126 Journal of the Japan Petroleum Institute, 62, (3), 126-135 (2019)

[Regular Paper]

Evaluation of Nanoparticle-stabilized Emulsion Flooding:

Glass-micromodel Experimental Study

Amin PAJOUHANDEH †1),†2)＊ , Mahin SCHAFFIE†1), and Mohammad RANJBAR†1)

†1)
Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Islamic Republic Blvd., 7618868366, IRAN
†2)
Abdal Industrial Project Management Co. (MAPSA), #5, Emdad Gharbi Str., Sheykhbahai N., Molasadra, Tehran 1993764638, IRAN

(Received October 16, 2018)

Emulsion flooding is a promising technique for enhanced recovery of the residual oil that cannot be recovered
through waterflooding processes. Visual micromodels are powerful tools for examining the mechanisms of oil
recovery from porous media at the pore level. A glass micromodel was used to investigate the effects of polymer
and different industrial nanomaterials on emulsion viscosity, stability and recovery factor of crude oil. The used
micromodel has uniform pore throats and grains. Experiments showed that injection of nanoparticle-stabilized
water-in-oil emulsions is an effective enhanced oil recovery method. Ultimate oil recovery was greater using
nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion/water than water/nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion/water, and the efficiency of
nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion/polymer/water also achieved greater recovery. Image analysis showed that the
ultimate recovery factor was increased from 33.99 % using water flooding to 63.28 % using nanoparticle-stabilized
emulsion/polymer/water flooding. The results of this study are helpful for the mechanistic understanding of
enhanced oil recovery projects.

Keywords
Water-in-oil emulsion, Nanoparticle, Emulsion stability, Viscosity, Micromodel, EOR

1. Introduction waterflooding, because the crude oil mobility is much

Crude oil consumption is projected to increase year
after year due to two factors: higher population and the
increasing demand in developing countries. Supplying
this increase in world crude oil demand will require the
mobilization of trapped oil. Typically, only one-fifth
to one-third of the original oil deposit is recovered
during primary production, but a number of EOR
(Enhanced Oil Recovery) processes can be used to
obtain this trapped oil1)∼4). The feasibility of these
methods for field applications is closely related to the
flow mechanisms and porous properties in the porous
medium at the microscopic level5). Approaches to
increase the amount of oil extracted from the porous
medium include decreasing the interfacial tension or
increasing the shear viscosity of the driving fluid6).
Waterflooding of a reservoir is a typical method used in
the petroleum industry to increase the amount of oil
recovered from a subterranean formation. However,
waterflooding has various associated problems includ-
ing the following7),8):
(1) Poor sweep efficiency, especially for heavy oil
DOI: doi.org/10.1627/jpi.62.126
＊
To whom correspondence should be addressed.
＊
E-mail: a.pajouhandeh@gmail.com
lower than the water mobility, as defined by the ratio of
the effective permeability to viscosity of the fluid).
Consequently, water breaks through quickly, so the
water cut increases.
(2) Reservoir pore blockage.
(3) Channeling of injected water into the heterogeneous
reservoir results in low sweep efficiency in the displace-
ment of crude oil.
Solutions to these problems include increasing the
viscosity of water or use of another driving fluid that
will not channel through the oil. Surfactant and nano-
fluid flooding are more efficient than waterflooding, but
have problems such as high cost and poor control of
mobility. In contrast, emulsion flooding solves many
of the problems and is one of the most efficient
enhanced oil recovery methods. Emulsion flooding is
less expensive, and achieves ultra-low interfacial ten-
sion and higher viscosity than surfactant flooding9).
Emulsion injection into the reservoir causes the emul-
sion to enter the thief zones, so that the oil bank is shifted
by a piston-like displacement10). This process occurs
due to the high viscosity of the emulsion and the low
interfacial tension between the emulsion and the crude
oil.
Emulsions consist of the stable dispersion (droplets)
of one liquid in another immiscible liquid. Emulsions

J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62, No. 3, 2019


can be used to lower the interfacial tension, reduce oil
viscosity and control the mobility ratio, and may
contain hydrocarbons, water, surfactant, cosurfactant
(alcohol), and solid particles. Typically, emulsions are
divided into two groups, water-in-oil and oil-in-water
emulsions. Water-in-oil emulsions consist of water
droplets in a continuous oil phase. Water-in-oil emul-
sions have been used in various EOR projects due to the
high viscosity and ultra-low interfacial tension. This
type of emulsion improves the mobility ratio by
increasing the viscosity of the displacing fluid11). Oil-
in-water emulsions consist of oil droplets in a continu-
ous water phase. This type of emulsion has lower vis-
cosity than crude oil, and can be used to enhance the
production of oil from a subterranean reservoir.
The most important features of emulsions are their
stability and rheology12). Oil-in-water and water-in-oil
emulsions can be stabilized by the presence of agents
(surfactants and solid particles) at the interfaces that
delay the spontaneous tendency of the liquids (water
and oil) to separate. Such agents are most commonly
molecules containing both polar and non-polar chemi-
cal groups in their structure. The presence of surfac-
tant in emulsions reduces the interfacial tension
between the trapped oil and displacing fluid and stabi-
lizes the resultant emulsion13). Heavy oils commonly
contain large quantities of asphaltenes, resins and naph-
thenic acid that act as emulsifiers. Among these com-
ponents, asphaltene generates more stable emulsions.
Solid-stabilized emulsions were first proposed in 1907
by Pickering. Such emulsions have many advantages,
and are widely used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics
industries, but rarely in petroleum industries (including
the EOR process). Solid particles (or nanoparticles in
the petroleum industry) may also be added to the con-
tinuous phase prior to emulsification to further stabilize
water-in-oil and oil-in-water emulsions. These nano-
particles are adsorbed on the oil-water interface to form
a rigid monolayer on the surface of the droplet, resulting
in higher stability. This type of emulsion can be trans-
ported over greater distances than emulsions without
solid particles14),15). The stability of emulsions con-
taining nanoparticles has been extensively studied16)∼18).
The rheological behavior of emulsions is the key
characteristic in the successful design of an emulsion
flooding project. Rheological properties of emulsions
and solid-stabilized emulsions are affected by many
parameters such as temperature, dispersed phase frac-
tion, average droplet size, droplet size distribution, con-
tinuous phase viscosity, nature and concentration of the
emulsifying agents, solid concentration, conditions of
mixing, stirring time, mixing devices, aging time, shear
rate, pressure, etc.19)∼21).
Reliable predictions of performance and hydrocarbon
recovery are essential for planned implementation of
emulsion flooding. Such estimates can be obtained
J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62,
127
using 2-D glass micromodels. Micromodels are trans-
parent artificial models of porous media that can be
used to observe fluid flow through porous media22).
Micromodel flooding results can provide better inter-
pretations of flow transport during different injection
schemes in reservoirs. The first study employing a
visual approach to investigate microscopic mechanisms
of fluid behavior in porous media was conducted in
195223) and etched glass network was introduced24)
based on the photo etching technique25). Micromodels
have many applications in various areas such as EOR
processes (water flooding, water-alternating-gas flood-
ing, polymer flooding, surfactant flooding, surfactant
foam flooding, alkaline flooding, alkaline-surfactant
flooding, alkaline-surfactant-polymer flooding, surfac-
tant-alkaline-polymer flooding, water-alternating-
solvent flooding, simultaneous water-alternating-solvent
flooding, microbial EOR, etc.), imbibition, drainage,
breakthrough time, mass transfer, scaling, asphaltene
deposition, gravity drainage, heterogeneity, interfacial
tension, wettability, capillary pressure, multiple contact
miscibility, fluids interactions, etc.26)∼28).
The advantages of emulsion flooding in the enhanced
oil recovery process were investigated in 196629). Three
separate injection phases of microemulsion, polymer,
and water was injected into the Chateaurenard field
(France) as a pilot test. After two months of injection,
the oil production rate increased from 20 to 75 bpd30).
The viscosity of emulsions varies with the hydro-
phobicity of the nanoparticles31). Also, the relative
viscosity of solid stabilized water-in-oil emulsions varies
with the solid concentration32). Investigation of the
application of nanoparticle-stabilized emulsions to
enhanced oil recovery indicated that the apparent vis-
cosity of water-in-oil emulsion decreased with increased
salinity15). Study of the effects of Aerosil R7200,
Aerosil R972 and the mixture of Aerosil R7200 and
R972 on the rheological properties of nanoparticle sta-
bilized emulsion showed that the viscosity of emulsions
decreased with higher Aerosil R972 concentration in
oil-in-water emulsions33). Study of the rheological
properties and stability of water-in-oil emulsions stabi-
lized by Aerosil R972 and Cloisite 20A indicated that
the viscosity and droplet size of water-in-oil emulsions
are influenced by the amount and type of nanoparticles,
volume of water fraction and aging time of emul-
sion34),35).
However, very few studies have investigated the
effects of emulsion and nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion
on oil recovery and micromodel flooding. Most
researchers have used surfactant-stabilized emulsions
but emulsion stabilized by surfactant is unstable at high
temperatures and high salinity, and has higher mobility
that results in lower system recovery4).
The present study investigated the rheological prop-
erties of water-in-oil emulsions stabilized by nano-
No. 3, 2019
 128
particles in the absence of molecular surfactant. One
of the main objectives was to assess water-in-oil emul-
sion flooding, and to better understand the impact of
emulsion and nanoparticles on oil recovery and viscous
fingering. Therefore, the ultimate goal of this study is
to enhance the sweep efficiency of conventional emul-
sion flooding containing nanoparticles by the alternating
injection of emulsion and polymer. Viscosity mea-
surements were carried out, and the effects of some
important parameters such as the volume fraction of
water, type of solid particles, and solid concentration on
the viscosity of water-in-oil emulsions were investigated.
Finally, the emulsion flooding process was visualized
utilizing the two-dimensional glass-etched micromodel.
2. Experimental Section
2. 1. Materials
All experiments were carried out using crude oil (de-
gassed crude oil with free water). The API gravity of
the crude oil was 28.7°. Deionized water was used to
make emulsions. The viscosity, density, and pH of the
deionized water at room temperature were 1.01 (cP),
0.9978 (g/cm3) and 6.32, respectively. The viscosity
of dyed water at room temperature was 1.06 (cP).
Two industrially used nanoparticles, NP-I (Cloisite
20A, Southern Clay Products, Gonzales, TX, USA) and
NP-II (Aerosil R972, Degussa, Hanau-Wolfgang,
Germany) were employed. NP-I is natural montmoril-
lonite modified with a quaternary ammonium salt.
NP-II is fumed silica, treated with DDS (dimethyl-
dichlorosilane). Both nanoparticles are hydrophobic.
The particle-oil-water contact angle (​θow) of NP-I and
NP-II are 92° and 114°, respectively. Conventional
hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM), trade name of
FLOPAAM 3630S (SNF Floerger, Andrézieux, France)
with molecular weight of 20 million D and 30 % hydro-
lysis was used.
2. 2. Emulsion Preparations
Nanoparticles were added to the crude oil and soni-
cated with an ultrasonic laboratory processor (Up200H,
Hielscher, Teltow, Germany) for one hour to disperse
aggregates. The amplitude and frequency of the ultra-
sonic treatment were 90 % (234 μm) and 0.8 (the de-
vice irradiates the sample at intervals of 0.8 sec ON and
0.2 sec OFF), respectively. The nanoparticle concen-
tration in the dispersion was 0.02, 0.05 and 0.1 by wt%.
Interfacial tension (IFT) between water and crude oil
was determined by Kruss k12. Subsequently, deion-
ized water was added to the system and dispersed with
a mechanical overhead stirrer (RW20 Digital, IKA,
Staufen, Germany). The emulsions were prepared
with three different water volume fractions (i.e., 20, 50,
80 vol%). Finally, the type of emulsion was deter-
mined using the drop test method and the microscope.
In the drop test, drops of the emulsion were added to a
J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62,
bulk water phase and a bulk oil phase, separately. If
the drops readily dispersed in the water phase and re-
mained intact in the oil phase, the emulsion was the oil-
in-water type and if the opposite the water-in-oil type.
2. 3. Stability
Emulsion stability was determined by the bottle test
method. Prepared emulsions were stored at 70 °C in
an oven. The volume of separated water was mea-
sured.
2. 4. Droplet Size Distribution
Droplet size distributions of stabilized and non-
stabilized water-in-oil emulsions were determined by a
Laser Particle Sizer (ANALYSETTE 22, Fritsch, Idar-
Oberstein, Germany).
2. 5. Viscosity Measurements
The viscosity of water, dyed water, crude oil, water-
in-oil emulsions (stabilized and non-stabilized) and
polymer were determined by steady shear measure-
ments using a Brookfield DV-III Ultra Programmable
rheometer (Brookfield, Middleboro, MA, USA). This
rheometer has concentric cylinder geometry and is con-
trolled by Rheocalc V3.2 software. In addition to the
viscosity measurements, microscopic observations of
the resulting emulsion were conducted using a polar-
ized light microscope (Eclipse TE2000-U, Nikon,
Tokyo, Japan).
2. 6. Displacement Tests
The displacement tests were carried out at room tem-
perature and under atmospheric conditions. The
etched glass micromodel was used, as shown in Fig. 1.
Here, the black dots represent sand grains, and the
white areas represents the flow channels. Figure 2
demonstrates the macroscopic and microscopic images
of the water (in blue) saturated micromodel. The pore
Fig. 1 2-D Image of the Micromodel Pattern (not to scale)
Fig. 2 Image of Water Saturated Micromodel
No. 3, 2019

structure of the micromodel is symmetrical.
Parameters of the glass micromodel are shown in
Table 1. A Nikon digital camera, syringe pump
(Fusion syringe pump, Chemyx, Missouri, USA), and
microscope (YF100, Nikon, Tokyo) are the major com-
ponents of the experimental apparatus. Initially, the
micromodel was saturated with deionized water colored
with methylene blue (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), for
easy identification in the images provided by the cam-
era. Then, a drainage process was performed using
crude oil until water residual saturation was reached.
Seven scenarios were used; additional information is
given in Table 2. Before each experiment, the glass
micromodel was cleaned with sequential injection of
distilled water, acetone, toluene and hydrochloric acid
(15 v/v%), and finally heated in an oven at 100 °C for at
least one hour. Equation (1) which presents the effi-
ciency consequences for oil recovery improvement
based on the measurements of the displacement test36):
Soi − Sof
RF = × 100
Soi
where RF is the recovery factor (%), Soi is the initial oil
saturation (%) and Sof is the final oil saturation (%).
3. Results and Discussion
3. 1. Emulsion Preparation
Nanoparticles contained in an emulsion will be pref-
erentially wetted by one of the phases (water or oil)
more than the other phase. Nanoparticles with particle-
oil-water contact angle (θow) less than 90° are water-wet
particles and stabilize oil-in-water emulsions, whereas
nanoparticles with particle-oil-water contact angle (θow)
greater than 90° are oil-wet particles and stabilize
Table 1 Glass Micromodel Characteristics
Parameter Value
Length [cm] 10
Width [cm] 3
Depth [cm] 0.01
Porosity [%] 38.96
Pore volume [cm3] 0.11688
Contact angle [°] 28
Table 2
Scenario No. First step
1 Water
2 Water
3 Water
4 Emulsion
5 Nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion
6 Emulsion
7 Nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion
J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62,
129
water-in-oil emulsions. The particle-oil-water contact
angles (θ ow) of NP-I and NP-II are greater than 90°.
Figure 3 illustrates the effect of added nanoparticles
on the IFT between crude oil and water. Nanoparticles
added to the crude oil decreased the IFT between crude
oil and water from 21.63 to 18.2 mN/m with 0.1 wt%
NP-I added to crude oil. NP-I decreased the IFT more
than NP-II because the contact angle of NP-I is almost
neutral (particle-oil-water contact angle about 90°).
The hydrophobic part of the nanoparticles was located
in the oil phase and the hydrophilic part in the water
phase. Consequently, these added nanoparticles were
adsorbed at the interface between water and oil, and re-
duced the IFT37),38). Therefore, these nanoparticles are
important in the emulsion formation process. The
type of emulsion was determined by the drop test and
analyzing the photomicrographs. Figure 4 shows that
the water phase was present as dispersed spherical
droplets, which proves that the emulsions were the
water-in-oil type. The drop test showed that the emul-
(1) sion was water-in-oil, because the drops readily dispersed
in the oil phase and remained as drops in the water
phase.
3. 2. Emulsion Stability
Emulsion stability was assessed by the bottle test
method. In this method, the extent of phase separation
with time was monitored. NP-I and NP-II form water-
in-oil emulsions because these particles are hydro-
phobic particles. The bottle test showed that the emul-
sions with added NP-I or NP-II were more stable than
solid-free emulsion, because the nanoparticles formed
Fig. 3 IFT between Water and Crude Oil
Investigated Scenarios
Second step Third step
- -
Emulsion Water
Nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion Water
Water -
Water -
Polymer Water
Polymer Water
No. 3, 2019
 130
rigid structures at the interfaces that can sterically
inhibit the coalescence of emulsion droplets.
Furthermore, the stability of solid-free and nano-
particle-stabilized emulsions decreased with higher
water volume fraction because repulsion between the
droplets decreased, which can intensify coalescence and
Ostwald ripening. The Young-Laplace equation (Eq.
(2)) has proved this result39):
( (
1 1
∆P12 = ∆P1 − ∆P2 = 2γ ow − (2)
r1 r2
where ∆P12 is the difference in internal pressure between
the droplets and γow is the interfacial tension. This
equation reveals that the pressure is greater inside
smaller than larger droplets. Therefore, larger water
droplet diameter associated with higher water volume
fraction decreased the emulsion stability.
Figure 5 indicates the bottle test result for water-in-
oil emulsion with water volume fraction of 80 %.
Fig. 4●Microscope Images of Emulsions with Water Volume
Fraction of 50 %
Fig. 5 Bottle Test Results for Water-in-oil Emulsions with Water Volume Fraction of 80 %
J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62,
Emulsions containing nanoparticles (NP-I and NP-II)
were more stable than the emulsions without nano-
particles. Therefore, the emulsion stability was
increased by higher nanoparticle concentration. The
adsorbed nanoparticle layer at the oil-water interface is
not rigid at low concentrations of nanoparticles, and the
droplets were easily deformed. The adsorbed nano-
particle layer at the interfaces is rigid at higher nano-
particle concentrations, so the emulsion stability in-
creased.
The results showed the stability of nanoparticle stabi-
lized emulsion depended on the particle-oil-water con-
tact angle (θow) value. Emulsions stabilized with NP-
II were more stable than emulsions stabilized with NP-I
because the contact angle of NP-II is greater than that
of NP-I. Figure 6 shows that the separation of water
phase was slower in emulsion stabilized with NP-II than
in emulsion stabilized with NP-I.
Fig. 6●Percentage of Water Separation in Nanoparticle Stabilized
Water-in-oil Emulsion with Nanoparticle Concentration of
0.1 wt% and Water Volume Fraction of 80 %
No. 3, 2019

Fig. 7●Microscope Images of the Effects of Nanoparticles on Water-
in-oil Emulsions at Water Volume Fraction of 20 % (a:
without nanoparticle, b: 0.1 wt% NP-II)
Fig. 8●Droplet Size Distribution of Water-in-oil Emulsions
Containing 20 % Water Volume Fraction
3. 3. Droplet Size Distribution
Water volume fraction, intensity of agitation, charac-
teristics of the agitator, presence or absence of solids,
and solid concentration all affect the diameter of the
formed emulsion droplets. Figure 7 displays typical
photomicrographs (100×) of water-in-oil emulsions
illustrating the effect of nanoparticles on the droplet
diameter of emulsions containing 20 % water volume
fraction. The mean droplet diameter of emulsion de-
creased with higher nanoparticle concentration. Added
nanoparticles are adsorbed onto the water-oil interface,
then the surface energy of the system is reduced, so the
established emulsion droplet becomes smaller.
The droplet diameter distributions of solid-free and
nanoparticle-stabilized water-in-oil emulsions contain-
ing 20 % water volume fraction are illustrated in Fig. 8.
In the presence of nanoparticles, the distribution is
shifted towards smaller droplet size, in agreement with
the microscopic images (Fig. 7). In other words,
emulsion droplet size distribution had a narrower range
with higher nanoparticles concentration. Large drop-
let size distribution centered on around 3 μm was
obtained for nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion prepared
with 0.1 wt% NP-II, and about 9 μm for non-solid sta-
bilized emulsion.
3. 4. Viscosity Measurements
3. 4. 1. Crude Oil
Figure 9a represents the effect of shear rate on crude
oil viscosity at 20 °C. Crude oil shows Newtonian
behavior at 20 °C, because the viscosity of Newtonian
J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62,
131
Fig. 9 Rheological Behavior of the Crude Oil and Polymer
fluids is independent of the shear rate. In general,
crude oils with API degrees higher than 20 behave as
Newtonian fluids, whereas heavy crude oils with API
degrees lower than 20 show non-Newtonian behaviors
(shear thinning behaviors)40)∼42). Crude oil viscosity
is a function of temperature. The effect of temperature
on crude oil viscosity can be estimated with the
Arrhenius equation, which is defined by19):
Ea
© = Ae RT (3)
where A is the frequency factor, E a is the activation
energy (J/mol), R is the gas constant (8.314 J/mol.K), T
is the temperature (K) and © is the crude oil viscosity.
Figure 9b shows the relationship between the experi-
mental data and the Arrhenius equation. The degree
of fit, as given by the R2 value of 0.9858, showed that
changes in viscosity with temperature were well
described by the Arrhenius equation.
3. 4. 2. Polymer
The concentration of polymer used in this experiment
was 500 ppm. Figure 9a shows the rheological be-
havior of polymer at 20 °C. The polymer had non-
Newtonian behavior, because higher shear rate resulted
in lower viscosity.
3. 4. 3. Water-in-oil Emulsions
The viscosity measurements were carried out imme-
diately at 20 °C. Figure 10 plots the viscosity of
water-in-oil emulsions against the water volume fraction.
All values of water volume fraction affected the viscos-
ity of water-in-oil emulsions. Therefore, the viscosity
of water-in-oil emulsion was increased by higher water
No. 3, 2019
 132

Fig. 12 Waterflooding Process

Fig. 10●Effect of Water Volume Fraction on the Viscosity of Water-

in-oil Emulsions at Different Nanoparticle Concentrations

Fig. 11●Micromodel of Crude Oil and Irreducible Water Saturation

(a: macroscopic image of the micromodel at the end of pri-
mary drainage of water, b: microscopic image of the micro-
model)

volume fraction and higher nanoparticle concentration.

The droplet size of emulsions decreased with the addi-
tion of nanoparticles (Fig. 7), so that the viscosity of
the emulsion increased. In fact, the number of drop-
lets increases by decreasing the droplet size, so the
droplets are closer together and the emulsion becomes
more rigid. However, the effect of water volume frac-
tion is greater than that of the nanoparticle concentra-
tion. Emulsion with water volume fraction of 80 %
stabilized by 0.1 wt% NP-II had the highest viscosity.
For this reason, such an emulsion is a good candidate
for emulsion flooding, because as viscosity increases,
both the capillary number and consequently the recov-
ery factor increase. Consequently, nanoparticle con-
tent in water-in-oil emulsion is dominant in determining 13.1: first scenario, 13.2: second scenario, 13.3 third scenario, 13.4:
its behavior. fourth scenario, 13.5: fifth scenario, 13.6: sixth scenario.
3. 5. Micromodel Flood Tests
Fig. 13●Micromodels after Each Scenario
A series of micromodel flood tests were carried out
to evaluate the enhancement of oil recovery using emul-
sion and nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion in porous because of the water films surrounding the grains. In
media. In addition, the effect of flooding on break- this image, liquid flowed from right to left. The con-
through and viscous fingering were investigated. tact angle of 28° proves that the glass micromodel is
Water, emulsion (with water volume fraction of 80 %), water-wet.
nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion (with water volume Figure 12 shows the four stages of the waterflooding
fraction of 80 % stabilized by 0.1 wt% NP-II) and poly- process. Figure 13.1 shows the macroscopic and
mer (500 ppm Flopaam 3630S) were injected into the microscopic images of the micromodel after the first
micromodel with fixed flow rate of 0.01 mL/min. scenario (waterflooding). Figure 12 and Fig. 13.1
Wettability of the porous medium is fundamental to indicate that during waterflooding, oil was displaced by
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e f l u i d f l ow s i n t h a t m e d i u m . the corner filament flow of water rather than by piston-
Figure 11a shows a magnified image of the micromodel like displacement. The rate of oil displacement was
at the end of primary drainage of water (blue color). strongly reduced following breakthrough of the main
Figure 11b shows that the micromodel is water-wet, fingers in waterflooding, because the mobility of the

J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62, No. 3, 2019


Fig. 14 IFT between Crude Oil and Emulsion
displacing fluid (water) was higher than that of the dis-
placed fluid (crude oil). The calculated RF at the end
of this step was obtained by Eq. (1) as 33.99 %, which
indicates the inefficiency of waterflooding. Viscous
fingering was the dominant displacement mechanism in
this process.
Figure 13.2 shows the fluid distribution in the micro-
model after the second scenario, with the blue and black
colors representing water and oil (crude oil and emul-
sion), respectively. Figure 13.2 demonstrates the re-
covery of additional oil by emulsion injection after the
waterflooding stage. Comparison of Figs. 13.1 and
13.2 indicates oil was displaced during emulsion flood-
ing by piston-like displacement rather than corner fila-
ment flow of water. The RF value was 47.50 %, which
confirms the improvement achieved by injection of
emulsion into the micromodel.
Figure 13.3 shows the fluid distribution in the micro-
model at the end of the third scenario. Comparison of
Figs. 13.2 and 13.3 show that the nanoparticle-
stabilized emulsion increases breakthrough time, and
consequently increases oil recovery, as the added
nanoparticles increase the viscosity and shear thinning
effect of the emulsion. The shear thinning fluid flood-
ing achieves more oil recovery than waterflooding and
solid-free emulsion flooding.
Figure 13.4 shows the results of the fourth scenario.
The pore volume occupied by oil decreased compared
with waterflooding after injection of emulsion and
water. The RF value was 45.31 %, which indicates
that this process is more efficient than water flooding.
Figure 13.5 shows the micromodel network after
injection of nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion containing
0.1 wt% NP-II in the fifth scenario. The oil was dis-
placed with little fingering effect, because the viscosity
of the nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion was much higher
than that of the crude oil and solid-free emulsion, as
well as the ultra-low IFT of the emulsion flooding sys-
tem at the interface of oil-water. Figure 14 illustrates
the interfacial tension between emulsion and crude oil.
Figure 3 shows the final IFT. Added nanoparticles
decrease the IFT between the solid-stabilized emulsion
J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62,
133
a: beginning of polymer injection, b: end of polymer injection, c: be-
ginning of water injection, d: end of nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion/
polymer/water flooding.
Fig. 15●Macroscopic Images of the Nanoparticle-stabilized
Emulsion/Polymer/Water Flooding Process
Fig. 16 Micromodel after the Seventh Scenario
and crude oil. Lower IFT results in higher capillary
number and increased RF.
Figure 13.6 shows the macroscopic and microscopic
images of the micromodel after the sixth scenario.
Figure 13.6 shows that oil was recovered more effi-
ciently by co-injection of emulsion with polymer than
only emulsion, because oil was displaced by piston-like
displacement. The RF value was 60.24 %.
Figure 15 shows the four stages of the nanoparticle-
stabilized emulsion/polymer/water flooding process.
Figure 16 shows macroscopic and microscopic images
of the final state of nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion/
polymer/water flooding. Nanoparticle-stabilized
emulsion/polymer/water flooding led to a very high
microscopic efficiency, because the mobility of the
polymer and nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion was lower
than that of crude oil. Nanoparticle-stabilized emul-
sions have higher viscosity (as mentioned before) and
significantly reduce the interfacial tension between
trapped oil and displacing fluid (interfacial tension
between emulsion and oil is very low at about 0.1 mN/m)
which stabilizes the interface against coalescence, once
formed. These emulsions tend to block the big chan-
nels and so force the displacing fluid to flow through
the unswept regions, which increases the overall sweep,
leading to overall increase in oil recovery. However,
the pore volume occupied by oil was decreased signifi-
cantly after the last stage compared with other stages.
Table 3 presents the results of the image analysis of
the glass micromodel. The displacement tests were
carried out three times and the quantitative results
reported are the average values obtained from the three
replication experiments. Waterflooding recovered
No. 3, 2019
 134
Table 3 Results of Image Analysis of the Glass Micromodel
Scenario No. RF [%] (average) Standard deviation
1 33.99
2 47.50
3 49.58
4 45.31
5 56.94
6 60.24
7 63.28
approximately 34 % of the initial oil in place, and solid
stabilized-emulsion/polymer/water flooding recovered
an additional 30 % of the initial oil in place. Table 3
demonstrates that the seventh stage (nanoparticle-
stabilized emulsion/polymer/water flooding) achieved
t h e h i g h e s t r e c ove r y, b e c a u s e t h e v i s c o s i t y o f
nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion is much higher than
that of crude oil and solid-free emulsion. In addition,
injection of polymer was injected into the micromodel
caused oil movement by piston-like displacement and
decreased viscous fingering effects.
Micromodel flooding tests demonstrated the success-
ful application of the glass micromodel for studying
enhanced oil recovery techniques. In our experiments,
emulsion and nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion showed
higher recovery efficiency because of the higher emul-
sion viscosity which caused lower mobility ratio and
lower viscous fingering effect. Consequently,
nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion flooding provides a
viable method to push highly viscous oil from the
subterranean formation. Moreover, emulsion and
nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion have lower interfacial
tension than water and polymer.
4. Conclusion
The present study investigated the effect of nano-
particle on the viscosity and stability of emulsions. A
series of emulsions and nanoparticle-stabilized emul-
sions were injected into a glass micromodel. Micro-
model flooding experiments were performed at a fixed
flow rate and at ambient pressure and temperature.
Viscosity measurements of water-in-oil emulsions
indicated that the viscosities increased with the addition
of nanoparticles and higher water volume fraction.
Nanoparticles decreased the IFT between crude oil and
water, stabilized the prepared emulsion, and increased
the emulsion viscosity. The nanoparticles reduced the
diameter of the emulsion droplets, so that nanoparticle-
stabilized emulsions flowed more easily through the
porous media and increased the capillary numbers.
Viscous fingering phenomena occurred during water-
flooding, resulting in relatively lower sweep efficiency.
Emulsion flooding was effective for the recovery of a
significant amount of residual oil. Emulsion flooding
J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62,
with added nanoparticles further enhanced oil recovery,
because the nanoparticles increased the viscosity
and stability of emulsions. The high viscosity of
3.25
1.20
nanoparticle-stabilized emulsions modified the mobility
1.16 ratio during flooding. The micromodel experiments
0.86 showed that nanoparticle-stabilized emulsion/polymer/
0.25 water flooding reduced viscous fingering and increased
0.78 breakthrough time to optimize improved oil recovery.
0.28
Nomenclatures
A : frequency factor [-]
Ea : activation energy [J/mol]
RF : recovery factor [%]
R2 : regression correlation coefficient [-]
R : gas constant [8.314 J/mol K]
r : droplet radius [µm]
Soi : initial oil saturation [%]
Sof : final oil saturation [%]
T : temperature [K]
<Greeks>
θow : contact angle [°]
© : viscosity [cP]
∆P12 : difference in internal pressure between droplets [Psia]
γow : interfacial tension [mN/m]
References
1) Moeini, F., Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Ghazanfari, M.-H.,
Masihi, M., Ayatollahi, S., Fluid Phase Equilib., 375, 191
(2014).
2) Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Ayatollahi, S., Zolghadr, A.,
Ghazanfari, M.-H., Masihi, M., J. Chem. Eng. Data, 59, 11
(2014).
3) Green, D. W., Willhite, G. P., “Enhanced oil recovery,” Society
of Petroleum Engineers Richardson, TX (1998), pp. 124-251.
4) Sheng, J., “Modern chemical enhanced oil recovery: theory
and practice,” Gulf Professional Publishing, (2010), pp. 130-
141.
5) Maghzi, A., Kharrat, R., Ghazanfari, M., Transp. Porous Med.,
87, (3), 653 (2011).
6) Nilsson, M. A., Kulkarni, R., Gerberich, L., Hammond, R.,
Singh, R., Baumhoff, E., J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 202,
112 (2013).
7) Willhite, G. P., “Waterflooding,” Society of Petroleum, (1986),
pp. 61-89.
8) Mai, A., Kantzas, A., J. Can. Petrol. Technol., 49, (3), 44
(2010).
9) Feng, H., Kang, W., Zhang, L., Chen, J., Li, Z., Zhou, Q., Wu,
H., J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 171, 974 (2018).
10) McAuliffe, C. D., J. Petrol. Tech., 25, (06), 727 (1973).
11) Fanun, M., “Microemulsions: properties and applications,”
CRC Press, (2010), pp. 36-78.
12) Bragg, J. R., Elspass, C. W., Peiffer, D. G., Varadaraj, R., U.S.
Pat. 7186673 (2007).
13) Kele o lu, S., Pettersen, B. H., Sjöblom, J., J. Pet. Sci. Eng.,
100, 14 (2012).
14) Son, H., Kim, H., Lee, G., Kim, J., Sung, W., Korean J. Chem.
Eng., 31, (2), 338 (2014).
15) Zhang, T., Davidson, D., Bryant, S. L., SPE improved oil
recovery symposium, Oklahoma, January 2010, Abstr. No.
SPE 129885.
16) Tshilumbu, N. N., Kharatyan, E., Masalova, I., J. Dispersion
Sci. Technol., 35, (2), 283 (2014).
No. 3, 2019

17) Mejia, A. F., Diaz, A., Pullela, S., Chang, Y.-W., Simonetty, M.,
Carpenter, C., Soft Matter., 8, (40), 10245 (2012).
18) Binks, B. P., Whitby, C. P., Coll. Surf. A, 253, (1), 105 (2005).
19) Zhang, J., Xu, J.-Y., Gao, M.-C., Wu, Y.-X., J. Dispersion Sci.
Technol., 34, (8), 1148 (2013).
20) Maia Filho, D. C., Ramalho, J. B., Spinelli, L. S., Lucas, E. F.,
Coll. Surf. A, 396, 208 (2012).
21) Andresen, M., Stenius, P., J. Dispersion Sci. Technol., 28, (6),
837 (2007).
22) Malkin, A. Y., Masalova, I., Slatter, P., Wilson, K., Rheol. Acta,
43, (6), 584 (2007).
23) Chatenever, A., Calhoun Jr., J. C., J. Petrol. Tech., 4, (06), 149
(1952).
24) Mattax, C., Kyte, J., Oil Gas J., 2, (2), 177 (2009).
25) Davis Jr., J., Jones, S., J. Petrol. Technol., 20, (12), 415 (1968).
26) Abedi, B., Ghazanfari, M. H., Kharrat, R., Energ. Explor.
Exploit., 30, (5), 689 (2012).
27) Ashrafizadeh, M., Ramazani, S. A., Sadeghnejad, S., Energ.
Explor. Exploit., 30, (6), 915 (2012).
28) Moradi, F., Rahmanifard, H., Schaffie, M., Energ. Source Part
A, 36, (6), 582 (2014).
29) Gogarty, W., Littleton, Olson, R. W., U.S. Pat. 3254714 (1966).
30) Putz, A., Chevalier, J., Stock, G., Philippot, J., J. Petrol.
Technol., 33, (04), 710 (1981).
31) Yaghi, B., Benayoune, M., Al-Bemani, A., Pet. Sci. Technol.,
J. Jpn. Petrol. Inst., Vol. 62,
135
19, (3-4), 373 (2001).
32) Yaghi, B., J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 40, (3), 103 (2003).
33) Simon, S., Theiler, S., Knudsen, A., Sjöblom, J., J. Dispersion
Sci. Technol., 31, (5), 632 (2010).
34) Pajouhandeh, A., Kavousi, A., Schaffie, M., Ranjbar, M., Coll.
Surf. A, 520, 597 (2017).
35) Pajouhandeh, A., Kavousi, A., Schaffie, M., Ranjbar, M., S.
Afr. J. Chem., 69, 113 (2016).
36) Karambeigi, M., Schaffie, M., Fazaelipoor, M., Pet. Sci.
Technol., 31, (9), 923 (2013).
37) Youssif, M. I., El-Maghraby, R. M., Elgibaly, A., Egypt. J.
Petrol., 27, (1), 105 (2018).
38) Li, S., Hendraningrat, L., Torsaeter, O., International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Beijing, March 2013, Abstr. No.
IPTC 16707.
39) Oliveira, R., Goncalves, M., Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, May 2005, Abstr. No. OTC 17386.
40) Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Shokrollahi, A., Tatar, A.,
Gharagheizi, F., Mohammadi, A. H., Naseri, A., Fuel, 116, (1),
39 (2014).
41) Hajirezaie, S., Pajouhandeh, A., Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A.,
Pournik, M., Dabir, B., J. Mol. Liq., 229, 89 (2017).
42) Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A., Aminshahidy, B., Pajouhandeh, A.,
Yousefi, S. H., Hosseini-Kaldozakh, S. A., J. Taiwan Inst.
Chem. Eng., 59, 1 (2016).
No. 3, 2019