 Brine-Dependent Recovery Processes (Smart-Water/Low-Salinity-Water) in Carbonate and Sandstone Petroleum Reservoirs: Review of Laboratory-Field Studies, Interfacial Mechanisms and Modeling Attempts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brine-dependent recovery process has seen much global research efforts in the past two decades because of their benefits over other oil recovery methods. The process involves the tweaking of the ionic composition and strength of the injected water to improve oil production. In recent years, several studies ranging from laboratory coreflood experiments by many researchers to field trials by several companies admit to the potential of recovering additional oil in sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. Sandstone and carbonate rocks are composed of completely different minerals, with varying degree of complexity and heterogeneity, but wettability alteration has been widely considered as the consequence rather than the cause of brine-dependent recovery. However, there is no consensus on the cause as several mechanisms have been proposed to relate the wettability changes to the improved recovery. This review paper aims to provide a state-of-the-art development in published research and various efforts of the industry. This review outlines an overview of laboratory and field observations, descriptions of underlying mechanisms and their validity, the complexity of the oil-brine-rock interactions, modelling works, and comparison between sandstone and carbonate rocks. The provided information is intended to provide the reader with up-to-date information, point to relevant studies for those who are new and those implementing either laboratory- or field-scale projects to speed up the process of further investigations in this research area. Overall, the outcome of this review would potentially be of immense benefit to the oil industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".