SPE

Society of Petroleun Engineers of AIME

SPE 13586

The Effects of Chemical Degradation on Polymer Flooding

by P.J. Clifford and K.S. Sorbie, U.K. Atomic Energy Authority

This paper was presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry held in Phoenix, Arizona, April 9-11, 1985. The material
is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richard-
son, Texas 75083-3836. Telex: 730989 SPE DAL.

ABSTRACT Although the use of various additives can

substantially increase polymer stability [2, 5, 6 ],
Polymers are known to degrade chemically under chemical degradation will remain an important issue
reservoir conditions. In this paper we simulate the in the planning of polymer floods in the field.
effect of chemical degradation on polymer flooding,
using a modified chemical flooding code. We In order to make best use of these careful
particularly investigate layered reservoirs, in which experimental studies, it is essential to understand
vertical crossflow is shown to be the leading oil how the polymer behaves. This requires us to move
recovery mechanism. The calculated effects of substantially beyond simple comparisons of polymer
degradation are explained in terms of the effects of lifetime with the expected timescale of polymer
polymer on fluid flow patterns. Results are flooding. In this paper it is shown that such
presented for different polymer and reservoir types, comparisons can be very misleading. Instead, a full
and the effect of non-uniform reservoir temperature investigation of the effects of polymer, and polymer
on degradation rates is also studied. It is shown degradation, on fluid flow within the reservoir, is
that there are a number of types of polymer flood in needed. It is only then that we can state what
which the effects of chemical degradation are less degree of polymer stability is required for technical
severe than might initially be expected. and economic viability.

1. INTRODUCTION A chemical flooding simulation model has been

developed, which includes calculation of temperature
When a polymer is considered for an improved oil distributions and chemical reactions whose rate may
recovery project, it should first be subjected to a depend on temperature. In this paper, we report the
number of laboratory screening tests. Such results of numerical studies of polymer flooding
procedures should include polymer inject i vi ty, using the full facilities of this model. An analysis
adsorption and brine compatibility tests along with a of the basic incremental oil recovery mechanisms due
study of its microbial, mechanical and chemical to polymer is provided in terms of its effect on flow
degradation characteristics. patterns within the reservoir. These mechanisms are
then used to interpret the results of simulations of
The chemical stability of polymers under floods with polymers of different physical
reservoir conditions has been identified as one of properties, subject to degradation at different
the most important factors governing the success of a rates.
polymer flood. S~bstantial laboratory investigations
of polymer stability have been carried out both to Much of the work reported is concentrated on
gather general data on degradative mechanisms and for stratified reservoirs, with a high permeability
specific field applications. Long term stability contrast between the different layers, and low
testing has been carried out on polyacrylamide [1-5], water/oil mobility ratios. This is in part because
xanthan biopolymer [ 3-7 J and on a range of other such formations are found in the North Sea. In these
polymer types [ 3-5 J.
Each of these investigations cases, polymer might be used to improve waterflooding
has involved the aging of polymer solution samples performance by reducing channelling along the high
with a wide range of additives under different permeability layers, leading to better sweep of the
environmental conditions, and the measurement of low permeability layers and a lower watercut.
viscosity and screen factor at times of up to several Reservoirs with and without barriers to vertical flow
months. are considered - the distinction is shown to be most
important in assessing the effects of chemical
It has been found that chemical degradation can degradation. For comparison some results are
be particularly significant under conditions of presented on the impact of polymer degradation in the
elevated temperature and high salinity [3, 4]. flooding of homogeneous areal systems.

405
 2 THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DEGRADATION ON POLYMER FLOODING SPE 13586

The chemical reactions involving polymer are
temperature-dependent, and the simulations of
Section 6 of this paper calculate the temperature
distribution within reservoirs partially cooled by
waterflooding, together with its effects on the rate
and impact of chemical degradation. Section 7 looks
at the effect of the more complex polymer properties,
such as adsorption and pore-blocking, in addition to
viscosity, on the importance of polymer degradation
within a partially cooled reservoir.
2. THE POLYMER SIMULATION MODEL
adsorbed polymer) and temperature. The reaction rate
term, R(Cp; c1 •.• CN; T), may be a source or sink
term for the polymer and is in general a function of
polymer concentration, other solute concentrations
and temperature. This term has been included in a
general way into the CFTE code [15 J such that any
components may degrade or react together to give
products which can also be transported. Simplified
forms of this term are used in this work in the
polymer flooding calculations which involve chemical
degradation of the polymer. These are discussed in
later sections.

A number of papers have appeared in recent years The temperature may be derived from energy
describing approaches to the simulation of polymer conservation considerations. In a system of NP
flooding [8-13]. In this work, we base our calcula- phases (where a are the phase labels) this equation
tions on a modified form of the Intercomp CFTE code has the form:
[14]. This is an imcompressible, finite difference,
three dimensional, polymer/surfactant simulator.
Polymer is usually transported in the aqueous phase
and effects such as dispersion, adsorption etc are
included in the original model. Two main
modifications to this code have been made at this
laboratory and are used in this study. These are:

(i) the inclusion of a generalised
multicomponent reaction model [15] which
allows us to simulate component degradation
or chemical reaction (eg crosslinking gel
formation);
(ii) the inclusion of a heat balance equation
which is used to calculate temperature pro-
files in the reservoir [16]. Some
preliminary work on this has been reported
previously [17].
where ba is the specific heat of phase a and ~ is the
thermal conductivity which may be a function of the
rock type and its fluid content. Heat conduction
into the reservoir from the underburden and
overburden is treated using a Carter-Tracy model
[ 16 J,
which can be used with either constant
temperature or constant heat flux boundary
conditions. The calculated reservoir temperature may
then feed back on to any of the physical properties
such as fluid viscosities and polymer degradation
rates.

The polymer transport equation (neglecting 3. CROSSFLOW IN POLYMER FLOODING

excluded volume effects) that is solved in the
computer code is effectively: In order to study the effects of polymer
flooding in heterogeneous systems, a number of
<PS 5_ + _<_1 -_<P_)_P.;;;.,.r (oCads) reservoir models of varying complexity are considered
w at Pw at in this paper. Simple two layer systems, both with
and without vertical crossflow, as well as
three-layer and real field models, are studied.
Recovery mechanisms for polymer flooding in each of
where CP is the polymer concentration, c1 to CN are these systems is analysed in some detail. These
the other N components present in the aqueous phase mechanisms apply to all stratified reservoirs. In
and R is the reaction rate term. All other this section, the polymer is assumed to be chemically
quantities have their usual significance and are stable and temperature variations within the
defined in the Nomenclature. The Darcy velocity of reservoir are not considered. These phenomena are
the aqueous phase, ~' is given by: studied in later sections of this paper.

(2) 3.1 OIL RECOVERY MECHANISMS IN THE POLYMER FLOODING

OF LAYERED SYSTEMS
where the aqueous phase mobility, is a function Aw'
of relative permeability (ie Sw) and viscosity. In a layered reservoir, there are three main
These are in turn functions of polymer and other mechanisms by which polymer will improve oil
solute concentrations (including in some cases the recovery:

406
 SPE 13586 P J CLIFFORD AND K S SORBIE
(i) it may cause an increase in the proportion
of injected fluid entering and flowing
along the low permeability layers;
(ii) the polymer may cause the crossflow of
fluids (oil, water and polymer solution)
between low and high permeability layers,
in the neighbourhood of the polymer slug;
(iii) the microscopic oil displacement efficiency
may be improved by the polymer; this
applies principally when the waterflood is
carried out at an unfavourable mobility
ratio.
All three of the above effects are due to viscous
forces associated with the viscosifying and pore
blocking properties of the polymer solution.
Most of the calculations in this work apply to
unit mobility ratio waterfloods and thus the polymer
flood will operate principally through mechanisms (i)
and (ii) above. The first mechanism applies if there
is a barrier to vertical flow or if the ratio of
vertical to horizontal permeability is very low.
However, even a comparatively low vertical
permeability (kv/kh ) 10-3) will tend to equalise
pressures in the different layers at any point
between the wells, in which case, the crossflow
mechanism ((ii) above) will dominate.
The crossflow mechanism is explained in Figure 1
by considering a non-adsorbing polymer slug injected
into a simple two-layer system. Consider first a
case where the two layers are separated by an
impermeable membrane so that there is no crossflow.
The two layers have equal end pressures (ignoring
gravity) but are not equal in pressure at
intermediate points. In each layer, the pressure
gradient is largest in the region containing the
slug. Since the slug in the lower permeability layer
moves more slowly than that in the higher
permeability layer, as shown in Figure 1(a), pressure
profiles of the type shown in Figure 1(b) are
produced. A higher pressure occurs in the high
permeability layer behind the slug whilst a lower
pressure occurs in this layer ahead of the slug.
If the barrier to vertical flow between layers
were to be removed, crossflow would occur and
pressure differences between the layers would be
reduced. The flow would be from . the high
permeability layer to the low permeability layer at
the rear of the slug and this crossflow would take
some polymer with it. The flow would be reversed
ahead of this slug so that oil would flow into the
high permeability layer in this region. The work of
Zapata and Lake [18] considers analytically the
two-phase flow of water and oil of different
mobility, and of simple EOR fluids, in a two-layer
reservoir. The assumption underlying their calcula-
tions of crossflow is that pressure is almost exactly
equalized between the different layers at any point
between the wells. In many cases this is a good
approximation. It is of course necessary to move
beyond analytical work to consider the full range of
polymer properties, such as degradation.
407
3
If the polymer slug is in the middle of the
reservoir, the fluid crossflow may be visualised as a
flow "around" the slug, except that the slug's
forward motion means that no single fluid element
will complete a full bypass of the slug. It is clear
that the enhanced sweep of this particular area may
be greater than if (as in cases without crossflow)
the effect of the polymer slug were averaged over the
whole length of the reservoir.
The specific examples presented in the following
subsections will illustrate the mechanisms discussed
above.
3.2 A TWO-LAYER MODEL
The first simplified reservoir model consists of
two rock types with a high permeability contrast of
20: 1. A 2-dimensional vertical cross-section was
considered (see Table 1) in which the high
permeability rock formed a basal layer, occupying 20%
of the thickness of the pay zone, overlain by the low
permeability rock, forming the remaining 80%. A
rectangular grid with 20 horizontal blocks and 3
vertical blocks was used in the calculations
presented in this paper. Finer grid calculations
were initially performed, and this showed that 3
vertical grid blocks were adequate to represent the
crossflow mechanism discussed here. The high
permeability layer is labelled as layer 1, and the
low permeability layer is subdivided into its lower
and upper halves, labelled 2(i) and 2(ii)
respectively. The ratio of vertical to horizontal
permeability was taken to be 0.1 in the base case,
but could be varied, with the additional option of
vertical transmissibility barriers. The higher
permeability layer was placed at the base of the
reservoir in order to minimise gravitational
crossflow of oil and water between the layers [19].
Capillary crossflow effects were not included in
these calculations as in most cases they can be shown
from scaling theory to contribute little to the
crossflow at the reservoir scale compared to viscous
effects [ 20J.
At the start of each calculation, the reservoir
was taken to be at connate water saturation. The
same flow rate of one pore volume per five years was
used for both water and polymer floods. A set of
power-law relative permeabilities was adopted (see
Table 1). Polymer flooding was normally carried out
as a slug of 10% total pore volume size, after
waterflooding had already been conducted for 3 years,
and watercut had risen to about 80%. The polymer
slug was followed by chase water injection up to a
total of 2 pore volumes. Viscous fingering was not
simulated in these calculations.
For the most basic series of calculations, the
polymer was treated as a non-adsorbing mobility
control agent rather like an idealised xanthan
biopolymer. The end-point mobility ratio of water to
oil was taken as unity in the standard case, though a
case with a higher viscosity oil was also considered.
The use of a low mobility ratio emphasises the role
of polymer in diverting fluid flow between different
layers rather than its microscopic displacement
 4 THE EFFECTS OF CHEHICAL DEGRADATION ON POLYHER FLOODING
efficiency. In this case, the polymer has relatively
little effect on the sweep of oil from the high
permeability layers, since waterflooding at low
mobility ratio is adequate to achieve this in its own
right. A high polymer viscosity (20 times water
viscosity), corresponding to a concentration for
xanthan of about 1000 ppm, was selected to match the
high degree of reservoir heterogeneity.
3.3 POLYMER FLOODING IN THE TWO LAYER MODEL
The gross effects of polymer flooding in the two
layer base case model are shown in Figure 2. Large
reductions in watercut, from ~80% to ~40% are
achieved for a period of almost one year, indicating
that the flow in regions of the low permeability
layer has increased substantially. The incremental
oil production reaches a maximum of 9.4% of STOIIP at
about 5 years, and gradually declines subsequently to
a value of 3. 8% of STOIIP after a further one pore
volume of chase water injection, at 10 years.
It should be noted that the reduction in
watercut is observed significantly after the end of
polymer injection. This is contrary to the
no-crossflow case where incremental oil production
begins as soon as polymer is injected (see Section
3. 4). Where there is cross flow, incremental oil
production begins as the leading edge of the polymer
slug approaches the producer end of the high
permeability layer, and continues until all polymer
has left this layer. The oil production from
particular regions of the reservoir is shown in
detail on Figure 3. It· is seen that during the
polymer injection period (3 to 3. 5 years), oil is
beginning to leave the low permeability layers due to
the polymer, but is not being immediately produced.
Instead, a large proportion of it is flowing
vertically into the high permeability layer, in which
the oil content is in fact increasing. This oil
flows into a region immediately ahead of the polymer
slug, and is pushed out of the layer just before the
slug reaches the producer. The greater part of the
incremental oil is however produced directly from the
low permeability layer, but only after the slug is
already being produced from the high permeability
layer, and thus has a local influence on flow at the
producing end of the system. These observations are
consistent with the proposal that the polymer slug
alters flow rates and patterns only in its immediate
neighbourhood, and not globally over the whole
reservoir.
The crossflow of oil into the high permeability
streak is accompanied by a crossflow of polymer solu-
tion and chase water, but in this case from the high
to the low permeability layer. Figure 4 shows that
at the end of polymer injection, the high
permeability layer contains nearly 60% of the
polymer. However, by the time that the slug has
totally passed through the high permeability layer,
nearly 85% of the injected polymer is found within
the low permeability layers, with only 15% being
produced from the system. This result occurs in the
absence of any adsorption. It is caused by the
crossflow of water and polymer from the rear of the
polymer slug, which is thus disrupted as it passes
through the high permeability layer. The front of
the slug remains relatively unaffected by crossflow,
so that the reduction in watercut persists until it
has left the reservoir at about 4.5 years.
408
f:PE 13586
The wide generality of these crossflow
mechanisms is illustrated by a case in which the
mobility ratio was taken to be higher: a value of 5,
compared to 1 in the base case. The flow of polymer
is displayed in Figure 5, which shows an increase in
the polymer content of the low permeability layer
from 35% to nearly 70% of injected polymer, from the
end of polymer injection at 3.5 years to the point at
which polymer has left the high permeability layer at
4. 5 years. This case also illustrates mechanism
(iii) (see Section 3.1) in which the microscopic
displacement efficiency within the layers is
improved. The polymer increases oil recovery from
layer 1 by 5.5% of its STOIIP after 5 years for
mobility ratio 5 compared with a 2.8% improvement for
the unit mobility case. However, oil recovery from
the low permeability layers by crossflow (mechanism
(ii)) remains dominant, 90.6% of total incremental
oil coming from this source.
Unlike gravitational crossflow, the rates and
patterns of polymer-induced viscous crossflow are
virtually independent of the vertical to horizontal
permeability ratio as it varies from 100 to 10-3.
This is because, even for quite low vertical
permeabilities, pressures will be nearly equalized
between the layers at any point between the injector
and the producer, which determines the vertical flow
regime uniquely. For further discussion of this
point see reference [21].
3.4 COMPARISON WITH MODELS WITHOUT VERTICAL FLOW
The mechanisms and timing of incremental oil
recovery are substantially different for reservoirs
in which there is no crossflow between layers. In
this case, the quantity of polymer in each layer is
determined during the injection phase, and remains
constant until the slug leaves the high permeability
layer. The effects of the polymer are global rather
than local: the incremental oil recovery rate
depends more on the total amounts of polymer in the
high and low permeability layers, rather than on the
position of the polymer slugs.
Calculations were undertaken with a model iden
tical to the two-layer base case of Section 3. 2,
except that a sealing vertical transmissibility
barrier was inserted between the high and low
permeability layers, allowing vertical communication
only in the immediate vicinity of the well-bores.
This permits large pressure differences between the
layers. The resultant effects on the watercut
profile are shown in Figure 6. There is a total
incremental oil recovery (10.3% STOIIP at 5 years)
similar to that of the case with vertical
communication (9.4% STOIIP), but its timing is
significantly different.
Figure 7 presents a comparison of the watercut
reduction due to polymer in the cases with and
without vertical flow. Without vertical flow,
incremental oil recovery begins immediately on
polymer injection. Substantial flow diversion has
taken place by the end of polymer injection at 3. 5
years. Note that a further reduction in watercut
occurs after polymer injection has ceased. This drop
in watercut from ~ 60% to ~ 40% reflects a smaller
change in the ratio of flows in the high and low
permeability layers than the initial drop from ~ 80%
 SPE 13586 P J CLIFFORD AND K S SORBIE
to 60% (see Figure 6). It is due to complex polymer
crossflow effects (involving gravity) within the
lower permeability layers 2(i) and 2(ii). This
differs from the case with crossflow, in which the
flow patterns are initially altered only close to the
injector, and the appearance of incremental oil is
delayed until after the end of polymer injection.
The subsequent decline in oil production also
comes earlier for the case without crossflow. It
starts as soon as polymer begins to leave the high
permeability layer at about 4 years and continues
steadily until all polymer has left this layer. For
the case with crossflow, oil production continues at
a high rate until the rear of the slug leaves the
high permeability layer at about 4.5 years.
3.5 A GENERALISED (THREE-LAYER) MODEL
It is common for an oil reservoir to be
stratified into layers some of which are in good
vertical communication, while others are vertically
isolated. The profile of oil recovery as a function
of time arises from a combination of the mechanisms
operating in the two simple two-layer cases (with and
without crossflow) and is particularly interesting in
its relation to the effects of chemical degradation.
The reservoir model is identical to those used
for two-layer cases, except that layer 2, the low
permeability layer, is divided equally into a lower
and upper half - 2(i) and 2(ii) respecively - by a
sealing, vertical transmissibility barrier, allowing
pressure communication only near the well-bores.
Layer 2(i) is in full contact with the high
permeability layer 1.
When polymer is injected into this reservoir,
cross flow of oil, water and polymer occurs between
layers 1 and 2(i), as in the communicating two-layer
model. Oil is recovered from layer 2(i) by the local
action of the high permeability layer slug, but it
can only be recovered from layer 2(ii) by a rise in
the gross well-to-well pressure differential. Unlike
the two-layer case without cross flow, this pressure
differential drops well before polymer is produced
f.rom the reservoir, due to the cross flow of polymer
from layer 1 to layer 2(i). The pressure
differential, shown in Figure 8, begins to fall
immediately after the end of polymer injection, and
is subsequently reduced before polymer begins to
leave the reservoir as a whole.
The consequence is that oil production from the
isolated layer 2(ii) is concentrated at a
particularly early stage. The overall incremental
oil recovery at 5 years is 8.9%, showing some
reduction over both of the two-layer cases, due to
the absence of late oil recovery from layer 2(ii).
Figure 9 shows that for layer 2(ii) the maximum rate
of incremental oil recovery corresponds to the
maximum pressure differential at 3. 5 years, whereas
409
5
for layer 2(i) the maximum incremental oil production
rate is not achieved until 4 years. After 4 years,
70% of the peak incremental oil has been produced
from layer 2(ii), but only 50% has been produced from
layer 2(i). For comparison, in the two-layer cases
with and without crossflow, 37% and 58% respectively
of the maximum incremental oil had been produced from
the low permeability layer after 4 years.
The fact that oil recovery from an isolated
layer, in a system containing layers with various
degrees of communication, is biased towards early
times, is of particular interest for the problem of
chemical degradation.
4. CHEMICAL DEGRADATION EFFECTS AND CROSSFLOW
4.1 FORMULATION
The computer code outlined in Section 2 can
model any well characterised chemical degradation
sequence for polymer or any other transported
species. This could include a complex series of
reactions describing different degradation pathways
[ 6, 7 J.
However, for simplicity, in this work the
concentration of polymer is taken to decline
according to a first order reaction scheme,
characteristic of chain scission. In the absence of
temperature-dependence, this leads to the following
equation for the degradation term in equation (1):
R(C) = (dC) -y.C ••••••••••••• • • • •• (4)
dt Cieg
where y is the first order rate constant. This
equation describes exponential decay of polymer
concentration and a degradation half-life, ~~, is
given by:
ln 2
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (5)
y
Polymer viscosity is then taken to be linearly depen-
dent on concentration, and therefore also undergoes
exponential decay.
4.2 DEGRADATION IN TWO AND THREE LAYER MODELS
The effects of polymer degradation at a given
timescale depend on the timing of the oil recovery
mechanisms for a flood with chemically stable
polymer. The crucial stage is the sweep of oil from
the low permeability layers. This stage need not
correspond closely to the period of production of
incremental oil, in the case of systems with
crossflow. In the discussion of this Section, the
effects of degradation are measured principally in
terms of the fractional incremental oil recovery
characteristic of a given polymer half-life, ie the
ratio of incremental oil recovery from the given
polymer flood to the incremental oil recovery from an
otherwise identical flood, but with stable polymer.
 6 THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DEGRADATION ON POLYMER FLOODING
4.2.1 Polymer Degradation in Base Case Two Layer
Model
For the base two-layer model with crossflow,
described in Section 3. 2, polymer chemical
degradation according to equation (1), with a 6 month
half-life,was found to reduce the incremental oil
recovery, as measured at 5 years, to 62% of the value
for a stable polymer. Figure 10 presents the
effects of degradation on cumulative oil recovery,
showing a very small reduction up to 4.5 years, which
is magnified between the 4.5 and 5 year period.
Considering that the incremental oil is produced
largely between 3.7 and 4.7 years (see Figure 7), the
effect of degradation with a 6 month half-life is a
little smaller than might have been expected. This
is due to the fact that the mechanisms of oil
recovery act somewhat earlier on average than
incremental oil production itself. This is more
evident as the polymer half-life is reduced to 3
months. In this case the fractional incremental oil
recovery is shown on Figure 11 to be 38%. The fact
that significant incremental oil can be produced even
for polymer half-lives as short as one quarter of the
polymer well-to-well transit time is particularly
associated with the crossflow of oil between layers
during the early stages of the polymer flood.
4.2.2 Effects of Degradation in Higher Mobility
Ratio Waterflood
The case of high mobility ratio, ie with oil
viscosity increased by a factor of 5, is shown in
Figure 12 to yield very similar results to the low
mobility ratio fluids. In this case, polymer with a
6 month half-life produces 66% of the incremental oil
from a stable polymer, and shows very little
deviation from the watercut for the stable polymer
until about a year after the start of polymer
injection.
4.2.3 Degradation in Two Layer System with Zero
Vertical Crossflow
When there is no vertical flow between the high
and low permeability layers (Section 3.4), the timing
of incremental oil production closely reflects the
timing of the oil recovery mechanisms. Polymer
degradation with a 6 month half-life gives in this
case a fractional incremental oil recovery of 61%,
which is broadly consistent with the median
incremental oil recovery time of 4 years.
4.2.4 Polymer Degradation in Three Layer Systems
The three-layer reservoir model of Section 3. 5
shows different effects for each of the two low
permeability layers. Again for a polymer half-life
of 6 months, layer 2(i), which is in full pressure
contact with the high permeability layer, shows a
fractional incremental oil recovery of 63%, similar
to the values obtained for both of the two-layer
cases. However, layer 2(ii), separated from the
remainder of the reservoir by a transmissibility
barrier, gives 91% as much incremental oil for the
degrading as for the stable polymer. This raises the
overall fractional incremental recovery to 71%, about
10% higher than either of the two-layer models.
410
SPE 13586
The reason for chemical degradation having such
a small effect on the isolated low permeability layer
is the early timing of incremental oil recovery from
it, due to polymer crossflow from the high
permeability layer, as discussed in Section 3.5. It
is a most surprising result that even relatively
rapid polymer chemical degradation can have such a
small effect on incremental oil production from a
major region of a reservoir. This result must be
considered carefully in estimating the effects of
chemical degradation on polymer floods in fields with
partial vertical communication.
5. A SIMULATION CASE STUDY - THE BRENT SANDS
A particular example of a layered reservoir,
with layers of different permeability and vertical
communication, is provided by the study of a typical
Brent sands cross-section in reference [17 J.
The
Brent sands constitute several reservoirs of the
northern North Sea, and are characterised by a high
degree of inhomogeneity. The cross-section was
divided into 13 layers, with properties described by
Table 2 and Figure 13. The model divides into 3
groups of layers [22]:
(i) layers 9-10 (Etive sands) of high
permeability (approximately 3000 md),
containing 23% of the total oil;
(ii) layers 11-13 (Etive sands) at the top of
the reservoir, of medium permeability
(approximately 1000 md), containing 11% of
the total oil. In good vertical
communication with layers 9-10;
(iii) layers 1-8 (Rannach sands) in the lower
part of the reservoir, of low permeability
(10-200 md), containing 65% of the total
oil. In poor vertical communication with
layers 9-10, with a vertical to horizontal
permeability ratio of 1%.
There is close correspondence between these
groups of layers in the Brent sands and layers 1,
2(i) and 2(ii) respectively of the idealised
three-layer model of Section 3.5. A polymer flood at
a rate of one pore volume in 13.4 years was
simulated, with polymer injection taking place
between 3 and 5 years after the start of
waterflooding, and with fluid properties as given in
Table 3. It was found that oil production from the
medium and low permeability layers followed
distinctive patterns. 70% of the total incremental
oil was produced from the low permeability layers,
the sweeping taking place over a relatively short
period of pressure enhancement (~1-2 years) following
polymer injection. The remaining 30% came from the
medium permeability layers, where incremental oil
recovery was still continuing 7 years after the end
of polymer injection. At that time a polymer slug
still remained in the high permeability layer, but
had lost more than half of its quantity by crossflow.
A detailed description of results is presented in
references [17] and [21].
 SPE 13586 P J CLIFFORD AND K S SORBIE
5.1 DEGRADATION IN THE BRENT SANDS MODEL
Calculations of oil recovery were made, using
this model, for a number of polymer degradation
half-lives. A plot of incremental oil recovery
against polymer half-life is shown for this field
system in Figure 14. The fact that a one year
degradation half-life produced 55% of the incremental
oil of a stable polymer at 10 years would be
surprising, except in the light of the analysis for
the idealised three-layer model carried out in
Section 4.2.
It is found that the one year degradation half-
life leads to a fractional incremental oil recovery
of only 23% from the. medium permeability layers, in
which sweep occurs by means of crossflow continuing
beyond the 10 year point. For comparison, 69% as
much oil is produced from the low permeability layers
for the degrading as for the stable polymer,
reflecting the early decay of the well-to-wel!
pressure differential due to polymer migration from
the high permeability layers. Since, in this case,
the low permeability layers dominate the total
incremental oil recovery for the stable polymer
(accounting for twice as much as the medium
permeability layers), the overall fractional
incremental oil recovery is quite high, at 55%.
The Brent sands study therefore reproduces the
essential features of the idealised three-layer
model, with respect to both oil recovery and the
effects of chemical degradation. Thus estimates
based on the total project lifetime may tend to
overestimate the effects of polymer chemical
degradation on oil recovery. A careful analysis of
vertical crossflow will in many cases demonstrate
that incremental oil recovery mechanisms operate
earlier than the appearance of the oil itself, and
that this reduces the damaging effect of the chemical
degradation reactions.
5.2 THE EFFECT OF CHEMICAL DEGRADATION ON AREAL
POLYMER FLOODING
The effects of chemical degradation on polymer
flooding in stratified reservoirs are a result of the
cross flow mechanisms which operate in such systems.
For comparison, a short series of calculations has
been carried out on polymer flooding in a
two-dimensional areal reservoir model, based on the
Brent sands case [17].
The areal model was constructed as a simple
5-spot model, of the same pore volume as the Brent
sands vertical section, and with similar fluid
properties and relative permeabilities. An identical
water- and polymer flooding injection strategy was
followed, for both stable polymer and degrading
polymer with a range of half-life. The fractional
incremental oil recovery as a function of half-life
is shown in Figure 15 for both the areal and the
vertical sections.
The effect of degradation of one year half-life
is very much more severe for the areal than for the
vertical polymer flood. This is because the oil
411
7
recovery mechanisms are quite different, and are more
extended in time in the case of the areal flood. The
areal flood acts partly by a change in the sweep
patterns (though this is not great, due to the low
water/oil mobility ratio) and partly by improved dis-
placement efficiency of oil by polymer (mechanism
(iii)). Both of these mechanisms act over the whole
residence-time of the polymer in the reservoir.
This demonstrates that the mechanisms and
results derived for polymer flooding in vertically
stratified reservoirs are specific to reservoirs of
that type, and should be applied only where polymer
acts principally by vertical, rather than areal,
sweep improvement.
6. THERMAL EFFECTS IN A PARTIALLY COOLED RESERVOIR
6.1 FORMULATION
The rate at which polymer degradation reactions
proceed is found experimentally to depend on tempera-
ture [2, 3, 5]. Davison and Mentzer [3] have shown
in particular that the precipitation time of
polyacrylamide solutions can decrease by up to two
orders of magnitude as the temperature is increas~d
from 80°C to 120°C. More recent work has related
this cloud point behaviour to both temperature and
brine hardness [23].
Within a reservoir, there are substantial vari-
ations in temperature if a large volume of cool
surface water has been injected into a hot formation.
In the case of deep reservoirs, such as those of the
North Sea, the formation temperature may exceed the
value of 200°F adopted in this paper. The injected
water, even after heating within the well-bore, may
well have a temperature of the order of 70°F. The
relatively high thermal capacity of the reservoir
rock compared to the injected water, coupled with the
conduction of heat from the underburden and
overburden into the pay zone, will retard the
propagation of the low temperature front into the
reservoir, compared to the waterfront. However, some
cooling of the reservoir will occur at least in the
region of the injector. Therefore, polymer solution
injected into a reservoir following partial
waterflooding will experience a substantial range of
temperature, perhaps exceeding 100°F. It has been
proposed by Brown et al [24] that such a temperature
distribution will have significant effects on polymer
flooding.
The chemical reaction or reactions causing
polymer degradation, even if they constitute a
complex sequence of steps, as in the free radical
mechanisms for xanthan chain scission [6], will
depend on temperature according to the Arrhenius
equation. If the degradation reaction is
characterised by an activation energy Ea, then its
rate depends on the absolute temperature, T,
according to the formula:
= -f(C)exp ( l) ................
R gT
(6)
 8 THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DEGRADATION ON POLYMER FLOODING
where f(C) is a function of concentration
(proportional to C for a first order reaction) and
Rg is the gas constant. For an estimated activation
energy of 100 kJ mol-l and a temperature of 200°F the
reaction rate will approximately double for each 18°F
(10°C) increase in temperature. This has been
assumed in the case of temperature-dependent
degradation in the calculations of this section.
The thermal properties assumed for the reservoir
rocks and fluids are given by Table 4. These proper-
ties do not vary substantially between rocks of a
wide range of different types. Somerton [ 25 J has
measured heat capacities and conductivities of a wide
range of rock types from sandstones to shales,
containing air, oil and water. The ranges of values
obtained do not in most cases differ by more than 20%
from those used in this paper. A similar range of
values of conductivity is shown specifically for
North Sea rocks by Evans [26]. It is not possible
for a reservoir to contain transmissibility barriers
to heat flow in the same way that it can contain
barriers to fluid flow. The values chosen for
conductivity will be typical of all oil reservoirs.
For a reservoir of given initial temperature and
waterflooding history, the principal factor governing
the temperature distribution will be the reservoir
thickness, and hence the importance of heat
conduction from overburden and under burden. In all
calculations involving temperature, the viscosity
changes of oil and water are also included.
6.2 THERMAL EFFECTS ON POLYMER FLOODING
The temperature distribution within the
reservoir depends on the ratio of horizontal heat
convection to vertical heat conduction from the
under- and overburden. The principal terms of
equaz::o ~l(:y)be h~:t~n+i(nz:\~:::~ hT). 7)
< water flood, a stable polymer flood, and a degrading
\at' \oz'~
\ Kto} X0 } \ K 7\ox'
where x' = =
x/X 0 , x' z/Z 0 , t=t/t 0 • X0 , Z0 and t 0
are a length, vertical thickness and characteristic
time of the system. The groups (pbz 0 2/Kto) and
(pbvZ 0 /K) are different forms of the Peclet number,
Pe, and the characteristics of the temperature
distribution are determined by the product (Z 0 /X 0 )Pe.
Larger value of this product correspond to a
convection dominated system, whereas lower values
correspond to conduction dominated systems.
We examine chemical degradation for both high
and low values of this product:
(i) Substantial cooling; with a gradient of
temperature extending from the injector to
the producer. This applies to the case of
the standard two-layer reservoir of Section
3.2 with its original 100 ft thickness.
412
SPE 13586
The product (Z 0 /X 0 )Pe takes the value 7.7
for the reservoir, corresponding to low
heat conduction from the under- and
overburden compared to convected heat flow.
After 4 years, as shown in Figure 16, the
temperature in the high permeability layer
shows a steady variation from 90°F to
200°F, going from the injector to the
producer. The low permeability layer is
appreciably warmer than the high
permeability layer, due to the large reser-
voir size in relation to thermal conductiv-
ity.
(ii) Cooling of a small region only; close to
the injection well. This applies to the
case of the standard two-layer reservoir of
Section 3.2, if it is scaled down to a
total thickness of 20 ft, rather than the
standard thickness of 100 ft. The product
(Z 0 /X 0 )Pe takes the value 0.3 in this case,
corresponding to substantial heat
conduction from the under- and overburden
compared to convected heat flow. After 4
years (0.8 PV injection), when polymer
occupies much of the high permeability
layer, Figure 17 shows that almost all of
the reservoir remains above 190°F. The
high thermal conductivity in relation to
reservoir size means that even the high
permeability layer, which has been well
waterflooded, is predominantly at high
temperature. There is very little
difference in this case between the
temperature distributions in the high and
low permeability regions of the reservoir.
For case (i), with the reservoir of 100 ft
thickness, the cumulative oil recovery for a
polymer flood of temperature-independent 6 month
half-life are shown in Figure 18 to be essentially
very similar to the equivalent curves in the
non-thermal case, shown in Figure 10. However,
Figure 18 also shows the cumulative oil production
from a degrading polymer flood in which the
degradation rate is a function of temperature given
by equation (6). The polymer half-life is 6 months at
the formation temperature of 200°F, but the
activation energy is chosen such that the reaction
rate is halved for each 18°F (10°C) reduction in
temperature. It is seen that in this case the effect
of the degrading polymer on oil recovery is very
close to that of a stable polymer. Whereas the
temperature-independent degradation gives a
fractional incremental oil recovery at 5 years of
63%, the temperature-dependent degradation has a
fractional incremental recovery as high as 91%. This
is because the degradation rate of polymer in most of
the high permeability layer is very substantially
reduced by temperature effects.
 SPE 13586 P J CLIFFORD AND K S SORBIE
Case (ii), in which the cooling effect
penetrates only a short distance into the reservoir,
shows substantial differences in the results of
degradation. The fractional incremental oil recovery
from polymer with temperature-independent degradation
is closely similar to case (i), being 60% for a
half-life of 6 months. However, allowing temperature
dependence of degradation as discussed above will
only increase this figure to 69%. The high
temperature of most of the high permeability layer
means that polymer degradation is only significantly
retarded when it is close the injection well.
These results are summarised in Table 5, which
shows that for thick reservoirs, the effect of
allowing temperature-dependence of degradation rates
is most important. In this case, the degrading
polymer of 6 month half-life at formation temperature
can produce more than 90% as much oil as stable
polymer, even though the greater part of the
reservoir remains within l0°F of its initial
temperature. This is because the high permeability
layer is substantially cooler than the rest of the
reservoir. The thinner reservoir, of 20 ft
thickness, shows a smaller effect, but the delay in
the onset of degradation close to the injector is
sufficient to raise the incremental oil recovery from
its value for the 6 month half-life temperature-
independent polymer, to the value to be expected for
a 9 month half-life chemical. Thus even in thinner
reservoirs the temperature effect may have the effect
of apparently enhancing the stability of the polymer
compared with its stability at reservoir discovery
temperatures.
It is therefore most important to take care not
to overestimate the effects of chemical degradation
on oil recovery from a partially cooled reservoir.
Depending on reservoir thickness and waterflooding
history, degradation may be very much less damaging
than it would be in the same reservoir considered at
formation temperature.
The distinction between the effects of the
different temperature distributions of case (i) and
case (ii) is brought out in detail by Figures 19 and
20. These figures show the incremental oil recovery,
measured by the decrease in saturation, in the upper
half of the low permeability region (layer 2(ii)), as
a function of length along the reservoir. For the
100 ft thickness reservoir (case (i); Figure 19),
incremental oil recovery for the case of
temperature-dependent degradation diverges steadily
from the stable polymer curve towards the
temperature-independent degradation curve, as the
production well is approached. However, the fact
that the high permeability layer is cooled somewhat
even at the production well means that the incre
mental recovery remains high.
For the reservoir of 20 ft thickness (case (ii);
Figure 20), the corresponding curve for temperature-
dependent degradation starts diverging from the case
of stable polymer after about 20% of the
injector-producer distance, and after 50% of the
distance it is only 5-10% above the curve for
temperature-independent degradation.
For the thick reservoir, therefore, the effect
of temperature dependence on the results of
413
9
degradation increases towards the producer, while for
a thinner reservoir, the effect is closer to being
constant over the length of the reservoir. Such
effects will be important in ·detailed planning of
polymer field applications.
7. EFFECTS OF POLYMER SORPTION
7.1 A MODEL FOR AN ADSORBING POLYMER
Polymers can act to divert flow either by their
effect on fluid viscosity or by adsorption on to the
rock surface and consequent pore-blocking. Polysac
charides, such as xanthan, are expected to act by
mobility control, though there may also be some
adsorption (without pore-blocking). These are
represented by the simple mobility control agent used
as polymer in the simulations of Sections 3, 4 and 6.
However, polyacrylamides act partly by mobility
control and partly by pore-blocking. In order to
determine the effects of degradation on this type of
polymer flooding in a reservoir with temperature
variations, the following series of calculations was
carried out.
The reservoir model used was identical to the
two-layer model with crossflow of Section 6 (see
Table 2) in which thermal effects are included. The
polymer was injected at the same concentration as
previously (1000 ppm) but, to reflect the lower
viscosifying power of polyacrylamide, water viscosity
was increased by a factor of 10 rather than 20 as
previously. In accordance with previous studies of
absorbing polymers [17 ], this was supplemented by a
modest permeability reduction, as follows:
(i) For the low permeability layer, a maximum
adsorption of 600 ppm pore volume (approxi-
mately 300 lbs per acre-ft) was assigned,
with a residual resistance factor [27]
(RRF) of 5; RRF is the factor by which
permeability to the aqueous phase is
decreased due to pore blocking after a
polymer flood.
(ii) For the high permeability layer, the
maximum adsorption was 300 ppm pore volume
(150 lbs per acre-ft), with an RRF of 2.
For both layers, adsorption was assumed to be
irreversible, and a stripping isotherm was adopted -
ie all dissolved polymer entering a gridblock was
assumed to be adsorbed until the maximum adsorption
level was achieved. Polymer degradation was assumed
to follow equations (4) or (6), according to whether
it was taken to depend on temperature. In this case,
adsorbed polymer was assumed to degrade with the same
half-life as dissolved polymer. Experimental
evidence is lacking as to whether this will occur in
practice; this assumption is probably pessimistic in
terms of oil recovery.
7.2 EFFECTS OF THERMAL DEGRADATION ON AN ADSORBING
POLYMER FLOOD
For a strongly adsorbing...... polymer in a layered
reservoir, without a barrier to vertical flow, the
mechanisms of incremental oil recovery differ in some
details from those for a mobility control agent, but
are still dominated by crossflow and are still local
to the position of the polymer.
10 THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DEGRADATION ON POLYMER FLOODING
7.2.1 High Adsorption Levels
The polymer described in Section 7.1, with 150
lbs per acre-ft adsorption in the high permeability
layer, is fully adsorbed within the first 50% of that
layer. There is very little polymer remaining in
solution after 4 years, and none is ever produced.
Figure 21 shows the concentration profiles of total
polymer (almost all adsorbed) after 10 years. In
this calculation, the polymer was assumed to be
chemically stable. The average concentration in
each of these three subdivisions is plotted. (The
contours presented in Figure 21 reflect the coarse
grid used in the calculations. If a fine grid had
been used, the contours would show a sharp change in
polymer concentration behaviour between the high and
low permeability layers and within the low
permeability layer.) It is clear that there has been
significant crossflow of polymer only into the lower
part of the low permeability layer, and only within
the first 30% of the distance from the injector to
the producer. Since polymer does not penetrate into
the producing region of the reservoir, the flow
pattern there is not altered. All incremental oil
production is due to the crossflow of oil from the
low, into the high, permeability layer, from which it
is produced. The temperature distribution remains
approximately as given by Figure 16, which means that
almost all of the polymer remains at temperatures
below 160°F.
The total incremental oil production for the
stable polymer is 2.4% of STOIIP after 5 years, which
is low compared to the mobility control floods, due
to the fact that the polymer did not penetrate into
the regions of high oil saturation close to the
producer. However, the recovery mechanisms are
maintained for a longer period, as the adsorbed
polymer remains in place after the mobility control
agent is produced from the high permeability layer.
The extended operation of the sweep mechanisms
in the adsorbing polymer case compared to the non-
adsorbing case, causes a larger effect from
temperature-independent degradation with a given 6
month half-life. The fractional incremental recovery
is 49% for the adsorbing polymer, compared to 63% for
the mobility control agent in an identical reservoir.
However, the effect of temperature-dependent degrada-
tion is very significantly less for the adsorbing
polymer as compared to the mobility control agent.
Since most of the polymer within the high
permeability layer remains in the cooler region near
to the injector, ie more than 50°F below formation
temperature, it shows very slight degradation (less
than 6% in total after 5 years), and the incremental
recovery is as much as 98% of that for stable
polymer, compared to 91% in the mobility control
case.
7.2.2 Low Adsorption Levels
A second case was considered, in which the
maximum polymer adsorption was halved for both the
high and low permeability layers, but the RRF at
ma~imum adsorption was retained at 2 for the high and
5 for the low permeability layer. The effect is to
allow polymer to occupy almost the whole of the high
permeability layer before being totally adsorbed (see
414
SPE 13586
Figure 22). However, no polymer escapes from the
reservoir.
The crossflow of polymer from the high to the
low permeability layer is illustrated by Figure 23,
for both adsorbing polymers and the mobility control
agent. Polymer crossflow is approximately halved for
the adsorbing compared to the mobility control cases.
It is of interest that, even for the low adsorption
case, in which polymer penetrates close to the
producer, the crossflow occurs quite early, and close
to the injector (see Figure 22). However, for both
cases of adsorbing polymer, effect! vely all of the
incremental oil is produced by crossflow from the
high to the low permeability layer.
Halving polymer adsorption more than doubles the
incremental oil recovery for stable polymer, to 5.1%
of STOIIP at 5 years, since polymer can now improve
sweep in the oil-rich regions close to the producer.
Again, the incremental oil shows a relatively small
loss of 22% from 5 to 7.5 years, due to the
continuing effect on sweep of the adsorbed polymer,
compared to an approximate halving of the incremental
recovery over this period for the mobility control
agent. Temperature-independent degradation with a 6
month half-life leads to a relatively low fractional
incremental recovery of 45% after 5 years, due to the
extended action of the adsorbed polymer in altering
sweep, compared to the mobility control agent. The
fractional incremental recovery further drops to 38%
after 7.5 years.
Since the polymer penetrates further into the
high permeability layer than was the case for high
adsorption, there is a slightly larger effect of
temperature-dependent degradation. In this case, the
fractional incremental oil recovery is found to be
95% after 5 years (when 15% of the total polymer has
degraded), decreasing to 79% after 7.5 years. This
again demonstrates that the effects of temperature
distribution must be taken into account when
estimating the performance of polymer floods.
7. CONCLUSIONS
1. A chemical flooding code has been modified to
include the calculation of temperature distributions,
and chemical reactions whose rate may depend on
temperature. A series of polymer flooding
simulations has been carried out, using this code to
investigate the behaviour of polymer floods in
stratified reservoirs. This is the first detailed
investigation of flooding with chemically degrading
polymers.
2. It is shown that when polymer is injected into a
stratified reservoir containing layers of widely
differing permeability, the mechanisms of incremental
oil recovery are dominated by vertical crossflow.
This applies even for vertical to horizontal
permeability ratios down to 10-3, except in the
presence of a sealing transmissibility barrier.
3. The crossflow mechanisms are responsible for the
the enhanced sweep of the low permeability layers,
which leads to the incremental oil. The timing of
this enhanced sweep need not correspond with the
appearance of the incremental oil.
 SPE 13586 P J CLIFFORD AND K S SORBIE
4. For a general case in which some layers of a
reservoir are in vertical contact and others are not,
crossflow of polymer can occur from the high
permeability layers at an early stage. This will
cause the timing of enhanced sweep to be particularly
early in isolated low permeability layers, which
means that the effects of degradation on oil recovery
from these layers will be small.
5. This mechanism has been shown to operate in a
North Sea Brent Sands cross-section. This case
illustrates that in field applications the effects of
polymer chemical degradation may be much less severe
than would be expected from a simple comparison of
polymer transit time with the reaction timescale.
6. In an areal polymer flood in a homogeneous
reservoir, the effect of chemical degradation will,
in general, be more damaging than in a stratified
system. This is due to the fact that the mobility
control mechanism in areal systems is more extended
in time than the crossflow mechanism in layered
reservoirs.
7. The chemical degradation of polymer is
temperature-dependent, and may therefore vary
considerably between different regions of a reservoir
partially cooled by injection water. For a reservoir
with small vertical thickness, or a short
waterflooding history, only a small region close to
the injector is cooled. For a reservoir of large
vertical thickness, however, cooling of high
permeability layers may extend further towards the
producer. As a result, the damaging effects of
chemical degradation are reduced in the thicker
reservoir. In addition oil is swept from an area
which is, on average, closer to the injector.
8. The effects of adsorption and pore-blocking has
been investigated. If temperature-related effects
are not taken into account, the longer duration of
improved sweep will somewhat increase the damaging
effects of degradation, compared to the case of the
mobility control agent. However, this situation may
be reversed if temperature dependence of degradation
is taken into account, since adsorption causes
polymer to be located preferentially in the cooler
regions of the reservoir closer to the injector.
9. In considering the application 'of polymer
floods, the flow mechanism and the accompanying
changes in reservoir properties must be taken into
account. Misleading conclusions could be reached if
results from laboratory experiments are used without
a full understanding of these issues. There are many
cases in which the effect of chemical degradation
will be less severe than might be expected from
simple arguments.
415
11
NOMENCLATURE
b = fluid specific heat capacity (BTU/lb-°F)
specific heat of phase a (BTU/lb-°F)
concentration of component i
dissolved polymer concentration
adsorbed polymer concentration
polymer diffusion coefficient (ft2/day)
polymer activation energy (kJ/mol)
gravitational constant (psi-ft2/lb)
number of phases
pressure (psi)
heat transfer Peclet number (pbvZ 0 /K)
source term for phase a (ft3/day)
reaction rate (day-1)
gas constant (kJ/mol- 0 R)
saturation of phase a
temperature (°F or 0 R)
bottom hole temperature of injected fluids
(OF)
aqueous phase Darcy velocity (ft/day)
interstitial fluid velocity (ft/day)
horizontal dimension of reservoir (ft)
vertical dimension of reservoir (ft)
polymer degradation rate constant (day-1)
thermal conductivity (BTU/ft-day-°F)
aqueous phase mobility (ft3/psi-day)
fluid density (lbs/ft3)
density of phase a (lbs/ft3)
polymer half-life (days)
porosity
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following
Winfrith colleagues - G Nash for his work in
extending the CFTE code, K L Rolf for her work in
code development and simulation and R I Hawes for his
assistance in preparing the manuscript. This work
was funded by the UK Department of Energy.
REFERENCES
1. KNIGHT, B L, "Reservoir Stability of Polymer
Solutions", J. Pet. Tech., p 618, May (1973).
2. SHUPE, R D,"Chemical Stability of Polyacrylamide
Polymers", SPE 9299, J. Pet. Tech., p 1513-1529,
August (1981).
3. DAVISON, P and MENTZER, E, "Polymer FLooding in
North Sea Oil Reservoirs", SPE 9300, 55th Ann.
Fall Con£. of SPE, Dallas, Texas, Sept 21-24,
(1980).
12 THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DEGRADATION ON POLYMER FLOODING SPE 13586

4. AKSTINAT, M H, "Polymers for EOR in Reservoirs 21. CLIFFORD, P J and SORBIE, K S, "PolymeJ? Flooding
of Extremely High Salinities and Temperatures", in Stratified Systems: Recovery Mechanisms and
SPE 8979, SPE 54th Sym. on Oilfield and the Effect of Chemical Degradation", presented
Geothermal Chemistry, Stanford, California, May to lEA Collaborative Project on EOR, Trondheim,
28-30 (1980). Norway, Oct. 4-5, (1984).
5. RYLES, R G, "Elevated Temperature Testing of 22. INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES (of the UK),
Hobility Control Reagents", SPE 12008, 58th Ann. Report 77/25, ''A Standard Lithostratigraphic
Fall Conf. of SPE, San Francisco, California, Nomenclature for the Central and Northern North
October 5-8, (1983). Sea", compiled by C E Deegan and B J Scull,
6. WELLINGTON, S L, "Biopolymer Solution Viscosity HMSO, (1977).
Stabilization - Polymer Degrdation and 23. ZAITOUN, A and POTIE, B, "Limiting Conditions
Antioxidant Use", SPE 9296, SPEJ, p 901-912, for the Use of Hydrolysed Polyacrylamides in
December (1983). Brines Containing Divalent Ions", SPE 117875,
7. ASH, S G, CLARKE-STURMAN, A J , CALVERT, Rand SPE Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Denver,
NISBET, T M, "Chemical Stability of Biopolymer Colorado, June 1-3, (1983).
Solutions", SPE 12085, 58th Ann. Fall Conf. c;>f 24. BROWN, C E, CHRISTIE, M A and GATT, A M,
SPE, San Francisco, California, October 5-8, "Reservoir Temperature Distributions Around
( 1983). Injection Wells: Effect on EOR Schemes",
8. ZEITO, G A, "Three Dimensional Numerical p 253-261, Proceedings of 2nd European Symp. on
Simulation of Polymer Flooding in Homogeneous EOR, Paris, Nov. 8-10, (1982).
and Heterogeneous Systems", SPE 2186, 43rd Ann. 25. SOMERTON, W H, "Some Thermal Characteristics of
Fall Conf. of SPE, Houston, Texas, Sept. 27-0ct. Porous Rocks'', Trans. SPE 213, p 375 (1958).
2, (1968). 26. EVANS, T R, "Thermal Properties of North Sea
9. SLATER, G E and FAROUQ-ALI, S M, "Two Rocks", Log Analyst 18, Part 2, p 3 (1977).
Dimensional Polymer Flood Simulation", SPE 3033, 27. JENNINGS, R R, ROGERS, J Hand WEST, T J,
45th Ann. Fall Conf. of SPE, Houston, Texas, "Factors Influencing Mobility Control by Polymer
Oct • 4-7 , ( 19 70 ) • Solutions", J. Pet. Tech., p 391, March (1971).
10. JEWETT, R L and SHURZ, A F, "Polymer Flooding: A
Current Appraisal", J. Pet. Tech., p 675-683,
June (1970).
11. PATTON, J T, COATS, K H and COLEGROVE, G T,
"Prediction of Polymer Flood Performance", SPEJ,
p 72-84, March (1971).
12. BONDOR, P L, HIRASAKI, G J and TRAM, M J,
"Mathematical Simulations of Polymer Flooding in
Complex Reservoirs", SPEJ, p 369-382, October
(1972).
13. VELA, S, PEACEMAN, D W and SANDVIK, E I,
"Evaluation of Polymer Flooding in a Layered
Reservoir with Crossflow, Retention and
Degradation", SPE 5102, 49th Ann. Fall Conf.,
Houston, Texas, Oct. 6-9, (1974).
14. TODD, H R, and CHASE, C A, "A Numerical
Simulator for Predicting Chemical Flood
Performance", SPE 7689, 5th Symp. on Reservoir
Simulation of SPE, Denver, (1979).
15. CLIFFORD, P J, "DGRADE - A Chemical Reaction and
Degradation Subprogram for Inclusion in the CFTE
Code", AEE Winfrith M2027, September (1983).
16. NASH, G, "The Incorporation of Reservoir
Temperature Calculations and the Temperature
Dependence of some Physical Properties into the
Chemical Flood Simulator CFTE", AEE Winfrith
H2169 (1985).
17. SORBIE, K S, ROBERTS, L J and FOULSER, R W S,
"Polymer Flooding Calculations for Highly
Stratified Brent Sands in the North Sea",
p 175-190, Proceedings of 2nd European Symp. on
EOR, Paris, Nov. 8-10, (1982).
18. ZAPATA, V J and LAKE, L W, "A Theoretical
Analysis of Viscous Crossflow", SPE 10111, 56th
Ann. Fall Conf., Oct. 5-7 (1981).
19. BERRUIN, N A and MORSE, R A, "Waterflood
Performance in Layered Reservoirs", Pet. Engnr.
Int., p 66, December (1978).
20. EVANS, A J, SORBIE, K S and CLIFFORD, P J,
"Scaling Relations for Water and Polymer Floods
in Stratified Systems", AEE Winfrith M2143,
January (1985).

416
 TABLE 1

THE BASE CASE TWO-LAYER MODEL

LAYER 1 LAYER 2

LENGTH 3000 ft 3000 ft

WIDTH 1000 ft 1000 ft
THICKNESS 20 ft 80 ft
HORIZONTAL PERMEABILITY 2000 md 100 md
VERTICAL PERMEABILITY 200 lnd 10 md

FOR BOTH LAYERS,

TABLE 2
Porosity If> 0.20
Connate water Swc 0.25 BRENT SANDS RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
Residual oil s 0R 0.22

2
Relative permeability to water o.3 x ( Sw-Swc )
1-SOR-SWC

3 LAYER THICKNESS POROSITY INITIAL VERTICAL kx (md)

Relative permeability to oil 0.9 x ( So-SoR ) NUMBER (FT) WATER TRANSMIS- I
1-soR-swc SATURATION SIBILITY kz(md)
FACTOR

TABLE 3 13 10 0.2540 0.07 805/364

4.52
FLUID PROPERTIES IN TRE BRENT SANDS SIMULATIONS 12 6 0.2588 0.07 1082/140
0.12
11 15 0.2566 0.07 1062/266
0.15
10 17 0.2701 0.07 2768/265
1. The relative permeability curves used are taken 4.28
from the earlier publication [17]. They differ 9 15 0.2823 0.07 2693/919
between 5 different rock types in the reservoir. 0.47
8 8 0.2356 0.15 222/48
0.72
7 6 0.1818 0.15 27/7
2. 1.046cp 1.24
lloil 6 28 0.2416 0.15 182/17
0.307cp 1.39
llwater 5 18 0.1996 0.15 86/1
2.91
Polymer solution viscosity varies with 4 13 0.2467 0.15 190/18
concentration as: 0.16
3 14 0.2154 0.35 92/6
C/ppm IJ./Cp 3.97
2 13 0.1868 0.35 29/1
0 0.307 1.06
100 0.82 1 20 0.1530 0.35 10/0.3
200 1.52
300 2.42
400 3.62
500 5.25

3. Pwater 61.45 lbsft-3

Poil 48.24 lbsft- 3

4. Polymer adsorption isotherms and residual

resistance factors differ between rock types and
are given in reference [17].

SPE 3 58t 6
 TABLE 4 TABLE 5

RESERVOIR AND FLUID THERMAL PROPERTIES USED IN THE

CALCULATIONS OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7 THERMAL EFFECTS ON OIL RECOVERY

THERMAL CAPACITY OF RESERVOIR ROCK = 35.0 BTU/ft 3 - °F RESERVOIR THICKNESS / ft

WATER = 62.4 BTU/ft3 - °F
OIL = 31.2 BTU/ft3 - °F
POLYMER
THERMAL CAPACITY OF UNDERBURDEN AND OVERBURDEN DEGRADATION 20 100 200
HALFLIFE ~\

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF RESERVOIR AND SURROUNDINGS

= 25.0 BTU/ft-day-°F 6 months 60% 63% 63%

(temperature
Fluid viscosities (for a mobility ratio of approximately independent)
1) are given by:
12 months 79% 79% 80%
TEMPERATURE CF) llw(cp) llo(cp) (temperature
independent)
70 0.92 2.26
80 0.84 2.14 6 months at 200°F 69% 91% 98%
90 0.78 2.02 Arrhenius temperature
100 0.72 1.91 dependence
110 0.67 1.81
120 0.62 1. 72
130 0.57 1.63 Fractional incremental oil recovery, compared to a
140 0.53 1.55 stable polymer flood, after 1 pore volume injection, fa
150 0.49 1.48 chemically degrading polymer floods, in reservoirs wit
160 0.45 1.41 thermal effects.
170 0.42 1.34
180 0.38 1.28
190 0.36 1.21
200 0.33 1.15

Polymer viscosity in the aqueous phase at injection

concentration is taken to be 20 times llw for the
mobility control agent (biopolymer) of Section n and 10
times llw for the adsorbing polymer of Section 7, at all
temperatures.

SP'E 1 3 58: 6
 100
1"---
!.--
80 I
I
1-
z I
UJ
u
0::
I
60
UJ
a_ I
- I
I-
I
~ LOW ~
0::
UJ 40 / KEY
PERM
---... 1-
<(
3
WATERFLOOO

HIGH
PERM
20 I- I
POLYMER
--- STABLE
FLOOD
POLYMER

POLYMER 1-----l
INJECTION
/FLOW VECTORS !WITH CROSSFLDW)
10
TIME !YEARS)
Ial SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF POLYMER DISTRIBUTION
FIG. 2 EFFECT OF POLYMER H1 JECTIO~l O~l HATERCUL H! THE BASE CASE TWO LAYER MODEL
IN A 2- LAYER RESERVOIR
WITH CROSSFLOW

HIGH
--PERM }
LAYER WITHOUT 0. 3
Pin LOW CROSSFLOW
++ PERM
LAYER

••••• BOTH } WITH 0::

LAYERS CROSSFLOW UJ
UJ
a: >-
<(
:::0 _J
Vl
~ I
a: u
c.. 0. 2
~

= :z
0

pout I~ JOX ~
z
E
<(
0 - 0::
~ u.
z
0 vt
u <(

_J 0 ·1
0 LAYER 1
(bl PRESSURE PRO FILES CORRESPONDING TO Ia l
WITH AND '•.":THOUT CROSSFLOW

KEY - - - WATERFLOOO
POLYMER

t0 FIG. 1 SIMPLIFIED DESCRIPTION OF POLYMER CROSSFLOW

INJECTION POLYMER FLOOD

'" IN A 2- LAYER RESERVOIR 0·0

4
TIME !YEARS)
~

VJ FIG. 3 EFFECT OF POLYMER ON THE OIL CONTENT OF EACH LAYER~ IN THE BASE CASE
Vi TWO LAYER MODEL HITH CROSSFLOW
c;p
0"

.......
~--~~~'""""~=~----~~~---,---~---,-----------,---.,.--,-,.......,.~,.,--,.,..,.-,...,..--,,...,-,,..,......,,........,._,..---.-.,.......,..,,....,."""'""....,--~~---,-,-,........,., .,..,..,...,........,..,,.....,~~~~~~~--o-m,....,...~"""'""'·-······" ......
 KEY --- TOTAL RESERVOIR
KEY TOTAL RESERVOIR
LAYER 1
Cl
LLJ 1 ·0 LAYER 2(i) Cl 1·0 LAYER 1
t; LLJ
1-
LLJ LAYER 2tii) l.J

~
LLJ LAYER 2(il
~
~ 0·B 0· B LAYER 2(fi)
::E
~
~ ::E
0
Q. ~
0

/',
Q.
-'
~
0:::
LLJ
g
O· 6

I
I I" ' ' ' . _.. ·· ·········
······ . ....... ········
0:::
LLJ
-'
<t
1-
0
0· 6

I ' -·.-.- ... -- .. --- ·-- -------------------------

::E
LL
0 I .·<.. ·••·•·• ::E
~
1-
I '
~
0
Q.
z
0

E
o· 4
0
Q.
LL
0

z
0·4
I
I ' '.
.. ···'-

---
0
<t I .. ··· ' E 1 .. ··· '
ft I .·· '
''
<t
Vl
<t O· 2
'I
I ···..•• .·· -------·-
---··- ----- ---
' ::::
Vl
<t
O· 2 I
fJ I ....
.· '
' ' ------------
... ·
<::....-----------""\--
... ··
' ' ...... .....
0· 0 - 4
3
POLYMER
- 4
POLYMER
TIME (YEARS) TIME !YEARS)
INJECTION INJECTION

FIG. 4 POLYMER DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN U\YERS AS A FUNCTION OF TIME., IN THE BASE CASE FIG. 5 POLYMER DISTRIBUTION BETHEEN LAYERS AS A FUNCTiml OF TIME., IN THE TWO LAYER
TWO LAYER MODEL WITH CROSSFLOW MODEL \11TH CROSSFLOW AND A r~OBILITY RATIO OF 5

so
KEY

- - - BASE CASE
40

;: - - - VERTICAL
z
LLJ TRANSMISSIBILITY
l.J
0::: 30 BARRIER
LLJ
Q.

/
z
0 /
i= 20 /
l.J
~ /
80::: I
1- I
~ 10
I
~ I
1-
<t
.(I) 3: I
~ 0

~ -10
INJECTION
----
\.N
\.J"'\ 3 4
Q;) TIME !YEARS)
0'
FIG. 6 EFFECT OF POLYMER INJECTION 0~1 WATERCUT H! THE TWO LAYER MODEL WITHOUT FIG. 7 Cm1PARISml OF THE WATERCUT REDUCTIONS DUE TO POLYMER IN THE TWO LAYER
VERTICAL CROSS FLO\'/ MODELS WITH AND WITHOUT VERTICAL CROSSFLOH
 2500
0·15r KEY:-
--LAYER 2(i)
STABLE POLYMER
w
:r: --LAYER 2(ii)
FLOOD u.l--
0 c:

200 0 :r:g,~
u --'
<z:
wow
- :r:
Lt:;l--
0<
E e: ~ o-10
1500 ~<::;
w w <
0:: >Vl..J
::::::>-
Vl -
~<_a.
VlV>
Wa._
a::_
a_
c:~~
_,"'>- ,, ..... ---- ', ....
1000
Ooj /""' ........
:z<
_,<:z "' ........ ........
"' "'
--'
--'
3 ~ == ~ 0·05
........ .........
w-o
I LN
/
e ~Vl:::::!
uc:O
/
/
500 :zW
--'
--'
->- /
3 5 /
POLYMER /
/
INJECTION ""' "' 4
0~----L---~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~--~
3 4
TIME (YEARS)
I ~~~t~r~~~ I

FIG. 8 WELL-TO-WELL PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL AS A FUMCTION OF TIMEJ FOR THE FIG. 9 HJCREME~!TAL OIL RECOVERY AS A FUNCTiflN OF TIME FOR THE COMMUNICATING
THREE LAYER MODEL AND ISOLATED LO~/ PERMEABILITY LAYERSJ IN THE THREE LAYER MODEL

0· 6

0 ·5 ..... -------
:z
0-
;::a_
u- 0·4
::::>a
Cll-
oV>
0::
a._LI..
0

=:z 0· 3
ao
;::::
wW
>< KEY
-0::
i-Ll..
<
-'Vl 0· 2 WATERFLOOD
i<
::::::>-
u STABLE POLYMER FLOOD

DEGRADING POLYMER
0 ·1
~
6 MONTH HALFLIFE
POLYMER

""
t-------i
INJECTION

10
~
TIME (YEARS)
'vJ
\...}"\ FIG. 10 EFFECT OF POLYMER DEGRAD.'-\Tim.' ~liTH f\ 5 MONTH HALFLIFE ON CUMULATIVE OIL
Q:) PRODUCTIO~L HI THE BASE CASE nlO LAYER MODEL WITH CROSSFLOH

0'
 0·52~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------l
13 I
r--J
12 I
0·50~- - - - - - _ _ _ _ S~BLl_POLYM~FL.QQ.D _ _ _ _ _
-------- 11
L-1
I
I
10 I
0·48 L-------1
I

0·46
...J
o.
...J
<( a::
lJ.J
~ 0·44 >- KEY
lJ.J <(
-'
~ HORIZONTAL
a:
LJ PERMEABILITY
:z
- 0·42 VERTICAL
PERMEABILITY

0·40
-------------------
WATERFLOOD
2 II

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

PERMEABILITY ( md)
0·1 1·0
POLYMER HALFLIFE t1/ (YEARS)
2 FIG. 13 HORIZONTAL A~ID VERTICAL PERMEABILITY BY LAYER OF THE
FIG. 11 CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION AFTER 5 YEARS AS A FUNCTION OF POLYMER HALFLIFE~ IN THE BASE BRE~ 1 T SM!DS VERTICAL CROSS-SECTION
CASE TWO LAYER MODEL WITH CROSSFLm1

0· 35 ,------------
/ _______________________ .......--------···
0-45
0· 3 -NON
- --
DEGRADING POLYMER
---------------------
I,,·
:z ,l
0
i=-
wn.
,; 0-43
:::;)= 0·25 ,; lJ.J
CJ0
Ol-
O::Vl
n.
,; LJ
<.
-'VI

:z i n.a::
<(
-'0
OE 0· 2 ~~ 0-41
5~
~~
I-
KEY :- ~a::

;::~
0·15 WATERFLOOD
~~
<(Vl
5<
::E:- STABLE POLYMER FLOOD :50 0-39
G
~
DEGRADING POLYMER :zLLI
0·1 OF 6 MONTH HALFLIFE 25
I->
LJQ
<(LJ
~~ 1- - WATERFLOW - - - - -- -- - - -
037
~
POLYMER
............
\J.J INJECTION
\J1 1!f 0·1 lO 10·0
(p TIME !YEARS) POLYMER DEGRADATION HALFLIFE : ,; 1f2(YEARS)
0' FIG. 12 EFFECT OF POLYMER DEGRADATION ~·liT~ .'i 6 r10NTH HALFLIFE ON CUMULATIVE
FIG.l4 VARIATION OF TOTAL OIL RECOVERY WITH POLYMER DEGRADATION HALFLIFE. BRENT
OIL PRODUCTIO~l~ IN THE "fl#O LWER MODEL HITH CROSSFLOW AND A MOBILITY SANDS VERTICAL CROSS- SECTION. RESULTS OF WATERFLOOD AND STABLE POLYMER
RATIO OF 5 FLOOD SHOWN FOR COMPARISON.
 KEY
- AREAL FLOOD
- - - VERTICAL FLOOD
/
/
.........-
---
/ 06
/ - - 0·55

/ 0·4
/
/
/
__ _..., / 0 20

0·1 1-0 10 0
POLYMER HALFLIFE "( 1tz I YEARS

FIG.15 COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS ON FRACTIONAL INCREMENT OIL RECOVERY OF POLYMER

DEGRADATION HALF-LIFE FOR AREAL AND VERTICAL POLYMER FLOODS.

KEY
TEMPERATURE
1 95' 00
2 110.00
3 125.00
.4 140.00
5 155.00
6 170.00
7 185.00
8 200 .oo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FIG. 16 TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION AFTER 4 YEARS~ IN THE THERMAL

TWO LAYER MODEl OF 100 FT TH ICK~!ESS

SPi 13586
 KEY
TEMPERATURE
1 95100
2 110.00
3 125.00
4 140.00
5 155.00
6 170.00
7 185.00
8 200.00

3 4 5 6 7 8

FIG. 17 TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION AFTER 4 YEARs; IN THE

THERMAL TWO LAYER MODEL OF 20 FT TH ICK~IESS

0·6

0· 5

z
2
1-
u
:J-
CIQ. 0· 4
o=
a::o
a. I-
Vl
....J
C5i5
wi= 0· 3
>u
_<(
1-0::
<(LL
.....~-
::l
:!: KEY:-
::l
u 0· 2
WATERFLOOD
STABLE POLYMER
DEGRADING POLYMER
0·1 6 MONTH HALFLIFE
POLYMER DEGRADING POLYMER
~ TEMPERATURE- DEPENDENT
INJECTION

10

TIME (YEARS l

FIG. 18 EFFECT OF POLYMER DEGRADATION ON CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION, IN THE THERMAL

TWO LAYER MODEL OF 100 FT THICKNESS
 KEY:-
STABLE POLYMER
0·25 DEGRADING POLYMER
6 MONTH HALFLIFE
DEGRADING POLYMER
TEMPERATURE- DEPENDENT
HALFLIFE
I

·/-',
I \
I \
\
\
\
\
\

'
\
\
\
\
\
\

10
'
12 14 16 18 20

INJECTOR DISTANCE ALONG RESERVOIR PRODUCER

!GRID BLOCK NUMBER l

FIG. 19 EFFECT OF POLYMER DEGRADATION 0~ OIL SATUR.~TIO~ H! THE UPPER HALF OF THE LOW
PERMEABILITY LAYER CAUSED BY POLYMER, AS A FUNCTION OF LENGTH ALONG THE RESERVOIR,
IN THE THERMAL TWO LAYER MODEL OF 100 FT THICKNESS

KEY

STABLE POLYMER

0. 25 DEGRADING POLYMER
6 MONTH HALFLIFE
Vl
a: DEGRADING POLYMER
<(
UJ
TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT
>- HALFLIFE
0. 20

0 ·OS

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
INJECTOR DISTANCE ALONG RESERVOIR PRODUCER
(GRID BLOCK NUMBER l

FIG. 20 EFFECT OF POLYMER DEGP.ADATIO~! ON OIL SATUR.~TIO~I IN THE UPPER HALF OF THE LOW
PERMEABILITY LAYER CAUSED BY POLYMER, AS A FUNCTION OF LENGTH ALONG THE RESERVOIR,
IN THE THERMAL THO LAYER MODEL OF 20 FT THIC!<NESS
 KEY
CONTOUR PoLYMER CoNCENTRATION
(PPM PV)

1 650
2 600
3 500
4 400
5 300
6 200
7 100
8 50
9 25
10 10

FIG. 21 DISTRIBUTIO~ OF POLYMER IN EACH LAYEh OF THE

THE~MAL ~HO LAYER MODEL, AFTER 10 YEARS, FOR THE
HIGH ADSORPTION POLYMER

KEY

CoNTOUR PoLYMER CoNCENTRATION

(PPM PV)

1 650
2 600
3 500
4 400
5 300
6 200
7 100
8 50
9 25
10 10
l

7 •••

FIG. 22 DISTRIBUTION OF POLYt1ER IN EAC4 LAYER OF THE THERMAL

THO LAYER t·10DEL, .~FTER 10 YEARS, FOR T'-IE LOW ADSORPTION
POlYMER

SPE 13586
 ~
l.J
o-
o:8 1· 0
1-
l.J
>-UJ
1---.
--I z-
(0
<(0:
UJLl.J 0·8
:L:L
a:::>-
UJ .....J
a.. a ------------------------------------------------------------------
0..
~~-------------------------
3:-1
~~ 0·6
0
~~--

>-~ KEY:-
1-
i=
zZ 0·4 MOBILITY CONTROL POLYMER
<{2
::>I-
dl.J ADSORBING POLYMER,
<(
a::: HIGH ADSORPTION
0::: LL
UJ
:LVl ADSORBING POLYMER,
::<{ 0·2 LOW ADSORPTION
0~

0..

0·0 L---------------------~----------------------~--------------------~
3 4 5 6
TIME !YEARS)
POLYMER
INJECTION

FIG. 23 PCLYMER CONTE~lT OF THE LO\~ PERMEABILITY LAYER AS A FUNCTION OF TIME., IN

THE THERMAL T~~O LAYER MODEL., FOR THE ~10BILITY CONTROL AND ADSORBING POLYMERS
·tn.
1IIQ
rn

'-.1J
\Jl
(p
C1'