PAPER 2009-008

Coupling Immiscible CO2 Technology and

Polymer Injection to Maximize EOR
Performance for Heavy Oils
Y. ZHANG*, S. HUANG, P. LUO
Saskatchewan Research Council
* Now with Energy Resources Conservation Board of Alberta

This  paper  is  accepted  for  the  Proceedings  of  the  Canadian  International  Petroleum  Conference  (CIPC)  2009,  Calgary, 
Alberta, Canada, 16‐18 June 2009. This paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication 
rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction. 

Abstract comparison demonstrates two of the biggest advantages of

With about 90% of Saskatchewan’s original heavy oil in
place remaining in the ground, there is excellent potential for
the application of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods and
new technologies. The goal of the study discussed in this paper
was to investigate if a new proposed process – coupling CO2
and polymer injection – can increase EOR performance for
heavy oil reservoirs. The oil recovery performance of three
EOR modes [water-alternating-gas (CO2 WAG) injection,
polymer-alone flood, and coupled CO2 and polymer injection]
was compared in laboratory-scale linear coreflood tests in
waterflooded cores. The immiscible CO2 WAG process
recovered 15.3% original oil in place (OOIP) with 6.16
MSCF/stb gas utilization. Under a controlled maximum
pressure drop across the core, the polymer-alone (0.4 wt%)
flood produced an additional 12.93% OOIP above the initial
waterflood recovery. However, the coupled CO2 and polymer
injection process – using a polymer concentration of only 0.2
wt% – gave better recovery efficiency – 18.7% OOIP – than the
polymer-alone flood. Moreover, it had much better gas
utilization than the CO2 WAG run, consuming only 2.0
MSCF/stb, or one-third of the amount of CO2 used in that run –
to recover the same amount of oil. This performance
coupled CO2 and polymer injection: it can effectively reduce the
pressure drop across the core and obtain very encouraging
recovery if the optimal polymer concentration is added to the
water.
Introduction
The production of heavy oil accounts for more than 50% of
Saskatchewan's total crude oil production.[1] However, currently
only about 10% of the province’s estimated 3.1 billion cubic
meters (19.5 billion barrels) of heavy oil originally in place is
recoverable based on current and expected conditions. With
about 90% of the original heavy oil in place remaining in the
ground, there is excellent potential for the application of
enhanced oil recovery methods and new technologies. The
benefits are readily apparent: if the EOR technologies can be
developed to recover another 10% to 15% of the in-place
resources, an additional 310×106 m3 to 465×106 m3 would be
added to Saskatchewan’s oil reserves.
Most of Saskatchewan’s heavy oil deposits are described as
lying in the “heavy oil belt,” which extends from the Alberta
border well into Saskatchewan (100–120 km). However, these

1
heavy oil belts are deposited in a series of thinner blanket and
channel sands at shallow depths and typically low reservoir
pressures. They are not suitable for thermal recovery processes
or for miscible gas injection, since miscibility between the oil
and injected solvent gases, such as CO2, cannot be achieved
under reservoir conditions; In addition, heavy oil production is
constrained by very high oil viscosity, unconsolidated sand, and
bottomwater, which all present special technical challenges.
Recently, immiscible CO2 flooding has generated interest as
a method of enhanced heavy oil recovery. However, the very
unfavourable viscosity ratio of CO2 to heavy oils leads to a
combination of gravity override and CO2 fingering through
more permeable zones, leading to early gas breakthrough and,
ultimately, less oil being recovered. Therefore continuous
immiscible CO2 injection is more problematic in heavy oils than
in light oils. It should be noted that, although success stories
about immiscible gas injection have been reported in the
literature,[2–8] the advantages of these methods have to be
evaluated in each particular case. There remain many questions
that need to be answered in order to optimize field
implementation in the heavy oil reservoirs.
The low recovery efficiency of immiscible CO2 injection
may be addressed with either alternating injection or co-
injection of water and gas, which helps control breakthrough
despite a few inherent challenges. The theory behind this
process is as follows: when slugs of water and gas are
successively injected into the formation, part of the injected gas
dissolves in the heavy oil and reduces the oil viscosity; thus, the
mobility ratio of the system (gas + water/oil) is reduced and the
displacement efficiency is improved (Latil 1980).[9] Although
PVT experiments showed that CO2 dissolution in the oil
resulted in a greater viscosity reduction with heavy oils than
light oils at prevailing reservoir conditions, immiscible CO2
WAG injections in laboratory-scale linear floods could recover
only about 5% to 15% incremental heavy oil of the original-oil-
in-place from waterflooded sandpacks.[10–12]
Another method that aims at improving areal sweep
efficiency for those formations with high-permeability thief
zones is polymer flooding. The polymer increases the viscosity
and lowers the permeability (via adsorption) of the aqueous
phase. However, the principal disadvantage of polymers is
degradation, either chemical, bacterial, or shear.[13] Polymer
flooding has mostly been applied, usually successfully, to light
and medium oil reservoirs where the oil viscosity ranges from 7
to 46 mPa⋅s.[14] The viscosity of heavy crude oils in
Saskatchewan ranges from 2,000 to more than 10,000 mPa⋅s at
standard conditions. Reducing the unfavourably high mobility
ratio of an injected solution to a value of about one requires a
large amount of polymer to be added to the water for these very
viscous oils. Therefore, application of polymer-alone injection
in very viscous oils might be limited due to the high cost.
To overcome viscous fingering and poor sweep efficiency
in immiscible CO2 flooding, and to reduce polymer
concentrations and polymer solution volumes, a new EOR
process is being developed. It takes full advantage of CO2
solubility into the oil and then capitalizes on polymer mobility
improvement; these two technologies are combined into a
polymer/gas-alternating-water (PGAW) process. This new
process focuses on alternative ways to improve CO2 sweep
efficiency using a polymer solution to create favourable
synergistic effects for increasing displacement efficiency,
particularly in shallow reservoirs. The specific objectives of this
study were: (1) to select polymers and to determine viscosities
2
of polymer solutions; (2) to determine phase behaviour
properties of the reservoir fluid and CO2-saturated reservoir
fluid; and (3) to demonstrate the application of the CO2–
polymer process that avoids gas fingering and provides mobility
control to achieve successful recovery.
Materials and Experimental Procedure
Oil and Brine Samples
Crude oil and produced water were collected from a
Saskatchewan heavy oil reservoir with potential for the
application of the coupled CO2 and polymer process. The stock
tank oil (STO) properties were measured and are presented in
Table 1. The API gravity of the crude oil is 18.3°. The
estimated reservoir pressure and temperature are 5 MPa and
24°C, respectively. The viscosity and density of the STO at the
reservoir temperature were 353 mPa⋅s and 937.6 kg/m3,
respectively. The formation brine was represented by produced
water collected from the field. It was filtered through a 2.5-µm
pore size filter, and analyzed for density and viscosity at three
temperatures (15, 20, and 24°C), as well as mineral content
(Table 2).
Polymers
On the basis of the properties of the collected oil/brine
samples, three polymers provided by SNF Floerger were
evaluated for their rheological behaviour and compatibility with
the brine. These polymers in the Flopaam series S (solid) have
molecular weights from about 8 million Da to 20 million Da,
with hydrolysis levels of 25% to 30%. The filter ratios of these
polymers are all about 1.2, denoting good injectivity and
minimal insolubility.
The viscosities of the polymer solutions were measured
using a Brookfield DV-I+ cone/plate viscometer, at a rotation
speed range of 0.3 to 60 RPM and temperature of 24°C
controlled by a water bath.
Reconstitution of Reservoir Fluid
The cleaned crude oil and pure methane (CH4) were
physically recombined in the laboratory using the circulating
mixing system to result in a reservoir fluid (live oil). Its
saturation pressure was 3.53 MPa at 24°C, which was close to
the current reservoir pressure of 3.45 MPa. When the pressure
of the mixing system reached equilibrium, a sample of the
recombined fluid was flashed to atmospheric pressure and its
gas/oil ratio and formation volume factor (FVF) were measured.
Once the sample was satisfactorily recombined, its viscosity
was measured in a capillary viscometer and its density in a
vibrating tube densitometer, both as functions of pressure
(above the saturation pressure), which made it possible to
determine the values at saturation pressure by a short
extrapolation. The major physical properties, including
viscosity and density at the saturation pressure, gas/oil ratio, and
formation volume factor, are presented in Table 3.
Phase Behaviour Measurements of CO2-Saturated
Reservoir Fluid
The solubility of CO2 in the oil depends on reservoir
conditions and on oil properties. The CO2–reservoir fluid
equilibrium liquid properties for a specific oil at the reservoir
conditions are very important for the optimization of an
immiscible CO2 process. The experimental apparatus consists of
a rocking system with dual cells, one of which is connected to a
variable stroke recirculation pump. Fluids are drawn under
pressure from the top of one cell through a tube and injected
into the top of the other cell. The rocking, along with the
circulation of the fluids between the two cells, can facilitate
faster equilibrium during the bubblepoint measurements.
Viscosities are measured by flowing the fluids at a constant rate
through a capillary viscometer. Fluid densities are measured in
a high-pressure Anton Paar densitometer (DMA 512 P) at
reservoir temperature.
The recombined reservoir fluid was saturated with CO2 at
24°C in several steps of increasing pressure. The procedure
used is outlined below:
• A sample of recombined oil was charged into the rocking
dual-cell system. Care was taken that the sample was large
enough to accommodate the required number of
measurements.
• An increment of CO2 gas was charged into the cell to bring
the saturation pressure up to the next level. The amount of
charge was calculated to be a certain percentage of the oil.
In this case the bubblepoint pressure of the reservoir fluid
was about 3.53 MPa, which was the starting point of the
process.
• After a CO2 addition, the pressure in the cell was raised
well above the estimated saturation pressure, and the cell’s
contents were mixed until a single phase was obtained. The
oil and gas were mixed for approximately two weeks to
ensure total solubility of the fluid system. The saturation
pressure of the oil/gas mixture was measured by
isothermally expanding the cell and recording the break in
the pressure versus volume plot. A sample of the resultant
phase was flashed to obtain its composition, gas/oil ratio
(GOR), and swelling factor. Furthermore, the viscosities of
the oil/gas mixtures were measured as a function of
pressure in a capillary viscometer, and the densities were
measured in a vibrating tube densitometer—also as a
function of pressure.
• Three more increments of gas were introduced into the
cell, and the fluid properties were measured after each
addition.
Core Materials
To simulate unconsolidated reservoir cores for coreflood
tests, produced sands from the field were washed with water to
remove salts, fines, and clays, then dried at 250°C, and air-dried
again. Finally the cleaned sands were mixed with equal amounts
of Ottawa silica sands consisting of an 80/20 ratio of 80/120
mesh, and then packed.
Core Preparation and Flood Procedures
Corefloods were carried out in sandpacks, measuring
around 30 cm in length and 5.1 cm in diameter, to compare
residual oil displacements by CO2 WAG, and polymer-alone to
those by the coupled polymer and gas injection process (also
known as PGAW—polymer/gas-alternating water), The
sandpacks were wet-packed in a lead sleeve with the cleaned
mixed sands using a pneumatic vibrator, in five segments of
approximately 200 grams of sand each. Each addition was
vibrated for about 15 minutes. For each test, fresh sands were
packed to ensure the same wettability for all the tests.
When the injection, production and differential pressure
transducer tubing connections were made up, tests proceeded
with this procedure: The sandpack core was evacuated, and then
saturated with brine to determine the pore volume (PV). Then,
the core pressure was increased to the operating pressure of 5
MPa, as a net overburden pressure of 7 MPa was applied to the
lead sleeve and was maintained during the pressurizing stage.
Brine was injected into the core at the reservoir temperature of
24°C for one week to establish the wettability of the core. Then,
3
to establish the absolute permeability of the core, brine was
injected into the sandpack at a constant rate and the pressure
drop across the sandpack measured. Darcy’s law was used to
calculate the permeability to brine. Reconstituted oil was
injected to displace brine down to initial (connate) water
saturation. The endpoint permeability of the core to the oil in
the presence of formation brine was estimated. The core was
then aged for a period of three days to establish the wettability.
An initial waterflood (IWF) was carried out after the initial
oil saturation was established and the ageing process completed.
The IWF was terminated when oil production became
negligible. A constant injection rate (15 or 20 cm3/h) was used
for waterfloods. Thereafter, the core was flooded using the
various EOR scenarios, including immiscible CO2 WAG
injection, polymer-alone injection, and the PGAW process, until
the designated number of pore volumes was reached. The
differential pressure and fluid recovery data were recorded. The
test concluded with an extended waterflood (EWF) and a single-
stage blowdown after the enhanced recovery process. The
ultimate oil recovery was subsequently calculated from the oil
material balance.
Results and Discussion
Rheological Measurements of Polymer Solutions
Fig. 1 presents viscosity curves for solutions containing the
three selected Flopaam polymers dissolved in the brine at
different concentrations. All polymers exhibited pseudo-plastic
behaviour; their viscosity decreased with increasing rotation
speed. In a comparison of the apparent viscosity values of
different concentrations, as shown in Fig. 1, Flopaam 3630S
provided the highest viscosity per amount of polymer in
solution. It was suggested that Flopaam 3630S (hereafter
referred to as 3630S) be used in the corefloods.
Screen Factor of Polymer Solutions (3630S)
The main objective of polymer injection during
waterflooding of an oil reservoir is to decrease the mobility of
the injected water by increasing its viscosity and decreasing the
rock’s permeability to the polymer-laden water. A polymer’s
transportation in porous media is also affected by many other
factors, such as screen factor and filter ratio.
The concentrations of 3630S in the brine for the screen
factor tests were selected to be 4,000 ppm and 2,000 ppm. Table
4 lists the calculated screen factors of the two polymer solutions
based on the measurements. To determine the polymer
degradation, the solution with 2,000 ppm of 3630S was run
through the screens at three different times: after the first test
(referred as 0 time), the solution was left to stand for 4 hours for
the second test, and a repeat was done at 24 hours. The results
indicate that polymer degradation did not occur, because the
screen factors were almost the same values at the different test
times.
CO2–Reservoir Fluid Equilibrium Liquid Properties
The CO2–reservoir fluid equilibrium liquid properties are
presented in Table 3. The saturation pressures of all the CO2–
reservoir fluid mixtures were determined by the break in the
pressure-volume curves in combination with the traditional Y-
function correlation for the pressure-volume data in the two-
phase region below the bubblepoint, along with simulations. As
well, the viscosities and densities of all the mixtures were
measured at several pressures above their bubblepoint
pressures.

Gas/Oil Ratio and CO2 Solubility
The physical characteristics of a CO2–oil mixture depend
mainly on how much CO2 could be dissolved in the oil.
Solubility of CO2 is a strong function of pressure: the more CO2
is dissolved, the higher is the saturation pressure.
The dissolution of CO2 into the reservoir fluid and the total
solution gas/oil ratio were studied at pressures up to 7.6 MPa,
which is close to the initial reservoir pressure. The total solution
gas/oil ratios, which are a combination of all the gaseous
components in the system—those originally in the recombined
oil plus the added CO2—are presented in Table 3. For mixtures
of the reservoir oil saturated with CO2, the amount of dissolved
CO2 increased sharply with increasing saturation pressure
during the process of CO2 addition. As the solution gas/oil ratio
reached 76.07 sm3/m3, the mixture’s saturation pressure
increased to 7.6 MPa.
The calculated CO2 solubilities for the equilibrium liquid
phase are listed in Table 3. As expected, the mole fraction of
CO2 increased steadily as the saturation pressure increased, and
reached 44.09 mol% (GOR = 76.07 sm3/m3). The results
suggest that under the experimental conditions (4.5–7.6 MPa) of
the study, CO2 dissolved readily in the selected oil, and that
immiscible CO2 flooding could be a suitable enhanced oil
recovery method for the studied reservoir.
Viscosity Reduction and Oil Swelling
Two major mechanisms in the displacement of heavy oil by
CO2 are viscosity reduction and oil swelling, which are
significant at the studied pressure range.
The viscosities of the reservoir fluid saturated with CO2 are
plotted in Fig. 2. With each of four additions of CO2 in the oil,
the viscosity of the CO2-saturated oil decreased substantially as
the oil absorbed more CO2 with increasing saturation pressure.
The viscosity of the CO2-saturated oil at 24°C ranged from
174.8 mPa⋅s (live oil) down to 25.2 mPa⋅s for 44.09 mol% of
CO2 dissolved in the oil.
In general, the magnitude of swelling for heavy oils is not as
drastic as for light oils, which can often be swelled by more
than 50% their original volume. The experimental results
indicate that approximately 2% to 11.7% expansion of the
reservoir fluid can be expected at pressures between 4.5 MPa
and 7.6 MPa and the reservoir temperature of 24°C in a CO2
injection project.
Density Behaviour of CO2–Oil Mixtures
Fig. 3 shows that the densities (plotted with solid lines) of
the CO2-undersaturated oil phase increased linearly with
pressure in the range considered and are slightly greater than
that of the live oil at the same pressure. The lowest pressure
point of each CO2 addition represents the density at saturation
conditions and shows the density increase with increasing
saturation pressure (plotted using a dotted line). It is interesting
to note that the pressure-density curves of all the different CO2-
undersaturated oil phases are almost parallel. Since the slope of
the pressure-density plot determines the fluid compressibility, it
may be concluded that, in the range studied, composition has
little effect on the fluid compressibility.
Coreflood Results
Initial waterfloods were performed in linear sandpack cores
aged in the reconstituted oil and brine, at a backpressure of 5
4
MPa and a temperature of 24°C. Different injection scenarios
were then carried out to compare the incremental oil recovery
over waterflooding by CO2 WAG, by polymer-alone injection,
and by the PGAW process.
Table 5 summarizes the experimental conditions and oil
recoveries for all three runs. The packed cores had similar initial
oil saturations of about 87% PV. The permeabilities to brine of
these cores varied from 1.24 μm2 to 3.35 μm2. These physical
properties indicate that all the runs had approximately the same
characteristics of the studied reservoir and were very similar to
each other, providing a strong basis for comparing the
subsequent gas injection results. The initial waterflood was
terminated when oil production nearly ceased. The oil
recoveries by initial waterflood were approximately 50% OOIP
(see Table 5).
Enhanced Oil Recovery Stage of Run 1 (CO2 WAG at 1:1
Ratio)
The EOR stage in Run 1 used a CO2 WAG process,
consisting of 0.5 PV of CO2 slugs alternated with 0.5 PV of
water injected into the waterflooded core. Fig. 4 presents the
cumulative oil recovery as a function of the cumulative PV
injected over four cycles for Run 1. The results showed that
immiscible CO2 WAG injection is potentially a good choice to
recover incremental oil from the reservoir due to good CO2
solubility. The total tertiary oil recovery from four WAG cycles
and a final extended waterflood was 15.3% OOIP.
Enhanced Oil Recovery Stage of Run 2 (Polymer-Alone
Flood)
The concentration of the polymer (3630S) was selected to be
0.4 wt% on the basis of the oil recovery efficiency obtained by a
previous series of corefloods at different polymer
concentrations.[12] Addition of 0.4 wt% of 3630S to the brine
raised the viscosity of the solution to 29 mPa⋅s (20 RPM and
24°C).
Darcy's law is a simple proportional relationship between the
instantaneous discharge rate through a porous medium, the
viscosity of the fluid, and the pressure drop across a distance.
Therefore, the maximum differential pressure ( P) across the
core in Run 2 was determined simply by Darcy’s law. In Run 1,
the viscosity of the displacing water was about 1 mPa⋅s, causing
differential pressure of 7 kPa. To keep this same discharge rate
in Run 2, the maximum ΔP was calculated to be approximately
200 kPa by multiplying 29 (viscosity of the polymer solution)
by 7. If the differential pressure rose above 200 kPa during
polymer injection, the injection rate would be decreased. At this
pre-set maximum pressure drop, the incremental recovery
obtained by the polymer injection is considered to be the
contribution of the mobility improvement by the polymer.
As shown in Fig. 5, the oil production profile for 0.8 PV of
polymer injection indicated that an oil bank formed at about 0.5
PV of polymer injection. The experimental data indicate that 0.8
PV of polymer solution recovered 9.96% OOIP, and the
following EWF obtained 2.97% OOIP. The total EOR recovery
was 12.93% OOIP.
Differential Pressure Recordings across Core
The differential pressures during the polymer flood are
plotted on an expanded scale in Fig. 6. After injection of about
0.5 PV of polymer solution, the ΔP was over 200 kPa (an oil
bank formed). The injection rate was then reduced from 20
cm3/h to 15 cm3/h, and a reduction in P was observed.
However, the P was found to begin increasing again.
Therefore, the injection rates were reduced several times to
maintain the differential pressures at less than the given
maximum value, which shows that the injection rate, plotted in
the solid line, was finally reduced to 5 cm3/h. The rate was
gradually raised to 20 cm3/h during the EWF stage. However,
the differential pressure during the latter part of the EWF was
about 160 kPa—it did not return to the 6 kPa of the IWF, which
is evidence that some “plugging” occurred in the core. The high
differential pressures observed in this run suggested that 0.4
wt% concentration of 3630S could be too high, which might
lead to an injectivity problem if actually applied in the field.
Enhanced Oil Recovery Stage of Run 3 (PGAW Process, P =
0.2 wt%)
To allow a comparison of the oil recovery efficiency
between the CO2 WAG and coupled CO2–polymer processes,
the EOR stage of Run 3 consisted of a polymer/CO2-alternating-
water (PGAW) process. To avoid the quite high pressure drops
across of the core that occurred during polymer injection in Run
2, the concentration of polymer in the solution was cut in half,
down to 0.2 wt%, in the EOR stage in Run 3. This
concentration raised the viscosity of the solution to 11 mPa⋅s
(20 RPM and 24°C). The PGAW process consisted of four
cycles of the following sequence: an initial 0.2 PV slug of
polymer, followed by a 0.2 PV slug of CO2, and then chased by
0.8 PV of water. A final extended waterflood completed the
flood. All the fluids were injected at the rate of 20 cm3/h.
Fig. 7 presents the cumulative oil recovery as a function of
the cumulative volume injected over four cycles for Run 3. The
incremental oil recovery from each successive PGAW cycle
was 8.465% OOIP, 5.65% OOIP, 2.24% OOIP, and 1.9%
OOIP. The total tertiary oil recovery including four PGAW
cycles and a final extended waterflood was 18.7% OOIP. The
EOR performance obtained in Run 3 was the best among the
three runs.
Differential Pressure Recordings across Core
The differential pressure recordings across the core of Run 3
were quite normal (Fig. 8), averaging about 2 kPa during the
latter part of the IWF. During the PGAW process, the pressure
drops rose to 6 kPa during polymer injection, but fell back to 3
kPa during the water injection. As shown in Fig. 8, the
differential pressures in the EWF stage were much the same as
in the IWF injection. The oil recovery performances and
pressure drop behaviour observed in Run 3 suggest that optimal
selection of polymer concentration is very important for an
enhanced heavy oil recovery process.
Comparison of Enhanced Oil Recovery Efficiency for
Different EOR Processes
An important parameter for the success of the gas injection is
the amount of gas used to produce oil. Here, an average gas
utilization factor is defined as the total volume of injected gas
(corrected to standard conditions) divided by the additional oil
recoveries from EOR and extended waterflood. The enhanced
oil recoveries and gas utilization factors in sandpack coreflood
tests by different EOR processes are compared in Fig. 9.
Although Run 1 had good recovery of 15.34% OOIP, it
consumed more gas than Run 3 (6.16 Mscf/STB) because more
gas was injected in the each cycle (0.5 PV of CO2).
The polymer-alone flood (Run 2) indicated that a 0.4 wt%
concentration was too high and produced a high pressure drop if
we tried to keep the same injection rate as during the IWF.
However, the run recovered 12.93% OOIP while the maximum
differential pressure was controlled to not exceed 200 kPa.
5
Because this pressure was controlled, it can reasonably be said
that the enhanced oil production was attributable to the mobility
changes. Therefore, the result of this run suggests that mobility
improvement is quite beneficial for reducing residual oil
saturation.
In Run 3, to investigate the effect of polymer concentration
on oil recovery, the polymer concentration was reduced to 0.2
wt%. In this run, a coupled CO2 and polymer EOR process
recovered 18.7% OOIP with 2.0 MSCF/stb gas utilization,
comparing favourably with the CO2 WAG that obtained 15.3%
OOIP recovery but with 6.2 MSCF/stb gas utilization. That
means three times less CO2 gas was used in Run 3 to recover
more oil than in Run 1.
The higher gas utilization and lower EOR recovery in Run 1
suggest that only a small portion of the reservoir is contacted by
injected CO2 gas. Therefore, poor sweep efficiency increases
the volume of gas required to recover one barrel of oil. The
results obtained in Run 3 indicated that sweep efficiency can be
greatly improved by alternating polymer slug injection with
CO2 injection.
Conclusion
The experimental results from this study on a new EOR
process—coupled CO2 and polymer injection (also known as
PGAW, or polymer/gas-alternating-water)—are very
encouraging. The laboratory-scale linear coreflooding results
showed that the oil recovery efficiency by coupled CO2 and
polymer flooding was better than that by CO2 WAG or by a
polymer-alone flood. The coupled CO2 and polymer process
recovered 18.7% OOIP with 2.0 MSCF/stb gas utilization. That
is only one-third of the amount of CO2 consumed in the CO2
WAG run to recover the same amount of oil.
Other conclusions drawn with respect to PVT
measurements and coreflooding results are as follows:
• CO2 dissolved readily in the selected heavy oil at the
pressures of interest between 4.5 MPa and 7.6 MPa at
24°C, resulting in 2% to 11.7% expansion of the reservoir
fluid during CO2 injection.
• The viscosity of CO2-saturated oil was reduced from 174.8
mPa·s (live oil) down to 25.2 mPa·s for 44.09 mol% of
CO2 dissolution at the saturation pressure of 7.6 MPa.
• The rheological behaviour of Flopaam 3630S was found to
be compatible and stable with the brine and to provide a
mobility buffer with good viscosity.
• Screen factor measurements, which involved flowing the
solutions through a series of screens at different times,
showed that significant polymer degradation did not occur.
• Immiscible CO2 flooding is still a potentially feasible
process for enhanced heavy oil recovery for the studied
field, but its economics may not be as favourable as with
the new PGAW process. The tertiary oil recovery by
immiscible CO2 WAG injection (Run 1) was 15.3% OOIP
with 6.16 MSCF/stb gas utilization.
• The superior performance of PGAW injection over WAG
injection suggests that an important mechanism for the
success of an EOR process is improving sweep efficiency
by having more favourable mobility control.
• Selection of polymer concentration is very important to
achieving successful recovery in the application of the
PGAW process.
• Further research should focus on dealing with major
technical challenges, such as alleviation of gas fingering
 and better mobility control to achieve successful recovery
in the application of this EOR process.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the
Petroleum Technology Research Centre and the participating oil
companies, which include BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.,
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., Canetic Resources Inc.,
ConocoPhillips Inc., Devon Canada Corporation, Husky Energy
Inc., Nexen Inc., Shell Canada Ltd. and Total E&P Canada Ltd.
The authors also wish to express their sincere thanks to B.
Schnell, K. Rispler and R. Shi for carrying out the experimental
measurements, and to B. Tacik for editorial support. Finally, we
appreciate the permission granted by the Saskatchewan
Research Council to publish this paper.
Saskatchewan Research Council, Energy Division P-
110-730-C-06.
12. ZHANG, Y.P. AND HUANG, S., Coupling Gas and
Polymer Injection to Improve Heavy Oil Recovery;
Technical Report (March), Saskatchewan Research
Council, Energy Division, SRC Publication No. 12273-
1C08.
13. HERBECK, E.F., HEINTZ, R.C. AND HASTINGS,
J.R., Fundamentals of Tertiary Oil Recovery; Energy
Publications, 1981.
14. EOR Survey; Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 100.15 (15 April
2002).

REFERENCES
1. Government of Saskatchewan; http://www.sasktrade.
sk.ca/pdf/Current%20News/2007_sask_oil&gas_
overview. pps# 331, 28, SMMARY, Downloaded 20
August 20, 2008.
2. REID, T.B. and ROBINSON, H.J., Lick Creek Meakin
Sand Unit Immiscible CO2-Waterflood Project;
SPE/DOE 9795 presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Second
Joint Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 5–8 April.
3. KANTAR, K., KARAOQUZ, D., ISSEVER, K., AND
VRANA, L., Heavy Oil Recovery by CO2 Application
from Bati Raman Field, Turkey; SPE 11475 presented
at the 1983 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference,
Bahrain, 14–17 March.
4. KERR, W.E., Retlaw Upper Mannville ‘V’ Pool Unit
Experimental Carbon Dioxide Flood; J. Cdn. Pet. Tech.
(January-February) 64–65.
5. SPIVAK, A., GARRISON, W.H., AND NGUYEN, J.P.,
Review of Immiscible CO2 Project, Tar Zone, Fault
Block V, Wilmington Field, California; SPERE, 155.
6. FONG, W.S., TANG, R.W., EMANUEL, A.S., AND
SABAT, P.J., EOR for California Diatomites: CO2, Flue
Gas and Water Corefloods and Computer Simulations;
SPE 24039 presented at the 1992 SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 30 March–1 April.
7. ISSEVER, K., PAMIR, A.N., AND TIREK, A.,
Performance of a Heavy-Oil Field under CO2 Injection,
Bati Raman, Turkey; SPERE (November) 256.
8. MA, T.D. AND YOUNGREN, G.K., Performance of
Immiscible Water-Alternating-Gas (IWAG) Injection at
Kuparuk River Unit, North Slope, Alaska; SPE 28602
presented at the 1994 SPE 69th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
25–28 September.
9. LATIL, M., Enhanced Oil Recovery; 79. Gulf
Publishing Company, 1980.
10. ZHANG, Y.P., SAYEGH, S., HUTCHENCE, K. AND
HUANG, S., Immiscible CO2/Enriched Flue Gas
Injection for Heavy Oil Recovery (Phase II); Technical
Report (March), Saskatchewan Research Council,
Energy Division P-110-692-C-05.
11. ZHANG, Y.P., SAYEGH, S. AND HUANG S.,
Improved Heavy Oil Recovery by CO2 Injection
Augmented with Chemicals; Technical Report (March),

6
 TABLE 1– Stock tank oil properties of sampled oil 
Properties Value
Temperature (°C) 15 20 24*
943.6
Density at 0.1 MPa (kg/m3) 940.3 937.6
(18.3°API)
Viscosity at 0.1 MPa (mPa·s) 707 473 353
Asphaltenes (wt%) 12.6
Acid number (mg-KOH/g) 0.86
Molecular mass (g/mol) 327 (by freezing point depression)
* Estimated reservoir temperature

TABLE 2 – Properties of produced water

Property Value Major components ((mg/L)) Value
Density (kg/m3) at 15°C 1056.6 Chloride (Cl-) 50100
at 20°C 1055.1 Sulfate (SO42-) 8.0
at 24°C 1053.8 Sodium (Na+) 27200
Viscosity (mPa⋅s) at 15°C 1.29 Potassium (K+) 860
at 20°C 1.15 Magnesium (Mg2+) 976
at 24°C 1.05 Calcium (Ca2+) 1470
Refractive index at 25°C 1.347 Iron (Fe2+) 0.007
Conductivity (μS/cm) at 25°C 103000 Barium (Ba2+) 29.2
pH at 20°C 7.18 Manganese (Mn2+) 0.4
Total dissolved solids (mg/L) at 180°C 85400

TABLE 3 – Equilibrium liquid properties of reservoir oil, CO2-saturated reservoir oil at 24°C
Mixture Mixture
Saturation Total CO2
Density FVF SF* Viscosity
Fluid Pressure GOR Solubility
at Psat (m3/m3) (m3/m3) at Psat
(MPa) (sm3/m3) (mol%)
(kg/m3) (mPa⋅s)
Reservoir Fluid 3.53 12.1 - 938.22 1.015 1.000 174.8
4.46 22.11 12.25 939.15 1.0361 1.0208 130.5
5.80 39.06 25.85 941.03 1.0656 1.0499 62.0
Reservoir Fluid–
CO2 Mixtures 6.70 57.44 35.83 942.52 1.0992 1.0830 47.6
7.60 76.07 44.09 943.96 1.1344 1.1176 25.2
Cleaned Dead Oil 0.10 - - 937.6 1.000 - 353
*SF – Ratio of the volume of the reservoir fluid plus injected gas at reservoir temperature and mixture saturation
pressure to the volume of the live oil itself at reservoir temperature and saturation pressure.

TABLE 4 – Screen factor measured at room conditions

2,000 ppm 3630S 4,000 ppm 3630S
Time Screen Time Screen
(hours) Factor (hours) Factor
0* 51.6 0 53.4
4 52.2 -
24 51.9 -
*Screen factor at time 0 is the first measurement

7
 TABLE 5 – Comparison of recovery efficiency of different EOR processes
Run Number Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
Core Properties
Core Sandpack Sandpack Sandpack
Total Length of Core, cm 30 30 30
Diameter of Core, cm 5 5 5
Core Pore Volume, cm3 196.4 193.3 206
Coreflood Parameters
Brine Permeability, µm2 1.24 2.35 3.35
Oil Permeability at Siw*1, µm2 1.05 2.15 2.71
Initial Oil Saturation, % PV 87.62 86.21 88.35
Injection Fluid Properties
Brine Viscosity at 24°C, mPa⋅s 1.054 1.054 1.054
Oil Viscosity at 5 MPa & 24°C, mPa⋅s 203.4 203.4 203.4
Injection Rate of IWF, cm3/hr 15 20 20
EOR Injection Sequence CO2 WAG P Flood*2 PGAW*3
Polymer (3036S) Concentration, wt% - 0.4 0.2
Viscosity of Polymer Solution, mPa⋅s - 29 10.5
Fluid Injection
Initial Waterflood, PV 2.25 4.71 4.45
P = 0.2 PV
CO2 = 0.5 PV
EOR Injection, PV P = 0.8 PV CO2 = 0.2 PV
W = 0.5 PV
W*4 = 0.8 PV
Extended Waterflood, PV 3.01 2.85 2.20
Recovery Data
IWF Recovery, %OOIP 50.01 53.58 53.19
EOR Recovery*5, %OOIP 15.30 12.93 18.70
Total Recovery, %OOIP 65.31 66.51 71.89
Gas Utilization, MSCF/stb 6.16 - 2.00
         *1 – Siw = Connate water saturation.
*2 – P Flood = Polymer-alone flood.
*3 – PGAW = Polymer/Gas (CO2)-Alternating-Water Process.
*4 – W = Water
*5 – EOR Recovery includes four WAG or PGAW cycles and EWF recoveries.

8
 1000 0.5 wt% 3630S 0.5 wt% 3530S 0.5 wt% 3430S 0.25 wt% 3630S
0.25 wt% 3530S 0.25 wt% 3430S 0.4 wt% 3630S 0.2 wt% 3630S

100
Viscosity (mPa⋅s)

10

1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Rotation Speed (RPM)

FIGURE 1: Viscosity of Flopaam polymers in brine at 24°C

200 1.14
Live Oil Viscosity Swelling Factor
180
1.12
160
Viscosity of CO2 Saturated Oil (mPa⋅s)

140 1.10

Swelling Factor (m3/m3)

120
1.08

100

1.06
80

60 1.04

40
1.02
20

0 1.00
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
Saturation Pressure (MPa)

FIGURE 2: Viscosity and swelling factor curves of CO2-saturated oil at 24°C

9
 950
Live Oil Add 12.25 mol% CO2
Add 25.85 mol% CO2 Add 35.83 mol% CO2
948
Add 44.09 mol% CO2

946
Density (kg/m3)

944

942 CO2-saturated oil

density curve

940
Dead Oil
938

936
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Pressure (MPa)

FIGURE 3: Density of CO2-undersaturated oil phase at 24°C

70 100

90
60
80
Cumulative Oil Recovery (%IOIP)

50 70

60
40 IWF Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Oil Cut (%)

Cycle 3 Cycle 4 EWF 50

30 Oil Cut
40

20 30

20
10
10

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fluid Injected (PV)

FIGURE 4: Cumulative recovery & oil cut vs. pore volume injected for Run 1 (CO2 WAG)

10
 70 100
IWF Polymer

EWF Oil Cut

90
60
80
Cumulative Oil Recovery (%IOIP)
50 70

60
40

Oil Cut (%)

50
30
40

20 30

20
10
10

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fluid Injected (PV)

FIGURE 5: Cumulative recovery & oil cut vs. pore volume injected for Run 2 (0.4 wt% Polymer-alone)

FIGURE 6: Differential pressure recordings of EOR stage on expanded scale in Run 2

11
 80

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%OOIP) 70

60

50

40

30

20

IWF Cycle 1 Cycle 2

10
Cycle 3 Cycle 4 EWF
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Fluid Injected (PV)

FIGURE 7: Cumulative recovery vs. pore volume injected for Run 3 (PGAW–0.2 wt% Polymer)

FIGURE 8: Differential pressure recordings of Run 3

12
FIGURE 9: Comparison of EOR recovery efficiency of three runs

13