IPTC 11200
Guidelines for Polymer Flooding Evaluation and Development
R.D. Kaminsky, SPE, R.C. Wattenbarger, SPE, R.C. Szafranski, SPE, and A.S. Coutee, SPE,
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4–6 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Field experience has shown that polymer flooding can be
an effective means to improve oil recovery. Evaluating
whether a polymer flood is suitable for a given field and
developing the optimal design requires considerable analysis
and testing prior to full-scale implementation. To help manage
this process, guidelines for polymer flooding evaluation and
development were developed that are described in this paper.
The guidelines are a specific case of a more general staged
process, which is also described in this paper, for evaluating
enhanced oil recovery methods. The polymer flooding
guidelines cover initial screening, laboratory measurements,
reservoir simulation, and field activities that are considered
best practices. Descriptions of specific activities have been
compiled into a matrix that serves as a valuable guide to
managing the various aspects of polymer flood evaluation and
development. These activities cover a range of topics
including reservoir simulation, evaluation of polymer solution
properties, polymer solution preparation, injectivity, facilities,
quality assurance, and economics.
Introduction
Use of a polymer-augmented waterflood (i.e., a polymer
flood) is a technique to enhance oil recovery from a reservoir
by improving reservoir sweep and reducing the amount of
injection fluid needed to recover a given amount of oil.
Polymer floods work by adding low concentrations of water-
soluble polymers to injection water to increase the injectant
viscosity. This is done to more closely match the injectant
viscosity to that of the in situ oil and thus achieve a more
favorable mobility ratio.
A number of reviews on the application and benefits of
polymer flooding exist.1-4 Over the past thirty years, polymer
flooding has been applied on modest scales in a number of
areas and in large-scale applications in China, but its
application has not been widespread.5-9 One reason for the lack
of widespread use may be the technical challenges associated
with designing an economically attractive polymer flood.
Although the basic concept of polymer flooding is
straightforward, the evaluation and design of polymer floods is
significantly more complex than primary depletion or
waterflooding.
Evaluating whether a polymer flood is applicable for a
given field depends on a number of factors, which include: oil
viscosity, mobile oil saturation, ability for the polymer to
propagate through the reservoir, compatibility of the polymer
with reservoir rock and fluids at in situ conditions, reservoir
heterogeneity, well spacing and flow rates, polymer costs,
preparation and quality control of injected polymer solutions,
and the ability to sustain injectivity. As such, a proper
polymer flood evaluation and design requires a combination of
reservoir characterization, laboratory testing, reservoir
simulation, facilities design, and field testing.
If a polymer flood is found to be suitable for a given
reservoir, design variables such as polymer type, polymer slug
size, and polymer concentrations need to be optimized.
Optimization is complicated by the additional physical
phenomena that are not present in conventional waterfloods.
Simulation of full polymer-flood physics requires modeling
polymer concentration-dependent viscosities, shear-thinning
rheology of the polymer solution, extensional-thickening
rheology near the wellbore, in situ mixing (dilution) of the
polymer solution and native brine, thermal degradation, shear
degradation, polymer adsorption onto the reservoir rock,
inaccessible pore volume (physical exclusion of macro-
molecules by narrow pore throats), and relative permeability
changes due to adsorption (e.g., residual resistance factors).1,2
To help manage the complexity and challenges associated
with polymer flooding, guidelines were developed for a staged
process to evaluate and develop a polymer flood. The
guidelines, which are summarized in this paper, represent
recommended procedures that are generally applicable to any
field (e.g., offshore, onshore, large, small). The guidelines
cover initial screening, laboratory work, reservoir simulation,
field testing, field piloting, and finally commercial application.
The staged process reflects experiences from
ExxonMobil’s own studies and applications of polymer floods
as well as the published experiences of others. ExxonMobil
evaluated and piloted polymer flooding throughout the 1970’s
and 1980’s at the Loudon field10,11 in the United States (as part
of a surfactant-polymer flooding project), the Pembina field12
in Canada, and the West Yellow Creek field13-15 in the United
States. More recently ExxonMobil has evaluated polymer
2 IPTC 11200
floods for both onshore and offshore fields. Experience was
gained in the laboratory and field evaluation of polymers, use
of polyacrylamide and xanthan polymers, handling
procedures, mixing procedures, and polymer application in
high-salinity fields.
The purpose of the guidelines is not to describe in detail
screening criteria1-4,16, laboratory procedures17-19, or field test
design and operations20-24, which are described in the
literature. Rather, the application guidelines are intended to
serve as an overall guide for evaluating potential polymer
floods, with a focus on reservoir engineering. The guidelines
are quite extensive in the screening and testing activities they
cover. While not all of the described activities may be
necessary for a specific project, technical justifications should
be carefully considered for those activities not to be performed
or to be performed in a limited manner. Economics, time
constraints, and field-specific issues must also be considered.
Additionally, evaluations should involve the appropriate
interaction between reservoir engineers, project planners and
other disciplines expected in any field development activity.
EOR Staged Evaluation and Development Process
A staged process to evaluate and develop enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) processes for a field is shown in Figure 1.25
Use of a staged process helps ensure that data collection,
technical analysis, and project decision making are
coordinated and sequenced in a way that balances risk and
opportunity to maximize the chance of a commercially
successful application of the recovery technology. This
process, which may take several years, should be coordinated
with the overall field development plan and concession terms.
The process starts (Stage 1) with screening a range of
potential EOR processes. At this stage specific processes may
be rejected as non-applicable or unlikely to be economic for
several reasons: if the reservoir properties (e.g., permeability,
temperature, salinity) are not favorable; if available sources of
injectant are clearly inadequate; or if high-level screening
economics are clearly unfavorable. Processes that pass the
initial screening in Stage 1 then move to Stage 2 for further
evaluation.
In Stage 2, a recovery process is evaluated in depth using
laboratory and simulation studies. Initial laboratory tests
include special core analysis, fluid analysis of in situ fluids,
and property assessment of a range of potential injectants.
These studies investigate the fundamental physics and
chemistry of the rock and fluid systems under consideration
and are used to guide inputs for mechanistic modeling
studies.25-26 Reservoir simulations are performed to compare
EOR process performance to base-case performance and to
determine the sensitivity of the EOR process to design
changes and reservoir uncertainties. Based on these studies,
screening-level depletion plans are developed along with
improved economic estimates. If the risk-weighted economics
appear favorable, the evaluation and design of the process
moves to Stage 3.
In Stage 3, field tests and larger-scale field pilots are
performed to resolve key uncertainties regarding the
application of a process to the field under consideration. For
well-established EOR methods, field tests may be limited in
nature or simply a phase-in of the commercial application.
For less established methods, multiple field tests may be
required. Such “field tests” are typically narrowly focused to
reduce one or two key uncertainties, such as injectivity or
conformance. “Field pilots”, on the other hand, are of larger
scale and are typically designed to more fully evaluate all
aspects of an EOR technique or demonstrate its commercial
viability. For more mature and offshore fields, facilities
reliability and wellbore integrity issues can be significant
concerns that are addressed by field tests or pilots.
A key to the success of field tests and pilots is well-defined
objectives and success criteria that are tied to key uncertainties
regarding the application of the process. These objectives
help determine the type of testing, the required measurements,
and the level of accuracy required in the measurements.
Success also depends on well-coordinated implementation of
field activities and the devotion of sufficient time and
resources to a comprehensive interpretation of results.
Moreover, depending on the test results, it may be appropriate
to cycle back to Stage 2 to revise modeling and laboratory
work. Thus, adequate contingency time and effort should be
part of any evaluation plan.
If operational practices are proven and the EOR process
performs favorably during field testing and piloting, a
commercial project plan is developed, modeled, and finalized
(Stage 4). Important aspects of this are the definition of
implementation procedures, quality control procedures,
surveillance plans, and operational guidelines. EOR methods
can require a high degree of quality control to maintain near-
optimal performance and, in some cases, to prevent reservoir
damage. Proper communication, coordination and
management of these tasks with operations personnel is
critical and constitutes the final aspect of EOR activity.
Specific Guidelines for Polymer Flooding
The general EOR staged process described in Figure 1 was
specialized to form the basis of application guidelines for
evaluation and development of polymer floods. These
application guidelines consist of four documents: a summary
workflow diagram (Figure 2), a detailed matrix of evaluation
activities to perform at each stage (Figure 3), an extensive
checklist of specific tasks associated with each activity in the
matrix (not included herein), and a list of recommended
internal and external references to aid evaluation tasks (some
of which are included in this paper’s references). Similar
application guidelines have been developed to assess the
suitability of other enhanced oil recovery methods, but only
polymer flooding is discussed here. These guidelines are
periodically reviewed and updated to reflect advances in
technology and its application.
The guidelines focus primarily on the reservoir
engineering activities necessary for sound decision making
concerning polymer flooding. Issues involving more
conventional aspects of drilling and completions, project
management, and facility design are outside the scope of these
guidelines. These issues, however, may be significant and
IPTC 11200
should be considered in the preliminary stages of the polymer
flood evaluation.
Figure 2 presents a summary of the polymer flood staged
workflow that is part of the application guidelines. The
polymer flood staged evaluation and development process is
comprised of the following stages: 1) preliminary screening,
2a) preliminary analysis, 2b) detailed analysis, 3a) field
testing, 3b) field piloting, and 4) commercial application. To
better manage the many activities, the application guidelines
split the evaluation stage (Stage 2) and piloting stage (Stage 3)
each into two phases (i.e., “a” and “b”).
Stage 1 is a relatively short effort. Basic reservoir
geological and fluid data are gathered. These data are
compared to analog polymer-flooded fields to assess whether
polymer flooding is a reasonable EOR choice for the field.
Comparisons are performed using general criteria and specific
analog field cases if available. Moreover, the gathered data
are used to select potential polymer types appropriate to the
reservoir temperature and salinity.
In Stage 2a, laboratory studies are initiated to assess
polymer solution rheology and polymer-reservoir fluid
compatibility. Base reservoir simulations are constructed and
initial performance estimates made. These activities are
continued and expanded in Stage 2b. Corefloods and other
more involved laboratory tests are performed to assess uplift
and to refine inputs to the reservoir simulations. The
economic benefits of polymer flooding are estimated using the
results of the laboratory and simulation activities.
If the Stage 2 results are satisfactory, field test plans are
constructed to assess uncertain aspects of the potential
polymer flood. Field test plans are assessed, optimized, and
implemented in Stage 3a. Field test work typically includes
demonstration of large-scale generation of quality polymer
solution and demonstration of adequate injectivity. It may
also include a demonstration of the in situ effectiveness of the
polymer. If encouraging, field testing leads to field piloting in
Stage 3b, where a scaled version of the planned polymer flood
is performed and assessed. This scaled demonstration, in turn,
can lead to a full-scale commercial application (Stage 4).
Associated with each stage are specific activities and
criteria to pass from one stage to the next. The pass criteria
involve demonstrating technical and economic viability to a
level of certainty appropriate to the stage. Pass criteria
associated with early stages are tolerant of significant
uncertainties if the polymer flood has a reasonable chance to
be technically and economically viable. Pass criteria
associated with later stages are less tolerant of uncertainty or
the risk of poor performance. Given the significant costs of
field tests, plus the risk of well damage due to inappropriate
polymer injection, sound project management requires
terminating polymer-flood activities if modeling and
laboratory screening are not clearly encouraging.
Polymer Flood Activity Matrix
Each of the stages described in Figure 2 is associated with
a range of activities. Summary documents and extensive
checklists have been developed to manage these activities. A
particularly useful document is a detailed matrix of activities
3
organized by subject area and stage. A representative portion
of the matrix is shown in Figure 3. The matrix strikes a
balance between a high-level view of the guidelines and the
detailed work that goes into each stage of the evaluation and
design process. The user of the guidelines can quickly glance
along a row of the matrix to determine how a particular
subject area, such as reservoir modeling, evolves in scope
throughout the evaluation process; or the user can look down a
column of the matrix to examine the activities in a particular
stage and how the various activities relate to one another.
The eleven subject areas in the matrix are a combination of
subjects common to all EOR evaluations, such as economics,
and of subjects of particular interest to polymer flooding, such
as polymer stability. The eleven subject areas are listed below:
1) Analogs
2) Reservoir Modeling
3) Polymer Selection
4) Solution Rheology
5) Polymer Retention
6) Polymer Stability
7) Injectant Preparation
8) Injectivity
9) Facilities
10) Quality Assurance
11) Economics
Each of these eleven subject areas is critical to developing an
effective polymer flood and optimizing its performance, as
will be discussed below. The level of effort in each subject
area is commensurate with the objectives of the stage. Thus,
the matrix helps keep the level of effort and expenditure on
each activity appropriately tied to the overall progress of the
project.
Analog identification and comparison are particularly
valuable for early and rapid evaluation of field suitability to
polymer flooding. Analogs include general screening
guidelines based on the history of past polymer floods as well
as specific case studies. General screening guidelines, which
reflect the need for higher permeability sands, moderate in situ
temperatures, and typically low brine salinities, may be used
to rule out fields clearly unsuited for commercial polymer
flooding or to identify key challenges that require additional
attention.1-4,16 Specific case studies, both positive and
negative, are then identified in published literature and internal
company reports that are similar to the field of interest and the
potential development plan. Review of case studies is
particularly important in highlighting operational issues that
must be addressed.
Reservoir simulation is the primary means to assess the
economic attractiveness of potential polymer floods and
compare polymer flooding against alternative recovery
methods. Reservoir simulations are used to scale physical
phenomena from laboratory to the field and to quantify the
impact of uncertain factors. Accurate reservoir modeling
requires a wide range of geological, field, and laboratory data
for inputs. Early stage activities involve data collection and
quality assessment. Base-case simulations are then performed
and vetted. Sensitivity studies are performed to highlight
uncertainty ranges of predictions and identify variables most
in need of further study. As part of this effort, the capabilities
4 IPTC 11200
and limitations of the models, particularly in the areas of
rheology, retention, and polymer stability, need to be carefully
evaluated for the reservoir being studied. Early screening
simulations can often be performed with fairly simple models
of polymer behavior. In later stages, however, models need to
be more realistic as the polymer flood is optimized and
predictions are validated against field data.
Polymer selection for a given field application begins early
in the staged process, with ongoing studies to confirm polymer
choice and design. Before polymer laboratory testing can
begin, a range of polymer samples are obtained. The samples
should include various molecular weights, vendors, and, for
polyacrylamides, degrees of hydrolysis. Although
polyacrylamides are often a good option, under certain
conditions other polymers may be appropriate and should be
studied. Xanthan polymers, for example, can be much more
effective than polyacrylamides per unit dissolved mass in high
salinity brines. It is important to test several polymer samples,
even if nominally similar in molecular weight and chemistry,
since manufacturing method, delivery form (e.g., powder or
emulsion), and handling procedures can lead to significant
variations in performance – especially the ease of dissolution
and the ability to enter porous media without plugging.
Moreover, polymer performance can vary from one
manufactured batch to another unless strict quality control
procedures are in place during the manufacturing, packaging,
and transport.
Polymer solution rheology is fundamental to the evaluation
and design of a polymer flood. Solution rheology is a function
of polymer type, polymer concentration, brine composition,
and temperature. Polymer solutions used in polymer flooding
are shear-thinning at most reservoir flow conditions. Thus,
solution viscosities must be measured as a function of shear
rate. Capillary viscometers are sometimes preferred since they
can evaluate performance over much large shear ranges than
rotating viscometers.27 Shear rates can be converted to in situ
flow velocities based on knowledge of the rock porosity and
permeability.2 Certain polymer solutions, especially those of
higher molecular weight, can experience viscosity hysteresis
with regard to shear rate. This is due to polymer molecules
tearing apart at high shear rates and thus reducing their ability
to viscosify the water.28 Such high shears can occur as the
polymer solution passes through pumps, choke points in
piping, through well perforations, and through the reservoir
near the wellbore. In later stages of study, high shear-rate
degradation is evaluated using flow through orifices and high-
rate corefloods.25 Ultimately, a measure of in situ rheology, by
sampling or well-testing during field testing and piloting29, is a
valuable demonstration that the polymer is working as
expected.
Polymer retention in reservoir rock can seriously reduce
polymer flood effectiveness and increase the amount of
polymer needed to provide mobility control. Polymer
retention, which reduces its concentration in solution and
retards polymer transport through the reservoir, is caused by a
combination of polymer molecules being adsorbed onto rock
surfaces and being mechanically trapped by small pores.29
Lower permeability rock exacerbates retention issues by
increasing rock surface area per unit mass and reducing pore
throat sizes. Typically, polymer adsorption behaves in a
Langmuir-fashion by building up a monolayer on surfaces;
however, the adsorbed layer may be relatively thick due to the
coiling of the adsorbed polymer molecule.2 The retention
behavior is dependent on polymer chemistry, polymer
concentration, rock composition, pore geometry, brine
composition, and temperature. In early stages of study, simple
static adsorption tests may be performed on crushed rock
samples.2,17 Such tests are qualitative in nature since
experimental results are very sensitive to rock particle size and
preparation. These results may be used to screen-out certain
polymers showing particularly high retention. In later stages,
coreflood tests are conducted to accurately assess loss of
polymer efficiency due to retention.2,17 Where possible, these
tests should be done at reservoir conditions with reservoir
fluids and rocks to provide the most representative data.
Polymer stability can be an issue for certain polymer
floods.31-33 Certain polymer are susceptible to biodegradation
and all polymers thermally degrade at higher temperatures.
For example, polymers are typically not recommended for use
in reservoirs over about 60°C. However, there is no hard-limit
on the upper temperature since it depends on in situ residence
time, polymer chemistry, reservoir chemistry, and the degree
to which reduced polymer performance is acceptable.
Thermal degradation can be greatly accelerated by the
presence of dissolved oxygen and iron in the brine. Thermal
degradation tests are typically initiated fairly early in
laboratory work since long hold-times are required for
analysis – often one year or more.17,31 Thermal degradation
can be partially reduced by additives, especially oxygen
scavengers.
Injectant preparation is another important aspect of a
successful of polymer flood. Over-mixing can cause polymer
degradation and reduce viscosification. However,
insufficiently mixed polymer solutions are apt to include non-
dissolved gel particles.17 The presence of gels in the polymer
solution can lead to rapid injectivity loss by clogging pores
near the wellbore. Although remediation may be possible
through water washing or bleach solutions, lost production
costs can be substantial. Thus, development and validation of
mixing procedures, especially as implemented in the field, is
vital. Such procedures should include assessment of injectant
quality given the expected range of water quality to be used in
the field, which can impact the ability to properly dissolve
polymer into solution.
Injectivity is not only dependent on the quality of injectant
preparation but also on the polymer chemistry. Even for
properly dissolved polymers, narrow pore throats can trap high
molecular weight polymers or become significantly
constricted due to adsorbed polymer. These effects may lead
to slow injectivity loss over time. Injectivity may also be
hindered by shear-thickening of the polymer solution as it
flows through porous media at high rates, such as near the
wellbore. This phenomenon, known as “extensional
thickening”, is due to the finite time required for large
polymer molecules to reorient themselves to pass through
narrow pore throats and, as such, is not measurable in simple
rheometers with macroscopic shear gaps. Rather, viscoelastic-
measuring rheometers or high-rate corefloods must be used to
assess the potential impact of this phenomenon on injectivity.
Laboratory assessments of injectivity, however, must be
IPTC 11200
coupled with geomechanical assessments since reservoir
fracturing may occur during high-rate injection. Thus, field
tests and pilots are ultimately required to demonstrate that
acceptable injectivity can be obtained and maintained over
time.
Facilities for generating and delivering polymer solutions
seldom involve simply scaling up laboratory methods. Thus
the demonstration and certification of mixing equipment for
field-scale generation of polymer solution is important. These
activities are typically combined with field testing and piloting
activities. In addition to proper equipment determination,
piping and flow behavior requires study. Identification and
minimization of high-shear points in facility designs is
important to minimize shear degradation of the polymer
solution during its generation, pumping, and flow down to the
reservoir through constrictions (e.g., chokes and perforations).
Quality assurance of a polymer flood is closely associated
with facility issues. Polymer performance can be seriously
degraded by moisture contamination14,15 of the polymer
powder during transport to the field, blending the polymer
with field brines containing significant oil or dissolved
oxygen, poorly mixing the polymer into solution, or over
shearing the polymer solution during generation. Perhaps of
most importance is a quality assurance program to help
prevent poorly generated polymer solution from being sent
downhole, particularly in the event of a facility upset.
Development of a quality assurance program involves a
careful identification of risk scenarios, determination of
appropriate monitoring methods, and determining appropriate
corrective actions for each plausible scenario.
An economic assessment is performed at each stage to
evaluate commerciality based on results from the available
laboratory studies, reservoir modeling, and field studies. In
earlier stages, the assessment may be a simple success-case
comparison to a base-case waterflood. In later stages, risk-
weighted scenario trees are constructed to assess the true
potential risk and reward associated with performing a
polymer flood. The scenario trees capture uncertainties in
reservoir properties, polymer performance, and potential upset
events that may occur. Probabilities associated with each
scenario are updated as new laboratory and field information
is obtained in each stage.
Summary
Recently there has been renewed interest in polymer
flooding as a means to increase oil recovery. Despite
significant work in the past, clear and complete workflows
have been lacking for evaluating whether a polymer flood is
appropriate for a given field and for gathering the information
required to optimize the process. In this paper, a general
staged process for EOR project evaluation and development
was presented. The process covers preliminary analysis,
laboratory work, simulation, and field testing. In addition,
application guidelines for polymer flooding were described.
Descriptions of polymer flood evaluation and development
activities have been compiled into a summary matrix. The
activities cover a range of topics including reservoir definition,
polymer solution property evaluation, polymer solution
5
generation, injectivity, facilities, quality assurance, and
economics.
The polymer flood evaluation and development guidelines
primarily focus on the reservoir engineering activities
necessary for making sound decisions concerning polymer
flooding. The workflow structure and activities reflect
experiences gained both internally and externally. The
workflow has also proven useful in communicating to
management technical issues and project status. Similar
staged application guidelines have been developed to assess
the suitability of other enhanced oil recovery methods.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their peers for their
numerous contributions to polymer flooding technology. We
specifically thank Jim Hutfilz, Jim Bragg, John Linderman,
Gary Teletzke, John Wilkinson, Ryan Kudva, Tom Crozier,
Jim Cannon, James Hacker, and K. Sampath for their
contributions to the polymer flooding guidelines and this
paper. We also thank ExxonMobil management for their
support in the preparation of this paper.
References
1. W. Littmann, Polymer Flooding, 1988.
2. K. S. Sorbie, Polymer-Improved Oil Recovery, 1991.
3. Y. Du and L. Guan, “Field-Scale Polymer Flooding: Lessons
Learnt and Experiences Gained During Past 40 Years”, SPE
91787, 2004.
4. F. E. De Bons and R. W. Braun, “Polymer Flooding: Still a
Viable IOR Technique”, 8th European IOR Symposium, Vienna,
Austria, May 15-17, 1995, 57-66.
5. R. B. Needham and P. H. Doe, “Polymer Flooding Review”,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, December 1987, 1503-1507.
6. B. K. Maitin, “Performance Analysis of Several Polyacrylamide
Floods in North German Oil Fields”, SPE 24118, 1992.
7. A. G. Putz, B. Bazin, and B. M. Pedron, “Commercial Polymer
Injection in the Courtenay Field, 1994 Update “, SPE 28601,
1994.
8. Evaluation Of Polymer Injection Projects In Brazil, M. A. de
Melo, et al., SPE Paper 94898, 2005
9. H.L. Chang et al., “Advances in Polymer Flooding and
Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Processes as Developed and
Applied in the People’s Republic of China”, SPE 89175, 2006.
10. S. A. Pursley, R. N. Healy, and E. I. Sandvik, “A Field Test of
Surfactant Flooding, Loudon, Illinois”, SPE 3805, 1973.
11. T. R. Reppert et al., “Second Ripley Surfactant Flood Pilot
Test”, SPE 20219, 1990.
12. H. Groeneveld, R. A. George, and J. C. Melrose, “Pembina Field
Polymer Pilot Flood, SPE 5829, 1977.
13. E. D. Holstein, “Polymer Augmented Waterflooding at the West
Yellow Creek Field: Recovery and Cost Experience”, SPE
9826, 1981.
14. S. P. Gordon and O. K. Owen, “Surveillance and Performance
of an Existing Polymer Flood: A Case History of West Yellow
Creek”, SPE 8202, 1979.
15. P. Strickland, J. T. Wilson, and W. E. Warnock, “The Feasibility
of Converting an Existing Waterflood to a Polymer Flood: A
Case History of West Yellow Creek”, SPE 7462, 1978.
16. J. J. Taber, F. D. Martin, and R. S. Seright, “EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited – Part 2: Applications and Impact of Oil
Prices”, SPE Reservoir Engineering, 199-205, August 1997.
6 IPTC 11200

17. API Recommended Practice 63 (RP 63), “Recommended

Practices for Evaluation of Polymers Used in Enhanced Oil
Recovery Operations”, 1990.
18. R. E. Castagno, R. D. Shupe, M. D. Gregory, and J. A.
Lescarboura, “Method for Laboratory and Field Evaluation of a
Proposed Polymer Flood”, SPE 13124, 1987.
19. W. C. Foshee, R. R. Jennings, and T. J. West, “Preparation and
Testing of Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Solutions”, SPE
6202, 1976.
20. W. W. Weiss and R. W. Baldwin, “Planning and Implementing
a Large-Scale Polymer Flood”, SPE 12637, 1985.
21. C. A. Christopher, T. J. Clark, and D. H. Gibson, “Performance
and Operation of a Successful Polymer Flood in the Sleepy
Hollow Reagan Unit”, SPE 17395, 1988.
22. G. Schurz, “Field Preparation of Polymer Solutions Used to
Improve Oil Recovery”, SPE 4252, 1972.
23. T. P. Miglicco, “Polymer Flood Operations: East Texas Field”,
SPE 14658, 1986.
24. W. B. Bleakley, “Sun’s Careful Planning Sparks High
Recovery”, Petroleum Engineer International, Nov. 1985, 24-
28.
25. J. R. Wilkinson, G. F. Teletzke, and K. C. King, "Opportunities
and Challenges for Enhanced Recovery in the Middle East",
SPE 101679, 2006.
26. M. M. Honarpour, N. R. Nagarajan, and K. Sampath,
"Rock/Fluid Characterization and Their Integration -
Implications on Reservoir Management", SPE 103358, Journal
of Petroleum Technology, September 2006.
27. W. W. Liauh, “A Capillary Viscometer for the Study of EOR
Polymers”, SPE 12649, 1984.
28. J. M. Maerker, “Mechanical Degradation of Partially
Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Solutions in Unconsolidated Porous
Media”, SPE 5672, 1976.
29. C. Huh and T. M. Snow, “Well Testing with a Non-Newtonian
Fluid in the Reservoir”, SPE 14453, 1985.
30. C. Huh, E. A. Lange, and W. J. Cannella, “Polymer Retention in
Porous Media”, SPE 20235, 1990.
31. E. A. Lange and C. Huh, “A Polymer Thermal Decomposition
Model and its Application in Chemical EOR Process
Simulation”, SPE 27822, 1994.
32. R. G. Ryles, “Chemical Stability Limits of Water-Soluble
Polymers Used in Oil Recovery Processes”, SPE Paper 13585,
1985.
33. R. S. Seright and B. J. Henrici, “Xanthan Stability at Elevated
Temperatures”, SPE Reservoir Engineering, 52-60, Feb. 1990.
IPTC 11200 7

Figure 1: Staged Process for EOR Project Evaluation and Development

Stage 1: Screen Candidate Processes

• EOR process identification
• Injectant sources
• Screening economics

Stage 2: Evaluate Promising Processes In Depth

• Fluid and rock property data collection / lab studies
• Mechanistic / fine-scale modeling
• Screening-level development / depletion / facilities plan

Stage 3: Field Tests and Pilots to Resolve Uncertainties

• Objectives and design
• Data collection & interpretation
• Facilities reliability and wellbore integrity verification

Stage 4: Commercial Project Plan

• Field-wide project design and costs
• Field-scale modeling
• Field-wide development / depletion / facilities plan
• Implementation, Surveillance, and Operation Plan

Figure 2: Staged Process for Polymer Flood Project Evaluation and Development

Stage 1: Preliminary Screening

• Gather basic reservoir description (rock Preliminary
1 Stage 2a: Preliminary Analysis
Screening
and fluid properties) • Preliminary laboratory screening
• Compare to analogous fields (brine-polymer compatibility, rheology)
• Select potential polymer types review • Develop initial, basic simulation
Pass Criteria: Favorable comparison with • Screening economics (injectant
general polymer flood screening criteria Preliminary sources, simulation results)
2a • Identification and analysis of key
Analysis
uncertainties and economic implications
Stage 2b: Detailed Analysis
Pass Criteria: Preliminary technical
• Detailed laboratory investigation review
investigations and economic uncertainty
(corefloods, aging tests)
assessment indicate strong potential
• Finalize specific polymer choice Detailed
• Improved reservoir description and 2b
Analysis
detailed simulation models
• Risk-weighted economic analysis Stage 3a: Field Testing
• Field test design review • Test large-scale polymer mixing
• Perform injectivity test (sustained
Pass Criteria: Technical feasibility injection capacity, in situ polymer
demonstrated; risk-weighted economic 3a
Field Testing behavior)
favorable
• Assess pilot practicality; design pilot,
including diagnostic measures
Stage 3b: Field Pilot review
• Conduct field pilot; monitor technical / Pass Criteria: Probability of technical and
operational performance commercial success justifies pilot
• Interpret pilot and improve reservoir Field Pilot 3b
description and simulation model
• Update economic analysis Stage 4: Commercial Application
Pass Criteria: All technical milestones review • Develop commercial project and
achieved; economics are favorable surveillance plan
• Implementation, Surveillance, and
Commercial
Application
4 Operations
• Simulation updates to improve
production operations
8 IPTC 11200

Figure 3: Representative Portion of Polymer Flood Project Evaluation and Development Activity Matrix

Activity 2a 2b Pass Criteria 3a

Category Preliminary Analysis Detailed Analysis
Optimize flood design
Develop base case (conc., slug size, start
reservoir description; time, etc.); identify key
simulate representative uncertainties via sensitivity
Reservoir
element models; compare testing; perform
Modeling full-field base case comprehensive fine-scale
waterflood and polymer modeling and hydraulic
flood. analyses. Simulate
proposed field test.
Make final polymer
selection based on
Identify and obtain
performance, cost,
multiple polymer samples
Polymer number of suppliers, and
of varying MW, hydrolysis,
Selection logistics. Test samples
form (e.g., powder,
from multiple polymer
emulsion), and vendor.
batches from potential
supplier.
Quantify apparent in situ
Measure shear-dependent rheology via corefloods at
Solution viscosities vs. brine low and high flow rates
Rheology composition and polymer using realistic fluid
concentration. compositions and
contaminants.
Assess (at reservoir
conditions) retention and
Measure qualitative
inaccessible pore volume
Polymer adsorption via static tests.
via corefloods for all major
Retention Assess total retention
reservoir rock types using
reported in literature.
realistic fluid
compositions.
for 2b → 3a
Evaluated impact of
uncertainty on key
parameters. Optimized
simulated polymer flood
design. Simulations
support desired injection
rates.
Polymer choice and specs
finalized. A suitable
vendor for field supply
identified. Vendor can to
meet QC specs.
Un-degraded rheology
(including extensional
thickening) is well-defined
for injection and reservoir
brine compositions.
For all major reservoir
rock types, coreflood
retentions conform to
levels typical of
successful polymer
floods.
Field Testing
History match injectivity
test; update polymer
simulation parameters;
update polymer flood
design and test key
uncertainties. Simulate
proposed field pilot.
Verify that polymer specs
are still suitable. Assess
vendor ability to deliver
and QC polymer.
Determine apparent in
situ viscosity near
wellbore in field.
Assess semi-
quantitatively the retention
in injectivity test using
backflow samples and
tracers.