Low-Salinity Waterflooding for EOR in Field A of Western Offshore Basin: A Pilot Study Analysis with Laboratory and Simulation Studies—Early Observations
Bibliographic record
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 factors like salinity, mineralogy, and crude oil composition pose unique challenges compared to other LSWF applications. These detailed data fill a critical gap in the existing literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".