Enhanced oil recovery improved by nanoparticle-induced crude swelling

Enhanced oil recovery improved by nanoparticle-induced crude swelling

Most EOR methods use surfactants as injection fluids in traditional core-flooding operations. However, a new micromodel improves in-situ and dynamic saturation information, in less time and at a lower cost.

Current oil recovery methods with existing technologies are not satisfactory, and, depending on reservoir characteristics, an average of 50% of crude is left behind. Several enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods have been investigated and proposed for field-scale implementations. The most widely studied EOR methods are based on surfactants, polymers, alkalis and their combinations as injection fluids.

EOR surfactants work on the principle of reducing interfacial tension (IFT) between crude oil and water, which helps to increase the capillary number and reduce residual oil saturation. Similarly, polymers also amplify the capillary number by increasing the viscosity of the injected fluid, which ultimately improves sweep efficiency. 

However, conventional methods are not entirely adequate, due to poor recovery efficiency and the high cost of chemical injection, due primarily to shear degradation and excessive adsorption on rock matrix. Hence, a more efficient and economic EOR method is required.

...

CONCLUSION

A dead-end-pore microchannel was applied to study the trapped oil’s interaction with HSNs aqueous suspensions. Swelling of oil was observed during HSNs suspension injection, which was caused by spontaneous generation of aqueous droplets in crude. Such swelling oil was also investigated on a 2.5-D micromodel flood experiment and showed excellent conformation control performance that provided 11.8% incremental oil recovery. It was found that HSNs did not change the residual oil saturation, but improved sweep efficiency. Conformance improvement was induced by swelling oil’s occupation of swept water channels. The oil recovery curve from a micromodel flood experiment co-related with the core-flooding data. In both cases, incremental oil recovery came slowly and continuously in about 20 hr.

Compared to the core-flooding experiment, micromodel flooding can provide more in-situ and dynamic saturation information, at less cost and in a shorter time-span. Micromodel flooding could be treated as an efficient and significant supplement to core-flooding. The ultimate outcome of pore scale to core scale understanding is extremely beneficial in connecting pore scale mechanism with the core scale performance, and finally applications in reservoir simulation and successful field implementation. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Enhanced oil recovery improved by nanoparticle-induced crude swelling

Most EOR methods use surfactants as injection fluids in traditional core-flooding operations. However, a new micromodel improves in-situ and dynamic saturation information, in less time and at a lower cost.

Current oil recovery methods with existing technologies are not satisfactory, and, depending on reservoir characteristics, an average of 50% of crude is left behind. Several enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods have been investigated and proposed for field-scale implementations. The most widely studied EOR methods are based on surfactants, polymers, alkalis and their combinations as injection fluids.

EOR surfactants work on the principle of reducing interfacial tension (IFT) between crude oil and water, which helps to increase the capillary number and reduce residual oil saturation. Similarly, polymers also amplify the capillary number by increasing the viscosity of the injected fluid, which ultimately improves sweep efficiency. 

However, conventional methods are not entirely adequate, due to poor recovery efficiency and the high cost of chemical injection, due primarily to shear degradation and excessive adsorption on rock matrix. Hence, a more efficient and economic EOR method is required.

...

CONCLUSION

A dead-end-pore microchannel was applied to study the trapped oil’s interaction with HSNs aqueous suspensions. Swelling of oil was observed during HSNs suspension injection, which was caused by spontaneous generation of aqueous droplets in crude. Such swelling oil was also investigated on a 2.5-D micromodel flood experiment and showed excellent conformation control performance that provided 11.8% incremental oil recovery. It was found that HSNs did not change the residual oil saturation, but improved sweep efficiency. Conformance improvement was induced by swelling oil’s occupation of swept water channels. The oil recovery curve from a micromodel flood experiment co-related with the core-flooding data. In both cases, incremental oil recovery came slowly and continuously in about 20 hr.

Compared to the core-flooding experiment, micromodel flooding can provide more in-situ and dynamic saturation information, at less cost and in a shorter time-span. Micromodel flooding could be treated as an efficient and significant supplement to core-flooding. The ultimate outcome of pore scale to core scale understanding is extremely beneficial in connecting pore scale mechanism with the core scale performance, and finally applications in reservoir simulation and successful field implementation. 

Will be looking forward to trials of this in our extensive lease holds and oil blocks.

Been working with a European tech group for their EOR and production decline arrest tech, seems to be working very well, have 45 more days of field trials and will make an equity investment and a licensing deal with them.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Will be looking forward to trials of this in our extensive lease holds and oil blocks.

Been working with a European tech group for their EOR and production decline arrest tech, seems to be working very well, have 45 more days of field trials and will make an equity investment and a licensing deal with them.

Just wondering: Article says 11.8% improvement... over what?  Nothing?  What is the difference between this additive and.... "x product"....  yea yea, I know depends on the geology(what doesn't)   😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Just wondering: Article says 11.8% improvement... over what?  Nothing?  What is the difference between this additive and.... "x product"....  yea yea, I know depends on the geology(what doesn't)   😎

I have reached out to them for more data and info . , will keep you posted!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I have reached out to them for more data and info . , will keep you posted!

That would be with Baker Hughes, more than likely Baker Hughes will have the first rights to this tech.

Yes it would be a recovery factor of 11.8% from their baseline zero!!!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

That would be with Baker Hughes, more than likely Baker Hughes will have the first rights to this tech.

Yes it would be a recovery factor of 11.8% from their baseline zero!!!

So it actually works then.  That's good news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Tom Kirkman said:

So it actually works then.  That's good news.

I have only read their press release data they provide for the lab tests. I would like to see this in batch tests applied to some of our prospects.

I have used several different EOR techs in the US and overseas on our projects, some did well for a short term some nothing at all and some

very very successful long term

The most recent one we have been testing has been giving us a 15-18% average recovery rate across a set of producing assets of 50,000bpd+/-

We have roughly 40 more days on the trials before we start analyzing all the data and have a conclusive position. But if it works the way ot has been working, I am ready to apply it to a range of producing assets currently producing 115,000bpd onshore in the US and

a single offshore asset producing 270,000bpd

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, ceo_energemsier said:

That would be with Baker Hughes, more than likely Baker Hughes will have the first rights to this tech.

Yes it would be a recovery factor of 11.8% from their baseline zero!!!

Ah, so Leprechauns do not yet exist.  Damn, there goes my gold pot. 

Well, shit, now I have to work. 

Edited by Wastral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2019 at 7:52 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

So it actually works then.  That's good news.

Nano-particles from Baker? gimme a break, they been peddling its addition to VES for at lest 10 years and seems to run out of places where to stick it;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites