IMPROVING RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE USING LOW SALINITY SURFACTANT

POLYMER FLOODING IN THE NIGER DELTA

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

With the current growing demand for oil, oil price and the concerns about future oil supplies

increases the pressure in securing oil resources. Additional of reserves is very expensive option

that is why EOR techniques is driving the attention knowing that even small increment in oil add

significant reserves. Enhanced oil recovery processes are applied to recover oil not produced by

natural and secondary energy drive of the reservoir. Enhanced Oil Recovery methods are oil

recovery by injection of materials that are not normally present in the reservoir such as

surfactants and polymers. Currently, the daily oil production comes from mature or maturing oil

fields and oil reserves is not keeping pace with the growing energy demand. This challenge

becomes an opportunity for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies that may strengthen the

demand-supply balance. Reservoirs have been allowed to produce naturally (primary production)

and the production rate after some time becomes uneconomical. In the second phase, the

recovery is increased by installing method of artificial drive such as water and gas injection and

these were logically known as secondary recovery methods. Secondary recovery methods are

now introduced much earlier in the life of a field, often before the end of the primary production

phase.

Polymer flooding is the most commonly applied chemical enhanced oil-recovery-technique

(tertiary recovery). As global energy demand grows, reserves are depleted and new large

reserves are not available, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) from brown fields becomes more and

more important. It is estimated that two-thirds of the oil originally in place are left after the
primary and secondary recovery stages (Sheng J.J 2014). This remaining amount of oil has

focused the attention of industries and researchers on developing new techniques referred to as

tertiary oil recovery methods. Chemical oil recovery is applied to reservoirs as a tertiary method

when water-flooding has reached its recovery efficiency limit, which is estimated to be

approximately 30-40% of the original oil in place (OOIP) (Green and Wilhite 1998). Polymer

flooding, which is a technique for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), is the process of injecting a

viscous polymer solution into the reservoir.

In surfactant flooding, surfactant is absorbed on the oil/water contact and the rock surface, so

that capillary number and capillary force increase, which lower IFT and residual oil saturation.

Increase of surfactant concentration can strongly affect to lower IFT but after a certain

concentration, IFT stays constant. Low salinity brine has a better result to surfactant flooding in

order to get higher oil recovery than high salinity brine. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) by

surfactant flooding has become more attractive in recent years. In surfactant flooding, surfactant

molecules act on the oil/water interfaces. They are used either for wettability alteration or for

lowering the oil/water interfacial tension (IFT). In the latter case, the molecules adsorb on the

oil/water interface and reduce the IFT and capillary pressure responsible for the trapped oil in the

pores. Low interfacial tension at low surfactant concentrations, and acceptable adsorption levels

are considered to be important design parameters in optimizing chemical systems for recovering

trapped oil from petroleum reservoirs (Adibhatla et al., 2008; Akin and Kovscek, 2003). Low

salinity waterflooding is an incremental oil recovery technique used to improve oil production by

reducing the amount of residual oil saturation within the reservoir by subjecting it to waterfloods

containing low concentration of salts or simple having low salinity (Morrow et al 2011). Low

salinity water flooding (LSW) has been announced as an emerging enhanced oil recovery
technique in which the salinity of the injected water is controlled to improve oil recovery

(Robertson E.P 2007). Corefloods and single-well chemical tracer tests have shown that the low

salinity water flooding can improve basic water flooding recovery by about 5 to 38%. (Hub C.

2008)

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The problem of oil channeling during water-flooding reduces hydrocarbon efficiency, thereby

leading to by-passing of oil in the reservoir. Oil channeling effect occurs as a result of the water

influx having a greater mobility ratio than the oil to be recovered, which will result in low

displacement efficiency. Injection of surfactant polymer into the reservoir will help to solve the

problem of water channeling and improves oil not recovered by primary and secondary drive

mechanism.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

The main objective of this research work is to improve reservoir performance using low salinity

surfactant polymer flooding in the Niger Delta X-fields. To achieve this, the specific objectives

are;

i. To evaluate the effect of wettability on polymer flooding using rock and fluid properties

obtained from X-field in the Niger Delta.

ii. To determine the effect of interfacial tension on surfactant

iii to evaluate the effect of capillary pressure on polymer and surfactant flooding
1.4 SIGNIFICANT OF THE PROJECT STUDY

i.The result from this work will help to broaden the prospects of EOR in Nigeria, with operators

seeking more recovery from seemingly abandoned oil reservoirs after primary and secondary

recovery mechanisms reaches its peak.

ii. the result from this work will help to rejuvenate abandoned fields.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT STUDY

The work will cover the following

i.Construction of a synthetic reservoir model representing Niger Delta X-field.

ii.Numerical simulation was used in this study for the improved reservoir performance of low

salinity surfactant polymer flooding in the Niger Delta.

iii.Production from the model will be achieved with the help of Eclipse 100.
 CHAPTER TWO

2.1 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR):

The recovery mechanisms of an oil reservoir are typically divided into three stages which are

primary, secondary and tertiary recovery. In primary recovery stage, the drive mechanisms of

recovery are natural water displacing oil toward wells, expansion of gas cap in the top of the

reservoir, expansion of dissolved gas in the oil, and gravity drainage. These mechanisms are

called natural drive mechanisms. During the primary mechanisms, the reservoir pressure is

depleted and at some point there will be insufficient reservoir pressure to produce oil therefore

secondary recovery methods are implemented. These methods rely on supply an external energy

into the reservoir by injecting fluids to increase reservoir pressure and to displace the oil toward

the production wells. Water-flooding and gas injection are the most common secondary recovery

mechanisms. The recovery factor after primary and secondary recovery stages is normally

between 35 and 45% (Green 1998). Some of the literature reviews are as follows;

Ahmad Aladasani (2012) conduct a parametric study using statistical analysis and simulation to

measure the sensitivities of LSWF recovery mechanisms in sandstone reservoirs. In their

research, they conducted an experiment using 411 coreflooding. Their result showed that

statistical correlations of the residual oil saturation to chlorite is 0.7891 and kaolinite contents

0.4399, as well as the wettability index 0.3890 they conclude that low salinity waterflooding

recovery mechanisms are governed based on the initial and final wetting states.

Muhammad Fahad Dubas (2016) investigated on 3D field scale reservoir simulation. The

reservoir was assumed to have three layers with varying permeability. 10×10×3 grid was used to

simulate in the black oil simulator. The result showed that injection of high salinity waterflood is
the same as normal waterfloods, the bottom hole pressure of the injection well stays higher. Field

oil recovery, field oil production total and reservoir pressure was determined. Water cut showed

that high salinity can cause early water breakthrough while low salinity would produce more oil.

Kasimbazi G. (2014) evaluated polymer flooding using local and full grid refinement simulation

approach. Oil viscosity ranges from 0.6 to 1.04 cp, permeability range 500md to 2250md was

considered. She also compared between low and high homogenous and low and high

heterogeneous reservoirs. The result showed that 35.03%, 42.16%, 43.15%, 43.87% respectively

was obtained after waterflooding. Increase in oil recovery was observed after polymer flooding

in the rate of 47.53%, 45.03%, 45.43% and 47.03%. Conclusively, she observed that high

permeability reservoir is suitable for polymer flooding due to fewer effects

on adsorption. Hence, heterogenous distribution gives better recovery as injection fluid forced to

sweep oil to both low and high permeable zones.

Sheng J.J. (2011) Wrote; When clay contacts with fresh water or in water containing insufficient

amounts of salt, it tends to hydrate and swell, then affects to dispersion of clay and silt in the

formation. The clay and silt become mobile and follow the paths taken by the greatest proportion

of the flowing water. These paths are the domains of high permeability, and the mobile clay and

silt become lodged in the smaller pore spaces of these domains and reduce the flow of water

through these pore spaces. The permeability of the domains where clay and silt lodge is reduced,

and the water is forced to take other flow paths. As a result, reduction in permeability in the more

permeable domains improves the mobility efficiency as mobility ratio of waterflood decrease.

Premature breakthrough is thus reduced, and the efficiency of the waterflood is improved.

2.1 Mechanisms of low salinity water flooding

The possible mechanisms for LSW to improve oil recovery could be attributed to the following
i. fine migration or permeability reduction (Morrow et al., 1998)

ii. the pH effect (McGuire et al, 2005,)

iii.multiple-component ion exchange (MIE) between clay mineral surfaces and the injected brine

(Larger et al, 2006).

iv.Wettability modification as a result of clay migration and double layer expansion (Tang and

Morrow, 1999; Lighthelm et al., 2009).

i. Fine migration or permeability reduction

In situations when fines were mobilized, the recovery benefit upon injecting lower salinity

brine appeared to increase with the abundance of some clay and other minerals, and

consequently, variations in lithology were important factor. The Berea sandstone used by

Morrow et al. (1998) for many of their experiments had predominantly kaolinite clay and quartz .

A number of studies had shown that kaolinite was wetted by crude oil (Sincock and Black 1988;

Sutanto et al. 1990; Fassi-Fihri et al. 1995; Rueslåtten et al. 1994; Jerauld and Rathmell 1997).

The components of crude oil were thought to be ionically adsorbed, particularly to clays because

they had a large surface area.

Morrow et al. (1998) have found that varying the ionic content of both the injected and connate

brine affects oil recovery,however, they noted that it is clear that details of the brine chemistry

are important

Kia et al. (1987) reported that freshwater flooding of sandstones previously exposed to

sodium salt solutions resulted in the release of clay particles and a drastic reduction in

permeability. The permeability reduction was lessened, however, when calcium ions were
also present in the salt solution. In their research, they noted that formation damage was virtually

eliminated when the solution composition was adjusted to give calcium surface coverage greater

than a critical value of 75%, or when a solution Ca2+ fraction is greater than 20 to 30%.

Khilar and Fogler (1987) results showed a 30% reduction in permeability when the

pretreatment was carried out with cesium-salt solutions, a reduction of more than 95%

with a sodium-salt pretreatment, and virtually no reduction when the divalent cation existed in

the solution. In addition to, Tang and Morrow (1999) concluded that fine mobilization (mainly

kaolinite) can increase recovery in case of unfired Berea core, whereas fired/acidized core

showed insensitivity of salinity on oil recovery. In their research, they noted that clean

sandstones increases oil recovery with the decrease in salinity was less than that for the clay

sands. They also proposed a mechanism of fine migration during LSW that migration of released

clay particles which plugged the pore throats was the reason for the increased oil recovery

observed during LSW.

Zhang et al. (2007) showed no evidence of clay content in the production stream or the oil/brine

interface in their experiments. Lager et al. (2006) and Berg et al. (2009) proposed that this

assumption is not the main cause and no fines migration was observed during increased oil

recovery in their experiments, thus concluding that no fines migration had occurred, meaning

that the enhanced recovery from LSW is not because of fines migration. Besides, Cissokho’s

(2009) experimental findings concluded substantial LSW incremental recovery in kaolinite-free

cores.

Sheng J.J. (2011) in their research wrote when clay contacts with fresh water or in water

containing insufficient amounts of salt, it tends to hydrate and swell, then affects to dispersion of
clay and silt in the formation. The clay and silt become mobile and follow the paths taken by the

greatest proportion of the flowing water. These paths are the domains of high permeability, and

the mobile clay and silt become lodged in the smaller pore spaces of these domains and reduce

the flow of water through these pore spaces. The permeability of the domains where clay and silt

lodge is accordingly reduced, and the water is forced to take other flow paths. As a result,

reduction in permeability in the more permeable domains improves the mobility efficiency as

mobility ratio of waterflood decrease.

ii pH Effect

Austad et al. (2010). noted that at reservoir conditions, the pH of formation water is about 5 due

to dissolved acidic gases like CO2 and H2S. At this pH, the clay minerals, which act as cation

exchange material, are adsorbed by acidic and protonated basic components from the crude oil,

and cations, especially divalent cations from the formation water, like Ca2+. Injection of LSW,

which promotes desorption of Ca2+, will create a local increase in pH close to the brine-clay

interface because Ca2+ is substituted by H+ from the water. A fast reaction between OH- and the

adsorbed acidic and protonated basic material will cause desorption of organic material from the

clay. So, the increased oil recovery is observed.

McGuire et al. (2005) that the dominant low-salinity mechanism, rather than a shift in

wettability, was an increase in pH leading to in-situ formation of surfactants through reactions

with oil acid components, and that the key effect therefore was a lowering of oil/water interfacial

tension (IFT) as seen in alkaline flooding. They did a LSW experiment using core from a North

Slope Alaskan field. From initially salinity of 15.000ppm, the pH increased from 8 to 10 when

low salinity brine with a salinity of 150ppm was injected and oil recovery increased from 56% to

73%. He proposed that as low salinity water is injected into the core, hydroxyl ions are generated
through reactions with the clay minerals present in the reservoir. In addition, Lager et al. (2006)

claimed that incremental recovery from LSW effect can be

observed during the pH less than 7 condition.

iii. Multiple-component ion exchange (MIE) between clay mineral surfaces

and the injected brine

This mechanism is based on the concept that multivalent cations bridge the negatively charged

oil to the clay minerals. Lager et al. (2006) suggested multi-component ionic exchange (MIE)

resulted in oil desorption when low electrolyte water was used for water flooding, especially

Mg2+ exchange, which was confirmed by decreasing of the magnesium content in the produced

water.

Tang and Morrow (1997) suggested that additional oil recovery from LSW process is a result of

a wettability change toward water-wet, corresponding to greater rates of spontaneous imbibition

of brine. This is also indicated by the direction of change of the relative permeability, in that

there is a lower water relative permeability and a higher oil relative permeability at a given water

saturation. While residual-oil saturation is lower, water relative permeability at residual-oil

saturation is roughly the same.

Lighthelm et al (2009) proposed that wettability modification toward water-wet is the main

mechanism from LSW but from the expansion of electrical double layers because this

mechanism led wettability becomes more water wet system.

Figure 2.1 Water-Oil-Rock interfacial characteristics (Henthorne L., 2011)

2.2 MECHANISMS OF SURFACTANT FLOODING

Investigating characters of surfactant molecule on oil/water contact and the force on resident oil

after water flooding, the effects of surfactant on the resident oil have been studied. In the process

of surfactant flooding, surfactant is absorbed on the oil/water contact and the rock surface, so

that to change the interfacial tension and invoke resident oil, improving the flow capacity of the

mixture. Several surfactant flooding mechanisms in order to improve oil recovery are as follows.

i Mechanism of reducing the O-W interfacial tension

After a reservoir is water-flooded, globules of oil are left trapped in the reservoir due to a high

capillary pressure. When surfactant is injected into the oil layer, surfactant is adsorbed on or

concentrated at a surface or fluid/fluid interface. Then, capillary number, which is a

dimensionless ratio of viscous-to-local capillary force, is increased. Increase of capillary number

in which to decrease IFT makes the discontinuous residual oil globules trapped in the pores of
the rock by capillary forces to flow, however, the surfactant should be able to develop low

interfacial tension to give a capillary number that is large enough to overcome capillary forces

and allow the oil to flow (Emegwalu, C.C., 2009).

ii. Emulsification Mechanism

Surfactant system is highly emulsified to oil. When shearing in two-phase flow, it can disperse

and scale off oil from rock surface rapidly, forming oil in water emulsion, thereby improving

mobility ratio and sweep efficiency. Due to the adsorption of surfactant, oil droplet is electric

and difficult to stick on layer, so it can flow to production well with active water (Feng et al.,

2011).

iii Wettability mechanism (Oil-wet to Water-wet)

Many experiments showed that the displacement efficiency is closely related to rock wettability.

Oil-wetted surface results in the poor displacement efficiency, while waterwetted surface results

in good one. The suitable surfactant could increase the contact angle of wettability between

crude oil and rock, which could also make rock surface transit from oil wettability to water

wettability; thereby it would reduce the work of adhesion of oil droplet in rock surface (Feng et

al., 2011).

2.3 EFFECT OF SALINITY IN SURFACTANT FLOODING

Surfactant reduces IFT between oil and water, so that the trapped oil in the reservoir is

mobilized. The reduction in interfacial tension produced from a surfactant depends upon a

number of factors including; injected surfactant concentration, type of oil in the reservoir the

brine salinity and the amount of surfactant lost to the formation due to adsorption Nelson, R. C.
and Pope, G. A. (1978), reported in his experiment later that with a finite slug and the over-

optimum salinity environment where only half of oil and very little surfactant were produced.

Hirasaki (1983) pointed out that the change in optimum salinity is a consequence of divalent ions

interacting with surfactant or of surfactant “pseudocomponents” partitioning in different

proportions. With NaCl brine, the electrolyte was partially excluded from the micelle. However,

the opposite trend was observed with CaCl2 brine because of the strong association of anionic

surfactant with divalent cations. Therefore, decreasing surfactant concentration reduced

interactions between the interfacial region and brine; then optimum salinity decreased

Fig 2.2 Salinity Effects on surfactant phase behavior (Hirasaki, 1980)

2.3.1 TYPES OF SURFACTANT

Surfactant means a blend of surface acting agents. Surfactant is usually organic compounds that

are composes of amphiphilic part and hydrophilic part in the same molecule. The term

amphiphilic group is a hydrocarbon chain that acts as hydrophobic group (the “tail”) while
hydrophilic group is the polar part (the “head”). Therefore, surfactant can be soluble in both

organic solvents and water. It may be classified according to the ionic nature of the head group

as anionic, cationic, nonionic, and zwitterionic (Ottewill, 1984). Anionic surfactant is most

widely used in surfactant flooding because it is adsorbed on sandstone rocks, whose surface

charge is negative, relative low. In the other way, cationic surfactant can be strongly adsorbed in

sandstone rocks, so it is generally not used in sandstone reservoirs but it can be used in carbonate

rocks to change wettability from oil-wet to water-wet. Nonionic surfactant primarily used as

cosurfactant in system phase behavior. Nonionic is more tolerant of high salinity but its function

to improve oil recovery is not as good as anionic surfactant. Zwitterionic surfactant contains two

active groups together that are nonionic-anionic, nonioniccationic, or anionic-cationic. Some

surfactant is more tolerant to temperature and salinity but it is expensive. Sometimes surfactant is

grouped into low-molecular and highmolecular according to their weight (Lake, 1989).

2.4 POLYMER FLOODING:

In polymer flooding, polymer is mixed with the injected water in order to increase the viscosity

of the water therefore making the mobility ratio between oil and water more favorable. In

consequence this will improve the macroscopic sweep efficiency. In principle, as the viscosity of

the injected water, 𝑢𝑤 , increases, the capillary number, 𝑁𝑐 , increases too and therefore gives

lower oil residual. However, the reduction is small since it takes a major change of 𝑁𝑐 in order to

affect the 𝑆𝑜𝑟 significantly. Polymer is a substance contains large molecules that are composed

of many repeated subunits known as monomers. It can be formed naturally or synthetically and

the process of forming polymers is called polymerization. Depending on the structure of the

polymer the physical properties of the polymer vary.

2.5 Types of Polymer:

2.5.1 Types of EOR Polymers

 Synthetic polymer( hydrolyzed polyacrylamide) and

 Biopolymer (xanthan gum).

2.5.2 polyacrylamide

Polyacrylamide (PAM) was applied to polymer flooding, but its usage for enhanced oil recovery

has significantly decreased. PAM tends to adsorb strongly on the mineral surfaces of reservoir

rock and induces high polymer retention in the reservoir. High polymer adsorption increases the

required amount of polymer and decreases injectivity; therefore, the usage of PAM has been

avoided for polymer flooding. To reduce polymer adsorption, hydrolyzed polyacrylamide

(HPAM) has been applied in the fields. According to Manrique et al (2009), HPAM is the most

widely used polymer in EOR applications; it is used in 92% of EOR cases world-wide. HPAM is

a copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate and a synthetic, water-soluble straight chain

polymer of acrylamide monomers. In addition, the availability and low cost of HPAM promotes

its wide use in the oil recovery business. The typical molecular weight of HPAM used in

polymer flood is within the range of 2 to 2×106 g/mole.

2.5.3 Xanthan

Xanthan is a polysaccharide which is produced by bacteria during the fermentation of glucose. In

order to protect the bacteria from dehydration ,they produce the polymer .The result of this

process is the fact that this polymer is very sensitive to bacterial attack on surface and after it is

injected into the reservoir.

2.6 Polymer Rheology:

In polymer flooding, the viscosity of polymer solution is an important property that should be

considered. The polymer is added to the injection brine in order to increase brine viscosity,

which in turn improve oil-water mobility ratio and leads to increase sweep efficiency. However

the polymer solutions, unlike water and oil, have shear-dependent viscosity flow behavior and

this type of fluids called non-Newtonian fluid. The most common model that relates the shear

stress and shear rate is the power law model which is given by the expression

where u is the viscosity of solution, m is the consistency parameter, y is the shear rate, and n is

the flow index.

2.7 Mobility Ratio, M:

The mobility, M, of a single fluid in a porous medium is defined as the ratio of the effective

permeability of the fluid to the viscosity of that fluid

𝐾𝑟𝑤 𝑈𝑜
M = Mobility of displacing fluid = Mobility of water = ∗
𝑈𝑊 𝑘𝑟𝑜

Mobility of displaced fluid Mobility of oil

Where: 𝐾𝑟𝑤= Relative permeability of water

𝐾𝑟𝑜 =Relative permeability of oil

𝑈𝑜 =Viscosity of oil

𝑈𝑊 =Viscosity of water
The mobility ratio, M, is defined as the mobility of the displacing phase divided by the mobility

of the displaced phase. The mobility ratio has a significant impact on the stability of

displacement process. The favorable displacement process is attained when the mobility ratio is

low and gives a late water break-through. While a mobility ratio of greater than one (> 1) gives

unfavorable displacement process which will cause an early water break-through. However the

mobility ratio can be modified to be favorable by the following;

i. Increasing the viscosity of the displacing phase (e.g. adding polymer to the injected water).

ii lowering the viscosity of the displaced phase (e.g. thermal injection such as steam injection)

iii decreasing the end-point relative permeability of the injected fluid