SPE-183086-MS

Low Salinity Waterflooding for a Carbonate Reservoir Experimental

Evaluation and Numerical Interpretation

Ramez A. Nasralla, Hilbert A. van der Linde, Fons H. M. Marcelis, Hassan Mahani, Shehadeh K. Masalmeh,
Ekaterina Sergienko, Niels J. Brussee, Sebastiaan G. J. Pieterse, and Saptarshi Basu, Shell

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

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
Several laboratory tests have already demonstrated the potential of lowering/manipulating the injected brine
salinity and composition to improve oil recovery in carbonate reservoirs. However, laboratory SCAL tests
are still required to screen low salinity waterflood (LSF) for a particular field to (i) ensure that there is
LSF response in the studied rock/oil/brine system, (ii) find the optimal brine salinity, (iii) extract relative
permeability curves to be used in the reservoir simulation model and quantify the benefit of LSF and (iv)
examine the compatibility of injected brine with formation brine and rock to de-risk any potential formation
damage or scaling.
This paper presents an extensive LSF SCAL study for one of the carbonate reservoirs and the
numerical interpretation of the tests. The experiments were performed at reservoir conditions using
representative reservoir core plugs, crude oil and synthetic brines. The rock was characterized using
different measurements and techniques such as porosity, permeability, semi-quantitative X-ray diffraction
(XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and mercury intrusion capillary pressure (MICP). The
characterization work showed that the plugs can be classified into two groups (uni-modal and bi-modal)
based on porosity/permeability correlation and pore throat size distribution.
The SCAL experiments were divided in two categories. Firstly, spontaneous imbibition and qualitative
unsteady-state (USS) experiments were performed to demonstrate the effect of low salinity brines. In
addition, these experiments helped to screen different brines (seawater and different dilutions of seawater) in
order to choose the optimal brine composition that showed the most promising effect. Secondly, quantitative
unsteady-state (USS) experiments were conducted and modeled using numerical simulation to extract
relative permeability curves for high salinity and low salinity brines by history-matching production and
pressure data. Moreover, the pressure drop was monitored during all tests to evaluate any risk of formation
damage.
The main conclusions of the study: 1- The spontaneous imbibition and qualitative USS experiments
showed extra oil production due to wettability alteration when switching from formation brine to seawater
or diluted seawater subsequently, 2- Oil recovery by LSF can be maximized by injection of brine at a
certain salinity threshold, at which lowering the brines salinity further may not lead to additional recovery
improvement, 3- The LSF effect and optimal brine salinity varied in different layers of the reservoir, 4- The
2 SPE-183086-MS

quantitative USS showed that LSF can improve the oil recovery factor by up to 7% at core scale compared
to formation brine injection.
This paper proves the potential of LSF to improve oil recovery in carbonate rock. However, the results
demonstrate that the effect of LSF may vary in different layers within the same carbonate reservoir, which
indicates that LSF effect is very dependent on the rock properties/mineralogy.

Introduction
Low-salinity waterflooding (LSF) in sandstone rock has attracted substantial interest in the E&P industry
due to its potential for incremental oil recovery over a conventional water flood. Numerous laboratory and
some field experiments have shown that oil recovery from sandstone can be improved in many cases by
lowering the total salinity and manipulation of ionic content of the injected water (see the review by Morrow
and Buckley 2011 and the references therein).
The main benefit of LSF is acceleration of oil production due to wettability alteration and on top of that
improved injectivity, lowering of reservoir souring and scaling compared to produced water re-injection
(PWRI). It is operationally similar to conventional waterflooding and has usually lower CAPEX and OPEX
than other IOR/EOR techniques.
It is envisaged that the same concept can be extended to carbonate rocks. Various laboratory studies have
shown a positive low salinity effect for carbonates such as contact angle measurements (see for instance
Alotaibi et al. 2012, Chandrasekhar and Mohanty 2013, Mahani et al. 2015a), imbibition tests (Webb et al.
2005, Zhang and Austad 2006, Strand et al. 2006, Zhang et al. 2007, Romanuka et al. 2012) and coreflooding
experiments (Yousef et al. 2011, Gupta et al. 2011, Al-Harrasi et al. 2012, Nasralla et al. 2014, Shehata et
al. 2014). In some cases though, very small or even negligible effects were observed (Fernø et al. 2011).
Furthermore, the LSF effect can be reproduced at a larger scale as demonstrated in a single-well chemical
tracer test (Yousef et al. 2012).
From the published studies it is found that the brine chemistry has an important role as the level of
salinity. The aforementioned studies indicated that divalent ions such as Mg2+, Ca2+ and SO42− (referred to
as potential determining ions – PDI's) play an important role in this process and the lack of response to
low salinity in some of the reported cases has been related to the lack of these ions in the brine. Austad et
al. (2011) and Al-Attar et al. (2013) recognized that there is an optimum combination of these ions which
produces the highest recovery. Noteworthy compared to sandstones, the LSF effect has been observed at
higher salinities. However there can be still scope for LSF in carbonates at salinity ranges often used for
sandstone rocks (< 5000 – 7000 ppm).
The incremental oil released has been attributed to wettability alteration of carbonate surfaces via
mechanisms such as dissolution of calcite (Hiorth et al. 2010, Yousef et al. 2011) or anhydrite (Austad et
al. 2011) from rock, change of surface charge (Zhang and Austad 2006, Rezaei Gomari et al. 2006) or a
combination of both (Zaretskiy 2012, Al-Shalabi et al. 2015). The low salinity effect is likely to be driven by
the electrokinetics at oil-brine and carbonate-brine interfaces following change of electric charge/potential
at carbonate-brine and oil-brine interfaces (Mahani et al. 2015a and b). Consequently, this triggers increased
repulsion between oil and carbonate which can result in recession of contact line and change wettability
state to less oil-wet. Moreover, the contribution of the calcite dissolution mechanism may not be relevant
at field scale (Nasralla et al. 2015)
The carbonate oilfield under study in this paper has been screened as a potential candidate for low
salinity waterflooding. Therefore, an extensive laboratory work was performed to demonstrate the positive
effect of LSF, identify suitable waters for low salinity effect and quantify the potential oil recovery by
LSF for the field. Different brines were examined: seawater and its dilutions, which can be potential brines
for full field development, in addition to two available low salinity water sources at the field that can
be used for waterflood pilot: LS1 and LS2. This paper presents the experimental work including rock
SPE-183086-MS 3

characterization measurements, Amott tests, and coreflood conducted on core plugs from this reservoir.
In addition, numerical interpretation of the coreflood test and quantification of LSF effect are provided.
Furthermore, the paper investigates the effect of both lowering the brine salinity and changing the brine
composition on recovery factor, and discusses the impact of rock properties on LSF effect.

Crude Oil
A stock tank oil sample was collected from one of the wells in the field under study and was used for
initializing all the core samples. For some of the coreflood experiments, crude oil was displaced by decalin
for better displacement efficiency during waterflood. The density and viscosity of the crude oil and decalin
at different temperatures are given in Table 1.

Table 1—Density and viscosity data of the crude oil and Decalin

Crude oil Decalin

Temperature Density Viscosity Density Viscosity

[°C] [g/cm3] [mPa.s] [g/cm3] [mPa.s]

20 0.9311 179.2 0.8806 2.40

30 0.9243 99.6 0.873 1.95

70 0.897 17.9 0.8428 0.99

100 0.8771 8.2 0.8202 0.66

Brines
Several synthetic brines were used in this study. Formation brine (which is of very high salinity, with TDS
= 239,000 mg/l) was used to initialize and age all the samples. Seawater (44,000 mg/l), and different low
salinity brines were tested in Amott and coreflood experiments to compare the performance of these brines
to produced water re-injection (PWRI). The low salinity brines were different dilution factors of seawater,
LS1, and LS2. The diluted seawater brines were used as they can be the potential injection brines for full-
field development, while LS1 and LS2 brines are available low salinity sources in the field and were tested
as potential LS brines for waterflood pilot. The densities and viscosities of the brines are given in Table 2.
°
Table 2—Densities and viscosities of the different brines at 70 C.

3.3x dil.
FW(239,400 SW(43,700 10x dil. SW 25x dil. SW LS1(13,100 LS2 (7,900
Measurement SW(13,300
mg/l) mg/l) (4,370 mg/l) (1,750 mg/l) mg/l) mg/l)
mg/l)

Density [g/cm3] 1.132 1.009 0.988 0.981 0.979 0.988 0.984

Viscosity [mPa.s] 0.71 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 0.43

Rock Samples Characterization

More than 80 plugs, mainly sets of two duplicate samples from the same depth/layer, were drilled from
different sections in the reservoir. The plugs are 38 mm diameter and were trimmed to perfect cylinders of
50 mm length and subsequently Soxhlet cleaned using refluxing toluene followed by azeotropic mixture of
chloroform/methanol/water. The cleaned plugs were dried in a vacuum oven at 95°C until constant weight,
and then the basic properties were measured. The plugs used for SCAL tests were saturated with formation
brine at 100%, and then de-saturated with crude oil using centrifuge until reaching the initial water saturation
~15% or below. Afterwards, the samples were placed in vessels filled with crude oil in the oven for ageing
4 SPE-183086-MS

at reservoir temperature (100°C) for 28 days. After performing the tests, the samples were taken to Dean-
Stark setup to confirm the remaining oil saturation obtained.

Routine core analysis

Figure 1 shows the porosity plotted against Klinkenberg-corrected air-permeability (Kkb). Based on this
porosity-permeability correlation and the microscopic observations, the plugs were divided into 2 main
groups (RRT1 and RRT2). Both RRT1 and RRT2 have porosity ranges of 15-25% but the permeability
values of RRT1 are 2-20mD, while they are between 20 and 1000mD for RRT2.

Figure 1—Cross-plot of porosity vs permeability (Kkb) at 400psi sleeve pressure.

Each core plug was photographed and CT-scanned prior to analysis. Together with the routine core
analysis data these scans were used to optimally select sets of (nearby duplicate) plugs for the low salinity
waterflood tests.

MICP
Similar to the above conventional plugs, special plugs (15 mm diameter and 22 mm length) were drilled,
cleaned and analyzed for basic properties for MICP (Mercury Intrusion Capillary Pressure) analysis. In total
16 samples were tested for MICP; at least two plugs from each core section to cover some core variation.
The data is presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 which show the capillary pressure curves and pore throat size
distributions for all the samples in a combined plot for each rock type group.
SPE-183086-MS 5

Figure 2—MICP collective plots for (A) RRT1 and (B) RRT2.

Figure 3—Collective pore throat size distribution plots for groups (a) RRT1 and (b) RRT2.

Of the prepared MICP samples, 10 are within class RRT1 and 6 samples are from class RRT2. RRT1
samples show a uni-modal nature for pore-throat size distribution, where the pore-throats are mainly 1-2
µm in size but also larger throats occur. RRT2 samples have a bi-modal distribution with 2 distinct peaks
in pore-throat sizes: 1-2 µm & 30-100 µm.
The drainage capillary pressure of RRT1 samples has high entry pressure and a clear plateau indicating
a rather uniform pore size. Whereas, the entry pressure for plugs from group RRT2 is low and Pc starts to
increase around Sw=60%. For more details about the classification approach and MICP data from a similar
carbonate field, refer to Masalmeh and Jing (2007).

XRD and SEM

The X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) measurements were performed on 9 plug trim-ends (1 sample from each
section). Both semi-quantitative XRD data of whole rock fraction analysis and the clay-size fraction analysis
were conducted. The samples are composed mainly of calcite (98-100%), with minor quartz (0-2%) and
traces of clays (kaolinite, illite/smectite). Clearly this indicates that the rocks can be classified as limestones.
Identical samples to those analysed by XRD were prepared for SEM analysis. XRD results show very
low amounts of clay-minerals in these samples. Due to the very small grain size of these clays (a few
micrometres) high magnification electron microscopy images were made. All samples contain clay to some
extent and occasionally some quartz is present. A few samples have remnant quartz replaced by calcite. All
samples contain accessory pyrite as very small single crystals or as (framboidal) aggregates. Other heavy
minerals are absent. Due to the very low amount of clay present and the very fine grained nature of the
6 SPE-183086-MS

matrix, the potential effect of the clay on the low salinity behaviour is expected to be very limited. An SEM
image of one of the samples is presented in Figure 4, together with elemental silicium and aluminium maps.

Figure 4—SEM image of fine grained micrite (plug from RRT1 rock type) with dispersed kaolinite (aluminium
in blue) and quartz (silica in pink). Light grey matrix is calcite, bright white is pyrite and black are pores.

SCAL Experiments Discussion

Several SCAL tests were performed to assess the potential of LSF to improve oil recovery. These
experiments are Amott tests, Qualitative and Quantitative (USS) corefloods. More details about the program
design and the protocol of the tests can be found in Masalmeh et al. 2014.

Amott tests
The Amott tests are used as a way to determine the spontaneous imbibition of the plugs since the amount
of water, which imbibes spontaneously into the samples, gives an indication of their initial rock wettability.
Moreover, it can also be used to assess the ability of any chemical EOR fluid to alter the rock wettability
towards water-wetness by affecting the positive part of the imbibition Pc curve.
All the tests were conducted on aged samples with crude oil at connate water saturation. The pressure of
the glass Amott cells is atmospheric, thus the tests cannot be done at the reservoir temperature of 100°C.
For this reason the tests were conducted at 70°C. Two types of tests were performed: secondary mode and
tertiary mode.
In secondary mode, different plugs were put into different brines: 3 plugs in formation brine to assess the
initial rock wettability. In addition 3 plugs were tested with seawater, and 3 plugs with diluted seawater (10x
dil. SW) to be compared to the ones tested with formation brine. Three samples were from RRT1 (Group
A) and six from RRT2 (Group B&C), so that one RRT1 and two RRT2 samples were tested with each brine.
After Amott tests were completed, the samples were taken to the centrifuge to measure the forced imbibition
part of the Pc curve (negative part). Table 3 gives the plugs and brines used in secondary mode tests and
Table 4 provides the properties of these plugs.

Table 3—List of plugs and brines used for secondary mode Amott tests

Experiment Plugs Brine 1

1 12A, 19B, 29A FW

2 07B, 26B, 28B SW

3 08B, 18B, 28A 10x dil. SW

SPE-183086-MS 7

Table 4—Basic properties of the samples used for secondary mode Amott.

permeability
- Klinkenberg
Grain permeability Core Core
Rock Porosity and Pore
Sample ID density -brine- [400 length diameter Swi [PV]
Type [%] turbulence volume [ml]
[g/ml] psi] (mD) [cm] [cm]
corrected
Kkb (mD)

RES_07B RRT1 21.4% 2.704 9 9 12.2 5.007 3.805 0.12

RES_08B RRT1 21.7% 2.703 8 7 12.3 5.006 3.805 0.11

RES_12A RRT1 19.7% 2.768 8 7 11.2 5.012 3.804 0.11

RES_18B RRT2 16.6% 2.706 86 63 9.5 5.015 3.807 0.12

RES_19B RRT2 15.7% 2.705 35 31 8.976 5.018 3.810 0.13

RES_26B RRT2 25.3% 2.697 51 50 14.4 5.009 3.806 0.10

RES_28A RRT2 23.4% 2.705 458 367 13.4 5.016 3.805 0.11

RES_28B RRT2 21.8% 2.704 295 302 12.4 5.014 3.806 0.12

RES_29A RRT2 24.9% 2.708 538 397 14.2 5.012 3.808 0.11

Furthermore, 8 tertiary mode tests were done using 8 plugs from different sections: 5 samples are from
RRT1 and three samples from RRT2 (Table 5 and Table 6). In these tests, all the plugs were first put in
formation brine until there was no more oil production. Afterwards, the formation brine was replaced with
a different brine with lower salinity, and then the brine was switched to a third brine in order to examine the
ability of the subsequent brines to alter the rock wettability further. Table 5 shows the sequence of brines
tests for tertiary mode plugs. Moreover, at each brine stage there was at least one refreshment step, where
the brine is replaced by a fresh sample of the same brine to make sure any additional production by the
subsequent brine is not due to any experimental artefact such as plugs handling.

Table 5—List of plugs and brines used for tertiary mode Amott tests

Experiment Plugs Brines Stages

Brine 1 Brine 2 Brine 3

1 04A, 22B FW SW 5x dil. SW

2 15A, 21B, 35A FW LS2 5x dil. SW

3 14B, 22A, 48B FW 5x dil. SW LS2

Table 6—Basic properties of the samples used for tertiary mode Amott tests.

permeability
Grain permeability Pore Core Core
Rock Porosity - Klinkenberg
Sample ID density -brine- [400 volume length diameter Swi [PV]
Type [%] and turbulence
[g/ml] psi] (mD) [ml] [cm] [cm]
corrected Kkb (mD)

RES_4A RRT1 24.5% 2.71 13 11 14.0 5.01 3.80 0.12

RES_14B RRT1 20.8% 2.77 13 12 11.9 5.02 3.81 0.12

RES_15A RRT1 20.5% 2.78 11 9 11.6 5.02 3.81 0.1

RES_21B RRT2 16.7% 2.70 137 94 9.5 5.01 3.81 0.15

RES_22A RRT1 20.5% 2.71 5 4 11.7 5.01 3.81 0.13

RES_22B RRT1 20.8% 2.70 6 5 11.9 5.01 3.80 0.12

RES_35A RRT2 19.8% 2.70 28 26 11.3 5.01 3.81 0.13

RES_48B RRT2 22.2% 2.70 22 20 12.7 5.02 3.81 0.11

8 SPE-183086-MS

Figure 5 shows the amount of oil produced versus time for the secondary mode tests. Formation brine
imbibed only 3-6 saturation units with the three plugs. This suggests that the rock wettability is not water-
wet, but mixed-wet or oil-wet. Comparing the amount of oil produced in Amott tests by FW to SW and
LS, it shows that SW produced more oil than FW for the three permeability ranges presented. Even though
sample 26B appears to have slightly lower final water saturation by SW compared to FW in sample 19B, it
produced more oil (8%) against (6%) but that was due to lower initial water saturation in samples 26B by
3% than sample 19B. Furthermore, LS (10x dil. SW) showed higher imbibition than both FW and SW in
the three permeability ranges. This is indicating that SW can alter the rock wettability towards less oil-wet
than FW, and similarly diluting seawater has a higher potential to alter the wettability further.
The amount of imbibed seawater, in samples with different permeability, was consistent with the
permeability, i.e. the higher the permeability the more imbibition water volume. Similarly, LS showed
higher imbibition in Group C (highest permeability) compared to Group A samples (lowest permeability).
However, the highest oil production by LS was in a sample of mid-permeability range (Group B), sample
18B. Furthermore, sample 19B imbibed more formation brine spontaneously (6%) in comparison to other
two samples that showed only 3-4% production. It appears that this section of the reservoir (samples 18-21)
has a higher recovery by spontaneous imbibition. However, we cannot conclude that this section is less oil-
wet as the USS tests done on 2 plugs from this section are showing oil-wet relative permeability curves.
Thus, more work is required to understand this.

Figure 5—Secondary Amott - Water saturation as function of time for spontaneous

imbibition tests with Formation Water, Seawater, and 10x dil. SW. Each chart is showing
a comparison between the three brines on 3 samples of the same permeability range.
SPE-183086-MS 9

The 8 plugs used for tertiary mode tests showed little oil production with FW similarly to secondary
mode tests, about 3-6 saturation units, as depicted in Figure 6. This again confirms the oil-wetness of the
reservoir. Figure 6 shows the saturation as a function of time after switching to different low salinity brines,
the sequence of brines can be found in Table 5. Three brines were tested in tertiary mode: SW, 5x dil. SW
and LS2. 5 times diluted seawater was selected in particular as it has almost the same salinity as LS2 but
different composition; this would enable us to examine the effect of changing the brine composition with
no change in the salinity meanwhile.

Figure 6—Tertiary Amott - Water saturation as function of time, after spontaneous

imbibition with Formation water the samples were placed in different low salinity brines.

When the imbibing brine was switched to a different brine in the second stage, all the samples started
to produce extra oil; the amount of oil produced varied among plugs and brines from 4 to 15 saturation
units. This is an evidence of wettability alteration due to the effect of LS brines by SW, 5x dil. SW, and
LS2. When the brine was switched to the third stage brine, there was only little extra oil production for
the samples went from SW to 5x dil. SW (1-2%). This suggests that diluted seawater may have a higher
potential to improve oil recovery compared to seawater, which is consistent with secondary mode Amott
tests. This was confirmed also by the qualitative USS tests (see following section). However, when brines
switched from 5x dil. SW to LS2 and vice versa, the samples did not produce any extra oil. This indicates
that there was no further change in the positive part of the Pc curve and saturation at Pc=0 by changing the
brine composition from 5x dil. SW to LS2 and the opposite.
Furthermore, the amount of water imbibition was different in different samples, which could be due
to the sample properties. Thus, it cannot be concluded which LS brine had a higher potential to alter
wettability when switched from FW. Moreover, sample 21B (RRT2) is showing an exceptional production
compared to other samples, which confirms our interpretation that this section of samples (18-21) is having
higher recovery by spontaneous imbibition than other sections. In addition, sample 35A (RRT2) showed
more production than sample 15A (RRT1) with SW. However, it cannot be generalized that RRT2 is more
10 SPE-183086-MS

responsive to LS than RRT1 as samples 22A and 48B showed much higher production with 5x dil. SW after
FW than 14B whereas all the samples are from RRT1. This demonstrates that there are other rock surface
characteristics that may affect the LS effect, even if the samples have similar porosity-permeability ranges
and are from the same rock type.

Qualitative USS coreflood tests

The objective of the qualitative tertiary coreflooding tests was to examine ‘qualitatively' the impact of
wettability alteration by SW or LSF injection in tertiary mode compared to FW injection. In addition, these
experiments were conducted to select the LSF brine to be used in the quantitative tests by injecting different
LS brines subsequently. The experiments were run at relatively low rates (0.025 cc/min or 0.05 cc/min)
intentionally in order not to reach Sor, and thus the LSF effect on the change of relative permeability curves
and capillary pressure can be examined. In some cases, higher rates were applied mainly to match the viscous
pressure drop obtained by formation brine to have the same balance between capillary and viscous forces,
and hence a fair comparison between the injected brines. These tests are called qualitative as they cannot
be used to extract the relative permeability curves for injected brines, which are necessary quantify the LSF
effect. For more details of the design and discussion of qualitative USS tests, refer to Nasralla et al. 2014.
In this section, 2 USS experiments are presented. The tests were performed on plugs from 2 different
sections in the reservoir; the plugs were saturated with crude oil and formation brine at connate water
saturation. All experiments were run in tertiary mode as they were qualitative and were conducted at 70°C.
In all experiments the core orientation was vertical. Injection of water was from the bottom and production
was from the top end (i.e. bottom-up injection) to attain gravity stable flow.

USS 1
The main objective of this test was to examine if SW and low salinity brines (3.3x dil. SW, LS1 and 25x
dil. SW) produce extra oil compared to FW. The sequence of experiments for this plug was the following:
FW → SW → 3.3x dil. SW → LS1 → 25x dil. SW. This plug was selected from group RRT1 which was
of low permeability (Kbrine = 25 mD), porosity of 0.27 and of unimodal pore size (1-2 micron). Figure 7
shows the oil production (in red) and the pressure drop (in blue) over the RES_05A sample.

Figure 7—Oil recovery and delta pressure profiles for plug RES_05A. The plug
was first flooded with FW and then with SW, 3.3x dil. SW, LS1 and 25x dil. SW
SPE-183086-MS 11

The first observation is that the production data shows significant capillary end effect during FW
injection. This is illustrated by the fact that, when increasing the flow rate from 0.025 cc/min to 0.20 cc/
min, significant extra oil production occurs (ΔSo ≈ 0.21). This means that the sample is non-water wet,
which is a pre-requisite for the LSF effect.
After injecting FW and establishing stable pressure and oil production profiles, we switched to SW
injection. We observed no additional oil production at 0.05 cc/min, which is not unusual given the small
pressure drop generated along the sample, which would not have been sufficient to release any capillary
trapped oil. However, when we increase the flow rate to 0.20 cc/min, we detect additional oil (ΔSo ~ 0.03),
while the pressure is similar (even lower) compared to the HS pressure at the same rate. We can, therefore,
conclude that this incremental oil is caused by the LSF effect.
Note that, since these tests are performed at low rates and we do not have independent information about
the capillary pressure curves (for HS and LS), we cannot infer whether the additional oil is produced due
to a change in capillary pressure curve, a change of relative permeability or both.
After SW, 3.3x dil. SW was injected to examine if additional oil can be recovered by reducing the
total salinity. In this step, the low rate (0.05 cc/min) was skipped because the pressure drop over core, as
experienced during SW injection, is too small to overcome the capillary pressure forces and produce extra
oil. The pressure drop with diluted SW is almost similar to SW due to similar viscosities, but extra oil (ΔSo
≈ 0.013) was produced which confirms change of wettability to less oil-wet.
In the next step, LS1 was injected following the same procedure. The total salinity of LS1 is the same as
3.3x dil. SW but the composition is somewhat different. We note that at 0.2 cc/min, further oil is produced
from the plug (ΔSo ≈ 0.019). One potential reason is the high concentration of sulfate (3,384 ppm) in LS1
compared to that in diluted SW (1,025 ppm). Sulfate, as mentioned earlier, in various studies in literature
has been recognized as an important potential determining ion (PDI) which upon adsorption on carbonate
surface, changes the electric charge of rock surface to more-negative which assists detachment of oil from
surface.
Following LS1 injection, 25x dil. SW was injected. Under the same injection rate of 0.2 cc/min, additional
oil (ΔSo ≈ 0.013) was produced. The total incremental oil recovery with SW and lower salinity brines is
equal to ΔSo ≈ 0.065.
This experiment confirmed ‘qualitatively’ that there is a positive LSF effect with both SW and diluted
SW and LS1. Since 25x dil. SW produced more oil when injected after SW, 3.3x dil. SW and LS1, it
can be concluded that 25x dil. SW has higher potential to modify wettability to less-oil wetting state.
Therefore, it can lead to highest oil recovery among other brines, SW and LS. However, extraction of relative
permeability curves from such tests by history matching is not proper as there was a too small Sw range
for each brine where its relative permeability curves were dominating the flow. Therefore, quantification of
LSF effect from this test and upscaling at the field is not feasible. Moreover, the incremental oil production
by SW and LS brines could be due to both change in relative permeability and capillary pressure. A proper
quantification of LSF effect is presented in the following sections.

USS 2
This experiment was performed using RES_36B sample with similar objectives as previous test and to
further compare the performance of diluted SW to LS1. This sample is also a low perm sample (Kbrine =
10 mD) and 0.19 porosity. This plug belongs to group RRT1. The sequence of experiments for this plug
was the following: FW → SW → 3.3x dil. SW → LS1 → 25x dil. SW.
Figure 8 shows the oil production (in red) and the pressure drop (in blue) over the RES_36B sample
during the brine injection steps. The starting injection rate at each salinity step is 0.025 cc/min (≈0.5 ft/day).
12 SPE-183086-MS

Figure 8—Oil recovery and delta pressure profiles for plug RES_36B. The plug
was first flooded with FW and then with SW, 3.3x dil. SW, LS1 and 25x dil. SW.

The first injection step was with FW. Even at this low rate considerable amount of oil was produced (ΔSo
= 0.29). To ensure that enough oil is present in the plug for the subsequent steps (e.g. Sw <0.5), higher
injection rates were skipped.
In the next step, SW was injected for about 12 PV which resulted in ΔSo = 0.07 additional production.
The pressure drop was 0.6 times lower with SW than FW which confirms that the additional oil was not
induced by increase of viscous pressure drop, rather at lower viscous pressure which is confirmation of
change of wettability to less oil-wet. Again, the additional oil could have been produced by a combination
of capillary pressure and relative permeability change towards less oil-wet.
After SW injection, 3.3x dil. SW was injected. This resulted in production increase of about ΔSo = 0.04.
Afterwards, LS1 was injected and subsequently 25x dil. SW was injected, which did not result in measurable
additional oil. This shows that both 25x dil. SW and LS1 do not have a higher potential than 3.3x dil.
SW to alter the wettability further. However, we cannot conclude from this test if these two brines have
less potential or the same as 3.3x dil. SW. Nevertheless, there was considerable amount of oil produced by
these two brines in the experiment on RES_05A. This proves that the rock has a significant role in the LSF
response, and LS brines effect varied from one section to another in the same reservoir.
Overall, the results of this test are consistent with those of RES_05A test with regard to the efficiency of
SW and 3.3x dil. SW to release more oil from the plugs by wettability alteration to less oil wetting state.

Quantitative USS
The objectives of the quantitative USS coreflood experiments were: i) Examine if there is a reduction in
Sor by LSF in tertiary mode, ii) Test if there is LSF effect in secondary mode: higher oil production due
to wettability alteration or Sor reduction, iii) Extract the relative permeability of formation brine and LSF
by history matching, iv) Quantify the LSF effect, if positive, by comparing relative permeability of LSF
to formation brine.
All the tests were performed at 100°C, which is the reservoir temperature. Based on the qualitative USS
tests, it was found that diluting seawater yields higher recovery factor than seawater. However, the optimum
dilution factor could not be determined as not all the tests were consistent, i.e. one test produced more oil
SPE-183086-MS 13

when 25x dil. SW injected after 3.3x dil. SW, but another test did not show a significant production. This
indicates that for this reservoir further dilution of the brines does not always give higher oil recovery; in
addition, the response can be different with different reservoir sections. Therefore, a dilution factor of 10
times for seawater, somewhere between 3.3 and 25 times, was selected as the ‘low salinity' brine to be
examined in this section against formation brine. For deploying LSF at the field, it would be possible to
obtain 10x dil. SW by RO (reverse osmosis) unit, which can provide fresh water to be mixed with the reject
stream from SW, to reach the target salinity (10x dil. SW).
There were some doubts that the water displacement may not be stable because of the high contrast
between oil and water viscosities. Therefore, the experiments were performed with decalin instead of crude
oil to ensure a good displacement (minimize the possibility of viscous fingering of brine due to high
viscosity of oil) because decalin is less viscous than crude oil. Having a poor displacement affects the test
interpretation (the extracted relative permeability). In these tests, all the plugs were initialized and aged with
crude oil to restore the original wettability, and then the crude oil was displaced by decalin before starting
waterflood. Based on some in-house evidences displacement of oil by decalin does not have an impact on
the initial wettability.
Four plugs were selected as 2 pairs for the USS tests: one pair from group RRT1 and the other pair from
group RRT2. The two plugs of each pair were selected from the same depth and have properties as close as
possible to each other to ensure that the 2 samples are similar enough to allow the comparison of recovery by
HS and LS. Table 7 lists the properties of the plugs used in these tests. For each pair, FW was injected in one
plug and LS brine (10x dil. SW) was injected in the other plug at connate/initial formation water saturation
(secondary mode). This allows comparing the recovery factor between the two brines in secondary mode.
Moreover, FW was followed by LS injection to examine if LS can lower Sor in tertiary mode. Furthermore,
the USS tests were history matched to extract relative permeability curves for HS and LS and quantify the
incremental oil by LS (see next section). The injection rate of each brine starts at 0.05 cc/min, which is
equivalent to field rate of 1 ft/day. Then the injection rate was ramped up in steps to minimize the capillary
end effect and reach Sor.

Table 7—List and basics data of the plugs used for the USS tests

permeability Injected Brines

Grain - Klinkenberg permeability Pore Core Core Sequence
Rock Porosity Swi
Sample ID density and turbulence -brine- [400 volume length diameter
Type [%] [PV]
[g/ml] corrected psi] (mD) [ml] [cm] [cm]
Kkb (mD) Brine 1 Brine 2

RES_47A RRT1 20.8% 2.71 11 9 12.0 5.02 3.82 0.13 FW LS

RES_46B RRT1 20.8% 2.71 15 14 11.9 5.01 3.81 0.13 LS -

RES_20A RRT2 14.8% 2.71 56 54 8.5 5.02 3.81 0.12 FW LS

RES_19A RRT2 15.0% 2.71 43 38 8.6 5.01 3.81 0.17 LS -

Tests USS-3&USS-4
The tests were performed to examine and quantify LSF effect on 2 plugs from the same depth of one of the
sections in the reservoir; the plugs can be classified as RRT1. USS-3 was a tertiary mode test where FW was
injected in secondary mode and then followed by LS in tertiary mode (Figure 9a), while LS was injected
in secondary mode in USS-4 (Figure 9b). The production profile of both tests showed that the samples are
non-water-wet: extra production at bump rates which is an indication of high negative Pc curves. Remaining
oil saturation (ROS) of USS-3 was 0.2, which is unlikely to be Sor since the sample was still producing
at the last step. Moreover, USS-3 test showed that there is no reduction in ROS by LS in tertiary mode at
this saturation range (Sw=0.8). Similarly, water saturation reached 0.83 in USS-3 by LS at end of the test;
furthermore, the sample seemed not to reach Sor at the end of the test. The pressure drop during injection
14 SPE-183086-MS

of LS in secondary and tertiary mode was stable, which demonstrated that LS did not cause any formation
damage.

Figure 9—USS3&4 pressure drop and production profile (water saturation) versus
pore volume injected performed on samples (a) RES_47A and (b) RES_46B.

Comparing the two tests showed that injection of LS resulted in higher oil production compared to HS
at low rates, as depicted in Figure 10, even though the pressure drop by LS was lower. It is well-known that
the production in short cores is mainly dependent on pressure drop in non-water-wet samples. In addition,
LS brine resulted in a lower ROS, with lower pressure drop, at the end of the test. This demonstrates that LS
Pc curve is less negative than FW Pc curve, which confirms that LS results in wettability alteration towards
less oil-wet. This also suggests that there is a change in relative permeability curves by LS, which is more
relevant to the benefit at field scale. However, this needs to be confirmed by extracting relative permeability
curves for both FW and LS, which is provided in next section.

Figure 10—Comparison between high salinity and low salinity waterflood (USS 3 & 4)
SPE-183086-MS 15

Tests USS-5&USS-6
These two tests were executed to examine and quantify LSF effect on plugs from a different section in the
reservoir. The plugs can be classified as RRT2 and have a higher permeability than plugs in previous tests,
37-54 mD. FW was injected in USS-5, and then followed by LS as depicted in Figure 11a. In USS-6, LS
was injected in secondary mode for comparison purpose with FW; the pressure and production profiles of
this test are shown in Figure 11b. The two tests indicated that the samples are oil-wet, which is in agreement
with the findings from all experiments performed on this reservoir. LS brine did not show a reduction in
ROS in tertiary mode, which is consistent with USS-3. Furthermore, by comparing FW and LS in secondary
mode (Figure 12), the extra oil production by LS was not as significant as USS 3&4 comparison. This may
suggest that LS has a lower potential to improve oil recovery in this section of the reservoir. The pressure
drop during injection of LS in secondary and tertiary mode was stable, which confirmed that LS did not
cause any formation damage during coreflood.

Figure 11—USS5&6 pressure drop and production profile (water saturation) versus
pore volume injected performed on samples (a) RES_20A and (b) RES_19B.

Figure 12—Comparison between high salinity and low salinity waterflood (USS 5 & 6).
16 SPE-183086-MS

Numerical Interpretation of USS

The USS coreflood tests were interpreted using numerical simulation to extract the relative permeability
curves for FW and LSF (10x dil. SW) and enable quantification of LSF effect when positive. A 1-D
numerical model (z-direction) was built using the Shell in-house simulator (MoReS) to mimic the coreflood
tests.
Inputs to the numerical model included the sample basic properties (absolute permeability and porosity,
initial water saturation), in addition to the fluid properties (densities, viscosities and brine salinities). The
Modified Corey function model, which was developed by Masalmeh et al. (2007), was used to generate the
relative permeability curves. The initial water saturation (Swi) and the oil end point relative permeability
at initial water saturation, kro(Swi), were directly measured and used to constrain the history matching
(HM). The other Modified Corey's parameters – residual oil saturation (Sor), water end point relative
permeability (krw(Sor)), and Corey exponents for oil (no) and water (nw) were varied to match the pressure
and production data from the experiments. Similarly, the additional parameter from the Modified Corey's
function c(Soi) was changed from zero when needed. The imbibition capillary pressure was one of the
history matching parameters as well.
The experimental data used in the history match process included pressure, oil production, and saturation
profiles along the core plug as a function of time during the flood.
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show a comparison between the relative permeability curves extracted from HM
for USS3&4 and USS5&6, respectively. LS shows a clear change in relative permeability towards less oil-
wet compared to FW in tests USS3&4, which would lead to improvement in oil recovery. However, there
was no change in relative permeability by LSF in USS-5 & 6 and hence we attribute no additional benefit
of LSF on recovery factor for this section of the reservoir.

Figure 13—A comparison between FW and LSF (10x dil. SW)

relative permeability extracted from history matching USS-3&USS-4.
SPE-183086-MS 17

Figure 14—A comparison between FW and LSF (10x dil. SW)

relative permeability extracted from history matching USS-5&USS-6.

Quantification of the LSF effect was estimated using Buckley Leveret's (BL) Analytical model for
waterflood. BL model assumes 1-D flow and 100% volumetric sweep efficiency. The assessment was done
by considering the change in the relative permeability curves of FW and LSF extracted from USS-3 & 4.
Moreover, the change in viscosity between FW and LSF is considered in BL model.
Figure 15 shows the oil recovery and water cut versus injection pore volume calculated by BL model
for FW and LSF injection in secondary mode. As a result of the wettability alteration towards less oil-wet
by LSF, the oil recovery by LSF is higher than FW although the viscosity is lower. Lower viscosity could,
in principle, lead to lower oil recovery due to the impact on displacement, but it is clear that the change in
relative permeability by LSF was more dominant than reduction in viscosity which leads to higher recovery
factor by LSF. The water cut profile of LSF showed a double step after breakthrough because of the two
flood fronts formed: one by FW which exists as connate water and the second one by LSF. In other words,
LSF pushes the connate water ahead of it, so at the flood front the relative permeability of FW are in control
of displacement. LSF results in forming an oil bank due to wettability alteration behind the flood front, thus,
this oil bank arrives after the breakthrough of connate water bank.

Figure 15—Recovery factor and water cut for FW and LSF (10x dil. SW) estimated by Buckley-Leverett.
18 SPE-183086-MS

LSF results in improvement of oil recovery by almost 6-7% OIIP compared to FW after 0.5-2 PV of
injection (Figure 15). Similarly, if the water-cut economic limit is 90-95%, the recovery factor by LSF would
be higher by 6-7% than FW. This demonstrates the potential of LSF to improve oil recovery by accelerating
oil production as a result of wettability alteration from this section of the reservoir. It is important to mention
that the magnitude of the LSF effect at the field will be different because of the sweep efficiency. However,
LS brine has lower mobility than FW, which could result in a better sweep efficiency compared to FW. In
addition, the lower density of LS could lead to better vertical sweep efficiency than FW. However, these
are field and geology specific effects and, therefore, it is strongly recommended to numerically simulate
the injection of LSF in full-field or sector models using extracted relative permeability curves in order to
estimate the benefit at field scale. This will consider the impact of the change in the relative permeability and
PVT (density and viscosity) by LSF on both the displacement and sweep efficiency, which would provide
the corresponding improvement of recovery factor by LSF at field scale.

Summary & Conclusions

A comprehensive Special Core Analysis (SCAL) laboratory study was performed on core samples from
one of the carbonate reservoirs. The objectives of the study were to: characterize the rock samples, assess
the rock wettability, extract the relative permeability and examine the potential of seawater and low
salinity brines to improve oil recovery. Based on the laboratory results and numerical interpretation of the
experiments, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• XRD measurements indicated that most of the rock samples are composed of calcite, and thus can
be classified as limestone. The plugs showed very limited amounts of quartz and traces of clay,
and it was confirmed by SEM that these clays would not have an impact on waterflood process as
they exist in very minor quantities on rock surface.
• Based on porosity-permeability correlation and MICP, the rock samples were classified into two
groups (RRT1 and RRT2). RRT1 and RRT2 have porosity values from 15-25% but permeability
range of 2-20mD for RRT1 and 20-1000mD for RRT2.
• Spontaneous imbibition tests showed little oil production with FW, which indicates that the rock
wettability of the tested samples is non-water-wet.
• Secondary mode Amott tests showed higher oil production by seawater than formation brine,
which demonstrates the wettability alteration by SW. Furthermore, diluted seawater gave higher
spontaneous imbibition than both FW and SW. This proves that diluting seawater has a higher
potential for improving oil recovery than FW and SW.
• Tertiary mode Amott tests and qualitative USS tests confirmed the wettability alteration by LS
brines. Seawater in tertiary mode showed extra oil production after formation brine due to change in
rock wettability. Furthermore, when the brine was changed subsequently from seawater to diluted
seawater more oil was produced. This proves the potential of diluted SW to improve oil recovery
more than seawater. However, the optimal dilution factor that yielded the highest production varied
in different sections of the reservoir.
• In the quantitative USS tests, LS brine (10x dil. SW) did not show a reduction in Sor after formation
brine injection. However, it showed a positive response (extra oil production) in secondary mode
in one of the two tested pairs of plugs. The other pair did not show a clear positive response to 10x
dil. SW injection. Further characterization work is required on these plugs to explain this behavior.
• Interpretation of the quantitative USS tests proved the potential of LS brine to improve oil
recovery in the pair that showed a positive LSF response in secondary mode. The extracted relative
permeability curves for FW and LS (10x dil. SW) indicated that LS can lead to extra oil recovery
of 6-7% of OIIP after injection of 0.5-2 PVs at core scale (1D flow assuming 100% volumetric
sweep efficiency) compared to formation brine.
SPE-183086-MS 19

• Overall, this work demonstrates that LSF effect is very dependent on the rock properties even
within the same reservoir as the LSF effect and the optimal brine varied in different layers.

Acknowledgement
Shell management is acknowledged for giving the permission to publish this work. We would like to thank
our Shell colleagues: Ali Fadili and Tibi Sorop for critical review of the paper, Bart Suijkerbuijk and
Mustapha Belkhodja for useful discussions during the execution of this study. The authors also thank Ab
Coorn for help with the experimental work.

References
Al-Attar, H.H., Mahmoud, M.Y., Zekri, A.Y., Almehaideb, R., and Ghannam, M. 2013. Low-salinity flooding in a selected
carbonate reservoir: experimental approach. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol 3: 139–149.
Al-Harrasi, A., Al-Maamari, R. S., and Masalmeh, S. K. 2012. Laboratory Investigation of Low-Salinity Waterflooding
for Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper SPE161468 Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, 11-14 November.
Al-Shalabi, E., Seperhrnoori, K., and Pope, G. 2015. Geochemical Interpretation of Low-Salinity Water Injection in
Carbonate Oil reservoirs. SPE Journal 20 (6): 1–15, SPE169101.
Alotaibi, M. B., Nasralla, R. A., and Nasr-El-Din, H. A. 2010. Wettability Challenges in Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper
SPE-129972 Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, USA, 24-28 April.
Austad, T., Shariatpanahi, S.F., Strand, S., Black, C.J.J. and Webb, K.J. 2011. Conditions for a Low Salinity Enhanced
Oil Recovery (EOR) Effect In Carbonate Oil Reservoirs. Energy & Fuels 26 (1): 569–575.
Chandrasekhar, S., and Mohanty, K.K. 2013. Wettability Alteration with Brine Composition in High Temperature
Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 166280 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 30
September–2 October, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Fernø, M.A., Grønsdal, R., Åsheim, J., Nyheim, A., Berge, M., and Graue, A. 2011. Use of Sulfate for Water Based
Enhanced Oil Recovery during Spontaneous Imbibition in Chalk. Energy & Fuels 25: 1697–1706.
Gupta, R., Smith, P.G., Hu, L., Willingham, T.W., Cascio, M.L., Shyeh J.J., and Harris, C.R. 2011. Enhanced Waterflood
for Middle East Carbonate Cores –Impact of Injection Water Composition. Paper SPE 142668 presented SPE Middle
East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 25-28 September, Manama, Bahrain.
Hiorth, A., Cathles, L., and Madland, M. 2010. The Impact of Pore Water Chemistry on Carbonate Surface Charge and
Oil Wettability. Transport in Porous Media 85 (1): 1–21.
Mahani, H., Keya, A., Berg, S., Bartels, W-B., Nasralla, R., Rossen, W., 2015a. Insights into the Mechanism of Wettability
Alteration by Low Salinity Waterflooding (LSF) in Carbonates. Energy & Fuels 29 (3): 1352–1367; DOI: 10.1021/
ef5023847.
Mahani, H., Keya, A. L., Berg, S., Nasralla, R.A. 2015b. The Effect of Salinity, Rock Type and pH on the Electrokinetics
of Carbonate-Brine Interface and Surface Complexation Modeling. Paper SPE 175568 presented at the SPE Reservoir
Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, 14-16 September, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Masalmeh, S., Jing, X., 2007. Improved Characterisation and Modelling of Carbonate Reservoirs For Predicting
Waterflood Performance. IPTC paper-11722 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, 4-6
December, Dubai, U.A.E.
Masalmeh, S., Abu Shiekah, I., Jing, X., 2007. Improved Characterisation and Modelling of Capillary Transion Zones in
Carbonate Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Engineering and Formation Evaluation Journal, Vol 10 (2).
Masalmeh, S. K., Sorop, T., Suijkerbuijk, B. M. J. M., Vermolen, E. C. M., Douma, S., van der Linde, H. A., and Pieterse,
S. G. J., 2014, Low Salinity Flooding: Experimental Evaluation and Numerical Interpretation, International Petroleum
Technology Conference. doi: 10.2523/17558-MS.
Morrow, N. and Buckley, J. 2011. Improved Oil Recovery by Low-Salinity Waterflooding. SPE 129421, Journal of
Petroleum Technology pages: 106–112, May.
Nasralla, R.A., Sergienko, E., Masalmeh, S.M., van der Linde, H.A., Brussee, N.J., Mahani, H., Suijkerbuijk, B.M.J.M.,
and Al-Qarshubi, I.S.M. 2014. Demonstrating the Potential of Low-Salinity Waterflood to Improve Oil Recovery in
Carbonate Reservoirs by Qualitative Coreflood. Paper SPE 172010 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, 10-13 November Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Nasralla, R.A., Snippe, J.R., Farajzadeh, R. 2015. Coupled Geochemical-Reservoir Model to Understand the Interaction
Between Low Salinity Brines and Carbonate Rock. Paper SPE-174661 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced
Oil Recovery Conference, 11-13 August, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
20 SPE-183086-MS

Rezaei Gomari, K.A., Karoussi, O., and Hamouda, A. 2006. Mechanistic Study of Interaction Between Water and
Carbonate Rocks for Enhancing Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 99628 presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference
and Exhibition, 12-15 June, Vienna, Austria.
Romanuka, J., Hofman, J., Ligthelm, D.J., Suijkerbuijk, B.M.J.M., Marcelis, A.H.M., Oedai, S., Brussee, N.J., Van der
Linde, H.A., Aksulu, H. and Austad, T. 2012. Low Salinity EOR in Carbonates. Paper SPE 153869 presented at SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 14-18 April, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Shehata, A.M., Alotaibi, M.B., and Nasr-El-Din, H.A. 2014. Waterflooding in Carbonate Reservoirs: Does the Salinity
Matter? SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, August, pp. 304–313.
Strand, S., Høgnesen, E.J., and Austad, T. 2006. Wettability Alteration of Carbonates –Effects of Potential Determining
Ions (Ca2+ and SO42-) and temperature. Colloids and Surfaces 275: 1–10.
Webb, K.J., Black, C.J.J., and Tjetland, G., 2005, A Laboratory Study Investigating Methods for Improved Oil Recovery
in Carbonates, Paper IPTC 10506, Int. Petr. Tech. Conf., Doha, Qatar.
Yousef, A. A., Al-Saleh, S., A-Kaabi, A., AL-Jawfi, M. 2011. Laboratory Investigation of the Impact of Injection-Water
Salinity and Ionic Content on Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Journal 14 (5): 578–593.
Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S., and Al-Jawfi, M.S. 2012. Improved/Enhanced Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs by
Tuning Injection Water Salinity and Ionic Content. Paper SPE 154076 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, 14-18 April, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Zaretskiy, Y. 2012. Towards Modelling Physical and Chemical Effects during Wettability Alteration in Carbonates at Pore
and Continuum Scales. PhD thesis, Herriot-Watt University.
Zhang, P., Tweheyo, M.T. and Austad, T. 2007. Wettability Alteration and Improved Oil Recovery by Spontaneous
Imbibition of Seawater in Chalk: Impact of Potential Determining Ions Ca2+, Mg2+, and SO42-. Colloids and Surfaces
301: 199–208.
Zhang, P. and Austad, T. 2006. Wettability and Oil Recovery from Carbonates: Effects of Temperature and Potential
Determining Ions. Colloids and Surfaces 279: 179–187.