Enhancing Oil Recovery by Low Concentration of Alkylaryl Sulfonate Surfactant without Ultralow Interfacial Tension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Surfactant flooding plays a critical role in chemically enhanced oil recovery over the last half century, with the widely accepted mechanism of ultralow interfacial tension (IFT) by forming middle‐phase microemulsions with high concentration of a lead surfactant and a cosurfactant. However, it is found practically from field trials that high oil recovery efficiency can be obtained from low concentration surfactant flooding without forming microemulsions, and the principle behind has not been clearly unraveled yet. Here the solubilization of paraffin oil by the micelles formed with a commercial enhanced oil recovery surfactant, raw naphthenic arylsulfonates (NAS), was investigated using ultraviolet‐visible (UV–Vis) spectroscopy, dynamic light scattering (DLS), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). It is found that paraffin oil can be well solubilized inside the NAS micelles, and mainly localized in the hydrophobic core of the micelles. The solubilization capacity of NAS micelles increases with increasing its concentration, and the size of micelles increases, but morphology of the micelles remains spherical with increasing the amount of paraffin oil, along with an appearance transition from transparent to opaque until the maximum solubilization capacity is reached. Core flooding results with crude oil indicate that in the presence of 0.24 wt.% polymer, addition of 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 wt.% NAS can get oil recovery factor of 24.1%, 27.0%, 30.5%, and 38.3%, which increases linearly with increasing NAS concentration though with the interfacial tension values only in the magnitude of 10 −2 mN m −1 level. These findings prove preliminarily micellar solubilization can help increasing oil recovery efficiency even without ultralow IFT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".