Chemical EOR - Heavy oil recovery

Outline
• Stages of Oil Recovery
• EOR recovery concepts
• EOR and heavy oil
• Chemical EOR for heavy oil
• Chemical EOR methods
• Injectivity issues - major limitations in heavy oil
• Good recovery at adverse mobility ratio
• Field cases- chemical EOR projects in heavy oil
field and lessons learnt
• Summarized concerns and possible solutions
 Stages of oil recovery
Recovery Mechanisms

Natural Drives

Gravity Drainage Water Drive Gas Cap Drive Solution gas Drive

Pressure Maintenance ( Secondary Recovery)

Water Injection Gas Injection

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Gas (Miscible) Chemical Thermal Others

CO2 Surfactant Steam

Polymer Smart water
Nitrogen SAGD
Surfactant-polymer Microbial
Hydrocarbon ASP CSS
Electrical
Foam Viscoelastic Surfactant Fire flooding
 EOR concepts
1. Surfactant flooding
Capillary number reduces IFT
High (above critical Nc)
𝑣∗𝜇 gives high displacement 2. SP and ASP flooding
𝑁𝑐 = 𝜎
and low residual oil
saturation
reduces IFT
3. Miscible flood leads to
zero IFT theoretically
Mobility ratio
Less than 1 gives 1. Polymer flooding
𝐾𝑟𝑤 favorable sweep and
ൗ𝜇𝑤 reduces remaining 2. Steam flooding and other
𝑀= 𝐾𝑟𝑜 oil saturation thermal methods
ൗ𝜇𝑜 3. Polymer based other EOR
methods
Deborah number More than 1
can give good
𝐷𝑒 = 𝜏𝑟𝑒𝑙 /𝜏𝑟𝑒𝑠 viscoelastic
displacement 1. Viscoelastic polymers
2. Viscoelastic surfactants
 Why EOR for Heavy oil ?
• Reserves=Resources*Recovery factor
• The oil industries cannot guarantee new resources
• New resources lies in the deep offshore, remote forests
and complicated area
• EOR techniques for the unconventional resources
(shale oil) was not developed yet.
• Heavy oil resources accounts for 3,336 billion barrels.
• Average water flooding recovery factor in heavy oil
reservoir is just 10% ( poor sweep due to viscous
fingering)
• Increasing the recovery factor of heavy oil via EOR
methods will translate lot of resources into reserves
 Why chemical EOR for heavy oil?
➢Thermal EOR methods are mainly applied in
heavy oil recovery. Heat supplied by the thermal
methods reduces the oil viscosity and mobilize
it.
Screening criteria proposed by Taber • There are 22.87 billion barrels of heavy oil
restricted the applicability of thermal resources in the west central part of
methods to reservoirs possessing the Saskatchewan alone (Saskatchewan
following characteristic ministry of Economy 2008). These reservoir
a. Thickness above 20ft possess thickness less than 10 m
b. Reservoirs deeper than 4500 ft • 80% of 70 billion barrels oil is trapped in
c. Sandstone reservoirs with sands of western Canada that possess
relatively less fractures than thickness less than 16 ft (Adams 1982).
Carbonate
Thermal Fails, Chemical Provides an option in
thin reservoirs
Traditional limits of chemical EOR

High Performance
systems and
optimization can
expand the limit

Source: Sharma 2013, EOR Conference,

Malaysia.
 Surfactant flooding
➢ Involves the injection of surfactant solutions (0.1 to 0.5 PV)
into the water flooded reservoirs.
➢ Four different types of surfactants are cationic , anionic, non-
ionic and zwitterionic surfactants
➢ Surfactant forms micelles that reduces the IFT between oil
and water and thus reduces capillary force trapping the
residual oil.
Different kind of
micelles

Surfactant molecule has

hydrophilic polar head (blue)
and hydrophobic tail (tail)
 Numerical Problem: Significance of
Adsorption in Surfactant flooding
Consider a micellar displacement process in the system with 5 acre spacing. A 5
PV% micro-emulsion slug is to be injected and the slug will contain 5 vol%
petroleum sulfonate. Assuming that the average adsorption is 0.4 mg/g of rock,
calculate the fraction of the injected surfactant that will be adsorbed
What do you interpret from the result?
Additional data: Density of solid rock (𝜌𝑟 ) =2.7 gm/cm3
Density of sulfonate (𝜌) =1.1 gm/cm3
Porosity (𝜑) = 0.30
Thickness – 1 ft
 Numerical Problem: Surfactant flood and IFT

Above Figure shows an oil blob being displaced by water at the pore scale in a reservoir. The blob
has encountered a constriction at a pore throat. Obviously, in order for the oil blob to pass through
the constriction and be produced, a sufficiently high pressure gradient must be applied across the
blob. If such a pressure gradient cannot be generated by the water injection, then the blob will be
trapped as residual oil. Pressure gradient required to mobilize the oil blob is given. The objective of
this exercise is to determine whether or not such gradients can be created under normal oilfield flow
conditions. Here are additional facts about the problem.

Wetting phase = water

Oil-water interfacial tension = σ dynes/cm
Contact angle = θ°
Radius of pore body = R cm
Radius of pore throat = r cm
Length of blob = L cm
Pressure gradient required to mobilize the oil from the coarse sand is 169 psi/ft
Pressure gradient required to mobilize the oi from fine sand is 4243 psi/ft
 Numerical Problem: Surfactant flood and IFT

Question 1 Question 2

Calculate the pressure gradients What should be minimum IFT of the

generated in a normal waterf lood in a surfactant so that oil can be mobilized
medium sand and a fine sand using the from both the sands
following assumptions:
Darcy velocity = 1 ft/day
Water viscosity = 1 cp
Effective permeability to water for
medium sand = 2 D
Effective permeability to water for very
fine sand = 500 mD
Are these pressure gradients sufficient
to mobilize the oil blob
IFT Measurements in Lab- Spinning Drop tensiometer
Features
1. Can measure ultra-low
IFT
2. Can be operated at
high temperature
3. Heavy/light oil can be
used as light phase
4. Used for screening the
optimal chemical slugs
for attaining high
capillary number with
any sort of oil
 Surfactant flooding- Issues

1. Surfactant solution is less viscous. So it may lead to channeling and

fingering that results in poor sweep
2. Most of the conventional surfactants are Susceptibility to high
temperature and salinity
3. Adsorption is the major issue with surfactant flooding
4. Surfactants flooding are applicable to reservoir with viscosities less
than 20 cP
 Surfactant Polymer flooding
➢Involves the injection of surfactant-polymer
slugs as the displacing fluids
➢Surfactant provide IFT reduction and polymer
provides mobility control

Issues: Chromatographic separation leads to surfactant-polymer incompatibility (SPI)

problems (often overlooked in the short scale core studies)
Alkaline surfactant polymer flooding
It serves two purposes.
Purpose 1:
• Alkali reacts with acidic oil to form in-situ surfactants that
reduces the IFT. Surfactant is added in low concentration.
Polymer is added for mobility control. This minimize the
requirement of expensive surfactant.
• Acid number should be higher than 0.5 mg KOH/g to form
in-situ surfactants (Liu et al. 2008)
• Heavy oi usually has acidic components.
Purpose 2:
• Alkali is also added as the sacrificial agent (for surfactant) in
ASP slug.

Most of Canadian ASP pilots for heavy oil are designed to serve
the 1st purpose (Delamaide et al. 2014)
 Phase Behavior Studies
▪ Phase behavior experiments gives an idea about the ability of chemical slugs to provide ultra-
low IFT without performing IFT experiments. IFT experiments are expensive
▪ There exists the optimal salinity and surfactant concentration at which low IFT can be attained
for the specific system (Surfactant, salts, oil)
▪ Three types of phase behavior (when adding surfactant to water-oil system) exists
1. Winsor Type I : forms oil – in – water microemulsions in the water phase
2. Winsor Type 2 :forms water – in – oil microemulsions in the oil phase
3. Winsor Type 3 :forms microemulsions in the separate phase between oil and water. it is a
continuous phase (Ideal for ultra-low IFT)

Type 3 gives
Ultra-low IFT
Phase behavior of ASP slugs with heavy oil
For 1% surfactant ASP slug with For 1% surfactant ASP slug with varying
varying salinity : Phase behavior salinity : IFT by Spinning drop

Optimal IFT is with

2.5% NaCl
Key points:
1. In Type 3, three distinct phases are not
observed with heavy oil. This is the limitations.
2. Phase behavior can give a qualitative
Tubes from 0.5 to 3 gives information but not exact quantitative
Type 3 and optimal salinity information as can be seen optimal salinity is
is between 1.5 and 2 2.5% NaCl as shown by direct IFT
(Average). measurements and not between 1.5 and 2
3. So IFT measurements is highly recommended in
the case of heavy oil
ASP flooding- Scaling Issues and Prevention

• ASP slugs are usually carried out in softened water (low concentration of divalent Ca2+
and Mg 2+). But connate water has significant amount of divalent ions
• At high pH (Around 9), Magnesium can bridge the colloidal silicate particles and forms
an amorphous magnesium silicate scale
• At high pH (Around 9), Calcium forms calcium carbonate which provides nuclei for the
formation of silicate scale
• This affects production and injection tubulars and slows down the efficiency of the
pumps.
• It also leads to the formation damage which eventually reduces the injectivity of the
process
 ASP flooding- Scaling Monitoring and
Prevention
Steel coupons installed at well head gives the
intent of shale deposition
Stage 1: No deposit
Stage 2: Filmy
Stage 3: Light scale
Stage 4: loose scale
Stage 5: Scale and
Scale 6: Heavy scale
Accordingly, inhibition measures can be
taken

As the ASP slugs gets propagated in the reservoir, produced fluid will have various pH,
concentrations of silicate, magnesium and calcium
Prevention:
1. Mechanical inhibition
2. Chemical inhibition
ASP slugs are avoided in carbonate formation as the alkali loses its alkalinity
and induces the permeability damage due to precipitation of CaC03
ASP flooding- Recovery Mechanisms in
heavy oil
• ASP reduces the IFT and increase the capillary
number
• However for viscous oil, sweep efficiency is
more important
• Under low IFT, oil and water can mix and lead
to formation of oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions.
In the presence of salts, water-in-oil (W/O)
emulsions are expected to be formed.
• Both the emulsions provides an additional
viscous force that increases the sweep
efficiency (needed for heavy oil recovery)
 Polymer flooding
➢ Involves the injection of polymeric solutions as the displacing fluid to
increase the sweep efficiency.
➢ Polymer flooding provides favorable mobility ratio by increasing the
viscosity of the water and decreasing the permeability of water. It avoids
fingering to increase the sweep efficiency (mainly applicable in heavy oil
recovery)
➢ Polymer flooding also can be used for conformance control applications in
fractured and channeled reservoirs
Polymer flooding – Rheological behavior
➢ Two major types of polymer are Xanthan gum and Hydrolyzed
polyacrylamide (HPAM)
➢ Xanthan gum is a purely viscous polymer and HPAM is viscoelastic
polymer. (HPAM is mostly preferred for heavy oil applications)
➢ Rheology of viscous and viscoelastic polymers differs significantly

• Displacing polymeric solutions exhibits non-newtonian behavior

and are subjected to both shear and elongational flow in reservoir
• At high shear rates, the flow becomes elongational
• Viscoelastic polymeric solutions exhibits much higher extensional
viscosity than shear viscosity.
• The viscoelastic polymer solutions that thins in the shear field,
thickens in the extensional field and in porous media.
Polymer flooding – Rheological behavior

Delshad et al. 2008 UVM model requires core flood data for
Carreau model based on rheological data
extracting the extensional parameter
alone
Numerical Problem: Polymer flood- Injectivity
1. Calculate the injectivity of viscoelastic polymeric solutions using
carreau model, UVM model and true apparent viscosity from the
figure in the previous page.
a. Assume the shear rate of 1000/s = velocity of 100 ft/day. This is the
rate around the wellbore. Use the core dimensions - core length- 12 cm ,
diameter= 1.5 cm
2. Using the three different core injectivity results , calculate how much
would be safe injection pressure that can be generated by the polymer
solutions in the reservoirs if the depth is 2000 ft and fracture gradient is
0.7 psi/ft.
3. Compare the three results.
3. Explain, what will happen if you go with the carreau model and UVM?
4. What difficulty would be there with UVM model in terms of field
applications?
Rheological Measurements in Lab- Shear and Extensional rheometer

Rotational rheometer

Features
1. Can measure both shear and
extensional properties
2. Proprietary viscoelastic model
(Patent submitted) is developed
Extensional rheometer using shear and extensional
parameters
Fractional Flow curve: Effect on heavy oil
and Polymer flood
Case 1 – End point mobility ratio – 3
(Water flood in light oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 10 cP)
Case 2 – End point mobility ratio - 60
(Water flood in heavy oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 100 cP)
Case 3 – End point mobility ratio – 0.03
(Polymer flood in light oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 00 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 10 cP)

Case 2
Water flow is high even at low saturation. Means less oil is in flowing
(So more Fingering, less stable front).
This is the case with 100 cP oil itself.

Case 1
Water flow is nominal even at low saturation.
(So not much Fingering, stable front than case 2)

Case 3 (Best)
Water flow is low even at high saturation. Means more oil is
flowing.
(So no Fingering, very stable front)
Fractional Flow curve: Effect on heavy oil
and Polymer flood
Case 1 – End point mobility ratio – 3
(Water flood in light oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 10 cP)
Case 2 – End point mobility ratio - 60
(Water flood in heavy oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 100 cP)
Case 3 – End point mobility ratio – 0.03
(Polymer flood in light oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 00 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 10 cP)
Case 2
Water saturation front is lowest . Lots of oil need to be recovered in this
Fingering displacement.
(Almost reached the producer and early break through).
This is the case with 100 cP oil itself.

Case 1
Water saturation front is higher than case 2.
(better than case 2)

Case 3 (Best)
Water saturation front is highest. Almost reached the residual oil
saturation. Piston like displacement.
(The front is still a long way from reaching the producer)
Fractional Flow curve: Effect on heavy oil
and Polymer flood
Case 1 – End point mobility ratio – 3
(Water flood in light oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 10 cP)
Case 2 – End point mobility ratio - 60
(Water flood in heavy oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 100 cP)
Case 3 – End point mobility ratio – 0.03
(Polymer flood in light oil reservoir : Displacing fluid viscosity is 1 00 cP and Displaced oil viscosity- 10 cP)

Case 2
Break through recovery is less. Need more pore volume of injection to increase
the recovery
This is the case with 100 cP oil itself.

Case 1
Break through recovery is higher than case 2.
(better than case 2)

Case 3 (Best)
Reached residual oil recovery even during break through.
(Recovered the maximum recoverable oil in short time. Profitable
project if polymer is added to water)

?
Can Polymer flood recover more than
residual oil limit ?
Yes if the polymer is viscoelastic
 Polymer flooding- Issues
1. Most of the polymers are susceptible to
mechanical degradation. This will makes the
polymer ineffective to sweep the oil in
farthest part of the reservoirs
2. Injectivity becomes an issue when applied at
high concentration for heavy oil recovery
(due to shear thickening)
3. Most of the polymers fails to make provide
the required viscosity needed for mobility
control in heavy oil recovery applications
4. Quantification of viscoelastic effects , a major
challenge in chemical EOR industry
 Why Injectivity is crucial for heavy oil
reservoirs ?
• Injectivity is the measurement of ease with
which the fluid can be injected into the
reservoir (Hyne 1994)

(Seright 2010)
(Seright 2010)
CHEMICAL EOR in Heavy oil reservoirs: The case
studies
Barmer Basin
 Polymer flood Case Study – 1 (Bohai Field,
China)
Bohai field – Rock and Fluid Properties
Porosity- 28 to 35%; Average Permeability – 2600 mD ; Thickness – 61.5 m ;
Depth – 1300 to 1600 m; Reservoir temperature - 65Oil viscosity – 240 cP;
Polymer viscosity – 80 cP; Formation – sandstone (poorly consolidated)

1. Water flood recovery factor is 13.5%

2. China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) started single
well polymer flood since 2002 and continued for 500 days
a. incremental oil of 25000 was attained and water cut
dropped from 94% to 53%
3. Polymer flood project was expanded (53 operations) and until
2010, incremental oil produced was about 63600
 Case Study – 1 (Bohai Field, China)
Key points:
• A successful project but the oil viscosity is just 240
cP.
• The polymer flood should be applied to reservoir
with high viscosity
Polymer flood Case Study – 2 (Tambaredjo
Field, Suriname)
Tambaredjo field– Rock and Fluid Properties
Porosity- 33%; Average Permeability – 3- 6 Darcy; Thickness – 6.7 m ; Depth – 387 m;
Reservoir temperature - 36℃; Oil viscosity – 400 Cp; Polymer viscosity – 44 to 60 cP;
Formation – sandstone
1. Polymer flood started in September 2008
2. Polymer injection rate was 32 m3/day (10 times less than
water flood- low injectivity)
3. Till 2010, almost 0.22 PV of polymer injected
4. It was estimated that 40% of polymer flood viscosity was
lost before entering the formation rock
5. The production response was not reported (Manichand
et al. 2010)
 Case Study – 2 (Tambaredjo Field,
Suriname)
Key points:
1.Injectivity of polymer flood is 10 times less than
water flood
2.Polymer degradation occurs that hampers the
desired polymer viscosity in the reservoir
Degradation might be due to
1.High salinity
2.Viscoelastic nature
 Polymer flood Case Study – 3 (Marmul
Field, Oman)
Marmul field– Rock and Fluid Properties
Depth – 610 m; Reservoir temperature - 46℃; Oil viscosity – 80 to 110 cP; Polymer viscosity
– 15 cP
1. Polymer flood pilot took place between 1986 and 1988
2. From May 1986 to Jan 1988, a water preflush of 0.23 PV,
Polymer slug of 0.63 PV and post water flush of 0.38 PV
was injected.
3. Recovery was 12% at the end of water preflush, 46% at
the end of polymer flood and 59% at the end of post
water flush (Koning et al. 1988)
4. PDO stopped the project in 1990s
5. PDO started the large scale project in Oman and estimated
the recovery to be 30%
 Polymer flood Case Study – 4 (East Bodo
Reservoir, Canada)
East bodo– Rock and Fluid Properties
a. Permeability - 1000 mD; Formation - Sandstone ; Oil viscosity – 600 to
2000 Cp
1. The polymer injection with horizontal well was initiated in May 2006
2. The major challenge is quality of water used for polymer preparation
3. At the early stage, maximum viscosity produced with formation water was
only 10 cP at 1500 ppm concentration
4. With fresh water, the same polymer solution achieved the maximum
viscosity of 60 cP
5. The well pressure reads about 870 Psi at the injection rate of 1258 bbl/day
6. No production details were given ( Wassmuth et al. 2009)
 Case Study – 4 (East Bodo Reservoir,
Canada)
Key points
1.Salinity appears to be definite problem in attaining the maximum
viscosity that is needed for mobility contorl with heavy oil
2.Fresh water usage can be expensive as well as it may lead to
incompatible problems when it encounters the connate water
 Case Study – 5(Mooney blue sky, Canada)
Mooney blue sky– Rock and Fluid Properties
a. Average Permeability - 3 Darcy (100- 10,000 mD): Porosity – 30%: Formation - Sandstone : Average thickness –
2.5 m : Dead Oil viscosity – 300 to 1500 c P ; Live oil viscosity – 120- 300 Cp; Reservoir temperature –
29℃; Depth – 900 – 950 m ; Polymer solution viscosity : 20 – 30 c P

• The pool was discovered in 1986 and over all primary recovery factor (using
both vertical and horizontal wells) is 4%. Low thickness, high oil viscosity and
high water cut are reasons
• Water flooding was initiated in 2006 (1 injector and 2 producers) with
horizontal wells. Break through was quick and oil rates dropped suddenly.
This is attributed to the mobile water presence and heterogeneity
• Polymer flood was started in Nov 2008 ( 2 injectors and 3 producers) with
horizontal wells. Oil production was good for a first few months. Then water
cut increased drastically. Recovery from the central well was 13%.
Key lessons from Mooney : Presence of High Mobile water

Presence of high
mobile water
indeed results in
early break
through (in
mooney and
pelican lake
region)

Seal 1, seal 2 and Pelican lake pilot with

Delamaide et al. 2014
low initial mobile water results in low
water cut initially
 ASP flood Case Study – 6 (Taber, Canada)
Taber field– Rock and Fluid Properties
Depth - 985 m; Average thickness- 7.1 m; Porosity – 18% - 28%; Reservoir temperature-
35℃; Dead oil viscosity – 120 cP ; Live oil viscosity – 40 c P; Permeability-1500 – 3500 mD;
Polymer viscosity during ASP flood: 22 Cp; Polymer visocsity during polymer flood -32 cP;
Alkali: NaOH
• Pool was discovered in 1963. Primary production was poor. Instead of water flood,
polymer flood was started. Then plain water flood was initiated in 1972
• Until 1974, production remains relatively stable below 3000 BOPD. Water cut begins to
increase , reaching 95% at the end of 1994.
• In 2004-05, Husky considered an ASP project. At this time, recovery was 38% of OOIP
• ASP slug composed of 0.75 wt% NaOH + 0.15 wt % surfactant + 1200 ppm (polymer) was
injected in May 2006
• 34% PV of ASP solution was injected until October 2008 and it is followed by the injection
of 42.6 PV of polymer solutions till July 2013.
• Production response started in Nov 2006 and oil recovery increased from 300 BOPD to
the maximum of 1,330 BOPD.
• Scaling and injectivity were the issues
• Estimated incremental oil recovery is around 16% OOIP. Because of operational issues,
estimated recovery goes down to 11.1%
Production history of Taber field
Increased recovery in Taber field
ASP flood Case Study – 7 (Suffield, Canada)
Suffield – Rock and Fluid Properties
Depth - 930 m; Average thickness- 2.9 m; Porosity – 30%; Reservoir
temperature- 32℃; Dead oil viscosity – 600 cP ; Live oil viscosity – 130 c P;
Permeability-1000 – 3000 mD; Formation- sandstone ; Polymer viscosity is 22 cP;
Alkali: NaOH
• Field was developed through combination of vertical and horizontal wells with
initial production in 1996.
• Water flooding was initiated in 1998
• Cumulative production before the start of ASP flooding is less than 10% OOIP.
Oil production was 300 BOPD with the water cut of 60%.
• ASP slug composed of 1.5 wt % of NaOH+ 0.1 wt % of surfactant + 1300 ppm
of polymer is injected into the reservoir started in May 2007.
• ASP gave an incremental recovery of around 16%
Production history of Suffield field
Increased recovery in Suffield field
 Analyzing Suffield and Taber ASP projects
• In both the cases, NaOH is the alkali
• High viscosity crude usually has high acid number (Recommended acid number is
in the range of 0.5 to 1 mg/g)
• Low concentration of surfactant is added in both the cases. IFT of around 10^-2
mN/m is observed in both the cases
• Residual oil saturation after ASP injection remains in the range of 14% to 21% for
TABER and 31% to 37% for Suffield. ( This is higher than the literature value of
10%)
• This could be due to the high oil viscosity and heterogeneity
• No information on CDC curves has been given.
 Key points from Suffield and Taber ASP
projects
• Oil viscosity in both the fields are less around 140
cP and 40 cP. ASP should be tested with more high
viscous oil
• Not significant reduction in Sor is reported in both
the cases (Probably due to high oil viscosity)
• Conventional capillary number usually ignores the
oil viscosity ratio (The capillary number that
incorporates viscosity ratio should be used)
• Scaling is the major issue with ASP floods
• High oil viscosity favors the in-situ surfactant
formation
 Polymer flood Case Study – 8(Pelican lake,
Canada)
Depth – 300-450 m; Average thickness- 1-9 m; Porosity – 28-32%; Reservoir
temperature- 12-17; Dead oil viscosity – 800-80,000 cP ; Live oil viscosity – 800-
80000 cP; Permeability-300 – 5000 mD; Formation- sandstone ; Polymer
viscosity is 13-25 cP
• Primary recovery factor is low (5 to 10% OOIP) due to high oil viscosity. Solution gas drive
is the primary recovery mechanism. Production rate was less than 10 BOPD with vertical
wells in 1980-81
• Primary recovery factor remained low even after the introduction of horizontal well in
1988
• The first Polymer pilot flood was attempted in 1997. it was unsuccessful. (Wrongly
thought polymer viscosity needs to be high to have favorable mobility ratio)
• Water flood was started then. Water flood increased the recovery but at the cost of high
water cut
• Another polymer pilot started in 2005(Polymer injection started in May 2005 with the
target viscosity of 20 cP; then reduced to 13 cP by August and then increased to 25 cP).
• Initial injection rate was 930 bbl/d/well. But it was reduced due to the pressure increase
• The production response is shown in the next slide and expansion of project is shown in
the further next slide
 Increased recovery in Pelican lake

Rates increased
Rates increased from 9 BOPD to 364
from 18 bopd to BOPD in central
232 bopd well

Rates increased
from 9 BOPD to
364 BOPD
Expansion of Polymer flood projects in
Pelican Lake following its initial success

Expected over all incremental recovery after expansion is 20%

OOIP to 30% OOIP
Limitations of Polymer flood in high
viscous region

Low recovery in high

viscous region (3000 High Recovery in low
cP oil) viscous region
Key lessons from Pelican Lake experience
• Targeting the heavy oil reservoir with unit
mobility ratio is not a good idea (Delamide
2014). Rather a compromise between the
injectivity and mobility ratio is needed
• Favorable Shock front mobility ratio
corresponded to the good recovery
• Certain pockets of pelican lake saturated with
highly viscous oil (3000 Cp) cannot be
recovered efficiently by conventional polymer
flood. Neither thermal methods can be
employed
 Summarized Concerns and Possible
solutions
1. Difficulty to meet the target viscosity

a. Source water with high Salinity (Salinity tolerant

polymers such as VES, AP, KYPAM or specially
synthesized polymers)
b. Oxygen (Usage of reducing agent)
c. Shear degradation (Polymer exhibiting Reversibility such
as VES and Associative polymers)

2. Low injectivity (inducing deliberate and controlled fracture

or using polymer exhibiting reversible shear thinning; Also
relying on shock front mobility ratio while using low viscous
slugs)