See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276846064

Status of Polymer-Flooding Technology

Article  in  Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · March 2015

DOI: 10.2118/174541-PA

CITATIONS READS

279 6,786

3 authors, including:

James J. Sheng Bernd Leonhardt

Texas Tech University 13 PUBLICATIONS   365 CITATIONS   
254 PUBLICATIONS   5,541 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimum flowback strategy using shut-in and choke/drawdown management View project

Enhance Unconventional Oil Recovery by Air Injection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James J. Sheng on 19 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Status of Polymer-Flooding Technology
James J. Sheng, Texas Tech University, Bernd Leonhardt, Wintershall Holding GmbH, and
Nasser Azri, Petroleum Development Oman
Summary
Polymer flooding is the most commonly applied chemical
enhanced-oil-recovery technique. This paper provides an update
on the status of polymer-flooding technology, focusing more on
field applications than on theoretical and laboratory research. It
covers the following topics:
• Mechanisms of polymer flooding
• Polymers used
• Polymer-solution stability
• Technical screening criteria
• Laboratory and simulation work
• Performance-monitoring technique
• Summary of pilots and large-scale applications
• Experience and learning from field projects
• Polymer flooding in heavy-oil reservoirs
• Polymer viscoelastic properties
• Problems associated with polymer flooding and their
solutions
• Future developments
The data and analysis presented in this paper will give readers
updated information describing polymer flooding, as well as a
guide to the relevant research. Survey data will also provide oper-
ators with reference data for project design and optimization.
Introduction
As global energy demand grows and reserves are depleted,
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) from brownfields becomes more
and more important. Because most oil fields have already begun
waterflooding, chemical EOR may be implemented using fewer
resources than other EOR methods. Because it has a higher suc-
cess rate, polymer flooding is the most commonly applied chemi-
cal EOR technique.
This paper provides an update on the status of polymer-flood-
ing technology. In the interest of brevity, this paper’s focus is
more on field applications than on theoretical and laboratory
research. Recommendations for future developments are also
included. Some aspects of polymer flooding related to the alkaline/
surfactant/polymer process have been covered in Sheng (2014).
Mechanisms of Polymer Flooding. The most significant and
obvious mechanism of polymer flooding is the increased sweep
efficiency by
• Reducing viscous fingering.
• Improving the water-injection profile because of crossflow
between vertical, heterogeneous layers (Sorbie 1991).
• Because permeability remains reduced after polymer flood-
ing, subsequent waterflooding becomes more effective.
• Reducing the relative permeability of water flow (krw) more
than the permeability of oil flow (kro) through disproportion-
ate permeability reduction.
In addition, when polymer is added in other EOR processes
(e.g., surfactant or alkaline flooding), it plays an important role
in the synergisms detailed in Sheng (2014). It has also been
suggested that the viscoelastic behaviour of polymers can
improve displacement efficiency (Wang et al. 2000, 2001).
Polymer flooding may also have an economic impact because
Copyright V
C 2015 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 19 October 2014. Revised manuscript received
for review 13 February 2015. Paper (SPE 174541) peer approved 18 February 2015.
116
less water is injected and produced compared with waterflood-
ing (Sheng 2011).
Polymers Used
The two most commonly used types of polymers are synthetic
polymers and biopolymers. Typical synthetic polymers are par-
tially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) and its derivatives. A
typical biopolymer is xanthan gum. HPAM is used for most field
projects because it costs less and can be used for large-scale pro-
duction (Sheng 2013a). Wang et al. (2008) also expect that HPAM
solutions exhibit significantly greater viscoelasticity than xanthan
solutions. Biopolymers were used in a few projects so far, although
a lot of research work was performed in 1970s and 1980s.
Other polyacrylamide (PAM)-derived polymers used in
enhanced oil recovery include hydrophobically associating poly-
mers (Wang et al. 2006b), salinity-tolerant polyacrylamide
(KYPAM) (Luo et al. 2002), and 2-acrylamide-2-methyl propane-
sulphonate (AMPS). Hydrophobically associating polymers con-
tain one or more water-soluble monomers (acrylamides) and a
small fraction (0.5 to 4%) of water-insoluble (hydrophobic) mono-
mers. In KYPAM, as the new functional monomer aromatic hydro-
carbon with ethylene is introduced, the HPAM side chains have
both hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups. Because of the repul-
sion between the hydrophilic group, the hydrophobic group, and
the repulsion among the hydrophilic groups, the side chains are
arranged in a comb shape, stretching the flexible chains. KYPAM
viscosity is thus higher than the HPAM viscosity in saline waters.
AMPS has water-soluble anionic sulphonate, shielding acrylam-
ide, and an unsaturated double bond. Sulphonate makes APMS ca-
pable of good ionic exchange, electric conductivity, and resistance
to divalence and salinity in general. Acrylamide gives APMS ther-
mal stability and resistance to hydrolysis, acid, and alkaline. In
addition, the double bond leads to simple synthesis and polymer-
ization. The rigid side chains, large chains, or chains of ring struc-
ture also give it good thermal stability (Lu and Chen 1996).
Some polymers change their volumes or viscosities under
proper reservoir conditions. For example, BrightWaterTM expands
its volume as it contacts high-temperature water (Pritchett et al.
2003; Frampton et al. 2004), MicroballTM expands as it hydrates
(Sun et al. 2006), and pH-sensitive polymer increases its viscosity
above a critical pH (Al-Anazi and Sharma 2002; Huh et al. 2005).
Under certain conditions of temperature and salinity, an inverse
polymer emulsion inverts from water in oil to oil in water; there-
fore, PAM is hydrated and viscosity increases in the deep forma-
tion (Lei et al. 2006). Also, different types of crosslinked-polymer
gels are used in well-profile modification (Sydansk et al. 2004,
2005; Sydansk and Romero-Zeron 2011).
Polymer-Solution Stability
Polymer stability includes chemical, mechanical, and biological
stability. Sorbie (1991) summarizes polymer-stability research
from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s.
Chemical Degradation. Many factors cause chemical degrada-
tion, but the two most important are oxidation and the effects of
ferric ions.
The amount of oxygen in the solution must be minimized
using oxygen scavengers, possibly along with methanol or thiou-
rea to protect the polymer from any further oxygen ingress into
the solution (Yang and Treiber 1985). Sorbie (1991) listed the
effects of certain additives and their combinations on the stability
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
of hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM). Wellington (1983) found
that the most effective formulation contained thiourea as the radi-
cal-transfer agent, isopropyl alcohol as the sacrificial oxidizable
alcohol, sodium sulphite as the oxygen scavenger, either tri- or
pentachlorophenol, and a sufficient brine concentration. To pre-
vent polymer degradation from oxygen, the polymer make-up
water and dissolution equipment must be kept under a nitrogen
blanket (Yang and Feng 2001). Luo et al. (2006) reported that the
combination of thiourea and cobalt salt can prevent oxidation
reduction more effectively than using each additive alone. A typi-
cal preservation package includes isopropyl alcohol and thiourea,
which mitigate the degradation of polymer because of oxygen and
ions (e.g., iron and H2S) (Ayirala et al. 2010).
Interestingly, high levels of dissolved oxygen in the Daqing
mixing and injection system apparently did not cause a serious
degradation problem because Daqing polymer flooding was suc-
cessful. Seright and Skjevrak (2014) explained that Daqing sand
has 0.25% pyrite and 0.5% siderite, minerals that effectively
removed (consumed) the dissolved oxygen within a day and in a
short moving distance from an injector. In Daqing, the reservoir
temperature is approximately 45 C. Such low temperature also
prevents polymer from thermal degradation, according to Seright
and Skjevrak (2014). Similarly, because the sand in the Tambar-
edjo field polymer pilot in Suriname has up to 12% siderite and
pyrite, the dissolved oxygen content of 3 to 8 ppm might not cause
a serious problem (Moe Soe Let et al. 2012).
When there is oxygen, Fe2þ is oxidized to Fe3þ, producing
the free radical O 
2 . O2 reacts with HPAM to produce peroxide
and break the backbones of HPAM. O 3þ
2 further reacts with Fe
to generate Fe2þ, which is further oxidized to produce Fe3þ and
O
2 . This chain reaction reduces polymer viscosity signifi-
cantly. Fe2þ works as a catalyst and is the only compound yet
discovered that can reduce polymer viscosity almost to the vis-
cosity of water within seconds. Concentrations of Fe2þ should be
controlled below 0.5 mg/L (Luo et al. 2006).
Hydrolyzed polyacrylamides (negative carboxyl group) inter-
act strongly with divalent metal cations (e.g., Ca2þ and Mg2þ).
This phenomenon is commonly associated with reduction in solu-
tion viscosity, formation of gels, or precipitates (Sheng 2011).
Hence, salinity reduces the viscosifying efficacy of the polymer.
The efficacy of divalent or multivalent ions to reduce the viscosity
is much higher than that of monovalent ions. That is why the diva-
lent content in the polymer mixing water or in the reservoir water
must be low.
Mechanical Degradation. Mechanical degradation describes the
breakdown of a molecule as a result of shear stresses on the mac-
romolecule in the high-flow-rate region close to the well. This is a
short-term effect in and around the perforation, in the reservoir
near the wellbore, and in some of the polymer-handling equip-
ment, chokes, and other structures. This degradation can have a
dramatic effect on reducing polymer-solution viscosity. To reduce
mechanical shearing, screw pumps are used to transport polymer
solution, plunger pumps are used to inject polymer solution at
high pressures, and polymer-injection wells are often completed
through perforation. Electromagnetic flowmeters or spring/
scraped-blade flowmeters are used to reduce shear effect when
measuring rates. In vertically heterogeneous multilayer reservoirs,
multiple tubings are used to inject polymer solution into different
layers on the basis of their injectivities (Liu et al. 2006).
Biological Degradation. Although biological degradation is
more prevalent for biopolymers, it may also occur for synthetic
polymers. HPAM can provide nutrition to sulphate-reducing bac-
teria (Luo et al. 2006). A universal method for addressing biologi-
cal degradation is to use biocides (e.g., formaldehyde).
Technical Screening Criteria
Technical screening criteria for polymer flooding have been sum-
marized in Table 1. Criteria are empirical, mainly based on field-
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
project data and technical knowledge describing polymer
flooding.
Many parameters can affect the polymer-flooding process, but
the most critical are reservoir temperature, formation-water salin-
ity, divalent contents, clay contents, oil viscosity, and formation
permeability. Table 1 lists the median values of the important pa-
rameters from real polymer-flooding projects. The values of each
parameter are analyzed using rank and percentile, and values are
taken at the 50th percentile. Saleh et al. (2014a) presented the cri-
teria separately from laboratory tests, field projects, and pilot
tests. The criteria listed in Table 1 are the weighted medians from
their field projects and pilots, and weights are based on the num-
ber of projects and tests. Laboratory data were not used to derive
our criteria because laboratory data should not be used as guides.
Next, we discuss some important parameters.
Formation. Most polymer-flooding projects were carried out in
sandstone reservoirs. Fewer applications were carried out in car-
bonate reservoirs, because anionic polymers such as hydrolyzed
polyacrylamide (HPAM) have high adsorption in carbonates.
Also, heterogeneous carbonate reservoirs have a low-permeability
matrix, which large polymer molecules may not be able to enter.
Formation-Water Salinity and Divalents. Generally, technical
screening criteria provide a guide on formation-water salinity
and divalents. In practice, reservoirs have been under waterflood-
ing for some years. The reservoir-water salinity may be close to
that of the injected water before polymer injection. As shown in
Table 1, the water salinity and divalents before polymer injection
were quite different from those of the original formation water.
Therefore, the salinity and divalents of reservoir water just
before polymer injection should be used in the screening criteria,
instead of those of formation water as the published screening
criteria did.
In addition, the formation-water salinity and divalents can
only affect the polymer performance through mixing with the
injected polymer slug. If a preflush is conducted, the salinity
and divalents in the original or initial formation water may have
less effect on polymer-flooding performance. The polymer per-
formance may be more directly affected by the salinity and
divalents of the preflush water. It is simple to understand that
the salinity and divalents of the water used to mix polymer solu-
tion are more important because they will affect the polymer-so-
lution viscosity directly. For example, the salinities of
formation water in the Oerrel and Hankensbuettel fields were
167,000 ppm and 175,000 ppm, respectively. Fresh water was
used in dissolving polymer, and 0.044 pore volumes (PV) and
0.182 PV of fresh water preflushed the formations, respectively,
in the two fields. Both polymer floods were effective (Maitin
and Volz 1981).
However, preflush may not always work, which makes the
topic more complex. We propose the salinity and divalents in the
formation water before polymer injection should be less than
50,000 ppm and 100 ppm, respectively, in accordance with those
used in field projects. In highly saline reservoirs, salt-tolerant bio-
polymers may be used. Leonhardt et al. (2014) and Ogezi et al.
(2014) provided such an example.
Reservoir Temperature. Although researchers have stated the
reservoir temperature should be lower than 93.3 C for alkali/sur-
factant/polymer projects (Taber et al. 1997a, b), the median tem-
perature for the surveyed polymer projects was 46.1 C. When we
set a temperature criterion for polymer flooding, our main consid-
eration is whether polymers can tolerate the temperature. Because
many polymers can be stable up to 93.3 C, we set the criterion at
93.3 C. As new polymers are developed to tolerate higher temper-
atures and salinities, this limit can be lifted. Vermolen et al.
(2011) found that a terpolymer containing anionic monomer 2-
acrylamido-2-methyl propane sulfonate and 30-50% n-vinyl pyr-
rolidone (n-VP) could remain stable for more than 180 days at
120 C, 20% total dissolved solids, and 1.8% divalent.
117
Table 1—Summary of screening criteria for polymer flooding.
Some include reservoir depth as a criterion, but because it is
related to the reservoir temperature, we consider reservoir depth a
redundant criterion.
Formation Permeability. Permeability is critical to polymer
injection because low-permeability formations may prevent poly-
mer molecules from flowing through pores or pore throats.
Because actual polymer projects had much higher permeabilities
(800 md in Taber et al. 1997a, and 116 md from our more exclu-
sive surveyed data listed in Table 1), the criterion for permeability
is lifted to 50 md.
Oil Composition, Oil Viscosity, and API Gravity. The sur-
veyed field projects had average oil viscosities of less than 10 cp
(see Table 1). There is increasing interest in applying polymer
flooding in heavy-oil reservoirs with the viscosity up to 10,000 cp
(Wassmuth et al. 2009; Moe Soe Let et al. 2012; Galas et al.
118
2012). Polymer flooding in heavy-oil reservoirs is a new trend,
and it is interesting to see polymer flooding in such viscous oil
reservoirs because it is challenging conventional theories and its
mechanisms need to be investigated. Because its mechanisms still
need to be investigated, the criterion for oil viscosity is still set
150 cP. More discussion is provided later in this paper.
Most authors include API gravity as a screening criterion, but
during polymer flooding, API gravity is less significant than the
effects of viscosity. Because oil viscosity is more important, we
do not consider API gravity a necessary criterion.
Oil Saturation. Polymer flooding is generally expected to
improve volumetric sweep efficiency, but displacement efficiency
does not change significantly. On the basis of this assumption, the
oil saturation before polymer flooding must be greater than the re-
sidual-oil saturation. Considering that the incremental oil recov-
ery from the surveyed projects was approximately 6.7% (see Field
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Table 2—733 polymer-flooding projects in 24 countries worldwide
have been collected and surveyed.
Performance subsection), the difference between the oil saturation
before polymer flooding (So) and the residual-oil saturation after
polymer flooding (Sor) should be greater than 5%. Therefore, we
set the criterion as (So–Sor) > 0.05. Note that most of the conven-
tional criteria used the oil saturation as a criterion.
Storage Capacity. Some criteria were proposed in the literature
regarding the porosity / (Carcoana 1982; Goodlett et al. 1986;
Al-Adasani and Bai 2011; Saleh et al. 2014a, b), thickness h (Car-
coana 1982; Goodlett et al. 1986; Taber et al. 1997a, b; Saleh
et al. 2014b), the product /h, the product /So (Brashear and Kuu-
skraa 1978), or the product /hSo. The porosity is related to per-
meability. If the permeability is high enough, the porosity should
be high enough. Therefore, it is not necessary to impose a crite-
rion for porosity.
In polymer flooding, the incremental oil-recovery factor is
related to the injection PV or injected amount of polymer (see
Fig. 2). Incremental oil recovery is defined as the oil recovery di-
vided by A/h (here, A is the reservoir area). Injection PV is
defined as the injected polymer volume divided by A/h. Both are
divided by A/h. The change in A/h should not affect their rela-
tionship. Therefore, h or /h is not necessary to include in the
screening criteria.
Aquifer and Gas Cap. Polymer flooding is thickened water-
flooding. Pressure maintenance in polymer flooding is also an im-
portant mechanism. If there is a strong aquifer or gas cap, less
pressure maintenance is needed. Thus, a strong aquifer or gas cap
will make polymer flooding less beneficial. When there is an aqui-
fer, polymer may move into the aquifer, leading to a less efficient
polymer flood.
Laboratory and Simulation Work
First, we need to check whether the polymer particles are well-
dissolved in formation water and injection water (aqueous stabil-
ity test), followed by a filtration test (Castor et al. 1981) and/or
the flow test through a screen viscometer (Jennings et al. 1971).
The tests are designed to check the mechanical stability of the
polymer solution. We also need to check the chemical and ther-
mal stability by checking viscosity loss at different conditions.
These are the minimum tests with polymer solutions that have to
be completed. Sometimes, tests are conducted to measure polymer
adsorption and flow behaviour. Although many tests should be
performed, most of them are not completed in real projects.
Most commercial reservoir simulators can catch the mecha-
nisms of polymer flooding reasonably. Therefore, those simulators
can be used to predict field performance or optimize polymer-
flooding design.
Performance-Monitoring Technique
According to the Hall-plot method, which was developed by Hall
(1963) to analyze waterflood performance,
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
ð
141:2Bw lp ½lnðre =rw Þ þ s
ptf ðtÞdt ¼ Wi
kkrp h
ð
þ ðpe þ Dpf  qgDÞdt;              ð1Þ
where the field units used are q,STB/D; p,psi; lp,mPas; and k,md.
In Eq. 1, q is the injection rate, pe is the formation pressure at the
interface between the original reservoir fluid and injected fluid, ptf
ð injection pressure, and Wi is the cumulative injec-
is the wellbore
tion equal to qðtÞdt.
According to Eq. 1, as more polymer solution is injected, the
radius of polymer zone re will increase. Thus, the slope between
the pressure integral and Wi will increase. This slope is larger than
the slope occurring during the waterflooding period because the
polymer viscosity is higher than the water viscosity, and krp is
lower than krw. If the slope decreases, the polymer solution’s vis-
cosity has likely decreased, indicating that the polymer solution
has degraded. Therefore, we can monitor polymer performance in
the reservoir on the basis of the change in slope. However, for
several reasons this monitoring technique is only qualitative.
1. Eq. 1 is derived assuming that only the pressure and injec-
tion rate are time-dependent.
2. Downhole-pressure data should be used (Buell et al. 1990).
3. When multiple fluid banks with significantly different prop-
erties exit in the reservoir, Eq. 1 becomes more complex
(Sheng 2011).
Fortunately, real polymer-flooding projects show that the Hall-
plot method is useful for the qualitative evaluation of polymer
performance, and the slope is dominated by the flow behaviour of
polymer solution near the injection wellbore (Sheng 2011).
Mahani et al. (2011) provided a method to infer the in-situ
polymer rheology and the induced fracture dimensions from
polymer-falloff tests. They combined a numerical-flow-simula-
tion method and analytical-pressure-transient method to gener-
ate generic type curves that are used to compute consistency
index, flow-behaviour index, fracture dimensions, and reservoir
parameters (e.g., kh and faulting) from the measured pressure-
derivative curves.
Summary of Pilots and Large-Scale Applications
It would be impossible to present detailed project descriptions and
results in this paper. Here, we only summarize the most signifi-
cant results of pilots and large-scale field applications.
A Brief Summary of Polymer-Flooding Projects. We have col-
lected and surveyed 733 polymer-flooding projects in 24 countries
worldwide (Table 2).
Among these projects, eight were conducted offshore and less
than 1/7 occurred in carbonate reservoirs.
Injection Scheme and Amount of Polymer Injected. Injected
polymer must satisfy the adsorption requirement before it can
move forward. A finite volume of polymer-solution slug is fol-
lowed by water injection. Therefore, it is intuitive that polymer
should be injected following a graded or tapered scheme, in which
the polymer concentration is initially high and subsequent concen-
trations are reduced step by step. Such a scheme is expected to
reduce the amount of polymer needed. Claridge (1978) and Stone-
berger and Claridge (1988) developed a method on the basis of
Koval’s method (Koval 1963) to design graded viscosity banks.
However, as the amount of polymer injected increases, such a
graded scheme becomes less important. If the polymer slug is
large, the chase water will have less opportunity to break through
the polymer slug ahead of it, and the polymer adsorption can be
satisfied readily. In practice, the performance of polymer flooding
usually depends on the amount of polymer injected. Both a
tapered scheme and a constant-concentration scheme will yield
similar incremental oil recovery. Finally, when a high constant-
119
 1,000
Amount of Polymer (ppm.PV)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 0.00
1957 1971 1984 1998
Fig. 1—History of amount of polymer injected.
concentration is used, polymer-injection time is reduced, the oper-
ation will be simpler, and costs will decrease.
The amount of polymer injected is expressed by the product of
polymer concentration (in ppm) and slug volume in pore volume
(PV) in fraction. The 1976 US National Petroleum Council (NPC
1976) study reported 125 ppmPV. The amount of polymer
reported in NPC (1984) was increased to 240 ppmPV. Generally,
a larger amount of polymer was injected in Chinese projects.
When the amount of polymer injected is larger than 400 ppmPV,
incremental oil recovery becomes less sensitive to the amount of
polymer injected (Niu et al. 2006). From the 1970s to the 1980s,
the amount of polymer injected was 100 to 200 ppmPV in Chi-
nese projects. During the early 1990s, 500 to 600 ppmPV was
tried in a few projects. In the early 2000s, 400 to 500 ppmPV was
used consistently (Sheng 2011). Qi and Feng (1998) showed that
an optimum amount of polymer is approximately 400 ppmPV.
Fig. 1 shows the history of amount of polymer injected from the
all the surveyed polymer projects with available data. In this fig-
ure, every point refers to a completed project. It shows an increas-
ing trend.
When the amount of polymer to be injected is fixed, we can
choose a high concentration and small slug volume, or a low con-
centration and large slug volume. Generally, the former is pre-
ferred because the polymer solution will have a higher viscosity
after adsorption, and thus will have better mobility control. For
mobility control, Sheng (2013b) proposed that the displacing mo-
bility should be equal to or less than the lowest mobility of dis-
placed phases (generally, oil-phase mobility) multiplied by the
So  Sor
normalized oil saturation, defined as S o ¼ . Here,
1  Sor  Swc
So, Sor, and Swc are oil saturation, residual-oil saturation, and con-
nate-water saturation, respectively.
Field Performance. Fig. 2 shows the incremental oil-recovery
factor over waterflooding vs. the amount of polymer injected.
Overall, it shows that higher incremental oil recovery was
obtained as more polymer was injected. The data scattering was
likely caused by the variation in performance from different proj-
ects. Each point in the figure represents a completed project.
From the available data, the median incremental oil-recovery fac-
tor was 6.7%. The median decrease in water cut after polymer
injection was 13%.
Note that Fig. 2 shows that more oil will be recovered if more
polymer is injected from the statistical point of view. It implies
that incremental oil recovery could correlate with the amount of
polymer injected. However, for two different projects, if more
polymer is injected in one project, the incremental oil from this
project may not be necessarily higher than that from the other pro-
ject. The incremental oil recovery from a specific project depends
on the detailed slug size, mobility contrast, permeability distribu-
tion and other factors. But, most likely, more incremental oil may
be recovered if more polymer is injected for a specific project.
Project Economics. The median of polymer use of the surveyed
projects for which economic data are available was 0.76 lbm. of
polymer per barrel of incremental oil recovered. We further com-
120
0.18
Incremental-Oil-Recovery
0.16
0.14
0.12
(Fraction)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
2012 0 200 400 600 800
Injected Polymer (ppm.PV, PV in fraction)
Fig. 2—Incremental-oil-recovery factor vs. amount of polymer
injected.
pleted an estimate based on 6.7% incremental oil recovery and the
average amount of polymer injected of 400 ppmPV. The incre-
mental oil-recovery factor is based on the original oil in place,
which is 0.75 PV, assuming the connate-water saturation is 0.25.
Polymer is said to cost $1.5/lbm (Pope 2011). Using the model
described in Sheng (2014), the average polymer cost is $4.35/bbl
of incremental oil. This is the polymer cost only. The facility and
operating costs are not included.
Experience and Learning From Field Polymer
Projects
This section summarizes the experience and learning on several
subjects gained from field polymer projects, especially during
more than 20 years of pilot testing and large-scale commercial
applications in polymer flooding in China.
High-Molecular-Weight (MW) Polymer. High-MW polymer
has a higher viscosifying power and higher-permeability-reduc-
tion factor than low-MW polymer. For the same amount of poly-
mer injected, the polymer with higher MW would result in a
higher recovery. For the same recovery factor, a higher-MW poly-
mer solution requires less polymer (Zhang 1998; Shao et al. 2005;
Niu et al. 2006).
However, polymer MW must be small enough for the polymer
to enter and propagate effectively through the reservoir rock. For
a given rock permeability and a pore-throat size, a threshold MW
exists, above which polymer molecules exhibit difficulty propa-
gating. In order to avoid pore blocking by polymer molecules, the
ratio of pore-throat radius to the root-mean-square (RMS) gyra-
tion radius of polymer should be greater than 5 (Chen et al. 2001).
On the basis of laboratory results and practical experience at Daq-
ing, a medium polymer MW (12 to 16 million daltons) is applica-
ble for oil zones with the average permeability greater than 100
md. A high polymer MW (17 to 25 million daltons) is appropriate
for oil zones with the average permeability greater than 400 md
(Wang et al. 2009).
Time to Shift Waterflooding to Polymer Flooding. If one
observes typical fractional flow curves (water cut vs. water satura-
tion) for waterflooding and polymer flooding at the same oil re-
covery (saturation), the water-cut-increase rate in waterflooding is
higher than that in polymer flooding at low water cuts. As the
water cut increases, the difference becomes smaller. When the
water cut is greater than 92%, the water-cut-increase rates are
approximately the same. It means that polymer flooding will be
more effective in terms of reducing water cut, if implemented in
the period of low water, compared with waterflooding. From that
point of view, polymer injection should have been stopped when
the water cut was approximately 92 to 94% in Daqing (Shao et al.
2005). However, such reasoning assumes that the sweep effi-
ciency is 100% and the benefit of polymer flooding is gained only
from mobility control. In reality, polymer flooding also sweeps
some areas which were not swept by earlier waterflooding.
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 Table 3—Polymer-flooding projects in heavy-oil reservoirs.
Because of that, polymer flooding is still carried out when the
water cut is high, in some large-scale field applications—for
example Gudao Zhong-1-Ng3, where the water cut reached 94%
before polymer flooding (Li 2004), and Shengtuo Block 1, where
the water cut reached 96% (Liu et al. 2002). Chang et al. (2006)
concluded that polymer flooding can be applied effectively to res-
ervoirs with water cuts > 95%.
Profile Modification Before Polymer Injection. If there are
high-permeability channels such as fractures, gel treatments can
greatly enhance the reservoir sweep of the subsequent large vol-
umes of polymer solution (Seright et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2002,
2008). Or, if one or more high-permeability strata are watered
out, there may be a considerable value in applying profile modifi-
cation before polymer flooding or other enhanced-oil-recovery
methods (Wang 2013). The benefit of profile modification
decreases if it is implemented toward the middle or late phase of
polymer injection (Chen et al. 2004; Trantham et al. 1980).
Completion. Polymer-injection wells are commonly completed
through perforation. Therefore, the perforation for polymer-injec-
tion wells should be high density and deep penetration and with
large-diameter holes to the extent practically possible. In some
cases, hydraulic fracturing may be used to reduce mechanical
shearing near the wellbore. Polymer may be injected into separate
layers when there is a significant difference in permeability (>2.5
times) between layers, the low-permeability-layer thickness is
greater than 30% of the total, and the layers are separated by at
least 1 m (Wu and Chen 2005).
Injection Velocity. The injection velocity should depend mainly
on reservoir injectivity and allowable injection pressure (fracture
pressure). To reduce shear degradation, the injection velocity
should be slow. But a higher injection rate may reduce thermal
and chemical degradation and accelerate the project, thus improv-
ing economics. A recommended injection velocity range in Daq-
ing is 0.14 to 0.16 pore volumes (PV) per year if the well spacing
is greater 250 m, and 0.16 to 0.2 PV/yr if the well distance spacing
is 150 to 175 m (Niu et al. 2006). However, injection rate several
times these values have been observed in practical cases in the
Chinese literature.
Generation of Fractures. It has been observed in quite a few
field-polymer projects that actual polymer injectivity was higher
than expected, sometimes higher than water injectivity (Moe Soe
Let et al. 2012; Al-Saadi et al. 2012; Morel et al. 2012). A reason-
able explanation is that fractures are generated during polymer
flooding because waterflooding occurs mostly under induced-frac-
turing conditions (van den Hoek et al. 2009), and injection greater
than the formation-fracturing pressure will be even more likely
during polymer flooding (Seright 2010). The viscoelastic nature
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
(apparent shear-thickening or “pseudodilatancy”) of synthetic
polymers makes the generation of fractures even more likely
(Seright 1983; Wang et al. 2008; Seright et al. 2009).
Reinjection of Produced Water and Polymer. Less-saline
water should be used in mixing polymer solution. If produced
water is used to make the polymer solution, the cost of the poly-
mer will be increased because more polymer is needed to achieve
the same viscosity (Niu et al. 2006). Ayirala et al. (2010) pre-
sented results using low-salinity water to mix polymer solution so
that a low polymer concentration is needed to achieve the target
viscosity compared with using seawater. Their data indicate
approximately 5 to 10 times lower polymer consumption using
low-salinity water when their “designer water” desalination
scheme is used, compared with using seawater. The incremental
cost of water desalination and hardness removal can be paid out
within a 4-year project time frame because of the large savings
associated with chemical and polymer facility costs in low-salin-
ity polymer flooding in an offshore environment.
Polymer Flooding in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs
There are two reasons to apply polymer flooding in heavy-oil res-
ervoirs: (1) thermal recovery will not be economic because of
heat loss from a thin reservoir; and (2) a high mobility ratio results
in poor waterflooding performance. However, according to the
screening criteria of polymer flooding, the oil viscosity should be
lower than 150 cp. Our database shows only nine fields where the
oil viscosity was greater than 150 cp. Those cases are shown in
Table 3.
The oil viscosity and the start date of the Langsdale field case
are not confirmed. Table 3 shows that except for a few fields with
viscosities of a few hundred centipoise, the rest of the fields with
high viscosities are all in Canada. Among the high-viscosity
fields, Pelican Lake is the first polymer-flooding case.
There are several issues with polymer flooding in heavy-oil
reservoirs. One issue is the ability to mix a polymer solution of a
high viscosity. In the first Pelican pilot test, the initial design was
to obtain a mobility ratio of unity by having the polymer-solution
viscosity of 200 cp at the polymer concentration of 2,000 ppm.
However, it was observed that the viscosity target could not be
achieved because the mixing water had a significant quantity of
dissolved ion (FeO) (Delamaide et al. 2014a). But for the polymer
viscosity to meet the mobility-ratio requirement, it could be lower
because water relative permeability may decrease with higher oil
viscosity (Wang et al. 2006a). Another issue is injectivity.
Seright’s (2010) simple benefit analysis suggested that reduced
injectivity may be a greater limitation for polymer flooding of vis-
cous oils than the cost of chemicals. Because of the injectivity
problem in the first pilot in Pelican Lake, the polymer-solution
viscosity of 20 cp was designed to correspond to a mobility ratio
of approximately 16. The viscosity was later reduced to 13 cp
(Delamaide et al. 2014a), then increased to 25 cP (Delamaide
121
et al. 2014b). The injectivity problem may be alleviated by using
horizontal injectors, as practiced in Pelican Lake polymer proj-
ects. Because of the difficulty in transporting a viscous polymer
solution and the injectivity problem, the used polymer viscosities
of real projects did not depend on the oil viscosities in situ, as
shown in Table 3. In other words, no matter how high the oil vis-
cosity, the polymer-solution viscosity is lower than 100 cp. How-
ever, laboratory tests showed that the polymer concentration must
exceed 5,000 ppm to mobilize 1,450-cp oil (Asghari and Nakut-
nyy 2008) and the polymer-solution viscosity must exceed a cer-
tain value to achieve a tertiary oil recovery of more than 10%
(Wang and Dong 2009). The polymer-flooding efficiency in the
high-viscosity oil area (5,000 cp) in Pelican Lake diminished
compared with the lower-viscosity areas (Delamaide et al. 2014a).
However, high oil prices, modest polymer prices, increased use of
horizontal wells, and controlled injection rate greater than the
fracturing pressure all help to extend the applicability of polymer
flooding in viscous-oil reservoirs considerably (Seright 2010).
Polymer Viscoelastic Properties
Conventionally, it has been expected that polymer flooding can
only improve sweep efficiency, but cannot increase displacement
efficiency. In other words, the waterflooding residual-oil satura-
tion cannot be reduced by polymer flooding. Our data survey
shows that polymer flooding increased the oil-recovery factor
over waterflooding by 6.7%. However, the recent polymer-flood-
ing practices in Daqing have increased the recovery factor by up
to 12% (Wang 2001). Wang et al. (2001) attributed the high per-
formance to polymer’s viscoelastic behaviour. In this section, we
will review the viscosity of viscoelastic polymer solution, present
evidence of polymer viscoelastic behaviour in laboratory and
fields, discuss the displacement mechanisms of polymer solution,
and present the effect of viscoelastic polymer solution on field
facilities and operations.
Viscosity of Viscoelastic Polymer Solution. Polymer solutions
exhibit viscous behaviour generally when flowing in capillary
tubes with constant diameters. However, in porous media where
capillary diameters change rapidly, polymer chains are pulled and
contracted to exhibit elastic behaviour. As the polymer solution
flows through a series of pore bodies and pore throats in a porous
medium, the flow is elongational or extensional. In such flow, the
apparent viscosity is increased as the shear rate is increased. The
viscosity related to this type of flow is shear-thickening viscosity.
The fluid has dilatant behaviour. Shear thickening of polyacryl-
amide is a characteristic of flow in porous materials and is not
observed in rheological measurements of polyacrylamide at com-
parable shear rates (Green and Willhite 1998). Jennings et al.
(1971) reported that in the usual case of medium permeability and
medium polymer molecular weight, significant increases in vis-
cosity caused by viscoelasticity were observed only at rates in
excess of 1.5 to 3.0 m/d. Han et al. (1995) reported that the range
increases with increasing permeability of cores in their experi-
ments. Several apparent-viscosity models of viscoelastic polymer
solution were proposed by Hirasaki and Pope (1974), Chen et al.
(1998), Kang (2001), and Delshad et al. (2008). It has been
observed that the polymer-solution viscoelastic behaviour
increases as the polymer concentration is increased, the surfactant
concentration is decreased, or the salinity is reduced (Kang 2001).
Laboratory Observations. In a Daqing laboratory, the cores
were flooded with water, glycerin, and a hydrolyzed polyacryl-
amide (HPAM) polymer solution (Niu et al. 2006). The flood by
each fluid was not stopped until no oil appeared at the outlet. The
oil recovery from the two injection sequences was compared: (1)
water, glycerin, and HPAM; and (2) water, HPAM, and glycerin.
The viscosity of glycerin and HPAM fluid were the same (30 cp).
Glycerin was not a viscoelastic fluid, but polymer was. It was
observed that both glycerin and polymer flooding increased the re-
covery after waterflooding because their higher viscosity could
122
increase the volumetric sweep efficiency. In Sequence 1, polymer
flooding increased the recovery further after glycerin flooding.
However, in Sequence 2, glycerin flooding did not increase the re-
covery further after polymer flooding. Similarly, xanthan gum has
a rigid structure and pseudoplastic characteristics, but not elastic
characteristics. Wang et al. (2007) observed that polymer-flooding
recovery was higher than that from xanthan at the same viscosity.
The results were not consistent regarding whether polymer
flooding can lower residual-oil saturation over waterflooding.
Zaitoun and Kohler (1987, 1988) observed lower residual-oil sat-
uration during polyacrylamide polymer flood but not during xan-
than flood, while the opposite observation was made by Pusch
et al. (1987). Bakhitov et al. (1980) observed lower residual-oil
saturation in polyacrylamide polymer-flooding water-wet media.
Schneider and Owens (1982) observed lower residual-oil satura-
tion in water-wet media, but did not make this observation in oil-
wet media. Sherborne et al. (1967) observed a 15% reduction in
residual-oil saturation in an HPAM flood. Wreath (1989) did not
observe reduction in residual-oil saturation in tertiary polymer
flooding in Berea or Antolini sandstones. Wreath (1989) did not
observe the reduction in residual-oil saturation in one Berea core,
even in secondary polymer-flood mode, but Wreath (1989) and
Wang (1995) did observe reduction in one Antolini core that was
a heterogeneous and a eolian sandstone. However, Vermolen
et al. (2014) did not observe the reduction in residual-oil satura-
tion when high-viscosity crude oil was used or when low-visco-
elastic polymer was injected; the reduction of low-viscosity oil
only occurred when the flow rate was high and/or the polymer
elasticity was high. The observations indicate that it is the effect
of elasticity and not the viscous stripping that reduces residual-
oil saturation.
Displacement Mechanisms of Viscoelastic Polymers. Four
mechanisms for a viscoelastic polymer solution to reduce resid-
ual-oil saturation have been presented in the literature. They are
the pulling mechanism, the stripping mechanism, the mechanism
of oil-thread flow, and the mechanism of the shear-thickening
effect. For the pulling mechanism, oil remaining in pore dead
ends is pulled out by polymer solution (Luo et al. 2006; Yin et al.
2006; Xia et al. 2008). For the stripping mechanism, continuous
oil films in oil-wet cores are stripped by the polymer solution
because the velocity gradient of a polymer solution along the pore
walls is higher than in waterflooding (Wang 2001). The residual
oil after waterflood becomes isolated oil droplets. The polymer
solution pulls the oil into oil columns. These oil columns become
thinner and longer to form “oil threads” as they meet the residual
oil downstream. The oil upstream flows along these oil threads to
meet the residual oil downstream, building an oil bank. For this
mechanism of oil-thread flow, the normal force of viscoelastic
polymer solution helps the oil thread maintain its uniform cylin-
drical shape that prevents breakage (Luo et al. 2006). For the
mechanism of shear-thickening effect, the apparent viscosity of
polymer solution in the high-permeability zones could become
high, then direct the solution into low-permeability zones, thus
improving the sweep efficiency (Jones 1980).
Facility Problems Associated With Viscoelasticity. Because of
its viscoelastic behaviour, when polymer solution flows into a
branch line (at a tee section), a “pulling force” tries to pull the so-
lution back into the main supply line. This pulling force increases
with the increase in velocities of the branch and main supply
lines. The velocity in the branch line oscillates when the triplex
pump pumps. The oscillation of the velocity changes the normal
stress and extension viscosity, thus causing pump vibration. To
mitigate the vibration, the size of the main pipe is increased
(Wang 2001).
The viscoelastic properties of polymer solution also create a
larger blind area in the bottom corners of a maturation tank, which
makes mixing polymer solution more difficult and consumes
more energy. Redesigning the mixing blades mitigated the prob-
lem (Wang 2001). For beam pumps, the normal force enhances the
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
sucker-rod eccentric wear, because the normal force pushes the
eccentric rod toward to the side of smaller annular space. Central-
izers were used to mitigate the problem (Wang et al. 2004). Cen-
trifugal pumps rotate at a high speed to produce centrifugal force
to pump the fluids out of the well. When polymer fluids are
pumped, there is also a normal force pointing in the opposite direc-
tion of the centrifugal force, resulting in a lower force (Wang
2001). For this reason and because of shear degradation, centrifu-
gal pumps are not used to transport polymer solutions.
Problems Associated With Polymer Flooding
One problem not explicitly discussed in the literature is the forma-
tion damage caused by polymer flooding. Because polymer
adsorption is practically irreversible (taking a large pore volume
of displacing fluid to desorb the polymer), the adsorbed polymers
will “permanently” damage the formation. If some oil is left in
the formation after polymer flooding (polymer flooding generally
cannot displace the residual oil out) it will be more difficult to be
recovered by other methods because the formation permeability
has been reduced.
Low injectivity of polymer injection is caused by two factors:
reduced permeability and increased viscosity. Sometimes, hydrau-
lic fracturing is used to increase the injectivity (Liu et al. 2006).
It has been observed in polymer-injected field projects that the
presence of polymers in produced water causes decline in sus-
pended particles, but a dramatic increase in oil concentration (typ-
ical oil concentrations were 160 to 800 ppm in Daqing) (Wang
et al. 2011). The main problem with the back-produced polymer
is that polymer stabilizes the water/oil emulsions, thus causing the
difficulty of reducing the oil content to such a level that the
treated water can satisfy water-quality specifications and the water
can be reinjected. For a detailed survey on the water-treatment
technology, see Sheng (2014).
Future Developments
On the basis of this review, the following are the focuses of future
developments:
• Develop polymers that can be used in reservoirs of high
temperature and high salinity (and high divalents).
• Apply polymer flooding in different reservoir conditions
(e.g., reservoirs of low permeability, complex geological
features, and heavy oils).
• Combine polymer with other processes (e.g., surfactant/
polymer flooding).
Acknowledgements
This work, especially the field-data collection portion, was finan-
cially supported by the joint-industry project (JIP) Chemical EOR
Knowledge Database. The financial support from the member
companies in this JIP is gratefully appreciated.
References
Al Adasani, A. and Bai, B. 2011. Analysis of Eor Projects and Updated
Screening Criteria. J Pet Sci Eng 79 (1–2): 10–24. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2011.07.005.
Al-Anazi, H. A. and Sharma, M. M. 2002. Use of pH Sensitive Polymer
for Conformance Control. Presented at the International Symposium
and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
USA, 20–21 February. SPE-73782-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
73782-MS.
Al-Bahar, M. A., Merrill, R., Peake, W. et al. 2004. Evaluation of IOR
Potential within Kuwait. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International
Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, 10–13 October. SPE-88716-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/88716-MS.
Al-Saadi, F. S., Al-Amri, B. A., Al Nofli, S. M. et al. 2012. Polymer
Flooding in a Large Field in South Oman - Initial Results and Future
Plans. Presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West
Asia, Muscat, Oman, 16–18 April. SPE-154665-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/154665-MS.
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Asghari, K. and Nakutnyy, P. 2008. Experimental Results of Polymer
Flooding of Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Presented at the Canadian Interna-
tional Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 17–19 June. PETSOC-2008-
189. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2008-189.
Ayirala, S., Uehara-Nagamine, E., Matzaos, A. et al. 2010. A Designer Water
Process for Offshore Low Salinity and Polymer Flooding Applications.
Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 24–28
April. SPE-129926-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/129926-MS.
Bakhitov, G. G., Ogandzhanyants, V. G., and Polishchuk, A. M. 1980. Ex-
perimental Investigation into the Influence of Polymer Additives in
Water on the Relative Permeabilities of Porous Media. Fluid Dyn 15
(4): 611–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01089627.
Brashear, J. P. and Kuuskraa, V. A. 1978. The Potential and Economics of
Enhanced Oil Recovery. J Pet Technol 30 (09): 1231–1239. SPE-
6350-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6350-PA.
Buell, R. S., Kazemi, H., and Poettmann, F. H. 1990. Analyzing Injectivity
of Polymer Solutions with the Hall Plot. SPE Res Eng 5 (01): 41–46.
SPE-16963-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16963-PA.
Carcoana, A. N. 1982. Enhanced Oil Recovery in Rumania. Presented at
the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 4–7 April. SPE-
10699-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/10699-MS.
Castor, T. P., Edwards, J. B., and Passman, F. J. 1981. Response of Mobil-
ity Control Agents to Shear, Electrochemical, and Biological Stress. In
Surface Phenomena in Enhanced Oil Recovery, first edition. ed. D.
Shah, Chap. 36, 773–820. New York: Springer US. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4757-0337-5_36.
Chang, H. L. 1978. Polymer Flooding Technology Yesterday, Today, and
Tomorrow. J Pet Technol 30 (08): 1113–1128. SPE-7043-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/7043-PA.
Chang, H. L., Zhang, Z. Q., Wang, Q. M. et al. 2006. Advances in Polymer
Flooding and Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Processes as Developed and
Applied in the People’s Republic of China. J Pet Technol 58 (2):
84–89. SPE-89175-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89175-MS.
Chen, J. C., Niu, J. G., Chen, P. et al. 2004. Summarization on the Tech-
nology of Modification Profile in-Depth in Daqing. J Pet Geol Oilfield
Dev Daqing 23 (5): 97–99.
Chen, J. C., Wang, D. M., and Wu, J. Z. 2001. Optimum on Molecular Weight
of Polymer for Oil Displacement. Acta Petrolei Sinica 21 (1): 103–106.
Chen, T.-L., Tang, J.-X., Peng, K.-Z. et al. 1998. HPAM Rheology in Sub-
surface Flow. In Chemical Flooding Symposium–Research Results
During the Eighth Five-Year Period (1991–1995), first edition. ed. Q.-
L. Gang, Vol. 1, 112–119. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
Claridge, E. L. 1978. A Method for Designing Graded Viscosity Banks.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 18 (05): 315–324. SPE-6848-
PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6848-PA.
Delamaide, E., Zaitoun, A., Renard, G. et al. 2014a. Pelican Lake Field:
First Successful Application of Polymer Flooding in a Heavy-Oil Res-
ervoir. SPE Res Eval & Eng 17 (03): 340–354. SPE-165234-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/165234-PA.
Delamaide, E., Bazin, B., Rousseau, D. et al. 2014b. Chemical Eor for
Heavy Oil: The Canadian Experience. Presented at the SPE EOR Con-
ference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman, 31 March–2 April.
SPE-169715-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169715-MS.
Delshad, M., Kim, D. H., Magbagbeola, O. A. et al. 2008. Mechanistic
Interpretation and Utilization of Viscoelastic Behavior of Polymer Sol-
utions for Improved Polymer-Flood Efficiency. Presented at the SPE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recover, Tulsa, 20–23 April. SPE-
113620-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/113620-MS.
Dickson, J. L., Leahy-Dios, A., and Wylie, P. L. 2010. Development Of
Improved Hydrocarbon Recovery Screening Methodologies. Presented
at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 24–28 April.
SPE-129768-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/129768-MS.
Frampton, H., Morgan, J. C., Cheung, S. K. et al. 2004. Development of a
Novel Waterflood Conformance Control System. Presented at the
SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 17–21 April.
SPE-89391-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89391-MS.
Galas, C., Clements, A., Jaafar, E. et al. 2012. Identification of Enhanced
Oil Recovery Potential in Alberta: Phase 2 Final Report for Energy
Resources Conservation Board. Sproule, Calgary (31 March 2012).
http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/pdf_downloads/ercb-eor-report2.
pdf.
123
Goodlett, G. O., Honarpour, M. M., Chung, F. T. et al. 1986. The Role of
Screening and Laboratory Flow Studies in Eor Process Evaluation.
Presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Billings,
Montana, USA, 19–21 May. SPE-15172-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/15172-MS.
Green, D. W. and Willhite, G. P. 1998. Enhanced Oil Recovery, first edi-
tion, 6. Richardson, Texas, USA: SPE Textbook Series, Society of Pe-
troleum Engineers.
Hall, H. N. 1963. How to Analyze Waterflood Injection Well Perform-
ance. World Oil (October): 128–130.
Han, X.-Q., Wang, W.-Y., and Xu, Y. 1995. The Viscoelastic Behavior of
HPAM Solutions in Porous Media and It’s Effects on Displacement
Efficiency. Presented at the International Meeting on Petroleum Engi-
neering, Beijing, 14–17 November. SPE-30013-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/30013-MS.
Hirasaki, G. J. and Pope, G. A. 1974. Analysis of Factors Influencing Mo-
bility and Adsorption in the Flow of Polymer Solution through Porous
Media. SPE J 14 (04): 337–346. SPE-4026-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/4026-PA.
Huh, C., Choi, S. K., and Sharma, M. M. 2005. A Rheological Model for
Ph-Sensitive Ionic Polymer Solutions for Optimal Mobility Control
Applications. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, 9–12 October. SPE-96914-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/96914-MS.
Jennings, R. R., Rogers, J.H., and West, T.J. 1971. Factors Influencing
Mobility Control by Polymer Solutions. J Pet Technol 23 (03):
391–401. SPE-2867-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2867-PA.
Jones, W. M. 1980. Polymer Additives for Reservoir Flooding for Oil Re-
covery: Shear Thinning or Shear Thickening? J Phys D: Appl Phys 13
(5): L87–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/13/5/004.
Kang, W.-L. 2001. Study of Chemical Interactions and Drive Mechanisms
in Daqing ASP Flooding. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
Koval, E. J. 1963. A Method for Predicting the Performance of Unstable
Miscible Displacement in Heterogeneous Media. SPE J 3 (02):
145–154. SPE-450-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/450-PA.
Lei, Z.-X., Chen, Y.-M., Chen, Y.-W. et al. 2006. Preliminary Results of
the Pilot Test of Deep Profile Control Using Inverse Polymer Emul-
sion. Oilfield Chemistry 23 (1): 81–84.
Leonhardt, B., Ernst, B., Reimann, S. et al. 2014. Field Testing the Poly-
saccharide Schizophyllan: Results of the First Year. Presented at the
SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 12–16 April. SPE-
169032-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169032-MS.
Li, Z.-Q. 2004. Polymer Flooding Test Progress in Shengtuo Block 1 of
Shengli Field. Petroleum Processing and Petrochemicals 35 (10):
56–59.
Liu, H., Wang, Y., and Liu, Y.-Z. 2006. Mixing and injection techniques
of polymer solution. In Enhanced Oil Recovery–Polymer Flooding,
first edition. eds. P.-P. Shen, Y.-Z. Liu, and H.-R. Liu. Beijing: Petro-
leum Industry Press.
Liu, J.-J., Feng, D., Ma, W.-D., Yan, Z.-Q., and Fu, J. 2002. Polymer
Flooding Pilot in Shengtuo Block 1 Sa2 1-3 Group. Oil and Gas Sur-
face Engineering 21 (2): 45–47.
Liu, Y., Bai, B., and Schuler, P. J. 2006. Application and Development of
Chemical-Based Conformance Control Treatments in China Oil Fields.
Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, 22–26 April. SPE-99641-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99641-
MS.
Lu, R. and Chen, L.D. 1996. Application of 2-Acrylamide-2-Methyl-Pro-
pane-Sulfonic Acid. Specialty Chemicals 4: 43–46.
Luo, J.-H., Bu, R.-Y., Wang, P.-M. et al. 2002. Properties of KYPA: a Sa-
linity-Resistant Polymer Used in EOR. Oilfield Chemistry 19 (1):
64–67.
Luo, J.-H., Liu, Y.-Z., and Zhu, P. 2006. Polymer Solution Properties and
Displacement Mechanisms. In Enhanced Oil Recovery–Polymer
Flooding, first edition. eds. P.-P. Shen, Y.-Z. Liu, and H.-R. Liu. Bei-
jing: Petroleum Industry Press
Mahani, H., Sorop, T., van den Hoek, P. et al. 2011. Injection Fall-Off
Analysis of Polymer Flooding Eor. Presented at the SPE Reservoir
Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu
Dhabi, 9–11 October. SPE-145125-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
145125-MS.
124
Maitin, B. K. and Volz, H. 1981. Performance of Deutsche Texaco Ag’s
Oerrel and Hankensbuettel Polymer Floods. Presented at the SPE/
DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 5–8 April. SPE-
9794-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9794-MS.
Moe Soe Let, K. P., Manichand, R. N., and Seright, R. S. 2012. Polymer
Flooding a 500-Cp Oil. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 14–18 April. SPE-154567-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/154567-MS.
Morel, D. C., Vert, M., Jouenne, S. et al. 2012. First Polymer Injection in
Deep Offshore Field Angola: Recent Advances in the Dalia/Camelia
Field Case. Oil and Gas Facilities 1 (02): 43–52. SPE-135735-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/135735-PA.
Niu, J.-G., Chen, P., Shao, Z.-B. et al. 2006. Research and Development
of Polymer Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Research and Development of
Enhanced Oil Recovery in Daqing, edition. ed. H.-Q. Cao. 227–325.
Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
NPC. 1976. Enhanced Oil Recovery: An Analysis of the Potential for
Enhanced Oil Recovery from Known Fields in the United States–
1976 to 2000. The National Petroleum Council, Washington, D.C.
http://www.npc.org/reports/1976-Enhanced_Oil_Recovery.pdf.
NPC. 1984. Enhanced Oil Recovery. The National Petroleum Council,
Washington, D.C. http://www.npc.org/reports/rd1984-Enhanced_Oil_
Recovery-lowres.pdf.
Ogezi, O., Strobel, J., Egbuniwe, D. et al. 2014. Operational Aspects of a
Biopolymer Flood in a Mature Oilfield. Presented at the SPE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 12–16 April. SPE-169158-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169158-MS.
Pope, G. A. 2011. Recent Developments and Remaining Challenges of
Enhanced Oil Recovery. J Pet Technol 63 (07): 65–68.
Pritchett, J., Frampton, H., Brinkman, J. et al. 2003. Field Application of a
New in-Depth Waterflood Conformance Improvement Tool. Presented
at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia
Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, 20–21 October. SPE-84897-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/84897-MS.
Pusch, G., Lotsch, T., and Muller, T. 1987. Investigation of the Oil Dis-
placing Efficiency of Suitable Polymer Products in Porous Media,
Aspects of Recovery Mechanisms During Polymer Flooding.
DGMK–Report, 295–6, German Soc. Petrol. Sci. Coal Chem., Ham-
burg: FRG.
Qi, L.-Q. and Feng, H.-Q. 1998. Optimum Amount of Polymer Injection
in Polymer Flooding. In Chemical Flooding Symposium–Research
Results During the Eighth Five-Year Period (1991–1995), first edition.
ed. Q.-L. Gang, Vol. 1. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
Saleh, L., Wei, M., and Bai, B. 2014a. Data Analysis and Novel Screening
Criteria for Polymer Flooding Based on a Comprehensive Database.
Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
12–16 April. SPE-169093-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169093-MS.
Saleh, L. D., Wei, M., and Bai, B. 2014b. Data Analysis and Updated
Screening Criteria for Polymer Flooding Based on Oilfield Data. SPE
Res Eval & Eng 17 (01): 15–25. SPE-168220-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/168220-PA.
Schneider, F. N. and Owens, W. W. 1982. Steady-State Measurements of
Relative Permeability for Polymer/Oil Systems. 22 (01): 79–86. SPE-
9408-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9408-PA.
Seright, R. S. 1983. The Effects of Mechanical Degradation and Visco-
elastic Behavior on Injectivity of Polyacrylamide Solutions. SPE J 23
(03): 475–485. SPE-9297-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9297-PA.
Seright, R. 2010. Potential for Polymer Flooding Reservoirs with Viscous
Oils. SPE Res Eval & Eng 13 (04): 730–740. SPE-129899-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/129899-PA.
Seright, R. S. and Skjevrak, I. 2014. Effect of Dissolved Iron and Oxygen
on Stability of HPAM Polymers. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 12–16 April. SPE-169030-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/169030-MS.
Seright, R.S., Lane, R.H., Sydansk, R.D. 2003. A strategy for attacking
excess water production. SPEPF 18 (3), 158–169.
Seright, R. S., Seheult, J. M., and Talashek, T. 2009. Injectivity Character-
istics of Eor Polymers. SPE Res Eval & Eng 12 (05): 783–792. SPE-
115142-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/115142-PA.
Shao, Z.-B., Chen, P., Wang, D.-M. et al. 2005. Polymer Flooding Per-
formance in Daqing Commercial Scale Applications and the Learning.
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 In Tertiary Oil Recovery Syposium, first edition. ed. C.Z. Yan and Y.
Li. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
Sheng, J. J. 2011. Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and
Practice, first edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sheng, J. J. 2013a. Chapter 3–Polymer Flooding–Fundamentals and Field
Cases. In Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies, first edition.
ed. J.J. Sheng, Vol. Chap. 63–82. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Gulf
Professional Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386545-
8.00003-8.
Sheng, J. J. 2013b. Mobility Control Requirement in Multiphase Displace-
ment Processes in Porous Media. Asia-Pac J Chem Eng 8 (4):
555–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/apj.1696.
Sheng, J. J. 2014. A Comprehensive Review of Alkaline–Surfactant–-
Polymer (ASP) Flooding. Asia-Pac J Chem Eng 9 (4): 471–489. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/apj.1824.
Sherborne, J. E., Sarem, A. M., and Sandiford, B. B. 1967. Flooding Oil-
Containing Formations with Solutions of Polymer in Water. Presented
at the 7th World Petroleum Congress, Mexico City, 2–9 April.
Sorbie, K. S. 1991. Polymer-Improved Oil Recovery, first edition. Boca
Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, Inc.
Stoneberger, M. W. and Claridge, E. L. 1988. Graded-Viscosity-Bank
Design with Pseudoplastic Fluids. SPE Res Eng 3 (04): 1221–1232.
SPE-14230-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/14230-PA.
Sun, H.-Q., Wang, T., Xiao, J.-H. et al. 2006. A New Micro-Polymer Ball
for Deep Profile control. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency
13 (4): 77–79.
Sydansk, R. D. and Romero-Zeron, L. 2011. Reservoir Conformance
Improvement, first edition. Richardson, Texas, USA: Society of Petro-
leum Engineers.
Sydansk, R. D., Al-Dhafeeri, A. M., Xiong, Y. et al. 2004. Polymer Gels
Formulated with a Combination of High- and Low-Molecular-Weight
Polymers Provide Improved Performance for Water-Shutoff Treat-
ments of Fractured Production Wells. SPE Prod & Fac 19 (04):
229–236. SPE-89402-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89402-PA.
Sydansk, R. D., Xiong, Y., Al-Dhafeeri, A. M. et al. 2005. Characteriza-
tion of Partially Formed Polymer Gels for Application to Fractured
Production Wells for Water-Shutoff Purposes. SPE Prod & Fac 20
(03): 240–249. SPE-89401-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89401-PA.
Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D., and Seright, R. S. 1997a. EOR Screening Crite-
ria Revisited—Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced
Recovery Field Projects. SPE Res Eng 12 (03): 189–198. SPE-35385-
PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/35385-PA.
Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D., and Seright, R. S. 1997b. EOR Screening Crite-
ria Revisited—Part 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices. SPE Res
Eng 12 (03): 199–206. SPE-39234-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
39234-PA.
Trantham, J. C., Threlkeld, C. B., and Patterson, H. L., Jr. 1980. Reservoir
Description for a Surfactant/ Polymer Pilot in a Fractured, Oil-Wet
Reservoir - North Burbank Unit Tract 97. J Pet Technol 32 (09):
1647–1656. SPE-8432-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8432-PA.
van den Hoek, P. J., Al-Masfry, R. A., Zwarts, D. et al. 2009. Optimizing
Recovery for Waterflooding under Dynamic Induced Fracturing Con-
ditions. SPE Res Eval & Eng 12 (05): 671–682. SPE-110379-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/110379-PA.
Vermolen, E. C. M., van Haasterecht, M. J. T., and Masalmeh, S. K. 2014.
A Systematic Study of the Polymer Visco-Elastic Effect on Residual
Oil Saturation by Core Flooding. Presented at the SPE EOR Confer-
ence at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman, 31 March–2 April.
SPE-169681-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169681-MS.
Vermolen, E. C. M., Van Haasterecht, M. J. T., Masalmeh, S. K. et al.
2011. Pushing the Envelope for Polymer Flooding Towards High-
Temperature and High-Salinity Reservoirs with Polyacrylamide Based
Ter-Polymers. Presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show
and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September. SPE-141497-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/141497-MS.
Wang, M. 1995. Laboratory Investigation of Factors Affecting Residual
Oil Saturation by Polymerflooding. PhD thesis, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA (August 1995).
Wang, D.M. 2001. Development of New Tertiary Recovery Theories and
Technologies to Sustain Daqing Oil Production. J. Pet. Geol. Oilfield
Dev. Daqing 20 (3): 1–7.
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Wang, D. 2013. Chapter 4–Polymer Flooding Practice in Daqing. In
Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies, first edition. ed. J.J.
Sheng, Vol. Chap. 83–116. Boston, Massachussetts, USA: Gulf Pro-
fessional Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386545-
8.00004-X.
Wang, D., Cheng, J., Yang, Q. et al. 2000. Viscous-Elastic Polymer Can
Increase Microscale Displacement Efficiency in Cores. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 Oc-
tober. SPE-63227-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/63227-MS.
Wang, D., Cheng, J., Xia, H. et al. 2001. Viscous-Elastic Fluids Can
Mobilize Oil Remaining after Water-Flood by Force Parallel to the
Oil-Water Interface. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil
Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 6–9 October. SPE-72123-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/72123-MS.
Wang, D., Cheng, J., Wu, J. et al. 2002. Producing by Polymer Flooding
More Than 300 Million Barrels of Oil, What Experiences Have Been
Learnt? Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, 8–10 October. SPE-77872-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77872-MS.
Wang, D., Youlin, J., Yan, W. et al. 2004. Viscous-Elastic Polymer Fluids
Rheology and Its Effect Upon Production Equipment. SPE Prod &
Fac 19 (04): 209–216. SPE-77496-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
77496-PA.
Wang, J., Dong, M., and Asghari, K. 2006a. Effect of Oil Viscosity on
Heavy-Oil/Water Relative Permeability Curves. Presented at the SPE/
DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22–26 April.
SPE-99763-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99763-MS.
Wang, H.-Z., Liao, G.-Z., and Song, J. 2006b. Combined chemical flood-
ing technologies. In Technological Developments in Enhanced Oil Re-
covery, first edition. ed. P.P. Shen. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
Wang, D., Wang, G., Wu, W. et al. 2007. The Influence of Viscoelasticity
on Displacement Efficiency--from Micro to Macro Scale. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia, USA, 11–14 November. SPE-109016-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/109016-MS.
Wang, D., Han, P., Shao, Z. et al. 2008. Sweep-Improvement Options for
the Daqing Oil Field. SPE Res Eval & Eng 11 (01): 18–26. SPE-
99441-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99441-PA.
Wang, J. and Dong, M. 2009. Optimum Effective Viscosity of Polymer
Solution for Improving Heavy Oil Recovery. J Pet Sci Eng 67 (3–4):
155–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2009.05.007.
Wang, D., Dong, H., Lv, C. et al. 2009. Review of Practical Experience by
Polymer Flooding at Daqing. SPE Res Eval & Eng 12 (03): 470–476.
SPE-114342-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114342-PA.
Wang, Z., Lin, B., Sha, G. et al. 2011. A Combination of Biodegradation
and Microfiltration for Removal of Oil and Suspended Solids from
Polymer-Containing Produced Water. Presented at the SPE Americas
E&P Health, Safety, Security, and Environmental Conference, Hous-
ton, 21–23 March. SPE-140916-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
140916-MS.
Wassmuth, F. R., Green, K., Arnold, W. et al. 2009. Polymer Flood Appli-
cation to Improve Heavy Oil Recovery at East Bodo. J Can Pet Tech-
nol 48 (02): 55–61. PETSOC-09-02-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/09-
02-55.
Wellington, S. L. 1983. Biopolymer Solution Viscosity Stabilization -
Polymer Degradation and Antioxidant Use. Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers Journal 23 (06): 901–912. SPE-9296-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/9296-PA.
Wreath, D. G. 1989. A Study of Polymer Flooding and Residual Oil Satu-
ration. MS thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas,
USA.
Wu, L.J. and Chen, P. 2005. Study of injection parameters for separate
layers during the period of polymer flooding. J. Pet. Geol. Oilfield
Dev. Daqing 24 (4): 75–77.
Xia, H., Wang, D., Wang, G. et al. 2008. Mechanism of the Effect of
Micro-Forces on Residual Oil in Chemical Flooding. Presented at the
SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 20–23 April. SPE-
114335-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114335-MS.
Yang, B. and Feng, G.-B. 2001. Pilot test of polymer flooding in the
Wangchang oilfield in Jianghan. Oil and Gas Surface Engineering 20
(3): 1–3.
125
Yang, S. H. and Treiber, L. E. 1985. Chemical Stability of Polyacrylamide
under Simulated Field Conditions. Presented at the SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 22–26
September. SPE-14232-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/14232-MS.
Yin, H., Wang, D., and Zhong, H. 2006. Study on Flow Behaviors of
Viscoelastic Polymer Solution in Micropore with Dead End. Presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 24–27 September. SPE-101950-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/101950-MS.
Zaitoun, A. and Kohler, N. 1987. The Role of Adsorption in Polymer
Propagation through Reservoir Rocks. Presented at the SPE Interna-
tional Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 4–6 February. SPE-16274-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
16274-MS.
Zaitoun, A. and Kohler, N. 1988. Two-Phase Flow through Porous Media:
Effect of an Adsorbed Polymer Layer. Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 2–5 October. SPE-
18085-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18085-MS.
Zhang, J.-C. 1998. Learning in several aspects of polymer flooding in
Daqing. In Chemical Flooding Symposium–Research Results During
the Eighth Five-Year Period (1991–1995), first edition. ed. Q.-L.
Gang, Vol. 1, 60–70, Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
James J. Sheng is Associate Professor at Texas Tech University.
He has worked in the oil industry for more than 20 years before
126
View publication stats
entering academia. Sheng’s research interests include
enhanced-oil recovery (EOR) in both conventional and
unconventional reservoirs and other reservoir-engineering-
related topics. He has authored two EOR books, coauthored
more than 70 papers, and holds four patents. Sheng served as
SPEREE and JPSE journals as associate editor and received the
SPE regional technical award in formation evaluation in 2013.
He holds a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from Univer-
sity of Alberta.
Bernd Leonhardt is Head of Technology Innovation and
Research at Wintershall Holding GmbH. He has been with the
company for 25 years, with his first 15 years working as a reser-
voir engineer and production technologist in operations. Leon-
hardt holds a diploma in geophysics from the Technical
University of Muenster in Germany. He has authored or coau-
thored some 10 technical papers. Leonhardt is an SPE member,
and has served as an SPE eMentor meanwhile for several years.
Nasser Al-Azri is the EOR Studies Team Leader at Petroleum
Development Oman (PDO). He joined PDO in 1997 as a reser-
voir engineer, where he worked on various aspects of the busi-
ness including well and reservoir management, field studies,
and EOR research and development. Since 2005, Al-Azri has
been working on EOR techniques and was involved in the field
implementation of some EOR projects in PDO. His main area of
interest is chemical EOR, and he is a subject matter expert on
the process. Al-Azri has authored and coauthored a number
of publications, mainly in the area of polymer flooding.
March 2015 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology