See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266667794

Longitudinal Heterogeneity Effects in Alkaline Surfactant Polymer Flooding

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Article · March 2014

DOI: 10.2118/169675-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 170

5 authors, including:

Keyu Liu Michael Clennell

China University of Petroleum - East China The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
329 PUBLICATIONS   5,663 CITATIONS    170 PUBLICATIONS   4,469 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jishan Liu Allan J Mckinley

University of Western Australia University of Western Australia
231 PUBLICATIONS   8,914 CITATIONS    117 PUBLICATIONS   3,229 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oil Inclusion analysis View project

Thermal effect on permeability during ECBM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Keyu Liu on 21 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-169675-MS

Longitudinal Heterogeneity Effects in Alkaline Surfactant Polymer Flooding

Enhanced Oil Recovery
Hamid Ghafram Al Shahri, UWA, PDO, Oman; Keyu Liu, CSIRO, W.Australia & Research Institute of Petroleum
Exploration and Development, PetroChina, China; M.B. Clennell, CSIRO, Kensington, Western Australia; Jishan
Liu, UWA, Crawley, Western Australia; Allan McKinley, UWA, Crawley, Western Australia
Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 31 March–2 April 2014.

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

This paper describes experimental work to study the impact of longitudinal heterogeneity of porous medium (in terms of
permeability) on the efficiency of ASP flooding that has been practiced in Enhance Oil Recovery (EOR). EOR becomes
increasingly important as the globally proved crude oil reserves are being depleted. Chemical flooding is one of the tools to
increase recovery; however, is still an active area for integrated research as it involves geochemistry, pore structure,
microemulsion, fluid flow and chemical transport in porous media.

This present study is based on the use of carefully designed heterogeneous sand packs and monitors the effect of heterogeneity
on the enhanced oil recovery by ASP slug. Oil recovery measurements were made based on mass measurements.

Results include the chemical profiles and its relation to EOR. The results indicate that longitudinal heterogeneities can impact
EOR and the flooding of ASP slug from lower-to-higher permeability transition can mitigate the heterogeneity influence on
EOR. In this experimental investigation, an enhancement of 5% (Original Oil in Place) was found when the ASP flood goes
from lower-to-higher permeability transition as compared to that from higher-to-lower permeability transition. This finding
can be of great importance to operators interested in implementing ASP floods.

Introduction

ASP flooding is one of the applied chemical EOR methods (Sheng, 2010) that has been proven to be more cost effective and
simpler compared to the binary injection of chemicals (e.g. French, 1996; Sheng, 2010). The impact of the lateral (transverse
with respect to the direction of fluid flow) heterogeneity on the ASP process was studied systematically in only one published
paper by Shen et al. (2009), and there is no report in the literature regarding the effect of longitudinal heterogeneity on ASP
EOR. The term ‘longitudinal heterogeneity’ used in this paper refers to the variations of permeability in a direction parallel to
the direction of the fluid flow in the porous medium. The effects of longitudinal heterogeneity are the main focus of this paper.

ASP flood or process may refer to the sequential injection of alkali, surfactant and polymer or alkali/surfactant slug followed
by polymer (French, 1996). ASP process or flood in a more contemporary sense refers to the co-injection of a mixture of ASP
chemicals in a single slug. It is this concept of ASP flooding that is investigated in this paper.

On the molecular level and phase behaviour, a remarkable paper explaining the higher effectiveness in recovering oil in ASP
flooding process over a wider salinity window compared to other chemical flooding processes was published by Dr George
Hirasaki’s team in Rice University (e.g. Liu et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2010). They showed the importance of soap-to-surfactant
ratio in the ASP process. Rosen realised that certain ratios of two surfactants (one short and one long chain) are effective in
reducing the IFT between oil and water (Rosen et al., 2005). This is very similar to the observation made by the Hirasaki’s
team that the ultra low IFT in the ASP/oil system is governed by the ratio of in-situ generated surfactants (soap) to the injected
synthesized surfactant. The difference between the work of Rosen’s and Hirasaki’s teams lies in the source of the shorter chain
surfactant. Rosen’s team added the surfactant to their solution, while in the ASP process, tested by Hirasaki’s team, the shorter
2 SPE-169675-MS

surfactant was brought in by the generation of in-situ-surfactant (soap) through the injection of the alkali. This ratio leads to
the generation of a soap/surfactant gradient in the ASP process, which maintains lower IFT over a wider salinity window. This
gave an explanation on the observed higher ability of the ASP process to recover more oil compared to that by surfactant or
alkaline standalone flooding.

Geologically the ultimate recovery in the oil recovery processes, whether primary or secondary, is generally affected by the
reservoir heterogeneity (Ahemd, 2001). Similarly, chemical EOR is affected by the heterogeneity level of the reservoir
formation (Gupta et al., 1988). Wright et al. (1987) showed both experimentally as well as by numerical simulation that
heterogeneities negatively impacts on chemical flooding performance. Their work was based on a 2D physical model of
stratified glass beads layers. The boundaries between the layers were in communication. They showed that the chemical slug
size should be at least of about 1 pore volume (PV) to withstand mixing and dilution imposed from the heterogeneity. In
practice, 1 PV of chemical slug including surfactant is expensive for real reservoirs. Their work underlines the possible
negative impact of transverse heterogeneities on chemical flooding.

Arihara et al. (1999) stated that a minor heterogeneity in parallel cores complicates the ASP process outcome. Gupta et al.
(1988) showed the effects of heterogeneity on chemical flooding by numerical simulation and found that recovery decreases
with increasing permeability contrast between layers. They also showed the significance of the salinity gradient effect on the
chemical flooding.

More recently, Shen et al. (2009) conducted a more specific experimental study on the ASP flooding. They monitored the ASP
process performance in a heterogeneous physical model. They used a physical model with three isolated layers of sand packs
which shared a common injection inlet and a common production outlet. They monitored the oil, water and ASP flow through
the sand pack layers using saturation probes and differential pressure transducers. it was found that the ASP helps to rectify the
flood front by getting first into higher permeability layers. The ASP slug also forms oil bank/microemulsion thereby increasing
the entry pressure to that layer. As a result, the ASP slug moves to the layers with lower permeability, which in turn increases
sweep efficiency and oil recovery.

Shen et al. (2009) investigated the ASP performance in a heterogeneous configuration based on a vertical varying permeability
transverse to the fluid flow direction. Their study was effectively focused on the performance of ASP in lateral (transverse)
heterogeneity and did not investigate the longitudinal heterogeneity (parallel to the fluid flow). Although Arihara et al. (1999),
noticed the negative impact of heterogeneity on the ASP process in parallel core floods, they did not effectively study the
effects of the heterogeneity on the ASP process.

The transverse heterogeneity may be intuitively perceived to have more impact on the chemical EOR process than the
longitudinal heterogeneity. This may explain why most previous work focused on studying transverse heterogeneity (i.e.
mimicking layered reservoirs). Despite the large amount research, the ASP Process is still not fully understood and is
considered to be a complex process (Liu et al., 2008; Mohammadi et al., 2009; Weatherill, 2009). This paper attempts to
improve our understanding of the ASP process with particular reference to the effect of longitudinal heterogeneities of the
porous medium on EOR.

Materials

Stag Crude Oil: Stag Crude is produced from the Stag Field (North West Shelf, Western Australia) operated by a venture of
Apache Northwest Pty Ltd and Santos offshore Pty Ltd (Department of Industry and Resources, State of Western Australia,
2008). The producer made assay data of the Stage Crude available online (Santos, 2011), showing TAN (Total Acid Number)
of 0.45 mg KOH/ g oil.
Mineral Oil: Ondina Oil 15 (Shell) is a highly purified paraffinic oil marketed by Shell Company of Australia Ltd.
Oil 3 is a mixture of two oils: 15.5% (w/w) Stag Crude Oil and 84.5% (w/w) Ondina 15. This oil mixture has a TAN value of
0.07.
Polymers: The polymer used in the experiment is partially hydrolysed (25-30%) polyacrylamide (HPAM) supplied by SNF
under the commercial names FLOPAAM 3630S and FLOPAAM 3430S with approximate molecular weights of 20 and 12
million Dalton, respectively.
Surfactant: The surfactant used in the experiment is a monoalkyl propoxy sulfate surfactant supplied by Sasol North America
under the current commercial name AFOTERRA 145-S4.
SPE-169675-MS 3

Alkali: Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) of reagent grade with minimum purity of 97%.
Sodium Chloride (NaCl): Fulka Analytical grad, assay 99%.

Methodology

Overall Experimental Methodology

The overall objective of this paper is to evaluate the impact of longitudinal heterogeneity alone (in terms of
permeability) on the performance of the ASP process. The performance is commonly evaluated by the amount of oil
recovered in the process. In order to achieve this, all variables ( injection rate, phase behaviour type, oil type, ASP
composition, salinity, sand pack inclination, and flooding sequence) in the experiment were kept constant across
several runs, except for the longitudinal heterogeneity. The oil recovery in each run was then evaluated. Our
experiment used sand packs, which is commonly used for the study of EOR processes including ASP floods (Wu et
al., 2010; Ma et al., 2007; Hou et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2008). This study was carried out using
carefully prepared sand packs.

Heterogeneity Formulation and Configuration

In the experiments of water and ASP floods the heterogeneity was introduced, as mentioned earlier, in terms of
permeability change. Macroscopically homogenous and heterogeneous sand packs were made, following the designs
shown in Figure 0-1.

The homogenous sand packs were packed with one sand type along the whole tube length so as not to exhibit changes
in permeability. On the other hand, the heterogeneous sand packs were packed into halves, each half with a different
sand to provide a permeability variation along the fluid flow direction. The water and ASP floods where then injected
in the direction of increasing or decreasing permeability as shown in Figure 0-1 and Figure 0-2.The permeability
variations were configured to provide two cases: 1) homogenous; same permeability in the entire sand pack and 2)
heterogeneous; increasing or decreasing permeability with respect to flow direction. The heterogeneous sand packs
were designed to have, with respect to the flow direction, decreasing or increasing permeability sequence/transition:
either lower-to-higher or higher-to-lower permeability transition.

Secondary recovery and EOR experiments were conducted in the following manner. In each run, a sand pack was
first prepared with a pre-configured heterogeneity and its mass and exact dimensions were recorded. The steps
describing sand packing is detailed below. Before, injecting any liquid, the sand pack was firstly saturated with CO2.
Next, the sand pack was saturated with water. Oil was then injected to displace the saturation water in order to
saturate the sand pack with initial oil. Water flood and ASP flood were subsequently started to recover oil in the
secondary and EOR modes, respectively. The injection pressure was recorded during both flooding stages. The fluids
produced during the floods were collected to measure the production rate, oil cut, emulsion production and the
chemical profiles. Thereafter, the impact of the longitudinal heterogeneity was evaluated based on the changes in oil
recovery, oil cut, flow rate, chemical profile of produced ASP and injection pressure response.

ASP Slug Design, Density and IFT Measurements

The ASP slug was designed to achieve minimum IFT value and resist phase separation. Arbitrary ASP compositions
were made and their ability to reduce the IFT against Oil 3 was tested. A composition of 1% surfactant (Alfoterra
145-S4), 0.5% of sodium hydroxide and 1550 ppm of polyacrylamide (Flopaam 3630 S) was found very effective in
reducing the IFT between the ASP slug and Oil 3 without the addition of sodium chloride. The IFT was estimated
using the captive/sessile drop technique described by Schramm et al. (1995), Malcolm and Elliot (1980). Further
simplifications to the technique were detailed in Ghafram Al Shahri (2012). The IFT of the surfactant with Oil 3 was
found to be 1 mN/m while the alkali with Oil 3 was found to be 0.12 mN/m. The combination of both
surfactant/alkali produced an ultra low IFT with Oil 3 of 0.005 mN/m. This confirms that both the surfactant and
alkali are engaged in synergic IFT reduction with Oil 3. In the ASP slug, the polymer addition did not increase the
IFT, but the IFT needed a longer time to reach the same ultra low IFT value produced by the slug containing only the
surfactant and the alkali, Figure 0-3.

The viscosities of the fluids used in this experiment were measured using an oscillating piston viscometer,
Cambridge viscometer model VISCOlab 4000 supplied with a temperature control system. The densities of the
4 SPE-169675-MS

liquids were measured using a Mettler Toledo DE40 Density Meter. A rotational viscometer which could be used to
measure viscosity as a function of shear rate was not available at the time of the experimental runs.

The densities of three different ASP slugs of this composition were measured at 30oC and 20oC, which gave averages
of 1.002 and 1.005 g/mL, respectively.

Prior to each ASP flood in the six experiments, a fresh slug was made approximately 24 hours before commencement
of the ASP slug injection. The viscosity of the ASP slug used in the six sand pack experiments are summarised in
Table 0-1.

Sand Pack Preparation

This section describes the sand pack materials, design, dimensions, sand mixing, and sand packing procedure. The
sand packs were prepared in-house and consisted of high pressure transparent glass tubes, Teflon plugs with O-rings,
tubing, and silica sand.

Materials of the Sand Packs

Glass tubes used were high pressure-heavy wall gauge glass tubes each cut to 150 cm long and 0.97 cm internal
diameter of SCHOTT DURAN. The O.D. is ~ 1.45 cm.

Flow plugs were made of Teflon and were specially manufactured to exactly fit the internal diameter of the glass
tubes. Each plug has two O-rings to prevent leakage. Production and injection tubings were passed though its centre
and fixed to the Teflon by Swagelok® stainless steel fittings.

-300 µm quartz sand was supplied by Cooks Industrial Minerals and washed with deionised water (DW) and then
dried at 90 oC before use. The negative sign placed in front of the sand grain size is used in this paper to indicate that
the largest grain size of this sand is 300 µm. The grain size distribution as provided by the manufacturer, is shown in
Figure 0-4. This distribution had probably changed after the DW wash. This sand was used to construct the higher
permeability sections of the sand packs.
-75 µm quartz sand (silica flour): supplied by UNIMIN (now part of Sibelco Group, Australia) and was washed with
DW and then dried at 90 oC before use. The negative sign is to indicate that the largest grain size is 75 µm. The grain
size distribution as provided by the manufacturer is shown in Figure 0-5. The distribution of this sand had most likely
changed significantly after the DW wash given the fine size of the grains. Note that, the exact grain size distributions
of these sands are not important for this study.

Sand mixture consists of a mixture of the two sands mentioned above with the following percentages: 92% (w/w) of
-300 µm and 8% (w/w) of -75 µm. This sand mixture was used to construct the lower permeability sections of the
sand packs.

Sand Packs Dimensions and Configuration

The sand packs were intended to represent 1D experiment, Figure 0-2. The diameter was deliberately selected to be
narrow compared to its length. The plugs took some length at both ends of the tube and this made the sand column
length to be approximately 147.5 cm. In order to retain the sand inside the sand packs, small circles were cut of a thin
scouring plastic pad (mesh) to the size of the glass tube internal diameter and were placed between the Teflon plugs
and the packed sand as cab be seen in the figure. These were successful in preventing sand leaching from the sand
pack to the production/injection ports. Also, the pads were slightly springy and helped packing the contents.

The coarser sand (-300 µm) was selected to construct the higher permeability zones, while, a sand mixture (92%
(w/w) of -300 µm and 8% (w/w) of -75 µm) was used to construct the lower permeability zone, Figure 0-1. The
procedure of mixing the sands is described latter in this paper.

In the heterogeneous sand packs, the permeability transition is not gradual but with a sudden change of permeability
in the direction of flow. The sudden permeability transitions from lower-to-higher or lower-to-higher may not be a
precise mimic of the reservoir. Nevertheless, it should reflect some aspects of the behaviour of ASP flooding in the
presence of a longitudinal permeability change.
SPE-169675-MS 5

Sand Washing

Each fine and coarse sands were cleaned separately in deep buckets with DW: 3 kg of -300 µm and 1 kg of -75 µm.
DW was allowed to flow slowly from the bottom of the bucket upwards. Some of the very fine sand grains and
organic material were observed to float out of the bucket. This meant that the potential problems, which are usually
associated with fine migration, such as plugging the production thin tubes or changing the absolute permeability
should not arise in the actual sand packs floods because most of the fines would have been removed during the wash.
Both sands were then dried separately in oven at 90 oC in different porcelain trays. Sands were left in the oven until
they were completely dry.

An acid wash was proposed to remove possible organic coating material on sand during the manufacture but was
avoided to reduce the operational and OHSE challenges as such sand would require the acid wash to be performed in
a dust extraction cabinet. The available cabinet was not equipped for sand wash. As the same sands were used in all
experimental runs, possible contamination by organics would have affected all experiments equally and therefore
would not complicate the results.

Sand Mixing for Lower and Higher Permeability Generation

Several trial sand packs were initially made to study the effect of mixing the -75 µm with the -300 µm sands on the
observed absolute permeability. Mixing these sands in different proportions (by mass) changed the permeability.
Figure 0-6 shows the resultant permeability of mixing -300 µm and -75 µm sands at different mixing proportions.
The permeability was determined by single phase flow at a known rate and measuring the corresponding pressure
drop across the pack. Darcy’s Law was used to determine the permeability for the pressure drop.

In sand mixing, it was found that a percentage of 8% (w/w) of -75 µm and 92% (w/w) of -300 µm gave a
permeability of ~1.5 D. This mix was used to construct the lower permeability sections in the composite sand packs.
The -300 µm sand was used to construct the higher permeability section with a measured permeability of ~ 6 D. The
sand pack configurations are shown in Figure 0-2.

Note that these permeabilities of both the higher and lower permeability sections in the sand packs are considered
high permeabilities from a reservoir engineering viewpoint (Ahmed, 2001; Dandekar, 2006). Although these
permeabilities are relatively high, they are within range of permeabilities encountered in real reservoirs (Wang et al.,
1997; Koning et al., 1989; Qu et al., 1998). The use of the terms ‘low permeability’ or ‘lower permeability’ to
describe the permeability of sand packs used in this study is meant to be “relatively lower” compared to the
permeability of the other section.

Sand Packing Procedure

The sand mixture (92% of -300 µm sand + 8% of -75 µm) was dry packed in increments of about 1.5 g to construct
the lower permeability section. Each increment filled slightly more than 1 cm height of the glass tube. The 1.5 g sand
increments were poured vertically into the narrow glass tube through a plastic funnel. Then a 1.8 m long wooden stick
with a diameter of 9 mm (the glass tube I.D is 9.7 mm) was inserted and used to hand-tamp the sand. On average 10
vertical hits were applied by the stick using hand force. For each strike, the stick was raised about 10 cm above the
sand level and thrust down. In order to ensure consistency, this procedure was performed after adding each increment
of 1.5 g of sand. The same procedure was employed with the -300 µm sand to construct the higher permeability
section. The -75 µm sand may contain free crystalline quartz which could harm the lungs and eyes. Therefore, the
packing process of the sand mixture needed to take place in an area that has dust extraction facility.

Experimental Setup

The experimental setup consists of: a piston pump with a precision stepping motor, injection cylinders, three
exchange cylinders, pressure transducers, tubing and valves, data acquisition card, a computer and a fraction
collector. Figure 0-7 shows a photograph of the flooding setup and Figure 0-8 shows a schematic of the experimental
6 SPE-169675-MS

setup. A metallic rig was made to hold the sand pack vertical and to maintain the fraction collector above the
production side of the sand pack because injection was done vertically with flow direction upwards.

Pressure transducers: Two pressure transducers were used; one for injection pressure and one for pump pressure. The
injection transducer range is 0-150 psi and could handle an excess pressure of 75 psi making it up to 225 psi (Brand:
RS ,model: 348-8093) The pump pressure transducer range is 10,000 psi (Brand: Data Instruments, Model: AB
OPTION 7HP).

Data Acquisition Card: National Instruments model (PCI-6031E)

Control and Data Acquisition Software: Precision Data Acquisition and Control Version 8.02.02 developed by
Masizame Technologies (Riordan Cox and Associates Pty Ltd) on a LabView (National Instruments) based
environment and was used to control pump, collect and store pressure and temperature data.

A Swagelok® 7 µm inline filter was used in the tubing line of ASP slug ahead of the safety valve and the pressure
regulator. This component is important to ensure that any possible gels in the ASP slug will be broken up before
injection into the sand pack.

Injection Sequence

In each run, oil recovery floods were carried in 3 main stages: 1) water flood, 3.5 PV 2) ASP flood, 0.4 PV and
finally 3) Water Drive, 2 PV. The mass of the sand pack and its Teflon plugs with their tubing was measured between
each stage to determine actual saturations of oil and water in the sand pack after each flooding stage. The detailed
sequence of the experimental procedure followed in each run is as follows:

1. Measure the dry mass of the packed sand pack.

2. Inject CO2 for 7 minutes at pressure of 20-30 psi.
3. Injected DW water while the sand pack is placed vertically on the rig, the amount injected was 4PVs for
each sand pack.
4. Saturate with Oil 3 by injecting until residual water saturation is reached, continued until no further water is
seen in the production tubing.
5. Carefully and slowly place the slim sandpack on mass balance and record the mass for saturations
calculations.
6. Place the slim sand pack vertically again and leave for 24 hours undisturbed
7. Water flood, start the water flood by flooding until no more oil is produced, that is residual oil saturation is
reached, usually reached at 3.5 PV.
8. Carefully and slowly place the slim sandpack on mass balance and record the mass for saturations
calculations.

9. Inject 0.4 PV of ASP slug, then switch back to water flood, inject 2 PV of water.

10. Carefully and slowly place the slim sandpack on mass balance and record the mass for saturations
calculations.

Pore Volume Determination

The pore volumes of the sand packs were determined by the mass difference between the dry mass and the water
saturated mass of the sand pack. The dry mass of the sand pack included the glass tube, the mesh, the production and
injection Teflon plugs and their tubing. The water saturated mass of the sand pack included the dry mass of the sand
pack plus the mass of the water retained inside the sand pack and the mass of the production/injection tubing. The
mass of water retained inside the production/injection tubing was found to be 0.660 g. Therefore, the net mass of the
water within the sand column of the sand pack can be accurately calculated. The mass is converted to volume by
dividing by the water density assuming a water density of 1.000 g/mL.
SPE-169675-MS 7

Oil and Water Saturations Determination Method

The saturation of oil and water before and after the EOR application is the main criteria to gauge the effect of the
heterogeneity on the ASP process. The saturations of the sand packs were determined by measuring the dry mass of
the sand pack and its saturated mass. The saturation of oil and water can thus be determined by Equations 1 and 2.
Care was taken to move the sand pack horizontally as quick as possible to measure the mass and to minimise
disturbance to the sand pack. However, since the residual saturation consists of capillary trapped oil, weak
mechanical disturbance is expected to have no significant effect. The relationship employed to calculate the residual
saturations are:

Δm
− ρo
S w = PV 1
ρ w − ρo

So = 1− S w 2

Where PV is the pore volume of the sand pack (mL), ΔM is the difference between the dry and wet (saturated) mass
of the sand pack (g), ρo is the oil density (g/mL), ρw is the water or ASP slug density (g/mL), So is the oil saturation
(fraction) and Sw is the water saturation (fraction).

Constant Phase Behaviour

The phase behaviour of emulsion is important to the ASP EOR flooding process. The phase behaviour is expected to
change due to chromatographic separation but also as the chemical slug progresses through the porous medium
(Austad and Strand, 1996). In this present work, it was important that the phase behaviour be kept the same in all
ASP floods to normalise the impact of phase behaviour changes on oil recovery. Unpredicted changes in phase
behaviour could affect the amount of oil recovered by the ASP flood and undermine the experimental efforts to keep
all variables of ASP process constant, except for the heterogeneity. Injecting the ASP slug at the optimum salinity is
desired for maximum oil recovery (Nelson and Pope, 1978). In this study, phase behaviour scans were conducted to
find the optimum salinity of Oil 3/Alfoterra 145-S4 system. The system showed sudden transition from phase –II to
phase +II as salinity was increased and thus was not possible to find the optimum salinity to get the system into phase
III.

ASP injection at phase behaviour -II or +II may not recover the maximum possible oil compared to the optimum
phase III. However, it still can recover significantly more oil than would be recovered using just water flood (Taugbøl
et al., 1995). Perhaps, the most direct way to obtain constant phase behaviour is to design a system that is either well
above or well below the optimum salinity. The system could be kept at +II phase using higher salinities of NaCl. The
system, could also, be kept at phase –II when no NaCl is added. Higher surfactant concentration may also place the
system at phase +II. Thus, to keep the phase behaviour constant, the system could either be placed at phase +II by
adding NaCl or be kept at phase –II by adding no NaCl. The phase –II is easier to achieve and sustain throughout the
flood than phase +II because there was no need to add NaCl to the ASP slug or to the water used to saturate sand
packs. Therefore, phase behaviour –II was chosen and the sand packs were saturated with DW to ensure that that the
phase behaviour remained in the –II phase behaviour.

The phase behaviour type of the emulsion produced in the ASP floods was tested after the floods to ensure it was
indeed phase -II using NMR-PFG-STE (nuclear magnetic resonance-pulsed filed- stimulated echo) and electrical
conductivity test. Both electrical resistance and NMR-PFG-STE confirmed that the emulsion is oil-in-water in all the
six ASP floods.

Chemical Slug and Sand Stability

The ASP slugs for all the sand pack floods should be stable and have the same composition so as to be able to
interpret the results and relate any changes solely to the heterogeneity. The stability of the ASP chemicals is discussed
here.
8 SPE-169675-MS

Polymer

HPAM does suffer from degradation by hydrolysis and this is enhanced in a high pH environment (Sorbie, 1991).
Note that high pH is one of the characteristics of the ASP process. According to Levitt et al. (2011), the hydrolysis
can change the viscosity and thus the viscosity could be as a rough indicator of hydrolysis. It is notable in the work of
Levitt that the hydrolysis rate observed was initially fast then becomes slower with time. Consequently, in this work
of ASP experimental floods, caution was taken to inject an ASP slug of same age in all runs. This aimed to ensure the
polymer had a similar degree of hydrolysis in all runs. In addition, ASP slug viscosity at the start of each run was
measured and if any major viscosity changes were observed a new slug was prepared. Table 0-1shows that in all the
runs the slugs had similar viscosities and thus it was more likely all had similar degree of hydrolysis at flooding
commencement.

Surfactant

Sulphate surfactants are chemically stable at room to moderate temperatures, although specific conditions/variables
such as pH may affect this stability (Tally, 1988). Based on Tally’s work alkyl sulphate surfactants have a
decomposition half life of roughly 80 years at pH=11 and temperature of about 27 oC. Note that Tally mainly studied
ethoxy sulphate while the surfactant that was used in this research is a propoxy sulphate. These two are similar in
structure, with ethoxy groups being more hydrophilic while the propoxy more lipophilic. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume it will be stable during the experiments at laboratory conditions. This was evidenced in the fact that a stable
emulsion was produced in the ASP floods in this work. This is a strong indication on the surfactant action and thus its
stability for the experiment duration. Note that all the ASP slugs were made about 24 hours before each run, if there
were some surfactant degradation, it would be the same for all runs.

Alkali and Silica Dissolution

The sands used in this research were both silica sands (quartz) which can dissolute under alkaline conditions. The
ASP flooding experiments were conducted at high pH, thus, silica dissolution should be mentioned and addressed.
The report of Saneie and Yortsos (1993) reflects the importance of the silica dissolution in high temperature and high
pH alkaline flooding. Kennedy (1950) established that below 150 oC the solubility of silica is very low and thus
essentially insoluble in neutral water. In contrast, Alexander et al. (1954) showed that at high pH the solubility
increases to significant values, for example, at pH of 11 the solubility of silica is just below 0.5%. However, this
solubility was measured after 6 months and three weeks of equilibration. The ASP slug did have a high pH value of
about 12.5, but since the exposure of the sand to the ASP slug in the sand packs floods was only for less than a day at
room temperature it was safe to ignore this dissolution. The work of Alexander et al. (1954) was based on amorphous
silica and the silica sand used in this study was crystalline silica (quartz) which should be more resistant to dissolution
(Siever, 1962). In addition, in any case of dissolution activities in the sand packs, it should take place roughly equally
in the heterogeneous sand packs because these packs were identical in terms of the sand amount and type. In the case
of homogenous sand packs, there was a larger amount of the -75 μm sand in the sand mixture of SP15 whereas SP18
had only the -300 μm sand, therefore, SP15 may have slightly higher silica dissolution because of the smaller grains
which are easier to dissolve. Only the SP16-SP17 pair and the SP19-SP23 pair were used for heterogeneity impact
comparison.

Results and Discussion

The results of the water and ASP flooding experiments: oil recovery profiles, injection pressure responses, ASP chemical
production in produced water are reported below in tabular and graphical formats.

Sand Pack Permeabilities and Porosity Repeatability Quality

Table 0-2 shows that the porosities, mass gradient and permeabilities of the sand packs pairs are reasonably close. These
permeabilities were determined during the water saturation stage, the oil saturation stage, the water flooding stage and were
calculated based on simple application of Darcy’s Law when steady flow conditions were reached. The reported permeabilities
are: absolute permeability Ka, the effective permeability to oil at irreducible water saturation (end effective oil permeability,
SPE-169675-MS 9

Keeo), effective permeability to water at residual oil saturation (end effective water permeability, Keeo). All measured at
injection rate of 0.07 mL/min in vertical configuration of the sand packs.

Note that the absolute permeabilities of SP17 and SP18 are less than the effective permeabilities to oil. The absolute
permeability should be higher than the end effective permeability of oil or water. The injection rate was quite low (0.07
mL/min) and the water head hydraulic pressure in these sand packs was found to be about 2.3 psi (consisting of ~155 cm sand
pack height and tubing above the pressure transducer in addition to the tubing to the fraction collector with a net vertical height
of about 10 cm). Therefore, the resulted injection pressure corresponding to this low injection rate in the sand packs may not
be big enough to overcome capillary end effects especially when the injected liquid had a low viscosity. The measured
pressure at the transducer pressure may include the capillary end effects. Capillary end effects are encountered when the flow
rate is low and usually overcome by injecting at higher rates (Tiab and Donaldson, 2004). As a result, the absolute
permeabilities determined by water injection in Table 0-2 can be affected by capillary end effects. However, in the case of Oil
3 which has a viscosity of 20-30 times higher than the viscosity of water, the resultant pressure of injecting oil at constant rate
was big enough to screen capillary effects and thus was more reliable to determine the permeability. Therefore, the effective
oil permeability is used as the reference permeability and is believed to have closer value to the absolute permeability of the
sand packs than those found by water injection. Table 0-2 shows that the heterogeneous sand pack pairs have reasonably close
values of effective permeability to oil. Note that the sand packs with lower-to-higher permeability configuration (SP17 and
SP23) showed similar values of effective permeabilities to water and values which are slightly higher than that of the higher-
to-lower permeability transition sand packs (SP16 and SP19).

Water Density Influence on Oil Recovery Calculations

The water retained in the sand packs after the water drive in the ASP floods could have a density between that of DW
and that of ASP slug. The density of water inside the sand pack is known for the water floods, thus, only one recovery
value is obtained. In the case of the ASP floods, the density of the water inside the sand pack remains between that of
the ASP slug and that of the DW and its exact value is not known.

When lower water densities are used to calculate saturations (and recoveries) using Equations 1 and 2, higher oil
recoveries are obtained. Therefore, these equations will produce a range of oil recoveries with maximum EOR when
the DW density is used in the equations and minimum EOR when ASP density is used. Since most or a significant
amount of the ASP slug was produced out of the sand packs it is more likely that the water density inside the sand
packs is close to that of the DW. However, as a conservative measure a density value between both the densities of
the DW and ASP was used in the calculations.

Oil Recovery

Results of oil recovery in the secondary and EOR stages are summarised in Table 0-3. The average difference in
incremental recovery between lower-to-higher and higher-to-lower is slightly more than 5% OOIP. The recovery
table shows that the process is more efficient when the ASP flow direction is from lower-to-higher permeability
transition. This experimental result is based on a 1D physical model. Such a conclusion may not be appropriate for
3D physical models. However, one would expect a similar physical behaviour of the emulsion flow in 3D setup
(reservoir or core).

Table 0-3 includes the calculation of the residual saturations after the secondary and EOR floods were applied based
on Equations 1 and 2. The calculations of the residual oil saturations are based on water density of 1.000 g/mL, ASP
density of 1.005 g/mL and Oil 3 density of 0.856 g/mL. The average EOR recovery is reported based on the average
between the minimum and maximum possible EOR which corresponds to the average density between ASP slug and
DW densities, thus, the reported average EOR results are conservative.
10 SPE-169675-MS

The secondary oil recoveries were high in all sand packs because of the high permeabilities of the sand packs and
their narrow cross-section which confined the flooding front. SP15 showed the lowest secondary recovery probably
because of its relatively lower permeability. Its entire length is made of lower permeability sand. It would thus have
more ability to trap oil than other sand packs. The trapped oil in SP15 was easily removed by the ASP flood. The
resulted EOR from this sand pack was the highest compared to other sand packs. Table 0-3 shows that the
heterogeneity configuration of lower-to-higher permeability transition had advantage over the higher-to-lower
permeability transition in terms of the ultimate oil recovery. This probably because the higher-to-lower permeability
sand packs showed earlier flow impairment compared to lower-to-higher sand packs. The impairment would slow the
flow and reduced the ability of the ASP slug to mobilise the trapped oil. As a result, the oil recovery would be slightly
different for the two flooding direction. Since lower-to-higher sand packs showed the incident of flow impairment at
latter times, the ASP slug was able to recover more oil in these packs than the higher-to-lower packs. The reasons for
the difference of flow impairment occurrence between the different permeability transitions are investigated in
another study.

Emulsion Production

The ASP floods in the sand packs produced slightly different amounts of emulsion as it can be seen in Table 0-4,
which shows that the higher-to-lower sand packs (SP19 and SP16) produced slightly larger amounts of emulsion
compared to SP16. It is not known how much oil is present in these emulsions. The digitals images of SP17’s vials of
the ASP flooding were misplaced, thus, it was not possible to calculate the amount of emulsion produced from SP17
sand pack. However, the emulsion from SP17 is expected to be lower than the amount of emulsion produced from
SP16 ASP flooding in analogy to SP19-SP23 pair.

Phase Behaviour of Emulsion in ASP Floods

The phase behaviour of the produced emulsion was detected by electrical conductivity and NMR-PFG-STE. All the
ASP floods in the six well-controlled sand packs experiments produced lower Winsor phase behaviour. Therefore, the
observed variations in the results of oil recovery are confirmed not due to changes in the phase behaviour.

Production Rate and Oil Cut

The flow rates, the recovery profile, oil cut and pressure responses are shown in Figure 0-9 through Figure 0-13.
These plots display the total production rate (qt), the oil cut, the cumulative oil recovery and the pressure response of
ASP flood and water drive, all in reference to the total injection. These figures collectively demonstrate that lower-to-
higher permeability transition has less impact on flow rate and injection pressure. The cumulative recovery curves
were corrected to the ultimate EOR values in Table 0-3 which were based on the mass measurements. Unfortunately,
the images of samples of the EOR recovery of SP17 were lost and could not be retrieved from the camera memory
card. As a result, the EOR recovery profile of ASP17 could not be provided. However, the water flood and ASP
floods recovery results of SP17 which were determined based on mass measurements are given in Table 0-3.

Chemical Profile of the ASP Components in the Produced Water

Chemical profiles of ASP flood effluent help to visualise the concentration of ASP chemicals in the produced water.
It shows how far the peak of each chemical lags behind the peaks of other chemicals. It also demonstrates how much
of the slug was produced. The heterogeneity within individual layers may affect the chromatographic separation of
the ASP chemicals, the formation of oil bank and the flow of emulsion, and thus the EOR. ASP flooding is slightly
different from the other chemical methods as it involves the co-injection of three chemicals and the efficiency of the
process could be affected by the co-existence of these three chemicals within the pores. Wang et al. (2009) studied
the chromatographic separation of flowing ASP slug components in a homogenous long channel. The channel had a
maze-like shape of 600 cm long and an area of 0.6 cm by 0.8 cm. It was filled with a mixture of 90% quartz sand and
10% clay before being saturated with water. The permeability of the channel was about 841 mD. The ASP slug was
first injected to 0.3 pore volumes (PV), and polymer was then injected and pushed by water drive. The separation and
SPE-169675-MS 11

loss of chemicals were noticeable, but they did not report any oil recovery results to relate the effect of this relative
disintegration of the ASP slug to EOR.

In our study, N-bromination of amide groups (starch-triiodide complex) method was used to determine
polyacrylamide concentration. The leuco-base solution of this brilliant green dye was used to determination the
surfactant. The details of the spectrophotometric for surfactant and the polymer methods used in the chemical analysis
of the ASP components can be found in Ghafram Al Shahri (2012). It is important to realise that the chemical profiles
for surfactant and polymer shown here are used as a secondary guide to aid the explanation of the effects of
heterogeneity on the ASP EOR and were not used as a prime evaluating tool because the produced concentrations
were higher than the feed concentrations.

A more successful ASP flood will produce profiles with their peaks close to each other, that is to say that the flood
slug suffered less chromatographic separation. The profiles from the six sand packs are displayed in Figure 0-18
through to Figure 0-23. The ASP was injected as a pulse for the duration of 0.4 PV of injection followed by 2 PV of
water drive injection. The feed concentrations were 1550 ppm for the polymer, 1 %( w/v) surfactant (active based)
and 0.5% (w/v) of NaOH.

In all the runs, the polymer leads the surfactant and the hydroxide. The polymer is followed by the surfactant while
the hydroxide comes last. The sand packs with higher-to-lower permeability transitions and the homogenous low
permeability sand pack (SP15) appear to retain some of the chemicals. The profiles of the chemicals show that more
of the ASP could be produced if the flow was not severely impaired.

Injection Pressure Responses to ASP Flood

The injection pressure was recorded in all experiment runs. The graphs of Figure 0-14 to Figure 0-17 show the
injection pressure response in the sand packs pairs to the ASP injection and the water drive. They demonstrate the
impact of heterogeneity on emulsion flow and oil recovery. The high permeability homogenous sand pack did not
show severe pressure changes but the remaining sand packs did.

The lower-to-higher permeability transition delayed the increase of pressure after the ASP injection for longer time
than the higher-to-lower permeability transition. Therefore, the former heterogeneity configuration is more desired to
minimise the heterogeneity impact on the pressure response. To explain the pressure behaviour observed, additional
experiments were conducted and will be published separately.

Conclusions

The study reveals that the longitudinal heterogeneity does affect the ASP process and that the process is dependent on the
flooding direction with respect to the lateral (longitudinal) heterogeneity. Previous studies on ASP flooding in multi-layer
physical model (resembling 3D problem) showed that the ASP flooding was successful to reduce the impact of vertical
heterogeneities and enabled the recovery of additional remaining oil after water flooding. Our study using heterogeneous long
thin sand packs (resembling the 1D problem), has demonstrated that within a single layer, the EOR of an ASP flooding could
be further improved by flooding in a direction coinciding with increasing permeability transition.

The results show that when the flow direction in ASP flooding goes from higher-to-lower or lower-to-higher permeability
transition, there is an observable difference in the amount of oil recovered and so is the response of the injection pressure. The
case of lower-to-higher permeability transition is preferred to achieve higher EOR. In this work, the recovery enhancement
between lower-to-higher and higher-to-lower was approximately 5% OOIP. The ultimate oil recoveries of the ASP floods from
the higher-to-lower permeability transition packs, SP16 and SP19, were 88.5% and 79.5% OOIP, respectively, whereas for the
lower-to-higher permeability transition packs, SP17 and SP23, were 95.4% and 95.8% OOIP, respectively.

The ASP slug designed in this work was found to be stable and effective in reducing the IFT with the Oil 3 down to the order
of 0.005 mN/m. The alkali and the surfactant were found to have synergic reduction on IFT which is a characteristic of ASP
slug. The ASP slug was made to produce lower phase behaviour with Oil 3 to eliminate the effect of phase behaviour on EOR
and to relate exclusively the change in oil recovery to heterogeneity. The type of Winsor phase behaviour of the ASP/Oil 3
system was determined by electrical resistance and NMR-PFG-STE, and it was confirmed that the continuous phase is the
aqueous phase, thus confirming that the emulsion is oil-in-water (lower Winsor phase behaviour).
12 SPE-169675-MS

References

Ahemd, T. (2001). Reservoir Engineering Handbook. 2nd Edition. Gulf Professional Publishing; Texas, USA.
Alexander, G.B., Heston, W.M. and Iler R.K., (1954). The Solubility of Amorphous Silica in Water. J. Physical Chemistry, Vol.
58, No. 6, pp. 453-455.
Arihara, N., Yoneyama, T., Akita, Y. and Lu, X.-G., L. (1999). Oil Recovery Mechanisms of Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer Flooding.
Presented at SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 20-22 April, Jakarta, Indonesia. SPE paper
54330-MS.
Austad, T. and Strand, S., (1996). Chemical Flooding of Oil Reservoirs: 4. Effects of Temperature and Pressure on the Middle
Phase Solubilization Parameters Close to Optimum Flood Conditions. Colloid and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, Vol. 108, pp. 243-252.
Dandekar, A.Y.,(2006). Petroleum reservoir rock and fluid properties. Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Department of Industry and Resources; State of Western Australia. (2008), Western Australian Oil and Gas Review 2008, [online],
Available from: http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/OilandGasReview2008t(1).pdf
French, T.R., (1996). A Method for Simplifying Field Application of ASP Flooding. Presented in SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium, 21-24 April, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA. SPE paper 354354-MS.
Ghafram Al Shahri, Hamid (2012). The impact of permeability heterogeneity on the effectiveness of alkaline surfactant polymer
enhanced oil recovery process. PhD Thesis UWA.
Green, D.W. and Willhite G. P. (1998). Enhance Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers Text book series. Richardson;
Texas, United States of America.
Gupta, A. D., Pope, G. A., Sepehrnoori, K. and Shook, M. (1988). Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneity on Chemically Enhanced Oil
Recovery. SPE Reservoir Engineering. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 479-488. SPE paper 14889-PA.
Hou, J.-R., Zhang, S.-f., Yang, J.-Z., and Liu, Z.-C., (2005). Chemical agent loss and effective distance of ultra low IFT in ASP
flooding. Journal- Dalian University of Technology. Vol. 45; No. 4. pp. 496-500. (in Chinese)
Kennedy, G.C., (1950). A Portion of the System Water-Silica. Economic Geology. Vol. 45, No. 7, pp. 629-653.
Koning, E.J.L, Mentzer, E., and, Heemskerk, J.,(1989). Evaluation of a Pilot Polymer Flood in the Marmul Field, Oman. SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2-5 October, Houston, Texas. SPE paper 18092-MS.
Levitt, D.B., Pope, G.A., and Jouenne, S. (2011). Chemical Degradation of Polyacrylamide Polymers Under Alkaline Conditions.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering. Vol. 14, No. 3. pp. 281-286. SPE paper 129878-PA.
Liu, S., Zhang, D. L., Yan, W., Puerto, M., Hirasaki, G. J. and Miller, C.A. (2008). Favorable Attributes of Alkaline-Surfactant-
Polymer Flooding. SPE Journal. Vol. 13, No. 1. March 2008. pp. 5-16. SPE paper 99477-PA.
Ma, S., Dong, M., Li, Z. and Shirif, E. (2007). Evaluation of the effectiveness of chemical flooding using heterogeneous sandpack
flood test .Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 55, pp. pp. 294-300.
Malcolm, J.D., and C.D., Elliott (1980). Interfacial Tension from Height and Diameter of a Single Sessile Drop or Captive Bubble.
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering. Vol. 58, pp. 151-153.
Mohammadi, H., Delshad, M., and Pope, G.A. (2009). Mechanistic Modeling of Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Floods. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 4. SPE paper 110212-PA.
Nelson, R.C and Pope, G.A., (1978). Phase Relationships in Chemical Flooding. SPE Journal. Vol. 18, No. 5., pp. 325-338. SPE
paper 6773-PA.
Qu, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Dai, J. (1998). A Successful ASP flooding Pilot in Gudong Oil Field. Presented at SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 19-22 April, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA. SPE paper 39613.
Saneie, S. and Yanis C. Y., (1993). Alkaline Assisted Thermal Oil Recovery: Kinetic and Displacement Studies. Topical Report
prepared for the USA Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, June 1993, Work Performed Under
Contract No. DE-FG22-90BC14600. Prepared by the University of Southern California.
Santos. (2011). Stag Oil Assay Data. [online], Available from: http://www.santos.com/library/stag_crude.pdf
Schramm, L.L, Fisher, D.B., Schürch, S. and Cameron, A.(1995), A captive drop instrument for surface or interfacial tension
measurements at elevated temperatures and pressures, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering
Aspects, Vol. 94, No.s 2-3, pp. 145-159.
Shen, P., Wang, J., Yuan, S., Zhong, T. and Jia, X. (2009). Study of Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Mechanism of
Alkali/Surfactant/Polymer Flooding in Porous Media From Experiments. SPE Journal. Vol. 14, No. 2. June 2009. pp.
237- 244. SPE paper 126128-PA.
Sheng, J.J. (2010). Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and Practice, Gulf Professional Publishing; USA.
Siever, R., (1962). Silica Solubility, 0°-200° C., and the Diagenesis of Siliceous Sediments. The Journal of Geology. Vol. 70, No.
2, pp. 127-150.
Sorbie, K. S., (1991). Polymer Improved Oil Recovery. Blackie and Sons Ltd; Glasgow, Scotland.
Tally, L. D.,, (1988). Hydrolytic Stability of Alkylethoxy Sulfates. SPE Reservoir Engineering. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 235-242. SPE
paper 14912-PA.
Taugbøl, K., Ly, T.V., and Austad, T., (1995). Chemical Flooding of Oil Reservoirs: 3. Dissociative Surfactant-Polymer
Interaction with a Positive Effect On oil Recovery. Colloid and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects,
Vol. 103, pp. 83-90.
Tiab, D. and Donaldson, E. D. (2004). Petrophysics: Theory and Practice of Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport
Properties. Second Edition. Gulf Professional Publications; Boston, USA.
Wang, D., Zhang, Z., Cheng, J., Yang, J., Gao, S., and Li, L., (1997).Pilot Tests of Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Flooding in
Daqing Oil Field. SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 229-233. SPE paper 36748-PA.
Wang, J-L., Yuan, S-Y., Shi, F-S., and Jia, X., (2009).Experimental study of chemical concentration variation of ASP flooding.
Science in China Series E: Technological Sciences, July, Vol. 52, No. 7, pp. 1882-1890.
SPE-169675-MS 13

Weatherill, A. (2009). Surface Development Aspects of Alkaline-Surfactant-polymer (ASP) Flooding. Presented at International
Petroleum Technology Conference, held in Doha, Qatar, 7-9 December. IPTC paper 13397.
Wright, R.J., Wheat, M.R. and Dawe, R.A. (1987). Slug Size and Mobility Requirements for Chemically Enhanced Oil Recovery
within Heterogeneous Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Engineering. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 92-102. SPE paper 13704-PA.
Wu, Y., Dong, M., and Shirif, E. (2010). Study of Alkaline/Polymer Flooding for Heavy Oil Recovery Using Channelled
Sandpacks. Presented in Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, 19-21 October,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. SPE paper 137460-MS.
14 SPE-169675-MS

Table 0-1: Viscosities and Densities of ASP slugs at start of each ASP slug
o
ASP slug of SP Viscosity (cP) @ 25 Density (g/mL) Density (g/mL) @ 20 C
o o
C @ 30 C
ASP- SP15 5.74 1.001 1.005
ASP- SP16 5.43 1.003 1.005
ASP- SP17 5.72 N.D. N.D.
ASP- SP18 5.84 N.D. N.D.
ASP- SP19 5.46 1.002 1.005
ASP- SP23 5.30 N.D. N.D.

Table 0-2: Porosities, mass gradients and Permeabilities of Sand Packs

Mass Length
Length of
Gradient of of
Sand Permeability Porosity Keew Keeo higher K
sand inside Ka (D) lower K
Pack Configuration (Fraction) (D) (D) section
Sand Pack section
(cm)
(g/cm) (cm)
15 L 0.344 1.39 1.527 0.222 0.986 147.4
18 H 0.373 1.33 1.277 0.147 6.096 147.3
19 H-L 0.373 1.34 2.436 0.298 2.270 73.8 73.8
23 L-H 0.372 1.33 3.669 0.474 2.631 73.4 73.9
16 H-L 0.369 1.33 5.72 0.282 2.045 73.7 73.8
17 L-H 0.365 1.34 1.355 0.426 1.754 73.8 73.9

Table 0-3: Secondary oil recovery and ASP EOR results of the Sand Packs. Note:
Polymer 3430S was used in the ASP slug of SP19 and SP23 pair While Polymer 3630S
was used in SP17 and SP16 pair and the homogenous pair.

Secondary Average EOR Average EOR

Sand Permeability Porosity
Keeo (D) Recovery Incremental Recovery
Pack Configuration (Fraction)
(%OOIP) (%OOIP) (%OOIP)

23 Low-to-High 0.372 2.631 76.6 18.8 95.4

19 High-to-Low 0.373 2.270 66.1 13.4 79.5
18 High 0.373 6.096 69.0 13.0 82.0
15 Low 0.344 0.986 53.1 32.9 86.0
17 Low-to-High 0.365 1.754 69.2 26.6 95.8
16 High-to-Low 0.369 2.045 67.8 20.7 88.5

Table 0-4: Amounts of emulsion produced in ASP floods of the Sand Packs.

Sand Permeability Emulsion Volume Emulsion Volume

Pack Configuration (mL) (PV)

23 Low-to-High 2.8 0.07

19 High-to-Low 3.9 0.10
18 High 2.7 0.07
15 Low 3.1 0.08
17 Low-to-High N.D. N.D.
16 High-to-Low 4.3 0.11
SPE-169675-MS 15

Flow direction

Heterogeneous Low-to-High Permeability

Heterogeneous High-to-Low Permeability

Homogenous High Permeability

Homogenous Low Permeability

1.5 m
Legend:
Low Permeability
High Permeability

Figure 0-1: Adapted permeability configuration of sand packs for the control of longitudinal macroscopic heterogeneity.

Heterogeneous sand pack Mesh Teflon plug

Section 1 Section 2 I.D. ~ 0.97 cm

~74 cm ~74 cm
Tubing to Injection or
Production
Homogenous sand pack

I.D. ~ 0.97 cm

~148 cm
Figure 0-2: Diagram showing dimensions and configuration of the heterogeneous and the homogenous Sand Packs.
16 SPE-169675-MS

IFT of ASP Combination with Oil 3

ASP NaOH surf surf+NaOH
10

1
IFT (mN/m)

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (min)
Figure 0-3: Dynamic IFT for different combinations of alkali, surfactant and polymer against Oil 3.

Grain Size Distribution of the -300 µm Silica

Sand
Frequency Cumulative Passing
60 100
50
Frequency (%)

80

Passing (%)
40 Cumulative
60
30
40
20
10 20
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Grain Size ( µm)

Figure 0-4: Grain size distribution of the -300 µm silica Sand before sand washing.

Grain Size Distribution of the -75 µm Silica

Sand
Frequency Cumulative Passing
40 100
80
Frequency (%)

Passing (% )
Cumulative

30
60
20
40
10 20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Grain Size ( µm)
Figure 0-5: Grain size distribution of the -75 µm silica Sand before sand washing.
SPE-169675-MS 17

Permeability of two mixed sands in different propotions

Percentage of -300 µm sand in the mixture

100 80 60 40 20 0
7
6 6
Permeability (D)

5
4
3
2 1.51
1 0.23 0.17
0.43
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of -75 µm sand in the mixture

Figure 0-6: Permeability of the 150 cm long sand packs as a function of the ratio of the amount of -75 µm and -300 µm sand.

Production Teflon Plug Pump

Controllers
Fraction Collector
Injection
Sand Pack Lines

Wooden base Pressure Reducing

Regulator &
Modified Safety
valve
Injection
Teflon Plug

Injection Tubing
Box of Exchange Cylinders
Injection Pressure
Transducer

Figure 0-7: Photograph of the experimental setup of the sand pack. The flow direction is upwards.
18 SPE-169675-MS

Production
Production plug port to
and tubing Fraction
collector

Pressure Regulation Unit

Sand pack in
transparent glass
tube

Pressure Metering
Reducing Valve
Regulator Injection plug Computer
and tubing

Pressure Injection Pressure

relief transducer
valve
Used as Data acquisition card Pump
first controls
stage
pressure
regulator Exchange Cylinders Pump Pressure
Relief Valve

Valve
Pump Main Valve

piston
water
Oil Chemicals
7 µm Cylinder
Inline Re-filling port Injection
filter Three way Valve Pump
Tubing and
cylinders

Figure 0-8: Schematic diagram of the sand pack flood experiments setup.

Sand Pack 15 Floods- Homogenous Lower Permeability

Pinj(psi) Oil Recovery %OOIP Oil Cut %(v/v) qt

220 0.10
Water Flood ASP Water Drive
200 0.09
180 0.08
160 0.07
unit in Legend

qt (mL/min)

140 0.06
120
0.05
100
80 0.04
60 0.03
40 0.02
20 0.01
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-9: SP15 flooding results, which should be compare to its pair SP18.
SPE-169675-MS 19

Sand Pack 18 Floods- Homogeneous Higher Permeability

Pinj(psi) Oil Recovery (%OOIP) Oil Cut%(v/v) qt

100 0.09
Water Flood ASP Water Drive
0.08
80 0.07
units in Legend

0.06

qt (mL/min)
60
0.05
0.04
40
0.03
20 0.02
0.01
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-10: SP18 flooding results, which should be compared to SP15. Note there is no flow impairment in the ASP flood of SP18.

Sand Pack 16 Floods- Heterogeneous/ Higher-to-Lower Permeability

Pinj(psi) Oil Recovery (%OOIP) Oil Cut (%v/v) qt

200 0.09
Water Flood ASP Water Drive
180 0.08
160 0.07
units in Legend

140 0.06
qt (mL/min)

120
0.05
100
0.04
80
60 0.03
40 0.02
20 0.01
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-11: SP16 flooding results, which should be compared to results of SP17, but the profiles of SP17 were not obtainable. This SP16
behaves same like SP19, higher-to-lower permeability transition.
20 SPE-169675-MS

Sand Pack 19 Floods- Heterogeneous/ Higher-to-Lower Permeability

Pinj(psi) Oil Recovery % (OOIP) Oil Cut % (v/v) qt

200 0.10
Water Flood ASP Water Drive
180 0.09
160 0.08
140 0.07
units in Legend

qt (mL/min)
120 0.06
100 0.05
80 0.04
60 0.03
40 0.02
20 0.01
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-12: SP19 flooding results, which should be compared to SP23.

Sand Pack 23 Floods- Heterogeneous/ Lower-to-Higher Permeability

Pinj(psi) Oil Recovery % (OOIP) Oil Cut (% wt/v) qt

120 0.10
Water Flood ASP Water Drive
0.09
100
0.08
0.07
units in Legend

80
qt (mL/min)

0.06
60 0.05
0.04
40 0.03
0.02
20
0.01
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-13: SP23 flooding results, which should be compared to SP19.

SPE-169675-MS 21

Injection Pressure Response of the ASP Floods in the Sand Packs

SP15:L SP16:H-L SP17:L-H SP19:H-L SP18:H SP23:L-H

200 70
180
SP19 Injection Pressure
SP15, SP16,SP17 and

60

Injection Pressure (psi )

ASP Water
160
slug drive 50

SP18 and SP23

140
(psi )

120 40
100
80 30
60 20
40
10
20
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-14: Pressure Responses of all ASP floods for comparison. Note that SP18 and SP23 are plotted on the Pressure axis on the right side
of the graph for better scale resolution.

Injection Pressure Response of the ASP Floods in the Sand Packs 15

and 18 :Homogenous Cases

SP15 SP18
200 25
SP15 Injection Pressure

180
SP18 Injection Pressure

ASP Water SP 15: Homogenous:

160 Lower permeability
20
slug drive
140
(psi )

120 15
(psi )

100 SP 18: Homogenous:

80 Higher permeability 10
60
40 5
20
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-15: Injection pressure response of the ASP floods in homogenous cases of SP15 and SP18. Note the pressure dip at PV~ 0.4 at which
switch to water drive occurred.
22 SPE-169675-MS

Injection Pressure Response of the ASP Floods in the Sand Packs 16

and 17: Heterogeneous cases
SP16 SP17

200
Injection Pressure (psi )

180
160 SP 16: Heterogeneous:
140 High-to-low permeability
120
100
80
60
40 SP 17: Heterogeneous:
20 Low-to-high
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-16: Injection pressure response of the ASP floods in heterogeneous cases of SP16 and SP17. Note the pressure dip at PV~ 0.4 at
which switch to water drive occurs. The lower-to-higher case showed less pressure build up and higher EOR. The polymer used in the ASP is
3630 S, it has higher molecular weight than 3430 S.

Injection Pressure Resposne of the ASP Floods in the Sand Packs 19

and 23: Heterogeneous cases
SP19 SP23

200 70
180
60
160 SP 19: Heterogeneous:
SP19 Injection
Pressure (psi )

Hgh-to-low permeability 50
SP23 Injection

140
Pressure (psi )

120 40
SP 23: Heterogeneous:
100 Low-to-high permeability
80 30

60 20
40
10
20
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-17: Injection pressure response of the ASP floods in heterogeneous cases of SP19 and SP23. Note the pressure dip at PV~ 0.4 at
which switch to water drive occurs. The lower-to-higher case showed less pressure build up and higher EOR. The polymer in the ASP is 3430
S, lower molecular weight than 3630 S.
SPE-169675-MS 23

Sand Pack 15 ASP Flood (Homogenous Low Permeability): Chemical

Profile of Produced Water
Surfactant Alkali Polymer
2.5 800

ASP Water 700

Concentration (% w/v)

Polymer Concrntration
2
NaOH or Surfactant

Slug Drive 600

1.5 500

(ppm)
400
1 300
200
0.5
100
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection
Figure 0-18: Concentrations of polymer, surfactant and NaOH in the produced water in SP15. Most of the polymer and NaOH were produced
out, while the surfactant was retained.

Sand Pack 16 ASP Flood (Higher-to-Lower Permeability): Chemical

Profile of Produced Water
Alkali Surfactant Polymer
3.0 1400

2.5 ASP Water 1200

Polymer Concrntration
Concentration (% w/v)

Slug Drive
NaOH or Surfactant

1000
2.0
800
(ppm)

1.5
600
1.0
400
0.5 200

0.0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-19: Concentrations of polymer, surfactant and NaOH in the produced water in SP16. Liquids collection started after the start of ASP
injection as showed by the dashed line in Figure 0-11.
24 SPE-169675-MS

Sand Pack 17 ASP Flood ( Lower-to-Higher Permeability ): Chemical

Profile of Produced Water
Surfactant Alkali Polymer
1.2 700
ASP Water 600
1.0

Polymer Concrntration
Slug Drive
Concentration (% w/v)
NaOH or Surfactant

500
0.8
400

(ppm)
0.6
300
0.4
200
0.2 100

0.0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-20: Concentrations of polymer, surfactant and NaOH in the produced water in SP17.

Sand Pack 18 ASP Flood (Homogenous High Permeability): Chemical

Profile of Produced Water
surfactant Alkali Polymer
1.4 600
ASP Water
1.2 500
Polymer Concrntration
Slug Drive
Concentration (% w/v)
NaOH or Surfactant

1.0
400
0.8
(ppm)

300
0.6
200
0.4

0.2 100

0.0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-21: Concentrations of polymer, surfactant and NaOH in the produced water in SP18. Liquids collection started after the start of ASP
injection as showed by the dashed line in Figure 0-10.
SPE-169675-MS 25

Sand Pack 19 ASP Flood (Higher-to-Lower Permeability): Chemical

Profile of Produced Water
surfactant Alkali Polymer
7.0 1200
ASP Water
6.0 1000

Polymer Concrntration
Slug Drive
Concentration (% w/v)
NaOH or Surfactant

5.0
800
4.0

(ppm)
600
3.0
400
2.0

1.0 200

0.0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-22: Concentrations of polymer, surfactant and NaOH in the produced water in SP19. Liquids collection started after the start of ASP
injection as showed by the dashed line in Figure 0-12.

Sand Pack 23 ASP Flood (Lower-to-Higher Permeability): Chemical

Profile of Produced Water
Surfactant Alkali Polymer
2.5 600
ASP Water
Slug Drive 500
Polymer Concrntration
2.0
Concentration (% w/v)
NaOH or Surfactant

400
1.5
(ppm)

300
1.0
200
0.5
100

0.0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pore Volumes of Injection

Figure 0-23: Concentrations of polymer, surfactant and NaOH in the produced water in SP23. Liquids collection started after the start of ASP
injection as showed by the dashed line in Figure 0-13.

View publication stats