EOR METHODS

Many EOR methods have been used in the past, with varying degrees of
success, for the recovery of light and heavy oils, as well as tar sands.

There are different approaches to the classification of EOR. The

classification of the first stage as thermal and non-thermal is often used.

A general classification of these methods is shown

 Thermal methods are primarily intended for heavy oils and tar sands,
although they are applicable to light oils in special cases.
 Non-thermal methods are normally used for light oils. Some of these
methods have been tested for heavy oils, however, have had limited
success in the field.
 Above all, reservoir geology and fluid properties determine the
suitability of a process for a given reservoir.
 Among thermal methods, steam-based methods have been more
successful commercially than others. Among non-thermal methods,
miscible flooding has been remarkably successful, however
applicability is limited by the availability and cost of solvents on a
commercial scale.
  Chemical methods have generally been uneconomic in the past, but
they hold promise for the future. Among immiscible gas injection
methods, CO2 floods have been relatively more successful than
others for heavy oils.
 Although, EOR has been practiced for decades, and the petroleum
industry has actively cooperated towards the advancement of EOR
technology, there are still several challenges to the implementation of
EOR projects that must be overcome.
 Some of the requirements for the ideal EOR flooding include among
others :
 Appropriate propagation of fluids and/or chemicals (i.e. polymers or
surfactants) deep inside the reservoir rock.
 Low or minimum chemical adsorption, mechanical entrapment, and
chemical consumption onto the formation rock.
 Fluids and/or chemicals tolerance to formation brine salinity and
hardness.
 Fluids and/or chemicals stability to high reservoir temperatures.
 Polymers stability to mechanical degradation.
 Advanced polymer mobility-control to improve sweep efficiency.
 Efficient reductions of interfacial tension between oil and water.
 Chemical Flooding.

 Chemical methods utilize a chemical formulation as the displacing fluid,

which promotes a decrease in mobility ratio and/or an increase in the
capillary number. Many commercial projects were in operation, among
which, some were successful, but many were failures.
 The current chemical floods activity is low, except in China. The future
holds promise because of the high demand for energy, and also because of
the advancement in technology.
 Considerable experience and understanding have been gained from the
past chemical floods projects. Economics is the major deterrent in the
commercialization of chemical floods. It must also be noted that the
technology does not exist currently for reservoirs of certain characteristics.
 The major chemical flood processes are polymer flooding, surfactant
flooding, alkaline flooding, micellar flooding and ASP (alkalisurfactant-
polymer) flooding.

Polymer Flooding

 Water soluble polymers, such as polyacrylamides and polysaccharides are

effective in improving mobility ratio and reducing permeability contrast.
 In most cases, polymer flooding is applied as a slug process (20-40% PV)
and is driven using dilute brine. Polymer concentration is between 200-
2000 ppm.
 There were many polymer floods in the past, but recoveries were less than
10% in most cases. The major limitations include loss of polymer to the
porous medium, polymer degradation and in some cases, loss of injectivity.
 One of the common reasons for the failure of polymer floods in the past
was that it was applied too late in the waterflood, when the mobile oil
saturation was low. The process will be more effective if applied earlier
during a waterflood, at water breakthrough.
 The waterflood field operations to increase the oil recovery, despite the
successful development, resulted also in poor and incomplete sweeps of
the reservoir volume.
 The first attempts to improve sweep efficiency in waterfloods were made
by Detling (1944). He patented a number of additives, including 'water-
soluble polymers, to increase the viscosity of injected water and the
volume of the reservoir affected. In the next two decades over 25 patents
for additives to be used under different reservoir conditions were issued
and the first results of laboratory experiments dealing with their use were
published (1964).
 Because of their lower cost, the water-soluble polymers prevailed over
other additives (molasses, glycerin, glycols, etc.) tested in the field. After
1964, field test results and other significant laboratory studies made
possible the development of polymer flooding as a method to enhance oil
recovery.
 Polymer flooding consists of adding polymer to the water of a waterflood
to decrease its mobility.
 The resulting increase in viscosity, as well as a decrease in aqueous phase
permeability that occurs with some polymers, causes a lower mobility ratio.
This lowering increases the efficiency of the waterflood through greater
volumetric sweep efficiency and a lower swept zone oil saturation.
 The greater recovery efficiency constitutes the economic incentive for
polymer flooding when applicable. Generally, a polymer flood will be
economic only when the waterflood mobility ratio is high, the reservoir
heterogeneity is high, or a combination of these two occurs.
 Polymers have been used in oil production in three modes.
1. As near-well treatments to improve the performance of water injectors
or watered-out producers by blocking off high-conductivity zones.
2. As agents that may be cross-linked in situ to plug high-conductivity
zones at depth in the reservoir (Needham et al., 1974). These processes
require that polymer be injected with an inorganic metal cation that will
cross-link subsequently injected polymer molecules with ones already
bound to solid surfaces.
3. As agents to lower water mobility or water-oil mobility ratio.
 The second mode is not truly polymer flooding since the actual oil-
displacing agent is not the polymer. Certainly most polymer EOR projects
have been in the third mode.
 The method requires a preflush to condition the reservoir, the injection of
a polymer solution for mobility control to minimize channeling, and a
driving fluid (water) to move the polymer solution and resulting oil bank to
production wells.
 Many times the buffer contains polymer in decreasing amounts (a grading
or taper) to lessen the unfavorable mobility ratio between the chase water
and the polymer solution. Because of the driving nature of the process,
polymer floods are always done through separate sets of injection and
production wells.
 Mobility is lowered in a polymer flood by injecting water that contains a
high molecular weight, water-soluble polymer. Since the water is usually a
dilution of an oil-field brine, interactions with salinity are important,
particularly for certain classes of polymers.
Method Description

 In polymer flooding, a slug of 0.3 or higher PV of polymer solution is

injected into the reservoir with a prior injection of a low-salinity brine
(freshwater) slug. The polymer slug is followed by another freshwater slug
and by continuous drive water injection.
 The polymer solution slug is injected between two freshwater buffers in
order to attenuate the direct contact with the saline reservoir water. The
saline water reduces the polymer solution's viscosity.
The schematic cross-section view of a polymer injection

 Knowing the principle and method description it is now understood

that polymer flooding does not reduce the residual oil saturation. It
improves oil recovery over waterflooding by increasing the reservoir
volume contacted.
 Also, in comparison to waterflooding, polymer flooding accelerates oil
production, and a higher recovery is obtained at breakthrough.
 Polymer flooding is successful when applied in the early stages of a
waterflood process or when applied at the beginning when the mobile
oil saturation is high. It has little or no effect in uniform waterflooded
reservoirs containing low-viscosity oil or having high water saturation
at the start of the process.
 Reservoirs with high permeability variations, rapid water breakthrough
into the producers, and low recoveries can also be flooded with
polymer solutions, but the risk factor is higher.
POLYMER TYPES
 There are two principal types of polymers being used in field
applications: hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) and polysaccharides
biopolymer or xanthan gum.
Polyacrylamides
 The polyacrylamide is obtained by the polymerization of the
acrylamide monomer. Through hydrolysis some of the acrylamide
monomers are converted to carboxylate groups with a negative
charge. The hydrolyzed polyacrylamide has a 20 to 40 percent degree
of hydrolisis, a molecular weight higher than 3 x 10^6 and a linear
chain molecular structure.
 The long molecular chain of the partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide,
in solution with freshwater, eases the flow through the tortuous
porous space of the rock reservoir. In saline water, the electrolytes in
solution cause the molecules to coil. This obstructs the flow through
the porous space.
 The hydrolyzed polyacrylamide solution is sensitive to salts and must
be prepared with freshwater. Other susceptibilities of HPAM solutions
are caused by the presence of oxygen, which is a source of instability
and chemical degradation, and by temperature and mechanical
degradation.
 The HPAM molecules' long chains may be broken, especially at high
velocity and temperature conditions, when the injected solution
passes through the well's perforated interval and flows through the
porous space of the formation near the wellbore.
 Being less expensive and providing higher residual resistance to drive
water injection, polyacrylamide is more widely used in the field than
polysaccharide as a water mobility control agent. However, recent
tests have shown that microbial attack of polyacrylamide can be a
potentially serious problem and biocides, such as formaldehyde, need
to be used to prevent the viscosity loss caused by microbes.
Polysaccharides
 The polysaccharide biopolymer is obtained from sugar in a
fermentation process caused by the bacterium Xanthomonas
campestris. The polysaccharide's molecular structure gives the
molecules a great stiffness, their behavior being like rigid-rod
molecules.
 As a consequence, in contrast to polyacrylamide polymer, the viscosity
of a polysaccharide biopolymer solution is not affected by salinity, and
shearing effects can be tolerated. Despite these advantages, the
polysaccharide biopolymer is expensive, and its stability degrades at
temperatures above 200 F.
 Biodegradation by enzymes of polysaccharide polymers is also
common and usually results in a decrease in the solution's viscosity.
Formaldehyde is the most effective biocide added to biopolymers to
prevent biodegradation.
APPARENT VISCOSITY AND RESISTANCE FACTOR
 Apparent Viscosity Polymers are used in aqueous solutions at low
concentrations of 300 to less than 2000 parts per million (ppm) or 0.03
to 0.20 percent.
 The viscosity values of polymer solutions measured with an Ostwald
viscometer, for different concentrations, are plotted practically as a
straight line on a semilog paper. The measured viscosity of the low-
concentration polymer solutions used in the field is only 1 to 1.5 cP.
 It is interesting to observe that the behavior in a porous medium of
these low-concentration polymer solutions suggests a much higher
viscosity. Indeed, the viscosity of the polymer solution flowing in the
reservoir is from 5 to 25 times higher when calculated indirectly using
Darcy's equation (apparent viscosity), assuming the same effective
permeability.
 In reality, the effective permeability of the formation to a polymer
solution is lower than it is to water without polymer. It is difficult to
separate the effect of the permeability reduction from that of the
viscosity increase. What is important is that the total effect can be
expressed as mobility reduction and this total effect can be measured.
 The measure of the mobility reduction is known as the resistance
factor, Rviscosity of the polymer solution (apparent)
 water-soluble polymer mobility

relative permeabilities to water and to polymer solution,

respectively
viscosity of the polymer solution (apparent)

water-oil and polymer solution-oil mobility ratios, respectively

 A plot of the resistance factor R as function of the ratio Vinj/Vp

(cumulative injected volume per porous volume) is given. The
data were obtained by flowing a 300-ppm polymer solution
through the porous volume of a core sample.

The resistance factor "R" function of cumulative volume injected

• A rapid increase of the resistance factor from 1 to 8 was observed for

the first 20 pore volumes injected. Continuing the polymer solution
injection, the value of the resistance factor remained practically
constant.
 • This tendency of the resistance factor to stabilize must be observed in
the laboratory tests for R values less than 10 or 12 to avoid in the field
high injection pressures or blockages.
• As a matter of fact, polymers with high resistance factors can be used in
profile improvement to plug the more permeable streaks near injectors
and to reduce the variation in permeability.
 Also, polymers gelled with crosslinkers can be used in an effort to plug
reservoir high-permeability zones far from injectors. The advantages of
polymers as water mobility control agents in porous mediums are
indicated by the large resistance factor values obtained using water-
containing low-polymer concentrations and by their ability to stabilize
flow resistance.
Residual Resistance Factor
 The measure of the reduction of rock's permeability to water after
polymer flow is known as the residual resistance factor, Rr.

• Permeability reduction is observed after flushing with brine, following

injection of a polymer solution, a Berea sandstone core sample. The
original permeability of the core, having been reduced by adsorption on
the rock surface and by mechanical entrapment of polymer molecules,
cannot be recovered.
• The existence of residual resistance effects has economic importance.
Expenditures for polymer occur only during the injection period. Long
afterward, the residual resistance factor effect continues at no added
expense.
• Biopolymer polysaccharides are not retained on rock surfaces. This is
the reason they do not exhibit the residual resistance effect.
POLYMER RETENTION
• Polymer retention, expressed by adsorption of the polyacrylamide on
rock surfaces and by entrapment of polymer molecules in small pore
spaces, explains the permeability reduction.
Adsorption and Entrapment
 • The polyacrylamide polymer adsorbs on the surface of most rock
reservoirs. For instance, calcium carbonate has a greater affinity for
polymer than does silica. The adsorbed polymer layers represent both
an additional resistance to flow and a loss of polymer.
• Indeed, when adsorption takes place, polymer solutions leaving the
porous medium have a lower concentration than before. The reduced
polymer concentration is used as a measure of adsorption. The higher
the polymer concentration before flowing through the porous space,
the higher will be the adsorption on the rock surface.
• The porous space in a rock reservoir offers a variety of opening sizes.
The long chain of the polymer molecule can easily flow into a large pore
opening but cannot leave it if the other end has a smaller opening. Then
the polymer molecule is trapped.
• Entrapment can also take place when the flow is restricted or stopped.
Then the molecule loses its elongated shape and coils up. When the
flow of polymer molecules through the porous medium is restricted in
pores with small openings, only the passage of brine is permitted.
• Up to 30 percent of the total pore volume may not be accessible to
polymer molecules. This allows polymer solutions to advance and
displace oil at a rate faster than predicted. In other words, the effective
porosity for a polymer solution is less than the effective porosity for
brine.
FIELD PROJECTS AND RESULTS
• Currently polymer flooding is being used on a commercial scale as a
method of recovering more oil.
• An adapted statistical analysis of the fieldwide polymer flood projects
had been imlimented. The fieldwide projects were performed
principally in sandstone reservoirs. The carbonate lithologies made a
relatively small contribution to polymer flooding.
• The polymer used in the majority of these applications was
polyacrylamide, and only a few projects utilized polysaccharide
biopolymer.

 The pay zones were characterized by depths between 400 ft and 11 000 ft
with a 4000 ft average, by 117 F mean temperature with 229 F maximum
value, and by a good average porosity of 19 percent.
  The rock permeabilities ranged from the very low value of 1.5 md to a
maximum of 7400 md with 453 md the mean value. The permeability
variation (Lorenz coefficient) ranged from 0.07 (practically a uniform
reservoir) to 0.96 (for a highly heterogeneous reservoir) with the mean
value being 0.69.
 The viscosities of the reservoir crude oils where polymer flooding was
applied ranged from very low values to a maximum 435 cp with an average
value of 21.4 cp.
 The water-to-oil mobility ratio ranged from 0.1 to 40, the mean value being
7.86. The water-oil ratio at start of the polymer flood had values
corresponding to water-free oil production rates (WOR = 0) up to a
maximum of WOR = 75 (water cut 98.6 percent) in postwaterflood
applications.
 The polymer used in the majority of these applications was polyacrylamide,
and only a few projects utilized polysaccharide biopolymer.

Field Results
 The maximum oil recovery was 14 percent of the original oil in place
(OOIP). The mean value was close to 4 percent of OOIP in 20 fieldwide
projects. In any case, the recovery was greater than with
waterflooding alone.
 In 23 fieldwide projects, the maximum recovery was 143 STB/acre-ft,
and the mean recovery value was 34.4 STB/acre-ft.
 There are now wellestablished guidelines for successfully applying
polymer flooding and for obtaining maximum recovery and additional
oil.
GUIDELINES FOR POLYMER APPLICATION
Reservoir Characteristics
 Reservoir depth is a critical factor only when related to reservoir
temperature. Temperatures less than 200 F assure a stable polymer
solution.
 Reservoir pressure is not critical if it permits the injection pressure to
be less than the formation parting pressure and is not so high that it
requires expensive pumping equipment.
 The porosity of the reservoir rock must be medium to high (higher
than 18 percent) to assure a good storage capacity.
  Absolute permeability of the reservoir rock is considered to be good
between 50 and to 250 md. Moderate permeability values (between
15 and 50 md) cause higher injection pressures. Permeability values
considered very good (between 250 and 1000 md) and excellent
(higher than 1000 md) assure higher recoveries with conventional
waterflood and leave polymer flood expenses difficult to justify.
 The permeability variation concept connected with reservoir
heterogeneity is better than permeability alone for determining areas
of polymer flood applicability. Heterogeneous reservoirs are good
candidates for polymer flooding for two reasons.
- First, the polymer solution reduces the rocks permeability.
- Second, the solution has a tendency to divert toward unswept reservoir areas or
areas where waterflooding resulted in an unsatisfactory sweep.
Fluid Characteristics
 The oil viscosity that directly controls the water-oil mobility ratio
should not be higher than 150 to 200 cp. Viscosity of less than 100 cp
is even more preferable. Thermal methods of recovery are competitive
when reservoirs' oil viscosities are high.
 When they are low, less than 5 cp, waterflood and/or other EOR
methods may be preferred. The water-oil ratio at the start of the
project should be low, even zero. This will mean higher mobile oil
saturation.
 Polymer flooding applied from the beginning as a secondary recovery
process instead of waterflooding will afford better chances of success
than waterflooding.
Reservoir Selection
 As stated, polymer flooding is successfully applied as a secondary
recovery process when the mobile oil saturation in reservoir is still
high. The effect of polymer flooding is to improve areal and vertical
sweep efficiencies, reducing the water-oil mobility ratio and diverting
the injected fluid toward larger reservoir areas.
 Polymer flooding does not improve the displacement efficiency, since
it has no effect on the existing capillary forces and interfacial tensions.
 Waterflooded oil reservoirs can also be good candidates for polymer
flooding. This is only true, however, when the high WOR values are
caused either by a high water-oil mobility ratio (viscous oil reservoirs)
 and waterconning or by a low vertical sweep efficiency
(heterogeneous reservoirs). Under these conditions, the reservoirs still
have high mobile oil saturation which can be reduced by the diverting
effect of polymer flooding and by the increase of vertical sweep
efficiency.
 Therefore, the use of polymer as a tertiary method (after
waterflooding) is attractive only if the high WOR is due to
waterconning, high permeability zones or high oil viscosity. Large gas-
cap areas and extensive aquifers should be avoided.