SPE 129531

How EOR Can be Transformed by Nanotechnology

A.J.P. Fletcher, SPE, Parr Systems Pty. Ltd., and J.P. Davis, University of Bristol

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 24–28 April 2010.

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
Nanotechnology has the potential to transform EOR mechanisms and processes. At present there are two major
nanotechnology paradigms derived from mechanical engineering and the biological sciences perspectives. However, a new
focus within nanotechnology is emerging which could be called geomimetics. We can define geomimetics as employing the
principles of geosystems to create and develop new and novel processes and materials. In a wider sense this involves copying
the principles of geosystems into technology to compliment the natural environment.
This geomimetic perspective of nanotechnology incorporates the long and distinguished history of colloid and surface
science that has underpinned oil recovery and EOR. We give a concise definition of nanotechnology and demonstrate how it
is applicable to EOR.
Through consideration of complexity and systems thinking, we develop a process based method of representing
complicated phenomena to help identify the critical processes which control EOR. We construct a hierarchy from
fundamental surface forces leading up to processes such as coalescence, phase swelling and film drainage. This hierarchy
constitutes a mapping from fundamental molecular forces onto petroleum engineering concepts. In general this hierarchy is
spatially-temporally ordered, although particular attention to the overall context and fluid / rock history is needed when
mapping wetting and spreading phenomena. We identify critical processes and identify performance measurement criteria to
monitor these processes.
We present a conceptual study and demonstrate how nanoscale processes can impact flow behaviour. We introduce the
concept of Q analysis and highlight the importance of metaphorical discourse. Processes at the nanometre – micrometre scale
including wettability, coalescence, Marangoni phenomena, mass transfer effects and transient phenomena are related to EOR.
We argue it is at this scale, and with these phenomena, that an understanding of oil phase distribution, oil drop mobilisation,
oil bank formation and oil bank migration is to be achieved for EOR processes.
We outline the potential of nanotechnology to transform the design and execution of chemical EOR. Through
nanotechnology, we make explicit the connection between the disciplined study of fundamental molecular forces and the
practical application of petroleum engineering.

Introduction
In many oil producing regions of the world we have reached the stage where the total rate of production is nearing the decline
phase [Hite et. al., 2005]. The older and larger fields face abandonment with 50%+ of the original oil in place (OOIP) un-
recovered. This situation provides a major challenge: how to extract more oil economically and delay abandonment.
Chemical enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has been a tantalising possibility for decades, but sustained low oil prices for much of
the 1980’s and 1990’s made the technology too expensive and risky as a commercial proposition [Thomas, 2005].
The most common method for secondary oil recovery throughout the world is water flooding implemented early during
the primary production phase [Thomas, 2005]. In water flooding, water is forced down injection wells in order to a) maintain
reservoir pressure above the bubble point, and b) sweep the oil towards the producing wells. The oil is swept slowly (30
cm/day) through microscopic (1-100μm) porous media and channels that constitute the reservoir. Many areas are missed at
the macroscopic scale (1-10m) due to poor sweep efficiency, and much oil is retained at the microscopic scale due to poor
displacement efficiency.
The three main categories of EOR are thermal, chemical and miscible or immiscible gas [Lake et. al., 1992]. Chemical
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has a substantial history [Lake et. al., 1992; Thomas, 2005; Du and Guan, 2004; Hite et. al.,
2005] and a track record of application. Much of the application was undertaken in the 1980’s during the last period of
2 SPE 129531

sustained high oil prices. Some contemporary projects have yielded impressive technical and commercial success at today’s
moderately high oil prices.
EOR techniques are designed to increase oil recovery above the secondary oil-recovery base line. Chemical EOR includes
the use of polymers, surfactants and alkali. Even small amounts of some surfactants can drastically lower the surface tension
of the oil / water interface, which greatly improves the microscopic displacement efficiency (increasing the capillary number)
and allows much lower pressures to be used to push the oil through the pores. Polymer additives can increase the viscosity of
water (increasing the capillary number and mobility ratio), which is needed to increase macroscopic sweep efficiency.
Polymer also acts to improve conformance of water floods in reservoir rocks exhibiting permeability heterogeneity,
particularly in layered and channeled systems. Processes occurring at the solid / fluid interfaces are also important. The
formation of thick interstitial-water films and the adsorption of surfactants and polymers lead to changes in the wettability of
the rock surface [Morrow, 1990a].
In summary, chemical EOR aims to either a) increase the capillary number (Nc) to mobilise residual oil, or b) decrease
the mobility ratio (M) for better sweep efficiency, or c) improve conformance in heterogeneous reservoirs for better sweep
efficiency.
In this paper we focus on systems thinking. A ‘system’ is an integration of elements from which new behaviour emerges
[Davis and Fletcher, 2000; Fletcher and Davis, 2002; Davis and Hall, 2003; Fletcher and Davis, 2008]. Systems’ thinking
addresses how things fit together and interact, of what makes a collection of parts different from a whole, and what happens
when you consider the whole rather than the parts. It looks at both entities and relationships but is much more interested in
the relationships than the entities.

Table 1: Concepts of Systems Thinking

Uncertainty A property of information – randomness, fuzziness, conflict, incompleteness and relevance

Risk The likelihood of an uncertain event or behaviour, and its consequences for our intended purpose
or objectives, set in a context that needs to be understood
Vulnerability Susceptibility to disproportionate damage from an event or behaviour
Hazard A set of incubating preconditions for failure
Surprise An unexpected event – an unrecognised risk

A systems methodology that is both quantitative and qualitative has been developed [Davis and Fletcher, 2000; Fletcher
and Davis, 2003; Davis, Shenton and Fletcher, 2004; Marashi and Davis, 2005; Marashi and Davis, 2006a and Marashi and
Davis, 2006b]. On one side we are professional engineers, scientists and managers looking for numbers that capture a definite
external reality of the world; on the other side we realize that some concepts simply cannot be meaningfully expressed in
numerical terms. The basis of our systems approach is that we try to reconcile these two positions in one framework using
concepts such as risk, uncertainty, vulnerability, hazard and surprise as defined in Table 1.

Table 2: The Nature of Uncertainty

Randomness Lack of a specific pattern in the data or evidence.

E.g. there is noise in the log response, digital photograph or message.
Vagueness Imprecision of definition
E.g. are we talking about low permeability, 10mD, 10.07mD, or a low permeability streak in a high
permeability matrix? Or will it be a minor cost, or $10,000, or $8,472.95?
Conflict Equivocation, ambiguity, anomaly or inconsistency in the data or evidence.
E.g. there is a major difference in the log and core derived permeability
Incompleteness That which we do not know, know we do not know, do not know we do not know
E.g. we are unable to define all the possible alternatives, an effect left out of our model.
Relevance Issues and information that may or may not impact on the proposition addressed.
E.g. data becomes evidence only when it is relevant to one or more of the hypotheses being
considered. Evidence is relevant on some hypothesis if it either increases or decreases the
likeliness of the hypothesis.

Risk is an important concept. However, quantitative risk assessment methodologies are often highly challenged when
there are major uncertainties; such as in the application of new technologies [Davis and Fletcher, 2000; Fletcher and Davis,
2002; Davis and Hall, 2003; Hall et. al., 2004]. There are many faces of uncertainty as summarised in Table 2. Traditional
science and engineering tends to focus on randomness as the cause of uncertainty. However, in complex problems such as the
scale up and application of new technologies, issues of human judgment, interpretation and choice are critical elements in the
process. In reality, most of the uncertainty we experience about decision-making in the real world cannot usually be
attributed to the influence of random mechanisms at all, which seriously undermines the general applicability and
dependability of probabilistic reasoning approaches. Rather it seems to stem from an inherent vagueness, or lack of
information [Casti, 1992; Casti, 1994], either in the linguistic description or in other circumstances surrounding the situations
we find ourselves confronting.
SPE 129531 3

The key concept of systems thinking in our approach is that a hierarchy is constructed of ‘wholes’ which are built up of
smaller entities which are themselves wholes; each level in the hierarchy defining the level of description of the system. The
hierarchically organised whole, having emergent properties, is able to survive in a changing environment if it has
communication and control in place. It means that the Holons (the term for the wholes coined by Koestler [1968]) should be
able to transfer information among themselves and retain their identity and performance under changing circumstances. In
this way, a system can be defined as an entity that maintains its existence and functions as a whole through the interaction of
its parts.
A systems representation of EOR screening is shown in Figure 1. The process of selecting the EOR approach is
decomposed into various issues, options and arguments.

Figure 1: Systems Representation of EOR Screening Process

A system is not only a composition of unity out of diversity, but also a composition of internal diversity out of unity
[Morin, 1992]. Systems thinking can be extended to include human factors. In this way we can begin to see a way of
capturing the complexity of the organisation. Hierarchy gives a handle on complexity, emergence allows the social
functioning of the organisation to be captured; communication takes the form of strategy down, consequences up, while
control begins to touch on the issues of performance management.
In this paper we distinguish two aspects of nanotechnology. Firstly, we acknowledge the importance of nanotechnology in
general, where the application of nano-devices and materials could transform oil production. Secondly, we focus on defining
and explicating what nanotechnology means in terms of petroleum engineering. Thus we identify how oil recovery depends
on nano-scale processes.
The next section defines and explains nanotechnology as it impacts upon oil recover. We then discuss why EOR
processes are so complicated and stress the scale-up of these processes from the nano-scale to the macro-scale.
We address the key question of how to represent EOR and nanotechnology. Concepts of complexity and hierarchy are
explained and we introduce Q analysis as a way of representing the problem structure. An illustrative application is presented
where use is made of these concepts in the context of chemical EOR.

Nanotechnology and Oil Recovery

Nanotechnology, in engineering terms, is concerned with the fabrication and use of devices so small that the convenient unit
of measurement is the nanometre (10-9 metre). We can define nanotechnology [Bueno, 2004], in engineering terms, as the
“direct control of materials and devices on the molecular and atomic scale”. Nanotechnology thus covers a wide range
including fabrication of functional nanostructures with engineered properties, synthesis and processing of nanoparticles,
supramolecular chemistry, self assembly and replication techniques, sintering of nanostructured alloys, use of quantum
effects, creation of chemical and biological templates and sensors, surface modification and films. Table 3 shows the major
disciplines that have contributed to nanotechnology.
Underpinning the engineering focus above has been a convergence of traditional fields of chemistry, physics and biology
into nanoscience. However, this convergence has highlighted a split between the science and engineering paradigms of
nanotechnology.
4 SPE 129531

It is often asserted that the starting point for nanotechnology was the classic talk given by Feynman [Bueno, 2004] in
which he said: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom
by atom...It would be, in principle, possible (I think) for a physicist to synthesize any chemical substance that the chemist
writes down. Give the orders and the physicist synthesizes it. How? Put the atoms down where the chemist says, and so you
make the substance." Today's champions of nanotech add: "We need to apply at the molecular scale the concept that has
demonstrated its effectiveness at the macroscopic scale: making parts go where we want by putting them where we want!"

Table 3: Traditional Disciplines Important for Nanotechnology

Discipline Inorganic Organic

Physics Mesoscopic physics Molecular Electronics

Lasers
Scanning electron microscopy
Atomic force microscopy
Electronics
Chemistry Inorganic chemistry Supramolecular chemistry
Aerosol science
Colloid science
Computer modelling
Biology Biotechnology
Medicine
Mechanical Engineering Precision engineering
Materials science

However, it was Drexler who initiated the nanotechnology debate, and consequent split between the science and
engineering paradigms of nanotechnology, with his 1986 extreme vision of self-replicating ‘nanobots’ based on molecular
assemblers. The irony is that, as an engineer, Drexler only provides theoretical artifacts, rather than physical ones. Smalley,
as a chemist, insists on the production of detectable and controllable effects, emphasising the need for accommodating the
actual chemical details that are part of the phenomenon [Bueno, 2004]. As a consequence, nanotechnology is split into two
incommensurate camps: an engineering perspective grounded on manufacturing philosophies and a science perspective
grounded, in the main, on biomimetic principles. Biomimetics is defined as the copying the principles of life into technology,
so as to re-integrate technology into life. This perspective has underpinnings with the philosophy of sustainability.

NANOTECHNOLOGY NANOTECHNOLOGY
GEOMIMESIS ENGINEERING

R
E
S
O
U
R
C NANOCHEMISTRY
E
S
Physical
S Sciences
E
C BIOTECHNOLOGY
T BIOMIMESIS
O
R Life Sciences

MEDICAL & AGRICULTURAL SECTORS

Figure 2: Nanotechnology for the Resources Sector – Introducing the Concept of Geomimesis

However, this focus on biomimetics versus manufacturing engineering has resulted in some marginalisation of those areas
of porous media science upon which oil recovery depends. These areas include much of colloid and interface science in
SPE 129531 5

porous media upon which chemical EOR depends [Morrow, 1990(a); Morrow, 1990(b); Hirasaki, 1990]. Just as petroleum
engineering and reservoir engineering are distinctly not grounded on the mechanical engineering manufacturing principles, so
the nanotechnology underpinning oil recovery is not grounded on nano-manufacturing principles. Chemical EOR depends on
the assembly of dispersed, disconnected residual oil into macroscopic, mobile oil banks; a very different concept from device
manufacture but completely in line with traditional petroleum and reservoir engineering.
In one sense, as illustrated in Figure 2, we propose to resituate chemical EOR into a nanotechnology perspective through
the identification of an alternative paradigm – geomimetics. We can define geomimetics as: “copying the principles of
geosystems into technology, so as to re-integrate technology into the environment”.
There are environmental and sustainability issues associated with this perspective, but the key technical focus is on how
forces act within porous media in processes such as chemical EOR. There are six principle forces as shown in Table 4.
Reviews [Krishnamoorti, 2006; Saggaf, 2008; Amanullah and Al-Tahini, 2009] have highlighted the potential of
nanotechnology in general for the oil industry. The focus is on nanotechnology devices and materials. Nanostructured
materials include drilling fluids (polymers and surfactants), chemical EOR (polymer, surfactant and alkali) and wettability
alteration. A major role for sensors markers for imaging the reservoir at the nanoscale is discussed. A recent comprehensive
survey [Pourafshary et al., 2009], including a detailed technology tree has outlined in detail the potential of nanotechnology.
Another review [Evdokimov et. al., 2006] shows how the oil can be regarded as a colloidal system, introducing the concepts
of association nano-colloids.
Traditional oil recovery understanding focuses on three forces: capillary, viscous and gravity. Nanotechnology focuses on
the nano-scale forces of coulombic interaction and disjoining forces as shown in Table 4. We have included the Marangoni
forces in this fundamental list. Marangoni forces (forces that arise due to a gradient in a property such as concentration or
interfacial tension) highlight the importance of transient phenomena in EOR.

Table 4: Six Forces Relevant in EOR

Force Nature of Force

Coulombic The intermolecular forces. These comprise van der Waals forces: induced dipole (London),
dipole-dipole and hydrogen bonding forces. If polar molecules and ions are present then ion-
dipole and ionic bonding forces exist.
Disjoining Forces associated with thin films due to the departure from bulk properties arising from the
influence of the surfaces. Includes steric and double layer forces – as well as van der Waals
forces
Marangoni Forces that arise due to a gradient in a property such as concentration or interfacial tension. An
example of Marangoni forces is ‘tears of wine’ – the roll up of wine into droplets when swirled
around a clean glass.
Capillary Forces resulting from the curvature of fluid interfaces which yields pressure differences between
the different fluid phases
Viscous Forces associated with the viscosity contrast of fluids and responsible for the displacement
efficiency of one fluid by another
Gravity Forces responsible for water / oil separation on the macroscopic scale due to density
differences, and hence buoyancy effects

The geomimetic perspective incorporates the six forces as set out in table 4. The interrelationships of these six forces give
rise to the complexity and issues of scale that are characteristic of EOR processes. This complexity is the focus of the next
section.

Complexity and Scale-Up of EOR Processes

As a general observation, EOR processes are considerably more complex as observed compared to the theories and computer
simulations employed to describe them. These processes are scale depended – from the nano-scale through to the macro-
scale.

How the Nano-Scale Impacts on the Macro-Scale

It is well established that the wettability of reservoir rock plays a vital role in determining the recovery efficiency of the
displacement process. Wettability affects both the distribution of hydrocarbon and aqueous phases within the rock matrix and
the dynamics of displacement. Thus, when macroscopic petrophysical parameters such as relative permeability and capillary
pressure, are derived for given crude oil/brine/rock systems, the forms of these are quite different for different wettability
conditions [Morrow, 1970; Morrow, 1990a; Abdallah et. al., 1997].
Wettability is central to the concept of geomimetic nanotechnology. Films are held at surfaces by intermolecular forces,
which act over a short range. As opposed to bulk liquid forces held by capillary forces, these films are unlikely to be >100nm
thick, and often 10-100 times smaller [Morrow, 1990a; Morrow, 1990b]. Stability of water films is dependent on the pH,
brine composition and capillary pressure. Water soluble components such as soaps and asphaltenes, that can alter the
chemical charge at the s/f or f/f interfaces, can destabilise the thin water films. Stable water films are typically only 1% or
less of the pore volume. However, the importance of the outermost molecules, whether water or adsorbed crude oil
6 SPE 129531

components, on the wetting properties of a surface is critical. Stability is dependent on the balance between Van der Waals
attractive forces and electrical repulsive forces. Hydration forces may also play a role.
Contact angles of crude oil on mineral surfaces are strongly dependent on the stability and properties of the water film
between the oil and the solid. Wetting behaviour of reservoir rock surfaces is strongly dependent on adsorption of crude oil
components [Cuiec, 1990]. At the nano-scale, the pore shape, mineralogy, roughness, water distribution and surface film
behaviour dominate oil recovery [Morrow, 1990a]. Because surface areas are small, measurements can be seriously affected
by equilibrium procedures and contaminants that alter adsorption behaviour. The problem in modeling the effect of
wettability on displacement is the great variety of recovery behaviour that has been observed that, qualitatively, can be
ascribed to wettability effects.
In mixed wet and oil wet systems connectivity is never completely lost. Oil continues to be produced making
displacement efficiency a continuous function of pore volumes injected [Morrow, 1990b]. Gravity plays an important role in
the movement of reservoir fluids – both the wetting and non-wetting phase. For processes that worked in the lab but failed in
the field, the value of residual oil saturation as calculated from material balance (reservoir or core laboratory measurements)
was often in question [Morrow, 1990b].
EOR is dependent on processes at the nano-scale in addition to micro and macro scales. Although oil recovery needs to
overcome capillary forces it is the boundary conditions (pore geometry and wettability) and effects of instabilities of the
associated interfaces that govern the oil displacement at the microscale. Trapping of oil in water wet systems happens
because the viscous / buoyancy forces acting locally cannot overcome the large capillary forces at small pore throats within
the rock that exist when the interfacial tension is high.
From numerous experiments, including micromodel studies, it is becoming clear that the role of transient effects in oil
displacement may be critical. Chemical EOR and wettability are more complex than traditionally conceived and modeled.
Traditional science often ignores transients and evolutionary systems. The role of Marangoni forces in chemical EOR may be
central.

Visualisation of Processes
Flow visualization is one valuable approach to understand and model complex pore level behaviour – the multiplicity of
causes yielding a great variety of effects.
The complexity of porous media interactions is illustrated in Table 5, an augmented version of a figure derived from
consideration of micro-modeling [Dawe and Grattoni, 1998; Dawe, 1990]. Successful application of chemical EOR in the
field depends on understanding how the EOR processes act and scale in this complex environment.
The key experimental tools for determining the critical nano-scale and micro-scale oil displacement mechanisms are
adsorption and chemical potential, atomic force microscopy (AFM), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), micromodels, CT
augmented core flooding.

Table 5: Interactions and Forces in Oil recovery and EOR

External Conditions Interactions Forces

Initial conditions Pore Structure Coulombic

• Gas – oil – water saturations • Porosity
and distribution • Permeability
• Geometry
• Heterogeneity Disjoining
• Anisotropy
• Mineralogy

Applied conditions Solid – Fluid Interactions Marangoni

• Pressure gradient and flow • Wettability
rates • Adsorption
• Cold water injection • Fluid configurations
Capillary
• Salinity variations • Thin films
• Roll-up and spreading

Reservoir history
• Sequences of fluid
displacements and pressure /
temperature variations
Viscous
Fluid – Fluid Interactions
• Density contrast
• Viscosity ratio
• Interfacial tensions Gravity
• Mass transfer
• Interfacial and concentration
gradients
• Coalescence
SPE 129531 7

Observations indicate that many hypotheses, descriptions and mechanistic assumptions previously accepted are too
simplistic. That the physical processes need to be understood at a lower scale than that required to be predicted, as well as the
actual level and possibly even one higher level [Dawe and Grattoni, 1998; Dawe, 1990]. This is especially so for EOR
processes where dynamic and non-equilibrium interfacial effects are very important for the remobilization of the residual oil
phase. The roles of wettability and fluid spreading characteristics are critical for multiphase flow in porous media and have
often been neglected in the main.
That micromodels can employ binary systems with lower critical solubility temperatures to study multi-contact miscible
processes, where the chemicals either dissolve the oil/water interfaces on first contact, or after a period of mass transfer
involving initial diffusion and interfacial instabilities (Marangoni effects) followed by swelling, coalescence and other
solubilisation effects – including spontaneous emulsification of EOR reagents
Key questions that can be addressed through micro-modeling [Dawe and Grattoni, 1998; Dawe, 1990] are:

1. How are fluids distributed in the pore space (the role of wettability, fluid spreading etc.)
2. How does the oil move within the pore structure to the wellbore (mobilisation)
3. Why and when do the fluids stop moving (residual saturations, phase entrapment etc.)
4. Can the entrapped phase be remobilised (i.e. improved oil recovery)

One key element in characterising the mechanisms of oil displacement is the visualization of the processes. Studies
incorporating atomic force microscopy (AFM) and micromodeling are important when investigating the following
mechanisms: mass transfer; roll-up; swelling; coalescence; emulsification and interfacial instabilities; film thinning (breaking
and spreading) and transport processes. In addition, the following phenomena can be investigated: transients; irreversibility;
fluid flow history and inter-relationships; and chemical, mineralogical and topological complexity. Ultrafast video AFM can
now image processes in the milli-second range [Humphris et. al., 2005].

Nanotechnology and EOR

The traditional roles of petroleum science and petroleum engineering are highlighted blue in Table 6. A column representing
nanotechnology has been added on the left. This includes nanoscience in the top left hand corner. A lower row has been
added to represent EOR and wettability. This incorporates issues from the nanoscale up to the field scale. The tools
appropriate for various scales are included in the figure.

Table 6: Nanoscience, EOR and Wettability in Relation to Traditional Petroleum Engineering

Nano-Science Petroleum ‘Science’ Petroleum ‘Engineering’

Adsorption Capillary Pressure OOIP

Chemical Potential Relative Permeability Recovery factor
Disjoining Forces Sw, So, Sg Production Rates
Wetting Films SCAL / Core Analysis
Osmosis Fluid Properties OPEX
Gauss Equation CAPEX
Laplace Equation Gravity Forces
Young Equation Wells and Facilities
Kelvin Equation Up-Scaling

EOR and Wettability EOR and Wettability EOR and Wettability

(Nano - Pore Scale) (Pore – Core Scale) (Core – Field Scale)

Adsorption Mass Transfer Design and Execution of Chemical

Roll-up EOR and Wettability in the Field
Interfacial Tensions Swelling
Phase Behaviour Coalescence Residual Oil Saturation in the
Emulsification Reservoir
Contact Angles Marangoni Forces
Thin Films Baseline waterflood
Wettability Alteration Oil drop mobilisation
Oil bank formation EOR processes in the field
Oil bank mobility
Explicit and tacit knowledge

Adsorption AFM Micro-Models NMR Corefloods Logs Seismic

8 SPE 129531

Table 6 includes tools, techniques and concepts appropriate for nano-science, petroleum science and petroleum
engineering. Key concepts include the use of equations from colloid and interface science. These are those of Gauss, Laplace,
Young and Kelvin, and are believed to be valid down to nano-scales, and are shown in the top left box. The central lower box
of EOR and wettability at the pore – core scale, is the heart of the EOR approach. The physics and chemistry that underpin
the mobilization of oil droplets to form an oil bank, together with the engineering that ensures the oil bank remains mobile,
are underpinned by nanotechnology together with transient phenomena. The bottom right hand box summarises the
petroleum engineering issues for EOR. These include the key questions of residual oil location and saturation, understanding
the waterflood (or gas flood) and understanding the EOR processes in the field, along with their scaling.
The scale up of science to engineering requires integration of all 6 boxes Table 6. It is essential to understand how the oil
displacement mechanisms scale up to the practical macroscopic petroleum engineering level.

Figure 3: Process Model of Oil Bank Formation: Focus on Hydrodynamic Instabilities and Ganglion Mobilisation

A systems representation of oil bank formation is shown in part in Figure 3. The process of oil bank formation is
decomposed into three sub-processes: understanding why flow has stopped and the oil phase broken up; how to mobilize the
oil ganglion; and how to coalesce the ganglion into a flowing oil bank [Dawe, 1990]. The ganglion mobilisation process is
broken down into three processes: understanding capillary effects; understanding hydrodynamic instabilities; and
understanding Marangoni effects. In this model we focus on hydrodynamic instabilities. We address issues of equilibrium
verses non-equilibrium behaviours, together with uniform and non-uniform phase distributions. These issues depend, in part,
on hydrodynamic dispersion; concentration gradients and rate of change of concentration; and inhomogeneous
permeability’s.
The complexity of EOR processes, and their dependence in part on transient phenomena, is illustrated in Figure 3. In the
next section we present of techniques and methods of representing complexity of EOR processes.

Representing Complexity of EOR and Nanotechnology – Introduction of Concepts

It is important to recognise and represent the complexity of EOR processes, and nanotechnology in general. In this Section
we summarise some important approaches to the representation, and hence communication and application, of EOR
processes. Some of the key problems and difficulties associated with describing EOR processes can be related to the structure
of the problem. Here we focus on how structural considerations can assist in characterising EOR processes from the nano to
the macro scales. We use two contrasting aspects of Complexity Theory:

• The language of complexity theory as metaphorical discourse (as discussed in Table 7).
• The mathematics of Q analysis to describe structure.
SPE 129531 9

Model, Analogy and Metaphor

The use of analogy and metaphor in both business and technical sides of the oil industry has been discussed in detail
[Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2004; Jackson, 2000]. Many Japanese companies attribute their technical and commercial success to
creativity and innovation resulting from figurative language including metaphor and analogy. In nanotechnology, the old
discipline based concepts of science and engineering are replaced. Instead of the vertically structured disciplines with ever
greater precision and detail the deeper one proceeds, emphasis is placed on the horizontal communication between disciplines
with the focus on nano-scale processes. It is clearly impossible for any individual to master in-depth knowledge in all science
and engineering disciplines, hence the need to communicate concepts at higher levels. Hence communication between
specialists will increasingly rely on metaphor and analogy.
Nonaka has described [Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2004] the use of metaphor: “One kind of figurative language that is
especially important is metaphor. Metaphor is a distinctive method of perception. It is a way for individuals grounded in
different contexts and with different expressions to understand something intuitively through the use of imagination and
symbols without the need for analysis or generalization. Through metaphors, people put together what they know in new
ways and begin to express what they know but cannot yet say. As such, metaphor is highly effective in fostering direct
commitment to the creative process in the early stages of knowledge creation. Metaphor accomplishes this by merging two
different and distant areas of experience into a single, inclusive image or symbol. By establishing a connection between two
things that seem only distantly related, metaphors set up a discrepancy or conflict. Often, metaphoric images have multiple
meanings, appear logically contradictory or even irrational. But far from being a weakness, this is in fact an enormous
strength. For it is the very conflict that metaphors embody that jump-starts the creative process”.

Table 7: Use of Metaphor, Analogy and Model in Oil Recovery

Metaphor Allows intuitive understanding through the use of imagination and symbols. It is a way for
individuals grounded in different contexts and with different expressions to understand something
intuitively through the use of imagination and symbols without the need for analysis or
generalization. Metaphorical discourse is a key component in the use of Q analysis.
E.g. Theory of oil field evolution - identification of oil production and EOR with processes usually
associated with biology. (This metaphor has been used in the automobile industry [Takeuchi and
Nonaka, 2004])
Analogy Clarifies how two ideas or objects are alike or not alike. Analogy is a more structured process of
reconciling contradictions and making distinctions. Analogy is an intermediate step between pure
imagination and logical thinking.
E.g. Selection of oilfield analogues where one field is believed to exhibit a range of characteristics
in common with another (often well characterized) field.
Model Relates concepts and ideas in a logical (sometimes mathematical) framework. Includes geological
and reservoir models where scientific and engineering concepts are related in a detailed and
rigourous framework.
E.g. The traditional geological and reservoir engineering models used in oil production, including
reservoir simulations.

Table 7 summarises the characteristics of metaphor, analogy and model as used in this paper. The concepts of analogy (as
in field analogues) and model (as in geological or reservoir model) are more familiar in the oil industry. The key point we
note is that deep mathematics based models are neither necessary nor sufficient for the communication and application of
complex scientific and engineering processes.

Four Types of Complexity

Complexity Theory identifies different kinds of complexity. Complexity as it relates to EOR is summarized in Table 8, where
four distinct types of complexity are identified.
The oil industry traditionally focuses on static complexity in geological and reservoir simulation modeling. Some
attention is drawn to dynamic complexity [Saleri, 1996] in reservoir simulation. However, using metaphorical discourse we
can relate some EOR processes to both evolutionary complexity and self organizing complexity. For example, the physico-
chemical changes of the reservoir during waterflood and the irreversible fluid flooding history dependent nature of these
changes are evolutionary complexity. Likewise, formation of a flowing oil bank from mobilization and coalescence of
individual oil ganglion in EOR processes is self organizing complexity.

Hierarchy and Holons

Hierarchy is a disarmingly simple concept, but one which encompasses an enormous degree of both illumination and
complexity. As we start to define the sets of elements of a problem we notice the ideas and concepts take on a hierarchical
arrangement. Some of the terms and concepts we use seem to be at a higher or more general level than those lower down.
However, we do not necessarily construct a tree, where each element at the N level is connected exclusively to one element at
the higher N+1 level. For example, whilst a person is composed of various systems including a nervous system, a circulatory
system and a skeletal system, that person is a whole – an individual. Also, a person is also part of a family, company or
university, and a nation state.
10 SPE 129531

A partial hierarchy of EOR processes is given in Table 3. In this example the static reservoir properties such as
temperature (T), pressure (P) and chemical potential (µ) lay below the porous media related elements. Thus chemical
potential (µ) connects to the concepts of curvature (C) and stress state (σ). The dynamic properties such as mass transfer
(MT) and Marangoni (M) effects reside above the porous media elements, with the evolutionary properties such as fluid
history (FH) at the highest level. However, this structure is not unique. We argue that the difficulty in constructing a
generally applicable hierarchy of EOR processes at the nano-scale is indicative of process complexity.

Table 8: Complexity of EOR Processes

Static Focuses on the complex structure of static, fixed systems. Static complexity can often be associated with
complicated systems.
E.g. Complex geological systems where the complexity arises from structural, depositional or mineralogical
heterogeneity.
Dynamic Adds the fourth dimension of time to the static structure above. Traditionally, reproducible cyclic processes
are valued more than transient or ephemeral processes.
E.g. Oil displacement by brine in porous media. Also includes coalescence, Marangoni phenomena, mass
transfer effects and transient phenomena in EOR processes
Evolutionary System that evolve through time. Traditionally associated with organic systems (life) but can also be
associated metaphorically with the irreversible and history dependent processes of waterflooding and gas
flooding.
E.g. The physico-chemical changes of the reservoir during waterflood. The irreversible and fluid flooding
history dependent nature of these changes.

Self Systems through which processes of attraction and repulsion lead to increases in complexity and
Organising organization without outside guidance or management. In chemistry this is identified with self-assembly: in
Complexity physics with phase transitions such as crystallization.
E.g. Formation of a flowing oil bank from mobilization and coalescence of individual oil ganglion in EOR
processes. Many EOR processes assume an oil bank forms ‘naturally’.

In this paper we make use of the concept of holons [Fletcher and Davis, 2002; Fletcher and Davis, 2008]. Koestler [1968]
was the first to suggest the term holon to describe the idea that something can simultaneously be a whole and yet part of
something larger. We regard holons as processes and as parts of other holons. Simultaneously a holon is a whole and made
up of sub-process holons. All holons have action and reaction, whilst some (social holons) have intentionality. Holons change
through time and a description at a point in time is a ‘snapshot’ of the state of the process.

FH Evolutionary

MT Dynamic

C σ PM Structural

T μ P Static

Figure 4: Schematic for EOR Process Hierarchy with: Temperature (T), Pressure (P), Chemical Potential (µ), Curvature (C), Stress
State (σ), Mass transfer (MT) and Fluid History (FH).

Complexity in EOR is often associated with the “many – to many” mappings between the hierarchical layers. In
particular, wettability has numerous complex causes and many complex effects, as discussed earlier.
We summarise the value of holonic modeling [Fletcher and Davis, 2003; Fletcher and Davis, 2008] as:
SPE 129531 11

• Helping us describe complex systems simply;

• Can be used for both ‘hard’ physical systems and ‘soft’ systems involving people, and to combine them;
• Enables us to clarify relationships and accountability;
• Useful in mapping paths of change from where we are now to where we want to get to;
• Are a means of identifying added value as an emergent property in dialectical argument;
• Are particularly useful in managing co-operative systems.

Q Analysis and Structure

Q analysis, as developed by the mathematician Ron Atkins during the 1970’s [Atkin, 1974; Atkin, 1981a, and Atkin, 1981b]
can address the complexity of EOR and nanotechnology. Unlike most mathematical systems used in the oil industry derived
from the classical dynamical system based Newtonian paradigm, Atkins approach is based on geometry. Instead of the
systems’ local dynamics we are interested in the global geometry. The Q analysis we discuss here has nothing to do with Q-
mode factor analysis, or Q-sort technique, or q applications in seismic.
Q analysis is a descriptive and analytical language of structure focusing on definitions, set relations and hierarchical
structures. Q analysis employs algebraic topology to represent high dimensional structural problems in terms of simplicial
complexes.
In mathematics, a simplicial complex is a topological space of a particular kind, built up of points, line segments,
triangles, and their n-dimensional counterparts. Informally, a simplicial complex is made of a set of simplices that intersect
with each other only by their common faces. In algebraic topology these spaces are found to be the easiest to deal with, in
terms of concrete calculations.
Q analysis, like much of Complexity Theory, is not without controversy. Nevertheless Q analysis has an impressive
record of application to complex problems in many diverse disciplines. Excellent introductions to Q analysis are given
available [Casti, 1992; Casti, 1994]. The wider potential of the approach is discussed in detail [Gould, 1980]. A succinct
summary of both the mathematics and the role of metaphorical discourse have been published [Legrand, 2002]. There are a
number of applications of Q analysis in a variety of fields [Albrecht, 1997; Pattison and Wasserman, 1999; Robins and
Pattison]
Q Analysis can be summarised as follows. Mathematical languages of traditional differential and integral calculus, of
inferential and descriptive statistics, are essentially quantitative languages employing real numbers extensively. The algebraic
languages (such as Q analysis) are essentially non-quantitative, and measurement in a well defined metric sense is not a
prerequisite for their use. They are available to describe in precise and well defined terms, the structure of things, how things
are connected together, but the use of numbers is a descriptive option, available when we need it, but not essential to our
analyses. Good description is explanation, for the intellectual content and meaning of the word explanation implies a
description of relation between things. The algebraic languages rest upon definitions rooted in the value-laden, pragmatic soil
of human utility and curiosity. Q analysis is above all a language; a language making severe demands of definition, forcing
the researcher to clarify, to define, to sort out the observations before the analysis even begins.
Q Analysis can be contrasted with more conventional statistical techniques [Gould, 1980]. One can construct the multi-
dimensional geometry of relations contained in a scatter diagram. But conventional approaches usually invoke a theory of
error from physical sciences, and fit a line, a linear function, that is meant to represent the relation which is actually and truly
described by the multi-dimensional geometry. Thus we have replaced our rich geometry with a series of n, zero-dimensional,
completely disconnected simplices that lookalike.

Application and Case Study of EOR and Nanotechnology

This case study is a constructed case from a number of field case histories [Fletcher, 1978; Fletcher and Rogers, 1989;
Fletcher et. al., 1991; Fletcher et. al., 1992a; Fletcher et. al., 1992b; Fletcher et. al., 1992c; Lund et. al., 1992; Fletcher and
Morrison, 2008; Fletcher and Davis, 2008] in order to illustrate the following. Firstly, we illustrate the concept of in-depth
flow diversion as an EOR approach. This approach exploits geomechanical, fluid chemistry and nanotechnology
interrelationships. Secondly, we demonstrate the value of metaphorical discourse and Q analysis in creative and innovative
application of nanotechnology in EOR.

The Problem
Some fields prove particularly difficult to select an appropriate EOR process for application. Their properties do not lend
themselves to any obvious technique. Table 9 shows the properties of field Z. Application of chemical, thermal or miscible
EOR techniques present major problems as assessed by traditional screening criteria [Taber, 1997a; Taber, 1997b].
Table 9 assesses the field in terms of which particular techniques are appropriate for a given field characteristic. We can
represent the techniques and field characteristics as the columns and rows of an incidence matrix, and see how each element
or field characteristic is related to the various EOR approaches. Each field characteristic is defined for the specific purpose at
hand, namely the analysis of which EOR technique is suited to the set of field characteristics, as a subset of points in the set
of EOR techniques. Thus we can represent each EOR technique as a geometric figure called a simplex [Gould, 1980]. For
example, A is defined as a three dimensional simplex or 3 simplex representing surfactant EOR with field characteristics 2, 4,
12 SPE 129531

7 and 14. F is the one dimensional simplex representing thermal EOR. Figure 5 is the simplicial complex [Gould, 1980] for
the set of simplexes of EOR techniques.
The simplicial complex can be interpreted. Firstly the simplexes are of low dimensionality. A readily applicable EOR
technique would be expected to exhibit very high dimensionality [Gould, 1980] of at least 14+. Thus we conclude, as already
known, that field Z is not readily amenable to EOR. The simplex E is the key to the problem. The simplex is made up of field
characteristics that do not readily fit into any conventional EOR approach. These are: low permeability (3), high salinity and
hardness (5), large well spacing (8), high clay content (11) and thermally fractured (13). In addition, the field is too shallow
for miscible EOR and very light oil for thermal EOR.

Table 9: Properties of Field Z and Possible EOR Processes

Property No Surfactant CO2 Low salinity Polymer New EOR Thermal

A B C D E F
Environmental Impact 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Low Viscosity Oil 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
Low Permeability 3 0 0 0 0 1 0
Med-High Temperature 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
High Salinity / Hardness 5 0 0 0 0 1 0
Major Carb. Cementation 6 0 1 0 0 0 1
High Oil Gravity 7 1 0 0 0 0 0
Large Well Spacing 8 0 0 0 0 1 0
Poor Geological Definition 9 0 0 1 1 0 1
CO2 Availability 10 0 1 0 0 0 0
High Clay Content 11 0 0 0 0 1 0
Layered Reservoir 12 0 0 0 1 0 0
Extensive Thermal Fractures 13 0 0 0 0 1 0
Low Sal Brine Available 14 1 0 1 0 0 0
High Res Heterogeneity 15 0 0 0 1 0 0
Moderate Pressure 16 0 0 0 0 0 1

The problem is thus defined. Can we construct an EOR approach that takes the negative characteristics of low
permeability, high salinity and hardness, large well spacing, high clay content and thermally fractured reservoir, and make
them positives for the application?

Figure 5: Simplicial Complex from Q Analysis of EOR processes for Field Z

The Solution
We addressed the problem of EOR for field Z with creative and critical thinking approaches. Table 10 lists the hierarchy of
approaches that can be used as defined by Boje [1991]. We adopted a deconstruction approach (level 4 in the table) where we
deconstructed the polymer EOR mobility control criteria and juxtaposed this with the known reservoir parameters and
problems. Part of the deconstruction approach forces one to identify parameters or issues that are sidelined or marginalized in
the primary hierarchy. We believe Q analysis and deconstruction exhibit many similarities in method.
Several elements of hitherto unrelated research ideas were brought together:

1. The interrelationship between adsorption and mechanical properties has been known for some time. Benedicts [1951]
notes that surfactant solutions can alter the surface stress of glass. Dunning [1961] demonstrates that surface tension
is directly equivalent to the surface free energy, but surface tension does not equal the surface stress. In small crystals
SPE 129531 13

surface stress is relieved by dislocations near the surface. Adsorption of surfactant will alter surface stress and hence
mechanical properties [Fletcher, 1978] of the medium. The tensile strength of solids decreases with increase in the
surface tension of liquids wetting them [Dunning, 1961]. In addition, if dislocations are generated more easily at the
surface than in the bulk, the ease of creation will depend on surface energetics.
Table 10: Levels of Creative and Critical Thinking

Creative Approach Mathematical Equivalents of Work Reported in this Paper

Level 1 Undialectic - debate Traditional Approaches

Level 2 Systems thinking Interval Probability
Level 3 Dialectic Interval Probability
Level 4 Deconstruction Q Analysis
Level 5 Nietzschean Not applicable this paper
Level 6 Integrating Qualitative Not applicable this paper
and Quantitative

2. The interrelationships of fluid chemistry, stress state and microseismics were investigated in the early 1990’s
[Elphick, et. al., 1992]. In fact it was recognized that the stress state of a reservoir impacts on both the geology and
fluid flow properties as illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6 was originally presented as a schema for investigating how
geology impacts on reservoir performance [Brown, 1992; Fletcher, 1992c]. We now present this as a possible schema
for integrating nanoscience and geoscience into reservoir engineering. The top left hand of the triangle is focused on
fluid flow and chemistry in porous media including nanoscience. The bottom left hand of the triangle is focused on
geoscience. The interaction between top and bottom can be dialectical as discussed previously [Fletcher and Davis,
2003; Fletcher and Davis, 2008]. As we progress from left to right we move from science to reservoir and petroleum
engineering. The appropriate handling of uncertainty is key to successful field application of chemical EOR. A
systems framework which can incorporate the tacit knowledge and experience from the 1980’s is one way of
reducing uncertainty.

Fluid

Bulk liquid EOR process design

for field application
Wetting/
Thin films

Electric double
Tacit / Hard Knowledge

layer
Reservoir Stress State

EOR process
Adsorption understanding in a New and viable Field EOR application
and Disjoining complex reservoir EOR processes
setting
Precipitation
Crystallization

Microseismics
Dislocations

Bulk solid

Rock

Figure 6: Schema for Investigating how Stress State Impacts on Fluid Flow and Geology

3. The importance of fractures on polymer injectivity was investigated in the early 1990’s [Fletcher, et. al., 1992a] both
experimentally and through reservoir simulation. Recent studies have confirmed the importance of fractures on
polymer injectivity [Seright, et. al., 2008]. The existence of thermal fractures was found to significantly enhance the
injectivity of polymers and avoid blockage of the formation.
4. The use of polymer gels for in-depth profile modification was also investigated in the early 1990’s [Fletcher et. al.,
1992b] in work unrelated to the thermal fracturing work above. It proved possible to utilize thermal gradients to
initiate gelation, but control and propagation of low concentrations of polymer cross-linker proved problematic. The
effectiveness of in-depth profile modification was demonstrated by reservoir simulation in 2002 [Woods et. al.,
2002].
14 SPE 129531

Deconstructing the problem highlighted the importance of the fracture network. The waterflood was reconstructed with
the fracture network assigned central importance in the conceptual model. With this new conceptual understanding we
revisited EOR screening criteria.
With the importance of fractures highlighted, we discover that many of the reservoir parameters which initially presented
problems for polymer EOR were in fact ideal for a new and novel approach. In fact the five parameters (low permeability,
high salinity and hardness, large well spacing, high clay content and thermally fractured) that constituted the EOR approach
E were all now beneficial to an in-depth profile modification strategy. This approach utilized the fact that most of the brine
entered the reservoir via the fracture network – entering the rock matrix some distance from the injectors. If we could control
this leak-off, redirecting the waterflood into previously unswept zones, we could design an effective EOR project.
In summary, when induced fractures are taken into account with the heterogeneity and waterflood configuration, we were
able to construct a strong conceptual case for the implementation of polymer EOR for in-depth profile modification. The high
resistance factors (RF), residual resistance factors (RRF) and adsorption resulting from the low permeability rock matrix and
other geological parameters, can interact positively with the fractures in the waterflood and the reservoir heterogeneity
resulting in significant unswept zones deep within the reservoir.

Summary
We have outlined the potential of nanotechnology to transform the design and execution of chemical EOR. Two aspects of
nanotechnology were distinguished. Firstly, we acknowledged the importance of nanotechnology in general, where the
application of nano-devices and materials could transform oil production. Secondly, we focused on defining and explicating
what nanotechnology means in terms of petroleum engineering.
A new focus within nanotechnology was discussed – a focus which could be called geomimetics. We defined
geomimetics as employing the principles of geosystems to create and develop new and novel processes and materials. In a
wider sense this involves copying the principles of geosystems into technology to compliment the natural environment. This
geomimetic perspective of nanotechnology incorporates the long and distinguished history of colloid and surface science that
has underpinned oil recovery and EOR.
It was outlined how oil recovery depends on nano-scale processes. We discussed why EOR processes are so complicated
and stress the scale-up of these processes from the nano-scale to the macro-scale. Concepts of complexity and hierarchy were
explained and Q analysis was proposed as a way of representing the problem structure. The importance of metaphorical
discourse in both communication and innovation was argued.
Traditional oil recovery understanding focuses on three forces: capillary, viscous and gravity. Nanotechnology focuses on
the nano-scale forces of coulombic interaction and disjoining forces. We included Marangoni forces (forces that arise due to a
gradient in a property such as concentration or interfacial tension) in our description to highlight the importance of transient
phenomena in EOR. As a general observation, EOR processes are considerably more complex as observed compared to the
theories and computer simulations employed to describe them. These processes are scale depended – from the nano-scale
through to the macro-scale.
A case study was constructed from a number of field case histories in order to illustrate the following. Firstly, we
illustrated the concept of in-depth flow diversion as an EOR approach. This approach exploits geomechanical, fluid
chemistry and nanotechnology interrelationships. Secondly, we demonstrated the value of metaphorical discourse and Q
analysis in creative and innovative application of nanotechnology in EOR.

References
Abdallah, W., et. al.: 2007. “Fundamentals of Wettability”, Oilfield Review, summer 2007, 44-61;
Albrecht, J.: 1997. “Overcoming the Restrictions of Current Euclidean-Based Geospatial Data Models with a Set-Orientated Geometry”,
paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of GeoComputation ’97 and SIRC ’97, University of Otago, New Zealand, 26-29
August;
Amanullah, M. and Al-Tahini, A. M.: 2009. “Nano-Technology – its Significance in Smart Fluid Development for Oil and Gas Field
Application”, SPE Paper 126102, presented at the 2009 Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, AlKhobar, Saudi
Arabia, 9-11 May;
Atkin R H. (1974), Mathematical Structures in Human Affairs, Heinemann, London.
Atkin R. H. (1981), Multidimensional Man, Penguin, London.
Atkin R. H. (1981), A Theory of Surprises, Environment and Planning B, volume 8, 359-365;
Benedicks, V.: 1951. Comptes Rendus, Vol233, p409 and p482.
Boje, D. M.: 1991. “Consulting and Change in the Storytelling Organization”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 4 (3), 7-17
Brown, S.:1992. “Geoscience Research at The Petroleum Science and Technology Institute”, Geoscientist, 3(1), 14-17;
Bueno, O.: 2004. “The Drexler-Smalley Debate on Nanotechnology: Incommensurability at Work?”, HYLE – International Journal for
Philosophy of Chemistry, 10(2), 83-98
Casti, J. L.: 1992. “Reality Rules – Picturing the World in Mathematics”, Vols 1 & 2. John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0417 184365, London;
Casti, J. L.: 1994. “Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise”. HarperCollins, USA. ISBN 0 349
10612 6.
Cuiec, L.E.: 1990. “Evaluation of Reservoir Wettability and Its Effect Oil Recovery”, in “Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery”
ed. Morrow N.R., Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, ISBN 0-8247-8385-9;
SPE 129531 15

Davis, J.P. and Fletcher, A. J. P.: 2000. “Managing Assets Under Uncertainty”, SPE59443 Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
Conference on Integrated Reservoir Modeling for Asset Management, Yokohama, Japan;
Davis, J.P., Hall, J.W.: 2003. “A Software-Supported Process for Assembling Evidence and Handling Uncertainty in Decision-Making”,
Decision Support Systems, 35, 415-433;
Davis, J.P., Shenton, W.W., Fletcher, A.J.P.: 2004. “The Threat of Surprise”, Engineering a Secure Australia, Australian Journal of Multi-
Disciplinary Engineering Special Edition, 31-39;
Dawe, R.A. and Grattoni, C.A.: 1998. “The Visualization of the Pore-Scale Physics of Hydrocarbon Recovery from Reservoirs”, First
Break, November, 371-386;
Dawe, R.A.: 1990. “Reservoir Physics at the Pore Scale”, from Seventy Five Years of Progress in Oil Field Science and Technology, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 177-194;
Du, Y. and Guan, L.: 2004. “Field-scale polymer flooding: lessons learnt and experiences gained during the past 40 years”. SPE 91787.
Dunning, W. J.: 1961. “Thermodynamics and Imperfections of Solid Surfaces”, in Adhesion, ed. Eley, OUP, UK.;
Elphick, S. C., et. al.: 1992. “The Effects of Combined Changes in Pore Fluid Chemistry and Stress State on Reservoir Permeability”, in
Water Rock Interaction, eds., Kluraka, Y. K. and Maest, A. S., A A Balmema, Rotterdam, 1113-1116.
Evdokimov, N. I. et. al.: 2006. “Emerging Petroleum-Orientated Nanotechnologies for Reservoir Engineering”, SPE Paper 102060
presented 2006 Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, 3-6 October
Fletcher, A. J. P.: 1978. “The Micellisation of CTAB and DTAB in Ethane 1,2-Diol / Water Mixtures”, BSc Thesis, University of Bristol;
Fletcher, A.J.P. and Rogers, C.: 1989. “Polymers Beneath the North Sea”, Physics World, 30-34;
Fletcher, A.J.P. et al.: 1991. “Measurements of Polysaccharide Polymer Properties in Porous Media”, SPE 21018, paper presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Anaheim, USA, February 20-22.
Fletcher, A.J.P., Lamb, S.P. and Clifford, P.J.: 1992a. “Formation Damage from Polymer Solutions: Factors Governing Injectivity”, SPE
Reservoir Engineering, 237-246;
Fletcher, A.J.P. et, al.: 1992b. “Deep Diverting Gels for Very Cost-Effective Waterflood Control”, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 33-43, 7;
Fletcher, A.J.P.: 1992c. “Fluid Flow in Complex Reservoir Research Programme”, The Petroleum Science and Technology Institute
Technical Bulletin, 2, 14-16;
Fletcher, A.J.P. and Davis, J.P.: 2002. “Decision-Making with Incomplete Evidence”, SPE 77910 paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, 8-10 Oct;
Fletcher, A.J.P. and Davis, J.P: 2003. “Dialectical Evidence Assembly for Discovery”, Discovery Science, LNAI 2843 (G Grieser, Y
Tanaka and A Yamamoto Eds.), pp 100-113, 6th International Conference, Sapporo, Japan, October;
Fletcher, A. J. P. and Morrison G. R..: 2008. “Developing a Chemical EOR Pilot Strategy for a Complex, Low Permeability Water Flood”.
SPE paper 112793 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 19-23 April;
Fletcher, A. J. P. and Davis, J. P.: 2008. “Linking Strategy to Performance in the Oil Industry”, SPE paper 114398 presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 20-22 October, 2008.
Gould, P.: 1980. “Q-Analysis, or a Language of Structure: an Introduction for Social Scientists, Geographers and Planners”, Int. J. Man-
Machine Studies, 13, 169-199;
Hall, J. W., et. al.: 2004. "A decision-support methodology for performance-based asset management," Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems, vol. 21, pp. 51 – 75;
Hirasaki, G.: 1990. “Thermodynamics of Thin Films and Three-Phase Contact Regions”, in “Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum
Recovery” ed. Morrow N.R., Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, ISBN 0-8247-8385-9;
Hirasakai, G. J.: 1991. “Wettability: Fundamentals and Surface Forces”, SPE Formation Evaluation, June, 217-225;
Hite, R.J., Avasthi, S.M. and Bondor, P.L.: 2005. “Planning Successful EOR Projects”, JPT March, 28-29;
Humphris, A.D.L., Miles, M.J. and Hobbs, J.K.: 2005. “A Mechanical Microscope: High-Speed Atomic Force Microscopy”, Applied
Physics Letters 86, 034106;
Jackson, M.C.: 2000. “Systems Approaches to Management”, Kluwer Academic / Plenum, ISBN 0-306-46506-X;
Koestler, A.: 1968. “The ghost in the machine”. New York: Macmillan,
Krishnamoorti, R.: 2006. Extracting the Benefits of Nanotechnology for the Oil Industry”, JPT November, pp24-26;
Lake, L., Schmidt, R. and Venuto, P.: 1992 “A niche for enhanced oil recovery in the 1990’s”, Oilfield Review, 55- 61;
Legrand, J.: 2002. “How Far can Q-Analysis go into Social Systems Understanding?” 5th European Systems Science Congress, Crete,
Greece, 16-19 October;
Lund, T. et al.: 1992. “Polymer retention and Inaccessible Pore Volume of North Sea Reservoir Material”, Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 25-32, 7;
Marashi E., Davis, J.P. and Hall, J.W.: 2005. "Combination methods and conflict handling in evidential theories", International Journal of
Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems, accepted.
Marashi, E., Davis, J.P.: 2006a. "An argumentation-based method for managing complex issues in design of infrastructural systems",
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, in press;
Marashi, E. and Davis, J.P.: 2006b. "A Systems-Based Approach for Supporting Discourse in Decision-Making", Computer-aided Civil &
Infrastructure Engineering, accepted;
Morin, E.: 1992. "The concept of system to the paradigm of complexity," Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, vol. 15, pp. 371-
375;
Morrow, N.R.: 1970. “Physics and Thermodynamics of Capillary Action in Porous Media”, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 62(6),
32-56;
Morrow, N.R.: 1990a. “Introduction to Interfacial Phenomena in Oil Recovery”, in “Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery”
ed. Morrow N.R., Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, ISBN 0-8247-8385-9;
Morrow, N.R.: 1990b. “Wettability and its Effect on Oil Recovery”, JPT, December, 1476-1484;
16 SPE 129531

Pattison P E, Wasserman S,; 1999. “Logic Models and Logistic Regressions for Social Networks, II, Multivariate Relations”, British
Journal of mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 52, 169-194;
Pourafshary, P. et. al.: 2009. “Priority Assessment of Investment in Development of Nanotechnology in Upstream Petroleum Industry”,
SPE Paper 126101 presented at the 2009 SPE Saudi Arabian Section technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia,
9-11 May.
Robins G, Pattison P (2000), “P* Models for Temporal Processes in Social Networks”, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25, 5-41.
Saggaf, M.M.: 2008. “A vision for Future Upstream Technologies”, Distinguished Author Series, JPT March 2008;
Saleri, N. G.: 1996. “Reengineering Simulation: A Bottom-Line Approach to Managing Complexity and Complexification”. SPE Paper
36696 presented at the SPE ATCE, Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October;
Seright, R. S., et. al.: 2008. “Injectivity Characteristics of EOR Polymers”, SPE Paper presented at the 2008 ATCE, Denver, Co, 21-24
September;
Taber, J. J., et. al.; 1997a. SPE35385. “EOR Screening Criteria Revisited – Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced
Recovery Field Projects”;
Taber, J. J., et. al.; 1997b. SPE39242. “EOR Screening Criteria Revisited – Part 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices.
Takeuchi H., Nonaka I.: 2004. “Hitotsubashi on Knowledge Management”, John Wiley and Sons
Thomas, S.: 2005. “Chemical EOR – The past, does it have a future?”, SPE Distinguished Lecture Series, SPE 108829;
Wack, P.: 1985. “Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead”, Harvard Business Review 63(5): 72-89.
Woods, C. L., et. al.: 2002. “In-Depth Blocking to Boost Late Life Reserves”, paper presented at IEA 23rd International Workshop and
Symposium, Caracas, Venezuela, September;