Engineering topics

Seright, Randall

Publications and source records attributed to Seright, Randall.

4 records

DOE OSTI2022

Pressure Modification or Barrier Issues during Polymer Flooding Enhanced Oil Recovery

Effective oil displacement from a reservoir requires adequate and properly directed pressure gradients in areas of high oil saturation. If the polymer bank is too large or too viscous during a polymer flood, the pressure drops from the injection well to the polymer front may act as a pressure modification or barrier by usurping most of the downstream driving force for oil displacement. Polymer injection pressures must be limited. The maximum allowable injection pressure is commonly constrained by caprock integrity, injection equipment, and/or regulations, even though fractures can be beneficial to polymer injectivity. This paper examines when the pressure-barrier concept limits the size and viscosity of the polymer bank during a polymer flood. Analytical and numerical methods are used to address this issue. We examine the relevance of the pressure modification concept for a wide variety of circumstances, including oil viscosities ranging from 10 cp to 1650 cp, vertical wells versus horizontal wells, single versus multiple layered reservoirs, permeability contrast, and crossflow between layers. We also examine the relation between the pressure-barrier concept and fractures and fracture extension during polymer injection. We demonstrate that in reservoirs with single layers, the pressure-barrier concept only limits the optimum viscosity of the injected polymer if the mobility of the polymer bank is less than the mobility of the displaced oil bank. The same is true for multizoned reservoirs with no crossflow between layers. Thus, for these cases, the optimum polymer viscosity is likely to be dictated by the mobility of the oil bank, unless other factors intervene. For multizoned reservoirs with free crossflow between layers, the situation is different. A compromise must be reached between injected polymer viscosity and the efficiency of oil recovery. This work is particularly relevant to viscous oil reservoirs where polymer viscosities are substantially lower than the oil viscosity.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Pressure Barrier Applicability to Polymer Flood Design

Effective oil displacement from a reservoir requires adequate and properly directed pressure gradients in areas of high oil saturation. If the polymer bank is too large or too viscous during a polymer flood, the pressure drop from the injection well to the polymer front may act as a pressure barrier by usurping most of the downstream driving force for oil displacement. Polymer injection pressures must be limited. The maximum allowable injection pressure is commonly constrained by caprock integrity, injection equipment, and/or regulations, even though fractures can be beneficial to polymer injectivity (and even sweep efficiency in some cases). This paper examines when the pressure-barrier concept limits the size and viscosity of the polymer bank during a polymer flood. Both analytical and numerical methods are used to address this issue. We examine the relevance of the pressure barrier concept for a wide variety of circumstances, including oil viscosities ranging from 10-cp (like at Daqing, China) to 1650-cp (like at Pelican Lake, Alberta), vertical wells (like at Tambaredjo, Suriname) versus horizontal wells (like at Milne Point, Alaska), single versus multiple layered reservoirs, permeability contrast, and with versus with crossflow between layers. We also examine the relation between the pressure-barrier concept and fractures and fracture extension during polymer injection. We demonstrate that in reservoirs with single layers, the pressure-barrier concept only limits the optimum viscosity of the injected polymer if the mobility of the polymer bank is less than the mobility of the displaced oil bank. The same is true for multi-zoned reservoirs with no crossflow between layers. Thus, for these cases, the optimum polymer viscosity is likely to be dictated by the mobility of the oil bank, unless other factors (like fracture extension) intervene. For multi-zoned reservoirs with free crossflow between layers, the situation is different. A compromise must be reached between injected polymer viscosity and the efficiency of oil recovery. The relevance of our findings is applied to operations for several existing polymer floods. This work is particularly relevant to viscous-oil reservoirs (like Pelican Lake and others) where the injected polymer viscosities are substantially lower than the oil viscosity

Wang, Dongmei↗

DOE OSTI2020

Polymer Retention Evaluation in a Heavy Oil Sand for a Polymer Flooding Application on Alaska’s North Slope

For a polymer flooding field trial in a heavy oil reservoir on Alaska’s North Slope, polymer retention is a key parameter. Because of the economic impact of retention, this parameter was extensively studied using field core material and conditions. Several important findings were noted. Polymer retention based on effluent viscosity measurements can be overestimated unless the correct (non-linear) relation between polymer concentration and viscosity is used. Polymer degradation (either mechanical or oxidative) can also lead viscosity-based measurements to overestimate retention. Inaccessible pore volume (IAPV) can be overestimated if insufficient brine is flushed through the sand between polymer banks. Around 100 pore volumes (PV) of brine may be needed to displace mobile polymer to approach a true residual resistance factor and properly measure IAPV. Even for a sand pack with kwsor = 20 mD, IAPV was zero for HPAM with molecular weight (Mw) of 18 million g/mol. Fine-grain particles (<20 μm) strongly impacted polymer retention values. Native NB#1 sand with a significant component of particles <20 μm exhibited 290 μg/g, while the same sand exhibited 28 μg/g after these small particles were removed. Polymer retention did not necessarily correlate with mineral composition. The NB#1, NB#3, and OA sands had similar elemental and clay compositions, but the NB#1 sand exhibited ~10 times higher retention than the NB#3 sand. Polymer retention did not necessarily correlate with permeability. NB#1 sand exhibited much higher retention than OA sand, even though NB#1 sand was twice as permeable as OA sand. No evidence of chromatographic separation of HPAM molecular weights was found in our experiments. Although retention tended to be greater without a residual oil saturation (than at Sor), the effect was not strong. Aging a core (with high oil saturation) at 60°C reduced HPAM retention by a factor of two. As expected, under similar conditions, polymer retention was greater for a higher Mw HPAM (18 million g/mol) than for a lower Mw HPAM (10-12 million g/mol). In many cases with high polymer retention values (e.g., 240 μg/g), polymer arrival at the end of the core was relatively quick, but achieving the injected concentration occurred gradually over many pore volumes. This effect was not due chromatographic separation of polymer molecular weights. Results from modeling of this behavior was consistent with concentrationdependent polymer retention. The form assumed for the retention function in a simulator can have an important impact on the timing and magnitude of the oil response from a polymer flood. Field-based observations can underestimate polymer retention, depending on when the tracer and polymer concentrations were measured and the assumptions made about reservoir heterogeneity.

Wang, Dongmei↗

DOE OSTI2020

Performance of Low Salinity Polymer Flood in Enhancing Heavy Oil Recovery on the Alaska North Slope

Combining low-salinity water (LSW) and polymer flooding was proposed to unlock the tremendous heavy oil resources (20–25 billion barrels) on the Alaska North Slope (ANS). The synergy effect of LSW and polymer flooding was demonstrated through coreflooding experiments carried out on representative rock and fluid systems. The results indicate that the high-salinity polymer solution (HSP, 2,300 ppm, salinity=27,500 ppm) requires nearly two thirds more polymer than the low-salinity polymer (LSP, 1,400 ppm, salinity=2,500 ppm) to achieve the same target viscosity of 45 cp measured from viscometer. Additional oil (5–9%) can be recovered from LSW flooding after extensive high-salinity water (HSW) flooding. LSW flooding performed in secondary mode can achieve higher recovery than in tertiary mode. Strikingly, LSP flooding can further improve the oil recovery by ~8% even after extensive HSP flooding with the same viscosity. LSP flooding performed directly after waterflooding can achieve ~10% more incremental oil recovery. The pH increase of the effluent during LSW/LSP flooding was significantly greater than that during HSW/HSP flooding, indicating the occurrence of ion exchange which might contribute to the improved oil recovery. Also, the water breakthrough was delayed in a low-salinity flood compared with a high-salinity flood. The idea of combining LSW and polymer flooding has been put into practice on a pattern-scale field pilot test in the target Milne Point field. Nearly two-year observation has shown impressive success: water cut reduction (70% to below 15%), increasing oil rate, and no polymer breakthrough so far. This work has demonstrated remarkable economical and technical benefits of combination of LSW and polymer flooding in enhancing heavy oil recovery.

Zhao, Yang↗