Study on interfacial tension, wettability and viscosity in different salinities of synthesized a new polymeric surfactant for improving oil recovery

Abstract

Over 50% of the original oil in place (OOIP) is immobile or trapped in the reservoir. Therefore, today, more efficient methods have been introduced in the tertiary oil recovery sector as a scheme of enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Due to the decline of conventional hydrocarbon reserves, polymers are increasingly used in EOR methods, such as surfactant-polymer (SP) and alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding. SP flooding has a complex formulation and design, leading to undesirable phase separation if improperly mixed. Polymeric surfactants are a promising alternative to SP flooding. They consist of hydrophobic groups attached to hydrophilic polymers, which help to improve the mobility ratio and reduce interfacial tension (IFT). This paper examines the rheological and synthesis properties of a new polymeric surfactant produced through bond co-polymerization reaction using different hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) ratios and a zwitterion hydrophobic group. The synthesized hydrophobically modified zwitterionic polyacrylamide (HMZPAM) was characterized by FTIR and HMNR analysis. HMZPAM performed better than other substances in IFT, viscosity, wettability, oil recovery, and resistance to different one and two-valence cations. The results indicate that HPAM reduced the IFT to 13.65, while HMZPAM reduced it to 0.441 mN/m. Wettability change evaluated on a rock carbonate/crude oil/HMZPAM system that changed the water-wet state of the primary oil-wet rock carbonate to strongly water-wet state as wettability change measurements showed a decrease in contact angle from 62.76 to 21.23 degree. Comparative studies on the effectiveness of HPAM and HMZPAM were also conducted according to the measurement of viscosity and shear rate in the presence of salt, which indicates the higher shear rate and viscosity of HMZPAM. Core flooding tests revealed that HMZPAM resulted in better additional recovery due to microscopic displacement, resulting in a total oil recovery of 84%, compared to 48% of residual oil saturation for HPAM. Also, salts decreased oil recovery in HPAM injection but increased oil recovery in HMZPAM injection.