Barium Sulfate Scaling and Control during Polymer, Surfactant, and Surfactant/Polymer Flooding
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Barium sulfate (BaSO4) scale is a serious problem that is encountered during oilfield production and has been studied mainly for fields undergoing waterflooding. Chemical enhanced oil recovery (cEOR) processes involve interactions between the injected brine and the formation brine, rock and oil. Very little work has appeared in the literature on how cEOR processes can influence the severity of the mineral scaling problem that occurs in the field and how this can be managed. This study investigates barium and sulfate coproduction behavior, the deposition of BaSO4 in the formation and in the producer wellbore, and its inhibition during polymer, surfactant, and surfactant/polymer (SP) flooding cEOR processes. To aid the cEOR economic decision, assessment of the impact of cEOR flooding type on both scale management and oil recovery is performed. Reservoir simulation has been used in this study, employing homogenous and heterogeneous two-dimensional (2D) areal and vertical models. Data from the literature are used to define the parameters controlling the physical and chemical functionality of anionic surfactant and partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) polymer [e.g., oil/water interfacial tension (IFT), IFT, polymer viscosity, and SP adsorption]. Assessment is made of the minimum inhibitor concentration (MIC) required to control the scale that is predicted to occur due to the changes in brine composition induced by the water and chemical flooding processes. The expected retention and release of a phosphonate scale inhibitor (SI) during squeeze treatments in the production wells is modeled. The high viscosity and more stable HPAM polymer slug reduces the mixing between the injected and the formation brines, especially with low-salinity low-sulfate (SO42−) make-up brine, reducing BaSO4 scale precipitation in the formation, delaying and reducing the potential scale risk in the producer wellbore compared to normal waterflooding. During surfactant flooding, from an oil recovery perspective, the optimal phase type and salinity can be any of the three microemulsion (ME) phase types, depending on the system multiphase parameters. However, the scaling risk can be different to that in the waterflooding case, depending on the IFT, ME phase type, the injected salinity, and sulfate concentration. In SP flooding, low-salinity make-up brine is preferred to enhance oil recovery, and it also delays and reduces scale risk. The impact of the injection brine salinity, SO42− concentration, and changing brine composition due to ion reactions affects the produced water rates, the number of required squeeze treatments and MIC values over time. This, then, impacts the inhibitor retention and release, which influences the treatment volumes and cost required to control scale over field life. Considering the economic impact of cEOR flood type on both oil recovery and scale management, low-salinity SP flooding is demonstrated to be the most viable option, showing the highest positive net present value (NPV). The study shows that barium and sulfate coproduction and the evolving scale risk depend on the mobility ratio (which is determined by the injected brine and oil viscosities) on the oil/water IFT, on the level of chemical adsorption, and on the selected brine salinity. The severity of the scale risk is also impacted by the flood techniques used, with the extent of reservoir reactions having an effect on the MIC required to control scale and the squeeze treatment volumes required to maintain production after breakthrough.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».