SPE-189255-MS

How to Select Polymer Molecular Weight and Concentration to Avoid

Blocking in Polymer Flooding?

Hu Guo, China University of Petroluem-Beijing

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Symposium: Production Enhancement and Cost Optimisation held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7-8 November 2017.

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
Recently, there are increasing interest on polymer flooding due to its high enhanced oil recovery (10%-
20% OOIP in field tests in Daqing) and much lower cost compared to surfactant-polymer (SP) flooding and
alkali-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding. How to select polymer molecular weight (Mw) and concentration
to improve mobility ratio and avoid blocking in less permeability strata is important but difficult issue.
Maximum allowable polymer Mw and concentration for given permeabilities by using different techniques
is studied. Maximum allowable polymer Mw and concentration for a given permeability in polymer
flooding varies according to different methods. Even in Daqing Oilfield, where the largest polymer flooding
industrial application in the world has been carried out since 1996, and the annual oil production from
polymer flooding is more than 10 million tons, no agreement on the maximum allowable polymer Mw and
concentration exists. Different criteria of resistance factors (Fr) and residual resistance factor (Frr) used
in China are reviewed and compared. These criteria are generally based core flow tests with less or no
consideration on heterogeneity and oil saturation effect. Recent studies shows that Frr is misleading and
incorrect because of insufficient injection volumes. Too high viscosity and molecular may block low/less
permeability layer. Polymer molecular is seen as a sphere and the average diameter ratio to average pore-
throat should be higher than 5 or 10 to avoid blocking. Though the pore- throat of a core can be got from
mercury intrusion method, the average diameter of hydrolyzed polymer (HPAM) is subjected to change
with different method, not to say the scattered range of Mw. Fr and Frr was frequently used in determining
whether a certain Mw or concentration polymer is blocked in a certain permeability. However, the critical
values varies. Another theory connects the polymer Mw and concentration with allowable flow rate in field
test.

Introduction
Polymer flooding is very promising chemical enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology. Up to present, there
has been at least more than 865 polymer flooding projects in the world(Saleh et al. 2016). Although foam
flooding is also very attractive, no successful field tests or application were reported yet. Polymer flooding
was adopted commercially in Daqing oilfield in 1996 (Demin et al. 2008; Demin et al. 2009; Wang et al.
2008a) and in Shengli in 1997. The total polymer flooding production in Daqing accounts for more than
2 SPE-189255-MS

25% total oil production recently. Incremental oil recovery by polymer flooding in actual field tests can
be as high as 16%(Sheng et al. 2016). Compared with SP flooding and ASP flooding, the comprehensive
cost of polymer flooding is much lower(Hu et al. 2017). In low oil price era, polymer flooding may be
a good choice for enhanced oil recovery(Sieberer et al. 2017; Luftenegger et al. 2016; Sheng et al, 2016;
AlSofi and Blunt 2014). The main mechanism of polymer flooding is mobility control due to increased
viscosity of displacing phase which results in sweep efficiency increase(Gogarty 1967). Mobility effect
on sweep efficiency can be seen in Figure 1. Polymer can also increase displacement efficiency due to
its viscoelasticity effect (Clarke et al. 2016; Haasterecht 2014; Demin et al. 2011; Deming et al. 2010;
Demin et al. 2007; Koh et al. 2016), although this conclusion is also questioned(Seright 2017). Seright
(2017) believed that other unclear mechanism like wettability change may account for the displacement
efficiency inprovement rather than viscoelasticity. Recent study on polymer flooding focuses on oxygen
effect(Seright 2017; Jouenne et al. 2017; Wan and Seright 2017; Seright et al. 2015), injectivity(Seright
2017; Lotfollahi et al. 2016; Ma and Mcclure 2016; Luftenegger et al. 2016; Clemens et al. 2016; Zechner
et al. 2015; Choudhuri et al. 2015; Kazemi et al. 2016; Li and Delshad 2014; Zhang and Seright 2014; Field
2014) and economics(AlSofi and Blunt 2014; Saleh et al. 2014; Alkhatib et al. 2015; Buciak et al. 2015;
Choudhuri et al. 2015; Sheng et al. 2016; Xie et al. 2016; Chiotoroiu et al. 2017). Based on the belief that
viscoelasticity contributes to displacement efficiency(Seright 2017; Guo et al. 2017; Andrew Clarke et al.
2016; Qi et al. 2016), high concentration polymer was injected in field tests(Demin et al 2011; Deming et al.
2010) in Daqing and other places(Seright 2017; Sheng et al. 2016), however, such high viscosity together
with the polymer retention caused permeability reduction can cause serious injectivity problem and other
difficulty like produced fluid handling(Zhihua et al. 2016). Although micro fractures may help the viscous
polymer flow in strata(Seright 2017), the fracture growth depends on the geomechanical properties of the
reservoir sand(Zechner et al. 2015; Ma and Mcclure 2016). What is more important, too large polymer
molecular weight (Mw) and concentration may block the less permeability strata. Hence, many believes that
the actual size of the polymer molecules, as well as the pore and pore throat size, will determine whether the
polymer can flow through the rock matrix or not (Jolma et al. 2017). Figure 2 reflects polymer molecular
characteristics in porous media and effect on rock. Lessons learned from several chemical flooding field
tests in Daqing and Xinjiang(Nie et al. 2014) in China indicates that too high Mw and concentration do
seriously affect the development effect. A detailed introduction and discussion on the field tests in Xinjiang
and Daqing will be presented in the near future. Relative poor effect and serious pump and well casing
damage in high concentration high polymer flooding field tests in Daqing was not reported but popular,
that is possibly why these field tests was not carried forward although quite high incremental recovery(as
high as 20% OOIP) (Demin, Gang, and Huifen 2011) were reported. A good recent review (Seright 2017)
discussed how much polymer should be injected to control mobility to get best technical effect, however,
no issue about polymer blocking strata is discussed when suggesting most viscous polymer injection. How
to select polymer Mw and concentration to avoid blocking the less permeability strata is very important to
polymer flooding. Up to present, no satisfactory or well accepted theory/method on this issue are available.
In this paper, different methods used to screen polymer Mw and concentration are reviewed and compared,
and some suggestions are given in the end.
SPE-189255-MS 3

Figure 1—Favorable mobility ratio in water flooding (Seright 2017)

Figure 2—Deep-bed filtration and external-cake formation of polymer junk around the wellbore(Lotfollahi et al. 2016).

Filter test
A rule of thumb regarding interactions between pore throat diameter and particle size (suspended solids),
has been proposed by van Oort et al (van Oort et al. 1993). This rule can be called "1/3: 1/7 rule" (van Oort
et al. 1993). This rule can be explained as follows (Jolma et al. 2017). If particle size is larger than 1/3 of the
pore diameter, this will lead to formation of an external filter cake or plugging behavior. If particle size is
smaller than 1/3 - but larger than 1/7 - of the pore diameter, the particles will invade the formation, but gets
trapped, and an internal filter cake is formed. This can be viewed as partly plugging behavior. If particle
4 SPE-189255-MS

size is smaller than 1/7 of the pore diameter, then the particles will flow easily through the formation. The
plugging mechanisms schematic diagram is available in reference (Jolma et al. 2017). Perhaps inspired by
the "1/3:1/7"rule, one popular theory with respect to plugging mechanism between polymer molecular with
pore throat in China is often called Bridge Theory. This theory is brought forward during observing linked
polymer coils(LPC) in linked polymer solution (LPS) by membrane filtration tests (Dong et al. 2002). The
basic mechanism can be seen in Figure 3 (Dong et al. 2002). The membrane filtration schematic diagram
is shown in Figure 4 (Yiqiang et al. 2014). This membrane filtration tests method evolves from the Screen
Factor (SF) test (Foshee et al. 1977). According to the membrane filtration test, when lots of LPC radius r is
larger than membrane micro pore radius R, LPC cannot pass through membrane and form filter cake on the
surface (Dong et al. 2002). When considerable LPC radius r larger than 0.46R but smaller than R, one or
two LPC possibly goes through the membrane micro pore without forming "bridge". When the majority of
LPC radius r is not larger than 0.46R, three or more than three LPC can form stable "bridge" in micro pore
in membrane, forming considerable strength plugging(Dong et al. 2002). Figure 5 is the filtration volume
vs filtration time between HPAM and LPC through 1.2p,m membrane under pressure of 2kPa (Dong et
al. 2002). HPAM (curve a in Figure 5) concentration is 50ppm prepared by 2000ppm NaCl brine. LPS is
made from the same type polymer with concentration 200ppm with brine 2000ppm diluted by 2000 times.
HPAM ratio to AlCit in LPS is 20:1. From Figure 5, it is obvious HPAM and LPS behaves quite differently
even HPAM concentration is 500 time larger than LPS (Dong et al. 2002). Molecular morphology (seen in
Figure 2)and size difference between HPAM and LPS accounts for this (Dong et al. 2002). HPAM molecular
coil can easily stretch, while the rigid sphere shape LPC cannot stretch easily but form stable "bridge" in
membrane. By changing the membrane radius, LPC sizes can be screened out, as seen in Figure 6 (Dong et
al. 2002). The maximum size of LPC is 1.38p,m according to Figure 6. DLS and SEM are used to measure
the accurate LPC size range. DLS result of LPC (Dong et al. 2002) and polymer coil size (MO4000) are
shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 (Dong et al. 2002). The mean LPC size by DLS and SEM is 492nm and
450nm respectively. Considering the LPC shrinking during sample drying process, these two methods are
in good agreement. This Bridge Theory is well accepted by chemical flooding in China, and many use the
following equation to judge the critical blocking pore size of formation to polymer and LPS.

equation 1(a)

equation 1(b)

Where r is the LPC radius, and R is the membrane radius.

Figure 3—Plugging mechanism of nuclepore membrane filtration(Dong et al. 2002):the

green(gray) part is the micro pore with radius R, the blue(dark) part is the LPC in LPS with radius r
SPE-189255-MS 5

Figure 4—Membrane filtration test device (Yiqiang et al. 2014)

Figure 5—Filtration volume versus filtration time curve (Dong et al. 2002) a) HP AM b)LPC

Figure 6—Filtration volume versus filtration time curve through nuclepore membrane
with different apertures (Dong et al. 2002) a)0.4 μm;b)1.2 μm;c)2.0 μm;d)3.0 μm
6 SPE-189255-MS

Figure 7—Size distribution by DLS a) DLS (Dong et al. 2002) b) polymer (Zhu et al. 2006)

Figure 8—SEM photograph of LPC (Dong et al. 2002) polymer concentration: 200ppm, NaCl 2000ppm,HPAM :AlCit=20:1

Size by DLS
According to Bridge Theory, if the average size of LPC or polymer can be fixed, then the critical blocking
size of pores can be fixed. However, actual pore distribution is quite different from membrane pores, which
are within small range. Figure 9 (Lotfollahi et al. 2016) reflects the actual pore size distribution. To simplify,
average or mean pore size is used. Actual pore distribution in cores or reservoir strata can be tested by
SPE-189255-MS 7

mercury intrusion. Since soft chain-like polymer molecular configuration is different from rigid sphere
like LPC, determination of polymer molecular size is not easy. Figure 10 (Lu et al. 2009) is SEM of low
concentration polymer (HPAM) solution with different brine salinity. HPAM SEM in low permeability
chalk (Jolma et al. 2017) is also presented in Figure10. The polymer shape is much different from that in
Figure 8 (Dong et al. 2002). For partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM), it does not behaves like
a sphere, thus a equivalent hydraulic size of the polymer coil is tested by DLS or membrane filter. More
importantly, polymer molecules often assemble, thus polymer molecular cluster or coils dimension is tested.
Table 1 (Liao et al. 2014) gives different polymer molecular weight (Mw) equivalent hydraulic radius (Dh)
by DLS and its blocking pore-throat diameter. The polymer concentration is not given. Based on Table 1, it
is concluded that the hydraulic size of polymer is too small to block reservoir formation in principle since
most reservoir pore-throat diameter is larger than 1.2p,m except for ultra-low permeability strata. However,
the polymer size in brine tested by DLS is only accurate at low polymer concentration, usually less than
200ppm. Polymer molecular coils size with high concentration such as 1000ppm can only be estimated by
extrapolation method. Table 2 (Lu 2016) and Table 3 (Lu 2016) gives data of polymer Dh in different brine
salinity and different polymer concentration respectively. Mw in Table 2 and Table 3 is 2500* 104 Daltons.
The produced water in Table 3 salinity is 4012ppm, and Na+ concentration is 1304ppm, with divalent cations
(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 40 ppm. Figure 11 (Lu 2016) is based on Table 2 and Table 3. From the well fit equation
in Figure 11, the polymer Dh can be calculated. For instance, when polymer concentration is 1000ppm,
polymer Dh in deionized water and produced water is 5069 nm and 29832nm respectively. Obviously, this
dimensions are too large to reflect actual condition. Note that the values given in Table 1 is much lower than
that in Table 2 and Table 3. Is polymer Dh tested by DLS not accurate even in low polymer concentration,
or it cannot be extrapolated to high polymer concentration? This is worth further investigation.

Figure 9—Polymer-molecule size and rock-pore size distributions(for polymer molecules

larger than rock- pore size, polymer can be trapped at the pore throat) (Lotfollahi et al. 2016).
8 SPE-189255-MS

Figure 10—SEM photograph of HPAM a) HPAM concentration : 200ppm, NaCl 700ppm;b)

HPAM concentration : 200ppm, NaCl 400ppm(Lu et al. 2009) c) HPAM in chalk HPAM
C2 concentration,1441ppm, Mw 40×104,chalk permeability 2.40mD (Jolma et al. 2017)

Figure 11—Polymer cluster hydraulic size vs polymer concentration (Lu 2016)

SPE-189255-MS 9

Table 1—Average polymer hydraulic radius (Dh) with blocking pore-throat diameter (Liao et al. 2014)

Table 2—The mean Dh with different NaCl concentrations (Lu 2016) (Mw = 2500×104, CP = 200 mg•L-1)

Table 3—Mean Dh with different polymer concentration (Lu 2016) (Mw = 2500×104)

Filter membrane method

Due to the limitation of DLS testing high concentration polymer Dh, to determine the effective size of
flowing polymer units, Nuclepore filter paper of different sizes was used (Gogarty 1967). The device is
shown in Figure 4 (Yiqiang et al. 2014). This filter membrane method similar to typical filtration test (Levitt
and Pope 2008), but with different pressure, gas, and membrane radius. Effective size of the polymer flow
unit was inferred from Nuclepore filter tests(Gogarty 1967). Figure 12 shows only a slight reduction in
concentration until the filter size decreases below about 2 microns, then the concentration decreases rapidly
(Gogarty 1967). Based on test results, the majority of the flowing polymer units appear to be between 0.5
and 1.5 microns, while actual polymer dimensions may be less than 0.5 microns (Gogarty 1967). Note the
polymer concentration in Figure 12 is 400ppm in distilled water or 600ppm brine with 40-60 calcium and
magnesium. Another filter test shows that polymer coils sizes are between 0.6-0.8 μm(Smith 1970). For
perspective, the diameter of an EOR HPAM in a 3% NaCl brine is typically 0.5-0.8 μm (Sorbie 1991). In
contrast, empirical gyration radius correlation Rg = Mwa is also used to calculate polymer size (Hatzignatiou
et al. 2016). According to the study, the polymer Rg is between 0.056-0.558, while concentration varies
from 10000ppm to 500ppm.
10 SPE-189255-MS

Figure 12—Polymer removal with different size nuclepore filters (Gogarty 1967)

Recently, polymer molecule coils dimensions at practical concentrations is tested to study polymer
flowing in deep reservoir and polymer coil in brine is named as the polymer hydrodynamic characteristic
size (HCS) (Yan 2015; Yiqiang et al. 2014). Different from Bridge theory, the blocking ratio of membrane
radius to hydrodynamic characteristic size (HCS) is considered one. Table 3 to Table 6 is their test results.
The polymer used in these tests are the same product from the same company, while brine to prepare polymer
solution is a little different, as can be seen in Table 7. From these data, it is obvious that the HCS varied.
Data in Table 3 (Yiqiang et al. 2014) and Table 4 (Yiqiang et al. 2014) is smaller than that in Table 7 (Yan
2015), even if the brine difference is taken into consideration. Note that Brine A and Brine B are simulated
fresh water and produced water in Daqing Oilfield. Although this method is used in many oilfields in China,
it are not well accepted criteria in polymer flooding. First, this tilter membrane method cannot distinguish
micro gels in polymer solution from polymer molecular clusters. In other works, the test results are either
micro polymer gels or polymer molecular clusters or both. Traditionally, typical filtration test have been
used to ensure proper hydration of polymers (Levitt and Pope 2008). Membrane filter test was developed to
access plugging by polymer debris(Seright et al. 2009). Second, it is worth noting that the data from filter
test is not inconsistent with each other and other methods like DLS and SEM. The quality of membrane also
significantly affect the test. Although DLS and SEM have their own limitations, data from these two ways
shows some basic trend that the size of polymer molecular clews grow as polymer Mw and concentration
increases. In contrast, HCS of polymers (Sorbie 1991; Gogarty 1967; Smith 1970) with low Mw and low
concentration seems no different to that(Yan 2015; Yiqiang et al. 2014) of high Mw and high concentration
in Table 3 to Table 6. Note these polymer viscosity differs significantly. More interesting is the blocking
relationship between polymer coils size with rock pore size. Considering the data in Table 3 to Table 6,
if judged by Bridge Theory, the critical mean pore-throat to be blocked by polymer is 4.35 times (Liao
et al. 2014) Dh or HCS. 500ppm polymer with 15millon Daltons prepared by distilled water can block
permeability 337mDand 204 mD, whose average pore-throat is reported 2.94 μm and 2.43 μm respectively
(Yiqiang et al. 2014). However, such polymer seems impossible to block 337 mD as well as 204 mD. In
reference (Yiqiang et al. 2014), it was proposed that good matching corresponded to the pore throat radius
is larger than 10 times the hydrodynamic characteristic size of polymer, and bad matching corresponded to
the pore throat radius smaller than 10 times the hydrodynamic characteristic size of polymer. Another well
accepted criteria in China is that the radius of the median pore (R50) to polymer molecule size should be
higher than 5 for polymer flowing through porous media to avoid resulting in blocking (Yang 2007). Two
SPE-189255-MS 11

matching relationship between polymer Mw and reservoir permeability in Dagang and Daqing are given
in Table 8 and Table 9 (Yang 2007). Note there are different matching maps between polymer Mw and
reservoir permeability. Third, this method cannot reflected the basic mechanism that polymer molecular
interact with rock surface or grains. For instance, polymer molecular would deform as suffered pressure
increases to certain value. Present membrane method uses a given constant pressure drop to find a balance
between adequate flow velocity and polymer molecular form deformation. More importantly, the polymer
retention effect (Manichand and Seright 2014; Wan and Seright 2017; Seright 2017; Zhang and Seright
2014; Zhang and Seright 2015) on flow are not considered. Although the blocking ratio between polymer
coil ratio to pore throat radius vary and remains to be fixed, the improved membrane filter provides a simple
way to evaluate the hydrodynamic characteristic size, which is not available by DLS and SEM.

Table 3—The HCS with Brine A (Yiqiang et a. 2014) Unit: μm

Table 4—The HCS with Brine B (Yiqiang et a. 2014) Unit: μm

Table 5—The HCS with Distilled Water Yan 2015)

12 SPE-189255-MS

Table 6—The HCS with Produced Water (Yan 2015)

Table 7—Brine used two separate tests (Yiqiang et al. 2014; Yan 2015)

Table 8—HPAM Mw for different permeability in Dagang oilfield (Yang 2007)

Table 9—Match between HPAM Mw and core permeabiity in Daqing oilfield (Yang 2007)

Flow test
It is worth noting that filter test provides good method to understand the size of polymer coil, however, it has
some limitation in evaluation plugging. One can easily learn from the fact that many people could block the
door even a single person diameter is much smaller than the door width. Considering the polymer retention
in porous media(Wan and Seright 2017),flow test is better choice to access polymer injectivity. The most
frequently used two parameters in flow test are resistance factor (Fr) and residual resistance factor (Frr)
(Seright 2017a). Although Fr and Frr are frequently tested without the right way, for instance, insufficient
PV injection, and artifact (Seright et al. 2011), it is stilled widely used in polymer flooding study. In testing
Fr and Frr, only 4-5PV brine was injected during tests (Lu 2016), which is far from the necessary volume.
Figure 13 (Seright 2017) is data of Frr vs PV of brine injected. Hence, to get the true value of Frr, at least
more than 100 brine should be injected. However, this was not met in most previously tests. In China, both
SPE-189255-MS 13

core plugs from actual reservoir and artificial cores are used in flow test. Typical Fr and Frr results given by
one researcher are in Table 10(Lu 2016). Polymer used in Table 10 is HPAM produced by Daqing Lianhua.
Polymer concentration is 1000pm, prepared by produced water in Daqing oilfield. The actual core is core
from Daqing strata, while artificial core means epoxy resin cemented sand. Due to the non-availability and
high cost of reservoir cores, most chemical flooding evaluation tests use artificial core in China. Although
the permeability of artificial cores can be designed the same as actual target core, the pore structure are not
the same actually, which can be well reflected in capillary pressure curve comparison (Lu 2016). The flow
test pressure of artificial cores are earlier to get stabilized than actual reservoir cores. The advantages of
artificial cores include reproducibility, low cost, and large dimension. The largest model is 80cm*80cm*4.5
cm. With larger press machine, the dimension can be larger. Figure 14 are pictures of common artificial
cores used in China. In the flow test in Table 10, cores were first saturated produced water and then 4-5 PV
polymer was injected until a constant pressure drop. Then 4-5PV brine was injected (Lu 2016). Polymer
was prepared with Daqing produced water. As introduced before, the Frr is overestimated.

Figure 13—Residual resistance factor vs PV of brine injected(Seright 2017)

Table 10—Typical HPAM Fr and Frr (Lu 2016)

14 SPE-189255-MS

Figure 14—Artifical cores used in chemical EOR in China

Although Fr and Frr has been considered basic property of polymer in porous media, up to present, no
criteria on adequate Fr and Frr are well accepted. One requirement of polymer for improved oil recovery
in China is that Fr should be between 5-15, Frr between 1.5-5(Liao et al. 2014). Since polymer retention
is significantly affected by polymer concentration (Zhang and Seright 2014) and Mw, as well as pore
permeability, seen in Figure 15 (Seright 2017), whether retention caused Frr should be regarded as blocking
criteria is worth further study. What is more, the Fr and Frr depends on permeability (Seright et al. 2011),
thus the criteria, if valid, need to be specific. Hence, other researches try to set up matching map between
polymers and a given permeability. Some such maps are available in reference(Yiqiang et al. 2014). One
study (Liu et al. 2010)suggested 8 million Mw polymer with concentration of 700 ppm for low permeability
10-50 mD. Figure 16-18 are some reported maximum polymer Mw vs permeability in Daqing. Figure 16
(Dongmei et al. 2009) is reported based on flow test, while detailed information like polymer concentration
on blocking is not available. Maximum polymer Mw for a given permeability in Figure 17 is inconsistence
with Figure 16. In Figure 17, a detailed polymer plugging map chart to different permeability are given. The
detailed definition of blocking and good injectivity are not available. Since polymer retention is affected
by concentration(Zhang and Seright 2014), polymer concentration in addition to Mw should be considered
during plugging feature study. In Figure 18, concentration is also given. Figure 19 (Lu 2016)and Figure
20(Lu 2016) are based on core flow test without oil. According to the reference(Lu 2016), no significant
pressure increase is judged as good injectivity, and the critical permeability was given on this criteria. This
criteria is similar the the reference (Jolma et al. 2017), in whose tests the differential pressure remained at
a stable level even after injection of up to 50 pore volumes of polymer solution, with a mobility reduction
factor at about 2 (Jolma et al. 2017). It is noted that different PV polymer was injected in their tests. Figure
21(Wang et al. 2016) is one match chart used in Xinjiang oilfield in west China. It is based on the ratio
(about 10) between polymer coil size to pore radius as well as polymer flow test in artificial core. During
flow test, the polymer flow rate was compared with actual polymer flooding velocity in previous polymer
flooding activity(Liu et al. 2016). In reference (Liu et al. 2016), r50/polymer size =6.6 was chosen as criteria
to judge blocking or not. For practical use, the match chart was related with reservoir strata. Based on the
understanding of polymer flow in porous media, however, the concentration and Mw in Figure 21 are likely
to cause plugging.
SPE-189255-MS 15

Figure 15—Residual resistance factor vs. permeability (Seright 2017)

Figure 16—Maximum allowable Mw for permeability in Daqing (Dongmei et al. 2009)

Figure 17—Maximum allowable Mw for permeability in Daqing

16 SPE-189255-MS

Figure 18—Matching chart to selecet polymer in Daqing

Figure 19—Polymer Mw vs maximum permeability curve(Lu 2016) (Cp=1000ppm)

Figure 20—Polymer Mw vs maximum permeability curve(Lu 2016)

SPE-189255-MS 17

Figure 21—Match chart to select polymer in Xinjiang oilfield(Wang et al. 2016)

Researchers outside China also try to make matching chart between polymers and pore structure.
Similarly to Bridge Theory mentioned above, relationship between particle size between pore diameter
are proposed (Jolma et al. 2017). In evaluating different polymer injectivity and plugging feature in low
permeability chalk (2mD), flow tests are adopted by checking mobility reduction factor, also known as Fr, as
injection PV. Note that all the polymers in this study has been filtered by 0.1 μm VCTP Millipore under high
pressure (650bar), while the average pore size of the low permeability chalk is 0.20 μm (Jolma et al. 2017)
Plugging is indicated by huge increasing Fr at small injected polymer PV (5-10PV) compared with other
no plugging polymer, as seen in Figure 22 (Jolma et al. 2017). In grey is the injection rate. The plugging
caused by polymer A in Figure 22 was verified by gel-like filter cake formation at the core plug inlet, while
for polymer C1 and C2, no filter cake was detected at the core inlet. There was a slight increase over time
concerning polymer C1 and C2 that indicated formation of an internal filter cake. The effluent samples
viscosity compared to injection polymer solution also indicates that Polymer A caused serious plugging
since the effluent viscosity was the same as brine, much lower than the injected polymer solution viscosity.
While for Polymer C1 and C2, the effluent brine viscosity is slightly lower than injected polymer solution
viscosity at 1PV and the same as initial viscosity at 10 PV, but significantly higher than brine viscosity. The
viscosity of initial polymer solution and effluent polymer solution is given in Table 11. These were verified
in injectable polymer flow test, as can be seen in Figure 23 (Jolma et al. 2017). Both polymer Fr stabilized
around a mobility reduction factor at about 2 and not affected by injection rate steps. The effluent viscosity is
the same to initial viscosity of polymer solution injected, as is shown in Table 11. These flow tests provides
good may to access polymer injectivity. SEM of polymer C2 in rock is shown in Figure 10. Filter test with
different filter size well reflects the polymer plugging feature (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016). In the filter tests,
filtration rate is regarded as plugging and zero filtration rate indicates fully plugging, as is shown in Table
12 (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016). Experiments data shows that it is possible to reproduce the filter test results by
changing pore-to-particle ratio to 1.3 and 2.9 (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016). Table 13 (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016)
is summary of these tests. Plugging happens when pore-to-particle size < 1.3 and no-plugging happens pore-
to-particle size > 2.9, between 1.3 and 2.9, partial plugging. The matching between critical pore size and
Mw is well correlated in Figure24 (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016). Figure 25 (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016) shows
polymer molecules coil plugging schematic in cores. Comparing Figure24 with other matching tables like
Table 10 and other figures like Figure 19 reviewed above, the Mw given in Figure24 is much lower and
prudent. According to their test, different Mw polymers with different concentration has the same viscosity
10 cP, which seems to indicate that polymer size is more determined by Mw rather than viscosity.
18 SPE-189255-MS

Figure 22—Mobility reduction in the cores as a function of injected

PV (Jolma et al. 2017) a) serious plugging; b) partlial plugging

Table 11—Effluent brine viscosity (Jolma et al. 2017)

Figure 23—Mobility reduction as a function of injected pore volume (Jolma et al. 2017)
SPE-189255-MS 19

Table 12—Filterability test results for the respective filter-size/polymer combinations. F: filtered
polymer resulting in no plugging. PF : gradual partially filtered polymer resulting in a reduced
filtration rate versus time. B : filter blocked resulting in zero filtration rate (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016).

Table 13—Matching of filtration matrix test results by defining plugging criteria (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016).

Figure 24—Critical pore size for plugging versus molecular weight of polymer (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016)
20 SPE-189255-MS

Figure 25—Plugging schematic (Hatzignatiou et al. 2016) Left: pluuging, central: partial plugging, right: no plugging

Improved filter test

A improved test of various filter and filter combinations were used to measure plugging tendency toward
throughput by Seright et al (2009). Different from other filter tests or injectivity test using injection PV as
the variables, throughput defined as volume of fluid per flow area is used in laboratory tests (Seright et al.
2009). The throughput is more representative of field operations than PV (Seright et al. 2009). Resistance
factor vs throughput of the same core at different section well reflects the plugging feature of polymer. Figure
26 (Seright et al 2009) is Fr for the three Berea core section as a function of xanthan solution throughput.
The Fr in the second core and third core has no big difference, which indicates no in depth plugging
within the core. Because the tests using cores are relative expensive and time-consuming, a filter test using
filters (Millipore AP10TM pad of a 10 μm polycarbonate membrane) was developed. The new filter test Fr
multiplied by a factor of 10 fairly well matches the core filter test result, as is shown in Figure 27 (Seright et
al. 2009). Filterability using Millipore AP10 for various polymers shows that for non-plugging polymers,
throughput values exceeds 1000cm3/cm2. Figure 28 and Figure 29 (Seright et al. 2009) shows results of 17
filter tests results which wells explains polymer plugging behaviors in cores. 12 of 17 tests in Figure 28 and
Figure 29 (Seright et al. 2009) exhibited filter ratios near unity are incapable of distinguishing the polymer
performances. In these figures, polymer begins with X and P means xanthan and HPAM type polymer
respectively. According to this research, plugging is not only determined by polymer type and Mw, but also
significantly affected by injected polymer volume. For instance, for polymer 0.1% X US K K36 xanthan
and 0.1% P FR S 38 HPAM, excellent filterability was exhibited until throughout exceeds 2000cm3/cm2. In
contrast, X CH SH F xanthan and X CH H K5 HPAM shows poor filterability since significantly plugging
happens with less than 100 cm3/cm2. The filter tests also shows that viscosity or concentration does not
determine filterability for xanthan polymer, since X US K K36 xanthan shows virtually the same filterability
for 31cP, 0.1% polymer as 165 cP, 0.25% polymer in Figure 29. Figure 28 and Figure 29 provides good
way to evaluate polymer plugging feature. Figure 30 is based on data in reference (Seright et al 2009). In
Figure 30, A and B indicates good filterability, D poor filterability, and C average filterability. No plugging
happens for A, while plugging happens for D. As for B, only when very large polymer solution is injected,
risk of plugging happens. As for C, partial plugging may occur. Further study on the critical throughput
value like 100 and 1000 in Figure 30 is advised.
SPE-189255-MS 21

Figure 26—Polymer resistance vs throughout in three sections (Seright et al 2009)

Figure 27—Plugging trends for xanthan in Berea core vs. in filters (Seright et al, 2009)

Figure 28—Filter results for various polymers in seawater (Seright et al,2009)

22 SPE-189255-MS

Figure 29—Filter results for various polymers in brine with 2.52% TDS (Seright et al,2009)

Figure 30—Schematic curve to access plugging

Flood test
The above mentioned methods to access polymer injectivity and plugging property are all based on tests
without presence of oil. Since polymer retention without presence of oil was quite different from that in
presence of oil(Zhang and Seright 2014; Wan and Seright 2017; Manichand et al. 2013), core flood test is
necessary to access polymer injectivity. At present, no attempt has been made to test Fr and Frr in presence
of oil. Up to present, many use polymer flood tests to select the proper polymer. It is assumed that if the
polymer is incompatible to the pore-structure, the displacement efficiency would not be high. Thus, polymer
flood tests with highest incremental oil recovery should be selected. Two factors must be considered when
choosing polymer Mw(Wang et al. 2008a). First, polymer with the highest Mw practical to minimize the
polymer volume(Wang et al. 2008a). Second, the polymer Mw and size must be small enough so that the
polymer can propagate effectively all permeabilities and layers of interest (Seright et al. 2011). On the basis
of laboratory results and practical experience at Daqing, the medium polymer Mw (12-16 million Daltons)
is applicable for strata with average permeability greater than 100mD and net pay greater than 1m. The
higher polymer Mw (17-25 million Daltons) is appropriate for strata with average permeability greater than
400mD (Wang et al. 2008a). Although the core flood test provides cautious way to select polymer Mw
and viscosity, it cannot distinguish the effect of polymer mobility effect on recovery or incremental oil
recovery to blocking effect. What is more, plugging property of polymer in presence of oil is worth further
SPE-189255-MS 23

study. It is worth mentioning that high concentration and high polymer Mw may seriously block the less
or low permeability strata, as verified by field tests in Daqing (Demin et al. 2011)and Xinjiang(Wang et
al. 2016). A SP flooding field test in Xinjiang shows that the development effect turns to better and better
when polymer Mw and concentration decreased(Wang et al. 2016; Nie et al. 2014). Although there are some
positive reports about high concentration field tests in Daqing, the problems like injectivity, broken casing
and produced fluid handling are not reported. No further report about high concentration polymer field tests
implies the caution. At least one ASP flooding field tests (Hu et al. 2017)using too high polymer Mw and
concentration incompatible to reservoir strata defies the idea that viscoelasticity significantly contributes to
the displacement efficiency and thus recovery.

Table 14—Effectiveness for different Mw (Wang et al. 2008a)

Conclusions
A classic rule of"1/3: 1/7 rule" is frequently used in polymer plugging studies. If particle size is larger than
1/3 of the pore diameter, this will lead to formation of an external filter cake or plugging behavior. If particle
size is smaller than 1/7 of the pore diameter, then the particles will flow easily through the formation.
According to Bridge Theory based on LPC filter tests, when considerable LPC radius is larger than 0.46
pore radius but smaller than radius, one or two LPC possibly goes through the membrane micro pore without
forming "bridge". When the majority of LPC radius r is not larger than 0.46 pore radius, three or more than
three LPC can form stable "bridge" in micro pore in membrane, forming considerable strength plugging.
Polymer size is crucial to its plugging property. Both DLS and SEM are used to fix polymer size in
solution. DLS can only be applied at low polymer concentration. Polymer size at high concentration from
extrapolation from DLS data at low concentration may be too high to reflect actual condition. Different pore
radius filters are used to measure the polymer solution size in brine.
Improved filter test can be used to evaluate polymer plugging property. According to revised "1/3:1/7
rule" from imporved filter test, plugging happens when pore-to-particle size is smaller than 1.3 and
noplugging happens when pore-to-particle size is larger than 2.9, while partial plugging happens when pore-
24 SPE-189255-MS

to-particle size between 1.3 and 2.9. Filter ratios near unity by old filter tests are incapable of distinguishing
the polymer performances.
Polymer flow test in Berea cores fairly matches the improved filter test. Resistance factor vs throughput
of the same core at different section well reflects the plugging feature of polymer. Filter cake resistance vs
throughput can be used to study polymer plugging property.
One requirement of polymer for improved oil recovery in China is that Fr should be 5-15, Frr 1.5-5.
Different matching maps between polymer Mw, concentration and permeability are introduced.
Polymer flooding experience in Daqing and other fields in China indicates that Mw should be
compromised between maximum Mw to reduce polymer volume and minimum Mw to make polymer
propagate effectively to all permeabilities and layers of interest. Too high concentration and Mw would
block reservoir strata and result in less economic or technical development performance.

Nomenclature and abbreviation

K = permeability
p = viscosity
M = mobility ratio of displacing phase to displaced phase
LPC = linked polymer coils
LPS = linked polymer solution
DLS = dynamic light scattering
R = membrane or pore radius
r = LPC radius
SEM = scanning electron microscopy
AlCit = Aluminum citrate
Mw = molecular weight
Cp = polymer concentration
HCS = polymer hydrodynamic characteristic size
Fr = resistance factor
Frr = residual resistant factor
SF = Screen Factor
HPAM = Hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
Con = concentration
PV = pore volume
Dh = equivalent hydraulic radius
Rg = polymer molecular size
R50 = median pore
Rp = polymer molecular diameter
F = filtered polymer resulting in no plugging.
PF = gradual partially filtered polymer resulting in a reduced filtration rate versus time.
B = filter blocked resulting in zero filtration rate
Kwater = permeability to brine
OOIP = original oil in place
X = xanthan
P = polymer HPAM
US = USA
CH = China
FR = France
SPE-189255-MS 25

References
Alkhatib, A M, Saudi Aramco, P R King, and Imperial College London. 2015. "The Use of the Least - Squares
Probabilistic- Collocation Method in Decision Making in the Presence of Uncertainty for Chemical- Enhanced-Oil-
Recovery Processes." SPE Journal 18 (04): 747–66. doi.org/10.2118/170587-PA
AlSofi, Abdulkareem M., and Martin J. Blunt. 2014. "Polymer Flooding Design and Optimization under Economic
Uncertainty." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124: 46-59.https://doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.10.014.
Buciak, J, G Fondevila Sancet, L Del Pozo, and Grupo Capsa. 2015. "Polymer-Flooding-Pilot Learning Curve : Five-Plus
Years ' Experience To Reduce Cost per Incremental Barrel of Oil." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 18 (01):
11–19. doi.org/10.2118/166255-PA.
Chiotoroiu, M., J. Peisker, T. Clemens, and M.R. Thiele. 2017. "Forecasting Incremental Oil Production of a Polymer
Pilot Extension in the Matzen Field Including Quantitative Uncertainty Assessment." SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering Preprint: 1–12. doi.org/10.2118/179546-PA.
Choudhuri, Biswajit, Chandan Thakuria, Abdul Aziz Belushi, Zamzam Nurzaman, and Khalid Al Hashmi. 2015.
"Optimization of a Large Polymer Flood With Full-Field Streamline Simulation," SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering,18(03): 318–28. doi.org/10.2118/169746-PA.
Clarke, Andrew, Andrew M. Howe, Jonathan Mitchell, John Staniland, and Laurence A. Hawkes. 2016. "How
Viscoelastic-Polymer Flooding Enhances Displacement Efficiency." SPE-174654-PA. SPE Journal 21 (03): 675–87.
doi.org/10.2118/174654-PA.
Clemens, T, M Luftenegger, A Laoroongroj, R Kadnar, and C Puls. 2016. "The Use of Tracer Data To Determine Polymer-
Flooding Effects in a Heterogeneous Reservoir, 8 Torton Horizon Reservoir, Matzen Field, Austria." SPE-174349-PA.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 19(04), 655 - 663. 10.2118/174349-PA.
Demin, Wang, Wang Gang, and Xia Huifen. 2011. "Large Scale High Viscous-Elastic Fluid Flooding in the Field Achieves
High Recoveries." SPE-144294-MS. SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 1921 July, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
1–7. 10.2118/144294-MS.
Demin Wang, G Wang, W Wu, H Xia, and H Yin. 2007. "The Influence of Viscoelasticity on Displacement Efficiency -
From Micro- To Macroscale." SPE-109016-MS. SPE Annual Techinical Conference, 1–10. doi:10.2118/109016-MS.
Deming, Wang, Xia Huifen, Yang Shuren, and Wang Gang. 2010. "The Influence of Visco-Elasticity on Micro Forces
and Displacement Efficiency in Pores, Cores and in the Field." SPE-109016-MS. SPE EOR Conference at Oil & Gas
West Asia, 1–18. doi.org/10.2118/109016-MS.
Dong, Zhaoxia, Zhaoliang Wu, Meiqin Lin, and Mingyuan Li. 2002. "The Study of the Conformation and Size of the
Linked Polymer Coils." Acta Polymerica Sinica, no. 4: 493–97.
Dongmei, Wang, Dong Huanzhong, Lv Changsen, Fu Xiaofei, and Nie Jun. 2009. "Review of Practical Experience
of Polymer Flooding at Daqing." SPE-114342-PA. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 12 (3): 470–76.
doi:10.2118/114342-PA.
Foshee, W.C., R.R. Jennings, and T.J. West. 1977. "Preparation and Testing of Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide
Solutions." In Annual Technical Meeting, May 30 - June 3, Edmonton, 1–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.2118/77-09.
Gogarty, W. B. 1967. "Mobility Control With Polymer Solutions." SPE-1566-B. SPE Journal, 7(02):161- 73.
doi:10.2118/1566-B.
Guo, Yongjun, Yan Liang, Miao Cao, Rusen Feng, Xinmin Zhang, Huabing Li, and Jun Hu. 2017. "Flow Behavior and
Viscous-Oil- Microdisplacement Characteristics of Hydrophobically Modified Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide
in a Repeatable Quantitative Visualization Micromodel." SPE-185185-PA. SPE Journal 22 (Inprint): 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.2118/185185-PA.
Haasterecht, Mjt Van. 2014. "A Systematic Study of the Polymer Visco-Elastic Effect on Residual Oil Saturation by Core
Flooding." SPE 169681-MS. SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia. 1–14. doi:10.2118/169681-MS.
Hatzignatiou, Dimitrios G, Nils H Giske, and Arne Stavland. 2016. "Polymers and Polymer-Based Gelants for Improved
Oil Recovery and Water Control Applications in Naturally Fractured Chalk Formations." SPE Bergen One Day
Seminar, 20 April, Grieghallen, Bergen. doi.org/10.2118/180024-MS.
Hu, Guo, Li Yiqiang, Ma Ruicheng, Wang Fuyong, and Shihu Zhang. 2017. "Evaluation of Three Large Scale ASP
Flooding Field Test." In 19th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery 24-27 April 2017, Stavanger, Norway,
1–11.
Jolma I.W., Strand D., Stavland A., Fjelde I., and Hatzignatiou D. 2017. "When Size Matters - Polymer Injectivity in Chalk
Matrix." We P032. In I0R2017-19th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery 24-27 April 2017, Stavanger,
Norway, 1–11.
Jouenne, S, A Klimenko, and D Levitt. 2017. "Polymer Flooding: Establishing Specifications for Dissolved Oxygen and
Iron in Injection Water." SPE-179614-PA. SPE Journal 22 (02): 438–46. doi.org/10.2118/179614-PA.
26 SPE-189255-MS

Kazemi Nia Korrani, Aboulghasem, Kamy Sepehrnoori, and Mojdeh Delshad. 2016. "A Mechanistic Integrated
Geochemical and Chemical Flooding Tool for Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Floods." SPE Journal, 21(01): 32 - 54.
doi.org/10.2118/169094-PA.
Koh, Heesong, Vincent B Lee, and Gary A Pope. 2016. "Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Polymers on Residual
Oil." SPE-179683-PA. SPE Journal,Preprint. doi.org/10.2118/179683-PA
Levitt, David B, and Gary A Pope. 2008. "Selection and Screening of Polymers for Enhanced-Oil Recovery." SPE-113845-
MS. In SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium Held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1–18. doi:10.2118/113845-MS.
Li, Zhitao, and Mojdeh Delshad. 2014. "Development of an Analytical Injectivity Model for Non- Newtonian Polymer
Solutions." SPE Journal, 19(01): 381–89. doi:10.2118/163672-PA.
Liao, Guangzhi, Liangang Wang, Weidong Liu, Youyi Zhu, and Zhengmao Wang. 2014. "Study of Surfactant-Polymer
Enhanced Oil Recovery Key Technology." In Proceedings of Polymer-Surfactant Binary Flooding Technology-1,
10–21.
Liu, Hualong, Yiqiang Li, Junxin Gao, Xiaobin Nie, and Yishan Liu. 2016. "A Design Method of Optimising Compatibility
of Polymer Flooding System with Reservoir." International Journal of Oil Gas & Coal Technology 13 (2): 159–69.
Liu, Jian, Zhang Lijuan, Weidong Liu, Xiangan Yue, and Nan Wang. 2010. "Adatability Study on Polymer Solution in
Low Permeability Layer.." PGRE, 17 (3): 71–73.
Lotfollahi, Mohammad, Rouhi Farajzadeh, Shell Global, and Solutions International. 2016. "Mechanistic Simulation of
Polymer Injectivity in Field Tests." SPE Journal 21 (3): 1178–91.
Lu, Xiangguo. 2016. Adaptability Reservoir of Chemical Profile Control and Displacement Agents and Its Evaluation
Method. Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing.
Lu, Xiangguo, Xiaoyang Wang, and Weidong Jiang. 2009. "Experimental Study on the Molecular Dimension and
Configuration of Polymer and Its Flow Characteristics." Chinese Journal of Chemistry 27 (4): 839–45. doi:10.1002/
cjoc.200990140.
Luftenegger, Markus, Rainer Kadnar, Christoph Puls, and Torsten Clemens. 2016. "Operational Challenges and
Monitoring of a Polymer Pilot, Matzen Field, Austria." SPE Production & Operations 31 (03): 228–237.
doi.org/10.2118/174350-PA.
Ma, Yiwei, and Mcclure Mark W. 2017. "The Effect of Polymer Rheology and Induced Fracturing on Injectivity and
Pressure-Transient Behavior." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 20 (02): 394 - 402.
Manichand, R.N, Seright, R.S. 2014. "Field vs. Laboratory Polymer-Retention Values for a Polymer Flood in the
Tambaredjo Field." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 17(03), 314 - 325. doi.org/10.2118/169027-PA.
Manichand, R. N., Moe Soe K. P. Let, L. Gil, B. Quillien, and R. S. Seright. 2013. "Effective Propagation of HPAM
Solutions Through the Tambaredjo Reservoir During a Polymer Flood." SPE Production & Operations 28 (04):
358–68. doi:10.2118/164121-PA.
Nie, Zhenrong, Baozheng Liu, Guifang Zhu, and Qiaozhen Zhen. 2014."Development Performance of SP Flooding Field
Tests in Conglomerate Reservoir in Xinjiang Oilfield in China." In Proceedings of Polymer-Surfactant Binary Flooding
Technology-2, 592–96.
Qi, Pengpeng, Daniel H. Ehrenfried, Heesong Koh, and Matthew T. Balhoff. 2017. "Reduction of Residual Oil Saturation
in Sandstone Cores by Use of Viscoelastic Polymers." SPE Journal, 22(02): 447 - 458. doi:10.2118/179689-PA.
Saleh, Laila Dao, Mingzhen Wei, and Baojun Bai. 2014. "Data Analysis and Novel Screening Criteria for Polymer
Flooding Based on a Comprehensive Database." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 17 (01): 15 - 25.
doi:10.2118/168220-PA.
Saleh, Laila, Mingzhen Wei, Yandong Zhang, and Baojun Bai. 2016. "Data Analysis and Novel Screening Criteria for
Polymer Flooding Based on a Comprehensive database." SPE-169093-PA.SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Preprint (Preprint): 1–18. doi.org/10.2118/169093-PA.
Seright, R S. 2017. "How Much Polymer Should Be Injected During a Polymer Flood? Review of Previous and Current
Practices." SPE Journal, 22 (01): 1–18. doi:10.2118/179543-PA.
Seright, R S, Tianguang Fan, Kathryn Wavrik, and Rosangela Balaban. 2011. "New Insights Into Polymer Rheology in
Porous Media." SPE Journal, 16 (1): 1–11. doi:10.2118/129200-PA.
Seright, R S, Ingun Skjevrak, and Statoil Asa. 2015. "Effect of Dissolved Iron and Oxygen on Stability of HPAM
Polymers." SPE Journal, 20(03): 433 - 441. doi:10.2118/169030-PA.
Seright, R.S., Tianguang Fan, Kathryn Wavrik, and Rosangela Balaban. 2011. "New Insights Into Polymer Rheology in
Porous Media." SPE Journal, 16 (1): 1–11. doi:10.2118/129200-PA.
Seright, Randy, Mac Seheult, and Todd Talashek. 2009. "Injectivity Characteristics of EOR Polymers." SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering 12 (5): 783–92. doi:10.2118/115142-PA.
Sheng, James J, Bernd Leonhardt, and Nasser Azri. 2016. "Status of Polymer-Flooding Technology." Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology 54 (02): 116–26. doi:10.2118/174541-PA.
SPE-189255-MS 27

Sieberer, Martin, Karl Jamek, and Torsten Clemens. 2017. "Polymer-Flooding Economics, From Pilot to Field
Implementation." SPE Economics & Management 9 (03): 51–60. doi:10.2118/179603-PA.
Smith, Frank W. 1970. "The Behavior of Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Solutions in Porous Media." Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 22(02): 148–56. doi:10.2118/2422-PA.
Sorbie, K.S. 1991. Polymer-Improved Oil Recovery. Glasgow: Blackie and Son.
van Oort, Eric, J F G van Velzen, and Klaas Leerlooijer. 1993. "Impairment by Suspended Solids Invasion: Testing and
Prediction." SPE Production & Facilities 8 (03): 178–84. doi:10.2118/23822-PA.
Wan, Hao, and R S Seright. 2017. "Is Polymer Retention Different Under Anaerobic vs . Aerobic Conditions ?" SPE
Journal 22 (02): 431–37. doi.org/10.2118/179538-PA.
Wang, Dongmei, Huanzhong Dong, Changsen Lv, Xiaofei Fu, and Jun Nie. 2009. "Review of Practical Experience by
Polymer Flooding at Daqing." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 11 (3): 470–76. doi.org/10.2118/114342-PA.
Wang, Dongmei, Heihui Han, Zhenbo Shang, Weihong Hou, and Seright R.S. 2008. "Sweep- Improvement Options for
the Daqing Oil Field." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 11 (1): 2226. doi:10.2118/99441-PA.
Wang, Dongmei, Seright R.S., Zhenbo Shao, and Jinmei Wang. 2008. "Key Aspects of Project Design for Polymer
Flooding at the Daqing Oil Field." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 11 (6): 1117–24. doi:10.2118/109682-PA.
Wang, Xiaogang, Zhenrong Nie, Qiaozhen Guo, Xiaodong Hu, Wentao Liu, and Jing Zhang. 2016. "Xinjiang
Conglomorate Reservoir Chemical EOR Technology and Prospect." In Proceedings of China Petroleum Society 6th
Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery, edited by Chemical EOR Committe, 95–99. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
Xie, Kun, Xiangguo Lu, Qiang Li, Weidong Jiang, and Yu Qin. 2016. "Analysis of Reservoir Applicability of
Hydrophobically Associating Polymer." SPE Journal 21 (01): 1–9. doi.org/10.2118/174553-PA
Yan, Wenhan. 2015. "Study on Hydrodynamic Size and Injectivity of Polymer Solution." University of China Academy
of Sciences. Master thesis.
Yang, Chenzhi. 2007. Chemical Flooding Enhanced Oil Recovery. 2nd ed. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
Yiqiang, Li, Gao Junxin, Yin Dandan, Li Junjian, and Liu Hualong. 2014. "Study on the Matching Relationship between
Polymer Hydrodynamic Characteristic Size and Pore Throat Radius of Target Block S Based on the Microporous
Membrane Filtration Method." Journal of Chemistry 2014 (03): 17.
Zechner, Markus, Torsten Clemens, Ajay Suri, and Energy Studies. 2015. "Simulation of Polymer Injection Under
Fracturing Conditions — An Injectivity Pilot in the Matzen Field, Austria." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering,
18 (02): 236–49. doi.org/10.2118/169043-PA
Zhang, Guoyin, and Seright R S. 2014. "Effect of Concentration on HPAM Retention in Porous Media." SPE Journal,
19(03): 373 - 380. doi.org/10.2118/166265-PA.
Zhang Guoyin, and Seright R.S.2015. "Hydrodynamic Retention and Rheology of EOR Polymers in Porous Media." SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry Held in The Woodlands, 1–12. doi.org/10.2118/173728-MS
Zhihua, Wang, Lin Xinyu, Yu Tianyu, Hu Zhiwei, Xu Mengmeng, and Yu Hongtao. 2016. "Case History of Dehydration-
Technology Improvement for HCPF Production in the Daqing Oil Field." Oil and Gas Facilities 5 (06): 1–11.
doi.org/10.2118/172768-PA
Zhu, Huaijiang, Qiang Liu, Pingping Sheng, Jianhui Liu, Jingbo Yang, and Yuzhang Liu. 2006. "Compatibility between
Polymer Molecular Size and Pore Throat in Reservoirs."Petroleum Exploration and Development 33 (5): 609–13.