Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
by
Hourshad Mohammadi
2008
The Dissertation Committee for Hourshad Mohammadi Certifies that this is the
approved version of the following dissertation:
Committee:
Gary A. Pope, Supervisor
Mojdeh Delshad, Supervisor
Larry W. Lake
George Hirasaki
Kamy Sepehrnoori
by
Hourshad Mohammadi, B.S.; M.S.
Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Acknowledgements
Last but definitely not least; I would like to thank my dearest husband, Renzo
Angeles, for being such a unique friend. His cheerful character has always been my
driving force to pursue my goal. He joins me in expressing his appreciation to all who
made this possible.
vi
vii
of acid and alkali to generate soap and its subsequent effect on phase behavior is the
most crucial for crude oils containing naphthenic acids.
Using numerical models, the process can be designed and optimized to ensure
the proper propagation of alkali and effective soap and surfactant concentrations to
promote low interfacial tension and a favorable salinity gradient. The first step in this
investigation was to determine what geochemical reactions have the most impact on
ASP flooding under different reservoir conditions and to quantify the consumption of
alkali by different mechanisms.
We describe the ASP module of UTCHEM simulator with particular attention
to phase behavior and the effect of soap on optimum salinity and solubilization ratio.
Several phase behavior measurements for a variety of surfactant formulations and
crude oils were successfully modeled. The phase behavior results for sodium
carbonate, blends of surfactants with an acidic crude oil followed the conventional
Winsor phase transition with significant three-phase regions even at low surfactant
concentrations. The solubilization data at different oil concentrations were
successfully modeled using Hand's rule. Optimum salinity and solubilization ratio
were correlated with soap mole fractions using mixing rules.
New ASP corefloods were successfully modeled taking into account the
aqueous reactions, alkali/rock interactions, and the phase behavior of soap and
surfactant.
several chemical formulations, crude oils with a wide range of acid numbers, brine
with a wide range of salinities, and a wide range of temperatures.
viii
2D and 3D sector model ASP simulations were performed based on field data
and design parameters obtained from coreflood history matches. The phenomena
modeled included aqueous phase chemical reactions of the alkaline agent and
consequent consumption of alkali, the in-situ generation of surfactant by reaction with
the acid in the crude, surfactant/soap phase behavior, reduction of surfactant
adsorption at high pH, cation exchange with clay, and the effect of co-solvent on
phase behavior. Sensitivity simulations on chemical design parameters such as mass
of surfactant and uncertain reservoir parameters such as kv/kh ratio were performed
to provide insight as the importance of each of these variables in chemical oil
recovery. Simulations with different permeability realizations provided the range for
chemical oil recoveries.
This study showed that it is very important to model both surface active
components and their effect on phase behavior when doing mechanistic ASP
simulations. The reactions between the alkali and the minerals in the formation
depend very much on which alkali is used, the minerals in the formation, and the
temperature. This research helped us increase our understanding on the process of
ASP flooding. In general, these mechanistic simulations gave insights into the
propagation of alkali, soap, and surfactant in the core and aid in future coreflood and
field scale ASP designs.
ix
Table of Contents
List of Tables.....
xvii
List of Figures....
xxi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
CHAPTER 2
20
20
20
22
24
25
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
33
34
36
38
38
39
40
40
41
43
45
46
48
49
50
51
52
52
52
53
53
54
xi
55
CHAPTER 3
57
57
58
63
64
65
66
67
67
68
69
69
69
70
71
72
73
xii
74
75
3.4 Summary...........................................................................................
76
CHAPTER 4
95
95
96
99
99
101
4.3 Modeling the Phase Behavior of the Soap and Surfactant Mixture
101
4.4 Summary..........................................................................................
104
CHAPTER 5
117
117
118
119
120
120
121
5.1.5 Reactions...........................................................................
121
123
124
125
126
127
127
128
130
xiii
130
5.4 Summary..........................................................................................
132
CHAPTER 6
156
156
157
6.2 Reactions..........................................................................................
157
159
159
161
162
162
163
6.5.4 AP Flood...........................................................................
166
167
6.7 Summary..........................................................................................
168
CHAPTER 7
191
193
195
197
197
198
200
xiv
200
203
206
207
208
209
209
210
211
212
213
215
7.7.1 Waterflood........................................................................
217
217
219
219
221
222
224
CHAPTER 8
269
269
8.1 Summary......................................................................................
xv
269
8.2 Conclusions......................................................................................
271
8.3 Recommendations............................................................................
274
APPENDIX A
275
275
APPENDIX B
291
EQBATCH Setup.............................................................................................
291
APPENDIX C
303
303
APPENDIX D
312
312
APPENDIX E
388
388
APPENDIX F
397
397
Nomenclature....................................................................................................
410
References......................................................................................................
416
VITA................................................................................................................... 428
xvi
List of Tables
Table 3.1:
78
Table 3.2:
79
Table 3.3:
79
Table 3.4:
79
Table 3.5:
80
Table 3.6:
80
Table 3.7:
81
Table 3.8:
81
Table 3.9:
81
Table 3.10:
82
Table 4.1:
106
Table 4.2:
106
Table 5.1:
133
Table 5.2:
133
Table 5.3:
134
Table 5.4:
134
Table 5.5:
135
Table 5.6:
135
Table 5.7:
136
Table 6.1:
170
Table 6.2:
Reservoir minerals.....................................................................
170
Table 6.3:
171
Table 6.4:
171
Table 6.5:
172
xvii
Table 6.6:
Table 6.7:
172
simulations.................................................................................
174
Table 6.8:
174
Table 6.9:
175
Table 6.10:
175
Table 6.11:
175
Table 7.1:
226
Table 7.2:
226
Table 7.3:
227
Table 7.4:
227
Table 7.5:
227
Table 7.6:
228
Table 7.7:
229
Table 7.8:
230
Table 7.9:
231
Table 7.10:
231
Table 7.11:
231
Table 7.12:
232
Table 7.13:
232
Table 7.14:
232
Table 7.15:
233
Table 7.16:
234
Table A.1:
283
Table A.2:
Table A.3:
283
Table A.5:
284
Table A.6:
283
284
284
Table A.7:
285
Table A.8:
285
Table A.9:
286
Table A.10:
286
Table A.11:
286
Table A.12:
Table A.13:
Table A.14:
287
Table A.15:
287
288
288
Table A.16:
289
Table A.17:
290
Table B.1:
299
Table B.2:
Reservoir minerals....................................................................
299
Table B.3:
300
Table B.4:
300
xix
Table B.5:
Table B.6:
Table E.1:
302
Table E.2:
301
393
393
Table E.3:
394
Table E.4:
394
xx
List of Figures
Figure 1.1:
and
38oC
with
and
without
Na2CO3
(Jackson,
2006)..........................................................................................
Figure 1.2:
18
Figure 1.3:
18
Figure 1.4:
19
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
83
Figure 3.3:
19
83
84
Figure 3.4:
84
Figure 3.5:
85
Figure 3.6:
Figure 3.7:
85
86
Figure 3.8:
Figure 3.9:
Figure 3.10:
87
Figure 3.11:
86
87
Figure 3.12:
Figure 3.13:
88
88
Figure 3.14:
Figure 3.15:
90
Figure 3.17:
89
Figure 3.16:
89
90
Figure 3.18:
Figure 3.19:
91
Figure 3.20:
91
92
92
Figure 3.21:
Figure 3.22:
Figure 3.23:
94
Figure 4.1:
93
Figure 3.24:
93
94
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:
107
108
Figure 4.5:
Figure 4.6:
Figure 4.7:
109
109
Figure 4.8:
110
Figure 4.9:
110
111
Figure 4.10:
Figure 4.11:
111
Figure 4.12:
112
Figure 4.13:
Figure 4.14:
113
Figure 4.15:
112
113
Figure 4.16:
114
Figure 4.17:
114
Figure 4.18:
Figure 4.19:
115
Figure 5.1:
115
116
137
137
Figure 5.3:
Figure 5.4:
Figure 5.5:
138
Figure 5.6:
Figure 5.7:
Figure 5.8:
141
Figure 5.12:
141
Figure 5.11:
140
Figure 5.10:
140
Figure 5.9:
139
142
142
Figure 5.13:
143
Figure 5.14:
143
Figure 5.15:
144
Figure 5.16:
144
Figure 5.17:
Figure 5.18:
145
145
Figure 5.19:
146
Figure 5.20:
146
Figure 5.21:
147
Figure 5.22:
147
Figure 5.23:
148
Figure 5.24:
148
Figure 5.25:
Figure 5.26:
Figure 5.27:
149
149
Figure 5.28:
Figure 5.29:
150
Figure 5.30:
Figure 5.31:
Figure 5.32:
152
Figure 5.34:
152
Figure 5.33:
151
153
153
Figure 5.36:
Figure 5.37:
155
Figure 5.38:
155
Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
176
176
Figure 6.3:
177
Figure 6.4:
177
Figure 6.5:
Figure 6.6:
178
Figure 6.7:
Figure 6.8:
178
179
179
Figure 6.9:
180
Figure 6.10:
Figure 6.11:
Figure 6.12:
181
181
xxvii
Figure 6.13:
Figure 6.14:
Figure 6.15:
182
182
183
Figure 6.16:
183
Figure 6.17:
Figure 6.18:
184
Figure 6.19:
185
Figure 6.20:
185
Figure 6.21:
186
Figure 6.22:
186
Figure 6.23:
187
Figure 6.24:
187
Figure 6.25:
188
Figure 6.26:
Figure 6.27:
Figure 6.28:
Figure 6.29:
Figure 7.1:
190
Figure 7.2:
189
235
Figure 7.3:
Figure 7.4:
Figure 7.5:
Figure 7.6:
Figure 7.7:
Figure 7.8:
Figure 7.9:
Figure 7.10:
Figure 7.11:
237
238
Coreflood M1.............................................................................
240
Figure 7.12:
240
Figure 7.13:
Figure 7.14:
Figure 7.15:
242
Figure 7.17:
241
Figure 7.16:
241
242
Figure 7.18:
Figure 7.19:
243
Figure 7.20:
244
244
Figure 7.21:
Figure 7.22:
Figure 7.23:
245
Figure 7.24:
246
Figure 7.25:
Figure 7.26:
247
Figure 7.27:
248
Figure 7.28:
248
Figure 7.29:
Figure 7.30:
Figure 7.31:
Figure 7.32:
250
Figure 7.33:
249
250
251
Figure 7.34:
Top view of the regular 7-spot pattern for the sector model....
251
Figure 7.35:
Figure 7.36:
252
252
Figure 7.37:
Porosity of the regular 7-spot pattern for the sector model........ 253
Figure 7.38:
Figure 7.39:
Figure 7.40:
Figure 7.41:
254
255
Figure 7.42:
Figure 7.43:
Figure 7.44:
256
Figure 7.45:
Figure 7.46:
Figure 7.47:
Figure 7.48:
Figure 7.49:
258
Figure 7.51:
Figure 7.52:
Figure 7.53:
260
260
Figure 7.54:
Figure 7.56:
261
262
Figure 7.57:
Figure 7.58:
Figure 7.59:
263
264
Figure 7.61:
265
Figure 7.62:
Figure 7.63:
265
Figure 7.64:
Figure 7.65:
267
Figure 7.67:
266
Figure 7.66:
266
267
Figure 7.68:
Figure E.2:
Figure E.3:
396
Figure E.4:
396
Figure F.1:
Figure F.2:
401
xxxiii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
2008; Fathi et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2008). This study did not include such
processes.
1.1 ALKALINE/SURFACTANT/POLYMER FLOODING
If the reservoir crude oil has sufficient "saponifiable components," a reaction
will occur with alkali in which surfactants are formed in-situ. These saponifiable
components are described as petroleum acids, even though their structure is often not
known. The most important mechanism for alkaline flooding is the reduction of IFT.
The relatively low cost of alkaline agents stimulated other variations of the
chemical flooding process. Cosurfactant-enhanced alkaline flooding is a modification
of the basic process in which a surfactant (called a cosurfactant) is added to the
chemical formulation. The complementary effect of the cosurfactant improves the
performance of alkaline flooding.
Nelson (1984) proposed the use of cosurfactant-enhanced alkaline flooding.
Numerous studies had shown that the lowest interfacial tension between a crude oil
and alkali typcially occurs at low alkali concentration. For this and other reasons,
obtaining a low IFT between oil and alkali in the reservoir has limitations. Firstly, a
large concentration of alkali is needed to compensate for the consumption of alkali
because of several geochemical reactions. Secondly, increasing the alkali
concentration shifts the phase behavior to an over optimum condition, which does not
have the lowest interfacial tension. Nelson resolved this dilemma by introducing
cosurfactant that was more hydrophilic than the soap to increase the optimum salinity.
4
soap will be there until the injected surfactant catches up and shifts the phase
behavior towards the optimum. If the cosurfactant moves ahead of the soap, its
adsorption will be high since the pH is low. The adsorbed surfactant later gets
partially desorbed when the high pH front propagates.
1.2 EFFECT OF SODIUM CARBONATE
NaOH, Na2CO3, NaBO2 are all alkali agents that have been tested in phase
behavior experiments. NaOH can raise the pH to very high values. A pH above 12
has been shown to be detrimental since it can speed up the alkali consumption. Based
on Sydansk's (1982) laboratory experiments, it was concluded that the NaOH
solutions at elevated temperature (185oF) strongly interact with sandstone, resulting
in sandstone weight loss and increased porosity. The effect of temperature on reaction
rates depends on the rock minerals, contact time, caustic concentration, and
temperature. He also concluded that the caustic consumption resulting from NaOH
dissolution of silicate minerals can be a significant and detrimental factor during field
applications.
Calcium and other divalent cations can cause precipitation of an alkali, such
as Na2CO3, unless soft brine is used. This is a limitation of sodium carbonate. Some
recent studies have emphasized the use of sodium metaborate as a replacement for
sodium carbonate (Flaaten et al. 2008 and Zhang et al. 2008).. These alkalis gave pH
values of about 11 at 1 wt% alkali concentration and generated soap for acidic crude
oils. A major advantage of sodium metaborate species are their tolerance to divalent
6
cations. This significant finding expands the application of ASP flooding to reservoirs
with high salinity and hardness and formations with anhydrite minerals (Zhang et al.,
2008).
The addition of alkali can be beneficial in reducing the surfactant adsorption.
The smaller the surfactant adsorption, the smaller the amount of required surfactant
for injection, and the lower the costs. Hirasaki et al. (2004) gave another strong
reason why sodium hydroxide should not be used as an alkali agent. They observed
that anionic surfactants show much smaller adsorption in the presence of sodium
carbonate compared to sodium hydroxide. They concluded that the hydroxide is not a
potential determining ion for carbonate surfaces. The importance of the zeta potential
(of the crude-oil/brine interface and of the mineral/brine interface) in wettability
determination was emphasized. The zeta potential of most crude oils is negative for a
pH greater than 3 because dissociation of naphthenic acids in the crude oil and that of
the surface of calcite is positive for a pH less than 9. The opposite charge between the
oil/brine and mineral/brine surfaces results in an electrostatic attraction between the
two interfaces, which tends to collapse the brine film and bring the oil in direct
contact with the mineral surface. In the presence of potential determining ions such as
Ca2+, CO32- and HCO3-, both the crude oil/brine and calcite/brine interfaces are
negatively charged, which results in an electrical repulsion between the two surfaces
and a brine film between the two surfaces.
Jackson (2006) tested the effect of sodium carbonate on the phase behavior of
surfactants using a crude oil with little or no acid. Figure 1.1 shows the phase
7
behavior results for 0.02 and 1.0 wt% sodium carbonate. The optimum solubilization
ratio is about 12 for both cases. He observed that the equilibration time is more rapid
for the sample containing the higher sodium carbonate concentration (Figure 1.2). E
He also screened the surfactant mixtures with crude oil from the Elk Hills reservoir in
California. The optimum solubilization ratio increased from 7 to 12 by adding 1 wt%
Na2CO3 (Figure 1.3). Sodium carbonate also shortened the time required for the
mixture to coalesce to a microemulsion (Figure 1.4). These are extremely valuable
observations showing the benefits of using an alkali such as sodium carbonate. It
demonstrates the benefits of adding sodium carbonate to surfactant formulations
going beyond the traditional ASP processes.
1.3 ALKALINITY LOSS MECHANISMS
One major concern in any chemical flood is the consumption of injected
chemicals in the reservoir. This is particularly important in the case of high-pH
chemical flooding because of the high reactivity of the alkaline solutions. The
interactions of alkaline agents with the reservoir rock, oil, and brine can consume
large amounts of alkali.
Large consumption of chemicals could mean that the chemical requirements
are prohibitively high for achieving a satisfactory rate of propagation. Therefore, the
loss of alkali due to the interactions with rock minerals can not be neglected in the
design of any high-pH chemical flood.
It is very important that new candidates for ASP be selected taking into
account the numerous chemical reactions that occur during the process and, in
particular, the consumption of alkali for reservoirs with different minerals, especially
at high temperatures. Once an appropriate reservoir candidate is selected, it is equally
important to do careful quantitative studies of the reactions that consume alkali during
the ASP flood.
There was a considerable amount of work during the 1980s to find the
important reactions responsible for consuming alkali. According to these studies, the
hydroxide consumption falls into three broad categories:
1. Reversible cation exchange
2. Mineral dissolution
3. Precipitation of insoluble hydroxides
Reversible hydroxide ion exchange was overlooked in alkali/rock interaction
studies for many years. deZabala et al. (1982) pointed out for the first time that the
equilibrium hydroxide ion exchange causes a chromatographic lag of the alkali and
thus the soap generation, which in turn slows oil production. It was shown that even if
alkali consumption could be eliminated, ion-exchange delay can limit the success of
alkaline EOR. Bunge and Radke (1985) provided a theoretical explanation that both
CEC (cation exchange capacity) and HEC (hydrogen exchange capacity) are
equivalent in principle and equal to the total surface exchange sites. They used mass
action to model reversible hydroxide ion uptake by sodium/hydrogen ion exchange
with minerals.
9
consumption by calcite and quartz was the lowest under the reaction conditions of 5%
NaOH, 180oF and 11 days.
Sydansk (1982) showed that a sodium hydroxide solution reacted strongly
with sandstone formations at an elevated temperature (85oC). Cheng (1986)
conducted similar studies comparing sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate and
sodium orthosilicate solutions. He also observed lower alkali loss for the sodium
carbonate compared to other two alkalis.
1.4 MODELING OF ALKALINE FLOODING
The mathematical model used in this study was a three-dimensional
multiphase, multicomponent chemical flooding simulator, UTCHEM, developed in
the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at The University of Texas at
Austin. The geochemical part of UTCHEM was initially developed by Bhuyan in
1989 and was later generalized to take into account any number of elements and
reactions by Wang in 1994 (UTCHEM Technical Documentation, 2000). This model
has been recognized as the most comprehensive model existing for modeling alkaline
flooding to date. A combination of different modules of UTCHEM makes it a unique
multipurpose chemical flooding simulator. Modeling the physical properties is
explained in Chapter 2.
As previously mentioned, the complexity of high-pH chemical flooding
processes is due to the large number of reactions that may occur by injection of an
11
alkaline solution. All the important reactions in alkaline flooding are modeled in
UTCHEM. A brief review of these reactions is described below.
1.4.1 Oil-Alkali Chemistry
Soap produced from the reaction between the acidic components of a crude oil
and the injected alkali is the principal mechanism of oil recovery in alkaline flooding.
Mayer (1983) discussed how the oil components responsible for surface active
materials have been identified as carboxylic acids and to a lesser extent as
caboxyphenols, porphyrins, or asphaltene fractions. The acidic components of oil are
measured and referred to as acid number. The acid number is defined as the
milligrams of potassium hydroxide required to neutralize one gram of crude oil.
However, the acid number may not be a good indicator of the acid components
present in crude oil that generate soap. Recently, Fan and Buckley (2006) and
Hirasaki (2007) discuss new protocols for acid number measurements that better
reflect the generation of soap.
In UTCHEM, the generation of soap is modeled by the partitioning of acid in
the crude oil (HAo) to water according to the solubility as
K
HA o
HA w
KD =
[ HA w ]
[ HAo ]
where HAw is the concentration of acid in water and KD is the partition coefficient.
12
The acid in water will then dissociate in the aqueous phase to produce soluble
anionic surfactant (A-) referred to as soap according to the expression
K
a +
HA w
H +A
This reaction is one of the sources of alkali consumption since the alkali uses
OH- to generate soap by the following reaction
K
HA w + OH
H2 O + A
H 2 O H + + OH
H + + CO32 HCO3
2H + + CO32 H 2 CO3
Ca 2 + + CO32 CaCO3
Dissolution and precipitation of clays can also be modeled. For example,
kaolinite, Al2Si2O5(OH)4, is found in most sandstone formations. The dissolution of
kaolinite at high pH can result in generation of aqueous species such as
Kaolinite + 4OH +3H 2 O 2 Al(OH) 4 + 2 H3SiO 4
There are other reactions that might be important, such as the alkaline
transformation of clay mineral to zeolites and kaolinite to sodalite (deZabala, 2007;
Zhao, et al., 2004).
H + Na + + OH Na + H 2 O
+
15
17
Figure 1.1: Solubilization ratio of 0.75 wt% 7POS C16-17, 0.25 wt% IOS C15-18
and 2wt% SBA on West Texas crude oil at WOR 1:1 and 38oC with and without
Na2CO3 (Jackson, 2006)
Figure 1.2: Effect of sodium carbonate on a West Texas crude oil at WOR 1:1 and
38oC with 0.75 wt% 7POS C16-17, 0.25 wt% IOS C15-18 and 2 wt% SBA (Jackson,
2006)
18
Figure 1.3: Effect of sodium carbonate on phase behavior using 2 wt% AOS C20-24,
4 wt% SBA with Elk Hills Crude Oil at 100oC (Jackson, 2006)
Figure 1.4: Equilibration of Elk Hills crude oil with and without sodium carbonate in
a mixture of 2 wt% AOS C20-24, 4 wt% SBA at 100oC (Jackson, 2006)
19
CHAPTER 2
A Review of UTCHEM Simulator
This chapter describes the governing equations used in UTCHEM, a threedimensional, multiphase, multicomponent chemical flooding simulator developed by
The University of Texas at Austin.
2.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SIMULATOR
UTCHEM is a three-dimensional chemical flooding compositional simulator.
The simulator takes into account aqueous species such as water, electrolytes (anions
and cations), chemical species such as surfactant, polymer, tracers, and oleic species
such as crude oil. These components may form up to three liquid phases -aqueous,
oleic, and microemulsion- depending on the amount and effective salinity of the
phase environment.
Surfactant phase behavior (Pope and Nelson, 1978; Satoh, 1984; Prouvost et
al., 1985; Camilleri et al., 1987), three phase relative permeability (Delshad et al.,
1987; 1989), oil desaturation (Delshad et al., 1986; Delshad, 1990), well models
(Saad, 1989), shear-thinning polymer viscosity (Wreath et al., 1990), cation exchange
with clays and micelles (Hirasaki, 1982; Bhuyan et al., 1990), tracer partitioning (Jin
et al. 1995), geochemical reactions (Bhuyan et al., 1990; 1991, Wu, 1990) are
included in UTCHEM.
20
The solution scheme used is analogous to IMPES. First, the pressure equation
is solved implicitly for an aqueous phase pressure using explicit dating of saturation
dependent terms. Second, the conservation equations are solved explicitly for total
concentrations. Liu et al. (1994) implemented a third order total variation diminishing
(TVD) numerical scheme to reduce the numerical dispersion.
Following are the basic assumptions made in the development of the
mathematical models of the simulator:
1. Fluids and rock are slightly compressible.
2. The solid phase is immobile.
3. Darcy's law applies (for non-Newtonian flow, apparent viscosity is used in
Darcy's equation).
4. Dispersion follows a generalization of Fick's law to multiphase flow in porous
media.
5. Ideal mixing holds (i.e. volume changes of mixing are zero).
6. Surfactant and polymer are treated as monospecies with no molecular weight
distribution.
7. Polymer, electrolytes, and tracers do not occupy any pore space.
8. The fluid phase behavior is independent of reservoir pressure.
21
S
(K
+
K
+
K
)
x
xx
xy
xz
A
A
A
A
A
A
t
x A =1
x
y
z
n
C A
C A
C A
+ A =p 1 C A u yA SA (K yyA
+ K yzA
+ K yxA
)
y
y
z
x
np
C A
C A
C A
C
u
S
(K
+
K
+
K
)
z
zz
zx
zy
A
A
A
A
A
A
z A =1
z
x
y
= R
for
= 1,..., n c
(2 1)
K xxA
JG
JG
K A = K yxA
K zxA
K xyA
K yyA
K zyA
K xzA
K yzA
K zzA
22
u 2 u yA
u 2
D
+ TA . zA
K xxA = A + LA . xA + TA .
SA u A
SA u A
SA u A
(2 2a)
TA u xA 2 TA u zA 2
D A LA u yA
+
+
+
K yyA =
.
.
.
SA u A
SA u A
SA u A
(2 2b)
u 2 u yA
u 2
D
+ T A . xA
K zzA = A + LA . zA + TA .
SA u A
SA u A
SA u A
(2 2c)
K xyA = K yxA =
( LA TA ) u xA u yA
.
uA
SA
(2 2d)
K xzA = K zxA =
( LA TA ) u xA u zA
.
SA
uA
(2 2e)
K zyA = K yzA =
( LA TA ) u zA u yA
.
SA
uA
(2 2f )
where
u A = u xA 2 + u yA 2 + u zA 2
(2 2g)
(2 3)
GG
where k is assumed to be a diagonal tensor.
JJG
The pressure field required to determine u A is obtained by solving the
23
=cv1 CA
=1
(2 4)
JG
JG
GG
JG
n
P1 JG GG
+ k rTc P 1 = A =P1 k rA h +
t
JG
JG
n GG
n
A=P1 k rAc P cA1 + k cv
Q
=1
(2 5)
where
k
rAc = rA
A
=cv1 A
(2 6)
C A
and total relative mobility with the correction for fluid compressibility is
n
(2 7)
The total compressibility, Ct, is the volume-weighted sum of the rock (Cr) and
component compressibilities C o A :
C t = Cr +
=cv1 Co Ci
(2 8)
where
= R [1 + C r (PR PRO ) ]
(2 9)
24
A = 1, n p
g
g
=
R 1 + C o (PA PR )
gc gc
R =
(2 10)
(2 11)
g
R , are the specific weights at the reference pressure PR are input values.
gc
The constants in Equation 2-10 account for the weight of the dissolved ions and
polymer. The constant 0.00433 has units of psi/ft per wt% of polymer; the constant
0.02533 has units of psi/ft per meq/ml of chloride, and the constant 0.001299 has
units of psi/ft per meq/ml of calcium. Additional terms are included for dissolved ions
considered in the geochemical options (Bhuyan et al., 1990).
2.5 MODELING OF POLYMER PROPERTIES
In this section, the polymer property models used in the simulator are
presented.
25
(2 12)
A p1 , A p2 , and A p3 are empirical constants for a given polymer and are determined
from experimental data. CSEP is the effective salinity, defined for use in polymer
property calculations:
CSEP =
C5 + (p 1) C6
(2 13)
C1
polymer properties; when p is greater than one, divalent cations have a stronger
effect on the polymer properties. Note that the quantity ( C5 C6 ) equals to the
concentration of monovalent cations. In Equation 2-12, phase index A refers to the
phase with the maximum polymer concentration, which is either aqueous phase or
26
o w
w
line on a log-log plot, gives Sp. At very low salinity CSE1 (on the order of 0.01 wt%),
the salinity dependence in Equation 2-12 is not applicable and the salinity is fixed at
the cut of value of CSE1.
2.5.2 Calculation of Shear Rate
po w
1+
1/ 2
(2 14)
P 1
where 1/ 2 is the shear rate at which viscosity is the average of po and w and P
is an empirical coefficient. When the above equation is applied to flow in permeable
media, p is usually called the apparent viscosity and the shear rate is an equivalent
shear rate eq . The equivalent shear rate for phase A in permeable media is calculated
by
n'
1 + 3n ' n '1
eq =
4n '
G
4C u A
8kk rA S
G
c u A
(2 15)
kk rA S
27
G
where u A is in ft. day, k in Darcy, and c in sec-1. n' in the above equation is the
power law exponent which indicates the degree of deviation from Newtonian
behavior. n' can change between zero and one, so the first term in Equation 2.15 is
bounded between 0.779 and 1. c is equal to 3.97C sec-1 where C is the shear rate
coefficient used to account for non-ideal effects such as slip at the pore walls (Wreath
et al., 1990; Sorbie, 1991). The appropriate average permeability k is given by
1
k=
kx
u xA
uA
1
+
ky
u yA
uA
1
+
kz
u zA
uA
(2 16)
Polymers not only reduce the mobility due to increase of polymer viscosity,
but also they reduce the effective permeability of the permeable medium due to
trapping of polymer molecules in pores. This trapping can also reduce the mobility.
The permeability reduction is measured by a permeability reduction factor, Rk,
defined as
Rk =
(2 17)
The change in mobility due to the combined effect of increased viscosity and
reduced permeability is called resistance factor, RF, calculated by
28
(2 18)
w
The effect of permeability reduction lasts even after the polymer has been
R F =R k
flushed with water and is called the residual resistance factor, RRF, defined as
R RF =
(2 19)
(2 20)
where
R kmax
1/
3
Sp
crk A p1 CSEP
=max 1,10
1/ 2
kx ky
(2 21)
where A refers to the phase with the highest polymer concentration and brk and crk are
the input parameters. The effect of permeability reduction is assumed to be
irreversible, i.e. it does not decrease as polymer concentration decreases.
2.5.4 Polymer Inaccessible Pore Volume
term is misleading since the polymer molecules actually are small enough to enter
almost all pores in at typical laboratory experiment. The increased velocity is mostly
because the polymer molecules are excluded from the pore walls due to their large
size rather than not actually entering the pores.
2.5.5 Polymer Adsorption
a (c c )
c = min c ,
c )
+
1
b
(c
=4
(2 22)
The minimum is taken to guarantee that the adsorption is no greater than the total
polymer concentration. The parameter a is defined as
0.5
k
a = (a 1 + a 2 C SEP )( ref )
k
(2 23)
30
The reference permeability (kref) is the permeability at which the input adsorption
parameters are specified. a 1 and a 2 are the input parameters. CSEP, effective
salinity for polymer, is calculated using Equation 2-13. bk determines the curvature of
the isotherm and ak/bk is the plateau value of the adsorption isotherm.
2.6 SURFACTANT ADSORPTION
31
a (c c )
c = min c ,
c )
1
b
(c
+
=3
(2 24)
The minimum is taken to guarantee that the adsorption is no greater than the
total surfactant concentration. Adsorption increases linearly with effective salinity
and decreases as the permeability increases as follows:
0.5
k
a 3 = (a 31 + a 32 C SE )( ref )
k
(2 25)
where CSE is the effective salinity described later. The value of a3/b3 represents the
maximum level of adsorbed surfactant and b3 controls the curvature of the isotherm.
The adsorption model parameters a31, a32, and b3 are found by matching laboratory
surfactant adsorption data. The reference permeability (kref) is the permeability at
which the input adsorption parameters are specified.
The following model is used to take into account the effect of pH on the
surfactant adsorption.
a 3 = (a 31 + a 32 C SE )
for
pH < (pH)c
(2 25a)
and
a 3 = {a 31 + a 32 C SE }(1
and
a 3 = a 33
for
pH (pH)c
)
(pH) t (pH)c
for
pH > (pH) t1
(2 25b)
(2 25c)
32
This model accounts for the experimental observation that plateau adsorbed
concentrations of surfactant remain almost constant in the slightly acidic and neutral
pH range up to a pH equal to (pH)c and then decrease linearly with increasing pH and
become a small constant fraction at
parameters a33, pHc, pHt1, and pHt must be determined experimentally along with a31,
a32, and b3. This model also takes into account the effect of salinity on the adsorption
of surfactant through the input parameter a32.
2.7 MICROEMULSION VISCOSITY
A = 1,3
(2 26)
n pc
AA '
(1 SnA )
k a wo
(2 27)
where
SnA =
SA SrA
(2 28)
np
1 SrA
A =1
and k a = k x k y . The input parameters cpc and npc are determined by curve fitting
capillary pressure vs. normalized water saturation.
For three liquid phases, there is no data available for capillary pressure.
Similar assumptions for three phase gas/oil/water were made for three phase water,
oil, and microemulsion flow. Similar equations as the above equations are derived
Pc13 =cpc
n pc
13
(1 Sn1 )
k a wo
(2 29)
n pc
Sn2
32
(
)
k a wo Sn3 + Sn2
(2 30)
and
Pc32 =cpc
34
A = 1, 2,3
(2 31)
where
SnA =
SA SrA
(2 32)
np
1 SrA
A =1
low
k orA
nA = nA
low
SAlow
' r SA ' r k o high k o low
+
rA
rA
Slow Shigh
A'r
A'r
SAlow
' r SA ' r n high
high A
Slow
S
A'r
A'r
nA
low
for A = 1,..., n p
for A = 1,..., n p
(2 33)
(2 34)
35
The capillary number (Brownell and Katz, 1949) has traditionally been used
to correlate the mobilization of residual oil due to the reduction of interfacial tension.
Buoyancy forces can also affect the mobilization of a trapped oil phase and can be
expressed by the Bond number (Morrow and Songkran, 1982). The Bond and
capillary numbers are usually treated as two separate dimensionless groups, one to
represent gravity/capillary forces (Bond number) and the other to represent
viscous/capillary forces (capillary number). One of several classical definitions of
capillary number (Stegemeier, 1977) is as follows:
N cA =
JJ
JJGG JG
k . A '
for A = 1,..., n p
AA '
(2 35)
where A and A ' are the displaced and displacing fluids respectively and the gradient
JG
JG
JG
of the flow potential is given by A ' = PA ' gA ' h
for A = 1,..., n p
(2 36)
number is derived by applying a force balance on the trapped oil globule. The forces
controlling the movement of the blob is the viscous force due to the hydraulic
gradient, the trapping force due to capillary pressure and the gravity force, which can
act as either a driving or trapping force depending on the direction of the flow. The
condition for mobilizing a trapped blob of length L is as follows
Hydraulic force + Buoyancy force Capillary force
Therefore, the trapping number is defined by
N cA =
JJGG JG
JJ
JJ
JJGG
JG
k . A ' k g(A ' A )h
(2 37)
AA '
1 + TA NTA
for A = 1,....., n p
(2 38)
Ar
input residual saturations for phase A at low and high trapping numbers. This
correlation was derived based on the experimental data for n-decane/surfactant/brine
mixtures (Delshad, 1986).
37
The
two
models
for
calculating
microemulsion/oil
(23)
and
microemulsion/water (13) interfacial tension (IFT) are based on Healy and Reed
(1974) and Huh (1979). The IFT for water and oil (ow) is assumed to be a known
constant.
2.11.1 Healy and Reed's Model
The first IFT model is based on Hirasaki's modification (1981) of the model of
Healy and Reed (1974). Once the phase compositions have been determined, the
interfacial tensions between microemulsion and the excess phases (13, 23) are
calculated as functions of solubilization parameters:
G A1
for R A3 1
log10 A3 = log10 FA + G A2 +
1 + G A3 R A3
G A1
for A = 1, 2
for R A3 < 1
(2-39)
where G A1 , G A 2 and G A3 are input parameters. R A3 is the solubilization ratio (
C A3
C 33
).
The correction factor introduced by Hirasaki, FA , ensures that the IFT at the
plait point is zero and is
38
FA =
1 e
con A
1 e
for A = 1, 2
(2 40)
where
con A =
(CA C3 )2
(2 41)
=1
and in the absence of surfactant or the surfactant concentration below CMC, the IFT
is equal to ow.
2.11.2 Chun-Huh Model
for A = 1or 2
R A23
(2 42)
where c is typically equal to about 0.3. Hirasaki's correction factor FA was introduced
to Huh's equation. Hirasaki's correction factor ensures that the IFT at the plait point is
zero. Additional terms were introduced to Huh's equation so that it reduces to the
water-oil IFT (ow) as the surfactant concentration approaches zero.
A3 = ow e
a R A3
cFA
2
(1 e
3
aR A 3
for A = 1or 2
R A3
39
(2 43)
The effective salinity increases with the divalent cations (Hirasaki, 1982;
Camilleri et al., 1987) and decreases as the temperature increases for anionic
surfactants and increases as the temperature increases for nonionic surfactants
40
(Bourrel and Schechter, 1988). The effect of co-solvent on the phase behavior is
discussed later.
CSE =
C51
s
(1 6 f6 )(1 + T (T Tref ))
(2 44)
where C51 is the aqueous phase anion concentration; 6 is a positive constant; f6s is the
fraction of the total divalent cations bound to surfactant micelles as
f 6s =
Cs6
(2 45)
C3m
The formulation of the binodal curve using Hand's rule (Hand, 1939) is
assumed to be the same in all phase environments. Hand's rule is based on the
empirical observation that equilibrium phase concentration ratios are straight lines on
a log-log scale. The binodal curve is computed from
41
C3A
C B
= A( 3A )
C 2A
C1A
A = 1, 2, or 3
(2 46)
where A and B are empirical parameters. For a symmetric binodal curve where B =
1, which is the current formulation used in UTCHEM, all phase concentrations are
3
C3A =
1
AC2A +
2
A = 1, 2, or 3
(2 47)
2C3 max,m
Am =
1 C3 max,m
m = 0,1, and 2
(2 48)
where m=0, 1, and 2 are corresponding to low, optimal, and high salinities. Am is
linearly interpolated as
C
A = (A o A1 ) 1 SE + A1
CSEOP
C
A = (A 2 A1 ) SE 1 + A1
CSEOP
(2 49)
(2 50)
where CSEOP is the optimum effective salinity and the arithmetic average of CSEL and
CSEU. The heights of the binodal curve at three reference salinities are input to the
simulator and are estimated based on the phase behavior experiments.
42
For both Type II() and Type II(+) phase behavior, there are only two phases
below the binodal curve. The following equation defines the distribution curves
(tielines) when two phases exist.
C
C3A
= E 3A '
C 2A
C1A '
(2 51)
where A and A ' are the two phases. In the absence of available data for tie lines, F is
calculated from F = 1/B. For a symmetric binodal curve (B=1), F is equal to 1.
Because the component concentrations are in volume fractions, they must add up to
one; therefore, imposing the constraint equations gives:
C1A + C2A + C3A = 1
C1A ' + C2A ' + C3A ' = 1
(2 52)
(2 53)
reactions presented by Bhuyan (1989). The geochemical module uses the latter model
and takes into account hydrogen concentrations (or pH). In this section, the first
model is explained. The ion exchange model in the geochemical module is described
later (Equations 2-78 to 2-82).
Cations exist in three forms: as free ions, adsorbed on a clay surface and in
association with surfactant, as either surfactant micelles or adsorbed micelles. The
mass action equations for the exchange of calcium (=6) and sodium (=12) on clay
and surfactant describe the cation exchange model as
C s 2
C f 2
( 12 ) = s C3m ( 12 )
C 6s
C 6f
(
C12c
C6 c
) = Qv (
C12f
C6f
(2 54)
(2 55)
where the superscripts f, c, and s denote free cation, adsorbed cation on clay, and
adsorbed cation on micelles, respectively. The simulator input parameters are Qv, the
cation exchange capacity of the mineral, c and s, the ion exchange constants for
clay and surfactant, and C3m, the concentration of surfactant in meq/ml. The electrical
neutrality and mass balances needed to close the system of ion exchange equations
are
44
C5 = C12f + C6f
(2 56)
(2 57)
C3 = C6s + C12s
(2 58)
Q v = C6c + C12c
(2 59)
The cation exchange equations are solved for the six unknowns
C6c , C12c , C6f , C12f , C6s , and C12s using the Newton-Raphson method.
2.14 EFFECT OF ALCOHOL ON PHASE BEHAVIOR
The presence of alcohol affects the effective salinities and causes a shift in the
phase boundaries. The effect of alcohol on the solubility is accounted for by shifting
the maximum height of binodal curve. The amount of alcohol that partitions in the
excess phase(s) is modeled either by constant partitioning coefficients as in Hirasaki's
model (1982) or as a function of total composition with the concept of
pseudocomponent and pseudophase as in Provoust's model (Prouvost et al., 1984 and
1985).
The phase behavior is modeled as a tetrahedron at a fixed salinity. Four
pseudocomponents are surfactant, alcohol, oil, and water represented in a tetrahedron.
The tielines and binodal curves are located on the ternaries sliced through
tetrahedrons. The pseudophases are (1) the aqueous phase consisting of water and
alcohol(s), (2) the oleic phase consisting of oil and alcohol(s), and (3) the
microemulsion phase consisting of surfactant and alcohol(s). Similar to the no alcohol
mixture, the phase behavior parameters such as binodal curve, plait point and
45
invariant point are calculated as a function of effective salinity using Hand's rule
(1939).
2.14.1 Alcohol Partitioning
C18
2 =
C1
(2 60)
C72
1 =
C2
C82
2 =
C2
(2 61)
C37
1 =
C3
C83
2 =
(2 62)
C3
where C1, C2, and C3 are overall water, oil and surfactant volumes respectively.
Superscripts 1, 2 and 3 represent the association of alcohol with aqueous, oleic, and
pseudophases. Therefore, C17 is the volume of first alcohol (species no. 7) in the
aqueous phase and C18 is the volume of second alcohol (species no. 8) in the aqueous
phase. The partition coefficients used in Hirasaki's model can be defined using the
above parameters:
46
K 72 = 1
1
K82 = 2
2
(2 63)
K 37 = 1
1
K83 = 2
2
(2 64)
pseudophases
km1: partition coefficient of monomeric alcohol 7 between interfacial and oleic
pseudophases
k1: self-association constant of monomeric alcohol 7 in oleic pseudophase
a: ratio of molar volume of monomeric alcohol 7 to equivalent molar volume
of surfactant
kw2, km2, k2, and b are similar constants for alcohol 8.
The above parameters are input to the simulator. Knowing C7 and C8, which
are the overall volume fractions of alcohol 7 and alcohol 8 in the gridblock, and using
material balance, permits the calculation of 1 and 2 . The other four intensive
parameters 1 , 2 , 1 , and 2 are calculated subsequently. Once these parameters are
known, alcohol partition coefficients are calculated based on Equations 2-61 and 262. These intensive parameters are used for calculating the pseudocomponenets.
47
C51
(1 6 f 6s )(1 + a f a s )(1 + T (T Tref ))
(2 65)
f 6s and fas are the slope parameters for calcium and alcohol effects, respectively.
fas =
(2 66)
For the two alcohols (components 7 and 8), the effective salinity is defined by
CSE =
C51
(2 67)
(1 6 f 6s )(1 + 7 f 7s + 8 f8s )
The effective salinity limits are not constants when there are two alcohols in
the system since each alcohol gives a different Type III phase behavior salinity
window:
CSEL =
CSEU =
(2 68)
7 f 7s + 8 f8s
CSEU7 7 f 7s + CSEU8 8 f8s
(2 69)
7 f 7s + 8 f8s
48
Satoh (1984) considered the effects of alcohol on the height of the binodal
curve which can increase as the total chemical increases. The following linear
relationship between the height of the binodal curve (C3max) and fas is used for the one
alcohol case:
C3 max,A = maA f s + CaA
a
A = 0, 1, 2
(2 70)
49
(2 71)
(2 72)
f7s
C3 max,A = C3 max,8A + (C3 max,7A C3 max,8A )
f 7s + f8s
C7 A
C8A
= (m7A +
) f 7s + (m8A +
) fs
s
s
s
s 8
f 7 + f8
f 7 + f8
(2 73)
sources, and equilibrium composition and the resulting pH of the injection water after
addition of various electrolytes. Appendices A and B describe how to set up the
EQBATCH input file.
2.15.1 Basic Assumptions
j=1
k =1
lk +
= h njC j + g nk C
i =1
m =1
f ni Ci + enm Cm
for n = 1,..., N
(2 74)
Electrical neutrality in the bulk fluid phase gives one more equation
J
z jC j +
j=1
z m Cm = 0
(2 75)
m =1
w rj
Cr = K eq
r Cj
for r = (N + 1),....., J
(2 76)
j=1
w rj
eq
K sp
k Kr C j
for k = 1,....., K
(2 77)
j=1
Q v = zi Ci
(2 78)
i=1
Additionally, for these I adsorbed cations there will be (I-1) independent exchange
equilibria relations of the form
53
pj
pi
K ex
p = Cj Cj
j=1
for p = 1,....., (I 1)
(2 79)
i =1
For M cations associated with surfactant micelles there will be (M-1) cation
exchange (on micelle) equilibria relations of the form
N
K exm
= C j qj
q
j=1
x qm
Cm
for q = 1,....., (M 1)
(2 80)
m =1
It has been shown that an electrostatic association model where the mass
action equilibria constants are not really constants, but are functions of total anionic
surfactant concentration, adequately describes these ion exchange equilibria relations
(Hirasaki, 1982). Thus, these equilibria constants are given by
K exm
= qexm (C
q
+C
(2 81)
+C
zm Cm
(2 82)
m =1
54
For cases where partitioning of an acidic component between oil and water is
considered, the acid component remaining with the oil (HAo), but available for
partitioning into the water, is selected as one of the independent chemical species as
described in Sec. 2.15.2.2. Since all aqueous reaction equilibria calculations are done
on a unit water volume basis, the concentration of HAo also needs to be expressed on
the same basis. Let a unit volume of pore space at a given time and position have v1
fraction filled by water and v2 fraction filled by oil. Now defining the concentration of
HAo as
C HAo =
moles of H Ao
liter of water
moles of H Aw
liter water
= KD
moles of H Ao
liter oil
liter water
= KD
C HAo
liter oil
v
= K D 1 C HAo
v2
and that of A as
55
moles of A
liter water
CHA w
= Ka
C +
H
= KD Ka
= KD Ka
v1 CHAo
v2 C +
H
Thus, it is seen that for these two dependent chemical species, the reaction
equilibria constants, as defined in Sec. 2.15.2.2, are actually functions of the relative
amounts of water and oil available. For a given water-oil ratio, these two equilibrium
constants can be calculated from the partition coefficient (KD=10-4) and acid
dissociation constant (Ka=10-10). Once calculated, these constants can be treated the
same as other reaction equilibria constants in the computation procedure for that
position and time.
56
CHAPTER 3
Alkali Consumption Studies
It is very important that new candidates for ASP be selected taking into
account the numerous chemical reactions that occur during the process and, in
particular, the consumption of alkali for reservoirs with different minerals and
temperatures. Once an appropriate reservoir candidate is selected, it is equally
important to do careful quantitative studies of the reactions consuming alkali during
the ASP flood. If there is a large consumption of alkali, it cannot be propagated at the
same rate as the synthetic surfactant, thereby reducing its effectiveness compared to
other techniques, such as surfactant/polymer (SP) floods. Large consumption of alkali
also causes the change in the phase behavior and inadequate salinity if most of the
alkali is consumed.
This chapter introduces mechanistic simulations of alkaline flooding and the
benefits of using alkali under different reservoir conditions. It is demonstrated that the
use of such simulations to design ASP floods leads to more robust and efficient
operations in appropriate reservoir targets. Alkali consumption is studied for different
alkalis (Na2CO3, NaOH, NaB(OH)4) and their interactions with different rocks. Table
3.1 lists all the example cases studied in this chapter. It is shown that fast reactions,
such as the cation exchange reaction, could retard the pH front. Likewise, kineticallycontrolled reactions, such as dissolution of silica and kaolinite, could cause
57
significant pH loss. The mechanistic procedure presented here can also be used as
screening criteria to recognize potential candidates for ASP flooding.
The objective of this study is to:
Model these reactions in UTCHEM and study their effects on the propagation
of the alkali front.
The interactions of alkaline agents with the reservoir rock, oil, and connate
water can consume large amounts of alkali. The loss mechanisms of hydroxide may
be categorized by the following reactions:
1. Alkaline chemicals such as sodium carbonate are injected to react with
crude oil to generate soap and increase pH. In UTCHEM, generation of soap is
modeled by two reactions.
HA o
HA w
KD =
[ HA w ]
[ HAo ]
(3-1)
58
a +
HA w
H +A
H+ A
Ka =
[ HA w ]
(3-2)
2. Another class of reactions that consume alkali is the ion exchange on the
rock surface. The importance of these reactions was overlooked for years until the
1980s. In modeling the alkaline oil recovery process, de Zabala et al. (1982) pointed
out that equilibrium hydroxide ion uptake causes a lag in alkali front propagation and
in the accompanying in-situ generated surfactants, which in turn delays the oil
production. Ion exchange is a fast reaction; therefore, the assumption of local
equilibrium is valid for modeling these types of reactions. This reaction alone can
limit the feasibility of alkaline EOR.
Bunge and Radke (1985) also shed more light on the importance of this
reaction in consumption of alkali. They provided a theoretical explanation that both
CEC and HEC are equivalent in principle and equal to the total surface exchange
sites.
3. Insoluble salt formation by reaction with hardness ions in the aqueous
phase and exchanged from the rock surfaces
Ca 2 + + CO32 CaCO3
(3-3)
59
Mg(OH)2 +CO32
(3-4)
(3-5)
[H3SiO 4 ] [H + ]
= 1 109.9 @ 25o C
[H 4SiO4 ]
H3SiO4 H 2SiO42 + H +
K2 =
[H 2SiO42 ] [H + ]
[H3SiO4 ]
(3-6)
= 1 1011.7 @ 25o C
(3-7)
(3-9)
Radke (1979) and deZabala (1982) showed that kinetically controlled mineral
dissolution reactions may reduce the produced alkalinity to a lower concentration
than the injected concentration, whereas ion-exchange processes may cause delay in
the produced alkalinity and pH front, which in turn delays tertiary oil production.
In the following section, we use UTCHEM in modeling all these reactions. It
is shown how each of these reactions can affect the alkali front. This can be
considered as a screening step for candidate reservoirs before ASP flooding. In this
chapter, we study the interaction of sandstone and carbonate reservoirs with different
alkalis such as sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, and sodium metaborate.
3.2 ALKALI CONSUMPTION IN A SANDSTONE ROCK
rock. We study the consumption due to the above mentioned reactions at different
temperatures. The reaction with the crude oil is also studied.
3.2.1 Simulation Input Description
64
Table 3.5 lists the reactive elements and chemical species considered in these
simulations. Tables 3.6 and 3.7 give the thermodynamic reaction equilibrium data for
aqueous and solid species obtained from the Geochemists Workbench Release 6.0
database. The effect of temperature on the cation exchange reaction and oil-alkali
reactions was not modeled. The list of the reactions considered is as follows:
a) Aqueous species reactions
H 2 O H + + OH
Ca 2 + + H 2 O Ca(OH)+ + H +
H + + CO32 HCO3
Ca 2 + + H + + CO32 Ca(HCO3 )+
2H + + CO32 H 2 CO3
Al3 + + 4H 2 O Al(OH)4 + 4H +
H 4SiO4 H + + H3SiO 4
b) Oil-alkali reactions
KD
HA o HA w
Ka
HA w H + + A
c) Cation exchange reaction
+
H + Na + + OH Na + H 2 O
65
d) Solid reactions
Quartz dissolution
H 4SiO4 H3SiO 4 + H +
Congruent kaolinite dissolution
Kaolinite + 4OH +3H 2 O 2 Al(OH)4 + 2 H3SiO4
Incongruent kaolinite dissolution
Al2Si 2 O5 (OH)4 (Kaolinite) + 2Na + + 2OH + 2H 4SiO 4
2NaAlSi 2 O6 .H 2 O(Analcime) + 5H 2 O
In this case, the cation exchange reaction was added to the Case 3.1
simulation. Novosad et al. (1984) developed a technique for the determination of
alkalinity losses resulting from hydrogen ion exchange in reservoir rocks. They
measured the alkalinity loss resulting from hydrogen exchange to be between 0.1 and
0.4 meq/100 g rock in Berea sandstone cores. Various hydrogen exchange capacities
(HEC) were considered to study how they affect the alkali propagation.
To evaluate alkali consumption, the cation exchange reaction between sodium
and hydrogen was studied without taking into account the effect of temperature on the
cation exchange reaction.
propagation at 0.2 PV. Four different cases are compared; Case 3.1: no consumption,
HEC=0.1 (Case 3.2a), 0.4 (Case 3.2b), and 1.0 (Case 3.2c) meq/100 g rock. The
higher the cation exchange the higher the consumption, which translates to slower
propagation of the alkali and pH front.
Figure 3.4 also shows the adsorbed cation concentrations at 0.2 PV for the
case with HEC=0.4 meq/100 g rock. As expected, adsorbed hydrogen gets detached
and sodium instead adsorbed on the surface of the clay.
3.2.2.3 Simulation with quartz dissolution (Case 3.3)
Kaolinite consumes the largest amount of alkali among the clay minerals. In
this case, the dissolution of kaolinite where minerals such as analcime are precipitated
(Reaction 3.7) was modeled.
In Figure 3.7, a similar pH decrease is observed with the kaolinite dissolution
compared to the silica dissolution shown in Figure 3.5. Similar results were also
observed at higher temperature with a larger dissolution. Similar concentrations of
H3SiO4- and Al(OH)4- are dissolved as the result of the congruent kaolinite dissolution
68
as demonstrated in Figure 3.8 at 0.2 PV and 85oC. EQBATCH and UTCHEM input
files for this case are given in Appendix D.
3.2.2.5 Simulation with incongruent kaolinite dissolution (Case 3.5)
exchange with a CEC of 0.1 meq/100 g rock is included. Three different cases were
simulated to study the importance of this reaction on the alkali front. The first case
has an acid number of zero; therefore, no soap is generated (Case 3.2a). The second
case has an acid number of 1 (Case 3.7a) and the third case has an acid number of 4
(Case 3.7b).
Figure 3.13 shows the profile of pH for the three acid number cases at 0.2 PV.
An acid number of 1 does not have a significant effect on the pH or alkali front.
However, higher acid numbers can retard the pH front to some extent. The
combination of large amount of acidic components capable of transferring to soap and
large cation exchange can be detrimental to propagation of pH or alkali front and
could retard it significantly.
Figure 3.14 shows the amount of soap generated for crude oil with acid
numbers of 1 and 4, respectively. The higher the acid number, the higher the
generated soap. It should be noted once again that acid number by itself may not be a
quantitative measure of oil reactivity and ability to generate soap to lower the
interfacial tension.
3.2.2.8. Simulation using sodium hydroxide (Case 3.8)
salinities and hardness. They also found that sodium metaborate could tolerate as high
a divalent concentration as 6000 ppm Ca2+ and Mg2+. Like other alkalis, metal
borates, monomoric borate ion (B(OH)4-) is strongly hydrolyzed to form polymeric
borate ions when its concentration and solution pH change (Ingri, 1963). It is a
classical alkaline buffer in detergent formulations, with the pH determined principally
by the acid-to-base ratio as shown by the following equation:
H+ = Ka
B(OH)3
(3-10)
B(OH) 4
Using an alkali that can be used with hard brine vastly increases the number of
oil reservoirs that can be considered as candidates for ASP flooding and reduces the
chemical costs. It is important to compare sodium carbonate and sodium metaborate
and study the key reactions. In this section, we model the chemistry of carbonate
reservoirs with high divalent cation concentrations.
3.3.1. Simulation Input Description
The same 1D input file as was used for the sandstone cases is used for these
simulations (Table 3.2). The core is initially at residual oil saturation with a brine
composition as shown in Table 3.8. Species concentrations are first obtained using
EQBATCH program to serve as initial conditions for the UTCHEM geochemical
module. Initial water has a salinity equivalent to 4 wt% NaCl in meq/ml. The
injection scheme is given in Table 3.9. We performed simulations comparing the
injection of 1 wt% Na2CO3 and 1 wt% NaB(OH)4 added to 4 wt% NaCl for 1.0 PV.
72
The injected water was considered to be soft water. The core was then waterflooded
with 4% NaCl with no hardness for another 1.0 PV.
3.3.2 Reactions Modeled
Ca 2 + + CO32 CaCO3
Ca 2 + + Mg 2 + + CO32 CaMg(CO3 )2
Ca 2 + + 2OH Ca(OH) 2
Mg 2 + + 2OH Mg(OH) 2
Ca 2 + + SO 24 CaSO 4
The same 1D input as the previous cases was set up by using the reactions
previously listed for the limestone rock. EQBATCH and UTCHEM input file of this
case is given in Appendix D. Here is the composition of minerals modeled in the
simulations.
10 g-mol/kg water calcite
1 g-mol/kg water gypsum
The injection water contains no hardness. The only hardness present is from
the brine initially in the core (Table 3.8). 1 wt% sodium carbonate or sodium
metaborate is injected for 1.0 PV. Figure 3.17 compares the pH propagation between
sodium carbonate and sodium metaborate at 0.5 PV. pH moves faster in the case of
sodium metaborate. However, the pH rises to 11 during the injection of 1 wt%
sodium carbonate compared to only 10 for sodium metaborate. Delay in the pH
profile for sodium carbonate injection is due to consumption of alkali.
Figure 3.18 shows that gypsum is dissolved and calcite is precipitated by the
injection of sodium carbonate. Figure 3.19 shows the gypsum dissolution during
74
The main difference between this case and Case 3.9 is in the solid
concentration. Here is the composition of minerals modeled in the simulations.
1 g-mol/kg water calcite
1 g-mol/kg water gypsum
10 g-mol/kg water dolomite
Figure 3.21 compares the pH in the dolomite rock during the injection of
sodium carbonate and sodium metaborate. The pH during the injection of sodium
carbonate in dolomite rock is similar to pH in the limestone rock (Figure 3.17),
whereas the pH drops from 10 to about 9.5 during the injection of sodium metaborate.
In the case of sodium carbonate, the same precipitation and dissolution reactions
occur (gypsum dissolves and calcite precipitates) and cause the delay of pH front
(Figure 3.22). Figure 3.23 shows the dissolution and precipitation reactions which
occur during the sodium metaborate injection in the dolomite rock. As shown in this
figure, gypsum and dolomite dissolve and calcite, small amount of borax and
75
76
5. Injection of alkali for both low and high acid number crude oils was
simulated. An acid number of 4 caused a significant retardation of the pH
front. An acid number of about 1 had a small effect on the pH propagation.
6. A sandstone reservoir at high temperature with a high acid number oil and a
high clay content can have a high consumption of alkali and thus the use of
alkali needs in such cases needs to be carefully considered and quantified with
a combination of appropriate experimental data and simulations.
7. Sodium metaborate seems to be a promising alkali for reservoirs with
formation brine containing considerable amount of divalent cations such a
calcium and magnesium. However, more laboratory experiments are needed
to understand its interactions with different rock minerals and at different
temperatures.
77
Alkali
Rock type
Description
3.1
Na2CO3
Sandstone
No consumption
3.2(a, b, and
Na2CO3
Sandstone
Different cation
Number
c)
3.3
3.4
3.5
exchange
Na2CO3
Sandstone
Quartz dissolution
Na2CO3
Sandstone
Congruent kaolinite
dissolution
Na2CO3
Sandstone
Incongruent kaolinite
dissolution
Na2CO3
Sandstone
3.6
Quartz dissolution
and incongruent
kaolinite dissolution
3.7
Na2CO3
Sandstone
Soap generation
3.8
NaOH
Sandstone
Quartz dissolution
Na2CO3
Carbonate (Limestone)
Mineral dissolution
3.9
3.10
and precipitation
NaB(OH)4
Na2CO3
Carbonate (Dolomite)
Mineral dissolution
and precipitation
NaB(OH)4
78
100
Porosity
Permeability, md
Residual water saturation
Residual oil saturation
Oil relative permeability end
point
Water relative permeability
end point
0.165
1500
0.38
0.35
0.4
0.05
mg/L
900
++
Mg
Ca++
20
HCO3-
1100
Cl-
800
SO4-2
18
Na
79
Elements or
pseudo-elements
Independent aqueous species
Adsorbed cations
H+, Na+
Solid
Table 3.6: Equilibrium constants for aqueous species- The equilibrium constants are
from Geochemist's Workbench
Fluid species
H+
Na+
Ca2+
Al3+
CO32H4SiO4
H2O
Ca(OH)+
Ca(HCO3)+
OHHCO3H3SiO4Al(OH)4H2CO3
Equilibrium Constants
55 oC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.18E-12
3.58E+11
7.3E-14
1.67E+10
3.24E-10
3.26E-20
3.48E+16
25 C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.0479E-13
3.6804E+11
1.0309E-14
2.2075E+10
1.5531E-10
6.9711E-23
5.1274E+16
80
85 oC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.56E-11
5.08E+11
3.21E-13
1.66E+10
5.31E-10
1.51E-18
3.9E+16
Equilibrium Constants
55 oC
1.16x10-9
0.000273716
130226.6894
771969.2476
25 C
2. 34x10-9
0.0001
26865814
19054607
CaCO3
SiO2
Al2Si2O5(OH)4
NaAlSi2O6.H2O
85 oC
4.5698x10-10
0.000594429
1627.796086
53789.80873
Temperature Na+
ppm
38oC
15700
Ca2+
ppm
850
Mg2+
ppm
60
Clppm
24300
81
CO32ppm
500
SO42ppm
2000
Independent aqueous
H + , Na + , Ca 2 + , Mg 2 + ,SO 24 , CO32 ,
species
Dependent aqueous
species
Solid species
B(OH)4 , H 2 O
OH , HCO3 , H 2 CO3 , B(OH)3 ,
CaB(OH) 4+ , MgB(OH)4+
82
1.2
0.1
Alkali
0.09
0.07
0.8
0.06
0.05
0.6
0.04
0.4
0.03
0.02
Tracer concentration
Tracer
0.08
0.2
0.01
0
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Figure 3.1: Comparison of alkali and tracer concentrations for Case 3.1 with no alkali
consumption
12
11
10
0.2 PV
0.4 PV
pH
5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless Distance, XD
Figure 3.2: pH front at 0.2 and 0.4 PV with no alkali consumption for Case 3.1
83
12
3.2b -CEC=0.4 meq/100 g
k
3.2a -CEC=0.1 meq/100 g
11
10
pH
9
8
7
3.2c -CEC=1.0 meq/100
k
6
5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless Distance
Figure 3.3: pH front at 0.2 PV with different cation exchange capacities for Case 3.1
and 3.2a-b-c
0.030
0.025
0.020
Sodium
0.015
0.010
Hydrogen
0.005
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Dimensionless distance, XD
0.8
0.9
12
11
10
85C
55C
25C
pH
5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.5: pH front @0.2 PV with quartz dissolution reaction (Case 3.3)
0.010
0.009
0.007
85C
55C
25C
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.008
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.6: H3SiO4- concentration at 0.2 PV (Case 3.3 with quartz dissolution
reaction) at different temperatures
85
12
11
10
25C
55C
85C
pH
5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Concentration, mole/L
0.006
0.005
H3SiO4Al(OH)4-
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.8: H3SiO4- and Al(OH)4- concentrations at 0.2 PV at 85oC due to congruent
kaolinite concentration (Case 3.4)
86
12
25C
55C
85C
10
pH
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.9: pH front at 0.2 PV with incongruent kaolinite dissolution reaction (Case
3.5) at different temperatures
3.0E-06
0.018
0.016
0.012
2.0E-06
Al(OH)4H3SiO4-
0.010
1.5E-06
0.008
1.0E-06
0.006
0.004
5.0E-07
0.002
0.000
0.0E+00
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
H3SiO4-, mole/L
2.5E-06
0.014
12
11
10
25C
55C
85C
pH
5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.11: pH front at 0.2 PV including silica dissolution and incongruent kaolinite
dissolution reaction (Case 3.6) at different temperatures
0.07
0.06
0.05
Kaolinite
0.04
Analcime
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
12
11
10
Oil not reactive
Acid no.=1
Acid no.=4
pH
5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
A- concentration, mole/L
0.006
0.005
Acid no.=1
Acid no.=4
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.14: Molar concentration of soap at 0.2 PV for various acid numbers (Case
3.7)
89
14
NaOH
13
12
Na2CO3
11
pH
10
9
8
7
6
5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.15: Comparison of pH profile for NaOH and Na2CO3 at 0.2 PV at 25oC
(Case 3.8)
14
13
12
NaOH
11
Na2CO3
pH
10
9
8
7
6
5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.16: Comparison of pH profile for NaOH and Na2CO3 at 0.2 PV at 85oC
(Case 3.8)
90
12
Sodium Carbonate
Sodium Metaborate
10
pH
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.17: Comparison of pH profile for Na2CO3 (Case 3.9a) and sodium
metaborate (Case 3.9b) at 0.5 PV (in a limestone rock)
10.10
Calcite
10.08
0.10
Gypsum
0.08
10.06
0.06
10.04
0.04
10.02
10.00
0.02
9.98
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.12
10.12
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.18: Solid concentration for limestone rock with injection of Na2CO3 at 0.5
PV (Case 3.9a)
91
0.12
Gypsum
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.19: Solid concentration for limestone rock with injection of sodium
metaborate at 0.5 PV (Case 3.9b)
Solution species concentration, mole/L
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
CaB(OH)4+
0.05
0.04
0.03
B(OH)4-
0.02
0.01
Ca2+
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.20: Solution species concentration for limestone rock with injection of
sodium metaborate at 0.5 PV (Case 3.9b)
92
12
Sodium Carbonate
10
Sodium Metaborate
pH
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.21: Comparison of pH profile for Na2CO3 (Case 3.10a) and sodium
metaborate (Case 3.10b) at 0.5 PV (dolomite rock)
0.12
Gypsum
1.10
0.10
Calcite
1.08
0.08
1.06
0.06
1.04
0.04
1.02
0.02
1.00
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.12
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.22: Solid concentrations for dolomite rock with injection of Na2CO3 (Case
3.10a) at 0.5 PV
93
10.04
Calcite
10.02
1.0
10.00
0.8
9.98
0.6
9.96
0.4
Dolomite
0.2
9.94
Borax Mg(OH)2
9.92
Gypsum
0.0
1.2
9.90
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.23: Solid concentrations for dolomite rock with injection of sodium
metaborate (Case 3.10b) at 0.5 PV
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
B(OH)4-
0.02
0.01
CaB(OH)4+
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 3.24: Solution species concentration for dolomite rock with injection of
sodium metaborate (Case 3.10b) at 0.5 PV
94
CHAPTER 4
Soap/Surfactant Phase behavior
give insights into the propagation of alkali, soap, and surfactant and aid in future
coreflood and field scale ASP designs.
4.1 SOAP/SURFACTANT BACKGROUND
96
result in a very low optimal salinity. By adding a more water soluble surfactant, the
region of optimum salinity could be raised to the desired level.
Martin et al. (1985) studied the effect of different alkalis on the mixtures of
surfactants, brine, and oil. The results showed that the presence of any alkali lowered
the optimum salinity of the surfactant. At a 1 wt% sodium alkali concentration,
sodium silicate had the least effect, sodium carbonate was intermediate, and sodium
hydroxide had the most effect. They found a linear relationship between the optimal
salinity and milliequivalents of sodium present. Their conclusion was that the alkaline
chemicals affect phase behavior because they provide an additional source of
electrolytes. The cations were effective in the order of potassium > sodium
>ammonium. The alkali anion had very little effect on the phase behavior. In their
study, they used light crude oil which did not contain many of the organic acids that
produce natural surfactants in-situ.
More recently, Zhang (2006) and Liu et al. (2008) made an interesting
observation based on the laboratory phase behavior study in which the optimum
salinity for a mixture of surfactant, sodium carbonate, and crude oil containing
naphthenic acids depends only on the soap-to-surfactant molar ratio. A onedimensional simulator was developed to history match their oil recovery experiments
in sandpacks. Both soap and surfactant components were tracked, but no chemical
reactions were modeled. Soap concentrations were calculated assuming alkali is
present and that the naphthenic acid in oil is completely converted to soap based on
the mass of oil present. The phase behavior was modeled using a two-phase
97
simulation model with a partition coefficient between oil and water for the
soap/surfactant mixture.
The challenge and success of an ASP flood depends on the simultaneous
propagation of surfactant and soap in the reservoir and proper mobility control. If
soap moves ahead of the injected surfactant, the phase behavior becomes over
optimum and soap partitions into the trapped oil. It remains trapped until the injected
surfactant reaches that point and moves the phase behavior back towards the optimum
salinity. On the other hand, if the injected surfactant moves ahead of soap, it will
adsorb on the rock. The adsorbed surfactant later gets partially desorbed when the
high pH alkali front reaches it.
Alkali coupled with surfactant and polymers is also beneficial even if the
crude oils have a low acid number when the major effects of alkalis are lowering
interfacial tension and decreasing surfactant retention by increasing pH (Martin et al.,
1985) or potential determining ion, i.e. CO32- (Hirasaki, 2004).
In this chapter, the effect of soap on phase behavior is emphasized. Laboratory
phase behavior data are presented for two mixtures of surfactant/alkali/crude oil and
successfully modeled. It is shown how optimum salinity and solubilization ratio are
modeled in the presence of soap and surfactant. The experimental data obtained in the
laboratory helps in understanding the effect of soap on the solubilization ratio which
has not been discussed elsewhere.
Numerous laboratory measurements are needed before a test can be designed
and implemented in the field and have a high chance of success. Some laboratory
98
evaluations that are needed include phase behavior measurements as a function of oil,
surfactant, co-surfactant, co-solvent, salinity and alkali concentrations. Fluid
compatibilities,
rock-alkali
interactions
to
measure
alkali
and
surfactant
The phase behavior measurements presented here are for a blend of two
surfactants, co-solvent (1% Diethylene Glycol Butyl Ether (DGBE)), and sodium
carbonate mixed in 0.6 wt% NaCl brine. Surfactants were 0.1 wt% C20-24 IOS and 0.1
wt% C16 bABS (Zhao et al., 2008). The phase behavior screening was performed for
the sodium carbonate in the range of 0 to 50,000 ppm. The oil concentration varied
99
from 10 to 50 vol%. The sodium carbonate scans showed a large middle phase
microemulsion at and near optimum salinity. The activity map shown in Figure 4.1
indicates a significant three-phase (Type III) region for a surfactant concentration of
0.2 wt% and for the entire range of oil concentrations studied. Figure 4.2 is an
example of oil solubilization ratios as a function of Na2CO3 for 50% oil
concentration, which indicates a solubilization ratio of 50 at the optimum salinity of
about 20,000 ppm sodium carbonate. The solubilization ratios are calculated based on
the synthetic surfactant concentration added to the test tubes and do not include the
concentration of soap generated in each test tube. The high solubilization ratio of 50
corresponds to a very low interfacial tension. Solubilization ratios for 30 vol% oil
concentration are illustrated in Figure 4.3 where the optimum salinity is about 29,000
ppm and the optimum solubilization ratio is about 30 cc/cc. The optimum salinity
increases as the oil concentration decreases. The change in optimum salinity is the
result of the relative concentrations of soap and surfactant. At low oil concentration,
the optimum salinity is high and approaches that of the synthetic surfactant, whereas
at high oil concentrations or high soap concentrations, the optimum salinity is low
and approaches that of the soap.
A careful look at Figures 4.2 and 4.3 also shows not only that the optimum
salinity shifts as oil concentration changes but also that the solubilization ratio varies
with the oil concentration. It should be noted that the data shown in these figures is
based on the surfactant concentration alone and not taking into account the
100
concentration of generated soap. Both surfactant and soap are taken into account in
Section 4.3
4.2.2 Phase Behavior-Case B
The phase behavior measurements presented in this case are for a blend of two
surfactants, cosolvent (1 wt% DGBE), and sodium carbonate mixed in synthetic
brine. Surfactants were TDA-7PO-SO4 and IOS C2024 (Zhao, 2008). The phase
behavior screening was performed for the sodium carbonate in the range of 0 to
70,000 ppm. The oil concentration varied from 10 to 50 vol%. The activity maps for
different synthetic surfactant concentrations are shown in Figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6.
The results indicate a very large three-phase (Type III) region for the entire range of
oil concentrations studied at different surfactant concentrations. Figures 4.7-4.11 are
examples of solubilization ratio curves as a function of Na2CO3 concentration at
different oil and surfactant concentrations. The same observations as for Case A are
valid here, as well: the optimum salinity increases and solubilization ratio decreases
as the oil concentration decreases. Table 4.2 gives the composition of the brine for
this case.
4.3 MODELING THE PHASE BEHAVIOR OF THE SOAP AND SURFACTANT
MIXTURE
A nonlinear mixing rule was used to model the changes in the lower and upper
effective salinity limits (optimum salinity is the mean of these two limits) as a
101
function of soap and surfactant concentrations (Salager et al., 1979; Bhuyan et al.,
1990).
(4-1)
CSEU
CSEU
ln SCSEU
= Xsoap ln Ssoap
+ Xsurfactant ln Ssurfactant
M
where SM , Ssoap , and Ssurfactant are the optimum salinities of the mixture, soap, and
surfactant, respectively. CSEL and CSEU superscripts indicate the lower and upper
salinity limits of the Type III region. Soap and surfactant mole fractions are Xsoap and
Xsurfactant. The molecular weight of the surfactant mixture is about 420 for Case A and
450 for Case B and the soap molecular weight is assumed to be 500. As the the oil
concentration decreases the mole fraction of the soap decreases and the optimum
salinity increases and approaches that of the injected surfactant. This acts as a
favorable salinity gradient and is one of the reasons for the effectiveness of the ASP
process when the added surfactant is properly selected to be more hydrophilic than
the soap. The Winsor Type III region boundaries calculated from Equation 4-1 are
shown in the activity map of Figures. 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6.
UTCHEM batch calculations provided the soap concentrations for each test
tube with different concentrations of oil and sodium carbonate with all other variables
fixed. An example of the batch input file for Case A is given in Appendix C for 50
vol% oil and 19000 ppm Na2CO3 added to 0.6 wt% NaCl. In these batch calculations,
102
the reactions for soap generation are added without any rock/alkali reactions such as
cation exchange reactions and dissolution/precipitation reactions.
First the acid number is converted from mg KOH/g oil to mole/L water.
mg KOH
1g
1000 cc
g oil
CHAo mole L water = acid no.
x
x
x
x o
cc
oil
1000 mg
1L
g oil
S2 ( L oil )
1
x
(4-2)
S1 ( L Water ) 56.098 g
mole
CHAo will be an input to UTCHEM batch calculation as well as synthetic
surfactant and alkali concentrations to find the amount of generated soap. Phase
behavior parameters such as salinity limits of the Winsor's Type III for synthetic
surfactant and soap and solubilization ratios (input as HBNC, height of binodal curve)
are adjusted to match the phase behavior parameters. This calculation is performed
over the entire range of the oil concentrations studied and alkali concentrations to
come up with a set of phase behavior parameters representative for all the data points.
The phase behavior parameters matching the experimental data points are later used
in the core flood simulations. We obtain the amount of soap generated in each test
tube in the unit of volume fraction from UTCHEM batch calculations. By knowing
the soap and surfactant molecular weights, we can calculate their respective mole
fractions in the mixture of the two. CHAo is calculated to be 0.00832 mol/L for an acid
number of 0.5 mg KOH/g oil from Equation 4-2 above. From the UTCHEM batch
simulation, the amount of A- (soap) generated in the test tube is 0.002 mol/L.
Therefore, one-fourth of HAo is converted to A-.
103
Figures 4.12 and 4.13 demonstrate the salinity limits of Winsor's Type III as a
function of soap concentration. Optimum salinity is plotted on a semi-log scale in
Figure 4.14 as a function of soap mole fraction. Figure 4.14 shows a close agreement
between the correlation (Equation 4-1) and the experimental data.
Figures 4.2 and 4.3 compare the calculated solubilization curves for both oil
and water at 50 and 30% oil. Figures 4.15-4.17 are the plots of solubilization ratios on
a linear and semi-log scale for several oil concentrations. These plots indicate that the
solubilization ratio increases as oil concentration or equivalently the soap mole
fraction (Xsoap) increases. The solubilization ratios in these plots are based on total
surfactant and soap concentrations. Solubilization ratios at optimum salinity as a
function of soap mole fraction are plotted in Figure 4.18 on a linear and in Figure
4.19 on a semi-log scale. The data suggests that the optimum oil solubilization ratio
can follow either a linear or logarithmic mixing rule. However, we decided to use the
linear relationship as
M = Xsoap soap + Xsurfactant surfactant
(4-3)
where M , soap , and surfactant are the optimum oil solubilization ratio of the
4.4 SUMMARY
1.
The phase behavior data for a mixture of sodium carbonate and a blend of
surfactants with an acidic crude oil followed the conventional Winsor phase
104
3.
Optimum salinity followed a log mixing rule based on the optimum salinities
of synthetic surfactant and in situ generated soap.
4.
5.
6.
The solubilization data for different oil concentrations are in good agreement
with UTCHEM model calculations.
105
Table 4.1: Crude oil properties and temperature of the cases studied
Case A
Case B
Oil Viscosity, cp
19
80
0.5
1.5
Temperature, oC
62
46
NaCl
NaHCO3
1310
Na2SO4-10H2O
537
KCl
54
TDS
5001
106
100000
Type II
Na2CO3 ,ppm
Type III
10000
Type I
1000
0
10
20
30
40
Concentration of oil , %
50
60
Figure 4.1: Activity map for Case A, lines are the limits of Winsor's Type III
calculated from UTCHEM
70
Points: Experiments
Curves: UTCHEM
60
50
40
30
20
Oil
Water
10
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Figure 4.2: Solubilization ratio vs. salinity for 50% oil concentration (Case A)
Curves: UTCHEM and points: Experimental data
107
70
Points: Experiment
Curves: UTCHEM
60
50
40
30
20
Oil
10
Water
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Figure 4.3: Solubilization ratio vs. salinity for 30 vol% oil concentration (Case A)
Curves: UTCHEM and points: experimental data
Na2CO3,ppm
100000
10000
0
10
20
30
Coil
40
50
60
Figure 4.4: Activity map for Case B (0.3 wt% surfactant). Lines are the calculated
Winsor's Type III region from UTCHEM
108
Na2CO3, ppm
100000
10000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Coil
Figure 4.5: Activity map for Case B (0.6 wt% surfactant), lines are the calculated
Winsor's Type III region from UTCHEM
Na2CO3, ppm
100000
10000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Coil
Figure 4.6: Activity map for Case B (1.0 wt% surfactant), lines are the calculated
Winsor's Type III region from UTCHEM
109
70
0.3 % Surfactant
Temp = 46 C
After 58 days
Sodium Carbonate scan
50% Oil
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Figure 4.7: Solubilization ratio vs. salinity for Case B with 50 vol% oil and 0.3 wt.%
surfactant, curves: UTCHEM and points: experimental data
70
0.3% Surfactant
Temp = 46 C
After 58 days
Sodium Carbonate scan
30% Oil
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Figure 4.8: Solubilization ratio vs. salinity for Case B with 30 vol% oil and 0.3 wt%
surfactant, curves: UTCHEM and points: experimental data
110
90
80
0.6% Surfactant
Temp = 46 C
After 14 days
Sodium Carbonate scan
40% Oil
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Figure 4.9: Solubilization ratio vs. salinity for Case B with 40 vol% oil and 0.6 wt%
surfactant, curves: UTCHEM and points: experimental data
70
0.6% Surfactant
Temp = 46 C
After 14 days
Sodium Carbonate scan
30% Oil
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Figure 4.10: Solubilization ratio vs. salinity for Case B with 30 vol% oil and 0.6 wt%
surfactant, curves: UTCHEM and points: experimental data
111
70
60
1.0% Surfactant
Temp = 46 C
After 35 days
Sodium Carbonate scan
50% Oil
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Figure 4.11: Solubilization ratio vs. salinity for 50 vol% oil and 1.0 wt% surfactant,
curves: UTCHEM and points: experimental data
10.00
Type II
1.00
Type III
Type I
0.10
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Figure 4.12: Type III salinity window calculated as a function of soap mole fraction
(Case A) The limits of the Winsor's Type III are calculated from Equation 4-1
112
100000
Na2CO3, ppm
10000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Figure 4.14: Optimum salinity as a function of soap mole fraction (Case A), line:
UTCHEM and points: experimental data
113
0.4
40
50% Oil
40% Oil
Solubilization ratio
35
30
20% Oil
25
30% Oil
10% Oil
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 4.15: Solubilization ratio as a function of soap mole fraction in a linear scale
(Case A) curves: UTCHEM, black line is hand-drawn showing the trend of the
solubilization ratio at optimum salinity
Solubilization ratio
100
10% Oil
20% Oil
50% Oil
40% Oil
30% Oil
10
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
100
10
1
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Figure 4.17: Solubilization ratio at optimum salinity for Case B, curves: UTCHEM,
black line is hand-drawn showing the trend of the solubilization ratio at optimum
salinity
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Points: Experimental data
Curve: Correlation
15
10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 4.18: Case A optimum solubilization ratio as a function of soap mole fraction
(linear scale)
115
1000
Experimental
Correlation
Logarithmic Scale
100
10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 4.19: Case A optimum solubilization ratio as a function of soap mole fraction
(logarithmic scale)
116
CHAPTER 5
ASP Coreflood Simulations
In Chapter 4, the phase behavior modeling of the soap and surfactant mixtures
was discussed. This chapter presents ASP coreflood simulation. These mechanistic
simulations include aqueous reactions, alkali/rock interactions, pH tracking, soap
generation, aqueous, oleic, and microemulsion phase behavior, and shifts in optimum
salinity due to varying proportions of soap and surfactant. Mechanistic simulations
give insights into the propagation of alkali, soap, and surfactant in the core and aid in
future corefloods and field scale ASP designs. Using numerical models, the ASP
process can be designed and optimized to ensure the proper propagation of alkali and
effective soap and surfactant concentrations to promote low interfacial tension and a
favorable salinity gradient, while minimizing the amount and costs of chemicals
required.
The cases presented here are the same as those mentioned in the previous
chapter (Cases A and B). Numerous laboratory measurements are needed before a test
can be designed and implemented in the field to ensure a high chance of success.
Laboratory evaluations that are needed include phase behavior as a function of oil,
surfactant, and alkali concentrations for candidate surfactants, and fluid compatibility
studies. Next, reservoir temperature corefloods should be conducted to evaluate
alkali and surfactant consumption due to rock-alkali interactions, mobility control,
117
and oil recovery for the most attractive candidate surfactant formulations. The next
step is simulation of the corefloods, the focus of this chapter. Only after these steps
are completed can reasonably accurate pilot scale or field scale simulation models be
developed to evaluate and design ASP processes.
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF LABORATORY CORE FLOODS- CASES AI AND AII
Two laboratory corefloods (AI and AII) were performed to evaluate the
performance of the selected surfactant formulation (Zhao, et al. 2008). The rock/fluid
properties are given in Table 5.1. The acid number of this crude is 0.5 mg KOH/g oil.
This crude oil is a viscous oil of about 19 cp. The brine composition is given in Table
5.2. The injected brine contains 27,500 ppm Na2CO3 in 0.6 wt% NaCl.
The coreflood configuration is vertical and the ASP slug and polymer drive
are injected from the bottom of the core. The water-saturated core was first flooded
with crude oil to residual water saturation (0.25) and subsequently waterflooded to
residual oil saturation (0.43). The endpoint saturations and relative permeabilities
obtained are listed in Table 5.1. The first Berea sandstone core (Core AI) was flooded
with about 0.5 PV of 0.2 wt% surfactant in the ASP slug and followed with a polymer
drive with an average flow rate of ~0.11 ml/min (frontal advance rate of ~1.3 ft/day).
Oil breakthrough occurred at ~0.25 PV with an oil cut of ~ 55% in the oil bank. The
oil recovery was about 95% OOIP and the final oil saturation was Sorc=0.02. The
surfactant adsorption/retention was very low at about 0.06 mg/g rock. The polymer
adsorption and alkali consumption were not measured for this coreflood experiment.
118
The surfactants selected for this first coreflood are a 1:1 mixture of two Stepan
sulfonates (0.1 wt% C20-24 IOS and 0.1 wt% C16 bABS). 1 wt% co-solvent DGBE
(Diethylene Glycol Butyl Ether) was used to increase the aqueous solubility of these
high molecular weight surfactants needed to solubilize the waxy crude oil. Adding the
cosolvent to the surfactant mixture greatly improves the quality of the microemulsion,
i.e. lowers the microemulsion viscosity and causes a faster separation and
equilibration of the phases. The ASP slug composition and the polymer drive
composition were given in Table 5.3. In the second coreflood (Core AII), the ASP
slug was injected for 0.3 PV instead of 0.5 PV. This coreflood was performed to
evaluate the effectiveness of a smaller ASP slug size to reduce the chemical
requirement for a more cost effective field design.
5.1.1 Phase Behavior
The first important step to obtain high oil recovery of greater than 90% OOIP
in the core is to develop an effective soap/surfactant phase behavior as a function of
soap, oil, surfactant, and alkali concentration. The phase behavior experiments of
soap-surfactant formulation need to be performed at different oil and surfactant
concentrations since both solubilization ratio and optimum salinity change with the
soap to surfactant molar ratio. The phase behavior model was described in the
previous chapter (4.2.1 and 4.2.2), and illustrated in Figures 4.1-4.3.
119
The 1D simulation was set up vertically for a foot long core with a diameter of
about 5.08 cm. The input file was created based on the core properties and chemical
design injection given in Tables 5.1 and 5.3. Phase behavior input parameters are
based on Case A phase behavior discussed in Chapter 4 (4.2.1).
Other measured
updated
by
adding
other
reactions such
120
as
cation
exchange
and
The thermodynamic reaction equilibrium data at 62oC for solution and solid
species are found from the Geochemists Workbench Release 6.0 database. The
EQBATCH program, which is UTCHEM's preprocessor, is used to set up the initial
state of the formation brine such as pH and species concentrations. Precipitation
reactions of divalent cations are ignored because of the relatively small
concentrations. Dissolution of quartz and clays were not considered due to time scale
121
of the injection. However, there are other reactions which are essential and cannot be
neglected for the purpose of ASP flooding. Three sets of reactions were included in
the geochemistry model:
1. In-situ generation of soap by the reaction between alkali and the acidic
component of crude oil. In situ generation of soap was included because
the acid number of the oil is ~0.5.
2. Aqueous reactions involving alkali.
3. The sodium-hydrogen exchange reaction on clay. This is modeled since it
is one of the main alkali consuming reactions. The core is a clean Berea
sandstone rock with a cation exchange capacity of 0.1 meq/100 g rock.
These sets of reactions seem adequate to investigate and study the behavior
and performance of ASP flooding in this coreflood. The three sets of reactions
modeled are listed below. EQBATCH and UTCHEM input files of case A are given
in Appendix D.
HA o HA w
1.
HA H + + A
w
H O H + + OH
2
+
2. H + CO3 HCO3
2H + + CO32 H 2 CO3
+
+
3. H + Na + + OH Na + H 2 O
122
Oil recovery, oil cut, pressure drop, and pH of the effluent were measured for
these two corefloods. Surfactant concentrations were also measured for coreflood AII.
Figures 5.6 to 5.9 show the match between the simulation and measured data for
Coreflood AI. As shown in Figure 5.6, oil breakthrough occurred at about 0.2 PV
with an oil cut of about 60%, which is in close agreement with those calculated from
the fractional flow curve analysis (Figure 5.5). We also successfully matched the
cumulative oil recovery and oil cut as shown in Figure 5.6. Figure 5.7 shows close
agreement between the measured and simulated concentration breakthrough, peak,
and trend of the effluent curve. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show an excellent match between
the simulation and measured data for pressure drop along the core and effluent pH.
Figure 5.10 is a plot of Winsor's Type III region salinity and soap and
surfactant concentration profiles at 0.5 PV. This is a good illustration of how these
chemicals move along the core and affect the Type III region. As shown in this plot,
where there is more soap present the Type III window is shifting towards the soap
salinity window. The optimum salinity changes to that of the injected surfactant
where the surfactant concentration is higher than the soap concentration.
The size of the ASP slug was reduced to 0.3 PV in the coreflood AII. Table
5.1 lists some of the differences between Cores AI and AII. During the ASP slug,
27,500 ppm Na2CO3 was added to the formation brine (Table 5.3). Figures 5.11 and
5.12 show the results of the match for coreflood AII. Oil recovery is about 98% OOIP
for coreflood AII confirming that the reduction in the slug size does not reduce the oil
123
recovery significantly. It should also be noted that the coreflood AII is very efficient
in a sense that it uses a very small amount of synthetic surfactant (0.2 wt% surfactant
injected for 0.3 PV). Another very important observation is that this small surfactant
concentration and slug is effective because the surfactant adsorption is very low (0.06
mg/g rock).
The profiles of this coreflood at 0.5 PV are plotted in Figures 5.13-5.15.
Na2CO3 or in other words, effective salinity passes through the Type II, then Type III,
and lastly Type I. This gives a salinity gradient to the system and makes it more
robust. A low IFT of less than 0.001 dynes/cm is achieved where the salinity passes
through the Type III region (Figure 5.13).
Figure 5.14 demonstrates the salinity and concentration profiles at 0.5 PV for
this coreflood. pH and oil concentration are shown in Figure 5.15. The pH has
advanced to a dimensionless distance along the core from the injector to XD=0.7 at
0.5 PV injection, indicating an insignificant alkali consumption due to the cation
exchange reaction.
5.1.7 Type III sensitivity simulation
file was used as for the coreflood AII, except setting equal values for lower and upper
salinity windows (CSEL = CSEU) for both surfactant and soap. The results of this
sensitivity case show a reduction in oil recovery from 98% to 84% OOIP when the
Type III region is collapsed in the model (Figure 5.16).
Figure 5.17 shows the effective salinity, optimum salinity, and IFT at 0.5 PV.
It is observed that the low IFT values are obtained for a much shorter duration
compared to the coreflood AII simulation where Type III was modeled (Figure 5.13).
This shows the importance of including Type III when modeling ASP floods. The
plot of soap and surfactant concentrations at 0.5 PV is also shown in Figure 5.18.
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF LABORATORY CORE FLOODS- CASES BI AND BII
125
The coreflood was flooded with 0.6 wt% surfactant and 25,000 ppm Na2CO3.
The Flopaam 3630S polymer concentration was kept at 3500 ppm during the ASP
slug and 2700 ppm during the polymer drive. The pressure drop along the core for
the ASP flood was as high as 4.5 psi at oil breakthrough (Figure 5.27). The surfactant
adsorption/retention was estimated at about 0.02 mg/g rock. As shown in Figure 5.25,
oil breakthrough occurred at ~0.35 PV with an oil cut of ~ 85% which is in good
agreement with the fractional flow curve (Figure 5.23). Oil recovery is about 98%
OOIP for this coreflood.
In the second coreflood (BII), surfactant concentration was reduced from 0.6
to 0.3 wt% and Na2CO3 concentration was reduced from 25,000 to 20,000 ppm. The
differences in the properties between Cores BI and BII are shown in Table 5.5. 100%
oil recovery was achieved for this coreflood. These results confirm that even these
small concentrations of surfactant are sufficient for high oil recoveries, if the entire
chemical formulation is carefully designed.
5.2.1 Polymer Properties
Flopaam 3630S was chosen for corefloods BI and BII. Different Na2CO3
concentrations were added to 2750 ppm Flopaam 3630S @ filtered brine to find the
salinity dependency of the polymer viscosity (Figure 5.19). Polymer viscosity was
also measured at various polymer concentrations and shear rates (Figures 5.20 and
5.21) at 46oC.
126
The coreflood simulation was set up for a core with a length of 30 cm and a
diameter of 5.08 cm. The input file was prepared based on the core properties and
chemical injection given in Tables 5.4 to 5.6. Phase behavior input parameters were
based on Case B in Chapter 4. The oil viscosity is 100 cp and the acid number is 1.5
mg KOH/g oil.
5.2.3 Fractional Flow for ASP flooding
Figure 5.22 shows the relative permeability curves. The endpoint relative
permeabilities and residual saturations were based on the laboratory results. Both oil
and water relative permeability exponents were assumed to be 2.
Based on fractional flow theory (Figure 5.23), the minimum polymer viscosity
required for a stable ASP flood with Mo=0.9 is about 85 cp. According to this
fractional flow curve, the oil breakthrough should occur at about 0.4 PV and the oil
cut at breakthrough is about 80%. It is important to note that oil cut is high due to the
high viscosity of oil.
Another coreflood (BIII) was performed with this 100 cp crude oil at 46 oC,
which was not as successful as the other two corefloods due to the lower polymer
concentration used and inadequate mobility ratio. The polymer concentration was
2750 and 1875 ppm Flopaam 3630S in the ASP slug and polymer drive
corresponding to a viscosity of about 40 cp in both the slug and the drive. As shown
in Figure 5.24, the oil recovery was reduced to only 70% OOIP. This coreflood
127
Oil recovery, oil cut, pressure drop, and pH of the effluent were measured for
the two corefloods (BI and BII). Surfactant concentration was also measured for the
core flood BI. The same reaction model as in Case A was used to describe the
reactions occurring during the alkali injection for Case B.
Figures 5.25 to 5.28 show the comparison between the simulation and
measured data. The simulated cumulative oil recovery and oil cut matches the
coreflood measured data very well, as shown in Figure 5.25. Pressure drop, pH, and
surfactant concentration are matched reasonably well. Figure 5.25 indicates an oil
breakthrough of about 0.4 PV with an oil cut of about 80% which is in close
agreement with those obtained from fractional flow curves (Figure 5.23). Figures
5.26 and 5.27 show an excellent match between the simulation and measured data for
effluent pH and pressure drop across the core. The measured and the simulated final
pH value is about 11. The higher pH value in the simulation can be due to lack of
modeling mineral dissolution/ precipitation reactions. The pressure drop increases to
near 5 psi as the oil bank is produced and then drops to about 4 psi. Figure 5.28 shows
the surfactant concentration match. The simulated surfactant concentration is less
dispersed compared to the measured data. Increasing the physical dispersivity may
128
give a better match between the two. 100 gridblocks is used to simulate a one foot
coreflood. The physical dispersivity is considered to be as large as one gridblock.
Figure 5.29 shows the Type III effective salinity window (CSEL and CSEU), and
soap and surfactant concentration profiles along the core at 0.5 PV. This is a good
illustration of how these chemicals move along the core and affect the phase behavior
and the optimum salinity. As shown in this plot, where there is more soap than
surfactant, the Type III window is shifting towards the soap effective salinity
window. The optimal salinity approaches the optimum salinity of the injected
surfactant when there is a higher concentration of surfactant compared to soap.
The core is initially filled with formation brine of 5101 ppm TDS (Table 5.4).
About 25,000 ppm Na2CO3 was added to the formation brine during the ASP slug
which helps the effective salinity pass through the Type II, then Type III, and lastly
Type I. This creates a more robust design with a favorable salinity gradient. A low
IFT of less than 0.001 dynes/cm is achieved where the Type III region is observed
(Figure 5.30).
Coreflood properties and the chemical design of BII is given in Tables 5.5 and
5.6. There are no major differences in properties between cores BI and BII. In
coreflood BII, 0.3 wt% surfactant and 20000 ppm Na2CO3 is added to the slug
compared to 0.6 wt% surfactant and 25000 ppm Na2CO3 in coreflood BI. Figures
5.31 and 5.32 demonstrate the match of oil cut, oil recovery and pressure drop for
coreflood BII.
129
Any crude oil containing acidic components should be considered for its
potential for an alkaline/polymer flood with no added surfactant. This is especially
worthy of evaluation when the reservoir brine is low salinity. The soap Type III
130
effective salinity window is usually low and narrow and a reservoir brine with low
TDS is desirable for AP processes. Adding the alkali to a high salinity brine causes
the phase behavior to shift to Type II+ and this results in a design challenge to lower
the effective salinity to below optimum values for high salinity brine reservoirs.
Some cosolvents such as DGBE or EGBE might be needed to add to the
formulation of AP flood for aqueous stability even when no surfactant is present. 1D
coreflood simulations are performed to evaluate its potential. However, this needs to
be tested in the laboratory to assure its feasibility. The first and most important
uncertainty here is the phase behavior of the soap by itself. For these example runs,
we assume the optimum solubilization ratio is about 12 for soap.
To illustrate the AP floods, several different scenarios are devised. Table 5.7
lists the simulation cases. The first 1D AP simulation (AP-1) was run based on the
ASP core flood (Case BII). 2 wt% Na2CO3 was added to the formation brine. As
shown in Figure 5.36, AP flood oil recovery is about 55% OOIP much lower than the
ASP coreflood cases presented previously. To improve the oil recovery, in the second
AP run (AP-2), the alkaline slug is increased from 0.3 to 0.6 PV, which might be
sufficient to generate soap and reduce the IFT. As mentioned before, due to adding
sodium carbonate we might need to also add cosolvent for aqueous stability. The oil
recovery did not improve much for the larger slug size. No significant improvement
can be achieved by increasing the slug size. In this case, addition of more alkali
causes the system to shift to Type II+ for a longer time period.
131
Next, we studied cases with higher acid numbers for the crude oil. Two more
cases (AP-3 & AP-4) were run to investigate the effect of acid number on AP oil
recoveries. The acid number was increased to 2 and 4. Consequently, oil recovery
increased to 75% OOIP for AP-3 and 95% OOIP for AP-4 cases, respectively (Figure
5.37). The higher the acid number, the more soap is generated, as shown in Figure
5.38. Therefore, a more reactive crude oil (higher acid number) has a higher potential
for AP floods.
Based on these scoping studies of AP corefloods, it appears that the addition
of surfactant to the alkaline solution makes the chemical flood more efficient and
robust. For possible AP candidates (high acid number oil, low salinity reservoirs),
laboratory experiments are essential to determine the soap phase behavior and AP
core floods experiments are essential to test the suitability of AP floods for a
particular crude oil and reservoir brine system.
5.4 SUMMARY
A-I
0.43
0.25
673
0.2
0.05
A-II
0.43
0.32
683
0.17
0.05
0.52
0.6
0.5
19
62
0.5
19
62
4416
348
661
5425
133
AI
AII
~1.5 PVs
2000 ppm Flopaam 3630S
in 0.6 wt% NaCl
Frontal Velocity: 1.3 ft/day (0.11
ml/min)
Viscosity: 33 cP @ 10 s-1, 62 oC
0.3 PV
0.2 wt% Surfactant
1 wt% DGBE
3000 ppm Flopaam 3630S
27,500 ppm Na2CO3
in 0.6 wt% NaCl
Frontal Velocity: 1.3 ft/day (0.11
ml/min)
Viscosity: 28 cp @ 10 s-1, 62 oC
~1.5 PVs
2000 ppm Flopaam 3630S
in 0.6 wt% NaCl
Frontal Velocity: 1.3 ft/day (0.11
ml/min)
Viscosity: 33 cP @ 10 s-1, 62 oC
NaCl
NaHCO3
Na2SO4-10H2O
KCl
Dithionite
TDS
134
BI
BII
Porosity
Temperature, oF
Permeability, md
Length, cm
0.21
115
1476
30
0.21
115
1923
30
Diameter, cm
Residual water saturation
5.08
0.14
5.08
0.12
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.04
100
100
Water viscosity, cp
0.67
0.67
1.0
0.06
BI
BII
ASP
slug
0.3 PV
0.6 wt % Surfactant
(0.3 wt% TDA-7PO-SO4 and
0.3 wt% IOS 2024)
1.0 wt% EGBE,
3500 ppm Flopaam 3630S
25,000 ppm Na2CO3 added to
formation brine
1.0 ft/day (0.09 ml/min)
Polymer ~1.5 PV
drive
2700ppm AN125 in formation brine
135
0.3 PV
0.3 wt% Surfactant
(0.15 wt% TDA-7PO-SO4 and
0.15 wt% IOS 2024)
1.0 wt% EGBE,
3500 ppm Flopaam 3630S
20,000 ppm Na2CO3 added to formation
brine
1.0 ft/day (0.09 ml/min)
~1.5 PV
2700ppm AN125 in formation brine
AP-2
AP-3
AP-4
AP slug 0.3 PV
3500 ppm
Flopaam 3630S
0.6 PV
3500 ppm
Flopaam 3630S
0.3 PV
3500 ppm
Flopaam 3630S
0.3 PV
3500 ppm
Flopaam 3630S
1.0
2.0
4.0
Acid
number
AP-1
1.0
136
50
45
40
Correlation
35
viscosity, cp
0% Na2CO3
Lab data
1% Na2CO3
30
2% Na2CO3
25
20
3% Na2CO3
15
10
5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Polymer concentration(wt%)
Figure 5.1: Flopaam 3630S polymer viscosity vs. polymer concentration at different
salinities (62 oC)
1000
100
10
-0.3792
y = 38.114x
1
0.01
0.1
Csep,meq/ml
Figure 5.2: Flopaam 3630S polymer viscosity vs. salinity, (Line was curve fit to the
laboratory data to find the exponent) (2500 ppm polymer)
137
60
viscosity, cp
50
Lab
UTCHEM
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
-1
Figure 5.3: Flopaam 3630S polymer bulk viscosity vs. shear rate (62 oC, 3 wt%
Na2CO3 added to 0.6 wt% NaCl, 2500 ppm polymer)
1.0
Relative Permeability, krj
0.9
0.8
0.7
kro
krw
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Water Saturation, Sw
Figure 5.4: Oil/water relatively permeability curves in Berea sandstone core AII
138
1.0
1.0
(S1I, f1I)
(S1*, f1*)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
(S1B, f1B)
0.5
0.4
0.3
water-oil
polymer-surfactant-oil
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Water Saturation, Sw
Figure 5.5: Fractional flow plot for water, and ASP floods for Core AII with
negligible adsorption
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Emulsion
breakthrough
50%
Cum Oil
Oil Cut
40%
Cum Oil-UTCHEM
30%
Oil Cut-UTCHEM
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Pore Volumes
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 5.6: Comparison of simulation and measured oil recovery and oil cut for
coreflood AI
139
2.0
Surfactant Recovered,ppm
4000
3500
Surfactant Concentration
3000
UTCHEM
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Pore Volumes
pH
8
6
4
pH
UTCHEM
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
Figure 5.8: Comparison of the effluent pH between UTCHEM and measured data
(Case AI)
140
10
9
Whole
pressure drop-UTCHEM
7
6
5
Emulsion
breakthrough
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Pore Volumes
Figure 5.9: Comparison of the pressure drop between UTCHEM and measured data
(Case AI)
1.E-02
Surfactant
1.0
1.E-03
0.8
Soap
0.6
1.E-04
0.4
1.E-05
CSEU
0.2
CSEL
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.E-06
1
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 5.10: Simulated surfactant and soap concentrations and type III salinity
window of coreflood AI at 0.5 PV
141
100%
90%
Cumulative Oil
Oil Cut
Cumulative Oil-UTCHEM
Oil Cut-UTCHEM
80%
70%
60%
Emulsion
breakthrough
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Pore Volumes
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure 5.11: Comparison of the oil recovery between UTCHEM and measured data
(Case AII)
10.0
9.0
8.0
Experimental data
7.0
UTCHEM simulation
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Pore Volumes
Figure 5.12: Comparison of the pressure drop between UTCHEM and measured data
(Case AII)
142
2.0
1.2
100
IFT
1.0
10
0.8
1
Effective Salinity
0.6
0.1
CSEL
IFT (dyne/cm)
CSEU
0.4
0.01
0.2
0.001
0.0
0.0001
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Dimensionless Distance
0.8
Figure 5.13: Simulated salinity and IFT for coreflood AII at 0.5 PV
1.E-02
CSEU
1.0
Surfactant
1.E-03
0.8
0.6
1.E-04
Soap
CSEL
0.4
1.E-05
0.2
0.0
1.2
1.E-06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 5.14: Simulated surfactant and soap concentrations for coreflood AII at 0.5 PV
143
14
1.2
pH
12
10
0.8
8
pH
1.0
0.6
6
Oil
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Dimensionless distance, XD
0.8
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 5.16: Comparison of the oil recovery and oil concentration between the Case
AII and sensitivity case in which no Type III was modeled
144
2.0
1.2
1.E+02
1.E+00
CSEL, CSEU
0.8
1.E-01
0.6
1.E-02
1.E-03
Salinity
0.4
IFT (dyne/cm)
Salinity, meq/ml
1.E+01
IFT
1.0
1.E-04
0.2
1.E-05
0.0
1.E-06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 5.17: Simulated IFT and optimum salinity at 0.5 PV for sensitivity case AII
(no Type III)
1.E-02
1.0
Surfactant
1.E-03
0.8
0.6
1.E-04
Soap
0.4
1.E-05
0.2
CSEL, CSEU
0.0
1.2
1.E-06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 5.18: Simulated soap and surfactant concentrations for sensitivity Case AII (no
Type III)
145
1000
100
y = 58.761x
10
0.01
-0.3236
0.1
10
Csep,meq/ml
Figure 5.19: Flopaam 3630S polymer viscosity vs. salinity, Case B (2750 ppm
polymer, 46 oC at 10 s-1)
120
100
Viscosity, cp
80
60
Experimental data
Model
40
20
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Polymer Concentration(wt%)
Figure 5.20: Flopaam 3630S polymer viscosity vs. polymer concentration, Case B (46
o
C at 10 s-1 with formation brine)
146
160
140
Viscosity, cp
120
100
80
Experimental Data
Correlation
60
40
20
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Figure 5.21: Flopaam 3630S polymer viscosity vs. shear rate, Case B (2 wt%Na2CO3
added to formation brine, 46 oC)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
kro
krw
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Water Saturation, Sw
1.0
1.0
(S1I, f1I)
(S1*, f1*)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
(S1B, f1B)
0.2
water-oil
polymer-surfactant-oil
polymer
0.1
0.0
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Water Saturation, Sw
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Cum Oil
40%
Oil Cut
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Pore Volumes
1.6
1.8
2.0
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Cum Oil
40%
Oil Cut
30%
Cum Oil-UTCHEM
20%
Oil Cut-UTCHEM
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Pore Volumes
Figure 5.25: Comparison of simulation and measured oil recovery and oil cut for
coreflood BI
14
UTCHEM
12
Experimental Data
10
pH
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Pore Volumes
1.8
2.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
UTCHEM
5.0
Experimental Data
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Pore Volumes
Figure 5.27: Comparison of simulation and measured pressure drop for coreflood BI
Surfactant Concentration,wt%
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
UTCHEM
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Experimental data
0.2
0.1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
PVs
2.0
CSEU
Salinity, meq/ml
1.2
1.0
1.E-01
Surfactant
0.8
1.E-02
CSEL
1.E-03
Soap
0.6
1.E-04
0.4
0.2
1.E-05
0.0
1.E-06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.E+00
1.4
Dimensionless distance, XD
1.E+02
1.E+00
1.0
1.E-01
0.8
CSEL
1.E-02
0.6
1.E-03
Salinity
0.4
1.E-04
0.2
1.E-05
0.0
1.E-06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Dimensionless distance, XD
0.8
IFT (dyne/cm)
Salinity, meq/ml
1.E+01
IFT
CSEU
1.2
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Emulsion
50%
Cum Oil
40%
Oil Cut
30%
Cum Oil-UTCHEM
20%
Oil Cut-UTCHEM
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Pore Volumes
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure 5.31: Comparison of measured and simulated oil recovery and oil cut for
coreflood BII
6.0
Emulsion breakthrough
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
Whole(0-10)
Pressure drop- UTCHEM
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Pore Volumes
Figure 5.32: Comparison of measured and simulated pressure drop for coreflood BII
152
100%
Case BII
90%
80%
1wt % Na2CO3
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Pore Volumes
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Figure 5.33: Oil recovery comparison for Case BII and sensitivity Case CI with
reduced alkali concentration (1wt% Na2CO3)
1.4
Salinity(meq/ml)
1.2
1.E+01
CSEU
1.E+00
1.0
CSEL
0.8
1.E-01
1.E-02
0.6
1.E-03
Surfactant
0.4
Soap
1.E-04
0.2
1.E-05
0.0
1.E-06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 5.34: Soap and surfactant concentrations and Type III salinity windows at 0.5
PV for sensitivity Case CI with reduced sodium carbonate concentration
153
1.E+02
1.4
1.E+02
IFT
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.0
0.8
CSEL
1.E-01
1.E-02
0.6
1.E-03
0.4
1.E-04
Salinity
0.2
1.E-05
0.0
1.E-06
0
0.2
IFT (dyne/cm)
Salinity(meq/ml)
1.2 CSEU
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 5.35: IFT and effective salinity at 0.5 PV for sensitivity Case CI with reduced
sodium carbonate concentration
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1.5
PV
2.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
PV
Figure 5.37: Sensitivity of the oil recovery to acid number for alkaline/polymer floods
1.E+02
1.4
IFT
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.0
1.E-01
0.8
Soap
0.6
1.E-02
1.E-03
0.4
1.E-04
Salinity
0.2
CSEL, CSEU
1.E-05
0.0
1.E-06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 5.38: Profile of the alkaline/polymer flood at 0.5 PV- Case AP-4 (acid number
of 4)
155
Salinity(meq/ml)
1.2
CHAPTER 6
156
measured as a function of the shear rate, salinity, and polymer concentration at the
reservoir temperature.
6.1 PHASE BEHAVIOR
The surfactant and polymer formulation are chosen similar to the Case B
discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 (Sections 4.2.2 and 5.2, Figures 4.4 to 4.11 and Figures
5.19 to 5.21). The crude oil has an acid number of about 2.4 mg KOH/g oil. Table
6.1 gives the composition of the formation brine, with a salinity of about 2 wt%.
Figure 6.1 shows the calculated solubilization ratios with 0.3 wt% surfactant and 50
vol% crude oil as a function of added sodium carbonate concentration. Due to the
lack of phase behavior screening data for this specific reservoir crude, we used the
phase behavior results from a very similar crude oil at similar temperature.
6.2 REACTIONS
The formation water analysis and the rock mineralogy are listed in Tables 6.1
and 6.2, respectively. The initial equilibrium concentrations of aqueous, solid, and
adsorbed species were calculated using the EQBATCH program. Precipitation
reactions of divalent cations were ignored because of their negligible concentrations
in the formation and injected water. Table 6.3 compares the EQBATCH calculated
composition of brine with the measured values assuming no divalent cations.
Appendix D gives the details of the EQBATCH input file for this case.
Dissolution of quartz and clays were not considered due to the low reservoir
temperature of about 87oF. The reactions included:
157
1. In situ generation of soap was included because the acid number of oil is
high (~2. 4 mg KOH/g oil). Generation of soap consist of two reactions:
a. Partitioning of acid component between oil and aqueous phase
K
HA w
H A o
[H A w ]
KD =
[H A o ]
a +
HA w
H + A
H+ A
Ka =
[HA w ]
H 2 O H + + OH
H + + CO 32 HCO 3
2H + + CO 32 H 2 CO 3
158
H + Na + + OH Na + H 2 O
The cation exchange capacity is 0.4 meq/100 g rock, which is equivalent to
0.033meq/ml PV for the UTCHEM cation exchange capacity input parameter,
assuming a porosity of 0.31.
6.3 ASP FRACTIONAL FLOW ANALYSIS
We constructed the fractional flow curve for ASP assuming the surfactant
adsorption is negligible at high pH. The minimum polymer viscosity in the ASP slug
needed to have a stable front (Mo=0.9) is about 70 cp (Figure 6.2). It should be noted
that polymer flooding requires a polymer solution with only 20 cp viscosity compared
to the higher viscosity required for ASP flooding because of an increase in relative
permeabilities at high capillary numbers or low interfacial tension (Figure 6.3).
This is an interesting observation especially important for viscous oils.
According to the fractional flow curve, the oil cut at breakthrough is about 75%.
6.4 ASP COREFLOOD DESIGN AND SIMULATION
to 4.11). The optimum salinity ranges from 1.5 wt% for soap to 5.3 wt% for
surfactant. Table 6.4 lists the Type III salinity window for soap and surfactant used in
these simulations. The surfactant Type III salinity window is about twice as large as
that for soap.
The coreflood simulation model was set up with a length of 30 cm and a
diameter of 5.08 cm. Table 6.6 shows the core properties and simulation input
parameters. The permeability, porosity, and water/oil relative permeabilities are the
same as the field data. The initial core conditions at the time of ASP injection is at a
brine salinity of about 2 wt% NaCl. The ASP slug was injected at a frontal velocity
of 1.0 ft/day for a period of 0.3 PV followed by the polymer drive. Table 6.5
summarizes the ASP design. UTCHEM input file of this case is given in Appendix D.
Figure 6.4 shows the oil concentration and cumulative oil recovery, consistent
with the fractional flow analysis of an oil bank cut of 75%.
breakthrough time is very early because of the high initial oil saturation of 0.72. A
very high oil recovery of 97% OOIP is obtained and the results are consistent with a
coreflood experiment performed with a very similar crude oil (coreflood Cases BI and
BII in Chapter 4). The oil bank cut is high because of the high oil viscosity of about
81 cp.
Figure 6.5 demonstrates oil, surfactant, soap, and polymer concentrations,
effective salinity and IFT profiles at 0.8 PV where XD=0 indicates the location of the
injector and XD=1 is that of the producer. Surfactant adsorption is calculated to be
about 0.05 mg/g rock at high pH. It is observed that the soap has advanced slightly
160
ahead of the surfactant at the time of the profile, 0.8 PV. This is because alkali
consumption (~0.05 meq/100 g rock) is small relative to surfactant adsorption. Figure
6.5 shows that, as the surfactant concentration increases, the Type III region shifts
from the soap to the surfactant three-phase salinity window. When salinity passes
through the Type III region, the IFT reduces significantly, to about 10-6 dynes/cm.
6.5 FIELD-SCALE SIMULATIONS
In this section, we extend our work to field scale simulations to study different
chemical flood options that might be applied in this reservoir. The sector model has
48 gridblocks in the x direction, 20 gridblocks in y direction, and 16 gridblocks in the
z direction. The four bottom layers are the aquifer. The middle four layers are the
capillary transition zone as shown in Figure 6.6. The initial oil saturation is about
93% in the first 9 top layers. The vertical permeability in the field scale simulation is
0.7 times the horizontal permeability. All the rock and fluid, phase behavior and
polymer model parameters are identical to those in 1D simulation (Table 6.6). There
are 3 producers in layer 1 and one injector in layer 12. Injection and production wells
are rate constrained. The injection well rate is 18000 bpd and 6000 bpd is produced
from each of the three production wells, for balanced injection and production.
All properties in the model are homogeneous except for porosity, which
averages 0.31 and varies only slightly from this mean for each grid block. Since this
is an essentially homogeneous model and the gridblocks in the y direction are
identical in size, one slab out of 20 in y direction can be simulated (converting the 3D
161
model to 2D) to speed up the simulation run time for ASP and AP simulations. Table
6.7 lists the dimensions of the simplified reservoir model, which is very
representative for the purpose of this study. The UTCHEM input file for 2D
simulation is given in Appendix D.Injection and total production rates were reduced
to 900 bpd (18000 bpd/20 slabs), for the 2D model to mimic the 3D model.
Comparisons of the waterflood and polymerflood 2D and 3D simulations are
discussed in the following sections. To confirm the consistency of the simulation
results for 2D and 3D ASP models, we conducted a benchmark 3D ASP simulation to
compare with the 2D results.
6.5.1 Water Flood
The reservoir was first water flooded for about 12.25 years (water cut of about
98%). Figure 6.7 demonstrates the oil saturation at the end of the waterflood for the
2D and 3D cases. Water cones toward the production wells and large pockets of
unswept oil still exist after the waterflood. The 2D oil saturation distribution is
virtually identical to the 3D results.
6.5.2. Polymer Flood
four bottom layers). The simulation results indicate the role of polymer in creating a
favorable mobility ratio and enhancing sweep efficiency, where the oil from the
unswept zones after waterflood is pushed towards the producers. Oil saturation is
shown in Figure 6.10 at different times during the polymerflood, demonstrating how
the oil is recovered due to polymer injection. Figure 6.11 compares the cumulative oil
recovery of waterflood and polymerflood for both 2D and 3D simulations. The results
are very similar for 2D and 3D simulations for both water and polymer flooding due
to the near homogeneous properties of the reservoir.
increases from 6x106 bbls for waterflood to 1.4x107 bbls for polymerflood. If we
continue the waterflood for another 3000 days the cumulative oil recovery would only
increase to 8x106 bbls (Figure 6.13), as oilcuts are very low, less than 2% at this stage
of the waterflood. The cumulative oil production increases from 20% OOIP for
waterflood to 50% OOIP for polymerflood.
6.5.3. ASP Flood
Additional input parameters for ASP simulation such as phase behavior and
geochemical model parameters are the same as those used in the 1D simulation
(Table 6.6). Surfactant adsorption is assumed to be 0.05 mg/g rock at high pH. Alkali
consumption is small (~0.05 meq/ 100 g rock) because this reservoir is a low
temperature, clean 7 D sandstone rock. To mimic the same injection strategy as for
the 1D simulation, an ASP slug was injected for 750 days or 0.3 PV after the 12.25
days of waterflood followed by 2250 days of polymer drive (1.5 PV). Table 6.8 lists
163
rates are 18000 bpd. In these simulations, each producer produces a total of 6000 bpd.
The peak oil concentration of 90% is consistent with the observation of high oil
concentration at the oil bank from the fractional flow curve.
Figure 6.16 shows the pH profiles at the end of the ASP slug (750 days), in
the middle of the polymer drive (1500 days), and at the end of the flood (3000 days).
We observe that 1 wt% of Na2CO3 injected for about 750 days can increase the pH to
about 11.5, high enough to generate soap. It is also important to evaluate the
simulation to ensure that pH, soap, and surfactant are moving together. If pH and
surfactant have the same pace the process will benefit from lower surfactant
adsorption at high pH. Figures 6.17 and 6.18 show soap and surfactant concentration
profiles at three different times. The pH, soap, and surfactant are moving together.
Both soap and surfactant move from the oil band to the aquifer, but later are pushed
upwards towards the production wells by polymer injection. An insignificant amount
of soap and surfactant is lost in the neighboring grids, outside the injection/producer
pattern area.
Figures 6.19 and 6.20 show polymer and oil concentrations at different times.
Some amount of polymer is lost to the aquifer. Oil saturation is reduced to very low
values in the range of 0 to 0.1 indicating the effectiveness of the ASP flood in
recovering the unswept oil left from the waterflood and the trapped oil saturation.
Figures 6.21 to 6.23 show the effective salinity, lower and upper Type III effective
salinities (CSEL and CSEU) at different times for the ASP flood. The red color in
Figure 6.21 shows the 1 wt% sodium carbonate which has been added to the
165
formation brine salinity (blue color). As previously mentioned, the lower and upper
Type III salinity limits are calculated based on the soap and surfactant concentrations.
It is clearly seen that where there is more surfactant present, the upper and lower
effective salinities (CSEL and CSEU) of the soap/surfactant mixture shift towards
those of the surfactant. On the other hand, the mixture salinity window approaches
that of the soap when there is a greater ratio of soap compared to surfactant.
6.5.4 AP Flood
The next case is the alkaline/polymer (AP) flood. The input for this simulation
is the same as for the ASP simulations with the exception that no surfactant is added
to the slug and the phase behavior parameters are altered to reflect an optimum
solubilization ratio of about 12. The solubilization value used is just an estimate
since there is no phase behavior measurements for alkali and this crude oil. Figure
6.24 compares the oil recovery for the different chemical floods that are considered in
this reservoir. AP flood oil recovery is somewhere between the polymer and ASP
flood with a cumulative oil recovery of 1.7x107 bbls. In Figure 6.25, pH increases to
almost 12 as sodium carbonate is injected and consequently soap is generated with
concentrations as high as 0.003 vol. fraction where pH is high. Some soap is diluted
in the aquifer which is pushed away to the farther producers as polymer is injected
(Figure 6.26).
Oil saturation is reduced to values below the residual saturation in the AP
simulation, in a range of 0.0 to 0.1 (Figure 6.27). However, this AP process seems to
166
be not as efficient as ASP. Figure 6.28 shows the effective salinity profiles where the
red color shows the 1 wt% sodium carbonate added to the formation brine in blue
color. The Type III salinity window for the soap is narrow (CSEL = 0.25, CSEU =
0.35 meq/ml) and this consequently results in a lower oil recovery compared to that
for an ASP flood.
Figure 6.29 compares the oil saturation distributions at the end of 3000 days
for different chemical floods and waterflood. Polymer flooding has produced the oil
which could not be swept by water because of the highly unfavorable mobility ratio.
Polymer pushes the oil to the producers much more efficiently than water, resulting in
a more "piston-like" displacement compared to the coning seen for the waterflood
case. In contrast to the polymer flood, the AP flood could produce oil below the
residual oil (0.25), but it is not as efficient as ASP due to the typically more narrow
Type III region assumed in the simulations. The ASP flood has recovered the most oil
from the pattern area.
6.6 CHEMICAL COST CALCULATION
Table 6.9 lists the amount of each chemical used in polymer, AP and ASP
simulations. The amount of chemical is obtained from the chemical flood design
shown in Table 6.8. The amount of polymer injected is about 2.84x107 lbs (the
overall quantities for each injected chemical are reported in the UTCHEM OVERAL
output file). The polymerflood incremental oil recovery is 6.6x106 bbls compared to
the waterflood. For this analysis, the cost of polymer, surfactant, and Na2CO3 was
167
estimated to be $1.0, $1.5 and $0.1 per lb, respectively. Therefore, the polymer cost is
$4.3 per bbl of incremental oil produced for the polymer flood. A similar calculation
is done for the AP and ASP cases. Tables 6.10 and 6.11 compare the chemical cost
per bbl of incremental oil produced for polymer, AP, and ASP chemical EOR
projects. These calculation are based on the 3D simulation results. These simplified
economics suggest that all three of these chemical EOR processes are likely to be
attractive, especially in a high oil price environment, with the ASP process producing
the most incremental oil and the polymer case having the lowest chemical cost per bbl
inc. oil. Which chemical EOR process is the most attractive would require a more
careful analysis of the economics and also of the relative risks and benefits of these
three possible design scenarios.
6.7 SUMMARY
The oil production rate increase of about 1000 b/d occurs as early as 2 yrs
after injection of the ASP slug.
168
The incremental oil recovery of ASP can be as high as 25% OOIP over
polymerflood recovery for this homogeneous reservoir model.
The AP flood has the potential to recover additional oil with minimal
additional cost of alkali over polymer. However, there are uncertainties in the
phase behavior of the soap that should be evaluated in the laboratory
corefloods.
Cumulative oil production at the end of the simulation is 7.8x106 bbls for the
waterflood, 1.4x107 bbls for the polymerflood, 1.7x107 bbls for the AP flood,
and 1.8 x107 bbls for the ASP flood. The ASP flood increased oil production
rates greatly compared to the polymerflood.
Despite the uncertainties in the missing data, this was still a very useful study,
since
a. It helped to obtain preliminary idea of the qualitative responses to
different chemical flood processes
b. It helped to explore alternative designs for better economics
169
MW
35.5
98
61
60
79.9
126.9
charge
1
2
1
2
1
1
Conc., meq/ml
0.32583
0
0.0082
0
0
0
0.334
24.3
40
87.62
137.3
2
2
2
2
0.0214
0.032
0.0037
0.0012
0.0582
Wt%
Quartz
88.4
K-spar
Plagioclase
2.4
1.0
Clays
Kaolinite
[Al2Si2O5(OH)4]
2:1 Al-rich clay
2:1 Fe-rich clay
Calcite (CaCO3)
0.7
Berthierine
0.1
High Mg Calcite
Dolomite [CaMg(CO3)2]
0.5
0.7
Ankerite
0.7
Siderite (FeCO3)
0.8
total Clay
4.8
SUM (Total)
Wt%
1.4
0.1
3.2
100
170
0.27
0.325
0.326
0.325
0.0528
0.0
pH
6.5
Table 6.4: Type III salinity windows for soap and surfactant
Soap
Surfactant
meq/ml
wt%
meq/ml
wt%
CSEL
0.25
1.325
0.8
4.24
CSEopt
0.3
1.5
1.0
5.30
CSEU
0.35
1.855
1.2
6.36
171
Polymer Drive
0.3 PV
0.3 wt% surfactant
3000 ppm Flopaam 3630S
1 wt% Na2CO3 in simulated
formation water in Table 6.3
1.5 PV
3000 ppm Flopaam 3630S in simulated
formation water in Table 6.3
1.0
1, 1, 100
Components simulated
Average porosity
0.31
Permeability, md
7000
0.28
0.075
0.25
0.3
1.0
3.8
1.9
Water viscosity, cp
0.8 at 87 oF
172
Oil viscosity, cp
81.39 at 87 oF
0.05
0.001
0.3 , 10
1.3
0.001
0.5,
(ALPHAV1- ALPHAV5)
0.0
55 , 550 , 300
1.9,
0.02
0.0,
-0.33
(SSLOPE), dimensionless
Parameter for shear rate dependence of polymer viscosity
2.0
(POWN)
Permeability reduction factors, (BRK , CRK)
Surfactant
adsorption
parameters,
(AD31,
100. , 0.04
dimensionless)
1.9,
0.005
173
0.1, 1000.
, 0.05
0.0,
4593.2
Width, W ft
Height, H ft
131.2
48 x 1 x 16 (2D) - 48 x 20 x 16 (3D)
328. 164.
8.2
Slug
Polymer drive
3000 days
1500 ppm Flopaam 3630S in
simulated formation water in
Table 6.3
Polymer
AP
ASP
174
Polymer, lb
Polymer
2.84 10
AP
5.68 107
ASP
5.68 107
Surfactant, lb
Alkali (Na2CO3), lb
------
------
------
4.73 107
1.42 107
4.73 107
Cum oil
recovered
%OOIP
$/bbl
over water
flood
$/bbl
over polymer flood
26.74
--
--
--
50.15
6.595
4.34
--
AP
70.78
9.623
6.45
11.04
* For this analysis the cost of polymer, surfactant and Na2CO3 as alkali was estimated
$1.0, $1.5 and $0.1 per lb.
Table 6.11: Cost analysis for 3D polymer and ASP floods *
Cum oil
%OOIP
$/bbl
over water
$/bbl
over polymer
Water
(3000 d)
P
26.74
50.15
-6.595
-4.34
---
ASP
75.81
10.836
7.7
12.92
Process
* For this analysis the cost of polymer, surfactant and Na2CO3 as alkali was estimated
$1.0, $1.5 and $0.1 per lb.
175
35
Solubilization ratio
30
Oil
Water
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.5
1.5
wt% Na2CO3
Figure 6.1: Phase behavior for the simulation of reservoir B with 0.3 wt% surfactant,
50% crude oil at 87oF
1.0
(S1*, f1*)
water-oil
0.9
Fractional Flow of Water
polymer-surfactant-oil
0.8
polymer
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
(S1B,
0.2
(S1I, f1I)
0.1
0.0
-0.2 -0.1 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8 0.9
1.0
Water Saturation
Figure 6.2: Fractional flow curve for waterflood, polymer flood, and ASP flood using
reservoir fluid properties
176
1.0
0.9
Miscible Relative Permeability
Relative Permeability
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Oil
0.1
Water
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Water Saturation
Figure 6.3: Low and high capillary number relative permeability curves
Cumulative Oil
Oil Conc.
Figure 6.4: Cumulative oil recovery and oil concentration for 1D ASP simulation
177
1.0
Figure 6.5: Soap and surfactant concentration, IFT, and effective salinity profiles at
0.8 PV for 1D ASP simulation
Figure 6.6: Well location for sector model (Dark blue color indicates the aquifer, light
blue is the capillary transition zone and red is the top layers containing 93% oil
saturation)
178
Figure 6.7: Oil saturation at the end of waterflood for 2D and 3D sector model
v/v
2D
3D
179
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.9: Polymer concentration (wt%) profiles for 2D polymer flooding
0 days
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.10: Oil saturation profiles during 2D polymer flooding
180
16000000
Polymerflood
14000000
2D
3D
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
Waterflood
4000000
2000000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Time, days
Figure 6.11: Comparison of oil recoveries (2D and 3D) for waterflood and polymer
flood
10000
9000
8000
Oil rate,B/D
7000
polymerflood
ASPflood
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
PVs
Figure 6.12: Oil rate comparison between 2D polymer and ASP floods
181
1.4
20000000
18000000
16000000
waterflood
polymerflood
ASPflood
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0
10
15
20
Time, years
Figure 6.13: Cumulative oil recovery for 2D water, polymer, and ASP floods
2.0E+07
1.8E+07
1.6E+07
1.4E+07
2D ASP simulation
1.2E+07
3D ASP simulation
1.0E+07
8.0E+06
6.0E+06
4.0E+06
2.0E+06
0.0E+00
0
10
15
20
Time, years
0.003
Oil
0.9
Surfactant
0.8
0.0025
0.7
0.002
0.6
0.5
0.0015
0.4
Soap
0.3
0.001
Polymer
0.2
0.0005
0.1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0
3000
Time, days
Figure 6.15: History plot of soap, surfactant, polymer and oil concentrations for
producer 1 (3D ASP simulation))
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.16: pH profiles for ASP flood (2D)
183
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.17: Soap concentration profiles for ASP (volume fraction) (2D)
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.18: Surfactant concentration profiles for ASP (volume fraction) (2D)
184
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.19: Polymer concentration (wt%) profile for ASP -(2D)
0 days
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.20: Oil saturation profiles for 2D ASP
185
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.21: Effective salinity (meq/ml) profiles for 2D ASP
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.22: CSEL (meq/ml) profiles for 2D ASP
186
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.23: CSEU (meq/ml) profiles for 2D ASP
20000000
18000000
16000000
waterflood
polymerflood
ASPflood
APflood
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0
10
15
20
Time, years
Figure 6.24: Comparison of cumulative oil production for 2D chemical flood cases
187
188
v/v
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.27: Oil saturation profiles for 2D AP
750 days
1500 days
3000 days
Figure 6.28: Effective salinity (meq/ml) profiles for 2D AP
189
Water
Polymer
AP
ASP
Figure 6.29: Comparison of oil saturation profiles for different processes at the end of
3000 days for 2D simulations
190
CHAPTER 7
Design and Optimization of High pH Surfactant/Polymer Flooding in
a High Temperature Sandstone Reservoir
propagation of an alkali front. Chemical properties such as phase behavior are based
on extensive laboratory data. 1D simulations are performed to model several
corefloods with different chemical designs. An optimum design case is selected based
on simulation studies. The optimization leads to additional corefloods to ensure the
high oil recovery and low surfactant adsorption.
Such simulations are performed to both interpret laboratory experiments and
to scale up to the field since it is now computationally feasible to perform such
mechanistic simulations in three-dimensions for sector models. We demonstrate the
use of such simulations to design chemical floods that are more robust and efficient
for appropriate reservoir targets.
Many pilot tests and several commercial field projects have been performed
over the past few decades and have shown that surfactant/polymer and
alkaline/surfactant/polymer floods can recover high percentages of residual oil
saturation. However, these chemical processes are sensitive to parameters such as
chemical slug size and concentrations, salinity, reservoir heterogeneity and surfactant
adsorption, and other key parameters. In this chapter, a design and sensitivity analysis
of these key parameters was performed to optimize a chemical flood design for this
sandstone reservoir. The base case design was developed using a geological model
provided by the operator. Injection and production rates are based on field operating
conditions. Reservoir fluid properties are for the field conditions and chemical
properties are measured in the laboratories of the operator and the Center for
192
NaOH, Na2CO3, and NaBO2 are all alkali agents which have been tested in the
phase behavior experiments. NaOH can raise the pH to very high values and as
previously discussed in Chapter 3, a pH above 12 is to some extent detrimental since
it can speed up the consumption of alkali. NaBO2 is usually applied in carbonate
reservoirs. In this chapter, we focus on Na2CO3 for this sandstone reservoir.
Crude oils which have acidic components may saponify upon the addition of
alkali. This is the basis for ASP processes. The interaction of oil and alkali should be
tested and the changes in phase behavior need to be carefully evaluated. Most of the
light oils have low acid number which means less soap is generated in-situ. However,
other beneficial effects of adding alkali make it very desirable.
The addition of alkali can be beneficial in reducing the surfactant adsorption.
The smaller the surfactant adsorption, the smaller the amount of required surfactant
for injection and the lower the chemical costs. The addition of alkali could also help
with a better coalescence resulting in faster emulsifications and equilibration of
193
surfactant solution. The addition of alkali can also improve the polymer hydration
(Jackson, 2006).
As mentioned in Chapter 1, Jackson (2006) tested the effect of sodium
carbonate on a formulation of 0.75 wt% 7POS C16-17, 0.25 wt% IOS C15-18 and 2
wt% SBA with a West Texas crude oil. He demonstrated that the equilibration time is
more rapid for the samples containing the sodium carbonate. It is shown that even if
the alkali has no other benefits on the phase behavior, such as soap generation and
significantly lowering the interfacial tension; it can still be used to lower the
surfactant adsorption and speed up the equilibration time.
He also screened several surfactant mixtures with crude oil from the Elk Hills
reservoir in California. These formulations are tested at the reservoir temperature of
100oC. Sulfonate surfactants were selected and tested for this crude due to the high
temperature. With a chemical formulation of 2 wt% AOS C20-24 and 4 wt% SBA,
the solubilization ratio increased from 9 to 12 when 1 wt% Na2CO3 was added instead
of NaCl. Sodium carbonate also shortened the time required for the mixture to
coalesce to a microemulsion and reduced the time for samples to equilibrate. The
following section presents the results of two corefloods and the approach for
modeling them with UTCHEM.
7.2 MODELING COREFLOOD M1
The purpose of this coreflood was to conduct an oil recovery experiment with
Crude M and test the performance of the IOS C20-24 surfactant. The surfactant
194
formulation contains 3 wt% IOS C2024, 1 wt% iso-pentanol, 1 wt% SBA, 1 wt%
Na2CO3 (85 oC). Additionally, the AMPS polymer was tested for providing favorable
mobility with a reasonable pressure gradient across the core (Jackson, 2006; Levitt,
2006; Zhao, 2008). A relatively small slug of 0.1 PV with 3 wt% surfactant
concentration was injected and 1 wt% sodium carbonate was included in the design to
improve the phase behavior, to reduce surfactant adsorption, and to raise the pH of
the injected fluids. The sodium carbonate was included in the surfactant slug and also
in the polymer drive.
The core was a Berea sandstone rock. The rock properties and fluid data are
presented in Table 7.1. The core was initially saturated with a 3 wt% NaCl solution.
The core was then oil flooded with the filtered Crude M and then water flooded with
the 3 wt% NaCl to a residual oil saturation of 0.35. The core was then flooded with an
ASP slug and followed with a polymer drive solution. Table 7.2 summarizes the
chemical injection data.
7.2.1 Surfactant Phase Behavior and Polymer Modeling Parameters
The phase behavior data were matched with UTCHEM and a batch input file.
The results are shown in Figure 7.1. Table 7.3 lists the phase behavior parameters that
were adjusted to match the measured oil and water solubilization ratios.
The polymer chosen was the AMPS polymer, AN-125 due to compatibility
with surfactant (Levitt et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2006; Flaaten, et al. 2007).
Polymer viscosity was measured as a function of polymer concentration, salinity, and
195
shear rate at 85oC. Polymer viscosity parameters were found by matching the
viscosity data to UTCHEM polymer property correlations. Polymer viscosity vs.
salinity was measured at 2500 ppm AN-125, 85oC and 11 sec-1. Polymer viscosity vs.
polymer concentration was measured at 85oC, 2 wt% NaCl, and at the shear rate of
11sec-1. Polymer viscosity vs. shear rate was measured at 2500 ppm polymer
concentration with 2wt% NaCl and 1% Na2CO3 (85 oC). Figures 7.2 to 7.4 show a
comparison of polymer experimental data and UTCHEM model. The microemulsion
viscosity was not measured. However, the calculated microemulsion viscosity is
shown in Figure 7.5. The microemulsion viscosity input parameters are adjusted if
needed until a good match of measured coreflood pressure drop and oil recovery is
obtained.
The permeability reduction factor measured in the lab was found to be about
1.3. Therefore, the permeability reduction model parameters of crk and brk were set to
0.034 and 100 respectively to give a similar permeability reduction factor to that
measured in the coreflood. There was no measurement in this experiment of
surfactant adsorption or effluent surfactant concentration. Therefore, surfactant
adsorption was used as a history match parameter by adjusting a31 and a32. This value
was found to be around 0.3 mg/g rock at neutral pH and 0.15 mg/g rock at high pH of
about 10 (Figures 7.6 and 7.7).
The trapping number parameters for aqueous, oil, and ME was chosen to be
1865, 59000, and 364, respectively. These values are representative of the capillary
desaturation curve measured in a Berea sandstone core (Delshad et al., 1986; 1987).
196
Figure 7.8 shows the oil phase capillary desaturation curve used for this simulation. A
complete listing of the UTCHEM input file is given in the Appendix D.
7.2.2 Fractional Flow Diagram
Table 7.1 lists the relative permeability data measured in the laboratory. The
relative permeability exponents are chosen to be 2 for the Berea sandstone rock
(Figure 7.9). Reservoir temperature is about 85oC. Water and oil viscosities are 0.37
and 8.0 cp, respectively. Water mobility ratio for this system is 1.3. Polymer viscosity
is 8.5 cp at a shear rate of 11 sec-1. Therefore, the ASP mobility ratio is very favorable
at 0.7. The fractional flow diagram is shown in Figure 7.10. The oil bank saturation
is about 50% with the breakthrough at about 0.3 PV.
7.2.3 Reactions Considered for Simulation
Sodium carbonate was used in this formulation mainly to reduce the surfactant
adsorption and help with the phase behavior. The crude oil in this reservoir is not
reactive to generate soap. A simplified set of reactions representative of this case are
chosen. These reactions include aqueous reactions responsible for change of pH due
to injection of sodium carbonate and also the cation exchange reaction. Cation
exchange reaction is the alkali consumer. A silica dissolution reaction is also
modeled. There is a need to model the silica dissolution due to high reservoir
temperature (85oC). A quantitative calculation of alkaline consumption for this
reservoir is given in Appendix E. A List of aqueous reaction is as follows:
197
H 2 O H + + OH
Ca 2 + + H 2 O Ca(OH)+ + H +
H + + CO32 HCO3
Ca 2 + + H + + CO32 Ca(HCO3 )+
2H + + CO32 H 2 CO3
Al3 + + 4H 2 O Al(OH)4 + 4H +
H 4SiO4 H + + H3SiO 4
Cation exchange capacity for the Berea sandstone rock is about 0.3 meq/100g
rock. We have included the sodium-hydrogen exchange reaction.
+
H + Na + + OH Na + H 2 O
7.2.4 Coreflood M1 Simulation Results
The aqueous stability of the surfactant slug in the first formulation (M1) was
tested and observed to separate into two phases after several hours at 85oC. More
laboratory work was performed to resolve the aqueous stability dilemma which led to
the selection of alternative surfactant formulations that are more stable (Jackson,
2006; Levitt, 2006; Zhao, 2008 and Dwarakanath et al., 2008).
To resolve the aqueous stability problem, the effect of co-solvent on phase
behavior was evaluated. Optimal surfactant/co-solvent formulation was selected
based upon a combination of simulations and laboratory experiments (Jackson, 2006;
Levitt, 2006; Zhao, 2008 and Dwarakanath et al., 2008). The new formulation
includes a 2 wt% mixture of anionic surfactant, 3 wt% ethylene glycol butyl ether
(EGBE) as the co-solvent and 0.85 wt% sodium carbonate in the formation brine.
7.3.1 Modeling the Effects of Co-solvent on Phase Behavior
Co-solvents used for oil recovery are amphiphiles. They have the ability to
partition into aqueous, oleic, and microemulsion phases. This property allows cosolvents to significantly alter the phase behavior. When a hydrophilic co-solvent is
mixed with an anionic surfactant, an increase in optimal salinity is observed.
Conversely, a lipophilic co-solvent will induce a reduction in optimal salinity. While
co-solvents have been used widely in surfactant trials, their effect on phase behavior
is often neglected due to the complexity of experimental measurements and
incorporation into numerical simulation. An adverse consequence of ignoring co200
factor a
201
CSE =
C51
(1 + a f a S )
where CSE is the effective salinity and C51 is the brine salinity. Other variables such as
calcium and temperature cause a shift in effective salinity and are also modeled in
UTCHEM as discussed in Chapter 2.
Phase behavior model parameters for the effect of alcohol on phase behavior
were obtained by running UTCHEM batch simulations. The effect of alcohol on the
optimum salinity is modeled using a.
Dwarakanath et al. (2008) discussed how co-solvent/electrolyte combinations
can be used to design effective gradients for chemical floods. Concerns about cosolvent partitioning can be assuaged by estimating the static and dynamic partition
coefficients from co-solvent partitioning experiments as well as history matching a
large number of phase behavior experiments (Figure 7.17). They concluded that the
resulting formulations containing co-solvent maintained Winsor Type III behavior for
a longer time than the surfactant injection period, effectively making the surfactant
slug seem larger. As shown in Figure 7.18, the profile for the simulation with
electrolyte plus co-solvent results in a much larger Winsor's Type III region compard
to the simulation injecting electrolyte without co-solvent. The design of such optimal
co-solvent gradients requires a mechanistic simulator capable of modeling the effect
of co-solvent on surfactant phase behavior.
They also showed how UTCHEM can capture the effect of co-solvent on
surfactant phase behavior and how it can be used to design and interpret corefloods.
202
The chemical input parameters obtained through these means are then calibrated to
corefloods. They can then be scaled up with a high level of confidence.
Figure 7.19 shows the phase behavior measured data and UTCHEM match for
the above formulation and 3 wt% EGBE. To honor the phase behavior data, there is a
need to expand the low IFT region (Winsor Type III). Figures 7.20 and 7.21
demonstrate the data measured and UTCHEM match for the effect of EGBE on
optimal salinity and solubilization ratio. Refer to Appendix F for more explanation on
how to find the UTCHEM phase behavior parameters when cosolvent is present.
7.4 SIMULATION RESULTS FOR COREFLOODS BM-07 AND M5
Several corefloods were performed in Briar Hill sandstone rock to test the
surfactant formulation containing EGBE. Table 7.4 lists the core properties for three
corefloods; BM-08 is discussed in Section 7.5.1. Corefloods BM-07 and M5 are very
similar with the exception that one is 4 ft and the other is 1 ft. There are slight
differences in the permeability of these two cores (1500 md for coreflood BM-07 vs.
1300 md for coreflood M5). These corefloods are both mounted vertically with
injection from the bottom of the core and production from the top.
Synthetic brine is used during the ASP flood and polymer drive in these
corefloods. The synthetic brine contains very low salinity with the composition listed
in Table 7.5. The cores are initially saturated with brine similar to the synthetic
reservoir brine but without bicarbonate.
203
The procedure used in the ASP flood of these two cores is given in Table 7.6.
The main difference between the two corefloods is the ASP slug size. For coreflood
BM-07, 15% PV of ASP was injected and that for M5 coreflood was 20% PV. The
slug contained 2 wt% surfactant, 3 wt% EGBE, 0.85 wt% sodium carbonate, and
2500 ppm AN125 polymer. The slug was followed by 0.2 PV of polymer drive with
polymer concentration of 2200 ppm and 1.5 wt% EGBE and 0.65 wt% sodium
carbonate. A second polymer drive was followed with 1.5 PV of 1800 ppm polymer.
The interstitial velocity was kept at 1ft/day (0.45 ml/min).
The polymer model inputs are the same as those used in coreflood M1. The
effluent surfactant concentration was measured for coreflood M5. Surfactant
adsorption was estimated by matching the effluent surfactant concentrations. This
value was about 0.22 mg/g rock at neutral pH and 0.1 mg/g rock at high pH (~10),
(Figures 7.22 and 7.23).
A tracer test was conducted in coreflood BM-07 after the brine flood to
calculate the pore volume. The tracer was injected at a flow rate of 9 ml/min. Samples
were collected every minute. Figure 7.24 shows the effluent tracer concentrations for
coreflood BM-07. The tracer response shows a long tail. The tracer breakthrough and
the peak concentration arrival were much earlier than expected. Further analysis of
the tracer response curve confirmed a non-equilibrium condition during this coreflood
as a result of a relatively high injection rate (9 ml/min). The tracer capacitance model
in UTCHEM was used to match the tracer response curve.
204
Oil recovery and oil cut were successfully modeled with UTCHEM (Figure
7.25). A large value for polymer inaccessible pore volume (~0.2) was used to account
for the early oil breakthrough because of high flow rate and non-equilibrium
conditions observed in this experiment. The simulated pressure drop is very similar to
the measured values across the core as shown in Figure 7.26. Adjusting the five alpha
microemulsion viscosity parameters resulted in a good match for pressure drop.
Effluent surfactant and EGBE concentrations, pH, and carbonate and
bicarbonate concentrations were measured and compared favorably with UTCHEM
simulation results (Figure 7.27 to 7.30). The peak and trend for carbonate and
bicarbonate were matched very closely with the simulation, given the considerable
uncertainty in laboratory measurement for these solution species. The simulated pH
was higher than those measured due to difficulties in pH measurements (Figure 7.29).
Figure 7.31 shows the profiles of salinity and concentrations at 0.5 PV. The
concentration profiles include oil, polymer, surfactant, and EGBE (the value of 0 on
the axis corresponds to the bottom of the core where the fluids are injected). The
results indicate that surfactant and EGBE are moving together in the core. Slight
changes were made to the input file of coreflood BM-07 to simulate coreflood M5.
As mentioned before, this coreflood is very similar to the first coreflood except that it
is one foot long and a slightly larger ASP slug of 20% PV is injected compared to
15% PV in BM-07. Figure 7.32 compares simulation results and experimental data
for oil recovery and oil cut. The history match confirms the surfactant adsorption is as
low as 0.1 mg/g rock.
205
Several 1D simulations were performed and are discussed in the next section
for a design with better chemical efficiency. The design can be more cost effective by
reducing the amount of EGBE required in the slug and drive.
7.5 1D SIMULATIONS TO OPTIMIZE THE DESIGN
The oil
recoveries were 92%, 90%, and 87% for Cases #1, 2, and 3, consecutively (Table
7.7). The surfactant adsorption of 0.1 mg/g rock was assumed in these simulations.
7.5.1 Simulation of Coreflood BM-08 with Cost Effective Design
order to successfully match the measured oil recovery. Figure 7.33 shows the
comparison of simulated and measured oil recovery and oil cut for the BM-08
coreflood.
7.6 SERIES I: SECTOR MODEL SIMULATIONS WITH SURFACTANT FORMULATION
USED IN COREFLOOD M1
ASP coreflood results were successfully matched to verify the chemical model
parameters and obtain the missing process parameters, such as surfactant and polymer
adsorption, capillary desaturation curves, and interfacial tension.
The coreflood
history matches provided the necessary process data for simulating the sector model.
The high pH surfactant/polymer coreflood simulations confirmed that the major effect
of sodium carbonate with respect to modeling is to increase the pH and redcue the
surfactant adsorption. For the purpose of simplicity and faster simulations, subsequent
3D sector model simulations were performed without the reactions discussed in
coreflood simulations but adjusting the surfactant adsorption.
The simulation model is an 18-acre regular seven-spot pattern. A top view of
the reservoir is shown in Figure 7.34. The number of gridblocks in the x, y and z
directions is 22, 25 and 17, respectively. The gridblock sizes are 75.4 ft in the x and y
directions and vary from 1.1 to 5.5 ft in the z direction. The depth to the top of the
formation, initial reservoir pressure, porosity, and permeability model are shown in
Figures 7.35 to 7.38. Injection wells were constrained to an injection pressure of 1300
207
psi and production wells were operating at a constant BHP of 300 psi. Water flood
was performed to achieve a 98% water cut.
For chemical flood simulations, 30% PV of an SP slug containing 2 wt%
surfactant was injected and followed by 1.0 PV of polymer drive. The physical
properties were based on the coreflood results (M1). The surfactant adsorption of 0.15
mg/g rock corresponding to high pH value of 10 was used to take into account the
effect of high pH on surfactant adsorption.
7.6.1 Regular 7-spot pattern vs. inverted 7-spot pattern
This section investigates the effect of well pattern on the chemical oil
recovery and the project life. As shown in Figure 7.34, the ratio of injection wells to
production wells is 2 for a regular 7-spot pattern. This model includes 10 injection
wells constituting of 6 full wells and 4 half wells, which is equal to 8 full wells plus a
total of 7 production wells constituting of 1 full well and 6 half wells which is equal
to 4 full wells. The ratio of injection wells to production wells is half for an inverted
7-spot pattern, for a total of 7 injection wells (1 full well and 6 half wells = 4 full
wells) and a total of 10 production wells (6 full wells and 4 half wells = 8 full wells).
Injection wells were constrained to an injection pressure of 1300 psi and
production wells were operated at a constant BHP of 300 psi. Water was injected
until a water cut of 98.5 to 99% was achieved. Figure 7.39 shows very similar
waterflood oil recoveries of about 60% OOIP for either pattern.
208
In this section, we analyze the effect of chemical flood design variables on the
oil recovery. These design variables include the slug size, surfactant concentration,
polymer concentration, and salinity. We varied these variables within acceptable
ranges to optimize the design for the highest oil recovery. These results need to be
coupled with the economic analysis to find the best design in terms of profit and
economic feasibility. Table 7.8 lists the sensitivity runs performed and compares the
oil recoveries to optimize the chemical flood design for this field case study. Oil
recovery (%ROIP) for some of the sensitivity analysis performed on Series I
209
simulations is shown in Figure 7.41. Injection and production well flow rates are also
shown in Figure 7.42. The production well rate is about twice the injection well rate.
7.6.2.1 Polymer flood
For comparison of SP and ASP and to obtain the incremental oil recovery for
each process, we first performed a polymer flood simulation. A polymer solution
(AN125) with the concentration of 1500 ppm was added to the formation brine and
injected for 1.0 PV. The oil recovery was 10.6% OOIP. The properties of polymer
are listed in Figures 7.2 to 7.4.
7.6.2.2 Base Case ASP simulation
The base case simulation was designed with a surfactant/alkali slug followed
by a polymer drive. A 0.15 PV chemical slug with 2 wt% surfactant and 1 wt%
Na2CO3 and no other electrolyte was injected. The surfactant solution contains 2.0
wt% IOS C20-24 with 1.0 wt% n-Pentanol and 1.0 wt% SBA. The slug was driven by
a 1.0 PV polymer drive. Two polymer drives were injected, a 0.2 PV drive at the
optimum salinity (1 wt% Na2CO3 added to the formation brine) and polymer
concentration of 2000 ppm and a 0.80 PV drive of 1700 ppm polymer with the
salinity below the optimum (0.26 wt% Na2CO3 added to the formation brine). The
chemical flood was followed by a post-waterflood. The cumulative oil recovery was
about 21.5% OOIP. Figure 7.43 shows the profiles of effective salinity and surfactant
concentration between one injector and one producer in the second layer at 0.5 PV.
The effective salinity exhibits a dispersed profile and does not reach the injected
210
optimum salinity. This is not a desirable design since the IFT tension is obtained at
salinity at or near optimum. The results suggest that we need to inject at optimum
salinity for a longer time than considered in the base case simulation.
7.6.2.3 ASP design variable sensitivity
was 25.8% OOIP indicating an increase of about 0.5% OOIP compared to that in
Case 3.
A water preflush period was added in Case 7. This case is the same as Case 3
but with 0.2 PV of water injection (at optimum salinity) prior to chemical flooding.
This change increased the oil recovery to 26.5% OOIP compared to 25.3% OOIP in
Case 3. This change helps us increase the salinity to optimum salinity during the
surfactant injection.
7.6.2.4 ASP uncertain variable sensitivity
surfactant adsorption was reduced from 0.3 mg/g rock in the base case to 0.15 mg/g
rock to study the effect of adsorption. The oil recovery was 27.2 % OOIP which is
about 2% OOIP higher than in Case 3.
As shown in Figure 7.41, polymer flooding (Case 1) is not as efficient in
recovering oil as an alkaline/surfactant/polymer flood. Increasing the polymer drive
salinity increases the oil recovery (Case 3). The kv/kh sensitivity (Case 8) shows that
this parameter can have a significant impact on the oil recovery. The chemical flood
simulations suggest that the project time for this reservoir is less than one year
indicating a high potential in terms of profitability.
7.6.2.5 Summary and Conclusions for Series I Simulations
The coreflood history matches provide the necessary process data for
213
3D sector model simulations are performed with regular and inverted 7 spot
patterns. Sensitivities to surfactant adsorption, polymer drive salinity, kv/kh ratio,
and slug size are studied. Some key results are summarized as follows.
Several corefloods are successfully matched modeling the reactions and the
effect of co-solvent on phase behavior.
The regualr 7 spot is chosen for further simulation study because of the
shorter project life as the result of 2 to 1 injection to production ratio.
214
The kv/kh ratio affects the oil recovery significantly. The oil recovery is
reduced by almost 10% ROIP when the kv/kh ratio is reduced from 0.5 to 0.2.
An increase in the surfactant slug size from 15% PV to 25% PV increases the
oil recovery. The optimum slug size needs to be obtained based on economics
calculations.
215
spot pattern. The number of gridblocks is 74,777 cells. Table 7.9 lists the dimensions
and grid sizes of the new model.
Ten realizations were available from geological models for this study. Each of
these models is different in permeability and porosity distribution. Figures 7.46 to
7.48 show the horizontal and vertical permeability, and porosity for realization 1.
Sections of permeability and porosity are shown in Figures 7.49 and 7.50. There are
two major lithofacies classifications in the reservoir interval based on grain size. The
vertical to horizontal permeability ratio is likely quite different between these two
intervals. Therefore, the gridblocks with permeability below 200 md were assumed
to be representative of the lower quality reservoir and were assigned a kv/kh ratio of
0.001. The rest of the gridblocks had a kv/kh ratio of 0.1. A cross-section view of the
permeability shows that the lower permeability layer is at the top of the reservoir and
higher permeability layers are at the center and bottom of the reservoir. The average
porosity is about 0.2.
The initial water saturation was correlated with the permeability using the
following correlation.
relative permeabilities for oil and water were also correlated with horizontal
permeability as described in Tables 7.10 and 7.11.
7.7.1 Waterflood
Figure 7.45 shows the location of wells for the regular 7-spot pattern. In this
sector model, there are 10 injection wells and 7 production wells. All ten realizations
were waterflooded to reach to a water cut of about 98% corresponding to the current
conditions in the field producers. Some of the fluid properties are reported in Table
7.12. All the injectors and producers were operated at constant bottomhole pressures
with injectors at 1300 psi and producers at 300 psi. The waterflood was performed for
about 5 PVs. The oil recovery at the end of the waterflood for 10 realizations varied
from 54.8 to 58.3 %OOIP (Figure 7.54). Figure 7.55 shows the cross-sectional profile
of the oil saturation at the end of the waterflood for realization 1.
7.7.2 Tracer test
Tracer test simulation was performed to estimate the average oil saturation
within the swept pore volume at the end of the waterflood. The key equations needed
to calculate swept pore volume and oil saturation are given below (Asakawa, 2005).
Asakawa (2005) has extended the derivation of the method of moments to include
three-dimensional, heterogeneous reservoirs.
The swept pore volume is defined as the pore volume of the reservoir
contacted by the injected fluid. The swept pore volume (Vs) can be calculated from
the produced tracer concentrations as follows:
217
V (K 1) V1 (K 2 1)
Vs = 2 1
K1 K 2
(7 1)
V1 V2
(7 2)
V2 (K1 1) V1 (K 2 1)
Cio
Ciw
(7 3)
Cij is the concentration of tracer i in phase j. The subscripts o and w stand for oil and
water. For a tracer slug during two-phase flow of oil and water, Vi is defined as
follows:
qCit t dt
Vi = 0
Cit dt
Vslug
(7 4)
Cit is the total concentration of tracer i; q is the liquid flow rate; Vslug is the volume of
tracer slug; and t is time.
The total effluent tracer concentration is defined as follows:
218
(7 5)
In this section, we investigate the effect of chemical slug injection design. The
question is; "For a fixed mass of surfactant, is a large dilute slug or a small
concentrated slug preferred?". To study the effect of slug size on oil recovery for a
fixed mass of surfactant, the following assumptions were made.
219
The product of slug size (%PV) and surfactant concentration (vol. %) was
30%.
During the injection of surfactant slug, salinity was kept at optimum (0.85
wt% Na2CO3).
recovery is from 12 to 15%OOIP. The lowest oil recovery is for the largest slug size
of 1 PV with the 0.3 wt% surfactant concentration and the highest recovery is for the
case with 1 wt% surfactant and 0.3 PV slug size. Figure 7.60 shows the effect of slug
size for a fixed mass of surfactant at the end of the chemical flood. It appears that the
oil recovery passes through a maximum. Figure 7.61 compares the oil recovery for
10% and 30% PV slug size. 1 wt% surfactant injected for 30% PV recovers more oil
than the 3 wt% surfactant injected for 10% PV. Profiles of the effective salinity and
surfactant concentration are plotted in layer 10 between one injector and one producer
at 0.5 PV (Figures 7.62 and 7.63). Comparing the results in Figures 7.62 and 7.63
220
shows that salinity for 1 wt% surfactant and 30% slug size can reach the optimum
whereas for the smaller slug size salinity can not reach the optimum. This is the
reason for the higher oil recovery for larger slug size. A more careful study needs to
be done to take into account the effect of co-solvent and the impact on the optimum
salinity to draw a more concrete conclusion.
7.7.3.2 Base Case
The waterflood oil recovery was very similar for the ten permeability
realizations. The injection and pressure constraints were the same as before with 1300
psi injection pressure and 300 psi producing BHP. The laboratory coreflood designs
were utilized to develop the base case injection scheme for the chemical flood. Base
case design is summarized in Table 7.15. The chemical formulation, injection
scheme, and the physical properties are also based on coreflood BM-07 (Table 7.6).
0.15 PV ASP slug contains 2 wt% surfactant, 3 wt% EGBE, 0.85 wt% Na2CO3, 2500
ppm AN125. The main difference for the field scale simulation compared to the
coreflood was that we did not model the reactions in the field scale simulation. This
simplification was justified since the crude oil did not contain acidic components to
generate soap. Also, it was shown that consumption was not significant for a clean
sandstone rock. Surfactant adsorption was adjusted to represent the lower adsorption
value due to injection of alkali. However, sensitivity analysis on the surfactant
adsorption was performed as an uncertainty parameter. Other than the geochemical
option, all the other chemicals such as surfactant, DGBE, and polymer were modeled
221
and the concentration of injected sodium carbonate was modeled as the total anion
concentration.
Table 7.15 shows the design of the base case. A 0.15 PV slug was injected
containing 2 wt% surfactant, 3 wt% EGBE, and 0.85 wt% Na2CO3 to reach the
optimum salinity of about 1 wt% Na2CO3. 2500 ppm AN125 polymer was added to
the slug. The polymer drive was injected for 1.0 PV. An initial 0.2 PV polymer drive
contained 0.65 wt% Na2CO3, 1.5 wt% EGBE, and 2200 ppm of the polymer. The
second polymer drive injected 0.8 PV with 1800 ppm polymer in formation brine.
The polymer concentration reduced in each stage to compensate the change in
salinity. The oil recovery for the base case is 17% OOIP. Figure 7.64 shows oil
concentration at the end of chemical flood for the base case design.
7.7.3.3 Sensitivity on Design Parameters
The base case design was adopted in the coreflood to make sure that 100% oil
recovery is obtained. Since EGBE is very costly, any efforts to reduce or remove this
chemical makes the project more economically feasible.
Table 7.16 lists all the cases studied to optimize the design for this reservoir
with the formulation including EGBE. The concentration of EGBE remains 3 wt%.
The first sensitivity (Case 2) was to eliminate the first polymer drive which contains
the EGBE and sodium carbonate. This case gives the same oil recovery (~17%) as the
base case and it is more cost effective due to elimination of EGBE in the polymer
drive. All the other cases are run without EGBE in the polymer drive.
222
In the next two Cases 6 & 7, a smaller slug size was tested. These cases were
performed because small slug size translates to a lower chemical cost. A 0.1 PV slug
was injected in Case 6 instead of 0.15 PV in the base case. The slug salinity was 1.0
and 1.5 wt% Na2CO3 for Cases 6 and 7, respectively, and the oil recovery was 19.3
and 20.4% OOIP for Cases 6 and 7, respectively. The oil recovery decrease in these
cases compared to Cases 4 and 5 can be explained by the fact that the salinity of the
slug is not sufficient to reach the optimum salinity, due to the small slug size.
The Case 5 chemical design was tested on realizations 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Figure
7.68 shows the oil recovery for all these cases. The chemical oil recovery ranges from
45 to 55% ROIP (20 to 25% OOIP). This variation shows the uncertainty of the oil
recovery due to heterogeneity.
7.7.3.4 Summary and Conclusions for Series II Simulations
224
optimize the design by reducing the chemical requirements. A summary of the key
results are listed below.
The oil recovery at the end of the waterflood for 10 realizations varies from
54.8 to 58.3 %OOIP.
Tracer simulations are performed at the end of the waterflood to obtain the
swept poer volume and the average oil saturation within the swept volume.
The average oil saturation is calculated to be about 0.18. This low remaining
oil saturation resulted a relatively low chemical oil recovery of about 20 to
25%OOIP.
The effect of slug size keeping the same mass of surfactant is studied with
different combinations of slug size and surfactant concentration. The results
indicate that the oil recovery is higher with a larger slug size (30% vs. 10%
PV). However, a more careful study needs to be done to take into account the
effect of co-solvent and the impact on the optimum salinity to draw a more
concrete conclusion.
225
0.14
Permeability, md
448
0.32
0.35
0.35
0.08
0.37
8.0
HBNC71
HBNC72
0.05
0.045
0.06
CSEL
CSEU
Core M5
Core BM-08
Permeability, md
1300
1500
1540
Porosity, fraction
0.165
0.165
0.174
Oil viscosity, cp
3.4
3.4
3.4
Temperature, C
85
85
85
Length, ft
900 ppm
Ca
20 ppm
Mg
5 ppm
15 ppm
Cl
800 ppm
SO4
18 ppm
HCO3
1100 ppm
227
Coreflood M5
Coreflood BM-08
0.15 PV ASP
0.2 PV ASP
0.1 PV ASP
2 wt% Surfactant
2 wt% Surfactant,
2 wt% Surfactant
3 wt% EGBE,
3 wt% EGBE,
3 wt% EGBE,
added to formation
(Table 7.5)
(Table 7.5)
0.2 PV
0.2 PV
0.65wt % Na2CO3,
0.65wt % Na2CO3,
2200ppm AN125
Polymer
~1.5 PV
~1.5 PV
~1.5 PV
drive II
Surfactant
slug
Polymer
drive I
228
Coreflood M5
Optimization simulations
#1
#2
#3
0.2 PV
0.15 PV
0.1 PV
_______
_______
_______
~1.5 PV
~1.5 PV
~1.5 PV
2500ppm AN 125
(Table 7.5)
Polymer drive II
~1.5 PV
formation brine
(Table 7.5)
Adsorption (mg/g rock)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
98
92
90
87
229
230
74,777
NX
43
NY
47
NZ
37
Reservoir length, ft
2115
Reservoir width, ft
2057
Reservoir thickness, ft
40
Depth to pay, ft
2025.15
550
kx >1400 md
Water endpoint
0.405
0.385
0.365
Water exponent
1.25
1.35
1.5
kx >1400 md
Oil endpoint
1.0
1.0
1.0
Oil exponent
3.75
2.75
1.75
231
62.43 lb/ft3
Oil density
54.33 lb/ft3
Water viscosity
0.3 cp
Oil viscosity
2.7 cp
Water/oil IFT
30 dynes/cm
Water compressibility
3x10-6 psi-1
Oil compressibility
1x10-5 psi-1
Table 7.13: Oil saturation calculated for each pair of tracers for Series II simulations
(base case)
Oil saturation
0.188
0.176
0.183
Surfactant slug
containing
0.85 wt% Na2CO3
Case #1
Case #2
Case #3
Case #4
Case #5
1.0 PV ASP
0.6 PV ASP
0.3 PV ASP
0.15 PV ASP
0.1 PV ASP
0.3 wt%
0.5 wt%
1.0 wt%
2.0 wt%
3.0 wt%
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
0.15 PV
0.55 PV
0.85 PV
1.0 PV
1.05 PV
12.5%
14.5%
15.2%
14.5%
13.5%
recovery,
%OOIP
232
0.15 PV ASP
1.5 wt% CS2000A Batch 2,0.5 wt% XC6251C,
3 wt% EGBE, 0.85 wt% Na2CO3
, 2500 ppm AN125 in formation brine
Polymer drive I
Polymer drive II
0.8 PV
1800 ppm AN125 in formation brine
17%
233
Case #3
Case #4
Case #5
Case #6
Case #7
Surfactant 0.15 PV
0.15 PV 0.15 PV
0.15 PV
0.15 PV
0.1 PV
0.1 PV
slug
2.0wt%
2.0 wt%
2.0 wt%
3.0 wt%
3.0 wt%
3 wt%
Surfactant
EGBE
0.85 wt %
1.0%
1.5%
1.0%
1.5%
Na2CO3
Na2CO3
Na2CO3
Na2CO3
Na2CO3
Na2CO3
2500 ppm
3000 ppm
AN125
AN125
AN125
AN125
AN125
AN125
AN125
1.0 PV
1.0 PV
1.0 PV
1.05 PV
1.05 PV
Polymer
0.2 PV
drive I
1.5 wt%EGBE,
Case #2
Na2CO3
0.65 wt%
Na2CO3
2200 ppm
AN125
Polymer
0.8 PV
1.0 PV
drive II
1800 ppm
2200 ppm
21.5%
19.3%
Increased
Reduced Increased
polymer
%OOIP
17%
17%
19%
20%
Comment
Same as
20.4%
polymer
07
conc. in
was
234
to 1%
the alkali
to 1.5%
the
1.0 % to
(case4)
product
1.5%
30%)
(case6)
16
Lab- Oil Sol. Ratio
Lab-Water Sol. Ratio
Model-Oil Sol. Ratio
Model-Water Sol. Ratio
14
12
10
Temp = 85 C
After 22 days
8
6
4
2
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Figure 7.1: Phase behavior data and UTCHEM match (used in Coreflood M1
100
y = 16.816x-0.3849
10
1
0.01
1
Csep,meq/ml
Figure 7.2: AN 125 Polymer viscosity vs. effective salinity (2500 ppm AN-125,
Temp @ 85oC, Shear rate = 11 sec-1)
235
12
10
viscosity(cp)
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Figure 7.3: AN 125 Polymer viscosity vs. concentration (85oC, 2 wt% NaCl and 11
sec-1)
Viscosity (cp)
100
Lab
Correlation
10
1
0.1
10
100
1000
Figure 7.4: AN 125 Polymer viscosity vs. shear rate (2500 ppm AN-125, Temp @ 80
C with 2wt% NaCl and 1wt% Na2CO3)
236
16.0
Microemulsion Viscosity, cp
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1
11
13
pH
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
Capillary number, Nc
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.0
0.9
Relative Permeability, krj
0.8
0.7
kro
krw
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Water Saturation, Sw
(S1*, f1*)
(S1I, f1I)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
(S1B, f1B)
0.5
0.4
Water-Oil
Surfactant-Polymer-Oil
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water Saturation, Sw
0.8
1.0
100%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
Pore Volumes
1.50
1.75
2.00
Figure 7.11: Measured and modeled oil recovery (% OOIP) and oil cut for Coreflood
M1
12
10
90%
Measured
UTCHEM
6
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Pore Volumes
Figure 7.12: Pressure drop history match (across the core) for Coreflood M1
240
2.0
0.9
0.025
0.7
0.020
CSEU
Salinity, meq/ml
0.6
Salinity
0.015
0.5
CSEL
0.4
0.010
0.3
0.2
0.005
0.1
0.0
Surfactant
0.8
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 7.13: Effective salinity and surfactant concentration profiles at 0.5 PV for
Coreflood M1
11
pH
Surfactant
10
0.020
pH
0.015
8
0.010
7
0.005
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
0.025
0.35
0.3
0.25
Not pH dependence
pH dependence
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 7.15: Surfactant adsorption profile modeled with and without the effect of pH
at 0.5 PV for Coreflood M1
Adsorbed cation concentration, meq/ml PV
0.030
0.025
Hydrogen
Sosdium
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 7.16: Adsorbed sodium and hydrogen concentrations on the clay at 0.5 PV
(Coreflood M1)
242
Figure 7.17: Partition coefficient of the co-solvent with formation water and oil (The
slope of the line indicates the partitioning coefficient) (Dwarakanath et al., 2008)
Figure 7.18: The effect of cosolvent on the effective salinity and phase behavior
(Dwarakanath et al., 2008)
243
16
Oil
Water
Oil-UTCHEM
Water-UTCHEM
12
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
S*
0.5
UTCHEM
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
% EGBE
Figure 7.20: The effect of cosolvent concentration on optimal salinity where points
are the lab data and line is the model (formulation containing the EGBE)
244
20
SP
18
Not Equilibrated
Optimal Solubilization, SP
16
Linear (UTCHEM)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
% EGBE
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Figure 7.22: Surfactant adsorption isotherm for formulation containing the EGBE
(Corefloods BM-07 and M5)
245
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1
11
13
pH
0.1
0.01
0.001
Simulated tracer- Capacitance model
experimental data
Simulated tracer
0.0001
0
0.5
1.5
PVs
Figure 7.24: Simulated and measured tracer concentrations for coreflood BM-07
246
2.5
100%
90%
80%
Cum Oil
70%
Oil Cut
UTCHEM-Cum Oil
60%
UTCHEM-Oil Cut
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Pore Volumes
Figure 7.25: UTCHEM and measured oil cut and oil recovery (% OOIP) for
Coreflood BM-07
6
UTCHEM
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
PVs
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure 7.26: Pressure drop (along the core) match for Coreflood BM-07
247
1.8
2.0
0.8
0.7
Surf %
0.6
Surf %-UTCHEM
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Pore Volumes
UTCHEM- EGBE
9000
6000
3000
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Pore Volumes
248
1.8
2.0
12
11
10
pH
9
pH-UTCHEM
pH
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
Pore Volumes
0.07
0.06
CO3--
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
HCO3-
0.01
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
PVs
Figure 7.30: Measured and UTCHEM carbonate and bicarbonate concentrations for
Coreflood BM-07 (points: experimental and curves: UTCHEM simulation)
249
2.0
0.030
Oil
0.50
0.025
EGBE
0.40
0.020
Surfactant
0.30
0.015
CSEU
0.20
0.010
Salinity
Polymer
CSEL
0.10
0.005
0.00
0.000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
Figure 7.31: Surfactant, oil, cosolvent, polymer concentrations and effective salinity
profiles at 0.5 PV for Coreflood BM-07
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Cum Oil
50%
Oil Cut
UTCHEM-Cum Oil
40%
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Pore Volumes
Figure 7.32: Comparison of UTCHEM and measured oil concentration and oil
recovery (%OOIP) for coreflood M5
250
0.60
100%
90%
80%
Cum Oil
Oil Cut
Cum Oil-UTCHEM
Oil Cut-UTCHEM
70%
60%
Slug (0.1PV)
1.5% CS2000
0.5% IOS (6300M)
3% EGBE
0.85% Na2CO3
2500ppm AN-125
50%
40%
30%
Chase (1.3PV)
0.25% EGBE
1800ppm AN-125
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Pore Volumes
Figure 7.33: Comparison of UTCHEM and measured oil recovery (% OOIP) and oil
cut for Coreflood BM-08
Figure 7.34: Top view of the regular 7-spot pattern for the sector model
251
Figure 7.35: Grid top of the regular 7-spot pattern for the sector model, ft
Figure 7.36: Pressure of the regular 7-spot pattern for the sector model, psi
252
Figure 7.37: Porosity of the regular 7-spot pattern for the sector model
Figure 7.38: Permeability of the regular 7-spot pattern for the sector model, md
253
Figure 7.39: Comparison of the water flood oil recovery for the regular and inverted
7-spot patterns, cumulative oil recovery is reported in fraction of OOIP
Figure 7.40: Comparison of the chemical flood oil recovery for the regular and
inverted 7-spot patterns, cumulative oil recovery is reported in fraction of ROIP
254
80
Oil Recovery of different sensitivities,
%ROIP
Run 1-Polymerflood
Run 2-Base Case
Run 3-Increase of polymer drive salinity
Run 4-Increase of Surfactant Slug to 20%PV
Run 5-Increase of Surfactant Slug to 25%PV
Run 8-kv/kh=0.1
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
Time, days
200
250
300
Figure 7.41: Oil recovery vs. time for different sensitivity analysis (Series I)
25000
20000
15000
10000
Producer
5000
Injectors
0
0
50
100
Time, days
150
200
0.35
2.0
1.6
salinity, meq/ml
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.8
CSEL
surfactant
0.10
0.4
0.05
CSEU
0.30
Initial salinity
0.00
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance
Figure 7.43: Effective salinity and surfactant concentration in the second layer
between one full injector (#6) and the middle producer (Base case)- 0.5 PV
0.35
0.020
0.014
Slug Salinity
0.012
0.20
0.010
0.15
CSEL
0.008
0.006
0.10
0.004
0.05
0.016
0.25
salinity, meq/ml
0.018
CSEU
0.30
0.002
0.00
0.000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance
Figure 7.44: Effective salinity and surfactant concentration in the second layer
between one full injector (#6) and the middle producer (Case 3) - 0.5 PV
256
257
258
259
Figure 7.52: Cross-section showing the residual water saturation for realization 1
260
Figure 7.53: Cross-section showing the residual oil saturation for realization 1
60
50
%OOIP
40
30
Rea lization0 1
Rea lization0 2
Rea lization0 3
Rea lization0 4
Rea lization0 5
Rea lization0 6
Rea lization0 7
Rea lization0 8
Rea lization0 9
Rea lization1 0
20
10
0
0
P Vs
Figure 7.54: Waterflood oil recovery for different realizations, Y axis is the
cumulative oil recovery and x axis is the pore volumes
261
Figure 7.55: Oil saturation profile at the end of the waterflood for the realization 1
Normalized concentration
0.1
0.01
Ki=2.0
Ki=1.0
Ki=0.0
0.001
0.0001
0
50
100
150
200
Time, days
250
1
0.9
0.8
Ki=2.0
Sweep Efficiency
0.7
Ki=1.0
0.6
Ki=0.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time, days
Figure 7.57: Sweep efficiency calculated from the tracer test simulation
2.5E+07
Ki=2.0
2.0E+07
Swept pore volume, ft
Ki=1.0
Ki=0.0
1.5E+07
1.0E+07
5.0E+06
0.0E+00
0
50
100
150
200
Time, days
Figure 7.58: Swept pore volume calculated from the tracer test simulation
263
250
20
18
16
14
%OOIP
12
10
8
2.0%surfactant x 15%PV
0.5%surfactant x 60%PV
4
3.0%surfactant x 10%PV
1.0%surfactant x 30%PV
0.3%surfactant x 100%PV
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
PVs
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure 7.59: Cumulative oil recovery for the effect of dilution sensitivity cases
20
18
16
14
%OOIP
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 7.60: Effect of the surfactant slug size on the cumulative oil recovery with
fixed mass of surfactant.
264
20
18
16
14
%OOIP
12
10
8
6
3.0%surfactant x 10%PV
1.0%surfactant x 30%PV
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
PVs
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure 7.61: Comparison of the oil recovery for 10% and 30% PV slug size
0.30
0.016
0.012
Salinity, meq/ml
0.20
0.010
Salinity
0.15
0.008
0.006
0.10
CSEL
0.004
0.05
0.002
Surfactant
0.00
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance
Figure 7.62: Effective salinity and surfactant concentration between one full injector
(#6) and the middle producer in layer 10 (1 wt% surfactant and 30% PV) @ 0.5 PV
265
0.014
CSEU
0.25
0.016
Surfactant
0.014
CSEU
0.25
0.012
Salinity, meq/ml
0.20
0.010
0.15
0.008
Salinity
0.006
0.10
CSEL
0.004
0.05
0.002
0.00
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Dimensionless distance
Figure 7.63: Effective salinity and surfactant concentration between one full injector
(#6) and the middle producer in Layer 10 (3 wt% surfactant and 10% PV) @ 0.5 PV
Figure 7.64: Final oil saturation for the base case simulation
266
0.30
0.20
0.020
0.16
Salinity, meq/ml
CSEU
Surfactant
0.14
0.018
0.016
0.014
Salinity
0.12
0.012
CSEL
0.10
0.010
0.08
0.008
0.06
0.006
0.04
0.004
0.02
0.002
0.00
0.000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.18
Dimensionless distance
Figure 7.65: Surfactant concentration and effective salinity profile between one full
injector (#6) and the middle producer in layer 10 for Case 3- Series II
0.20
0.020
0.018
Salinity
0.16
Salinity, meq/ml
CSEU
Surfactant
0.016
0.14
0.014
0.12
0.012
CSEL
0.10
0.010
0.08
0.008
0.06
0.006
0.04
0.004
0.02
0.002
0.00
0.000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.18
Dimensionless distance
Figure 7.66: Surfactant concentration and effective salinity profile between one full
injector (#6) and the middle producer in layer 10 for Case 5- Series II
267
0.012
EGBE
Salinity, meq/ml
Polymer concentration, wt%
polymer
0.01
0.2
0.008
Salinity
0.15
0.006
0.1
0.004
0.05
Surfactant
0.002
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.25
0
140
Time, days
Figure 7.67: Effluent concentration of polymer, EGBE, surfactant and salinity from
the middle producer (Case 5-Series II)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Realization 1
Realization 2
Realization 3
Realization 5
Realization 7
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1
PVs
1.5
Figure 7.68: Chemical oil recovery for different realizations, y axis is the fraction of
remaining oil recovered due to chemical flood and x axis is the pore volumes injected
268
CHAPTER 8
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
8.1 SUMMARY
This study focused on the mechanistic simulation of the alkaline-surfactantpolymer (ASP) chemical flooding process for enhanced oil recovery using the
UTCHEM simulator developed at the University of Texas. ASP flooding is a very
complex process due to the chemical reactions that occur at high pH between the
alkali and both the formation and the crude oil. The geochemical model in UTCHEM
was used to account for these reactions and the effect they have on alkali
consumption, the generation of soap and other effects of high pH such as reducing the
surfactant adsorption. Although Bhuyan (1989) developed the geochemical model in
UTCHEM and validated it for several cases, he did not simulate ASP flooding, which
was a new process at the time and not widely used until recently. Wu (1996) and
Delshad et al. (1999) did simulate ASP flooding, but new and more accurate
laboratory data, improved ASP models and much faster computing have enabled a
much more complete and systematic investigation than previously possible. More
recently, Liu et al. (2008) developed an ASP simulator and used it to match oil
recovery from a sandpack experiment, but their model does not include many of the
key features found in UTCHEM and is only one-dimensional as well.
269
2.
The phase behavior model was found to be less accurate in the Type I and
Type II regions than in the Type III region. The data are also less accurate in
these regions because the solubilization ratios are lower and thus the values
are more difficult to measure, but fortunately the values matter less as well
since the ultra-low IFT occurs in the Type III region. Adjustment of the lower
and upper salinity limits (CSEL and CSEU) was used to better match the data.
Nevertheless, some refinement of the model to better match the Type I and II
data would be desirable.
3.
The reactions between the alkali and the minerals in the formation depend
very much on which alkali is used, the minerals in the formation, and the
temperature. The three alkalis studied in this research were sodium carbonate,
sodium metaborate and sodium hydroxide. Sodium carbonate is currently the
most commonly used alkali in ASP flooding and was also the alkali used in
the ASP data that were matched. Zhang et al. (2008) and Flaaten et al. (2008)
have recently reported new data showing that sodium metaborate can be used
in hard brine under some circumstances whereas sodium carbonate requires
soft water, so this was the motive for including some preliminary modeling
work on it in this study. Both these alkalis increase the pH to about 11
whereas sodium hydroxide increases it to about 13. Geochemical calculations
show that at a pH of 13 the reactions with kaolinite are significant and
consume large amount of alkali. With sodium carbonate at a pH of about 11,
the main source of consumption was found to be the exchange reaction
272
between H+ and Na+ on the clays. However, this reaction does not consume
large amounts of alkali or cause a significant retardation of the pH front unless
the exchange capacity is very large.
4.
5.
274
APPENDIX A
EQBATCH Reaction Tables
This appendix describes chemical reactions for two typical cases introduced in
Chapter 3, and the consequent EQBATCH input needed for these reactions. Refer to
"UTCHEM_Users_Guide" and "UTCHEM_Tech_Doc" for more information on
EQBATCH Description. The next section, Appendix B, discusses in more detail the
step-by-step process for developing all the EQBATCH input and matching measured
data, using the Chapter 6 case study.
EQBATCH has been developed as a stand-alone software program to perform
batch reaction equilibrium calculations and to serve as a preprocessor for developing
UTCHEM geochemical input data. Once the key reactions are identified, the initial
reservoir equilibrium concentrations for the aqueous and solid species can be
determined by EQBATCH. It is assumed that all fluid species dissolve in the water
phase. The initial pH of the formation or makeup water can be matched by adjusting
EQBATCH input parameters as described in Appendix B. The output from
EQBATCH is directly used in the UTCHEM input file, as the geochemical input data.
The UTCHEM Technical Documentation (2000), especially Section 8,
"Mathematical Formulation of Reaction Equilibria," and Appendix C, "EQBATCH
Program Description," are essential references for using EQBATCH.
275
276
The first case is based on Example 3.4 (Section 3.2.2.4), modeling a sandstone
rock with cation exchange reactions.
H + Na + + OH Na + H 2 O
+
2Na + Ca 2 + 2Na + + Ca
2+
277
Dissolution/Precipitation Reactions:
Calcite precipitation
Ca 2+ + CO32 CaCO3
Quartz dissolution
H4SiO4 H3SiO4 + H+
Congruent kaolinite dissolution
Kaolinite + 4OH +3H2 O 2 Al(OH)4 + 2 H3SiO4
Incongruent kaolinite dissolution
Al2Si 2 O5 (OH)4 (Kaolinite) + 2Na + + 2OH + 2H4SiO4
2NaAlSi 2 O6 .H2 O(Analcime) + 5H2 O
Tables A.1 to A.10 detail all the reaction information needed, to set up the
EQBATCH input arrays for this example. Other data needed include acid number,
water saturation, species concentrations; development of these data is discussed in
Appendix B, for another case study. MS Excel spreadsheets have been developed to
facilitate preparation of these arrays and other EQBATCH inputs and may be
obtained upon request from the author or from Professor Mojdeh Delshad.
Table A1 is simply the list of elements and species in the reactions above.
Table A.2, the "AR" array in the EQBATCH and UTCHEM input data, is a listing of
the stoichiometric coefficients for each element in each fluid species (the subscripts in
the reactions above). Table A.3, the "BR" array in the EQBATCH and UTCHEM
input data, is the same as Table A.2, except it is for the solid species. Table A.4, the
278
"DR" array in the EQBATCH and UTCHEM input data, is the same as Tables A.2
and A.3, except it is for the adsorbed species.
Table A.5, the "BB" array in the EQBATCH and UTCHEM input data, is
determined from the exponents of the fluid species in the reactions, and may be
negative or positive, depending upon the species charge. Table A.6, the "EXSLD"
array, is the same as Table A.5, except for the solid species.
Table A.7, the "CHARGE" array, is the charge for each of the fluid species.
Table A.8, the "EQK" array in the EQBATCH and UTCHEM input data,
contains the equilibrium constants for the independent and dependent aqueous
species. The equilibrium constants for the independent species are, by definition, all
equal to "1". The equilibrium constants for the dependent species are obtained from
the Geochemist's Workbench Release 6.0 Database software (2008). Table A.8 lists
these constants at three different temperatures, even though UTCHEM requires these
data at only one temperature, the reservoir temperature, as isothermal conditions are
assumed. However listing the constants at three different temperatures in this table
indicates the large variation as a function of temperature for some species but not for
others. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of actually determining these values
for each study, rather than simply cutting and pasting from previous study
EQBATCH inputs, where the reservoir may have a different temperature.
Table A.9, the "EQK" array in the EQBATCH and UTCHEM input data, is
similar to Table A.7, except that it is for the sorbed species.
279
Table A.10, the "EXEX" array, is required for the two cation exchange
reactions; the values are positive for species on the right side of the reaction equations
and negative for species on the left side of the reaction equations (consistent with the
exponents in the exchange equilibrium constant equation).
The second case is based on Example 3.9 (Chapter 3) modeling a carbonate
rock with the purpose of injecting sodium carbonate or sodium metaborate as alkali.
Tables A.11 to A.17 list all the information needed to set up the EQBATCH input for
this example. These tables are similar to Tables A.1 to A.10, except that they refer to
the second case. The aqueous, and dissolution/precipitation reactions are as follows:
280
Aqueous Reactions:
H 2 O H + + OH
Na + + H 2 O Na(OH) + H +
Ca 2 + + H 2 O Ca(OH) + + H +
Mg 2 + + H 2 O Mg(OH) + + H +
H + + CO32 HCO3
Na + + H + + CO32 Na(HCO3 )
Ca 2 + + H + + CO32 Ca(HCO3 )+
Mg 2 + + H + + CO32 Mg(HCO3 ) +
B(OH)4 + H + B(OH)3 + H 2 O
Na + + B(OH)3 + H 2 O NaB(OH)4 + H +
Ca 2 + + B(OH)3 + H 2 O CaB(OH) 4+ + H +
Mg 2 + + B(OH)3 + H 2 O MgB(OH) 4+ + H +
Na + + CO32 NaCO3
Ca 2 + + CO32 CaCO3
Mg 2 + + CO32 MgCO3
2H + + CO32 H 2 CO3
Na + + SO 24 NaSO 4
Ca 2 + + SO42 CaSO4
Mg 2 + + SO42 MgSO 4
281
Ca 2 + + CO32 CaCO3
Ca 2 + + Mg 2 + + CO32 CaMg(CO3 )2
Ca 2 + + 2OH Ca(OH)2
Mg 2 + + 2OH Mg(OH)2
Ca 2 + + SO 42 CaSO 4
The reactions presented here for these two cases highlight differences that
may be encountered for the two lithologies.
282
Elements or
pseudo-elements
Independent aqueous species
Adsorbed cations
H+, Na+
Solid
Ca
CO3
Al
Si
O
Na
H
1
H+
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Na+ Ca2+ Al3+ CO32- H4SiO4 H2O Ca(OH)+ Ca(HCO3)+ OH- HCO3- H3SiO4- Al(OH)4- H2CO3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
1
0
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
9
0
4
283
0
0
1
2
7
1
2
H+
Ca
CO3
Al
Si
O
Na
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Na+ Ca2+
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
H+ Na+
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0
-1
0
1
0
-1
0
-4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ca2+
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Al3+
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
CO320
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
H4SiO4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
H2O H+ Na+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Table A.6: Exponent of Jth Independent Species in the Ith Solid (for EXSLD Array)
EXSLD
CaCO3
SiO2
Al2Si2O5(OH)4
NaAlSi2O6.H2O
Ca2+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Fluid
species
H+
Na+
Ca2+
Al3+
CO32H4SiO4
H2O
Ca(OH)+
Ca(HCO3)+
OHHCO3H3SiO4Al(OH)4H2CO3
Charge
1
1
2
3
-2
0
0
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
Table A.8: Equilibrium Constants for Ith Fluid Species (for EQK Array)
EQK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fluid
species
+
H
Na+
Ca2+
Al3+
CO32H4SiO4
H2O
Ca(OH)+
Ca(HCO3)+ 3.6804E+11
-
OH
HCO3H3SiO4Al(OH)4H2CO3
1.0309E-14
2.2075E+10
1.5531E-10
6.9711E-23
5.1274E+16
55C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.18E-12
85C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.56E-11
3.58E+11
5.08E+11
7.3E-14
1.67E+10
3.24E-10
3.26E-20
3.48E+16
3.21E-13
1.66E+10
5.31E-10
1.51E-18
3.9E+16
285
Charge
H+ (sorbed)
Na+ (sorbed)
Ca2+ (sorbed)
1
1
2
(s)
-1
-2
-1
-1
Independent aqueous
H + , Na + , Ca 2 + , Mg 2 + ,SO 42 , CO32 ,
or oleic species
Dependent aqueous
or oleic species
B(OH)4 , H 2 O
Solid species
286
Ca(HCO3)+
Mg(HCO3)+
OH-
B(OH)3
CaB(OH)4+
MgB(OH)4+
HCO3-
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
287
MgSO4
H2CO3
Na(HCO3)
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
NaSO4CaSO4
Mg(OH)+
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
MgCO3
Ca(OH)+
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
NaCO3CaCO3
B(OH)4H2O
NaOH
Ca
Mg
CO3
Na
H
SO4
B(OH)4-
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
H+
Na+
Ca2+
Mg2+
CO32SO42-
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
CO320
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
SO420
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
B(OH)40
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H2O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table A.15: Exponent of Jth Independent Species in the Ith Solid (for EXSLD Array)
EXSLD
CaCO3
CaMg(CO3)2
Ca(OH)2
Mg(OH)2
CaSO4
Boric acid
Borax
Fluid species
H
Na+
Ca2+
Mg2+
CO32SO42B(OH)4H2O
NaOH
Ca(OH)+
Mg(OH)+
Na(HCO3)
Ca(HCO3)+
Mg(HCO3)+
OHB(OH)3
CaB(OH)4+
MgB(OH)4+
HCO3NaCO3CaCO3
MgCO3
NaSO4CaSO4
MgSO4
H2CO3
289
Charge
1
1
2
2
-2
-2
-1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
-1
0
1
1
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
Table A.17: Equilibrium Constants for Ith Fluid Species (for EQK Array)
EQK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Fluid species
H+
Na+
Ca2+
Mg2+
CO32SO42B(OH)4H2O
NaOH
Ca(OH)+
Mg(OH)+
Na(HCO3)
Ca(HCO3)+
Mg(HCO3)+
OHB(OH)3
CaB(OH)4+
MgB(OH)4+
HCO3NaCO3CaCO3
MgCO3
NaSO4CaSO4
MgSO4
H2CO3
Equilibrium Constants
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.60E-14
6.01E-13
4.92E-12
2.05E+10
3.42E+11
2.12E+11
2.55E-14
1.68E+09
3.58E-08
3.25E-08
1.91E+10
2.33E+00
2.03E+03
1.01E+03
5.32E+00
2.43E+02
1.91E+02
4.18E+16
290
APPENDIX B
EQBATCH SETUP
In appendix A, we described two example sets of reactions for EQBATCH,
'UTCHEM's geochemistry preprocessor'. This program can perform batch reaction
equilibrium calculations and calculate the initial equilibrium state of the reservoir.
Here in this appendix, we emphasize how the initial pH of the formation or
makeup water and their concentration can be matched by using EQBATCH with
suitable input data. It is important for the user to have data such as formation brine
composition and elemental concentration, pH, acid number of the crude oil, cation
exchange capacity and some knowledge about the rock and its minerals. Reservoir
temperature is also important since we need to find all the equilibrium constants and
solubility products at one specific temperature.
It should be noted that EQBATCH is not linked to a geochemistry database
and therefore, the user needs to decide on the species or reactions that are important.
Therefore, other geochemistry software packages such as PHREEQC (2008) or
Geochemist's Workbench (2008) are used to determine the important species to be
input for EQBATCH. The acronym PHREEQC stands for PH (pH), RE (redox), EQ
(equilibrium), C (program written in C). One needs to input the formation brine and
injected brine species and elements and their concentration at a specific temperature
in equilibrium with minerals in the rock, excluding insignificant or low concentration
species. These softwares according to their database can determine what solution
291
species and rock minerals can exist under the new reservoir condition. The species
with high concentrations are selected to be modeled in EQBATCH. The equilibrium
constants and solubility products of all possible reactions for these conditions are
found from the database.
In some cases, the user's experience and knowledge can also help identify the
key reactions needed to match the initial state of the reservoir and further to simulate
the alkaline flooding in the reservoir. In addition, case studies, such as those
presented here or in Bhuyan (1989) and Wu (1990) or other sources may also provide
guidance.
The main procedure on how to set up the eqbatch input and match the species
concentration data is given here for the reservoir information from Chapter 6. Tables
B.1 and B.2 (The same as Tables 6.1 and 6.2) give the formation brine composition
and rock mineralogy. The crude oil acid number is about 2.4 mg KOH/g oil. The
reservoir initial salinity is about 2 wt% NaCl and reservoir temperature is 38oC. The
cation exchange capacity of the rock was assumed to be 0.4 meq/100 g rock.
in most cases the output of EQBATCH becomes the input for UTCHEM simulation;
therefore, all the possible species later used in the simulation should be considered in
the EQBATCH input. For example, if the alkali injected is Na2CO3 or sodium
metaborate, carbonate or borate need to be added to the species for further application
in UTCHEM. The same is true about minerals. To initialize the EQBATCH input file,
all the possible minerals which dissolve or precipitate due to injection of alkali need
to be considered. Here in this case, if there is no or insignificant calcite initially
among the minerals but it can not be ignored because sodium carbonate injected in
the presence of divalent cations can cause calcite precipitation. Software packages
such as Geochemist's workbench or PHREEQC are helpful in identifying these
species.
In this example, the important elements are Na+, Ca++, Mg++, CO32-, Cl-. Since
the Mg++ concentration is not too large it can be coupled with Ca++ for simplicity.
Therefore, the minimum number of elements for this case is Na+, Ca++, CO32-, Cl- and
HAo which is the concentration of acid in oil. HAo needs to be added to the elements
because the crude oil contains the acidic components.
In EQBATCH the elements are introduced as dependent or independent
solution species, as rock minerals and or as adsorbed cations on clay or micelles.
Independent fluid species are those species which stand alone and are not a
combination of two or more of the species. For example Ca++, H+ or CO32- are all
defined as independent solution species but CaHCO3+ is a dependent species since it
is the result of the reaction from the independent species. In this example, the
293
dependent solution species are hydrogen ion, sodium ion, calcium ion, carbonate ion,
HAo and water. Cl- is not defined as a dependent species because it does not
participate in the reactions. The dependent species are defined as Ca(OH)+,
Ca(HCO3)+, A-, OH-, HCO3-, H2CO3, CaCO3, HAw. A- (soap) and HAw
(Concentration of acid in water) are dependent species (dependent on the
concentration of acid in oil 'HAo'). Ca(OH)+, Ca(HCO3)+, OH-, HCO3-, H2CO3,
CaCO3 are the dependent species for the system of defined elements. These
dependent species can be found from the geochemistry software packages as
explained earlier.
As shown in Table B.2, the rock is a sandstone rock which mainly contains
silica and kaolinite. The reservoir temperature is 87oF. This temperature is not high
enough to promote substantial quartz or clay dissolution. Therefore, we do not model
these solids for the simplification of the problem. Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and
calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) here are chosen as the solid species. These minerals are
added in case they precipitate after injection of alkali. Then we choose sorbed
hydrogen, sodium and calcium ions as sorbed cation species.
294
A.2 to A.10 and A.12 to A.17 are examples of these tables. Some examples on how to
fill out these tables are given below.
In Table B.3 defining the stoichiometric coefficient of Ith Element in Jth Fluid
Species (for the AR Array), the row is defined as all the solution species and the
columns are the elements (No chlorine is added because it is not included in the
reactions). The solution species and elements have to have the same order in all the
tables as defined in the EQBATCH input file. As shown in this table, the cells are
filled with zeros, ones and twos. If the solution species has that element in it the cell
is filled with a number rather than zero. For example H2CO3 has 2 hydrogens and one
CO32-, therefore, the cell that crosses the solution species and element is filled with
the number of that specific element in the solution species.
Another example is how to set up the BB Array which defines the exponent of
Jth independent fluid species (Table B.4). The row is defined as the independent fluid
species plus the sorbed cations on clay and micelles. The column is defined as all the
solution species plus the sorbed cations on clay and micelles. The cells are filled
based on the exponents of the reactions. For example, Ca(OH)+ reaction as dependent
solution species is expressed as:
Ca 2 + + H 2 O Ca(OH)+ + H +
or it can be written as :
Ca(OH)+ = K
Ca 2 +
H+
= K Ca 2 + H +
295
Therefore, the cells related to Ca(OH)+ are filled with -1 for hydrogen ion and
1 for calcium.
11567 mg / L Cl
1mole
1eq
1g
= 0.325 meq / ml
35.5g 1000mg 1mole
1mole
2 eq
1g
= 0.032 meq / ml
40g 1000mg 1mole
All the other species concentrations are converted the same way.
296
mg KOH
1g
1000 cc
g oil
CHAo mole L water = acid no.
x
x
x
x o
cc
oil
1000 mg
1L
g oil
S2 ( L oil )
1
x
(4.2)
g KOH
S1 ( L Water )
56.098 (
)
mole
CHAo is calculated 0.04 mole/ L water for water saturation of 0.5 and oil density of
0.934 g/cc.
All the species, the corresponding tables, charges, equilibrium constants and
so on are prepared as we explained. They then are added to EQBATCH input file
based on the step by step procedure described in the UTCHEM technical
documentation. The next step is to run Eqbatch and find the match with the initial
state of the reservoir such as formation brine concentration, and pH.
EQBATCH input parameters such as C5I, CELAQI(J), for J = 1, NELET-1,
CSLDI(I), for I = 1, NSLD, CSORBI(I), for I = 1, NSORB are adjusted to get the
match with the initial state of the reservoir (Table B.5). This will typically require
several trials before a satisfactory match is obtained. Usually a first good guess can be
the solution species concentration in the formation brine.
297
The output of the EQBATCH needs to be checked in each try to see the match
of the EQBATCH results to the initial state of the reservoir for the following
parameters: C5I (Initial concentration of nonreacting anions), C6I (Initial
concentration of calcium in aqueous phase), CELAQI(J), for J=1, NGC (Initial
concentrations of Jth geochemistry component), CAC2I - Initial concentration of acid
in oil and CAQI(J) - Initial guesses for Jth independent species concentration are
compared with the solution species concentrations. (Lines 3.5.34 to 3.5.37 of
UTCHEM user's manual for a description of these parameters.)
One good matching indicator can be the pH of the formation brine. For
example, usually hydrogen is defined as the first dependent solution species
corresponding to CAQI(J) for J=1 in the EQBATCH output. CAQI(J) for J=1 is the
concentration of hydrogen and the negative logarithm of this number gives the pH.
This can be used as a matching parameter with the formation brine pH. Table B.6
shows the comparison of the elemental compositions of experimental and simulated
connate brine.
The EQBATCH manual and input and output were developed assuming a user
is very experienced with ASP and UTCHEM simuilation. For this reason, it is not
extensively documentated or annotated with output and warning and diagnostic
messages; therefore, caution and diligence are required to use this program
successfully.
298
MW
35.5
61
charge
1
1
Conc., meq/ml
0.32583
0.0082
0.334
24.3
40
87.62
137.3
2
2
2
2
0.0214
0.032
0.0037
0.0012
0.0582
Wt%
Wt%
88.4
Clays
Kaolinite
[Al2Si2O5(OH)4]
Quartz
K-spar
2.4
0.1
Plagioclase
1.0
3.2
Calcite (CaCO3)
0.7
Berthierine
0.1
High Mg Calcite
0.5
Dolomite [CaMg(CO3)2]
0.7
Ankerite
0.7
Siderite (FeCO3)
0.8
total Clay
4.8
SUM (Total)
1.4
100
299
Table B.4:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
9 10
11
12
13
14
A OH HCO3 H2CO3 CaCO3 HAw
0 0
0
0
1
0
0 0
1
1
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 1
1
2
0
1
1 0
0
0
0
1
300
Initial surf.
conc.
Surf., vol.
fraction
0.325
0.0
Total elemental conc. in aqueous phase (formation water analysis), only fluid conc.
(CELAQ, mole/L)
Ca2+
Mg2+
Na+
H+
A0.030
0.001
0.27
111.00
0.04
Initial solid conc.
(CSLD, mole/L PV)
CaCO3
Ca(OH)2
1.5
0.0
Initial adsorbed conc.
(CSORB, mole/L PV)
H+
Na+
Ca2+
0.024
0.015
0.0001
Independent Species.
(CAQI, mole/L)
H+
Na+
Ca2+
CO32HAo
Water
0.1e-07
0.01
0.1e-04 0.3e-03
1.1e-3
55.5
Adsorbed species
(CAQI, mole/L)
H+, s
Na+, s
Ca2+, s
1.0e-06
1.0e-04
1.0e-04
S, initial water sat (L/L
EQW, equivalent weight of generated Surfactant
PV)
(MW/valence)
0.5
500
301
Na+
0.27
0.267
Cl-
0.326
0.325
Divalent cations
(Ca2+, Mg2+)
0.0528
0.057
pH
6.5
302
APPENDIX C
BATCH INPUT Example of Soap/Surfactant Phase Behavior
This appendix is one batch input example for matching the phase behavior for
a soap/surfactant mixture. The reactions needed to generate soap in a test tube are
included in this input (Refer to Chapter 4 for more disscusion on the soap/surfactant
phase behavior modeling).
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DATA SET : UTCHEM (VERSION 9.82 )
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC batch calculation to obtain UTCHEM phase behavior
*
CC
*
CC LENGTH (FT) :
PROCESS : SURFACTANT
*
CC THICKNESS (FT) :
INJ. RATE (FT3/DAY) :
*
CC WIDTH (FT) :
COORDINATES : CARTESIAN
*
CC POROSITY :
*
CC GRID BLOCKS : 5x 1x1
*
CC DATE :
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC Run number
*---- RUNNO
UTBATC
CC
CC Title and run description
*---- title(i)
get the hand's parameter from batch samples
soap/surfactant phase behavior- Case A- Chapter 4
NO Correct fluid properties, only match of phase behavior parameters
CC
303
CC SIMULATION FLAGS
*---- IMODE IMES IDISPC ICWM ICAP IREACT IBIO ICOORD ITREAC ITC IGAS IENG
1 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
CC
CC no. of gridblocks,flag specifies constant or variable grid size,unit
*---- NX NY NZ IDXYZ IUNIT
5 1 1 0 0
CC
CC constant grid block size in x,y,and z
*---- dx1
dy1
dz1
1
1
1
CC
CC TOTAL NO. OF COMPONENTS, NO. OF TRACERS, NO. OF GEL COMPONENTS
*----N no NTw nta ngc ng noth
12 0 0 0 4 0 0
CC
CC
*---- SPNAME(I),I=1,N
WATER
OIL
SURFACTANT
POLYMER
ANION
CALCIUM
alc1
alc2
CARBONATE
SODIUM
HYDROGEN
pet acid
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE COMPONENT IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS OR NOT
*----ICF(KC) FOR KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 11
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC OUTPUT OPTIONS
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC FLAG TO WRITE TO UNIT 3,FLAG FOR PV OR DAYS TO PRINT OR TO STOP THE RUN
*---- ICUMTM ISTOP IOUTGMS
0
0
0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE PROFILE OF KCTH COMPONENT SHOULD BE WRITTEN
*---- IPRFLG(KC),KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 11
CC
CC FLAG FOR PRES.,SAT.,TOTAL CONC.,TRACER CONC.,CAP.,GEL, ALKALINE PROFILES
*---- IPPRES IPSAT IPCTOT IPBIO IPCAP IPGEL IPALK IPTEMP IPOBS
304
1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES TO UNIT 4 (Prof)
*---- ICKL IVIS IPER ICNM ICSE IHYSTP IFOAMP INONEQ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC
CC FLAG for variables to PROF output file
*---- IADS IVEL IRKF IPHSE
0 0 0 0
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC MAX. SIMULATION TIME ( DAYS)
*---- TMAX
250
CC
CC ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY (1/PSI), STAND. PRESSURE(PSIA)
*---- COMPR
PSTAND
0
0
CC
CC FLAGS INDICATING CONSTANT OR VARIABLE POROSITY, X,Y,AND Z
PERMEABILITY
*---- IPOR1 IPERMX IPERMY IPERMZ IMOD
0 1 1 0 0
CC
CC CONSTANT POROSITY FOR WHOLE RESERVOIR
*---- PORC1
1
CC
CC CONSTANT X-PERMEABILITY (MILIDARCY) FOR LAYER K = 1,NZ
*---- PERMX(K),K=1,NZ
1000000
CC
CC CONSTANT Y-PERMEABILITY (MILIDARCY) FOR LAYER K = 1,NZ
*---- PERMY(K),K=1,NZ
1000000
CC
CC CONSTANT Z-PERMEABILITY FOR WHOLE RESERVOIR
*---- PERMZC
1000000
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE DEPTH, PRESSURE, WATER
SATURATION,INITIAL AQUEOUS PHASE cOMPOSITIONS
*----IDEPTH IPRESS ISWI ICWI
0
0 0 -1
CC
CC CONSTANT DEPTH (FT)
305
*---- D111
0
CC
CC CONSTANT PRESSURE (PSIA)
*---- PRESS1
1
CC
CC CONSTANT INITIAL WATER SATURATION
*---- SWI
0.5
CC
CC BRINE SALINITY AND DIVALENT CATION CONCENTRATION (MEQ/ML)
*---- C50
C60
0.16 0.0
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC OIL CONC. AT PLAIT POINT FOR TYPE II(+)AND TYPE II(-), CMC
*---- c2plc c2prc epsme ihand
0 1 0.001 0
CC
CC flag indicating type of phase behavior parameters
*---- ifghbn
0
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 1
*----HBNS70 HBNC70 HBNS71 HBNC71 HBNS72 HBNC72
0. .03 0. .015 0.0 .03
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 2
*----HBNS80 HBNC80 HBNS81 HBNC81 HBNS82 HBNC82
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC LOWER AND UPPER EFFECTIVE SALINITY FOR ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- csel7 cseu7 csel8 cseu8
0.55 1.1 0
0
CC
CC THE CSE SLOPE PARAMETER FOR CALCIUM AND ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- beta6 beta7 beta8
0
0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR ALCOHOL PART. MODEL AND PARTITION COEFFICIENTS
*---- ialc opsk7o opsk7s opsk8o opsk8s
0 0.0 0.0
0
0
CC
CC NO. OF ITERATIONS, AND TOLERANCE
*---- nalmax epsalc
306
20
0.0001
CC
CC ALCOHOL 1 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc7 akws7 akm7 ak7 pt7
0
0
0 0
0
CC
CC ALCOHOL 2 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc8 akws8 akm8 ak8 pt8
0
0
0 0
0
CC
CC ift model flag
*---- ift
1
CC
CC INTERFACIAL TENSION PARAMETERS
*---- chuh ahuh
0.3
10
CC
CC LOG10 OF OIL/WATER INTERFACIAL TENSION
*---- xiftw
1.5
CC
CC ORGANIC MASS TRANSFER FLAG
*---- imass icor
0
0
CC
CC CAPILLARY DESATURATION PARAMETERS FOR PHASE 1, 2, AND 3
*---- itrap t11
t22
t33
0
1865 59074 364.2
CC
CC FLAG FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY AND CAPILLARY PRESSURE MODEL
*---- iperm
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE REL. PERM. PARAMETERS
*---- isrw iprw iew
0 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT RES. SATURATION OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*---- s1rwc s2rwc s3rwc
0 0 0
CC
CC CONSTANT ENDPOINT REL. PERM. OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*---- p1rwc p2rwc p3rwc
1
1 1
CC
CC CONSTANT REL. PERM. EXPONENT OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*---- e1wc e2wc e3wc
1
1
1
CC
CC WATER AND OIL VISCOSITY , RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE
*---- VIS1 VIS2 TSTAND
307
1 1 0
CC
CC COMPOSITIONAL PHASE VISCOSITY PARAMETERS
*---- ALPHAV1 ALPHAV2 ALPHAV3 ALPHAV4 ALPHAV5
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC PARAMETERS TO CALCULATE POLYMER VISCOSITY AT ZERO SHEAR RATE
*---- AP1 AP2 AP3
81 2700 2500
CC
CC PARAMETER TO COMPUTE CSEP,MIN. CSEP, AND SLOPE OF LOG VIS. VS. LOG CSEP
*---- BETAP CSE1 SSLOPE
10 0.01 0.17
CC
CC PARAMETER FOR SHEAR RATE DEPENDENCE OF POLYMER VISCOSITY
*---- GAMMAC GAMHF POWN
20
10 1.8
CC
CC CC FLAG FOR POLYMER PARTITIONING, PERM. REDUCTION PARAMETERS
*---- IPOLYM EPHI3 EPHI4 BRK CRK
1
1
1.0 1000 0.0186
CC
CC SPECIFIC WEIGHT FOR COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,8 ,Coeffient of oil and GRAVITY FLAG
*---- DEN1 DEN2 DEN23 DEN3 DEN7 DEN8 IDEN
0.433 0.433 0.433 0.433 0.433 0
2
CC
CC FLAG FOR CHOICE OF UNITS ( 0:BOTTOMHOLE CONDITION , 1: STOCK TANK)
*----- ISTB
0
CC
CC COMPRESSIBILITY FOR VOL. OCCUPYING COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8
*---- COMPC(1) COMPC(2) COMPC(3) COMPC(7) COMPC(8)
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT OR VARIABLE PC PARAM., WATER-WET OR OIL-WET PC CURVE FLAG
*---- ICPC IEPC IOW
0
0 0
CC
CC CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, CPC0
*---- CPC0
0
CC
CC CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, EPC0
*---- EPC0
2
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 1
*---- D(KC,1),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 2
*---- D(KC,2),KC=1,N
308
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 3
*---- D(KC,3),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 1
*---- ALPHAL(1) ALPHAT(1)
0
0
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 2
*---- ALPHAL(2) ALPHAT(2)
0
0
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 3
*---- ALPHAL(3) ALPHAT(3)
0
0
CC
CC flag to specify organic adsorption calculation
*---- iadso
0
CC
CC SURFACTANT AND POLYMER ADSORPTION PARAMETERS
*---- AD31 AD32 B3D AD41 AD42 B4D IADK IADS1 FADS REFK
0 0 1000 0.7 0 100 0 0 0 0
CC
CC PARAMETERS FOR CATION EXCHANGE OF CLAY AND SURFACTANT
*---- QV XKC XKS EQW
0 0 0 419
2 0
0.1 0.2
6 11 0 0 0 1
6 0 0 7
4 3 1 0 2
0 0 0
5
CALCIUM
2.00
CARBON (AS CARBOBATES)
-2.00
SODIUM
1.00
HYDROGEN (REACTIVE)
1.00
oleic acid
-1.00
CHLORINE (* ELEMNT *)
-1.00
H+
Na+
Ca2+
CO32Hao
H2O
AOHHCO3H2CO3
309
Haw (* FLDSPS *)
0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0.
0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 1. 2. 1.
0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1.
1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
-1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
-1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
1.0 1.0 2.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0
0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01
0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01
0.9589952058430E-12 0.2550000000000E-13 0.1910000000000E+11
0.4180000000000E+17 0.9589952058430E-04
0.5200000000000E-01 0.2000000000000E-04
0.1461198989995E-05
0.1000000000000E+00
0.1109999991769E+03
0.1758115235883E-08
0.1000004999146E-04
0.1200077231590E-07 0.1000000000000E+00 0.1000000000000E-04
0.3092684582095E-08 0.1000000000000E-04 0.5549999314650E+02
0.9999999991209E+00 0.9999950000000E+00
0.1000000000000E-07 0.5000000000000E+03
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC WELL DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC FLAG FOR SPECIFIED BOUNDARY AND ZONE IS MODELED
*---- IBOUND IZONE
0 0
CC
CC TOTAL NUMBER OF WELLS, WELL RADIUS FLAG, FLAG FOR TIME OR COURANT NO.
*---- NWELL IRO ITIME NWREL
2 2
1
2
CC
CC WELL ID,LOCATIONS,AND FLAG FOR SPECIFYING WELL TYPE, WELL RADIUS, SKIN
*---- IDW IW JW IFLAG RW SWELL IDIR IFIRST ILAST IPRF
1 1 1
1 0.5
0
3 1 1 0
CC
310
CC WELL NAME
*---- WELNAM
INJECTOR
CC
CC ICHEK , MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
*---- ICHEK PWFMIN PWFMAX QTMIN QTMAX
0
0
5000 0
1000
CC
CC WELL ID,LOCATIONS,AND FLAG FOR SPECIFYING WELL TYPE, WELL RADIUS, SKIN
*---- IDW IW JW IFLAG RW SWELL IDIR IFIRST ILAST IPRF
2 5 1
2 0.5
0
3 1 1 0
CC
CC WELL NAME
*---- WELNAM
PRODUCER
CC
CC ICHEK , MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
*---- ICHEK PWFMIN PWFMAX QTMIN QTMAX
0
0
5000 0
50000
CC
CC ID,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*---- ID QI(M,L) C(M,KC,L)
1 0.05 0.998 0. 0.002 0.0 0.1025 0.001 0. 0. 0.358 0.461 111 0.0
1 0.05 0. 1. 0. 0.
0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.008324717
1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC ID, BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE FOR PRESSURE CONSTRAINT WELL (IFLAG=2 OR 3)
*---- ID PWF
2 1
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV OR DAY) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*---- TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI1 WRHPV WRPRF RSTC
500 5
5
0.5 5
50
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. courant numbers
*---- DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.001 12*0.05 0.2
0.02
311
APPENDIX D
EQBATCH and UTCHEM INPUT Examples
The following examples are given in this appendix:
1. EQBATCH Input File for Case 3.4 in Chapter 3
2. EQBATCH Input File for Case 3.9 in Chapter 3
3. EQBATCH Input File for Case A in Chapter 5
4. EQBATCH Input File for ASP Coreflood in Chapter 6
5. EQBATCH Input File for Coreflood BM-07 in Chapter 7
6. UTCHEM Input File for Case 3.4 in Chapter 3
7. UTCHEM Input File for Case 3.9 in Chapter 3
8. UTCHEM Input File for Case AII in Chapter 5
9. UTCHEM Input File for ASP (1D Case) Coreflood in Chapter 6
10. UTCHEM Input File for ASP Field Scale (2D) in Chapter 6
11. UTCHEM Input File for Coreflood BM-07 in Chapter 7
312
HYDROGEN ION
SODIUM ION
CALCIUM ION
ALUMINIUM ION
CARBONATE ION
H4SiO4
WATER
CALCIUM MONOHYDROXIDE ION
CA (HC03) +
HYDROXIDE ION
BICARBONATE ION
H3SiO4- ION
Al(OH)4- ION
DISSOLVED CARBON MONOHYDROXIDE (* FLDSPS *)
Calcite (SOLID)
SILICA (SOLID)
KAOLINITE (SOLID)
ANALCITE (SOLID) (* SLDSPS *)
SORBED HYDROGEN ION
SORBED SODIUM ION
SORBED CALCIUM ION (* SORBSPS *)
3 (* NSORBX *)
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
2
1
4
2 (* AR *)
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
2
2
0
2
9
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
2 (* BR *)
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0 (* DR *)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
313
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
1
1
0
1
-1
0
0
1
0
0
-1
0
0
-4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-6
0
0
-4
1
0
1
1
2
3
-2
0
0
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0 (* CHARGE *)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.56171E-11
5.08042E+11
3.2107E-13
16607337055
5.31007E-10
1.51008E-18
3.90122E+16 (* KEQ *)
1. 1. 2. (* SCHARGE *)
7.93 2.7e+06 (* KEX *)
0
2
-1
-1
1
0
-1. 0. (* REDUC *)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 (* EXSLD *)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (* BB *)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2
-1
1
0 (* EXEX *)
314
0
1
0.026 (* EXCAI *)
4.56983E-10 0.000594429 1627.796086 53789.80873 (* KSP *)
0.024 0.0 (*C50, Csurf*)
0.001 0.02 0.001 0.001 55.5004 0.0425 111.0117 (*CELFLT 1,NELEMENT-1*)
1.63 100.0 0.0 0.0 (*CSLD(I), I=1,NSLD*)
0.011 0.013 0.001 (* CSORBI *)
1.9e-06 0.5 1.5e-03 1.e-14
3.e-06 1.e-04
55.5 1.0e-06 1.0e-02 1.0e-03 (*CIND*)
1.0 (*S1*)
315
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
4 (* BR *)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
316
1
0
1
1
0
0
-1
0
0
1
0
0
-1
0
1
-1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
-2
0
1
-2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
2
2
-2
-2
-1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
-1
0
1
1
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
0 (* CHAEGE *)
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
317
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(* BB *)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 (* EXSLD *)
1
1
1
1.60E-14
6.01E-13
4.92E-12
2.05E+10
3.42E+11
2.12E+11
2.55E-14
1.68E+09
3.58E-08
3.25E-08
1.91E+10
2.33E+00
2.03E+03
1.01E+03
5.32E+00
2.43E+02
1.91E+02
4.18E+16 (* KEQ *)
1.65768E-09
3.245E-19
4.39744E+21
4.25E+15
3.36047E-05 3.52939E-10
2.49977E-26 (* KSP *)
0.68 0.0 (*C50, Csurf*)
0.002 0.002 0.002 0.679 111.00 0.002 0.002 (*CELFLT 1,NELEMENT-1*)
10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.0 0.0 (*CSLD(I), I=1,NSLD*)
0.1200077231590e-07 0.1 0.1e-04
0.4616423363603e-05 0.3092684582095e-08 0.1e-08 0.1e-08
55.49999314650 (*CIND*)
1.0 (*S1*)
318
HAo
WATER
AOHHCO3H2CO3
HAw (* FLDSPS *)
SORBED HYDROGEN ION
SORBED SODIUM ION (* SORBSPS *)
2 (* NSORBX *)
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0 (* DR *)
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
-1
0
0
1
0
-1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
-2
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
0 (* CHAEGE *)
1
1
1
1
1
9.59E-13
1.46E-14
2.11E+10
4.89E+16
9.59E-05 (* KEQ *)
1. 1. (* SCHARGE *)
2.7e+06 (* KEX *)
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
(* BB *)
319
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1 (* AR *)
-1
1
0
0
0
1
-1
0. (* REDUC *)
0.018 (* EXCAI *)
0.085 0.0 (*C50, Csurf*)
0.004 0.088 111.00 0.0055 (*CELFLT 1,NELEMENT-1*)
0.005 0.01 (* CSORBI *)
0.1200077231590e-07 0.01
0.3092684582095e-03 1.13e-3
55.49999314650 1.0e-06 1.0e-04 (*CIND*)
0.6 (*S1*)
500
(* EXEX *)
320
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-1
0
0
1
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
-2
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
0 (* CHAEGE *)
1
1
1
1
1
9.59E-13
1.46E-14
2.11E+10
4.89E+16
9.59E-05 (* KEQ *)
1. 1. (* SCHARGE *)
2.7e+06 (* KEX *)
-1
1
0
0
0
1
-1
0. (* REDUC *)
0.118 (* EXCAI *)
0.325 0.0 (*C50, Csurf*)
0.001 0.325 111.00 0.235 (*CELFLT 1,NELEMENT-1*)
0.024 0.015 (* CSORBI *)
0.1200077231590e-07 0.01
0.3092684582095e-03 1.13e-3
55.49999314650 1.0e-06 1.0e-04 (*CIND*)
0.28 (*S1*)
500
(* BB *)
(* EXEX *)
321
322
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (* BB *)
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0 (* AR *)
-1
-1
0
0 (* CHAEGE *)
1
1
1
1
1
1.56E-11
5.08E+11
3.21E-13
1.66E+10
3.90E+16
1.58E+03 (* KEQ *)
1. 1. 2. (* SCHARGE *)
100 0.1e+05 (* KEX *)
0
2
-1
0
0
0
-2
1
-1
1
0
0
0
1
-1
0 (* EXEX *)
-1. 0. (* REDUC *)
0.026 (* EXCAI *)
0.042 0.0 (*C50, Csurf*)
0.001 0.00001 0.039 111.00 (*CELFLT 1,NELEMENT-1*)
0.005 0.020 0.001 (* CSORBI *)
0.1200077231590e-07 0.01 0.1e-04
0.3092684582095e-03
55.49999314650 1.0e-06 1.0e-04 1.0e-04 (*CIND*)
0.65 (*S1*)
323
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
*----RUNNO
Case3-4
CC
CC
*----HEADER
Simulation with congruent kaolinite dissolution (Case3.4) @85C
using Berea core (Reactions included are cation exchange and kaolinite dissolution)
Sodium Carbonate as alkali injected
CC
CC SIMULATION FLAGS
*---- IMODE IMES IDISPC ICWM ICAP IREACT IBIO ICOORD ITREAC ITC IGAS IENG
1 4 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
CC
CC NUMBER OF GRID BLOCKS AND FLAG SPECIFIES CONSTANT OR VARIABLE GRID
SIZE
*----NX NY NZ IDXYZ IUNIT
1 1 100 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT GRID BLOCK SIZE IN X, Y, AND Z
*----DX
DY
DZ
0.1665 0.1665 0.01
CC
CC TOTAL NO. OF COMPONENTS, NO. OF TRACERS, NO. OF GEL COMPONENTS
*----N no NTw nta ngc ng noth
13 0 0 0 5 0 0
CC
CC
*---- SPNAME(I),I=1,N
WATER
OIL
SURFACTANT
POLYMER
ANION
CALCIUM
alc1
alc2
CARBON(As Carbonate)
ALUMINIUM
SILICON
SODIUM
HYDROGEN
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE COMPONENT IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS OR NOT
*----ICF(KC) FOR KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
CC
324
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC OUTPUT OPTIONS
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC FLAG FOR PV OR DAYS FOR OUTPUT AND STOP THE RUN
*----ICUMTM ISTOP IOUTGMS
1
1 0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE PROFILE OF KCTH COMPONENT SHOULD BE WRITTEN
*----IPRFLG(KC),KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
CC
CC FLAG FOR PRES,SAT.,TOTAL CONC.,TRACER CONC.,CAP.,GEL, ALKALINE PROFILES
*----IPPRES IPSAT IPCTOT IPBIO IPCAP IPGEL IPALK ITEMP IPOBS
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES
*----ICKL IVIS IPER ICNM ICSE IFOAM IHYST INONEQ
1 1 0 0 1 0 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES TO PROF
*----IADS IVEL IRKF IPHSE
1 0 1 1
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC MAX. SIMULATION TIME ( PV)
*---- TMAX
2.0
CC
CC ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY (1/PSI), STAND. PRESSURE(PSIA)
*----COMPR PSTAND
0. 0.
CC
CC FLAGS INDICATING CONSTANT OR VARIABLE POROSITY, X,Y,AND Z
PERMEABILITY
*----IPOR1 IPERMX IPERMY IPERMZ IMOD ITRANZ
0 0 3 3 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT POROSITY
*----PORC1
.165
CC
CC CONSTANT X-PERMEABILITY (MILIDARCY) FOR LAYER K = 1,NZ
325
*----PERMX
1500
CC
CC Y DIRECTION PERMEABILITY IS DEPENDENT ON X DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
*---- CONSTANT PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR Y DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
1
CC
CC Z DIRECTION PERMEABILITY IS DEPENDENT ON X DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
*---- CONSTANT PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR Z DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
1
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE DEPTH, PRESSURE, WATER SATURATION
*----IDEPTH IPRESS ISWI ICWI
0
0
0 -1
CC
CC CONSTANT DEPTH (FT)
*----D111
0.
CC
CC INITIAL PRESSURE (PSIA)
*----PINIT DEPTH
14.7 0.0
CC
CC CONSTANT INITIAL WATER SATURATION (residual oil)
*----SWI
1.0
CC
CC CONSTANT CHLORIDE AND CALCIUM CONCENTRATIONS (MEQ/ML)
*----C50
C60
0.0396 0.0
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC OIL CONC. AT PLAIT POINT FOR TYPE II(+)AND TYPE II(-), CMC
*---- C2PLC C2PRC EPSME IHAND
0. 1. .001 0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING TYPE OF PHASE BEHAVIOR PARAMETERS
*---- IFGHBN
0
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 1
*---- hbns70 hbnc70 hbns71 hbnc71 hbns72 hbnc72
0.0
0.04 0.14 0.024 0.0 0.04
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 2
*---- hbns80 hbnc80 hbns81 hbnc81 hbns82 hbnc82
326
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC LOWER AND UPPER EFFECTIVE SALINITY FOR ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- csel7 cseu7 csel8 cseu8
0.10
0.2 0
0
CC
CC THE CSE SLOPE PARAMETER FOR CALCIUM AND ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- beta6 beta7 beta8
0 2.89
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR ALCOHOL PART. MODEL AND PARTITION COEFFICIENTS
*---- ialc opsk7o opsk7s opsk8o opsk8s
1 0.0
0.0
0
0
CC
CC NO. OF ITERATIONS, AND TOLERANCE
*---- nalmax epsalc
20
0.0001
CC
CC ALCOHOL 1 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc7 akws7 akm7 ak7 pt7
3.
1.76
90 35.31 0.172
CC
CC ALCOHOL 2 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc8 akws8 akm8 ak8 pt8
0
0
0 0
0
cc
cc
*--- ift
1
CC
CC INTERFACIAL TENSION PARAMETERS
*----CHUH
AHUH
0.3 10
CC
CC LOG10 OF OIL/WATER INTERFACIAL TENSION
*----XIFTW
1.48
CC
CC FLAG TO ALLOW SOLUBILITY OF OIL IN WATER
*---- IMASS ICOR
0 0
CC
CC CAPILLARY DESATURATION PARAMETERS FOR PHASE 1, 2, AND 3
*----ITRAP T11
T22
T33
2
1865. 59000 364.2
CC
CC REL. PERM. AND PC CURVES
*---- IPERM
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE REL. PERM. PARAMETERS
*----ISRW IPRW IEW
327
0 0 0
CC
CC CONSTANT RES. SATURATION OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----S1RWC S2RWC S3RWC
.38 .35 .38
CC
CC CONSTANT ENDPOINT REL. PERM. OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----P1RW P2RW P3RW
.05 .4 .05
CC
CC CONSTANT REL. PERM. EXPONENT OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----E1W E2W E3W
2.0 2.0 2.0
CC
CC RES. SATURATION OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----S1RC S2RC S3RC
.0 .0 .0
CC
CC ENDPOINT REL. PERM. OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----P1RC P2RC P3RC
1.0 1.0 1.0
CC
CC REL. PERM. EXPONENT OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----E13CW E23C E31C
1. 1. 1.0
CC
CC WATER AND OIL VISCOSITY , RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE
*----VIS1 VIS2 TEMPV
0.370 3.4 0.0
CC
CC VISCOSITY PARAMETERS
*----ALPHA1 ALPHA2 ALPHA3 ALPHA4 ALPHA5
0.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
CC
CC PARAMETERS TO CALCULATE POLYMER VISCOSITY AT ZERO SHEAR RATE
*----AP1 AP2 AP3
20 50. 400.
CC
CC PARAMETER TO COMPUTE CSEP,MIN. CSEP, AND SLOPE OF LOG VIS. VS. LOG CSEP
*----BETAP CSE1 SSLOPE
1. .01 -0.4112
CC
CC PARAMETER FOR SHEAR RATE DEPENDENCE OF POLYMER VISCOSITY
*----GAMMAC GAMHF POWN IPMOD
4.0 350. 1.7 0
CC
CC FLAG FOR POLYMER PARTITIONING, PERM. REDUCTION PARAMETERS
*----IPOLYM EPHI3 EPHI4 BRK CRK rkcut
1
1.0 0.70 100. 0.04 10
CC
CC SPECIFIC WEIGHT FOR COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8 , AND GRAVITY FLAG
*----DEN1 DEN2 den23 DEN3 DEN7 DEN8 IDEN
328
329
0
CC
CC SURFACTANT AND POLYMER ADSORPTION PARAMETERS
*----AD31 AD32 B3D AD41 AD42 B4D IADK, IADS1, FADS refk
2.0 0.1 1000. 1.0 0. 100. 0 0 0 0
CC
CC PARAMETERS FOR CATION EXCHANGE OF CLAY AND SURFACTANT
*----QV
XKC XKS EQW
0.16 0.25 0.4 429.
21
7 13 13 0.1
7 14 4 3 0 0
7 1 7 0
7 6 1 0 2
3 4 5
CALCIUM
2.00
CARBON (AS CARBOBATES)
-2.00
ALUMINIUM
3.00
SILICON
4.00
OXYGEN
-2.00
SODIUM
1.00
HYDROGEN (REACTIVE) (* ELEMNT 1.00
HYDROGEN ION
SODIUM ION
CALCIUM ION
ALUMINIUM ION
CARBONATE ION
H4SiO4
WATER
CALCIUM MONOHYDROXIDE ION
CA (HC03) +
HYDROXIDE ION
BICARBONATE ION
H3SiO4- ION
Al(OH)4- ION
DISSOLVED CARBON MONOHYDROXIDE (
Calcite (SOLID)
SILICA (SOLID)
KAOLINITE (SOLID)
ANALCITE (SOLID) (* SLDSPS *)
SORBED HYDROGEN ION
SORBED SODIUM ION
SORBED CALCIUM ION (* SORBSPS *)
3
0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1.
0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 4. 4. 0.
0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 4. 2.
1. 0. 0. 0.
330
1. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 2. 1.
0. 1. 2. 2.
0. 2. 9. 7.
0. 0. 0. 1.
0. 0. 4. 2.
0. 0. 1.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 1. 0.
1. 0. 0.
1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
-6.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0
-4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0
1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
-1.0 0.0
1.0 1.0 2.0
0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01
0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01
0.1000000000000E+01 0.1561710000000E-10 0.5080420000000E+12
0.3210700000000E-12 0.1660733705500E+11 0.5310070000000E-09
0.1510080000000E-17 0.3901220000000E+17
0.7930000000000E+01 0.2700000000000E+07
0.0 2.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.0 1.0
-1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0
-1.0 0.0
0.2600000000000E-01
0.4569830000000E-09 0.5944290000000E-03 0.1627796086000E+04
0.5378980873000E+05
0.2240000000001E-01 0.1583932603572E-04
0.3602648213039E-01
0.1721522104167E-04
331
0.2484210600676E-02
0.4005978639175E-01
0.1110091680716E+03
0.1185584839040E-07 0.4005978639175E-01 0.5160334070395E-05
0.7507959842790E-19 0.8855686352203E-04 0.5944290000000E-03
0.5549412506835E+02
0.1631986758935E+01 0.9999839042416E+02 0.0000000000000E+00
0.9942615929861E-03
0.1154340518038E-01 0.1444595201527E-01 0.5321402174493E-05
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC WELL DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC FLAG FOR PRESSURE CONST. BOUNDARIES
*---- IBOUND IZONE
0 0
CC
CC TOTAL NUMBER OF WELLS, WELL RADIUS FLAG, FLAG FOR TIME OR COURANT NO.
*----NWELL IRO ITIME NWREL
2 2 1 2
CC
CC WELL ID,LOCATIONS,AND FLAG FOR SPECIFYING WELL TYPE, WELL RADIUS, SKIN
*----IDW IW JW IFLAG RW SWELL IDIR IFIRST ILAST IPRF
1 1 1 1 .003
0. 3 100 100 0
CC
CC WELL NAME
*---- WELNAM
INJECTOR
CC
CC ICHEK MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
*----ICHEK PWFMIN PWFMAX QTMIN QTMAX
0 0.0 5000. 0.0 50000.
CC
CC WELL ID, LOCATION, AND FLAG FOR SPECIFYING WELL TYPE, WELL RADIUS, SKIN
*----IDW IW JW IFLAG RW SWELL IDIR IFIRST ILAST IPRF
2 1 1 2
.003 0. 3 1
1
0
CC
CC WELL NAME
*---- WELNAM
PRODUCER
CC
CC MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
*----ICHEK PWFMIN PWFMAX QTMIN QTMAX
0 0.0 5000. 0.0 50000.
CC
CC ID,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*----ID QI(M,L) C(M,KC,L)
1 0.0046 1.0 0. 0.0 .0 0.022 0.0001 0.0 0. 0.22468 0.0001 0.0001 0.22768 111
332
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC ID,
*----ID PWF
2 14.7
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV OR DAY) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*----TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI1 WRHPV WRPRF RSTC
1.0 0.05 0.05
0.05 0.05
0.1
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. COURANT NO.
*----DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.0001 13*0.01 0.1 0.01
CC
CC
*--- IBMOD
0
CC34567890---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------8
CC IRO, ITIME, NEW FLAGS FOR ALL THE WELLS (POLYMER DRIVE)
*---- IRO ITIME IFLAG
2 1 1 2
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS changes IN LOCATION OR SKIN OR PWF
*----NWEL1
0
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS WITH RATE changes, id
*----NWEL1 Id
1
1
CC
CC id,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*----id QI(M,L) C(M,KC,L)
1 0.0046 1.0
0.0 0. .0 0.022
0.0001 0. 0. 0.036 0.0001 0.0001 0.039 111.
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*----TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI2(SUMARY) WRHPV(HIST) WRPRF(PLOT) RSTC
2.0 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
0.2
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. time steps
*----DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.0001 13*0.01 0.1 0.01
333
334
CC
CC
*---- SPNAME(I),I=1,N
WATER
OIL
SURFACTANT
POLYMER
ANION
CALCIUM
alcohol1
alcohol2
Magnesium
CARBON(As Carbonate)
SODIUM
HYDROGEN
Sulfur (AS SULFATE)
B(OH)3
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE COMPONENT IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS OR NOT
*----ICF(KC) FOR KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC OUTPUT OPTIONS
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC FLAG FOR PV OR DAYS FOR OUTPUT AND STOP THE RUN
*----ICUMTM ISTOP IOUTGMS
1
1 0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE PROFILE OF KCTH COMPONENT SHOULD BE WRITTEN
*----IPRFLG(KC),KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
CC
CC FLAG FOR PRES,SAT.,TOTAL CONC.,TRACER CONC.,CAP.,GEL, ALKALINE PROFILES
*----IPPRES IPSAT IPCTOT IPBIO IPCAP IPGEL IPALK ITEMP IPOBS
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES
*----ICKL IVIS IPER ICNM ICSE IFOAM IHYST INONEQ
1 1 1 1 1 0 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES TO PROF
*----IADS IVEL IRKF IPHSE
1 0 1 1
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
*
335
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC MAX. SIMULATION TIME ( PV)
*---- TMAX
2
CC
CC ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY (1/PSI), STAND. PRESSURE(PSIA)
*----COMPR PSTAND
0. 0.
CC
CC FLAGS INDICATING CONSTANT OR VARIABLE POROSITY, X,Y,AND Z
PERMEABILITY
*----IPOR1 IPERMX IPERMY IPERMZ IMOD
0 0 3 3 0
CC
CC CONSTANT POROSITY
*----PORC1
.19
CC
CC CONSTANT X-PERMEABILITY (MILIDARCY) FOR LAYER K = 1,NZ
*----PERMX
448
CC
CC Y DIRECTION PERMEABILITY IS DEPENDENT ON X DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
*---- CONSTANT PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR Y DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
1
CC
CC Z DIRECTION PERMEABILITY IS DEPENDENT ON X DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
*---- CONSTANT PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR Z DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
1
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE DEPTH, PRESSURE, WATER SATURATION
*----IDEPTH IPRESS ISWI ICWI
0
0
0 -1
CC
CC CONSTANT DEPTH (FT)
*----D111
0.
CC
CC INITIAL PRESSURE (PSIA)
*----PINIT DEPTH
14.7 0.0
CC
CC CONSTANT INITIAL WATER SATURATION (residual oil)
*----SWI
1.0
CC
CC CONSTANT CHLORIDE AND CALCIUM CONCENTRATIONS (MEQ/ML)
*----C50
C60
0.51282 0.0
336
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC OIL CONC. AT PLAIT POINT FOR TYPE II(+)AND TYPE II(-), CMC
*---- C2PLC C2PRC EPSME IHAND
0. 1. .0001 0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING TYPE OF PHASE BEHAVIOR PARAMETERS
*---- IFGHBN
0
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 1
*----HBNS70 HBNC70 HBNS71 HBNC71 HBNS72 HBNC72
0. .05 0. .045 0.0 .06
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 2
*----HBNS80 HBNC80 HBNS81 HBNC81 HBNS82 HBNC82
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC LOWER AND UPPER EFFECTIVE SALINITY FOR ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- csel7 cseu7 csel8 cseu8
0.5 1.0 0
0
CC
CC THE CSE SLOPE PARAMETER FOR CALCIUM AND ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*----BETA6 BETA7 BETA8
0.8 0. 0.
CC
CC FLAG FOR ALCOHOL PART. MODEL AND PARTITION COEFFICIENTS
*----IALC OPSK7O OPSK7S OPSK8O OPSK8S
0 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC NO. OF ITERATIONS, AND TOLERANCE
*----NALMAX EPSALC
20
.0001
CC
CC ALCOHOL 1 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*----AKWC7 AKWS7 AKM7 AK7 PT7
4.671 1.79 48. 35.31 .222
CC
CC ALCOHOL 2 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*----AKWC8 AKWS8 AKM8 AK8 PT8
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
cc
cc
*--- ift
1
CC
337
338
CC VISCOSITY PARAMETERS
*----ALPHA1 ALPHA2 ALPHA3 ALPHA4 ALPHA5
1.
1.5 .2 .5 .5
CC
CC PARAMETERS TO CALCULATE POLYMER VISCOSITY AT ZERO SHEAR RATE
*----AP1 AP2 AP3
20 40. 500.
CC
CC PARAMETER TO COMPUTE CSEP,MIN. CSEP, AND SLOPE OF LOG VIS. VS. LOG CSEP
*----BETAP CSE1 SSLOPE
1. .01 -0.38
CC
CC PARAMETER FOR SHEAR RATE DEPENDENCE OF POLYMER VISCOSITY
*----GAMMAC GAMHF POWN
24. 200. 1.63
CC
CC FLAG FOR POLYMER PARTITIONING, PERM. REDUCTION PARAMETERS
*----IPOLYM EPHI3 EPHI4 BRK CRK
1 1. 1 100. 0.034
CC
CC SPECIFIC WEIGHT FOR COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8 , AND GRAVITY FLAG
*----DEN1 DEN2 den23 DEN3 DEN7 DEN8 IDEN
.433 .390 0.39 .42 .346 0. 1
CC
CC FLAG FOR CHOICE OF UNITS ( 0:BOTTOMHOLE CONDITION , 1: STOCK TANK)
*-----ISTB
1
CC
CC FVF FOR PHASE 1,2,3
*-----(FVF(L),L=1,NPHAS)
1 1 1
CC
CC COMPRESSIBILITY FOR VOL. OCCUPYING COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8
*----COMPC(1) COMPC(2) COMPC(3) COMPC(7) COMPC(8)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CC
CC CONSTANT OR VARIABLE PC PARAM., WATER-WET OR OIL-WET PC CURVE FLAG
*----ICPC IEPC IOW
0
0 0
CC
CC CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETERS, CPC
*----CPC
0.
CC
CC CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETERS, EPC
*---- EPC
2.
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSIVITY OF KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 1 (D(KC),KC=1,N)
*----D(1) D(2) D(3) D(4) D(5) D(6)
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0
CC
339
340
SODIUM MONOHYDROXIDE
CALCIUM MONOHYDROXIDE ION
MAGNESIUM MONOHYROXIDE ION
Na(HCO3)
CA (HC03) +
MG (HCO3) +
HYDROXIDE ION
B(OH)3
CaB(OH)4+
MgB(OH)4+
BICARBONATE ION
AQUEOUS SODIUM CARBONATE
AQUEOUS CALCIUM CARBONATE
AQUEOUS MAGNESIUM CARBONATE
AQUEOUS SODIUM SULFATE
AQUEOUS CALCIUM SULFATE
AQUEOUS MAGNESIUM SULFATE
H2CO3 (* FLDSPS *)
CALCIUM CARBONATE(SOLID)
DOLOMITE (SOLID)
CALCIUM HYDROXIDE (SOLID)
MAGNESIUM HYDROXIDE(SOLID)
GYPSUM(SOLID)
Boric acid
Borax (* SLDSPS *)
0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.
0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0.
0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0.
0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1.
0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.
1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0.
0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2.
0. 0. 2. 2. 0. 1. 2.
0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 4.
1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
341
342
343
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV OR DAY) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*----TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI1 WRHPV WRPRF RSTC
1.0 0.05 0.05
0.05 0.05
1.
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. COURANT NO.
*----DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.00001 0.1 0.1 0.001 .01 0.01 0.0001 0. 0.
0.0001 0.0001 0.01 11.1 0.0001
0.01 0.1 0.01
CC
CC
*--- IBMOD
0
CC34567890---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------8
CC IRO, ITIME, NEW FLAGS FOR ALL THE WELLS (POLYMER DRIVE)
*---- IRO ITIME IFLAG
2 1 1 2
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS changes IN LOCATION OR SKIN OR PWF
*----NWEL1
0
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS WITH RATE changes, id
*----NWEL1 Id
1
1
CC
CC id,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*----id QI(M,L) C(M,KC,L)
1 0.025 1.0
0. 0.0 .0 0.68 0.001 0. 0. 0.001 0.001 0.67 111 0.001 0.001
1 0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
0. 0.
0. 0
1 0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
0. 0.
0. 0
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*----TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI2(SUMARY) WRHPV(HIST) WRPRF(PLOT) RSTC
2.0 0.1 0.1
0.02
0.1
2.2
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. time steps
*----DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.00001 0.1 0.1 0.001 .01 0.01 0.0001 0. 0.
0.0001 0.0001 0.01 11.1 0.0001
0.01 0.1 0.01
344
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC History match of ASP core flood
*
CC
*
CC LENGTH (FT) :
PROCESS : A/S/P FLOODING
*
CC THICKNESS (FT) :
INJ. PRESSURE (PSI) :
*
CC WIDTH (FT) :
COORDINATES : CARTESIAN
*
CC POROSITY :
*
CC GRID BLOCKS : 1X1X100
*
CC DATE :
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
*----RUNNO
#C1
CC
CC
*----HEADER
ASP coreflood
Experiment
***********************************************************
CC
CC SIMULATION FLAGS
*---- IMODE IMES IDISPC ICWM ICAP IREACT IBIO ICOORD ITREAC ITC IGAS IENG
1 4 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
CC
CC NUMBER OF GRID BLOCKS AND FLAG SPECIFIES CONSTANT OR VARIABLE GRID
SIZE
*----NX NY NZ IDXYZ IUNIT
1 1 100 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT GRID BLOCK SIZE IN X, Y, AND Z
*----DX
DY
DZ
0.1475 0.1475 0.01
CC
CC TOTAL NO. OF COMPONENTS, NO. OF TRACERS, NO. OF GEL COMPONENTS
*----N no NTw nta ngc ng noth
12 0 0 0 4 0 0
CC
CC
*---- SPNAME(I),I=1,N
WATER
OIL
SURFACTANT
345
POLYMER
ANION
CALCIUM
alc1
alc2
CARBONATE
SODIUM
HYDROGEN
pet acid
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE COMPONENT IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS OR NOT
*----ICF(KC) FOR KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 11
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC OUTPUT OPTIONS
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC FLAG FOR PV OR DAYS FOR OUTPUT AND STOP THE RUN
*----ICUMTM ISTOP IOUTGMS
1
1 0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE PROFILE OF KCTH COMPONENT SHOULD BE WRITTEN
*----IPRFLG(KC),KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
CC
CC FLAG FOR PRES,SAT.,TOTAL CONC.,TRACER CONC.,CAP.,GEL, ALKALINE PROFILES
*----IPPRES IPSAT IPCTOT IPBIO IPCAP IPGEL IPALK ITEMP IPOBS
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES
*----ICKL IVIS IPER ICNM ICSE IFOAM IHYST INONEQ
1 1 1 1 1 0 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES TO PROF
*----IADS IVEL IRKF IPHSE
1 0 1 1
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC MAX. SIMULATION TIME ( PV)
*---- TMAX
2.5
CC
346
347
CC
CMC
*---- c2plc c2prc epsme ihand
0 1 0.001 0
CC
CC 3.4.2 flag indicating type of phase behavior parameters
*---- ifghbn=0 for input height of binodal curve; =1 for input sol. ratio
0
CC 3.4.3 SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT
SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 1
*---- hbns70 hbnc70 hbns71 hbnc71 hbns72 hbnc72
0 0.035
0 0.0175 0 0.035
CC 3.4.5 SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT
SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 2
*---- hbns80 hbnc80 hbns81 hbnc81 hbns82 hbnc82
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
CC
CC 3.4.6 LOWER AND UPPER EFFECTIVE SALINITY FOR ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- csel7 cseu7 csel8 cseu8
0.55 1.1 0
0
CC 3.4.7 THE CSE SLOPE PARAMETER FOR CALCIUM AND ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
CC Ca Alcohol#1 Alcohol#2
*---- beta6 beta7 beta8
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.8 FLAG FOR ALCOHOL PART. MODEL AND PARTITION COEFFICIENTS
*---- ialc opsk7o opsk7s opsk8o opsk8s
0 0
0
0
0
CC these are used only for alcohol partitioning in a two alcohol system:
CC 3.4.9 NO. OF ITERATIONS, AND TOLERANCE
*---- nalmax epsalc
20
0.0001
CC 3.4.10 ALCOHOL 1 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
CC aq-oleic aq-oleic surf-oleic
*---- akwc7 akws7 akm7
ak7 pt7
4.671 1.79
48
35.31 0.222
CC
CC 3.4.11 ALCOHOL 2 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc8 akws8 akm8 ak8 pt8
0
0
0 0
0
CC
CC 3.4.22 ift model flag
*---- ift=0 for Healy&Reed; =1 for Chun Huh correl.
1
CC 3.4.24 INTERFACIAL TENSION PARAMETERS
CC typ=.1-.35 typ=5-20
*---- chuh
ahuh
0.3
10
CC 3.4.25 LOG10 OF OIL/WATER INTERFACIAL TENSION
CC units of log 10 dynes/cm = mN/m
*---- xiftw
348
1.3
CC 3.4.26 ORGANIC MASS TRANSFER FLAG
CC imass=0 for no oil sol. in water. icorr=0 for constant MTC
*---- imass icor
0
0
CC 3.4.31 CAPILLARY DESATURATION PARAMETERS FOR PHASE 1, 2, AND 3
CC
AQ OLEIC ME
*---- itrap t11
t22
t33
2
1865 59074 364.2
CC
CC 3.4.32 FLAG FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY AND CAPILLARY PRESSURE MODEL
*---- iperm=0 IRTYPE
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.35 FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE REL. PERM. PARAMETERS
*---- isrw iprw iew
0 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT RES. SATURATION OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----S1RWC S2RWC S3RWC
.32 .35 .32
CC
CC CONSTANT ENDPOINT REL. PERM. OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----P1RW P2RW P3RW
.05 0.6 .05
CC
CC CONSTANT REL. PERM. EXPONENT OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----E1W E2W E3W
3.5 2.0 3.5
CC
CC RES. SATURATION OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----S1RC S2RC S3RC
.0 .0 .0
CC
CC ENDPOINT REL. PERM. OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----P1RC P2RC P3RC
1.0 1.0 1.0
CC
CC REL. PERM. EXPONENT OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----E13CW E23C E31C
1.0 1.0 1.0
CC 3.4.61 WATER AND OIL VISCOSITY , RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE
CC water oil
=0 for isothermal modeling
*---- VIS1 VIS2 TSTAND
0.5 19 0
CC
CC 3.4.80 COMPOSITIONAL PHASE VISCOSITY PARAMETERS for microemulsion
*---- ALPHAV1 ALPHAV2 ALPHAV3 ALPHAV4 ALPHAV5
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.5 0.5
CC
CC 3.4.81 PARAMETERS TO CALCULATE POLYMER VISCOSITY AT ZERO SHEAR RATE
*---- AP1 AP2 AP3
349
45
200 850
CC
CC 3.4.82 PARAMETER TO COMPUTE CSEP,MIN. CSEP, AND SLOPE OF LOG VIS. VS. LOG
CSEP
*---- BETAP CSE1 SSLOPE
1 0.01 -0.38
CC
CC 3.4.83 PARAMETER FOR SHEAR RATE DEPENDENCE OF POLYMER VISCOSITY
*---- GAMMAC GAMHF POWN IPMOD
4.0 10.0 1.9 0
CC
CC 3.4.84 FLAG FOR POLYMER PARTITIONING, PERM. REDUCTION PARAMETERS
*---- IPOLYM EPHI3 EPHI4 BRK CRK
RKCUT
1
1.0 0.80 100 0.05
10
CC 3.4.85 SPECIFIC WEIGHT FOR COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,8 ,Coeffient of oil and GRAVITY
FLAG
CC if IDEN=1 ignore gravity effect; =2 then include gravity effect
*---- DEN1 DEN2 DEN23 DEN3 DEN7 DEN8 IDEN
0.44 0.4065 0.4065 0.42 0.346 0
2
CC ISTB=0:BOTTOMHOLE CONDITION , 1: STOCK TANK
CC 3.4.93 FLAG FOR CHOICE OF UNITS when printing
*----- ISTB
1
CC 3.4.94 FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR - may set all these to 1.0 and just factor in post-proc
CC
water oil
me
*----- FVF(I), I=1 TO MXP (IGAS=0 MXP=3,IGAS=1 MXP=4)
1.00265
1.057
1
CC
CC 3.4.95 COMPRESSIBILITY FOR VOL. OCCUPYING COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8
*---- COMPC(1)
COMPC(2) COMPC(3) COMPC(7) COMPC(8)
0.0000033
0.0000234
0
0
0
CC IOW=0 water wet, =1 oil wet, =2 mixed wet
CC 3.4.99 CONSTANT OR VARIABLE PC PARAM., WATER-WET OR OIL-WET PC CURVE
FLAG
*---- ICPC IEPC IOW
0
0 0
CC
CC 3.4.100 CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, CPC0
*---- CPC0
0
CC
CC 3.4.103 CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, EPC0
*---- EPC0
0.0
CC
CC 3.4.117 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 1
*---- D(KC,1),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.118 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 2
*---- D(KC,2),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
CC
CC 3.4.119 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 3
*---- D(KC,3),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.121 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 1
*---- ALPHAL(1) ALPHAT(1)
0.02
0.002
CC
CC 3.4.122 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 2
*---- ALPHAL(2) ALPHAT(2)
0.02
0.002
CC
CC 3.4.124 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 3
*---- ALPHAL(3) ALPHAT(3)
0.02
0.002
CC
CC 3.4.125 flag to specify organic adsorption calculation
*---- iadso=0 if organic adsorption is not considered
0
CC
CC 3.4.130 SURFACTANT AND POLYMER ADSORPTION PARAMETERS
*---- AD31 AD32 B3D AD41 AD42 B4D IADK IADS1 FADS REFK
3.0 0.1 1000 2.0 0.1 100 0 0 0 50
CC
CC 3.4.131 PARAMETERS FOR CATION EXCHANGE OF CLAY AND SURFACTANT
*---- QV XKC XKS EQW
0
0 0
400
2 1
7 13 13 0.1
0.1 0.2
5 10 0 2 0 1
5 1 4 6
3 2 0 0 1
0 0 0
4
CARBON (AS CARBOBATES)
-2.00
SODIUM
1.00
HYDROGEN (REACTIVE)
1.00
Oleic acid
-1.00
chlorine (* ELEMNT *)
-1.00
HYDROGEN ION
SODIUM ION
CARBONATE ION
HAo
WATER
AOHHCO3H2CO3
HAw (* FLDSPS *)
SORBED HYDROGEN ION
351
352
353
CC
CC IRO, ITIME, NEW FLAGS FOR ALL THE WELLS
*---- IRO ITIME IFLAG
2
1
1 2
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS CHANGES IN LOCATION OR SKIN OR PWF
*---- NWEL1
0
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS WITH RATE CHANGES, ID
*---- NWEL2 ID
1
1
CC
CC ID,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*---- ID QI(M,L) water oil surf polymer Chlor divalent
1 0.004712 1.0 0. 0.0 0.20
0.102564 0.001 0. 0. 0.001 0.102564 111 0.00000001
1
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
1
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*---- TINJ
CUMPR1
CUMHI1 WRHPV WRPRF RSTC
2.5
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
2.5
CC
CC FOR IMES=4 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. TIME STEPS
*---- DT
DCLIM
CNMAX CNMIN
0.0001
12*0.01 0.1
0.01
354
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
*----RUNNO
ASP-03
CC
CC
*----HEADER
ASP coreflood
Experiment -- based on reservoir properties
1% Na2CO3 is injected
CC
CC SIMULATION FLAGS
*---- IMODE IMES IDISPC ICWM ICAP IREACT IBIO ICOORD ITREAC ITC IGAS IENG
1 4 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
CC
CC NUMBER OF GRID BLOCKS AND FLAG SPECIFIES CONSTANT OR VARIABLE GRID
SIZE
*----NX NY NZ IDXYZ IUNIT
1 1 100 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT GRID BLOCK SIZE IN X, Y, AND Z
*----DX
DY
DZ
0.1445 0.1445 0.01
CC
CC TOTAL NO. OF COMPONENTS, NO. OF TRACERS, NO. OF GEL COMPONENTS
*----N no NTw nta ngc ng noth
12 0 0 0 4 0 0
CC
CC
*---- SPNAME(I),I=1,N
WATER
OIL
SURFACTANT
POLYMER
ANION
CALCIUM
alc1
alc2
CARBONATE
SODIUM
HYDROGEN
pet acid
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE COMPONENT IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS OR NOT
*----ICF(KC) FOR KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 11
CC
CC*******************************************************************
355
CC
*
CC OUTPUT OPTIONS
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC FLAG FOR PV OR DAYS FOR OUTPUT AND STOP THE RUN
*----ICUMTM ISTOP IOUTGMS
1
1 0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE PROFILE OF KCTH COMPONENT SHOULD BE WRITTEN
*----IPRFLG(KC),KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
CC
CC FLAG FOR PRES,SAT.,TOTAL CONC.,TRACER CONC.,CAP.,GEL, ALKALINE PROFILES
*----IPPRES IPSAT IPCTOT IPBIO IPCAP IPGEL IPALK ITEMP IPOBS
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES
*----ICKL IVIS IPER ICNM ICSE IFOAM IHYST INONEQ
1 1 0 1 1 0 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES TO PROF
*----IADS IVEL IRKF IPHSE
1 0 1 1
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC MAX. SIMULATION TIME ( PV)
*---- TMAX
2
CC
CC ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY (1/PSI), STAND. PRESSURE(PSIA)
*----COMPR PSTAND
0. 0.
CC
CC FLAGS INDICATING CONSTANT OR VARIABLE POROSITY, X,Y,AND Z
PERMEABILITY
*----IPOR1 IPERMX IPERMY IPERMZ IMOD ITRANZ
0 0 3 3 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT POROSITY
*----PORC1
.31
CC
CC CONSTANT X-PERMEABILITY (MILIDARCY) FOR LAYER K = 1,NZ
*----PERMX
356
7000
CC
CC Y DIRECTION PERMEABILITY IS DEPENDENT ON X DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
*---- CONSTANT PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR Y DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
1
CC
CC Z DIRECTION PERMEABILITY IS DEPENDENT ON X DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
*---- CONSTANT PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR Z DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
1
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE DEPTH, PRESSURE, WATER SATURATION
*----IDEPTH IPRESS ISWI ICWI
0
0
0 -1
CC
CC CONSTANT DEPTH (FT)
*----D111
0.
CC
CC INITIAL PRESSURE (PSIA)
*----PINIT DEPTH
14.7 0.0
CC 72% oil sat. initially
CC CONSTANT INITIAL WATER SATURATION (residual oil)
*----SWI
0.28
CC
CC CONSTANT CHLORIDE AND CALCIUM CONCENTRATIONS (MEQ/ML)
*----C50
C60
0.33 0.0
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC 3.4.1 OIL CONC. AT PLAIT POINT FOR TYPE II(+)AND TYPE II(-), CMC
CC
CMC
*---- c2plc c2prc epsme ihand
0 1 0.001 0
CC
CC 3.4.2 flag indicating type of phase behavior parameters
*---- ifghbn=0 for input height of binodal curve; =1 for input sol. ratio
0
CC 3.4.3 SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT
SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 1
*---- hbns70 hbnc70 hbns71 hbnc71 hbns72 hbnc72
0 0.05
0 0.02 0 0.05
CC 3.4.5 SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT
SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 2
357
358
359
CC 3.4.85 SPECIFIC WEIGHT FOR COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,8 ,Coeffient of oil and GRAVITY
FLAG
CC if IDEN=1 ignore gravity effect; =2 then include gravity effect
*---- DEN1 DEN2 DEN23 DEN3 DEN7 DEN8 IDEN
0.44 0.4065 0.4065 0.42 0.346 0
2
CC ISTB=0:BOTTOMHOLE CONDITION , 1: STOCK TANK
CC 3.4.93 FLAG FOR CHOICE OF UNITS when printing
*----- ISTB
0
CC
CC 3.4.95 COMPRESSIBILITY FOR VOL. OCCUPYING COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8
*---- COMPC(1)
COMPC(2) COMPC(3) COMPC(7) COMPC(8)
0.00000
0.0000
0
0
0
CC IOW=0 water wet, =1 oil wet, =2 mixed wet
CC 3.4.99 CONSTANT OR VARIABLE PC PARAM., WATER-WET OR OIL-WET PC CURVE
FLAG
*---- ICPC IEPC IOW
0
0 0
CC
CC 3.4.100 CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, CPC0
*---- CPC0
0
CC
CC 3.4.103 CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, EPC0
*---- EPC0
0.0
CC
CC 3.4.117 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 1
*---- D(KC,1),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.118 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 2
*---- D(KC,2),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.119 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 3
*---- D(KC,3),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.121 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 1
*---- ALPHAL(1) ALPHAT(1)
0.005
0.001
CC
CC 3.4.122 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 2
*---- ALPHAL(2) ALPHAT(2)
0.005
0.001
CC
CC 3.4.124 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 3
*---- ALPHAL(3) ALPHAT(3)
0.005
0.001
CC
CC 3.4.125 flag to specify organic adsorption calculation
360
361
362
CC
CC WELL ID, LOCATION, AND FLAG FOR SPECIFYING WELL TYPE, WELL RADIUS, SKIN
*----IDW IW JW IFLAG RW SWELL IDIR IFIRST ILAST IPRF
2 1 1 2
.003 0. 3 1
1
0
CC
CC WELL NAME
*---- WELNAM
PRODUCER
CC
CC MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
*----ICHEK PWFMIN PWFMAX QTMIN QTMAX
0 0.0 5000. 0.0 50000.
CC
CC ID,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*----ID QI(M,L) C(M,KC,L) 1% Na2CO3 in Captain water with no divalent
1 0.0064729 0.999 0. 0.001 0.30 0.325 0.001 0. 0. 0.188 0.514 111 0.0
1
0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
1
0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC ID,
*----ID PWF
2 14.7
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV OR DAY) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*----TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI1 WRHPV WRPRF RSTC
0.3 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
2.0
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. COURANT NO.
*----DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.000001 12*0.01 0.1 0.01
CC****** INJECT no surfactant *********************
CC FLAG FOR INDICATING BOUNDARY CHANGE
*---- IBMOD
0
CC
CC IRO, ITIME, NEW FLAGS FOR ALL THE WELLS
*---- IRO ITIME IFLAG
2
1
1 2
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS CHANGES IN LOCATION OR SKIN OR PWF
*---- NWEL1
0
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS WITH RATE CHANGES, ID
*---- NWEL2 ID
1
1
CC
CC ID,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*---- ID QI(M,L) water oil surf polymer Chloride divalent
1 0.0064729 1.0 0. 0.0 0.30 0.325 0.001 0. 0. 0.001 0.325 111 0.00000001
1
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
1
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
363
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*---- TINJ
CUMPR1
CUMHI1 WRHPV WRPRF RSTC
2
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
2.0
CC
CC FOR IMES=4 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. TIME STEPS
*---- DT
DCLIM
CNMAX CNMIN
0.00001
12*0.01 0.1
0.01
10. UTCHEM Input File for ASP Field Scale (2D) in Chapter 6
*************************************************************************
CC
*
CC BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DATA SET : UTCHEM (VERSION 9.3)
*
CC
*
CC***********************************************************************
CC
*
CC Field ASP Flood Evaluation
*
CC
*
CC LENGTH (FT) :
PROCESS : ASP
*
CC THICKNESS (FT) :
Rate (p & i) CONSTRAINTS
*
CC WIDTH (FT) :
COORDINATES : CARTESIAN
*
CC POROSITY :
DAY SPECIFICATION
*
CC GRID BLOCKS :
COURANT NUMBER SPECIFICATION
*
CC NON UNIFORM GRIDBLOCK SIZES
WELL SKIN = 0
*
CC
*
CC***********************************************************************
CC
*
CC***********************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
*
CC
*
CC***********************************************************************
CC
CC Run number
*---- RUNNO
ASP-2D
CC
CC Title and run description
*---- title(i)
ASP flood: 18000 bpd inj and 6000 bpd prod each well
after 12.25 yr of waterflood (injection and production well rater constraint)
****************************************************
CC
CC SIMULATION FLAGS: IMODE = 1 for new case, IMODE=2 for restart
*---- IMODE IMES IDISPC ICWM ICAP IREACT IBIO ICOORD ITREAC ITC IGAS IENG
1 4 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
364
CC
CC no. of gridblocks,flag specifies constant or variable grid size, unit
*---- NX NY NZ IDXYZ IUNIT
48 1 16 1 0
CC
CC VARIABLE GRID SIZE ON A REGIONAL BASIS IN X DIRECTION
*---- II1, II2, DX1
1
1
328.084
2
2
164.042
3
46
82.021
47
47
164.042
48
48
328.084
CC
CC VARIABLE GRID SIZE ON A REGIONAL BASIS IN Y DIRECTION
*---- JJ1, JJ2, DY1
1
1
65.61675
CC
CC VARIABLE GRID SIZE ON A REGIONAL BASIS IN Z DIRECTION
*---- KK1, KK2, DZ1
1
16
8.2021
CC
CC total no. of components, no. of tracers, no. of gel components
*----n no ntw nta ngc ng noth
12 0 0 0 4 0 0
CC
CC Name of the components
*----spname(i) for i=1 to n
WATER
OIL
SURFACTANT
POLYMER
ANION
CALCIUM
alc1
alc2
CARBONATE
SODIUM
HYDROGEN
pet acid
CC
CC flag indicating if the component is included in calculations or not
*----icf(kc) for kc=1,n
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 11
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC 3.2 OUTPUT OPTIONS
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC ICUM=0 for output in days, =1 for PV
CC ISTOP=0 for TMAX & TINJ in days, =1 for PV
365
CC 3.2.1 FLAG TO WRITE TO UNIT 3,FLAG FOR PV OR DAYS TO PRINT OR TO STOP THE
RUN
*---- ICUMTM ISTOP IOUTGMS
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.2.2 FLAG INDICATING IF THE PROFILE OF KCTH COMPONENT SHOULD BE
WRITTEN
*---- IPRFLG(KC),KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 11
CC
CC 3.2.3 FLAG FOR PRES.,SAT.,TOTAL CONC.,TRACER CONC.,CAP.,GEL,
ALKALINEPROFILES
*---- IPPRES IPSAT IPCTOT IPBIO IPCAP IPGEL IPALK IPTEMP IPOBS
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
CC
CC 3.2.4 FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES TO UNIT 4 (Prof)
*---- ICKL IVIS IPER ICNM ICSE IHYSTP IFOAMP INONEQ
1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
CC
CC 3.2.5 FLAG for variables to PROF output file
*---- IADS IVEL IRKF IPHSE
1 0 1 0
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC 3.3 RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC 3.3.1 MAX. SIMULATION TIME ( DAYS)
*---- TMAX
3000.0
CC
CC 3.3.2 ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY (1/PSI), STAND. PRESSURE(PSIA)
*---- COMPR
PSTAND
0
1270.
CC
CC 3.3.3 FLAGS INDICATING CONSTANT OR VARIABLE POROSITY, X,Y,AND Z
PERMEABILITY
*---- IPOR1 IPERMX IPERMY IPERMZ IMOD
0 0 3 3 0
CC
CC 3.3.6 utchem and eclipse same index order: x fastest, then y, then z
*---- POR, pore volume / bulk volume: 1,1,1 2,1,1 3,1,1 1,2,1 2,2,1
0.31
CC
CC 3.3.7 Constant PERMEABILITY OVER RESERVOIR
*---- PERMX, in md
7000.
CC
366
367
368
369
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
CC C50=anion C60=divalent cation
CC 3.3.52 BRINE SALINITY AND DIVALENT CATION CONCENTRATION (MEQ/ML)
*---- C50
C60
0.33
0
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC 3.4 PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC 3.4.1 OIL CONC. AT PLAIT POINT FOR TYPE II(+)AND TYPE II(-), CMC
CC
CMC
*---- c2plc c2prc epsme ihand
0 1 0.001 0
CC
CC 3.4.2 flag indicating type of phase behavior parameters
*---- ifghbn=0 for input height of binodal curve; =1 for input sol. ratio
0
CC 3.4.3 SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT
SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 1
*---- hbns70 hbnc70 hbns71 hbnc71 hbns72 hbnc72
0 0.05
0 0.02 0 0.05
CC 3.4.5 SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT
SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 2
*---- hbns80 hbnc80 hbns81 hbnc81 hbns82 hbnc82
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.6 LOWER AND UPPER EFFECTIVE SALINITY FOR ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- csel7 cseu7 csel8 cseu8
0.8 1.2 0
0
CC 3.4.7 THE CSE SLOPE PARAMETER FOR CALCIUM AND ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
CC Ca Alcohol#1 Alcohol#2
*---- beta6 beta7 beta8
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.8 FLAG FOR ALCOHOL PART. MODEL AND PARTITION COEFFICIENTS
*---- ialc opsk7o opsk7s opsk8o opsk8s
0 0
0
0
0
CC these are used only for alcohol partitioning in a two alcohol system:
CC 3.4.9 NO. OF ITERATIONS, AND TOLERANCE
370
371
CC
CC 3.4.58 RES. SATURATION OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*---- s1rc s2rc s3rc
0 0 0
CC
CC 3.4.59 ENDPOINT REL. PERM. OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*---- p1rc p2rc p3rc
1 1 1
CC
CC 3.4.60 REL. PERM. EXPONENT OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*---- e13c e23c e31c
1 1 1
CC 3.4.61 WATER AND OIL VISCOSITY , RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE
CC water oil
=0 for isothermal modeling
*---- VIS1 VIS2 TSTAND
0.80 81.3195 0
CC
CC 3.4.80 COMPOSITIONAL PHASE VISCOSITY PARAMETERS for microemulsion
*---- ALPHAV1 ALPHAV2 ALPHAV3 ALPHAV4 ALPHAV5
0.5
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
CC
CC 3.4.81 PARAMETERS TO CALCULATE POLYMER VISCOSITY AT ZERO SHEAR RATE
*---- AP1 AP2 AP3
55
550
300
CC
CC 3.4.82 PARAMETER TO COMPUTE CSEP,MIN. CSEP, AND SLOPE OF LOG VIS. VS.
LOGCSEP
*---- BETAP CSE1 SSLOPE
1 0.01 -0.33
CC
CC 3.4.83 PARAMETER FOR SHEAR RATE DEPENDENCE OF POLYMER VISCOSITY
*---- GAMMAC GAMHF POWN
3.97 10 2.0
CC
CC 3.4.84 FLAG FOR POLYMER PARTITIONING, PERM. REDUCTION PARAMETERS
*---- IPOLYM EPHI3 EPHI4 BRK CRK
1
1
1 100 0.04
CC 3.4.85 SPECIFIC WEIGHT FOR COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,8 ,
CC if IDEN=1 ignore gravity effect; =2 then include gravity effect
*---- DEN1 DEN2 DEN23 DEN3 DEN7 DEN8 IDEN
0.44 0.4065 0.4065 0.42 0.346 0
2
CC ISTB=0:BOTTOMHOLE CONDITION , 1: STOCK TANK
CC 3.4.93 FLAG FOR CHOICE OF UNITS when printing
*----- ISTB
1
CC 3.4.94 FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR CC
water oil
me
*----- FVF(I), I=1 TO MXP (IGAS=0 MXP=3,IGAS=1 MXP=4)
1.00265
1.057
1
CC
CC 3.4.95 COMPRESSIBILITY FOR VOL. OCCUPYING COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8
*---- COMPC(1)
COMPC(2) COMPC(3) COMPC(7) COMPC(8)
372
0.0000033
0.0000234
0
0
0
CC IOW=0 water wet, =1 oil wet, =2 mixed wet
CC 3.4.99 CONSTANT OR VARIABLE PC PARAM., WATER-WET OR OIL-WET PC CURVE
FLAG
*---- ICPC IEPC IOW
0
0 0
CC
CC 3.4.100 CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, CPC0
*---- CPC0
0.0
CC
CC 3.4.103 CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, EPC0
*---- EPC0
0.0
CC
CC 3.4.117 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 1
*---- D(KC,1),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.118 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 2
*---- D(KC,2),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.119 MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 3
*---- D(KC,3),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC 3.4.121 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 1
*---- ALPHAL(1) ALPHAT(1)
0.16
0.04
CC
CC 3.4.122 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 2
*---- ALPHAL(2) ALPHAT(2)
0.16
0.04
CC
CC 3.4.124 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 3
*---- ALPHAL(3) ALPHAT(3)
0.16
0.04
CC
CC 3.4.125 flag to specify organic adsorption calculation
*---- iadso=0 if organic adsorption is not considered
0
CC
CC 3.4.130 SURFACTANT AND POLYMER ADSORPTION PARAMETERS
*---- AD31 AD32 B3D AD41 AD42 B4D IADK IADS1 FADS REFK
1.9 0.1 1000. 0.0 0.0 100.
0
0 0 700.
CC
CC 3.4.131 PARAMETERS FOR CATION EXCHANGE OF CLAY AND SURFACTANT
*---- QV XKC XKS EQW
0
0 0
804
2 1
7 13 13 0.1
373
0.25 0.35
5 10 0 2 0 1
5 1 4 6
3 2 0 0 1
0 0 0
4
CARBON (AS CARBOBATES)
-2.00
SODIUM
1.00
HYDROGEN (REACTIVE)
1.00
Oleic acid
-1.00
chlorine (* ELEMNT *)
-1.00
HYDROGEN ION
SODIUM ION
CARBONATE ION
HAo
WATER
AOHHCO3H2CO3
HAw (* FLDSPS *)
SORBED HYDROGEN ION
SORBED SODIUM ION (* SORBSPS *)
2
0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0.
0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1. 0. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 1. 2. 1.
0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1.
0. 0.
0. 1.
1. 0.
0. 0.
1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
-1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
1.0 1.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01
0.1000000000000E+01 0.1000000000000E+01 0.5111109189239E-12
0.1460000000000E-13 0.2110000000000E+11 0.4890000000000E+17
0.5111109189239E-04
0.2700000000000E+07
-1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0
374
0.0
0.3314998194551E-01
0.3250000000000E+00 0.0000000000000E+00
0.2000000000036E-02
0.3255849484789E+00
0.1109874150515E+03
0.1089260793651E-05
0.2063731180133E-01
0.3060460680743E-06 0.3255849484789E+00 0.9058995723128E-07
0.1099891073921E-01 0.5548749995229E+02
0.2378020355988E-01 0.9369778385637E-02
0.9999994553699E+00 0.9897867313046E+00
0.1000000000000E-07 0.5000000000000E+03
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC 3.7 WELL DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC 3.7.1 FLAG FOR SPECIFIED BOUNDARY AND ZONE IS MODELED
*---- IBOUND IZONE
0 0
CC 3.7.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF WELLS, WELL RADIUS FLAG, FLAG FOR TIME OR
COURANT NO.
CC IRO=2 for Peaceman. ITIME=0 for days; =1 for CN for min&max tstep size
*---- NWELL IRO ITIME NWREL
4 2
1
4
CC 3.7.6a WELL ID,LOCATIONS,AND FLAG FOR SPECIFYING WELL TYPE, WELL RADIUS,
SKIN
CC
=3 for press. inj. =2for y horiz. well
*---- IDW IW ZW IFLAG RW SWELL IDIR JFIRST JLAST IPRF
1 6 1
1 0.35 0 3 12
12 0
CC
CC 3.7.6c WELL NAME
*---- WELNAM
INJ1
CC
51000.
CC 3.7.6d ICHEK , MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
*---- ICHEK PWFMIN PWFMAX QTMIN
QTMAX
0
0
6000. 0
102000.
CC 3.7.6a WELL ID,LOCATIONS,AND FLAG FOR SPECIFYING WELL TYPE, WELL RADIUS,
SKIN
CC
=4 for rate prod.
=2for y horiz. well
*---- IDW IW ZW IFLAG RW SWELL IDIR IFIRST ILAST IPRF
2 18 1
4 0.35 0
3 1 1 0
CC
CC 3.7.6c WELL NAME
*---- WELNAM
PROD1
CC 3.7.6d ICHEK , MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
375
376
750.0
150.0 150.0
1.0
150.0
750.0
CC
CC 3.7.11 FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. courant numbers
*---- DT
DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.000001
12*0.01 0.1
0.02
CC
CC 3.7.14 FLAG FOR INDICATING BOUNDARY CHANGE
*---- IBMOD
0
CC
CC 3.7.19 IRO, ITIME, NEW FLAGS FOR ALL THE WELLS
*---- IRO ITIME IFLAG
2
1
1 4 4 4
CC
CC 3.7.20 NUMBER OF WELLS CHANGES IN LOCATION OR SKIN OR PWF
*---- NWEL1
0
CC
CC 3.7. NUMBER OF WELLS WITH RATE CHANGES, ID
*---- NWEL2 ID
1
1
CC
CC 3.7.7a ID,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE
(L=1,3)
*---- ID QI(M,L) water oil surf polymer Chlor divalent
1
5100 1.0 0. 0.0 0.30 0.325 0. 0. 0. 0.001 0.325 111 0.0001
1
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
1
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
CC 3.7.8 ***********************************************************************
CC
profilesPROF prodPROF prodHIST maps
recovery
*---- TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI1
WRHPV WRPRF
RSTC
3000. 150.0 150.0
5.0
150.0 3000.0
CC
CC 3.7.11 FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. courant numbers
*---- DT
DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.000001
12*0.01 0.1
0.02
377
CC THICKNESS (FT) :
INJ. PRESSURE (PSI) :
*
CC WIDTH (FT) :
COORDINATES :
*
CC POROSITY :
*
CC GRID BLOCKS : 1X1X100
*
CC DATE :
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
*----RUNNO
BM-07
CC
CC
*----HEADER
High pH surfactant/polymer coreflood
using sandstone core
***********************************************************
CC
CC SIMULATION FLAGS
*---- IMODE IMES IDISPC ICWM ICAP IREACT IBIO ICOORD ITREAC ITC IGAS IENG
1 4 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
CC
CC NUMBER OF GRID BLOCKS AND FLAG SPECIFIES CONSTANT OR VARIABLE GRID
SIZE
*----NX NY NZ IDXYZ IUNIT
1 1 100 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT GRID BLOCK SIZE IN X, Y, AND Z
*----DX
DY
DZ
0.1665 0.1665
0.04
CC
CC TOTAL NO. OF COMPONENTS, NO. OF TRACERS, NO. OF GEL COMPONENTS
*----N no NTw nta ngc ng noth
11 0 0 0 3 0 0
CC
CC
*---- SPNAME(I),I=1,N
WATER
OIL
SURFACTANT
POLYMER
ANION
CALCIUM
alc1
alc2
CARBOBATE
378
SODIUM
HYDROGEN
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE COMPONENT IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS OR NOT
*----ICF(KC) FOR KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC OUTPUT OPTIONS
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC FLAG FOR PV OR DAYS FOR OUTPUT AND STOP THE RUN
*----ICUMTM ISTOP IOUTGMS
1
1 0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING IF THE PROFILE OF KCTH COMPONENT SHOULD BE WRITTEN
*----IPRFLG(KC),KC=1,N
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
CC
CC FLAG FOR PRES,SAT.,TOTAL CONC.,TRACER CONC.,CAP.,GEL, ALKALINE PROFILES
*----IPPRES IPSAT IPCTOT IPBIO IPCAP IPGEL IPALK ITEMP IPOBS
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES
*----ICKL IVIS IPER ICNM ICSE IFOAM IHYST INONEQ
1 1 0 0 1 0 0
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR WRITING SEVERAL PROPERTIES TO PROF
*----IADS IVEL IRKF IPHSE
1 0 1 1
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC MAX. SIMULATION TIME ( PV)
*---- TMAX
2.0
CC
CC ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY (1/PSI), STAND. PRESSURE(PSIA)
*----COMPR PSTAND
0. 0.
CC
CC FLAGS INDICATING CONSTANT OR VARIABLE POROSITY, X,Y,AND Z
PERMEABILITY
*----IPOR1 IPERMX IPERMY IPERMZ IMOD ITRANZ
379
0 0 3 3 0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT POROSITY
*----PORC1
.165
CC
CC CONSTANT X-PERMEABILITY (MILIDARCY) FOR LAYER K = 1,NZ
*----PERMX
1297
CC
CC Y DIRECTION PERMEABILITY IS DEPENDENT ON X DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
*---- CONSTANT PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR Y DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
1
CC
CC Z DIRECTION PERMEABILITY IS DEPENDENT ON X DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
*---- CONSTANT PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR Z DIRECTION PERMEABILITY
1
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE DEPTH, PRESSURE, WATER SATURATION
*----IDEPTH IPRESS ISWI ICWI
0
0
0 -1
CC
CC CONSTANT DEPTH (FT)
*----D111
0.
CC
CC INITIAL PRESSURE (PSIA)
*----PINIT DEPTH
14.7 0.0
CC
CC CONSTANT INITIAL WATER SATURATION (residual oil)
*----SWI
0.65
CC
CC CONSTANT CHLORIDE AND CALCIUM CONCENTRATIONS (MEQ/ML)
*----C50
C60
0.0396 0.0
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
CC OIL CONC. AT PLAIT POINT FOR TYPE II(+)AND TYPE II(-), CMC
*---- C2PLC C2PRC EPSME IHAND
0. 1. .001 0
CC
CC FLAG INDICATING TYPE OF PHASE BEHAVIOR PARAMETERS
*---- IFGHBN
0
380
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 1
*---- hbns70 hbnc70 hbns71 hbnc71 hbns72 hbnc72
0.0
0.035 0.14 0.024 0.0 0.035
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 2
*---- hbns80 hbnc80 hbns81 hbnc81 hbns82 hbnc82
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC LOWER AND UPPER EFFECTIVE SALINITY FOR ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- csel7 cseu7 csel8 cseu8
0.11
0.19 0
0
CC
CC THE CSE SLOPE PARAMETER FOR CALCIUM AND ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- beta6 beta7 beta8
0 2.81
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR ALCOHOL PART. MODEL AND PARTITION COEFFICIENTS
*---- ialc opsk7o opsk7s opsk8o opsk8s
1 0.0
0.0
0
0
CC
CC NO. OF ITERATIONS, AND TOLERANCE
*---- nalmax epsalc
20
0.0001
CC
CC ALCOHOL 1 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc7 akws7 akm7 ak7 pt7
3.
1.76
90 35.31 0.172
CC
CC ALCOHOL 2 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc8 akws8 akm8 ak8 pt8
0
0
0 0
0
cc
cc
*--- ift
1
CC
CC INTERFACIAL TENSION PARAMETERS
*----CHUH
AHUH
0.3 10
CC
CC LOG10 OF OIL/WATER INTERFACIAL TENSION
*----XIFTW
1.48
CC
CC FLAG TO ALLOW SOLUBILITY OF OIL IN WATER
*---- IMASS ICOR
0 0
CC
CC CAPILLARY DESATURATION PARAMETERS FOR PHASE 1, 2, AND 3
*----ITRAP T11
T22
T33
2
1865. 59000 364.2
381
CC
CC REL. PERM. AND PC CURVES
*---- IPERM
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE REL. PERM. PARAMETERS
*----ISRW IPRW IEW
0 0 0
CC
CC CONSTANT RES. SATURATION OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----S1RWC S2RWC S3RWC
.38 .35 .38
CC
CC CONSTANT ENDPOINT REL. PERM. OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----P1RW P2RW P3RW
.05 .85 .05
CC
CC CONSTANT REL. PERM. EXPONENT OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT LOW CAPILLARY NO.
*----E1W E2W E3W
2.0 1.7
2.0
CC
CC RES. SATURATION OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----S1RC S2RC S3RC
.0 .0 .0
CC
CC ENDPOINT REL. PERM. OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----P1RC P2RC P3RC
1.0 1.0 1.0
CC
CC REL. PERM. EXPONENT OF PHASES 1,2,AND 3 AT HIGH CAPILLARY NO.
*----E13CW E23C E31C
1. 1. 1.0
CC
CC WATER AND OIL VISCOSITY , RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE
*----VIS1 VIS2 TEMPV
0.370 8.0 0.0
CC
CC VISCOSITY PARAMETERS
*----ALPHA1 ALPHA2 ALPHA3 ALPHA4 ALPHA5
0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CC
CC PARAMETERS TO CALCULATE POLYMER VISCOSITY AT ZERO SHEAR RATE
*----AP1 AP2 AP3
40 200. 300.
CC
CC PARAMETER TO COMPUTE CSEP,MIN. CSEP, AND SLOPE OF LOG VIS. VS. LOG CSEP
*----BETAP CSE1 SSLOPE
1. .01 -0.40
CC
CC PARAMETER FOR SHEAR RATE DEPENDENCE OF POLYMER VISCOSITY
*----GAMMAC GAMHF POWN IPMOD
4.0 35. 1.5 0
382
CC
CC FLAG FOR POLYMER PARTITIONING, PERM. REDUCTION PARAMETERS
*----IPOLYM EPHI3 EPHI4 BRK CRK rkcut
1
1.0 0.85 100. 0.04 10
CC
CC SPECIFIC WEIGHT FOR COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8 , AND GRAVITY FLAG
*----DEN1 DEN2 den23 DEN3 DEN7 DEN8 IDEN
.433 .390 0.397 .42 .346 0. 2
CC
CC FLAG FOR CHOICE OF UNITS ( 0:BOTTOMHOLE CONDITION , 1: STOCK TANK)
*-----ISTB
1
CC
CC FVF FOR PHASE 1,2,3
*-----(FVF(L),L=1,NPHAS)
1 1 1
CC
CC COMPRESSIBILITY FOR VOL. OCCUPYING COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8
*----COMPC(1) COMPC(2) COMPC(3) COMPC(7) COMPC(8)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CC
CC CONSTANT OR VARIABLE PC PARAM., WATER-WET OR OIL-WET PC CURVE FLAG
*----ICPC IEPC IOW
0
0 0
CC
CC CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETERS, CPC
*----CPC
0.
CC
CC CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETERS, EPC
*---- EPC
2.
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSIVITY OF KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 1 (D(KC),KC=1,N)
*----D(1) D(2) D(3) D(4) D(5) D(6)
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSIVITY OF KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 2 (D(KC),KC=1,N)
*----D(1) D(2) D(3) D(4) D(5) D(6)
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSIVITY OF KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 3 (D(KC),KC=1,N)
*----D(1) D(2) D(3) D(4) D(5) D(6)
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 1
*----ALPHAL(1) ALPHAT(1)
0.08
0.002
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 2
*----ALPHAL(2) ALPHAT(2)
0.08 0.002
383
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 3
*----ALPHAL(3) ALPHAT(3)
0.08 0.002
CC
CC FLAG TO SPECIFY ORGANIC ADSORPTION CALCULATION
*----IADSO
0
CC
CC SURFACTANT AND POLYMER ADSORPTION PARAMETERS
*----AD31 AD32 B3D AD41 AD42 B4D IADK, IADS1, FADS refk
3.0 0.1 1000. 1.0 0. 100. 0 0 0 0
CC
CC PARAMETERS FOR CATION EXCHANGE OF CLAY AND SURFACTANT
*----QV
XKC XKS EQW
0.16 0.25 0.4 429.
21
7 13 13 0.1
5 11 0 3 0 1
5 1 5 0
4 3 1 0 2
0 0 0
CALCIUM
2.00
CARBON (AS CARBOBATES)
-2.00
SODIUM
1.00
HYDROGEN (REACTIVE)
1.00
CHLORINE (* ELEMNT *)
-1.00
HYDROGEN ION
SODIUM ION
CALCIUM ION
CARBONATE ION
WATER
CALCIUM MONOHYDROXIDE ION
CA (HC03) +
HYDROXIDE ION
BICARBONATE ION
DISSOLVED CARBON MONOHYDROXIDE
AQUEOUS CALCIUM CARBONATE (* FL
SORBED HYDROGEN ION
SORBED SODIUM ION
SORBED CALCIUM ION (* SORBSPS *
3
0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1.
0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1.
0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1. 0. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 0.
0. 0. 1.
0. 0. 0.
0. 1. 0.
1. 0. 0.
1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
384
385
INJECTOR
CC
CC ICHEK MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
*----ICHEK PWFMIN PWFMAX QTMIN QTMAX
0 0.0 5000. 0.0 50000.
CC
CC WELL ID, LOCATION, AND FLAG FOR SPECIFYING WELL TYPE, WELL RADIUS, SKIN
*----IDW IW JW IFLAG RW SWELL IDIR IFIRST ILAST IPRF
2 1 1 2
.003 0. 3 1
1
0
CC
CC WELL NAME
*---- WELNAM
PRODUCER
CC
CC MAX. AND MIN. ALLOWABLE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND RATE
*----ICHEK PWFMIN PWFMAX QTMIN QTMAX
0 0.0 5000. 0.0 50000.
CC
CC ID,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*----ID QI(M,L) C(M,KC,L)
1 0.0247 0.9447 0. 0.02 .25 0.0209
0.0001 0.0353 0. 0.187 0.235 111
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC ID,
*----ID PWF
2 14.7
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV OR DAY) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*----TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI1 WRHPV WRPRF RSTC
0.15 0.05 0.05
0.05 0.05
0.1
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. COURANT NO.
*----DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.0001 11*0.01 0.1 0.01
CC
CC
*--- IBMOD
0
CC34567890---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------8
CC IRO, ITIME, NEW FLAGS FOR ALL THE WELLS (POLYMER DRIVE)
*---- IRO ITIME IFLAG
2 1 1 2
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS changes IN LOCATION OR SKIN OR PWF
*----NWEL1
0
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS WITH RATE changes, id
*----NWEL1 Id
1
1
CC
386
CC id,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*----id QI(M,L) C(M,KC,L)
1 0.0247 0.9824 0.0 0. .22 0.02167
0.0001 0.0176 0.0 0.156 0.159 111
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*----TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI2(SUMARY) WRHPV(HIST) WRPRF(PLOT) RSTC
0.30 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
0.5
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. time steps
*----DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.0001 11*0.01 0.1 0.01
CC
CC
*--- IBMOD
0
CC34567890---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------8
CC IRO, ITIME, NEW FLAGS FOR ALL THE WELLS (POLYMER DRIVE)
*---- IRO ITIME IFLAG
2 1 1 2
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS changes IN LOCATION OR SKIN OR PWF
*----NWEL1
0
CC
CC NUMBER OF WELLS WITH RATE changes, id
*----NWEL1 Id
1
1
CC
CC id,INJ. RATE AND INJ. COMP. FOR RATE CONS. WELLS FOR EACH PHASE (L=1,3)
*----id QI(M,L) C(M,KC,L)
1 0.0247 1.0
0.0 0. .18 0.022
0.0001 0. 0. 0.036 0.0398 111.
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*----TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI2(SUMARY) WRHPV(HIST) WRPRF(PLOT) RSTC
2.0 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
0.2
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. time steps
*----DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.0001 11*0.01 0.1 0.01
387
APPENDIX E
Alkali Consumption for a Reservoir Rock
The purpose of this study is to see how each reaction consumes alkali and how
much each of them retards the pH front in a sandstone reservoir rock. Therefore, a 1D
coreflood simulation similar to the coreflood M1 in Chapter 7 (Tables E.1 and E.2)
was conducted. In this example, reactions such as cation exchange and quartz
dissolution are studied separately to qualitatively and quantitatively investigate the
effect on the pH front. The rock and fluid properties are given in Table E.1. The
chemical flood design is summarized in Table E.2. The core is initially filled with 3
wt% NaCl. 1 wt% Na2CO3 is added to 19000 ppm NaCl during the slug and polymer
drive. The slug and polymer drive contain 2500 ppm polymer. Synthetic surfactant
(0.3 wt%) is injected for 0.1 PV.
The rock contains the following minerals:
80 wt% Quartz
No Calcite
Table E.3 lists the elements and species used to model the fluid injection into
388
H 2O H + + OH
Na + + H 2O NaOH + H +
Ca 2+ + H 2O Ca(OH)+ + H +
H + + CO32 HCO3
Na + + CO32 NaCO3
Ca 2+ + CO32 CaCO3
Na + + H + + CO32 Na(HCO3 )
Ca 2+ + H + + CO32 Ca(HCO3 ) +
2H + + CO32 H 2CO3
Al3+ + 4H 2O Al(OH)4 + 4H +
H 4SiO4 H + + H3SiO4
NaH3SiO 4 Na + + H3SiO4
CaCO3
SiO2 (Silica)
K 2sp = [H 4SiO4 ]
The cation exchange reaction between the sodium and hydrogen is also
included. Cation exchange capacity is about 1.8 meq/100 g rock. The reactions
responsible for alkali consumption are studied. Insoluble salt formations by the
389
reaction with hardness ions and exchange with the rock surfaces are not studied
because of small divalent concentrations present.
The effect of hydrogen/sodium cation exchange on alkali consumption at 1.0
PV is shown in Figure E.1. We observe that cation exchange is a major consumer of
alkali and delays the pH front compared to the surfactant. The cation exchange
capacity is relatively large at 1.8 meq/100g rock. As demonstrated in Figure E.1, pH
and surfactant are not moving together. This means there is no benefit from the
increase of pH for surfactant adsorption reduction. Figure E.2 shows that clay
hydrogen sites are replaced by sodium during the cation exchange reaction. Hydrogen
is desorbed and sodium is adsorbed when alkaline is injected. The amount of alkali
consumption by hydrogen and sodium exchange reaction from this plot is calculated:
eqOH
mole
0.145(
sodium adsorbed or hydrogen desorbed) 1(
)
litPV
1molesodium adsorbed or hydrogen removed
(0.485 fraction of PVsodium adsorbed or hydrogen removed) 0.075444 liter PV = 0.005306 eqOH
To express this consumption as meq/100 g rock:
0.485 fraction of rock influenced by this reaction 852 g mass of core = 413.22 g
1000meq
0.005306 eq OH- consumed
1 eq
390
H3SiO4- and NaH3SiO4 are the products of the congruent dissolution of silica.
As shown in Figure E.4, their concentrations increase due to these reactions. The
readings from the Figure E.4 are: 0.0243 mole/L NaH3SiO4 H3SiO4-, 0.00708 mole/L
and a pore volume fraction of 0.475, for a consumption of:
(0.0243 + 0.00708) (
eqOH
mole
H3SiO4- and NaH3SiO4 ) 1(
)
L
1mole H3SiO4- and NaH3SiO4
(0.475 fraction of PVinf luenced by these species) 0.075444 liter PV = 0.001125 eqOH
To express this consumption as meq/100 g rock:
0.475 fraction of rock influenced by this reaction 852 g mass of core = 404.7 g
1000meq
0.001125 eq OH-
1 eq
391
392
Table E.1: Rock and fluid properties for example coreflood similar to coreflood M1
Porosity
0.19
Permeability, md
448
Length, ft
0.32
0.35
0.35
0.08
0.37
3.0
Independent aqueous
H+, Na+, Ca2+, Fe2+, Al3+, CO32-, Cl-, HAo, H2O, H4SiO4
or oleic species
Ca(OH)+, HCO3-, Ca(HCO3)+, H2CO3,
Al(OH)4-, H3SiO4-, HAw, A-
Dependent aqueous
or oleic species
Cation exchange
H+, Na+
Solid species
Consumption
Cation Exchange
H + Na + + OH Na + H2O
Dissolution of quartz
+
H 4SiO 4 H + H3SiO4
NaH3SiO 4 Na + + H3SiO4
394
0.030
10
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
pH
12
Dimensionless distance, XD
0.16
0.14
Hydrogen
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Dimensionless distance, XD
395
0.8
12
pH decrease is due to dissolution of silica.
11
10
pH
9
8
7
6
5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Dimensionless distance, XD
0.030
0.025
NaH3SiO4
0.020
0.015
0.010
H3SiO4-
0.005
0.000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Dimensionless distance, XD
396
0.8
APPENDIX F
Modeling the Effect of Co-solvent on the Phase Behavior
This appendix is written as a continuation to Appendix B of Glen Anderson's
thesis (2006) to provide information on how to obtain the phase behavior parameters
when co-solvent is present.
Co-solvents are added to the surfactant solution to improve the coalescence
times and help speed up the equilibration time. They can cause a shift in the optimum
salinity and a reduction in solubilization parameters. In the example case studied,
cosolvent increases the optimum salinity and reduces the solubilization ratio.
Therefore, the change of optimum salinity and solubilization ratio as a function of
cosolvent concentration needs to be measured in order to accurately model the effect
on the phase behavior. The cosolvent partition coefficient for this example was
measured to be 0.31 with the crude oil and reservoir brine (Dwarakanath et al., 2008).
Dwarakanath et al. (2008) used
cosolvent partitioning data where the input paramteres akwc7, akws7, akm7, ak7, pt7
found to be 3., 1.76, 90, 35.31, and 0.172, respectively. The formulation of this
surfactant mixture contains 2 wt% surfactant, 3 wt% co-solvent and electrolyte
(Na2CO3) at 85oC. See Chapter 7 (Section 7.3) for more detail on the surfactant
formulation.
397
C51
( F 1)
(1 + 7 f 7S )
where CSE is the effective salinity and C51 is the brine salinity.
The CSEL and CSEU, the limits of Winsor's Type III with no cosolvent, are first
obtained as outlined by Anderson (2006) (Refer to UTCHEM Technical
Documentation for more details on the phase behavior modeling). We then need to
find 7 to calculate the shift in optimal salinity for different co-solvent concentrations.
The UTCHEM batch input file is used to estimate the 7 (BETA7 input parameter)
using the following process: Different batch input files with different co-solvent
concentrations and salinities are run iteratively to match the measured optimum
salinities with one value of 7. The 7 value is found to be 2.89 (Figure F.1) for this
formulation. Provoust's model for cosolvent partitioning was used. The phase
behavior results were calibrated with UTCHEM using the methodology developed by
Satoh (1984). The co-solvent input parameters for UTCHEM (akwc7, akws7, akm7,
ak7, pt7) of this formulation are 3., 1.76, 90, 35.31, and 0.172, respectively. The
example batch input file is attached to this appendix.
398
for m = 0 ,1 , 2
( F 2)
where m = 0 for zero salinity, 1 at optimal salinity, and 2 at twice the optimal salinity.
m7m is the slope for the maximum height of binodal curve vs. fraction of co-solvent
associated with the surfactant pseudocomponent at the salinity m. C7m is the intercept
of maximum height of the binodal curve at zero fraction of cosolvent associated with
the surfactant pseudocomponent at the salinity m. Parameters m7m and C7m are
obtained by matching the volume fraction diagrams corresponding to at least three
different total chemical (co-solvent + surfactant) compositions.
For the first iteration, the slope parameters are set to zero in the UTCHEM
batch input file (HBNS70, HBNS71, HBNS72) and the intercept parameters are
adjusted ( HBNC70, HBNC71, HBNC72) in order to obtain a reasonable match of the
volume fraction diagrams as explained in Anderson (2006). Then the slope
parameters are obtained. For example, in this case we first match the phase behavior
parameters for the data without co-solvent. Then the slope parameter is changed at
different cosolvent concentrations until one value best representing the range of data
is determined (Figure F.2). Therefore, the HBNS71 variable which reflects the effect
399
400
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
S*
0.5
UTCHEM
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
% EGBE
18
Not Equilibrated
Optimal Solubilization, SP
16
Linear (UTCHEM)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
% EGBE
401
402
403
*---- COMPR
PSTAND
0
0
CC
CC FLAGS INDICATING CONSTANT OR VARIABLE POROSITY, X,Y,AND Z
PERMEABILITY
*---- IPOR1 IPERMX IPERMY IPERMZ IMOD
0 1 1 0 0
CC
CC CONSTANT POROSITY FOR WHOLE RESERVOIR
*---- PORC1
1
CC
CC CONSTANT X-PERMEABILITY (MILIDARCY) FOR LAYER K = 1,NZ
*---- PERMX(K),K=1,NZ
1000000
CC
CC CONSTANT Y-PERMEABILITY (MILIDARCY) FOR LAYER K = 1,NZ
*---- PERMY(K),K=1,NZ
1000000
CC
CC CONSTANT Z-PERMEABILITY FOR WHOLE RESERVOIR
*---- PERMZC
1000000
CC
CC FLAG FOR CONSTANT OR VARIABLE DEPTH, PRESSURE, WATER
SATURATION,INITIAL AQUEOUS PHASE cOMPOSITIONS
*----IDEPTH IPRESS ISWI ICWI
0
0 0 -1
CC
CC CONSTANT DEPTH (FT)
*---- D111
0
CC
CC CONSTANT PRESSURE (PSIA)
*---- PRESS1
1
CC
CC CONSTANT INITIAL WATER SATURATION
*---- SWI
1
CC
CC BRINE SALINITY AND DIVALENT CATION CONCENTRATION (MEQ/ML)
*---- C50
C60
0.149 0.0
CC
CC*******************************************************************
CC
*
CC PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA
*
CC
*
CC*******************************************************************
CC
CC
404
CC OIL CONC. AT PLAIT POINT FOR TYPE II(+)AND TYPE II(-), CMC
*---- c2plc c2prc epsme ihand
0 1 0.001 0
CC
CC flag indicating type of phase behavior parameters
*---- ifghbn
0
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 1
*----HBNS70 HBNC70 HBNS71 HBNC71 HBNS72 HBNC72
0.0
0.035
0.14
0.024
0.0
0.035
CC SLOPE AND INTERCEPT OF BINODAL CURVE AT ZERO, OPT., AND 2XOPT SALINITY
CC FOR ALCOHOL 2
*----HBNS80 HBNC80 HBNS81 HBNC81 HBNS82 HBNC82
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CC
CC LOWER AND UPPER EFFECTIVE SALINITY FOR ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- csel7 cseu7 csel8 cseu8
0.11 0.19 0
0
CC
CC THE CSE SLOPE PARAMETER FOR CALCIUM AND ALCOHOL 1 AND ALCOHOL 2
*---- beta6 beta7 beta8
0 2.89
0
CC
CC FLAG FOR ALCOHOL PART. MODEL AND PARTITION COEFFICIENTS
*---- ialc opsk7o opsk7s opsk8o opsk8s
1 0.0
0.0
0
0
CC
CC NO. OF ITERATIONS, AND TOLERANCE
*---- nalmax epsalc
20
0.0001
CC
CC ALCOHOL 1 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc7 akws7 akm7 ak7 pt7
3.
1.76
90 35.31 0.172
CC
CC ALCOHOL 2 PARTITIONING PARAMETERS IF IALC=1
*---- akwc8 akws8 akm8 ak8 pt8
0
0
0 0
0
CC
CC ift model flag
*---- ift
1
CC
CC INTERFACIAL TENSION PARAMETERS
*---- chuh ahuh
0.3
13
CC
CC LOG10 OF OIL/WATER INTERFACIAL TENSION
*---- xiftw
1.5
CC
405
406
CC SPECIFIC WEIGHT FOR COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,8 ,Coeffient of oil and GRAVITY FLAG
*---- DEN1 DEN2 DEN23 DEN3 DEN7 DEN8 IDEN
0.433 0.433 0.433 0.433 0.433 0
2
CC
CC FLAG FOR CHOICE OF UNITS ( 0:BOTTOMHOLE CONDITION , 1: STOCK TANK)
*----- ISTB
0
CC
CC COMPRESSIBILITY FOR VOL. OCCUPYING COMPONENTS 1,2,3,7,AND 8
*---- COMPC(1) COMPC(2) COMPC(3) COMPC(7) COMPC(8)
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC CONSTANT OR VARIABLE PC PARAM., WATER-WET OR OIL-WET PC CURVE FLAG
*---- ICPC IEPC IOW
0
0 0
CC
CC CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, CPC0
*---- CPC0
0
CC
CC CAPILLARY PRESSURE PARAMETER, EPC0
*---- EPC0
2
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 1
*---- D(KC,1),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 2
*---- D(KC,2),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC MOLECULAR DIFFUSION COEF. KCTH COMPONENT IN PHASE 3
*---- D(KC,3),KC=1,N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 1
*---- ALPHAL(1) ALPHAT(1)
0
0
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 2
*---- ALPHAL(2) ALPHAT(2)
0
0
CC
CC LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE DISPERSIVITY OF PHASE 3
*---- ALPHAL(3) ALPHAT(3)
0
0
CC
CC flag to specify organic adsorption calculation
*---- iadso
0
CC
407
408
CC
CC ID, BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE FOR PRESSURE CONSTRAINT WELL (IFLAG=2 OR 3)
*---- ID PWF
2 1
CC
CC CUM. INJ. TIME , AND INTERVALS (PV OR DAY) FOR WRITING TO OUTPUT FILES
*---- TINJ CUMPR1 CUMHI1 WRHPV WRPRF RSTC
500 5
5
0.5 5
50
CC
CC FOR IMES=2 ,THE INI. TIME STEP,CONC. TOLERANCE,MAX.,MIN. courant numbers
*---- DT DCLIM CNMAX CNMIN
0.05
0.003 0.2
0.01
409
Nomenclature
a3, a31,
a32, a33
a4, a41,
a42, a43
ai
Activity of species i
Ap1, Ap2,
Ap3
A-
b3
b4
Cpc
i
C
CT
n
Cij
Cit
Cj
lk
C
Ci
Cm
C A
CSE
CSE1
CSEP
CSEU, CSEL
C3
Crk
D A
eA
f 6s
f 7s , f8s
fni
gnk
G11, G12,
G13
G21, G22,
G23
hnj
G
k
k rA
k orA
Number of solids
Ki
Ka
KD
K eq
r
K sp
k
K ex
p
K exm
q
nC
Number of components
nCv
nP
Number of phases
npc
N cA
PA
Pressure of phase A
pH
(pH)c
(pH)t1
(pH)t
SA
Saturation of phase A
SnA
S o
Sp
SrA
Time
Tj1, Tj2
G
uA
Vi
Vslug
x, y, z
Coordinate directions
XD
zj
zm
zi
1 , 2 ,
3 , 4 , 5
LA
TA
exm
q
6 , 7 , 8
1/ 2
Viscosity of phase A
wo
AA '
Porosity
415
References
416
Brooks, R. H. and Corey, A.T.: "Properties of Porous Media Affecting Fluid Flow," J.
Irrig. Drain. Div., Volume 6, Number 61, 1966.
Brownell, L. E and Katz, D.L.: "Flow of Fluids Through Porous Media, Part II,"
Chemical Engineering Processes, Volume 43, 1949, p. 601-612.
Bunge, A.L. and Radke, C.J.: "Divalent Ion Exchange with Alkali," SPEJ, August
issue, 1983, p. 657-668.
Bunge, A.L. and Radke, C.J.: "The Origin of Reversible Hydroxide Uptake on
Reservoir Rock," SPEJ, October issue, 1985, p. 711-718.
Carroll, S.A., Walther, J.V., and Bunge, A.L.: "Kaolinite Dissolution at 25o, 60o, and
80oC," American Journal of Science. Volume 290, September issue, 1990, p.
797-810.
Camilleri, D., Fil, A., Pope, G.A., Rouse, B.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "Comparison of
an Improved Compositional Micellar/Polymer Simulator with Laboratory
Core Floods," SPE Reservoir Engineering, November issue, 1987, p. 441-451.
Camilleri, D., Fil, A., Pope, G.A., Rouse, B.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "Improvements
in Physical-Property Models Used in Micellar/Polymer Flooding," SPE
Reservoir Engineering, November issue, 1987, p. 433-440.
Camilleri, D., Engelsen, S., Lake, L.W., Lin, E.C., Ohno, T., Pope, G.A., and
Sepehrnoori, K.: "Description of an Improved Compositional
Micellar/Polymer Simulator," SPE Reservoir Engineering, November issue,
1987, p. 427-432.
Cheng, K.H.: "Chemical Consumption during Alkaline Flooding: A Comparative
Evaluation," Paper SPE/DOE 14944 presented at the Fifth Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery. Tulsa, 20-23 April, 1986.
Delshad, M., Delshad, M., Bhuyan, D., Pope, G.A., and Lake, L.W.: "Effect of
Capillary Number on the Residual Saturation of a Three-Phase Micellar
417
the 2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1923
April, 2008.
Ehrlich, R. and Wygal R.J.: "Interrelation of Crude Oil and Rock Properties with the
Recovery of Oil by Caustic Waterflooding," SPEJ, August issue, 1977, p.
263-270.
Fathi Najafabadi, N., Delshad, M., Sepehrnoori, K., Nguyen, Q.P., and Zhang, J.:
"Chemical Flooding of Fractured Carbonates Using Wettability Modifiers,"
Paper SPE 113369 presented at the 2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 19-23, 2008.
Flaaten, A.K., Zhang, J., Nguyen, Q.P., and Pope, G.A.: "A Systematic Laboratory
Approach to Low-Cost, High-Performance Chemical Flooding," Paper SPE
113469 presented at the 2008 SPE Improved Oil recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, April 19-23, 2008.
Flaaten, A.K., Nguyen, Q.P., Zhang, J., Mohammadi, H. and Pope, G.A.: "ASP
Chemical Flooding without the Need for Soft Water," Paper SPE 116754 to be
presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in Denver, Colorado, 2124 September, 2008.
Geochemist's Workbench
http://www.geology.uiuc.edu/Hydrogeology/hydro_gwb.htm, 2008.
Green, D. W. and Willhite, G.P.: "Enhanced Oil Recovery," SPE Textbook Series,
Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, Texas, Volume 6, 1998.
Grim, R.E.: "Clay Mineralogy," McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York City, 1986.
Hand, D.B.: "Dineric Distribution: I. The Distribution of a Consolute Liquid between
Two Immiscible Liquids," J. of Physics and Chem., Volume 34, 1939, p.
1961-2000.
419
Harwell, H.J., Hoskins, C.J., Schechter, R.S., and Wade, W.D.: Pseudophase
Separation Model for Surfactant Adsoprton: Isomerically Pure Surfactants,
Langmuir, 1985, 1, p. 251-262:
Healy, R.N. and Reed, R.L.: "Physicochemical Aspects of Microemulsion Flooding,"
SPEJ, Volume 14, 1974, p. 491-501.
Hirasaki, G.J.: "Application of the Theory of Multicomponent, Multiphase
Displacement to Three-Component, Two-Phase Surfactant Flooding," SPEJ,
1981, p. 191-204.
Hirasaki, G. J.: "Ion Exchange with Clays in the Presence of Surfactant," SPEJ, April,
1982. p. 181-192.
Hirasaki, G. and Zhang, D.L.: "Surface Chemistry of Oil Recovery from Fractured,
Oil-Wet, Carbonate Formations," SPEJ, June, 2004, p. 151-62.
Hirasaki, G.J., Private communication, 2007.
Huh, C.: "Interfacial Tension and Solubilizing Ability of a Microemulsion Phase That
Coexists With Oil and Brine," J. Colloid Interface Sci., Volume 71, 1979, p.
408-428.
Ingri, N.: "Equilibrium Studies of Polyanions Containing BIII, SiIV, GeIV and VV ",
Svensk Kemisk Tidskrift., 1963, p. 75-199.
Jackson, A.C.: "Experimental Study of the Benefits of Sodium Carbonate on
Surfactants for Enhanced Oil Recovery," MS Thesis, The University of Texas
at Austin, 2006.
Jennings Jr., H.Y., Johnson Jr., C.E. and McAuliffe, C.E.: "A Caustic Water flooding
Process for Heavy Oils," JPT, December issue, 1974, p. 1344-58.
420
Jin, M.: "A Study of Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Characterization and Surfactant
Remediation," Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1995.
Jin, M., Delshad, M., Dwarakanath, V., McKinney, D.C., Pope, G.A., Sepehrnoori,
K., Tilburg, C.E., and Jackson, R.E.: "Partitioning Tracer Test for Detection,
Estimation, and Remediation Performance Assessment of Subsurface
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids," Water Resour. Res., Volume 31, Number 5,
1995, p. 1201-1211.
Johnson Jr., C.E.: "Status of Caustic and Emulsion Methods," JPT, January issue,
1976, p. 85-92.
Krumine, P.H. and Falcone, J.S. Jr.: "Rock Dissolution and Consumption Phenomena
in an Alkaline Recovery System," SPE Paper 12760 presented at the 1984
SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April 15-18, 1984.
Lake, L.W.: "Enhanced Oil Recovery," Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, New
Jersey, 1989.
Lake, L.W., Bryant, S.L., and Araque-Martinez, A.N.: "Geochemistry and Fluid Flow
(Developments in Geochemistry 7)," Elsevier Science B.V. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2002.
Levitt, D.B., Jackson, A.C., Heinson, C., Britton, L.N., Malik, T., Dwarakanath, V.,
and Pope, G.A.: Identification and Evaluation of High Performance EOR
Surfactants, Paper SPE 100089 presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium
on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Okalahoma, April, 2006.
Levitt, D.B., and Pope, G.A.: Selection and Screening of Polymers for Enhanced-Oil
Recovery, Paper SPE 113845 presented at the 2008 SPE/DOE Symposium
on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April, 2008.
Liu, J.: "High-Resolution Methods for Enhanced Oil Recovery Simulation," Ph.D.
dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1993.
421
Liu, J., Delshad, M., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "Application of Higher Order
Flux-Limited Methods in Compositional Simulations," Journal of Transport in
Porous Media, Volume 16, 1994, p. 1-29.
Liu, S., Zhang, D.L., Yan, W., Puerto, M., Hirasaki, G.J., and Miller, C.A.:
"Favorable Attributes of Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer Flooding," SPEJ, March
issue, 2008.
Martin, F.D. and Oxley, J.C.: "Effect of Various Alkaline Chemicals on Phase
Behavior of Surfactant/Brine/Oil Mixtures," Paper SPE 13575 presented at the
International Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Phoenix,
Arizona, April 9-11, 1985.
Martin, F.D., Oxley, J.C., and Lim, H.: "Enhanced Recovery of a "J" Sand Crude Oil
with Combination of Surfactant and Alkaline Chemicals," Paper SPE 14293
presented at the 60th Annual Technical and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada,
September 22-25, 1985.
Mayer, E.H., Berg, R.L., Carmichael, J.D., and Weinbrandt, R.M.: "Alkaline
Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery- A Status Report," JPT, January issue,
1983, p. 209-221.
Meter, D.M. and Bird. R.B.: "Tube Flow of Non-Newtonian Polymer Solutions, Parts
I and II Laminar Flow and Rheological Models," AIChE J., November issue,
1964, p. 878-881.
Mohammadi, H., Delshad, M., and Pope, G.A.: "Mechanistic Modeling of
Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Floods," SPE Paper 110212 presented at the
2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 1923, 2008.
Mohnot, S.M., and Bae, J.H., and Foley, W.L.: "A Study of Mineral/Alkali
Reactions," SPE Reservoir Engineering, November issue, 1987, p. 653-663.
Mohnot, S.M., and Bae, J.H.: "A Study of Mineral/Alkali Reactions- Part 2," SPE
Reservoir Engineering, August issue, 1987, p. 381-390.
422
Morrow, N.R. and Chatzis, I.: "Measurement and Correlation of Conditions for
Entrapment and Mobilization of Residual Oil," U.S. Department of Energy,
Report no. DOE/BETC/3251-12, October, 1981.
Morrow, N.R. and Songkran, B.: "Surface Phenomena in Enhanced Oil Recovery,"
D.O.Shah (ed.), Plenum Press, New York City, 1982, p. 387-411.
Morrow, N.R., Chatzis, I., and Lim, H.: "Relative Permeabilities at Reduced Residual
Saturation," J. Can. Pet. Techol., July-August issue, 1985, p. 62-69.
Nelson, R.C., Lawson, J.B., Thigpen, D.R., and Stegemeier, G.L.: "CosurfactantEnhanced Alkaline Flooding," Paper SPE 12672 presented at the fourth
SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April
15-18, 1984.
Novosad, Z. and Novosad J.: "Determination of Alkalinity Losses Resulting From
Hydrogen Ion Exchange in Alkaline Flooding," SPEJ, February issue, 1984, p.
49-52.
Parker, J.C., Lenhard, R.J., and Kuppusamy, T.: "A Parametric Model for
Constitutive Properties Governing Multiphase Flow in Porous Media," Water
Resour. Res., Volume 23, Number 4, 1987, p. 618-624.
PHREEQC
http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_coupled/phreeqc/, 2008.
Pope, G.A. and Nelson, R.C.: "A Chemical Flooding Compositional Simulator,"
SPEJ, Volume 18, 1978, p. 339-354.
Pope, G.A., Lake, L.W., and Helfferich, F.G.: "Cation Exchange in Chemical
Flooding: Part 1 - Basic Theory without Dispersion," SPEJ, Volume 18,
December issue, 1978, p. 418-434.
423
Prouvost, L., Pope, G.A., and Rouse, B.A.: "Microemulsion Phase Behavior: A
Thermodynamic Modeling of the Phase Partitioning of Amphiphilic Species,"
SPEJ, October issue, 1985, p. 693-703.
Prouvost, L., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "Modeling of Phase Behavior of
Micellar Systems Used for EOR," Surfactants in Solution, K. L. Mittal and P.
Bothorel (eds.), Plenum Press, Volume 4, 1986.
Prouvost, L., Satoh, T., and Pope, G.A.: "The Application of a Micellar Phase
Behavior Model to Reservoir Modeling of Oil Displacement," Paper presented
at the 5th Symposium on Surfactants in Solution, Bordeaux-Talence, France,
July 9-13, 1984a.
Prouvost, L., Satoh, T., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "A New Micellar PhaseBehavior Model for Simulating Systems with up to three Amphiphilic
Species," Paper SPE 13031 presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas, September, 1984b.
Reisberg, J. and Doscher, T.M.: "Interfacial Phenomena in Crude Oil-Water
Systems," Prod. Monthly, November issue, 1956, p. 43-50.
Saad, N.: "Field Scale Studies With a 3-D Chemical Flooding Simulator," Ph.D.
dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1989.
Saad, N., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "Simulation of Big Muddy Surfactant
Pilot," Soc. Pet. Eng. Reservoir Eng., February issue, 1989.
Salager, J.L., Bourrel, M., Schechter, R.S., and Wade, W.H.: "Mixing Rules for
Optimum Phase-Behavior Formulations of Surfactant/Oil/Water Systems,"
SPEJ, October issue, 1979, p. 271-278.
Salager, J.L., Vasquez, E., Morgan, J.C., Schechter R.S., and Wade, W.H.: "Optimum
Formulation of Surfactant-Oil-Water Systems for Minimum Interfacial
Tension or Phase Behavior," SPEJ, Volume 23, p. 107, 1979.
424
http://www.cpge.utexas.edu/utchem/UTCHEM_Users_Guide.pdf.
UTCHEM Volume II: Technical Documentation for UTCHEM-9.0, Center for
Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 2000.
http://www.cpge.utexas.edu/utchem/UTCHEM_Tech_Doc.pdf
Winsor, P.A.: "Solvent Properties of Amphiphilic Compounds," Butterworths,
London, 1954.
Wreath, D.G.: "A Study of Polymerflooding and Residual Oil Saturation," M.S.
thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1989.
Wreath, D., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: "Dependence of Polymer Apparent
Viscosity on the Permeable Media and Flow Conditions," In Situ, Volume 14,
Number 3, 1990, p. 263-284.
Wu, Wei-Jr.: "Optimum Design of Field-Scale Chemical Flooding Using Reservoir
Simulation," PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, August,
1996.
Zhang, D.: "Surfactant-Enhanced Oil Recovery Process for A Fractured Oil-Wet
Carbonate Reservoir," PhD Dissertation, Rice University, 2006.
Zhang, J., Nguyen, Q.P., Flaaten, A., and Pope, G.A.: "Mechanisms of Enhanced
Natural Imbibition with Novel Chemicals," Paper SPE 113453 to be presented
at the 2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April
19-23, 2008.
Zhao, H., Deng, Y., Harsh, J.B., Flury, M., and Boyle, J.S.: "Alteration of Kaolinite
to Cancrinite and Sodalite by Simulated Hanford Tank Waste and Its Impact
on Cesium Retention," Journal of Clays and Clay Minerals, Volume 52,
Number 1, 2004, p. 1-13.
Zhao, P., Jackson, A., Britton, C., Kim, D., Britton, L.N., Levitt, D.B., and Pope,
G.A.: "Development of High Performance Surfactants for Difficult Oils,"
426
Paper SPE 113432 to be presented at the 2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 19-23, 2008.
427
VITA
Hourshad Mohammadi was born in Tehran, Iran on December 19, 1977, the
daughter of Ms. Masoumeh Abrishami and Mr. Gholamali Mohammadi. She
completed her high school diploma in Mathematics & Physics at Hajar High School,
Tehran, Iran in May 1995. She entered Sharif University of Technology in Tehran,
Iran and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering in
September 1999. She was awarded the degree of Master of Science in Chemical
Engineering from Iran University of Science and Technology in Tehran, Iran in
January 2002. She spent two years as a petroleum engineer in Tehran, Iran. In
January 2004, she entered The University of Texas at Austin as a petroleum
engineering graduate student.
She is married to Renzo Angeles from Peru.
Permanent Address:
428