SPE 84905
On the True Origin of “Continuous Injection” High Pressure Gas Flood, Continuous
Injection Surfactant Flood and Foam Flood in EOR : Some Comments and Critiques
Ashis Kumar Das, Independent Consultant, Calgary
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The need for continuous injection rather than slug (small
amount) injection has not been stated by many expert EOR
(enhanced oil recovery) scientists over the life of EOR till date
explicitly yet the technology seems to be getting into
commercial applications in the US especially and many other
parts of the world such as China, India and USSR, without
actual mention of the true origin of the several areas where
this concept has been commercially applied. In this paper I
propose a presentation that establishes the true origin of the
several areas where this concept has been applied born from
an experimental work by the author while pursuing a graduate
degree work on investigation of additional roles of
polyacrylamide polymer beyond commonly known
mobility control.
Since the start of water flood accidentally more than a century
ago, and its perusal in application and research in form of
improved water flood with mobility control polymers, and
surfactants and other chemicals (alkali etc) and the likes, the
EOR based on aqueous methods has gone far ahead especially
in the oil embargo period. The major mentions are the works
of Taber, Mungan, Gogarty , Pope, Lake, Schecter, Menzie
etc. However, all these works involved critical thinking
against use of the chemicals in large amounts with fear of loss
of chemicals in unknown crevices and lost zones in the oil
pools and adjacent areas of cavernous types. But these
exponents of EOR apparently failed to understand that : (1) in
a thoroughly (or even moderately) water flooded pool, traced
well about informations relating to water laid zones and
adjacent residual oil areas from tracer and pressure surveys ,
there is no fear of losing costly chemicals, and (2) more
chemicals are required for global (poolwide) removal or
mobilization of residual oil, and (3) additional pressure drop
may be applied across the residual oil for mobilization by
application of continuous injection rather than slug injection.
In this paper, I outline step by step, showing how three special
applications namely continuous injection surfactant flood,
continuous injection high pressure gas flood and continuous
injection foam flood have developed over the years from our
primal experiment (1981-1983) in which I first unfolded the
benefits of continuous injection in form of the most important
item among above three viz. the third item which is
availability of additional pressure drop across the residual oil
yet no reference was made in the literature about our first
work. Also despite some applications of the above three
methods, fear still seems to prevail about continuous injection
on similar bases which prevailed earlier and I address the issue
to eradicate this fear from EOR application peoples’ minds
with arguments and critiques.
A moderate part of the paper deals with the special role of
diffusion of residual oil particles into outer aqueous layer/zone
due to density increase during flow thru porous medium of
non-Newtonian fluids at elevated pressure and temperature,
and related new kind of revealations of importance to flow
thru porous media subject in general.
Introduction
For many years enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has been
divided into three main classes(1): secondary / tertiary recovery
by water / gas injection, chemical and thermal EOR. In this
paper secondary / tertiary recovery and chemical EOR are at
the focal point of discussion. Secondary / tertiary recovery by
water / gas injection takes advantage of displacement forces
on residual oil and miscibility due to oil-water or gas-oil
interfacial tension (IFT) reduction. It was actually
accidentally found that more the viscous displacement forces
on residual stationary oil blobs, more the displacement
tendency. Thus water injection and gas injection terms have
come forward in the industry. During secondary / tertiary
displacement of oil by water or gas some forces interplaying
in the system were identified first by duPrey(2). He first
defined three main indices or numbers that characterize the
displacement tendency by three controlling items viz
interfacial force, gravitational force and viscosity of displacing
2 SPE 84905
and displaced phases. These are capillary number, bond
number and viscosity ratio. Table 1 shows the definition
given by duPrey and usual values of three indices after
complete secondary recovery. Later Taber(3), Mungan(4),
Lake(5) and others(6,7,8) have used these three indices to
describe secondary / tertiary displacement of residual oil.
Viscous force is the displacing action, interfacial force is the
opposing force due to interfacial tension and gravitational
force is the downward gravity acting on oil and water. It was
later on seen and found that size of oil blob displaced also
enters the definitions. This derivation is shown in the
Appendix. Thus Taber’s(3) find that critical number for
displacement is ∆P/(Lσ) > 5 requires inclusion of effect of
this redefinition. Chemical EOR by surfactant, polymer and
alkali aims at reducing interfacial tension (trapping forces)
between oil and water and preventing physi- and
chemisorption of costly chemicals on the rock and thus
altering definition of three indices at critical range (such as
capillary number greater than 5) will change the criteria
surrounding these indices.
Chemicals have been used in slug mode of injection for long
time in EOR as often it was found that an optimum slug size
existed for maximum recovery. But it was slip of the mind of
EOR scientists that displacement forces are reduced
considerably by smaller slug and continuous injection (over
full length of EOR formation, say, full core length in core
flood experiment) ensures maximum viscous displacement. In
this paper I show that our primal experiment(9,10,11) on
investigation of roles of polymer beyond mobiliy control
opened up the first realization that continuous injection of
chemical polymer offers opportunity for additional significant
viscous displacement on residual oil. It appears that this single
idea, and concept of poolwide miscibility in gas injection EOR
have been taken from my first mention of continuous injection
in that 1981-1983 experiment.
In this paper I place arguments and comments that clearly
establishes the fact that the three EOR methods viz continuous
injection high pressure gas flood, continuous injection
surfactant flood and foam flood have developed from the idea
in our primal work where I chose to inject continuous polymer
following surfactant injection.
Evolution of New Methods
In this section I describe chronological and systematic
evolution of at least three different EOR methods viz.
continuous injection surfactant flood, continuous injection
high pressure gas flood and foam flood from the idea of our
choice of continuous injection of polymer following surfactant
injection, in the investigation of roles of polymers beyond
mobility control(9, 10,11 ) . All of these three methods are potent
and have been partially or fully used in commercial scale. In
our experiment I chose to select truly tertiary stage of EOR by
complete prior water flood so that mobility control effects
were minimized. And I chose continuous polymer injection to
ensure large volumes of polymer flow over long time, so that
large volumes and long time would bring out the additional
roles adequately. Continuous injection here means about 7 to
8 pore volumes that is till end of economic tertiary recovery in
the core floods. Continuous polymer injection allowed
additional pressure drop across residual oil as clearly
discernible from Figure 1. Also chemicals are better
concentrated in the oil water interface in this arrangement so
IFT reduction is enhanced. Thus Taber index increased
considerably however this index at critical range should
include incorporation of oil blob size (length and nominal
radius) as shown in the Appendix.
Continuous Injection Surfactant Flood : In our experiment
we concluded that 2% pore volume surfactant and 7 to 8 pore
volumes of polymeric water displaced tertiary oil by virtual
continuous injection surfactant flood as I deciphered by tests
that during long injection and residence time of polymer in
core hydrolysis of polyacrylamide occurred and produced in
situ surfactant (RCOONa etc) besides injected surfactant.
Thus immediately it was the realization that instead of 2% if
4,6,8,10 or increased percentage pore volume surfactant is
injected, it would ensure more recovery. However, in industry
the policy of such increased pore volume surfactant injection
is not common. The fear is loss of costly surfactant in lost or
thief zones or by rock adsorption. But this author is of a
different opinion on this issue. During water flood, the water
laid paths are well traced by tracer survey and pressure tests.
Thus if surfactant is introduced with knowledge of where it is
going by prior water flood time tracer surveys, the thief zones
can be avoided or blocked. In addition, adsorption is not much
of a head ache if prior to surfactant injection, a low cost
sacrificial chemical is injected that will cover the rock surface
and prevent surfactant adsorption later. Most surfactant should
then come out as effluent with oil and water.
Continuous Injection High Pressure Gas Flood: This
method has been in long use in US at least and seems to be
replacing the polymer flood or chemical flood altogether(12)
and clearly is born of our primal experiment(9,10,11). In our
experiment the choice of continuous polymer injection and
recommendation for further work with oil sands automatically
led us to idea of continuous injection high pressure gas
injection. As continuous polymer is accompanied by
injectivity problem, gas is an automatic choice for avoiding
the injectivity problem. But gas pressure has to be hightened
so that IFT is minimum (collapse of two phase zone in ternary
phase diagram). Also increased gas pressure allows more gas
to pass into oil phase and increased swelling results offering
opportunity for increased recovery. Our mention of global
poolwide(11) injection and high gas pressure offers opportunity
for poolwide miscibility and so high multiple contact
displacement. All of this increase recovery. Besides
continuous injection of high pressure gas offers opportunity
for increased reach, improved mobility ratio of flood
(reduced) and better access of residual oil boundary. All of
these concepts were born directly off choices in my
primal experiment(9).
Continuous Injection Foam Flood: Use of foam in EOR also
appears to have been born of ideas pursuant to our primal
experiment with choice of key words “continuous injection”
SPE 84905 3

and “poolwide injection”. The main idea here is to offer Conclusions

surfactant action and additional pressure drop yet avoid
injectivity problem that polymer accompanies. Our
recommendations pursuant to primal experiment included (1) Continuous injection offers avenue for greater viscous
hints at these. This is accomplished by injecting continuously displacement, poolwide miscibility and use of tracer survey
air-water-surfactant mixture. We cite Figure 21 in primal and sacrificial agents should eliminate fear of costly
work(9) that is reproduced here as Figure 2. This Figure shows chemicals loss.
that the idea of additional pressure drop availing was first
introduced by us. (2) Continuous injection (many pore volumes) surfactant
flood, continuous injection high pressure gas flood (used
It must be realized that additional pressure drop increase and increasingly(12) from 1984 to 2002) and continuous injection
IFT reduction were the key ideas in these three EOR method foam flood have true origin in our primal EOR experimental
and off the three, continuous high pressure gas injection seems work(9) with polymers for investigating roles beyond
to be replacing all EOR for conventional oil over 1984 – 2002, mobility control.
especially gradually replacing polymer or other
chemical flood. (3) Continuous injection high pressure gas flood may be the
most economic one off the three and therefore seems to have
been used long in US(12) at least replacing chemical /
Diffusion Due to Density Increase in polymer floods.
Porous Media Flow
(4) Diffusion is a new method / mechanism for truly tertiary
Flow through porous media works in Petroleum Engineering stage oil recovery and its doubtful economics should be
literature have not adequately taken account of surface area brought under close scrutiny.
effects off high surface area porous medium. Thus PVT
experiments by pioneers such as Standing(13), Katz(14) etc have (5)The origin of the three methods (four including the
suggested using empty PVT cell for collecting PVT data. Very diffusion method) should be seriously reviewed / considered
few researchers have investigated the effect of surface area of for invention priority determination.
porous medium on PVT data and have reported contradicting
conclusions. But a fundamental work by Dzyaloshinskii et
al(15) and Israelachvili et al(16) shows that surface area should Nomenclature
significantly control PVT phase dynamics related force
scenario. Ideas born of these works led us to envision A area of cross section to flow direction
following Figure 3 for density as a function of open space and F force
closed space texture / matrix as well as the nature of flowing g acceleration due to gravity
fluids within. In our primal experiment(9,10) we indeed G Universal gravitational constant
observed phenomena that corroborate this Figure trends. k permeability
Density and G (Universal gravitational constant) increased in L length
a manner so that oil particles diffused into outer polymeric Nc capillary number
water zone due to differential rise of G between oil and water P pressure
region. Note that G is propoartional to density and significant r radius of oil blob
density increase with pressure and temperature and non- T temperature
Newtonian flow increased the value of G in oil and water Greek
phase with some difference in the magnitude for the two
regions, thus causing oil particles to be diffused into the water π 3.14159
(polymeric) layer. Such observation was noted in the ϕ porosity
experiment with interfacial tensiometer (IFT meter) as well µ viscosity
and from core flood experiments collected standing (over ρ density
water) diffused oil showed up in the fraction collector tubes σ interfacial tension
that did not coalesce for a long time. ∆ difference operator
subscript
The above described phenomena indicates to possibility of c capillary
application of the concept to recovery of truly tertiary oil by i interfacial
high temperature high pressure non-Newtonian fluid injection o oil
however the doubtful economics has to be investigated. w water
4 SPE 84905

References

(1) Donaldson E.C.et al : Enhanced Oil Recovery, vol 1 and 2,

Elseveir Publishing Co., Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1985-1989
(2) duPrey, E L : Displacements Non Miscibles Dans Les
Miliux Poreaux : Influence Des Parametres Interfaciaux Sur
Les Permeabilities Relatives”, Compte rendu de l’A.R.T.F.P,
Ed. Technip, Paris, 1969, p.251.
(3) Taber, J. J. : “Dynamic and Static Forces Required to
Remove a Discontinuous Oil Phase from Porous Media
Containing Both Oil and Water”, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, March, 1969, 3-12.
(4) Mungan, N: “Interfacial Forces in Immiscible Liquid
Liquid Displacement in Poros Media, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, SPE, Sept, 1966, p. 247-253
(5) Lake, L : Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 1989
(6) Foster, W.R. : “A Low Tension Water Flooding Process”,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1973, 25, p. 205-210.
(7) Moore, T.F. and Slobod, R.L. : “The Effect of Viscosity
and Capillarity on the Displacement of Oil by Water”,
Producers Monthly, 1956, 20, no.10, p. 20.
(8) Paez, J. et. al.: Relationship Between Oil Recovery,
Interfacial Tension, and Pressure Gradient in Water Wet
Porous Media”, Bull. Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, 1954, no.64, p.115.
(9) Das, A.K. “Role of Dilute Polymer in Tertiary Surfactant
Flooding”, MS Research Report, Mechanical Engineering
Department, University of California, Berkeley, June, 1983.
(10) Das, A.K. “Emulsion Drive in Tertiary Surfactant Flood :
Role of Dilute Polymers”, ME Research Report, Mechanical
Engineering Department, University of California, Berkeley,
December, 1983.
(11) Das, A.K. : “Some Technical and Practical Corrections to
EOR Operations of Future”, Alternate paper SPE 35239
accepted for presentation to SPE Midland Oil and Gas
Conference, March, 1996.
(12) Annual EOR Report (by Guntis Moritis), Oil and Gas
Journal, April 15, 2002
(13) Standing, M.B. Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil
Field Hydrocarbon Systems, Reinhold Publishing Company,
New York, 1952
(14) Katz, D. : Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959
(15) Dzyaloshinskii, I.E. et al : “The General Theory of Van
der Waals Forces”, Advan. Phys., vol.10, p.165, 1961
(16) Israelachvili, J.N. et al : “Van der Waals Forces : Theory
and Experiment” , Proc. Royal Society, Series A, vol 331,
p.19, 1972
SPE 84905 5

Table 1 Dimensionless Numbers / Indices(6) P,T,non-

Name Number Interpretn. Order of Newtonian
Magni. fluid flow,
closed space P,T
Capillary µwVw /ϕσ Viscous Force 10 -6 closed
Number divided by space
Interfacial
Force
Viscosity µw / µo Viscous Force 10-1 to P
Rato Divided by
0
Viscous Force 10
Bond (ρw - ρo)gk Gravit. Force 10-6 ρ, G
Number /ϕσ divided by
Interfacial T
Force

Pressure, Temp. increase

Residual oil

Figure 3: Density and G change in open and closed space

(estimated conceptual scenario)
Slug mode ∆P small

Continuous mode ∆P large

Figure1:Slug and Continuous mode pressure drop (schematic)

∆P
Continuous injection

Slug injection

Pore volumes injected

Figure 2 : Slug and Continuous mode pressure drop (levels)

6 SPE 84905

Appendix

In this appendix to the main text I show that capillary number

and bond number, by definition, should incorporate size of
residual oil blob unlike definitions given in duPrey(2), Taber(3),
Foster(6) etc.

From Darcy’s Law, pressure drop and velocity are connected

by following relation:

V= - k ∆P/ (µL)
F VµL
⇒∆ =−
A k
Considering cylindrical blob,

VµAL
∆F = −
k
Interfacial force is :

Fi = 2πrσ

Hence, capillary number is :

∆F VµAL Vµ
Nc = = = [ AL /(2πr )]
Fi k 2πrσ kσ

Thus capillary number must include oil blob size viz length
‘L’ and nominal radius ‘r’. So must bond number, it can be
shown. In above, ‘A’ is cross section of oil blob in
flow direction.