J Surfact Deterg (2018)

DOI 10.1002/jsde.12185

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effects of Rheological Behavior of Viscoelastic Surfactants

on Formation Damage in Carbonate Rocks
Muhammad Shahzad Kamal1 · Mohamed Mahmoud2 · Mohammed Hanfi2

Received: 21 March 2018 / Revised: 4 June 2018 / Accepted: 19 June 2018

© 2018 AOCS

Abstract Viscoelastic surfactants (VES) are used in vari-
ous oilfield applications such as matrix stimulation and
enhanced oil recovery. The loss of surfactants during the
propagation of VES could result in a significant reduction
in the permeability of the rock (formation damage). The
objective of the current work was to identify the effect of
rheological behavior of the VES on the formation damage
using core-flooding experiments, nuclear magnetic reso-
nance (NMR), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
analysis. A combination of core-flooding, NMR, and SEM
techniques was used to quantify and identify the location of
formation damage in carbonate core samples. The viscosity
and storage modulus strongly depend on the nature and
concentration of salts. The viscosity increased by increas-
ing the salt concentration up to a specific point (15 wt%
CaCl2) and then starts decreasing. The VES formulations
that displayed the maximum and minimum viscosities were
used to identify the impact of rheological behavior on for-
mation damage. Core-flooding experiments were performed
to assess the formation damage due to high-viscosity and
low-viscosity VES formulations. The reduction in the per-
meability of carbonate rocks reaches more than 90% of the
initial permeability. It was found that low-viscosity VES
caused more damage compared with high-viscosity VES
when they were used at constant concentrations. NMR and
core-flooding results revealed that the damage took place
* Muhammad Shahzad Kamal
shahzadmalik@kfupm.edu.sa
1
Center of Integrative Petroleum Research, College of Petroleum
Engineering & Geosciences, King Fahd University of
Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
2
Petroleum Engineering Department, College of Petroleum
Engineering & Geosciences, King Fahd University of
Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
both in pore body and pore throat. However, most of the
surfactant was retained at the pore throat.
Keywords Formation damage
Viscoelastic surfactants

Enhanced oil recovery
Core flooding
Carbonate
J Surfact Deterg (2018).
Introduction
Viscoelastic surfactants (VES) form rod-like or worm-like
micelles that are different from the spherical micelles
formed by conventional surfactants. VES result in a rapid
viscosity built up due to the entanglement of these rod-like
micelles. VES are being used in the petroleum industry for
matrix stimulation and enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
(Adejare and Nasralla, 2012; Aoudia et al., 2010; Hull
et al., 2016; Kamal et al., 2017a; Yu et al., 2011). Matrix
stimulation is often needed in limestone and dolomite reser-
voirs to generate wormholes. These wormholes are made to
bypass the damaged area and to increase the effective well-
bore area. Once the acid is injected, it creates a conductive
flow channel that enhances the injectivity. However, further
injection of acid follows in the wormholes, leaving some of
the areas untreated. This problem is avoided by using
mechanical or chemical diverting agents. Chemical divert-
ing agents are high-viscosity gel-like materials that can
reduce the acid loss in the wormholes and divert the acid to
low-injectivity zones (Al-Muhareb et al., 2003; Artola
et al., 2004; Fogang et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2003). After
completion of the stimulation process, the viscous gel can
be broken down by using internal and/or external breakers.
Highly viscous polymer gels have been used in the past to

J Surfact Deterg (2018)


slow down the HCl acid reaction with carbonate rocks and
to prevent the acid loss in the wormholes. However, in
recent decades, VES gels are more commonly used in acid
stimulation.
In EOR, surfactants are injected to reduce the interfacial
tension (IFT) between water and oil (Azad et al., 2014;
Jamaloei and Kharrat, 2010; Kamal et al., 2015a; Kamal
et al., 2017b; Kamal et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2017; Pal
et al., 2018a; Zhao et al., 2006). Water-soluble polymers
are injected to improve the water/oil mobility ratio by
increasing the viscosity of the displacing fluid (Kamal
et al., 2015b; Pal et al., 2018b). Surfactants and polymers
are frequently injected together to improve the mobility and
to reduce the IFT, simultaneously. VES are attractive single
component alternatives to surfactants and polymers for
EOR applications as they can reduce the IFT and improve
the mobility ratio (Dai et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016a; Li
et al., 2016b; van Santvoort and Golombok, 2016). The use
of VES as a chemical EOR fluid could also have a disad-
vantage owing to surfactant retention.
Retention and adsorption of VES on rock surface,
which have been observed in different studies (Curbelo
et al., 2007; Paria and Khilar, 2004; Patzkó and Dékány,
1993; ShamsiJazeyi et al., 2014), can cause significant
formation damage. The loss of VES can be either due to
adsorption on the rock surface or due to trapping inside
the pore. The retention of VES occurs because of the
interactions between the surfactant molecules and the
rock surface. The adsorption of VES could reduce the
permeability of the reservoir rock (Yu et al., 2011). Sev-
eral methods were proposed to clean up the retained sur-
factant from carbonate rocks. Injection of 2% KCl brine
and 10% mutual solvent was used to remove the retained
VES (Lungwitz et al., 2007). However, these treatments
may fail depending on the reservoir conditions and the
nature of the process.
The objective of the current work was to identify the
effect of the rheological behavior of VES on the forma-
tion damage when keeping the concentration of VES the
same. The viscosity difference was obtained by changing
the salinity but holding the concentration of the VES con-
stant. The rheological properties of 1% VES were deter-
mined at different concentrations of NaCl and CaCl2.
Based on the rheological properties, two different VES
formulations were selected with a significant viscosity dif-
ference. Core-flooding experiments were performed to
quantify the formation damage due to low-viscosity and
high-viscosity fluids. The formation damage was com-
pared by a change in pressure drop and a reduction in the
permeability. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spec-
troscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were
used to identify the damage location, i.e., pore throat or
pore body.
J Surfact Deterg
Experimental
In this study, a zwitterionic erucamidopropyl hydroxypro-
pyl sulfobetaine VES was used. The surfactant was sup-
plied by AkzoNobel (Amsterdam, Netherlands) in solution
form. The structure of the surfactant is shown in Fig. 1.
Sodium chloride and calcium chloride solutions were pre-
pared using analytical grade chemicals obtained from
Sigma Aldrich (Missouri, United States). VES solutions
were prepared with different concentrations of NaCl and
CaCl2 solutions. CaCl2 was added to simulate the reaction
of HCl acid with calcite during stimulations (Nasr-El-Din
et al., 2008). The rocks used in this study were of pink
desert limestone. The porosity of the pink desert cores
ranges from 25.4% to 27% and brine permeability ranges
from 27.9 to 47 md. The pink desert limestone core con-
tains 99% calcite and 1% quartz. The core plugs were 1.500
in diameter and 300 in length.
NaCl and CaCl2 were dissolved in distilled water to
obtain brine solutions of different concentrations (5–20%).
Then 1 wt% VES solutions were prepared by mixing VES
in the desired brine solution for 10 min at 8000 rpm using
an ultra-homogenizer. The foam produced during the mix-
ing process was removed using a centrifuge that was oper-
ated at 4000 rpm for 15 min to degas the foam. Most of the
air bubbles were removed after centrifuging and a clear
solution with no turbidity was obtained. The solutions were
left for 24 h for equilibration.
The rheological experiments were conducted with a TA
instrument (DHR-3 Rheometer) using a concentric cylinder
geometry. The temperature around the cylinder is maintained
by a circulating fluid. To define the linear viscoelastic region
(LVR), strain sweep tests were performed at a constant fre-
quency. The loss modulus and storage modulus are indepen-
dent of the strain in the LVE region. Then, a strain in the LVE
region was utilized to perform the dynamic frequency sweep
tests. Steady shear and dynamic rheological properties were
measured using 1 wt% VES in 5, 10, 15, and 20 wt% CaCl2
solutions at 25  C. The same experiments were conducted for
NaCl solution. A shear-rate sweep (0.001–1000 s−1) was per-
formed for the NaCl and CaCl2 solutions to analyze the effect
of the shear rate on the viscosity.
Core-flooding experiments were performed to assess the
formation damage by VES injection. Fresh water was used
Fig. 1 The structure of the erucamidopropyl hydroxypropyl sulfobe-
taine surfactant used in this work (Gadberry et al., 2016)
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
J Surfact Deterg
as a compatible fluid to measure the permeability of car-
bonate rocks. VES solutions were used as damaging fluid.
VES adsorb on the wormhole surface created by treating
calcite rocks with VES/HCl and this degrades the connec-
tion between the rock and the created wormholes. All the
solutions were prepared in deionized water. Two different
concentrations of CaCl2 solutions (15% mixed with 1 wt%
VES and 20% CaCl2 mixed with 1 wt% VES) were used in
the core-flooding experiments. Core plugs were vacuum
dried at 60  C for 24 h followed by saturation with water/
or KCl under a pressure of 1000 psi at ambient temperature
for 1 day. The pore volume (PV) of the core plug was mea-
sured using the saturation weight method. The core samples
were weighed before and after saturation with water. The
calculated weight difference before and after saturation rep-
resents the weight of water in the core samples. The pore
volume was calculated by dividing the weight of the water
by its density.
The limestone core plugs were flooded with fresh water at
four different rates to measure the initial permeability. Pres-
sure drop readings were recorded when the flow stabilized.
A back-pressure regulator was adjusted gradually up to
1000 psi and a confining pressure of 1700 psi was set. Darcy
law was used to measure the permeability of the cores.
NMR was also used to assess the damage caused due to
VES adsorption on limestone. A NMR from Oxford Instru-
ments (GeoSpec2) was used to run the NMR measure-
ments. Core plugs up to 3.500 length and 200 diameter can be
used with this equipment. Advanced software from Green
Imaging Technologies was used for data acquisition. A res-
onating frequency of 2.2 was used for all NMR experiments
at room temperature. Sixteen replicate scans were averaged
to get a single exponential decay curve. The limestone
cores were saturated with fresh water at room temperature
under pressure. Then, the core was analyzed by NMR to
measure the porosity and depict the baseline T2 signal dis-
tribution (Mahmoud, 2017). The core was analyzed again
by NMR to measure the change in the T2 signal distribution
and porosity. The cores were back flooded (from the forma-
tion to the wellbore direction) to measure the final perme-
ability with the same fluids used for initial permeability
measurement. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) from
JEOL (JSM-6610LV) was also utilized to identify the dam-
age location due to VES adsorption on the rock surface.
Results and Discussion
Rheology
The rheological properties of the VES solution were deter-
mined in the presence of NaCl and CaCl2 prior to formation
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
damage experiments. The flow of the VES through porous
media could affect the adsorption of VES on the rock sur-
face. Adsorption of VES (formation damage) is a strong
function of viscosity. The viscosity of VES changes within
the porous media in the pores and the pore throats. So we
can expect different adsorption levels in the pores and the
pore throats. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to have a
clear understanding of the rheological behavior of the VES
before injecting into the reservoir. Furthermore, we were
interested to relate the viscosity of the VES to the formation
damage. Therefore, the effects of the salts (NaCl and CaCl2)
on the rheological properties of the VES system were inves-
tigated using different concentrations of CaCl2 and NaCl.
Figures 2 and 3 show the viscosity of 1% VES solution
at different concentrations of CaCl2 and NaCl, respectively,
at different shear rates. Two distinct regions (Newtonian
plateau and shear thinning) are present in the viscosity ver-
sus shear rate plot. At low shear rates, the viscosity does
not change significantly and VES solution behaves as a
Newtonian fluid. The higher viscosity at the low shear rate
is due to the entanglement of the micelles of the surfactant.
In the shear thinning region, the viscosity decreases gradu-
ally with increasing shear rate. This reduction in viscosity
can be explained by the breaking of the viscoelastic micelle
structures upon increasing the shear rate. Only the Newto-
nian plateau and the shear thinning region were identified
within the investigated shear rates. No shear thickening
behavior of the VES was noted within the investigated
shear rate range. For both salts, the increase in the concen-
tration of salts increased the solution’s viscosity up to a
specific concentration and then starts decreasing. The
reduction in the viscosity after 15 wt% NaCl and CaCl2
can be explained by the reduction of the effective head
group area that caused a shift toward a lamellar phase.
Moreover, the electrostatic interactions of the worm-like
micelles become screened. The drop in the viscosity
occurred because the repulsion generated by the charged
surfaces of the micelles is no longer present. Quantitatively,
10
1
η (Pa.s)
0.1
0.01 5 wt% 10 wt%
15 wt% 20 wt%
0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Shear rate (1/s)
Fig. 2 Effect of the CaCl2 concentration on the viscosity of VES
(1%) at 25  C
 J Surfact Deterg

nematic regions. In the plateau region, the stress changes

10
are independent of the shear rate and sometimes show an
unstable behavior. The plateau region was observed for
1 three concentrations of CaCl2 (5%, 10%, and 15%); how-
ever, it covers the maximum range for the highest-viscosity
η (Pa.s)

VES fluid (15%). For the lowest-viscosity VES fluid (20%

0.1
0.01
5 wt% 10 wt%
15 wt% 20 wt%
0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Rate (1/s)
Fig. 3 Effect of the NaCl concentration on the viscosity of VES (1%)
at 25  C
the effect of NaCl and CaCl2 solution was different on the
rheological behavior of the VES. The viscosity of the VES
was found to be more sensitive to CaCl2 compared with
NaCl. Increasing the CaCl2 concentration from 5% to 15%
caused approximately five times increase in the viscosity of
the VES in the low shear rate region. However, the corre-
sponding increase in the viscosity of VES for NaCl was
only two times. The maximum viscosity was observed
when 1% VES was dissolved in 15% CaCl2.
Figure 4 shows the representative shear stress versus
shear rate plot of 1% VES solution at four different concen-
trations of CaCl2. At low shear rates, the stress and shear
rate are linearly proportional. The flow curves are mainly
divided into three different regions. The low shear rate
region is referred to as the isotropic region and the high
shear rate is termed as the nematic region (Berret, 1997).
Both the low shear rate and high shear rate regions are truly
characterized as homogeneous. The middle region or pla-
teau region is characterized as biphasic or nonhomoge-
neous. There exists a critical shear rate (γIn) that reflects the
start of the transition phase between the isotropic and the
100
10
Shear stress (Pa)
CaCl2), the torque signal of the rheometer was very low
and therefore, those data points were ignored.
The storage modulus G0 represents the elastic response
of a fluid and the loss modulus G00 reflects the viscous
response of the fluid. Figures 5 and 6 show the storage
100 1000 moduli of 1% VES solution dissolved in different concen-
trations of CaCl2 and NaCl, respectively. The storage mod-
ulus of the VES solution was also dependent on the nature
and concentration of brine. The storage modulus increased
with the increase in the salt concentration up to a critical
value and then starts decreasing. Like steady shear viscos-
ity, the storage modulus of VES was also found to be more
sensitive to CaCl2 compared with NaCl. Increasing the con-
centration of NaCl from 5% to 15% causes a 250% increase
in the storage modulus of the VES solution. However, for
CaCl2, the enhancement in the storage modulus was more
than 600% for the same concentration. Increasing the con-
centration of CaCl2 resulted in a significant reduction in the
storage modulus of the VES solution. The storage modulus
of the VES at 20% CaCl2 was much lower compared with
the storage moduli at other concentrations at all frequen-
cies. However, the storage moduli at 20% NaCl concentra-
tion showed different behavior. The loss moduli of VES
solutions at different concentrations of CaCl2 and NaCl are
given in Figs. 7 and 8. The loss moduli of VES solutions
also increased by increasing the concentration of NaCl and
CaCl2 in brine up to a critical concentration and then
decreased. The reduction was more significant in the pres-
ence of CaCl2 compared with the reduction in the presence
of NaCl.
In summary, the dynamic and steady shear rheological
properties strongly depend on the nature and concentration
of the brine. The maximum viscosity and storage modulus
were observed when the VES solution was dissolved in
15% CaCl2. The minimum viscosity and minimum storage
modulus were observed when 1% VES solution was dis-

1
solved in 20% CaCl2.

0.1 Core Flooding

5% 10%

0.01 From rheology data, it was found that the viscosity of the
15% 20%
VES significantly depends on the salt type and concentra-
0.001 tion. Based on the rheology data, 1% VES solution dis-
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 solved in 15% CaCl2 was selected as a high-viscosity fluid.
Shear rate (1/s)
For low-viscosity fluid, 1% VES solution dissolved in 20%
Fig. 4 Shear rate versus shear stress for VES (1 wt%) using different CaCl2 was selected owing to its minimum viscosity. Both
CaCl2 concentrations at 25  C solutions have the same concentration of VES but differ in

J Surfact Deterg (2018)

J Surfact Deterg

0.08

0.1

G″(Pa)
G′ (Pa)

0.01
0.008

0.001 5. wt% 10 wt%

5 wt% 10 wt% 15 wt% 20 wt%
15 wt% 20 wt%
0.0008
0.0001 0.1 1 10
0.1 1 10
ω (rad/s)
ω (rad/s)

Fig. 7 Effect of the CaCl2 concentration on the loss modulus of VES

Fig. 5 Effect of the CaCl2 concentration on the storage modulus of
(1 wt%) at 25  C
VES (1 wt%) at 25  C

viscosity. The same concentration of VES solution was
selected to determine the formation damage when the vis-
cosity changes. Therefore, the core-flooding experiments
for limestone cores were performed using VES solutions
with 15% CaCl2 (high viscosity) and 20% CaCl2 (low vis-
cosity). Figure 9 shows the pressure drop across the pink
desert limestone core when high-viscosity VES was
injected at 1 cm3 min−1. The pressure drop started to
increase from a value of 3.7 psi as the VES fluid was
injected. The increase in the pressure drop increased due to
the adsorption of the VES at the pore throat surface. After
reaching 0.8 PV, the pressure drop stabilized and then cor-
responded to maximum adsorption of VES on the rock.
The increased pressure drop indicates that a significant
damage took place, which was also confirmed from the
final permeability of the core. The permeability of the core
was reduced from 47 to 3.1 md (kf/ki = 0.067).
Figure 10 shows the pressure drop across the pink desert
limestone core when low-viscosity fluid was injected at
1 cm3 min−1. When low-viscosity VES fluid was injected,
the pressure drop increased gradually and stabilized at
270 psi after reaching 1.5 PV. The permeability also
decreased from 27.9 to 3.9 md (kf/ki = 0.11). In the case of
low-viscosity fluid, the pressure drop was much higher
compared with the pressure drop when high-viscosity fluid
was injected. The fluctuation in the pressure drop can be
associated with the turbulence effect. The fluctuation
mainly appears after injection of 2 PV of low-viscosity
VES. The maximum adsorption had already taken place
and there is no further adsorption after the 2 PV injection.
The additional pressure drop is probably due to friction
between the injected VES and the pore throat due to turbu-
lence effects. The low viscosity with high shear in the pore
throat creates a turbulence that increases the pressure drop.
This is less dominant before the maximum adsorption takes
place. Also, these fluctuations were not present in the high-
viscosity VES injection. The high pressure drop for low-
viscosity VES injection suggests that the adsorption of
VES was higher. The higher adsorption leads to permeabil-
ity reduction and higher pressure drop across the pink

0.2

0.05
G′ (Pa)

G″(Pa)

5 wt% NaCl 10 wt% NaCl 5 wt% NaCl 10 wt% NaCl

15 wt% NaCl 20 wt% NaCl 15 wt% NaCl 20 wt% NaCl
0.02 0.005
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
ω (rad/s) ω (rad/s)

Fig. 6 Effect of the NaCl concentration on the storage modulus of Fig. 8 Effect of the NaCl concentration on the loss modulus of VES
VES (1 wt%) at 25  C (1 wt%) at 25  C

J Surfact Deterg (2018)

 J Surfact Deterg

180 characteristic length (m), and d is the pore throat size (m).
Ki = 47 md Kf = 3.1 md
ΔP = 140 Psi
A good approximation for the pore throat size is the square
150
K f / K i = 0.06 root of the sample’s permeability. The shear rate for sample
Pressure drop (Psi)

120 1 (permeability 47 md, high-viscosity VES solution) was

90
60
30 Fresh
water 15 wt% CaCl2 + 1 wt% VES
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Cumulative injected pore volume (PV)
Fig. 9 Pressure drop across the pink desert sample because of the
high-viscosity VES blend injected into the core at 1 cm3 min−1 (back-
pressure =1000 psi, confining pressure = 1700 psi)
desert limestone core. The VES adsorption damage can be
quantified by comparing the stabilized pressure drop across
the two core samples after damage. For the first rock sam-
ple (high-viscosity fluid), permeability was 47 md and the
pressure drop stabilized at 140 psi. The permeability of the
second rock sample (low-viscosity fluid) was 27.9 md;
compared with sample 1 under the same conditions, the sta-
bilized pressure drop should be 235 psi (which is the
47/27.9 × 140). This was not the case in the second rock
sample. The pressure drop stabilized at 270 psi; however,
the viscosity of the VES solution was lower in this case
(the 20 wt% CaCl2 solution). The shear rate was calculated
in the porous media for the two rock samples using the fol-
lowing equation (González et al., 2005; Rojas et al., 2008):
100 s−1 and the corresponding viscosity was 25 cP. The
shear rate for sample 2 (permeability 27.9 md, low-
viscosity VES solution) was 450 s−1, and the viscosity was
6 cP at this shear rate. Under the same experimental condi-
Fresh tions, the viscosity of the high VES solution was almost
water
four times that of the low VES solution. A good approach
1 1.2 1.4 to quantify the damage, in this case, is the VES mobility (–
sample’s permeability divided by the viscosity of VES
solution). For sample 1 (permeability 47 md), the VES
mobility in this core is 1.88, and that for sample 2 (perme-
ability 27.9) is 4.65. The low-viscosity VES solution’s
mobility is almost three times that of the high-viscosity
VES solution.
The high-viscosity VES solution (for sample 1, the vis-
cosity at the in situ shear rate was 25 cP) reduced the core
permeability from 47 to 3.1 md. The low-viscosity VES
solution (sample 2, the viscosity at the in situ shear rate
was 6 cP) reduced the sample’s permeability from 27.9 to
3.2 md. A viscosity damage ratio (VDR) was developed in
this study to assess the damage due to VES viscosity. The
VDR is the difference in the values of permeability reduc-
tion divided by the viscosity of the VES solution at the in
situ shear rate. The ratio can be expressed as follows:
Cumulative porosity (P.U.)

25
: u
γ= ð1Þ 20 Before
ϕL After
15
L = 0:05d ð2Þ
10
where γ_ is the shear rate (s−1), u is the superficial velocity
5
(flow rate/area, m s−1), ϕ is the porosity, L is the
0
1 10 100 1000
500 T2-Relaxation time (ms)
Ki = 27.9 md Kf = 3.2 md
400 2
K f / K i = 0.11
Pressure drop (Psi)

Incremental porosity (P.U.)

300 1.6
Before
After
1.2
200 ΔP = 270 Psi
Fresh 0.8
water Fresh
100
water
0.4
20 wt% CaCl2 + 1 wt% VES
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
1 10 100 1000
Cumulative injected pore volume (PV)
T2-Relaxation time (ms)
Fig. 10 Pressure drop across the pink desert sample because of the
low-viscosity VES blend injected into the core at 1 cm3 min−1 (back- Fig. 11 NMR T2 response curves for the pink desert core before and
pressure =1000 psi, confining pressure = 1700 psi) after damage at 25  C before and after injecting high-viscosity VES

J Surfact Deterg (2018)

J Surfact Deterg

is the viscosity of the VES solution at the in situ shear rate

Cumulative porosity (P.U.)
25
(cP). The VDR for sample 1 was 1.8 md/cP, and that for
20
Before sample 2 was 4.1 md/cP. This means that the low-
15 After
viscosity VES solution has higher damage potential com-
10 pared with the high-viscosity VES solution because it has
higher VDR.
5

0
1 10 100 1000
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
T2-Relaxation time (ms)

2 NMR experiments were performed on the core samples

Incremental porosity (P.U.)

before and after the damage in order to analyze the effect

1.6
of the VES injection on the pore system. The samples were
Before
1.2 After analyzed using NMR after saturation with fresh water as a
reference (before damage). After the injection of VES, the
0.8
rocks were reanalyzed to compare the NMR spectra before
0.4 and after the damage. Figure 11 shows the NMR spectra of
0
the limestone core before and after the damage. As shown
1 10 100 1000 in the figure, the system consists of mainly macropores.
T2-Relaxation time (ms) The major contribution of the porosity comes from the
macropores. After VES injection, the total porosity and
Fig. 12 NMR T2 response curve for the pink desert core before and
after damage at 25  C using low-viscosity VES fluid
incremental porosity decreased slightly. The long peak that
corresponds to the macropores decreased, which confirms
ki − kf the adsorption of the VES at the surface of the macropores.
VDR = ð3Þ Once the adsorption took place at the macropores, the con-
μ
tribution of the macropores to the total porosity decreased.
where ki is the initial permeability of the sample (md), kf This reflects that some of the macropores were blocked.
is the permeability after VES adsorption takes place, and μ However, the core-flooding data reflect a huge reduction in

(a) (c)

SEI 20 kV 200 μm SEI 20 kV 100 μm

(b) (d)

SEI 20 kV 50 μm SEI 20 kV 20 μm

Fig. 13 SEM images of the pink desert limestone core: (a) and (b) before VES flooding; (c) and (d) after VES flooding

J Surfact Deterg (2018)


the permeability, which suggests that major adsorption took
place on the pore throat.
Figure 12 shows the T2-relaxation spectra of the lime-
stone core before and after injection of low-viscosity VES
fluid. Low-viscosity VES also affects the cumulative and
incremental porosity. The change in cumulative and incre-
mental porosity due to low-viscosity VES injection is simi-
lar to the change due to injection of high-viscosity VES
fluid. The cumulative porosity decreased after the injection
of low-viscosity fluid. Also, the peak corresponds to
macropores shifted at lower incremental porosity without
shifting from the T2-relaxation time. This reduction in the
incremental porosity suggests that adsorption took place on
the pore body. The core-flooding experiments also reveal
that the permeability reduces significantly after injection of
VES. This suggests that most of the adsorption took place
at the pore throat.
Figure 13 shows the structure of the pink desert rock
sample before and after damage. The rock samples consist
of mainly calcite. The small grains of calcite constitute the
major portion of the rock. After the injection of the high-
viscosity VES fluid, the VES particles adsorbed to the sur-
face of the calcite grains. The small white grains represent
the VES particles and they aggregate on the surface of the
calcite grains. SEM images show the reduction in the size
of the pore throat. This is exactly in line with the core-
flooding and NMR data. The high pressure drop in core
flooding and little variation in the T2-relaxation curve after
flooding also suggest that major damage took place in the
pore throat.
Conclusions
In this work, the effect of the viscosity of the VES on the
formation damage was assessed using different VES formu-
lations at constant concentration. The effect of two types of
salts (NaCl and CaCl2) on the VES rheological properties
was investigated using dynamic and steady shear rheology.
At low shear rates, the Newtonian plateau was obtained,
which was followed by shear thinning at high shear rates.
The viscosity increases by increasing the concentration of
salt up to an optimum value and then starts decreasing. The
maximum viscosity and storage modulus were obtained
using 15% CaCl2 and the minimum viscosity and storage
modulus were obtained using 20% CaCl2. Therefore, these
two concentrations of salts were selected to assess the for-
mation damage owing to varying rheological behaviors of
the VES. Core-flooding experiments suggest that the rheo-
logical properties significantly affect the retention of the
VES, though, the concentration was kept constant. VES
adsorption is a strong function of viscosity, and viscosity is
J Surfact Deterg
a function of shear rate. In the porous media, the shear rate
changes from the pore body to the pore throat. The low-
viscosity fluid was found to have more formation damage
potential compared with the high-viscosity fluid. A major
reduction in the permeability was observed for both fluid
systems. The NMR experiments reveal that some of the
VES retained in the pore body resulted in a reduction in
cumulative porosity of the surfactants. However, compiling
the core-flooding and NMR results, it can be concluded that
adsorption of the surfactants took place on the pore throat
as the ratio of final to initial permeability was lower than
0.1. In summary, the rheological behavior of the surfactants
can significantly affect the formation damage during the
matrix stimulation, and this can be minimized by optimiz-
ing the rheological properties of the VES.
Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank Petroleum Engi-
neering Department and Center for Integrative Petroleum Research,
the King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals for providing the
research support.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict
of interest.
References
Adejare, O. O., & Nasralla, R. A. (2012). Nasr-El-Din HA the effect
of viscoelastic surfactants and a mutual solvent on the wettability
of a carbonate rock. Paper presented at the SPE International Pro-
duction and Operations Conference & Exhibition, Doha, Qatar:
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Al-Muhareb, M. A., Nasr-El-Din, H. A., Samuel, E., Marcinew,
R. P., & Samuel, M. (2003). Acid fracturing of power water injec-
tors: A new field application using polymer-free fluids. Paper pre-
sented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague, Netherlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Aoudia, M., Al-Maamari, R. S., Nabipour, M., Al-Bemani, A. S., &
Ayatollahi, S. (2010) Laboratory study of alkyl ether sulfonates for
improved oil recovery in high-salinity carbonate reservoirs: A case
study. Energy & Fuels, 24:3655–3660.
Artola, P., Alvarado, O., Huidobro, E., & Salmoran, A. (2004). Non-
damaging viscoelastic surfactant-based fluids used for acid fractur-
ing treatments in Veracruz Basin, Mexico. Paper presented at the
SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Dam-
age Control, Lafayette, Louisiana: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Azad, M. S., Sultan, A. S., Nuaim, S. A., Mahmoud M, &
Hussein IW. (2014). Could VES be a part of hybrid option to
recover heavy oil in complex heavy oil reservoirs. Paper presented
at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada, Alberta, Canada: Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers.
Berret, J.-F. (1997) Transient rheology of wormlike micelles. Lang-
muir, 13:2227–2234.
Curbelo, F. D., Santanna, V. C., Neto, E. L. B., Dutra Jr., T. V.,
Dantas, T. N. C., Neto, A. A. D., & Garnica, A. I. (2007) Adsorp-
tion of nonionic surfactants in sandstones. Colloids and Surfaces A,
293:1–4.
Dai, C., Wang, K., Liu, Y., Li, H., Wei, Z., & Zhao, M. (2015) Reuti-
lization of fracturing flowback fluids in surfactant flooding for
enhanced oil recovery. Energy & Fuels, 29:2304–2311.
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
J Surfact Deterg
Fogang, L. T., Sultan, A. S., & Kamal, M. S. (2018) Understanding
viscosity reduction of a long-tail sulfobetaine viscoelastic surfactant
by organic compounds. RSC Advances, 8:4455–4463.
Gadberry, J. F., Engel, M. J., Nowak, J. D., Zhou, J., & Wang, X.
(2016) Thickened viscoelastic fluids and uses thereof. Google Pat-
ents US20140076572A1, USA.
González, J. M., Müller, A. J., Torres, M. F., & Sáez, A. E. (2005)
The role of shear and elongation in the flow of solutions of
semi-flexible polymers through porous media. Rheologica Acta, 44:
396–405.
Hull, K. L., Sayed, M., & Al-Muntasheri, G. A. (2016) Recent
advances in viscoelastic surfactants for improved production from
hydrocarbon reservoirs. SPE Journal, 21:1,340–341,357.
Jamaloei, B. Y., & Kharrat, R. (2010) Analysis of microscopic dis-
placement mechanisms of dilute surfactant flooding in oil-wet and
water-wet porous media. Transport in Porous Media, 81:1–19.
Kamal, M. S., Adewunmi, A. A., Sultan, A. S., Al-Hamad, M. F., &
Mehmood, U. (2017b) Recent advances in nanoparticles enhanced
oil recovery: Rheology, interfacial tension, oil recovery, and wetta-
bility alteration. Journal of Nanomaterials, 2017. https://doi.org/10.
1155/2017/2473175
Kamal, M. S., Hussein, I. A., & Sultan, A. S. (2017a) Review on Sur-
factant Flooding: Phase Behavior, Retention, IFT, and Field Appli-
cations. Energy & Fuels, 31:7701–7720.
Kamal, M. S., Matar, A.-A., Sultan, A. S., & Hussein, I. A. (2015a).
Predicting interfacial tension using advanced meso-scale modelling
technique. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil
Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 11-13 August
2015. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/174625-MS
Kamal, M. S., Shakil Hussain, S. M., & Fogang, L. T. (2018) A zwit-
terionic surfactant bearing unsaturated tail for enhanced oil recov-
ery in high-temperature high-salinity reservoirs. Journal of
Surfactants and Detergents, 21:165–174.
Kamal, M. S., Sultan, A. S., Al-Mubaiyedh, U. A., & Hussein, I. A.
(2015b) Review on polymer flooding: Rheology, adsorption, stabil-
ity, and field applications of various polymer systems. Polymer
Reviews, 55:491–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583724.2014.
982821
Kumar, S., Kumar, A., & Mandal, A. (2017) Characterizations of sur-
factant synthesized from Jatropha oil and its application in
enhanced oil recovery. AIChE Journal, 63:2731–2741.
Li, K., Jing, X., He, S., & Wei, B. (2016a) Static adsorption and reten-
tion of viscoelastic surfactant in porous media: EOR implication.
Energy & Fuels, 30:9089–9096.
Li, K.-x., X-q, J., He, S., Ren, H., & Wei, B. (2016b) Laboratory
study displacement efficiency of viscoelastic surfactant solution in
enhanced oil recovery. Energy & Fuels, 30:4467–4474.
Lungwitz, B. R., Fredd, C. N., Brady, M. E., Miller, M. J.,
Ali, S. A., & Hughes, K. N. (2007) Diversion and cleanup studies
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
of viscoelastic surfactant-based self-diverting acid. SPE Produc-
tion & Operations, 22:121–127.
Mahmoud, M. (2017) Determination of the optimum wormholing
conditions in carbonate acidizing using NMR. Journal of Petro-
leum Science and Engineering, 159:952–969.
Nasr-El-Din, H. A., Al-Ghamdi, A. H., Al-Qahtani, A. A., &
Samuel, M. M. (2008) Impact of acid additives on the rheological
properties of a viscoelastic surfactant and their influence on field
application. SPE Journal, 13:35–47.
Pal, N., Saxena, N., & Mandal, A. (2018a) Studies on the physico-
chemical properties of synthesized tailor-made Gemini surfactants
for application in enhanced oil recovery. Journal of Molecular Liq-
uids, 258:211–224.
Pal, N., Saxena, N., & Mandal, A. (2018b) Characterization of
alkali-surfactant-polymer slugs using synthesized Gemini surfactant
for potential application in enhanced oil recovery. Journal of Petro-
leum Science and Engineering, 168:283–300.
Paria, S., & Khilar, K. C. (2004) A review on experimental studies of
surfactant adsorption at the hydrophilic solid–water interface.
Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 110:75–95.
 & Dékány, I. (1993) Ion exchange and molecular adsorp-
Patzkó, A.,
tion of a cationic surfactant on clay minerals. Colloids and Surfaces
A, 71:299–307.
Rojas, M. R., Müller, A. J., & Sáez, A. E. (2008) Shear rheology and
porous media flow of wormlike micelle solutions formed by mix-
tures of surfactants of opposite charge. Journal of Colloid and
Interface Science, 326:221–226.
ShamsiJazeyi, H., Verduzco, R., & Hirasaki, G. J. (2014) Reducing
adsorption of anionic surfactant for enhanced oil recovery: part
I. Competitive adsorption mechanism. Colloids and Surfaces A,
453:162–167.
Taylor, D., Kumar, P. S., Fu, D., Jemmali, M., Helou, H., Chang, F.,
… Al-Mutawa, M. (2003). Viscoelastic surfactant based
self-diverting acid for enhanced stimulation in carbonate reser-
voirs. Paper presented at the SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, Netherlands: Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
van Santvoort, J., & Golombok, M. (2016) Improved oil reservoir
sweep with viscoelastic surfactants. Energy & Fuels, 30:
9226–9232.
Yu, M., Mahmoud, M. A., & Nasr-El-Din, H. A. (2011) Propagation
and retention of viscoelastic surfactants following matrix-acidizing
treatments in carbonate cores. SPE Journal, 16:993–991,001.
Zhao, Z., Bi, C., Li, Z., Qiao, W., & Cheng, L. (2006) Interfacial ten-
sion between crude oil and decylmethylnaphthalene sulfonate sur-
factant alkali-free flooding systems. Colloids and Surfaces A, 276:
186–191.