You are on page 1of 38

ASPEK LABORATORIUM UNTUK

MENUNJANG PERENCANAAN WATER FLOODING DAN WATER FLOODING IMPROVEMENT

Workshop : Bandung, 2 Desember 2009

Prepared by : LEMIGAS - Water Flood Team

Research and Development Centre For Oil and Gas Technology

LEMIGAS
JL. CILEDUG RAYA, CIPULIR, KEBAYORAN LAMA JAKARTA 12230 , PO. BOX 1089 JAKARTA 10010 PHONE : 021-7394760, 7394422 (7 LINES) Ext. 1427, FAX : 021-7222978

CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2

Background
Objective

II. PROCEDURE, RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS


2.1 Source of samples 2.2 Core analysis (basic parameters)

a. Permeability, porosity and descriptions


b. Pore throat distribution 2.3 Crude oil analysis

2.4

Water analysis and other properties

CONTENTS

(Continued)

2.5 Determination of injection water quality. a. Compatibility or not between injection water (IW) with formation water (FW) ? b. Scaling problem ? c. Emulsion block problem ? d. Bacteria problem ? e. Dissolved oxygen problem? f. Corrosion problem ? g. High total suspended solids concentration

and high relative plugging index value ?


3

CONTENTS
2.6 Problem solving.

(Continued)

a. Incompatible water IW with FW b. Scaling problem c. Emulsion block problem d. Bacteria problem e. Dissolved oxygen problem f. Corrosion problem

g. High total suspended solids concentration


and high relative plugging index value

CONTENTS

(Continued)

2.7 Water Rock Compatibility Tests


2.8 Water Flooding Laboratory Tests

III. CONCLUSIONS

I. INTRODUCTION
I.1 Background a. The decrease of oil production. b. The cumulative oil production has approached ultimate primary recovery. I.2 Objective To set up scope of works based on standard operational procedure (SOP), which are specially focused on complete

water, crude oil & core analysis, determination of injection


water quality (before and treatment), rock compatibility and water flooding laboratory tests
6

IW3

Water - GS

River water

River water

Produced water

Formation water

Difference of water quality

Figure - 2.1 Source of samples


Nama Sumur Nomor Sampel Kedalaman (ft) Length, cm Diameter, cm 2 Acre, cm Bulk Volume, cc Core Weight, gr Grain Volume, cc Pore Volume, cc, (measured) Air Permeability, mD Porosity, % Grain density, gr/cc : : : = = = = = = = = = = I Nama Sumur - 38 Nomor Sampel 7A Kedalaman (ft) 3166.46
Length, cm 5.400 Diameter, cm 3.800 2 Acre, cm 11.335 Bulk Volume, cc 61.242 Core Weight, gr 121.611 Grain Volume, cc 45.944 Pore Volume, cc, (measured) 15.298 Air Permeability, mD 37.130 Porosity, % Grain density, gr/cc 24.979 : I - 38 : 6B : 3160.05 = 5.740 = 3.800 = 11.335 = 65.098 = 131.415 = 49.326 = 15.772 = 152.400 = 24.228 = 2.664

2.647

SD : Gy,hd, vf-fg, sbang-sbrnd,mod-w srtd, qtz, sl mica, v sli arg, SD : Gy-ltbrn, hd, vf-mg, sbang-sbrnd,mod srtd, qtz, sli sli/loc calc

mica, v sli arg

Nama Sumur Nomor Sampel Kedalaman (ft) Length, cm Diameter, cm 2 Acre, cm Bulk Volume, cc Core Weight, gr Grain Volume, cc Pore Volume, cc, (measured) Air Permeability, mD Porosity, % Grain density, gr/cc

: I - 38 : 6B : 3160.05 = 5.740 = 3.800 = 11.335 = 65.098 = 131.415 = 49.326 = 15.772 = 152.400 = 24.228 = 2.664

Nama Sumur Nomor Sampel Kedalaman (ft) Length, cm Diameter, cm 2 Acre, cm Bulk Volume, cc Core Weight, gr Grain Volume, cc Pore Volume, cc, (measured) Air Permeability, mD Porosity, % Grain density, gr/cc

: I - 38 : 7A : 3166.46 = 5.400 = 3.800 = 11.335 = 61.242 = 121.611 = 45.944 = 15.298 = 37.130 = 24.979 = 2.647

SD : Gy,hd, vf-fg, sbang-sbrnd,mod-w srtd, qtz, sli mica, v sli arg, sli/loc calc

SD : Gy-ltbrn, hd, vf-mg, sbang-sbrnd,mod srtd, qtz, sli mica, v sli arg

Figure 2.2 Core Analysis (basic parameter)


Table 2.2 Pore Size Distribution
No. Well Depth (feet) Perm. (mD) Porosity (%) Pore size distribution, % PV < 0.1 mm < 0.1 - 10 mm > 10 mm

6B 7A

I # -38 I # -38

3160.05 3166.46

37.13 152.4

24.979 24.228

17 18

41 38

28 42

Tabel 2.2 Oil Hydrocarbon Compositional Analysis


COMPONENTS

CRO-1, Wt %

CRO-3, Wt %

Methane Ethane Propane i-butane n-butane i-pentane n-pentane Hexanes Heptanes Octanes Nonanes Decanes Undecanes Dodecanes Tridecanes Tetradecanes Pentadecanes Hexadecanes Heptadecanes Octadecanes Nonadecanes Eicosanes Heneicosanes Docosanes Tricosanes Tetracosanes Pentacosanes Hexacosanes Heptacosanes Octacosanes Nonacosanes Triancontanes Heneitriacontanes Dotriacontanes Tritriacontanes Tetratriacontanes Pentatriacontanes Hexatriacontanes Heptatriacontanes Octatriacontanes Nonatriacontanes Tetracontanes

CH4 C2 H 6 C3 H 8 C4H10 C4H10 C5H12 C5H12 C6H14 C7H16 C8H18 C9H20 C10H22 C11H24 C12H26 C13H28 C14H30 C15H32 C16H34 C17H36 C18H38 C19H40 C20H42 C21H44 C22H46 C23H48 C24H50 C25H52 C26H54 C27H56 C28H58 C29H60 C30H62 C31H64 C32H66 C33H68 C34H70 C35H72 C36H74 C37H76 C38H78 C39H80 C40H82 Total

0.0000 0.0221 0.1629 0.1274 0.2883 0.4006 0.3951 0.9419 1.8162 7.3997 4.0547 3.5969 5.0572 4.0538 6.8126 5.8682 5.8547 5.7156 4.3576 5.6688 3.8111 2.9937 3.3151 3.1308 2.8668 2.7796 2.7294 2.5015 2.4867 2.2560 2.3316 2.1221 1.4093 0.9040 0.8750 0.3166 0.2400 0.1093 0.0816 0.0484 0.0385 0.0586 100.0000

0 0.0084 0.0319 0.0359 0.0772 0.112 0.1172 0.5074 1.8433 4.971 5.9202 4.3084 5.3594 5.2628 6.1243 7.9412 7.001 4.8043 4.8512 5.2039 3.3483 2.614 2.6758 2.5965 2.3238 2.4395 2.2876 2.2254 2.2204 2.2989 2.1825 2.1124 1.6968 1.3498 1.2893 0.6684 0.465 0.2954 0.1926 0.1188 0.0801 0.0377 100.0000

Table 2.4.1 The Results of Injection Water and Formation Water Analysis With Using API RP45 Method
Laboratory Tests Dissolved Solids Cation (mg/l) Sodium, Na (calc) Calcium, Ca Iron, Fe
++ ++ ++ +

IW1 - GS

FW - 1

IW3 - River water

FW - 3

Unit mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 837.80 109.10 15.90 0.00 70.00 850.20 80.80 7.40 0.00 11.00 1.10 12.10 0.00 3.40 0.00 644.90 92.90 9.80 4.50 0.60

Magnesium, Mg Barium, Ba
++

(total)

Anion (mg/L) Chloride, Cl Bicarbonate, HCO3 Sulfate, SO4 Hydroxide Other Properties Specific Gravity, 60/60 oF pH @ 77 oF Total hardness Hydrogen Sulphide Total equivalent, NaCl TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) TSS (Total Suspended Solids) Resistivity (ohm - meter)
= =

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

1,338.90 379.10 11.00 0.00 0.00 1.0058 7.85 125.00 0.00 2,414.60 2,820.00 22.75 1.32 @ 125 0F

1,160.40 550.30 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.0043 8.00 88.20 0.00 2,250.60 2,720.00 245.00 1.41 @ 125 0F

17.90 9.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0078 5.85 30.25 Nil 33.00 40.30 62.00 > 10

856.90 568.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0078 7.8 272.43 Nil 2,173.70 5,410.00 78.00 101.75

Carbonate, CO3

mg/l mg/l mg/l

(ohm - meter)

2.5.1 Results of Water Compatibility Tests

300.00 250.00
245.00

100.00
78.00 73.80
166.00 115.00

TSS (mgr/L)

200.00 150.00 100.00

TSS (mgr/L)

80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00

69.80

65.70

62.00

59.50

50.00 0.00 0 % IW1 + 100 % FW1 25 % IW1 + 75 % FW1 50 % IW1 + 50 % FW1 75 % IW1+ 25 % FW1

22.75

100 % IW1 + 0 % FW1

0.00
0 % IW3 + 25 % IW3 + 50 % IW3 + 75 % IW3 + 100 % IW3 100 % FW3 75 % FW3 50 % FW3 25 % FW3 + 0 % FW3

Mixing Ratio
Mixing Ratio

Figure 2.5.1a The results of water compatibility tests between IW1 GS with FW1

Figure 2.5.1b The results of water compatibility tests between IW3 RW with FW3

11

Scaling Problem and Solving

12

Table 2.5.2.1 Results of CaCO3 Scaling Index Tendency and CaSO4 Solubility Calculations With Using Stiff and Davis Method
No. Laboratory Tests Units Injection Water IW1 - GS IW3 - RW

1 2 3 4 5 6

Calcium, Ca+2 Bicarbonate, HCO3Carbonate, CO3= Sulfate pH CaCO3 scaling Index (SI) Scaling Index at 77 oF Scaling Index at 140 oF Scaling Index at 175 oF Remarks CaCO3 scale at 77 oF CaCO3 scale at 140 F CaCO3 scale at 175 F
o o

ppm ppm ppm ppm

109.10 379.10 0.00 11.00 7.85

12.10 9.20 0.00 0.00 5.85

0.87 1.58 2.04

-3.65 -2.80 -2.51

SI > 0, Formed SI > 0, Formed SI > 0, Formed meq/l meq/l meq/l meq/l 0.2292 25.93 25.93 25.65 Solubility > than Actual CaSO4 conc. Unformed

SI > 0, Formed SI > 0, Formed SI > 0, Formed 0.0000 21.61 21.52 18.67 Solubility > than Actual CaSO4 conc. Unformed

Actual CaSO4 conc. Solubility at 77 oF Solubility at 140 oF Solubility at 175 oF Remarks CaSO4 scale

13

IW1 - GS + 0 ppm scale inhibitor


100.00
10.00

IW3 - RW + 0 ppm Alum


y = 1.6587e-0.0314x R2 = 0.9123 1.00

Flow Rate (ml/second)

10.00 1.00 y = 4.9971e-0.0084x 0.10 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 R = 0.9686
2

Flow Rate (cc/second)

0.10

0.01 0 50 100 150 200

Cumulative Volume (ml)

Cumulative Volume (cc)

Figure 2.5.2.1 The Result of Relative Plugging Index (RPI) of IW1 GS before treatment

Figure 2.5.2.2 The Result of Relative Plugging Index (RPI) of IW3 RW before treatment

TSS = 22.75 ppm, RPI = 31.87

TSS = 62 ppm, RPI = 96.09

14

IW1 + 10 ppm scale inhibitor


Flow Rate (mL/second)
Flow Rate (mL/second)
100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0 200 400 600 800 1000 y = 3.3644e R2 = 0.913
-0.0007x

IW1 + 20 ppm scale inhibitor


100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

y = 3.7302e-0.0009x 2 R = 0.8994

Cumulative Volume (mL)

Cumulative Volume (mL)

[ TSS,ppm ] dan RPI

50 40 31.87 30 22.75 20 10 0 3.67 4.43 (TSS, ppm) RPI


82.26 96.10

100.00 % Inhibition 50.00 Efficiency 0.00


1 IW 0 +1 pp m Eff 1 IW 0 +2 pp m

1.75 2.73

IW1 - GS + 0 ppm Inhibitor

IW3 RW + 10 ppm Inhibitor

IW3 RW + 20 ppm inhibitor

Eff

Injection water

IW1 - GS Injection Water (No and With Scale Inhibitor)

Figure 2.6.2.1 Influence of scale inhibitor On TSS and RPI of IW1 GS injection water

Figure 2.6.2.2 Inhibition Efficiency of CaCO3 scale with 15 scale inhibitor in IW1 GS injection water

Flow Rate (cc/second)

IW3 - RW + 30 ppm Alum


Flow Rate (cc/second)
100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0 100 200 300 y = 5.0165e-0.0027x R2 = 0.9433

IW3 - RW + 60 ppm Alum

100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250


y = 4.2355e-0.0027x R2 = 0.9449

Cumulative Volume (cc)

Cumulative Volume (cc)

150

[ TSS,ppm ] dan RPI

TSS, ppm

(RPI

100 62 50

96.09

8 0
IW3 - RW + 0 ppm Alum

10.93

4 6.93
IW3 - RW + 60 ppm Alum

IW3 - RW + 30 ppm Alum

Injection water

Figure 2.6.2.2 Influence of Alum On TSS and RPI of IW3 RW injection water

16

Emulsion Block Problem and Solvings


Qualitative tests Quantitative tests

IW1-GS IW1-GS

IW1-GS + rev.S

100 % T r a n s m i t t a n c e

80

60
CH3

40

20

CH2

0 3200

3100

3000 2900 Wavenumbers (cm-1)

2800

2700

2960 cm-1 for CH3 dan 2925 cm-1 for CH2 Qualitative Kualitatif Oil content in water by Infra Red Spectrophotometer

Sebelum penambahan Reverse Demulsifier

Setelah penambahan Reverse Demulsifier

2.6.3 Emulsion Block Problem and Solving

Oil Content (ppm)

100.00

Inhibition Efficiency 85.24 %


37.21

50.00
5.49 6.33 8.56

0.00
IW S -G 1 1 S -G +1 p 0p 1 m -S p 0p m 8 -7 A +1 S -G p 0p m 8 -6 A

IW

IW

+1 S -G

IW

Influence of Reverse Demulsifier on Oil Content in IW1 - GS Injection water


19

Bacteria Problem and Solving

SULFATE REDUCING BACTERIA


Reasons bacteria can cause a lot of problem : 1. Bacteria can conduct splitting of cell is very quick. 2. Several bacteria cells can increase population double in 20 minutes. 3. If under ideal condition, where from a bacterium can form colonies

(containing million of bacteria cells) in several hour.

21

Table 2.5.4

The Results of SRB Determination


Sample IW1 - GS IW3 - RW Results (colonies/cc) 100 < 10

IW1 - GS

IW3 - RW

Figure 2.5.4.1 Photographs of Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Tests Results

22

Table - 2.6.4 Results of Total bacteria Count Determination Before Treatment With Biocide
Water sample IW1 - GS Type of Bacteria Bacillus Panthothenticus Bacillus Pumilus Bacillus Subtilis Bacillus Panthothenticus Bacillus Coagulans Total bacteria Count (colonies/cc) 1,950

IW3 - RW

2,550

Total Bacteria Count (colonies/cc)

2500.00 2000.00 1500.00 1000.00 500.00 0.00

1950

530 450 360

330 280 210

3000.00 2500.00 Total Bacteria 2000.00 Count 1500.00 (colonies/cc) 1000.00 500.00 0.00

2550

1980 1195 980 160 110 60

6 6 5 5 6 6 5 -B -B -B -B -B -B -B pm ppm ppm ppm pm ppm ppm 0 p 5 10 15 5 p 10 15 S + GS + S + S + S+ S+ S+ G G G -G -G -G 1- 11IW IW IW1 IW1 IW IW1 IW1

5 6 6 5 5 6 6 -B -B -B -B -B -B -B pm ppm ppm ppm pm ppm ppm p 0 p 5 10 15 + 5 10 15 W+ W + W + W + W W+ W+ R -R R R R -R 3-R 3 - 3IW IW3 IW3 IW3 IW IW IW3

Influence of Biocide - B6 on Total Bacteria Count in Injection water

Influence of Biocide B5 on Total Bacteria Count in Injection water

Figure 2.6.4 Influence of Biocide on Total Bacteria Count in Injection Water

23

Dissolved Oxygen Problem and Solving

2.6.5 The Dissolved Oxygen Problem and Solving

10.00 Dissolved Oxygen in Water (ppm)


4.83

10.00 Dissolved Oxygen in Water (mg/L)


4.83 3.82 2.47 4.50 2.43

5.00

3.82 2.44 2.39 2.08 2.29 4.50 1.78

5.00

2.77

2.73 2.71

0.00

0.00

-P -D -P -P -D -P -P -P m m m m m m m m pp 0 pp 5 pp 0 pp pp 0 pp 5 pp 0 pp 0 1 + 0 3 .7 + +1 3 .7 S + S+ W W RW+ + - G GS + 1 - G - GS - R RW -R 1 3 3 3IW IW IW1 IW 13IW IW IW IW

-D -D -D -D -D -D -D -D m m m m m m m m pp 0 pp 5 pp 0 pp pp 0 pp 5 pp 0 pp 0 1 + 0 3 .7 + +1 3 .7 S + S+ W W + W+ - G GS + 1 - G - GS - R RW 3 - R - R 1 3 3 IW IW IW1 IW 13IW IW IW IW

Influence of Oxygen Scavanger - P on Dissolved Oxygen in Injection water at 24 oC

Influence of Oxygen Scavanger - D on Dissolved Oxygen in Injection water at 24 oC

25 Figure 2.6.5 Influence of Oxygen Scavenger on Dissolved Oxygen in Injection Water

Corrosion Problem and Solving

2.6.6 Determination of Corrosion Rate (Electrochemically) Before and After Treatment with Corrosion inhibitor

Corrosio n Rate (mpy)

1.00
0.533

Efficiency (%)

0.50 0.00

0.218

0.277 0.002 0.097

100.00
59.13 48.08

99.58

81.88

50.00 0.00

0.00

-G S

pp m

-G S

pp

pp

pp

pp m

pp m

IW

10

20

20

10

IW

10

10

pp m

-G S+

20

-G S

-G S

-G S

-G S

-G S

-G S

IW

IW

IW

IW

IW

IW

IW

IW1 - GS Injection Water

IW1 - GS Injection Water

2.6.6 Influence of Corrosion Inhibitor on Corrosion Rate (Electrochemically)

IW

-G S

20

pp m

27

2.7 High TSS and High RPI Problem Solving


High TSS Concentration and High RPI can be reduced by Filtration and Addition of Chemicals into Injection Water

60.00
[TSS], ppm
38.45

60.00
31.85

40.25

39.18 9.53 8.42

RPI

40.00
13.73

40.00 20.00 0.00


10.33 8.67

12.15 8.29

20.00 0.00
IW - A

6.53

7.69

5.65

IW - A IW - B 0.45 mikron 20 - 25 mikron 20 ppm inh + 20-25 mikron Filtrate, 11 mikron

IW - B 0.45 mikron 20 ppm inh + 20-25 mikron Filtrate, 11 mikron

Injection Water

Injection Water

Figure A1 Influence of Filtration and Scale Inhibitor On Total Suspended Solids Concentration

Figure A2 The Results of Relative Plugging Index (RPI) of Injection Water


28

2.8 Rock Compatibility Laboratory Test

2.00 1.60 1.20 0.80 0.40 0.00 0 30 60 90 120

2.00 1.60

If, the trend of curve below :


Kfw , mD

1.20 0.80 0.40 0.00 150

Kiw , mD

Decrease of Permeability drastically

CUMMULATIVE PORE VOLUME, PV Formation Water Injection Water

Figure : 1 Rock Compatibility Test, Core No. 6A, I 38

250.00
Air Formasi
Permeabilitas air, md

Air Injeksi

200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 Pore Volume 15.0 20.0

30

EOR Equipment For Core Flood Lab. Test

Figure 1. Enhanced Oil Recovery Equipment

The Procedure of Water Flooding Laboratory Tests


The process of water flood to improve oil recovery by using core media that is carried out in EOR laboratory, is described schematically below :

1. Core is saturated by formation water, which is expected saturation 100%.

2. Formation water is injected into core, so that the core is filled fully by formation water.

Core Fw Fw

3. Oil is injected into core, then formation water is displaced out and core is filled by totally oil. However, not all of formation water is displaced out of the core, part of amount of formation water is left in the core, this is called connate water.

Core Oil Oil

4. Formation water is injected into core, then oil in the core is displaced by formation water until oil is not out of the core anymore. However, not all of oil is displaced out of the core, part of amount of crude oil is left in the core, this is called residual oil saturation (Sor1).

Core Fw Residual oil Oil, then Fw

5. Determination of oil recovery factor by using water flood method. Injection water is injected into core, then oil is displaced and produced. Recoverable oil is recorded. The remaining amount of oil in the core is called residual oil saturation (Sor2). In this stage, oil recovery factor and injected water cumulative (volume of injection water) can be calculated.
Core

Injection water

Residual oil

Oil recovery factor

Table 2.8.1 The Results of Oil Recovery Factor After Primary and Secondary Oil Recovery Methods
I # 38, CORE NO.7A, I FIELD
Core No. Permeability, Porosity Connate Water Ka Ko,avg Kw, avg Saturation, Swc mD mD mD % % After First Phase Sor1 WID1 RF1 % % After Second Phase Sor2 WID2 RF2 % % The Incremental of Oil Rec. Factor, Calculated from The First Phase

7A

37.13

5.79

3.55

24.94

38.11

30.06

4.63

31.83

28.23

15.38

33.66

1.83

100 90

Oil Recovery Factor, %

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Water Injected, PV

Secondary

Primary Primary

Table - 3.8.2 SUMMARY OF THE LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AFTER THE FIRST AND SECOND PHASES OF OIL RECOVERY FACTOR I # 38, CORE NO.6B, I FIELD
Core No. Permeability, Porosity Connate Water Ko,avg Kw, avg Saturation, Swc mD mD % % After First Phase Sor1 WID1 RF1 % % After Second Phase Sor2 WID2 RF2 % % The Incremental of Oil Rec. Factor, Calculated from The First Phase

Ka mD

6B

152.40

9.99

116.18

24.18

21.83

42.20

2.16

35.97

39.88

9.82

38.29

2.32

100 90 80

Oil Recovery Factor, %

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 Water Injected, PV 8 10 12

Primary

Secondary

Figure 3.9.6 Oil recovery vs Water Injected I # 38, Core no. 6B, I Field

CONCLUSIONS

1. IW1 GS dan IW3 RW indicate poor water quality, because both waters have high total suspended solids and high relative plugging index values. 2. IW1 GS has positive scaling index, CaCO3 scaling problem can be prevented with addition of scale inhibitor into injection water, whereas IW3 RW indicates negative scaling index, so CaCO3 is not found in the IW3 - RW injection water. 3. IW1 GS and IW3 RW are compatible with formation water. 4. After treatment with 20 ppm P scale inhibitor, IW1 GS shows excellent water quality with 1.75 ppm TSS concentration and 2.75 RPI value and 96.10 % inhibition efficiency of CaCO3 scale. 5. Octane is dominant component in IW1 GS injection water and tetradecane in IW3 RW injection water.
36

CONCLUSIONS (continued)
6. TSS problem in IW3 RW injection water can be minimized with addition of 60 ppm alum into the injection water, TSS concentration is 4.00 ppm and RPI values is 6.93. 7. a. Biocide is used to reduce total bacteria count in IW1 GS and IW3 RW. b. Emulsion block problem is prevented with addition of reverse demulsifier. c. Corrosion problem is reduced with using corrosion inhibitor. d. Dissolved oxygen is minimized by oxygen scavanger 8. Water-rock compatibility test is done to know about influence of injection water on core permeability.

9. High or low oil recovery factor , not only influenced by core permeability, but also good or poor injection water is injected into the core.

37

Thank You Hopefully the Best For Us