SPE-180024-MS

Polymers and Polymer-Based Gelants for Improved Oil Recovery and

Water Control Applications in Naturally Fractured Chalk Formations
Dimitrios G. Hatzignatiou, University of Stavanger and International Research Institute of Stavanger;
Nils H. Giske and Arne Stavland, IRIS

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Bergen One Day Seminar held in Bergen, Norway, 20 April 2016.

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 the 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
Water flooding of naturally fractured carbonate (NFC) formations always poses several challenges related
to formation sweep, oil recovery efficiency and rate of extraction from matrix blocks, and water
management. The presence of natural fractures decreases formation sweep, delays oil recovery rates, and
often yields high injector/producer conductive paths which increase produced water cuts with undesirable
impacts on fluids production from technical point of view (ranging from lifting difficulties to well stop
flowing) as well as economic one (produced water separation, cleaning, and re-injection).
Downhole and deep-reservoir fluids management becomes important to addressing or reducing
negative oil production effects in NFC formations. Injected fluid diversion away from well-established
high-conductivity flow paths will be extremely beneficial to (a) sweep previously unswept formation
regions, (b) reduce circulation of injected water, and (c) improve the oil recovery rate and ultimate
recovery factors. Injected fluid diversion gels, used in such applications, are normally based on a
polymer/crosslinker mixture designed to gel at a given distance /location away from a treated well.
However, HSE regulations and/or surface facilities requirements may not permit in certain occasions the
use of such chemical systems that have been tested and successfully field-applied previously.
In this work, existing commercial polymer and polymer-based chemicals that could be used for water
management is NFC reservoirs are screened and evaluated in the laboratory. Several testing bulk- and
core-based techniques have been used to achieve this goal with the selected chemicals undergone
thorough investigation of their filterability, injectivity, gelation time, gel strength, gel shrinkage, and
impact on oil production.
Injection of high and low molecular weight HPAM polymers into fractured cores does not hinder the
oil production mechanism in chalk formations yielding a lower oil recovery rate but comparable ultimate
recoveries with water injection. The environmental friendly polymer (Polymer B) gelant is ⬙inconsistent⬙
related to the formation of gel; when it gels, the quality of the formed gel is poor and provide no resistance
to a post-treatment water injection. The non-environmentally friendly polymer (Polymer A) gelant worked
consistently concerning gelation and yielded good quality, strong gels that can withstand post-treatment
applied pressures during water injection.
2 SPE-180024-MS

Introduction
In NFC reservoirs undergoing water injection for several years, injected water flows through existing or
newly formed reservoir fractures (conduits) with the oil production dictated by the degree water imbibes
from fractures into oil-bearing matrix. Formation cooling, due to cold-water injection, enhances existing
fractures aperture thus exacerbating the already existing formation conformance disparities. In some
reservoir regions and between injector/producer couples, the flooding pattern is so that the majority of the
injected water flows through the high permeability fractures, thus contributing very little, if any, to
formation oil sweep and increasing water production rates at corresponding production wells. As a result,
large reservoir volumes are ⬙bypassed⬙ by the injected water leaving potentially large volumes of
remaining oil.
Wells producing with high watercuts during waterflood operations are a major issue in mature
reservoirs. Formation regions containing fractures, either natural or hydraulic, may provide significant
pathways for the injected water causing it to bypass oil-bearing reservoir matrix and yield low sweep
efficiencies and recovery factors. Polymer gels are frequently used for conformance improvement in
fractured reservoirs, where fluid channeling through fractures reduces the waterflood effectiveness.
Polymer gels placed in fractures reduce fracture conductivity, thus providing the ability to increase
pressure gradients applied across matrix blocks during the post-treatment fluid injection and increase oil
recovery factors.
The introduction of chemicals, in the form of polymer or gels, into reservoir poses the risk of blocking
some or the entire fracture/matrix interface area, thus preventing the fracture/matrix communication and
arresting the water imbibition into the matrix along its pathways. This depends on the chemical system’s
properties (e.g., polymer molecular weight and molecular ionic state), rock properties (e.g., pore size and
pore size distribution, type, amount and ionic state of mineral along the fracture), oil and water properties,
etc. The significance of such interaction depends on whether the oil in the matrix is at, or close-to, initial
saturation conditions.
An effective gel treatment should reduce the fracture conductivity while maintaining open a viable flow
path between the wellbore and the formation mobile oil. Laboratory testing and evaluation of a
chromium(III)/acrylamide-polymer gel technology for conformance treatments were reported by Sydansk
(1988). The dependence of gelation rate and gel strength on (a) polymer type, concentration, molecular
weight, and hydrolysis level; (b) HPAM/Cr(III) ratio (176:1 to 44:1); (c) temperature; (d) polymer
solution pH; and (e) salinity was reported. In general, formed gels exhibited favorable phase-stability,
shear, and leakoff properties. At increased chromium concentrations formed gels are stronger, but at
higher Cr(III) concentrations over-crosslinking and gel syneresis normally occurred (Sydansk, 1988).
During gelant placement in fractures, a portion of the gelant leaks off into the adjoining matrix. The
gelant leakoff may play an important role of the gel treatment effectiveness in reducing flow channeling.
Seright (1995) examined the impact of gelant viscosity, degree of gelation, and gravity on gelant
placement in fractured systems. For a given volume of gelant injected under given conditions, the distance
of gelant leakoff increases with the gelant viscosity. Since typical gelled-polymer treatments to treat
fractures injected gelant times are usually longer than the gelant’s bulk gelation time, one method to
minimize gelant leakoff is to have a sufficient gelation before the gelant leaves the wellbore. The author
investigated this approach experimentally in both fractured and non-fractured cores using Cr(III)acetate/
HPAM, resorcinol-formaldehyde, Cr(III)/xanthan, Al/citrate/HPAM, and other gelants and gels with
various delay times between gelant preparation and injection. Tracer studies indicated that some gels
could effectively heal fractures under the right circumstances. However, high resistance factors and
pressure gradients exhibited during placement could limit the ability to propagate certain gels deep into
a fractured system. It should be pointed out that in field applications, gelation may occur during gelant
injection caused by the encountered higher temperatures and/or a longer pumping time. This implies that
SPE-180024-MS 3

partially or fully mature gel may exist in the wellbore therefore yielding mixed fluid injection conditions
(mixture of polymer gelant and polymer-gel) into a fractured formation. Following on the Seright (1995)
experimental results, Seright (2001) developed a model to quantify gel propagation and dehydration
during extrusion through fractures. The author stated that gels originated from high molecular weight
polymers may offer significant advantages and gel penetration along fractures can be maximized using the
greatest practical injection rate. In wide fractures or near the end of gel injection, however, gel dehydration
may be desirable to form rigid gels; therefore, lower injection rates may be more appropriate. Liu and
Seright (2001) investigated whether gel behavior in rheometers correlates with the one observed during
gel extrusion through fractures. Although qualitative similarities were noted, the pressure gradients during
gel extrusion through fractures were substantially greater than the ones expected from rheological
measurements. The authors stated that the pressure gradient for gel extrusion through fractures varied in
an unexpected manner with fracture width.
An experimental study was carried out by Ganguly et al. (2002) on the effect of HPAM/chromium
acetate gelant system leakoff on the performance of a gel treatment, and the gel stability when subjected
to pressure gradients. Fractured Berea sandstone cores were designed to permit gelant leakoff into the
matrix on the fracture interfaces. The experiments showed that gel did not form when the gelant was
placed without leakoff, with the gelant been easily displaced from the fracture during the post-treatment
brine injection. The authors attributed the lack of gelation in the absence of leakoff to chromium diffusion
from the fracture to the matrix, which reduced the chromium concentration in the gelant to levels at which
gelation could not occur. On the other hand, gels were formed in the fracture after placement when the
gelant was placed with leakoff. These gels formed in a fracture were ruptured when a brine pressure was
applied at the inlet. The gel rupture pressure was proportional to the length/diameter ratio. Flow
experiments conducted by McCool et al. (2009) to determine the effect of shear on the gelant flow
properties for times after the bulk gelation time. The flow resistance of a gelant injected through an over
1000 ft-long tube increased down the tubing to steady values, which indicated system gelation. When a
preformed gel was injected, the flow resistance decreased down the tubing to steady values indicating gel
breakdown. The authors noted that steady flow resistances of the downstream sections were higher during
the gelant injection compared to the injection of preformed gel. Following gelation, gels underwent
syneresis during shear flow in the tubing and in a rheometer.
An acrylic fracture experimental model was used by Wilton and Asghari (2007) to obtain qualitative
information about flood fluid penetration into a placed gel within the fractures, and reported rupture
pressures which were generally higher for gel systems with greater chromium concentration. The use of
either Cr(III) acetate pre-flush or overload was investigated in Berea sandstone slabs to determine gel
performance. The authors reported that both mechanisms compensate for the chromium lost to the matrix
via molecular diffusion yielding better gel integrity and improved placement.
The open fracture blockage performance of a Cr(III)-acetate/HPAM gel after the placement of both
gelant and mature gels was examined by Brattekås et al. (2015a). The gel-blockage performance was
assessed based on the gel-rupture pressure and the residual resistance factor achieved in post-treatment
waterfloods. The authors stated that placement of mature gel in open fractures yielded consistent rupture
pressures which were predictable and stable in all examined core materials. These rupture pressures were
comparable to the ones achieved from insitu crosslinked gelant. Gels did not form in some cores after the
placement of gelant due to the Bentheim rock material and gelant interactions, and when they formed
these gels yielded less predictable rupture pressures compared to the ones obtained from the placement of
preformed gel. Significant permeability reductions were achieved during subsequent water injections
following the placement of either preformed gel or gelant in open fractures. However, even though the
permeability reductions were similar in both these cases, preformed gels yielded eight times higher
permeability reductions compared to the ones obtained from gels formed in place. In a follow-up work,
and based on earlier observations that a gel-filled fracture reopened to fluid flow if the water injection
4 SPE-180024-MS

pressure exceeded the gel-rupture pressure, Brattekås et al. (2015b) examined the possibility of using
low-salinity water to swell conventional Cr(III)-acetate/HPAM gels to improve gel-blocking performance
after gel rupture. That was based on observations that salinity differences between the gel network and
surrounding water phase may cause of preformed particle gel swelling.
In offshore oilfields, the selected gelant should be mixed at surface without crosslinking and provide
sufficient gelation times at temperatures as low as 40°F in treated injection wells having undergone
extensive cold ocean water injection. In these low temperature applications, gelant reaction and gel-
strength-development rates are significantly lower compared to traditional encountered reservoir temper-
atures; this may yield long gelation times and weaker formed gels. Reddy et al. (2012) discussed an
HPAM/polyamine-crosslinker (organically crosslinked polymer-based) water shutoff gelant that may
provide sufficient gelation times at temperatures lower than 80°F. Such gelants could be optimized with
regards to gelation times development of rigid gels using activator chemicals and retarders as well as
polymer/crosslinker ratios for the specific filed applications.
This work examines existing polymer and polymer-based chemicals for field applications in the North
Sea considering also the environmental aspects and restrictions to using these chemicals. Hatzignatiou et
al. (2016) and Hatzignatiou and Giske (2016) investigated the implementation of environmentally
silicate-based gelants for the same applications.

Tested Chemicals for Water Management

Chemicals for water management are widely used worldwide for onshore oilfields, but very few offshore
treatments are known and well documented. The main selection criteria for a chemical for water
management chemicals (water shut-off), as described below, are HSE, gelation/ placement, injectivity, gel
strength and permeability reduction, gel stability, and price/accessibility. The majority of water shut-off
chemicals used elsewhere in the world cannot be used on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) due to
strict HSE regulations. The gelation time for most gelants is affected by temperature, concentration of
used chemicals (base chemical, activator and various additives), and interactions with the reservoir
minerals and fluids (silicate-based chemicals). The treatment gelant fluids should be able to be injected
into the treatment well, and water should be injectable into the treated well following gelation. Gelants
should form strong gels, which provide sufficient permeability reduction to force the injected water into
new ⬙pathways⬙. The formed gel should be also stable for relatively long periods and display either small
amount of shrinkage or, preferably, no shrinkage at all. Finally, the cost of the used chemicals is very
important especially if the required for treatment volumes are significantly high.
A ⬙good⬙ chemical can be injected into the reservoir, block high permeability fracture paths so that the
post-treatment injected water will be directed into new flooding patterns contacting fresh, previously
unswept, reservoir areas accelerating oil production and increasing recovery factors, while maintaining
manageable water production levels and reducing fluids production costs. Proper reservoir characteriza-
tion is essential for a successful water shut-off job. Some key factors that must be evaluated prior to any
water shutoff job include (a) temperature profile between the water injector and producer, (b) retention
time and required volume until the chemical is in the target zone (simulations, tracer tests), (c) potential
interactions with reservoir rock and fluids, and (d) potentially, content and size of a pre-flush. Table 1
provides a short description of the chemicals tested in this work.
SPE-180024-MS 5

Table 1—Brief overview of tested chemicals.

HPAM polymers are normally used to increase the viscosity of the injected fluids (gelants) and
improve formation sweep. However, since HPAM polymers can form gel when mixed with a crosslinker,
some preliminary screening tests have been carried out to investigate a potential impact of this phenom-
enon on the overall gelation process.
Polymer A is a commercially available polymer/crosslinker water shut-off chemical system (gelant).
The system is well known and widely used globally but not approved for NCS; according to OSPAR
regulations, the polymer is categorized as red and the used crosslinker as black. Polymer A system can
be used for both fracture and matrix treatments. Gelling is controlled by temperature, concentration of
chemicals and can be delayed through the addition of a retarder. Both gelant components (polymer and
crosslinker) are in liquid form.
Polymer B water shut-off chemical, polymer and a crosslinker (zirconium), was originally approved for
use on NCS; however, it is not known to the authors whether this product is still approved for NCS field
applications. Both components (polymer and crosslinker) are in liquid form and gelation time is mainly
controlled by temperature; a retarder also exists for prolonging gelation time.

Experimental Procedures
The main tests conducted aimed to investigate the product filterability, injectivity, gelation, gel strength
(open-tube and fractured core samples).

Preparation of polymer solutions

A mother solution was prepared and diluted to concentration corresponding to the specified viscosity
(10 cp). All mother solutions and user solutions were prepared with Synthetic Sea Water (SSW) as long
as nothing else is specified. The composition of the SSW is provided in Table 2. The polymer mother
solution was prepared by adding SSW to a beaker and using a special propeller for stirring; the stirring
rate was adjusted so that the vortex reached about 2/3 of the distance from the top surface to the propeller.
The polymer was added (sprinkle) smoothly into the edge of the vortex and stir at a high rate continued
for about 30 minutes. Stirring was continued for at least two hours at low rate. Following the preparation
of the mother solution, its viscosity was measured at 20°C and 8.85 1/s applied shear stress using an Anton
Paar rheometer.
6 SPE-180024-MS

Table 2—Synthetic Sea Water (SSW) composition.

Synthetic Sea Water (SSW)
Salt [g/l]

NaCl 23.495
KCl 0.746
MgCl2*6H20 9.149
CaCl2*2H20 1.911
Na2SO4 3.408
NaHCO3 0.168

Filterability
The tested chemicals were filtrated through isopore polycarbonate filters ranging from 0.1 to 5 ␮m. The
experiments were conducted by (a) placing the test solution into the filtration rig and applying a pressure
of 2 bar, (b) wetting the filter and placing it into the filter holder, and (c) flooding the test solution through
the filter and measuring filtration rate and time to filter a predetermined volume.
Injectivity
Liege outcrop chalk cores were used and the experimental procedure followed was to: (a) water-flood
the selected core and determine its permeability; (b) inject the test fluid and record ⌬P as a function of
injected volume at selected injection rate; (c) conduct a post water flooding while measuring ⌬P, and (d)
optionally, cut the core plug into several pieces and water flood each one of them individually Using the
stabilized pressure drop measurements the resistance factor, RF, and the residual resistance Factor, RRF,
were obtained.
Gelation time
These measurements were conducted primarily in bulk and gelation time was obtained by preparing
test solutions and measuring gelation time at various temperatures. Several rating systems exist to describe
the state of a formed gel; the classical and most comprehensive one is probably the Sydansk (1990) rating.
In our experiments, most tested samples were transitioned from ⬙no-gel⬙ to ⬙rigid-gel⬙ rather rapidly and
for that reason a simplified system proposed by Stavland et al. (2011) was used with the gelation time
defined as the time to gelant to yield a no-flowing gel (code 3).
Gel strength
These types of tests were conducted using either open tubes or corefloods. In the former, the tubes had
a 12.7 mm outer and a 10.8 mm inner diameter, and length 20 cm; the formed gels occupied approximately
19 cm of the total tube length. A 4.8 mm ⬙narrowing⬙ was applied to the tube outlet during the strength
test in order to prevent the gel to be ⬙flushed out⬙ of the tube due to its smooth inner surface. Instead, the
gel was held in place and the extrusion process begun by injecting water in the one end of the tube while
the gel was held in place by the small narrowing toward to outlet end. The experimental procedure
followed is as follows: (a) fill the test tube with gelant and place in a hot oven for gelation; (b) following
gelation, connect the tube inlet to a Quizix pump and apply Swagelok 1⁄8-½⬙ male-male adaptor to the
outlet end and ½-¼⬙ male-male adaptor to the inlet end of the tube; (c) inject slowly water for a gradual
pressure build up (~1 bar/min) until gel starts to get extruded out of the tube.
In core floods, polymer solutions were injected into either fractured or non-fractured Liege core plugs.
Figure 1 illustrates the former case with the artificially created ⬙fracture⬙ being a cylindrical hole coaxial
with the core’s cylindrical axis. After drilling the coaxial hole, the core plug was mounted in the core
holder and face plugs were attached at the two end surfaces. The face plugs were thin slices of high
permeability Berea sandstone. The applied overburden pressure was 20-25 bar. The core was saturated
with 1000 ppm NaCl and its pore volume was measured. The core was then saturated with oil (isopar) and
the selected fluid (SSW or polymer) was injected.
SPE-180024-MS 7

Figure 1—Illustration of a ⴖfracturedⴖ core sample used for the core floods.

The experimental procedure followed was to drill a 5 mm diameter cylindrical hole longitudinally
through the plug center along its axis. The core was mounted into core holder as a composite core plug
including highly permeable sandstone face plugs at the inlet/outlet ends of the core and a confining
pressure of 20-25 bar was applied. The core was saturated with brine and its pore volume was estimated.
The polymer gelant was injected until gelation (maximum observed pumping pressure) while measuring
the pressure across the core using four pressure transmitters. Following gelation, a post-treatment water
flooding was conducted and the differential pressure was measures in each section along the core. Finally,
the post-gelation average core permeability was measured.

HPAM Polymers – Results and Discussion

For the core flood experiments, the target viscosity for the polymer solutions was about 10 cp. The
corresponding viscosity for this concentration was calculated using (Stavland et al., 2013)
(1)

where [␩] is the intrinsic viscosity, ␩solv is the solvent (water) viscosity at current temperature, c is the
polymer concentration and k’ a constant (k’⫽0.5 in this study). Assuming that the intrinsic viscosity is
independent of concentration, the intrinsic viscosity was first calculated for a given concentration using
the Newton-Raphson method; then the polymer viscosity for other concentrations can be calculated. The
viscosity of the final solution was then measured on the rheometer to verify that the calculated value was
correct.
An overview of the considered polymers along with their molecular weights, viscosities of mother
solutions and used polymer concentrations is provided in Table 3. In addition to the synthetic HPAM
polymers, a biopolymer (xanthan) is included for comparison purposes. One of the HPAMs, HPAM B,
was also prepared using distilled water for illustrating the importance of the water salinity on the polymer
viscosity. The polymer concentration required to achieve an approximate polymer-based gelant viscosity
of 10 cp is given graphically in Figure 2.
8 SPE-180024-MS

Table 3—Tested polymer properties.

Approximate
Molecular Weight Concentration Viscosity
Polymer (MDa) (ppm) (SSW, 8.85 s-1, 20°C)

HPAM A 0.4 5000 2.7

HPAM B 5 5000 32
2850 11
HPAM B (in distilled water, DW) 5 5000 627
130 12
HPAM C 10 5000 63
2100 11
HPAM D 12 5000 83
1820 12
HPAM E 16 5000 98
1500 10.5
HPAM F 20 5000 111
1410 11
Biopolymer (Xanthan) Unknown 5000 460
2500 144
550 11

Figure 2—Polymer concentration required for a target viscosity of about 10 cp (8.85 s-1, 20°C).

Filtration of polymer solutions

The 10 cp polymer solutions were filtrated using the experimental procedure described above. Table 4
gives an overview for the filters used in the tests and a summary of the results obtained. This table shows
that there is a clear correlation between molecular weight and filterability.
SPE-180024-MS 9

Table 4 —Overview for filterability test results for the respective filter-size/polymer combinations. : filtered polymer resulting in
no plugging. : gradual partially filtered polymer resulting in a reduced filtration rate versus time. : filter blocked resulting in
zero filtration rate.

The polymer filterability was compared with results from the empirical gyration radius correlation Rg
⫽ A ⴱ MWa. For HPAM-based polymers, A ⫽ 2.94⫻10⫺5 ␮m/Da and a ⫽ 0.586 (see also Appendix B).
Standard filtration theory reports blocking (B) if the pore-to-particle size is less than 3 (⬍ 3) and no
plugging (F) if the pore-to-particle size is larger than 7 (⬎ 7) and for pore to particle size in between,
partly plugging (PF). Table 5 shows that it is possible to reproduce the experimental results presented in
Table 4 by setting the ratios to 1.3 and 2.9. Modification of the constant A in the equation above leads
to different pore to particle ratios. However, the results clearly demonstrate that the polymer size depends
on the molecular weight (MW); for each MW there is a critical pore size at which the polymer will plug
the formation. From this, it can be concluded that the combination of high MW polymer and low
permeability chalk matrix will cause plugging. To avoid plugging, MW is to be considerably low which
subsequently affects the polymer viscosity.

Table 5—Matching of filtration matrix test results by defining plugging criteria (plugging: pore-to-particle size < 1.3 and
no-plugging: pore-to-particle size > 2.9). : filtered polymer resulting in no plugging. : gradual partially filtered
polymer resulting in a reduced filtration rate versus time. : filter blocked resulting in zero filtration rate.

Figure 3 presents a graph that correlates the ability of a given molecular weight polymer to plug,
partially plug or no plug a porous filter depending on its critical pore size. These correlations are based
on the results presented on Tables 4 and 5 and can serve as a polymer candidate screening for injection
in a porous medium. It should be pointed out that these results are for the given testing conditions
(primarily polymers, brine salinity and temperature). For higher/lower brine salinities, with the other
10 SPE-180024-MS

conditions remaining the same, HPAM polymers will be affected and the boundaries separating the three
regions in Figure B-3 will be shifted to the left/right along the x-axis.

Figure 3—Critical pore size for plugging versus molecular weight of polymer.

Shear degradation testing

HPAM viscosity can be reduced by shear (mechanical) degradation, which means that the polymer
macromolecules are split into lower molecular weight units. Typical risk areas/⬙points⬙ for shear degra-
dation in the field can be chokes, pumps and at the point where the polymer enters the reservoir. In this
project, mechanical shear degradation for a few polymers was tested by using a high rate Silverson mixer.
The results from the tests are given in Figure 4. Both the high and medium MW polymers were degraded
and the final intrinsic viscosity ended on the same value, which corresponds to a molecular weight of
approximately 1.7 MDa. The low MW polymer has, however, an initial MW that is lower than the final
⬙degraded⬙ polymers MW discussed above, and as such, this polymer was not degraded.

Figure 4 —Intrinsic viscosity as a function of shear time; mechanical shear degradation of HPAM polymers using a Silverson mixer.
Polymer low molecular weight ~0.4 MDa (HPAM A), medium molecular weight ~5 MDa (HPAM B), and high molecular weight ~20 MDa
(HPAM F).
SPE-180024-MS 11

Flooding experiments with polymer solutions

Core flood experiments, for injectivity issues, are complimentary to filtration experiments and form the
⬙next step⬙ to verifying whether a chemical can be injected into a given porous medium. In our
experiments, a very low MW (~0.5 MDa) synthetic polymer (HPAM A) was injected into a Liege core
as a ⬙best case⬙ for low permeability carbonate. If this polymer cannot be injected, then a more thorough
investigation would be required to find one that can be used for injection directly into chalk formation.
The core was saturated with synthetic seawater and was then flooded with the same water with a flooding
rate of 0.1 ml/min. The water permeability was calculated. Polymer was then injected followed by water.
The results are shown in Figure 5 with pore volume injected at the x-axis and RF or RRF at the y-axis.
RF (blue curve) is given by differential pressure during polymer injection relatively to water injection
before polymer. RRF (red curve) is differential pressure during water injection after polymer flooding
relative to water injection before polymer flooding, i.e. permeability reduction due to polymer retention.
The differential pressure increased gradually during polymer injection until it reached the specified
maximum pressure and the pump automatically stopped. Water was then injected and the pressure
gradually decreased until it reached a value of about 8 times the corresponding value for water before
polymer (RRF⫽8). The first part of the experiment, polymer injection, was repeated and the results, pore
volume vs. differential pressure, are shown in Figure 6. The maximum value of transmitter pressure, 7000
mbar, was reached after approximately 0.9 PV of injected polymer and the pump stopped due to the
encountered high pressures immediately after that time.

Figure 5—Low molecular weight polymer flooding through a Liege core plug – injection flow rate of 0.1 ml/min.

Figure 6 —Flooding of low molecular weight polymer through a Liege core plug. Experiment 2.
12 SPE-180024-MS

The core plug from Experiment 2 was then cut into three pieces which were individual flooded with
seawater. The measured differential pressure results are shown in Figure 7. The plug sections ⬙middle⬙ and
⬙end⬙ have a relatively ⬙flat⬙ differential pressure vs. injected volume behavior; the recorded differential
pressures correspond to a core plug containing no polymer. The RRF values computed from the measured
laboratory data corresponding to the front, middle and end sections of the divided core were equal to 6.4,
1, and 1, respectively; it should be noted that the entire core RRF obtained from Experiment 1 was equal
to 8, which is slightly higher than the combined individual core-section RRF values determined from
Experiment 2. This means that very little or no polymer was adsorbed in the ⬙middle⬙ and ⬙end⬙ core
pieces, whereas the ⬙front⬙ plug clearly shows that the polymer was gradually ⬙washed⬙ out of the core
section until only the ⬙irreversible⬙ adsorbed polymer was left into the porous medium (practically
stabilized differential pressure of 1700 mbar).

Figure 7—Experiment 2 – Core plug cut into three equal pieces after flooding with polymer; ⴖfrontⴖ refers to the core piece towards the
core inlet and ⴖendⴖ the original core outlet piece.

Visualization of polymer invasion into chalk formation

Visualization of potential polymer invasion was attempted by freeze drying injected HPAM solution into
non-fractured chalk core plugs. A medium molecular weight polymer, HPAM D, was used in these
experiments at a 2000 ppm in distilled water, which resulted to a solution viscosity of 285 cp at 20 °C and
shear rate of 8.85 1/s. The chalk used was a Liege core plug of length 4 cm having an unusually high
porosity of 0.5. Figure 8 displays the SEM images at two cross-sections; (a) close to the core inlet and (b)
0.5 mm into the core from the core inlet. The presence of long polymer chains and thick layers are visible
in the former, but only some short polymer chains are present in the latter. This clearly illustrates, and
substantiates statements made in the main body of the paper, the inability of even a medium molecular
weight polymer to invade the Liege core matrix even under direct polymer flooding conditions.
SPE-180024-MS 13

Figure 8 —Polymer (medium molecular weight HPAM) visualization in the chalk pore space.

Similarly, Figure 9 presents SEM images from a Liege core flooded by a low molecular weight HPAM
polymer at 2000 ppm concentration in distilled water, which resulted to a solution viscosity of 120 cp at
20 °C and shear rate of 8.85 1/s. The core was again Liege of length 2.6 cm, porosity 0.41, and
permeability 1.12 mD. The two SEM images (close to the core inlet and 14 mm from the core inlet) show
again the presence of thin polymer chains (former) and some single polymer chains (latter).

Figure 9 —Polymer (low molecular weight HPAM) visualization in the chalk pore space.

These results show clearly the inability of the injected polymers to flow through (invade) the chalk core
matrix. The smaller the polymer molecular weight the deeper the invasion depth into the chalk matrix. It
should be pointed out that the high polymer viscosities were a result of using distilled water as the makeup
solvent in order to avoid visualization difficulties following the SEM freeze-drying procedures. A
potential solution of reducing the polymer concentration to maintain reasonable viscosities would have
also affected its visualization in the porous medium.
Polymer injection – Impact on oil recovery in fractured chalk formations
Direct polymer injection of high molecular weight polymer is not possible. Small volumes of low
molecular weight polymer could be injected directly into the matrix (non-fractured core). Deep-formation
matrix treatment injecting polymer is not possible.
14 SPE-180024-MS

The procedure for the conducted core flood experiment was as follows: a hole was drilled through a
Liege plug to imitate the fracture, and the core was saturated with synthetic oil (isopar H); the hole was
then filled with sand and Berea plugs were used at both ends. Three experiments were conducted with the
same injection rate of 0.1 ml/min and the oil production was monitored in all these cases. In Experiment
1, seawater was injected, Experiment 2 a high molecular weight polymer (HPAM F), and Experiment 3
a low molecular weight polymer (HPAM A).
The results from these three experiments are summarized in Figure 10. The final oil production after
injecting 6 PVs is not drastically different for the three used flood fluids. Oil recovery is rather quick in
the case of SSW injection with the recovery factor reaching approximately 76% at around 2 PVs of
injected water with an additional 1% oil recovery for the remaining 4 PVs of water injection.

Figure 10 —Oil recovery factor versus injected water and polymer – Impact of HPAM polymer molecular weight on oil recovery in
fractured Liege core.

On the other hand, oil recovery is slower in the two cases of polymer injection. Oil recovery in all cases
is the same at approximately 3.5 PVs of injected fluid (water or polymer) with the oil recovery to further
increase to levels of around 80% at 6 PVs for the cases of polymer injection.
As clearly illustrated in our previous results, injected polymer does not penetrate into the carbonate
rock matrix and the oil recovery mechanism is therefore the diffusion (imbibition) of water from the
polymer solution in the fracture into the matrix, which is obviously a slower oil recovery mechanism
compared to water directly injected into the matrix. It is interesting to note that water imbibition was not
hindered in either of the two injected low and high molecular weight polymers.
Polymer Gelants - Results and Discussion
Polymer A Gelant
Polymer A chemical has been widely used worldwide and is a well-known polymer-based gelant. The
chemical is available in (at least) two versions: (a) normal and high temperature version (version 1), which
is called Polymer A1, and (b) low temperature version (version 2), which is referred to as Polymer A2 in
this report. The crosslinker used to form gelants is the same one for both Polymers A1 and A2.
Filterability The filterability results for Polymer A1 are given in Figure 11 and for Polymer A2 in Figure
12. These results illustrate that for low filter sizes, filtration of Polymer A1 is low and takes some time
before it gets established; Polymer A2 seems to pass through the 3 ␮m filter size easier than Polymer A1;
SPE-180024-MS 15

however, its passage through smaller filter sizes (0.6 ␮m and 1.2 ␮m) ceases rapidly. At higher filter sizes,
Polymer A2 seems to have a better filterability at late times compared to Polymer A1.

Figure 11—Filtration of Polymer A1 – Filtered weight vs. time for various filters.

Figure 12—Filtration of Polymer A2 – Filtered weight vs. time for various filters.

Gelation time Preliminary testing of Polymer A1 and Polymer A2 gelants gelation time was carried out
at temperatures of 40°C, 60°C, 80°C and 90°C. The gelation times are given in Table 6 and Figure 13.
The numbers provided in Table 6 are used to illustrate the gelation process; 0 means no gel, 1 indicates
the onset gelation, 2 reflects a floating gel, and 3 represent a solid gel (Stavland et al., 2011). Figure 13
shows the time required to reach the solid gel state (category 3). These results show that, for the tested
temperate range, gelation time is a strong function of temperature, especially for version 1 Polymer A1.
Version 2 Polymer A2 seems to not be affected significantly by temperature especially for systems tested
at over 60°C.
16 SPE-180024-MS

Table 6 —Gelation time for Polymer A gelant in normal temperature (Polymer A1) and low temperature
(Polymer A2) versions. Code 0 - no gel; Code 1 - indications for gel; Code 2 - floating gel; Code 3 - solid gel.
Polymer A1 Gelant Polymer A2 Gelant

Time [hrs] 40°C 60°C 80°C 90°C 40°C 60°C 80°C 90°C

0 – – – – – – – –
1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3
3 0 0 0 3 2 3 3 3
5 0 0 1 3 2 3 3 3
7 0 1 2 3 2 3 3 3
21 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
26 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
50 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
74 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Figure 13—Gelation time for Polymer A gelant in version 1 (Polymer A1) normal and high temperatures (red) and version 2 (Polymer
A2) low temperatures (blue).

The polymer gelant gelation time, tg (hrs), follows the Arrhenius relation tg ⫽ A exp(Ea/RT) where, Ea
is the activation energy (Jmol⫺1), R is the gas constant (⫽8.314 JK⫺1mol⫺1), T is the absolute temperature
(K), and A is gelation time tuning parameter (hrs). The reaction activation energy during gelation for
version 1 high-temperature and version 2 low-temperature polymer gelants are: EaH ⫽ 50.64 KJ/mol and
EaL ⫽ 59.41 KJ/mol, respectively.
Gel strength The strength of the formed gels from Polymer A gelants was evaluated from both open tube
and core flood experiments.
Open tube testing The strength of gels obtained from Polymer A gelants were tested following the
same method used for silicate gelants (Hatzignatiou et al., 2016). The results are provided in Table 7. The
gel strength is in the range of 0.7 to 4 bar, which is significantly lower than the observed strength of gels
formed for Silicate A (see Hatzignatiou and Giske, 2016). However, it seems that gels formed from
Polymer A gelants are more flexible than Silicate A gelant gels, which are more ⬙crisp⬙ and brittle.
Polymer A gels maintained gel-like properties even after were squeezed through the narrowing of the test
tube, which makes this type of gel more robust. On the contrary, Silicate A gels were transformed from
rigid gels to flowing slurries when squeezed through the narrowing of the test tube.
SPE-180024-MS 17

Table 7—Measured gel strength from Polymer A gelants.

Experiment Polymer A1 (Normal and Polymer A2 (Low Crosslinker Max Pressure
Number High Temperatures) [wt%] Temperatures) [wt%] [wt%] [bar]

1 25 – 4 2
2 25 – 4 3
3 25 – 4 1.5
4 25 – 6 1
5 30 – 5 1.75
6 25 – 4 0.7
7 25 – 6 0.8
8 25 – 8 2.5
9 35 – 4 0.9
10 35 – 6 1.6
11 35 – 8 4
12 – 25 4 2
13 – 25 6 2.3

Core flood experiments Several core flood experiments were conducted in order to test the effi-
ciency of Polymer A gelant to isolate fluid flow in sandstone (Berea) and chalk (Liege) cores. These
experiments were conducted for both matrix isolation and isolation of artificially fractured cores. A
summary of these runs and the permeability results are given in Table 8. For the tests conducted with
non-fractured Berea cores with a matrix permeability of approximately 500 mD (Experiment 1), the core
was practically isolated for fluid flow following post-gelation water injection. Polymer A gelant resulted
in practically no post-gelation flow, which made it impossible to measure the core permeability.
⬙Fractured⬙ Berea core tests (Experiment 2) yielded comparable post-gelation average core permeabilities
when Silicate A gelant (Hatzignatiou and Giske, 2016) and Polymer A gelant were used (Table 8). For
the Silicate A gelant, the average ⬙fractured⬙ Berea core permeability post-gelation was determined to be
1 mD and for the Polymer A gelant the average ⬙fractured⬙ Berea core permeability ranged between 1.7
mD and 12 mD. Based on these results, it should be pointed out that, Polymer A gelant not only isolated
the core fracture, but it also invaded the core matrix and reduced significantly the Berea matrix
permeability to the levels presented in Table 8. The observed permeability variations are due to not fully
stabilized flooding conditions.

Table 8 —Estimated average core (Berea and Liege; fractured and non-fractured) permeabilities before and after treatment
– Polymer A gelant.
Experiment Core Fractured Core Chemical Core Average Permeability Core Average Permeability
Number Material (Y/N) Gelant Before Treatment [D] After Treatment [D]

1 Berea N Polymer A ~0.5 Practically no flow

2 Berea Y Polymer A Very High (⬎⬎10)** 1.7⫻10⫺3 – 12⫻10⫺3 *
3 Liege Y Polymer A Very High (⬎⬎10)** 0.25⫻10⫺3

*Permeability variations due to the experimental measurements.

**See Appendix A

⬙Fractured⬙ Liege core tests (Experiment 3) using Polymer A gelant, yielded a post-gelation average
core permeability of approximately 0.25 mD. Considering that the Liege core matrix permeability is
around 1.5 mD, Polymer A gelant practically isolated the core fracture and also slightly reduced the core
matrix permeability to a very small degree. This permeability reduction is located at the core inlet surface,
and it is primarily superficial at the matrix interface, since the polymer contained in the Polymer A gelant
18 SPE-180024-MS

cannot invade the Liege core matrix. Comparing the average core permeability results obtained in
Experiments 2 and 3, the core matrix reduction in the Berea core is much more pronounced than the one
for the Liege core due to the polymer invasion into the higher matrix permeability Berea sandstone.
Assuming that the average Liege core permeability of 0.25 mD after gel treatment is a representative
value, the permeability of the fracture containing the gel can be roughly estimated using the simple
analytical expression provided by Eq. A-1 given in Appendix A. According to this model, and considering
that a 5 mm diameter hole drilled through the center of the typical size cores used in this work corresponds
to Af/A ⫽ 0.0169, then km/kt ⫽ 1.5/0.25⫽60 and Eq. A-1 and Eq. A-2 yield non-physical values for the
ratios kf/km and qf/qt. These equations can yield results having physical meaning when the post-treatment
average core permeability is equal to or higher than the original matrix permeability, i.e., when gels totally
or partially isolating a fracture, respectively, without damaging the core matrix. Injected gelants which
invade and reduce (⬙damage⬙) the matrix core permeability will yield post-treatment average core
permeabilities that are lower than the initial core matrix permeability (see results of post-treatment average
core permeabilities reported in Table 8 for Experiments 2 and 3).
In the above experiments, when testing for gelation time and gel strength in the core-based core flood
experiments, the cores were fully (100%) water saturated. The lack of oil presence in the core matrix (i.e.,
absence of capillary forces) and the relatively low fluid injection pressures yielded negligible, if any,
crosslinker leakoff from fracture to core matrix. Therefore, as the laboratory observation indicate, one
would not expect to experience any actual impact on either the gelation time or the strength of the formed
gel. HPAM polymers (without crosslinker) injected in the fractured cores containing oil for the experi-
ments shown in Figure 10, clearly ⬙interact⬙ with the rock matrix delaying the oil recovery. This
interaction in the form of leakoff during the placement of gelants in a fractured system will obviously
affect gelation time (and ability to form gel) and gel strength as has been demonstrated by several
publications (Sydansk, 1988; Seright, 1995; Seright, 2001; Ganguly et al., 2002; Wilton and Asghari,
2007; Brattekås et al., 2015a).
In summary, core floods conducted in fractured Liege and Berea core samples showed that (a) Polymer
A gelants are effective in controlling fluid flow through a reduction of the ⬙fractured⬙ core average
permeability (not complete flow isolation) following gelation; (b) the results are difficult to be reproduced
results exactly (the reported average core permeabilities are representative of the results obtained but may
not be very accurate).

Polymer B Gelant
Experimental Procedure and Test Samples Polymer B water shutoff gelant is a two-component system
comprised of a polymer and a crosslinker; both components are in liquid form. The mixing procedure used
to prepare the gelant was as follows: water was added to a blender and turned on to a low speed sufficient
to create a vortex. Then, the polymer was added slowly while increasing the blender speed to ~1000 rpm.
Stirring continued for another 10 minutes before adding the crosslinker; the total mixture was stirred for
another one minute. Samples with various concentrations of Polymer B and crosslinker were prepared
having the following compositional ranges: Polymer B: 1-7.5 ml; crosslinker: 1-5 ml; added tap water to
100 ml (i.e., the final mixture included both polymer and crosslinker); note that 10 wt% KCl brine and
tap water were tested.
Gelation of various samples was tested in sample glasses (bulk) and in a hot oven at temperatures of
40, 60, 80 and 90°C. The amount of 5-7.5 ml polymer per 100 ml solution was an upper practical limit
due to the high viscosity of the final mixture. For example, 5 ml polymer per 100 ml solution yielded an
initial polymer viscosity of about 500 cp. The Sydansk gel characterization system was used to describe
the various formed gels (Sydansk, 1990).
SPE-180024-MS 19

The main observations from the experiments conducted using Polymer B gelant can be summarized as
follows:
● There has been no clear correlation between crosslinker concentration and gel strength. An amount
of 1 ml crosslinker per 100 ml of solution was sufficient to enable the Polymer B gelant to gel.
● Some polymer/crosslinker combinations, especially at low temperatures, resulted in an emulsion
or microgel that separated into a white ⬙gel-phase⬙ and a colorless ⬙no-gel phase⬙.
● The samples gelled gradually and it was difficult to assess precisely the gelation process as a
function of time. The relatively high initial viscosity of the gelant also contributed to this difficulty.
● Gelation times at tested temperatures of 80-90°C were within 1-2 days. The best Polymer B gelant
combination yielded gels that could be categorized as highly deformable non-flowing gels (Code
F - Sydansk, 1990). Most sample combinations resulted to moderately flowing gels (code D -
Sydansk, 1990) to barely flowing gels (code E - Sydansk, 1990), but ended up as flowing gels
(code C - Sydansk, 1990) when the sample was hand-shaken.
● At 60°C, the storage time lasted for approximately two weeks. Most sample combinations resulted
to gels corresponding to the range of highly flowing gel (code B - Sydansk, 1990) to flowing gel
(code D - Sydansk, 1990).
● At 40°C, the storage time lasted for approximately two weeks. No sample combination resulted in
a gel that was better than highly flowing gel (code B - Sydansk, 1990).
Based on the results obtained from the preliminary testing of Polymer B water shutoff gelant (a) the
formed gels were weak at high temperatures (90°C), and (b) no gel was formed at low temperature ranges,
typical/expected for the target zones in excessively water flooded zones. Therefore, Polymer B gelant is
not recommended as a potential chemical system for water shut off in NCS NFC formations.

Conclusions
Several tests, based on various type and number of experimental procedures, were conducted in order to
screen and evaluate polymer and polymer-based gelants for improving oil recovery in NFC formations.
Evaluation of the potential gelants was based on the investigation of their injectivity/filterability, gelation
time, gel strength, and gel shrinkage characteristics for the injected gelant/activator and formed gel. Based
on the results and observations from the work described in this report, the following conclusions can be
summarized.
● HPAM polymers are in general difficult to be injected directly into the pore matrix of a chalk
formation. Polymer-based gelants injected into a fractured core should cause low degree of
damage, i.e., have a low depth of invasion into the matrix rock system surrounding the treated high
conductivity path (fracture).
● Injection of high and low molecular weight HPAM polymers into fractured cores does not hinder
the oil production mechanism in chalk formations. There is, however, a reduction on the rate of
oil displacement form the rock matrix, which is delayed in polymer flooding, compared to water
injection. Ultimate oil recoveries are not strong function of polymer molecular weight, with
polymers yielding slightly elevated recovery factors compared to water injection.
● Gelation time is a function of the type of gelant (type and properties of polymer and crosslinker
used), polymer and crosslinker concentrations, and temperature.
● Formation of weak gels enables the injected water to bypass the formed gel and thus minimize any
potential field implementation. Polymer A gels appear to be robust and in general had acceptable
to high gel strength.
● Gels formed from a Polymer A gelant displayed low (or no) shrinkage over time.
20 SPE-180024-MS

● Since the core experiments with the tested polymer gelants were conducted in the absence of oil,
there was no observed impact of crosslinker diffusion into the core matrix on the formation of gel
and quality of the formed gel.
● The environmental friendly polymer (Polymer B) gelant displayed an ⬙inconsistent⬙ behavior
related to the formation of gel; when it gels, the quality of the formed gel was poor and provided
no resistance to a post-treatment water injection in fractured media.
● The non-environmentally friendly polymer (Polymer A) gelant worked consistently concerning
gelation and yielded good quality, strong gels that can withstand post-treatment applied pressures
during water injection.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge ConocoPhillips Scandinavia AS and the PL018 co-venturers, TOTAL E&P
Norge AS, ENI Norge AS, Statoil ASA and Petoro AS, for financing the work from the research center
COREC. The authors thank T.H. Habel for the images in Figures 8–9.

Nomenclature
A ⫽ Gelation time tuning parameter (hrs) or Area (m2)
c ⫽ Concentration (ppm)
Ea ⫽ Activation energy (Jmol⫺1)
k ⫽ Permeability (mD)
⫽ Average permeability (mD)
k’ ⫽ Constant (-)
M ⫽ Molarity
MW ⫽ Molecular weight (MDa)
T ⫽ Temperature (°C or K)
tg ⫽ Gelation time (hrs)
q ⫽ Flow rate (ml/min or m3/D)
R ⫽ Gas constant (8.314 JK⫺1mol⫺1)
Rg ⫽ Polymer radius of gyration (␮m)

Greek Letters
⫽ Shear rate (1/s)
␩, ␮ ⫽ Viscosity (cp)
[␩] ⫽ Intrinsic viscosity (cm3/g)

Subscripts
f ⫽ Fracture
H ⫽ High
L ⫽ Low
m ⫽ Matrix
solv ⫽ Solvent
t ⫽ Total
SPE-180024-MS 21

References
Brattekås, B., Pedersen, S. G., Nistov, H. T., Haugen, A., Graue, A., Liang, J.-T., and Seright, R.S. 2015a. Washout of
Cr(III)-Acetate-HPAM Gels from Fractures: Effect of Gel State During Placement. Paper SPE-169064-PA, SPE
Production & Operations, 30 (2), 99 –109. May. doi: 10.2118/169064-PA.
Brattekås, B., Graue, A., and Seright, R.S. 2015b. Low-Salinity Chase Waterfloods Improve Performance of Cr(III)-
Acetate Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Gel in Fractured Cores. Paper SPE-173749-PA, SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, Preprint, December. doi: 10.2118/173749-PA.
Ganguly, S., Willhite, G.P., Green, D.W., and McCool, C.S. 2002. The Effect of Fluid Leakoff on Gel Placement and Gel
Stability in Fractures. Paper SPE-79402-PA, SPE Journal, 7 (3), 309 –315, September. doi: 10.2118/79402-PA.
Hatzignatiou, D.G., Askarinezhad, R., Giske, N.H., and Stavland, A. 2016. Laboratory Testing of Environmentally
Friendly Sodium Silicate Systems for Water Management Through Conformance Control. SPE Production and
Operations, SPE-173853-PA. March. doi: 10.2118/173853-PA.
Hatzignatiou, D.G. and Giske, N.H. 2016. Water-Soluble Sodium Silicate Gelants for Water Management in Naturally
Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper SPE-180128-MS to be presented at the SPE/EAGE EUROPEC meeting,
Vienna, Austria, 30 May – 2 June.
Liu, J. and Seright, R.S. 2001. Rheology of Gels Used for Conformance Control in Fractures. Paper SPE-70810-PA, SPE
Journal, 6 (2), 120 –125. June. doi: 10.2118/70810-PA.
McCool, C.S., Li, X., and Wilhite, G.P. 2009. Flow of a Polyacrylamide/Chromium Acetate System in a Long Conduit.
Paper SPE-106059-PA, SPE Journal, 14 (1), 54 –66. March. doi: 10.2118/106059-PA.
Reddy, B.R., Crespo, F., and Eoff, L. 2012. Water Shutoff at Ultralow Temperatures Using Organically Crosslinked
Polymer Gels. Paper SPE-153155-MS presented at the SPE IOR Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 14-18 April.
doi: 10.2118/153155-MS.
Seright, R.S. 1995. Gel Placement in Fractured Systems. Paper SPE-27740-PA, SPE Production & Facilities, 10 (4),
241–248. November. doi: 10.2118/27740-PA.
Seright, R.S. 2001. Gel Propagation Through Fractures. Paper SPE-74602-PA, SPE Production & Facilities, 16 (4),
225–231. November. doi: 10.2118/74602-PA.
Stavland, A., Jonsbråten, H., and Strand, D. 2013. When will polymer viscosity be a design criterion for EOR polymer
flooding? Paper presented at the IEA-EOR 34th Annual Symposium, Stavanger, Norway, September 8-11.
Stavland, A., Jonsbråten, H.C., Vikane, O., Skrettingland, K., and Fischer, H. 2011. In-Depth Water Diversion Using
Sodium Silicate on Snorre - Factors Controlling In-Depth Placement. SPE-143836-MS presented at the SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7-10 June. doi: 10.2118/154004-MS.
Sydansk, R.D. 1988. A New Conformance-Improvement-Treatment Chromium(III) Gel Technology. Paper SPE-
17329-MS presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 16-21 April. doi:
10.2118/17329-MS.
Sydansk, R.D. 1990. A Newly Developed Chromium(lll) Gel Technology. Paper SPE-19308-PA, SPE Reservoir
Engineering, 5 (3), 346 –352, August. doi: 10.2118/19308-PA.
Sydansk, R.D., Al-Dhafeeri, A.M., Xiong, Y., and Seright, R.S. 2004. Polymer Gels Formulated with a Combination of
High and Low Molecular-Weight Polymers Provide Improved Performance for Water-Shutoff Treatments of Frac-
tured Production Wells. Paper SPE-89402-MS presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17-21 April. doi: 10.2118/89402-MS.
Wilton, R. and Asghari, K. 2007. Improving Gel Performance in Fractures: Chromium Pre-Flush and Overload. Paper
PETSOC-07-02-04, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 46 (2). February. doi: 10.2118/07-02-04.
22 SPE-180024-MS

Appendix A
Permeability Reduction in Fractured Cores
The average permeability reduction in the core is a function of both matrix permeability and fracture
reduced permeability. Following the fracture ⬙closure⬙ with a gel-forming product, the permeability in the
fracture and the effect of the gel treatment can be calculated from the reduction of the average core
permeability based on the following assumptions: (a) the fracture in the core is blocked by the formed gel
and all injected post-treatment fluids flow through the core matrix and reduced-permeability fracture, if
the fracture isolation is partial, and (b) the matrix permeability is not affected by either the injected gelant
solution or formed gel. For linear flow conditions, the post-treatment average core permeability and ratio
of fracture-to-total fluid rates can be obtained from the relations:
(A-1)

(A-2)

where km is the matrix permeability, kf the fracture permeability prior to gel placement, the average
permeability after gelation, Am the matrix flow area, and Af the fracture flow area. Figure A-1 illustrates
the kf/km versus km/kt relationship for a 5 mm diameter fracture in fractured chalk core. For a ⬙fracture⬙
diameter of 2 mm, the fracture permeability may be approximated by kf ⫽ ␾r2/8 which with ␾ ⫽ 1 gives
kf ⫽ 127 x 103 D ⬎⬎ 10D. If the matrix permeability is km ⫽ 1.5 mD, the pre-treatment average core
permeability is kt ⫽ 349 D and 99.6% of the injected fluids into the core pass through the core fracture.
If a matrix non-damaging gelant following gelation yields a post-treatment average fractured core
permeability of kt ⫽ 5 mD, which corresponds to a fracture permeability of kf ⫽ 1.27 D, then 30% of the
injected fluid will be diverted into the core matrix.

Figure A-1—Effect of gel treatment on a fractured core – matrix/average vs. fracture/matrix permeability.
SPE-180024-MS 23

Appendix B
Calculation of Polymer Molecular Weight and Gyration Radius
Several equations have been reported in the literature to calculate the molecular weight (MW) and
gyration radius of a polymer. For a given solvent (water) and a ⬙series⬙ of polymers with similar properties
but different molecular weights, MW, the following equation can be used to relate the intrinsic polymer
viscosity with the MW: [␩]⫽␤*MW␣; therefore, MW⫽([␩]/␤)1/␣. Using the HPAM F polymer as starting
point, the constant ␣⫽0.6 and ␤ was calculated to be equal to 0.083 cm3/(g. Da). The intrinsic viscosity
[␩] was calculated from polymer concentration and viscosity values. The viscosity from the ⬙user solution⬙
was used for this. The intrinsic viscosity is supposed to be independent of concentration, but there may
be some deviations for high polymer viscosities due to intermolecular forces. Based on this, Table B-1 was
prepared. The gyration radius can also be calculated using the Rg⫽A*MW␻. The constant A and ␻ values
used in this work were 2.94⫻10⫺5 ␮m/Da and 0.586, respectively. The calculated and supplier-provided
values for the gyration radius for the six polymers in Table B-1 are shown in Figure B-1.

Table B-1—Intrinsic viscosity, calculated molecular weight and molecular weight provided by the supplier.
Calculated MW Supplier Provided MW
Polymer [␩] (cm3/g) (MDa) (MDa)

HPAM A 195 0.4 0.5*

HPAM B 983 6.2 5
HPAAM C 1330 10.2 10
HPAM D 1750 16.1 14
HPAM E 1820 17.2 16
HPAM F 1987 20.0 20

*The molecular weight of HPAM A is from Sydansk et al. (2004).

Figure B-1—Gyration radius calculated from measured viscosity (blue) and given MW (red).