Page 28 - Hybrid Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Smart Waterflooding

20 Hybrid Enhanced Oil Recovery using Smart Waterflooding

(A)
1000 35,000

Low salinity EOR response 30,000
25,000
Oil rate, stbd water injection 20,000 Salinity, ppm
Start of low salinity

15,000

10,000
5,000

100 0
Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09

(B)
1

Water cut, fraction 0.9

0.8

0.7 Start of low-salinity injection
HiSal forecast
Allocated red eye
Allocated test separator
0.6
Dec-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09

FIG. 1.20 History of (A) oil rate and produced water salinity, and (B) water-cut from interwell test. (Credit:
From Seccombe, J., Lager, A., Gary, J., Jhaveri, B., Todd, B., Bassler, S., et al. (2010). Demonstration of
low-salinity EOR at Interwell scale, Endicott field, Alaska. Paper presented at the SPE improved oil recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 24e28 April. https://doi.org/10.2118/129692-MS.)

Callegaro et al. (2014) reported the SWCTT for LSWF the minor effect of LSWF is attributed to low concentra-
investigation at on-shore field in West Africa. During tion of clay and already low residual oil saturation after
SWCTTs measuring the residual oil saturations after seawater injection. Rotondi, Callegaro, Franco, and
seawater injection and LSWF, the negligible change of Bartosek (2014) described the another field trials
residual oil saturation is observed. The study concluded of LSWF for EOR at on-shore field in West Africa.