SPE-195854-MS

Core Floods vs. Field Pilot – Effectiveness of Microemulsions in

Conventional and Unconventional Waterfloods

Tim Stephenson, Darin Oswald, Pat Dwyer, Derek Brown, and Emeka Ndefo, Flotek Industries; Sumit Kiran, Jeff
Smith, and Breandan Gaffney, Crescent Point Energy

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 Sep - 2 October 2019.

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
Application of chemistries for waterflooding has traditionally required a significant upfront investment
in core flood testing. Investments of this sort equate to money and time spent on a reservoir screening
tool which does not guarantee an accurate translation into pilots. The aim of this paper is to explore
core flood results in conjunction with pilot results for conventional and unconventional reservoirs where
microemulsions are deployed in order to enhance oil recovery.
Microemulsions act as a delivery platform for solvent (terpene) and surfactant mixtures throughout a
given rock volume. Their ability to alleviate damage and change the energetics of surfaces is believed to
enhance mobilization of oil. They’re optimized for a given reservoir in the laboratory based on fluid-fluid
and fluid-rock interactions. This includes adsorption (persistency), asphaltene wash-off, demulsification,
drop size, and interfacial tension testing. We in turn label changes in injectivity of water as well as increases
in oil production as indicators of success in core floods and pilots.
The above strategy has led to microemulsion optimization in Taylorton Bakken (which is more
conventional) and Lower Shaunavon (which is more unconventional) in SE and SW Saskatchewan,
Canada. These are characterized by changes in permeability, temperature, mineralogy (quartz vs calcite),
oil (paraffinic vs asphaltenic) and water (high vs low salinity). This study demonstrates a beneficial core
flood and pilot response in conventional reservoirs using microemulsions. What’s however interesting and
noteworthy is that the core flood response is negligible in unconventionals (<5% incremental oil recovery)
due in part to asphaltenes plating out on the core’s exterior surface during restoration of wettability, whereas
the pilot response is quite positive.
The major highlight of this work is the need to address the discrepancy in core flood testing and pilot
results in unconventional reservoirs. This is required before core flood testing can be used as a reliable
screening tool for unconventional reservoirs. We’ve furthermore demonstrated the beneficial impact of
microemulsions in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs as well as the need for optimization
based on fluid-fluid and fluid-rock interactions.
2 SPE-195854-MS

Introduction
Flotek Industries has performed a number of enhanced waterflooding projects in recent years, utilizing
patented microemulsion technology. This paper focuses on two of these pilots which were performed for
Crescent Point, one in the Bakken Formation in SE Saskatchewan in the Taylorton field, and the other in
the Lower Shaunavon Formation in SW Saskatchewan. Both of these pilot areas saw a positive response to
the microemulsion injection in the field, however only the Taylorton Bakken pilot saw a positive response
in a core flood test.
This paper aims to explore why the core flood results did not seem to match up to the positive pilot results
for the Lower Shaunavon and if any changes are necessary to the core flooding procedure when being used
in tight unconventional formations.
Figure 1 shows the approximate extent of the Bakken and Lower Shaunavon oil plays in SE and SW
Saskatchewan respectively. The Shaunavon Formation was deposited in the Jurassic period as a result of a
drop of sea level followed by a transgression. The Shaunavon Formation is stratigraphically separated into
a Lower and Upper Member, and oil is trapped hydro-dynamically. The Lower Shaunavon Member, which
will be focused on in this paper, is an authigenic carbonate shelf and has significantly lower permeability
compared to the more conventional Upper Shaunavon Formation. Figure 2 shows a Lower Shaunavon type
well log (Thomas et. al 2014).

Figure 1—Location of Shaunavon and Bakken Plays (Source: RS Energy)

SPE-195854-MS 3

Figure 2—Lower Shaunavon Type Well Log (Thomas et. al 2014)

The Bakken Formation was deposited at the end of the Upper Devonion Period and the beginning of the
Lower Mississippian Period. It is comprised of three members as seen in Figure 3 (National Energy Board,
2015). The Upper and Lower members are organic-rich source rock intervals, while the Middle Bakken
Member, which will be the focus of this paper, contains both siltstones and sandstones. In the Taylorton
Bakken pilot area the Middle Bakken member is more conventional (1-10 md) than the Viewfield Bakken
area, with oil located in structural and stratigraphic traps.

Figure 3—Bakken Stratigraphic Chart (National Energy Board, 2015)

Both of these plays in Saskatchewan have received a lot of attention in terms of activity and development
over the last 10-15 years through the use of horizontal multi-frac wells. In an effort to address the high
decline rates and improve ultimate recovery factors, secondary recovery with waterflooding has been
implemented in the Bakken and Lower Shaunavon plays. The first waterflood pilot started in 2006 in
the Bakken and 2008 in the Lower Shaunavon. In both formations, waterflooding has been proven to
be successful in mitigating the decline rates and improving the recovery factors. In an effort to further
increase recovery, Crescent Point has implemented enhanced recovery pilots in each of these plays with
4 SPE-195854-MS

Flotek Industries. These Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) pilots utilize a microemulsion technology, which
is comprised of a patented blend of solvents and surfactants. Prior to implementing these pilots, testing was
done to identify the optimal formulations. The testing methodology and results will be described in further
detail in the sections below.

Enhanced Waterflooding Workflow

A workflow has been developed to identify the optimal microemulsion formulation specific to individual
reservoirs, and to implement pilots in a cost and time-effective manner. Microemulsion additives act as
a delivery platform for solvents and surfactants into the reservoir for enhanced waterflooding. There are
many different formulations, each of which is tailored to a given set of reservoir and fluid parameters. The
workflow to identify the optimal microemulsion formulation is comprised of the following three main steps:
1. Reservoir Engineering & Characterization
a. Historical production and injection data is analyzed in order to determine if the area is a good
candidate for enhanced waterflooding.
b. Rock, oil and water samples are collected and characterized in order to determine which
microemulsion formulation(s) should be included in the detailed testing in Step #2.
2. Chemistry Selection & Pilot Plannning
a. Extensive laboratory evaluation is performed on the top-ranked microemulsion
formulation(s) which were identified in Step #1. For example, testing can include some or all
of the following: emulsion tendency evaluation, drop size measurements, interfacial tension
(IFT), wash-off testing, persistency (adsorption) testing, and capillary suction timer testing.
b. Field logistics planning is conducted to ensure that there will be no operational challenges
or difficulties when the pilot is implemented.
3. Program Deployment & Ongoing Evaluation
a. Field monitoring is performed to ensure recommended injection dosages are maintained as
well as routine producer sampling. Offset producer samples are collected to measure the IFT
between oil and water and try to help determine the breakthrough time of the microemulsion
to the offset producers.
b. Up-to-date production and injection data is received from the client and used to track and
quantify the incremental production seen in the pilot.

Testing Results: Taylorton Bakken & Lower Shaunavon

The first step in the testing process (step 1b in the workflow described above) was to characterize samples
of oil, water, and formation material from each of the two pilot areas. Table 1 shows a comparison of the oil
characterization, indicating that the Lower Shaunavon is a much heavier and more asphaltenic oil compared
to the Taylorton Bakken oil. This was an early indicator that the Lower Shaunavon pilot would require a
higher solvency product compared to the chemistry selected in the Taylorton Bakken pilot. Using Saturate,
Aromatic, Resin, and Asphaltene (SARA) analysis, the colloidal instability index (CII) and asphaltene to
resin (A/R) ratio were also determined. The A/R ratio is calculated by dividing the asphaltene content by
the resin content. A value > 0.35 indicates that asphaltenes have a high deposition potential. The CII is
calculated from the following formula: (Saturates + Asphaltenes) / (Aromatics + Resins). If oil has a CII
value below 0.7, it is defined as stable, when 0.7 ≤ CII ≤ 0.9, asphaltene stability is uncertain, and if the CII
is higher than 0.9 is considered as unstable and indicates the chance of asphaltene deposition or paraffin
precipitation (Ashoori et. al, 2017). The calculated A/R and CII values, as seen in Table 1, indicate that
SPE-195854-MS 5

asphaltene deposition is likely in the Lower Shaunavon pilot area, whereas paraffin precipitation is more
of a concern in the Taylorton Bakken pilot area.

Table 1—Oil Characterization

Oil Sample API Gravity Saturates Aromatics Resins Asphaltenes CII A/R

Lower Shaunavon Oil 21 °API 15.2% 36.1% 32.5% 16.2% 0.46 0.50

Taylorton Bakken Oil 44 °API 60.0% 32.1% 7.2% 0.8% 1.55 0.11

Water analysis was performed on samples from each of the two pilot areas. The salinity in the Taylorton
Bakken pilot area is high with a total dissolved solids (TDS) of 283,000 mg/L, compared to a TDS of
17,500 mg/L in the Lower Shaunavon pilot area. The large difference in salinity would affect the chemistry
selection for each of the pilot areas, including consideration for the underlying surfactant package within
the microemulsion formulation.
The XRD performed on the Lower Shaunavon cuttings shows that it is 100% calcite in the target interval.
Positively charged calcite indicates that a microemulsion formulation with either cationic or non-ionic
surfactants would be optimal in order to reduce adsorption. The XRD data from the Taylorton Bakken pilot
area indicates that it is predominately (>70%) comprised of quartz. The negative charge in this case would
indicate a microemulsion formulation with either anionic or non-ionic surfactants would be optimal.
A summary of the reservoir and fluid parameters, discussed above, is shown below in Table 2. To re-
iterate, these data show that the Lower Shaunavon pilot area has lower permeability, lower salinity, and has
a heavier more asphaltenic oil when compared to the Taylorton Bakken pilot area.

Table 2—Reservoir and Fluid Parameter Comparison for the Taylorton Bakken and Lower Shaunavon Pilot Areas

Parameter Lower Shaunavon Taylorton Bakken

Minerology Calcite (100%) Quartz (>70%)

Permeability 0.05 - 1.0 mD 1 - 10 mD

Porosity 14 - 18% 6 - 15%

Water TDS 17,500 ppm 283,000 ppm

Oil API 21 °API 44 °API

Oil Asphaltene Content 16.2% 0.8%

Oil A/R (from SARA) 0.50 0.11

Oil CII (from SARA) 0.11 1.55

Temperature 50 °C 85 °C

After the initial characterization work was completed, the best fit microemulsion formulations for each
pilot were included in more detailed testing (step 2a in the workflow described above). The first test
performed was emulsion tendency evaluation. This test is performed by making solutions of various
microemulsion additives in brine by diluting the product while mixing under high shear. For each additive,
equal volumes of treated water and crude oil are added to a glass vial. The vial is capped, placed in a water
bath set to bottom-hole temperature and allowed to equilibrate. Once heated, all the prepared samples are
shaken by hand for 30 seconds and then placed into an observation area. The separation of the two phases in
each sample is documented by taking photographs at set time intervals. The separation quality and efficiency
is compared to a control sample made with the crude oil and untreated water. A microemulsion additive that
induces an emulsion is always omitted from further testing and never prescribed for use in a reservoir.
6 SPE-195854-MS

The second test performed was interfacial tension (IFT) measurements. These measurements were
performed using a spinning drop tensiometer and were measured at both ambient and reservoir temperatures.
Lastly, the third test performed was drop size measurements which were made using a dynamic light
scattering instrument. Microemulsion additives that produced lower IFT’s and smaller, monodisperse, drop
sizes were ranked higher.
The results from this comprehensive evaluation were all taken into account for the selection of the optimal
product for each pilot area. The top ranked product for the Taylorton Bakken pilot was a non-ionic, medium
solvency microemulsion additive, and the top ranked product for the Lower Shaunavon pilot was a non-
ionic, high solvency microemulsion additive. These results validated the initial characterization of the oil
and cuttings.

Pilot Results: Taylorton Bakken & Lower Shaunavon

The initial Taylorton Bakken pilot was performed in two horizontal injectors (with four offset horizontal
producers) for a period of 12 months in 2015. Following the positive response seen in the offset wells, Phase
2 of the pilot was implemented in five horizontal injectors (with seven offset horizontal producers) for a
period of 30 months from October 2016 - March 2019. It should be noted, that the two injectors in Phase
1 were two of the five Phase 2 injectors. Prior to the pilot there was an increase in oil-cut and oil rate in
2013 that is attributed to the initial waterflood response.
Figure 4 below shows the oil-cut response for the Phase 1 wells (the four offsetting producers), and the
Phase 2 wells (the seven offsetting producers). In each case, the downward trend in oil-cut is reversed, with
a significant increase seen for several years. In Phase 1 the oil-cut went from 21% prior to the pilot up to
35% by the end of the pilot, and continued to increase afterwards. It should be noted that the drop in oil
cut in 2018 can at least partially be explained by the fluid levels in the producers increasing. Additionally,
two of the five injectors did not have microemulsion injection for a period of time starting in mid-to-late
2017. The offsetting producers to these injectors showed a drop in oil-cut due to these factors, and once
microemulsion injection was restarted in these two wells, the oil-cuts came back up. This further verifies
the positive response that the microemulsion injection is having on the oil-cuts and rates in the field.

Figure 4—Oil-Cut Response in the Taylorton Bakken Pilot

Figure 5 shows the oil rate response from all seven offset producers. A baseline decline curve (black) and
forecast curve (green), with the same decline rates, have been added to the plot and were used to calculate
the incremental production. Based on these curves, an incremental 139,000 bbl of oil has been produced
to-date as a result of the pilot. As it will be described in further detail in the next section, the Taylorton
SPE-195854-MS 7

Bakken core flood results, similar to the pilot results, showed significant improvements in production with
the microemulsion injection.

Figure 5—Oil Rate Response in the Taylorton Bakken Pilot

The Lower Shaunavon pilot was performed in three horizontal injectors in two separate sections from
July 2017 – March 2018. In one of the sections the pilot consisted of one horizontal injector with two
offset horizontal producers. In the other section, the pilot consisted of two horizontal injectors with six
offset horizontal producers. The plots that are shown below are from the section with two injectors and six
producers. The section with one injector and two producers had a similar positive response.
Figure 6 below shows the oil-cut response. The oil-cut increased from an average of 22% in the 30 days
prior to the pilot up to an average of 37% over the last 30 days of the pilot. The oil-cut increase that was seen
in 2016 is due to the installation of pump off controllers in several of the producers in the pilot area, allowing
the fluid levels to be optimized. These were installed far enough before the start of the microemulsion pilot
to not have an impact on the analysis of the pilot results.

Figure 6—Oil-Cut Response in the Lower Shaunavon Pilot

8 SPE-195854-MS

Figure 7 shows the oil rate response seen in the six offsetting horizontal producers. Similar to the
Taylorton Bakken plot above, a baseline decline curve (black) and forecast curve (green), with the same
decline rates, have been added to the plot and were used to calculate the incremental production. Based
on these curves, an incremental 45,000 bbl of oil has been produced to date (which excludes the region
highlighted with the dashed lines) as a result of the pilot. The wells included in the plots below did not
have any operational activities performed during or immediately before the pilot that would account for the
increase in oil rates and oil-cuts. This is a very positive response in the pilot, and several core floods were
run to validate the response.

Figure 7—Oil Rate Response in the Lower Shaunavon Pilot

As will be described in further detail in the next section, the Lower Shaunavon core flood results did
show some minor improvements, however they did not seem to match up with the pilot results. In fact, if
core flooding were conducted prior to the pilot in order to decide whether or not to proceed to the pilot
stage, there is a strong chance that it would not have moved ahead to the pilot stage.

Core Flood Results

Core flooding was performed for both the Taylorton Bakken and Lower Shaunavon pilots in order to validate
the response seen in the pilot and to obtain the necessary modeling inputs. The Taylorton Bakken core flood
was run in-house at a lab in Houston and the Lower Shaunavon core floods were run by a lab in Calgary.
Core flooding procedures were very similar in each case. In the Taylorton Bakken core flood, the core plugs
were aged in oil for 3 weeks at reservoir temperature, and in the Lower Shaunavon core flood the core
plugs were aged in oil for 6 weeks at reservoir temperature. In each case, during the core flood, the core
plugs were water flooded until they reached the residual oil saturation to water. Then, injection with 1L/m3
of the recommended microemulsion, followed by chase water, was performed to quantify the incremental
production and compare to the pilot results.
The Taylorton Bakken core flood, like the pilot, showed a significant improvement in recovery due to
microemulsion injection. In the Bakken core flood there was a 22.5% incremental recovery factor with
microemulsion injection after the residual oil saturation to water was reached. The Lower Shaunavon core
floods on the other hand, unlike the pilot, showed relatively low improvements with microemulsion injection
(4-5% incremental production over waterflooding). The results and challenges will be described in further
detail below.
SPE-195854-MS 9

Taylorton Bakken Core Flood Results

Core flooding was performed on a Nugget Sandstone core in a Houston lab. This core was predominantly
quartz, and a comparison of the minerology with the Taylorton Bakken pilot area is shown below in Table 3.
Overall we expect the results to be representative of what is seen in the pilot area based on the minerology
comparison. Both have relatively low clay content at less than 10%, and the predominant minerology in
each case is quartz. The Nugget core is more unconsolidated without any cementing materials, whereas the
Taylorton Bakken pilot area has the presence of both dolomite and calcite. As a result, we would expect the
Nugget core to be more brittle and friable. We do not believe the change in matrix and cement chemistry
has an impact on the performance of the microemulsion chemistry that was used in waterflooding.

Table 3—Nugget Core and Taylorton Bakken Pilot Area XRD Comparison

Nugget Core Taylorton Bakken Pilot Area

Quartz 91.4% 70.1%

Dolomite 0.0% 11.4%

Calcite 0.0% 13.2%

Feldspars 0.0% 3.2%

Illite/Meca 0.0% 1.6%

Kaolinite 8.2% 0.0%

Montmorillonite 0.5% 0.0%

In the core flood, oil from the Taylorton Bakken pilot area was used, and synthetic water was created
based on water analysis from the pilot area. A summary of the workflow performed for the Taylorton Bakken
core flood is as follows:

• Core plugs were placed under vacuum before being saturated with brine

• Permeability to brine was measured

• Brine saturated samples were flooded with oil until the irreducible water saturation (Swirr) was
reached.
• Core plugs were aged in oil for 3 weeks at reservoir temperature

• Core plugs were waterflooded until the residual oil saturation to water (Sorw) was reached

• Core plugs were then flooded with the recommended microemulsion product, dosed at 1L/m3,
followed by chase water to evaluate the enhanced oil recovery potential of the product
Table 4 below shows a summary of the parameters for the Nugget core that was used. Note that the
permeability to brine is > 1 mD which falls in line the expected permeability range in the pilot area of 1 -
10 mD. The porosity of the core was 7.3% which also falls in line with the expected range in the Bakken
Formation in the pilot area. Additionally, the initial water saturation of 23.4% is close the initial estimate
of 25% provided by Crescent Point.

Table 4—Nugget Core Parameter Summary Table

Parameter Value

Diameter (cm) 2.51

Length (cm) 15.06

Volume (cm )
3 118.8
10 SPE-195854-MS

Parameter Value

Porosity (fraction) 0.07

Pore Volume 8.69

Permeability to Brine (mD) 1.23

Initial water saturation (fraction) 0.234

Table 5 below shows a summary of the Bakken core flood results with water injection and with the
recommended microemulsion injection. As described above, after being aged the core was water flooded
until the Sorw was reached. The Sorw was determined to be 37.5%, and the recovery factor of oil after water
injection was 51.1%. Next, the recommended microemulsion was dosed at 1L/m3 (1,000 ppm), and injected
for 6.25 pore volumes followed by an additional 33 pore volumes of chase water. The addition of the
microemulsion reduced the residual oil saturation from 37.5% down to 20.2%, and increased the recovery
factor by 22.5% from 51.1% up to 73.6%. In addition to the incremental recovery, the microemulsion caused
the differential pressure across the core to drop by approximately 30%. This is a significant benefit and,
if injectivity is an issue in the field, could accelerate the waterflood response and therefore improve its
economics. This, however, is outside the scope of this paper and was not investigated further to try to
quantify the benefit.

Table 5—Core Flood Results (Nugget Core with Taylorton Bakken Fluids)

Parameter Value

PV Water Injected 10.25

Residual oil saturation to water (fraction) 0.375

Waterflood RF (%) 51.1%

PV CnF Injected 6.25

PV Chase Water Injected 33

Residual oil saturation to CnF (fraction) 0.202

Incremental RF with CnF (%) 22.5%

Differential Pressure Reduced with microemulsion? (Y/N) Y

Differential Pressure Reduction (%) 30%

The results were tabulated and plotted and can be seen below in Figure 8 and Figure 9. On each of these
plots the period with the microemulsion injection is marked with the vertical red lines. Figure 8 plots the
injection rate and differential pressure across the core vs. pore volumes injected. This plot shows that with
the microemulsion injection there is a 30% drop in the differential pressure across the core. Figure 9 shows
the water-cut and oil recovery factor versus pore volumes (PV) injected. As seen, there is a very positive
response in the core flood due to the addition of the microemulsion with an incremental recovery factor
of 22.5%. This positive response lines up nicely with the response that was seen in the pilot, and implies
that the incremental production seen in the pilot is due to the microemulsion injection. A total of 33 pore
volumes of chase water was injected, however there was only oil production seen within the first four pore
volumes of chase water. As such, the plot was truncated at a total of 30 pore volumes injected.
SPE-195854-MS 11

Figure 8—Taylorton Bakken Core Flood Plots (DeltaP & Injection Rates)

Figure 9—Taylorton Bakken Core Flood Plots (Water-cut & Oil Recovery Factor)
12 SPE-195854-MS

Lower Shaunavon Core Flood Results

Core flooding was performed on four different Lower Shaunavon core plugs by a lab in Calgary. A summary
of the workflow performed on these core plugs is as follows:

• Core plugs were cleaned via Dean-Stark extraction

• Porosity and absolute permeability were measured

• Core plugs were saturated with brine, and permeability to brine was measured

• Brine saturated samples were flooded with oil until the irreducible water saturation (Swirr) was
reached
• Core plugs were aged in oil for 6 weeks at reservoir temperature

• Effective permeability to oil was measured on the aged cores

• Core plugs were waterflooded until the residual oil saturation to water (Sorw) was reached

• Core plugs were then flooded with the recommended microemulsion product, dosed at 1L/m3,
followed by chase water to evaluate the enhanced oil recovery potential of the product
Table 6 below shows a summary of the recorded parameters for each of the four core plugs. The
permeabilities are quite low with absolute permeabilities ranging from 0.061 - 0.125 mD, and permeability
to brine at initial saturations ranging from 0.029 - 0.086 mD. The permeability in these particular samples is
on the low end of the typical field distribution. Based on the initial water saturations, as well as the generated
relative permeability curves, the rock was determined to be weakly water-wet. The grain density of 2.71 –
2.72 g/cm3 confirms the analysis on the cuttings; which showed it is predominately calcite.

Table 6—Lower Shaunavon Core Plug Parameter Summary Table

Core # 1 2 3 4

Diameter (cm) 3.75 3.75 3.76 3.75

Length (cm) 5.47 5.48 5.56 5.26

Volume (cm3) 60.36 60.55 61.69 58.02

Grain Density (g/cm3) 2.71 2.72 2.72 2.71

Porosity (fraction) 0.198 0.181 0.182 0.128

Pore Volume 11.95 10.97 11.20 7.42

Absolute Permeability (mD) 0.125 0.068 0.074 0.061

Permeability to Brine (mD) 0.086 0.043 0.060 0.029

Initial water saturation (fraction) 0.11 0.18 0.17 0.19

Table 7 below shows a summary of the core flood results with water injection and microemulsion
injection. The average residual saturation to water was 46%, indicating that there will be a significant
volume of oil left behind after waterflooding, and therefore a large target for EOR in the Lower Shaunavon
Formation. In each of the four core plugs, after the residual oil saturation to water was reached, injection of
microemulsion, dosed at 1L/m3 (1,000 ppm), followed by chase water was performed. It should be noted
that, similar to the Bakken core flood, when the microemulsion was injected there was a noticeable (30 -
40%) drop in the differential pressure across three of the four cores. As mentioned earlier, this is a significant
benefit that could accelerate the waterflood response in the field; however it is outside the scope of the paper
and was not investigated further at this point in time.
SPE-195854-MS 13

Table 7—Lower Shaunavon Core Flood Results

Core # 1 2 3 4

PV Water Injected 7.52 25.13 16.59 23.69

Residual oil saturation to water (fraction) 0.46 0.51 0.49 0.37

Waterflood RF (%) 48% 39% 41% 54%

PV microemulsion Injected + Chase Water 4.12 6.52 7.00 9.91

Residual oil saturation to microemulsion (fraction) 0.42 0.46 0.46 0.37

Incremental RF with microemulsion (%) 4% 5% 5% 0%

kro (@ Swi) 0.235 0.109 0.218 0.097

krw (@ Sorw) 0.001 0.046 0.007 0.018

Differential Pressure Reduced

Y N Y Y
with microemulsion? (Y/N)

Differential Pressure Reduction (%) 30% 0% 40% 40%

In the first three core plugs tested, the incremental production over waterflooding was in the 4-5% range
while the fourth core plug showed no incremental production over waterflooding (see Figure 10 and Figure
11 for detailed plots of the core flood results). Given the high residual oil saturation to waterflooding, it
was expected that the microemulsion would have provided higher incremental production than it did. The
core floods were run after the pilot was implemented and after the pilot response had started to be seen, so
it was known that microemulsion injection improved production in the field. However, if the schedule had
been reversed and the core flood was run to validate the technology before implementing a pilot, there is
a possibility that it might not have even made it to the pilot stage. This shows that, in this particular case,
core flooding was not a reliable indicator of what the pilot response would be.

Figure 10—Lower Shaunavon Core Flood Plots (DeltaP & Injection Rates)
14 SPE-195854-MS

Figure 11—Lower Shaunavon Core Flood Plots (Water-cut & Oil Recovery Factor)

The exact reasoning for this is unknown, but it is possible that the low permeabilities are a part of the
reason. During the oil saturation stage there were challenges encountered due to asphaltenes/heavy ends
being filtered out from the injected oil as it entered the tight pore throats and forming a filter cake on the face
of the core. This needed to be removed several times to prevent the core from plugging off. The injected
and produced oil were analyzed which showed an increase in API gravity, 2.5x reduction in viscosity, and a
20% reduction in asphaltene content as a result of the filter cake forming on the face of the core. The filter
residue was also sampled and it was determined that the asphaltene content was 27.4%. It is possible that if
better quality cores - with permeabilities > 1 mD - were used, this issue would not have been encountered.
At the time of the writing of this paper this is planned to be investigated with additional core floods on
higher permeability core plugs. This change in oil composition could explain the difference between the
core flood results and the results seen in the pilot. If a large part of the incremental oil seen in the pilot is
due to the solvency component of the microemulsion which is helping to mobilize the asphaltenes/heavier
ends, then the results make sense. If this is the case, the fact that a large portion of the asphaltenes/heavier
ends are not making it into the core explains why there is not a significant benefit seen in the core flood
when the microemulsion is injected following the waterflood.

Conclusions
Enhanced oil recovery pilots, using microemulsion products matched to the reservoir characteristics, were
implemented in both the Bakken and Lower Shaunavon formations in Saskatchewan with positive results. In
each case, core floods were run after the pilots were implemented to compare the results seen in the pilot. It
was found that in the more conventional Bakken Formation (Taylorton field) the core flood results provided
a better match to the results seen in the pilot, whereas in the more unconventional Lower Shaunavon
Formation the core flood results did not match the positive pilot results.
Historically, core floods have been used as a screening tool prior to implementing EOR pilots. While
they do provide better quantitative results compared to the testing methods described in this paper in the
enhanced waterflooding workflow section, they are not always indicative of the results that will be seen in
the field. Additionally, there are instances where implementing a microemulsion pilot can actually be less
costly and time intensive than running a core flood.
SPE-195854-MS 15

Methods for improving the likelihood of core flood results matching pilot results in unconventional
formations, such as the Lower Shaunavon, are still being investigated and will be the topic of future studies.

1. Thomas, A., Kumar, A., Rodrigues, K., Sinclair, R., Lakie, C., Galipeault, A., Blair, M., 2014.
"Understanding Water Flood Response in Tight Oil Formations: A Case Study of the Lower
Shaunavon," SPE 171671, presented at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 30 – Oct 2, 2014.
2. National Energy Board, 2015, "The Ultimate Potential for Unconventional Petroluem from the
Bakken Formation of Saskatchewan".
3. Ashoori, S., Sharifi, M., Masoumi, M., Salehi, M., "The relationship between SARA fractions
and crude oil stability", published in the Egyption Journal of Petroleum, 2017; 26:209-213.