PR

EV
IEW
 UMI Number: 3578385

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
UMI 3578385
EV
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
PR

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 ABSTRACT

Transport of Components and Phases in a Surfactant/Foam EOR

Process for a Giant Carbonate Reservoir

by

José Luis López-Salinas

The transport of components and phases plays a fundamental role in the

success of an EOR process. Because many reservoirs have harsh conditions of

salinity, temperature and rock heterogeneity, which limit process options, a robust

W
system with flexibility is required.

Systematic experimental study of formulations capable to transport surfactant as

IE
foam at 94°C, formulated in sea water, is presented. It includes methodology to
EV
conduct core floods in sand packs using foaming surfactants and to develop

“surfactant blend ratio- salinity ratio maps” using equilibrium phase behavior to

determine favorable conditions for oil recovery in such floods. Mathematical

PR

model able to reproduce the foam strength behavior observed in sand packs with

the formulations studied is presented.

Visualization of oil recovery mechanism from matrix is realized using a model

system of micro-channels surrounded by glass beads to mimic matrix and

fractures respectively. The observations illustrate how components may distribute

within the matrix, thereby releasing oil into the fractures.

The use of chemicals to minimize adsorption is required when surfactant

adsorption is important. The presence of anhydrite may limit the use of sodium
carbonate to reduce adsorption of carbonates. A methodology is presented to

estimate the amount, if any, of anhydrite present in the reservoir. The method is

based on brine software analysis of produced water compositions and inductively

coupled plasma (ICP) analysis of core samples. X-ray powder diffraction (XRD)

was used to verify the mineralogy of the rock. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy

(XPS) was used to obtain surface composition for comparison with bulk

composition of the rock.

Adsorption of surfactants was measured using dynamic and static adsorption

W
experiments. Determining the flow properties of the rock samples via tracer

analysis permitted the simulation of the dynamic adsorption process using a

IE
mathematical model that considers the distribution of adsorbed materials in the

three different regions of pore space. Using this method allows one to predict
EV

adsorption in a reservoir via simulation.

PR

II
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Professor George J

Hirasaki and Professor Clarence A Miller, who contributed immensely to my learning

process, education and research throughout my studies at Rice University. It was my

privilege to be his student and to complete my studies under his supervision.

I thank Professors Mason Tomson and Lisa Biswal for serving in my thesis committee

W
and all their support they gave me using their labs.

IE
I thank Maura Puerto for all the support building and designing the equipment used

during experiments, serving in my thesis committee and all her advices, and support.
EV

I thank Roberto Roca Education Program and ITESM for financial support.
PR

I thank all people who help me in my research; Daniel Krishock, Dr. Fernando de la

Garza, Dr. Kishore Mohanty, and the people from PEMEX and IMP.

The outstanding staff of the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering department greatly

enhanced my research experience at Rice U. They are too many to name; however, I

wish to single out undergrad students Insoo Ro, Dion Hubble, Maggie Menhchen Tang,

Tarek Hariz and Kyu Hun Yoo for their support and contributions. The grad students

Aarthi Muthuswamy, Neeraj Rohilla, AmirHosein Valiollahzadeh, Kun Ma, Aparna Raju
Sagi, Michael Rauschhuber and Leyu Cui for all the discussions and learning

interactions.

I am deeply grateful with all the support and encouragement from my wife Angelica and

my daughters Andrea and Esther. Also the amazing people: Alejandro Garcia Cuellar,

Rosa E. Rangel Quintanilla and Juana Maria Lopez Cruz, who helped me and my family

during this journey.

Special thanks to Darlene and George Hirasaki for their kindness with my family.

W
IE
EV
PR

IV
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract I

Acknowledgements III

Table of Contents V

List of Tables XIII

List of Figures XVII

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Enhanced Oil Recovery 1

W
1.2 Foam for EOR 2

1.3 Thesis Scope and Organization

IE 4

Chapter 2 Technical Background 7

EV
2.1 Amphiphiles and Surfactants 7

2.2 Classification of Surfactants 8

2.3 Fundamentals of Foam Flow in Porous Media 11

PR

2.4 Mechanism of Foam Formation and Decay 14

2.4.1 Foam Formation 15

2.4.1.a Capillary snap-off 15

2.4.1.b Lamella Division 16

2.4.1.c Leave-behind 17

2.4.2 Foam Destruction 18

2.4.2.a Capillary Suction Coalescence 18

2.4.2.b Gas Diffusion 21

 2.5 Apparent Viscosity in Porous Media 21

2.6 Foam Modeling 25

2.7 Empirical Methods 26

2.8 Mechanistic Methods 27

2.9 Phase behavior 27

2.9.1 Solubilization 27

2.10 Surfactants Phase Behavior 39

Chapter 3 Properties of Material and Phases 41

W
3.1 Crude Oil IFT 42

3.2 Crude Oil Viscosity 44

3.3 Acid Number

IE 51

3.4 Contact Angle 51

EV
3.5 Surfactant Viscoelasticity 54

3.6 Surfactant Surface Tension 62

PR

Chapter 4 Anhydrite Determination in Carbonate Formations 65

4.1 Introduction 65

4.2 Anhydrite Determination 68

4.3 Information about the Seawater and Formation Brines 69

4.4 Description and validation of software 71

4.5 Methodology 77

4.6 Results 79

4.7 Conclusions about the Chapter 4 89

VI
Chapter 5 Static Adsorption and Analytical Methods to Measure 90

Surfactants

5.1 Overview of Chapter 5 90

5.2 Methods to Quantify surfactants 92

5.3 Analytical Techniques to Measure Concentrations During 94

Static Adsorption Experiments

5.4 Quantification of both, IOS and Carboxylate surfactants in UT 99

Blends

W
5.5 Colorimetric two-phase titrations, to measure thermal stability 102

of C24PO25EO56CO2Na in UTOld Blend and addition of

IE
polyacrylate to improve aqueous stability.

5.5.1 Aqueous Stability 102

EV
5.6 Colorimetric two-phase Titrations Measuring Adsorption of 109

C28PO25EO25COONa and C15-18 IOS in UTNew Blend.

PR

5.7 Thermal Behavior 111

5.7.1 Thermal Behavior of 1% Individual Surfactants in DI Water at 111

90°C (C28PO25EO25COONa and C15-18 IOS)

5.7.2 Thermal Behavior of 1% Surfactant Blend in Seawater, 90 °C 112

(C28PO25EO25COONa and C15-18 IOS, 1:1)

5.7.3 Thermal Behavior of 1% Surfactant Blend in Seawater, 113

Contacted with Dolomite 90°C (C28PO25EO25COONa and C15-18 IOS)

5.7.4 Sacrificial Agents to Reduce Adsorption 113

5.8 Remarks 115

VII
 5.9 Thermal Stability of Cocamidopropyl Betaine 116

Chapter 6 Dynamic Adsorption Experiments, Modeling and Simulation. 122

6.1 Introduction 122

6.2 Mathematical Model for Dynamic Adsorption 123

6.3 Experimental Dynamic Adsorption (Rock, Brine, Tracer and 138

Surfactant)

6.3.1 Measure Permeability 141

6.4 Results of Adsorption 148

W
6. 4.1 Results of Adsorption for the Silurian Outcrop Dolomite 148

6.4.2 Results of Adsorption for the Composite Zaap Rock. 151

6.5
IE
Mathematical Model Proposed 155

6.6 Simulation of Dynamic Adsorption (Model Parameters Fitting) 157

EV
6.7 Conclusion of Chapter 6 172

Chapter 7 Foam and Oil Experiments 173

PR

7.1 Foam Studies with Oil Recovery using “Surfactants Ratio – 174

Salinity Ratio” Maps to Select Injection Conditions for Oil

Recovery

7.1.1 Surfactants Used in Oil Recovery Study with Foam 175

7.1.2 Materials and Methods for the Core Flood Experiments, and 178

Foam Experiments in Sand Packs

7.1.2.a Diagram of Equipment for Foam Experiments and Core 183

Floods

7.1.2.b Surfactants 185

VIII
7.1.2.c Brine Composition used During Experiments 185

7.1.3 Foam Study with Oil Recovery using “Surfactants-Ratio 185

Salinity-Ratio” Maps, to Select Injection Conditions for High

Recovery (i.e. Phase behavior and core floods in foaming systems).

7.1.3.a Oil Recovery with co-injection of Surfactant and Nitrogen 186

7.1.3.b Particular Observations Related to Some Core Floods. 194

7.1.3.c Foam During Oil Recovery Experiments. 202

7.2 Screening of Surfactant Blends to Produce Strong Foams 213

W
7.2.1 Surfactants used in the Foam Screening Process. 215

7.2.1.a Anionic-Zwitterionic Blends 220

7.2.1.b
IE
Zwitterionic-Cationic Surfactants 220

7.2.2 Foaming Study for C16-18AOS 223

EV
7.2.3 Foaming Study for LB+C16-18AOS 227

7.2.4 Comparison of surfactants as foamers 230

PR

7.2.5 Observations about Foam Studies with Oil Recovery using 239

“Surfactants Ratio – Salinity Ratio” Maps to Select Injection

Conditions for Oil Recovery, and the Screening Process of

Foaming Surfactant Blends

7.3 Mathematical Model, Parameters Fit and Simulation. 240

7.3.1 Algorithm to Fit Parameters of the Model. 244

7.3.2 Fitting process of foam model. 248

7.4 Gravity Drainage - Imbibition Experiments 259

7.4.1 Imbibition in the Special Designed Foaming-Imbibition Cell. 261

IX
 7.4.2 Procedure During Imbibition Experiment In Foaming 263

Environment

7.4.3 Oil Recovery in the Autoclavable-Imbibition Cell using 300 265

mD Silurian Dolomite Outcrop Cores

7.4.4 Procedure for Imbibitions Experiments 266

7.4.5 Analysis from Imbibition Experiments 271

7.5 Experiments in Capillaries to Visualize Oil Recovery in Gas 280

Cap

W
7.5.1 Preparation of the Capillary Tubes 282

7.5.2 Oil recovery from Oil Filled Micro-Capillaries Immersed in 283

IE
Aqueous Surfactant Solution at 94°C

7.5.3 Oil recovery from Oil Filled Micro-Capillaries Immersed in 290

EV
Foaming Stream at Room Temperature.

Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations 297

PR

8.1 Adsorption 297

8.2 Foam 299

8.3 Corefloods 301

8.4 Imbibition Experiments 302

8.5 Studies for Visualization of Crude Oil Mobilization within 304

Micro-Channels in an Environment with Foam

8.6 Presence of Anhydrite in the Formation 306

Nomenclature 308

Chapter 4 Nomenclature 308

X
 Chapter 6 Nomenclature 310

Chapter 7 Nomenclature 315

References 320

Appendices 345

Appendix 3A Interfacial Tension of Contaminated Oils 345

Appendix 3B Viscosity of Dead Oil 346

Appendix 3C Rheology Models to Describe Surfactant Blends 347

Appendix 3D Prediction of Rheology at 94°C 349

W
Appendix 3E Falling Sphere Viscometer 351

Appendix 3F Contact Angle Determination 352

Appendix 3G
IE
Idealization of Molecular Interactions 353

Appendix 4A XRD Results 356

EV
Appendix 4B Analytical Methods 357

Appendix 4C Water Analysis 358

PR

Appendix 5A Titration of Blends using Low pH 362

Appendix 5B Titration at Low pH 363

Appendix 5C Titration at High pH 364

Appendix 5D Titration of Blends Containing Zwitterionic, Anionic and 365

Cationic Surfactants.

Appendix 5E Titration for Zwitterionic 367

Appendix 5F Sacrificial Agents, Titration Reagents and Indicators 369

Appendix 6A Determination of Adsorption 372

Appendix 6B Representation of the Porous Structure 375

XI
Appendix 7A Information about Surfactants 377

Appendix 7B Foam Equipment 378

Appendix 7C CDC Parameters and Equations 378

Appendix 7D Aqueous Stability of UTB Formulations 379

Appendix 7E Oil in Plateau Borders 380

Appendix 7F Algorithm 381

Appendix 7G Brine Comparison 381

Appendix 7H Analytical Solution of Counter Current Imbibitions for 382

W
Strong Water

Appendix 7I Material for Experiments in Micro-Channels 383

Appendix 7J
IE
Solutions of Mixtures of the UT Blend 383

Appendix 7K IMP Transient Foam 385

EV
Appendix 7L Oil Recovery in Rectangular Capillaries, and Oil 387

Recovery for a Bunndle of Rectandular Capillaries

PR

Appendix 7M Parameters for foam simulation / surfactants of different 389

nature

XII
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Approaches to predict surfactant behavior. 29

Table 2-2 Ways the interaction between portions of surfactant modifies 33

the Winsor R ratio.

Table 2-3 Equivalence between SAD and Winsor R-ratio. 34

Table 2-4 Correlation to estimate the surfactant affinity difference. 35

Table 2-5 Dipole-induce dipole interaction between the surfactant and 36

W
the oil phase.

Table 2-6 Weakening of the hydrogen bonds between water molecules 36

with temperature.
IE
Table 2-7 Weakening of the hydrogen bonds between the molecules of 37
EV
water and the oxygen in the ethylene oxide groups with

temperature and the salting parameter.

PR

Table 3-1 IFT values of dead crude oil measured at 25°C in 5% NaCl 43

Table 3-2 Viscosity of fluids at reservoir temperature (273ºF) 50

Table 3-3 Viscosity of different simulated live crude oil vs. live crude oil 50

and dead oil.

Table 3-4 Contribution to critical packing parameter in the scenarios 61

described.

Table 3-5 Typical dimensionless number during measurements. 64

Table 4-1 Elemental analysis of the rock after ICP. 84

Table 4-2 Atomic percentage for analyzed samples. 86

XIII
Table 5-1 UT formulations in this research 93

Table 5-2 Sample preparation 96

Table 5-3 Composition of components of UT Blend for calibration. 100

Table 5-4 Polyacrylate contacted with dolomite. 105

Table 5-5 Thermal behavior of 1% surfactant in DI Water at 90°C. 112

Table 5-6 1% Surfactant in seawater, contacted with dolomite 90 °C. 113

Table 5-7 Reduction of activity in a 3.89 pH buffer after 2 months of 119

ageing at 100°C.

W
Table 5-8 CAPB Half-life as a function of pH and temperature. 120

Table 6-1 Brines used for surfactant solutions and for tracer analysis. 146

Table 6-2
IE
Silurian Dolomite adsorption/retention. 150

Table 6-3 PEMEX Composite Dolomite adsorption/retention. 153

EV
Table 6-4 Simplified equations for initial guess. 159

Table 6-5 Parameters for simulation after fitting. 163

PR

Table 6-6 Parameters for simulation in case III. 168

Table 6-7 Surface area measured in different dolimites. 170

Table 6-8 Analysis of the surface of the rock. 171

Table 6-9 XPS analysis. 171

Table 7-1 Surfactants blends used in core floods. 175

Table 7-2 Brines composition using stock salts. 185

Table 7-3 Conditions needed to recover residual oil. 192

Table 7-4 Initial condition of the porous media for test “6” and “7” 198

Table 7-5 Comparison of foam strength for surfactant blends. 212

XIV
Table 7-6 Surfactants used for screen surfactants blends for foaming in 215

seawater and 94°C.

Table 7-7 Hydrotropes. 222

Table 7-8 Combinations of surfactants used in the foaming tests. 230

Table 7-9 Viscosities of foam at quality 70% and 1cm 3/min of liquid flow 231

rate at 94°C. Part I.

Table 7-10 Viscosities of foam at quality 70% and 1cm3/min of liquid flow 234

rate at 94°C. Part II.

W
Table 7-11 Contributions to the mobility reduction factor. 242

Table 7-12 Default parameters for relative permeability and capillary 249

pressure.
IE
Table 7-13 Initial and final values during the search process. 250
EV
Table 7-14 Parameters after fitting three different surfactant blends. 256

Table 7-15 Description of steps during imbibition. 264

PR

Table 7-16 Some values of properties for calculations during imbibitions 273

experiments.

Table 7-17 Dimensions of capillaries used. 280

Table 7-18 Comparision among permeability ratios for capillaries, glass 282

beads and reservoir rock.

Table 3C-1 Parameters for Jeffrey Model for AOS. 348

Table 5F-1 List of sacrificial agents. 369

Table 5F-2 List of titration reagents and indicators. 371

Table 7A-1 Surfactants and salts. 377

XV
Table 7A-2 Information of surfactants. 377

Table 7C-1 Parameters for capillary desaturation curve. 378

Table 7G-1 Composition synthetic brine. 381

Table 7J-1 Parameters for porous media. 384

W
IE
EV
PR

XVI
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Cartoon of surfactants located at the interface. Non-ionic, 10

anionic, zwitterionic and cationic, labeled from left to right

Figure 2-2 Foam in poruous media 12

Figure 2-3 Mechanism of capillary snap-off 16

Figure 2-4 Cartoon representing the lamella division 17

Figure 2-5 Cartoon representing the leave-behind mechanism of lamella 18

W
generation

Figure 2-6 Cartoon representing foam destruction 19

Figure 2-7
IE
Interaction between surfactant molecules, and molecules in 31

aqueous and organic phases

EV

Figure 2-8 Characteristic curvature of surfactants 38

Figure 3-1 IFT Of crude Oil in 5% NaCl Brine at room temperature 44

PR

Figure 3-2 Viscosity as function of temperature for dead crude oils, and a 45

dead oil filtered at 50°C

Figure 3-3 Viscosity of crude oil measured in the Couette flow viscometer. 46

Figure 3-4 Viscosity of Reservoir Fluid at 237°F 47

Figure 3-5 Composition of cyclohexane and dead oil to the live oil 49

viscosity

Figure 3-6 Water receding contact angles at room temperature 52

Figure 3-7 Water advancing angle after ageing 53

Figure 3-8 Water advancing angle 54

Figure 3-9. Viscosity curve for surfactant blends 55

Figure 3-10 The viscoelasticity of the blend CAPB+C16-18AOS+BTC 56

Figure 3-11 Comparison of the viscosity measured at high shear rate. 57

Figure 3-12 Room temperature rheogram for LB+C16-18AOS 1% in 58

seawater

Figure 3-13 Cartoon of cross section of worm-like micelle, adapted from 60

Lopez-Diaz and Castillo (2010)

Figure 3-14 Surface tension for LB+C16-18AOS 2:1 (w/w) in seawater at 63

W
25ºC

Figure 4-1 Relationship of the retardation time and mass percentage of

IE 66

CaSO4 in dolomite rock

Figure 4-2 Relation of Retardation time and porosity or the rock; the 67
EV

effect worsens for less porous media

Figure 4-3 Excess of the main ions respect to typical seawater and 69
PR

ionic strength

Figure 4-4 Indicate the composition of the water for the different wells in 70

this study

Figure 4-5 Saturation temperature respect to anhydrite for the seawater. 75

Figure 4-6 Prediction of the solubility of calcium sulfate at different 76

temperatures

Figure 4-7 Solubility of calcium sulfate in a 20% mass NaCl brine at 77

different temperatures

Figure 4-8 Saturation index for anhydrite for different formation brines 79

XVIII
Figure 4-9 Sample from a carbonate reservoir before and after treated in 81

the shaker box

Figure 4-10 Zoom of a section of the response of the intensity for three 82

different samples; anhydrite, sample (F1A) and dolomite

Figure 4-11 Sample before trimming, before cleaning after being cut and 83

after the cleaning process

Figure 4-12 Samples of rock formation, dolomite used in adsorption 84

experiments, and doped dolomite

W
Figure 4-13 XPS for core sample 87

Figure 4-14 Peaks for quantification of O, C, Ca and Mg 88

IE
Figure 4-15 The Silicon quantification 88

Figure 5-1 High pH titration 97

EV

Figure 5-2 Comparison of different techniques for titrating SDS 98

Figure 5-3 Effect of bromocresol green for titration at high pH 99

PR

Figure 5-4 Verification of titration techniques (1) of (2) 100

Figure 5-5 Verification of titration techniques (2) of (2) 101

Figure 5-6 Appearance of samples after 90°C for a week in seawater 103

Figure 5-7 Test Results of thermal stability UT old, 1-week testing in 104

seawater at 90°C

Figure 5-8 Effect of adding polyacrylate to Old UT Blend 104

Figure 5-9 UTold + Polyacrylate 500 ppm 1- week 90°C 106

Figure 5-10 Effect of additives on Static adsorption on dolomite powder of 107

the Old UT Blend

XIX
Figure 5-11 Total Surface Concentration, aged 2 days at 90ºC 108

Figure 5-12 Static adsorption; UTNew Blend in Seawater at 90°C 109

Figure 5-13 Summary of Static Adsorption Test Results at 90°C 110

Figure 5-14 Aqueous surfactant solutions in DI water after ½ week 111

Figure 5-15 Adsorption estimation 114

Figure 5-16 Surfactant solutions of CAPB 117

Figure 5-17 Chromatogram of CAPB at low pH buffer 117

Figure 5-18 Comparison peaks for the Lauramidopropyl betaine and 118

W
Myristamidopropyl betaine (peaks) in the CAPB sample

Figure 5-19 Dependence of pseudo first order constant.

IE 119

Figure 5-20 Pseudo first order constant rate for hydrolysis of CAPB 121

Figure 6-1 Figure Cartoon to simplify the porous structure of a rock 123
EV

Figure 6-2 Laplace domain response if double porosity model is used 133

Figure 6-3 Double porosity model, using finite core boundary condition 134
PR

Figure 6-4 Different views of a low permeability sample from the 142

formation

Figure 6-5 Different views of a high permeability sample from the 142

formation

Figure 6-6 Actual cores used during dynamic adsorption experiments 143

Figure 6-7 Core sample preparation 144

Figure 6-8 Experimental setup 145

XX
Figure 6-9 Seawater and formation brine fit well the Nikolsky-Eisenman 147

equation

Figure 6-10 Surfactants and tracer response in the effluent from Silurian 149

dolomite

Figure 6-11 Surfactants and tracer response in the effluent after 151

contacting composite PEMEX rock at 99°C

Figure 6-12 Mass ratio of IOS respect to the total surfactant blend in the 152

effluent

W
Figure 6-13 Parameters used during the fitting in Laplace domain, f=0.3, 161

NSt12=1, NPe12=20
IE
Figure 6-14 Comparison of the response of tracer and surfactant using the 162

triple porosity model for the low permeability composed core

EV

Figure 6-15 Tracer and surfactant comparison response using the triple 164

porosity model for the high permeability Silurian outcrop core

PR

Figure 6-16 Simulated response of a finite slug of Anionic or Amphoteric 165

surfactant respect to a tracer in dolomite rock, assuming

adsorption 100% irreversible

Figure 6-17 Simulated response of a finite slug of Anionic or Amphoteric 166

surfactant respect to a tracer in dolomite rock, assuming that

some desorption may occur

Figure 6-18 Simulated response of a finite slug of Anionic or Amphoteric 167

surfactant respect to a tracer in dolomite rock, assuming

adsorption is reversible

XXI
Figure 6-19 Preliminary results of surface area using NMR 172

Figure 7-1 Binary anionic surfactant blends used in the research 176

Figure 7-2 Surfactant blend scan used characterize the surfactants 177

Figure 7-3 Experimental setup 183

Figure 7-4 Phase behavior map, and graphic representation of the 187

dilution path for foam experiments

Figure 7-5 Oil recovery for different tests 189

Figure 7-6 Capillary desaturation curves for the three scenarios 190

W
Figure 7-7 Silica sand sample 194

Figure 7-8 Pictures of the sand pack at the end of the test “6”
IE 195

Figure 7-9 Oil recovery during test “6” 199

Figure 7-10 Flow sequence in test “6” 200

EV

Figure 7-11 Oil recovery during test “6” 201

Figure 7-12 Sequence of injection of phases during test “7” and the history 202
PR

of apparent viscosity

Figure 7-13 The plot corresponds to the mixture of Triton X200 (C9-I- 204

(EO)8.6 SO3Na) and internal olefin sulfonate C20-24IOS in

proportion 70:30 (w/w)

Figure 7-14 Phase behavior map and snapshots of blend scan for 205

seawater and for 50% seawater-50% formation brine

Figure 7-15 Foam apparent viscosity for the C12(EO)7SO3Na + C20-24 IOS 206

blend (60/40) in seawater

XXII