Brief Introduction to Polymer

Flooding and Gel Treatments

and

Injectivity Characteristics
Of EOR Polymers
(SPE 115142)
Randy Seright, New Mexico Tech

Waterflood oil recovery, PV

EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON

WATERFLOOD OIL RECOVERY
0.3

0.2

M = 0.5 : FAVORABLE
M = 8 : UNFAVORABLE

M = water / oil
= (k/)water / (k/)oil

0.1

0
0

Pore volumes of water injected

10

EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON

AERIAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY

M < 1: FAVORABLE

M > 1: UNFAVORABLE

M = (k/)water / (k/)oil

EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON

VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
M < 1: FAVORABLE
k1
k3
k2
k1 < k2 < k3
k1
k3
k2
M > 1: UNFAVORABLE

MOBILITY CONTROL
Polymer water
p

Microemulsion
m

Water, w
Oil, o

Favorable displacement at
microemulsion front requires:

m o + w

Favorable displacement at
microemulsion rear requires:

p m

IDEAL PROPERTIES FOR

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

GEL TREATMENTS ARE NOT POLYMER FLOODS

Crosslinked polymers, gels, gel particles, and
colloidal dispersion gels:

Are not simply viscous polymer solutions.

Do not flow through porous rock like polymer
solutions.

Do not enter and plug high-k strata first and

progressively less-permeable strata later.

Should not be modeled as polymer floods.

Distinction between a gel treatment

and a polymer flood.

Polymer
solution
For a polymer flood, polymer
penetration into low-k zones
should be maximized.

Gel
For a gel treatment, gelant
penetration into low-k zones
should be minimized.

POLYMER FLOODING is best for improving

sweep in reservoirs where fractures are not
important.
Great for improving the mobility ratio.
Great for overcoming vertical stratification.
Fractures can cause channeling of polymer
solutions and waste of expensive chemical.
GEL TREATMENTS are best treating fractures
and fracture-like features that cause
channeling.
Generally, low volume, low cost.
Once gelation occurs, gels do not flow
through rock.

http://baervan.nmt.edu/randy/
Reservoir Sweep
Improvement

Randall S. Seright, Research Group

Head,
e-mail: randy@prrc.nmt.edu
Phone: 505-835-5571.
Fax: 505-835-6031

New Mexico Petroleum Recovery

Research Center
New Mexico Tech, 801 Leroy Place,
Socorro, NM 87801, USA

We perform research and development to improve reservoir

sweep efficiency and reduce saltwater production during oil and
gas recovery operations.
Search

An introduction

Are Colloidal Dispersion Gels

Really a Viable Technology?

A strategy for attacking excess

water production

Clean Up of Oil Zones after a

Gel Treatment

Use of Gels for Water Shutoff

Identifying the problem is critical before

attempting a solution. But I have
limited resources for diagnosis. How do
I start?

Gel Placement Concepts

How do I place gel to stop water
production without damaging oil or gas
production?

Designing Gel Treatments

Spreadsheets of important calculations

Videos of Polymer Flooding and

Crossflow Concepts
Why do pore-filling gels reduce
kw much more than ko?

New Filter Cake Model

Physical Realities For In Depth
Profile Modification
Annual Reports
2006 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001,
2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995,
1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990

Water Shutoff Consortium

(Members Only)
Publications

SPE 115142
INJECTIVITY CHARACTERISTICS
OF EOR POLYMERS

Injectivity:

Defined as injection rate divided by pressure

drop from the wellbore into the formation.
Want a high injectivity to allow rapid
displacement and recovery of oil.

Polymers are needed for mobility control for

most chemical flooding projects:
The viscous nature of polymer solutions will
necessarily reduce injectivity unless the well
intersects a fracture.
Fractures can cause severe channeling and/or
injection out of zone for expensive EOR fluids.

Objectives:
Estimate injectivity losses associated with
polymer solutions if fractures are not open.
Estimate the degree of fracture extension if
fractures are open.
Factors Affecting Polymer Solution Injectivity:
Debris/microgels/undissolved polymer
Rheology in porous media
Mechanical degradation
Displacement of residual oil (not considered
here)

Plugging of Rock Face During Polymer Injection

Throughput for field EOR projects:

~ 100,000 cm3/cm2 for unfractured vertical wells.

~ 1,000-10,000 cm3/cm2 for fractured vertical wells.

Previous lab filter tests

Used less than 40 cm3/cm2 throughput.

Typically use filter ratios. [(t500-t400)/ t200-t100)]
Do not correlate with injection into rock.

We developed a new filter test:

Using throughputs over 2,000 cm3/cm2.

That correlates with injection into cores.

 For both xanthan and HPAM solutions, filterability

varies a lot, depending on polymer source.
0.13% X US K HV, 75 cp
0.13% X US K K36, 60 cp
0.13% X US K XC, 47 cp
0.1225% X US K K70, 60 cp
0.13% X CH Sh F, 60 cp
0.1% P FR S 38, 9 cp
0.234% P FR S 38, 60 cp
0.2% P CH H K5, 60 cp

Filter cake resistance, cm/darcy

10000

1000
100

10

seawater

0.1
10

100
1000
Throughput, cm3/cm2

10000

Even with the cleanest polymers, face plugging

will exceed the capacity of unfractured wells
during most chemical EOR projects.

Throughput, cm 3/cm2

10000

1000

100

10

ll,
e
l w re
a
t
f
u
c
t
i
rt rac
00
e
1
ft
V of
=
ft
h
0
e
t
,
3
2
n
f
r
l
l
=
6
u
0
e
t
h
=
1
c
,
w
f
l
=
a
L
l
h
,
e
fr
al
,
t
e
l
l
w
r
n
a
l
el ctu
o
c
a
i
z
t
t
w
r
n
ri
l
a
e
r
o
a
o
f
v
t
H
n
r iz
al
th
o
o
c
z
g
i
i
t
H
n
r
r
e
o
e
l
H
ll
,v
l
u
l
f
e
ll,
w
e
l
w
ca
l
i
t
a
20-ac spacing,
r
t
e
n
o
V
z
rw=0.375 ft, = 0.2
i
r
o
H

1
0.0001

0.001

0.01
PV injected

0.1

3000
cm3/cm2
600
cm3/cm2
100
cm3/cm2

Fracture extension expectations for

polymers that plug at a give throughput.

Fracture half length, ft .

600

plugging at
100 cm3/cm2
Severe
extension

500

plugging at
3,000 cm3/cm2
Moderate
extension

400

plugging at
600 cm3/cm2
Substantial
extension

300
200
100

Vertical well, 2-wing fracture,

20-acre 5-spot, =0.2

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

PV injected

0.5

0.6

0.7

 Xanthan rheology in porous media

correlates well with that in a viscometer.
Resistance factor or viscosity, cp

100

0.1% X US K K36 xanthan in seawater,

551-md Berea core, 25C

10

Viscosity vs
shear rate x 1/20
Resistance factor
vs flux

Fr = 2.5 + 20 u-0.5
1
0.01

0.1

1
10
100
1000
Flux, ft/d, or shear rate/20, 1/s

10000

Although HPAM solutions show pseudoplastic

behavior in a viscometer, they show Newtonian
or pseudodilatant behavior in porous rock.
Resistance factor or viscosity, cp

1000

100

Shear thickening
or pseudodilatant
Resistance
factor vs flux

Mechanical
degradation

Newtonian
10

Viscosity vs
shear rate
0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM
in 0.3% NaCl, 25C
573-md Berea Core

1
0.01

Shear thinning
or pseudoplastic

0.1
1
10
Flux, ft/d, or shear rate/20, 1/s

100

Even without face plugging, the viscous nature of

the solutions investigated requires that injectivity
must be less than 20% that of water if formation
parting is to be avoided (unless Sor is reduced).

Injectivity relative to water

Vertical well, 20-acre 5-spot, =0.2

0.1% polymer
HPAM in seawater: Fr = 3.7 + u2/1960
0.1

xanthan: Fr = 2.5 + 20 u-0.5

HPAM in 0.3% NaCl: Fr = 42 + 11 u

0.01
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

PV injected

0.4

0.5

Fracture extension expectations for

polymers with different rheologies

Fracture half length, ft

300

HPAM: Fr = 65 + 90u0.75
HPAM: Fr = 42 + 11u
xanthan:
Fr = 2.5 + 20u-0.5

200

HPAM:
Fr = 7.9 + u2/5.6
HPAM:
Fr = 3.7 + u2/1960

100

Vertical well, vertical 2-wing fracture

re = 330 ft, rw=0.375 ft. 0.1% polymer
0
0

0.1

0.2
0.3
PV injected

0.4

0.5

CONCLUSIONS
1. We developed an improved test of the tendency for EOR
polymers to plug porous media. The new test is more
sensitive to differences in polymer plugging than the old
1970s test. The new test demonstrated that plugging
tendencies varied considerably among both partially
hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) and xanthan polymers.
2. Consistent with previous work, we confirmed that xanthan
solutions show pseudoplastic behavior in porous rock that
closely parallels that in a viscometer. Xanthan was
remarkably resistant to mechanical degradation, with a
0.1% xanthan solution (in seawater) experiencing only a
19% viscosity loss after flow through 102-md Berea
sandstone at a pressure gradient of 24,600 psi/ft.

CONCLUSIONS
3. For 0.1% HPAM in both 0.3% NaCl brine and seawater
in 573-md Berea sandstone, Newtonian behavior was
observed at low to moderate fluid fluxes, while
pseudodilatant behavior was seen at moderate to high
fluxes. No evidence of pseudoplastic behavior was
seen in the porous rock, even though one solution
exhibited a power-law index of 0.64 in a viscometer.
For this HPAM in both brines, the onset of mechanical
degradation occurred at a flux of 14 ft/d in 573-md
Berea sandstone.

CONCLUSIONS
4. Considering the polymer solutions investigated,
satisfactory injection of more than 0.1 PV in field
applications could only be expected for the cleanest
polymers (i.e., that do not plug before 1,000 cm3/cm2
throughput), without inducing fractures (or formation parts
for unconsolidated sands).
5. Even in the absence of face plugging, the viscous nature of
the solutions investigated requires that injectivity must be
less than one-fifth that of water if formation parting is to be
avoided. Since injectivity reductions of this magnitude are
often economically unacceptable, fractures or fracture-like
features are expected to open and extend significantly
during the course of most polymer floods. Thus, an
understanding of the orientation and growth of fractures
appears crucial for most EOR projects where polymer
solutions are injected.

 Correlating core face plugging with a filter test.

Time scale of plugging is similar for core vs. filter.
Filter cake resistance, cm/darcy

1000
551 md Berea
AP10/10 polycarbonate
100

filter cm/darcy X 10

10

0.1
100

13-mm diameter,
10 psi across filters,
room temperature,
0.1% X US K K36 xanthan
in seawater,

1000
Throughput, cm3/cm2

10000

 The magnitude of face plugging is more severe as

permeability decreases, but it occurs over roughly
the same time scale.
Filter cake resistance, cm/darcy

10000

0.1% X US K K36 in seawater

Berea cores, 25C
Flux = 139 ft/d,

1000

102 md
191 md

100

551 md
10

1
0

500
1000
1500
2000
3
Polymer solution throughput, cm /cm2

 The magnitude of face plugging is more severe as

permeability decreases, but it occurs over roughly
the same time scale.
0.1% X US K K36 in seawater
Berea cores, 25C
Flux = 139 ft/d,
10
cm/darcy

Filter cake resistance x (k /551)2,

100

102 md
191 md
551 md

0.1
10

100
1000
Polymer solution throughput, cm3/cm2

10000

Core tests: Flowed ~27 liters through 11.3 cm2 core face.
Plugging occurred primarily on the face, not internal.

Resistance factor

20
0.1% X US K K36 xanthan in seawater
551-md Berea core, 25C
Flux = 139 ft/d, frontal velocity = 640 ft/d

15

10

Section 1
(2 cm long)

Section 2 (10.5 cm long)

Section 3 (2 cm long)

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Polymer solution throughput, cm3/cm2

 Face plugging by X US K K36 xanthan and P FR S

38 HPAM was mild.
Viscoelasticity makes HPAM flow resistance much
greater than for xanthan.
Filter cake resistance, cm/darcy

500

500

0.1% polymer in seawater

550-md Berea cores,
P FR S 38
25C, Flux = 139 ft/d.
HPAM

400

HPAM
plugging effect

300
200

400

300
200

HPAM
viscoelastic
effect

100

X US K K36
xanthan

100

0
0

500
1000
1500
2000
3
Polymer solution throughput, cm /cm2

 For both xanthan and HPAM solutions, filterability

varies a lot, depending on polymer source.
Filter cake resistance, cm/darcy

10000

2.52% TDS
1000

100

0.1% X US K HV, 47 cp
0.1% X US K K36, 31 cp
0.25% X US K K36, 165 cp
0.1% X CH Sh F, 31 cp
0.1% P FR S 38, 11 cp
0.25% P FR S 38, 68 cp
0.1% P CH H H22, 16 cp
0.1% P CH H K5, 17 cp
0.1% P FR S 60, 22 cp

10
1

0.1
10

100
1000
Throughput, cm3/cm2

10000

 Xanthan is remarkably resistant to

mechanical (shear) degradation.
100

Viscosity, cp

0.1% X US K K36 xanthan in seawater, 25C

10
AOriginal polymer solution
BAfter 2,480 psi/ft through 102-md Berea
CAfter 19,500 psi/ft through 102-md Berea
DAfter 24,600 psi/ft through 102-md Berea
1
1

10

100
Shear rate, 1/s

1000

Although HPAM solutions show pseudoplastic

behavior in a viscometer, they show Newtonian
or pseudodilatant behavior in porous rock.
Resistance factor or viscosity, cp

1000

0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM
in 0.3% NaCl, 25C.

Fr = 65 + 90 u 0.75

100

Fr = 42 + 11 u
10

Triangles: resistance factor versus flux in 573-md Berea.

Circles: viscosity versus shear rate/20.
Red & Blue: Un-sheared polymer.
Yellow & White: Pre-sheared at 41 ft/d flux (4640 psi/ft).

0.01

0.1
1
10
Flux, ft/d, or shear rate/20, 1/s

100

Polymer solution sheared at high flux

shows Newtonian behavior at low flux and
pseudodilatant behavior at high flux.
1000

Resistance factor

Fresh, unsheared polymer

100

Fr = 65 + 90 u 0.75
Fr = 42 + 11 u
Pre-sheared at 41 ft/d flux

10

0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM
in 0.3% NaCl, 25C.
573-md Berea core
1
0.01

0.1

Flux, ft/d

10

100

HPAM Rheology in Porous Rock:

1) Newtonian at low flux,
2) pseudodilatant at intermediate flux,
3) mechanical degradation at high flux.
Resistance factor in the second
section

100

0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM in seawater,

573-md Berea core, 25C

Fr = 7.9 + u2/5.6
Fresh solution

10

Pre-sheared at 139
ft/d

Fr = 3.7 + u2/1960

1
0.1

10
Flux, ft/d

100

1000

HPAM Rheology in Porous Rock:

1) Newtonian at low flux,
2) pseudodilatant at intermediate flux,
3) mechanical degradation at high flux.
Resistance factor in the second
section

100

0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM in seawater,

573-md Berea core, 25C

Fr = 7.9 + u2/5.6
Fresh solution

10

Pre-sheared at 139
ft/d (938 psi/ft)

Fr = 3.7 + u2/1960

1
0.1

10
Flux, ft/d

100

1000

HPAM is susceptible to mechanical degradation

Effluent viscosity at 11 s-1

30
25

15% loss

0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM
in 0.3% NaCl.
Original viscosity
= 26.8 cp.

20

Effluent after being forced through

573-md Berea core at given flux. 25C.

15

0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM in seawater.

Original viscosity = 6.4 cp.
48%

10

loss

22%
loss

64%
loss

0
1

10
100
1000
Flux at which solution was forced through core, ft/d

 HPAM can show an entrance pressure drop

on entering porous rock. Xanthan does not.

Entrance pressure drop, psi

350

0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM,
573-md Berea core, 25C

300
250

Fresh
solution
in seawater

Pre-sheared at 139 ft/d

(938 psi/ft) in seawater

200
150

Fresh solution
in 0.3% NaCl

100

Pre-sheared at 41 ft/d
(4640 psi/ft) in 0.3% NaCl

50
0
0.1

10
Flux, ft/d

100

1000

Even without face plugging, the viscous nature of

the solutions investigated requires that injectivity
must be less than 20% that of water if formation
parting is to be avoided (unless Sor is reduced).

Injectivity relative to water

Vertical well, 20-acre 5-spot, =0.2

3 cp Newtonian
HPAM: Fr = 3.7 + u2/1960
10 cp Newtonian

0.1

0.1

xanthan: Fr = 2.5 + 20 u-0.5

30 cp Newtonian
100 cp Newtonian

HPAM: Fr = 42 + 11 u

0.01

0.01
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

PV injected

0.4

0.5

CONCLUSIONS
1. We developed an improved test of the tendency for
EOR polymers to plug porous media. The new test
demonstrated that plugging tendencies varied
considerably among both partially hydrolyzed
polyacrylamide (HPAM) and xanthan polymers.
2. Rheology and mechanical degradation in porous
media were quantified for a xanthan and an HPAM
polymer. Consistent with previous work, we
confirmed that xanthan solutions show
pseudoplastic behavior in porous rock that closely
parallels that in a viscometer.