SPE-174008-MS

Practical Concerns and Principle Guidelines for Screening,

Implementation, Design, and Optimization of Low Salinity Waterflooding
Cuong T.Q. Dang, University of Calgary, Long Nghiem, Computer Modelling Group Ltd.; Ngoc T.B. Nguyen,
and Zhangxin Chen, University of Calgary

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Garden Grove, California, USA, 27–30 April 2015.

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

Summary
Low Salinity Waterflooding (LSW) is an emerging attractive enhanced oil recovery method; however, the
concept of LSW is relatively new and, most references focus only on the experimental and theoretical
work, with somewhat contradictory results. This paper presents a systematic research to address the
practical key points and various aspects of LSW design and development in terms of reservoir screening,
fluid design, well placement, geological impact, and process optimization.
The starting point of this research is to analyze and compile a wide range of published results in the
past twenty years. The general observations and proposed mechanisms are examined against each other
to reveal the main reasons of the incremental oil recovery by LSW. Among the proposed hypotheses,
wettability alteration towards more water wetness has been found as the main mechanism of LSW. Up to
now, this hypothesis has been widely accepted and rigorously supported by recent explorations and results
in this research area. Although LSW has been proven that it can significantly improve the ultimate oil
recovery, injection of low salinity brine is not always guaranteed for an incremental oil recovery as
indicated by several failure projects in promising reservoir candidates in the past. To overcome this
challenge, a pre-screening criterion for LSW and hybrid LSW is introduced by taking into account the
crucial effects of reservoir characterizations as well as facilities and operating conditions. Subsequently,
we address the important key points for a LSW injection fluid design and the critical role of clay and well
placement to the LSW performance. Finally, we discuss several effective approaches to maximize oil
recovery in a LSW project.

Introduction
Conventional waterflooding is a secondary recovery method by which water is injected into a reservoir
to achieve additional oil recovery and supplement the natural energy. It is agreed that the oil recovery by
waterflooding is significantly larger than that achieved by natural pressure depletion. Regardless of the
important feature of waterflooding, many attempts have been made to understand, design, and optimize
the process. Waterflooding is currently accepted worldwide as a simple, reliable, and economical
technique for oil recovery; most of conventional oil reservoirs have been, are being, or will be considered
2 SPE-174008-MS

for waterflooding during secondary recovery. Unquestionably, waterflooding will continue to be applied
to unlock huge hydrocarbon resources left behind by primary recovery.
In the past, waterflooding is largely designed without regard to the composition of the injected brine.
LSW is an emerging EOR technique in which the salinity of the injected water is controlled to improve
oil recovery. Corefloods and other tests have indicated that changes in the injected brine composition can
improve basic waterflood performance by 5% to 20%, thereby introducing the promising idea that the
composition of the brine may be varied to optimize waterflood recovery.
The original ideas of LSW came from Morrow and his research colleagues at the University of
Wyoming in the early 1990s during their experiments to determine the interactions and effects of brine,
crude oil, and mineralogy on wettability. Subsequently, numerous evaluations in the laboratory and in the
fields have proven the possibility of higher oil recovery during a LSW process. Encouraged by promising
results from laboratory experiments, LSW is getting much attention from the oil and gas industry over past
decades. Several oil operators have continuously promoted the practical research on LSW and started to
evaluate this process at the field scale (McGuire et al., 2005; Lager et al., 2008a, 2008b; Skrettingland et
al., 2010; Thyne and Gamage, 2011). A summary of LSW field implementations is shown in Table 1.
McGuire et al. (2005) and Lager et al. (2008) reported LSW performance in Alaska’s oil fields using water
injection salinity between 1,500 ppm to 3,000 ppm. Based on single well chemical tracer tests (SWCTT),
the reported incremental LSW in these oil fields ranged from 6% to 12% of OOIP. Lager et al. (2006)
indicated that fines migration or significant permeability reduction due to LSW was never observed. They
also achieved a 40% increase in recovery using a North Sea crude oil with a very low acid number (Acid
Number ⬍ 0.05). Another result from the Log-Inject-Log test (Webb et al., 2004) showed a 25-50%
reduction in residual oil saturation by LSW. A successful LSW SWCTT was described by Seccombe et
al. (2010) in a mature offshore oil field located in the North Slope of Alaska. Additionally, a historical
field evidence in the Powder River basin of Wyoming reported by Robertson (2010) also showed that oil
recovery tended to increase by about 12.4% as the salinity of injection brine decreases. Thyne and Gamage
(2011) published a comprehensive evaluation of the effect of LSW for 26 field trials in Wyoming. The
first LSW project in a UK field was evaluated in Clair field where evidences of the effectiveness have
been confirmed and the positive response in the Clair project led to the extended implementation in the
field scale. Statoil also started to employ LSW in several Norwegian continental shelf fields (Skrettinglan
et al., 2010). Darhim et al. (2013) reported that LSW is being implemented at El-Morgan field which is
a giant offshore field in Gulf of Suez operated by GUPCO. Eni has identified that LSW is a key EOR
method for their green and brown oil fields due to low capital and operation costs, leading to favorable
economics compared to risker and more expensive EOR techniques (Rotondi et al., 2014). Eni’s LSW
projects have been begun in 2006, and, up to now, low salinity and hybrid low salinity chemical flooding
have been implemented in different reservoirs with promising results. Not limited to sandstone reservoir,
Yousef et al. (2012) introduced the first pilot test of LSW in a carbonate reservoir with about 7%
incremental oil recovery compared to high salinity waterflooding. LSW is also expected as an alternative
improved oil recovery method for hostile reservoirs where the conventional high salinity waterflooding
and EOR technologies may fail because of the high degree of reservoir heterogeneity, high temperature,
high salinity and hardness (Dang et al., 2011; 2014b).
SPE-174008-MS 3

Table 1—Summary of field implementation of LSW

Preliminary field-scale evaluations have shown a promising future of LSW as an emerging EOR
technology. However, injection of low salinity brine is not guaranteed for a higher oil recovery factor, and
systematic studies of LSW are lacking. Thus more insight and mechanistic research for a better
understanding and implementation of this process is required. This paper aims to discuss the underlying
mechanisms, pre-screening method, effective design, and process optimization for maximizing oil
recovery by LSW. These critical issues have been rarely addressed in the past even though they are
extremely important for a wider and more successful LSW application.
Statement of Problems
Despite significant growing interest in LSW, a consistent mechanistic study has not yet emerged. The
technical issues related to LSW research, design, and implementation are:
● Underlying mechanisms: Although LSW is a promising EOR technology, the mechanisms of
additional oil recovery by LSW are still debated in the literature due to the complexity of crude
oil-brine-rock interactions. Several hypotheses have been proposed during the last two decades
including fines migration, multi-component ionic exchange (MIE), pH modification, and double
4 SPE-174008-MS

layer effects but the responsible mechanisms are poorly understood and the explanations provided
in the literature are sometimes contradictory. It is very difficult to implement and control a new
recovery process unless the main mechanisms are understood.
● Field-Scale issues: LSW is mostly demonstrated in the laboratory scale or single well chemical
tracer tests. The capability of reservoir simulators to simulate accurately this process is very
limited and it is also found that reliable validations between these preliminary models and the
observed data are lacking. Therefore, it is necessary to have a more mechanistic model for a better
prediction and more successful implementation of this process. For more practical applications, the
benefits of LSW should be evaluated at field scale with a model. Additionally, LSW strongly
depends on reservoir geology such as properties, quantity, and distribution of clays. These factors
directly contribute to the success or failure of LSW projects. However, they have never been
systematically evaluated in the past and the effects of clays mineral are often neglected in
conventional reservoir simulation.
● Pre-screening, design and implementation of LSW in field scale: Extensive research has addressed
the benefits of LSW; however, injection of low salinity brine is not guaranteed for a higher oil
recovery factor. Thus, we need an effective pre-screening method, effective desalination approach,
and operation guidelines that are designed based on LSW’s mechanisms. These critical issues have
never been discussed in the past even though they are extremely important for a wider and more
successful LSW application, leading to several failure LSW projects.
● Optimization of LSW: Since LSW has been implemented in the field scale, it is very important to
determine an effective optimization approach for this process. In addition to modifying the injected
brine composition, is there any possibility for an alternative approach to maximize an oil recovery
factor? The optimization approach must be able to capture the geological uncertainties on LSW to
provide an unbiased prediction.
In this paper, we first discuss several hypotheses related to the LSW mechanisms based on the actual
observations in laboratory experiments and pilot tests. Based on the most reliable explanation, we propose
a pre-screening criterion, design and optimization approach for this emerging recovery technology.

Discussion on LSW Mechanisms

Debated theories
Over the past two decades, numerous mechanisms of LSW have been proposed in the literature such as:
(1) fine migration; (2) mineral dissolution; (3) limited release of mixed-wet particles; (4) increased pH
effects and reduced interfacial tension; (5) emulsification; (6) saponification; (7) surfactant-like behavior;
(8) multiple ion exchange; (9) double layer effects; (10) salt-in effects; (11) osmotic pressure; (12) salinity
shock; (13) wettability alteration. Some of these mechanisms are related to each other. However,
conflicting results in the experiments lead to a poor understanding of the true mechanisms of LSW. This
section presents the limitations of several main proposed mechanisms and proposed novel ideas for LSW
modeling.
Fines Migration From a half century ago, many people have tried to inject the fresh water into
sandstone core samples in order to evaluate the impact of clay content and permeability reduction due to
clay swelling. The mechanism of fines migration was initially explained by using the DLVO theory of
colloids (Deryaguin and Landau, 1941; Verwey and Overbeek, 1948).
Bernard (1967) conducted his experiments by injecting NaCl brine and distilled water into sandpacks,
Berea cores, and outcrop cores from Wyoming. He found that injecting distilled water increased recovery,
accompanied by a massive increase in pressure drop in both the secondary and tertiary modes during
constant flow rate experiments. He stated that the increase in recovery was due to improved microscopic
SPE-174008-MS 5

sweep efficiency induced by clay swelling and plugging of pore throat by fines migration. Although there
may be some movements of fine particles with flow of dilute brine, several authors reported that there is
no catastrophic reduction in permeability when the injection brine is changed to distilled water in their
formation damage studies (Jones, 1964). An important finding from comprehensive experimental studies
by Jones (1964) is that small proportions of calcium or magnesium in formation and injected brine can
significantly restrain clay blocking and a gradually decrease in salinity gradient also prevents the
permeability damage.
Tang and Morrow (1999) observed that fines (mainly kaolinite clay fragments) were released from the
rock surface and an increase in spontaneous imbibitions recovery with a decrease in salinity for different
sandstone cores occurred. The authors used Berea, Bentheim, CS Reservoir, Clashach, and fired and
axidized Berea cores, CS crude and refined oil. The total dissolved solids (TDS) in seven different brines
from their experiments changed from 35,960 to 151.5 ppm. They found that the oil recovery factor
increases significantly in the CS reservoir and Berea sandstone cores with more clay content, but recovery
improved only marginally in the Bentheim and Clashach cores. Oil recovery was independent of brine
salinity when cores were fired and acidized to stabilize fines and saturated with refined mineral oil rather
than crude oil. From their results, they suggested that the mobilization of the fines resulted in exposure
of underlying surfaces, which increased the water wetness of the system. Additionally, the released clay
particles could block pore throats and divert the flow of water into non-swept pores to improve the
microscopic sweep efficiency.
Zhang and Morrow (2006) observed improved oil recovery with LSW from their spontaneous
imbibitions experiments using four different samples of Berea sandstone and three different crude oils in
both secondary and tertiary modes. The dependence of oil recovery on brine salinity varies in different
Berea core samples, suggesting that mineralogy has a significant effect on the LSW process. The lowest
permeability block of Berea showed no sensitivity to salinity. The lack of response was attributed to the
presence of chlorite. In several cases, cores responded to low salinity brine in the secondary but not the
tertiary mode, and low salinity effects became more dramatic as the initial water saturation increased. It
is noted that the effluent pH also increased in their experiments.
Although Tang and Morrow have indicated that it is possible to have migration of fines during low
salinity waterflooding, Rivet (2009) and BP’s researchers (Lager et al., 2007, 2008a, 2008b; Webb et al.,
2004, 2005, 2008; McGuire et al., 2005; Jerauld et al., 2008) have done numerous tests indicating that
LSW has higher recovery without any observations of fines migration during their experiments. Based on
those results, many people questioned the link between fines migration and incremental oil recovery.
In fact, fine migration occurs if the ionic strength of the injected brine is less than a critical flocculation
concentration. The critical flocculation concentration is strongly dependent on the relative concentration
of divalent cations. The difference on the injected brine compositions, lithology, and minerals inside the
cores between Morrow’s and BP’s research could be explained from their conflicting findings. The Berea
sandstone used by Morrow and his staff for many of their experiments had predominantly kaolinite clay
and quartz. Low salinity brine with insufficient divalent ions might detach poorly cemented clay particles
such as kaolinite, resulting in production of fines.
From the published reports, it is clear that LSW achieves additional oil recovery with the absence of
the fines production and migration and no low salinity response in flooding with mineral oils implies that
fines migration might contribute to the benefits of LSW in some cases but it is not the principal
mechanism in LSW.
Saponification and Mineral Dissolution McGuire et al. (2005) did numerous laboratory coreflood
studies using Berea sandstone, crude oil, and formation brine (BPNS2, 15,000ppm) from a BP-operated
North Sea field. Experimental results showed that flooding with low salinity water (a flood at 1,500 ppm
TDS and a flood at 150 ppm TDS) improved the ultimate oil recovery up to 8% and 17% of OOIP for
6 SPE-174008-MS

these two floods, respectively. This represents a 30% increase in oil production compared to the high
salinity flood with 15,000 ppm formation water. In fact, an increase of pH is usually observed during LSW
(McGuire et al., 2005; Lager, 2006; Zhang and Morrow, 2006). The pH level of the effluent changed from
roughly 8 while flooding with 15,000ppm formation water up to a pH of about 10 when flooding the core
with 1,500 ppm low salinity brine. Regarding the increase in pH, they suggested that the EOR mechanisms
of LSW appear similar to those of alkaline flooding by generation of in-situ surfactants, changes in
wettability, and reduction in IFT (Jensen and Radke, 1988). They also proposed the saponification
mechanism of elevated pH and removal of harmful multivalent cations due to LSW as the following
chemical reactions indicate:

Based on the keynotes in the previous chemical flooding research, the acid number of crude oil should
be larger than 0.2 mg KOH/g in order to generate enough surfactant to induce wettability reversal and/or
emulsion formation in alkaline flooding (Ehrlich et al., 1974; Jensen and Radka, 1988); however, most of
crude oil samples used had an acid number less than 0.05 mg KOH/g during LSW experiments. Therefore,
it is difficult to conclude that additional oil recovery is mainly from in-situ surfactant generation.
Additionally, LSW showed a good performance even when it was conducted in the initially low pH
condition of about 6 and the final pH values is only about 7.5 (Rivet. 2009). This value is much lower than
the typical one (over 10) in alkaline flooding. Another fact is that the oil/water interfacial tension in LSW
is not too low. Zhang and Morrow (2006) reported IFT of 16 dyne/cm. Buckley and Fan (2007) measured
IFT values above 10 mN/m with pH⬍9. Since the pH from actual tests was lower than what is required
to achieve saponification and emulsification, the pH mechanism similar to alkaline flooding may not work
in LSW. However, these important chemical reactions must be carefully considered on modeling of the
LSW process as they could affect to the ion exchange and wettablity alteration.
Desorption of the Organic Materials Since there is a lack of evidence of the effects of in-situ surfac-
tants, Austad (2010) proposed the hypothesis of organic desorption by a pH increase. In his statement,
desorption of initially adsorbed cations onto the clay is the key process in increasing pH of water at the
clay surface. At the beginning of this process, both basic and organic materials are adsorbed onto the clay
together with inorganic cations, especially Ca⫹⫹ from the formation water. Then a net desorption of
cations occurs as low salinity water is injected into a reservoir. Proton H⫹ is exchanged with cation Ca⫹⫹
leading to a local increase in pH close to the clay surface. The local increase in pH close to the clay surface
causes reactions between adsorbed basic and acidic material as in an ordinary acid-base proton transfer
reaction (Austad et al., 2010). A fast reaction between OH- and the adsorbed acidic and basic material will
cause desorption of organic material from the clay surface. Thus the water wetness of the rock is
improved. The fundamental mechanism of this theory is described in the following chemical reactions:
● Clay-Ca2⫹ ⫹ H2O ⫽ Clay-H⫹ ⫹ Ca2⫹ ⫹ OH-
● Clay-NHR3⫹ ⫹ OH- ⫽ Clay ⫹ R3N ⫹ H2O
● Clay-RCOOH ⫹ OH- ⫽ Clay ⫹ RCOO- ⫹H20
The fact is that the concentration of proton H⫹ and OH- in the near neutral conditions in which LSW
has been mostly conducted is relatively small for these chemical processes. Moreover, pH tends to
increase and remains constant from many coreflood experiments and pilot tests (Lager et al., 2005, Rivet,
2009, Fejelde et al., 2012) rather than a local pH increase for a short time as concluded by Austad.
Double Layer Effect The double layer theory or the DLVO theory describes the force between charged
surfaces interacting through a liquid medium. It combines the effects of the Van der Waals attraction and
SPE-174008-MS 7

the electrostatic repulsion. Low salinity brine reduces clay-clay attraction by expansion of the electric
double layer, resulting in more water-wet on clay surfaces, and more oil is detached (Sheng, 2014).
However, Sharma and Filoco (1998) observed that a water film was more stable at high salinities in their
experiments and it is conflicting with the double layer theory.
Salting-in Effect The “salting-in” and “salting-out” theory is based on the correlation between the
solubility of organic material and the salt concentration. Adding salt to the solution would drastically
decrease the solubility of organic materials, while solubility could be increased by removing salt from
water. RezaeiDoust et al. (2009) presents the idea of a “salting-in” effect in which a decrease in salinity
can increase the solubility of organic materials in the aqueous phase, resulting in an additional oil
recovery. However, this simple explanation cannot explain the dependence of clay, mineral composition,
and pH increase in LSW.
Wettability Alteration in LSW
As discussed earlier, the proposed hypotheses are only validated in some specified conditions for a single
observation; thus, it is required to develop a model that can explain the common observed behaviors of
LSW listed below:
● LSW strongly depends on the initial wettability condition and it has the highest effects in
preferential oil wet or mixed wet system.
● LSW leads to a modification of relative permeabilities.
● The incremental oil recovery increases with clay content.
● Generally, the recovery strongly depends on salinity concentration of the reservoir formation water
and injected brine. The composition of injected brine plays a very important role in the additional
oil recovery by LSW.
● Variance in effluent divalent ions (Ca⫹⫹, Mg⫹⫹).
● pH increases during LSW.
● LSW has no benefits with refined oils or fired core samples.
● Important role of carbonate and dolomite minerals on oil recovery.
From these important observations in both the laboratory and field scales, wettability alteration towards
increased water wetness during the course of LSW is the widely suggested mechanism responsible for
increased oil recovery. The effects of low salinity brine on wettability modifications have been reported
by many authors (Jadunandan and Morrow, 1995; Tang and Morrow, 1999; Drummond and Isralachvili,
2002 and 2004; Vledder et al., 2010; Zekri et al., 2011). There is electrostatic repulsion between the
oil/brine and brine/solid interfaces and the repulsion is increased when low salinity brine is injected into
a reservoir. The increased electrostatic repulsion causes the water film between the oil/brine and
brine/particle to be more stable (Sheng, 2011). Then the oil recovery will be higher as the rock surfaces
are more water wet. Additionally, the presence of divalent cations (ions missing two electrons compared
with the neutral atom), such as calcium (Ca⫹⫹) and magnesium (Mg⫹⫹) in the brine can affect the
wettability. The salinity and pH of the brine strongly affect the surface charge of the rock and fluid
interfaces, and thereby the adsorptions of these divalent ions lead to the modification of the original
wettability alteration. The proposed theories are subsequently proven with observations from laboratory
experiments and pilot tests.
Jadhunandan and Morrow (1995) investigated the relationship between waterflooding and wettability
by adjusting the aging temperature, initial water saturation, brine composition and crude oil. More than
fifty waterfloods have been done with Berea sandstone and three different crude oils. Brines were
prepared from NaCl and CaCl2. They found that maximum oil recovery by waterflooding was obtained
at mixed wet conditions and the Amott index Iw-o increased with increasing Swi. These results indicated
that LSW should be applied in the preferential oil wet, mixed wet or weakly water wet reservoirs. In the
8 SPE-174008-MS

strongly water wet system, the benefits of LSW would be insignificant since the effect of wettability
alteration is minimized in this case as observed in Rivet’s experiments (2009). Similar results has been
reported by Yildiz and Morrow (1996), Tang and Morrow (1997), Morrow and Buckley (2011), and
Suijkerbuijk et al. (2012).
The relative permeability of a wetting phase is lower than the relative permeability of a non-wetting
phase. If a crude oil/rock/brine system becomes more water wet, the water relative permeability will
decrease while the oil relative permeability will increase. It has been experimentally found that the low
salinity brine has a significant effect on the shape and the end points of the relative permeability curves
(Webb et al., 2004; Kulkarni and Rao, 2005; Rivet, 2009; Fjelde et al., 2012), resulting in a lower water
relative permeability and higher oil relative permeability. It strongly supports the hypothesis of wettability
alteration during the course of LSW. It also suggests using a change in relative permeability curves to
represent the wettability alteration in LSW modeling.
As described in numerous reports, the impact of LSW depends on the mineralogy of the rock. Along
with corefloods, SWCTTs were conducted in Alaskan oil field by Jerauld et al. (2008) to examine the
influence of clay mineral on LSW. It was indicated that the correlation between incremental oil recovery
and clay content is strong. Seccombe et al. (2008) and Rivet (2009) again confirmed these results. This
could be explained by the dynamic ion exchange process that occurs when low salinity brine is injected
and clay acts as an exchanger. Adsorption of divalent ions on clay surfaces leads to the preferable
wettability alteration, resulting in a higher oil recovery factor. The absence of clay minerals will eliminate
this exchange process and the benefits of LSW.
Ion exchange is one of the critical factors in LSW and it strongly depends on the composition of
formation water and injected brine. Thus it explains the strong dependence of the effectiveness of LSW
on the composition of the injected brine and formation water. It is necessary to have connate water that
contains sodium, calcium and magnesium ions to see the benefit of LSW (Tang and Morrow., 1999,
Sharma and Filoco., 2000, Zhang and Morrow., 2006). Due to the ion exchange process in LSW, the
divalent ions tend to adsorb on the rock surfaces, leading to a reduction in the effluent divalent. In
addition, the ion exchange process explains why LSW did not work when a core was acidized and fired,
which destroyed the cation exchange capacity of the clay minerals. It also explains why LSW has little
effect on refined oil because no polar compounds are present to strongly interact with the clay minerals
(Sheng, 2014).
An important observation reported from the coreflood experiments and field implementation (Lager et
al., 2004, McGuire et al., 2005, Austad et al., 2010, Rivet, 2009, Fjelde, 2012) is that effluent pH increases
during LSW. This phenomenon could be chemically explained by the dissolution of minerals such as
calcite and dolomite. The ionic exchange during LSW leads to the adsorption of divalent ions and
promotes the mineral dissolution, which provides further calcium and magnesium for ion exchange. This
explanation is highly consistent with the results from Evje and Hiorth (2011) and Hiorth et al., (2010).

LSW Screening, Design and Optimization

Over two decades, LSW has been proven as an emerging technique for improving oil recovery. Compared
to the conventional high salinity waterflooding and EOR methods, the major advantages of LSW include:
(1) considerable recovery benefit; (2) lower costs and relatively simpler, (3) easier to be implemented in
both onshore and offshore reservoirs, (4) possible utilization of onsite facilities without requiring a large
quantity of chemical or gas for EOR projects; (5) more environmentally friendly. However, LSW is a
strongly geological-dependent process, but it has just been mainly investigated in the laboratory scale in
the literature so far. No appropriate pre-screening and testing procedures have been documented in the
past. Thus several LSW projects were unsuccessful even if these reservoirs were considered as the
promising candidates for LSW applications. To resolve these challenges and to make LSW implemen-
SPE-174008-MS 9

tations wider and more successful, it is very important to have a specified and comprehensive develop-
ment plan for this process.
Figure 1 shows a development strategy for LSW implementation in the field scale. It consists of four
main steps including: Screening, Design, Optimization, and Economics Evaluation. These four steps look
relatively similar to the other EOR developments; however, LSW and hybrid LSW require various special
designs and considerations that will be discussed in this section.

Figure 1—Development Strategy for LSW in Field Scale

LSW Screening
Pre-screening is the initial point in every LSW development project. Although LSW has been proven that
it could significantly improve the ultimate oil recovery, injection of low salinity brine is not always
guaranteed for an incremental oil recovery as indicated in the literature. There are several important
factors that control the effectiveness of LSW such as reservoir lithology, reservoir rock and fluid
properties as well as facilities and operating conditions. These important factors are not similar for all
reservoirs; thus a screening process must be carefully conducted to qualify the effectiveness of LSW as
an IOR/EOR approach for a specified reservoir candidate.
LSW has just recently been implemented in several pilot tests and it is rare to find a confident guideline
for the LSW screening process. As a summary of the testing results from numerous coreflooding
experiments and pilot tests, we present a pre-screening criterion for several major factors in order to
achieve the benefits of LSW and hybrid CO2 LSWAG as shown in Table 2. These criteria are observed
from different tests in a wide range of reservoir characterizations; therefore, it could serve as a confident
tool for identifying the promising candidates for LSW application.
10 SPE-174008-MS

Table 2—Pre-screening conditions for LSW implementations

Property Preferred Condition

Reservoir • Sandstones
• Carbonates (possibility)
Crude Oil • Must contain polar components (not effective with synthetic oil)
• Viscosity is not too high for waterflooding
Clay Minerals • Reservoir must contains sufficient amount of clay
• Medium-Sand with high CEC clay, porosity, permeability is preferred
Reservoir Minerals • Calcite
• Dolomite
Formation Water • Presence of divalent ions such as Ca⫹⫹ and Mg⫹⫹
Initial Wettability • Oil wet or mixed wet reservoir
• Small or ineffective in strong water wet reservoir
Reservoir Temperature • Not Limited
Reservoir Depth • Not Limited
Reservoir Energy • Sufficient high pressure for achieving miscibility condition.
Injected Fluid • Lower salinity concentration than formation water
• Must contain divalent ions
• Injected compositions must promote the adsorption of divalent ions.
• Sufficient CO2 or chemical sources for hybrid LSW implementation

LSW is widely applied in light oil sandstone and it has achieved very good results in improving oil
recovery in this type of reservoirs. Recently, several oil operators such as Aramco have extended LSW
into their carbonate assets with some promising results. Several laboratory tests demonstrated the benefits
of LSW in heavy oil recovery and opened a new window for LSW applications in these high oil viscosity
reservoirs. Wettability alteration is considered as the main mechanism of LSW; thus the presences of some
important factors that promote the wettability alteration like clay mineral and divalent ion are a must in
this process. From this point of view, a preferred sandstone reservoir must contain a sufficient amount of
clay in order to be considered for LSW implementation. Figure 2 shows an example of the importance of
reservoir clay content to the oil recovery by LSW. In this test from ten geological realizations that have
the same clay distributions but with difference on their clay contents, the recovery factors tend to increase
with an increase in clay contents. This observation has been discussed in Dang et al. (2015a, 2015b) and
it is highly consistent with different coreflooding experiments and pilot tests (Jerauld et al., 2008, Figure
3). A comprehensive core analysis and well log interpretation are very important to estimate the amount
of clay in reservoirs before LSW would be considered for application.
SPE-174008-MS 11

Figure 2—Effect of Clay Content on LSW Recovery Factor

Figure 3—Incremental Oil Recovery from LSW as a Function of Clay Content from Single-Well Tracer Tests and a Coreflood, after
Jerauld et al. (2008)

The initial reservoir wettability alteration is also very important. It was indicated that LSW showed the
highest performance either in oil wet or mixed wet reservoirs. A strong water wet reservoir may not be
a good candidate for LSW implementation (Rivet, 2009). The reason for this important screening factor
comes from the main mechanism of LSW in which LSW alters the wettability towards more water
wetness. Thus, a small modification on relative permeability curves in strong water wet reservoirs may not
be enough for achieving sufficient recovery benefits. Figure 4 shows an example of the incremental oil
recovery in preferential oil wet and water wet reservoirs using two typical relative permeability curves for
12 SPE-174008-MS

these reservoirs. There is a significant difference on the incremental oil recovery in these two case studies.
Consistent with laboratory evaluation, a higher incremental oil recovery is observed in the preferential oil
wet case study. In the strongly water wet, the incremental oil recovery is expected to be relatively small
and the hybrid LSW such as hybrid CO2 WAG or hybrid low salinity chemical flooding could become
a better candidate compared to pure low salinity waterflooding since LSW could also be combined with
these conventional EOR approaches.

Figure 4 —Incremental Oil Recovery by LSW in Preferential Oil Wet and Water Wet Reservoirs

Besides the presence of clay minerals and the initial wettability conditions, composition of formation
water is also found an important factor for LSW screening. As noted from various corefloodings, LSW
has no effect when divalent ions such as calcium or magnesium do not exist in the formation water. In
such cases, desorption of calcium may lead to an adverse wettability alteration and no additional oil could
be produced. Thus a geochemical study of the reservoir fluid must be taken in the pre-screening step to
guarantee that it is a suitable candidate for LSW application.
LSW application is not limited by the reservoir depth and temperature like chemical and miscible gas
EOR approaches. In fact, high temperature reservoirs may accelerate the in-situ geochemical reactions.
More favorable LSW implementation in high temperature (⬎90oC) carbonate reservoirs as reported by
Hiorth et al. (2010) and Evje and Hiorth (2011). Note that the relative contribution of each divalent ion
on the wettability alteration may not be similar as temperature changes. As an example from some
coreflooding experiments, calcium ions is important at the low and average temperature, while magne-
sium ions is more pronounced on the wettability alteration in high temperature reservoirs (higher than
90oC). There was no report on limitation of the crude oil viscosity for LSW application; LSW and hybrid
LSW have been successfully applied for both light oil and heavy oil reservoirs. Reservoirs that contain
calcite or magnesite minerals could be the favorable candidates for LSW since these minerals are the
source of calcium and magnesium for ion exchange and wettability alteration.
SPE-174008-MS 13

Obviously, there are some other prerequisites for hybrid CO2 LSWAG and hybrid LSW chemical
flooding application. CO2 LSWAG requires that reservoir pressure is higher than the minimum miscible
pressure to guarantee that injected CO2 is miscible with the crude oil in the reservoir conditions. A
sufficient CO2 and chemical agents for these EOR projects are also very important. In addition to the
above requirements for LSW, hybrid LSW needs to avoid some hostile conditions that are not favorable
for the associated EOR method (e.g., high temperature or high salinity/hardness reservoirs for hybrid LSW
chemical flooding).
LSW Design
Once a reservoir is classified as a promising candidate for LSW implementation based on the above
screening criteria, a detailed LSW design plan is required in the next step in order to apply this emerging
technology in the field scale. LSW design consists of two parts: (1) laboratory tests and reservoir
modeling; (2) onsite preparation and evaluation. In fact, LSW is a kind of waterflooding with tuned
injected brine compositions; thus LSW requires all of the initial design, logistics, and preparation for a
typical waterflooding project with special considerations on the ionic effects. Figure 5 shows a typical
designing and testing plan for a LSW project. In this paper, we focus on the design of fluid and well
placement for LSW that are considered as the most important processes to maximize oil recovery from
a LSW project.

Figure 5—Designing and Testing Plan for LSW Implementation

LSW Fluid Design Every reservoir has its own reservoir rock and fluid properties; the total hardness/
salinity and amount of each dissolved ion are not similar in all cases. From the past studies, LSW was
proven that it only has the benefits when the divalent ions adsorb on the rock surfaces and alter the initial
wettability. The adsorption of multiple divalent ions depends on the nature of ion exchange. In other
words, the injection brine must be modified based on the compositions of formation water. It can be
estimated using the ion exchange equilibrium constant, which was discussed in Dang et al. (2013a,
2015a). General observations from various coreflooding studies, numerical simulation, and worldwide
pilot tests have pointed out that LSW performance strongly depends on the brine composition rather than
the total salinity concentration. Thus it is very important to determine the contribution role of each ion
component in the injected aqueous phase. It is also required to examine the effects of ion composition in
the formation water since it affects the ion exchange process. Calcium and sodium ion concentrations have
been identified as the most important factors for ion exchange and wettability alteration in LSW and they
must be taken into account in a LSW fluid design.
Injected Calcium Ion Concentration The injected calcium ion (Ca⫹⫹) concentration is very important
to the oil recovery by LSW as noted from previous LSW corefloods experiments and pilot tests. Among
14 SPE-174008-MS

numerous published reports, people usually found that adding of divalent ions such as Ca⫹⫹ and Mg⫹⫹
in the low salinity brine usually leads to a higher oil recovery factor. This observation can be highlighted
from the following two case studies. An LSW implementation by BP at an Alaskan reservoir where the
concentrations of Ca⫹⫹ and Na⫹ was modified from 71ppm to 101ppm and 4,980 ppm to 817 ppm for
high and low salinity injected brine, respectively, resulted in a 10% decrease in SOR (Lager 2008). For the
laboratory coreflooding experiment, Evje and Hiorth (2011) reported that adding of Ca⫹⫹ provided a 20%
incremental oil recovery compared to a case of without Ca⫹⫹ ion in the injected brine.
These observations were again proven by our simulation results shown in Figure 6. The higher Ca⫹⫹
concentration we inject, the more benefits on the oil recovery we will achieve. However, it is important
to note that there is chemical equilibrium for ion exchange between calcium and sodium ions, and thus
the injected Ca⫹⫹ must be designed according to the Na⫹ concentration in the injected brine as well as
reservoir salinity. Otherwise, a reversed ion exchange (e.g., desorption of Ca⫹⫹ ion) may happen and can
suppress the oil recovery.

Figure 6 —Effect of Injected Calcium Concentration on the Oil Recovery

Another important advantage of adding Ca⫹⫹ is to prevent the permeability damage by the swelling
and mobilization of clay mineral. Jones (1964) indicated that a sufficient proportion of calcium in the
formation and injected waters can powerfully restrain clay blocking. It was proven in BP’s pilot test that
no adverse effects such as clay swelling or pore plugging owing to fines migration were observed.
Injected Sodium Ion Concentration As the other parameters are kept constant, an increase in the Na⫹
concentration in the injected brine will lead to a lower cumulative oil production as shown in Figure 7.
This observation is consistent with coreflooding experiments and pilot tests which were described earlier,
and it should be taken in account for designing an appropriate LSW project. As we decrease the Na⫹ in
the injected brine, we promote the favorable ion exchange and wettability alteration. Thus more oil can
be produced from LSW.
SPE-174008-MS 15

Figure 7—Effect of Injected Sodium Concentration on the Oil Recovery

Formation Calcium Ion Concentration The previous studies have indicated that LSW had no benefits
in the reservoirs where there were no calcium ions in the formation water and a sufficient Ca⫹⫹ content
in the formation water is one of the first mandatory requirements for LSW (Austad et al. 2009; Morrow
et al. 2011). This test aims to assess the effect of calcium concentration in the formation water during LSW
since it may have a significant influence on an ion exchange process. It also helps to validate the
simulation results with the observations from coreflooding experiments. Each reservoir has its own fluid
properties and these evaluations play an important role in the screening of the suitable and promising
reservoir candidates for LSW application.
Consistent with those remarks, simulation results indicate that higher Ca⫹⫹ concentration in the
formation water has a positive effect on the oil recovery as shown in Figure 8. A sufficient source of Ca⫹⫹
will promote the adsorption of Ca⫹⫹ on the clay mineral and alter the wettability towards more water
wetness, leading to a higher oil recovery factor.

Figure 8 —Effect of Formation Calcium Concentration on the Oil Recovery

16 SPE-174008-MS

Formation Sodium Ion Concentration In contrast with the benefits of calcium ion, a higher sodium
(Na⫹) ion concentration in the formation water with a specific injected composition brine results in a
higher adsorption of Na⫹, leading to the release of Ca⫹⫹ from clay surface and suppresses oil production
by the mechanism of wettability alteration (Figure 9).

Figure 9 —Effect of Formation Sodium Concentration on the Oil Recovery

Well Placement Design After a suitable low salinity composition has been designed, coreflooding with
reservoir rock and fluid samples should be performed to measure the change in the relative permeability
curves between high salinity and low salinity waterlfooding. These relative permeability curves will be
served as an important input data for LSW modeling and reservoir simulation. Different injection schemes
including high salinity waterflooding and LSW must be conducted to quantify the benefits of LSW in the
laboratory scale. A comprehensive geochemical analysis of the effluent ions and pH provides valuable
information for the ion exchange and geochemical reactions that happen inside core samples. They also
provide data for the validation of LSW modeling. An observation of the produced fines and pressure loss
is helpful to identify whether or not clay mineral has migrated in the LSW process.
However, LSW is not just a modification of the injected brine composition. Laboratory experiments
and simulation results along with the pilot tests indicate that LSW strongly depends on the reservoir
geology, particularly in clay content and distribution. It means that injection pattern placement is very
important in a LSW design and we need to evaluate the performance of LSW under geological
consideration. This section aims to introduce an efficient approach to identify the best well placement for
LSW application
It is very important to note that there is a strong correlation between a grain size and clay content as
reported by several authors (e.g., Saner et al., 1996; Sahin et al., 2012). Generally speaking, this
knowledge can be incorporated by assigning clay-dependent grain sizes to different facies in which the
higher clay content corresponds to the lower the mean grain-size distribution. It is recommended to define
three main facies that are important in LSW including: (1) Fine-grained Sandstone (FS), (2) Medium-
grained Sandstone (MS), and (3) Coarse-grained Sandstone (CS). FS is fine-grained sandstone with mean
grain-size distribution of 80 ␮m and is used to simulate low porosity and permeability sandstone with very
high clay content. CS is coarse-grained sandstone with mean grain-size distribution of 250 ␮m and is
associated with high porosity and permeability sandstone and very low clay content. MS is a transitional
facies between FS and CS with average values of porosity and permeability and medium clay content.
SPE-174008-MS 17

To demonstrate the critical effect of clay in the LSW design and implementation, we generate eighty
2D geological realizations with an original five spot well pattern and the cumulative oil productions
among these realizations are ranked as shown in Figure 10. There is a large variance of oil recovery among
eighty geological distributions in this study, which clearly indicates the important role of clay distribution
on the effectiveness of LSW. The highest oil recovery curve comes from the homogeneous model and the
rest represents heterogeneous models. We can divide the 80 runs into three main groups based on their
recovery performances including: (1) Group I – Bad Performance, (2) Group II – Good Performance, and
(3) Excellent Performance.

Figure 10 —Overall Oil Production from Eighty 2D Clay Distributions

In the first group, the final oil recovery factor is extremely low, only about 2% – 6% of the OOIP. The
main reason is that the injection well was located in an extremely high clay content region. Although the
CEC in this area is very high (Figure 11), resulting in the strongest effect of wettability alteration, the
injection water can not flow easily through this low porosity and permeability region. This results in
inefficient oil displacement as compared to Group II and Group III after one year of LSW injection as
shown in Figure 12. This example shows that tuning only injected brine composition without consider-
ation of geological characterizations may not be applicable.
18 SPE-174008-MS

Figure 11—Ion Exchange Fraction for realizations 2, 5, and 11

Figure 12—Oil Saturation for Realizations 2, 5, and 11

Theoretically, low salinity brine contact with the clay minerals may promote the ion exchange and
wettability alteration; however, locating an injection well in an extremely high clay, low porosity and
permeability is detrimental to oil production and reduces the success of a LSW project. This observation
has been addressed by comparing the oil saturation maps among three representative realizations
including realization 2 (Group I), realization 5 (Group II), and realization 11 (Group III). The realizations
5 and 11 have a higher ultimate oil recovery than one in realization 2 because the injection well was
located in the medium clay-content region with not too low porosity and permeability.
On the other hand, Group III has higher oil displacement efficiency in the near injection well region
compared to Group II by enhancing wettability alteration in the favorable clay content regions that have
sufficient high porosity and permeability for oil production. Figure 13 indicates the incremental oil
recovery by LSW and high salinity waterflooding in two representative realizations from Groups II and
III in which the wettability alteration contributes about 62% of the incremental oil recovery compared to
38% from an enhanced swept efficiency effect.
SPE-174008-MS 19

Figure 13—Oil Recovery between Group II (Realization 5) and Group III (Realization 11)

Clay distribution near production well regions may not directly contribute to the additional oil
production by wettability alteration during LSW. However, the FS regions with high clay content and very
low porosity and permeability in the near production wells can prevent the movement of the injected water
and oil flow into producing wells, resulting in a very low production rate as an example in realization 8
(Figure 14). Figure 15 indicates that the two producing wells (PROD1 and PROD2) are located in the high
clay content (FS) regions and have a very low oil production compared to the two other producers
(PROD3 and PROD4) which are located in the medium-sand regions. This observation must be taken into
account during the initial field development plan or infill well drilling for LSW application in secondary
and tertiary recovery. The effects of FS and MS will be addressed in the next sections. Figure 16 compares
the oil saturation after waterflooding and LSW implementation for realization 8. It clearly indicates that
LSW has better oil displacement compared to the conventional high salinity waterflooding by promoting
the advantage of wettability alteration.
20 SPE-174008-MS

Figure 14 —Porosity – Realization 8

Figure 15—Cumulative Oil Production from Four Productions Wells – Realization 8

SPE-174008-MS 21

Figure 16 —Oil Saturation after Waterflooding and LSW (Realization 8)

Along with clay distribution, the proportion of clay in a reservoir also has a very important influence
on the success or failure of a LSW project. The results from sandstone coreflooding experiments have
indicated that oil recovery is insensitive to the injected brine salinity in the cases of zero or very low clay
content core samples (Rivet, 2009). This suggests that reservoirs that have no clay mineral are not suitable
candidates for LSW implementation; however, extremely high clay content may lead to poor displacement
efficiency, which is unfavorable for waterflooding. It has been found that the oil recovery generally tends
to decrease as the proportion of FS facies increases or when the proportion of MS facies decreases. CS
facies has very low clay content so that the effects of CS facies on the additional oil recovery by
wettability alteration are relatively small.

LSW Optimization
LSW is an emerging EOR technique in which people try to modify the injection brine composition for
achieving a higher recovery factor. Based on the fact of this process, one of the first attempts to optimize
the LSW process is to find an optimal injection recipe for the injection fluid. As discussed earlier in this
paper, decreasing the amount of the injected sodium ions and increasing the amount of divalent ions
(calcium or magnesium) can significantly improve the oil recovery. However, simulation and coreflood-
ing experiments indicate that there is a specified range of the brine composition that can improve oil
recovery for a given reservoir and further modifications of the injected ion compositions only help to
produce a small amount of additional oil recovery as indicated in Figure 17. From the simulation results,
after we inject a LSW slug with 10 time diluted brine compared to the formation salinity, we only increase
the oil recovery about 2% OOIP by further modifying of the injected ion composition (Na⫹, Ca⫹⫹, and
Mg⫹⫹). This result is consistent with the coreflooding experiments reported by Yousef et al. (2011)
22 SPE-174008-MS

Figure 17—Effects of Brine Composition on LSW

In addition to the injected brine composition, LSW can be effectively optimized by well placement
under geological uncertainties as discussed in Dang et al. (2015a). This optimization definitely helps to
maximizing the oil recovery by selecting the best location for LSW injection that promotes the ion
exchange and wettability alteration, and enhances the water/oil displacement efficiency. In LSW, well
placement optimization can be the best way for improving the final ultimate oil recovery factor as
indicated in Figure 18. By using the DECE optimization method (Yang et al., 2009) based on a specific
geological realization (nominal optimization) with a five-spot injection pattern, we can improve the oil
recovery about 8.5% OOIP compared to the base case location. Moreover, assuming that the well
placement is not performed and LSW is applied in the worst location, we are able to recover only about
18.7% OOIP compared to 35.4% OOIP in the best case.

Figure 18 —LSW Recovery Factor by Well Placement Optimization

Although the nominal optimization process can help to increase the ultimate oil recovery, the
effectiveness of LSW strongly depends on the geological distributions. Unfortunately, uncertainty is
always an inherent characteristic of any geological model due to lack of observation wells and the noisy
or sparse nature of seismic data, core samples, and well logs. Thus it is impossible to ignore geological
SPE-174008-MS 23

uncertainties of a reservoir by using a single realization for evaluation and optimization of the LSW
process. Recent progress in computational hardware and software development has opened new frontiers
in reservoir modeling and allowed robust optimization for such complicated processes under geological
uncertainties. The detailed workflow for LSW robust optimization could be found in Dang et al. (2015a).
Figure 19 compares the histograms of an oil recovery factor based on 102 geological realizations obtained
from robust optimization, nominal optimization, and the one from the base case. It is clear to see a
rigorous evidence for the effectiveness of LSW robust optimization in which we not only maximize the
oil recovery factor but also capture the impact of geological uncertainties in the five representative
realizations. Robust optimization efficiently helps to reduce substantially the risk associated with geo-
logical uncertainties, whereas the optimal solution obtained from nominal optimization can lead to worse
performance for certain geological realizations.
24 SPE-174008-MS

Figure 19 —Histogram of Recovery Factor Resulting from the Base Case, Nominal Optimization, and Robust Optimization

Another important factor in LSW optimization is to determine the optimal time for LSW application.
Up to now, LSW shows a better oil recovery in both secondary and tertiary recovery processes. From the
laboratory and simulation results, secondary LSW is more effective than the conventional high salinity
waterflooding and the tertiary LSW in terms of timing and oil recovery as shown in Figure 20. This is very
important finding since LSW can be considered at the first stage of secondary recovery instead of high
salinity waterflooding. It provides not only a better oil recovery but also reduces the cost and complexity
of the additional setup and operation for the new injected water treatment in the old platforms that is
currently a big challenge for tertiary recovery development in the offshore or deep water reservoirs.
However, the majority of the producing sandstone reservoirs in the world have been already flooded by
SPE-174008-MS 25

the conventional high salinity waterflooding in their secondary recovery stage. The effectiveness of the
EOR processes is always linked to the time they are implemented. Figure 21 shows the results of different
LSW development scenarios corresponding to the beginning time of LSW implementation. LSW is
applied after 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years of high salinity waterflooding in the three scenarios.
Generally, it indicates that the sooner we start the EOR LSW process the more benefits we can achieve
in terms of the oil recovery. The brown waterflooded reservoirs commonly have some water channels,
which result in a bypass of the subsequent injected water in the late production period. This problem can
significantly dismiss the benefits of LSW if it is delayed to be applied in the tertiary recovery.

Figure 20 —Comparative Results on Recovery Factor of Secondary LSW, Tertiary LSW, and High Salinity Waterflooding

Figure 21—Comparative Results on Recovery Factor of Starting Time of LSW Project

In addition to the well placement optimization, minimizing of the low salinity injected slug is
suggested as another way to improving the project profits by decreasing the investment cost. In fact,
several coreflooding experiments showed that the core was no longer sensitive to injected brine salinity
after the first exposure to low salinity brine. Thus we estimate an optimal slug size for LSW injection that
reduces the desalination cost. Also, there is threshold salinity for wettability alteration for the modification
of relative permeability curves. It can be determined in the laboratory from measurement of relative
26 SPE-174008-MS

permeability as a function of salinity. By finding this salinity threshold, we can effectively determine the
optimal salinity for LSW application in a given reservoir. It also helps to improve the project economics.
Additionally, we can utilize the synergy between LSW and the conventional EOR methods such as
polymer flooding, surfactant flooding, and miscible gas flooding in order to: (1) promote the synergy
between different EOR techniques; (2) overcome the current technical challenges inside these methods;
(3) achieve the highest oil recovery factor and maximize project profits. Low salinity surfactant flooding
helps to improve surfactant solubility, reduces adsorption or retention and brings more economical profits,
whereas the use of low salinity polymer flooding has significant benefits because of considerably lower
amount of required polymer for a target viscosity. Low salinity polymer flooding can also increase oil
recovery by lowering residual oil saturation and achieve faster oil recovery by wettability alteration.
Additionally, CO2 LSWAG can help overcome the current challenge in the current CO2 WAG application.
LSW can accelerate the oil production in the early stage, while CO2 WAG helps to promote the ion
exchange and reservoir geochemical reactions, which are the favorable conditions for LSW itself (Dang
et al., 2014b). Thus it is expected that CO2 LSWAG promotes the synergy of the mechanisms between
the two technologies and can overcome the late production problem frequently encountered in the
conventional WAG.

LSW Implementation, Economic Evaluation, and Environmental Issues

In case of consistent and rigorous evidences of the LSW benefits from coreflooding and numerical
simulation, LSW can be extended to pilot tests. In fact, LSW has been widely implemented in various oil
fields around the world by several major oil operators, leading by BP and Aramco (McGuire et al., 2005;
Lager et al., 2008b; Jerauld et al., 2008; Yousef et al., 2012). In this stage, field logistics, sources of water
injection, and water treatment facilities are the important components in a pilot design. Two types of water
sources are usually considered for achieving the targeted salinity of twice diluted and ten times diluted
seawater including: (1) shallow aquifer water; (2) reverse osmosis water product nearby field facilities.
Yousef et al. (2012) proposed that reverse osmosis water was the best source for LSW. In a LSW project,
desalination is one of the most important factors that control the success of this project. As similar as the
other EOR approaches such as chemical flooding, water treatment is one of the most important keys of
the LSW process. Various water treatments with their main attributes from the oil and gas industry are
indicated in the literature, specially designed for different EOR processes.
After the logistics and facility preparation, single well chemical tracer tests (SWCTT) (Jerauld et al.,
2008; Lager et al., 2008; Yousef et al., 2010) and log/inject/log tests (McGuire et al., 2005; Webb et al.,
2005; Lager et al., 2006) are usually employed to investigate the effectiveness of the LSW. SWCTT
involves injecting of several tracers and the main tracer has the capacity to dissolve in both oil and water.
In addition, a secondary/product tracer will be generated during the shut-in period by hydrolysis. The
residual oil saturation is determined based on the chromatographic separation of the primary and product
tracers during the flow back period. The key requirement for evaluation of residual oil saturation by
SWCTT is that the oil phase must be immobile during the flow back period so that the residual oil
saturation can be accurately determined. The design of SWCTT includes laboratory measurement of a
partitioning coefficient of the main tracer, the slug size of the main tracer bank injection, the slug of push
bank injection, and concentrations of different types of tracers (Yousef et al. 2012). BP, Aramco, and other
oil operators are widely using this technique to measure a decrease in residual oil saturation by LSW. If
the pilot tests provide promising results, it will be recommended to apply in the full field scale.
In terms of the economic evaluation, a LSW project can utilize current facilities of conventional
waterflooding; thus the major difference comes from formation or sea water desalination costs. There are
obvious expenditures for LSW desalination facilities that depend on several important factors such as
salinity of source water, salinity of injected water, field location, project scale, energy costs, and oil price.
Combining the expected amount and timing of the incremental oil recovery, we can estimate the economic
SPE-174008-MS 27

efficiency of the LSW project for a reservoir candidate. The desalination cost for LSW is not widely
reported. Verbeek and Matzakos (2009) suggested that desalination at large scale using seawater is about
$0.8 and $2.2/m3 injected water for onshore and offshore reservoirs, respectively. The cost for offshore
reservoirs includes the installation cost factors and excludes the cost of floating structure and pre-
treatment. Brackish water is half the cost of seawater. Additional benefits are a reduction in scaling and
souring risk with a consequent reduction in the cost of chemicals.
In terms of environmental issues, if low salinity water is sourced from a combined nanoflitration/
reverse osmosis plant the high hardness and salinity rejection streams will require to be disposed of
overboard. Also, any solids, sludges, or filter media are by-products of the process. This should not be an
insuperable problem and would be dealt with at the environmental impact assessment stage.
Conclusions
This paper presents a comprehensive study and practical guidelines for LSW evaluation and application
from laboratory testing to field scale implementation by considering the physical properties of the LSW
process. Wettability alteration due to multiple ion exchange and geochemical reactions is believed as the
responsible mechanism of the additional oil recovery by LSW and a LSW project must be designed based
on it. A screening criterion has been proposed to identify the promising reservoir candidate for LSW
application. In various aspects of a LSW design, it is very important to determine the optimal injection
composition and well placement for promoting wettability alteration during the course of LSW. Reservoir
geology plays a crucial role in LSW modeling and optimization and robust optimization has been proved
as an efficient method to maximize an oil recovery factor and reduce the risk associated with geological
uncertainties.

Reference
Austad T., RezaeiDoust A., Puntervold T. 2010. Chemical Mechanism of Low Salinity Water
Flooding in Sandstone Reservoir. Paper SPE 129767 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 24-28 April.
Bernard G.G. 1967. Effect of Floodwater Salinity on Recovery of Oil from Cores Containing Clays.
Paper SPE 1725: Los Angeles, California, October 26-27.
Buckley J.S., Fan T. 2007. Crude Oil/Brine Interfacial Tension1. Petrophysics 78(03), June.
Dang T.Q.C., Chen Z., Nguyen T.B.N., Phung H.T. 2011. Lessons Learned and Experiences Gained
in Developing the Waterflooding Concept of a Fractured Basement Granite Reservoir: A 20 Year
Case Study. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 50(9-10):10 –23.
Dang T.Q.C., Chen Z., Nguyen T.B.N., Phung H.T. 2014b. Integrated Modeling of Naturally
Fractured Basement Reservoir. International Journal of Oil, Gas, and Coal Technology, in press.
Dang T.Q.C., Nghiem, L.X., Chen, Z., Nguyen, Q.P. 2013a. Modeling Low Salinity Waterflooding:
Ion Exchange, Geochemistry and Wettability Alteration. Paper SPE 166447 presented at the 2013
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 September – 2
October.
Dang T.Q.C., Nghiem, L.X., Chen, Z., Nguyen, Q.P., Nguyen, T.B.N. 2013b. State-of-the Art Smart
Low Salinity Waterflooding for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 165903 presented at the 2013
SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 22-24 October.
Dang T.Q.C., Nghiem, L.X., Chen, Z., Nguyen, Q.P., Nguyen, T.B.N. 2014. CO2 Low Salinity Water
Alternating Gas: A New Promising Approach for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 169071
presented at the 2014 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA, 12-16 April.
Dang T.Q.C., Nghiem, L.X., Nguyen, T.B.N., Chen, Z. 2015b. New Insights into Critical Role of
Geology in Modeling and Optimization of Low Salinity Waterflooding. Paper SPE 174294
presented at the 2015 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE, Madrid, Spain, 1-4 June.
28 SPE-174008-MS

Dang T.Q.C., Nghiem, L.X., Nguyen, T.B.N., Chen, Z., Nguyen, Q.P. 2015a. Modeling and Optimi-
zation of Low Salinity Waterflooding. Paper SPE 173194 presented at the 2015 SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX, USA, 23-25 February.
Darhim N.M., Nassar I., Salah N., Mamdouh M., Merghany I., Hassan A., Sobhy M., Gamil M., Nabil
M. 2013. Paper SPE 164717 presented at the SPE North Africa Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 15-17 April.
Deryaguin B., Landau L. 1941. Theory of the Stability of Strongly Charged Lyophobic Sols and of the
Adhesion of Strongly Charged Particles in Solution of Electrolytes. Acta Physico Chemical URSS
14:633.
Drummond C., Israelachvili J. 2002. Surface Forces and Wettability. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 33:123–133.
Drummond C., Israelachvili J. 2004. Fundamental Studies of Crude Oil-Surface Water Interactions
and Its Relationship to Reservoir Wettability. Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering, 45:61–
68.
Ehrlich R., Hasiba H.H., Raimondi P. 1974. Alkaline Waterflooding for Wattability Alteration –
Evaluating a Potential Field Application. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1335–1343.
Evje S., Hiorth A. 2011. A Model for Interpretation of Brine Dependent Spontaneous Imbibition
Experiments. Advances in Water Resources, 34(2011):1627–1642.
Filoco S., Sharma M.M. 1998. Effect of Brine Salinity and Crude Oil Properties on Relative
Permeabilities and Residual Saturations. Paper SPE 49320 presented at the SPE ATCE, New
Orleans, LA, 27-30 April.
Fjelde I., Asen, S.V., Omekeh, A. 2012. Low Salinity Water Flooding Experiments and Interpretation
by Simulations. Paper SPE 154142 presented at the Eighteenth SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA, April 14-18.
Hiorth A., Cathles L.M., Madland M.V. 2010. The Impact of Pore Water Chemistry on Carbonate
Surface Charge and Oil Wettability. Transport in Porous Media, 85(2010):1–21.
Jadhunandan P.P., Morrow N.R. 1995. Effect of Wettability on Waterflood Recovery for Crude-Oil/
Brine/Rock Systems. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 10(1):40 –46.
Jensen J.A., Radke C.J. 1987. Chromatographic Transport of Alkaline Buffers Through Reservoir
Rock. SPERE.
Jerauld G.R., Lin C.Y., Webb K.J., Seccombe J.C. 2008. Modeling Low Salinity Waterflooding. SPE
Reservoir Engineering, 11(6):1000 –1012.
Jones F.O. 1964. Influence of Chemical Composition of Water on Clay Blocking of Permeability. JPT,
16(4):441–446.
Kulkarni, M.M., Rao, D.N. 2005. Experimental Investigation of Miscible and Immiscible WAG
Process Performance. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 48(2005):1–20.
Lager A., Webb K.J., Black C.J.J. 2007. Impact of Brine Chemistry on Oil Recovery. Paper A24
presented at the 14th EAGE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Cairo, 22-24 April.
Lager A., Webb K.J., Black C.J.J., Singleton M., Sorbie K.S. 2006. Low-Salinity Oil Recovery – An
Experimental Investigation. Paper SCA 2006-36 presented at the International Symposium of the
Society of Core Analysts, Trondheim, Norway, 12-16 September.
Lager A., Webb K.J., Black C.J.J., Singleton M., Sorbie K.S. 2008a. Low-Salinity Oil Recovery – An
Experimental Investigation. Petrophysics 49(1):28 –35.
Lager A., Webb K.J., Collins I.R., Richmond D.M. 2008b. LoSalTM Enhanced Oil Recovery:
Evidence of Enhanced Oil Recovery at the Reservoir Scale. Paper SPE 113976 presented at the
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 19-23 April.
SPE-174008-MS 29

McGuire P.L., Chatam J.R., Paskvan F.K., Sommer D.M., Carini F.H. 2005. Low Salinity Oil
Recovery: An Exciting New EOR Opportunity for Alaska’s North Slope. Paper SPE 93903
presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Irvine, CA, USA, 30 March-1 April.
McGuire, P.L., Chatam, J.R., Paskvan, F.K., Sommer, D.M., Carini, F.H. 2005. Low Salinity Oil
Recovery: An Exciting New EOR Opportunity for Alaska’s North Slope. Paper SPE 93903
presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Irvine, CA, USA, 30 March – 1 April.
Morrow N.R., Bukley J.S. 2011. Improved Oil Recovery by Low-Salinity Waterflooding. JPT,
Distinguished Author Series, 106 –112.
RezaeiDoust A., Puntervold T., Strand S., Austad T. 2009. Smart Water as Wettability Modifier in
Carbonate and Sandstone: A Discussion of Similarities/Differences in Chemical Mechanism.
Energy & Fuels 23(9):4479 –4485.
Rivet, S.M. 2009. Coreflooding Oil Displacements with Low Salinity Brine. Master Thesis, University
of Texas at Austin.
Robertson E.P. 2010. Oil Recovery Increases by Low Salinity Flooding: Minnelusa and Green River
Formations. Paper SPE 132154 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September.
Rotondi M., Callegaro C., Masserano F., Bartosek M. 2014. Low Salinity Water Injection: Eni’s
Experience. Paper SPE 171794 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11-13 November.
Saner S., Cagatay M.N., Sanounah A.M. 1996. Relationship between Shale Content and Grain-size
Parameters in the Safaniya Sandstone Reservoir, NE Saudi Arabia. Journal of Petroleum Geology,
19(3): 305–329.
Seccombe J., Lager A., Jerauld G.R., Jhavier B., Buikema T., Bassler S., Denis J., Webb K., Cockin
A., Fueg E. 2010. Demonstration of Low Salinity EOR at Interwell Scale, Endicott Field, Alaska.
Paper SPE 129692 presented at SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 24-28
April.
Shahin A., Tatham R., Stoffa P., Spikes K. 2011. Optimal Dynamic Rock-fluid Physics Template
Validated by Petroelastic Reservoir Modeling. Geophysics, 76(6):O45–O58.
Sheng J.J. 2011. Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery, Elservier.
Sheng J.J. 2014. Critical Review of Low-Salinity Waterflooding. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2014.05.026
Skrettingland K., Holt T., Tweheyo M.T., Skjevrak. 2010. Snorre Low Salinity Water Injection – Core
Flooding Experiments and Single Well Field Pilot. Paper SPE 129877 presented at the SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA, 24-28 April.
Suijkerbuijk, B.M.J.M., Hofman, J.P., Ligthelm, D.J., Romanuka, J., Brussee, H.A., Marcelis, A.H.M.
2012. Fundamental Investigation into Wettability and Low Salinity Waterflooding by Parameter
Isolation. Paper SPE 154204 presented at the Eighteenth SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, OK, USA, April 14-18.
Tang G.Q., Morrow N.R. 1997. Salinity, Temperature, Oil Composition and Oil Recovery by
Waterflooding. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 12(4):269 –276.
Tang G.Q., 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):99 –111.
Thyne G., Gamage P. 2011. Evaluation of the Effect of Low Salinity Waterflooding for 26 Fields in
Wyoming. Paper SPE 147410 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October-2 November.
Verbeek P., Matzakos A. 2009. Water Treatment for Flooding with Lower Salinity than Formation
Water. Presentation at the Tekna Produced Water Conference, Stavanger, January.
30 SPE-174008-MS

Vledder P., Foncesca J.C., Wells T., Gonzalez I., Ligthelm D. 2010. Low Salinity Waterflooding:
Proof of Wettability Alteration on a Field Wide Scale. Paper SPE 129564 presented at the SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA, 24-28 April.
Webb K.J., Black C.J.J., Al-Ajeel. 2004. Low Salinity Oil Recovery – Log-Inject-Log. Paper SPE
89379 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 17-21 April.
Webb K.J., Black C.J.J., Edmonds I.J. 2005. Low Salinity Oil Recovery: The Role of Reservoir
Condition Corefloods. Paper C18 presented at the 13th EAGE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, Budapest, Hungary, 25-27 April.
Webb K.J., Lager A., Black C.J.J. 2008. Comparison of High/Low Salinity Water/Oil Relative
Permeability. Presented at the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 29 October – 2 November.
Yang C., Card C., Nghiem L. 2009. Economic Optimization and Uncertainty Assessment of Com-
mercial SAGD Operations. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 48(9): 33–40.
Yildiz H.O., Morrow N.R. 1996. Effect of Brine Composition on Recovery of Moutray Crude Oil by
Waterflooding. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 14:159 –168.
Yousef A., Al-Saleh S., Al-Kaabi A., Al-Jawfi M. 2011. Laboratory Investigation of the Impact of
Injection Water Salinity and Ionic Content on Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoir. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 14(05): 578 –593.
Yousef A., Ayirala S.C. 2014. A Novel Water Ionic Composition Optimization Technology for
SmartWater Flooding Application in Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 169052 presented at the
SPE IOR Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA, 12-16 April.
Yousef A., Liu J., Blanchard G., Al-Saleh S., Al-Zahrani R., Al-Tammar H., Al-Mulhim N. 2012.
SmartWater Flooding: Industry’s First Field Test in Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 159526
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Texas, USA, 8-10 October.
Zekri A.Y., Nasr M.S., Al-Arabai Z. 2011. Effect of LoSal on Wettability and Oil Recovery of
Carbonate and Sandstone Formation. Paper SPE 14131 presented at the International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 7-9 February.
Zhang Y., Morrow N.R. 2006. Comparison of Secondary and Tertiary Recovery with Change in
Injection Brine Composition for Crude Oil/ Sandstone Combinations. Paper SPE 99757 presented
at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22-26 April.