SPE 164904

Polymer Solution Injection – Near Wellbore Dynamics and Displacement

Efficiency, Pilot Test Results, Matzen Field, Austria
Torsten Clemens, OMV E&P; Marie Deckers, OMV E&P; Martin Kornberger, OMV E&P; Thomas Gumpenberger,
OMV E&P; Markus Zechner, OMV E&P

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec held in London, United Kingdom, 10–13 June 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

A number of reservoirs in the Vienna Basin in Austria might benefit from polymer solution injection. In November 2011, a
polyacrylamide polymer injection pilot commenced for the 8th Torton Horizon reservoir to reduce the uncertainties related to
this technology.

To further improve the understanding of the polymer solution injection, laboratory experiments and numerical simulations
were performed.

The results of the injection test and laboratory experiments show that two phases can be distinguished: first, a phase of
polymer solution injection below the Formation Parting Pressure (FPP) can be observed. This phase is characterised by high
flow velocities in the near-wellbore area, resulting in severe degradation of the polymer, and a slower rise of the pressure
than expected for undegraded polymers. In the second phase, the FPP is reached and fractures are generated. In this phase,
the polymer solution exhibits shear-thinning behaviour in the fractures. Owing to significantly lower flow velocities in the
formation, degradation of the polymers is limited. Phase one is usually short in comparison to phase two.

To achieve sufficient polymer solution injection rates for an economic project without degrading the polyacrylamide
polymer, inducing fractures by injection is required for the reservoirs in the Vienna Basin. Hence, screening of fields has to
include geomechanical properties of the reservoir sands and surrounding shales. Also, the risk of fracturing outside of the
formation has to be assessed. In addition, the values of the FPP of the reservoir sands and surrounding shales and the
direction of induced fractures should be determined. Furthermore, the injection water quality in terms of fines and oil content
has an impact on the fracture growth and should be evaluated.
2 SPE 164904

Introduction

A number of oil fields containing medium viscous oil (in-situ viscosity ranging from 5-50 cP) are located in the Vienna Basin
in Austria. Despite injection of more than one pore volume of water, several of these fields show low recovery factors. Due to
the benign conditions of these reservoirs (in terms of temperature, water salinity and permeability), chemical flooding might
be a suitable method to increase oil recovery according to the screening criteria of Taber et al. 1997. Laboratory tests and
simulations supported the potential for chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) in the Vienna Basin (Pöllitzer et al. 2009).

Improving the displacement efficiency of waterflooded viscous oil fields can be achieved by adding polymers to the injected
water (e.g. Littman 1988, Lake 1989). Polymer augmented waterfloods lead to an increased viscosity of the injected water
and to a reduction in water relative permeability (e.g. Barrufet and Ali 1994, Barreau et al. 1997). These effects result in
improved microscopic (e.g. Buchgraber et al. 2011) and macroscopic displacement efficiency (e.g. Cheng et al. 2010).

To maximise the benefit of polymer flooding over waterflooding, several parameters have to be considered in addition to the
parameters used in the economic evaluation of conventional projects. Polymer injection projects are usually evaluated for
incremental oil production over water flooding or infill drilling projects (e.g. Wu et al. 1996, Wyatt et al. 2008, Alusta et al.
2012, Lefebvre et al. 2012). Owing to the high costs of polymers, the utility factor = kilograms of polymers injected divided
by incremental barrels over waterflooding (Uf = kg/bbl) has to be small for successful polymer injection projects (Clemens et
al. 2011).

The utility factor depends on the in-situ viscosity of polymers in the reservoir further away from the wells, rheology of the
polymer solution, polymer degradation, modification of relative permeability, adsorption and inaccessible pore volume. In
addition, the injectivity of the polymer solution plays an important role. To increase recovery from medium viscous oils,
sufficient throughput of injected water is required (Beliveau 2009). Increasing the viscosity of the injected water decreases
the injectivity (e.g. Milton et al. 1983, Weiss 1992) and the water throughput accordingly. Laboratory experiments can be
used to decrease the uncertainty range of the key factors determining the utility factor (e.g. Ranjbar et al. 1992, Saavedra et
al. 2002, Wassmuth et al. 2009). However, the complex interplay of the rock properties and polymer rheology in the near-
wellbore region can only be resolved by performing a polymer solution injection pilot test in the reservoir.

In November 2011, a polymer solution injection pilot test commenced in the 8th Tortonian Horizon (8 TH), one of the
reservoirs in the Vienna Basin. In addition to gaining experience in polymer facility operations, the aim of the test was to
answer the following questions:

(1) What will be the injection pressure for polymer solution?

(2) Will the polymer solution show shear-thinning (Kumar et al. 2012) or shear-thickening properties (e.g. Jennings
et al. 1971)?
(3) Will the polymer solution be degraded in the near-wellbore region (e.g. Maerker 1975)?
(4) Will the polymer solution injection induce fractures (e.g. Lee et al. 2011)?
(5) What will be the polymer solution mobility in the reservoir?
(6) Can screening criteria for polymer injection be improved based on the injection test?

To support the data generated from the pilot test in the field, laboratory experiments and numerical simulation were
performed.

In the following paragraph, the history of the field is given. Next, the polymer injection pilot is described. Then, laboratory
experiments concerning the near-wellbore effects for this reservoir are described followed by simulation results of the test,
discussion and conclusions.

Field Description and History

The 8 TH reservoir is located in the Vienna Basin, about 20 kilometres northeast of Vienna. The reservoir consists of
sandstones deposited in a shallow marine environment. The porosities of the sandstones are 20 - 30 % and the average
permeability 500 mD. The net thickness is about 20 m. There is a weak aquifer present at the northern edge of the reservoir.
The reservoir contained a gas cap. The reservoir depth is about 1150 m subsurface. The initial reservoir pressure was 113 bar
and initial in-situ oil viscosity 19 cP at the reservoir temperature of 50 °C and the oil density about 20 API. The formation
water salinity is about 20,000 ppm.

Production from the 8 TH commenced in 1951 (Fig. 1). Peak oil production of about 2000 m³/d was achieved in 1957. From
then onwards, oil production declined. The reservoir pressure fell to about 80 bar in 1960. Water injection was started in
S
SPE 164904 3

1960 and oil pproduction couuld be stabiliseed. The water cut continuouusly increased and is currenttly at 96 %.

Fig. 1-Oil (bla

ack) and liquid (green) pro
oduction from
m the 8 TH, wa
ater injection is shown in b
blue und the w
water cut in
rred.

TThe recovery factor of the ffield is about 226 %. To increease recovery,, polymer soluution injection was suggested after screeniing
oof EOR methoods.

TTo reduce thee key uncertainnties, a polym

mer solution innjection pilot test
t was perfoormed. The folllowing paraggraph gives moore
ddetails on the pilot test.

Polymer Inje
ection Pilot Test Description

TThe polymer pilot served tw wo purposes, (1) to gain exxperience on tthe surface w with handling ppolymer injecttion, operatingg a
ppolymer mixing unit, qualiity checking oof the polymeer solutions annd (2) on the subsurface too investigate ppolymer solutiion
iinjectivity, poolymer degradaation, fracturinng and polymeer solution moobility in the reeservoir.

A
As location foor the pilot, ann area in the m
middle of the fieeld was selectted (Fig. 2).
4 SPE 1649
904

Fig. 2-Top strructure map w

with remainin
ng oil producttion wells (gre
een dots) and
d water injecttion wells (blu
ue dots) of the
8 TH. The red
d rectangle shhows the pilot area.

PPrior to polym
mer injection, a step rate injjection and faall-off test wass performed too determine thhe Formation Parting Pressuure
((FPP) and a base line for suubsequent fall--off tests. As sshown in Fig. 3, the Formattion Parting Prressure is abouut 180 bar (26600
ppsi).

3000
BHP

2000
Pressure, psia

1000
W
WHP

0
0 100
0 200 300 400
e, m3/d
Injection Rate

Fig. 3-Step ra
ate test to dettermine the Formation Parrting Pressure
e (FPP). For the 8 TH, the FPP
F is about 180 bar.

BBased on the relationship oof viscosity veersus polymer concentrationn and stabilityy of the polym
mer, a polyacryylamide polym
mer
((SNF Flopaam m 3630S) waas selected foor the polymeer injection teest. Biopolym mers were disregarded as aan injection ttest
pperformed in tthe 1980s showwed severe deegradation of tthe polymers bby micro-orgaanisms.

TThe water injjection rate annd Tubing Heead Pressure ((THP) at the injection welll are depictedd in Fig. 4. Innjecting polym
mer
ssolution resultts in an increaase in the Tubiing Head Presssure.
S
SPE 164904 5

Fig. 4-Tubing
g Head Pressu ure (THP) and
d water injection rate for th
he polymer in
njection well. The bars sho
ow the
c
concentrationn of the polym
mer solution.

A number of fall-off tests were w performeed to investigate the changees in pressuree response. Laaoroongroj et aal. 2012 show wed
tthat the mobillity can be reaasonably well determined evven for nonNeewtonian fluidds and that a goood base line prior to polym mer
iinjection is reequired to inteerpret the mobbility differencce and locatioon of the frontt. The results of the fall-offf tests perform
med
iindicate that the
t polymer ffront moved abouta 100 m iinto the formaation after aboout seven moonths of injecttion and that tthe
mmobility of the polymer soluutions is abouut 10 times low wer than the m
mobility of the water outside of the front (F Fig. 5).

Fig. 5-Analyssis of consecu utive fall-off ttests. The pinnk line shows the conditionns prior to po
olymer injectio
on. A radial
fflow period iss clearly visib
ble. The two te us times afterr polymer inje
ests at variou ection (red an
nd brown) shoow a moving
ffront into the
e reservoir.
6 SPE 1649
904

T
To investigatee the near-welllbore dynamiccs in more detaail, rheologicaal experimentss were perform
med as describbed below.

Laboratory experiments
s

IIn the literatuure, a number of laboratoryy experiments are describedd investigatingg the rheologyy of polymer ssolutions. It was
w
nnoted that bioopolymers show w shear-thinnning behaviourr if the viscosiity is measured in a rheomeeter and show the same effeects
iin a porous medium
m (e.g. H
Hirasaki and Poope 1974, Hilll et al. 1974, C
Chauveteau annd Kohler 19884, Cannella ett al. 1988). Evven
ffor high flow velocities in ccores, mechannical degradatiion of biopolyymers was limiited. Howeverr, biopolymerss are more proone
ffor degradatioon by microbess (e.g. Bragg eet al. 1983, O’’Leary et al. 19987).

PPolyacrylamidde polymers aare less susceeptible for deggradation by m

microbes (e.g. Chang 19788). While the viscosity verssus
sshear rate deetermined in rrheometers shhows shear-thhinning behavviour, in corees, apparent sshear-thickeninng behaviourr is
oobserved (e.gg. Smith 19700, Seright 19983). The reaason for the apparent sheear-thickening behaviour was w seen in tthe
vviscoelastic behaviour of thhese polymerss (e.g. Chauveteau 1981, HHeemskerk et al. 1984). Att high flow veelocities throuugh
ccores, polyacrrylamide show
ws mechanical degradation (e.g.
( Maerker 1975, Sorbie aand Roberts 19984, Martin 19986).

TThe laboratoryry tests reporteed here were performed to investigate thhe near-wellboore rheology of the polyacrylamide for tthe
rreservoir rockk, temperature and water connditions presennt in the 8 TH
H.

CCores were taaken from an outcrop

o with similar
s properrties to the bettter quality reservoir rock inn the pilot areea, the Nordhoorn
ssandstone, forr repeatabilityy reasons. Thhe permeabilitty was about 2 Darcy andd the porosityy 23 %. Artiificial brine w was
ggenerated withh similar commposition to thhe injection w water composittion. The expeeriments weree performed att 30 °C. Priorr to
ppolymer injecction, water haas been injected for an exteended period oof time and cooled the neaar wellbore reggion from 50 °C
ddown to this ttemperature. F
Fig. 6 depicts tthe polymer ssolution viscossity for a conccentration of 11000 ppm meaasured in a conne-
pplate rheometeer. The error bbars indicate thhe standard deeviation of three repeat expeeriments.

Fig. 6-Polyme
er solution vis
scosity in arttificial brine a
at 30 °C versu
us shear rate, measured in a cone-plate
e rheometer.

A
As expected, the
t viscosity oof the polymerr solution decrreases with inccreasing shearr rate measuredd in the cone-pplate rheometeer.

Next, the appparent viscosiity defined ass μ

N ∆ was m
measured, wheere A and l aare cross secttion and lenggth,
rrespectively, Q flow rate, p the observed pressure droop and kref the permeability of the core to artificial brinne was measurred.
AAll experimennts were carried out at least in replicate. The results for
f two polym mer concentratiions are show wn in Fig. 7. The
T
ddata are preseented as arithm
metic means, the error barss are one stanndard deviatioon. The appareent viscosity iincreases untiil a
mmaximum is reached
r and thhen decreasess for higher flow rates. Thee maximum shhifts to lower velocities forr higher polym mer
cconcentrationss.
S
SPE 164904 7

Fig. 7-Appare
ent polymer s
solution visco
osity in artific
cial brine at 30
0 °C versus D
Darcy flow ratte, measured in cores.

CComparing thhe data points for low flow rates (1 to 2 m/d) in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, a reasonable agreement wiith the measurred
sshear rates caan be observeed, using the measured ressidual resistannce factor of about two annd a capillary tube model for
ddetermining thhe shear rate ffrom the core (Cannella et al.
a 1988). For high flow rattes, shear-thinnning is seen fo
for the rheomeeter
vviscosity meassurements whhile the pressurre drop over coores is increassing with velocity.

FFig. 7 suggessts mechanicaal degradationn of the polyymer at higheer flow rates. To test the degradation ffor the reservvoir
cconditions of the 8 TH, thee effluent polyymer solution of core floodd tests using uunsheared polyymer was injected into a freesh
ccore. The resuults indicate thhat the polymeers are severelyy degraded (F
Fig. 8). Even aat flow velocitiies lower thann the velocitiess at
tthe maximum m of the appareent viscosity, tthe polymer hhas already beeen degraded too some extentt. The higher tthe flow veloccity
iin the first corre, the larger thhe degradationn.

Fig. 8-Appare
ent polymer ssolution visco
osity in artific
cial brine at 30
0 °C versus D
Darcy flow ratte. The upperm most curve
sshows the unnsheared poly ymer solution
n. The curves s below indica ate the appare
ent viscosity using the efffluent at the
rrespective highest flow ra
ate shown in tthe diagram injected into a fresh core. T The diagram shows severre degradation n
oof the polyme
er.

IInjecting polyymer solutionss with a concenntration of 500 ppm and 10000 ppm show ws that for unshheared polymeers, the viscossity
iincreases withh increasing cconcentration. However, injjecting effluennt polymers oof these conceentrations into fresh cores, tthe
ddata show thaat the viscosityy versus veloccity relationshhip is very sim
milar if the polymers are coollected after bbeing exposedd to
hhigh shear ratees despite havving different cconcentrationss (Fig. 9).
8 SPE 1649
904

Fig. 9-Appare
ent polymer ssolution visco
osity in artific
cial brine at 30
0 °C versus D
Darcy flow ratte. The upper two curves
s
show the visccosity versus
s velocity on u
unsheared po olymers for 500 ppm and 1 1000 ppm res spectively. Th
he lower two
c
curves give the viscosity v
versus flow velocity
v of pre e-sheared polymers at 500 0 ppm and 1000 ppm.

DDetermining thet polymer rrheology for different

d flow velocities andd for unsheareed and pre-shheared conditioons provides tthe
iinput data reqquired for the simulation off near-wellboree effects. In thhe following pparagraph, thee simulation model
m and resuults
aare presented.

S
Simulation model
m and simulation
s re
esults

IIn the near-w

wellbore regionn of a verticall well, the floow velocity is decreasing faast for a reserrvoir with a constant net saand
tthickness. Forr the conditionns of the polym
mer injection well
w in the 8 T TH, the Darcyy velocity is laarger than 100 m/d in the neear-
wwellbore, decrreasing to somme 0.5 m/d in tthe reservoir.

TTo simulate thhese conditionns, a radial nuumerical simuulation model was built withh the properties of the 8 TH H horizon in tthe
aarea of the poolymer pilot inn CMG STAR RS. The permeeability was 5550 mD, the poorosity 27 %, the net pay thhickness 5 m, tthe
ppressure priorr to water injecction 107 bar. 5000 cells weere used to avooid numerical dispersion efffects.

T a fall-off tesst performed pprior to polymeer injection inn August 2010.

The model waas calibrated uusing a multi-rrate injection and

FFig. 10 depictts the measurred bottom hole pressure annd water injecction rate and the simulatedd bottom holee pressure verssus
ttime. The watter injection rate was used as constraint. The green cuurve shows the simulated bottom hole prressure using tthe
uunsheared pollymer viscosiities (see Fig. 9). The botttom hole presssure is increaasing to very high values assuming sheear-
tthickening in the reservoir far above thee measured prressures; in thee simulation, the injection pressure limitt of 350 bar was
w
rreached.

HHowever, usinng the data oof the polymerr viscosity veersus velocity for the pre-sheared polym mers (see Fig. 9), adjusted for
hhigher flow veelocities, leads to realistic bottom
b hole prressures until end of Januaryy 2012. From this point in time
t onwards,, in
tthe field test, the Formationn Parting Presssure was reacched (see Fig. 3) and fracturres generated in the reservooir. The fractuures
wwere not accoounted for in thhe simulation m model.
S
SPE 164904 9

Fig. 10-Waterr injection ratte and historic

cal and simullated bottom hole pressurres. The green n line shows the simulated d
rresponse ass suming shearr thickening of o the polyme was reached.. The red line is
er solution, the injection prressure limit w
tthe result of using
u shear d degraded poly ymers.

TThe laboratorry data and siimulated respoonse show thaat the near-w
wellbore dynam mics is affecteed by shear-thhickening of tthe
ppolymers, pollymer degradaation and indducing fracturees in the reseervoir. In the following paaragraph, the implications are
ddiscussed.

Discussion

TThe flow of ppolyacrylamidde polymers haas been shownn to increase the pressure ddrop over coree material forr increasing flow
vvelocities (e.gg. Seright et all. 2011). For tthe conditions of the 8 TH, this increase iin pressure drrop has been observed
o as weell.
TThe apparent viscosity incrreased by a faactor of nine ffrom low to hhigh flow veloocities for a polymer conceentration of 10000
pppm.

Such high appparent viscosities would leaad to very higgh bottom holee pressures foor a vertical wwell. However,, even below tthe
FFormation Parrting Pressuree, the pressure measured forr the polymer injection fieldd test does nott rise as muchh. Lower flowiing
bbottom hole pressures
p than expected couuld be explained by shear-thhinning behavviour (e.g. Shaarma et al. 2011, Kumar et al.
22012). For thee case of the 8 TH, the laborratory experim
ments clearly indicate that innjection occurrred above the critical Deborrah
nnumber (e.g. HHeemskerk et al. 1984). Hennce, the low innjection pressuures cannot bee explained byy shear-thinninng for the 8 TH
H.

AAnother hypothesis for low w injection presssures is severre reduction inn the viscosityy of the polymeers. Laboratorry data show thhat
ffor the 8 TH, polymers aree severely deggraded at Darccy flow velocities larger than 10 m/d. Siimilar observaations have beeen
rreported by other authors ((e.g. Stavland et al. 2010). Darcy flow vvelocities abovve 10 m/d aree by far exceeeded in the neear-
wwellbore regioon of the vertiical injection well of the 8 TH. Applyingg the shear-degraded polym mer viscosity ddata in numeriical
ssimulation givves a good fit oof the observeed pressure datta.

HHowever, afteer about 14 daays of polymeer injection, thhe Formation PParting Pressuure was exceeeded. From thiis time onwarrds,
ffractures are generated andd the bottom hole pressure increased onnly slowly ow wing to the preessure drop over the fractuure.
FFractures leadd to a substaantial reductioon in flow velocities in thhe near-wellbbore region aand less polym mer degradatiion
aaccordingly (SSeright et al. 2009, Moe Sooe Let et al. 22012). The prressure transieent analysis off the consecuttive fall-off teests
cconfirms a tennfold decrease in mobility building out from the injeection well intto the reservooir and limitedd degradation of
ppolymers accoordingly (see FFig. 5).

TThe increase in injection ppressure after cchanging the concentrationn from 500 pppm to 1000 pppm on 20 Marrch 2012 can be
eexplained by an increasing pressure dropp over the fraccture. Zechnerr et al. 2013 showed
s that w
within fracturess, shear-thinniing
bbehaviour andd no significannt degradationn occurs for ppolyacrylamidde polymers. Similar
S to meaasurements inn rheometers, tthe
vviscosity of thhe polymer sollutions within the fracture iss increasing w
with polymer cooncentration.
10 SPE 1649
904

TThe processess occurring duuring polymer injection into the 8 TH are summarised in i Fig. 11. Duuring a first phhase of injectioon,
tthe polymers are severely degraded in thhe near-wellbbore region. T The bottom hoole pressure iss slowly increasing due to tthe
iinjection of tthe higher visscous fluid thhan water. In the second pphase, after thhe Formation Parting Presssure is reachhed,
cconditions chaange substantiially. The floww velocities inn the formatioon are decreassing, the polymers are less sheared. Withhin
tthe fracture, thhe polymers shhow shear-thinnning behavioour. For the 8 TH,
T phase onee is short comppared to phasee two.

Fig. 11-Effectts during poly

yacrylamide ppolymer soluttion injection
n into vertical wells. A firstt phase of inje
ection under
mmatrix condittions with sevvere degradattion of polym
mers is followeed by a secon nd phase of in nduced fractuuring. Inducin
ng
ffractures reduces the floww velocities an
nd polymer ddegradation ac ccordingly. T
The polymers exhibit shearr-thinning in
tthe induced ffractures but apparent she ear-thickening
g in the near--wellbore areaa.

FFor the condiitions of the 8 TH, inducing fractures during d injection is requiredd to avoid siggnificant loss in the mobillity
iincrease of thhe injected poolymer. Induccing fractures has implicatiions for the operating
o phillosophy of poolymer injectiion
pprojects. Polyymer solutions can be injecteed at high conncentrations iff generation off fractures is aacceptable (W
Wang et al. 20008).
TThe water quuality in termss of fines and remaining oiil concentratioon is very impportant for thee fracture groowth, poor waater
qquality might lead to fracturres of substanttial length in ccombination w
with polymer innjection (Lee et al. 2011).

AAlso, monitorring fracture ggrowth is veryy important too optimise sw weep efficienccy (Shuaili et al. 2012). Too improve sweeep
eefficiency, it is
i necessary too align the weells with the direction
d of thhe induced fracctures in order to achieve a more line driive
llike developm ment. In additiion, it should be taken intoo considerationn that water innjected after a slug of polyymer will folloow
ddifferent flowppaths due to ppartial closure of the inducedd fractures.

OOwing to the llarge impact oof fractures onn the polymer rrheology, screeening fields for
f polyacrylam
mide polymer injection shouuld
iinvolve the foollowing steps::

1. The sscreening criteeria as given bby Taber et all. 1997 can bee used as a first step. It shouuld be noted tthat recently, tthe
envellope for polym mer injection wwas extended tto low (Morell et al. 2012) aand high viscosities (Levitt eet al. 2011).
2. The Darcy flow velocities
v in thhe near-wellbbore region shhould be calcuulated. If valuues of more thant 10 m/d aare
calcuulated then siggnificant degraadation of polyyacrylamides ccan be expecteed. The higherr the moleculaar weight, highher
the concentration,
c , lower the ppermeability and/or porosity, the moree significant the degradattion. Laboratoory
experriments mightt be required too test the degrradation for thhe polymer choosen.
SPE 164904 11

3. If severe degradation is expected then polymer injection rates leading to induced fractures should be considered.
4. If induced fractures could lead to injection of polymer solutions through cap or underlying shales into another sand,
then the risk of fracturing the surrounding rock has to be assessed. In general, the larger the difference of the FPP in
the sand and the surrounding shales, the better. For depleted fields, the difference in FPP of the sands and shales is
usually larger than for being an advantage for polymer injection.
5. For induced fractures, the direction of the growth has to be considered to optimise sweep efficiency.

Conclusions

An injection pilot test of polyacrylamide polymer solutions in the 8 TH horizon resulted in an increase in Tubing Head
Pressures.

Laboratory experiments showed that the flow velocities in the near-wellbore region are so large that the used polyacrylamide
polymer solutions experience viscoelastic effects and result in high apparent viscosities. In addition, the laboratory
experiments show that the polymers will be severely degraded at the high flow velocities in the near-wellbore region.

Two phases could be separated for the injection of polymer solutions in the 8 TH: a first phase of injection at matrix
conditions below the Formation Parting Pressure (FPP) and a second phase of injecting above the FPP.

The rise of the injection pressure in phase one (below FPP) was less than expected for undegraded polymer solutions. Using
the data for the degraded polymers gives a good fit of the injection pressure.

Injection above the FPP in phase two leads to a significant reduction in flow velocities in the formation and polymer
degradation accordingly. Within the fracture, shear-thinning behaviour is expected. Pressure transient analysis confirms that
the mobility of the polymer solutions within the reservoir is high indicating that the loss of viscosity of the polymer solutions
by degradation is limited.

For polymer solution injection above the FPP, in addition to the screening criteria for oil viscosity, salinity, reservoir
temperature and permeability, the geomechanical properties of the reservoir rock and surrounding shales are important. The
risk of fracturing outside of the reservoir has to be assessed. The larger the difference between FPP of the reservoir rock and
surrounding shales, the better the reservoir is suitable for such projects. In addition, water injectors and producers should be
aligned with the direction of fracturing, fracturing should be monitored and the water quality assessed for the growth of
fractures.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Wei-Chun CHU for the pressure transient analysis and to OMV E&P for the permission to publish the paper.

References
Alusta. G., Mackay, E., Fennema, J., Armih, K. and Collins, I. 2012. EOR vs. Infill Drilling: Sensitivity to Operational and Economic
Parameters. Paper SPE 150454 presented at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt.
Barreau, P., Lasseux, D., Bertin, H., Glenat, P. and Zaitoun, A. 1997. Polymer Adsorption Effect on Relative Permeability and Capillary
Pressure: Investigation of a Pore Scale Scenario. Paper SPE 37303 presented at the 1997 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA.
Barrufet, M.A. and Ali, L. 1994. Modification of Relative Permeability Curves by Polymer Adsorption. Paper SPE 27015 presented at the
SPE Latin American/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Beliveau. D. 2009. Waterflooding Viscous Oil Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 12 (5).
Bragg, J.R., Maruca, S.D., Gale, W.W., Gall, L.S. Wernau, W.C., Beck, D. and Goldman, I.M. 1983. Control of Xanthan-Degrading
Organisms in the Loudon Pilot: Approach, Methodology, and Results. Paper SPE 11989 presented at the 58th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, California, USA.
Buchgraber, M., Clemens, T., Castanier, L.M. and Kovscek, A.R. 2011. A Microvisual Study of the Displacement of Viscous Oil by
Polymer Solutions. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering Journal, June 2011. 269-280.
Cannella, W.J., Huh, C. and Seright, R.S. 1988. Prediction of Xanthan Rheology in Porous Media. Paper SPE 18089 presented at the 63rd
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas, USA.
Chang, H.L. 1978. Polymer Flooding Technology – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Journal of Petroleum Technology, August 1978.
Chauveteau, G. 1981. Molecular Interpretation of Several Different Properties of Flow of Coiled Polymer Solutions through Porous Media
in Oil Recovery Conditions. Paper SPE 10060 presented at the 56th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, San
Antonio, Texas, USA.
12 SPE 164904

Chauveteau, G. and Kohler, N. 1984. Influence of Microgels in Polysaccharide Solutions on their Flow Behaviour through Porous Media.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, May 1984.
Cheng, J. Wei. J., Song, K. and Peihui, H. 2010. Study on Remaining Oil Distribution after Polymer Injection. Paper SPE 133808 presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy.
Clemens, T., Abdev, J., Thiele, M. 2011. Improved polymer-flood management using streamlines, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and
Engineering Journal Journal, April 2011.
CMG STARS. Version 2010.
Heemskerk, J. Janssen-van Rosmalen, R., Holtslag, R.J. and Teeuw, D. 1984. Quantification of Viscoelastic Effects of Polyacrylamide
Solutions. Paper SPE 12652 presented at the SPE/DOE Fourth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Hirasaki, G.J. and Pope, G.A., 1974. Analysis of Factors Influencing Mobility and Adsorption in the Flow of Polymer Solution Through
Porous Media. Society of Petroleum Industry Journal, August 1974.
Hill, H.J., Brew, J.R., Claridge, E.L., Hite, J.R. and Pope, G.A. 1974. The Behaviour of Polymers in Porous Media. Paper SPE 4748
presented at the Improved Oil Recovery Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Jennings, R.R., Rogers, J.H. and West, T.J. 1971. Factors Influencing Mobility Control by Polymer Solutions. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, March 1971.
Khodaverdian, M., Sorop, T., Postif, S. and Van den Hoek, P. 2009. Polymer Flooding in Unconsolidated-Sand Formations: Fracturing and
Geomechanical Considerations. SPE Production & Operations Journal, May 2010.
Laoroongroj, A., Zechner, M., Clemens, T. and Gringarten, A. 2012. Determination of the In-Situ Polymer Viscosity from Fall off Test.
Paper SPE 154832 presented at the SPE EUROPEC Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lake, L.W. 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Lee, K., Huh, C. and Sharma, M. 2011. Impact of Fracture Growth on Well Injectivity and Reservoir Sweep during Waterflood and
Chemical EOR Processes. Paper SPE 146778 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
USA, 30 October-2 November 2011.
Lefebvre, Ch., Lemouzy, P., Sorin, D., Roy, G. and Serbutoviez, S. 2012. Building a Roadmap for Enhanced Oil Recovery Prefeasibility
Study. Paper SPE 159264 presented at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Moscow, Russia.
Levitt, D., Jouenne, S., Bondino, I., Gingras, J-P. And Bourrel, M. 2011. The Interpretation of Polymer Coreflood Results for Heavy Oil.
Paper SPE 150566 presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Littman, W. 1988. Polymer Flooding, No. 24 Amsterdam: Developments in Petroleum Science, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Kumar, S., Pandey, A. and Jha, M.K. 2012. Polymer Injectivity Test in Mangala Field – A Significant Step towards Field Wide
Implementation. Paper SPE 155162 presented at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India.
Maerker, J.M. 1975. Shear Degradation of Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Soltuions. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal. August
1975.
Martin, F.D. Mechanical Degradation of Polyacrylamide Solutions in Core Plugs from Several Carbonate Reservoirs. SPE Formation
Evaluation Journal, April 1986.
Milton, H.W., Argabright, P.A. and Gogarty, W. 1983. EOR Prospect Evaluation Using Field Manufactured Polymer. SPE 11720 presented
at the 1983 California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, USA.
Moe Soe Let, K.P. Manichand, R.N. and Seright, R.S. 2012. Polymer Flooding a ~500-cp Oil. Paper SPE 154567 presented at the
Eighteenth SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Morel, D., Vert, M., Jouenne, S., Gauchet, R. And Bouger, Y. 2012. First Polymer Injection in Deep Offshore Field Angola: Recent
Advances in the Dalia/Camelia Field Case. SPE Oil and Gas Facilities Journal, April 2012.
O`Leary, W.B., Boivin, J.W., Dasinger, B.L., Beck, D., Goldman, I.M, and Wernau, W.C. 1987. Biocide Evaluation against Sessile
Yanthan Polymer-Degrading Bacteria. SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal, November 1987.
Poellitzer, S., Florian, T. and Clemens, T. 2009. Revitalising a medium viscous oil field by polymer injection, Pirawarth Field, Austria.
Paper SPE 120991 presented at the SPE EUROPEC Conference and Exhibition 2009, Amsterdam.
Ranjbar, M., Rupp, J., Pusch, G., Meyn, R. 1992. Quantification and Optimization of Viscoelastic Effects of Polymer Solutions for
Enhanced Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 24154 presented at the SPE/DOE Eighth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK,
USA.
Saavedra, N.F., Gaviria, W. and Davitt, J. 2002. Laboratory Testing of Polymer Flood Candidates: San Francisco Field. Paper SPE 75182
presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Sharma, A., Delshad, M., Huh, C., Pope, G. 2011. A Practical Method to Calculate Polymer Viscosity Accurately in Numerical Reservoir
Simulators. Paper SPE 147239 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Seright, R.S. 1983. The Effects of Mechanical Degradation and Viscoelastic Behaviour on Injectivity of Polyacrylamide Solutions. Society
of Petroleum Engineers Journal, June 1983.
Seright, R.S., Seheult, M. and Talashek, T. 2009. Injectivity Characteristics of EOR Polymers. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Journal. October 2009.
Seright, R.S., Fan, T., Wavrik, K. and Balaban, R. 2011. New Insights into Polymer Rheology in Porous Media. SPE Journal, March 2011.
Shuaili, K. Cherukupalli, P.D., Al-Saadi, F.S., Al Hashmi, K.A. and Jaspers, H.F. 2012. Fracture Growth Monitoring in Polymer Injectors –
Field Examples. Paper SPE 160967 presented at the SPE Conference at ADIPEC, Abu Dhabi.
Smith, F.W. 1970. The Behavior of Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Solutions in Porous Media. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
February 1970.
Sorbie, K.S. and Roberts, L.J. 1984. A model for Calculating Polymer Injectivity Including the Effects of Shear Degradation. Paper SPE
12654 presented at the SPE/DOE Fourth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Stavland, A., Jonsbraten, H.C., Lohne, A., Moen, A. and Giske, N. 2010. Polymer Flooding – Flow Properties in Porous Media Versus
Rheological Parameters. Paper SPE 131103 presented at the SPE Europec Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain.
SPE 164904 13

Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D. and Seright, R.S. 1997. EOR Screening Criteria Revisited – Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and
Enhanced Recovery Field Projects. SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal, August 1997.
Wang, D., Han, P. Shao, Z. Hou, W. and Seright, R.S. 2008. Sweep-Improvement Options for the Daqing Oil Field. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering Journal, February 2008.
Wassmuth, F.R., Arnold, W. and Green, K. 2009. Polymer Flood Application to Improve Heavy Oil Recovery at East Bodo. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, 48 (2).
Weiss, W. 1992. Performance Review of a Large-Scale Polymer Flood. Paper SPE 24145 presented at the SPE/DOE Eighth Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Wu, W. Vaskas, A., Delshad, M., Pope, G.A. and Sepehmoori, K. 1996. Design and Optimization of Low-Cost Chemical Flooding. Paper
SPE 35355 presented at the 1996 SPE/DOE Tenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Wyatt, K., Pitts, M., Surkalo, H. 2008. Economics of Field Proven Chemical Flooding Technologies. Paper SPE 113126 presented at the
2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Zechner, M., Buchgraber, M., Clemens, T., Gumpenberger, T., Castanier, L. and Kovscek, T. 2013 – submitted. Flow of Polyacrylamide
Polymers in the Near-Wellbore-Region, Rheological Behavior within Induced Fractures and Near-Wellbore-Area. Paper submitted to
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.