UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

SCHULICH SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL
AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

ENPE 624 – WATERFLOODING

AND EOR, WINTER 2024

Insights on Black Oil Dynamics and Polymer

Injection Analysis in Reservoir Engineering

Jwalin Jwalin 30178802

Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..1.
Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1.
Model Description………………………………………………………………….2.
Reservoir……………………………………………………………………………3.
Well Description……………………………………………………………………3.
Result and Discussion………………………………………………………………4.
Bonus Simulation…………………………………………………………………...5.
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..6.
References…………………………………………………………………………...6.
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………..8.
ABSTRACT:- As we approach the reality of dwindling crude oil reserves, the demand for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) methods has surged. EOR techniques are traditionally classified into three categories: Primary,
Secondary, and Tertiary oil recovery. If secondary oil recovery is focused primarily, water flooding emerges as
the most effective technique due to its cost-effectiveness, accessibility, and efficiency in augmenting oil
extraction. Nevertheless, water flooding leaves behind significant quantities of oil in the reservoir, either
trapped by capillary forces (termed residual oil) or missed due to bypassing. The aim of employing polymer
flooding, an EOR strategy, is to enhance the displacement and sweep efficiency for the oil fractions missed by
water flooding, without targeting the residual oil. This study leverages CMG software to model a reservoir and
demonstrates the superiority of polymer flooding over water flooding. Through analyzing various injection
rates, the study provides economic insights into utilizing polymer flooding as an EOR technique. Kantzas, A.
(2024).
Keywords:- Polymer Flooding, Injection Rate, Enhanced Oil Recovery, CMG Software.
Introduction:- The method of water flooding, employed to augment oil recovery within the oil and gas sector,
doesn't attribute its origins to a single inventor or definitive moment of inception. Nonetheless, the scientific
groundwork and efficacy of water flooding were significantly bolstered through the contributions of researchers
like Morris Muskat, along with Dykstra & Parsons who elucidated the concept of Mobility Ratio (M) and the
impact of permeability variations on oil recovery.
Over time, it has been acknowledged that considerable quantities of oil and gas remain untapped even after
employing traditional methods such as primary and secondary flooding. Research indicates that enhancing the
viscosity of water can potentially improve the sweep efficiency in reservoirs. Pye and Sandiford were pioneers
in suggesting that the introduction of a small amount of water-soluble polymers could significantly reduce the
mobility of the injected brine, thereby laying the foundation for the innovative approach of chemical/polymer
flooding.
Among all the chemical-enhanced oil recovery methods (EOR), polymer flooding is a well proven technique as
this technique by far outnumbers other chemical technologies because the risk of polymer flooding application
is indeed very low and the envelope of application has greatly widened over the past years.
Polymer flooding is basically consist of injecting polymer with water into the reservoir which eventually
increase the sweep efficiency in oil formation. The increased viscosity of the water causes a better mobility
control between the injected water and the hydrocarbons within the reservoir. Mobility Ratio Equation is written
below
λ Polymer +Water µOil∗k Water
M= = (Kantzas, A. (2024).)
λ Oil k oil∗µWater
Here,
λ = MOBILITY
µ = VISCOSITY
k = Effective endpoint permeabilities.
Primarily, polymer flooding is deployed for two main purposes:
1. If the mobility ratio during water flooding is unfavorable, injecting polymers continuously can enhance the
reservoir's sweep efficiency.
1.
2. In cases where the mobility ratio is favorable but the reservoir exhibits heterogeneity, polymer injection can
decrease the mobility of water in layers with high permeability, thereby aiding in the extraction of oil from
layers with lower permeability.

Fig. 1 Waterflooding and Polymer Flooding (Al-Shakry,2021)

3. Model Description
To investigate the distinctions between water and polymer flooding, CMG simulation software is utilized to
observe variations in PVT (Pressure, Volume, Temperature), permeability, and well & date data. This approach
aims to understand how modifications within the reservoir manifest. The data alteration follows the structured
flow chart outlined below, facilitating an analysis of reservoir dynamics. This methodology aids in determining
the impact of different flooding techniques on reservoir behavior.
 FIG. 2 (Model Description)

2.

Reservoir
The grid's orientation specifies its direction along the I, J, and K directions as 28 ft, 25 ft, and 15 ft,
respectively, with each uniform dimension of 30 ft. The permeability values for the I, J, and K axes are 140
millidarcies (mD), 180 mD, and 40 mD, respectively. Additional pertinent measurements are provided below.
First Layer of Reservoir: 9010 ft
Porosity: 0.187
Thickness: 25 ft
Rock Compressibility: 0.000001 1/psi
Reference Pressure: 3600 psi
Reference Depth: 9035 ft
Water Oil Contact: 9950 ft
Table 1. Properties used in simulation
Volume of grid size 30 *30 *25
Number of grid block 28*25*15
Porosity (homogenous) 18.7 %
Polymer concentration 0.27 lb/bbl.
Permeability i= 140mD j= 180mD k= 40 mD

Well and Date

In the model, there is one producer and one injector well with given parameters.
Result and Discussion
The result shown below is for Black oil (Water Flooding).
With 3.6 MMSTB of cumulative oil Water flooding was Able to saturate the whole reservoir. While,
breakthrough happens at 2370 days, the total volume of water injected was 8.7 MSTB and was able to recover
5.12 MSTB of water from producer well. The oil saturation accuracy was 99%, as you can see in Fig. 3

FIG. 3 (Oil Saturation Black Oil)

3.
Polymer Flooding Comparison: -
Polymer injection has demonstrated a notable enhancement in oil recovery processes, as evidenced by an
extension of the oil production rate plateau by approximately 2 years. The main assumption in polymer
injection is made on polymer concentration which is 1.829 lb/bbl. Specifically, while the base case model
exhibited a decline starting in 2028, polymer injection extended the plateau phase to mid-2031, illustrating the
polymer’s effectiveness in reducing the mobility ratio and increasing oil sweep efficiency in the areal zone. This
adjustment prolonged the production plateau and delayed the onset of decline compared to traditional water
flooding techniques.
In terms of cumulative oil production, the impact of polymer flooding is significant when compared to the base
case. The base case model yielded a cumulative oil production of 3.55 million stock tank barrels (MMSTB). In
contrast, polymer injection enhanced this figure to 3.91 MMSTB at a 5500 bbl/day injection rate, 3.93 MMSTB
at 6000 bbl/day, and approximately 3.94 MMSTB at 8000 bbl/day as shown in FIG. 7. These results underscore
polymer flooding’s capability to boost the recovery factor of the original oil in place (OOIP) by up to 15% over
the base model. However, it’s noted that beyond a certain injection rate, further increases do not significantly
augment cumulative oil production. Initiating polymer injection early in the well’s productive life maximizes
overall recovery.
Furthermore, the analysis of water breakthrough times reveals an extended period before water encroachment in
wells subject to polymer flooding, compared to the base model. This delay, highlighted in both graphical and
tabular data, indicates a reduction in water production and injection volumes, alongside increased oil output,
thereby enhancing project economics in comparison to waterflooding scenarios. The efficiency gains from
polymer flooding stem from improved sweep efficiency, with the polymer’s viscosity-increasing properties
delaying water breakthrough by altering the mobility ratio in favor of oil.
In comparing different injection rates, the base case model shows in FIG. 8 a sharp decline in oil production,
whereas polymer flooding exhibits a more gradual decline. This trend is especially pronounced at higher
polymer injection rates, such as 8000 bbl/day, where the decline in oil production is most delayed. These
observations collectively affirm the advantages of polymer flooding in extending productive well life and
improving oil recovery efficiency.
The noticeable point here is that on oil saturation profile three of these polymer injection rates ang given
pressure were able to saturate 100%.
Table 2; Cumulative oil produced in MSTB
Case Scenario Cumulative oil production (MMSTB)
Base case (water flooding) 3.6
Polymer Injection (5500 bbl/day) 3.9002
Polymer Injection (6000 bbl/day) 3.937
Polymer Injection (8000 bbl/day) 3.4993

Table 3; cumulative water injected in MSTB

Case Scenario Cumulative water Injected (MMSTB)
Base case (water flooding) 8855
 Polymer Injection (5000 bbl/day) 10,450
Polymer Injection (6500 bbl/day) 20,097
Polymer Injection (10,000 bbl/day) 14,500
4.

Table 4; breakthrough time in days

Case Scenario Breakthrough Time (days)
Base case (water flooding) 2369
Polymer Injection (5000 bbl/day) 2608
Polymer Injection (6500 bbl/day) 2611
Polymer Injection (10,000 bbl/day) 2621

FIG. 4 (Saturation Profile for three polymer injection rate)

Bonus Simulation
In examining the effects of polymer injection at varying flow rates on oil recovery processes, a comprehensive
analysis was conducted across three distinct models: 500 BBL/Day, 854 BBL/Day, and 1147 BBL/Day to find
better results. The first model, operating at a flow rate of 500 BBL/Day for 5000 days, injected a total of 2.1
million barrels (MM bbls) of polymer, resulting in no water production and a steady oil production rate of 1500
barrels per day (bbl/day) until day 564, after which it declined to approximately 483.5 bbl/day by the end of the
period. This model achieved a cumulative oil production of 2.04 MM bbls, with a 65% oil saturation sweep by
polymer.
The second model, with an increased flow rate of 854 BBL/Day, also saw no water production, mirroring the
first model. Over the same duration, it injected 4.26 MM bbls of polymer, maintaining an oil production rate of
1500 bbl/day until day 734 before declining to around 476 bbl/day. This resulted in a higher cumulative oil
production of 3.66 MM bbls, and an improved oil saturation sweep of 80% due to the increased polymer
injection.
The third model, the most aggressive with a flow rate of 1147 BBL/Day, began producing water approximately
4022 days into the injection, a notable difference from the previous models. It injected a total of 4.7 MM bbls of
polymer, maintaining an initial oil production rate of 1500 bbl/day until day 812, before a significant decline to
around 39 bbl/day at the conclusion of the period. This model achieved the highest cumulative oil production of
5.1 MM bbls and a cumulative water production of 0.706 MM bbls, with an impressive 89% oil saturation
sweep by polymer.

5.

FIG. 5 (Oil Saturation Profile for Bonus Simulation)

Conclusion
The early CMG simulation reveals that polymer flooding at a rate of 6000 bpd is the most cost-effective way to
improve sweep efficiency. However, a detailed economic analysis that takes into account fluctuating oil prices,
operational risks, and environmental costs remains critical. Future findings should also include data from actual
field applications to validate the model, ensuring that the outcomes are both theoretically sound and practically
practicable. Advances in technology and extensive financial modeling, which account for both market and non-
market elements, will provide a more nuanced knowledge of polymer flooding's long-term profitability and
stakeholder impact in EOR schemes.
References
 Kantzas, A. (2024). Lecture 4 Course notes Chapter ENPE525-624. Department of Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary.
 Al-Shakry, B., Shiran, B. S., Skauge, T., & Skauge, A. (2018). Enhanced oil recovery by polymer
flooding: Optimizing polymer injectivity. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition 2018, SATS 2018. https://doi.org/10.2118/192437-
ms
 LU, X., CAO, B., XIE, K., CAO, W., LIU, Y., ZHANG, Y., WANG, X., & ZHANG, J. (2021).
Enhanced oil recovery mechanisms of polymer flooding in a heterogeneous oil reservoir.
Petroleum Exploration and Development, 48(1), 169–178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S18763804(21)60013-7
 Terry, R. E. (2003). Enhanced oil recovery. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 503–518).

https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-227410-5/00868-1
 Rai, S. K., Bera, A., & Mandal, A. (2015). Modeling of surfactant and surfactant–polymer flooding for
enhanced oil recovery using STARS (CMG) software. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and
Production Technology, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-0140112-3
 Sabirov, D. G., Demenev, R. A., Isakov, K. D., Ilyasov, I. R., Orlov, A. G., & Glushchenko, N. A.
(2020). Reservoir simulation of polymer flooding: Challenges and current results.

Appendices

FIG.6 (Cumulative Oil Saturation)

FIG.7 (Cumulative Water Saturation)

FIG.8 (Cumulative Water Producer)

 7.

FIG.9 (Cumulative Oil Saturation)

FIG. 10 (Oil Rate SC)