See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241788924

Snorre Low Salinity Water Injection - Core Flooding Experiments And Single
Well Field Pilot

Article · April 2013

DOI: 10.2118/129877-MS

CITATIONS READS
49 404

4 authors, including:

Kjetil Skrettingland Medad T. Tweheyo

Statoil ASA Statoil ASA
15 PUBLICATIONS   199 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   1,024 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ingun Skjevrak
Statoil ASA
25 PUBLICATIONS   995 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enhanced oil recovery by Low Salinity Water-flooding :- Effect of surface chemistry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kjetil Skrettingland on 09 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 129877

Snorre Low Salinity Water Injection - Core Flooding Experiments and

Single Well Field Pilot
K. Skrettingland, STATOIL; T. Holt, SINTEF Petroleum Research; M.T. Tweheyo, STATOIL; and I. Skjevrak,
STATOIL

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 24–28 April 2010.

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
Low salinity water (lowsal) flooding has been evaluated for increased oil recovery at the Snorre field. Core flooding
experiments and a single well chemical tracer test (SWCTT) field pilot have been performed to measure the remaining oil
saturation after sea water and after lowsal flooding.

The laboratory core flooding experiments done at reservoir and low pressure conditions involved core material from the
Upper and Lower Statfjord and Lunde formations. The core material from the Statfjord formations gave incremental recovery
in the order of 2 % of original oil in place (OOIP) by injection of diluted sea water. Similar amounts were produced during
following NaCl-based lowsal injections. The same trend was observed in the high and low pressure experiments. No
significant response to lowsal flooding was observed for Lunde cores. No response was normally observed during alkaline
injection.

The SWCTT field pilot test was carried out in the Upper Statfjord formation. The average oil saturations after sea water
injection, after lowsal injection and after a new sea water injection were determined; showing no significant change in the
remaining oil saturation. The measured in-situ value of remaining oil saturation after sea water flooding was in agreement
with previous SCAL experiments.

The measured effect of tertiary lowsal flooding from core experiments was in agreement with the SWCTT. Both
measurements indicated only low or no effect from lowsal injection.

It has been suggested that lowsal flooding has a potential for improved oil recovery in all clayey sandstone formations
containing crude oil. The results from this work indicate that the initial wetting condition is a crucial property for the effect of
lowsal injection.

Introduction
One of the main challenges of lowsal flooding is the lack of a universal explanation of how the process works in improving
oil recovery. Most of the reported incremental oil by lowsal injection is from plugs prepared to restore wettability. An often
suggested mechanism is wettability alteration towards more water-wetness. Lieghtelm et al. (2009) also explained the
positive effect of lowsal injection as due to a wettability alteration. Desorption of oil components in a low salinity
environment makes the rock more water-wet and the relative permeabilities shift to more favourable values at the saturations
present at the end of the ordinary water flood. Doe (1994) reported that perfectly water-wet behavior on silica is possible only
at low salinity.

Jadhunandan and Morrow (1995) showed that optimum recovery during secondary water flooding peaks at neutral-wet
conditions in studies on Berea sandstone where both the type of oil and brine were varied. Skauge and Ottesen (2002) found
the same type of relationship based on waterflooding data from a large group of reservoir core material. Similar observations
were made by Tweheyo et al. (1999) on reservoir sandstone using modified refined oils, and recently by Ashraf et al. (2010)
on Berea sandstone by using the same modified oils and brines with high and low salinities. The oil recovery peaked at
neutral-wet conditions regardless of the injected brine, but the peaks were higher for the low saline brines compared to those
2 SPE 129877

of high salinity. It was also noted that although the highest ultimate recovery was obtained by lowsal flooding in neutral-wet
plugs, the largest reduction in residual oil saturation was obtained by injecting lowsal in water-wet plugs.

Looking at some of the oil production characteristics reported on lowsal injection, cases showing increased oil recovery
apparently from water-wet plugs are not uncommon (Tang 1998; Robertson et al., 2003; Webb et al., 2005). In such cases,
lowsal injection appears to increase oil production by altering the wettability away from water-wetness. Cases where high
salinity injection increases oil recovery with increasing water-wetness and cases which show the opposite trend depend on
the relative robustness of the initial wetting conditions (Tang and Morrow, 1997).

Reservoir wettability is not fixed as is often assumed. It is often reported as a single value reflecting the initial or final
wetting condition. Instead, wettability should be considered as a dynamic condition. It can be changed when the key
parameters affecting it are changed, and it can be restored when the same parameters are restored. If such parameters are not
restored, a new wetting state will exist at the new equilibrium condition. The increased oil recovery may take place during the
transition from one equilibrium (wetting) condition to the next one. Wetting parameters which are particularly influenced by
brine composition and/or ionic strength are expected to change when the pore brine is significantly altered, as in the case of
lowsal flooding.

The role of mixed wettability in lowsal flooding has not been sufficiently investigated. Sharma and Filoco (2000) reported
that a successful lowsal flood requires that the rock wettability is altered from water-wet to mixed-wet. Rivet (2009)
suggested the opposite.

Clay minerals and oil quality are widely accepted as key parameters for lowsal flooding. Understanding how these
parameters interact is important. All types of clay minerals (kaolinite, smectite, illite, and chlorite) are recognized as
important. Various studies show that adsorption of asphaltenes and resins make clays more oil-wet (Collins and Melrose,
1983, Smerton and Radke, 1980, Reed, 1968). Other studies show that asphaltenes and resins induce varying wettabilities
depending on the type of clay mineral (Clementz, 1976, 1977, 1982). Adsorption of these compounds on smectite
(montmorillonite) under anhydrous conditions changed the wettability from water-wet to oil-wet. Under similar conditions, a
Berea core containing significant amounts of kaolinite became neutral-wet. But studies on kaolinite mineral alone indicated
that kaolinite is preferentially oil-wet. Illite showed preference for water (Bantignies et al., 1997). Iron-rich chlorite
(chamosite) is claimed to be oil-wet (Boneau and Clampitt, 1977; Trantham and Clampitt, 1977). Petrographic analyses
showed that an iron-rich chlorite coating can give a stronger oil-wet character on quartz surface than the more common
organic coating on other mineral surfaces. This is because the iron ions are strong activators, promoting oil-wetting. While
the organic coating can be removed by extraction with certain organic solvents and alter the wettability of the surface to less
oil-wet, the chlorite coating is not affected by such treatments. However, Hjemeland et al. (1986) showed a water-wet
behaviour of chlorite in Norwegian marine clay. This serves to show the importance of the amount, type and distribution of
clays in a formation.

The issue of how type of clay and amount affect wettability is important but not yet settled. The presence of clays or
potentially mobile fines as one of the pre-requisite conditions for lowsal IOR was first suggested by Tang and Morrow
(1999). However, they did not specify whether certain clays play a more important role than others. In another study, Zhang
and Morrow (2006) reported that Berea samples with chlorite as the most abundant clay showed no oil recovery by lowsal
injection. Lager et al. (2007) suggested that kaolinite plays the most important role and proposed a correlation between
kaolinite content and additional oil recovered by lowsal injection. The work by Pu et al. (2008) indicated positive response
for lowsal injection into clay-free dolomite samples. Recent work by Boussour et al. (2009) showed positive response in
kaolinite-free sandstone after lowsal injection and Austad et al. (2010) have proposed that kaolinite would be the least
important clay due to its low cation exchange capacity.

It is claimed that the type of crude oil, as characterized by the acid and base numbers, does not affect the oil recovery by
lowsal injection (Lager et al., 2006, Austad et al., 2010). How the type of crude oil influences lowsal IOR requires further
investigation. The oil should be better characterized than it has been done so far in lowsal studies, where conclusions often
are based only on the acid and base numbers. Different oil components and clays types preferentially interact when the brine
chemistry is changed. Hedges and Hare (1987), Wang and Lee (1993) and Greenland et al. (1965) studied the adsorption of
amino acids and aliphatic amines on clays (kaolinite, smectite and illite) at high and low salinity conditions at discrete pH
values. It was found that the basic (positively charged) amino acids and amines were strongly adsorbed onto the clay minerals
in fresh water than in high salinity environments such as sea water. Hedges and Hare (1987) further showed that in salt-free
aqueous solutions, only kaolinite slightly adsorbed the acidic (negatively charged) amino acids but not neutral (uncharged)
amino acids. Smectite adsorbed significant amounts of neutral amino acids but not the acidic amino acids. The adsorption
patterns were ascribed mainly to cation exchange reactions, but with a significant contribution from hydrophobic interactions.
The effect on adsorption of varying pH was not investigated.
SPE 129877 3

Despite evidence of IOR potentials by injection of lowsal in clastic systems, several publications (e.g., Sharma and Filoco,
2000, Pu et al., 2008, Rivet, 2009) show some experiments with no benefit of lowsal flooding. It is clear that the effect of
lowsal injection is case sensitive. It is therefore apparent that each formation or reservoir must be evaluated separately on
individual basis. The use of outcrop cores can be used in mechanistic studies for evaluation of fundamental properties.

Field evaluation of lowsal injection has mainly been done by SWCTT (McGuire et al., 2005, Seccombe et al., 2008, Lager et
al., 2008, Batias et al., 2009). The field tests have confirmed that lowsal injection can induce a reduction in the residual oil
saturation in the near well bore region. In addition, full field evidence of improved oil recovery by lowsal injection has been
given by Robertson (2007). However, field data validating increased oil recovery by lowsal injection is still limited.

It was on the background of many encouraging results from laboratory measurements and field tests that lowsal injection was
considered as possible EOR technique at the Snorre field. A study involving both laboratory measurements and SWCTTs was
initiated. This paper summarizes findings from the study.

Field description
Snorre oil field is located in the North Sea 150 km from the Norwegian coastline (Figure 1), with OOIP of 513 MSm3.
Approximately 3/4 of the reserves have been produced to date. According to the current plans, the expected recovery factor
will be 46 %. The field has a large IOR potential and an ambitious goal to improve the recovery factor to 55 % has been
stated.

The reservoir has a thickness of 1000 m. It consists of several

rotated fault blocks comprising the Statfjord and Lunde
formations of Lower Jurassic to Upper Triassic age. The
formations are characterized by complex packages of
inhomogeneous stratified fluvial sandstones dipping 6 to 8
degrees. Reservoir porosity is 14 - 32 %, and the reservoir
permeability is varying from 0.1 to 4 Darcy. The
heterogeneous nature of the reservoir is characterized by
limited vertical and lateral communication. Total clay content
Trondheim
Snorre field is in the range of 5 % to 35 %. The reservoir temperature is
90 °C and the initial pressure was 383 bar. The oil is under-
saturated.
Oslo
Studies on restored and fresh samples from the Snorre field
(Statfjord and Lunde formations) show that the wettability
Stavanger can be classified as neutral to weakly water-wet
(Hammervold Thomas, 2005). The Amott Index for most of
the samples ranged from 0 to 0.4 for the Lunde formation and
from –0.2 to 0.3 for the Statfjord formations.
Figure 1. Location of the Snorre field 150 km from the
Norwegian coastline

Production from the Snorre A platform in the southern part of the field commenced in 1992 with water injection as the main
drive mechanism. The Snorre B platform started producing the northern part of the field in 2001. The main drive mechanism
is currently water alternating gas injection which started on a large scale in 1996.

Laboratory studies
Core material and preparation
Cores from the three formations (Upper Statfjord, Lower Statfjord and Lunde) were used in the laboratory experiments. Prior
to the water/lowsal injection experiments the cores were cleaned by immersed Soxhlet extraction using toluene/methanol for
consolidated or solvent flooding for the unconsolidated cores. Some cores were cleaned by flooding with kerosene and
formation water (mild cleaning).

After cleaning, the methanol saturated cores were first flooded with formation water and the permeability was measured. This
was followed by pore volume determination by flooding with NaNO3 with the subsequent analyses of Cl- in the effluent
before flooding again with formation water. Then the cores were drained to initial water saturation (Swi) with kerosene using
porous plates using 5 barg maximum injection pressures. The mildly cleaned cores were directly drained to Swi. For these
cores, absolute permeabilities and pore volumes were determined after the water injection experiments and solvent cleaning
of the cores. The initial water saturation was determined from water analyses of the cleaning fluids. All the cores were aged
in the corresponding oils (Table 1) for minimum two weeks.
4 SPE 129877

A summary of basic core properties is given in Table 1. All depths in this paper are measured depths along the wellbore
related to rotary Kelly Bushing. Whole rock mineral composition of the cores as determined by x-ray diffraction analyses are
given in Table 2, which also contain mineral compositions from two samples taken from the well used in the pilot test.

Table 1. Summary of basic core properties.

Formation Depth (m) PV (ml) Porosity (frac.) Abs. perm. (D) Swi (frac.) kw(Sor) (D) Cleaning Expt. Oil type
2548.10 21.8 0.283 7.03 0.136 2.14 mild lp STO
2548.15 27.0 0.273 5.57 0.260 1.45 solvent lp STO
Upper 2549.10 30.3 0.287 2.26 0.201 not measured solvent lp SRO
Statfjord 2803.35 32.1 0.293 1.31 0.211 not measured solvent lp SRO
2803.40 28.6 0.274 0.609 0.297 0.212 solvent lp STO
2805.30+2805.34 45.4 0.247 1.851 0.195 0.607 mild hp Res.oil
2879.64+2879.69 46.5 0.255 0.069 0.384 not measured mild hp Res.oil
2893.16 26.4 0.271 0.235 0.357 not measured Soxhlet lp SRO
Lower 2897.17+2900.17 45.1 0.251 0.281 0.352 0.067 Soxhlet hp Res.oil
Statfjord 2901.17+2902.16 34.0 0.207 0.019 0.541 0.011 Soxhlet hp Res.oil
2905.11 22.5 0.250 0.222 0.290 0.073 Soxhlet lp STO
3485.59+3485.63 33.0 0.249 0.494 0.248 0.226 Soxhlet hp Res.oil
Lunde 3619.87 18.8 0.244 0.099 0.250 not measured Soxhlet lp SRO
3619.92 19.2 0.254 0.066 0.393 0.014 Soxhlet lp STO

Table 2. Whole rock mineral composition of the core material (XRD wt %).
Depth Quartz K-feldspar Plagioclase Chlorite Kaolinite Mica/illite ML clay Smectite Calcite Siderite Pyrite Barite Sylvite
2548.10 58.0 22.2 6.2 0.3 10.6 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
2548.15 60.0 22.1 6.9 0.4 8.1 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2549.10 60.2 19.0 7.8 0.8 10.6 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
2803.35 61.2 14.9 8.2 0.3 11.9 2.6 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
2803.40 59.0 16.2 8.7 0.3 12.9 2.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2805.30 56.7 20.7 7.9 0.8 10.6 1.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
2805.34 61.3 20.3 7.4 0.3 7.8 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
2879.64 36.9 7.1 31.2 0.6 17.6 2.0 0.0 1.9 2.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
2879.69 31.7 6.9 37.7 0.7 15.5 2.7 0.0 1.8 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
2893.16 50.9 11.7 20.9 0.1 14.1 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2897.17 64.3 9.1 9.6 0.3 14.8 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
2900.17 56.3 13.1 9.6 0.6 18.1 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
2901.17 57.4 7.2 8.8 0.9 13.1 1.2 0.2 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 tr 0.0
2902.16 57.0 12.2 8.8 0.3 18.0 2.2 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
2905.11 51.5 13.2 14.7 0.6 15.5 1.7 0.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
3485.59 39.3 7.4 28.7 1.3 13.3 3.7 0.4 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
3485.63 39.8 10.8 27.5 0.8 11.0 3.4 0.5 0.1 6.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
3619.87 34.3 6.3 35.0 1.4 17.7 4.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
3619.92 32.2 4.7 35.1 1.2 21.0 4.0 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4027.00 54.7 16.0 3.1 1.6 14.7 8.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2
4027.50 77.5 14.5 1.1 1.1 1.2 2.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.9

Fluids.
The composition of the formation water used in the initial preparation of the cores is given in Table 3. The table also gives
the composition of synthetic sea water. Real sea water with a slightly higher salinity (3.52 wt %) was used in most of the sea
water/diluted sea water injections, however. The composition of the low salinity injection water used in the field pilot is also
included in the table.

Table 3. Composition of formation (g/l) water, synthetic sea water and low salinity water for the field pilot.
Constituent Formation water Synthetic sea water Field pilot lowsal
NaCl 30.5 23.74 0.3007
CaCl2 · 2H2O 4.17 1.500 0.0234
MgCl2 · 6H2O 1.35 10.70 0.0924
BaCl2 · 2H2O 0.08 0.000 0.0000
SrCl2 · 6H2O 0.047 0.024 0.0003
NaHCO3 0.53 0.194 0.0231
KCl 0.23 0.755 0.0211
Na2SO4 0.00 3.976 0.0344
Salinity (wt %) 3.43 3.402 0.0440
Ionic strength (mol/l) 0.631 0.691 0.0083
SPE 129877 5

Three different oils were used in the flooding experiments. For the first low pressure experiments, synthetic reservoir oil
(SRO) composed of STO and n-hexane in a proportion that correspond to the dilution of STO by the associated gas. This was
changed to only STO after the first four flooding experiments. Recombined reservoir oil was used in all the high pressure
experiments. Some data for the oils are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Fluid data.

Property/oil STO SRO Reservoir oil
Viscosity at 90 ºC and 6/300 bar (cp) 1.16 0.67 0.58
Total acid number (mg KOH/g) 0.02 - -
Total base number (mg KOH/g) 1.1 - -
Asphaltene content (wt %) 0.8 - -
Bubble point pressure at 90 ºC (bar) - - 121.8
Bo at 90 ºC and 300 bar (res.ml/Sml) - - 1.34
GOR (Sml/Sml) - - 100.4
IFT against sea water (mN/m) 19.1 19.0 30.1
IFT against 2000 ppm NaCl (mN/m) 19.1 18.7 29.9

Flooding experiments.
The laboratory study included nine low pressure (6 bar) single core and five reservoir pressure (300 bar) composite cores
flooding experiments, all done at reservoir temperature (90 ºC). The core flooding experiments were performed in standard
core flooding rigs. The pressure of the fluid exiting the core was reduced to ambient by passing through a back pressure
valve. The fluid then flowed through a combined pH/conductivity cell and into a separator where the oil was retained and
quantified over time. The differential pressure across the core was monitored by transducers. For the high pressure
experiments, gas was added to the various injection waters (2.5 ml/ml) and water was injected into the bottom of the
vertically oriented cores. For the low pressure experiments, the core holders were tilted 22º and water was injected from the
lowest end. Samples of the produced water were taken before the separators either manually or by the use of a fraction
collector. The water injection rate was 8 ml/hr.

All flooding experiments started with sea water injection until no more oil was produced. This was followed by lowsal
(diluted) sea water injections and lowsal NaCl brine injections at the same rate. The lowsal concentrations varied from 3500
and 375 ppm. In most of the experiments, 2000 ppm and 500 ppm concentrations were used. In some of the experiments, the
lowsal injection sequence was terminated with an alkaline injection stage where NaOH (0.01 mol/l) was added to the lowsal
brine giving a pH of approximately 12.

After the water injections steps, some of the experiments were terminated after first a high rate water injection followed by a
water permeability measurements at residual oil saturation, and finally a solvent cleaning stage. The water saturations at the
end of the experiments were determined by Karl Fisher water analyses.

Results and discussion.

Figure 2 shows an example of the history of a core flooding experiment. STO was used in the experiment. The initial sea
water flooding was followed by two steps of lowsal (diluted sea water) injection, two steps with lowsal NaCl injection before
a high pH injection step and at the end of the experiment a high rate injection step. During the 500 ppm NaCl injection step,
the temperature was reduced to ambient for a few PV injected. This was done in a few experiments to evaluate if reduced
temperature affected oil recovery, but no significant effect was observed. The various events are indicated in the Figure 2.

As seen in the figure, the oil recovered during the sea water injection phase and the following lowsal injections was low.
Although a significant amount of oil was produced during the high rate (5 ml/min) flood at the end of the experiment, only 44
% of OOIP was produced from the high permeability core. Similar low oil recoveries were observed also in the two other
experiments with Upper Statfjord cores (cf. Table 1) when STO was used and indicate poor sweep efficiency of these floods.

From the figure it is seen that very low differential pressures were measured during most of the flood except in the initial
period with two phase flow of oil and water and during the high rate water injection at the end. The fluctuations in the
differential pressure during most of the experiment were due to noise/drift in the measurement system and were not related to
significant changes in the core permeability as a result of lowsal injection. This was a general observation from all
experiments. In the present example, fines were not produced during the various injection stages before the pH of the injected
water was increased to approximately 12 which resulted in fines production. An increase in pH strongly influences the zeta
potentials of clays, which may explain the detachment of the fines. No incremental oil recovery followed the fines
production. Also this was a general observation for all experiments. In some of the experiments, minor amounts of fines were
produced at earlier stages, however.

The pH profiles in the produced water shown in Figure 2 is representative for many of the flooding experiments where an
6 SPE 129877

overall slow increase in the pH could be observed during most of the flood, followed by a large increase after start of the
alkaline injection. In the present example the response to the alkaline injection was fast, in other experiments the response
was delayed for several pore volumes. Before the alkaline injection into Core 2548.10, the pH of the produced water
approached 10. In one experiment pH 10 was exceeded before alkaline injection. On the other hand, there were also examples
where the pH remained constant and close to neutral during the whole period before alkaline injection.

Oil production Rel. cond. Differentail pressure pH

1.2 18
low T 90 °C

1.0 15

Differential pressure (mbar), pH

Oil production (PV), rel. cond.

2000 ppm NaCl

Sea water (ppm)
+NaOH -NaOH high rate
2000 500
0.8 NaCl (ppm) 12
2000 500

0.6 9

0.4 6

0.2 3

0.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Injected water (PV)
Figure 2. Flooding history of core 2548.10.

Table 5 summarizes the oil recoveries for the various steps of the flooding experiments, averaged for the low pressure, high
pressure and all experiments done with cores from each formation. Alkaline injection was not done in all the experiments and
the averages include only the relevant cores. The lower oil recovery for the low pressure experiments with Upper Statfjord
cores can be ascribed to three of the experiments where STO were used. These experiments resulted in much lower oil
recovery compared to when the less viscous synthetic reservoir oil or recombined reservoir oil were used. A similar effect of
oil type was not seen for the low pressure experiments with cores from the Lower Statfjord and Lunde formations, however.
The incremental oil recovery for alkaline flooding for Lower Statfjord cores were obtained in only one low and one high
pressure experiment.
Table 5. Average oil recovery/incremental oil recovery (% OOIP).
Formation After flooding stage lp hp all
• sea water 37.5 63.7 45.0
• low salinity sea water 1.8 3.3 2.2
Upper Statfjord • low salinity NaCl brine 2.8 0.2 2.1
• alkaline 0.3 0.0 0.2
• sea water 51.1 58.1 54.6
• low salinity sea water 0.4 4.9 2.6
Lower Statfjord • low salinity NaCl brine 0.6 1.3 0.9
• alkaline 2.8 0.5 1.6
• sea water 65.5 66.5 65.9
• low salinity sea water 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lunde • low salinity NaCl brine 0.0 0.8 0.3
• alkaline 0.0 0.0 0.0

The incremental oil recoveries given in Table 5 must be seen in relation to the uncertainty in quantification of produced oil.
This uncertainty will be related to the accuracy of the separator level readings and for oil that unavoidably clogged to tube
walls, to the pH/conductivity cell and to the separator wall. In sum, these factors may contribute to an uncertainty in the
quantified amounts of incremental oil estimated to be in the order of ±1.5 % HCPV. This estimate applies to the total amount
of incremental oil but also to the uncertainty at each stage of the experiment. Thus, if the incremental oil was overestimated at
one stage it would be underestimated at a later stage during the experiment.

The same trend for incremental oil recovery as a result of low salinity flooding was observed in the low and high pressure
experiments. For core material from the Upper Statfjord formation, an incremental oil recovery of 2 % of OOIP was obtained
during lowsal (diluted sea water) injection. Low salinity NaCl injection resulted in a similar amount of incremental oil. The
SPE 129877 7

response to alkaline injection was close to none.

For the Lower Statfjord formation marginally more incremental oil was produced during lowsal (diluted sea water) injection
but somewhat less during the lowsal NaCl brine injections. When the uncertainties in the results are taken into consideration,
the response to lowsal injection for the two formations can not be distinguished. One core responded to alkaline injection but
there was not identified any experimental events that could explain this divergent behaviour. The amount of oil that
correspond to the 2.8 % OOIP increased recovery was 0.45 ml. This is larger than the uncertainty in the measurements
indicated above, however. For core material from the Lunde field, there was no significant response to any type of lowsal
injection or to alkaline flooding.

A sensitivity study where the type of oil, type of formation water and core material was varied was performed. Cores, STO
and brine from a second oil field as well as Snorre cores, STO and brine were used. The formation brines were used only to
establish Swi. When oil from the second field and Snorre Upper Statfjord core material were used, the effect of lowsal
injection was at large, similar to experiments with Snorre oil. No effect was seen for lowsal injections into Lower Statfjord
and Lunde cores with oil from the second field or for a Lunde core with Snorre oil and formation brine from the second field.
A core from the second field with Snorre oil showed a marginally larger response to lowsal injections compared to Snorre
cores from the Statfjord formations. An experiment with both core and oil from the second field gave significant incremental
oil recovery during the lowsal injection stages. During lowsal alkaline flooding, significant amount of incremental oil was
produced for all the floods where oil from the second field was used.

In contrast to the Snorre oil, STO from the second field contains significant amounts of organic acids (total acid number = 3.2
mg KOH/g). The presence of organic acids in the oil appears to be one important factor for alkaline flooding.

The low response to lowsal injection of the Snorre system studied in this work is disappointing in light of many encouraging
results indicated in the literature for other rock/fluid systems. It has not been possible to relate the minor incremental oil
recovery measured in this study to any specific factors. But it is clear that both the quality of the oil and the reservoir rocks
are important for the effect of lowsal injection. The mineralogy is similar to other clastic systems where lowsal injection has
shown positive response. As mentioned previously, lowsal injection is believed to enhance oil recovery by altering the
wettability towards more water-wet. One possible explanation for the results obtained in this study can be that the initial
wetting conditions in the studied systems are already close to optimal for sea water injection, i.e. the wettability can not be
significantly altered in a direction that favour improved oil recovery by changing the concentration and/or composition of salt
in the injected water. Even slight differences in wettability between the Statfjord and Lunde formations are reflected in how
the plugs responded to lowsal injection. The Statfjord formations with Amott Index of -0.2 to 0.3 showed only a slight
response to lowsal. The plugs from Lunde formation with Amott Index of 0 to 0.4 showed no response to lowsal injection,
but at the same time resulted in the highest ultimate recovery by sea water flooding. This is in accordance with previously
published work, e.g. by Jadhunandan and Morrow (1995), and Skauge and Ottesen (2002). Any benefit of wettability
alteration that favours lowsal injection in Snorre field seems more restricted in the Lunde formation.

Single Well Chemical Tracer Test (SWCTT)

Method.
SWCTT is carried out as a push-and-pull operation in a producer. It is based on chromatographic principles where a reactive
partitioning tracer (ethyl acetate, EtAc) is injected into the formation. Parts of the injected partitioning tracer dissolve in the
remaining oil, and parts dissolve in water. Local equilibrium is established rapidly and continuously as the partitioning tracer
flows through the formation. When the tracer is displaced to a target depth from the wellbore, the well is shut-in. A fraction
of the reactive partitioning tracer present in the water phase hydrolyses and generates a product tracer (ethanol, EtOH) which
is water soluble only. Upon start-up of back-production, the product tracer follows the water passively, whereas the
remaining un-reacted partitioning tracer is delayed. The delay of the partitioning tracer depends on the oil saturation in place.
Oil saturation is quantified by varying the saturation in theoretical computations to obtain a fit to observed back-produced
concentrations. This is described in detail by Deans and Carlisle (2007).

Pilot well.
Well P-07 is an oil producer completed in the Upper Statfjord formation. It produces with a water cut of 97 % from a thin
sand of approximately 1.0 m vertical thickness. When the well was drilled in 1994, core samples from the upper part of the
sand were collected, but due to unconsolidated formation coring of the lower part of the sand failed.

The mineralogy of core material from Well P-07 taken at 4027.00 m and 4027.50 m has been analysed by thin sections and
XRD as shown in Figure 3 and Table 2.

An Eclipse reservoir simulation model of the near wellbore area was built to calculate the cooling effect from injection of
cold water. The reservoir temperature influences the interpretation of the SWCTT. Table 6 summarises model properties.
8 SPE 129877

Table 6. Layers in P-07 Eclipse reservoir simulation model

Depth (m) Layer Layer length along wellbore (m) Vertical thickness (m) Permeability (mD) Porosity (frac.)
4026.00 16 0.25 0.118 10 0.21
4026.25 17 0.20 0.095 683 0.29
18 0.10 0.047 683 0.29
4026.50 19 0.20 0.095 683 0.30
4026.75 20 0.25 0.118 379 0.20
4027.00 21 0.25 0.118 2750 0.31
22 0.25 0.118 3000 0.31
23 0.25 0.118 3500 0.31
24 0.25 0.118 4000 0.31
25 0.25 0.118 379 0.20

Pilot test.
The surface layout of the test is shown in Figure 4.

Water injection
System
Add 1 %
(sea water)
sea water

SWCTT
Chemical
Triplex Pump injection

Industrial
fresh Flowmeter Flowmeter
Test separator Oil
water

Water

Portable
mini-
P-07 separator
for fluid
sampling

Figure 3. P-07 core image from 4027.00 m. Quartz is yellow, Figure 4. P-07 SWCTT surface layout.
feldspar/mica is blue and clay (mainly kaolinite) is green.

Three tracers were injected during each SWCTT:

• Oil and water partitioning ethyl acetate (EtAc) for remaining oil saturation interpretation.
• Water soluble n-propanol tracer (NPA) as a backup tracer for EtAc back production if no EtAc is left after
hydrolysis.
• Water soluble iso-propanol tracer (IPA) for material balance purposes.

A fourth tracer, the water soluble tracer ethanol (EtOH), is the reaction product from hydrolysis of the ethyl acetate tracer.
The majority of the hydrolysis reaction occurs during the shut-in period, see Table 7.

Table 7. Injected and produced volumes, and rates throughout the SWCTTs (incl. 50 m3 well bore volume).
Stage Start date (2008) End date (2008) Operation Vol. inj. (m3) Inj. rate (m3/h) Vol. prod.(m3) Prod. rate (m3/h)
1 14 Nov. 20 Nov. Production for clean up of well
2 20 Nov. 23 Nov. Sea water injection 1100 15-16
3 23 Nov. 24 Nov. Back-production of sea water 109 16-17
4 24 Nov. 24 Nov. Sea water injection 110 15-16
5 24 Nov. 24 Nov. SWCTT-1 injection 255 17
6 24 Nov. 28 Nov. Shut-in SWCTT-1
7 28 Nov. 29 Nov. SWCTT-1 back-production 412 19
8 29 Nov. 30 Nov. Low salinity water injection 225 17
9 30 Nov. 01 Dec. Sea water inj. to displace lowsal 180 17
10 01 Dec. 02 Dec. SWCTT-2 injection 252
11 02 Dec. 05 Dec. Shut-in SWCTT-2
12 05 Dec. 06 Dec. SWCTT-2 back-production 408 20-16
13 06 Dec. 07 Dec. Sea water injection 366 17-16
14 07 Dec. 08 Dec. SWCTT-3 injection 251 17-16
15 08 Dec. 11 Dec. Shut-in SWCTT-3
16 11 Dec. 12 Dec. SWCTT-3 back-production 390 16
SPE 129877 9

The tracer injection sequence in each SWCTTs (cf. - Stage 5, 10 and 14) was:
• 40 m3 sea water with EtAc, NPA and IPA tracers.
• Displaced with 211-215 m3 (161-165 m3 and plus the wellbore volume of 50 m3) sea water with IPA tracer.

With these injected volumes, the average remaining oil saturation to an average radius of 10.5 m from the wellbore was
measured.

Remaining oil saturation was measured after sea water injection. After lowsal injection, the near wellbore area was displaced
with sea water again prior to the second SWCTT measurement. By performing all SWCTTs with sea water in the reservoir
ensured that any changes in the tracer responses were not caused by changes in water composition. A third SWCTT was
performed after additional sea water was injected. This was done to separate a possible reduction in the remaining oil
saturation by lowsal injection from a possible effect from the additional volume of water injected.

The low salinity water had a salinity of approximately 500 ppm, made by adding 1% sea water to industrial fresh water, see
Figure 4 and Table 3. Some salt in the injection water was needed to prevent clay swelling. Table 7 shows the injected and
produced volumes and rate during the SWCTTs.

Result and discussions.

The SWCTTs gave distinct tracer production curves, as shown in Figure 5. The gross movement of the reservoir fluids did
not influence the flow in the pilot area as seen by near identical tracer production profiles for the EtAc and NPA tracers (not
shown here).

250 2000
EtOH (Measured)
EtOH (Modelled)
Concentration of EtOH (ppm)

200 1600 Concentration EtAc (ppm)

EtAc (Measured)
EtAc (Modelled)

150 1200

100 800

50 400

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Produced Volume (m3)

Figure 5. Measured tracer concentrations and profiles modelled with Sor=0.23 for SWCTT-2.

Figure 5 shows tracer concentration profiles from SWCTT-2. A residual oil saturation of 0.23 gave a convincing fit of the
measured data. Values of 0.21 and 0.25 clearly give poor matches as shown in Figure 6.
250
Concentration of EtOH (ppm)

200
Sor = 0.25
Sor = 0.23
150
Sor = 0.21

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
3
Produced Volume (m )
Figure 6. The sensitivity of the product tracer profile on Sor – sample measurements and calculated profiles.
10 SPE 129877

Figure 7 shows a minor shift in the product tracer (EtOH) from the first SWCT test compared to test number two and three.
The shift corresponds to an apparent reduction in the residual oil saturation of 0.02 PV.

250
SWCTT-1 (EtOH)

SWCTT-2 (EtOH)
Concentration of EtOH (ppm)

200
SWCTT-3 (EtOH)

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Produced Volume (m3)

Figure 7. Product tracer (EtOH) samples.

However, the partitioning coefficient of the partitioning tracer is temperature dependent. 20 °C lower temperature in
SWCTT-2 and SWCTT-3 compared to SWCTT-1 would give a similar shift with equal oil saturation. A third possible reason
for the shift could be an inconsistency in the measured volume of injected or produced fluids. It is discussed below whether
the shift can be attributed to a lowering of the residual oil saturation.

Effect of reservoir temperature.

Simulations of the temperature changes during the SWCTTs were done by numerical reservoir simulations to test if the
measured tracer response could be caused by reservoir cooling. The near wellbore temperature was changed due to cooling
from injection of cold water and heating from shale layers above and below the flooded sand interval. Figure 8 shows the
simulated reservoir temperature for the three tests. The difference in the temperatures in the shut-in periods was far less than
20 °C. It was therefore concluded that the observed shift in tracer response was not caused by temperature differences.

Figure 8. Simulated reservoir temperatures at the shut-in depths of the partitioning tracers.

Consistency of volume measurements.

The tracer slug volumes and the displacement volumes of the three SWCTTs were planned to be the same. The peak
production of the inactive backup tracer (NPA) as function of produced volume should therefore be similar for the three tests.
Figure 9 shows a shift in the NPA profile from SWCTT-1 compared to the profiles of SWCTT-2 and SWCTT-3. The shift
indicates an inconsistency in production or injection volumes.
SPE 129877 11

800

700 SWCTT-1 (NPA)

Concentration of NPA (ppm)

SWCTT-2 (NPA)
600
SWCTT-3 (NPA)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
3
Produced Volume (m )
Figure 9. Backup water tracer (NPA) samples.

To study the relative difference in the response from the three tests, the production volumes were normalized to the peak
production of the NPA tracer. This is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. The production volume at NPA peak production was
estimated from an average of the 60 m3 of the fluid production with highest NPA tracer readings.

The EtOH responses plotted against this normalized volume showed no significant shift between the cases as seen in Figure
11. It was therefore concluded that no significant reduction in the remaining oil saturation had taken place during the low
salinity water injection.

800 250
SWCTT-1 (NPA) SWCTT-1 (EtOH)
700 SWCTT-2 (NPA) SWCTT-2 (EtOH)

SWCTT-3 (NPA) 200 SWCTT-3 (EtOH)

600
Concentration of EtOH (ppm)
Concentration of NPA (ppm)

500
150

400

100
300

200
50

100

0
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Produced Volume/NPA peak production volume Produced Volume/NPA peak production volume

Figure 10. Measured NPA concentration vs. normalized Figure 11. Measured EtOH concentration vs. normalized
production volume. production volume.

Quantitative interpretation of tracer tests requires good volume control of produced and injected fluids. As shown the volume
consistency can be checked by repeated SWCTT measurements, and repeated measurements allow for corrections in case of
volume inconsistencies.

The fact that the repeatability of the SWCTT measurements were good, see Figure 10 and Figure 11, gives confidence in
SWCTT as a method for in-situ measurement of remaining oil saturation.

pH monitoring.
The pH of the formation water in P-07 was approximately 7. The injected sea water had a pH of 7.4. The pH of fluids back-
produced during SWCTT-1 varied between 6.6 and 7.7.

Comparison of Sor measured from SWCTT and SCAL.

Special core analyses (SCAL) data on Snorre (Statfjord formation) (Hammervold Thomas, 2005) show a correlation between
12 SPE 129877

Sor and initial water saturation (Swi), see Figure 12. The initial water saturation of the actual field pilot sand is estimated to be
in the range of 0.1-0.2. As seen in the figure, SCAL and P-07 SWCTT measurements agree well.

Figure 12. Measured Sor from SWCTT and special core analysis from the Snorre Statfjord Formation.

Conclusions
The potential for improved oil recovery by lowsal flooding at Snorre field has been investigated both through laboratory
measurements and a field test. Results from both investigations indicate that the potential is low. The reason for this is
believed to be that wetting conditions in the Snorre field naturally are close to optimal such that sea water injection already is
efficient. Tertiary lowsal injection can therefore at the best improve the oil recovery marginally.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Statoil and the Snorre Unit partners for their permission to publish this work. The conclusions presented in
this work are the opinions of the authors and may not reflect those of the license owners. The authors thank Reidar Birkeland
for coordination of the field test, and also Charlie Carlisle, Steinar Ekrann and Nils Harald Giske for valuable contribution.

Nomenclature
Bo
B oil formation volume factor (Rml/Sml) ML mixed layer
D Darcy permeability unit (9.87·10-13 m2) NPA n-propanol
EtAc ethyl-acetate OOIP original oil in place
EtOH ethanol PV pore volumes
GOR gas/oil ratio (Sml/Sml) Sor residual oil saturation (fraction)
IFT interfacial tension (mN/m) Swi initial water saturation (fraction)
hp high (reservoir) pressure SRO synthetic reservoir oil
IPA iso-propanol STO stock tank oil
kw(Sor) water permeability at Sor SWCTT single well chemical tracer test
lp low pressure XRD x-ray diffraction

References
Ashraf, A., Hadia, N.J., Torsaeter, O., Tweheyo, M.T., 2010: “Laboratory investigation of low salinity waterflooding as secondary
recovery process: effect of wettability,” SPE 129012 paper presented at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition,
Mumbai, India (20–22 Jan).
Austad, T., RezaeiDoust, A., Puntervold, T., 2010: “Chemical mechanisms of low salinity waterflooding in sandstone reservoirs,” SPE
129767-PP, prepared for presentation at the 17th IOR Symp., Tulsa, OK (24-28 April)
Bantignies, J.L., Cartier Dit Moulin, C., Dexpert, H., 1997: “Wettability contrasts in kaolinite and illite clays: characterization by infrared
and x-ray absorption spectroscopies,” Clays and Clay Minerals v. 45; no. 2 (April) 184-193
Batias, J., Hamon,G., Lalanne, B., Romero, C., 2009: “Field and laboratory observations of remaining oil saturations in a light oil reservoir
flooded by a low salinity aquifer,” Int. Symp. of the Society of Core Analysts, Noordwijk, The Netherlands (27-30 Sept.).
Boneau, D.F., Clampitt, R.L., 1977: “A surfactant system for the oil-wet sandstone of the North Burbank Unit,” JPT (May).
Boussour, S., Cissokho, M., Cordier, P., Bertin, H., Hamon, G., 2009: “Oil recovery by low salinity brine injection: laboratory results from
outcrop and reservoir cores,” SPE 124277, Annual Tech. Conf. and Exhib., New Orleans, USA (4-7 Oct.).
Clementz, D.M., 1976: “Interaction of petroleum heavy ends with montmorillonite,” Clays and clay minerals 24, 312-19.
Clementz, D.M., 1977: “Clay stabilization in sandstones through adsorption of petroleum heavy ends,” JPT (Sept.)
Clementz, D.M., 1982: “Alteration of rock properties by adsorption of petroleum heavy ends: implications for enhanced oil recovery,” SPE
10683 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symp.,Tulsa, OK (4-7 April)
Collins, S.H., Melrose, J.C., 1983. “Adsorption of asphaltenes and water on reservoir rock minerals,” paper SPE 11800, SPE Int. Symp. on
Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Denver (June 1-3).
 SPE 129877 13

Deans, H.A., Carlisle, C. T., 2007: The single-well chemical tracer test - a method for measuring reservoir fluid saturations in situ,
Petroleum Eng. Handbook, Larry W. Lake, Editor, SPE, Vol. V, Res. Eng. and Petrophysics, pp 615-649.
Doe, P.H., 1994: “Salinity dependence in the wetting of silica by oils,” 3rd Int. Symp. on Evaluation of Reservoir Wettability and its Effects
on Oil Recovery, Laramie, Wyoming (Sept. 21-23).
Greenland, D.J., Laby, R.H., Quirk, J.P., 1965. Trans. Farady Soc. 61, 2013.
Hammervold Thomas, W., 2005: “Snorre water/oil relative permeability evaluation: Lunde and Statfjord formations,” Statoil Document
No. 200502100002 (Restricted).
Hedges, J.J., Hare, P.E., 1987: “Amino acid adsorption by clay minerals in distilled water,” Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, 51, 255-
259.
Hjemeland, O., Selle, O.M., Rueslatten, H., 1986: “Wettability and interfacial properties of North Sea reservoir fluids/rocks systems,” IEA
Workshop on EOR, Hannover, Germany (Sept. 16-17).
Jadhunandan, P.P., Morrow, N.R., 1995: ‘‘Effect of wettability on waterflood recovery for crude oil/brine/rock systems,’’ SPEFE, (Feb.) 4.
Lager, A., Webb, K.J, Black, C.J.J., 2007: “Impact of brine chemistry on oil recovery,” 14th European Symp. on Improved Oil Recovery,
Cairo, Egypt (22-24 April).
Lager, A., Webb, K.J, Black, C.J.J., Singleton, M., Sorbie, K.S., 2006: “Low salinity oil recovery: an experimental investigation,” Int.
Symp. of the Society of Core Analysts, Trondheim, Norway (12-16 Sept.).
Lager, A., Webb, K.J., Collins, I.R., Richmond, D.M., 2008: “LoSalTM enhanced oil recovery: evidence of enhanced oil recovery at
reservoir scale,” SPE 113976, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symp., Tulsa, OK. (April 19-23).
Liegthelm, D., Gronsveld, J., Hofman, J., Brussee, N., Marcelis, F., van der Linde, H., 2009: Novel waterflooding strategy by
manipulation of injection brine composition,” Paper SPE 119835 presented at the 2009 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual
Conf. and Exhib., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (8 - 11 June).
McGuire, P.L., Chatham, J.R., Pahvan, F.K., Sommer, D.M., Carini, F.H., 2005: “Low salinity oil recovery: an exciting EOR opportunity
for Alaska’s North Slope;” SPE 93903 (March).
Pu, H., Xie, X., Yin, P., Morrow, N.R., 2008: “Application of coalbed methane water to oil recovery by low salinity waterflooding,” SPE
113410, paper presented at the SPE IOR Symp., Tulsa, OK, USA (19-23 April).
Reed, M.G., 1968: “Retention of crude oil bases by clay-containing sandstones,” Clays and clay minerals 16, 173-203.
Rivet, S.M., 2009: “Coreflooding oil displacements with low salinity brine,” MSc. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin (Dec.).
Robertson, E.P., Thomas, C.P., Zhang, Y., Morrow, N.R., 2003: “Improved waterflooding through injection-Brine Modification,” Idaho
National Laboratory report INEEL/EXT-02-01591, DOE Contract DE-AC07-99ID13727 (January) 1-69.
Robertson, E.P., 2007: “Low-salinity waterflooding to improve oil recovery – historical field evidence,” SPE109965 paper presented at the
Annual Technical Conf. and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA (11-14 Nov.).
Seccombe, J.C., Lager, A., Webb, K., Jerauld, G., Fueg, E.S., 2008: “Improving waterflood recovery: LoSalTM EOR field evaluation,” SPE
113480, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symp., Tulsa, OK. (April 19-23).
Sharma, M.M., Filoco, P.R., 2000: “Effect of brine salinity and crude oil properties on oil recovery and residual saturations,” SPE 65402
(Sept.) 5 (3), 293-300.
Skauge, A., Ottesen, B., 2002. “A summary of experimentally derived relative permeability and residual saturation on North Sea reservoir
cores,” SCA 2002-12, the Int. Symp. of the Society of Core Analysts, Monterey, CA.
Smerton, W.H., and Radke, C.J., 1980: “Role of clays in enhanced recovery of petroleum,” SPE 8845 presented at the SPE/DOE Symp. on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK (20-23 April).
Tang, G.Q., 1998: “Brine composition and waterflood recovery for selected crude oil/brine/rock systems,” PhD Dissertation, University of
Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.
Tang, G.Q., Morrow, N.R., 1999: “Influence of brine composition and fines migration on crude oil/brine/rock interactions and oil
recovery” J. of Petroleum Science and Eng. 24, 94-111.
Tang, G.Q., Morrow, N.R., 1997: “Salinity, temperature, oil composition, and oil recovery by waterflooding,” SPE Reservoir Eng. (Nov.).
Trantham, J.C., Clampitt, R.L., 1977: “Determination of oil saturation after waterflooding in an oil-wet reservoir - the North Burbank Unit,
Tract 97 Project,” JPT (May) 491-500.
Tweheyo, M.T., Holt, T., Torseater, T., 1999: “An experimental study of the relationship between wettability and oil production
characteristics,” J. of Petroleum Science and Eng. 24, 179-188.
Wang, X.-C., Lee, C., 1993: “The distribution of adsorption behaviour of aliphatic amines in marine and lacustrine sediments” Geochemica
et Cosmochimica Acta, 54, 2759-2774.
Wang, X.-C., Lee, C., 1993: “Adsorption and desorption of aliphatic, amino acids and acetate by clay minerals and marine sediments,”
Marine Chemistry 44, 1-23.
Webb, K.J., Black, C.J.J, Edmonds, I.J., 2005: “Low salinity oil recovery – the role of reservoir condition corefloods,” 13th European
Symp. on Improved Oil Recovery, Budapest Hungary (25-27 April).
Zhang, Y., Morrow, N.R., 2006: “Comparison of Secondary and Tertiary Recovery with Change in injection Brine Composition for Crude
Oil/Sandstone Combinations,” SPE 99757, SPE/DOE Symp. on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK (April).

View publication stats