SPE-169673-MS

Chemical EOR in Low Permeability Reservoirs

Eric Delamaide, IFP Technologies (Canada) Inc., Rene Tabary and David Rousseau, IFP Energies nouvelles

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 31 March–2 April 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of th e paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce
in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Low permeability reservoirs contain a significant and growing portion of the world oil reserves, but their exploitation is often
associated with poor recovery even after waterflood. Miscible or immiscible gas injection is usually the first choice in terms of
EOR methods but it is not always feasible for instance due to lack of adequate supply. In such cases chemical EOR is often
considered.
In this paper we propose to examine the specific challenges of chemical EOR in low permeability reservoirs by reviewing
the well documented chemical EOR field operations that were implemented in reservoirs ranging from conventional low
permeability (around 100 mD) to so-called tight reservoirs (few mD). Shale plays where permeability is in the µD range and
which only produce when simulated by hydraulic fractures are not considered in our investigation.
We show that what works at the lab scale in low permeability plugs cannot be automatically transposed to the field scale.
In particular low permeability can lead to injectivity issues and uncontrolled fracturing due to near wellbore plugging or simply
to the high pressures required to propagate the injected chemical over large distances. Another challenging aspect of chemical
EOR in low permeability reservoirs is the high chemical adsorption due to important surface to volume ratio and specific
mineralogy, as in the case of carbonates (fractured or not). Success and failures of chemical EOR pilots in such challenging
reservoirs, including innovative approaches such as wettability alteration, are reviewed.
Overall, this review will provide the reader with an updated view of past and on-going developments in chemical EOR
applied to low permeability reservoirs. It should help operators determine whether a given low permeability reservoir is eligible
to such processes or not.

Introduction
There is no exact definition of what a low permeability reservoir is. Some authors (Clarkson & Pedersen, 2011) have introduced
the concept of “Halo Oil” (permeability over 0.1 md) to differentiate them from “Tight Oil” plays (permeability lower than 0.1
md). In this paper we will focus on reservoirs with permeability between 1 and 100 md. Those reservoirs are widespread and
their properties – mineralogy in particular – can vary widely as can their production performances. A few exemples described
in the literature are listed below.
In Canada the Pembina Cardium pool contains over 10 billion barrels OOIP, a significant portion of which is contained in
reservoir rocks of less than 100 md permeability (Omatsone, Bagheri, Galas, Curtis, & Frankiw, 2010). The reservoir has been
waterflooded since the 1960s but total recovery in the pool in only 17% OOIP.
In the US, the Rangely Weber Sand Unit which contains 1.6 billion barrels OOIP was waterflooded since 1958 and primary
plus secondary recovery was forecast to reach 42% OOIP (Masoner & Wackowski, 1995).
In Australia the Windalia field has been producing since the 1960s and contains over 819 MMbbl OOIP; recovery so far is
only 37% OOIP.
In China the Daqing field contains over 16 billion barrels OOIP in mostly high permeability sand; however numerous lower
permeability reservoirs are also present (Xu, Pu, & Shi, 2008).
Miscible gas injection is the EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) method of choice to increase recovery in low permeability
reservoirs, but this requires that gas (usually CO2) in sufficient quantity be available. When this is not the case other tertiary
recovery methods need to be applied.
Chemical EOR has long been considered for reservoirs with low permeability; for instance a polymer flood was
implemented in 1963 (Jones, 1966) in the Vernon field in Kansas where permeability varies from 1 to less than 150 md and
average permeability is less than 30 md. The results of this particular test will be discussed later in the paper.
2 SPE-169673-MS

Chemical EOR issues in low permeability reservoirs

The issues that face every chemical EOR project are more severe in the case of low permeability reservoirs. Those issues are
mostly of 3 types: chemicals adsorption/retention, chemicals degradation and injectivity.

Adsorption/retention
Adsorption of chemicals is one of the most significant issues that needs to be dealt with in chemical EOR because high
adsorption results in poor economics.
Surfactant
Surfactant adsorption depends on a number of factors (Sheng, 2011) but the mineralogy of the formation is probably the
most significant issue for low permeability reservoirs. Low permeability is often caused by the presence of clay or other
cementing materials such as calcite or anhydrite, which are both detrimental to adsorption.
Polymer
Chemical floods either focus on mobility control (polymer floods) or require mobility control to be efficient (surfactant
floods). Thus viscosifying agents such as polymer are usually involved in chemical floods and, in low porosity media, polymer
molecules may plug partially or totally the reservoir.
Polymer retention increases with the molecular weight of the polymer, with the clay content, with decreasing permeability
of the reservoir rock, with decreasing anionic charge and increasing cationic charge of the polymer’s pendant groups.
There are mainly 3 mechanisms responsible for the retention of polymer in porous media (Sorbie, 1991):
 Adsorption;
 Mechanical entrapment;
 Hydrodynamic retention.
Adsorption, the most prevalent mechanism in polymer retention, is caused by physical interactions between polymer chains
and rock surfaces, such as Van der Waals attraction, electrostatic interaction, and hydrogen bonding. For the main polymers
used in polymer flooding applications, adsorption is generally considered as an irreversible process. When low permeability is
caused by presence of clay, adsorption should be higher.
Szabo (Szabo, 1975) and Dominguez et al. (Dominguez & Willhite, 1977) were among the first to study polymer retention
in porous media. They concluded in particular that mechanical entrapment resulting from the trapping of large polymer
molecules in small pore throats was the most significant and that this phenomenon was expected to be even more important in
low permeability rocks.
Hydrodynamic retention is similar to mechanical entrapment, but is a flow rate dependent effect, meaning that polymer
retention increases with the velocity. However, this mechanism is not well understood and is not believed to be a large
contributor in field-scale polymer floods (Sorbie, 1991).
Vela et al. (Vela, Peaceman, & Sandvik, 1974) showed that polymer retention increases when permeability decreases. This
is probably due to hydrodynamic retention.
Martin (Martin, 1974) in one of the pioneering papers on the use of poymers in low permeability media recognized the risks
of plugging and injectivity issue in low permeability rocks, but he also noted that the pore structure of the porous medium is
more important than the actual permeability. This was confirmed by another pioneering work on the subject (Dann, Burnett, &
Hall, 1982). Another work (Vela, Peaceman, & Sandvik, 1974) showed that the polymer Resistance Factor decreases as
permeability increases. Treiber et al. (Treiber & Yang, 1986) concluded that plugging by polymer depends in particular from
the permeability of the porous medium and the size of the polymer, and that plugging was unlikely to occur far from the
wellbore.
For low permeability rocks, low molecular weight polymer should be used because large polymer molecules may not be
able to penetrate the lower permeability rocks (Sheng, 2011). This was showed for instance in Daqing (Wang, Dong, Lv, Fu,
& Nie, 2009) where the authors determined that the root-mean-square radius of gyration of the polymer should be 5 times less
than the pore-throat radius of the reservoir rock. On this basis, in a low permeability range of 5 to 20 md, polymer molecular
weight where molecules could be assessed would be 1.5 to 3.106 Dalton. However, Fletcher et al. (Fletcher & Morrison, 2008)
indicated that they were able to inject a 16.4 106 Dalton molecular weight polymer into a 5 md core without plugging.
Using lower molecular weight polymer has the disadvantage of requiring higher concentration to develop an equivalent
viscosity, thus it has an impact on the economics.
In summary in low permeability rocks both adsorption and retention should be higher than in high permeability reservoirs.
Degradation
While there is no specific issue with the degradation of surfactant in low permeability reservoirs, this is not the case for
polymer. Polymers and in particular Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide (HPAM) is sensitive to mechanical degradation. Mechanical
degradation can result in significant viscosity loss due to the irreversible scission of polymer macromolecules. It can occur
when macromolecules are submitted to elongational deformations, either under turbulent flow (Nguyen et al., 1997) or laminar
flow (Odell and Keller, 1986). In polymer flooding operations, mechanical degradation can take place in the injection facilities
(turbulent flow), before the polymer solution reaches the formation, or in the near-wellbore area (laminar flow). This
phenomenon depends in particular on the molecular weight of the polymer – larger molecules are more susceptible to breaking
(Sorbie, 1991).
SPE-169673-MS 3

Injectivity
Injectivity is a function of permeability, thus low permeability results in low injectivity (Fletcher, Lamb, & Clifford, 1992).
Conversely, injection wells in low permeability reservoirs are often hydraulically fractured, which causes other issues such as
poor areal sweep efficiency.
The use of surfactant can create microemulsions which can have high viscosity and cause injectivity problems. In addition
the use of polymer either in combination with surfactant or on its own can also cause injectivity issues because of its viscosity
or the risk of formation plugging. The near wellbore issues can however somewhat be mitigated by degradation.
Impact of degradation on polymer injectivity
The consequences on injectivity of shear (mechanical) degradation of the polymers near the wellbore (and not in the pumps
and surface facilities) have in particular been addressed by Sorbie and Roberts (Sorbie & Roberts, 1984) through the
development of a comprehensive theoretical model, which predictions were compared to the results of the experimental work
performed by Seright (Seright, 1983). These works clearly demonstrate that shear degradation near the wellbore can play a
significant role in improving injectivity, because of the reduction of solutions viscosity linked to the break-up of the polymer
chains. Sorbie (Sorbie, 1991) suggested that in low permeability reservoirs it would be desirable to shear polymer in order to
improve injectivity and reduce its retention. However, it appears that further work could be performed on Sorbie's model and
also that more experimental data would be needed, both at the laboratory and the field scale, to assess more realistically the
consequences of shear degradation near the wellbore on injectivity.
Dupas et al. (Dupas, et al., 2013) studied high molecular weight HPAM solutions submitted to extensional laminar flow to
entail moderated flow-induced mechanical degradation. They showed that degraded HPAM with weakly affected shear
viscosity can develop much less resistance to extensional flow (which occur mainly at high velocity); this means that at low
velocity resistance factors are not affected but that at high velocity degraded polymer exhibits lower apparent viscosity. This
could explain why polymers sometimes exhibit better injectivity than anticipated, thanks to the reduction of extensional
resistance in porous media. A moderate mechanical degradation of polymer solutions in the injection facilities or the near
wellbore area could be a factor contributing to better injectivities without affecting their mobility control ability as illustrated
in Figure 1. This phenomenon could be particularly important for low permeability reservoirs.

Figure 1: Apparent relative viscosity versus interstitial velocity in granular packs for HPAM3630S solutions with different preceding
mechanical degradation (U = mean degradation velocity) (from (Dupas, et al., 2013)

Impact of hydraulic fracturing on injectivity and sweep efficiency

The injection of viscous solutions can cause hydraulic fracturing which is beneficial for injectivity but could be detrimental
to sweep efficiency.
The impact of hydraulic fractures on sweep efficiency has been studied by some authors. Fletcher et al. (Fletcher, Lamb, &
Clifford, 1992) studied injectivity during polymer injection and the relationship between polymer plugging and hydraulic
fracture development. Gadde (Gadde & Sharma, 2001) work suggested that hydraulic fractures could increase or decrease oil
4 SPE-169673-MS

recovery depending on their orientation. This was confirmed by Souza et al. (Souza, Fernandes, Mendes, Rosa, & Furtado,
2005) who added that the impact of fractures becomes less as the spacing increases and that fractures have little impact for
horizontal wells. Lee et al. (Lee, Huh, & Sharma, 2011) studied in particular the impact of hydraulic fractures in multilayers
and during polymer injection. Their work suggested that polymer injectivity is very sensitive to a number of parameters and
thus difficult to forecast.
Fletcher et al. (Fletcher & Morrison, 2008) proposed a novel strategy using polymer, which they termed “In-Depth Flow
Diversion”, which consists in using the polymer high resistance factor and residual resistance factor to encourage hydraulic
fracture growth; the concept was later tested succesfully in the Windalia field (Haynes, Clough, Fletcher, & Weston, 2013) and
will be discussed below.

Field experience
The previous section focused on the theoretical aspects of chemical EOR in low permeability reservoirs; this section will
summarize some of the key field cases published in the literature. Those cases were selected based on the reservoir permeability
announced in the related papers and this criteria often lacks clarity. Although there are almost 200 reported chemical flood field
tests in reservoirs that could be classified as low permeability, there are very few documented cases where permeability can be
confirmed with any degree of certainty. Some papers quote average permeability while other quote ranges; some papers provide
air permeability while others provide permeability to water.
In a recent paper on screening criteria for polymer flooding, Saleh et al. (Saleh, Wei, & Bai, 2014) list 13 polymer flooded
reservoirs where the permeability is less than 10 md; however they suggest that those permeability values are unreliable because
they do not take fractures or variability into account; we fully agree with that. For instance the Levelland reservoir where the
NIPER database (Pautz, Sellers, Nautiyal, & Allison, 1992) lists one successful polymer project (NIP-103) in a 1 md maximum
permeability and which provides the low permeability cut-off in the work of Saleh et al. is known to have significant variations
in permeability (Watson, 2005) with maximum permeability of several tens of md in some areas. Thus caution is required when
selecting field cases to set cutoff values.
The following selection is not perfect and the inclusion or exclusion of some of the cases could be argued. In general we
have tried to include documented cases where maximum permeability is below 100 md, although we have retained some cases
when some intervals such as thief zones exhibit slightly higher permeability.

Alkali and Surfactant flooding

Table 1 presents the general data for the tests, Table 2 contains the reservoir data and Table 3 contains the tests data.
North Ward Estes (Ehrlich, Hasiba, & Raimondi, 1974) (Raimondi, Gallagher, Ehrlich, Messmer, & Bennett, 1977)
Alkaline flooding was tested in 1973 in the North Ward Estes field in Texas. The reservoir in the test area is composed of
fined grained argillaceous (illite and montmorillonite) sandstones with low porosity and permeability (20.6% and between 3 to
47 md, 25 md average respectively).
A waterflood had been initiated in the field some years prior to the pilot but water had not reached all the wells of the pilot
at the time so oil saturation was still high (64%).
The pilot area consisted in an inverted 5-spot pattern. A small (9,000 bbl) water preflush followed by a total of 0.15 PV of
NaOH at a concentration of 4.85% was injected without any injectivity problem. However severe plugging problems due to
scales were experienced in the central well of the inverted 5-spot pattern as well as in other surrounding wells; this was
attributed to the dissolution of gypsum by the caustic slug. Although the results were difficult to quantify, the process appears
to have worked and incremental oil produced.
West Burkburnett (Wichita County Regular field) (Stalnaker, 1966) (Talash & Strange, 1982)
The Wichita County Regular field located in Texas produces from the Cisco series (Pennsylvanian). The reservoir is a thin
sand found at a depth of 490 to 550 m, with an average air permeability of 53 md; cores taken subsequent to the test showed
that air permeability could reach 159 md with a water permeability approximately half of that number.
The field was first produced by primary depletion before being waterflooded and was nearing economic limit when a low
tension waterflood was implemented in ten inverted 5-spot patterns in 1973.
The flood started by the injection of a freshwater preflush (0.2 PV), followed by Na2CO3 (0.15 PV), a slug of surfactant
(0.15 PV), itself followed by a polymer slug (0.3 PV) and then chase water. The polymer used was a biopolymer at a
concentration of 500 ppm (later tapered down).
Well tests revealed that all the injectors were hydraullically fractured to some extent and that the injection of the polymer
slug had extended the fractures.
Coreflood tests performed post-flood suggested that the biopolymer could not penetrate into layers with less than 100 md
air permeability but the cores also showed reduced residual oil saturation, demonstrating the efficiency of the surfactant.
Incremental oil was produced and the test was successful.
Big Muddy pilot (Gilliland & Conley, 1976) (Ferrell, King, & Sheely Jr., 1988)
The Big Muddy oil field located in Wyoming produces from the Second Wall Creek Sand in the Frontier formation. The
reservoir is a clean sand. Average reservoir properties vary depending on the sources, but average air permeability appears to
be around 56 md while maximum water permeability is in the range of 1 – 2 md (a 5-ft thick higher permeability layer of 175
SPE-169673-MS 5

md was used at some point to history match the pilot (Saad, Pope, & Sepehrnoori, 1989)). A system of faults and joints also
exists in the field. The area was extensively waterflooded and was shut-in when the water-cut exceeded 99%.
A surfactant injection pilot consisting in a 5-spot pattern was conducted in 1974; all wells were hydraulically fractured. A
total of 0.25 PV of 2.5% sodium sulfonate, 3.0% alcohol and 0.2% sodium hydroxide mixed with a biopolymer (polysaccharide)
at a concentration of 1,100 ppm for a total viscosity of 6 cp was injected and displaced by 0.50 PV of biopolymer. Injection
was problem-free and the pilot was successful, with a clear decrease of the water-cut in the production well from 99% down to
80%. An incremental recovery of approximately 36% of the remaining oil was obtained.
Big Muddy demonstration project (Ferrell, Gregory, & Borah, 1984) (Borah & Gregory, 1988)
Following the pilot described above, a larger scale demonstration project was initiated in 1980. The project consisted in
nine 5-spot patterns. Injectivity was estimated from multiple corefloods.
A water preflush was followed by a slug of 0.102 PV of surfactant solution (3% sulfonate, 5% alcohol and polyacrylamide
polymer to achieve a viscosity of 12 cp) and displaced by 0.178 PV of polymer solution (12 cp).
There was no injectivity problem and the flood recovered extra oil, but not as much as anticipated. This was attributed to a
lack of containment of the injected fluids in the patterns.
Isenhour (Sloat & Zlomke, 1982) (Doll, 1988a) (Doll, 1988b)
An alkaline-polymer flood was implemented from 1980 in the Isenhour Unit (Wyoming) which produces from a low
permeability reservoir (21 md average) from the Almy Sands series. The sand has been severly altered by diagenesis and thus
it is partly cemented by calcite and also contains significant amounts of chlorite and kaolinite. The Unit had not been
waterflooded prior to the start of the alkaline surfactant flood.
The injection was performed in the whole Unit (7 injection wells).
Soda ash (Na2CO3) injection (0.05% wt) was preceded by a clay stabilization treatment and polyacrylamide (250 ppm) was
injected both with the alkaline solution and after to improve sweep efficiency. In total 0.266 PV of Na 2CO3 was injected and
followed by 0.248 PV of polymer alone and a water preflush. Most of the injection wells experienced poor injectivity and at
least one was fractured by mistake when injection pressure exceeded formation parting pressure; as a result one well accounted
for 85% of the total injection volume. The field responded positively to the flood and production increased but cumulative
recovery at the end of the project was only 26.4% OOIP.
Triangle “U” Sussex Unit (Smith & Larsen, 1998)
The Triangle “U” Sussex Unit located in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming produces mainly from the Sussez “A”
Sandstone, a dirty sand containing between 7 to 15% clay and silt (kaolinite and illite) of low porosity and permeability (13.5%
and from 2.5 to 77 md respectively).
The field initially produced by primary depletion (12.8% OOIP recovery) before a waterflood was initiated in 1981.
Wells were treated with KCl and KOH to stabilize the clays and in addition a process to favorize imbibition was
implemented over most of the life of the flood (0.32 PV injected in total). The process consists in the injection of a wettability
agent combined with low concentrations of polyacrylamide. As a result the water-cut was maintained quite stable over a long
period.
Slaughter (Adams & Schievelbein, 1987)
The Bob Slaughter (Slaughter) lease in the northern part of the Permian basin in Texas is producing from the San Andres
dolomite reservoir which also contains anhydrite. Reservoir porosity and permeability are low (8 to 18%, average 12% and 1
to 25 md, average 5.9 md respectively). Two two-well tests of surfactant polymer injection targeting residual oil after a long
waterflood period (over 20 years) were performed in the lease in 1981. Well spacing was kept very short (26 m and 31 m) by
design and permeability in the tests areas was 25 md.
The first test consisted in injecting 1.30 PV of high concentrations of surfactant followed by biopolymer. Injection rates
declined during the surfactant injection phase, which was attributed to the excessive viscosity of the emulsion. Polymer
injection took place as planned except with some operational issues due to bacteria and the presence of iron in the injection
water. The producer responded within a week and oil cut increased and a recovery of 77% of the OIP was estimated. A high
surfactant adsorption of 1.3 mg/g was estimated. Polymer adsorption was only 1.4g/g.
The second test consisted in injecting a smaller volume (0.42 PV) of a different mixture of surfactants still at high
concentration. There was no injectivity issue either during the surfactant or the polymer injection phases. The pilot was also
successful, recovering 43% OOIP. Adsorption was 0.44 mg/g for surfactant and 5.5 g/g for polymer.
Bottahmshall (Cooper, Walsh, & Morgan, 1985)
A surfactant flood was conducted in 1983 in the Bottamshall field in the East Midlands area in the UK. The target reservoir
is a low permeability sandstone (14 md on the average for the best of 3 sands) which had been waterflooded for many years
and as a result oil saturation at the beginning of the project was estimated at 40%.
The pilot was an injected 4-spot pattern of which one of the wells had been used as a disposal well; this well was returned
to production for the pilot, producing initially at 98% water-cut. A short injectivity test was performed during the pilot.
A total of 0.25 PV of surfactant at 2% wt concentration followed by lower salinity water was injected over the course of
the pilot. Polymer was not used due to the low permeability of the reservoir. Rapid communication occurred between the
injection well and the producing well which had been converted from an injection well, suggesting the presence of fracturing
around the wells resulting from injection. Injectivity and productivity issues were experienced in particular due to wax deposits
in the production wells. Surfactant retention appears to have been higher than anticipated and maybe as a result there was no
6 SPE-169673-MS

clear response to the test. Oil cut increased slightly from 2% to 4% in the well where the rapid communication was observed
while remaining stable in the other two.
Chao-522 (Yin, Gao, Pu, & Zhao, 2010)
The Chao-522 oil field located in the Daqing area in China is a low permeability reservoir (18.5 md average) and because
of that was suffering from reduced injectivity. As a result it was selected for a surfactant field test aiming at increasing
injectivity. A surfactant injection pilot took place in 2005. A slug of 0.10 PV of surfactant at a concentration of 1.0% wt was
injected. The pilot was successful with an increased injectivity, increased oil rate and lower water-cut.
Unknown (Carter, Payton, & Pindell, 1980)
A micellar pilot using a xanthan polymer was performed in a field in the San Andres Formation. Very little information is
available but reservoir porosity and permeability appear to be 11.8% and 3.9 md respectively.
The pilot was a 5-spot pattern. One of the wells experienced an injectivity issue which was attributed to iron sulfide
formation. The polymer was then backflowed from one of the other wells and it was verified that no degradation had occurred.

Polymer flooding
Table 4 presentes the general data for each test, Table 5 contains the reservoir data and Table 6 presents the tests data.
Vernon (Jones, 1966)
The Vernon field in Kansas produces from the Pennsylvanian Squirrel reservoir composed of two main sand intervals
(Lower/Upper); porosity and permeability are relatively low (20.1 porosity and 1 to 122 md, average 23 md for the Upper
Sandstone, 20.6% porosity and from 1 to 137 md, average 29 md for the Upper Sandstone).
The field was initially produced by primary depletion before a polymer flood was implemented in 1963.
A high molecular weight polymer was injected into two 5-spot patterns in the Lower and (partially) Upper Sandstone. In
total over 0.33 PV of polymer solution was injected.
The pilot wells responded positively to the injection and the total oil rate increased from 12 to 95 bopd. Comparing the pilot
with waterfloods implemented in similar pools suggests that the polymer succeeded in accelerating recovery.
Pembina (Groeneveld, George, & Melrose, 1977)
The Pembina field in Alberta, Canada is one of the largest oil fields in the world, with an OOIP of 7.4 billion bbl OOIP.
The reservoir (the Cardium) is composed of several sand layers of variable characteristics and mineralogy due to diagenesis
and cementation, but with generally low porosity and permeability (12.9% and 25.3 md on the average in the area of the pilot).
The sands are often overlain by a conglomerate layer of higher permeability (63.6 md on the average in the pilot area but with
some thin, higher permeability intervals). The reservoir has been extensively waterflooded and the conglomerate acts as a thief
zone when present even when the injection wells are not perforated in this interval. This could be due to the fact that wells are
usually hydraulically fractured. The goal of the pilot was to use polymer in order to improve the vertical sweep.
The pilot was composed of two 5-spot patterns with 6 injection and 2 production wells. A total of 0.04 PV of polymer at a
concentration of 1,000 ppm was injected. Two of the 6 injection wells experienced severe reductions in injectivity (80%) while
the others did not. The results were disappointing, with a response in only one of the two producers (decrease in water-cut and
increase in oil rate).
Polymer adsorption was found to be higher than expected but still low (20 to 27 g/g). Produced polymer was found to
have been degraded (by 50% to 70%) in spite of the relatively low reservoir temperature (52⁰C) and short residence time in the
formation (8 to 18 months).
Zaloni (Yomdo & Talukdar, 2005)
The Zaloni field in India produces from the Zaloni Barail Second Sand, a relatively thick sand of low permeability (30 to
80 md).
The field has been developed by primary depletion followed by peripheral water injection. However due to an unfavorable
viscosity ratio it was forecast that water injection would only recover 35% OOIP thus it was decided to pilot a polymer flood.
A hydrolyzed polyacrylamide at 500 ppm was injected in the reservoir starting in 1975. Injectivity was only 65% of what
was expected and could not be maintained steady, the wells requiring frequent acidizing and worrkovers; as a result the injection
rate was only about one third of what was initially planned. Polymer flooding was discontinued after the injection of 0.15 PV
(as opposed to 0.20 PV as planned) when polymer broke through in the producers. In spite of that the polymer flood was
deemed a success and recovery reached 42% OOIP – although it is difficult to know what part the polymer had in that.
Eliasville Caddo Unit (Weiss & Baldwin, 1985) (Weiss, 1992)
The Eliasville Caddo Unit is part of the large Stephens County regular field in Texas and produces from a Caddo reef. The
reservoir is a limestone reef with vugular and intragranular porosity, it is also ramdomly fractured. Average porosity is 13.2%
and permeability varies between 0.1 to 234 md, the average being 11 md. Testing revealed permeability anisotropy in the pilot
area probably due to the fracturing, with an average permeability of 12 md in one direction and 43 md in the other.
The pool was initially developed by primary production followed by waterflood but that resulted in high water-cuts thus
polymer flooding was considered. The selected polymer was a hydrolyzed polyacrylamide of high molecular weight. Injectivity
tests were first performed to verify that injectivity was sufficient for a pilot test and injected polymer was backproduced to
verify its degradation after injection. Polymer retention was also calculated (1 – 2 g/g only).
The Unit-wide polymer flood in 1980 consisted in the injection of 0.129 PV of polymer solution followed by chase water
in 54 wells. Injectivity issues were experienced in 6 wells and several solutions were tried to no avail. In spite of that flood
SPE-169673-MS 7

results were positive with an increasing oil cut as well as oil rate from 375 bopd to 1,622 bopd. Incremental recovery was
estimated at 4.2% OOIP.
Vacuum (Hale/Mable lease) (Hovendick, 1989)
The Vacuum field in New Mexico is producing from the Grayburg and San Andres formations however the Grayburg
reservoir quality is marginal in the lease area thus the only target for the test was the San Andres formation, a dense oolithic
dolomite containing traces of anhydrite and slightly fractured. Porosity and permeability are low (11.5% and 17.3 md
respectively).
Primary production started in 1939 and continued until 1983, when a waterflood was initiated. Primary recovery was
approximately 20% OOIP.
Several polymer were tested in the lab and the one that produced the highest viscosity at a given concentration (presumably
with the highest molecular weight) was selected. Polymer injection started in 1983 (only 3 months after water injection) initially
at a 50 ppm concentration; it was planned to increase the concentration progressively but injectivity was reduced more than
anticipated at 50 ppm so the concentration was maintained at that level. It was planned to inject 0.75 PV of polymer (the paper
was written before injection was completed). The flood appears to have been successful although reservoir simulations had
suggested an incremental recovery of only 1% OOIP due to polymer.
Warner Ranch
The Warner Ranch Field Unit is part of the Denver-Julesburg basin of western Nebraska, northeastern Colorado, and south-
eastern Wyoming. The J-sandstone reservoir is a small thin sand lens with an average permeability of 30 to 100 md, porosity
close to 16%. The reservoir is supposed to be intermediate to slightly oil-wet.
The field was initially produced by primary depletion during 16 years prior to waterflooding. Primary recovery was
approximately 10.7% OOIP.
A 30% hydrolyzed polyacrylamide was injected in two wells starting in October 1983 at a concentration of 585 ppm during
21 months.
A slight increase of the oil rate was observed but polymer retention was 7 to 8 times higher than expected, leading to a poor
polymer propagation in the reservoir.
Twin Peaks (Hoelscher, Tan, & Fullbright, 1986)
The twin Peaks field in Texas produces from the Upper Strawn reservoir, a fine grained sandstone containing 4% of smectite
and other clays and cemented by calcite. Because of this, reservoir porosity and permeability are low (17.5% and 50 md).
The field was initially produced by primary depletion followed by waterflood, before a field scale polymer flood was
implemented in 1984, mostly in order to improve the sweep efficiency. Lab studies indicated that a “high molecular weight”
polymer would be suitable.
A field injectivity test was first performed to verify that the polymer could be injected without any problem and upon
completion the flood was initiated.
Injectivity during the flood was similar to what was obtained during the injectivity test (80% of water injectivity). The flood
was successful, increasing oil rate and reducing water-cut.
Daqing (Wang, et al., 2007) (Fenglan, et al., 2010)
Several polymer flood pilots have been conducted in various low permeability areas in the giant Daqing oil field. There is
not much information available but some pilots have taken place in areas where the permeability is in the 50 to 70 md range.
A polymer of 6.8 x 106 Daltons was injected in Block X3, a reservoir with an effective permeability of 63 md; the reservoir
had been wateflooded for 21 years and the recovery factor was 38% OOIP. A total of 0.163 PV of polymer was injected,
resulting in a reduction of water-cut from 93.6% to 88.9%.
The same polymer was injected in Block X5 where the effective permeability is 45 md. The reservoir had also been
waterflooded and the recovery was 37.8% OOIP. A total of 0.18 PV of polymer solution was injected and resulted in a decrease
of the water-cut from 94.1% to 91.2%.
Polymers of 4 to 8 x 106 Daltons molecular weight were injected successfully in Blocks 1 and 2 of respective permeability
of 50 and 68 md. That has lead to reduced water-cut and increased recovery (additional 3 to 5% OOIP). One of the conclusion
of the pilots is that polymer flooding is not suitable in less than 10 md permeability.

Other chemical EOR method using polymer

Windalia (Haynes, Clough, Fletcher, & Weston, 2013)
The Windalia field in Australia is producing from a complex and heterogeneous reservoir composed of argillaceous
sandstones with high glauconite content. Porosity is good (28%) but permeability is poor (5 md on average with higher
permeability streaks up to 100 md). The field has been waterflooded since 1967 but recovery is only 37% OOIP due to the
reservoir heterogeneity.
Chemical EOR was investigated in order to increase recovery in particular through sweep improvement but field
implementation was expected to be problematic due to potential high adsorption and the fact that the injection wells are all
hydraulically fractured.
Medium and high molecular weight (up to 29.9 x 106 Daltons) polymers were tested but exhibited high retention (up to 130
mg/g – milligram/g) and high Residual Resistance factors.
8 SPE-169673-MS

In view of those results it was decided to pilot another method called In-depth Flow Diversion as described above (Fletcher
& Morrison, 2008). The process was tested successfully with a polymer (Mw = 16.4 106 Daltons) and was showed to increase
hydraulic fracture half length and the oil rate increased by 20 to 38% in the pilot while the WOR decreased.

Summary of field tests

As can be seen from the above descriptions and Table 1 to Table 6, the tests presented above conver all kinds of processes,
from simple alkali injection to ASP to polymer to wettability alteration. Most of these tests have been successful, probably
because unsuccessful tests are seldom published.
The permeabilities encountered during those tests vary from a minimum of 4 md (Unknown micellar polymer test) to 6 md
(Bottamshall surfactant test) to a maximum of 100 md (Warner Ranch) for average values. Single permeability values like that
can be misleading and it is usually safer to have permeability ranges to provide information on the variability and maximum
permeability that can be encountered. In that regard the information for Slaughter (1 to 25 md, average 6 md) is better.
For the tests involving polymer – if Windalia is excluded – the minimum permeability values are 4 md (Unknown), 1 to 25
md, average 6 md (Slaughter) 0.1 to 234 md, average 11 md (Elliasville Caddo Unit) and finally 21 md (Isenhour). Thus it
appears that polymer can successfully be injected into reservoir rocks of permeability lower than 20 md. There are also several
tests with permeability in the 50 md range (West Burkburnett, Big Muddy, Twin Peaks and Daqing).
Information on the molecular weight of the injected polymer is unfortunately scarce – at best it is mentioned whether it was
“high” or “low” which are obviously somewhat arbitrary definitions. Information is available for Daqing where polymers of
6.8 and 4 to 8 x 106 Daltons were used.
Injectivity issues have been experienced in 3 out of 6 A/S/P tests and 5 out of 12 polymer flood tests; injectivity could be
improved by using lower molecular weight polymers or by a controlled degradation of the polymer prior to injection. Hydraulic
fractures could also help. The Windalia test is interesting in that regard.
Injectivity tests have not been used very often; they can be useful before embarking on a long and costly pilot provided that
the wells are representative.

Fractured reservoirs
Literature review
Chemical EOR in naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR) has long been a topic of interest but the process has been applied
unfrequently in the field especially in the case of low matrix permeability. Although several classes of fractured reservoirs are
usually recognized (Allan & Sun, 2003), we will focus on the case when oil is stored in the matrix.
Oil recovery in naturally fractured reservoirs is governed by four main mechanisms (Lemonnier & Bourbiaux, 2010):
 Gravity;
 Capillarity;
 Diffusion;
 Viscous forces.
Out of these mechanisms, diffusion is not significant in a water-oil case and viscous forces are small when the fracture
permeability is high; gravity is the dominant factor in the case of drainage by gas while capillarity is usually the most important
mechanism in the case of water injection. When the matrix is water-wet, water imbibes naturally and waterflood recovery can
be good but in other cases capillarity prevents natural imbibition and as a result oil remains mostly trapped in the matrix.
As many naturally fractured oil reservoirs are oil-wet or mixed wettability, the efforts for chemical EOR have mostly
focused on the injection of surfactant to either change the wettability or reduce the interfacial tension (IFT) (Tabary, Fornari,
Bazin, Bourbiaux, & Dalmazzone, 2009) (Jamaloei, 2011) (Hirasaki & Zhang, 2004) (Adibhatla & Mohanty, 2008) (Abbasi-
Asl, Pope, & Delshad, 2010). Reducing the interfacial tension reduces the impact of capillarity and as a result gravity/buoyancy
becomes the driving mechanism for the recovery of oil.
In practice the situation is complex because it involves several factors: the rock wettability of course, but also the block size
and the matrix permeability. Matrix permeability has a direct impact on the kinetic of drainage by gravity and it can be a slow
process for low permeability rocks, while capillarity which is very efficient for small blocks becomes less efficient as block
size increases. Bourbiaux (Bourbiaux, 2009) performed a detailed analysis of these different factors and concluded the
following:
 For oil-wet reservoirs when the block size is small (less than 3 m) wettability reversal acts much faster than low IFT
processes;
 For oil-wet reservoirs when the block size is large (over 30 m) both IFT reduction and wettability alteration are slow
processes and thus only realistic when the permeability is fair to high; they become unrealistic when permeability gets
lower. Then those processes must be supplemented by other means such as viscous forces;
 For water-wet reservoirs, capillarity is the preponderant mechanism thus the dilemma is great; reducing the IFT will
reduce the effect of capillarity and thus block size and permeability need to be sufficient in order to allow for gravity
to be efficient.
The additional challenge is to get the chemical solution to progress deep into the matrix blocks in spite of adsorption.
Several authors have investigated the impact of surfactant diffusion in the process (Masalmeh & Oedai, 2009) (Fjelde, Zuta, &
SPE-169673-MS 9

Kvaestad, 2012). Masalmeh et al. (Masalmeh & Oedai, 2009) studied surfactant enhanced gravity drainage in oil-wet rocks,
focusing on the impact of gravity for surfactants with little impact on the IFT (and thus on S orw). They concluded that diffusion
can play a role in keeping the surfactant at the oil-water interface. Fjelde et al. (Fjelde, Zuta, & Kvaestad, 2012) studied the
case of foam in fractured chalk and concluded that if the process is dominated by diffusion the transport of surfactant would be
too slow for EOR processes that affect flow conditions in the matrix block. Thus it appears that diffusion can help the process
but that it cannot be sufficient.

Field experience – Surfactant injection

Very few field cases are reported in the literature.
Cottonwood Creek (Weiss, et al., 2006) (Xie, Weiss, Tong, & Morrow, 2005)
The Cottonwood Creek field is located in the BigHorn Basin in Wyoming and is producing from the shallow-shelf, algal
reef of the Phosphoria formation. The reservoir is dolomitized, oil-wet and its porosity and permeability are 10% and 1 md
respectively (Weiss, et al., 2006) although core data suggest higher permeabilities up to 130 md (Xie, Weiss, Tong, & Morrow,
2005) which could be due to the presence of small size fractures and microfractures.
A total of 23 single well surfactant soak tests were conducted in the field; treatment volumes varied between 500 to 1,500
bbl. Although 70% of the tests appear to have been failures, some wells responded favorably with increased oil rates and
decreasing water-cuts.
Yates (Cheng & Kwan, 2012) (Chen, Lucas, Nogaret, Yang, & Kenyon, 2001)
The Yates field in Texas is a giant fractured carbonate reservoir which contains 4.2 billion bbl OOIP in the San Andres
formation (the main reservoir). The field has been producing since 1927 and recovery from the San Andres formation is only
about 35% OOIP after primary depletion, water and gas injection. The San Andres formation is an oil-wet, fractured dolomite
formation; its petrophysical characteristics are unclear: average matrix porosity and permeability are reported as 17% and 35
md respectively (Cheng & Kwan, 2012), 15% and 100 md (Chen, Lucas, Nogaret, Yang, & Kenyon, 2001) but a detailed
petrophysical study suggests permeability up to one Darcy (Tinker & Mruk, 1995).
Dilute surfactant field tests taking place during the 1990s were reported (Chen, Lucas, Nogaret, Yang, & Kenyon, 2001)
and declared successful but little detail was provided.
A surfactant injection pilot was implemented in Yates in 2011 in order to evaluate the chemical EOR potential of the field
(Cheng & Kwan, 2012). The pilot was composed of 2 wells – one injection and one production well 60 m apart – and consisted
in injecting a 3% wt surfactant concentration at 500 bbl/d for half day then half day of shut-in time for soaking, repeated over
20 days.
The result from the pilot appear to have been positive, with oil production increasing from 3.5 bopd to about 5.5 bopd.

Field experience – Polymer injection

Byron (DeHekker, Bowser, Coleman, & Bartos, 1986)
The Byron field in the Big Horn Basin in Wyoming is producing from the Tensleep sand, a formation that consists in fine
to very fine quartz grains partially cemented with dolomite; the sandstone layers are also interbedded with anhydrite and
dolomite zones. Average porosity and permeability are 13.9% and 78 md. The reservoir is fractured.
The field was initially produced through primary depletion and then waterflooded.
A partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide was selected for injection after lab tests and injectivity tests were performed
successfully before the flood.
Starting in 1982, over 0.37 PV of polymer was injected in Byron and although the interpretation of the result is made more
difficult by other developments occurring in the field at the same time the flood is deemed to have improved the WOR and
increased the oil rate and the recovery. However the results were less than expected, which was attributed to the fact that the
reservoir is highly fractured and that a significant quantity of the polymer (25%) was recycled through the fractures.
North Oregon Basin (DeHekker, Bowser, Coleman, & Bartos, 1986)
The Oregon Basin field is like the Byron field part of the Big Horn Basin in Wyoming; like Byron, it is producing from the
Tensleep sand but also from the Embar formation, a dolomitic limestone. The porosity and permeability in the Embar and
Tensleep formations are 20.2% and 68 md and 14.7% and 193 md respectively. The two formations are fractured but not as
extensively as in Byron.
As in Byron the field was initially produced through primary depletion and then waterflooded. A partially hydrolyzed
polyacrylamide was also selected for injection after lab tests and injectivity tests were performed successfully before the flood.
Starting in 1983, over 0.28 PV of polymer was injected and the flood was more efficient than in Byron, with a more
pronounced decline in WOR and a larger increase in oil rate and recovery. The difference was attributed to the fact that the
reservoirs are not as fractured.

Foam for mobility control

Although foam is mostly used for conformance and mobility control in gas injection processes, its use has also been
proposed to replace polymer for surfactant mobility control. Low permeability reservoirs would be an obvious target for that
application because there is no risk of pore blocking.
10 SPE-169673-MS

Kamal et al. (Kamal & Marsden, 1973) and Lawson et al. (Lawson & Reisberg, 1980) were among the first to propose and
study the use of foam for mobility control during chemical flooding. They concluded that the process was feasible and had the
advantage of an already satisfied adsorption during the surfactant slug, allowing better economics for the foam. This was later
confirmed by Llave et al. (Llave & Olsen, 1994).
More recently Feng Li et al. (Feng Li, Yan, Liu, Hirasaki, & Miller, 2010) demonstrated that even a viscous oil (266 cp)
can be displaced by foam.
Still, there are some potential issues related to the use of foam in low permeability reservoirs; foam needs gas to be generated
and that may not always be feasible in particular in processes where chemical EOR has been chosen due to a lack of gas. In
addition, strong foams are mostly formed in high permeability rocks whereas all the works cited above were performed in high
permeability media. Thus it remains to be seen how foam would perform in low permeability rocks.
There is at least one recorded field case of using foam for surfactant mobility control (Wang, et al., 2001) but the
permeability of the reservoir is not recorded so the test will not be reviewed here.

Conclusions
The literature review and analysis of field cases available lead to the following conclusions.
 The biggest problem for chemical EOR in low permeability rocks appears to be adsorption for surfactant and retention
for polymer; those issues are made worse in this type of reservoirs because low permeability is often caused by the
presence of clays and cementing materials which increase adsorption and also by the small pore sizes which can cause
mechanical entrapment of large polymer molecules.
 Numerous injectivity issues have been experienced in the field pilots; these issues could be mitigated by using smaller
molecular weight polymers or by a controlled degradation of the polymer prior to injection. Hydraulic fractures could
also help.
 The documented tests reviewed show that chemical injection involving polymer has been successfully applied in
reservoirs with permeability as low as a few md (around 5 md); however we do not agree with lowering screening
criteria for polymer flood for permeability down to 0.6 md as other authors suggest, because this value is not supported
by published tests. Even in the tests reviewed in this paper we acknowledge the risk of relying of average field values
which may be grossly misleading on the permeability values in a specific pilot location.
 Some authors have noted that the pore structure is more important than actual permeability which could explain the
sometimes conflicting reports in terms of permeability limits.
 Chemical EOR efforts in low permeability fractured reservoirs have mostly focused on oil-wet rocks and thus on
wettability alteration or reduction of the interfacial tension; very few tests have been reported in the literature but those
tests appear to have been successful, both for surfactant and polymer injection.
 Foam has been proposed to replace polymer for surfactant mobility control and is an interesting concept but its
applicability to low permeability reservoirs is not guaranteed as foam may not be able to form is low permeability
rocks. No pilot test in low permeability has been reported so far.

References
Abbasi-Asl, Y., Pope, G., & Delshad, M. (2010). Mechanistic Modeling of Chemical Transport in Naturally Fractured Oil Reservoirs. Paper
SPE 129661 presented at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK, USA, 24-28 April.
Adams, W., & Schievelbein, V. (1987, November). Surfactant Flooding Carbonate Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 2(4), 619-626.
Adibhatla, B., & Mohanty, K. (2008, February). Oil Recovery From Fractured Carbonates by Surfactant-Aided Gravity Drainage: Laboratory
Experiments and Mechanistic Simulations. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 119-130.
Allan, J., & Sun, S. (2003). Controls on Recovery Factor in Fractured Reservoirs: Lessons Learned from 100 Fractured Fields. Paper SPE
84590 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Denver, CO, USA, Oct. 5-8.
Borah, M., & Gregory, M. (1988). A Summary of the Big Muddy Field Low-Tension Flood Demonstration Project. Paper SPE 17536
presened at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting. Casper, Wyoming, USA, 11-13 May.
Bourbiaux, B. (2009). Understanding the Oil Recovery Challenge of Water Drive Fractured Reservoirs. Paper IPTC 13909 presented at the
International Petroleum Technology Conference. Doha, Qatar, 7-9 December.
Carter, W., Payton, J., & Pindell, R. (1980). Biopolymer Injection Into A Low Permeability Reservoir. Paper SPE 8836 presented at the
SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 20-23 April.
Chen, H., Lucas, L., Nogaret, L., Yang, H., & Kenyon, D. (2001, February). Laboratory Monitoring of Surfactant Imbibition With
Computerized Tomography. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 16-25.
Cheng, A., & Kwan, J. (2012). Optimal Injection Design Utilizing Tracer and Simulation in a Surfactant Pilot for a Fractured Carbonate
Yates Field. Paper 154270 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK, USA, 14-18 April.
Clarkson, C., & Pedersen, P. (2011). Production Analysis of Western Canadian Unconventional Light Oil Plays. Paper CSUG/SPE 149005
presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15-17 November.
Cooper, M., Walsh, D., & Morgan, J. (1985). Field Experience in the Bothamsall Surfactant Flood Project. Paper SPE 13990 presented at
the SPE Offshore Europe Conference. Aberdeen, UK, 10-13 September .
Dann, M., Burnett, D., & Hall, L. (1982). Polymer Performance in Low Permeability Reservoirs. Paper SPE 10615 presented at the SPE
Sixth International Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry. Dallas, TX, USA, January 25-27.
SPE-169673-MS 11

DeHekker, T., Bowser, J., Coleman, R., & Bartos, W. (1986). A Progress Report on Polymer-Augmented Waterflooding in Wyoming's North
Oregon Basin and Byron Fields. Paper SPE 14953 presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA,
20-23 April.
Doll, T. (1988a, May). An Update of the Polymer-Augmented Alkaline Flood at the Isenhour Unit, Sublette County, Wyoming. SPE
Reservoir Engineering, 604-608.
Doll, T. (1988b). Performance Data Through 1987 of the Isenhour Unit, Sublette County, Wyoming, Polymer-Augmented Alkaline Flood.
Paper SPE 17801 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting. Casper, WY, USA, 11-13 May.
Dominguez, J., & Willhite, G. (1977, April). Retention and Flow Characteristics of Polymer Solutions in Porous Media. Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, 17(02), 111-121.
Dupas, A., Henaut, I., Rousseau, D., Poulain, P., Tabary, R., Argillier, J., & Aubry, T. (2013). Impact of Polymer Mechanical Degradation
on Shear and Extensional Viscosities: Toward Better Injectivity Forecasts in Polymer Flooding Operations. Paper SPE 164083
presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry . The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 8-10 April.
Ehrlich, R., Hasiba, H., & Raimondi, P. (1974, December). Alkaline Waterflooding for Wettability Alteration-Evaluating a Potential Field
Application. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 26(12), 1335-1343.
Feng Li, R., Yan, W., Liu, S., Hirasaki, G., & Miller, C. (2010). Foam Mobility Control for Surfactant Enhanced Oil Recovery. SPE Journal,
15(04), 928-942.
Fenglan, W., Xia, L., Siyuan, L., Peihui, H., Wenting, G., & Yonghui, Y. (2010). Performance Analysis and Field Application Result of
Polymer Flooding in Low-Permeability Reservoirs in Daqing Oilfield . Paper CSUG/SPE 136904 presented at the Canadian
Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 October.
Ferrell, H., Gregory, M., & Borah, M. (1984). Progress Report: Big Muddy Field Low-Tension Flood Demonstration Project With Emphasis
on Injectivity and Mobility. Paper SPE 12682 presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 15-
18 April.
Ferrell, H., King, D., & Sheely Jr., C. (1988, June). Analysis of the Low-Tension Pilot at Big Muddy Field, Wyoming. SPE Formation
Evaluation, 3(2), 315-321.
Fjelde, I., Zuta, J., & Kvaestad, A. (2012). Transport of Surfactants in Fractured Chalk Rock - Laboratory Experiments and Numerical
Simulations. Paper SCA2012-16 presented at the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts. Aberdeen, Scotland, UK,
27-30 August.
Fletcher, A., & Morrison, G. (2008). Developing a Chemical EOR Pilot Strategy for a Complex, Low Permeability Water Flood. Paper SPE
112793 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK, USA, April 19-23.
Fletcher, A., Lamb, S., & Clifford, P. (1992, May). Formation Damage From Polymer Solutions: Factors Governing Injectivity. SPE
Reservoir Engineering, 237-246.
Gadde, P., & Sharma, M. (2001). Growing Injection Well Fractures and Their Impact on Waterflood Performance. Paper SPE 71614
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 Sept.-3 Oct., .
Gilliland, H., & Conley, F. (1976). A Pilot Test of Surfactant Flooding in the Big Muddy Field. Paper SPE 5891 presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting. Casper, Wyoming, USA, May 11-12.
Groeneveld, H., George, R., & Melrose, J. (1977, May). Pembina Field Polymer Flood Pilot. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 29(05), 561-
570.
Haynes, A., Clough, M., Fletcher, A., & Weston, S. (2013). The Successful Implementation of a Novel Polymer EOR Pilot in the Low
Permeability Windalia Field. Paper SPE 165253 presented at the SPE Enhanced Recovery Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2-4
July.
Hirasaki, G., & Zhang, D. (2004, June). Surface Chemistry of Oil Recovery From Fractured, Oil-Wet, Carbonate Formations. SPE Journal,
151-162.
Hoelscher, L., Tan, H., & Fullbright, B. (1986). Field-Scale Polymer Flooding at Remote Site Presents Special Challenges. Paper SPE 14952
presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 20-23 April.
Hovendick, M. (1989, August). Development and Results of the Hale/Mable Leases Cooperative Polymer EOR Injection Project, Vacuum
(Grayburg-San Andres) Field, Lea County, New Mexico. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 4(03), 363-373.
Jamaloei, B. (2011). Chemical Flooding in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs: Fundamental Aspects and Field Scale Practises. Oil & Gas Science
and Technology, 66(6), 991-1004.
Jones, M. (1966, September). Waterflood Mobility Control: A Case History. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 18(9), 1151-1156.
Jones, M. (1966, September). Waterflood Mobility Control: A Case History. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 18(09), 1151-1156.
Kamal, M., & Marsden, S. (1973). Displacement of a Micellar Slug Foam in Unconsolidated Porous Media. Fall Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 30 September-3 October.
Lawson, J., & Reisberg, J. (1980). Alternate Slugs Of Gas And Dilute Surfactant For Mobility Control During Chemical Flooding. Paper
SPE 8839 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 20-23 April .
Lee, K., Huh, C., & Sharma, M. (2011). Impact of Fracture Growth on Well Injectivity and Reservoir Sweep during Waterflood and Chemical
EOR Processes. Paper SPE 146778 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Denver, CO, USA, 30 Oct. - 2 Nov.,.
Lemonnier, P., & Bourbiaux, B. (2010, March-April). Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. State of the Art. Oil & Gas Science and
Technology, 65(2), 239-262.
Llave, F., & Olsen, D. (1994, May). Use of Mixed Surfactants To Generate Foams for Mobility Control in Chemical Flooding. SPE Reservoir
Engineering, 9(02), 125-132.
Martin, F. (1974). Laboratory Investigations in the Use of Polymers in Low Permeability Reservoirs. Paper SPE 5100 presented at the 49th
Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Houston, TX, USA, Oct. 6-9,.
Masalmeh, S., & Oedai, S. (2009). Surfactant Enhanced Gravity Drainage: Laboratory Experiments and Numerical Simulation Model. Paper
SCA2009-06 presented at the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts. Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 27-30 September.
Masoner, L., & Wackowski, R. (1995, August). Rangely Weber Sand Unit CO2 Project Update. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 10(3), 203-207.
12 SPE-169673-MS

Omatsone, E., Bagheri, M., Galas, C., Curtis, B., & Frankiw, K. (2010). Redevelopment of the Cardium Formation Using Fractured
Horizontal Wells: Reservoir Engineering Perspectives and Early Case Histories. Paper CSUG/SPE 137737 presented at the Canadian
Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 October.
Pautz, J., Sellers, C., Nautiyal, C., & Allison, E. (1992). Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects Database. National Institute for Petroleum and
Energy Research/US Department of Energy, Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
Raimondi, P., Gallagher, B., Ehrlich, R., Messmer, J., & Bennett, G. (1977, October). Alkaline Waterflooding: Design and Implementation
of a Field Pilot. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 29(10), 1359-1368.
Saad, N., Pope, G., & Sepehrnoori, K. (1989, February). Simulation of Big Muddy Surfactant Pilot. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 4(01), 24-
34.
Saleh, L., Wei, M., & Bai, B. (2014). Data Analysis and Updated Screening Criteria for Polymer Flooding Based on Oilfield Data. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Preprint.
Seright, R. (1983, June). The Effects of Mechanical Degradation and Viscoelastic Behavior on Injectivity of Polyacrylamide Solutions.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 23(03), 475-485.
Sheng, J. (2011). Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and Practise. Burlington, MA: Gulf Professional Publishing Elsevier.
Sloat, B., & Zlomke, D. (1982). The Isenhour Unit - A Unique Polymer-Augmented Alkaline Flood. Paper SPE/DOE 10719 presented at
the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK, USA, 4-7 April.
Smith, J., & Larsen, D. (1998, December). The Triangle “U” Sussex Unit – A Case History Comparing Two Chemical Enhanced Waterflood
Methods. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 1(6), 545-550.
Sorbie, K. (1991). Polymer-improved Oil Recovery. Blackie and Sons Tld./US and Canada: CRC Press Inc.
Sorbie, K., & Roberts, L. (1984). A Model for Calculating Polymer Injectivity Including the Effects of Shear Degradation. Paper SPE 12654
presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 15-18 April.
Souza, A., Fernandes, P., Mendes, R., Rosa, A., & Furtado, C. (2005). The Impact of Injection with Fracture Propagation During
Waterflooding Process. Paper 94704 presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 20-23 June .
Stalnaker, D. (1966, August). West Burkburnett Waterflood-A Successful Shallow Project In North Texas. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
18(08), 919-923.
Szabo, M. (1975, August). Some Aspects of Polymer Retention in Porous Media Using a C14-Tagged Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide. Society
of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 15(04), 323-337.
Tabary, R., Fornari, F., Bazin, B., Bourbiaux, B., & Dalmazzone, C. (2009). Improved Oil Recovery With Chemicals in Carbonate
Formations. Paper SPE 121668 presented at the 2009 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry. The Woodlands, TX, USA,
20-22 April.
Talash, A., & Strange, L. (1982, November). Summary of Performance and Evaluations in the West Burkburnett Chemical Waterflood
Project. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 34(11), 2495-2502.
Tinker, S., & Mruk, D. (1995). Reservoir Characterization of a Permian Giant: Yates FIeld, West Texas. In Hydrocarbon Reservoir
Characterization (SC34). The Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM).
Treiber, L., & Yang, S. (1986). The Nature of Polymer Plugging and a Wellbore Treatment to Minimize It. Paper 14948 presented at the
SPE/DOE Fifth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. Tulsa, OK, USA, 20-23 April.
Vela, S., Peaceman, D., & Sandvik, E. (1974). Evaluation of Polymer Flooding in a Layered Reservoir With Crossflow, Retention and
Degradation. Paper SPE 5102 presented at the 49th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Houston, TX,
USA, Oct. 6-9.
Wang, D., Cheng, J., Yang, Z., Li, q., Wu, W., & Yu, H. (2001). Successful Field Test of the First Ultra-Low Interfacial Tension Foam Flood.
Paper SPE 72147 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 6-9 October.
Wang, D., Dong, H., Lv, C., Fu, X., & Nie, J. (2009, June). Review of Practical Experience of Polymer Flooding at Daqing. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, 470-476.
Wang, D., Li, S., Fan, C., Li, J., Wu, H., & Dusseault, M. (2007). Flooding Thin Low-Permeability Layers With a New Salt-Resistant,
Medium-Molecular-Weight Polymer. Paper SPE 109627 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Anaheim,
California, USA, , 11-14 November.
Watson, M. (2005). Correlating Petrophysical and Flood Performance in the Levelland Slaughter Field. MSc. Thesis, Texas Tech University.
Weiss, W. (1992). Performance Review of a Large-Scale Polymer Flood. Paper SPE/DOE 24145 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 22-24 April.
Weiss, W., & Baldwin, R. (1985, April). Planning and Implementing a Large-Scale Polymer Flood. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 37(04),
720-730.
Weiss, W., Xie, X., Weiss, J., Subramanium, V., Taylor, A., & Edens, F. (2006, June). Artificial Intelligence Used to Evaluate 23 Single-
well Surfactant Soak Treatments. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 209-216.
Xie, X., Weiss, W., Tong, Z., & Morrow, N. (2005, Septembre). Improved Oil Recovery from Carbonate Reservoirs by Chemical Stimulation.
SPE Journal, 10(3).
Xu, Y., Pu, H., & Shi, L. (2008). An Integrated Study of Mature Low Permeability Reservoir in Daqing Oil Field, China. Paper SPE 114199
presented at the Western Regional And Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting. Bakersfield, California, USA, 31 March-2 April.
Yin, D., Gao, P., Pu, H., & Zhao, X. (2010). Investigation of a New Simulator for Surfactant Floods in Low Permeability Reservoir and its
Applicatiin in Chao-522 Field, 2010 Update. Paper SPE 128645 presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil & Gas West Asia. Muscat,
Oman, 11-13 April.
Yomdo, S., & Talukdar, B. (2005). Rejuvenation of a Mature Oilfield Involving Polymer Flooding by Successful Tapping of
Undrained/Unswept Oil - A Case Study. Paper SPE 97640 presented at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in
Asia Pacific. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5-6 December.
SPE-169673-MS 13

Tables

Field Location Date Reservoir Lithology

North Ward Estes USA (TX) 1973 Queen Fined grained arg. SS
West Burkburnett/
Wichita County USA (TX) 1973 Cisco Sandstone
Regular
Second Wall
Big Muddy (Pilot) USA (WY) 1974 Clean sandstone
Creek
Big Muddy
Second Wall
(Demonstration USA (WY) 1980 Clean sandstone
Creek
project)
SS, diag., clay, calc., chlor.,
Isenhour USA (WY) 1980 Almy
feld.
Triangle U USA (WY) 1981 Sussex Sandstone
Slaughter USA (TX) 1981 San Andres Dolomite + anhydrite
Bothamsall UK 1983 Sub-Alton
Chao-522 China 2005
UNKNOWN USA (TX) San Andres Dolomite
Table 1: Alkali and surfactant flooding projects - General data

Net Oil
Field Depth Temp. Porosity Permeability API
thickness viscosity
(m) (⁰C) (%) (md) (m) (cp)
North Ward Estes 955 18-23 3-47, 25 avg. 9-13 34 2.3
West Burkburnett/
Wichita County 520 15-28 <159, 53 avg. 5 42 2.2
Regular
Big Muddy (Pilot) 930 46 19.4 56 avg. 20 36 4.0
Big Muddy
(Demonstration 930 46 19.4 56 20 35 4.0
project)
Isenhour 1,130 36 15.5 21 4.6 43.1 2.8
Triangle U 2,530 79 13.5 3-77 , 15 avg. 39
Slaughter 1,500 43 8-18 1-25, 6 avg. 9 31.4 1.3
Bothamsall 945 43 11 6 18.5 41 3.0
Chao-522 10-20 19 9.3
UNKNOWN 11.8 4 24
Table 2: Alkali and surfactant flooding projects - Reservoir data
14 SPE-169673-MS

Permeability
Injectivity Injectivity Hydraulic
Field Process Successful
test issues fractures
(md)
North Ward Estes 3-47, 25 avg. A N N N Y
West Burkburnett/
Wichita County <159, 53 avg. SP N N Y Y
Regular
Big Muddy (Pilot) 56 avg. SP N N N Y
Big Muddy
(Demonstration 56 SP N Y N Y
project)
Isenhour 21 AP N Y Y Y
Triangle U 3-77 , 15 avg. W N N N Y
Slaughter 1-25, 6 avg. SP N Y N Y
Bothamsall 6 S Y Y Y Y
Chao-522 19 S N N N Y
UNKNOWN 4 SP N N N Y
Table 3: Alkali and surfactant flooding projects - Tests data

Field Location Date Reservoir Lithology

Vernon USA (KS) 1963 Squirrel Sandstone
Pembina Canada (AB) 1971 Cardium
Zaloni Second
India 1975 Zaloni Barail Second Sand Sandstone
Sand
Elliasville Caddo
USA (TX) 1980 Caddo Limestone reef
Unit
Vacuum
(Hale/Mable USA (NM) 1983 Grayburg/San Andres Dolomite
Leases)
Warner Ranch
USA (NE) 1983 J-Sand Sandstone
Unit
Twin Peaks USA (TX) 1984 Upper Strawn SS + 4%smectite+clay, calcite
Daqing Block X3 China
Daqing Block X5 China
Daqing Block 1 China GI, GII
Daqing Block 2 China SI, SII
Windalia Australia 2009 Arg. SS
Table 4: Polymer flooding projects - General data
SPE-169673-MS 15

Net Oil
Field Depth Temp. Porosity Permeability API
thickness viscosity
(m) (⁰C) (%) (md) (m) (cp)
Vernon 300 20.5 1-137 75
Pembina 1525 52 0-22 1-100, 43 avg. 10 37 1
Zaloni Second
2650 74 23 30-80 6-30 20 1.6
Sand
Elliasville Caddo
975 46 13.2 0.1-234, 11 avg. 39 3
Unit
Vacuum
(Hale/Mable 120 38 11.5 17 45 37 1.5
Leases)
Warner Ranch
1875 60 16 100 35 4
Unit
Twin Peaks 1585 66 17.5 50 4 35.6 1.5
Daqing Block X3 63 8.4
Daqing Block X5 45 6.0
Daqing Block 1 50 4.0
Daqing Block 2 68 4.4
Windalia 600 65 28 <100, 5 avg. 0.7
Table 5: Polymer flooding projects - Reservoir data

Permeability
Injectivity Injectivity Hydraulic Polymer
Field Process Successful
test issues fractures Mw
(md)
Vernon 1-137 P N N N High Y
Pembina 1-100, 43 avg. P N Y N N
Zaloni Second
30-80 P N Y N Y
Sand
Elliasville Caddo
0.1-234, 11 avg. P Y Y N High Y
Unit
Vacuum
(Hale/Mable 17 P N Y N Y
Leases)
Warner Ranch
100 P Y Y N Medium N
Unit
Twin Peaks 50 P Y N N High Y
Daqing Block X3 63 P N N N 6.8 Y
Daqing Block X5 45 P N N N 6.8 Y
Daqing Block 1 50 P N N Y 4 to 8 Y
Daqing Block 2 68 P N N Y 4 to 8 Y
Windalia <100, 5 avg. P N N Y 16.4 Y
Table 6: Polymer flooding projects - Tests data