Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Experimental investigation of polymer injectivity and retention under harsh

carbonate reservoir conditions
Umar Alfazazi *, Nithin Chacko Thomas , Waleed Alameri , Emad W. Al-Shalabi
Petroleum Engineering Department, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 2533, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Polymer flooding is a well-established enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique for mobility control. However,
Polymer injectivity several factors affect a successful application of polymer at field-scale including injectivity and retention. The
Polymer retention latter two parameters can lead to poor polymer performance. This work investigates the flow behavior of an
ATBS-Based polymer
ATBS-based polymer in carbonate reservoirs under high-temperature and high-salinity (HTHS) conditions.
High salinity high temperature
Carbonate reservoir
Formation water sample as well as three carbonate cores were utilized in this work. Rheological studies and
injectivity tests were conducted on the polymer at two different temperatures of 25 � C and 90 � C. Polymer
dynamic retention tests were also conducted to assess polymer loss in porous media.
The results showed that the polymer has a good tolerance to salinity with a shear thickening behavior within
the injected flow rates under temperature condition of 25 � C. The in-situ rheological studies also showed that this
viscoelastic behavior disappears at higher temperatures of 90 � C. From injectivity tests, with increasing flow rate,
resistance factor increases at 25 � C and decreases at 90 � C, which is related to polymer rheological behavior and
in particular in-situ viscosity. In addition, resistance factor at 90 � C was lower than that of 25 � C due to the
decrease in polymer retention as temperature increases. The paper provides more insight into the applicability of
an ATBS-based polymer in reservoirs under harsh conditions. The study also helps in better understanding
polymer flow behavior for designing successful field projects.

1. Introduction and background λw kw=μw

M¼ ¼ ; (1)
λo ko=μ
Polymer flooding is a chemical enhanced oil recovery (CEOR) tech­ o

nique that have been studied and applied for many years in sandstones
where λ, k, and μ are phase mobility, effective permeability, and vis­
as opposed to carbonates. This is due to the complex conditions of car­
cosity, respectively. The subscripts “w” and “o” denotes water and oil
bonates including heterogeneity, mixed-to-oil rock wettability as well as
phases, respectively.
harsh conditions of temperature and salinity (Silva et al., 2007;
Several factors might affect the application of the polymer flooding
Algharaib et al., 2014; Al-Shalabi, 2018; Diab and Al-Shalabi, 2019). In
technique, especially at field-scale. These factors include, but not limited
polymer flooding, water soluble polymers with large molecular weights
to, type and properties of polymer used, rock permeability, oil viscosity,
(usually in million Daltons) are added to the injection water in order to
and remaining oil saturation in the targeted reservoir (Sorbie, 2013;
increase its viscosity. This improves reservoir sweep efficiency by
Sheng et al., 2015; Hashmet et al., 2017). There are two main types of
reducing the mobility of displacing fluid, usually water.
polymers used for polymer flooding; synthetic and bio-polymers (Sheng,
The main objective of polymer flooding is to decrease the mobility
2010; Sorbie, 2013). The synthetic polymers include partially hydro­
ratio (M) between water and oil to be less than 1 (Eq. (1)). The latter
lyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) and its derivatives, and the biopolymers
reduces viscous fingering and results in better sweep efficiency (Sorbie,
include Xanthan gum, Schizophyllan, and Scleroglucan. The HPAMs
2013).
have been used more compared to the biopolymers because they are
cheaper and can also be utilized more in large-scale production (Sheng,
2013). However, the HPAMs still face great challenges especially in the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: umar.alfazazi@ku.ac.ae (U. Alfazazi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107262
Received 31 January 2020; Received in revised form 18 March 2020; Accepted 2 April 2020
Available online 8 April 2020
0920-4105/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
U. Alfazazi et al.
presence of high temperature and high salinity (HTHS) conditions
(Gaillard et al., 2014; Dupuis et al., 2017).
The HPAMs are copolymers of acrylic acid and acrylamides. They
consist of negatively charged flexible chains and gain their viscosity by
continuous charge repulsion of the acrylate moiety (Sheng, 2010). In the
presence of high saline water or hardness, the anionic charges are
shielded which results in compression of the flexible coils. Also, at high
temperatures, hydrolysis of acrylamide moieties increases and results in
loss of the polymer viscosity (Levitt and Pope, 2008). Precipitation may
occur as well due to high degree of hydrolysis, depending on the con­
centration of divalent and monovalent cations (Levitt and Pope, 2008;
Sheng, 2010; Sorbie, 2013).
Although, biopolymers are more tolerant towards high salinity and
high temperature compared to synthetic polymers, they are expensive,
prone to biological degradation, and have poor injectivity (Sorbie, 2013;
Hashmet et al., 2017; Al-Shalabi, 2018). The biopolymers are generally
nonionic polysaccharides formed from fermentation process. Because of
their nonionic nature, polymers are insensitive to salinity and act as semi
rigid rod-like molecules in aqueous solutions.
HPAMs have limited applications in the Middle East region. The
salinity range in the Middle East is around 180,000 ppm while the
temperature goes up to 120 � C (Han et al., 2012; Alfazazi et al., 2019). At
such conditions, the available HPAM-based polymers experience both
chemical and thermal degradations (Levitt and Pope, 2008; Gaillard
et al., 2014). Several researchers have investigated the effects of incor­
porating other co-monomers in order to improve the stability as well as
resistance of the polyacrylamide-based polymers to HTHS environments
(Doe et al., 1987; Gaillard et al., 2015). These researchers considered the
addition of monomers such as N-vinyl pyrrolidone (NVP) or ATBS to
substitute some of the acrylamide moieties; the addition of small amount
of water insoluble monomers (hydrophobe) to improve the rheology of
the polymer; and substituting the acrylate moieties with another anionic
monomers such as AMPS that are more resistance to divalent ions (Ca2þ
and Mg2þ). Other synthetic-based polymers are the thermo-responsive
polymers, which have the ability to increase viscosity as temperature
and salinity increase (Leblanc et al., 2015).
Injectivity of polymers is another critical aspect of polymer flooding
application. The polymer behavior needs to be carefully investigated
inside the porous media. This is because polymers might have good
rheological behavior from the rheometer and end up with poor injec­
tivity in the porous media. Injectivity can be better controlled by un­
derstanding parameters like in-situ viscosity, resistance factor (RF), and
residual resistance factor (RRF). RF is also known as the mobility
reduction factor (Eq. (2)), which is a factor that shows the effectiveness
of polymer to improve mobility of water. This is expressed mathemati­
cally as the ratio of water mobility before polymer flooding and the
mobility during polymer flooding. Residual resistance factor (RRF) is
also known as permeability reduction factor and is defined by Eq. (3).
This factor might qualitatively describe polymer retention.
� �
k=μ
λw ΔPpolymer
RF ¼ ¼ � �w ¼ ; (2)
λp ΔPwater
k=μ
p aid of viscometer and densitometer, respectively at different tempera­
� �
k=
μ ΔPwater after polymer flooding
RRF ¼ � �w before PF ¼ ; (3)
ΔPwater before polymer flooding
k=μ
w after PF
where subscript “p” represents polymer, ΔPpolymer is the pressure drop
during polymer injection, and ΔPwater is the pressure drop during water
injection.
The retention of polymer solution in the porous media also hampers
the application of polymer flooding (Manichand and Seright, 2016; Zhao
et al., 2017; Al-Hajri et al., 2018). Polymer adsorption, mechanical
2
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262
entrapment, and hydrodynamic retention are three mechanisms of
polymer loss during an injectivity test (Sorbie, 2013). The latter mech­
anisms were mentioned in terms of their significance where adsorption
is the most important and hydrodynamic retention is the least.
Adsorption describes the interaction between polymer molecules and
the rock surface where the polymer molecules adhere to the rock sur­
face. Additionally, polymer adsorption decreases its overall concentra­
tion in the mobile phase, leading to further decrease in its viscosity, and
hence, an increase in water mobility. On the other hand, polymer
adsorption, up to a limited extent, might lead to permeability reduction
and an improvement in subsequent water injection efficiency. It is also
worth noting that mechanical entrapment occurs when polymer mole­
cules are larger than pore sizes in the porous media, which leads to the
entrapment of these molecules in small pores (Farajzadeh et al., 2016).
Hydrodynamic retention is the type of retention that is mainly flow rate
dependent and is temporary.
In the literature, several studies discussed the application of poly­
mers in porous media, but few studies investigated polymer flooding in
carbonate reservoirs under harsh conditions of HTHS. In order to ach­
ieve a favorable mobility ratio in HTHS reservoirs, higher concentra­
tions of polymers are needed to compensate for temperature and salinity
effects. This work investigates the flow behavior of ATBS-based polymer
in carbonate reservoirs under HTHS conditions. Rheological studies and
injectivity tests were conducted on the polymer at two different tem­
peratures of 25 � C and 90 � C. Polymer dynamic retention tests were also
conducted to assess polymer loss in porous media. The potential polymer
utilized in this work has high ATBS content with good stability in high
temperature and high salinity environments (Alfazazi et al., 2018,
2019).
2. Materials
The polymer used in this work is SAV10 from SNF. Two polymer
concentrations were prepared based on the temperature to be used in
each experiment (25 � C and 90 � C). At 25 � C, 1000 ppm polymer con­
centration was used as opposed to 1750 ppm at 90 � C. These concen­
trations were selected to achieve a desired polymer viscosity, which is 3
times the injected brine viscosity at these two temperatures. High
salinity formation water of a specific Middle Eastern carbonate reservoir
was prepared by adding certain amounts of different salts in deionized
(DI) water (Table 1). Three carbonate rock samples were used for con­
ducting the injectivity tests through coreflooding. The petrophysical
properties of these cores are listed in Table 2.
3. Experimental procedures
3.1. Brines preparations
As was mentioned before, the brines were prepared by adding exact
quantities of different salts in DI water to mimic the formation water
composition, which was previously shown in Table 1. To remove dust
particles and impurities, the brine was filtered with a 0.45 μm filter
paper. Then, viscosity and density of the brine were measured with the
tures (Table 3).
Table 1
Ionic composition of formation water used.
Ions Formation water composition (ppm)
Naþ 52,952
Ca2þ 9250
Mg2þ 1446
Kþ 744
Cl 102,722
TDS 167,114
U. Alfazazi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262

Table 2 The coreflood setup mainly consists of injection pumps, core holder,
Petrophysical properties of core plugs used for injectivity test. fluid accumulators, pressure transducers, backpressure regulator, data
Parameters CF-1 CF-2 CF-3 accusation unit, and an effluent collector.
In order to prepare the core plugs for the injectivity, basic routine
Length (in) 2.86 2.81 2.99
Diameter (in) 1.49 1.49 1.49 procedures were initially conducted. These procedures include core
Pore Volume (mL) 14.50 14.09 15.30 cleaning, petrophysical properties measurement such as weights, gas
Helium Porosity (%) 17.89 17.80 17.81 porosity, and air permeability. The injectivity test has three injection
Air Permeability (mD) 234.69 252.82 238.00 stages including brine preflush, polymer injection, and brine postflush.
Brine Permeability (mD) 143.20 153.04 100
The reader should note that no precautions were taken to exclude dis­
solved oxygen during the coreflooding experiments.

Table 3 3.4.1. Brine absolute permeability and brine preflush stage

Formation water properties at different temperatures. To determine brine absolute permeability, the core samples were
Injected Fluid Density, ρ (g/cm3) Viscosity, μ (cP) initially saturated with formation water (composition given in Table 1)
T ¼ 25 � C T ¼ 90 � C T ¼ 25 � C T ¼ 90 � C under vacuum and at high pressure of 2000 psi for 24 h. Each core
sample was then mounted on the coreflooding system with applied
Formation water 1.11 1.01 1.25 0.50
confining- and back-pressures of 1200 psi and 200 psi, respectively.
Brine absolute permeability was then measured by injecting brine at
3.2. Polymer preparation different high flow rates (3.0 cc/min, 2.0 cc/min and 1.0 cc/min) while
taking readings of the differential pressures (ΔP). The flow rates were
The polymer used in this work is an ATBS-based. The polymer was applied from high to low for more accuracy of the readings and for
received in a powder form and was prepared by adding a known removing any air present in the core. Based on the stabilized ΔP at each
quantity of that powder into the brine. Initially, the brine was kept on a flow rate, absolute permeabilities were calculated by applying Darcy’s
magnetic stirrer and was stirred at a speed of 500 rev/min. The polymer law as given by Eq. (4). The same procedure was followed during the
powder was then gently sprinkled on the shoulder of vortex. Then, the brine preflush; however, the brine was injected at lower flow rates (from
speed of the magnetic stirrer was reduced to 200 rev/min after 30 min of 0.2 cc/min to 2.0 cc/min).
fast stirring and the solutions were left overnight rotating in order to
μ*Q*L
have homogeneous solutions. kabs ¼ ; (4)
A*ΔP

3.3. Bulk rheology tests
Polymer bulk rheological studies were performed using Anton Paar
rheometer (MCR 302) as shown in Fig. 1. The measurements were
conducted at 25 � C and 90 � C with cone and plate, and a pressure cell
geometry, respectively to investigate polymer behavior at different
shear rates and temperatures. For rheology tests at 90 � C, the polymer
solutions were exposed to the high temperature for 30 min in the pres­
sure cell in order to reach a stable temperature condition before starting
the measurement. One should note that a pressure of 3 bar was applied
to the pressure cell for all measurements conducted at 90 � C. This is
necessary to stabilize the polymer solutions as well as to avoid evapo­
ration at elevated temperatures.
3.4. Polymer injectivity test
Polymer injectivity was carried out to study the polymer perfor­
mance in porous media using the three carbonate core samples. The
experimental conditions used during the tests include backpressure and
confining pressure of 200 psi and 1200 psi, respectively. Fig. 2 shows a
schematic of the coreflooding equipment used for the injectivity test.
where Q is injection flow rate (cc/min), L is core sample length (cm), A is
cross sectional area of the core sample (cm2), μ is brine viscosity (cP),
and ΔP is pressure drop (psi).
3.4.2. Polymer injection stage
Injectivity test was initiated by injecting polymer solution of a
known concentration at different flow rates while monitoring the
changes in ΔP. The polymer concentrations were selected based on the
temperature applied during each experiment as was previously
mentioned. In CF-1, the experiment was conducted at 25 � C and hence,
polymer concentration of 1000 ppm was used to get a viscosity 3 times
that of injected brine. While in CF-2 and CF-3, the temperature applied
was 90 � C and therefore, the 1750 ppm of polymer concentration was
used in order to compensate for the temperature effect. It should be
noted that the same flow rates were applied in both brine preflush and
polymer injection stages.
3.4.3. Brine postflush stage
Postflush was later performed by injecting the same formation brine
at different flow rates. Parameters such as resistance factor (RF) and
residual resistance factor (RRF) were calculated using Eqs. (3) and (4),
respectively. Other parameters such as polymer in-situ viscosity (μinsitu Þ
and effective shear rates (γ_ ) were also evaluated to understand the
polymer behavior in the porous media. In order to compare polymer
bulk and in-situ viscosity, the flow rates during corefloods or rather in
the porous media need to be expressed in terms of shear rates. These
parameters were calculated based on Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively
(Zaitoun and Kohler, 1987, 1988; Skauge et al., 2018).
RF
μinsitu ¼ ; (5)
RRF

4v
γ¼ ; (6)
rp

where v and rp , are interstitial velocity and average pore radius for
Fig. 1. Anton Paar rheometer used for bulk rheological studies of polymer water flow, respectively, and are described as follows:
solutions at different shear rates and temperatures.

3
U. Alfazazi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262

Fig. 2. Schematic of the coreflooding equipment used during injectivity experiments.

Q 4. Results and discussion

v¼ ; (7)
Aφ
4.1. Rheology studies
� �12=

rp ¼ Κ=φ ; (8)
Bulk rheological studies are discussed in this subsection, which
include the effects of both shear rate and water salinity on viscosity of
where A is cross sectional area of the core sample and φ is porosity. the polymer.
At the end of each 0.5 pore volume of the polymer injected, effluents
were collected and shear viscosities were measured individually to 4.1.1. Shear rates effect
evaluate degradation and retention levels of the polymer in the cores. Polymers usually are shear sensitive, i.e., their viscosities signifi­
Eq. (9) was used to calculate the degradation in polymer viscosity cantly decrease with increasing shear rates (Zaitoun et al., 2012). In
(Jouenne et al., 2018). It should be noted that since the viscosity of order to study the effect of shear rate on the polymer solutions, rheology
polymer solutions are shear rate dependent, the viscosity data used in measurements were conducted at 25 � C and the results are shown in
the equation were measured at constant shear rate of 10 s 1. Fig. 3. With increasing shear rates, the viscosity of polymer solution
μinitial μeffluent decreases as expected. It was also observed that at higher polymer so­
Degð%Þ ¼ *100; (9)
μinitial μwater lutions concentrations, the shear thinning behavior is more pronounced.
This can be seen from the shear-thinning trend that is observed in all
where μinitial and μeffluent are polymer viscosity before and after injection concentration especially at concentrations above 1000 ppm. Above
through the core, respectively, which were both measured at a constant shear rate of 1000 1/s, there is an increase in the viscosity at all con­
shear rate of 10 s 1. centrations (Fig. 3). This is due to inertial effects associated with the
viscometer when used at high shear rates. This part of the data should
not be considered reliable. Also, the erratic viscosity variations at the
3.5. Polymer dynamic retention measurement lowest shear rates should not be considered due to the limitations of the
rheometer used.
Polymer retention was estimated by analyzing the effluents collected
during polymer injection. Different methods have been utilized for 4.1.2. Salinity effect
polymer dynamic retention (Sorbie, 2013). These methods include the Salinity of aqueous phase is another major parameter that de­
polymer frontal breakthrough method and the mass balance method. termines the effectiveness of polymers. Although studies have shown
The former method requires decoupling of inaccessible pore volume that biopolymers are less affected by salinity due to their non-ionic
(IPV) effect. Hence, the IPV must be known in order to interpret the
results correctly. The latter method is based on material balance by
analyzing the polymer concentrations before and after injection (Eq.
(10)). Accordingly, the total amount of polymer injected minus the total
amount of polymer produced results in the amount of irreversibly
retained polymer. Nevertheless, extended brine injection might be
required to recover polymer as retention maybe overestimated with few
PVs of brine injection (Al-Hajri et al., 2018). One should note that
polymer concentrations were measured using a total organic carbon
(TOC) analyzer.
Pn
Co V o i¼1 Ci Vi
Q¼ ; (10)
W

where Q is polymer retention (mg/g of rock), Co and Vo are original

concentration (mg/L) and volume (mL), respectively. Ci and Vi are
concentration (mg/L) and volume (mL) in each effluents collecting tube, Fig. 3. Polymer viscosity vs. shear rates of polymer prepared in formation
respectively, and W is the dry weight of the core sample (g). water at 25 � C and different concentrations.

4
U. Alfazazi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262

nature, the synthetic-based polymers lose their viscosities as the salinity

increases (Quadri et al., 2015a,b). These synthetic polymers consist of
flexible chains and contain negative charges in their structures. The
negative charges at the backbone chain are introduced by hydrolysis of
polyacrylamides, which converts amide CONH2 groups to carboxyl
COO groups (Sheng, 2013).
At low salinities or in fresh water, the negative charges repel while
the polymer chains are stretched, which leads to viscosity increase. As
salinity increases, the cations in the aqueous phase (Naþ, Mg2þ, Ca2þ)
contact with the polymer chains, which are negatively charged. The
repulsive forces are weakened and neutralized, and the flexible chains
become compressed and results in viscosity loss. Even though there is
loss of viscosity, the polymer showed good temperature and salinity
resistance even at low concentrations as reported by Alfazazi et al.
(2018) (Fig. 4). Fig. 5. Differential pressure vs. injected pore volumes during polymer injection
of CF-1 at 25 � C.
4.2. Injectivity test

A polymer concentration of 1000 ppm was used for conducting

injectivity test at 25 � C and 1750 ppm was used for injectivity test at 90
�
C. Two different polymer concentrations were used in this paper due to
the temperature effect used for different experiment. With increase in
temperature, hydrolysis increases and hence, viscosity of poly­
acrylamide polymers reduces (Sheng, 2010; Hashmet et al., 2014). Prior
to usage, the polymer solutions were pre-filtered through a 1.2 μm filter
paper and at pressure of 1 bar. The bulk viscosity of the 1000 ppm
polymer solution was 3.5 cP at 25 � C while that of the 1750 ppm solution
was 1.5 cP at 90 � C. In addition, the measurements were all conducted at
a constant shear rate of 10 s 1, which is considered as a reference of
reservoir shear rate.

4.2.1. Injectivity at 25 � C (CF-1)

Fig. 6. Viscosity of polymer measured in the rheometer and during polymer
CF-1 was conducted at room temperature of 25 � C. Fig. 5 show the
injection of CF-1 at 25 � C.
complete pressure profile recorded during the entire polymer injection
stage. The flow rates were only changed after reaching a stabilized ΔP. It
reduction (Chauveteau et al., 2002). It should be noted that the RF is
is worth mentioning that during polymer injection, the ΔP showed a
directly proportional to the apparent viscosity in the porous media. An
successful propagation of polymer without any plugging. This can be
RF value of 10 was achieved during the initial flow rate of CF-1 and
observed from the stabilization of ΔP (Fig. 5) after few pore volumes of
could be partly due to the retention of polymer in the core sample.
injection at each flow rate during polymer injection stage.
Unlike in the rheometer, HPAMs and other polyacrylamide-based
polymers are exposed to both shear and extensional flow in the porous
4.2.2. RF and RRF analyses (CF-1)
media. The increasing RF trend is expected considering the range of flow
The RF was calculated at different flow rates by applying Eq. (2) and
rates used during polymer injection. At high flow rates (velocities), the
was found to be increasing with increasing flow rates as shown in Fig. 6.
extensional flow becomes predominant and leads to the gradual or sharp
Similarly, RRF was calculated based on Eq. (3) at different flow rates.
increase in apparent viscosity and RF.
The increase in RF with flow rates is due to the viscoelastic or shear
When polymers are flowing through the rock, some of the polymers
thickening behavior of synthetic-based polymers (Seright et al., 2008,
are retained to the rock surface and are trapped within the narrow pores.
2011). Although some researchers have related the increasing trend of
Some of the polymer retention is irreversible (even after water post­
RF to hydrodynamic retention and the subsequent permeability
flush) and consequently causes permeability reduction, which is esti­
mated in terms of RRF. The RRF values were found to be decreasing with
the increase in flow rate (Table 5). Overall, an RRF value of 4.3 was
calculated at the end of the postflush by applying Eq. (3). The RRF value
of 4.3 is relatively high and the reason could be due to not reaching the
true RRF. Seright (2016) reported that more than 100 PV of brine
postflush is required to reach a true RRF. In this work, about 50 PVs of

Table 4
Backpressure regulator effect on polymer viscosity and degradation at 25 � C.
Measured Polymer Viscosity with BPR Polymer Viscosity without
Parameters BPR

Original After Original After

Sample Injection Sample Injection

Fig. 4. Viscosity vs. concentration of the polymer measured at different salin­ Viscosity (cP) at 10 3.7 2.0 3.4 3.3
1/s
ities (formation water, seawater, 2 times diluted seawater, and 4 times diluted
Degradation (%) 0.0 70.5 0.0 4.6
seawater) using shear rate of 10 s 1 and 120 � C. (Alfazazi et al., 2018).

5
U. Alfazazi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262

Table 5
Summary of the main parameters calculated from the injectivity experiments.
Coreflood Polymer Q (cc/min) V (ft/day) Shear ΔP ΔP ΔP RF RRF μinsitu (cP)
Conc. (ppm) Rate (1/s) Preflush (psi) Polymer (psi) Postflush (psi)

CF-1 1000 0.2 4.79 23.97 0.26 2.37 1.36 9.11 5.23 2.06
0.4 9.57 47.93 0.52 7.29 3.023 13.97 5.79 3.15
0.8 19.14 95.87 1.08 23.74 – 22.01 – 4.97
1.0 23.93 119.83 1.37 34.06 – 24.87 – 5.61
1.5 35.89 179.75 2.07 60.11 9.54 29.01 4.61 6.55
2.0 47.86 239.66 2.76 85.96 12.23 31.17 4.43 7.04
CF-2 1750 0.1 2.39 12.36 0.05 0.19 – 3.84 – 2.24
0.2 4.79 24.71 0.10 0.38 – 3.76 – 2.19
0.4 9.57 49.43 0.20 0.65 – 3.25 – 1.89
0.8 19.14 98.85 0.40 1.14 0.81 2.84 2.02 1.65
1.0 23.93 123.57 0.52 1.31 1.04 2.52 2.01 1.47
1.5 35.89 185.35 0.78 1.75 1.42 2.24 1.82 1.30
2.0 47.86 247.13 1.04 2.19 1.78 2.11 1.72 1.23
CF-3 1750 0.2 4.69 31.45 0.18 0.62 0.64 3.46 3.54 1.93
0.4 9.39 62.90 0.33 1.15 0.88 3.47 2.66 1.93
0.8 18.77 125.80 0.65 1.88 1.43 2.90 2.19 1.61
1.0 23.46 157.25 0.82 2.26 1.68 2.73 2.04 1.52
1.5 35.20 235.88 1.25 3.17 2.39 2.53 1.91 1.41
2.0 46.93 314.51 1.66 4.15 3.07 2.49 1.85 1.39
3.0 70.39 471.76 2.47 6.18 4.43 2.51 1.80 1.39

* Note that the ΔP reported is after a stable reading and ( ) indicates that the reading is missing because the corresponding flow rate has not been applied. Also, the RF
and RRF values were calculated based on ΔP values during preflush, polymer, and postflush injection at similar temperature conditions.

brine were injected at the postflush stage. Also, the observed RRF value
could be partially due to some unexpected dirt, debris, or gel filtering
out on the sand face. Unfortunately, the latter could not have been
checked due to the limitation of the experimental setup, which has no
internal pressure taps.
4.2.3. Polymer in-situ viscosity (CF-1)
Determining polymer in-situ viscosity during polymer injectivity
experiments is necessary for comparison with the polymer bulk viscosity
as well as the effluents viscosity. In order to calculate in-situ viscosity of
polymer in porous media, Eq. (5) was applied. Fig. 6 show a comparison
between in-situ viscosity in the porous media and the bulk viscosity from
the rheometer for CF-1. In order to compare the apparent and the bulk
viscosities, the flow rates used during polymer injection were converted
into shear rate. The effective shear rate was calculated based on Eq. (6).
Similar to RF, the apparent viscosity curve shows a shear thickening
behavior within the flow rates applied. Additionally, the RF and in-situ
viscosity can be calculated in terms of interstitial velocity based on Eq.
(7) as shown in Table 5. The initial flow rate of 0.2 cc/min, corre­
sponding to 4.8 ft/day, was selected instead of the estimated reservoir
flow rate of 0.04 cc/min due to sensitivity issues of pressure gauges in
the coreflood system for lower flow rates. It is worth mentioning that the
in-situ viscosity values calculated in Table 5 are based on the last RRF
value obtained at the highest injection rate in each coreflood, which is
believed to be the closest to the true RRF value. The latter explains
reporting in-situ viscosity for some of the injection rates without
measuring the corresponding RRF at that rate.
The shear thickening behavior is inconsistent with the bulk viscosity
from the rheometer, which shows shear thinning behavior. The observed
shear thickening effect is consistent with other results in the literature.
Seright et al. (2008, 2011) observed a slight-shear thinning behavior of
synthetic-based polymers at low shear rates or low velocities, and a
shear thickening behavior at high shear rates or high velocities. One
should note that the shear-thickening behavior observed in Fig. 6 could
be as a result of polymer stretching under elongational flow considering
the range of flow rates used in this experiment. The flow rates consid­
ered range from 0.2 to 2.0 cc/min, which correspond to 4.8–48 ft/day in
terms of velocity and represent flow near the wellbore region. At around
1 ft/day, which is the estimated fluid flow velocity in the porous media,
a Newtonian or a slight-shear thinning polymer behavior is expected.
4.2.4. Polymer degradation
The polymer degradation was calculated based on Eq. (9) at different
stages of polymer injection as shown in Fig. 7. It can be observed from
the figure that the polymer lost most of its viscosity during the initial PVs
injected. The viscosity loss is mainly caused by polymer retention on the
rock. As a result of this retention (mostly from adsorption), portion of
the polymer will be retained on the rock or mechanically trapped into
the pores and hence, viscosity loss occurs. After the initial few pore
volumes injected, the figure shows that the polymer maintained its
viscosity with less than 20% loss from the initial viscosity. This indicates
that the polymer has a good shear resistance with less degradation
experienced. However, dynamic retention studies is necessary in order
to quantify polymer retention caused by adsorption.
In any conventional coreflood, applying backpressure is necessary in
order to mimic reservoir pressure. Also, the backpressure is required to
prevent evaporation of effluents produced (at the core outlet) at high
temperatures. However, its presence might lead to additional polymer
degradation, which might not be happening in the core and hence,
leading to overestimation of polymer degradation. This was observed
after conducting another experiment at 25 � C with the same core plug
with and without backpressure being applied as shown in Table 4. It can
be inferred that the higher the backpressure applied during polymer
injection, the more effect it has on the polymer solution viscosity. It is
worth mentioning that the details of the second coreflood conducted at
Fig. 7. Effluents viscosity vs. shear rate of the polymer injected in CF-1 at
different flow rates measured at 25 � C.

6
U. Alfazazi et al.
room temperature were not provided so that the discussion will be more
focused on harsh reservoir conditions. One should also note that back­
pressure of 200 psi was used for the rest of the experiments in order to
avoid evaporation of effluents produced at high temperatures.
4.2.5. Injectivity at 90 � C (CF-2 and CF-3)
Two experiments were conducted at high temperature of 90 � C and
backpressure of 200 psi as mentioned earlier to investigate the impact of
temperature on the polymer behavior in porous media. Prior to the
injectivity test, the polymer solutions were pre-filtered and a shear
viscosity of 1.5 cP was measured at a shear rate of 10 s 1. Fig. 8a and b
shows the complete pressure behavior during polymer injection for CF-2
and CF-3, respectively. As expected, the ΔP are less than the previous
injectivity test (CF-1) at the same flow rates mainly due to the temper­
ature effect on solution viscosity. With the increase in temperature, the
viscosity of the aqueous solution decreases (from 3.5 cP to 1.5 cP) and
hence, affects the ΔP during polymer injection. Also, retention of
polymer on rock is expected to be less at high temperatures (Al-Hajri
et al., 2018) and hence, ΔP is less. Similar to CF-1, the ΔP plots show a
successful propagation of the polymer with no sign of plugging. It is also
possible that some oxidative degradation might have contributed to the
lower pressure drops and resistance factors at 90 � C.
4.2.6. RF and RRF analysis (CF-2 and CF-3)
Based on the stabilized ΔP at each flow rate and by applying Eqs. (2)
and (3), RF and RRF were determined. Fig. 9 show the calculated RF at
different flow rates for both experiments. The RF and RRF were found to
be reducing with increasing flow rates. The decreasing trend of RRF with
increasing throughput is consistent with the previous results obtained
for (CF-1) as summarized in Table 5. However, the reduction in RF with
increasing flow rates is showing a different trend compared to the results
observed in CF-1. It is possible that some oxidative degradation might
have contributed to the lower RF at 90 � C. Note that the calculated RF
Fig. 8. a: Differential pressure vs. injected pore volumes during polymer in­
jection of CF-2 conducted at 90 � C. b: Differential pressure vs. injected pore
volumes during polymer injection of CF-3 conducted at 90 � C.
7
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262
Fig. 9. RF and in-situ viscosity vs. interstitial velocity during injectivity of CF-2
and CF-3 at 90 � C.
and RRF were based on the stabilized ΔP readings for preflush, polymer
injection, and postflush at 90 � C as per Eqs. (2) and (3).
It is also observed that both RF and RRF values are less at high
temperature (in CF-2 and CF-3) than at room temperature (in CF-1). This
may be due to the higher retention at room temperature than that at
high temperature as more polymer tends to be retained on the rock
surface. This is because the RRF values obtained qualitatively indicate
permeability reduction factor. RRF was found to be 4.4, 1.72, and 1.80
for CF-1, CF-2, and CF-3, respectively. The slight increase of RRF in CF-3
compared to CF-2 could be due to the permeability of the core sample,
which is slightly less than that of CF-2. Consequently, higher polymer
retention is expected to occur in CF-3 as opposed to CF-2. It is also
possible that some oxidative degradation may have contributed to the
lower RF at 90 � C.
4.2.7. Polymer in-situ viscosity (CF-2 and CF-3)
Similarly, the in-situ viscosity was calculated based on Eq. (5) and
was found to be consistent with the RF. A decreasing trend of in-situ
viscosity was observed with the increase in flow rates for all experi­
ments, which represents a shear thinning behavior (Fig. 9). This
behavior is in contrast with previous injectivity at 25 � C (CF-1) where a
shear thickening behavior was observed. Even after increasing the in­
jection flow rate to 70 ft/day in CF-3 (which is higher than that used in
CF-2), the shear thinning trend still prevails. The shear thinning
behavior at high temperature could be due to the reduction in the
viscoelastic properties of the polymer. Polymer viscoelasticity is
described by Deborah number, which is a ratio of polymer molecule
relaxation time to its resident time in the porous media (Qi et al., 2017).
Hence, with the increase in temperature at 90 � C, Deborah number
decreased, which resulted in a further decrease in the viscoelasticity of
the polymer used.
4.3. Polymer dynamic retention test
Polymer retention was calculated based on material balance by
applying Eq. (10). Normalized polymer concentration (C/Co), which is
calculated by dividing effluent polymer concentration by the original
polymer concentration, is shown in Fig. 10a and b for corefloods CF-1
and CF-2, respectively.
Based on Eq. (10), polymer retentions were calculated as 0.34 and
0.194 mg/g-rock for CF-1 and CF-2, respectively. The retention values
vary with rock permeability, polymer type, and concentration (Zhang
and Seright, 2014). Manichand and Seright (2014) reported that poly­
mer retention values above 0.2 mg/g might affect the rate of oil
displacement and the economics of the polymer flooding process.
Accordingly, CF-1 might be considered as non-economic. In CF-2, the
retention is lower than that of CF-1 due to the temperature effect (Sor­
bie, 2013; Quadri et al., 2015a,b). One might also observe that the
effluent polymer concentration in CF-2 reaches faster to initial polymer
U. Alfazazi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262

has no internal pressure taps.

5. Summary and conclusions

Rheological studies of ATBS-based polymer and its injectivity on

three carbonate rock samples were successfully conducted in this paper.
The main findings of this work can be summarized as follows:

� The polymer showed a good tolerance to salinity with a shear

thickening behavior at well flow rates under temperature condition
of 25 � C.
� The shear thickening behavior disappeared at well flow rate and high
a temperature of 90 � C.
� With increasing flow rate, resistance factor as well as in-situ viscosity
increased at 25 � C and decreased at 90 � C.
� Residual resistance factor at 90 � C was lower than that of 25 � C due
to the decrease in polymer retention as temperature increases.

In the future work, experiments will be conducted to better under­

stand the viscoelastic behavior of the polymer in carbonates under high
temperature and high salinity conditions.

Declaration of competing interest

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

b CRediT authorship contribution statement

Fig. 10. a: Normalized polymer concentration vs. pore volume injected during
polymer injection in CF-1 at 25 � C. b: Normalized polymer concentration vs.
pore volume injected during polymer injection in CF-2 at 90 � C.
concentration compared to that of CF-1, which is not there after almost
25 PVs of injection (Fig. 10a and b). The reason is partially related to the
higher retention of polymer injected in CF-1 (Fig. 10a) as opposed to
that in CF-2 (Fig. 10b). This is due to the temperature effect where CF-1
was conducted at 25 � C while CF-2 at 90 � C. The higher the temperature,
the lower the polymer retention as was observed from the experiments.
In addition, there might be some unexpected dirt, debris, or gel filtering
out on the sand face. As was previously highlighted, the latter could not
have been checked due to the limitation of the experimental setup that
Umar Alfazazi: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - review &
editing, Writing - original draft. Nithin Chacko Thomas: Data curation,
Writing - review & editing. Waleed Alameri: Formal analysis, Writing -
original draft. Emad W. Al-Shalabi: Formal analysis, Writing - original
draft.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Khalifa University of Science and
Technology for funding this research. This publication is based upon
work supported by the Khalifa University of Science and Technology
under Award No. [FSU-2018-22].

NOMENCLATURE

Symbols
ΔP pressure drop, psi
M mobility ratio
k permeability, mD
v interstitial velocity, ft/day

Greek letters
φ porosity
μ phase viscosity, cP
λ phase mobility
1
γ_ effective shear rate, s

Subscripts / Superscripts
o oil
p polymer
w water

8
U. Alfazazi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 192 (2020) 107262

Abbreviations
ACC Accumulator
BPR Backpressure Regulator
CF Coreflood
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
HPAM Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide
HTHS High Temperature High Salinity
Inj Injection
IPV Inaccessible Pore Volume
OBP Overburden Pressure
PV Pore Volume
RF Resistance Factor
RRF Residual Resistance Factor
TDS Total Dissolved Solids

References Jouenne, S., Chakibi, H., Levitt, D., 2018. Polymer stability after successive mechanical-
degradation events. SPE J. 23 (1), 18–33.
Leblanc, T., Braun, O., Thomas, A., Divers, T., Gaillard, N., Favero, C., 2015. Rheological
Alfazazi, U., AlAmeri, W., Hashmet, M.R., 2018. Screening of new HPAM base polymers
properties of stimuli-responsive polymers in solution to improve the salinity and
for applications in high temperature and high salinity carbonate reservoirs. In: Paper
temperature performances of polymer-based chemical enhanced oil recovery
SPE-192805, Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu
technologies. In: Paper SPE 174618, SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery
Dhabi, UAE.
Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Alfazazi, U., AlAmeri, W., Hashmet, M.R., 2019. Experimental investigation of polymer
Levitt, D., Pope, G.A., 2008. Selection and screening of polymers for enhanced-oil
flooding with low-salinity preconditioning of high temperature–high-salinity
recovery. In: Paper SPE 113845, SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
carbonate reservoir. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 9 (2), 1517–1530.
Oklahoma, USA.
Al-Hajri, S., Mahmood, S., Abdulelah, H., Akbari, S., 2018. An overview on polymer
Manichand, R.N., Seright, R., 2014. Field vs. Laboratory polymer-retention values for a
retention in porous media. Energies 11 (10), 2751–2770.
polymer flood in the tambaredjo field. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 17 (3), 314–325.
Al-Shalabi, E.W., 2018. Numerical modeling of biopolymer flooding in high-temperature
Quadri, S.M.R., Jiran, L., Shoaib, M., Hashmet, M.R., AlSumaiti, A.M., Alhassan, S.M.,
high-salinity carbonate cores. In: Paper SPE 28447, SPE Offshore Technology
2015a. Application of biopolymer to improve oil recovery in high temperature high
Conference-Asia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
salinity carbonate reservoirs. In: Paper SPE 177915, Abu Dhabi International
Alfazazi, U., Thomas, N.C., AlAmeri, W., Al-Shalabi, E.W., Shaik, A.R, 2019. An
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Experimental Investigation of Polymer Performance in Harsh Carbonate Reservoir
Quadri, S.M.R., Shoaib, M., AlSumaiti, A.M., Alhassan, S.M., 2015b. Screening of
Conditions. In: SPE Gas and Oil Technology Showcase and Conference, Dubai, UAE.
polymers for EOR in high temperature, high salinity and carbonate reservoir
Paper SPE-198607.
conditions. In: Paper IPTC-18436, International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Algharaib, M., Alajmi, A., Gharbi, R., 2014. Improving polymer flood performance in
Doha, Qatar.
high salinity reservoirs. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 115, 17–23.
Qi, P., Ehrenfried, D.H., Koh, H., Balhoff, M.T., 2017. Reduction of residual oil saturation
Chauveteau, G., Denys, K., Zaitoun, A., 2002. New insight on polymer adsorption under
in sandstone cores by use of viscoelastic polymers. SPE J. 22 (2), 447–458.
high flow rates. In: Paper SPE 75183, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Seright, R., 2016. How much polymer should Be injected during a polymer flood? Paper
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
SPE 179543. In: SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Diab, W.N., Al-Shalabi, E.W., 2019. Recent developments in polymer flooding for
Seright, R.S., Fan, T., Wavrik, K., Balaban, R.D.C., 2011. New insights into polymer
carbonate reservoirs under harsh conditions. In: Paper SPE 29739, SPE Offshore
rheology in porous media. SPE J. 16 (1), 35–42.
Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Seright, R.S., Seheult, J.M., Talashek, T., 2008. Injectivity characteristics of EOR
Doe, P.H., Moradi-Araghi, A., Shaw, J.E., Stahl, G.A., 1987. Development and evaluation
polymers. Paper SPE 115142. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
of EOR polymers suitable for hostile environments Part 1: copolymers of
Denver, Colorado, USA.
vinylpyrrolidone and acrylamide. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 2 (4), 461–467.
Sheng, J., 2010. Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and Practice. Gulf
Dupuis, G., Antignard, S., Giovannetti, B., Gaillard, N., Jouenne, S., Bourdarot, G.,
Professional Publishing.
Zaitoun, A., 2017. A new thermally stable synthetic polymer for harsh conditions of
Sheng, J., 2013. Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Middle East reservoirs. In: Part I. Thermal Stability and Injection in Carbonate Cores.
Sheng, J.J., Leonhardt, B., Azri, N., 2015. Status of polymer-flooding Technology. J. Can.
Paper SPE 188479, Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference,
Petrol. Technol. 54 (2), 116–126.
Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Silva, I.G., De Melo, M.A., Luvizotto, J.M., Lucas, E.F., 2007. Polymer flooding: a
Farajzadeh, R., Bedrikovetsky, P., Lotfollahi, M., Lake, L.W., 2016. Simultaneous
sustainable enhanced oil recovery in the current scenario. In: Paper SPE 107727,
sorption and mechanical entrapment during polymer flow through porous media.
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires,
Water Resour. Res. 52 (3), 2279–2298.
Argentina.
Gaillard, N., Giovannetti, B., Favero, C., Caritey, J.P., Dupuis, G., Zaitoun, A., 2014. New
Skauge, A., Zamani, N., Gausdal, J.J., Shaker, S.B., Al-Shakry, B., Skauge, T., 2018.
water soluble anionic NVP acrylamide terpolymers for use in harsh EOR conditions.
Polymer flow in porous media: relevance to enhanced oil recovery. Colloids and
In: Paper SPE 169108, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
Interfaces 2 (3), 1–27.
USA.
Sorbie, K.S., 2013. Polymer-Improved Oil Recovery. Springer Science and Business
Gaillard, N., Giovannetti, B., Leblanc, T., Thomas, A., Braun, O., Favero, C., 2015.
Media.
Selection of customized polymers to enhance oil recovery from high temperature
Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N., 1987. The role of adsorption in polymer propagation through
reservoirs. In: Paper SPE 177073, SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
reservoir rocks. In: Paper SPE 16274, SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Engineering Conference, Quito, Ecuador.
Chemistry, San Antonio, Texas.
Han, M., Zhou, X., Fuseni, A.B., Al-Zahrani, B.H., AlSofi, A.M., 2012. Laboratory
Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N., 1988. Two-phase flow through porous media: effect of an
investigation of the injectivity of sulfonated polyacrylamide solutions into carbonate
adsorbed polymer layer. In: Paper SPE 18085, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
reservoir rocks. In: Paper SPE 155390, SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West
Exhibition, Houston, Texas.
Asia, Muscat, Oman.
Zaitoun, A., Makakou, P., Blin, N., Al-Maamari, R.S., Al-Hashmi, A.A.R., Abdel-Goad, M.,
Hashmet, M.R., Onur, M., Tan, I.M., 2014. Empirical correlations for viscosity of
2012. Shear stability of EOR polymers. SPE J. 17 (2), 335–339.
polyacrylamide solutions with the effects of temperature and shear rate. II.
Zhang, G., Seright, R., 2014. Effect of concentration on HPAM retention in porous media.
J. Dispersion Sci. Technol. 35 (12), 1685–1690.
SPE J. 19 (3), 373–380.
Hashmet, M.R., AlSumaiti, A.M., Qaiser, Y., AlAmeri, S.W., 2017. Laboratory
Zhao, J., Fan, H., You, Q., Jia, Y., 2017. Distribution and presence of polymers in porous
investigation and simulation modeling of polymer flooding in high-temperature,
media. Energies 10 (12), 2118–2131.
high-salinity carbonate reservoirs. Energy Fuels 31 (12), 13454–13465.