Next Article in Journal
Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol Cause Major Problems
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) by Miscible CO2 and Water Flooding of Asphaltenic and Non-Asphaltenic Oils
Previous Article in Journal
Waste Cooking Oil as an Alternate Feedstock for Biodiesel Production
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Temperature, Wettability and Relative Permeability on Oil Recovery from Oil-wet Chalk

Department of Petroleum Engineering, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2008, 1(1), 19-34; https://doi.org/10.3390/en1010019
Submission received: 23 April 2008 / Revised: 30 May 2008 / Accepted: 2 June 2008 / Published: 6 July 2008
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oil Recovery)

Abstract

:
It is customary, for convenience, to use relative permeability data produced at room temperature. This paper shows that this practice underestimates oil recovery rates and ultimate recovery from chalk rocks for high temperature reservoirs. Above a certain temperature (80°C in this work) a reduction of oil recovery was observed. The reduction in oil recovery is reflected by the shift of relative permeability data towards more oil-wet at high temperature (tested here 130°C). However, both IFT and contact angle measurements indicate an increase in water wetness as temperature increases, which contradict the results obtained by relative permeability experiments. This phenomenon may be explained based on the total interaction potential, which basically consists of van der Waals attractive and short-range Born repulsive and double layer electrostatic forces. The fluid/rock interactions is shown to be dominated by the repulsive forces above 80°C, hence increase fine detachment enhancing oil trapping. In other words the indicated oil wetness by relative permeability is misleading.

1. Introduction

Improving oil recovery is recognized as the major target and challenge at the different stages of an oil field development. Among several methods in oil recovery, thermal recovery has been used to increase the mobility of oil specifically in heavy crude oil reservoirs. Babadagli [1,2] compared the recovery rate of different types of crude oil in naturally fractured reservoirs. He reported that the reduction in oil viscosity due to the high temperature fluid injection (hot water) accelerates the imbibition recovery rate. Babadagli and Al-Bemani [3] investigated the effect of steam injection on oil recovery of carbonate reservoir rock containing heavy oil. They showed that thermal expansion mechanism predominantly controls the recovery.
In addition to the temperature effect on oil mobility, temperature also alters the wettability of oil-wet rock to more water-wet, which contributes to enhance oil recovery. Rao [4] stated that although reduction in oil viscosity may be the main purpose of thermal recovery, the thermal energy imposed on the system, introduces changes not only in fluid properties and fluid-fluid interactions but also in rock-fluids interaction characterized by wettability. Tang and Morrow [5,6] reported a transition toward more water-wet behavior in Berea sandstone, when temperature increased to 75°C under water imbibition/flooding process. Al-Hadhrami and Blunt [7] in a field case study showed that at a transition temperature chalky limestone rock would undergo through a wettability reversal process from oil-wet to water-wet with temperature. Schembre et al. [8] also correlated the improvement in oil recovery from diatomaceous rock to the alteration of wettability at elevated temperature by renewal of surfaces.
Hamouda and colleagues [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] in a series of works dealing with chalk/water/oil interactions, revealed that increasing temperature in oil/water/solid rock system, improves the water wetness of oil-wet chalk, and they reported an increase in oil recovery under a spontaneous imbibition scheme, reduction in the measured contact angles and IFT. They also presented a series of calculations on the wettability alteration mechanism at elevated temperatures taking into account the fluid/rock interaction forces and disjoining pressure [14].
In this work, the effects of temperature and relative permeability on oil recovery are investigated. An experimental and a simple model of reservoir performance at elevated temperature are addressed in this paper as an attempt to explain the possible cause of adverse effect of temperature on reservoir performance.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Simulation of oil recovery: temperature effect

In this section, the effect of temperature on oil recovery is modeled using the Eclipse 100 simulator software, where except for the injected water temperature, the input model characteristics such as PVT, relative and absolute permeability data are kept constant for simulation runs. The thermal option is activated following the recommendations in reference [17]. Water at 6 different temperatures: 26.7°C (80°F), 40°C (104°F), 57.2°C (135°F), 70°C (158°F), 90°C (194°F) and 100°C (212°F) are injected into the reservoir with an initial temperature of 57.2°C (135°F).
Experimental oil/water relative permeabilities at room temperature (23°C) are used in order to isolate the effect of the temperature alone on oil recovery. As shown in Figure 1, the ultimate oil recovery factor (RF) increases to about 12.5% from ~0.35 to ~0.4, as injecting water temperature increased from 26.7°C (80°F) to 100°C (212°F). The increase of the oil recovery may be due to the increase of the oil mobility and fluid expansion. Oil recovery by spontaneous imbibition shows an increasing trend with temperature (Tang and Morrow [5,6], Schembre et al. [8], Hamouda and Rezaei Gomari [9], and Karoussi and Hamouda [14]). Wettability alteration is not a direct option in Eclipse simulator; Delshad et al. [18] adapted a chemical flooding simulator to include wettability alteration process. Relative permeability data for 4 temperatures are used here as indirect indication of wettability alteration in the later runs.
Figure 1. Simulated oil recovery factor (RF) of injecting water at different temperature from 26.7°C (80°F) to 100°C (212°F). Room temperature relative permeability data are used in this case. Reservoir Temperature is taken to be 57.2°C (135°F). The higher the temperature of the injected water, the higher recovery factor is.
Figure 1. Simulated oil recovery factor (RF) of injecting water at different temperature from 26.7°C (80°F) to 100°C (212°F). Room temperature relative permeability data are used in this case. Reservoir Temperature is taken to be 57.2°C (135°F). The higher the temperature of the injected water, the higher recovery factor is.
Energies 01 00019 g001

2.2. Oil recovery sensitivity to different temperature relative permeability data

In previous work [16] Hamouda et al. showed that the intersection of oil/water relative permeability of modified chalk is shifted toward the right side, indicating more water-wet behavior as the temperature increases up to 80°C. The relative permeability data are presented in Figure 2. Experimental data at high temperature of 130°C shows a shift of oil and water relative permeabilities intersect toward left (indicating more oil-wet behavior).
In order to investigate the effect of relative permeabilities at elevated temperatures on oil recovery, relative permeability data for four different temperatures (23, 50, 80 and 130°C as shown in Figure 2) are input into the reservoir simulator while oil/water PVT properties, water injection rate under constant bottom hole pressure, reservoir model geometry, production time are kept constant. Figure 3 shows a higher oil recovery of about 48% and the lowest one of about 26%, corresponding to relative permeability data at the temperatures of 80 and 130°C, respectively.
Figure 2. Effect of temperature on relative permeability for oil-wet chalk cores with 0.005MSA dissolved in decane. (From Hamouda et al. [16]).
Figure 2. Effect of temperature on relative permeability for oil-wet chalk cores with 0.005MSA dissolved in decane. (From Hamouda et al. [16]).
Energies 01 00019 g002
Three main observations may be deduced from Figure 3. A maximum recovery of 48% is obtained, when 80°C relative permeability data is used, while the lowest recovery is obtained, when relative permeability data is used at 130°C. So, the recovery increased when the temperature reached 80°C and then declined at 130°C. There are no surprises from the simulated data, since the results reflect the obtained experimental relative permeability data. In quantitative sense of oil recovery, an increase of Sw (at the intersect between kro and krw) by 7% (from 23 to 50°C) and by 16% (from 50 to 80°C) corresponds to an increase of ultimate oil recovery and about 25%, respectively. A reduction of recovery of about 22% is obtained when the temperature was raised from 80 to 130°C. This corresponds to a reduction of Sw to 20%. The small difference in the recovery rates and ultimate RF level obtained for relative permeability data of 23 and 50°C may be due to that the simulated reservoir temperature is at about 57.2°C (135oF), hence the oil mobilities for 23 and 50oC cases become close as the injection proceeds.
The second observation is that at higher temperature (80°C), in this work, faster and higher oil recovery is obtained, which may reflect both oil mobility and wettability alteration by temperature, as indicated by intersection between kro and krw, that increased from about 7 to 16%, when temperatures increased from 23 to 50°C and from 50 to 80°C, respectively as shown in Figure 2.
The third observation is that, the point of time at which the recovery rate is reduced is reached faster at higher temperatures than that at lower temperatures. It is interesting to observe (Figure 3) that both 80 and 130°C have reached that point at almost the same time, in spite of the lower rate and recovery in case of 130°C.
In general from this work and the work done by Nakornthap and Evans [19], it may be concluded that use of room temperature relative permeability underestimates the oil recovery rate and ultimate recovery. It may, also, be concluded that not only the injected fluid temperature that affect the recovery rate and ultimate recovered oil but also temperature difference between the injected fluid and the reservoir temperature. The above simulation and discussion does not address the wettability change to more oil-wet, hence reduced oil recovery at 130°C.
Figure 3. Simulated oil recovery factor as a function of relative permeability at 23, 50, 80 and 130oC.
Figure 3. Simulated oil recovery factor as a function of relative permeability at 23, 50, 80 and 130oC.
Energies 01 00019 g003
In order to approximate the relative permeability as a function of temperature, Nakornthap and Evans’ equations [19] (i.e. equations 3 and 4) are used. It must be stated here that it is assumed that fluids are incompressible; the changes in porosity and rock bulk volume are independent on temperature.
d k rw dT = ( 2 + 3 λ λ ) × ( S w S wir ) 2 ( 1 + λ ) / λ ( 1 S w ) ( 1 S wir ) 2 ( 1 + 2 λ ) / λ ( d S wir dT )
d k ro dT = { ( 2 + λ λ ) ( S w S wir ) 2 / λ ( 1 Sw ) 3 ( 1 S wir ) 2 ( 1 + 2 λ ) / λ + 2 [ 1 ( ( Sw S wir ) ( 1 S wir ) ) ( 2 + λ ) / λ ] ( 1 Sw ) 2 ( 1 S wir ) 3 } ( d S wir dT )
k rw = ( Sw S wir 1 S wir ) ( 2 + 3 λ ) / λ
k ro = [ 1 ( Sw S wir 1 S wir ) ] 2 × [ 1 ( S w S wir 1 S wir ) ( 2 + λ ) / λ ]
where, λ is pore size distribution index. The corresponding irreducible water saturation (Swir) and λ values at each temperature are given in Table 1. The generated oil/water relative permeabilities are shown in Figure 4.
Table 1. Swir and λ for experimental relative permeability data.
Table 1. Swir and λ for experimental relative permeability data.
Temperature (°C)Swir(1) (%)λ(1)
23206.62
50215.67
80209.835
130174.241
(1) Hamouda et al. [16]
At first glance the trends of the approximated relative permeabilities as a function of temperature shown in Figure 4, may seem to contradict equations 1 and 2, especially for the case where the temperatures increased from 80 to 130oC.
In equations 1 and 2, if one assumes that in general Swir, increases with temperature, a positive value of dSwir/dT leads to a decrease and increase of the water and oil relative permeabilities as a function of temperature (dkrw/dT and dkro/dT), respectively. This agrees with the obtained results, where the temperature increase from 23 to 50oC is associated with the increase of Swir from 0.2 to 0.21, respectively. The agreement with the predicted trend is also due to the close values of λ in both cases. At the two other temperatures, 80 and 130°C, Swir from the experiments are 0.2 and 0.17, which are equal to and less than that obtained at 23oC, respectively. However, due to the large difference in the obtained λ, the predicted trend with temperature deviated. In other words, the dependence of kro and krw trend with temperature is governed not only by Swir, but also λ, as shown by the equations. Nakornthap and Evans [19] used a fixed value of 2 for λ in their analysis.
Figure 4. Calculated relative permeability data using equation 3 and 4. Swir and λ are taken from experimental relative permeability data.
Figure 4. Calculated relative permeability data using equation 3 and 4. Swir and λ are taken from experimental relative permeability data.
Energies 01 00019 g004
Again, no explanation is made so far to the observed increase of oil-wet status of the chalk with temperature. In our experimental work, particle production was observed from the chalk during relative permeability flooding experiments with distilled water and at 130°C. Total interaction potential for a water/oil/chalk (calcite) system was addressed earlier by Karoussi and Hamouda [14]. The findings are that the total interaction potential (consisting of van der Waals attractive, short-range Born repulsive and double layer electrostatic forces) becomes more repulsive in nature between oil-wet calcite particles and calcite wall surface in distilled water medium. The computed total interaction potentials were done previously up to 100°C; in this study the computation is extended to include 130°C. The calculated total interaction potentials for two different sizes of calcite particles (1 and 4 µm) are shown in Figure 5. Schramm et al. [20] and Pierre et al. [21] reported a value of <5 and 2µm for calcite particle size, respectively.
The positive values of ~75x10-18 and ~325x10-18 J, indicate possible detachment at temperature of 130°C for 1 and 4 µm particle size, respectively. The detachment of particle and fines migration may cause change in pore geometry of rock, consequently permeability reduction.
The investigation of the increase of the oil wetness of the chalk continued from two different angles, namely IFT and contact angle measurements, which are addressed in the next two sections.
Figure 5. Estimated interaction potential for modified calcite surfaces (0.005M SA in n-decane) for water/oil/chalk (calcite) for two different particle sizes 1 and 4 µm.
Figure 5. Estimated interaction potential for modified calcite surfaces (0.005M SA in n-decane) for water/oil/chalk (calcite) for two different particle sizes 1 and 4 µm.
Energies 01 00019 g005

2.3. Interfacial Tension (IFT)

Interfacial tension measurements are done to confirm the effect of the temperature on the interfacial activity. Indeed interfacial tension experiments show the expected decreasing trend (form 40.1 at 28°C to 35.7 mN/m at 70°C) for 0.005M SA in n-decane/water system as shown in Figure 6. Hamouda and Rezaei Gomari [9] also reported a similar trend for 0.01M SA in n-decane/water system. The IFT measurements are performed here with 0.005M SA in n-decane/water containing 0.1M concentration of sodium sulfate or magnesium chloride, to examine the trend and the effect of these ions in salt waters. IFT in presence of magnesium ions is shown to be lower than that in presence of sulfate ions or distilled water, where 32, 34.9 and 40.1 mN/m at 28°C are measured for 0.1M MgCl2, 0.1M Na2SO4 and distilled water, respectively. Magnesium ions also showed the lowest measured IFT for all tested temperatures. The highest interfacial activity in presence of magnesium chloride, once more demonstrate the influential role of magnesium ions in oil/water/chalk interactions that have been previously investigated with several macroscopic and microscopic approaches done by Hamouda and colleagues [10,11,12,13,14,15,16].
Amaefule and Handy [22] and Kumar et al. [23] studied the effect of IFT and IFT/temperature on oil-water relative permeability, respectively. In their investigation, they used capillary number (Nc) to relate relative permeability behavior and IFT. The equations used are general and modified definition of Nc:
N c = μ w v σ
and,
N c = μ w v σ × ( T T b ) × ( μ w μ o ) 0.4
where, µ is viscosity; v is velocity; σ is IFT; T and Tb are temperature and room temperature, respectively. The subscripts w and o denotes for water and oil, respectively. Amaefule and Handy [22] stated that the higher Nc is required to initiate mobilization of oil. The corresponding calculated capillary numbers to the studied relative permeabilities, as shown in Figure 1, are given in Table 2 using equations 5 and 6. The calculation done by Equation 5, shows a decreasing trend for Nc, (from Nc=3.8x10-7 at 23°C to 1.75x10-7 at 80°C). This is in contrast to the experimental results of the relative permeabilities up to 80°C and the obtained decreasing trend of IFT with temperature.
Figure 6. Comparison between the average measured IFTs of 0.005M SA dissolved in n-decane and distilled water (DW), 0.1M Na2SO4 and 0.1M MgCl2 as a function of temperature. The error bars represents, the standard deviation of the experimental data varies between ±0.1to 0.4 mN/m.
Figure 6. Comparison between the average measured IFTs of 0.005M SA dissolved in n-decane and distilled water (DW), 0.1M Na2SO4 and 0.1M MgCl2 as a function of temperature. The error bars represents, the standard deviation of the experimental data varies between ±0.1to 0.4 mN/m.
Energies 01 00019 g006
The modified capillary number equation (Equation 6), on the other hand, shows an increasing trend of Nc as temperature increases, Nc=3.93x10-7at 23°C to 5.41x10-7at 80°C, which agrees with the results presented by Kumar et al. [23]. The increasing trend of Nc may explain the improvement of relative permeability up to 80°C, where a reduction in Sor is observed experimentally. As can be seen, in spite of reduction in IFT and viscosity at 130°C, a decrease in Nc is obtained; (reduction from 5.41x 10-7at 80°C to 4.31x10-7at 130°C), which may provide a qualitative explanation to the more oil-wet behavior from the relative permeability experimental data at 130°C.
Table 2. Capillary number determination as a function of temperature, IFT and viscosity.
Table 2. Capillary number determination as a function of temperature, IFT and viscosity.
T° CSwirSorµw N.s/m2µo N.s/m2σow mN/m N c = μ w v σ N c = μ w v σ × ( T T b ) × ( μ w μ o ) 0.4
230.20.420.001000.0009240.13.8x10-73.93 x10-7
500.210.370.000550.00061372.28 x10-74.74 x10-7
800.20.360.000360.0004734.5371.75 x10-75.41 x10-7
1300.170.520.000180.0002929.6379.19 x10-84.31 x10-7

2.4. Contact Angle

The measured advancing and receding contact angles as a function of temperature for modified calcite surfaces with 0.005M SA dissolved in decane are shown in Figure 7. Contact angle decreases with temperature; indicating that the calcite surface is becoming more water-wet as a function of temperature as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Advancing and receding contact angles as a function of temperature in a water medium for modified calcite surfaces with 0.005M SA dissolved in n-decane.
Figure 7. Advancing and receding contact angles as a function of temperature in a water medium for modified calcite surfaces with 0.005M SA dissolved in n-decane.
Energies 01 00019 g007

2.5. An Approach for estimation/verification of contact angle

Bahramian and Danesh [24] reported an approach to predict solid-water-hydrocarbon contact angle as well as surface/interfacial tension on the basis of mutual solubility of two components/phases. The following equations and given data in Table 3, are applied in this study for SA/n-decane/water system to compare the predicted contact angle with the measured values. It was assumed that stearic acid completely adsorbs on the calcite surface; hence, SA is considered as the solid phase rather than calcite.
σ 12 = 1 2 × A a 12
A = RT × ln ( X 1 2 / X 1 1 ) ( X 2 1 ) 2 ( X 2 2 ) 2
a i = V 2 / 3 N 1 / 3
where, σ12 is the interfacial tension between component 1 and 2; R is the ideal gas constant; T is temperature in (K); a12 is the average partial molar surface area; ai is the partial molar surface area of component i; V is molar volume and N is Avogadro’s number. X i j is the mole fraction of component “i” in rich phase of component “j”.
Table 3. Applied mutual solubility data in water/SA/decane system for IFT calculations.
Table 3. Applied mutual solubility data in water/SA/decane system for IFT calculations.
Mutual Solubility data
Solubility of water in n-C10 @ 25°C0.072 g water/1000 g C10
Solubility of n-C10 in water @ 25°C1.98E-6 g C10/100 g water
SA concentration in decane (Table 4a)0.005 M
SA concentration in decane (Table 4b)0.01 M
Decane fraction in SA ~0
Water fraction in SA ~0
SA solubility in water0.034 g SA/100 g water
For SA/n-decane/water system, the mutual interfacial tension between each phase is determined using Equation 7. The calculated interfacial tension values and the corresponding contact angle are compared as shown in Table 4a and Table 4b for 0.005 and 0.01M concentrations of SA, respectively.
Table 4a. Calculated IFT and Contact angle for water/0.005M SA/decane system.
Table 4a. Calculated IFT and Contact angle for water/0.005M SA/decane system.
σwater/C10σwater/SAσ0.005MSA /C10ΘΘΘ
(mN/m)(mN/m)(mN/m)Young eq.If σwater/SA=18.05a (mN/m)Measured
4958.825.747.599.190b
Table 4b. Calculated IFT and Contact angle for water/0.01M SA/decane system
Table 4b. Calculated IFT and Contact angle for water/0.01M SA/decane system
σwater/C10σwater/SAσ0.01MSA /C10ΘΘΘ
(mN/m)(mN/m)(mN/m)Young eq.If σwater/SA=18.05a (mN/m)Measured
4958.823.243.496.196c
a) Rezaei Gomari et al. [13]b) Karoussi and Hamouda [14]c) Rezaei Gomari et al. [10]
Table 4a and Table 4b show the calculated contact angles using young equation, which largely differ from the measured contact angles (i.e. 47.5° compared to the measured 90° and 43.4° compared to the measured 96°, respectively).
However, when the spreading tension of water/calcite/decane system (i.e.18.05 mN/m) reported by Rezaei Gomari et al. [13] is used, the calculated contact angle is shown to be closer to the measured values for the two different concentrations of stearic acid (Table 4a and Table 4b). It is worth mentioning that, the measured IFT for water/decane system in this study are 47 and 46.3 mN/m at 28°C, which are in agreement with the calculated value of 49 mN/m based on equation 5. Rezaei Gomari et al. [11] and Bahramian and Danesh [24] reported values of 45.5 and 48 mN/m for the IFT between water and n-decane, respectively. Bahramian and Danesh [24] correlated the calculated contact angle to the average value of advancing and receding contact angles, where in our system as shown in Figure 6, would be around 72°, which is significantly different from the calculated value of 47.5°. It should be stated that due to the lack of data and more contact angle measurement results, no generalization can be made for prediction of contact angle at this point.
Although the maximum measured IFT and contact angle was done at temperatures less than that employed during relative permeability experiments of 130oC due to the measurements limitation, the decreasing trend is in favor of increasing oil recovery, hence it may be concluded that the shift in the relative permeability at 130oC towards less Sw is mainly due to change in pore geometry of rock caused by fine detachment/migration and possible oil trapping.
An experiment is done here to further verify the above hypothesis of fine detachment/migration and possible oil trapping. Absolute permeability measurement was carried out at 23 and 130°C. Two cores were flooded by distilled water (DW) and the third one with n-decane. The absolute permeability was reduced by almost 50% in all cases as shown in Table 5, where the temperature increased to 130°C. This is in agreement with the statement by Nakornthap and Evans [19], that Cassé and Ramey [25], Weinbrandt et al. [26], and Gray et al. [27] found that absolute permeability decreases with temperature. Sedaee Sola et al. [28] reported that limestone showed a more oil-wet (as indicated by a shift of the relative permeability curves) behavior when temperature increased to 200oF (≈93oC).
Table 5. Core data and the estimated absolute permeability at 23 and 130°C.
Table 5. Core data and the estimated absolute permeability at 23 and 130°C.
Core#L(cm)D(cm)Flooding fluidK@ 23°C (md)K@ 130°C (md)
A6.153.75DW3.61.92
B4.423.8DW3.571.88
C4.93.75n-decane3.051.55*
* n-decane viscosity was obtained from Lee and Ellington [29]

3. Conclusions

In general it may be concluded that use of room temperature relative permeability underestimates the oil recovery rate and ultimate recovery. It may, also, be concluded that not only the injected fluid temperature affect the recovery rate and ultimate recovered oil, but also the temperature difference between injected fluid and reservoir temperature.
Above a critical temperature, an adverse effect of temperature is observed, where the relative permeabilities indicate a more oil-wet behavior. In this work, it is shown that above 80oC (tested 130oC) the intersection of the relative permeabilities is shifted toward a lower water saturation, where less oil recovery is obtained. This observation is neither supported by IFT nor contact angle as a function of temperature, as both show a decrease with temperature favoring higher oil recovery. However, this pseudo oil-wet behavior may be explained based on trapped oil due to fine detachment and migration during flooding due to total interaction potential between the fluid and the rock that becomes more repulsive at higher temperatures.

4. Experimental Section

4.1. Materials

Decane (VWR International AS, Norway) used as oil phase in this work was of 95% purity for interfacial measurement and 99% for contact angle measurements. Fluka AS (Norway) supplied stearic acid (SA, >98.5%). The aqueous phase used is either distilled water or 0.1M concentration of sodium sulfate or magnesium chloride. The calcite crystals, used in contact angle measurements, are “Island-spar” calcite from India, supplied by J. Brommeland AS (Norway).

4.2. Methods

4.2.1. Interfacial tension measurements

The interfacial tension (IFT) measurement is performed by the volume drop method, using a drop volume tensiometer (type DVT30) supplied by KRÜSS GmbH (Germany).

4.2.2. Contact angle measurements

Contact angle measurements were carried out at four different temperatures. The detailed specification of the contact angle cell is given in earlier work by Hansen et al. [30]. The preparation methods for contact angle measurements were done following same procedure as reported earlier. In brief, pieces of the calcite crystals were filed using silicon carbide grinding paper ranging in grit size from coarse, P120, to the finest, P4000. After blowing off the loose calcite particles from the surface using air and washing with distilled water, they were dried at 120°C for 3 hours. The polished crystals were then pre-wetted in distilled water for 30 minutes. The water film on the surface is removed by air and the pre-wetted samples were immersed in 0.005M stearic acid (SA) dissolved in n-decane for 24 hours. The modified calcite was then rinsed by distilled water and n-heptane and dried under vacuum at ambient temperature (25°C) for 3 hours. At final stage, the modified calcite crystals were inserted inside the contact angle cell and advancing and receding contact angles of n-decane droplets in distilled water medium were measured. The measured contact angles reported here are within ±3°.

4.2.3. Reservoir Model Simulation

A simple 3D black oil (BO) model consisting of 1200 grid blocks (20x20x3) is used for the simulation done here, using the Eclipse reservoir simulator software version 2006a, provided by Schlumberger [17]. All input data such as reservoir geometric characteristics (e.g. porosity, absolute permeability, grid block size, etc.) and oil/water PVT data except relative permeability and temperature are kept constant. Other changes in input data are stated in the next section. The general reservoir model data are given in Table 6.
Table 6. Reservoir model input data.
Table 6. Reservoir model input data.
ParameterAmount
Porosity0.482(1)
Absolute permeability4.10(1) md
Reservoir temperature57.2°C (135°F)
Reservoir FluidsOil/water
Oil density0.7635(2) (gr/cm3)
Oil viscosity2.4826(2) (cp)
Water density1.0016(2) (gr/cm3)
Water viscosity0.9913(2) (cp)
No. of wells2 (1 producer + 1 injector)
(1) From the work done by Hamouda et al. [16](2) Generated by PVTSim, version 17, 2007

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the University of Stavanger for the financial support of this project.

References

  1. Babadagli, T. Temperature effect on heavy oil recovery by imbibition in fractured reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 1996, 14, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Babadagli, T. Evaluation of EOR methods for heavy oil recovery in naturally fractured reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2003, 37, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Babadagli, T.; Al-Bemani, A. Investigations on matrix recovery during steam injection into heavy-oil containing carbonate rocks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2007, 58, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rao, D.N. Wettability Effects in Thermal Recovery Operations. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 1999, 2, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tang, G.Q.; Morrow, N.R. Salinity, Temperature, Oil Composition and Oil Recovery by water flooding. SPE Reservoir Engineering 1997, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tang, G.Q.; Morrow, N.R. Wettability Control by Adsorption from Crude Oil-Aspects of Temperature and Increases Water Saturation. In Paper Presented in Int’l Symposium of Society of Core Analysts, Toronto, Canada, 21-25 August 2005.
  7. Al-Hadhrami, H.S.; Blunt, M.J. Thermally Induced Wettability Alteration To Improve Oil Recovery in Fractured Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 2001, 4(3), 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schembre, J.M.; Tang, G.Q.; Kovscek, A.R. Wettability alteration and oil recovery by water imbibition at elevated temperatures. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2006, 52, 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hamouda, A.A.; Rezaei Gomari, K.A. Influence of Temperature on Wettability Alteration of Carbonate Reservoirs. In Paper SPE 99848 presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers/Department of Energy (SPE/DOE) Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, 22-26 April 2006.
  10. Rezaei Gomari, K.A.; Karoussi, O.; Hamouda, A.A. Mechanistic Study of Interaction between Water and Carbonate Rocks for Enhancing Oil Recovery. In Paper SPE 99628 presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers (Europec/EAGE) Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12-15 June 2006.
  11. Rezaei Gomari, K.A.; Hamouda, A.A.; Davidian, T.; Fagerland, D.A. Contact Angle, Wettability and Adhesion; Mittal, K., Ed.; VSP: Leiden, The Netherland, 2006; Vol. 4, p. 351. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rezaei Gomari, K.A.; Hamouda, A.A. Effect of Fatty Acids, Water Composition and pH on the Wettability Alteration of Calcite Surface. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2006, 50, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rezaei Gomari, K.A.; Denoyel, R.; Hamouda, A.A. Wettability of Calcite and Mica Modified by Different Long Chain Fatty Acids (C18 Acids). Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2006, 297, 470–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Karoussi, O.; Hamouda, A.A. Imbibition of Sulfate and Magnesium Ions into Carbonate Rocks at Elevated Temperatures and their Influence on Wettability. Energy and Fuels 2007, 21, 2138–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Karoussi, O.; Hamouda, A.A. Macroscopic and nanoscale study of wettability alteration of oil-wet calcite surface in presence of magnesium and sulfate ions. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2008, 317, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hamouda, A.A.; Karoussi, O.; Chukwudeme, E.A. Relative permeability as a function of temperature, initial water saturation and flooding fluid compositions for modified oil-wet chalk. In review. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eclipse reservoir simulator reference manual, Schlumberger. 2006.
  18. Delshad, M.; Najafabadi, N.F.; Anderson, G.A.; Pope, G.A.; Sepehrnoori, K. Modelling Wettability Alteration in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. In Paper SPE 100081 presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers/Department of Energy (SPE/DOE) Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, 22-26 April 2006.
  19. Nakornthap, N.; Evans, R.D. Temperature-Dependant on Relative Permeability and Its Effect on Oil Displacement by Thermal Methods. SPE Reservoir Engineering 1986, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schramm, L.L.; Manhardt, K.; Novosad, J. Temperature-Dependant on Relative Permeability and Its Effect on Oil Displacement by Thermal Methods. Colloids Surfaces A- Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 1991, 55, 309–331. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pierre, A.; Lamarche, J. M.; Mercier, R.; Foissy, A.; Persello, J. Calcium as Potential Determining ion in Aqueous Calcite Suspensions. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology 1990, 11(6), 611–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Amaefule, J.O.; Handy, L.L. The Effect of Interfacial Tension on Relative Oil/Water Permeabilities of Consolidated Porous Media. SPE Journal 1982, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kumar, S.; Torabzadeh, S.J.; Handy, L.L. Relative Permeability Function for High- and Low-Tension Systems at Elevated Temperatures. In Paper SPE 13670 presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, 27-29 March 1985.
  24. Bahramian, A.; Danesh, A. Prediction of solid–water–hydrocarbon contact angle. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2007, 311, 579–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Cassé, F.J.; Ramey, H.J., Jr. The Effect of Temperature and Confining Pressure on Single-Phase Flow in Consolidated Rocks. Journal of Petroleum Technology 1979, 31(8), 1051–1059. [Google Scholar]
  26. Weinbrandt, R.M.; Ramey, H.J., Jr.; Cassé, F.J. The Effect of Temperature on Relative and Absolute Permeability of Sandstones. SPE Journal 1975, 15(15), 379–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gray, D.H.; Fatt, I.; Bergamini, G. The Effect of Stress on Permeability of Sandstone Cores. SPE Journal 1963, 3(2), 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sedaee Sola, B.; Rashidi, F.; Babadagli, T. Temperature effects on the heavy oil/water relative permeabilities of carbonate rocks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2007, 59, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, A.L.; Ellington, R.T. Viscosity of n-Decane in the Liquid Phase. Journal of Chemical Engineering and Data 1965, 10(4), 346–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hansen, G.; Hamouda, A. A.; Denoyel, R. The Effect of Pressure on Contact Angles and Wettability in the Mica/Water/n-decane System and the Calcite+stearic acid/water/n-decane System. Colloids Surfaces A- Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2000, 172, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hamouda, A.A.; Karoussi, O. Effect of Temperature, Wettability and Relative Permeability on Oil Recovery from Oil-wet Chalk. Energies 2008, 1, 19-34. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1010019

AMA Style

Hamouda AA, Karoussi O. Effect of Temperature, Wettability and Relative Permeability on Oil Recovery from Oil-wet Chalk. Energies. 2008; 1(1):19-34. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1010019

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hamouda, Aly A., and Omid Karoussi. 2008. "Effect of Temperature, Wettability and Relative Permeability on Oil Recovery from Oil-wet Chalk" Energies 1, no. 1: 19-34. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1010019

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop