Surfactant flooding relative permeabilities

This chapter covers the fundamentals of surfactant flooding, which include microemulsion properties, phase behavior, interfacial tension, capillary desaturation, surfactant adsorption and retention, and relative permeabilities in surfactant flooding. It provides the basic theories for surfactant flooding and presents new concepts and views about capillary number (trapping number), relative permeabilities, two-phase approximation of the microemulsion phase behavior, and interfacial tension. This chapter also presents an experimental study of surfactant flooding in a low-permeability reservoir. 

Relative permeability is probably one of the least-defined parameters in chemical flooding processes. The classical relative permeability curves represent a situation in which the fluid distribution in the system is controlled by capillary forces. When capillary forces become small compared to viscous forces, the whole concept of relative permeability becomes weak. This area has not been adequately researched, and theoretical understanding is rather inadequate (Brij Maini, University of Calgary in Canada, personal communication, 2007). This section discusses relative permeability models related to surfactant flooding and the IFT effect on relative permeabilities. 

A 0.1% selected surfactant was then added to the injection water. The core flood experiments showed that injection pressure was reduced by 26.6%, and that the oil recovery was increased by 6.7%. This effect was a result of wettability alteration to more water-wet, reduced immobile water and oil saturations, and increased oil and water relative permeabilities. The data are shown in Table 7.11. 

In ASP flooding, alkaline, surfactant, and polymer have different effects on relative permeabilities. Table 13.2 shows our attempt to summarize these effects compared with waterflood. From Table 13.2, we can see that the effect of alkaline flood in terms of emulsification is similar to the polymer effect, whereas its effect in terms of IFT is similar to the surfactant effect. Less rigorously, we may say that only polymer reduces k, and only surfactant reduces IFT. In ASP flooding, the viscosity of the aqueous phase that contains the polymer is multiplied by the polymer permeability reduction factor in polymer flooding and the residual permeability reduction factor in postpolymer water-flooding to consider the polymer-reduced k effect. Then we can use the k curves (water, oil, and microemulsion) from surfactant flooding or alkaline-surfactant flooding experiments without polymer. 

Alcohol-free chemical floods using an equimolar blend of an olefin sulfonate and a petroleum sulfonate were reported to give a final oU recovery of 94% with a 13% of PV slug size using 3 vol.% surfactant concentration. When the slug size was reduced to 3% of PV, the oil recovery was still 80% [J7]. The mobility was controlled by adding polymer so the minimum slug viseosity, Hs, was at least equal to the reciproeal value of the water mobility at residual oil saturation, Sor Rw is viseosity of water and fcrw is relative permeability of water, i.e. ... 

---