Understanding the Oil Recovery Mechanism in Mixed-Wet Unconventional Reservoirs: Uniqueness and Challenges of Developing Chemical Formulations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Several surfactant formulations that had been tested successfully in oil-wet unconventional reservoirs were tested in mixed-wet to oil-wet unconventional reservoir cores and did not generate the expected results. To study the mechanisms of oil recovery and understand the uniqueness of these shale reservoirs, a series of studies were performed utilizing Eagle Ford (EF) and Canadian Bakken shale rocks and fluids. In this study customized chemical formulations for improving production from the EF and the Canadian Bakken were developed. Previously related formulation development for the Bakken and Permian basins relied upon wettability alteration as the oil recovery mechanism; however, no significant oil recovery compared to brine was seen from wettability-altering formulations using EF and Canadian Bakken shale rock and fluids. Several imbibition tests showed that baseline oil recovery by brine was 20-30% of original oil in place (OOIP) for both formations. High oil recovery by brine was attributed to the mixed to water-wet nature of the pore surface. A well-connected fracture system may have also contributed. Further, there was no correlation between oil recovery and contact angle measurements. Failure of wettability alteration as an oil recovery mechanism led to investigation of interfacial tension (IFT) reduction as an alternative mechanism. Testing this hypothesis, a change in the EF formulation reduced IFT to 0.03 dyne/cm and had oil recoveries above 60% OOIP. However, these formulations were not stable at 320 °F. Formulation KPIs were set as lowering IFT and being stable up to 320 °F. Out of many formulations tested, two containing multiple actives in a specific mixture of solvents passed the KPIs and were tested for imbibition oil recovery. A synergistic mixture had a final oil recovery above 56% OOIP as compared to 20-25% OOIP for brine alone. The imbibition oil recovery results indicate that although the ultimate oil recovery by brine alone is significant, the early oil production is significantly slower than by surfactant solutions. Upscaling the laboratory time to the field time emphasizes the value of implementing customized surfactant formulation in both early and late oil production. Similarly, there was no correlation between wettability contact angle measurements and oil recovery for the Canadian Bakken shale. Surfactant formulations which exhibited low IFT (~0.01 dyne/cm) significantly accelerated the oil production and recovered an additional 30-45% OOIP in the tertiary mode from the imbibition tests. Further laboratory studies via the Washburn method, imbibition tests, and zeta potential measurements validated lowering IFT, not altering the wettability, as a primary oil recovery mechanism in the mixed-wet EF and Canadian Bakken. Optimal formulations for EF and Canadian Bakken will be tested in the field by mid-2018.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».