SPE-179823-MS

Laboratory Support of Heavy-Oil Polymer Flood Project

Rashid S. Al-Maamari, and Abdulaziz Al-Hashmi, Sultan Qaboos University; Nasser Al-Azri, Omaira Al-Riyami,
and Rifaat Al-Mjeni, Petroleum Development Oman; Guillaume Dupuis, and Alain Zaitoun, Poweltec

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 21–23 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
A Polymer Flooding pilot trial has being implemented in a heavy oil field, in the South of Oman. A joint
team composed of personnel from Sultan Qaboos University, Poweltec and Petroleum Development of
Oman provided full laboratory support which included polymer products screening, and core-flooding
experimental tests. The reservoir under investigation is a high-permeability sandstone with oil viscosity
of around 500 mPa.s, brine salinity of around 5,000 ppm TDS and a subsurface temperature of 50°C. The
reservoir characteristics are within the upper boundaries of known polymer flooding applications world-
wide. This is further compounded by the presence of a strong bottom aquifer drive which requires the
optimization of well placement.
Laboratory work consisted of both bulk and core-flood testing, in which different commercial
hydrolyzed polyacrylamides were submitted to rheology, filtration and stability tests, from which one
product was qualified. An intensive coreflood program was executed, consisting of rheology, adsorption
and displacement experiments. Due to mild reservoir conditions (low salinity and temperature), the main
focus was on filtration quality of the products. Following on from the filtration tests, coreflooding
programs were implemented with very long sequence of polymer injection at a rate representative of
polymer propagation in the reservoir.
Adsorption was found to be quite low (around 20 ␮g/g) for all the tested products. In-situ rheology was
correlatable to the viscosity trends. The program of tests finally qualified a product with molecular weight
of around 20 million Dalton. Above this level, long-term filtration becomes questionable with a slow but
continuous ramp up of pressure noticeable after about 50 Pore Volumes.

Introduction
Polymer Flooding is one of the first EOR technologies that have been implemented in the field. It is based
on a very simple concept, i.e., the increase in water viscosity to improve water sweep efficiency during
waterflood. For high oil viscosities, the increase in water viscosity provided by the polymer drops the
oil/water Mobility Ratio, with a target of M⫽1 whenever possible. With heavy oils, pressure constraints
usually do not enable reaching M⫽1 and compromise between injection rate and polymer solution
viscosity must be found. With conventional vertical wells, viscosity limit of Polymer Flood is around
100cP. With horizontal wells, the viscosity limit is significantly more and can reach 5000cP. The
2 SPE-179823-MS

remarkable results obtained in Pelican Lake field in Canada have proven Polymer Flood feasibility in
reservoir having oil viscosity in the range 1000-5000cP.1 In Oman, Marmul Polymer Flood project has
met very positive results in a reservoir with oil viscosity of around 100cP.2
The field discussed in this paper is located in the south of Oman, and consists of a number of separate
oil bearing accumulations (highs) which distinguishes the field from nearby fields. These accumulations
have been exploited predominantly by crestal horizontal wells and are at varied levels of maturity. The
field has an ongoing drilling campaign to infill wells, such that the ultimate well spacing reaches 86m. The
reservoir contains a medium-heavy, under saturated oil with low gas oil ratio (gravity 20 API, viscosity
250-500 mPa.s at 51°C, GOR 0.5 m3/m3). Production is characterized by high gross production rates with
high watercuts due to a strong water bottom aquifer drive. Currently there are 254 active production wells
in the field of which 247 are horizontal, producing at an average water cut of 95%. The producing intervals
within the field comprise a Cambro-Ordovician sand and a Permo-Carboniferous sand. Reservoir quality
is excellent in both sands, with mean log porosities of 0.26-0.28 and permeabilities of 1-4 D, with a net
oil thickness of 30-50 m. The net to gross in the Permo-Carboniferous sand is lower than that in the
Cambro-Ordovician sand (0.88 and 0.98 respectively).
A suitable location for the field trial was identified based on geological properties, reservoir perfor-
mance, well integrity, and surface considerations. The pilot pattern comprises 3 newly drilled injectors and
four confined producers, selected from the existing well stock. Additionally, 3 glass reinforced epoxy
completed observation wells were drilled (1 vertical and 2 horizontals). The observation wells provide an
opportunity for time lapse logging and sampling. The vertical observation well was drilled deep into the
aquifer, in order to assess polymer loss to the aquifer, vertical sweep, sampling and resistivity logging. The
horizontal wells allowed monitoring of horizontal sweep, and polymer loss to aquifer through a series of
carefully planned pressure fall off tests. A deep aquifer water supply well was used to supply water to the
facilities to prepare the polymer solution. The injectors were completed as smart completion with Inflow
Control Valves (ICVs) controlled from surface. This allowed polymer to be distributed evenly along the
wellbore as required whilst maintaining well integrity and well and reservoir surveillance requirements.
For profile surveillance at the injectors multi mode and single mode fiber optic cables were pumped down
these wells through control lines. This allowed for Distributed Temperature Survey (DTS), and Distrib-
uted Acoustic Surveys (DAS) which provided real time monitoring of fluid profile distribution and early
fracture initiation.
The present paper, reports some laboratory work performed in support to the polymer flooding trial.
The works consisted of bulk and coreflood testing, in which two commercial hydrolyzed polyacrylamides
were submitted to rheology, filtration and stability tests. One product was qualified for fied injection and
was submitted to an intensive coreflood program consisting of rheology, adsorption, in-situ rheology and
displacement experiments.

Experimental

Materials
Brine Synthetic formation water (SFW) was used as main make-up brine according to the composition
given by the operator and reported in Table 1. Part of the experiments were duplicated using real
formation water (RFW). SFW was diluted with Milli-Q water in order to obtain lower salinity brines
having salinities equal to 1000, 500 and 200 ppm TDS. Low-salinity brines were respectively named LS1,
LS2 and LS3. Before use, make-up water was filtered through 0.22 ␮m Millipore™ membranes to
eliminate any dust or insoluble particle.
SPE-179823-MS 3

Table 1—Formation water composition.

Anions Concentration (ppm) Cations Concentration (ppm)

Cl⫺ 3736 Na⫹ 2623

SO42⫺ 487 K⫹ 0
CO32⫺ 185 Ca2⫹ 74
HCOb3⫺ 0 Mg2⫹ 7
TDS ⴝ 7112 ppm

Prior to coreflood experiments, brine was degassed under vacuum and kept under helium blanket in
order to remove oxygen and prevent from bubble formation in the core.
Polymers The operator provided two polymer samples one with very high molecular weight (about 26
MDa) and a second one with lower molecular weight (20 MDa). In the rest of the paper these polymers
will be refered as P26 and P20 respectively. Polymer solutions were prepared either in SFW or in RFW
or LS1, LS2 or LS3. Prior to coreflood experiments, polymer solutions were filtered through 5 ␮m
Millipore™ membrane (d ⫽ 143 mm) under 2 bars and then degassed under vacuum and kept under
helium blanket to remove oxygen and prevent from bubble formation in the core.
Oil Crude oil was provided by the operator. At reception, water was separated from the oil by gravity
settling, oil was then filtered through 0.5 ␮m filter. Oil viscosity at reservoir temperature was found to be
206 mPa.s.
Cores Reservoir cores were provided. First, porosity, gas and liquid permeability were determined for
each core. On this basis, each core was chosen for a certain type of experiment; including long-term
injection, brine compatibility test and in-situ rheology. All these information are reported in Table 2.

Table 2—Cores Characteristics

Core Length (cm) Diameter (cm) Porosity Kg (mD) Kw (mD) Attribution Sw

#1 4.86 3.78 30.3% 2347 2421 Brine compatibility 1-Sor

#2 5.54 3.85 27.1% 1961 2476 Long Term Inj. 1
#3 5.91 3.75 30.3% 2051 2205 Long Term Inj. 1
#4 7.00 4.00 24.7% 2436 2321 Inj. ⫹ In-situ Rheo. 1-Sor
#5 6.53 3.86 26.7% 2020 1875 Ads. & In-situ Rheo. 1
#6 6.23 3.85 22.6% 1788 1619 Ads. & In-situ Rheo. 1
#7 6.93 3.85 24.6% 3297 2714 Displacement Swi

Viscosity measurements
A Kinexus™ rheometer from Malvern Instrument and equipped with a Couette geometry (coaxial
cylinders) has been used to measure the viscosity of the polymer solutions at the reservoir temperature
between 0.1 and 100 s⫺1. A viscometer LS300 from ProRheo and equipped with a 2T-2T geometry has
been used to measure the viscosity of collected fractions at room temperature between 1 and 100 s⫺1.
Long term stability test
Polymer stability in reservoir conditions was evaluated through one year stability test performed in
anaerobic conditions (deoxygenated sealed glass ampoules) according to API-63 standards. Polymer
solutions were prepared at 100 mPa.s (measurement at reservoir temperature and shear rate 2 s⫺1).
Oxygen content in the ampoules was about 100 ppb. Ampoules were aged up to one year at reservoir
temperature. At regular interval of time (2 weeks, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and 12 months) ampoules were broken in
4 SPE-179823-MS

order to measure residual viscosity. Polymers were tested alone and in presence of specific stabilizer
blend.
Coreflood experiments
Coreflood experiments were performed on two coreflood rigs having similar configuration. The
coreflood set-up includes an injection system composed of two piston pumps to inject brine (Pharmacia
P500) and polymer solution (Isco Teledyne 500D), an oven, a core holder, a capillary tube of internal
diameter d ⫽ 505 ␮m and length l ⫽ 2 m placed downstream the core holder, a back pressure regulator
device and a fraction collector. Injection lines were equipped with pre-heating spiral tubes. The core
holder was equipped with pressure taps at both ends to measure the pressure drop across the core. The
capillary tube was also equipped with its own pressure sensor. Pressure transducers were connected to an
acquisition system for data collection and interpretation. Additional equipments were used such as online
UV-visible photometer, online conductimeter for tracer detection and a graduated cylinder to follow
oil/water production. When oil injection was required, oil was placed in the compartment B of a buffer
cell. Injection water in the compartment A of the buffer displaces a piston separating the two comparte-
ments pushing the oil into the core.
Brine compatibility test Brine compatibility test aimed at evaluating the compatibility of reservoir rock
material with low salinity. It consisted of injecting low salinity brines of decreasing salinity at constant
flow rate (4 mL/h) while monitoring the pressure response in order to assess for any core impairment. At
the end of the experiment SFW was injected to check for irreversible permeability reduction. The test was
performed at residual oil saturation using rock sample #42.
Long-term injectivity test Long-term injectivity test (LTI) aimed at evaluating polymer injectivity/
propagation in reservoir core material over 100 PV. Almost all these experiments were performed at 100%
water saturation except one performed at residual oil saturation. All the tests were performed injecting 100
mPa.s pre-filtered polymer solution in SFW or RFW at 4 mL/h (which corresponds to a Darcy velocity
of 1 ft/day). A capillary tube was placed at the outlet of the core to monitor the effluent viscosity.
Adsorption and in-situ rheology Adsorption and in-situ rheology tests aimed at determining, first,
adsorption and inaccessible pore volume of the polymer solution in reservoir rock material at both 100%
water saturation and residual oil. In a second stage, pre-filtered polymer solutions were injected at
different flow rates and concentrations in order to determine their rheological behavior in the core while
monitoring polymer degradation at the core outlet. Experiments were performed with P20 polymer in
SFW at 50, 100 and 200 mPa.s. Three (3) PVs of each polymer solution were injected at increasing flow
rates (0.5, 1.1, 2.3, 5, 10.8, 23, 50, 108, 225, 250 mL/h). At the end of the experiment, 100 mPa.s polymer
solution was injected at very high flow rates to check for polymer shear degradation through the
measurement of the viscosity of effluent samples.
Displacement test Displacement test aimed at evaluating the benefit of polymer injection regarding
simple water flood in terms of oil sweep efficiency. Low-salinity polymer flooding was also compared to
conventional polymer flooding. Experiments were performed starting from Swi after aging the core for 1
month. Five (5) PVs of SFW were injected at 4 mL/h while monitoring pressure and oil production. 100
mPa.s of pre-filtered polymer solution in SFW was then injected at the same flow rate until no more oil
is produced and pressure is stabilized. Finally, 100 mPa.s of pre-filtered polymer solution in LS3 at 4
mL/h until no more oil is produced and pressure is stabilized.
Main parameters
The main parameters are the adsorption (⌫), the inaccessible pore volume (IPV), the Mobility
Reduction (Rm), the Permeability Reduction (Rk), the shear rate at the pore wall (·␥w) and the residual
viscosity.
SPE-179823-MS 5

Adsorption and Inaccessible Pore Volume Adsorption is defined as the delay between the two fronts of
polymer injected at low concentration according to:
Equation 1

Where C correspond to the polymer concentration in grams per liter and mcore is the weight of the core
before saturation in grams. ⌫ is generally expressed in micrograms of polymer adsorbed per gram of rock
material.
The inaccessible pore volume, IPV, is expressed as the delay between the front of tracer and the second
front of polymer according to:
Equation 2

Where PV is the pore volume. IPV is expressed in percentage of the pore volume.
Mobility and Permeability Reduction The relative viscosity (␮r) is defined as the ratio of the polymer
viscosity (␮) to the viscosity of the make-up water (␮0) measured under the same conditions of shear rate
and temperature according to:
Equation 3

Mobility and Permeability Reduction The Mobility Reduction (Rm) is the apparent relative viscosity of
the polymer solution flowing though a porous media. It can be easily determined from pressure drop
measurement:
Equation 4

Where ⌬P is the pressure drop measured during the injection of polymer solution in the core at a given
shear rate and saturation, and ⌬P0 is the reference pressure drop generated by the flow of brine through
the core before injection of the polymer solution under the same flow rate and saturation conditions.
The Permeability Reduction (Rk) corresponds to the reduction of permeability of the core to brine after
injection of a polymer solution. It corresponds to the ratio of the pressure drop generated by the brine
while flowing through the core after (⌬PF) and before (⌬P0) injection of polymer solution. As mentioned
previously, ⌬Pf and ⌬P0 have to be measured under the same flow rate and saturation conditions.
Equation 5

In the literature, Rm and Rk are also refered as Resistance Factor (RF) and Residual Resistance Factor
(RRF).
Shear rate at the pore wall The maximum shear rate at the pore wall (·␥w) is determined as:
Equation 6

Where Q is the flow rate, S is the core section, ␾ is the porosity, ␣ is a corrective parameter to take
into account the specifities of the complex geometry of the real porous medium in comparison to a simple
model and rp is the pore radius. The pore radius is defined according to:
Equation 7
6 SPE-179823-MS

Where K is the permeability to brine and ␤ is a corrective parameter. Since ␥·w only depends on the ratio
␣/␤, ␤ has been taken arbitrally equal to 1. The value of ␣/␤, has been determined from injection data of
pure Xanthan through equivalent core material following the method of Chauveteau.3-4 The method
consists in superposing ␮r and Rm plots to obtain the same onset of shear-thinning regime. In this
particular case ␣/␤ has been found equal to 2.5.
In the capillary tube placed at the outlet of the core, the shear rate ␥·c is defined accordingly to Equation
6 taking ␣ ⫽ 1 and replacing rp by rc, the radius of the capillary tube.
Residual viscosity During coreflood experiments and long-term stability tests, polymer stability has
been evaluated through the measurement of the residual viscosity. The residual viscosity corresponds to
the ratio of the relative viscosity of the polymer solution before (␮r, ini) and after (␮r,fin) flooding through
the core (coreflood experiments) or after aging at reservoir temperature (stability test) and measured under
the same conditions of shear rate and temperature.
Equation 8

The residual viscosity is expressed in percentage of the initial viscosity of the polymer solution.

Results and discussion

Viscosity measurements
Figure 1 shows the evolution of the viscosity of both P20 and P26 as a function of the polymer
concentration in SFW. Viscosity measurements were performed at reservoir temperature from 0.1 to 100
s⫺1. Only viscosity data obtained at 2 s⫺1 are reported. P26 develops more viscosity in agreement with
its higher molecular weight. For both polymers viscosity increases when salinity decreases as shown in
Figure 2 and Figure 3. This behavior is due to the polyelectrolyte character of the polymer (HPAM
polymer). Thus reducing the salinity of the make-up water can be a solution to reduce the cost of the
polymer and maybe benefit from ⬙low salt effect⬙.

Figure 1—Evolution of the viscosity for P20 and P26 polymers in SFW as a function of the polymer concentration.
SPE-179823-MS 7

Figure 2—Master curves of P20 in the different brines at reservoir temperature.

Figure 3—Master curves of P26 in the different brines at reservoir temperature.

8 SPE-179823-MS

Long term stability

The results of the long-term stability in reservoir conditions are reported in Figure. Overall stability over
one year is very good for both P20 and P26 polymers since residual viscosity ranges between 80 and 100%
of the initial polymer solution viscosity. The utilization of stabilizer is not required.

Figure 4 —Long term stability in oxygen-free conditions (API recommendations) at reservoir temperature.

Filtration
P20 and P26 polymers were filtered through 5 ␮m Millipore™ membrane under constant pressure (2
bar). Both polymers showed poor injectivity in the membrane characterized by low filtration rate,
which decreased while filtration was progressing. Filtration tests were repeated several time. During
some experiment a loss of viscosity of about 5 to 10% was observed. Filter ratio ranged between 1.8
and 2.2 far above the usual limit of 1.2 generally admitted for polymer flooding applications.

Coreflood experiments
Coreflood experiments consisted in different tests including brine compatibility with rock material, long
term injectivity, adsorption and in-situ rheology, displacement.
Brine compatibility Swi was about 0.23 and corresponding oil relative permeability was about 0.99.
The plug has been aged during 4 weeks in presence of oil at reservoir conditions before putting the
core at Sor. Sor was 0.38 and corresponding water relative permeability was about 0.30. Thus, before
starting injection of brine, initial permeability to SFW at Sor was 723 mD. Then SFW, LS1, LS2 and
LS3 were injected sequentially. First 42 PV of SFW were injected at a rate of 4 mL/h, followed by
SPE-179823-MS 9

18 PV of LS1, 22 PV of LS2 and 10 PV of LS3. Finally about 12 PV of SFW were injected to check
for irreversible permeability reduction. For each step, the pressure drop stabilized after 1 PV, Kw and
associated Rk corresponding to the stabilized pressure measurement are reported in Table 3. Core
permeability decreased progressively with salinity and Permeability Reduction increased up to 1.55.
However, when moving back to SFW, initial permeability was restored. Permeability reduction
associated to lower brine salinity is thus a reversible process likely due to clay swelling. Furthermore,
the permeability reduction has been observed to be stable and to be controlled only by the brine
salinity.

Table 3—Kw and associated permeability reduction corre-

sponding to the stabilized pressure drop measured for each
brine sequence
Step Brine Kw (mD) Rk

#1 SFW 723 -
#2 LSI 548 1,32
#3 LS2 509 1,42
#4 LS3 466 1,55
#5 SFW 738 0,98

Long-term injectivity A series of 3 long-term injectivity experiments were performed. First exper-
iment consisted in injecting polymer P26 in Core #2. Second experiment consisted in injecting
polymer P20 in Core #3. Third experiment consisted in injecting polymer P20 in Core #4 at residual
oil saturation. Polymer concentration was adjusted to get a viscosity of 100 mPa.s at 2 s⫺1. Polytmer
solutions were prefiltered through 5 ␮m Millipore™ membrane. Results are reported here below.
-Experiment 1 & 2, Polymer P26 in Core #2 and P20 in Core #3 at Sw ⴝ 1: The evolution of the
Mobility Reduction recorded during the injection of P26 in Core #2 and during the injection of P20
in Core #3 are reported in Figure 4a. For both polymers, the Mobility Reduction increased during the
first pore volumes due to core saturation with polymer and stabilized to a value close to the relative
viscosity. After around 20 PV for P26 and around 32 PV for P20, Mobility Reduction started to
increase continuously, indicating that core plugging was occurring. Core damage is more important
with P26 than with P20 since after 80 PV the Mobility Reduction obtained in Core #2 (RmP26 ⫽
6500) is about 10 times higher than the one reached in Core #3 (RmP20 ⫽ 700). Such constant
pressure build-up associated to the injection of these two polymers is not compatible with polymer
flooding application. This general behavior is in agreement with the results of the filtration
study.
10 SPE-179823-MS

Figure 4a—Long term injectivity curves of polymer P26 in core #2 and P20 in Core #3.

- Experiment 3, Polymer P20 in Core #4 at Sw ⴝ 1-Sor: Core #4 was put at residual oil saturation
according to the procedure described previously. Initial absolute permeability was 2215 mD, Swi was 0.15 and
Sor was 0.40. Corresponding kro and krw were respectively equal to 1.06 and 0.13. The evolution of the
Mobility Reduction recorded during the injection of P20 in Core #4 at Sw ⫽ 1-Sor is shown in Figure 5. As
previously mentioned, initially Rm increased due to core saturation by polymer solution and stabilized to a
value close to the relative viscosity. Then Rm remained stable during the 100 PV of the experiment and no
pressure build-up was observed as in the previous experiment. It appears that the damage observed at Sw ⫽
1 was due to polymer adsorption on specific sites on the rock surface which are occupied by oil at Sor.

Figure 5—Long term injectivity curves of polymer P20 in Core #4 at Sw ⴝ 1-Sor.

SPE-179823-MS 11

Based on the results of the long term injectivity and on the results of the prefiltration, it clearly appears
that injectivity and propagation of P26 and P20 polymers in the rock material is poor, however injectivity
is strongly improved by the presence of oil even at residual saturation. It has been decided to discard P26
polymer even if it presents a higher viscosifying powder.
Adsorption and in-situ rheology Three In-situ rheology tests have been performed. Adsorption and IPV
were measured in two experiments only since the first experiment was performed in continuation of the
last long-term injectivity test. Adsorption measurement in the conditions of the first experiment was not
relevant since polymer was already injected during 100 PV at 100 mPa.s.
First experiment was performed at residual oil and at intermediate injection rate (about 20 mL/h). Oil
production occurred due to the increase in injection rate and the high viscosity of the polymer solution.
The reference ⌬P value to brine obtained at Sor after brine flush was thus lost and correct Rm estimation
was not possible anymore. In order to avoid such effects, 2nd and 3rd adsorption and in-situ experiments
were performed in cores at 100% water saturation.
Second adsorption and in-situ rheology experiment was performed on Core #5, adsorption and IPV
were measured. Adsorption was found to be very low, less than 10 ␮g/g and IPV was found to be about
12 to 15%. In-situ rheology then showed that at low flow rate, the polymer solution behaves in the core
as it behaves in bulk, Rm being equivalent to ␮r. When increasing the injection rate, Rm stabilizes
becoming higher than ␮r. Rm increase under high rate injection is due to the contribution of elongational
effect of the polymer chain passing though the pore throats. This behavior is typical of high-molecular-
weight polyacrylamide. Behavior was the same for 50, 100 and 200 mPa.s polymer solutions. Corre-
sponding in-situ rheology curves are reported in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8.

Figure 6 —In-situ rheology of pre-filtered 50 mPa.s P20 solution in Core #5 at Sw ⴝ 1.

12 SPE-179823-MS

Figure 7—In-situ rheology of pre-filtered 100 mPa.s P20 solution in Core #5 at Sw ⴝ 1.

Figure 8 —In-situ rheology of pre-filtered 200 mPa.s P20 solution in Core #5 at Sw ⴝ 1.

Finally, 100 mPa.s polymer solution was injected at very high flow rate to check for polymer shear
degradation. Degradation rate increased with the injection rate starting from 15% at the lowest flow rate
(5 mL/h) up to 40 to 50% at the highest rates (800 to 1200 mL/h).
Third adsorption and in-situ rheology experiment was performed on Core #6 and confirmed the results
on the previous experiment.
Displacement test As described previously the displacement test consists of the injection of three
successive slugs at constant flow rate (Q ⫽ 4 mL/h). The first slug is SFW, the second slug is 100 mPa.s
SPE-179823-MS 13

P20 polymer solution prepared in SFW while the third and final slug are 100 mPa.s P20 polymer solution
prepared in LS3 brine. The first slug was injected during 5 PV whereas slug #2 and #3 were injected until
no more oil was produced and pressure drop was stable. Pressure response recording during each stage
is reported in Figure 9. Oil production was quite difficult to quantify using a graduated glass cylinder since
oil was very sticky on the tubing and on the glass walls. To measure actual Sw, it was thus decided to
inject a tracer with the carrier fluid. The carrier fluid was the same fluid as the one injected for the
displacement slug, i.e. we use SFW as carrier fluid after slug #1, 100 mPa.s polymer solution in SFW after
slug #2 and 100 mPa.s polymer solution in LS3 brine after slug #3. Tracer fronts were injected at the same
flow rate than the different displacement slug to avoid mobilizing any additional oil during the tracer
injection. Results are reported in Table 4. After injection of 5 PV of SFW, 45.7% of the oil in place at
Swi has been recovered. When shifting to 100 mPa.s P20 polymer solution prepared in the same brine,
Recovery Factor increased only about 3.8 points (RF ⫽ 49.5%). When shifting to 100 mPa.s P20 polymer
solution prepared in lower salinity brine (LS3 brine), RF increased about almost 2 points. There is no
significant ⬙low sal⬙ effect, thus the use of lower salinity brine should not lead to a significant gain in oil
recovery. The only benefit of reducing the salinity of the make-up water is the decrease of the dosage of
polymer required to reach a given viscosity.

Figure 9 —Evolution of the pressure drop in Core #7 during injection of the different slugs of the displacement test.

Table 4 —Evolution of water saturation and recovery factor (RF)

after the different sequences of the displacement test.
After P20 After P20
Swi After SFW in SFW in LS3

WIP (mL) 4.47 11.5 12.1 12.3

OIP (mL) 15.4 8.4 7.8 7.5
RF (%) - 45.7 49.5 51.5
Sw 0.23 0.58 0.61 0.62
Krw/Kro - 45.7 3.8 1.9
14 SPE-179823-MS

Conclusions
This work reports bulk and coreflood experiments performed to support a polymer flood pilot trial in
Oman. Experiments were focused on the evaluation of the filterability, injectivity and propagation of two
partially hydrolysed polymers in reservoir cores, namely P26 and P20. Laboratory study consisted of bulk,
filtration, stablity and coreflood testing. Main results can be summarized as follow:
– Both polymers presented high viscosifying capacities compared to conventional HPAM. Polymers
were stable over time under reservoir conditions.
– Filtration of both polymers was below the standard filtration criteria for EOR polymers. Filtration
was worse for the polymer having the highest molecular weight, namely P26.
– Long-term injectivity experiments performed in reservoir core confirmed the results of the filtration
tests. Severe core damage was observed for P26 which was discarded from the rest of the
experiments and from the field trial.
– Additional injectivity tests performed on P20 showed much better injectivity at residual oil
saturation. Core damage was not observed during experiments performed at Sw ⫽ 1-Sor.
– Adsorption and in-situ rheology experiments showed low adsorption of P20 in reservoir core. IPV
was about 15% which is the value usually obtained for EOR polymers. At low injection rate, the
Mobility Reduction (or resistance factor) was close to the relative viscosity of the polymer solution.
At higher injection rates elongational effects appeared, inducing an increase of the Mobility
Reduction.
– Displacement test showed positive impact of polymer injection to increase oil recovery upon
waterflood. The reduction of the salinity of the make-up water reduces the polymer concentration
needed to reach the viscosity target. The economics is thus favored. No significant ⬙Low sal⬙ effect
was noriceable, i.e. decrease of residual oil saturation by salinity effects alone.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Petroleum Development Oman for permission to publish this paper. They also
wish to thank the Technical Team, i.e., Sebastien Legrand and Matthieu Olivaud Ahmed Mansour and
Ibtisam Al-Shabibi for their excellent work.

References
1. Eric Delamaide, Alain Zaitoun, Gérard Renard and René Tabary: ⬙Pelican Lake Field: First Successful Application
of Polymer Flooding in a Heavy Oil Reservoir,⬙ paper SPE 165234 presented at the 2013 SPE EOR Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, 2-4 July.
2. Al-Saadi F. S., Amri, B. A., Nofli, S, Wunnik, J. V., Jaspers, H. F., Harthi, S., Shauili, K., Cherukupalli, P. K. and
Chakravarthi, R., Polymer flooding in a large field in South Oman — Initial Results and Future Plans. SPE paper
154665 presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia. Muscat, Oman. 16-18 April 2012.
3. Chauveteau, G.: ⬙Fundamental Criteria in Polymer Flow Through Porous media and their Relative Importance in the
Performance Differences of Mobility Control Buffers,⬙ Pp. 227–268 in Water Soluble Polymers, ed. Glass, J. E.
Advances in Chemistry Series of the American Chemical Society, Vol. 213, 1986.
4. Chauveteau, G. and Zaitoun, A.: ⬙Basic Rheological Behavior of Xanthan Polysaccharide Solutions in Porous Media.
Effects of Pore Size and Polymer Concentration,⬙ paper presented at the 1981 European Symposium on EOR,
Bournemouth, UK, Sept. 21-23, Proceedings, Elsevier Ed., 197–212.