MICELLAR-POLYMER FLOODING: STATUS AND RECENT

ADVANCES

S. THOMAS S.M. FAROUQ ALI

this article begins on the next page F

JCPT92-08-05 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY Micellar-polymer flooding: status and recent advances SARA THOMAS and S.M. FAROUQ ALI University of Alberta ABSTRACT The micellar (or microemulsion) flooding process is one of the veryfew oil recovery methods, which have been shown to be suc- cessful in the Jield for recovering oil from a waterflooded reser- voir. In spite of the field and laboratory successes, the process is complex to design and its economics remain a matter of con- cern in view of large initial investments and a high risk factor. This paper ewmines the micellar-polymer flooding
process from the points-of-view of laboratory and field experience, as well as simulation. In particular, the authors' own laboratory work on salinity and multiple micellar slugs is described. The micellarflooding process employs a micellar solution con- sisting of oil, water and a surfactant, as well as small amounts Of other chemicals. The role ofphase behaviour of such a system is examined with regard to displacement efficiency. Salinity of the brine in the fluid system used is an important factor in determin- ing the process efficiency. The micellar slug can be broken into two,
or more, slugs using the phase diagram, in such a way that the individual slugs are compatible with each other, reducing the ,slug dissipation rate. Introduction Micellar flooding is technically the most successful chemical flood- ing process for waterflooded formations. It has some of the limi- tations of chemically-based processes, but its long-term potential for the recovery of residual (waterflood) light oils could be cOM- parable to that of steamflooding for heavy oil given the right eco- nomic conditions. Ntceflar flooding is indeed the only process that has been demonstrated
successfully in the field as a tertiary recovery process for low pressure, depleted oil reservoirs. In spite of this promise, micellar flooding is only marginally economical, or even uneconomical, and is also strongly dependent on the mineral con- tent of the reservoir rock and the composition of the interstitial water. It is a process that needs to be tailored carefully for the target reservoir. The high cost of the process is in part due to the cost of the chemicals and the small well spacing needed - draw- backs of most chemical flooding processes. (For a discussion of the economics of
the process, refer to Gogarty(l)). This paper presents an assessment of the micellar flooding process in the fight of the laboratory and field data, with a view to determining its future prospects. Keywords: Micellar flooding, Surfactant flooding, Tertiary recovery, Alcohol flooding, Enhanced oil recovery, Microemulsions. Paper reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial October 1992, Volume 31, No. 8 _ Definitions Micellar flooding is variously known as "microemulsion flood- ing", "micellar-polymer flooding", and "surfactant-polymer flooding", with varying shades of
meaning. Generally, the basic process consists in injecting a slug of a preflush, followed by the micellar slug proper, followed by a slug of a polymer solution, which is graded into a waterflood. Variations have been proposed, e.g. mixing the polymer with the micellar solution. The definitions given by HOIM(2) help to distinguish between different types of surfactant-polymer floods. A micellar solution is a dispersion of a surfactant in an oleic or aqueous solvent. Such solutions can solubilize large amounts of water or oil to form either water-in-oil (@,/o) or oil-in-water (o/w)
microemulsions, respec- tively. A niicroemulsion is a stable o/w or w/o emulsion, in which the drop size is less than about one micrometre (micron). A solu- ble oil is an oleic composition that is capable of solubilizing water (not oil) when mixed with it. A soluble oil may contain water, but the external phase is oleic. Process Development Micellar flooding was initially developed by the Marathon Oil Company, in the early 1960s, by Poettmann, Gogarty, Tosch, Davis, Jones, Miller and their co-workers. Marathon owns over 100 patents on the process, known as the Maraflood(Tm). Refer- ences
to the early (1960-1965) patents on surfactant flooding and related processes are given by Gogarty(3). In addition to the afore- said, some of the early experimental work was carried out at the Pennsylvania State University by Farouq Ab, Stahl, and their stu- dentS(4-6), and later, by Ertekin(7) and co-workers. At about the same time, Union Oil Company introduced the soluble oils, dis- cussed by H,)IM(2). Healy, Reed and their co-workers(8-11) from Exxon Research published several important papers on the process. More recentliy, Pope, Lake and their co-workers(12-15) at the University ot
Texas extended the theoretical basis of the process and developed numerical simulators. Many other researchers have contributed to the theory and operation of micellar flooding; nearly thirty i-ield t,,-sts have been conducted. Micellar Flooding Process The first description of the micellar flooding process (as Maraflood, trademark ol' Marathon Oil Company) was given by Gogarty and Tosch(16). A modified process consists in injecting a preflush of low salinity brine, followed by a micellar slug of low mobility, which is drin,en by a polymer buffer to provide mobility control. The buffer i@
followed by a waterflood. The micellar solution, con- Board of The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. 53