Review of Low Salinity Water Flooding for Oil Recovery

Review of Low Salinity Water Flooding
Conducted for
DECC
By
David Hughes, Susanne Larsen and Rob Wright
FINAL REPORT
CONTENTS
CD INFORMATION

Conducted for
DECC
By
David Hughes, Susanne Larsen and Rob Wright
Final
A10DEC015A
October 2010
SENERGY (GB) LIMITED

(A subsidiary of Senergy Oil & Gas Limited)
15 BON ACCORD CRESCENT ABERDEEN AB11 6DE United Kingdom

T: +44 1224 213440 F: +44 1224 213453 E: info.uk@senergyworld.com
REGISTERED IN SCOTLAND SC 125513
Senergy (GB) Limited is also registered to OHSAS 18001

www.senergyworld.com
Author
David Hughes
Technical Audit
Gordon Adamson
Quality Audit
Verity Shaw
Release to Client
David Hughes
Date Released
6 December 2010
Senergy has made every effort to ensure that the interpretations, conclusions and
recommendations presented herein are accurate and reliable in accordance with good
industry practice and its own quality management procedures. Senergy does not, however,
guarantee the correctness of any such interpretations and shall not be liable or responsible
for any loss, costs, damages or expenses incurred or sustained by anyone resulting from any
interpretation or recommendation made by any of its officers, agents or employees.
A10DEC015A
ii
Final
October 2010
Executive Summary
DECC and NPD have agreed to cooperate in a joint investigation of EOR experience to date
in both the UK and Norway sectors of the North Sea and further afield, drawing out successes
and failures and the reasons for this. In the first instance concentrating on chemical EOR
techniques (such as polymer, surfactants, gels and low salinity water flooding) which are
considered to have the greatest potential for early application in North Sea fields.
As a first step in this collaboration, review studies are being undertaken covering (a) low
salinity/hardness water flooding, (b) surfactants/alkaline (plus polymer for mobility control), (c)
weak gels also known as CDG/LPS and (d) Bright Water or strong gels.
This report covers low salinity/hardness water flooding.
The main conclusions to be drawn from this review are:
Low salinity water flooding is an immature EOR technology but there does seem to be
positive proof of field success. Uncertainty exists about the benefit with a suggested
range of 0 to 12% OIIP.
As yet there is no consensus of view on the mechanisms behind the process (i.e.
what is causing the increase in recovery).
As a consequence a priori prediction of which fields might be suitable and the

potential incremental recovery in a given field is not possible, rather core floods and
other laboratory studies are required followed by single well reactive chemical tracer
tests (SWCTTs).
A suitable source of low salinity water could be provided economically offshore from a
combined nanofiltration and reverse osmosis processing plant or from a suitable
shallow aquifer.
Provision of a low salinity water supply in a field can act as a vanguard for other water
based EOR processes such as polymer flooding, alkaline/surfactant/polymer flooding
and linked polymer systems (LPS) with potential for even greater incremental
recoveries. It can also overcome conventional problems such as souring and scaling.
Although not yet proved, low salinity water flooding either alone or in conjunction with
other water based EOR techniques has the potential to be a game changer in
offshore reservoirs on a 3 to 8 year time frame.
It is recommended that:
All fields where water flooding is ongoing or planned should be screened to determine
the potential benefit of switching to low salinity water flooding. This should be
undertaken systematically and consistently by independent laboratories using
standard methodology. Such national screening programmes should be centrally
organised but funded by operators. The opportunity should also be taken to extend
this to systematic screening of the potential for other water based EOR techniques. A
strategy is suggested to high grade the fields that should be the initial candidates for
the screening.
A10DEC015A
iii
Final
October 2010
The current experimental methodologies around low salinity water flooding should be
refined and standardised. Experiments need to be carried out at reservoir conditions
(including temperature, CO2 partial pressure and pH) using live crude, reservoir brine
and native core with wettability conditions restored. Capillary end effects should be
minimised and CT scanning or other techniques to record in situ residual oil
saturation should be considered. Flow rates and pressure gradients need to be
monitored and controlled during core testing and related to field inter-well gradients
and rates. Uncertainties in core flood measurements need to be reliably assessed
(random errors claimed to be below +/-1.5%, but systematic effects uncertain) in
order to evaluate the significance of the improved oil recovery data. We estimate that
at a basic level such a programme would cost between 10-20k per reservoir flow
unit.
DECC/NPD should initiate a study to investigate the costs of building and operating a
combined nanofiltration/reverse osmosis plant on an offshore platform or on a
reusable floating vessel.
DECC/NPD should encourage operators to share more detailed information on their

investigations and publish more data on oil composition, and injected and produced
water compositions in SCAL experiments.
DECC/NPD should ask operators to consider the economic benefits of low salinity
water flooding in the round; i.e. it can also reduce souring and scale, yield cost
savings on production chemicals and corrosion management, and reduce safety and
environmental costs.
A10DEC015A
iv
Final
October 2010
Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................... iii
1
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background to Joint DECC/NPD Study ............................................................... 1
1.2
Structure of Each Review .................................................................................... 1
1.3
Subject of This Report ......................................................................................... 2
2
Field Applications ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1
Endicott ................................................................................................................ 4
2.2
Omar Field ........................................................................................................... 6
2.3
Powder River Basin ............................................................................................. 7
2.4
Offshore Applications........................................................................................... 8
2.4.1
Heidrun ............................................................................................................ 8
2.4.2
Snorre .............................................................................................................. 9
2.5
Gullfaks .............................................................................................................. 10
2.6
Clair Ridge ......................................................................................................... 10
3
Low Salinity Water Flooding Recovery Mechanisms .................................................... 12
3.1
Overview ............................................................................................................ 12
3.2
Clays: Electronic Double Layer Ion Exchange Capabilities............................... 13
3.2.1
Clay Structure ................................................................................................ 13
3.2.2
Double Layer Expansion ............................................................................... 15
3.2.3
Ion Exchange................................................................................................. 16
3.3
In-Situ Osmosis.................................................................................................. 17
3.4
IFT Reduction .................................................................................................... 17
3.5
Wettability Alterations ........................................................................................ 17
3.5.1
Multicomponent Ion Exchange (MIE) Mechanism......................................... 18
3.5.2
pH Induced Desorption of Organic Material .................................................. 19
3.6
Discussion of Recovery Mechanisms ................................................................ 19
4
Chemical and Environmental Aspects .......................................................................... 22
4.1
Offshore Production of Low Salinity Water ........................................................ 22
4.2
Costs .................................................................................................................. 23
4.3
Environmental Issues......................................................................................... 23
5
Screening Criteria.......................................................................................................... 24
5.1
Clay .................................................................................................................... 24
5.2
Ion Composition of the Injected Water............................................................... 25
5.3
Oil Composition.................................................................................................. 25
5.4
Wettability .......................................................................................................... 25
5.5
Ranking of Fields for Low Salinity EOR Potential.............................................. 26
6
Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................. 29
6.1
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 29
6.2
Recommendations ............................................................................................. 29
7
References .................................................................................................................... 31
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Endicott Water Analysis (2 SWCTTs were carried out in Well 3-39A) ..................... 4
Table 2.2: Water Compositions (g/l) for Snorre....................................................................... 10
Table 3.1: Overview of Suggested Low Salinity Water Flooding Mechanisms ....................... 12
Table 3.2: Clay Properties ....................................................................................................... 14
Table 5.1: Possible Criteria to Rank Fields for Low Salinity Water Flooding Potential ........... 27
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Endicott Pilot Area (Sub Zone K3A-2)..................................................................... 5
Figure 2.2: Endicott Pilot Oil Rate and Watercut Response...................................................... 5
Figure 2.3: Laboratory and Single Well Test Results of Low Salinity Incremental Recovery
versus Clay Content .................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2.4: Water Saturation Response from Buckley Leveret Theory for High Salinity and
Low Salinity Flooding in an Oil Wet System .............................................................................. 7
Figure 2.5: Oil and Water Production (top) and Watercut Development (bottom) for OMA125
Showing Behaviour Consistent with Buckley-Leverett Theory .................................................. 7
Figure 2.6: Recovery Factor in Minnelusa Reservoirs as a Function of Salinity Ratio ............. 8
Figure 2.7: Low Salinity Water Flooding in Heidrun .................................................................. 9
Figure 2.8: Low Salinity Water Flooding Pilot in Upper Tilje Formation, Heidrun ..................... 9
Figure 3.1: Tetrahedral Octahedral Clay Structure (Class 1:1)............................................ 13
Figure 3.2: Surface Charge of Three Clays as a Function of pH ............................................ 14
Figure 3.3: Schematic of Electric Double Layer in High and Low Salinity Environments ....... 15
Figure 3.4: Schematic of Capillary Pressure at Curved Oil/Water Interface ........................... 20
Figure 3.5: Schematic of Trapped Oil Ganglion ...................................................................... 20
Figure 4.1: Flow Schematic of Shells Designer Water Process ............................................. 22
Figure 5.1: Intermediate/Oil Wet (left) and Water Wet (right) Relative Permeabilities used in
Simulation ................................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 5.2: Response to Wettability Change on Cumulative Recovery and Watercut............ 28
A10DEC015A
vi
Final
October 2010
Introduction
1.1
Background to Joint DECC/NPD Study
DECC officials have been in discussion with their NPD counterparts about potential areas for
cooperation in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Both DECC and the NPD are concerned that
there is a decreasing window of opportunity to implement EOR projects in the increasingly
mature oil reservoirs of the North Sea and both have implemented initiatives to stimulate new
investment in EOR. DECC and NPD agree that increased cooperation between the UK and
Norway would help in understanding what might make EOR work in the North Sea on a more
significant scale than heretofore and in identifying the levers to deliver future EOR projects.
DECC and NPD have agreed to cooperate in a joint investigation of EOR experience to date
in both the UK and Norway sectors of the North Sea and further afield, drawing out successes
and failures and the reasons for this. In the first instance concentrating on chemical EOR
techniques (such as polymer, surfactants, gels and low salinity water flooding) which are
considered to have the greatest potential for early application in North Sea fields.
Information obtained from the review will be used to compile an EOR toolkit covering the
application of chemical EOR techniques to North Sea reservoirs. To date chemical EOR has
generally been applied in isolation, one treatment at a time in a single field, and there is often
little long term learning from the applications. NPD have been pioneering a more integrated
approach to EOR, looking at the potential to combine two or more EOR techniques at the
same time and/or in more than one reservoir. This work suggests that combining EOR
interventions in a more structured way can significantly increase incremental reserves with
only a comparatively modest increase in overall project risk.
As a first step in this collaboration, review studies are being undertaken covering (a) low
salinity/hardness water flooding, (b) surfactants/alkaline (plus polymer for mobility control), (c)
weak gels also known as CDG/LPS and (d) Bright Water or strong gels.
1.2
Structure of Each Review
Each review will aim to gather information and report within the following structure:
Background of process (i.e. its origins).
Major field applications (details of field deployments and supporting lab work)
covering last ~10 years worldwide and any offshore applications in last ~20 years.
Any ongoing or recent laboratory studies in relation to offshore applications not yet
implemented.
How does the process work?
What are the leading chemicals?
Who are the leading vendors of process/suppliers of chemicals and delivery form
(power, concentrate, emulsion, etc.)?
What facilities are required to mix and inject chemicals?
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010
How much is required?
What concentrations are required for field application?
Amount required per incremental barrel?
How much do they cost?
What is their environmental ranking?
Screening criteria
How do we identify suitable fields?
What experiments do we need to do?
What single well tests do we need to do?
List of publications relating to process.

What are the factors that are preventing deployment offshore at present?
Are there any showstoppers preventing offshore application?
1.3
Subject of This Report
This report is about a recent development in water flooding usually termed low salinity water
flooding where particular attention is paid to the ionic content of the water.
BP have applied for an international patent under the trademark LoSal (Lager, 2006-8) and
Shell have outlined a production train for low salinity/hardness applications where various
production and reject streams are combined from a nanofiltration plant followed by a reverse
osmosis plant (Ayirala, 2010), and trademarked the term Designer Water. The term smart
water has also been used in a similar context in relation to water injection in chalk fields
(Austad, 2008). In this report the process will be referred to as low salinity water flooding and
the scope of the review will be restricted to clastic reservoirs.
The salinity and ionic composition of injected water have not been a major concern within the
oil production industry except perhaps with regard to scaling and reservoir souring potentials
(and in relation to optimising the performance of surfactant flooding). It has, however, been
known for decades that the ionic strength of a fluid flowing in a porous medium does influence
the measured permeability (Schleidegger, 1974). Conventionally the nearest available supply
of water has been used for water flooding which for offshore applications usually means
seawater and laboratory experiments for offshore applications are normally conducted using
(synthetic) reservoir brine or seawater.
In the 1990s, Norman Morrow and co-workers at the University of Wyoming published core
flood results that indicated that injecting low salinity water leads to increased oil production
compared to injecting high salinity (sea)water (Tang, 1999). Since then many experiments
have been carried out with some showing improved recovery and some with no additional
recovery (Zhang, 2007); also with some showing the effect in both secondary and tertiary
mode and some only in secondary mode (Rivet, 2009). The major evidence for low salinity
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010

benefits therefore comes from core flood tests, whilst the uncertainties in, and reliability of, the
data obtained have not always received proportional attention. Field evidence is now
beginning to be gathered from single well tests using reactive tracer tests to evaluate
saturation changes, and field pilots.
Various theories have been presented to explain how the process works but so far there is no
unanimity of view. These theories, of course, are important in the search for the screening
criteria that could help us to predict the reservoirs where the method would have the best
chance of working.
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010
Field Applications
2.1
Endicott
The first comprehensive inter-well field trial of low salinity water flooding took place during
2008-9 in BPs offshore Endicott field on the North Slope of Alaska (Seccombe, 2010).
Endicott is the third largest North Slope field with estimated oil in-place of around a billion
barrels. It was brought on stream in 1987 and has been produced by gas re-injection at the
crest and seawater injection around the periphery. The salinity and hardness of the reservoir
brine and the injected seawater are approximately equal (Table 2.1 from McGuire, 2005).
Table 2.1: Endicott Water Analysis (2 SWCTTs were carried out in Well 3-39A)
The original results, which prompted the trial were four single well tests with the saturation
change measured using reactive chemical tracer tests (SWCTTs) undertaken in the Prudhoe
Bay and Endicott fields (McGuire, 2005) which indicated that the incremental oil recovery from
low salinity water injection was in the range 6-12% OIIP. Subsequent laboratory and
simulation work, and further single well tests, both using both log-inject-log and SWCTTs to
measure saturation changes was also positive (Jerauld, 2006; Webb, 2008; Seccombe,
2008).
SWITTs indicated that the residual saturation to high salinity water flooding is 41% reducing
to 27% if low salinity water is used, giving an incremental recovery of 15% OIIP (Swi is 5%)
which would obviously be lower when areal and vertical sweep effects are accounted for.
The field trial used a single injectorproducer pair with an inter-well spacing of 1040ft (Figure
2.1). It was undertaken in the K3A-2 sand which has thickness 30-45 ft (isolated above and
below by shales), porosity 20% and permeability 100 mD (established by pressure pulse
tests). Clay content was 12% with kaolinite being the dominant clay followed by illite. Clearly
by comparison with North Sea fields the residual saturation of high salinity water flooding at
41% is high and the inter-well spacing at 1040 ft is low.
The trial area was flooded using high salinity water to 95% watercut, followed by 10 months
(1.6 pore volumes) of reduced salinity water injection (trucked from a gravel pit nine miles
away).with a final high salinity postflush.
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010
Figure 2.1: Endicott Pilot Area (Sub Zone K3A-2)

After about two months an increase in oil rate and a reduction in watercut were observed with
the increase in oil rate immediately followed by the arrival of reduced salinity water (Figure
2.2). The oil response was as predicted (from core floods and single well tests) but the drop in
watercut (95 to 93%) was less than expected. Analysis of ionic content of the produced water
showed that 45% of produced water was coming from outside the pilot area. Backing out
production from outside the pilot area (details of how this was achieved in Seccombe, 2010) it
was estimated that the effective drop in watercut within the pilot area was 5.5%.
Figure 2.2: Endicott Pilot Oil Rate and Watercut Response

Although no iron was present in the formation or injected waters, there was a sharp increase
in iron production from non detectable amounts to 3-4 ppm corresponding to the sharp
decrease in water cut (and arrival of the first low salinity tracer injected at start of reduced
salinity flood). BP believe this confirms the multi-component ion exchange (MIE) theory of low
salinity water flooding (see Section 3.5.1). They postulate that the iron coats the kaolinite
binding the polar molecules in the oil to the clay but these bridges are removed by the
reduced salinity water releasing polar compounds and free iron.
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010
Figure 2.3: Laboratory and Single Well Test Results of Low Salinity Incremental
Recovery versus Clay Content
Analysis of the results in the pilot area by comparison with the estimated results of continuing
high salinity water flooding indicate an incremental recovery of 10% OIIP by the start of the
high salinity postflush. Previous core floods and single well tests showed a 13% incremental
recovery for a formation with a 12% clay content (Figure 2.3) (Seccombe, 2008) so the result
is broadly in line when area and vertical sweep effects are taken into account
Overall this has been a very useful test of low salinity water flooding in the field and given the
success is likely to be followed by further trials.
2.2
Omar Field
A detailed analysis of secondary low salinity water flooding in the Omar Field in Syria
operated by Al Furat (a Shell subsidiary) has been undertaken (Vleddar, 2010). This is one of
the few documented proofs of the concept of low salinity water flooding on a reservoir scale.
The light oil (=0.3 cp) field came on stream in 1989 but experienced rapid pressure loss
indicating absolute lack of aquifer support. Water flooding using a river water source with
salinity 500 mg/L (<<100 mg/L bivalent ions) began in 1991. The formation water has a
salinity of 90000 mg/L with a high content of bivalent ions (5000 mg/L) and the clay content is
0.5-4% of which 95-100% is kaolinite.
Special core analysis and low rate core flood measurements showed that the native state
wettability in Omar was oil wet (wettability index of 1). Spontaneous imbibition experiments
showed additional recovery from low salinity brine subsequent to high salinity brine correlating
with kaolinite content (incremental recovery up to 24% PV). Similar laboratory results were
also obtained in an analogue field (Isba) where a log-inject-log test in a watered out well
showed that a wettability reduction from 1 to 0.2-0.4 had occurred as a result of the low
salinity water flooding.
Logs in Omar show an initial oil saturation of 95% and remaining oil saturation after low
salinity water flooding of 15% (but with uncertainty in range the 10-30% as the calculation is
very sensitive to the salinity used in determining the saturation from the logs). During
intermediate stages of the flood, log interpretations at well OMA125 confirm the dual-step
watercut development predicated by Buckley-Leverett theory (Lake, 1989), with an initial
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010

modest reduction in oil production accompanied by miscibly displaced formation water (Figure
2.4 and Figure 2.5).
Figure 2.4: Water Saturation Response from Buckley Leveret Theory for High Salinity
and Low Salinity Flooding in an Oil Wet System
Figure 2.5: Oil and Water Production (top) and Watercut Development (bottom) for
OMA125 Showing Behaviour Consistent with Buckley-Leverett Theory
In the Al Furat (and Shell) view is that the measurements and observations at 21 wells in
Omar present abundant proof of wettability alteration occurring at the reservoir scale. Analysis
indicates that the change in wettability is probably from 0.8-1.0 to 0.2 which would give an
expected incremental oil recovery of 17% OIIP (compared to high salinity water flooding).
However, comparison of high and low salinity water flooding across Al Furats assets
indicates that a more conservative estimate would be an increase in 5-15% STOIIP from low
salinity water flooding in Omar.
2.3
Powder River Basin
In the Powder River basin of Wyoming numerous fields have been flooded with water from
low salinity sources (Robertson, 2007). Following a trawl of the data available in public
records, the waterflood responses in three Minnelusa formation fields, namely; West Semlek,
North Semlek and Moran were deemed to have the best records and analysed.
Ultimate recoveries from the three fields were plotted as a function of the ratio of the average
salinity of the injection water divided by the salinity of the formation water (Figure 2.6)
indicating a trend to a higher recovery factor with a lower salinity ratio.
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010

However, the review and this conclusion come with lots of caveats. The public records
relating to the fields are far from complete and there is an indication that polymer had been
used at some time to increase recovery in all three fields (oil viscosity ~15cP).
The field results tend to corroborate laboratory core flood results using Minnelusa crude, brine
and diluted bride (although the experiments used Berea outcrop material rather than
Minnelusa formation) but should not be considered proof positive.
Figure 2.6: Recovery Factor in Minnelusa Reservoirs as a Function of Salinity Ratio
2.4
Offshore Applications
The Endicott field case is the only reported tertiary inter-well application of low salinity water
flooding so far and no offshore implementation has yet been carried out. However for some
Norwegian Continental Shelf fields, laboratory work and SWCTTs have been carried out over
the last few years. Statoil have indicated that Heidrun, Snorre and Gullfaks are all being
considered for a possible low salinity pilot (Spangenberg, 2008).
2.4.1
Heidrun
A number of reservoir temperature core floods using various outcrop rock samples and
Heidrun stock tank oil have been undertaken (Heigre, 2008). The floods were undertaken
using seawater, a mixture of 10% seawater and 90% fresh water, and a mixture of 1%
seawater and 99% fresh water. The flooding sequence is not clear, but it is likely there is a
combination of secondary and tertiary flooding experiments. Figure 2.7 shows the residual
saturation to water flooding as a function of seawater percentage for various experiments.
The precise reason for the large ranges is not clear. However, taking the middle of the ranges
shown, the residual oil saturation reduces from 27% (seawater) to 22% (10% seawater) to
18% (1% seawater); the average reduction is 9 percentage points. There is no information
about the individual core floods, and a different number of points are plotted at each salinity
(so it is not possible to understand, for instance, if the highest saturation in the black points
corresponds to the highest saturation in the red points, etc).
It is likely that some of the variation is caused by the effect of the different outcrop cores used.
Although the mechanisms by which low salinity water flooding works are not yet satisfactorily
understood, rock surface properties and chemistry play an important role in the process (see
Section 3) so it is difficult to deduce from these experiments that the process will work in
Heidrun. It is understood that a low salinity single well tracer test (SWCTT) was undertaken in
Heidrun in late 2009, but no results have been published so far.
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010
Figure 2.7: Low Salinity Water Flooding in Heidrun

Heigre, 2008 does not mention the SWCTT but presents details of a proposed low salinity
pilot in Heidrun. The proposal is to add a demonstration reverse osmosis (RO) plant to the
existing sulphate removal plant (capacity 32 km3/d) to produce 4 km3/d of low salinity water
(<500 ppm TDS, <40 ppm sulphate, <5 m filtration). Low salinity water will be injected into
two wells (A25 and A17) in the Lower Tilje Formation, with response expected in three
producers (A10, A14 and A28) see Figure 2.8. As of May 2008 there were bullish plans to
implement this pilot project by late 2009/early 2010, but it is understood the plans have been
delayed.
Figure 2.8: Low Salinity Water Flooding Pilot in Upper Tilje Formation, Heidrun
2.4.2
Snorre
A comprehensive set of experiments using Snorre core material (Upper Statfjord, Lower
Statfjord and Lunde), oil and formation water and flooding with various salinity and divalent
cation concentrations showed negligible benefit compared to high salinity water flooding. This,
even though the mineralogy was similar to other clastic systems where low salinity water
flooding has shown a positive response (Skrettingland, 2010).
A10DEC015A
Final
October 2010

Nevertheless, Statoil carried out a single well reactive tracer test (SWCTT) in 2009 after
completion of the core experiments. However, this also showed no significant reduction in oil
saturation (Skrettingland, 2010).
Compared to Endicott the residual oil after water flooding in Snorre is below 25% so the
wettability, or other relevant conditions, would appear to be more favourable to seawater
injection than in Endicott. This obviously lowers the potential additional benefit from low
salinity water flooding. The formation water salinity in Snorre is similar to Endicott, although in
Endicott the divalent cations (Ca, Mg) are significantly lower (compare Table 2.2 with Table
2.1).
Table 2.2: Water Compositions (g/l) for Snorre

As for Endicott, the dominating clay in Snorre is kaolinite, varying (in the main) between 8 and
18%. From the Endicott clay content versus additional recovery correlation (Figure 2.3), this
would mean an additional recovery upward of 9% OIIP, far from what is seen in the Snorre
experiments and SWCTT.
The kaolinite content in the 1 m sand used in the SWCTT would appear to be highly variable
with recorded amounts of 14.7% and 1.2% in two cores only 0.5 m apart so it would not be
expected that this well would be favourable to low salinity water flooding. Other mineralogy
differences are also apparent between the field cores and the SWCTT well (plagioclase
content and mica/illite content) making comparison between the laboratory and field results
difficult.
Skrettingland, 2010 also contains a good review of the many conflicting results from
experiments in relation to the role of wettability, clays and oil composition. In particular the
conflicting evidence in relation to the direction of wettability change with some researchers
finding that a successful low salinity water flood requires the wettability to be changed from
water-wet to mixed-wet whilst others find the reverse.
2.5
Gullfaks
Statoil report that laboratory tests of low salinity water flooding in Gullfaks core are highly
encouraging, and further studies and a possible pilot test are under consideration (Talukdar,
2008).
2.6
Clair Ridge
BP is implementing secondary low salinity water flooding in the second phase of development
at the Clair field, known as Clair Ridge (Mair, 2010 and BP, 2010). 145,000 b/d of injection
A10DEC015A
10
Final
October 2010

water will be supplied by a desalination unit fed by treated and filtered seawater. Early in field
life the low salinity water would be mixed with produced water for reinjection. In later field life
when the produced water rate exceeds requirements it will be disposed of via dedicated
disposal wells.
Mair, 2010 presents a very useful timeline of the history of low salinity flooding research and a
strategy for appraising the appropriateness of low salinity water flooding for a particular field.
Overall BP estimate that implementing low salinity water flooding in Clair Ridge will produce
7% OIIP more than conventional seawater flooding at a development cost of $3 per barrel.
A10DEC015A
11
Final
October 2010
3
Low Salinity Water Flooding Recovery
Mechanisms
3.1
Overview
Although demonstrated in the laboratory and in field tests, how low salinity water flooding
works, i.e. the mechanisms that give rise to incremental recovery, are not well understood. A
useful review of the various explanations and controversies can be found in (Rivett, 2009).
Table 3.1 summarises the mechanisms that have been suggested. These have been divided
into types in the table according to which flow parameter they are addressing.
Effect type
Mechanism
Short Explanation
Main
reference
Contra
indications
Pressure/
permeability
Osmosis
Distributed clays separating brines

with different salinities create an
additional (osmotic) pressure that
enhances the water drive.
Buckley, 2009
Low salinity water

flooding does not seem
to work for mineral oil.
(Rivet, 2009)
Pressure/
permeability
Clay particle
(fines)
movement
Due to the expansion of the electric

double layer (and maybe also ion
exchange) clay particles and other
mixed-wet fines are removed from
the rock surface at low salinity
conditions leaving a water wet
spot. The migrating fines might
block narrow pore throats and
cause microscopic diversion of the
injected water.
Tang, 1999
Fines migration has

sometimes been
observed in low salinity
core flooding but BP
claim never to have
seen this (Lager, 2006),
Also refuted by (Rivett,
2009)
IFT reduction
Alkaline
flooding
behaviour
pH rises during low salinity flood

high enough to saponicate certain
components of the oil. Thereby
lowering the interfacial tension
between water and oil (in a similar
way to alkaline flooding).
Buckley, 2009
pH increase is not seen

in all experiments and is
usually not as high as in
alkaline flooding.
(Buckley, 2009; Zhang,
2006)
IFT reduction
Salt-in effect
The charged oil components on the

surfaces of the clays are easier to
desorb and dissolve in the water
phase; salt-in effect. The
loosened particles lower the
interfacial tension between water
and oil like surfactant flooding.
Austad, 2008
This potential
mechanism has not
been widely discussed.
Austad suggested
experiments to check
the theory which led to
the pH induced ion
exchange theory
(Austad, 2010)
Wettability
change
Multicomponent
Ion Exchange
(MIE)
Due to expansion of the electric

double layer and cation exchange
capacity of the clay complex,
bound charged organic
components of the oil are
2+
substituted by Ca leading to an
increase in the water wetness of
the formation.
Lager, 20068; Ligthelm,

2009
Low salinity brines

2+
2+
without Ca and Mg
ions have been seen to
increase recovery
(Tang, 1999; Austad,
2010)
Wettability
change
pH driven
The cation exchange capacity of

the clays is triggered by near
surface pH changes brought about
2+
by protons substituting Ca on the
clay surfaces in low salinity water
flooding.
Austad, 2010
No contra indications
published yet, as the
theory was first
presented in April 2010
Table 3.1: Overview of Suggested Low Salinity Water Flooding Mechanisms
A10DEC015A
12
Final
October 2010

Apart from the electro- and pressure-osmosis explanations, all mechanisms involve chemical
reactions at the rock-fluid interface that lead to wettability changes. This means that all the
methods, except osmosis, could have been placed in the alteration of wettability category.
The first explanation of the mechanism (Tang, 1999) involved loosening of clay particles from
the surface leaving a water wet spot. The migrating clay particles are then thought to block
the narrowest pore throats diverting the water to the larger oil-filled pores (in a similar way to
the explanation of how linked polymer systems (LPS) work), so this mechanism appears in
the pressure/permeability category.
The suggested low salinity wettability altering mechanisms all involve the electric double layer
formed at charged rock and clay surfaces, and the ion exchange capability of clays so these
phenomena are briefly described in Section 3.2 before a closer look at the mechanisms from
Table 3.1. More comprehensive descriptions of clays and clay-water interactions can be
found in ground water literature, e.g. Lower, 1996; Kehew, 2001.
3.2
3.2.1
Clays: Electronic Double Layer Ion Exchange Capabilities

Clay Structure
Clays are built from layers (sheets) of SiO4 tetrahedrons and octahedrons like Al2(OH)6)n or
((Fe or Mg)3(OH)6)n. They are divided into types:
1:1
where the clay mineral consists of one octahedral sheet and one tetrahedral sheet
2:1
where the clay mineral consists of one tetrahedral sheet between two octahedral
sheets
Figure 3.1: Tetrahedral Octahedral Clay Structure (Class 1:1)

Clays get their permanent surface charge from substitution of the cations, e.g. substitution of
Si4+ by Al3+ in the tetrahedral and substitution of Al3+ by for instance Fe2+ in the octahedral
units. Usually the surface charge (zeta potential) is negative. The type and surface charge of
some common clays are given in Table 3.2.
A10DEC015A
13
Final
October 2010
Group
Clay
Type
pHzpc
CEC
meq/100g
Permanent
Surface
charge
kaolin
kaolinite
1:1
4.6
3-15
no
permanent
charge
kaolin
dickite
kaolin
halloysite
kaolin
nacrite
smecite
montmorillonite
2:1
smecite
nontronite
2:1
smecite
saponite
2:1
illite
illite
chlorite
various:
nonswelling
swelling
2.5
80-120
negative
swelling
2:1
20-50
negative
nonswelling
2:1
10-40
positive
nonswelling
vermiculite
(trioctahedral)
100-200
vermiculite
(dioctahedral)
10-50
swelling
Table 3.2: Clay Properties

Kaolinite is a 1:1 clay with very little fixed negative surface charge (Kehew, 2001). The charge
on kaolinite develops due to complexation reactions and is pH dependent. So below a pH
threshold the whole kaolinite surface is positive; above the threshold the kaolinite surface is
negative. At the threshold, the so called pH at zero potential concentration, pHzpc, the
surface is neutral (Table 3.1).
Figure 3.2: Surface Charge of Three Clays as a Function of pH
A10DEC015A
14
Final
October 2010

Figure 3.2 shows the surface charge in meq/100g of kaolinite, illite and montmorillonite for
various pH values. The charge on permanently charged clays is seen to be much bigger than
the pH induced surface charge. This also means that the ion exchange capacity of the
permanently charged clays is bigger and less pH dependent than for kaolinite (see Section
3.2.3).
Kaolinite does, however, have high surface charge density as its specific surface area is
considerably lower than other clays. Also its crystal surfaces differ, where the basal (or
platelet face) surface charge is regarded as constant and due to substitution, while the
particle edge charge is subject to protonation/deprotonation of surface hydroxyl groups and
so is highly pH sensitive (see e.g. Schroth, 1997; Zhou, 1992).
3.2.2
Double Layer Expansion
The charged surface of a rock or clay attracts ions of the opposite charge in the water phase.
In this way the charged double layer that gives rise to the zeta potential is formed. Various
theories and description of the profile of the potential moving away from the surface exists
(Kehew, 2001). Here we stick to the simple illustration in Figure 3.3.
The thickness of the double layer is related to the concentration of ions in the water phase
and the charge of the ions, ne, by the following equation:
Thickness
[ions]
ne
This means that the double layer expands in low salinity water compared to high salinity
water. Expansion of the double layer can also explain the swelling of some clays in fresh
water. Swelling properties are listed in Table 3.2.
The above equation also implies that for the same concentration, divalent cations such as
Ca2+ decrease the thickness of the double layer more than monovalent ions like Na+.
Thickness = d
[ions ]
ne
High Salinity
Ca2+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Ca2+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Ca2+
- - - - - -d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Low Salinity
Ca2+ Na+
Na+
Na+ Na+ Ca2+ Na+ Na+
Na+ Na+ Na+ Ca2+
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Figure 3.3: Schematic of Electric Double Layer in High and Low Salinity Environments
Lee, 2010 (BP) report the results of small angle scattering experiments to measure the
thickness of the diffuse water layer around silica particles dispersed in oil with the electrochemical properties of the surface of the particles adjusted to be claylike. The salinity and
A10DEC015A
15
Final
October 2010

valency (that together form the ionic strength) of the water film was varied between
experiments. The results indicate that the lower the salinity the thicker the layer, with
monovalent cations giving less variation in thickness than divalent ions. From this the authors
conclude that the exchange of divalent ions for monovalent ions at low concentrations can
significantly enhance the thickness of the water layer and this provides some support for
BPs proposed explanation that expansion of the double layer triggers the Multicomponent Ion
Exchange (MIE) mechanism (Lager, 2007). However, there is no direct demonstration of the
mechanism, just of double layer expansion.
Ligthelm, 2009 (Shell) report that the apparent main mechanism for how low salinity water
flooding works is the expansion of the double layer, and the subsequent desorption of oil from
the clay surfaces.
Double layer expansion is also mentioned by University of Stavanger researchers (Austad,
2010) but their suggested mechanism on how low salinity water flooding is working is not
dependent on this expansion.
All this is discussed further in Section 3.5.
3.2.3
Ion Exchange
Clays have the capability of exchanging ions with the surrounding fluid. The equilibrium
between ions in the water phase and ions adsorbed to the clay surface (Figure 3.4) depends
on the concentration of ions in the water phase and the tendency of a particular ion to adsorb
on the surface. The exchange equilibrium is also affected by temperature, pressure and pH.
The tendency for an ion to replace another is in this order:
Na+
<
Mg2+
<
Ca2+
This means that Ca2+ ions will replace both Mg2+ ions and (two) Na+ ions and Mg2+ will
replace (two) Na+ ions. Note, however, that high concentrations of Na+ can reverse the
process (as happens when NaCl is added to the ion exchanger in a dishwasher).
Na+
<
Mg2+
<
Ca2+
Low salinity enhances this tendency
Ca2+
Ca2+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Ca2+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+ Ca2+
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Figure 3.4: Ion Exchange

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of various clays is given in Table 3.2 in meq/100g (milliequivalents per 100 gram of material). A permanently charged clay like montmorillonite has a
much bigger ion exchange capacity than kaolinite, with illite, that has both permanent and pH
induced charge, somewhere in-between. However, the surface areas of these clays also differ
and so the surface charge density may not follow the same trend.
A10DEC015A
16
Final
October 2010
3.3
In-Situ Osmosis
In-situ osmosis would seem to be an intuitive explanation for how low salinity water flooding
works, because this mechanism fits well with the ingredients of clays being present, high
salinity connate water and low salinity injection water. If clay particles form tiny membranes in
pore throats the pressure would rise on the high salinity side, possibly forcing additional oil
out of the pore.
This mechanism, therefore, should work regardless of the type of oil present. However, core
experiments using mineral oil (that is oil without polar components) show no enhanced
recovery with low salinity water flooding (Rivet, 2009; Buckley, 2009) so this explanation has
now been dropped. According to Buckley, 2009 low salinity water flooding also works in
reservoirs with low salinity connate brine which again weakens the osmosis theory.
3.4
IFT Reduction
The idea that low salinity water flooding works by a alkaline/surfactant mechanism came
about because many low salinity core flooding experiments showed a rise in pH. Thus the
released oil components could undergo saponification and react like surfactants (McGuire,
2005). It is also emphasised in McGuire, 2005 that predicting pH values for the field using
geochemical models should take account of many factors including carbon dioxide partial
pressures.
This mechanism has been rejected because low salinity water flooding has been seen to work
for oils with a low acid number and because a rise in pH is not seen in all experiments (Rivet,
2009). In any case hydrocarbon reservoirs are generally at below-neutral pH conditions and
there is considerable buffering provided by dissolved CO2 etc. If high pH is required for low
salinity water flooding to work (say up to the range 9-10) then adding alkali, at least as a
spearhead treatment, may be necessary in order to achieve these pH values around the
injected water flood front. Useful combination with the alkali-based chemical EOR methods
may be achievable as these processes also generally require low salinity water.
The oil-water surface active material that is loosened from the clay surfaces during low
salinity water injection is regarded as the same that creates the wettability changes (see
Section 3.5). Thus this explanation, and the double layer expansion, can be seen as effects
that further enhance the recovery of oil, and not as competing theories to any wettability
alteration mechanisms.
3.5
Wettability Alterations
There is considerable room for uncertainty about the role of wettability with conflicting
conclusions about the choice between water wet or intermediate wetting improving oil
recovery.
Changing the reservoir wettability from oil wet to water wet generally will improve the recovery
of a water flood (Anderson, 1987). An explanation of this looking at pore size distribution,
contact angles, etc., can be found inter alia in Sorbie, 2010 but no theories on the
mechanisms behind this wettability change are presented.
Sharma, 2000 carried out centrifuge experiments, investigating the influence of brine salinity
and wettability on oil recovery using connate brine of varying salinity. They found that the
A10DEC015A
17
Final
October 2010

recovery was higher with low salinity connate water than high salinity connate water, but that
the salinity of the injected brine was of less importance. One of the important conclusions
from their work is that it is not sufficient to look at the original wettability of the rock but rather
to be able to track changes in the wettability during flooding cycles. They attributed the higher
recovery to a movement from water wet towards more mixed-wet conditions. That might not
be so contrary to the prevailing theory that low salinity water injection changes the wettability
towards more water wet as the low salinity water was present in the cores initially and then
displaced by high salinity water in the experiments.
So far all the low salinity experiments that have been carried out demonstrate that wettability
and wettability changes are products of complex rock, brine and oil interactions and that
wettability changes with temperature and saturation history. Reported saturation histories
should include the salinity of the water phase and maybe other data related to water
chemistry as well.
It is well established that the presence of clays influences the wetting properties of a
formation. Also the oil composition, with polar groups in the oil and adsorbed onto the clays
plays an important role in determining wettability.
When it comes to explaining the cause of the wettability change, two theories have been
presented so far: the MIE theory favoured by BP and the pH induced wettability change
espoused by Stavanger University. The differences in the explanations seem rather subtle in
practical engineering terms, but they nevertheless have some implications on, for instance,
the types of clays that need to be present and the composition of the low salinity water
required for the different clay types as well the oil properties. Also, as discussed below,
realistic setting of the CO2 buffered pH values pertaining to reservoir conditions has often not
been achieved in the laboratory.
Normally clay is not regarded as beneficial to production of oil from a reservoir.
Accumulations of clay particles reduce the permeability, swell and block the flow and are not
desirable in low salinity water flooding either. Clay particles distributed in the sandstone pore
structure, however, are believed to play an important role in the suggested wettability
alteration mechanism explanations. This is so because the surface properties of the sand
minerals are less influenced by changes in the ionic strength of the water.
3.5.1
Multicomponent Ion Exchange (MIE) Mechanism
Lager, 2006 presents the BP view that the mechanism behind the incremental recovery from
low salinity water flooding is that free multi-charged cations replace the double layer cations
that form complexes with organic functional groups at the clay surfaces. This results both in
more water wet conditions and the mobilisation of oil components. The reason this
mechanism works for low salinity and not for high salinity is that low salinity brine expands the
electronic double layer of the clays (Lee, 2010). The view is also held by Shell (Ligthelm,
2009).
The concentrations of both the Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions in the low salinity water play an important
role. However, it is not clear from the various references that discuss the MIE mechanism
what the concentrations need to be to achieve incremental oil recovery. According to BPs
patent application (Lager, 2006-8), the concentrations of both these divalent ions need to be
lower than the connate water concentrations, although not zero, but these constraints have
been violated in many of the low salinity water floods and have still resulted in incremental
A10DEC015A
18
Final
October 2010

recovery. The effect of pH has to be included as ion exchange by H+ ions is important in
addition to the effect of other cations, principally Na+, K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+.
For the MIE mechanism to work, clays, preferably kaolinite, have to be present. Clays that
swell with fresh water and clays with a positive zeta potential, like chlorite, are detrimental to
the improvement of oil recovery. In addition, connate water containing some concentration of
Ca2+ ions has to be present for the method to work, as well as crude containing polar
components (Lager, 2006-8).
3.5.2
pH Induced Desorption of Organic Material
Austad, 2008 and co-workers at the University of Stavanger suggested a salt-in effect to
explain the additional recovery. Salt-in basically means that polar oil components are more
soluble in water when the ionic strength of the water is low (i.e. low salinity water). This initial
idea has now been elaborated and has changed towards a wettability alteration mechanism
that, like MIE and the loosening of clay particles, results in a more water wet rock when
injecting a low salinity fluid (Austad, 2010). In this mechanism the pH in the vicinity of the clay
surfaces increases locally because the Ca2+ ions adsorbed on to the clay are substituted by
H+. Adsorption of both base and acid oil components are very pH sensitive and the local
increase in pH value leads to desorption of organic material from the clay surfaces and thus
to enhanced water wettability.
This mechanism requires the presence of clays with a high cation exchange capacity, so the
ranking of favourable clays follows their cation exchange capacity (CEC) ranking;
montmorillonite better than illite/mica better than kaolinite. As a consequence of this theory,
reservoirs that contain kaolinite or chlorite have to have a certain concentration of Ca2+ ions in
the reservoir brine for low salinity water flooding to work, whereas there are no requirements
relating to the softness if the rock contains montmorillonite or illite/mica. The crude has to
contain polar components.
Oilfield waters generally have pH <7 due to the effect of dissolved acid gases (mainly CO2)
and oil-based (volatile fatty and naphthenic) acids. Injected water will come into contact with
hydrocarbons and become carbonated and adopt a more acidic nature than the surface water
before injection. The in situ pH values applying to the reservoir and downhole conditions will
be lower than those measured within surface samples due to loss of dissolved CO2, by
perhaps 0.5-1.0 units in many cases.
Generally, it appears that the effect of dissolved CO2 has not been given due emphasis in
core flooding methodology and in the theoretical discussion of pH effects on clays or organic
polar species. Given that pH plays an important part in any desorption of organic
components or on clay-based mechanisms then the simulation of reservoir condition pH
becomes all the more important.
3.6
Discussion of Recovery Mechanisms
Most, if not all the above mechanisms are feasible ways in which oil recovery may be
improved. It could be that a combination of effects influences laboratory core tests and field
trials.
A10DEC015A
19
Final
October 2010
Figure 3.4: Schematic of Capillary Pressure at Curved Oil/Water Interface

Figure 3.4 illustrates capillary pressure at a curved oil/water interface. This pressure is
responsible for retention of oil blobs and longer oil ganglia as illustrated in Figure 3.5. These
visualisations reflect the effect of wetting (contact angle ), interfacial tension () and pressure
gradients dp/dx). It is easy to appreciate that any change of contact angle toward 90 degrees
(Cos =0, neutral wetting), lowering of interfacial tension or increase in applied pressure
gradient would tend to enhance oil mobilisation and reduce trapping of oil droplets.
Figure 3.5: Schematic of Trapped Oil Ganglion

The length scales (influencing l of trapped connected oil) of pores, core samples and
reservoir heterogeneities have important influences on oil trapping. Core tests are expected
to show microscopic residual oil effects, assumed to be effectively linear flow processes and
are often assumed to be free of capillary end effects. Unfortunately, capillary end effects are
expected to be more sensitive to changes in wettability, interfacial tension and imposed
pressure gradients than the microscopic residual oil which is the focus of interest in the tests.
Evaluation of, or minimisation of, artefacts due to end effects should be seriously addressed
in core test design, as well as the minimisation of random measurement errors. Intra-core
heterogeneities can cause trapping of high oil-saturation patches and would impart a
sensitivity to mobility ratio (and the stability of flood fronts). Interfacial and pressure effects
therefore combine to determine oil recovery, and are influenced by the physical phenomena
discussed above.
Hence, there are several perceived mechanistic advantages in low salinity water injection,
while the quantification of the oil recovery benefit requires more precise assessment.
Screening on purely technical grounds may not be the only useful approach, but logistical and
economic factors should be considered up-front. There are significant advantages in the use
A10DEC015A
20
Final
October 2010

of low salinity water for polymer, surfactant and alkaline EOR processes and so combination
of these methods with low salinity water flooding should be emphasised. Considering
application economics, synergy with (sulphate reduction and desalination) water treatment
technologies applied for other reasons, such as for scale control and reservoir souring
prevention should be considered in the screening of candidate fields.
A10DEC015A
21
Final
October 2010
Chemical and Environmental Aspects
4.1
Offshore Production of Low Salinity Water
For conventional water flooding water is normally sourced from the sea. The water is filtered
and deaerated, and biocide is added to reduce reservoir souring. In some cases the water is
desulphanated to prevent the formation of sulphate scale as a result of incompatibilities
between the injection and formation waters. In some cases more compatible water is sourced
from nearby aquifers.
It may be that sources of water with a composition suitable for low salinity water flooding
could be found in the aquifer formations immediately around offshore installations.
Alternatively low salinity water for offshore applications could be produced by desalinating
seawater. This is often done on a smaller scale offshore for potable water and for to mix water
based mud. (where fresh water is required to swell the clays).
Seawater desalination methods can be either thermal or membrane based. Ayirala, 2010 has
reviewed all the methods and discounted thermal methods principally on the physical size and
weight of the plant involved, and the fact that the processes require large amounts of steam
which is not easily available offshore. On the other hand, membrane-based reverse osmosis
methods are attractive for offshore use because of suitable space, weight and energy
requirements. However, a drawback is that reverse osmosis produces almost fresh water
which would swell clays. Spiking back some of the reverse osmosis reject stream or mixing
the fresh water with seawater adds back sulphate which is undesirable from a reservoir
souring point of view. So Shell (Ayirala, 2010) are proposing an new desalination scheme
which they have trademarked under the name Designer Water (Figure 4.1) which involves
back to back nanofiltration and reverse osmosis stages; with the former reducing the
hardness of the water including removal of SO42- and the latter reducing the salinity. The
output is water with TDS <500 ppm which is lower than required (typically 1000-5000 ppm) so
small quantities of the nanofiltered water or the reject streams at each stage are blended back
to produce Designer Water of the required specification (Blending 1, 2 and 3 in Figure 4.1).
Adding back divalent ions (but avoiding SO42-) is important in preventing clay swelling and
flocculation.
Figure 4.1: Flow Schematic of Shells Designer Water Process

A10DEC015A
22
Final
October 2010

Such process plant could be incorporated on an offshore platform or even on a ship or
floating facility (which would allow reuse). Shell see economic production of low salinity water
offshore as the key to opening up the use of other water based EOR processes such as
polymer flooding, alkaline/surfactant/polymer flooding and linked polymer systems (LPS)
where the use of low salinity mixing water enables the use of smaller quantities and cheaper
chemicals (as discussed in Section 3.6).
4.2
Costs
There are obviously expenditures associated with providing a source of low salinity water
whether by building and operating a combined nanoflitration/reverse osmosis plant or
exploring for and producing from an appropriate aquifer. The cost effectiveness will obviously
depend on the amount and timing of the incremental recovery. Additional benefits would be a
reduction in scaling and souring risk with a consequent reduction in the cost of chemicals.
4.3
Environmental Issues
If low salinity water is sourced from a combined nanoflitration/reverse osmosis plant the high
hardness and salinity reject streams will require to be disposed of overboard. Also any solids,
sludges, or filter media that are by-products of the process.
This should not be an insuperable problem and would be dealt with at the environmental
impact assessment stage.
A10DEC015A
23
Final
October 2010
Screening Criteria
Despite the different explanations of how low salinity recovery works and the many
parameters that apparently play a role which leaves a somewhat confusing picture, there
seems to be agreement on some common features:
Clays have to be present and distributed in the formation.
Formation water and/or seawater (high salinity) from prior flooding has to be present.
The low salinity injection water has to have a salinity below some limit (TDS <~0.5%
or 5000 ppm).
The oil has to contain polar components.
The reservoir has to be oil wet or intermediate wet (or mixed wet).
In addition to these five points according to the MIE explanation the concentration of Ca2+ in
the injected low salinity water needs be lower than the Ca2+ concentration in the connate
water, although this requirement is not as widely accepted as the points above.
None of these requirements is without exception but can be applied as rough screening
criteria to identify fields that might benefit from the method. However, because of the complex
and often contradicting oil-brine-rock interactions suggested to explain how the process
works, there is no theoretical predictive tool to determine the performance in individual
reservoirs. Also, the above requirements are actually met by a great number of reservoirs and
it is not easy to discount particular fields from consideration. At a high level, the wettability
criterion could be used to exclude cases but even here it appears that there are exceptions to
the rule. Preferably, the process has to be laboratory tested at realistic reservoir conditions
(including temperature), using the valid core, reservoir oil and brine at the appropriate
composition, pH etc for each candidate field. The required composition of the low salinity
water has to be determined by trial and error, based on experience so far.
5.1
Clay
With the exception of the Tensleep formation (Buckley, 2009) investigations so far indicate
that clays have to be present and distributed in the formation for low salinity additional
recovery to work.
BP has found that low salinity works extremely well in the Endicott field (Seccombe, 2010),
where the dominant clay is kaolinite. This is somewhat surprising as kaolinite, unlike many of
the other reservoir clays, is a 1:1 clay with a limited cation exchange capacity (Section 3.2.1).
However as this clay has a low specific surface area the effect of CEC on surface electrical
effects is so much greater.
Clays that swell with fresh water and clays with a positive zeta potential are detrimental to the
recovery according to the MIE explanation. The supposedly detrimental effect of chlorite is
perhaps seen in Zhang, 2006, where Berea 60 core cannot be made to respond positively to
low salinity water injection. Berea 60 has the same kaolinite content as other Berea cores but
more chlorite.
A10DEC015A
24
Final
October 2010

The pH induced cation exchange mechanism for low salinity water flood recovery requires the
presence of clays with a high cation exchange capacity, so the ranking of favorable clays
follow their cation exchange capacity ranking: montmorillonite > illite/mica > kaolinite (Austad,
2010). According to this theory chlorite is not a showstopper. The swelling properties of
montmorillonite are probably avoided if the injected water is not totally without ions.
Screening criterion: Distributed clays have to be present in the formation.
5.2
Ion Composition of the Injected Water
To date, none of the theories can indicate how low the concentration of salt has to be in order
for low salinity water flooding to work, but all experiments so far seem to show that the salinity
has to be below some field specific threshold (around 5000 ppm), but not zero in order to
avoid clay swelling.
According to BP the multiple cation and divalent cation concentration in the injected water has
to be lower than in the formation water for the method to work (Lager, 2006). The MIE theory
requires Ca2+ ions in the injected water, implying that low salinity water injection does not
work for pure NaCl solutions, or other brines not containing Ca2+. However, Tang, 1999 show
that incremental recovery can be obtained from low salinity water flooding regardless of the
valence of the cations injected.
From the pH theory the presence of Ca2+ and Mg2+ is important when the clay is kaolinite or
chlorite but does not matter for montmorillonite or illite/mica.
Screening criteria: none. Trial and error core flood experiments have to be carried out with
the right formation, oil and reservoir brine etc. at reservoir temperature to see if an effective
salinity and water composition can be found. Salinities of the order 5000 ppm should be
tested as a first estimate. Following favourable core test results, field tests like log-inject-log
and single well reactive chemical tracer tests (SWCTTs) are recommended before inter-well
field trials are contemplated.
5.3
Oil Composition
The oil composition influences the outcome of low salinity water flooding. Polar groups have
to be present in the oil for the method to work. The more of these components that are
present, the more the oil is thought to wet the formation, so there is probably a connection
between this and the wettability criteria.
Screening criterion: Oil must contain a fair amount of polar components, i.e. relatively high
acid or base number. Crude oils in general contain such components as volatile fatty and
naphthenic acids which would be active in the desired manner; however, it may be difficult to
exclude any particular crude oil from consideration.
5.4
Wettability
Wettability and wettability changes are products of complex rock, brine and oil interactions,
temperature and saturation history. Thus applying the term wettability reflects on the
importance of all the parameters, oil composition, clay content and type, water compositions
and saturation history and perhaps these should not be put into one single simplified
parameter.
A10DEC015A
25
Final
October 2010

The mechanisms causing low salinity improved recovery are probably dependent on all the
parameters that determine the wettability, so it is probably not sufficient to find a formation oil
wet or mixed-wet or intermediate wet to be certain that the reservoir is susceptible to low
salinity water flooding. The interaction of parameters resulting in the wettability state might
turn out to be unfavourable to low salinity water flooding.
If low salinity water flooding, by some mechanism, changes the wettability from the oil wet
end of the spectrum to be more mixed/intermediate to water wet, the process will result in
incremental oil recovery. To date, it would appear that few have tested directly whether low
salinity moves the wettability towards more water wet, except maybe Sharma, 2000 where the
salinity of the connate water was varied.
Nevertheless, the following screening criterion is suggested:
Screening criterion: Only reservoirs that are not strongly water wet and are towards the oil
wet end of the wettability spectrum (i.e. intermediate, mixed or oil wet) should be considered.
5.5
Ranking of Fields for Low Salinity EOR Potential
As noted above it is not possible to screen for whether low salinity water flooding is
appropriate in a particular field without doing reservoir condition core floods. However, it will
be necessary to high-grade or rank fields on some basis in order to determine which ones to
screen first.
A10DEC015A
26
Final
October 2010
Rock/Fluid Properties
Wettability (oil wet, intermediate wet, Amott Index?)
Oil/water IFT lowering (>50%)?
High salinity formation water (>5%)
High dispersed clay (kaolinite?)
High residual oil saturation (from core floods?) (>30%)
Reservoir/Facilities
Freshwater source (<= 5000 mg/l salts?)
Desalination feedstock water source (< 36,000 mg/l salts?)
Desalination plant practicable (space, weight etc)
High Ba, Sr, Ca in formation water (additional scale control benefits?)
Maturity of waterflood (relatively immature?)
Testing practicable (SWCTTs, confined pilot area pilot?)
Core material available (preserved?)
Potential Benefit
Remaining STOIIP (large?)
Potential for other water based EOR techniques (A/S/P, LPS, Bright Water?)
Table 5.1: Possible Criteria to Rank Fields for Low Salinity Water Flooding Potential
Table 5.1 is a suggested list of criteria to use for this purpose. We suggest that a scoring
system be devised to go with these criteria and all reservoirs/flow units are screened to draw
up a list of the most attractive prospects. These are then the initial candidates for the
systematic laboratory screening programme.
We recommend that such a screening programme should be undertaken systematically and
consistently by independent laboratories used to performing reservoir condition core floods
and able to understand and quantify the uncertainties in the measurements. Our preliminary
estimate is that a basic cost for the required experiments is in the range 10-20k per reservoir
flow unit.
A particular issue is whether a mature water flooded field is ever too late in its development to
benefit from low salinity water flooding. There may be some evidence relating to this from a
simulation result from an earlier study by RML for DTI (Hughes, 2003). This was in fact a
simulation of a 1D coreflood where it was postulated that an injected chemical agent could
change the wettability of the water/oil/rock system from intermediate/oil wet to water wet. The
relative permeabilities and corresponding fractional flow curves for these two states are
shown in Figure 5.1. For both sets of curves the end point saturation to water flooding is 20%
and the chemical had no effect on the phase viscosities.
A10DEC015A
27
Final
October 2010
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
Kro
Krw
0.6
Krw
fw
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
Kr, fw
Kr, fw
Kro
0.7
fw
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.2
Sw
0.3
0.7
0.8
Sw
Figure 5.1: Intermediate/Oil Wet (left) and Water Wet (right) Relative Permeabilities
used in Simulation
The results of the simulation are shown in Figure 5.2. The wettability changing agent was
added to the injection water after 3.3 HCPV of water injection by which time the water cut was
~98% and the oil recovery about 63% of OIIP. The initial response to the wettability changing
agent is seen after ~30% HCPV has been injected and the burst of incremental recovery
which brings the total recovery to 80% OIIP (i.e. all the waterflood mobile oil) is all but
complete after a single hydrocarbon pore volume of the wettability changing agent has been
injected. During the period of incremental recovery the simulation predicts that the watercut
falls to ~60%.
It is appreciated that this is a very optimistic and idealised calculation. But from this result, as
a rule of thumb, it is suggested that only fields where there is sufficient time to inject one
hydrocarbon pore volume of water in the targeted area should be considered; and it will be
necessary to add to this an estimated lead time before low salinity water injection can begin.
For practical purposes this probably rules out, or at least down grades, fields with an
expected cessation of production date within the next 10 years.
Injection of wettability
changing agent begins here
(after 330% HCPV injected)
Figure 5.2: Response to Wettability Change on Cumulative Recovery and Watercut
A10DEC015A
28
Final
October 2010
Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1
Conclusions
Significant programmes of work investigating low salinity water flooding have been
undertaken by oil field operators and research institutes for almost 20 years. These have
covered laboratory core floods, single well reactive chemical tracer tests (SWCTTs) and one
well to well pilot of tertiary low salinity water flooding. In addition data on earlier low salinity
secondary water floods has been analysed.
The main conclusions to be drawn from this research and development work are:
Low salinity water flooding is an immature EOR technology but there does seem to be
positive proof of field success. Uncertainty exists about the benefit with a suggested
range of 0 to 12% OIIP.
As yet there is no consensus of view on the mechanisms behind the process (i.e.
what is causing the increase in recovery).
As a consequence a priori prediction of which fields might be suitable and the

potential incremental recovery in a given field is not possible, rather core floods and
other laboratory studies are required followed by SWCTTs.
A suitable source of low salinity water could be provided economically offshore from a
combined nanofiltration and reverse osmosis processing plant or from a suitable
shallow aquifer.
Provision of a low salinity water supply in a field can act as a vanguard for other water
based EOR processes such as polymer flooding, alkaline/surfactant/polymer flooding
and linked polymer systems (LPS) with potential for even greater incremental
recoveries. It can also overcome conventional problems such as souring and scaling.
Although not yet proved, low salinity water flooding either alone or in conjunction with
other water based EOR techniques has the potential to be a game changer in
offshore reservoirs on a 3 to 8 year time frame.
6.2
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
All fields where water flooding is ongoing or planned should be screened to determine
the potential benefit of switching to low salinity water flooding. This should be
undertaken systematically and consistently by independent laboratories using
standard methodology. Such national screening programmes should be centrally
organised but funded by operators. The opportunity should also be taken to extend
this to systematic screening of the potential for other water based EOR techniques. A
strategy is suggested to high grade the fields that should be the initial candidates for
the screening.
The current experimental methodologies around low salinity water flooding should be
refined and standardised. Experiments need to be carried out at reservoir conditions
A10DEC015A
29
Final
October 2010

(including temperature, CO2 partial pressure and pH) using live crude, reservoir brine
and native core with wettability conditions restored. Capillary end effects should be
minimised and CT scanning or other techniques to record in situ residual oil
saturation should be considered. Flow rates and pressure gradients need to be
monitored and controlled during core testing and related to field inter-well gradients
and rates. Uncertainties in core flood measurements need to be reliably assessed
(random errors claimed to be below +/-1.5%, but systematic effects uncertain) in
order to evaluate the significance of the improved oil recovery data. We estimate that
at a basic level such a programme would cost between 10-20k per reservoir flow
unit.
DECC/NPD should initiate a study to investigate the costs of building and operating a
combined nanofiltration/reverse osmosis plant on an offshore platform or on a
reusable floating vessel.
DECC/NPD should encourage operators to share more detailed information on their

investigations and publish more data on oil composition, and injected and produced
water compositions in SCAL experiments.
DECC/NPD should ask operators to consider the economic benefits of low salinity
water flooding in the round; i.e. it can also reduce souring and scale, yield cost
savings on production chemicals and corrosion management, and reduce safety and
environmental costs.
A10DEC015A
30
Final
October 2010
References
Anderson WG, 1987, Wettability Literature Survey - Part 6: The Effects of Wettability on
Waterflooding, JPT, p1605
Austad T, 2008, Smart Water for Enhanced Oil Recovery: A Comparison of Mechanisms in
Carbonates and Sandstones, presentation at the FORCE seminar on Low Salinity, NPD,
Stavanger
Austad T et al, 2010, Chemical Mechanism of Low salinity Water Flooding in Sandstone
Reservoirs, SPE 129767, SPE IOR Symposium, Tulsa
Ayirala S, et al, 2010, A Designer Water Process for Offshore Low Salinity and Polymer
Flooding Applications, SPE 129926, SPE IOR Symposium, Tulsa
BP, 2010, Clair Ridge Project North Sea SPU Environmental Assessment Scoping Report
Buckley J, 2009, Low Salinity Waterflooding - An Overview of Likely Mechanisms, on-line
presentation
Heigre E, 2008, Low Salinity Water Injection - Heidrun Field Case Study, presentation at the
FORCE seminar on Low Salinity, NPD, Stavanger
Hughes DS, 2003, Presentation on Modelling of Possible Hydragel Wettability Effect, part of a
study Mechanistic Investigation of a Novel Polymer/Surfactant and Identification/Design of
Potential Field Trial, A02DTI09, RML for DTI, 2004
Jerauld GR et al, 2006, Modelling Low-Salinity Waterflooding. SPE 102239
Kehew AE, 2001, The Geochemistry of Natural Waters (Chapter 4)
Lager A et al, 2006-8, BP Low Salinity Patent Application (Hydrocarbon Recovery Process),
PCT/GB2007/003337 - WO 2008/029124 A1
Lager A et al, 2006, Low Salinity Oil Recovery An Experimental Investigation, SCA2006-36,
presented at the Society of Core analysts meeting, Trondheim
Lager A et al, 2007, Impact of Brine Chemistry on Oil Recovery, presented at the 14th EAGE
European Symposium on EOR, Cairo
Lake LW, 1989, Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice-Hall
Lee SY et al, 2010, Low Salinity Oil Recovery - Increasing Understanding of the Underlying
Mechanisms, SPE 129722, SPE IOR Symposium, Tulsa
Ligthelm D et al, 2009, Novel Waterflooding Strategy by Manipulation of Injection Brine
Composition, SPE 119835, SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in
Amsterdam
Lower SK, 1996, Solids in Contact with Natural Waters, text from Simon Fraser University
A10DEC015A
31
Final
October 2010

Mair, 2010, Clair Ridge LoSal EOR Case Study: Laboratory Measurement to Front End
Engineering Design, BP Exploration & Production, IEA EOR Workshop and Symposium,
Aberdeen
McGuire et al, 2005, Low Salinity Oil Recovery - an Exiting New EOR Opportunity for Alaska's
North Slope, SPE 93903
Rivett SM, 2009, Core Flooding Oil Displacements with Low Salinity Brine, MSc.Thesis
University of Texas
Robertson EP et al, 2007, Low-Salinity Waterflooding to Improve Oil Recovery - Historical
Field Evidence, SPE 109965
Schleidegger AE, 1974, The Physics of Flow in Porous Media, Monograph
Schroth B and Sposito G, 1997, Surface Charge Properties of Kaolinite, Clays and Clay
Minerals, Vol 45, No 1, pp85-91
Seccombe JC et al, 2008, Improving Waterflood Recovery: LoSal EOR Field Evaluation. SPE
113480
Seccombe J et al, 2010, Demonstration of Low-Salinity EOR at Interwell Scale, Endicott Field
Alaska. SPE 129692, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa
Sharma M and Filico PR, 2000, Effect of Brine Salinity and Crude-Oil Properties on Oil
Recovery and Residual Saturations, SPE 65402
Skrettingland K et al, 2010, Snorre Low Salinity Water Injection - Core Flooding Experiments
and Single Well Field Pilot. SPE 129877, SPE IOR Symposium, Tulsa
Sorbie K and Collins IR, 2010, A Proposed Pore-Scale Mechanism for How Low Salinity
Waterflooding Works, SPE 129833, SPE IOR Symposium, Tulsa
Spangenberg D et al, 2008, Low Salinity Waterflooding: Opportunities and Challenges for
Field Pilot Tests, presentation at the FORCE seminar on Low Salinity, NPD, Stavanger
Tang G and Morrow N, 1999, Oil Recovery by Waterflooding and Imbibition - Invading Brine
Cation Valance and Salinity, SCA 9911
Tang G and Morrow N, 1999b, Influence of Brine Composition and Fines Migration on Crude
Oil/Brine/Rock Interactions and Oil Recovery, Proceedings of the 5th International
Symposium on Evaluation of Reservoir Wettability and its Effect on Oil Recovery, Trondheim,
Norway, June1998, and published in J Pet. Sci. Eng, 24: 99-111
Vledder P et al, 2010, Low Salinity Water Flooding: Proof of Wettability Alteration on a Field
Wide Scale, SPE 129564, SPE IOR Symposium, Tulsa
Webb K, 2008, The LoSal EOR process: From Laboratory to Field, presentation at the
FORCE seminar on Low Salinity, NPD, Stavanger
Zhang Y and Morrow N, 2006, Comparison of Secondary and Tertiary Recovery with Change
in Injection Brine Composition for Crude Oil Sandstone Combinations, SPE 99757
A10DEC015A
32
Final
October 2010

Zhang Y et al, 2007, Waterflood Performance by Injection of Brine with Different Salinity for
Reservoir Cores, SPE109849
Zhou Z and Gunter W, 1992, The Nature of the Surface Charge of Kaolinite, Clays and Clay
Minerals, Vol 40, No 3, pp365-368
A10DEC015A
33
Final
October 2010
CD Information
Enclosed on this CD under the files folder are
Report.pdf
The Report.pdf should autorun when inserted into a CD drive on a PC. If not you can run Adobe Acrobat viewer from
the CD by clicking on Acrord32.exe . You can then open the report.pdf file by selecting File Open from the menu and
point it to the report.pdf file on the CD.
If you require any assistance with this CD please contact the Senergy IT helpdesk :
Email: helpdesk@senergyworld.com Tel: +44 (1224) 213440 Fax: +44 (1224) 213453
Return to Frontpage

Review of Low Salinity Water Flooding for Oil Recovery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Low Salinity Water Flooding for Oil Recovery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Low Salinity Water Flooding

David Hughes, Susanne Larsen and Rob Wright