Microemulsion Formulations with Tunable Displacement Mechanisms for Heavy Oil Reservoirs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Waterflooding of heavy oil reservoirs is commonly used to enhance their productivity. However, preferential pathways are quickly developed in the reservoir because of the significant difference in viscosity between water and heavy oil and, hence, the oil is trapped. Here, we propose a platform for designing ultralow interfacial tension (IFT) solutions for reducing the capillary pressure and mobilizing the heavy oil. In this study, we formulated mixtures of organic acids and bases. We tested three different formulations: an ionic liquid (IL) formulation in which the bulk acid [4-dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid (DBSA)] and base [tetra-N-butylammonium hydroxide (N4444OH)] were mixed using general protocols for IL synthesis; an acid/base solution (ABS) in which the acid (DBSA) and base (N4444OH) were mixed in low weight fractions directly in water; and an acid salt/base solution (ASBS) in which the acid salt [sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (SDBS)] was used instead of the acid. All the formulations have a 1:1 stoichiometric ratio of acid and base. Salinity scans were conducted to determine the optimum salinity that gives the lowest IFT for each formulation. Corefloods were conducted in hydrophilic and hydrophobic sandpacks to evaluate the three formulations at their optimum salinities for post-waterflood heavy oil recovery. The IL and ABS formulation are acidic solutions with a pH of approximately 3. The ASBS formulation is highly basic with a pH of approximately 12. None of the formulations salted out below 14 wt% of sodium chloride (NaCl), whereas the conventional surfactant, SDBS, precipitated at a salt concentration of less than 2 wt% of NaCl. The formulation solutions (1 wt%) have different optimum salinities: 2.5 wt% NaCl for ASBS and 3 wt% NaCl for IL and ABS. Although the IL and ABS have the same composition and molar ratio of the components, their performances are completely different, indicating different intermolecular interactions in both formulations. Corefloods were conducted using sandpack saturated with Luseland heavy oil (∼15,000 cp) and a fixed Darcy velocity of 12 ft/D. A slug of 1 pore volume (PV) of each formulation was injected after waterflooding for 5 PV followed by 5 PV post-waterflooding. In the hydrophilic sandpacks, IL and ABS formulation produced an oil bank consisting mainly of a water-in-oil (W/O) emulsion, with oil recovery that was 1.7 times what was recovered by 11 PV of waterflooding solely. The majority of the oil was recovered in the 2 PV of waterflood after the IL slug. ASBS formulations produced oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions with prolonged recovery over 5 PV waterflooding after the ASBS slug. The recovery factor for ASBS was 1.6 times that recovered for 11 PV of waterflooding only. In the hydrophobic sandpacks, the ASBS formulation slightly increased the recovery factor compared with only waterflooding, whereas for IL and ABS formulations, the recovery factor decreased. In this work, we present a novel platform for tuning the recovery factor and the timescale of the recovery of heavy oil with a variable emulsion type from O/W to W/O depending on the intermolecular interactions in the system. The results demonstrate that the designed low IFT solutions can effectively reduce the capillary force and are attractive for field applications.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».