SPE 159526

SmartWater Flooding: Industry's First Field Test in Carbonate Reservoirs

Ali A. Yousef, Jim Liu, Guy Blanchard, Salah Al-Saleh, Tareq Al-Zahrani, Rashad Al-Zahrani, Hasan Al-Tammar, and
Nayef Al-Mulhim, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October 2012.

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
In recent years, improved/enhanced oil recovery by tuning the ionic composition of injection water has attracted the attention of
the petroleum industry, and currently deemed as new emerging research trend.

In view of research results for the last four years, we demonstrated in previous reports (SPE 137634; SPEREE Journal, vol.
14(5), pp. 578-593; SPE 143550, SPE 141082, SPE 154076; SPE 154077) that substantial oil recovery beyond conventional
waterflooding from carbonates can be achieved by optimizing the salinity and ionic composition of field injection brine. Similar
potential has been confirmed also in the secondary recovery mode. For recovery mechanisms, research confirmed that the driving
mechanism is wettability alteration of carbonate rock surface and can be attributed to surface charges alteration, and microscopic
dissolution of anhydrite. In this paper, we present the results of two field trials conducted in a carbonate reservoir to demonstrate
the SmartWater Flood potential.

Both field trials confirmed that in-house research results can be replicated at field scale. Injection of SmartWater revealed a
reduction of ~7 saturation units in the residual oil beyond conventional seawater. Considering these field trials are the first-ever
applications in carbonate reservoirs, they further provided another confirmation that SmartWater Flood has significant potential to
be a new recovery method targeting carbonate reservoirs. A special type of single-well chemical tracer was used in these trials to
measure the residual oil in the vicinity of the well following the injection of each water type. During all stages of field trials,
careful QA/QC program was put in place to monitor variation in ionic composition in all injected or produced fluids and further
insure optimum ionic composition of SmartWater slugs. Several field trials are planned to optimize the current process leading to a
multi-well Demonstration Pilot to determine the impact on ultimate recovery and reserves.

Introduction
Waterflooding has been the most successful method for recovering oil from reservoirs. The key ground for the success of
waterflooding include a) Water is an efficient injectant for displacing oil of light to medium gravity, b) Water is relatively easy to
inject into oil-bearing formations, c) Water is available and most importantly inexpensive, and d) Waterflooding involves much
lower capital investment and operating costs, leading to favorable economics compared to the EOR methods.

The target of any waterflood reservoir management is mainly to maximize the secondary oil recovery. The attention has been
given historically to improve the volumetric sweep efficiency through a number of technologies and practices including in-fill
drilling, multilateral wells, improved reservoir characterization, high resolution reservoir simulation, advanced monitoring and
surveillance, and many others. After execution all of these efforts, any significant addition in oil recovery has to come from
implementation of EOR methods. However, another option to consider before EOR is “SmartWater Flood”. The idea is to inject
chemistry-optimized water in terms of salinity and ionic composition into the reservoir instead of any available water that may
currently be injected or planned to be injected. This option has several advantages:
2 SPE 159526

• It can potentially provide higher ultimate oil recovery with minimal investment in current operations with assumption
that waterflooding facilities are already available. When compared to EOR, it could avoid extensive capital investment
associated with conventional EOR methods, including expenditure on new infrastructure, new injection facilities,
production and monitoring wells, changes in tubing and casing, and many others.
• It can be applied during the late life cycle of the reservoir, and potentially at early stages of production, as green field
process.

Saudi Aramco, through its upstream research arm (the EXPEC Advanced Research Center) has initiated a research program
on “SmartWater Flood” to explore the potential of increasing oil recovery by tuning the injection water properties (e.g., Salinity,
ionic composition, Interfacial tension, viscosity, and others). Several Saudi Aramco reservoirs have natural water drives that have
been augmented by peripheral water injection programs since the mid 1950s. A string of development of the injection system has
been implemented over the past 60 years. This has resulted in unique water injection infrastructure, considered today the largest in
the world. Currently, the primary source of the injection water is seawater. The potential of obtaining incremental oil recovery
through tuning the injected water properties is significant considering the current injection water facilities as well as the large oil
resources of the Kingdom.

Over the past years, in-house research efforts have revealed that injection of chemistry-optimized versions of field seawater
provides substantial oil recovery, beyond conventional seawater flooding for carbonate rock samples. Also, these results were
confirmed and validated through different types of laboratory studies including surface chemistry, wettability and fluid-rock
interaction, and reservoir corefloods.

Moving this technology from lab-scale to field-scale, a roadmap for SmartWater Flood field applications is underway targeting
full multi-well demonstration project. The first phase of the roadmap is to conduct several single well tests to prove the concept of
SmartWater Flood at field environments, optimize the current process, and also provide key parameters for design of multi-well
demonstration project.

This paper provides first a technical review on SmartWater Flood research, and then presents the results of two field trials
recently completed successfully at one of Saudi Arabian carbonate reservoirs to investigate the impact of altering the salinity and
ionic content of field seawater on oil recovery.

Technical Background on SmartWater Flood Research

Based on the research work for the last years, we presented for the first time in the industry (Yousef et al., 2010; Yousef et al.,
2011a; Yousef et al., 2011c) a new recovery method/process for carbonate reservoirs labeled “SmartWater Flood” to improve or
enhance oil recovery through tuning the salinity and ionic composition of injection seawater. This was demonstrated through
different coreflooding experiments using composite cores from two Saudi Arabian carbonate reservoirs. The experimental
parameters and procedures were well designed to reflect reservoir conditions and current field injection practices, including
reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature, initial reservoir connate water, and synthetic brines of injection seawater. The method
consists of a sequential injection of various diluted versions of field seawater. Figure 1 depicts the cumulative oil recovery curve
obtained from one of these coreflood experiments. Five different versions of seawater were injected — one after another —
starting with regular seawater and ending with 100 times diluted seawater. Different practices were implemented to ensure ahead
of injection any tertiary slug that the residual oil is attained through specific injection practices. The additional oil recovery was
~7% - 8.5% with twice diluted seawater; ~9% - 10% with 10 times diluted seawater, and ~1% - 1.6% with 20 times diluted
seawater, all in terms of the original oil in cores (OOIC).

Carbonate rock wettability alteration was the main cause for substantial increase in oil recovery observed in reported
coreflood experiments (Yousef et al., 2010; Yousef et al., 2011a; Yousef et al., 2011c). The significant alteration was observed
with twice diluted seawater and also 10 times diluted seawater (Fig. 2). Because the recovery mechanism study showed that
injection of diluted versions of seawater has less impact on IFT, this suggests that the new method mainly affect fluid-rock
interactions (Yousef et al., 2010; Yousef et al., 2011a; Yousef et al., 2011c). Also, further research studies using direct/indirect
techniques (i.e., NMR, Zeta Potential) attributed the wettability alteration observed with SmartWater Flood to a) surface charges
alteration, and b) enhancement in the connectivity between different pore systems through microscopic dissolution (Yousef et al.,
2011a; Yousef et al., 2011d; Yousef et al., 2012a).
SPE 159526 3

Recent research findings (Yousef et al., 2012b) confirmed and validated the potential of SmartWater Flood in the secondary
recovery mode (Fig. 3). Also, the incremental secondary recovery is similar to the tertiary recovery potential. The performance of
SmartWater Flood is generally function of the reservoir temperature, the chemistry of initial formation water, the composition of
reservoir oil, rock mineralogy, and also the reservoir heterogeneity (Yousef et al., 2011d, Yousef et al., 2012b).

For role of ions, fundamental research studies (Yousef et al, 2011b, Yousef et al., 2012a) confirmed that a significant
reduction in the ionic strength of field seawater is required to trigger the effect of wettability alteration (Fig. 4). Also, presences of
multivalent ions in the injected water will enhance wettability alteration of SmartWater Flood (Fig. 5). Therefore, SmartWater is
not simply low salinity water, and ionic composition of field injection water plays important role in rock wettability alteration
process.

Single Well Field Trials-Concept

The concept of field trials is to determine the impact of SmartWater on residual oil attained by field seawater. To achieve this
target using single well test, field seawater is first injected to move oil saturation around the wellbore toward the residual oil. Then,
a tool is used to measure field seawater residual oil saturation. In the second stage, injection of a slug of SmartWater is pursued. In
view of previous research work (Yousef et al., 2010; Yousef et al., 2011a; Yousef et al., 2011c), SmartWater should mobilize oil
beyond field seawater injection. Applying the same tool one more time, the residual oil for the same targeted near wellbore area is
measured. Therefore, the relative change between field seawater and SmartWater residual oil saturations will provide clear
evidence that SmartWater can mobilize oil beyond field seawater, and eventually this will prove that SmartWater works at the
field.

Tools for Residual Oil Saturation Measurement

Different approaches have been evaluated to select the best practices in demonstrating the potential of SmartWater Flood through
single well tests. The first choice was to use conventional well logs to measure oil saturation around the wellbore. Because of
small depth of investigation for such logs, the residual oil saturation (ROS) measurements will be limited to very small area around
the wellbore. Such a small pore volume could not be sufficient to reflect or capture the potential of SmartWater slug. Therefore, it
was necessary to identify another technique that enables the measurement of ROS with large depth of investigation around the
well. This ultimately will provide an accurate assessment of SmartWater Flood potential using a representative area around the
wellbore.

Single Well Chemical Tracer (SWCT) was selected as tool for ROS measurements in planned field trials. SWCT is well-
established technique to estimate ROS in the near wellbore area, and has become a fundamental tool for rapidly evaluating the
potential of any oil recovery method (Deans, 1971, Deans and Carlisle, 1986; Tomich et al., 1973; Deans and Carlisle, 2007). Such
technique was identified as the most robust and efficient way to determine the incremental impact of SmartWater slugs on the
residual oil of the near wellbore area. The current SWCT technique allows measuring as small as 2-pore volume percent
(saturation unit) change in average residual oil saturation up to a distance of 20 ft around the wellbore.

In SWCT test, three types of tracer are usually employed during field application, including Ethyl Acetate (Ester), Methyl
Alcohol, and Isopropyl Alcohol. Ethyl Acetate (EtAc) is the partitioning/reactive tracer and it is the main tracer for ROS
measurements. Methyl Alcohol, the cover tracer is used to confirm the shape and position of reactive tracer (EtAc) profile in cases
where excessive hydrolysis and drift encountered. Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA), the material balance tracer is to determine the overall
material balance of SWCT. In field operation, two slugs are typically injected into the test zone. The first slug containing all three
tracers at different concentrations is first injected. The second slug containing only IPA tracer is then followed and its objective is
to push the first slug or Ester slug away from the wellbore and allow the segregation of reactive tracer between static oil phase and
water phase up to designed depth of investigation. Subsequently, the well is shut-in for 1-3 days. During this period, the fraction of
EtAc that remains in water phase will hydrolyze to form a product tracer, namely Ethyl Alcohol (EtOH). During flow back period,
concentrations of all tracers can be measured. Figure 6 shows an illustrative example of typical profiles of tracers obtained from
SWCT. The separation between the reactive tracer (EtAc) and the product tracer (EtOH) is attributed to the fact that the reactive is
retarded due to its partitioning property, compared to the product tracer (EtOH). As a result, the apparent separation between these
two tracers is directly correlated to average ROS of the test zone.

Different methods were developed to estimate the residual oil saturation from SWCT test (Deans, 1971, Deans and Carlisle,
1986; Tomich et al., 1973; Deans and Carlisle, 2007). The simple and direct way is the analytical method, derived from
fundamental equations for tracer chromatography in a porous medium. In this method, the residual oil of the test zone is basically
4 SPE 159526

function of the separation between reactive tracer and product tracer, and also the retardation or partitioning coefficient of the
reactive tracer (Deans, 1971, Deans and Carlisle, 1986):
β
Sor = ……….. …….…………………………………………………………………………………… (1)
β +K
where K is the partitioning coefficient of the reactive tracer and it is function of reservoir oil composition, injection water
chemistry, and also reservoir temperature. The partitioning coefficient is usually measured at laboratory using representative
reservoir fluid samples. The separation coefficient ( β) is determined by calculating the difference in the position of the product
and reactive tracer peaks (Fig. 6) to the following equation (Deans, 1971, Deans and Carlisle, 1986):
Qa
β= −1 ……….. …….…………………………………………………………………………………… (2)
Qb
where Q a is the reactive tracer peak production volume, and Q b is the product tracer peak production volume.

The main requirement for using the analytical method is that peaks of the tracers should be normally distributed (symmetrical
about the y-axis). For real field application, the analytical method provides good estimation of ROS when the peaks of the tracers
are not significantly skewed or deviated from the ideal behavior. We refer to this method in this work as the analytical method and
its applicability for this work will be addressed later.

A history match method was developed to overcome non-ideal behavior of tracer profiles generated from real field cases. In
this method, ROS is quantified by varying the saturation in theoretical computation to obtain the best fit for backflow tracer
profiles (Deans and Carlisle, 2007). The input parameters include test design parameters, properties of near wellbore region,
perforation intervals, and others. The adjustable or tuning parameters are basically dispersion coefficient, hydrolysis reaction rate,
and the residual oil. We refer to this approach in this work as the history match method.

Well Selection Process

The selection of the most suitable wells is critical for the success of planned single well tests. The well candidates should satisfy
requirements of both SWCT and also SmartWater Flood. Injection wells should be avoided as well candidates. Because of
extensive water injection, ROS in the vicinity of injection wells is typically much lower than true ROS of the reservoir.

Oil producing wells are typically selected as candidates for such test. For thick reservoirs with several hundreds of feet, open-
hole producing wells completed throughout such reservoirs are not recommended due to unrealistic test requirement in terms of
large injection volumes of fluids to establish ROS in the nearby well region, extensive field preparation and logistics, and long
execution period. All of these will eventually hinder the assessment of test results and data interpretation.

In general, the most suitable wells for planned field trials are cased producing wells with practical perforation intervals. The
initial well screening for targeted field provided more than 150 cased producing wells. For further screening, well selection criteria
was developed (Table 1) addressing different requirements including well completion, chemistry of produced water, well
productivity, perforation intervals, and water cut. Based on the developed well selection criteria and detailed review of well
completion and geology, two wells (Well A, and Well B) were identified as the main candidates for two SmartWater Flood field
trials.

Figure 7 shows the relative location of Well A and Well B at the field. As depicted in Fig 8, both wells are completed at the
same zone of the reservoir, and also both are perforated at the top of the zone. Well A has a perforation interval of 23 ft, and Well
B has larger interval of 26 ft. Due to high pressure of the reservoir, and excellent reservoir properties, both wells produce naturally
without using any artificial means.

From well selection process as described in this work, it was concluded that the selected wells (Well A, Well B) are the most
suitable wells for demonstration the potential of SmartWater Flood at the field.

Single Well Field Trials Design

Several design parameters need to be defined for planned field trials. The definition of design parameters will eventually allow the
development of test program, including field logistics at Well A and Well B. The key parameters include injection volume of field
SPE 159526 5

seawater, injection volume of SmartWater and its type, and design parameters related to SWCT. The definition of these parameters
was based on current understanding of geology of the near wellbore area, and also well conditions. Also, these parameters were
confirmed and validated through full modeling and simulation study that will be addressed later. This section provides the
definition of key design parameters and also program for two field trials at Well A and Well B.
Slug Size of Field Seawater and SmartWater
The amount of field seawater and SmartWater required for injection during execution field trials is usually defined in terms of the
pore volume (PV) of well test zone. One pore volume (PV) is defined as the total pore space contained within a hypothetical right-
circular cylinder around the wellbore, and it is estimated using well perforation interval, SWCT depth of investigation, and average
reservoir porosity.

One key requirement for evaluation of ROS by SWCT is that oil phase must be immobile/static during the flow back period so
that the ROS can be accurately determined. This implies that enough amount of field seawater must be injected to drive the near
wellbore test region to ROS. The same requirement is also needed for ROS measurements after SmartWater slug injection. Based
on detailed review of field geology, and current status of Well A and Well B conditions, the optimum amount of field seawater
required in the design of planned field trials was successfully determined. For SmartWater slug, the significant oil recovery beyond
field seawater injection was observed with twice diluted and 10 times diluted seawater (Yousef et al., 2010; Yousef et al., 2011a;
Yousef et al., 2011c). Therefore, these types of SmartWater were selected for planned field trials. In addition, a sufficient slug size
of SmartWater required for mobilizing incremental oil was effectively selected in the design of field trials at Well A and Well B.
SWCT Design
The design of SWCT includes laboratory measurement of partitioning coefficient of EtAc (Ester), the slug size of Ester (EtAc)
bank injection, the slug size of push bank injection, concentrations of three types of tracers (Ethyl Acetate, Methyl Alcohol,
Isopropyl Alcohol), duration of shut-in period, and flow back production. The partitioning property of EtAc is function of reservoir
oil composition, injection water chemistry, and also reservoir temperature. Different laboratory tests were carried out to measure
and also investigate the sensitivity of EtAc partitioning coefficient to variation in reservoir temperature, and also water salinity.
The measurements showed consistent results and estimation of EtAc partitioning coefficient. Other design parameters of SWCT
were determined through detailed review of field geology and current status of Well A and Well B conditions. Because Well A and
Well B have similar properties, all SWCT tests deployed at these two wells were designed in the same way. All of SWCT
parameters were confirmed and validated through full modeling and simulation study that will be addressed later.
Field Trial Program at Well A
The field trial at Well A consists of three stages. In the first stage, a sufficient volume of field seawater is injected to establish
residual oil saturation in the vicinity of Well A, up 20 ft around the wellbore. During injection of this slug, the well is produced
back for small wellbore volumes to produce any trapped oil and gas in the wellbore, and also to ensure that the well with full of
water column can naturally flow back without the need of any artificial mean. Afterward, SWCT test is conducted to measure field
seawater residual oil saturation. The second stage is commenced by injection of more PV of field seawater and then re-measures
residual oil saturation by SWCT. The objective of the second stage is to confirm and validate that continued injection of field
seawater will not mobilize any further oil, and eventually will not cause any change in ROS measurement by SWCT. This
procedure is very essential for accurate assessment of SmartWater Flood potential in subsequent stages. In the third stage, a slug of
SmartWater (10 times diluted seawater) is injected to demonstrate its effect on residual oil saturation of targeted test area. Towards
the end, SWCT test is executed and the final residual oil saturation is measured.
Field Trial Program at Well B
Field trial program at Well B is designed in a different way compared to previous test at Well A. The main objective of this test is
to determine the impact of different versions of SmartWater on field seawater residual oil saturation in the test zone. Similar to
field trial at Well A, the first stage is to establish residual oil saturation in the near wellbore region through injection of field
seawater. After injection of field seawater, SWCT test is conducted to measure field seawater residual oil saturation. The second
stage is to demonstrate the impact of slightly chemistry-optimized seawater (twice diluted) on field seawater residual oil saturation
through injection of small volume of this slug. Afterwards, the new residual oil saturation is measured by SWCT test. In the third
stage, a small slug of another type of SmartWater (10 times diluted seawater) is injected to demonstrate its ability to mobilize more
oil, beyond twice diluted seawater; and this was followed by conducting of SWCT test for residual oil measurement.
6 SPE 159526

Field Logistics and Preparation

The selected wells for planned field trials are oil producing wells where there are no injection water facilities available at these
wells. Therefore, special field logistics and well site preparation are required for execution these field trials. Figure 9 shows an
overview of final well site preparation including all required field logistics.
Sources of Injection Water and Transportation
Hauling field seawater from nearby injection wells was determined to be the most optimum option. A full review of geochemical
analysis history was conducted for group of nearby injection wells to select the optimum source. The results showed that all nearby
injection wells are suitable sources of field seawater. One well 5 KM away was selected due to its close proximity to field trials
wells (Well A and Well B). Transporting with water trucks was found to be more practical compared to pumping through a
temporary pipeline. For preparation of SmartWater at the well site, different options were examined to select the best source of
water required for mixing with field seawater. Two options were assessed: a) using shallow aquifer water and b) using reverse
osmosis (RO) water product from nearby field facilities. Both sources will achieve the targeted salinity of twice diluted and 10
times diluted seawater. In view of research work (Yousef et al, 2011b, Yousef et al., 2012a), RO water product was identified the
best source to be used for preparation of SmartWater in these field trials. Similar to field seawater, RO water product was
transported to well site through water trucks. Figure 10 shows the process of hauling water to the well site.
Injection Logistics
Different injection logistics were used in these field trials. Field seawater and RO product water were stored at the well site using
portable tanks (Fig. 9). Also, these portable tanks were used to prepare and store SmartWater. A set of pumping equipment was
employed to mix and inject tracers with injection water. A filtration unit was installed to remove any containments or suspended
solids in injected fluids.
Production Logistics
One key operational step in these field trials is to be able to flow back the well during SWCT backflow period, collect water
samples to monitor tracers, and eventually measure residual oil saturation of the targeted zone. As detailed earlier, the selected
wells are able to flow back naturally due to high pressure of the reservoir and also excellent reservoir properties. As contingency
plan, production facilities were acquired in these field trials including portable separator, smokeless flaring system, and vacuum
tankers (Fig. 11).
Laboratory Facilities
On-site portable laboratory facilities were accommodated to monitor tracer concentration and water salinity during injection and
production period. During SWCT backflow period, frequent water samples were frequently collected throughout the production.
The concentration of produced tracers was determined on-site using gas chromatography instrument.

Modeling and Simulation

The modeling and simulation capabilities for SWCT and SmartWater Flood have been successfully developed. Simulation studies
for field trials at Well A and Well B were conducted to address the following:
• Volumes of injection phase (Field seawater, SmartWater ) in all three test stages required to deplete the near wellbore
regions (10 – 20 ft) to ROS
• Impact of cross communication among the layers on SWCT estimation
• Ability to flow back the well and also to recover all injected fluid during practical period
• Impact of residual tracer concentrations on the subsequent test
• Ability of SWCT to quantify the reduction of near wellbore SOR due to SmartWater Flood
Modeling Approach
Two important mechanisms must be modeled in the simulation studies: SWCT test and SmartWater Flood process. As described
previously, SWCT involves injecting of several tracers and the main tracer (EtAC) has the capability to dissolve (partition) in both
oil and water (Fig. 6). In addition, a secondary/product tracer (EtOH) will be generated during the shut-in period by hydrolysis.
The ROS is determined based on the chromatographic separation of the primary and product tracers during the flow back period.
As a result, the simulator must be able to model the tracer movement with the fluid flow as well as the tracer partitioning and
hydrolysis. Full modeling capabilities for SWCT including all of these requirements were successfully developed.
SPE 159526 7

For SmartWater Flood modeling, in-house research studies (Yousef et al., 2010; Yousef et al., 2011a; Yousef et al., 2011c)
concluded that the main mechanism for SmartWater Flood to improve the oil recovery is rock wettability alteration. The
underlying interactions related to surface charges alteration and enhancement in the connectivity among different rock pore
systems are still being investigated, and a detailed modeling of such phenomenon will be subject of future publication. In order to
capture the effect of SmartWater Flood in depletion of remaining oil, a mechanistic approach was used. Large data base has been
in-house generated addressing different types of laboratory studies including carbonate surface chemistry, rock wettability,
fluid/fluid interaction, ion adsorption/desorption, and others. Such data base provided the right platform to develop internally
modeling and simulation capabilities of SmartWater Flood. The key data used in current approach was derived from typical
SmartWater Flood coreflood studies (Fig. 1). A common approach of modeling SmartWater Flood is to employ two sets of
saturation functions which include different relative permeability, capillary pressure curves, and residual oil saturations to
represent the seawater flooding and SmartWater Flooding. A weighting factor (Fig. 12) was derived from the core flooding results
to represent the flooding results with intermediate dilution of seawater. The relative permeability curves used in current simulation
studies were measured through typical laboratory techniques.
Confirmation of Test Design and Performance
A single well model was constructed to model the series of tests conducted for two selected wells. The model covers an area of
750m X 750m and the subject well is located in the middle. The model dimension is 3 X 3 X 45 (Fig. 13). The cell size of the
finest cell around the wellbore is 2 ft and it can be adjusted to reflect the dispersion level observed in the field measured data. The
field trial program for Well A calls to inject sufficient volume of field seawater to drive the oil saturation in the near wellbore
region to residual oil saturation of field seawater. Immediately after seawater injection, the tracer bank is injected followed by push
water bank. The well is then shut-in for two days to allow the hydrolysis to occur after the completion of injection phase for the
first stage of the test. Well flow back starts after shut-in period and samples of produced fluid are taken until enough tracer
concentration points have been collected to conduct the analysis. Figure 14 shows the flow conditions during the flow back
period. It can be seen that the water-cut remains at 100% for more than one day with the planned withdrawal rate and this suggests
that the valid samples can be collected during the planned flow back period.

Figure 15 shows fluid saturation and tracer concentrations at various steps of stage 1 of the test at Well A. It shows that some
tracers were lost to the lower reservoir layers but the amounts were relatively small. Figure 16 shows tracer concentration profiles
for primary tracer (EtAC) and product tracer (EtOH). The tracer profiles are very ideal and indicate clearly that there is no
significant effect for cross-flow, flux, and also reservoir heterogeneity. This allows accurate measurements of ROS by SWCT.

The residual oil saturation can be computed based on the separation of peaks in two concentration profiles and the tracer
partitioning coefficient using the analytical method (Eq. 1). Another approach, applicable only for numerical simulation studies, is
direct computation of ROS from grid cells of the reservoir model invaded by tracers. Because the analytical method provided very
similar ROS estimation compared to the second approach (the direct ROS computation from the model), this confirmed that using
the analytical method, at least in our case, is legitimate and it can provide ROS estimation with acceptable accuracy. Consequently,
the baseline ROS for the subsequent stages of the test was successfully determined.

The second stage was designed to confirm that continued injection of field seawater will not mobilize any further oil, and also
to address the effect of residual tracer concentration on ROS measurement of SWCT test. Figure 17 shows the tracer concentration
profiles of Stage 2, compared to Stage 1 tracers. As it can be seen, there is no apparent shift in the position of EtAC and also EtOH
even after injection of more PV of field seawater. The deviation in the trailing edge of the product tracer (EtOH) is attributed to
difference in the hydrolysis process of the primary tracer (EtAC) from Stage 1 and 2. However, there is no shift in EtOH position
as depicted in Fig. 17. The estimated ROS by both approaches (the analytical method, the direct ROS computation from the
model) is the same as the one estimated from Stage 1. From these results, it was concluded that residual tracer concentrations from
previous stage has no impact on ROS measurements, and most importantly continued injection of field seawater will not mobilize
any further oil. As a result, any reduction in ROS after injection of SmartWater in the following Stage will provide an accurate
assessment of SmartWater Flood.

After injection of SmartWater slug (10 times diluted seawater), SWCT test was conducted. Figure 18 depicts the salinity
distribution before and after injection of SmartWater. Figure 19 shows the generated tracer profiles from SWCT. The primary
tracer (EtAC) profile overlapped with the profile of the base case. This is expected because all SWCT tests among all stages were
identically designed in terms of injected volume of both ester bank and also push water bank. As a result, no shift should be
observed in the primary tracer (EtAC) profile. However, there is a significant shift in the product tracer (EtOH) profile from base
case of Stage 1 (Fig. 19). This shift is clear evidence of the reduction in ROS of the test zone. The analytical method showed ~6
saturation unit reduction in ROS of the test zone, and the direct computation of ROS from reservoir model showed ~7 saturation
8 SPE 159526

unit reduction (Table 2). Consequently, the predicted ROS reduction of the test zone at Well A is in the range of ~6-7 saturation
units.

A full simulation study was also conducted for field trial at Well B. Table 3 summaries the results of the simulation study.
Both methods (the analytical method, the direct ROS computation from the model) showed ~3 saturation unit reduction by twice
diluted seawater. The direct ROS method estimated ~6 saturation unit reduction by 10 times diluted seawater, and the analytical
method estimated only ~4 saturation unit reduction (Table 3). This indicated that SWCT ROS estimation in the targeted field trials
is adequate with uncertainty of 2 saturation unit. Therefore, the overall predicted ROS reduction of the test zone at Well B is in the
range of ~7-9 saturation units.

The simulation studies for field trials at Well A and Well B confirmed that the design of the field trials is optimum, the shift in
tracers profile is directly correlated to actual reduction in ROS of the test zone, and also the predicted reduction is in the range of
6-9 saturation units.

Field Trials Execution, Results, and Assessment

Field Trial at Well A
Stage 1: Field Seawater Injection
After injection of a sufficient volume of field seawater, SWCT test was conducted. The ester bank and the push bank were
successfully injected. The well was then shut in for a reaction period of 2-3 days. During this period, a portion of the reactive
tracer (EtAc) hydrolyzed in the reservoir to form the product tracer (EtOH). The well was then placed on production for 1-2 days
and samples of the produced fluid were frequently collected during production and immediately analyzed on-site for tracer content
using gas chromatography. During the backflow period, the well produced only water without any oil, as expected.

The material balance of the test is optimum where 87% of IPA is successfully recovered. Figure 20 shows the reactive tracer
(EtAc) and the cover tracer (Methyl Alcohol) plotted against the total production fluid. The purpose of the cover tracer is to
confirm the shape and position of the reactive tracer (EtAc) in cases where excessive hydrolysis and drift encountered. Because
87% of IPA is successfully recovered and also there is no any sign of drift, cross-flow, and extensive hydrolysis, this indicates that
the baseline residual oil saturation can be measured with high certainty from profiles of the reactive tracer (EtAc) and the product
tracer (EtOH).

Figure 21 depicts field-measured profiles of the reactive tracer (EtAc) and the product tracer (EtOH) with modeled profiles
using the history match method. The tracer profiles are very ideal and indicate that the flux (drift) due to active producers and
injectors in the nearby area did not have a large impact on the SWCT test results. The minor amount loss of tracer to layers outside
test interval is also not a major issue. All of these results are consistent with pre-test simulation study (Fig. 16). As a result, the
analytical method showed the same ROS estimation of the history match method. Figure 22 shows the sensitivity of the best fit
ROS to tracer profiles with ± 0.02.
Stage 2: Field Seawater Injection (Confirmation)
As noted earlier, the purpose of this stage is to confirm and validate that continued injection of field seawater will not mobilize any
further oil, and eventually will not cause any change in the residual oil saturation around the wellbore. This quality control step
will ensure that any reduction in the residual oil saturation subsequent to the SmartWater injection is attributed to SmartWater.
After Stage 1 was completed, the well was placed back on seawater injection to facilitate confirmation of Stage 1 result. After the
completion of this injection volume, SWCT test was conducted similar to Stage 1, and then all tracer profiles were successfully
measured. Figure 23 shows a comparison of the reactive tracer (EtAc) and the product tracer (EtOH) profiles between Stage 1 and
2. Similar to pre-test simulation study (Fig. 17), there is no apparent shift in the position of EtOH and also EtAc even after
injection of large volume of field seawater. The measured ROS by the history match method and the analytical method is the same
as the ROS estimated in Stage 1. Therefore it was concluded that continued injection of field seawater will not mobilize any
further oil, and any reduction in ROS after injection of SmartWater in the following Stage will provide a clear confirmation of
SmartWater Flood potential in increasing oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs.
Stage 3: SmartWater Flood
During the shut-in period in SWCT of Stage 2, SmartWater slug (10 times diluted) was prepared and then injected after
completion of Stage 2; this was chased by a preflush slug of field seawater. The purpose of preflush slug is to push any mobile oil
out of the targeted test region due to injection of SmartWater, and also to conduct all SWCT tests using the same water to
SPE 159526 9

eliminate any discrepancies among the ROS measurements, and ultimately allow an accurate assessment of SmartWater Flood
potential. Once this was completed, SWCT test was conducted, and consequently all tracer profiles were successfully measured.

Figure 24 shows a comparison of the reactive tracer (EtAc) and the product tracer (EtOH) profiles between Stage 1 and 3 with
modeled profiles using the history match method. The reactive tracer (EtAc) profile coincided with the profile of the base case
(Stage 1). This is expected because all SWCT tests among all stages were similarly designed in terms of injected volume of both
ester bank and also push water bank. Also, this is consistent with pre-test simulation study (Fig. 19). However, there is a
significant shift in the product tracer (EtOH) profile from base case of Stage 1 (Fig. 24). This shift is clear evidence of the
reduction in ROS of the test zone. The history match method and also the analytical method revealed ~7 saturation unit reduction
in ROS of the test zone.

The field trial at Well A was very successful in terms of test design and execution, and this was reflected in the quality of the
field results. In addition, the field-measured reduction in ROS due to injection of SmartWater matched the predicted ROS
reduction from pre-test simulation study (Fig. 19). Therefore, it was concluded that the observed shift in tracer profiles is directly
correlated to the reduction in ROS of the test zone, and consequently provided clear confirmation that SmartWater Flood does
mobilize oil beyond field seawater injection, and eventually increase oil recovery.
Field Trial at Well B
Stage 1: Field Seawater Injection
Similar to the field trial at Well A, field seawater was injected and this was followed by conducting SWCT test. During the
backflow period, the well produced 100% water. All tracer profiles were successfully measured at the well site. Figure 25 depicts
field-measured profiles of the reactive tracer (EtAc) and the product tracer (EtOH) with modeled profiles using the history match
method. The tracer profiles are very ideal and indicate that the flux (drift) due to active producers and injectors in the nearby area
did not have a large impact on the SWCT test results. The estimated ROS from the history match method and the analytical
method is very similar to the baseline ROS of the test zone at Well A. Figure 26 shows the sensitivity of the best fit ROS to tracer
profiles with ± 0.02.
Stage 2: SmartWater Flood (Twice Diluted Seawater)
After completion of Stage 1, SmartWater (twice diluted) was injected and this was chased by a preflush slug of field seawater.
Afterwards, SWCT test was conducted and all tracer profiles were successfully measured. Figure 27 shows a comparison of the
reactive tracer (EtAc) and the product tracer (EtOH) profiles between Stage 1 and 2. As expected, the reactive tracer (EtAc) profile
coincided with the profile of the base case (Stage 1). However, there is an apparent shift in the product tracer (EtOH) profile from
base case of Stage 1 (Fig. 27). This shift is clear evidence of the reduction in ROS of the test zone. The history match method and
also the analytical method revealed ~3 saturation unit reduction in ROS of the test zone.

The field trial at Well B was very successful in terms of test design and execution, and this was reflected in the quality of the
field results. In addition, the field-measured reduction in ROS due to injection of SmartWater (twice diluted) matched the
predicted ROS reduction from pre-test simulation study (Table 3). Therefore, it was concluded that the observed shift in tracer
profiles is directly correlated to the reduction in ROS of the test zone, and consequently provided clear confirmation that twice
diluted seawater does mobilize oil beyond field seawater injection, and eventually increase oil recovery.
Stage 3: SmartWater Flood (10 Times Diluted Seawater)
This stage commenced by injection of SmartWater (10 times diluted), and this was followed by injection of field seawater as a
preflush slug. SWCT test was then conducted and all tracer profiles were successfully measured. Figure 28 shows a comparison of
the product tracer (EtOH) profiles between Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3. As expected, the reactive tracer (EtAc) profile
overlapped with the profiles of Stage 1 and 2. However, there is an apparent shift in the product tracer (EtOH) profile from the
profile of Stage 2 (Fig. 28). This shift is clear evidence of the reduction in ROS of the test zone beyond twice diluted seawater
injection. The history match method and also the analytical method revealed ~3 saturation unit reduction in ROS of the test zone.
Compared to Stage 1, the shift is even larger as expected (Fig. 28). Accordingly, the total reduction in ROS of the test zone at Well
B between Stage 1 and Stage 3 was ~ 6 saturation unit.

The field-measured reduction in ROS due to injection of SmartWater (10 times diluted) is slightly different from what has been
predicted from pre-test simulation study (Table 3). The simulation predicted ~4-6 saturation unit reduction by 10 times diluted
seawater. The difference between the predicted and the field-measured saturation reduction is about one or two saturation units,
10 SPE 159526

which is generally recognized within the range of uncertainty of the SWCT test. Therefore, it was concluded that injection of 10
times diluted seawater does mobilize oil beyond twice diluted seawater, and eventually increase oil recovery.

Conclusions
We reported on a new recovery method/process for carbonate reservoirs tagged “SmartWater Flood” to improve or enhance oil
recovery through altering the salinity and ionic composition of injection seawater. In-house research efforts over the past years
have revealed that injection of chemistry-optimized versions of field seawater provides substantial oil recovery, beyond
conventional seawater flooding for carbonate rock samples. Also, these results were confirmed and validated through different
types of laboratory studies including surface chemistry, wettability and fluid-rock interaction. In this work, we presented the
results of two field trials conducted in a carbonate reservoir to demonstrate the SmartWater Flood potential. The following are the
main research findings:
• Both field trials confirmed that in-house research results can be replicated at field scale. Injection of SmartWater revealed
~7 saturation units reduction in residual oil beyond conventional seawater. Considering these field trials are the first-ever
applications in carbonate reservoirs, they further provided another confirmation that SmartWater Flood has potential to be
a new recovery method targeting carbonate reservoirs. A special type of single-well chemical tracer was used in these
trials to measure the residual oil in the vicinity of the well following the injection of each water type.
• The field trial at Well A was designed in three stages and conducted over a four-week period. In the first stage, large
volumes of field seawater were injected to achieve residual oil saturation in the vicinity of the well, and up 20 ft around
the wellbore. The second stage was to validate and confirm that continued injection of field seawater with additional large
number of PV will not mobilize any further oil. No oil saturation reduction was seen after this second stage. The third
stage was to demonstrate the impact of SmartWater Flood where SmartWater revealed ~7 saturation unit reduction in the
residual oil saturation beyond field seawater.
• The field trial at Well B was designed in a different way compared to previous test at Well A. The main objective of this
test was to determine the impact of different versions of SmartWater on field seawater residual oil saturation in the test
zone. The field trials at Well B was designed in three stages and conducted over a four-week period. In the first stage,
field seawater was injected to achieve residual oil saturation in the near wellbore region. The second stage was to
demonstrate the impact of slightly chemistry-optimized field seawater (twice diluted seawater) on the residual oil
saturation after injection of field seawater. A reduction of ~3 saturation unit was achieved beyond field seawater injection.
The third stage was to show the impact of 10 times diluted seawater on the residual oil saturation after injection of twice
diluted seawater; a reduction of ~ 3 saturation unit was achieved beyond twice diluted seawater injection. Consequently,
the total reduction in ROS of the test zone was ~ 6 saturation unit.
• Field trials were very successful in terms of test design and execution, and this was reflected in the quality of the field
results. The test results revealed much valuable information about the reservoir, fluid flow within the reservoir, and also
the performance of SmartWater Flood. The tracer concentration profiles indicate that the flux (drift) due to active
producers and injectors in the nearby area did not have a large impact on the SWCT test results. The minor amount loss of
tracer to layers outside test interval is also not a major issue. This eventually allowed an accurate estimation of ROS from
tracer concentration profiles of SWCT test.
• The total reduction in ROS observed from field trial at Well A (~7 saturation unit) is very comparable with the results of
the field trial at Well B (~ 6 saturation unit). This is also in agreement with previously reported research studies (Yousef
et al., 2012b). This indicates that additional recovery of 10 times dilute injected after field seawater is an aggregate of the
recovery of twice dilute injected after field seawater, and also the recovery 10 times dilute injected after twice dilute. The
optimum injection scheme will depend on current field development and also process economics.
• The pre-test modeling and simulation studies successfully predicted the performance of SmartWater Flood. The predicted
oil saturation reductions between all related stages of both tests were in excellent agreement with the field trial results.
Therefore, the results of both field trials are consistent with in-house research results reported over the past years and this
provides another confirmation that SmartWater Flood has potential to be new recovery method targeting carbonate
reservoirs.
• Several field trials are planned to optimize the current process leading to a multi-well Demonstration Pilot to determine
the impact on ultimate recovery and reserves.
SPE 159526 11

Nomenclature
OOIC Original Oil in Cores
PV Pore Volume
ROS Residual Oil Saturation
bbl/bbls Barrels
EtAc Ethyl Acetate
EtOH Ethyl Alcohol
IPA Isopropyl Alcohol
β Separation Coefficient
K Partitioning Coefficient
Qa Reactive tracer peak production volume
Qb Product tracer peak production volume
GOSP Gas-Oil Separation Plant
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
Kppm 103 part per million

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco) for granting permission to present and publish
this paper. The authors would also like to thank the management of Upstream.

References
Deans, H. A.: "Method of determining Fluid Saturations in Reservoirs," U.S. Patent #3,623,842 (Nov 1971).
Deans, H.A., Carlisle, C.T.: "Single-Well Tracer Tests in Complex Pore Systems," paper SPE/DOE 14886, the Fifth Symposium on EOR held in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 20-23 April 1986.
Deans, H.A., Carlisle, C. T.: "The Single-Well Chemical Tracer Test - A Method For Measuring Reservoir Fluid Saturations In Situ," Petroleum
Engineering Handbook, SPE, Volume V, pp 615-649, Reservoir Engineering and Petrophysics, 2007.
Tomich, J.F., Dalton, R.L., Deans, H.A., and Shallenberger, L. K.: "Single-Well Tracer Method to Measure Residual Oil Saturation," JPT (Feb
1973) 211-218.
Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S.H., Al-Kaabi, A.O., and Al-Jawfi, M.S.: “Laboratory Investigation of Novel Oil Recovery Method for Carbonate
Reservoirs,” Paper CSUG/SPE 137634, the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 19–21 October 2010.
Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S.H., and Al-Jawfi, M.S.: “New Recovery Method for Carbonate Reservoirs through Tuning the Injection Water
Salinity: SmartWater Flooding,” Paper SPE 143550, the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and Exhibition held in Vienna, Austria, 23–26
May 2011(a).
Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S.H., and Al-Jawfi, M.S.: “SmartWater Flooding for Carbonate Reservoirs: Salinity and Role of Ions,” Paper SPE
141082, the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 25-28 September 2011(b).
Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S.H., Al-Kaabi, A.O., and Al-Jawfi, M.S.: “Laboratory Investigation of the Impact of Injection Water Salinity and Ionic
Content on Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs,” SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering Journal, vol. 14(5), pp. 578-593 October
2011(c).
Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S.H., and Al-Jawfi, M.S.: “New Recovery Method for Carbonate Reservoirs Tagged Smart WaterFlooding,” WPC Paper
presented in the 20th World Petroleum Congress held in Doha, Qatar, 4-8 December 2011(d).
Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S.H., and Al-Jawfi, M.S.: “The Impact of the Injection Water Chemistry on Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs,”
Paper SPE 154077 presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 16–18 April 2012 (a)
Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S.H., and Al-Jawfi, M.S.: “Improved/Enhanced Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs by Tuning Injection Water
Salinity and Ionic Content,” Paper SPE 154076 presented at the Eighteenth SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, 14–18 April 2012 (b).

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x 1.589873 x 10-1 = m3
ft x 3.048x 10-1 *= m
ft3 x 2.831685 x 10-2 = m3
*
Conversion factor is exact.
12 SPE 159526

Table 1. Well Selection Criteria

Criteria Specification

 Vertical Producer
Well Type and  Active/or newly drilled well
Completion  Cased
 Penetrate the test zone above oil/water contact

Reservoir
 Targeted area flooded by field seawater
Water
 Optimum produced water ionic composition
Chemistry

Well  Natural flow or equipped with production mean

Productivity  Connect to flow lines

 Thickness (<40 ft)

Perforation
 Avoid high perm layers
Intervals
 Test zone not artificially fractured

Water Cut  Flooded areas

Table 2. Predicted Oil Saturation Reduction for Field Trial at Well A

Oil Saturation Reduction (Fraction)
Test Injection Direct
Stages Water Type The Analytical
Computation from
Method
Reservoir Model
1 Field Seawater - -
2 Field Seawater 0.000 0.000
SmartWater-
3 0.070 0.060
10 Times Diluted

Table 3. Predicted Oil Saturation Reduction for Field Trial at Well B

Oil Saturation Reduction (Fraction)
Test Injection Direct
Stages Water Type The Analytical
Computation from
Method
Reservoir Model
1 Field Seawater - -
SmartWater-
2 0.032 0.029
Twice Diluted
SmartWater-
3 0.06 0.046
10 Times Diluted
Total 0.091 0.075
SPE 159526 13

10 20 100
Twice
Times Times Times
Diluted
Diluted Diluted Diluted

Fig. 1. Oil recovery curve obtained from reservoir conditions coreflood experiment. The blue curve represents
the amount of oil produced in terms of original oil in core (OOIC) through all injected salinity slugs of
seawater, and the red curve represents the injection rate profile implemented during the coreflood experiment.
Substantial tertiary oil recovery can be achieved by stepwise salinity and ionic content reduction of injection
seawater (Yousef et al., 2010).

100
95 Test 1
90 Test 2
Intermediate-wet Zone
85 Test 3
Contact Angle

80
75
70
65
Water-wet Zone
60
55
50 10 20 100
Field Twice
UTMN
Connate 100% Q
Seawater 50%
DiluteQ 10% Q
Times 5% Q
Times 1% Q
Times
Dilute Dilute Dilute
Connate
Water Seawater
Seawater Seawater Seawater

Water Types

Fig. 2. Different tests for contact angle measurements of carbonate rock samples with reservoir live oil and
connate water, injection seawater, and different dilution versions of seawater. The measurements were
conducted at reservoir conditions (Yousef et al., 2010; Yousef et al., 2011c).
14 SPE 159526

100 20

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%OOIC)

90 10 Times
Diluted
80

Injection Rate, cc/min

15
70

60
Seawater
50 10

40

30
5
20

10

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Cumulative Water Injected (No. Composite Core Pore Volume)

Fig. 3. Oil recovery curve of the secondary coreflood experiment (Yousef et al., 2012b).

100 20 10
Twice
Times Times Times
Dilute
Dilute Dilute Dilute

Fig. 4. Zeta Potential of carbonate rock particles with twice, 10 times, 20 times, and 100 times dilute (Yousef et
al., 2012a).

Intermediate-wet Zone

Water-wet Zone

Field 10 Times 20 Times 100 Times

Brine with only Twice Diluted
Connate Diluted Diluted Diluted
(Na+, Cl-)
Water

Fig. 5. Different tests for contact angle measurements of carbonate rock samples with reservoir live oil and
connate water, and set of brines (Yousef et al., 2012b).
SPE 159526 15

320 2000
Material

Reacctive Tracer and Material Balance Tracer, ppm

Balance
280
Tracer
Qa (IPA) 1600
240
Qb
200

Product Tracer, ppm

1200
Reactive
160 Tracer
(EtAc)
800
120

80 Product
Tracer 400
(EtOH)
40

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Fig. 6. Illustrative example for tracer profiles from typical SWCT test.

Fig. 7. Relative location of selected wells for SmartWater Flood field trials.
16 SPE 159526

Fig. 8. Porosity log for selected zone at wells used in SmartWater Flood field trials.

Fig. 9. Overall Field preparation and logistics at the well site.

SPE 159526 17

Fig. 10. The process of hauling RO water product and field seawater to the well location.

Fig. 11. Production facilities acquired in SmartWater Flood field trials.

Fig. 12. Weighting function derived from SmartWater Flood core flooding results.
18 SPE 159526

Well A

Fig. 13. Single Well Model.

Well A: Production Rate

Well A: Water Cut

Well A: Total Production

Fig. 14. Flow back well conditions for Stage 1.

SPE 159526 19

a) Oil Saturation after 6 PV seawater injection b) EtAC in Water after Tracer bank injection

c) EtAC after Push bank injection d) IPA after Push bank injection

Fig. 15. Fluid saturation and tracer concentrations at various steps of Stage 1 at Well A.
1.2
Primary Tracer (EtAC)
Product Tracer (EtOH)
1.0
Normalized Tracer Concentration

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Fig. 16. Simulated primary and product tracer concentration profiles for Stage 1 of the test at Well A.
20 SPE 159526

1.2
Stage 1: Primary Tracer (EtAC)

Stage 2: Primary Tracer (EtAC)

1.0

Normalized Tracer Concentration

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Total Liquid Production (bbls)
1.2
Stage 1: Product Tracer (EtOH)

Stage 2: Product Tracer (EtOH)

1.0
Normalized Tracer Concentration

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Fig. 17. Comparison of simulated tracer concentration profiles between Stage 1 and Stage 2 for Well A.

a) Salinity Distribution after injection of Seawater b) Salinity Distribution after injection of SmartWater

Fig. 18. Salinity distribution after a) injection of field seawater, and b) injection of SmartWater.
SPE 159526 21

Apparent Shift

Fig. 19. Comparison of simulated tracer concentration profiles between Stage 1 (Field seawater) and Stage 3
(SmartWater) for Well A.

1600 2400
Cover Tracer (MeOH)
Primary Tracer (EtAC)
1400
2000
Cover Tracer Concentration, ppm

Primary Tracer Concentration, ppm

1200

1600
1000

800 1200

600
800

400

400
200

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Fig. 20. Field reactive tracer and cover tracer concentration profiles for Stage 1 of the field trial at Well A.
22 SPE 159526

Fig. 21. Field reactive tracer and product tracer concentration profiles for Stage 1 of the field trial at Well A.

Fig. 22. Field product tracer concentration profile and sensitivity of the best fit residual oil saturation with ± 2
saturation unit for Stage 1 of the field trial at Well A.
SPE 159526 23

1.2
Stage 1:Primary Tracer (EtAc)
Stage 2: Primary Tracer (EtAc)

Normalized Primary Tracer Concentration

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

No Apparent Shift

Fig. 23. Comparison of field-measured tracer concentration profiles between Stage 1 and Stage 2 for Well A.
24 SPE 159526

1.2
Stage 1:Primary Tracer (EtAc)
Stage 3: Primary Tracer (EtAc)

Normalized Primary Tracer Concentration

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Apparent Shift

~ 7 Saturation
unit reduction

Fig. 24. Comparison of field-measured tracer concentration profiles between Stage 1 (Field seawater) and
Stage 3 (SmartWater- 10 Times Dilute) for Well A.

350
Product Tracer (EtOH)
Modeled Product Tracer (EtOH) 2000
300 Primary Tracer (EtAC)
Product Tracer Concentration, ppm

Primary Tracer Concentration, ppm

Modeled Primary Tracer (EtAC)

250 1600

200
1200

150
800

100

400
50

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Fig. 25. Field reactive tracer and product tracer concentration profiles for Stage 1 of the field trial at Well B.
SPE 159526 25

300
Product Tracer (EtOH)
Modeled: Best Fit
Modeled: +0.02
250 Modeled: -0.02

Product Tracer Concentration, ppm

200

150

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Fig. 26. Field product tracer concentration profile and sensitivity of the best fit residual oil saturation with ± 2
saturation unit for Stage 1 of the field trial at Well B.

1.2
Stage 1:Primary Tracer (EtAc)
Stage 2: Primary Tracer (EtAc)
Normalized Primary Tracer Concentration

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Liquid Production (bbls)
1.2

Apparent Shift Stage 1: Product Tracer (EtOH)

Stage 2: Product Tracer (EtOH)
Normalized Product Tracer Concentration

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Fig. 27. Comparison of field-measured tracer concentration profiles between Stage 1 (Field seawater) and
Stage 2 (SmartWater- Twice dilute) for Well B.
26 SPE 159526

1.2
Apparent Shift Stage 1: Product Tracer (EtOH)
Stage 3: Product Tracer (EtOH)
~ 6 Saturation

Normalized Product Tracer Concentration

1.0
unit reduction
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Total Liquid Production (bbls)
1.2

Apparent Shift Stage 2: Product Tracer (EtOH)

Stage 3: Product Tracer (EtOH)
~ 3 Saturation
Normalized Product Tracer Concentration

1.0
unit reduction
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Total Liquid Production (bbls)

Fig. 28. Comparison of field-measured product tracer concentration profile between Stage 1 (Field seawater),
Stage 2 (SmartWater- Twice Dilute), and Stage 3 (SmartWater- 10 Times Dilute) for Well B.