IPTC-19959-MS

A New Well Selection Method Based on Improved Pressure Index for

Polymer Flooding

Cunliang Chen and Xiaodong Han, Tianjin Branch of CNOOC China Co., Ltd; Xue Liu, China zhenhua Oil Co., Ltd;
Cheng Wang, China University of Petroleum

Copyright 2020, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 13 – 15 January 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Polymer flooding is one of the important measures to exploit the remaining oil in the middle and high water
cut of oil fields. And the key to the success of the polymer flooding is the selection of the polymer flooding
well. Pressure index (PI) and the degree of fullness (FD) are significant parameters, which are commonly
used for polymer flooding project design and injection well performance analysis in China, due to their
economical application. However, PI and FD are insufficient in discrimination and calculation method,
which can only reflect the present heterogeneity of the formation. As a result, efficiency of polymer flooding
decision might be not as good as expected.
Improved pressure index (IPI) is established on basis of PI and FD. IPI is the ratio of the mean of
pressure to the downfall of the wellhead pressure under the condition of unit water injection. The smaller
the IPI value, the more the polymer flooding should be made. IPI not only takes the present heterogeneity
of the formation into consideration, but also the transformation of pressure variation tendency. And IPI is a
dimensionless parameter, which keeps initial advantages of PI and FD—simple and low cost.
This method has been applied to nearly 50 Wells. The success rate of polymer flooding exceeds 92%.
The measure reduce the water cut at the same time increase oil production. It not only improves the recovery
yield, but also brings good economic benefit. In addition, the paper presents a field case study to validate
the methodology. IPI is far more accurate than PI and FD. In summary, IPI is not only feasible, but also
saves a lot of money.
IPI has been applied to several oil fields in Bohai. And the effect is remarkable, which provides a good
reference for the development of other oil fields.

Introduction
The development, construction and production of offshore oil and gas fields require a large amount of capital
investment. Recovering investment as soon as possible and achieving good development economic benefits
determine that offshore oil fields must maintain high production of oil wells. Therefore, some measures to
strengthen the production capacity of oil wells, such as large-displacement electric submersible pumps and
2 IPTC-19959-MS

enhanced water injection, are widely used in offshore oil and gas fields. In the middle and late stages of
oilfield development, the formation energy is reduced and the recovery rate is reduced. In order to improve
oil recovery, most oil fields begin to replenish formation energy by water injection. However, due to the
heterogeneity and complexity of the formation, the phenomenon of "protrusion" and "turbulence" of water
in the oil layer may occur, that is, thief zones are formed. The development of the thief zone is greatly
reducing the sweep efficiency of the injected water. On the other hand, the proportion of invalid cycles of
injected water is increased and the water cut of adjacent oil wells has rose fleetly. As the amount of water
injection increases, the unevenness of the water injection profile increases. This led to a large amount of
water in the oil well, which seriously affected the development of the oil field. Thereby the remaining oil
in the oilfield is abundant.
Therefore, in order to improve the water injection effect and the ultimate oil recovery of the oilfield,
it is necessary to adopt the technical measures of profile control and water shutoff in time. Polymer
flooding is widely used in terrestrial oil and gas fields. However, due to the limited platform, especially
the environmental protection issues, the application of offshore oil and gas fields is limited. In recent years,
with the advent of new environmentally friendly materials, polymer flooding has been continuously applied
in offshore oil and gas fields. However, due to the high cost, it is especially important to increase the success
rate.
Profile control and water shutoff is a relatively small polymer flooding. China has been exploring and
researching water shutoff technology since the 1950s, and it has been more than 60 years old. In the 50s
and 60s of the last century, China was in the stage of exploration and research. A small number of oilfield
applications are carried out. In the 1960s and 1970s, oil wells were mainly used for water shutoff. Daqing
Oilfield developed rapidly in terms of mechanical water shutoff methods and downhole tools, and Shengli
Oilfield in chemical water shutoff. Other oilfields also developed accordingly. In the 1980s, the profile
control technology of water injection wells was greatly developed, laying a foundation for the formation of
oilfield blocks and well groups as a unit. In the early 1980s and early 1990s, the water shutoff technology
was developed from single well treatment to comprehensive block management. The overall water shutoff
and profile control treatment from the reservoir as a whole was carried out on a large scale. In the mid-
to-late 1990s, it was proposed to adjust the water absorption profile in the deep part of the reservoir and
promote the development of deep profile control technology in the reservoir.
The profile control and water shutoff technology has important significance for the stable production and
increase of oil production. With the increasing complexity of water flooding problems in high water-bearing
reservoirs, the technical requirements in this field are increasing. This promotes continuous innovation and
development of water shutoff profile control and related technologies. In particular, in recent years, many
new advances have been made in the research and application of deep profile control (regulating) liquid flow
diverting agents. But these developments are more in chemistry, while reservoir engineering is relatively
rare.
Polymer flooding is primarily designed for the remaining oil potential-tapping. The significant of polymer
flooding effect is the options of target injection well. Zhao puts forward pressure index decision method (PI)
that based on the system of well head pressure drawdown curve. Then other researchers use this method
to determine the target well that best suitable for polymer flooding in different oilfields. Liu proposes
fullness decision method (FD) that from the perspective of well head pressure drop velocity. Because the
different between the well head pressure drop velocity is not distinguish, this method always be a supplement
evaluate criterion for the PI method. Overall considerating the geological factor, well dynamic development
characteristics and dynamic monitoring data, Feng raises multi-factor comprehensive evaluation method
(RE). Researchers use this method and its deformation to choose the best suitable well for polymer flooding
in oil fields. Due to a lot of factors are considered, although the results are more reliable, the choose process
are more complex. Bai believed simulation method more suitable for choosing wells. However the complex
geological models limits the application of this method. Due to simple to operate, PI and FD are widely
IPTC-19959-MS 3

used in the oil fields. This paper analysis the shortcomings of the two methods, a new method for choosing
well is proposed. Based on this, a new method of selecting well is developed. The field application proves
the feasibility and superiority of this method.

Problems of PI and FD
The corresponding parameter of PI and FD decision methods are PI correction value and FD value. Both of
the value are calculated from well head pressure drop curve of injection well and respectively defined as:
(1)

(2)

(3)

Where: p is closed-in wellhead pressure of injection well, MPa. tc is the end of the period of the chosen
time, min. PI is pressure index, MPa. PIG is correction of pressure index, MPa. h is formation thickness,
m. q is cumulative water injection rate before well shut down, m3/d. G is the average of water injectivity
index,m3/(d • m). p0 is closed-in wellhead pressure of injection well. FD is hydrocarbon fullness.
The PI correction value reflect the current ability of reservoir seepage. The smaller the value, the stronger
the seepage of the reservoir, the polymer flooding should be used strongly. FD value reflect the ratio between
current reservoir seepage ability and the closed-in wellhead pressure of injection well. The smaller the value,
the seepage ability after well shut down decrease sharply, the polymer flooding should be used strongly.
The two assess methods are widely used, but the following problems still exist during well selected for
polymer flooding.
(1) FD value is the ratio between current reservoir seepage ability and the closed-in wellhead pressure of
injection well. The FD value range is 0 to 1 that is too close to difficult distinguish the difference, especially
for the low permeability reservoir.
(2) Compare with the PI value, FD value can’t use the same injection-production intensity to describe.
So it’s complicate to use in the field application.
(3) PI method is prone to misjudgment, that is, the well required polymer flooding when the well head
pressure is slow decline with the well shut down time (figure 2). Under the same condition the integration of
time and well head pressure decide the PI value. As the figure 1 shows that the area between the two curves
and the vertical axis is S1 (the yellow color part of figure 2). The area between the two curves and the shut-
in time tc line is S2 (the blue color part of figure 2). When S1>S2, the area enclosed by the pressure drop
curve of well A is larger than that of well B, that is, the PI correction of well A is greater than that of well B.
According to this, well B requires polymer flooding. However, the pressure drop curve of well A changes,
so well A more needs to be polymer flooding. In order to eliminate this miscalculation. It is often on the
basis of PI correction combined with FD value to assist judgment, resulting in cumbersome evaluation.
4 IPTC-19959-MS

Figure 1—Schematic diagram of pressure drop curve

Figure 2—PI decision deviation diagram

(4) The value of tc affluence the calculation results. The PI correction value and FD value need the same
length of time for pressure drawdown curve. If test time is not enough. Even the pressure drop curve already
reach steady stage, that is not use to calculation, it is limited its application. Additionally, if a long period
time after pressure drop curve keep steady stage will decrease the PI value and then will lead to PI correction
value and FD value under the normal situation. As shown in figure 3, assume that well C and well D have
the same production intensity, that is the same correction condition, and have the same well head pressure
after the well shut down. When S3=S4, the PI correction value and FD value is the same if the time frame in
the range of 0 to t2. It is difficult to make decision. That’s because the pressure drop of well D is early, and
reach the steady at t1. If the time reach the t2, it makes the PI correction value and FD value under the normal
value. If the time frame in the range of 0 to t1, the PI calculation value is less than that in the range of 0 to t2.
This is more apply with the decision to make which well is better fit for polymer flooding from the pressure
drop curve of well D. Therefore, the length of calculation time is very important to the calculation results.
IPTC-19959-MS 5

Figure 3—Schematic diagram of the effect of calculation time on the results

(5) Wasted test cost. The PI correction value and FD value need the same time range for pressure drop
curve. The test time is required to be long enough. Even if the pressure drop is stable, which greatly increases
the test cost.

New Pressure Index Decision Method

Consider the problems in PI and FD decision making methods, a new pressure index is proposed—IPI, It
defined as:

(4)

(5)
Where IPI is new pressure index, dimensionless; PISGis the correction of pressure index during 0~ts, MPa;
Δps is the change of pressure during 0~ts, MPa; pS is the wellhead pressure at tS moment, MPa; ts is the time
when pressure drop curve reach the steady stage, min.
IPI value is the ratio of PI correction value and the scope of wellhead pressure drop when pressure drop
curve reach the stable stage, which comprehensively reflects the current percolation capacity of reservoir.
By substituting equations (1), (3) and (5) into equation (4), the following equation can be obtained:

(6)

The time tS of pressure drop reach steady stage is constant for each well. Combined with equation (6), it
can be considered that IPI value is a time-independent quantity. Therefore, the pressure drop test only needs
to be measured until the pressure drop reach steady stage, which overcomes the influence of the randomness
of tc selection in formula (3) on the result.
Above all, IPI avoids the disadvantages of low degree of discrimination, poor comparability, easy to
cause misjudgment, affected by the selection of calculation time and waste of testing costs that exist in
traditional pressure index decision method and fullness decision method.
6 IPTC-19959-MS

Application Steps
The steps of polymer flooding well selection decision using IPI value are as follows:
1. Try to ensure that the operating system of adjacent Wells remains unchanged during the test period
then complete wellhead pressure drop curve test of injection well in the block.
2. Draw the pressure drop curve at the wellhead of the injection well, determine the time point when
the pressure reaches steady, and determine the time range of calculation.
3. Equation (4) is used to calculate the IPI value.
4. The injection wells below the average IPI value of the block were selected as polymer flooding
wells.

Field Application
Bohai SZ oilfield is located in huanghekou sag. The sedimentary facies belongs to typical fluvial deposit.
The type of reservoir is stratified structure reservoir. Directional well multilayer production is adopted in
oilfield and the development has been more than 20 years. At present, the oilfield is in the stage of high
water cut development, the dominant channel generally developed. In order to further exploit the remaining
oil and enhance the recovery efficiency, it is urgent to carry out polymer flooding for the integrated block.
The wellhead pressure drop curve test was carried out for the block injection wells. And the polymer
flooding well selection decision method was made respectively by PI method, FD method and IPI method.
The results are shown in table 1 to table 1. As results can be seen from table 1, FD’s results are quite different
from other methods. Combined with the above analysis, its decision reliability is not enough to conduct the
selection of polymer flooding well alone. The results of PI method and IPI method are basically the same,
but the results are different in individual wells. For example, F26 well that use PI method should be carry
out polymer flooding, but the IPI method gets the opposite result. According to the pressure drop curve
that corrected to the same condition (figure 4), the water injection pressure in well F26 is relatively low
and declines slowly and steadily. On the whole it’s pressure decrease is very small, which predicts a good
property around the well.
According to the logging interpretation results, the average permeability of the well was 1800 × 10−3μm2,
and verify the above statement. In addition, the water cut of the water drive wells in the well group is about
70%, which shows that there is no obvious thief zone in the well group. In conclusion, the IPI method is
consistent with the field analysis, which indicates that the IPI method is more reasonable and more practical.

Table 1—Comparison of polymer flooding well selection decisions

PI correction
Well PI decision result FD/f FD decision result IPI/f IPI decision result
value/MPa

F8 1.98 √ 0.72 1.13 √

F10 8.88 0.67 4.58
F15 16.87 0.38 √ 3.08
F17 5.05 √ 0.21 √ 1.25 √
F19 7.77 0.63 2.98
F26 5.27 √ 0.76 6.20
F28 1.31 √ 0.16 √ 0.39 √
F33 9.64 0.55 3.33
IPTC-19959-MS 7

Figure 4—Well pressure drop curve of F26 and F17

Decline Curve Evaluation

As shown in figure 5, after polymer flooding in the target well, the effect of increasing oil and decreasing
water is significant. After the polymer flooding, the water cut of the block decreased 1.25%. Considering
the comprehensive decline rate of the block, the increased oil is 5.92×104m3, and the recovery rate was
increased by 0.20%, which fully proved the reliability of the method.

Figure 5—Actual data and forecast data before and after the remote control of a certain area

Water drive curve evaluation

After the polymer flooding of the target well, the effect of increasing oil and decreasing water is significant.
And the A type water drive curve before and after the polymer flooding was obtained by fitting the
production data (eq.(7) (8)).
The relation between cumulative oil production and water cut was used to calculate the cumulative
oil production when the water cut reached 98% (figure 6). The cumulative oil increase after the polymer
flooding was 24.00×104m3, and the recovery rate was improved 0.80%, which fully proved the reliability
of the method.
The fitting formula of A type water drive curve before polymer flooding is as follows:
(7)
8 IPTC-19959-MS

Where Wp is accumulated water production rate, 104m3; Np is accumulated oil production rate, 104m3.
The fitting formula of A type water drive curve after polymer flooding is as follows:
(8)

Figure 6—Comparison of A-type water drive curves before and after deep flood control in a certain area

Conclusion
Aiming at the deficiency of PI correction value and FD values in polymer flooding well selection and
considering the decline rate of wellhead pressure, a new pressure index IPI was proposed. IPI value is the
ratio of PI correction value and the scope of wellhead pressure drop when pressure drop curve reach the
stable stage, which comprehensively reflects the current percolation capacity of reservoir. The smaller the
IPI value, the more polymer flooding should be carried out. Field application shows that IPI method is better
than the result of PI correction value and FD values. At the same time, decline curve evaluation and the A
water drive curve shows that the effect of increasing oil and decreasing water is significant, which has the
higher promotion application value.

Reference
Anh P. Nguyen, Leon S. Lasdon, Larry W. Lake, et al. 2011. Capacitance Resistive Model Application to Optimize
Waterflood in a West Texas Field. Paper 146984 presentated at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 30 October — 2 November.
B.Parekh, C. S.Kabir. 2011. Improved Understanding of Reservoir Connectivity in an Evolving Waterflood with
Surveillance Data. Paper 146637 presentated at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver,
Colorado, U.S.A., 30 October — 2 November.
Chen Cunliang, Han Xiaodong, Zhao Hanging, et al. 2018. Dynamic Inter-Well Connectivity in Low-Permeability Oil
Reservoir Ul. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 25 (2): 102–106.
Cui Wenhua, Liu Xiaobing, Wang Wei,et al. 2012. Survey on shuffled frog leaping algorithm [J]. Control and Decision,
27 (4): 481-486 +493.
Daniel Weber, Thomas F. Edgar, Larry W Lake.,et al. 2009. Improvements in Capacitance-Resistive Modeling and
Optimization OF Large Scale Reservoirs. Paper 121299 presentated at the 2009 SPE Western Regional Meeting held
in San Jose, California USA, 24-26 March.
Kaviani D, Jensen J L, Lake LW. 2012. Estimation of interwell connectivity in the case of unmeasured fluctuating
bottomhole pressures [J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 90-91 (7): 79-95.
Luo Xianbo, Li Bo, Liu Ying, et al. 2009. The determination of drainage radius for reserviors with a start-up pressure
gradient [J]. CHINA OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS, 21 (4): 248–250.
IPTC-19959-MS 9

M.Delshad, A.Bastami, P.Pourafshary. 2009. The Use of Capacitance —Resistive Model for Estimation of Fracture
Distribution in the Hydrocarbon Reservoir. Paper 126076 presentated at the 2009 SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical
Symposiumand Exhibition held in AlKhobar, Saudi Arabia, 9-11 May.
Sayarpour M, Kabir C S, Lake L W. 2009. Field applications of capacitance-resistance models in waterfloods [J]. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 12 (6): 853–864.
Soroush M, Kaviani D, Jensen J L. 2014. Interwell connectivity evaluation in cases of changing skin and frequent
production interruptions [J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 122 (9): 616–630.
Weber, D. 2009. The use of capacitance-resistance models to optimize injection allocation and well location in waterfloods
[D]. Texas: The University of Texas at Austin.
Yousef A A, Gentil P H, Jensen J L, et al. 2006. A capacitance model to infer interwell connectivity from production and
injection rate fluctuations [J]. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 9 (6): 630–646.
Zhang Daiyan, Peng Jun, Gu Yanling, et al. 2012. Experimental Study on Threshold Pressure Gradient of Heavy Oil
Reservoir [J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 23 (2): 201–204.