SPE-174584-MS

Potential Evaluation of Ion Tuning Waterflooding for a Tight Oil Reservoir
in Jiyuan OilField: Experiments and Reservoir Simulation Results
Quan Xie, Desheng Ma, Jiazhong Wu, Qingjie Liu, Ninghong Jia, and Manli Luo, Research Institute of Petroleum
Exploration and Development of PetroChina, Beijing, China

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 August 2015.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Low salinity waterflood (LSF) is a promising improved oil recovery (IOR) technology. Although, it has
been demonstrated that LSF is an efficient IOR method for many sandstone reservoirs, the potential of
LSF in tight oil reservoir is not well-established. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of the
potential of low salinity waterfloding for the tight reservoirs in Jiyuan Oilfield, China. This investigation
pushes the application envelope of low salinity waterflooding towards the reservoir with low permeability
(lower than 0.5mD), formation salinity of up to 45,180ppm, reservoir temperature of 70°C and in-situ oil
viscosity of 0.6 cp.
Our laboratory evaluation included zeta potential tests for interface of oil/brine and brine/rock,
thermodynamic analysis through disjoining pressure calculation, corefloods using representative core
samples.
Thermodynamic analysis showed that decreasing divalent cations and salinity makes the electrical
charges at both oil/brine and brine/rock interfaces become strongly negative, which enhanced the
repulsive forces between oil and rock due to the double electric layer expansion. As a result, the rock turns
more water-wet. Secondary corefloods were conducted with two different brines, which include shallow
aquifer water and ion tuning water with consideration of field application. Coreflooding Experimental
results were history matched to obtain the relative permeability curves. Results showed that compared to
shallow aquifer water, low-salinity water exhibited a higher oil relative permeability and lower water
relative permeability at the same water saturation and a lower residual oil saturation to water.
Laboratory results were input into a reservoir simulator to investigate the potential of low-salinity water
flood in Jiyuan oilfield. It showed that suitably formulated ion tuning water (ITW) has the potential to
accelerate oil production and improve displacement efficiency, thus resulting in a higher recovery factor
with only a fraction of pore volume of low-salinity water injected.
To conclude, this paper demonstrates that ITWF has a good potential as an IOR/EOR technology in
tight reservoirs, the key points are described as follows. Firstly, the mechanism of ITWF was interpreted
by thermodynamics of wettability. Secondly, laboratory experiments have shown that ITWF could
improve oil recovery by accelerating the oil production rate and decrease the residual oil production.

The reservoir cores were rich in clays.Lager 2006. waterflooding involves much lower cost investment and convenient operation. (2)Multi-component ionic exchange between the rock minerals and the injected brine was proposed to be as the major mechanism to enhance oil recovery (A. Sohrabi and Emadi 2013.2 SPE-174584-MS Thirdly. shallow aquifer water and ion tuning water. it was found that water chemistry and salinity level have a significant influence on oil recovery from the experiments in the laboratory and field trials(Mahani. 2008). Shalabi. Shalabi. Sepehrnoori et al. However. Webb et al. Sepehrnoori et al. 2011. especially from interfacial scale (nano-scale) to core-scale to mechanistic model. Skrettingland. the mineralogy of the core plugs are still diverse. the potential of ITWF in a tight oil reservoir in Jiyuan oilfield is investigated using a mechanistic model based on input data of laboratory experiments. Holt et al. 2013. Introduction Waterflooding technology has been the most successful approach to improve oil recovery. The general agreement among researchers is that low salinity waterflooding cause reservoirs become more water-wet (Fjelde. 2011. Asen et al. The compositions of the brines were listed in Table 1. The key point to reach this success of waterflooding is that the differential pressure can be formed by the water injection. In recent years. Nasralla and Nasr-El-Din 2012. as shown in Table 2. And also. . (1) Fines migration and clays swelling caused by ions tuning waterflood are the main mechanism of improved oil recovery (Morrow and Buckley 2011. Pizzinelli et al. including formation brine.152 3. Parracello. 2014). 2014). The content of clays was analyzed by X-ray test to unveil the importance of the clays on the low salinity EOR-effect in low permeability reservoirs. 2012. Shaikh and Sharifi 2013. mainly in kaolinite and chlorite. Even the core plugs were extracted in the same formation with almost same depth of the formation. Table 1—Composition of the different brines Ingredients (mg/l) Brines Formation brine (FB) Shallow aquifer water (SAW) Ion tuning water (ITW) KⴙⴙNaⴙ Ca2ⴙ Mg2ⴙ HCO3ⴚ 14700 848 853 2090 241 10 286 75 5 0 49 45 Clⴚ SO42ⴚ Ba2ⴙ TDS (mg/l) 27072 730 510 515 1620 1100 489 0 0 45. Wu et al. which is necessary to displace oil out of formation. which was in the range of 20 –30%. Three different brines were used in the experiments. 2012.523 Mineralogy of core plugs The core plugs for zeta potential and coreflood tests were extracted from the Ji Yuan oilfield. A quarter of five spot model was created to investigate the controlling factor of ion tuning water flooding. However. Lager. (3) Expansion of the double layer to be as the dominant mechanism of oil recovery improvement(Nasralla and Nasr-El-Din 2012). Xie.564 2. several mechanisms were proposed to account how the ions tuning waterflood to recover additional oil. with consideration of fracturing either producer or injector and fracturing both of wells. Experiments Experimental fluids Crude oil from Ji Yuan oilfield was used for zeta potential and coreflooding experiments. This paper presents a workflow of ion tuning waterflooding and unveils the potential of ion tuning waterflooding in Ji Yuan tight oilfield in China. Sohrabi and Emadi 2013).5mD) is rarely investigated. the potential evaluation of ion tuning waterflooding in the low permeability reservoirs (less than 0. Sorop et al.

Tang and Morrow 1999). which depends on the electrical double layer repulsion and Van der Waals force (Buckley 1989. shallow aquifer water (SAW) and ion tuning water (Figure 1). Rock wettability is closely related to the thickness of water film between rock surface and crude oil. compared with formation water and shallow aquifer water.6 19. injection water with different ion types and concentration will trigger the alternation of the surface charges at both interfaces – oil/brine and solids/brine. An unstable water film.5 30.9 21.2 34. The parameters of experimental cores were listed as Table 3.6 9 26 15 7 14 13 46 36 50 38 24 22 Zeta potential tests Zeta potential technique was applied to understand the relation between electric double layer and wettability regarding the charges at interfaces of oil/brine and solids/brine.9 40.4 20.5 8. Hirasaki 1991). due to the low salinity and few divalent ions presence. The zeta potential test also shows that lowing the salinity and divalent cations might be helpful to increase the double layer expansion and peel the oil film off from the pore wall. or thin water film. Table 2—Mineralogy of the experimental core plugs Mineral type and content (%) Composition of clays and content (%) Sample Quartz Potash feldspar Soda feldspar Calcite Total clay minerals (%) Smectite (%) Illite (%) Kaolinite (%) Chlorite (%) A B C 36.8 17. Therefore. Then.SPE-174584-MS 3 especially with different total clay minerals. The .2 15. Figure 1—Zeta potential results of interfaces of oil/brines and brines/reservoir rock Coreflooding experiments All of the coreflood experiments were conducted under 70°C and the core plugs used in the experiment were extracted from the Ji Yuan oilfield. oil film may detach from the pore wall by increase of electrical double layer repulsion and the oil recovery will be improved (Takahashi and Kovscek 2010). which is bounded by the interfaces of oil/brine and solid/brine (Hirasaki 1991. Wettability of the rock will be determined by the stability of the water film.8 9. which are recognized the main factor to influence the low salinity EOE-Effect (Morrow and Buckley 2011. including formation water. Zeta potential test results show that the ion tuning water resulted in zeta potential at interfaces of oil/brine and brine/rock strongly negative. Three experimental cores and crude oil were used for zeta potential test with three different brines.9 – 22. Nasralla and Nasr-El-Din 2014).9 13.8 7. may cause the wettability to be preferential to be oil-wet.

Table 3—Parameters of the core plugs in the coreflooding experments Sample Length (cm) Diameter (cm) Porosity (%) K klink (mD) Swi(%) Sorw (%) RF (%) 1# 2# 3# 5. the volume of the mineral oil was displaced by the crude oil used in the experiment under 70°C and the cores were put inside of the oven for four weeks to restore the wettability.4%) than shallow . were saturated the simulated formation water. The weight of the cores before mineral oil displacement was measured to calculate the Swi. Then.52 11.s in room temperature in each of the direction.8 61. According to the waterflooding history of Ji Yuan oilfield.3 Formulations Shallow aquifer water Ion tuning water Ion tuning water 1. The core plugs were evacuated for 10 hours. In this study. however.5 mD.92 2. The core plugs.5 mPa. 5. A Quizix-SP-5400 pump with the accurate control at the constant low flow rate was used in the flooding system.52 2. Figure 2 shows that ion tuning water exhibits higher measureable oil recovery (8. the initial water saturation (i. was established by injecting 5–10 PV of mineral oil with the viscosity at 15. 4. irreducible water saturation). the core plugs were flooded with experimental brines with flow rate at 0.93 5. three coreflooding experiments were executed by using two different brines (ion tuning water and shallow aquifer water) under secondary mode.8 31. Ultimately. But the ion tuning water EOR-Effect was explored by further decreasing the divalent cations. followed by desaturation by using crude oil.4 SPE-174584-MS brine permeability of the experimental cores was lower than 0.4 56. and then were saturated with formation brine for another 10 hours at room temperature. Sorop et al.42 23.38 0.53 0.43 0.025 ml/min at the 70°C to obtain Sorw. Core plugs of approximately 2. The oil recovery and pressure drop from the coreflooding experiments were showed in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Afterwards.9 33.e.4 64.06 11. which was drilled from the reservoir with formation brine. Then those core plugs were put into oven for four weeks under reservoir temperature to restore the wettability.91 5. 2.32 10.8 21. 2014).5 cm in diameter were cut from the whole core. The volume of oil displaced by the experimental brine and the weight of the core before brine displacement were measured to calculate the oil recovery factor. 3.2 27. It was injected at a rate of 0.52 2. Table 1 shows that the salinity of shallow aquifer water is already much lower than formation brine. due to limitation of amount of representative core plugs from the reservoir. The experimental procedures to quantify LSF were well discussed in the literature(Masalmeh. The experimental procedures adopted in this paper were given as below. shallow aquifer water was injected to the formation for pressure maintenance at very beginning.1 18.1 mL/min with a net confining pressure not exceeding 3 MPa under room temperature. The porosity of the cores was calculated from the bulk volume of the rock and the weight difference between dry weight and the weight of core saturated with formation brine. Swi.

Above all we must mention that further coreflooding experiments. It also shows that suitable formulated the composition. injected time Figure 3—Coreflooding experiments with different brines. including ion tuning waterflooding under tertiary mode should be done and also history matched to further confirm the low salinity EOR. since the core plugs. This could be contributed to the lower initial water saturation of core 3#. In this case. the low salinity EOR-Effect was confirmed by the history matching the oil recovery and pressure drop. lower incremental oil recovery was observed from core 3#. (1) . which was discussed in simulation part of this study. oil recovery vs. contact angle and capillary pressure using the DLVO theory and Laplace-Young Equation (Hirasaki 1991). compared to core 2#. it will be uncertain to qualify the low salinity effect without history matching to derive the relative permeability. electrical and structural forces (Hirasaki 1991. Thermodynamic analysis Hirasaki has investigated the thermodynamics of the thin films to determine the interdependence of spreading. injected time aquifer water under almost equivalent initial oil saturation. Busireddy and Rao 2004). Therefore. compared with the shallow aquifer water. would present a range of oil recovery factors. ion tuning water. saturated with different initial water saturation. the ion tuning waterflooding under tertiary mode was not performed due to the limitation of representative core plugs and current oilfield production (shallow aquifer water was injected under secondary mode). However. pressure drop vs. But in this study.SPE-174584-MS 5 Figure 2—Coreflooding experiments with different brines. The intermolecular forces comprise of the van der Waals. can accelerate the oil recovery.

this force is recognized as the strength of the attachment between to solids.␧3(iv) are the electronic absorption terms. The London-van der Waals force between the two similar materials is usually attractive. In this study. it is assumed that the coefficient is 1. and ion tuning water (see Figure 4). T is the kelvin temperature. compared with formation water.⌿r2 are the reduced potential. therefore. Melrose(Melrose 1982) used the Hamaker constant ranging from 0. The Hamaker constant for a film system is calculated from the experimentally for two identical bodies in a vacuum. k is the Boltzmann constant. ␬ is the reciprocal Debye-Huckel double layer length. In this study. and h is the distance between the two plates. formation water cause the film between the interfaces of oil/brine . The Hamaker constant for oil/silica in water is approximately 1⫻10⫺20 J(Hirasaki 1991). The Van der Waals and structural forces are assumed to be same at all values water film thickness and molarity. Disjoining pressure calculations were listed as blow.␧3 are the static dielectric constants. (5) Where Ak is the coefficient and hs is the characteristic decay length for the exponential model.5⫻1010 Pa and the decay length is 0. kBand is the Boltzman constant. These experimental values are in agreement with the theoretical calculation. thus resulting in thicker and stable water film. 0. On the contrary. shallow aquifer water.8⫻10⫺20 J was used as the Hamaker constant. The structural interaction is calculated from(Hirasaki 1991b). However.3 to 0.6 SPE-174584-MS Where ␲Total is the disjoining pressure of the specific intermolecular interactions which reflects the interactive forces between the interface of water/oil and water/rock. The electrical double layer force is estimated using zeta potentials and is approximated by(Gregory 1975) (4) Where ⌿r1. ␧2(iv). ␭ is the London wavelength. Results show that shallow aquifer water makes the interfaces between oil/brine and brine/rock become repulsive force.␧2.9⫻10⫺20 J. The charges can be formed either by dissociation of the surface charges or adsorption of the charges onto an uncharged surface. nbis the ion density in the bulk solution. the London-van der Waals and electrical double layer forces are long-range interactions compared to the structural forces. Structural Forces The structural forces are short-range interactions at a distance of less than 5nm. Electrostatic Forces These forces are as the result of the development of the charges between interacting surfaces. Van der Waals Forces The Van der Waals forces are considered to be negative for the systems and the structural forces and the electrostatic forces are positive forces. The retarded London-van der Waals attractive force is expressed as (Hirasaki 1991) (2) Where A is the Hamaker constant in an oil/water/solid system.05 nm(Hirasaki 1991b). including formation water. ␧1(iv). and the London wavelength is assumed to be 100 nm(Hirasaki 1991). A brief introduction of the forces and calculation procedures are presented as below. (3) Where ␧1.

while the double layer forces are electrostatic repulsions that rise much more slowly with decreasing distance. compared with shallow aquifer water and formation brine. Figure 4 shows the good potential of ion tuning water. In this theory. The last grid at the outlet of the core was saturated 100% oil with 0. thickness with presence of various brines (formation brine. There are 42 equal-sized grid blocks in the core model. The schematic model and initial oil saturation of the model were shown in Figure 5.SPE-174584-MS 7 and brine/rock become unstable since the attractive forces were formed.001% porosity and 1000 D permeability since at beginning of the forced imbibition the outlet of the core was filled with 100% experimental oil. ion tuning water) Simulation Coreflooding history matching A one-dimensional homogeneous permeability core model was established to simulate the characteristics of oil recovery by forced imbibition with the finite difference simulator ECLIPSE 100. shallow aquifer water. the further investigation needs to be done to confirm the low salinity EOR-Effect. Metastable film was generated with presence of shallow aquifer water according to the shape of the disjoining pressure curve. Porosity was obtained by Helium Porsimeter (PHI-220) under room temperature and permeability was measured through coreflooding experiment by injection of formation brine with saturated core plugs. However. The first grid which was located at the upstream of the core was saturated with 100% formation brine with 100% porosity. while for highly charged surfaces in dilute electrolyte. but the higher charged surfaces might be obtained if the divalent cations can be removed from the injection water. According to the thermodynamics of wettability. Cross-sectional area and length of the experimental core model were reproduced to the core model. Porosity and permeability of each of the cells except of inlet and outlet cells was assumed to be equal to the permeability of core plugs. the van der Waals attractions have power-law dependence on the distance between the surfaces. but 1000 D permeability was assigned to simulate the experimental injection. there is a strong long-rang repulsion(Saramago 2010). Surfaces of zero-charge only van der Waals attractions occur. Figure 4 —Disjoining pressure vs. The interaction between the interfaces closely related to the electrolyte concentration and surface charge density. . decreasing salinity always brings thicker water film between the interfaces. including coreflooding experiments and reservoir scale simulations.

including Swi. The functional forms in Eqs. Swco is the connate water saturation. (6)–(8) are (6) (7) (8) Where krw is the water relative permeability and kro is the oil relative permeability.5mD) coreflooding experiments. Figure 6–8 shows history match results for shallow aquifer water and ion tuning water flooding under secondary mode. residual oil and water saturation where the capillary pressure is equal to zero.8 SPE-174584-MS Figure 5—Schematic model of experimental core plugs According the the waterflooding simulation through ECLIPSE 100. Swmax is the maximum water saturation. Sowcr is the critical oil saturation in water. wi and wo represent water. which were showed in Figure 8. Both oil recovery and pressure drop were successfully history matched and the relative permeability curves were derived. initial water. Kw(Sorw) and Sorw. the significant parameters dominating oil recovery and differential pressure by forced imbibition are the capillary pressure and relative permeability curves. the capillary end effect can be ignorant for the minor influence in the low permeability (less than 0. According the the ion tuning waterflooding simulation through ECLIPSE 100. and S is the phase saturation. the saturation end points are first modified as: (9) (10) (11) (12) F1 is the function of the salt concentration. Additionally. respectively. Swcr is the critical water saturation. Pc is the capillary pressure. one for the low salinity and one for the high salinity. due to the low capillary number (10⫺11–10⫺10). . Non-uniqueness of history match was not considered due to the fixed parameters. The superscript * denotes the end-point. The subscripts w. given two sets of saturation functions. Ko(Swi).

SPE-174584-MS 9 Figure 6 —History matching results for core plug 1# Figure 7—History matching results for core plug 2# Figure 8 —History matching results for core plug 3# Relative permeability curve of ion tuning water was derived from Core 2#. but it can also history match the oil recovery and pressure drop of Core 3#. shown in Figure 8. The same relative permeability curve of ion tuning water flooding can be used to history match two core plugs with different initial oil .

channel mouth bar. The well pattern of oil production is inverted nine-spot pattern. which shows that the reservoir was lithological deposit. but most of the injectors were not fractured. The reservoir has been undergoing shallow aquifer water (SAW) injection for pressure maintenance from 2011 onward. The parameters of the box model used in reservoir simulation were listed in Table 4. The origin of trap formation was related to the lapout of the sand bodies and the lithology density shade.69%. . Figure 9 —Relative permeability curves for shallow aquifer water and ion tuning water Potential evaluation of ion tuning water by a mechanistic model simulation Ji Yuan Geng 271 oil field was delta front subfacies deposits and the distribution of sand bodies was closely associated with sedimentary micro-faces.57. there were 119 water injection wells and 355 oil producing wells in Ji Yuan Geng 271 oil field. with consideration of fracturing either producer or injector and fracturing both of wells. a quarter of five spot were created to investigate the potential of ion tuning water flooding. Capillary pressure curves were not showed here for non-sensitivity in the low permeability core plugs history matching. As of 2014. Formation testing and pilot production of the drilled wells show that the reservoir is not associated with edge and bottom water and was mainly drove by the elastic dissolved gas in the depletion. As of May 2014. Figure 9 shows that ion tuning water flooding exhibits higher oil relative permeability and lower water relative permeability and residual oil saturation than the shallow aquifer water. All the oil-bearing layers were perforated. and all of producers were fractured with half-length at about 100 meters. In this study. including the underwater distributary channels. It shows that the relative permeability of ion tuning water flooding was constrained reasonably.10 SPE-174584-MS saturation. This is also an approach to decrease the non-uniqueness of history match to derive the relative permeability curves. the recovery percentage of OOIP was 2. and the rate of oil production rate was 0.

except for a few injectors. all of the producers were fractured.5 cP 0. Figure 10 —Oil recovery vs.SPE-174584-MS 11 Table 4 —Parameters of box model used in reservoir simulation Grid cells Size of box model Porosity Permeability In-situ water viscosity In-situ oil viscosity Reference datum depth from mean sea level Reference pressure Max injection pressure Max injection rate Min production pressure Max production rate NX⫽13. could be connected to producers through fractures. One of the main reasons to fracture the oil producer without fracturing injectors is that the stress distribution underground is quite challenging to fully understand. Figure 10–11 and Figure 13 show the simulation results under secondary mode for both ion tuning water and shallow aquifer water.6 cP 2680 m 270 Barg 400 Barg 12 Sm3/d 100 Bar 12 Sm3/d According to the current oilfield development. NZ⫽188 L⫽130m. injection time with only producer fractured . which were converted from oil producers at high water-cut. In this part of study. H⫽74.5 mD 0. The injectors. but most of the injectors were not fractured. which were fractured without understanding stress distribution well. without consideration of heterogeneity in the horizontal and vertical directions. W⫽130m. as a result of early water breakthrough. a mechanistic model was established.11 0. to investigate the ion tuning waterflooding potential.3m 0. NY⫽13.

however. injection time with only injector fractured Figure 12—Schematic model of a quarter of five spot Figure 13—Oil recovery vs. Figure 12.12 SPE-174584-MS Figure 11—Oil recovery vs. but also reduce the water-cut. injection time with producer and injector fractured Figure 11 shows that ion tuning water can slightly improve oil recovery after water breakthrough in ten years. in a model with fracturing producer instead of injector. It also shows that ion tuning water cannot only prolong the water breakthrough time. show that both ion tuning water and shallow aquifer water can accelerate the oil production by fracturing .

Figure 12 and 13 also shows very clearly that fracturing both wells can accelerate oil production rate greatly. compared with constant ion tuning water flooding under secondary mode. injection time with different fracture scheme (Shallow aquifer water) Figure 15 shows that. compared with fracturing producers instead of injectors. the water-cut of constant ion tuning water flooding can be decreased in 30 years. compared with shallow aquifer water. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the results of fracturing both injector and producer. low salinity EOR-Effect performs much higher potential than the ion tuning water injection in either producer or injector fractured. In this case. it should be noted that this is an ideal model without consideration of heterogeneity. compared with shallow aquifer water. It also indicates that ion tuning water can lengthen the water breakthrough and bring the water-cut down.SPE-174584-MS 13 injector instead of producer. can obtain the equivalent oil recovery. Figure 14 —Water injection rate vs.3PV ion tuning water injection under secondary mode. as a result of lower water relative permeability in the ion tuning water. Simulation results indicated that only a fraction of ion tuning water injection might achieve significant incremental oil recovery. . Figure 12 shows the oil distribution by waterflooding in 15 years. in the both injector and producer fractured model. which is consistent with only fracturing oil producer. if the underground stress distribution can be figured out. which shows limited water injection rate observed in the box model with either fracturing producer or injector. Therefore. However. Simulations indicate that fracturing injectors are far more significant that fracturing oil producers. compared with shallow aquifer water. Relatively higher water injection rate was observed in the model with both injector and producer fractured. Figure 13 also illustrated that ion tuning water had a great potential in the reservoir scale as both injector and producer were fractured. followed by shallow aquifer water flooding. due to the limited water injection in the low permeability as shown in Figure 14. 0. the underground stress distribution is the key to make sure that fracturing injectors is under control. fracturing injectors instead of producers could be much profitable. However. without channelling between the producer and injector. However. One of the biggest challenges to develop low permeability reservoirs by waterflooding is to establish the effective differential pressure from injectors and producers. compared to fracture either producer or injector. Figure 10 and Figure 11 shows slight low salinity EOR-effect after water breakthrough.

● Coreflooding experiments were history matched to derive the relative permeability curves for both shallow aquifer water and ion tuning water. project number 2011B–1201 References A. zeta potential tests and thermodynamics analysis were performed to investigate the potential of ion tuning waterflooding in Ji Yuan oilfield. S. C. J. “Low salinity oil recovery-an experimental investigation. shallow aquifer water flooding and ion tuning water flooding under secondary mode) Conclusions In this study.14 SPE-174584-MS Figure 15—Oil recovery vs. ● A quarter of five spot model were created to investigate the potential of ion tuning water flooding in the low permeability reservoirs. ● Ion tuning water can cause the zeta potential at the interfaces of oil/brine. . compared with shallow aquifer water and formation brine. Several observations were made in the following.Sorbie (2006). Simulation results show that ion tuning water has a great potential in reservoirs as long as waterflooding has good sweep efficiency. K. M.” SCA2006 –36. Simulation also shows that only a fraction of ion tuning water injection might achieve significant incremental oil recovery.Black. We acknowledge that this study was sponsored by CNPC with a project-New Approaches to Enhance Oil Recovery in Low Permeability Reservoirs. brine/rock become strongly negative.Singleton. these findings are completely based on the clearance of stress distribution underground and geological model of reservoirs.3PV LSW injection at secondary mode.Lager. W. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development of PetroChina for permission to publish this paper. K. ● Simulation also indicates that fracturing injectors are far more significant and economical than fracturing the producers. which needs to fracture both producers and injectors properly.. It shows that the ion tuning water can accelerate the oil production rate by increasing the oil relative permeability and decrease water relative permeability and reducing the residual oil saturation. However. J. Disjoining pressure calculation shows repulsive forces between the interfaces of oil/brine and brine/rock with ion tuning water. J. Coreflooding experiments were conducted and history matched to derive the relative permeability curves for the mechanistic model to show the potential of ion tuning water. water injection (0. followed by shallow aquifer water. compared with shallow aquifer water.

75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC. M. D. J.” Petrophysics 49(1). Investigation of Optimum Salinity of Injected Water in Carbonate Reservoirs using Wettability Measurement and Core Flooding. “Double-Layer Expansion: Is It a Primary Mechanism of Improved Oil Recovery by Low-Salinity Waterflooding?” SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering Volume 17(Issue 01. K.. S. J. Saramago. G. Oklahoma.. Mahani. Black. Pizzinelli. Rao (2004). Society of Petroleum Engineers. Gregory. Mozahem and Y. N. Shalabi.” Fuel 121(0): 11–19. Skjevrak (2011). Singleton and K. Fjelde. N. United Kingdom. Vienna. V. P. T. E.” Journal of Petroleum Technology 63(5): 106 –112. M. Low Salinity Water Flooding Experiments and Interpretation by Simulations. Suijkerbuijk. Nasr-El-Din (2014). Tweheyo and I. J. Melrose. van del Linde and S. UAE. Sepehrnooriand M. A.SPE-174584-MS 15 Busireddy. Webb. (2010). W. “Mechanisms behind low salinity water injection in carbonate reservoirs. Nasr-El-Din (2012). (1991b). International Petroleum Technology Conference. M. and H.” SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering(04). R. C. “Low Salinity Oil Recovery-An Experimental Investigation1. C. London.. and D. Buckley (2011). Tulsa. Vledder. Double-Layer Expansion: Is It A Primary Mechanism of Improved Oil Recovery by Low-Salinity Waterflooding? SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Asen and A. Masserano. Sharifi (2013). Austria. Society of Petroleum Engineers.” Chapter3. (1975). H. V. Oklahoma. M.” SPE Formation Evaluation 6(2): 217–226. F. and M. Application of DLVO Theory to Characterize Spreading in Crude Oil-Brine-Rock Systems. Opportunity of Enhanced Oil Recovery Low Salinity Water Injection: From Experimental Work to Simulation Study up to Field Proposal. K. Masalmeh.” Journal of colloid and interface science 51(1): 44 –51. Brooks. D. Hirasaki. C. “Thin liquid wetting films. I. C. B. K. Sorop. Society of Petroleum Engineers. P. (1991). G. A. A. Oklahoma. Sorop. SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition. Interpretation of mixed wettability states in reservoir rocks. Pieterse (2014). Douma. Analysis of Field Responses to Low-salinity Waterflooding in Secondary and Tertiary Mode in Syria. A. “Improved Oil Recovery by Low-Salinity Waterflooding. S. Low Salinity Flooding: Experimental Evaluation and Numerical Interpretation. New York. Vermolen. Parracello. Tulsa.. J. Tulsa. R. T. “Interfacial Phenomina in Petroleum Recovery. F. H. (1982). “Wettability:fundamentals and surface forces.” Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 15(5): 330 –340. Holt.C. J. K. Skrettingland. and J. Caschili and M. A. A. and H. Abu Dhabi.. Hirasaki. B. M. SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. G. Ali (2011). Morrow. A. Omekeh (2012). USA. .. J.. “Interaction of unequal double layers at constant charge. T. Nobili. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Nasralla. Sorbie (2008). Nasralla. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Bartosek (2013). 2014): Pages 49 –59. E. Beach Rotana Hotel. A. SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition. M. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. S. Shaikh. Marcel Dekker. “Snorre Low-Salinity-Water Injection--Coreflooding Experiments and Single-Well Field Pilot. USA. Ligthelm. Lager. M. T. S. Delshad (2014). J. Callegaro. M.

Visual Investigation of Oil Recovery by Low Salinity Water Injection: Formation of Water Micro-Dispersions and Wettability Alteration. Xie. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibtion. 2013. J. J. . Louisiana. Ma (2012). USA. Liu and D. Q. Q. Society of Petroleum Engineers.. Qin. M. “Investigation of Electrical Surface Charges and Wettability Alteration by Ions Matching Waterflooding. New Orleans. Emadi (2013). Wu.16 SPE-174584-MS Sohrabi. and A.” International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts.