OTC-28447-MS

Numerical Modeling of Biopolymer Flooding in

High-Temperature High-Salinity Carbonate Cores

Emad W. Al-Shalabi, Petroleum Engineering Department, Khalifa University of Science and Technology

Copyright 2018, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-23 March 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
Polymer flooding is a well-established commercially available chemical technique for enhancing oil
recovery. This technique is mainly used in sandstones with a limited application in carbonates due to the
harsh reservoir conditions of high temperature and high salinity. This paper numerically investigates the
effect of Schizophyllan biopolymer on oil recovery from carbonate cores. The effect of biopolymer on oil
recovery was predicted by running several synthetic 1D simulations using measured reservoir rock and fluid
data. Biopolymer flow behavior was modeled through considering adsorption, viscosity, density, salinity,
non-Newtonian, inaccessible pore volume, permeability reduction, and degradation effects. The simulation
runs were performed in both secondary and tertiary modes of injection. The study also includes a description
of polymer screening, rheological properties measurement, and design to tailor high temperature and high
salinity carbonate reservoirs.
The results show that the investigated biopolymer improves oil recovery in both secondary and tertiary
modes of injection compared to conventional formation waterflooding. Moreover, the overall oil recovery
of both secondary and tertiary polymer floodings are almost comparable after 6 pore volumes of injection.
Nevertheless, the application of polymer flooding in the secondary mode is more preferable due to
boosting the oil production rate at an earlier time. Also, an optimum polymer concentration of 800 ppm is
recommended for achieving a minimum total relative mobility of oil and water phases. The findings of this
work are supported by fractional flow and mobility ratio analyses to highlight the improvement in volumetric
sweep efficiency as a result of using the investigated biopolymer. This study highlights the advantages
of using Schizophyllan biopolymer on oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs with high temperature and
high salinity conditions. The biopolymer improves mobility ratio by mainly decreasing water effective
permeability and increasing water viscosity. The study at the laboratory-scale is considered as a basis for
field-scale predictions.

Introduction and Background

During the life of an oil reservoir, different recovery mechanisms are involved including primary, secondary,
and tertiary mechanisms (Lake, 1989). A large fraction of original oil in place (OOIP) remains trapped in
the reservoir after both primary and secondary recoveries. The latter necessitates the need for enhanced
2 OTC-28447-MS

oil recovery (EOR) techniques to improve the oil recovery in an economic way under certain market
and technology conditions. Different EOR techniques are being used including: solvents (miscible and
immiscible gas floodings), chemical flooding (surfactant, polymer, alkaline or combination of them),
thermal methods (steam flooding, cyclic steam flooding, or in-situ combustion), and others (microbial,
low salinity/engineered water injection (LSWI/EWI), or acoustic) (Al-Shalabi and Sepehrnoori, 2016 and
2017). This paper discusses the application of polymer flooding as an EOR technique on oil recovery from
carbonate reservoirs.
Polymer flooding is a commercially available chemical EOR technique that has been studied and
practiced for many years (Chang, 1978). In this technique, polymers are added to the water in order to
increase its viscosity and hence, improve water sweep efficiency through decreasing the mobility ratio
between the displacing fluid (water) and the displaced fluid (oil). Usually, large molecular weight water-
soluble polymers are added to the water to increase water viscosity and improve the adverse mobility ratio.
Consequently, this viscous water dampens viscous fingering effects and results in better volumetric sweep
efficiency (Sorbie, 1991).

Polymer Proposed Mechanisms

Needham and Doe (1987) reported different mechanisms by which polymer flooding improves volumetric
sweep efficiency beyond conventional waterflooding. These mechanism include improving oil fractional
flow, reducing mobility ratio, and diverting water to unswept regions of the reservoir. From a fractional flow
prospective, polymer flooding increases water viscosity, reduces water effective permeability, and hence,
decreases water fractional flow, and increases oil fractional flow. The latter is more pronounced with a higher
saturation of mobile oil as well as a higher oil relative permeability. From a mobility control aspect, the high
viscosity of oil usually causes viscous fingering of water and therefore early water breakthrough. Polymer is
added to reduce the mobility of water compared to oil, lower mobility ratio, and improve volumetric sweep
efficiency. Also, polymer flooding causes microscopic diversion in water swept zones. This is achievable
with the use of high viscosity polymer solutions through waterflooded pores and channels causing reduction
in their permeability through building up a flowing resistance. Hence, diverting the flow to new unswept
zones and improving oil recovery.
Other mechanisms were reported in the literature where polymer flooding results in decreasing residual
oil saturation. Most of researchers referred that phenomena to the viscoelastic behavior of polymers which
leads to mobilization of residual oil saturation when mobile oil saturation is greater than waterflood
residual oil saturation (Huh and Pope, 2008; Cheng et al., 2008; Sheng, 2011). Polymer solutions with
high concentrations as well as high molecular weights have been used to improve oil recovery from heavy
oil reservoirs. This is due to the viscoelastic effect which enables reducing residual oil saturation after
waterflooding (Qi et al., 2017). Moreover, Erincik et al. (2017) showed a newly remarkable result of
further reducing residual oil saturation of low-salinity viscoelastic polymer through injecting high-salinity
viscoelastic polymer; however, they reported that the mechanism behind this observation requires further
investigation. In addition, polymers are used in a combination with cross-linkers (metal ions like aluminum
citrate or chromium acetate) to create gel solutions. These solutions are applied for gas/water shut-off as
well as blocking thief zones, and hence, used for conformance control (Abdulbaki et al., 2014).

Polymer Types
Two main types of polymers are generally used for EOR purposes including synthetically produced
partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamides (HPAM) and biologically produced polysaccharides such as Xanthan
biopolymers. Polyacrylamides have long molecules with small effective diameters which make them
very sensitive to mechanical degradation and subjected to viscosity reduction. Also, polyacrylamides are
sensitive to saline solutions where in high salinity water, polymer molecules tend to curl up and lose their
viscosity-building capability. On the other hand, Xanthan polymers are more tolerant to mechanical shear
OTC-28447-MS 3

and saline conditions, but they are very sensitive to biological degradation. Xanthan polymers are not
retained on rock surfaces whereas polyacrylamides are subjected to retention which causes reduction in
rock permeability. Both polymers are unstable in high temperature environments and oxidation by dissolved
oxygen in the injected water (Green and Willhite, 1998). Promising polymers include Scleroglucan
and Schizophyllan biopolymers, which have many similarities to Xanthan. The main challenge with
biopolymers is the poor filterability and plugging during flow in the porous media. This plugging problem
is due to the presence of organic material or microgels (Carter et al., 1980). Kohler and Chauveteau (1981)
stated that a potential polymer should be qualified through corefloods with low polymer retention (< 84 μg/
g of rock) and less pore volumes to achieve a steady state pressure drop (2-3 PVs).

Polymer Screening Studies

Several factors affect the performance of polymer flooding including characteristic of polymer solution
itself, technical, economical, and reservoir conditions. Characteristics of polymer solution include but
not limited to polymer molecular weight, polymer concentration, degree of hydrolysis, viscoelastic
properties of the polymer solution, salinity, and pH of make-up water solution. Better sweep efficiency is
usually achievable with a combination of low salinity, high molecular weight, and high concentration of
polymers. Other technical, economical, and reservoir factors include injectivity problems, shear dependence
behavior of polymers, polymer retention/adsorption, connate water salinity, pH, rock wettability, reservoir
temperature, oil viscosity, and amount of mobile oil saturation left after conventional waterflooding (Sorbie,
1991; Green and Willhite, 1998). Polymer retention affects the economics as well as the performance of
polymer flooding technique. Initial rock wettability state was found to affect polymer adsorption. Usually, in
intermediate-wet reservoirs, significant portions of rock surface are occupied by crude oil components which
reduce the adsorption sites available for polymers. Hence, in water-wet reservoirs, polymer adsorption is
more pronounced which results in a poor sweep efficiency (Chiappa et al., 1999).

Polymer Corefloods
Polymer screening studies are followed by corefloods to qualify a polymer for EOR. The Polymer corefloods
have been mainly conducted on sandstones with a limited application on carbonates where the promising
results motivated researchers to perform further studies (Manrique et al., 2006). The corefloods conducted
on carbonates are few with temperature up to 109 °C and salinity of 343,000 ppm using mainly synthetic
polymers as opposed to biopolymers (Al-Hashim et al., 1996; Levitt et al., 2011; Vermolen et al., 2011;
Carlisle et al., 2014; Bennetzen et al., 2014; Han et al., 2014; and Zhu et al., 2015).

Polymer Numerical Modeling

After conducting both polymer screening studies and corefloods, the properties of these qualified polymers
are needed as an input in a numerical simulator for history matching as well as upscaling of these corefloods
to field-scale studies. The simulations are later used to optimize polymer flooding through running
sensitivity studies on polymer concentration, injection rates and other factors that affect the economics of
this process (Lee, 2015).
From a numerical simulation prospective, a 3D numerical simulator was developed by Zeito (1968),
which highlighted the effect of polymer flooding on improving vertical sweep efficiency from homogeneous
as well as heterogeneous reservoirs. The effect of polymer on enhancing areal sweep efficiency was studied
by Slater and Farouq-Ali (1970) through reducing the mobility of water in their simulator. Rheological
behavior modeling of polymers was introduced by Bondor et al. (1972) with an emphasis on the importance
of near wellbore effect on polymer injectivity. The authors included the non-ideal mixing of polymer and
water, polymer adsorption, and permeability reduction due to polymer adsorption in their simulator. Polymer
flooding was modeled in an Exxon Mobile's in-house unstructured grid simulator (EMpower) by Verma et al.
(2009). Implementing polymer module into the Integrated Parallel Accurate Reservoir Simulator (IPARS)
4 OTC-28447-MS

(Wheeler, 2002) was performed by Yuan (2010). Streamline simulation technique was utilized by Clemens
et al. (2011) in modeling polymer flooding where a significant improvement in the computational efficiency
was achieved. Other simulation works focused on 1D modeling of polymer flooding using the generalized
fractional flow theory based on extension of the Buckley-Leverette theory for waterflooding (Pope, 1980).
A summary of the basic functions in a polymer module was provided by Goudarzi et al. (2013), which
include models for polymer viscosity as a function of both concentration and shear rate, polymer adsorption,
permeability reduction, inaccessible pore volume, salinity and hardness effect on viscosity. The authors
highlighted these functions in different simulators including UTCHEM (Technical Documentation, 2000),
ECLIPSE (Schlumberger, 2010), and CMG-STARS (Computer Modeling Group Ltd, 2013).
Several numerical studies have been conducted to highlight the effect of polymer flooding on enhancing
oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs as well as optimizing this process. Pandey et al. (2008) performed
chemical flooding simulation studies for the Mangala Field. They started with history matching of
corefloods for both ASP and polymer followed by a 5-spot field-scale model to forecast and optimize
polymer performance. The results showed an optimum incremental oil recovery of 15% OOIP using 0.35
PV of ASP slug followed by 0.35-0.5 PV of chase polymer slug. SP flooding simulation and optimization of
White Tiger oil field was performed by Dang et al. (2011). Both injection rates and injection pressures were
optimized in this study. Other optimization studies for SP slug and polymer slug were conducted by Akram
and Daulat (2011) and Nguyen et al. (2014). Moreover, Mohammadi et al. (2012) highlighted the use of low
salinity polymer solutions in achieving faster oil recovery by improving sweep efficiency. This combination
is very attractive as one third or less of polymer is required for polymer floods. Han and Lee (2014)
performed a sensitivity analysis for low-salinity polymer flooding through varying the low-salinity-water
slug size, water salinity, and polymer viscosity. They concluded that the two most influential parameters
for low-salinity polymer flooding are LSWI slug size and polymer viscosity. Kong et al. (2015) simulated
polymer-CO2 WAG process where they noticed an incremental oil recovery of 4% OOIP compared to
conventional waterflooding.

Polymer Field Applications

Polymer flooding was first introduced in the 1960's (Pye, 1964; Sandiford, 1964; Mungan et al., 1966;
Gogarty, 1967). The previous studies focused on highlighted the potential of polymer flooding at the
laboratory-scale. Several field-scale applications of polymer flooding were proven successful since the
1970's. Koning et al. (1988) reported a successful polymer flooding pilot in Oman. The pilot started with
0.23 PV of a water preflush followed by 0.63 PV of a polymer slug and finally 0.35 PV of a water postflush.
The total cumulative oil recovery was 59% OOIP with 0.81-1.1 lbs of polymer per 1 bbl of recovered oil.
A successful polymer flooding field project was presented by Putz et al. (1988) in Chateaurenard field
in France. They injected 0.42 PV polymer slug with 1,000 ppm polymer solution followed by 0.39 PV
solution at tapered concentration. The polymer used in this study is partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide.
The favorable field conditions of high permeability, low temperature, and low salinity/hardness of formation
water rendered this project as one of the most successful field-scale applications. The latter successful
project was followed by the remarkable work of Takaqi et al. (1992), developed a first time reservoir
simulator that accurately predicted the polymer flooding performance.
Another successful polymer pilot was presented by Littmann et al. (1992) for the Eddesse-Nord sandstone
reservoir in Germany. Xanthan polymer was used with 800 ppm concentration for about 3 years of injection.
The project was considered successful in terms of oil production performance and injection. No polymer
degradation was reported and the polymer adsorption was relatively low (30-40 μg/g of rock). Moreover,
a successful polymer flooding project was reported by Demin et al. (2002) and Sheng (2014) in Daqing
oil field in China. The field project resulted in about 12-15% incremental OOIP. This study highlighted
formation water and make-up water salinities, molecular weight, and the amount of injected polymer as key
OTC-28447-MS 5

factors for a successful polymer flooding project. Other successful polymer flooding projects were reported
in the literature (Du and Guan, 2004; de Melo et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2011).
Ayirala et al. (2008) presented a summary of ten polymer flooding projects mainly carried out in
sandstone reservoirs. They reported that the average incremental oil recovery out of these secondary projects
was about 26.5% OOIP as opposed to the tertiary projects of 10.4% OOIP. Standnes and Skjevrak (2014)
presented a state-of-art literature review on polymer flooding field cases. They reported 72 projects out of
which 40 projects were classified as success, 6 discouraging, 11 promising, 8 too early to tell, 2 inconclusive,
2 not evaluated, and 3 projects did not report the technical assessment. Moreover, 3 out of the latter projects
were conducted in carbonate formations. Eliasville Caddo Unit in the USA is the first recorded polymer
flooding project in limestone reservoir. The reservoir temperature is 46 °C, the permeability is 11 mD,
formation water salinity is 165,000 ppm, and oil viscosity is 3 cP at reservoir conditions. HPAM was used
with a total polymer slug size of 0.125 PV. The results showed a decrease in water cut from 97% to 94%
as well as a 10% increase in oil production after polymer injection.
Polymer flooding projects have been mainly targeting sandstones with little work on carbonates.
Carbonate reservoirs in the Middle East are mixed-to-oil wet with high heterogeneity due to the presence
of high streak channels which lead to early water breakthrough. This is added the harsh conditions of
high temperature and high salinity. Hence, this work focuses on the numerical investigation of biopolymer
injection in these reservoirs to increase the volumetric sweep efficiency. The focus of this work is mainly
on the core-scale simulations, which is considered the first step towards up-scaling to field-scale studies.

Methodology
This work includes predictions of Schizophyllan biopolymer effect on oil recovery from carbonate cores.
The study starts with history matching a waterflooding process on a Middle Eastern carbonate cores. The
latter is followed by modeling the Schizophyllan biopolymer properties as reported from the screening
studies by Quadri (2015). Afterwards, predictions of oil recovery by this biopolymer are performed in both
secondary and tertiary modes of injection. The simulator used in this work is UTCHEM (2000), which is
a 3D multiphase-flow, transport, and chemical-flooding simulator developed at the University of Texas at
Austin.

Experimental Data
Quadri (2015) presented a screening study for Schizophyllan biopolymer to be used in Middle Eastern
carbonate reservoirs with high temperature and high salinity conditions. The latter polymer showed
shear thinning behavior with excellent thermal stability (at 120 °C) and salt tolerance (up to 200,000
ppm). In addition, Schizophyllan showed good injectivity on cores with permeability higher than 30 mD.
Dynamic adsorption was also discussed on cores of different permeabilities (3-163 mD) and was found
to be low within 7-48 μg/g of rock. Later, Li (2015) conducted several corefloods to highlight the effect
of Schizophyllan biopolymer on oil recovery where additional oil recovery was between 7-10% post
waterflooding. Moreover, he used a polymer concentration of 200 ppm to enhance oil recovery from these
reservoirs. The current study numerically investigates the use of this novel biopolymer with the proposed
polymer concentration for the target reservoirs in the Middle East.
One of the corefloods conducted by Li (2015) was utilized to get rock and fluid data as well as relative
permeability and capillary pressure curves for formation waterflooding through history matching using
UTCHEM. In this coreflood, the core was saturated with dead reservoir oil at irreducible water saturation,
and then, formation water was injected at reservoir conditions (248 °F and 3000 psig). The core plug used
has an average porosity of 13.12% and an average liquid permeability of 30.5 mD. More details about this
coreflood including rock and fluid properties are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Formation water cycle history
matching, biopolymer properties modeling, analytical determination of optimum biopolymer concentration,
6 OTC-28447-MS

numerical core-scale simulations, and both fractional flow and mobility ratio analyses are discussed. More
information about the screening work of the biopolymer used can be found elsewhere (Quadri, 2015).

Table 1—Rock petrophysical properties

Pore Volume 10.36 cc

Porosity 0.1312

Permeability 30.5 mD

Diameter 3.80 cm

Cross
11.341 cm2
Sectional Area

Length 7.21 cm

Injection Rate
0.2
(cm3/min)

Capillary
6.03 × 10−7
Number (Nc)

Swi 0.304

Soi 0.696

Sorw 0.251

Table 2—Fluid properties

Oil Viscosity (cP) @ 248 °F 0.815

Oil Density (g/cc) @ 248 °F 0.755

Oil API (Degrees) 38.164

Water Viscosity
0.385
(cP) @ 248 °F

Water Density
1.063
(g/cc) @ 248 °F

Water Salinity (ppm) 168,949

Simulation Model
A 2D Cartesian grid was used with 10 × 1 × 10 gridblocks to simulate the heterogeneous core plug for
the coreflood. The number of gridblocks was chosen in a way to capture the physics and heterogeneity
of the coreflood. The simulation model was created horizontally to match the coreflood which was run in
a horizontal position. The heterogeneity was considered by generating permeability distribution with an
arithmetic mean of 30.5 mD and Dykstra Parson's coefficient (VDP) of 0.85. A spherical variogram as well
as a log normal permeability distribution were used. The x-direction correlation length was assumed to be
similar to the y-direction; however, a low z-direction correlation length compared to the x-direction was
chosen, which generated the horizontal layers of different permeabilities (Figure 1). The simulation model
has two vertical wells including an injector and a producer. More details about the simulation model are
listed in Table 3.
OTC-28447-MS 7

Figure 1—Simulation model used in different runs with heterogeneous permeability.

Table 3—Heterogeneous core model data

Parameter Value Comments

Number of Gridblocks 100 2D (10 × 1 × 10)

X direction: 1-10, Δx 0.00721 m

Constant grid size in the
Gridblock Sizes (Δx, Δy, Δz), m Y direction: 1-1, Δy is 0.033677 m
x, y and z directions.
Z direction: 1-10, Δz is 0.0033677 m

Composite Core Model Dimensions, m 0.721 m × 0.033677 m × 0.33677 m Length × Width × Height

Results and Discussion

Waterflooding History Matching (Secondary Injection).
The experimental data of the formation water coreflood, including pressure drop and oil recovery, were
analyzed to find the relative permeability curves. Darcy's law and the stabilized pressure drop were used to
determine the water endpoint relative permeability (krw*) and the oil endpoint relative permeability (kro*) was
provided in the experimental work. The latter two parameters were used in Corey's correlation along with
Corey's oil and water exponents (no and nw) to estimate the relative permeability curves for the formation
water injection cycle. Moreover, Brooks-Corey correlation for imbibition capillary pressure of mixed-wet
rocks was used to estimate the capillary pressure curve for this injection cycle (Appendix A1).
It should be noted that the final selection of Corey's exponents and capillary pressure parameters was
based on the best history matching scenario for both oil recovery and pressure drop experimental data
for the formation water cycle. Endpoint relative permeability data analysis as well as summary of relative
permeability and capillary pressure parameters for the formation water injection cycle are listed in Tables
4 and 5, respectively. Relative permeability and capillary pressure curves used in history matching the
experimental data are depicted in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Both relative permeability and capillary
pressure curves are consistent as they show a mixed-to-oil wet carbonate rock. The latter curves resulted in
a good history match for both oil recovery and pressure drop data as shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
As seen from the latter figures, both heterogeneity and capillary pressure effects were considered in
8 OTC-28447-MS

history matching. A reasonable history match was only obtained after considering the contributions of both
heterogeneity and capillary pressure.

Figure 2—Relative permeablity curves (formation water cycle).

Figure 3—Capillary pressure curve (formation water cycle).

OTC-28447-MS 9

Figure 4—Cumulative oil recovey match (formation water cycle).

Figure 5—Overall pressure drop match (formation water cycle).

Table 4—Endpoint relative permeability data analysis (formation water cycle)

Oil Viscosity 0.815 cP

Composite Core Length 7.21 cm oil-water IFT (σ) 30 dynes/cm

Cross Sectional Area 11.341 cm2

Injection Rate (Main) 0.2 cm3/min

ΔPinitial 8 psi
Absolute Brine Permeability 30.5 mD

Injection Cycle Water Viscosity (cP) Pressure Drop (psi) krw* Sorw kro*

Formation Water Cycle 0.385 6.20 0.063 0.251 0.104

10 OTC-28447-MS

Table 5—Summary of relative permeability and capillary pressure parameters (formation water cycle)

Formation Water Cycle Match Parameters

Relative Permeability Parameters

krw* 0.063 nw 1.5

kro* 0.104 no 1.5

Capillary Pressure Parameters

CPC1 4 EPC1 2

CPC2 -4 EPC2 2

S* 0.6

Biopolymer Properties Modeling.

In this section, modeling of the different properties of the Schizophyllan biopolymer is discussed using the
UTCHEM simulator along with the screening tests reported by Quadri (2015).
Polymer Viscosity, Salinity, and Concentration.. Polymer viscosity is important in mobility control of the
injected polymer solution. Polymer viscosity increases with increasing polymer concentration whereas it
decreases with increasing the solution salinity. The dependence of polymer solution viscosity at zero shear
rate ( ) on both polymer concentration and salinity are modeled in UTCHEM using the Flory-Huggins
equation as follows (Flory, 1953):
(1)
where μw is the water viscosity in cP, Cp is the polymer concentration in water, Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, and Sp are
fitting constants, and Csep is the effective polymer salinity. It should be noted that the units for the parameters
inside the parentheses must be dimensionless so that the unit for be the same as μw. Csep captures the
dependency of polymer viscosity on both salinity and hardness, and is defined as:

(2)

where C51 and C61 are the anion and the divalent concentration in the aqueous solution in meq/mL,
respectively. C11 is the water concentrations in the aqueous phase and it is expressed as water volume fraction
in the aqueous phase. βp is measured in the laboratory, with typical value of about 10. In Csep calculation,
usually the total amount of chloride ion is considered because NaCl is the most common salt in the water
used and the current technology cannot describe the effect of every single ion on chemical EOR. Also, βp
was assumed to be equal to 1, which means the hardness effect on polymer solution was ignored. Moreover,
C11 was assumed to be 1.

It is worth mentioning that Sp is the slope of versus Csep on a log-log plot (Figure 6). Figure 7

shows the viscosity experimental data as well as data matching using Equation (1). The results show that
Ap1, Ap2, and Ap3 are 2929, 44528, 44528, respectively, Csep is 2.3 meq/mL, μw is 1.25 cP, and Sp is −0.33.
OTC-28447-MS 11

Figure 6—Calcualtion of Sp.

Figure 7—Polymer viscosity versus polymer concentration.

Shear Effect. Biopolymer solutions are consider pseudoplastic or shear thinning fluids, which means that
their viscosity decreases with increasing the shear rate. In UTCHEM, the shear effect on polymer viscosity
is determined using Meter's equation, which is defined as (Meter and Bird, 1964):

(3)
12 OTC-28447-MS

where Pα is an empirical parameter that is obtained by matching laboratory-measured viscosity data, is

the limiting viscosity at low shear limit (approaching zero), μw is the water viscosity which is the limiting
viscosity at high shear limit (approaching infinity), and is the shear rate at which polymer viscosity is
the average of the and μw. The equivalent shear rate ( ) is defined using Cannella equation as follows
(Cannella et al., 1988):

(4)

(5)
where u is Darcy's velocity in ft/day, is the formation average permeability in Darcy, and C is a constant
that depends on permeability and porosity and it was assumed as 2.55 in this work as the reported C value
for Scleroglucan, which is a structurally similar polymer as Schizophyllan, is around 2 to 3.1 (Kulawardana
et al., 2012). Figure 8 depicts the shear rate effect on polymer viscosity where the results show that Pα is
1.7, is 10.12, and is 0.173.

Figure 8—Shear effect on polymer viscosity.

Polymer Adsorption. Polymer retention could be either dynamic (mechanical trapping and hydrodynamic
trapping) or static (adsorption). Mechanical trapping is due to the use of polymers with sizes greater than
the pores of the porous medium and it happens during polymer flow. The latter could be controlled by using
polymers in high permeability medium or pre-shearing of polymer solution. Hydrodynamic trapping occurs
also during polymer flow in the medium where the polymer retention depends on the flow rate. Usually,
this effect is negligible especially at field-applications. Adsorption is the most important mechanism, which
occurs due to the interaction between polymer molecules and the solid surface. Adsorption depends on the
surface area exposed to the polymer solution. Researchers usually use the term polymer retention to describe
polymer loss or they simply use the term adsorption (Sheng, 2011).
OTC-28447-MS 13

In UTCHEM, the Langmuir-type isotherm is used to describe polymer adsorption as follows (Lakatos
et al., 1979):

(6)

where Cp is the injected polymer concentration, is the adsorbed polymer concentration, is the
equilibrium concentration in the rock-polymer solution system, ap and bp are empirical constants. It should
be noted that both Cp and have the same units, and bp has the reciprocal unit of Cp. Also, ap is dimensionless
and defined as:

(7)

where ap1 and ap2 are fitting parameters, Csep is the effective salinity, k is the formation permeability, and
kref is the reference permeability of the rock used in the laboratory measurement for adsorption. It must
be noted that Langmuir model assumes equilibrium conditions, instantaneous polymer adsorption as well
as reversible adsorption in terms of polymer concentration. Polymer adsorption depends on polymer type,
salinity, and rock surface. Figure 9 shows polymer adsorption modeling using the UTCHEM simulator
where ap1, ap2, and bp obtained through data matching are 1.857, 0, and 100, respectively. The experimentally
reported adoption is 6.9 μg/g of rock using 200 ppm polymer concentration and 30.5 mD reference core
permeability.

Figure 9—Polymer adsorption modeling using UTCHEM.

14 OTC-28447-MS

Permeability Reduction. There is a noticeable formation permeability change during polymer flooding
compared to waterflooding. This permeability reduction is due to polymer adsorption. The permeability
reduction factor (Fkr) is defined as:

(8)

where keff,w is the rock effective permeability when rock is flooded by water and keff,p is the rock effective
permeability when the rock is flooded with polymer solution. This factor is modeled in UTCHEM using
the following equations:

(9)

(10)

where bkr and ckr are input parameters derived from data matching, Ap1 is the constant in Equation (1), Csep
is calculated using Equation (2), and Sp is from Figure 6. It should be noted that the term bkrCp must be
dimensionless, similarly is the case for Fkr,max, which has an assumed empirical value of 10. Permeability
reduction was modeled using the UTCHEM simulator as seen in Figure 10 through data matching using bkr,
and ckr values of 1000 and 0.006884, respectively.

Figure 10—Permeability reduction modeling using UTCHEM.

OTC-28447-MS 15

As the polymer adsorption process can be considered sometimes irreversible as it takes prolonged
pore volumes of water injection to restore the initial permeability, the residual resistance factor (Frr) was
introduced. The latter parameter is defined as the ratio of water mobility before polymer flow to water
mobility after polymer flow. However, Frr does not take into account the increase in viscosity caused by
polymer flooding. Hence, another term was introduced (Fr), which is the resistance factor and defined as
the ratio of water mobility during water flow to polymer mobility during polymer flow. It should be noted
that in UTCHEM, viscosity increase and permeability reduction due to polymer flooding is only applicable
to the water phase by modifying the polymer viscosity by Fkr.
Inaccessible Pore Volume (IPV). It refers to the fraction of pore volume where the radii of the pores are
smaller than the size of polymer particles, especially when polymers with high molecular weight are used.
These pores are usually filled with irreducible or connate water. IPV has a positive effect on sweep efficiency
of polymer solutions and hence, better oil recovery due to boosting the advancement of the polymer solution
front. Moreover, the IPV is useful from an economical point of view where it results in less contact between
rock surface and polymer solution and hence, less polymer adsorption/retention. The only disadvantage of
IPV is when these pores have movable oil droplets. In this situation, polymer solutions will not be able to
contact these oil droplets and that oil remains as residual oil saturation (Dawson and Lantz, 1971). IPV is
modeled using UTCHEM by multiplying the porosity in the conservation equation for polymer by an input
parameter (EPHI4) defined as the effective porosity. EPHI4 is 1 – IPV and assumed to be 1.0 in this study.
A summary of the parameters used in modeling the properties of the Schizophyllan biopolymer using
the UTCHEM simulator is listed in Table 6. More details about modeling of polymer properties using the
UTCHEM simulator can be found elsewhere (UTCHEM Technical Manual, 2000; Sheng, 2011).

Table 6—A summary of the parameters used in modeling the properties of the Schizophyllan biopolymer using the UTCHEM simulator

Variable UTCHEM Parameter Value

AP1 2929

AP2 44528

AP3 44528
Viscosity
Sp −0.33

βp 1

Csep (meq/mL) 2.3

Pα 1.7

Shear Effect 10.12

0.173

ap1 1.857

Adsorption ap2 0

bp 100

bkr 1000
Permeability Reduction
ckr 0.006884

Inaccessible Pore Volume (IPV) Effective Porosity (EPHI4) 1.0

16 OTC-28447-MS

Optimum Biopolymer Concentration Analysis

The optimum concentration of the Schizophyllan biopolymer was determined using an analytical method,
which is based on achieving the minimum total relative mobility of oil and water phases during the formation
water injection cycle. The total relative mobility (λrT) is defined as:

(11)

where λrw and λro are the relative mobility of water and oil phases, respectively. Afterwards, the designed
polymer viscosity is the inverse of the minimum total relative mobility as follows:

(12)

The analysis of determining the optimum polymer concentration is shown in Figures 11 and 12, which
represent the total relative mobility of water and oil phases, and the optimum polymer concentration,
respectively. The analysis shows that the optimum polymer concentration is 200 ppm, which results in a
polymer viscosity of 10 cP. The latter is consistent with the polymer concentration used in Li (2015) studies.

Figure 11—Totall relative mobility of water and oil phaes during formation water injection.
OTC-28447-MS 17

Figure 12—Optimum polymer concnetration design.

Biopolymer Flooding Prediction (Secondary Injection)

The prediction of the Schizophyllan biopolymer injection in the secondary mode of injection was
investigated as seen in Figure 13 for cumulative oil recovery prediction and Figure 14 for total pressure
drop prediction. The figures show two polymer concentrations include 200 and 800 ppm. The reason behind
that is the heterogeneity of the core model, which resulted in higher effective shearing effects and hence,
lowers polymer viscosity than the desired polymer viscosity (10 cP). Figure 15 shows the polymer viscosity
corresponding to polymer concentration of 200 ppm whereas Figure 16 shows that the use of 800 ppm
polymer concentration achieves the desired polymer viscosity of 10 cP. In the latter figures, there are
zones with higher viscosity ranges than the the others due to the higher permeability in these zones. This
can be cross-checked with the permeability model, which was previously shown in Figure 1. The higher
permeability, the lower the effective shear rate, and hence higher polymer viscosity in this zone, which is
consistent with Equations (3) and (4).
18 OTC-28447-MS

Figure 13—Cumulative oil recovery (polymer flooding-secondary injection mode).

Figure 14—Total pressure drop (polymer flooding-secondary injection mode).

OTC-28447-MS 19

Figure 15—Polymer viscoisty at 200 ppm polymer conentration (polymer flooding-secondary injection mode).

Figure 16—Polymer viscoisty at 800 ppm polymer conentration (polymer flooding-secondary injection mode).

The higher polymer viscosity results in better sweep efficiency as shown in the saturation maps in Figures
17 and 18. Figure 17 shows the water saturation in the core model as a result of formation water flooding
at 3 pore volumes of water injection where it is clear that zones with high permeability have better sweep
compared to others. On the other hand, Figure 18 shows the improvement in sweep efficiency as a result
of polymer injection in the secondary mode at 3 pore volumes of injection. The improvement is related to
the decrease in water mobility by decreasing effective water permeability and increasing water viscosity
by using the Schizophyllan biopolymer at concentration of 800 ppm. The results of secondary biopolymer
injection are also listed in Table 7. Both Figure 13 and Table 7 show that polymer flooding with 800 ppm
concentration results in better oil recovery compared to the 200 ppm polymer concentration. Moreover,
20 OTC-28447-MS

biopolymer flooding is more favorable as opposed to conventional formation waterflooding resulting in

incremental oil recovery of about 1.36 and 2.26% OOIP for 200 and 800 ppm polymer concentration,
respectively.

Figure 17—Water saturation map at 3 PV of formation water injection (formation waterflooding-secondary injection mode).

Figure 18—Water saturation map at 3 PV of polymer injeciton using 800

ppm polymer concentration (polymer flooding-secondary injection mode).
OTC-28447-MS 21

Table 7—Prediction of secondary polymer flooding using the UTCHEM simulator

Secondary Polymer Flooding (3 PVs of Injection)

Incremental Oil
Injection Technique Oil Recovery (%)
Recovery (%)

Formation Waterflooding 62.63 –

Polymer Flooding (200 ppm) 63.99 1.36

Polymer Flooding (800 ppm) 64.89 2.26

Biopolymer Flooding Prediction (Tertiary Injection)

The injection of the Schizophyllan biopolymer was also investigated in the tertiary mode of injection using
UTCHEM. This mode starts with injecting formation water for about 3 pore volumes followed by polymer
injection for another 3 pore volumes, which makes the total injection of 6 pore volumes. Figures 19 and
20 depict the cumulative oil recovery and the total pressure drop predictions as a result of tertiary polymer
flooding. The stabilized pressure drop during the polymer flooding indicates that there is no injectivity or
plugging problems. The findings are consistent with the secondary mode of injection where the 800 ppm
polymer resulted in better oil recovery than the 200 ppm polymer and that the tertiary polymer injection
is more favorable compared to conventional formation water injection for about 6 PVs. The incremental
oil recovery using tertiary polymer flooding is about 1.38 and 2.29% OOIP for 200 and 800 ppm polymer
concentration, respectively (Table 8).

Figure 19—Cumulative oil recovery (polymer flooding-teritary injection mode).

22 OTC-28447-MS

Figure 20—Total pressure drop (polymer flooding-tertiary injection mode).

Table 8—Prediction of tertiary polymer flooding using the UTCHEM simulator

Tertiary Polymer Flooding (6 PVs of Injection)

Incremental Oil
Injection Technique Oil Recovery (%)
Recovery (%)

Formation Waterflooding 65.14 –

Polymer Flooding (200 ppm) 66.52 1.38

Polymer Flooding (800 ppm) 67.42 2.29

The results in this case are also supported by the water saturation maps in Figures 21 and 22. The water
saturation after 6 pore volumes of formation water injection is shown in Figure 21 whereas Figure 22
shows the water saturation post polymer injection in the tertiary mode at 3 PVs and up to 6 PVs. The
improvement in oil recovery from the upper zones of high permeability is more pronounced post polymer
injection compared to the lower zones.
OTC-28447-MS 23

Figure 21—Water saturation map at 6 PV of formation water injection (formation waterflooding-secondary injection mode).

Figure 22—Water saturation map at 6 PV of polymer injeciton using 800

ppm polymer concentration (polymer flooding-tertiary injection mode).

Biopolymer Flooding Comparison (Secondary vs. Tertiary Injections)

The results of Schizophyllan biopolymer injection in both secondary and tertiary modes of injection are
shown in Figure 23 as well as Table 9. The comparison was considered for polymer concentration of
24 OTC-28447-MS

800 ppm, which achieves the desired polymer viscosity of 10 cP needed for reduction of water mobility
and improvement of oil sweep efficiency. The results show that in terms of cumulative oil recovery, both
secondary and tertiary modes of polymer flooding are comparable as they result in about 2% incremental
OOIP compared to conventional formation water injection. However, secondary polymer injection is
more favorable compared to tertiary polymer injection in terms of economics through early boosting oil
production rate and achieving higher money value.

Figure 23—Comparison between secondary vs. tertiary polymer flooding using 800 ppm polymer concentration.

Table 9—Prediction of secondary vs. tertiary polymer flooding using the UTCHEM simulator

Secondary vs. Tertiary Polymer Flooding (6 PVs of Injection)

Injection Technique Oil Recovery (%) Incremental Oil Recovery (%)
Formation Waterflooding 65.14 –
Secondary Polymer Flooding (800 ppm) 67.19 2.06
Tertiary Polymer Flooding (800 ppm) 67.42 2.29

Fractional Flow and Mobility Ratio Analyses

In this subsection, both fractional flow and mobility ratio analyses for biopolymer flooding are discussed.
Fractional Flow Analysis. The following assumptions were made in this fractional flow analysis:

• No dispersion

• Uniform adsorption of polymer on rock

• One-dimensional linear flow

• Porosity, water and solid densities, and water viscosity are constants
OTC-28447-MS 25

• Continuous injection of polymer

• No chemical reactions

• Polymer only in aqueous phase (does not partition to oil)

• Polymer viscosity depends on polymer concentration

• Isothermal reservoir

• Local equilibrium adsorption of polymer on rock

Two fractional flow curves were considered. First, the water-oil fractional flow equation for horizontal
flow and neglecting capillary pressure effect:

(13)

Second, the polymer-oil fractional flow equation for horizontal flow and neglecting capillary pressure
effect:

(14)

It is worth mentioning that the fractional flow analysis was conducted for the secondary mode of injection.
The frontal advance loss (Dp) in cc polymer / cc pore volume was calculated using the following equation:

(15)

where wps is the mass concentration of adsorbed polymer and ρs is the rock density (2.71 g/cc). Afterwards,
the intercept of the water saturation axis (ϕe - Dp) was found and a tangent was drawn to polymer fractional
flow curve resulting in (Sw*, fp*) values and the intersection of this tangent with the water-oil fractional flow
curve, results in the water shock (oil bank) saturation and fractional flow values (SwB, fwB). The parameter
ϕe is defined as follows:

(16)

It should be noted that ϕe is zero in this study as IPV is zero. Water saturation at breakthrough as well
as the corresponding water fractional flow value were considered in the analysis (Swbt, fwbt). The fractional
flow analysis is shown in Figure 24 where a more favorable fractional flow curve was obtained using
polymer flooding as opposed to conventional formation water flooding. This finding is consistent with
Figures 25a-25d showing water cut, oil cut, dimensionless cumulative oil recovery, and saturation profile at
0.2 PV using fractional flow calculations. The positive response of polymer flooding is clearly seen in the
latter figures where a piston like displacement front was obtained using polymer flooding to the extreme
of having one shock instead of the conventional two shocks solution. It should be noted that this solution
was obtained under the assumptions made in this study.
26 OTC-28447-MS

Figure 24—Fractional flow curves of waterflood and polymer flood in the secondary mode of injection.

Figure 25—Fractional flow calculations of waterflood and polymer flood in the secondary mode of injection.

Mobility Ratio Analysis. This analysis is essential in designing a polymer flooding process for a certain
field. One should make sure that the mobility ratio is less than 1 for a achieving a good mobility control
by polymer and avoid water fingering through the oil as well as early water breakthrough. In this work, the
OTC-28447-MS 27

endpoint mobility ratio was calculated before and after polymer flooding using Equations (17) and (18),
respectively.

(17)

(18)

The results show that the endpoint mobility ratio during formation waterflooding ( ) is 1.29 whereas
the endpoint mobility rate during polymer flooding ( ) is 0.013. The latter results indicate a slightly
favorable endpoint mobility ratio during the formation waterflooding; however, this mobility ratio was
further improved using the the Schizophyllan biopolymer. This finding further indicates the capability of
this biopolymer on improving volumetric sweep efficiency in carbonate reservoirs with harsh conditions
of temperature and salinity.

Concluding Remarks
The performance of Schizophyllan biopolymer in improving oil recovery from carbonates with high
temperature and high salinity conditions was successfully evaluated at core scale using the UTCHEM
simulator. The main findings of this work are as follows:

• Heterogeneity effect even at a core scale is important in history matching formation water
corefloods as well as in modeling polymer properties especially shear effect on polymer viscosity.
• Schizophyllan biopolymer improves oil recovery compared to conventional waterflooding through
decreasing effective water permeability as well as increasing water viscosity, and hence reducing
the water phase mobility.
• The investigated biopolymer enhances oil recovery in both secondary and tertiary modes of
injection compared to conventional formation water injection.
• Secondary injection of Schizophyllan biopolymer is more favorable as opposed to tertiary injection
due to boosting oil production rate at earlier time and hence higher money value.
• An optimum concentration of 800 ppm is recommended for achieving a minimum total relative
mobility of oil and water phases.
• The Schizophyllan biopolymer improves both displacement and volumetric sweep efficiencies
through achieving favorable water fractional flow curve as well as endpoint mobility ratio
compared to conventional waterflooding.
In the future work, field scale studies will be considered to highlight the advantages of using
Schizophyllan biopolymer on oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs with high temperature and high salinity
conditions. Moreover, sensitivity analysis as well as optimization studies will be performed.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge Khalifa University of Science and Technology for funding this work.
Moreover, the author would like to thank Professor Kamy Sepehrnoori at the University of Texas at Austin
for providing access to the UTCHEM simulator.

Nomenclature
CPC1, CPC2 = parameters related to the maximum capillary pressure
EPC1, EPC2 = capillary pressure exponents
28 OTC-28447-MS

k = formation permeability
= phase endpoint relative permeability
kro = oil relative permeability
krw = water relative permeability
Nc = capillary number
nl = phase Corey's exponent
Pe = capillary pressure
Sl = phase saturation
Slr = phase residual saturation
Snl = phase normalized saturation
So = oil saturation
Swi, Swr = irreducible water saturation
Sorw = waterflood residual oil saturation
Sw* = water saturation at zero capillary pressure

Greek letters
λrl = phase relative mobility
μ = viscosity
σ = interfacial tension
ρ = phase density
ϕ = porosity

Subscripts / Superscripts
i = initial
l = phase: oil/water/gas
o = oil
r = residual phase
w = water

Abbreviations
ASP = Alkaline Surfactant Polymer
EOR = Enhanced Oil Recovery
EWI = Engineered Water Injection
HPAM = Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamides
IFT = Interfacial Tension
IPV = Inaccessible Pore Volume
LSWI = Low Salinity Water Injection
OOIP = Original Oil in Place
PV = Pore Volume
SP = Surfactant Polymer
UTCHEM = University of Texas Chemical Simulator
WAG = Water Alternating Gas

References
Abdulbaki, M., Huh, C., Sepehrnoori, K., Delshad, M., and Varavei, A., 2014. A Critical Review on Use of Polymer
Microgels for Conformance Control Purposes. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 122(2014): 741–753.
OTC-28447-MS 29

Al-Hashim, H., Obiora, V., Al-Yousef, H., Fernandez, F., and Nofal, W., 1996. Alkaline surfactant polymer formulation
for Saudi Arabian carbonate reservoirs. Paper SPE 35353, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
USA.
Al-Shalabi, E. W. and Sepehrnoori, K., 2016. A Comprehensive Review of Low Salinity/Engineered Water Injections and
Their Applications in Sandstone and Carbonate Rocks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 139(2016):
137–161.
Al-Shalabi, E. W. and Sepehrnoori, K., 2017. Low Salinity and Engineered Water Injection for Sandstone and Carbonate
Reservoirs. Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier, 1st Edition, pp. 178, ISBN: 978-0-12-813604-1, Cambridge, USA.
Akram, S. I. N. and Daulat. M., 2011. Simulation Study on Surfactant-Polymer Flood Performance in Fractured Carbonate
Reservoir. Paper SPE 149106, SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi
Arabia.
Ayirala, S., Doe, P., Curole, M., and Chin, R., 2008. Polymer Flooding in Saline Heavy Oil Environments. Paper SPE
113396, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Bennetzen, M. V., Gilani, S. F. H., Mogensen, K., Ghozali, M., and Bounoua, N., 2014. Successful Polymer Flooding of
Low-Permeability, Oil-Wet, Carbonate Reservoir Cores. Paper SPE 171849, SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Bondor, P. L., Hirasaki, G. J., and Tham, M. J., 1972. Mathematical Simulation of Polymer Flooding in Complex
Reservoirs. SPE Journal, 12(5): 369–382.
Cannella, W. J., Huh, C., and Seright, R. S., 1988. Prediction of Xanthan Rheology in Porous Media. Paper SPE 18089,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA.
Carlisle, C., Al-Maraghi, E., Al-Saad, B., Britton, C., Fortenberry, R., and Pope, G., 2014. One-Spot Pilot Results in the
Sabriyah-Mauddud Carbonate Formation in Kuwait Using a Novel Surfactant Formulation. Paper SPE 169153, SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Carter, W. H., Payton, J. T., and Pindell, R. G., 1980. Biopolymer Injection into a Low Permeability Reservoir. Paper SPE
8836, SPE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Chang, H. L., 1978. Polymer Flooding Technology-Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
30(8): 1113–1128.
Cheng, Z. J., Ping, S. K., Li, L., and Long, Y. E., 2008. Investigation on Mechanisms of Polymer Enhanced Oil Recovery
by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Microscopic Theoretical Analysis. Chinese Physics Letters, 25(5): 1750–1752.
Chiappa, L., Mennella, A., Lockhart, T. P., and Burrafato, G., 1999. Polymer Adsorption at the Brine-Rock Interface: The
Role of Electrostatic Interactions and Wettability. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 24(2-4): 113–122.
Clemens, T., Abdev, J., Thiele, M., 2011. Improved Polymer-Flood Management Using Streamlines. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, 14(2): 171–181.
Computer Modeling Group Ltd, 2013. CMG-STARS. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Dang, C. T. Q., Chen, Z., Nguyen, N. T. B., Bae, W., and Phung, T. H., 2011. Successful Story of Development
and Optimization for Surfactant-Polymer Flooding in a Geologically Complex Reservoir. Paper SPE 144147, SPE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Dawson, R. and Lantz, R. B., 1971. Inaccessible Pore Volume in Polymer Flooding. Paper SPE 3522, SPE Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Demin, W., Jiecheng, C., Junzsheng, W., and Yan, W., 2002. Producing by Polymer Flooding more than 300 Million
Barrels of Oil, What Experiences have been learn? Paper SPE 77872, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia.
de Melo, M. A., de Holleben, C. R. C., da Silva, I. P. G., de Barros Correia, A., da Silva, G. A., Rosa, A. J., Lins, A. G.,
and de Lima, J. C., 2005. Evaluation of Polymer Injection Projects in Brazil. Paper SPE 94898, SPE Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Du, Y. and Guan, L., 2004. Field-Scale Polymer Flooding: Lessons Learnt and Experiences Gained During Past 40 Years.
Paper SPE 91787, SPE International Petroleum Conference, Puebla Pue, Mexico.
Erincik, M. Z., Qi, P., Balhoff, M., and Pope, G. A., 2017. New Method to Reduce Residual Oil Saturation by Polymer
Flooding. Paper SPE 187230, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Flory, P. J., 1953. Principles of Polymer Chemistry. Cornell University Press.
Gogarty, W. B., 1967. Mobility Control with Polymer Solutions. SPE Journal, 7(2): 161–173.
Goudarzi, A., Delshad, M., Sepehrnoori, K., 2013. A Critical Assessment of Several Reservoir Simulators for Modeling
Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes. Paper SPE 163578, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Green, D. W. and Willhite, P. W., 1998. Enhanced Oil Recovery. SPE Textbook Series, Richardson, Texas, USA.
Han, M., Fuseni, A., Zahrani, B., and Wang, J., 2014. Laboratory Study on Polymers for Chemical Flooding in Carbonate
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 169724, SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman.
30 OTC-28447-MS

Han, B. and Lee, J., 2014. Sensitivity Analysis on the Design Parameters of Enhanced Oil Recovery by Polymer
Flooding with Low Salinity Waterflooding. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, The Twenty-fourth
International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Busan, Korea.
Huh, C. and Pope, G. A., 2008. Residual Oil Saturation from Polymer Floods: Laboratory Measurements and Theoretical
Interpretation. Paper SPE 113417, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Kohler, N. and Chauveteau, G., 1981. Xanthan Polysaccharide Plugging Behavior in Porous Media – Preferential Use of
Fermentation Broth. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 33(2): 349–358.
Kong, X., Delshad, M., and Wheeler, M. F., 2015. A Numerical Study of Benefits of Adding Polymer to WAG Processes
of a Pilot Case. Paper SPE 173230, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA.
Koning, E. J. L., Mentzer, E., and Heemskerk, J., 1988. Evaluation of a Pilot Polymer Flood in the Marmul Field, Oman.
Paper SPE 18092, SPE 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA.
Kulawardana, E. U., Koh, H., Kim, D. H., Liyanage, P. J., Upamali, K., Huh, C., Weerasooriya, U., and Pope, G. A.,
2012. Rheology and Transport of Improved EOR Polymers under Harsh Reservoir Conditions. Paper SPE 154294,
SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Lakatos, I., Lakatos-Szabo, J., and Toth, J., 1979. Factors Influencing Polyacrylamide Adsorption in Porous Media and
their Effect on Flow Behavior. 3rd International Conference on Surface and Colloid Science Symposium, Stockholm.
Lake, L. W., 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall.
Lee, V. B., 2015. The Development and Evaluation of Polymers for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Master Thesis, The University
of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA.
Levitt, D., Dufour, S., Pope, G. A., Morel, D. C., and Gauer, P.R., 2011. Design of an ASP Flood in a High-Temperature,
High-Salinity, Low-Permeability Carbonate. Paper SPE 14915, SPE International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Li, J., 2015. Experimental Investigation and Simulation of Polymer Flooding in High Temperature high Salinity Carbonate
Reservoirs. Master Thesis, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Littmann, W., Kleinitz, W., Christensen, B. E., Stokke, B. T., and Haugvallstad, T., 1992. Late Results of a Polymer Pilot
Test: Performance, Simulation Adsorption, and Xanthan Stability in the Reservoir. Paper SPE 24120, SPE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Manrique, E. J., Muci, V. E., and Gurfinkel, M. E., 2006. EOR Field Experiences in Carbonate Reservoirs in the United
States. Paper SPE 100063, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Meter, D. M. and Bird, R. B., 1964. Tube Flow of Non-Newtonian Polymer Solutions: Part I Laminar Flow and Rheological
Models. AlChE Journal, 10(6):878–881.
Mohammadi, H. and Jerauld, G. R., 2012. Mechanistic Modeling of the Benefit of Combining Polymer with Low Salinity
Water for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 153161, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
USA.
Mungan, N., Smith, F. W., and Thompson, J. L., 1966. Some Aspects of Polymer Floods. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
18(9): 1,143–1,150.
Needham, R. B. and Doe, P. H., 1987. Polymer Flooding Review. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 39(12): 1503–1507.
Nguyen, N. T. B., Chen, Z. J., Nghiem, L. X., Dang, C. T. Q., and Yang, C., 2014. A New Approach for Optimization and
Uncertainty Assessment of Surfactant-Polymer Flooding. Paper SPE 172003, SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Pandey, A., Suresh Kumar, M., Beliveau, D., and Corbishley, D. W., 2008. Chemical Flood Simulation of Laboratory
Corefloods for the Mangala Field: Generating Parameters for Field-Scale Simulation. Paper SPE 113347, SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Pope, G. A., 1980. The Application of Fractional Flow Theory to Enhanced Oil Recovery. SPE Journal, 20(3): 191–205.
Putz, A. G., Lecourtier, J. M., and Bruckert, L., 1988. Interpretation of High Recovery Obtained in a New Polymer Flood
in the Chateaurenard Field. Paper SPE 18093, SPE 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
USA.
Pye, D. J., 1964. Improved Secondary Recovery by Control of Water Mobility. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 16(8):
911–916.
Qi, P., Ehrenfried, D. H., Koh, H., and Balhoff, M. T., 2017. Reduction of Residual Oil Saturation in Sandstone Cores by
Use of Viscoelastic Polymers. SPE Journal, 22(2): 447–458.
Quadri, S. M. R., 2015. Identification and Evaluation of Polymers for EOR in High Temperature, High Salinity Carbonate
Reservoir Conditions. Master Thesis, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Sandiford, B. B., 1964. Laboratory and Field Studies of Water Floods Using Polymer Solutions to Increase Oil Recoveries.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 16(8): 917–922.
Schlumberger, 2010. ECLIPSE Reservoir Simulation Software. Version 2010.2 Technical Description, Schlumberger
Limited, 785–787.
OTC-28447-MS 31

Sheng, J. J., 2011. Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery-Theory and Practice. Gulf Publishing, Elsevier.
Sheng, J. J., 2014. A Comprehensive Review of Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP) Flooding. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 9(4): 471–489.
Slater, G. E. and Farouq-Ali, S. M., 1970. Simulation of Oil Recovery by Polymer Flooding. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, 9(4): 251–260.
Sorbie, K. S., 1991. Polymer Improved Oil Recovery. Blackie and Son, Glasgow, UK.
Standnes, D. C. and Skjevrak, I., 2014. Literature Review of Implemented Polymer Field Projects. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 122: 761–775..
Takaqi, S., Pope, G. A., Sepehrnoori, K., Putz, A. G., and BenDakhlia, H., 1992. Simulation of A Successful Polymer Flood
in the Chateaurenard Field. Paper SPE 24931, SPE 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
DC, USA.
Trushenski, S. P., Dauben, D. L., and Parrish, D. R., 1974. Micellar Flooding-Fluid Propagation, Interaction, and Mobility.
SPE Journal, 14(6): 633–645.
UTCHEM – 9.0 Technical Documentation, 2000. The University of Texas at Austin, Volume II, Texas, USA.
Verma, S., Adibhatla, B., Kaminsky, R., Wattenbarger, C., and Davidson, J., 2009. Modeling Polymer Flood in an
Unstructured Grid Simulator. Paper SPE 118985, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Vermolen, E., Van Haasterecht, M. J., Masalmeh, S. K., Faher, M. J., Boersma, D. M., and Gruenenfelder, M. A.,
2011. Pushing the Envelope for Polymer Flooding Towards High-Temperature and High-Salinity Reservoirs with
Polyacrylamide Based Ter-Polymers. Paper SPE 141497, SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference,
Manama, Bahrain.
Wang, D., Wang, G., Xia, H., Yang, S., and Wu, W., 2011. Incremental Recoveries in the Field of Large Scale high Viscous-
Elastic Fluid Flooding are Double that of Conventional Polymer Flooding. Paper SPE 146473, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Wheeler, M. F., 2002. Advanced Techniques and Algorithms for Reservoir Simulation, II: The Multiblock Approach in
the Integrated Parallel Accurate Reservoir Simulator (IPARS), Resource Recovery, Confinement, and Remediation of
Environmental Hazards, 131: 9–19.
Yuan, C., Delshad, M., and Wheeler, M. F., 2010. Parallel Simulations of Commercial-Scale Polymer Floods. Paper SPE
132441, SPE Western Regional Meeting, California, USA.
Zeito, G. A., 1968. Three Dimensional Numerical Simulation of Polymer Flooding in homogeneous and Heterogeneous
Systems. Paper SPE 2186, Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Houston, Texas, USA.
Zhu, Y., Lei, M., and Zhu, Z., 2015. Development and Performance of Salt-Resistant Polymers for Chemical Flooding.
Paper SPE 172784, SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain.
32 OTC-28447-MS

Appendix A
This is a description of relative permeability and capillary pressure correlations used in the UTCHEM
simulator:
Corey model for relative permeability:
(A1)

(A2)

Brooks-Corey model for imbibition capillary pressure for mixed wet rocks:
i. Water-wet part of capillary pressure curve (S < S*)

(A3)

ii. Oil-wet part of capillary pressure curve (S > S*)

(A4)