Polymer Flooding Introduction

Polymer Flooding Topics
POLYMER FLOODING
1. Distinction between polymer floods and gel treatments.

2. Overview of polymer flooding.
3. Potential for polymer flooding viscous oils.
4. Rheology in porous media.
5. Injectivity.
6. Polymer retention.
7. Chemical/oxidative stability of polymers.
8. Polymer flooding versus in-depth gelation.
9. Colloidal dispersion gels.
10. Surface issues for polymer flooding.
11. Other approaches for mobility control.
12. Can polymers reduce Sor below that for waterflooding?
13. Pilot Project Design.
Randy Seright
575-835-5571
randy@prrc.nmt.edu
http://baervan.nmt.edu/randy/
POLYMER FLOODS VERSUS GEL TREATMENTS
Distinction between a gel treatment

and a polymer flood.
Polymer floods use polymer solutions. Gels add a

crosslinker to the polymer solution.
The Windfall Profits Act of 1980 encouraged
Polymer
solution
grouping the two methods together as polymer

augmented waterfloods.
For a polymer flood, polymer

penetration into low-k zones
should be maximized.
The Oil and Gas Journal does not distinguish the
Gel
For a gel treatment, gelant
should be minimized.
two methods in their biannual EOR survey.
What is the difference?

3
VISCOUS
POLYMER
SOLUTION
Higher polymer & crosslinker

concentrations yield stronger gels
CROSSLINKED
POLYMER
(GEL)
Crosslink site
If not enough polymer or

crosslinker is present, no gel forms.
Gelant = Polymer + crosslinker solution before gel formation.

Gel = Crosslinked structure after reaction.
5
GEL TREATMENTS ARE NOT POLYMER FLOODS

Crosslinked polymers, gels, gel particles, and
colloidal dispersion gels:
PROPERTIES OF AVAILABLE GELANTS/GELS

1. Early in the gelation process, gelants
penetrate readily into porous rock.
Are not simply viscous polymer solutions.
2. After gelation, gel propagation through

porous rock stops.
Do not flow through porous rock like polymer

solutions.
3. The transition between these two conditions

is usually of short duration.
Do not enter and plug high-k strata first and

progressively less-permeable strata later.
SPERE (Nov. 1993) 299-304; IN SITU 16(1)

(1992) 1-16; and SPEPF (Nov. 1995) 241-248.
Should not be modeled as polymer floods.

7
POLYMER FLOODING is best for improving

sweep in reservoirs where fractures are not
important.
Great for improving the mobility ratio.
Great for overcoming vertical stratification.
Fractures can cause channeling of polymer
solutions and waste of expensive chemical.
UNFRACTURED RESERVOIRS WITH CROSSFLOW

Ideal Near-Wellbore
Treatment
Ideal Far-Wellbore
Treatment
low k
low k
high k
high k
Water
Reality
Oil
GEL TREATMENTS are best treating fractures

and fracture-like features that cause
channeling.
Generally, low volume, low cost.
Once gelation occurs, gels do not flow
through rock.
Gel
low k
high k
10
Waterflood oil recovery, PV
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO (M)

ON WATERFLOOD OIL RECOVERY
OVERVIEW OF
POLYMER FLOODING
0.3
M = 0.5 : FAVORABLE
M = 8 : UNFAVORABLE
0.2
M = water / oil
= (k/)water / (k/)oil
0.1
0
0
10
Pore volumes of water injected

11
12
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO (M) ON

VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON

AERIAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
M < 1: FAVORABLE
k1
k3
k2
k1 < k2 < k3
k1
k3
k2
M < 1: FAVORABLE
M > 1: UNFAVORABLE
M > 1: UNFAVORABLE
M = (k/)water / (k/)oil
13
POLYMER FLOODING
As the viscosity of the injected fluid increases, sweep
efficiency in the less-permeable layer increases.
14
After polymer or gel placement, injected water forms severe

viscous fingers that channel exclusively through the highpermeability layer.
16
15
MOBILITY CONTROL
Polymer water
p
Microemulsion
m
Water, w
Oil, o
Favorable displacement at
microemulsion front requires:
m o + w
Favorable displacement at
microemulsion rear requires:
p m
17
18
SELECTION OF POLYMER VISCOSITY
Want to make the water flood mobility ratio favorable.

Want to overcome the permeability contrast.
Water
Water
flood:
M = 9.4
oil
k1/k2= 4
Polymer
flood:
M~1
Polymer,
Polymer
flood:
M ~ 0.25
Polymer,
oil
p/w= 10;
k1/k2= 4
oil
p/w= 40
k1/k2= 4
19
IDEAL PROPERTIES FOR

MOBILITY CONTROL AGENTS
Low cost or high cost-effectiveness.
Allows high injectivity.
Effective when mixed with reservoir brines (up to
20% total dissolved solids).
Resistant to mechanical degradation (up to 1000
m3/m2/d flux when entering porous rock).
5 to 10 year stability at reservoir temperature (up
to 150C).
Resistant to microbial degradation.
Low retention (e.g., adsorption) in porous rock.
Effective in low-permeability rock.
Effective in the presence of oil or gas.
Not sensitive to O2, H2S, pH, or oilfield chemicals.
20
POLYMER PROPERTIES OF INTEREST

Salinity Tolerance
Shear Stability
Rheology and Injectivity
Thermal Stability
Retention
Biostability
Surfactant Compatibility
Cost
21
Both HPAM and xanthan are charged polymers,

but the rod-like xanthan gives higher viscosities
at moderate to high salinities.
1000
22
FLEXIBLE vs SEMI-RIGID ROD POLYMERS

Polyacrylamide or HPAM Polymers
0.06% polymer, 25C
[ - CH2 - CH - ]m - [ - CH2 - CH - ]n
Viscosity, mPa-s
C
100
10
>90% of oil
is in saline
reservoirs
HPAM
-O
acrylate
C
O
NH2
acrylamide
Flexible coil
Xanthan
Double helix, semi-rigid rod.
1
0.01
0.1
Brine salinity, % NaCl
Xanthan
Polysaccharide
10
23
24
RESISTANCE TO MECHANICAL DEGRADATION
MECHANICAL (OR SHEAR) DEGRADATION
% of original viscosity
120
SURFACE FACILITIES
Mixers, pumps, filters, valves, meters.
Degradation generally can be minimized
through good design (avoiding flow
constrictions).
DOWNHOLE
Depends on the nature of the completion.
Increased area at the rock interface
decreases fluid velocity and degradation.
100
XANTHAN
HPAM
80
60
40
20
0
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Velocity in porous rock, ft/d

25
Velocities in a Five-Spot Pattern (1-layer)
Although both xanthan and HPAM show shear

thinning in viscometers, HPAM shows shear
thickening in porous mediaimportant to injectivity.
0.1% polymer in seawater,
550-md Berea, 25C
Xanthan
SPE 4883:
Parsons
Fresh HPAM
10
HPAM previously forced

through core at 139 ft/d
Open
hole
10
Perforations
70% of the pattern has a velocity

within 50% of the median value.
0.1
1
0.01
Fractured
well
Deep in
reservoir
Apparent viscosity in porous

media
100
26
100
1000
10000
Superficial velocity, ft/d

27
What is the upper temperature limit for

HPAM use in chemical EOR?
STABILITY AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES

10
Viscosity half-life, yrs
28
SCLEROGLUCAN
HPAM
with Ca2+
form acrylate groups.
HPAM
without
Ca2+
< 2 ppb
dissolved
oxygen
Above 60C, acrylamide groups hydrolyze to
XANTHAN
If the degree of hydrolysis is too high and too
much Ca2+ or Mg2+ is present, HPAM polymers

precipitate.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Temperature, C
29
Temperature, C:
75
88 96 204
Max Ca2+ + Mg2+, mg/L: 2000 500 270 20
(from Moradi-Araghi and Doe, 1987)
30
THERMAL, CHEMICAL, & BIO-DEGRADATION

Both HPAM and xanthan are very susceptible to
oxidative degradation. Fortunately, most
reservoirs contain no free oxygen.
HPAMs C-C main chain is very resistant to
thermal breaking if O2 or free radicals are absent.
Xanthans C-O main chain is susceptible to
hydrolysis above 70C.
HPAMs amide groups are susceptible to
hydrolysis above 60C, leading to polymer
precipitation if Ca2+ or Mg2+ are present.
HPAM is much more resistant to bio-degradation
than xanthan.
POLYMER RETENTION
(ADSORPTION, MECHANICAL ENTRAPMENT,
PRECIPITATION) CAN VARY WITH
Mineralogy
Permeability & Pore Structure
Polymer Molecular Weight
Polymer Composition
Water Salinity & Hardness
Wettability
Temperature
Residual Saturations
Surfactant Compatibility
31
32
Older Field Projects
SURFACTANT POLYMER INTERACTION
Properties of Successful Polymer Floods

SPERE August 1997, 189-205.
Property
SURFACTANT
+ WATER
+OIL
+ POLYMER
MICROEMULSION
PHASE
Permeability, md
Temperature, C
Oil/water relative viscosity
at reservoir temperature
%OOIP present at project startup
WOR at project startup
Polymer
Polymer concentration, ppm
Polymer injected, lbs/ac-ft
Projected IOR, %OOIP
Projected IOR, bbl/lb polymer
Projected IOR, bbl/ac-ft
POLYMER
PHASE
SINGLE PHASE
MICROEMULSION
Marmul
Oerrel
Courtenay
Daqing
15,000
46
114
2,000
58
39
2,000
30
50
870
45
15
~92
1
HPAM
1,000
373
25*
1.2
27
81.5
4
HPAM
1,500
162
~13
~1.4
~230
78
8
HPAM
900
520
30
0.96
499
71
10
HPAM
1,000
271
11
0.57
155
*IOR over primary production for this case only.

For the others, IOR is incremental over waterflooding.
33
34
Some Recent Polymer Flooding Projects

Daqing: SPE 144294, 77871, 77872, 109682, 99441
Shengli: SPE 169692.
Shuanghe: SPE 50933.
Pelican Lake: SPE165234 166256, 169062
Wainwright: SPE 154050. Other Canadian: 169062
East Bodo: 09-02-55 PETSOC. Rapdan: 27820
Tambaredjo: SPE 154567, 164121, 169027, 138728
Windalia: SPE 165253
Dalia: SPE 116672, 135735
Marmul: SPE 18092, 154465, 154665, 169714
Mangala: SPE 169146, 154159, 155162, 113347
Bockstedt: 169158/169032. Matzen: SPE 169043.
Other German (older): SPE 24118, 24121, 24120
Diadema: SPE 166255
For the most successful and definitive polymerfloods:

T < 60C
k > 800 md
Oils were moderately viscous
Sand or sandstone reservoir
OOIP present at startup > 70%
WOR at startup was not high
Used >1,000-ppm HPAM in fresh water
Formation salinity was low except in one case
35
36
BOTTOM LINE
1. Higher oil prices, modest polymer prices, increased
use of horizontal wells, and controlled injection above
the formation parting pressure all help considerably to
extend the applicability of polymer flooding in
reservoirs with viscous oils.
2. A high mobile oil saturation, degree of heterogeneity,
and relatively free potential for crossflow in reservoirs
also promote the potential for polymer flooding.
3. For existing EOR polymers, viscosity increases
roughly with the square of polymer concentrationa
fact that aids the economics for polymer flooding of
viscous oils.
4. Reduced injectivity may be a greater concern for
polymer flood application than the chemical cost of
viscous polymer solutions.
SPE 129899
POTENTIAL FOR POLYMER
FLOODING VISCOUS OILS
37
38
Thermal methods cant be used for some viscous

oilsbecause of thin zones, ambient cold,
environmental constraints, permafrost, etc.
Even with no heterogeneity (i.e., one layer), reducing the

oil/water viscosity ratio substantially improves oil
displacement efficiency.
Old (1997) screening criteria for polymer flooding:

~150-cp oil was the upper limit because of
(1) polymer costs and (2) injectivity losses.
Changes since the old screening criteria:
Higher oil prices (>$70 versus ~$20/bbl).
Modest polymer prices ($1.50 versus $2/lb).
Greater use of horizontal wells.
Controlled injection above the parting pressure.
Mobile oil recovered, %
100
Is polymer flooding viable for viscous oils?
1 cp oil
90
80
70
krw=0.1 [(Sw-0.12)/(0.76)]4
kro= [(0.88-Sw)/(0.76)]2.5
60
50
10 cp
oil
103 cp
100 cp
1-Sor-Swr = 0.76
1 cp water
Injected
104 cp
40
105 cp oil
30
20
One layer, 1 cp water, linear flow,

no polymer, North Slope case
10
0
0.01
0.1
1
10
Pore volumes of water injected
100
39
40
For cases with crossflow, substantial improvements in

sweep efficiency can occur, especially when using very
For cases with no crossflow, a 10-cp polymer solution

provides noticeable sweep improvement.
90
80
70
60
50
1000 cp
polymer
Two layers,
no crossflow,
linear flow,
k1=10k2,
h1=h2,
1000 cp oil,
1 cp water
100
10 cp
1 cp
40
30
20
North Slope case

1-Sor-Swr = 0.76
10
0
0.01
0.1
1000 cp
polymer
90
100 cp
100
10
80
70
60
50
40
30
100 cp polymer
Two layers,
free crossflow,
linear flow,
k1=10k2,
h1=h2,
1000 cp oil,
1 cp water
10 cp polymer
1 cp water
20
North Slope case

1-Sor-Swr = 0.76
10
0
0.01
100
Pore volumes of polymer or water injected
0.1
10
100

41
42
Polymers are more efficient viscosifiers at high

concentrations: ~ C2 (i.e., only 40% more
polymer is needed to double the viscosity).
Viscous oil
polymer floods
1000
Most previous
polymer floods
Relative profit
Viscosity @ 7.3 s-1, cp
10000
polymer in
2.52% TDS
brine, 25C
100
diutan
xanthan
19 million Mw HPAM
7 million Mw HPAM
10
1
100
1000
10000
100000
If polymer could be injected as readily as water, injection

of very viscous polymer solutions would be preferred.
12
Two layers, free crossflow, North Slope case,
11
1,000 cp oil, k1=10k2, h1=h2, linear flow.
10
1000 cp polymer
9
$20/bbl oil
8
$1.50/lb polymer
$0.25/bbl water
7
6
100 cp polymer
10 cp polymer
5
4
3
1 cp
2
water
1
0
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
43
Scheme to Maximize Polymer Injectivity/Productivity
Relative profit
If polymer injectivity varies inversely with polymer viscosity,

injection of less viscous polymer solutions would be preferred.
INJECTIVITY MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN POLYMER COST.
12
Two layers, free crossflow, North Slope case
11
1,000 cp oil, k1=10k2, h1=h2
10
1000 cp
polymer
9
$20/bbl oil
8
$1.50/lb polymer
100 cp
$0.25/bbl water
7
polymer
6
10 cp polymer
5
1 cp water
4
3
2
1
0
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
44
Horizontal
Injector
Injector
Fractures
Minimum
stress
direction
Horizontal
Producer
1000
Relative time
Producer
Fractures
45
Can viscoelastic polymer solutions reduce the

Sor below that for waterflooding?.
1. Daqing says yes; UT Austin says maybe not.
2. Does it matter for viscous oils? (yes)
Does a delay before starting the

polymer flood hurt performance?
100
90
80
70
100 cp polymer
Two-layers,
free crossflow,
k1/k2=10, h1/h2=1,
Base case
60
50
40
0.53
PV
1-Sor-Swr = 0.4
No delay
(polymer flood
from the start)
30
20
1.06
PV
0.26
PV
10
0
0.01
2.7
PV
0.1
46
5.3
PV
Waterflood
only
1000 cp oil,
1 cp water
10
100

47
48
BOTTOM LINE
1. Higher oil prices, modest polymer prices, increased
use of horizontal wells, and controlled injection above
the formation parting pressure all help considerably to
extend the applicability of polymer flooding in
reservoirs with viscous oils.
2. A high mobile oil saturation, degree of heterogeneity,
and relatively free potential for crossflow in reservoirs
also promote the potential for polymer flooding.
3. For existing EOR polymers, viscosity increases
roughly with the square of polymer concentrationa
fact that aids the economics for polymer flooding of
viscous oils.
4. Reduced injectivity may be a greater concern for
polymer flood application than the chemical cost of
MODELING RECOVERY EFFICIENCY

1. Fractional flow calculations are just a simple
guide. Certainly, there are things that they cant
do.
2. Simulations can provide much more insight IF
they are set up and performed correctly.
3. Simulations must be benchmarked against known
answers and common sense. Example: I have
witnessed Eclipse, VIP, and UTCHEM indicating
that crossflow and no-crossflow cases giving the
same recovery values regardless of mobility ratio.
49
50
DAQING
DAQING
Why were the fractures apparently wider during

polymer injection than during water injection?
Higher pressures during polymer injection could
have flexed the fractures open wider than
during water injection.
Were fractures present?

YES
Fracture widths:
1.5 to 5 mm from injectivity/productivity
analysis during polymer injection.
0 to 1.8 mm from injectivity/productivity
analysis during water injection.
~0.01 mm from interwell tracer analysis
of polymer breakthrough.
Why were fracture widths from injectivity analysis

greater than from tracers?
Fractures were wider near wells than deep in the
formation.
51
DAQING: DID FRACTURES HURT SWEEP?

Healing the fracture reduces channeling,
but reduces injectivity/productivity, and
reduces sweep within the matrix.
20
20
18
18
16
16
14
14
Pressure, MPa
Pressure, MPa
DAQING: DID FRACTURES HURT SWEEP?

A 1-mm open fracture between two wells
allows high injection/production rates but
also allows severe channeling.
52
12
10
8
6
12
10
8
6
4
4
2
150
0
0
75
75
150
x, m
225
150
0
0
y, m
75
75
150
x, m
300
53
225
y, m
0
300
54
DAQING: DID FRACTURES HURT SWEEP? No.

Restricting the middle third of the fracture
provides the best possibility. Fractures did not
hurt sweep. Gel treatments were not needed.
Moderate-length fractures can substantially

increase injectivity and productivity and
can improve areal sweep efficiency.
20
Moderate-length fractures could have

considerable value for future EOR projects
at Daqing if very viscous fluids must be
injected to maintain mobility control.
18
Pressure, MPa
16
14
12
10
8
6
Utilizing fractures in this way requires a

good understanding of fracture formation,
length, width, height, and orientation.
4
2
150
0
0
75
75
150
x, m
225
y, m
0
300
55
Permeability reduction is greater in lowpermeability rock than in high-permeability rock.
56
If polymer molecular weight is too high, Fr values

increase with decreasing k. (A pore-plugging effect.)
What if Fr1 < Fr2? How does that affect vertical sweep?
This effect could harm vertical sweep efficiency.
Lp2 or rp2
Zone 2, k2,2, Fr2

Zone 1, k1, 1, Fr1
Vela et al. SPE 5102
HPAM
Mw= 5.5 x 106
20% hydrolysis.
Sandstone rock.
Fr = resistance factor (apparent viscosity)
Lp1 or rp1
For radial flow & no crossflow, Fr2 /Fr1 must be < 1.4.
For linear flow & no crossflow, Fr2/Fr1 must be < k1/k2.
For free crossflow, vertical sweep is insensitive to Fr2/Fr1.
57
1.5
No crossflow case,
Radial flow.
1.4
For polymers, Fr values often increase with decreasing k.

What if Fr1 Fr2? If no crossflow, vertical sweep is far
more tolerant to Fr2 / Fr1 for linear flow than for radial flow.
If fluids can crossflow, then Fr2 / Fr1 matters little.
100
k1/k2= 20
1.3
k1/k2= 10
1.2
k1/k2= 5
1.1
k1/k2= 2
Limits for linear flow,

Fr2 /Fr1 = k1 /k2
Resistance factor
Maximum allowable resistance factor in Zone 2

(relative to that in Zone 1) to achieve vertical sweep
no worse than for a water flood
For polymers, Fr values often increase with decreasing k.

What if Fr1 Fr2? For radial flow, Fr2 must be < 1.4 Fr1.
58
Data points: Vela,22

0.06% Pusher 700 HPAM,
13.3% brine, 150F, Sor
10
Limits for radial flow,

Fr2 /Fr1 = 1.4
10
100
Resistance factor in Zone 1
1000
10
59
100
1000
Pre-polymer core permeability (k w at S or ), md
60
10
Rheology: Bottom Line

1. The low-shear-rate viscosity is the best indicator of
resistance factor deep in a formation, if you dont have
good data from corefloods.
2. If your corefloods indicate low-flux resistance factors
that are much higher than low-shear-rate viscosities,
be suspiciousdo more tests.
3. Unless your water is VERY fresh or the polymer
concentration is very high, HPAM shows nearNewtonian behavior at low flux and shear-thickening at
higher flux: This increases the probability that the
polymer must be injected above the fracture pressure.
4. In any realistic reservoir, shear-thinning behavior (e.g.,
xanthan use) is not bad for sweep efficiency.
5. If you want to use non-Newtonian behavior in your
simulator, compare your results with Newtonian
behavior to see if the results make sense.
SPE 129200
Polymer Rheology in
Porous Media
61
When Displacing Viscous Oils,

Viscous Polymer Solutions May Be
Needed to Improve Sweep Efficiency
62
Xanthan shows shear thinning in porous media.

100
High-viscosity oil
Low-viscosity
oil
Resistance factor
water or
polymer
solution
Resistance factors (effective viscosities

in porous media) at low velocities
determine the sweep efficiency during
polymer or chemical floods.
600 ppm xanthan,

2.52% TDS, 25C
55 md
269 md
5120 md
~0.5 ft (14-15 cm)
long cores
10
1
0.01
0.1
10
Flux, ft/d
100
1000
63
64
At low velocities in short cores with low permeability (e.g., 55

md), fresh xanthan solutions show shear thinning, whereas
viscosity data predicts Newtonian behavior.
Xanthan solutions show shear-thinning behavior in

porous media and resistance factors correlate well
using the capillary bundle parameter, u (1-)/(k)0.5.
Shear rate, s-1
Resistance factor or viscosity, cp
Resistance factor
100
55 md
10
269 md
600 ppm xanthan,

2.52% TDS, 25C
5120 md
~0.5 ft (14-15 cm)

long cores
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
u (1-)/( k)0.5, ft/d-md0.5
100
65
100
10
100
1000
10000
Is this caused by a high Mw

polymer species that will not
penetrate deep into a reservoir?
55 md
269 md
5120 md
viscosity
10
600 ppm xanthan,
2.52% TDS, 25C
~0.5 ft (14-15 cm)
long cores
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
u (1-)/( k)0.5, ft/d-md0.5
100
66
11
If the polymer first flows through a few feet of rock,

resistance-factor-versus-flux data closely follows
expectations from viscosity-versus-shear-rate data.
If the polymer first flows through a few feet of rock,

resistance-factor-versus-flux data closely follows
expectations from viscosity-versus-shear-rate data.
u (1-)/( k)0.5, ft/d-md0.5

0.001
100
0.1
0.01
u (1-)/( k)0.5, ft/d-md0.5
10
100
0.001
100
short core
24-48 cm
48-73 cm
73-98 cm
98-122 cm
viscosity
10
Red circles: at 20 PV
for 14.4-cm, 55-md core.
Other symbols: at 2.5 PV
for 122-cm, 57-md core.
1
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.1
600 ppm xanthan,

2.52% TDS, 25C
0.1
Resistance factor
Resistance factor
600 ppm xanthan,

2.52% TDS, 25C
10
100
10
10
short core
24-48 cm
48-73 cm
73-98 cm
98-122 cm
viscosity
Red circles: at 20 PV
for 14.4-cm, 55-md core.
Other symbols: at 2.5 PV
for 122-cm, 57-md core.
1
0.001
1000
0.01
0.1
Flux, ft/d
100
Suggests that the high Mw

species travels 1/6 to 1/3
the rate of normal xanthan.
10
100
1000
Flux, ft/d
67
1960s Dow HPAM Claim
68
HPAM Behavior in Porous Media
Pye, JPT, August, 1964
HPAM can reduce water

mobility both by increasing
water viscosity and by
reducing permeability:
Resistance factor
100
=k/
Resistance factor (Fr or RF)

Fr = (k / )brine / (k / )polymer
This effect is typically seen in
short laboratory cores using
fresh, gently-handled solutions.
Shear rate, s-1

10
100
1
2500 ppm HPAM,
Mw ~6-8 million,
30% hydrolysis
2.52% TDS, 25C
1000
Is this caused by a high

Mw polymer species
that will not penetrate
deep into a reservoir?
10
55-md core, fresh HPAM
10-cp
polymer
solution

viscosity
1
0.001
Can permeability reduction really

be exploited in a useful way in
a real polymer flood?
0.01
0.1
10
u (1-)/( k)0.5, ft/d-md0.5
69
Shear thinning can be seen for fresh HPAM solutions at low flux,
especially in low-k cores. However, flow through a few feet of
porous media can reduce or eliminate this effect.
especially in low-k cores. However, exposure to high flux or
pressure gradient can reduce or eliminate this effect.
2500 ppm HPAM, Mw ~6-8 million, 30% hydrolysis
2.52% TDS, 25C
Shear degradation
eliminates this effect.
10
46-md core section, degraded HPAM
17.5-md core section, degraded HPAM
viscosity
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
10-cp
polymer
solution
u (1-)/( k)0.5, ft/d-md0.5
0.01
100
Resistance factor
Resistance factor
100
70
0.1
10

2.52% TDS, 25C. 9 PV was first forced through 4
ft (122 cm) of 47-md Berea at 1.6 ft/d flux.
The final effluent was re-injected into a 0.44-ft
long Berea core using a range of flux values.
10
Flow through 4-ft of rock
also eliminates the effect.
1
0.01
10
u (1-)/( k)0.5, ft/d-md0.5
0.1
73 md Section 1
94 md Section 2
81 md Section 3
viscosity
10
100
Flux, ft/d
71
72
12
HPAM Rheology in Porous Rock:

1) Newtonian at low flux,
2) shear thickening at intermediate flux,
3) mechanical degradation at high flux.
For HPAM solutions with a sufficiently low salinity and/or

sufficiently high polymer concentration, shear thinning can be
observed in porous media at moderate to low fluxes.
1000
100
Resistance factor in the second

section
Resistance factor
1000
3830S HPAM:
Mw ~18-20 million,
40% hydrolysis.
5,120-md polyethylene core.
25C
10
900-ppm HPAM in 2.52% TDS brine
1000-ppm HPAM in distilled water
400-ppm HPAM in distilled water
1
0.01
0.1
10
100
From SPE 115142

in 0.3% NaCl
100
in sea water
10
1,000 ppm 3830S HPAM, Mw ~18-20 million,

40% hydrolysis. 573-md Berea core, 25C
1000
1
0.01
Flux, ft/d
0.1
1
Flux, ft/d
10
100
73
Rheology in Porous Media
Effect of Polymer Concentration

on 3830S HPAM in a 5120 md Core
1000
Resistance factor
Mw ~18-20 million,
40% hydrolysis,
2.52% TDS, 25C
HPAM
concentration
100
74
Until recently, most commercial chemical flood

simulators assumed shear thinning behavior
for polymers at moderate to high velocities in
porous media.
2500 ppm
1600 ppm
900 ppm
480 ppm
200 ppm
100 ppm
50 ppm
25 ppm
0 ppm
The assumption is ok for xanthan biopolymers,

but is wrong for HPAM (polyacrylamides)the
main EOR polymer.
10
This incorrect assumption for HPAM results in

overly optimistic injectivity estimates if vertical
wells are not fractured.
1
0.1
10
Flux, ft/d
100
1000
75
Rheology assumed by Alsofi and Blunt
IMPACT OF RHEOLOGY ON SWEEP EFFICIENCY

Based on numerical work, Delshad et al. (U. Texas) and AlSofi and Blunt
With their assumptions, of course shear-thickening will

provide the best sweep efficiency (because it always provides
the highest resistance factor) and shear-thinning will be worst.
100
Unfair comparison
Resistance factor
(Imperial College) suggested that shear-thinning rheology has a

substantial negative impact on sweep efficiency.
In part, their argument is based on work from Jones (1980), where layers
with different permeability were completely filled with polymer. However,
a very different result occurs if polymer is injected to DISPLACE water/oil
from a multilayer system!
Negative assessments of shear-thinning can also be obtained by an
incorrect characterization of polymer rheology: i.e., assuming that a
Newtonian fluid is always more viscous than a shear-thinning fluid.
Our analysis indicates:
Shear-thinning fluids can provide a much worse vertical sweep than
Newtonian or shear-thickening fluids IF (1) no crossflow occurs
between layers AND (2) the injection rates and pressure gradients
are unrealistically high.
However, for realistic reservoir conditions and polymer properties,
rheology has very little impact on vertical sweep, especially for
adjacent layers with free crossflow.
The overall resistance factor at low flux has a greater impact vertical
sweep efficiency.
Experimental verification can be found at:
http://baervan.nmt.edu/randy.
76
10
Newtonian
Shear thinning
Shear thickening
1
0.01
77
0.1
10
Flux, ft/d
100
1000
78
13
For real fluids, the low-flux resistance

factor or zero-shear viscosity increases
with increasing polymer concentration
and with the level of shear thinning.
If polymers are compared at constant

polymer concentration or constant polymer
cost, a different conclusion may be reached.
100

550-md Berea, 25C
The resistance factor

here is what is most
important to sweep!
10
Fresh HPAM
Open
hole
10
10
Perforations
100
1000
10000
1
0.01
0.1
79
Rheology and Sweep Efficiency
10
Flux, ft/d
100
1000
80
However, a very different result occurs if

polymer is injected to DISPLACE
Crossflow in a two-layer beadpack. SPE 24192
water/oil
from adisplacing
multilayered
Xanthan solutions
water; k 1reservoir!
/k 2 = 11.2.
Some suggest that shear thinning fluids are bad

for vertical sweep efficiency (Jones 1980).
If two zones are completely filled with polymer
solution, the flow profile for a shear-thinning
fluid will be worse than for a Newtonian fluid.
Zone 2, k2,2, Fr2, v2
100 ppm
300 ppm
500 ppm
600 ppm
800 ppm
0.1
1
0.01
Fractured
well
Deep in
reservoir
Resistance factor
Xanthan

media
100
Let (k12,)/(k21)=10
Zone 1, k1, 1, Fr1, v1
v1/v2 ~ (k1/k2) = 10 for a Newtonian fluid (e.g., water).

For a shear-thinning fluid, Fr ~ (v)(n-1) (k/)(1-n)/2
If k1/k2=10 and n=0.5, v1/v2 ~ (k1/k2)1.5 = 32
0-ppm xanthan, 1 cp
Layer 1
Layer 2
200-ppm xanthan, 3 cp
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 1
Layer 2
Xanthan
Water
81
Rheology: Bottom Line
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF RHEOLOGY

AND CROSSFLOW ON VERTICAL FLOW PROFILES
1. The low-shear-rate viscosity is the best indicator of

resistance factor deep in a formation, if you dont have
good data from corefloods.
2. If your corefloods indicate low-flux resistance factors
that are much higher than low-shear-rate viscosities,
be suspiciousdo more tests.
3. Unless your water is VERY fresh or the polymer
concentration is very high, HPAM shows nearNewtonian behavior at low flux and shear-thickening at
higher flux: This increases the probability that the
polymer must be injected above the fracture pressure.
4. In any realistic reservoir, shear-thinning behavior (e.g.,
xanthan use) is not bad for sweep efficiency.
5. If you want to use non-Newtonian behavior in your
simulator, compare your results with Newtonian
behavior to see if the results make sense.
p, L
Zone 2, k2, Fr2

Zone 1, k1, Fr1
82
v2 p k2 / ( 2 L)
v1 p k1 / ( Fr1 1 L)
At the front,v2 /v1 Fr1 k2 1 / ( k1 2)
For a shear-thinning fluid, Fr ~ (v)(n-1) (k/)(1-n)/2

Near the well, if n=0.5, v1/v2 ~ (k1/k2)1.5, so the flow
profile appears worse, even though vertical sweep

is as good as it can be.
83
84
14
INJECTIVITY: BOTTOM LINE

1. For most previous polymer floods, injection has
occurred above the formation parting (fracture)
pressureeven though the operators insisted that
they did not.
2. This is not bad, so long as fracture extension is
controlled so that fractures dont (a) let fluids flow
out of zone or (b) extend far enough to cause
channeling.
3. Be realistic. If you cant live with the injectivity
reduction associated with a viscous fluid, dont insist
that you are going to inject below the parting
pressure.
4. If you are willing to inject above the parting pressure,
spend some time understand how the fractures will
extend and the consequences.
SPE 115142
INJECTIVITY CHARACTERISTICS
OF EOR POLYMERS
85
86
Injectivity:
Objectives:
Estimate injectivity losses associated with
polymer solutions if fractures are not open.
Estimate the degree of fracture extension if
fractures are open.
Defined as injection rate divided by pressure

drop from the wellbore into the formation.
Want a high injectivity to allow rapid

displacement and recovery of oil.
Polymers are needed for mobility control for
Factors Affecting Polymer Solution Injectivity:

Debris/microgels/undissolved polymer
Rheology in porous media
Mechanical degradation
Displacement of residual oil (not considered here)
most chemical flooding projects:
The viscous nature of polymer solutions will
necessarily reduce injectivity unless the well

intersects a fracture.
Fractures can cause severe channeling and/or
injection out of zone for expensive EOR fluids.
87
For both xanthan and HPAM solutions, filterability
Plugging of Rock Face During Polymer Injection
varies a lot, depending on polymer source.
~ for unfractured vertical wells.

~ 103 - 104 cm3/cm2 for fractured vertical wells.
cm3/cm2
Filter cake resistance, cmcp/darcy
106
0.13% X US K HV, 75 cp
0.13% X US K K36, 60 cp
0.13% X US K XC, 47 cp
0.1225% X US K K70, 60 cp
0.13% X CH Sh F, 60 cp
0.1% P FR S 38, 9 cp
0.234% P FR S 38, 60 cp
0.2% P CH H K5, 60 cp
10000
Throughput for field EOR projects:

105
88
Previous lab filter tests
Used less than 40 cm3/cm2 throughput.

Typically use filter ratios. [(t500-t400)/ t200-t100)]
Do not correlate with injection into rock.
We developed a new filter test:
Using throughputs over 2,000 cm3/cm2.

That correlates with injection into cores.
1000
100
10
seawater
1
0.1
10
89
100
1000
Throughput, cm3/cm2
10000
90
15
Even with the cleanest polymers, face plugging

will exceed the capacity of unfractured wells
during most chemical EOR projects.
Fracture extension expectations for

polymers that plug at a give throughput.
600
Fracture half length, ft .
10000
Throughput, cm 3/cm2
3000
cm3/cm2
1000
600
cm3/cm2
100
cm3/cm2
100
10
20-ac spacing,
rw=0.375 ft, = 0.2
1
0.0001
0.001
0.01
PV injected
0.1
plugging at
100 cm3/cm2
Severe
extension
500
plugging at
3,000 cm3/cm2
Moderate
extension
400
plugging at
600 cm3/cm2
Substantial
extension
300
200
100
Vertical well, 2-wing fracture,

20-acre 5-spot, =0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
PV injected
91
92
Xanthan rheology in porous media
Xanthan is remarkably resistant to
correlates well with that in a viscometer.
mechanical (shear) degradation.
100
0.1% CP Kelco xanthan in seawater,

551-md Berea core, 25C
Viscosity, cp
100
Viscosity vs
shear rate x 1/20
10
Resistance factor
vs flux
0.1% CP Kelco xanthan in seawater, 25C
10
AOriginal polymer solution
BAfter 2,480 psi/ft through 102-md Berea
CAfter 19,500 psi/ft through 102-md Berea
DAfter 24,600 psi/ft through 102-md Berea
Fr = 2.5 + 20 u-0.5
1
0.01
1
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Flux, ft/d, or shear rate/20, 1/s
10000
10
Shear rate, 1/s
100
1000
93
94
Although HPAM solutions show pseudoplastic

behavior in a viscometer, they show Newtonian
or shear-thickening behavior in porous rock.
100
Shear thickening
or pseudodilatant
Resistance
factor vs flux
100
Resistance factor in the second
section
1000
HPAM Rheology in Porous Rock:

1) Newtonian at low flux,
2) pseudodilatant at intermediate flux,
3) mechanical degradation at high flux.
Mechanical
degradation
Newtonian
10
Viscosity vs
shear rate
0.1% 3830S HPAM
in 0.3% NaCl, 25C
573-md Berea Core
Shear thinning
or pseudoplastic
1
0.01
0.1
1
10
Flux, ft/d, or shear rate/20, 1/s
0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM in seawater,

Fr = 7.9 + u2/5.6
Fresh solution
10
Pre-sheared at 139 ft/d
Fr = 3.7 + u2/1960
100
100
0.1
95
10
Flux, ft/d
1000
96
16
Even without face plugging, the viscous nature of

the solutions investigated requires that injectivity
must be less than 20% that of water if formation
parting is to be avoided (unless Sor is reduced).
HPAM can show an entrance pressure drop
on entering porous rock. Xanthan does not.

0.1% 3830S HPAM,
300
250
Fresh
solution
in seawater
1
Injectivity relative to water
Entrance pressure drop, psi
350
Pre-sheared at 139 ft/d

(938 psi/ft) in seawater
200
150
Fresh solution
in 0.3% NaCl
100
Pre-sheared at 41 ft/d (4640
psi/ft) in 0.3% NaCl
50
0
Vertical well, 20-acre 5-spot, =0.2

3 cp Newtonian
HPAM: Fr = 3.7 + u2/1960
10 cp Newtonian
0.1
0.1
xanthan: Fr = 2.5 + 20 u-0.5

30 cp Newtonian
100 cp Newtonian
HPAM: Fr = 42 + 11 u
0.01
0.1
10
Flux, ft/d
100
1000
0.01
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
PV injected
97
98
Fracture extension expectations for

polymers with different rheologies
SIMPLE MODELING OF INJECTIVITY

1. First, for vertical wells, you are looking for a YESNO answer about whether fractures must be open
during polymer injection.
2. Simple radial flow equation (polymer/water
injectivity):
300
Fracture half length, ft
HPAM: Fr = 42 + 11u
I /Io = Ln (re/rw) / [Fr Ln (rp/rw) + Ln (re/rp)]

Assume re=1000 m, rw=0.1 m, rp = 100 m.
Fr
I /Io
0.40
10
0.13
20
0.07
50
0.03
HPAM: Fr = 65 + 90u0.75
xanthan:
Fr = 2.5 + 20u-0.5
200
HPAM:
Fr = 7.9 + u2/5.6
HPAM:
Fr = 3.7 + u2/1960
100
Vertical well, vertical 2-wing fracture

re = 330 ft, rw=0.375 ft. 0.1% polymer
0
3. If you inject above the formation parting pressure,

the fracture(s) will extend to accommodate polymer
injection.
0.1
0.2
0.3
PV injected
0.4
99
0.5
100
STAATSOLIE SURINAME

1. For most previous polymer floods, injection has
occurred above the formation parting (fracture)
pressureeven though the operators insisted that
they did not.
channeling.
pressure.
Oil viscosity ~1000 cp; Temperature 38C;

Depth: 1000 ft; Thickness ~40 ft; Permeability 4-12 D.
101
102
17
Rheology in Porous Media & Mechanical Degradation

Shear thinning occurs below 1 ft/d.
Shear thickening occurs between 1 and 40 ft/d.
Mechanical degradation occurs above ~40 ft/d.

100
Effluent viscosity, % of
injected viscosity (at 7.3 1/s)
Effective viscosity in porous media
1000
1000-ppm fresh HPAM
1350-ppm fresh HPAM
100
HPAM in Sarah Maria Water (500-ppm TDS),

25C. 4-darcy porous medium.
0.1
10
100
1000
HPAM in Sarah Maria

Water (500-ppm TDS), 25C.
After passing through 4-darcy
porous medium at given flux.
60
50
100
1000
10000
Flux, ft/d
103
104
INJECTIVITY
Injectivity Test of August, 2008, in Well 1M101

Injectant
water
water
water
water
water
water
1000-ppm
polymer
0.05
1000-ppm HPAM
0.04
1350-ppm HPAM
0.03
Predicted polymer injectivity relative

to water, assuming an open-hole
completion.
0.02
10
10000
Assuming an open-hole completion, polymer injectivity should be

1-2% of water injectivity, with our HPAM rheology.
Actual polymer injectivity was 27-62% that of water.
Fractures were open during polymer injection.
1350-ppm HPAM
70
40
Flux, ft/d
1000-ppm HPAM
80
10
0.01
90
Injection
rate, BPD
100
650
125
650
175
650
BHP,
psi
553
845
482
737
471
638
Injectivity,
BPD/psi
0.28
1.01
0.44
1.21
0.65
1.48
Fracture
status
closed
open
mostly closed
open
mostly closed
open
175
635
0.40
open
Fractures were open during polymer injection

Radial horizontal fractures are expected at 1000-ft depth.
Calculations indicate the maximum radial fracture extension to be
0.01
0
1
10
100
1000
Radius of polymer front, ft
~20 ft. So polymer injectivity is substantially improved without

compromising sweep efficiency.
Polymer and salinity breakthroughs and production performance
indicated no channeling through fractures.
105
106
CONCLUSIONS
2. A strong shear-thickening rheology was observed for
1000-ppm and 1350-ppm HPAM solutions in porous
media. Injectivity analysis revealed that these
solutions were injected above the formation parting
pressure in the Sarah Maria polymer injection wells.
3. Analysis suggested that the fractures extended only a

short distance (~20 ft) from the injection wells and did
not jeopardize sweep efficiency. In contrast, the short
fractures greatly improved polymer injectivity and
reduced concern about polymer mechanical
degradation.
Injectivity is enhanced without

channeling, so long as the fracture
does not extend to the producer.
107
108
18
A DILEMMA FOR POLYMER FLOODING
Effective permeability of the flow path,

darcys .
1. Injecting above the parting pressure is often

necessary for adequate injectivity.
2. If polymer breaks through early, how can you tell if it
is because of a fracture or viscous fingering?
3. If breakthrough occurs from a fracture, you should
decrease the injection rate and/or polymer viscosity.
4. If breakthrough occurs from viscous fingering, you
should increase the polymer viscosity.
MATRIX OR FRACTURE FLOW?
1000
Transit through fractures that cause severe

channeling should occur fastdays or less.
Transit through viscous fingers typically takes
months.
k ~ re2 /(4t p)
100
Fracture flow
probable
10
Matrix flow
probable
1
=1 cp, p=2000 psi, re=1000 ft.

L~2re, which depends on well spacing
0.1
0.1
10
100
Interwell tracer transit time, days
1000
109
110
BREAKTHROUGH TIME FOR VISCOUS FINGERING AS A

FUNCTION OF OIL/POLYMER VISCOSITY RATIO
(from Ivan Kurnia MS thesis, 2014)
SPE 169027
Field vs Laboratory Polymer Retention
Values for a Polymer Flood in the
Tambaredjo Field
R.N. Manichand, Staatsolie Maatschappij
Suriname N.V. and R.S. Seright, New
Mexico Tech
111
112
Polymer bank delay factors associated with polymer retention.

2
Pore volume delay factor
OUTLINE
1. Importance of polymer retention.
2. Literature review of polymer retention.
3. Literature review of inaccessible pore volume
(IAPV).
4. Review of methods to assess polymer retention.
5. Laboratory polymer retention values In
Tambarejo sand (associated with Sarah Maria
polymer flood pilot).
6. Field polymer retention values associated with
Sarah Maria polymer flood pilot in Suriname.
= 0.3
rock = 2.65 g/cm3
IAPV = 0.
1.5
Polymer
Concentration
200 ppm
500 ppm
1000 ppm
1500 ppm
2000 ppm
3000 ppm
0.5
0
1
10
100
1000
Polymer retention, g/g
113
10 g/g & 1500 ppm polymer: delay = 0.04 PV.

114
19
LITERATURE REVIEW OF INACCESSIBLE PV (IAPV)

LITERATURE REVIEW OF POLYMER RETENTION
1. Reported IAPV values are VERY inconsistent, especially

with respect to permeability dependence.
1. Clay (high-surface-area materials) and iron in the rock

dominate polymer retention.
2. Polymer retention can increase dramatically with
decreasing permeability, especially below 100 md. Most
current polymer floods are applied in very permeable
formations (> 500 md).
3. Most (but not all) polymer retention data suggests that
use of the Langmuir isotherm is inappropriate. Ironically,
most commercial simulators use the Langmuir isotherm.
4. Retention of xanthan is usually less than that of HPAM.
5. The most reliable current means to measure polymer
retention is the double-polymer/tracer-bank method.
6. Retention in the presence of residual oil is ~1/2 half that
without Sor. Wettability has not been established as a key
factor in polymer retention.
2. The available theories for the IAPV phenomenon cannot

explain the magnitude and odd variations of IAPV with
changes in permeability . Experimental limitations?
3. More work is needed to understand IAPV phenomenon.
4. Most current large polymer floods are in reservoirs with
high-permeability sands or sandstones (Daqing: 800 md;
Pelican Lake: 1-3 darcys; Mangala: 5 darcys; Marmul: 15
darcys; Dalia: >1 darcy; Tambaredjo: 4-12 darcys).
5. A conservative approach to design of a polymer flood
would assume that inaccessible pore volume is zero,
especially in multi-darcy sands
115
116
PREFERRED POLYMER RETENTION METHOD

REVIEW OF POLYMER RETENTION METHODS
1. Mass balance on polymer: Polymer slug followed by water.
a. Unfavorable displacement during water injection after
polymer requiring MANY PV of water.
b. Significant errors accumulate from measuring low
polymer concentrations.
C/Co
2. Static method: Sand mixed with polymer solution.

a. Relies on only two measurements of polymer
concentration.
b. Exposes extra mineral area for crushed rock.
c. Does not account for mechanically entrapped polymer.
3. Double polymer/tracer bank method.

a. Two banks injected.
b. Each bank contains both polymer and tracer (KI).
c. ~100 PV of brine injected between the banks.
d. Only the front part of a given breakout curve is used
thus eliminating problems with unstable displacement.
e. IAPV: from area difference between the polymer and tracer
breakout curves for the 2nd bank.
f. Retention: from the area difference between the polymer
and tracer breakout for the 1st bank, after adding IAPV.
tracer
polymer
Retention
- IAPV
IAPV
PV
117
118
Polymer Retention and IAPV

from Laboratory Studies
Tambaredjo Sands, Sarah Maria
Polymer Flood, Suriname
T1 Sand
T2 Sand
Retention,
g/g
0 20
0 20
IAPV
Laboratory polymer retention measurements

use/represent a VERY small part of the reservoir.
Can field measurements be used to obtain more
representative polymer retention values?
Data would be helpful for scale up to a larger project.
1N11
1M10
0 10%
1M09
0 10%
1N061
1M101
What is the best source of reservoir sand?

a. Coring?
b. From the shale shaker during drilling?
c. Sand production from a production well?
d. Synthetic sand?
1N062
1N08
1N06
1N01
1M051
1M04
I
1M052
1I25
119
1M05
~600 cp oil
4-12 darcy sand
The Sarah Maria

Polymer Flood Pilot
Tambaredjo Field,
Suriname
120
20
Injected salinity: 500-ppm TDS.

Formation water salinity: 4700-ppm TDS.
Polymer flood started right after primary production.
Produced water salinity can act as a tracer.
900
800
Produced polymer, ppm
6000
Produced water salinity, ppm TDS
Injected 1000-ppm HPAM from 9/2008 11/2011.

Inected 1350-ppm HPAM from 11/2011 2/2013.
Recommend more frequent polymer sampling.
1N11
1I25
1N06
1M05
1M09
1N01
5000
4000
3000
2000
700
600
500
400
1N11
1I25
1N06
1M05
1M09
1N01
300
200
100
1000
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2008
2014
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Year
121
122
Procedure to Estimate Polymer Retention from Field Data
Procedure to Estimate Polymer Retention from Field Data
1. Assume IAPV = 0.
2. For each producer, use the stabilized salinity data to
establish the fraction of water flow coming from a
nearby injector. (fwtrac = B/A).
3. Use salinity to assign a swept volume between an
injector producer pair.
4.Estimate the rock mass in the swept area:

5.Estimate polymer retention:
900
Produced polymer, ppm
Produced water salinity, ppm TDS
5000
4000
1N11
3000
2000
600
Injected polymer
= 1000 ppm
1N11
500
Cpolyo possibilities:
1. Stabilized produced
polymer concentration
2. 1000 ppm x fwtrac
400
300
200
0
2008
0
2009
700
100
1000
2008
800
6000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Year
123
Parameters for Estimation of

Polymer Retention from Field Data
124
CONCLUSIONS
Production well
1N11
1I25
1N06
1M05
1M09
1N01
Starting salinity,
ppm TDS
4737
4686
4657
4432
4707
3998
Ending salinity,
ppm TDS
1291
1692
1684
2531
2281
1769
Ending polymer,
ppm
634
550
375
226
216
395
fwtrac
0.813
0.708
0.715
0.483
0.577
0.637
Range of
retention values,
g/g
160-517
129-247
53-125
14-337
45-99
50-168
1. A review of the polymer-retention literature revealed that

iron and high-surface-area minerals (e.g., clays)
dominate polymer retention measurements in permeable
rock and sand (>100 md).
2. A review of the literature on inaccessible pore volume
revealed inconsistent and unexplained behavior. A
conservative approach to design of a polymer flood in
high-permeability (>1 darcy) sands would assume that
inaccessible pore volume is zero.
3. Laboratory measurements using fluids and sands
associated with the Sarah Maria polymer flood in
Suriname suggested polymer retention and inaccessible
pore volume values near zero.
Most retention values fall between 50 and 250 g/g

125
126
21
CONCLUSIONS
SPE 164121
4. A procedure was developed using salinity-tracer and

polymer concentrations from production wells to
estimate polymer retention during the Sarah Maria
polymer flood in the Tambaredjo reservoir.
5. Field calculations indicated much higher polymer
retention values than lab tests, typically ranging from ~50
to 250 g/g.
Effective Propagation of HPAM Solutions

through the Tambaredjo Reservoir during
a Polymer Flood
6. Field cores necessarily represent an extremely small

fraction of the reservoir. Because of the importance of
polymer retention, there is considerable value in deriving
polymer retention from field results, so that information
can be used in the design of project expansions.
127
128
Substantial improvements in sweep efficiency can

occur, especially when using very viscous polymer
solutions.
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON

AERIAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
100
1000 cp
polymer
90
M < 1: FAVORABLE
M > 1: UNFAVORABLE
80
100 cp polymer
Two layers,
free crossflow,
linear flow,
k1=10k2,
h1=h2,
1000 cp oil,
1 cp water
70
60
50
40
30
10 cp polymer
1 cp water
20
1-Sor-Swr = 0.76
10
0
0.01
0.1
10
100

129
130
Polyacrylamide or HPAM Polymers
When Displacing Viscous Oils,

Viscous Polymer Solutions May Be
Needed to Improve Sweep Efficiency
[ - CH2 - CH - ]m - [ - CH2 - CH - ]n
C
-O
C
O
acrylate
1000
100
NH2
acrylamide
High-viscosity
oil
Polymers are more efficient

viscosifiers at high concentrations:
~ C2 (i.e., only 40% more polymer
is needed to double the viscosity).
polymer
solution
degraded
polymer
solution
10
Polymer must remain stable during most

of the transit through the reservoir.
19 million Mw HPAM
1
100
High-viscosity oil
1000
10000
131
132
22
Where does the degradation occur? If polymer

degradation occurs during the first part of the
flood, the polymer flood could be jeopardized.
Our hypothesis:
1. Iron minerals strip any dissolved oxygen from
solution soon after injection (Seright 2010).
2. Fe2+ enters the polymer solution during transit
through the reservoir.
3. Dissolved Fe2+ does not harm HPAM
effectiveness if no dissolved O2 is present.
4. Degradation occurs when HPAM solutions mix
with air during sampling at the producer.
5. Better sampling methods are needed.
133
134
Depletion of dissolved oxygen by

run
reaction withGeochemistry
sand containing
1% pyrite
If both dissolved oxygen and iron are

present, severe polymer degradation
can occur.
5000
Dissolved oxygen,
ppb
Fe2+ + O2 + HPAM
125C
105C
85C
75C
35C
25C
Initial level:
5000 ppb O2
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.01
0.1 Time, days
10
Dissolved O2 that entered the reservoir prior to polymer injection will have
been consumed and will not aggravate polymer degradation.
If an O2 leak develops during the course of polymer injection, that O2 will not
compromise the stability of the polymer that was injected before the leak
developed or after the leak is fixed.
Polymer that is injected while the leak is active will be susceptible to
oxidative degradation. OXYGEN REMOVAL IS NECESSARY!
(But O2 can be removed without use of expensive chemicals).
Fe3+ + H2O + degraded HPAM

135
MODELING O2 TRANSPORT THROUGH A RESERVOIR

What if some O2 is present? How long will it take for
reaction with the oil to deplete the O2?
Radius at which dissolved oxygen

is depleted by reaction with oil
1,000 BWPD/ft pay injected,
Sor = 0.3, = 0.3
1000
Exposure time before oxygen
depletion, hrs
Radius of the oxygen front, ft
1000
100
5000 ppb O2
50 ppb O2
10
5 ppb O2
1
50
100
150
136
5000 ppb O2
100
50 ppb O2
10
1,000 BWPD/ft pay injected,
Sor = 0.3, = 0.3
5 ppb O2
200
50
Temperature, C
100
150
200
Temperature, C
137
138
23
New Anaerobic Sampling Method

1. Point the outlet end of the sample cylinder up during
collection at the wellhead.
2. In the lab, if needed, pressurize the sample cylinder
with N2.
3. Flow anaerobic solution into the bottom of the
viscometer cup (and overflow out the top).
139
140
CONCLUSIONS
Improved Sampling Method Results
1. A new method was developed for anaerobically sampling

polymer solutions from production wells in the Sarah
Maria polymer flood pilot project in Suriname. Whereas
previous methods indicated severe polymer degradation,
the improved methods revealed that the polymer
propagated intact over 300 ft through the Tambaredjo
formation. This finding substantially reduces concerns
about HPAM stability and propagation through low- and
moderate-temperature reservoirs.
Well 1N11 1N06

Polymer, ppm 896
465
cp @ 7.3 s-1
Direct aerobic sampling
6
5
New method
32
14
KEY POINT: Minimum HPAM

degradation after flowing >300
feet through the reservoir.
141
142
OXIDATIVE DEGRADATION OF HPAM
SPE 169030
If O2 is present, HPAM degradation depends on

T, pH, EH, and concentrations of Fe2+, O2
scavenger, polymerization impurities, and
carbonate.
If O2 is not present (and divalent cations are

not present), HPAM stability is good,
regardless of the above impurities.
If O2 is re-introduced after a chemical oxygen

scavenger is applied, a redox couple can form
and degrade the polymer.
Effect of Dissolved Iron and Oxygen on

Stability of HPAM Polymers
R.S. Seright, New Mexico Tech
Ingun Skjevrak, Statoil ASA
143
144
24
APPROACHES TO MINIMIZE OXIDATIVE

DEGRADATION IN FIELD APPLICATIONS
1. Do nothing if the temperature is low and no iron is
present in the injection water.
2. Remove any existing O2; dont let O2 enter the flow
stream.
3. Use an anti-oxidant package, including O2 scavenger.
4. Intentionally oxygenate the water to precipitate iron.
Then try to balance EH, pH, and water composition to
prevent formation of a redox couple.
Polymers and Conditions Tested

1. Two polymers: HPAM and HPAM-ATBS.
2. Two salinities: 11%-TDS and 2.85%-TDS.
3. Two temperatures: 23C and 90C.
4. Dissolved O2 concentrations from 0 to 8000 ppb.
5. Dissolved Fe2+ concentrations from 0 to 220 ppm.
6. Dissolved Fe3+ concentrations from 0 to 172 ppm.
7. Storage periods: 7-11 days.
a. Iron minerals in the reservoir will remove any
injected dissolved oxygen within days.
b. Short storage period eliminates complications
from hydrolysis/precipitation with Ca2+.
WHAT IS THE BEST APPROACH?

If iron is present, how much
dissolved O2 is acceptable?
145
O2 depletion increases with higher Fe exposure.

At the end, Fe2+ and O2 appear to co-exist.
Perhaps the polymer chelates Fe2+?
Polymer degradation is low and not sensitive
to Fe2+ if O2 < 200 ppb and temperature is low.

20
Dissolved oxygen after 11 days at

23C, ppb
Viscosity after 11 days at 23C, cp
146
15
Starting Fe2+
10
0 ppm
10 ppm
30 ppm
Nail
2000-ppm HPAM-ATBS,
11%-TDS brine
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
2000-ppm HPAM-ATBS,
11%-TDS brine
1000
Starting Fe2+
0 ppm
10 ppm
30 ppm
Nail
100
10
10000
Starting dissolved oxygen, ppb
10
100
1000
10000

147
148
The onset of polymer degradation coincided
The onset of polymer degradation coincided
However, the stoichiometry of iron oxidation
with the onset of a rise in Eh.

However, the magnitude of degradation did not
correlate with Eh.
with the onset of a decrease in pH.

predicts an increase in pH.
8
2000-ppm HPAM-ATBS,
11%-TDS brine
-100
pH after 11 days at 23C
Eh after 11 days at 23C, mV
Starting Fe2+
-200
0 ppm
10 ppm
30 ppm
Nail
-300
-400
-500
-600
7.5
Starting Fe2+
0 ppm
10 ppm
30 ppm
Nail
6.5
2000-ppm HPAM-ATBS,
11%-TDS brine
6
1
10
100
1000
10000
1
149
10
100
1000
10000
150
25
and insensitive to Fe2+ concentration.
25
20
15
15
Fe2+
10
0 ppm
5 ppm
10 ppm
20 ppm
30 ppm
23C
HPAM-ATBS
2000-ppm HPAM-ATBS,
11%-TDS brine
10
100
1000
0 ppm
5 ppm
10 ppm
20 ppm
30 ppm
23C 2.85%-TDS
90C 2.85%-TDS
23C 11%-TDS
90C 11%-TDS
20
10
15
0
0.1
10
Fe
2+
Fe2+
10
100
1000
0 ppm
5 ppm
10 ppm
20 ppm
30 ppm
2000-ppm HPAM-ATBS,
11%-TDS brine
0
1
concentration, ppm
90C
HPAM-ATBS
10
100
1000
100
1000
10000

Viscosity after one week at 90C
cp
10
2000-ppm HPAM-ATBS,
10-ppb dissolved O2 at
start.
2000-ppm HPAM,
11-%TDS brine
10000
15
23C
HPAM
Fe2+
10
Viscosity after one week at 90C

cp
Viscosity after one week, cp
30
20
20
Viscosity after one week at 23C,

cp
Viscosity after one week at 23C,

cp
With low O2 content, polymer was stable
10000
20
15
Fe2+
10
0 ppm
5 ppm
10 ppm
20 ppm
30 ppm
90C
HPAM
2000-ppm HPAM,
11-%TDS brine
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
151
152
Concentration (in ppm) of Fe3+ added to 2000-ppm HPAM-ATBS in

11%-TDS brine, 10-ppb dissolved oxygen.
0
ppm
0.344
ppm
1.72
ppm
3.44
ppm
17.2
ppm
34.4
ppm
CONCLUSIONS
172
ppm
1. Between 0 and 30 ppm Fe2+, viscosity losses were

insignificant after one week (at either 23C or 90C) if
initial O2 200 ppb. If initial O2 > 200-ppb, significant
viscosity losses occurred.
2. For high O2 content (>200 ppb), polymer degradation
increased with increased iron exposure.
Addition any concentration of

to a polymer solution forms a gel.
No gels formed during any of our studies with polymer and Fe2+.
3+
Therefore, no Fe formed during our studies with polymer and Fe2+.
Fe3+
3. For HPAM-ATBS at 90C with 10-ppb initial O2, contact

with steel caused viscosity losses of 34.4% in 2.85%-TDS
brine and 31.5% in 11%-TDS brine. In contrast at 23C,
contact with steel caused no significant degradation if O2
1000 ppb.
153
154
Implications for Field Applications
CONCLUSIONS
1. If temperature is low and the water contains no Fe2+,

no oxygen removal is needed. Iron minerals in the
formation will quickly (days) remove the oxygen.
4. When anaerobic or low-oxygen solutions were exposed

to atmospheric oxygen, polymer degradation increased
substantially with increased Fe2+ concentration.
2. If Fe2+ is present in the polymer make-up water, the

water is probably oxygen-free at its source. Keeping
the water oxygen free is the recommended
approachby preventing O2 leaks, better design of
fluid transfer, gas blanketing, gas stripping.
5. Orange gels formed when any concentration (down to

0.344 ppm) of Fe3+ was added. No gels formed during our
studies with Fe2+--suggesting that free Fe3+ did not form.
155
156
26
Why bother worrying about degradation?
How much are you spending on polymer? $10

million? $100 million?
In polymer flooding, viscosity is money. The

volume of oil you get is directly related to the
viscosity of your polymer in the reservoir.
If you lose 50%-90% of your viscosity, you are

wasting 50%-90% of your investment. Is it ok
to throw away $5-90 million? Wouldnt it be
better to spend a small fraction of that to
remove O2 from the make-up water or prevent
O2 from entering the flow stream?
CHEMICAL/OXIDATIVE
STABILITY OF POLYMERS
157

158
You cant stop hydrolysis of PAM or HPAM. At 80C, hydrolysis

will rise to ~60% after 100 days. (Moradi and Doe, Phillips,
SPERE May 1987). Preventing >50% hydrolysis could be done
by incorporating at least 50% AMPS or NVP (SPE 14233).


precipitate.
Temperature, C:
75
88 96 204
Max Ca2+ + Mg2+, mg/L: 2000 500 270 20
159
160
Approaches to mitigating HPAM precipitation:

1. A few hot reservoirs exist with low hardness.
2. Hydrolysis-resistant monomers (AMPS, NVP) can be
incorporated into PAM polymers (Moradi-Araghi, Doe
1987). Need >50% NVP or AMPS. They tend to be
expensive and less effective as viscosifiers.
3. Fresh water or low-hardness HPAM solutions can
provide efficient sweep with minimum mixing with
saline brines if polymer mobility is sufficiently low
(Maitin 1992). Requires that mixing and cation
exchange be understood and controlled.
4. Complex the hardness with chelating agents
(Albonico and Lockhart, ENI, SPE 25220). Expensive.
Must still prevent mixing with the formation water.
May not provide any benefit over just using seawater.
161
WILL A CO/TER-POLYMER WITH AMPS OR

NVP BE MORE STABLE THAN HPAM?
AMPS or NVP copolymers are more
expensive, give lower Mw, and are less
effective viscosifiers than HPAM.
AMPS or NVP copolymers with <45%
AMPS/NVP will not be more stable (to either
O2 or precipitation) than HPAM. [Doe, SPERE
Nov. 1987; Parker and Lezzi, Polymer 34(23)
1993; Seright SPEJ June 2010].
162
27
If divalent cations are not a problem, what is the

upper temperature limit for HPAM use in EOR?
Maximizing polymer stability requires
minimizing oxygen contact.
Most reservoirs produce water with no
detectable dissolved oxygen.
Oxygen-free EOR solutions can readily be
prepared in the field by (1) preventing leaks,
(2) gas blanketing tanks and mixing facilities,
(3) gas stripping if necessary, (4) adding
chemical oxygen scavengers if necessary.
Lab record to date: Shupe (1981) reported a 13%
viscosity loss after 250 days at 105C when a
chemical oxygen scavenger was used.
Preparing, Storing, and Studying O2-Free Polymer

Solutions in the Laboratory. Our Method:
Prepare solutions in an anaerobic chamber with
10% H2 + 90% N2 circulated through Pd catalyst.
O2 levels measured to <0.001% in the chamber
atmosphere and to <0.1 ppb in solution.
Brine reduced to <0.1 ppb O2 by bubbling
chamber gas into the brine (requires ~ 1 hour).
Polymer stored and mixed in the chamber.
Solutions sealed in 150 ml teflon-lined cylinders.
Solutions stored in 120C-180C baths outside
the anaerobic chamber.
Viscosity at 7.3 s-1, O2, and pH measured inside
the anaerobic chamber (at 25C).
163
164
New Features of Our Method:
Uses a new oxygen meter that measures to 0.1

Anaerobic chamber
CHEMET O2
CHEMET Fe
Temperature baths
parts per billion (ppb) in solution.
Confirmed that our solutions were prepared with

<0.1 ppb O2 and maintained at this level
throughout the study.
No need for chemical oxygen scavengers.
Advantage of our method over previous methods:

Measure viscosity, dissolved O2, and pH on the
SAME sample throughout the study.
Brookfield viscometer
Mettler O2 meter
O2 probe
pH meter
Teflon-lined cylinders
Teflon-wrapped plugs
Disadvantage:
If the storage cylinder leaks, the sample is lost.

165
Time/Temperature Behavior of Polymer Stability
Viscosity decay constant, , is the time for the specific

viscosity to fall to 1/e (0.368) times the original value.
Stability must be studied EITHER at reservoir
temperature for MANY years OR at several

temperatures and use an Arrhenius analysis.
120C
160C
180C with decane
40
100
Specific viscosity, (p-s)/s
Viscosity, cp at 25C, 7.3 s-1
50
140C
160C with decane
30
1,000 mg/L HPAM
0.3% NaCl, < 0.1 ppb O2
20
10
0
0
166
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time stored at given temperature, days
167
120C
160C
180C with decane
= 139 days
10
140C
160C with decane
Projected
= 809 days
=
41 days
=
13 days
1,000 mg/L HPAM

0.3% NaCl,
< 0.1 ppb O2
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
168
28
Viscosity decay constant, days
100000
Arrhenius Analysis for HPAM

1/(decay constant), 1/days
0.1
1/ = 9.57x108 e-89140/RT
Rc = -0.967 for 0.1% NaHCO3 or less
0.3% NaCl
0.2% NaCl, 0.1% NaHCO3
3% NaCl
2% NaCl, 1% NaHCO3
0.01
180C
160C
0.0023
140C
0.0024
1/T, 1/K
1/ = 1.425x109 e-91130/RT
Rc = -0.930
100
For either HPAM or PAM-AMPS

in 0.3% NaCl, 3% NaCl, or
0.2% NaCl + 0.1% NaHCO3
10
50
100
150
200
Temperature, C
1/ = 3617 e-47000/RT
Rc = -0.894 for 1% NaHCO3
0.0022
1/ = 8325 e-50200/RT
Rc = -0.925 for
1% NaHCO3
1000
< 0.1 ppb O2
0.001
< 0.1 ppb O2
10000
A given viscosity level can be predicted using: /o = e-t/

Viscosity half-lives for HPAM and PAM-AMPS solutions
0.0025
120C
projected to be > 7 yrs at 100C and ~2 yrs at 120C.
At 105C after 250 days, we predict a 9% viscosity loss,
0.0026
while Shupe (1981) saw a 13% loss.
169
170
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
1. We developed a method to prepare, store, and
test the stability of polymer solutions with <0.1
ppb O2, without using oxygen scavengers.
2. In the absence of dissolved oxygen and
divalent cations, HPAM solution viscosity halflives could be over 7 years at 100C and about
2 years at 120C.
3. Within our experimental error, HPAM stability
was the same with/without oil (decane).
171
CONCLUSIONS
7. By reaction with oil and pyrite, dissolved O2 will be
removed quickly from injected waters and will not
propagate very far into the porous rock of a reservoir.
Any dissolved O2 that entered the reservoir prior to
polymer injection will have been consumed and will
not aggravate polymer degradation. If an O2 leak
develops during the course of polymer injection, that
O2 will not compromise the stability of the polymer
that was injected before the leak developed or the
polymer that is injected after the leak is fixed. Polymer
that is injected while the leak is active will be
susceptible to oxidative degradation. Maintaining
dissolved oxygen at undetectable levels is necessary
to maximize polymer stability. This can readily be
accomplished without the use of chemical oxygen
scavengers or antioxidants.
173
4. A 25% AMPS copolymer showed similar

stability to that for HPAM. Stability results
were similar in brines with 0.3% NaCl, 3%
NaCl, or 0.2% NaCl + 0.1% NaHCO3.
5. At 160C and above, the polymers were more
stable in brine with 2% NaCl + 1% NaHCO3
than in the other brines.
6. Even though no chemical oxygen scavengers
or antioxidants were used in our study, we
observed the highest level of thermal stability
reported to date for these polymers.
172
THERMAL, CHEMICAL, & BIO-DEGRADATION

Both HPAM and xanthan are very susceptible to
oxidative degradation. Fortunately, most
reservoirs contain no free oxygen.
HPAMs C-C main chain is very resistant to
thermal breaking if O2 or free radicals are absent.
Xanthans C-O main chain is susceptible to
hydrolysis above 70C.
HPAMs amide groups are susceptible to
hydrolysis above 60C, leading to polymer
precipitation if Ca2+ or Mg2+ are present.
HPAM is much more resistant to bio-degradation
than xanthan.
174
29
At 80C, xanthan may have sufficient stability if the pH

= 7-9, and O2 = 0. (Seright & Henrici SPERE 1990).
SPE 146087
A COMPARISON OF POLYMER
FLOODING WITH IN-DEPTH
PROFILE MODIFICATION
Xanthan stability at pH = 7-9

is much better than a pH=5.
Xanthan may be worth considering
because you dont have to worry
about mixing in the reservoir.
175
BOTTOM LINE
1. In-depth profile modification is most appropriate for high
permeability contrasts (e.g. 10:1), high thickness ratios
(e.g., less-permeable zones being 10 times thicker than
high-permeability zones), and relatively low oil viscosities.
2. Because of the high cost of the blocking agent (relative to
conventional polymers), economics favor small blockingagent bank sizes (e.g. 5% of the pore volume in the highpermeability layer).
3. Even though short-term economics may favor in-depth
profile modification, ultimate recovery may be considerably
less than from a traditional polymer flood. A longer view
may favor polymer flooding both from a recovery viewpoint
and an economic viewpoint.
4. In-depth profile modification is always more complicated
and risky than polymer flooding.
176

important.
channeling.
through rock.
177
POLYMER FLOODING
As the viscosity of the injected fluid increases, sweep
efficiency in the less-permeable layer increases.
178
After polymer or gel placement, injected water forms severe

viscous fingers that channel exclusively through the highpermeability layer.
179
180
30
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
IN-DEPTH PROFILE MODIFICATION

A specialized idea that requires use of a low-viscosity gelant.
ADVANTAGES:
1. Could provide favorable injectivity.
2. Incremental oil from this scheme could be recovered
relatively quickly.
LIMITATIONS:
181
Sophisticated Gel Treatment Idea from BP

In-depth channeling problem, no significant
fractures, no barriers to vertical flow:
BP idea could work but requires sophisticated
characterization and design efforts,
Success is very sensitive to several variables.
1. Will not improve sweep efficiency beyond the greatest

depth of gelant penetration in the reservoir.
2. Control & timing of gel formation may be challenging.
3. Applicability of this scheme depends on the sweep
efficiency in the reservoir prior to the gel treatment.
4. Viscosity and resistance factor of the gelant must not be
too large (ideally, near water-like).
5. Viscosity and resistance factor of the gelant should not
increase much during injection of either the gelant or the
water postflush
BRIGHT WATERA VARIATION ON BPs IDEA

(SPE 84897 and SPE 89391)
Thermal front
high k
low k
Water
Oil
Gelant
182
Gel
Injects small crosslinked polymer particles that

pop or swell by ~10X when the crosslinks break.
Popping is activated primarily by temperature,
although pH can be used.
The particle size and size distribution are such that
the particles will generally penetrate into all zones.
A thermal front appears necessary to make the
idea work.
The process experiences most of the same
advantages and limitations as the original idea.
J. Polym. Sci. & Eng. (April 1992) 7(1-2) 33-43.

183
184
For reservoirs with free crossflow between

strata, which is best to use: Polymer Flooding
or In-Depth Profile Modification?
BRIGHT WATER
Had it origins ~1990.
Using simulation and analytical studies, we examined

oil recovery efficiency for the two processes as a
function of:
Had an early field test by BP in

Alaska.
(1) permeability contrast (up to 10:1),

(2) relative zone thickness (up to 9:1),
(3) oil viscosity (up to 1,000 times more than water),
(4) polymer solution viscosity (up to 100 times more
than water),
(5) polymer or blocking-agent bank size, and
(6) relative costs for polymer versus blocking agent.
Was perfected in a consortium of

Mobil, BP, Texaco, and Chevron in
the mid-1990s.
185
186
31
Polymer Flooding vs. In-Depth Profile Modification

2:1 permeability contrast and thin high-k layer (9h1=h2).
100-cp oil
ASSUMPTIONS
1. Two layers. Layer 1 has high permeability, k1, h1.
Layer 2 has low permeability, k2, h2.
2. Free crossflow between layers.
3. No gravity forces.
4. No capillary forces.
5. Incompressible flow.
6. No dispersion of chemical banks.
7. Water viscosity is 1 cp.
8. 1 PV of water is injected prior to polymer or gelant.
9. Polymer solutions are Newtonian.
10. Retention balances inaccessible pore volume.
11. Gelation occurs instantaneously and reduces k to 0.
10-cp polymer
waterflood
5% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
% of mobile oil recovered
95
85
75
65
55
Two layers,
free crossflow,
k1=2k2, 9h1=h2
100-cp oil, 1-cp water.
1 PV waterflood first, followed by polymer
or in-depth profile-modification treatment
45
35
25
15
1
Gel
10
Pore volumes injected
Layer 1, k1 =2k2, 9h1 =h2
Layer 1, k1, h1
Layer 2, k2, h2
Layer 2, k2, h2
187
188

100-cp oil
100
85
75
10-cp polymer
waterflood
5% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
95

10:1 permeability contrast and h1=h2.
100-cp oil
65
55
Two layers,
free crossflow,
k1=5k2, 9h1=h2
or in-depth profile-modification treatment
45
35
25
80
70
k1=10k2, h1=h2,
1 PV waterflood first,
followed by polymer or
profile-modification treatment
60
50
40
15
1
10-cp polymer
waterflood
5% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
90
10
Layer 1, k1 =5k2, 9h1 =h2
10
Layer 1, k1 =10k2, h1 =h2
Layer 2, k2, h2
Layer 2, k2, h2
189
190

10:1 permeability contrast and 3h1=h2.
100-cp oil
10-cp polymer
waterflood
5% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
85
75
95
95

10-cp oil
65
55
k1=10k2, 3h1=h2,
profile-modification treatment
45
35
25
1

10
Layer 1, k1 =10k2, 3h1 =h2
waterflood
10-cp polymer
40-cp polymer
100-cp polymer
5% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
85
75
65
55
45
Two layers,
free crossflow,
k1=10k2, 9h1=h2.
in-depth profile-modification treatment
35
25
Layer 2, k2, h2
191
10
192
32

100-cp oil

1000-cp oil
100
waterflood
10-cp polymer
40-cp polymer
100-cp polymer
5% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
75
65
k1=10k2, 9h1=h2,
100-cp oil, 1-cp
water.
55
45
35
80
70
60
50
followed by polymer
or in-depth profilemodification
treatment
40
30
20
0
1
15
1
193
194
Relative Profit = Oil value Water Cost Polymer/Gel Cost
HPAM cost = $1.50/lb, BW cost = $5.71/lb.

Water cost = $0.25/bbl, Oil price = $50/bbl.
0.1%, 0.2%, & 0.3% HPAM give 10, 40, & 100 cp, respectively.

k1=10k2, h1=9h2,
k1=10k2, h1=9h2,
followed by polymer
or in-depth profile
modification
treatment
Relative profit
10
10
recovery@5 PV
75.2%
92.6%
98.5%
99.7%
81.3%
82.2%
83.3%
85.8%
waterflood
10-cp polymer
40-cp polymer
100-cp polymer
5% HP-PV gel
15% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
0
0
10
10
15
1000-cp oil, 1-cp

water. k1=10k2,
9h1=h2.
10
in-depth profile-modification treatment
25
Relative profit
waterflood
10-cp polymer
40-cp polymer
100-cp polymer
5% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
90
85
39.2%
64.4%
89.8%
99.7%
Recovery 51.8%
@5 PV 53.1%
55.7%
59.5%
0
10
waterflood
10-cp polymer
40-cp polymer
100-cp polymer
5% HP-PV gel
15% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
10

195
196

If the popping-agent bank size is small (e.g., 5% HP-PV),

performance is not very sensitive to chemical cost.
recovery@5 PV
17.1%
35.7%
63.5%
85.1%
27.5%
28.7%
30.9%
34.5%
10
waterflood
10-cp polymer
40-cp polymer
100-cp polymer
5% HP-PV gel
15% HP-PV gel
35% HP-PV gel
90% HP-PV gel
15
k1=10k2, h1=9h2,
followed by polymer
or in-depth profile
modification treatment
Relative profit
15
Relative profit
95
k1=10k2, h1=9h2, 10-cp oil, 1-cp water.

or 5% in-depth popping-agent treatment
10
recovery@5 PV
92.6%
75.2%
81.3%
81.3%
81.3%
10-cp polymer
waterflood
5% HP-PV gel, 0.5X cost
5% HP-PV gel, 1X cost
5% HP-PV gel, 1.5X cost
0
0
10
10

197
198
33
INJECTIVITY CONSIDERATIONS
BRIGHT WATERRESULTS (SPE 121761)
BP Milne Point field, North Slope of Alaska.

Injected 112,000 bbl of 0.33% particles.
Recovered 50,000 bbl of incremental oil.
0.39 bbl oil recovered / lb of polymer (compared with
~1 bbl oil / lb polymer for good polymer floods).
199
1. Concern about injectivity losses has been a key motivation

that was given for choosing in-depth profile modification
over polymer flooding.
2. However, most waterflood and polymer flood injectors are
thought to be fractured.
3. Fractures are especially likely to be present in hot
reservoirs with cold-water injectors (Fletcher et al. 1991).
4. Even when injecting viscous polymer solutions (i.e., 200300 cp), injectivity has not been a problem in field
applications (Wang 146473) because fractures extend to
accommodate the viscosity and rate of fluid injected.
5. Concerns when injecting above the parting pressure are to
not allow fractures to (1) extend so far and in a direction
that causes severe channeling and (2) extend out of zone.
6. Under the proper circumstances, injection above the
parting pressure can significantly (1) increase injectivity
and fluid throughput, (2) reduce the risk of mechanical
degradation for HPAM, and (3) increase pattern sweep. 200
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. For small banks of popping-agent, significant mixing and
dispersion may occur as that bank is placed deep within
the reservoirthus, diluting the bank and potentially
compromising the effectiveness of the blocking agent. .
2. Since the popping material provides a limited permeability
reduction (i.e., 11 to 350) and the popped-material has some
mobility, the blocking bank eventually will be diluted and
compromised by viscous fingering.
3. If re-treatment is attempted for a in-depth profilemodification process, the presence of a block or partial
block in the high-permeability layer will (1) divert new
popping-agent into less-permeable zones during the
placement process and (2) inhibit placement of a new block
that is located deeper in the reservoir than the first block.
These factors may compromise any re-treatment using indepth profile
BOTTOM LINE
1. In-depth profile modification is most appropriate for high
permeability contrasts (e.g. 10:1), high thickness ratios
(e.g., less-permeable zones being 10 times thicker than
high-permeability zones), and relatively low oil viscosities.
2. Because of the high cost of the blocking agent (relative to
conventional polymers), economics favor small blockingagent bank sizes (e.g. 5% of the pore volume in the highpermeability layer).
3. Even though short-term economics may favor in-depth
profile modification, ultimate recovery may be considerably
less than from a traditional polymer flood. A longer view
may favor polymer flooding both from a recovery viewpoint
and an economic viewpoint.
4. In-depth profile modification is always more complicated
and risky than polymer flooding.
201
COLLOIDAL DISPERSION GELS (CDG)

(ALUMINUM-CITRATE-HPAM, but sometimes low
concentration Cr(III)-ACETATE-HPAM)
202
CLAIM 1:
Two central claims have been made over the past 28

years. Two additional claims are more recent:
1. The CDG only enters the high-permeability, watered-out
zonesthus diverting subsequently injected water to
enter and displace oil from less permeable zones.
2. The CDG acts like a super-polymer flooding agentadd
~15-ppm Al to 300-ppm HPAM and make it act like a
much more viscous polymer solution.
3. The CDG mobilizes residual oil.
4. The CDG acts like Bright Water (In depth profile
modification)
203
The CDG only enters the high-permeability, watered-out

zonesthus diverting subsequently injected water to
enter and displace oil from less permeable zones.
Why should the CDG not enter low-permeability zones in
proportion to Darcys law? IT DOES!
Like any gelant, you must ask (1) how far does the gelant
penetrate into ALL zones and (2) once the gel is in
place, how much permeability reduction does it cause
in each and every zone? A positive diversion will ONLY
occur if the high-permeability zone is damaged more
than the low-permeability zones.
Claim 1 is nonsense.
204
34
Al(III)-citrate-HPAM gels act like other gels.

3,000
CLAIM 2:
300-ppm HPAM, 15-ppm Al(III) as citrate,

0.5% KCl, 41C, 707-md Berea sandstone
15.8 ft/d (6.7 PV/hr) injection rate.
Resistance factor
1,000
The CDG acts like a super-polymer flooding agentadd

This would be a major advance if it was true.
300
1st core
section
100
30
10
2nd core
section
For all gelants to date, before the gelation time, the fluid
flows into porous rock just like a polymer solution.
After gelation, the gel does not flow through porous
rock or sand at any practical rate or pressure gradient.
Do CDGs act differently?
Pore volumes of gelant injected
10
DOE/BC/14880-10 (March 1995) 51-64.
During first 6 PV of injection, gelant shows the same resistance

factor as polymer solution with no crosslinker.
Gelant is ~ 2 hrs old when gel particles begin being filtered out by
the first core section.
205
206
CLAIM 2:
PROPERTIES OF AVAILABLE GELANTS/GELS

1. Early in the gelation process, gelants
penetrate readily into porous rock.
The CDG acts like a super-polymer flooding agentadd

2. After gelation, gel propagation through

porous rock is extremely slow or negligible.
This would be a major advance if it was true.
3. The transition between these two conditions

is usually of short duration.
For all gelants to date, before the gelation time, the fluid
flows into porous rock just like a polymer solution.
After gelation, the gel does not flow through porous
rock or sand at any practical rate or pressure gradient.
SPERE (Nov. 1993) 299-304; IN SITU 16(1)

(1992) 1-16; and SPEPF (Nov. 1995) 241-248.
CDGs DO NOT act differently. ALL objective researchers

who have tested this concur.
207
208
GEL TREATMENTS ARE NOT POLYMER FLOODS

Crosslinked polymers, gels, gel particles, and
colloidal dispersion gels:
Distinction between a blocking agent

And a mobility control agent.
Are not simply viscous polymer solutions.

Do not flow through porous rock like polymer
solutions.
For a mobility control agent,

Do not enter and plug high-k strata first and

progressively less-permeable strata later.
For a blocking agent,

Should not be modeled as polymer floods.

209
210
35
COLLOIDAL DISPERSION GELS: FIELD RESULTS

CATEGORY A
VENDORS CLAIM THAT FIELD RESULTS

PROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
COLLOIDAL DISPERSION GELS.
The treated wells contained no fractures or linear

flow features.
However, detailed examination of these
For these cases, the aluminum was (fortunately)
field results reveals that alternative

explanations are far more credible.
removed (by adsorption on rock) so the polymer

could propagate through the formation and
provide some benefit as a polymer flood.
The field results fit into one of several
Since the aluminum provided no benefit, the
categories.
money spent on aluminum citrate would have

been more effectively spent on more polymer.
211

CATEGORY B
212

CATEGORY C (vendor usually denies this one)
The reported benefits and/or increases in oil
recovery had nothing to do with the colloidal

dispersion gels.
The treated wells contained fractures or fracturelike features (despite claims to the contrary).
In some cases, the reported benefits for particular
For these cases, the gels may have provided some
wells and fields occurred because of other

changes or improvements that were implemented.
benefit from partially plugging the fractures.
For moderate to wide fractures, other types of gels
In other cases, no real benefit occurred. The
would have been more effective.
reported benefit was an artificial result of an overly

pessimistic projection of the pre-treatment decline
curve and/or an overly optimistic assignment of
incremental oil to the gel treatment.
213
214

CATEGORY D
The treated wells experienced general plugging of
CLAIM 3:
all open zones and flow paths. From an areal view,

these wells were key to water channeling.
The CDG reduces residual oil saturation.
By reducing the flow capacity of the treated wells,
Wang Demin and his group also claim that high Mw HPAM
polymers reduce Sor. If you want to prove that CDG
reduces Sor, you must make the comparison against
polymer with no crosslinker.
areal pressure gradients were altered so water

injected into OTHER (non-treated) wells pushed
incremental oil toward offset production wells.
This benefit could be realized by any means that

reduced the flow capacity of the treated wells.
Well flow capacity can usually be reduced more

cost-effectively using other gels and methods.
215
216
36
CLAIM 4:
The CDG acts like Bright Water (In-depth profile
modification).
As designed by BP, the Bright Water process required a
substantial amount of reservoir characterization,
engineering, product development, and timing. It is a
complex process, but has a legitimate, documented,
tested, science-based application history. Where is this
for CDGs?
Bright Water has specific testing that demonstrates the
conditions and timing for popping of the material.
CDGs reaction time with Al or Cr appears to be hours
even at low temperatures. What is the science/
engineering basis for CDG placement?
Claiming that something is true (without testing the claim)
does not make it true.
COLLOIDAL DISPERSION GELS
Have enjoyed remarkable hype, with claims

of substantial field success.
Would revolutionize chemical flooding if the

claims were true.
Currently, no credible evidence exists that
they flow through porous rock AND provide

an effect more than from just the polymer
alone (without crosslinker).
Considering the incredible claims made for
CDGs, objective labs ought to be able to
verify the claims. So far, they have not.
217
218
PROBLEMS WITH PRODUCED POLYMER
SURFACE ISSUES
Excessive wear for sucker rods (SPE 77496).

Emulsions that are difficult to break.
Fouling of heat exchangers & fire tubes (SPE
14110, SPE 144322).
Efficiency reductions for hydrocyclones and gas

floatation units (SPE 95343).
Plugging filters (SPE 144277).

Inability to reuse produced water for polymer flooding.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Improve sweep to delay
polymer breakthrough:
Increase polymer concentration & viscosity.
Gel treatments to reduce severe channeling.
Separate layer injection.
219
Produced water treatment and re-injection
Wang Demin et al. SPEPF

(2004) SPE 77496
Techniques were developed
using modified sucker rods to
reduce pump resistance and
frictional wear. The period of
pump examination can be
increased to 696 days from 277
days.
Produced HPAM solutions (500
ppm) reduced the service life of
centrifugal pumps by 50%.
220
Focus on the polymer content in the produced water, settling

techniques, filtration and de-oiling, with horizontal flow applied
to produced water treatment and re-injection.
Flocculating settlement
centralizer
produced
water
aggravation
natural de-oil
pump with
lower rub
resistance
buffering tank
Water recovery pump
oil pump
oil tank
booster pump
outside pump
water recovery pond
backwash tank
Flow illustration for produced water treatment

221
Part 6: Additional techniques
222
2008 IOR wangdongmei1@petrochina.com.cn
37
Daqing Mixing and Injection (from D.

Wang, SPEREE 2009, SPE 114342)
For the gravity settling tank:

the oil content < 1000 mg/L in the
inlet water, and the oil content and
suspended solids elimination rate
are 30% 50% for the outlet water.
Most viscosity loss occurred

from
the
high
pressure
injection pumps and mixing
system to the near-well bore
amounting to about 70% of the
total loss.
For the coagulation settling tank:
mix station
water
mature tank
dispersion
transfer pump
water injection station
store tank
Injection pump
the oil content and suspended

solids content < 50 mg/L for the
outlet water.
mass
store tank
Injection for individual

pump and well
Injection water pump
water
resource
injectors
223
Flow illustration for polymer injection

Part 6: Additional techniques
224
2008 IOR wangdongmei1@petrochina.com.cn
SPECIAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH USING

VISCOELASTIC HPAM SOLUTIONS
Wang Demin et al. SPEPF (2004) SPE 77496

Problems with triplex pumps with HPAM:

High vibration.
10-15% lower pump efficiency.
15% viscosity loss from shear degradation.
Problem: Pumping 0.5% HPAM solutions

substantially increases vibration, especially
upstream of pumps.
Solution: Re-design the pumps.

Decrease valve seat area.
Adjust the angle of the valve seat.
Increase inner cylinder diameter
Decrease dead-end volume.
Solution: Use large diameter pipes, avoid Ts.
225
226


chemical stability :
Problem: Inefficient polymer mixing in tanks.
protective package (chelating agent), stainless steel

pipeline, nonmetal tanks etc.
Solution: Re-designed mixing blades reduced energy

requirements 80% and reduced mixing time by 1.5-2
hours.
mechanical degradation:
pipeline with low flow rate, electrical-magnetic flow meter,
low speed mixer, etc
Problem: 10-30% shear degradation in static mixers.
biological degradation :
Solution: Remove the static mixer.
protective package (bactericide)formaldehyde.
227
228
38

Drainage volume of perforating channels can be
increased
with
large
diameter
perforators.
Alternatively, polymer viscosity degradation can be
reduced by reducing the injection pressure drop.
Index of large diameter perforations
Perforator
diameter
density
mm
spm
Concrete target
bullet
diameter
depth
mm
mm
500
83DP25
83
16
DP41RDX-1
10.4
89DP25
89
16
DP41RDX-1
10.2
543
102DP32
102
16
DP44RDX-1
11.6
639
102BH44
102
12
BH64RDX-1
24.4
242
229
230
231
232
ASSOCIATING POLYMERS -- Concepts
Relatively small polymers with associating groups

SOME OTHER APPROACHES
FOR IMPROVED MOBILITY
CONTROL
Associating polymers.
Gel particulates (crosslinked
(e.g., hydrophobes) viscosify solutions like polymers

with much higher molecular weights.
Ideally, lower Mw polymers could improve stability.
Ideally, associating polymers could be more costeffective (i.e., if lower concentrations are needed to
achieve high solution viscosities).
HPAM
polymers). (Could be emulsions

or other particulates, also).
Foams and other non-polymers.
ASSOCIATING
POLYMER
233
234
39
ASSOCIATING POLYMERS -- Problems
As concentration increases, viscosity of solutions of
associating polymers increases much more quickly

than for normal polymers.
Achieving a PARTICULAR viscosity is more difficult.
Small variations in concentration cause large
variations in viscosity.
Performance is sensitive to oil, salt, and temperature.
ASSOCIATING POLYMERS -- Problem

EXCESSIVE SHEAR THICKENING IN POROUS MEDIA.
At low flow rates, some associating groups bond within
Viscosity, mPa-s
1000
100
Associating
polymer
HPAM
a given polymer, while others bond between separate

polymer molecules.
At high flow rates, the polymer stretches out, exposing
more associating groups to other polymers.
If too much bonding occurs between different polymer
molecules, gelation occurs and flow stops.
10
SO PERFORMANCE CAN BE SENSITIVE TO FLOW RATE.

1
0.01
0.1
Polymer concentration, %
1
235
236
USE OF PARTICULATES (as a blocking agent)

One objective is to inject particles that are:
small enough to flow freely into high-k zones,
large enough not to enter low-k zones, and
become immobile to divert water into oil zones.
Low k
Distinction between a blocking agent

And a mobility control agent.
Particles
For a blocking agent,

For a mobility control agent,

Oil
High k
Water
237
USE OF PARTICULATES (for mobility control)

A different objective is to inject particles that:
deform as they extrude through pore throats,
reduce water mobility, and
Imitate a polymer flood.
USE OF PARTICULATES -- Problems

Particles are not all the same size.
Pores are not all the same size.
Some particles will enter most or all pores.
Permeability reduction may be greater in
low-k pores than in high-k pores.
0.1
0.1
18 m
Oil
High k
low-k
high-k
pore
pore
size
size
Probability density
Particles
Probability density
Low k
238
Water
high-k
pore
pore
size
size
00
0
239
low-k
10
20
Particle size, m
30
40
10
20
Pore size, m
30
40
240
40
1
10
100
initial rock permeability, md
1000
241
IMPERMEABLE BARRIER
Polymer
Surfactant,water,
gas formulation
IMPERMEABLE BARRIER
Foam
oil
Low k
strata
High k
water strata
oil
Low k
strata
High k
water strata
Producer
10
High k
strata
water
Producer
IMPERMEABLE BARRIER
Polymer
Injector
Permeability reduction factor
100
Low k
strata
oil
Injector
Particles tend to block small pores more

than large pores.
This bad for both polymer floods and
blocking agent treatments.
Injector
Producer
If barriers prevent cross flow between strata, foams could

provide better sweep efficiency than polymer solutions.
USE OF PARTICULATES -- Problems
242
PROBLEMS WITH FOAMS
Can Polymers Reduce

Sor Below that for
Waterflooding?
For various reasons, foam stability may

not be sufficient.
Foam may not propagate as desired.
The desired level of mobility reduction
may be difficult to achieve. (If mobility is
too high, sweep is bad. If mobility is too
low, injectivity is bad).
243
244
Can viscoelastic polymer solutions reduce the

Sor below that for waterflooding?.
1. Daqing says yes; UT Austin says maybe not.
2. Does it matter for viscous oils? (yes)
Sor Reduction by Polymers: Bottom Line

1. It does mattereven for viscous oils.
2. Primarily, true Sor reduction has been seen in
non-water wet cores.
3. No agreement exists on the mechanism for the
reduction.
245
246
41
PREVIOUS LITERATURE: Water- Wet Cores
Conventional wisdom within the petroleum industry is
LITERATURE:
Cores not water wet
Wang: Daqing HPAM solutions reduced S
that the ultimate residual oil saturation (Sor) for a

polymer flood is the same as that for a waterflood
(Tabor 1969, Lake 1989).
Polymers have a negligible effect on oil-water
interfacial tension, so no reduction of Sor is expected,

compared with waterflooding.
or from 36.8%
(with waterflooding) to 21.75% (for polymer flooding)
using a constant capillary number under oil-wet,
weakly oil-wet, and mixed-wet conditions.
Schneider and Owens (1982): HPAM reduced Sor in oilwet cores up to 8.4%.
Water-wet cores
Zaitoun and Kohler (1987, 1988): PAM reduced S
Several previous literature reports are consistent with
this view in water-wet cores, especially with Berea and

Bentheim sandstone (Schneider and Owens 1982,
Pusch et al. 1987, Wreath 1989).
or by
3% in water-wet Berea and Vosges sandstones. In
Bentheim sandstone, Pusch et al. (1987) saw 1% to 4%
reductions in Sor with xanthan and a sugar solution.
Differences might not be significant.
247

Huh and Pope View for Water-Wet cores
During polymer flooding, Huh and Pope (2008)
observed Sor reductions (relative to waterflooding)

ranging from 2 to 22 saturation percentage points
using heterogeneous Antolini cores. For
heterogeneous cores, two effects could appear to make
the Sor lower after a polymer flood than after a
waterflood. First, if insufficient water is flushed through
the core to displace mobile oil from less-permeable
pathways, one could be misled by the high water cut to
believe that the core was near Sor. Improved volumetric
sweep during a subsequent polymer flood could
rapidly produce a small spike of mobile oil from the
less-permeable pathways.
248

Huh and Pope View for Water-Wet cores
For polymer flooding in a secondary mode (no prior
waterflood), a lower Sor is reached because oil ganglia

stay connected longer and drain pores of oil more
effectively.
249
Our experiments in homogeneous cores

77-cm long, 10-darcy porous polyethylene
250
HPAM polymer as a tertiary flood:
190-cp North Slope crude. Polyethylene core.

At S initially. All floods at fixed capillary number.
10 PV brine, followed by 11 PV 10-cp HPAM.
S reduced by at least 4 saturation percentage points.
Hydrophobic (oil wet)

Homogeneous (based on tracer results).
wr
or
80
75
1000ml/hr
0.8
Cumulative Crude Oil Recovery, %
Normalizedtracerconcentration(C/C0)
1
0.9
1500ml/hr
2000ml/hr
0.7
500ml/hr
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
Waterflood (Lab Data)
30
10-cp Polymer Flood (Lab Data)
25
20
Waterflood (Fractional Flow)
15
10
5
0.5
1.5
2.5
0
0
Porevolumesoftracerinjected
251
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Pore Volumes Injected
252
42
HPAM polymer as a secondary flood:
HPAM polymer as a tertiary flood:
190-cp North Slope crude. Polyethylene core.

Waterflood first. Re-saturate to S . Then 10-cp HPAM.
S reduced by at least 6 saturation percentage points.
190-cp North Slope crude. Dundee sandstone core.

10 PV brine, followed by 10-cp HPAM.
S reduced by ~2 saturation percentage points.
wr
wr
wr
or
or
75
Cumulative Crude Oil Recovery, %
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
Waterflood (Lab Data)
30
Waterflood (Fractional Flow)
25
20
10-cp Polymer Flood (Fractional Flow)
15
10
5
0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Pore Volumes Injected
253
254
Papers on Sor Reduction Using Polymers

1. Wang Demin et al. SPE 153070, 146473, 144294,
127453, 114335, 109228, 101950, 88456, 72123.
2. Huh and Pope. SPE 113417.
3. Cottin et al. SPE 169692.
4. Vermolen et al. SPE 169681, IPTC 17342.
5. Afsharpoor et al. SPE 169037.
6. Urbissionva et al. JCPT 49(12) 2010: 49-56.
7. Schneider and Owens. SPE 9408.
8. Kohler and Zaitoun. SPE 16274, 18085.
Sor Reduction by Polymers: Bottom Line

1. It does mattereven for viscous oils.
2. Primarily, true Sor reduction has been seen in
non-water wet cores.
3. No agreement exists on the mechanism for the
reduction.
Bottom Line: No agreement exists on the

mechanism for the reduction or when it occurs.
255
256
257
258

important.
channeling.
through rock.
43
POLYMER FLOOD PILOT DESIGN ISSUES
POLYMER FLOOD PILOT DESIGN

What are the pilot objectives?
Gain experience mixing and injecting polymer.

Enhance reservoir description.
Assess water quality issues.
Test polymer injectivity.
Optimize injection rate and concentration.
Assess polymer degradation issues.
Assess polymer retention.
Assess reservoir sweep and oil recovery.
Assess production problems.
Look for surprises.
???
259
Reservoir description. Fluid properties.

Well spacing? Pattern? Number of wells?
Horizontal or vertical wells? Well completions?
What water source(s) will be used?
Which polymer will be used?
How to achieve adequate water quality?
What injection rate, concentration, & viscosity?
Mixers, tanks, pumps, filters, automation, etc.
Will oxygen be excluded?
Will tracers be used? Pressure transients?
What parameters will be monitored? How often?
Will simulation be used?
???
260
POLYMER FLOOD LAB WORK
Oil viscosity. Water composition(s).

Relative permeability characteristics. Sor. Swr.
Viscosity vs concentration and shear rate in
formation water and the target makeup water for

the polymers under consideration at surface and
reservoir temperatures.
Polymer rheology in rock. Shear degradation.
Polymer oxidative/chemical degradation.
Polymer retention and inaccessible pore volume.
Microbial degradation if using biopolymers.
Polymer compatibility with other chemicals.
???
261
losses into these can radically affect success.
Are fractures present that could cause severe
channellng of the injected chemicals? If so, gel

treatments or pattern realignment may be needed
before polymer flooding.
Can fractures (induced or natural) be exploited to
enhance injectivity and sweep efficiency?
What pressures can be tolerated without
compromising the reservoir seals?
Will the reservoir lithology preclude polymer
propagation? High Mw polymers dont like low
permeability or high clay content.
Layering & k contrast impact needed viscosity. 263
FLUID PROPERTIES & RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES
Need oil & water viscosity at reservoir conditions.

Need Sor and Swr to determine oil target.
Endpoint mobility ratio gives a conservative value
kr curves are desirable but are they reliable?
1
Relative permeability
RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
Is an aquifer or gas cap present? Polymer and oil
262
End
Point kro
0.1
End
Point krw
M = (krw/w) / (kro/o)
0.01
Possible
Displacement
front krw
0.001
krw
kro
0.0001
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Water saturation
0.7
0.8
0.9
264
44
Viscosity depends on shear rate and concentration.

What is the effective shear rate/velocity deep in the
Polymers are more efficient viscosifiers at high

concentrations: ~ C2 (i.e., only 40% more
polymer is needed to double the viscosity).
10000
reservoir where most oil is displaced?
Viscous oil
polymer floods
1000
Most previous
polymer floods
polymer in
2.52% TDS
brine, 25C
100
diutan
xanthan
19 million Mw HPAM
7 million Mw HPAM
10
1
100
1000
10000
100000

265
especially in low-k cores. However, exposure to high flux or
pressure gradient can reduce or eliminate this effect.
Effect of Polymer Concentration

on 3830S HPAM in a 5120 md Core
HPAM
concentration
Resistance factor
Mw ~18-20 million,
40% hydrolysis,
2.52% TDS, 25C
100
100
2500 ppm
1600 ppm
900 ppm
480 ppm
200 ppm
100 ppm
50 ppm
25 ppm
0 ppm
Resistance factor
1000
10
1
0.1
10
Flux, ft/d
100

2.52% TDS, 25C
Shear degradation
eliminates this effect.
10
46-md core section, degraded HPAM
17.5-md core section, degraded HPAM
viscosity
1
0.001
1000
26
7
HPAM VISCOSITY DECREASES

WITH INCREASED SALINITY
266
0.01
0.1
10-cp
polymer
solution
u (1-)/( k)0.5, ft/d-md0.5
10
26
8
For a given HPAM concentration, HPAM provides 3.5

times the viscosity in 500-ppm-TDS brine than in
5000-ppm-TDS brine.
9X
3X
2X
2.3X
3X
Lee 2009 (SPE 124798).
45
SELECTION OF POLYMER VISCOSITY
Want to make the water flood mobility ratio favorable.

Want to overcome the permeability contrast.
Water
Water
flood:
M = 9.4
Differing Ideas: Inject MORE polymer

Wang Demin (Daqing, China)
oil
Is currently injecting 150-300 cp HPAM solutions
k1/k2= 4
Polymer
flood:
M~1
Polymer, p/w= 10;
Polymer
flood:
M ~ 0.25
Polymer, p/w= 40
in thousands of wells to displace 10-cp oil from

the Daqing reservoir.
oil
HPAM solutions reduced S
or from 36.8% (with

waterflooding) to 21.75% (for polymer flooding)
using a constant capillary number under oil-wet,
weakly oil-wet, and mixed-wet conditions.
k1/k2= 4
oil
Is this effect generally valid?
k1/k2= 4
271
272
Differing Ideas: Inject LESS polymer
1. For most previous polymer floods with vertical wells,

injection has occurred above the formation parting
(fracture) pressureeven though the operators
insisted that they did not.
channeling.
pressure.
Relative permeability arguments:
Actual displacement mobility ratio is the aqueous

mobility at the displacement front divided by oil
bank mobilitywhich is less than the endpoint
mobility ratio.
Some coreflood work indicates that an efficient
displacement can occur with a surprisingly low

polymer concentration.
Do the coreflood results occur because of an

experimental artifact?
273

Shear thinning occurs below 1 ft/d.
Shear thickening occurs between 1 and 40 ft/d.

550-md Berea, 25C
Xanthan
Resistance factor
10
1000

Open
hole
10
Perforations
0.1
Fractured
well
Deep in
reservoir
1
0.01
1000-ppm fresh HPAM

1000-ppm reinjected after 41.7 ft/d
1350-ppm fresh HPAM
1350-ppm reinjected after 41.7 ft/d
Fresh HPAM

media
100
274
100
1000
10000
100
HPAM in Sarah Maria Water (500-ppm TDS),

25C. 4-darcy porous medium.
10
0.01
275
0.1
10
Flux, ft/d
100
1000
10000
276
46

0.05
90
Effluent viscosity, % of
injected viscosity (at 7.3 1/s)
100
1000-ppm HPAM
80
1350-ppm HPAM
70
HPAM in Sarah Maria

Water (500-ppm TDS), 25C.
After passing through 4-darcy
porous medium at given flux.
60
50
40
1
10
100
1000
1350-ppm HPAM
0.03
Predicted polymer injectivity relative

to water, assuming an open-hole
completion.
0.02
0.01
Injectivity Test of August, 2008, in Well 1M101

Injection
rate, BPD
100
650
125
650
175
650
BHP,
psi
553
845
482
737
471
638
Injectivity,
BPD/psi
0.28
1.01
0.44
1.21
0.65
1.48
Fracture
status
closed
open
mostly closed
open
mostly closed
open
175
635
0.40
open
Fractures were open during polymer injection

Radial horizontal fractures are expected at 1000-ft depth.
Calculations indicate the maximum radial fracture extension to be
~20 ft. So polymer injectivity is substantially improved without
compromising sweep efficiency.
Polymer and salinity breakthroughs and production performance
indicated no channeling through fractures.
10
100
1000
Radius of polymer front, ft
277
Injectant
water
water
water
water
water
water
1000-ppm
polymer
1000-ppm HPAM
0.04
10000
Flux, ft/d
INJECTIVITY for the Suriname Project

Assuming an open-hole completion, polymer injectivity should be
1-2% of water injectivity, with our HPAM rheology.
Actual polymer injectivity was 27-62% that of water.
Fractures were open during polymer injection.
OXIDATIVE DEGRADATION
If O2 is present, HPAM degradation depends on

T, pH, EH, and concentrations of Fe, O2
scavenger, polymerization impurities, and
carbonate (SPE 9299, SPE 129890).
If O2 is not present (and divalent cations are

not present), HPAM stability is good,
regardless of the above impurities.
If O2 is re-introduced after O2 scavenger is

applied, a redox couple can form and degrade
the polymer.
279
APPROACHES TO MINIMIZE OXIDATIVE

DEGRADATION
278
280
CONCLUSIONS From SPE 164121
1. Do nothing if the temperature is low and no iron is

present in the injection water.
2. Remove any existing O2; dont let O2 enter the flow
stream.
3. Use an anti-oxidant package, including O2 scavenger.
(Expensive? Effective?).
4. Intentionally oxygenate the water to precipitate iron.
Then try to balance EH, pH, and water composition to
prevent formation of a redox couple. (Risky?
Expensive?)
281
Polymer produced from most previous polymer floods

indicated severe polymer degradationI believe
because the samples were collected aerobically.
A simple new method was developed for anaerobically

sampling polymer solutions from production wells in
the Sarah Maria polymer flood pilot project in
Suriname.
The improved method revealed that the polymer

propagated intact over 300 ft through the Tambaredjo
formation. No oxygen scavengers or anti-oxidant
packages were used. No pH or oxidation-reductionpotential adjustments were made.
282
47
Recommended Assumptions when

Simulating Polymer Floods
PROBLEMS WITH PRODUCED POLYMER
Excessive wear for sucker rods (SPE 77496).

Emulsions that are difficult to break.
Fouling of heat exchangers & fire tubes (SPE
Assume that low-velocity resistance factors

are given by low-shear rate viscosities.
14110, SPE 144322).
Efficiency reductions for hydrocyclones and gas
DO NOT assume shear thinning behavior for

HPAM at high (near wellbore) velocities.
Assume that residual resistance factor is 1,

unless permeability is low (e.g., < 100 md).
Assume that inaccessible pore volume is

zero.
floatation units (SPE 95343).
Plugging filters (SPE 144277).

Inability to reuse produced water for polymer flooding.
We need solutions after polymer breakthrough.
Improving sweep can delay polymer breakthrough:
Increase polymer concentration & viscosity.
Gel treatments to reduce severe channeling.
Separate layer injection.
283
C/Co
tracer
polymer
Retention
- IAPV
IAPV
Viscosity decay constant, , is the time for the specific

viscosity to fall to 1/e (0.368) times the original value.
100
Specific viscosity, (p-s)/s
PREFERRED POLYMER RETENTION METHOD

3. Double polymer/tracer bank method.
a. Two banks injected.
b. Each bank contains both polymer and tracer (KI).
c. ~100 PV of brine injected between the banks.
d. Only the front part of a given breakout curve is used
thus eliminating problems with unstable displacement.
e. IAPV: from area difference between the polymer and tracer
breakout curves for the 2nd bank.
f. Retention: from the area difference between the polymer
and tracer breakout for the 1st bank, after adding IAPV.
284
120C
160C
180C with decane
= 139 days
10
140C
160C with decane
Projected
= 809 days
=
41 days
=
13 days
1,000 mg/L HPAM

0.3% NaCl,
< 0.1 ppb O2
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
PV
285
Viscosity decay constant, days
100000

< 0.1 ppb O2
10000
e-50200/RT
1/ = 8325
Rc = -0.925 for
1% NaHCO3
1000
286
1/ = 1.425x109 e-91130/RT
Rc = -0.930
100
For either HPAM or PAM-AMPS

in 0.3% NaCl, 3% NaCl, or
0.2% NaCl + 0.1% NaHCO3
10

1
50
100
150
200
Temperature, C
A given viscosity level can be predicted using: /o = e-t/

Viscosity half-lives for HPAM and PAM-AMPS solutions
projected to be > 7 yrs at 100C and ~2 yrs at 120C.
At 105C after 250 days, we predict a 9% viscosity loss,

while Shupe (1981) saw a 13% loss.
287

precipitate.
Temperature, C:
75
88 96 204
Max Ca2+ + Mg2+, mg/L: 2000 500 270 20
288
48
You cant stop hydrolysis of PAM or HPAM. At 80C, hydrolysis

will rise to ~60% after 100 days. (Moradi and Doe, Phillips,
SPERE May 1987). Preventing >50% hydrolysis could be done
by incorporating at least 50% AMPS or NVP (SPE 14233).
BIODEGRADATION of BIOPOLYMERS
1. Hire a competent microbiologist.
2. Identify all microorganisms in the
reservoir/brine/polymer system.
3. Identify which combination of
microorganisms degrade the polymer.
4. Identify which biocide prevents the
degradation.
290
289
ESTIMATING FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY FROM

INJECTIVITY OR PRODUCTIVITY DATA
Does my well have a linear-flow problem?

(e.g., a fracture)
Assume:
Vertical well with a vertical fracture
If multiple fractures are present, the widest fracture
dominates flow.
The fracture has a much greater flow capacity than
the matrix.
The fracture has two wings.
Injectivity or productivity data often

provides a low-cost method for diagnosis.
Radial (matrix) flow probable:
q/p ( k h)/[141.2 ln (re / rw)]
Linear (fracture-like) flow probable:
q/p >> ( k h)/[141.2 ln (re / rw)]
qtotal = qmatrix + qfracture = (p hf /) [km/ln(re/rw) + 2kfwf/Lf]

kfwf = {[qtotal /(p hf)] - [km/ln(re/rw)]} Lf /2
291
292
MATRIX OR FRACTURE FLOW?
1000
Effective permeability of the flow path,
darcys .
ESTIMATING FRACTURE PERMEABILITY FROM

TRACER TRANSIT TIMES
Assume the widest fracture dominates flow.
kf = qL/[hfwf p] = (Lhfwf/t)L/[hfwf p] = (L2 ) /(p t)
Where:
L is fracture length (~distance between wells),
is fluid viscosity (usually of water),
p is the pressure drop between wells,
t is tracer transit time between wells.
k ~ re2 /(4t p)
100
Fracture flow
probable
10
Matrix flow
probable
1
=1 cp, p=2000 psi, re=1000 ft.

L~2re, which depends on well spacing
0.1
0.1
293
10
100
Interwell tracer transit time, days
1000
294
49
THE WIDEST FRACTURE DOMINATES FLOW

10000000
Fracture conductivity, darcy-ft
100000
1000000
10000
100000
1000
100
10000
10
1000
1
0.1
100
0.01
10
0.001
kf wf (darcy-ft) = 1.13x10-5 (kf)1.5, where kf is in darcys.

kf wf (darcy-cm) = 3.44x10-4 (kf)1.5, where kf is in darcys.
wf (ft) = 5.03x10-4 (kfwf)1/3, where kfwf is in darcy-ft.
wf (mm) = 0.153 (kfwf)1/3, where kfwf is in darcy-ft.
wf (mm) = 3.44x10-3 (kf)0.5, where kf is in darcys.
0.0001
0.01
RELATION BETWEEN FRACTURE WIDTH,

PERMEABILITY, AND CONDUCTIVITY
Fracture permeability, darcys
1000000
0.1
10
Fracture width, mm
295
296
50

Polymer Flooding Introduction

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Polymer Flooding Introduction

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Polymer Flooding Topics

1. Distinction between polymer floods and gel treatments.

POLYMER FLOODS VERSUS GEL TREATMENTS

Distinction between a gel treatment

Polymer floods use polymer solutions. Gels add a

The Windfall Profits Act of 1980 encouraged

grouping the two methods together as polymer

For a polymer flood, polymer

The Oil and Gas Journal does not distinguish the

two methods in their biannual EOR survey.

What is the difference?

Higher polymer & crosslinker

If not enough polymer or

Gelant = Polymer + crosslinker solution before gel formation.

GEL TREATMENTS ARE NOT POLYMER FLOODS

PROPERTIES OF AVAILABLE GELANTS/GELS

Are not simply viscous polymer solutions.

2. After gelation, gel propagation through

Do not flow through porous rock like polymer

3. The transition between these two conditions

Do not enter and plug high-k strata first and

SPERE (Nov. 1993) 299-304; IN SITU 16(1)

Should not be modeled as polymer floods.

POLYMER FLOODING is best for improving

UNFRACTURED RESERVOIRS WITH CROSSFLOW

GEL TREATMENTS are best treating fractures

Waterflood oil recovery, PV

EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO (M)

Pore volumes of water injected

EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO (M) ON

EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON

After polymer or gel placement, injected water forms severe

SELECTION OF POLYMER VISCOSITY

Want to make the water flood mobility ratio favorable.

IDEAL PROPERTIES FOR

POLYMER PROPERTIES OF INTEREST

Both HPAM and xanthan are charged polymers,

FLEXIBLE vs SEMI-RIGID ROD POLYMERS

0.06% polymer, 25C

Brine salinity, % NaCl

RESISTANCE TO MECHANICAL DEGRADATION

MECHANICAL (OR SHEAR) DEGRADATION

Velocity in porous rock, ft/d

Velocities in a Five-Spot Pattern (1-layer)

Although both xanthan and HPAM show shear

HPAM previously forced

70% of the pattern has a velocity

Apparent viscosity in porous

Superficial velocity, ft/d

What is the upper temperature limit for

STABILITY AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES

Viscosity half-life, yrs

form acrylate groups.

Above 60C, acrylamide groups hydrolyze to

If the degree of hydrolysis is too high and too

much Ca2+ or Mg2+ is present, HPAM polymers

THERMAL, CHEMICAL, & BIO-DEGRADATION

Older Field Projects

SURFACTANT POLYMER INTERACTION

Properties of Successful Polymer Floods

*IOR over primary production for this case only.

Some Recent Polymer Flooding Projects