Spe 192038 Ms

SPE-192038-MS
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S008R003/1221366/spe-192038-ms.pdf by Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University user on 04 November 2022
Mechanistic Modeling of Low Salinity Water Injection under Fracturing
Condition in Carbonate Reservoirs: Coupled Geochemical and
Geomechanical Simulation Study
Seyed Moein Hosseini, Shahin Kord, and Abdolnabi Hashemi, Petroleum University of Technology; Hossein Dashti,
University of Queensland
Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 23–25 October 2018.
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
The main problem during field scale implantation of low salinity water injection (LSWI) is the decline
in injectivity versus time. Moreover, the actual mechanisms that result in incremental oil recovery are
not completely known. In previous studies, the geomechanical effects have not been considered, and pore
volume changed while bulk volume is still constant which in turn can bring uncertainty to the simulation
results. In this paper, both geochemical and geomechanical models have been coupled with the flow model.
For coupling geomechanical model, three equations have been solved simultaneously in each time step.
Then, the geochemical model has been coupled by adding the necessary aqueous and mineral reactions and
ion concentration of both formation and injection waters. Increasing the Ca2+ concentration in the injected
brine cause a reduction in the ultimate oil recovery. Also, increasing SO42− concentration in the injected
brine up to about 70 ppm, resulted in increased oil recovery, while increasing the concentration caused a
reduction in oil recovery. Injection above formation parting pressure (FPP) is beneficial but, there is a high
uncertainty during injection above the FPP that can affect ultimate oil recovery and net present value. The
results of this study show that geomechanical and rock parameters have intensive effects on the simulation
results and rough estimating them in the simulation process can result in major errors and uncertainties.
Further, it is very important to precisely include the dominant mechanisms of low salinity or smart water
process during simulation studies.
Keywords: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Low Salinity Water Injection, Geochemical coupling,
Geomechanical coupling, Fracturing Conditions
Introduction
Many types of research show that more than half of the world oil reservoirs have located in the carbonate
reservoirs rock (Al Shalabi, Sepehrnoori, and Delshad 2014, Attar et al. 2015, Barati-Harooni et al. 2017).
Most of Iran's oil reservoirs are carbonate which due to the low permeability of these types of reservoirs,
they have a high potential for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) purposes (Dashti et al. 2011). The percent
2 SPE-192038-MS
of oil recovery from these reservoirs requires extensive information from the underground layers due to
the reservoir complex structure (Hustedt et al. 2005, Holter 2012, Mirzaei-Paiaman et al. 2017). Different
primary EOR methods such as water flooding, gas injection have been used to increase the oil production
from the reservoirs. However, the flow assurance issues especially in gas injection techniques reveal some
concerns in using carbon dioxide (CO2) (Dashti, Zanganeh, and Ayatollahi 2011, Dashti, Zanganeh, and
Ayatollahi 2013, Kord et al. 2017, Zanganeh et al. 2012, Zanganeh, Dashti, and Ayatollahi 2015), nitrogen
(N2) and natural gas injection (Zanganeh, Dashti, and Ayatollahi 2018, Eskin et al. 2016) scenarios in EOR
methods. Water flooding projects were one of the cheapest and most basic projects to be considered in the
sweeping of residual oil (Zechner et al. 2015). At the beginning of the study, the quantity of injected water
was more important than its quality, but researchers gradually found that, in addition to the quantity of
injected water, its quality is also an important parameter in water flooding (Holter 2012, Mashayekhizadeh,
Kord, and Dejam 2014). After a brief period of water flooding in the field projects, injectivity of water
gradually decreases with time (similarly in polymer flooding and surfactant injection) (Barkman and
Davidson 1972, Ma and McClure 2017) and this makes injection under fracturing condition more critical
(Shutong and Sharma 1997). In past simulation studies, only fluid flow models were considered, while rock
mechanics and geomechanical parameters of the reservoir had a significant effect on the prediction of the
reservoir's future, and ignoring geomechanics in simulation studies would import a considerable uncertainty
in studies (Tran, Settari, and Nghiem 2002).
On the other hand, in simulations of low salinity of water injections, the low salinity effect was only
observed by interpolation between the relative permeability tables, which in fact ignoring the chemical
reactions it will result in a great uncertainty (Jerauld et al. 2006, Morrow and Buckley 2011, Fjelde, Asen,
and Omekeh 2012, Austad, RezaeiDoust, and Puntervold 2010, Kord and Zobeidi 2007). In this paper,
simulation of low salinity injection under fracturing condition was applied into one of the southern Iranian
reservoirs by geomechanical and geochemical coupling. This new modeling technique can provide a more
accurate prediction of the future of the reservoir, also be able to improve the management of reservoirs
and evaluates them correctly (Sharma et al. 2000). Seccombe et al. (2008), investigated four wells as a
chemical test and observed an increase in production rate by low salinity water injection also there was a
direct relationship between the increase in recovery and amount of kaolinite (Seccombe et al. 2008). Batias
et al. (2009) worked on a field study to improve the efficiency of low salinity water injection (Batias et
al. 2009). Van den Hoek has published a series of studies by coupling geomechanical parameters to flow
models since 2000 (Van den Hoek et al. 1996, Hustedt et al. 2006, Khodaverdian et al. 2010, van den Hoek
2005, Ayirala et al. 2010). Many studies have been done on the salinity and composition of injection water,
which in all of them has increased oil recovery, although no definitive reason has been mentioned (Cense et
al. 2011, Xie et al. 2015, Myint and Firoozabadi 2015, Jerauld et al. 2006, Arias 2017). In a recent study by
Pouryousefy et al. 2016, they considered the effect of low salinity water injection was by using geochemical
coupling (Pouryousefy, Xie, and Saeedi 2016).
Low salinity water injection (LSWI)

LSWI is one of the most popular enhance oil recovery method (Zhang et al. 2016, Abaa, Thaddeus
Ityokumbul, and Adewumi 2017). Presence of clay minerals (primarily kaolinite) in the formation is
necessary for this method and no beneficial effect observed in clastics in the absence of clays (Udegbunam
2011, Zhao, Zhao, and Yang 2018, Jalilian et al. 2017). Also, the presence of polar components in the crude
oil and divalent ions in the formation water (plus SO42− for carbonates, and Ca2+ and Mg2+ for clastics)
are necessary in order to enhance the effectiveness of LSWI method (Fathi, Austad, and Strand 2010,
RezaeiDoust et al. 2009). Different mechanisms have been considered to explain how LSWI can enhance
the oil recovery in the reservoirs:
SPE-192038-MS 3
1. Multi-Ion Exchange (MIE) for sandstones is concerned with cation exchange and for carbonate is
anion exchange (Omekeh et al. 2012).
2. Transformation of chalk to other minerals was suggested as the mechanism for wettability alteration
for chalk (Pu et al. 2010).
3. Fine Migration in which the release of fine particles will improve the water wetness, and transportation
of these movable particles will block some pore-throats, which may divert the fluid flow and increase
the sweep efficiency, but it is also possible that fines migration may cause plugging and be detrimental
(Bedrikovetsky et al. 2015).
4. Interfacial tension (IFT) Reduction: there is a critical salinity at which IFT between oil and brine is
minimum, and from the available documented data, no conclusive statement could be drawn regarding
the brine salinity effect on IFT (Alotaibi and Nasr-El-Din 2009).
5. Electrical double layer expansion (EDLE) in which polar oil components are bound to the clay surface
that makes the rock more oil wet. As can be seen from Figure 1, from a molecular level, oil is bound
to the clay, and there are ion bridges between actual clay and oil (ion bridges composed Mg2+, Ca2+,
…). Once low salinity water is injected because of low ion concentration in injected water, ions will
diffuse from the diffusion layer to water which will reduce the ion bridge (ion strength) and release
some of the polar oil particles which will result in lower Sorw (residual oil) and a shift toward more
water wet (Lee et al. 2011, Lager et al. 2008).
Figure 1—EDLE mechanism.
Also chemical interaction between the rock, injected brine and formation brine can increase the PH, and
once high PH occurs, it can react as an in-situ surfactant which will result in reduce IFT and changes the
wettability to more water wet (Khanamiri, Torsæter, and Stensen 2015, Zhang et al. 2015, Salamat, Rios
Perez, and Hidrovo 2016).
Coupling geochemical model for LSWI

Some of the reactions may occur during LSWI. Some of the more common as shown below:
Aqueous phase reactions

(1)
(2)
4 SPE-192038-MS
(3)
(4)
(5)
Mineral dissolution/precipitation reactions (Solubility equilibria)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Ion exchange reactions with reservoir clays or anions

(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Aqueous phase reactions are fast compared to mineral dissolution/precipitation reactions. Aqueous reactions
represented as chemical-equilibrium reactions and mineral dissolution/precipitation represented as rate-
dependent reactions (Molins and Mayer 2007, Dang et al. 2013, Noh et al. 2004, Kazemi Nia Korrani,
Sepehrnoori, and Delshad 2013, Dang et al. 2014). For aqueous reaction, following equations have been
considered:
(14)
(15)
(16)
where Keq is chemical equilibrium constant, vka is the stoichiometric coefficient for the chemical reaction,
aK is the activity of each species in the aqueous phase, naq is the number of species in an intra-aqueous
equilibrium reaction, and γi is the activity coefficient. Activity coefficients in ideal cases can be taken to be
approximately equal to the concentration of the species (in molality). If Qα < Keq then equilibrium favors
product and if Qα > Keq then equilibrium favors the reactants (Dellwig et al. 2007, Dabrin et al. 2012).
For rate-dependent reactions, the dissolution or precipitation rate of a mineral is calculated as (Ennis-
King and Paterson 2007):
(17)
(18)
in which is the reactive surface area of reactant mineral β per unit bulk volume of porous medium (m2/
m3), Keq,β is chemical equilibrium constant of mineral dissolution/precipitation reaction, Kβ is rate constant
of mineral reaction β (mol/m2m2·s), Qβ is activity product of mineral β dissolution reaction, rβ is dissolution/
SPE-192038-MS 5
precipitation rate per unit bulk volume of porous medium [mol/(m3·s)], Rmn is number of mineral reactions,
Ea is the activation energy for the reaction (J/mol), K0,β is the reaction-rate constant for reaction at reference
temperature, R is universal gas constant (8.314 J/(mol K)), T is temperature (K)and T0reference temperature
(K). is saturation index. If , dissolution occurs and if precipitation occurs.
Coupling geomechanical model
In geomechanics study, it is critical to investigate the behavior of soil and rock, and it has a significant role
on simulation and prediction of production from oil reservoirs (Settari and Walters 2001, Fu, Johnson, and
Carrigan 2013). Conventionally, the reservoir engineers have been using non-deformable reservoirs. In non-
deformable reservoirs, the pore volume can change, but the bulk volume can stay constant which means the
reservoir shape stay constant during production. However, the real geomechanics modeling is deformable
reservoirs, in deformable reservoirs, the pore volume can change, and the bulk volume can change as well
(Van den Hoek et al. 1996, van den Hoek 2005, Settari and Mourits 1998). The simulator combines three
basic equations which include equilibrium equation, strain-displacement relation and stress-strain relation
(Computer Modelling Group Ltd. 2014):
Equilibrium equation:
(19)
where F is body force and σ is total stress tensor.
Strain-displacement relation:
(20)
where ∇u is displacement.
Stress-strain relation:
(21)
in which C is the tangential stiffness tensor (equivalent to young's modulus in 1D), η is thermo-elastic
constant and P, ΔT are pressure and temperature changes respectively.
In the simulation solution outline these three equations combine and are solved by according below
outline (Computer Modelling Group Ltd. 2014):
(22)
(23)
(24)
Displacement is obtained by equation 22, and then equation 23 convert displacement to strain and finally
stresses will be obtained by stress-strain relations from equation 24 (Tran, Settari, and Nghiem 2004,
Longuemare et al. 2002).
Figure 2—Reservoir simulation solution outline

6 SPE-192038-MS
Finally, flow equations and geomechanics equations will be coupled together in order to update some
properties. For example, the updated porosity is (Rutqvist, Birkholzer, and Tsang 2008):
(25)
Figure 3—Coupling simulation flowchart
Results and discussions

Model description
In this study, the model has been coupled twice, and because of the complexity of equations, the runtime may
take too long, so a small and straightforward model was chosen. The simple five spot model is 100×100×60
ft and has 10 grid blocks in X, Y direction and 6 grid blocks in the Z direction (Total grid blocks=600).
The single porosity model has six layers. All of the grid blocks have a length and a width of 10 ft. The
top of the model is the depth of 4000 ft, and the reference pressure is 4000 psi. Original oil in place
(OOIP) of this model is about 6.98982×103 STB. Single porosity and low salinity options are activated
by reservoir simulation software (Computer Modelling Group Ltd. 2014). Overall, all layers have weak
reservoir characteristics because of low porosity and permeability values in all directions. The permeability
and porosity are defined heterogeneous random (Figure 4). Also in the developed model, the fluid properties
and relative permeability tables from one of the southern Iranian reservoir have been used (Figure 5).
SPE-192038-MS 7
Figure 4—Porosity and permeability distribution.
Figure 5—Relative permeability of model
Sensitivity analysis on the number of gridding

In the first step, a sensitivity analysis on recovery was performed to obtain the number of grids in each
direction. As shown in Figure 6, in the developed model the recovery factor error was less than 5% while
the number of grids doubled. So, grid number of 600 was chosen as optimum grid number for all cases.
Figure 6—Sensitivity analyses for obtain number of gridding in each direction

8 SPE-192038-MS
Simulation of water injection under matrix condition (without geomechanics coupling)

In the next step of the simulation, the water injection scenario ran for two years as same as formation water
composition without any coupling (Table1).
Table 1—Formation water composition
component Concentration(ppm)
Ca2+ 18492
SO4 2−
612
Mg 2+ 2320
Na+ 68519.9
Cl− 150060
Figure 7—Water injection recovery with no fracturing
As shown in Figure 7, recovery factor obtained 59.7% for water injection under matrix condition. In
this step, we had no fracturing, and no active reactions and permeability and effective normal stress were
constant.
Simulation of water injection under fracturing condition (with geomechanical coupling)

In the next step, water injection scenario under fracturing condition ran for two years as the same as
formation water composition. Further, the model has been coupled with rock mechanics data that obtained
from the logs which taken from the southern reservoir of Iran as shown as in Table 2.
Table 2—Rock type model: Mohr-Coulomb
Parameters Value
Young's elastic modulus 3.95×105 psi
Poisson's ratio 0.3
Cohesion 10000 psi
Initial stresses in each direction 700 psi

SPE-192038-MS 9
Figure 8—Water injection recovery
It can be seen from the Figure 8, recovery factor obtained about 62% for water injection with
geomechanical coupling, which compares to the injection under matrix condition, the recovery increase
more than 2%. In Figure 9 there is a clear trend that in tight reservoir injection under fracturing there is
more injectivity and recovery factor than injection under matrix condition. In this step, permeability and
recovery changed with time and appeared dynamic fractures.
Figure 9—Comparison recovery for both under fracturing and matrix condition.
Dynamic fractures (Geomechanical coupling)

In this stage, the geomechanical data was coupled into the fluid flow model. Initially, water injection
(formation water) scenario under fracturing condition ran for two years (2000-2002) and then the dynamic
fractures were investigated which may occur during injection and production into blocks. For example,
block 5, 5, 3 was chosen for investigating the permeability change and effective normal stress. The main
reason in order to select this block is its proximity to the injection well.
10 SPE-192038-MS
As can be seen from Figure 10 after starting of the production, permeability increases slowly because the
injection pressure is higher than formation parting pressure (FPP). After that, the injection surface would
grow due to the fracture and for this reason; the effective normal stress would decrease. Then due to high
overburden pressure and small stress, the permeability would decrease again, and the effective normal stress
would increase because of small injection surface.
Figure 10—Appearing dynamic fracture
Similarly, increasing permeability would appear because of increasing stress and dynamic fractures
starting to grow. The minimum stress for opening the fractures in the second step is smaller than the previous
step and also increasing in permeability is more than the previous step because of the hysteresis effect. This
coupling effect applies to all following cases.
Simulation of seawater injection

The developed model was investigated for seawater injection scenario with the composition as shown in
Table 3.
Table 3—Seawater composition
component Concentration(ppm)
Ca2+ 511
SO42− 3150
Mg2+ 1540
Na + 13200
Cl− 23400
From recovery results for the seawater injection in Figure 11, it can be seen that the recovery factor is
about 61% for seawater injection with geomechanical coupling.
SPE-192038-MS 11
Figure 11—Seawater injection recovery
Sensitivity analysis on Ca2+ and SO42−

Four aqueous reactions and two mineral reactions base on the carbonated rock were chosen for geochemical
coupling (Table 4). After geochemical coupling, a sensitivity analysis was performed for Ca2+ and SO42− in
order to find the optimum concentration for LSWI.
Table 4—Reactions for coupling into the simulation model
aqueous reactions mineral reactions
CO2 (aq) + H2O ↔ (H+) + (HCO3−) Calcite + (H+) ↔ (Ca2+) + (HCO3−)
(OH−) + (H+) ↔ H2O Dolomite + 2(H+) ↔ (Ca2+) + 2(HCO3−) + (Mg2+)
CaSO4 ↔ (Ca2+) + (SO42−)
MgSO4 ↔ (Mg2+) + (SO42−)
Figure 12—Sensitivity analyses on Ca2+ concentration

12 SPE-192038-MS
Figure 13—Sensitivity analyses on SO42− concentration
It can be seen from Figures 12 and 13 that the best recovery was obtained for Ca2+ and SO42− in
332 ppm and 70.2 ppm respectively. Increasing the Ca2+ concentration in the injected brine resulted in
decreased ultimate oil recoveries and increasing SO42− concentration in the injected brine tends to change
the wettability to more intermediate levels and resulted in improved oil recovery. It is worth stressing that
there is an optimum SO42− concentration of 70.2 ppm, which resulted in highest oil recovery.
Finally, oil recovery of LSWI with both coupling geochemical and geomechanical, only water injection
(formation water) with geomechanical coupling, seawater injection with geomechanical coupling and only
water injection (formation water) without geomechanics consideration (without fracture) were compared
together. As shown in Figure 14, the best performance according to this study is effective LSWI under
fracturing condition in the optimum concentration of Ca2+ and SO42− with geochemical consideration.
Figure 14—Oil recovery in all proposed scenarios

SPE-192038-MS 13
Conclusion
In this study, a new method for the simulation of low salinity water injection under different scenarios
was investigated. In previous simulations, researchers investigated reservoir production without any
consideration of geomechanics effect, and this may result in much uncertainty that they corrected by history
matching. In the current method, by importing rock mechanics data into the fluid flow model, geomechanics
effects have been considered. In addition to this, geochemical coupled to our model instead of modification
relative permeability data for simulation of low salinity water injection. Simulation of different scenario
showed the following results:
1. Water injection in the tight reservoir will result in injectivity decline, and for this type of reservoirs,
injection under fracturing condition is an excellent choice to increase the recovery.
2. Injection under fracturing condition can result in higher recovery than injection under matrix condition
for all scenarios.
3. The optimum concentrations for SO42− and Ca2+ are 70.2 ppm and 332 ppm respectively. Increasing
the Ca2+ concentration in the injected brine resulted in decreased ultimate oil recoveries and increasing
SO42− concentration in the injected brine tends to change the wettability to more intermediate levels
and resulted in higher oil recovery. It is important to know that there is an optimum SO42− concentration
of 100 ppm, which resulted in highest oil recovery.
4. Results showed that injection under fracturing condition have 2% more recovery than injection under
matrix condition for this small model and in the pilot model may have a considerable increase.
5. LSWI in the carbonated reservoir could increase recovery from 60% to 80 %.
6. The concentration of Ca2+ and SO42− play a significant role on oil recovery.
References
Abaa, Kelvin, M. Thaddeus Ityokumbul, Michael Adewumi. 2017. Effect of Acoustic Stimulation on Aqueous Phase
Trapping in Low-Permeability Sandstones. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 139 (6): 062905-062905-7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4037156.
Al Shalabi, Emad Waleed, Kamy Sepehrnoori, Mojdeh Delshad. 2014. Mechanisms behind low salinity water injection
in carbonate reservoirs. Fuel 121: 11-19.
Alotaibi, Mohammed B, Hisham A Nasr-El-Din. Chemistry of injection water and its impact on oil recovery in carbonate
and clastics formations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Arias, Francisco J. 2017. Deliberate Salinization of Seawater for Desalination of Seawater. Journal of Energy Resources
Technology 140 (3): 032004-032004-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4038053.
Attar, Masoud Seyed, Mohammad H Sedaghat, Shahin Kord et al. Field Development Strategy through Full-Filed
Reservoir Simulation Considering Asphaltene Precipitation and Deposition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Austad, Tor, Alireza RezaeiDoust, Tina Puntervold. Chemical mechanism of low salinity water flooding in sandstone
reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Ayirala, Subhash C, Ernesto Uehara-Nagamine, Andreas Nicholas Matzakos et al. A designer water process for offshore
low salinity and polymer flooding applications. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Barati-Harooni, Ali, Adel Najafi-Marghmaleki, Seyed Moein Hosseini et al. 2017. Experimental Investigation of Dynamic
Adsorption-Desorption of New Nonionic Surfactant on Carbonate Rock: Application to Enhanced Oil Recovery.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology 139 (4): 042202-042202-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4036046.
Barkman, James H, Donald H Davidson. 1972. Measuring water quality and predicting well impairment. Journal of
Petroleum Technology 24 (07): 865-873.
Batias, J, G Hamon, B Lalanne et al. Field and laboratory observations of Remaining oil saturations in a light oil reservoir
flooded by a low salinity aquifer. 27-30.
Bedrikovetsky, Pavel, Abbas Zeinijahromi, Alexander Badalyan et al. 2015. Fines-Migration-Assisted Low-Salinity
Waterflooding: Field Case Analysis. Proc.
Cense, Arjen, Steffen Berg, Kirsten Bakker et al. Direct visualization of designer water flooding in model experiments.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Computer Modelling Group Ltd. 2014. GEM User Guide, Calgary CA.
14 SPE-192038-MS
Dabrin, Aymeric, Cyrielle L Durand, Jeanne Garric et al. 2012. Coupling geochemical and biological approaches to assess
the availability of cadmium in freshwater sediment. Science of the Total Environment 424: 308-315.
Dang, Cuong Thanh Quy, Long X Nghiem, Zhangxin John Chen et al. Modeling low salinity waterflooding: ion exchange,
geochemistry and wettability alteration. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Dang, Cuong TQ, Long X Nghiem, Zhangxin Chen et al. CO2 Low salinity water alternating gas: a new promising
approach for enhanced oil recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Dashti, H, P Zanganeh, S Ayatollahi. Asphaltene deposition during CO2 injection at different pressures; experimental
and modeling study.
Dashti, Hossein, Shahin Kord, Alireza Shariati et al. Thermodynamic Fluid Characterization of an Iranian Oil Reservoir.
Leicester, United Kingdom.
Dashti, Hossein, Peyman Zanganeh, Shahab Ayatollahi. The Comparison between Heavy and Light Oil Asphaltene
Deposition during Pressure Depletion and CO2 Injection at Reservoir Condition, A Visual Laboratory Study.
Engineers Australia.
Dellwig, Olaf, Melanie Beck, Andreas Lemke et al. 2007. Non-conservative behaviour of molybdenum in coastal waters:
Coupling geochemical, biological, and sedimentological processes. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 71 (11):
2745-2761.
Ennis-King, Jonathan, Lincoln Paterson. 2007. Coupling of geochemical reactions and convective mixing in the long-
term geological storage of carbon dioxide. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1 (1): 86-93.
Eskin, Dmitry, Omid Mohammadzadeh, Kamran Akbarzadeh et al. 2016. Reservoir impairment by asphaltenes: A critical
review. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 94 (6): 1202-1217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjce.22476.
Fathi, S Jafar, Tor Austad, Skule Strand. 2010. "Smart Water" as a Wettability Modifier in Chalk: The Effect of Salinity
and Ionic Composition. Energy & fuels 24 (4): 2514-2519.
Fjelde, Ingebret, Siv Marie Asen, Aruoture Voke Omekeh. Low salinity water flooding experiments and interpretation by
simulations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Fu, Pengcheng, Scott M Johnson, Charles R Carrigan. 2013. An explicitly coupled hydrogeomechanical model for
simulating hydraulic fracturing in arbitrary discrete fracture networks. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 37 (14): 2278-2300.
Holter, Knut Even. 2012. Simulation of Low Salinity Waterflooding in a Synthetic Reservoir Model and Froy Field
Reservoir Model, Institutt for petroleumsteknologi og anvendt geofysikk.
Hustedt, Bernhard, Yuan Qiu, Dirk Zwarts et al. The Impact of Water-Injection-Induced Fractures on Reservoir Flow
Dynamics: First Applications of a New Simulation Strategy. International Petroleum Technology Conference.
Hustedt, Bernhard, Dirk Zwarts, Hans-Petter Bjoerndal et al. Induced fracturing in reservoir simulations: Application of
a new coupled simulator to waterflooding field examples. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Jalilian, Malek, Peyman Pourafshary, Behnam Sedaee Sola et al. 2017. Optimization of Smart Water Chemical
Composition for Carbonate Rocks Through Comparison of Active Cations Performance. Journal of Energy Resources
Technology 139 (6): 062904-062904-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4037215.
Jerauld, Gary Russell, Kevin John Webb, Cheng-Yuan Lin et al. Modeling low-salinity waterflooding. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Kazemi Nia Korrani, Aboulghasem, Kamy Sepehrnoori, Mojdeh Delshad. A novel mechanistic approach for modeling
low salinity water injection. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Khanamiri, Hamid Hosseinzade, Ole Torsæter, Jan åge Stensen. 2015. Experimental Study of Low Salinity and Optimal
Salinity Surfactant Injection. Proc.
Khodaverdian, Mohamad F, Tibi Sorop, Sophie J Postif et al. 2010. Polymer flooding in unconsolidated-sand formations:
Fracturing and geomechanical considerations. SPE Production & Operations 25 (02): 211-222.
Kord, S, K Zobeidi. Effect of compositional grading on reservoir fluid characterization in a giant Iranian oil reservoir.
Petroleum Society of Canada.
Kord, Shahin, Hossein Dashti, Peyman Zanganeh et al. 2017. Evaluation of the kinetics of asphaltene flocculation during
natural depletion and CO2 injection in heptane-toluene mixtures. Proc.
Lager, Arnaud, Kevin John Webb, Ian Ralph Collins et al. LoSal enhanced oil recovery: Evidence of enhanced oil recovery
at the reservoir scale. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Lee, Seung Yeon, Kevin John Webb, IR Collins et al. Low Salinity Oil Recovery-Increasing Understanding of the
Underlying Mechanisms of Double Layer Expansion.
Longuemare, P, M Mainguy, P Lemonnier et al. 2002. Geomechanics in reservoir simulation: overview of coupling
methods and field case study. Oil & Gas Science and Technology 57 (5): 471-483.
Ma, Yiwei, Mark W McClure. 2017. The Effect of Polymer Rheology and Induced Fracturing on Injectivity and Pressure-
Transient Behavior. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 20 (02): 394-402.
SPE-192038-MS 15
Mashayekhizadeh, Vahid, Shahin Kord, Morteza Dejam. 2014. EOR potential within Iran. Special Topics & Reviews in
Porous Media: An International Journal 5 (4).
Mirzaei-Paiaman, A., S. Kord, E. Hamidpour et al. 2017. Scaling one- and multi-dimensional co-current spontaneous
imbibition processes in fractured reservoirs. Fuel 196 (Supplement C): 458-472. http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0016236117301370.
Molins, S, KU Mayer. 2007. Coupling between geochemical reactions and multicomponent gas and solute transport in
unsaturated media: A reactive transport modeling study. Water Resources Research 43 (5).
Morrow, Norman, Jill Buckley. 2011. Improved oil recovery by low-salinity waterflooding. Journal of Petroleum
Technology 63 (05): 106-112.
Myint, Philip C, Abbas Firoozabadi. 2015. Thin liquid films in improved oil recovery from low-salinity brine. Current
Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 20 (2): 105-114.
Noh, Myeong, Larry Wayne Lake, Steven Lawrence Bryant et al. Implications of coupling fractional flow and
geochemistry for CO2 injection in aquifers. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Omekeh, Aruoture Voke, Helmer A Friis, Ingebret Fjelde et al. Modeling of ion-exchange and solubility in low salinity
water flooding. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Pouryousefy, Ehsan, Quan Xie, Ali Saeedi. 2016. Effect of multi-component ions exchange on low salinity EOR: Coupled
geochemical simulation study. Petroleum 2 (3): 215-224.
Pu, Hui, Xina Xie, Peigui Yin et al. 2010. Low-Salinity Waterflooding and Mineral Dissolution. Proc.
RezaeiDoust, A, T Puntervold, S Strand et al. 2009. Smart water as wettability modifier in carbonate and sandstone: A
discussion of similarities/differences in the chemical mechanisms. Energy & fuels 23 (9): 4479-4485.
Rutqvist, J, JT Birkholzer, Chin-Fu Tsang. 2008. Coupled reservoir-geomechanical analysis of the potential for tensile
and shear failure associated with CO 2 injection in multilayered reservoir-caprock systems. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 45 (2): 132-143.
Salamat, Yasamin, Carlos A. Rios Perez, Carlos Hidrovo. 2016. Performance Characterization of a Capacitive
Deionization Water Desalination System With an Intermediate Solution and Low Salinity Water. Journal of Energy
Resources Technology 138 (3): 032003-032003-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4032427.
Seccombe, James C, Arnaud Lager, Kevin John Webb et al. Improving Wateflood Recovery: LoSalTM EOR Field
Evaluation. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Settari, Antonin, FM Mourits. 1998. A coupled reservoir and geomechanical simulation system. Spe Journal 3 (03):
219-226.
Settari, Antonin, Dale A Walters. 2001. Advances in coupled geomechanical and reservoir modeling with applications to
reservoir compaction. Spe Journal 6 (03): 334-342.
Sharma, Mukul M, Shutong Pang, Kjell Erik Wennberg et al. 2000. Injectivity decline in water-injection wells: an offshore
Gulf of Mexico case study. SPE Production & Facilities 15 (01): 6-13.
Shutong, Pang, Mukul M Sharma. 1997. A model for predicting injectivity decline in water-injection wells. SPE Formation
Evaluation 12 (03): 194-201.
Tran, D, A Settari, L Nghiem. 2002. New Iterative Coupling Between a Reservoir Simulator and a Geomechanics Module.
Paper SPE 78192 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas, USA, 20-23 October
(Reprint).
Tran, David, Antonin Settari, Long Nghiem. 2004. New iterative coupling between a reservoir simulator and a
geomechanics module. Spe Journal 9 (03): 362-369.
Udegbunam, John Emeka. 2011. EOR in chalk: Optimized oil recovery with modified seawater, University of Stavanger,
Norway.
van den Hoek, Paul J. 2005. Dimensions and Degree of Containment of Waterflood-Induced Fractures from Pressure
Transient Analysis. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 8 (05): 377-387.
Van den Hoek, PJ, Tsuyoshi Matsuura, Michiel de Kroon et al. Simulation of produced water re-injection under fracturing
conditions. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Xie, Quan, Desheng Ma, Jiazhong Wu et al. Potential Evaluation of Ion Tuning Waterflooding for a Tight Oil Reservoir
in Jiyuan OilField: Experiments and Reservoir Simulation Results. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Zanganeh, Peyman, Shahab Ayatollahi, Abdolmohammad Alamdari et al. 2012. Asphaltene Deposition during CO2
Injection and Pressure Depletion: A Visual Study. Energy & Fuels 26 (2): 1412-1419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
ef2012744.
Zanganeh, Peyman, Hossein Dashti, Shahab Ayatollahi. 2015. Visual investigation and modeling of asphaltene
precipitation and deposition during CO2 miscible injection into oil reservoirs. Fuel 160: 132-139. http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236115007541.
16 SPE-192038-MS
Zanganeh, Peyman, Hossein Dashti, Shahab Ayatollahi. 2018. Comparing the effects of CH4, CO2, and N2 injection on
asphaltene precipitation and deposition at reservoir condition: A visual and modeling study. Fuel 217: 633-641. http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001623611830005X.
Zechner, Markus, Torsten Clemens, Ajay Suri et al. 2015. Simulation of polymer injection under fracturing conditions-an
injectivity pilot in the Matzen field, Austria. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 18 (02): 236-249.
Zhang, Guoyin, Jianjia Yu, Cheng Du et al. 2015. Formulation of Surfactants for Very Low/High Salinity Surfactant
Flooding without Alkali. Proc.
Zhang, Lei, Chunsheng Pu, Shuxia Cui et al. 2016. Experimental Study on a New Type of Water Shutoff Agent Used in
Fractured Low Permeability Reservoir. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 139 (1): 012907-012907-9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4035146.
Zhao, Min, Xiutai Zhao, Daoyong Yang. 2018. Preparation and Characterization of Chemical Agents for Augmenting
Injectivity in Low Permeability Reservoirs. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 140 (3): 032914-032914-9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4038784.

Spe 192038 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Spe 192038 Ms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 192038 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-192038-MS

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Low salinity water injection (LSWI)

Figure 1—EDLE mechanism.

Coupling geochemical model for LSWI

Aqueous phase reactions

Ion exchange reactions with reservoir clays or anions

Figure 2—Reservoir simulation solution outline

Results and discussions

Figure 5—Relative permeability of model

Sensitivity analysis on the number of gridding

Figure 6—Sensitivity analyses for obtain number of gridding in each direction

Simulation of water injection under matrix condition (without geomechanics coupling)

Table 1—Formation water composition

Figure 7—Water injection recovery with no fracturing

Simulation of water injection under fracturing condition (with geomechanical coupling)

Table 2—Rock type model: Mohr-Coulomb

Young's elastic modulus 3.95×105 psi

Poisson's ratio 0.3

Cohesion 10000 psi

Initial stresses in each direction 700 psi

Dynamic fractures (Geomechanical coupling)

Simulation of seawater injection

Table 3—Seawater composition

Sensitivity analysis on Ca2+ and SO42−

Table 4—Reactions for coupling into the simulation model

aqueous reactions mineral reactions

CO2 (aq) + H2O ↔ (H+) + (HCO3−) Calcite + (H+) ↔ (Ca2+) + (HCO3−)

(OH−) + (H+) ↔ H2O Dolomite + 2(H+) ↔ (Ca2+) + 2(HCO3−) + (Mg2+)

CaSO4 ↔ (Ca2+) + (SO42−)

MgSO4 ↔ (Mg2+) + (SO42−)

Figure 12—Sensitivity analyses on Ca2+ concentration

Figure 14—Oil recovery in all proposed scenarios

You might also like