Received May 29, 2018, accepted July 11, 2018, date of publication August 10, 2018, date of current

version October 8, 2018.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2859774

On Using Ultrasonic-assisted Enhanced

Oil Recovery (EOR): Recent Practical
Achievements and Future Prospects
MAHMOUD MERIBOUT , (Senior Member, IEEE)
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi 2533, United Arab Emirates
e-mail: mahmoud.meribout@ku.ac.ae

ABSTRACT Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is an increasingly important process in oil-gas fields. Several
techniques have demonstrated their capability to recover a substantial amount of oil. This paper discusses the
main field and laboratories developments achieved so far with ultrasonic-assisted EOR as well as different
electronics and mechanical subcomponents designs of such probes. While encouraging results were achieved
in the fields, most of the studies suggest to combine the ultrasonic devices with chemical agents, gas, or other
fluids to significantly enhance the efficiency of recovery. In addition of their potential for EOR, powerful
ultrasonic probes have another important area of application in oil fields which consists to remove recurrent
plugs that may build up within the well. The paper also addresses different related emerging technologies
which have been developed as prototypes in laboratories, mainly in the areas of medical field and process
control and which can be potentially extended for EOR application. Ultrasonic-assisted EOR should take
advantage of these studies to potentially widen its field deployment.

INDEX TERMS Ultrasonic-based enhanced oil recovery, ultrasonic transducer.

I. INTRODUCTION
In oil fields, a substantial amount of oil is still trapped within
the reservoir and can’t be extracted using exclusively sub-
mersible pumps. This corresponds to a secondary oil recovery
process which precedes the primary oil recovery, after which
a substantial amount of crude oil is still trapped. This can
be due to the high viscosity of the trapped oil or to its low
pressure, especially if the surrounding formation features
low permeability or low porosity (e.g. case of limestone and
heterogeneous formations). Hence a tertiary EOR technique
which is mainly based on surfactant-polymer flooding, gas
injection (i.e. CO2), and steam injection is required. Usu-
ally several injection wells are used to carry one of these
agents/fluids in order to move the trapped oil towards another
production well. The distance between the injection wells and
the production well is dictated by the physical properties of
both the formation and the fluid (i.e. compressibility, perme-
ability, fluid viscosity, porosity, and fluid saturation). In case
of horizontal wells, the injection wells are usually above the
production well so that when the oil is stimulated, it trav-
els in downward direction by gravity towards the produc-
tion well. CO2 -assisted EOR is one of the widely deployed
technique dues to its high efficiency. In the US alone,
114 CO2 -assisted EOR projects were installed overall the
country to raise the oil production by 281,000 barrels of oil
per day, which constitutes 6% of the US oil production. How-
ever, one of the major disadvantages of CO2 -assisted EOR is
the high mobility of CO2 which alters the volumetric sweep
efficiency. Alternating CO2 and water injection (WAG) was
used as an alternative to overcome this difficulty. However,
the problem is to find an optimal water-CO2 ratio since a
high volume of water may cause an increase in the water-cut
of the produced oil, and eventually a substantial amount of
emulsion as well. Chemical injection using for instance qua-
ternary ammonium adduct of polyepihalohydrin is one of the
main technique used for in-situ emulsion mitigation. Overall,
the afromentioned conventional EOR techniques, including
CO2 assisted EOR, are costly, not environmental friendly,
bulky, and require heavy logistics, leading to high overall
CAPEX and OPEX costs. In addition the highly heterogene-
ity and complex structure of the formation (e.g. limestone),
which is a frequent case in many oil fields, may not lead
to an effective oil recovery. Conventional EOR techniques
may also cause formation damage since they induce depo-
sition of paraffin near the well bore which may decrease the
formation permeability and consequently the production rate

2169-3536
2018 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only.
51110 Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. VOLUME 6, 2018
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
M. Meribout: On Using Ultrasonic-assisted EOR: Recent Practical Achievements and Future Prospects

as well. This has encouraged researchers and oil companies

to consider other non-conventional EOR techniques, such
as ultrasonic-assisted EOR which are substantially cheaper
(e.g. up to 230,000 US$ for polymer injection device versus
90,000 US$ for ultrasonic-based EOR device). In addition,
they require much lower energy and they allow a better con-
trol of the ultrasonic wave propagation to focus stimulating
only zones of interest. This is not the case of other conven-
tional EOR techniques where the agents and fluids can flow in
any direction, possibly leaving the zones of interest depleted.
Furthermore, they do not accelerate the corrosion rate of the
equipments and pipeline downstream the wells, which may be FIGURE 1. Section of a porous formation.
the case of conventional EOR techniques, especially in case
of CO2 -assited EOR. While lot of research works have been
conducted on ultrasonic-assisted EOR in laboratories, mainly
mud and sand) in the near well bore environment of the
using saturated cores and exclusively laboratory equipments,
production well.
relatively very few trials have been done in the field. The
An important factor to consider for an efficient ultrasonic
main difficulty arises on designing a feasible electronic sys-
wave propagation through the formation is the impedance
tem that takes into consideration the constraints associated
matching between the probe and the area of contact. Since
to oil wells, such as the relatively small well sizing, and
the ultrasonic waves are expected to propagate through liq-
high downhole temperature and pressure. In addition, most
uid phase and other high dense medium (i.e. limestones),
of the previous experimental studies focused on heavy oil
the ultrasonic probe should be adopted to its high acoustic
where the main goal was to reduce the oil viscosity. To our
impedance, which requires to have a layer of liquid between
knowledge, no work considered light crude oil where the
the probe and the formation. Thus, a prior injection of water
objective of EOR would be to extract this oil trapped in low
into the formation is sometimes required. Few field imple-
porous and low permeable formations, which is the case in
mentations have used the same cable, of around 10 cm
many places of the world. Compared to traditional EOR tech-
diameter to simultaneously carry the power and signal wires
niques, ultrasonic-assisted EOR consider the same well for
required for the downhole transducer and also injected water
production and injection. This is due to the relatively limited
from the surface to the formation [1], [2].
range of ultrasonic radiation (1 to 2 m maximum), at the
operational resonance frequency which usually ranges from
20 to 40 KHz. Hence, ultrasonic-assisted EOR still requires A. THEORY OF ULTRASONIC WAVES PROPAGATION
good amount of design efforts prior to its field deployment. INTO AN HETEROGENEOUS MEDIUM
This paper discusses the main field and laboratories develop- The propagation of ultrasonic waves within a medium create
ments achieved so far with ultrasonic-assisted EOR. It also mechanical oscillations, the fundamental frequency of which
review different electronics and mechanical subcomponents is within the resonance frequency of the ultrasonic transduc-
designs of these probes. Finally it suggests few emerging ers. The amplitude of the induced vibrations is proportional
technologies which have been lately used in medical field and to the waves’ intensity (i.e. level of power applied on the
which seem to have a great potential for EOR as well. ultrasonic transducer) and also to the degree of closeness
of the wave frequency with the resonance frequency of the
medium which depends on both its effective mass and stiff-
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ON ness. While their penetration depth is inversely proportional
ULTRASONIC-ASSISTED EOR to their frequency, the amount of dissipated heat they gen-
A porous formation is usually composed of wetting phase erate is proportional to the frequency of ultrasonic waves.
(i.e. gas or liquid which is in contact with the solid material This is why ultrasonic frequencies considered so far in the
of the formation), non-wetting phase (i.e. liquid or gas phase fields does not exceed 50 KHz. The following Helmholtz
that lies in the channels and interstices and is separated from equation is usually considered to model the propagation of
the solid formation by wetted phase) (Figure 1). A typical acoustic waves of natural frequency f (f = ω/2π ) and acous-
example of wetted phase is the asphalt which accumulate tic pressure p[N/m2 ] into a medium of density ρm with a
when the carrying liquid encounters low pressure. The pur- velocity c [3], [4]:
pose of ultrasonic-assisted EOR is to let the non-wet phase
ω2 p
 
to move through the pores to reach the borehole. This can be 1
v − ∇p − = 0, (1)
done by emitting intermittent or continuous ultrasonic waves ρm ρm C
2

into the formation. Another suitable domain of application of

ultrasonic-assisted EOR is to mitigate the migration of fine The velocity of a longitudinal wave for a medium of
grained solid particles or other layers of plugs (e.g. drilling bulk modulus K and shear modulus G, can be defined as

VOLUME 6, 2018 51111

 M. Meribout: On Using Ultrasonic-assisted EOR: Recent Practical Achievements and Future Prospects
FIGURE 2. Intensity of sonication dependency on the threshold frequency
for aerated water (left-hand graph) and air-free (right-handed graph) [4].
follows:
s
K + 4G/3
Cp = , (2)
ρm
While the velocity of the transverse wave is determined as
follows:
s
G above equations, various models of ultrasonic wave inter-
Cs . (3)
ρm
For EOR applications, only longitudinal wave velocity is
taken into account. When ultrasonic waves hit crude oil, cav-
itation effect takes place and heavy large paraffin molecules
are broken into light hydrocarbon molecules, which leads
to a substantial decreases of the oil viscosity. Assume τp as
the time to destroy one molecular bond, it can be inversely
proportional to the stress σu caused by the ultrasonic wave
according to the following equation [3]:
E0 − γ (σc + σu )
 
τp = τ0 exp (4)
kT
Where τ0 is a constant time which depends on the material
properties, σc the static stress, γ a constant that characterize
the transmission of the average stress to one bond of the
object and k the Boltzman constant. For ultrasonic frequen-
cies exceeding few MHz, the production of cavitation bub-
bles becomes more difficult compared to lower frequencies
(in the range of KHz) [4] (Figure 2). This is explained by
the fact that for high frequencies, the cycle of compression
and decompression becomes so brief that the liquid molecules
can’t be separated to form a void an thus a void can no
longer be obtained. Some studies have demonstrated that
for the same excitation frequency, sonochemical treatment
leads to a better recovery than standalone ultrasonic-based
EOR [1], [2]. Other studies have also demonstrated that the
increase of the amplitude of ultrasonic waves leads to smaller
diameter of paraffin crystalline (higher crack of long C-C
bonds) and consequently to a better fluidity of the associated
crude oil.
They have also revealed that ultrasonic waves can also
remove other types of plugs that may buildup within the
well such as drilling fluid plug, paraffin deposition plug, and
51112
polymer plug [5]. Some other interesting works have inves-
tigated the theory of propagation of acoustic wave within a
porous formation to deduce the suitable acoustic frequency to
apply within a formation [12]. Their findings is that when a
formation containing a pore fluid is subject to a sound wave,
both the formation (i.e. rock) and the fluid will oscillate in
the direction of the propagation of the sound wave. They also
revealed that in case of slow frequency ultrasonic waves, fc ,
the porous rock and the fluid will respond completely in
phase, which results in no net motion of the pore fluid with
respect to the surrounding fluid. The frequency of the acoustic
slow wave mode, fc , when it propagates with a formation of
porosity φ, permeability k and containing a fluid of density
ρf and viscosity η, can be determined as follows [12]:
fc = ηφ/(2π kρf ) (5)
Both sonic and density (neutron) logs can be used to estimate
the porosity and fluid density respectively prior to ultrasonic
EOR radiation. With higher sound frequencies, the porous
fluid motion lags slightly behind that of the rigid solid. This
leads to fluid motion through pores in the rock. Using the
action with fluids were suggested in the recent past. Some
of them were even validated experimentally in a Lab-scale
lab [7]–[10]. In [6], a 60 minutes experiments were con-
ducted, within which the first 30 minutes revealed a mismatch
with theory, due, according to authors, to the instability of the
output power of the ultrasonic device. A good match occurred
in the remaining 30 minutes. The studies also revealed that in
addition to the merit of ultrasonic waves to reduce the viscos-
ity of the fluid due to temperature and pressure changes, they
also have the potential to mitigate the interfacial tension in
the emulsion medium, and to increase the fluid mobility.
B. ULTRASONIC DEVICES FOR EOR
While most of the frequencies used so far in the field or exper-
imentally are around 20 KHz, most ultrasonic transducers
used for EOR are based on either magnetoresistive or lithium
niobate materials. Magnetoresitive material features rela-
tively low operating temperature (i.e. less than 150 ◦ C) and
low operating pressure [1], [2], whereas the more recent
lithium niobate material has a much higher Currie tem-
perature (i.e. up to 1210 ◦ C). In addition, it features light
weight, is more environmental friendly (i.e. lead free) and
its mechanical factor exceed 105. This has the led these
types of ultrasonic transducers to be successfully used for
EOR process in few Chinese oil fields [11], [11]. Some
other probes were made of titanium material which has the
drawback to contaminate the formation with metals such as
Al or Cr [13]. Silica ultrasonic probe where also suggested
for EOR since they feature the advantage of non-particle
intrusion in addition of bearing high chemical and physical
shocks [2]. However, they produce weak cavitation due to
the fact that they can work at most of 50% of the power
which corresponds to a maximum amplitude of oscillations
of 12 µm. In addition, they are fragile and can’t be placed
VOLUME 6, 2018
M. Meribout: On Using Ultrasonic-assisted EOR: Recent Practical Achievements and Future Prospects
FIGURE 3. Basic structure of the stepped plate and stepped-grooved
plate ultrasonic transducers [7].
FIGURE 4. Schematic of transducer with cylindrical radiator and FEM
simulation of the vibration of the probe [7].
in contact to solid surface. Most ultrasonic probes used in
EOR include a temperature sensor to avoid emitting ultra-
sonic waves in case of high temperature of the surrounding
medium. This is due to the fact that high temperature is
usually not adequate for cavitation process: Higher is the
temperature, and higher is the volume of evaporated gas bub-
bles which fill the cavitation areas which make the sonication
less efficient. Figures 3 and 4 show the basic structures of
the ultrasonic probes. They are mainly composed of stack of
piezoelectric sensors which can be arranged either as stepped
plates or cylinders. While the grooved stepped plates are
designed to generate a directional and focused beam with a
good homogeneous distribution of the vibration amplitude,
the stepped plate radiator provide a piston-like directivity of
the acoustic beam which leads to poor directivity, however
they are easier to design. On the other hand, cylindrical trans-
ducers (Figure 4) are more suitable for high intensity radia-
tion. Another emerging technology for high power ultrasonic
radiation, is the High-Intensity Focused Ultrasonic (HIFU)
technology. It consists to generate ultrasonic waves towards
a focused point using an array of phased array ultrasonic sen-
sors (Figure 5). The operational frequency usually exceeds
FIGURE 5. Principle of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasonic (HIFU)
technology. The technology is mainly used in medical field to treat
tumors. However, it has great potential for EOR.
VOLUME 6, 2018
1 MHz and operate either in continuous or pulsed modes to
deliver a density power that exceeds 10 KW/cm2 at the target
area. The technology is mainly used in medical field to treat
tumors. However, it has great potential for EOR.
III. ULTRASONIC-ASSISTED EORs: FIELD DEVELOPMENTS
In few Russian’s field where the permeability and porosity
exceeded 20 mD and 15% respectively, two downhole
tools, namely SP-42/1300 (for light crude oil recovery)
and SP-102/1270 (for heavy crude oil recovery), were
deployed and tested [1] to successfully recover up to 50%
of oil. In other USA’s field, another downhole tool, namely
PSMS-102 was tested downhole to recover around 4.45 tons
(32.7 barrels) per day by generating oscillations resonance
of 19.963 kHz [2]. Figure 6 (a) shows the block diagram of
the tool, while Figure 6(b) shows its field deployment within
a well.
FIGURE 6. The PSMS-102 tool: (a) Schematic diagram of general structure
of underground ultrasonic transducer PSMS-102. 1-reducer NKT-60,
2-cable lug, 3-magnetostrictive radiator, 4-hydrocompensator of excess
pressure, 5-housing of the tool, 6-housing of the magnetostrictive
radiator, and 7-tip. (b) The composition of CSYY60H10 type complete sets
of equipment for high power ultrasonic oil production. 1-anchor,
2-ultrasonic generator, 3-downhole tool, 4- casing, 5-tubing, 6-producing
formation, 7-ultrasonic field, 8-perforated zone, 9- sucker-rod pump, and
10-power cable for the downhole tool [2].
The tool, which is encapsulated within an IP67 enclosure
consists of a waveguide made of titanium allow BT6 with
magnetoresistive transducers to operate at temperature of
up to 100 ◦ C. During the period from 2010 to 2012, more
than 100 operations were performed to achieve an average
of oil recovery of 4.4 tons per day in Western Siberia and
10.2 tons /day in Samara region. In addition, a decrease of 4%
of water cut, and an increase of a bottom pressure by up
to 30 bars was obtained in both fields. Figure 7 shows the
block diagram of the 10 KW ultrasonic generator which
was used at the surface. It consists of three main units: the
power supply block unit that is fed to a 3 phase 308 V/50Hz
power supply, the control block unit that receives borehole
51113
 M. Meribout: On Using Ultrasonic-assisted EOR: Recent Practical Achievements and Future Prospects
FIGURE 7. Block diagram of the ultrasonic generator TS10W.
FIGURE 8. Schematic diagram of general structure of underground
ultrasonic transducer. 1-the upper connector, 2-inductance matching
section, 3-sound wave radiation section, 4- pressure balancing
section [14].
FIGURE 9. The structure diagram of lithium niobate piezoelectric
vibrator: Cross section view (a) and 3D view (b).
data (i.e. downhole pressure and temperature) to optimize the
ultrasonic excitation into the reservoir, and the power block
unit. In [14], another 20 KHz ultrasonic tool, namely the
CSYY60H10, was suggested (Figure 8). The tool features a
special low-loss, water-proof power cable and a piezoelectric
transducer made of lithium neonate crystal that has better
piezoelectric properties than common piezoelectric ceramic.
Figure 9(a) shows the structure of the ultrasonic transducer.
It is made of 36◦ Y-cut lithium niobate (which is the commer-
cial available type of LiNbO3 which is close to the optimal
cut of 38.9◦ for thickness displacement. The probe consists
of two electrodes: island electrode, which is connected to
the signal wire, and ring electrode, which is connected to an
aluminum alloy shell. Both electrodes are made of copper and
the piezoelectric vibrator is designed based on the theory of
air backing. Figure 9(b) shows the three dimensional view of
the probe. It consists of several piezeoelectric vibrators placed
at different cross sections of the tool in order to produce a
51114
coherent wave field which has the advantage to increase the
radius of influence.
In [15], an ultrasonic-based device was tested in the per-
foration area of a horizontal well to reduce the amount of
water-cut in the produced crude oil downto 20%. In three
other horizontal wells located in western Siberia, a sono-
chemical treatment (e.g. using a combination of ultrasonic
and chemical agents) was successfully used to increase the
oil production from 23 to 33 tons per day and the same study
revealed that the methods leads to a higher efficiency than
using ultrasonic alone [16]. In the paper, three 20 KHz ultra-
sonic equipment of 6 Kw each were suggested to deploy an
integrated solution for EOR: two well head equipment to per-
form acoustic treatment after oil extraction and one downhole
tool of 102 mm diameter and 7000 mm length and comprising
three (3) magnetoresistive transducers to target heavy crude
oil. Experimental tests on a 500 Bars, temperature-controlled
two phase pilot plant (Figure 10) showed a significant oil
recovery.
FIGURE 10. Schematic of the experimental setup for ultrasonic-assisted
EOR [16].
FIGURE 11. Arrangement of ultrasonic equipment in the well during field
tests: 1 – anchor, 2 – ultrasonic generator, 3 – downhole tool (102 mm),
4 – casing, 5 – tubing, 6 – reservoir, 7 – area of acoustic impact, 8 –
perforation zone, 9 – cable [16].
Further tests were conducted in Demkinskoe oil field
(Figure 11), where the initial oil production was around
1.51 tons/day for an initial bottom hole pressure of around
25.93 bars, formation pressure of 49.64 bars a temperature
of 23 ◦ C and water cut of around 10.3 %. The results indicated
that following a 24 hours well treatment, an increase of the
VOLUME 6, 2018
M. Meribout: On Using Ultrasonic-assisted EOR: Recent Practical Achievements and Future Prospects

FIGURE 12. Distribution of the acoustic field near the downhole tool with
FIGURE 14. Wireline truck for carrying the ultrasonic downhole tool [15].
a diameter of 102 mm according to the studies performed using a
hydrophone at a distance of 500 mm from the lateral radiating
surface [16].

bottomhole pressure by 2 atm was observed which led to an

increase of oil production by around 0.4 tons/day. Further FIGURE 15. Configuration of downhole equipment during treatment [15].
rheological study on a sample taken from the reservoir indi-
cated that the oil viscosity decreased from 183 to 154 mPa∗ s,
which is in good agreement with the theory. Figure 12 shows
an interesting result of the vibration amplitude distribution of
the downhole tool within a tank (500 mm x 1800 mm area)
that mimics the same well condition. Further studies have
demonstrated that ultrasonic hydrodynamic treatment leads
to higher oil recovery by up to 30% and also helps reducing
the water-cut.
It is also suggested that sonochemistry treatment can leads
to even higher recovery. This led the researchers to design and
fabricate an integrated cable that includes power cable, and
armored channel to induce chemical agents (Figure 13). The
usage of such cable has the advantage to avoid interrupting
the ultrasonic radiation within the well and remove all the FIGURE 16. Results of geophysical studies of the well.
associated equipment in order to proceed with the sonochem-
ical treatment.
radiation of the rock, flow of the fluid, magnetic locations
of the couplings, soil/water content, and the resistance of
the fluid. A dedicated cable was used to deliver up to 5 kW
of power to sensors which operated at an average power
of 1.5 kW. Figure 15 shows the configuration of the tool
while Figure 16 shows the geophysical plots of the well.
The existence of a flow of the fluid would correspond to a
change of temperature, while the existence of water would
FIGURE 13. Possible design of a cable for sonochemical treatment of correspond to low resistance. Hence, the tool indicated that
wells with highviscosity oil on a permanent basis [16].
the zone ranging from 1955 m to 2010.48 m produces mainly
water and thus only the zone between 1892 and 1909 m was
The authors have also suggested the usage of a simi- chosen for ultrasonic treatment and using the jet pump. This
lar probe to reduce the water-cut around the perforation has led to a reduction of the water cut from 80 % to 59.3%.
zones in horizontal wells with an online geophysical study In China, an ultrasonic-based EOR device, namely ZYQZ
of the surrounding zone in one of Western Siberia reser- device, which was manufactured by Hanwei Petroleum
voirs which was characterized by a relatively high water- Machinery Research Institute was used in several oil fields
cut [15]. The tool which is 40 mm diameter consists of a to recover up to 9% of crude oil, as well as to inhibit paraffin
stack of 18 KHz magnetoresitive transducers and a special deposition [17]. The instrument that consists of a stack of
jet pump for horizontal well. It was deployed into one of several piezeoelecric sensors (PZT-4) can only operate for
Samtor oil field wells of 102 mm diameter casing using a relatively short period of time due to the low Currie temper-
wireline truck (Figure 14). The tool is also equipped with a set ature. More recently, another PZT-5 based ultrasonic sensor
of sensors to measure online pressure, temperature, natural that features magnetic orientation was designed and built to

VOLUME 6, 2018 51115

 M. Meribout: On Using Ultrasonic-assisted EOR: Recent Practical Achievements and Future Prospects
FIGURE 17. Power cable used in an ultrasonic-assisted EOR [17].
FIGURE 18. An ultrasonic probe used for EOR [17].
deliver a power of up to 100 kW to an array 10-35 kHz ultra-
sonic probes using a multicore cable that consists of twisted
copper wires covered by polythene cover and 30 galvanized
steel wire of 1.54 mm diameter (Figure 17). The usage of
multicore cable is justified by its high tensile strength as well
as its excellent bending resistance, even though its overall
length is slightly higher. Figure 18 shows a photograph of
the ultrasonic probe that was able to operate at temperatures
ranging from −10 to 150 ◦ C to recover up to 30% of oil.
The results have revealed that a long lasting decrease of oil
viscosity can be obtained if ultrasonic treatment is combined
with chemical agents.
In addition to field trials, other laboratory tests were also
conducted to assess the performance of ultrasonic-assisted
EOR under controlled conditions. Hence, in [21], it was
demonstrated that CO2 combined with ultrasonic waves
leads to higher efficiency. In [22], a laboratory experimental
study was conducted on man-made cores of 2.5 cm diam-
eter and 7 cm length, with permeability of 30, 80, and
150 mD respectively to investigate the potential of ultra-
sonic waves on removing different kind of plugs that may
occur in oil reservoirs: drilling fluid plug, paraffin deposition
plug, polymer plug, and inorganic scale plugs. It was con-
cluded that ultrasound–chemicals composite plug removal
provides a better removal effect than using ultrasonic tech-
nique alone, where the recovery increases by up to 30%.
A suggested explanation is that chemical agent reduce the
adhesion strength of plugs which will enhance the effect of
ultrasonic removal. Another interesting research was con-
ducted to investigate the potential of ultrasonic excitation
for oil de-emulsification over chemical agents. As shown
in Figures 19 and 20, ultrasonic method provides a better
de-emulsification. In [25], it was demonstrated experimen-
tally in the lab that EOR recovery with ultrasonic depends
on the type of crude oil in the formation: While it can reach
51116
FIGURE 19. Results of oil-Water De-emulsification using chemical
agent: (a) water droplet distribution in crude oil before demulsification
(b) water droplet distribution in crude oil using chemical demulsifier [22].
FIGURE 20. Results of oil-Water De-emulsification using ultrasonic
wavest: (a) water droplet distribution in crude oil before demulsification
(b) water droplet distribution in crude oil using ultrasonic waves [22].
up to 20 % increase of recovery in case of light crude oil
(crude oil of viscosity around 5.39 cp), it reduces the EOR
recovery in case of higher viscos crude oil (crude oil of
viscosity around 74 cp). This can be explained by the fact
that for the case of high viscos crude oil, ultrasonic radiation
causes asphaltene aggregation in a toluene-pentane mixture
and consequently the disintegration of asphlatene micelle
structures of the oil and its dissolution in the fluid which
leads to an increment in the oil viscosity. However, this can
be beneficial with CO2-EOR to lower its flow rate in the
formation.
IV. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR
ULTRASONIC-ASSISTED EORs
A Common disadvantage which can be stated from the
aforementioned field tests is the relatively short range of
ultrasonic waves, which usually does not exceed 1 m. Dynam-
ically reconfiguring and reducing the frequency of the waves
down to few KHz or even Hz may improve their range
above 100 meters [18]. Thus, in [19], a new reconfigurable
ultrasonic device for EOR was suggested using a different
approach. Unlike other devices, the ultrasonic waves radi-
ated by this device into the formation are generated by a
vibration plate, which in its turn is driven by two stack of
piezoelectric sensors; which are activated at 180◦ out of phase
to maximize the amplitude of vibrations (Figure 21). Thus,
vertical vibrations are translated into horizontal vibrations.
The frequency of the ultrasonic waves that propagate into the
formation depends on the geometry of the vibration plate and
ranges from 10 to 50 KHz. The probe is still in its conceptual
VOLUME 6, 2018
M. Meribout: On Using Ultrasonic-assisted EOR: Recent Practical Achievements and Future Prospects
FIGURE 21. Block diagram of a frequency reconfigurable ultrasonic
c-assisted EOR [19].
FIGURE 22. Acoustic Emission device using electromagnetic
induction [20].
design phase and has yet to be tested in the field. Another dis-
advantage of the legacy EOR ultrasonic probes is the power
losses dissipated by the power cables since the downhole
transducers are supplied with high AC voltage by the power
supply located at the surface of the well. In [20], a device that
emits radial acoustic seismic waves at low frequencies using
electromagnetic induction, without the need of an AC voltage
from the surface power supply is proposed (Figure 22). Hence
a variation of the cross section of the tube holding the oil and
which is in contact with the medium to stimulate (i.e. the well
log) is caused by a magnetic coil which is supplied with a
relatively low intensity current, I1 that is generated at the well
head by the power module. This would induce an induction
current, I2 , which generates a magnetic force along the tube,
inducing S-waves pressure.
In [10], it was suggested that the simultaneous usage
of ultrasonic and microwave heating can lead to a wider
and deeper region than the sole usage of microwaves and
VOLUME 6, 2018
ultrasound which has the advantage of reducing the input
power of microwave and ultrasound. A substantial amount of
research work was also conducted on high power ultrasonic
in the medical field, mainly to treat tumors and cancer, as well
as for targeted drug delivery, mitigating internal bleeding, and
stimulating the growth of microvessels after a heart attack.
HIFU is one of the emerging technologies which was suc-
cessfully used for this purpose to allow emission of power
reaching up to 50 KW/cm2 . The same concept can be used
for EOR as well where the actual ultrasonic probes emit
ultrasonic waves at 360◦ directions which may reduce the
power efficiency towards the target area. In [23], the ultra-
sonic excessively high power measurement was accurately
conducted by calorimetric method using water as heating
material, instead of Radiation force Balance (RBF), which
has thermal limitations. The results indicated a reduction of
the relative standard deviation from 20% to 5%. In [24],
it was demonstrated that the acoustic pressure distribution,
under HIFU (and consequently the cavitation activity) is very
sensitive to small temperature variations. A huge amount of
other works are being conducted in HiFU applied to medical
field to optimize the power efficiency and to reduce the over-
all size of the associated equipment. This can be beneficial
for future ultrasonic-assisted EOR.
V. CONCLUSION
While chemical and Co2 injections are the most widely used
techniques for EOR, their exorbitant cost and other environ-
mental issues they are causing have led scientists to con-
sider the usage of new technologies such as ultrasonic-based
devices for EOR, with or without the usage of the additional
chemical or CO2 agents. Few tests which have been con-
ducted either in the field or in laboratories reveal the high
potential of this technique, in terms of oil recovery and energy
efficiency. Nevertheless, prior to their wider deployment in
oil fields, some recurrent challenges need to be solved such
as the power losses induced in the cables and the inefficiency
of ultrasonic radiation, where the waves ranges do not exceed
1 m. Several researchers have suggested to combine this
technique with legacy, gas, water or chemical injection-based
EOR methods. Haliburton Company has already suggested a
similar apparatus but using mechanical device with moving
parts, instead of ultrasonic probes [25]. An electronic solu-
tion using ultrasonic actuator would be more sustainable and
reliable. Other studies have revealed the advantage of using
downhole powerful ultrasonic probes to remove eventual
obstructions caused by clogging particles that may occur in
the screen and gravel packs and even in formation pores at rel-
atively low range. These clogging particles can be caused by
drilling mud, drilled solid invasion, paraffin, or even porous
formation medium. Hydraulic fracturing and acidizing which
are the most traditional methods used for well clogging par-
ticles removal are costly and requires the operator to con-
tinuously inject customized fluid into the well. A process
that is invasive, and difficult to control, not environmental
friendly, and may cause corrosion of the tools which may be
51117
 M. Meribout: On Using Ultrasonic-assisted EOR: Recent Practical Achievements and Future Prospects
in contact with the injected fluid (which requires an additional
cost linked with injecting corrosion inhibitors into the well).
Another alternative low cost solution is to use brine solution
to flush screens, pre-slotted liners and gravel packs. However,
frequent flushing may damage the formation as well and
decrease the production.
REFERENCES
[1] Z. Wang and Y. Xu, ‘‘Review on application of the recent new high-power
ultrasonic transducers in enhanced oil recovery field in China,’’ Energy,
vol. 89, pp. 259–267, Sep. 2015.
[2] M. S. Mullakaev, V. O. Abramov, and A. V. Abramova, ‘‘Development of
ultrasonic equipment and technology for well stimulation and enhanced oil
recovery,’’ J. Petroleum Sci. Eng., vol. 125, pp. 201–208, Jan. 2015.
[3] V. O. Abramov et al., ‘‘Sonochemical approaches to enhanced oil recov-
ery,’’ Ultrason. Sonochem., vol. 25, pp. 76–81, Jul. 2015.
[4] T. J. Mason and J. P. Lorimer, Sonochemistry: Theory, Applications and
Uses of Ultrasound in Chemistry. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1989.
[5] H. Xu, ‘‘Experimental study on ultrasonic treatment for removal of near
wellbore damage and technological parameters optimization,’’ China Univ.
Petroleum, Beijing, China, Tech. Rep. #13, 2009.
[6] M. Mohsin and M. Meribout, ‘‘An extended model for ultrasonic-
based enhanced oil recovery with experimental validation,’’ Ultrason.
Sonochem., vol. 23, pp. 413–423, Mar. 2015.
[7] M. M. Rehman and M. Meribout, ‘‘Conventional versus electrical
enhanced oil recovery: A review,’’ J. Petroleum Explor. Prod. Technol.,
vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 157–167, Dec. 2012.
[8] M. Mohsin and M. Meribout, ‘‘Oil–water de-emulsification using ultra-
sonic technology,’’ Ultrason. Sonochem., vol. 22, pp. 573–579, Jan. 2015.
[9] A. A. Al-Obaidi and M. Meribout, ‘‘A new enhanced howland voltage
controlled current source circuit for EIT applications,’’ in Proc. IEEE GCC
Conf. Exhib., Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 2011, pp. 327–330.
[10] M. Mohsin and M. Meribout, ‘‘A microwave based simulation study for
enhanced oil recovery,’’ in Proc. Asia–Pacific Symp. Electromagn. Com-
pat., May 2012, pp. 485–488.
[11] Z. Wang, X. Yuanming, and G. Yuting, ‘‘Lithium niobate ultrasonic trans-
ducer design for enhanced oil recovery,’’ Ultrason. Sonochem., vol. 27,
pp. 171–177, Nov. 2015.
[12] J. E. White, Seismic Waves: Radiation, Transmission, and Attenuation.
New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
[13] K. S. Suslick, D. A. Hammerton, and R. E. Cline, ‘‘Sonochemical hot
spot,’’ J. Amer. Chem. Soc., vol. 108, pp. 5641–5642, Sep. 1986.
[14] W. Yin, P. Wang, H. Dong, Z. Jiang, and Y. Li, ‘‘The development and
application of a complete set of equipment for high-power ultrasonic oil
production,’’ China PET Mach., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 142–150, 2007.
[15] V. O. Abramov, A. V. Abramova, V. M. Bayazitov, A. V. Marnosov,
S. P. Kuleshov, and A. S. Gerasin, ‘‘Selective ultrasonic treatment of
perforation zones in horizontal oil wells for water cut reduction,’’ Appl.
Acoust., vol. 103, pp. 214–220, Feb. 2016.
[16] V. O. Abramov, A. V. Abramova, V. M. Bayazitov, M. S. Mullakaev,
A. V. Marnosov, and A. V. Ildiyakov, ‘‘Acoustic and sonochemical methods
for altering the viscosity of oil during recovery and pipeline transporta-
tion,’’ Ultrason. Sonochem., vol. 35, pp. 389–396, Mar. 2017.
51118
[17] Z. Jia, ‘‘Research on the technology of paraffin-controlling and viscosity-
reducing for crude oil based on the utransonic transducer array,’’
M.S. thesis, Dept. Mech. Manuf. Automat., Harbin Inst. Technol., Harbin,
China, 2009.
[18] R. F. DeLaCroix and D. R. Courtright, ‘‘System and method for enhanced
oil recovery using an in-situ seismic energy generator,’’ U.S. Patent
8 113 278 B2, Feb. 14, 2012.
[19] W. Han, R. Birchak, W. Trainor, T. Ritter, K. Yoo, D. Van Batenberg,
and D. Kusmer, ‘‘Apparatuses for generating acoustic waves,’’ U.S. Patent
0 045 038 A1, Mar. 2007
[20] J.-C. Dubois and P. Meynier, ‘‘Method and device for emitting radial
seismic waves in a material medium by electromagnetic induction,’’
U.S. Patent 6 595 285 B2, Jul. 22, 2003.
[21] H. Hamidi et al., ‘‘Ultrasound-assisted CO2 flooding to improve oil
recovery,’’ Ultrason. Sonochem., vol. 35, pp. 243–250, Mar. 2017,
doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.09.026.
[22] H. Xu, ‘‘Experimental study on ultrasonic treatment for rremoval of near
wellbore damage and technological parameters optimization,’’ China Univ.
Petroleum, Beijing, China, Tech. Rep. #6, 2009.
[23] T. Uchida and T. Kikuchi, ‘‘Ultrasonic power measurement by calorimetric
method using water as heating material,’’ in Proc. IEEE Int. Ultrason.
Symp. (IUS), Jul. 2013, pp. 1657–1660.
[24] G. Memoli, P. Gélat, M. Hodnett, and B. Zeqiri, ‘‘The importance of
temperature control in the operation of high power ultrasound reactors,’’
in Proc. 38th Annu. Symp. Ultrason. Ind. Assoc., Mar. 2009, pp. 1–5.
[25] E. D. Webb, I. J. Hriscu, P. Courville, and R. Pipkin, ‘‘Method and
apparatus for generating fluid pressure pulses,’’ U.S. Patent 7 405 998 B2
Jul. 29, 2008.
[26] Z. Wang and C. Yin, ‘‘State-of-the-art on ultrasonic oil production tech-
nique for EOR in China,’’ Ultrason. Sonochem., vol. 38, pp. 553–559,
Sep. 2017.
[27] Z. Wang, X. Yuanming, and B. Suman, ‘‘Research status and develop-
ment trend of ultrasonic oil production technique in China,’’ Ultrason.
Sonochem., vol. 26, pp. 1–8, Sep. 2015.
MAHMOUD MERIBOUT (M’91) received the
B.Eng. degree in 1985 and the Ph.D. degree in
electronics engineering from the University of
Technology of Compiegne, Compiegne, France,
in 1995. He was with Nippon Telegraph and Tele-
phone Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, and NEC Cor-
poration, Tokyo, from 1995 to 2000, where he was
involved in several projects related to embedded
systems design. In 2008, he joined the Electri-
cal Engineering Department, Petroleum Institute,
where he is currently an Associate Professor. His current research interests
include embedded systems, imaging systems (THz, MPI, optical, electrical,
and magnetic tomography), instrumentation, and multiphase flow metering,
and enhanced oil recovery using electrical mean. In 1998, he received the
NTT Best Award for his research and development efforts in the areas of
embedded systems design and imaging systems.
VOLUME 6, 2018