The Losal Eor Process From Laboratory To Field

The LoSalTM EOR Process
The LoSalTM EOR Process From Laboratory to Field
Kevin Webb, Low Salinity Project Manager (Subsurface) FORCE Workshop May 2008
EPT
delivering breakthrough solutions
References and Acknowledgements

Webb K.J. Black, C.J.J. and Al-Jeel, H Low Salinity Oil Recovery- Log Inject Log SPE 89379 Low Salinity Oil Recovery: The Role of Resevroir Condition Corefloods- EAGE Conference Budapest 2005 Mcguire P Chatham J.R. Paskvan F Sommer, D and Carini F.H. Low Salinity Oil Recovery: An exciting opportunity for Alaskas North Slope SPE 93903 Lager A, Webb K.J. Black, C.J.J, Singleton, M and Sorbie K.S. Low Salinity Oil Recovery An experimental Investigation, Internation Symposium of Core Analysts, Trondheim 2006 Jerauld, G R, Lin C.Y. Webb K J Seccombe .C. Modelling low salinity oil recovery SPE 102239 Lager A, Webb K.J. Black, C.J.J. Impact of Brine Chemistry on Oil RecoveryEAGE Conference Cairo, 2007 Seccombe J.C. Lager A Webb K.J. Jerauld G and Fueg, E Improved Oil waterflood Recovery: LoSal EOR Field Evaluation , SPE 113480 Lager, A, Webb K.J. Collins, I.R. Richmond, D.M. LoSal Enhanced Oil Recovery: Evidence of Enhanced Oil Recovery at the Reservoir Scale And Prof. Norman Morrow University of Wyoming.
Overview
Background
What is low Salinity oil recovery
Laboratory Tests
Reduced Condition Reservoir Condition Mechanism
History Current Thinking
Single Well Tests

Log Inject Log Single Well Tracer Tests
Reservoir Scale Evidence

Continuous Injection Injection of Slugs
Prediction (Reservoir Simulation)
Introduction
PV inj vs PV Oil Produced
0.6
PV Oil producted
What is low Salinity Oil Recovery

Not injection of sea water Not injection of 0ppm fresh water
Low Salinity oil recovery is the injection of water with a TDS ranging from ~300 ppm to 4000 ppm
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Reservoir Brine 30 k ppm 1k ppm
0.1
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PV Inj
35.0 30.0 25.0 Perm (mD) 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 20 100 Flow Rate 200 300 10000 7000 4000 2500 1000 0
Additional Benefits
Scale due to injected water essentially eliminated Filtration at the ion level means no injectivity loss due to perforation plugging Wells flow to higher watercut due to lower hydrostatic head and at higher rates at all watercuts where low salinity is the produced water Smaller oil-water density difference improves vertical sweep Souring opex reduced/eliminated EOR tax credit buffer against low oil prices in the US
Benefit
No Scale
Injectivity Improvement
Vertical Sweep Benefit
Reduced souring
Reduced oil residuals
IRS Tax Credit
Low Salinity Waterfloods - A bundle of benefits
Evidence from the Laboratory
Reduced Condition
History
0.8 HCPV Produced (% OIP 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Injection Brine Volum e 10
1 x RB 0.01 x RB
UoW showed that oil recovery was brine salinity dependent Reducing salinity=> Found to be first order effect (and easily controlled in the field!!)
Berea rock Crude Oil Systems
Reduced Condition (University of Wyoming (Morrow)

100 90 80 70 brine connate imbibed RB RB RB 0.01 RB 0.1 RB RB Swi=22 3% Ta=Tm =75oC ta=3days
CS Crude Oil/CS Brine/CS Sandstone

VSWW
Rim (% OOIP)
60 50 40 30
100 90 80 70 Rwf (% OOIP) 60 50 40 30

invading brine CSRB 0.01 CSRB Sw i=25% Ta=55 C ta=10 days Td=55 C flood rate=6ft/d
o o
CSRB=connate
20 10 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Dimensionless time, t D
100 90 80 70 Swi=22 3% Ta=Td=75oC ta=3days flow rate=2.3ft/day
20 10 0 0
brine connate injected RB RB RB 0.01 RB 0.1 RB RB
Rim (% OOIP)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Injected Brine Volume (PV)
EFFECT OF THE CONCENTRATION OF INJECTION BRINE ON WATERFLOOD RECOVERY FOR RESERVOIR CORE
Dimensionless time, tD
Mechanisms
0.8 HCPV Produced (% OIP
Proposed mechanisms inferred from lab tests

Benefit reduces significantly with repeated floods No effect if we fire the core in a furnace (i.e. no clays) No effect if we use refined oils (depolarised)
No benefit if no connate water present
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Injection Brine Volume 25
Fired Berea
C.S Brine
0.1 C.S Brine
0.8 0.7
Therefore clays play an important role and so does wettability i.e. need polar oil components to restore wettability.
0.6
Oil prod'd
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6

PV Inj
10
12
After Morrow
Evidence from the Laboratory
Full Reservoir Condition
Reservoir Condition Coreflood Procedures

Select representative core
Core Characterisation
Oven for storage of fluid vessels, recirculating pumps and inline separator Ageing Positions
Pc for data logging and control
Flood Position with in-situ saturation monitoring
XRD, SEM, Thin Section, PSD by Mercury Injection Uniform distribution and matched to ht above OWC
Swi Acquisition
Max temp
150oC
Max Pressure 690 Bar
Reservoir Condition Waterflood tests

Usually restored State (Aged for 3 weeks)
Gamma Source
Inlet
dP PLUG
dP
Outlet
Capillary dominated flowrate unsteady state technique Independent Sor determination
NaI Detectors
In-situ saturation, dispersion, mass balance
Coreflood CharacteristicsSecondary Recovery CharacteristicsNorth Sea Reservoir

Comparison in oil production for low and high salinity secondary corefloods
Comparison of Res Con Oil Production
0.7
0.6
Low salinity flood High salinity flood
PV OIL Prod Oil Production (HCPV)
Plateau extension
0.5
0.4
0.3
SFW=28k ppm
100% SFW 20% SFW 5% SFW
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.2
0.1
Water Injection (PV) PV Inj
When low and high salinity secondary corefloods are compared the low salinity produces 12% more dry oil
Coreflood CharacteristicsTertiary Recovery CharacteristicsNorth Sea Reservoir
Production Benefit in Tertiary Mode

0.7 0.6 PV Oil Produced 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 15 20 PV inj 25 30 High Salinity Low Salinity 0.535 PV 0.610 PV
0.7 0.6 PV Oil Produced 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 PV inj 30 40 High Salinity Low Salinity 0.594 PV 0.66 PV
Increased tertiary benefit of low salinity injection - 11-14% Rate of increased oil relatively fast => Oil Bank formation
Reservoir Condition Coreflood

Field A B B C C D E F G G G G A A B B C C A A A A B B A B B A B Sor High 0.33 0.32 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.33 0.2 0.26 0.18 0.19 0.23 Sor Low 0.25 0.24 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.1 0.23 0.13 0.12 0.2 % WF Meas Flood Type ppm 1500 1500 1500 2000 2000
0.28 0.28 0.27 0.125 0.33 0.2 0.2 0.27 0.27 0.47 0.31 0.31 0.26 0.26
0.2 0.15 0.23 0.2 0.077 0.3 0.1 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.43 0.26 0.28 0.18 0.22
16 14 11 8 8 21 39 20 7 9 11 5 9 8 13 22 7 11 6 5 13 5 10 8 8 8 4 12 7
45 40 35 Recovery Benefit 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
G G A B E A B A A B A B C
1400 4000 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1250 1500 1500 1500 1500 1250 1100 1100 750 1250
Field
All reservoir condition waterfloods have shown some benefit Benefit of injecting low salinity ranged from 4-39% compared with high salinity recoveries
Single Well Tests
Log Inject Log

Perform flowing PLT runs with TDT, spinner, densiometer Inject high salinity brine at low rate 0.5 bb/s/min/ft and log using TDT tool at ****
Inject low salinity brine at low rate 0.5 bb/s/min/ft
Measure sigma waters (high, intermediate, low)
TDT Stable
TDT Stable
Determine porosity data
Perform shut in PLT runs with TDT, spinner, densiometer Shut In W ell for a period
Perform 3 further logging runs to reduce noise to signal
Calculate Sorw from high salinity/ intermediate brine injections Calculate Sorw from low salinity/ intermediate brine injections
Compare high and low Salinity Sorws
Inject Intermediate salinity brine at low rate 0.5 bb/s/min/ft
Inject intermediate salinity brine at low rate 0.5 bb/s/min/ft
Cross flow between open intervals
TDT Stable
TDT Stable
Log Inject Log

Approx. Volume Injected (bbls) High Salinity Brine Intermediate Salinity Brine Low Salinity Brine Intermediate Salinity Brine 700 300 300 300
Logging speed 600 ft/hr Essential to keep injection rates representative of bulk reservoir0.5 bbls/ft/hr Radius of Investigation6 inches maximum
Dry oil well Good reservoir quality Uniform permeability/ porosity No fracture or acidisation jobs A Vertical or near vertical well. Cased hole Good cement job to avoid water channelling behind the casing. No crossflow between layers
Log Inject Log - Results

Open Hole Analysis After High Salinity Brine After Low Salinity Brine
Increased recovery ranges from 5-40% for the perforated intervals Uncertainty estimated at ~ +- 5% s.u.
Movable Oil OH Movable Oil HSB
Movable Oil LSB
Single Well Tracer Test Procedure
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acetate + Ethanol
Sw
Sor
Step 1: Injection of ethyl acetate Step 3: Back flow after a few days Step 2: Some ethyl acetate forms ethanol
EtAc + H2O
EtOH + HAc
Ethanol
Ethyl Acetatel
Concentration Tracers (ppm)
1400
1000
250
350 1200
900
1000
Sor = Zero Case Un-reacted Ester Tracer
300
700
250
800
600
Product Alcohol Tracer
600
Product Alcohol Tracer Un-reacted Ester Tracer
150
200
500
150
400
100
400 100
300
200
50
200
50
100
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Volume Produced (bbls)
Volume Produced (bbls)
Step 4: Measure separation at well head
Sor = 0
Sor = 10%
800
Sor= 10% (K= 5.0)
200
Single Well Chemical Tracer Tests

PV of low sal % Increase low sal over hi sal
Field
Reservoir/Well
E-1
A
4 4 8 1
15% 8% 18% 5% 14% 23% 27%
F-1 KB-1 K2 OS-1 regular low sal
OS-1 ultra low sal OS-1 softened A-1

D
9 2.0 2.0
17% 35% 22%
B-1 C-3
Summary
Reservoir Condition coreflood tests/Single well tests all show consistent increased low salinity benefit
Low Salinity Slugs
Can we inject slugs of low salinity water or do we need to inject continuously to get the recovery benefit ?
Coreflood Slug tests

Performed from tertiary injection (as are the SWCT tests) Reservoir Condition Waterflood Secondary with sea water, tertiary losal Slug sizes (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% 75%, 1PV)
0.08 0.07 C u m u lative O il p ro d u ced 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 75% 100% Slug Size (PV)
Slug Size Det 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 75 100
Det 2
Det 3
Det 4
Det 5
Det 6
Det 7
Single Well Tracer Tests

40% 35% Incremental Recovery 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 0.5 1 Slug Size (PV) 1.5 2 2.5
0.3-0.4 PV low salinity slug produces majority of oil Consistent with reservoir condition slug coreflood results
Field
Reservoir/Well B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 C-1 C-2 C-3
PV of low sal 0.2 0.4 0.7 2 0.2 0.3 2
% Increase low sal over hi sal 0% 31% 31% 35% 8% 22% 22%
Summary Losal effect observed at coreflood and single well scale Benefits range from ~5% to ~40% No adverse rock/fluid interactions in most reservoir systems
From SWCT and coreflood studies 0.3 to 0.4 PV slug necessary to get most of the benefit.
Low Salinity How does it work ?
EPT
North Sea Micro-Visualisation Images

Normal salinity sample has more oil in the pore space and the trapped oil is frequently associated with microporosity..
Normal salinity sample-UV image blue is water phase, brown is oil phase Low salinity sample has less oil in the pore space microporosity is generally less oil wet than for normal salinity sample.
Normal salinity sample-Optical image
Low salinity sample-UV image blue is water phase, brown is oil phase
Low salinity sample-optical image
Mechanisms
Fines migration
Possible if the ionic strength of the brine is equal or lower than the critical flocculation concentration (CFC)- typically below what we have for losal No evidence in BP corefloods
Cation Exchange is fast and dependent on clay concentration. Could account for pH changes seen in some corefloods Potential wettability mechanisms role of divalent ions
Extended DLVO theory of Adsorption Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+ O- O- O- OC O - O R1 R R2 N+ OCation bridging Cation exchange Ligand bridging Water bridging R3 Ca2+ OO O Ca
pH
Carbonate dissolution is slow (kinetically limited) and dependent on Ca concentration. The geochemical workbench model predicted a pH increase from 7 to 10 matching experimental results. However an infinite supply of calcite was assumed in the model
C O
C O - O H + H OMg2+ O-
Van der Waals
Carbonate dissolution:
Ca2+ + CO32HCO3- + OH-
CaCO3 CO32- + H2O
Acids are not the only species playing a role in adsorption
LoSal Mechanism
25000 Chloride concentration (ppm) 70 60 50 15000 40 30 20 5000
Chloride Mg
20000
Magnesium concentration (ppm)
During a LoSal flood on an Endicott core, effluent analyses were performed. Calcium and Magnesium concentration dropped during a LoSal flood below the concentration of the LoSal brine. This behavior was reported by BP Sunburys lab and Heriot Watt University.
10000
10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pore volume
LoSal Mechanism- CEC

An Endicott core, which exhibited a strong response to LoSal flood (Ca. 12%), was cleaned and then saturated with NaCl until no divalent cation were eluted. Once the core saturated, it was flooded with oil until an Swi of 12% was obtained and then aged. A high salinity flood containing only NaCl was performed followed by a LoSal flood containing only NaCl.
Shut in
2.5
No data due to the elution of MeOH Used for Core cleaning.

2
Correct Ca Correct Mg
Ion Concentration (ppm)
1.5
0.5
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Pore Volume Injected
LoSal Mechanism
100% 90% 80% 70%
% Recovery
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000
Low Salinity Brine Injection Started No Additional Recovery Observed
Increase in oil recovery
80.000 100.000 120.000 140.000 160.000 180.000 200.000
Pore Volume of Water Injected

% of oil recovered with no Ca and Mg present on the mineral surface (high and low salinity) % of oil recovered with Ca and Mg present on the surface(high salinity only)
LoSal Mechanism
Extended DLVO theory of Adsorption Na+ Na+ Na+ Na+ OO- O- OC O - O R1 R R2 N+ OCation bridging Cation exchange Ligand bridging Water bridging R3 Ca2+ OO O Ca
C O
C O - O H + H OMg2+ O-
Van der Waals
Low Salinity Reservoir Scale Demonstration
EPT
Milne Point -16Ai LoSal WF Pattern
Well Spacing 1200 1700 LoSalTM injection (3000 bbls/day) started in May 2005 L16 supports L-11 and L-07 L-07 also sees IWAG from C-19 Original plan focused on L11 response Not responding as expected
MPL-11 MPL-19 MPL-07 MPL-16i
Fault between L16 and L11?

L-07 now focus
Change in Salinity of L-07 & L-11Injector/Producer Communication

15000 14000 13000 12000 Salinity (ppm) 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 12/30/2004
L-11 salinity stayed high (fault?)
L-07 salinity fallen continuously from high to <7000 ppm as of today

12/30/2005 L-07 L-11 12/30/2006 12/31/2007
L-07 Oil Rate Response to different Recovery Process

MPL-07 Oil rate Lowess = 0.05 1600 1400 1200 1000 Oil rate 800 600 400 200 0
Natural depletion
L-16A Waterflood
MI
LoSal
12/07/1995
12/06/1996
12/06/1997
12/06/1998
12/06/1999
12/05/2000
12/05/2001
12/05/2002
12/05/2003
12/04/2004
12/04/2005
12/04/2006
Date
12/04/2007
water cut 100% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0%
12/07/1994 12/07/1995 12/06/1996 12/06/1997 12/06/1998 12/06/1999 12/05/2000 12/05/2001 12/05/2002
L-07 Water Cut - Response to different Recovery Process
MI
12/05/2003 12/04/2004 12/04/2005 12/04/2006 12/04/2007
LoSal
12/03/2008
LoSal Can be the only Recovery Mechanism to explain additional oil Other mechanisms which have been looked at and ruled out:
IWAG and MI from C19
From C19 15 slugs have been injected IWAG response low Expect that each IWAG slug will decrease response After 15 slugs response cannot be related to IWAG One MI in 2002 Rate decreased post ESP replacement prior to LoSalTM additional prod. Injectivity index stays constant from January 2005 until April 2007.
From MPC-19
2500
IWAG
2000
calculated oil rate
1500
Water injection in L-16
Miscible injection
LoSal injection
1000
500
12/07/1995
12/06/1996
12/06/1997
12/06/1998
12/06/1999
12/05/2000
12/05/2001
12/05/2002
12/05/2003
12/04/2004
12/04/2005
12/04/2006
Report Date
When a gas slug arrive the oil rate drop (ESP effect?)
gas 1st der(L)
calculated oil rate(L)
Oil Vol Metered(L)
When LoSal arrive the oil rate increase as well as the gas rate
Mg (m eq/l)
Gas injected in C19
oil 1s t der(R)
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
ESP Change out
-0.5
-0.5
-1.0
MI
LoSal injection
-1.0
12/06/1999
06/05/2000
12/05/2000
06/05/2001
12/05/2001
06/05/2002
12/05/2002
06/05/2003
12/05/2003
06/04/2004
12/04/2004
06/04/2005
12/04/2005
06/04/2006
12/04/2006
06/04/2007
Qoil t
-1.5
-1.5
Qgas t
Thermal Fracturing
1000
date
1.2
1.0 800 0.8 600 3000
0.6
Flush Production
Short lived additional oil but not for LoSalTM
0.4 400 0.2 200 2000
0.0 1000
-0.2 04/23/2004 02/17/2005 12/14/2005 10/10/2006 08/06/2007 09/20/2004 07/17/2005 05/13/2006 03/09/2007 Oil Vol Metered(L) Gas Vol Metered(L) Mg(R) Total liquid(R2)
12/04/2007
-500
4000
LoSal VIP Internal Propriatary Model- Losal Oil Timing

The VIP model was history matched until May 2005. Then run as a predictive model. Model predicted LoSal Benefits and this led to invigorated effort to re-analyse field pattern data (and Mg trends) The model predicted a LoSalTM breakthrough in November 2005 This was thought to be too quick but agreed with actual change in water chemistry (cf. Mg trend). The model predicted the biggest delta between LoSalTM and HiSal between April and September 2006.
This corresponds to the apex of the observed LoSalTM oil slug
1000 1.0 800 0.8 600 0.6 0.4 400 0.2 200 0.0
4000
3000
2000
1000 0 04/18/2005 06/17/2005 08/16/2005 10/15/2005 12/14/2005 02/12/2006 04/13/2006 06/12/2006 08/11/2006 10/10/2006 12/09/2006 02/07/2007 04/08/2007 06/07/2007 08/06/2007 -0.2
Oil Vol Metered(L)
Gas Vol Metered(L)
Mg(R)
Total liquid(R 2)
Geochemistry: Mg++ - Fits with the Mechanism

25000 Chloride concentration (ppm) 20000 60 50 Magnesium concentration (ppm)
Coreflood Data
70
15000
Magnesium
40 30 20
10000
Chloride Mg
The Mg2+ in the effluent shows the same trend as observed during corefloods.
sharp decrease.
5000
0 0
0.8
Chlorid e
1 2 3 4 Pore volum e
10 0 5 6 7
0.7
MPU L-Pad Data
0.6
It appears that 2 different LoSalTM slugs were produced. One in November 2005 and one in December 2006.
0.5 Mg (mol//)
0.4
Base
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 2/17/2005
5/28/2005
9/5/2005
12/14/2005
3/24/2006
7/2/2006
10/10/2006
1/18/2007
4/28/2007
8/6/2007
11/14/2007
MPF-99 SWCTT Results

Test Description High Salinity Water TDS 36,500 Sor Measured Sor = 0.30 0.02
KUB
Produced Water TDS 16,000 LoSal Water TDS 2,600; Optimised LoSal Water Sor = 0.30 0.02 Sor = 0.28 0.02 Sor = 0.20 0.02
KA3 KA2 KA1
LoSal water reduced Sor by 2 saturation units vs. 8 saturation units expected; Produced Water lower Ca than LoSal Water Optimized LoSal Water gives additional benefit
Geochemistry: Ca2+
LoSal brine (ppm)
Na 817
Produced brine (ppm)

4,980
Ca
B K Al
101
2 8 < 0.15
71
22 38 0.16
Small response in oil recovery in L-07 and F-99 SWCT LoSal test explained by
the Ca++ trends are different to the Mg++ trends. Mg lower in LoSal brine than connate, triggering oil release mechanism. the concentration of Ca2+ in the LoSalTM brine is higher than in the connate brine therefore calcium component of the mechanism is not triggered.
12/31/2007
Mg
Ba Sr Salinity
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 12/30/2004
19
3.45 1.6 2,600
33
17.5 4.7 16,640
mEq / l
MPU L-Pad Data Calcium Response
12/30/2005
12/30/2006
Well to Well Conclusions:

Geochemistry The geochemical data clearly show that an interaction between the LoSalTM brine and the oil occurred. The Mg2+ trends follow the exact same trend during the well-to-well test as in corefloods. The drop in Mg2+ concentration was sharp and not severely impacted by dispersion. MPU L-07 history is complicated, but no single mechanism apart from LoSalTM can account for the sustained increase in oil production observed for more than 10 months. MPU pattern analyses has echoed in detail the lab mechanistic understandings LoSal at Scale All data from lab through to well to well has shown that loSal oil recovery works at the small to the large scale. Markers observed in the corescale are also observed at the larger scale.

The Losal Eor Process From Laboratory To Field

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Losal Eor Process From Laboratory To Field

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The LoSalTM EOR Process

The LoSalTM EOR Process From Laboratory to Field

delivering breakthrough solutions

The LoSalTM EOR Process

References and Acknowledgements

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Single Well Tests

Reservoir Scale Evidence

Prediction (Reservoir Simulation)

The LoSalTM EOR Process

What is low Salinity Oil Recovery

Reservoir Brine 30 k ppm 1k ppm

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Vertical Sweep Benefit

Reduced oil residuals

IRS Tax Credit

Low Salinity Waterfloods - A bundle of benefits

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Evidence from the Laboratory

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Berea rock Crude Oil Systems

Reduced Condition (University of Wyoming (Morrow)

The LoSalTM EOR Process

CS Crude Oil/CS Brine/CS Sandstone

100 90 80 70 Rwf (% OOIP) 60 50 40 30

20 10 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Injected Brine Volume (PV)

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Proposed mechanisms inferred from lab tests

0.1 C.S Brine

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Evidence from the Laboratory

Full Reservoir Condition

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Reservoir Condition Coreflood Procedures

Pc for data logging and control

Flood Position with in-situ saturation monitoring

Max Pressure 690 Bar

Reservoir Condition Waterflood tests

Capillary dominated flowrate unsteady state technique Independent Sor determination

In-situ saturation, dispersion, mass balance

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Coreflood CharacteristicsSecondary Recovery CharacteristicsNorth Sea Reservoir

Low salinity flood High salinity flood

PV OIL Prod Oil Production (HCPV)

Water Injection (PV) PV Inj

Coreflood CharacteristicsTertiary Recovery CharacteristicsNorth Sea Reservoir

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Production Benefit in Tertiary Mode

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Reservoir Condition Coreflood

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Single Well Tests

The LoSalTM EOR Process

Log Inject Log

Inject low salinity brine at low rate 0.5 bb/s/min/ft

Measure sigma waters (high, intermediate, low)

Determine porosity data

Perform 3 further logging runs to reduce noise to signal

Perform 3 further logging runs to reduce noise to signal

Compare high and low Salinity Sorws