SPE-179785-MS

An Operational Workflow for Polymer EOR Field Trials

Giuliano Geremia, Maersk Oil Research and Technology Center; Martin Vad Bennetzen, Maersk Oil

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 21–23 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Polymer flooding is the most commonly tested chemical EOR strategy worldwide. The method aims at
improving the macroscopic sweep efficiency by reducing the mobility ratio, the viscous fingering and the
permeability in high-perm streaks. Although a number of on-shore field trials have been performed,
polymer flooding is still rarely used for offshore fields. The logistics and facility requirements make the
operational design and execution more challenging in an offshore environment. The decision of conduct-
ing an offshore polymer EOR field trial must be supported by a strong technical evaluation (laboratory and
simulation studies) and thorough operational field trial design that aims at targeting the different
challenges to reduce risk and uncertainty and increase the likelihood of success. We present the logistical,
technical and operational aspects of the design of an offshore polymer flood.
In this paper we present a procedure to minimize risk and reduce uncertainty by initial laboratory tests
and continuous monitoring of key parameters when conducting the field trial. We address the logistical
considerations and facility requirements related to polymer solution storage, polymer integrity, chemical
additives, mixing, handling and real-time quality control. All necessary and critical parameters to be
monitored are described herein. We describe the possible drag reduction induced by the polymer in the
tubing, the near-wellbore shear effect on the injectivity and the pressure gauge setup essential to make a
quantitative trial evaluation. We also discuss the potential impact of the polymer on the produced oil-water
mixture and a way to mitigate polymer-induced emulsification via demulsifiers. Various operational
conditional ‘what-if’ scenarios are considered to provide a tailor made solution for each of them. Finally,
we show how inter-well tracer tests can be used to evaluate polymer EOR trials wrt. macroscopic sweep
improvement.
Currently, very few papers describe both operational and technical aspects, and very few papers suggest
practical procedures for offshore polymer floods. With the increased focus on offshore EOR implemen-
tation due to production decline and reservoir maturation, this paper aims at providing a practical
guideline and a best practice operational workflow for the design, execution and evaluation of offshore
polymer EOR field tests.

Introduction
Polymer-flooding is a commonly-used Enhanced Oil Recovery technique. Even though it is more efficient
when started early in the reservoir life, it is often implemented in mature reservoir that underwent several
2 SPE-179785-MS

drilling phases and many years of water-flooding. As the water production increases and the oil production
decreases, producing the field becomes slowly non-economic and the need for polymer-flooding grows.
Presently, seven hundred and thirty three (733) polymer projects were surveyed (Sheng et al. 2015)
worldwide. Among those projects, only eight of them were conducted in offshore fields. They are less
numerous because the investment, the logistics and uncertainties are serious obstacles for their develop-
ment. A few offshore polymer projects from the past decade are presented in the literature. Morel et al.
(2012) assessed and addressed the challenges of the first polymer injection in a deep offshore field in
Angola. Han et al. (2006) touched upon the polymer screening challenges for one the Bohai Bay offshore
field in China. Poulsen (2010) and Selle et al. (2013) gave a logistical description of two offshore polymer
floods conducted in the North Sea (Captain Field).
While those papers explain the logistics, planning and monitoring of polymer flooding, this paper
provides a guideline for preparing and performing offshore polymer-floods from laboratory tests to
offshore injection.
First, the initial laboratory tests (including polymer screening and core-flooding) are presented. Then,
the polymer injection design is explained. Special attention is given to the injectivity assessment, well
selection and logistics. Lastly, recommendations for monitoring the polymer trial are given.

Initial laboratory studies

Initial laboratory studies are inherent in every polymer-flood projects and they are a stepping stone to
eventually achieve a pilot. This section explains the screening methodology to select polymers capable to
withstand harsh reservoir conditions, injection water salinity and chemical treatment as well as the
core-flooding experiments to prove the polymer effect in the reservoir.
Polymer stability in reservoir conditions
Polymer-flood projects start with a thorough screening of polymers. Based on their catalogue specification
a set is selected and undergo initial laboratory testing. This consists in evaluating the polymer stability in
reservoir conditions with experiments where the polymer mechanical, thermal and chemical degradation
is put to the test.
In offshore operations, the polymer solution is mixed with seawater (SW) and injected in the reservoir
where it undergoes high shear rates. This process can chemically, through hydrolysis, and mechanically,
through high shear rates, degrade the polymer molecules. The hydrolysis (due to oxidation or presence of
divalent cations) of the polymer backbone would decrease the polymer solution viscosity and high salinity
and hardness could lead to salting out- or divalent cation mediated precipitation of the polymer.
Consequently, its resistance is assed experimentally. For each polymer selected, two high concentration
(2.500 ppm) stock solutions are prepared by slowly mixing them with filtered seawater (SW) and
formation water (FW). The stock solutions are then diluted and filtered to make aggregate free polymer
solutions at the desired concentrations. The filterability of each solution is tested to make sure they are
free of aggregates. Then, the bulk viscosities of those solutions are measured at different shear rates,
polymer concentrations and at a neutral temperature of 30°C. Thus, polymer can be ranked according to
their mechanical and chemical stability.
In pilot tests, polymers spend several months in the reservoir before being produced. As the time passes
they are more likely to be thermally and mechanically degraded. With a view to optimize its benefits, long
term thermal stability of polymers is also analysed. Each polymer solution is degassed, aged under
hypoxic solutions, placed into sealed thermal resistant and put in an oven at the reservoir temperature for
several months. Over this period of time, viscosities are frequently measured and the thermal sensibility
of each solution is evaluated.
The polymer might also encounter regions in the reservoir with high formation water concentrations.
If the SW and FW are incompatible, it can precipitate and create an irreversible damage to the reservoir.
SPE-179785-MS 3

This compatibility issue can be addressed in a simple experiment where mixtures of SW and FW are
mixed with the polymer in heated sealed ampoules. Polymer precipitation and/or viscosity loss will
demonstrate an incompatibility between the polymer and the two brines.
Polymer stability with injection water chemical treatment
For offshore production facilities, seawater is commonly the injection water source which contains ions,
bacteria and oxygen which can potentially hydrolyze the polymer. The seawater must therefore be treated
to prevent hydrolysis of the polymer. The first step is to remove the algae which contaminate it as algae
mediate microbial degradation of the polymer. Biological and chemical contaminants are removed by
filtering, cooling and de-aerating the sea water prior to injection. The coarse filter extracts the particles
from 100 to 1000 micrometer (such as sand and shells) while a subsequent finer filter removes the small
algae from (10 to 100 micrometer) (see Figure 1). Hereafter biocide and oxygen scavenger are added to
the sea-water. These chemicals prevent the growth of bacteria and inhibit subsea facilities corrosion,
respectively. Often scale inhibitor is added to prevent the scale formation which could potentially (!) be
mediated by the EOR chemical when in contact with the formation and/or the casing.

Figure 1—Treatment of the chemical injection

Even though those chemicals are unlikely to react with the polymer (e.g. by induced polymer-biocide
co-precipitation), this should be tested in the laboratory.
Core-flooding experiment
Core-flooding experiments directly follow the polymer selection. The best performing polymers are
injected in representative reservoir rocks (e.g. high and low permeability) an pressure sensors along the
core enable measuring its in-situ performance by calculating the Mobility Reduction Factor (MRF), the
Residual Resistance Factor (RRF), the polymer adsorption and the Inaccessible Pore Volume (IPV).
Ideally, the polymer solution would:
– have a high MRF. This factor accounts for the viscosity increase effect of the polymer solutions. It
is the ratio between the polymer-flood pressure drop and the initial water-flood pressure drop
performed before the polymer flood (cf. Equation (1)).
4 SPE-179785-MS

(1)

– exhibit a great RRF (residual permeability reduction). It is ratio between the water-flood pressure
drop in the core after polymer adsorption and the initial water-flood pressure drop (cf. Equation (2)).
(2)

– have a good static adsorption (more than 30 ␮g/g of rock). The polymer solution adsorption (␮g/g
of rock) is usually measured for different concentrations and displayed on an adsorption curve.
– have a good retention (also called dynamic adsorption). It takes not only into account the static
adsorption but also the mechanical trapping and hydrodynamic retention.
– have a well-defined IPV. The IPV is the pore volume inaccessible to the polymer solution due to
high molecular weight. It is measured by performing two successive core-floods where tracer and
polymer are co-injected. The IPV is inferred thanks from chromatographic separation of the
polymer and tracer concentration profile in the effluent end of the core.
Design of polymer injection
This section discusses the design and the planning of the polymer injection. It first explains the assessment
of the injectivity and productivity. Then, well selection criteria for the polymer injection are provided.
Lastly, an overview of the logistics involved in such a project is given.
Injectivity and Productivity
The polymer injectivity is expected to be 20 to 75% smaller than the water injectivity (Sheng, 2010). It
is therefore pivotal for the project economics and success to optimize the polymer injectivity. To this end,
the non-Newtonian behavior of the polymer and the reservoir pressure must be taken into account.
Even though reservoir simulation is commonly used to predict the polymer injectivity, the wellbore
modeling is not adequate for the non-Newtonian behavior of the polymer in an aqueous medium. The
Peaceman model does not take into account the polymer shear rate dependency. Thus, most of the
simulators fail at predicting accurately the polymer injectivity and often underestimate it. The very high
shear rate in the near wellbore region reduces the polymer viscosity much more than what is currently
modelled. Zhitao and al. (2014) developed an analytical equation which describes more accurately the
non-Newtonian polymer behavior in well vicinity regardless of the grid size. When compared to the
Peaceman model, the analytical model gives a more precise estimate of the polymer solution injection
rate, wellbore pressure and injectivity. It is therefore recommended to use this analytical model to design
the injection schedule of any polymer pilot.
Moreover, the reservoir pressure must also be conditioned prior to injection in order to optimize the
injectivity (see Equation (3)). If it remains unchanged as compared to water-flooding, polymer injectivity
will decrease. With a given drawdown, the water injection rate cannot be achieved when injecting
polymer. Thus reducing the reservoir pressure (and therefore the drawdown) will increase the polymer
injectivity and more polymer-solution will invade the reservoir. It must, however, remain in the operating
range of the reservoir and have a controlled impact on the productivity. Simulations help conditioning the
reservoir at a pressure above the bubble point pressure where the injectivity loss is minimized and the
productivity optimized.
SPE-179785-MS 5

Well Selection
The polymer injection success also relies on the well selection. In this section, considerations on the wells
are provided to select appropriate candidates for the injection.
Well integrity Different components of the wells selected have to be evaluated. On one hand, the
integrity of production tubings and casing strings must be tested. Over the production years, fluids might
have eroded and corroded them and have damaged their integrity and created pressure differentials
between the casing/tubing and the ⬙A⬙ annulus. On the other hand the subsurface safety equipment must
be fully operational to ensure the safety of the offshore personal.
Artificial lift The reservoir pressure of the polymer-flood impacts the well selection. As it is likely to
decrease during the polymer injection, the natural drawdown between the producers and the reservoir may
not be sufficient to produce the fluids. Artificial lift is then needed to tackle that issue. Thus, it is
recommended to select a producer where artificial lift equipment is installed.
Conformances issues A thorough well selection process must be carried out to validate the in-situ effect
of the polymer on injectivity and sweep efficiency. Whether the wells are vertical, horizontal or slanted,
the pattern chosen for the pilot should be in a reservoir region where faults and fractures are not present
as the chemicals will go entirely to this ‘sink’ and be wasted.
Drilling reports provide valuable information to put aside the bad candidates as logging while drilling
tools show whether a well intersect faults and fractures. Production logging tools, giving inflow profiling,
are also good indicators. However, in some wells it is impossible to run PLTs in which case the best
solution is to perform pressure tests to find communication between producers and injectors. The fall off
test enables to identify and calculate distances to reservoir anomalies such as faults and boundaries as well
as completion anomalies, such as fractures. However, it requires the well to be shut-in for a period of time
depending on the well spacing and permeability of the formation. The interference test is a good
alternative since it doesn’t require the well to be shut-in. In this test, the production pressure variation
resulting from injection rate changes is monitored and interference can be assessed qualitatively.
Unswept oil areas Successful polymer injections (as well as all EOR field trials and reservoir manage-
ment in general) require a detailed description of the reservoir heterogeneity, connectivity and oil
distribution. While pressure testing gives insight into the presence of reservoir anomalies such as fault and
fractures, Interwell Tracer Tests (IWTT) provide a more detailed understanding of the sweep efficiency
within the reservoir and/or a specific well pattern when combined with subsequent computational history
matching. It consists of pushing a tracer slug with chase water and monitoring its production in the
neighboring wells. The success of the tracer concentration interpretation relies on the tracers properties
which need to be specific (often tracers contain a specific chemical fluorophor where light absorption and
emission occur in distinct wavelength bands): the injected tracer concentration should be high enough so
that it can be detected when produced. Numerical modelling might be necessary to estimate the minimal
amount of tracer to be injected. Secondly, the tracers must have negligible interaction with the reservoir
rock and fluids. For instance a carboxylated tracer should not be used in carbonate formations where the
zeta potential of the rock is positive. Tracers should not affect the water properties (e.g. viscosity, density
and pH) and the chemical reaction to avoid adsorption and ion exchange with well-defined partitioning
properties. Furthermore, the tracer must be chemically stable at reservoir conditions.
Tracer test analysis combined with computational history matching will then provide insight into: the
fluid residence time, flow patterns, swept pore-volume, well connectivity and phase volumes or satura-
tions if oil partitioning tracers are used.
6 SPE-179785-MS

Logistics
This section presents the logistical aspects of an offshore polymer flood. It describes the mixing and
injection equipment, the Quality Check (QC) procedures and the oil/water separation.

Injection facility
Lack of space and weight limitations on the production facilities may prevent dedicated polymer injection
equipment from being installed on the decks. Depending on the scale of the trial, a boat or a jack-up rig
can be mobilized. Rig rental is usually more expensive than a boat but it is not affected by weather
conditions. On the other hand a boat is sensitive to the weather. When it gets severe the boat must
disconnect the injection line from the manifold and unmoor, leading to delays and disruptions in the
injection schedule.
When a boat is mobilized for the polymer injection it moors to the platform before connecting its
injection hose to the production facility (well head or manifold). The boat can operate as long as the wave
height and wind strength are within the imposed safety limits. When it becomes no longer safe to operate
due to the weather, the injection hose must be disconnected and the boat unmoored. The injection can be
resumed when a large enough weather window is available.

Mixing set up
The mixing set up is conducted in two stages. The first stage, often onshore, consists of preparing a
polymer stock solution with a concentration considerably higher than the injection concentration. The
polymer is pre-wetted using Polymer Slicing Units (PSU) and stored at a low temperature in a warehouse.
The PSU ensures the full hydration of the polymers while preventing its mechanical degradation. The
polymer solution is then transferred to the storage tanks where it is maintained homogeneous. As shown
in Figure 2, the mixing takes place in an inert nitrogen atmosphere which prevents polymer oxidation. The
second stage, prior to injection, consists of mixing the stock solution with chemically treated water to meet
the desired injection concentration.
This set-up is commonly mounted on skids and the equipment is chosen so that the material (often
metal) meets general facility requirements while preventing mechanical, chemical and bacterial polymer
degradation. To maintain polymer chemical stability an inert atmosphere of nitrogen, stainless pipeline
and nonmetal tanks are necessary in the set mixing set-up. Monitoring the hardness of the water used is
also important in order to keep it in the polymer tolerance range. Indeed the divalent cations and the
oxygen scavenger could reduce the polymer viscosity and stability. To maintain the mechanical stability
of the polymer high flow velocities and high shear rates should be avoided in the piping. Ideally the
installation is designed to meet the required injection specifications while maintaining low flow rates in
the pumps, valves, mixers, filters and across chokes. Bacterial degradation is prevented by adding a
biocide to the injection water.
SPE-179785-MS 7

Figure 2—Offshore injection strategy

Quality checks and sampling points

Even though the mixing equipment has been designed to decrease the likelihood of mechanical degra-
dation, the polymer undergoes a strenuous process that might affect its viscosity and chemical stability
during its injection. A real-time polymer quality check procedure should be put in place (Figure 2). It
consists of checking the polymer viscosity and filterability at different stages of the process. The mother
solution is tested on the boat. Then the dissolved polymer solution quality is assessed after dissolution,
before entering the maturation tank and at the outflow of the latter one. This enables the operator to detect
any mechanical or chemical degradation of the polymer in the final dissolution process as well as in the
tubing.
As mentioned the two tests available are: the filter test and the viscosity test. The first one consists in
making sure the solution is free of aggregates to avoid formation plugging. In the filterability test, the
solution is pumped through a filter membrane with a 2 bar differential pressure. A constant flow rate
indicates that the solution is free of aggregates whereas a decreasing flow rate indicates a solution with
8 SPE-179785-MS

aggregates. The second test consists in measuring the polymer solution viscosity with a viscometer. Any
viscosity loss between the different samples will highlight a mechanical or chemical processing issue.

Oil/water separation
When the polymer solution and the oil are produced, the polymers may stabilize a strong oil-water
emulsion due to interfacial interaction. The emulsion may be difficult to break and a different strategy can
be applied to do so. In the Daqing field onshore China (Sheng 2013), three different processes are
sequentially used: natural settling by gravity, flocculation settling and pressure boosting pump. This set-up
is however very bulky and inappropriate in offshore installation where space is scarce. Offshore,
surface-active agents, called demulsifiers, are utilized in the separator. They disrupt the stability of the oil
droplets by reducing the interfacial tension between oil and water and by solubilizing emulsion-stabilizing
crude oil components. Hence the demulsifiers break the emulsion and reduce the residence time in the
separator. It can potentially be further decreased by injecting the demulsifier downhole via a chemical
where the turbulent flow (high Reynolds number) in the tubing increases the mixing and acts as a catalyzer
for the oil/polymer solution separation. While the use of demulsifiers seems to be the only way to break
the strong oil/polymer solution emulsions, novel research has been recently initiated at e.g. University of
Texas at Austin (Ko et al, 2014), where surfactant-coated ferromagnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) are used
to break the emulsion. When mixed with the emulsion, the MNPs attach to the oil droplets surface and
the oil droplets then move with MNPS and gather to form a single clean water phase when an external
magnetic field is applied. Impressively, 99.9999 of the oil from the emulsion is removed. Moreover, this
technology is also investigated to clear the water from polymers and meet environmental restrictions.
Similarly, the MNPs coated with a special chemical could potentially be used to remove the polymer in
presence of an external magnetic field whereafter the water can then be disposed.

Monitoring a polymer injection trial

A polymer injection trial is generally split into two stages. The first stage consists of performing a short
polymer injection. It provides the well injectivity response and the ability to create a high quality polymer
solution on-site. The second stage is a long term polymer injection which aims at proving the polymer
beneficial effect on oil recovery.

Bean-up and well injectivity response

The well injectivity response embodies a crucial step in the polymer project. It will establish the ability
to inject, quantify the injectivity and provide an input for the economics of a larger polymer injection.
Therefore a bean-up protocol must be followed to achieve the highest injectivity without damaging,
fracking or plugging the formation. It is recommended to start the polymer injection at a very low injection
rate, which enables the polymer solution to invade slowly the reservoir and create a polymer region around
the wellbore. As it goes further into the formation, the injection rate can be gradually increased until the
injectivity target or the fracking pressure is reached.
Unforeseen events can occur during the bean-up and the well injectivity should be thoroughly
monitored. To do so the injectivity, defined by Equation (3), must be calculated using the Bottom-Hole
Pressure (BHP) as it gives the true injectivity. The BHP is measured with a downhole memory gauge or
pressure gauge deployed before injection. Using solely the Tubing Head Pressure (THP) and Equation (3),
would introduce uncertainties in the injectivity measurements as the well friction and the hydrostatic
pressure of the water column in the tubing are not taken into account. Selle and al. (2013) shows that the
injectivity measured with the BHP (IIBHP) is slightly higher than the one measured with the THP (IITHP)
even though their overall trends are similar. If a downhole pressure gauge cannot be installed, one should
use Equation (4) where the friction pressure can be approximately assessed by subtracting the dynamic
and the static pressure in the tubing.
SPE-179785-MS 9

Ideally, we recommend measuring the injectivity using the BHP and Equation (3) as the well friction
is uncertain especially for old wells.
(3)

(4)

In the course of the injection, the injectivity can be monitored using a Hall plot. Initially developed to
monitor water-floods Buell et al. (1990) extended the methodology to polymer-floods. The Hall plot (cf.
Figure 3) is a graphical technique which helps the operator to detect abnormal injection behavior and stop
injection solely on the curve slope. When the slope of the curve increases from the baseline, it underlines
formation damage caused by plugging; when the slope decreases, it indicates a fracture or a tubular leak
(cf. Figure 3).

Figure 3—Hall plot

Well production response

When the injectivity test is successful, a long term injection period is initiated to measure its impact on
the production wells. The oil-cut as well as the cumulative oil production are thoroughly measured in the
neighboring wells. Depending on the well spacing, injection rates and maturity of the reservoir, it may
take several months before noticing the polymer impact. In onshore polymer injection operation an
observation well is often drilled to give faster results, however, this would often not be done in an offshore
operation due to the high CAPEX of drilling a well.
Conclusion
Initial laboratory studies are essential to increase the success likelihood of a polymer project. The injection
water salinity and chemical treatment might have an impact on the polymer stability and must be tested
in initial laboratory studies. The design of the project is also important. A methodology is provided here
to assess the polymer injectivity and select appropriate candidates for the injection. Furthermore the
logistics are to reduce risks related to operation. Thus we described the polymer mixing facilities, quality
10 SPE-179785-MS

check procedure as well as oil water separation. Lastly, guidelines to monitor polymer injections are
provided. It includes injectivity measurement and response.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Maersk Oil management to publish this paper.

References
Al-Amrie, O., Peltier, S., Pearce, A., Al-Yafei, A., Morel, D., Bourrel, M., Bursaux, R., Cordelier, P., Jouenne, S., Juilla,
H., Klimenko, A., Levitt, D., Nguyen, M.: ⬙The first successful Chemical EOR Pilot in the UAE⬙. SPE-177514-MS
Asakawa K.: ⬙A Generalized Analysis of partitioning Interwell Tracer Test⬙, PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas
at Austin, 2005.
Bourdet D.: ⬙Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models⬙, Elsevier, 2002.
Buell, R.S., Kazemi, H., Poettmann, F.H.: ⬙Analyzing Injectivity of Polymer Solutions with Hall Plot⬙, SPE-16963-PA.
Chang H.L, Hou, H., Wu, F., Gao, Y.: ⬙Chemical Injection Facilities –From Pilot Test to Field-Wide Expansion⬙, SPE
165308.
Han M., Xiang, W., Zhang, J., Jiang, W., Sun, F.: ⬙Application of EOR technology by Means of Polymer Flooding in Bohai
Oil Fields⬙, SPE-104432-MS.
Ko S., Prigiobbe, V., Huh, C., Bryant, S.L., Bennetzen, M.V., Mogensen, K.: ⬙Accelerated Oil Droplet Separation from
produced Water Using Magnetic Nanoparticles⬙, SPE-170828-MS.
Li Z., Delshad, M.: ⬙Development of an Analytical Injectivity Model for Non-Newtonian polymer Solutions⬙, SPE-
163672-MS
Poulsen A., ⬙The Captain Polymer EOR Pilot⬙, Presented at 31th Annual IEA EOR Symposium, October 2010.
Selle, O.M., Fischer, H., Standnes, D.C., Auflem., I.H., Lambertsen, A.M., Svela, P.E., Mebratu, A.A., Gundersen, E.B.,
Melien, I.: ⬙Offshore Polymer/LPS Injectivity Test with Focus on Operational Feasibility and Near Wellbore Response
in a Heidrun Injector⬙, SPE-166343-MS.
Sheng, J.J., Leonhardt, B., and Azri, N.: ⬙Status of polymer-Flooding Technology⬙, SPE-174541.
Sheng. J.J.: ⬙Enhanced Oil Recovery, Field Cases Studies⬙, Gulf Professional Publishing 2010.
Shook, M.G., Pope, G.A., and Asakawa, K.: ⬙Determining Reservoir Properties and Flood Performance From Tracer Test
Analysis⬙, SPE-124614-MS.
Bennetzen M. V., Gilani, S.F.H., Mogensen, K., Ghozali, M., Bounoua, N.: ⬙Successful Polymer Flooding of Low-
Permeability, Oil-Wet, Carbonate Reservoir Cores⬙, SPE-171849-MS.