SPE-190456-MS

Increasing Wells Injectivity and Productivity by Seismic and

Seismo-Chemical Stimulation

K. Furman, S. Miftakhov, M. Nazyrov, R. Nefedov, and V. Zamakhaev, Terratec; A. Andrianov, AIA Consulting

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 26-28 March 2018.

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
Many oilfields in Russia and CIS countries are in late development stage with waterflooding being deployed
for decades. Most of these fields have rapidly increasing watercut, decreasing injectivity and productivity.
Various methods of production optimization are used including well stimulation techniques – conventional
and novel. One of relatively new technologies is the wave stimulation when the wellbore and reservoir are
treated by acoustic, seismic or other type of wave generated by different tools.
These technologies have short treatment time, simple-to-use tools and work in different formations and
wells. Tool placement (wellhead or downhole), wave frequency and generated energy differentiate methods.
In this paper we focus on seismic impact well treatment when the wave generator is installed at wellheads.
Energy is generated on the surface with compressed gas, released into well instantaneously. Shock wave
propagates through liquid-filled well column and transforms into seismic wave in-situ. This allows scale
and deposits removal in wellbore and near-wellbore area, positive modification of injection or production
profile. Deeper in reservoir, seismic wave propagates at high velocity and mobilizes oil trapped behind
natural flow barriers.
The impact of seismic wave stimulation on permeability restoration and improvement, water injection
profile and oil displacement have been modeled in laboratory experiments and modeled with the software.
Few generations of tools have been used in the field operations. Recently, seismic stimulation has been
combined with chemical treatment: acid, alkaline, surfactant, gas-generating agents or combination of these.
Mechanistic supplement of chemical injection allows deeper and uniform distribution of chemical agent and
larger contact zone. There is some synergy between seismo-chemical stimulation and enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) methods. To date, injection and production wells (both vertical and horizontal) have been treated in
various fields across Russia, Europe and Asia. There is a large range of temperature, salinity, perforation
interval of treated wells; formation depth in these fields is up to 3.5 km, reservoir permeability from 5 mD.
On average, stimulation of injectors increased injectivity by 85% for 18 months that led to incremental oil
rate of 30% in treated pattern (around 45,000 bbl/treatment). Averaging producers’ treatment results gives
65% increase in oil rate (total 12,000 bbl/treatment), effect lasting for 22 months. Typical unit technical cost
(UTC) in these operations was below 2$/bbl. As a rule of thumb, seismo-chemical treatments have larger
UTCs and deliver higher increase in injectivity and productivity indices.
2 SPE-190456-MS

The mechanisms, experimental procedures, field application history of seismic and seismo-chemical well
stimulation are reviewed and presented. With around 250 wells treated, there is a high success rate and oil
production increase. New generation of this improved oil recovery (IOR) technique combines benefits of
mechanistic well stimulation, acid and/or chemical enhanced oil recovery.

Introduction
There are many fields in late development stage. Very often water is injected in these fields for many
years or even decades. Many mature fields are characterized by rapidly increasing watercut, decreasing
injectivity and productivity. Various methods of production optimization are used including well stimulation
techniques. Novel technology class is the wave stimulation, in which the wellbore and reservoir are treated
by acoustic, seismic or other type of wave generated by mechanistic tools.
The technologies of this class have short treatment time and can be applied in different types of formations
and wells. Tool placement – at the wellhead or downhole, wave frequency and generated energy differentiate
methods. Here, we focus on seismic impact well treatment with wave generator installed at the wellhea.
Energy is generated at the surface with compressed gas and released into well instantaneously. Shock wave
then propagates through well column filled by liquid, transforms into seismic wave in-situ. This allows scale,
deposits removal in wellbore as well as in near-wellbore area, and improvement of injection or production
profile. Further in reservoir the seismic wave propagates at high velocity and mobilizes trapped oil behind
natural flow barriers.
Wave methods of stimulating oil and gas reservoirs have been known since the 1960s and by now have
a rich history of application. Theoretical, experimental and field research of wave methods was carried out
by many scientists and engineers in FSU, Russia and abroad [1,2].
Among known ground-based sources, installations based on the principles developed at the
VNIPIVzryvGoefizika in Russia to create a strong wave impact on the reservoir can be singled out. They
are distinguished by high efficiency, ease of implementation (no involvement of well workover crew), as
well as small restrictions on well design and geological conditions of the formation.
The well treatment is based on the wellhead pneumatic generator with special valves. The necessary
pressure to initiate the wave propagation is provided by cylinders with compressed inert gas. The source
forms a shock wave at the wellhead with a pressure at the front of up to 15 MPa [3]. Multiple movement of
the shock wave from the bottom of the well to the entry and back creates a damped self-oscillating process
with a frequency of 0.2 Hz. Such impact can effectively stimulate the injection and production wells.
The method of increasing the efficiency of seismic stimulation is its integration with injection of certain
chemical reagents. This paper presents the results of bench studies, which formed the basis for seismic and
seismochemical treatment of the reservoir, as well as field application experience of these technologies.

Main mechanisms of seismic and seismo-chemical stimulation

There is no generally accepted theory to describe the effects of seismic impact on reservoirs. On the basis
of theoretical, experimental and field research, various authors proposed a number of mechanisms and
concepts:

• Heterogeneity of the structure and stress state of the multi-layer system as a whole [4];

• Self-oscillatory and non-linear filtration processes in water-bearing reservoirs and the possibility
of their resonance interaction with seismic waves [5];
• Release of gas from formation fluids [6];

• Rheological characteristics of reservoir fluids [7];

• Capillary effects in the fluids flow through the pore channels [8,9];
SPE-190456-MS 3

• Wettability characteristics the pore surface;

• Hydrodynamically enhanced release of oil films and droplets from the pores.

In our opinion, the first model gives the explanation of the effects in the formation under seismic
action. The heterogeneity of the structure and stress state of the reservoir are associated primarily with the
phenomenon of rock dilatancy.
When the seismic stimulation is combined with the injection of special chemicals, it is possible to achieve
a significant reduction in the strength of reservoir rocks (the Rebinder effect). Also, together with the
seismic effect, chemical reagents can be used to influence the oil displacement coefficienet, eg during water
injection, increasing the cumulative effect of the treatment.

Porosity and permeability change in dilatancy area for sandstones under impulse action and
uneven loads
In research it was established that in the static state, the anomaly of deformation behavior of rocks associated
with dilatancy processes becomes significant when the intensity of uniaxial loading exceeds 2/3 of the
tensile strength. It manifests itself in the advancing growth of transverse deformations that cause the
decompression of deformated medium. This decompaction, which has the character of intergranular or
intragranular microfracture, is irreversible and accompanied by the change in rock properties: density,
strength, porosity, permeability, propagation velocity of elastic waves and deformation characteristics.
Despite the essential dependence of the rock properties on degree of their dilatancy decomposition, this
effect was considered to be of no practical use, because a significant change in the rock properties was
observed just before the destruction.
Studies of dilatancy processes under dynamic effects have shown a completely different picture: for
sufficiently high unevenness of the stressed state, dilatancy processes occur even at stresses that are only
3-5% of the ultimate strength, causing irreversible change in the rock density, porosity, strength, and
permeability [13]. Experimental studies of the phenomenon of rock dilatancy, fracture under dynamic
decomposition and filtration properties under conditions of uneven loads simulating the mechanical effect
of seismic action were performed [14].
Dilatancy is observed in the deformation of soils and rocks. Numerous experimental data on the
deformation of a wide class of formations under volumetric stressed state conditions show that for highly
porous rocks there is compaction, and for dense rocks there is a loosening. Reduction in the volume of
highly porous rocks occurs as the result of a reduction in the number of defects: pores, caverns, microcracks,
etc. An increase in volume occurs due to their development. Positive (compaction) and negative (loosening)
of rock dilatancy are related to the value of the initial effective porosity. If the effective porosity value is
less than a certain limiting value, then the rock is dense and loosens during deformation. When the effective
porosity is greater than its limiting value, the rock is compacted. However, the compaction of the rock can
occur up to a certain value, after which it breaks down.
In Fig. 1 the typical result of the change in the air permeability coefficient during dilatancy is given as
the function of the axial stress at the comprehensive pressure of 10 MPa. From these data it follows that the
rock dilatancy (increase in volume) is accompanied by an improvement in important reservoir properties
such as the porosity and permeability, which is explained by the fracture in the entire rock volume on the
inhomogeneities and defects.
In Fig. 1 for quartz sandstone, the permeability coefficient is increased by 70% for axial compression of
the sample from 40 to 110 MPa. For samples of sedimentary rocks, the volumetric deformations is governed
by degree of deterioration of the dilatancy capacity and follows this order: limestones, sandstones, siltstones,
mudstones. Sand, clay, silt are non-dilation media.
4 SPE-190456-MS

Figure 1—Change in air permeability under dilatancy conditions with uneven

compression: relative permeability (k/kmin, -) vs. auxillary pressure (MPa).

The porosity coefficient is defining condition for the dilatancy properties of the rock. Moreover, for
singletype rocks from one field, it is always possible to determine a certain critical value of the porosity that
separates rocks with a high and low capacity for dilatancy decompression, or non-dilation and dilatation
rock materials (Fig 2). In Fig. 2 material is quartz sandstone, density 2.33 g/cm3, porosity 12.2%, absolute
permeability 0.23 mD, lateral pressure 10 MPa, pore pressure 0.12 MPa. kmin is the minimum permeability
characterizing the transition from rock compaction to loosening.

Figure 2—Relative increase of porosity during dilatance of Kamennaya sandstone against initial porosity.

The main influence on the amount of dilatancy is caused by uneven load, i.e. ratio of the minimum
main stress to the maximum. However, at the same level and the magnitude of the uneven loading in the
stronger rocks, the dilatant component of the volume deformation (right branch in Fig. 1) exceeds the rock
compaction (left branch in Fig 1) more than in the less-rigid rocks.
SPE-190456-MS 5

Thus, if the rock due to its properties at given stress is capable of dilatancy, then the effect of the static or
dynamic load gives an increase in the porosity and permeability due to dilatancy cracking. If the rock in the
reservoir is in the state of compression compaction, then the additional mechanical action of a low energy
intensity will not lead to an improvement in filtration properties.

Impact of mechano-chemical effects on the filtration, volumetric, elastic and strength properties of
reservoir rocks
Mechano-chemical phenomena refer to physico-chemical mechanics, one of the main is the Rehbinder
effect [15], which describes the adsorption decrease in the strength of a solid body. The rock properties and
conditions are determined by their mineral composition, structure and, to a large extent, by their structure
of fractures. Surfactants can control the processes of fractures formation and development. Surface active
substances are positively adsorbed at the phase interface, so they form an adsorption layer on the surface.
Adsorption leads to an abnormally high concentration of the substance (adsorbate) from a gaseous or
liquid phase on the surface of its partition with a liquid or a solid (adsorbent). Molecules of adsorbate bind
to the atoms of the surface by dipole (physical adsorption) or by exchange interaction (chemisorption).
With increasing temperature, the rate of physical adsorption decreases due to the increase in the mobility of
adsorbate molecules, while the rate of chemisorption usually increases due to the acceleration of chemical
reactions. That is, in reservoir conditions, primarily chemisorption takes place.
The fracturing process initiared by surfactants significantly changes the rock structure, and this inevitably
impacts many rock properties [16]. In addition, the degree of fracture affects the behavior of most processes
in the rock and determines their resistance. A quantitative evaluation of the fracture formation in the presence
of surfactants is of great importance.
It has been established that due to the adsorption of surfactants on the rock surface, a sharp loss of strength
of the surface layer occurs, called "adsorption reduction of hardness" [17]. Thus, to determine the efficiency
and optimal concentration of surfactant solutions acting on a particular type of rock, it was proposed to use
the method for determining the hardness (contact stress) of wetted samples [18].
Determination of contact strength was carried out by inserting a cylindrical stamp into the surface of
rocks with surfactant solutions in them at the concentration from 0.001 to 1.0% (Fig. 3) [19].

Figure 3—Mechanism of rock destruction with cylindrical stamp.

6 SPE-190456-MS

The results show that for any of the rocks studied, there are effective surfactants that lower the contact
strength by 18 to 70%. The greatest effect is observed for polymineral highly porous (up to 10% and more)
rocks, such as bauxites and effusive lithotypes of pyroxene-plagioclase composition: the decrease in Pk was
46–72%. On the contrary, fairly uniform low-porosity (up to 2%) limestones are characterized by the least
variability of Pk, from 18 to 25%. This is due to the rate of saturation of these rocks by surfactant solutions.
The summary of the results is presented in Table 1.

Table 1—Efficient surfactants/chemicals and optimal concentration.

These results give grounds to compare the effectiveness of the surfactants to lower the strength of rocks.
The effect is observed in both sandstone and carbonate rocks. An important observation here is that the
Rebinder effect occurs at extremely low surfactant concentrations (starting from 0.001%).

Combining seismic impact with chemical reagents to improve oil displacement

The main mechanism aimed at increasing oil recovery when injecting some nitrogen-containing compounds
(AS) into the formation is the generation of carbon dioxide in-situ. It is characterized by the following
properties:
– Dissolves in oil under certain conditions and reduces its viscosity;
– When the carbon dioxide dissolves in oil, its volume increases and, consequently, the oil displacement
coefficient rises;
– When carbon dioxide dissolves in formation water, its viscosity increases;
– Interfacial tension at the oil-water interface decreases;
– Wettability of the rock changes that also contributes to the growth of the displacement coefficient.
If reservoir temperature above the critical (31°C), carbon dioxide is in the gaseous state at any pressure. At
the temperature of 25°C (the initial temperature of permocarbon deposits) carbon dioxide is in the gaseous
state at the reservoir pressure of less than 7.0 MPa, at higher pressure it passes into the liquid [20].
The injection of carbon dioxide into the formation is one of widely used methods of enhanced oil recovery
[21]. The method of seismo-chemical stimulation technology with release of CO2 in-situ allows to optimize
the positive effect of the technology. During AS reactions in the reservoir also alkalis are formed. This, in
SPE-190456-MS 7

addition to carbon dioxide, also increases the efficiency of oil displacement in near-wellbore area. In our
experience we observed that periodic injection of AS solution can have a significant additional effect during
well stimulation campagns.
To combine with seismic impact the aqueous solutions of ammonium salts (ammonium carbonate and
ammonium bicarbonate) were selected. With the use of carbon ammonium salts, the reactions of carbon
dioxide generation and (alkaline) ammonium hydroxide occur in the reservoir. The decomposition of 1 ton
of (NH4)2CO3 generates 233 liters of CO2, while decomposition of 1 ton of NH4HCO3 – 283 liters of
carbon dioxide.
The process of oil displacement from oil saturated cores with AS aqueous solutions at different
concentrations and temperatures was studied experimentally [22]. It was found that for samples with a
permeability of 10 mD to 300 mD and porosity of 20 to 24%, the increase in the displacement coefficient
can be from 41% to 96% with respect to its initial value when only water was injected. At the same time,
the maximum increase in the displacement occurred when the temperature was raised to 80°C. The very
important was the fact that a significant effect occurred already at AS concentrations of 0.25%.

Experimentation
Experimental study of factors impacting fluid mobility under reservoir conditions
To study the processes occurring during the impulse impact on the щшд reservoir, the high-pressure
coreflood apparatus was designed and built. It allows to conduct experiments on artificial and natural cores
with length of 150-200 mm and diameter of 90 mm. The cores are pressurized by lateral and axial pressure
in the special core holder to the values upto 80-100 MPa [23]. The core holder is placed in high-pressure
vessel (HPV) The schematics is shown in Fig. 5. After imposing the load on the core and creating high
pressure HPV; the initial filtration properties of the sample are measured for nitrogen and kerosene.

Figure 5—Schematics of experimental apparatus.

8 SPE-190456-MS

The natural cores of sizes needed were drilled out of the Grozny outcrops of oil- and gas-bearing
sandstones. Several studies were carried out using cores selected from Neocomian and Jurassic sediments
of Western Siberia, that are sandstones with clay and carbonate cement. The artificial cores were a mixture
of Lyuberetsk quartz sand with a certain fraction of marshallite and liquid sodium glass sealed in special
demountable forms and fired step by step at temperatures of 300-900°C. After the final firing, disks with a
length of 20 mm were cut from the ends of the core to eliminate the end effects. All materials used for cores
were hydrophilic, which gave confidence in receiving porous media with a hydrophilic surface.
The main criteria for sorting artificial cores was a change in the samples nitrogen permeability after
injection and displacement of aqueous solution with 5% NaCl. Absolute and phase permeabilities were
determined after placing the core in the core holder, loading the core with lateral and axial pressure
simulating the rock pressure. Based on the results of such tests, the cores were divided into 2 groups I and
II (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2—Impact of residual water on permeability of artificial cores.

Table 3—Permeability change in group II cores.

Experiments have shown that in group I the impulse action did not lead to any significant changes in
permeability. In samples of group II, opposed effect was observed: permeability increased by orders of
magnitude. To determine the reasons for such a significant difference in the filtration properties of artificial
samples, the experiments were repeated. After unloading the cores from the rock pressure in the samples,
the original loading conditions were reproduced and an impulse action of the same power was carried out.
It turned out that the repeated exposure had no effect on the samples of group I. Samples of group II lost
their singularity and passed to their properties in group I. That is, the unique properties of the samples of
group II were associated with deformation by hydraulic pressurizing
It can be argued that despite the hydrophilicity of the samples of groups I and II, the main difference
was the formation of water molecules on the surface of group II minerals of adsorbed layers. The absence
of adsorption centers on the surface of minerals in group I samples and, apparently, a very large value of
SPE-190456-MS 9

the activation energy did not allow chemisorption of water molecules on the surface of the minerals despite
previous water injection and core deformation by hydraulic pressurizing
In group II cores, electron emission was observed (by luminescence) with multiple impacts of the
indenter, and in samples of group I emission was absent. That means the samples of group I belong to non-
dilation rocks, and the samples of group II to dilated ones.
Thus, under the conditions of occurrence, many layers can be characterized by the capacity for dilatancy
during pulsed action. The presence of adsorption centers on the surface of rock minerals with proper
selection of the corresponding surfactants, due to the Rebinder effect, can significantly increase the
probability of dilatancy decomposition of rocks when seismic action is applied to the formation.

Field cases
The results and techniques obtained for the impulse impact on reservoir core at the laboratory scale were
upscaled to the oil field. Seismic and seismo-chemical stimulation technologies using wellhead impulse
generators have been successfully tested and, furthermore, applied in more than 200 wells in various regions
of Russian Federation and abroad. Table 4 presents a significant part of these treatments statistics, main
geological conditions and results. Also Figs. 7-10 present the examples of the change in well injectivity,
wellhead pressure and injection profile prior to and after the application of the technologies discussed.

Figure 7—Injectivity and wellhead pressure of well #29 (Western Siberia).

10 SPE-190456-MS

Figure 8—Injectivity of injection well #75 (Western Siberia).

Figure 9—Injectivity and wellhead pressure of well #75.

Figure 10—Injection profile of well #75.

SPE-190456-MS 11

Table 4—Results of seismic and seismo-chemical stimulation.

Part 1: Seismic stimulation, oil viscosity less than 50 cP.

12 SPE-190456-MS
SPE-190456-MS 13

Part 2: Seismo-chemical stimulation, oil viscosity less than 50 cP.

Field names in Table 4 have been modified.

Figs. 8 and 9 present the results of using seismic and seismo-chemical stimulation of the same well
#75(52) in Western Siberia in different periods of time. It can be seen that seismo-chemical stimulation (Fig.
9) compared with the conventional seismic stimulation (Fig. 8) gives a greater increase of injectivity and
longer duration of the effect. It also results in higher incremental oil production in surrounding production
wells (more than 4000 tons, see Table 4). Averaging the results confirm the production enhancement effect
of complex seismo-chemical well stimulation.
14 SPE-190456-MS

In total, seismic stimulation has been used in around 250 wells to date. Below we present some field cases
and statistics of all treatments. To date, injection and production wells (both vertical and horizontal) have
been treated in various fields across Russia, Europe and Asia. There is a large range of temperature, salinity,
perforation interval of treated wells; formation depth in these fields is up to 3.5 km, reservoir permeability
from 5 mD. On average, stimulation of injectors increased injectivity by 85% for 18 months that led to
incremental oil rate of 30% in treated pattern (total 45,000 bbl/treatment). Averaging producers’ treatment
results gives 65% increase in oil rate (total 12,000 bbl/treatment), effect lasting for 22 months. Typical unit
technical cost (UTC) in these operations was below 2$/bbl. As a rule of thumb, seismo-chemical treatments
have larger UTCs and deliver higher increase in injectivity and productivity indices.

Conclusions
The technology of wells seismic stimulation is an affordable and effeicient method of increasing the well
injectivity or productivity. Successful history of application with more than 200 wells confirms the potential
of technology in sandstone reservoirs with a wide range of reservoir and fluids characteristics.
The integration of seismic stimulation technology with the injection of different chemical reagents
increases efficiency of well treatment significantly. As discussed above, laboratory experiments to study
the conditions for the occurence of the Rebinder effect for various surfactants, as well as experiments to
investigate the factors affecting the mobility of fluids under reservoir conditions, suggest potentially high
probability of successful seismic and seismo-chemical stimulation in the wells in carbonate reservoirs. For
selecting a specific reagent for specific reservoir conditions, further bench experiments are required. These
must be conducted prior to the seismo-chemical well stimulation.
The impact of seismic wave stimulation on permeability restoration and improvement, water injection
profile and oil displacement have been modeled in laboratory experiments and with software. Few
generations of tools have been used in field operations. Seismic stimulation can be also combined with
chemical treatment: acid, alkaline, surfactant, gas-generating agents or combination of these. Mechanistic
supplement of chemical injection allows deeper and uniform distribution of chemical agent and larger
contact zone.
Field application history of seismic and seismo-chemical well stimulation is reviewed and presented,
with around 250 wells in total, high success rate and oil production increase. New generation of this IOR
technique combines benefits of mechanistic well stimulation, acid and/or chemical enhanced oil recovery.
This treatment can be applied in both vertical and horizontal wells. Chemical design for each treatment is
made and checked in the laboratory, typical workflow is presented.

References
1. Muslimov R. H., Oil Recovery: Past, Present and Future, Kazan, Publisher Academy of Sciences
of the Republic of Tatarstan, 2014 (in Russian).
2. Dyblenko V. P., Wave methods of impact on oil reservoirs with hard-to-recover reserves,
Moscow: OJSC VNIIOENG, 2008 (in Russian).
3. Balashkand M. I., Kaznin V. A., Andreev Y. N., Bobylev V. Y., Zamakhaev V. S., Device for
impulse impact on the bottomhole well zone, patent RU 1 538 590A1, 1997 (in Russian).
4. Korchagin S. A., Goloshubin G. M., Muttaev I Frequency selection in vibrostimulation for the
model of the large-scale stress redistribution in productivity formation, Nonlinear Acoustic at the
Beginning of the 21-st Century, Moscow, 2002.
5. Graham D. R., Higdon J. J. L. Oscillaatory forcing of flow through porous media. Pt. 1. Unsteady
flow H J. Fluid Mech, 2002, Vol. 465.
SPE-190456-MS 15

6. Simkin E., Seismic and vibroseismic methods of influence on oil reservoirs, Oil and gas
technologies, 1999, Vol. 2 (in Russian).
7. Barnes H, Townsend P., Walters K. Flow of non-newtonian liquids under a varying pressure
gradient, Nature, 1969, Vol 224, JV 5219.
8. Nikolaevskiy V. N., Lopukhov G. P., Liao Y., Economides M. J., Residual oil reservoir recovery
with seismic vibrations, SPE Production & Facilities, 1996, Vol. 5
9. Charlaix E., Gayvallet H., Dynamics of harmonically driven fluid interface in a capillary, Jour, de
Physique, 1992, Vol. 2, No. 11.
10. Ostrovsky G. M., Ivanenko A. Y., Aksenova E. G., On the impregnation of through capillaries by
means of periodic pressure changes, Theoretical foundations of chemical technology, 1995, Vol.
29, No. 6 (in Russian).
11. Shuleikin V. N., Shubik B. M., Barabanov V. L., Physical and technical problems of oil and gas
geophysics, Institute of Oil and Gas, Moscow, 2005 (in Russian).
12. Scholz C. H., Microfracturing and the inelastic deformation of rock in compression. Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, Issue 4, 1968.
13. Mikhalyuk A. V., Rocks with uniform dynamic loads, Nauk. Dumka, Kiev, 1980 (in Russian).
14. Gaivoronsky I. N., Leonenko G. N., Zamakhaev V. S., Oil and gas reservoirs of Western Siberia.
Their opening and sampling, Moscow: CJSC Geoinformmark, 2000 (in Russian).
15. Goryunov Y. V., Pertsov N. V., Summ B. D., The Rebinder effect, Moscow: Nauka, 1966 (in
Russian).
16. Rzhevsky V. V., Novik G. Y., Fundamentals of rock physics: textbook, Moscow: Print house
Libercom, 2010 (in Russian).
17. Spivak A. I., Mechanics of rocks, Moscow: Nedra, 1967 (in Russian).
18. Latyshev O. G., Destruction of rock, Moscow: Heat engineer, 2007 (in Russian).
19. Latyshev O. G., Kornilkov M. V., Directed change in the fractal characteristics, properties
and state of rocks by surface active substances in mining processes: a scientific monograph,
Ekaterinburg: UGSU Publishing, 2016 (in Russian).
20. Nowak P., Skrzypek J., The kinetics of chemical decomposition of ammonium bicarbonate and
carbonate in aqueous solutions, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 44, No. 10, 1988.
21. Lake L. W., Enhanced Oil Recovery, 1996, Prentice Hall.
22. Ruzin L. M., Methods of enhanced oil recovery (theory and practice): Textbook, Ukhta, USTU,
2014 (in Russian).
23. Zamakhaev V. S., Ivanov A. N., Konchakov V. N., The core holder for the study of filtration
processes in rocks, patent AC 145 6844, 1989 (in Russian).
24. Zamakhaev V. S., Kolobov M. A., Emission phenomena in the mechanical destruction
of sedimentary rocks of deep occurrence, Abstracts of the XI All-Union Symposium on
Mechanochemistry and Mechanoemission of Solids, 1990 (in Russian).