1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. IOR 2021
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

Chemical EOR is one of the more attractive methods to improve oil recovery. Numerous successful projects including injectivity tests, pilots and full-field developments have been executed without major injectivity issues or decline. Nevertheless, this topic remains a concern among operators.

Polymer Flooding has seen more interest from the industry, and more challenging reservoirs (low permeability formations) are considered—thus raising concerns about injectivity. Filter ratio is routinely used as an injectivity screening criteria, but does it correlate with polymer injectivity and propagation during coreflood experiments, especially in the presence of crude oil? This paper provides new insights on polymer injectivity in cores considering polymer molecular weight, chemistry, rock permeability and mineralogy. The results are obtained from dedicated experiments and examination of several extensive data bases (including the literature).

State of the art commercial polymers of varying chemistry with molecular weight ranging from 5 to 27+ MDa were injected into different sandstone cores having permeabilities between 10 to 200 mD with a range of clay content. Filter ratio was also determined and compared to injectivity in cores. All the data comes from field project case studies using reservoir cores and representative outcrop cores.

For HPAM, injectivity was not a concern. It was possible to propagate up to 27+ MDa HPAM in a 100–200 mD core without significant pressure build-up. Concerning ATBS polymers, injectivity initially appeared to be constrained by the ATBS content; a 15 MDa polymer with a medium-high ATBS content poorly propagated below 200 mD. However, optimization based on molecular weight for similar ATBS content showed stable propagation in representative porous media. Finally, the filter ratio test did not always correlate to injectivity. Indeed, it was observed that several 1.2 µm FR tests (performed on high Mw polymers) failed despite successful transport in cores having permeability below 200 mD.

In addition, acrylamide-based terpolymers allowed improvement in transport of ATBS polymers - a 20 MDa polymer containing medium level of ATBS was able to propagate in less than 100-mD cores. These observations are applicable to cores having clay content below 5%. For higher clay content, injectivity should be assessed case by case using reservoir core and crude oil.

This paper establishes new references in terms of polymer transport behavior in porous media and highlights the importance of appropriate selection of polymer, polymer quality and experimental protocols to properly assess polymer injectivity in cores.

 

Significance of the proposed paper:

1. Extensively examines the lower limits of permeability for injection of synthetic polymers, especially as a function of polymer molecular weight, polymer composition, rock mineralogy, and the presence of residual oil.

2. Better characterizes the relations between filter ratio, permeability and polymer injectivity in low-permeability rock.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202133035
2021-04-19
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202133035
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Shakry, B., Shiran, B.S., Skauge, T. and Skauge, A.
    [2019] Polymer injectivity: influence of permeability in the flow of EOR polymers in porous media.Paper SPE 195495 presented at the 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 3–6 June. London, England, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bessaies-Bey, H., Fusier, J., Hanafi, M., Zhang, S., Destarac, M., Jouenne, S., Passade-Boupat, N., Lequeux, F., d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, J.-B. and Sanson, N.
    [2019] Competitive adsorption of PAM and HPAM on siliceous material. Colloids and Surfaces A, 579.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Castagno, R.E., Shupe, R.D., Gregory, M.D., and Lescarboura, J.A.
    [1987] Method for laboratory and field evaluation of a proposed polymer flood. Society of Petroleum Engineers Reservoir Engineering Journal, November, 452–460.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chauveteau, G.
    [1982]. Rodlike polymer solution flow through fine pores: influence of pore size on rheological behavior. Journal of Rheology, 26 (2): 111–142.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chaudhuri, A.
    [2014] Effect of clay minerals on miscible and immiscible viscous fingering during polymer flooding. Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information2.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Dann, M.W., Burnett, D.B. and Hall, L.M.
    [1982] Polymer performance in low permeability reservoirs.Paper SPE 10615 presented at the SPE 6th International Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, 25–27 January. Dallas, Texas, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Delamaide, E., Tabary, R and Rousseau, D.
    [2014] Chemical EOR in lower permeability reservoirs.Paper SPE 169673 presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, March 31 – April 2, Muscat, Oman.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Durst, F., Haas, R. and Interthal, W.
    [1982] Laminar and turbulent flows of dilute polymer solutions. Rheologica Acta, 21(4–5), 572–577.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ghosh, P., Sharma, H, and Mohanty, K.K.
    [2019] ASP flooding in tight carbonate rocks. Fuel, 241, 653–668.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Glasbergen, G, Wever, D., Keijzer, E. and Farajzadeh, R
    [2015] Injectivity loss in polymer floods: causes, preventions and mitigations.Paper SPE 175383 presented at the SPE Kuwait Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 11–14 October. Mishref, Kuwait.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Green, D.W. and Willhite, GP.
    [1998] Enhanced Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers Textbook Series.Vol. 6.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Guetni, I., Marliere, C., Rousseau, D., Bihannic, I., Pelletier, M. and Villieras, F.
    [2019] Transport of HPAM solutions in low permeability porous media: impacts of salinity and clay content.Paper SPE 195434 presented at the 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 3–6 June. London, England, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Guo, H.
    [2017] How to select polymer molecular weight and concentration to avoid blocking in polymer flooding?Paper SPE 189255 presented at the SPE Symposium: Production Enhancement and Cost Optimization, 7–8 November. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Haynes, A.K., Clough, M.D., Fletcher, A.J.P. and Wilson, S.
    [2013] The successful implementation of a novel polymer EOR pilot in the low permeability Windalia field.Paper SPE 165253 presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 2–4 July. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hirasaki, G.J. and Pope, G.A.
    [1974] Analysis of factors influencing mobility and adsorption in the flow of polymer solution through porous media. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, August, 337–346.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Jewett, R.L. and Schurz, G.F.
    [1970] Polymer Flooding – A current appraisal. Journal of Petroleum Technology, June, 675–684.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kamal, M. S., Sultan, A. S., Al-Mubaiyedh, U. A., & Hussein, I. A.
    [2015]. Review on polymer flooding: rheology, adsorption, stability, and field applications of various polymer systems. Polymer Reviews, 55(3), 491–530.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Lotsch, T., Muller, T. and Pusch, G.
    [1985] The effect of inaccessible pore volume on polymer core experiments.Paper SPE 13590 presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry. 9–11 April. Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Marshall, R.J. and Metzner, A.B.
    [1967] Flow of viscoelastic fluids through porous media. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 6 (3), 393–400.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Pope, G.A. and Levitt, D.
    [2008] Selection and screening of polymer for enhanced-oil recovery.Paper SPE 113845 presented at the SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, 19–23 April, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Pye, D.J.
    [1964] Improved secondary recovery by control of water mobility. Journal of Petroleum Technology, August, 911–916.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Sandengen, K.
    , M. T.Tweheyo, C. M.Crescente, A.Mouret, I.Henaut, and D.Rousseau. 2017. “Qualifying an ‘Emulsion’ Polymer for Field Use - Lab-Scale Assessments on Adsorption and Injectivity.” 2017(1):1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Sandiford
    Sandiford [1964] Laboratory and field studies of waterfloods using polymer solutions to increase oil recoveries. Journal of Petroleum Technology, August, 917–922.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Seright, R., Maerker, J., and Holzwarth, G.
    [1981] Mechanical degradation of polyacrylamides induced by flow through porous media. American Chemical Society Polymer Preprints, 22: 30–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Seright, R.S.
    [1983] The effects of mechanical degradation and viscoelastic behavior on injectivity of polyacrylamide solutions. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 23 (3), 475–485.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. [2016] How much polymer should be injected during a polymer flood?Paper SPE 179543 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, 11–13 April. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. [2010a] Potential for polymer flooding reservoirs with viscous oils.Paper SPE 129899 presented at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 24–28 April. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Seright, R.S., Fan, T., Wavrik, K. and de Carvalho Balaban, R.
    [2010b] New insights into polymer rheology in porous media.Paper SPE 129200 presented at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 24–28 April. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Seright, R.S., Seheult, M. and Talashek, T.
    [2009] Injectivity characteristics of EOR polymers. Society of Petroleum Engineers Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, October, 783–792.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Skauge, T., Skauge, A., Salmo, I.C., Ormehaug, P.A., Al-Azri, N., Wassing, L.M., Glasbergen, G., Van Wunnik, J.N. and Masalmeh, S.K.
    [2016] Radial and linear polymer flow – influence on injectivity.Paper SPE 179694 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, 11–13 April. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Sorbie, K.S.
    [1991] Polymer-improved Oil Recovery. Blackie and Son: London, UK. CRC Press, Inc: USA and Canada.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Standnes, D.C., and Skjevrak, I.
    [2014]. Literature review of implemented polymer field projects. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 122, 761–775.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Thomas, A., Giddins, M.A. and Wilton, R.R.
    [2019] Why is it so difficult to predict polymer injectivity in chemical oil recovery processes?Presented at the 20th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, 8–11 April. Pau, France.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Vela, S., Peaceman, D.W. and Sandvik, E.I.
    [1976] Evaluation of polymer flooding in a layered reservoir with crossflow, retention and degradation. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, April, 82–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Vishnudas, R. and Chaudhuri, A.
    [2014] Effect of clay minerals on miscible and immiscible viscous fingering during polymer flooding. Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information, 2 (4). 252–258.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, X.
    [1990] Characteristics of clay minerals and their effects on production capacity of the cretaceous sandstone Reservoirs of Songliao Basin, China. Proceedings of the 9th International Clay Conference, 88. 105–114.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Weimer, R.J. and Tillman, R.W.
    [1982] Sandstone Reservoirs.Paper SPE 10009 presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium. 17 March. Beijing, China.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zaitoun, A. and Kohler, N.
    [1987] The role of adsorption in polymer propagation through reservoir rocks.Paper SPE 16274 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 4–6 February. San Antonio, Texas, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Zaitoun, A. and Chauveteau, G.
    [1998] Effect of pore structure and residual oil on polymer bridging adsorption.Paper SPE 39674 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 19–22 April. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang, G. and Seright, R.S.
    [2013] Effect of concentration on HPAM retention in porous media.Paper SPE 166265 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 30 September – 2 October. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Zitha, P.L.J.
    [2001] In-depth filtration of macromolecules induced by bridging adsorption in porous media.Paper SPE 68980 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 21–22 May. The Hague, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Zitha, P. and Botemans, C.
    [1998] Bridging adsorption of flexible polymer in low-permeability porous media. Society of Petroleum Engineers Production & Facilities, February15–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Zitha, P., Chauveteau, G. and Zaitoun, A.
    [1995] Permeability-dependent propagation of polyacrylamides under near-wellbore flow conditions.Paper SPE 28955 presented at the SPE International Sypmposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 4–6 February. San Antonio, Texas, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202133035
Loading
Pushing the Envelope of Polymer Injectivity in Low Permeability Sandstones
Conference Proceedings 2021, 1 (2021); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202133035
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202133035
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202133035
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error