4.7 Article

Microfluidic Investigation of Salinity-Induced Oil Recovery in Porous Media during Chemical Flooding

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 4885-4892

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c04320

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET-1930691]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA-0003525]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article explores the impact of high and low salinity water flooding on oil transport in porous media, finding that salinity change plays a crucial role in oil recovery rather than hydrodynamics. Studying the aggregation of oil drops under different salinity conditions reveals the existence of optimal salinity conditions to maximize oil recovery.
High and low salinity water flooding are common oil recovery processes performed in the oil fields for extracting crude oil from the reservoir. These processes are often performed sequentially, naturally establishing non-uniform salinity in the porous subsurface. In this article, we investigate oil transport in porous media induced by salinity change upon flooding with high and low salinity water. As we observe a large number of impervious dead-ends from three-dimensional imaging of the actual reservoir, we identify that these areas play an important role in oil recovery where the oil transport is governed by the salinity change rather than hydrodynamics. The salinity gradients induced upon high salinity water flooding provide pathways to enhance the transport of oil drops trapped in the dead-end regions via non-equilibrium effects. However, above a critical salinity, we observe a rapid aggregation of drops that lead to the complete blockage of the pore space, thereby inhibiting oil recovery. We also find that, at an intermediate salinity where the drop aggregation is modest, the aggregation rather promotes the oil recovery. Our observations suggest that there exist optimal salinity conditions for maximizing oil recovery during chemical flooding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据