SPE 163672

Development of an Analytical Injectivity Model for Non-Newtonian Polymer

Solutions
Zhitao Li, SPE, and Mojdeh Delshad, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium held in The Woodlands, Texas USA, 1820 February 2013.

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
Polymers are currently used for mobility control and improving sweep efficiency in several field projects. In-situ non-
Newtonian polymer rheology is the most crucial factor that affects polymer injectivity. Significant viscosity variations during
polymer flood occur in the vicinities of wellbores where velocities are high. Numerical simulations are used to predict the
performance and in particular the injectivities of polymer solutions since project economics are sensitive to the injection
rates. In this paper, we propose an analytical injectivity model which can be easily implemented in reservoir simulators.
As the size of a wellblock increases, velocity smears, and thus polymer injectivity is erroneously calculated. Because of
the complex and strong coupling of polymer apparent viscosity and shear rate, empirical correlations are generally employed.
In the University of Texas Chemical flooding simulator, an effective radius was introduced to capture the grid effect. It is
assumed that polymer flux rate in a wellblock is equal to the flux rate using an effective radius. However, this radius is a
complicated function of polymer rheology, grid size, and other factors. It should be determined for each well from matching
injectivity of coarse-grid with that of fine-grid simulations. This becomes impractical for large-scale field simulations with
several hundred wells. Another approach is to use the local grid refinement near wells but this also adds to the computational
cost and limits the size of the problem. An attractive alternative to previous approaches is based on the Peacemans well
model.
An analytical model developed for both shear-thinning and shear-thickening polymers is presented. The model and its
implementation in the simulator were validated by comparing results of different gridblock sizes and radial numerical
simulation. Next, we tested a field case by comparing results of a fine-grid simulation and its up-scaled coarse-grid model.
Finally, a pilot-scale polymer flood was simulated. The model successfully captured polymer injectivity in all of these cases
with no need to introduce empirical parameters.
There are several ongoing polymer injection field tests where the field injectivities differ significantly from the simulation
forecasts. We have developed an analytical model to improve predictability of polymer injectivity during the field projects to
help with optimum injection strategies.

Introduction
Polymer solutions are widely used in chemical EOR processes such as polymer flood, surfactant/polymer flood, etc. Recent
developments include using polymer in heavy oil recovery (Wassmuth et al., 2007) and deep offshore field (Morel et al.,
2012). One important factor for evaluating polymer-flood applicability is polymer injectivity in filed conditions (Kaminsky et
al., 2007). Seright et al. (2009) gave a thorough analysis of impact of polymer properties and possible induced fractures on
polymer injectivity.
Reservoir simulation of polymer flood plays a significant role in determining the economic potential of polymer flood in a
specific field and has been studied by many researchers (e.g., Bondor et al., 1972; Todd and Chase, 1979; Delshad et al.,
2000). However, complex physics of polymer rheology in porous media is hard to capture in near-wellbore region via
reservoir simulation, which hence causes underestimated shear-thinning /overestimated shear-thickening polymer injectivity.
Numerical results (Yuan et al., 2010) show a strong grid effect when simulating chemical EOR processes using polymers.
Sorbie et al. (1982) calculated polymer injectivity for a 2D cross-sectional model through numerical integration of pressure
drop for a single-phase shear-thinning polymer flow in a curvilinear wellblock. Buell et al. (1990) developed a methodology
using the Hall plot for analyzing shear-thinning polymer injectivity data from fields and verified the method with a radial
reservoir simulator. Sharma et al. (2010) proposed an empirical method of treating polymer viscosity in wellbocks using an
2 SPE 163672

effective radius. Another method is to use a reservoir simulator with local grid refinement capability (e.g., Karpinski et al.,
2009) at the cost of computational efficiency.
This paper describes the extension of Peacemans well model (Peaceman, 1983) to non-Newtonian polymer solutions.
The model is implemented in a general 3D reservoir simulator, UTCHEM (Delshad et al., 2000) and is used to calculate well
injectivity for both shear-thinning and shear-thickening polymer solutions especially for coarse wellblock sizes.

Polymer Rheology in Porous Media

In UTCHEM and many other reservoir simulators (e.g., Bondor et al., 1972; Todd and Chase, 1979), polymer solution was
assumed to behave as a shear-thinning (pseudoplastic) non-Newtonian fluid. Power law model (Bird et al., 1960) and Carreau
model (Carreau, 1968) are two popular models for calculating shear-thinning fluid flow. In UTCHEM, polymer shear-
thinning behavior was modeled using Meters equation (Meter and Bird, 1962):

0p
app (1)
P 1
eff
1
1/2
where app is the apparent viscosity of polymer solution; is the polymer solution viscosity at infinite shear rate which

in UTCHEM is approximated with brine viscosity; 0p is the viscosity at zero shear rate; 1/2 is the shear rate at which

apparent viscosity is the average of and 0p ; and P is an empirical parameter.

The effective shear rate eff correlates viscosity measured in a viscometer to an apparent in-situ viscosity in porous
media and is defined using a capillary bundle model (Cannella et al., 1988) as:
n
3n 1 n 1 4 uw
eff C (2)
4n 8kkrw S w

where n is the slope of the linear portion of bulk polymer viscosity vs. shear rate and plotted on a log-log scale (bulk power

law index); uw is the Darcy flux of the aqueous polymer solution; k is the average permeability; krw is the aqueous phase
relative permeability; S w is the aqueous phase saturation; is the porosity. C is a shear correction factor used to explain
deviation of porous medium from ideal capillary bundle model (Wreath et al., 1990; Sorbie, 1991) and should be a function
of permeability, porosity, and polymer molecule properties. For simplicity this formula is written as follows:

c uw
eq (3)
kkrw Sw
where c is 1.1153C. Polymer solutions, for example HPAM, show Newtonian/shear-thinning behavior at low shear rates
and shear-thickening (dilatant) behavior at high flow rates. To remediate the deficiency of Meters equation, Delshad et al.
(2008) developed a comprehensive polymer viscosity model which covers the whole shear-rate regime and is implemented in
UTCHEM as well. The apparent viscosity consists of two parts:
app sh el (4)

where the shear-thinning part is using Carreau model (Carreau, 1968):

( n1 1)/2
sh ( 0p ) 1 (1eff )2 (5)

and the shear-thickening part is:

el max 1 exp (2eff )n2 1


(6)

where 1 , 2 , and r are all fitting parameters for matching experimental data; max is given as

S
max b AP11 AP22 ln C p C SEP
p
(7)
SPE 163672 3

p S
Where C SEP is the polymer viscosity dependence on salinity and hardness; AP11 and AP22 are fitting parameters. When
AP11 and AP22 are zero, the comprehensive polymer viscosity model reduces to the Carreau model.

Analytical Injectivity Model

Around wellbores, polymer solution fluxes are very high (on the order of 100-1000 ft/d); once polymer solution enters the
formation, polymer solution fluxes drop drastically away from the wellbores (to the order of ~0.1-3 ft/d). Because of the
complex polymer rheology, a large portion of pressure is lost in a close distance within the size of a wellblock. Simply
averaging shear rates in large well blocks during a simulation process may not reflect the sub-cell physics.
Peaceman (1983) developed a general well model for reservoir simulation accounting for effects of nonsquare grids and
anisotropic permeability. If we follow Peacemans derivations, the x-y coordinates are converted to
u (k k )1 4 x
y x
(8)
v (k x k y )1 4 y

Our basic assumption for deriving a closed form analytical polymer injectivity model is that in the u-v plane, the critical
region involved in strong near-wellbore effects that affect pressure change is between

rw 0.5 ( k y k x )1 4 ( k x k y )1 4 rw (9)

and
12
rouv 0.14 (k y k x )1 2 x 2 (k x k y )1 2 y 2 (10)

and for both Newtonian flow and non-Newtonian flow, the rouv represents the radius of an almost circular isobar in the u-v
plane that has the same pressure as the wellblock (Peaceman, 1983).
Assumptions also include:
1. in the critical region, related reservoir properties (permeability, porosity, saturations, temperature, etc.) are
homogeneous,
2. fluid and rock compressibilities are negligible for the critical region,
3. polymer exists in aqueous phase only. The impact of existence of polymer on viscosity of microemulsion phase
which forms during surfactant flood is not considered, and
4. radial flow dominates the critical region.
To study the region of anistropic permeability, Peaceman (1983) used a conformal mapping to convert the u-v coordinates
to an elliptic coordinate system ( ):

u b cosh cos
(11)
v b sinh sin

where b 2 rw2 (k y k x ) / (k y k x )1 2 , which assumes k y k x . If k y k x , we can just interchange x and y . Using the
derivations by Peaceman (1983), one obtains the Darcys law in a form of:

2 hkrw (k x k y )1 2 dP
qw (12)
w d
where h is the reservoir depth. Peaceman (1983) also defined a mean radius as
b
r (b sinh b cosh ) / 2 exp( ) (13)
2
Using Eqs. 12 and 13, it is seen that

qw dr
dP (14)
2 h(k k )1 2 k w r
x y rw

For polymer flow in porous media,

4 SPE 163672

w app (eff ) (15)

where

c uw c qw
eff (16)
kkrw Sw kkrw S w 2 hr
To obtain Eq. 16, we have used the above-mentioned assumption No. 4. In UTCHEM, the average permeability is
calculated as
1
x 2 y 2 z 2
1 uw 1
uw 1
uw
k (17)
k uw ky uw k z uw
x

i is the aqueous-phase flux in the ith direction. For the critical region which the
which is a directional permeability and uw
radial flow dominates, we assume:
k kx k y (18)

In Peacemans well model (Peaceman, 1983),

P ( r rouv ) Po (19)
where Po is the wellblock pressure. Eq. 19 is taken to be valid for our derivations based our basic assumption.
Using Eqs. 15 through 19 and integrating Eq. 14 from rw to rouv , we will obtain

uv
qw ln ro
Po Pwf w (20)
2 h(k k )1 2 k rw
x y rw

where the average viscosity w denotes:

r rouv dr

r rw
app (r )
r
w (21)
r uv
ln o
rw
All the derivations up to now apply to a general polymer rheology and can be easily extended to other non-Newtonian
flows (i.e. microemulsion flow in porous media, etc.).
If Eq. 1 is considered, Eq. 21 is converted to
uv P 1
ro
ln
P 1
R p

rwP 1 R pP 1
p
0

w (22)
P 1 r
ln c
rw
where
q w c
Rp (23)
2 h1 2 kkrw S w

The physical meaning of R p is, when R p rw , for a radial flow, at rw R p , the effective shear rate becomes 1 2 (the

shear rate at which apparent viscosity is the average of and 0p . Then if fine-grid simulations are used to capture
polymer injectivity, the grid size should be much smaller than 2 R p ; erroneous injectivity is expected if grid size is greater
SPE 163672 5

than 2 R p when no specific injectivity model is used. If R p rw , then polymer rheology will have little impact on polymer
viscosity. No grid refinement is needed for this case.
For Eq. 4, namely,

( n1 1)/2
app ( 0p ) 1 (1eff )2 max 1 exp (2eff )n2 1 (24)

similar treatment gives:
( n 1)/2 R n 1
r rouv R pc 2 1 2 dr
max 1 exp
pv
( p ) 1 (
0
)
r rw
r r r





w (25)
r uv
ln o
rw
where
1qw c
R pc
2 h kkrw S w
(26)
R 2 qw c
pv 2 h kk S
rw w

where R pc and R pv can be used to estimate the grid size for fine-grid simulations. Equation 25 can be calculated using
numerical integration.
All the above derivations are for a single layer reservoir in an x-y plane with the well in the z-direction. However, x, y and
z are interchangeable. The results are applicable to 3D reservoir simulations.

Application to Reservoir Simulation

The injectivity of a wellblock (i,j,k) is
Iijk WIijk rT ,ijk (27)

where
2 hijk k x,ijk k y ,ijk
WIijk (28)
ro,ijk
ln sijk
rw,ijk

and
rT ,ijk rl ,ijk , l 1, n p (29)
np

Here ro is the Peacemans equivalent radius; s is the skin factor; rl is the relative mobility of the lth phase.
The correction using the analytical injectivity model is applied to aqueous phase only where instead of using
krw,ijk
rw,ijk (30)
w,ijk

we will use
krw,ijk
rw,ijk (31)
w,ijk

After interchanging coordinates, the model extends to horizontal wells. In UTCHEM, we also use the model for producers
since productivity is affected by polymer solutions.
6 SPE 163672

The difference between ro and rouv or rw and rw is very small. If we neglect the small differences, then the derivations
for obtaining an average viscosity will apply to Peaceman-type well models (e.g., Abou-Kassem and Aziz, 1985; Babu and
Odeh, 1989).
The analytical model is implemented in UTCHEM as an option. Other injectivity correction options include:
1. The effective radius method (Sharma et al., 2010)
Effective shear rates (Eq. 2) use a radial flow as
qw
uw (32)
2 rweff h

where rweff is an input parameter and is determined by matching injectivity against fine-grid simulation results.
2. The area equivalent radius method from ECLIPSE (Schlumberger, 2010)
In ECLIPSE 2010, a similar treatment is used where rweff is suggested as
rweff ra rw (33)

where ra is an area equivalent radius of the wellblock. This rweff is an empirical correlation.

Model Validation
The analytical model is first tested using single-phase polymer flood case as the validation case 1. A 2D homogenous
isotropic reservoir (2700 ft 2700 ft 4 ft) with an inverted 5-spot well pattern is modeled. Injection well is on rate-
constraint. Polymer solution is injected at 4000 ft3/d and produced at 1000 ft3/d at each producer. The details of the reservoir
properties and polymer rheology are given in Table 1. The last three lines of Table 1 list input parameters used in UTCHEM
to determine polymer viscosity. The polymer is assumed to be shear-thinning and Meters equation (Eq. 1) is used.
The simulations were run using different gridblock sizes (300 ft 300 ft, 30 ft 30 ft and 15 ft 15 ft). As shown in Fig.
1, wellbore pressure of the injector decreases drastically as grid size decreases. This is the aforementioned grid effect. The
coarsest grid (300 ft 300 ft) gives a very high wellbore pressure which is not acceptable for field applications, but this grid
size is not uncommon in reservoir simulation of similar cases. To give an accurate prediction of well injectivity, a fine-grid
simulation was a must. The finest grid (15 ft 15 ft) is assumed to give the true prediction of the wellbore pressure. The
coarsest grid (300 ft 300 ft) was then repeated but using the analytical model (Eq. 22) and also Eq. 33 of ECLIPSE. From
Fig. 1, we can see the analytical model (Eq. 22) gives a very good estimation of well injectivity even for the coarsest grid
simulation (300 ft 300 ft) while the area equivalent radius method (Eq. 33) overestimates the shear rate.
The second validation case has the same reservoir properties as the first one shown in Table 1. This case is in a constant-
pressure outer boundary condition (1200 psi). A rate-constraint injector locates in the center of the reservoir which has a
radius of 350 ft. Two pore volumes (PV) of polymer solution are injected at 4000 ft3/d. A radial reservoir simulation was run
to accurately capture polymer injectivity. The grid size in r-direction is 1 ft. Figure 2 shows the pressure distribution of the
radial case at 2 PV. Three simulation cases were performed with different near-well options (no modification, the analytical
model, and the area equivalent radius method (Eq. 33)) using coarse Cartesian grids. The model size of 770 ft 770 ft 4 ft
is discretized into 11 11 1 gridblocks. The constant-pressure outer boundary condition is achieved with 16 pressure
constraint peripheral producers. Figure 3 gives pressure distribution using the analytical model at 2 PVs. As shown in Fig. 4,
the analytical model predicts wellbore pressure very well after 1 PV of polymer solution injected. The small discrepancy
between the wellbore pressure from the analytical model and that from the radial reservoir simulation is mainly due to the
imperfection of using pressure-constraint well to mimic the constant-pressure outer boundary condition. Before injection of 1
PV of polymer solution, there is a relatively large discrepancy between simulation results. The large discrepancy is mainly
because polymer solution dilutes quickly into coarse Cartesian grids. As more polymer solution is injected, this effect is
gradually eliminated. From Fig. 4, we can also see that without near-wellbore modification, wellbore pressure is erroneously
calculated and the area equivalent radius method (Eq. 33) overpredicts the injectivity.
The third case is a field case shown in Fig. 5. Table 2 gives a basic description of the field and fluid properties. For fine-
grid simulation, we use 434745 gridblocks; for coarse-grid simulation, we use 111219 gridblocks. The simulation starts
with a water flood for 5 PVs followed by a high concentration polymer flood (0.2 wt%, 0.3 PV), then a low concentration
polymer flood (0.115 wt%, 1 PV) and finally a post water flood (1 PV). One of the 10 injectors (the one pointed in Fig. 5) is
chosen for presenting the analysis. In Fig. 6, we compare the results of a fine-grid simulation with its up-scaled coarse model.
The effective radius method (Eq. 32) is used to match the wellbore pressure of the coarse-grid simulation with that of the fine
one, which is shown as the curve Rweff = 10 ft. Its shown that before polymer flood starts, the wellbore pressure is the
same for different simulation cases because no injectivity correction is needed for water flood. However, after polymer flood
starts, the wellbore pressure of the one using Rweff = 10 ft deviates widely from that of the coarse one without injectivity
modification. Once we activate the analytical model option with the coarse grid, the analytical model greatly improves the
calculated polymer injectivity. The area equivalent radius method (Eq. 33) still overestimates the shear rate but gives a fairly
good estimation of the polymer injectivity.
SPE 163672 7

Simulation results show that the analytical model is a trustworthy alternative to the other two near-wellbore options (Eqs.
31 and 32).

Model Application
A normal 5-spot pilot study is used to show the impact of the analytical model on field-scale reservoir simulation results.
Table 3 gives basic properties of the reservoir and the polymer rheology. For this case, we use 211875 gridblocks. All
wells are operated on pressure-constraint. Water flood is conducted for 240 days and the polymer flood continues until 390
days. Figure 7 shows the reservoir pressure at 300 days. Figure 8 shows aqueous-phase viscosity change with time near
injector No. 1 and Fig. 9 gives the viscosity near the producer. Modified viscosities are compared with original values.
Obviously, modification with the analytical model gives a much lower aqueous-phase viscosity near wellbore because of
more accurately calculated higher shear rates. As shown in Fig. 10, the correction in viscosity causes very different injection
rates during polymer flood. Polymer injectivity increases where more water is injected causing a quick pressure build up (Fig.
11) when the viscosity correction is considered. More oil is recovered since more fluid is injected with an increase in sweep
efficiency (Fig. 12).

Summary and Conclusions

An analytical model was developed to accurately calculate polymer injectivity in reservoir simulators regardless of the
size of the numerical grids. The model considers effects of polymer rheology and grid size. The analytical model applies
to both shear-thinning and shear-thickening polymers and may apply to other non-Newtonian fluids because of its
generality.
The analytical model has been implemented in UTCHEM and validated with fine-grid simulation results.
A field-scale case was tested and the impact of the analytical model was shown in detail.
Based on this study, it is believed that grid effect needs to be considered for reservoir simulation of polymer flood. Our
analytical model helps to eliminate the grid effect and thus gives a more accurate polymer injectivity.

Nomenclature
AP1, AP2 AP3 = Shear thinning viscosity parameters
AP11 , AP22 = Shear thickening viscosity parameters
b = Constant used in conformal mapping
C = Shear coefficient
Cp = Polymer concentration
C SEP , C SE1 = Effective salinity and effective salinity tolerance
h = Length of a single well segment
i, j , k = Wellblock indices
I = Well injectivity
kx , k y = Permeability in x and y directions
krw = Aqueous-phase relative permeability
k = Average permeability
n = Bulk power law index
n1 , n2 = Comprehensive polymer viscosity model parameters
np = Phase number
P = Pressure of aqueous phase
Po = Wellblock pressure
Pwf = Wellbore pressure
P = Parameter for Meters equation
qw = Injection rate of aqueous phase from a single well segment
ro = Peacemans equivalent radius
rw = Well radius
rweff = Effective well radius
rouv = Peacemans equivalent radius in u-v plane
r = Mean radius in u-v plane
rw = Peacemans equivalent well radius in u-v plane
R p , R pc , R pv = Constants used in analytical injectivity model
8 SPE 163672

s = Skin factor
Sw = Saturation of aqueous phase
u = Transformed coordinate in x-direction
uw = Darcy flux of aqueous phase
v = Transformed coordinate in y-direction
WI = Constant part of well injectivity
c = Modified shear coefficient
1 2 = Parameter for Meters equation
eff = Effective shear rate
= Variable in conformal mapping
1 , 2 = Comprehensive polymer viscosity model parameters
r1 , rT = Relative mobility of l-th phase and total relative mobility
app = Apparent viscosity of polymer solution
b = Brine viscosity
el , sh = Polymer elongation viscosity and shear thinning viscosity
max = Parameter for polymer elongation viscosity
w = Aqueous phase viscosity
= Apparent viscosity of polymer solution viscosity at infinite shear rate
0p = Apparent viscosity of polymer solution viscosity at zero shear rate
w = Average polymer viscosity
= Variable in conformal mapping
= Fitting parameter for shear thickening viscosity
= Porosity

References
Abou-Kassem, J.H. and Aziz, K., Analytical Well Models for Reservoir Simulation, SPE Journal, 25(4): 573-579, 1985.
Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S., Productivity of a Horizontal Well, SPE Reservoir Engineering, 4(4): 417-421, 1989.
Bird, R.B., Steward, W.E. and Lightfoot, E.N., Transport Phenomena, Wiley, New York, 1960.
Bondor, P.L., Hirasaki, G.J. and Tham, M.J., Mathematical Simulation of Polymer Flooding in Complex Reservoirs, SPE Journal, 12(5):
369-382, 1972.
Buell, R.S., Kazeml, H. and Poettmann, F.H., Analyzing Injectivity of Polymer Solutions with the Hall Plot, SPE Reservoir Engineering,
5(1): 41-46, 1990.
Cannella, W.J., Huh, C. and Seright, R.S., Prediction of Xanthan Rheology in Porous Media, SPE 18089, presented at the 63rd Annual SPE
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5, 1988.
Carreau, P.J., Rheological Equations from Molecular Network Theories, PhD Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Maddison, USA, 1968.
Delshad, M., Pope, G.A. and Sepehrnoori, K., UTCHEM Technical Documentation Version 9.0, Center for Petroleum and Geosystems
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, July, 2000.
Delshad, M., Kim, D.H., Magbagbeola, O.A., Huh, C., Pope, G.A. and Tarahhom, F., Mechanistic Interpretation and Utilization of
Viscoelastic Behavior of Polymer Solutions for Improved Polymer-Flood Efficiency, SPE 113620, presented at the 2008 SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 19-23, 2008.
Kaminsky, R.D., Wattenbarger, R.C., Szafranski, R.C. and Coutee, A.S., Guidelines for Polymer Flooding Evaluation and Development,
presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, U.A.E., Dec. 4-6, 2007.
Karpinski, L., Marcondes, F., Delshad, M. and Sepehrnoori, K., An Element Based Conservative Approach Using Unstructured Grids in
Conjunction with a Chemical Flooding Compositional Reservoir Simulator, 20th International Congress of Mechanical Engineering,
Gramado, RS, Brazil, Nov. 15-20, 2009.
Meter, D.M. and Bird, R.B., Tube Flow of Non-Newtonian Polymer Solutions: Parts I Laminar Flow and Rheological Models, AIChE
Journal, 10(6): 878-881, 1962.
Morel, D., Vert, M., Jouenne, S., Gauchet, R. and Bouger Y., First Polymer Injection in Deep offshore Field Angola: Recent Advancesin
the Dalia/Camelia Field Case, SPE Journal, 1(2): 43-52, 2012.
Peaceman D.W., Interpretation of Well-block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation with Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic
Permeability, SPE Journal, 23(3): 531-543, 1983.
Schlumberger, ECLIPSE* Reservoir Simulation Software Version 2010.2 Technical Description, Schlumberger Limited, 785-787, 2010.
Seright, R.S., Seheult, M., and Talashek, T., Injectivity Characteristics of EOR Polymers, SPE Journal, 12(5): 783-792, 2009.
Sharma, A., Delshad, M. and Chun, H., A Practical Method to Calculate Polymer Viscosity Accurately in Numerical Reservoir Simulators,
SPE 147239, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, Oct. 31-Nov. 2, 2010.
Sorbie, K.S., Polymer-Improved Oil Recovery, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1991.
SPE 163672 9

Sorbie, K.S., Roberts, L.J. and Foulser, R.W.S., Polymer Flooding for Highly Stratified Brent Sands in the North Sea, Proc. 2nd Eur. Symp.
on EOR, Paris, Nov. 8-10, 1982.
Todd, M.R. and Chase, C.A., A Numerical Simulator for Predicting Chemical Flood Performance, SPE 7689, presented at the SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Denver, Colorado, Jan. 31-Feb. 2 1979.
Wreath, D., Pope, G.A. and Sepehrnoori, K., Dependence of Polymer Apparent Viscosity on the Permeable Media and Flow Conditions, In
Situ, 14(3), 263-284, 1990.
Wassmuth, F.R., Green, K. and Hodgins, L., Polymer Flood Technology for Heavy Oil Recovery, Paper 2007-182, presented at Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Jun 12-14, 2007.
Yuan, C., Delshad, M. and Wheeler, M.F., Modeling Multiphase Non-Newtonian Polymer Flow in IPARS Parallel Framework, Networks
and Heterogeneous Media, 5(3): 583-602, Sept., 2010.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Chun Huh for valuable discussions. The authors would also like to acknowledge
financial support of the companies who sponsor the Chemical EOR Industry Affiliates Project in the Center for Petroleum
and Geosystems Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin.

Table 1Reservoir Properties and Polymer Rheology

for Cases 1 and 2
Model Description Values
Rock Compressibility 0
Permeability in X or Y Direction 1000 md
Porosity 0.2
Initial Reservoir Pressure 1200 psi
Initial Water Saturation 1
Residual Water Saturation 0
Anion Concentration 0.33 meq/ml
Water Viscosity 0.85 cp
Water Compressibility 0.000003 psi-1
Polymer Concentration 0.3 wt%
AP1, AP2, AP3 20.3, 0, 2390.7
BETAP, CSE1, SSLOPE 1, 0.01, 0
GAMMAC, GAMHF, POWN, GAMHF2 24, 1354.9, 1.7, -13.97

Table 2 Reservoir Properties and Polymer Rheology of Validation Case 3

Model Description Values
Reservoir Size 2100 ft 2400 ft 37 ft
Rock Compressibility 0.000008 psi-1
Permeability in X, Y or Z Direction Variable (0.00001-8970.8 md), anisotropic
Porosity Variable (0.01-0.33)
Initial Reservoir Pressure at a Specific Depth 550 psi at 1965.8 ft
Initial Water Saturation 0.2
Residual Water Saturation Gridblock dependent
Anion Concentration 0.0513 meq/ml
Water Viscosity 0.37 cp
Oil Viscosity 3.4 cp
Water Compressibility 0.000003 psi-1
Oil Compressibility 0.00001 psi-1
AP1, AP2, AP3 45, 625, 1000
BETAP, CSE1, SSLOPE 1, 0.01, -0.377
GAMMAC, GAMHF, POWN, GAMHF2 4, 30, 1.8, 0
10 SPE 163672

Table 3Reservoir Properties and Polymer Rheology

of Case 4: Application Case
Model Description Values
Reservoir Size 210 ft 150 ft 180 ft
Permeability in X, Y or Z Direction Variable (0.00001-5889.5 md), anisotropic
Porosity Variable (0.01-0.31)
Initial Reservoir Pressure at a Specific Depth 1304 psi at 2457 ft
Rock Compressiblity 0.000008 psi-1
Anion Concentration 0.1323 meq/ml
Divalent Cation Concentration 0.0339 meq/ml
Water Viscosity 0.48 cp
Oil Viscosity 17 cp
Water Compressibility 0.0000027 psi-1
Oil Compressibility 0.00005 psi-1
AP1, AP2, AP3 150, 150, 850
BETAP, CSE1, SSLOPE 1, 0.01, -0.377
GAMMAC, GAMHF, POWN, GAMHF2 15, 5, 1.7, 0

6000

Curves converge as gridblock size decreases 300 ft x 300 ft

Wellbore Pressure of the Injector (psi)

5000

30 ft x 30 ft

4000 15 ft x 15 ft

3000 Analytical Model

Rweff=Sqrt(RwRa)
2000

1000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Pore Volumes
Fig. 1Validation case 1(polymer flood): injector wellbore pressure vs. pore volumes injected.
SPE 163672 11

Fig. 2Validation case 2: Reservoir pressure (psi) distribution at 2 PVs.

Fig. 3Validation case 2: Reservoir pressure (psi) distribution at 2 PVs.

12 SPE 163672

3500

No Modification
Wellbore Pressure of the Injector (psi)

3000

Analytical Model

2500

Radial Simulation

2000
Rweff=Sqrt(RwRa)

1500
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Pore Volumes
PV
Fig. 4Validation case 2: Reservoir pressure (psi) distribution at 2 PVs.

Fig. 5Validation case 3: oil saturation distribution at 195 days.

SPE 163672 13

3000
Wellbore Pressure of the Injector (psi)

No Modification
2500

Rweff=10 ft
2000

Analytical Model
1500

Rweff=Sqrt(RwRa)
1000

500
Water Flood Polymer Water Flood
Flood

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pore Volumes
Fig. 6Validation case 3: wellbore pressure of the injector of interest vs. pore volumes injected.

Fig. 7Field case study: reservoir pressure (psi) distribution at 300 days.
14 SPE 163672

25
Aqueous Phase Viscosity (cp)

20

With Modification
15
Without Modification

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Injection Time (Days)
Fig. 8Field case study: aqueous phase viscosity around injector 1.

Fig. 9Field case study: aqueous phase viscosity around the producer.
SPE 163672 15

1000

900
Total Injection Rate (STB/D)

800

700
With Modification

600

500

Without Modification
400

300
Water Flood Polymer Flood

200
0 100 200 300 400
T (Days)
Fig. 10Field case study: injection rate of injector 1 vs. time in days.

1510

1500

1490
Average Pressure (psi)

1480 With Modification

1470

1460

1450

1440 Without Modification

1430 Water Flood Polymer Flood

1420
0 100 200 300 400
T (Days)
Fig. 11Field case study: average reservoir pressure vs. time in days.
16 SPE 163672

400K

With Modification
Cumulative Oil Recovery (Bbls)

300K

200K

Without Modification

100K Water Flood Polymer Flood

0
0 100 200 300 400
T (Days)
Fig. 12Field case study: Cumulative Oil Recovery vs. time in days.