PAPER 2009-053

Determination of Increase in Pressure Drop

and Oil Recovery Associated with Alkaline
Flooding for Heavy Oil Reservoirs
M. ARHUOMA, D. YANG
University of Regina

M. DONG
University of Calgary

R. IDEM
University of Regina

This paper is accepted for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC) 2009, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 16‐18 June 2009. This paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals.
Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction.

Abstract and accurately measured for their physical properties.

Theoretically, a simulation technique is developed to model and
Alkaline flooding is a promising technique for enhancing match the experimental measurements for the alkaline flooding
heavy oil recovery, especially for thin reservoirs where other processes. Increase in differential pressure and oil recovery are
processes are not practicable. During alkaline flooding, oil found to be the two key parameters for determining the overall
recovery is increased by improving sweep efficiency as a result efficiency of the alkaline flooding for enhancing heavy oil
of in-situ formation of water-in-oil (W/O) emulsions. Even recovery. The in-situ emulsification is found to be closely
though flow of oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions in porous media related to reduction of the injected water mobility so that
has been extensively studied and well simulated, few attempts increase in pressure drop is observed and the oil recovery is
have been made for studying flow of W/O emulsions. In this improved due to blocking the high permeability zone (or water
study, techniques have been developed to determine increase in channels) induced by the preceding waterflooding.
pressure drop and oil recovery associated with alkaline
flooding for heavy oil reservoirs. Experimentally, both
differential pressure and oil recovery are measured in an Introduction
alkaline flooding process for heavy oils, while the associated
emulsification is also studied. More specifically, the alkaline Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) plays an increasingly
solutions are prepared with different concentrations of NaOH, important role in the petroleum industry for both light and
while increase in pressure drop and oil recovery are measured heavy oil reservoirs. In general, after primary recovery and
and analyzed. Two different porous media are well prepared secondary recovery, it is found that the oil remaining in the light

1
and medium oil reservoirs is generally in the range of 50-60% Experimental
of the original oil in place (OOIP) and that the oil left in the
heavy oil reservoirs is much higher. Among the EOR methods,
alkaline flooding for the light and medium oil reservoirs have Materials
been studied extensively[1]. In spite of some technical successes
in the oilfields, few economic successes have been documented Oil sample collected from a heavy oil reservoir in Alberta is
because of the high cost of the injectants[2]. At present, used for the experiments. The oil properties are listed in Table
conventional oil reserves are depleting, while there exists huge 1. Oil viscosity is measured by using a viscometer (DV-II+Pro,
challenge to develop the heavy oil reservoirs. In practice, few Brookfield, USA) whose temperature is maintained by using a
attempts have been made to study the alkaline flooding for heating/cooling bath. Brine is prepared artificially, which
heavy oil reservoirs mainly due to the fact that the multiphase contains same ingredients of salts as those of brine from the
flow of heavy oil in reservoir formation is a more complicated Pelican reservoir. Table 2 lists properties of the formation brine.
process than that in conventional oil reservoirs. Therefore, it is Two different sands (Silica, USA) with (40-60), and (60-
of fundamental and practical importance to study the alkaline 100) meshes are used in the experiments. For the experiments,
flooding process for heavy oil reservoirs. the brine and alkaline solution are prepared with sodium
Alkaline flooding, also known as caustic flooding, is an chloride (NaCl) (Fisher Scientific, USA), calcium chloride
EOR technique where an alkali, such as sodium hydroxide, (CaCl2), magnesium chloride (MgCl2 ⋅ 6H2O), sodium
sodium orthosilicate or sodium carbonate, is injected into bicarbonate (NaHCO3), and sodium hydroxide (NaOH),
hydrocarbon reservoirs during waterflooding stage[3]. Although respectively.
dominant mechanisms for heavy oil production have not been
well understood, emulsification mechanism is discovered to be Experimental procedures
one of the most important phenomena occurring in alkaline
flooding process[4-6]. Emulsification has been recognized as one
of efficient mechanisms to improve sweep efficiency for Setup
enhancing oil recovery in heavy oil reservoirs[7-11]. Such
emulsion is generated in-situ when the injected alkaline solution Figure 1 is a schematic of the experimental setup used to
comes into contact with crude oil and reacts with the acidic conduct the alkaline flood tests. It mainly consists of a tube
elements in the oil. In addition, the alkali reacts with certain pump (77120-52, MasterFlux, Cole-Parmer, USA), a pressure
types of oils and forms in-situ surfactants inside the reservoirs transducer (PPT-2, Ashcroft, USA), a sandpack holder and a
so that the interfacial tension between crude oil and water is sample cylinder. The pressure transducer is connected to a
reduced[12]. Crude oil can be easily emulsified when the desktop computer for continuously recording the injection
interfacial tension between the crude oil and water reaches a pressure, while the sample cylinder is used as an effluent
low or ultra-low value (< 10-2 dyne/cm). The interfacial tension collector.
reduction is also considered to be one of the mechanisms for Figure 2 shows the stainless steel sandpack holder used for
enhancing oil recovery in alkaline flooding[7, 13]. alkaline flooding tests, which is composed of a stainless steel
Few attempts have been made to model and simulate the pipe, two caps, two distributors, and two rubber O-rings. The
performance of alkaline flooding for heavy oil recovery. It has internal smooth surface of the coreholder is roughed by gluing a
been found that, when conventional black oil model is used, layer of sand on it to avoid any fluid from bypassing during the
there exists significant discrepancy between experimentally experiments. The distributors are equipped with a very fine
determined pressure drop and theoretically simulated value for screen to prevent sand production, while the O-rings offer a seal
enhancing heavy oil recovery by alkaline flooding process[14]. on both ends. The coreholder has a dimension of 14.1 cm in
This is ascribed to the fact that ultra-low other than high length and 4.3 cm in diameter. In addition, an advanced
interfacial tension is associated with the heavy oil-water system electronic microscope (ME600, Nikon, USA) is equipped with a
and that in-situ emulsification is generated during the alkaline digital camera used to take microscopic images of the outlet
flooding process. Although the in-situ generated emulsion is effluent.
found to be water-in-oil (W/O) emulsion, no theoretic models or
correlations have been made available to accurately determine Sandpack preparation and properties determination
its viscosity. In the literature, numerous models have been
Sandpacks are prepared at the ambient temperature of 22°C,
proposed to determine the viscosity of oil-in-water (O/W)
while fresh sand is used to ensure the same wettability. Three
emulsions; however, they provide underestimated values for the
major steps are involved in preparing the sandpack: seizing the
W/O emulsion viscosity.
sand, packing the coreholder, and determining the sandpack
In this study, techniques have been developed to determine
properties. First, silica sand is classified into two categories
the increase in pressure drop and oil recovery associated with
(i.e., A and B) with different meshes of (40-60) and (60-100),
alkaline flooding for heavy oil reservoirs. Well-designed
respectively. Secondly, the coreholder is placed in the vibration
experiments have been conducted to determine the increase in
unit in vertical position, filled with brine, and then the desired
differential pressure and oil recovery and to study the associated
sand is added. Thirdly, the coreholder is positioned vertically
emulsification process as well. A simulation technique is also
and ready for brine injection at a low flow rate. The porosity
developed to model and match the experimental measurements
measurement is made by using both the weight method and
for alkaline flooding for heavy oil recovery by incorporating the
volumetric method, while the permeability is determined by
measured W/O viscosity. The experimental findings and the
flowing the brine at several flow rates. Table 3 summarizes the
newly developed simulation technique will facilitate forecasting
properties of the two types of sandpacks used for alkaline
and designing field-scale alkaline flooding for heavy oil
flooding tests.
reservoirs.

2
Alkaline flooding resulted from the reaction between the acid in the crude oil and
the injected NaOH.
Prior to alkaline flooding, alkaline solution is prepared by
diluting a known concentration of NaOH in the brine solution.
Alkaline concentrations of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, and 0.8% are Results and Discussion
prepared for alkaline flooding tests.
The experimental procedure of alkaline flooding test is
briefly described as follows. Prior to alkaline flood test, oil is
injected into the water-saturated sandpack to set initial oil and
Produced emulsions
water saturations, followed by waterflooding to displace the oil Microscopic images have been taken to examine the
until no more oil is produced. Subsequently, alkaline solution produced effluent. Based on the microscopic images taken for
with known concentration is injected into the sandpack with a the effluent at the outlet, it is found that the produced emulsions
slug size of 0.5 pore volume (PV). The extended waterflood is are W/O type. For example, Figure 4 shows the microscopic
conducted after the alkaline solution slug and continues until images of the outlet effluent for alkaline flooding tests at 0.5%
there is no oil production. Six alkaline flood tests are conducted and 0.6% NaOH concentration, respectively. It is obvious that
for each type of sandpack. Incremental oil recovery is obtained the white drops (water) are surrounded by the brown fluid (oil).
with a known alkaline concentration for each test. The relative Similar microscopic images of effluent have been taken for all
permeability curves are determined from the experimental other eleven alkaline flooding tests. The same phenomenon has
measurements by using the Jonhson-Bossler-Naumann method also been reported for similar alkaline flooding processes[4].
[15-17]
. Figure 3 illustrates the experimental relative permeability
curves for sandpack B, which are subsequently used to model
and match the alkaline flooding performance.
Effect of alkaline concentration on pressure
During the experiments, the differential pressure and drop
volumes of produced oil and brine are measured as a function of
A series of alkaline flooding tests have been conducted to
time. Each produced effluent sample is centrifuged to separate study effects of alkaline concentration on the pressure drop
oil and water, resulting in an accurate measurement of oil and during the alkaline flooding tests. The concentration of NaOH is
brine production. increased gradually from 0.1% to 0.8% and the alkaline slug
size is fixed at 0.5 PV.
The pressure drop is plotted as a function of alkaline
Numerical Simulation concentration for sandpack A in Figure 5. The pressure drop
In order to simulate the alkaline flooding performance, it is increases and then decreases as the alkaline concentration
increases. Physically, alkaline solution flows in the high
necessary to not only use a reliable simulator, but also take the
permeability zone caused by the preceding waterflooding, and
inherent mechanisms into account. In this study, a simulator
then alkali reacts with acidic components in the crude oil to
(CMG STARS, Version 2008.10) is employed to model the
produce surface active substances which reduce the interfacial
alkaline flooding performance for heavy oil recovery with tension at the oil-water interface and consequently induce the
incorporation of relative permeability curves, interfacial formation of in-situ W/O emulsion[20]. The W/O emulsion has a
tension, chemicals adsorption, and in-situ formation of W/O higher viscosity and tends to block the high permeability zone.
emulsion. The formation of W/O emulsion is quantified by As a result, the resistance to water flow in water fingers is
using the experimentally determined viscosity. It is should be increased, and the injected water phase is diverted to the
noted that, during alkaline flooding, W/O emulsions are more unswept regions[4, 14]. This flow blockage leads to a higher
likely formed in high permeability regions and thus the relative pressure gradient and production of the trapped oil [7, 18]. The
permeability to water is consequently decreased. built-up pressure is gradually increased due to effective
A three-dimensional model with various permeabilities is blockage of the water channel, and subsequently deceased when
utilized to simulate the alkaline flooding performance. For the differential pressure overcomes the capillary forces and the
sandpack B with 14.2 cm in length and 4.3 cm in diameter, it is viscous forces imposed by the in-situ generated W/O emulsion.
divided into 25 grids in both I and J directions and one layer in The W/O emulsion has been found to be very effective in
K direction. To account for heterogeneity, values of absolute enhancing oil recovery due to its high viscosity[19].
permeability are randomly assigned to each grid in a range of 2- The emulsification of injected alkaline solution in heavy oil
15 darcy. The average absolute permeability used in the model consequently lowers the water mobility and delays viscous
is equal to the experimentally measured value. fingering[9]. Therefore, there exists a significant increase in
Table 3 contains all physical properties of the sandpack. pressure drop in alkaline concentrations between 0.2 and 0.6%,
Aqueous phase includes water and alkali, while oil phase while this trend becomes almost negligible after the alkaline
involves oil and W/O emulsion. The interfacial tension of the concentration exceeds 0.6%. This is because the interfacial
heavy oil-water system assigned in the model is experimentally tension between oil and alkaline solution becomes minimal.
measured at various alkaline concentrations, while chemical Thus, the optimum alkaline concentration is determined to be
adsorption is described by using the Langmuir isotherm curve.
0.6%. However, no response in pressure drop is observed at an
The maximum NaOH loss used to estimate the maximum
alkaline concentration of 0.1% because the interaction between
adsorption in the simulation is 2.0 μmol/g-sand which is
the oil and alkaline solution is not strong enough to create the
experimentally determined for similar alkaline flooding
experiments[4]. in-situ emulsion. The optimum alkaline concentration is defined
The relative permeabilities for oil and water (see Figure 3) as the concentration at which increase in oil recovery with the
are measured experimentally and then interpolated as a function alkaline concentration becomes small and the interfacial tension
of capillary number to address both effect of reduction in remains almost constant[20, 21]. The minimum pressure drop is
interfacial tension and generation of W/O emulsions caused by found to be 8.6 cmH2O at 0.1% alkaline concentration, while
the in-situ surfactants. Such in-situ formed surfactants are the maximum pressure drop is measured to be 137.1 cmH2O at
0.8% alkaline concentration.

3
 As shown in Figure 6, there exits similar trend for alkaline curves and an unreasonable value of the emulsion viscosity are
flooding in sandpack B. The minimum pressure drop is found to used during the simulation[14]. It should be noted that the
be 29.0 cmH2O at 0.1% NaOH, while the maximum pressure experimentally determined W/O emulsion viscosity is 3500
drop is 233.9 cmH2O at 0.8% alkaline concentration. This is mPa·s for sandpack B.
because a larger pore space is present in a higher permeability
porous medium compared to sandpack A.
Figure 7 shows the relationship between pressure drop and Conclusions
alkaline concentration for sandpacks A and B. As can be seen,
the pressure drop is increased as alkaline concentration is Techniques have been developed to determine increase in
increased. The increase in pressure drop is caused by the pressure drop and oil recovery associated with alkaline flooding
interaction between alkaline solution and crude oil as well as for heavy oil reservoirs. Experimentally, well-designed
the in-situ generated emulsification when the injected alkaline experiments have been conducted to determine increase in
solution is strong enough to react with the residual oil[21]. differential pressure and oil recovery associated with alkaline
flooding for heavy oil reservoirs and to study the associated
emulsification process as well. It is found that the pressure drop
Effect of alkaline concentration on oil increases as the alkaline concentration increases in alkaline
recovery flooding. This is ascribed to generation of the in-situ
emulsification resulting from interactions between the injected
Table 4 lists the incremental oil recovery as a function of alkaline solution and crude oil. A minimum concentration of
alkaline concentration for sandpack A. As can be seen, the oil 0.2% of NaOH is needed to induce a noticeable pressure drop,
recovery is increased as the alkaline concentration increases. while alkaline concentration of 0.6% is found to be the optimum
This is due to the interaction between oil and alkaline solution, concentration for the heavy oil used in this study. The total oil
resulting in the creation of in-situ W/O emulsion[4-6, 21]. The in- recovery for sandpack A sand is 47.5% of OOIP (29.1% for
situ W/O emulsion not only reduces the mobility of water waterflooding and 18.4% for alkaline flooding), while it is
phase, but also leads to an increase in pressure drop and 47.3% for sandpack B (29.6% for waterflooding and 17.7% for
consequently improvement of sweep efficiency. The increase of alkaline flooding). Theoretically, a simulation technique is
oil recovery may also be resulted from the swelling oil phase developed to model and match the experimental measurements
induced by the W/O emulsion[22, 23]. for the alkaline flooding processes by incorporating the
There is no significant pressure response observed when the experimentally measured relative permeability curves and W/O
NaOH concentration is 0.1%. This is ascribed to the fact that the emulsion viscosity. There exists excellent agreement between
interaction between the heavy oil and the injected alkaline the experimentally measured and numerically simulated oil
solution is not strong enough to create the in-situ emulsification. production and differential pressure.
Furthermore, when the alkaline concentration is larger than
0.1%, interactions between the heavy oil and alkaline solution
become strong enough to create the in-situ emulsification and Acknowledgments
consequently improve oil recovery.
A significant increase in oil recovery is found when alkaline Acknowledgement is extended to the Petroleum
concentrations are increased from 0.2 and 0.6%. When the Technology Research Centre (PTRC), the Natural Sciences and
alkaline concentration is higher than 0.6%, the rate of oil Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, and the
recovery is reduced. The alkaline concentration of 0.6% is Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) for their financial
found to be the optimum value for enhancing oil recovery. After supports of this work.
waterflooding, injection of 0.1% NaOH with 0.5 PV leads to an
oil recovery of less than 4.1% of OOIP compared to 18.7% of
OOIP at 0.8% NaOH with 0.5 PV. As listed in Table 5, a REFERENCES
similar scenario is found for the sandpack B.
1. Johnson, Jr., C.E., Status of Caustic and Emulsion
Methods; J. Pet. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 85-92, 1976.
Comparison between the measured and 2. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D. and Seright, R.S., EOR Screening
simulated cumulative oil production and Criteria Revisited-Part 1: Introduction to Screening
Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects; SPE
pressure drop Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 12, No.3, pp. 189-198, 1997.
Figure 8 compares the measured cumulative oil production 3. Lake, L., Enhanced Oil Recovery; Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
and pressure drop with simulated data for alkaline flooding at Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1989.
0.6% NaOH concentration for sandpack B. As mentioned 4. Liu, Q., Interfacial Phenomena in Enhanced Heavy Oil
previously, pressure drop is increased during alkaline flooding Recovery by Alkaline Flood; Ph.D. Dissertation,
due to the high viscosity of the in-situ generated W/O emulsion University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada,
and the increased resistance to water flow, while oil recovery is 2006.
increased resulting from the improved sweep efficiency. It is 5. Liu, Q., Dong, M., Asghari, K., and Tu, Y., Wettability
obvious that there exists an excellent agreement between the Alteration by Magnesium Ion Binding in Heavy Oil/
measured and simulated cumulative oil production and pressure Brine/Chemical/Sand Systems-Analysis of Electrostatic
drop. This is mainly resulted from incorporation of the Forces; J. Pet. Sci. Eng., Vol. 59, No. 1-2, pp. 147-156,
measured relative permeability curves and W/O emulsion 2007.
viscosity. Previously, a significant discrepancy was found 6. Liu, Q., Dong, M., Ma, S., and Tu, Y., Surfactant
between the experimentally measured and numerically Enhanced Alkaline Flooding for Western Canadian Heavy
simulated pressure drop for alkaline flooding in heavy oil Oil Recovery; Colloids Surf., A, Vol. 293, No. 1-3, pp. 63-
reservoirs when the empirically correlated relative permeability 71, 2007.

4
7. Cooke, Jr., C.E., William, R.E., and Kolodzie, P.A., Oil 16. Johnson, E.F., Bossler, D.P. and Naumann, V.O.,
Recovery by Alkaline Waterflooding; J. Pet. Tech., Vol. Calculation of Relative Permeability from Displacement
26, No. 12, pp. 1365-1374, 1974. Experiments; Trans. AIME, Vol. 216, pp. 370-376, 1959.
8. Dranchuk, P.M., Scott, J.D., and Flock, D.L, Effect of the 17. Donaldson, E.C. and Tiab, D., Petrophysics: Theory and
Addition of Certain Chemicals on Oil Recovery during Practice of Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport
Waterflooding; J. Can. Pet. Technol., Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. Properties; Gulf Professional Publishing, Oxford, UK,
27-36, 1974. 2003.
9. Jennings, Jr., H.Y., Johnson, Jr., C.E., and McAuliffe, 18. Campbell, T.C., A Comparison of Sodium Orthosilicate
C.D., A Caustic Waterflooding Process for Heavy Oils; J. and Sodium Hydroxide for Alkaline Waterflooding; Paper
Pet. Technol., Vol. 26, No. 12, pp. 1344-1352, 1974. SPE 6514, proceeding of 47th SPE Annual California
10. Farouq Ali, S.M., Figueroa, J.M., Azuaje, E.A., and Regional Meeting of AIME, Bakersfield, CA, 13-15 April
Farquharson, R.G., Recovery of Lloydminster and 1977.
Morichal Crudes by Caustic, Acid and Emulsion Floods; J. 19. Egbogah, E.O. and Dawe, R.A., Spontaneous
Can. Pet. Technol., Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 53-59, 1979. Emulsification Aspect of Enhanced Oil Recovery; Paper
11. Bryan, J. and Kantzas, A., Enhanced Heavy-oil Recovery 81-32-40, proceeding of 32nd Annual Technical Meeting
by Alkali-Surfactant Flooding; Paper SPE 110728, of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, AB, 3-6 May
presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference 1981.
and Exhibition held in Anaheim, CA, 11-14 November, 20. Kang, W. and Wang D., Emulsification Characteristic and
2007. De-emulsifiers Action for Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer
12. Chatterjee, J. and Wasan, D.T., A Kinetic Model for Flooding; Paper SPE 72138, presented at the SPE Asia
Dynamic Interfacial Tension Variation in an Acidic Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala
Oil/Alkali/Surfactant System; Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 53, Lumpur, Malaysia, 5-9 October 2001.
No. 15, pp. 2711-2755, 1998. 21. Ma, S., Enhanced Oil Recovery by Dilute Alkaline
13. Dong, M. and Liu, P., Spontaneous Emulsification Caused Flooding; M.Sc. Thesis, University of Regina, Regina,
by Micellar Solubilization; presented at the 3rd National Saskatchewan, Canada, 2005.
Conference of Surface and Colloid Chemistry, Shanghai, 22. Okoye, C.U. and Tiab, D. Enhanced Recovery of Oil by
China, 15-17 October 1988. Alkaline Steamflooding; Paper SPE 11076, proceeding of
14. Wang, J., Dong, M., and Arhuoma, M., Simulation of the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Chemical Flooding for Heavy Oil Recovery in Thin Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 26-29 September 1982.
Reservoirs; Paper 2008-159, presented at the Canadian 23. Larrondo, L.E., Urness, C.M. and Milosz, G.M.
International Petroleum Conference/SPE Gas Technology Laboratory Evaluation of Sodium Hydroxide, Sodium
Symposium 2008 Joint Conference, Calgary, AB, 17-19 Orthosilicate, and Sodium Metasilicate as Alkaline
June 2008. Flooding Agents for a Western Canada Reservoir; Paper
15. Bedrikovetsky, P., Mathematical Theory of Oil and Gas SPE 13577, presented at the International Symposium on
Recovery: With Applications to Ex-USSR Oil and Gas Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Phoenix, AZ, 9-11
Fields; Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, UK, 1993. April 1985.

Table 1 Physical properties of the Pelican oil

Density @ 15oC (kg/m3) 970.9
Density @ 25oC (kg/m3) 964.2
Viscosity @ 15oC (mPa·s) 2440
Viscosity @ 25oC (mPa·s) 1020
Viscosity @ 22oC (mPa·s) 1360
Water Content (%) < 0.5
Acid Number (mg KOH/g) 1.07

5
 Table 2 Physical properties of Pelican brine
Density (kg/m3) 1090

Conductivity @ 25oC 36.6

pH @ 20oC 7.27

Refractive Index @ 25oC 1.33

Chloride (mg/L) 15600

Sulfate (mg/L) 2

Sodium (mg/L) 8900

Calcium (mg/L) 380

Magnesium (mg/L) 280

Iron (mg/L) 0.62

Potassium (mg/L) 80

Suspended Solids (mg/L) 10

Total dissolved solids @ 110oC (mg/L) 28020

Total dissolved solids @ 180oC (mg/L) 27560

Bicarbonate as CaCO3 (mg/L) 1360

Sulfide as H2S (μg/L) 120

*Service provided by Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC)

Table 3 Physical properties of sandpacks

Sandpack A B
k (Darcy) 14.0 7.9
φ (%) 35.0 34.5
Length (cm) 14.1
Diameter (cm) 4.3
Area (cm2) 14.5

6
 Table 4 Oil recovery versus alkaline concentration for sandpack A
Alkaline Oil Recovery (% of OOIP)
Concentration
(% of NaOH) Waterflooding Alkaline Flooding Total
0.1 28.8 4.1 32.9
0.2 29.5 9.8 39.3
0.4 29.5 14.3 43.8
0.5 29.5 15.9 45.4
0.6 29.1 18.4 47.5
0.8 29.2 18.7 47.9

Table 5 Oil recovery versus alkaline concentration for sandpack B

Alkaline Oil Recovery (% of OOIP)
Concentration
(% of NaOH) Waterflooding Alkaline Flooding Total
0.1 29.2 2.7 31.9
0.2 29.6 9.2 38.8
0.4 30.1 14.6 44.7
0.5 30.0 17.0 47.0
0.6 29.6 17.7 47.3
0.8 30.0 17.4 47.4

Figure 1. Block diagram used to conduct experiments for emulsion flow in sandpacks.

7
Figure 2. Digital photograph of the stainless steel coreholder.

1.0 1.0

0.9 Oil relative permeability 0.9

Water relative permeability
0.8 0.8

Relative permeability to water, krw

Relative permeability to oil, kro

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Water saturation

Figure 3. Experimentally determined relative permeability curves for the alkaline flooding in Sandpack B.

8
 Water

Oil

(a)

Water

Oil

(b)

Figure 4. Microscopic images of the outlet effluent for (a) 0.5% and (b) 0.6% NaOH concentration.

9
 500
0.8% NaOH
450
0.6% NaOH
0.5% NaOH
400
0.4% NaOH
0.2% NaOH
350
Pressure drop (cmH2O)

0.1% NaOH
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Dispalcement time (Min)

Figure 5. Pressure vs. displacement time during alkaline flooding for sandpack A.

500

450 0.8% NaOH

0.6% NaOH
400 0.5% NaOH
0.4% NaOH
350 0.2% NaOH
Pressure drop (cmH2O)

0.1% NaOH
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Dispalcement time (Min)

Figure 6. Pressure vs. displacement time during alkaline flooding for sandpack B.

10
 250
Sandpack B
Sandpack A
200
Pressure drop (cmH2O)

150

100

50

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Alkaline concentration (%NaOH)

Figure 7. Relationship between pressure drop and alkaline concentration.

50 100
Cumulative oil production (Measured)
Cumulative oil production (Simulated)
Pressure drop (Measured)
40 80
Cumulative oil production (cc)

Pressure drop (Simulated)

Pressure drop (kPa)

30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Min)

Figure 8. The measured and simulated cumulative oil production and pressure drop for 0.6% NaOH
concentration for sandpack B.

11