SPE 124773

Application of pH-Triggered Polymers for Deep Conformance Control in

Fractured Reservoirs
Farshad Lalehrokh, SPE, and Steven L. Bryant, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009.

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
Water injection is commonly employed to increase the average reservoir pressure and displace the oil. However, water
flooding is not always successful. The most important problem is channeling of the injected water into high permeability
zones which occur in heterogeneous reservoirs. This is particularly true in naturally fractured reservoirs.
Injecting low viscosity pH-triggered polymers into the reservoir to block the already swept fractures and high
permeability zones is a promising solution. No injection of high viscosity gels or triggering agents is needed is this process.
Polyacrylic acid microgels can swell a thousand fold as the pH of the surrounding solution changes, with an accompanying
large increase in viscosity. In this paper we studied the factors affecting the feasibility and the placement of pH-triggered
polymers into fractured reservoirs by performing several coreflood experiments in fractured cores.
Polymer treatment reduced the overall core permeability in all cases in contact with different minerals in various
sandstone and carbonate fractured cores. At polymer concentrations of 1% or greater, the permeability reduction was more
than a factor of ten. The polymer microgels showed excellent consistency after being one month in reservoir condition at
58°C and resisted flow at pressure gradients up to 80 psi/ft. The selection of polymer and salt concentration in polymer
solution depends on the application and desired PRF value. However, the 1% polymer concentration and 3% NaCl
concentration is recommended due to the ease of polymer preparation, injectivity, reasonable geochemical buffering time and
PRF values.

Introduction
A persistent problem in waterflooding is channeling of the injected water into high permeability zones which occur in
heterogeneous reservoirs. This is particularly true in naturally fractured reservoirs. In this situation, the water breakthrough
time decreases, and significant portions of the reservoir remain untouched by the injected water. This reduces the sweep
efficiency and oil recovery. In addition, the water oil ratio (WOR) increases which increases the cost of the water flood
process.
To produce the remaining oil trapped in matrix or in low permeability sections of a highly heterogeneous reservoir,
operators can apply selective perforation (Yildiz, 2002; and Yildiz and Cinar 1998), deep profile modification (Nasr-El-Din
et al., 2002) and infill drilling (Gould and Sam, 1989; Wu et al., 1989). Wasnik et al. (2005) presented a method to use a
system comprising a resin and a hardener for repairing channels and for controlling mud loss in fractured reservoirs.
Another method to overcome the channeling problem is to block the high permeability zones with a specific kind of
polymer or gel. By blocking the areas already swept by the water, subsequently injected water can sweep an unswept area of
the reservoir and thereby increase the oil recovery. The polymer should be very viscous to be able to block the high
permeability zones and ideally, these polymers should be economical and easy to prepare. However, injecting a viscous
polymer into the reservoir at reasonable rates requires high injection pressures. The limitation imposed by the local fracture
gradient greatly restricts the depth to which such a solution can be placed. Therefore, we are looking for a polymer that can
be injected easily to the reservoir, yet offers large resistance to flow once placed in the reservoir.
Several approaches have been proposed to achieve this goal. Chemical cross-linking of polymer molecules is one
commonly used method. A solution of polymer and reactive agents such as Cr3+ ions has low viscosity. As the polymer cross-
links, increasing the hydrodynamic size of the molecules, the viscosity of the solution rises significantly. The challenge in the
field application of this method is to control the rate of the cross-linking, especially as reservoir temperature increases.
Sydansk and Southwell (2000) discussed their wide experience with Cr (III) - carboxylate/acrylamide-polymer (CC/AP) gel
technology for oilfield conformance control, sweep improvement and fluid shutoff treatment. They stated that gel treatments
2 SPE 124773

of this technology are applicable to reservoirs having a broad temperature range (40°F up to 300°F in certain instances). In
addition, Sydansk et al. (2005) characterized partially formed chromium (III) and high-low molecular weight gels for water
shutoff in fractures. Mennella et al. (1999) presented an analysis to define several physico-chemical issues to understand the
polymer shutoff mechanism and to develop a consistent technology by performing several experimental and simulation
studies. In addition to the difficulty in controlling the cross-linking kinetics, the chromatographic separation of the polymer
from the cross-linking agent can be an issue in some instances (Garver et al., 1989).

pH-Triggered Polymers. Polyacrylic acid microgels can swell a thousand fold as the pH of the surrounding solution
changes, with an accompanying large increase in viscosity. This pH trigger is simpler than chemical cross-linking and thus
offers operational advantages. Denys et al. (1998) studied the effect of pH and salinity on permeability reduction caused by
polyacrylate retention in a porous medium. According to them, two mechanisms are involved in such a process: pore
plugging and adsorption. On the other hand, microgel particles are typically too large to enter pore throats and thus would be
well suited for preferential placement in fractures. Al-Anazi and Sharma (2002) proposed that the pH sensitive polymers are
excellent candidates for conformance control, and it may also be possible to use them for temporary zonal isolation since they
can be easily broken down with a mild acid wash and flowback.
We have previously studied a specific pH triggered polymer (Carbopol® 934) in batch and in reactive transport
experiments. This microgel is not viscous in low pH environments but if the pH increases, its viscosity increases by several
orders of magnitude, as shown in Fig. 1 (Choi et al., 2006). The transition zone from low viscosity to high viscosity values
occurs at a pH around 4. According to Huh et al. (2005), the polymer viscosity can be calculated in porous media using the
Peppas equilibrium swelling model, the Carreau model and the Martin equation. We have coded the algorithm, and it has
been added to the GEM reservoir simulator (Benson et al., 2007) to model the polymer gelation process and polymer
propagation in oil reservoirs.
The application of pH-triggered polymers to matrix treatments requires quantifying the geochemistry and rheology as
functions of shear rate, mineralogy, polymer concentration, salinity, etc. Al-Anazi and Sharma (2002) studied the
permeability reduction and propagation of pH-sensitive polymers in non-fractured Berea cores. They proposed that pH
sensitive polymers are excellent candidates for conformance control since the polymer can be placed deep into the reservoir
by acid pre-flushing the media designed for that specific rock mineralogy. Based on experimental results in fractured cores,
Seright (2001) developed a model to describe the gel propagation and dehydration into the fractures. He proposed that
injecting the polymer gel at the highest practical injection rate will maximize the gel penetration into fractures.
Using pH triggered polymers to seal fractures raises new questions. The rate of pH increase is expected to be slower than
in a matrix treatment, because the injected fluid will be contacting only the walls of the natural fractures. The reactive surface
area will thus be smaller than for flow through a rock matrix. In principle this should lead to greater depths of penetration. It
also raises the possibility that the pH trigger could even be employed in naturally fractured carbonate formations, whose
mineralogy rapidly neutralizes acidic solutions. On the other hand, blocking a fracture is more difficult than blocking pore
throats. The mechanical strength (yield stress) of the gel may thus be more important than its apparent viscosity. Lalehrokh et
al. (2008) showed that the concepts of a pH trigger and deep placement within fractures was feasible. In this work we address
these issues in more detail..

Experimental methods
Coreflood Set-up. In all constant rate injection experiments described in this paper, we used a dual-piston constametric
pump to inject the brine/polymer into a horizontal Hassler core holder which can stand pressure up to 12,000 psi. The
pressure is monitored at the inlet and outlet of the core holder. We used three pressure gauges to maintain accuracy of reading
high and low pressures. The pressure data is logged in real time to an Excel sheet for post processing. Figure 2 shows the set
up for the constant-rate water/polymer flood experiments.
In constant pressure experiments, we replaced the pump with an accumulator. We used the pressurized air in order to
inject the brine into the core under constant pressure. We used a pressure regulator to set the pressure to any desired value.

Core Preparation. Homogeneous blocks of sandstone and carbonate rocks are cored. All the cores have about 1 ft length
and 1 inch diameter. We cut the cores lengthwise with a thin blade to make a straight uniform fracture along the core. Left
picture in Fig. 3 shows a schematic view of a fractured core and the right picture displays a sandstone core before and after
being cut. We used silicon rubber adhesive sealant along the fracture edge to put the core back together. Silicon makes a very
good seal without making a rough edge along the fracture. All cores are saturated with brine (3% NaCl) before polymer
injection.
The fracture aperture inferred from flow rate vs. pressure drop experiments for each individual core varies from 50 to 200
micron which implies the fracture permeability from 200 to 5000 Darcy. We assume fracture porosity of 100% and smooth
fracture surface in order to calculate the fracture permeability.

Permeability Reduction Factor. To measure the capability of polymer gels to block the fracture and reduce the overall core
permeability we use the parameter called Permeability Reduction Factor (PRF). PRF defines as follows:
SPE 124773 3

K0
PRF = (1)
K
Where K 0 = initial overall core permeability and K = treated overall core permeability.
Large PRF values show that the polymer gels inside the core were able to block the fracture and reduce the overall core
permeability. To measure the PRF, we inject brine into the saturated fractured cores at the beginning of experiment to
measure the initial overall core permeability (K0) by monitoring the pressure drop across the core. The injection rate varies
from 2 cc/min to 10 cc/min depending on the matrix permeability. After polymer injection we shut the core for a certain
period of time and repeat the brine injection to measure the treated overall core permeability (K).
In constant injection pressure experiments, we measure the flow rate by collecting effluent samples at the outlet.

Factors Affecting the PRF and Polymer Performance

Polymer Concentration. According to Choi (2005) higher concentration polymers shows higher apparent viscosity due to
the abundance of carboxylic groups which results in more repulsive forces and more polymer swelling.
As presented in Fig. 4, lower polymer concentrations results in a lower viscosity plateau. The general trend presented in
Fig. 4, is based on rheology experiments for Carbopol® EZ-2. Although the apparent viscosity for Carbopol® 934 which we
are using in coreflood experiments is different from Carbopol® EZ-2, the general trend that shows lower initial and gel
viscosity in case of lower polymer concentration is valid for Carbopol polymers in general.
We performed several coreflood experiments on fractured cores made from different sandstone and carbonate rocks. We
kept the NaCl concentration constant and equal to 3% and varied the polymer concentration from 0.2% to 3%. The treated
overall core permeabilities, PRF values and detailed information are listed in Table 1 for cases A-T.
The placement of pH-triggered polymer in the fractured cores reduced the overall core permeabilities in all cases. We got
lower PRF values for lower polymer concentrations as might have been expected. We injected large amount of polymer
solution into the core to study the polymer geochemical buffering time in different cases in laboratory-scale experiments. In
case F, we observed early polymer gelation during the polymer injection by monitoring the pressure drop across the core
(Fig. 5). By ‘early gelation’ we mean polymer gelation during polymer injection which is an undesirable phenomenon that
would reduce injectivity in the field and reduce the depth of placement. Early polymer gelation in reservoir-scale
performances could be avoided by injecting the proper amount of polymer with respect to the total reservoir fracture volume.
Note that x-axis in Fig. 5 is based on the total core pore volume (PV) which is about 30 times higher than fracture pore
volume in case F.
Case H is the other case in which PRF was small. In this experiment, during the brine injection after polymer gelation, the
injected brine pushed a portion of the microgel out of the core. This happened because the relatively small polymer
concentration (0.5%) results in a relatively low gel viscosity.
The PRF values for cases A-T are plotted in Fig. 6. Although PRF depends on rock mineralogy, the main influence is
polymer concentration: higher polymer concentration results in higher PRF values because the resulting gel has larger
viscosity. Consequently, the selection of polymer concentration depends on the application and desired PRF value. However,
the 1% polymer concentration is recommended due to the ease of polymer preparation, injectivity, reasonable geochemical
buffering time and PRF values.

Polymer Salinity. The salt ions buffer the negative charges of carboxyl groups of microgels, reducing the electrostatic
forces between carboxyl groups (Al-Anazi and Sharma, 2002). By reducing the salt concentration in polymer solution,
polymer swelling occurs in lower pH and also the polymer viscosity reaches a higher plateau value as shown in Fig. 7 (Choi,
2005).
We performed five coreflood experiments by keeping the polymer concentration constant and equal to 1% and changing
the NaCl concentration from 5% to 1%. The treated overall core permeabilities, PRF values and detailed information are
listed in Table 2 for each experiment.
The placement of pH-triggered polymer in the fractured cores reduced the overall core permeabilities in all cases and no
sign of early polymer gelation observed. We did not perform any new experiment for salt concentration of 3% since we can
use the data from Case C in previous section. Reducing the salt concentration decreases the polymer solubility in brine, and it
takes more time and effort to make the polymer solution. At the other extreme, at 10% salinity we were not able to create a
homogeneous polymer solution even after 4 days of continuous mixing.
The PRF values for cases U-Z are plotted in Fig. 8. Note that the shut-in time was set to two hours in all cases. PRF
values are higher for 1% salinity solutions (cases U and V) due to the shorter geochemical buffering time and higher gel
viscosity than other cases. As a result, the selection of NaCl concentration depends on the rock mineralogy and desired PRF
value but using 3% salt concentration is recommended due to the ease of polymer preparation and reasonable PRF values.
Consequently, we are expecting higher PRF values in formations with low salinity which decreases the salinity of polymer
solution and results in higher gel viscosity.
4 SPE 124773

Presences of Different Salts in Polymer Solution. Divalent cations in brine show more buffering effect than monovalent
cations, and this result in a lower plateau value for viscosity (Choi, 2005). Also, polymer swelling and pH triggering occur in
higher pH values (Fig. 9). We prepared polymer solutions with NaCl, MgCl2, CaCl2 and KCl as the salt. The polymer
concentration and salt concentration is constant and equal to 1% in call cases. The ionic strength for NaCl, MgCl2, CaCl2 and
KCl is 0.32, 0.95, 0.81 and 0.27, respectively. We did not perform any new experiment with NaCl as the salt since we can
use data from previous experiments.
The treated overall core permeabilities, PRF values and detailed information are listed in Table 3 for each individual
experiment. The presence of each salt in polymer solutions does not have any significant effect on polymer performance and
PRF values. The PRF in case AC is lower than other cases due to the lower gel viscosity in presence of divalent cations
(Ca++). However, the PRF in case AA is comparable with case AB and AD despite the presence of Mg++ which is a divalent
cation. No sign of early polymer gelation observed during polymer injection. In addition, there were no difficulties to prepare
polymer with any of these salts and we obtained a homogeneous polymer solution in each case.
In case AD we made the polymer solution by adding 1% of each salt in deionized water to study the effect of presence of
these minerals on polymer performance. The goal was to investigate the feasibility of preparing polymer solutions with sea
water which contain several salts and minerals. We got a homogeneous polymer solution and a reasonable PRF in case AD.
Note that shut-in time was set to 2 hours in all cases.

Polymer Aging in Reservoir Condition. We performed all the previous experiments in room temperature. Here we show
the effect of temperature on PRF and polymer performance. We used a fractured Berea core in this experiment. The core
initial overall permeability and porosity was 500 md and 20% respectively. As for the room temperature experiments, we
saturated the fractured core with brine and injected the polymer solution into the core. The polymer and NaCl concentration
were 1% and 3% respectively. The injected solution was preheated to 58°C before injection. We sealed the core using
multiple layers of aluminum foil immediately after polymer injection and put it in the oven at 58°C. Aluminum foil is not
permeable so it keeps the core saturated and it facilitates heat transfer to the core.
We kept the core in oven for one month in total. We removed the core to conduct brine injection tests periodically,
measuring the PRF after 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 30 days by applying a pressure drop across the core.
The pressure drops across the core are shown in Fig. 10Fig. . The PRF values and treated core permeabilities are listed in
Table 4. We weighed the core before brine injection to ensure that the core was still saturated. Only a small difference in
saturated core weights was observed. No signs of polymer particles were observed in the outlet.
The first brine injection test forced a pathway through the gel inside the fracture; otherwise we would have obtained
higher PRF values after each subsequent test. We performed the first injection test after only 24 hours to study the PRF
changes throughout this experiment. We expect to obtain higher PRF values in case of performing the first brine injection test
after longer time periods. However, more sophisticated core sealing is required to keep the core saturated in oven.
In this experiment, the polymer gels showed excellent consistency after being one month in the oven and in reservoir
condition. We are optimistic about polymer consistency in reservoir condition for time periods much longer than one month,
but additional studies are required to confirm this expectation.
To study the polymer stability against injected water after being held in reservoir condition, we performed another
experiment. Rather than forcing fluid through the gel by imposing a constant injection rate, we applied a constant pressure to
observe whether the gel would allow any flow at all. We used a fractured homogeneous Berea core and saturated the core
with brine. After measuring the initial core permeability we injected the preheated polymer solution (1% polymer, 3% NaCl)
into the core.
We sealed the core with multiple layers of aluminum foil and put the core in oven at 58°C for 7 days. The initial core
permeability was 1080 md with 25% porosity. After 7 days, we exposed the core to brine at constant pressure and, after a ten
minute interval, increased the injection pressure. We monitored for flow at each applied pressure, and repeated the increment.
The gel completely blocked flow for applied pressures up to 80 psi (Table 5). The corresponding pressure gradients were
80 psi/ft, the core being 1 ft long and the exit being at atmospheric pressure. This behavior at elevated temperature is
consistent with previous room temperature studies (Lalehrokh et al., 2008). Even when the gel could no longer withstand the
imposed pressure gradient, the resulting flow rate was small, and the PRF was nearly 20. This performance is two times
better than observed in the constant rate injection tests of the same gel/fracture/core system.

Conclusions
The effect of polymer concentration, polymer salinity, presence of different salts and polymer aging in reservoir condition are
studied in this paper. Polymer solutions with 1% polymer concentration and 3% NaCl concentration are recommended due to
the ease or polymer preparation, injectivity and reasonable geochemical buffering time and PRF values. In addition, polymer
microgels showed excellent consistency after being one month in reservoir condition.
The aperture size of the fractures in fractured cores used in this paper was in the range of 50 to 200 micron. After
sufficient shut-in time to allow geochemical buffering, the emplaced polymer was able to block the fractures and to reduce
the overall core permeability in call cases. The PRF values observed in constant-rate injection experiments are in the range of
2 to 200 depending primarily on the polymer concentration and the pH-buffering capability of the rock minerals. In a
constant-pressure experiment, the polymer microgel completely blocked the flowrate at pressure gradient below 85 psi/ft.
SPE 124773 5

When flow was established at 85 psi/ft, the resulting PRF was nearly 20. PRF values are higher in cases with lower matrix
permeability and lower polymer salinity. Presence of different cations in contact with polymer solution has a minor effect on
polymer performance. The results indicate this system can be deployed in the field in sandstone and in carbonate formations
for deep conformance control.

Acknowledgements
We thank the members of the Gas Flooding IAP at the University of Texas for support of this research.

Nomenclature
K0 = Initial overall core permeability, md
K = Treated overall core permeability, md
PRF = Permeability Reduction Factor
PVI = Pore Volume Injected

References
Al-Anazi, H.A., and Sharma, M.M., “Use of a pH sensitive polymer for conformance control”, SPE 73782, presented at International
Symp. on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 20-21, 2002.
Benson, I., Nghiem, L.X., Bryant, S.L., Sharma, M.M., and Huh, C., “Development and Use of a Simulation Model for
Mobility/Conformance Control Using a pH-Sensitive Polymer”, SPE 109665, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Anaheim, California, November 11-14, 2007.
Choi, S.K., Ermel, Y.M., Bryant, S.L., Huh, C., and Sharma, M.M., “Transport of a pH-Sensitive Polymer in Porous Media for Novel
Mobility-Control Applications”, SPE 99656, presented at SPE/DOE Symp. on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa Oklahoma, April, 22-
26, 2006.
Choi, S.K., “A study of a pH-sensitive polymer for novel conformance control applications”, Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin,
2005
Denys, K.F.J., Zitha, P.L.J., and Hensens, H.C., “Near-wellbore Formation Damage by Polyacrylates: Effects of pH and Salinity”, SPE
39465, presented at SPE International Symp. on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February18-19, 1998.
Garver, F.J., Sharma, M.M., and Pope, G.A., “The Competition for Chromium between Xanthan Biopolymer and Resident Clays in
Sandstones”, SPE 19632, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, October 8-11, 1989.
Gould, T.L., Sam, A.M., ”Infill drilling for incremental recovery”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 41, Number 3, 229-237,
March 1989.
Huh, C., Choi, S.K., and Sharma, M.M., “A Rheological Model for pH-Sensitive Ionic Polymer Solutions for Optimal Mobility-Control
Applications”, SPE 96914, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 9-12, 2005.
Lalehrokh, F., Bryant, S.L., Huh, C., and Sharma, M.M., “Application of pH-Triggered Polymers in Fractured Reservoirs to Increase
Sweep Efficiency”, SPE 113800, presented at the 2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.,
April 19–23, 2008.
Mennella, A., Chiappa, L., Lockhart, T.P., and Burrafato, G., “Candidate and Chemical Selection Rules for Water Shutoff Polymer
Treatments”, SPE 54736, presented at SPE European Formation Damage Conference in The Hague, The Netherlands, May 31–June 1,
1999.
Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Mutairi, S.H., Al-Driweesh, S.M., “Lessons Learned from Acid Pickle Treatments of Deep/Sour Gas Wells”,
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 20-21, 2002.
Seright, R.S., “Gel Propagation through Fractures”, SPE Production & Facilities, 16, 225-231, November 2001.
Sydansk, R.D. and Southwell, G.P., “More Than 12 Years of Experience with a Successful Conformance-Control Polymer Gel
Technology”, SPE 62561, presented at SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, June 19-23, 2000.
Sydansk, R.D., Xiong, Y., Al-Dhafeeri, A.M., Schrader, R.J., and Seright, R.S., “Characterization of partially formed polymer gels for
application to fracture production wells for water shutoff process”, SPE Production and Facilities, 20, 240-249, August, 2005.
Wasnik A., Mete S., and Ghosh, B., “Application of Resin System for Sand Consolidation, Mud-Loss Control, and Channel Repairing”,
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 1-3, 2005
Wu, Ching H., Laughlin, B.A., Jardon, M., “Infill Drilling Enhances Waterflood Recovery”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 41,
Number 10, 1088-1095, October 1989.
Yildiz, T., “Productivity of Selectively Perforated Vertical Wells”, SPE journal, Volume 7, Number 2, page 158-169, June 2002
Yildiz, T., Cinar, Y., “Inflow Performance and Transient Pressure Behavior of Selectively Completed Vertical Wells” SPE research
evaluation and engineering, Volume 1, Number 5, 467-475, October 1998.
6 SPE 124773

Table 1—Detailed Information from Several Core Flood Experiments (Constant NaCl Concentration)
Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E
Core type (fractured) Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Boise Sandstone
Fracture permeability, Darcy 600 600 600 450 1000
Initial overall core permeability, md 645 630 640 490 1925
Core porosity, % 24 24 24 24 30
Polymer concentration, wt% 2 2 1 1 1
Salt concentration, % 3 3 3 3 3
Shut-in time, hr 2 24 2 24 24
Treated overall core permeability, md 57 22 39 23 80
PRF 11 29 16 21 24
Case F Case G Case H Case I Case J
Core type (fractured) Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Indiana Limestone Indiana Limestone Boise Sandstone
Fracture permeability, Darcy 500 550 250 250 3500
Initial overall core permeability, md 425 505 140 130 2030
Core porosity, % 20 20 17 18 30
Polymer concentration, wt% 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2
Salt concentration, % 3 3 3 3 3
Shut-in time, hr 2 8 2 48 48
Treated overall core permeability, md 20 16 28 72 610
PRF 21 32 5 2 3
Case K Case L Case M Case N Case O
Core type (fractured) Berea Sandstone H-Berea Sandstone H-Berea Sandstone H-Berea Sandstone H-Berea Sandstone
Fracture permeability, Darcy 400 2000 2000 2000 2500
Initial overall core permeability, md 390 2890 130 2390 4340
Core porosity, % 20 25 18 24 25
Polymer concentration, wt% 0.2 3 0.2 3 3
Salt concentration, % 3 3 3 3 3
Shut-in time, hr 48 24 48 2 48
Treated overall core permeability, md 31 148 72 535 20
PRF 13 20 2 4 217
Case P Case Q Case R Case S Case T
Core type (fractured) H-Berea Sandstone H-Berea Sandstone H-Berea Sandstone H-Berea Sandstone H-Berea Sandstone
Fracture permeability, Darcy 1200 2000 1000 1000 1500
Initial overall core permeability, md 1700 2190 1240 1410 2890
Core porosity, % 23 25 23 23 24
Polymer concentration, wt% 3 3 3 3 3
Salt concentration, % 3 3 3 3 3
Shut-in time, hr 0.2 0.3 2 24 24
Treated overall core permeability, md 950 425 180 13 150
PRF 2 5 7 108 19

Table 2—Detailed Information from Several Core Flood Experiments (Constant Polymer Concentration)
Case U Case V Case X Case Y Case Z
Core type (fractured) Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Boise Sandstone
Fracture permeability, Darcy 400 2500 300 350 550
Initial overall core permeability, md 420 1455 290 360 310
Core porosity, % 20 27 19 20 19
Polymer concentration, wt% 1 1 1 1 1
Salt concentration, % 1 1 2 2 5
Shut-in time, hr 1 2 2 2 2
Treated overall core permeability, md 18 70 23 31 32
PRF 23 21 13 12 10

Table 3—Detailed Information from Several Core Flood Experiments in Presence of Different Salts in Polymer
(Constant Polymer Concentration and Constant Salinity)
Case AA Case AB Case AC Case AD
Core type (fractured) Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone
Salt MgCl2 KCl CaCl2 NaCl, KCl, MgCl2, CaCl2
Fracture permeability, Darcy 450 400 450 650
Initial overall core permeability, md 478 389 512 778
Core porosity, % 21 20 20 22
Polymer concentration, wt% 1 1 1 1
Salt concentration, % 3 3 3 4
Shut-in time, hr 2 2 2 2
Treated overall core permeability, md 34 39 94 87
PRF 14 10 5 9
SPE 124773 7

Table 4—PRF Values and Treated Core Permeabilities

to Study the Temperature Effect
Days in Oven Saturated Core Weight, gr Treated Core Permeability, md PRF
1 312 52 10
3 310 56 9
7 307 61 8
14 305 48 10
21 306 50 10
30 309 43 11

Table 5—Temperature Stability Test

Injection Pressure, Psi Duration, min Flowrate, cc/min Permeability, md PRF
10 10 0 0 ∞
30 10 0 0 ∞
50 10 0 0 ∞
70 10 0 0 ∞
75 20 0 0 ∞
80 20 0 0 ∞
85 - 3.1 60 18
50 - 1.7 56 19

10000.0
Apparent Viscosity, cP

1000.0 3 rpm
6 rpm
100 rpm
100.0
200 rpm
300 rpm
10.0 600 rpm

1.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
pH

Fig. 1—Variation of apparent viscosity of Carbopol 934% with pH (Choi et al, 2006).

Fig. 2—Set up of water/polymer flooding experiment, constant injection rate.

8 SPE 124773

Fracture

1 inch

1 ft

Fig. 3—Diagram at left shows the top and side view if a fractured core. Photograph at right shows a sandstone core before and after
being cut.

Fig. 4—Apparent viscosity of Carbopol® EZ-2 for different polymer concentrations, 3% NaCl (Choi, 2005).

200

Signs of early polymer gelation

150
Pressure drop, Psi

100

50

0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
PVI

Fig. 5—Pressure drop across the core during polymer injection in Case F.
SPE 124773 9

1000

3% 2% 1% 0.50% 0.20% : Polymer concentration

100
PRF

10

1
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Shut-in time, hr

Fig. 6—PRF versus shut-in time for polymer solutions with different polymer concentration and constant salinity for cases A-U.

Fig. 7—Apparent viscosity of Carbopol® EZ-2 for different salt concentrations and 3% polymer (Choi, 2005).
10 SPE 124773

30

20
PRF

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NaCl concentration,wt %

Fig. 8—PRF values for different NaCl concentration (1% polymer and 2 hours shut-in time) for cases U-Z.

Fig. 9—Apparent viscosity for Carbopol® EZ-2 for different valence of salt, 3% polymer (Choi, 2005).
SPE 124773 11

450

400

350

300
Pressure drop, Psi

250

Before Polymer injection

200
1 day in oven
3 days in oven
7 days in oven
150 14 days in oven
21 days in oven
30 days in oven
100

50

0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
PVI

Fig. 10—Pressure drops across the core vs. total pore volume of injected brine into a homogenous Berea core (flowrate = 10 cc/min,
oven temperature = 58°C)