SPE 129531

How EOR Can be Transformed by Nanotechnology

A.J.P. Fletcher, SPE, Parr Systems Pty. Ltd., and J.P. Davis, University of Bristol
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 2428 April 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE
copyright.


Abstract
Nanotechnology has the potential to transform EOR mechanisms and processes. At present
there are two major nanotechnology paradigms derived from mechanical engineering and the
biological sciences perspectives. However, a new focus within nanotechnology is emerging which
could be called geomimetics. We can define geomimetics as employing the principles of
geosystems to create and develop new and novel processes and materials. In a wider sense this
involves copying the principles of geosystems into technology to compliment the natural
environment.
This geomimetic perspective of nanotechnology incorporates the long and distinguished
history of colloid and surface science that has underpinned oil recovery and EOR. We give a
concise definition of nanotechnology and demonstrate how it is applicable to EOR.
Through consideration of complexity and systems thinking, we develop a process based
method of representing complicated phenomena to help identify the critical processes which
control EOR. We construct a hierarchy from fundamental surface forces leading up to processes
such as coalescence, phase swelling and film drainage. This hierarchy constitutes a mapping from
fundamental molecular forces onto petroleum engineering concepts. In general this hierarchy is
spatially-temporally ordered, although particular attention to the overall context and fluid / rock
history is needed when mapping wetting and spreading phenomena. We identify critical processes
and identify performance measurement criteria to monitor these processes.
We present a conceptual study and demonstrate how nanoscale processes can impact flow
behaviour. We introduce the concept of Q analysis and highlight the importance of metaphorical
discourse. Processes at the nanometre micrometre scale including wettability, coalescence,
Marangoni phenomena, mass transfer effects and transient phenomena are related to EOR.
We argue it is at this scale, and with these phenomena, that an understanding of oil phase
distribution, oil drop mobilisation, oil bank formation and oil bank migration is to be achieved for
EOR processes.
We outline the potential of nanotechnology to transform the design and execution of
chemical EOR. Through nanotechnology, we make explicit the connection between the
disciplined study of fundamental molecular forces and the practical application of petroleum
engineering.

Introduction

In many oil producing regions of the world we have reached the stage where the total rate
of production is nearing the decline phase [Hite et. al., 2005]. The older and larger fields face
abandonment with 50%+ of the original oil in place (OOIP) un-recovered. This situation provides
a major challenge: how to extract more oil economically and delay abandonment.
Chemical enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has been a tantalising possibility for decades, but
sustained low oil prices for much of the 1980s and 1990s made the technology too expensive and
risky as a commercial proposition [Thomas, 2005].
The most common method for secondary oil recovery throughout the world is water
flooding implemented early during the primary production phase [Thomas, 2005]. In water
flooding, water is forced down injection wells in order to a) maintain reservoir pressure above the
bubble point, and b) sweep the oil towards the producing wells. The oil is swept slowly (30
cm/day) through microscopic (1-100m) porous media and channels that constitute the
reservoir. Many areas are missed at the macroscopic scale (1-10m) due to poor sweep efficiency,
and much oil is retained at the microscopic scale due to poor displacement efficiency.
The three main categories of EOR are thermal, chemical and miscible or immiscible gas
[Lake et. al., 1992]. Chemical enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has a substantial history [Lake et.
al., 1992; Thomas, 2005; Du and Guan, 2004; Hite et. al. , 2005] and a track record of application.
Much of the application was undertaken in the 1980s during the last period of 2
SPE
129531
sustained high oil prices. Some contemporary projects have yielded impressive technical
and commercial success at todays moderately high oil prices.
EOR techniques are designed to increase oil recovery above the secondary oil-recovery
base line. Chemical EOR includes the use of polymers, surfactants and alkali. Even small amounts
of some surfactants can drastically lower the surface tension of the oil / water interface, which
greatly improves the microscopic displacement efficiency (increasing the capillary number) and
allows much lower pressures to be used to push the oil through the pores. Polymer additives can
increase the viscosity of water (increasing the capillary number and mobility ratio), which is
needed to increase macroscopic sweep efficiency.
Polymer also acts to improve conformance of water floods in reservoir rocks exhibiting
permeability heterogeneity, particularly in layered and channeled systems. Processes occurring at
the solid / fluid interfaces are also important. The formation of thick interstitial-water films and the
adsorption of surfactants and polymers lead to changes in the wettability of the rock surface
[Morrow, 1990a].
In summary, chemical EOR aims to either a) increase the capillary number (Nc) to
mobilise residual oil, or b) decrease the mobility ratio (M) for better sweep efficiency, or c)
improve conformance in heterogeneous reservoirs for better sweep efficiency.
In this paper we focus on systems thinking. A system is an integration of elements from
which new behaviour emerges
[Davis and Fletcher, 2000; Fletcher and Davis, 2002; Davis and Hall, 2003; Fletcher and
Davis, 2008]. Systems thinking addresses how things fit together and interact, of what makes a
collection of parts different from a whole, and what happens when you consider the whole rather
than the parts. It looks at both entities and relationships but is much more interested in the
relationships than the entities.

Table 1: Concepts of Systems Thinking

Uncertainty
A property of information randomness, fuzziness, conflict, incompleteness and relevance
Risk
The likelihood of an uncertain event or behaviour, and its consequences for our intended
purpose
or objectives, set in a context that needs to be understood
Vulnerability
Susceptibility to disproportionate damage from an event or behaviour
Hazard
A set of incubating preconditions for failure
Surprise
An unexpected event an unrecognised risk

A systems methodology that is both quantitative and qualitative has been developed [Davis
and Fletcher, 2000; Fletcher and Davis, 2003; Davis, Shenton and Fletcher, 2004; Marashi and
Davis, 2005; Marashi and Davis, 2006a and Marashi and Davis, 2006b]. On one side we are
professional engineers, scientists and managers looking for numbers that capture a definite
external reality of the world; on the other side we realize that some concepts simply cannot be
meaningfully expressed in numerical terms. The basis of our systems approach is that we try to
reconcile these two positions in one framework using concepts such as risk, uncertainty,
vulnerability, hazard and surprise as defined in Table 1.

Table 2: The Nature of Uncertainty

Randomness
Lack of a specific pattern in the data or evidence.


E.g. there is noise in the log response, digital photograph or message.
Vagueness
Imprecision of definition
E.g. are we talking about low permeability, 10mD, 10.07mD, or a low permeability streak
in a high permeability matrix? Or will it be a minor cost, or $10,000, or $8,472.95?
Conflict
Equivocation, ambiguity, anomaly or inconsistency in the data or evidence.
E.g. there is a major difference in the log and core derived permeability
Incompleteness
That which we do not know, know we do not know, do not know we do not know
E.g. we are unable to define all the possible alternatives, an effect left out of our model.
Relevance
Issues and information that may or may not impact on the proposition addressed.
E.g. data becomes evidence only when it is relevant to one or more of the hypotheses
being
considered. Evidence is relevant on some hypothesis if it either increases or decreases the
likeliness of the hypothesis.

Risk is an important concept. However, quantitative risk assessment methodologies are
often highly challenged when there are major uncertainties; such as in the application of new
technologies [Davis and Fletcher, 2000; Fletcher and Davis, 2002; Davis and Hall, 2003; Hall et.
al., 2004]. There are many faces of uncertainty as summarised in Table 2. Traditional science and
engineering tends to focus on randomness as the cause of uncertainty. However, in complex
problems such as the scale up and application of new technologies, issues of human judgment,
interpretation and choice are critical elements in the process. In reality, most of the uncertainty we
experience about decision-making in the real world cannot usually be attributed to the influence of
random mechanisms at all, which seriously undermines the general applicability and dependability
of probabilistic reasoning approaches. Rather it seems to stem from an inherent vagueness, or lack
of information [Casti, 1992; Casti, 1994], either in the linguistic description or in other
circumstances surrounding the situations we find ourselves confronting.


SPE 129531

3
The key concept of systems thinking in our approach is that a hierarchy is constructed of
wholes which are built up of smaller entities which are themselves wholes; each level in the
hierarchy defining the level of description of the system. The hierarchically organised whole,
having emergent properties, is able to survive in a changing environment if it has communication
and control in place. It means that the Holons (the term for the wholes coined by Koestler [1968])
should be able to transfer information among themselves and retain their identity and performance
under changing circumstances. In this way, a system can be defined as an entity that maintains its
existence and functions as a whole through the interaction of its parts.
A systems representation of EOR screening is shown in Figure 1. The process of selecting
the EOR approach is decomposed into various issues, options and arguments.



Figure 1: Systems Representation of EOR Screening Process

A system is not only a composition of unity out of diversity, but also a composition of
internal diversity out of unity
[Morin, 1992]. Systems thinking can be extended to include human factors. In this way we
can begin to see a way of capturing the complexity of the organisation. Hierarchy gives a handle on
complexity, emergence allows the social functioning of the organisation to be captured;
communication takes the form of strategy down, consequences up, while control begins to touch
on the issues of performance management.
In this paper we distinguish two aspects of nanotechnology. Firstly, we acknowledge the
importance of nanotechnology in general, where the application of nano-devices and materials
could transform oil production. Secondly, we focus on defining and explicating what
nanotechnology means in terms of petroleum engineering. Thus we identify how oil recovery
depends on nano-scale processes.
The next section defines and explains nanotechnology as it impacts upon oil recover. We
then discuss why EOR
processes are so complicated and stress the scale-up of these processes from the nano-scale
to the macro-scale.
We address the key question of how to represent EOR and nanotechnology. Concepts of
complexity and hierarchy are explained and we introduce Q analysis as a way of representing the
problem structure. An illustrative application is presented where use is made of these concepts in
the context of chemical EOR.

Nanotechnology and Oil Recovery
Nanotechnology, in engineering terms, is concerned with the fabrication and use of devices
so small that the convenient unit of measurement is the nanometre (10-9 metre). We can define
nanotechnology [Bueno, 2004], in engineering terms, as the
direct control of materials and devices on the molecular and atomic scale.
Nanotechnology thus covers a wide range including fabrication of functional nanostructures with
engineered properties, synthesis and processing of nanoparticles, supramolecular chemistry, self
assembly and replication techniques, sintering of nanostructured alloys, use of quantum effects,
creation of chemical and biological templates and sensors, surface modification and films. Table 3
shows the major disciplines that have contributed to nanotechnology.
Underpinning the engineering focus above has been a convergence of traditional fields of
chemistry, physics and biology into nanoscience. However, this convergence has highlighted a
split between the science and engineering paradigms of nanotechnology.

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































4
SPE
129531
It is often asserted that the starting point for nanotechnology was the classic talk given by
Feynman [Bueno, 2004] in which he said: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not
speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom...It would be, in principle,
possible (I think) for a physicist to synthesize any chemical substance that the chemist writes down.
Give the orders and the physicist synthesizes it. How? Put the atoms down where the chemist says,
and so you make the substance." Today's champions of nanotech add: "We need to apply at the
molecular scale the concept that has demonstrated its effectiveness at the macroscopic scale:
making parts go where we want by putting them where we want!"

Table 3: Traditional Disciplines Important for Nanotechnology

Discipline
Inorganic Organic

Physics
Mesoscopic physics
Molecular Electronics

Lasers
Scanning electron microscopy
Atomic force microscopy
Electronics
Chemistry
Inorganic chemistry
Supramolecular chemistry

Aerosol science

Colloid science
Computer modelling
Biology
Biotechnology


Medicine
Mechanical Engineering
Precision engineering


Materials science

However, it was Drexler who initiated the nanotechnology debate, and consequent split
between the science and engineering paradigms of nanotechnology, with his 1986 extreme vision
of self-replicating nanobots based on molecular assemblers. The irony is that, as an engineer,
Drexler only provides theoretical artifacts, rather than physical ones. Smalley, as a chemist, insists
on the production of detectable and controllable effects, emphasising the need for accommodating
the actual chemical details that are part of the phenomenon [Bueno, 2004]. As a consequence,
nanotechnology is split into two incommensurate camps: an engineering perspective grounded on
manufacturing philosophies and a science perspective grounded, in the main, on biomimetic
principles. Biomimetics is defined as the copying the principles of life into technology, so as to
re-integrate technology into life. This perspective has underpinnings with the philosophy of
sustainability.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
NANOTECHNOLOGY
GEOMIMESIS
ENGINEERING
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
NANOCHEMISTRY
E
S
Physical
Sciences
S
E
C
BIOTECHNOLOGY
T
BIOMIMESIS
O
R
Life Sciences
MEDICAL & AGRICULTURAL SECTORS

Figure 2: Nanotechnology for the Resources Sector Introducing the Concept of
Geomimesis

However, this focus on biomimetics versus manufacturing engineering has resulted in
some marginalisation of those areas of porous media science upon which oil recovery depends.
These areas include much of colloid and interface science in SPE 129531

5
porous media upon which chemical EOR depends [Morrow, 1990(a); Morrow, 1990(b);
Hirasaki, 1990]. Just as petroleum engineering and reservoir engineering are distinctly not
grounded on the mechanical engineering manufacturing principles, so the nanotechnology
underpinning oil recovery is not grounded on nano-manufacturing principles. Chemical EOR
depends on the assembly of dispersed, disconnected residual oil into macroscopic, mobile oil
banks; a very different concept from device manufacture but completely in line with traditional
petroleum and reservoir engineering.
In one sense, as illustrated in Figure 2, we propose to resituate chemical EOR into a
nanotechnology perspective through the identification of an alternative paradigm geomimetics.
We can define geomimetics as: copying the principles of geosystems into technology, so as to
re-integrate technology into the environment.
There are environmental and sustainability issues associated with this perspective, but the
key technical focus is on how forces act within porous media in processes such as chemical EOR.
There are six principle forces as shown in Table 4.
Reviews [Krishnamoorti, 2006; Saggaf, 2008; Amanullah and Al-Tahini, 2009] have
highlighted the potential of nanotechnology in general for the oil industry. The focus is on
nanotechnology devices and materials. Nanostructured materials include drilling fluids (polymers
and surfactants), chemical EOR (polymer, surfactant and alkali) and wettability alteration. A
major role for sensors markers for imaging the reservoir at the nanoscale is discussed. A recent
comprehensive survey [Pourafshary et al., 2009], including a detailed technology tree has
outlined in detail the potential of nanotechnology.
Another review [Evdokimov et. al., 2006] shows how the oil can be regarded as a colloidal
system, introducing the concepts of association nano-colloids.
Traditional oil recovery understanding focuses on three forces: capillary, viscous and
gravity. Nanotechnology focuses on the nano-scale forces of coulombic interaction and disjoining
forces as shown in Table 4. We have included the Marangoni forces in this fundamental list.
Marangoni forces (forces that arise due to a gradient in a property such as concentration or
interfacial tension) highlight the importance of transient phenomena in EOR.

Table 4: Six Forces Relevant in EOR

Force
Nature of Force
Coulombic
The intermolecular forces. These comprise van der Waals forces: induced dipole (London),
dipole-dipole and hydrogen bonding forces. If polar molecules and ions are present then ion-dipole
and ionic bonding forces exist.
Disjoining
Forces associated with thin films due to the departure from bulk properties arising from the
influence of the surfaces. Includes steric and double layer forces as well as van der Waals forces
Marangoni
Forces that arise due to a gradient in a property such as concentration or interfacial tension.
An example of Marangoni forces is tears of wine the roll up of wine into droplets when swirled
around a clean glass.
Capillary
Forces resulting from the curvature of fluid interfaces which yields pressure differences
between the different fluid phases
Viscous
Forces associated with the viscosity contrast of fluids and responsible for the displacement
efficiency of one fluid by another
Gravity
Forces responsible for water / oil separation on the macroscopic scale due to density
differences, and hence buoyancy effects

The geomimetic perspective incorporates the six forces as set out in table 4. The
interrelationships of these six forces give rise to the complexity and issues of scale that are
characteristic of EOR processes. This complexity is the focus of the next section.

Complexity and Scale-Up of EOR Processes
As a general observation, EOR processes are considerably more complex as observed
compared to the theories and computer simulations employed to describe them. These processes
are scale depended from the nano-scale through to the macro-scale.

How the Nano-Scale Impacts on the Macro-Scale
It is well established that the wettability of reservoir rock plays a vital role in determining
the recovery efficiency of the displacement process. Wettability affects both the distribution of
hydrocarbon and aqueous phases within the rock matrix and the dynamics of displacement. Thus,
when macroscopic petrophysical parameters such as relative permeability and capillary pressure,
are derived for given crude oil/brine/rock systems, the forms of these are quite different for
different wettability conditions [Morrow, 1970; Morrow, 1990a; Abdallah et. al., 1997].
Wettability is central to the concept of geomimetic nanotechnology. Films are held at
surfaces by intermolecular forces, which act over a short range. As opposed to bulk liquid forces
held by capillary forces, these films are unlikely to be >100nm thick, and often 10-100 times
smaller [Morrow, 1990a; Morrow, 1990b]. Stability of water films is dependent on the pH, brine
composition and capillary pressure. Water soluble components such as soaps and asphaltenes, that
can alter the chemical charge at the s/f or f/f interfaces, can destabilise the thin water films. Stable
water films are typically only 1% or less of the pore volume. However, the importance of the
outermost molecules, whether water or adsorbed crude oil 6
SPE
129531
components, on the wetting properties of a surface is critical. Stability is dependent on the
balance between Van der Waals attractive forces and electrical repulsive forces. Hydration forces
may also play a role.
Contact angles of crude oil on mineral surfaces are strongly dependent on the stability and
properties of the water film between the oil and the solid. Wetting behaviour of reservoir rock
surfaces is strongly dependent on adsorption of crude oil components [Cuiec, 1990]. At the
nano-scale, the pore shape, mineralogy, roughness, water distribution and surface film behaviour
dominate oil recovery [Morrow, 1990a]. Because surface areas are small, measurements can be
seriously affected by equilibrium procedures and contaminants that alter adsorption behaviour.
The problem in modeling the effect of wettability on displacement is the great variety of recovery
behaviour that has been observed that, qualitatively, can be ascribed to wettability effects.
In mixed wet and oil wet systems connectivity is never completely lost. Oil continues to be
produced making displacement efficiency a continuous function of pore volumes injected
[Morrow, 1990b]. Gravity plays an important role in the movement of reservoir fluids both the
wetting and non-wetting phase. For processes that worked in the lab but failed in the field, the
value of residual oil saturation as calculated from material balance (reservoir or core laboratory
measurements) was often in question [Morrow, 1990b].
EOR is dependent on processes at the nano-scale in addition to micro and macro scales.
Although oil recovery needs to overcome capillary forces it is the boundary conditions (pore
geometry and wettability) and effects of instabilities of the associated interfaces that govern the oil
displacement at the microscale. Trapping of oil in water wet systems happens because the viscous
/ buoyancy forces acting locally cannot overcome the large capillary forces at small pore throats
within the rock that exist when the interfacial tension is high.
From numerous experiments, including micromodel studies, it is becoming clear that the
role of transient effects in oil displacement may be critical. Chemical EOR and wettability are
more complex than traditionally conceived and modeled.
Traditional science often ignores transients and evolutionary systems. The role of
Marangoni forces in chemical EOR may be central.

Visualisation of Processes
Flow visualization is one valuable approach to understand and model complex pore level
behaviour the multiplicity of causes yielding a great variety of effects.
The complexity of porous media interactions is illustrated in Table 5, an augmented
version of a figure derived from consideration of micro-modeling [Dawe and Grattoni, 1998;
Dawe, 1990]. Successful application of chemical EOR in the field depends on understanding how
the EOR processes act and scale in this complex environment.
The key experimental tools for determining the critical nano-scale and micro-scale oil
displacement mechanisms are adsorption and chemical potential, atomic force microscopy (AFM),
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), micromodels, CT
augmented core flooding.

Table 5: Interactions and Forces in Oil recovery and EOR

External Conditions
Interactions Forces

Initial conditions
Pore Structure
Coulombic

Gas oil water saturations
Porosity

and distribution
Permeability

Geometry

Heterogeneity
Disjoining
Anisotropy

Mineralogy


Marangoni
Applied conditions
Solid Fluid Interactions


Pressure gradient and flow
Wettability

rates
Adsorption

Cold
water
injection
Fluid
configurations
Capillary
Salinity
variations
Thin
films


Roll-up and spreading


Viscous
Reservoir history
Fluid Fluid Interactions


Sequences of fluid
Density
contrast

displacements and pressure /
Viscosity
ratio

temperature variations
Interfacial
tensions
Gravity
Mass
transfer

Interfacial and concentration
gradients
Coalescence

SPE 129531

7
Observations indicate that many hypotheses, descriptions and mechanistic assumptions
previously accepted are too simplistic. That the physical processes need to be understood at a
lower scale than that required to be predicted, as well as the actual level and possibly even one
higher level [Dawe and Grattoni, 1998; Dawe, 1990]. This is especially so for EOR
processes where dynamic and non-equilibrium interfacial effects are very important for the
remobilization of the residual oil phase. The roles of wettability and fluid spreading characteristics
are critical for multiphase flow in porous media and have often been neglected in the main.
That micromodels can employ binary systems with lower critical solubility temperatures to
study multi-contact miscible processes, where the chemicals either dissolve the oil/water
interfaces on first contact, or after a period of mass transfer involving initial diffusion and
interfacial instabilities (Marangoni effects) followed by swelling, coalescence and other
solubilisation effects including spontaneous emulsification of EOR reagents
Key questions that can be addressed through micro-modeling [Dawe and Grattoni, 1998;
Dawe, 1990] are: 1. How are fluids distributed in the pore space (the role of wettability, fluid
spreading etc.)
2. How does the oil move within the pore structure to the wellbore (mobilisation)
3. Why and when do the fluids stop moving (residual saturations, phase entrapment etc.)
4. Can the entrapped phase be remobilised (i.e. improved oil recovery)

One key element in characterising the mechanisms of oil displacement is the visualization
of the processes. Studies incorporating atomic force microscopy (AFM) and micromodeling are
important when investigating the following mechanisms: mass transfer; roll-up; swelling;
coalescence; emulsification and interfacial instabilities; film thinning (breaking and spreading)
and transport processes. In addition, the following phenomena can be investigated: transients;
irreversibility; fluid flow history and inter-relationships; and chemical, mineralogical and
topological complexity. Ultrafast video AFM can now image processes in the milli-second range
[Humphris et. al., 2005].

Nanotechnology and EOR
The traditional roles of petroleum science and petroleum engineering are highlighted blue
in Table 6. A column representing nanotechnology has been added on the left. This includes
nanoscience in the top left hand corner. A lower row has been added to represent EOR and
wettability. This incorporates issues from the nanoscale up to the field scale. The tools appropriate
for various scales are included in the figure.

Table 6: Nanoscience, EOR and Wettability in Relation to Traditional Petroleum
Engineering

Nano-Science
Petroleum Science
Petroleum Engineering



Adsorption
Capillary Pressure
OOIP
Chemical Potential
Relative Permeability
Recovery factor
Disjoining Forces
Sw, So, Sg
Production Rates
Wetting Films
SCAL / Core Analysis

Osmosis
Fluid Properties
OPEX
Gauss Equation
CAPEX
Laplace Equation Gravity Forces

Young Equation
Wells and Facilities
Kelvin Equation Up-Scaling

EOR and Wettability
EOR and Wettability
EOR and Wettability
(Nano - Pore Scale)
(Pore Core Scale)
(Core Field Scale)



Adsorption
Mass Transfer
Design and Execution of Chemical

Roll-up
EOR and Wettability in the Field
Interfacial Tensions
Swelling

Phase Behaviour
Coalescence
Residual Oil Saturation in the

Emulsification
Reservoir
Contact Angles
Marangoni Forces

Thin Films

Baseline waterflood
Wettability Alteration
Oil drop mobilisation
Oil bank formation EOR processes in the field
Oil bank mobility
Explicit and tacit knowledge


Adsorption AFM Micro-Models NMR Corefloods Logs Seismic




8
SPE
129531
Table 6 includes tools, techniques and concepts appropriate for nano-science, petroleum
science and petroleum engineering. Key concepts include the use of equations from colloid and
interface science. These are those of Gauss, Laplace, Young and Kelvin, and are believed to be
valid down to nano-scales, and are shown in the top left box. The central lower box of EOR and
wettability at the pore core scale, is the heart of the EOR approach. The physics and chemistry
that underpin the mobilization of oil droplets to form an oil bank, together with the engineering
that ensures the oil bank remains mobile, are underpinned by nanotechnology together with
transient phenomena. The bottom right hand box summarises the petroleum engineering issues for
EOR. These include the key questions of residual oil location and saturation, understanding the
waterflood (or gas flood) and understanding the EOR processes in the field, along with their
scaling.
The scale up of science to engineering requires integration of all 6 boxes Table 6. It is
essential to understand how the oil displacement mechanisms scale up to the practical macroscopic
petroleum engineering level.



Figure 3: Process Model of Oil Bank Formation: Focus on Hydrodynamic
Instabilities and Ganglion Mobilisation

A systems representation of oil bank formation is shown in part in Figure 3. The process of
oil bank formation is decomposed into three sub-processes: understanding why flow has stopped
and the oil phase broken up; how to mobilize the oil ganglion; and how to coalesce the ganglion
into a flowing oil bank [Dawe, 1990]. The ganglion mobilisation process is broken down into three
processes: understanding capillary effects; understanding hydrodynamic instabilities; and
understanding Marangoni effects. In this model we focus on hydrodynamic instabilities. We
address issues of equilibrium verses non-equilibrium behaviours, together with uniform and
non-uniform phase distributions. These issues depend, in part, on hydrodynamic dispersion;
concentration gradients and rate of change of concentration; and inhomogeneous permeabilitys.
The complexity of EOR processes, and their dependence in part on transient phenomena, is
illustrated in Figure 3. In the next section we present of techniques and methods of representing
complexity of EOR processes.

Representing Complexity of EOR and Nanotechnology Introduction of Concepts
It is important to recognise and represent the complexity of EOR processes, and
nanotechnology in general. In this Section we summarise some important approaches to the
representation, and hence communication and application, of EOR
processes. Some of the key problems and difficulties associated with describing EOR
processes can be related to the structure of the problem. Here we focus on how structural
considerations can assist in characterising EOR processes from the nano to the macro scales. We
use two contrasting aspects of Complexity Theory:

The language of complexity theory as metaphorical discourse (as discussed in Table 7).
The mathematics of Q analysis to describe structure.

SPE 129531

9
Model, Analogy and Metaphor
The use of analogy and metaphor in both business and technical sides of the oil industry
has been discussed in detail
[Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2004; Jackson, 2000]. Many Japanese companies attribute their
technical and commercial success to creativity and innovation resulting from figurative language
including metaphor and analogy. In nanotechnology, the old discipline based concepts of science
and engineering are replaced. Instead of the vertically structured disciplines with ever greater
precision and detail the deeper one proceeds, emphasis is placed on the horizontal communication
between disciplines with the focus on nano-scale processes. It is clearly impossible for any
individual to master in-depth knowledge in all science and engineering disciplines, hence the need
to communicate concepts at higher levels. Hence communication between specialists will
increasingly rely on metaphor and analogy.
Nonaka has described [Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2004] the use of metaphor : One kind of
figurative language that is especially important is metaphor. Metaphor is a distinctive method of
perception. It is a way for individuals grounded in different contexts and with different expressions
to understand something intuitively through the use of imagination and symbols without the need
for analysis or generalization. Through metaphors, people put together what they know in new
ways and begin to express what they know but cannot yet say. As such, metaphor is highly effective
in fostering direct commitment to the creative process in the early stages of knowledge creation.
Metaphor accomplishes this by merging two different and distant areas of experience into a single,
inclusive image or symbol. By establishing a connection between two things that seem only
distantly related, metaphors set up a discrepancy or conflict. Often, metaphoric images have
multiple meanings, appear logically contradictory or even irrational. But far from being a
weakness, this is in fact an enormous strength. For it is the very conflict that metaphors embody
that jump-starts the creative process.
Table 7: Use of Metaphor, Analogy and Model in Oil Recovery

Metaphor
Allows intuitive understanding through the use of imagination and symbols. It is a way for
individuals grounded in different contexts and with different expressions to understand
something
intuitively through the use of imagination and symbols without the need for analysis or
generalization. Metaphorical discourse is a key component in the use of Q analysis.
E.g. Theory of oil field evolution - identification of oil production and EOR with processes
usually associated with biology. (This metaphor has been used in the automobile industry
[Takeuchi and
Nonaka, 2004])
Analogy
Clarifies how two ideas or objects are alike or not alike. Analogy is a more structured
process of
reconciling contradictions and making distinctions. Analogy is an intermediate step
between pure
imagination and logical thinking.
E.g. Selection of oilfield analogues where one field is believed to exhibit a range of
characteristics in common with another (often well characterized) field.
Model
Relates concepts and ideas in a logical (sometimes mathematical) framework. Includes
geological
and reservoir models where scientific and engineering concepts are related in a detailed
and
rigourous framework.
E.g. The traditional geological and reservoir engineering models used in oil production,
including reservoir simulations.

Table 7 summarises the characteristics of metaphor, analogy and model as used in this
paper. The concepts of analogy (as in field analogues) and model (as in geological or reservoir
model) are more familiar in the oil industry. The key point we note is that deep mathematics based
models are neither necessary nor sufficient for the communication and application of complex
scientific and engineering processes.
Four Types of Complexity
Complexity Theory identifies different kinds of complexity. Complexity as it relates to
EOR is summarized in Table 8, where four distinct types of complexity are identified.
The oil industry traditionally focuses on static complexity in geological and reservoir
simulation modeling. Some attention is drawn to dynamic complexity [Saleri, 1996] in reservoir
simulation. However, using metaphorical discourse we can relate some EOR processes to both
evolutionary complexity and self organizing complexity. For example, the physico-chemical
changes of the reservoir during waterflood and the irreversible fluid flooding history dependent
nature of these changes are evolutionary complexity. Likewise, formation of a flowing oil bank
from mobilization and coalescence of individual oil ganglion in EOR processes is self organizing
complexity.

Hierarchy and Holons
Hierarchy is a disarmingly simple concept, but one which encompasses an enormous
degree of both illumination and complexity. As we start to define the sets of elements of a problem
we notice the ideas and concepts take on a hierarchical arrangement. Some of the terms and
concepts we use seem to be at a higher or more general level than those lower down.
However, we do not necessarily construct a tree, where each element at the N level is
connected exclusively to one element at the higher N+1 level. For example, whilst a person is
composed of various systems including a nervous system, a circulatory system and a skeletal
system, that person is a whole an individual. Also, a person is also part of a family, company or
university, and a nation state.
10
SPE
129531
A partial hierarchy of EOR processes is given in Table 3. In this example the static
reservoir properties such as temperature (T), pressure (P) and chemical potential () lay below the
porous media related elements. Thus chemical potential () connects to the concepts of curvature
(C) and stress state (). The dynamic properties such as mass transfer (MT) and Marangoni (M)
effects reside above the porous media elements, with the evolutionary properties such as fluid
history (FH) at the highest level. However, this structure is not unique. We argue that the difficulty
in constructing a generally applicable hierarchy of EOR processes at the nano-scale is indicative of
process complexity.


Table 8: Complexity of EOR Processes

Static
Focuses on the complex structure of static, fixed systems. Static complexity can often be
associated with complicated systems.

E.g. Complex geological systems where the complexity arises from structural,
depositional or mineralogical heterogeneity.
Dynamic
Adds the fourth dimension of time to the static structure above. Traditionally, reproducible
cyclic processes are valued more than transient or ephemeral processes.

E.g. Oil displacement by brine in porous media. Also includes coalescence, Marangoni
phenomena, mass transfer effects and transient phenomena in EOR processes
Evolutionary
System that evolve through time. Traditionally associated with organic systems (life) but
can also be associated metaphorically with the irreversible and history dependent processes of
waterflooding and gas flooding.

E.g. The physico-chemical changes of the reservoir during waterflood. The irreversible
and fluid flooding history dependent nature of these changes.

Self
Systems through which processes of attraction and repulsion lead to increases in
complexity and
Organising
organization without outside guidance or management. In chemistry this is identified with
self-assembly: in Complexity
physics with phase transitions such as crystallization.

E.g. Formation of a flowing oil bank from mobilization and coalescence of individual oil
ganglion in EOR
processes. Many EOR processes assume an oil bank forms naturally.


In this paper we make use of the concept of holons [Fletcher and Davis, 2002; Fletcher and
Davis, 2008]. Koestler [1968]
was the first to suggest the term holon to describe the idea that something can
simultaneously be a whole and yet part of something larger. We regard holons as processes and as
parts of other holons. Simultaneously a holon is a whole and made up of sub-process holons. All
holons have action and reaction, whilst some (social holons) have intentionality. Holons change
through time and a description at a point in time is a snapshot of the state of the process.


FH
Evolutionary
MT
Dynamic
C

PM Structural

Static
T
P


Figure 4: Schematic for EOR Process Hierarchy with: Temperature (T), Pressure
(P), Chemical Potential (), Curvature (C), Stress State (), Mass transfer (MT) and Fluid
History (FH).

Complexity in EOR is often associated with the many to many mappings between the
hierarchical layers. In particular, wettability has numerous complex causes and many complex
effects, as discussed earlier.
We summarise the value of holonic modeling [Fletcher and Davis, 2003; Fletcher and
Davis, 2008] as:

SPE 129531

11
Helping us describe complex systems simply;
Can be used for both hard physical systems and soft systems involving people, and to
combine them;
Enables us to clarify relationships and accountability;
Useful in mapping paths of change from where we are now to where we want to get to;
Are a means of identifying added value as an emergent property in dialectical argument;
Are particularly useful in managing co-operative systems.

Q Analysis and Structure
Q analysis, as developed by the mathematician Ron Atkins during the 1970s [Atkin, 1974;
Atkin, 1981a, and Atkin, 1981b]
can address the complexity of EOR and nanotechnology. Unlike most mathematical
systems used in the oil industry derived from the classical dynamical system based Newtonian
paradigm, Atkins approach is based on geometry. Instead of the systems local dynamics we are
interested in the global geometry. The Q analysis we discuss here has nothing to do with Q-mode
factor analysis, or Q-sort technique, or q applications in seismic.
Q analysis is a descriptive and analytical language of structure focusing on definitions, set
relations and hierarchical structures. Q analysis employs algebraic topology to represent high
dimensional structural problems in terms of simplicial complexes.
In mathematics, a simplicial complex is a topological space of a particular kind, built up of
points, line segments, triangles, and their n-dimensional counterparts. Informally, a simplicial
complex is made of a set of simplices that intersect with each other only by their common faces. In
algebraic topology these spaces are found to be the easiest to deal with, in terms of concrete
calculations.
Q analysis, like much of Complexity Theory, is not without controversy. Nevertheless Q
analysis has an impressive record of application to complex problems in many diverse disciplines.
Excellent introductions to Q analysis are given available [Casti, 1992; Casti, 1994]. The wider
potential of the approach is discussed in detail [Gould, 1980]. A succinct summary of both the
mathematics and the role of metaphorical discourse have been published [Legrand, 2002]. There
are a number of applications of Q analysis in a variety of fields [Albrecht, 1997; Pattison and
Wasserman, 1999; Robins and Pattison]
Q Analysis can be summarised as follows. Mathematical languages of traditional
differential and integral calculus, of inferential and descriptive statistics, are essentially
quantitative languages employing real numbers extensively. The algebraic languages (such as Q
analysis) are essentially non-quantitative, and measurement in a well defined metric sense is not a
prerequisite for their use. They are available to describe in precise and well defined terms, the
structure of things, how things are connected together, but the use of numbers is a descriptive
option, available when we need it, but not essential to our analyses. Good description is
explanation, for the intellectual content and meaning of the word explanation implies a description
of relation between things. The algebraic languages rest upon definitions rooted in the value-laden,
pragmatic soil of human utility and curiosity. Q analysis is above all a language; a language
making severe demands of definition, forcing the researcher to clarify, to define, to sort out the
observations before the analysis even begins.
Q Analysis can be contrasted with more conventional statistical techniques [Gould, 1980].
One can construct the multi-dimensional geometry of relations contained in a scatter diagram. But
conventional approaches usually invoke a theory of error from physical sciences, and fit a line, a
linear function, that is meant to represent the relation which is actually and truly described by the
multi-dimensional geometry. Thus we have replaced our rich geometry with a series of n,
zero-dimensional, completely disconnected simplices that lookalike.

Application and Case Study of EOR and Nanotechnology
This case study is a constructed case from a number of field case histories [Fletcher, 1978;
Fletcher and Rogers, 1989; Fletcher et. al., 1991; Fletcher et. al., 1992a; Fletcher et. al., 1992b;
Fletcher et. al., 1992c; Lund et. al., 1992; Fletcher and Morrison, 2008; Fletcher and Davis, 2008]
in order to illustrate the following. Firstly, we illustrate the concept of in-depth flow diversion as
an EOR approach. This approach exploits geomechanical, fluid chemistry and nanotechnology
interrelationships. Secondly, we demonstrate the value of metaphorical discourse and Q analysis
in creative and innovative application of nanotechnology in EOR.

The Problem
Some fields prove particularly difficult to select an appropriate EOR process for
application. Their properties do not lend themselves to any obvious technique. Table 9 shows the
properties of field Z. Application of chemical, thermal or miscible EOR techniques present major
problems as assessed by traditional screening criteria [Taber, 1997a; Taber, 1997b].
Table 9 assesses the field in terms of which particular techniques are appropriate for a
given field characteristic. We can represent the techniques and field characteristics as the columns
and rows of an incidence matrix, and see how each element or field characteristic is related to the
various EOR approaches. Each field characteristic is defined for the specific purpose at hand,
namely the analysis of which EOR technique is suited to the set of field characteristics, as a subset
of points in the set of EOR techniques. Thus we can represent each EOR technique as a geometric
figure called a simplex [Gould, 1980]. For example, A is defined as a three dimensional simplex or
3 simplex representing surfactant EOR with field characteristics 2, 4, 12
SPE
129531
7 and 14. F is the one dimensional simplex representing thermal EOR. Figure 5 is the
simplicial complex [Gould, 1980] for the set of simplexes of EOR techniques.
The simplicial complex can be interpreted. Firstly the simplexes are of low dimensionality.
A readily applicable EOR
technique would be expected to exhibit very high dimensionality [Gould, 1980] of at least
14+. Thus we conclude, as already known, that field Z is not readily amenable to EOR. The
simplex E is the key to the problem. The simplex is made up of field characteristics that do not
readily fit into any conventional EOR approach. These are: low permeability (3), high salinity and
hardness (5), large well spacing (8), high clay content (11) and thermally fractured (13). In
addition, the field is too shallow for miscible EOR and very light oil for thermal EOR.

Table 9: Properties of Field Z and Possible EOR Processes

Property
No Surfactant
CO2
Low salinity
Polymer
New EOR
Thermal

A
B
C
D
E
F
Environmental Impact
1 0
1
0
0 0
0
Low Viscosity Oil
2 1
0
1
0 0
0
Low Permeability
3 0
0
0
0 1
0
Med-High Temperature
4 1
0
0
0 0
0
High Salinity / Hardness
5 0
0
0
0 1
0
Major Carb. Cementation
6 0
1
0
0 0
1
High Oil Gravity
7 1
0
0
0 0
0
Large Well Spacing
8 0
0
0
0 1
0
Poor Geological Definition
9 0
0
1
1 0
1
CO2 Availability
10 0
1
0
0 0
0
High Clay Content
11 0
0
0
0 1
0
Layered Reservoir
12 0
0
0
1 0
0
Extensive Thermal Fractures
13 0
0
0
0 1
0
Low Sal Brine Available
14 1
0
1
0 0
0
High Res Heterogeneity
15 0
0
0
1 0
0
Moderate Pressure
16 0
0
0
0 0
1

The problem is thus defined. Can we construct an EOR approach that takes the negative
characteristics of low permeability, high salinity and hardness, large well spacing, high clay
content and thermally fractured reservoir, and make them positives for the application?

Figure 5: Simplicial Complex from Q Analysis of EOR processes for Field Z

The Solution
We addressed the problem of EOR for field Z with creative and critical thinking
approaches. Table 10 lists the hierarchy of approaches that can be used as defined by Boje [1991].
We adopted a deconstruction approach (level 4 in the table) where we deconstructed the polymer
EOR mobility control criteria and juxtaposed this with the known reservoir parameters and
problems. Part of the deconstruction approach forces one to identify parameters or issues that are
sidelined or marginalized in the primary hierarchy. We believe Q analysis and deconstruction
exhibit many similarities in method.
Several elements of hitherto unrelated research ideas were brought together:

1. The interrelationship between adsorption and mechanical properties has been known for
some time. Benedicts [1951]
notes that surfactant solutions can alter the surface stress of glass. Dunning [1961]
demonstrates that surface tension is directly equivalent to the surface free energy, but surface
tension does not equal the surface stress. In small crystals SPE 129531

13
surface stress is relieved by dislocations near the surface. Adsorption of surfactant will
alter surface stress and hence mechanical properties [Fletcher, 1978] of the medium. The tensile
strength of solids decreases with increase in the surface tension of liquids wetting them [Dunning,
1961]. In addition, if dislocations are generated more easily at the surface than in the bulk, the ease
of creation will depend on surface energetics.
Table 10: Levels of Creative and Critical Thinking


Creative Approach
Mathematical Equivalents of Work Reported in this Paper

Level 1
Undialectic - debate
Traditional Approaches
Level 2
Systems thinking
Interval Probability
Level 3
Dialectic Interval
Probability
Level 4
Deconstruction Q
Analysis
Level 5
Nietzschean
Not applicable this paper
Level 6
Integrating Qualitative
Not applicable this paper
and Quantitative

2. The interrelationships of fluid chemistry, stress state and microseismics were
investigated in the early 1990s
[Elphick, et. al., 1992]. In fact it was recognized that the stress state of a reservoir impacts
on both the geology and fluid flow properties as illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6 was originally
presented as a schema for investigating how geology impacts on reservoir performance [Brown,
1992; Fletcher, 1992c]. We now present this as a possible schema for integrating nanoscience and
geoscience into reservoir engineering. The top left hand of the triangle is focused on fluid flow and
chemistry in porous media including nanoscience. The bottom left hand of the triangle is focused
on geoscience. The interaction between top and bottom can be dialectical as discussed previously
[Fletcher and Davis, 2003; Fletcher and Davis, 2008]. As we progress from left to right we move
from science to reservoir and petroleum engineering. The appropriate handling of uncertainty is
key to successful field application of chemical EOR. A systems framework which can incorporate
the tacit knowledge and experience from the 1980s is one way of reducing uncertainty.

Fluid
Bulk liquid
EOR process design
for field application
Wetting/
Thin films
Ta
Electric double
c
layer
Re
it
ser
/ H
v
a
EOR process
Adsorption
oi
rd
r
K
understanding in a
New and viable
Field EOR application
and Disjoining
Str
n
complex reservoir
e
o
EOR processes
ss
wl
setting
e
Precipitation
St
d
a
g
Crystallization
t
e
e
Microseismics
Dislocations
Bulk solid
Rock

Figure 6: Schema for Investigating how Stress State Impacts on Fluid Flow and
Geology

3. The importance of fractures on polymer injectivity was investigated in the early 1990s
[Fletcher, et. al., 1992a] both experimentally and through reservoir simulation. Recent studies
have confirmed the importance of fractures on polymer injectivity [Seright, et. al., 2008]. The
existence of thermal fractures was found to significantly enhance the injectivity of polymers and
avoid blockage of the formation.
4. The use of polymer gels for in-depth profile modification was also investigated in the
early 1990s [Fletcher et. al., 1992b] in work unrelated to the thermal fracturing work above. It
proved possible to utilize thermal gradients to initiate gelation, but control and propagation of low
concentrations of polymer cross-linker proved problematic. The effectiveness of in-depth profile
modification was demonstrated by reservoir simulation in 2002 [Woods et. al., 2002].

14
SPE
129531
Deconstructing the problem highlighted the importance of the fracture network. The
waterflood was reconstructed with the fracture network assigned central importance in the
conceptual model. With this new conceptual understanding we revisited EOR screening criteria.
With the importance of fractures highlighted, we discover that many of the reservoir
parameters which initially presented problems for polymer EOR were in fact ideal for a new and
novel approach. In fact the five parameters (low permeability, high salinity and hardness, large
well spacing, high clay content and thermally fractured) that constituted the EOR approach E were
all now beneficial to an in-depth profile modification strategy. This approach utilized the fact that
most of the brine entered the reservoir via the fracture network entering the rock matrix some
distance from the injectors. If we could control this leak-off, redirecting the waterflood into
previously unswept zones, we could design an effective EOR project.
In summary, when induced fractures are taken into account with the heterogeneity and
waterflood configuration, we were able to construct a strong conceptual case for the
implementation of polymer EOR for in-depth profile modification. The high resistance factors
(RF), residual resistance factors (RRF) and adsorption resulting from the low permeability rock
matrix and other geological parameters, can interact positively with the fractures in the waterflood
and the reservoir heterogeneity resulting in significant unswept zones deep within the reservoir.

Summary
We have outlined the potential of nanotechnology to transform the design and execution of
chemical EOR. Two aspects of nanotechnology were distinguished. Firstly, we acknowledged the
importance of nanotechnology in general, where the application of nano-devices and materials
could transform oil production. Secondly, we focused on defining and explicating what
nanotechnology means in terms of petroleum engineering.
A new focus within nanotechnology was discussed a focus which could be called
geomimetics. We defined geomimetics as employing the principles of geosystems to create and
develop new and novel processes and materials. In a wider sense this involves copying the
principles of geosystems into technology to compliment the natural environment. This geomimetic
perspective of nanotechnology incorporates the long and distinguished history of colloid and
surface science that has underpinned oil recovery and EOR.
It was outlined how oil recovery depends on nano-scale processes. We discussed why EOR
processes are so complicated and stress the scale-up of these processes from the nano-scale to the
macro-scale. Concepts of complexity and hierarchy were explained and Q analysis was proposed
as a way of representing the problem structure. The importance of metaphorical discourse in both
communication and innovation was argued.
Traditional oil recovery understanding focuses on three forces: capillary, viscous and
gravity. Nanotechnology focuses on the nano-scale forces of coulombic interaction and disjoining
forces. We included Marangoni forces (forces that arise due to a gradient in a property such as
concentration or interfacial tension) in our description to highlight the importance of transient
phenomena in EOR. As a general observation, EOR processes are considerably more complex as
observed compared to the theories and computer simulations employed to describe them. These
processes are scale depended from the nano-scale through to the macro-scale.
A case study was constructed from a number of field case histories in order to illustrate the
following. Firstly, we illustrated the concept of in-depth flow diversion as an EOR approach. This
approach exploits geomechanical, fluid chemistry and nanotechnology interrelationships.
Secondly, we demonstrated the value of metaphorical discourse and Q
analysis in creative and innovative application of nanotechnology in EOR.

References
Abdallah, W., et. al.: 2007. Fundamentals of Wettability, Oilfield Review, summer
2007, 44-61;
Albrecht, J.: 1997. Overcoming the Restrictions of Current Euclidean-Based Geospatial
Data Models with a Set-Orientated Geometry, paper presented at the Second Annual Conference
of GeoComputation 97 and SIRC 97, University of Otago, New Zealand, 26-29
August;
Amanullah, M. and Al-Tahini, A. M.: 2009. Nano-Technology its Significance in Smart
Fluid Development for Oil and Gas Field Application, SPE Paper 126102, presented at the 2009
Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, AlKhobar, Saudi Arabia, 9-11 May;
Atkin R H. (1974), Mathematical Structures in Human Affairs, Heinemann, London.
Atkin R. H. (1981), Multidimensional Man, Penguin, London.
Atkin R. H. (1981), A Theory of Surprises, Environment and Planning B, volume 8,
359-365;
Benedicks, V.: 1951. Comptes Rendus, Vol233, p409 and p482.
Boje, D. M.: 1991. Consulting and Change in the Storytelling Organization, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 4 (3), 7-17
Brown, S.:1992. Geoscience Research at The Petroleum Science and Technology
Institute, Geoscientist, 3(1), 14-17; Bueno, O.: 2004. The Drexler-Smalley Debate on
Nanotechnology: Incommensurability at Work?, HYLE International Journal for Philosophy of
Chemistry, 10(2), 83-98
Casti, J. L.: 1992. Reality Rules Picturing the World in Mathematics, Vols 1 & 2. John
Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0417 184365, London; Casti, J. L.: 1994. Complexification: Explaining a
Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise. HarperCollins, USA. ISBN 0 349
10612 6.
Cuiec, L.E.: 1990. Evaluation of Reservoir Wettability and Its Effect Oil Recovery, in
Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery
ed. Morrow N.R., Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, ISBN 0-8247-8385-9;
SPE 129531

15
Davis, J.P. and Fletcher, A. J. P.: 2000. Managing Assets Under Uncertainty, SPE59443
Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Reservoir Modeling for Asset
Management, Yokohama, Japan;
Davis, J.P., Hall, J.W.: 2003. A Software-Supported Process for Assembling Evidence
and Handling Uncertainty in Decision-Making, Decision Support Systems, 35, 415-433;
Davis, J.P., Shenton, W.W., Fletcher, A.J.P.: 2004. The Threat of Surprise, Engineering
a Secure Australia, Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering Special Edition, 31-39;
Dawe, R.A. and Grattoni, C.A.: 1998. The Visualization of the Pore-Scale Physics of
Hydrocarbon Recovery from Reservoirs, First Break, November, 371-386;
Dawe, R.A.: 1990. Reservoir Physics at the Pore Scale, from Seventy Five Years of
Progress in Oil Field Science and Technology, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 177-194;
Du, Y. and Guan, L.: 2004. Field-scale polymer flooding: lessons learnt and experiences
gained during the past 40 years. SPE 91787.
Dunning, W. J.: 1961. Thermodynamics and Imperfections of Solid Surfaces, in
Adhesion, ed. Eley, OUP, UK.; Elphick, S. C., et. al.: 1992. The Effects of Combined Changes in
Pore Fluid Chemistry and Stress State on Reservoir Permeability, in Water Rock Interaction, eds.,
Kluraka, Y. K. and Maest, A. S., A A Balmema, Rotterdam, 1113-1116.
Evdokimov, N. I. et. al.: 2006. Emerging Petroleum-Orientated Nanotechnologies for
Reservoir Engineering, SPE Paper 102060
presented 2006 Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, 3-6
October
Fletcher, A. J. P.: 1978. The Micellisation of CTAB and DTAB in Ethane 1,2-Diol /
Water Mixtures, BSc Thesis, University of Bristol; Fletcher, A.J.P. and Rogers, C.: 1989.
Polymers Beneath the North Sea, Physics World, 30-34;
Fletcher, A.J.P. et al.: 1991. Measurements of Polysaccharide Polymer Properties in
Porous Media, SPE 21018, paper presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry held in Anaheim, USA, February 20-22.
Fletcher, A.J.P., Lamb, S.P. and Clifford, P.J.: 1992a. Formation Damage from Polymer
Solutions: Factors Governing Injectivity, SPE
Reservoir Engineering, 237-246;
Fletcher, A.J.P. et, al.: 1992b. Deep Diverting Gels for Very Cost-Effective Waterflood
Control, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 33-43, 7;
Fletcher, A.J.P.: 1992c. Fluid Flow in Complex Reservoir Research Programme, The
Petroleum Science and Technology Institute Technical Bulletin, 2, 14-16;
Fletcher, A.J.P. and Davis, J.P.: 2002. Decision-Making with Incomplete Evidence, SPE
77910 paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, 8-10 Oct;
Fletcher, A.J.P. and Davis, J.P: 2003. Dialectical Evidence Assembly for Discovery,
Discovery Science, LNAI 2843 (G Grieser, Y
Tanaka and A Yamamoto Eds.), pp 100-113, 6th International Conference, Sapporo,
Japan, October;
Fletcher, A. J. P. and Morrison G. R..: 2008. Developing a Chemical EOR Pilot Strategy
for a Complex, Low Permeability Water Flood.
SPE paper 112793 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, 19-23 April; Fletcher, A. J. P. and Davis, J. P.: 2008. Linking Strategy to
Performance in the Oil Industry, SPE paper 114398 presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 20-22 October,
2008.
Gould, P.: 1980. Q-Analysis, or a Language of Structure: an Introduction for Social
Scientists, Geographers and Planners, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 13, 169-199;
Hall, J. W., et. al.: 2004. "A decision-support methodology for performance-based asset
management," Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, vol. 21, pp. 51 75;
Hirasaki, G.: 1990. Thermodynamics of Thin Films and Three-Phase Contact Regions,
in Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery ed. Morrow N.R., Marcel Dekker Inc., New
York, ISBN 0-8247-8385-9;
Hirasakai, G. J.: 1991. Wettability: Fundamentals and Surface Forces, SPE Formation
Evaluation, June, 217-225; Hite, R.J., Avasthi, S.M. and Bondor, P.L.: 2005. Planning Successful
EOR Projects, JPT March, 28-29; Humphris, A.D.L., Miles, M.J. and Hobbs, J.K.: 2005. A
Mechanical Microscope: High-Speed Atomic Force Microscopy, Applied Physics Letters 86,
034106;
Jackson, M.C.: 2000. Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer Academic / Plenum,
ISBN 0-306-46506-X; Koestler, A.: 1968. The ghost in the machine. New York: Macmillan,
Krishnamoorti, R.: 2006. Extracting the Benefits of Nanotechnology for the Oil Industry,
JPT November, pp24-26; Lake, L., Schmidt, R. and Venuto, P.: 1992 A niche for enhanced oil
recovery in the 1990s, Oilfield Review, 55- 61; Legrand, J.: 2002. How Far can Q-Analysis go
into Social Systems Understanding? 5th European Systems Science Congress, Crete, Greece,
16-19 October;
Lund, T. et al.: 1992. Polymer retention and Inaccessible Pore Volume of North Sea
Reservoir Material, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 25-32, 7;
Marashi E., Davis, J.P. and Hall, J.W.: 2005. "Combination methods and conflict handling
in evidential theories", International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based
Systems, accepted.
Marashi, E., Davis, J.P.: 2006a. "An argumentation-based method for managing complex
issues in design of infrastructural systems", Reliability Engineering and System Safety, in press;
Marashi, E. and Davis, J.P.: 2006b. "A Systems-Based Approach for Supporting Discourse
in Decision-Making", Computer-aided Civil & Infrastructure Engineering, accepted;
Morin, E.: 1992. "The concept of system to the paradigm of complexity," Journal of Social
and Evolutionary Systems, vol. 15, pp. 371-375;
Morrow, N.R.: 1970. Physics and Thermodynamics of Capillary Action in Porous
Media, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 62(6), 32-56;
Morrow, N.R.: 1990a. Introduction to Interfacial Phenomena in Oil Recovery, in
Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery
ed. Morrow N.R., Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, ISBN 0-8247-8385-9;
Morrow, N.R.: 1990b. Wettability and its Effect on Oil Recovery, JPT, December,
1476-1484;
16
SPE
129531
Pattison P E, Wasserman S,; 1999. Logic Models and Logistic Regressions for Social
Networks, II, Multivariate Relations, British Journal of mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
52, 169-194;
Pourafshary, P. et. al.: 2009. Priority Assessment of Investment in Development of
Nanotechnology in Upstream Petroleum Industry, SPE Paper 126101 presented at the 2009 SPE
Saudi Arabian Section technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 9-11 May.
Robins G, Pattison P (2000), P* Models for Temporal Processes in Social Networks,
Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25, 5-41.
Saggaf, M.M.: 2008. A vision for Future Upstream Technologies, Distinguished Author
Series, JPT March 2008; Saleri, N. G.: 1996. Reengineering Simulation: A Bottom-Line
Approach to Managing Complexity and Complexification. SPE Paper 36696 presented at the
SPE ATCE, Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October;
Seright, R. S., et. al.: 2008. Injectivity Characteristics of EOR Polymers, SPE Paper
presented at the 2008 ATCE, Denver, Co, 21-24
September;
Taber, J. J., et. al.; 1997a. SPE35385. EOR Screening Criteria Revisited Part 1:
Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects;
Taber, J. J., et. al.; 1997b. SPE39242. EOR Screening Criteria Revisited Part 2:
Applications and Impact of Oil Prices.
Takeuchi H., Nonaka I.: 2004. Hitotsubashi on Knowledge Management, John Wiley
and Sons
Thomas, S.: 2005. Chemical EOR The past, does it have a future?, SPE Distinguished
Lecture Series, SPE 108829; Wack, P.: 1985. Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead, Harvard
Business Review 63(5): 72-89.
Woods, C. L., et. al.: 2002. In-Depth Blocking to Boost Late Life Reserves, paper
presented at IEA 23rd International Workshop and Symposium, Caracas, Venezuela, September;