Polymer Flood design in Heavy oil through Reservoir

Simulation

REPORT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of

Bachelor Of Technology
Petroleum Engineering

by
Mohammed Salif Narmawala
Roll no. 19BPE084

Under the guidance of

Mr. Rakesh Meena
CM(Reservoir)

School of Energy Technology

Pandit Deendayal Energy University
Gandhinagar – 382007. Gujarat - INDIA
May’22- June’22
 APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis / dissertation / report entitled Polymer Flood design in Heavy oil through Reservoir Simulation by
Mohammed Salif Narmawala is recommended for the degree of Bachelors of Technology- Petroleum
Engineering

Examiners

Supervisors

Chairman

Date: 1 /12/2022

Place: Gandhinagar

iii
 ’ STUDENT DECLARATION

I Mohammed Salif Narmawala hereby declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my own
words and where others’ idea or words have been included, I have adequately cited and referenced the
original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic honestly and integrity and
have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea / data / fact / source in my submission. I
understand that any violation of the above will be cause for disciplinary action by the PANDIT
DEENDAYAL PETROLEUM UNIVERSITY and can also evoke penal action from the sources which
have thus not been properly cited or from whim proper permission hasnot been taken when needed.

(Signature)

Mohammed Salif Narmawala

19BPE084
Date: 10/12/2022

iv

CERTIFICATE

v
 PREFACE:

The well planned, properly executed and evaluated industrial training helps a lot in including good
work culture. It provides linkage between the student and industry in order to develop the awareness
of industrial approach to problem solving based on broadunderstanding of process and mode of
operation of an organization.

During this period, the students get their real first-hand experience on working in the actual
environment. Most of the theoreticalknowledge that they have gained during the course of their
studies is put to these here. Apart from this the students get the opportunity to learn the latest
technology, which immensely help them in their career. This also benefits the organization as many
students doing their projects perform very well and are henceforth offered job in the same
organization.

This training has provided me an opportunity to have practical experience, which has increased my
sphere of knowledge to a greatextent. Now I am better equipped to handle the real thing than anyone
else that has not undergone any such training does. During my stay here I learned actual engineering
skills and had the optimum exposure.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

The industrial training at Institute of Reservoir Studies,ONGC Gandhinagar was an amazing

learning experience. The opportunity to thank who are associated with and those who have
contributed in completion of thisproject is most pleasant part of this report.

I would like to thank Pandit Deendayal Energy University for givingme the opportunity to carry
out my B.Tech Summer Industrialtraining under their esteemed name. I am thankful to Dr.
Anirbid Sircar (Director, SPT) and Mr. Vineet Bagaria, Manager (Corporate Relation,
Training and Placement cell) for providing me training platform like this, ONGC-IRS,
Ahmedabad.

I would also like to thank Mr. Rakesh Meena, CM(Reservoir), who gave me the most incredible
opportunity to do my training at IRS, ONGC, Ahmedabad. I would also thank Mr. Vikrant Daksh IRS –
ONGC. It gives me immense pleasure in expressing my sincere regards and gratitude to our mentor Mr.
Ajay Kumar Sharma, Executive Engineer (Reservoir) for his valuable guidance, suggestions and
cooperation that encouraged me throughout to improve myself and in completion of the work.

I also thank Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, for his question-answer session and constant support throughout
the project.

Special Thanks to:

Mr. Rakesh Meena, CM(Reservoir)
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Executive Engineer (Reservoir)

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR): 2
Recovery Factor 3
EOR Methods 4
Polymer Flooding 5
HOW DOES THE POLYMER EOR WORK? 5
POLYMER TYPES: 6
CHOOSING THE BEST POLYMER 6
CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF POLYMERS: 7
Mechanical Degradation: 7
Why Polymer Flooding? 7
Study Area 9
Dynamic Reservoir Simulation Model Buildup 10
History Match 17
Performance Prediction 18
Boundary conditions 18
Performance Prediction variants 19
Variant-I (BAU) 19
Variant-II (Infill) 19
Variant-III (Water flood model) 19
Variant-IV (Recommended Polymer Variant) 19
Conclusion 24
References 24
Annexure 25

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Detail Page No.

Figure 1- EOR Methods 2
Figure 2-Recovery Factor 3
Figure 3- Chemical Methods of EOR 4
Figure 4- Polymer Flooding 5
Figure 5- History Match (Cumulative Oil) 17
Figure 6- History Match (Cumulative Water) 17
Figure 7- History Match (Oil Rate) 18
Figure 8- Simulation Results Plot (Oil Rate) 21
Figure 9- Simulation Results Plot (Oil Recovery 21
Factor)
Figure 10- Simulation Results Plot (Cumulative 22
Oil)
Figure 11- Simulation Results Plot (Oil Pore 22
Volume)
Figure 12- Polymer Flood Effeciency 23
Figure 13- Polymer Flood Viscosity Model 23

ix
10
Introduction

The way to a fruitful investigation system for any oil field is reservoir modelling. For a model to be correct,
one must have a detailed comprehension of the geology of the reservoir, rock and fluid properties, working
drive mechanism, gas/liquid contacts and fluctuation (horizontal and vertical) in rock property.
Notwithstanding, for a new field, all information may not be accessible at first; in this way, reservoir engineers
get ready models utilising their experience and learning. With time, as extra information is accessible through
production and drilling activities, essential changes are made in the model.When an acceptable level of history
match is accomplished the model is kept running on predictive mode.

A project titled " Polymer Flood design in Heavy oil through Reservoir Simulation " was undertaken at IRS
Ahmedabad as a part of Summer Internship 2022. The objective of the project was to study various EOR
methods and apply a suitable process for production of heavy oil as to evaluate the black oil model in static
as well as dynamic conditions. The digitised maps along with other parameters were simulated into the
software (CMG Builder) to develop the static model of the reservoir. This model was simulated with the
introduction of producing wells along with four variants to assess the reservoir's potential under dynamic
conditions.

1
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR):

Enhanced Oil Recovery, also known as tertiary recoverey ,is the extraction of crude oil from an oil field that
cannot be extracted otherwise.EOR can extract 30% to 60% or more of a reservoir’s oil.EOR is further
subdivdied into various parts as listed below in the figure 1

Figure 1

2
Recovery Factor

The overall recovery factor (RF) of any secondary or tertiary oil recovery method is the product of a
combination of three individual efficiency factors as given by the following generalized expression in figure
2:

Figure 2
In terms of cumulative oil production,: where
RF = overall recovery factor
ED = displacement efficiency
EA = areal sweep efficiency
EV = vertical sweep efficiency

The displacement efficiency ED is the fraction of movable oil that has been displaced from the swept zone at
any given time or pore volume injected. Because an immiscible gas injection or waterflood will always leave
behind some residual oil, ED will always be less than 1.0. The areal sweep efficiency EA is the fractional area
of the pattern that is swept by the displacing fluid.Vertical Sweep efficiency is the fraction of pay that is swept
by displacing fluid.

The major factors determining areal sweep are:

● Fluid mobilities

● Pattern type

● Areal heterogeneity

● Total volume of fluid injected

3
EOR Methods

Enhanced oil recoveries (EOR) are the techniques that offer prospects for ultimately producing 30 to 60
percent, or more, of the reservoir's original oil in place. Three major categories of EOR have been found to
be commercially successful to varying degrees:

● Thermal recovery, which involves the introduction of heat such as the injection of steam to lower the
viscosity and improve its ability to flow through the reservoir. Thermal techniques account for over
40 percent of U.S. EOR production, primarily in California.

● Gas injection, which uses gases such as natural gas, nitrogen, or carbon dioxide (CO2) that expand in
a reservoir to push additional oil to a production wellbore, or other gases that dissolve in the oil to
lower its viscosity and improves its flow rate. Gas injection accounts for nearly 60 percent of EOR
production in the United States.

● Chemical injection, which can involve the use of long-chained molecules called polymers to increase
the effectiveness of waterfloods, or the use of detergent-like surfactants to help lower the interfacial
tension (IFT) that often prevents oil droplets from moving through a reservoir. It can be done in
different combinations of alkali, surfactant and polymer as shown in figure number Chemical
techniques account for about one percent of U.S. EOR production. Each of these techniques has been
hampered by its relatively high cost and, in some cases, by the unpredictability of its effectiveness.

Chemical enhanced oil recovery is further divided into various forms as shown below in figure 3.

Figure 3

4
Polymer Flooding
Polymer Flooding in the reservoir increases the viscosity of formation water and results in reduction in
mobility ratio between oil and water which leads to improvement in sweep efficiency. The process of polymer
flooding involves the injection of high molecular weight water-soluble polymers in water phase(figure-. The
incremental viscosity of the water improves the mobility and conformance control of the injected slug and
reduces viscous fingering phenomena. The polymer is combined with water and continuously injected for a
long period of time to achieve desirable pore volume injection. When approximately 30% to 50% of the
reservoir pore volume in the project area has been injected, the polymer slug and the oil bank in front of it are
driven toward the production wells by pumping chase water into the injection well. Ideal polymer will be cost
effective, allow for high injectivity, be resistant to mechanical (up to 1000 m3 /m2 -d flux when entering
porous rock) and microbial degradation, withstand high reservoir temperatures (up to 200°C) for long periods
of time (5 to 10 years), be effective when mixed with reservoir brines, have low retention properties in porous
rock, be effective in the presence of oil and gas, and not be sensitive to acidity (pH). Consequently, early
water breakthrough encountered in waterflooding process is suppressed and an incremental oil recovery factor
is achieved. Polymer flooding has been successfully implemented in many oilfields either on a pilot scale or
commercial scale for several decades.
For more than 40 years, polymer flooding has been utilized to effectively produce the remaining oil from the
reservoir. The total cost of adopting the polymer flooding approach over water flood is project specific
however polymer injection lowers water production and increased oil production. The efficiency of polymer
flooding ranges from 0.7 to 1.75 lb of polymer per barrel of increased oil output. When waterflooding of an
oil reservoir proves inadequate due to viscous fingering phenomena culminating in early water breakthrough,
polymer flooding may be introduced.

In figure-4 an ideal scenario of polymer flooding is shown.

Figure-4

In addition, polymer flooding has maintained its increasing importance to the current energy market. The most
notable contribution is the reported incremental oil production of up to 300,000 bbl/day from Daqing oil field
in China.

How does the polymer EOR work?

5
In traditional water flood systems, water is pumped through injector wells to push oil towards production
wells. In many reservoirs, the water flood narrows its course between the injector wells and the producers.
This results in coning or fingering patterns whereby potentially large volumes of oil-saturated rock are
bypassed by the water flood and the oil therein is not recovered. To improve waterflood sweep efficiency, an
operator can increase the viscosity of injected water with polymers. This reduces the tendency of water to
bypass or finger through oil, thereby sweeping more oil toward production wells to significantly improve
recovery.

Polymer types:

The majority of polymers utilized in EOR fall into two categories: synthetic polymers and biopolymers. The
most popular include synthetic (PAM) and partially hydrolysed polyacrylamide (HPAM), Xanthan, a
biological polysaccharide, and certain modified natural polymers such as HEC (hydroxyethyl cellulose), guar
gum, and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxyethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose. Each polymer has
advantages and disadvantages for a particular reservoir. PAM (Polyacrylamide) was the first thickening agent
utilized in aqueous solutions due to its large molecular weight (> 1.0* 106 g/mol). PAM is stable at normal
salinity up to 90°C and at seawater salinity up to 62°C. As a result, it is largely limited to on-shore operations
exclusively. The viscosity of this chemical can be significantly reduced by high salt.

One of the most common polymers used today is partially hydrolysed polyacrylamide (HPAM). HPAM is
made by partially hydrolysing PAM or copolymerizing sodium acrylate with acrylamide. The benefits of
HPAM include its tolerance to strong mechanical stresses prevalent during reservoir flooding, its inexpensive
cost, and its resistance to bacterial attack. Depending on the hardness of the brine, this polymer can withstand
temperatures of up to 99°C. HPAM co-polymers and sulphonated polyacrylamide, for example, can tolerate
104°C and 120°C, respectively. The downside of HPAM is that it is extremely sensitive to brine salinity,
hardness, and the addition of surfactants or other compounds. This renders it useless in salt-containing
reservoirs.

Xanthan gum, a polysaccharide, is created by many bacteria (one of which is Xanthomonas campestris) by
glucose or fructose fermentation. In general, the molecule has a very high molecular weight (2 - 50 *106
g/mol) and very stiff polymer chains. As a result, Xanthan gum is relatively resistant to high salinity and
hardness. Most surfactants and other injection fluid additives used in tertiary oil recovery formulations are
compatible with the polymer. Xanthan gum is typically manufactured as a concentrated broth that can be
easily diluted to working concentrations without the use of sophisticated mixing equipment. In the temperature
range of 70°C to 90°C, xanthan is thermally stable. Nonetheless, when injected into a field with low-
temperature zones in the reservoir, this chemical is particularly susceptible to bacterial breakdown.
Furthermore, certain cellular debris in xanthan has been shown to cause clogging.

Choosing The Best Polymer

Polymers perform better or worse in different settings due to their varying characteristics. Thus, before
applying, numerous criteria should be considered in order to select the best polymer. To identify the optimal
polymer molecular weight, reservoir permeability and oil viscosity must be considered. It is also critical to
evaluate the polymer solution's cloud point, which reflects polymer thermal stability in high salt brine and
high temperature. Precipitation during injection or flow through the reservoir can occur if this parameter is

6
not measured correctly. Another critical metric is polymer retention, which includes potential ways for
reducing the mean velocity of polymer molecules as they flow across porous media. Although polymer
adsorption is typically attributed to retention, some polymers can be physically entrapped in porous media or
hydrodynamically trapped in stationary zones. As a result, knowing the rock composition and polymer
adsorption level is critical in determining the optimal anionicity (degree of hydrolysis).

Challenges associated with the use of polymers:

One of the biggest issues with polymer injection is that polymers deteriorate quickly. The long chain polymer
molecules are broken down as a polymer solution degrades. As a result, the molecular weight of the polymers
decreases, and the solution loses a significant amount of its viscosity. Many factors contribute to the
deterioration of a polymer solution, the most prominent of which are mechanical shear and strain rate in fluid
flow devices employed in polymer injection operations. Salt concentration, oxygen concentration, and high
temperatures are also critical contributors.

Mechanical Degradation:

The most essential aspect that lowers the effect of a polymer flooding operation is mechanical shear and strain
rate in fluid flow devices. Shear forces are present in all fluid flow devices, particularly valves. The pressure
of the solution is decreased through valves. The pressure drop is frequently generated by passing the solution
through small holes, which subject the solution to high strain rates. Strain rates stretch the polymer chain until
it breaks, which is referred to as the critical value. Mechanical deterioration has happened when this occurs.
In addition, the energy expended in lowering the pressure is lost in the volume of the valve, which is generally
minimal. This, in turn, causes tremendous turbulence and, as a result, shear forces.

The following are possible shear locations:

1. Polymer dissolving equipment: static mixers and pumps

2. Injection lines, specifically the wellhead chokes

3. The entry into the well bore It is usual for a polymer-water injection flow to lose 50% of its viscosity
between the injection point and the reservoir due to mechanical degradation in the injection devices.

To compensate for this viscosity loss, more polymers are often supplied during a polymer flood operation,
either by injecting a higher concentration of polymer in the solution, utilizing a higher molecular weight
polymer type, or having a longer polymer injection period.

Why Polymer Flooding?

Chemical EOR (CEOR) in heavy oil has received significant attention after the success of Bohai Bay, offshore
China and Alberta Canada. In addition to that several Heavy oil CEOR projects are being considered
throughout the world. Polymer injection projects have been taken up in East Bodo Reservoir Alberta Canada,
Tambaredjo Field Suriname and Oman. Most viscous oil amongst these fields is in Pelican lake field Canada

7
wherein API gravity and viscosity are 120 and 80,000 cp respectively. Polymer Flooding in the reservoir
increases the viscosity of formation water and results in reduction in mobility ratio between oil and water
which leads to improvement in sweep efficiency

On the basis of preliminary screening, it is found that Chemical EOR is a feasible option in the study area.
Screening parameters are placed in the table below:

ONGC had recently found success through Polymer flooding despite having a strong aquifer drive accompanying
higher viscosity of oil. This further gave the confidence to go for Polymer flooding EOR scheme in the study area.

8
Study Area

The Study area is situated ~20 kms south of Mehsana town in Ahmedabad-Mehsana block of Cambay basin
having oil viscosity 90 cp. Basic oil and rock properties are shown in table-The high oil viscosity(~90cP)
results in viscous fingering which resulted in sharp rise in field water cut to ~90% even in the early phase of
production. This has limited the primary recovery factor to ~1%.The table & figure below - shows how the
water cut shoots up for each well after being put on production.

% W/c after
Np
Wells 0 3 months 6 months
A 3419 6.3 85 82
B 4922 40 48 37
C 1392 19 78 88
D 4487 21 55 49
E 3184 47 57 42

Basic oil and rock properties of Study area

STOIIP , MMt 1.51

Cumulative Production, MMt 0.01
Pay Thickness, m 6-8
Drive Mechanism Strong Aquifer Drive
Porosity % 22-28
Permeability , mD 900-5000
Reservoir Temperature , oC 70
Oil Viscosity , cP 90
Reservoir Pressure, Ksc 115

9
Dynamic Reservoir Simulation Model Buildup
The simulation study has been carried out using CMG’s IMEX-2015 Black oil reservoir Simulator. The GCM
has 8 layers with about 27551 active cells with block dimensions of 50m*50m. The dynamic model was
prepared by incorporating PVT, Relative permeability, ɸ-K transform, fluid contacts, oil production and well
completion data in static model

We follow the below listed steps to create a model to simulate the effect of Polymer Flooding and the
sensitivity analysis of these models. The model prepared in this case was imported from a RESCUE file. The
relevant data and values were entered manually.

Step 1:Import model from a Rescue file.

Step 2: Assign the array properties (grid top, grid thickness, porosity, permeability. Permeability correlation
was inserted into formula.

(i)Formula for NTG

10
(ii)Formula for Null Block

(iii)Formula for Permeabiity

11
 (iv)Formula for Porosity

(v) Formula for SW

Step 3: Assign the Rock Compressibility and Reference Pressure for Calculating the effect of rock Compressibility.

12
Step 4: Add an aquifer by providing the necessary details of the aquifer

Step 5: In the Component Section we have selected the Polymer Model and added the required polymer
properties.

13
Polymer Viscosity selection

As per the mobility ratio, the required viscosity to achieve the unit mobility ratio was found to be 25 cp @
Tres 70°C at the dynamic condition of the reservoir. Laboratory studies carried out at IRS also recommend
the same. Accordingly, The polymer viscosity of 26 cP was selected for injection in dynamic model

Polymer Shear Rate Concentration Viscosity

Polymer-A 7.34 s-1 2500ppm 26 cP

Polymer properties like relative polymer concentration, reference polymer concentration, polymer adsorption
table, polymer Permeability table were inserted in the tables shown ahead.

14
Step 6: In Rock-Fluid section, go to Rock Fluid >> Create/Edit Rock type >> Create new rock >> Tools >>
Generate Table Using Correlations >> Enter Relative Permeability Correlations

15
Step 8:Give the Input Condition

Following the above mentioned steps systematically a polymer model in CMG was made

16
History Match
In order to history match, the pressure-production data and work over / zone transfer history up to September
2021, have been considered in the simulation study for all producer wells. The model was run on historical
liquid rate and water cut & oil rate was considered as primary parameters for the history match. History match
of Cumulative oil and Cumulative water is shown below in figure 5&6 respectively. After satisfactory History
match the prediction runs were given.

Figure 5

Figure 6

The standard oil rate is observed to be varying from the year 2019-2022 a sudden fall is observed from
2019-2021, after that the standard oil rate is observed to increase exponentially as shown in figure7 below.

17
 Figure 7

Performance Prediction

Post history match prediction runs were carried out to see the production behaviour of the field under various
scenarios along with the benefit of polymer flooding for enhancing recovery by way of improvement in sweep
efficiency.During prediction runs, due attention was given to the need of improvement in sweep efficiency
for higher and early recovery and based on that philosophy, in-fill locations (Polymer Injector and Oil
Producer) have been considered.

Boundary conditions

The operating limits for wells in performance prediction have been considered as under:

Maximum Water Cut : 95 % (Oil producers)

Minimum FBHP : 70 Ksc (Oil producers)
Maximum IBHP : 200 Ksc (Polymer Injectors)
Polymer Injection rate per well : 60 m3/d
The prediction variants have been run with primary constraint of liquid rate along with above operating
boundary conditions. The initial liquid rates in the new development locations have been assigned based on
the performance of nearby wells and sensitivity analysis were carried out. Work over / zone transfer of the
existing wells has been considered in the prediction runs. Polymer injection has been considered from October
2022 to October 2029 and the prediction variant was run for 7 years.

18
Performance Prediction variants
For performance prediction, 4 prediction variants were finalised after carrying out multiple sensitivity &
optimization runs in terms of future development strategy to enhance production rate and recovery.

Variant-I (BAU): (5 flowing oil wells with existing liquid rate)

Present producers were flown with existing liquid set. Prediction run with no new wells are considered in this variant.
Oil recovery and cumulative oil produced is 91,197 m3 with a recovery of 6.7%.

Variant-II (Infill): (5 flowing oil wells with existing liquid rate + 8 New Producer wells)
There are already 5 existing wells and 8 new infill producers. 13 producer wells are flown with existing liquid
set. Oil recovery and cumulative oil produced in this variant are 16.8% and 2,48,348 m3 respectively.

Variant-III (Water flood model) : (5 flowing oil wells + 8 new producer wells+3 injector wells)
6 Injector wells are used to inject water in addition to the 5 existing wells and 8 New producer wells. The
injected water pushes oil towards the producer wells resulting in an increase in oil recovery, due to high
mobility of water and production being in aquifer drive after a point the water starts producing in high rates
at the producer well which results in a decrease in oil recovery eventually. 218703m3 of oil is produced in this
varient with a recovery rate of 14.9%.

Variant-IV (Recommended Polymer Variant):

The 13 producers consist of 5 already present producers & 8 new producers. Oil recovery and cumulative oil
produced in this variant are 22.8% and 342,310m3 respectively. Polymer injection for 7 years from 2022 to
2029 of 60 m3/d/well (26 cP, 2500 ppm) was considered in this variant.

19
 Recovery table for BAU and Infill

Recovery table for Water flood and Polymer flood

20
The graph of the oil rate from the year 2018-2034 is show in the figure 8. As we can see there is an exponential
increase in the oil rate in the polymer (recommended variant)

Figure 8

The graph of the oil recovery from the year 2018-2034 is show in the figure 9. As we can see in the figure9
there is an exponential increase in the oil recovery in the polymer(recommended) variant

Figure 9

The graph of the Cumulative Oil from the year 2018-2034 is show in figure.As we can see in the figure10
there is an exponential increase in the Cumulative Oil in the polymer(recommended) variant

21
 Figure 10

The graph of the Pore Volume from the year 2018-2034 is show in figure 11.The pore volume of
hydrocarbon in BAU is observed to be the highest while in polymer is observed to be the lowest
comparatively

Figure 11

22
The Impact of Polymer flood in Improving the Sweep Efficiency from study area is shown through oil
Saturation levels pre-Polymer flood and post polymer flood in Fig 12 below.

Figure 12

Polymer viscosity of the model is shown in figure 13 .

Figure 13

23
Conclusion
There are various nuances of polymer injection which need to be considered to maximize the oil recovery
using this method.

● Firstly, the addition of polymer in the injected water directly affects the mobility contrast by reducing
the viscosity of water and enhances the sweep efficiency in the reservoir. Thus, it gives a much better oil
recovery than normal water injection

● The concentration of polymer injected is of great importance as higher concentration shows better
recovery.

● The intrinsic polymer properties like the rrf value are important factors that can affect the oil
production. A higher rrf, in this case study, resulted in better recovery of oil. However, the increase was
not very profound.

● Another factor that can result in improved recovery of oil is the spacing of wells and the overall
production and injection rate taken in the field. This needs to be optimized in order to get the maximum
oil out of the reservoir in the desired period of time.

● Above all these factors, economics plays a very crucial role in determining the feasibility of any EOR
method. Since polymers are expensive, an economic analysis must be done to understand the net income
after the application of this EOR technique.

● This training has helped me in enhancing my analytical skills and taught the application of my
theoretical knowledge into an actual reservoir model.

● I worked on CMG software and simulated the behavior of reservoir using different oil recovery
techniques such as primary recovery under rock & fluid expansion, water injection, and polymer
injection.

● Through this project, I have learned to optimize the performance of a reservoir under various oil
recovery techniques and conditions.

● IMEX package provided by the Computer Modelling Group Ltd. is an exceptional tool to simulate and
model the Polymer Flooding EOR technique for an economic and efficient exploitation of an oil field

References
1. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering : L P Dake

2. Advanced Reservoir Engineering : Tarek Ahmed

3. Applied Reservoir Simulation : Leonard F koederitz

4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325336895

5. Beliveau D., Waterflooding Viscous Oil Reservoirs

24
Annexure
1)For BAU

IMEX validated result table

Field Total Fluid

Oil Gas Water Solvent Polymer
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
(MSM3) (MMSM3) (MSM3) (MMSM3) (MKG)
Cumulative Production 94.141 .75313 1137.6 NA 0
Cumulative Injection NA 0 0 NA 0
Cumulative Gas Lift NA 0 NA NA NA
Cumulative Water Influx NA NA 1226.9 NA NA
Current Fluids In Place 1556.7 12.454 3694.8 NA 0
Production Rates .01260 100e-6 .23740 NA 0
Injection Rates NA 0 0 NA 0

End of Simulation: Normal Termination

2)For Infill

IMEX validated result table

Field Total Fluid

Oil Gas Water Solvent Polymer
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
(MSM3) (MMSM3) (MSM3) (MMSM3) (MKG)
Cumulative Production 106.71 .85365 1572.0 NA 0
Cumulative Injection NA 0 0 NA 0
Cumulative Gas Lift NA 0 NA NA NA
Cumulative Water Influx NA NA 1676.9 NA NA
Current Fluids In Place 1544.1 12.353 3706.4 NA 0
Production Rates .01398 111e-6 .33748 NA 0
Injection Rates NA 0 0 NA 0

3)For Polymer
25
IMEX validated result table

Field Total Fluid

Oil Gas Water Solvent Polymer
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
(MSM3) (MMSM3) (MSM3) (MMSM3) (MKG)
Cumulative Production 144.37 1.1549 1540.7 NA 70.805
Cumulative Injection NA 0 657.45 NA 262.98
Cumulative Gas Lift NA 0 NA NA NA
Cumulative Water Influx NA NA 1027.7 NA NA
Current Fluids In Place 1506.4 12.051 3747.3 NA 192.70
Production Rates .01844 147e-6 .33349 NA .03771
Injection Rates NA 0 .15000 NA .06000

26