cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Wulandari
Contact Email
jurnal.lemigas@esdm.go.id
Phone
+6221-7394422
Journal Mail Official
jurnal.lemigas@esdm.go.id
Editorial Address
Jl. Ciledug Raya Kav. 109, Cipulir, Kebayoran Lama, Jakarta Selatan 12230
Location
Kota adm. jakarta selatan,
Dki jakarta
INDONESIA
Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas
Published by LEMIGAS
ISSN : 20893361     EISSN : 25410520     DOI : -
Core Subject : Science, Engineering,
Chemical Engineering, Chemistry & Bioengineering Energy
The Scientific Contributions for Oil and Gas is the official journal of the Testing Center for Oil and Gas LEMIGAS for the dissemination of information on research activities, technology engineering development and laboratory testing in the oil and gas field. Manuscripts in English are accepted from all in any institutions, college and industry oil and gas throughout the country and overseas.
Arjuna Subject : Energi (semua kategori) - Teknologi Bahan Bakar
Articles 5 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol 45 No 2 (2022)" : 5 Documents clear
Investigation of Polymer Flood Performance in Light Oil Reservoir: Laboratory Case Study Dadan DSM Saputra; Bayu D Prasetiyo; Hestuti Eni; Yudha Taufantri; Ghifahri Damara; Yusuf D Rendragraha
Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas Vol 45 No 2 (2022)
Publisher : Testing Center for Oil and Gas LEMIGAS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29017/SCOG.45.2.1181

Abstract

The use of polymer solutions in the application of chemical EOR injection technology has a role in increasing oil recovery efforts by improving oil mobility in porous media. The addition of the polymer solution is expected to increase the viscosity value of the displacement fluid so that it can form a “piston-like” effect to increase the volumetric sweep efficiency of the light oil reservoir. The polymer used in this study was HPAM using 3 concentrations, namely 500 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 1500 ppm conducted at a temperature of 70 °C. The rheology test of the polymer included concentration vs temperature and shear rate vs viscosity. Thermal stability testing of polymer for 7, 14, 30, 60, and 90 days at 70 °C was done to determine the stability of the polymer solution. Filtration testing was conducted with the criteria of FR <1.2. The static adsorption test has been done with the standard limit of adsorption value <400 µg / gr. Polymer injectivity test using 3 variations of injection rates and coreflooding test were conducted to determine the reduction of Sor in reservoirs due to polymer displacement. From the polymer testing stage, it was found that HPAM polymers at 3 concentrations were compatible with the injection. This is indicated with the clear solution for 3 concentrations at room temperature and 70 °C. The rheology test results showed that the polymer solution with 3 concentrations was decreased in viscosity with the addition of the shear rate value. In the thermal stability test, the viscosity value of the HPAM with 500 ppm was relatively constant. The value of the FR for HPAM 500 ppm is 1.1, HPAM 1000 ppm is 1.07 and HPAM 1500 ppm is 1.03. The results of the static adsorption test showed the lowest HPAM value of 500 ppm was 156 µg/gr. In the injectivity test results, the resistance residual factor (RRF) values at injection rates of 0.3, 0.6, and 1 cc/min were 0.8, 1.04, and 1.12. The RRF value was close to 1, indicating that after injection of 500 ppm of HPAM tended to not experience plugging. Polymer flooding shows the oil recovery factor (RF) of water injection is 39% OOIP, and RF after polymer injection with 0.35 PV with flush water is 13.5% OOIP or 22% Sor. Knowing the behavior of HPAM polymer with various concentrations to be used for chemical EOR injection, it could provide advantages for future implementation in the light oil reservoir in Indonesia.
The Effect of Methanol-Gasoline (M20) and Ethanol-Gasoline (E20) Blends on Material Compatibility Nurmajid Abdurrojaq; Rizal Zaelani; Belva Adam Haley; Nur Allif Fathurrahman; Riesta Anggarani; Cahyo Setyo Wibowo; Maymuchar Maymuchar
Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas Vol 45 No 2 (2022)
Publisher : Testing Center for Oil and Gas LEMIGAS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29017/SCOG.45.2.1183

Abstract

Alcohol has the potential to be used as an alternative to fossil fuels to reduce total emissions from spark-ignition (SI) engines. The impact of a mixture of 20% methanol and ethanol in gasoline on the compatibility of Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) and polyamide materials, which are used as fuel hoses in SI vehicles, is presented in this study. The immersion test methodology was employed to study the influence of both types of alcohol on gasoline blend to compatibility properties i.e., hardness and weight change. Based on the result, EPDM and polyamide materials have different characteristics of material compatibility with E20 and M20. Tests on M20 and E20 fuel samples on EPDM material show a higher effect on hardness by 5-9% than pristine gasoline. Additionally, there was no change in the weight of the polyamide material in the RON 90, E20, and M20 test samples. However, there was a change in the hardness of the polyamide material by 6-11% in RON 90, E20, and M20 fuels. Moreover, there was no change in the FTIR spectrum, indicating that there was no dissolution of the EPDM and polyamide materials into the test fuel for 6 weeks of immersion.
Parameter Analysis of Polymer on Sandstone Reservoir in Indonesia: An Experimental Laboratory Study Gerry S; Bayu D Prasetiyo; Tomi Erfando
Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas Vol 45 No 2 (2022)
Publisher : Testing Center for Oil and Gas LEMIGAS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29017/SCOG.45.2.1185

Abstract

Polymers are often used to increase oil recovery by improving sweeping efficiency. The screening was carried out as a first step in evaluating the test parameters of several polymers of the Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide (HPAM) type in fluid and sandstone reservoir rocks. The test was carried out using a reservoir fluid classified as light oil (35°API) and at a reservoir temperature (60°C). The HPAM polymers used are A1, F1, F2, F3, and P1 polymers. The test parameters carried out on these 5 types of polymer (A1, F1, F2, F3 dan P1) include a compatibility test for formation water. The rheology polymer test includes concentration vs Tres, and shear rate vs viscosity which aims to determine the type of polymer solution being tested is a non-Newtonian or pseudoplastic fluid group. Thermal stability test of polymer for 60 days to determine the stability of the polymer solution and whether it is degraded or stable. Filtration testing with criteria FR value < 1.2, screen factor test, and adsorption testing using the static method with a standard limit of adsorption value < 400 µg/gr and polymer injectivity test. From these tests, scoring (range 0-100) was carried out to determine polymer candidates in polymer flooding testing. The F1 polymer candidate for the sandstone reservoir was obtained with a score of 82.25. From the scoring results, the selected F1 polymer candidate has a concentration value of 2000 ppm. For thermal degradation, the polymer F1 2000 ppm experienced degradation of 15.5%. The results of the F1 2000 ppm polymer static adsorption test were 54.8 µg/gr. With the RRF = 1 value indicating rock permeability after injection of polymer F1 2000 ppm, it tends not to experience plugging due to injection of polymer solution.
Converting Catalytic Palm Oil (MEPO) to Produce Biogasoline Using Zeolite Faujasite Catalyst From Fly Ash with Nickel Impregnation (Ni) Donatus Setyawan Purwo Handoko
Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas Vol 45 No 2 (2022)
Publisher : Testing Center for Oil and Gas LEMIGAS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29017/SCOG.45.2.1187

Abstract

The process hydrocracking methyl ester of palm oil into fractions biogasoline by faujasite cata-lyst of fly ash impregnated with nickel have been made. Preparation for faujasite synthesis of fly ash can bedone by removing organic compound and refluxing HCl. Synthesis do by melting the fly ash which has beenprepared with NaOH 1: 1.2 and in aging for 8 hours and in the hydrothermal autoclave for 24 hours. The char-acter faujasite using XRD and Si / Al ratio produces crystallinity main peak of 67% and Si / Al ratio of 1.65.Hydrocracking process using a variety of 4 catalyst used fly ash leaching results, faujasite, Ni-Faujasite 2%, andNi-Faujasite 4%. Test the activity and selectivity of the catalyst to produce liquid product analyzed by GC-MSwith the best catalyst was Ni-Faujasite 4% to yield 42.34% of the activity and selectivity of biogasoline frac-tion of 7.12%. The impregnation of the nickel catalyst is made by soaking in salt of nickel and then oxidationusing O2 gas and reduction using H2 gas. The impregnation of nickel will affect the character of the catalystso that the activity and selectivity of the catalyst is changed. The impregnation of nickel 4% on faujasite suc-cessfully done with nickel content of 3.71%, increasing Si / Al ratio of 2.27 and an acidity of 0.0035 mol/g.
Laboratory Studies for The Development of a Demulsifier in Handling Production Fluid Emulsions in The “SRG” Field KRT Nur Suhascaryo; Halwin Ariandi Siregar; Ridwan Ridwan
Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas Vol 45 No 2 (2022)
Publisher : Testing Center for Oil and Gas LEMIGAS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29017/SCOG.45.2.1189

Abstract

The “SRG” Oil Field is located in the South Sumatra basin, and the oil produced is classified as heavy oil and generally water-oil emulsion occurs. As a result of the formation of this emulsion which will cause corrosion of equipment in the field. The samples that have been taken in the field are then investigated in the laboratory of PT Farca Risa Sejahtera. First, perform BS&W testing on GS-belimbing and GS-11 oil samples to determine the water content and deposits present in the oil. The second is to determine the ratio of the amount of oil and formation water to be used in subsequent tests. The third selection of demulsifiers for formulation materials is based on the ability of water drop, clear water and interface. The four demulsifier formulations combine the demulsifiers that pass the selection into 5 formulas with the hope of uniting the advantages and covering each other’s shortcomings of each demulsifier that passes the selection. The fifth test is overtreated to determine the appropriate dose for the use of a predetermined demulsifier formula. Emulsion sample testing was also carried out on CGS oil samples (GS-belimbing oil and GS-11) plus the oil present in the pits. The six BS&W tests after using the new formula. GSbelimbing has a production rate of ±22,000 BFPD with a water cut value obtained from the separator test in the field and validated by the BS&W test in the laboratory of ±92%, the value of oil production in GS Belimbing is ±1760 BOPD. While the GS-11 has a production rate of ±33,000 BFPD with a water cut value of ±91%, the value of oil production in GS 11 is ±2970 BOPD. While the CGS has a fluid production rate of ± 58,000 BFPD with a water cut of ± 90%, the value of oil production at the CGS is ± 5800 BOPD. Formula code H5 with a composition of 10% (F13; water drop) plus 10% (1030; interface) and 80% (F-16; clear water) which was selected for GS-belimbing. The formula with code A1 which has a composition of 80% F-8 plus 10% 1030 and 10% F-16 was chosen for the GS-11. For the CGS, the S5 formula is 10% (F-16 clear water) plus 10% (1030; interface) and 80% (F-8; water drop). The results of the BS&W test after the new formula showed that there was no water in the oil in the centrifuge tube and it was stated that the BS&W value was close to 0%. There are 3 demulsifier products from the formulation, namely HAS-1 for GS-belimbing, HAS-2 for GS-11, and HAS-3 for CGS plus pit. The amount of HAS-3 demulsifier that needs to be injected into the CGS is 7.31 gallons per day (GPD). The number of HAS-1 demulsifier injected into GS Belimbing was 2.22 GPD, while the number of HAS-2 demulsifier injected into GS-11 was 3.74 GPD

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 5

 1 

Filter by Year

2022 2022


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 49 No 1 (2026) Vol 48 No 4 (2025) Vol 48 No 3 (2025) Vol 48 No 2 (2025) Vol 48 No 1 (2025) Vol 47 No 3 (2024) Vol 47 No 2 (2024) Vol 47 No 1 (2024) Vol 46 No 3 (2023) Vol 46 No 2 (2023) Vol 46 No 1 (2023) Vol 45 No 3 (2022) Vol 45 No 2 (2022) Vol 45 No 1 (2022) Vol 44 No 3 (2021) Vol 44 No 2 (2021) Vol 44 No 1 (2021) Vol 43 No 3 (2020) Vol 43 No 2 (2020) Vol 43 No 1 (2020) Vol 42 No 3 (2019) Vol 42 No 2 (2019) Vol 42 No 1 (2019) Vol 41 No 3 (2018) Vol 41 No 2 (2018) Vol 41 No 1 (2018) Vol 40 No 3 (2017) Vol 40 No 2 (2017) Vol 40 No 1 (2017) Vol 39 No 3 (2016) Vol 39 No 2 (2016) Vol 39 No 1 (2016) Vol 38 No 3 (2015) Vol 38 No 2 (2015) Vol 38 No 1 (2015) Vol 37 No 3 (2014) Vol 37 No 2 (2014) Vol 37 No 1 (2014) Vol 36 No 3 (2013) Vol 36 No 2 (2013) Vol 36 No 1 (2013) Vol 35 No 3 (2012) Vol 35 No 2 (2012) Vol 35 No 1 (2012) Vol 34 No 3 (2011) Vol 34 No 2 (2011) Vol 34 No 1 (2011) Vol 33 No 3 (2010) Vol 33 No 2 (2010) Vol 33 No 1 (2010) Vol 32 No 3 (2009) Vol 32 No 2 (2009) Vol 32 No 1 (2009) Vol 31 No 3 (2008) Vol 31 No 2 (2008) Vol 31 No 1 (2008) Vol 30 No 3 (2007) Vol 30 No 2 (2007) Vol 30 No 1 (2007) Vol 29 No 3 (2006) Vol 29 No 2 (2006) Vol 29 No 1 (2006) Vol 28 No 3 (2005) Vol 28 No 2 (2005) Vol 28 No 1 (2005) Vol 27 No 3 (2004) Vol 27 No 2 (2004) Vol 27 No 1 (2004) Vol 26 No 2 (2003) Vol 26 No 1 (2003) Vol 25 No 3 (2002) Vol 25 No 2 (2002) Vol 25 No 1 (2002) Vol 24 No 2 (2001) Vol 24 No 1 (2001) Vol 23 No 3 (2000) Vol 23 No 2 (2000) Vol 23 No 1 (2000) Vol 22 No 2 (1999) Vol 22 No 1 (1999) Vol 21 No 2 (1998) Vol 21 No 1 (1998) Vol 18 No 2 (1995) Vol 18 No 1 (1995) Vol 17 No 1 (1994) Vol 16 No 1 (1993) Vol 15 No 1 (1992) Vol 14 No 2 (1991) Vol 14 No 1 (1991) Vol 13 No 1 (1990) Vol 12 No 1 (1989) Vol 11 No 1 (1988) Vol 10 No 3 (1987) Vol 10 No 2 (1987) Vol 10 No 1 (1987) Vol 9 No 1 (1986) Vol 8 No 2 (1985) Vol 8 No 1 (1985) Vol 7 No 2 (1984) Vol 7 No 1 (1984) Vol 6 No 1 (1983) Vol 5 No 2 (1982) Vol 5 No 1 (1982) More Issue