352+

jxz y
Mathematical Simulation of Polymer Flooding in
Complex Reservoirs
P. L, BONDOR
G. J. HIRASAKI
SHELL DEVELOPMENT CO.
JUNIOR MEMBERS AIME
HOUSTON, TEX.
M. J. THAM
MEMBER AIME

%
ABSTRACT include the presence of a gas cap or a desaturated
zone due to gravity drainage in a dipping formation,
Simulation of polymer flooding in many complex the presence of an aquifer, irregular well spacing
reservoirs has requirements that preclude the use and reservoir boundaries, multiple zones, reservoir
of either three-phase stream tube or two-phase heterogeneities, and a well performance that is
finite-difference simulators. The development of a limited by state proration, injectivity, and
polymer flooding model used in a three-phase, productivity. These reservoir features are being
four-component, compressible, finite-difference represented by most compressible, three-phase,
reservoir simulator that allows the simulation of a three-dimensional simulators. However, to model
variety oi complex situations is discussed. polymer flood projects, it is necessary to include a
Tbe polymer model represents tbe polymer conservation equation for the polymer, and to
solution as a fourth component that is included in
represent the adsorption of polymer, the reduction
the aqueous phase and is fully miscible with it.
of the rock permeability to the aqueous phase after
Adsorption of polymer is represented, as is both
contact with the polymer, rhe dispersion of the
(1) the resulting permeability reduction of the
polymer slug, and the non-Newtonian flow behavior
aqueous phase and (2) the resulting lag of the
of the polymer solution.
polymer injection front and generation of a stripped
water bank. Tbe effects of fingering between the PREVIOUS SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT
water and polymer are taken into account using an
Previous simulator development of polymer
emp in”cal “mixing parameter” model.
flooding has been reported in two different general
~,~g ?.esz!~ing simgjg~g? ~~ Cgpgbje o~ rne&@
categories: three-phase stream tube rnod.e!s and
reservoirs with nonuniform dip, multiple zones, one- or two-phase, incompressible, finite-difference
desaturated zones, gravity segregation, and simulators.
irregular well spacing and reservoir shape.
Jewett and Sc hurz 1 developed a two-phase,
Two examples are presented. The first illustrates
multilayer Buckley -Leverett displacement simulator
the polymer flooding of a multizone dipping reservoir
capable of modeling either linear or five-spot
with a desaturated zone due to gravity drainage.
patterns. A mobile gas saturation also could be
The second illustrates the flooding of a reservoir
specified, but this was treated as void space and
with a gas cap and an oil rim with polymer injection
did not affect the flow characteristics of the
near the oil-water contact. In this example, the
system. Gravitational and capillarity effects were
effects of nonuniform dip, irregular well spacing
neglected. The residual resistance of the brine
and field shape, and gravity segregation of the flow
following a water slug was modeled as an increase
are all taken into account. The two examples
in its viscosity; the viscous fingering of the brine
presented illustrate the versatility of tbe simulator
through the polymer slug was treated by altering
and its applicability to a wide range of problems. empirical relative permeability relationships to
specify a more adverse mobility ratio.
INTRODUCTION Slater and Farouq-Ali2 modeled five-spot patterns
The design of a polymer flood for a complex with a two-phase, two-dimensional, finite-difference
—l. .— —-—!-—.:----- ..:------ J--- :11 --:... -I-L -..
reservoir requires a model that represents the simulator, neglccung gIav ILy am Lap IL Idt LLy. IIICy

reservoir features that have a significant ef feet on obtained an empirical expression for the resistance
the performance of the flood. These features may factor of the porous medium as a function of a
time-dependent mobility ratio.
Patton, Coats and Colegrove3 developed a
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office July 28, 1971. Revised manuscript received April 5, 1972. finite-difference model utilizing a stream tube
Paper (SPE 3524) was presented at the SPE 46th Annual Fall
Meeting, held in New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1971. ~ Copyright 1972 approach that could be used to simulate linear or
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum five-spot polymer floods in either a single sand
Engineers, Inc. reservoir or a reservoir with several noncommunicat-
1Ref~~~~ceS given at end of PaPer.

OCTOBER, ,972 Jpzr 969

ing layers. The validity of their model was checked AD SORPTION
by comparing the results of linear tests to a
Adsorption of the polymer from the leading edge
Buckley -Leverett analytical solution. Very good
of the polymer bank can cause a deterioration of
agreement was obtained. The simulator. was then
the polymer slug. It” is important to know how much
used to examine the effect of traiIing-edge dispersion
adsorption will occur in a particular system in
of the polymer slug. Their results indicated that
order to optimize the slug size.
this dispersion had a negligible effect on oil
The adsorption model used in the program
recovery. assumes that the reservoir rock instantaneously
strips polymer from the polymer solution upon
CONSERVATION EQUATIONS
contact until the rock is saturated. The maximum
The conservation equations solved by the
amount of adsorption possible at any time is given
simulator are:
by the product of the rock’s adsorptive capacity
and the fraction of the block in contact with the
V . [Awbw(vpw - pwg~)] + iw =
mobile aqueous phase. The amount of polymer
actually adsorbed is calculated, and the polymer

~ ( @bwSw) - –
‘ads
—
o
. . . . (1)
and water saturations
of polymer from polymer solution
are adjusted. The stripping
generates water in
at at front of the leading
TzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA edge of the polymer, and thus
forms a stripped water bank berween the connate
water and the polymer solution banks. The details
V . [ Aobo(vpo - pog~)] + do of the calculations are described in Appendix A.

MOBILITY OF POLYMER AND WATER

a
=—((#)boSo) . . . . . . . ...(2) polymer solutions reduce the mobility of the
at aqueous phase by two mechanisms — the increased
viscosity of the polymer solution and the reduction
of permeability to the aqueous phase. Polymers
V . [ XoboRs( Vp - pog~)l + v“ [~gbg(vpg such as polyacrylamide continue to reduce the
o
permeability to the aqueous phase even after the
polymer solution has been displaced by brine. This
- pggvl))] -t- ;g = : (@boRsSo + r$bgSg) reduction in permeability is denoted as the resiciuai
at resistance factor.
.:, , ,.. (3)
Aw (before contact with polymer)
with the additional equation for polymer solution:
R,f = .(5)
Aw (after contact with polymer) “ -
v“ [ Apbw(vpw - pwgVD) ] + ~p =
The polymer solution viscosity that is used in the
simulator is
aQads
@zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
: (@bwSp) + - —,. . . . . (4)
*app
at z at P
=— ,.. . . . . . . . . . . .(6)
pR
where Sw + SP + So + Sg = 1. The polymer solution rf
and the water comprise two components of the where the apparent viscosity,
aqueous phase existing in the reservoir; Eqs. I and
4 above express the conservation of each component
Ap/L
separately, with the conversion of polymer solution .(7)
P = kw —,. . . . . . . . .
into water (due to polymer adsorption on rock) taken app
into account explicitly at the end of each time step. q/A
The oil-water and oil-gas capillary pressure
is measured at an average flow rate in the field.
relationships are used with Eqs. 1 through 4 to
obtain a single equation for the oil pressure, po. The effect of the non-Newtonian behavior of the
The simulator solves polymer solution is discussed later.
the pressure equation
Polymer floods are usually considered as slug
implicitly using either the alternating-direction-
processes where the polymer slug is followed by
implicit (ADI) or the strongly implicit procedure
water. Since the water/polymer mobility ratio is
(SIP). The saturations are then obtained explicitly
unfavorable, the water tends to finger through and,
from the equations above.
hence, gradually disperse the trailing edge of the
Transmissibilities are calculated using a two-
slug. A mixing parameter model developed for
point upstream weighting technique, which is
miscible displacements was used to account for
reported elsewhere. Q
this trailing-edge dispersion.
The viscosity of a completely mixed polymer-water
mixture in a grid block is expressed as a linear

sOCIETY OF PETROLEUM EXGINEERS JO URXAL

function of polymer saturation fraction: (Saq)
‘P .— ‘P ‘kraq
1P = . . (14)
s s Rp
‘p, eff aq p,eff k
IJm = vw+(v.zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
QQ...h (8)
P s
aq % ‘w ‘k.aq(saqj
1 . .— (15)
‘“w
s =Sw+s (9) s Rkpw eff
aq P“”””””””””” ‘w, eff aq 2

(This can be modified to conform with experimental REPRESENTATION OF

behavior if the mixing is not linear.) NON-NEWTONIAN EFFECTS
Effective values of water viscosity and polymer
viscosity in this block are given by RHEOLOGY

The theological behavior of the flow of polymer

l-w (JI solution through porous media can be expressed in
w,., OGG =V’ww”” ”””” ””””(loa) +ml-.n . “.
-( the
W, CJ. L lm LG. ,.. = . .. . ‘~clnlww..”t
-~=- . . . . . ~~~co~~~y~~ Qf ~~~ p~!y.m~.

solution. This apparent viscosity is measured as

l-w u)
.(lOb) Ap/L
‘p, eff=pp pm’””’”””” “
v =k — . . . . . . . . .. (16)
app w
where u is an empirical mixing parameter.
q/A
Obviously, ~ = 1 corresponds to complete mixing;
~= Q CQ no M.ixing (fingering with no transverse Itmayalso reexpressed interms of the “resistance
dispersion). The value ~ = 2/3 has been found to factor” as
provide a good correlation with experiments in
sandpacks, while ~ = 1/3 correlates miscible data PJ ‘WwRf, . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
app
in Hele-Shaw experiments that are believed to have
about the same transverse dispersion as actual where the resistance factor is defined as
.
reservoirs. >
In the simulator, the permeability to the aqueous b (18)
phase in a grid block is related to the amount of
‘fe y” ”””””----
polymer adsorbed on the rock. The permeability
P
reduction iacror is given by

where the mobility to water is evaluated be/ore the

Rk= 1.0+ (Rrf _ 1- O)(Q
adjij . (11) rock was contacted with polymer, The apparent
viscosity defined in this way includes the effect of
permeability reduction due to adsorption or plugging
by the polymer.
The theological behavior of the flow of dilute
and increases from unity to the residual resistance polymer solutions through porous mediaG can be
factor as the grid block rock becomes satu~ated divided into four regions as shown on Fig. 1. At
with adsorbed polymer. The fraction ( Qad~/Ad) is the limit of low velocities, the apparent viscosity
the ratio of the amount of polymer adsorbed in a will approach a maximum limiting value 7-9 if the
grid block to the block’s adsorptive capacity. solution is sufficiently dilute such that it does not
Appendix A gives the details” of the adsorption have a yield stress or form a gel in the pores.8~g
calculation. The permeability to oil is not influenced For a large range of velocities, the fluid is
by the polymer. The polymer solution and water are
modeled as two miscible components of the aqueous
phase with permeabilities as foIlows.

Sp kkraq(Saq)
k.. =— . . . . . . (12)
p
s R
aq k

Sw kkraq(Saq)
.- ... . . /,7\
kw=— . {12)
‘/+., + PSEUDOPIASTIC~pm,n~ DllATANT
s
aq ‘k
10G U

Hence, the nobilities of polymer and water in a

FIG. 1 — THEOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR OF POLYMER
grid block are given by SOLUTION IN POROUS MEDIA.

OCTOBER, 1972
371
pseudoplastic and the viscosity is decreasing with power-law coefficient, K, and exponent, n, were
increasing velocity. 7-1s At a higher velocity there determined from the viscometric data (the actual
~~ ~ ,,,..’
m;m;.,,’-..!
.n,, m .t;cfiac;*y
. .Us”u.. $bla$ is -“,,=1
.yy... rn
.“ ~~ g~ea~er VC+IIIF. C urt=r~
. . . . ...-” . . . . Ar=rerminc=d
-------------- IOQ-IOP
f~Q.rn. a ._. --0 =-.DIOt . of shear

than the solvent viscosity. lo! 11,14 At very high stress vs rate of strain). The coefficient, H,
velocities the viscoelastic effects become important determined from Eq. 20 and the power-law exponent,
and the viscosity increases with increasing n, were used to compute the apparent viscosity from
velocities.1 1,14-17 In this region, the theological Eq. 19. The calculated apparent viscosity using
behavior is “dilatant”. the modified Blake-Kozeny model is compared with
The pseudoplastic behavior of the flow of the the experimental values on Fig. 3. The maximum
,.-l., . ..-. ~fil...:f,., ●h.,.,. mh I-.,-..,.,le .“. EJ:. ~afi ~~ 4:C1-.---- LC k=+..,a-.. ●L- nnl,-iiln*,aA .amA ewmarin-.t=nral
IJ’J’Y11’=’ ‘U’u”u” ““VW5” PJ’--- 11~~-~- ULLICLC1l V= LWG=ll !..~~ ~=.ti-.-.~= -.’.’ -.-y ---. --&=---
modeled over a wide range of flow rates with a values was less than 10 percent.
power-law model. The model that we have used is The Blake-Kozeny model accurately reproduced
the modified Blake-Kozeny model for power-law the apparent viscosity behavior of Kelzan-M
fluids.12~ 18 This model has been used to correlate solutions for the systems considered here. Kelzan-M
data in packed beds over a wide range of Reynolds is a type of polymer that provides a mobility
numbers.12~ 13 The apparent viscosity can be reduction by an increase in viscosity alone.
expressed with this model as However, with polymers such as partially
hydrolyzed polyacrylamide, 21 a significant factor
n-1 in the mobility reduction is the reduction of the
P =Hu>. .o. o....- (19)
app permeability to the aqueous phase. If the parameters
H and n in Eq. 19 are determined from flow
where u is the superficial fluid velocity. The values
experiments through a core sample of the reservoir
of the parameters, H and n, can either be calculated
rock through Eqs. 16 and 19, then the effect of the
directly from data on flow through core material or
be estimated from viscometric measurements. If the permeability reduction is included in the parameters.
power-law coefficient and exponent, K and n, are If the parameters are estimated from viscometric
calculated from viscometric data, then H can be measurements through Eq. 20, then the apparent
estimated as viscosity calculated from Eq. 19 will not represent
the effect of the permeability reduction. However,
the development of the non-Newtonian well model

‘=:(9n:3)n(’’0k4=”
in the next section requires only the ratio of

’20) viscosities
will
and, thus,
be canceled
any permeability
in the final
reduction
expression. The

If viscometric data are used, the constants of the y(sec-]]

equation will not include the effect of permeability 102 10’
Ioy I I I r 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I
reduction due to adsorption or plugging. The
8
permeability, k ~, and porosity to water, (#w =@w), -c-SYSTEM I
b -A-SYSTEM 2
are evaluated at the saturation existing in the -x-SYSTEM 3
[ 1
polymer swept area. This saturation is Sw = 1- So,w

‘
in a region that contained original oil, and is Sw
= 1.0 in any region that was originally 100 percent
water. 2
The modified Blake-Kozeny model was applied to
data on the flow of Kelzan-M solutions through cores
I I I I 1 I I I I I I
1
with a residual oil saturation present. The core and 1 10 lo~

fluid data are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.19 The SHEAR RATE, yhOC-’]

viscometric data for the three polymer solutions are FIG. 2 — VISCOMETRIC BEHAVIOR OF KELZAN-M.
shown in Fig. 2. All three solutions showed
pseudoplastic behavior to a different extent. The

TABLE 1 — CORE DATA

Core No.
kw (red) sor
1 17.0 0,188 G
2 7.7 0.20 0.20
3 22.8 0.20 0.20

TABLE 2 — POLYMER SOLUTION DATA

Cone. ~brine
I I I I I I I I II I 1 I J
Core ,.-4 ,.-3
No. (ppm)
—— (CP) (Cp S:&-l) _n_
u (cmkec)
1 Kelzan-M 200 0.84 7.6 0.67
2 Kelzan-M 300 0.45 2.25 0.85 FIG. 3 — THEOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR OF KELZAN-M
3 Kelzan-M 300 0.45 5.5 0.69 IN CORES.

s7a SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

representation of the permeability reduction in power-law behavior over the entire velocity range
computing the nobilities for interlock flow was illustrated. The resultant viscosity profile with
discussed in the section on Mobility of Polymer radial distance from the injection well is shown in
and Water. Fig. 4. The figure illustrates that most of the
The dilatant behavior at high flow rates illustrated viscosity change occurs very near the well.
on Fig. 1 may be detrimental due to loss of injectivity
and ~e~~ib!e degradation of the polymer. This WELL MODEL

viscoelastic behavior can be included in the Representing the non-Newtonian behavior in ordy
modified Blake-Kozeny model. The resultantthe intergrid-block fluid transmissibility coefficients
apparent viscosity with this model can be expressed will not properly include the much more significant
as effects near the wells. Unless the flow rate is so
n-1 large that the dilatant effect becomes significant,
Hu
= , (21) the low polymer viscosity near injection wells will
P result in a higher injectivity than if rhe injectivity
app
0<1. u were based on an average polymer viscosity in the
1- reservoir. Thus, all the non-Newtonian effects are
represented in the simulator by a well injectivity
d @w
(1 -zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
c&) IsokwlzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
model. The required increase in injectivity over
that based on an average Newtonian viscosity is
where 61 is the fluid relaxation time. (Similar obtained by introducing a negative, rate-dependent
models for the viscoelastic behavior have recently skin factor into a radial-flow equation for each
been developed. z“~zl) The viscoelastic effect injection well.
becomes significant as the second term in the The well model relates the Weii rates and
denominator (which is equivalent to the Deborah pressure to the grid block pressure and saturations
number introduced by Marshall and Metzner 16) by assuming radial flow in an annular region as
becomes significant compared to unity. It will be shown in Fig. 5. The external radius, re, is the
assumed in the following that the polymer flood radius of a circle that has the same area as the
wi!! be designed such that the detrimental effect of grid b!Qck.
the viscoelastic behavior does not occur in the
reservoir.21
Ax Ay
The power-law model and the resulting Blake- r . (23)
?- --- 1 . . . . . . . . .
Kozeny model represents only the pseudoplastic ‘e
range of flow rates. The maximum and minimum
IIT
viscosities at low flow rates and high flow rates,
The rate of injection of polymer from the well into
respectively, could either be represented empiri-
a grid block is modeled as
cally or with a four-parameter model such as the
Meter model. 22 However, for our purpose the
apparent viscosity was modeled to be Newtonian at 10
I 1 I 1
low and high flow rates and to follow the Blake-
----- -----
Kozeny model in the pseudoplastic region.
z

~s -

( P
max
, low velocities *

n-1 I
v= Hu, pseudoplastic region 1 1 1 1
app 600 800 1000
200 400
high velocities .(22)
r(ft)
w
min ‘
[ FIG, 4 — VISCOSITY PROFILES.

This representation of the apparent viscosity is

shown by the dashed line on Fig. 1.
It has been recognized23 that non-Newtonian
behavior in a pattern flood can result in a mobility
ratio that will vary throughout the pattern due to
y~~y~fig v~.Qc-.-_=
I itie~. For example, the mobility ratio
along the line between the injector and producer is
more unfavorable than at the offset corner areas.
However, a more significant change in the polymer
mobility occus near the wells where the fluid
velocities are large.
To illustrate the reiative significance of the
non-Newtonian effect near the well, consider the
viscosity profile of the fluid-rock System 1 shown
on Fig. 3. Assume that the fluid follows the FIG. 5 — WELL MODEL.

OCTOBER. 1972 37’3

 w
(AaJj(pwf + xl .
-@n-
1
21?bzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
pl) f / ~ (1-~)) -1
887(ln re/r - 1/2 + s + sp)
(24) s
P (1 - n)
in
L( vN~’
)
-v+l
I
w
. . . . . . . . . . . (26;

if
NV<V

The apparent viscosity model that is used to or

determine this skin factor is the modified i3iaite-
KQ~~fi~ .rnQd~i in the pseudopiastic region and a 1
=
maximum and minimum value of viscosity for low s
P (1 - n)
and high velocities, respectively, as described
earlier. This model is represented by Eq. 22 and is
if
shown on Fig. 1 with the dashed lines. The velocity
profile for steady-state, incompressible radiaI flow NW>U
will appear as in Fig. 6A. The viscosity profile
with the viscosity model of Eq. 22 and the velocity where
profile of Fig. 6A will appear as in Fig. 6B. The
radii, rl and r2, represent rhe radius where the v =l.l’min/LLax
”””””””””” “(2*)
viscosity reaches the limiting values. If the
minimum value of the viscosity is not reached in
rhe reservoir, then rl is not defined. The pressure H ,Wh l-n
profile with the viscosity profile of Fig. 6B will .— (29)
N 3.17 x 103 —
appear as in Fig. 6c. The pressure profile, if the Pv
viscosiry were everywhere equal to pmax, is shown max ( q
)“
with the dashed lines. The effective radius, r~, is
the radius where the pressure calculated from the The apparent skin factor is used as an integral
constant viscosity model equals rhe rrue sand face part of the well model. The injection rate, when the
pressure. The apparent skin factor due ro the well is constrained by the maximum bottom-hole
non-Newtonian effect is then equal to In rW/rJ. The injection pressure, is a function of the apparent
apparent skin factor developed in Appendix B can be skin due to non-Newtonian effects, skin due to well
computed as damage, pressure difference between the well and
grid block, the grid block and well geometry, and
the total fluid mobility-thickness product of the grid
block based on Newtonian fluids.
To illustrate the effect on injectivity of the
non-Newtonian solurion behavior, consider again
~h~ {Ill id.rec~
----- ..-. ~y~~e.rn. I on Fig. j. A. SSUM_e that the
fluid follows the power-law model over the entire
reservoir. The value of H and n can be determined
directly from the graph as H = 0.14 cp(cm/sec)l-,
and n = 0.67. Suppose the formation thickness and
injection rate are h = 100 ft, and q = 1,000 B/D.
The viscosity profile assuming radial flow will
Pmox
,——-- ---- —---
appear in Fig. 4.
Suppose that the distance between the injector

+4 I
I
I
i
,
I
I
V’’C”’’TR”F”LELE and producer

viscosity
apparent viscosity
the injector
is 1,000 ft. Since enough data were
not given in Fig. 3 to estimate
at low velocity,
the value
and producer,
the maximum apparent
choose as the maximum
at the midpoint between
i.e., re = s00 ft. From
I Fig. 4, the viscosity at this point is 7.3 cp. Suppose
that the well radius is rw = 0.25 fr. The apparent
skin factor from Eq. 27 is then sp = -4.81. This
represents an effective well radius, r;, of 31.0 ft.
The ratio of injectivity with the non-Newtonian
effects and the injectivity assuming a Newtonian
viscosity of pmax is
1 I 1
r, r=’ r, lNN in re/rw
—. = 2.73
10G r-
in re/rw + s
FIG, 6 — RADIAL PROFILES. lN P
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JO URiVAL
 TABLE 3 — DATA FOR LINEAR SIMULATION displacement and no adsorption, polymer solution
System dimensions 2ooftxloftx loft would break through at 0.78 PV injected. With
a&sorption, breaicti-lroiigh --- . ..-
uLLkLLcd at Q.g~ pv
Reservoir data:
!=i~ja! ~jl saturation 0.75
injected.
Connate water 0.25
0,22
These figures also illustrate the effect of
Residual oil to WF
Pore volume 1,069 bbl numerical dispersion on the polymer saturation
Original oil in place 778.7 bbl profile. Even though a marked effect is evident, the
Waterflood movable oil 544 bbl
indicated recovery given by the simularor is affected
Po,osity, 0.3
4
-- . ..-.. h.l)*w k 1 darcy
to a much lesser extent; the oil recovery curves for
m
‘b--”=Wldl-‘- F.?rqo!=””.. . . . .-
& at connate water 0.9

krw .at residual oil 0.3

Fluid doto:
20 Cp
.2 PV POLYMER
Oil viscosity
Y%ter Wisccsi?y 0.64 Cp ‘!.3 .4 PV WATER
Polymer viscosity 2.9 Cp

Concentration 300 ppm

Ad S 10 pg/g

R,, i.d
GJ 0.666

Thus, the injectivity is greater by a factor of 2.73

than if the non-Newtonian effect was not included.

SIMULATION RESULTS OF LINEAR TESTS

The simulator was tested on a one-dimensional
linear model to compare the adsorption and mixing “o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
parameter models and to determine the effect of DISTANCE, X/L
numerical dispersion on the predicted recovery.
FIG. 7B — EFFECT OF ADSORPTION AND DISPERSION
For this study, a two-phase oil-water system was
ON POLYMER SATURATION, LINEAR MODEL, 0.6 PV
modeled and tests were made using 5-, 10- and 20- INJECTED.
grid blocks. Model data are given in Table 3. Figs.
7A, 7B, 7C and 7D present the polymer saturation
-.
for a 0.2-PV polymer slug followed by 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 . .2 PV POLYMER
and 0.8 PV water, respectively. Note that the .6 PV WATER
$
—
trailing edge of the slug is smeared, reflecting the
influence of the mixing parameter model for the
unfavorable mobility ratio displacement of polymer
solution by water. The influence of adsorption is
clearly indicated, since the sharp polymer front is
kiggirig behind the injection front. With pistcm

----- -. ....- -
.2 PV PULYMt K

.2 Pv w&TE!?
FIG. 7C —EFFECT OF ADSORPTION AND DIsPERSION
ON POLYMER SATURATION, LINEAR MODEL, 0.8 PV
INJECTED.

a. 3 .
(n
.2 PV POLYMER
z-
0 .8 PV WATER

DISTANCE,
!___ .6
X/L
.8 1.0
tii
.2 .4
DISTANCE,
.6
X/L
.8 1.0

FIG. 7A — EFFECT OF ADSORPTION AND DISPERSION FIG. 7D — EFFECT OF ADSORPTION AND DISPERSION
ON POLYMER SATURATION’, LINEAR MODEL, & 4 Pv ON POLYMER SATURATION, LINEAR MODEL, 1.0 PV
INJECTED. INJECTED.

OCTOBEN, 1972 975

these three cases are given in Fig. 8. Note that the TABLE 4 — DATA FOR CROSS-SECTIONAL SIMULATION
––:, - -.!–13 –-–. .––---: –-. --.:—–&––
coarser grlas ylela conservamve esumares of the System dimensions 180 ftx20ftx10fi

oil recovered; recovery efficiencies at 1.2 PV Reservoir data:

Gas zone height 9 ft
throughput for the 5-, 10- and 20-block runs were 72,
Oil zone height llft
77 and 81 percent, respectively, of the original Porosity, + 0.3
waterflood movable oil. Absolute permeability k 1 darcy
The simulation runs were undertaken using rate krO at c.annate water 0.9

constraints on both injection and production wells & at residual oil 0.3
,.,. -/- , R=5~~u=! =~! .!”*,,.”*
-“.”,”, ;-”
,“. , Q, ~~
(lu D/u Daianceri injection and production). Time 0,25
Connate water saturation
steps used were: 0.2 days for the first 10 days, 0.5 Initial saturation distribution:
days for the next 10, and l-day steps for the In gas zone:

remainder of the run. Halving the time step and Sw 0.25

so 0.22
repeating the run yielded results that agreed to
0.53
within 0.2 percent. %
In oil zone:
Sw 0.25
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX RESERVOIRS
so 0.75

A versatile reservoir simulator is most useful as F!g~~ d“+”!

-----

a tool that provides improved data on which to base Oil viscosity, cp 20

Water viscosity, cp 0.64
operational decisions. The polymer simulator
Polymer viscosity, cp 2.9
described above makes it possible to select optimal Polymer concentration 300 ppm
flood patterns, determine the optimal slug size, Adsorption 10 ~g/gm
analyze the profitability of a fieldwide polymer R,f 1.4
flood under several different operating strategies, U 0.666
Constant iniection rate 5.7 B/D
and predict the effect of many different reservoir (for both polymer and water)
and field variabIes on oil recovery and flood
performance. in very early water breakthrough, followed by very
In many cases, simpler models (either laboratory long production at high water cut. In such a reservoir
models or simpler simulators) will provide polymer flooding might prevent the thief behavior of
sufficiently accurate information on which to base the gas zone by decreasing the transmissibility of
operational decisions. In other instances, however, the gas zone to the aqueous phase. The polymer
limitations inherent in the simpler models preclude would generate an oil bank and provide production
their use. In general, as either reservoir parameters at higher oil cuts.
or field conditions become more complex, simpler
models become progressively more restrictive and SIMULATION OF A CROSS-SECTIONAL MODEL

less useful. An example will be presented in which An experimental program was undertaken to
ir was necessary to model the recovery process evaluate the effectiveness of polymer flooding in
with our mathematical reservoir simulator. such a reservoir. A cross-sectional bead pack model
was constructed that was designed such that
POLYMER FLOODING IN A VISCOUS OIL nondimensional parameters of the system were the
RESERVOIR WITH A DESATURATED ZONE same in both model and prototype. A series of
experiments were performed for both waterflooding
Waterflooding a viscous oil reservoir with a
continuous gas zone (due to gravity drainage), Fig.
9, is characterized by the tendency of the gas zone PROOUCING

to act as a thief zone until most of the gas has WELL A WELL B WELL

been displaced by water. Such a waterflood results

?5
‘U ‘
.2
FIG, 9 —
‘ RESERVOIR WITH DESATURATED
CAUSED BY GRAVITY DRAINAGE.
v- ZONE

I/
oo~
PORE VOLUMES INJECTED

FIG. 8 — OIL RECOVERY EFFICIENCY, LINEAR FIG. 10 — EXPERIMENTAL WATERFLOOD, CROSS-

MODEL. SECTIONAL MODEL.

S76 SOCIETY OF PET ROLE[!M ES GISEERS JOURNAL

and polymer flooding. The polymer flood of interest PV injected, while the waterflood needs 2.8 PV of
here was run for 0.25 PV of polymer solution injected fluid to obtain the same recovery.
~fije~~e~, ~~~ &~~ f~!!~w~~ @ w~~~~< A cornParisQn of the simularor results for this
A two-dimensional cross-sectional simulation was model was made to examine the effect of a five-
made of the waterflood and of the 0.25 PV polymer grid-layer vs a one-grid layer simulation. Fig. 17
iiooci. Data used are given in Tabie 4. ~~le ~~,m.tiiator :- J:___ Les that a sJil&c-.ayc,
lllulca -:”’.l.?..l-. >-. ...”=-..
-AA-I c;m,,larinu
-...s -.- . . ..~ ~~~

confirmed the qualitative behavior of the desaturated gas zone as a dispersed phase, and
experimental model. assuming negligible gravity segregation of the
Fig. 10 illustrates an experimental waterflood in aqueous and oil phases, yields results that are
the cross-sectional model. Figs. 11 and 12 are. comparable to the five-Iayer model in which the gas
water and oil saturations obtained by the simulared zone is distinct. For this problem a single-layer
waterflood at the same time. The overrunning of the model using the same relative permeability curves
oil by the water in the desaturated zone is evident.. as the five-layer model is sufficient.
No oil bank is formed by the flood water, and very
SIMULATION OF A FLOOD IN A
lirtle oil has been moved.
RESERVOIR WITH A DESATURATED ZONE
Fig. 13 illustrates an experimental 0.25 PV
polymer flood where the slug has been followed by A simulation study was carried out for a reservoir
water. Figs. 14 and 15 are polymer and oil with six noncommunicating layers, each with a
saturations obtained by the simulation of this desaturated zone that varied areaiiy. Tine study
poiymer fiOOd. Note the formation of an oii banit ~--m. . . ..:.-,-1
&Aca L&u rha
. ..s ~ff,=rr
------ ~f che &~~rgK~t~~ z~e on oil

ahead Qf ~he PQi~rne~, NQte aisQ Lhat 50rne Oii iS recovery and on the oprimal flood pattern, and
moved upward into the desaturated zone; if the included the variable reservoir continuity and
desaturated zone has a residual oil saturation less heterogeneity. We include here the results of a
than waterflood residual, there will be resaturation five-spot pattern flood that was modeled.
losses even in the swept portions of the reservoir. Figs. 18A and 18B illustrate the five-spot pattern.
Observed and calculated production curves are Each producing sand was treated as a single layer
presented in Fig. 16 for floods terminated at 98
percent water cut. The extent of the vertical and
horizontal lines on the experimental data points
indicates the standard deviation of the experimental
results. The agreement between experiment and
simulation is reasonable. Note that, while both
studies indicate that the waterflood will recover
more of rhe movable oil in place (68 percent vs 61
------- *L- --1.? --- ficc~ ““.nh,n;a.L.
”cs ~~~ Qii ~~ ~.~
l-’--u), ‘“= PJJY lll=L
~~~o Iq _ POLYM.ER SP.TIURA.TION DISTR.IEKJTION,
CROSS-SECTIONAL SIMULATION.

FIG. 11 — WATER SATURATION DISTRIBUTION,

CROSSSECTIONAL SIMULATION.
FIG. 1S — OIL SATURATION DISTRIBUTION, CROSS-
SECTIONAL S2MULATION.

● MATH
I
I
MODEL
O PHYSICAL MODEL } ‘ATERFLOOD

e 100 A MATH MODEL

E ~ PHYSICAL MODEL 1/4 PV POLYMER SNJG
. } izyxwvutsrqponmlkj
I

I I 1 f 1
~ FLOW

FIG. 12 — OIL SATURATION DISTRIBUTION, CROSS-

-+
SECTIONAL SIMULATION. z ●

1
a
> 20
‘e
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
CONNAIE WAIE* f,ooo WAIE* 4
~ a
GAS
PO, ”MER we oo-
SLUG 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
=i PV THROUGHPUT

FIG. 13—EXPERIMENTAL 0.25 PV POLYMER FLOOD, FIG, 16 — OIL RECOVERY EFF1C2ENCY, CROSS-
CROSS-SECTIONAL MODEL. SECTIONAL MODEL.

OCTOBER, 19i2 a77

with distributed gas. The results of this simulation Another reservoir to which the polymer simulator
are presented in Figs. 19A and 19B. A 0.11 PV has been applied is shown in Fig. 21. This reservoir
slug of 4 cp polymer with an adsorption of 10 pg/g is limited by faults and has an oil rim between a
was used. For this case, the simulator predicted a gas cap and an aquifer. Oil viscosity is 9 cp at the
recovery of 45 percent of the movable oil in place reservoir temperature of 131 ‘F. Gravity segregation
for the poiymer fiOOd, in comparison with 32 percent is significant in this iow dip reservoir. The irregular
of the movable oil in place for the waterflood. The well spacing complicates the polymer flood design.
cumulative production curves are given in Fig. 20. For brevity, the results will not be included.
The simulation study of this reservoir is also Typical questions being asked of the simulator
investigating the selection of the optimal polymer include the following. Should polymer be substituted
flood pattern (e.g., should the injection well be for water in the current injections wells? Will
located off center to compensate for dip?), selection additional injectors be required? Should both
of the proper reservoir intervals for injection (e.g., polymer and water be injected at different points in
should intervals with desaturation above a maximum the reservoir? What is the effect of the gas cap,
value be excluded?), and determination of the etc. ?
optimum polymer slug size.
CONCLUSIONS

The investigation of several polymer flood

A-5 GRID B1OCKS IN Z DIRECTION
projects for complex reservoirs required the
A -SINGLE GRID B1OCK IN Z DIRECTION utilization of the flexibility of a compressible,
three-phase, three-dimensional mathematical reser-
voir simulator to represent the reservoir features
and well performance. In adapting such a simulator
to represent polymer flooding, the conservation
equation for polymer solution has been included as
a component of the aqueous phase. The simulator
A
A was extended further to represent the adsorption of
polymer, the reduction of rock permeability to the
AA aqueous phase, the dispersion of the polymer slug,
and the effect of non-Newtonian flow behavior on
& the injectivity of polymer.
A The polymer flood simulator has been used to aid
in the design of a project in a multizone, heteroge-
neous? dilminp reservoir
==... O --------- with de~atur~red ~Qn~s du~
O.. to gravity drainage. The simulator was shown to
i.0 2.0 represent the displacement of oil in a desaturated
PV THROUGHPUT reservoir as observed in a physical experiment.
—.— ----—- These applications illustrate problems that could
FIG. 17 — COMPARISOFi OF R3ZSU”L~Sj OF SINGLE-
not be represented adequately with stream tube
LAYER VS FIVE-LAYER SIMULATION.
models or two-phase simulators. The two field
x applications and the laboratory experiment all had
three phases present. The influence of the gas
+ -–- -– ---- -o- -– -–- -–– -@- --- --- --- -y
Y –––––-- phase on the reservoir performance was too
I ‘ -Q$ #!! ! -:-_: t:---. A. L_ —_-l--. -L L.. .L _ ..– - -f- -—. – _L.
cwo-pnase —-
-++
“ Q’+) ,~ A A A SIgIIIIICaIIC m De l]eglecteu Dy me use or a
I
&Y&!! simulator. The crossflow in the laboratory
––-–-–- -o- –– -–- ---- -o- -– -–- --–. -o- –- -– -––- -0 experiment, the areal distribution of gas saturation
and reservoir heterogeneities in the pattern flood,
A INJECTION WELL DIP and the irregular well spacing with a gas cap and
● PRODUCING WELL -13” — 400’
aquifer in the fault block reservoir could not have
FIG. 18A — FIVESPOT PATTERN MODELED, AREAL been represented with a stream tube model.
VIEW.

I
40 +
u.
z
20:’
10 $

303
5
10 +
20

FIG. 18B — FIVE-SPOT PATTERN MODELED, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW.

378 SOCIETY OF PET ROLEIJM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 NOMENCLATURE cads = adsorptive capacity of rock, pg/bbl of
pore volume
Ad = polymer adsorption, pgm/gm g = (1/144) lbf sq ft/lbn sq in.
A> = polymer adsorption, Pgm/bbl H= coefficie’nr in Blake-Kozeny model,
factor,
b = reciprocal of formation volume cp(cm/sec)l-n or cp(ft/day)l-n
STB/res bbl or Mcf/res bbl formation thickness, ft
b=
C = polymer concentration, ppm K= power-law coefficient, cp(sec)n- 1
~ = polymer concentration, pgm/bbl
k= absolute permeability, sq cm or md
kri = relative permeability of ith phase
wATERFLOOD -RECOVERY FACTOR .31 W. EM.O.
kw = permeability to water, sq cm or md
~ ..............wAW lNJECTloN
~= power-law exponent
-z=-------
& ~L~QLo-N-:: --:--”::_::;:””””””.. ~~~ ‘...
m @! -- ---- Np = dimensionlesss viscosity group
u- ,.. -- , ~ p= pressure, psi
2!/,! OLto,w,, . ~
250f3 2000 3500 4000 .. ----
average ----- ...-=
‘O 500 1000 1500 2000 Fe = pLC2aU.. of f $~ !~wr @

block, psi
FIG. 19A — OIL RECOVERY RATE, WATERFLOOD.
Pruf = bottom-hole injection pressure at
POLYMER FLOOD - RECOVERY FACTOR .45 W. F. M.O. datum, psi
WAIIR !NJfC!19?$. ........ .. ... ........ .. . . . .....=.s..~ ~.’”
q= injection rate, B/D
; zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA ~=
-%..lN,.,y”;E&@@’Q~-------------
,. ..,,, (STB or Mcf)/D/(unit source term,
a.’ .
NzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
volume)
J

o 500 Wo 1500 20D0 2500 3000 3500 4000 Qad, = mass of adsorbed polymer, pg/bbl of
TIME, DAYS pore volume
FIG. 19B- OIL RECOVERY RATE, POLYMER FLOOD. R, = resistance factor
Rk . permeability reduction factor
R,, = residual resistance factor
R. = solution gas ratio, Mcf/STB

‘e =
external radius, ft

Tw = well radius, ft
/
‘w = effective well radius, ft
s= saturation
s. skin factor due to well impairment or
stimulation

Sp =
pseudo skin to represent non-Newtonian
.2 - effects
u= superficial fluid velocity, cm/sec or
ft/day
.1 - y. shear rate, see-l
Ax, Ay, Az = dimensions of grid block, ft
(j, = fluid relaxation time, sec
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
PORE VOLUMES INJECTED TASi E 5 — RELAT:VE PERMEABILITY DATA

Oil-water Relative permeability

FIG, 20 — OIL RECOVERY EFFICIENCY, FIVE-SPOT Sw km zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTS
k
PATTERN. 2
G Ii5iii 0.000
0.30 0.630 0.002
0.35 0.438 0.010
0,40 0.325 0.020
0.45 0.240 0.038
0.50 0,180 0.060
/ ● 0.55 0.130 0.085
+ ●
●
‘T
.y
0.60
0.65
0.085
0.052
0.120
00155
\“ —~ \
GOC‘
0.70 0.030 0,205

“(- 0.75 0.010 0,264

I
9 “NO \
● 0.78 0.000 00300

y
● PRODUCER

WATER IN,KTOR ~>~—-

\ A \ zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Gas-Oil Relative permeability

‘liquid k ro ~

0.25 z 0.55
FIG. 21 — FAULT BLOCK RESERVOIR WITH GAS CAP 0.99 0.85 0,00
AND AQUIFER. 1.OO 0,90 0.OO

OCTOBER, 1972 379

 mobility = kip, md/cp 8. Gegarty, W. B.: “Theological Properties of
A=
Pseudoplaatic Fluids in Porous Media, ” Sot. pet.
x= average mobility of the fluids’ in grid Etzg, j. (June, 1967) 149-160.
block, md/cp 9. Sadowski, T. J.: “NOn-Newtonian Flow through
p= viscosity, cp Media, 11. Experimental, ” Trans. Sot. Rbeol. (1965),
Vol. 9, No, 2, 251.
Papp = apparent polymer solution viscosity, Cp
10. Gogarty, W. B.: “Mobility Control with Polymer
l-%.x = maximum viscosity, cp Solutions, j> Sot. Pet, Eng. .1. (June, 1967) 161-173.
Fmin = minimum viscosity, cp 11. Smith, ‘F. W.: “The Behavior of Partially Hydrolyzed
v= ratio of viscosities (Eq. 28) Polyacrylamide Solution in Porous Media, ” J. Pet.
Tech. (Feb., 1970) 148-156.
p= density, lb/cu ft
12. Christopher, R. H. and Middleman, S.: ‘ ‘Power-Law
p,b = rock bulk density, gin/cc Flow through a Packed Tube, ” Ind. and En& Cbem.
pAD = gravity head from datum, psi Fund. (1965) Vol. 4, No. 4, 422.

porosity 13. Gaitonde, N.

Y. and Middleman, S.: “Flow of
+= Viscoelastic Fluids through Porous Media, ” Ind.
+W . pore space occupied by water, qbw = and Eng. Chetn. Fund. (1967) Vol. 6, No. 1, 145.
+Sul 14. PYe, D. J.: ~qrnproved Secondary Recovery by ContrO1
~. empirical mixing parameter of Water Mobility, ” J. Pet. Tech. (Aug, 1964) 911-
916.
v= gradient operator
15. Dauben, D. L. and Menzie, D. E.: “Flow of Polymer
‘v. = divergence operator Solutions through Porous Media, ” J. Pet. Tech.
(Aug. , 1967) 1065-1073.
SUBSCRIPTS
0= 16, Marshall, R. J. and Metzner, A. B.: “F1ow of
oil
Viscoelastic Fluids through Porous Media, ” Ind.
‘w. water and Eng. Cbem. Fund. (1967) Vol. 6, No. 3, 393.
g. gas 17. Burcik, E. J. and Ferrer, J.: “The Mechanism of
p= Pseudo Dilatant Flow, IJ p,od. Month/y (March? 1968)
polymer
7.
f= grid block Iayer number
18. Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E. and Lightfoot, E. N.:
aq = aqueous phase Transport Phenomena, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
eff = effective York (1960).
19. Herce, J. A. and Rivera, R. V.: personal communica-
t= total
tion, 1971.
20. Wissler, E. H.: “Viacoelastic Effects in the Flow of
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Non-Newtonisn Fluids through a Porous Medium, ”
!rd. afid E%g.zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPO
Crbi?iE. Fund. (1971) VOl. 10, No. 3, 41 i.
The authors would like to express their 21. Jennings, R. R., Rogers, J. H. and West, T. J.:
a~~reciation to Mr. G. E. Tinker of Shell Oil Co. (t Factors ~fluencing Mobility cOntrO1 by pOIYmer

f;; the use of his reservoir study. Solutions, ” ]. Pet. Tech. (March, 1971) 391-401.
22. Meter, D. M. and Bird, R. B.: “Tube Flow of Non-
REFERENCES Newtonian Polymer Solutions: Part I, Laminar Flow
and Theological Models, ” J. Am. Inst. Cbem. Eng.
1. Jewett, R. L. and Schurz, G. F.: “Polymer Flooding (1964) Vol. 10, No. 6, 878.
— A Current Appraisal, “ J. Pet. Tech. (June, 1970)
23. Lee, K. S. and Claridee, E. L.: “Areal Sweep
675-684.
Efficiency of Pseudopla;tic Fluid. in a Five-Spo_t
2. Slater, G. E. and Farouq-Ali, S. M.: “Two-Dimensional Hele-Shaw Model, ” Sot. Pet. Eng, J, (March, 1968)
Polymer Flood Simulation, ” paper SPE 3003 52-62.
presented at the 45th SPE Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Oct. 4-7, 1970.
3. Patton, J. T., Coats, K, H, and CO!e=O}W, G. T’. : .APDENllTY
. . . e.. ”... . A.

“Prediction of Polymer Flood Performance,’9 SOC,

.Pe:. Efig# Jr. lnf---u
(1,wun, 1971; 72-84. POLYMER ADSORPTION
4. Todd, M. R, O’Dell, P. M. and Hiraaaki, G. J.: “The
Application of Two-Point Approximations for Fluid The polymer adsorption is modeled such that the
Interlock Transmissibilities for Increased Accuracy rock will strip the polymer out of the polymer
in Numerical Reservoir Simulator,” paper SPE
solution resulting in a decrease in polymer solution
3516, presented at the 46th SPE Annual Fall Meeting,
New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1971. saturation and an increase in water saturation.
Input quantities are: Ad = polymer adsorption,
5. Todd, M. R, and Longstaff, W. J.: “The Development,
Testing, and Application of a Numerical Simulator pgm polymer/gm rock; C = polymer concentration,
for Predicting Miscible Performance, ” J. Pet. Tech. pgm polymer/gm solution; ~,b = rock density, gm
(July, 1972) 874-882. rock/cc bulk; ~ = porosity.
6. Savins, J. G.: ‘ ‘Non- Newtcrnian Flow through Porous The adsorption and concentration are converted
Media, ” Ind. and Eng. Chetn. (1969) Vol. 61, No. 10, into units of micrograms per barrel of pore volume
18.
and barrel of solution volume, respectively.
7. McKinley, R. M., Jahns, H. O., Harris, W. W. and
Greenkom, R. A.: ‘ ‘Non-Newtonian Flow in Porous
Media, ” ], Am. lzrst. Chern, Engt. (1966), Vol. 12,
No. 1, 17.

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM EXGINEERS JOURNAL

 APPENDIX B
Wgm (polymer) Ad Prb
A> = 1.59 xlo5—
NON-NEWTONIAN INJECTIVITY MODEL
bbl (pore) @
The expressions for the rate-dependent skin to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(A-l)
represent the non-Newtonian effects, Eqs. 26 and
kgm (polymer) 27, will be derived. It is assumed that the viscosity
F = 2.544 X 103PW ~cC can be represented by a power-law model with the
STB (soln.) 9 uPPer and lower Newtonian limits, Eq. 22.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(A-2)
The radial velocity profile can be expressed as
At the end of a time step, the amount of polymer
avaiia”bie for adsorption, in micrograms per barrel ~~
of pore volume, is u =— —.. . . . . . . . . .(B-l)
2* r
6(polymer) = Es . . . . . . . . . .(A-3)
P The viscosity profile with the velocity profile of
Eq. B-1 is
while the adsorptive capacity of the rock in rhe grid
block is given by the maximum adsorptive capacity n-1

()
~
multiplied by the fraction of mobile aqueous phase rl-n
present in the gridblock: ~(r) = H — J
, 211h
I
Sw+s .Swc
c = AZ .(A-4)
/zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
1
ads IJ w(r) < IA .(B-2)
1 -s-s
Min ~

\ max “ “
/zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
orw Wc
1 ’7 :.L -- ~~~
~i jii St etloii~!l G$ t~~ poly,mer to The radii, r, and r~. where the viscosity reaches
J2.1 L1 lCL

the limiting ~alues c-an be determined from Eq. B-2.

saturate the rock will be adsorbed. The cumulative
adsorption of each block is stored, and the loss of
polymer saturation is converted to water saturation. 1
!f 1~ \x ~

H
_ . . . . .(B-3)
c - Qads > 6(polymer) , ‘1 =
ads w 211h
mi n
then
1
ti(sp)= s
P / H \n-l q — . . . .
/-,.
.( B-4)
and ‘2 =
P 2 rrh
6 (Q ads) H ma x
= 6(polymer)
The pressure drop from 12 to ~1 is
and if
qn
() -
H
c
ads
-Q ~d5 < 6(polymer)
P2 -pi. .—
211h k(l - n)
then
c -Q
ads (l-n)
6(SP) = ads r(l-n) . .(B-j)

and
E
●

✻
‘2 1
1
The pressure drop from rl to rw is
6(Q ~d5) = cad5 -zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Qads “

()
q IJmin rl
In both cases, pl-pw =-— —in—.
6(SW) = -6(SP) . 2rrh k r
w
{n <N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (u-u)

The total pressure drop between r2 and rw can be

expressed in terms of an effective well radius, r;,zyxwvutsrqponmlk

OCTOBER, 1972 Ssl

 NW < V . . . . . . . . . . . . .( B-1O)

CASE 2 — MINIMUM VISCOSITY

NQ’r ATTAENED IN =n=p
. . .. ...A~TfiN
. . .. ..

The minimum limiting viscosity, ~min, is not

attained in the formation if rl < rw or
The apparent skin factor can be expressed as
NW> V .. . . . . . . . . . .. (B-11)

The pressure drop from r2 to rw can be expressed

as

1
/\ qn H

P2-Pw=-
. [ in (u”N~l-v)) - u + l]) k(l - n)
\–1211h
(1 - n)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-8) ●

[
‘2
-#n)..
(l-n)zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQP
(B-12)

1 w
where

wmin The skin factor can be expressed as

v=— r
IJJmax s =ln S
P r
r
w
1-n
H 2 rrrwh
N .— . . . . (B-9) 1 1

Pp . Ln N -Nw+l .
c1
max () PJ J
(1 - n) [
The condition that rl L Tw is sarisfied when . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-13)
***

SS!2 sOCIETY OF PETROLEUM EXGIXEERS JO URKAL