ORIGINAL PAPER
Probabilistic prediction of permeability damage in waterflooding using gaussian process regression
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Mining and Petroleum Deposits, Physics Engineering of Hydrocarbons, M'Hamed BOUGARA University, Boumerdes Algeria, Algeria
 
2
Department of Thermodynamic Studies, Laboratory Division, Sonatrach, Algeria
 
 
Submission date: 2025-06-22
 
 
Final revision date: 2025-09-20
 
 
Acceptance date: 2025-12-02
 
 
Online publication date: 2026-06-01
 
 
Publication date: 2026-06-01
 
 
Corresponding author
Saifi Redha   

Department of Mining and Petroleum Deposits, Physics Engineering of Hydrocarbons, M'Hamed BOUGARA University, Boumerdes Algeria, Algeria
 
 
International Journal of Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2026;31(2):155-167
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Waterflooding represents one of the most extensively employed techniques for secondary oil recovery, where water is injected into reservoirs to displace oil toward production wells and enhance hydrocarbon recovery. However, a major challenge in waterflooding operations is salt precipitation, which results from the chemical incompatibility between the injected water, commonly enriched with divalent cations such as calcium, strontium, and barium, and the formation water, which generally exhibits elevated concentrations of sulfate ions. This chemical interaction leads to the formation of sulfate scales, significantly reducing reservoir permeability and hindering oil recovery efficiency. This study employed Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), a nonparametric, probabilistic machine learning method, to predict the extent of permeability damage resulting from sulfate scale deposition during waterflooding. A dataset of 431 experimental tests was used, incorporating input variables such as ion concentrations, differential pressure, temperature, pore volume, and initial permeability. The GPR model successfully captured the nonlinear relationships between these inputs and the resulting permeability damage. Both graphical and statistical evaluations demonstrated strong agreement between the model predictions and experimental results, with a high coefficient of determination (R² = 0.99) and low prediction errors (RMSE = 0.0839; MAE = 0.0529). The GPR model exhibited enhanced predictive accuracy relative to alternative machine learning algorithms, such as decision trees, support vector machines (SVMs), and artificial neural networks. Furthermore, the probabilistic framework of GPR facilitated the quantification of predictive uncertainty, thereby establishing it as a dependable and robust tool for informed operational decision-making in reservoirs susceptible to scaling.
REFERENCES (20)
1.
Crabtree M., Eslinger D., Fletcher P., Miller M., Johnson A. and King G. (1999): Fighting scale-removal and prevention.– Oilfield Review, vol.11, No.3, pp.30-45.
 
2.
Mackay E.J., Collins I.R., Jordan M.M. and Feasey N. (2003): PWRI: Scale formation risk assessment and management.– Proc. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen (UK), SPE-80385-MS, pp.1-18, https://doi.org/10.2118/80385-....
 
3.
Moghadasi J., Jamialahmadi M., Müller-Steinhagen H., Sharif A., Ghalambor A., Izadpanah M.R. and Motaie E. (2003): Scale formation in Iranian oil reservoir and production equipment during water injection.– Proc. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen (UK), SPE-80406-MS, pp.1-14, https://doi.org/10.2118/80406-....
 
4.
Zhang P. (2020): Review of synthesis and evaluation of inhibitor nanomaterials for oilfield mineral scale control.– Frontiers in Chemistry, vol.8, No.576055, pp.1-14, https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.....
 
5.
Mitchell R.W., Grist D.M. and Boyle M.J. (1980): Chemical treatments associated with North Sea projects.– Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol.32, No.5, pp.904-912, https://doi.org/10.2118/7880-P....
 
6.
Mace R.E., Nicot J.P., Chowdhury A.H., Dutton A.R. and Kalaswad S. (2006): Please Pass the Salt: Using Oil Fields for the Disposal of Concentrate From Desalination Plants.– Texas Water Development Board Report, No.366, pp.1-198, https://www.twdb.texas.gov/pub....
 
7.
Graham G.M. and Frigo D.M. (2022): Inorganic Mineral Scale Mitigation.– Flow Assurance, Gulf Professional Publishing, pp.287-442, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0....
 
8.
Mura F. and Zaccone A. (2016): Effects of shear flow on phase nucleation and crystallization.– Physical Review E, vol.93, No.4, No.042803, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe....
 
9.
Okhovat M.R., Hassani K., Rostami B. and Khosravi M. (2020): Experimental studies of CO₂-brine-rock interaction effects on permeability alteration during CO₂-EOR.– Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, vol.10, No.6, pp.2293-2301, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202....
 
10.
Khodabakhshi M.J. and Bijani M. (2024): Predicting scale deposition in oil reservoirs using machine learning optimization algorithms.– Results in Engineering, vol.22, No.102263, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rine....
 
11.
Larestani A., Mousavi S.P., Hadavimoghaddam F. and Hemmati-Sarapardeh A. (2022): Predicting formation damage of oil fields due to mineral scaling during water-flooding operations: gradient boosting decision tree and cascade-forward back-propagation network.– Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol.208, No.109315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petr....
 
12.
Williams C.K. and Rasmussen C.E. (2006): Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning.– MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, vol.2, No.3, p.4, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpre....
 
13.
MacKay D.J. (1998): Introduction to Gaussian processes.– NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, vol.168, pp.133-166, http://www.inference.org.uk/ma....
 
14.
Su G., Yu B., Xiao Y. and Yan L. (2014): Gaussian process machine-learning method for structural reliability analysis.– Advances in Structural Engineering, vol.17, No.9, pp.1257-1270, https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4....
 
15.
BinMerdhah A.B., Yassin A.A.M. and Muherei M.A. (2010): Laboratory and prediction of barium sulfate scaling at high-barium formation water.– Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol.70, No.1-2, pp.79-88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petr....
 
16.
Rostami A., Shokrollahi A., Shahbazi K. and Ghazanfari M.H. (2019): Application of a new approach for modeling the oil field formation damage due to mineral scaling.– Oil & Gas Science and Technology - Revue d’IFP Energies Nouvelles, vol.74, No.62, https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2....
 
17.
Civan F. (2023): Reservoir Formation Damage: Fundamentals, Modeling, Assessment, and Mitigation.– Gulf Professional Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1016/C2020-....
 
18.
Al-Malah K.I. (2023): Machine and Deep Learning Using MATLAB: Algorithms and Tools for Scientists and Engineers.– John Wiley & Sons, https://doi.org/10.1002/978111....
 
19.
Wilk M.B. and Gnanadesikan R. (1968): Probability plotting methods for the analysis of data.– Biometrika, vol.55, No.1, pp.1-17, https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet....
 
20.
Sheskin D.J. (2003): Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures.– Chapman and Hall/CRC, https://doi.org/10.1201/978142....
 
eISSN:2353-9003
ISSN:1734-4492
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top