Effect of Viscosity of Alkaline/Surfactant/ Polymer (ASP) Solution on Enhanced Oil Recovery in Heterogeneous Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There have been numerous laboratory experimental studies and field tests on ASP flooding. Most of the laboratory experiments focused mainly on the effect of the ultra-low oil-water interfacial tension on oil recovery. The relationship between the viscosity of the ASP solution and oil recovery efficiency of ASP flooding has not been well understood. In this paper, the relationship between the viscosity of an ASP solution and oil recovery in heterogeneous porous models was studied. More than 50 ASP flood tests were conducted using artificial models. These models were made to have different permeability variation coefficients so that ASP floods in homogeneous and heterogeneous reservoirs could be simulated. Sixteen ASP solutions were prepared and used in ASP flood tests. Based on the results of ASP flood tests, the effects on tertiary oil recovery of NaOH concentration and of the balance between the IFT reduction and viscosity increase were discussed. For heterogeneous models, it was found that there existed a minimum viscosity value of ASP solution for ultra-low IFT systems to fully work towards improving residual oil recovery. This minimum viscosity is defined as critical displacement viscosity in this study. When the viscosity of an ASP solution is lower than the critical displacement viscosity, the oil recovery efficiency of ASP flooding is dominated by the viscosity of the ASP solution. The reduction in interfacial tension to an ultra-low level contributed little to oil recovery. When the viscosity is higher than the critical displacement viscosity, both the viscosity and ultra-low IFT contributed to oil recovery. This critical displacement viscosity should be one of the important parameters that can be used to optimize the chemical formula of an ASP flood for a target reservoir. Introduction As a relatively new technology of tertiary oil recovery, alkaline/ surfactant/polymer (ASP) flooding has been studied extensively in last two decades(1–9). ASP flooding enhances oil recovery through two major mechanisms:increasing the viscosity of the displacing solution to improve the sweep efficiency by using polymer; and,reducing oil-water interfacial tension (IFT) to a very low value (~10−3 mN/m) to improve the pore level displacement efficiency through the synergetic effect of surfactant and alkaline(10). Field tests and laboratory studies have shown that ASP flooding is more efficient than any single component flooding, such as alkaline, surfactant, or polymer flooding(6–8). At present, it is a promising tertiary recovery method and is getting increasingly more attention. Seven field ASP floods have been implemented in the Daqing oilfield, China. It was found that in the early stage of some tests high alkaline concentrations could cause alkaline scale problems in he oil formation and the wellbore(8, 9, 11). In addition, high alkaline concentrations could weaken the efficiency of the polymer by increasing the viscosity of the ASP solution. Therefore, the polymer concentration in some field tests was increased from 1,200 mg/L to 1,800 mg/L, and then to 2,300 mg/L, in order to ensure that the viscosity of the ASP solution was not lower than 30 mPas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".