energies

Article
Low-Salinity Waterflooding for EOR in Field A of Western
Offshore Basin: A Pilot Study Analysis with Laboratory and
Simulation Studies—Early Observations
Vivek Raj Srivastava 1, * , Hemanta K. Sarma 2, * and Sharad Kumar Gupta 3

1 Institute of Reservoir Studies (IRS), Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC),
Ahmedabad 380005, Gujarat, India
2 Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
3 Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi 110016, Delhi, India; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (V.R.S.); [email protected] (H.K.S.)

Abstract: Carbonate reservoirs hold vast oil reserves, but their complex properties make traditional
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods challenging. This study explores the application of low-
salinity water flooding (LSWF) as a novel EOR method for India’s largest offshore carbonate oil
field. Conventional EOR techniques were deemed unsuitable due to reservoir heterogeneity, pressure
decline, high temperature, and the offshore location. Favorable factors for LSWF included successful
seawater flooding history, medium-weight crude oil, and existing infrastructure. Following core
flooding experiments demonstrating a 6–16% increase in oil recovery, a multi-pronged evaluation
process was implemented. Single-well chemical tracer tests (SWCTT) and reservoir simulations
confirmed the potential of LSWF. A specific target area was chosen based on reservoir characteristics,
production data, and available facilities. Simulations predicted a 1.5% incremental oil recovery using
diluted seawater (25% salinity) at 30% pore volume injection. After a positive techno-economic
analysis, the first offshore LSWF project in India was completed within 3 years. Initial monitoring
results are encouraging. This study highlights the successful journey of LSWF from concept to field
deployment in a challenging carbonate reservoir, showcasing its potential for revitalizing such fields.
Furthermore, this work provides valuable data relevant to Indian offshore environments, where
Citation: Srivastava, V.R.; Sarma,
factors like salinity, mineralogy, and crude oil composition pose unique challenges compared to other
H.K.; Gupta, S.K. Low-Salinity
Waterflooding for EOR in Field A of
LSWF applications. These detailed data fill a critical gap in the existing literature.
Western Offshore Basin: A Pilot Study
Analysis with Laboratory and Keywords: low-salinity water flood (LSWF); original oil in place (OIIP); enhanced oil recovery (EOR);
Simulation Studies—Early single-well chemical tracer test (SWCTT); potential determining ions (PDI)
Observations. Energies 2024, 17, 2149.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en17092149

Academic Editor: Riyaz Kharrat

1. Introduction
Received: 6 April 2024 Recovering a significant portion of the original oil in place (OOIP) from petroleum
Revised: 25 April 2024 reservoirs necessitates a multi-stage approach. Primary recovery relies on natural reservoir
Accepted: 29 April 2024
pressure, while secondary recovery supplements it with water or gas injection. However,
Published: 30 April 2024
these methods typically leave behind a substantial amount of oil, often exceeding 50% of
the OOIP. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques address this challenge by manipulating
the properties of residual oil to increase its mobility and facilitate extraction.
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited’s (ONGC’s) achievements with thermal
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
EOR in Santhal, Balol, and Lanwa fields; with miscible gas injection and water alternating
This article is an open access article gas injection (WAG) in Gandhar; and with polymer flooding in Sanand, demonstrate the
distributed under the terms and potential of EOR onshore. Although ONGC has successfully implemented commercially
conditions of the Creative Commons viable conventional enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods in onshore clastic reservoirs,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// replicating this success in offshore carbonate formations presents significant challenges
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ like logistical complexities and high costs. Additionally, declining reservoir pressure
4.0/).

Energies 2024, 17, 2149. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17092149 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2024, 17, 2149 2 of 23

and elevated temperatures in offshore settings pose further challenges for implementing
conventional EOR techniques.
Given the limitations of conventional EOR methods for offshore carbonate reservoirs,
this study explores low-salinity water flooding (LSWF) as a promising EOR method for
offshore carbonate reservoirs. LSWF offers several advantages that make it particularly
suitable for this context:
Efficacy in Carbonate Reservoirs: LSWF can be particularly effective in altering wetta-
bility within carbonate rock formations, potentially mobilizing trapped oil.
Mitigating Reservoir Souring: Lower-salinity brines used in LSWF can help mitigate
reservoir souring, a phenomenon where sulfate-reducing bacteria generate hydrogen
sulfide gas.
Operational Simplicity: LSWF leverages existing water injection infrastructure, simpli-
fying its implementation.
Field A serves as a case study for this research, representing a mature offshore car-
bonate reservoir in India. Discovered in 1974 and operational since 1980, the field has
undergone extensive development throughout its production history. Peak production
reached approximately 300,000 barrels of oil per day during the mid-1980s, followed
by a period of stable production. Water injection commenced in March 1987; however,
reservoir pressure has exhibited a continuous decline, impacting overall production per-
formance. This decline, evident from 1990 onwards, manifested as an increase in field
gas–oil ratio (GOR) and water cut. To address this decline, various remedial measures
were implemented, including gas lift installation, water shutoff operations, sidetracking
of underperforming wells, enhanced water injection support, and infill drilling utilizing
clamp-on structures on existing platforms. Despite these efforts, the need for a robust EOR
strategy remains paramount.
Field A possesses characteristics that make it a suitable candidate for LSWF application.
Classified as a limestone reservoir with initial oil in place estimated at roughly 1215 million
cubic meters (MMm3 ), it currently undergoes mature waterflooding, achieving a recovery
factor of approximately 31%. Even a modest increase in recovery percentage translates to
significant additional oil volumes. Recognizing this potential, LSWF is investigated as a
promising EOR approach.
The focus of LSWF implementation is currently on sub-layer E, a limestone formation
with estimated ultimate reserves close to 486 MMm3 . Notably, layer E holds a significant
portion (94%) of Field A’s original oil in place. Reservoir simulations predict a recovery
factor of around 35% for Field A by 2035 under the existing waterflooding regime. This
suggests that LSWF implementation has the potential to unlock substantial incremental oil
recovery from this mature offshore carbonate reservoir.

1.1. LSWF Process

Low-salinity waterflooding (LSWF) deviates from conventional waterflooding by
focusing on the injected brine’s quality, particularly its ionic composition, to manipulate
rock–fluid interactions and enhance oil recovery. Although most formations suitable for
conventional waterflooding are also candidates for LSWF, the emphasis is on optimizing
brine composition for improved oil mobilization. Pioneering work by Yildiz and Morrow [1]
highlighted the impact of brine composition on sandstone recovery. Extensive research
followed, solidifying LSWF’s potential in sandstone reservoirs [2–7]. Conversely, LSWF
research in carbonate reservoirs remains limited [8–15]. Studies suggest the potential for
increased oil recovery through sequential salinity reduction [13]. Additionally, specific
ions (SO4 2− , Ca2+ , Mg2+ ) have been identified as crucial for optimizing injection brines in
carbonates [13–15]. The optimal salinity adjustment for a reservoir depends heavily on the
specific interactions between injected brines, crude oil, and rock mineralogy [16–18]. Smart
water flood signifies a paradigm shift in EOR, moving from maximizing water injection
volume to optimizing brine composition for enhanced oil recovery.
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 3 of 23

1.1.1. LSWF: Effectiveness and Remaining Challenges

Low-salinity waterflooding (LSWF) has emerged as a promising EOR technique due
to its advantages over conventional high-salinity water injection. LSWF utilizes variously
termed “smart water,” “ion-engineered water,” or “advanced ion management water” for
its effectiveness and ease of implementation in both sandstone and carbonate reservoirs.
Despite its potential, LSWF’s success is not guaranteed. Several past projects in promising
formations yielded disappointing results. Additionally, the underlying mechanisms remain
a subject of debate. Numerous hypotheses have been proposed, including wettability
alteration, fine migration, and multi-component ion exchange [19]. The key challenge
lies in scaling up from sub-pore-level mechanisms to reservoir-scale phenomena during
multiphase flow. Brine–oil interactions, particularly micro-dispersion formation due to
crude oil and low-salinity brine contact, are considered a primary recovery mechanism.
These micro-dispersions can block pore throats, diverting LSW towards upswept oil zones.
Further research is needed to elucidate the dominant LSWF mechanisms and improve
prediction accuracy for successful field-scale implementation.

1.1.2. Selection of Field

(1) Favorable Characteristics of Field A for LSWF Application
Carbonate reservoirs, typically composed of calcite and dolomite, exhibit complex
characteristics such as dual porosity, fractured systems, and generally low clay content.
Extensive laboratory studies and field observations suggest several favorable screening cri-
teria for LSWF implementation in carbonate reservoirs [20], with some exceptions reported
in the literature. These criteria include (a) high reservoir temperature: Temperatures exceed-
ing 70 ◦ C are generally considered advantageous; (b) high initial water saturation (Swi):
A higher initial water saturation within the reservoir can promote LSWF effectiveness;
(c) presence of potential determining ions (PDIs): The injected brine should contain specific
ions like Ca2+ , Mg2+ , and SO4 2− that influence rock–fluid interactions; and (d) low acid
number of oil: Crude oil with a low acid number tends to be more responsive to LSWF. Field
A was selected for LSWF evaluation based on these general screening guidelines and its
subsurface and surface properties. Notably, Field A possesses a high reservoir temperature
of 90 ◦ C, a low crude oil acid number of 0.56, and injected seawater containing the desired
PDIs: Ca2+ (401 ppm), Mg2+ (1372 ppm), and SO4 2− (2950 ppm). Furthermore, several
aspects of Field A enhance its suitability for LSWF, like (a) the favorable mobility ratio:
Existing conventional seawater flooding with a salinity of approximately 33,000 ppm has
established a favorable mobility ratio of 0.5 (less than 1), indicating minimal viscous finger-
ing risk; (b) the presence of polar oil components: The crude oil’s composition, containing
10.8 wt.% resins and 4.7 wt.% asphaltenes (polar compounds), might contribute positively
to LSWF’s effectiveness; (c) intermediate to mixed wettability: The reservoir’s wettability
characteristics, categorized as intermediate to mixed, offer potential for LSWF-induced wet-
tability alteration towards a more water-wet state; (d) high residual oil saturation (Sorw):
The high remaining oil saturation (25–30%) signifies a significant volume of oil that LSWF
could potentially mobilize; and (e) existing waterflood infrastructure: The presence of
established waterflooding infrastructure facilitates the implementation of LSWF in this
offshore environment, making it a technically viable EOR option for Field A. Following
this evaluation, a series of laboratory studies was conducted on core samples from the E
layer of Field A. These studies included:
• Wettability index measurements;
• Spontaneous imbibition and displacement experiments;
• Salinity optimization through sequential dilution in core flooding experiments;
• Generation of salinity-dependent relative permeability curves for reservoir simulations.
(2) Field A–E Reservoir Description and LSWF EOR Pilot Selection
The E reservoir within Field A is a multilayered carbonate reservoir containing sat-
urated oil. Key reservoir properties are detailed in Table 1. Current production forecasts
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 4 of 23

under conventional seawater flooding (SWF) predict an ultimate recovery factor of approx-
imately 37% by 2040.

Table 1. Average values of key reservoir parameters.

Porosity, fraction 0.25

Dykstra–Parson Coefficient 0.8
Pay thickness, m 40
Formation water salinity, ppm 23,000
API gravity, deg 38◦

(3) Selection of E Layer for LSWF Pilot:

Favorable factors like a good mobility ratio, positive response to waterflooding, low
free gas saturation, and existing surface infrastructure guided the selection of the E layer
for a pilot implementation of low-salinity waterflooding EOR (LSWF EOR). This layer
is situated on the western periphery of Field A. The target area encompasses more than
100 well completions within the E layer, including roughly 40 injection wells. This sector
contributes significantly to total reservoir production, accounting for approximately 20%
with an average gas–oil ratio (GOR) of 170 v/v and a water cut of 72%.

2. Materials and Methods

The successful implementation of LSWF projects typically follows a staged approach,
which includes screening: This initial phase involves a rigorous evaluation process to
determine the reservoir’s suitability for LSWF; pilot-scale implementation: Following a
positive screening evaluation, a pilot project is implemented on a limited scale to assess the
technical and economic feasibility of LSWF in the specific reservoir; and full-field imple-
mentation: Upon successful completion of the pilot project, a full-field implementation plan
can be developed for broader reservoir application. Rock and fluid characterization plays a
crucial role in the screening process for LSWF projects. A thorough understanding of these
properties helps predict the potential impact of LSWF on oil recovery. Mineralogical com-
position, determined using techniques like X-ray diffraction (XRD), influences the initial
wettability of the rock and its interaction with brine and oil. Specific mineral assemblages
can promote conditions favorable for LSWF effectiveness. The characterization of crude oil,
particularly the presence of asphaltenes and resins [21], can provide insights into potential
mechanisms by which LSWF may operate. The presence of these components can influence
oil-water interfacial properties and interactions with the rock surface, ultimately affecting
oil recovery.

2.1. Characterization of Core Plugs by Mineralogical Studies

X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was employed to characterize the mineralogical
composition of the core samples. This technique utilizes the principle of constructive
interference of electromagnetic radiation (X-rays) with crystalline materials. The resulting
diffraction patterns enabled the identification and quantification of mineral phases present
within the sample. The XRD analysis revealed that calcite was the primary framework
mineral, constituting the dominant component of the core samples (Figure 1). Accessory
rock-forming minerals like ankerite, quartz, halite, and andalusite were also identified.
Additionally, the presence of clay minerals, including clinochlore, montmorillonite, and
kaolinite, was confirmed. Notably, clinochlore emerged as the dominant clay mineral based
on the XRD results.
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 5 5of
of 24
23

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Pictorial
Pictorial representation
representation and semi-quantitative mineralogical
and semi-quantitative mineralogical estimation
estimation of
of core samples
core samples
from Field A.
from Field A.

2.2. Characterization of Crude Oil by SARA Analysis

Crude oil characterization via SARA analysis (Table 2) revealed asphaltene and resin
content impacting oil polarity and rock–brine interaction (wettability). Acid Acid number
number (AN)
(AN)
is a common screening tool for oil polarity (Table 2). High High saturates
saturates indicate
indicate waxy
waxy crude.
crude.
The asphaltene
asphaltene resin
resinratio
ratioisiscrucial,
crucial,asasresins stabilize
resins asphaltenes,
stabilize asphaltenes,preventing precipitation
preventing precipita-
and equipment
tion damage.
and equipment Asphaltenes
damage. and resins
Asphaltenes also stabilize
and resins emulsions
also stabilize by forming
emulsions a film
by forming
aaround droplets.
film around TheseThese
droplets. properties impact
properties surface
impact chemistry
surface and interfacial
chemistry tension
and interfacial (IFT)
tension
during
(IFT) enhanced
during oil recovery.
enhanced oil recovery.

Table 2. Physical parameters of crude oil.

Sl. No.Sl. No. ComponentComponent Composition, wt%wt%

Composition,
1 1 Saturates Saturates 73.3 73.3
2 2 Aromatics Aromatics 11.2 11.2
3 Resins 10.8
3 Resins 10.8
4 Asphaltene 4.7
4 Asphaltene 4.7
5 Acid number 0.56
5 Acid number 0.56
2.3. Physico-Chemical Characterization of Seawater/Produced Water and Preparation of Low
2.3. Physico-Chemical
Salinity Brines Characterization of Seawater/Produced Water and Preparation of Low
Salinity Brines
The Formation water brine salinity, ionic composition, and initial saturation impact
rock The Formation
wettability, water brine
influencing salinity,
LSWF ionic
success. composition,
The andproduced
seawater and initial saturation impact
water composi-
rock wettability, influencing LSWF success. The seawater and produced water compositions
tions are presented in Table 3. Low-salinity brine compositions for this study are pre-
are presented
sented in Tablein4.Table 3. Low-salinity
Seawater brine
and dilutions of compositions forand
50%, 25%, 10%, this1%
study
wereare presented
prepared in
with
Table 4. Seawater and
ultrapure deionized water.dilutions of 50%, 25%, 10%, and 1% were prepared with ultrapure
deionized water.
Table 3. Composition of seawater and produced water.
Table 3. Composition of seawater and produced water.
Sl. Seawater Produced/Formed Water
Sl. Parameter Unit Seawater Produced/Formed Water
No. Parameter Unit (Concentration) (Concentration)
No. (Concentration) (Concentration)
1 pH - 7.69 7.75
1 pH - 7.69 7.75
2 Turbidity NTU 0.98 3.27
32 CarbonateTurbidity NTU
mg/L Nil 0.98 Nil 3.27
43 Carbonate
Bicarbonate mg/L
mg/L 183 Nil 366 Nil
5 Chloride mg/L 20,413 19,703
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 6 of 23

Table 3. Cont.

Sl. Seawater Produced/Formed Water

Parameter Unit
No. (Concentration) (Concentration)
4 Bicarbonate mg/L 183 366
5 Chloride mg/L 20,413 19,703
6 Sulphate mg/L 2950 1100
7 Calcium mg/L 401 1003
8 Magnesium mg/L 1372 490
9 Sodium (Cal.) mg/L 11,672 11,360
10 Ionic strength mole/L 0.74 0.64
11 Salinity (as NaCl) mg/L 33,640 32,468
12 TDS (Cal.) mg/L 36,990 34,021

Table 4. Ionic concentrations, TDS, and ionic strength of diluted brines of seawater.

Diluted Brines
Ions
SW 50% SW 25% SW 10% SW 1% SW
Na+ (ppm) 11,672 5836 2918 1167.20 116.72
Ca2+ (ppm) 401 200.50 100.25 40.10 4.01
Mg2+ (ppm) 1372 686 343 137.20 13.72
Cl− (ppm) 20,413 10,206.50 5103.25 2041.30 204.13
SO4 2− (ppm) 2950 1475 737.5 295 29.50
HCO3 − (ppm) 183 91.50 45.75 18.30 1.83
Total dissolved solids (ppm) 36,990 18,495 9247.5 3699 369.90
Ionic strength (mol/L) 0.74 0.37 0.185 0.07 0.01
X% SW—concentration reduced to x%.

3. Experimental Studies
This section presents the findings from a comprehensive series of laboratory core flood
experiments designed to investigate the potential application of low-salinity water flooding
(LSWF) in reservoir A. The core flood studies were conducted in a phased approach,
encompassing three main stages:
Wettability Characterization and Spontaneous Imbibition: This phase focused on
assessing the wettability characteristics of core samples and evaluating the impact of LSWF
on oil recovery through spontaneous imbibition processes.
Displacement Studies and Salinity Optimization: The second phase involved core
flooding experiments to quantify the incremental oil recovery achievable through LSWF.
This stage also included optimization of the injected brine salinity for maximizing oil
displacement efficiency.
Generation of Salinity-Dependent Relative Permeability Data: The final phase aimed
to generate salinity-dependent relative permeability curves for the oil and water phases.
These curves will serve as crucial input data for reservoir simulation studies, enabling
a more accurate representation of the two-phase flow behavior under varying salinity
conditions within the reservoir model.
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 7 of 23

3.1. Wettability Index and Spontaneous Imbibition Studies

3.1.1. Wettability Index Studies of Field A
The wettability characteristics of core plugs from Field A were evaluated using Amott–
Harvey’s wettability index. This index is calculated as the difference between the water
wettability index (WWI) and the oil wettability index (OWI).
Water Wettability Index (WWI): The ratio of oil produced by spontaneous water
imbibition to the total oil recovered (both through spontaneous and forced imbibition).
Oil Wettability Index (OWI): The ratio of water produced by spontaneous oil imbibition
to the total water recovered (both through spontaneous and forced imbibition). Wettability
plays a critical role in oil recovery through low-salinity water flooding (LSWF). The results
presented in Table 5 suggest that the wettability characteristics of the core plugs from Field
A are favorable for the application of LSWF.

Table 5. Amott–Harvey wettability index of Field A.

Field WWI OWI Amott–Harvey Wettability Index Wettability

A 0.189 0.476 (−) 0.287 Mixed or intermediate wetness

3.1.2. Spontaneous Imbibition Studies

This study employed spontaneous imbibition experiments to evaluate the impact of
low-salinity waterflooding (LSWF) on wettability alteration in reservoir rock samples from
the E layer of Field A. Wettability, which governs the preferential interaction of fluids with
the rock surface, plays a crucial role in oil recovery. A shift towards a more water-wet con-
dition can enhance oil displacement by imbibition. Oil-saturated core plugs were prepared
to achieve residual oil saturation (ROS) conditions. Each core plug was then transferred to
an imbibition cell maintained at 90 ◦ C for a period of seven days. Four core plugs (Table 6)
were subjected to this process, with each experiment utilizing a different diluted seawater
solution (50%, 25%, 10%, and 1% salinity). The volume of oil displaced by imbibed water
was monitored daily throughout the seven days for each core plug–brine combination. The
entire spontaneous imbibition study was completed within five weeks. The multi-step
spontaneous imbibition experiments revealed an additional incremental oil recovery rang-
ing from 4.3% to 10% compared to traditional seawater flooding. This enhanced recovery
is attributed to the reduction in salinity of the imbibing brine (Figures 2 and 3). These
findings suggest that LSWF can promote a shift towards a more water-wet rock surface,
thereby facilitating greater oil displacement through spontaneous imbibition. The success-
ful demonstration of the low-salinity effect during the spontaneous imbibition experiments
strengthens the rationale for conducting additional displacement studies to explore this
mechanism in greater detail.

Table 6. Reservoir rock properties of core plugs used for spontaneous imbibition studies.

Air Residual Oil

Core
Depth (m) Length (mm) Diameter (mm) Porosity Ø (%) Permeability Saturation,
Sample
kair (mD) Soi (%)
1 ~1400 55.5 38.2 26.03 31.02 50.3
2 ~1400 53.0 38.1 20.3 22.03 52.4
3 ~1400 54.9 38.0 20.1 11.9 49
4 ~1400 51.7 38.0 22.2 5.35 52

A spontaneous imbibition experiment is a reliable method to assess wettability al-

teration. During imbibition, capillary forces driven by the surrounding brine displace
the rock’s oil. The imbibed brine volume or displaced oil quantity reflects the wettability
change. A higher imbibition rate indicates stronger oil displacement. Utilizing 25% diluted
 prepared to achieve residual oil saturation (ROS) conditions. Each core plug was then
transferred to an imbibition cell maintained at 90 °C for a period of seven days. Four core
plugs (Table 6) were subjected to this process, with each experiment utilizing a different
diluted seawater solution (50%, 25%, 10%, and 1% salinity). The volume of oil displaced
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 by imbibed water was monitored daily throughout the seven days for each core plug– 8 of 23
brine combination. The entire spontaneous imbibition study was completed within five
weeks. The multi-step spontaneous imbibition experiments revealed an additional incre-
seawater
mental oil(dSW) resulted
recovery rangingin from
a significantly
4.3% to 10%higher imbibition
compared rate compared
to traditional to flooding.
seawater seawater
(SW). This observation
This enhanced recoveryaligns with the
is attributed toshift in wettability
the reduction towards
in salinity a more
of the water-wet
imbibing brine state,
(Fig-
further
ures supported
2 and 3). Theseby the change
findings in that
suggest contact
LSWF angle
can and increased
promote a shiftnumber
towardsof oil droplets
a more water-
observed
wet on the rock
rock surface, surface
thereby with 25%
facilitating dSWoil
greater compared to SWthrough
displacement (Figure spontaneous
4). A key strength
imbi-
of this work lies in performing spontaneous imbibition experiments under
bition. The successful demonstration of the low-salinity effect during the spontaneous realistic reser-
im-
voir conditions, encompassing both high pressure and high temperature.
bibition experiments strengthens the rationale for conducting additional displacement This approach
improves
studies to the applicability
explore of findings
this mechanism to real-world
in greater detail. oil recovery scenarios.

Energies 2024, 17, 2149 8 of 24

Figure 2. Pictorial
Figure 2. Pictorial representation of spontaneous
representation of spontaneous imbibition
imbibition studies
studies on
on core
core samples
samples from
from Field
Field A.
A.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Experimental
Experimental result of spontaneous
result of spontaneous imbibition
imbibition studies.
studies.

Table 6. Reservoir rock properties of core plugs used for spontaneous imbibition studies.

Core Diameter Porosity Ø Air Permeability Residual Oil Saturation,

Depth (m) Length (mm)
Sample (mm) (%) kair (mD) Soi (%)
1 ~1400 55.5 38.2 26.03 31.02 50.3
2 ~1400 53.0 38.1 20.3 22.03 52.4
3 ~1400 54.9 38.0 20.1 11.9 49
Energies 2024,
Energies 17,17,
2024, 2149
2149 9 23
9 of of 24

Figure
Figure4.4.Experimental
Experimentalresult
result of
of spontaneous imbibitionstudies
spontaneous imbibition studies(SI(SIExp
Exp4).4).

ContactAngle
Contact AngleMeasurement
Measurement (Rock–Oil–Brine
(Rock–Oil–Brine Interaction)
Interaction)
Theinitial
The initialwettability
wettability of of the
the rock
rock is is crucial
crucialforforoil
oilrecovery
recoveryininLSWF.
LSWF.Although
Althoughsomesome
studies [22] observed a decrease in interfacial tension (IFT) between oil
studies [22] observed a decrease in interfacial tension (IFT) between oil and water usingand water using low-
salinity brines,
low-salinity a clear
brines, link link
a clear between IFT and
between IFTenhanced oil recovery
and enhanced hasn’t been
oil recovery established
hasn’t been estab-
yet. Therefore, to understand the impact of LSWF, measuring the contact angle (CA) is
lished yet. Therefore, to understand the impact of LSWF, measuring the contact angle (CA)
essential. This provides a baseline wettability before introducing different brines. In this
is essential. This provides a baseline wettability before introducing different brines. In this
study, the initial contact angle measured with seawater, oil, and rock was approximately
study, the initial contact angle measured with seawater, oil, and rock was approximately
106◦ . Reproducible results confirmed this value, indicating the rock was very weakly water-
106°. Reproducible results
wet at the outset. Figure confirmed
5 compares thethis
ratevalue,
of waterindicating
imbibitiontheinto
rockthewas
rockvery weakly
using contactwa-
ter-wet at the outset. over
angle measurements Figure
time.5 compares
The findings thealign
ratewith
of water imbibition
previous researchinto the rock
conducted using
under
contact angle measurements over time. The findings align with previous
high-temperature conditions [5,19]. However, this study incorporated the additional factor research con-
ducted under high-temperature conditions [5,19]. However,
of high pressure, which significantly accelerated the imbibition process. this study incorporated the
additional factor of high
The decreasing pressure,
contact whichimbibition
angle during significantly accelerated
signifies the imbibition
a shift towards process.
a more water-
wet rock surface. This enhanced water-wetness translates to a stronger imbibition effect.
Furthermore, the oil droplets (Figure 4) noticeably increased in size during imbibition. This
visually confirms the effectiveness of low-salinity waterflooding in promoting favorable
imbibition, ultimately leading to higher oil recovery in high-pressure, high-temperature
reservoirs like Field A.
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 1010of
of 24
23

Figure 5. Contact angle measurement during spontaneous imbibition study to time.

Figure 5. Contact angle measurement during spontaneous imbibition study to time.

The decreasing
3.2. Displacement andcontact
Salinityangle during Studies
Optimization imbibition signifies a shift towards a more wa-
ter-wet rock surface. This enhanced water-wetness
3.2.1. Core Flood Displacement Studies on Core Plugs translates
of FieldtoA a stronger imbibition ef-
fect. Furthermore, the oil droplets
This study investigated (Figure 4) noticeably
the application of low-salinityincreased
waterinflooding
size during imbibi-
(LSWF) for
tion. This visually confirms the effectiveness of low-salinity waterflooding in promoting
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in reservoir zone E of Field A. A series of core flood displace-
favorable imbibition,
ment experiments wasultimately
conductedleading to higher
in tertiary mode oil(i.e.,
recovery in high-pressure,
after waterflooding) to high-tem-
assess the
perature reservoirs like Field A.
effectiveness of LSWF. Five core plugs from the E layer were utilized for the core flood
experiments. The relevant reservoir rock properties of these core plugs are detailed in
3.2.
TableDisplacement and Salinity
7. Diluted seawater Optimization
solutions Studies of 50%, 25%, 10%, and 1% were employed
with salinities
for displacement.
3.2.1. The core floodStudies
Core Flood Displacement experiments
on Core yielded
Plugsaofsignificant
Field A increase in incremental
linearThis
displacement efficiency (ILDE) for all core plugs
study investigated the application of low-salinity waterwhen displaced with(LSWF)
flooding diluted for
seawa-
en-
ter compared to the initial seawater flood (Table 8 and Figure 6a,b). These
hanced oil recovery (EOR) in reservoir zone E of Field A. A series of core flood displace- findings suggest
a pronounced
ment experimentslow-salinity effect in
was conducted in the core mode
tertiary samples from
(i.e., afterField A. Total incremental
waterflooding) oil
to assess the
recovery due to LSWF ranged from 6% to 16%, leading to ultimate recoveries
effectiveness of LSWF. Five core plugs from the E layer were utilized for the core flood of between
59% and 71%The
experiments. (Figure 7). reservoir rock properties of these core plugs are detailed in Ta-
relevant
A temporary delay in pressure
ble 7. Diluted seawater solutions withincrease was
salinities ofobserved
50%, 25%,upon 10%,switching
and 1% were to LSWF. This
employed
is attributed to the process of refilling the injection brine after seawater flooding and a
for displacement. The core flood experiments yielded a significant increase in incremental
slight reduction in injection rate. However, the pressure subsequently increased over time.
linear displacement efficiency (ILDE) for all core plugs when displaced with diluted sea-
The observed pressure increase is believed to have been a consequence of fine particle
water compared to the initial seawater flood (Table 8 and Figure 6a,b). These findings sug-
migration within the core plugs. This phenomenon was corroborated by an increase in
gest a pronounced low-salinity effect in the core samples from Field A. Total incremental
turbidity measured during the experiments.
oil recovery due to LSWF ranged from 6% to 16%, leading to ultimate recoveries of be-
tween 59% and 71% (Figure 7).
Table 7. Reservoir rock properties.
A temporary delay in pressure increase was observed upon switching to LSWF. This
is attributed to the process of refilling the injection brine after Airseawater flooding
Residual and
Oil a
Core
Depth (m)slight reduction
Length (mm)in injection rate.(mm)
Diameter However, the pressure
Porosity Ø (%) subsequently
Permeabilityincreased over time.
Saturation,
Sample
The observed pressure increase is believed to have been akair (mD)
consequence Soi (%)
of fine particle
1 ~1400 migration within70 the core plugs.
37.9 This phenomenon 25 was corroborated
17.5 by an increase
61.4 in
2 ~1400
turbidity measured
70
during the
38.1
experiments. 18.8 12.5 66.7
3 ~1400 76 38.0 21.5 17.8 67.5
4 ~1400 91 38.0 16.4 43.4 61.9
5 ~1400 73.0 38.1 20.3 22.03 49
 Water Flood)
1 50.83 3.31 0.12 4.34 0 7.77 58.6
2 59.30 0.90 2.71 2.01 0 5.63 64.93
3 64.16 4.07 1.99 0.26 0.26 6.58 70.74
4 2024, 17,
Energies 52.80
2149 9.94 1.61 3.60 0.75 15.9 68.70 11 of 23
5 53.52 0.80 5.91 0.28 0 6.99 60.51

Energies 2024, 17, 2149 12 of 24

(a)

(b)
Figure6.6.(a)
Figure (a)Core
Coreflood
flood displacement
displacement results
results of
of core
coreplugs
plugs11toto5.5.(b)
(b)Core
Coreflood displacement
flood results
displacement results
of core plugs 1 to 5.
of core plugs 1 to 5.

Table 8. Core flood displacement recovery results.

Total Incremental
Core Water Flood Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Ultimate
Recovery (After
Sample (Recovery) with 50% SW with 25%SW with 10% SW with 1% SW Recovery
Water Flood)
1 50.83 3.31 0.12 4.34 0 7.77 58.6
2 59.30 0.90 2.71 2.01 0 5.63 64.93
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 12 of 23

Table 8. Cont.

Total Incremental
Core Water Flood Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Ultimate
Recovery (After
Sample (Recovery) with 50% SW with 25%SW with 10% SW with 1% SW Recovery
Water Flood)
3 64.16 4.07 1.99 0.26 0.26 6.58 70.74
4 52.80 9.94 1.61 (b)
3.60 0.75 15.9 68.70
5 53.52 0.80Figure 6. (a) Core
5.91 flood displacement
0.28 results of0 core plugs 1 to 5. (b) Core flood displacement
6.99 60.51 results
of core plugs 1 to 5.

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Effect
Effect of
of different
different parameters in low-salinity
parameters in low-salinity water
water flood
flood study
study for
for core
core plug
plug 3.
3.

3.2.2. Salinity Optimization Study on Target Layer (Field A; E Layer)

Encouraged by the positive outcomes of laboratory core flood displacement studies
employing low-salinity water, this work investigated the feasibility of implementing this
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique as a pilot project in Field A. The primary criterion
established for pilot area identification was the presence of single-layer completions in both
injector and producer wells. Based on this criterion, the western sector of Field A emerged
as a potential candidate due to the availability of numerous single-layer injector–producer
well configurations within reservoir zone E. Following the selection of a pilot area, salinity
optimization of the injected brine was deemed necessary. Long core plugs (20 cm) obtained
from the E layer were employed for salinity optimization studies. These core plugs were
saturated with oil to residual oil saturation (ROS) conditions. Subsequently, displacement
experiments were conducted in tertiary mode (i.e., after waterflooding) to evaluate the
impact of brine salinity on oil recovery.
The experimental results indicated that a 25% seawater dilution yielded the highest
incremental oil recovery (ILOR) of 7.5%. Notably, dilutions of 50% and 10% seawater
salinity also resulted in significant ILOR values of 6.3% and 6.8%, respectively (Figure 8).
Interestingly, the study found minimal performance difference between 25% and 10%
dilutions, suggesting that 25% offers a balance between effectiveness and potentially lower
treatment costs.
 The experimental results indicated that a 25% seawater dilution yielded the highest
incremental oil recovery (ILOR) of 7.5%. Notably, dilutions of 50% and 10% seawater sa-
linity also resulted in significant ILOR values of 6.3% and 6.8%, respectively (Figure 8).
Interestingly, the study found minimal performance difference between 25% and 10% di-
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 13 of 23
lutions, suggesting that 25% offers a balance between effectiveness and potentially lower
treatment costs.

Figure 8. Incremental oil recovery over water flood vs. injected pore volume.
Figure 8. Incremental oil recovery over water flood vs. injected pore volume.

3.3.Generation
3.3. GenerationofofSalinity-Dependent
Salinity-Dependent Relative
Relative Permeability
PermeabilityCurves
CurvesforforSimulation
Simulation
Thisstudy
This studyaimed
aimed toto elucidate
elucidate the
the influence
influence of oflow-salinity
low-salinitywater
waterflooding
floodingonon
two-
two-
phase (oil–water) flow behavior in core samples from reservoir A. The research
phase (oil–water) flow behavior in core samples from reservoir A. The research focused focused
ononcomparing
comparingthetheeffectiveness
effectiveness of
of seawater
seawater flooding
floodingandanda a25%
25%diluted
diluted seawater
seawatersolution
solution
(low-salinity water) in enhancing oil recovery. Core flood experiments
(low-salinity water) in enhancing oil recovery. Core flood experiments were conductedwere conducted
under simulated reservoir conditions to determine residual oil saturation (ROS) after
under simulated reservoir conditions to determine residual oil saturation (ROS) after dis-
displacement by both seawater and low-salinity water.
placement by both seawater and low-salinity water.
Wettability-restored core samples from reservoir A were utilized in the core flooding
Wettability-restored core samples from reservoir A were utilized in the core flooding
experiments. The study observed a significant improvement in oil recovery achieved
experiments. The study
through low-salinity observed
water floodingacompared
significant improvement
to seawater in oil
flooding. recovery
Notably, achieved
residual oil
saturation decreased by approximately 13 saturation units (Figure 9) under low-salinity
flooding in imbibition mode. The findings from the core flood experiments, particularly
the salinity-dependent oil–water relative permeability curves, are intended to be used
as input data for reservoir simulation studies. These data will allow for a more accurate
representation of the two-phase flow behavior under varying salinity conditions within the
reservoir model.
Oil recovery was consistently higher, with 25% diluted seawater injection compared
to 10% dilution. In multiple core flood experiments, recovery ranged from 0.12% to 5.91%
for 25% seawater compared to 0.26% to 4.34% for 10% seawater. This trend continued
in a long core pack study (salinity optimization study), where recovery reached 7.5%
with 25% seawater and 6.8% with 10% seawater. Beyond core floods, separate relative
permeability experiments showed a significant 13% reduction in residual oil saturation
with 25% seawater injection. This further strengthens the case for 25% dilution.
Importantly, the study found minimal performance difference between 25% and 10%
dilutions. This suggests that a 25% seawater injection offers the best balance between
effectiveness and potentially lower costs.
 through low-salinity water flooding compared to seawater flooding. Notably, residual oil
saturation decreased by approximately 13 saturation units (Figure 9) under low-salinity
flooding in imbibition mode. The findings from the core flood experiments, particularly
the salinity-dependent oil–water relative permeability curves, are intended to be used as
input data for reservoir simulation studies. These data will allow for a more accurate rep-
Energies 2024, 17, 2149
resentation of the two-phase flow behavior under varying salinity conditions within 14 theof 23
reservoir model.

Figure 9. Relative permeability curve for simulation.

Figure 9. Relative permeability curve for simulation.
Oil recovery was consistently higher, with 25% diluted seawater injection compared
4. Simulation
4.1. Coredilution.
to 10% In multiple core flood experiments, recovery ranged from 0.12% to 5.91%
Flood Simulation
for 25% seawater compared to 0.26% to 4.34% for 10% seawater. This trend continued in
A 1D core flood simulation accurately replicated recovery trends observed in labo-
a long core pack study (salinity optimization study), where recovery reached 7.5% with
ratory experiments.
25% seawater A homogeneous
and 6.8% core model
with 10% seawater. Beyond(20 × floods,
core 1 × 1 grid cells)relative
separate was constructed
perme-
toability
replicate the recent LSWF core flood experiment 1. The core dimensions
experiments showed a significant 13% reduction in residual oil saturation (length: 7 cm,
with 25%
diameter: 3.8 cm) and reported properties (porosity: 0.25, permeability:
seawater injection. This further strengthens the case for 25% dilution. 17.5 md) were used
in the model. To simulate fluid injection, an injector–producer pair was defined at opposite
ends of the 1D model grid. The relative permeability curves employed were identical to
those used in the previous simulations.
Base Case Simulation (Seawater Injection):
In the base case, the core was flooded with seawater (salinity: 33.6 kg/m3 ) at a constant
rate of 10 mL/h for 30 h. The simulated oil recovery at the end of the injection period
was 50.67%.
LSWF Simulation with Staged Salinity Reduction:
A subsequent simulation variant involved sequential injection of diluted brines (salin-
ities: 16.8, 8.4, 3.0, and 0.3 kg/m3 ) for a duration of 6 h each. The maximum incremental
oil recovery (3.18%) was achieved with a 50% dilution of seawater, which is close to the
reported laboratory value of 3.3%. The cumulative incremental recovery observed across
 In the base case, the core was flooded with seawater (salinity: 33.6 kg/m3) at a constant
rate of 10 mL/h for 30 h. The simulated oil recovery at the end of the injection period was
50.67%.
LSWF Simulation with Staged Salinity Reduction:
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 A subsequent simulation variant involved sequential injection of diluted brines (sa- 15 of 23
linities: 16.8, 8.4, 3.0, and 0.3 kg/m3) for a duration of 6 h each. The maximum incremental
oil recovery (3.18%) was achieved with a 50% dilution of seawater, which is close to the
reported laboratory value of 3.3%. The cumulative incremental recovery observed across
all salinity stages was 6.67%, slightly lower than the 7.7% reported in the laboratory experi-
all salinity stages was 6.67%, slightly lower than the 7.7% reported in the laboratory ex-
ment. This discrepancy was attributed to the significantly lower pore volume injected in
periment. This discrepancy was attributed to the significantly lower pore volume injected
the simulation model (around 12 pore volumes) compared to the laboratory experiment
in the simulation model (around 12 pore volumes) compared to the laboratory experiment
(24 pore volumes) (Figure 10 & Table 9).
(24 pore volumes) (Figure 10 & Table 9).

Figure 10. Comparison of results of core simulation vs. core flood experiment.
Figure 10. Comparison of results of core simulation vs. core flood experiment.

Table 9. Comparison of results of core simulation vs. core flood experiment.

Total Incremental
Water Flood Recovery Recovery Recovery with Ultimate
Results Recovery (After
(Recovery) with 50% SW with 25%SW 10% SW Recovery
Water Flood)
Laboratory 50.83 3.31 0.12 4.34 7.77 58.6
Simulation 50.67 3.18 0.12 3.37 6.67 57.34

4.2. Pilot Area Simulation

Reservoir simulation remains the most cost-effective tool for assessing the incremental
oil recovery potential of LSWF compared to conventional seawater flooding during the
conceptualization phase of an EOR pilot project. To accurately evaluate the LSWF response
in a target area, it is crucial to understand the simulation approach employed. This
study utilized a black oil simulator incorporating a salinity-tracking function employed
within ECLIPSE100 [23]. ECLIPSE-100 offers a robust framework for simulating LSWF
by incorporating salinity-dependent properties and allowing for adjustments based on
laboratory data and weighting factors.
Modeling Salinity and Relative Permeability:
• The simulator introduces an additional salt phase to the existing fluid phases (oil,
water) within the reservoir model. A dedicated mass conservation equation is solved
for this new phase in each grid block. The model tracks water salinity and defines an
additional set of “low salinity” saturation functions based on laboratory data. Fluid
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 16 of 23

mobilities are assigned based on the grid block’s salinity. When the salinity falls within
a specific range, the corresponding “low salinity” relative permeability functions are
used. For intermediate salinity values, relative permeability is estimated through
interpolation between the “high salinity” and “low salinity” curves.
• Salinity as a Single Component: Salt is modeled as a single, lumped component
dissolved in the aqueous phase. This component can be injected and its movement
tracked within the reservoir.
• Salinity-Dependent Fluid Properties: The viscosity and density of the aqueous phase
are dynamically adjusted based on the prevailing salinity within a grid block.
• Salinity-Dependent Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure: The ECLIPSE model
allows relative permeability and capillary pressure curves to be defined as functions
of salinity. High-salinity and low-salinity relative permeability data serve as the input,
with the model performing interpolation for intermediate salinity values
Simulating the LSWF Mechanism:
The low-salinity oil recovery mechanism is modeled by calibrating relative perme-
ability and residual oil saturation (Sor) as functions of salinity. During the simulation,
salinity-dependent relative permeability curves are generated dynamically using a weight-
ing function:
krw = F1 × krwL + (1 − F1) × krwH
kro = F1 × kroL + (1 − F1) × kroH
F1 = (Cs2 − Cs)/(Cs2 − Cs1 )
where
Cs: interpolated salinity concentration
Cs1 : lower limit of the salinity range
Cs2 : upper limit of the salinity range
krw: relative permeability of the water
kro: relative permeability of the oil
Pcow: capillary pressure
Superscripts “L” and “H” denote low- and high-salinity data, respectively.

4.2.1. Pilot Area Reservoir Description

The pilot area simulation encompasses a complex reservoir system involving 13 platforms
and an original oil-in-place (OOIP) estimated at approximately 121 million cubic meters
(MMm3 ). The reservoir configuration includes around 80 producers and 30 injectors concen-
trated within the E layer. Current production at the pilot area reflects an oil production rate of
15,000 barrels of oil per day (bopd) and a water injection rate of 80,000 barrels of produced
water per day (bwpd). The average water cut and gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) observed in the pilot
area are 60% and 140 v/v, respectively.

4.2.2. LSWF Pilot Design and Simulation Results

A crucial aspect of the pilot design involved determining the volume of low-salinity
water required for injection and its anticipated impact on incremental oil recovery. The
simulation envisioned a total water injection requirement of 125,000 bwpd of low-salinity
water sourced from a dedicated facility planned for platform L.
Salinity-dependent relative permeability curves, derived from laboratory experiments,
were integrated into the simulation model. These curves predicted a potential reduction in
residual oil saturation (Sor) of up to 13 units for low-salinity water (LSW) with a salinity
of 8250 ppm. The model was then employed to simulate both a base case scenario and
an LSWF prediction scenario. Production profiles were generated for both scenarios
(Figure 11). Figure 11 depicts a predictive scenario for LSWF performance, developed
through an upscaling approach that leverages laboratory data, field observations, and
simulation results. The key findings from the pilot area simulation are summarized below:
 duction in residual oil saturation (Sor) of up to 13 units for low-salinity water (LSW) with
a salinity of 8250 ppm. The model was then employed to simulate both a base case scenario
and an LSWF prediction scenario. Production profiles were generated for both scenarios
(Figure 11). Figure 11 depicts a predictive scenario for LSWF performance, developed
through an upscaling approach that leverages laboratory data, field observations, and
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 17 of 23
simulation results. The key findings from the pilot area simulation are summarized below:
• By March 2035 (Mar-35), an incremental oil gain of 0.795 million metric tons (MMt)
is anticipated compared to the base case (conventional seawater injection), translat-
• Bying
March
to an 2035 (Mar-35),
incremental oil an incremental
recovery of 0.8%.oil gain of 0.795 million metric tons (MMt) is
• anticipated compared to the base case
By March 2040 (Mar-40), with a cumulative (conventional seawater
pore volume injection),
injection translating to
of approximately
an30%,
incremental oil recovery of 0.8%.
the simulation predicts an incremental oil gain of 1.37 MMt over the base case,
• Byrepresenting
March 2040an(Mar-40), with
incremental oilarecovery
cumulative pore volume injection of approximately
of 1.5%.
30%, theresults
These simulation
suggestpredicts an holds
that LSWF incremental
promiseoil
forgain of 1.37oilMMt
enhancing overwithin
recovery the base
thecase,
representing an incremental oil
target carbonate reservoir pilot area. recovery of 1.5%.

Figure 11. Field performance with pore volume injection.

Figure 11. Field performance with pore volume injection.

These results suggest that LSWF holds promise for enhancing oil recovery within the
target carbonate reservoir pilot area.

5. LSWF Pilot
5.1. Single-Well Chemical Tracer Test (SWCTT)
To bolster confidence before implementing a pilot-scale LSWF project, a laboratory-
scale SWCTT technique was designed to quantify residual oil saturation (ROS). This
technique utilizes partitioning, material balance, and cover tracers to assess ROS changes
within the reservoir. Ethyl acetate, isopropyl alcohol (IPA), and methanol were chosen as the
partitioning tracer, material balance tracer, and cover tracer, respectively. The partitioning
coefficient and hydrolysis constant of the partitioning tracer (ethyl acetate) were determined
to be 6.1 and 0.18/day, respectively. The SWCTT experiment was conducted within the E
layer of Well Z. The procedure involved the following steps:
• Baseline ROS Establishment: Injection water was initially introduced to establish the
field’s residual oil saturation near the wellbore.
• Well Backflow: The well was then flowed back to ensure no oil production was occurring.
• Initial SWCTT for ROS Measurement: The first SWCTT was performed to measure the
initial ROS.
• Low-Salinity Water Injection: Subsequently, low-salinity water was injected into
the well.
• Secondary SWCTT for ROS Comparison: A second SWCTT was conducted to deter-
mine the reduction in ROS following low-salinity water injection.
The collected water samples were analyzed using gas chromatography to quantify
the concentration of tracers (ethyl acetate, ethanol, IPA, and methanol). The SWCTT data
was interpreted using CMG and H. Dean software for reservoir simulation purposes. The
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 18 of 23

simulated results revealed a decrease in ROS saturation units from 12% to 7%, attributable
to the low-salinity water injection.

5.2. Field Pilot Project

The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has spearheaded the implementation
of low-salinity waterflooding (LSWF) in offshore Field A, marking a significant milestone
as the first-ever application of this enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique in a carbonate
reservoir within India. The pilot project has been ongoing for the past year and is designed
to achieve the following key objectives:
• Field Validation of LSWF Concept: demonstrate the practical effectiveness of LSWF as
a viable EOR method under real-world reservoir conditions;
• Performance Evaluation: quantify the incremental oil recovery achieved through
LSWF compared to traditional seawater injection;
• Upscaling Feasibility Assessment: evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of
scaling up the LSWF process from pilot to full-field implementation.

5.2.1. Innovative Water Injection Infrastructure

To facilitate field-scale LSWF deployment, a dedicated water injection platform
(Figure 12) with a capacity of 125,000 barrels of produced water per day (bwpd) was
commissioned. This platform incorporates a novel energy recovery device (ERD) that
leverages reject water pressure from the reverse osmosis (RO) plant. The ERD efficiently
boosts the inlet water pressure for the RO plant within the LSWF unit. This two-stage
pressurization system, involving the ERD and a booster pump, achieves up to 96% of the
required inlet water pressure. The resulting reduction in energy consumption translates
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 to a significant annual CO2 emission reduction of approximately 8314 metric 19 tons
of 24 [24],
contributing to a smaller carbon footprint for the operation.

Figure 12. Process diagram of low-salinity water injection facility.

Figure 12. Process diagram of low-salinity water injection facility.
5.2.2.
5.2.2. PilotArea
Pilot AreaMonitoring
Monitoring
Effectivemonitoring
Effective monitoring isis crucial
crucial for
forevaluating
evaluatingthe success
the of any
success enhanced
of any oil recovery
enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) process, and LSWF is no exception. Here, we discuss the key
(EOR) process, and LSWF is no exception. Here, we discuss the key monitoringmonitoring strategies
strategies
employed in India’s first LSWF pilot project deployed in a carbonate reservoir (Field A).
employed in India’s first LSWF pilot project deployed in a carbonate reservoir (Field A).
Essential Monitoring Parameters:
Essential Monitoring Parameters:
• Baseline and Post-Flood Residual Oil Saturation (Sor): Determining Sor before and
after LSWF application allows for a quantitative assessment of oil recovery attribut-
able to the process.
• Low-Salinity Front Movement: Tracking the movement and arrival time of the low-
salinity front at producing wells is essential for understanding sweep efficiency and
optimizing injection strategies.
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 19 of 23

• Baseline and Post-Flood Residual Oil Saturation (Sor): Determining Sor before and
after LSWF application allows for a quantitative assessment of oil recovery attributable
to the process.
• Low-Salinity Front Movement: Tracking the movement and arrival time of the low-
salinity front at producing wells is essential for understanding sweep efficiency and
optimizing injection strategies.
• Injection Water Quality: Maintaining consistent injection water quality is critical. Pa-
rameters like salinity, pH, and ionic concentrations (Ca+2 , Mg+2 , SO4 −2 , Cl− ) are moni-
tored at both the injection platform and individual well nodes to ensure conformance.
• Reservoir Simulation Model Calibration: Monitoring data are used to calibrate and
refine reservoir simulation models for improved performance prediction.
Monitoring Program Design:
The monitoring program is categorized into three primary domains:
• Well Fluid Parameters: This category encompasses routine monitoring of oil rate,
water cut, injection rate, salinity, pH, and key ionic concentrations (Ca+2 , Mg+2 , SO4 −2 ,
Cl− ) at the wellhead.
• Reservoir Parameters: Baseline oil saturation, reservoir connectivity, and sweep effi-
ciency are evaluated using various techniques.
• Well Interventions for Fluid Profiling: Techniques such as production logging tools
(PLTs), injection logging tools (ILTs), and profile modification procedures can provide
valuable insights into fluid flow behavior within the reservoir.
Monitoring Well Selection:
A total of 53 wells (28 oil producers and 25 water injectors) [25] were designated for
intensive monitoring throughout the LSWF pilot. The monitoring activities are classified
into two categories based on the well type:
• Activities of oil producers
1. A total of 28 producers have been identified for periodic monitoring, of which
22 lie inside the LSWF area, whereas 6 are in the region adjacent to the pilot area;
2. Quarterly testing of wells for well fluid parameters.
• Activities on water injectors
1. A total of 25 water injectors have been identified for periodic monitoring in the
LSWF area;
2. Monthly testing (WI rate, ITHP, Salinity) and the backwash of WI wells;
3. Quarterly collection and measurement of water quality parameters of injection
water, including ionic concentration (Ca+2 , Mg+2 , SO4 −2 , Cl− ) and backwash
samples, filterability salinity, pH, TSS, etc.
Monitoring Results and Observations:
To ensure proper LSWF implementation, frequent wellhead sampling is crucial. This
includes oil producers: monitoring salinity changes in produced oil, and water injection
wells: confirming conformance between injected brine salinity at the LSWF facility and
wellhead salinity. These combined efforts allow for (a) verification of injected brine salinity
and (b) quantification of LSWF’s impact on oil producers. Dedicated teams have been
established to collect and analyze wellhead samples for these purposes.
• Salinity Reduction: Regular wellhead sampling of both oil producers and water
injectors plays a vital role in detecting changes in salinity within the study area. A
significant reduction in produced water salinity (>500 ppm) was observed in oil
producers located within the pilot area compared to baseline values recorded under
conventional waterflooding (Figure 13). The figure depicts pre-LSWF data in green
and post-LSWF data in blue.
• Oil Rate Increase: A detailed analysis was conducted to assess the impact of LSWF
on oil production rates and water cuts in producing wells. Approximately 10 wells
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 20 of 23

exhibited a notable increase in oil rate alongside a corresponding decrease in salinity

and stabilization of water cut (Figure 14).
• Water Cut Reduction: Further stabilization or reductions in water cuts were observed
at the well level (Figure 15), signifying a positive trend and potential improvement in
overall oil recovery due to LSWF.
Energies
Energies 2024,
2024, 17,
17, 2149
2149 • pH Increase: Wellhead samples also indicated a positive sign, with an average 21 ofpH
21 of 24
24
increase from 7.3 to 7.6 observed during LSWF implementation.

Figure
Figure 13.
13. Salinity
Salinity variations
variations in
variations in produced
in produced water
produced water samples
water samples in
samples in LSWF
in LSWF pilot
LSWF pilot area
pilot area wells.
area wells.
wells.

Figure
Figure 14. Oil production variations in produced water samples in LSWF pilot area wells.
Figure 14.
14. Oil
Oil production
production variations
variations in
in produced
produced water
water samples
samples in
in LSWF
LSWF pilot
pilot area
area wells.
wells.
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 2221ofof 24
23

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Water
Water cut
cut variations
variations in
in produced
produced water
water samples
samples in
in LSWF
LSWF pilot
pilot area
area wells.
wells.

6. Summary and Conclusions

Future Considerations:
This studythe
Although initialaresults
presents are encouraging,
comprehensive workflow it isfor
important to acknowledge
implementing low-salinity that this
water
is an ongoing
flooding (LSWF) pilot inproject.
a mature As time progresses
carbonate and more
reservoir, data areby
exemplified collected
Field A,fromthe alargest
larger
area sweptLSWF
multi-well by theproject
low-salinity
in Indiawaterfront, our confidence
for this reservoir type. The in project
LSWF’ssuccessfully
efficacy for navigated
enhancing
production
the in mature
entire process, fromfields likelaboratory
initial Field A will be further
screening solidified.
and reservoir simulation to facility
construction and field deployment.
6. Summary and Conclusions
A multi-level approach integrating laboratory and field studies was employed to
This simulate,
evaluate, study presents a comprehensive
and design the LSWF workflow
process forforthis implementing low-salinity
specific reservoir. water
Laboratory
flooding
core flood(LSWF) in a mature
experiments carbonatethe
demonstrated reservoir, exemplified
suitability of LSWF by forField
FieldA, A,the
withlargest multi-
multi-step
well LSWF project in India for this reservoir type. The project
imbibition and displacement studies indicating incremental oil recoveries exceeding thosesuccessfully navigated
the entirewith
achieved process, from seawater
traditional initial laboratory
flooding. screening and reservoir
Reservoir simulation simulation
studies to facility
further supported
construction and field deployment.
the promise of LSWF, predicting an incremental oil gain of over 1 million metric tons.
A multi-level
Early monitoring approach
data fromintegrating laboratory
the ongoing field pilotand project
field studies was employed
also suggests a positiveto
evaluate, simulate, and design the LSWF process for this specific
impact of LSWF, with observations of improved oil rate, stabilized water cut, and reduced reservoir. Laboratory
core floodwater
produced experiments
salinity.demonstrated
Additionally, the suitability
the salinity of LSWF for
optimization studyField A, with amulti-
identified 25%
seawater salinity as the optimal level for maximizing incremental oil recovery. exceeding
step imbibition and displacement studies indicating incremental oil recoveries
those achieved with traditional seawater flooding. Reservoir simulation studies further
These findings offer valuable insights into the potential of LSWF as a viable EOR
supported the promise of LSWF, predicting an incremental oil gain of over 1 million
technique for mature carbonate reservoir rejuvenation. The ongoing monitoring program
metric tons.
will further solidify the understanding of LSWF’s effectiveness in this specific field and its
Early monitoring data from the ongoing field pilot project also suggests a positive
broader applicability for brownfield redevelopment.
impact of LSWF, with observations of improved oil rate, stabilized water cut, and reduced
produced water salinity. Additionally, the salinity optimization study identified a 25%
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.R.S.; Methodology, V.R.S.; Investigation, V.R.S.; Data
seawaterV.R.S.
curation, salinityand asS.K.G.;
the optimal level for maximizing
Writing—original draft, V.R.S.;incremental oil recovery.
Writing—review & editing, V.R.S.,
H.K.S.These findings
and S.K.G.; offer valuable
Supervision, H.K.S. and insights intoauthors
S.K.G. All the potential
have readof LSWF
and agreed astoathe
viable EOR
published
technique
version formanuscript.
of the mature carbonate reservoir rejuvenation. The ongoing monitoring program
will further solidify the understanding of LSWF’s effectiveness in this specific field and its
Funding: This research received no external funding.
broader applicability for brownfield redevelopment.
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 22 of 23

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.R.S.; Methodology, V.R.S.; Investigation, V.R.S.; Data

curation, V.R.S. and S.K.G.; Writing—original draft, V.R.S.; Writing—review & editing, V.R.S., H.K.S.
and S.K.G.; Supervision, H.K.S. and S.K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Acknowledgments: The authors are thankful to ONGC management for allowing the technical
content of the paper to be shared among international professionals. The authors also express their
deep sense of gratitude to Shri O P Sinha, Head-IRS, for his support and encouragement in writing
the paper. The authors also state that the views expressed in this paper are the views of their own
and do not necessarily reflect the views of ONGC.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Vivek Raj Srivastava was employed by the company Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of
any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Yildiz, H.O.; Morrow, N.R. Effect of brine composition on recovery of Moutray crude oil by waterflooding. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 1996,
14, 159–168. [CrossRef]
2. Tang, G.Q.; Morrow, N.R. Salinity, Temperature, Oil Composition, and Oil Recovery by Waterflooding. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1997, 12,
269–276. [CrossRef]
3. Tang, G.-Q.; Morrow, N.R. Influence of brine composition and fines migration on crude oil/brine/rock interactions and oil
recovery. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 1999, 24, 99–111. [CrossRef]
4. Lager, A.; Webb, K.J.; Black, C.J.J. Impact of brine chemistry on oil recovery. In Proceedings of the IOR 2007-14th European
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Cairo, Egypt, 22 April 2007; European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers: Utrecht,
The Netherlands, 2007; p. cp-24.
5. Lager, A.; Webb, K.J.; Collins, I.R.; Richmond, D.M. LoSalTM enhanced oil recovery: Evidence of enhanced oil recovery at the
reservoir scale. In Proceedings of the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Tulsa, OK, USA, 20–23 April 2008; SPE: Richardson,
TX, USA, 2008; p. SPE-113976.
6. Lager, A.; Webb, K.J.; Black, C.J.J.; Singleton, M.; Sorbie, K.S. Low salinity oil recovery-an experimental investigation1. Petrophys.
SPWLA J. Form. Eval. Reserv. Descr. 2008, 49, 28–35.
7. McGuire, P.L.; Chatham, J.R.; Paskvan, F.K.; Sommer, D.M.; Carini, F.H. Low salinity oil recovery: An exciting new
EOR opportunity for Alaska’s North Slope. In Proceedings of the SPE Western Regional Meeting, SPE, Irvine, CA, USA,
30 March–1 April 2005; p. SPE-93903.
8. Webb, K.J.; Black, C.J.J.; Tjetland, G. A laboratory study investigating methods for improving oil recovery in carbonates. In
Proceedings of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC, Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November 2005; p. IPTC-10506.
9. Zhang, P.; Austad, T. Wettability and oil recovery from carbonates: Effects of temperature and potential determining ions. Colloids
Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2006, 279, 179–187. [CrossRef]
10. Fjelde, I. Low salinity water flooding experimental experience and challenges. In Proceedings of the Force RP Work Shop: Low
Salinity Water Flooding, the Importance of Salt Content in Injection Water, Stavanger, Norway, 15 May 2008; Volume 15.
11. Strand, S.; Puntervold, T.; Austad, T. Effect of temperature on enhanced oil recovery from mixed-wet chalk cores by spon-taneous
imbibition and forced displacement using seawater. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 3222–3225. [CrossRef]
12. Puntervold, T.; Strand, S.; Austad, T. Coinjection of seawater and produced water to improve oil recovery from fractured North
Sea chalk oil reservoirs. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 2527–2536. [CrossRef]
13. Fathi, S.J.; Austad, T.; Strand, S. Smart water’ as a wettability modifier in chalk: The effect of salinity and ionic composition.
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 2514–2519. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, Y.; Sarma, H.K. Improving Waterflood Recovery Efficiency in Carbonate Reservoirs through Salinity Variations and Ionic
Exchanges: A Promising Low-Cost “Smart-Waterflood” Approach. In Proceedings of the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11–14 November 2012; p. SPE-161631.
15. Gopani, P.H.; Singh, N.; Sarma, H.K.; Mattey, P.; Srivastava, V.R. Role of Monovalent and Divalent Ions in Low-Salinity Water
Flood in Carbonate Reservoirs: An Integrated Analysis through Zeta Potentiometric and Simulation Studies. Energies 2021,
14, 729. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, Y.; Morrow, N.R. Comparison of secondary and tertiary recovery with change in injection brine composition for crude
oil/sandstone combinations. In Proceedings of the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Tulsa, OK, USA, 22–26 April 2006;
SPE: Richardson, TX, USA, 2006; p. SPE-99757.
17. Alotaibi, M.B.; Cha, D.; Alsofi, A.M.; Yousef, A.A. Dynamic interactions of inorganic species at carbonate/brine interfaces: An
electrokinetic study. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2018, 550, 222–235. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 2149 23 of 23

18. Awolayo, A.; Sarma, H.; AlSumaiti, A. Impact of Ionic Exchanges between Active and Non-active Ions on Displacement Efficiency
in Smart Waterflood Application. In Proceedings of the 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2014, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
16–19 June 2014; European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–5.
19. Awolayo, A.N.; Sarma, H.K.; Nghiem, L.X. Brine-dependent recovery processes in carbonate and sandstone petroleum res-ervoirs:
Review of laboratory-field studies, interfacial mechanisms and modeling attempts. Energies 2018, 11, 3020. [CrossRef]
20. Chavan, M.; Dandekar, A.; Patil, S.; Khataniar, S. Low-salinity-based enhanced oil recovery literature review and associated
screening criteria. Pet. Sci. 2019, 16, 1344–1360. [CrossRef]
21. Kojadinovich, G.S. Laboratory Investigation of Oil-composition Affecting the Success of Low-salinity Waterflooding in Oil-wet
Carbonate Rocks. Master’s Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA, 2018.
22. Kakati, A.; Jha, N.K.; Kumar, G.; Sangwai, J.S. Application of Low Salinity Water Flooding for Light Paraffinic Crude Oil Reservoir.
In Proceedings of the SPE Symposium: Production Enhancement and Cost Optimisation, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7–8 November
2017; Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE): Richardson, TX, USA, 2017; p. D011S001R004.
23. Jerauld, G.R.; Lin, C.Y.; Webb, K.J.; Seccombe, J.C. Modeling low-salinity waterflooding. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2008, 11, 1000–1012.
[CrossRef]
24. Dwivedi, S.; Awasthi, D.K.; Pandey, S.; Prasad, S.R.; Ram, B.; Zahir, M.; Bose, S.; Mathavan, C. Experience of Low Salinity Water
Flooding in Mumbai High Field-First Offshore Field in India to Implement Enhanced Oil Recovery Technique. In Proceedings of
the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC, Houston, TX, USA, 1 May 2023; p. D011S014R001.
25. Sundli, K.C.; Madka, N.R.; Prasad, S.R.; Ram, B. India’s first Offshore Low Salinity Water Flood EOR in Mumbai High: Early
trends towards successful implementation of the process in mature carbonate reservoir. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum
Geophysicists (SPG) Conference, Kochi, India, 4 November 2023; p. PID-92.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.