Figure 1: Dried hydrogels utilized as PPG in this study
Function |
Monomers |
Crosslinker |
Mechanical strength enhancement |
TSA |
Initiator |
Catalyst |
||
Material |
AM |
VP |
AMPSNa |
MBA |
SM |
TSA |
APS |
TEMED |
Wt % |
5.6 |
9.0 |
12.9 |
0.57 |
1.77 |
0.10 |
0.10 |
0.05 |
Table 1: Materials utilized to synthesize PPGs
Slim tube No. |
Porosity |
Permeability (md) |
Pore volume (mL) |
1 |
40.05 |
27.1 |
7.82 |
2 |
40.1 |
27 |
7.87 |
3 |
40.07 |
27 |
7.85 |
Table 2: Characteristics of slim tubes used for nano-sized PPG injection
Tube No. |
q (mL/min) |
|
|
|
RF |
RRF |
Kresidual (md) |
1 |
0.05 |
58 |
440 |
131 |
7.586 |
2.258 |
11.95 |
2 |
0.07 |
81 |
584 |
180 |
7.209 |
2.222 |
12.15 |
3 |
0.1 |
117 |
820 |
259 |
7.008 |
2.205 |
12.19 |
Table 3: Data obtained from the PPG flooding process of slim tubes
Tube No. |
Ki |
q (mL/min) |
|
|
|
RF |
RRF |
Kresidual (md) |
4 |
27.1 |
0.05 |
56 |
3574 |
995 |
63.82 |
17.76 |
1.52 |
5 |
26.95 |
0.07 |
85 |
3902 |
1023 |
45.9 |
12.03 |
2.23 |
6 |
27 |
0.1 |
112 |
4442 |
1299 |
39.66 |
11.59 |
2.32 |
Table 4: Results obtained from micro-sized PPG injection
Slim tube No. |
Porosity |
Permeability (md) |
Pore volume (mL) |
7 |
40 |
27 |
7.81 |
8 |
40 |
27.1 |
7.81 |
9 |
39.8 |
27 |
7.77 |
Table 5: characteristics of constructed slim tubes utilized in this experiment
Tube No. |
q (mL/min) |
|
|
|
|
RF |
RRF |
Kr (md) |
7 |
0.05 |
60 |
444 |
5898 |
2018 |
98.3 |
33.63 |
0.8 |
8 |
0.07 |
84 |
587 |
6271 |
2375 |
74.65 |
28.27 |
0.95 |
9 |
0.1 |
120 |
827 |
6799 |
2756 |
56.65 |
22.96 |
1.17 |
Table 6: PPG injection parameters obtained from hybrid sized PPG injection process
Figure 1: Dried hydrogels utilized as PPG in this study
Figure 2: Experimental set-up utilized in this study
Figure 3: The size distribution of nano-sized PPG in brine sample after stirring for 24h
Figure 4: Pressure drop data versus injected PPG PV in various flow rates
Figure 5: micro-sized PPG injection pressure versus injected PV in various flow rates
Tables at a glance
Figures at a glance