SPE-200667-MS

Modelling the Impact of Low Salinity Waterflooding, Polymer Flooding and

Thermally Activated Polymer on Produced Water Composition

Mohammed Said Al Bahri, Oscar Vazquez, Alan Beteta, Munther Mohammed Al Kalbani, and Eric James Mackay,
Heriot-Watt University

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Energy

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference and Exhibition originally scheduled to be held in Aberdeen, Scotland, UK,
24 - 25 Jun 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was not held. The official proceedings were published online on 24 June 2020.

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

Abstract
It is common that a large volume of hydrocarbons remained unrecovered after primary and secondary
recovery. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), as tertiary recovery, plays a key role in recovering additional
volumes of hydrocarbons. However, there is little work in the literature on the impact of different EOR
mechanisms on the flow behaviour of formation/injected brines and scaling tendencies. The objective of this
manuscript is to investigate, by the means of reservoir simulation, the impact of different EOR techniques,
namely low salinity waterflooding (LSW), polymer flooding and Thermally Activated Polymer (TAP), for
in-depth conformance control, on oil recovery and BaSO4 scale deposition.
A reactive transport reservoir simulator was used to evaluate the impact of three EOR techniques in the
mixing profiles of injected seawater and formation brine, resulting in the precipitation reaction of BaSO4,
due to the incompatible mixing of formation and injected brines. Three two-dimensional models were
considered, a homogeneous and heterogeneous areal model to compare polymer flooding and LSW; and a
vertical heterogeneous model to analyse the effect of TAP.
Results show that LSW delays and reduces the risk of BaSO4 scale deposition at the producer, due to
the fact that the concentration of injected SO42- is significantly lower than full sulphate injection seawater.
However, LSW results in longer co-production period of Ba2+ and SO42- ions, due to the fact that Ba2+
stripping is reduced because of the scale precipitation within the reservoir is reduced. Polymer flooding
improves the sweep displacement, which delays the onset of scale formation, shortens the co-production
period of the scaling ions at the producer and reduces the amount of water produced, hence, reducing the
scale risk. TAP injection results in the delay of the injected water breakthrough, which delays the onset of
scale formation in the producer; however, it can increase the amount of formation water (hence Ba2+ ions
concentration), mainly from the low permeability zones, in the producer.
EOR techniques may have a major influence on the evolution of scaling ions in the produced water,
which has to be taken into account for an optimum scale management strategy, to maximize oil production.
2 SPE-200667-MS

Introduction
Polymer flooding is considered the most important chemical EOR method based on historical field case
studies (Alvarado & Manrique, 2010). For several decades, Polymer flooding has been successfully applied
in many fields worldwide. Partially Hydrolysed Polyacrylamide (HPAM), which is a synthetic polymer, is
the most commonly used EOR polymer, used in 92% of the reported polymer projects (Standnes & Skjevrak,
2014). Marmul field in Oman, Daqing field in China and Pelican Lake field in Canada are few examples
of large fields with successful implementation of polymer flooding (Gbadamosi et al., 2019). The most
significant increase in oil recovery from polymer flooding is attributed to Daqing field in China with an
incremental oil production of up to 300,000 barrels per day (Gbadamosi et al., 2019).
TAP involves injecting polymer particles downhole with water, these particles are sufficiently small
and contain a mixture of permanent and reversible cross-links (Collins, 2010). When these particles move
through the porous media and subjected to an increase in temperature, particles expand many times larger
than their original size and consequently restricting or blocking pore throats, Figure 1 (Roussennac & Toschi,
2010). This is due to the acceleration in the hydrolysis reaction rate of the cross-linker which result in
decreasing the cross-linker density and allows volumetric expansion of the particles by coupling with water
molecules (Collins, 2010). TAP modifies the water paths and flow patterns in the reservoir, which improves
sweep efficiency and delay or reduce water production, Figure 2.

Figure 1—Thermal activation of polymer particles (Collins, 2010)

Figure 2—Water flow divergence targeting unswept zones using TAP (Collins, 2010)

When particles expand and block pore throats, resistance to water flow occurs. The highest resistance
occurs at the location where the highest concentration of particles, normally at the main thief zone.
Resistance is formed by polymer viscosity, adsorption and hydrodynamic retention in pore throats (Garmeh
et al., 2012). The level of resistance to flow depends on the polymer concentration, injected volume,
dispersion and rock adsorption capacity. Due to resistance, the chase water then diverts from the thief zone
to the adjacent zones, hence displacing un-swept oil.
The first TAP treatment was done in 2001 in the Minas field in Indonesia after the identification of the
thief zone (Garmeh et al., 2012). Since then, large number of TAP treatments have been applied worldwide.
Collins (2010) states that Bright Water (TAP) could improve the oil recovery up to 20% over the field life. BP
has several field cases, such as Milne Point and Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, with success rate of 75% in Bright
Water implementation (Collins, 2010). In Prudhoe Bay alone, over 90 TAP treatments were performed and
SPE-200667-MS 3

showed positive results in improving waterflood sweep efficiency, resulting in substantial incremental oil
recovery, which were more economical than other well works (Thrasher et al., 2016).
Low salinity waterflooding (LSW) involves the injection of water with salinity close to that of fresh
water. Since 1990, the EOR potential of LSW was studied intensively. Several experimental studies, such
as Jadhunandan and Morrow (1991) and many others later, showed the effect of water composition in
oil recovery (Sheng, 2014). Due to the complexity of the nature of water-oil-rock interactions, many
chemical and physical mechanisms have been suggested, although no mechanism has been attributed as the
main contributor to the EOR effect (Austad et al., 2010). Fines migration, multi-component ion exchange,
wettability alteration, double layer expansion and pH change are some of the main common mechanisms
reported in the literature (Bartels et al., 2019; Sheng, 2014). A review of the mechanisms behind the LSW
improved oil recovery is beyond this study, and it will not be further discussed.
LSW results in the reduction of residual oil saturation and change in the shape of the relative permeability
curves (Santo & Muggeridge, 2018). Collins (2012) states that coreflood experiments showed that residual
oil saturation reduced up to 8%, only when salinity is reduced below 7000 ppm, see Figure 3. Jerauld et
al. (2006) modelled LSW by assuming linear dependence between salinity and the shape of the relative
permeability between the lower and upper salinity threshold, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3—Drop in Sor as a function of salinity (Collins, 2012)

Figure 4—Salinity dependence of relative permeability curves (Jerauld et al. 2006)

Coreflood experiments performed by BP showed that an incremental oil recovery of 13% OOIP when
injecting water with 1,400 ppm salinity, and formation water salinity of 28,000 ppm (Sheng, 2014). Endicott
field in Alaska showed a successful field application of LSW. LSW resulted in an increase in oil production
rate, a decrease in water production rate and reduction in the remaining oil saturation (Bartels et al., 2019).
The injection of combined polymer and low salinity waterflooding showed an enhancement in oil
recovery and reduction in water production rates (Santo & Muggeridge, 2018). Low water salinity is often
used when HPAM polymer is used in reservoirs with high salinity formation water, when ower concentration
of polymer is required to achieve the desired water viscosity (Santo & Muggeridge, 2018). Unfortunately,
4 SPE-200667-MS

there is still no field case study evaluating the performance of low salinity-polymer flooding (Santo &
Muggeridge, 2018). Al Kalbani et al. (2018) and Santo and Muggeridge (2018) evaluated field performance
of low salinity-polymer flooding using reservoir simulation and reported incremental oil recovery of 4%
and 15-42% respectively compared with high salinity polymer flooding.
Seawater is injected into the reservoir to maintain pressure and improve oil recovery. It may pose serious
risks due to the deposition of certain minerals and scale formation as a result of the interaction between
the injected water and formation water. Scale is defined as a hard-inorganic crystalline deposit that forms
due to the precipitation of mineral compounds from water (Mackay, 2005). Scale may precipitate deep in
the reservoir, which is not of concern, and it may even has a positive effect, (Mackay et al., 2006), but it
becomes a more serious problem when it happens near the wellbore, in the wells or in the production system
(Al Kalbani et al., 2018). The area near the wellbore of production wells is considered to have the greatest
tendency of scale precipitation where the potential of brine mixing is higher due to flow convergence,
turbulent flow and water coning (Patroni Zavala et al., 2008). Barium Sulphate (BaSO4) is one of the most
common oil field scales and the least soluble scale. BaSO4 precipitation occurs when two incompatible
waters mix (Mackay, 2005), usually Barium rich formation water and Sulphate rich injected seawater.
Incompatible waters mean they interact when mixed, resulting in an incompatible solution.
(1)
Scale precipitation can be predicted by monitoring the field water chemistries or by running simulation
models that replicate the chemical reactions and thermodynamic behaviour of the field. The concentration
of Barium and Sulphate ions at the producer can give indication of the level or amount of expected
scale precipitation. Hu and Mackay (2016) and Al Kalbani et al. (2019) used Barium and Sulphate ions
concentration as a function of water pore volume injected to indicate the possibility of scale problem. Al
Kalbani et al. (2018) also shows the expected cumulative mass of Barium Sulphate precipitation of different
EOR methods by using ions concentration in the produced water assuming favourable reaction conditions.
Saturation ratio (SR) and scaling index (SI) were also used for scaling prediction in many publications
such as Mackay et al. (2006) Hu and Mackay (2016) and Ferguson (2011). SR is the ratio of Ion Activity
Product (IAP) to the solubility Product (Ksp) (Ferguson, 2011). SI is log10(SR). Table 1 illustrates the
interpretation of SR and SI. IAP refers to the ion concentration and activity of Barium and Sulphate.
Ksp(BaSO4) is the equilibrium constant of Barium Sulphate in the aqueous solution and it is a function of the
thermodynamic conditions such as temperature and pressure (Fan et al., 2012; Ferguson, 2011).

Table 1—Interpretation of SR and SI (Ferguson, 2011)

(2)

(3)

Modelling BaSO4 scale formation requires some definition of the reaction kinetics which depends on
fluid front flowing velocity. Scale formation kinetic can be characterized using a dimensionless number
SPE-200667-MS 5

known as Damköhler number, Da (Equation 3), which is a ratio of the reaction rate to the fluid flowing
velocity (Knapp, 1989).

(4)

In the nearby area of the injector, the front velocity is fast, making low values of Da. Therefore, a reaction
rate assuming kinetic conditions is considered. However, at slow flowing front velocities such as at the
middle of the reservoir, equilibrium conditions maybe assumed to model the reaction.

Objective and Methodology

This study aims to investigate the impact of different EOR techniques including low salinity waterfloofing
and polymer flooding with Thermally Activated Polymer (TAP) as in-depth conformance control method,
in oil recovery considering BaSO4 scale precipitation risk, as a result of different mixing profiles between
the injected and formation brines.

Methodology
Three simple 2D models were constructed to simulate the different EOR methods. 2D areal homogeneous
model was initially used to compare polymer flooding with WF and LSW. To investigate TAP method,
2D vertical heterogeneous model and 2D areal heterogeneous models were built, see Figure 5. Table 2
summarizes the main fluid and models properties used.

Figure 5—Permeability map for 2D areal heterogeneous (left) and 2D vertical heterogeneous (right)
6 SPE-200667-MS

Table 2—Fluid properties and models properties

Low Salinity Waterflooding (LSW) Simulation Approach. The most common approach to simulate LSW
reported in the literature is by modifying relative permeability as a function of water salinity (Sheng, 2014).
Table 3 shows the injected water and formation water salinities for WF and LSW simulation models. The
LSW reduced concentration of Sulphate is similar to the LSW EOR project in Alaska (Al Kalbani et al.,
2018).

Table 3—Formation and injectant salinities (modified after Al Kalbani et al., 2018)

Two sets of relative permeability curves were used for the high salinity water and low salinity water,
shown in Figure 6 (Sorop et al., 2015). The simulator interpolates between these relative permeabilities
depending on the salinity.
SPE-200667-MS 7

Figure 6—Relative permeabilities for low salinity and high salinity water (Modified after Sorop et al., 2015)

Precipitation of Barium Sulphate Simulation Approach. Barium Sulphate precipitation was incorporated
by adding the reactant and products Stoichiometric coefficients as shown in equation 1 using the keywords
STOREAC and STOPROD respectively in STARS simulation data file. Reaction rate of Barium Sulphate
precipitation is assumed to be 1000 day-1 (Mackay, 2003). The keyword FREQFAC is used to assign the
reaction rate.
Polymer Flooding Simulation Approach. Polymer flooding behaviour and its related effects are dependent
of many factors, such as concentration, temperature, water salinity, viscosity shear thinning or thickening
behaviour, adsorption, permeability reduction and degradation rate. Viscosity change with temperature,
shear rate and salinity were modelled using relationships from literature shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.
With increase in temperature, viscosity decreases. Figure 8 shows that viscosity decreases with increase in
water salinity at 1000 ppm polymer concentration and shear rate 5.68 s-1. Polymer viscosity also depends
on shear rate and polymer concentration. Figure 9 shows that viscosity decreases with increase in shear
rate and increases with concentration. The injected polymer concentration was assumed to be 1,500 ppm
for both high salinity and low salinity brine cases. Polymer adsorption onto the reservoir rock is shown in
Figure 10, the maximum adsorption is assumed to be 25 ug/g rock (Vermolen et al., 2014).

Figure 7—Polymer viscosity change with temperature (Vermolen et al., 2011)

8 SPE-200667-MS

Figure 8—Polymer viscosity dependence on water salinity (modified after Vermolen et al., 2011)

Figure 9—Polymer viscosity change with shear rate and concentration (Lee et al., 2009)

Figure 10—Polymer adsorption versus concentration

Rock permeability is affected by the level of adsorption which can be described as a permeability
reduction factor (RKα).

(5)

(6)

Where RKα is permeability reduction factor, RRFT is residual resistance factor, Adsi is adsorption at block
i, Adsmax is maximum adsorption, ki,abs is the absolute permeability, ki,α is phase effective permeability and
kr,α is phase relative permeability. For the base case of polymer flooding, RRFT equal to 1 is used which
means no permeability reduction effect.
TAP Simulation Approach. Several approaches of modelling TAP are described in Garmeh et al. (2012).
The main approach is single component approach in which TAP is injected as a single chemical component
SPE-200667-MS 9

and remains as a single component, but some of its physical characteristics such as viscosity and adsorption
change. TAP fluid, that is inactive at the beginning, is injected for a period with a treatment slug of 0.1 PV.
TAP fluid becomes active as function of temperature, as the fluid moves further away from the injector. The
activation of TAP is modelled as a function of time and temperature.
Reaction rate of TAP activation is modelled based on both time and activation energy using equation 7
and Table 5. Where A is frequency factor (Arrhenius factor), Ea is activation energy, R is gas constant and
T is temperature. A is assumed to be 1010 day-1. Once TAP becomes activated, its viscosity increases to 22
cP and the maximum adsorption is 0.3 mg/g rock. The RRFT at maximum TAP concentration, 5000 ppm,
is assumed 80 as shown in Table 4. Figure 11 shows TAP activation in the 2D vertical model.

Table 4—TAP properties before and after activation for the base case (Garmeh et al., 2012)

Table 5—Assumed activation energy versus temperature

Figure 11—Schematic of TAP activation. Temperature (a), Adsorption

(b), Activated TAP mole fraction (c) and water resistance factor (d).
10 SPE-200667-MS

(7)

Results and Discussion

2D Areal Homogeneous Model
Using the homogeneous model, four cases were compared, high salinity WF, LSW, polymer flooding and
low salinity polymer flooding. Polymer and LSW were injected in secondary mode as injection starts from
day 1 to simplify the comparison. In all scenarios, fluids are injected for two Pore Volume (PV). TAP is not
included, since TAP will not be effective if there is no reservoir heterogeneity.
Recovery Factor. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the oil recovery factor and oil production rate respectively
for the four cases. WF performed very poorly in terms of oil recovery, resulting in the lowest oil rate and
the highest water cut. This is due to the low mobility control leading to an unstable water front, resulting in
bypassed oil and hence early water breakthrough. Figure 14 and Figure 15 show how the water front for the
WF case, which is dispersed and smeared out due to the unfavourable mobility ratio. The injection of lower
salinity water in LSW increased oil recovery by approximately 8% due to the reduction in the residual oil
saturation and alteration of the relative permeability curves which resulted in higher oil rate and lower water
cut compared to WF. Reducing the residual oil saturation produces an oil bank in front of the water front.

Figure 12—Oil RF versus water PV injected of the 4 flooding cases in the 2D areal homogeneous model

Figure 13—Oil rate and water cut versus water PV injected of the 4 flooding scenarios in the 2D areal homogeneous model
SPE-200667-MS 11

Figure 14—Oil saturation after 120 days

Figure 15—Oil Saturation versus distance between the injector and producer

Polymer flooding provides 10% more recovery than WF. The addition of polymer increases water
viscosity and provides better mobility control to the water front leading to stable front. This enhances the
areal displacement efficiency, hence, higher oil recovery. Injecting polymer combined with low salinity
injection brine results in the highest oil recovery of 78% (about 25% more than the WF case). The reason
behind the high performance of low salinity polymer flooding is the synergy between the polymer and the
low salinity brine. Lower salinity water increases the viscosity of the polymer, see Figure 8, which results
in higher water viscosity, 11 cP, compared to the high salinity polymer flooding, 4 cP. Therefore, in the case
of low salinity polymer flooding, the better mobility control in addition to the EOR effect of low salinity
water delivers the highest oil recovery.
Potential Scale Risk. Scale risk was investigated by evaluating the precipitation of Barium Sulphate, and
the corresponding scale risk at the producer, determined by the saturation index, SI. WF and high salinity
polymer flooding shows the highest amounts of Barium Sulphate precipitation in the reservoir, see Figure
16. This is due to the higher amount of SO42- injected with seawater, 3000 ppm, compared to the low salinity,
100 ppm. In addition, there is more precipitation near the producer well due to higher potential for mixing
around the wellbore.
12 SPE-200667-MS

Figure 16—BaSO4 precipitation in lb/bbl

The precipitation amount of BaSO4 in the reservoir is relatively small to the large volume of the
reservoir, however it can become a serious problem, especially near the wellbore. The maximum amount
of precipitated BaSO4 is 0.065 lb per bbl of reservoir pore volume, observed in the case where high salinity
water is injected. Carman-Kozeny porosity-permeability relationship was used to study the impact of BaSO4
precipitation. The results show that the precipitation does not cause significant changes in porosity and
permeability.
By observing the produced ions concentration, WF shows an early sharp drop on Ba2+ concentration and
very early breakthrough of SO42- caused by the breakthrough of the injected water, as shown in Figure 17,
due to the high velocity of the injected fluid and the issue of viscous fingering. When the SO42- front breaks
through, high concentration of Ba2+ is also being produced, resulting in the high potential of early BaSO4
scale formation, indicated by SI in Figure 18.

Figure 17—Mass fraction of Ba and SO4 versus water PV injected in the 4 flooding cases in the 2D areal homogeneous model
SPE-200667-MS 13

Figure 18—SI and SR versus water PV injected of the 4 flooding cases in the 2D areal homogeneous model

Polymer flooding shows a delay in the drop of Ba2+ and breakthrough of SO42- concentrations. Polymer
provided more stable front and hence slower velocity of the water front. Moreover, the stable polymer front
reduces the mixing areas of the formation and injected brines, causing shorter co-production period of the
scaling ions and lowering produced water rates, which reduces the scaling risk compared to the WF case.
Due to the high salinity of the injected water, high concentrations of Ba2+ and SO42- are being produced
during the co-production period, resulting in high risk of scale formation, pointed out by SI, Figure 18.
LSW delays the drop in Ba2+ concentration and the breakthrough of the low SO42- concentration even
more. The injected water has low concentration of SO42- (100 ppm), which makes it the limiting ion in the
BaSO4 precipitation reaction, resulting in slower consumption of the Ba2+ ions, which explains the delay
in the drop of Ba2+ concentration and elongating the co-production period. Lower SI is obtained due to the
injection of lower water salinity, indicating lower scale formation risk but for longer period, see Figure
18. Therefore, this case may experience longer scale treatment periods, but lower volume of inhibition
chemicals per treatment may be required. Low salinity polymer flooding shows the biggest delay in the
drop in Ba2+ and increase of SO42-, because of the high sweep efficiency caused by the synergy between the
low salinity water and polymer which gives stable water front and lower residual oil, and the fact that the
injected SO42- concentration is low, 100 ppm. By the time the low SO42- concentration breaks through, most
of the Ba2+ has been produced, resulting in a smaller co-production period, lower SI and lower amount of
water produced, which means lower scale formation risk.

2D Heterogeneous Models
A TAP treatment was implemented in the two constructed heterogeneous models, 2D areal and 2D vertical,
see Figure 5. TAP is implemented to reduce water flow in the high permeability zones, diverting the flow into
the lower permeability zones. Two additional cases were added, TAP combined with high salinity seawater
brine and another with made up low salinity injected brine.
Recovery Factor. As expected, WF resulted in an early water breakthrough and poor sweep efficiency.
Water travelled very fast through the high permeability channel in the middle of the areal model, see Figure
19, and through the high permeability layer in the vertical model, see Figure 20. LSW performed better
than WF as it reduces residual oil saturation, resulting in better recovery. Polymer flooding provided more
stable displacement and reduces viscous fingering and hence better sweep efficiency. Low salinity polymer
flooding results in very stable displacement and more oil recovered from the low permeability zones, as
shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20.
14 SPE-200667-MS

Figure 19—Oil saturation after 300 days in 2D Areal model

Figure 20—Oil saturation after 105 days in 2D Vertical model

When TAP is implemented both combined with high salinity water and low salinity water, injected water
is diverted from the high permeability channel, Figure 19, and also the high permeability layer, Figure 20,
due to the resistance created by the TAP. This resulted in good sweep of oil from the low permeability zones.
Low salinity polymer injection and low salinity TAP were the best in terms of oil recovery. In the areal
model, Figure 21, both result the same oil recovery, 72%, by the end of the injected two pore volumes,
with the low salinity TAP being slightly faster in recovery increase. In the vertical model, the low salinity
polymer flooding provides 2% extra recovery than the low salinity TAP at 2 PV of injection due to the better
mobility control provided by the polymer viscosity.
SPE-200667-MS 15

Figure 21—Oil RF versus water PV injected in the 2D areal model (Top) and 2D vertical model (Bottom)

To assess and compare TAP and Polymer flooding performance, cross flow investigation was done in the
2D vertical model. More water cross flow occurred from the high permeability layer 3 to the adjacent lower
permeability layers 2 and 4 in the TAP case compared to polymer flood, Figure 22. This results in higher
oil cross flow from layer 2 and 4 to the high permeability layer in front of the blocked area as illustrated
in Figure 23. However, in the case when TAP and polymer are combined with low salinity make up brine,
almost the same amount of crossflow was observed.

Figure 22—Water and oil cross flow in layer 2 to 3 (left) and 3 to 4 (righ) in High salinity polymer flooding and TAP
16 SPE-200667-MS

Figure 23—Schematic plot of water and oil cross flow

Potential Scale Risk. Cases which involve the injection of high salinity water shows the highest amount of
BaSO4 precipitation in the reservoir due to the high SO42- concentration in the injected seawater, as shown in
Figure 24 and Figure 25 for the 2D areal and vertical models respectively. Higher precipitation occurred at
the boundary between high permeability (thief zone) and low permeability zones because of larger mixing
areas between Ba2+ and SO42- at these boundaries. Higher precipitation occurred in the case of high salinity
polymer flooding and high salinity TAP, due to injected SO42- movement into the low permeability areas,
where there is more contact and mixing with the formation brine, containing Ba2+, and hence higher BaSO4
precipitation. In cases where low salinity water is injected, lower precipitation occurred due to the low and
limited concentration of SO42- in the injected water.

Figure 24—BaSO4 precipitation in lb/bbl (2D areal model)

SPE-200667-MS 17

Figure 25—BaSO4 precipitation in lb/bbl (2D vertical model)

Figure 26 and Figure 27 show the produced ions concentrations in the 2D areal model and 2D vertical
model respectively. Both show that in WF, water quickly breaks through due to viscous fingering and the
fast flow in the thief zones. This results in early breakthrough of SO42- and drop in Ba2+, with similar results
to the homogeneous model case. High salinity polymer flooding delayed the breakthrough of SO42- and
drop in Ba2+ because of the higher water viscosity, resulting in a more stable displacement compared to WF.
There is a noticeable rise of Ba2+ and drop in SO42- for the high salinity polymer in the 2D vertical model
from 0.2 to 0.6 PV of injection, representing more formation water flow from the lower permeability zones
by the more stable polymer front. LSW delays the drop in Ba2+ and breakthrough of SO42- concentrations
even more as LSW reduces the residual oil saturation, which causes an increase in oil production rate and
decrease in water relative permeability and the fact that the injected SO42- is at low concentration, 100 ppm.

Figure 26—Mass fraction of Ba and SO4 versus water PV injected of the 2D areal model
18 SPE-200667-MS

Figure 27—Mass fraction of Ba and SO4 versus water PV injected of the 2D vertical model

The implementation of TAP delays water encroachment to the producer through the high permeability
channel and the high permeability layer by diverting the water path to the lower permeability zones. This
delays the breakthrough of SO42- and drop in Ba2+ concentrations. The low salinity TAP and low salinity
polymer flooding result in the biggest delay in the drop of Ba2+ and the increase of SO42- concentrations,
Figure 26 and Figure 27. Low salinity polymer flooding provides stable displacement due to the high
viscosity of water provided by the synergy between polymer and low salinity water, reducing the residual
oil saturation and provided better sweep from the low permeability zones which results in a delay in the
drop of Ba2+ and the increase of SO42- concentrations. Low salinity TAP provides good sweep from the
low permeability as the injected water was diverted from the thief zone and also reduces the residual oil
saturation causing a delay in the drop of Ba2+ and the increase of SO42- concentrations. The small peaks
in Ba2+ concentration after the initial drop, see Figure 26 and Figure 27, are due to the breakthrough of
formation water from low permeability regions. Low salinity polymer flooding and low salinity TAP show
more gradual decrease in Ba2+ concentration compared to the other cases. This is caused by a better sweep
efficiency which results in more formation water being produced from the low permeability zones. In
addition, as the injected water has low concentration of SO42-, SO42- becomes the limiting ion which means
lower amount of Ba2+ is being consumed by reacting with SO42-.
Cases with high salinity injected water show higher SI, Figure 28, which indicates higher scale formation
risk. This is because when SO42- breaks through at the producer, the produced water also contained high
concentration of Ba2+. On the other hand, cases with low salinity water show that when SO42- breaks through,
lower concentration of Ba2+ is being produced. For this reason and because of low concentration of SO42-
in the injected water, lower SI is observed. However, due to the longer co-production period caused by a
higher Ba2+ concentration from the low permeability zones, scale risk will be lower but for a longer period.
SPE-200667-MS 19

Figure 28—SI and SR versus water PV injected of the 6 flooding cases in the 2D
areal heterogeneous model (Top) and 2D vertical heterogeneous model (Bottom)

Scale Management. Scale management is one of the most important challenges in flow assurance for oil
companies. In addition to lost revenue as a result of scale related productivity decline, companies spend
millions of dollars annually in scale inhibition and removal cost. As the results indicated, different EOR
techniques result in different scale formation risk and scale management. Waterflooding showed high and
early potential for scale formation risk at the producer, which would require injecting large volumes of
inhibitor chemicals for scale treatment at early stages with high scale inhibitor concentration.
The application of high salinity polymer flooding and high salinity TAP delays the onset of the potential
risk of scale precipitation at the well, reduces the co-production period and reduces the volumes of the
produced water. However, both showed high SI which indicates high risk due to the high sulphate ions
concentration in the injected water. Therefore, it suggests the need of more effective treatments for a shorter
period, than the WF case. This also carriers high risk if the squeeze treatment job was not very effective
or not successful.
Low salinity waterflooding, low salinity polymer flooding and low salinity TAP showed the lowest SI,
as a result of injecting low salinity water with low SO42- concentration. These EOR techniques delayed
the onset of scale precipitation at the producer, but they also have longer Ba2+ and SO42- co-production
period, especially in the heterogeneous system, which elongates the period of scale precipitation potential.
20 SPE-200667-MS

Although later scale treatment with lower inhibitor concentration would be required, the longer period of
treatment, especially in the low salinity water, might require larger volumes of inhibitor chemicals. The
shorter scaling period and the lower volumes of produced water in the low salinity polymer and low salinity
TAP may reduce the total required inhibitor volume and cost compared to the low salinity water flood. For
these reasons, the evaluation of different EOR techniques to be implemented in the field should consider
both the benefits from the incremental oil recovery and the cost and risk of scale management.

Conclusions
Different recovery mechanisms showed different displacement behaviour and sweep efficiency which
impact oil recovery and BaSO4 scaling risk. The following points summarize the main conclusions:

• Waterflooding resulted in early breakthrough and high water cut especially in the heterogeneous
cases, due to the viscous fingering and high velocity in the thief zone. This resulted in higher risk
of BaSO4 scale formation occurring at an earlier time compared to the other cases.
• Polymer flooding increased the stability of the water front resulting in higher oil recovery and
delayed and reduced the potential BaSO4 precipitation risk compared to the WF case.
• The implementation of TAP showed very positive results, as it resulted in diverting the injected
water path from the thief zone into the lower permeability regions and hence increased oil recovery.
TAP resulted in higher BaSO4 precipitation in the reservoir as more mixing occurred in the low
permeability regions. It also delayed the sulphate breakthrough at the producer, which delayed the
onset of scale formation at the producer, but for a longer period.
• The injection of low salinity water caused a decrease in the residual oil saturation and consequently
increased oil recovery. Due to the low SO42- concentration in the injected water, low salinity water
imposes lower risk of BaSO4 scale precipitation. However, it resulted in longer co-production
period of Ba2+ and SO42-, since lower consumption of Ba2+ by in-situ precipitation in the reservoir.
• Combining low salinity in polymer flooding and TAP showed much higher incremental oil recovery
than when high salinity water is used. In addition to reducing the residual oil saturation, low salinity
water helped maintaining high polymer viscosity, which provides higher stability of the water front
and thus better sweep efficiency. In homogenous system, low salinity polymer delays the onset of
scale formation in the producer and reduces the scaling period with lower water production rates,
hence, lower scaling risk. However, in heterogeneous system, low salinity with TAP or polymer,
the scaling period may be extended, due to more Ba2+ production from these zones, but at lower
scale risk.

Nomenclature
Adsi Adsorption in Block i
Adsmax Maximum Adsorption
Ea Activation Energy
2D Two Dimensional
Ba2+ Barium Ion
BaSO4 Barium Sulphate
Ca2+ Calcium Ion
CaSO4 Calcium Sulphate
CMG Computer Modelling Group
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
H2O Water
SPE-200667-MS 21

HCO3- Bicarbonate Ion

HPAM Partially Hydrolysed Polyacrylamide
IAP Ion Activity Product
Ksp Solubility Product
LSW Low Salinity Waterflooding
M Mobility Ratio
NaCl Sodium Chloride
PV Pore Volume
RF Recovery Factor
RK permeability reduction factor
RRF Residual Resistance Factor
SI Saturation Index
SO42- Sulphate Ion
SR Saturation Ratio
TAP Thermally Activated Polymer
WF Waterflooding

References
Al Kalbani, M. M., Jordan, M. M., Mackay, E. J., Sorbie, K. S., & Nghiem, L., 2019. Barium Sulphate Scaling and Control
during Polymer, Surfactant and Surfactant-Polymer Flooding. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/193575-
MS.
Al Kalbani, M.M., Mackay, E.J., Sorbie, K.S., Nghiem, L., 2018. Impact of Polymer EOR and Salinity on Barium Sulphate
Scale Risk. Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). doi:10.2118/190724-ms.
Alvarado, V., Manrique, E., 2010. Enhanced Oil Recovery, Enhanced Oil Recovery. Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/
C2009-0-30583–8.
Austad, T., Rezaeidoust, A., Puntervold, T., 2010. Chemical Mechanism of Low Salinity Water Flooding in Sandstone
Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). doi:10.2523/129767-ms.
Bartels, W.B., Mahani, H., Berg, S., Hassanizadeh, S.M., 2019. Literature review of low salinity waterflooding from a
length and time scale perspective. Fuel. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2018.09.018.
Collins, I. 2010, Not so small: Large amounts oil recovery from applying colloidal particles, Bright Water, BP plc.
Collins, I. 2012, low Salinity Waterflooding, BP plc.
Fan, C., Kan, A., Zhang, P., Lu, H., Work, S., Yu, J., & Tomson, M. (2012, June 1). Scale Prediction and Inhibition for Oil
and Gas Production at High Temperature/High Pressure. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/130690-PA.
Ferguson, R.J., 2011. Mineral scale prediction and control at extreme TDS. In International Water Conference. ESWP,
Orlando, FL, USA (p. 77).
Garmeh, G., Izadi, M., Salehi, M., Romero, J. L., Thomas, C., Manrique, E.J., 2012. Thermally Active Polymer To Improve
Sweep Efficiency of Waterfloods: Simulation and Pilot Design Approaches. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
15, 86–97. doi:10.2118/144234-pa.
Gbadamosi, A.O., Junin, R., … Yusuff, A.S., 2019. An overview of chemical enhanced oil recovery: recent advances and
prospects. International Nano Letters. doi:10.1007/s40089-019-0272-8
Hu, Y., & Mackay, E., 2016. Analysis of Mineral Reactions Occurring in the Gyda Field Under Seawater Injection
with the Help of Geochemical Non-Isothermal Model and Produced Water Data. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/179911-MS.
Jadhunandan, P.P., Morrow, N.R., 1991. Spontaneous imbibition of water by crude oil/brine/rock systems. In Situ 15,
319–345.
Jerauld, G. R., Webb, K. J., Lin, C.-Y., & Seccombe, J., 2006. Modeling Low-Salinity Waterflooding. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/102239-MS.
Knapp, B., 1989. Spatial and temporal scales of local equilibrium in dynamic fluid-rock systems, Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 1955–1964.
Lee, S., Kim, D. H., Huh, C., & Pope, G. A., 2009. Development of a Comprehensive Rheological Property Database for
EOR Polymers. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/124798-MS.
Mackay, E. J., 2003. Modelling of In-Situ Scale Deposition: The Impact of Reservoir and Well Geometries and Kinetic
Reaction Rates. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/74683-MS.
22 SPE-200667-MS

Mackay, E. J., Sorbie, K. S., Kavle, V. M., Sorhaug, E., Melvin, K. B., Sjursaeter, K., & Jordan, M. M., 2006. Impact of In
Situ Sulphate Stripping on Scale Management in the Gyda Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/100516-
MS.
Mackay, E.J., 2005. Scale Inhibitor Application in Injection Wells to Protect Against Damage to Production Wells: When
does it Work?, in: SPE European Formation Damage Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/95022-
MS.
Patroni Zavala, J.A., Mackay, E.J., Vazquez, O., Boak, L.S., Singleton, M.A., and Ross, G., 2008. The Cost and Value
of Field, Laboratory, and Simulation Data for Validating Scale Inhibitor Treatment Models. Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE). doi:10.2118/114106-ms.
Roussennac, B., Toschi, C., 2010. Brightwater® Trial in Salema Field (Campos Basin, Brazil). Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE). doi:10.2523/131299-ms.
Santo, A., Muggeridge, A., 2018. An Investigation into the Benefits of Combined Polymer-Low Salinity Waterflooding.
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). doi:10.2118/192111-ms.
Sheng, J.J., 2014. Critical review of low-salinity waterflooding. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.05.026.
Sorop, T.G., Masalmeh, S.K., Suijkerbuijk, B.M.J.M., van der Linde, H.A., Mahani, H., Brussee, N.J., Marcelis, F.A.H.M.,
and Coorn, A., 2015. Relative Permeability Measurements to Quantify the Low Salinity Flooding Effect at Field Scale.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/177856-MS.
Standnes, D., Skjevrak, I., 2014. Literature review of implemented polymer field projects. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 122, pp.761–775.
Thrasher, D., Nottingham, D., Stechauner, B., Ohms, D., Stechauner, G., Singh, P. K., Angarita, M. L., 2016. Waterflood
Sweep Improvement at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/179572-MS.
Vermolen, E. C. M., Van Haasterecht, M. J. T., Masalmeh, S. K., Faber, M. J., Boersma, D. M., & Gruenenfelder, M.
A., 2011. Pushing the envelope for polymer flooding towards high-temperature and high-salinity reservoirs with
polyacrylamide based ter-polymers. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/141497-MS.