This article was downloaded by: [Johns Hopkins University]

On: 03 January 2015, At: 03:16

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Petroleum Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpet20

Effects of Polymer Adsorption on the

Oil Recovery during Polymer Flooding
Processes
a
K. S. Lee
a
Department of Environmental and Energy Systems Engineering ,
Kyonggi University , Suwon, Kyonggi, South Korea
Published online: 04 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: K. S. Lee (2010) Effects of Polymer Adsorption on the Oil Recovery
during Polymer Flooding Processes, Petroleum Science and Technology, 28:4, 351-359, DOI:
10.1080/10916460802686301

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916460802686301

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Petroleum Science and Technology, 28:351–359, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-6466 print/1532-2459 online
DOI: 10.1080/10916460802686301

Effects of Polymer Adsorption on the Oil Recovery

during Polymer Flooding Processes

K. S. LEE1
1
Department of Environmental and Energy Systems Engineering,
Kyonggi University, Suwon, Kyonggi, South Korea
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

Abstract The influence of water-soluble polymer adsorption on the flow behavior

and oil recovery was investigated. This article presents results from an extensive
numerical simulation performed for a two-well model in a five-spot pattern operating
under polymer flood followed by waterflood. For different systems of adsorption
parameters, slug sizes, and reservoir properties performances were compared in terms
of cumulative recovery and water–oil ratio (WOR) at the production well.
Properties of polymers and reservoir rocks such as adsorption parameters and
vertical permeability heterogeneity are shown to impact the predicted recovery. Im-
provement in oil recovery and reduction in WOR was obtained for smaller values of
adsorption parameters. Polymer flood in reservoirs with a severe permeability contrast
between horizontal strata leads to lower volumetric sweep efficiency and displacement
efficiency. The size of the polymer bank also affects the predicted recovery.

Keywords adsorption, permeability heterogeneity, polymer, waterflood

1. Introduction
High-molecular-weight water-soluble polymers have been widely used as thickening
agents in the oilfield industry. The role of the polymers in most field applications is
to increase the viscosity of the aqueous phase for mobility control in injection wells
(Needham and Doe, 1987; Taylor and Nasr-El-Din, 1998). This increase in viscosity can
improve sweep efficiency during polymer-augmented waterflooding processes.
During the propagation of a polymer slug through a reservoir, there is usually a
measurable amount of polymer adsorption. The effect of adsorbed polymer on the two-
phase flow has been intensively studied in the past within the framework of polymer
flooding studies (Zheng et al., 1998). Most of the studies have been performed by two-
phase experiments in the cores (Zaitoun and Kohler, 1988; Chauveteau et al., 2002;
Grattoni et al., 2004; Ogunberu and Asghari, 2004, 2006).
At present, the importance of simulation study to determine the effect of adsorbed
polymer on the oil recovery is emphasized for successful field design. However, few
numerical studies have dealt with the effect of adsorbed polymer on the recovery of oil.
Therefore, the objective of the present study is to calculate reservoir performances as
a function of polymer adsorption under various scenarios. Two-phase polymer flooding
simulations have been performed in hypothetical five-spot pattern reservoirs. Several

Address correspondence to Kun Sang Lee, Department of Environmental and Energy

Systems Engineering, Kyonggi University, Suwon, Kyonggi 443-760, South Korea. E-mail: kslee@
kyonggi.ac.kr

351
 352 K. S. Lee

cases will be studied to compare results of numerical models. The effect on mobility
control was studied by comparing oil recovery and water production determined before
and after polymer adsorption.

2. Mathematical Theory
Simulation of polymer flood processes includes modeling polymer concentration-depend-
ent viscosities, shear-thinning rheology of the polymer solution, shear degradation, poly-
mer adsorption onto the reservoir rock, and inaccessible pore volume. Among the most
advanced chemical enhanced oil recovery (EOR) simulators, a general simulator named
UTCHEM will be used in this study for simulating multidimensional, multicomponent,
and multiphase polymer flood processes for enhanced recovery of remaining oil in
the reservoir (Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, 2000). UTCHEM
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

has been extensively verified by comparing it to analytical solutions and experimental

measurements for its ability to predict the flow of fluids through the reservoir.
The basic mass conservation equation for components is presented in Delshad et al.’s
(1996) paper. The adsorption of polymer molecules onto solid surfaces in permeable
media slows down the polymer velocity and depletes the polymer slug. UTCHEM uses
a Langmuir-type isotherm to describe the adsorption level of a polymer that takes into
account the salinity, polymer concentration, and permeability.
" #
a4 .Ce4 CO4 /
CO 4 D min Ce4 ; (1)
1 C b4 .Ce4 CO4 /

where CO4 is absorbed concentration of polymer and C e4 overall volume of polymer

per unit pore volume. The Langmuir model is an equilibrium relationship and assumes
instantaneous retention. The parameter a4 is defined as
 0:5
kref
a4 D .a41 C a42 CSEP / (2)
k

where CSEP is the effective salinity for the polymer, which is determined by the anion,
calcium, and water concentrations in the aqueous phase The reference permeability (kref )
is the permeability at which the input adsorption parameters are specified.
The permeability reduction induced by polymer adsorption is conveniently described
by a permeability reduction factor, Rk , defined as the ratio of the permeability of brine
to that of a polymer solution (Lake, 1989). The permeability reduction is modeled as

.Rk;max 1/brk C4l

Rk D 1 C (3)
1 C brk C4l

where l refers to the phase with the highest polymer concentration and brk and crk are
the input parameters.

3. Modeling
Numerical simulations were performed for the polymer flooding process in a three-
dimensional oil reservoir to consider gravity and capillary forces simultaneously. To
illustrate the influence of polymer adsorption on the performance of the polymer flood
 Adsorption during Polymer Flooding 353

processes, a hypothetical study site of one quarter of an injection-well-centered five-spot

is introduced.
The model assumes that the reservoir is originally saturated with oil and connate
water. Initial saturations of water and oil were assumed constant everywhere in the
reservoir at 0.25 and 0.73, respectively. Water is pumped into the injection well at flow
rates q(t) ranging from 1,412.59 ft3 /day to 3,492.6 ft3 /day and continued over a simulation
period of 1,541 days, as used by Takaqi et al. (1992). The reservoir fluids are recovered
from the production well remaining at a pressure of 100 psia, the same pressure as the
initial reservoir pressure.
In order to clarify the effects of various parameters during the flow of polymer
solution through the reservoir, comparisons were made among results from simulations
under different scenarios of polymer flood. Different adsorption parameters, slug size, and
vertical stratifications were considered for this study. Input parameters for the simulations
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

are those that define the physical properties of reservoir, fluid properties, and chemical
properties, as given in Table 1. Polymer properties modeled in the simulator include
viscosity and adsorption on the rock matrix.

4. Results and Discussion

The modeled system used in this study is a square reservoir with a horizontal area
of 1,640.5  1,640.5 ft2 and a vertical thickness of 10.8 ft, which was assumed to be
homogeneous, isotropic, and isothermal. The study system is a three-dimensional domain.
Vertically, the simulation domain consists of three layers, and each layer is discretized
into 15  15 grid blocks. Each grid block has dimensions of 109.367, 109.367, and
3.608 ft for x, y, and z directions, respectively. The outer boundary is represented as a
no-flow.

4.1. Adsorption Parameters

The model evaluated the flow of brine associated with polymer and oil through a reservoir
during the process. In the runs, oil of 40 cp was displaced with brine of 0.73 cp or brine
with polymer. The horizontal and vertical permeabilities are 1,456.8 and 1,501.4 md,
respectively. Polymer concentration ranges from 0.02 to 0.1%, being graded in the chase
water. Figure 1 shows the input injection rate of polymer solution and concentration
data used in the simulations. To understand the effects of adsorption on the oil recovery,
simulation was performed with the injection sequence of polymer flooding followed
by waterflooding. Calculations were made for reservoirs of four different adsorption
parameters (a41 ) ranging from 0.0 to 12.0. It is assumed that the polymer adsorption is
not a function of salinity by setting a42 to zero.
Figures 2a and 2b demonstrate comparisons of oil recovery and water–oil ratio
(WOR) predicted by the numerical model. The improvement in oil recovery and reduction
in WOR for small adsorption parameter is expressed by comparing with the results over
the production period. As a41 decreased from 12.0 to 0.0 (no adsorption), oil recovery
increased from 0.126 to 0.370, an increase of almost three times. The water–oil ratio
increased from 0.05 ft3 /ft3 to 2.66 ft3 /ft3 as the adsorption parameter increased. In all
cases, WOR started to decrease after polymer injection was stopped. In the reservoirs
with smaller a41 , WOR decreased faster after polymer injection.
High oil recovery with small values of a41 was attributed to less adsorption of
polymer onto rock surface. Adsorption causes the loss of polymer from solution, which
 354 K. S. Lee

Table 1
Input parameters for simulation

(a) Properties of reservoir rock and fluids

Rock Porosity () 0.30

Permeability (k) Horizontal (kh ) 1,456.8 md

Vertical (kv ) 1,501.4 md

Fluids Interfacial tension (log10 ow ) 1.3 dynes/cm

Viscosity () Water (w ) 0.73 cp

Oil (o ) 40 cp
Density () Water (w ) 0.43353 psi/ft
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

Oil (o ) 0.385839 psi/ft

Brine concentration Salinity 0.00831 meq/mL
Divalent cation 0.00551 meq/mL

(b) Polymer properties

Viscosity Parameters for Ap1 38.47 wt% 1

zero shear Ap2 1,600 wt% 2
viscosity Ap3 0 wt% 3
Parameters for ˇp for CSEP 20
effective CSEP;min 0.01 meq/mL
salinity slope of 0p vs. CSEP 0.3 1
day.darcy/ 2
Parameters for Pc 130
ft
sec
shear rate
dependence P1=2 280 sec 1
P˛ 2.2

Partitioning Effective porosity for polymer 0.85

vol: of polymer rich phase

Parameters for brk 100
wt% polymer
permeability 1 1
reduction crk 0:2.darcy/ 2 .100 g=g/ 3
factor

can also cause the mobility control effect to be lost. In other words, the viscosity of the
polymer solution decreases with an increase of polymer loss due to the large value of
the adsorption parameter, the mobility ratio becomes more unfavorable, and the sweep
efficiency decreases.

4.2. Slug Size

In this section, we study the effect of polymer flooding on the oil recovery efficiency of
a reservoir, according to five different polymer slug sizes. This study was performed by a
series of simulations where all parameters were kept the same with previous runs except
the injection sequence. Polymer solutions of 0.1 wt% were injected for 73, 273, 426, 495,
and 575 days, which correspond to 0.011, 0.044, 0.078, 0.090, and 0.119 pore volume,
respectively. The cases was named Slug 1, Slug 2, Slug 3, Slug 4, and Slug 5. Polymer
 Adsorption during Polymer Flooding 355
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

Figure 1. History of injection rate and polymer concentration in the injecting water for a variable
concentration case.

concentration of the injecting fluid was 0.1 wt% during polymer flooding and 0% during
waterflooding. Calculations were also made for only waterflooding for comparison.
The recovery performances at the production well were investigated at different slug
sizes and compared with that from waterflood. Table 2 shows that a larger slug size and
small adsorption result in higher oil recovery. The values show a maximum of 3.1 times
increase in oil recovery by the injection of polymer solution for the case of no adsorption.
Slug sizes do not contribute any significant additional improvement, which agrees with
Gao et al.’s (1993) results on stratified reservoirs without adsorption.
Although a decreased recovery is obtained with a larger adsorption parameter, the
amount of decrease is not proportional to the increase of the parameter. The incremental
recovery due to polymer injection is insignificant at small slug size even with small a41 .
The loss of mobility control caused by adsorption is a particularly pronounced effect for
small slug. As the polymer propagates through porous media, the polymer solution will
be diluted in the propagation front due to adsorption, and the dilution could extend to
the entire slug if the slug size is too small. For large slug size, the oil recovery decreases
rapidly with increased a41 . The effect then decreased when the a41 becomes large. This
indicates that an optimum slug size (in terms of recovery increase per pound of polymer)
should exist. However, a considerable decrease in WOR over waterflooding is obtained
even for the reservoirs with large adsorption loss.

4.3. Stratified Reservoir

Permeability heterogeneity is the main factor that leads to low sweep efficiency in oil
recovery from petroleum reservoirs. The largest changes in reservoir permeability typi-
cally occur in the vertical direction. Simulation studies were performed for a simplified
three-layer reservoir model. Horizontal permeabilities are 100, 1,300, and 25 md from
 356 K. S. Lee
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. History of production well obtained from simulations with different adsorption param-
eters. (a) Cumulative oil recovery, (b) water–oil ratio.
 Adsorption during Polymer Flooding 357

Table 2
Performance of production well obtained from simulations with
different adsorption parameters and slug size

(a) Cumulative oil recovery

Adsorption cases a41 D 0 a41 D 4.0 a41 D 8.66 a41 D 12.0

Waterflooding 0.1181 0.1181 0.1181 0.1181

Slug 1 0.3308 0.1267 0.1184 0.1181
Slug 2 0.3665 0.1611 0.1263 0.1201
Slug 3 0.3737 0.1847 0.1346 0.1240
Slug 4 0.3743 0.1886 0.1372 0.1244
Slug 5 0.3722 0.2014 0.1417 0.1260
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

(b) Water–oil ratio

Adsorption cases a41 D 0 a41 D 4.0 a41 D 8.66 a41 D 12.0

Waterflooding 4.6551 4.6551 4.6551 4.6551

Slug 1 0.7609 3.2962 4.3368 4.6061
Slug 2 0.1440 2.1361 3.1690 3.7240
Slug 3 0.1035 1.6851 2.6235 3.0123
Slug 4 0.1055 1.5963 2.4422 2.9418
Slug 5 0.0263 1.3423 2.1285 2.6373

the top to the bottom layers, respectively. The permeability contrast in the vertical to
horizontal direction (kv = kh ) is 0.1 to limit the effects of cross-flow between layers.
Slugs of variable polymer concentration were used for all these performance calcula-
tions. Figure 3a shows the changes in oil recovery as a function of adsorption parameter
a41 . An analysis of the figure indicates that increased adsorption from a41 D 0 to a41 D
12.0 leads to a significant reduction in cumulative oil recovery from 0.3143 to 0.1500 and
considerable increase in water–oil ratio. On the other hand, the WOR curve for a41 D 0,
shown in Figure 3b, demonstrate a rapid increase after 1,200 days. The sudden change
in WOR is caused by a water breakthrough from middle layer. The injected polymer
solution and water preferentially enter a high-permeability “thief ” zone (layer 2) due
to low flow resistance. Polymer flood may leave large areas unswept and may provide
few benefits in reservoirs with a severe permeability contrast between horizontal strata.
Vertical stratification lowers the volumetric sweep efficiency and displacement efficiency
of the polymer flood. The use of polymer flood for highly heterogeneous reservoir
without adsorption loss needs to be evaluated carefully against the extra cost of chemical
treatment.

5. Conclusions
From the studies carried out in this work in order to evaluate the oil recovery efficiency
of a polymer flooding process in a reservoir with adsorption, some general trends were
observed and provide some insight into the phenomena occurring on in the reservoir.
 358 K. S. Lee
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. History of production well obtained from simulations of stratified reservoirs with
different adsorption parameters. (a) Cumulative oil recovery, (b) water–oil ratio.
 Adsorption during Polymer Flooding 359

Although it is possible to increase the oil recovery by injecting a polymeric solution

used to flood the reservoir, numerical results show that large values of adsorption cause
the loss of polymer from solution, which can also cause the mobility control effect
to be lost. Slug sizes do not contribute any significant additional improvement for the
case of no adsorption. However, the loss of mobility control caused by adsorption is
a particularly pronounced effect for a small slug. Polymer flood may leave large areas
unswept and may provide few benefits in reservoirs with a severe permeability contrast
between horizontal strata, lowering the volumetric sweep efficiency and displacement
efficiency of the polymer flood.

Acknowledgment
The work was carried out with financial support from the ETI research program.
Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 03:16 03 January 2015

References
Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering. (2000). UTCHEM-9.0 A three-dimensional
chemical flood simulator. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
Chauveteau, G., Denys, K., and Zaitoun, A. (2002). New insight on polymer adsorption under high
flow rate. SPE 75183, 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
April 13–17.
Delshad, M., Pope, G. A., and Sepehrnoori, K. (1996). A compositional simulator for modeling
surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation, 1 formulation. J. Contam. Hydrol. 23:303–327.
Gao, H. W., Chang, M.-M., Burchfield, T. E., and Tham, M. K. (1993). Permeability modification
simulator studies of polymer-gel-treatment initiation time and crossflow effects on waterflood
oil recovery. SPE Reservoir Eng. 8:221–227.
Grattoni, C. A., Luckham, P. F., Jing, X. D., Norman, L., and Zimmerman, R. W. (2004). Polymers
as relative permeability modifiers: Adsorption and the dynamic formation of thick polyacryl-
amide layers. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 45:233–245.
Lake, L. W. (1989). Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Needham, R. B., and Doe, P. H. (1987). Polymer flooding review. J. Petrol. Tech. 39:1503–1507.
Ogunberu, A. L., and Asghari, K. (2004). Water permeability reduction under flow-induced polymer
adsorption. SPE 89855, SPE International Petroleum Conference, Puebla, Mexico, November
7–9.
Ogunberu, A. L., and Asghari, K. (2006). Curtailing water production in oil wells: A case for
anionic polymers. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 50:176–194.
Takaqi, S., Pope, G. A., Sepehrnoori, K., BenDakhlia, H., and Putz, A. G. (1992). Simulation of
a successful polymer flood in the Chateaurenard field. SPE 24931, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, October 4–7.
Taylor, K. C., and Nasr-El-Din, H. A. (1998). Water-soluble hydrophobically associating polymers
for improved oil recovery: A literature review. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 19:265–280.
Zaitoun, A., and Kohler, N. (1988). Two-phase flow through porous media: effect of an adsorbed
polymer layer. SPE 18085, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
October 2–6.
Zheng, C. G., Gall, B. L., Gao, H. W., Miller, A. E., and Bryant, R. S. (1998). Effects of polymer
adsorption and flow behavior on two-phase flow in porous media. SPE 39632, 1998 SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 19–22.