IPTC 16777

Managing Chemical EOR (ASP) Effects on Formation Damage and Flow

Assurance in Malay Basin, Malaysia
Hon Vai Yee, Nor Hadhirah Bt Halim, Intan Khalida Bt Salleh, Pauziyah Bt. A. Hamid and M Faizal B Sedaralit,
PETRONAS

Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract

The venture into various EOR process applications has been aggressively undertaken by industrial oil players to satisfy the
ever-increasing world energy demand. Success of an EOR project is also governed by understanding and readiness in handling
the associate EOR induced formation damage and flow assurance issues. Hence the considerations of these issues must be
given great attention in the EOR project master plan.

Each EOR process application is unique and the associate formation damage and flow assurance issues are different. This
paper examines the mechanisms, preventions and mitigation options for chemical EOR process induced formation damage and
flow assurance issues. Fluid chemistry changes due to fluid-fluid and fluid-rock interactions among the EOR injectants,
reservoir fluids and rock matrix, lead to many undesirable injection and production issues. A case study on the R&D
experience of one of the major chemical EOR fields in the Malay Basin is presented. Laboratory analyses to understand and
predict the severity of these issues are discussed. The major sources of problems are identified and their impacts on the success
of the EOR project are discussed. A number of solutions have emerged to address these challenges. Recommended solutions
are considered based on practicality, performance and economic viability.

Careful coordination during EOR project planning in handling the flow assurance and formation damage challenges and a
more proactive approach to address them is our long term strategic focus which will bring significant efficiency and
profitability benefits.

Introduction

Chemical EOR is emerging as a vital technology to recover additional residual oil through several mechanisms including
reducing interfacial tension (IFT), mobility control and wettability alteration. Chemical EOR methods include utilization of
polymers, surfactants, alkaline chemicals and their combinations, as in ASP (Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer), or use of micro-
emulsions as in micellar flooding (Sara Thomas, 2006). The surfactant with its IFT reduction effects reduces the residual oil
saturation of the formation, and polymer through its mobility control effects increases the sweep efficiency. The alkali protects
the surfactant from being adsorbed, and also supplements the IFT reduction process, through saponification of the natural acids
in the oil (Du et al., 2011). Meanwhile, EOR which involves the use of foam for mobility control is also categorized under
chemical EOR as foaming surfactant is used for its application. The success of chemical EOR though relies heavily on a
thorough understanding and tuning of the chemical interactions between the injected chemicals, the fluids in place, and the
rock. These interactions eventually determine optimal injection and production scenarios and ultimately the total increment in
oil recovery (A. Fadili, 2009).

The study on the design of chemical EOR is fairly well established with many reported case studies. However, the same
attention has not been given in understanding the undesirable effects of chemical EOR implementation in the field. Over the
life of any EOR project, produced fluids chemistry changes with time. This is because EOR injectants breakthrough occurs at
2 IPTC 16777

different times and at various degrees in production wells across the field. Water, oil and gas cuts can change rapidly. Fluids
chemistry changes as the crude and brine chemistries are altered by the EOR injectants. The overall dynamic nature of the
EOR production requires the ability to predict when, where and severity of these challenges will most likely occur. Being more
predictive and proactive, an understanding of the EOR injectants compositions and their interactions with the rock and fluids
allows for pre-problem identification of suitable contingency plans.

Effect of Surfactant

During chemical EOR application, breakthrough of the injection chemicals will result in stable emulsions, also known as
micro-emulsion. Injection chemicals may comprise of a combination of surfactant, alkali and polymer. These chemicals are
injected into the formation to facilitate the removal of trapped oil. Surfactants lower the crude oil-water interfacial tension
(IFT), polymers increase the viscosity of the water phase which raises the capillary number and alkali saponifies naturally
occurring acids which can increase their water solubility and further reduce the IFT (Nguyen and Sadeghi, 2011). All physical
factors listed above that enhance oil recovery can also greatly contribute to the formation of very stable emulsions which are
ultimately quite different from naturally occurring emulsions which are stabilized by asphaltenes and resins (Deng et al., 2002,
Li et al., 2007).

Crude-oil emulsions are stabilized by rigid interfacial films that form a “skin” on water droplets and prevent the droplets from
coalescing. The stability of these interfacial films, and hence, the stability of the emulsions, depends on a number of factors,
including the heavy material in the crude oil (e.g., asphaltenes, resins, and waxes), solids (e.g., clays, scales, and corrosion
products), temperature, droplet size and droplet-size distribution, pH, and oil and brine composition (Sunil Kokal, 2005).

The presence of stable emulsion creates a strong impact on crude oil production and facilities. Sales crude must adhere to a
low basic sediments and water (BS&W) content which is generally lower than 0.5% BS&W. Therefore, it is very critical to
break the stable emulsion produced from chemical EOR application.

A laboratory prediction of emulsion severity can be established by varying the water-cut and residual EOR chemical ratios to
cover the whole spectrum of EOR production scenario throughout the field life. A proposed emulsion scanning matrix is
tabulated in Table 1. The volume of the laboratory synthetic emulsion is monitored overtime to infer its stability. Thus, the
production scenario where the expected produced emulsion is at its worst can be determined. Note that the expected residual
EOR chemicals breakthrough ratio is an essential parameter for consideration. With a fraction of the injected EOR chemical
will be absorbed by the formation, the remaining amount of EOR chemical producing with the crude is deemed to be the
representative proportion expected from the field. The residual EOR chemical production forecast throughout the field life can
be obtained from reservoir dynamic simulation output.

Crude & Produced Water with Residual EOR Produced Water & Residual EOR Chemical Ratio (PW:CEOR)
Chemical Ratio (crude: PW/CEOR) 100:0 80:20 60:40 50:50 40:60 20:80 0:100
80:20
60:40
50:50
60:40
80:20
Table 1: Emulsion Scanning Matrix

With the emulsion scanning analysis, the emulsion stability relationships against water-cut and residual EOR chemical ratios
can be determined. Additional emulsion stability relationships with water salinity and temperature can also be investigated by
repeating the emulsion scanning matrix at different salinity concentrations and temperature ranges.

A routine demulsification matrix is then conducted by scanning across combination demulsifiers changing the hydrophile-
lipophile balance (HLB) to identify the emulsion breaking region. Emulsion stability depends greatly on the nature of the
surfactant and oil. The HLB concept which was introduced by Griffin (1949) described the relative affinity of a surfactant for
water and oil. The main advantage of the HLB concept was its simplicity (Nguyen et al., 2011).

Bottle test (Poindexter et al., 2003) is a recommended procedure to analyze a combination of essential parameters such as
demulsifier dosage, residence time, heat, degree of agitation to synthesize the emulsion and agitation effects after demulsifier
injection into emulsion. On the aspect of technical performance, demulsifier giving the best oil quality with the lowest BS&W,
the fastest water separation and the sharpest water-oil interface are recommended. Based on experience of the naturally
produced emulsion treatment cost in Malay Basin, the demulsifier treatment dosage is averaged at tens (10s) of ppm. However,
IPTC 16777 3

with the increased emulsion stability post chemical EOR implementation, an effective demulsifier dosage range is expected at
the range of hundreds (100s) of ppm to handle to worst case emulsion production scenario. Therefore, a fair anticipated
increase in demulsifier treatment cost for a chemical EOR project is in the order of ten magnitudes and above during the worst
case emulsion breakthrough period. This cost estimation however does depend greatly on the amount of residual EOR
chemical in the production fluids.

Effect of Alkali

Chemical EOR flood that involve the use of alkali has typical pH 11 or higher as it sweeps the reservoir. Silica dissolution is a
function of pH and temperature. High pH alkaline flood dissolves quartz minerals in the formation, which results in dissolved
monomeric silica (Si(OH)3O- Na+) flowing with the water (Arensdort et al., 2010).

SiO2 + NaOH + H2O  Si(OH)3O- Na+ (1)

The dissolution of silica is an irreversible reaction because the solubility of amorphous silica allows short-term dissolution
rates to be extrapolated to reservoir times (Southwick, 1985). As the high pH water propagates through the reservoir, it mixes
with the low pH connate water resulting large amount of silicate becomes insoluble and begins to form colloidal particulate.
Connate water with magnesium ions can bridge the colloidal silicate particles and form an amorphous magnesium silicate
scale. This overall mechanism is known as silicate scale precipitation. Magnesium silicate scale typically has non-
stoichiometric ratios of magnesium and silicate (Arensdorf et al., 2011). In addition, silicate scale may co-precipitate with
calcite and other mineral scales. Calcite, which is calcium carbonate scale, can provide nuclei for the growth of silicate scale
(Gill 1998).

The impact of scale formation are significant, it includes near wellbore formation blockage, flow lines restriction, safety valve
and choke failure, pump wear, corrosion underneath deposits. There have been many reported field observation of silicate
scale formation post ASP flood (Jia et al., 2002, Arensdorf et al., 2011). In order to predict the severity of silicate scale, the
amount of soluble silica dissolved from quartz can be determined by static bottle test with the silicomolybdare colorimetric
method (Southwick, 1985). The water with dissolved silica is then mixed with water with various amounts of magnesium and
calcium. The mixed water set at reservoir temperature will slowly develop turbidity over a period of time to form scale
precipitates.

Chemical inhibitor is a recommended treatment of silicate scales. Various polymers and other chemicals have been developed
to inhibit magnesium silicate scales (Arensdorf et al., 2011; Jia et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2004; Amjad and Zuhl, 2008). To
assess and identify suitable scale inhibitor (SI), fluid-fluid interaction tests are conducted that comprise of SI compatibility test
and dynamic tube blocking test. SI compatibility test is conducted to examine the compatibility of the SI chemicals in
formation and injection water at various ratios representing the production scenario. Meanwhile, dynamic tube blocking test is
aimed to determine the required minimum inhibitor concentration for the respective SI. Based on the results of the laboratory
analysis, a scale management program for the field can be established once an effective, fit-for-purpose SI package is
identified.

Effect of Polymer

Polymer flooding, being one of the most mature EOR techniques, typically utilizes polymeric additives to flood water at
concentrations ranging from about 500 to 2500 ppm. Polymer increases the injected water viscosity whereby it helps to
stabilize the water displacing fronts in the reservoir and reduce water channeling in heterogeneous formation. Polymeric
additives to injected water also reduce porous media permeability and affect fractional oil flow for more efficient oil recovery.
An added benefit is that much lower total volumes of water are produced for a given level of oil recovery (Raney et al., 2011).
Polymer additives with higher molecular weight have better absorption, better capitation, higher resistance and residual
resistance coefficients (Zhang et al., 2011). However, high molecular weight polymer tends to be retained by the rock porous
medium resulting in permeability reduction in the formation. Thus, it is very essential to establish a representative retention
levels for a given polymer flood and evaluation on its injectivity into formation.

Results and Discussions

An EOR field in Malay Basin planning for chemical EOR implementation is our case study to evaluate the impact of alkali
(A), surfactant (S) and polymer (P) injection on formation damage and flow assurance. Firstly, the impact of EOR injectants
on emulsion production is evaluated. Through the emulsion scanning analysis, the emulsion stability relationships against
4 IPTC 16777

water-cut and residual EOR chemical ratios are depicted in Figure 1(a) and 1(b) below, for comparison between AS and ASP
solutions. The results show a general increase in emulsion volume as the alkali and surfactant concentration increases.
However, with the presence of polymer, the emulsion stability is reduced at a low dosage of polymer, represented by higher
dilution at 80% water-cut, whereas at a high dosage of polymer represented by a low dilution of 20% water-cut, the emulsion
stability is increased. This observation is due to low polymer concentration tends to exhibit a bridging effect which destabilizes
emulsion and high polymer concentration with its steric viscosity will increase emulsion stability.

Figure 1(a): Emulsion Scanning Analysis – Alkali-Surfactant (AS) Solution

Figure 1(b): Emulsion Scanning Analysis – Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP) Solution

It is known that emulsion chemistry will continuously change throughout the production life. However, readiness in handling
the worst case emulsion production scenario is critical to ensure that the production facility is designed adequately. Based on
the emulsion scanning analysis results, a demulsification system is formulated to address the emulsion formed at the most
severe ASP and water-cut condition. A range of demulsifier dosage is sensitized on its robustness using bottle test, while its
quality analysis is determined with the measured BS&W after demulsification. A demulsifier at the range of 200 ppm and
above is formulated to be able to meet the stringent BS&W of less than 0.5% within a relatively short retention time of 5
minutes. Sensitivities on demulsifier dosage based on various elevated fluid temperature and prolonged retention time helps to
optimize the overall emulsion handling strategy.

Meanwhile, the effect of alkali on formation damage is evaluated in thorough on its scaling potential. The formation water of
the study field contains relatively high content of bicarbonate at more than 3000 mg/l, whereas the calcium content in the ASP
water is less than 10 mg/l. The calcium carbonate scale tendency is evaluated at various formation water and ASP water ratio
to sensitize on the effect of pH change. In addition, the formation of calcium carbonate is highly dependent on the system
pressure and temperature condition. Therefore, the scale tendency across the injector, producer, surface and subsurface
conditions shall be evaluated accordingly. The overall calcium carbonate scale prediction result is depicted in Figure 2 below.
IPTC 16777 5

Note that the magnitude of alkali adsorption into the reservoir is obtained from coreflooding effluent analysis. The predicted
alkali adsorption magnitude is 90% with only 10% will breakthrough at the producer. Thus, resulting calcium carbonate
scaling potential is less than 3 saturation ratio at all system conditions. According to Mackay et al. (2004), scale saturation
ratio of less than 3 is considered very minimal risk.

Figure 2: Scale Prediction Results - Calcium Carbonate Scale

On the silicate scaling potential, the increased in dissolved silicon ions from the reservoir core is determined at room and
elevated temperature as well as at various pH. The results are tabulated in Table 2 below. There is a significant increase in
dissolved silicon at elevated temperature and at high pH. However, there are insufficient cations to cause precipitation because
the solutions remain clear with low turbidity. Therefore, it is concluded that the silicate scaling tendency from the ASP flood is
minimal, however, the risk increases as the temperature and pH increase.

Test Description Room Temperature (30oC) Elevated Temperature (90oC)

Dissolved silicon in high pH ASP
105 mg/l 350 mg/l
solution (sodium hydroxide)
Dissolved silicon in low pH ASP
32 mg/l 160 mg/l
solution (sodium carbonate)
Table 2: Silicate Scaling Potential

On the aspect of polymer and the overall ASP flood injectivity, it is evaluated from coreflooding experiment. A series of
injection fluid slugs comprising of the baseline waterflood, pre-buffer, AS main slug, post-buffer, post-flush and polymer
chase are injected in sequence. Note that the design of this injection sequence is meant to evaluate the injectivity of the each
slug. It is not the ASP process design injection sequence for incremental oil production. The differential pressure (dp) over
time across the core plug from the coreflooding experiment is monitored closely particularly on abnormal pressure build-up in
the core. The ASP injectivity profile for the study field is depicted in Figure 3 below.

To ensure fines migration risk is eliminated, the coreflood injection rate is maintained at a low injection rate of 0.1cc/min,
which is sufficiently lower than the critical flow velocity for a consolidated core of the study field. During pre-buffer injection,
there is an increased in dp prompted an investigation into clay swelling potential. However, the observed dp build-up is
reversible towards the end of the pre-buffer injection, and thus eliminating possibility of clay swelling effect which is
irreversible. This slight increase in dp is most likely due to unsteady-state fluid flow behavior of the injection. On the final
polymer chase injection, the dp increased from approximately 0.3 psi up to 2.5 psi. This is solely due to the viscosity effect of
the polymer. The polymer viscosity is 2cp measured at 90oC, whereas the water viscosity is 0.25cp at 90oC. Hence, the
expected dp increment due to viscosity is 8 fold based on the Darcy’s Law for fluid flow through porous medium. Overall, the
ASP injectivity profile presents no injectivity issues for the selected ASP process design.
6 IPTC 16777

Figure 3: ASP Injectivity Profiles

Conclusion

A comprehensive understanding of the potential chemical EOR induced formation damage and flow assurance issues has been
established to ensure the success of EOR implementation in the study field will not be hindered. Several undesirable effects of
EOR chemicals on the reservoir and produced fluids that must be carefully addressed based on the findings are:

1. Injection of surfactant tends to produce stable micro-emulsion due to the ultra-low interfacial tension between the water
and oil. Emulsion scanning analysis to predict emulsion severity at various production scenarios and upfront formulation
of a crude specific demulsifier in treating the worst case emulsion chemistry are crucial in optimizing emulsion handling
strategy.

2. Injection of alkali will increase the risk of carbonate and silicate scaling tendency due to high pH environment in the
formation. The combination use of equilibrium thermodynamic scale prediction model and laboratory analytical chemistry
analysis help to predict the associate inorganic scaling tendency. The risk of scaling for the case study field is found to be
minimal.

3. Injection of polymer and the overall chemical EOR slugs pose the risk of formation damage. Injectivity evaluation is
examined based on coreflooding experiments. The overall EOR injectivity profile presents no injectivity issues for the
selected ASP process design.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the PETRONAS for the kind support and permission to publish this paper.

Reference

Amjad, Z. and Zuhl, R. W. “An Evaluation of Silica Scale Control Additives for Industrial Water Systems”, NACE 08368, presented at the
NACE International Corrosion, Louisiana, USA, 16-20 March 2008.

Arensdorf, J., Kerr, S., Miner, K. and Toddington, T. E. “Mitigating Silicate Scale in Production Wells in an Oilfield in Alberta”, SPE
141422-MS, presented at SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Texas, USA, 11-13 April 2011.

Arensdort, J., Hoster, D., MacDaougall, D., Yuan, M. “Static and Dynamic Testing of Silicate Scale Inhibitors”, SPE-132212-PP, presented
at the CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, 8-10 June 2010.

Deng, S., Bai, T., Chen, J. P., Yu, G., Jiang, Z., Zhaou, F. “Effect of Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer on Stability of Oil Droplets in Produced
Water from ASP Flooding”, Colloids Surface A, v. 211, p. 275-284, 2002.
IPTC 16777 7

Du, K. F., Agarwal, B., Lo, S. W., Ritom, S., Mekarapiruk, W., Adamson, G., Chon, F. C., Din, A., Azizan, N., Zakaria, N. A. and
Jamaludin, M. “Evaluating Chemical EOR Potential of St Joseph Oil Field, Offshore Malaysia”, SPE 144655, presented at SPE Enhanced
Oil Recovery Conference, 19-21 July 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Fadili, A., Kristensen, M.R. and Moreno, J. “Smart Integrated Chemical EOR Simulation”, SPE 13762-MS, presented at International
Petroleum Technology Conference, 7-9 December 2009, Doha, Qatar.

Gill, J. S. “Silicate Scale Control”, NACE 98226, presented at the NACE International Corrosion, San Diego, California, 22-27 March 1998.

Griffin, W. C. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., v. 1, p. 311-326, 1949.

Hooman Karkooti, Rahim Masoudi, Anndy M. Arif, Nasir H. Darman, Mohamad B. Othman, “Evaluation of the Impact of Relative
Permeability Hysteresis and Three Phase Modeling on the Performance of Water Alternative Gas EOR Processes”, SPE 143982-MS,
presented at SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 19-21 July 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Jia, Q., Zhou, B., Zhang, R. L., Chen, Z. X. “Development and Application of a Silicate Scale Inhibitor for ASP Flooding Production Scale”,
SPE 74675-MS, presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, UK, 30-31 January 2002.

Li, M., Xu, M., Lin, M., Wu, Z. “The Effect of HPAM on Crude Oil/Water Interfacial Properties and the Stability of Crude Oil Emulsions”,
J. Disp. Sci. Tech., v. 28, p. 189-192, 2007.

Lisa Henthorne, SPE; Meghan Hartman; Andrea Hayden, Water Standard, “Improving Chemical EOR Economics by Optimizing Water
Quality”, SPE 144397-MS, presented at SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 19-21 July 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Mackay, E. J., Jordan, M. M., Feasey, N. D., Shah, D., Kumar, P. and Ali, S. A. “Integrated Risk Analysis for Scale Management in
Deepwater Developments”, SPE 87459-MS, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, UK, 26-27 May
2004.

Nguyen, D. T., Sadeghi, N., Houston, C. “Emulsion Characterization and Novel Demulsifiers for Treating Chemical Induced Emulsions”,
SPE 143987, presented at SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 19-21 July 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Nguyen, D. T., Sadeghi, N. “Selection of the Right Demulsifier for Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery”, SPE 140860, presented at SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in the Woodlands, Texas, USA, 11-13 April 2011.

Poindexter, M. K., Chuai, S., Marble, R. A., Marsh, S. C. “Classifying Crude Oil Emulsion Using Chemical Demulsifiers and Statistical
Analyses”, SPE 84610, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 55-8 October 2003.

Raney, K., Ayirala, S., Chin, R. and Verbeek, P. “Surface and Subsurface Requirements for Successful Implementation of Offshore
Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery”, SPE 21188-MS, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Texas, USA, 2-5 May 2011.

Sara Thomas, “Chemical EOR: The Past - Does It Have a Future?” SPE 108828-DL, presented as SPE Distinguished Lecture during 2005-
2006.

Southwick, J. G. “Solubility of Silica in Alkaline Solutions: Implication for Alkaline Flooding”, SPE Journal, December 1985, p. 857-864.

Sunil Kokal, SPE, Saudi Aramco, “Crude Oil Emulsions: A State-Of-The-Art Review”, SPE Production & Facilities, Volume 20, Number 1,
February 2005.

Wang, Y., Liu, J., Liu, B., Liu, Y., Wang, H. and Chen, G. “Development and Application of a Silicate Scale Inhibitor for ASP Flooding
Production Scale”, SPE 74675, presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, UK, 30-31 January 2004.

Zhang, X. Q., Pan, F., Guan, W. T., Li, D., Li, X. and Guo, S. L. “A Novel Method of Optimizing the Moelcular Weight of Polymer
Flooding”, SPE 144252-MS, presented at SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19-21 July 2011.