. 2005. Solubilities and thermophysical properties of ionic liquids. Pure and applied chemistry, 77(3),
543–557.
Dong, M. 2008. Simulation of Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery by Chemical Flooding (pp. 64). University of Calgary-
Canada: Petroleum Technology Research Center.
Fan, H. F., Li, Z. B., and Liang, T. 2007. Experimental study on using ionic liquids to upgrade heavy oil. Journal of Fuel
Chemistry and Technology, 35(1), 32–35.
Fan, Z. X., Wang, T. F., and He, Y. H. 2009. Upgrading and viscosity reducing of heavy oils by [BMIM][AlCl4] ionic
liquid. Journal of Fuel Chemistry and Technology, 37(6), 690 –693.
Guzmán-Lucero, D., Flores, P., Rojo, T., and Martínez-Palou, R. 2010. Ionic liquids as demulsifiers of water-in-crude oil
emulsions: study of the microwave effect. Energy and Fuels, 24(6), 3610 –3615.
Hu, Y. F., Li, S., Chu, Y. P., and Guo, T. M. 2004. Wax precipitation in three Chinese reservoir oils under carbon dioxide
(CO2) injection. Energy and Fuels, 18(4), 1183–1186.
Johnson, K. E. 2007. What’s an ionic liquid? Interface-Electrochemical Society, 16(1), 38 –41.
Kamranfar, P., and Jamialahmadi, M. 2014. Effect of surfactant micelle shape transition on the microemulsion viscosity
and its application in enhanced oil recovery processes. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 198, 286 –291.
Lemos, R. C., Da-Silva, E. B., Santos, A., Guimaraes, R. C., Ferreira, B. M., Guarnieri, R. A., and Fortuny, M. 2010.
Demulsification of water-in-crude oil emulsions using ionic liquids and microwave irradiation. Energy & Fuels, 24(8),
4439 –4444.
Murillo-Hernández, J., Aburto, J., and Kokorin, A. 2011. Current knowledge and potential applications of ionic liquids in
the petroleum industry. Ionic liquids: applications and perspectives. ISBN, 978, 953–307.
Murillo-Hernández, J. A., García-Cruz, I., López-Ramírez, S. n., Duran-Valencia, C., Domíguez, J. M., and Aburto, J.
2009. Aggregation Behavior of Heavy Crude Oil— Ionic Liquids Solutions by Fluorescence Spectroscopy. Energy &
Fuels, 23(9), 4584 –4592.
Mwangi, P. 2010. An experimental study of surfactant enhanced waterflooding. Master thesis, University of Rochester.
14 SPE-182836-MS

Painter, P., Williams, P., and Lupinsky, A. 2010. Recovery of bitumen from Utah tar sands using ionic liquids. Energy &
Fuels, 24(9), 5081–5088.
Painter, P., Williams, P., and Mannebach, E. 2009. Recovery of bitumen from oil or tar sands using ionic liquids. Energy
& Fuels, 24(2), 1094 –1098.
Rai, S. K., Bera, A., and Mandal, A. 2014. Modeling of surfactant and surfactant–polymer flooding for enhanced oil
recovery using STARS (CMG) software. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 5(1), 1–11.
Siedlecka, E., Thöming, J., Fernández, J., Neumann, J., Czerwicka, M., and Stepnowski, P. 2011. Ionic liquids: methods
of degradation and recovery: INTECH Open Access Publisher.
Simoni, L. D., Lin, Y., Brennecke, J. F., and Stadtherr, M. A. 2008. Modeling liquid-liquid equilibrium of ionic liquid
systems with NRTL, electrolyte-NRTL, and UNIQUAC. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 47(1),
256 –272.
Skauge, A., Garnes, J. M., Morner, O. J., and Torske, L. 1992. Optimization of a surfactant flooding process by core flood
experiments. Journal of petroleum Science and Engineering, 7(1), 117–130.
Wang, S. C., Wei, T. C., Chen, W. B., and Tsao, H. K. 2004. Effects of surfactant micelles on viscosity and conductivity
of poly(ethylene glycol) solutions. The Journal of chemical physics, 120(10), 4980 –4988.
Xiao, Y., and Malhotra, S. 2004. Alkylation/acylation reactions in pyridinium-based ionic liquids. Paper presented at the
Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society.