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

net/publication/378899544

Review Paper: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Article · January 2023

CITATIONS READS
0 19

2 authors, including:

Mahmoud Ali
The American University in Cairo
4 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmoud Ali on 12 March 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Undergraduate Research Journal

Volume 9 Article 1

September 2023

Review Paper: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil

Recovery
Mahmoud Ali
[email protected]

Moamen Talaat
The American University in Cairo, [email protected]

Abd El-Rahman Rashwan

The American University in Cairo, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje

Part of the Engineering Science and Materials Commons

Recommended Citation
Ali, Mahmoud; Talaat, Moamen; and Rashwan, Abd El-Rahman (2023) "Review Paper: Low Salinity Water
Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery," The Undergraduate Research Journal: Vol. 9, Article 1.
Available at: https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1

This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by AUC Knowledge Fountain. It has been accepted for
inclusion in The Undergraduate Research Journal by an authorized editor of AUC Knowledge Fountain. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
Review Paper: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Cover Page Footnote

Undergraduate students in the Department of Petroleum and Energy Engineering, The American University
in Cairo. This review was conducted under the supervision of Dr. Abdelaziz Khlaifat, Department of
Petroleum and Energy Engineering, The American University in Cairo.

This essay is available in The Undergraduate Research Journal: https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1

 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Review Paper: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery.
Mahmoud Ali, Moamen Talaat, and Abdelrahman Arafa1

Abstract

Low salinity water injection (LSWI) is one of the leading techniques in terms of enhancing oil
recovery in sandstone and carbonate formations. Many studies and lab experiments were
performed on the LSWI applications. Some studies have pointed out multiple negative
observations, while other studies have shown the positive potential of using LSWI in enhancing
oil recovery. However, the technology used in LSWI applications is still considered new and more
studies need to be performed to figure out new technologies that are low-cost and more efficient.
This review paper examines LSWI by analyzing the benefits and drawbacks of employing LSWI
in various formations. Primarily, the paper analyzes previous work on LSWI in order to objectively
assess the possibility of improved oil recovery and its mechanism. Following that, the study
investigates numerous different implementations of the LSWI approach and the leap that has
occurred in the oil business. To study the applicability of LSWI, this critical review discusses the
experimental and fieldwork that led to the development of low salinity water (LSW) flooding
techniques. Upon completion, the article would represent the applicability of LSW flooding in
various reservoir conditions, as mentioned in various research studies.

Keywords: Low SAL; LSWI; Fine-migration; Wettability-alteration; EOR; IOR

In the oil and gas industry, a reservoir is depleted through different recovery stages,
including primary, secondary and tertiary recoveries. Each recovery stage has its own driving
mechanisms. At the start of production, the well is produced using the natural energy of the
reservoir. This recovery stage is the primary recovery stage which contains different mechanisms
such as solution gas, water influx, gas cap drives, and gravity drainage. The primary recovery stage
usually yields from 3 % to 15% from the original oil in place (OOIP). As the reservoir is depleted
and the reservoir pressure starts to reach the critical pressure, the secondary recovery processes
start to be essential. Usually, it is recommended to start the secondary recovery at the early stage
of the well life so that we can ensure the minimum amount of gas to be kicked during flooding
operation. Unfortunately, our knowledge of the reservoir at the early stage is usually not sufficient
for designing secondary recovery processes. Consequently, the secondary recovery operation is
preferred to start before gas is introduced in the reservoir. The main goal of secondary recovery is
to maintain the reservoir pressure using fluid injection. It is worth mentioning that secondary
recovery processes are displacement processes that do not change any of the fluid or the reservoir
properties. On average, secondary recovery drives almost 50% of OOIP. 50% is considered an
excellent recovery factor, but it is still unsatisfactory in today’s world of energy hunger [1,2].
Although the depletion of the reservoir pressure in both primary and secondary recovery
stages is significant, a huge amount of hydrocarbon is left in the reservoir, waiting for technology
1
Undergraduate students in the Department of Petroleum and Energy Engineering, The American University in
Cairo. This review was conducted under the supervision of Dr. Abdelaziz Khlaifat, Department of Petroleum and
Energy Engineering, The American University in Cairo.

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 1

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1

development and cost-efficient solutions. At that stage of well life, the tertiary recovery phase
(EOR) is introduced. Tertiary recovery methods concern increasing the oil recovery mainly by
changing the fluid and rock properties in an economical way. The EOR process increases the oil
recovery by injecting a fluid that is different from the reservoir fluid rather than water or
immiscible gas. EOR is done using different techniques such as miscible gas injection, chemical
injection, thermal processes, and other EOR methods such as microbial and low salinity water
injection (LSWI). Different gasses may be injected, such as HC-gasses, nitrogen, and carbon
dioxide. On the other hand, the most common chemical flooding processes are polymer, surfactant,
or alkaline injection. In addition, thermal EOR includes combustion and steam flooding. Some
technicians use Improved oil recovery (IOR) and EOR interchangeably. However, IOR is a more
generic term. IOR refers to any process that leads to an increase in the recovery factor. Both
secondary recovery and EOR are subdivisions of IOR. An illustration of the different recovery
processes is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Illustration of the different Oil recovery processes

Amongst the IOR technique, water flooding has been the most commonly used method
to enhance the recovery factor since the 19th century. Recently, the industry started to move toward
EOR in order to meet the high energy demand due to the Industrial Revolution. LSWI targets
wettability alteration of both sandstone and carbonate reservoirs, which is a very efficient
technique as observed in both fragmental and carbonate reservoirs. This efficiency is noticed by
the increase in the recovery factor of light to medium oil. LSWI also has the advantage of water
availability and low capital and operating cost, leading to favorable economic feasibility compared
to IOR and EOR. Many experiments on both lab and field-scale found encouraging results of using
LSWI to increase oil recovery. However, wettability alteration is believed to be the main driver of
increasing oil recovery in LSWI; researchers also found that fine migration and dissolution

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 2
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery

processes significantly affect the increasing recovery factor (RF). In fact, several researches are in
progress to better understand the chemical interactions resulting from using LSWI. Many
experiments were conducted on sandstone. Researchers found that clay presence in sandstone is
the main reason for wettability alteration. On the other hand, modeling studies are still needed for
carbonate reservoirs in order to study the chemical interaction of LSW with carbonate. There are
some reasons for the relatively low number of experiments conducted on carbonates. The main
reason is the heterogeneity of carbonates which makes it not easy to predict the LSW interaction
with carbonates. The main challenge of LSWI is water sourcing and disposal. One way to get LSW
is by using multistage distillation of seawater. Here, the concept is to apply heat into high saline
water and collect the condensate, low salinity water from the distillation apparatus. The other
technique to get LSW is to use pressure to force high saline water into a certain filtration setup
through a membrane in order to separate salt from water. In general, the membrane technique is
preferred due to space limitations for the distillation apparatus, especially in offshore operations
[3,4]. This review paper presents previous laboratory and field work done on sandstones and
carbonates to study the effect of LSWI on both formations taking into consideration the LSWI
applicability under different reservoir environments.

Experimental Work of LSW on Sandstone

Since the fourteenth century, several experimental researches on sandstone have been done.
When scientists opted to substitute freshwater with saline water in their experimental work on
Kansas field cores in the fourteenth century, they advocated the use of saline water instead of
freshwater. The use of salt water resulted in a 15% increase in recovery factor from the freshwater
injection, according to the researchers. In later studies, scientists related the low RF of freshwater
to the volume of clay content as freshwater caused the clay to swell. As a result, scientists have
started to study water's physical and chemical properties to decrease the probability of clay
swelling. In the sixteenth century, scientists began to investigate the salt influence on RF. In some
studies, results showed that low salinity water increased the RF by 21% over high saline water due
to the clay hydration phenomenon. As salinity concentration was decreasing, both pressure drop
and recovery through the core were increasing. On the other hand, some studies in the nineteenth
century reported an increase in RF due to an increase in salinity up to a specific limit as shown in
Figure 2. In 2007, Zhang [4] conducted many experiments to investigate the effect of salinity on
RF. He found out that high saline water of 8000 ppm NaCl has no effect on RF; however, when
he used a concentration of 1500 ppm NaCl, the RF was increased significantly. After many years,
Patel [5] came to confirm Zhang's outcomes. Patel's research group figured out that LSW caused
a reduction in residual oil from 50% to 38% when salinity was decreased from 22000 ppm to 5500
ppm. Besides, the recovery factor increased from 40% to 68% when salinity decreased from 22000
ppm to 50-60 ppm. To sum up the outcomes of the previous studies, there is a salinity level under
which the effect of LSW on recovery is significant [2,4,5].
Decreasing the salinity of injected water or the formation water helps decrease residual oil
volume significantly. Temperature also plays a role in process efficiency. As the reservoir
temperature increases, the water wetness is improved, and the RF is increased. However, the
temperature role is still minor relative to the salinity of the water. Further research was conducted
to investigate the LSW effect on the wettability alteration of sandstone using spontaneous
imbibition. Researchers found that Ca+2 concentration in LSWI plays a major role in wettability

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 3

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1

alteration. As Ca+2 concentration increases, the wettability becomes more oil-wet. Change of
wettability into oil wet is not preferred since it leads to a reduction of oil recovery [6].
Consequently, control of Ca+2 in the formation is essential for successful LSWI. In later
experimental work on Russian cores, spontaneous imbibition tests showed that LSWI helps to
increase RF by altering the sandstone into water-wet by changing relative permeabilities [7].
To sum up the major outcomes of the experimental work done on sandstone, LSWI
significantly reduces the residual oil in the reservoir by wettability alteration of the rock into water
wet. However, the salinity level should be within the accepted level of salinity as well as the
concentration of Ca+2. The reservoir temperature is an advantage to the injection process of low
salinity water since it increases the wettability alteration process.

Figure 2. The output of a typical LSWI on sandstone [5]

Experimental Work of LSW of Carbonates

The effect of LSW on carbonates is not well covered due to the heterogeneity of carbonates.
Nevertheless, laboratory-scale experiments were conducted to investigate the effect of LSWI on
RF of carbonates using core flooding and spontaneous imbibition studies. Studies on limestone
cores have found that the high concentration of sulfate ions in LSW helps to increase RF at high
temperatures for spontaneous imbibition experiments. The sulfate ion works as a wettability agent
that helps to alter the carbonate wettability to water wettability. Spontaneous imbibition of
limestone cores resulted in a 40% increase in RF. Using forced injection, the recovery increased
to 60% recovery. Many other studies investigated the effect of calcium and magnesium ions on
the reduction of residual oil. As illustrated in Figure 3, these studies concluded that wettability
alteration occurs in carbonates if the injected water contains either calcium or magnesium ions
[2,8].

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 4
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Figure 3. Effect of Mg2+ and Ca2+ on wettability alteration of carbonates [8]

Many experimental-scale tests investigated core flooding on limestone, dolomite, and chalk.
A 36% recovery factor was obtained from limestone cores when using two wt% KCL as a result
of the exchange of ions with clays associated with the rock. Also, the effect of incremental diluted
seawater on incremental oil recovery was investigated. Figure 4 shows the increments of recovery
due to the stepwise reduction in the salinity of injected water. The figure shows that an 18% oil
recovery increment is due to LSWI.

Figure 4. Incremental dilution effect on recovery [8]

To investigate the effect of low-salinity water on dolomite, further studies were conducted.
Researchers noticed an increase in the recovery of dolomite due to the use of LSWI. They related
the increase of recovery of 20% to the existence of borate (BO33-) and phosphate (PO43-) [2]. Many
other studies were conducted to investigate the hardening and softening of water’s effect on
wettability alteration. In fact, both the hardening and softening of water have a desired effect on
wettability. Softening of LSW helps dissolution. Besides, hardening leads to a change in the
surface charge. Both phenomena are needed for wettability alteration. The effect of LSWI on chalk
was investigated by injecting seawater followed by LSWI in succession. The outcome of this
process did not lead to any further recovery. Nevertheless, at high temperatures, the recovery factor

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 5

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1
started to increase. Researchers related the recovery increase to fine migration. They noticed that,
at high temperatures, a higher-pressure drop is obtained, leading to an increase in capillary number
(Nc). The increase of Nc caused fine migration, which led to an increase in pressure drop. [8]

𝑁𝑐 = 𝑢𝜇w/𝜎𝑘rw= 𝑘𝛥𝑃/ 𝜎𝐿 EQN.1

Where 𝑢 is Darcy’s injection velocity, 𝜇w is water viscosity, σ is oil-water interfacial tension, krw
is water relative permeability, k is absolute permeability, ΔP/L is the applied pressure gradient.
To sum up the Experimental-scale outcomes on carbonates, LSWI improves oil recovery up to
85% of OOIP. However, the IFT and pH cannot explain the effect of LSWI on carbonates as shown
in Figure 5; the leading cause of that recovery increase is the change in carbonate wettability into
intermediate-wet. Besides, the increase of calcium, magnesium, and sulfate ions up to a certain
level affects oil recovery positively [9].

Figure 5. IFT measurements for different brines [9]

Field Work of LSW on Sandstones and Carbonates

Field studies on sandstone rocks confirmed the experimental-scale studies conducted on

sandstone plugs. Using the modified log-inject-log technique, residual oil saturation was measured
after using different salinity-injected water. Laboratory studies showed that high saline and
medium saline water have no significant effect on residual oil saturation. On the other hand, LSWI
resulted in a high recovery factor. The fieldwork results are consistent with the lab outcomes.
Figure 6 shows a typical difference between high and low-saline water[2,10].

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 6
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Figure 6. LSW effect on Sw [10]

Single-well chemical tracer tests (SWCTT) were conducted to measure the effect of LSWI
on residual oil. The producer and injector were 1040 feet apart. Results show that LSWI of a
maximum of 2600 ppm causes a reduction in residual oil by 10%. In general, if water salinity goes
down to 5000 ppm, the recovery factor increases from 8% to 19%. These field results are in
agreement with the experimental-scale outcomes. The spontaneous imbibition laboratory results
and log-inject-log outcomes were confirmed by fieldwork In Syria. The main function of LSWI
confirmed by this fieldwork is wettability alteration. Buckley Leverett's theory illustrated in Figure
7 was used to explain the alteration phenomenon [10].

Figure 7. Saturation profile for both high and low salinity water flooding based on Buckley-
Leverett [11]

Figure 7 shows that oil banking is in front of LSW shock. That is due to desorbed oil
accumulation. While The field is an oil-wet reservoir rock, a recovery factor of 10% to 15% was
obtained, confirming spontaneous imbibition results. Further research confirmed that LSWI works
well for sandstone with high or low content. In low clay-content sandstone, wettability alteration
works very well, which leads to lower residual oil saturation. In the other scenario of high clay
content, clay migration causes formation damage which leads to reduced water relative
permeability and increased oil recovery factor. Not all fieldworks get to confirm laboratory results.

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 7

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1
Many fieldworks on the North Sea and west African fields concluded that LSWI is not that
promising compared to laboratory-scale tests due to the complex mineralogy structure when it
comes to field application [11,12].
A minimal number of field works were conducted on carbonates. The very first work was
conducted in 2012 in a Jurassic carbonate reservoir. The test was conducted to compare the effect
of seawater injection versus LSWI (2-10 times more diluted than seawater). The test used different
low-salinity water injected in stages, and residual saturation was obtained for every stage. The test
resulted in decreasing residual saturation of 7%, which is aligned with the laboratory outcomes.
This agreement between lab and field outcomes is encouraging to conduct more research to better
understand the RF increase mechanism in carbonates [13].

Figure 8. Comparing seawater and LSWI on carbonates. [13]

Mechanism for Low Salinity Water Injection in Sandstone Rocks

Several mechanisms may explain the reasons behind increased recovery factors using low
salinity water flooding methods. The suggested mechanisms include fines migration, wettability
alteration, PH increase, multi-ion exchange, and salting-in. However, there is no consensus
between the scientists on which method is the primary underlying mechanism for incremental oil
recovery. This happens due to the complexity of the low salinity water projects and the
interactions of the displacing fluid with external factors like crude oil, formation water, and the
rock type; moreover, the experiments may give conflicting observations from one mechanism to
the other.

Fines Migration
This phenomenon happens initially from the clay particles when the flowing fluid has an
insufficient concentration of divalent cations Ca+2 and Mg+2. In the reservoir, fine migration
occurs when the low-salinity water bypasses the clay zone; consequently, Low saline water
produces clay fines, especially kaolinite fragments. The main advantage of this phenomenon is
that the released clay particles will block some of the pore throats, which will divert the water flow
into non-swept zones [4,14]. Thus, an increase in the clay content will increase the recovery factor
[15]. This makes this method favorable for reservoirs with clay problems. However, fines
migration is viewed as an auxiliary, not as the main one, because there has been a number of
experiments where fines migration was not observed [16].

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 8
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery
pH Increase
If there is a reservoir with low pH values ( 5 – 6), at such conditions, it becomes easier for
both the acidic and the basic components to be adsorbed onto the clay surface. As LSW is injected
into the reservoir, the chemical equilibrium is disturbed due to the interaction between the brine
and the formation minerals resulting in a loss of cations, especially Ca+2.
Clay minerals on the surface of the rock are negatively charged. Hence, they are constantly
seeking positive cations to achieve chemical equilibrium. Ca+2 cations get attracted, consequently,
to the negatively charged clay minerals resulting in the exchange of H+ from the clay minerals.
This causes the positive hydrogen ions to get attracted to the clay surface to compensate for the
loss of the divalent Calcium ions. As a result of the injection of the low saline water, an increase
in the pH close to the clay surface would take place. However, this phenomenon can also occur
using high-salinity water. In addition to that, some of the criticism for this mechanism points to
the fact that the increase caused by low salinity water injection is not more than one pH in many
cases, which makes the medium slightly basic. However, it does not justify the increase in oil
recovery using this mechanism [16].

Multi-Ion Exchange
Many scientists claimed that the primary mechanism behind the increase of water wetness
due to low salinity water injection is mainly controlled by the exchange of ions present in the crude
oil and the clay minerals. The cations in the brine act as a bridge between the negatively charged
surface and the carboxylic minerals in the hydrocarbons. This organic material is removed by the
ion exchange at the surface [16].

Salting-In
Salting-in means decreasing the salinity of a system by removing the salt from the water.
This mechanism has an impact on increasing the solubility of the hydrocarbon in water. Organic
materials are solvated in water by the creation using hydrogen bonds around the hydrophobic part.
However, the concentration of the divalent ions has a significant impact on the solubility of the
organic materials, as the presence of Ca+2, Mg+2, or Na may lead to the breakage of the formed
water structure [16,17].
This mechanism has been verified by an experiment that showed that by decreasing the
salinity of the used brine, there is an increase in the desorption of 4-tert-butyl benzoic acid in an
aqueous suspension of kaolinite [17].

Wettability Alternation in Sandstones

Wettability alteration using LSWI is viewed to be the main mechanism for improving oil
recovery. The previously mentioned mechanisms act as auxiliary methods in increasing the
recovery. The presence of clay minerals is required for the wettability alteration mechanism to
work. Divalent cations such as Ca+2, Mg+2 should be present in the injected water. This technique
worked for salinities up to 5000 ppm.
The Wettability alteration mechanism could be explained through double-layer expansion.
The clay surface is negatively charged, which attracts positively charged particles on its surface to
neutralize it. The attracted cations form 2 layers. The first layer is the “stern” layer which contains
only cations as shown in Figure 9. The second layer is the diffusive layer, where the attraction
force is lowered between the positive ions (formation) and the negative ions (clay). Thus, cations
and anions could coexist in the diffusive layer. The negative components in the oil could be
attracted to the cations present in the stern layer making the surface oil wet. However, it was found
that in low-salinity water injection projects, the thickness of the diffusive layer increases. Hence,
the chance of the negative components of the oil getting closer to the stern layer decreases, creating
more water-wet conditions [10,18].

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 9

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of electric double layer [18]

Several pieces of research have shown that the cations type had an impact on the efficiency
of the oil recovery. This research showed that the contact angle increases with the increase of
pressure and temperature. However, if the water salinity decreases, the contact angle also
decreases. Nasralla and Nasr-El-Din [19] were trying to increase the double-layer mechanism to
increase oil recovery. Their findings concluded that the use of low salinity water injection projects
as a secondary recovery method rather than an enhanced recovery method showed increased oil
recovery. [19]

The Mechanism for Low Salinity Water Injection in Carbonate Rock

The mechanism by which low salinity water injection projects enhance the oil recovery for
carbonate rocks is considered to be less complicated than sandstones as the primary mechanism
will depend on the wettability alteration mainly. This phenomenon occurs due to the modification
of the surface charge either by dissolution or the desorption of the organic matter.
Several studies were performed to examine the ability to change the charge of the rock
surface. Strand et al. [20] tried to investigate the impact of sulfate ions on the wettability alteration
of the carbonate rocks and the results are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Advancing contact angle measurements on calcite, dolomite, and magnesite. [20]

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 10
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery
Experiments have shown that sulfates act as a catalyst by improving the imbibition rates
due to their ability to adhere to the rock surface, making it partially negatively charged. This
property of sulfates is more efficient below a specific concentration of 1 g/l and at high
temperatures. The experiments also showed that depending on the rock types (Calcite, Dolomite,
or Magnesite.), the cations and the salinity of the brine along with sulfate could alter the wettability
of the carbonate rocks towards a more water-wet rock [20].
Other experiments were performed to confirm the findings by Strand et al. [20]. The
experiments done by Hognesen et al. [21] were trying to investigate the impact sulfates had on the
imbibition rates and oil recovery. Hognesen et al. [21] conducted the experiment under harsher
conditions by increasing the temperature of the experiment to (90 – 130 C). Additionally, Strand
et al. [20] showed that sulfates work very well under very high temperatures; this indicates an
agreement between both experiments. However, Hognesen et al. [21] decided to increase the
sulfate concentration to 2.31 gm/L, which resulted in an incremental increase in oil recovery
[21,22].
By increasing the system’s temperature, the affinity of the surface to sulfate increases. The
adsorption of the sulfates to the rock surface changes it into a partially negatively charged surface.
The high temperatures also help in decomposing the negative carboxylic group in the
hydrocarbons. Thus, there is a repulsion between the surface of the rock and the hydrocarbons,
resulting in increased oil recovery. Although Hognesen et al. [21] used a higher concentration of
sulfates, it should be clear that the concentration of the Ca+2 in the brine should be well known to
avoid the precipitation of CaSO4, which is unfavorable and may result in unwanted consequences.
Overall, the key behind the increased oil recovery is the minerals found in the injected seawater
(SO4 -2, Ca+2, and Mg +2). However, it was also found that by reducing the salinity of the injected
water, the oil recovery was improved significantly. This could be explained through the reduction
in the interfacial tension or wettability alteration [21].
Yousef et al. [22] tried to investigate this dilemma. He wanted to figure out which method
is the primary reason for increased oil recovery using low-salinity water injection projects in
carbonate reservoirs.

Figure 11. IFT measurements for various salinity levels. [21]

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 11

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1

Figure 12.Contact angle measurements of various dilutions [21]

Figure 13. NMR T2 distribution [22]

According to the results, Interfacial Tension IFT has no significant impact on incremental
oil recovery as shown in Figure 11, and wettability alteration, that is a function in contact angle as
shown in Figure 12, is the key mechanism behind this additional oil rise. Yousef et al. [22] tried
to examine the mechanism behind the wettability alteration using the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
NMR tool. His findings, as shown in Figure 13, indicate that the amplitudes obtained for the post-
test case shifted left, with low and high amplitudes overlapping. This shift is an indication of a
faster rate of relaxation as a result of the pore improvement due to dissolution and changes in the
carbonate rock surface charge [22].

Heavy Oil Application

There are various methods for injecting low-salinity water that can be employed in
compliance control. This takes place when an adequate amount of Ca 2+ to dilute the salinity of
the water injected. The reason for using Ca 2+ is because it increases the clay minerals’ mobility
and reduces the porosity which would lead to a reduction in permeability. The injected water

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 12
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery
effects are classified into secondary, IOR and EOR according to its chemistry. The IOR is related
to SWF- sandstone and carbonates, but the EOR is related to polymer flooding, surfactant flooding,
ASP flooding, dilute surfactant, carbonated water, Co2 WAG, steam flooding, and
microbial/nanotechnology. The secondary impacts are related to offshore waterflooding. After
conducting trials and completing some numerical analysis, it was discovered that the secondary
recovery for heavy oil recovered 70% of the original oil in place (OOIP) [23].

LSWI/EWI Polymer Flooding Applications

Researchers and chemists have found several advantages for the low salinity water injection
which compensates the polymer flooding [24]. They have addressed that the LSWI hardly needs
any additional chemicals which could be economically targeted; however, the seawater would need
adding some chemicals in order to acquire the viscous state needed. In addition to this positive
economical side, the LSWI would increase the oil recovery as it improves the sweep efficiency;
thus, it achieves a faster oil recovery process. Kozaki [25] conducted experiments employing
tertiary Berea Sandstone cores and the two different salinity solutions. As he observed, the low-
salinity polymer solution, as compared to the high-salinity polymer solution, reduces the saturation
of the residual oil by 5 to 10% [26]. Furthermore, a report performed by Vermolen, has stated
some other advantages of using the low salinity polymer flooding such as: [27]
1. Lower sensitivity for the mechanical shear
2. Higher stability for high salinity/high temperature formations
3. Higher usage for high salinity/high temperature formations
4. Reduction of the production potential chemistry issues (such as souring, scaling and
water/oil separation)
5. Increasing the visco-elasticity of the LSWI.
6. Reduction in the residual oil.
On the other hand, the report has issued several risks for using the low salinity polymer solution
such as:
1. Clay swelling
2. Polymer adsorption.
3. Mixing the high salinity with the low salinity.
4. Cation exchange
5. The presence of a polymer factor of retardation resulting from using low salinity water,
could lead to oil recovery delay, which would dramatically impact negatively on the project
economics.
After investigations, Spildo [28] has observed that adding surfactant injections to the low
salinity water is considered as a better choice than surfactant flooding. Surfactant injection with
low salinity water increments its performance effectiveness. The surfactant is quite beneficial for
eliminating the capillary high pressure and alleviating the mobilized oil trapping [29,30].

LSWI / EWI CO2 Flooding Application

Researchers have used a sequence of geochemical reactions in order to examine the impacts
of low salinity water injection and carbon dioxide gas on carbonate oil reservoirs [31,32,33].
Carbonic acid is responsible for rock weathering as it is the most abundant acid in the natural water
system. The carbonic acid results from the dissolution of CO2 in water thus its state changes from
the gaseous state to an aqueous solution and then forms H2CO3 as in the following reactions
[34,35,36].
CO2(g) 🡺 CO2(aq)

CO2(aq) + H2O 🡺 H2CO3

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 13

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1
(Reaction 1)

Consequently, ionization reactions took place as follows:

H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3-

(Reaction 2)

HCO3- ↔ H+ + CO3 -2

(Reaction 3)

Furthermore, the dissolution for Calcite is performed as follows:

CaCO3 ↔ Ca2+ + CO32-

(Reaction 4)

Then, they add the mixture of carbon dioxide gas and water to the calcium carbonate as in the
following reaction:

CO2(g) + H2O + CaCO3 ↔ Ca2+ + 2 HCO3-

(Reaction 5)

Dolomite dissolution is prepared:

2CO2(g) + 2H2O+ CaMg(CO3)2 ↔ Ca2+ + Mg2+ + 4HCO3-

(Reaction 6)

In addition, the anhydrite is ionized in the presence of carbon dioxide gas giving positive and
negative ions:

CaSO4 ↔ Ca2+ + SO42-

(Reaction 7)

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 14
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery
The geochemical analysis was made by Al-Shalabi [37] using the PHREEQC equipment
(simulator). There were three various modes of injection that were compared which are the CO2
injection, LSWI and the combined injection (LSWI and CO2 injection). The analysis depicts that
the value of the pH-induced wettability alteration pronounced using low salinity water injection
only is more than the effect of the combination of the LSWI and CO2 injection. The pH trend in
LSWI only is much higher when compared to the decrease in the same trend but when using CO2
injection and when using the combination of LSWI and CO2 injection[37,38,39]. They have
observed carbonic acid formation which gives an explanation of the latter decrease in the pH value.
Figure 14 shows this gap in the pH values of LSWI, CO2 injection and the combined injection
[40].

Figure 14. pH plot of LSWI only, CO2 injection only and the combined LSWI and CO2 injection
[40].

Conclusion

This work is to investigate Low salinity water injection process, its mechanisms and its
applicability under different reservoir conditions. The paper reviews a huge spectrum of field and
lab work conducted on both fragmental and carbonate rocks. Both lab and field works conducted
by different scientists agree on some facts that the main mechanism of enhancing oil recovery
using low-salinity water injection projects is the wettability alteration, especially in carbonate
reservoirs[41,42]. However, this is not true for every formation under every condition. The
mechanism that works for carbonates does not necessarily work for sandstones due to the change
in the chemical competitions and the different depositional environments. As a result, thorough
laboratory investigations on representative rocks and fluid samples should be done before any
field-scale application to examine the possibility of LSW boosting oil recovery.
Moreover, the study reached a conclusion that the oil's effective permeability becomes a little
sensitive to water injection projects compared to low saline injection. It is also found that mixing
the low salinity water with EOR mechanisms like polymer, surfactant, and CO2 flooding projects
would result in improved oil recovery [43,44]. However, there is no agreement on which EOR
mechanism works well in different reservoirs and under what conditions. CO2 flooding seems to
be one of the most effective alternating methods due to the high solubility of CO2 in low-salinity
water, especially in hydrophilic conditions. Still, the water salinity, reservoir pressure and reservoir
temperature would be a big determinant of the injection effectiveness. Overall, to maximize the

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 15

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1
benefits of low-saline water injection projects, it is advisable to perform lab tests before
implementing the projects in field scale considering the alternating techniques since every
reservoir is unique in terms of composition, heterogeneity, conditions, and geometry.

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 16
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery
References
[1] Jackson, M.D., Vinogradov, J., Hamon, G., Chamerois, M., 2016. Evidence, mechanism, and improved
understanding of controlled salinity water injection part 1: sandstones. Fuel J. 185 (2016), 772793.
[2] Katende, A., & Sagala, F. (2019, January 16). A critical review of low salinity water flooding: Mechanism,
laboratory and field application. Retrieved April 27, 2021, from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732218350761?via%3Dihub
[3] Kilybay, A., Ghosh, B., Thomas, N.C., 2017. A review on the progress of ion-engineered water flooding. J.
Petrol. Eng. 2017. Article ID: 7171957.
[4] Zhang, Y., Xie, X., Morrow, N.R., 2007a. Waterflood performance by injection of brine with different salinity
for reservoir cores. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, Paper SPE
109849.
[5] Almeida, Alana , Patel, Rajan , Arambula, Carolina , Trivedi, Japan , Soares, João , Costa, Gloria , and Marcelo
Embiruçu. "Low Salinity Water Injection in a Clastic Reservoir in Northeast Brazil: An Experimental Case
Study." Paper presented at the SPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference, Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago, June 2018.
[6] Ayirala, S., Ernesto, U., Matzakos, A., Chin, R., Doe, P., Hoek, P.V.D. 2010. A designer water process for
offshore low salinity and polymer flooding applications. Paper SPE 129926, SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, OK.
[7] Fjelde, I., Asen, S.M., Omekeh, A., 2012. Low salinity water flooding experiments and interpretation by
simulations. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, Paper SPE 154142.
[8] Suijkerbuijk, B.M.J.M., Sorop, T.G., Parker, A.R., Masalmeh, S.K., Chmuzh, I.V., Karpan, V.M., et al., 2014.
Low salinity waterflooding at West Salym: Laboratory experiments and field forecasts. SPE EOR Conference at
Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman, Paper SPE 169691.
[9] Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S., Al-Kaabi, A., Al-Jawfi, M., 2011. Laboratory investigation of the impact of
injection-water salinity and ionic content on oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 14
(5), 578593
[10] Vledder, P., Fonseca, J.C., Wells, T., Gonzalez, I., Ligthelm, D., 2010. Low salinity water flooding: proof
of wettability alteration on a field wide scale. Paper SPE 129564, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
OK.
[11] Seccombe, J., Lager, A., Jerauld, G., Jhaveri, B., Buikema, T., Bassler, S., et al., 2010. Demonstration of
low-salinity EOR at interwell scale, Endicott Field, Alaska. Paper SPE 129692, SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, OK.
[12] Yousef, A.A., Liu, J., Blanchard, G., Al-Saleh, S., Al-Zahrani, T., Al-Zahrani, R., et al., 2012. SmartWater
flooding: industry’s first field test in carbonate reservoirs. Paper SPE 159526, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX.
[13] Callegaro, C., Masserano, F., Bartosek, M., Buscaglia, R., Visintin, R., Hartvig, S.K., et al., 2014. Single
well chemical tracer tests to assess low salinity water and surfactant EOR processes in West Africa. Paper SPE
17951, SPE International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
[14] Yousef, A.A., Ayirala, S.C., 2014. Optimization study of a novel water-ionic technology for smart-
waterflooding application in carbonate reservoirs. Oil Gas Facilit. 3 (5), 7282.
[15] Doust, A.R., Puntervold, T.P., Strand, S., Austad, T.A., 2009. Smart water as wettability modifier in
carbonate and sandstone. 15th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Paris, France.

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 17

 The Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 9 [2023], Art. 1
[16] Lager, A.K., Webb, K.J., Collins, I.R., Richmond, D.M., 2008. LoSalt enhanced oil recovery: Evidence of
enhanced oil recovery at the reservoir scale. SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA,
Paper SPE 113976
[17] Akhmetgareev, V., Khisamov, R., 2015. 40 years of low-salinity waterflooding in Pervomaiskoye Field,
Russia: incremental oil. Paper SPE 174182, SPE European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition,
Budapest, Hungary.
[18] Lee, S.Y., Webb, K.J., Collins, I., Lager, A., Clarke, S., O’Sullivan, M., et al., 2010. Low salinity oil
recovery: Increasing understanding of the underlying mechanisms. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, Paper SPE 129722
[19] Nasralla, R.A., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., 2012. Double-layer expansion: Is it a primary mechanism of improved
oil recovery by low-salinity waterflooding? SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA,
Paper SPE 154334.
[20] Strand, S., Standnes, D.C., Austad, T., 2003. Spontaneous imbibition of aqueous surfactant solution into
neutral to oil wet carbonate cores: Effects of brine salinity and composition. Energ. Fuel. 17 (5), 11331144.
[21] Hognesen, E.J., Strand, S., Austad, T., 2005. Waterflooding of preferential oil-wet carbonates: Oil recovery
related to reservoir temperature and brine composition. SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid,
Spain, Paper SPE 94166
[22] Yousef, A.A., Al-Saleh, S., Al-Kaabi, A., Al-Jawfi, M., 2011. Laboratory investigation of the impact of
injection-water salinity and ionic content on oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 14
(5), 578593.
[23] Alzayer, H., Sohrabi, M., 2013. Numerical simulation of improved heavy oil recovery by low-salinity water
injection and polymer flooding. SPE Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Khobar, Saudi Arabia, Paper
SPE 165287.
[24] Ayirala, S., Ernesto, U., Matzakos, A., Chin, R., Doe, P., Hoek, P.V.D., 2010. A designer water process for
offshore low salinity and polymer flooding applications. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, Paper SPE 129926.
[25] Vermolen, E.C.M., Pingo-Almada, M., Wassing, B.M., Ligthelm, D.J., Masalmeh, S.K.,
2014. Low-salinity polymer flooding: Improving polymer flooding technical feasibility and economics by using
low-salinity make-up brine. SPE International Petroleum Technology conference, Doha, Qatar, Paper SPE 17342.
[26] Al-Shalabi, E.W., Sepehrnoori, K., Pope, G., 2014a. Geochemical investigation of the combined effect of
injecting low salinity water and carbon dioxide in carbonate reservoirs. International Conference on Greenhouse
Gas Technologies (GHGT), Austin, Texas, USA, Paper GHGT 1202 (63), 76637676.
[27] Alagic, E., Skauge, A., 2010. Combined low salinity brine injection and surfactant flooding in mixed-wet
sandstone cores. Energ. Fuel. 24, 35513559.
[28] Alagic, E., Spildo, K., Skauge, A., Solbakken, J., 2011. Effect of crude oil ageing on low salinity and low
salinity surfactant flooding. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 78 (2), 220227.
[29] Aleidan, A., Mamora, D.D., 2010. SWACO2 and WACO2 efficiency improvement in carbonate cores by
lowering water salinity. Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, Paper SPE 137548.
[30] Al-Shalabi, E.W., Sepehrnoori, K., Delshad, M., Pope, G., 2014b. A novel method to model low-salinity-
water injection in carbonate oil reservoirs. SPE J. 20 (5),11541166.

https://fount.aucegypt.edu/urje/vol9/iss1/1 18
 Ali et al.: Low Salinity Water Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery
2
[31] Chandrasekhar , S., and K. K. Mohanty. "Wettability Alteration with Brine Composition in High
Temperature Carbonate Reservoirs." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/166280-MS
[32] Parkhurst, D.L., Appelo, C.A.J., 2013. Description of Input and Examples for PHREEQC Version 3—A
Computer Program for Speciation, Batch-Reaction One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical
Calculations. Chapter 43 of Section A Groundwater, Book 6 Modeling Techniques.
[33] Appelo, C.A.J., Postma, D., 2010. Geochemistry, Groundwater and Pollution. Second ed. Taylor & Francis
Group Plc, Boca Raton, FL.
[34] Ayirala, S., Yousef, A., 2015. A state-of-the-art review to develop injection-water chemistry requirement
guidelines for IOR/EOR projects. SPE Prod. Oper. 30 (1), 2642.
[35] Baker, L., 1988. Three-phase relative permeability correlations. SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, Paper SPE 17369.
[36] Al-Shalabi, E.W., Sepehrnoori, K., Pope, G., 2016. Numerical modeling of combined low salinity water and
carbon dioxide in carbonate cores. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 137, 157171.
[37] Dang, C.T.Q., Nghiem, L.X., Chen, Z., Nguyen, N.T.B., Nguyen, Q.P., 2014. CO2 low salinity water
alternating gas: A New Promising Approach for Enhanced Oil Recovery. SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA, Paper SPE 169071.
[38] Fjelde, I., Asen, S.M., 2010. Wettability alteration during water flooding and carbon dioxide flooding of
reservoir chalk rocks. SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, Paper SPE
130992.
[39] Jiang, H., Nuryaningsih, L., Adidharma, H., 2010. The effect of salinity of injection brine on water alternating
gas performance in tertiary miscible carbonate dioxide flooding: Experimental Study. SPE Western Regional
Meeting, California, USA, Paper SPE 132369.
[40] Jose, S.R., Gachuz-Muro, H., Sohrabi, M., 2015. Application of low salinity water injection in heavy oil
carbonate. SPE EUROPEC, Madrid, Spain, Paper SPE 174391.
[41] Khanamiri, H.H., Torsaeter, O., Stensen, J.A., 2015. Experimental study of low salinity and optimal salinity
surfactant injection. SPE EUROPEC, Madrid, Spain, Paper SPE 174367.
[42] Kulkarni, M.M., Rao, D.N., 2005. Experimental investigation of miscible and immiscible water-alternation-
gas (WAG) process performance. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 48 (1), 120.
[43] Mohammadi, H., Jerauld, G.R., 2012. Mechanistic modeling of the benefit of combining polymer with low
salinity water for enhanced oil recovery. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, Paper
SPE 153161.
[44] Spildo, K. Johannessen, A.M., Skauge, A., 2012. Low salinity waterflood at reduced capillary. SPE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, Paper SPE 154236.173801.

2 Thanks for S. Chandrasekhar for allowing us open access to his paper

Published by AUC Knowledge Fountain, 2023 19

View publication stats