IPTC-19580-MS

LSASF in Unconventional Sandstone Reservoirs

Hasan N. Al-Saedi, Missouri University of Science and Technology/ Missan Oil Company; Soura K. Al-Jaberi,
Missan Oil Company; Ralph E. Flori, Missouri University of Science and Technology; Waleed Al-Bazzaz, Kuwait
Institute for Scientific Research

Copyright 2020, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 13 – 15 January 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In order to unlock large quantities of heavy crude oil, thermal enhanced oil recovery (EOR) must keep
pace with the other EOR development, such as low salinity (LS) water flooding. Injecting steam alone is
accompanied by gravity override, which leads to early breakthroughs without contacting the whole heavy
oil bank. Water alternating steam process (WASP) is a steam sweep efficiency improver, but using LS
water provides the same feature with an extra benefit, which is wettability alteration and named low salinity
alternating steam flooding (LSASF). Changing reservoir rocks wettability from oil-wet towards water-
wet is highly desired during designing EOR projects. This study presents injecting steam into heavy oil
accumulation in the purpose of decreasing its viscosity and ease its flow and intermitting steam with LS
water flooding to improve steam sweep efficiency and to alter sandstone wettability towards being more
water-wet, which unlock extra heavy oil by LS water too.
In this study, core flooding experiments have been carried out on a reservoir core plugs were taken from
Bartlesville Sandstone Reservoir (located in Eastern Kansas) saturated with a heavy crude oil of 600 cp
from the same reservoir. The reservoir core plugs were saturated by formation water (FW) with 104,550
ppm salinity and heavy crude oil. FW was firstly injected in the secondary stage, followed by different LS
waters to examine the optimum formula of LS water that needs to be injected with steam. Each injected
LS water was alternating with steam. Four kinds of LS water with 3000 ppm salinity were evaluated and
named LSNaCl, , , and LSMix, where each subscript refers to the only salt dissolved in the LS
water. Spontaneous imbibition test was also conducted to study the wettability change.
The results obtained showed that LS water and steam flooding improved oil recovery at all proposed
scenarios. Still, the highest was LS water contains NaCl only (LSNaCl) followed by LS water contains CaCl2
(LSCaCl2), then LSMix, and the lowest was LSMgCl2. The spontaneous imbibition results agree with core
flooding results. Based on the results of this work, it is possible to inject LSNaCl and steam that gives the
lowest residual oil saturation.
2 IPTC-19580-MS

Introduction
Complementing previous research in which we have merged low salinity (LS) water with steam (Al-Saedi
et al., 2018, 2018a, 2018h, 2019c, 2019j), a new investigation of coupling both steam with different designs
of LS water has presented in this study. In the previous studies, we presented a novel thermal enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) techniques by combining both LS water with steam in an attempt to gather the benefits
of both EOR techniques in improving oil recovery. LS water can alter sandstone wettability towards being
more water-wet. Steam, as is well-know, is able to reduce oil viscosity and in turn, increases oil recovery
by easing the oil flow.
Steam flooding is one of the thermal EOR methods to increase oil recovery by decreasing its viscosity.
Injecting steam in heavy oil reservoirs acts poorly due to gravity override of the steam over the oil due
to density differences between the injected steam and the in-situ heavy oil. The Water-Alternating-Steam-
Process (WASP) was developed to overwhelm the gravity override and to improve steam sweep efficiency.
The first WASP pilot was conducted in the West Coalinga field in California in 1973 (Hong 1992). WASP
can improve displacement front by alternating the steam with water. In early 1987, after only 16 months of
steam injection into the VE sands, steam broke through to a Pilot producer. The problem increased rapidly,
and by early 1985, five Pilot wells were producing vapor phase steam. This early steam breakthrough was
attributed to high temperatures (over 240°F) present in the VE sands even before steam injection began in
those sands (Hong, 1990). Many have studied how to lessen steam bypass problems in order to maximize oil
recovery (Ali 1974). WASP was an excellent candidate to address the overriding problem. The first WASP
project was performed in California (West Coalinga field) in 1973 (Hong 1992), where they alternated steam
injection with water in order to better sustain a flood front.
LS water flooding is considered one of the most low-priced (relatively) and effective EOR methods as a
result of wettability alteration from oil-wet to water-wet (Tang and Morrow, 1997; Tang and Morrow, 1999;
Zhang and Morrow, 2006; Austad et al, 2010, Yousef et al, 2011 and 2012; Berg et al., 2010; Nasralla et
al., 2013 and 2014; Al-Saedi and Brady et al., 2019b).
We believed that (as illustrated in our previous studies) injecting LS water with steam can play the
same role as WASP in improving sweep efficiency plus the advantage of altering wettability that LS water
provides. In this case, and in order to maximize the efficiency of this combination, we must present formula
of LS water that is able to extract large quantities of heavy crude oil. Manipulating the composition of
the injected LS water is the key factor for increasing the effectiveness of the emerging new EOR method.
This work considered reducing the residual oil saturation by injection of manipulated low salt concentration
intermittent with steam in order to improve oil recovery.

Methodology
Materials
Brines. Waterflooding experiments were performed by injecting synthetic brine solutions of four types
of LS water categorized as LSNaCl, LSCaCl2, LSMgCl2, and LSMix prepared by dissolving reagents NaCl, CaCl2,
MgCl2, and altogether in deionized water, respectively. All LS water salinities were 3000 ppm. Synthetic
formation water (FW) was also prepared by dissolving reagents NaCl, CaCl2, MgCl2, and Na2SO4 in
deionized water. FW salinity was 104,550 ppm. LS brines and FW are listed in Table 1 and are given in
millimole per liter (mM). This design of LS water was tested with CO2, and it showed a significant oil
recovery in Al-Saedi et al. (2018).
IPTC-19580-MS 3

Table 1—Synthetic FW, LSNaCl, LSCaCl2, LSMgCl2, and LSMix in millimole per litter (mM/l).

Element FW LSNaCl LSCaCl2 LSMgCl2 LSMix

NaCl 13689 51.3 0 0 17.1

CaCl2 1802 0 27 0 9
MgCl2 420 0 0 31.5 10.5
Na2SO4 39 0 0 0 0
TDS 104,550 3000 3000 3000 3000

LSNaCl: LS water containing NaCl only; LSCaCl2: LS water containing CaCl2 only; LSMgCl2: LS water containing MgCl2 only; LSMix: LS water containing NaCl,
LSCaCl2, and LSMgCl2.

Crude oil. The crude oil was obtained from Colt Energy (from Eastern Kansas from Bartlesville Sandstone
Reservoir). The crude oil viscosity is ~600 cP at ambient temperature, its density is 0.83 gm/cc at 20°C, its
acid number is 1.1 mg KOH/g, and its base number is 1.83 mg KOH/g.

Reservoir cores and cores restoration

Preserved reservoir sandstone cores were delivered by Colt Energy from Bartlesville Sandstone Reservoir.
The cores were delivered saturated with heavy oil. The cores were drilled to 1-inch diameter and cleaned
using flooding and Soxhlet extractor using kerosene and toluene for flooding and using toluene for Soxhlet
extractor. The preserved cores were mildly cleaned via injecting kerosene to displace the original reservoir
oil until the kerosene effluent ran clear. Approximately four pore volumes (PVs) of kerosene were injected.
The kerosene was displaced by toluene. The cores were then taken out of the core holder and immersed in
toluene overnight for further cleaning. Both floods were carried out at 6 PV per day. The day after, the cores
were cleaned in a Soxhlet extractor with toluene.
After the cleaning was complete, a one-night drying was performed inside an oven with 90°C
temperature. The cores’ dimensions were measured and weighed after being evacuated and saturated with
the FW under vacuum. The weight after saturation was taken and used for porosity calculation. Table 2
shows reservoir core plugs properties.

Table 2—Reservoir core properties.

Plug Name D, cm L, cm K, md ϕ, % Fluids Injected (4 PVs)

RC18a 9.35 22 19.23 Steam Only

FW+ 2 cycles of
RC18b 9.51 18 18.91
LSNaCl + Steam
FW+ 2 cycles of
RC18c 2.54 9.52 20 18.20
LSCaCl2 + Steam
FW+ 2 cycles of
RC18d 9.38 29 20.21
LSMgCl2 + Steam
FW+ 2 cycles of
RC18e 9.45 33 19.17
LSMix + Steam

Petrophysical parameters measeuremnts and establishing initial water saturation

The cleaned and dried (overnight at 90°C) cores were vacuum and pressure saturated with FW. The cores’
porosity was then measured by the weight difference of the cores before and after saturation. The cores
were then transferred to a Hassler core holder to measure permeability using the same FW. All core flood
runs were carried out at a single flow rate by setting the injected pump in the constant flow rate of 0.5 cc/
min. The final permeability of the rock core sample was calculated from the recorded differential pressure
4 IPTC-19580-MS

data using Darcy's linear-flow equation. Crude oil was then injected (3 PV each direction) into the cores to
establish initial water saturation. The cores were then placed in an aging cell for 35 days at 95°C.

Oil recovery test (Forced Imbibition)

The restored cores were placed in the Hassler core holder with a back pressure of 300 psi and confining
pressure 600 psi. As pointed out previously, the Bartlesville Sandstone Reservoir temperature is rather low
(25°C), so the core holder was left outside the oven. To achieve thermal stability, the fluid containers were
left overnight prior to each experiment. The fluids were injected, and the cumulative oil produced was
collected in a cylindrical tube. Core flooding scenarios and experimental setup are depicted in Figure 1 and
Figure 2, respectively.

Figure 1—Core flooding experiments scenarios.

Figure 2—Schematic diagram of coreflood experiment setup.

Spontaneous imbibition
In order to examine our results, the wettability indicator must be measured. Spontaneous imbibition using
Amott cells was carried out to identify the wettability of the sandstone cores with LSNaCl, , ,
and LSMix. The imbibition test lasts for 30 days. The spontaneous imbibition was conducted at the same
IPTC-19580-MS 5

conditions as the core-flooding. The cores were immersed in the imbibing fluid for 30 days until the
spontaneous imbibition ceased. The oil recovery was determined as a fraction of OOIP.

Results and Discussion

Core flooding experiments
Corefloods are well-thought-out as a fundamental part of any injected fluid into the core for evaluation of the
applied EOR process. It can be used to evaluate the proposed EOR technique of LS water and steam flooding.
This section labels the core flooding experiments that carried out for steam drive only and combined steam
and LS water in sandstone reservoirs bearing heavy crude oil.
To verify the overriding problem with steam injection, an experiment was carried out on RC18a bearing
heavy oil. The results are plotted in Figure 3. As can be noticed, the early steam breakthrough was observed
after injecting 0.55 PV because of the poor sweep efficiency of the steam due to the viscosity differences
between the injected steam and the in situ crude oil. The ultimate oil recovery after injecting 4 PVs of steam
was 32% of the original oil in place (OOIP).

Figure 3—Oil recovery for RC18a by injection of steam.

In RC18b, LS water contains only NaCl with 3000 ppm salinity was injected alternatively with steam
in two cycles 0.5 PVs for both at each cycle. Prior to the tertiary stage, 2 PVs of FW was injected in the
secondary stage. In this scenario, injecting 2 PVs of FW, resulting in a recovery plateau of 41% OOIP. Upon
switching to the LSNaCl and steam, the oil recovery improved significantly to 10.3% OOIP in the first cycle
and 3.6% in the second cycle. The oil recovery obtained by two cycles of LSNaCl and steam was 13.9%
OOIP. The ultimate oil recovery of this scenario was 54.9% OOIP. The results are shown in Figure 4. The
improved oil recovery is ascribed to the sweep efficiency improvement of the steam by LS water as well
as the LS water role of wettability alteration.
6 IPTC-19580-MS

Figure 4—Oil recovery for RC18b with injection of FW and two cycles of LSNaCl + Steam.

Replacing NaCl by CaCl2 with keeping the salinity at 3000 ppm in the second LS water design was
another option to verify wich LS water design is most appropriate to be combined with steam. Like the
previous scenario, 2 PVs of FW followed by 2 PVs of and steam were injected into RC18c. The oil
recovery due to FW flooding was 42.2% OOIP, while it was 7.8% and 2.9% for the first and second cycles of
and steam, respectively. As expected, the tertiary oil recovery was lower than the previous scenario
(LSNaCl and steam) due to the abundance of divalent cation Ca2+ in the injected LS water. It was observed
that when divalent cations exist in the core, the bridge between the organic materials in the crude oil and
sandstone surface becomes dominant, and the movement of oil bounded (Al-Saedi and Flori, 2019d). The
tertiary oil recovery was 10.7% OOIP, which was less than that in LSNaCl and steam scenario (13.9% vs.
10.7%), while the total oil recovery was 52.9% OOIP. The results are plotted in Figure 5.

Figure 5—Oil recovery for RC18c with injection of FW and two cycles of LSCaCl2 + Steam.

Further investigation was applied by using LS water containing MgCl2 only in the injected LS water with
keeping the same salinity. The flooding procedure was the same as the previous ones. The oil recovery due
IPTC-19580-MS 7

to injecting 2 PVs of FW was 40.8% OOIP. The improved oil recovery was 6.75% OOIP divided between
4.75% OOIP in the first cycle and 2% OOIP in the second cycle (Figure 6). As we reported in our study that
the effect of Mg2+ is less than that of Ca2+ in the injected LS water due to the diameter difference between
Ca2+ and Mg2+ (Al-Saedi and Flori, 2019d).

Figure 6—Oil recovery for RC18d with injection of FW and two cycles of + Steam.

In the last core flooding experiment, all the chemicals that were used individually were mixed together
in order to investigate the effect of the mixture o LSASF. The oil recovery of 2 PVs FW was 40.2% OOIP,
while the tertiary oil recovery was 7.3% of the OOIP, which was high than and steam and less than
LSNaCl and steam and and steam (Figure 7).

Figure 7—Oil recovery for RC18e with injection of FW and two cycles of LSMix + Steam.

The experimental core flooding results confirmed that LSNaCl is most effective when it alternated with
steam with the highest oil recovery followed by and steam, LSMix and steam, and and steam.
Further investigation is required, such as injecting LS water with steam in a shorter cycle for higher oil
recovery.
8 IPTC-19580-MS

The early breakthrough is one of the most crucial problems facing injecting steam projects. However,
this study shows that injecting only steam is provided a significant oil recovery (32% OOIP), but the steam
breakthrough results are not encouraging. Another steam technical problem could be viscous fingering. The
steam functions enhance the oil recovery by reducing heavy oil viscosity, but steam must be used correctly.
Correct using of steam is an accurate picture when combining the steam with LS water. The LS water must
be used effectively by picking the optimal chemical recipe. Combining LS water with steam in any recipe
can enhance oil recovery, but using the optimum formula is the key to obtaining a higher oil recovery.
Spontaneous imbibition, on the other hand, was carried out on the same LS waters used in core flooding
experiments, and the results agree with the core flooding results. Figure 8 shows the spontaneous imbibition
test results. The highest oil recovery was obtained when the core tested in the LSNaCl water. The Amott cells
were set in the room temperature, and no oil drainage was observed during the early days. Due to its high
viscosity, the oil inside the cores needs to be heated to make it easier to move out of the cores. The Amott
cells were transferred inside the oven, which was set on the same core-flooding experiment temperature
(50°C). The oil was witnessed moving out of the cores inside the imbibed fluids. The oil drainage was
prolonged, and only a small amount of oil was produced due to the low work applied in the cores to displace
the oil in place compared to the achieved work by forced imbibition. The cells were left inside the oven for
30 days. The oil stopped to drainage out of the cores at different times.

Figure 8—Spontaneous imbibition into heavy oil-saturated sandstone cores

using the brines used in the core-flooding experiments as an imbibing fluid.

Conclusions
By conducting a forced imbibition test, LSASF was evaluated by injecting LSNaCl, , ,
and LSMix alternatively with steam. Steam was also injected alone to evaluate its behavior. Spontaneous
imbibition tests were also performed to to assess its behavior. Spontaneous imbibition tests were also
performed to evaluate the performance of all LS waters used in this study and the resulted core wettabilities
of the cores. Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. An early steam breakthrough was observed after injecting 0.55 PV steam into a reservoir sandstone
core saturated with heavy crude oil. To avoid this early breakthrough, LS water was pumped
alternatively with the steam beside the benefit of LS water in wettability alteration.
IPTC-19580-MS 9

2. In the case of injecting LS water with steam, using LSNaCl provided the most oil recovery followed
by , LSMix, and then . The mentioned designed LS waters also alter the wettability in
the same specified rank.
1. The cores’ wettability was changed based on the spontaneous imbibition tests. The more water-wet
sandstone cores can be ranked in order of LSNaCl> >LSMix> . The oil recovered by
spontaneous imbibition was in line with that in forced imbibition.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Higher Committee for Education Development in
Iraq and the Iraqi Ministry of Oil/ Missan Oil Company for funding this study. Other thanks to Colt Energy,
Inc., especially John Amerman, for providing crude oil and reservoir cores for this study.

References
Ali, S. M. F. (1974). Current Status of Steam Injection as a Heavy Oil Recovery Method. Petroleum Society of Canada.
https://doi.org/10.2118/74-01-06
Al-Saedi, Hasan, N., Al-Bazzaz, W., & Flori, R. E. (2019c). Is Steamflooding a Form of Low Salinity Waterflooding?
Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/194820-MS
Al-Saedi, Hasan, N., Brady, P. V., Flori, R. E., & Heidari, P. (2019b). Insights into the role of clays in low salinity water
flooding in sand columns. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 174, 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.petrol.2018.11.031
Al-Saedi, Hasan, N., Flori, R. E. (2019j). Will Using LSASF Affect the Rock Properties of Sandstone and Increase Oil
Recovery? The 53rd US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in New York, NY, USA, 23–26 June 2019.
Al-Saedi, Hasan, N., Flori, R. E., Alkhamis, M., & Brady, P. V. (2018a). Coupling Low Salinity Water Flooding and
Steam Flooding for Sandstone Reservoirs; Low Salinity-Alternating-Steam Flooding (LSASF). The SPE Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 23–26 April 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2118/192168-MS
Al-Saedi, Hasan, N., R. E. Flori, Alsaba, M. (2018h). Coupling Low Salinity Water Flooding and Steam Flooding for
Heavy Oil in Sandstone Reservoirs; Low Salinity-Alternating-Steam Flooding (LSASF): A novel EOR technique.
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (ADIPEC). https://doi.org/10.2118/192981-MS
Al-Saedi, Hasan, N., Yifu Long, Usama Alameedy, Waleed Al-Bazzaz, Ralph E. Flori. (2018). Experimental Comparison
between WASP and LSASF in Bartlesville Sandstone Reservoir Cores bearing Heavy Oil. SPE International Heavy Oil
Conference & Exhibition to be held 10-12 December 2018 in Kuwait City, Kuwait. https://doi.org.10.2118/193731-MS
Al-Saedi, Hasan, N., & Flori, R. E. (2019). Effect of divalent cations in low salinity water flooding in sandstone reservoirs.
Journal of Molecular Liquids, 283, 417-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2019.03.112
Austad, T., RezaeiDoust, A., Puntervold, T. (2010). Chemical mechanism of low salinity water flooding in sandstone
reservoirs. Proceedings of the 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Improved Oil Recovery Symposium; Tulsa,
OK; SPE Paper 129767. https://doi.org/10.2118/129767-MS
Berg, S., Cense, A. W., Jansen, E., Bakker, K. (2010). Direct experimental evidence of wettability modification by low
salinity. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts. 51 (5), 314-322.
Hong, K. C., & Stevens, C. E. (1992). Water-Alternating-Steam Process Improves Project Economics at West Coalinga
Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/21579-PA
Hong, K. C., & Stevens, D. E. (1990). Water-Alternating-Steam Process Improves Project Economics at West Coalinga
Field. Petroleum Society of Canada. https://doi.org/10.2118/90-84.
Nasralla R. A., Nasr-El-Din H. A. (2014). Impact of cation type and concentration in injected brine on oil recovery in
sandstone reservoirs. J Petrol Sci Eng. 122: 384–95
Nasralla, R. A., Bataweel, M. A., Nasr-El-Din, H. A. (2013). Investigation of wettability alteration and oil-recovery
improvement by low-salinity water in sandstone rock. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. 52 (02), 144–154.
Tang, G. Q., Morrow, N. R. (1997). Salinity, temperature, oil composition, and oil recovery by waterflooding. SPE
Reservoir Engineering. https://doi.org/10.2118/36680-PA
Tang, G.Q. and Morrow, N.R. (1999). Influence of brine composition and fines migration on crude oil/brine/rock
interactions and oil recovery. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 24 (2-4), pp.99-111.
10 IPTC-19580-MS

Yousef, A. A., Al-Saleh, S. H., Al-Kaabi, A., Al-Jawfi, M. S. (2011). Laboratory investigation of the impact of injection-
water salinity and ionic content on oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.2118/137634-PA
Yousef, A. A., Al-Saleh, S., & Al-Jawfi, M. S. (2012). Improved/Enhanced oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs by
tuning injection water salinity and ionic content. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/154076-MS
Zhang, Y., Morrow, N. R. (2006). Comparison of secondary and tertiary recovery with change in injection brine
composition for crude-oil/sandstone combinations. SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/99757-MS