Micellar Flooding - Fluid Propagation, Interaction, and Mobility
Authors: Trushenski Scott P. , Dauben Dwight L. , Parrish David R. 
Published: December 2007

Laboratory core tests show that small polymer-driven micellar slugs displace tertiary oil, polymer-driven micellar slugs displace tertiary oil, efficiently. Surfactant adsorption studies reveal nonclassical behavior. Polymer requirements are decreased by permeability-reducing micellar/clay interaction and by reduced losses behind a micellar slug. The required volume of polymer slug increases when the pore volume that is inaccessible to the polymer increases. Long-core tests with multiple polymer increases. Long-core tests with multiple pressure taps reveal the existence of a high-mobility pressure taps reveal the existence of a high-mobility oil-water bank and a low-mobility oil-micellar mixing zone.

Introduction

Micellar fluids that use petroleum sulfonate surfactants have been tested by several organizations as potential candidates for secondary and tertiary oil recovery operations. Typically, a micellar flood consists of a brine preflush to condition the formation, a bank of micellar fluid (5 to 40 percent PV) that displaces the oil, a mobility buffer (polymer) bank to drive the micellar slug, and a chase-water bank. Micellar flooding is attractive as an improved oil recovery process because it is not severely affected by gravity segregation and is not limited by ultimate surfactant availability.

DEVELOPMENT OF MICELLAR FLUIDS

The micellar fluids that have been developed by our laboratory for miscible waterflooding are microemulsions of high water content (85 to 95 percent by weight). These fluids generally are percent by weight). These fluids generally are prepared with 4 to 10 weight percent oil-soluble prepared with 4 to 10 weight percent oil-soluble hydrocarbon sulfonate (with an equivalent weight, EW, from 350 to 475) and an oil- or water-soluble alcohol cosurfactant. The cosurfactant performs several functions. In many cases it aids the water solubility of the sulfonate. Gale and Sandvik reported that systems that do not use cosurfactants require sulfonates with a broad EW range. The low-EW sulfonates provide water solubility for the high-EW material. Since the systems discussed here use a cosurfactant to perform this function, the EW range of the sulfonates we used is much narrower. An additional benefit of the cosurfactant is that sulfonate adsorption by the rock surface is reduced.

SCREENING PROCEDURE

Before core testing, crude oils that are potential candidates for micellar flooding are screened qualitatively against a number of micellar compositions of varying surfactant/cosurfactant ratio, monovalent ion concentration, and water content. Divalent ion tolerance and temperature are also examined. Preliminary qualitative screening tests are used to visually examine the degree of miscibility between the crude oil and the micellar solution. If a micellar fluid shows potential for oil displacement and is economically attractive, a core testing program is initiated. Typically, tertiary floods are conducted at reservoir conditions in fresh 2-in.-diameter, 4-ft-long Berea sandstone cores mounted in Hassler holders. A small volume of micellar fluid (from 2.5 to 10 percent PV) is injected at a linear advance rate of percent PV) is injected at a linear advance rate of about 2 ft/D and is followed by a bank of low-salinity, polymer-thickened water. If the tertiary recovery is encouraging, the micellar fluid is evaluated in detail. This evaluation involves extensive adsorption studies to optimize the fluid composition and long-core tests to examine the propagation and interaction of the fluid banks. propagation and interaction of the fluid banks. MICELLAR FLUID DEVELOPMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RESERVOIR

The Second Wall Creek reservoir of the Salt Creek field north of Casper, Wyo., has been selected as one of the potential candidates for micellar flooding. The reservoir has a temperature of 110 degrees F, a crude oil viscosity of 4.0 cp, and an average permeability of 50 md. Analyses of the Second Wall Creek formation water and the Madison Field water (to be used as the micellar and polymer bank makeup water) are shown in Table 1. Both waters produce stable one-phase micellar fluids since the produce stable one-phase micellar fluids since the total dissolved solids and divalent ion contents are low.

SPEJ

P. 633