,J”

SPE
m 7077

NUMERICAL
SIMULATION
OF COMPETING
CHEMICAL
FLOODDESIGNS

byM.R. Todd, Member SPE-AIME, and J.K. Dietrich, INTERCO!’4PResource

Development and Engineering, Inc.; A. Roldburg9.Member SpE-AIME>
Gary Operating Company; and R.G.Larson, U. of Minnesota

Copyright 1978, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was presented at the Fifth symposium on Improved Methods for 011Recovery of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 16.19.1978. The material k subject
tO
correction by the author. Permission to coPy is reatrioted toanabatractOfnot more than 30@ words. write 6200 N. Central EXPWY.. OallaS. km T5206.

ABSTIUCT
Micellar - Polymer DemonstrationPilot.7 Union Oil
TWO chemical flooding design philosophies -- Company, long a proponent of the small slug, high
1) a small slug, high concentration,“soluble oil” concentration,‘Ssolubleoil” system was contracted
system, and 2) a large slug, dilute concentration, by Gary Operating Company, the field operator, tc
“optimal salinity” design -- were investigated in design a process suitable for Bell Creek. For
pursuit of a chemical systew suitable for testing contrast, Atlantic Richfield, a large working
in the Department of Energy (DOE)/GaryOperating interest owner of the Bell C~~?k field, elected to
Company Micellar - Polymer demonstrationproject investigate the alternative of a lsrge, dilute
in the Bell Creek field, Montana.* As part of the slug, following the “optimal salinity” principles
process selection algorithm, laboratory core flood proposed by Exxon&.
results were matched using a numerical simulator.
The simulator was then used to predict areal and It is definitely not the intent of this paper
vertical field performance. to make any generalizationas to the relative
merits of these two design philosophies. Instead,
For the particular systems investigatedand the intent is to present experimentaland numeri-
for this specific application, the “soluble oil” cal results for a specific application of chemical
system appeara to hold the greatest promise for flooding systems, developed by two companies who
success. have elected to follow differing design philosophies.

INTRODUCTIOIJ DESCRIPTIONS OF DESIGNS

Of the various surfactant flood design strat- The Union and A,R.Co. “optimum designs” for
egies that have bekn proposed, two distinct philoso- Bell Creek call for injection of the slugs of
phies have emerged, One school of thought advocates chemicals listed in Table 1. Noting the injection
the use of a small ulug of high surfactant concentra- composttfon of the surfactant slugs, we shall
tion, holding that miscibility between the slug and hereafter refer to Union and A.R.Co. procesees as
neighboring fluids is the primary mechanism of the “soluble oil” (SO) and high water content
displacement.1,2**Theother school believea that (HWC) processes, respectively.
miscibility cannot be long sustained with small
slugs and proposes using larger slugs of more The two Bell Creek designs utflize the same
dilute surfactants, relying on the attainment of polymer, Easically the same eurfactant, but dif-
ultra-low interracial tension, instead of mis- ferent cosolvents, dffferent preflushes ai?ddifferent
cibility, to recover tertiary oil,3s4$5~6 salinities. The HWC design specifies a uniform
salinity, slightly less than reservoir sal.tnity,
These differing design philosophieswere throughout the process; the SO design specifies
investigatedby two major oil companies in F ..suit different salinities for each slug, the preflush
of a surfactant system suitable for pilot testing and micellar slitg’-salinities
being higher al~dthe
in the DOE/Gary Operating Company Bell Creek polymer slug salinity being lower than rese-rvoir
salinity.
* Work was perfomed under DOE Contract EY-77-C-
DESCRIPTION OF SIMULATOR
02-4207, Division of Oil, Gas and Shale Techno-
logy.
Simulationwork was accompltehedueing the
** References and illustrationsat end of paper.
INTERCOMP Chemical Flood Simulator. The mcdel
solves for six components (or epecles) in two
fluid phases. All six componentsmay partition

410 NUMERICAL
..-. —--——-—SIMULATION
———- —. OF COMPETING CHEMICAL FLOOD DESIGNS
between the aqueous and hydrocarbon phasea. Mass
transfer is assumed to be sufficiently fast com-
pared to fluid flow so that chemical equilibrium
exists across all phase boundaries. Four compo-
nents may disperse by both molecular diffusion and
mechanical dispassion in both the longitudinal and
transverse directions and in both phaaes. The
same four components may adsorb on the reservoir
cock, satisfying equilibrium sorption isotherms.
An inaccessiblepore volume may be specified for
one of the component. The model allows for a
one-dimensional,vartable width geometry; a two-
dimensional,vertical, variable width crose-
sectional geometry and a two-dimensional,areal
geomatry.
SIMULATOR INPUT
To compare the two designs and to obtain
simulator input data, a set of standardized
laboratory tests of each design were made. The
tests consisted of:
1) measurement of physlco-chemicalproperties
such as phase behavior, interfac’lal
tensions, etc., at the reservoir tempera-
ture (11O”F),
2) a suite of eurfactant floods at reservoir
temperature and pressure with pilot area
fluids in 4-foot cores all cut from the
same slab of Berea sandstone, alternate
sections being distributed to each
designer.
Each designer ran three or four “short slug”
tests where only the size of the surfactant elug
was varied. These experimentsboth test the
simulator and indicate the kind of performance to
be expected in portions of the reservoir which,
due to sweep effects, receive differing shares
(e~ller or larger) of slug. In addition, a “long
slug” test was run for each design in which about
a pore volume of micellar fluid was injected,
followed by polymer. This test waa very useful in
aiding the understandingof the processes einca it
separates the interactionswhich occur at the
front of the slug from those that occur at the
rear.
Effluent from each core was analyzed for oil,
surfactant,viscosttiea, salinities and, in one
case, polymer. In addition, pressure taps spaced
2 inches apart were placed towazd the end of the
cme to meaaure preseure drop as a function of
throughput, At the end of each core flood, the
cores were segmented and eegmente analyzed for
remaining oil and surfactant.
Since the core tests were run in a standard-
ized fashion using Bell Creek pilot area fluide
and Berea cores cut from the same slab, many
simulator physico-chemicalinput parameters were
identical for both designe. In the following
discussion, the simulator input common to both
designs, the input unique to the HWC design and
the input unique to the SO design, respectively,
as wall as the experimentalbaaie for that input,
will be described.
,.
SPE 7077
COMMON INPUT
Relative Permeabilities
A set of Berea core relative permeabilities
(Figure 1) were meaeured (unsteady-state)using
Bell Creek fluids at low rate (low values of
capillary number, k(dpldx)lu).
The Berea core ueed in the relative per-
meability measurement was not one of the common
lot.of cores used in the eurfactant flood tests.
However, before each surfactant flood the oil
relative permeability at connate water maturation
(Swc), md the water relative permeability at
residual oil saturation (Sor), each were measured
and these, though varying amongst themselvesby
10%-20%, were tn agreement with the relative
permeability curves of Figure 1. The value of
Sam determined before each flood was nearly
invariant, and agreed with that given by the
relative permeability curves to within 1 or 2
saturation percent.
In addttion to the normal, high interracial
tension, low capillary number curves, the simula-
tor requires as basic input a set of low tension
curves, applicable at high captllary numbeT.
These curves, unfortunately,were not measured.
Therefore, as a first approximation, the low
tension relative permeabilitesreported by Talash8,
linearly adjusted to the ccmnate water of Figure
1, were used. The low tension water curve was
then adjusted by history match of the HWC process
to the curve shown in Figure 1.
It was found that the simulation of the SO
procese was not particularly sensitive to the
choice of these curves, so long ss the low tension
residual oil aaturatton, Sore, was zero. The
simulation of the HWC process, however, was very
sensitive to the choice of these curves. This
difference in sensitivity is due to the fact that
with aurfactant present the aqueous phase in the
SO process has htgh viscosity, even in the absence
of polymer; whereas in the HWC process, the aqueous
phase has, in the absence of polymer, very low
viscosity. The resulting unfavorable mobility
ratio between the aqueous portion of the HWC
surfactant slug and the oil bank resulted in
strong sensitivityof the simulated oil cut perfor-
mznce to fractional flow, and hence to relative
permeabili~y. In accord with thie finding, it
waa noted in the experimentalwork that the HWC
oil recovery was significantlypoorer when oil
vkcosity was increased by using stock tank oil
rather than the recombined llve oL1 specified for
the tests; whereas the SO procees did not show
this sensitivity.
~apillary Number Correlation
Leverett, in hie pioneering relative permea-
bility studiesg, showed that as the value of a
dimensionleaa group representing the ratio of
viacoue to capillary forces increasee above a
threshold, the relative permeabilitiesshift in
the direction of straight lines. Leverett’s grouP
is essentially equivalent to k(dp/dx)/U.9-11 If
only the water is flowing, that is if one hae
reached residual oil saturation, then the above
group becomee, by Darcy’s Law, vapalokra. Sor,
 !2Pl?
“.-,
7077
.,,,
M. R. TODD, J. K. DIETRICH, A. GOLDBURG, R. G, L4RSON
then, is a function of this group. Stnce kra
with no oil flowing is a function of Sor only, an
equally valid correlation of Sor may be obtained
ueing VaUa/U as the correlating group. TIYls
latter group, the capillary number Nca, has been
widely used to correlate rasidual oil saturation
for a number of different porous me&a.12-17
In careful Berea core experiment in which
interracial tension, viecoaity and flow rate were
each varied over ordera of magnitude, Taber14
and McMf.llenand Foster3~ 17 each obtained eesen-
tlally identical correlationsof Sor/Som with
capillary number,lO* 11 Figure 2.
‘Iftwo phases are flowing, the appropriate
correlating group is Nc Z k(dp/dx)/u. If one
adjusts the correlationsof McMillen and Foster
and of Taber to this form, one obtains a correla-
tion whfch ‘naybe approximatedby the analytic
form:
Sorlsom = 1, logloNc > -4
Sorlsom, = ●
588(-logloNc- 2.3),
logloNc ~ -2.3
Sorlsom = o, -2.3 ~ logloNc
In the simulator, relative permeabilittesaa a
functfon of Nc were obtained by an essentially
linear interpolationbetween the low and high
tension curves using the above analytic function,
SorlsOW(NC), as the interpolant.
Densities
In the 4-foot core floods, bouyancy effects
are not important, so the deneities of all fluids
were, for convenience,set to a common value of 60
lb/ft3 and compressibilitieswere neglected.
Viscosities
The oleic phaae viscosity was assigned the
viscoeity value, 4.8 cp, of the recombined live
Bell Creek crude used in the core floods. For the
brine viscosity (with no dissolved surfactant or
polymer), the measured value of 0.63 cp wae taken.
Capilla*y Pressure
For floods conducted in 4-foot Berea cores
at about 1 ftlday interstitialvelocity, the velue
of the dimensionless group NRa Z Nca L/~ ia
about that value (0,2) at which ca illary end
effect becomes negligible,18~ 19, lo SO, for the
core floods, capillary pressure was neglected.
Polymer Excluded Pore Volume
Ba;ed on experimentalpolymer effluent in one
of the experiments, as well as pressure drop and
viscosity information, 20% of the pore space wae
taken to be inaccessible to the polyacrylamide,a
value in accord with literaturevalues for polyacry-
lamides.20-22
L
/,11
-?J.
J.
Polymer Adsorption
Polymer adsorption,which is conatderable
when the polymer solution displaces brine, may be
much lees when it displaces a micellar solutfon.
For two Pusher polyacrylamidesolutions displacing
micellqr eolutiona, Truahenski et a120 reported
polymer leas of 0.06 and 0.01 lb/bbl PV in Berea
cores; whereas the A.R.Co, lab reported that when
displacing surfactant solution about 0.009 lb/bbl
PV of Cyanatrol adsorbed. llrisis only about 0.03
PV of a 1200 ppm polymer solution (to be compared
to the 0.6 PV polymer~injected). Polymer adsorption
was, therefore,neglected in the emulation.
Dispersion
By measurement of the effluent Cl- profiles
followtng a step change in injected NaCl concentra-
tion, a ~ De/v the dispersive mixing length for
the standard Berea cores was calculated to be
about 0.01 feet, a value typical of Berea.
However, in multiphase flow, eff&~ dispersion
coefficientsmay be much higher - and, in
fact, uae of a value of a = 0.05 feet for all
-4 ~ core flooJ emulations resulted in aurfactant
effluent peak heights in agreement with the
experimentalpeak heights. a = 0.05 feet was
used as the longitudinaldispersive mixing length
for polymer and surfactant in both phases in all
cGre flood simulations.
HIGH WATER CONTENT DESIGN
Phase Behavior
The HWC designwae pursued by determining
“optimal salinity” in the manner prescribed by
Healy et a14~ 26. Thus, the HWC micellar fluid
was designed to exhibit three phases with ultra-
low interracial tensione when mixed with reeervoir
fluids at reservoir temperature. The INTERCOMP
simulator ultimately used in the core flood and
field simulation Is restricted to a two-phaee
process description. However, simulations using a
one-dimensionalthree-phaee simulator25 indicated
that at least in the case in which the middle
phase microemulsion and the upper oleic phase have
similar viscosity, thes% two phasee have little
relative flow with respect to each other and, in
this case, three-phase flow may be described as
two-phaee flow in which the oletc phase containe
solubilizedwater and most of the surfactant.
Because of time constraints, effluent aamplea
in the HWC core floods wera not allowed the required
time to equilibrate and coalesce into separate
●
phaaes. Rather, they were simply separated into
an aqueous and an oleic phase, surfactant concentra-
t’fonebeing measured in each phase. Table 2 Iiste
the effluent aurfactant concentrationsin aqueous
and oleic phases ae a function of pore volumes of
throughput for the HWC long slug test. A surprising
feature of these data ia the partitioning of
surfactant,which is about 6 to 1 t~ward the
aqueous phase from 0.6 PV until 1,2 PV of produc-
tion. Thereafter the sulfonate becomee more and
more etrongly partitioned into the oleic phase,
finally partitioning 50 to 1 toward the oleic
phase. This occurs in spite of the fact that all

412 ..-- —-.--. — STMT)T,ATTON
NUMIIRTCA1. -------------
banks of fluid, 1rom the waterflood used to
prepare the core -o the polymer drive, were of the
same salinity. Furthermore, the change in parti-
tioning became evident in the effluent much too
early (1.2 PV) to have been influenced by the poly-
mer (whose injection started at 1.068 PV).
A plot (Figure 3) of total effluent aurfac-
tant ccmcentrationas a function of throughput
reveala production of surfactant in two banks.
The first bank breaks through very early (about
0.6 PV) and is produced at about 30% of the in-
jected concentration,while the second bank breaka
through at about 1.6 PV and is produced at non-
centrations greater than the injected.
The apparent explanation for these phenomena
is that the sulfonate used contained two claases
of components. Chemical analysis indicates that
about 20% of the aulfonate consisted of doub~y
sulfonated hydrocarbon (diaulfonate)and 80% is
singly sulfonated (monosulfonate), The disulfonate
ia preferentiallywater soluble, relatively non-
adsorbing and less surface active than the monoaul-
fonate. As the ratio of brine to oil viscosities
is about 1:8, the disulfonate is transported in
the much more mobile aqueoua phaee, causing the
sizable disparity in arrival time for the two
sulfonate banks.
Chromatographicseparation of surfactant
components due to their differing adsorption
characteristicshaa been well documented in the
literature.23$32Here we are apparently dealing
with a case of a partitioning-inducedcomponent
separation; the separation of components (they
break through a pore volume apart) being much more
severe in this case than adsorption-inducedsepara-
tion. Severe lag of preferentiallyoil soluble
urfactants has been report~$ ~ both experimental
and theoretical treatment, s
Thus in each HWC simulation, surfactant was
tracked aa a two ideal-componentmix; the injected
surfactant being 20% disulfonate, 80% monoaulfonate.
The diaulfonatewaa described as a component which
partitioned 6 to 1 toward the brine and, as a less
surface-activecomponent, induced no solubilization
of oil into the aqueous phase and no brine into
the oleic phase. The monosulfonatewas described
as a specie which partitioned 10 to 1 toward the
oil, aolubilizedbrine into the oleic phase (see
the phase diagram, Figure 4) in accord with the
experimental observation, and solubilizedno oil
into the aqueoua phase. This latter specification
stemmed from the experimental obaemation that
even 1.069 PV of micellar fluid left a 2% residual
oil saturation near the inflow end of the core, a
result inexplicableif the oil had any appreciable
volubility.
Interracial Tensions
For a mixture of 2 wt% gctive aurfactant,
49 wt% Bell Creek oil and .49wt% brtne at process
salinity (1200 ppm Na+), the reported microemul-
sion/brine interracial tension (IFT) was 5X10-4
and the microemulsionfoilIFT was 8X10-4. TIIUS,
the “controlling”IFT26 was 8X10-4. Lacking any
further information,the variation in IFT gener-
ated by’”thetwo surfactantswae aseigned by a
,.
--
OF --- —---- .-
f!(WPF.TTNC --- —----— FI.0011
CHI?MTCAL - -.-— DI?STCNS
-------- ---
QPU 7(I77
,“, ,
bilinear interpolationbetween the following
values:
V:m > .0005, V:d : .0005,
a = &~/cm
y~m s ●0005s ‘~d ~ .01, u = 10
-3
V:m ~ .005, V:d : .0005, u = 10
-3
V:m ~ .005, V;d ~ .01, (JElo
where V~m is the aqueous volume fraction of mono-
aulfonate, V~d betng that of disulfonate. This
dependence reflects the lesser surface activity of
the dfsulfonate and waa tuned to the above form by
history matching.
Aqueous Viscosity
The measured polymer concentrationdependence
of vtscosity at reservoir temperatureand process
salinity (1200 ppm Na+) is shown in Figure 5.
However, in the HWC core floods, produced aqueous
viscosities reached a maximum of only about 11
cp, not the injected viscosity of 18 cp. Either
shear degradation or polymer-aurfactantinter-
action deteriorated the polymer. Therefore, in
the simulation, the viscosity vs. polymer concentra-
tion curve of Figure 5 (1200 ppm Na+) was scaled
down Linearly ao that pa = 11 cp at the injected
concentrationof 1200 ppm polymer.
Surfactant Adsorption
Adsorption of sulfonate in the HWC core
floods decreased as the slug size decreased. In
fact, for each of the 12%, 9% and 6% pore volume
slugs, about 20% of the injected aulfonate emerged
as effluent from the core. This observation is cos-
sistent with the observation that dtsulfonate,
amounting to 20% of the total aulfonate, is rela-
ttvely nonadaorbing. Thus, if the monosulfonateis
completely adaorbed in each of the short slug
teats, the total amount of adsorbed sulfonatewill
decrease with decreasing slug size. One would
alao expect to find lesser amounts of retained
aulfonate near the end of the core. This, in
fact, was observed; the largest amounts of sul-
fonate, about 0.8 lblbbl PV, were found near the
front end of the core. In the simulation,a
Langmuir-type equilibrium adsorption isotherm of a
monoaulfonatewas taken with a plateau of 0.8
lb/bbl PV, and the disulfonatewas assumed not to
adsorb. The isotherm assumed had such a steep
slope at low surfact$~t concentrationsas to be
nearly Lrreveraible.
SOLUBLE OIL DESIGN
Phase Behavior
The experimentallydetermined binary phase
envelope for the SO process at micellar fluid
salinity and reservoir temperatureappears in
Figure 6. The injected composition (7.6 vol%
active aurfactant and alcohol, 40Z oil) lies
altghtly above the true binodal curve. For
reasona of convenience,however, the binodal
envelope input to the simulator, Figure 6, was
chosen so as to lie slightly above the injected
compositionso that two phases would be present
SPFI 7077 M. R. TODD, J. K. DIETRICH, , GOLDBURG, R, G. LMU30N 413
.

throughout the simulation. At micellar fluid
salinity, surfactant partitioned almost entirely
into the water-rich (aqueous)microemulsion phase,
and this partitioningwas assumed in the simula-
tion. Intrusion of higher and lower salinities
from the front and back of the SO slug (Table 1)
as well as intrudon of polymer from the backside
may have affected IFT and phase behavior, but
theee possible effects were neglected in the
simulation.
InterracialTensions
Interracial tension as a function of surfac-
tant concentrationswas obtained in the simulation
by a linear interpolationbetween the following
valuee:
of core segments for sulfonate revealed that the
2.25% PV slug lost about half as much surfactant
as the 3% and 4% slugs. One explanation of this
phenomenon is that some sulfonate molecules do not
adsorb appreciably. Simulating the SO surfactant
as a 50/50 mix of one adsorbing and one nonad-
eorbfng ideal-componentssatisfactorilyexplained
the observed adsorption behavior. The plateau
value of the assumed steep Langmuir type isotherm
was taken from the experimentaldata to be 0.4
lb/bbl PV.
The lower adsorption in the SO floods and the
inference that only half the sulfonate components
adsorbed appreciably is probably due in large
measure to the high pH sodium silicate preflush
employed and the particular blend of cosolvents.

v: = 0.052, a = 2x10-4dyne/cm ONE DIMENSIONAL RESULTS

v: = 0.031, a = 5X10-4 Using the simulator input as described shove,

the eimulated and experimental recovery curves for
v: = 0.013, a = .22 the various SO and HWC slug sizes are shown in
Figures 3, 7, and 8. The HWC and SO “design” slug
v: = 0.002, a = 30 sizes were 0.12 and 0.03 PV, respectively. In
Figure 7b, two experimental dimensionless cumula-
where V: is the volume fraction of sulfonate in tive oil (cumulativeoil/waterfloodresidual oil)
the aqueous phase. recovery curves are shown corresponding to two
separate experiments run in the same manner. The
The first wo of these values weze measured difference between the two curves is an indication
at micellar fluid salinity and the latter two were of the lack of exact experimental reproducibility
obtained by history match. due to deviations among cores and to measurement
error. On the whole, the eimulated oil recovery
Aqueoue Viscosity is within the reproducibilityerror. The gross
deviation between experimental and simulated HWC
The aqueous phase viscosity with surfactant long slug oil cut after 1.0 PV is not understood,
present, polymer absent, was simulated by linear Figure 7a.
interpolationbetween the following points:
Note that the shapes of the sfmulated surfac-
v: = 0.075, pa = 22.8cp tant effluent concentration curves agree with the
experimentaldata, Figures 7b-7d. The agreement
V: = 0.052, Ma = 18.4 in area under the curves indicates correct simula-
tion of the adsorption level for each procese.
v: = 0.031, pa = 14.5 The agreement in peak height indicates that the
level of dispersion (a = 0.05 feet) has been
v: _c 0.01,. Pa = 0.63 chosen correctly. The simulated surfactant effluent
curves, however, are generally shifted to the
The first three of these inputs are experi- right relative to the experimentalcurves. Thus,
mental points (micellar fluid salintty); the last interaction of surfactant and polymer may not have
reflects the assumption that when V: < 0.01, been modeled correccly. Surfactant effluent was
aqueous viscosity is that of brine witk.no surfac- not reported for three of the SO runs.
tant.
In Figure 8a, note that the favorable mobil-
With dissclved polymer and no surfactant, the ity ratio between the otl bank and displacing
aqueous viscosity input to the simulator was that surfactant slug in the SO procese has resulted in
which was experimentallydetermined by Union at a high oil cut and essentially 100% tertiary otl
the appropriate salinity, Figure 5. Effluent recovery at 1.0 PV of surfactant injected. Note
aqueous phase viscosity in the SO floods did not further, FLgures 8b-e, the differing breakthrough
show the considerableloss of viscosity as in the cut performances for the experimental results.
HWC floode. lhis reflects the slight variations in the high
tension relative permeabilltieseffective for the
With both polymer and eurfactant dissolved in different cores.
the aqueous phase, the viscosity was taken to be
the maximum of the two values it would attain with Figure 9 compares the observed and predicted
the given concentrationof one of the two compo- final oil recovery for the entire suite of slug
nents (surfactantor polymer) in the absence of displacements for both the SO and HWC processes.
the other. Table 3 gives results of simulations run to inspect
the predicted sensitivity of the processes to
Surfactant Adsorption certain variables. These results imply that the
HWC process would be markedly improved by lowering
As in the HWC procese, smaller SO slugs lost the surfactant adsorption level andlor increasing
less of their surfactant to adsorption. Analysis the polymer drive viscosity. The SO process
.-.
improves with decreasing dispersion which indi-
cates that performance ehould improve with in-
creasing system length.
TWO-DIMBNSI!)NAL
ARBAL SIMULATION
To estimate the effect of areal sweep on
pilot performance, the simulator was run in a two-
dimensional areal mode for each process, using the
input data for the Berea core floods describsd
earlier. Uniform field properties were assumed:
a permeabilityof 1050 md, an average for the Bell
Creek pilot area, arida uniforuwaterflood residual
saturation of 0.35, typical of Berea -- as opposed
to tha field value of about 0.25 to 0.30.
The equations were solved on the minimum
element of symmetry, an eighth of a five-spot. To
eliminate grid orientation effects,28 a coordinate
transformationwas employed which mapped the
finite difference squares onto figures whose
borders were segments of streamlines and isopo-
tential lines from the analytic solution2g to the
unit mobility, single-phase convection problem on
a five-spot.
For the areal simulation, a Peclet number,
N = L/a of 80 was chosen, the same value of N
~ige
a~ewas used in simulating the core floods.
corresponds to a = 12,5 feet for the field. With
this level of physical dispersion, the use of 30
grid blocks along the streamline direction and
four perpendicular to it appeared to be sufficient
to reduce numerical dlspersian below the input
physical dispersion.
Figures 10 and 11 show the simulated move-
ment of the oil banks (SO > 0.4) and swept zones
(SO c 0,1) for the HWC and SO designe on a 10-
acre, quarter f~ve-spot configuration. Recall
that the design slugs were 0.12 and 0.03 PV slugs,
for the HWC and the SO processes respectively.
Figures 12 and 13 show the movement of che HWC and
SO surfactants. (Contour linee enclose all surfac-
tant aqueous phase volume fractions of 0.0005 and
above for the SO surfactants, 0.6008 for the HWC
adsorbing surfactant and 0.0002 for the HwC
nonadsorbing surfactant.) Figuree 14 and 15 show
the recovery p <formancespredicted by the areal
simulations. & shown in Table 4, both the S0 and
HWC processes achie~-edareal eweep efficiencies
(areal recovery/linearcore flood recovery) of
about 70%. With a smaller slug, recoveries are
substantiallyless (Table 4).
The above results were obtained by assuming a
homngeneoua field, the effect of small and moder-
ate scale heterogene.it~eabeing modeled by choosing
a dispersion rate, of a = 12.5 feet, a value much
higher than typical for core displacements. If
the effective dispersion in the field is not so
high as thi~, recoveries are correspondingly
improved (Table 4).
~0-DIMENSIONAL VERTICAL SIMULATION
To investigate potential vertical conformance
difficulties in the Bell Creek field, the processes
were simulated in a two-dimensionalvertical mode,
using uniform Berea properties (Sor = 0.35) and
Bell Creek pilot horizontal permeability, k = 1050
md, and average pay zone thicknees, 8.1 feet.
-“- ‘“”
The effect of layering,which could be impor-
tant in the pilot, was not simulated; however,
four vertical grid blocks allowed the prediction
of gravity segregation, Bell Creek water and oil
densities of 64 lb/ft3 and 54 lb/ft3 at reservoir
preseure were input to the simulator. The densities
of phases containing mixtures of oil and water
were calculated by linear blending of the speci-
fied volumes of pure oil and water; that is,
excess volume of mi~~ng was neglected> a reason--
able approximation, Rock and fluid compress-
ibilities, not judged to be importagf even in t~
field, were taken to be lx10-6(psi) and 3x10-
(psi)-l. Capillary pressure was obtained from a
capillary drainage curve meaeured on a Bell Creek
pilot area core. The ratio of vertical to horizon-
tal permeabilitywas graded from 0.2 at the top of
the pay zone to 0.1 at the bottom, as is typical
for macroscopic permeabilityvariations in barrier
bar deposits.
Thirty longitudinalblocks and four vertical
blocks were used in the simulation. Variable
block-widths were employed to capture some of the
effect of diverging flow. The wtdths choeen were
calculated from the wfdths appropriate for a
second-from-thecenter steamtube of an eight
equal-flow steamtube description of a quarter
five-spot with unit mobility ratio flow.
In the vertical simulation of the HWC destgn,
by the time the 0.12 PV surfactant slug had been
injected, significant gravity overriding of oil
had occurred (see Figure 16). Thus, the oil-
soluble surfactantwas carrted toward the top
while the water soluble surfactant drifted to the
bottam of the formation (see Figure 18). The oil
soluble surfactant,being the more surface-active,
was more effective In sweeping oil and thus resi-
dual oil was left at the producing end predominantly
at the formation bottom, contrary to what one
ordjnar$ly expects for the more buoyant fluid. In
fact, even in the HWC core floods, residual oil at
the production end of the cores W.SSexperimentally
observed at the bottom of the cores.
In the SO vertical simulation, the short,
0.03 PV, viscous, neutrally buoyant eurfactant
slug was quickly followed by viscous polymer, thus
reducing the tendency of the brine to “underrun”
(see Figure 17). The brine volubility of the SO
surfactant resulted in better sweep of the bottom,
Figures 17 and 19, residual oil being left at the
top. Overall, SO vertical sweep efficiencywas
predicted to be 85% compared to 68% in the HWC
simulation (Table 4).
ECONOMICS
Comparative economics were evsluated for the
SO and HWC processes using oil recoveries from the
“design” slug (Tabie 1) and 2/3-design slug areal
simulations. Simulated oil recovery rates for the
40-acre Bell Creek pilot producer are shown in
Figure 20. These were developed by multiplying
the element of symmetry results by 8 and adjuet.ing
for the lower field Sor of 30%,
I~jection wells were allowed to inject with
maximum sandface injection pressures of 3200 psi,
and the central producer was assumed to be pumped
with a constant bottomhole pressure of 50 psi.
.itrJ3 lull
..” .,-i.. M. R. TODD. J. K. DIETRICH. A. GOLDBURG, R. Go LARSON Al5
. -e

With these constrainca, the injection rate into preflush and higher polymer drive viscosity
the pilot decreased from an initial, specified attained by using low salinity polymer brine gave
Iavel of 750 B/D to aminimm rate of 75 to 150 the SO process most of its advantage. Multiplying
B/D during polymer injection, depending upon the core flood recovery by areal sweep and by vertical
process. sweep gives a simulated composite, three-dimen-
sional “Tertiary Recovery Efficiency” of 54% for
Yearly oil production was talcsnfrom the the SO process and 36Z for the HWC design for this
curves in Figure 20 for use in the sconomic anal- particular application. Adverse field conditions,
yses. A 3-ynar producing Iifewas used in the HWC such as less favorable wettabiklty or rock type
cases to a final oil cut of 1.5 percent. A 4-year and layering effects, could result in substan-
Ltfe to a final oil cut of 4 percent was used in tially lower recoveries in the field. Thus, oil
the SO cases; the longer life is caused by the recoveries of 70%-90% from Berea cores are much
more viscous SO system and attendant lower injec- too optimistic to give realistic indication of
tivity. In this comparison, the SO process re- field performance, as has been borne out in pilot
covered 21 to 25 percent more oil (20,000-22,000 surfactant floods where recoveries range between
STB) than the HWC process for both the design and 10% and 60%.31
2/3-desXgn slugs.
CONCLUSIONS
Process-relatedcoets (FOB basis) for the 40-
acre Bell Creek pilot are shown in Tables 5 and 6. 1. Laboratory tests of two alternative
Slug costs were combined with expected field chemical flood designs were successfullysimu-
operating costs of $1500/injector/month and laced. Simulation of sulfonate partitioning and
$3000/producer/monthto develop the discounted adsorption behavior required a two pseudo-component
cash flow comparison shown in Figure 21. The term description of the sulfonate, in each caee.
Discounted Cash Flow (10%) is the present val~e
(when discounted by 10 percent to the beginning 2. Simulation of a pilot scale flood demon-
of chemical slug injection) of the operating cash strated areal sweep effects, and for one of the
income (revenue after royalty minus slug and c~pev:- processes severe gravity segregation of oil and
sting costs) after federal income tax. Table 7 is surfactants, even in a nonlayered system.
a eummary of various assumptions in the economic
model. These comparative economics assume that 3. Based on the laboratory tests and simu-
capital costs for facilities and operating costs lation of those tests and simulation of pilot per-
(other than those for the chemical slugs) are the formance, the Union soluble oil design appears to
same for the two processes. Under this assump- be more promising for application in the Bell Creek
tion, the undiscounted revenue after royalty field than the HWC method.
generated by a $1.00 expenditure for chemical slug
is a “yardstick” of process profitability. The NOMENCLATURE
ratio of revenue to slug costs (defined “R”) in
the SO process is 16 to 28 percent greater than De = dispersion coefficient (ft21day)
the HWC “R” value, depending on slug size: IFT = interracial tension, dyneslcm.
k= permeability
SO PROCESS HWC PROCESS kr = relative permeability
“R” VALUE “R” VALUE L= system length (4 feet for core floods)
(fraction) (fraction) Nc ~ k(dp/dx/a)= capillary number used in
simulator
Design Slug 2.42 2.08 Nz Vapa/U) = capillary number used for ex-
2/3-Design Slug 2.31 1.80 ca
perimental Sor/Sow correlations
This “R” value comparison is based on costs of NE L/c#)=system Peclet Number
$13.50/barrelfor oil used in the SO slug and pe
$3.29/barrelof chemical for the HWC slug. P- pressure
s= residual oleic phase saturation
or
Extrapolationof the SO data shown in Figure s = restdual oleic phase saturation to
21 indicates that tertiary recovery efficiency Orw
waterflood for low Nc.
will probably need to be greater than about 20 s= connate water (aqueous phaee) saturation
percent for a profitable chemical flood, given an Wc
unescalating crude price of $13.50/STB. An econo- V= interstitialvelocity (Darcy velocity/
mic analysts which includes the”costs of facili- poroeity)
ties, new walls, production tax, etc., and reason- V: = volume fraction of chemical sulfonate in
able crude price increases will also probably the aqueous phase
show the “breakeven,” field-wide recovery efft- P= volume fraction of monosulfonate in the
ciency to be greater than 20 percent. cm
aqueoue phase.
“a a volume fraction of disulfonate in the
RESULTS ccl
aqueous phase.
x= length
The soluble oil process performed better than u= dispersive mixing length (feet)
the high water content des.tgnboth in the labora-
P“ Viscosity
tory and in the simulations. Economics for the SO
u= tnterfacial tension (dynes/cm)
process were alao more favorable. Simulator poroeity
4=
sensitivity etudies indicated that the lower
adsorption attained by use of a high pH silicate

).7C NHL4WRTPAT
.,”,.J..L, *”-
CTT.Till
W *..”-..*”..
ATTflN nR
“.
(!nMPUTTNf?
-v.- -. ....”
-A.
Further Subscript8
a= aqueous
o= oleic
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are greatly indebted to the
research personnel at Atlantic Richfield and Union
Oil Companies who not only furnished the experi-
mental data, but also gave invaluable interpretive
advice and suggestions. We would aleo like to
express our appreciation to Gary Operating Company
for their technologicaland administrativecontri-
butions and to both Gary Operating and the United
States Department of Energy for support of this
project.
REFERENCES
1, L. W. Helm “Use of Soluble Oils for Oil
Recovery,” J. Petrol. Technol., 23, 1475-
1483 (1971).
2. W. B. Gogarty and W. C. Tosch, “Miscible-
Type Waterflooding:Oil Recovery with Micellar
Solutions,” J. Petrol. Technol..,20, 1407-1414
(1968).
3. W. R. Foster, “A Lou-Tension Waterflooding
Process,” J. Petrol. Technol.,25, 205-210
(1973).
4. R. N. Healy, R. L. Reed and D, G. Stenmark,
“MultiphaseMicroemulsion Systems,” SPE 5565,
presented at Fall SPE Meeting, Dallas, Texas,
September 28, 1975.
5. H. J. Hill, J. Reisberg and G. L. Stegemeier,
“Aqueous Surfactant Systems for Oil Recovery,”
J. Petrol. Technol., 25, 186-194 (1973).
6, D. F. Boneau, R. L. Clampitt, “A Surfactant
System for the Oil-Wet Sandstone of the North
Burbank Unit,” J. Petrol. Technol.& 29, 501-
506 (1977). ‘—
7* A. Goldburg, “SelectIon Methodology as Between
Competing Micellar-PolymerDesigns,” SPE
No. 6729 presented at the Fall SPE Meeting,
Denver, Colorado, October 9-12, 1977.
8. A. W. Talash, “Experimentaland Calculated
Relative Permeability Data for Systems Con-
taining Tension Additives,” Paper No. 5810,
presented at the Improved Recovery Symposium
of SPE of AIME, Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 22-24,
1976.
9* M. C. Leverett, “Flow of Oil-Water Mixtures
Through UnconsolidatedSands,” Trans. AIME,
&, 149-171 (1939).
10, R. G. Lareon, “Percolationin Porous Media
with Application to Enhanced OL1 Recovery,”
M. S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, (1977).
11. R. G. Larson, L. E. Striven and H. T. Davis,
“PercolationTheory of Flow tn Porous Media,”
presented at SPE Improved Oil Recovery Sym-
poeium, Tulea, Oklahoma, April 16-19, 1978.
,,
PURMTPA7
“..- .&v.-
PT.nnn
. --””
nR!2TfZN!S
--- &v..-
cDl? 7n77
“.- ,“, #
12. L. C. Uren and E. H, Fahmy, “Factors Influ-
encing the Recovery of Petroleum from Un-
consolidated Sands by Waterflooding,”
Trans. AIME, 77, 318-335 (1927).
13. T. F. Moore and R. L. Slobod, “The Effect of
Viscosity and Capillarity on the Displacement
of Oil by Water,” Producers Monthly, ~ (10),
20-30 (1956).
14. J. J. Taber, “Dynamic and Static Forces Re-
quired to Remove a Discontinuousoil Phase from
Porous Media Containing Both Oil and Water,”
Soc, Petrol. Engrs. J., ~, 3-12 (1969).
15. A. Abrama, “The Influence of Fluid Vi~cosity,
Interracial Tension and Flow Velocity on
Residual Oil Saturation Left by Waterflood,”
Sot. Petrol. Engrs. J., 15, 437-447 (1,975).
16. G. L. Stegemeier, “Mechanisms of Entrapment
and Mobilization of Oil in Porous Media,”
paper no. 13c, 81st National Meeting of Amer.
Inst. Chem. Engrs., Kansas City, Missouri,
April 12-14, 1976.
17. R. G. Larson, L. E. Striven and H. T. Davis,
“PercolationTheory of Residual Phases in
Porous Media,” to be published in Nature.
18. J. Douglas, Jr., P. M. Blair and R. J. Wagner,
“Calculation of Linea~ Waterflood Behavior
Including the Effects of Captllary Pressure,”
Trans. AIME, 213, 96-102 (1958).
19. J. R. Kyte and L. A. Rappoport, “Linear Water-
flood Behavior and End Effects in Water-Wet
Porous Media,” Trans, AIME, 213, 423-426 (1958).
20. S.P. Trushenski, D.L. Dauben and D.R. Parrish,
“Mfcellar Floodfng-FluidPropagation, Inter-
action and Mobility,” Sot. Petrol. Engrs. J.,
~, 633-642 (1974).
21. M. K. Dabbous, “Displacementof Polymers in
Waterflooded Porous Media and its Effects on
a Subsequent Micellar Flood,” SPE No. 6203,
presented at the Fall SPE Meeting, New Orleans,
October 3->, 1976.
22. S. P. Gupta and S. P. Trushenski, “Micellar
Flooding - The Design of the Polymer Mcbility
Buffer Bank,” SPE No. 6204, presented at
the Fall SPE Meeting, New Orleans, October 3-6,
1976.
23. W. W. Gale and E. I. Sandvik, “Tertiary Sur-
factant Flooding: Petroleum Sulfonate Com-
poeitlon-EfficacyStudies,” Sot. Petrol. Engrs.
J ,,13, 191-199 (1973).
24. P. Ramond and M. A. Torcaso, “Distribut~onof
the Oil Phase Obtained upon Imbibition of
Water,” Sot. Petrol. Engrs. J., ~, 49-55 (1964).
25. R. G. Larson, “The Influence of Phase Behavior
on Surfactant Flooding,” SPE No. 6774, pre-
eented at the Fall SPE Meeting, Denvert CO,
October 9-12, 1977.
--- .A. .
,-.. .. .
MD Tmnn
A“””,
T u llTRTRT(!U. A- f2rY.13RllRG. R. G. 1.ARSON .477
Srti lull “ . . . . “---.. -”.., . . . “--------z --- --
—— -.. . -7A,

ment Calculations for Pattern Floods in a

26. R. N. Healy and R. L. Reed, “ImmiscibleMicro- Homogeneous Medium,” Sot. Petrol, Engrs. J.,
emulsion Flooding,” SPE 5817 presented at SPE 217-227 (September,1966).
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK,
March 22-24, 1976. 30. W. C. Tosch, “Technology of Micellar Solutions,”
SPE No. 1847-B, presented at Fall SPE Meeting,
27. R. G. Larson and G. Hirasaki, “Analysis of the Houston, Texas, October 1-4, 1967.
Physical Mechanisms in Surfactarm Flooding,”
SPE 6003, presented at the Fall SPE Meeting, 31. F. H. Poettmann, “MicroemulsionFlooding,”
New Orleans, October 3-6, 1976. Chapter IV of Secondary and Terttary Oil
Recovery Processes, Interstate Oil Compact
28, M. R. Todd, P. M. O’Dell and G. J. Hirasaki, Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (1974).
“Methods for Increased Accuracy in Numerical
Reservoir Simulator,” Sot. Petrol. Engrs. J., 32. B. G. Hurd, “Adsorption and Transport of
12, 515-530 (1972). Chemical Species in Laboratory Surfactant
Waterfloodlng Experiments,”SPE No. 5818,
?9. H. J. Morel-Seytoux, “Unit Mobility Dfsplace- presented at the Improved Oil Recovery Sym-
posium, Tulsa, Oklahoma. March 22-24. 1976.

TABLE 1

SO AND HWC PROCESS “OPTIMUM DESIGN”

Soluble Oil Design

0.1 PV preflush slug

Alkaline (pH g 12) silicate, 4200 ppm Na+, 7 ppm Ca+, 2 ppmMg*

0.03 PV surfactant slug

7.6 vol. % of an active sulfonatg- cosolvent#.x (mostly~tepan
Petrostep 465), plus 2500 ppm Na , 7 ppm Ca , 2 ppm Mg , plus
40 vol. % Bell Creek crude oil.

0.70 PV polymer slug

95$ ppm activ~polyacrylamide polymer (CyanatrolWF9505) plus 700 ppm
Na , 8 ppm Ca

2%* pv cha8e brin

% i+
1800 ppm Na , 17 ppm Ca

* PV preflush s~ug 22
1200 ppm Na’-,17 ppm Ca-

0.12 PV surfactant slug

2 wgt % active surfactant+(StepanPet~ostep 465) ,77wgt % n-amyl
alcohol, plus 1200 ppm Na , 17 ppm Ca

0.60 PV polymer slug

12C0 ppm ac~ive polyacrylimidepolymer (CyanatrolWF9505) plus
1200 ppmNa , 17 ppm Ca

** pv chase br~ e
% ++
1200 ppm Na , 17 ppm Ca

* PV to be designed by numerical modeling.

** Until a limiting economic watercut is reached.
 TABLE 3
TA8L8 2
SENSITIVITY TESTS
NWC LONG SLUG EFPLVBNT SURFACTANTcONCENTRATIONS
Laboratory
CoreFloodSirmrlationa
SulfonateConcentration (.aea.l!) Recovary
At
ThroughPut(PV) Oleic Phase AqueousPhase 0.6 PV 1.0 Pv
I) RWC Design ~lQ?Q!+Q
0.55 0,64 0.38 History Match of Design Proceae -
0.64 0.68 1.49 126 slug 0.4s 0.73
0.72 1.32 6,77
0,81 1,66 10.23
0.89 1.83 11.65 ~ From
12.21 -
0.98 2.13
1.07 2.43 12.93 1) Adsorption 0.07 0.15 lb/ft~ 0.s5 0.92
1.16 2.94 12.93 2) Adsorption 0.25 0.15 lb/ft 0.45 0.60
1.25 4.56 12,36 3) Diepsrsion 0.01 0.05 ft 0.48 0.79
1.33 7.37 11.79
1.42 10.91 12.07
1.51 19.S6 10.65 II) SO Design
1.59 39.20 9.72
1.6S 83.5 8.86 History Match of Design Proceaa -
1.76 156.0 7.5s 3% slug 0.64 0.89
1.s7 175.5 6.56
180.2 5.03
179.1 4,26 Changed ~ From

1) Adsorption 0.036 0.072 lb/ft; 0.64 0.93

2) Adsorption 0.12 0.O72 lb/ft 0.57 0.80
Injectedconcentration
- 36.8 meq.1~. 3) Dispersion 0.01 0.05 ft 0.63 0.97

TABLE .4

PERPOSMANCETESTING
TABLE 5
Recovery@ 1.0 Pore Volume (STOISTOOIP)
CREEKPILOT
BELL
- ~LATEDCOSTS
PROCESS
~
PORE VOLUME (PV) BASIS IS 730,000 SBLS
1) DeslguSlug (M$)
A) core Flood Recovery* .73 .89
B) heel Recovery .53 .63
c) Areal Sweep** .73 .71
o) VerticalRecOverY ,50
73) VerticalSweep .68 SO Design HWC Design
P) TerclaryRecoveryEfficiency(TRE)*** &
Preflueh - 10%PV 18 Prefluah - 40%PV NIL
II) 213 Deeignslug (Areal)Recovery .38 .50 355 Chemical slug - 12$PV 288
Chemical Slug - 3%PV
III) 1/3 Dispersion(Areal)Recovery .58 .73 Polymer - 60%PV 329
Polymer - 6J6Pv 236
Royalty — 33 Royalty N.A.

* Simulatedz Experimental TOTAL 642 617

** ( rv)
‘weep
‘((he =Recovery)

* (VerticalSweep)

TABLE 6
sELL CRSEK PILOT TABLE 7
PROCESS - RELATED cOSTS MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS IN ECONOKIC MODE7.
(FOB SASIS)

Oil Prices: $13.50/STB Constant

Royalty: 12.5% of Gross Revenue
Present Value
Petrostsp 465 @ 60$ Active 21C/lb. Dates Beginning of Chamical Slug Injection.
cyanatrol 9505 43’$/lb.
Federal Tax$m,
- No Depletion
SO Desiqn ‘=ma%a: - 50% Tax Rate Uaad
\ ..- slug Costa Were Expensed
,IN”silicate 3~/lb.
caustic Soda 5c/lb. None used in Comparison Economics
Bell Creek crude 4.47~/lb. ‘tate ‘r ‘Ocal “’-:. $3rJ00/prOducer/Month
Oparating Coats:
Royalty (per lb. of sUlfOnate mix bssis) 2.5C/lb. \“”
.$1500/Injector/MOnth

RWC Deaiqn Note: Raguired facilities costs and operating costa (ex-
eluding slug) were assumed to be the a~e in
Normal Amyl Alcohol 32@/lb. the two chemical flooding processes.
 j Lo 1.0
1.0 , , ,
\
_ HIOHII1 \
;
--- Lowlfr \
\ 0.8 -
0.2 - l!. 0.0
\ I
\
\ i

0.6 - A f’. O.e a6 -

\
/ e
E k - #j
s I
0.4 - - 0.4 0.4 -
;

TA22RA

ez - - 0.2 0.2 -

,/’
\
./: \
o L o OJ
1 1 I I
0 0.2 OA 0.6 O.a 1.0 Id 10-e 104 !0”S 10+
SQ
NCO
Fig, 1 -Iligh lFT and low lFTrelalive permeabil ities input
Fig. 2- Capillary number correlation (from Taber14and Fostar3).
to simulator.

$URFACTAHT
HWC-I.066 Pv. slug

Q (pore velumn vwdvced) OIL

Fig. 3- WC long slug surfactant eff Iuant concentra! ion and orassure drop. Fig. 4- WC phaae behavior input to simulator.

WR~ACTAMT

o,w~ 10,000 ----- -

eclivopalymsrcoecon!rotlon,
(ppm)
mu OIL

(Cyanottel)
Fig, 6- SO phase dfagram input to siuolator.
Fig. 5- Aweous viscord ty vs. PO1Ymw Concefltr.
 .,, ,

HWC -0.12 P.V. $IUQ

LO ~ 1 1 1 1 1
HWC -1.068 P.V. lone Slug I

1.0 > 6 ,
0 011 CU1 (:000””
CXVLRIWNIAI
o cum 011
e ) .F@
t 0.8 - . . S,MUIAIED
* 00/
‘/
5
“/

~o.e - OR“0’ f\
~>OL!
/\
a /
c1 \
~ 0.4 - #

#
.01’ ‘,
~ 04@ 0

j 0.s - :. —-+:”= OOOO. O””””” 00 / 00

---- _— - 0 ~’\
1! 0/< D
~. o O\ooo o
~ (0 ,\
o 1.6 2.0
0 04 O.a 1.2

Q (pore volumes vroducd

Fig. 7a - i+!C dimensionless core flood recovery -1.06’3 pi’. Q (pore volumm produced)
Fig. 7b - X!C dimensionless core flood recovery -0,12 PV,

HWC -0.06 RV. Slu#

HWC -0.09 P.V. $)IU9 1.0, , , 1
1
‘“”~ CUT

I
o OIL

ii
d
O.*
A
0

--
WWACIAN1
CUM 011

SIMUIAIEO
I
EXPiRlM6NTA1

0.08

z
“ {

s
g0.6- - 0.0s
~
=
00.4 -
/’\ - 0.04
/

.-5
:
: 0.2
6

0
0 0.4 0.8

0 (we volumes Produced)

Q (pm volumts produced)
Fig. 7d - WC dimensionless eor? f Iood recovery - C.IM ‘v,
Fig. 7C - WC dimensionless core flood recovery - fl.n9 Pv,

so - 0.04 Pv.slug
,0 , 1
0 011 CU1
, SO -0.99 W. Leng Slug EX?ER1MEP41A1
101 1000 0 CUM 011 }
/ Potwnl E
3 0.8 - --- SIMULATEO
/
*
:

r 0.6 -

I
.
0 0.4 -

i!
~

j 0.2 -

Q [em votum8s mducnd) 0

0 0.4 0.2 1.2
Fig. 8s - SO dimensionless core f Iood recovery -0.99 PV. Q (pdra volumw productd)
Fig. 8b - S0 dimensionless core flmd recovery -0.04 PV.
 so- 0.03 Pv.Slufa so -0.0225 Pv, slu@
I 1 , I 1
--- 0 011
1
SIMULATED CUT
~ ~uM 0,, EXPERIMENTAL

~0.6- b lUR?WW
:
0 OIL

)CX?CRIMENTAL
0 Cvr
w?
Otb /
- 0.08 $ as -
--- SIMULATEO

~ i
/’\

i a’ - - 0.06 ~ ae -

P i (
=
6 / o
0.4 -
~ ‘4 - I j
.
.s / .:
~
: 0.2- j
n
0.2 -
5 /

o
0
/

0.4
Q (pore volumes
0,8
produced 1
I .2
o
0.4

Q (pore volumes produced)

0.8 1.2

Fig. 3d - SO dimensionless core flood recovm’y - P.C4 PV,

Fig. ‘jc - :C diven.ionles$ core flood recovery -0.03 W.

so -0.015 Pv. slug

I 1 , 1

0.6 }
I ---
o
0
OIL CUT
CUM OIL

s,M”LATEO
1EXPERIMENTAL

i
I

Q (Pore volumes produced)

Fig. ?e - X dimensionless core flood recovery - 9.0)5 FT.

H WC PROCESS

:;:::;
;fi~
,:;
BEREA- 4’ CORE WITH BELL CREEK FLUIDS AREAL VIEW

,;:;
;;:,:;
,::;
;;;:;;
DESIGN SLUG OIL SATURATION

,:;
:;:;///
10(

( FI El
SOLUBLE 011 PROCESS

6
0

St
“:;:-~y,
*
.
00 EXPERIMENTAL ------------- ::::::: ::;
:
0 + SIMULATEO
u 0 >9::::.:S: >;:fi
z
12 s Pv 1ss Pv

-..
.--:2::-:-
a
I - Znl,cwr

=%wm
69

‘%w
ioN
P - Prodvca

----------
.
- ~~.,=
HIGH WATER CONTENT PROCESS

:.:-:.:.:
.--.-------
-.<-.-.
(

40

Fig. 9-
I
10

PV ●
20

WT S

Comparison of experimental
30

SURFACTAt4T
40

and simulated oil recovery,

;Wkti 64 s Pv 1

Fig. 10- Propagation of oi I bar+< and swept zone in WC tuo-

dimensf onal areal simulation.
9bS PV
 HWC PROCESS
AREAL VIEW

:;:;
;;;;
;:;
;::;
DESIGN SLUG SURFACTANT CONCENTRATIONS

r~RI
sO PROCESS
AREAL VIEW
DESIGN SLUG OIL SATURATION

a
;;;7,; ,
P P
“’’’’’’’’’’’:::::;:;
///
,,///// /,..
//////> /.:::::::7/::::::::
,,,/.,,/,,, //, ///////., /,,.,7
/,,, /,/,./,,//,/,//,/,,,,/,/
/,,/, /.,//,//,,/.///,,,,
,//, ///,,/,//.,//>/.////>./ ,,/,/
/,.. //,/./,/,/////////::;;:;
~:%:::%%1
,,,,, //,//, L BAN K;;:;;<
“’:::: se > a 40 ;%,;,
:::::::~---. . /
OIL BANK ---------------
. . . . . . . . “:::::::::::::::
:..%:-:.:-:.:.:+. ‘:::::::: 12n Pv z 64s Pv
;2&’&;-;& ./,, /,,//,//:::::
:.-..
. .. ....
:~~Ep, *ON .’::7,:7 /:::: ADSORBING SURFACIANT
........-
.--..--.>. ,
.-.-.:. ‘::::::::::
:sO
--------< O.lO;::::-:
. . . . . . . - ::;:;:$;;
::::::::::::. SWEPT ZONE
.... ... ----~-=-----------
. :.:.:.:.:.:-:-:<.:.:.:.:.:.: ::::::::
:-:-:-:-z::<--
.. . .... .... m
............... ............ , . ,., ,,, P P
1 3s Pv
z 12% w -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.:-:.:-:-:.:
---.-.-.-.-.:-;-:.:->:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
:-:-:-:-:.:--------------.......... ...................
::::::::::::::;:::::::-:::::::-:::::::::2::::::::::::.-
.--:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.::.:.:-::.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
-,---------------------------------------------------
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.=-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.=.:.:.:.
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:.2-:.;.:.:.:.:-:-:.:-:
------------------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - --- - - -.-.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.=+
. . . . . . . -------
.:------- .::::::::::::::::.-::-:-:-
:.:.:-:.:.:.- -..--..-.-..----.-<+-.
-----------------------
---------------
. . . . . .....-.
:-:-:--y.:::.:.:~.. <-:?+:->:.;-:-:-:-
<.:.:.-.-..:-:.:<.:. :.:-:+:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
-------
.:<.:.:.-.-.--..-,
:-:-:-:-:-:-.-.-.->---
>.=.-.....=..<------ ::>-3-::::::::>:,--:::
...... .
.-y.;-:.:--------------- .. .. .. .
-4-------------------- :<<<-:.:-A-::-=-:::
>;.$->:::.~.:.:.:~.:.:.
. . - - ................. -:-:-:<-:-:-:--------
:.:::-:-:-.-.---.-=------- :>-::::::::->:-:+
;.:.:-:-:.:.-+-:-<-:.:
... . ... .... .....
.a” m
I 1
12s w 64 s PV

NON-ADSORBING SURFACTANT
Fig, 12- Prooagatfon of $urfactant in W two-dimensional
araal simulation,

F{g. 11 - Propagat {on of oi I bank and skreot zone in SC two-

dimmional areal sinulaf ion.
HWC - Areal Simulation

‘“~

::::::::<:::::;;:
SO PROCESS
AREAL VIEW
DESIGN SLUG SURFACTANT CONCENTRATIONS

Um
‘:::::::::;:::::::::::,
“’’’’’’’’’’~::::;::::,

Q (Dora volumes wo!lucad)

Fig. 14- Pil racovery in IPn’Ctwo-dimensional areal. simulation,

I 3s Pv z 62 s PV
,.

ADSOilMNG WRFACTANT
SO - Areal Simulation

m
P
P
-------:---:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:--------------------
--------+. . . . . . - . .. --- . .< --------
---:<
>.=-.--<.:-:------~..
-----------------------------
--k%-- .---->.-.-.->.-.-.-.:.::-.:.---..<-.:.:.: ‘“a~
:-:-:->:<-:+->:+:->~~:-f-:>-::.&::----.:.:.
-:-:+::~::y+::::::~:-:-:.z-:.:-:-:-:.:~:::<<
-<.:.:.-.-.-.-.-.-.....-...-.=..s..-=--=........ 0.08
.-%:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.-.>>.:-.:.>:.::.:.:<~:-~:-~
-<-:<.:-:<.:<-g.:.:<$>:::~::$:::>-....=.
i
*-----------:--:-:-v::=:.:.:<---v-.:=--:+#:;:::~
-<-:.:.:,.<--@:=-:*>
+-&2:+.+-k<<--
>:+-=+:--::+:<
=+:-=:+..--:>.:
>~<+>-=-.+.-
>:2::>. -=+:+:=-=- -
--%.+..*--
-:s-.:*.;.- >>~-~~~~~::
>:-:-:->:-:-
x+:~:~=:: -;+;~:s:+-*
-.-.-. -,...
-.:.:.>>:--- :.~.:<~-~$ -
y4$*
I 3s Pv m
z 62x PV

NON-ADSORUNG SURfACTANl

Fig. 13- Propagation of surfactant f n SO two-dtmanaionsl

araal simulation.

Q ( pew voluma9 produead )

Fig, 15- Cil recovery in $? twc-Mmanaional araal aimulatf on.
 HWC PROCESS SO PROCESS
CROSS - SECTIONAL ~lEW CROSS - SECTIONAL VIEW
DESIGN SLUG OIL SATURATION DESIGN SLUG OIL SATURATION

F1OW DIRECTION FLOW DIRECTION

. . — . —

I- Inlukw
P- ?mducer

—
P— 1P 1
--------.----:-::>->>.:->-:;:::::-::-:
.................... ...
-Ziimjx;
“--::;rgQg~>-:
-.>:.:.:.:<.:.::
,/ %---.-J,-.-,b-
;=;:3:5-::;<:::::
/ .................
m
ao%w as% Pv
Fig. 16- Propagation of of 1 bank and swept zone in IMC two-
dimensional vertim 1 simulation. Fig. 17- Props atfon of oil bank and swap; zone in SC two-
dlmenaional ver 1 teal afmulatt on.

SO PROCESS
HWC PROCESS
CROSS - SECTIONAL VIEW
CROSS - SECTIONAL VIEW
DESIGN SLUG SURFACTANT CONCENTRATIONS
DESIGN SLUG SURFACTANT CONCENTRATIONS

‘m ‘m mm Isvb PV

ADSORBING SURFACTANT
Ss%w
167. PV

AOSOQSING SUR.=ACTANT
64% Pv

NGU-ADSORBIN9 SURFACIANT
NON. AOSOR81MG SURFACTANT
Figm 1g - Propagation of Surfactant in F&K two-d} mensl onal
vertical simulation, Fig. 19- Propagation of surfactantin SO two-dimensional
vertical Wnz41ation.

BELL CREEK 40.ACRE PILOT BELL CREEK 40-ACRE PILOT

TERTIARY 011 RECOVERY COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS WITH UNESCALATING
wITH 100s VERTICAL SWEEP (%rwc 30 % VP) OIL PRICE OF $13.50/ BBL.
MWC PROCESS
r I
500

WI

140
I ‘s’ON
“-m
S0 tSOCFSJ S0 M$11O
Mwc moaas ,9 s
LEAL?
4S
735
w
107
53
Su!A
54
0
I 80
400 -

5
300 - - 66 ?
: 120 - .
m
2 _ti%!fc-=GN ‘LUG #0 ‘M DeslGf4 SLUG
: 100 200 // s? 5
a w
HWC 3tS OESIGN SLUG - 40 ~
80 . $
;
E 100 .fl”””
:/: 3s
Sm .
/a 8‘
S
.
3 *O 0 . 24
4 6 a 10 12 14 lb
#
20 . MICSUAR SIUO SIZE- % 101AL ?ORE VOLUME

o
— ZERO ‘SIUQ MAKEuP ‘0[1 Cos!
_ S329 I Itl. CHEMICAL COS1
0 m ●q boo 800 100G Izoo t4m W30 -e $t3 $0 I $IL fOR OIL CSEO IN -- S 4.12 # 8SL CHEMICAL COSt
TIME FROM SIAR7 MICSLLAR SLUG - DAYS CHEMICAL S(UG

Ffg, 20- %11 Creek W-acre pi 10? tertiary 011 recovary, fig, X - @elI Creek 40-acre pilot comparat iva aconuaica.