You are on page 1of 89

Dr. Ir. Dedy Kristanto, M.

Sc

CHEMICAL FLOODING

CHEMICAL EOR HOLDS
A BRIGHT FUTURE
- Conventional oil RF < 33%, worldwide

Much of it is recoverable by chemical methods
- Chemical methods are attractive:

Burgeoning energy demand and high oil prices,
most likely for the long-term

Field data proves chemical flooding is an effective
way to recover residual oil

Advancements in technologies

Better understanding of failed projects

New chemical and processes open the door for
new opportunities

DK - 2 -

THE CASE FOR CHEMICAL
FLOODING
Escalating energy demand, declining reserves
Two trillion bbl oil remaining, mostly in depleted
reservoirs or those nearing depletion
Infill drilling often meets the well spacing required
Fewer candidate reservoirs for CO2 and miscible
Opportunities exist under current economic
conditions
Improved technical knowledge, better risk
assessment and implementation techniques

DK - 3 -

7
3
3 0.9
0.3 0.2

Germany
France

0.6

Romania

140

Denmark

4

Dubai

0
4
UK

6

India

160

Oman

Norway

9

Brazil

12 10 10

Canada

Mexico

Qatar

20

China

Nigeria

Libya

40

Russia

60

Venezuela

Abu Dhabi

80

Kuwait

84

Iraq

Iran

100

USA

180

S. Arabia

Billion Bbls

CHEMICAL EOR TARGET IN
SELECTED COUNTRIES
173

:
.
.

120

100
77
63 61
51
40
26 24

DK - 4 -

5 - .Chemical Floods CURRENT STATUS WORLDWIDE Indonesia Venezuela USA India France China Total Number of Projects: 27 DK .

6 - .000 B/D DK .Chemical Floods PRODUCTION WORLDWIDE France Indonesia USA China Total oil production: 300.

7 - .Alkaline .Surfactants .CHEMICAL METHODS Chemical EOR methods utilize: .Combinations of such chemicals • ASP (Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer) flooding • MP (Micellar-Polymer) flooding • SS (Smart / Super Surfactant) flooding DK .Polymer .

OBJECTIVES OF CHEMICAL FLOODING Increase the Capillary Number Nc to mobilize residual oil Decrease the Mobility Ratio M for better sweep Emulsification of oil to facilitate production DK .8 - .

Chemical Flooding GENERAL LIMITATIONS Cost of chemicals Excessive chemical loss: adsorption.9 - . reactions with clay and brines. both areal and cross-sectional DK . dilution Gravity segregation Lack of control in large well spacing Geology is unforgiving Great variation in the process mechanism.

Effect on displacement and sweep efficiencies Polymer slugs used in some cases – Polymer alkali reactions must be accounted Complex process to design mixing zones drive water low caustic IFT slug zone residual oil water oil Alkaline Flood DK .ALKALINE FLOODING Process depends on mixing of alkali and oil .Oil must have acid components Emulsification of oil.10 - . drop entrainment and entrapment occur .

+ Acid hydrocarbon components Surfactants In-situ generated surfactants reduce interfacial tension and hence lowering Sor. May alter the wettability towards water wet.CHARACTERISTICS OF ALKALINE FLOODING A solution of inorganic alkaline substance (NaOH. NaOH KOH Na+ + OHK+ + OH- OH. KOH) is injected into the reservoir.11 - . Help form emulsions near the displacement front. DK .

Ward Estes 15 4.14 25-35 0.2 51 2.5 2 6 Van 12 0.42 50 0. Oil Rec.0 40 5 3 N. A.12 50-60 2 DK .6-1.2 3 7 Kern River 48 0.2 8 4 L. Consum.Alkaline flooding FIELD PERFORMANCE Field Slug Size Conc. Basin 5 0. Oil Satn.9 64 17.0 30-40 6 9 Brea-Olinda 1.15 52 1.4 30 3 5 Orcutt Hill 2 0.12 - .3 none 8 Harrisburg 9 2.4-11. % PV wt% %PV mg/g rock %OIP 1 Whittier 8 0.2 4 2 Singleton 8 2.2 0.

Low Tension Polymer Flood (LTPF) Adsorption on rock surface Slug dissipation due to dispersion Slug dilution by water Formation of emulsions .13 - .Surfactant-Polymer Flood (SP) .SURFACTANT FLOODING Variations .Treatment and disposal problems drive water mixing zone surfactant slug water oil residual oil Surfactant Flood DK .

Formation of emulsions . where: Surfactant + Water  (Inorganic Cation)++ + (hydrocarbon sulfonate anion)-.More stable than cationic surfactants .These are anionic compounds.Easier and cheaper to manufacture DK .14 - .They resist adsorption .CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACTANT FLOODING A surface active agents which reduce interfacial tension at the oil-water interface.

DK .15 - . Minimum interfacial tensions occurs at optimal salinity at which an optimum microemulsions is developed and the surfactant is equally soluble in water and oil.CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACTANT FLOODING Water salinity (specially divalent cations such as Ca++ and Mg++) play an important role in performance.

Surfactant Flooding Surfactant Injection Water Solution From Well Injection Pump Mixing Plant Separation and Storage Facilities 4 1 Oil Zone 2 Surfactant 3 3 2 Polymer Solution Production Well 1 4 Drive Water DK .16 - .

SURFACTANT FLOOD Injector Producer DK .17 - .

SURFACTANT FLOOD Injector Producer DK .18 - .

SURFACTANT FLOOD Injector Producer DK .19 - .

20 - .SURFACTANT FLOOD Injector Producer DK .

SURFACTANT FLOOD Injector Producer DK .21 - .

SURFACTANT FLOOD Injector Producer DK .22 - .

SURFACTANT FLOOD Injector Producer DK .23 - .

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 24 -

SURFACTANT FLOOD
Injector

Producer

DK - 25 -

Surfactant Flooding
Description
Consists of injecting a slug containing water,
surfactant, electrolyte (salt), usually a co-solvent
(alcohol), and possibly a hydrocarbon (oil), followed
by polymer-thickened water
Mechanisms That Improve Recovery Efficiency
Interfacial tension reduction (improves
displacement sweep efficiency)
Mobility control (improves volumetric sweep
efficiency)
DK - 26 -

Surfactant Flooding
Limitations
 Areal sweep more than 50% for waterflood is desired
 Relatively homogeneous formation
 High amounts of anhydrite, gypsum, or clays are undesirable
 Available systems provide optimum behavior within narrow set
of conditions
 With commercially available surfactants, formation water
chlorides should be < 20,000 ppm and divalent ions (Ca ++ and
Mg++) < 500 ppm
Challenges
 Complex and expensive
 Possibility of chromatographic separation of chemicals
 High adsorption of surfactant
 Interactions between surfactant and polymer
 Degradation of chemicals at high temperature

DK - 27 -

Surfactant Flooding Screening Parameters Gravity Viscosity Composition Oil saturation Formation type Net thickness Average permeability Transmissibility Depth Temperature Salinity of formation brine > 25° API < 20 cp light intermediates > 20% PV sandstone > 10 feet > 20 md not critical < 8.28 - .000 ppm TDS DK .000 feet <  225 ° F < 150.

29 - .Surfactant flood FIELD PERFORMANCE Glenn Pool Field.0 0 0 100 W OR 10 1984 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 DK . Oklahoma O IL 1 .

30 - .POLYMER FLOODING Loss to rock by adsorption. ageing. entrapment. crosslinking. salt reactions Loss of injectivity Lack of control of in situ advance High velocity shear (near wellbore). formation plugging Often applied late in waterflood mixing zone drive water polymer slug residual oil Polymer Flood water oil DK .

31 - .Polymer Flooding Polymer Injection Solution From Well Mixing Plant Water Injection Pump 3 1 Oil Zone 2 Separation and Storage Facilities 2 Polymer Solution Production Well 1 3 Drive Water DK .

Some polymers are used for reducing the rock permeability due to their retention and viscoelastic properties. could be used as plugging agents for profile control.CHARACTERISTICS OF POLYMER FLOODING Polymer solutions have high viscosity. hence improve the mobility ratio. DK . Hence.32 - . Increasing sweep efficiency.

Polymer Flooding Description  Consists of adding water soluble polymers to water before it is injected in reservoir Mechanisms That Improve Recovery Efficiency  Mobility control (improves volumetric sweep efficiency) Limitations  High oil viscosities require higher polymer concentration  Results normally better if polymer flood started before water-oil ratio becomes excessively high  Clays increase polymer adsorption  Some heterogeneity is acceptable. but avoid extensive fractures  If fractures are present. crosslinked or gelled polymer techniques may be applicable DK .33 - .

34 - .Polymer Flooding Challenges Lower injectivity than with water can adversely affect oil production rates in early stages of polymer flood Acrylamide-type polymers loose viscosity due to sheer degradation. and have greater potential for wellbore plugging DK . or it increases in salinity and divalent ions Xanthan gum polymers cost more. are subject to microbial degradation.

Field observation indicates retention in the range of 7150 g/m3 of rock. Pore trapping is significant in low permeability rocks.POLYMER RETENTION Polymer solutions are retained mainly by adsorbtion and sometimes by pore trapping in reservoir rocks. Undesirable for polymer flood but desirable for profile control and thief zone plugging.35 - . DK . Polyacrilamides show higher retention level than biopolymer due to their ionic nature and shear thickening. Acceptable retention level is less than 20 g/m 3 of rock.

DK .ESTIMATING POLYMER CONCENTRATION Polymer concentrations depends on type and required solutions viscosity. Required viscosity is determined from maximum mobility ratio and shear rate.36 - .

37 - .ESTIMATING POLYMER CONCENTRATION DK .

38 - .ESTIMATING POLYMER CONCENTRATION DK .

39 - .ESTIMATING POLYMER SLUG SIZES DK .

REQUIRED POLYMER SLUG SIZES DK .40 - .

000 feet Temperature <  225 ° F DK .Polymer Flooding Screening Parameters Gravity > 18° API Viscosity < 200 cp Composition not critical Oil saturation > 10% PV mobile oil Formation type sandstone / carbonate Net thickness not critical Average permeability > 20 md Transmissibility not critical Depth < 9.41 - .

42 - . India 125 100 650 620 EOR OIL 75 Projected 590 50 560 25 530 0 1989 500 1991 1993 1995 DK .Polymer Flood FIELD PERFORMANCE Sanand Field.

%OIP Secondary " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Sandstone " " " " " " " " " Carbonate Sandstone " " " " " " Carbonate Carbonate PAA " " Biopolymer PAA " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 2 0 0 0 8 10 23 13 7 30 13 9 1.5 DK .43 - .Polymer Flood – FIELD PROJECTS Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Taber Manville South Pembina Wilmington East Colinga Skull Creek South Skull Creek Newcastle Oerrel Hankensbuettel Owasco Vernon Northeast Hallsville Hamm Sage Spring Cr.1 1. Unit A West Semlek Stewart Ranch Kummerfeld Huntington Beach North Stanley Eliasville Caddo North Burbank Flood Type Formation Polymer Rec..2 5 8 6 4 1.8 2.

Alberta 1000 100 Oil Cut 100 10 10 Oil Rate 1 Waterflood Alkaline-Polymer Flood Primary 1 0.ALKALINE-POLYMER FLOOD David Field.1 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 DK .44 - .

ASP oil ASP Flood Field tests have been encouraging Successful in banking and producing residual oil Mechanisms was fully understood DK .45 - .SAP Injected as premixed slugs or in sequence alkali Surf .PAS drive water water polymer oil bank .ASP: ALKALINE-SURFACTANTPOLYMER FLOODING Several variations: .

types of polymer is Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide (HPAM) DK . Petroleum Sulfonates 3. Petroleum Carboxylates 5.46 - . Alkyl Benzene Sulfonates 2. Lignosulfonates 4.ASP CHEMICAL CONTENTS  Alkaline Type of Alkaline for ASP is Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) and Sodium Carbonate (Na2CO3)  Surfactant Type of surfactant in ASP are: 1. Biologically Produced Surfactants  Polymer In ASP flooding.

SCREENING CRITERIA ASP FLOODING - Preferred for sandstones reservoir - Reservoir Temperature less than 200 °F - Lower Ca++ and Mg++ contents - Formation relatively homogeneous - Oil Viscosity < 35 cp and API Gravity > 20 °API - Oil composition is light to intermediate components - Oil Saturation > 35 % PV - Average Permeability > 10 md - Reservoir Depth less than 9000 ft.47 - . DK .

48 - .ASP PILOT – Daqing. China 100 Oil Rate 50 Oil Cut 20 10 1993 1994 1995 1996 DK .

temperature and clay Micellar Flood .Emulsion production mixing zone micellar slug oil bank water oil mixing zone DK .49 - .Considerable delay in response drive water polymer .Small well spacing required .MICELLAR FLOODING Utilizes microemulsion and polymer buffer slugs Miscible-type displacement Successful in banking and producing residual oil Process Limitations: .High salinity.Chemical slugs are costly .

to displace injected fluids  Mobility taper.MICELLAR FLOODING PROCESSES Injection Well Chase Water Mobility Taper Producer Well Polymer Slug Micellar Slug Preflush Reservoir Solution Fluids Displacement  Chase water.  Preflush solution.  Micellar slug. for mobility control. to achieve gradual decrease in viscosity of displacing fluids. to reduce the interfacial tension and hence lowering the residual oil saturation (Sor). DK .  Polymer slug. to precondition the reservoir and obtain optimal salinity.50 - .

MICELLAR FLOODING DK .51 - .

MICELLAR FLOODING DK .52 - .

MICELLAR FLOODING DK .53 - .

MICELLAR FLOODING DK .54 - .

Surfactant 10%.%.Polymer 60% Soi 38% 80% OIP 60 40 Oil Cut 20 0 0 0 0.5 2 2.% OIP 100 Soi 32% 60 40 Oil Cut 20 80 Alkali 5%.% OIP Oil Cut.ASP vs MICELLAR FLOOD Lab Results – Mitsue Oil Core Floods ASP Flood Micellar Flood 100 Slug 5% Buffer 50% 80 92% OIP Oil Cut.5 1 1.5 0 0.55 - . Recovery.5 Pore Volumes Injected Earlier oil breakthrough and quicker recovery in micellar DK . Cum. Recovery.5 1 1.%. Cum.5 Pore Volumes Injected 2 2.

81 Dec. 82 Dec.56 - . 85 0. 83 Dec.Micellar flood – TYPICAL PERFORMANCE Bradford Special Project No.000 10 Oil Cut 1 100 Oil Rate 10 Dec.1 micellar injection DK . 8 1. 84 Dec.

%PV DK .Micellar floods – FIELD TESTS 100 Henry S 80 Henry E & Henry W 119-R Wilkins 60 40 Dedrick 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Micellar Slug Size.57 - .

5 40 160 113 90 407 47 200 40 80 2.8 8. Wyoming 1987 " Gudong. 119-R (IL) 1968 Tertiary Benton (IL) Shell 1972 " Robinson.ASP AND MP FIELD PROJECTS ASP Floods Started Appln.7 39 29 27 11 50 50 47 27 33 67 DK . %OIP 252 *21 106 34. China 1992 " Cambridge. India 2002 " Micellar Floods Dedrick (IL) 1962 Secondary Robinson. 219-R (IL) 1974 " North Burbank (OK) 1976 " Robinson.4 766 29.4 72 *26.5 *49. China 1996 " Viraj. (France) 1983 " Acre Rec.58 - . David. Alberta 1986 Tertiary West Kiehl. M1 (IL) 1977 " Bradford (PA) 1980 " Salem Unit (IL) 1981 " Louden (IL) 1977 " Louden (IL) 1980 " Chateaurenard. China 1994 " Karamay.. Wyoming 1993 " Daqing.4 23.9 766 *24 68 *24 2.

High divalent cations .Ultra-Low concentration required (0.Potential scale formation .02% .High temperatures  Super Savings .Surface equipment .Equipment maintenance DK .Provides ultra-low IFT  Super Convenient .No water treatment is required  Super Tolerant .High TDS brine .Sludge disposal .No alkali is required .3%) .Water treatment .0.59 - .SMART SURFACTANT (SS)  Super Effective .

00 0.25 SS-B2550. ~ 50 C.0100 0.20 0.0010 0.Interfacial TensionSMART SURFACTANT (SS) SS in High Salinity Brine TDS ~190.000 ppm Temp. API Gravity ~ 35 SS in High Temperature Heavy Crude TDS ~ 250 ppm. Temp. Ca.60 - . API Gravity ~ 15 1.05 0. Mg ~ 95. m N/m 0.0000 IFT.15 0. ~ 100 C. WT% DK .0001 0.1000 0.10 0.000ppm.

SMART SURFACTANT Injector Producer DK .61 - .

SMART SURFACTANT Injector Producer DK .62 - .

63 - .SMART SURFACTANT Injector Producer DK .

64 - .SMART SURFACTANT Injector Producer DK .

65 - .SMART SURFACTANT Injector Producer DK .

66 - .SMART SURFACTANT Injector Producer DK .

67 - .SMART SURFACTANT Injector Producer DK .

SMART SURFACTANT Injector Producer DK .68 - .

69 - .Oil Recovery Comparisons 35000 TDS.3% smart surfactant 80 % Recovery OOIP 70 60 15 PV surfactant 50 13 PV water %OOIP 40 CUM. 1700 Ca/Mg 0.% 30 20 15 PV water 15 PV water 10 2 PV smart surfactant 0 0 25 50 75 PV Injected SPE 84075 DK .1% surfactant 0.

Recycling Surfactant Effluent Residual surfactant present in the effluent Process identifies surfactant in effluent and recycles back to reservoir Savings on surfactant costs Savings on disposal and treatment costs Recovers additional oil SPE 84075 DK .70 - .

Fractures Inadequate understanding of process mechanisms Unavailability of chemicals in large quantities Heavy reliance on un-scaled lab experiments DK .High water saturation .71 - .Bottom water or gas cap .Excessive clay content .Permeability heterogeneities .REASONS FOR FAILURE Low oil prices in the past Insufficient description of reservoir geology .

72 - .SCALE-UP METHODS Require: .Model experiments .Knowledge of process variables or complete simulation description .Scale-up of model results to field Greater confidence to extend lab results to field DK .

2 0.RESULTS: PREDICTION vs ACTUAL Oil Recov ery.2 Pore Volumes Produced DK .6 0.73 - .4 0. %OIP 60 Actual 50 40 30 Predicted 20 10 0 0 0.8 1 1.

chemical loss.Surfactant flooding unsuccessful .CHEMICAL EOR AND HEAVY OIL Applicable methods: . dilution .Lack of scaling criteria. inadequate simulation .Gravity segregation .CO2 immiscible. cyclic stimulation Limited success with WAG Problems: .Often used where steam is not suitable DK .Alkaline flooding unsuccessful .74 - .Unfavourable mobility ratio .Rock-fluid reactions.

000 ppm  Hardness < 500 ppm  Oil composition Light.EOR SCREENING CRITERIA FOR CHEMICAL FLOODING Most important: geology and mineralogy  Oil viscosity < 35 cp  Oil API gravity > 30 API  Formation sand stone preferred  Permeability ≥ 100 md  Porosity ≥ 15%  Stratification desirable  Temperature < 150 F  Depth < 9.000 ft  Pressure not critical  Oil saturation ≥ 45%  Oil in place at process start ≥ 600 Bbl/acre-ft  Thickness 20-30 ft  Clay content < 5%  Salinity < 20.75 - . intermediates & organic acids desirable  No bottom water or gas cap DK .

and the brine salinity.COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL FLOODING USAGE Properties ASP AP SP Surfactant Concentration 0.2% Interfacial Tension (mN/m)  10 –2 ~10 0 . 1% alkali will reduce the polymer viscosity by 50%.000 ppm No 2NaOH + Mg+2 2Na++ Mg(OH)2 Na2CO3 + Ca+2 2Na+ + Ca CO3  Na2CO3 + Mg+2 2Na+ + Mg CO3 Polymer concentration ~1.10 –1  10 -2 Alkali Requirement Yes Yes Potential Alkali reaction in formation 2NaOH + Ca+2 2Na+ + Ca OH)2 Same as ASP None Same as ASP ~ 500 -1.1 – 0.000 ppm. DK .2% 0% 0. This means more polymer will be needed.000 ppm – 2.1 – 0. The polymer concentration needs to be adjusted based on the alkali conc.76 - . In general.

etc. alkali cost. hazardous material handling.77 - . Same as ASP DK . shipping. potential scale/ emulsion/ corrosion problems. storage. More polymer is required. water treatment. equipment.COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL FLOODING USAGE Properties ASP AP SP Water Treatment for higher divalent cations brine Yes Yes No Water treatment cost High High None Additional cost due Yes Yes No to the use of alkali Including water treatment.

AP (AlkalinePolymer) SP (Surfactant-Polymer) DK . the surfactant adsorption of SP is higher than ASP due to the absence of alkali.COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL FLOODING USAGE Properties Adsorption onto Formation ASP AP SP Na2CO3 will be preferentially adsorbed due to its common ion onto the formation and reduce the polymer and the surfactant adsorption. NaOH will also be adsorbed and reduce the adsorption of the polymer and surfactant but to a lower extent Same as ASP In general. The adsorption problem can be minimized by proper design of the surfactant structures and also the flood injection design Potential Yes Yes Minimized to none corrosion /scale problems in the pipeline and equipment Note : ASP (Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer).78 - .

000 8.000 2.000 HydrocarbonMiscible Deep Enough for Required Pressure Nitrogen and Flue Gas Deep Enough for Required Pressure CO2 Flooding Surfactant/ Polymer Deep Enough for Required Pressure Limited by Temperature Polymer Limited by Temperature Alkaline Fire Flood Steam Drive High Consumption Preferred Zone Deep Enough for Required Pressure Normal Range (Possible) RREW-4-2-EORMethodsVG1-79 DK .000 10.000 6.79 - .Depth Limitation for Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods EOR Method 0 Depth (ft) 4.

1.80 - .000 More Difficult Good Alkaline 1000 More Difficult Good Polymer Steam Drive Good 100 Good Surfactant/ Polymer Fire Flood 10 Fair Not Feasible Difficult Very Difficult Good Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Good Various Techniques Possible Not Feasible No Established Limits RREW-4-2-EORMethodsVG1-80 DK .000 1.Preferred Oil Viscosity Ranges for Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods Oil Viscosity .000.000 More Difficult Very Difficult Fair Fair Good May Not Be Possible (Can Be Waterflooded) Special Thermal: Shafts.Centipoise at Reservoir Conditions EOR Method HydrocarbonMiscible 0. Fractures. Drainholes.0 Very Good Nitrogen and Flue Gas CO2 Flooding Very Good Mining and Extraction Good 100. etc.1 1.

Not Critical if Uniform Nitrogen and Flue Gas CO2 Flooding 100 Preferred Zone Possible Preferred Zone Preferred Zone Preferred Zone Preferred Zone RREW-4-2-EORMethodsVG1-81 DK .Permeability Guides for Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods Permeability (millidarcy) EOR Method 0.Not Critical if Uniform .High Enough For Good Injection Rates - Surfactant/ Polymer Polymer 1000 .000 .1 10 HydrocarbonMiscible Alkaline Fire Flood Steam Drive 10.81 - .

82 - .Oil Gravity Guides for Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods 0 10 Oil Gravity oAPI 20 30 40 50 60 N2 & Flue Gas Hydrocarbon CO2 .Miscible Immiscible Gas Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Polymer Flooding Gel Treatments In situ Combustion Steam Flooding Mining DK .

C. = Not Critical *Transmissibility >20 md ft/cp **Transmissibility > 100 md ft/cp DK .83 - .Summary of Screening Criteria for IOR and EOR Methods N.

84 - .Derive necessary scaling criteria .HOW TO PLAN A FLOOD ? Choose a process likely to succeed in a candidate reservoir Determine the reasons for success or failure of past projects of the process Research to “fill in the blanks” .Carry out lab and simulation studies Field based research Establish chemical supply Financial incentives essential DK .Determine process mechanisms .

HOW TO REACH SUCCESS ? Select the proper project Utilize the expertise of all involved Chemical optimization Cost efficiency Evaluate the lab and simulation results Select the best process Start the pilot project DK .85 - .

86 - . evaluating and analysis Review and update the Geophysics and Geology Study previously and QC Detail Study of Reservoir Engineering Laboratory Core Analysis (Routine and SCAL) Chemical Laboratory Flooding Test Detail Study of Production Engineering Reservoir Simulation Economic Analysis Recommendations DK .DETAIL STUDY ACTIVITIES Data colecting.

Fluid and Rock Properties (Laboratory Data) History Matching .Optimizing Injection Schemes DK .87 - .Predicting the Present Fluid Distributions Forecasting Future Performance .Evaluating the Method .Validating the Geological Model .Geological Model (Static Data) .IMPLEMENTATION STEPS Integrated Reservoir Model .Production History (Dynamic Data) .

88 - .PROCESS EVALUATION .Relative permeability changes ? .Oil saturations from post-flood cores ? DK .Compare field results with lab (numerical) predictions .Extent of areal and vertical sweep ? .Fluid injectivity ? .Mobility control ? .

but not in the same proportion Typical Costs: .Isopropanol .$1.$0.Polymer . so does the cost of chemicals.Micellar slug .$25/bbl Process Efficiency: volume of oil recovered per unit volume (or mass) of chemical slug injected DK .Surfactant .60/lb .COST OF CHEMICALS As the oil prices rise.$60/bbl .Caustic .Crude oil .89 - .20/lb .$3/lb .$20/gallon .