SURFACTANT FLOODING

CARBONATE RESERVOIRS
WENY ASTUTI 22213038
NIA SETYA B. 22213045
RIMA DINIATUL H. 22213062

KAPITA SELEKTA PRODUKSI LANJUT
Wilton T. Adams and Vernon H. Schievelbein
Outlin
e
Introduction
Surfactant Formulation
Laboratory Operation
Field Operation
Result
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
West texas carbonate reservoirs contain vast amounts of residual hydrocarbons.
It consists of dominantly a micritic limestone containing little porosity
Characteristic reservoir :
The formation is located about 5000 ft (1500 m) below the surface.
Formation thick is about 100 ft (30 m)
Reservoir temperature is 109
o
F (43
o
C)
Horizontal permeability is 1-25 mD (Average 5,9 md)
Average porosity is 12 % (Range from 8 18%)
Oil viscosity is 1.29 cp (1.29 mPa.s)
Oil gravity is 31.4
O
api (0.87 g/cm
3
)
FVF is 1,14
Original formation water is 220000 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS)
SURFACTANT FORMULATION
Nonemulsion formulation contain 1.5 % (wt/vol) solubilizer a
and 3.5% witco petroleum sulfonates. Solubilizer A is alkyl ether
sulfates.
Emulsion formulation contains 1.46% solubilizer B, 3.6% witco
petroleum sulfonates, 0.95% synthetic sulfonate, 4% gas oil, and
4% slaughter crude. Solubilizer b is alkylaryl ether sulfates.
Both formulation were designed to tolerate the high salinity and
divalent ion environment of the slaughter reservoir.
LABORATORY OPERATION
Using core with 24 in long and 2 in in diameter
Brine permeability of clean cores ranged from 10 to 20 md
Porosity from 0.18 to 0.19%
Irreducible oil saturation usually 0.3 to 0.32%

Oil Saturation was
reduce from 0.31 to
0.07 and RF is 75%
Non Emulsion
formulation Slug
Oil Saturation was
reduce from 0.35 to 0.1
and RF is 70%
Emulsion formulation
Slug
TWO WELL TEST OBJECTIVES
Purpose :
to define better oil recovery potential of chemical floods in
carbonate matrix
Evaluating the two well test pattern for simplified field chemical
flood evaluation
Evaluating a biopolymer product that was new to the industry
Evaluating isopropyl alcohol (ipa) as a tracer
Evaluating the concept of preblending surfactant components

TEST SITE
- Injection Pressure max 1500
psi
- Permeability is 25 mD
PV is obtained from :
- In house potential flow model
that provides streamlines
- Arrival times
- Associated PV assuming
constant flowwrates
- Uniform Pay Thickness
- Unit mobility
- No fluid movement to or from
other intervals
First well pair ( Wells C1 and E2) :
9900 bbl
Second well pair ( Wells G1 and
E1) :
12000 bbl
FIELD OPERATION
First Well-Pair Test (Wells C1
and E2)
April 24, 1981
Bob-Slaughter-Block Brine
injection into well C1
June 27, 1981
340 ppm of thiocynate
tracer was injected
August 26, 1981
Emulsion formulation was
injected
There was a decline in
injection rate with the
constant 1500 psi (10.3 Mpa)
Oct 1981, a hot water flush,
followed by a short shut in
and backflow was done.
The decline in injection rates
was caused by an imbalance
between the higher viscosity
(8-20 cp) of surfactant
solution and the increase in
water relative permeability
because of oil mobilization
Feb 13, 1982
Average 75 bbl/d of
surfactant had been
injected over 171 days
March1982
Filter catridges were
replaced
An injection solution batch
March and part of a batch at
the end of May were
discarded due to bacterial
contamination at the surface
In late April 1982
Polymer injection had
declined to only 40 b/d and
concluded on July 16, with
average 40 b/d over 146
days.
In mid August 1982
Workover was performed due
to the injection rates did not
increase as expected after
the injection switch to fresh
water
Dec 5, 1982
Injection of postpolymer
tracer slug of thiocyonate
was begun and concluded
after 41 days. Injection rate
averaged 117 b/d
Freshwater Injection
continued until Nov 8,
1983
About 1.000.000 bbl of
water had been injected
since the end of
polymer slug
Injection was switched to
field brine
Second Well-Pair Test (Well G1
and E1)
April 21, 1981
Brine injection into Well G1
began
July 1981
Pretest thiocyanate tracer
injection began for 24 days at
an average rate 131 b/d
A long period water injection
During 350 days period, about
68.500 bbl of brine were
injected at average rate about
250 bbl/d.
30 July 1982
Injection of Nonemulsion
surfactant system began. Slug
was limited about 5000 bbl
Late September 1982
Surfactant injection was
concluded after injecting 5058
bbl over 61 days at an
average rate of 83 b/d

Oct 1, 1982
Polymer injection began,
accompanied by isopropanol
as a tracer. Polymer solution
were injected about 3700 bbl
at an average rate of 71 b/d
over 45 days
Freshwater injection continued
after the end of the polymer slug
until January1983.

Jan 6, 1983
A 3800 bbl slug of thiocyanate
tracer was started and
continued for 19 days at an
average rate of 200 b/d.
Then followed by fresh water
injection until November 1982
Injection was switched to brine
More than 50,000 bbl [8000 m3]
of water have been injected
intoWell G-I since the end of
polymer injection

RESULT

Matching :
Pre flood thiocyanate
tracer
Oil Recovery
Calculation
Recovery
Efficiency
Sweep Efficiency
Retention
Estimate
PV
(initial estimation is
from potential flow
model)
Computer simulator
Intercomp CFTE
chemical flooding
Simulator
Depend on
Swept area oil saturation
Calculated used
FIRST WELL PAIR TEST
Pre-surfactant tracer recovery was good (78.7%)
Good reservoir interval isolation
Good pattern containment
Ethanol is tracer for emulsion surfactant system
Ethanol recovery (97%), all surfactant entered the appropriate
layer
Surfactant recovery was 65%
Surfactant was retained by various mechanism
adsorbtion and partitioning into the oil unrecovered from
the swept volume
Polymer recovery was high (55%)
Polymer sample did noy show any evidence of
biological, oxidative, or shear degradation
Isopropanol was good tracer for polymer solution
Indicator of polymer sweep efficiency
Response to surfactant at Well E2 was prompt
1 week the oil cut had risen on surfactant and tracer were
detectable in produced fluids
During the period preciding
surfactant injection,
a constant 1.3%
waterflood oil cut was
assumed
PV calculated was 9651 bbl (the
best estimation)
Used to calculate recovery
efficieny and retention
Based on laboratory core flood
and previous experience in the
field
Oil saturation was assumed
to be 32%
Target reservoir oil volume
3088 bbl
SECOND WELL PAIR TEST
Tracer recovery were good but not complete/
Surfactant was traced with Iodide ion, which was not masked
by any non-emulsion system component.

Surfactant, tracer and oil response at Well E-1 were delayed and
more gradual compared with the emulsion-system test.
This could be the result of larger PV in the non-emulsion test
pattern and poorer confinement to the interval.

Calculated PV was a
little under 14000 bbl.
(Not much confidence)

CONCLUSIONS
Both surfactant formulations recovered very significant amounts
of oil from the dolomite reservoir.
The concept of using well pairs for surfactant system field tests
to gain performance and scale-up data was tested.
Tests with multiple-component surfactant formulations are
greatly facilitated and made more reliable if component
concentrates are pre-blended at chemical blending plants
before shipment and final dilution in the field.

CONCLUSION
A commercial biosacharide was an effective mobility control
agent in this low-permeability carbonate matrix.
Isopropanol and ethanol are good tracers.