Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Literature review of implemented polymer eld projects

Dag Chun Standnes a,n, Ingun Skjevrak b
a
Statoil ASA Bergen, Sandslihaugen 30, 5020 Bergen, Norway
b
Statoil ASA, PO Box 8500, NO-4035 Stavanger, Norway

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Polymer ooding is a mature enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology applied in eld projects as early as
Received 5 July 2013 the late 1950s. There exists extensive amount of experience, know-how and learning related to eld
Accepted 23 August 2014 implementation of polymer with respect to logistics, engineering design, reservoir properties and
Available online 3 September 2014
monitoring & surveillance in the literature. The aims of this paper are twofold. It is rstly to compile an
Keywords: up-to-date data base for implemented pilot/eld polymer injection projects reported in the literature
Polymer ooding over the last 50 years. Based on the compiled data qualitative information and statistics are presented
Enhanced oil recovery regarding differences between projects being classied as technical successes compared to the
Review of implemented projects discouraging cases reported. Secondly, to assure that that planning and implementation of upcoming
polymer projects can leverage on the large amount of experience and lessons learned built up in the
industry over the years.
40 of the reported polymer projects were classied as successes and 6 were assessed discouraging.
46 projects have been performed in the U.S.A. (64 %) followed by 6 in Canada and P.R. China (8 %), 4 in
Germany (5.6 %), etc. 66 projects were implemented onshore and only 6 offshore. HPAM was used as
polymer in 92 % of the cases and the rest were using biopolymer (1 projects used a hydrophobic
associative polymer). Data analysis reveals that 4 of the discouraging projects experienced signicant
drop in injectivity during the ood. The projects using emulsion-based synthetic polymers had more
challenges related to injectivity compared to the cases using the powder type synthetic polymers. 3 of
the discouraging cases injected only 17 % pore volume (PV) compared to 34 % PV slug size for the
successful projects. Average permeability in the successful projects was 563 mD vs. only 112 mD in the
discouraging cases. The success rate for projects implementing polymer injection in secondary mode
was higher than when injecting polymer in tertiary mode. No major differences could be identied
between successful and discouraging projects with respect to polymer concentration, resistance factor,
residual resistance factor, polymer retention, well spacing, formation temperature and oil viscosity. The
number of challenges and issues observed in the production wells due to polymer breakthrough and
production was in general low and mostly related to increased tendency for corrosion and formation of
emulsions in the production system.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
2. Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
3. Results and discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767
3.1. Technical assessment, location, lithology and polymer types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768
3.2. Water quality and mixing facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
3.3. Polymer degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
3.3.1. Mechanical degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
3.3.2. Chemical/thermal degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770
3.4. Injectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770
3.5. Reservoir performance and discussions related to technical assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770
3.6. Polymer production and production facility challenges and issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771

n
Corresponding author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.08.024
0920-4105/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
762 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775

3.7. The 6 technical discouraging cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772

3.7.1. McDonald draw M-13 (Sloat, 1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
3.7.2. Wilmington ranger V (Krebs, 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
3.7.3. Pembina block 8 (Groeneveld et al., 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
3.7.4. West coyote (Shuler et al., 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
3.7.5. Beatrice H-sand (Clifford and Duthie, 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
3.7.6. Warner Ranch Field unit J-sand (Weiss and Chain, 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773

1. Introduction (2) Fluid systems where M  1 (approximately equal mobility for

Polymer ooding is a mature enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
technique which has been employed for more than 50 years. The
rst eld tests performed in the late 1950s utilizing polymers in
the injection water was reported by Pye and Sandiford in 1964
(Pye, 1964; Sandiford, 1964). Numerous pilots and eld injection
tests have since then been performed mostly in the USA during the
70s and 80s (Jewett and Schurz, 1970; Chang, 1978; Manning et al.,
1983; Needham and Doe, 1987; Du and Guan, 2004; Manrique et
al., 2010). From the middle of the 90s polymer ooding has also
been employed to a large extent in P.R. China with great success
(Corlay et al., 1992; Wang et al., 2002, 2011; Yang et al., 2004). The
way by which polymers are improving oil recovery is strongly
linked to the concept of the so-called mobility ratio, M, dened as
the mobility of the displacing phase (water) to the mobility of the
displaced phase (oil):
w o knrw
M 1
o w knro
where w and o are water and oil mobilities, mo and mw oil and water
viscosities and knrw and knro end-point relative permeabilities to water
and oil, respectively. The stability criterion for immiscible displace-
ment of oil by water is quantied by the mobility ratio. M41 will
describe a situation where the water has higher mobility than the oil
and vice versa for the case Mo1. Hence the cross-over from an
unstable to a stable displacement condition occurs for mobility ratios
around unity (for a more detailed analysis of alternative ways to
express the mobility ratio see for example Sheng (2011)). Water will
tend to nger through the oil for mobility ratios higher than unity
resulting in an inefcient displacement process (high fractional ow of
water, fw) whereas the water will act in a more piston-like manner
effectively displacing the oil for the Mo1 case quantied by fwM
curves:
o knrw =w knro M 1
fw n 2
1 o krw =w kro 1 M 1 1=M
n
The traditional view is then that improvement in oil recovery
due to increase in aqueous phase viscosity can take place in two
different ways depending on uid properties and reservoir char-
acteristics (Sorbie, 1991):
(1) Fluid systems where M4 1 (water has higher mobility than
oil):
3 Improve the microscopic displacement efciency (reduced
fractional ow of water) without altering the residual oil
saturation (residual oil saturation to water Sorw equal to
residual oil saturation after polymer ooding Sorp)
3 Reduce viscous ngering
3 Improve macroscopic sweep efciency if reservoir
heterogeneities exist
both water and oil)
3 Improve the macroscopic sweep efciency if reservoir
heterogeneities exist
Polymer ooding has therefore been regarded as a tool to accel-
erate oil production rate in ooded zones without actually red-
ucing the residual oil saturation compared to pure waterooding
(Sorw Sorp). Additionally it can also increase the macroscopic sweep
efciency if reservoir heterogeneities exist. The latter effect is
enhanced by the reduction of water mobility in polymer ooded
zones due to adsorption which can decrease the water mobility
disproportional to the oil mobility (Sorbie, 1991; Sydansk and
Seright, 2007; Stavland, 2009). This reduction in water mobility behind
the leading polymer propagation front can improve the diversion of
ood water from high permeability zones into less permeability areas
increasing the volumetric sweep efciency. The timing for implement-
ing polymer ooding is furthermore determined by the uid and
reservoir condition causing the retarded oil production. Wateroods
having M41 will usually suffer from early water-breakthrough and
high degree of channeling and high fw. The contribution by improving
the fw is therefore expected to be more signicant and pronounced in
cases where the mobility ratio is much higher than unity e.g. for high
viscous oil the earlier polymer is introduced.
Recently unexpected high incremental oil rates have, however,
been observed when performing polymer ooding at high con-
centrations (typically41500 ppm) in Chinese oil elds (Liu et al.,
2007; Wang et al., 2011). The effect has been ascribed to a decrease
in the residual oil saturation compared to a pure waterood due to
the highly visco-elastic property of polyacrylamides used but the
issue is still debated in the literature. It will, however, be an even
larger incentive to initiate polymer ooding if it is conrmed that
it under advantageous conditions (e.g. visco-elastic effect) is able
to signicantly reduce Sorw as well. Additionally, promising
laboratory data has recently been reported when adding polymer
to the aqueous phase displacing oil with viscosities in the range
1501000 cp (Seright, 2010). Previously polymer ooding was
assumed only to be a suitable EOR technique in relative low
viscous oil reservoirs up to approximately 150 cp (Seright, 2010).
The highest oil viscosity in any successful polymer eld injection
project is reported to be 126 cp as of 2004 (Du and Guan, 2004).
These observations have together with the need for exploiting
more unconventional oil reservoirs for hydrocarbon recovery
increased the number of potential reservoirs targeting polymer
ooding as an EOR technology signicantly (Alvarado and
Manrique, 2010; Manrique et al., 2010). Development of more
efcient polymers (Seright et al., 2011) in terms of viscosity and
stability at higher temperatures and salinities (Levitt and Pope,
2008; Wu et al., 2012) has also contributed to an increased interest
in applying polymer ooding for EOR.
Several reviews of polymer state-of-the-art have previously
been reported (Jewett and Schurz, 1970; Chang, 1978; Needham
and Doe, 1987). There exists extensive amount of experience,
 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775 763

Nomenclature On. onshore

Oolit. oolitic
Da Daltons OP output parameter
Disc. discouraging PE polymer efciency
Dolo. dolomite PR water viscosity at reservoir conditions
DP Dykstra Parsons Prom. promising
EOR enhanced oil recovery PS water viscosity at surface
fw fractional ow of water PV pore volume
HPAM hydrolyzed polyacrylamide PWRI produced water re-injection
Hydro. hydrolysis RP reservoir parameter
Incon. inconclusive RPM revolutions per minute
IP input parameter Sand. sandstone
Khigh permeability in high-permeable zone Succ. successful
Klow permeability in low-permeable zone SW sea water
knro end-point relative permeability to oil Sorp residual oil after polymer ooding
knrw end-point relative permeability to water Sorw residual oil after waterooding
Lime. limestone TDS total dissolved solids
M mobility ratio TETT too early to tell
NE not evaluated o mobility of oil phase
NR not reported w mobility of water phase
Off. offshore mo oil viscosity
mw water viscosity

know-how and learning related to eld implementation of poly-
mer with respect to logistics, engineering design, reservoir proper-
ties and monitoring and surveillance in the literature. The aims of
this paper are twofold. Firstly, to compile an up-to-date data base
for implemented pilot/eld polymer injection projects reported in
the literature over the last 50 years. Furthermore, based on
analysis of all the collected data
 Establish a database for derivation of statistics and qualitative
information
 Identify main risks related to polymer ooding based on actual
eld experience
The second aim is to assure that planning and implementation
of upcoming polymer projects can leverage on the large amount of
experience and lessons learned built up in the industry over
the years.
Aside from pure polymer injection, polymers have also been
used in a wide range of different applications in order to improve
ooding performances. It has been co-injected with different kinds
of cross-linkers (Alumina for example (Moftt et al., 1993)) either
to improve the conformance control around production wells
(Sydansk and Seright, 2007; Cozic et al., 2009) or creating stiff
gels to block-off water channeling through high-permeable layers
(Seright, 2009). The current review is only concerning eld
projects where polymers have been injected aiming to improve
oil recovery in the traditional way deep into the reservoir
described above by mechanisms in (1) and (2). Hence all kinds
of polymer hybrid techniques like addition of cross-linker
(Needham et al., 1974; Zornes et al., 1986; Moftt et al., 1993;
Chang et al., 2006), in-situ polymerization (Sinclair and Ott, 1978),
production well treatments (Sparlin, 1976; Sydansk and Seright,
2007; Stavland, 2009) and small volume near wellbore treatments
are all excluded.
This paper is organized in the following way. Firstly, some
information is given about the compiled literature, selection
criteria and the origin of the data presented (Section 2). A
nomenclature is presented in order to classify the reported data
into categories as well. Section 3 contains results and discussions
related to technical assessment of the reported polymer oods and
statistics related to lithology, location and polymer type (Section
3.1). Then more information and statistics related to water quality
used and experiences with mixing facilities are presented (Section
3.2) before discussing ndings from the compiled data with
respect to polymer degradation (Section 3.3), injectivity (Section
3.4), reservoir performance (Section 3.5) and polymer production/
production facilities (Section 3.6). Finally, some more details are
presented about the 6 discouraging cases (Section 3.7) before
making up the conclusions in Section 4.
2. Data
The sources for the data collection are reports and technical
papers reported in the literature from 1964 until present year
(Table 1). The criterion for inclusion has been that each case should
be described and outlined in detail with respect to at least one of the
following issues: reservoir history and conditions when initiating
polymer ooding, facility issues regarding polymer mixing, logistics,
amount of polymer injected, injectivity issues, water qualities used
during polymer ooding including pre and post ushes to condition
the reservoir prior to polymer slug injection, reservoir behavior of
the polymer slug (retention, production, resistance factors), chal-
lenges related to production of polymer in the wells and separation
system and the incremental oil recovered. Published data on other
polymer projects not including in the current review can be found
elsewhere (Manning et al., 1983; Moritis, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996,
1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2008).
The compiled data presented includes reported data for 72
polymer projects comprising injection tests, small pilots to large
scale eld tests. Some of the eld cases are reported several times
in the literature as the projects are evolving in time (Martin and
Lozanski, 1970; Shaw and Stright Jr., 1977; Weiss and Chain, 1978;
Weiss and Baldwin, 1985; Koning et al., 1988; Al-Saadi et al., 2012;
Zaitoun et al., 1998; Delamaide et al., 2013) or analyzed from
different points of view emphasizing for example interpretation
using numerical simulations (Grodde and Schaefer, 1978; Maitin et
al., 1988; Takaqi et al., 1992; Putz et al., 1994), loss of chemicals due
to retention or economical parameters (Melo et al., 2002, 2005; da
Silva et al., 2007). Each reported project is emphasizing different
aspects of polymer implementation causing the reported data to
764 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775

Table 1
Key information about polymer ooding eld projects

Field/segment Reference Technical Onshore/ Lithology Temp. Hetero- Polymer

assessment offshore (1C) geneity

Niagara Pye (1964) Succ. On. Sand. NR NR PAM

Albrecht
West Cat Canyon Sandiford (1964) Succ. On. Sand. 63 NR HPAM
NR Succ. On. Sand. 71
Vernon/Upper Squirrel Jones (1966) Succ. On. Sand. 24 YES HPAM (Pusher)
Huntington Beach/Gareld Ustick and Hillhouse (1967) Succ. On. Sand. 52 YES HPAM (Pusher)
Northeast Hallsville Crane Unit Moore (1969) Succ. On. Oolit. 109 YES HPAM (Pusher)
lime.
Moore-Holverson-Hill-Aagard Sloat (1969) Succ. On. NR 32 YES NR but all used the
Hickman lease 33 same
Mattoon North 34
Field in North Texas 35
Skull Creek South Unit Lane (1970) Succ. On. Sand. 51 YES NR
Skull Creek/Newcastle sand Janeczko (1979) Succ. On. Sand. 58 YES (DP 0.92) HPAM (Pusher 500)
Taber South Mannville B Shaw and Stright (1977) Incon. On. Sand. 35 YES HPAM (Pusher 500 and
700)
Smith/Mowder Unit Sloat (1972) Succ. On. NR 43 NR NR
Hamilton Dome/4th Curtis 46 HPAM (14 MDa)
Stroud/E. Stroud 43 NR
McDonald Draw/M-13 32
McDonald Draw/M-9 34
Star Corral/Long Island 32
North Alma Penn Unit Perry (1972) Prom. On. Sand. 52 Homogeneous High MW Biop. (Kelzan
MF)
Brelum Unit Rowalt (1973) Succ. On. Sand. 44 YES HPAM (Pusher 723)
Taber Mannville D Pool G.A. Johnson (1975a, 1975b, ), J.P. Succ. On. Sand. 33 NR HPAM (Pusher 700)
Johnson 1975c
North Stanley G.A. Johnson (1975a, 1975b, ), J.P. TETT On. Sand. NR YES HPAM (Pusher 700)
Johnson 1975c
C-H/Minnelusa res. Bilhartz and Charlson (1975) NR On. Sand. 60 YES HPAM (Pusher 700)
North Burbank Unit Clampitt and Reid (1975) Succ. On. Sand. 48 YES (DP 0.87) HPAM (Pusher 1000)
East Coalinga (Demonstration Baxter et al. (1976) TETT On. Sand. 38 YES Kelzan MF
project)
East Coalinga (Full-scale
project)
West Semlek Field Tholstrom (1976) Prom. On. Sand. 144 YES CAT-AN process
Wilmington, Ranger V Krebs (1976) Disc. On. Sand. 57 Perm. var. HPAM (Pusher 700)
0.64
Pembina, Block 8 Groeneveld et al., 1977 Disc. On. Sand. 52 YES HPAM (Pusher 700)
Owasco Unit Weiss and Chain (1978) Succ. On. Sand. 77 YES Calgon pol. 454/340
Hankensbuettel-Sued/West Zettlitzer and Volz (1992) NR On. Sand. 58 NR HPAM (30% hydro.)
Blocks
Oerrel Sued/Westblock Upper Maitin et al. (1988) Prom. On. Sand. 58 YES HPAM (10 and 30%
Sand hydro.)
West Yellow Creek Strickland et al. (1978) Succ. On. Sand. 66 YES HPAM (Pusher 700)
2 elds West Bay Bilbrey and Blackmar (1983) TETT Off. Sand. 74 YES NAL-FLO 50
NR/Tensleep Milton et al. (1983) Succ. On. Sand. 38 YES Marathon PHPA
3.5 MDa
Hitts Lake/Paluxy sand Greaves et al. (1984) Prom. On. Sand 99 Perm. var. Polymer emulsion (30%
0.76 active)
Eliasville Caddo Unit Weiss and Baldwin (1985) Succ. On. Lime. 46 YES HPAM
Naval Petroleum Reserve #3/ Grooms and Schulte (1985) Incon. On. Sand. 18 YES Cationic Anionic
Shannon
Rapdan/Upper Shaunavon unit Campell and Bachman (1987) Succ. On. Sand./ 55 YES HPAM
Dolo.
East Texas Oil Field/W.H. Siler Miglicco (1986) TETT On. Sand. 63 YES HPAM
Lease
Twin Peaks/Stawn Upper Hoelscher et al. (1986) Prom. On. Sand. 66 YES HPAM (Nonionic)
Byron/Embar & Tensleep DeHekker et al. (1986) Prom. On. Sand./ 49 YES Marathon PHPA-11
Dolo.
North Oregon basin/Embar Dolo. 42
North Oregon basin/Tensleep Sand. 43
West Coyote/Main and Upp. 99 Shuler et al. (1987) Disc. On. Sand. 54 NR HPAM (Cyanatrol
(MC-374) 960 TM)
West Coyote/Main and Upp. 99 Prom. HPAM (Cyanatrol
(MC-375) 950 TM)
Beatrice/H-sand Clifford and Duthie (1987) Disc. Off. Sand. NR YES HPAM
Sleepy Hollow Christopher et al. (1988) Succ. On. Sand. 38 YES HPAM (Cyanatrol
940 TM)
Marmul Koning et al. (1988), Al-Saadi et al. Succ. On. Sand. 46 YES HPAM (Nalco Q41F)
(2012)
Warner Ranch Field Unit/J-Sand Weiss and Chain (1989) Disc. On. Sand. 60 YES HPAM (Med. MW, 30%
hydro.)
Dos Cuadras/EP and FP zones Dovan et al. (1990) TETT Off. Sand. NR YES HPAM
 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775 765

Table 1 (continued )

Field/segment Reference Technical Onshore/ Lithology Temp. Hetero- Polymer

assessment offshore (1C) geneity

Vorhop-Knesebeck/Dogger Littmann et al. (1991) Prom. On. Sand. 56 YES Xanthan (Statoil)
sandstone
Daqing/Putuahoa form. PO Corlay et al. (1992) Succ. On. Sand. 45 YES HPAM (10 MDa)
Daqing/Putuahoa and Saertu On. Sand. 46 YES
form. PT
Eddesse-Nord Littmann et al. (1992) Succ. On. Sand. 22 YES Xanthan
Chateaurenard/Courtnay Putz et al. (1994) Succ. On. Sand. 30 YES HPAM
West Castle eld/Reservoir A Q Shahin and Thigpen (1996) Succ. On. Sand. NR NR HPAM (Nalco 3857)
sand
Daqing/Saertu form. S II 1016 Wang et al. (1996) Succ. On. Sand. 45 DP coeff. 0.6 PAM (10 MDa, 2225%
North 0.8 hydro.)
Captain Osterloh and Law (1998) NR Off. Sand. 31 YES HPAM (30% hydro.)
Pelican Lake/Wabiskaw Zaitoun et al. (1998), Delamaide et al. Succ. On. Sand. 23 NR HPAM (13.6 MDa, 32%
(2013) hydro.)
Shuang He/Layer II5 He et al. (1998) Succ. On. Sand. 72 DP coeff. HPAM (14.3 MDa, 23%
0.793 hydro.)
Carmoplis Melo et al. (2002) Succ. On. Sand. 50 YES HPAM (Flopam SNF)
Buracica Melo et al., 2005 NE 60
Canto do Amaro da Silva et al. (2007) 55 Minor
SZ36-1 Zhou et al. (2007) Prom. Off. Sand. 65 YES Hydrofob. Associate
Polymer
Daqing/ZQXB Liu et al. (2007) Succ. On. Sand. 45 YES HPAM
Sanand/KS-III Tiwari et al. (2008) Succ. On. Sand. 85 YES HPAM
East Bodo/Lloydminster Wassmuth et al. (2009) TETT On. Sand. NR NR F3630/F3830 (HPAM)
Dalia, Camelia Morel et al. (2008), Morel et al. (2012) Succ. Off. Sand. 4556 YES HPAM (1820 MDa)
Tambaredjo Moe SoeLet et al. (2012) TETT On. Sand. 38 YES HPAM (3630S)

Field/segment Formation water Polymer injection water quality Well Cumulative incremental PE (Inc. oil m3 per kg
TDS (ppm) spacing (m) oil (Sm3) polymer injected)

Niagara NR NR 30 246,582 NR
Albrecht 15 359,311
West Cat Canyon NR Fresh water 200400 14,786 12.5
NR NR 487011,129 4.19.4
Vernon/Upper Squirrel NR Kansas lim. res. 90240 12,658 0.6
Huntington Beach/Gareld 31,801 Fresh water/SW 300 13,000 0.2
Northeast Hallsville Crane NR NR NR 144,905 1.0
Unit
Moore-Holverson-Hill-Aagard NR NR NR 1717 1.9
Hickman lease 1449 1.2
Mattoon North 1033 7.6
Field in North Texas 11,129 1.8
Skull Creek South Unit NR NR NR 10,557 0.7
Skull Creek/Newcastle sand NR Fresh water PWRI (3000 ppm TDS, 400 110,110 1.0
400 ppm div.)
Taber South Mannville B NR Fresh water, PWRI NR NR NR
Smith/Mowder Unit 120,000 High saline 302 8781 2.0
Hamilton Dome/4th Curtis 25,000 NR 201 45 14 2.4
Stroud/E. Stroud 175,000 High saline 439 14,797 1.8
McDonald Draw/M-13 3000 Fresh water 381 0.0 0.0
McDonald Draw/M-9 427 556 0.2
Star Corral/Long Island 402 18,158 2.2
North Alma Penn Unit NR Pontotoc form. NR NR NR
Brelum Unit NR PW: Poor quality (emulsions) 200300 31,161 0.4
Taber Mannville D Pool 5000 Fresh water (PWRI) 400 187,366 1.1
North Stanley NR NR NR 159,000 0.3
C-H/Minnelusa res. 45,000 o 1000 ppm TDS NR NR NR
North Burbank Unit 88,000 Fresh water NR 12,163 0.3
East Coalinga (Demonstration NR 710 ppm TDS, 30 ppm divalent 150 95,392 NR
project)
East Coalinga (Full-scale 1,271,896
project)
West Semlek Field 66,200 PWRI NR 73,770 1.0
Wilmington, Ranger V NR Wilmington gaspur water NR Negligible 0.0
Pembina, Block 8 12,209 Fresh water 4550 0.0 0.0
Owasco Unit NR Fresh water NR 1908 0.3
Hankensbuettel-Sued/West 175,000 Fresh water NR NR NR
Blocks
Oerrel Sued/Westblock Upper 147,000 Fresh water NR NR NR
Sand
West Yellow Creek NR Fresh water PWRI with Ca2 NR 207,000429,000 0.20.3
removed
2 elds West Bay NR Fresh water SW (50010 000 ppm NR Target 95,392 0.1
TDS)
NR/Tensleep NR 402 NR NR
766 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775

Table 1 (continued )

Field/segment Formation water Polymer injection water quality Well Cumulative incremental PE (Inc. oil m3 per kg
TDS (ppm) spacing (m) oil (Sm3) polymer injected)

Fresh water 224 ppm TDS, 38 ppm

divalent
Hitts Lake/Paluxy sand 105,000 Fresh water o20 ppm TDS NR 28,848 0.04
Eliasville Caddo Unit 165,000 Possum Kingdom Lake 350 576,837 0.2
Naval Petroleum Reserve #3/ 14,000 3000 ppm TDS 70 Minor NR
Shannon
Rapdan/Upper Shaunavon 6010 Fresh water NR 313000 0.2
unit
East Texas Oil Field/W.H. Siler 35,000 Wilcox NR NR NR
Lease
Twin Peaks/Stawn Upper NR Cambrian (80,172 ppm TDS) NR NR NR
Byron/Embar & Tensleep NR NR (divalent ions 475 ppm) NR 344,000 NR
North Oregon basin/Embar Under eval.
North Oregon basin/
Tensleep
West Coyote/Main and Upp. 12,800 Bastanchury Fresh Water NR NR NR
99 (MC-374)
West Coyote/Main and Upp. Bastanchury Fresh WaterNaCl
99 (MC-375)
Beatrice/H-sand NR NR 350 0 0.0
Sleepy Hollow 32,054 River water NR 98,700 NR
Marmul 3000 Fresh water 200 57,000 0.3
Warner Ranch Field Unit/J- 11,000 Fresh water NR 2862 0.2
Sand
Dos Cuadras/EP and FP zones NR PWRI 107 NR NR
Vorhop-Knesebeck/Dogger 220,000 PWRI NR NR NR
sandstone
Daqing/Putuahoa form. PO 6000 Fresh water 100 73,120 0.5
Daqing/Putuahoa and Saertu 118,950 0.4
form. PT
Eddesse-Nord 120,000 NR (50,000 ppm TDS) 60 1250 0.1
Chateaurenard/Courtnay 400 Fresh water 400 137,000 0.3
West Castle eld/Reservoir A NR 1% brine 66 NR NR
Q sand
Daqing/Saertu form. S II 1016 7,000 Fresh water 200 40,232 0.1
North
Captain 13,00018,000 PWRI additional supply NR NR NR
Pelican Lake/Wabiskaw 6853 Fresh water 150 NR NR
Shuang He/Layer II5 4356 Fresh water 250 71,727 0.2
Carmoplis 17,091 Fresh water NR 56,654 0.1
Buracica 41000 Treated PWRI 10,300 NR
Canto do Amaro 1000 PWRI NR NR
SZ36-1 6071 PWRI Guantao SW NR 12,000 0.01
Daqing/ZQXB NR NR NR 64,000 0.02
Sanand/KS-III NR NR 200 NR NR
East Bodo/Lloydminster 29,000 Ribstone Creek water (TDS NR NR NR
3700 ppm)
Dalia, Camelia 117,700 PWRI desulfated SW 10001500 NR NR
Tambaredjo 5000 Sarah Maria water (400500 ppm 100600 NR NR
TDS)

Field/Segment Polymer injection viscosity (cp) RRF/RF Oil viscosity (cp) Recovery mode

Niagara 1.35 NR/8 16 Sec.

Albrecht NR 130
West Cat Canyon 12 (12 RPM, 24 1C) NR 110 Sec.
NR NR 2.8 Tert.
Vernon/Upper Squirrel 1.4 NR/7.55 75 Tert.
Huntington Beach/Gareld NR NR 76 Tert.
Northeast Hallsville Crane Unit NR NR 0.0720.09 Sec.
Moore-Holverson-Hill-Aagard NR NR 3 Tert.
Hickman lease 4
Mattoon North 5
Field in North Texas 6
Skull Creek South Unit NR NR 3.21 Tert.
Skull Creek/Newcastle sand NR 27% reduction in permeability (Hall plot) 3.1@58 1C Sec.
Taber South Mannville B 5 2/6 58 Tert.
Smith/Mowder Unit NR NR 2.5 Tert.
Hamilton Dome/4th Curtis 60
Stroud/E. Stroud 1
McDonald Draw/M-13 1.5
McDonald Draw/M-9
Star Corral/Long Island 1.3
North Alma Penn Unit 5 NR 29.5 Sec.
Brelum Unit E3.6 NR 10 Tert.
 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775 767

Table 1 (continued )

Field/Segment Polymer injection viscosity (cp) RRF/RF Oil viscosity (cp) Recovery mode

Taber Mannville D Pool 5.816 NR 54 (res.) Tert.

North Stanley NR NR NR Tert.
C-H/Minnelusa res. 3.94.3 lab. 4.4/32 23 (res.) NR
North Burbank Unit E2 68 (lab.)/1115 3 (res.) Tert.
East Coalinga (Demonstration project) NR NR 25 (res.) Tert.
East Coalinga (Full-scale project)
West Semlek Field NR NR 12.3 Sec.
Wilmington, Ranger V NR NR/10.7 30.8 Tert.
Pembina, Block 8 E45 (Fresh water lab.) NR/46, 911 1.05 Tert.
Owasco Unit 5 (7.3 s  1, 24 1C) 2.7/7.2 3.27 Sec.
Hankensbuettel-Sued/West Blocks NR NR/NR 1117 Tert.
Oerrel Sued/Westblock Upper Sand 6 (preush) and 3 1.33 (simulated)/NR 17 Tert.
West Yellow Creek NR NR 1824@66 1C Sec.
2 elds West Bay NR NR NR Sec.
NR/Tensleep NR Mob. red. of 500% out to 36 m/uid vis. 1.5 cp 15 NR
Hitts Lake/Paluxy sand 82 (Well head) NR 2.7 (curr. 4.34) Tert.
Eliasville Caddo Unit 4020155 NR 3@46 1C Tert.
Naval Petroleum Reserve #3/Shannon NR NR 10 Tert.
Rapdan/Upper Shaunavon unit 21 NR/NR 10.6 Tert.
East Texas Oil Field/W.H. Siler Lease 1.5@res. cond. NR/NR 1.5@res. cond. Tert.
Twin Peaks/Stawn Upper 1.5 1.14/1.29 (from inj. tests) 1.5@res. cond. Tert.
Byron/Embar & Tensleep NR NR 17 Tert.
North Oregon basin/Embar 8.2
North Oregon basin/Tensleep 10
West Coyote/Main and Upp. 99 (MC-374) 10358 NR 8@54 1C NR
West Coyote/Main and Upp. 99 (MC-375) 20
Beatrice/H-sand 5 2/10 NR Tert.
Sleepy Hollow 10 1.3/NR 24 Tert.
Marmul 15 (9 in-situ) 1.5/NR 80 Sec.
Warner Ranch Field Unit/J-Sand 1.75 (target) NR/NR 4 Tert.
Dos Cuadras/EP and FP zones 5.53.52.2 NR/NR NR Tert.
Vorhop-Knesebeck/Dogger sandstone 4 1.072.2/NR 4 Tert.
Daqing/Putuahoa form. PO NR NR/NR 9.5 Tert.
Daqing/Putuahoa and Saertu form. PT 10.5 Tert.
Eddesse-Nord 12 NR/NR 7 Tert.
Chateaurenard/Courtnay 10 NR/NR 40@30 1C Tert.
West Castle eld/Reservoir A Q sand 4 NR/NR NR NR
Daqing/Saertu form. S II 10-16 North 28 NR/NR 9.5 Tert.
Captain 4.5 (500 ppm) NR/NR 88@31 1C NR
Pelican Lake/Wabiskaw 30 NR/NR 6001000 Tert.
Shuang He/Layer II5 58 (Well head) 313.5/2060 7.8 Tert.
Carmoplis 30 1.11.6/NR 50 Tert.
Buracica 40 NR 10.5
Canto do Amaro 13 1.68/NR 20.7
SZ36-1 98 (24.5 after deg.) NR/NR 70 Tert.
Daqing/ZQXB 200250 NR/NR 9.5 Tert.
Sanand/KS-III NR NR/NR 20 Tert.
East Bodo/Lloydminster 60 NR/NR 6002000 Tert.
Dalia, Camelia 3.3 NR/NR 111 NR
Tambaredjo 45 (Well head) NR/NR 300600 Tert.

be incomplete and somewhat scattered with respect to all the
parameters and issues mentioned above. Hence, the number of
observations for a given parameter in the next section can vary
signicantly. The incompleteness of the data sets also make the
use of multivariate statistical analysis difcult as the number of
reported values for any subset of key parameters will be too small
for drawing conclusions based on statistical analysis.
The reported data for each polymer project can be classied
according to the nomenclature in Fig. 1 as input parameters (IP),
reservoir parameters (RP), polymer viscosity at surface (PS) or
reservoir conditions (PR) and output parameters (OP). The strategy
for a statistical investigation of the relationship between key para-
meters has then been to establish correlations between parameters
shown in Fig. 1 or in most cases simply provide a qualitative
assessment based on a discussion of the ndings from the data
collected. Differences in IPs like polymer solution viscosity at surface
conditions (PS), water quality, polymer slug size and injectivity
changes and RPs as oil viscosity, absolute permeability and well
spacing between projects classied as technical successful and
technical discouraging has been considered. Hence, the discussions
and conclusions outlined are only valid and relevant with respect to a
technical evaluation of polymer ooding technology.
3. Results and discussions
Not all of the polymer projects included here were terminated
and nally evaluated before being reported. Hence, in some cases
the data are based on predictions and expected oil recovery
response. If the nal evaluation of a project is available, the data
included in the compilation refers to the latest and most updated
data especially with respect to cumulative polymer injected and
cumulative incremental oil gained. All polymer projects included
in the review are listed in Table 1 together with key information
about each project.
First statistics related to the location of the projects and the
polymer qualities used are given before presenting results and
discussions related to eld response and performance. The results
768 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775
Fig. 1. Overview of input parameters (IP), reservoir parameters (RP) and output parameters (OP) as well as parameters impacting polymer viscosity at surface (PS) and
reservoir conditions (PR).
from the data analysis will be discussed in terms of their expected
response as well as previously well-established correlations
obtained from the polymer ooding literature. Differences between
technical successful and discouraging projects will be pointed out in
cases where comparisons are available and relevant.
3.1. Technical assessment, location, lithology and polymer types
Technical assessment of the 72 projects shown in Fig. 2 reveals
that 40 were classied as successes, 6 discouraging, 11 promising,
8 too early to tell, 2 inconclusive, 2 not evaluated and 3 projects
did not report the technical assessment. In percentage of reported
data (69 cases); these numbers translate into 58% success, 9%
discouraging, 16% promising, 11% too early to tell, 3% inconclusive
and 3% not evaluated. Corresponding numbers for the 6 tests
performed offshore are shown in Fig. 3 are as follows: 1 success, 1
discouraging, 1 promising, 2 too early to tell and 1 not reported.
For the 5 cases reported using biopolymer the numbers are as
follows: 1 success, 2 promising and 2 too early to tell.
The rst eld tests using polymers were implemented in the USA
from the late 1950s which is also reected in Fig. 4 showing the
location by country of the polymer eld projects included in the
review. 46 out of 72 projects are located to the USA (64%), 6 to Canada
and PR China (8%), 4 to Germany (5.6%), 3 to Brazil (4.2%), 2 to the U.K.
and India (2.8%), France, Suriname, Angola and Oman have one test
reported each (1.4%). Hence tests are reported from 11 different
countries and all continents are represented except Australia.
A majority of the reported tests have been performed onshore,
66 (92%), and only 6 offshore (8%). 1 of the discouraging cases was
performed offshore in the UK sector of the North Sea.
57 tests (79%) were performed in sandstone reservoirs, 2 in
limestone (3%) and 1 in a dolomitic formation (1.4%). 2 tests (3%)
were also performed in formations comprising both sandstone and
dolomite rock whereas 14% of the cases did not report the
lithology of the target formation. 5 of the 6 discouraging cases
were performed in sandstone reservoirs whereas the last project
did not reported the formation lithology.
Two types of polymers are usually applied for large projects,
Fig. 5. The most common is synthetic polymers supplied as hydro-
lyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) with varying molecular weight and
degree of hydrolysis and the second is biopolymer. One case is
reporting the use of hydrophobic associate polymer which is also a
 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775
Fig. 2. Technical assessment of 72 polymer oods.
Fig. 3. Technical assessment of 6 offshore polymer projects.
Fig. 4. Location of implemented polymer injection projects by country.
synthetic polymer where small hydrophobic groups have been added
to the polymer backbone (Taylor and Nasr-El-Din, 1998). The num-
bers presented in Fig. 5 conrm previous percentage use of synthetic
vs. biopolymers stated in the literature (57 synthetic, 5 biopolymers
and 1 hydrophobic associate polymer). The use of synthetic polymer
can further be subdivided into the categories polymer powder or
polymer mixed as a water-in-oil emulsion. Powder quality deliveries
were reported in 37 cases whereas 17 projects received the polymer
as an emulsion. 2 of the 6 discouraging cases were applying emulsion
polymer (1 of the discouraging cases did not reported the polymer
quality used).
3.2. Water quality and mixing facilities
Many of the projects report the use of polymer skid units to
ensure safe, controlled and reproducible polymer feeding and
mixing process when making the polymer mother solution. After
769
Fig. 5. Polymer qualities used in the polymer projects.
mixing the mother solution it is usually transferred to a matura-
tion tank (powder quality) to complete the hydration process
before diluting the solution into the well-stream. For the cases
where the polymer was delivered as emulsion it is important at
any point in time to avoid condensation and dripping of water into
the emulsion as this can induce clusters of undissolved polymer
which could cause plugging of pores and harm the well injectivity.
Produced water re-injection (PWRI) is sometimes needed or
required for different reasons but concerns about the impact on
the polymer mixing process efciency and the nal quality of the
injected polymer solutions utilizing such water qualities have been
raised. 11 cases are reporting the use of either pure PWRI or
produced water which has been treated or mixed with other source
water supply. The general trend is that the total salinity of the
produced or treated produced water is rather low except for the case
using biopolymer (Littmann et al., 1991, 1992). Several other projects
experienced reduced injectivity using other water sources than
PWRI. 4 of the 6 discouraging cases reported used other water
qualities than PWRI as make-up water for the polymer whereas the
last one did not report the water quality used in that particular
project (Beatrice H-sand). Hence, there are other reasons than the
quality of the make-up water causing the poor results.
3.3. Polymer degradation
Two types of polymer degradation were reported in the
literature, mechanical and chemical.
3.3.1. Mechanical degradation
Mechanical degradation causing the polymer solution viscosity
to decrease on the surface has been reported in some of the
projects (Groeneveld et al., 1977; Miglicco, 1986; Christopher et al.,
1988; Moe SoeLet et al., 2012). The way the polymer solution is
treated upon transferring it as mother solution to the wellhead is
therefore very important. Signicant decrease in viscosity com-
pared to laboratory data (40% reduction) is also reported for one
project (Milton et al., 1983).
It has been documented that irregular paths and high pressure-
drop equipment like chokes and valves will degrade the polymer
and reduce the viscosity. Most projects did not report if chokes for
example needed to be passed on the way down to the perfora-
tions. For the Hitts Lake polymer injection project it is reported
that the chokes were actually removed during the polymer
injection phase in order to minimize mechanical degradation. It
is generally believed that ow of polymer solutions through the
tubing will have only small impact on the polymer viscosity which
is conrmed by the data reported. Minor degradation through the
tubing (Osterloh and Law, 1998) is reported in general even though
one project gives an upper limit of 20% reduction in the viscosity
through the tubing (Janeczko, 1979). High shear is also expected
770 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775

when transferring the polymer solution through the perforations having data available injected a polymer slug size estimated on
to the reservoir. Some projects report that increasing the perfora- average to 34% of PV as compared to only 17% of PV for 3 of the
tions shots per unit length was one measure to decrease the discouraging projects where data is available. Fig. 8 depicts the
negative impact of high pressure drop when the polymer solution polymer efciency (PE) as incremental oil (Sm3) per kg polymer
hits the sandface. 3 projects actually back-produced the polymer injected for 32 out of the 40 successful projects where data is
solution from the injection well again and found 3, 11 and 45% available. All reported successful projects had a PE in the range
reduction in viscosity in the back-produced uid as compared to from 0.02 to 12.5 Sm3/kg polymer injected (corresponding to
the injected solution sampled at wellhead. 0.0636 bbl/lb.). The lower PE value is typically in the range
previously reported as the minimum value for polymer ooding
to be regarded as technical successful.
3.3.2. Chemical/thermal degradation
Further analysis of RPs has been performed in order to correlate
Chemical/thermal degradation of the polymer solution will
the discouraging cases with the ones classied as technical
occur if it is exposed to high levels of oxygen combined with iron
successes. Average permeability in 5 of the 6 discouraging cases
(II) ions (Levitt and Pope, 2008). It is therefore of outermost
was calculated to 112 mD as compared to 563 mD for the projects
importance to implement measures to mitigate such detrimental
classied as successful. Hence, permeability is probably a key
effects. Oxygen levels should be controlled to a minimum by
parameter for the outcome of polymer ooding projects in line
adding scavenger and the content of iron (II) which could originate
with previous experience reported in the literature (Du and Guan,
from any contact with wetted steel surfaces needs to be kept at
2004). It should be noticed that molecular weight of the
very low levels. Almost all projects report that oxygen scavenger
applied polymers were taken into consideration in two of the
was added to the polymer solution and in some cases Nitrogen
discouraging cases. Krebs (1976) reported that the applied poly-
blanket was used to protect the mother solution against O2.
mer had too low molecular weight to effectively reduce the
Additionally precautions were taken to avoid iron/steel in many
permeability in the high-permeable layer signicantly. Shuler
of the projects by minimizing the exposure between the polymer
et al. (1987) reported that a lower molecular weight polymer
solution and iron/steel parts. In two cases plastic coated tubing
was used during injection test 2 in the West Coyote eld because
was applied (Miglicco, 1986; Zaitoun et al., 1998) and stainless
of unacceptable high permeability reduction (loss of injectivity)
steel completions were applied at the Marmul polymer project
observed in test 1 caused by the high molecular weight polymer
(Koning et al., 1988).
used in that test.
Several projects report degradation of the polymer solution
Polymer concentration is an important parameter for efciency
viscosity due to bacterial growth either originating from the make-
of the ood both technically and economically. 65 projects
up water (Bilbrey and Blackmar, 1983; Dovan et al., 1990) or from
reported polymer concentration injected with an average of
the mineral oil containing liquid when the polymer was delivered
783 ppm based on maximum concentration injected as many
as an emulsion (Christopher et al., 1988). The bacterial growth was
minimized in most cases by adding biocide to the make-up water
prior to the mixing process when establishing the mother solution.

3.4. Injectivity

Injectivity is a key parameter for all elds utilizing injectants

particularly for polymer projects as it is expected to decline
somewhat while injecting a high viscous aqueous phase. 19
projects reported drop in injectivity in the range from 680%.
4 of the discouraging cases experienced signicant drop in
injectivity during the ood. It is therefore reasonable to expect
that there is a correlation between maintenance of injectivity and
the polymer ooding performance outcome. Concerns have been
raised about the maintenance of injectivity when injecting syn-
thetic polymers in the emulsion form as compared to the powder
Fig. 6. Status of injectivity for emulsion based polymers vs. powder based polymer
version. Fig. 6 reports the percentage number of projects experi- supply.
enced reduction in injectivity for synthetic polymers delivered as
either emulsion or powder. There is an indication that emulsion
quality polymer has a higher tendency to induce injectivity
reductions than the powder quality as the former reports injectiv-
ity reduction in 47% (total of 17 cases) of the cases whereas the
powder only has reduction in 32% of the cases (37 cases in total).
2 of the discouraging cases applied emulsion polymers of which
one reported severe reduction in injectivity. On the other hand,
7 out of 17 of the projects injecting emulsion polymers were,
however, classied as successful.

3.5. Reservoir performance and discussions related to technical

assessments

Fig. 7 depicts cumulative incremental oil vs. mass polymer

injected. There is a large spread in the data for small slug sizes but
cumulative incremental oil is increasing for larger slugs injected. It
is, however, important to notice that 25 technical success projects Fig. 7. Cumulative incremental oil vs. mass polymer injected.
 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775
Fig. 8. Polymer efciency (PE) reported as incremental oil per kg polymer injected
for 32 (out of 40) technical successful projects reported.
projects applied tapered slug with stepwise decrease in polymer
concentration at the rear end of the slug. The 6 discouraging
projects used an average polymer concentration of 770 ppm which
is close to the average polymer concentration used in any project.
It is therefore no reasons to believe that polymer concentration
injected was a major issue related to the outcome of the discoura-
ging oods reported.
Resistance factor (RF) values (ratio between aqueous phase
mobility without polymer to aqueous phase mobility with poly-
mer) reported were typically in the range from 5 to 12. One
exception was the successful ood reported by He et al. (1998)
which reported RF values in the range from 20 to 60. Similarly,
residual resistance factor (RRF) values (aqueous phase mobility
before polymer injection to aqueous phase mobility after polymer
injection both measured ooding aqueous phase through the rock
sample) typically were reported in the range from 18 whereas He
et al. (1998) reported RRF values in the range from 3 to 13.5. The
latter ood also reported cumulative incremental oil around
70,000 Sm3 with a PE of 0.19 Sm3/kg polymer injected (slug size
of approximately 40% PV).
Polymer retention is a very important parameter for any
polymer ooding project particularly with respect to chemical
consumption and maintenance of target viscosity when the poly-
mer is propagating through the formation. Unexpected high
retention will lead to early breakdown of the viscous bank with
poor result in terms of incremental oil as the outcome. Reported
retention values in the database are typically in the range from 5
to 60 mg/g. Generally, there is a relationship between retention and
RRF values obtained. The ood reported by He et al. (1998) having
RRF in the range from 20 to 60 also reported consistent with this
hypothesis retention values in the upper range from 39 to 90 mg/g.
Well spacing could be an important parameter when perform-
ing chemical ooding. The spacing in the reported projects was
typically in the range from 15 to 450 m. It should be noted that
three of the discouraging cases reported well spacing of 350, 381
and 4550 m whereas no data were reported for the remaining
3 cases. Furthermore, several of the successful tests also reported
well spacing above 400 m.
The reported data on formation wettability is very limited.
1 formation is reported as oil-wet (Clampitt and Reid, 1975) and
2 as preferential oil-wet (Wang et al., 1996) and intermediate to
oil-wet (Weiss and Chain, 1989), respectively. The oil-wet case
also reported a very low adsorption in the range 1.74 mg/g in line
with expected results from core ooding test. The formation
having intermediate to oil-wet properties was 1 of the discoura-
ging cases reporting ooding performance in the Warner Ranch
Field Unit.
771
Temperature is expected to have signicant impact on polymer
stability and the reported formation temperatures were typically
in the range from 24 to 85 1C. It is interesting to notice that 1 case
classied as technical success reported formation temperature of
109 1C when using a HPAM based polymer in an Oolitic limestone
formation (Moore, 1969). This temperature is well above the
temperature usually given as maximum stability temperature for
HPAM (Moradi-Araghi and Doe, 1987). No information was
reported regarding the salinity and particularly the hardness of
the brine in that case.
Oil viscosity is a key parameter in polymer ooding perfor-
mances. The reported tests were performed in formations having
typical oil viscosity in the range from 0.1 to 2000 cp. Most of the
oods had, however, viscosities well below 100 cp. The 6 discoura-
ging projects had viscosities in the range from 1.05 to 30.8 cp (one
case did not reported oil viscosity) which is actually lower than the
projects classied as successes having an average oil viscosity
around 44 cp (39 of the successful projects reported oleic phase
viscosity). The highest oil viscosity of any of the successful projects
was the Pelican Lake project reported by Delamaide et al. (2013)
having viscosity in the range 6001000 cp. Based on the reported
data, no correlation exists between success rate and the formation
oil viscosity in the range from 0.1 to 1000 cp.
All the polymer projects reported injected polymer either in
the secondary or tertiary phase. The optimal point in time could be
different from eld to eld. The statistics regarding secondary vs.
tertiary recovery mode reveals that 54 oods reported polymer
injection in tertiary mode. The results are 31 successes, 5 discoura-
ging, 7 promising, 2 inconclusive, 2 not evaluated and 7 too early
to tell. For the 11 cases injecting in secondary mode the numbers
are: 8 successful, 2 promising and 1 too early to tell. Based on
these numbers; it seems like an advantage to inject polymer
earlier in the ood history (secondary mode) in order to obtain
technical successful performance.
3.6. Polymer production and production facility challenges
and issues
19 projects report production of polymer in production wells at
various concentration levels ranging from detected to 1900 ppm.
Only 4 projects report cumulative polymer produced (Groeneveld
et al., 1977; Grodde and Schaefer, 1978; Clifford and Duthie, 1987;
Putz et al., 1994). The method applied to quantify the polymer
concentration was the starch-triiodide method developed by
Scoggins and Miller (1979). It is expected that production of
polymers will be more focused on for future polymer injection
projects taking into account the increased focus on health safety
and environmental issues over the last decades.
There are some observations addressing the state of the
produced polymer but signicant differences exist. Zettlitzer and
Volz (1992) reported that the polymer hydrolysis degree increased
from 30% to 45% during 3 years in the reservoir at 60 1C. Clifford
and Duthie (1987) report that analysis show that all the polymer
molecules were actually reduced in size due to propagation
through the reservoir. Littmann et al. (1992) report that the
biopolymer Xanthan only showed minor degradation in terms of
viscosity when being sampled in the production well. He et al.
(1998) demonstrated that the viscosity of the produced polymer
was in the range 1.953.3 cp as compared to 58 cp at the wellhead
when injected. At the same time the degree of hydrolysis
increased from 23% to 41% and the molecular weight was reduced
from 14.3 million Da to 2.1. Morel et al. (2012) report minor
degradation of the polymer for the Dalia injection test and Moe
SoeLet et al. (2012) observed some degradation of the produced
polymer but stated that the level was within the acceptable range.
In addition there have been some observations regarding
772 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775
challenges and issues on the production side related to the
breakthrough of polymers. These observations are summarized
in Fig. 9 and include increased tendency to corrosion (DeHekker el
al., 1986; Christopher el al., 1988; Pitts et al., 1995) and emulsion
formation (Shaw and Stright, 1977; Rowalt, 1973), mechanical
failures (Pitts el al., 1995) and lower productivity (Han et al.,
2006). The number of negative incidences is, however, rather
limited considering the total number of projects reported.
3.7. The 6 technical discouraging cases
The aim is here just to describe the discouraging cases reported in
the literature review in some more detail and then compare the
arguments given by the authors for the discouraging results with
general guidelines for polymer ooding in order to identify major
challenges and issues related to the outcome of large polymer
injection projects. Two of the projects reported mechanical shear
degradation. Hence, reduced target viscosity in-situ could be an
important factor regarding the poor result. It was also observed that
the average permeability in 5 of the 6 cases were considerably lower
than the permeability in the formations where polymer injection was
reported as successful (average permeability in 5 of the discouraging
cases was 112 mD as compared to 563 mD for the projects classied
as successful). Furthermore, the slug size injected in 3 of these cases
was on average only 17% PV as compared to 34% PV for the successful
cases where data is available. No other major differences have been
observed with respect to IPs and RPs between these 6 cases and the
40 cases classied as technical successes.
3.7.1. McDonald draw M-13 (Sloat, 1972)
The main goal by injecting polymer into this eld was to reduce
the water mobility contrast between high and low permeable
layers. The average permeability was estimated to 7 mD with a
range from a minimum of 1 to 30 mD. The average permeability of
7 mD is among the lowest ones included in the review and could
be the cause for the lack of response due to polymer ooding. Du
and Guan (2004) give 20 mD as the lowest average permeability
where successful polymer ooding has been reported.
3.7.2. Wilmington ranger V (Krebs, 1976)
The reservoir contained a medium viscous oil of 30.8 cp giving
a poor mobility ratio of 14.2. The author claims that the main
reasons for the lack of response due to polymer injection were that
the polymer concentration was too low (target concentration of
250 ppm could not be obtained during the rst months due to
operational issues) and the molecular weight of the polymer was
considered too low (Pusher 700 was used) giving early polymer
breakthrough in the producers and marginal improvements in oil
recovery overall. Additionally reduction in injectivity was a major
Fig. 9. Reported issues on the production side related to the use of polymers.
issue as the rate decreased from 3593 to 2703 m3/D corresponding
to a 25% reduction. Loss of injectivity was attributed to plugging by
scale formation, undissolved polymer and possible reduction in
permeability due to adsorption of polymer (12 mg/g rock).
3.7.3. Pembina block 8 (Groeneveld et al., 1977)
The authors claim that the discouraging result upon injecting
polymer was partly due to mixing of the freshwater injected (TDS
of 270 ppm) with the formation water (TDS 12,209 ppm) giving
higher reduction in the aqueous phase polymer viscosity in the
reservoir than expected. Another important aspect was the release
of NaHCO3 in the reservoir due to dissolution of carbonate
minerals upon exposure to the low salinity fresh water slug. The
project also experienced very high loss in injectivity contributing
signicantly to the negative result. Additionally the polymer slug
size was probably too small estimated to approximately only 4% of
PV.
3.7.4. West coyote (Shuler et al., 1987)
The authors reported results from laboratory and eld testing
of polymer injectivity in 2 wells in the West Coyote Field. The rst
operation in well MC-374 showed large drop in injectivity caused
by formation damage due to fresh water injection (0.1% NaCl) and
high polymer resistance factor. RRF value of 75.7 was observed
when injecting 0.1% NaCl brine through reservoir core material
from the eld. Changing to formation water partly restored the
injectivity (RRF of 10.4). The polymer used in the well MC-374 was
Cyanatrol960 which is an emulsion based synthetic polymer.
The resistance factor induced was unacceptably high and another
polymer with lower molecular weight was chosen prior to the new
polymer injection test in well MC-375. Cyanatrol950 showed
improvement in resistance factor but even this polymer showed
an unacceptable injectivity behavior. The nal design therefore
included pre-shear of the Cyanatrol950 polymer by installing an
orice plate downstream the polymer mixing unit to produce a
controllable polymer pre-shearing. The salinity of the injection
brine was increased from 0.1% to 0.3% NaCl in order to avoid
permeability reduction due to the salt sensitivity of the formation.
3.7.5. Beatrice H-sand (Clifford and Duthie, 1987)
This polymer injection test was performed offshore in the UK
sector of the North Sea. The polymer used was delivered as a 50%
active emulsion. The aim was to use polymer to block a thin high-
permeable streak located between layers of low permeability. High
polymer concentration was used (2000 ppm) giving a 5-fold increase
in aqueous phase viscosity. The results indicate that the polymer was
unable to block the high-permeable layer giving raise to minor
diversion of the chase water into the low-permeable areas. The
reason for the poor result could be very high permeability contrast of
100 between high and low-permeable sands and dilution of the
polymer slug at the rear due to cross-ow effects.
3.7.6. Warner Ranch Field unit J-sand (Weiss and Chain, 1989)
The polymer injection accounted for 2862 m3 incremental oil
(18,000 bbl) which was 800 m3 less than forecasted. The relative
poor performance of the polymer injection was attributed to much
higher polymer retention than anticipated. Actual polymer retention
was estimated to 21 mg/g instead of the expected retention of 3 mg/g.
4. Conclusions
The aims of this paper were rstly to compile an up-to-date
data base for implemented pilot/eld polymer injection projects
reported in the literature over the last 50 years. Secondly, to assure
 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775
that planning and implementation of upcoming polymer projects
can leverage on this large amount of experience and lessons
learned built up in the industry during these years. The following
conclusions can be drawn from this work:
(1) A comprehensive literature review covering 72 implemented
well-documented polymer eld projects from 1964 to present
is reported.
i. 40 projects were classied as technical success and 6 as
discouraging.
(2) 46 of the projects have been performed in the USA (64%)
followed by 6 in Canada and PR China (8%), 4 in Germany
(5.6%), etc.
(3) 66 Projects were implemented onshore and 6 offshore.
(4) HPAM has been used in 92% of the reported cases and
biopolymer in the remaining 8% (1 case used a hydrophobic
associate polymer).
(5) Data analysis emphasizing difference between technical suc-
cessful and discouraging projects indicates the following:
i. 4 of the discouraging polymer projects reported signicant
reduction in injectivity during polymer injection.
ii. The projects using the emulsion type of synthetic polymers
seems to have more challenges with respect to injectivity
than the projects using the powder type.
iii. 3 of 6 discouraging projects reported slug size of 17% PV as
compared to an average slug size of 34% PV for the 40
successful projects.
iv. The successful projects were executed in formations having
average permeability of 563 mD as compared to 112 mD for
3 of the discouraging projects.
v. The success rate for the projects injecting polymer in
secondary mode was higher than the projects injecting in
tertiary mode.
vi. No special differences or trends could be observed between
successful and discouraging projects with respect to poly-
mer concentration, resistance factor, residual resistance
factor, polymer retention, well spacing, formation tempera-
ture and oil viscosity.
(6) The number of challenges and issues observed in the produc-
tion wells due to polymer breakthrough and production was in
general low and mostly related to increased tendency for
corrosion and formation of emulsions in the production
system.
(7) The main reasons for the 6 technical discouraging cases stated
by the authors:
i. Average permeability in the eld too low (E 7 mD) (Sloat,
1972)
ii. Injected polymer concentration too low (213 ppm) (Krebs,
1976)
iii. Viscosity reduction higher than expected due to more
mixing between injection and formation water plus higher
reduction in injectivity than predicted (Groeneveld et al.,
1977).
iv. Too high resistance factor causing unacceptable injectivity
(Shuler et al., 1987)
v. Very high permeability contrast (khigh/klow 4100) (Clifford
and Duthie, 1987).
vi. Much higher polymer retention than expected (Weiss and
Chain, 1989).
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge the permission from Statoil
to publish this paper. They also acknowledge very much the good
773
comments received from unknown reviewers which improved the
quality of the nal manuscript signicantly.
References
Al-Saadi, F.S., Amri, B.A., Noi, S., Van Wunnik, J., Jaspers, H.F., Harthi, S., Shuaili, K.,
Cherukupalli, P.K., Chakravarthi, R., 2012. Polymer Flooding in a large eld in
South Oman initial results and future plans. SPE 154665 Presented at the SPE
EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia Held in Muscat, Oman, April 1618.
Alvarado, V., Manrique, E., 2010. Energies 3, 15291575. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
en3091529.
Baxter, D., Bowman, R.W., Tinker, G., Bates, T., 1976. Biopolymer Pilot Facilities
Coalinga. SPE 6118 Presented at the 51st Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE of AIME
held in New Orleans, October 36.
Bilbrey, D.G., Blackmar, G.E., 1983. Polymer oods begin in south Louisiana waters.
Ocean Industry, August Houston, Texas: Gulf p. 69.
Bilhartz, H.L., Charlson, G.S., 1975. Field Polymer Stability Studies. SPE 5551
Presented at the 50th Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE of AIME held in Dallas,
USA, September 28October 1.
Campell, T.A., Bachman, R.C., 1987. Polymer-augmented waterood in the Rapdan
Upper Shaunavon Unit. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 26 (4),
67.
Chang, H.L., 1978. Polymer Flooding Technology Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.
Journal of Petroleum Technology 30 (8), 11131128.
Chang, H.L., Sui, X., Xiao, L., Guo, Z., Yao, Y., Xiao, Y., Chen, G., Song, K., Mack, J.C.,
2006. Successful Field Pilot of In-Depth Colloidal Dispersion Gel (CDG)
Technology in Daqing Oil Field. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 9 (6),
664673.
Christopher, C.A., Clark, T.J., Gibson, D.H., 1988. Performance and operation of a
successful polymer ood in the Sleepy Hollow Reagan Unit. SPE/DOE 17395
Presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium Held in Tulsa,
USA, April 1720.
Clampitt, R.L., Reid, T.B., 1975. An economic polymerood in the North Burbank
Unit, Osage County, Oklahoma. SPE 5552 Presented at the 50th Annual Fall
Meeting of the SPE of AIME held in Dallas, USA, September 28October 1.
Clifford, P.J., Duthie, A., 1987. Analysis of a polymer well treatment in the Beatrice
Field. SPE 16550 Presented at Offshore Europe 87, Aberdeen, Scotland, Sep-
tember 811.
Corlay, P., Lemouzy, P., Eschard, R.,Zhang, L.R., 1992. Fully integrated reservoir study
and numerical forecast simulations of two-polymer pilots in Daqing Field. SPE
22364 Presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering
Held in Beijing, PR China, March 2427.
Cozic, C., Rosseau, D., Tabery, R., 2009. Novel Insight Into Microgel Systems for
Water Control. SPE Production & Operations 24 (4), 590601.
da Silva, I.P.G., de Melo, M.A., Luvizotto, J.M., Lucas, E.F., 2007. Polymer ooding: a
sustainable enhanced oil recovery in the current scenario. SPE 107727 Pre-
sented at the SPE Latin America and Carribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, April 1518.
DeHekker, T.G., Bowzer, J.L., Coleman, R.V., Bartos, W.B., 1986. A progress report on
polymer-augmented waterooding in Wyoming's North Oregon Basin and
Byron Fields. SPE/DOE 14953 Presented at the Fifth Symposium on Enhanced
Oil Recovery of the SPE and the Dep. of Energy held in Tulsa, USA, April 2023.
Delamaide, E., Zaitoun, A., Renard, G., Tabary, R., 2013. Pelican Lake Polymer Flood
rst successful application in a high viscosity reservoir. Paper B33 presented at
the EAGE IOR symposium held in St. Petersburg, Russia, April 1618.
Dovan, H.T., Hutchins, R.D., Terzian, G.A., 1990. Dos Cuadras Offshore Polymer Flood.
SPE 20060 presented at the 60th California Regional Meeting held in Ventura,
USA, April 46.
Du, Y., Guan, L., 2004. Field-scale polymer ooding: lessons learnt and experiences
gained during past 40 years. SPE 91787 Presented at the SPE International
Petroleum Conference Held in Puebla, Mexico, November 89.
Greaves, B.L., Marshall, R.N., Thompson, J.H., 1984. Hitts lake unit polymer project.
SPE 13123 Presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, USA, September 1619.
Grodde, K.-H. Von, Schaefer, W., 1978. Experience with the application of polymer
to improve water ood efciency in Dogger Reservoirs of the Gifhorn Trough,
Germany. Erdoel-Erdgas-Z. 94, 252.
Groeneveld, H., George, R.A., Melrose, J.C., 1977. Pembina Field Polymer Pilot Flood.
Journal of Petroleum Technology 29 (5), 561 (SPE 5829).
Grooms, G.E., Schulte, R.K., 1985. Contributions of observation well logging to the
evaluation of polymer-augmented waterood pilots. SPE 14396 Presented at
the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in Las
Vegas, USA, September 2225.
Han, M., Xiang, W., Zhang, J., Jiang, W., and Sun, F., 2006. Application of EOR
Technology by Means of Polymer Flooding in Bohai Oil Fields. SPE 104432
presented at the SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in
Beijing, P.R. China, Dec. 5-7.
He, J., Song, Z.Y., Qiu, L., Xie, F., Tan, Z.L., Nan, H., Yue, Q.S., Li, X.N., 1998. High
temperature polymer ooding in thick reservoir in ShuangHe Oileld. SPE
50933 Presented at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition Held in
Beijing, PR China, November 26.
Hoelscher, L.E., Tan, H.C., Fullbright, B.M., 1986. Field-scale polymer ooding at
remote site presents special challenges. SPE/DOE 14952 Presented at the Fifth
774 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery of the SPE and the Department of
Energy Held in Tulsa, USA, April 2023.
Janeczko, M.A., 1979. Skull Creek Newcastle Sand Unit a successful polymer ood.
SPE 8380 Presented at the 54th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion of the SPE of AIME Held in Las Vegas, USA, September 2325.
Jewett, R.L., Schurz, G.F., 1970. Polymer Flooding - A Current Appraisal. Journal of
Petroleum Technology 22 (6), 675 (SPE 2545).
Johnson, G.A., 1975a. Taber Mannville D Pool Field Chevron Standard Limited.
Improved Oil-Recovery Field Reports, Society of Petroleum Engineers, AIME,
1 June, pp. 145153.
Johnson, G.A., 1975b. Taber Mannville D Pool Field Chevron Standard Limited.
Improved Oil-Recovery Field Reports, Society of Petroleum Engineers, AIME, 1,
September, pp. 237241.
Johnson, J.P., 1975c. The Kewanee North Stanley polymer project. Paper presented
at First Annual Tertiary Oil Recovery Conference, Contribution No. 2 (University
of Kansas), Wichita, USA, October 2324, p. 94.
Jones, M.A., 1966. Waterooding Mobility Control: A Case History. Journal of
Petroleum Technology 18 (9), 1151 (SPE 1427).
Koning, E.J.L., Mentzer, E., Heemskerk, J., 1988. Evaluation of a pilot polymer ood in
the Marmul Field, Oman. SPE 18092 Presented at the 63rd Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE Held in Houston, USA, October 25.
Krebs, H.J., 1976. Wilmington Field, California, Polymer Flood A Case History.
Journal of Petroleum Technology 28 (12), 1473 (SPE 5828).
Lane, B.B., 1970. A progress report of polymer ooding Skull Creek South Unit,
Weston County, Wyoming. SPE 3052 Presented at the 45th Annual Fall Meeting
of the SPE of AIME Held in Houston, USA, October 47.
Levitt, D.B., Pope, G.A., 2008. Selection and screening of polymers for enhanced-oil
recovery. SPE 113845 Presented at the Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held
in Tulsa, USA, 1923 April.
Littmann, W., Kleinitz, W., Christiansen, B.E., Stokke, B.T., Haugvallstad, T., 1992. Late
results of a polymer pilot test: performance, simulation adsorption, and
xanthan stability in the reservoir. SPE/DOE 24120 Presented at the SPE/DOE
Eighth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, USA, April 2224.
Littmann, W., Kleinitz, W., Kleppe, G., Lund, T., 1991. A commercial scale xanthan
polymer ood project in a high salinity, low viscosity oil reservoir. Paper
Presented at the 6th European IOR-Symposium Held in Stavanger, Norway, May
2123.
Liu, B., Sun, X., Wang, K., Xu, H., Liu, Q., Liu, X., Song, S., 2007. Flooding by high-
concentration polymer doubled oil recovery of common polymer on eld test
with 20% closed to the result of laboratory test in Daqing. SPE 108684 Presented
at the International Oil Conference and Exhibition Held in Veracruz, Mexico,
June 2730.
Maitin, B., Daboul, B., Sohn, W.O., 1988. Numerical simulation for planning and
evaluation of polymer ood process: a eld performance analysis. SPE 17631
Presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in
Tianjin, PR China, November 14.
Manning, R.K., Pope, G.A., Lake, L.W., Paul, G.W.,Wesson, T.C., 1983. A Technical
Survey of Polymer Flooding Projects. DOE Report DOE/BC/10327-19, U.S. D.O.E.,
September.
Manrique, E., Thomas, C., Ravikiran, R., Izadi, M., Lantz, M., Romero, J., Alvarado, V.,
2010. EOR: current status and opportunities. SPE 130113 Presented at the
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium Held in Tulsa, USA, April 2428.
Martin, I., Lozanski, W., 1970. Taber South-Canada's rst polymer ood. SPE 3180
Presented at the 21st Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
CIM, Calgary, Canada, May.
Melo, M.A., Holleben, C.R., Silva, I.P.G., Correia, A.C., Silva, G.A., Rosa, A.J., Lins, A.G.,
Junior, A.G.L., and Lima, J.C., 2005. Evaluation of Polymer Injection Projects in
Brazil. SPE 94898 presented at the SPE Latin America and Carribean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 20-23.
Melo, M.A., Silva, I.P.G., Godoy, G.M., and Sanmartin, A.M., 2002. Polymer Injection
Projects in Brazil: Dimensioning, Field Application and Evaluation. SPE 75194
presented at the SPE 13th. Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa,
USA, April 13-17.
Miglicco, T.P., 1986. Polymer ood operations: East Texas eld. SPE 14658 Presented
at the East Texas Regional Meeting of the SPE held in Tyler, USA, April 2122.
Milton Jr., H.W., Argabright, P.A., and Gogarty, W.B., 1983. EOR prospect evaluation
using eld manufactured polymer. SPE 11720 Presented at the California
Regional Meeting Held in Ventura, USA, March 2325.
Moe Soe Let, K.P., Manichand, R.N., Seright, R.S., 2012. Polymer ooding a  500-cp
oil. SPE 154567 Presented at the Eighteenth SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium held in Tulsa, USA, April 1418.
Moftt, P.D., Zornes, D.R., Moradi-Araghi, A., McGovern, J.M., 1993. Application of
Freshwater and Brine Polymer Flooding in the North Burbank Unit, Osage
County, Oklahoma. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 8 (2), 128134.
Moore, J.K., 1969. Reservoir Barrier and Polymer Waterood, Northeast Hallsville
Crane Unit. Journal of Petroleum Technology 21 (9), 1130 (SPE 2423).
Moradi-Araghi, A., Doe, P.H., 1987. Hydrolysis and Precipitation of Polyacrylamides
in Hard Brines at Elevated Temperatures. SPE Reservoir Engineering 2 (2),
189198.
Morel, D., Vert, M., Jouenne, S., Gauchet, R., Bouger, Y., 2012. First Polymer Injection
in Deep Offshore Field Angola: Recent Advances on Dalia/Camelia Field Case.
Oil and Gas Facilities 1 (2), 4352.
Morel, D., Vert, M., Jouenne, S., Nahas, E., 2008. Polymer injection in deep offshore
eld: The Dalia Angola case. Paper SPE 116672 Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition Held in Denver, USA, 2124 September.
Moritis, G., 1990. Annual production report. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 1992. Annual production report. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 1994. EOR production report. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 1996. Oil production report. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 1998. Report on enhanced oil recovery. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 2000. Report on enhanced oil recovery. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 2002. Report on enhanced oil recovery. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 2004. Report on enhanced oil recovery. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 2006a. Report on enhanced oil recovery. Oil Gas J.
Moritis, G., 2006b. Worldwide EOR survey. Oil Gas J. 104, 4657.
Moritis, G., 2008. Worldwide EOR survey. Oil Gas J. 106 (4142, 4459).
Needham, R.B., Doe, P.H., 1987. Polymer Flooding Review. Journal of Petroleum
Technology 39 (12), 1503 (SPE 17140).
Needham, R.B., Threlkeld, C.B., Gall, J.W., 1974. Control of water mobility using
polymers and multivalent cations. SPE 4747 Presented at the Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium of SPE of AIME held in Tulsa, USA, April 2224.
Osterloh, W.T., Law, E.J., 1998. Polymer transport and rheological properties for
polymer ooding in the North Sea Captain Field. SPE 39694 Presented at the
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium Held in Tulsa, USA, April 1922.
Perry, B., 1972. Performance history on use of biopolymer in springer sand
waterood in Southern Oklahoma. SPE 4085 Presented at the 47th Annual Fall
Meeting of the SPE of AIME Held in San Antonio, USA, October 811.
Pitts, M.J., Campbell, T.A., Surkalo, H., Wyatt, K., 1995. Polymer Flood of the Rapdan
Pool, Saskatchewan, Canada. SPE Reservoir Engineering 10 (3), 183186.
Putz, A.G., Bazin, B., Pedron, B.M., 1994. Commercial polymer injection in the
courtenay eld, 1994 update. SPE 28601 Presented at the 69th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in New Orleans, USA, September 25
28.
Pye, D.J., 1964. Improved secondary recovery by control of water mobility. J. Pet.
Technol., 911 (SPE 845).
Rowalt, R.J., 1973. A case history of polymer waterooding Brelum Field Unit. SPE
4671 Presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE of AIME Held in Las
Vegas, USA, September 30October 3.
Sandiford, B.B., 1964. Laboratory and Field Studies of Water Floods Using Polymer
Solutions to Increase Oil Recoveries. Journal of Petroleum Technology 16 (8),
917 (SPE 844).
Scoggins, M.W., Miller, J.W., 1979. Determination of Water-Soluble Polymers
Containing Primary Amide Groups Using the Starch-Triiodide Method. SPE
Journal 19 (3), 151154.
Seright, R.S., 2009. Disproportionate Permeability Reduction With Pore-Filling Gels.
SPE Journal 14 (1), 513.
Seright, R.S., 2010. Potential for Polymer Flooding Reservoirs With Viscous Oils. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 13 (4), 730740.
Seright, R.S., Fan, T., Wavrik, K., Wan, H., Gaillard, N., Favro, C., 2011. Rheology of a
New Sulfonic Associative Polymer In Porous Media. SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering 14 (6), 726734.
Shahin, G.T., Thigpen, D.R., 1996. Injecting Polyacrylamide Into Gulf Coast Sands:
The White Castle Q Sand Polymer-Injectivity Test. SPE Reservoir Engineering 11
(3), 174 (SPE 24119).
Shaw, R.A., Stright Jr., D.H., 1977. Performance of the Taber South Polymer Flood.
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 16 (1), 35 (PETSOC-77-01-02-P).
Sheng, J.J., 2011. Modern chemical enhanced oil recovery. Theory and practice.
Elsevier Inc., USA Burlington, MA 01803, ISBN: 978-1-85617-745-0.
Shuler, P.J., Kuehne, D.L., Uhl, J.T., Walkup, G.W., 1987. Improving Polymer
Injectivity at West Coyote Field, California. SPE Reservoir Engineering 2 (3),
271 (SPE 13603).
Sinclair, B.C., Ott, W.K., 1978. Polymer reduces channeling, ups waterooding oil
recovery. World Oil 187 (7), 101104.
Sloat, B., 1969. Polymer treatment boosts production on four oods. World Oil 168,
4447.
Sloat, B., 1972. How six polymer oods are faring. The Oil and Gas Journal 70,
101103.
Sorbie, K.S., 1991. Polymer-improved oil recovery. Blackie and Son Ltd., Bishop-
briggs, Glasgow, ISBN: 0-216-92693-9.
Sparlin, D.D., 1976. An Evaluation of Polyacrylamides for Reducing Water Produc-
tion. Journal of Petroleum Technology 28 (8), 906914.
Stavland, A., 2009. How to Apply the ow velocity as a design criteria in RPM
Treatments. SPE 121850 Presented at the European Formation Damage Con-
ference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 2729 May.
Strickland, Jr., P.H., Wilson, J.T., Warnock, Jr., W.E., 1978. The feasibility of converting
an existing waterood to a polymer ood: a case history of West Yellow Creek.
SPE 7462 presented at the 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion of the SPE of AIME held in Houston, USA, October 13.
Sydansk, R.D., Seright, R.S., 2007. When and Where Relative Permeability Mod-
ication Water-Shutoff Treatments Can Be Successfully Applied. SPE Production
& Operations 22 (2), 236247.
Takaqi, S., Pope, G.A., Sepehrnoori, K., Putz, A.G., BenDakhlia, H., 1992. Simulation of
a successful polymer ood in the Chateaurenard Field. SPE 24931 Presented at
the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE Held in
Washington D.C., U.S.A, October 47.
Taylor, K.C., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., 1998. Water-soluble hydrophobically associating
polymers for improved oil recovery: a literature review. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 19, 265.
Tholstrom, K.V., 1976. Performance history and operation of two minnelusa
reservoirs West Semlek Field, Crook County, Wyoming. SPE 6164 Presented
at the 51st Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE of AIME Held in New Orleans, USA,
October 36.
 D.C. Standnes, I. Skjevrak / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 122 (2014) 761775
Tiwari, D., Marathe, R.V., Patel, N.K., Ramachandran, K.P., Maurya, C.R., Tewari, P.K.,
2008. Performing of polymer ood in Sanand Field, Indiaa case study. SPE
114878 Presented at the SPE Asian Pacic Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition
held in Perth, Australia, October 2022.
Ustick, R.E., Hillhouse, J.D., 1967. Comparison of Polymer Flooding and Water-
ooding at Huntington Beach, California. Journal of Petroleum Technology 19
(9), 1103 (SPE 1734).
Wang, D., Cheng, J., Wu, J., Wang, Y., 2002. Producing by polymer ooding more
than 300 million barrels of oil, what experiences have been learnt? SPE 77872
Presented at the SPE Asian Pacic Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition Held
in Melbourne, Australia, October 810.
Wang, D., Wang, G., Xia, H., Yang, S., Wu, W., 2011. Incremental recoveries in the
eld of large scale high viscous-elastic uid ooding are double that of
conventional polymer ooding. SPE 146473 Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, USA, October 30Novem-
ber 2.
Wang, D., Zhang, Z., Li, C., Cheng, J., Du, X., Li, Q., 1996. A pilot for polymer ooding
of saertu formation S II 1016 in the North of Daqing Oil Field. SPE 37009
Presented at the SPE Asian Pacic Oil and Gas Conference Held in Adelaide,
Australia, October.
Wassmuth, F.R., Arnold, W., Green, K., Cameron, N., 2009. Polymer Flood Applica-
tion to Improve Heavy Oil Recovery at East Bodo. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology 48 (2), 55 (PETSOC-09-02-55-P).
Weiss, W.W., Baldwin, R.W., 1985. Planning and Implementing a Large-Scale
Polymer Flood. Journal of Petroleum Technology 37 (4), 720 (SPE 12637).
Weiss, W.W., Chain, J., 1978. Owasco Unit polymer ood. The Oil and Gas Journal 76
(32), 80.
775
Weiss, W.W., Chain, J.M., 1989. J-sand polymer ood performance review. SPE 18974
Presented at the SPE Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reser-
voirs Symposium and Exhibition Held in Denver, USA, March 68.
Wu, Y., Mahmoudkhani, A., Watson, P., Fenderson, T., Nair, M., 2012. Development
of new polymers with better performance under conditions of high tempera-
ture and high salinity. SPE 155653 Presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil
and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 1618 April.
Yang, F., Wang, D., Yang, X., Sui, X., Chen, Q., Zhang, L., 2004. High concentration
polymer ooding is successful. SPE 88454 Presented at the SPE Asian Pacic Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition Held in Perth, Australia, October 1820.
Zaitoun, A., Tabary, R., Fossey, J.-P., Boyle, T., 1998. Implementing a heavy-oil
horizontal-well polymer ood in Western Canada. In: Proceedings of the
Seventh UNITAR International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands,
Beijing, PR China, October 2730.
Zettlitzer, M., Volz, H., 1992. Comparison of polyacrylamide retention in eld
application and laboratory testing. SPE/DOE 24121 Presented at the SPE/DOE
Eighth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, USA, April 2224.
Zhou, W., Zhang, J., Han, M., Xiang, W., Feng, G., Jiang, W., Sun, F., Zhou, S., Guo, Y.,
Ye, Z., 2007. Application of hydrophobically associating water-soluble polymer
for polymer ooding in P.R. China Offshore Heavy Oileld. IPTC 11635 Presented
at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Dubai, United
Arab Emirates, December 46.
Zornes, D.R., Cornelius, A.J., Long, H.Q., 1986. An overview and evaluation of the
North Burbank Unit Block A Polymer Flood Project, Osage County, Oklahoma.
SPE 14113 Presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineer-
ing held in Beijing, PR China, March 1720.