Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61 (2018) 348–355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jiec

Emulsification and improved oil recovery with viscosity reducer during

steam injection process for heavy oil
Zhengbin Wu* , Liu Huiqing, Xue Wang, Zequan Zhang
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 23 October 2017 An anionic–nonionic surfactant was proposed as viscosity reducer (VR) for study. Firstly, bulk emulsion
Received in revised form 7 December 2017 behavior was investigated to optimize the emulsification process. Secondly, core flooding tests were
Accepted 16 December 2017 carried out to evaluate the synergistic effect of VR and steam for improved heavy oil recovery, as well as
Available online 3 January 2018 emulsion properties along the distance. Thirdly, a 2D microvisual study was performed to illustrate
emulsion migration and plug property in porous media. Finally, VR assisted steam stimulation was
Keywords: conducted for field application, and gained satisfactory result both in oil–steam ratio and oil recovery,
Heavy oil providing an alternative for enhancing oil recovery in similar steamflooded reservoirs.
Steam injection
© 2018 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
Viscosity reducer
reserved.
O/W emulsions
EOR

Introduction environment. Therefore, it is of great significance for the adoption

As conventional crude oil reserves gradually decrease, the
recovery for heavy oil has attracted more and more attention
nowadays. Heavy oil viscosity is very sensitive to temperature and
declines dramatically with a slight increase of temperature. The
popular thermal recovery methods for the development of heavy
oil mainly include cyclic steam stimulation (CSS), steam flooding
(SF), in-situ combustion (ISC), steam-assisted gravity drainage
(SAGD), etc. The important mechanisms of enhancing oil recovery
(EOR) lie in decreasing oil viscosity and increasing oil mobility
[1–4]. However, the development effect of pure steam flooding is
usually very limited. For example, the heavy oil recovery
percentage of CSS and SF is usually 10–20% and 20–30%
respectively, which is relatively low. What’s more, a range of
development problems have occurred in steam injection projects,
such as serious heat loss in thin-layer reservoirs, poor vertical
sweep caused by steam gravity in thick-layer reservoirs, and poor
development effect after steam channeling between the injectors
and producers. Although petroleum engineers nowadays are using
solar energy for steam generation for EOR operations in some fields
in Oman and Venezuela [5–8], the major fuels used for the high-
temperature steam in field are still the produced crude oil and
natural gas. Massive consumption of fossil fuels lead to massive
emission of SO2, CO2, NO, etc., which are unfriendly with the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wuzhengbincup@126.com (Z. Wu).
of a new technique that is economic and applicable for enhancing
the thermal efficiency of steam and heavy oil recovery, especially
under the environment of low oil-price.
In thermal recovery processes for heavy oil, surfactants that can
maintain stability and have good properties under high tempera-
ture have attracted more attentions. The primary mechanisms of
surface-active additives for improved heavy oil recovery mainly lie
in: (1) the decrease of IFT between oil and displacement fluid, (2)
the spontaneous emulsification or microemulsification of the
trapped oil, and (3) wettability variation of rock pores [9,10]. Isaacs
et al. [11] discussed the role of surfactant additives in the recovery
of heavy oil with steam-based processes and Zhang et al. [12]
studied the conformance control of CSS and steam drive process
with surfactant. They both pointed out that surfactant contributed
considerable additional oil recovery. Srivastava and Castro [13]
described a successful field application of surfactant additives to
enhance thermal recovery of heavy oil. He introduced the good
increment in oil production and economic benefit of CSS wells in
California and Alberta, Canada. In fact, emulsion is very important
in the produced liquid. With the action of surfactant, crude oil that
has high viscosity is dispersed in continuous water and forms small
and discontinuous droplets called oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions
with lower viscosity [14,15]. It is believed that emulsions have
contributed much for the improved oil recovery in steam injection
projects because its recovery mechanisms based on capillary-
driven mobility control that leads to both a reduction in residual oil
saturation and macroscopic sweep efficiency improvement
[16–18]. The emulsion and treatment have been widely

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2017.12.033
1226-086X/© 2018 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Z. Wu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61 (2018) 348–355
investigated in transport of viscous oils, but the description of the
percolation law and percolation model of emulsion in porous
media is still based on the bulk viscosity model of Alvardo and
Marsden [19] and filtration model of Soo et al. [20]. Also, the
investigations on emulsions mainly focus on the static evaluation
of several influence factors [21,22], but few reports are involved in
emulsion properties including emulsion generation, emulsion
migration, emulsion type along the distance.
The oil displacement effect of a single anion or nonionic
surfactant is not usually satisfactory in a reservoir with high-
temperature and high salinity [23]. However, the compound
system of anionic–nonionic surfactant is expected to be more
adaptable for complex reservoirs. In this paper, an anionic–
nonionic surfactant that can be regarded as a strong emulsifier or
viscosity reducer (VR) was used for investigation. The VR
performance and emulsion behavior were firstly discussed with
the consideration of multiple influencing factors, such as VR
concentration, salinity, temperature and thermal stability. Then, a
set of single-tube sand pack experiments were performed to
investigate the oil displacement characteristics of steam + VR
injection, the migration principle of emulsions in porous media.
Moreover, a two-dimensional visualized model was adopted to
explain the areal sweep efficiency variation by the addition of VR in
steam. A series of double-tube sand pack experiments were
conducted to study the performance of steam + VR flooding and
enhanced oil recovery in heterogeneous reservoir. On the basis of
these results, a field application was performed in Block Gaoqian 3
in Jinglou oilfield of China. The results of laboratory experiments
and field test showed the feasibility of VR for further enhancing
heavy oil recovery after steam injection.
Experimental
Materials
The fluids used in this set of experiments were deionized water
and brine. The deionized water was used to produce steam and
brine was used to saturate the model. The degassed crude oil from
Jinglou oilfield in Henan, China has a viscosity of 5888 mPa s and a
density of 0.9686 g/cm3 at 30
C. The viscosity–temperature
relationship of the crude oil was shown in Supporting information
Fig. S1. The reservoir salinity varied from 1000 mg/L to 3000 mg/L.
The formation water mainly contains sodium and lacked divalent
ions. The components and property of oil and brine at 30
C were
illustrated in Supporting information Table S1. A kind of anionic–
nonionic surfactant, octylphenol polyoxyethylene ether sulfonate
(OPES), was used for the following study.
The materials used for the preparation of OPES included
octylphenol ethoxylate (OP-10), allyl chloride (C3H5Cl), sodium
hydroxide (NaOH), sodium sulfite (Na2SO3), etc. Alkene addition
reaction [24] was adopted in the preparation process. First,
helogenation reaction took place between OP-10, C3H5Cl and NaOH
to generate allyl derivative, as shown in Eq. (1). Then, the allyl
derivative reacted with NaHSO3 to get OPES, as shown in Eq. (2).
Helogenation reaction:
R  B  OðC2 H4 OÞn H þ ClCH2 CH ¼ CH2 þ NaOH Ca R  B
 OðC2 H4 OÞn CH2 CH ¼ CH2 þ NaCl þ H2 O
Sulfonation reaction:
R  B  OðC2 H4 OÞn CH2 CH ¼ CH2 þ NaHSO3 NaNO3 R  B
 OðC2 H4 OÞn CH2 CHCH2 SO3 Na
 is alkyl; B is benzene.
where R
349
Experimental setup
The experimental section included static experiment and
dynamic experiment. In the static experiments, the viscosity
reduction performance of the VR and the property of emulsion-
phase were tested. During this process, a Brookfield DV II
viscometer was adopted to measure the viscosities of heavy oil
and emulsion at different temperatures (e.g. 30
C, 50
C, 60
C,
70
C, 80
C and 90
C). The high temperature tolerance experi-
ments were performed in a high-temperature-high-pressure
reactor (HTHPR) at 200
C [25]. After thermal degradation for
several days (e.g. 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 days), the VR samples were used to
generate emulsions with crude oil in glass beakers. The interfacial
tension of the emulsions was measured by TX500 interface
tensiometer at 30
C.
In the dynamic experiments, the whole setup could be divided
into three subsystems: fluid-supply system, displacement system
and fluid acquisition system, as shown in Fig. 1. The sand-pack used
in the experiments was 60 cm long with 3.8 cm inner diameter,
which was filled with glass beads of different diameters to form
porous media of different permeabilities. Three pressure taps were
located on the sand-pack to record dynamic variation of pressure
in the displacement processes. A backpressure valve was set at the
outlet of the sand pack to simulate the formation pressure. The
sampling points were equidistantly distributed on the sand pack.
During the experiments, high-temperature steam (from the steam
generator), crude oil (from the oil tank), formation water (from the
water tank), viscosity-reducer solution (from the viscosity-reducer
solution tank) could be injected into the model simultaneously.
The steam injection pipeline was covered with electric heater unit
to maintain the steam temperature. Oil tank, water tank, viscosity-
reducer solution tank, six-way valve, etc. were all mounted in a
thermostat which could maintain temperature during the experi-
ments.
Experimental methods and procedures
Viscosity reducer performance and emulsion-behavior
One of the most important index to evaluate VR performance is
viscosity reduction ratio (VRR), which is calculated by Eq. (3) [21].
The initial heavy oil viscosity was tested with the Brookfield DV II
viscometer. Then, a set of experiments were performed to examine
the effects of salinity, temperature, thermal degradation on VR
performance and emulsion behavior. During the following
discussions, we would take salinity as an example. The prepared
NaHCO3 solutions with salinity varying from 0 to 5000 mg/L were
stored in glass beakers. Then, a certain amount of VR was added to
the NaHCO3 solutions to form VR solution with mass concentration
of 0.5%. Afterwards, heavy oil samples were added to the VR
solutions and the emulsions would be obtained after stirring for
10 min. The oil–water ratio (OWR) was 3:7 and the temperature
was kept at 30
C. The viscosities of the emulsions were measured
by the Brookfield DV II viscometer. The interfacial tension (IFT)
between oil sample and VR solution was measured by a SVT20N
tensionmeter with the range of 1 106 to 2  103 mN/m. Similarly,
the effects of other influencing factors (temperature, and thermal
ð1Þ degradation) on emulsion behaviors could be acquired.
m0  m
VRR ¼  100 ð3Þ
m0
where VRR is the viscosity reduction ratio, %; m0 is the initial
ð2Þ
viscosity of degassed crude oil, mPa s; m is the viscosity of oil-
emulsion, mPa s.
350 Z. Wu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61 (2018) 348–355
Fig. 1. Experimental flow of displacement processes.
Oil displacement property analysis
Oil displacement in single-tube sand pack
In this part, three single-tube sand pack models were designed
to compare the oil displacement properties of different fluids.
Parameters of singular sand-pack experiments were shown in
Table 1. The gas tightness of the sand pack was firstly checked with
high purity nitrogen under 5 MPa for 30 min. Then, the sand pack
was put vertically and brine water was injected to it from the
bottom at the rate of 1 mL/min. When the brine water stably
flowed out from the top, most of the pores were considered to be
saturated with water because of gravity and low injection rate. The
sand pack was set horizontally and brine water was continuously
injected to it until the pressures at the inlet and outlet became
stable. The porosity and permeability could be acquired by the
conservation of mass and Darcy’s law, respectively. Afterwards,
crude oil was injected into the sand pack at the rate of 1 mL/min
until the oil cut at the outlet was 100%. So, the oil saturation and
the initial oil volume were calculated.
During the experiments, different injection fluids, including
pure steam, steam/VR and steam/steam + VR were injected into the
sand pack to research how injection patterns affected the
development effects of heavy oil. The sand pack was firstly
displaced by steam until the water cut of the production liquid
reached 95%. Then, the sand pack was refilled and the other two
fluids were injected into it in sequence in accordance with the
method of steam injection process. Therefore, we could acquire the
oil displacement efficiency of the three injection fluids, respec-
tively. In this part, the thermostat temperature was maintained at
30
C.
Table 1
Parameters of singular sand-pack experiments.
Scheme Injection fluid Physical parameters of sand-pack
Porosity (%)
1 Steam 31.3
2 Steam/VR 29.2
3 Steam/steam + VR 30.6
In-situ emulsification of heavy oil and thermal–chemical system in
porous media
On the basis of the experiments above, it is necessary to
recognize the EOR mechanisms and emulsification principle with
the addition of VR in steam. During the displacement process by
thermal–chemical, heavy oil is easy to be emulsified due to the
natural emulsifiers, such as colloid and asphaltene, as well as the
action of steam. The addition of VR is to transfer the continuous oil
phase with high viscosity and the generated W/O emulsions in
porous media into low-viscosity O/W emulsions [21]. In this part,
the in-situ emulsification principle of heavy oil and thermal–
chemical system in porous media was investigated with the aid of
one-dimensional sand pack model (Fig. 1), data acquisition system
and high-powered microscope. During the displacement process,
the emulsion samples were collected from the four sampling
points. Then, the microscope was used to observe each emulsion
sample and analyze the emulsion diameter. The injection rate of
steam and VR solution was 1 mL/min. The steam temperature was
200
C and the VR concentration was 0.5% by weight.
Oil displacement in heterogeneous model
A heterogeneous sand-packed glass model (16 cm  16 cm  0.1
cm) [26,27] was adopted to explain the sweep characteristic of
chemical agents and to visually observe the generation and
migration of emulsions in porous media. Fig. 2 showed the relevant
setup used in the heterogeneous sand-packed model and Fig.S2
presented the schematic diagram of the sand-packed model. The
model was filled with glass beads with diameter from 0.12 mm to
0.18 mm. The middle area, with a width of 4 cm, had a high
permeability. Both sides of the middle area had a low permeability.
Permeability (D) Oil saturation (%) Injection rate (mL/min)
3.25 80.4 2/–
3.16 83.7 1/1
3.34 84.8 1/1
 Z. Wu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61 (2018) 348–355
Fig. 2. The heterogeneous sand-packed glass model.
The model was firstly saturated with crude oil. After aging for 24 h,
the model was displaced by steam until water cut at the outlet was
100%. Afterwards, the VR solution with salinity of 3000 mg/L was
injected into the model. The steam temperature was 200
C. The
injection rate was 0.1 mL/min. During this process, the residual oil
distribution and the sweep efficiency were recorded by a digital
camera.
Three heterogeneous double-tube sand pack models were
adopted to investigate the performance of steam + VR flooding in
heterogeneous reservoir. The permeabilities of the high-perme-
able tube and low-permeable tube in the three groups of
experiments were 1.03 mm2/0.72 mm2, 2.33 mm2/0.73 mm2 and
3.16 mm2/0.72 mm2 respectively. The permeability contrasts were
1.42, 3.21 and 4.38 respectively. After saturated with crude oil, the
sand packs were displaced by high-temperature steam at the
injection rate of 2 mL/min until the water cut was up to 95%. The
residual oil volume was calculated, as well as the oil recovery of
steam flooding. Then, the steam injection was converted to
steam + VR flooding until the water cut reached 95%. During the
displacement process, the steam temperature was set at 200
C.
The pressure drop variation was recorded and the production
liquid was collected.
Results and discussion
Viscosity reducer performances
Concentration
Fig. 3 showed the influence of VR concentration on the VRR.
Generally speaking, the oil usually forms W/O emulsions when the
oil phase was dominant in the fluid system, while high water–oil
ratio leaded to O/W emulsions [28,29]. So, in the following
experiments, the oil–water ratio (OWR) was selected as 3:7. From
the figure, the viscosity declined dramatically and the VRR
oil viscosity
VRR
6000
4000
2000
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fig. 3. The influence of concentration on VRR.
351
increased rapidly when the VR concentration was lower. When
the VR concentration reached 0.5%, the VRR was about 95% and
kept stable as the VR concentration continued to increase. When
the VR concentration was too small, the O/W emulsion system with
water as the continuous phase was hard to form. As the VR
concentration increased, large quantities of O/W emulsions were
formed, and the viscosity of the system was up to the continuous
water-phase so that the system viscosity declined dramatically
[30]. But with a further increase in VR solution, the IFT became
stable and the system viscosity was still subjected to the
continuous water-phase. As a result, the heavy oil-emulsion
viscosity changed little.
Salinity
The influence of salinity on VRR was presented in Fig. S3. In this
part, the mass concentration of the VR solution was 0.5%, and the
OWR was 3:7. With the increase of salinity, the viscosity reduction
effect of the VR solution became worse. When the salinity was
below 3000 mg/L, the VRR declined slowly, but it was still greater
than 90%. While the salinity was over 3000 mg/L, the VRR
decreased rapidly. The existence of mineral salt usually changed
the environment of emulsions. The excessive anions or cations
might neutralize the electric charges on the interfacial film, which
weakened the repulsion between the emulsion droplets. The
emulsion coalescence became easier, leading to the instability of
emulsions [22].
Temperature
The emulsion viscosity at different temperatures was illustrated
in Fig. 4. The concentration and salinity of the VR solution was 0.5%
and 3000 mg/L. The OWR was 3:7. In this figure, the VR could
effectively facilitate viscosity reduction. Fig. 5 showed the
emulsion-phase behaviors at static state when VR concentration
varied from 0 to 0.5% with salinity of 3000 mg/L and OWR of 3:7 at
200
C. The stratification phenomenon between oil and water was
100
80
60
40
20
Fig. 4. The influence of temperature on viscosity reduction.
352 Z. Wu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61 (2018) 348–355
Fig. 5. Emulsion behavior at different conditions.
obvious at lower temperature (30
C) without the addition of VR
solution because of poor mobility at such a temperature. While
under the high temperature (200
C), the oil mobility increased as a
result of the decrease of viscosity [31,32]. Some crude oil rose
upwards because of lower density than water. But lots of crude oil
still could not be mobilized and no emulsion was generated
because of the lack of VR solution. It was clear that the emulsion
phenomenon was more and more obvious with the increase of VR
concentration. Emulsions that dispersed in water were formed [15]
and more oil was mobilized, which was indicated by the color of
the solutions. The results showed the VR had good temperature-
tolerance property.
Thermal degradation
During the thermal recovery process for heavy oil, viscosity
reducer usually worked at a high temperature environment
because of steam injection, such as cyclic steam stimulation
(CSS) process, steam flooding process, steam assisted gravity
drainage (SAGD) process, etc. Therefore, it was necessary to
evaluate the thermal stability of the viscosity reducer. Fig. S4 and
S5 showed the influence of thermal degradation on VR and VRR
under 200
C. The IFT increased obviously and the VRR decreased
below 50% after degradation for 4 days, which indicated the VR had
a good temperature tolerance.
Oil displacement in single-tube sand packs
Dynamic displacement characteristics of different displacement
patterns
Fig. 6 showed the dynamic displacement characteristics of
steam + VR flooding and VR flooding after steam flooding. In the
initial period of steam flooding, displacement pressure drop
increased rapidly to about 5 MPa and then decreased to 0.96 MPa as
a result of steam breakthrough [33]. After 1.5 PV of steam injection,
the pressure drop tended to be stable and became to about 0.6 MPa.
The oil recovery of steam flooding was about 51%. During the VR
flooding process, the VR flooding contributed extra 3.6% oil
recovery on the basis of steam flooding. Slight increase of pressure
drop indicated the formation of oil/water (O/W) emulsions [21].
However, the heavy oil viscosity would not be decreased greatly
without the supplement of heat. The large fluidity between oil (O/
W emulsions) and water leaded to the limited increase in oil
production and pressure drop. As to the following steam + VR
flooding, with the injection of 2.1 PV steam + VR, the oil recovery
oil recovery-steam+VR
oil recovery-VR steam+VR
5
pressure dop-steam+VR
60 pressure drop-VR
4
VR
40 3
steam
2
20
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fig. 6. Oil recovery vs. injected PV.
increased 11.7% and there was an obvious increase in pressure
drop. As the steam/VR was further injected, more crude oil was
mobilized and more emulsions were generated under the
synergistic effect of high-temperature steam and VR solution.
The oil recovery variation was similar to that reported by Ko et al.
[9] and Saha et al. [34] and the fluctuation of pressure drop
indicated the generation and migration of emulsions in porous
media [21,35].
Emulsion distribution along the sandpack
Fig. 7 showed the microscopic images of emulsions at each
sampling point under 1.0 PV injection of thermal–chemical fluid. It
could be seen that the emulsions were intensive and the emulsion
size was smaller (Fig. 7a) near the inlet. With the increase of
migration distance, the emulsions became dispersedly and the
emulsion size became bigger (Fig. 7b and c). The emulsions became
more dispersedly at the outlet (Fig. 7d), while the emulsion size
declined gradually. This was because with the injection of
thermal–chemical fluid, plenty of small emulsions generated near
the inlet. The emulsions were newly formed, so that they were
relatively smaller and not very stable. As the thermal–chemical
fluid was injected continuously, some emulsions coalesced into
bigger emulsions and with the further migration of emulsions in
the porous media, the emulsion size became small due to the
enhancement of shear action [36]. On the other hand, emulsions
with small size often presented stronger stability [37].
Furthermore, Fig. S6 showed the emulsion diameter variation
during the injection process. When the injected volume was 0.5 PV
and 1 PV, the wave crests of the emulsion diameter curves moved
right forward first, and then move left forward as the migration
distance increased (Fig. S6a and S6c). That meant the number of
bigger emulsions increased first and then decreased. Fig. S6b and
S6d also suggested that the average emulsion diameters at
sampling points 2 and 3 were maximum, where that at sampling
points 1 and 4 were relatively smaller. The result was consistent
with the images presented in Fig. 7. When the volumes of the
injected fluid reached 1.5 PV, the variation curves of the emulsion
diameter became similar to each other, which illustrated more
intuitively that the emulsions became more and more stable after
migration for a long time [37,38].
Oil displacement property in heterogeneous reservoir
Oil displacement in a 2D visualized sand pack model
Fig. 8 showed the sweep efficiency variation in a heterogeneous
sand-packed glass. In Fig. 8a and b, the injected steam mainly went
through the high-permeability area. But because of the high
viscosity difference between oil and water, typical viscous
 Z. Wu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61 (2018) 348–355 353

Fig. 7. Microscopic images of emulsions at each sampling point under 1 PV injection (200).

Fig. 8. Sweep variation in the glass model.

fingering appeared in the swept area [27]. Even in the high-
permeability area, the steam sweep efficiency was still limited. The
sweep efficiency of the low-permeability area was relatively lower
and large quantities of remaining oil were left behind. Fig. 8c
presented the steam + VR injection process. The fluid preferred to
the preponderance paths generated by the previous steam
flooding. With the constant injection of steam + VR, a lot of
remaining oil were displaced out of the model and the sweep area
gradually expanded. The visualized displacement process indicat-
ed that the thermal chemical flooding could effectively improve
sweep efficiency [39].
Fig. 9a showed the migration and blocking of emulsion in
porous media, while Fig. 9b illustrated the microscopic image of
emulsions with different sizes in produced liquid. In a reservoir,
when emulsions with bigger size migrated to the narrow throat,
the emulsion front will deformed and blocked the throat because
of Jamin effect [40–42]. The temporary plugging function of
emulsions would divert the following steam to the smaller pores
and throats and displace the remaining oil. In general, emulsions
with large sizes would deform and easily collapsed so that such
emulsions could only temporarily plug the high-permeability zone
[43]. The emulsion plugging effect mainly relied on the accumula-
tion of emulsions. Emulsions assembled at the entrance of the
throats, so that a great additional resistance would be created as a
result of the superposition of Jamin effect, which made up the
resistance reduction caused by emulsion deformation and
collapse. As a result, the flow resistance of the high-permeability
zone was increased, and the emulsions of small size and the
continuous-phase fluid flowed to the area with lower permeability,
leading to an improvement in sweep efficiency and oil recovery
[44].
Oil displacement in heterogeneous double-tube sand packs
Fig. 10 presented the shunt rates [45] in heterogeneous models
during the displacement process. It was shown that with the
increase of permeability contrast, the fluid production in the high-
permeability tube gradually increased during the steam flooding
process, while that in the low-permeability-tube decreased.
Correspondingly, in the initial period of steam + VR flooding, the
shunt rate varied more sharply as permeability contrast increased.
For permeability contrast was 1.42, 3.21 and 4.38, the shunt rate
improvement in low-permeability tube was 7.75%, 11.62% and

Fig. 9. (a) Emulsion migration and emulsion blocking in porous media. (b) Microscopic image of emulsions in the effluent.
354 Z. Wu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61 (2018) 348–355

Fig. 10. Fluid production proportion in sand packs with permeability contrast of (a) 1.42, (b) 3.21 and (c) 4.38.

15.36%, respectively. The results indicate that profile control in

heterogeneous reservoir can be achieved by emulsions. In high-
permeability tubes, larger emulsions are easily formed because of
emulsion coalescence during emulsions migrate in porous media.
An additional resistance will be created when emulsions pass the
throats by deformation [42,43]. While in low-permeability tube,
there are more small emulsions generated under the shear action
because of smaller pores and throats. Therefore, larger emulsions
migrate in high-permeability formation, resulting in an increase in
displacement pressure. As a result, the displacement fluid is forced
to the low-permeability area to displace the remaining oil.
Table S2 presented the enhanced oil recovery of steam + VR
flooding in heterogeneous double-tube sand pack models. The oil
recovery of steam flooding was 36.92–41.34%, and the enhanced oil Fig. 11. Steam absorption profile comparison of well LGQ3.
recovery of chemical flooding was 10.33–11.59%. The oil recovery of
steam flooding decreased and the enhanced oil recovery of
chemical flooding increased as the permeability increased. The
enhanced oil recovery mainly came from the low-permeability
tube. The result indicates that the injection of VR solution has the
effect of profile control and can improve oil recovery.

Field application

Block Gaoqian 3 lies in the northwest of Jinlou oilfield in Henan

Province of China. The oil-bearing area is 1.06 km2 and the
geological reserves are 96  104 t. The reservoir buried depth is
167–325 m and the viscosity of degassed crude oil at reservoir
temperature is 5600–60,000 mPa s, indicating it is a typical
shallow heavy oil reservoir. The initial reservoir temperature is
26
C, and the pressure is 2.4 MPa. The vertical heterogeneity is
obvious. Up to February 2012, there are 40 oil wells in the block, the
total water cut is 74%, the oil recovery is 15.37%, and the OSR is 0.3.
Most of the production wells have experienced steam injection for
more than 15 years. The interlayer interference is prominent and
the development effect becomes worse. Therefore, it is of
significance to take measures to improve steam injection efficiency
and enhance oil recovery.
The target layer was layer IV which contained three sublayers,
namely No. IVs1, No. IVs2, and No. IVs3. Based on the core analysis
and sampling analysis, the average permeability of the three
sublayers is 3.23 mm2, 2.65 mm2 and 2.17 mm2, and the average
salinity of the formation water was about 3000 mg/L. Some large
channels might exist in layer IVs1. In February 2012, the coinjection
of VR solution with concentration of 0.5% and steam was applied in
six wells to assist steam injection. The stimulation induced 887 t
increment of oil production. The average OSR increased from 0.25
to 0.34. Take the typical well LGQ3 for example, the steam
adsorption profile of well LGQ3 became even relatively (as shown
in Fig. 11), indicating that the steam adsorption profile was
improved effectively and reservoir would be developed better. The
Fig. 12. Production performance of well LGQ3 and well L946.
cumulative oil production increased 382 t and the OSR increased
from 0.28 to 0.46 in the steam + VR period for well LGQ3. In
addition, the oil production of well LGQ3 after steam + VR injection
was compared with that of well L946 which had the similar
production characteristics with well LGQ3 during the steam
injection process and still experienced steam injection from
February 2012, as shown in Fig. 12. It was noticeable that compared
with well L946, the production time and oil production of well
LGQ3 were both increased significantly after the coinjection of
steam and VR. The results were satisfying and indicate that
steam + VR is an effective alternative for steam injection to develop
heavy oil reservoirs.
Conclusion
In this study, a set of experiments were performed to evaluate
the VR performance and investigate the effects of multiple factors
on emulsion behavior, as well as the oil displacement
 Z. Wu et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 61 (2018) 348–355
characteristics during the steam + VR injection process. Based on
the experimental results, several conclusions were listed as
follows:
(1) The VRR increased gradually with the increase of VR
concentration. Nevertheless, the VRR variation was not obvious
as the VR concentration is over 0.5%. The VR had good thermal
stability and high tolerance to salinity as the salinity varied
from 0 to 3000 mg/L. Therefore, the VR could be accompanied
with steam for the development of heavy oil.
(2) The VR also could facilitate oil production in heterogeneous
reservoir. One of the important mechanisms was that the high-
temperature steam reduced oil viscosity and increased oil
mobility, while VR dispersed the heated heavy oil and
promoted the generation of oil-in-water emulsions. The
emulsions temporarily plugged the high-permeability area,
thus improving steam adsorption profile and sweep efficiency.
(3) The field application in Gaoqian 3 block of Jinlou oilfield
showed that the coinjection of viscosity reducer and steam
could improve steam adsorption profile, thus improving OSR
and oil recovery. However, some important practical issues
should be noted, such as the treatment of the produced liquid,
which will be discussed in the following work.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51274212 and 51474226),
National Program on Key Basic Research Project (No.
2015CB250906), and Important National Science & Technology
Specific Projects (2016ZX05047004001).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2017.12.033.
References
[1] H. Gu, L. Cheng, S. Huang, B. Bo, Y. Zhou, Z. Xu, Energy Convers. Manage. 99 (12)
(2015) 119.
[2] Z.B. Wu, H.Q. Liu, X. Wang, Energy Fuel (2017), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
acs.energyfuels.7b03081.
[3] D. Zhao, J. Wang, I.D. Gates, Fuel 112 (2013) 50.
[4] Z.B. Wu, H.Q. Liu, X. Wang, J. Energy Resour.—ASM (2017), doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jiec.2017.12.033.
[5] A. Wilson, JPT 67 (6) (2015) 111.
[6] M.M. Yegane, S. Ayatollahi, F. Bashtani, C. Romero, Solar generated steam
injection in Hamca, Venezuelan extra heavy oil reservoir; simulation study for
oil recovery performance, economical and environmental feasibilities,
Proceedings of the SPE EUROPEC, Madrid, Spain, June 1–4, 2015.
355
[7] D. Palmer, J. O’Donnell, Construction operations and performance of the first
enclosed trough solar steam generation pilot for EOR applications, Proceedings
of the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman, March 31–
April 2, 2014.
[8] A.P. Heel, J.N. Wunnik, S. Bentouati, R. Terres, The impact of daily and seasonal
cycles in solar-generated steam on oil recovery, Proceedings of the SPE EOR
Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman, April 11–13, 2010.
[9] K.M. Ko, H.C. Bo, S.B. Jang, H.Y. Jang, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 20 (1) (2014) 228.
[10] S. Park, E.S. Lee, W.R.W. Sulaiman, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 21 (2015) 1239.
[11] E.E. Isaacs, D.R. Prowse, J.P. Rankin, J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 21 (3) (1982) 33.
[12] X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Q. Yue, et al., J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 48 (9) (2009) 16.
[13] P. Srivastava, L.U. Castro, Successful field application of surfactant additives to
enhance thermal recovery of heavy oil, Proceedings of the SPE Middle East Oil
and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, September 25–28, 2011.
[14] G. Alvarez, S. Poteau, J.F. Argillier, D. Langevin, J.L. Salager, Energy Fuels 23 (1)
(2008) 294.
[15] C.C. Ezeuko, J. Wang, I.D. Gates, SPE J. 18 (3) (2013) 440.
[16] V.R. Guillen, M.S. Carvalho, V. Alvarado, Transp. Porous Media 94 (1) (2012)
197.
[17] Z. Li, T. Lu, L. Tao, et al., Petrol. Explor. Dev. 38 (5) (2011) 600.
[18] R. De Farias, M. Leopoldino, M.D.S. Carvalho, et al., A comparative study of
emulsion flooding and other IOR methods for heavy oil fields, Proceedings of
the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Mexico City, Mexico, April 16–18, 2012.
[19] D.A. Alvarado, S.S. Marsden, SPE J. 19 (6) (1979) 369.
[20] H. Soo, M.C. Williams, C.J. Radke, Chem. Eng. Sci. 41 (2) (1986) 273.
[21] C. Lu, H.Q. Liu, W. Zhao, et al., SPE J. 22 (1) (2017) 1.
[22] M. Al-Yaari, I.A. Hussein, A. Al-Sarkhi, M. Abbad, F. Chang, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.
64 (2015) 54.
[23] F.Y. Jin, S. Wang, W.F. Pu, C.D. Yuan, L. Wang, K.X. Li, C. Gong, J. Ind. Eng. Chem.
39 (2016) 153.
[24] P. Peng, Chem. Ind. Press 4 (1) (2003) 45.
[25] T. Zhou, L. Cheng, C. Li, et al., J. Southwest Petrol. Univ. 31 (6) (2009) 89 (in
Chinese with abstract in English).
[26] Z. Wu, H. Liu, Z. Pang, Y. Wu, X. Wang, D. Liu, M. Gao, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 147
(2016) 361.
[27] Z. Wu, H. Liu, Z. Pang, C. Wu, M. Gao, Energy Fuels 30 (11) (2016) 9106.
[28] J.L. Bryan, A.T. Mai, A. Kantzas, Investigation into the processes responsible for
heavy oil recovery by alkali-surfactant flooding, Proceedings of the SPE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 20–23, 2008.
[29] R. Kumar, E.K. Dao, K.K. Mohanty, Emulsion flooding of heavy oil, Proceedings
of the SPE Improved oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 24–28,
2010.
[30] S. Kumar, V. Mahto, Energy Fuels 31 (2017) 12010.
[31] N. You, S. Yoon, C.W. Lee, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 18 (6) (2012) 2051.
[32] Y.B. Li, Y.F. Chen, W.F. Pu, H. Dong, H. Gao, F.Y. Jin, B. Wei, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 48
(2017) 249.
[33] E. Esmaeilnezhad, S. Le Van, B.H. Chon, H.J. Choi, M. Schaffie, M. Gholizadeh, M.
Ranjbar, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 58 (2018) 319.
[34] R. Saha, R.V. Uppaluri, P. Tiwari, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2017), doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jiec.2017.10.034.
[35] M. Moradi, M. Kazempour, J.T. French, V. Alvarado, Fuel 135 (2014) 38.
[36] J. Wang, H. Liu, Z. Ning, H. Zhang, Energy Fuels 26 (8) (2012) 5152.
[37] K. Nomura, H. Kumano, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 116 (2018) 1026.
[38] S.M. Neumann, N. Wittstock, U.S. van der Schaaf, H.P. Karbstein, Colloid Surf. A
537 (2018) 524.
[39] M.S. Carvalho, V. Alvarado, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 119 (2014) 112.
[40] X. Zhou, M. Dong, B. Maini, Fuel 108 (2013) 261.
[41] H. Pei, G. Zhang, J. Ge, L. Jin, X. Liu, Energy Fuels 25 (2011) 4423.
[42] H. Zhang, G. Chen, M. Dong, S. Zhao, Z. Liang, Energy Fuels 30 (5) (2016) 3860.
[43] Y.Z. Zhou, D.M. Wang, Z.P. Wang, R. Cao, Petrol. Explor. Dev. 44 (1) (2017) 111.
[44] H. Pei, G. Zhang, J. Ge, M. Tang, Y. Zheng, Energy Fuels 26 (5) (2012) 2911.
[45] C. Yao, G. Lei, L. Li, et al., Energy Fuels 26 (8) (2012) 5092.