Cellulose

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 2289–2301 | Cite as

Investigation of a new application for cellulose nanocrystals: a study of the enhanced oil recovery potential by use of a green additive

  • Silje N. Molnes
  • Aleksandr Mamonov
  • Kristofer G. Paso
  • Skule Strand
  • Kristin Syverud
Original Paper
  • 160 Downloads

Abstract

Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) were investigated for use in a potential new application, enhanced oil recovery. Core flooding experiments were performed on outcrop sandstone cores using CNC particles dispersed in low salinity brine (CNC–LS). Core flooding experiments performed on fully water-saturated cores confirm that a majority of viscosity-generating CNC particles successfully traverse the cores at temperature conditions ranging from 60 to 120 °C. Oil recovery tests performed on crude oil saturated sandstone cores at 60 and 90 °C show that when CNC–LS is applied in tertiary mode, ultimate oil recovery increases. During tertiary CNC–LS injection, CNC particles exacerbate differential pressure fluctuations, a phenomenon attributable to log jamming in pore throats, causing remobilisation of oil trapped within pore space regions. Results from the current work indicate that CNC particles dispersed in low saline brine remain promising for implementation in enhanced oil recovery operations.

Keywords

Oil recovery EOR CNC Temperature stability Nanocellulose 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was performed as a part of the NORCEL Project: The NORwegian NanoCELlulose Technology Platform, initiated and led by The Paper and Fibre Research Institute (PFI) in Trondheim and funded by the Research Council of Norway through the NANO2021 Program, grant number 228147. The experimental work in this study has been carried out at the University of Stavanger (UoS) in the Smart Water EOR laboratory facilities, which is a part of the Department of Petroleum Technology, and at the Ugelstad Laboratory, which is part of the Department of Chemical Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

References

  1. Aadland RC, et al (2016) Injectivity and retention of nanocellulose dispersions in berea sandstoneGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguiar J, Mansur C (2016) The influence of polymer flooding on produced oily water: a review. Braz J Petrol Gas 10(1):49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM (1988) Standard test method for base number of petroleum products by potentiometric perchloric acid titration. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. vol ASTM D2896-88. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM (1989)Standard test method for acid number of petroleum products by potentiometric titration. In: Annual book of ASTM standards, vol ASTM D664-89. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Austad T, et al (2010) Chemical mechanism of low salinity water flooding in sandstone reservoirs. In: Paper presented at the SPE improved oil recovery symposiumGoogle Scholar
  6. Bao M et al (2010) Biodegradation of partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide by bacteria isolated from production water after polymer flooding in an oil field. J Hazard Mater 184(1):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beal C (1946) The viscosity of air, water, natural gas, crude oil and its associated gases at oil field temperatures and pressures. Trans AIME 165(1):94–115.  https://doi.org/10.2118/946094-G CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolandtaba SF, et al (2009) Pore scale modelling of linked polymer solution (LPS)–A new EOR process. In: Paper presented at the IOR 2009-15th European symposium on improved oil recoveryGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorris A, Gray DG (2012) Gelation of cellulose nanocrystal suspensions in glycerol. Cellulose 19(3):687–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan T, Buckley JS (2006) Acid number measurements revisited. In: Paper presented at the SPE/DOE symposium on improved oil recoveryGoogle Scholar
  11. Guo Y (2013) Environmental aspect of EOR chemicals. In: Paper presented at the FORCE—EOR competence buiding workshop, StavangerGoogle Scholar
  12. Habibi Y et al (2010) Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry, self-assembly, and applications. Chem Rev 110(6):3479–3500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heggset EB et al (2017) Temperature stability of nanocellulose dispersions. Carbohydr Polym 157:114–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.09.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hendraningrat L et al (2013) A coreflood investigation of nanofluid enhanced oil recovery. J Petrol Sci Eng 111:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu Z et al (2016) Nanoparticle-assisted water-flooding in berea sandstones. Energy Fuels.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00051 Google Scholar
  16. Jahn F et al (2008) Reservoir description hydrocarbon exploration and production, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 95–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kamal MS et al (2015) Review on polymer flooding: rheology, adsorption, stability, and field applications of various polymer systems. Polym Rev 55(3):491–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kjøniksen A-L et al (2008) Modified polysaccharides for use in enhanced oil recovery applications. Eur Polym J 44(4):959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klemm D et al (2011) Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chem Int Ed 50(24):5438–5466.  https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201001273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lafitte V, et al (2014) Fluids and methods including nanocellulose: Google PatentsGoogle Scholar
  21. Lager A, et al (2007) Impact of brine chemistry on oil recovery. In: Paper presented at the IOR 2007-14th European symposium on improved oil recoveryGoogle Scholar
  22. Ligthelm DJ, et al (2009) Novel waterflooding strategy by manipulation of injection brine composition. In: Paper presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and ExhibitionGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu F, et al (2012) Optimizing water injection rates for a water-flooding field. In: Paper presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibitionGoogle Scholar
  24. McGuire P, et al (2005) Low salinity oil recovery: an exciting new EOR opportunity for Alaska’s North slope. In: Paper presented at the SPE Western Regional MeetingGoogle Scholar
  25. Molnes SN et al (2016) Sandstone injectivity and salt stability of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) dispersions—Premises for use of CNC in enhanced oil recovery. Ind Crops Prod 93:152–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molnes SN et al (2017) The effects of pH, time and temperature on the stability and viscosity of cellulose nanocrystal (CNC) dispersions: implications for use in enhanced oil recovery. Cellulose.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-017-1437-0 Google Scholar
  27. Muggeridge A et al (2014) Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0320 Google Scholar
  28. OSPAR (2016) OSPAR list of substances used and discharged offshore which are considered to pose little or no risk to the environment (PLONOR)—Update 2016. Retrieved from http://www.ospar.org/work-areas/oic/chemicals
  29. Piñerez Torrijos ID et al (2016) Experimental study of the response time of the low-salinity enhanced oil recovery effect during secondary and tertiary low-salinity waterflooding. Energy Fuels 30(6):4733–4739.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00641 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raney KH et al (2012) Surface and subsurface requirements for successful implementation of offshore chemical enhanced oil recovery. SPE Prod Oper 27(03):294–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reiner RS, Rudie AW (2013) Process scale-up of cellulose nanocrystal production to 25 kg per batch at the forest products laboratory. In: Postek MT, Moon RJ, Rudie AW, Bilodeau MA (eds) Production and applications of cellulose nanomaterials. TAPPI Press, Peachtree Corners, pp 21–24Google Scholar
  32. Revol J-F et al (1992) Helicoidal self-ordering of cellulose microfibrils in aqueous suspension. Int J Biol Macromol 14(3):170–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rincon-Torres MT, Hall LJ (2015) Cellulose nanowhiskers in well services: Google PatentsGoogle Scholar
  34. Sacui IA et al (2014) Comparison of the properties of cellulose nanocrystals and cellulose nanofibrils isolated from bacteria, tunicate, and wood processed using acid, enzymatic, mechanical, and oxidative methods. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6(9):6127–6138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seccombe J, et al. (2010) Demonstration of low-salinity EOR at interwell scale, Endicott field, Alaska. In: Paper presented at the SPE improved oil recovery symposiumGoogle Scholar
  36. Seright RS, Henrici BJ (1990) xanthan stability at elevated temperatures. SPE Reserv Eng 5(1):52–60.  https://doi.org/10.2118/14946-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheng JJ et al (2015) Status of polymer-flooding technology. J Can Pet Technol 54(02):116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skauge A (2008) Microscopic diversion—a new EOR technique. In: Paper presented at the The 29th IEA workshop & symposium, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  39. Skauge T, et al (2010) Nano-sized particles for EOR. In: Paper presented at the SPE improved oil recovery symposiumGoogle Scholar
  40. Springer N, et al (2003) Resistivity index measurement without the porous plate: A desaturation technique based on evaporation produces uniform water saturation profiles and more reliable results for tight North Sea chalk. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the international symposium of the society of core analystsGoogle Scholar
  41. Strand S et al (2016) Water based EOR from clastic oil reservoirs by wettability alteration: a review of chemical aspects. J Petrol Sci Eng 146:1079–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taber JJ et al (1997) EOR screening criteria revisited-Part 1: introduction to screening criteria and enhanced recovery field projects. SPE Reserv Eng 12(03):189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tang G-q, Morrow NR (1999b) Oil recovery by waterflooding and imbibition—invading brine cation valency and salinity. In: Paper SCA9911Google Scholar
  44. Tang G-Q, Morrow NR (1999) Influence of brine composition and fines migration on crude oil/brine/rock interactions and oil recovery. J Petrol Sci Eng 24(2):99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas S (2008) Enhanced oil recovery—an overview. Oil Gas Sci Technol Revue de l’IFP 63(1):9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Torrijos IDP et al (2017) Impact of temperature on the low salinity EOR effect for sandstone cores containing reactive plagioclase. J Petrol Sci Eng 156:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wei B et al (2016) The potential of a novel nanofluid in enhancing oil recovery. Energy Fuels 30(4):2882–2891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wellington SL (1983) Biopolymer solution viscosity stabilization-polymer degradation and antioxidant use. Soc Petrol Eng J 23(06):901–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wever D et al (2011) Polymers for enhanced oil recovery: a paradigm for structure–property relationship in aqueous solution. Prog Polym Sci 36(11):1558–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhong L et al (2012) Colloidal stability of negatively charged cellulose nanocrystalline in aqueous systems. Carbohydr Polym 90(1):644–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zolotukhin AB, Ursin J-R (2000) Permeability introduction to petroleum reservoir engineering. Norwegian Academic Press, Kristiansand, pp 63–82 (HøyskoleForlaget) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Petroleum TechnologyUniversity of Stavanger (UoS)StavangerNorway
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  3. 3.RISE PFITrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations