Abstract
Tertiary recovery techniques such as alkali–surfactant–polymer flooding (henceforth ASP) and foam flooding have been widely administered in production operations of oil reservoirs which have led to the higher value of oil recovery factor, especially in heavy-oil reservoirs. The objective of this extensive study is to provide a comparative study between numerical simulation which was used by the commercial software implicit pressure and explicit composition (henceforth IMPEC) and experimental investigation for different injectivity scenarios of foaming agent and ASP solution after water and gas flooding on the oil recovery enhancement. To do this, simulation parameters for each scenario were considered in the simulator to investigate the results of each scenario on the oil recovery enhancement. Due to the presence of a gas phase in the realistic performances, the experiments were performed in the presence of three-phase fluids to match the results with the operational circumstances. Moreover, regarding the lack of information about the considerable influence of in situ gas which is in the trapped and continuous phase, the dissolved gas is taken into the evaluation. To validate the simulation analysis, an experimental investigation was performed for different scenarios and selected the optimum injectivity scenario. Consequently, regarding the presence of gas phase, ASP flooding after gas and water flooding had the maximum oil recovery factor and was considered as the optimum technique to produce initial oil in place. The reason for this phenomenon is elaborated to the more feasibility of gas phase which had led to the more mobilization of the oleic phase in the porous medium.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ASP:
-
Alkali–surfactant–polymer
- cP:
-
Centipoise
- ppm:
-
Parts per million
- PV:
-
Pore volume
- EOR:
-
Enhanced oil recovery
- BT:
-
Breakthrough time
- NaCl:
-
Sodium chloride
- K:
-
Potassium
- Cl:
-
Chloride
- \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{{2 - }}\) :
-
Sulfate
- \({\text{HCO}}_{3}\) :
-
Bicarbonate
- TDS:
-
Total dissolved solids
- \(S_{\text{wi}}\) :
-
Initial water saturation
- \(S_{\text{orw}}\) :
-
Remaining oil saturation to water
- \(S_{\text{wc}}\) :
-
Connate water saturation
- \(K_{\text{rw}}\) :
-
Water relative permeability
- \(K_{\text{row}}\) :
-
Oil relative permeability at water saturation
- \(n_{\text{w}}\) :
-
Corey power for water phase
- \(n_{\text{o}}\) :
-
Corey power for oil phase
- \(S_{\text{orc}}\) :
-
Remaining oil saturation to chemicals
- \(S_{\text{wcc}}\) :
-
Connate water saturation to chemicals
- \(K_{\text{rwc}}\) :
-
Connate water relative permeability
- \(K_{\text{roc}}\) :
-
Oil relative permeability at chemicals saturation
- \(n_{\text{wc}}\) :
-
Corey power for water–chemicals phase
- \(n_{\text{oc}}\) :
-
Corey power for oil–chemicals phase
- \(S_{\text{gc}}\) :
-
Connate gas saturation
- \(S_{\text{org}}\) :
-
Remaining oil saturation to gas
- \(n_{\text{g}}\) :
-
Corey power for gas phase
- \(n_{\text{og}}\) :
-
Corey power for oil–gas phase
- \(S_{\text{gcc}}\) :
-
Connate gas saturation to chemicals
- \(S_{\text{ASP}}\) :
-
Alkali–surfactant–polymer saturation
- \(R_{i\alpha }\) :
-
Mass generation
- \(r_{{{\text{m}}i\alpha }}\) :
-
Mass transfer coefficient
- \(\rho_{\alpha }\) :
-
Intrinsic mass density for the α phase
- \(q_{i\alpha }\) :
-
Physical sources
- \(\emptyset_{\alpha }\) :
-
Constraint porosity
- \(S_{\alpha }\) :
-
Saturation for each component
- \(J_{{{\text{D}}i\alpha }}\) :
-
Constituent diffusive flux
- \(K_{i\alpha }\) :
-
Coefficient of reaction rate
- \(c_{i\alpha }\) :
-
The concentration of each component
- \(\hat{c}_{i}\) :
-
Averaged adsorption concentration for each component
- \(\rho_{iR}\) :
-
Mass density for each component
- \(n_{\text{c}}\) :
-
Chemical parts
- \(n_{\text{p}}\) :
-
Fluid phases
- \(\rho_{i\alpha }\) :
-
Mass density
- \(u_{i\alpha }\) :
-
Velocity
- \(\emptyset_{\alpha }\) :
-
Volume fraction
References
Chang HL (2013) ASP process and field results. Enhanced oil recovery field case studies. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 203–249
Davarpanah A (2018) A feasible visual investigation for associative foam\polymer injectivity performances in the oil recovery enhancement. Eur Polym J 105:405–411
Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B (2019) Mathematical modeling of injectivity damage with oil droplets in the waste produced water re-injection of the linear flow. Eur Phys J Plus 134(4):180. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12546-9
Davarpanah A et al (2019a) Simultaneous feasible injectivity of foam and hydrolyzed polyacrylamide to optimize the oil recovery enhancement. Energy Explor Exploit 37(1):44–59
Davarpanah A et al (2019b) Experimental evaluation of polymer-enhanced foam transportation on the foam stabilization in the porous media. Int J Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02280-z
Ding L et al (2018) Alkaline surfactant polymer ASP process for shaley formation with pyrite. In: SPE improved oil recovery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Ebadati A et al (2018a) An experimental study of alternative hot water alternating gas injection in a fractured model. Energy Explor Exploit. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598718815247
Ebadati A et al (2018b) Stimulated-based characterization recovery enhancement feedback of oil-rim reservoirs. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util Environ Eff 40(21):2528–2541
Ebadati A et al (2019) An experimental study to measure the required fresh water and treated water for drilling an unconventional shale reservoir. Int J Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-02185-3
Farajzadeh R et al (2011) Modeling of alkali surfactant polymer process by coupling a multi-purpose simulator to the chemistry package PHREEQC. In: IOR 2011—16th European symposium on improved oil recovery
Farajzadeh R et al (2013) Effect of continuous, trapped, and flowing gas on performance of alkaline surfactant polymer (ASP) flooding. Ind Eng Chem Res 52(38):13839–13848
Guo H et al (2011) A novel alkaline–surfactant-foam EOR process. In: SPE enhanced oil recovery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Guo F, Aryana S (2016) An experimental investigation of nanoparticle-stabilized CO2 foam used in enhanced oil recovery. Fuel 186:430–442
Guo F, Aryana SA (2018) Improved sweep efficiency due to foam flooding in a heterogeneous microfluidic device. J Pet Sci Eng 164:155–163
Li RF et al (2010) Foam mobility control for surfactant enhanced oil recovery. SPE J 15(04):928–942
Liu P et al (2017) Enhanced oil recovery by air-foam flooding system in tight oil reservoirs: study on the profile-controlling mechanisms. J Pet Sci Eng 150:208–216
Mazarei M et al (2019) The feasibility analysis of underground gas storage during an integration of improved condensate recovery processes. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 9(1):397–408
Mohammadi H et al (2009) Mechanistic modeling of alkaline/surfactant/polymer floods. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 12(04):518–527
Roshanfekr M, Johns R (2011) Prediction of optimum salinity and solubilization ratio for microemulsion phase behavior with live crude at reservoir pressure. Fluid Phase Equilib 304(1–2):52–60
Roshanfekr M et al (2012) Simulation of the effect of pressure and solution gas on oil recovery from surfactant/polymer floods. SPE J 17(03):705–716
Southwick JG et al (2012) Effect of live crude on alkaline/surfactant polymer formulations: implications for final formulation design. SPE J 17(02):352–361
Stoll M et al (2011) Alkaline–surfactant–polymer flood—from the laboratory to the field. In: IOR 2011—16th European symposium on improved oil recovery
Telmadarreie A, Trivedi JJ (2016) New insight on carbonate-heavy-oil recovery: pore-scale mechanisms of post-solvent carbon dioxide foam/polymer-enhanced-foam flooding. SPE J 21(05):1655–651668
Valizadeh K, Davarpanah A (2019) Design and construction of a micro-photo bioreactor in order to dairy wastewater treatment by micro-algae: parametric study. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util Environ Eff. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1588425
Volokitin Y et al (2018) Results of alkaline–surfactant–polymer flooding pilot at West Salym field. In: SPE EOR conference at oil and gas West Asia. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Wei P et al (2018) Oil recovery enhancement in low permeable and severe heterogeneous oil reservoirs via gas and foam flooding. J Pet Sci Eng 163:340–348
Wu Z et al (2016) A visual investigation of enhanced heavy oil recovery by foam flooding after hot water injection. J Pet Sci Eng 147:361–370
Wu F-P et al (2018) A study on oxygen consumption mechanism of air-foam flooding in low-temperature oil reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 161:368–380
Xia H et al (2018) Mechanism research on starting residual oil migration in ASP flooding with different alkali concentration. IOP conference series: earth and environmental science. IOP Publishing, Bristol
Xu X et al (2016) Laboratory studies on CO2 foam flooding enhanced by a novel amphiphilic ter-polymer. J Pet Sci Eng 138:153–159
Xua J et al (2017) Advanced treatment of produced water from ASP (alkali/surfactant/polymer) flooding with polyethersulfone UF membrane for reinjection. Desalination 61:42–49
Zarei M et al (2019) Integrated feasibility experimental investigation of hydrodynamic, geometrical and, operational characterization of methanol conversion to formaldehyde. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util Environ Eff. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1587057
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisor Mr. Afshin Hosseini Hemat for his guidance and support throughout this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Editorial responsibility: Fatih ŞEN.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davarpanah, A., Mirshekari, B. Numerical simulation and laboratory evaluation of alkali–surfactant–polymer and foam flooding. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17, 1123–1136 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02438-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02438-9