InSitu Gel Calculations in Complex
Reservoir Systems Using a New
Chemical Flood Simulator
T. Soott, SPE, U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Mrinfrith
L.J. Roberts, U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Winfrith
S.R. Sharpe, U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Winfrith
P.J. Ctifford, U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Winfrith
K.S. Sorbic, SPE, U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Winfrith
/$4?34/
SP
%mma~.
This paper presents results for a series of calculations on the deep emplacement of a polymer gel in a stratified
reservoir nmdel. These calculations were performed with a new chemical flocding simulator that has the facility to describe
generalized chemical reactiom between components. This code is described, and prelimimry calculations on an insitu gel
treatment in a large model reservoir are presented. We find that to obtain significant amounts of incremental oil while avoiding
very large pressure buildup, the polymer geI system must have the correct mmnbimtion of long gelation times and good
permeabilityreducing properties in the highpermeability streak (residual resistance factor FR 10 to 40 in the cases studied here).
No commercial polymerl cmsslinker systems are currently available that have the very long gel times required to obtain deep
emplacement in a large reservoir system,
Introduction
During recent years several chemical systems have been suggested
for blocking off ve~hi hpermeability channels in heterogeneous
petroleum reservoirs. 1.3 These systems involve the injection of
polymer [either polyacrylamide. (PAM) or xantban polymer] and
a crosshnkingion or redox system to form a suitable gel, Reacrams
may be mixed jnst before i~jection imo the reservoir, or lhey may
be injected m alternating slugs of the two materials.
To date, no catcukationshave appred in the Iiteramre that atmmpt
to qatify the flow patterns .md oil recoveries expected when a
polymer gel system is injected into a heterogeneous reservoir. In
this paper, such calculations are presented, assuming a simple mcdel
of the gel kinetics and bebavior in the porous medium. These calculatiom have been carried ow witi a new chemicat tlcd simulator,
Simulator for Chemical Oil Recove~ and Polymer Injection
(SCORP1O),developed at Winfriti. SCORP1Ois a genemdpurpxe,
mukiphase, mukicomponem chemicalflood simulator fhat may be
applied to polymer, surfacta.nt, or caustic flodlng o either the field
or laboratory scale. This paper includes a description of the simw
laters underlying mathematical formulation, amplifying those features that cleat with insitu gelation. Results from insiru gel
calculations are discussed in some detail, particularly the effects
of gel formation rate and pore blocking on oil recovery efficiency.
Simulation
Model
SCORPIO
is based on the metbcd of tinife differences and is desigmd
to be flexible enough to handle a wide range of petroleum engineering problems. Up to 10 chemical componems may be imluded,
and these can be distributed among up to three liquid phases (aqueous, oleic, and micellar). Flow may be treated as either compres.
sible or incompressible, making due allowance for rock
compressibility. Two new features for a chemical flood simulator
are included in SCOSPIO(1) a generalized mcdel of chemical reac.
tion that defines the rates and stoichiometry for any series of coupled chemical reactioms between components witMn a given phase
and (2) a heatbal?mce equation that allows calculation of temperature fronts and contours within a reservoir caused by injection of
cool water into a hot reservoir. Heat flow across reservoir boundaries is treated with aquifertype models.
The calculated temperature may feed back onto such physimt
properties as fluid viscosi~ and reaction rates. Some calculations
that use facilities of this type have been presented previously in
C.aPY,@,987S.acie!y
0?Petro[eum
Engineers
6?4
a study of the effects of temperature on the chemical degradation
of polymer i a stratified reservoir system. 3 This module is used
to describe the chemical reactions tiat fake place i gel fomtions.
In addition, modules are available to model the influence of mm.
pled adsorption of compocrds and the effects of frontal spreading
lhrough velocity dispersion and molemlar diftisiom The cede can
accommodate several different rock types for relative permeability. adsorption, polymer residual resistance, and capillary pressure,
in addhion to allowimg for regional variations in rock permeabili~. ~j~iOn ~d pr~OctiOn wells ~ ~ O~~t~ under ei~er PICSsure or rate constraints and may be completed in any number of
layers of the reservoir.
The compositional fornwlation used in SCORP1O
is m extemio
of that introduced by Acs et al.4 and subsequently used by
~~er~5.6 i heir de development work. This approach has b~n
a&pted to chemical flooding and has proved a good foundation on
which to establish the framework of the sinmlator.
Simulator Equations. fn thk section, the differential equations that
govern fluid flow in rhe reservoir are presented, together with a
statement of the physical significance of the various terms represeming important phenomena. The corresponding difference equations
and tie solution strategy used to solve for the primary variables
of the system are described later.
If we assume that there are N, chemical components, including
water and oil, then for each Component i, conservation of mass
yields the following differential equation i standa.td oil msermir
notation
a(dfi;)
++~scj%+qi=,
.
(1)
&
where
trii=zpmsac;
a
+QRr;l+.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)
WE ReservoirEneineerine. No.emba 1987
Mass rather than volumebased equations are used because fhe main
relationships used when describing displacement processes arc based
on the mass conservation of each component. The quantity fi;, referred to as the mass density for Component i, is the mass of Component i per imit volume of fluid. In general, this includes the
adsorbed and mobile components, as indicated in Eq. 2.
The miss concentration of Component i in ,Phase a is denoted
by C: and is equal to the mdss of Component i per unit mass of,
Phase w In the present study, the phase will be either aqueous or
oleic. The term OR represents the density of the rock, including
its pore space, whereas pa denotes the density of Phase ct. Contributions from molecular, diffusion and velocity dispersion ire incorporated in the, term D:. Gel formation is handled through the
reaction term, R; , which accounts for the formation of Component i in Phase a; this is represented as the mass of Component
i per unit volume of Phase ciper unit time. The well terms are represented by qi, which is the mass of Component i being injectedlproduced per unit volume per unit time.
Along with Eq. 1,which is used to evaluate the change in mass
of Component i, the model also requires the derivation of a pressure equation. This is usually obtained by summing Eq. 1 over all
i ad using constraint relations on the C;. In the present forrmdation, however, a differen: approacti is adopted.
The pressure eqwdion IS obtained by introducing the concepts
of fluid and effective PV. PV is taken to be a function of pressure
alone, whereas the timctional dependence of the fluid volume, V,
is smmizrized as V= Yf(p, T, ~), where ~ = {ml,
.P% f
Pressure is referred to by p and dependence on temperamre ~as
been included explicitly in T; mj represents the mass of Compcr
nent i. In tie applications to be described in this paper, however,
it is noi necessary to include explicit dependence on temperature
because it is reasonably assumed in chemical flood processes that.
variation in temperature takes place slowly within the reservoir.
Of course, this would not necessarily be so in the presence of a
vapor or, gas phase. Thus differentiating Vf witi, respect to
time gives
avf, afi ap
~=z+
avf ami
~=
. . ........
. .,...........(3)
The partial volume WITI 8V/am; represents the increase in the
fluid volume caused by the addition of a unit mass of Component
i. As Dodge23 showed, these partial volumes are related to the total
volume by
~!vm
~f= ~ a,ni;.
(4)
Use of the product mle for differentiation shows that
TABLE 1RESERVOIR ANO FLUIOPROPERTIES
AND COMPUTATIONALMESH SPECIFICATION
FOR TWOLAYERSTRATIFIED SYSTEM
Resewoir Properties
Resewoir dimensions
3,000
length, x, ft
1,000
width, y, ft
100
thickness, z, ft
Mesh definition
20
NX
1
NY
6
NZ
150
Ax, fl
1,000
Ay, ft
20
Az,ft,
for four lowpermeability layers
10
for two lowpermeability layers
Horizontal permeability, k~ (100:1 permeability ratio)
Lowpermeability regiox k. =ky = 100 md
Highpermeability region: k. =ky = 10,000 md
Vertical permeability, kv
Ratio (kv/kH) is varied in each region
between 0.1 and i O4.
Porosity, .$
$=0.25 (high permeability)
c$=0,20 (low permeability)
Injection rate
34,500 ftslll =6,140 BID.
Corresponds to 1 PV in 5 years and is maintained for all
cases (see text). Wells are located at each end of the
reservoir (NX= 1 and NX= 20) and are completed in all
layers except during gel placement.
Rock density, pR
Required to calculate adsohtion tevels
p.= 129,8 lbm/fts =2.08 g/cm$
Fluid Properties
.
ViscosiPj data, cp
Water viscosity, p ~
Oil viscosity, p.
Fluid densities, p, IbmIfts
Water (polymer solution or gel) density, Q.
Oil density, p.
Relative permeabilities, km, km
(See Fig. 1 for these curves)
The end points are the same in both region%
SW.= 0.25 SW=0.22
Compressibility data
All fluids are incompressible in these calculations
OiI in place, bbl
Total OOIP
=4.725x107 fts=8.415x106
Target (movable~ OOIP
=3.339XI07 ft =5.947 X1O3
0.5
1.0
62.4
50.0
which, when substituted into the previous Sic, leads to the tired
form of the pressure equation used in SCORPIO
Substimting this into Eq. 3 and adopting the relation in Eq. 4 and
the definition of mass density, fit =nzJVfi shows that
a~
avf ap
~.+
ap at
Vf
+ [
av, a(+mi)
,
at
a+ ap
. . . . . . . . . . . . ...(5)
avfa(dfii)
~
i.
hi
al
v:?
( )1
at
.+ avf ap
+~;=~;.
v, ap at
Vf
Again the product rule for differentiation can be applied to give
SPE Resemoir Enginemig, November 1987
Physically, Eq. 5 can be interpreted by saying that the rate of change
in volume o? fluid Eresent caused by pressure changes Plus the volumetric rate of fluid influx equals the rate of change in PV.
The derivative .3(.#@/dt is eliminated according to Eq. 1. The
governing equations of the system are therefore Eqs. 1 and 5, which
must be solved for the N,+ 1 primary variables of pressure and
overall component mass densities. Art additional equation is also
needed to calculate the temperature as a primary variable. SCORP1Oincludes such an equation, based on heat balance, but because
temperamre dependence is not included in our current study, we
omit further discussion of temperature and its calculation. Some
details on this point are included in other work. 3<7
635
if the fliids and rock are taken to be incompressible, then only
the summation term in Eq, 5 is nonzero.
Auxiliary relations that are required to solve Eqs. 1 and 5 in;
elude the usual saturation constraint:
Xse=l, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ...(6)
.
,wherc the saturation, Se, is defined in terms of the volume, Ye,
occupied by Phase a and the total fluid volume, Vfi such that
sa=ve/vp .......................... . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)
An additional equation is provided through the capillary relation,
Pc=pap,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,..,
. . . . . . . . ..(8)
where Pc denotes capillary pressure between the phase. pressure
pa and the pressure obtained by solving Eq. 5.
The soltio of Eqs. 1 and 5 by use of the constmits given Liy
Eqs. 6 through 8 is described in the following sections.
Difference Equations. The first step is to apply block itegmtion
to Eq, 1 to reduce the system of component differential equations
to discrete form, This implies the costmction of gridblcck volumes
around fixed gridblock centers with the subsequent ilerivation of
a tiitedifference equation for each block, Application of thk approach to obtain the difference equations is particularly significant
in reservoir simulation because the interface and bmmdmy conditions may be handled more readily.
Thus, suppose a typical gridblock face is dmtotcd by At, where
in dmee dimensions f= 1, . ..6. ad that Pdenotes tic center point
of this block, which has a vohime V?,. The distance between this
block center and the neighboring block that shares the face At is
specified m
~
AX# =(Axp+Azp,)/2,
with Art and AxV at the edge lengths i that direction of the neighboring block and the block under mnsideratio, respectively. The
final form oFEq. 1 for the gridblock with center f, ad mmpoent
mass tnl,p = Vrcptfzi is then taken as
Quantities with a bar, such as phase density, denote evsfuation
at block interfaces using weighted arithmetic averages such that
~t+ ,h=(Ax@tc +Ax@P)/(Axg+A
x/,).
Themass concentmuio, C~, a?dmobility quotient, k,=lw=, inEq.
1I are calculated at block interfaces by use of either oneor twopointupstteamin~. Rock permeability iscalculated by harmonic
averaging as follows:
k8, =ktktr(A.q+Axt,
)/(Axttk2+Axtkt).
Note that the source term Qi,f, is indep&dent of the neighboring
blocks.
For the pressure equation, the corresponding discredzation is obtained inaslightly different manner. As already stated, the fluid
and PVs in a block are assumed to be equaf at the end of the .
dmestep, At. AcseraL4showed thstasmall discrepancy between
fluid and PVs measured at the beginning of the time intervat will
arise because the pressures cslctdatcd at the previous time level are
not exactly correct, which leads to tie fluid in that block not filling
the effective PV completely.
Therefore, starting with theassumptiontbat ingeneral
vf(J+AP,
T+ AT, ~+b+)=VP(P+Ap)
~t time fI+l wimp, T, md ,7? the primary variables at time t,
linearization leads. to the required pressure equation:
v,Vp
()
At
a v Ap
avf Ami
++x=.
i ami At
ap At
.... .... .
avp~
ap At
. . . . . . (12)
As explained previously, temperahye dependence hss been assumed
negligible in the derivation of this equation. Such an assumption
would not hold for thermal rccove~ processes. The term iirparentheses is the volumetric error term it arises omfyio the case of compressible flow. Indeed, for incompressible flow. only tie term
involving a summation over i remains. For either type of flow,
Ami/Af is replaced for computational purposes by the expression
; l..
R. 9.
The partial derivatives in Eq. 12 are treated in various ways., For
nonzero but tixed compressibility, we use. the relations
avp
=Cpvp
ap
for PV and
sp.
. ~fvf
ap
+AtQi,tZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . ..
. (9)
for fluid volume, where the totaf fluid compressibility, c , is taken
to be a weighted sum by saturation of the individual p 1ase compressibilities,
Thcsou~e term Qifor Blockt, icldes wcllad chemical raction terms,
Qi=$~saRi+gi,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..(10)
The fluid volume, Vfi is evahtated as the snm of the individual
fluidphase volumes, Va, such that
and the coet%cient .@ is a compact notation for
A4&=(km/#JEJ&
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(11)
The time increment, At, is given as the difference hctween the beginning, tfl, andthcend, tn+l, of the timestep (Ar=#+ltn),
with a similar meaning for AIrq.
636
v,= xv. ,
.
where Vu= (mass in Phase rY)/Pe.
In the present work, we assume tiat atl components apart from
oil partition wholly into the aqncous phase. Oil partitions totally
SPE Reservoir E@min& November 1987
into the olcic uhase. Thus the Dartkd volume term for a typical
wid.
block ii com@d is
avf
ami
pm
where mi is wholly partitioned into Phase a.
As discussed by Watts, 6 the discrete form of the pressure equation, Eq. 12, presents an attempt to find the pressure that causes
the fluid volume in a block to fill the PV of that block exactly. For
instance,, if there is too much fluid in the block, the equation should
force the pressure to increase, thereby compressing the fluid in addition to forcing some of it to leave the block. If just the right pressure is found, the fluid remaining in the block at the end of the
timestep should precisely fill the PV of the gridblock.
fn summary, the key equations are therefore Eqs. 9 and 12. The
solution stratefg for these equations is dkcussed next.
Method of Solution. The methcd used to solve &e fundamental
system of equatiom for the primary variables is based on the familhr
implicitpressure, explicitsaturation (3MPES) approach, 8 except
that here the component masses are evaluated explicitly. The cd:
culation of the phase saturations is then performed with the expticifty
determined component masses.
Thus we solve Eq. 12 implicitly for the oilphase pressure. Other
phase pressures are obtsined through the capillary relation, Eq. 8,
where the basic fMPES assure tion that capilkwy pressure is constsnt over a timestep is used. ~ For each Component i, Eq. 9 is
solved to obtain the change in mass, Ami, explicitly for each gridblock. Given the mass of Component i in each gridblock for all
i, the mass in each phase is evaluated, somedmcs referred to as
the flash calculation. If the fluids are compressible, tie new phase
density is calculated (it is currently assumed that density is a function of pressure alone). Oti&iwise rhe overall calculation goes
straight to the evaluation of the volume, V., occupied by Phase
a. It is then a simple matter to obtain the phase saturations at time
~n+I from Eq,~.To adv~ce to the next timestep, the sam~ti0ris3
component masses, and phase pressures arc used to evaluate the
various coefficients appearing in Eqs. 9 and 12. The timestep is
updated and the process of solution repeated, starting with Eq. 12.
In our model; wells are treated explicitl~ fhey maybe completed in ay number of gridblock or layers of the reservoir. The controls can be either pressure or.rate consrmjnts and may be switched
from one to the other under prescribed conditions. Rates can be
defined in terms of mass or volume.
The discretepressure equation (Eq. 12) gives rise to 2 symmetric banded coefficient matrix that could possess up to seven bands,
imldig the diagonal. SCORPIOincorporates direct, and iterative
algorithms to solve the system of linear equations. The direcfsolvers include the multifrontal method of Duff and Reid, 9 which is
particukly suited to solving sparse mattii systems whose sparsity
pattern is unchanged from one timestep to the next. Tbe iterative
options include a preconditioned conjugate gradient method that
stems from the work of Meijerink and van der Vorst0 and Ker.
~kw, t i We have found that thk latter solution technique is extremety fart and efticient for selected premnditionings and is suifable
for relatively low numbers of gtidblocks rather than restricted to
the cbamcteristically highir number of gridblock USWJIYassociated
with iterative solvers.
The SCORPIOcode is based on a modular structure so that the
majority of modules essentially supply the various terms needed
to construct the coefflci&rs in the difference equations. Once tbcse
coefficients have been provided, the main solver module will evaluate the primay variables, i.e., pressure and the N, component
masses. .Other modules will then determine from these primary variables the seconda~ variables, such as component concentrations
in each phase present (the flash c~culation), phase densities (for
compressible flow), viscosities, phase vol~es and saturations, adsorption and reaction terms, relative permeabilities and capillary
pressures as functions of satmadon, diffusion coe.fflcients, etc. The
program has been written to take as much advantage of the vectorp~cessing capabilities of tie Cray computer as possible. Wifh some
minor modifications, however, it easily could be run on another
machine.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, November 1987
Reaction and Adsorption Modules in SCORPIO
To perform calculations in polymer gel SYStetIIS,it is necessary to
have some generalized representation of the reaction terms RL in
Eq. 1. These tetis may be very simple and describe a singlestep
A +B+ C reaction, or they may be more complex and describe a
mukistep process in gel formation. It is also necessary to describe
the main physical chzacteristics of the reactants (polymer and crosslinker) and gel prcducts. The main properties that must be modeled
are (1) the effects of the polymer and gel on the mobile aqueousphase viscosi~; (2) the adsorptiqtl retention of polYmer and PIOduced gel; and (3) any corresponding reduction in permeabiliv that
results from the adso tionlretcntmn of material, i.e., residual
,e,i,mnce fader,, ~R~
The first of these relations concerning the effective viscosity of
the polymer gel systems is specified by the user tiom appropriate
experiniental data.
Reaction Module. The SCORPIOreaction package calculates the
production (or degradation) rate of Component i in any giVCnPhase
& This rate is allowed to depend on the concentration of every component in that phase, including itself, and on temperamre. Both mobile and adsorbed components (except water and oil) may be
produced or degraded by chemical reaction: The total mass change
of Component i in the gridblock is then calculated.
The reaction package has two main options for calculating rates
of change of Component i in Phase a caused by reactiotidegiadation, i.e., (a C!#Jt)rxn. The first of these uses tabular data entered
by the user to calculate this quantity, and the second uses an empirical formula.
The total mass rate of change of Component i caused by reaction, including both mobile and adsorbed material, is given by
where the adsorbid concentration per unit rock mass in confact with
Phase a, ri,a,is assumed to be.identical for each Phase a, but with
a different reaction rate for adsorbed material in contact with each
phase. The quantity fa denotes the fractioq of rock surfacein contact with Phase e and is a fimcticm of salutation and nettability.
Note that f= is not necessarily equal to the safurafion, .%. For example, in a waterwet rock, the fraction of rock surface in contact
with the aqueous phase may be close to unity.
The empirical equation that may be used to catcutate the reactionmte term is constmcted on the assumption that the rate of production of a component from a given reaction in Phase a is proportions
toaprcduct of powers of the concentrations of all componen~
associated wifii that reatiiow i.e.,
a.
;(:)=
UO(CL), .(cJJj
(C3awexp(cw+
I/23,
where the quantities a.. .aN+, are constants for each Component
i, and N denotes the total number of mobile and adsorbed concentrations contributing to the reaction. In some simple reactions, the
exponents a,
aN are integers, but in general they are nonnegative real numbers. The tem~erature dependence of the reaction me
is assumed to follow the Arrhenius law through the final term in
the equation. The quantity aN+ I.represents EJR, where Ea is the
activation energy of the reaction and R is fbe gas constant:
The quantities of each component produced by reaction over a
timestep are recorded and incorporated into the overall materialbaknce calculation in the simulator.
Simplified Gef Kinetics. Several smdies have appeared in the literature on the kinetics of gcl formation. 1318This may be a multistcp
kinetic process if complex mixtures of polymer and re@x systems
are used. For example, we previously studied modeling the
PAM/Cr207~ Ithiourea system in experimental floods. 19
637
mY.
a general function of the aqueousphase concentrations of all components and tempaamrc. This is perfectly adequate to describe pcdymer and gel adsorption onto the rock nmtrix.
The mass density of adsorbed Component i, ?iq, is given as (see
Eq.2)
lfii=pwswcL+Pxri(c;..
n/+3
wherepw, SW,and Ci aretheaqueousphase densiW,saWmtiOn,
andconcerdration of Componenti, respectively, and C,q istbe entire concentwion vector in the aqueous phase. The adsorption
problem in. this case involves solv@the fOllOw&&,setOf nOnIinears imultaneouse quations for C~a!d. hence fYG. T) fOra
given mass densi~ vector, r%
,Z=O,.S,,Z.
+PRF(ZW,
7)1+.
Fig. lRelativepermeability
in the model reservoir.
cutves for the two rock types
A simplified reaction scheme for gel formation maybe modeled
by assuming that the reaction is of the form polymer (C I)+crosslinker (C2)+gel (C3), where the Cis refer to themass concentrations in the aqueous phase. It is assumed that the gel formation
is first order in each of the reactions, i.e., second order overall.
Defining C! o and C2 as the initial concentrations of polymer and
crosslinker, respectively, the reaction rates may be specified through
a single rate constant, K, where
1
dC,
= KC1C2,
(Cl dt )
and
1
dC3
(Cl +C2)
()
=KC1C2.
dt
This simple system may be integrated analytically to give the gel
concentration as a fynction of time r
q =
Kc,c~(c,
+c2)f
l+ KC, C2t
Adsorption Modufe. The central problem in a generalized adsotptionlphase package inamukiphase, multicomponent simulators
as follows: given thetotal mass densify fii inagridblock forall
components (i= 1, 2:. .N,), howmethese componenf.s distributed
between the Phases a(cz=aqueous, oleic, micellar) andthe rock
surface? A more restricted module is currently used witlin SCOR!+o, butthii is being generalized, fnthepresent work, theadsorption level of Component ion the rock surface maybe specified as
638
When component adsorption depends on only its own cqcentmtion (in the aqueous phase), it is possible to use a fast interpolation
mmhodtos cdvet hisproblem. Iftheadscyptioni sothermdepcnds
on two or more components, however, an iterative Newton.
Rapbfmn20scheme is used. If the maximum number of componenb
involved in coupled adsorption is N., then asmal syst?m Of N~
nordinear equations must besolvcdto find adsorbed and mobile
levels of components This is a fairly straight fonvard process requiring the solution of an No xNa, matrix equation at ~ch iteration.
Many materials that adsorb onto reservoir rock do so !r.rcversibly; i.e., they desorb very slowly compared with other time scales
inthesystcm. Irreversible adsorption istreated intbemodnleby
tracking the amounts of each component adsorbed in each gridblock.
It is assumed that after some maximum irreversible level of adsorption is reached, further adsorption iseitber reversible or does
not occur.
Residual Resistance Factors. Permeability reduction (pore blocking) caused by adsorbed polymer or gel is treated through residwd
*&tmce faflors, FR.12 These defmethedrOp inthe mObility Of
Phase a, h=(usually tbeaqueotis phise), caustiby adso~tionas
follows
X. =k,,&aFf@j]
These resistance factors are specified,through tabular input and may
be functions of all the zdsorbed species.
Computational Results
.TheRcsemoir Model. A simple twodimensional layered reservoirsystcm was used in the calculations p:esentedin this paper.
This model is adequate here because it shows all the main features
of themechanism.of gel emplacement ina stratified systcrn and
itallows ustoinvestigate several sensitivities, including thee ffect.s
of vertical crossflow (kV/kH), gel reaction rate, and injection strategy, inastr~ght fOrward way.
Table 1 gives the reservoir and fluid characteristics used in the
cdcukuions.rhere semoiris 3,000ft[9l5mllong~d
LWfC[30
III] thick and bas two distinct permeability regionsa lowpermeability region of 80ft [24m] total Wlckness and a highpermeability streak of 20ft [6m] totat thickness. In most calculations, che reservoir is represented by 20 gridblock in the x dlrection and by sixv.mtical gridblock: four inthe lowpermeability
rcgionand twointie highpermeablli~ region. Calculations ona
finer mesh show that all the mtin conclusions maybe reached with
this grid. The horizontal permeability contrast is taken to be 100:1,
with the higherpetmwability streal at thebottom to reduce the helpful effects of gmvity in the oil recovery mechanism. This high permeability conhast is adopted so that very early water breakthmugb
will be observed, and in addition, a gel treatment would be expected to pefform substantially better than conventional polymer flooding. The relative permeabilbies for the two reservoir regions are
shown in Fig. l. Alinear saturation dependence isusedin tiehighpermeabili~ streak. This and the fact tludtthe mobility ratio in thk
system is very favorable (0.67) produce pistonlike oildisplacement. Thus polymer will not contribute to the oil recovery mechaSPE Resenmir Engineering,November 1987
.,
TABLE 2PROPERTIES
POLYMER SYSTEMS
Synthetic Polymer
(Model PAM)
biopolymer
(Model Xanthan)
Property
Injection concentration
1,000 ppm
Viscosity
4 cp at
Adsorption/retention
High permea~lity.
LOW permeability
OF MODEL BIOPOLYMER AND SYNTHETIC
USED IN THE CALCULATIONS
PRESENTEO
injection conceritcation
(No adsorption)
Comment
1,500 ppm
Concentrations by weight
2 CP at injection concentration
For viscositylconcentiation
curves see Fig. 2
0.28 x 104
0.44x 104
(160 lbm/acreft)
(250 lbm/acreft)
Given in fractional
concentration (Ibm polymerl
Ibm rock, assuming
PR = 121.7 lbml~ts in the
highpermeability streak ad
129.8 lbmlft3 in the 10werpermea~lity streak), a
stripping irreversible
isotherm is assumed.
FB is quoted for the synthetic
Residual resistance factors,
FR
High permeabifky
Low permeability
1.s
1,0
1.0
2.5
Polymer degradation
Stable
Stable
Injection strategy
Q=24,500 ft31D (6,140 BID)throughout. Polymer injected for
150 days after 450 days of waterlood (i.e., an 6.2% PV slug
of polymer)
W8S of polymer injected
Amount of oil recovered, per
unit mass of polymer
32.3 x 104 Ibm
(147 tonnes)
306 Ibm oilllbm polymer (1 .0S
bb[llbm)
polymer at the mwimum
adsorption level (see above]
it is.taken to be a hear
function of adsorbed
concentration
No polynier degradation is
assumed in these
calculations (see Ref. 3)
Because of the low visco&ieS
and FRs for these
polymers, large pressure
buildup was not found for
these injection rates
Ibm
(220 tonnes)
48.4x 104
212 Ibm oill!bm polymer (0.75
bblflbm)
Results at 1,500 days
nism by significantly impmving microscopic displacement efficiency
in this region. Hence, any additional oil will arise through fluid
diversion and crossflow, which are the important mechanisms in
these systems. 3,21
Onc of the qmin objectives is to investigate plugging by a suitzble polymer gel indepth. That our reservoir model has a large
volume and well spacing is ve~ important because the requirement
of long gel times is implied. We intend to define some of the key
pttrametcrs that are required for a successful application of this
chemical system. We stress that we are not studying small nearwell gel treatments,
Water amf ?olymer Ffooding Resufts. In both the water and polymer floods, water is injected into the whole formation at a rate of
34,500 fc3/D (6,140 B/D [980 m3/d]). This corresponds to the injection of 1 reservoir PV in 5 years. It is desirable to maintain this
rate, although high pressure buildup may arise in some cases. In
such cases, we define maximum acceptable differences between the
pressures of the injectorlpmducer well pair. .
.The properties of the two polymer typs used in the calculations
arc pm.scnrcdin Table 2. We assume that .fheinjection water is quite
saline and hence that PAM is a poorer viscosilier than xanthan.
However, this is compensated for by the poreblocking properties
of PAM. Fig. 2 shows the viscosilylconccntration curves assumed
for the two polymers.
Polymer flooding calculations were perfommd for both xamhan
and PAM and compared with the corresponding waterflood calculations over a range of verticaltohorizonti permeability ratios from
101 to 104. fn all cases, a polymer slug was injected over 150
days after 450 days of previous watertloochg, when the water cut
had risen to 95 %, At tie injection rate used, this led to an 8.2%
PV slug of polymer. The cumulative oil recovery profiles with time
are shown in Fig. 3 for kvlkH =0.01 for a waterflood, a xanfhan
flood, and a PAM flood. Corresponding watercut profiles are
shown in Fig. 4. The effect of kvlkH on oil remve~ at 1,5CQdays
is summarized in Fig. 5. The following is noted.
8PE Reservoir Engineerig3November 1987
Fig. 2Concentration dependence of viscosity for the model
xanthan and polyacrylamlde
polymers.

m===
__,7yLz=
.,,.,,,,4
.,,, 5,,

.,.
,,0
u
:
:
/..
;
,,

j.
:
,6

4.
m,.
,,
===
,,,,,,0
...
m,.
,,,,,.
,,,,,,,,00
m,,,,
,,,
,,,
i9. 3Cumulative oil recoveiy
]ast%case polymer floods. ~.
profiles for .waterfl.aod and
1., For the polymer properties assumed in this work (fable 2,
Fig. 2), both xznthan and PAM give very simifar amounts of oil,
although they operate through slightly different mechanisms.
2. Both the waterflood and polymer tlocds recover more of the
target oil. for the higher values of kvlk~.
3. Polymer flocding gives a larger incrementzi oil recove~ contpared with the waterflood at higher values of kv/kH because of increased oil crossflow from the low into the higherpermeability
zone during polymer flooding, as well as fluid diversion. 3.21
4. At the highest crossflow level investigated (~v/kH =0. 1), the
polymer produces anadditiotxd 9% of the,target oil, i.e., a 30%
improvement over waterflood.
Analysis of these results has led us to choose the kv/kH =0;01
case as our base case. This gives an improvement of about19%
over the corresponding waterflood (i.e., a further 6% of the brget
oil), which, given that the simulation model tends to be rather optimistic, in these systems, is sufficiently poor tojustify a gel
treatment.
G&I Properties. In the simple kinetic model described above, it
is assumed that the polymer and cmsslinker are in stoichiometric
ratios, whicli in this case are taken such that l,OWl ppm by weight
of polymer reacts with 20 ppm of crosslinker to give 1,020 ppm
of gel. Therefore, the time taken for conversion of half of the
1,000ppmpolymer/20ppmcmsslinker mixture to gel is given by
1
_sxlo7
f,A.
KC, C20
K
Thus, a 10&y halfconversion time corresponds. to K=5 x.106
day  1; in our applications, werequire t,A to be about 100 days
and hence KG 5 X 10s day 1. The time profile of gel conversion
for a range of K values is shown in Fig, 6. Here, we are primarily
interested in the longer gel times, which allow deep penetration
of the polymer into the large reservoir model.
The physical propetiies of the resulting gel in tbe porous medium must be de,tined to,describe bow the gel actually behaves in
the reservoir system. In practice, polymerl crossligkef fluids appear to operate by first aggregating into small (pregel) clusters of
polymer molecules and, in some cases,. subseqtkntly forming full
tl@edimensional structures. Even in the pregel stage, the aggregates will be retained and will reduce the effective permeability
of the aqueous phase. It is this poreblocking mechanism that is
inco~orated into the model gel considered in.thk work., Neither
the polymer nor the crosslinker is adsorbed onto the reck, and oidy
the gel is assumed to be adsorkdretained.
It is known that polymers and some crosslinkers, such as A13+ and Cr3 +, ~e adsorbed
on reservoir reck. Ordy prelimikuy results ate ptesented here, tiowever, and further work is in progress to study the effects of adsorption in more detail.
The properties of the model gel are given in Table 3. Two cases
are defined showing higher and lower levels of residud resistance
factor, FR. fn each of these cases, the FR in the lowpermeabiiigJ
region is taken m be four times that in the highpenneabitity w.@.
Whife this factbr is somewhat arbkmy, it reflectt the fact that blocking is moresevere if geI enters or is formed in the lowpermeability
strata and follows earlier reported practice. 7.22 However, the absolute value of the FR in the highpermeability region has been
found m be a much more important parameter. As expected, the
,.!

.,
!:7,
, !,
,
e
., 
.0.,,
,., , !, @A,,.
,.,. , !,
,.,,,
8 ,
5
r. ,s . ,,.
,, f
t,
,.7,,
,,,
.!
s !,, ,,,,,
,mAs,
i9. 5Effect Of verticaltohorizontal
permeability ratio on
111recovety (after 1,500 days) for v@terfloods and polymer
Ioods.
640
SPE Reservoir Engineering, November 1987
.,,
TABLE 3PROPERTIES
OF THE
GEL USED IN THE CALCULATIONS PRESENTED
Values
Property
Comment
Polymer, Co= 1,000 ppm
.Cmssfinker, Co= 20 ppm
Injection concentrations
t,fi (day)
K(d~y l)
Rate constants
These are fixed for all calculations
A range of rate constants is Studfee
te is the time for conversion of half
the original material to gel (C and
Co as above)
20
62.5
80
25
20
80
62.5
25
20
62.5
so
(C)=0.5 +1.75X103
C,
+1.75 XI06 c;
Polymer viscosity
Adsorption/resistance
factors
This is a convenient analytical form at
C, = 1,000 ppm, the polymer
viscosity is 4 cp
1. Gel is assumed to adsorb
irreversibly with a stripping
isotherm
,,
Polymer crosslinker does not adsorb
Permeability.
High
LOW
High
Low
Case 1
Case 2
5.65S x 105
8.844x 105
5.658 x 105
8.644 x105
2, Given in tractional concentration.
(Ibm polymerl[bm rock assuming
PR = 121.7 Ibmift in the highpermeability streak and 129.8 lbm/ft
in the lowerpermeability streak)
Residual
resistance
factor (3)
Gel
adsorption
(1,2)
(300 lbm/acr6ft)
(500 lbm/acreft)
(300 Ibmlacreft)
(5001 bm/acreft)
levels of F;for the gel case are hi~her than those for the ordinary
polymer flood (see Table2) presented previously.
Remtfts of Gel Calculations. When a gelling system is injected
into a reservoir at a constant rate, there is inevitably a pressure
buildup. To put these pressures in context, consider two limiting
cases in our model reservoir system (1) when all injected water
enters the floodedout 10darcy streak, at the injection rate considered here (34,500 ft3/D [980 m3/d]), then, if 100% water flow
is assumed, AP across the reservoir is 140 psi [965 @a], and
(2) when all injected fluid is diverted at the same rate into the 100md
Iowpsnmeability tigion as a result of the total blocking of the streak
by a ve~ efficient gel treatment; then, if 100% oil flow is assumed,
the.correspottding AP across the reservoir is 2,300 psi [ 15.9
MPa].
40
80
10
20
S. Twocases with. higher and lower
levels of pore blocking by gel are
studi@FR isquoted at the
maximum adsorption level
For simplicity in our calculations, we maintain a constant injection rate at above, but we specify a maximum acceptable pressure
drop across the system of 2,300 psi [15.9 MPa]. If the pressure
rises shove this value in a given gel flood, we assume that the flood
is not feasible. This pressure drop does not include the pressure
drop between the wellbore and the adjacent formation. This depends very much on the local conditions, such as the well skin factor and well fracturing, and therefore it not included. Only relatively
lowviscosity fluids ~e being injected into tbe fimnation (maximum polymer viscosi~ is 4 cp [4 mpa. s]), however, and unless
there is considerable reduction in pe~eability close to the well,
injectivity should not be impaired vew significantly.
In all cases,, the 8el injection strategy is similar to that for the
polymer cases discussed previously, The gel systems are injected,
however, into only tie highpermeability streak for 150 days after
m/~
/JOO
.jY//~
.
 xANTHAN
CUMULATIVE
(NOCROS5L1NKER1
wATERFLOOD
30
CUWLATIVE
,x
... >
/
~//e
_.=cm
..4:
XANIHkN
SLUG
WAmnnooo
&
10*
LONG
1,,,
104
,~,
R,lE
CONSTANT.
SHORT
Fig. 7Effect of reaction rate and residual resistance factor on cumulative
ter 1,500 days) and injectivity for pol ymerlcrossfinker
injection.
8PE Rse;oir
Engineering, November 1937
t,,,
oil recovety
(af.

CASE I GEL CALCULATIONS
SLUG
XANTNAN
WA: ERFLOOO

__
J
POLYHER
OR
POLYHER)
CROSSLINKER
IN JEC,, ON
,0
Fig. 8Cumulative
Iations.
lg. 9Walercut development
md Case 1 gel calculations.
oil rec6ve!y
for waterflood,
profiles for waterflood,
polymer
flood
450 days of water flooding. This avoids excessive gel blocking iii
the lowpermeability region close to the injection well. Watertlo@ithen resumed over all layers for the remainder of the flood.
[n the first series of calculations, with the data in Table 3, the
effects of both residual resistance factors, FR, generated and die
gel reaction rate, K, were investigated. The effects of FRand K
on oil recovery (after 1,500 days) and maximum pressure buildup
across the resctvoir are summarized in Fig. 7. The maximum pressure value cccurs at the end of polymerlcrosslinker injection. Fkst
consider the higher blocking situation (Case 1, Table 3), whereat
maximum gel adsorption, the FR is 40 and 80 in the higlier and
lower strata, respectively. A range of reaction rats with
2.5x103 SKS8X 104 dayl is considered for Case 1; the maximum reaction at which tie AP across the reservoir remains ~cceptablc is K=8 x 104 day 1. ~is is equivalent to t ,Aof 625 days,
which is above rhe mrredy available practical gel times by a factor
of about 20. For boih this case and that where K=2.5 x 104
day 1, it is noted that increnmmal oil recoveries are considerably
above those for either the waterflood or the polymer floods; these
two cases recover a futtber 17 and 27 % of the farget movable oil
(quoted at 1,500 days), r+spcctively, compared with the polymer
flood.
ing is
fA2
polymer flood,. and Case 1 gel calcu
lle recovery profiles and water cuts for tlese cases are also
shown in Figs. 8 and 9, where they are compared with the waterflood and polymer flood. Note that the gel applications show approximately the sanie onset time for increased oil production rate
(or wider mt drop). The better gel application lowers water cuts
in the simple kesemoir model fmm 95% to as low as 32%, however, compared with a lowest water cut of  72% in tic polymer
flood. Because of the permeabilityreducing action of the gel, the
effect oit water cut is more persistent. Final water cuts in tie two
cases shown in Fig. 9 ~e 85 and 80% compared with a worse
postflood water cut of  97% in the case of the mo~$lVcOntrOl
polymer. Contours of water saturation, residual resistance factors,
and pressure Sre shown i Figs. 10, 11, and 12, respectively, at
a rangeof times during the tlood for the Case 1 example with
K= 8 x 104 day1. The resistance factors in Fig. 11 are a measure of where the gel is actually located. The coriespondmg water
saturations in Fig. 10 show the progress of the aqueous phase during and after the gel injection. Fig. IOa shows that very little water
has entered the lowpermeability region after 450 days. After the
polymerlcrosslinker reactants have been injected (at 600 days), tic
water invasion of the Iowpetineability strata is much improved,
as shown in Fig. 10b through d..
It is inmuctive to examine the pressure contoup at different stages
of the flood shown in Fig., 12. Before polymerlcrosslinker injec~on, pressures aie low (s 150 psi [s 1034 kPa]) and somewhat
higher in the.streak than in the lowpermeability region. The pressure reaches a maximum of. 2,100 psi [ 14.5 MPa] after 600
days at the end of chemical injection. At this time and over the next
300 days, there is a lowerpressure region just in front of the gel
slug that causes some crossflow of oil from the low to the highpermeabiliw zones. The effat of this can be seen in Fig. 10b and
c, where water saturations in tbe streak clearly drop a little. These
crossflow mechanisms are discussed elsewhere. 21 Long afief the.
resumption of normat waterflooding, the pressure tield is as shown
i,nFig. 12d. The pressure across the system has:dmpped to 1,400.
psi [9653 !&a], and pressures in the high and lowpermeability
streaks have approximately equalized. tn this case, the effect of
the treatment is clearly very longlived because gel degradation has
not been included in. our calculations. 3
If gel blocklng, FR, is reduced by a factor of four in both the
high and lowpermeability regions (Case 2), then increased oil
recoveries are obtained only at higher gel reaction ratei, as shown
in Fig. 7. For a value of K4.5 x105 dayi (ZIL111 days),
however, the pressure constraint across the reservoir is again just
SPE Reservoir Engineering, November 1987
..
mm sANwrm6 .
a !Ca
am
:
3
:.
:
t
450
days (start
of p.al~erlczoss
linker
injection)
i:
a 3m
a 4m
asm
a 6m
a 7m
am
cml
1. cm
..
600
days
t =
900
days
1500
(end of polymer/cro.s linker injection)
day,
i9. 10W4W SatUmtiOn COntOUW during polymer gelation treatment (Case 1; K= a x 104
Iayi).
wm=hiw
its
m=imum acceptable value. The
this case is between the Case 1 values for K=2.5x
oil recove~ for
104 and 8 x 104
dayl.
We not; that the FRvalues used in these two cases for the highpermeabilhy streak (40 for Case 1 and10 for Case 2) are relatively low. It has been found that if high gel blocking is assumed, then
the penetration depth is much redu;cd and pressures become uriacceptably high, Gel adsorption levels are also quite low in this study
(see Table 3) for the same rea.mu i.e., at high adsorption levels,
the gel system cannot penetrate deeply into fhe streak. Higher blocking Td adsorption levels may be acceptable for smaller systems;
this is currently under study.
.%unmsry of Results. A number of points emer~e from these
preliminary studies of gel formation in a layered system.
1. To obtain deep penemationof large stmthied systems, gels with
ve~ long setting times are required if pressure problems are to be
avoided. No systems with such long gel times are currently known.
2. Both the incremental oil recove~ and pressure buildup incr.$ase
as the pore blocking, FR, and reaction rate increase over the range
SPE Reservoir E@meting, November 1987
of reaction rates studkd. For higherblocking gels, however, the
reaction rate must be sufflcicnOy low toavoid high pressure buildup across the reservoir.
3. It is clear from our calculations that the gel properties have
not been optimized. For example, in the reaction where
K=8.OX 104 day 1 in Case 1, Fig. 6 shows that the conversion
of reactants is less than 62% after 1,000 days of reaction. Clearly,
kjection cancenuntions and slug size of reac+ts could be oprimizgxt
in terms of oil recovery for 8iven F.q values and rate behavior.
4, If the technical problems of designing a very lonXtimesetting
polymer)croislinker system can be overcome, then this approach
may have considerable potential in large reservoir systems where
str@4ng is known to occur. The size of the reservoir studied in
this work imposes severeconstraints on the rate constant in the gel
system. If these constraints are relaxed somewhat, so that requited
penetration depths are about 2Cilrather than 1,000 II [60 rather than
300 m] and setting times, t,h, are 30 to 60 days rather than 100
m 1,000 days, then the timesetting properties of a suitable gel are
more technically feasible. Future work will examine the size sealing of systems in which gel applications may be performed.
643
ESISIM
t = 450 days (,*care of polymerlcrms linker i.jec. ion)
c = 600
1:
FACIM vNIEs
z Om
4.Om
&c@
& 003
,korm
12.6X
14.ml
Km
.,anm
20.m
days (end of polyme.1.ross linker ipjectiom)
r = 900 days
t = 1500 devs
Fig. 11Residual
resistance
material. (Case 1; K=8x104
factors for polymer gel treatment
Concluding Remark? and Future Work
A number of simplified gel calculations have been carried out with
a new chemical flood simulator, SCORP1O.This is the first time that
been presented in the Iiteramre. The
simulator has performed very satisfactorily in these calculations.
Taken as a whole, SCORP1O
represents the cmrent state of chemical
flooding technology; it is flexible and has a wide range of versatility. Care must be taken, however, with the well models whm bighviscosity fluids or permeability reduction of the formation are involved. Further work is in progress to incorporate h more implicit
treatment of wells in tbe SCORP1O
code.
Akhough our calculations are quite prelimina~, some interesting coriclusions on gel systems have been ~achd. The results in
this paper apply to large resefvoir systems coritaining very severe
highpermeability streaks in which we have attempted to specify
condkions for deep gel emplacement. Our most important conclusion is that, to obtain significant amounts of incremental oil while
avoiding excessive pressure buildup; the gel system must have a.
acceptable combination of long gelation times and good
calculations of this type have
644
showing deep penetration
day).
permeabilityreducing
properties in the highpenneabiliv
streak
(FR 10 to 20 in the cases stadied).
Areas of work that require further study include the following.
1. More refined models of the gel kinetics that allow for the multistep nature of tie coagulationtype reaction andlor describe the
kinetics of a timedelay redox system to produce tie cmsslinker.
2. The effects of interactions, such as those betieen themck
matrix and the crosslinkere. g., when Cr3 + isthe cr:sslinking
ion, it is known to adsorb onto the rock.
3. The effects of reservoir sizs in this work a large reservoir
system was use~ that requires very long gel times hcycmd ,tiose
of currently available polymergel technology, but in sma!ler sYstems, gel times on the order of 20 to 30 days may have considerable beneficial effect:
4. Beiter model descriptions of the physical bebav~or of tie gel
in the porous medkun (in this work, the gel was adsorbedlrefained
and permea.biliy reduction was described through residual resistance
factors, FR).
5: A wider range of sensitivities than has been, covered in this
papertie effects of gelation rate, initial rw.cmnt concentmtions,
SPE Reservou Engineering, November 1987
PRESSURE VALUES:
2100..00
1700.00
!300.00
900.00
500,00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
I
:
4
5
~.
7
c = 450 days (start of polymerlcro~s
t = 600 days.(end of p.lpcrlcmss
linker injection)
linker injection)
t = 1500 days
i9. 12Resem~ir pressure distribution through polymer
(=8x104
day
).
k
kra
kH
kv
fi2 [mz]
C,fR
CP =
c =
$ =
~a
total fluid compressibility, psi1 [kpa I]
pore compressibili~, psi 1 [kPa 1]
compressibility of Phase a, pi1 &Pa] .
adsorbed component comqitratio vector
.= mass concent;tion of Component i in Phase a
concetmwion
of Component
i
= initiallinjection
= depth below line of zero gravitational potential,
ft [m]
=, physical diffision of Component i in P@se, a,
c t12/D [mZ/d]
= activation energy, cal/g mol. [kJ/kMOll
SPE R.?semoirEngineering,November 1987
.
(case
rnataiaI
= residual resiswnce factor
g = gr2vit2ti0nal
aj = coefficients in general chemical reaction relation
4P. = area of interface between Gridblock t and!,
D~
treatments
I;
f. = frmtibn of Phase a in contact witi adsorbed
Nomenclature
Ci
D
gelat@
~~
slug size, permeability coritrast, and blocking characteristics need
,to be examined.
CL
;
10
=
=
=
=
rock permeability,
md
relative permeabili~ for Phase o!
horizonml rock permeability, md
md
vertical rock permeabili~,
K = reaction
&yl
rate constant
~ = vector of component
mi = mass of Component
Aq
= mass
for Phase a
constant
increment
for
for crosslinhg
masses, lbm
i, Ibm [kg]
Component
reaction,
Kg]
i=mp+l
rff,
lbm [kg]
densily of Component
i, lbm/ft3 [kglm3 ].
coefficient =(k,a/pJp@C~
N = total number of adsorbed and mobile reacting
~i
= mass
ML =
componems
645

..
. .
AJa = mtmkr of components involved in co~pied
adso~tion
including water
N, = total number of components,
pa pressure of Phase a, psi [kpa]
AP = pressure increment over tinre=pn+ 1Pn, psi [kpa]
Fe = capillary pressure, psi [kPa]
e
= pressure
drop
across
reservoir,
for Component
9! = SOUrCe/SiItk tCrm
[kg/m3. d]
psi [kPa]
i, lbtn/ti3
D
Q = overall source fsink term for Component i idding
lbm/ft3 D
chemical generationldcgradation,
[kg/m3 d]
R = gas constant, cal/gmolK [MJ/kmoI K]
R~ = reaction rite of Component i in Phase & lbrnlt13D
[kg/m3
S= = satrxztion
f = time,
d]
of Phase a, fraction
days
At = length of timestep =t +1 f,
ts
= halfconversion
reaction,
time
days
of secondorder
crosslinking
days
T
Vf
VP
VP
Vpb
= temperature, F ~C]
= total volume occupied by all fluids, ft3 [m3]
= volume of Gridblock PI, R3 [m3]
= effective PV, ft3 [m3]
= block PV
Vm = volume occupied by Phase a, ft3 [m3].
Ax = incremental disfance, ft [m]
Ti = adsorption of Component i
of Component
i on rock surface in
Ii,a = adsorption
contact with Phase a
@= typical quantity to be evaluated at block interfaces
km = mobility of Phase a, l/cp [l/Pa.s]
I% = viscosity of Phase a, cp [Pa. S]
PW = density .of Phase a, lbm/t13 [kg/m3]
PR = density of rock, including pore space, Ibmlft3
[kg/m3]
+ = pOrOsity
Subscripts
i,j = component label
P=
f =
rxn =
w =
.a =
gridblock connected to Gridblock ?,
current gridblock
term associated with chemical reacti.m
water
;
phase label (aqueous or oleic)
Superscript
n = timestep index
Corwersion facfms ceded m achieve mmistency are implicit i
the equations.
Acknowledgments
We thzmkK.L. Rolf for her assistance with the compwing and R.I.
Hawes for his helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was
timded by the U.K. Dept. of Energy.
4. Acs, G., Doleschall, S., and Farkas, E.; General Purpose Compmitiond Model, SPEI (Aug. 1985) 54353.
5, Kendall, R.P, a cd.: .$Developmentof a MultipleApplicationReservoir Simulator farsUse cma Vector Cmnpww,,, paper SPE 11483
mesentcd at the 1983 SPE Middle East Oil Tectuical Conference,
Bahr.uh, March 1417.
6. Watts, 1.W.: ..A CompositionalFormulation of the Fmss.re and Smmticm Equation,,, SPERE (May 1986) 24352.
7. Sorbic, K. S., Robem, L, J., and Foulser, R. W, S,:.. Polymer Flooding Calculations for Highly Stratified Brent Sands in the North Sea,
Pmc,, Secmd European Symposium on EOR, Paris (Nov. 19g2)
17590.
8. Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: P.Iroltwm Re.?en$ofr Simudarfon, Applied
Science Publishers Ltd., London (1979) 13538.
9. Duff, 1.S. and Reid, J.f$.: .The MukifrontalSoludon of Indefinite
Sparse Symmetric Linear Systems,, Tntns., AWL for CmnPutig
Machinery, Mafh. Software (19g3).9, 3~25.
10. Meijerink,J.A. andvan&r Vorst,H.A.: A. IterativeSol.tim Meth&
for Limar Systemsof Which the Cmtlicimt Matrix is s. Symmetric
MMatrix,,. Mtifh. COW.. (1.977) 31, 14862.
11. Kershaw, D. S.: .Thc [ncomplefe CholeskyConjugate Gradient Method
for the Iterative Solution of Systems of Linear Equations, J. Commit.
Phys. (1978) 26,4365.
12. Jennings, R.R., Rogers, J.H., and West, T.J.: .$Fa.!ors Iutl.emig
MobilityCmtrol by PolymerSolutions,,>JPT (March 1971)391401;
Trans., AIME, 251.
13. Dovm, H.T. and Hutchim, R.D,: kDevelopmmtof a New Alunimm/PolymerGelSystemfor PermeabilityAdjwrnem,, SSPERE (May
19S7) 17783.
t4. Pmdhomme,R,K. et al.: .RheologicalMonitoringof the Formation
of PolyactylamidelCr3+Gels, SPEJ (Oct. 1983)8W08.
15. Aslam, S., Vosso.gbi, S., and Wrllhite,G.P.: Viscom.trtc Mess
meme.t of ChromiumlUPolyacrylarnideGelsby WeissenbergRheogoniom.ter,,, paper SPE 12639 presented at tie 1984 SPE/GGE
Enhanced Oil, Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April [5 IS
16. Pmdhomme,R.K. andUtd, J.T.: Xinetiis of Polymer/MetalIonGelation, paper SPE 12640presentedat the 1984SPEiD.OEEnhanced
Oil RecoverySymposium,Tulsa, April 1518.
17. Southard,M,Z,, Green, D,W., ad Willhke, G.P,: Kineticsof the
ChromiumVtlThioureaReactionin fhePresenceof Polyacrylamidc,
DaDerSPE 127[5mese.ted at the 1984SPEIDOEEnhawedOil Recov~ti Symposium,?.1s., April 1518,
18. Huang,C., Green, D.W..,ind Willhhe, G.P.: An ExperimentalStudy
of the Insit Gelationof Chromium(+ 3)/PolyamylamidePolymeri.
Pomw Mti,,, , SPERE (No. 1986) 58392.
19. Sortie, K.S., Roberts, L,J., and Clifford, P.J.: ..Cdculado.$ m the
Behavi.w of TirneSctdngpolymerGelsi PorousMedia,,, pqer 62.
20.
presentedat the 1985 AIChE NatL Spring Meeting, Houston, March
242X.
~cr~d, C.F.: Aj@ed Numericcd Analysis, se&mdedhion, Addison
Wesley PublishingCo. Inc., Reading, MA (1980) 1520.
21. Clifford, P.J. and Sortie, K. S.: .Polymer Flooding in Stratifkd Systems Recnvery Mechanisms and the Effert of Chemical Degradation,
m EOR, Tmmibeim (Oct. 1984).
22. Vela, S., Peaceman, D, W., and Sm.ik, E. I.: .GEvalwuionof Polymer
dation,,, paperSPE5102 presented at the 1974 SPE Amu.1 Meet;ng,
Hcmstm. Ott. 69.
23. Dodge, B.F.: ChemicalEngineeringT&nnodynamc.t M.Graw.Hill
Book Co., New York City (1944) 10407.
S1Metric Conversion Factors
acreft x 1.233489
bbl x 1.589873
Cp x 1.0*
ft x 3,048*
ft3 X 2.g31 685
lbm X 4.535924
lbm/ft3 X 1.601846
tonne X 1.0*
.
Reterences
1, Balycky, J.P., Maii, B.B., md Milmz, G.: CAStudy of the Application of PolymmicGelsin Porom Media,,, paperSPE 10620presented
at the 1982SPEItl, SyrnpmsiwncmO,ltieldmd GeothermalChemistry, DaUaS, Jan. 2527.
2. Navradl, M., Sovak,M,, and Mitchell, M,S.: Dive~ng Agentsfor
Sweepknprovemmts i ,FloodingOperationsLaboratoryStudies,,,
paper SPE 10621
presented at the 1982SPE 1.0. Symposiumon Oilfield and GeothermalChemimy, Dallas, Jam 2527,
3. Clifford, P.J, md Sorbic, K.S.; $TheEffects of ChemicalDegradstio on polymer Ftooding,,3paper SPE 13586presmted at the 1985
SPE ImL Syrnposiun m Oilfieldand Gco!herm?JChemistry,Phoe.
nix, April 911.
646
.C..vers:..
fm.r !. e=+
E+03
E01
E03
E01
E02
E01
E+OI
E+OO
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
m3
m3
Pas
m
m3
kg
kg/m3
Mg
SPERE
Odgin~SPEnmwScdpt
received
forreview
SepI.22,1985.Paperaccepted
for
Public..
Ho. June 11, 1986,Revised rnanus.xlplmcelwd Sepl, ?7, 1986,PaPer(SPE 14234)first
Presentedat the 1985SW AnnualTechnic.)Conference..d Exhwtim held,. Lasvwa,,
Sept. ,985.
SPE Rese&ok
En8i.neetig, November 1987
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.