Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

A comprehensive review of formation damage during enhanced oil recovery T

a,∗ b
Bin Yuan , David A. Wood
a
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
b
DWA Energy Limited, London, UK

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Injection of chemicals and thermal fluids in discovered petroleum reservoirs are becoming more commonplace to
Formation damage achieve improved recovery and sustainability of oil/gas resources. A lack of understanding on the induced
Risks & opportunities damage in subsurface reservoirs is likely to bring downside risks associated with the projects of enhanced oil
Enhanced oil recovery recovery and negative economic consequences. As a synthesis and extension of our recent work (Yuan and Wood,
Chemical flooding
2018), this paper aims to raise more awareness and promote more discussion on the mechanically, chemically,
Thermal recovery
biologically and thermally induced damage issues associated with enhanced oil recovery processes, by in-
Low-salinity water flooding
CO2 flooding tegrating the state-of-the-art modelling, laboratory experiments and field applications. Potential formation da-
mage issues are considered in the context of each specific enhanced oil and gas recovery project to answer why,
where and when formation damage issues occur, their extents and impacts, and how to control, prevent and take
advantages of such issues in various reservoir systems. Moreover, an integrated risk & opportunity assessment
and management framework is proposed to improve outcomes of diverse enhanced oil recovery projects in
practice. By providing an integrated understanding of formation damage from multi-disciplinary perspectives, it
is possible to better understand and manage petroleum extraction using enhanced oil recovery techniques.

1. Introduction 2010), interest in chemical flooding projects in US and Canada grew

The consumption of crude oil is expected to contribute 26% of the
world's energy until 2040 (I. E. A, 2014). Although the average re-
covery for major oil reservoirs is only between 20% and 40% of the
resource present in mature reservoirs, and about half of the un-
recoverable oil (∼200 billion barrels) in the United States is at rea-
sonable depths where enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques could be
applied. Such techniques improve the amount of oil extracted and offset
production declines from mature reservoirs, and by doing so help to
meet the growing demands and constraints on energy resources. They
also overcome some of the difficulties associated with discovering and
developing new oilfields. As the production of existing oil fields con-
tinues to decline, EOR has the potential to offset this decline (Fig. 1).
The IEA forecasts that the global oil produced from EOR will expand to
about 4 Mb/d in 2040 (I. E. A, 2015). However, history shows that it is
only the cost-effective EOR techniques that tend to be commercially
applied during periods when oil prices have been sufficiently high to
render these techniques economically attractive (Lake et al., 2014;
Koottungal, 2014).
Chemical and thermal EOR projects made a decreasing contribution
to the world oil production from 1986 to 2004 (Fig. 2). However, as
reported by Alvarado and Manrique (2010) (Alvarado and Manrique,
from 200 to 2010 (Fig. 2), especially in heavy oil and offshore oilfields.
Gas injection EOR projects also grew from 2000 to 2010 driven in part
by a greater uptake of CO2-injection projects. The numbers of EOR
projects (including thermal, chemical and gas injection recovery) are
highly sensitive to production costs and crude oil prices. Despite some
delay in investors reacting to shifts in crude oil prices (almost 3–4 years'
time lag), the initiation and persistence of EOR projects numbers shows
a strong positive correlation with crude oil prices, reflecting the will-
ingness and confidence, or otherwise, of investors regarding EOR pro-
jects. Hence, the profit-motivated oil companies are constantly seeking
more advanced and cost-effective EOR technologies that can sustain
profitability in volatile-oil-price markets (Muggeridge et al., 2014).
During periods of low oil prices there is increased competition for
available sources of finance and only the most profitable projects tend
to be sanctioned. In such circumstances, it is particularly desirable to
improve the efficiency of enhanced oil recovery by minimizing its po-
tential risks and costs, and by providing sustainable production im-
provements.
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is the implementation of various
techniques for increasing the efficiency of crude oil recovery from an oil
field. It includes enhanced oil recovery (thermal recovery, gas injection
and chemical flooding), secondary recovery (water and gas injection),

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bin.yuan@ucalgary.ca (B. Yuan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.04.018
Received 17 January 2018; Received in revised form 9 March 2018; Accepted 9 April 2018
Available online 11 April 2018
0920-4105/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
Fig. 1. Global production of oil and gas in World Energy Outlook (2015) by IEA
(I. E. A, 2015).
hydraulic fracturing and the drilling of horizontal and multi-lateral
wells (Walsh and Larry, 2003). Traditionally, the oil and gas industry
has not linked improved oil recovery techniques with formation da-
mage in high-oil-price environments, although formation damage is
frequently a consequence of the implementation of EOR. Civan (2015)
summarized the relevant causes of formation damage and its con-
sequences, and various approaches and techniques for formation as-
sessment, control and remediation (Civan, 2015). Formation damage
refers to the impairment of physical, chemical or mechanical properties
of petroleum-bearing formation, which primarily involves permeability
Fig. 2. The evolution of EOR projects with changes of oil price (US$/barrel) in the United States from 1970 to 2010.
288
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
damage during various processes of oil and gas recovery. The changes
of chemical-physical-thermodynamic conditions associated with EOR
techniques can result in various types of formation damage, such as,
water and gas bubble blockage, fines/sands migration, fluids-rock in-
compatibility, organic and inorganic precipitation and deposit, altera-
tions of pore surface properties, pore structures and mechanic char-
acteristics. In some cases, formation damage may itself lead to some
benefits that enhance oil recovery, for instance, improving sweep effi-
ciency thorough selected blockage of high-permeability regions caused
by fines migration (Yuan and Moghaloo, 2017; Bedrikovetsky et al.,
2011a); however, more usually, it reduces the efficiency of secondary
and tertiary recovery from the reservoir and impairs well injectivity
and/or productivity dramatically (Bedrikovetsky, 1993). Hence, in this
work, formation damage will not simply be addressed as a “problem”,
but rather as an “issue”, reflecting its potentially positive and negative
effects on well productivity and economic performance.
Porter (1989) stated that it is better to avoid formation damage in
advance than to make tremendous efforts to remediate it after it has
occurred (Porter, 1989). However, different types of formation damage
may be realized by different EOR methods, meaning that studies of a
formation's susceptibility to specific type of damage have limited
practical value if conducted without consideration of the associated
engineering activities which may, or may not, lead to that specific type
of damage. It is beneficial for oil operators to understand formation
damage specific to various EOR approaches, because it enables them to
maximize oil recovery both technically and economically by optimizing
EOR techniques in different types of reservoir paying due consideration
to relevant formation damage issues. As an extension and short sum-
mary of our previous work (Yuan and Wood, 2018), the intention here
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
is to provide a better understanding of the pros and cons of formation
damage as it occurs during the application of diverse EOR techniques.
We also provide guidelines on how to optimize the design of EOR
projects through controlling or taking advantages of formation damage.
Rather than concentrating on the fundamental theories related to
individually to EOR techniques and formation damage, here we link the
series of formation damage issues with various EOR techniques in dif-
ferent types of sub-surface reservoir, including conventional and un-
conventional oil/gas reservoirs. To do that, a comprehensive in-
vestigation is conducted on numerous published modelling and
simulation data, laboratory experiments and case studies. The results
are applied to characterize risks and opportunities of formation da-
mage, and propose a summary of new advanced technologies and
methodologies to control formation damage issues during EOR pro-
cesses in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs. Moreover,
because the extent and occurrence probability of formation damage
issues remain very uncertain in EOR cases, an integrated risk and op-
portunity assessment and management framework is proposed to assist
the search for optimum outcomes when applying improved oil recovery
techniques.
2. Formation damage during EOR: causes, characterization and
control
In the most general sense, formation damage can be defined as the
various damage mechanisms affecting the properties of a reservoir
formation (matrix and fractures) and through which the transport ef-
ficiency of multi-phase fluids (oil, gas, water, particles, droplet, foam
and emulsion) is altered. It is usually diagnosed as the changes of well
performance in terms of well injection/productivity and oil recovery
(Harper and Buller., 1986). The major damage mechanisms can be
categorized into four types, such as, mechanically, chemically, biolo-
gically and thermally induced (Faergestad, 2016). Among them, the
types of chemical damage mechanisms (Bennion, 2002) can be further
classified as, 1) fluid-fluid incompatibility (such as, inorganic scale
deposition, organic asphaltene deposition, foam/emulsion blockage,
and hydrate formation); 2) rock-fluid incompatibility (such as, clay
swelling/deflocculation, wettability alteration, and ionic/surfactant/
polymer adsorption). The mechanically induced damage mechanisms
(Sharma et al., 1992; Bedrikovetsky et al., 2011b) mainly include fines/
sands or any other types of particles migrating through the porous/
fractured media, phase trapping caused by high capillary force in multi-
phase flow (Mirzaei-Paiaman et al., 2012), and rock compaction or
dilatation caused by pressure changes. Temperature change can also
lead to the dissolution of minerals, transformation of minerals, and
temperature-dependent wettability alternation due to the loss of
thermal equilibrium (Romanova et al., 2015). In addition, the biolo-
gical activities of bacteria in reservoirs (Ezeuko et al., 2013) can cause
the souring of crude oil, erosion of minerals, and blockage of pore-
throats (with positive and/or negative impacts).
During the application of different improved oil recovery technol-
ogies, the changes of physical, chemical, thermal-electrical, mechanical
and biological environment may vary. The following sections of this
review link the mechanisms of formation damage with diverse EOR
techniques in conventional sandstone/carbonate reservoirs (Fig. 3).
2.1. Low-salinity water flooding (LSWF) for oil recovery: from novel to
mature
LSWF impacts on reservoirs were first observed when Martin (1959)
discovered the increase of oil production while manipulating the sali-
nity of injected water (Martin, 1959). Subsequently, extensive theore-
tical and experimental research has focused upon the mechanisms re-
sponsible this phenomenon. The uptake of LSWF in a wide range of
reservoirs is significant and rising for several reasons: (1) low capital
expenditure and minimal incremental operating costs for those
289
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
reservoirs already developed with water injection facilities and wells;
(2) ease of injection into most oil reservoirs; (3) high incremental re-
covery gains for light to medium gravity oil reservoirs; (4) reduction in
the scaling and corrosion of wellbore tubulars and surface-water-
handling facilities and, (5) potential avoidance of reservoir souring
(Collins, 2011).
LSWF has proved to be an effective EOR method for both secondary
(initial water flooding) and tertiary (residual oil) modes (Gamage and
Thyne, 2011). Despite its success in core experiments and field-scale
pilot studies, the multiple mechanisms induced by LSWF impacting
reservoirs and oil recovery remains poorly understood and con-
troversial (Al-Shalabi and Sepehrnoori, 2016; Atthawutthisim, 2012).
This is particularly so for the induced formation damage associated
with the technique. The major damage mechanisms associated with
LSWF (a few with positive consequences for oil recovery) are described
in the next sections.
2.1.1. Formation damage mechanism associated with LSWF enhanced oil
recovery
(1) Clay swelling, fine particles migration, detachment and
straining
Clay swelling is a widely recognized phenomenon related to for-
mation damage and can have significant negative impacts on reservoir
permeability and fracture conductivity, as well as on the effectiveness
of LSWF (Sanaei et al., 2016). Mohan et al. (1993) indicated that water
sensitivity of various reservoirs to LSWF is highly dependent on the
composition of the clays, and the total clay content and distribution of
clays grains within a formation, such as swelling (smectite) and non-
swelling (kaolinite and illite) clays (Mohan et al., 1993). To study clay
detachment and pore blocking, Song and Kovscek (2016) constructed
clay-functionalized, etched-silicon micromodels to visualize directly the
mobilization of clay-fines in both kaolinite-rich and montmorillonite-
rich system (Song and Kovscek, 2016). Fines migration that pre-
ferentially accumulate and block the high-permeability channels is very
pronounced in kaolinite-rich systems, but can bring improvements of
oil recovery by positive adjustments to reservoir sweep efficiency.
However, the mobilization of swollen montmorillonite typically da-
mages permeability without increasing oil recovery under LSWF con-
dition.
Fine particles in reservoirs exist in mechanical equilibrium balan-
cing the drag, lift, electrostatic and gravitational forces acting upon
them. By weakening the electrostatic forces LSWF can, in certain con-
ditions, cause the loss of mechanical equilibrium leading to fine parti-
cles being dislodged from the pore linings and dragged along with
flowing fluids into pore throats. The formation damage mechanisms
related to fines migration (Fig. 4) include fines surface deposition and/
or attachment, fines bridging or straining into pore-throats, fines in-
ternal cake formation, and fines infiltration sedimentation (Nguyen
et al., 2007; Yuan et al., 2016).
Tang and Morrow (1999) defined the release of fines by the invasion
of low-salinity water, and identified improvements of sweep efficiency
in reservoirs by the selective fines blockages of high-permeability zones
as a mobility control mechanism (Tang and Morrow, 1999). Fines mi-
gration associated with LSWF may carry small amounts of residual oil
as a consequence of the detachment of oil-coated particles from rock
grains, which thereby improve oil displacement efficiency (Aksulu
et al., 2012). However, fines migration and it associated particle size
exclusion effects typically results in severe damage to reservoir per-
meability near wellbores causing the decline of well injectivity (and
productivity in case of production well). In particular, during LSWF,
high-magnitude pressure drops realized near the injection/production
wells can exaggerate the problems of fines migration. The best strategy
to avoid fines migration is to keep the fines stagnant at their original
location/sources. This can be achieved by either limiting flow rates (to
less than the critical rates) or somehow enhancing the rock capacity to
retain the free particles.
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299

Fig. 3. The potential formation damage mechanisms linked with specific improved oil recovery techniques and types of reservoirs.

Fig. 4. Formation fines migration, detachment and straining phenomenon caused by LSWF, and the mechanism of nanoparticles to mitigate fines migration.

290
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299

A number of fines-migration mitigation techniques are employed. circumstances.

Different types of acid systems have been developed to remove the
formation of fines plugged in the near-wellbore region, gravel packs,
2.1.2. Potential to combine LSW with other EOR techniques to minimize
and/or sand-control screens under various downhole conditions (Khilar
damage effects
and Fogler, 1998). The distance between two structural layers in clay
The synergistic benefits of combining various EOR techniques are
minerals depends upon the exchangeable cations (salts), the formation
well documented. Hence, it is often attractive to combine LSWF with
fluid composition, and the composition of clay minerals. Amorim et al.
other EOR techniques in order to minimize the negative effects and
(2007) studied the performance of various salts to inhibit clay swelling
enhance positive consequence derived from such combinations of
on various clays, including samples from the Calumbi Formation (Ser-
methods.
gipe-Alagoas Basin, NE Brazil), and determined the CaCl2 concentra-
Discontinuous oil in the reservoir is more likely to be trapped in the
tions most effective in inhibiting clay swelling (Amorim et al., 2007).
reservoir at conditions of high capillary pressure due to phase trapping.
For example, they defined the critical salt concentration (CSC) to in-
LSWF combined with surfactant flooding can reduce the capillary
hibit clay swelling in the samples studied with different salt combina-
pressure in the swept reservoir, thereby reducing the isolated pockets of
tions, such as 0.5 M for NaCl, 0.4 M for KCl but only 0.2 M for CaCl2
trapped oil. Skauge et al. (2011) confirmed that surfactant-LSWF
(Amorim et al., 2007). Nanoparticles can effectively mitigate formation
flooding performed better than that of surfactants and low-salinity
damage caused by fine particles clogging pore-throats through enhan-
water methods applied in isolation, in terms of reduction of IFT and
cing attractive forces among fine particles and mineral grains (Arab and
capillary number (Skauge et al., 2011).
Pourafshary, 2013). Yuan et al. (2018) introduced a series of analytical
Dang et al. (2016) (Dang et al., 2016) identified that applied in
models to characterize the mutual interactions among nanoparticle/
secondary-recovery mode LSWF followed by LSWF combined with
fines transport in porous media and justified the positive effects of
water-alternating-CO2 flooding achieves better performance than high-
nanoparticles treatment (both pre-flush and co-injection) to control
salinity WAG, or continuous LSWF and CO2 flooding applied on a
fines migration (Yuan et al., 2018).
standalone basis. This improvement is considered to be due to several
(2) Wettability alteration, ion exchange, pH increase and dis-
synergistic effects of the combined method, including, solubility of CO2
solution of organic components
in various water-salinity-dissolution states, ion exchange, carbonate
Wettability alteration has been widely recognized as the primary
minerals and clay distribution, and wettability alteration.
mechanism to enhance oil recovery with LSWF. The wettability al-
The motivation for combining LSWF with polymer flooding is that
teration in sandstone rocks depends heavily on the presence of clay
the introduction of larger molecular-weight, water-soluble polymers
minerals, composition of oil and formation water and the salinity levels
into injection water increases the viscosity of the displacing fluid and
of injected water (Alagic and Skauge, 2010). The enhanced negative
improves oil displacement and mobility control. Shiran and Skauge
charges for both oil-brine and rock-brine interfaces improves the sta-
(2013) evaluated the synergistic effects on residual oil mobilization and
bility of the adsorbed water film and water-water state associated with
final oil recovery when combining LSWF with polymer injection in both
the rock surface. It does this by increasing the repulsive forces in the
secondary and tertiary modes (Shiran and Skauge, 2013).
double-layer, which is referred to as double-layer expansion effects
Fines migration induced by LSWF can in some reservoirs improve
(Nasralla and Nasr-El-Din, 2012). At the nano-scale, a decrease of ad-
mobility control by diverting the injected water from high-permeability
hesion force between quartz grains and carboxylic acid is associated
channels into low-permeability areas. However, the straining effects of
with the decrease of water salinity during LSWF improved oil recovery
fines typically lead to significant damage to the formation's perme-
(Hassenkam et al., 2012). LSFW is also confirmed as an effective ap-
ability and result in a decline of well injectivity. This is particularly so
proach to enhance oil recovery in carbonate reservoirs as a result of
in the near-wellbore region of a radially flowing reservoir fluid system
wettability alterations, impacted by the concentration of calcium and
with very severe fines migration problems induced by high fluid flow
magnesium ions in the presence of sulfate (the divalent ions: Ca2+,
rates. In order to take advantage of fines migration in the deep reservoir
Mg2+, SO42−) and the salinity level of the injected water (Hamouda
zones away from injection wellbores it is necessary to prevent, or at
and Gupta, 2017; Zhang et al., 2006). However, as a negative effect,
least minimize, the problems of fines migration in near-wellbore region.
wettability alteration in carbonate rocks can also lead to CaSO4 pre-
Yuan and Moghanloo (2018) introduced nanofluid slugs with the ob-
cipitation that damages reservoir permeability and well injectivity
jectives of: 1) retaining fines in the near-wellbore zones during LSWF,
(Zhang et al., 2007). In addition, the performance of enhanced oil re-
and, 2) improving of sweep efficiency for layered heterogeneous re-
covery can in some cases be reduced by the discontinuity of oil
servoirs. That work established that the treatment of the injection wells
throughout the reservoir (i.e., isolated pockets of residual oil) in case of
with nanofluid slugs can help mitigate the loss of injection pressure, but
LSWF applied in the tertiary recovery mode rather than the second
also increased the risk of accelerating the breakthrough of injected
recovery mode.
water (Yuan and Moghaloo, 2018).
The increase of pH eases desorption of both acidic and basic ma-
terials, which is caused by the induced interactions among brine and
rocks to compensate for the loss of cations, caused by the replacement 2.2. Formation damage by chemical EOR techniques
of Ca2+ by H+ during LSWF (Austard et al., 2010). The loss of ther-
modynamic equilibrium among water, oil and rock can also result in the Among various techniques of EOR, chemical enhanced oil recovery
phenomenon of “salt-in” which enhances the solubility of organic (CEOR) has drawn of great interest by oil companies and academics
components. Doust et al. (2009) confirmed the effectiveness of de- over the past decade or so. CEOR involves injecting chemical agents
creasing water salinity below the critical ionic strength in stimulating into oil reservoirs in isolation or in various combinations. CEOR
an increase in the solubility of organic components into flowing aqu- methods include: surfactant flooding (S), alkaline flooding (A), polymer
eous phase, which is commonly referred to as “salt-in” (Doust et al., flooding (P); binary combination chemical flooding involving alkaline-
2009). In addition, analogous to surfactant flooding, low salinity water surfactant (AS), or alkaline-polymer (AP), or Surfactant-polymer (SP);
can generate surfactants in the environment of low salinity and high and, tertiary combination chemical flooding involving alkaline-surfac-
temperature. As a result, the formation of oil-in-water emulsions can tant-polymer (ASP) combination. However, despite the excellent po-
improve the mobility control of the oil phase by increasing the viscosity tential of CEOR to enhance oil recovery, the formation damage itself
of aqueous phase. The interface phenomenon may also result in phase typically induces can not only impair the oil recovery performance, but
trapping in some low-permeability reservoirs due to high capillary also bring additional technical and cost challenges to oilfields facilities
forces, which will impair the oil recovery performance of LSWF in such and operations (Dai et al., 2018).

291
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
2.2.1. Surfactant flooding
The performance of surfactants depends on the interaction effi-
ciency between crude oil and brine, reservoir conditions, and other
stringent requirements associated with the specific surfactants injected,
such as low retention, compatibility, and thermal and aqueous stability.
Hence, the associated formation damage mechanisms with surfactant
flooding are dominated by:
(1) Wettability alteration and water-in-oil emulsion blockage
Surfactants can be extensively emulsified into oil or water causing a
decrease in the interfacial tension (IFT) of the emulsified fluid. This, in
turn, leads to dispersion and scaling off of the oil from rock surfaces,
causing the surfaces of rock grains to become more water-wet. The
formation of oil-in-water emulsion, on one hand, can improve the
mobility control and oil productivity performance of the reservoir by
increasing the viscosity of aqueous phase. However, can also sometimes
lead to severe blockage of the pore throats by emulsion, which impairs
the formation's permeability, especially in low-permeability reservoirs
(Feng et al., 2011). On the other hand, the formation water emulsions
in oil (by mixing surfactant with crude oil), such as in conditions of
high-salinity, increases the viscosity of the emulsified fluid in compar-
ison to clean oil. Such changes impair the flowing efficiency of oil to-
wards the wellbore (Xu et al., 2011).
(2) Surfactant precipitation and phase trapping
The contact of anionic surfactant with cationic fluids and minerals
in the formation results in the loss and precipitation of surfactant
(Stellner and Scamehorn, 1986). Sulfonate precipitates, such as calcium
sulfonate and magnesium sulfonate, can be generated by the in-
compatibility of petroleum with the multivalent cations in both for-
mation water and clays to form. This results in the loss of surfactants
and the blockage of the pore-throat system, thereby impairing the
performance of surfactant flooding. Additionally, the instability and
separation between the oleic and aqueous phases may result in phase
trapping caused by the multi-phase-fluids transport with high capillary
forces (Nelson and Pope, 1978). The precipitation of surfactants is
controlled by the ionic strength, degree of mineralization, temperature
and pH value in a formation (Martin et al., 1985). Hence, the mitigation
of surfactants precipitation can be achieved by increasing fluid tem-
peratures, increasing pH values, and decreasing the degree of miner-
alization. For example, by reducing the contents of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in
the reservoir fluids precipitation of calcium sulfonate and magnesium
sulfonate can be prevented or significantly reduced.
(3) Excessive adsorption and retention of surfactants
A primary objective of surfactant EOR is to achieve appropriate
levels of surfactant adsorption onto the rock grains. However, excessive
adsorption of surfactants can occur in certain conditions which typi-
cally results in permeability damage in sandstone reservoirs (Panga
et al., 2006). The excessive adsorption or retention of surfactants by
phase trapping (Hirasaki et al., 2011) tends to lead to a decrease of
porosity and permeability, and lowers the efficiency of surfactant ad-
sorption along the oil-water interfaces, and limits enhancements in oil
recovery. Decreasing fluid salinity and introducing alcohol-based me-
thanol into water-based surfactant solutions are recommended to alle-
viate the excessive adsorption, aggregations and precipitation of sur-
factants.
2.2.2. Polymer flooding
The primary mechanism involved in polymer flooding is the in-
crease in viscosity of the displacing phase, which improves mobility
control for further oil recovery. However, in cases of harsh reservoir
conditions, such as high salinity fluids, the presence of calcium, high
temperatures and long injection times, formation damage often occurs.
Problems and limitations commonly arise with water-soluble polymers,
including decrease in the polymer's thickening capability and polymer
flocculation (I. E. A, 2015). Hence, it is important to identify potential
formation damage issues associated with specific reservoirs before in-
itiating polymer flooding. These tend to be:
292
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
(1) Polymer retention and particle plugging
Appropriate retention of polymers can reduce the water-phase
permeability, which is beneficial to decrease the mobility ratio and
improve sweep efficiency. However, the excessive adsorption and even
plugging of the pore throats with polymer leads to the damage of rock
porosity and permeability. Three types of mechanisms of polymer re-
tention exist, including physical adsorption (Tang et al., 2001), me-
chanical trapping (Garti and Zour, 1997), and hydraulic retention
(Bhardwaj et al., 2007). Adsorption retention causes the polymer mo-
lecules to accumulate on the surface of rock grains by physical inter-
actions, such as electrostatic interactions and hydrogen bonding with
the hydroxyl groups present at the surfaces of the rock grains. Me-
chanical trapping refers to the trapping of polymer within the smaller-
diameter pore throats mimicking particle filtration behavior. The re-
tention of polymer can also be exaggerated by the alteration of fluid-
flow directions or increases in fluid-flow velocity, which is called “hy-
draulic retention”. Dai et al. (2017) (Dai et al., 2018), proposed the
following strategies to offset problems of excessive polymer retention:
decreasing the degree of mineralization, utilizing appropriate low
temperatures and molecular weights of injected fluids, applying op-
timal polymer concentrations and injection rates.
(2) Inorganic precipitation and organic deposition
Cations of inorganic salt particles with strong electro-philicity can
form ionic pairs with the carboxyl groups on the polymer molecular
chains, which reduces the electrostatic repulsive force among polymers.
As a result, the contraction of polymer coils and generation of inorganic
precipitation is likely to occur (Yan et al., 2000). In addition, ferric ions
(Fe3+) in the formation water tend to establish cross-linking with
polymers to generate hydrogels that block the reservoirs (Fletcher et al.,
1992). The decrease of formation temperature by the injected fluids is
also likely to accelerate inorganic precipitation that tends to block the
formation. The commonly used additives of deoxidants such as Na2SO3
and NaHSO3 react with cations in the formation water to generate in-
organic precipitates. The paraffin molecules in crude oil can precipitate
out as waxes as the formation temperature is decreased by the injected
polymers. Water-wet rocks are prone to enhance the adsorption and
precipitation of polymer molecules. The adsorption of polymers in the
smaller pores will generate resistance to the flowing capacity of fluids.
In addition, the mitigation of fines or sands particle lifting into the
formation fluid is achieved in part by the adsorption of polymer onto
clay particles (Borchardt, 1989). Formation damage caused by polymer
flooding can be at least partly mitigated by: narrowing the temperature
gap between injected fluids and formation fluids, screening out the
suspended particles in polymer solution prior to the injection, and op-
timizing the mixture of selected additives with the polymer to prevent
incompatibility with the in-situ formation fluids.
Before a polymer is injected into a specific reservoir for improved oil
recovery, it should be subjected to a number of laboratory screening
tests, including polymer injectivity, adsorption and brine compatibility
tests and to establish its microbial, mechanical and chemical degrada-
tion characteristics.
2.2.3. Alkaline flooding
Alkaline flooding, also referred to as caustic flooding, injects alka-
line solutions, such as sodium orthosilicate, sodium carbonate and so-
dium hydroxide, to displace the formation fluids. The primary EOR
mechanism at work is the generation of soap and surfactants by the
reactions between alkaline and crude oil (Liu, 2006). However, the
incompatibility of alkaline-formation water with alkaline-rocks leads to
the following severe formation damage often associated with alkaline
flooding EOR:
(1) Migration and blockage of fine particles
Alkaline can dissolve clays and other minerals. Sometimes, the
dissolution may increase formation permeability. However, typically
fines migration and blockage ensue damaging reservoir permeability.
Under alkaline conditions, the interactions between clays and the
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
Fig. 5. Evolution from oil-in-water emulsion to water-in-oil emulsion with the increase of alkaline concentration [revised after 66].
surfaces of the mineral grains are also disturbed resulting in fines mi-
gration and/or clay swelling through changes in the electrostatic forces
among particles (Assef et al., 2014). Moreover, the formation of oil
emulsions with different sizes of water phase at different alkaline
concentrations can lead to the blockage of fluid flow paths and reduced
reservoir permeability. As alkaline concentration increases, the type of
emulsion evolves to become water-in-oil emulsion (Fig. 5), which im-
pairs the flowing efficiency of oil by increasing the viscosity of oil phase
(Ge et al., 2012).
(2) Carbonate scale, hydroxyl scale, silicate scale, or sulfate
scale
The incompatibility of alkaline conditions with formation water
depends on formation water composition and temperature (Moghadasi
et al., 2004). Formation water typically includes cations of K+, Ca2+,
Fe2+, Mg2+, F3+, and Na+, and anions of HCO3−, CO32−, SO42−, and
Cl−. As alkaline concentration increases, CO32−, OH−, and SiO32−
concentrations become elevated, generating carbonate scale, hydroxyl
scale, and silicate scale (Fig. 6), depending upon the availability of
metal ions in the formation water and rock minerals (Sheng, 2011). As
reservoir temperature increases, the solubility of inorganic scale would
decrease potentially leading to precipitation (Sheng, 2016). The pre-
cipitation and deposition of all those scales lead to significant reduction
of permeability, and decreases the efficiency of alkaline flooding. It can
also lead to flow line restrictions, choke and safety valve failures, pump
wear, and corrosion beneath the scale in pipework and surface facil-
ities. In the Wilming field, California, after the deposition of CaCO3 and
Mg2SiO4 scales, no acid treatments could remove them, leading to the
suspension of the alkaline flooding project. If injected seawater is rich
in SO42−, sulfate scale is also likely to be generated. Sulfate scales are
very difficult and expensive to remove, because they are usually acid
insoluble. Lakatos et al. (2007) evaluated the performance of the scale-
mitigation additive polyamino carboxylic acids to dissolve both barium
sulfate and calcium sulfate, including Dioxaoctamethylene dinitrilo
Fig. 6. Inorganic scale formation with alkaline injection.
293
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
teraacetic acid (DOCTA), Hydroxyethyle)ethylenediamin triacetate acid
(HEDTA), Triethyleneteramin hexaaxetic acid (TTHA), Nitrilotriacetic
acid (NTA), Ethylenediamin tertaacetic acid (EDTA), Cyclohexylene
dinitriloacetic acid (DCTA), and Diethylenetriamin pentaacetic acid
(DTPA). Sodium metaborate was proposed as a weaker alkali to replace
strong alkalis, and/or the replacement of inorganic alkalis by organic
alkalis, to reduce formation damage by scales (Flaaten et al., 2009).
Sometimes it is possible to take advantage of scale precipitation by
injected alkaline solutions to improve sweep efficiency by decreasing
the permeability in high-permeability zones, and diverting the injected
water and flowing fluids into lower-permeability pathways (Sarem,
1974).
2.2.4. Binary combinations of chemical flooding
In order to achieve the benefits of combination chemical flooding, it
is essential that the chemicals involved are compatible and stable in
their mixture. If they are not severe formation damage is likely to
ensue.
(1) Alkaline-surfactant flooding (AS)
Addition of surfactant makes alkaline flooding more efficient. Rudin
et al. (1994) found that the addition of surfactants into alkaline injec-
tion fluids further decreased the equilibrium interfacial tension and
created emulsions with higher interfacial resistance (Rudin et al.,
1994). The more stable emulsions can carry more oil in flowing water,
but are also prone to block the pore throats with the accumulation of
emulsions. The adsorption of sulfonate and surfactants onto kaolinite
can be decreased with the addition of alkaline as the charges of the
mineral surfaces become more negative (Hanna and Somasundaran,
1977). The decreased adsorption of surfactants is likely to improve oil
displacement. However, the detachment of sulfonate can enhance da-
mage to the reservoirs.
(2) Alkaline-polymer flooding (AP)
One major problem of alkaline flooding is its lack of mobility con-
trol, due to the high mobility ratio of displaced phase to displacing
phase. The addition of polymer has the potential to solve this issue.
However, as alkaline concentrations increase, the polymer hydrolysis
and polymer viscosity reduces, causing the sodium ions in polymer
solution to neutralize the carboxyl groups resulting in polymer coil up
(Green and Willhite, 1998). In the alkaline condition, the adsorption of
polymer can be reduced by the increasing negative charge of the mi-
neral surfaces (Krumrine and Falcone, 1983).
(3) Surfactant-polymer flooding (SP)
The addition of surfactants into polymer flooding can further reduce
the interfacial tension, and surfactants can form chelation structures
with polymers to increase the viscosity of the displacing phase. As sa-
crificial agents, polymers react with the divalent ions on the mineral
surfaces, which reduces the loss of surfactants by adsorption, and the
precipitation of surfactants which enhances the stability of the emul-
sions (Cui et al., 2011). However, under certain conditions, the emul-
sification of surfactants into the oil phase may restrict the flowing
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
efficiency of oil into the wellbores, as a negative effect. Separation of
the polymer-rich phase and surfactant-phase may occur, which is not
desirable for the movement of fluids in reservoirs (Pope et al., 1982).
2.2.5. Alkaline-surfactant-polymer flooding (ASP)
ASP systems mix with the formation water and oil through physico-
chemical reactions, which leads to the corrosion and dissolution of
minerals in reservoirs. Kalwar and Elraies (2013) reported the fluid-
fluid incompatibility and scale precipitation for an ASP case with total
salinity of 59,940 ppm and 2762 ppm of Ca2+ and Mg2+, and the
success of preventing scale precipitation by the addition of acrylic acid
(Kalwar and Elraies, 2013). Liu et al. (2007) described a field example
in which scale production consisted of a mixture of silicate scale, car-
bonate scale and organic matter (Liu et al., 2007). For ASP flooding,
chemical anti-scaling techniques and physical anti-scaling techniques
have been proposed to mitigate scale problems (Wang et al., 2013; Xu
et al., 2001; Li et al., 2009).
2.3. Formation damage by thermal techniques for heavy oil recovery
About 70% of world oil reserves are heavy crude oil (Giacchetta
et al., 2015), which tend to have low primary recovery factors. The
thermal recovery of heavy oil mainly includes, in-situ combustion (ISC),
steam flooding (SF), cyclic steam stimulation (CSS), and steam-assisted-
gravity-drainage (SAGD) techniques. Most heavy oil reservoirs exist at
relatively shallow depths and reside in unconsolidated sandstone for-
mations. The poor consolidation makes heavy oil reservoir more sus-
ceptible to formation damage. Thermal recovery methods can further
exacerbate the extent of formation damage by the alteration of the
prevailing physical-chemical-thermal system in the formation. The as-
sociated formation damage mechanisms with thermal recovery in heavy
oil mainly include (Chen and Chen, 2018), sands and fines migration,
clay swelling and deflocculation, organic precipitation, wettability al-
teration, phase trapping, foam and emulsion formation, mineral trans-
formation, dissolution and precipitation, and types of biologically in-
duced damage.
2.3.1. Mechanical formation damage during the thermal recovery of heavy
oil
(1) Migration of fine particles in both sandstone and carbonate
reservoirs
Most of heavy oils are located in poorly consolidated sandstone
reservoirs which are typically associated with large amounts of mobile
fines and particles, such as in-situ kaolinite, detrital rock fragments,
pyrobitumen and other mobile particulates. In carbonate formations
containing heavy oil, the migration of dolomite or carbonate fines, and
pyrobitumen is also likely to occur (Bennion et al., 1995). Migration of
fines is affected by: pH, temperature, rock wettability, clay mineral
composition, flowing rates, and fluid salinities. The migration of fines
and particles can lead to severe damage of permeability through
blockage and plugging of pore throats. In heavy oil, the abrupt changes
of formation temperature, mineral composition, and fluid properties is
likely to exaggerate the problems of fines migration. Yuan et al. (2018)
described several approaches to potentially mitigate fines migration,
including nanofluids and commercial clay stabilizer CS-38 (Yuan et al.,
2018).
(2) Inevitable amounts of sands production along with pro-
duction of bitumen and heavy oil
Changes to the in-situ effective stress make it inevitable that for-
mation sand particles and fines are produced along with the heavy oil,
especially in the more poorly consolidated reservoirs. The hydro-
dynamic forces exerted by the flowing fluids during production en-
hances the movement of clay particles (Muecke, 1979). The excessive
contact of sand and fines with high-temperature steam can also pro-
mote the migration of sands and fines (Tague, 2000). Gravel packs and
frac packs have been intensively investigated to prevent sand
294
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
production (Ghalambor et al., 2009). However, the plugging of fines
into gravel packing can also lead to a significant decrease of perme-
ability and well productivity (Bennion et al., 1994). Huang et al. (2008)
investigated the effectiveness of nanofluids to control fines migration
and plugging of Frac-packs (Huang et al., 2008).
(3) Water-phase trapping, gas-in-oil foam and water-in-oil
emulsions
The invasion of water-based fluids into oil-bearing formations can
result in adverse damage to the relative permeability of oil, which is
referred to as the water-phase trapping phenomenon (Bennion et al.,
1996). Such damage is usually not permanent, and can be cleaned up
over time if a sufficient pressure gradient is established to push the
trapped phase through the pore throats. Suspended “skim” oil in the
injection water can also have negative effects on the relative perme-
ability, as it is typically difficult to completely remove heavy oil from
the produced water (Bennion et al., 1998).
Foamy oil emulsions can be generated under conditions of high fluid
viscosity, and strong interfacial tension between gas and heavy oil, and
once the reservoir pressure has fallen below the bubble-point pressure.
Although the swelling of heavy oil is beneficial to oil production, the
enhancement of a foamy oil solution in the gas phase can increase its
viscosity and the critical gas saturation required for mobility, which can
lead to a decline in well productivity (Chen et al., 2015). The stable
interfaces between the oil and gas phases can help the transport small
fines particles, which may exaggerate the problem of fines migration,
sands production, and damage to a formation's permeability (Simith,
1988). Water-in-oil emulsion can also be formed in heavy oil, sig-
nificantly increasing the viscosity of the oil phase, which impairs the
flowing efficiency of oil towards and into wellbores (Czarnecki and
Moran, 2005).
2.3.2. Chemical damage during thermal recovery in heavy oil reservoirs
(1) Clay swelling and deflocculation
Most heavy oil reservoirs contain problematic clay minerals, in-
cluding the swelling clay montmorillonite and the migrating clays illite
and kaolinite. Clay swelling and deflocculation are caused by an abrupt
change of brine chemistry, such as fresh or low-salinity water, which
lead to pore constriction, bridging and blockage to damage formation
permeability and well productivity (Zhang et al., 2015).
(2) Wax and asphaltene precipitation, accumulation and de-
position
Wax and asphaltene problems in heavy oil include (Permadi et al.,
2012): 1) asphaltene precipitation as solid particles once destabilized
from crude oil due to either reductions of temperature and pressure or
by contact with precipitation agents, such as unsequestered hydro-
chloric acid, LPG and carbon dioxide gas; 2) the formation of crystalline
wax caused by the reduction in temperature. Asphaltene precipitation
refers to the process where asphaltene suspend as a separate phase in
the crude oil, in small quantities and in small particle sizes, can no
longer be supported by the fluid phase. Precipitated asphaltene parti-
cles tend to aggregate together forming larger particles, referred to as
“flocs”, which then attach onto various surfaces (i.e., mineral grains,
pipework, within surface facilities) (Alian et al., 2011).
2.3.3. Biologically induced damage associated with thermal oil recovery
Biologically induced damage (Smith, 1995) including crude oil
souring, blockage by bacteria-produced polysaccharide with high mo-
lecular weight to reduce permeability, and mineral erosion due to the
activities of bacteria on the mineral grain surfaces. Usually, biologi-
cally-induced damage is very difficult to remediate. The best mitigation
strategy is to completely clean the injected fluids using biocide, and
engage in real-time monitoring and control of bacterial levels in the
wellbores before injecting fluids into the reservoir formations.
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
2.3.4. Thermally induced formation damage associated with thermal oil
recovery
Thermally induced formation damage is uniquely associated with
the high-temperature environments created during the production of
heavy oil by hot water, steam and in-situ combustion. The thermally
induced damage generally includes (Schembre and Koscel, 2005): 1)
transformation of kaolinite to water-sensitive clay such as smectite in
excess of 200 °C; 2) dissolution of carbonate and silica as formation
temperature increases, and re-precipitation of calcium, magnesium and
silicate solids caused by an abrupt change of temperature, which is
likely to lead to severe damage to the formation's permeability; 3)
wettability alteration due to a decrease in the adsorption of oil com-
ponents to the mineral grains as the temperature increases; and, 4)
thermal expansion of minerals by the increase of temperature leading to
pore-throat shrinkage and the generation of micro fractures, which
would increase the tortuosity of the fluid flow pathways and decrease
rock permeability (Gupta and Civan, 1994).
2.4. Formation damage by CO2 flooding for oil recovery and CO2
sequestration
CO2 flooding was introduced as a commercial EOR technique in the
1970s, and expanded to include CO2 sequestration in some EOR pro-
jects during the past twenty years. As reported in 2014 (Kuuskraa and
Wallace, 2014), more than 136 CO2 EOR projects were active in United
States with the number increasing progressively since 1986. Oil pro-
duction from CO2 EOR projects was predicted in 2014 to increase from
300,000 b/d in 2014 to 638,000 b/d in 2020, and the corresponding
CO2 injection consumption expected to increase from 3.5 bcf/d to 6.5
bcf/d. Low oil prices between 2014 and 2017 slowed this growth. The
number of CO2 EOR projects worldwide (Fig. 7) is dominated by those
in the U.S. (Melzer, 2012). Interest in CO2 EOR projects outside of USA
started in 1994, and has increased slowly. Some notable CO2 EOR fields
outside of USA include the Weyburn oilfield in Canada, the Bati Raman
heavy oilfield in Turkey and oilfields in Trinidad, Abu Dhabi, Brazil,
China, Malaysia, and the North Sea.
The majority of ongoing CO2 EOR projects (∼90%) involved mis-
cible CO2 flooding in 2014 and the rest involved the immiscible CO2
flooding processes. The applications of CO2 EOR projects are mostly
accompanied by severe formation damage issues due to the incompat-
ibility of fluids-fluids and fluids-rocks. These are predominantly in-
organic deposits, organic deposits, clay swelling and mineral dissolu-
tions (Fu et al., 2018).
2.4.1. Chemically induced formation damage associated with CO2 flooding
and/or sequestration
(1) Organic asphaltene precipitation and deposition
The addition of CO2 brings changes in oil composition and decreases
Fig. 7. The number of CO2 EOR projects inside and outside of the USA (revised
after Melzer, 2012).
295
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
the solubility of asphaltene in oil, and therefore acts as a precipitant for
asphaltene by lowering the threshold of asphaltene precipitation
(Gholoum et al., 2003). CO2 induced precipitation of heavy organic
components (asphaltene) in the crude oil, can result in blockages of
pore throats in the reservoir and downhole/surface facilities. Asphal-
tene precipitation induces reservoir rock wettability reversal, which
potentially reduces the oil relative permeability and reduces oil pro-
duction and recovery. Asphaltene deposition issues in CO2 EOR have
been reported in some oilfields without asphaltene issues during their
primary production phase. For instance, in the CO2 flooding EOR pilot
in Little Creek, Mississippi, asphaltene deposition occurred in the well
tubing, although no such problem was observed during the primary and
secondary production (Leontaritis et al., 1994). Also, the tertiary CO2
flooding pilot in the Midale Unit in southeastern Saskatchewan (Ca-
nada) lead to asphaltene deposition, although no asphaltene problems
had occurred during both either primary and secondary production
(Leontaritis et al., 1988). CO2 EOR can also exaggerate the problems of
asphaltene precipitation and deposition for oilfields with asphaltene
issues reported during the primary or secondary production, e.g.,
Ventura field in California (U.S.A.) (Novosad and Costain, 1990).
(2) Clay swelling and minerals dissolution
CO2 flooding results in the formation of carbonic acid, which lowers
pH and increases both Eh (activity of electrons), and dissolves quartz,
feldspar, barite, cements and clays, including anhydrite (Chopping and
Kaszuba, 2012), calcite (Kelessidis and Maglione, 2008), smectite
(Heerema, 2016), illite (Miranda-Trevino and Cynthia, 2003), kaolinite
and mica (MacCarthy et al., 2014). The nature of dolomite (Plummer
and Busenberg, 1982), quartz and silicate clays (Wu et al., 2018) can
affect the structure of pore networks, mechanical integrity of reservoir
rocks, and the plugging of liberated fines into pore throats. Although
the reduction of porosity is generally offset by mineral dissolution vo-
lumes, the damage to a formation permeability is usually significant
(Nguyen et al., 2007). The permeability damage during CO2 flooding is
mainly caused by the movement of fines, precipitation of clays in pore
throats and the mechanical compaction caused by corrosion of frame-
work mineral grains. It is therefore necessary to establish a clear un-
derstanding of fluid and mineral interactions in a specific formation to
minimize the extent of formation damage during CO2 injection and
maximize the efficiency of CO2 EOR projects.
(3) Inorganic scale precipitation and deposition
The injection of CO2 into a reservoir changes the in-situ equilibrium
conditions, which promotes fluid-fluid and fluid-mineral chemical re-
actions. As shown in Eq. (1), the precipitation of calcite can be induced
by the reactions between CO2 and the calcium ion (Ca2+) in the for-
mation water; the presence of CO2 or increasing CO2 partial pressure
leads to the increase of CaCO3 solubility in water, but when CO2 comes
out of solution as the pressure decreases and temperature increases
(Plummer and Busenberg, 1982), CaCO3 solubility in water decreases
resulting in the risk of carbonate scale deposition. CO2 can also react
with hydrogen (H+) in the formation water to form the bicarbonate ion
HCO3− , which enhances the dissolution of minerals in reservoir rocks
increasing the concentrations of ions, especially calcium ion, in the
formation water, which can in turn result in subsequent calcite pre-
cipitation as conditions change.
Ca2 + + 2(HCO3) ↔ Ca (HCO3)2
Ca (HCO3)2 → Ca (CO3) ↓ + CO2 ↑ + H2 O (1)
2.4.2. Mitigation techniques to prevent chemical damage
Wu et al. summarized the list of scale prevention strategies for near-
wellbore and deep-in-the reservoir formation zones (Wu et al., 2018).
These include: 1) fracture proppant coated with scale inhibitor or a
mixture of solid scale inhibitor and proppant can be applied, or liquid
scale inhibitor deployed along with the fracturing fluid during frac-
turing operations; and, 2) Periodic squeeze treatments can be applied
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
by pumping chemical inhibitor into the near-wellbore zones periodi-
cally to inhibit scale formation, as the inhibitor can be slowly dissolved
or detached from the rock and produced along with the flowing fluids
(Graham et al., 2015; Kan and Tomson, 2012; Yuan et al., 2017).
3. Integrated risk and opportunity assessment and management of
EOR projects
As a combination of complex, multi-faceted and dynamic phe-
nomena, types of formation damage issues induced by various EOR
projects and associated mitigation/prevention techniques as above
mentioned, require holistic analysis and management. Both negative
and positive outcomes can result from the formation damage issues for
the production performance of EOR projects. In particularly, the miti-
gation actions taken in attempts to address specific formation damage
issues during EOR can themselves adversely incorporate secondary risks
of further exacerbating the formation damage mechanism at work, or
even induce new formation damage mechanisms. Consequently, it is
essential to introduce an integrated risk and opportunity assessment
and management workflow to optimize the design of EOR projects and
associated formation damage mitigation strategies throughout well/
field life (Zitha et al., 2013; Wood and Yuan, 2018; Vose, 2008; Aven
et al., 2007). Integrated risk and opportunity assessment and manage-
ment requires complex steps conducted in a systematical framework,
mainly including identification, assessment and ranking of events and
actions associated with formation damage issues and their un-
certainties. The detailed workflow (Fig. 8) involves integrating quali-
tative, semi-quantitative and quantitative risk and opportunity assess-
ment of formation damage causes/actions, using a range of analysis
tools, and applying performance indicators monitored for rigorous and
holistic risk and opportunity management of formation damage in EOR
Fig. 8. An integrated workflow for risk and opportunity identification, assessment and management of formation damage issues impacting EOR projects. Modified
after Wood and Yuan (2018).
296
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
projects.
The identification and recognition of factors contributing to the
formation damage during various EOR processes in different types of
reservoirs (Fig. 3) requires extensive data collected from laboratory
testing and field tests of various scales (i.e., single well tests, pilot
studies involving small zones of injection and production wells, etc.)
coupled with analysis using advanced numerical simulation package
(Haimes, 2015). Such an approach can provide indicators for use in
quantifying the scale and extent of various formation damage me-
chanisms. The type of data to record formation damage issues for all
types of EOR processes is likely to be drawn from core/well/reservoir
properties from laboratory and experimental analysis and field mea-
surements, including: core data (porosity, permeability, and mechanical
properties), well logging and well test data (phase saturation, perme-
ability, skin factor, porosity, and mechanical failures), and well injec-
tion/production (injection/production rates and bottom-hole pressure).
There are three different approaches for risk and opportunity as-
sessment (Wood et al., 2008), covering qualitative, semi-quantitative,
and quantitative approaches. Among them, the qualitative method can
provide the labels of different formation damage issues in the two-di-
mensional matrix of impacts versus likelihood. Through applying this
approach, the operators can prioritize which kind of formation damage
issues require mitigation or exploitation. Such analysis evaluates how
mitigation actions can help move or improve factors from the down-
side-risk “critical to mitigate” to “manageable”, and also focus upon the
upside-opportunities that are “crucial to capture”.
The semi-quantitative risk and opportunity assessment can be
achieved by introducing a scoring system for each box expanding and
building upon the basic qualitative two-dimensional matrix, or three-
dimensional matrix (impact, likelihood, and duration of specific for-
mation damage issues), which can provide more rigor and less
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
subjective assessment. The magnitudes of every box are defined by
multiplying the score of each level along each dimension. The higher
the value of the box, the higher need the mitigation and management
actions. However, both qualitative and semi-quantitative methods
cannot quantify the different consequences of types of events. For in-
stance, the same score in assessment matrix defined by the events/ac-
tions may have different reservoir performance, financial and other
outcomes, which make both methods not able to directly be applied for
financial evaluation or deal with the cases with too many events/ac-
tions. Therefore, it is generally necessary to apply a more quantitative/
stochastic analysis, where the likelihood of formation damage events/
actions is defined as a probabilistic function, and the impacts is selected
as actual measurable outcomes (production rates, financial indicators,
and recovery factor etc.). The most important benefits of stochastic
analysis are that confidence levels can be defined to the outcomes by
inputting the diverse likelihoods (probabilities) of specific formation
damage issues occurring. This provides a more quantitative and holistic
view for operators as to when and how to address what kind of for-
mation damage issue as priorities.
The risk and opportunity assessment and management system to
assess EOR projects should not only have capacity to address a wide
range of complex and diverse formation damage issues, but also needs
to integrate broad formation-damage-related issues with technical,
regulatory, financial and market uncertainties associated with EOR
projects at different times during the project life cycle. The objective of
such rigorous and holistic risk and opportunity assessment should be to
improve project investment decision making based upon reliable re-
servoir and financial performance forecasting.
4. Prospects in formation damage coupled with enhanced oil
recovery research
Aside from developing techniques for further improving and en-
hancing oil/gas and thermal recovery in various geosystems, it is es-
sential to evaluate and characterize the multi-scale issues of formation
damage, from microscopic to macroscopic, and their potential impacts
on pore-scale, core-scale, well-scale and field-scale performance. The
accurate identification of a broad range of formation damage factors is
a key factor in achieving reliable risk and opportunity assessment and
management. In recent years low oil prices have slowed down research
and investment in costly EOR projects. To maximize the benefits and
minimize the losses associated with formation damage issues to achieve
the best outcomes from EOR projects, further efforts are required from
industry and academia to address at least the following issues that
provide ongoing cause for concern:
1) To enhance the fundamental understandings on the microscopic
formation damage in terms of geomechanical, geochemical and
petrophysical characterization. More experimental works and field
pilot studies will be required to achieve this.
2) To develop more sophisticated techniques, tools and theories to
identify and monitor the occurrence and extent of formation damage
issues at different periods throughout a field's life to optimally ex-
tract its resources.
3) To implement more generalized and accurate upscaling approaches
to apply the microscopic findings to explain the macroscopic phe-
nomenon, and capture and exploit more information from labora-
tory studies and simulations valuable to guide pilot field projects.
4) To better identify and quantify the risks and opportunities of for-
mation damage issues specific to EOR projects, recognizing that
formation damage can be highly variable from reservoir to re-
servoir, and therefore difficult to predict.
5) To develop more advanced and comprehensive numerical models
that help to postulate the holistic impacts of as many formation
damage issues as possible during diverse EOR projects.
6) To develop more advanced techniques of formation damage
297
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
mitigation and prevention, associated with better recognition of
secondary formation damage problems.
7) To develop new guidelines and algorithms to optimize EOR design
and implementation strategies coupled with formation damage is-
sues based upon practical field experiences.
8) To improve the risk and opportunity assessment and management
system to possess enough capacity to address a wide range of
complex and diverse formation damage issues, and also to integrate
more formation-damage-related issues, spanning from the technical,
regulatory, financial to market uncertainties associated with IOR/
EOR projects, aiming to improve investment decision making and
reservoir and related financial performance.
Accurately understanding and optimally managing formation da-
mage issues during EOR field-scale projects offers us the opportunity to
massively increase ultimately recoverable resources from known and
already exploited energy geosystems and those yet-to-be discovered.
Furthermore it should enable us to do this on a commercially attractive
basis during both peaks and troughs of the highly volatile energy
markets. However, to do so requires sustained in-depth and holistic
studies of formation damage issues during many different types of EOR
project. To do this effectively involves significant and systematic, long-
term integrated multi-disciplinary efforts involving many branches of
academia and industry.
5. Summary and conclusion
Formation damage issues in EOR projects in various subsurface oil/
gas reservoirs lead to a series of complex risks and opportunities, with a
combination of negative and positive impacts on the production per-
formance and resource recovery of oil geosystems. Moreover, the oc-
currence and extent of these impacts induced by the diverse damage
issues remain highly uncertain and vary significantly from project to
project. This review highlights, details and focuses upon:
1) the potential formation damage issues associated with diverse en-
hanced petroleum and thermal energy recovery projects (i.e., low-
salinity water flooding, surfactant flooding, alkaline flooding,
polymer flooding, alkaline-surfactant flooding, alkaline-polymer
flooding, surfactant-polymer flooding, alkaline-surfactant-polymer
flooding, CO2 flooding, thermal recovery, and hydraulic fracturing)
in a wide range of geosystems (i.e., conventional sandstone/carbo-
nate reservoirs, unconventional shale reservoirs).
2) The impacts of diverse formation damage issues on well and re-
servoir performance are addressed and quantified holistically.
3) The recommended mitigation and prevention methods/techniques
are described in order to assist oilfield operators in addressing the
complex issues associated with formation damage.
4) Outlining an integrated risk and opportunity identification, assess-
ment, and management framework for considering formation da-
mage in EOR projects. This framework integrates qualitative, semi-
quantitative and quantitative assessment methods, supported by a
range of analysis/predication tools, and applying performance in-
dicators monitored for rigorous and holistic analysis.
Acknowledgement
This work is a synthesis of advances gained from recent multi-dis-
ciplined research and development work. It builds upon the book
“Formation damage during Improved Oil Recovery” recently edited by
the authors and involving collaborations with a number of experts
working at the cutting edge of research in a number of relevant topic
areas. Here, we express our thanks to all those experts for their support,
and in particular to: Dr. Pavel Bedrikovetsky, Dr. Caili Dai, Dr. Xuebing
Fu, Dr. Zhangxing (John) Chen, Dr. Xingru Wu, Dr. Rouzbeh G.
Moghanloo, Dr. Zhenjiang You, Dr. Vikram Vishal, Dr. Liang Yu, and
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
Dr. Jiaming Zhang, all other colleagues devoted to this topic.
References
Aksulu, H., Hamso, D., Strand, S., et al., 2012. The evaluation of low salinity enhanced oil
recovery effects in sandstone: effects of temperature and pH gradient. Energy Fuel.
26, 3497–3503.
Al-Shalabi, E., Sepehrnoori, K., 2016. A comprehensive review of low salinity/engineered
water injections and their applications in sandstone and carbonate rocks. J. Petrol.
Sci. Eng. 139, 137–161.
Alagic, E., Skauge, A., 2010. Combined low salinity brine injection and surfactant
flooding in Mixed−Wet Sandstone Cores. Energy Fuel. 24, 3551–3559.
Alian, S.S., Omar, A.A., Altáee, A.F., 2011. Study of asphaltene precipitation induced
formation damage during CO2 injection for a Malaysian light oil. World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology. Int. J. Chem. Mol. Nucl. Mater. Metall. Eng. 5
(6), 482–486.
Alvarado, V., Manrique, E., 2010. Enhanced oil recovery: an updated review. Energies 3,
1529–1575.
Amorim, C.L.G., Lopes, R.T., Barroso, R.C., Queiroz, J.C., Alves, D.B., Perez, C.A., Schelin,
H.R., 2007. Effect of clay–water interactions on clay swelling by X-ray diffraction.
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 580, 768–770.
Arab, D., Pourafshary, P., 2013. Nanoparticles-assisted surface charge modification of the
porous medium to treat colloidal particles migration induced by low salinity water
flooding. Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 436, 803–814.
Assef, Y., Arab, D., Pourafshary, P., 2014. Application of nanofluids to control fines mi-
gration to improve the performance of low salinity water flooding and alkaline
flooding. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 124, 331–340.
Atthawutthisim, N., 2012. Numerical Simulation of Low Salinity Water Flooding Assisted
with Chemical Flooding for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Norwegian University of Science
and Technology.
Austard, T., Doust, A.R., Puntervold, T., 2010. Chemical mechanism of low salinity water
flooding in sandstone reservoirs. In: Paper SPE-129767, SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, (Tulsa, OK USA).
Aven, T., Vinnem, J.E., Wiencke, H.S., 2007. A decision framework for risk management,
with application to the offshore oil and gas industry. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92 (4),
433–448.
Bedrikovetsky, P., 1993. Mathematical Theory of Oil and Gas Recovery. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Bedrikovetsky, P.G., Nguyen, T.K., Hage, A., et al., 2011a. Taking advantage of injectivity
decline for improved recovery during waterflood with horizontal wells. J. Petrol. Sci.
Eng. 78 (2), 288–303.
Bedrikovetsky, P., Siqueira, F.D., Furtado, C.A., et al., 2011b. Modified particle detach-
ment model for colloidal transport in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 86 (2),
353–383.
Bennion, D.B., 2002. An overview of formation damage mechanisms causing a reduction
in the productivity and injectivity of oil and gas producing formations. J. Can. Petrol.
Technol. 41 (11), 29–36.
Bennion, D.B., Sanders, R., Thomson, W.S., 1994. Minimizing formation damage to gravel
packs: laboratoary and field case studies in the Battrum field. In: SPE-27355
Presented at SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, (Lafayette, Louisiana).
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bennion, D.W., 1995. Mechanisms of formation damage and
permeability impairment associated with the drilling, completion and production of
low API gravity oil reservoirs. In: SPE-30320 Presented at SPE International Heavy
Oil Symposium, 19–21 June, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F., et al., 1996. Water and hydrocarbon phase
trapping in porous media: diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. J. Can. Petrol.
Technol. 35 (10), 29–36.
Bennion, D.B., Bennion, D.W., Thomas, F.B., 1998. Injection water quality, a key factor to
successfully waterflooding. J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 37 (06), 53–62.
Bhardwaj, A.K., Shain, I., Goldstein, D., et al., 2007. Water retention and hydraulic
conductivity of cross-linked polyacrylamides in sandy soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71
(2), 406–412.
Borchardt, J.K., 1989. Chemical used in oil-field operations. In: Borchardt, J.K., Yen, T.F.
(Eds.), Oil-field Chemistry, Enhanced Recovery, and Production Stimulation.
American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 3–54 ACS Symposium Series.
Chen, J., Chen, Z., 2018. Chapter 9: Formation Damage by thermal Methods Applied to
Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Formation Damage during Improved Oil Recovery:
Fundamentals and Applications. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Chen, Z., Sun, J., Wang, R., 2015. A pseudobubblepoint model and its simulation for
foamy oil in porous media. SPE J. 20 (02), 239–247.
Chopping, C., Kaszuba, J.P., 2012. Supercritical carbon dioxide-brine-rock reactions in
the Madison Limestone of Southwest Wyoming: an experimental investigation of a
sulfur-rich natural carbon dioxide reservoir. Chem. Geol. 322, 223–236.
Civan, F., 2015. Reservoir Formation Damage. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Collins, I.R., 2011. Holistic benefits of low salinity water flooding. In: 16th European
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, (Cambridge, U.K., April).
Cui, Z., et al., 2011. Synthesis of N-(3-Oxapropanoxyl) dodecanamide and its application
in surfactant-polymer flooding. J. Surfactants Deterg. 14 (3), 317–324.
Czarnecki, J., Moran, K., 2005. On the stabilization mechanism of water-in-oil emulsions
in petroleum systems. Energy Fuel. 19 (5), 2074–2079.
Dai, C., 2018. Chapter 7: formation damage during chemical flooding. In: Yuan, B., Wood,
D.A. (Eds.), 2018. Formation Damage during Improved Oil Recovery: Fundamentals
and Application. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Dang, C., Nghiem, L., Nguyen, N., et al., 2016. Evaluation of CO2 low salinity water-
alternating-gas for enhanced oil recovery. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 35, 237–258.
298
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
Doust, A.R., Puntervold, T., Strand, S., et al., 2009. Smart water as wettability modifier in
carbonate and sandstone. In: 15th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
(Paris, France).
Ezeuko, C.C., Sen, A., Gates, I.D., 2013. Modelling biofilm-induced formation damage and
biocide treatment in subsurface geosystems. Microb. Biotechnol. 6 (1), 53–66.
Faergestad, I., 2016. Formation damage. Schlumb. Oilfield Rev. 52–53.
Feng, X., Xiao, G., Wang, W., et al., 2011. Case study: numerical simulation of surfactant
flooding in low permeability oil field. In: Paper SPE 145036 Presented at the SPE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference Held in Kuala Lumpur, (Malaysia).
Flaaten, A., Nguyen, Q.P., Pope, G.A., et al., 2009. A systematic laboratory approach to
low-cost, high-performance chemical flooding. SPE Reserv. Eng. Eval. 12 (5),
713–723.
Fletcher, A., Lamb, S., Clifford, P., 1992. Formation damage from polymer solutions:
factors governing injectivity. SPE Reserv. Eng. 7 (02), 237–246.
Fu, X., Finley, A., Carpenter, S., 2018. Chapter 8: formation damage problems associated
with CO2 flooding. In: Yuan, B., Wood, D.A. (Eds.), 2018. Formation Damage during
Improved Oil Recovery: Fundamentals and Applications. Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Gamage, P., Thyne, G., 2011. Comparison of oil recovery by low salinity water flooding in
secondary and tertiary recovery modes. In: Paper SPE-147375, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, (Denver, Colorado, USA).
Garti, N., Zour, H., 1997. The effect of surfactants on the crystallization and polymorphic
transformation of glutamic acid. J. Cryst. Growth 172 (3), 486–498.
Ge, J., Feng, A., Zhang, G., 2012. Study of the factors influencing alkaline flooding in
heavy oil, reservoirs. Energy Fuel. 26, 2875–2882.
Ghalambor, A., Ali, S., Norman, W.D., 2009. Frac packing handbook. Soc. Petrol. Eng.
Gholoum, E.F., Oskui, G.P., Salman, M., 2003. Investigation of asphaltene precipitation
onset conditions for Kuwaiti reservoirs. In: Middle East Oil Show. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Giacchetta, G., Leporini, M., Marchetti, B., 2015. Economic and environmental analysis of
a Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) facility for oil recovery from Canadian oil
sands. Appl. Energy 142, 1–9.
Graham, A.L., Boak, L.S., Neville, A., 2015. How Minimum Inhibitor Concentration (MIC)
and sub-MIC concentrations affect bulk precipitation and surface scaling rates. In:
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, (Woodlands, Texas).
Green, D.W., Willhite, G.P., 1998. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Dallas.
Gupta, A., Civan, F., 1994. Temperature sensitivity of formation damage in petroleum
reservoirs. In: Paper SPE-27368 Presented at SPE Formation Damage Control
Symposium, (Lafayette, Louisiana, USA).
Haimes, Y.Y., 2015. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management. John Wiley & Sons.
Hamouda, A.A., Gupta, S., 2017. Enhancing oil recovery from chalk reservoirs by a low-
salinity water flooding mechanism and fluid/rock interactions. Energies 10 (576), 16.
Hanna, H.S., Somasundaran, P., 1977. Physic-chemical Aspects of Adsorption at Solid/
liquid Interfaces, II: Mahogany Sulfonate/Berea sandstone, Kaolinite, Improved Oil
Recovery by Surfactant and Polymer Flooding. Academic Press, pp. 253–274.
Harper, R., Buller, C., 1986. Formation damage and remedial stimulation. Clay Miner. 21,
735–751.
Hassenkam, T., Matthiesen, J., Pedresen, C.S., et al., 2012. Observation of the low salinity
effect by atomic force adhesion mapping on reservoir sandstones. In: Paper SPE-
154037, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, (Tulsa, OK USA).
Heerema, C., 2016. Permeability of Simulated Anhydrite Fault Gouge Meter-scale
Samples in a Dynamic Flow-through System, Combined with Static Batch
Experiments: Implications for CO2-rock Interaction. Utrecht University.
Hirasaki, G., Miller, C.A., Puerto, M., 2011. Recent advances in surfactant EOR. SPE J. 16
(4), 889–907.
Huang, T., Crews, J., Willingham, J.R., 2008. Using nanoparticles technology to control
fine migration. In: Paper SPE-115384-MS Presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 21–24 September, Denver, Colorado, USA.
I. E. A, 2014. World Energy Outlook. (Paris, France).
I. E. A, 2015. World Energy Outlook. U. S. Department of energy. International Energy
Agency.
Kalwar, A.S., Elraies, K.A., 2013. Effects of precipitation inhibitor on ASP performance in
carbonate reservoirs. In: Paper SPE-165815 Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition, 22–24 October, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kan, A., Tomson, M., 2012. Scale prediction for oil and gas production. SPE J. 17,
362–378.
Kelessidis, V.C., Maglione, R., 2008. Yield stress of water–bentonite dispersions. Colloid.
Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 318 (1), 217–226.
Khilar, K.C., Fogler, H.S., 1998. Migrations of Fines in Porous Media. Springer,
Netherlands.
Koottungal, L., 2014. 2014 worldwide EOR survey. Oil Gas J. EOR. Surv. 1976–2014.
Krumrine, P.H., Falcone, J.S., 1983. Surfactant, polymer, and alkali interactions in che-
mical flooding processes. In: Paper SPE 11778 Presented at International Symposium
on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, (Denver).
Kuuskraa, V., Wallace, M., 2014. CO2-EOR set for growth as new CO2 supplies emerge.
Oil Gas J. 12 (4), 66–77.
Lakatos, I.J., Lakatos-Szabo, J., Toth, J., et al., 2007. Improvement of placement effi-
ciency of BaSo4 and SrSo4 dissolvers using organic alkalis as ph controlling agents.
In: Paper SPE 106015 Presented at the European Formation Damage Conference, 30
May-1 June. Scheveningen, The Netherlands.
Lake, W.L., Johns, R., Rossen, B., et al., 2014. Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil Recovery.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Leontaritis, K., Mansoori, G.A., Jiang, T.S., 1988. Asphaltene deposition in oil recovery: a
survey of field experiences and research approaches. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 1, 229–239.
Leontaritis, K.J., Amaefule, J.O., Charles, R.E., 1994. A systematic approach for the
B. Yuan, D.A. Wood
prevention and treatment of formation damage caused by asphaltene deposition. SPE
Prod. Facil. 9 (03), 157–164.
Li, J., Li, T., Yan, J., et al., 2009. Silicon containing scale forming characteristics and how
scaling impacts sucker rod pump in ASP flooding. In: SPE-122966 Presented at Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference & Exhibition, 4–6 August, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Liu, Q., 2006. Interfacial Phenomena in Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery by Alkaline Flood.
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Liu, D., et al., 2007. Study on scaling characteristics of strong base ASP flooding and the
anti-scaling measures. Acta Pet. Sin. 28 (5), 139–141.
MacCarthy, J., Nosrati, A., Skinner, W., 2014. Dissolution and rheological behavior of
hematite and quartz particles in aqueous media at pH 1. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 92
(11), 2509–2522.
Martin, J.C., 1959. The effects of clay on the displacement of heavy oil by water. In: Paper
SPE-1411-g Presented at Venezuelan Annual Meeting, 14–16 October, Caracas,
Venezuela.
Martin, M.M., Rockholm, D.C., Martin, J.S., 1985. Effects of surfactants, pH, and certain
cations on precipitation of proteins by tannins. J. Chem. Ecol. 11 (4), 485–494.
Melzer, L.S., 2012. Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR): factors involved in
adding carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) to enhanced oil recovery.
Midland Texas: melzer Consulting. Natl. Enhanc. Oil Recovery Initiat. Resour.
Miranda-Trevino, J.C., Cynthia, A.C., 2003. Kaolinite properties, structure and influence
of metal retention on pH. Appl. Clay Sci. 23 (1–4), 133–139.
Mirzaei-Paiaman, A., Dalvand, Kohshour, O.I., et al., 2012. A Study on the key influential
factors of a gas reservoir's potential for aqueous phase trapping. Energy Sources, Part
A Recovery, Util. Environ. Eff. 34 (16), 1541–1549.
Moghadasi, J., Jamialahmadi, M., Müller-Steinhagen, H., Sharif, A., 2004. Formation
damage due to scale formation in porous media resulting from water injection. In:
Paper SPE 86524 Presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, 18–20 February, Lafayette, Louisiana.
Mohan, K., Ravimadhav, Vaidya, N., et al., 1993. Water sensitivity of Sandstones con-
taining swelling and non-swelling clays. Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect.
73, 237–254.
Muecke, T.W., 1979. Formation fines and factors controlling their movement in porous
media. J. Petrol. Technol. 31, 144–150.
Muggeridge, A., Cockin, A., Webb, K., et al., 2014. Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery
and technological limits. Philos. Trans. Ser. A, Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 372 (2006),
20120320.
Nasralla, R.A., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., 2012. Double-layer expansion: is it a primary me-
chanism of improved oil recovery by low-salinity water flooding? In: Paper SPE-
154334. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, (Tulsa, OK USA).
Nelson, R.C., Pope, G.A., 1978. Phase relationships in chemical flooding. SPE J. 18 (05),
325–338.
Nguyen, P.D., Deaver, J.D., Rickman, R.D., et al., 2007. Controlling formation fines at
their sources to maintain well productivity. SPE Prod. Oper. 22 (02), 14202–14215.
Novosad, Z., Costain, T.G., 1990. Experimental and modeling studies of asphaltene
equilibria for a reservoir under CO2 injection. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Panga, M.K.R., Ooi, Y.S., Koh, P.L., et al., 2006. Wettability alteration for water block
prevention in high temperature gas wells. In: Paper SPE-100182 Presented at the SPE
European/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, 12–15 June, Vienna, Austria.
Permadi, A.K., Naser, M.A., Mucharam, L., et al., 2012. Formation Damage and
Permeability Impairment Associated with Chemical and thermal Treatments: Future
Challenges in EOR Applications.
Plummer, L.N., Busenberg, E., 1982. The solubilities of calcite, aragonite and vaterite in
CO2-H2O solutions between 0 and 90 C, and an evaluation of the aqueous model for
the system CaCO3-CO2-H2O. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46, 1011–1040.
Pope, G.A., Tsaur, K., Schechter, R.S., 1982. The effect of several polymers on the phase
behavior of micellar fluids. SPE J. 22 (6), 816–830.
Porter, K.E., 1989. An overview of formation damage. J. Petrol. Tech. 41 (8), 780–786.
Romanova, U.G., Ma, T., Piwowar, M., et al., 2015. Thermal formation damage and re-
lative permeability of oil sands of the lower cretaceous formations in Western
Canada. In: Paper SPE-174449 Presented at SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical
Conference, 9–11 June, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Rudin, J., Bernard, C., Wasan, D.T., 1994. Effect of added surfactant on interfacial tension
and spontaneous emulsification in alkali/acidic oil systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33,
1150–1158.
Sanaei, A., Shakiba, M., Varavei, A., et al., 2016. Modeling clay swelling induced con-
ductivity damage in hydraulic fractures. In: Paper SPE-180211 Presented at SPE Low
Perm Symposium, 5–6 May, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Sarem, A.M., 1974. Secondary and tertiary recovery of oil by mccf (mobility-controlled
caustic flooding) process. In: Paper SPE-4901 Presented at the SPE–aime 44th Annual
California Regional Meeting, 4–5 April, San Francisco, USA.
Schembre, J.M., Koscel, 2005. Mechanism of formation damage at elevated temperature.
J. Energy Resour. Technol. 127 (03), 171–180.
Sharma, M.M., Chamoun, H., Sarma, D.S.R., 1992. Factors controlling the hydrodynamic
299
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 167 (2018) 287–299
detachment of particles from surfaces. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 149 (1), 121–134.
Sheng, J.J., 2011. Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and Practice.
Elsevier, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.
Sheng, J.J., 2016. Formation damage in chemical enhanced oil recovery processes. Asia
Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 11, 826–835.
Shiran, B.S., Skauge, A., 2013. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) by combined low salinity
water/polymer flooding. Energy Fuel. 27 (3), 1223–1235.
Simith, G.E., 1988. Fluid flow and sand production in heavy oil reservoir under solution
gas drive. SPE J. 3 (02), 169–180.
Skauge, A., Ghorbani, Z., Delshad, M., 2011. Simulation of combined low salinity brine
and surfactant flooding. In: 16th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
(Cambridge, UK).
Smith, S.A., 1995. Monitoring and Remediation wells: Problem Prevention, Maintenance,
and Rehabilitation. CRC Press.
Song, W., Kovscek, A., 2016. Direct visualization of pore-scale fines migration and for-
mation damage during low-salinity waterflooding. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 34,
1276–1283.
Stellner, K.L., Scamehorn, J.F., 1986. Surfactant precipitation in aqueous solutions con-
taining mixtures of anionic and nonionic surfactants. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 63 (04),
566–574.
Tague, J.R., 2000. Overcoming formation damage in heavy oil fields: a comprehensive
approach. In: Paper SPE-62546 Presented at SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting,
19–22 June, Long Beach, California.
Tang, G.Q., Morrow, N.R., 1999. Influence of brine composition and fines migration on
crude oil/brine/rock interactions and oil recovery. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 24, 99–111.
Tang, H., Meng, Y., Yang, X., 2001. A study of adsorption consumption of polyacrylamide
on reservoir minerals. Oilfield Chem. 18 (4), 343–346.
Vose, D., 2008. Risk Analysis: a Quantitative Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Walsh, M., Larry, W.L., 2003. A Generalized Approach to Primary Hydrocarbon Recovery.
Elsevier.
Wang, Z., et al., 2013. Survey on injection–production status and optimized surface
process of ASP flooding in industrial pilot area. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 111, 178–183.
Wood, D.A., Lamberson, G., Mokhatab, S., 2008. Better manage risks of gas processing
projects. Hydrocarb. Process. 124–128.
Wood, D.A., Yuan, B., 2018. Chapter 15: integrated risk & opportunity assessment and
management of IOR projects: a Formation damage view. In: Yuan, B., Wood, D.A.
(Eds.), 2018. Formation Damage during Improved Oil Recovery. Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Wu, X., 2018. Chapter 5: formation damage by inorganic deposition. In: Yuan, B., Wood,
D.A. (Eds.), 2018. Formation Damage during Improved Oil Recovery: Fundamentals
and Application. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Xu, L., He, Y., Xi, H., 2001. Study on the oxy-starch water treatment agents. Water Purif.
Technol. 20 (02), 27–29.
Xu, F., Guo, X., Wang, W., et al., 2011. Case Study: numerical simulation of surfactant
flooding in low permeability oil field. In: Paper SPE 145036 Presented at the SPE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 19–21 July, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Yan, H., et al., 2000. General synthesis of periodic macroporous solids by templated salt
precipitation and chemical conversion. Chem. Mater. 12 (4), 1134–1141.
Yuan, B., Moghanloo, R.G., 2018. Nanofluid pre-treatment, an effective strategy to im-
prove the performance of low-salinity water flooding. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 165,
978–991.
Yuan, B., Moghanloo, R.G., Zheng, D., 2016. Analytical solution of nanoparticles utili-
zation to reduce fines migration in porous medium. SPE J. 21 (06), 2317–2332.
Yuan, B., Moghanloo, R.G., 2017. Analytical modeling improved well performance by
nanofluid pre-flush. Fuel 202, 380–394.
Yuan, B., Moghanloo, R.G., Wang, W., 2018. Using nanofluids to control fines migration
for oil recovery: nanofluids co-injection or nanofluids pre-flush? -A comprehensive
answer. Fuel 215, 474–483.
Yuan, B., Wood, D.A., 2018. Formation Damage during Improved Oil Recovery. Gulf
Professional Publishing.
Yuan, B., Moghanloo, G.R., Zheng, D., 2017. A novel integrated production analysis
workflow for evaluation, optimization and predication in shale plays. Int. J. Coal
Geol. 180, 18–28.
Zhang, P., Tweheyo, M.T., Austad, T., 2006. Wettability alteration and improved oil re-
covery in chalk: the effect of calcium in the presence of sulfate. Energy Fuel. 20,
2056–2062.
Zhang, Y., Xie, X., Morrow, N.R., 2007. Waterflood performance by injection of brine with
different salinity for reservoir cores. In: SPE-109849, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, (Anaheim, California, USA).
Zhang, J., Wu, X., Zhang, K., et al., 2015. Damage by swelling clay and experimental
study of cyclic foam stimulation. Acta Geol. Sin. Engl. Ed. 89, 215–216.
Zitha, P., Frequin, D., Bedrikovetsky, P., 2013. CT scan study of the leak-off of oil- based
drilling fluids into saturated media. In: Paper SPE-165193 Presented at SPE
Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition Held in Njirwjik, (Netherlands).