CA1117410A - Biopolymer filterability improvement by caustic-enzyme treatment - Google Patents

Abstract

Abstract of the Disclosure In an enhanced recovery process involving flooding of subterranean formations with aqueous mixtures of biopolymers, filterability of the biopolymer is synergistically enhanced by treatment with ESPERASE? enzyme at a pH range of 12.5 to 13Ø The range is narrow and exclusive since pHs as high as 12.1 give poor results. The biopolymer can be any one containing debris which must be reduced by the enzyme.

Description

BIOPOLYMER FILTERABILITY^IMPROVEMENT
This invention relates to an enhanced recovery process involving flooding of aqueous mixtures of biopolymers into a subterranean formation to recover hydrocarbons there~rom. More specifically this invention deals with a method for improving the filterability of the biopolymer prior to injection into the subterranean formation by treat-ment with a specific enzyme at a pH range of 12.5 to 13Ø
It has been found that biopolysaccharide, a biologically derived polymer, in water solution has excellent low mobility properties which make it desirable for a drive fluid to push enhanced recovery chemical banks through subterranean formations containing hydrocarbons to enhance recovery. The polymer prevents fingering or channeling of water through the chemically enhanced recovery bank thereby greatly increasing hydrocarbon recovery from the formation.
Polysaccharides are frequently referred to as xanthum gums and are sold by various companies such as the Kelco Company, subsidiary of Merck Inc., General Foods, and others.
However, while a biopolysaccharide polymer is highly desirable from a hydrocarbon recovery standpoint, the biopolysaccharide polymer causes considerable operating problems in actual practice. Initially, the polymer must be filtered in order to be in condition for injection into the formation. Filtration removes gels and solid debris from the polymer solution. If filtration is not carried out prior to injection, the large amounts of fluid moving through a limited face of the formation quickly clogs the formation pores, much as a filter is clogged when removing debris from a fluid. At this point the well is unuseable and must be refractured, redrilled, or treated with acid or other treatment well known to the art.
Typically, attempts to filter the xanthum gum resulted in quickly blocking off flow through the filter used. Difficulty in filtering causes operating problems, particularly if filtration cannot keep up with the injection ~117fll~

rate which in many actual field formations is quite high.
In addition, with the frequent backwash required, a great deal of the o~erator's time is devoted to backwashing and repairing the filter, all of which greatly increases cost of operation. This is true even when diatomaceous earth filters are used, which are more efficient in this operation than most filters.
It would therefore be desirable to provide a method for increasing the filterability of the biopoly-saccharide polymers used in enhanced recovery processes involving flooding subterranean formations to remove hydro-carbons therefrom.
It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide an enhanced recovery process involving flooding of aqueous mixtures of biopolymers whereby the filterability of the biopolymer is synergistically enhanced. Other objects will become apparent to those skilled in this art as the description proceeds.
It has now been discovered according to the present invention that when an excess of caustic is added at levels well above the levels normally recommended for use with an enzyme specified for use in basic solutions, beneficial synergistic effects result from the higher pH, whereby the caustic or enzyme or both are more effective in destroying proteinaceous debris residual which is in the polymer from the fermentation process, thereby greatly reducing or eliminating the need for conditioning by filtration.
The discovery of the instant invention was made through the use of defective equi~ment. A sample of ESPER~Sh~
(trademark of and sold by NOVO Terapeutisk Laboratorium A.S., hereinafter NOVO) was found to effect an improvement in softened brine at pH 12.1, but not an unsoftened brine at 12.1. This was surprising, as the producer had not recom-mended useage at pH above 11. Thus the synergistic effect appeared to have occurred. When the samples were rechecked it was found that due to a malfunctioning electrode the softened brine was actually at pH 12.75 while the unsoftened 1117'1~
3_ was at p~l 12.1. Subse~uent studies found that the high pH of 12.75 was re~uired for effective results. The pH
and not the hardness was the important variable.
The ~rior art has prevlously recogniæed the use of enzymes and caustic solutions. The brochure from Novo Enzymes discloses that ESPER~S ~ enzyme, useful in the instant invention, is a proteolytic enzyme preparation obtained from a strain of bacillus. ESPERASE~ enzyme is disclosed to hydrolyze all proteinaceous substances normally encountered in laundry. This enzyme is more completely described with reference to U.S. Patents 3,723,250 and 3,674,643.
Society of Professional Engineers (SPE) paper 5372 discloses that treatment of xantham gum biopolymers with certain enzymes breaks down cell debris and improves injectivity. This reference discloses pH ranges of 6 to 11 with an optimum of 8-10. Society of Professional Engineers (~PE) paper 5099 discloses that injectivity problems with xantham yums are believed -to be due to cell residue or microgels. Clarification of the biopolymer solutions is disclosed to be affectea by the use of alkylene protease enzymes such as ALKALAS ~ (trademark of and sold by NOVO)-or MAXAZYM ~ (trademark of and sold by Enzyme Industries).
U.S. Patent 4,010,071 discloses that aqueous suspension of xanthum gums are clarified by treatment with protease enzyme such as the alkaline protease produced by ~ bacillus microorganisms. A problem aggravated by degra-; dation of cellular residue is plugging of oil well flooding operations. PH levels for use of the enzymes is disclosed to be in the range of 7 to 12. Example 14 discloses the use of ESPERASE~ alkaline protease enzyme produced by Novo Industries, subject of the instant application, to clearify xanthum gum solution. Other similar enzymes are disclosed.
The publication Maxitase of the Royal Netherlands Fermentation Industry is limited, disclosing an activity range of pH 7 to 11 for MAXITASh~ proteolytic enzyme.

U.S. Patent 3,622,458 discloses an alkaline protease derived from a bacillus microbe having declining activity to p~ls as high as 12.7.
~lowever, none of these references have taught or disclosed the enllanced results found in the synergistic interaction of a ~articular enzyme sold under the tradename ~SPERASE~ by Novo Enzyme Corporation. The manufacturer in commercial brochures recommends a pH range of between 8 and 12 for this material. Early studies indicated that the material was ineffective at pHs of 12.1 yet surprisingly became highly active at pH 12.5 and continued to be highly active through a pll of 13Ø
Thus the instant invention relates to an improved hydrocarbon recovery process wherein subterranean petro-liferous formations are flooded with aqueous mixtures of biopolymers to increase hydrocarbon recovery, said biopolymer being treated with bacillus produced enzyme, tradenamed ESPERAS~, to solubilize cell debris prior to filtration, the improvement comprising treating the polymer prior to filtration and use in a petroliferous formation with ESPERAS
enzyme at a pH of 12.5 to 13.0 to improve filterability, then filtering prior to use if necessary.
The method for obtaining the caustic solution can be by any means well known in -the art, such as by the addition of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and so forth.
Normally the treatment is carried out at a temperature of from about 76F to about 120F but most preferred is at a temperature of from about 100F to about 120F. The enzyme is normally added to the biopolymer at levels of from about

2 1/2% to about 10% by weight based upon the weight of the biopolymer. Additions of enzyme above levels effective to decrease the proteinaceous material contained in the polymer are wasteful and no additional benefit is seen.
Filtration following the treatment of the enzyme may or may not be necessary depending upon the particular formation and the particular starting biopolymer chosen.
However, in most cases some filtration will be necessary, 1~17~1~

but filter plugging will be ~reatly reduced because of the decrease of debris in the biopolymer because of the treatment o~ the instant invention. Such filtration can be by any method well known to those skilled in the art but normally will be by methods such as diatomaceous earth ~DE) filters.
The invention is more concretely described with reference to the examples below wherein all parts and per-centages are by weight unless otherwise specified. The examples are illustrative of the instant invention and do not limit it.
Biopolymers used were Xanflood, Spec 12 and SS
4000 all trademarks of and sold by the Kelco Company, subsidiaries of Merck, Inc. Comparative filtration tests were carried out using distilled water, synthetic soft Sundance brine (SSD) at aboutO.4 weight percent total salts and SSD enriched to 1 weight percent total salts with sodium chloride (SSD~ ). The preceeding waters were adjusted to tl~e appropriate pH with sodium hydroxide for use as polymer hydration brines. Hydration brine was preheated to 110F before the enzyme and polymer were added. The dry enzyme as received from the manufacturer was added to the hydration brine ahead of the ~olymer at 5% of the polymer weight. Half of the polymer concentrate was sheared imme-diately through a spray nozzle (3 times) at a pressure drop of 500 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) per pass. The sheared and unsheared polymer concentrate samples were then aged for 4 hours in a constant temperature bath of 110F.
All samples were so aged.
Dilute part per million solutions were made with enriched Sundance brine (SSD~ ) at a pH of 12.1 to simulate field dilution brine. These dilute samples were evaluated for filterability using standard laboratory test procedures with 0.8 micron Millipore~, filters (trademark of Millipore Corp) and diatomaceous earth. Viscosities were measured before and after filtration with a Brookfield Underwriter's Laboratory adaptor viscometer at a spindle speed of 30 rpm and a temperature of 115F.

11174~0 I~he ra-tio of the time necessary for the last 50 milliliters ~mls) of 500 ml to flow through a filter at constant pressure relative to the time for the first 50 mls t:o flow provides a convenient qualitative measure of the ease with which a solution can be filtered and its tendency for plugying. Normal criteria for fluids flow ratio, that is the time for the last 50 of 500 mls throughput relative to the first 50 ml be no greater than 2Ø A filter is defined as plugged when a time of more than 200 seconds is required to flow an increment of 50 ml. Various tests were carried out using for hydration distilled water or di-gested Sundance brine at room temperature pHs ranging from 12.1 to 13, both with and without enzyme addition, and with and without shearing the concentrated slurry. The results are shown in Table 1.

J I , ,) ~ ., ~ 10 ~1 _~ ~, v) -r ol o ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~
,~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ O ~ ~ ~ O
~4 .
o ~;!" . o ~ u u~ U~ [~ D ~ O ~ O
O ~ I ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~
u~ o E3 ~ U~
,_1 ~ ~r :E~ 3 O
~ O U~
ul _~ ~ o I o (~ o o o a~
I
o a ~ ~ ~r ~ o o~ oo ~ ct) ~ o~
u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~r ~1 ~ O ~ ~
V~ ~1 ~ ~ N N ~ f~l 1'1 1~1 N ('`I t~l N N
~1 ~ .,1 E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,1 ,1 ,1 ~ O O
:~: ~ . o ~ ~ a- n ,~ ~ .n ~n ul ~ O ul ~r N _I (D I _I ar, r-l N ~ t~l z ,/ u~ O ~ I` t~ ~ O ~r o u~
~ .,11 Il) 6~J ~) ~ ~2) r-l r~l N ~1 ~!2) (:~ ') ~1 ~ ~ S~ ~
C~ ,~
a~ 3 O U~
U~ .O 11~ _( (N N _I ~I Ci~ ~ O Cl~ ~J O 6 m :~ ,, I ~ ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ~ , o E~
O a~
O 0/ 0 N CO ~ 00 ~r CO
~; ~ ~ O. ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~1 ~ ,1 ~-~ O
æ Q ~ ~ ~ N ~`J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`J, N ~`I
~n o a~ o ~ o a) o ~ o ~ o o z ~ æ ~ æ ~ æ ~ æ ~. æ
C) U~
a~
a) ~ o o ~ o o a N Z æ ~ æ z m c~
~ ~1 ~1 ~1 U~ o o ~
a 3~
O ~ N (~1 N
~) Q~
Il] :>1 5'~ h ~1 ~a~
.,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) 5~ .~~3: 3 ~ 3 U~ J- ~) ~1 ~) rl U) U~ D) U~ Q ~ ~ Q C~ Ul ~0 1 ~I N ~1 ~ Ll~ C~ O r~l N

1~17410 In all cases the enzyme used was ESPERASE P~.
Caustic enzyme diatomaceous earth precoat tests were then carried out on four additional samples showing flow time througll diatomaceous earth precoats containing no body feed at a pressure differential of 10 pounds per square inch.
Example 15 shows as pluyged since more than 200 seconds were required to flow 50 ml. Results are shown in Table II.

Table II
CAUSTIC-ENZYME D.E. PRECOAT TESTS
... . ..
500 ppm Polyme Solutions Flow l'ime Through Test Polymer Hydration Dilution D.E. Precoat*, sec.
- Brine Enzyme Sheared Brine _ 0-50 ~ls 950-lOOOmls 13 SSD-~1%, pH 12.8 Yes Yes SSD~1%, 12.1 11 16 14 SSD-~%, pH 12.8 Yes Yes SSD-~1%, 12.1 10 15 15 SSD-~%, pH 12.1 No Yes SSD-~1%, 12.1 11 P @ 900 mls 16 SSD~ , pH 12.1 No Yes SSD-t1%, 12.1 12 113 Table III shows the effect of enzyme concentration on Kelco's Xanflood ~ polymer with ESPERAS ~ enzyme at a pH of 12.8. The diatomaceous earth filtration was made on a precoat only with no body feed. Filtrations were carried out at room temperature with a pressure differential of 10 pounds per square inch gauge. Viscosities were determined at 115F and 30 rpm as previously described.

'!~ ~j v ro (I) O Il~

3--1 ~r ('~
O
~ ~ H 1~1 r-~
O ~ C~
~) ~0 aJ I O
~I) O O U~ U''\ ~D U') ~ CO
In O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J
~ E~ r-1 ~a 3 o ~1 O u~ ~1a~ r--l r~-l r~l r~l ~_J I ~ r l r-l r-l r-l ~ O

Z $-1 ~ N
ra ~
H a) ~~~
E~ ~ .,~
~n Z o . ~
H Z ~1) O r` ~ CO 1-- ~D
H O ~1 3 -1 U~ D Ll~
H U O O
~ ~1 la ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~
I L~ ~ r I ~
Z ~ I o u~
~ tU 1-~ 0 ~1 r~
O o~ .
c~ o 3 o u) 1~ r-¦ U~ ~1 cn CO 00 a~ a~
~4 li4 0 ~r _S (D ~ r-¦ ~
~- a) u, . ~I
rt a ~
ra ~ u~
a~
a) ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ u~
~ .
~ a) r-l ~ O
O ~ O In U~
~) ~ ~
~ 3 o o o o o ~
o o O o o ~1 ~ o o o o o o ~
1~ Ql 11~ L~ 111 Ir) Lr) 41~

Thus it can be seen that the sensitivity of the enzyme treatment shows little difference based on enzyme concentrations so long as other factors are the same.
Marginally better results were obtained when polymer was S hydrated to a concentration of 5,000 parts per million rather than 10,000 parts per million. Decreasing the enzyme concentration from 5 to 3.3 weight percent of the polymer weight or increasing it to 10 weight percent had no sig-nificant effect on the filterability. Increasing the age time at llO~F of a 5,000 ppm polymer concentrate with 250 ppm enzyme from 4 to 24 hours had little effect. All the data shows that a pH of 12.5 to 13.0 in the hydration brine was required for ~he enzyme to be effective. A lower pH of 12.1 with enzyme or a high pH of 12.8 without enzyme was not effective. Test 3 of Table I did not plug filters, but had a very low flow rate compared to the instant method.
PH ranges between 12.5 and 13 also show low flow rates.
Softening both the hydration and dilution brines could assist in the destruction of the ~roteinaceous material. In addition, filterability can be improved by surfactant addition. Improved polymer hydration may enhance the effectiveness of the enzyme treatment. Therefore, the addition of surfactant to a high caustic enzyme hydration brine or to hydration brine with just enzyme will also be beneficial.
While certain embodiments and details have been shown for the purpose of illustra*ing this invention, it will be apparent to those skilled in this art that various changes and modifications may be made herein without departing from the spirit or the scope of the invention.

Claims (4)

THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION IN WHICH AN EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OR PRIVILEGE IS CLAIMED ARE DEFINED AS
FOLLOWS:

1. In an improved hydrocarbon recovery process wherein subterranean petroliferous formations are flooded with aqueous mixtures of biopolymers to increase hydrocarbon recovery, said polymer being treated with enzymes to solubilize cell debris prior to filtration, the improvement comprising treating the polymer, prior to filtration in use in a petroliferous formation with a specific bacillis enzyme at a pH of 12.5 to 13.0 to improve filterability, then filtering prior to use.

2. A method as described in Claim 1 wherein the enzyme treatment at a pH of 12.5 to 13.0 is carried out at a temperature of from about 75°F to about 120°F.

3. A method as described in Claim 2 wherein the enzyme is added to the biopolymer at a concentration of from about 2 1/2 percent to about 10 percent by weight.

4. A method as described in Claim 3 wherein the filtration prior to injection is done using diatomaceous earth filters.