SPE 165308

Chemical Injection Facilities From Pilot Test to Field-Wide Expansion

Harry L. Chang, Chemor Tech International, LLC, Gao Yanming, Fengwu Wu and Hou Huaye, International
Energy Technology Services

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2-4 July 2013.

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

Chemical injection in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects is a complex process because it involves multiple chemicals with
complex fluids. Costs for even a small-scale pilot test could be up in the millions of US dollars (USD) and large-scale field-
wide expansion would be in the 100s of millions USD for onshore projects. Costs for offshore projects would increase by
multiple folds compared to onshore projects with comparable sizes.

This paper discusses (1) conventional designs for small- or large-scale injection facilities, (2) recent improvements in
conventional designs, and (3) new concepts in chemical injection facility designs that can improve the quality, lower the cost,
and reduce the lead time in the implementation of chemical EOR (CEOR) projects.

Introduction

Major CEOR processes can be classified into two categories: polymer applications and surfactant processes. Polymer
applications include polymer flooding (PF), and polymer gels for profile modification and water shut-off. These applications
are relatively simple and have been applied successfully in large-scale commercials projects. In the surfactant area, several
types of processes such as alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding, alkaline-cosolvent-polymer (ACP), and surfactant-
polymer (SP) are included depending on the concentration and source of the surfactants. ASP, ACP, and SP processes are
more complex and involve the use of more chemicals such as the insitu generated or surface injected surfactants, co-
surfactants, co-solvents, and alkaline chemicals. Due to the requirements for handling multiple chemicals with complex fluid
properties, capital investment in injection facilities are relatively high.

Due to the fact that aqueous chemical solutions have been used in all CEOR processes, water treatment such as softening and
filtration are necessary to produce a high quality water that will dissolve various types of chemicals. Among all the chemicals
used in CEOR processes, mixing and processing the polymer solutions is the most complex part due to the potential
mechanical and other types of degradation when handling the highly viscous and non-Newtonian fluids (Chang, 1978). In
most field applications, one or more of the following chemicals: a polymer such as the partial hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
(HPAM), surfactants such as high molecular weight (MW) sulfonate and/or sulfate based surface-active agents, co-solvents
such as iso-butyle alcohol (IBA) and diethylene glycol butyl ether (DGBE), alkaline chemicals such as sodium carbonate
(Na2CO3) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) are used to make up the chemical injection solutions.

Most of these chemicals are either in solid or liquid form and some may be highly viscous. For the benefit of lower shipping
cost, solids or high concentration liquids are preferred. Typically, polymers are received in the field as about 90% pure solid
granules, surfactants are received as 20% to 50% viscous liquids, co-solvents are received as high purity (90+%) liquids and
alkaline chemicals as solids. In some cases, liquid biocides and stabilizing chemicals may also be required to minimize the
viscosity loss of polymer solutions.

Since most chemical injectants contain less than 5% by weight of active ingredients, a large amount of water or brine is
required to mix these chemicals. Depending on the source of the injection water or brine, different treatment methods are
necessary to obtain high quality injection fluids that are absolutely required to maintain the sufficient injectivity and the high
2 SPE 165308

recovery efficiency of the chemical slug and, therefore, ensure the success of the CEOR processes. Compromising the design
and application of injection facilities and injection fluids can lead to poor results or even disastrous failures in the field.

Chemicals

There are more than a half dozen chemicals required in most CEOR processes including but not limited to the following:

Water and associated chemicals

A large amount of water is always required for all chemical flooding processes, and the quality of the water is the most
important factor to the success of CEOR. Poor water quality may lead to less efficient chemical utilization and poor
displacement and/or sweep efficiencies. In some cases, other chemicals such as bicides, oxygen scavenger, and/or polymer
stabilizing chemicals may also necessary to minimize the polymer degradation.

The source water usually comes from the production stream after the separation and treatment or from a natural source such
as river, lake, or shallow aquifers. Minerals, microorganisms, suspended solids (SS), organic compounds, and treatment
chemicals may be present in these source-waters. Each of the chemicals in the water should be identified because they may
react or interfere with valuable chemicals in the chemical slug. Therefore, the source water has to be treated according to
specifications designated for each chemical slug.

Most commonly used water treatment processes are (1) filtration to remove supended solids and (2) water softening to
remove specific ionic species such as the ferrous iron and divalent cations. The presence of iron with oxygen could damage
the backbones of the polymer molecules, and divalent cations such as calcium and magnesium will form scales with alkaline
chemicals. Filtration down to 0.5 or 1.0 micron size is usually required for good water quality. Reverse osmosis and ion
exchange processes are commonly used to remove specific cations to avoid interactions with polymer and/or alkaline
chemicals. These types of water softening units are commercially available but specifications need to be verified for specific
applications before acquisition.

Polymer and associated chemicals

Polymer is the most important chemical in all types of CEOR processes because it is required in the ASP, ACP or SP process
for mobility control, and it is the key chemical in polymer flooding (PF) and polymer gel processes. However, the
effectiveness of the polymer in an aqueous solution is subject to many types of degradation including mechanical, chemical,
thermal, and microbial (Chang, 1978). Therefore, the design of a chemical injection facility needs to take these possible
degradations into consideration and to try to minimize them. In addition to these possible degradations, other factors such as
hydration and uniformity in the dispersion and mixing process also require special attention because fish eyes and gels may
form when using improperly designed mixing equipment. Factors that could impact the delivery and dilution of polymer
solutions are the type of polymer used, salinity of the make up brine, concentration and viscosity of the mother solution, and
the quality of the dilution water. Facility designs also have to consider the use of oxygen scavenger, nitrogen blankets,
biocides, and stabilizing chemicals to preserve the quality of the polymer solution.

Surfactants and associated chemicals

Surfactants and co-surfactants are necessary ingredients in ASP and SP processes. Other chemicals such as alkali and co-
solvents are also needed in ASP and ACP processes. There are many types of surfactants that have been proposed and tested
in the laboratory or field for any of the CEOR processes mentioned. In most cases, surfactants and co-surfactants are
delivered to the field as high viscous liquids. Therefore, heating and/or circulation in transferring equipment and storage
tanks are usually required to maintain the uniformity and pumpability. However, handling of these types of chemicals is
relatively easy and simple. Some co-solvents may have low flesh points and require special safety precautions such as extra
ventilation in equipment designs. Figure 1 shows the process flow diagram (PFD) for the handling and mixing of surfactant
systems. However, special types of equipment and procedures may be required for non-liquid type or brine insoluble
chemicals.

Alkaline chemicals

There are many types of alkaline chemicals to choose from for the ASP or ACP process including sodium hydroxide, sodium
carbonate, sodium silicates, sodium metaborate, and etc. Most commonly used are the first two types because they are
relatively low cost and effective in chemical formulations. Both of these chemicals are delivered in solid form with high
purity, 90+% pure. These chemicals are easy to handle and dissolve relatively quickly in the water or brine. Since the
chemical formulations of either ASP or ACP usually require high concentrations of these chemicals, 1 to 5 wt.%, large
SPE 165308 3

facilities such as silos are required for storage, and pneumatic systems are required for transfer and delivery. The design of
dissolving and mixing tanks are straightforward. Filtration is necessary to catch any impurities and undissolved solids.
Figure 2 shows the alkaline storage and mixing units.

In reviewing the CEOR chemicals, a simple polymer flooding process would only require a polymer, supplied as powder in
most cases, and perhaps one or two stabilizing chemicals, if necessary. But polymer is also required for all other CEOR
processes for providing adequate mobility control. Polymer concentrations used in SP, ASP, and ACP processes are,
generally, higher than in PF that is applied in the same reservoir. Table 1 summarizes the types of EOR chemicals,
processing requirements, and concentration ranges.

Key Components in Chemical Processing Equipment

Water treatment

As we discussed before, water treatment can be simple if a good quality source water with low total suspended solids (TSS),
low divalent cations, and no bacteria is available. In this case, only a simple filtration device is needed in the field. However,
if the water quality does not meet the chemical slug specifications, then special equipment will be necessary to process the
brine before usage. In most cases, produced brine usually will carry over some residual oil, bacteria, and oil field treating
chemicals such as demulsifiers and scale and corrosion inhibitors. Detailed testing and identification of suspended solids and
key ionic species in the produced brine should be performed. The undesirable chemical species, solids, bacteria, and oil need
to be removed. Common practices in water treatment processes are summarized below:

1. Oxygen: It is known that the presence of oxygen will cause polymer degradation especially with iron and at high
temperatures (>80 oC). Preferred oxygen content would be less than 10 parts per billion (ppb). Because most source
water would have almost saturated oxygen content, an oxygen scavenger would be added into the polymer make up
water. However, the presence of oxygen at low temperatures and in an iron free water would not damage the polymer
after injected into the reservoir because the reservoir is in a reducing state where the oxygen will be comsumed quickly.
For extra protection, a small chemical injection pump may be installed to inject the oxygen scavenger into the water line
with a designed dosage before entering the polymer dispersion unit. Concentrated oxygen scavenger is usually in a liquid
form and may be stored in drums or a storage tank depending on the size and duration of the project.

2. Nitrogen blankets: To maintain the efficiency of an oxygen scavenger and to minimize the oxygen impact on polymer
degradation, a nitrogen blanket is necessary to cover all fluids containing the oxygen scavenger to prevent additional
oxygen from entering into the system. This is usually done by a high-pressure nitrogen source with a pressure regulator
which feeds the nitrogen into the top of the tank to limit the contact of oxygen with the injection fluid.

3. Bacteria: In most cases, field produced brine contains many different types of bacteria. Most of these bacteria are
harmful to the polymer and have to be terminated. Industrial biocides may be selected to treat the water before being
used in the chemical system. Ultra violet (UV) light is another option used to kill certain bacteria. However, before the
application of any means to eliminate the biodegradation, bacteria counts and type of bacteria need to be analyzed and
identified for an effective design of a bio-treatment system. Many oil field service companies have microbial labs to
conduct such tests and can provide adequate designs for the treatment. Selected biocides with a pre-designed dosage can
be injected into the supply water stream on a periodic basis. In the case of UV treatment, a water stream is passed
through a pre-installed UV light system so that bacteria can be eliminated. Important factors to be considered for the
design of an effective UV light system are the clarity of the water, the exposure time, and the strength of the UV light
system. Pre-testing the effectiveness for the design of an UV system is recommended.

4. Iron: Most field brines will contain either the ferrous (Fe++) or ferric (Fe+++) iron from the contamination of the steel
pipeline or from natural occurance. It is known that iron in the water can cause polymer degradation especially with the
presence of oxygen at higher temperatures. The degradation mechanisms are rather complicated (Levitt, 2009) and
beyond the scope of this paper. In the facility design for chemical injections, it is recommended that the iron content be
below 0.5 ppm. A simple ion-exchange unit may be used to remove the iron in the make up water prior to the dispersion
and mixing of polymers. The iron in the produced brine from the reservoir usually contains the ferrous iron and will
easily react with the dissolved oxygen to form iron oxide (Fe 2O3), an orange-colored precipitate. Therefore, a method of
aerating the produced water to convert the Fe ++ to ferric oxide followed by a filtration process to remove the precipitates
has also been practiced in the field successfully.

5. Divalent cations: Divalent cations such as calcium (Ca++) and magnesium (Mg++) are also known to lower the viscosity
of the polymer solution due to the change in the shape of the polymer molecules in the water. Small amounts of these
divalent cations are tolerable for polymer flooding by using more polymer, but these divalent cations have to be removed
4 SPE 165308

in the ASP process because they will form precipitates/scales as either hydroxides or carbonates in pipelines and tanks.
Therefore, water softening is required for water containing substantial amounts of these divalent cations. For smaller
amounts of divalent cations, chelating chemicals such as phosphates maybe added to prevent the precipitation of scales.
Different types of commercial water softening units (WSU) that can be used to remove these cations are available in the
industry. Due to limitations of the treatment processes, different types of WSU systems are used to remove different
ionic species, such as the ion exchange for iron and and reverse osmosis for divalent cations.

6. Suspended solids: The total amount of suspended solids (TSS) could also have negative impact on injectivity if they are
not removed. Filtration is a common method used to remove these solids. The limitation of TSS is dependent on the
reservoir permeability and field spefic, but a good rule of thumb is less than 10 ppm.

7. Oil: Generally, a small amount of carry-over oil from produced stream will not harm the polymer or other chemical
injectants. Therefore, the removal of oil in the produced brine is an enonomical issue because oil is a valuable
commodity.

Polymer mixing and dispersion

As we discussed before, proper handling of the polymer solution in any CEOR process is an important factor in the success
of field projects. Two types of polymer have been used in the field before. These are Xanthan gums and partial hydrolyzed
polyacrylamides or HPAM. Pros and cons of these polymers have been discussed in previous publications (Chang, 1978) and
details will not be addressed here. Due to the lower cost, higher temperature tolerance, better injectivity, and availability for
commercial-scale applications, most CEOR field projects conducted in recent years have used HPAM. There are two forms
of the HPAM, a liquid as an emulsion (~30% active) or dry solids (~90% active). The dry solid form has been a preferred
product in the field due to its portability and low transportation costs. However, the emulsion type is easier to mix and does
not require the special mixing and dispersion equipment as those used in the dry polymer case. Therefore, it is preferred in
offshore operations. Because of the mixing and dispersing of a liquid polymer is relatively simple, discussion in this paper
will focus on the equipment used to handle the dry product. A process flow diagram (PFD) of the dispersion and mixing
system is shown in Figure 3. Dry polymer may be delivered to the mixing/dispersion unit via a conveyor belt, a pneumatic
device, or a crane. Manual operations with 25 kg bags have also been practiced in small projects in the field.

The entire polymer processing process invovles mixing, dispersion, dissolution, maturation, transferring, filtration, temporary
storage, pressurizing/metering, dilution, and injection. Some of the steps may be eliminated, and the sequence may be
alternated or reversed depending on specific designs. Among all these steps, mixing/dispersion/dissolution in the preparation
of the mother solution (MS) are most crucial although maturation is also a very important step. However, it has been proven
that this latter step may be eliminated in some field operations. More discussion about polymer maturation will be discussed
later.

The concentration range in the mother solution may vary for each project depending on the source water salinity, the space
limitation, the final slug concentration, and the size of the project. The equipment may be designed to handle, normally, from
5,000 ppm to 10,000 ppm. Higher concentration mother solution may also be designed but would be limited by the viscosity
of the MS which would require extra power for agitation and transportability in pipe lines. Mixing and filtration of extremely
high viscous fluids requires special considerations in equipment designs.

After the preparation of the MS, it is transferred to a maturation tank or directly metered to the injection line along with water
or surfactant or alkaline-surfactant solution at a pre-determined proportion set at the process logic control (PLC) system. An
inline static mixer will be installed to mix the diluted polymer or SP or ASP solution uniformly. Current field operations
require the polymer MS to be mixed and fully hydrolyzed in a maturation tank for a minimum of 60 minutes although the
direct injection without maturation has been applied in the field successfully (Qiao et al., 2000). A couple of advantages in
using not fully hydrated polymer solutions are (1) better injectivity and (2) less susceptibility to mechanical shear through
perforations.

Alkaline processing

Several alkaline chemicals such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH), sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), sodium silicate (Na4SiO4), and
sodium metaborate (BNaO2) were either widely used in the field or studies in the laboratory. However, field results to date
showed that Na2CO3 is preferred over the other alkaline chemicals because of the lower cost, abundance in supply, and fewer
scaling issues in the production streams. High quality industrial grade sodium carbonate is normally shipped in bulk
quantities in a solid form. Onsite silos are used for storage and soda ash solids are transferred pneumatically to mixing tanks.
Soda ash solids are readily soluble in water. A typical design of the soda ash dissolving and mixing system is shown in
Figure 2. Vertical baffles are installed in the tank to reduce the carry over of any undissolved solids. The concentrated soda
SPE 165308 5

ash solution is pumped through a metering pump into the polymer solution line along with other chemicals such as
surfactants or co-solvents through an online static mixer. The ASP or ACP solution will be filtered up stream of the high-
pressure injection pump.

Surfactants and cosolvents handling

Other than polymer and soda ash, surfactants, cosurfactants, and cosolvents are used in the ASP or ACP or SP process.
Extensive laboratory studies will define the final recipe of the chemical slug. In some cases, half a dozen chemicals may be
involved in the chemical slug. Almost all surfactant type chemicals (cosurfactants and cosolvents) are delivered in liquid
form. Some are very viscous, and some will have low flesh points. Equipment designs have to take into consideration the
specific requirements in the proper handling and delivering of these chemicals. Recommendations on storing, handling, and
mixing of surfactant type chemicals from chemical suppliers are often required for adequate designs. For most equipment
suppliers, it is preferable to have one of the chemical suppliers to pre-mix a concentrated surfactant-cosurfactant-cosolvent
recipe at the vendor facility. But this option is not always available, so the facility supplier has to design specific storage and
handling equipment for each chemical. Since most of surfactant chemicals are delivered in high viscous and non-
homogeneous solutions, heating and agitation or recirculation may be required to prevent the separation in storage tanks. A
PFD of a typical surfactant module designed for a 4-component system is shown in Figure 1.

Dilution, mixing, filtration, and injection

Several steps will be used before the final chemical slug with designed specifications can be injected. The first step is the
dilution process when the dilution water or surfactant or alkaline-surfactant solution or alkaline cosolvent solution is injected
into the MS line. To ensure proper mixing, an inline static mixer is installed down stream from the mixing point. The use of
properly designed static mixers is crucial in achieving homogeneous injection slugs. After the uniform mixing, the final
chemical slug will flow through a filtration unit located in the suction side of the injection pump to remove any particles that
could damage the expensive high-pressure injection pump and to prevent potential damage of the injection well. A dual
canister type filtration system equipped with automatic alarm system set at a predetermined differential pressue. In the multi-
well injection case, one dedicated pump would be used for each well. However, new designs in using the single pump multi-
well system are also available. More discussions on filtration and new injection methods will be given in the quality control
and new equipment designs sections.

Type of Facilities versus Type of Projects

There are many types of chemical injection systems that have been used in the field including the mobile or portable unit, a
skid mounted multi-functional unit, and a permanent or semi-permanent unit. Description of these types of units is given
below.

Mobile or portable unit A mobile or portable unit is designed to meet the needs of a small-scale injectivity or pilot test. Key
criteria required for the design of such a unit are the number of injection wells, the injection pressure, the injection rate, and
the number and type of chemicals to be injected. An example of a mobile unit with the maximum injection rate of ~5,000
barrels per day (BPD) at the maximum pressure of 2,000 psi with one high pressure triplex injection pump and four low shear
valves (LSV) for distribution of injection fluid into each well is shown in Figure 4. This type of the mobile unit is ideal for
small and short-term CEOR pilot tests containing 1 to 4 injection wells. It is relatively simple and can be easily assembled
and disassembled when necessary and can be operated in remote areas. The system may be designed to be fully automated
operation or manually operated.

Skid-mounted multi-functional unit The skid-mounted multi-functional unit is designed for a more complex fluids and
complex operations such as multi-water treatment processes, heating of the injection fluids, and half a dozen chemicals to be
handled including a polymer. A picture of such a unit used in the Mangala field in Rajasthan, India (Pandey et al, 2012) is
shown in Figure 5. This particular unit has nine skids including an ion-exchange system to remove iron, a reverse osmosis
(RO) system to remove divalent cations, a surfactant unit to handle a multi-component surfactant formulation, a heat
exchanger unit to heat-up the injection fluid, a soda ash unit, a dry polymer feed unit with maturation tanks, filtration units,
and 5 high pressure injection pumps. Figure 6 is a PFD diagram that shows a typical ASP injection facility. The size and
complexity of a skid-mounted unit depends on the number of injection wells, number of chemicals to be injected, and the
processing requirements. This type of injection facility is factory assembled and tested before shipping. Then the entire unit is
dis-assembled and packaged for shipping. The entire unit is then re-assembled onsite for routine operation. This type of
injection facility is used for medium term operations from 12 to 36 months and is most suitable for multi-injection well pilot
tests, onshore or offshore. This type of injection facility is mostly fully automated.

Permanent or semi-permanent unit A permanent unit is usually designed for large-scale CEOR projects with at least a
6 SPE 165308

dozen injection wells. This type of unit is usually built for longer terms and for either semi-permanent or permanent
operations. This type of injection facility is very similar to the above mobile or skid-mounted units except that it is on a much
larger scale. The injection units are usually pre-built and tested at the factory before shipping; then assembled and
permanently installed onsite as a multi-well injection system. One major difference between the large permanent type unit
and the smaller mobile or skid-mounted unit is the placement of different functions at different sites. For example a central
processing facility (CPF) would be placed away from each injection well pad (WP) due to the fact that the CPF could provide
chemical solutions to several WPs. An example of a large chemical injection station as such is shown in Figure 7.

Design Criteria

Water quality The requirements for water quality is dependent on the type of process. For example, divalent cations have to
be removed for the ASP process but do not have to be removed for the PF process. But the removal of iron, killing bacteria,
and use of oxygen scavenger are needed for all CEOR processes. Table 2 summarizes the water quality requirements in
CEOR processes.

Polymer (HPAM) solution quality Polymer is required in all CEOR processes for mobility control. Because of the non-
Newtonian behavior of the polymer solution, potential degradations in the processing system, and the sensitivity to chemical
species in the brine, special techniques and equipment are required to make a good quality polymer solution. Since polymers
have been studied in the laboratory and used in the field for over three decades, the shear thinning/thickening behavior, the
chemical and mechanical shear, and the sensitivity to salinity have been discussed thoroughly in the literature and will not be
discussed here. However, two important aspects to be considered in the equipment design for handling the polymer solution
are the mechanical shear and the type of water used in the preparation of the MS. The presence of fish eyes in the polymer
solution was once a major issue in polymer solution quality. But improvements in the design of the wetting system in recent
years have eliminated this problem.

One issue in the preparation of the polymer mother solution is the maximum concentration. Most operators prefer higher
concentrations such as 15,000 ppm to save space and operating costs although the facility supplier has to consider the
practical limit that can be handled properly by the equipment. In reality, the issue is the viscosity of the MS as opposed to the
concentration. For example, the viscosity of a MS at 5,000 ppm solution in fresh water would have the same viscosity as an
MS containing 15,000 ppm polymer prepared in a brine with a TDS of 10,000 ppm. Higher viscosities would be more
difficult to agitate in the mixing and maturation tanks and also would be difficult to transfer via pumps and lines. At higher
salinity, higher concentrations of polymer solution may be prepared, but dry polymers are more difficult to dissolve in high
salinity brines. Therefore, special designs such as extra strength agitators (motor and belts) and special pumps and size of
pipelines need to be considered. In addition, laboratory viscosity data with field brines and small-scale tests are necessary for
proper design of high concentration polymer mother solutions. Most current equipment design limits on polymer MS
concentration is approximately 10,000 ppm.

Mechanical shear is a serious problem in the polymer mixing and transferring equipment. Normally, high concentration
mother solution is less susceptible to shear than the diluted polymer solutions. Therefore, special attention should be focused
on polymer delivery systems such as the size (related to the flow velocity) and length of the pipeline, rate and size of the
positive displacement injection pump, types of valves/filters, and etc. Normally, a 20% loss in viscosity from the initial
dilution to wellhead can be expected. Refined designs may reduce such losses to about 10%. In most polymer injection
systems, a final filtration is used prior to the high-pressure injection pump to avoid potential damage of the pump and to
minimize the potential loss of injectivity.

ASP, ACP, or SP solution quality Other than the quality issue related to the polymer, the main concern of slug quality is the
designed concentration that is related to the mixing and metering systems. Alkaline chemicals such as soda ash or caustic
soda are readily soluble in brines and are available in higher concentration levels up to several percent by weight. At high
concentrations, the tolerance in the metering system is not as strict as in the low concentration, less than 0.5%, systems. In the
ASP system, surfactant concentrations may be as low as 0.1% by weight. Precise control by the PLC and metering systems is
absolutely required. Proper design of the static mixer and the final filtration system will ensure the final injection quality.
Properly designed sampling devices at the wellhead and in the injection plant need to be installed for frequent sampling of
injection fluid for viscosity and concentration measurements. Wellhead samples should be taken frequently for quality
control especially in the start-up and commissioning state. Field labs are also necessary and should be equipped with proper
equipment for quality control, not only for the specs of the injection fluid but also for chemical specs delivered by the
chemical suppliers. A polymer viscometer, a filtration device, a simple titration equipment, and phase behavior testing tubes
(if SP, ASP, or ACP is used) are sufficient for onsite analyses.

Recent Improvements and New Concepts

SPE 165308 7

Injection pumps

Since polymer solutions are susceptible to mechanical shear, low shear piston and metering pumps have been developed and
used in the polymer injection system, particularly in China due to the large number of polymer flooding projects. The other
area of concern is the corrosion experienced with the ASP system. Anti-corrosive materials and methods have been
developed for pumps and pipe lines for chemical slugs containing corrosive chemicals.

Improved agitation and maturation process

Improvements have also been made in the design of the agitator used in the mixing/dispersion tank and also in the maturation
tank. With the newly designed agitator and the improved maturation technology, the total mixing/dispersion/maturation time
can be reduced by ~60 minutes.

High-energy water jet system

Conventional polymer mixing uses the high-energy jet feed as shown in Figure 8 although other techniques such as the spray
mist and water film have also been used. The principle of the high-energy jet uses the strong negative pressure generated by
the high-speed water jet pumped through a high-pressure centrifugal pump. The dry polymer is fed into the vacuum line
through a metering screw feeder and mixed with the high-speed water at the outlets. The high speed feed system creates an
instant wetting and dispersion of the dry polymer to form a concentrated polymer MS without any fish eyes. The maturation
process is a low-energy slow mixing to continue the hydration of the polymer. A PLC system is used to control the
concentration of the MS by setting the rates of water rate and polymer. The device is simple, easy to maintain, and low cost.

Polymer slicing unit (PSU)

The PSU is a device modified from the equipment made by URSCHEL Laboratories, Inc. and used in the food processing
industry. It is a high precision and high-speed, several thousand rpm, machine composed of a housing that contains a series of
sharp rotary blades. The dry polymer and water mix is fed into the high-speed rotary blades to provide 100% dispersion and
mixing without any fish eyes. This device is relatively small and can provide continuous operation in an enclosed system that
contains hazardous gases such as H2S in the feed brine. However, it is much more expensive than the high-energy water jet
mixing/dispersion system and maintenance costs are also very high.

Single pump single well (SPSW) and single pump multi-well (SPMW) injection systems

The CEOR projects normally require the flexibility to vary the rate and concentration of chemicals in each injection well
even in commercial operations. A wellhead-choking device is normally used in the water flood process. However, this
choking device cannot be used in CEOR processes because of it will generate a mechanical shear creating a severe loss in the
viscosity of the polymer used in chemical formulations. Therefore, a dedicated pump is used in many conventional chemical-
flooding projects or the single pump single well (SPSW) type of operation. Due to the high cost of the injection pump,
normally the high-pressure triplex type, capital investments are excessively high which will have significant impact on the
overall economics due to the high costs of chemicals. A method to control the flow capacity into each individual well by
using a flow loop containing a long tubing with small diameters has been used in some field polymer flooding operations to
reduce the investment in injection pumps. The disadvantage of such a system is the excessive size, the difficulty in
adjustments once it is installed, and the severe loss of the polymer viscosity, 9-16%.

In order to lower the capital investment, a new wellhead flow control device was invented to reduce the number of injection
pumps in large-scale EOR field operations. The patented device is called a low shear valve (LSV) for controlling fluid
distribution into each well. In this design, a single pump may handle multiple injection wells up to nine wells per pump. This
is called a single pump multi-well (SPMW) system. The LSV, as shown in Figure 9, is specially designed to reduce the
mechanical shear of the polymer and also to provide control over the flow of individual well rates and the chemical
concentration. This device will reduce the capital investment significantly and is currently being used in the Daqing oilfield
in China in commercial-scale polymer flooding. Based on the current application of the SPMW system in the Daqing oilfield
in China, cost savings for single application is estimated to be about 15% as compared to the SPSW system. Cost savings for
multiple usage of the LSV system as compared to the use of injection pumps is about 47%. The viscosity loss of the LSV unit
tested in the laboratory is about 2-4% depending on the pressure drop across the unit.

High rate and high-pressure injection pump for multi-well applications

The application of a high-rate and high-pressure injection pump for multi-well applications also has been used in large-scale
field applications in China. The application is limited to wells with low injection rates, about less than 500 BPD. In this case,
8 SPE 165308

each piston is used for injection the chemical slug into one well. The maximum number of piston and the injection well with
one large pump can be as many as nine.

Field Implementation

Injectivity tests

Because of the requirement of mobility control in all chemical flooding process, polymer has been used in all CEOR
processes in recent years. Due to the high viscosity of the fluid, injectivity tests are almost a necessary step before the
implementation of a field project. This is normally a single well test with a simple mobile injection unit that contains a
polymer-storage, loading and dispersion, mixing and maturation, injection and monitoring, and an automatic system.
Injectivity tests are usually short term with only the polymer solution.

Pilot test

A pilot test can be a single well or a multi-well test depending on the objective. The injectivity test may be combined with the
pilot test as the first step using a single well, with water into other wells in the multi-well case. The equipment used could be
the same as the single well injectivity test if only polymer is used. However, more processing equipment will be required for
the surfactant-polymer (SP) or alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) processes.

Field expansion

When the pilot test shows successful, a field-wide or a staged expansion can be implemented. Depending on the size of the
expansion, the injection facility may be designed and installed in permanent buildings or on pre-fabricated and factory tested
skids. The basis for the design of a large-scale injection facility is about the same as that used in the pilot test with two major
differences: the size and the number of units of the equipment, and the storage facilities which must handle large quantities of
chemical supplies. Large-scale polymer flooding has been applied in China, Oman, and Canada in recent years. Large-scale
ASP flooding also has been applied in the Daqing oilfield in China since 2006 (Chang et al., 2006). Experiences from these
large-scale operations are valuable in the design, fabrication, and logistics for implementation of commercial-scale field
project in other parts of the world.

Commercial application

The normal operation of a commercial-scale CEOR project usually requires a central processing facility (CPF) to prepare all
high concentration chemical systems which are then distributed to each well-pad (WP) where each could supply injections
for 10 to 40 wells depending on the individual well rate and location. Each WP will have dilution, final filtration, and
injection facilities. Most equipment, either at the CFP or WP, are installed in a concrete floor and housed in a permanent
building. In some cases, the system can be designed and installed in an open environment.

Standards and Codes, Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC), and Health-Safety-Environmental
(HSE) Issues

Design standards and codes

There are different type of standards and codes in the design and fabrication of chemical injection facilities. In most cases,
equipment manufacturers have to meet the international standards such as API and ASME especially for high-pressure
vessels and equipment as it relates to high-temperature operations. The international standards are the minimum
requirements, but each operator or country may have their own standards and codes in equipment design and manufacturing.
Normally, these standards and codes will be provided to qualified facility bidders in the tendering process including qualified
vendor lists. Furthermore, equipment suppliers also need to apply for and receive certifications from API or ASME for
manufacturing certain equipment and to provide special training for shop technicians who perform specialized operations
such welding.

QA/QC

Each facility manufacturer would have its own internal QA/QC manuals for acquisition and procurement of materials and
parts and for the equipment manufacturing process. In addition, manuals for QA/QC (fluids and raw materials), operation and
maintenance, monitoring and surveillance, and commissioning and training are required for successful implementation of
field projects.
SPE 165308 9

HSE issues

Equipment manufacturers should have an internal HSE manual in the fabrication process. In addition, each region in each
country also has its own HSE requirements and regulations. Most common HSE issues are similar worldwide, but special
requirements may be imposed in different areas, particularly in the offshore areas such as California and the Gulf of Mexico,
USA, North Sea in Europe, and Malaysia in South Asia. The injection facility designer for CEOR facilities needs to be
familiar with these special HSE regulations and codes in order to avoid high cost penalties, delays in delivery, and, in the
most serious cases, the termination of the project.

Commissioning, Training, and Follow-up Services

Even with pre-factory tested facilities, on-site hook-up and installation, start-up and commissioning are always required steps
in the field. Facility engineers, including mechanical, electrical, control and automation, and etc., need to be onsite for the
commissioning and training process. Routine and preventative maintenance schedules, trouble-shooting techniques, spare
parts inventory, and etc. are key parts of the training process. Normal onsite commissioning and training should take about
30-60 days. Facility providers could also provide longer term, 3 to 9 months, follow-up services for operators with minimal
experience and internal trained operation staff.

Conclusions

Over the years, many different types of chemical injection facilities have been developed to handle the mixing and injection
of chemical systems for different sizes of projects. Since most of the chemicals are relatively easy to handle and mix, most of
the enhancement efforts were focused on the development of equipment that could handle and mix the polymer solution to
meet specifications with no fish eyes in the MS, faster wetting, higher concentration, and faster maturation process.
Improvements in the injection system for commercial-scale applications are the low shear single pump multi-well injection
process. The existing injection facilities are adequate for onshore CEOR projects. However, continued development of new
facilities for offshore applications with equipment having less weight, smaller size, and the capability of continuous operation
is necessary.
10 SPE 165308

References

1. Chang, H. L. (1978). Polymer Flooding, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, JPT 1123-1128, 1978
2. Levitt, D. B. (2009). The Optimal Use of Enhanced Oil Recovery Polymers Under Hostile Conditions, Ph. D. Thesis,
University of Texas, 2009
3. Qiao, Q., Gu, H.J., Li, D.W., Dong, L. (2000). The Pilot Test of ASP Combination Flooding in Karamay Oil Field, SPE
64726, International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, 7-10 November.
4. Pandey, A., Kumar, M.S., Jha, M.K., Tandon, R., Punnapully, B.S., Kalugin, M., Khare, A., Beliveau, D. (2012).
Chemical EOR Pilot in Mangala Field, Results of initial Polymer Flood Phase, SPE 154159-MS, SPE EOR/IOR
Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA (14-18 April).
5. Chang, H.L., Zhang, Z.Q., Wang, Q.M., Xu, Z.S., Guo, Z.D., Sun, H.Q., Cao, X.L., Qiao, Q. (2006). Advances in
Polymer Flooding and Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Processes Developed and Applied in the Peoples Republic of
China, JPT, 74 (February).
SPE 165308 11

Symbols, Chemical Compounds, and Abbreviations

ACP Alkaline-Cosolvent-Polymer
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASP Alkaline-Surfactnat-Polymer
BPD Barrels per Day
Ca++ Calcium Ion
CEOR Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery
CPF Central Process Facility
DGBE - Diethylene Glycol Butyl Ether
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
Fe++ Ferrous Iron
Fe+++ Ferric Iron
Fe2O3 Iron Oxide
HPAM Hydrolized Polyacrylamide
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
IBA Iso-Butyl Alcohol
Mg++ Magnesium Ion
MS Mother Solution
MW Molecular Weight -
Na2CO3 Sodium Carbonate
NaOH Sodium Hydroxide
Na4SiO4 Sodium Silicate
NaBO2 Sodium Metaborate
LSV Low Shear Valve
PF Polymer Flooding
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PLC Process Logic Control
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PSU Polymer Slicing Unit
RO Reverse Osmosis
SPSW Single Pump Single Well
SPMW Single Pump Multi-Well
SS Suspended Solid
TSS Total Suspended Solid
USD United States Dollar
UV Ultra Violet
WP Well Pad
WSU Water Softening Unit
12 SPE 165308

List of Tables

Table 1 Type of Chemicals, Processing Equipment, and Concentration Ranges

Table 2 Chemical Flooding Water Quality Requirement
SPE 165308 13

Table 1 Type of Chemicals, Processing Equipment, and Concentration Ranges

Chemicals Concentration Range Processing Equipment
Active ppm Active wt.%
Polymer
Mother Solution 5000 15000 0.5 1.5 Mixing/Dispersion/Maturation/Transferring/Metering
Polymer Slug 200 3500 0.02 0.35 Dilution/Mixing/Filtration/Metering/Injection
Surfactants*, SP 5000 25000 0.5 2.5 Dilution/Metering/Mixing/Dilution
Surfactants*, ASP 1000 5000 0.1 0.5 Dilution/Metering/Mixing/Dilution
Surfactants, ACP 0 0 Dilution/Metering/Mixing/Dilution
Cosolvents** 5000 20000 0.5 2.0 Dilution/Metering/Mixing/Dilution
Alkali 5000 25000 0.5 2.5 Dissolving/Dilution/Metering/Mixing
Polymer Storage, Transfer Silos/Bags (25 kg and 750 kg), Pneumatic/Manual
Surfactant/Cosolvent Storage Tanks/Drums/Heating/Circulation/Pumps
Alkali Storage, Transfer Silos, Pneumatic
* Including primary and cosufactants
** Cosolvents including used in ACP, ASP, and SP

Table 1 Type of Chemicals, Processing Equipment, and Concentration Ranges

14 SPE 165308

Table 2 Chemical Flooding Water Quality Requirement

SPE 165308 15

List of Figures

Figure 1 A PFD of the Surfactant Handling and Mixing System

Figure 2 A Typical Soda Ash Storage and Mixing System
Figure 3 A PFD of the Polymer Dispersion and Mixing System
Figure 4 A Mobile Polymer Injection Unit Containing 3 Modules
Figure 5 A Photograph Showing A Complex ASP Pilot Injection Facility
Figure 6 A PFD Showing a Typical ASP Injection Facility
Figure 7 A Large-Scale ASP Injection Station
Figure 8 A High-Energy Water Jet Polymer Mixing and Dispersion Unit
Figure 9 A Flow Diagram of the LSV Unit
16 SPE 165308

Figure 1 A PFD of the Surfactant Handling and Mixing System

SPE 165308 17

Figure 2 A Typical Soda Ash Storage and Mixing System

18 SPE 165308

Figure 3 A PFD of the Polymer Dispersion and Mixing System

SPE 165308 19

Figure 4 A Mobile Polymer Injection Unit Containning 3 Modules

20 SPE 165308

Injection Unit
Water Treatment

Soda Ash Feed

Polymer Feed

Heat Exchanger

Figure 5 A Photograph Showing A Complex ASP Pilot Injection Facility

SPE 165308 21

Figure 6 A PFD Showing a Typical ASP Injection Facility

22 SPE 165308

Figure 7 A Large-Scale ASP Injection Station

SPE 165308 23

Figure 8 A High-Energy Water Jet Polymer Mixing and Dispersion Unit

24 SPE 165308

Figure 9 A Flow Diagram of the LSV Unit