摘要
本文阐述了油田考评驱油剂驱油效率的方法，针对四种不同来源的原油对比了可见分光光度法、热分析法、马弗炉焙烧失重法测试驱油效率的结果，热分析法和马弗炉焙烧失重法测试结果一致，与可见分光光度法有较明显的差异。对所用的方法的原理进行了分析对比，从理论上来推断方法的可靠性，及误差可能产生的原因。理论上，对于可见分光光度法要使方法合理，必须原油中各种不同的组分洗脱速度一致，实验对比了原油及利用驱油剂洗下的原油的紫外可见谱图，从谱图上来看，洗下的原油的组分分布和原来有较大的差异。由此判断，利用可见分光光度法测试实验中原油的驱油效率存在方法自身难以克服的缺陷。热分析主要影响因素是水的干扰，本实验中水的干扰很少；因此本实验条件下采用热分析方法测试优于可见分光光度法。
Abstract
In this work, the methods of determining oil displacement efficiency were introduced. As for four different crude oils, the oil displacement efficiency of different oil displacement agents was determined by UV-vis, TG-DTA, and Muffle furnace, respectively. The compositions of the oils were analyzed by UV-vis and IR, the complication of the oils was known. In theory, the elution rate of different compositions of the crude oils should be the same in order to avoid the error cause. The UV-vis spectrum of the crude oils the oils eluted by oil displacement agents was analyzed and big differences were found. Besides, it was found from IR spectrum that the main compositions of oil are saturated hydrocarbon, which cannot be detected by UV-vis absorption, in other words, the main compositions of oils can't be detected by UV-vis, hence, there will be big errors in oil displacement efficiency determining by UV-vis method. By comparing the results of oil displacement efficiency determining by UV-vis, TG-DTA and Muffle furnace, it was found that the test results by TG-DTA and Muffle furnace was similar, but different from that by UV-vis method. Through reasoning and experimental confirmation, the method of TG-DTA was better than the method of UV-vis in this experimental condition.
论文详情