Implications of chemical agents and nanofluids coupled with carbon dioxide to improve oil recovery factor

Abstract

AbstractIn this study, we experimentally investigated the effects of chemically enhanced oil recovery methods containing hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM), surfactant–hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (SHPAM), surfactant nanofluids (SNF), that is, coupled with carbon dioxide (CO2) and water chase injection to measure enhanced oil recovery methods in a sandstone reservoir. To proceed with the experiments, we performed four flooding tests at the simulated reservoir temperature of 70 °C. The sand packs were saturated with oil to establish the irreducible water saturation (Swr). Then, the fluid flow in sand packs remained undistributed for about 5 days to obtain the 1.5 pore volume (PV). We observed that the pressure drop had small fluctuations when there was waterflooding (until 1.5 PV), and after injecting the chemical agents, the pressure drop had a sharp rise. It is indicated that the chemical solution has implemented higher pressure drops (significant energy efficiency) to displace the oil instead of water. The maximum oil recovery factor was about 53% and 59% when HPAM and SHPAM solution displaced oil after waterflooding, respectively; however, it is observed that water chase flooding recovered about 8% and 14% of remaining oil in place while CO2 has increased only 3% and 5%, respectively. SNF solution can provide more oil recovery factors. It is about 72% (SNF with 0.5 wt%) and 67% (SNF with 1 wt%). We observed that water chase flooding recovered about 20% of oil in place while CO2 increased by only 8%. It was concluded that the SNF solution with 0.5 wt% tends to adhere to the water–CO2 and causes to improve oil recovery factor after SNF injection. Therefore, SNF is the optimum enhanced oil recovery method among other chemical agents. On the other hand, with the decrease in CO2 flow rate and increase in silica nanoparticles slug size, pressure drop has started to decrease in higher pore volume injections, indicating that larger volumes of CO2 can be stored in sand packs. However, by increasing the CO2 flow rate and decreasing silica nanoparticles slug size, CO2 can escape easily from the sand pack.