Tesis Hall Plot PDF

ANALYZING INJECTIVITY OF NUN-NEWTONIAN FLUIDS:
A N APPLICATION OF THE HALL PLOT
by
R.
S c o t Buel l
A t h e s i s s u b m i t t e d to t h e F a c u l t y a n d t h e Board o f
Trustees o f t h e C o l o r a d o School
o f Mines
in p a r t i a l
Fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree o f Master o f

Science (Petroleum Engineering),
Golden, Colorado
(!,'
5116 F k
Date: -
S i gned :
R.
Scot t3ue 1 1
Approved :
Fred H.
Poettmann
T h e s i s Advisor
Golden, Colorado
Date:
/.B6
.
&
L
V a n Kirk
~rof&ssor and Head,
Department o f
Petroleum Engineering
ABSTRACT
The Hal 1 plot was original 1 y developed for the
evaluation of waterflood injection wells.
It hasalsobeen
applied to the injection of non-Newtonian fluids, which i s

quite different from the conditions for which the Hall plot
was or ig i na 1 1 y deve 1 oped.
A two-phase numer i ca 1 reservo i r
simulator in radial coordinates was developed to model the

injectivity of non-Newtonian fluids in porous media.
The
s i m u 1 ator was used to verify the Ha 1 1 p 1 ot for non-Newtonian
f 1 u ids.
Ana l yt i ca 1 methods were a 1 so used where appropriate
to evaluate the injectivity of non-Newtonian fluids. The

s imu 1 ator was app 1 i ed to hypothet i ca 1 examp l es and a 1 so used
to history match field injectivity data.
Based both on the
fie 1 d inject i v ity data and the hypothet i ca 1 examp 1 es

ana 1 yzed with the s imu : ator, guide 1 i nes are presented for
the preparation and analysis of non-Newtonian injectivity
data using the Ha 1 1 plot.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.
.. . .... .
. . . .. . . . . ..
PAGE
iii
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
. . . . .... .
. .' . . . .
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LISTOFTABLES
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
.. . ..... . .. .. . .. ..
P o l y m e r Flooding. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Micellar-Polymer Flooding
. . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 2
BEHAVIOR
MEDIA
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
OF
NON-NEWTONIAN
SOLUTIONS
I N POROUS
. ... .... . . .. . . . .. . ....

Rheological Models . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1
Ostwald-de Waele Model
. . . . . . .
2.1.2
E l l i s Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2
C a r r e a u Model . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.4
Viscczlastic Effects
. . ... . ..
Shear Rate - Interstitial V e l o c i t y Relations
................
Degradation
Adsorption - Retention
.. .. . . . . . .
R e s i s t a n c e F a c t o r and R e s i d u a l R e s i s t a n c e
Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I n a c c e s s i b l e P o r e Volume . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 3
ALTERNATIVES TQ THE H A L L PLOT FOR ANALYZING
INJECTION W E L L S .
. .
..
..
. .
36
41
42
CHAPTER 4
Q U A L I T A T I V E AND Q U A N T I T A T I V E A N A L Y S I S OF THE H A L L
PLOT
44
3.1
3.2
3.3
... ..
FalloffTesting . . .
Typecurves
. . . . .
Reservoir Simulation .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
. . .
. ..
. . .
...
. . .
. . .
...
...
......................
4.1
D e r i v a t i o n and D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e H a l l P l o t
36
44
4.2
4.3
4.4
Qualitative Analysis of the Hall Plot . .

Quantitative Analysis of the Hall Plot for
Newtonian Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quantitative Analysis of the Hal? Plot for
Non-Newtonian Fluids . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER S
HALL PLOT ANALYSIS RESULTS
5.1
.
.
.
58
. . . . . . . . . . .
63
Analysis of Well A (Hypothetical) . . .

History Matching and Analysis of Well 8
History Matching and Analysis of Well C
. .
48
56
..
..
63
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UNCITED REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
107
5.2
5.3
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX A
SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT
A.l
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
..............
Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finite Difference Equations . . . . . . .
Solution Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Capabilities. Limitations and Assumptions of
the Sfmulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simulator Verifieaton
. . . . . . . . . . .
70
93
114
120
127
127
129
135
138
145
APPENDIX B
WELL A DATA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
160
APPENDIX C
WELL 8 DATA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
164
APPENDIX D
WELL C DATA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
169
LIST OF FlGURES
F i gure
Areal Sweep Efficiency at Breakthrough,

Five Spot Pattern . . . . . . . . . . .
F igure
Microemulsion Flooding
F igure
Rheograms
for Some Non-Newtonian
Rheological Models . . . . . . . . .
F i gure
Apparent Viscosities of Polyacrylamide

Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F i gure
Apparent Viscosities as a Function of

Shear Rate for Some Rheological Models .
F i gure
Comparison of Shear Rate-Interstitial

Velocity Relationships
F igure
Polymer
Adsorption
Entrapment
F igure
Langrnuir Adsorption Isotherm
F i gure
Comparison of Hal1 Integration Methods,

........
Well A , pr,
1000 psia
F i gure
. . . . . . . . .
. .
.........
and
Mechanical
...............
.
Comparison of Hall
Well
pr, .
A,
......
Integration Methods,
100 p s i a
.........
. . . .
F i gure
Hall Plot for the Bradford Field
Figure
Bottomhole Injection Rate Versus Time,

Well A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F i gure
Hall Plot,
Well A , Single Phase
Transient Flow Period . . . . . .
F igure
Hall Plot, Well A, Comparison of Single

and Two Phase Flow. . . . . . . . . . .
Figure
Bottomhole Pressure versus Time, Well A ,

Single and Two Phase Flow
Figure
Apparent Viscosity versus Interstitial

Velocity, Well 6 . . . . . . . . . . .
...
.......
.
F i gure
Hall Plot, Rate Control History Match,

We11 6
...
. . . .. . . . ..
Fi gure
Bottomhole Pressure Versus Time, Rate

Control HistoryMatch, Well B . . . .
Figure
Hall Plot, Pressure Control History

Match,Well B . , . . . . . . . . .
F i gure
Bcttornhole Rate Versus Time, Pressure

Control History Match, Well B . . . .
F i gure
Hall Plot,
Comparison of Adsorption/
Retention Isotherms, Well B . . .
.
Figure
Comparison of Hall Integration Methods,

Well B .
. ... . ... .. ..
Figure
Hall Plot, Rate Control History Match,

.. .. .. .......
Well C .
F i gure
Bottomhole Pressure Versus Time, Rate

Control History Match, Well C . .
.
F igure
Hall Plot, Pressure Control History

Match,Well C . . . . .
.. ...
..
..
..
.
.
Figure 5.15
Figure 5 . 1 6
Bottomhole Rate Versus Time, Pressure

Control History Match, Well C .
. .
99
Comparison of Hall Integration Methods,

Well C .
.. .
. . ..... . ..
100
..
Figure
A.1
Simulator Geometry
13 1
Figure
A.2
Comparison of
..... . .. . . .
20 and 5 0 Cells, Well B .
143
Figure
A.3
Comparison of 20, 50, and 100 Cells,

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
Well C .
144
.......
146
Figure
A.4
Well A, Falloff Test Case
Figure
A.5
Weli A,
Falloff Test,
..
Type Curve Match
Figure
A.6
Dimensionless
.........
147
... . . .
149
Well A, Injection Test Case
Figure
Figure
Figure
A.7
A.8
A.9
Well A, Injection Test,

Type Curve Match .
Dimensionless
Well A 9 Injection
Outer Boundary
Case,
..........
Well A, Hall
Injection
150
. .... ... ... ..
151
Plot
Test
Test
Case,
Closed
Water
Figure
A.10
Well A ,
.. . ...... .... ..
Buckley-Leverett Test Case . . .
Figure
A.ll
Well A,
Wellbore Storage Plot Test Case
156
figure
A.12
Well A ,
Polymer Concentration Profile
Test Case, No Adsorption/Retention
158
. ..
2 53
155
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
Comparison of Simulator and Laboratory

Apparent Viscosities, Well B . . . .
Table
Comparison of Analytical Methods with

Simulator Results, Well B . . . . . . .
Table
Hall Plot Integration Correction Example

forJp,dt, Well B . . . . . . . . . . .
Table

forJpwFdt, Well B . . . . . . . . . . .
Table
Apparent Viscosity
Well C . . . . . .
Table

forJpsdt,Well C . . . . . . . . . . .
Table

forJpWfdt, Well C . . . . . . . . . . .
Table
Comparison of Analytical
Simulator Results, Well C
.......
Table
Apparent Viscosity as a
Concentration and Radial
Well C . . . . . . . . . .
Function of
Distance,
and
Screen
Factor,
. . . . . . . . . . .
Methods with
.......
Features . . . . .
Tab1 e
Summary of Simulator
Table
Well A, Data
Table
Adsorption/Retention - Resistance Factor

Data,WellA
Tab?e
Carreau Rheologicai Data, Well A
Table
Apparent Viscosity as a Function of

Interstitial Velocity, We: 1 A . . . . .
Table
Relative Permeability Data, Well A
Table
Well B, Data
and
Reservoir
Properties
..............
and
Reservoir
. . . .
...
Properties
Table
C.2

Data,WellB. . . . . . . . . . . .
Table
C.3
Apparent Viscosity as a Function

Interstitial Velocity, Well B . . .
. .
Table
C.4
Fluid Injection Summary, Well B
Table
C.5
Summary of Daily Injection Results, Well

B . * . . . . . . . . . . . * . - . *
Table
0.1
Well C, Data
Table
0.2

. . .. . . . .
Data, We 1 l C . . .
Table
D.3
Carreau Rheological Data, Well C
Table
D.4
Apparent Viscosity as a Function

Interstitial Velocity, Well C
.
Table
D.5
Summary of Daily Injection Results, Well

C
and
Reservoir
, ,
Properties
of
....
of
...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
thank
the
Gas
Agency,
and
the
Sloan
support.
thank
Dr.
suggested
and supervised this work.
Hossein
Kazemi
whose
Research
Institute,
Foundation
Fred
guidance
Poettmann,
was
development of the reservoir simulator.

and
John
Wright
suggestions.
were
helpful
for
with
Potent.ia1 Gas
their
financial
who
originally
I am indebted to
Dr.
instrumental
the
Drs. James Crafton

their
comments
wish to thank my parents and my
their moral and financial support.
to
wife
and
for
Finally, 1 thank Rebecca
and my Bullmastiffs for their patience.
NOMENCLATURE
adsorption, milligram/gram
A =
A,
= maximum adsorption, milligram/gram
B = formation volume factor, dimensionless
c = compressibility, psi-'
C = polymer concentration, PPM
C, = wel 1 bore storage coefficient, ft3/ps i

e = 2.718282, dimensionless
fw = fractional flow of water, dimensionless
Fc = lnacessible pore volume factor, dimensionless
g = gravitational constant, 32.2 ft/sec2
h = formation thickness, feet

k = absolute permeability, md
kr = relative permeability, dlmensionless

kwi = initial virgin absolute permeability to water. rnd
K = consistency index for power law fluid, cp
K,
adsorpt ion coeff i c ient , ppm-
L = hole depth, feet

rn = slope o f the Horner or injection plot, psi/cycle
mH = slope of the Hall plot, (psia-days)/barrel
M = mobility ratio? dimensionless
Nc,
N,
rheological slope parameter, dimensionless

= Capillary number, dimensionless
= Ellis number, dimensionless
p = pressure, psia
=
PC,,
pe
capil lary pressure, water-oil, psi
pressure at the external drainage radius, psia
p i = initial reservoir pressure, psia

pWf = bottomhole injection pressure, psia
p, = surface tubing pressure, psia
q =
rate, barrels/day
Q = cumulative injection, barrels
Rrf
Rf
= residual resistance factor, dimensionless

= resistance factor, dimensionless
r = radius, feet
rbl = radius, bank one, feet
rb2 = radius, bank two, feet
re = external drainage radius, feet
r, = wellbore radius, feet
S = saturation, dimensionless
s =
skin, dimensionless
T = transmissibility, feet5/lbf-day
t = time, days or hours

u = interstitial velocity, feet/day
v = Darcy velocity, feet/day
Greek Symbols
&pf = pressure loss due to friction, psi
y
shear rate, s- 1
r(x)
Y,
Gamma Function,
tx-le+
dt,
x>O
= rock specific gravity, dimensionless
X =
Carreau rheological parameter, sec
ll = 3.141593, dimensionless
p =
fluid density, 1brn/ft3
4 = porosity, dimensionless
a = surface tension, dynes/crn
r = shear strss, dynes/cm 2
Bt = characteristic fluid time, sec

u = viscosity, cp
ua
apparent viscosity, cp
u,
effective viscosity, cp
u,
= apparent viscosity at an infinite shear rate, cp
"
= apparent viscosity at zero shear rate, cp
Subscr ipts
c = capillary pressure
d = displacing phase
e = external dralnage radius

e = effective viscosity
i =
initial, investigation
o = oi 1
injectlon t i m e or polymer
P =
r = relative permeability
w = water, wellbore radius
wf =
injecting pressure at rw
wi
water initial
ws = shut in pressure at rw
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Aqueous polymer and micellar solutions are currently
used for the enhanced recovery of oil from porous media.
Polymer floods, micellar-polymer floods, and injectivity or
productivity profile modification treatments are the most
common applications of polymer and micellar solutions.
The
behavior of polymer and micellar solutions in porous media

is
complex because the solutions have non-Newtonian
rheological properties.
Adsorption/retention and
permeabilty reduction also occur with polymer and micellar

solutions,
which also cause additional complexities.
Polymer solutions tend to deviate more from Newtonian

behavior than micellar solutions. There are usually other
phases present beside polymer, such as oil, which are an
additional complication.
The interpretation of injection pressures and rates
associated with polymer and micellar solution injection are
important to the efficient application of the solutions.
In
theory, the determination of reservoir plugging, fracturing,

fluid viscosity changes, and permeability changes can be
made from the fluid pressures and rates.
The economic
success of enhanced oil recovery projects is very dependent

on how rapidly additional oil recovery occurs.
The rate of
oil recovery is directly related to the rate of enhanced

recovery fluid injection.
Therefore, it is essentfal that
injectivity be maintained at optimum rates to ensure the

economic success of enhanced oil recovery projects.
The
Hall plot (Hall 1963) is a useful tool for evaluating

performance of injection wells.
The Hall plot i s one method for analyzing injection
pressures and rates.
It was originally developed for single
phase, steady state, radial flow of Newtonian liquids.

Since the advent of polymer and micellar solutions for
enhanced oil recovery, the Hall plot has also been applied
to the injection of these solutions-
Several o f the
assumptions made in the original development of the Hall

plot are violated for polymer and micellar solutions.
The
Hall plot was not derived for non-Newtonian or multiphase

flow.
When polymer and micellar solutions flow through
porous media, adsorption and retention occur which reduces

permeability.
Newtonian.
In addition, the flow of the fluids is non-
Multiphase flow may also occur.
This work will
verify the validity of the Hall plot for the injection of

polymer and micellar solutions.
The Hall plot
is
a steady-
state approach, and is therefore not valid for transient

flow conditions.
However, it will be demonstrated in
Chapter 6 that the transient period i s relatively short for
most polymer and micellar solution injection situations, and

therefore does not significantly influence the Hall plot.
Because of the complex nature of polymer and micellar
solution flow through porous media, exact analytical
solutions are generally not possible.
However, some
relatively simple approximate analytical solutions can be

developed.
To realisticly analyze polymer or micellar
solution injection, a two-phase, radial, numerical,

reservoir simulator was developed. The simulator includes
the following phenomena and effects: transient and steady
state flow, two-phase (oil-aqueous phase) flow, nonNewtonian rheology, adsorption/retention, residual
resistance factors, concentration effects, skin, and well
bore storage, The simulator is designed to consider ail the
important phenomena and effects which occur when
polyacrylamide or polysaccharide polymer solutions are
injected in porous media.
It should be noted that the
interfacial phenomena occurring when micellar solutions are

injected are not considered in the simulator.
Even with
thls simplification, the simulator still does an adequate

job as will be shown in Chapter 5.
The simulator was used to history match several field
injectivity data sets.
Once a good hlstory match was
obtained, the in-situ viscosities and resistance factors are
If the Hall plot is a valid method for analyzing
known.
injectivity of polymer and micellar solutions, it should
be
possible to calculate permeabilities, resistance factors,

and in-situ viscosities from the Hall plot which closely
agree with those found in the reservoir simulation history
match.
This is the methodology which was employed to verify
the Hall plot.

This thesis is composed of six chapters.
Chapter 2
develops the physical relations which exist when nonNewtonian solutions flow through porous media.
The
mathematical representations of the phenomena is given where

appropriate.
The following physical relations are discussed
i n Chapter 2:
rheology, adsorption/retention, shear rate-
velocity relations, polymer degradation, resistance factors,

and inaccessible pore volume,
Chapter 3 reviews
alternatives to the Hall plot for analyzing injection well

pressure data for both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids
using
falloff tests, type curves? and reservoir simulation.
The Hall plot is derived in Chapter 4.

develops
Chapter 4 also
simple approximate analytical methods for
injection of non-Newtonian solutions based on theoretical

considerations.
Chapter 5 presents the results from the
simulator for three wells,

and one is a
Two of the wells are field tests
hypothetical example.
Various methods of
integrating the Hall plot are presented.
Simulator results
are compared with the approximate analytical solutions.

Chapter 6 presents conclusions regarding the validity of the
Hall plot and the best methods of preparing and analyzing
the Hall plot.
Appendix A presents the development of the reservoir
simulator which forms the basis for the history matching and
conclusions.
The equations used in the simulator are
presented and then given in finite difference form.
The
procedure for solving the finite difference equations, and

the assumptions and limitations of the simulator are
reviewed.
Methods used to test and verify the simulator are
also presented.
Appendices 8, C, and D summarize the data
used in the three wells simulated.
To understand how
injection wet1 analysis fits into the operational scheme i n

enhanced oil recovery, a brief review of polymer and
micellar-polymer flooding follows,
1.1
Potvrner Floodinq
Polymer flooding i s often referred to as an improved
waterflooding process.
Polymer flooding is quite similar to
waterflooding, the principle difference being that the

injected fluid has been made more viscous by a high
molecular weight polymer,
The jncrease in viscosity of the
injected fluid improves the mobility ratio.
Some polymer
solutions reduce permeabilty, which also improves the

mobility ratio.
(1.11,
The mobility ratio is defined in equation
where "d" denotes the displacing phase.
It should be noted that when adsorption/retention occurs, as

with polymer, that kd may not be equal to ko.
An
improvement (reduction) in the mobility ratio results i n

increased areal and vertical sweep efficiency.
It is
primarily through improved sweep efficlency that polymer

flooding recovers additional oil.
Figure 1.1
i1lustrat.e~
the relation between mobility ratio and areal sweep

efficiency.
In general, polymer flooding does not significantly
reduce residual oil saturation.
Polymer flooding does not
mobilize large amounts of residual oil, making recoveries

from polymer flooding relatively small as a percentage of
the remaining oil-in-place when compared with other enhanced
oil recovery processes.
There are two polymer types which are in ~ i d euse
enhanced oil recovery.
One polymer
in
i s synthetic
polyacrylamide, which i s typically used i n concentrations of
I
MOBILITY RATIO
10
Figure 1 . 1
Areal Sweep E f f i c i e n c y at Breakthrough, Five-Spot Pattern
(Craig, F.
F.,
Waterflooding,
p. 122)
1971, The Reservoir Engineerins Aspects of

Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Dallas,
250 to 2000 ppm in aqueous solutions. The mean molecular
weight of polyacrylamide is usually on the order of several

mil lion.
The standard deviation and the mean of the
molecular-weight frequency-distribution significantly

influences the properties of the polymer.
In general
narrow (small standard deviation) molecular weight

distributions are desired.
Polyacrylamide typically has
about 30 percent hydrolysis, and is thus referred to as

partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA).
PHPA improves
the mobility ratio by increasing viscosity and by

permeability reduction.
The second and less commonly used
polymer is polysaccharide, the Siopolymer made from xanthan

gum.
Biopolymers do not significantly reduce permeability,
but do decrease the mobility ratio primarily by increasing

the displacing phase viscosity.
1.2
Micellar-Polymer Floodinn
Micellar solutions are typically composed of a
petroleum sulfonate, water, a cosurfactant (usually an

alcohol), a hydrocarbon, and electrolytes or salts.
The
micellar solution is usually displaced by a mobility buffer,

i.e.,
a polymer solution. Figure 1.2 illustrates the
micellar-polymer displacement process.

is then displaced by water.
The mobility buffer
The micellar solution is
capable of solubilizing fluids it contacts.
micelle on
INJECTION
PRODUCTiON
STAB'ILIZED BANK
OIL AND WATER FLOW
INJECTION
1/
FFtw
PRODUCTION
Figure 1.2
Microemulsion Flooding
(Poettmann,
F.
H.,
1983, Improved O x Recoveru, Interstate
O i l Compact Commission, Oklahoma City, p.
175.)
the order of
meters in size when it has sol ubi 1 i zed a
fluid (Poettmann 1983).
When the fluids contacted by the
micellar solutions are solubilized, the micellar polymer

flood is, in effect, a miscible displacement process.
After
dissipation of the micellar slug, it may no longer miscibly

displace the contacted fluid, but will instead immiscibly
displace the fluids at greatly reduced interfacial tension,
A
significant reduction in interfacial tension will also
mobilize large amounts of residual oil.
The amount of
residual oil left by a displacement process is related t o

the capillary number.
The higher the capillary number, the
less the residual oil saturation.

equation ( 1 . 2 )
It can be seen from
that a large reduction in interfacial tension
can greatly increase the capillary number.
Micellar-polymer flooding, in contrast to polymer

flooding, has the ability to greatly reduce residual oil
saturations.
Micellar-polymer flooding has the capability
to produce large portions of the remaining oil in place by

improved vertical and areal sweep efficiency and by reducing
residual oil saturations.
CHAPTER 2
BEHAVIOR OF NON-NEWTONIAN SOLUTIONS IN POROUS MEDIA
2.1
Rheological Models
A Newtonian fluid exhibits constant viscosity for

steady-state, isothermal shearing, which means for any shear
rate the viscosity does not change.
Throughout this work
all processes are assumed to be isothermal, so changes in

temperature do not cause changes in viscosity.
The
classical definition for a Newtonian fluid is given in

equation ( 2 . 1 ) .
The term dv/dx is referred to as the shear rate, and will

denoted
by y
fluid is u.
from here on.
be
The viscosity of a Newtonian
For non-Newtonian fluids, the apparent
viscosity is not constant, but a function of shear rate.

Polymer solutions used in enhanced oil recovery are aqueous
solutions.
Concentrations of polymer also affect viscosity.
In general, increasing concentration results in increased

apparent viscosity, all other things remaining equal.
Micellar solutions can form oil or water external emulsions
and liquid crystals.
The concentration of surfactants and
cosurfactants, and the structure of the micellar solution

influence the apparent viscosity.
The viscosities of
polymer and micellar solutions are a function of both

composition and shear rate.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the
relation between a Newtonian fluid and various types of nonNewtonian fluids.
The majority of polymer and micellar
solutions applied in enhanced oil recovery are

pseuodoplastic (shear thinning).
This means that most
polymer solutions have less viscosity at higher shear rates,

There are three rheological models which have been
widely used to describe polymer and micellar solutions.
The
models are the Ostwald-de Waele. Ellis, and Carreau, each

named after the respective developer.
It should be
remembered throughout the discussion of the rheological

models that follow, that all model parameters are functions
of concentration.
The Ostwald-de Waele is more commonly
known as the power law.
The Ostwald-de Waele is a two-
parameter model and the Ellis is three-parameter model.

Carreau model Is based on four parameters.
The
The theoretical
basis for each of these models is weak, and it is

appropriate to think of them as empirical models.
2.1.1
Qstwald-de Waele Model

The most popular rheological model used in enhanced oil
recovery is Ostwald-de Waele.

equation (2.2).
The model is given in
Two-parameter models
Threeparameter models
F i g u r e 2.1
R h e o g r a r n s f o r S o m e Non-Newtonian Rheological
(Bird,
N.,
Models
R.
Byron;
S t e w a r t . , W a r r e n E . ; and L i g h t f o o t , E d w i n
1960, Transport P h e n o m e n a , John W i l e y , N e w Y o r k , p. 1 0 . )
= K yn
The coefficient, K,
(2.2)
is referred to as the consistency of the
The larger the value of K the more viscous the
fluid.
fluid. The exponent n i s a quantitative measure of the

degree of non-Newtonian behavior; the larger the deviation
from 1.0, the more non-Newtonian the fluid behavior.
Pseudoplastic fluids have n values between zero and 1.0,
while dilatant fluids have n values larger than 1.0.
For most reservoir engineering computations, the
apparent viscosity of the non-Newtonian fluid is the value
Apparent viscosity can be defined for a non-
required.
Newtonian fluid by equation (2.3).

T
where va
rate.
is
(2.3)
=U,Y
the apparent viscosity at a particular shear
For a pseudoplastic fluid, va will decrease with
increasing shear.
By substitutfng equation ( 2 . 3 ) into
equation (2.21, the apparent viscosity for a power law fluid

can be defined by equation ( 2 . 4 ) .
(2.4)
u a = K yn-l
For flow-through porous media, it is sometimes useful

to define an effective viscosity for use in a modified
Darcy's
law.
It should be noted that effective and apparent
viscosities are not the same.
Apparent viscosity is the
shear stress divided by the shear rate at any point on a
rheogram.
Effective viscosity is defined so as to satisfy
some form of Darcy's
law.
The definition of effective
viscosity i s different for each rheological model, while the

definition of apparent viscosity is always given by equation
(2.3) regardless of the rheological model.
The effective
viscosity is a constant for power-law fluids at any shear

rate and is defined (Chistopher and Middleman 1965) as
ue = ( K / 5 0 )
The
modified
(12/n)" (150k4)('-")/'
Darcy's
law can be written
(2.5)
as
in
equation
(2.6) for power-law fluids.
'
p
v = C
l/n
power law fluids
(2.6)
pe
Both Vogel and Pusch (1981)and Huh and Snsw (1985) have
pointed out that the power law model is inadequate to
describe accurately the rheology of polymer solutions.
One
of the obvious problem with the power law is that as the

shear rate approachs zero, the apparent viscosity approaches
infinity.
This is an unrealistic result for polymer and
micellar solutions.
At very low shear rates, real polymer
and micellar solutions have finite viscosities. Figure 2.2

illustrates the rheological behavior of a real polymer
solution.
Because of the problems as discussed above, the
power law is not considered to be a suitable rheological

model to have in the reservoir simulator.
0
.,A,
, , n~
W e ~ s s e n b e r g Data
Copttlary Data
2 , 5 0 0 pprn Solutions
16-
10-2
10-I
4o
lo2
7 ,S H E A R R A T E , sec
lo3
lo4
40"
-1
Figure 2.2
Apparent Viscosities of Polyacrylarnide Solutions
(Hungan,
Necrnittin, 1972, "Shear
Polyacrylarnide Solutions," Society
Journal, December, p . 4 7 1 )
Viscosities
of Petroleum
of
Ionic
Enqineers
2.1.2
Ellis Model
The
Ellis
rheological
model overcomes
short-comings of the power law model.
some
of
the
The Ellis rheological
model is given in equation (2.7).
The slope of the power law region is given by n-1,

coefficient
and
The
corresponds to the viscosity at zero shear,
go
is
/ shear
~
stress where the apparent viscosity has
dropped to half of PO.
Sadowski and Bird (1965) developed a
relation for effective viscosity for use in Darcy's
law.
The effective viscosity for an Ellis fluid is given in

equation (2.8).
The coefficient
T
,
mean hydraulic radius.
is equal to R h A p / i ,
A form of Darcy's
where R h is the
law can also be
written for the Ellis model using effective viscosity, as

shown in equation (2.9).
k
=
AP
Ellis fluids
The general form of the Ellis model is not very

convenient for reservoir simulation.
To be consistent with
other models, it is preferable to have the apparent
viscosity defined in terms of shear rate rather than shear

stress.
For computational convenience in the reservoir
simulator, rather than using the Ellis model directly, a

small modification to the power law will result in a
rheological model which is quite similar to the Ellis model,
Below some specified shear rate, the power law has a
constant viscosity. It is this modification of the power law
that is used for Ellis fluids in the simulator.
The Ellis
model still has some shortcomings when applied to real

polymer and micellar solutions.
As can be seen in Figure
2.2, polymer solutions have a limiting viscosity at very
high shear rates.
Both Ellis and power law fluids approach
zero viscosity at high shear rates.

2.1.3
Carreau Model
The rheological model which most accurately matches the
behavior of polymer solutions is the Carreau model (Carreau

1968). The apparent viscosity of Carreau fluid i s given by
equation ( 2 . 1 0 ) .
The coefficient, n-1,
is the slope of the power law
region for a Carreau fluid, uo is the viscosity at zero

shear, and u,
is the viscosity at infinite shear.
The
intersection of the zero shear viscosity and the power law
region occurs at 1/X.
Figure 2.3 compares the curve shapes
for a pseudoplastic fluid using the power law, modified

power law, and the Carreau models.
It can be seen that the
curve shape generated by the Carreau model compares m o s t

favorably with the behavior of real polymer solutions as
illustrated in Figure 2.2.
The Carreau model is the
recommended rheological model for polymer and micellar

solutions.
However, the modified power law (Ellis) is an
available rheological option in the program.

It is not possible to easily define an effective
viscosity for a Carreau fluid.
write Darcy's
used.
However,
it is possible to
law if a shear-rate, velocity relationship i s
For equation (2.11) Savins's
(1969) shear-rate,
velocity relation was used, this relation is discussed in

section 2.2.
k
AP
v =
2 n-l/2
~,+l~a-~,lCl+(~(v/(k4)) 1
2.1.4
Carreau
fluids
(2.11)
Viscoelastic Effects
The rheological models described above assume

viscometric flow; that is, no-time dependent elastic effects
are considered.
If the fluid relaxation time is small
compared with the time of deformation, no elastic effects

will be observed.
The deformation time is approximated
by
time required to pass through a constriction in the porous

media.
The fluid relaxation time
is
fluid to recover from a deformation.
the time required for a

Relaxation time is a
function of shear and normal stresses and the modulus of

elasticity of the fluid.
When elastic forces start t o
become significant in comparison to viscous forces, this is

referred to in the literature as the viscoelastic effect.
The importance of viscoelastlc effects are best determined
from the El 1 is number, which is defined in equation (2.12).
-
Ne -
Bt
%A
characteristic fluid time

characteristic flow time
Characteristic fluid time (Bt) relations have been published

by severa 1 researchers, i nc 1 udi ng Truesde 1 1
Marshal 1 and Metzner (1967).
and
( 1964)
The variabl e Dp i s the
diameter of the particles for a packed bed.
Viscoeiastlc
effects become sign l ficant when Ne exceeds 0.10.
The onset
of viscoelastic effects results in increased apparent

viscosity of polymer and mice1 lar solutfons.
Viscoelastic
effects offset the shear thinning behavior of pseudoplastic

fluids.
model to
consider viscoelastic effects
explicitly i s not included in the reservoir simulator.
convenient method to inc 1 ude v iscoe 1 ast ic effects i s to

input the pol ymer or mice1 1 ar solution apparent viscosity in
a table as a function of Interstitial velocity and
concentration.
The simulator can then model viscoelastic
effects, even though a rigorous theoretical treatment
of
viscoelastic effects is not built into the simulator.
If
the information is avai lab1 e, the input of apparent

viscosity as function of interstitial velocity and
concentration into the simulator is the most accurate.
Laboratory measurements are usually required to generate
this data.
2-2
Shear Rate - Interstitial Velocity Relations

The previous section discussed rheologfcal models used
i n the simulator
in terms of shear rates.
To
apply the
rheological models, it is necessary to determine some

representative shear rate within the porous rnedfa.
A number
of researchers have published equations that relate

interstitial velocity to shear rate.
Savins (1969) derived
a shear rate-interstitial velocity relation based on a

capi1 lary model, which is given i n equation (2.13).
The variable u is interstitlal veloclty and C' is a

constant that varies between 25/12 and 2.5.
Gogarty ( 1 9 6 7 )
deve 1 oped a re 1 at ion using stat i st i ca 1 fit o f 1 aboratory

data.
Gogarty flowed surfactant stabflized water i n
hydrocarbon dispersions (micellar solutions) through
consol idated sandstone cores t o deve 1 op hi s re 1 at ion.
The
Gogarty equation is
where f(k) is defined as

f(k) = m log (k/kr)
(2.15)
The constants m and p must be determined for the

particular fluid system.
The constants B and y must be
determined for the particular reservoir rock.
Because of
the four constants t o be determined based on laboratory

measurements, the Gogarty equation cannot be applied unless
core flow experiments are conducted.
Jennings, Rogers, and West (1971) presented a shear
rate-interstitial
velocity relation based on a capi 1 1 ary
bundle, given in equation (2.16).
Chistopher and Middleman ( 1 9 6 5 ) developed a relation

for power law fluids based on the Blake-Kozeny equation:
The constant, 12, was determined for a packed bed o f uniform

spheres; for consolidated porous media the constant is
typi ca 1 1 y taken as 50.
The Chr i stopher-M idd 1 eman equation
Interstitial Velocity Ifeet/dayl
Figure 2.4
Comparison o f Shear Rate-Interstitial Velocity Relationships
T-3 147
25
For a
(2.17) was derived specif ica 1 1 y for power 1 aw f 1 uids.

Carreau fluid, it is necessary to use equations (2.131,
(2.141,
or (2.16.
To date there has been nothing pub1 ished
on the subject of which relation yields the most accurate

results.
The Gogarty equation is probably the most
accurate, since it is based on a fit of laboratory data.

However,
1 aboratory
data i s rare l y ava i l ab 1 e.
Figure 2.4
compares the Savins, Jennings, et a]., and the Christopher

and Middleman equations.
It can be seen in Figure 2.4 that
for a given interstitial velocity, the calculated shear rate

can vary considerably depending on the relation used.
2.3
Denradat ion
Degradation, when referring to polymer solutions, means
a loss of screen factor and viscosity.
The screen factor i s
definedas the time it takes f o r t h e fluid to f l o w through

five 100-mesh stainless screens divided by the time It takes
for water to flow thrcugh the same screens.
The screen
factor is a good measure of mechanical degradation.
There
are four principle types of polymer solution degradation:

mechanical, thermal, chemical. and microbial.
Microbial degradation occurs only with the
po l ysacchar i des
ince
they have a b io l og i c or i g i n.
Polyacrylamides do not experience microbial attack.

Microbes present in the injected water simply eat the
polymer.
If the polymer
i s
consumed by microbes, there is
obv i ous 1 y a 1 oss of v i scos i ty.
we 1 1 designed po 1 ymer
application will inhibit microbes using some type of

biocide,
The removal of oxygen from the injected fluid wi 1 1
also help to minimize microbial attack.

Therma 1 degradation occurs rapid1 y for pol yacry l a m f de
above 20a0~, and for polysaccharide above 1 6 0 ~ ~These
.
temperatures are considered to be the safe limit for the
application of these polymers (Poettmann 1985).
Even at
temperatures below the safe 1 imlt, there wi 1 1 be some loss
of viscosity over a period of weeks and months.
Thermal
degradation is greatly accelerated by the presence of

oxygen, microbes, and divalent ions.
Chemical degradation can occur because of the presence
of calcium, sodium, and iron cations.
Oxygen and
an acidic
pH w i 1 1 also accelerate chemical degradation.
Poiyacrylamide is much more sensitive to cations than i s

pol ysaccharide.
Pol yacrylamide is much more sensitive to
d i val ent cations than to monova 1 ent cations.
An a c i d i e p H
w i I 1 greatly reduce viscosity.
chemi ca 1
The result
of
degradation i s to ba l 1 up the po 1 ymer rno 1 ecu 1 es and reduce

viscosity (Chauveteau 1981).
To obtain maximum viscosity
the po 1 ymer chain has to be f u 1 1 y extended.

Mechanical degradation occurs at hlgh pressure
gradients, which causes the polymer molecules to be ripped

apart. Pol yacry 1 amide i s very sensiti ve to shear
degradation; polysaccharide is not.
A number of researchers
have pub1 i shed critical shear rate re1 at ions.
When the
critical shear rate is reached, some percentage of the

screen factor or viscosity has been lost.
The critical
shear rate is often set at the point where ten percent of

the screen factor has been lost.
Ser i ght
( 19801,
Morr i s and Jackson
Maerker (1975,
( 1978)
1976),
have pub1 f shed
relations to predict when shear degradation begins.
The
best way to limit shear and mechanical degradation i s by

limiting the pressure gradients.
As can be seen from the discussion above, there are
many other factors, determining viscosity besides
concentration and shear rate.
It has been assumed for
simp1 icity that the parameters in the rheological model have

been appropriately adjusted for all types of degradation.
If the vfscosity is defined in a t a b u l a r f o r m a s a function
of
interstitial velocity, the appropriate corrections for
degradation are also assumed to be made.
It should be
obvious that these assumptions do not take into account the

fact that all types of degradation can be functions of both
space and time.
Adsorption - Retention
2.4
When po 1 ymer and mi ce 1 1 ar so 1 ut ions f 1 o w through porous

media, some of the po l ymer or su 1 fonate w i 1 1 become trapped
or lost to the rock.
There are three basic causes
of
losses: adsorption, mechanical entrapment, and hydrodynamic

entrapment.
Figure 2.5 i l lustrates mechanical entrapment
and adsorption.
When mechanical entrapment occurs, the
po 1 ymer i s actua 1 1 y phys 1 ca 1 1 y trapped.
Hydrodynarni c
entrapment occurs because the pressure gradient 1n the

region of the molecules keeps them trapped.
Adsorption i s a surface phenomenon* and i s usua 1 1 y
mode 1 1 ed with a tangmui r adsorption isotherm.
The form of
the Langmuir adsorption isotherm is given below.
The variable A is the amount of adsorption.

A,
is
The coefficient
the maximum amount of adsorption that will occur.
The
var iabl e C is the concentrat ion, and Ka is a constant.

Adsorption is norma 1 1 y expressed in micrograms per gram of
rock or in pounds per acre foot of reservoir.
Figure 2.6
i 1 1 ustrates a typi ca 1 adsorption i sotherrn.
Since data on the various polymer loss mechanisms are

usual 1 y not avai lab1 e, it is difficult t o determine exactly
how much each mechanism is contributing to polymer and
INACESUBLE
PORE SPACES
ROCK
MAIN FLOW
CHANNELS
AREA O F MECHANICAL
Figure 2 . 5
Polymer Adsorption and Mechanical Entrapment
ADSORPTION
(MICROGRAM OF POLYMER/GRAM OF ROCK)
mice 1 1 ar sol ut ion 1 oss. Adsorption and hydrodynamic and

mechanical entrapment are therefore, lumped together,
and Christ
(1986)
Cohen
have devel oped an exper imental method to
distinguish polymer loss due to adsorption versus mechanical

and hydrodynamic losses.
The Cohen and Christ procedure has
been applied to packed sand beds only, and not formation

cores.
Their experiments on sand packs indicated that 35
percent of the polymer losses were due to adsorption and 65

percent of the polymer losses were due to mechanical and
hydrodynamic effects.
For computation in the simulator, all
polymer losses can be lumped into the tangmuir adsorptfon

isotherm, or polymer loss can be input in a t a b u l a r form as
a function of concentrat ion.
A 1 1 po 1 ymer and mice 1 1 ar
solution losses are assumed to occur instantaneously; that

is, thermodynamic equilibrium is assumed to be attained
immediately.
Adsorption/retentTon losses of polymer can range from
25 to 500 pounds per acre foot,while sulfonate may exhiblt
losses up to 1508 pounds per acre foot.
Mungan
(19691,
H i rasaki and Pope ( 1 9 7 4 ) , and Cohen ( 1 9 8 3 ) have pub1 i shed
resu 1 ts of po 1 ymer adsorption studies.
Po 1 yacryl amides
adsorb much more than polysaccharides (Castagno
1984).
losses to the reservoir rock are a1 so assumed to be

irrevers ib 1 e.
Whi 1 e some desorption of surfactants may
All
occur, in rea 1 i ty the amount i s usua 1 1 y sma 1 1. The

desorption of polymer is also insignificant (Fanchi 1984).
When adsorption and retention occur, the permeability of the
rock is reduced.
The consideration of permeability
reduction is discussed in the next section.

Adsorpt ion/retent i on denudes the po 1 ymer so 1 ut ion or
mice1 lar slug of polymer or surfactant at the flood front.
Because o f the denuding a t the f 1 ood front, the pol ymer or
surfactant concentration wi 1 1 eventual ly be reduced to zero
at the flood front.
Adsorption/retention delays the time to
breakthrough of polymer or surfactant.

2.5
Resistance Factors and Residual Resistance Factor

Resistance factors are used t o measure the combined
change in mobility due to viscosity and perrneabilty effects.

The resistance factor is defined in equation (2.19).
Mob1 1 ity of Water
Rf
Mobility of Polymer
W,.,krw)/~w
(2.19)
( kpkrp
/up
The re 1 at i ve perrneabf 1 f ty of the water and pol ymer sol ut Ion

is
usual 1 y assumed to be the same.
The abscl ute
permeabil fty to polymer can be qufte different from the

absolute permeability of water, due to adsorption.
The
resistance factor can be related to the improvement in the

mobi 1 ity ratio.
Improvement in the m b i 1 ity ratio increases
conformance as shown in Figure 1.1.

A measure of the perrneabi l it.y alteration due to
adsorption and retention of polymer and sulfonate is the

residual resistance factor.
The residual resistance factor
is defined in equation (2.20).

Rrf
Water mobility before polymer
Water Mobility after polymer
(kwi krwi)
(2.20)
(kwp krwp)
The viscosity of water can be omitted from this computation

since it remains constant before and after polymer
inject ion.
The re 1 at i ve permeabi l it i es are usua 1 1 y assumed
to be the same before and after polymer injection.
The
residual resistance factor is then the ratio of absolute

permeabilites before and after polymer injection. For
computational purposes in the reservoir simulator, Rrf is
taken to be a linear function of adsorption/retention, as
shown in equat ion (2.2 1 ) .
The constant Rrf-,
is the maximum amount of
permeability reduction attainable.
It should be noted that
the amount of permeabil ity reduction is not necessarily the

same for oil as it is for the aqueous phase.
Equation
(2.21) would then be written for each phase if the amount of

permeabil fty reduct;on was different.
For a polysaccharide,
Rrfdmax
is
quite close to 1.0; for a polyacrylamide the Rrf-
max may be as high as 15.0.
Using equation (2.211, it
i s
poss ib l e to ca 1 cu 1 ate the amount of perrneabi 1 ity reductl on

for a
g i ven
amount of adsorpt ion/retention.
2.6
Inaccessible Pore Volume

The term inaccessible pore volume i s considered by many
to be a misnomer, but i t is a term that has gained common

usage.
Dawson and Lantz ( 1 9 7 4 1 were the first to propose
the inaccessible pore volume theory.
Dawson and Lantz
prepared cores by flooding the cores wTth polymer solutions

until the effluent concentrations had stabil ized, which
indicated no more adsorptIon/retention was occurring.
It
was neccesary to have no adsorption/retention occurring in

the rock because adsorption/retention slows the propagation
of the polymer flood front, since the rock strips polymer
from sol cstlon.
They then flooded the cores, in which a 1 1
adsorption/retention had been completed, and observed that
if a po 1 ymer solution was prepared wl th sa 1 t water, the

polymer breakthrough would occur before the breakthrough of
the sal t in the water sol vent.
Dawson and Lantz conc 1 uded
that the interstitial velocity of the polymer i s greater

than that of the water so 1 vent.
The h i g h e r i n t e r s t it i a 1
velocity of the polymer was attributed to a reduced flow

area for the po 1 ymer mo l ecu 1 es because of the1 r 1 arger s 1 ze.
That area unava i 1 ab 1 e t o f 1 ow for the po 1 ymer is ca 1 1 ed the

Cnaccess i b 1 e pore vo 1 urne.
While this phenomenon was origlnal ly attributed t o
inaccessible pore volume, it is now recognized that it is
a l s o due t o several other phenomena.
Chauveteau
Lecourties and
1984) have proposed a pore wa 1 1
exc 1 usion theory
based on thermodynamic considerations t o account for the

higher interst i t ia 1 ve 1 oc ity of the po 1 yrner,
Other
researchers have a 1 so proposed theories t o expl aln thi s

phenomenon.
In terms o f reservoir s imu 1 at ion, the inaccess i b l e pore
v o 1 ume
o n 1 y modif 5 es t h e po 1 ymer
1 ow
equation.
inaccessible pore vol ume factor, dencted by F,r

1.0
The
is equa 1 t o
less the pore volume fraction which is not accessible t o
pol ymer.
Fc takes on vai ues 1 ess than one and increases the
interstitial velocity of the polymer.
For a1 I cases in this
study, f c has been set t o 1.0; that is, the velocity of the
polymer has not been increased,
to make F,
The option exists however,
less than 1.0, and increase polymer velocity.
CHAPTER 3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE HALL PLOT FOR ANALYZING INJECTION WELLS
3.1
Falloff Testinq
Falloff tests record the transient pressure behavior o f
injection wells.
A falloff test consists of shutting in an
injection well and observing the decrease in pressures as a

function of time.
The pressures in a fa1 1 off test are
usua 1 1 y measured down hol e at the injecting i nterva 1 .
The
method o f analysis for Newtonian fluid injection Is the same

as that used in the bui 1 dup ana 1 ys 1 s o f produc i ng we 1 I s,
except that there are some sign changes.
Nowak and Lester
(1955) were the first to develop the mathematical

expressions for Newtonian fluid injection.
They based theIr
development on the work of Horner (1951) and Van Everdingen

(19531, and derived equation (3.1).
Equation 3.1
is for analyzing the infinite-acting, transient
period, fol lowing shutin after an Injection period.
The
v a l u e At is t h e t i m e since shutin, a n d t p is t h e injection

time.
The usua 1 method of anal ys Is of fa 1 1 off and bui l dup
tests is the Horner plot which can be developed from

equation (3.1).
The recorded pressures are plotted versus
Homer time, where Horner time is (tp+At)/At* on s e m i logarithimic scales.
The slope of the straight line portion
of the plot is defined by equation (3.2).
The sign convention that injection is positive wt 1 1 be used

throughout the thesis.
The skin factor from the Horner plot
can be determined from equation ( 3 . 3 ) .
The term 1 og{(tp+At)/tp)
is usua ? 1 y neg 1 igib 1 e and omitted.
Injection wells can a l s o be tested by measuring injection

pressures when injection is commenced from a stabilized
condition.
This is analogous t o the drawdown in producing
we1 Is, and wil 1 be r e f e r r e d t o a s a injection test for

injection wells.
The Injection test can be analyzed by
plotting the flowlng bottom hole pressure versus the

logarithim of time.
Equation (3.2) still applies t o the
straight line portion o f the injection test but the skin
factor is ca 1 cu 1 ated using equation (3.4).
The analytical equations (3.1)-(3.4)
are developed in detai 1
in the well testing literature (Matthews and Russel1 1967;

Earlougher 1977; Smith 1978; Lee 19821.
The equations as
discussed above are valid for the time period when the
reservoir is still infinite acting during both the injection
and shut-in periods, i .e. the transient has not yet reached
the drainage radius,
'The equations assume the wellbore
storage period is over.
It i s a l s o assumed in these
equations that the reservoir is homogeneous and there is

single phase,
Newtonian flow.
Equations (3.1)-(3.4)
are
useful for testing and verifying the reservoir simulator a s

shown in Appendix A.
Researchers have a 1 so deve l oped ana 1 yt ica 1 express i ons
for transient, non-Newtonian, single-phase liquid flow.
Odeh and Yang (1979) and Ikoku and Ramey (1979, 1980) have
developed analytical expressions for the transient pressure
behavior when power law fluids are injected in porous media.
Van P o o l l e n a n d J a r g o n (1969)were s o m e o f t h e first
researchers t o investigate transient non-Newtonian flow in
porous media. Odeh and Yang der i ved the fo 1 1 owi ng part i a 1
differential equation for the flow o f power law liquids
through porous rned i a.
B is defined in equation ( 3 . 6 ) .
Odeh and Yang solved equation (3.5) for an injection test,

assuming a single. homogeneous, power-law fluid bank
extending t o the drainage radius.
The result is given in
equation (3.7).
Where r [ x ) i s t h e gamma function.

plot o f
p,-pI
For injection tests a
versus t 1 / ( 2 n + 1 )wi1 1 yield a straight line
with a slope given by equation ( 3 . 0 ) .
T h e s l o p e o f t h e straight line p o r t i o n o f t h e p l o t f o r a
fa1 loff test with a power law fluid is also given by

The fa1 Ioff test i s plotted with (pws-pwf)
versus [(t+At)1/(2n+l) - Atl/(2n+l)].
Since the in-sit"
va 1 ue of n i s usual 1 y unknown, it is usua 1 1 y necessary to

iterate on the v a 1 ue of n unt i 1 a straight 1 i ne i s obtai ned.
It can be seen that this procedure would become rat.her timeconsuming if attempted by hand.
Ikoku and Ramey went
through a development which i s quite similar to that of Odeh

and Yang, although their results are in a slightly different
form.
The work of Ikoku and Ramey and Odeh and Yang both
assume there is single-phase flow of a power law fluid.

Whi l e their work is theoretical ly correct, it is often
difficult to unambiguously apply it
to field data sets.
Thei r work a 1 so fa i 1 s to account for mu 1 ti phase f l ow and

multiple fluid banks.
The falloff and injection test provide information on
the reservoir at an instant in time, since most of the
transient data is obtained over less than a day for polymer
and micellar solution injection.
The Hall plot, in
contrast, provides information about the reservoir on a

continuous bas i s.
However, to effect i ve 1 y app 1 y the Ha 1 1
plot it is necessary to have information that is best

obtained from a fa1 loff or injection test.
For example, the
Hal 1 plot can identify a combined change in transmissibi 1 ity
and skin factor, but cannot identify how each has changed.
For water injection, the transmissibi 1 ity usua 1 1 y remains
relatively constant, but the skin factor may change.
Pol ymer and mice1 lar sol ution injection may change both the
transmissibility and skin factor.
It is therefore necessary
to run an injection or fa1 loff test periodical l y to

determine the skin factor and transmissibil ity.
It is then
possible to determine how each parameter is changing from

the I-ial 1 plot.
3.2
Type Curves
Type curves accornpl i sh the same resu 1 t as the f a l loff
or injection test.
Rather than making a Horner or injection
plot., the field data is compared with dimensionless piotr.

For non-Newtonian fluids, a dirnenslonless non-Newtonian
pressure i s usua 1 l y p 1 otted versus a non-Newton ian
dimensionless time to generate a type curve.
The field
pressures are then matched with the type curve.
Based on a
match point, it i s possible to calcu1at.e various reservoir

or fluid parameters.
Lund and tkoku ( 1 9 8 0 ) and Gencer and
Ikoku (1984) presented type curves for non-Newtonian

/Newtonian composite reservoirs.
Vongvuthipornchai and
Raghavan (1984) presented type curves for the injection o f

power-law fluids into vertical ly fractured we1 1s.
Vongvothipornchai and Raghavan
( 1 985)
a 1 so presented type
curves for w e 1 1 s dominated
by
skin and storage.
The type
curves are an a1 ternati ve method of ana 1 yzing injection an3

fa 1 1 off data.
However, addit iona 1 comp 1 exit i es can b e
considered in the type curve approach that are not

considered in falloff and injection test analysis methods o f
the prev ious sect ion.
If a su itab l e type curve is
a v a i lab1 e, parameters obtained from a type curve matcn can
effect i ve 1 y comp l ement the Ha 1 1

3.3
l ot.
Reservoir Simulation
Reservoir simulation can be used t o predict and history
match the performance of a reservoir when non-Newtonian

solutions are injected.
When a suitable history match is
obtained with field data, the simulator parameters should

reflect the in-situ reservoir parameters.
Reservoir
simulation has the distinct advantage of considering a1 1

import.ant phenomena occurring when non-Newtonian fluids are
injected into the reservoir.
The assumptions which are made
in the ana f ytical solutions and type curves often do not

ref 1 ect what occurs in the f i e 1 d.
Un i form po 1 ymer
concentrations, no adsorption, and specific rheologicat

models are the assumptions typical of the analytical and
type curve solutions for non-Newtonian fluid injection,
These types of assumptions are usua 1 1 y i nva 1 id for fie 1 d
injectivity situations, and are not necessary in reservoir

simu 1 at ions.
In general, reservoir simulations have t h ~ !
potential to more accurately determine reservoir parameters

than type curves and analytical solutions. The principle
disadvantage of reservoir simulation is that it is by far
the most time and capital intensive of the analysis
techniques. A1 so, a reservoir simulator may not a 1 ways be
available.
Bondor, et a1
.,
i 1 9 7 3 ) presented one of the first
reservoir simulators for polymer flooding.
Huh and Snow
(1985) presented a simulator that will automatically find a
"'best fit" history match.
Fanchi (1985) developed a
reservoir simulator for the Department of Energy to simulate

polymer and micellar polymer flooding.
Where appropriate,
the sirnul ator developed in this study has drawn on the

simulation work done
by
these authors.
CHAPTER 4
DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THE HALL PLOT
Derivation
4.1
A
and
Development of the Hal 1 Plot
ess common way t o anal yze injecti v i ty data is t h e
Hal 1 plot. The Hal
plot was original 1 y proposed to ana 1 yze
the performance of waterfl ood inject ion we I 1 s (Ha1 1

H a 1 1 simp l y used Darcy's
centered
law for steady-state f l ow o f a we 1 1
in a circular reservoir, which
Newtonian flow.
1963).
is
given
in
Equation ( 4 . 1 ) a1 so assumes sing1 e phase,

Hal 1
time (equation t4.21)
integrated both sides with respect to

to obtain equation (4.3).
Separating the integra l of equation (4.31, Ha 1 1 then

rearranged equation (4.4)
to get equation (4.5).
1 4 1 . 2 Bu ( ln(rebrw)
s)
4 + IP,dt
IpWfdt =
(4.5)
kh
Hall made a number of very important assumptions in

deriving the Hall plot.
Equation
(4.6)
defines the relation
between surface and bottomhole pressures for steady-state

vertical f 1 ow.
Where L i s the depth of the we 1 1 and Apf i s
the pressure loss due to friction.
Ha1 1 substituted equation (4.6) into equation ( 4 . 5 ) to

arrive at equation ( 4 . 7 ) .
Ha l l s imp l y dropped the second term on the right hand side

of equation (4.7) and
p1
otted the i ntegra 1 of w e l 1 head
pressures with respect to time versus cumulative injection.

This is what has come to be known as the "Ha 1
Hal 1 observed
by
pl ot."
What
plotting in this format was that if an
injection well was stimulated, there would be a decrease in

s
l ope, and I f a we 1 1 was damaged, the s l ope wou I d increase.
W
hi 1e
Ha 1 1 's conc l us ions are va l id regarding changes in
slope, the second term on the right hand side of equation

(4.7)
is often not negligible in comparison to the other
terms and therefore cannot usual ly be dropped.
The pressure
at the drainage radius and the hydrostatic head of the

injection column are usually a significant percentage of the
bottomhole injection pressure.
If the sum of the hydrostatic
pressure, friction pressure, and external drainage radius

pressure are smal 1 when compared to the bottom hole
injection pressure, then quantitative calculations can be
made from the s l opes of the H a l 1 p 1 ot as or ig i na l 1 y proposed
by
Hal 1 .
DeMarco (1968)and Moff i tt and Menzi e C 1 9 7 8 ) have
used the H a 1 1 p l ot as or i g ina l 1 y proposed by Ha 1 1 to ana 1 yze

injection well performance.
Injection data must be plotted in the form of equation
(4.4)
to
make val id quantitative calculations, or some
correction must be made to the analysis method.
There are
two correction procedures which wi 1 1 be deve l oped in the

next sect ion of this chapter to a1 1 ow quantitative ana 1 ysi s
o f t h e H a l 1 p l o t t o b e m a d e w h e n t h e H a l 1 integralsjpsdtor
Jpwfdt are used.
If no corrections are made, j(pWF-p,)dt
must be p 1 otted versus cumu 1 at i ve inject ion.
The s 1 ope of
the plot from equation ( 4 . 4 ) is then given by equation
Equation ( 4 . 8 ) assumes there is a single-phase, homogeneous
fluid bank that extends to the drainage radius.
Equation
(4.8) may not be appropriate when multiple fluid banks with
significantly different properties exist in the reservoir.

The Hall plot i s a steady-state analysis method,
whereas the fa1 1 off tests, injection tests, and type curve
analysis are transient methods.
As stated previously the
transient pressure analysis methods determine the reservoir

propert i es at a poi nt i n t i me.
The Ha l 1 p 1 ot i s more of a
long term monitoring method; that is, reservoir properties

are measuredover a periodofweeks andmonths.
The Ha11
plot can therefore help to iaentify when some change in

injectivity has occurred, such as plugging or near we1 1 bore
damage or fractur i ng.
Hal :'s method has several advantages. Integrating the
pressure data with the Hal1 method has a smoothing effect on
the data.
Smoothing the injection data over several weeks
or months results in more accurate answers, as opposed to

taking a single instant in time to calculate reservoir
properties.
Acquisition of the data for the Hal 1 plot is
inexpensi ve, since a 1 1 that is required is the recording of

cumulative injection and surface pressures.
The surface
pressures are then converted to bottomhole pressures,

correcting for hydrostatic
head and
friction losses.
Injection and fa1 loff tests normal 1 y require running gauges
t o t h e b o t t o m o f t h e hole on wire1 ine, which is a n

additional expense.
The analysis of a Hall plot
re 1 at i ve 1 y simp1 e.
The Ha 1 1 p 1 ot can be used to
i s
qualitatively interpret what is happening in the reservoir

when changes occur in the slope of the plot. The greatest
disadvantage of the Hal l plot is that the skin and
transmissibility are lumped together in the slope obtained
from the pl ot, which can make quant itat i ve ca 1 cu 1 at ions
difficult.
That is why it is necessaryto run a fa1 l o f f o r
injection test periodica 1 1 y to determine the

transmissibi 1 ity and skin.
4.2
Qualitative Analysls of the Hall Plot

The Ha 1 1 plot has been prepared several ways by various
investigators (Hal 1 1953; DeMarco 1968; Moffitt and Menzie

1978).
is
The most common method for preparing the Ha 1 1 pl ot
t o plot the integral of surface pressure, Jpsdt7 versus
cumu 1 at i ve i n ject ion.
aottornhs i e pressure, or bottomho l e
pressure less pressure at the external drainage radius, can

a 1 so be integrated and p 1 otted versus cumu 1 at i ve injection.
For qua1 itative analysis, the objective is to recognize that

a change h a s occurred in the in.jectivec a p a c i t y o f a well.
The change could be due to a change in the transmissibility
or a change in the skin.
A change in the injective capacity
o f a we 1 1 is recogn i zed by a change in s 1 ope o f the Ha 1 1
plot*
If the integrals, jpsdt or $pwfdt, are plotted versus
cumu 1 at i ve injection, erroneous conc 1 us ions can be drawn
based on changes in the s lope of the Hal 1 plot.
Figure 4.1
is a Hal 1 plot based on the data for w e 1 1 A, where t h e

integra l $pwfdt has been p l otted versus cumu l at i ve
injection.
p l ot,
skin.
Several changes in slope can be seen on the
but there has been no change in transmi ss ibi 1 ity or

The changes in s 1 ope are due to changes in rate.
The changes in slope occur because the integral, $pedt has

been ignored.
The changes in slope can be understood as
follows: with a pressure at the external drainage radius of

1000 psia and
a bottomhole injection pressure ~f 1500 psia,
there would be some rate X.
if the bottomhole injection
pressure was increased to 2000 psia then the injection rate

would increase to 2X.
When $pwfdt is plotted versus
cumu l ati ve !nject ion,
a doubl i ng of the inject ion rate
results in only a 33 percent increase in t h e qressure

integra 1 .
At higher inject ion rates, the s 1 ope of the H a 1 1
plot wi 1 1 decrease, and the Hal 1 plot s 1 ope wi 1 1 increase at

lower injection rates.
Plotting other than J(pwf-p,)dt
versus curnu l at i ve inject ion wi 1 1 viol ate the proport iona 1 itv
inherent i n Darcy's
1 aw.
In field situations. plotting the Jp,dt or Jpwfdt

versus cumulative injection has been found to work
satisfactorily.
There are two reasons why these plots wil 1
work in field situations.
Firse, if the injection rates are
re 1 at i ve l y constant, no changes in s 1 ope w i 1 1 occur un l ess

the transmissibility or skin change.
Second, if the Jpedt
is negligible in comparison to the JpWfdt, no changes in

slope wi 1 1 occur unless the transmissibi 1 ity or skin change.
When p 1 ott i ng f psdt versus cumu l at i ve inject ion, then
I(pe+Apf-pgL)dt
must be neg 1 ib 1 e.
The va 1 ue
ApF
is the
pressure loss due to friction, and pgl i s hydrostatic

pressure.
Figure 4.2 i s for the same data set as shown i n
Figure 4.1, but the pressure at the external drainage radius

has been decreased to 100 psia from 1000 ~ s i a . The integral
jpedt i s now sma 1 1 er i n comparison to f pwfdt.
It can be
seen in Figure 4.2 that the changes in slope due to rate are
now smal 1 er. The
p l ot
using JpWfdt versus cumul at i ve
injection agrees more closely with the plot of j(pWf-peldt

versus cumu 1 at i v e i nject i on.
Figure 4.3 is a pl ot prepared by Moff i t t and Menzi e
(1978) for the Bradford field using Jpsdt.
The various
slopes indicate changes in transmissibility.
It can be see
from Figure 4.3 that an increase in viscosity of the
Barrels
Figure 4.3
Hall Plot for the Bradford Field

D. a n d M e n z i e . D o n a l d E., 1978. "We1 1
Injection T e s t s o f N o n - N e w t o n i a n Fluids," S o c i e t y of
Petr-oleurn Engineers, paper no. 7 1 7 7 . )
(Moffitt. Paul
injected fluid results in an increase in the slope of the

Ha1 1 plot.
To correct 1 y interpret a change in the Hal

j(pwf-p,)dt
1 p 1 ot
s l ope,
must be plotted versus cumul ati ve injection.
If
one of the other plotting methods is used, then one of

assumptions as discussed in the previous paragraphs must
be
satisfied or a correction to the Hal1 integral must be made.
To make quantitative calculations when Jpsdt or Jpwfdt
is
p 1 otted versus cumu 1 at i ve i nject ion, it i s necessary to

correct the integrations.
One method to correct the Hall
integrals i s to simply subtract that term which was omitted

in the original integration.
To correct Jpsdt, the quantity
J(pe+Apf-pgL)dt needs to be subtracted from the integral.

For most prob l ems the quant ity J (pe+Apf-pgLL;t can be
est imat.ed b y
(pe+Apf-pgL)At to correct the integra 1 , since
for most situations the i ntegrand Is re 1 at i ve 1 y constant

with time,
The same logic can be applied t o Jvwfdt, the
correction t o be subtracted being peat.

An a 1 ternat i ve method to correct the Hal l
p l ot, i s
to
correct the s 1 ope direct l y, since the s l ope i s the quantity

used in most quant i tat i ve ca 1 cu l at ions.
When the i ntegra 1
p 1 otted is Jpwfdt, it can be eas i 1 y shown that the corrected

slope is equal to equation (4.9).
rnH = rn;t -
pe(tl - t2)
Q1
The slope rn;
(4.91
- 42
is the Hal 1 plot slope calculated using the
integral Jpwfdt.
The slope m~ is the corrected slope, which
is equi va l ent to using
(pwf-pe)dt.
A simi 1 ar correction scheme can easi ly be developed using for
the Ha1 1
integral, Jpsdt, as given in equation ( 4 . 1 0 ) .
It has been assumed in equation (4.9) that pe is constant

with respect t o t i m e f o r t h e periodof slope correction and
l ikewise for equation ( 4 . 1 0 )
that pe, Apf, and pgL are
constant with respect t o time f o r t h e period of slope

correction.
From this point on, all Hal1 plots will
be
assumed to be suitably plotted (j(pWf-pe)dt versus Q) for

quant itat i ve ana 1 ys is un 1 ess otherwi se stated.
An increase in the slope o f t h e Ha11 plot indicates a
decrease in transmissibility and/or an increase in skin.
decrease in the s 1 ope of the i-la l 1 plot indicates an increase

in transmissibility and/or a decrease in skin.
The next t w o
sect ions w i 1 1 deve 1 op methods to quant itat i ve l y interpret

the Hal 1 plot.
4.3
Quantitative Analysis of the Hall Plot

f o r Newtonian Fluids
When f(pWf-pe)dt is plotted versus cumulative
injection, the slope of the Hal 1 plot is equal to equation

14.8).
This slope assumes single-phase flow with only one
fluidbank.
It is also possible toanalyze the Hall plot.
using the concept of multiple fluid banks.
Analysis methods
for the Hal 1 plot using the concept of multiple fluid banks
wi 1 1 be developed in this and the fo'l1 owing section,
Based
on the slope o f the Hal 1 plot, if the skin is known, the

transmissibility can be calculated, and if the
transmissibi 1 ity is known, the skin can be calculated.
For
single-phase flow, the transmissibi 1 ity wi 1 1 not change

significantly with time; therefore, any change in the slope
o f t h e Hall plot will De due t o skin effects.
Assuming no
change in transmissibi 1 ity, the new skin can be calculated

as fol lows for water injection if the transmissibi 1 ity is
already known.
The subscript 1 denotes the old slope and
the subscript 2 the new slope.
When a waterflood is commenced, there will be two-phase

f 1 ow in the near we 1 1 bore reg ion.
The deve l opment.
presented i n section 4.1 assumed there was single-phase flow

of a homogeneous fluid.
As the water moves away from the
wellbore, a water bank and oil bank form.
A simplified
method t o a n a l y z e t h i s situation is t o a p p l y Darcy's

a series manner.
law in
I f the reservoir and fluid properties a r e
assumed t o be constant within each bank, then the slope o f

the Hal 1 plot is given by equation (4.12).
(oi 1
(water bank9
bank) (4.12)
Since the oi 1 displacement i s governed by the Buckl eyLevrett
( 1942)
equation, the saturat Ions and re 1 at i v e
permeabilities are not constant within each fluid bank.

interface between the oil and water bank is rbl.
The
The
i - n t e r f a c e o f t h e o i l a n d water banks c a n b e e s t i m a t e d u s i n g
equation (4.13), which resul t s from the Buckl ey-Leverett
equat i on.
The quantity (afw/aSWlF i s the derivative o f the

fractional f 1 ow curve at the f 1 ood front.
The water
saturation and the derivative o f the fractional flow curve

at the flood front are determined using Welge's
( 1952).
equation
method
Additisna 1 deve 1 opment of the Buck 1 ey-Leverett

is
given in Appendix A.
Since the saturatfons and
relative permeabilities in the fluid banks are not constant,

resu i t s from equation (4.12) wi 1 1 on 1 y be approximate.
As
t h e oil bank is pushed away f r o m t h e w e l I b o r e t h e water bank

term will dominate in equation (4.12) and the single phase
flow solution can be used.
4.4
Quantitative Analysis of the Hall Plot

for Non-Newton ian F 1 u ids
The analysis methods for non-Newtonian fluids are
simi lar t o the methods developed in the previous section,

except that the non-Newtonian rheology and permeability
reduction must be considered.
All equations developed in
this section will degenerate to single fluid bank equations

when the terms for banks away from the wellbore are dropped,
and the fluid bank in contact with the wellbore is assumed
t o extend t o the drainage radius.
Equation (4.14) is for an
injection sequence of polymer and then water,

is assumed t o be initially oil saturated.
The reservoir
Three fluid banks
will be created: oil, polymer, and water.
(water bank)
(polymer bank)
.
(01 1 bank)
(4.14)
Equation (4.14) can be rewritten with just one absol ute

permeabi 1 ity and one aqueous phase v iscosi t y after the
introduction of resistance factor (Rf) and residual
resistance factor (Rrf).
Since residual resistance factor
and resistance factor are useful in the evaluation o f

po 1 ymer performance, equation (4.14) has been rewritten in
equation (4.15).
(water bank)
( po l
ymer bank
(oi 1 bank)
In genera 1, t h e bank in contact with the we1 1 bore wi 1 1
dominate the other terms.
When the bank in contact has
moved out a substantial distance, the other terms, in some

situations, can be dropped; and the bank in contact with the
wellbore can be assumed t o extend t o the drainage radius
without substantial error in the calculations.
When the
fluid bank i n contact with the we1 lbore has moved out a
short distance, t h e dropping of the terms for the other
banks can result in large errors.
In Chapter 5,
ca 1 cu 1 at ions wi 1 1 be made t o determine the amount of error

resu 1 ti ng in dropp i ng a 1 1 but the nearest we 1 1 bore term.
The ca 1 cul at ions assume the bank at the we1 1 bore extends a 1 1
the way to the external drainage radius.
If the original transmissibility and skin are known
prior to polymer injection, when polymer injection is
commenced the in-situ resistance factor can be calculated.
When water injection is commenced, the resistance factor is
known and the residual resistance factor can be calculated.
The terms in equation (4.151 can be rearranged to account for
any injection sequence.
The position of each fluid bank can
be located by using equation (4.131, or the fluid bank

position can be approximately located by assuming piston
displacement.
In equations (4.14) and ( 4 . 1 5 ) the apparent
viscosity of the polymer bank is assumed to be constant in

space.
There wr11 be less shear-thinning away from the
w e l I bore, and the apparent
v i scosi ty of the po 1 ymer wi
increase if the concentration is constant.
1 I
It is possible
to take into account the variation of apparent viscosity in

space by app 1 y ing equations (2.61, (2.91, or (2.11 1 t o
Darey's law in the same series manner u s e d t o d e v e l o p
equations (4.14)and (4.15).
For the simple case of a
power- law f 1 uid bank occupying the whole reservoir, the

Ha l 1 plot wou 1 d be a 1 tered to the J (pWf-pe)dt versus
~q'/"dt.
The slope o f t h e Ha1
plot would be be given by
equation ( 4 . 1 6 1 , where u e is defined by equation ( 2 . 5 ) -
The addition of the non-Newtonian rheology makes the

equations more difficult to handle for hand computations.
particularly for multiple fluid banks.
It w i 1 1 be
demonstrated in chapter 5 that the variation in apparent

viscosity through space is re 1 ati ve l y srna l 1 for the actual
fie l d behav i or of pol ymer sol ut ions, and a constant
viscosity approximation for the polymer bank is reasonable.
The Ha 1 1 p l ot cou 1 d a l so be used to ana 1 yze trans ient
flow.
The transient f l o w period can be v i e w e d a s a series
of steady-state f 1 ows.
When the Ha 1 1 plot is app 1 i ed to the
transient flow period the current radius of investigation

must be used for re.
The radius sf investigation is
defined in equation ( 4 . 1 7 ) ,
for t i n hours.
While it is possible in thecry to analyze the transient flow

period with the Hall plot, this is not recommended.
The
falloff and injection testing methods presented in section

3.1 are much better suited to analyzing the transient flow
period.
Once the pressure transient reaches the drainage
radius, a pseudo steady-state or steady-state flow condition
is
reached, depending on the boundary condition at the
dra i nage rad i us.

For most fie 1 d situations where a reservoir i s under
water, polymer, or mice1 lar-polymer flooding, the transient
period usua 1 1 y does not 1 ast more than a day or two.
the transient f 1 ow period, the s l ope o f the Ha l 1
changing, given constant reservoir properties.
p1
Dur i ng
ot i s
Using real
fie 1 d data, it is usua 1 1 y not poss ib 1 e to observe this

changing s lope period on the Hal l plot.
The reason that the
transient period is not usual 1 y observed on the Ha 1 1 p 1 ot 1 s

that pressures in the fie 1 d are typical 1 y recorded on 1 y once
or twice per day.
Since the transient period lasts only a
few days it is difficult t o o b s e r v e in f i e l d d a t a with such

infrequent pressure readings.
It is possible to observe the
trans ient f 1 ow period on the Ha 1 1 pl at when pressures and

rates are recorded frequently at early times.
The transient
flow period wil 1 be examined in additional detail in chapter

5 using field examples.
CHAPTER 5
HALL PLOT ANALYSIS RESULTS

This chapter wi 1 1 analyze simulator results for three
we1 Is in which non-Newtonian fluids and water were injected.
We 1 1 A is a hypothet i ca 1 examp l e; we 1 I s 6 and C are actua 1
wel 1s. Each of the field examples has three months of d a i ly
injection data.
The two field examples have been history
matched with the reservoir simulator.

w e 1 Is, the effect of transient flow
Based on these three
. multi-phase flow,
shear thinning, and pesrneabi 1 ity reduction on the Hal 1 plot

are investigated.
The ana l ys is methods deve l oped in chapter

Resu I ts
4 wi 1 1 be app 1 ied to the examp 1 es i n this chapter.
obtained by analysis with the reservoir simuiator wi 1 1 be

compared with the analysis methods of chapter 4.
Based on
this comparison, the validity and accuracy of the methods

deve l oped in chapter 4 wi 1 1 be eva l uated.
5.1
Analysis of Well A (Hypothetical)

We l l A i s a hypothetica 1 examp l e.
i s gi ven in Appendix 8.
Figure 5.1
injection history of the well.
The data for We 1 1 A
i 1 1 ustrates the
Water was injected for 51
days, then injection of 1000 ppm polymer solution commenced

and continued for the remainder of the injection,
Figure 5.2 i l 1 ustrates the Hal 1 pl ot for the transient
flow period.
STB/day.
The injection rate during this period is 500
The oil saturation was set at residual, so the
plot is for single-phase flow.
The wellbore storage period
ends after 25 minutes, i.e. wellbore storage ends after 3

barrels of fluid have been injected into the formation and 9
barrels have been injected at the surface.
The time to
steady state f 1 ow i s 2 4 hours using equation (4.173.
For
this case the end of the transient period occurs when 494
bbl have been injected.
It can be seen that there is a s 1 o w
continuous curve in Figure 5.2 because of the changing

radius of investigation.
When 50 STB have been injected,
the time is 2.7 hours and the radius s f investigation i s 333

The slope of the Hall plot wi1 1 be given by equation
feet.
(5.1)
during the transient period.
It shou 1 d be noted that -0.5 has been added to the

equation since the flow i s no longer a t r u e steady state,
but what is referred to in the literature as pseudo-steady
state.
Using 333 feet for rei, it should be possible to
back ca 1 cu 1 ate the perrneabi 1 i ty taking the s 1 ope of the

curve at a cumulative injection of 50 bbl.
Figure 5.2 at a cumulative injection
fpsia-days)/STB.
The slope of
o f 50 STB i s
1.77
The ca 1 cu 1 ated permeabi 1 ity to water
CUMULATIVE INJECTION (BARRELS)

Ffgure
Hall Plot,
5.3
Well A , Comparison of Single and Two Phase Flow
s 1 ope ca l cu 1 at i on for two-phase f 1 ow.
The Ha 1 1 p 1 ot st i 1 I
generates a straight line for water injection when two-phase

flow is occurring in the reservoir.
At the end o f t h e polymer injection, the s l o p e o f t h e
Ha 1 l
plot is 58.1 (psia-days)/STB for sing l e-phase flow.
The curve for two-phase flow has a slope of 63.1 (psiadays)/STB.

percent.
The difference between the two s 1 opes is 8.6

As time continues, the slope to the two-phase Hall
plot curve wi 1 l approach the slope of the single-phase

curve.
These curves i 1 1 ustrate that for situations where
the mobility contrast is not too great two-phase flow

effects can be neglected without appreciable error in the
Hall plot slope.
As t h e o i l bank is pushed farther f r o m t h e
we 1 1 bore, there wi 1
1 be 1
ess error with the sing1 e-phase
f 1 ow assumption.
5.2
History Matchinq and Analysis of Well B

We 1 1 B is based on the data pub1 i shed by Mi l ton,
Argabright, and Gogarty (1981).
The data was used to
evaluate a reservoir in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming, for

polymer flooding.
The Milton, et al., data set was selected
because they provided detai l ed reservoir data, dai 1 y

pressures and rates. and rheological data.
The injection
pressures and rates were a1 so control l ed to prevent

exce5s.ive fracturing.
Two fa1 loff tests were a1 so run to
determine skin and permeability.
M i l ton, et a 1 .,
is
The data provided by
sumrnar i zed i n Appendix C.
The polymer injection sequence consisted of water

injection fol 1 owed by pol yacry 1 amide polymer sol ution.
The
po 1 yacry 1 am i de po 1 ymer sol ut ion was d i sp 1 aced by water. The

detai 1 s of the inject ion sequence are gi ven in tab 1 es C.4
and C.5.
When hi story matching the performance of this
we 1 1 , a 1 1 the parameters supp 1 ied by Mi l ton, et a 1
., were
used as input for the simulation runs, with the exception of

two.
The rheological data and resistance factor estimates
provided by Milton et al., were used as a first approximation,
and were then adjusted to obtain the best possible match.

A1 1
pressure data was recorded at the surface.
For history
matching purposes, a1 1 surface pressures were corrected to

bottomhole pressures with the inclusion of friction.
Because of the high rates, the pressure drop due to friction
was
a s high a s 250 psi.

The laboratory measurement o f apparent viscosity of the
polymer solution as a function of interstitial velocity and

concentration is given in Figure 5.5.
The residual
resistance factor was originally estimated to
be 1.05.
To
obtain the best possible match with the f i e l d d a t a , it was

necessary to reduce the polymer solution viscosity and
increase the residual resistance factor.
The best history
1Oil
Concentration, ppm
10
.-
+.r
V)
.>
U)
zto
P
P
0.1
Interstitial
Velocity Ifeetidayl
Figure 5.5
Laboratory Apparent Viscosity versus Interstitial Velocity,
Well 0
match was obtained us i ng the rheo 1 ogy gi ven in Tab l e C.2 and
a maximum residual resistance factor of 1-35.
Based on the
assumed linear relation adsorption/retention isotherm and

residual resistance factor, the in situ residual resistance
factor is ca 1 culated to be 1.33.
Tabl e 5.1
compares the
laboratory apparent viscosity with the apparent viscosity

used in the best history match at a concentration of 1000
and 500 ppm.
Two types of history matching runs were made on We1 1 B.
The first type of history matching was done using the rate
control (Neumann) boundary condition at the wellbore.
The
field injection rates were used to predict bottomhole

pressures.
The history match was obtained by matching field
pressures with predicted pressures.
The second type of
history matching run was made using the pressure control

(Dirichlet) boundary condition at the we1 Ibore.
The field
bottomhole pressures could then be used to predict injection

rates.
The history matching was then performed by matching
field injection rates with simulator predicted rates.

hi story matchi ng runs used 20 and 50 radia 1 ce l 1 s,
The
There
was no significant difference between the results using 20

and 50 ce 1 1 s.
The reservoir had been waterf 1 ooded
extensively prior to the col lection of the Hal l plot data,

M i l ton, et a I . ,
considered the reservoir t o be at residua 1
Table 5.1
Comparison o f Simulator and Laboratory Apparent Viscosities,
We1 l
Concentration 1000
Interstitial
Velocity (ft/day)
ppm
Laboratory
Viscosity (cp)
Simulator
Viscosity (cp)
Concentration 500 ppm

Interstitial
Velocity (ft/day)
Laboratory
Viscosity (cp)
Simulator
Viscosity (cp)
oi 1 saturation at least in the vicinity of the w e 1
1.
The
reservoir was therefore modelled using single-phase flow.

Using the rate control (Neumann) boundary condition and
matching pressures, Figures 5.6 and 5-7 were obtained.
The
match based on the Ha 1 1 plot is quite close except between

the injection volumes of 80,000 and 120,000 barrels (Figure
5.6).
This interval corresponds to 40 to 70 days on the
pressure plot (Figure 5.7).
It was not possible to obtain a
better match over this interva 1 .
One reason for a prob l em
with the match over this interval is due t o the fact that
both fresh water and brine were injected.
The injectivity
of fresh water is higner than brine, which can be observed

in the injectivity index between 60 and 65 days.
The
-:njecti vf ty is ca 1 cul ated in a manner analogous to the

productivity index (see equation c5.21).
9
Injectivity Index = 1 . 1 .
Pwf - Pe
The injectivity of fresh water is 1,753 bbl/day/psi and the
injectivity of brine is 1.367 bbl/day/psi.
The simulator is
not designed to handle differing injectivity of water due to

varying chemical composition.
Some type of chemical
reaction i s occurring due to the water chemistry to cause

the change in injectivity.
Another problem with the field
data is the injectivity of the polymer just prior to water

injection is higher than brine injectivity at 1.578
bb1 /day/psi.
A polymer solution having a higher injectivity
than water does not make physical sense.
For example it w a s
observed that to obtai n a better match i n the pol ymer

injection region a poorer match was obtained in the water
injection region.
The opposite would occur if a better
match was obtained in the water injection region.

Figures 5.8 and 5.9 are for a hi story match using the
pressure control (Dirichlet) boundary condition at the
wellbore.
The same quality of match is obtained using the
pressure control boundary conditon as the rate control

boundary condition.
The error between the two methods is of
the opposite sign at any particular point in time.

For exampl e, when us i ng the rate contro 1 boundary
condition and the history match pressure is too low, a
switch in boundary condition to pressure control wil 1 result
in a rate that is too high. When using the pressure control
boundary condition one problem that can occur is that a
sr?dden drop i n the we l 1 bore pressure w i 1 1 actua l 1 y cause the
we1 1 to backfl ow into the we? 1 bore.
This occurs because the
pressure in the we l 1 bore is actual 1 y less than the pressure

in the first resevoir cell.
What this means, is that for
history matching, when the we1 I is shutin, the pressures
must be decreased slowly to prevent backflow into the

we 1 1 bore of the s imu 1 ator.
In the history matching process, the matching of the
initial water injection period was useful for verifing the
reservoir properties.
The history matching of the polymer
injection period was control l ed by rheol ogy and residua 1

resistance factor.
The history matching of water injection
fo 1 l owing po 1 ymer was contro 1 1 ed
by
the residua I res i stance
factor.
There was no polymer adsorption/retention data
avai lab1 e for this we1 1.
Two history matching runs were
made at different adsorption/retention levels.
The Langmuir
adsorption/retention isotherm was estimated to have a

maximum adsorption of 0.02 mg/g, and intermediate values
were also estimated as a function of concentration to
generate a smooth curve.
The adsorption/retention was then
increased 250 percent to a maximum of 0.05 mg/g.
The
adsorption isotherms were constructed such that there would

be the same in-situ residual resistance factor of 1.33.
two history matching runs are compared in Figure 5.10.
The
It
can be seen from Figure 5.10 that changing the adsorption

between 0.02 to 0.05 mg/g has no effect on the Ha 1 1 pl ot.
The residual resistance factor is much more important than
the amount of adsorption in determining the pressure
behavior of a we1 1.
Using the Hal l plot generated from history matching,
the ana l yt i ca 1 procedures devel oped in Chapter 5 wi 1 1 now be
app l ied to the Hal 1 p 1 ot,
The Hal 1 pt ot shown in Figures
5.6 and 5.8 has three distinct portions: the first section
being water, the
second section being polymer, and the
third section being water injection.
Applying Darcy's
law
in a series manner, an equation can be written for each

sect ion.
For this examp 1 e, four unknowns wi 1 1 be assumed:
kwikrw9 'rf*
'f19 and Rf2.
assumed to be known.
A1 1
other parameters are
It should be noted that R f l
and Rf2
wi 1 1 usua l l y not be equa l , pr i nc i pa l l y because adsorpt ion

wi 1 1 reduce po 1 ymer concentrat ions as the pol ymer s 1 ug
propagates through the reservoir.
reduction in polymer
concentration resu 1 ts in l ess po 1 ymer so 1 ut ion apparent

viscosity and less permeability reduction.
The unknown Rfl
is the resistance factor of the pol ymer bank, w h i 1 e po 1 ymer

solution is being injected.
The unknown Rf2
is the
resistance factor of the polymer bank, after pol yrner

injection has stopped and water injection has commenced.
The s 1 ope of the Ha 1 1 plot for the first water inject ion
period is given by equation (5.3).
kwi krw
(water bank)
The slope of the Hal 1 plot for the polymer injection period
is
given by equation (5.4).

6,
rnH2
!1n(rb2/rw) +
5 )
= 141.2
kwi krw
(polymer bank)
(water bank)
The s 1 ope of the Hal 1
p 1 ot
for water inject ion fo 1 1 owing
polymer injection is given by equation (5.5).
(water bank)
(polymer bank)
(water bank)
The permeabi 1 i ty of the reservoir can be ca 1 cu 1 ated

with equation (5.3).
The slope of the Hall plot during the
initial water injection period is 0.338 (psia-days)/bbl.

From this slope, a permeabl ity to water of 90.9 md is
calculated using a skin of 7.2, where the perrneabi 1 ity to
water i s gi ven by k W ikrw
The permeabi 1 ity to water used
by the reservoir simulator is 91.0 md.
Darcy skin of 7.2
is used for a1 1 time steps by the simulator.
Having
eliminated one unknown, there are now three unknowns, and

only two equations.
To solve for a1 1 the unknowns it i s
necessary to have another equation.

factor can be estimated
As i nject.ion proceeds,
by
taking the ratio of mH1 to r n ~ ~ .
the s 1 ope mH3
given by equation (5.6).
The residual resistance
wi
1 1 approach the va 1 ue
The contribution from the banks
farther away from the we 1 1 bore become srna 1 1 er and sma l l er as

inject ion continues when using equation (5.5).
(water bank)
The 1 atest straight 1 ine portion of water injection
fol 1 o w i n g pol ymer i s used to estimate r n ~ 3so that the
influence o f t h e other banks wi1 1 b e a t a m i n i m u m .

combining equations (5.3) and
for Rrf.
By
(5.6) it is possible to solve
Equation (5.6) is used to estimate the slope given
by equation (5.52.
The residual resistance factor can be
estimated using equation (5.7).
The latest straight 1 ine slope for water injection fol lowing
polymer i s 0,479 (psia-days)/bbl.
The residual resistance
factor is computed to be 1.42.
The in-situ residual
resistance factor calculated in the simulator is 1.33.

There are now two equations, (5.4) and (5.5) and two
unknowns to find Rfl and Rf2.
Since th is prob l em was
s imu 1 ated usi ng one phase f l ow. a 1 1 d i sp 1 acement processes

are miscible and therefore, piston-like displacement occurs.
The location of the interface between banks can be
ca 1 cu 1 ated by vo 1 umetr i c ca 1 cu l at ions accounting for po 1 ymer
adsorption.
The accuracy of the bank positions is not that
important to the computations since the logarithim of the

ratio sf the radii is taken.
At the end of the polymer
injection period, the polymer bank has reached a radius of

123 feet.
The s lope, mH2. taken from the p 1 ot is 0.684
(psia-days)/bbl.
(5.4)
Substituting numerical values, equation
becomes
0.084
m ~ 2
0.2843Rfl
0.0521
(polymer bank) + (water bank)
The resistance factor is calculated to be 2.22 for the

polymer bank when polymer is being injected.
It can be seen
that the water bank is less important than the polymer bank,
supporting the conclusion that the bank in contact with the
we1 lbore wi 1 1 dominate.
The water bank away from the
we 1 1 bore can be assumed to be negl igi b l e, and the sing 1 e
fluid bank assumption used.
Assuming the polymer bank
extends to the externa 1 drainage radius, equation (5.8)
can
be rewritten as equation (5.9).

0.684
m ~ 2
0.3319
Rfl
(polymer bank)
Using the single-fluid bank assumption, the resistance

factor i s ca 1 cu 1 ated to be 2.06.
The sing 1 e-f 1 u i d bank
assumption will always underestjmate the resistance factor

because the polymer bank is a s s u m e d t o extend t o t h e
drainage radius when it actually only extends some fraction
of the drainage radius.
The apparent viscosity in the
simulator varies from 0.70 c p a t the wet lbore t o a s h i g h a s

4.12
cp at a radius of 63 feet.
The residua 1 resi stance
factor is almost constant at 1.326.
The simu 1 ator provides
pressures for each cell. Using these pressures, it is

possi b i e to back ca 1 cu 1 ate an average resistance factor for
the polymer bank.
The pressure drop across the polymer bank
is 846 psi at a rate of 1473 STB/day, when the polymer bank

is at 123 feet.
The average resistance factor is calculated
to be 2.17 for the polymer bank using the simulator data.

The slope of the late time water injection fol towing
polymer
i s 0.479
equation (5.5).
(psia-days)/bbl and is used t o solve

For the late time water injection, the
polymer bank is between 104 feet and 237 feet.

numercial values into equation (5.5)
0.479
mh3
0.3774
Substituting
results in
0.0081Rf2
0.0441
(5.101
=(water bank)+ (polymer bank) +(water bank)
The resistance factor of the polymer bank away from the

we 1 I bore is calculated to be 4.19.
The pressure drop across
the polymer bank is 107 psi at a rate of 1736 STB/day.
The
average res i stance factor of the po 1 ymer bank i s ca 1 cu 1 ated

to be 3.51 using the simulator data.
The resistance factor
calculated for the polymer bank away from the we1 1 bore can
be significantly in error.
The reason for the larger errors
is that the pressuredropdue t o t h e polymer bank, is smal 1

away from the we1 lbore. A smal 1 error in the determination
of the s 1 ope, resu 1 ts in a magnified error in the ca 1 cu 1 ated
resistance factor.
For example, if the slope was 1 percent
in error, and the pressure drop across the polymer bank away
from the wel 1 bore was 5 percent of the total pressure drop
across the system, the calculated resistance factor wou 1 d be
25 percent in error.
Table 5.2 compares the approximate
analytical methods with the simulator results.
The
ana l yt i ca 1 methods deve 1 oped i n Chapter 5 gi ve reasonab 1 e

estimates of the in situ parameters.
Table 5.2
Comparison of Analytical Method with Simulator Results,
We! 1 8
Parameter
Analytical Method
Multiple Banks
Analytical Method
Single Bank
Simulator
Figure 5.11 compares the three different methods of

integrating t h e Hall plot.
For each method of integration,
the slopes of the curves are quite different.
Quantitative
cal culations can be made with each curve i f the appropriate

corrections are made.
The correction peat must be
subtracted from $pwfdt to yield $(pWf-pe)dt.

(P,-pgL+Apf)At
The correction
must be subtracted from $pSdt to yield J(pWf-
pe 1dt .
An example correction wi1 1 be done on the water
injection period given in Figure 5.11.
The corrected slope
of the Hal l plot wi 1 1 be calculated using two points, one at
a cumulative injection of 125,000 STB and another a t 100,000

STB.
The
pressure at the external drainage radius i s
constant at 1180 psia.
The combined hydrostatic head and
Figure 5.11
Cornparison of Hell
Integration Methods, Well
the pressure loss due to friction average about 1700 psi.

The data for the Hal 1 plot corrections are given in Tables
When the corrections have been appl iec! to the
5.3 and 5.4.
other integrations, the corrected values should agree

close1 y with the slope of 0.600 (psia-days)/STB when using
J(pwf-p,)dt.
The integral JpSdt is corrected to ca 1 cu l ate a
Hall plot slope of
0.612 (psia-days)/STB, and JpWfdt is
corrected to ca 1 cu 1 ate a Ha 1 l pl ot s 1 ope of 0.600 (psladays)/STB.
The difference in the corrected slopes and the
slope from J(pwf-p,)dt
is due to the accuracy with which
values can be picked from Figure 5.1 1.
Once the slopes h a v e
been corrected, a l 1 ca 1 cu l at ions proceed exact 1 y the same.

Equations (4.9) and (4.10) can a 1 so be used to correct
the slope directly.
equation ( 4 . 9 )
When the integral plotted is Jpwfdt,
is crsed.
Using the data given in Tab1 e 5.4.
the slope using Jpwfdt is 1.440 (psia-days)/STB and the

s 1 ope correct ion is 0.840.
The corrected Ha 1 1 pl ot s l ope,
m ~ ,is cal culated to be 0.600 (psia-daysl/STB.
If the
integral Jpsdt is plotted equation (4.10) i s used to correct

the s 1 ope.
The s lope mh is equa 1 to 0.240 (psia-days)/STR
when the integral Jpsdt is used.

ca 1 cul ated to be -Q.370
The slope correction is
(psia-days)/STB using equation
(4.101, which yields a corrected slope of 0.610 (psia-
days)/STB.
Hall
---- Plot Integration Correction E x a m p l e f o r J p s d t , Well B
Cum.
Injection
(ST61
Jp,dt
(p,-pgL+Apf)
Corr. Integral
Time
t p s i a-days)
(days) (psig-days) (psia-days)
T a b l e 5.4
Hall Plot Intenration Correction E x a m p l e f o r Jpwfdt. Well 5

Cum.
Injection
('3773)
Time
JpWfdt
(days) (psig-days)
P,A~
(psia-days)
Corr. Integral
(psia-days)
History Matching and Analysis o f We11 C
5.3
We 1 1 C was used to eva 1 uate the injecti v i ty of mice 1 1 ar

and poiymer solutions.
The reservoir data and injection
history are given in Appendix D.
The daily injection data
cons i sted of m i ce 1 1 ar so 1 ut ion i n ject i on fo 1 1 owed by po 1 ymersolution injection.

water.
fl uids.
The polymer solution was displaced with
The rheological data was limited for the injected

Tab1 e 5.5 gives the apparent Brookf ield viscosity
o f t h e polymer solution a t 6 RPM.

Table 5.5
Apparent Viscosity a n d Screen Factor, Well C
Concentration
Apparent Viscosity
( PPM
Screen Factor
(CP)
The injection pressures were limited to prevent fracturing

o f t h e reservoir.
f a ? l o f f t e s t w a s run prior t o
commencing micellar solution injection, which indicated a

water mobility of 27 md/cp and a skin of -1.14.
The skin
and permeabi 1 ity calculated from the fa1 loff test are used
in the simulator.
This reservoir had been extensively
T-3 147
94
waterflooded prior to the injection testing.
The reservoir
was estimated to be at residual oil saturation, therefore

the history match was done using only single-phase flow.
The history match was conducted in the same manner used
for We l 1 0.
The best history match was obtained by
adjusting rheology and resistance factors. All other

parameters were input from available data and assumed to be
correct.
The Carreau model was used to approximate the
rheo 1 ogy of the pol ymer and mice I l ar sol ution. Hi story
matching was done using both the rate and pressure control
boundary conditions.
For history matching purposes, a1 l
surface pressures were converted to bottomhole pressures.

Using the Neumann (rate control) boundary condition,
Figures 5.12 and 5.13 were obtained.
not as g o o d a s obtained for We11 6.
The overal 1 match i s

There are several
possible reasons for the poorer match.
The simulator does
not model the Interfacial effects which occur with micellar

so 1 ut ions.
The rheo 1 ogy of the mice 1 1 ar sol ut ion was
estimated by assigning a polymer concentration to the

mice1 lar solution. The mice1 lar slug was relatively smal 1 at
556 STB.
time.
The polymer concentrations could have varied with
The rheology of the polymer solution used to obtain
the best match
i s
given
in
Tab1 es D.3
and D.4 of Appendix D.
It can be seen f r o m t h e s e t a b l e s t h a t if the concentration
varied plus or minus 10 percent, significant changes in

viscosity could occur.
There could also be inaccuracies in
the recorded rates and pressures, which would result i n a

poorer match.
Some of the data is suspect because as the
injection rate is increased, and all other things remaining

equal, there is no change in pressure.
The amount o f
perrneabi 1 ity reduction was much I arger than for We1 1 6.
The
maximum residual resistance factor used in the best match

was 1 1.3.
The hi story match using the pressure contro 1
boundary condition is shown in Figures 5.14 and 5.15.
The
match using the pressure control boundary condition is about

the same a s t h e m a t c h obtained iisingthe rate control
boundary condition.
5.14 are compared.
This can b e seen when Figures 5.12 and

Reasons for problems with the match are
the same as with the Neumann boundary condition.
The
maximum residua! resistance factor used on the best match

was 1 1.5.
used.
The rheo 1 ogy g i ven i n Tab l es 8.3
and B.4 was
Using the rate control boundary condition, cases were
run with varying levels of adscrrpton/retention.
The
results, as with We1 1 8, were found t o be very insensitive

to the amount of adsorption/retention.
Figure 5.16 compares three different methods of

integrating the Hall plot.
For each method of integration,
the s l o p e s o f t h e c u r v e s are quite different, a s in the
previous section.
An example correction wil
be done. as
was performed in the previous section, on the water

injection period given in Figure 5.16.
The corrected slope
of the Hal 1 plot w i 1 I be calculated using two points, one at

a cumulative injection of 5000 STB and another at 7000 STB.
The pressure at the external drainage radius is constant at
300 psia.
The combined hydrostatic head and the pressure
loss due to friction i s equa! to 8 0 0 psi.
The data for the
Ha 1 1 pl ot correct ions are gi ven in Tab1 es 5.6 and 5.7.
When
the corrections have been applied to the other integrations,

the corrected values should agree closely with the slope o f
16.50 ( p s ia-days)/STB when using J (pWf-peldt.
The i ntegra 1
jpsdt is corrected to ca 1 cu 1 ate a Hal 1 pl ot s 1 ope of
16.60
~psia-days)/STB, and jpwfut i s corrected to ca 1 cu 1 ate a Ha 1 1

plot s lope of 16.45 (psia-days)/STB.
The difference in the
corrected slopes and the slope from J(pwf-pelat i s due to

the accuracy with which values can be picked from Figure
5.16.
Once the s 1 opes have been corrected, a 1 l cal cu lations
proceed exactly the same.

Equations (4.9)
the slope direct1 y.
equation ( 4 . 9 )
and (4.10) can al so be used to correct
When the integra 1 plotted is jpWfut,
is used.
Using the data given in Tab1 e 5.7,
the slope using Jpwfdt is 19.50 (psia-days)/STB and the

s 1 ope correction i s 3-06.
The corrected Hal 1 plot s lope,
'Table 5.6
Hall Plot Inteqration Correction Example for jpsdt, Well C

Jpsdt
(p,-pgL+Apfl
C o r r . Integral
Time
Injection
(PSia-days)
(days) Ipsig-days) ( p s i a-days)
(ST81
Cum.
Table 5.7
Hall P l o t I n t e s r a t i o n Correction Example for Jpwfdt, Well C

cum.
~ n - j e c t i o n Time
(ST81
(days)
I pWf dt
(psi g-days)
p,At
Corr.
(psis-days)
Integral
( p s i a-days 1
is calculated to be 16.44 (psia-days)/STB.
If the
integral (psdt is plotted equation (4.10) is used to correct

the s 1 ope.
The s i ope m i is equal to 11.50 Ibpsia-days)/STB
when the integral Jpsdt is used.
The slope correction is
ca 1 cu 1 ated to be -5.10 (psfa-days)/STB us ing equation

(4.10), which yields a corrected slope of 16.60 (psiadays)/STB.
The t.lal 1 p 1 ot for We l 1 C can be ana l yzed in a manner
There was no i nit l a l
s i m i 1 ar t o what was done for N e 1 1 B.

water inject ion data for thi s we 1 I .
However, the s 1 ope
prior to polymer and mical lar solution injection, can be

calculated since the skin and transmissibility are known.
The Hal 1 plot slope f o r water injectFon i s calculated to be
1.6844 (psia-days)/STB based on the fa1 l o f f testing data
prior to polymer injection.
The slope for the late water
inject ion period is 1 6 - 5 0 (psia-days! jSTE3.
Equation (5.7)
can now be used to ca 1 cu l ate a residua 1 res i stance factor o f

9.80.
The i n situ residual resistance factor calculated i n
the s imu 1 ator is 1 1.10 for tni s case.
Tab 1 e 5.8 compares
the analytical solutions with the simulator results.

Equations ( 5 . 4 ) and 15.5) can now be used to cal cu 1 ate
the average res i stance factor of the po 1 ymer-mi ce 1 1 ar
solution banks.
At the end
of
pol yrner-mice1 1 a r solution
inject ion, the bank is at 54 feet and the Hal 1 plot has a
s 1 ope
of 3 5 - 3 (psia-days)/STB.
factor using equation (5.4)
The average resistance
is 29.53.
The average
resistance factor can also be approximated by assuming a

single bank which extends to the drainage radius, which
resu l ts in an average resistance factor of 20.95.
The
pressure drop across the polymer bank is 1541 psi a t a rate

of 44.5 STB/day when the bank has reached a radius o f 54
feet.
The average resistance factor when applying Darcy's
law is 29.4.
After water injection, the pol ymer-mice1 1 ar bank is
between 48 and 95 feet.
The pressure drop across the bank
i s 325 psi at a rate of 105 STB/day.
Applying Darcy's
law
agai n, an average res i stance factor of 14.7 i s ca 1 cu 1 ated.

Using equation (5.51, a resistance factor of 16.6 is
ca 1 cu 1 ated.
Tab1 e 5.9 i 1 1 ustrates the effect of shear thinning
rheology. The apparent viscosity is given as a function of
radial distance, concentration, and interstitial velocity,
As can be seen in Table 5.9, the change in the apparent
viscosity within the polymer bank is small.
This indicates
that the effect due to non-Newton i an rheo 1 ogy is re l at ive 1 y

sma 1 1 on the Ha 1 1 p 1 ot for We 1 1 C.
Sma 1 1 changes in
apparent viscosity within the polymer bank also occurred

with Well B.
Based on the historymatching o f We1 1s B a n d
T-3 147
C,
it appears that the non-Newtonian flow effect i s
Table 5.8
Comparison of-Analytical
Parameter
Method with Simulator Results,
Analytical Method
Multiple Banks
Analytical Method
Single Bank
Simulator
Table 5.9
Apparent Viscosity as a Function of
Concentration and Radial Distance, Well C
Profile at 42.875 days, Cumulative Injection = 2807 BBL
Node
No.
D i stance
Concentration
(feet )
(PP~)
Inter. Vel.
(ft/day)
App. V i s c .
(CP)
Table 5.9 (continued)

Node
No.
D i stance
Concentration
(feet)
(P P ~
Inter. Vel.
(ft/day)
App.
Visc.
(CP)
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
Using a numerical reservoir simulator, it has been
demonstrated that quantitative analysis can be performed on
the Hal 1 plot when non-Newtonian solutions are injected into
petro 1 eum reservo irs. The best method for ana 1 yz ing the Ha l 1
plot would be to use a reservoir simulator as developed for
this study.
However, for the practicing engineer a
simulator may not be available.
The simulator is also the
most time-consuming type of analysis.
Two approximate
analysis methods for the Hal I plot have been developed which
can be implemented easily by the practicing petroleum
eng ineer .
One analysis method is based on a single-fluid bank
that extends to the drainage radius, and a second method is
basedon multiple-fluid banks.
While neitheranalysis
method wi 1 1 y i el d resu 1 ts as accurate as those obtained from

the simu 1 ator, the appropriate method wi 1 1 yield resu 1 ts
w h i ch are of acceptab 1 e accuracy for most oi I f i e l d
engineering computations. The
methods developed can be used
to calculate permeabilities, resistance factors, and
residual resistance factors.

The conclusions of this study are now summarized.
1.
The Ha 1 1 pl ot w i 1 1 generate the correct qua 1 i tat i v e
response when the Hal 1 integral Jpsdt is used, if the

rates are re 1 at i ve l y constant and/or the i ntegra l
J(pe+dpf-pg1)dt is negl i b l e .
The Hal 1 plot wi 1 1
generate the correct qua l i tati ve response when the Hal 1

integra 1 Jpwfdt is used, i f the rates are re1 at i ve l y
constant and/or the integral Jpedt i s neglible.
The
correct qua 1 i tat i ve response wi 1 1 a! ways be generated

when the Hal 1 integral J(pwf-p,)dt
i s used.
The s 1 ope
of the Hal 1 plot wil 1 increase when the mobil ity of the
injected fluid decreases, and the slope wi1 1 decrease
when the mobility of the injected fluid increases.
2.
Toperformquantitativeanalysis u s i n g t h e H a l 1 plot,
the integral plotted should be J(pwf-p,)dt.
It i s
poss ib l e to perform quant i tat i ve ana 1 ys is us! ng Jpsdt

or JpWfdt, but it i s necessary to correct the integrals
such that they are equi vai ent t o j(pWf-pe)dt,
In some
situations, it may be possibl e t o make a quantitative

anal ys i s of the Ha 1 1
jp,dt,
F 1 ot
when the Hal 1 integra 1 is
if the quantity J(pe+Apf-pgildt is approximately
equa l to zero.
In genera 1 , the quantity J (p,+Apf-
pgi)dt will not be negligible.
The Hall integral
JpWfdt can be used for quant itat i ve ca 1 cu 1 at ions on 1 y

when the Jpedt can be considered to be zero or the
appropriate correction is made to the Ha 1 1 p 1 ot s 1 ope.
3.
In general, the multibank analysis rlethod wi 1 1 yield

more accurate answers than the single-bank method.
When the f 1 ui d bank in contact with the we 1 l bore has
moved out a short distance, the mu1 tibank analysis
method should be used.
When the fluid bank in contact
with the we1 lbore has moved out a substantial distance,

the sing1 e-f 1 uid bank analysis method can be used with
good accuracy.
The single-bank analysis method has
problems when fluid banks of very different properties

exist in the reservoir4.
It is possi bl e to ca 1 cu 1 ate the res i stance factor of a

pol ymer bank as it moves away from the we 1 1 bore, but
the ca 1 cu lated resistance factor is very sensisti ve to
smal 1 errors in the Hal 1 plot slope.
5,
The non-Newtonian rheology effect is smal 1 based on the

two wells which were history matched;
that i s , the
change in the in-situ apparent viscosity of the polymer

solutions through space is relatively smal 1.
6.
The amount of permeability reduction has a significant

effect on the Hal 1 plot and simulator resuli ts.
The
Hal 1 plot and simulator results are very insensist.ive

to the amount of polymer aasorption/retention.
7.
Thetransientflowperiodhas littleeffectontheHal1
plot because, in most field situations, the transient
period rarely lasts more than a few days.
During the
transient flow period, the Hal 1 plot slope rapidly

approaches the steady state slope; therefore, the slope
during the transient period i s usual ly quite close to
the steady state slope after a short period of time.
Since most Hal 1 plot data i s usual ly recorded on a
daily basis, it is usually not possible to observe the
transient flow period on the Hal J plot.
8.
In a reservoir which has been extens i vel y waterf 1 ooded

prior to polymer injection, that is, the reservoir is
close to resfdual oil saturation in the vicinity of tRe
we1 lbore, multiphase flow is cot significant.
A good
hi story match was obtained for Wel I s B and C, ignoring

m u 1 tiphase flow where the reservoir had been
extens i ve 1 y waterf 1 ooded.
For a reservo 7 r that i s
initial 1 y oi 1 saturated, the importance of considering

multiphase flow is dependent on the difference in the
mobility of the two flowing phases.
For example, if
water is displacing a high viscosity oi 1 , then

multiphase flow is very important.
As
the injected
fluid displaces oil away from the we1 1, multiphase flow

wi 1 1
become 1 ess significant.
The shape of the
re 1 at i ve permeabl 1 ity curves can a l so have an important

effect on the importance of multiphase flow.
When history matching fie!d inject i vity data, there was
9.
no significant difference found in assuming that field

rates were correct and matching pressures (Neumann), or
assuming field pressures were correct and matching
rates ( D i r ich 1 etl.
The hi story match obtained using
the f 1 el d recorded rates to contro 1 the w e 1 I bore

boundary condi t i on y i e 1 as bas ica l 1 y the same po 1 ymer
solution parameters as using the field recorded
pressures to control t h e wel lbore boundary condition.
10,
Comparing the in-situ apparent viscosities for the

polyacrylamide solutions used in Wet 1 s B and C, the
polymer used in well 6 performed better.
Using
approximateiy 25 percent of the polymer concentration

as used i n We1 1 C, the WE? 1 8 polymer solution
deve 1 oped more apparent v i scos itv.
The i n-s itu
apparent v i scos i ti es of the two PO 1 ymer so l ut ion can be
seen in Tab1 es 5.1 and 5.9.
It should be noted that
the rnolecular-weight djstributions were different for

each po 1 ymer.
The We 3 1 5 reservoir was a i so at a
higher temperature than the Well C reservoir.

II
The number of ce I I s requ i red to obta r" n convergence of

the numerica 1 sol ution generated by the simulator i s a
function of the residual resistance factor,
As
the the
residual resistance factor becomes larger, more cells
are required to obtain convergence of the numerics!

solution.
More cells are required to obtain
convergence at higher resistance factors because a

sma 1 l amount o f numercia 1 dispersion in the
concentration front, can result in large permeability
changes in t h e cells in which the dispersion occurs.
There are several areas in which additional research

could be performed to extend the work done in this study.
more elaborate reservoir simulator could be developed.

Multiple communicating layers and fracturing occur
frequently in field situations.
The simulator used for this
study is not designed to hand1 e m u 1 tip l e communicating

t ayers or fractured w e 1
I s i n a ri gorous manner.
The
reservoir is assumed to be above the bubbl e point at a1 1

times for this study.
However, a three-phase simulator
could be u s e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r e s e n c e o f a gas saturation
when the reservoir pressure dropped below the bubble
point.
The simulator used for this study considers only three

components.
A more e 1 aborate
sinu l ator wou 1 d a 1 l ow
consideration of additional components such as: sodium,

calcium, and magnesium
ions.
The influence of other
components such as sodium and calcium ions was demonstrated
in t h e analysis o f Wel 1 8 , with the differing injectivity of

brine and fresh water.
Another useful extension o f this
work i s t h e development of dimension1 ess Ha 1 1 type curves as

a method of analysis.
REFERENCES CITED
R.
8.; S t e w a r t , W . E.;
a n d L i g h t f o a t , E.
1960, T r a n s p o r t P h e n o m e n a , J o h n W i l e y a n d Sons,
Bird,
N.,
New
York.
B l a i r , P. M. a n d Weinaug, C. F., 1969, " S o l u t i o n o f TwoPhase F l o w Problems Using Impllcit Difference
Equations," S o c e i t y pf P e t r o l e u m E n g i n e e r s J o u r n a l ,
December, pp. 4 17-424.
B o n d o r , P. L,; H i r a s a k i , G. J.; a n d T h a m , M. J., 1 9 7 3 ,
"Mathematical Slmulation o f Polymer Flooding i n Complex
Reservoirs," S o c i e t y of P e t r o l e u m E n g i n e e r s R e p r i n t
Ser i es No. 1 l , Numer i ca 1 5 imu 1 at i on, pp. 394-407.
Suckl ey, S. E. a n d L e v e r e t t , M, C., 1942. "Mechanism o f
F 1 uid D i spl acement in Sands," Transact ions A. I.M.E.,
vol. 146, p. 107.
Carreau, J. P., 1968, Rheo 1 og i ca 1 Equat i o n 2 from Mo I ecu 1 ar
N e t w o r k T h e o r i e s , Ph.D.
T h e s i s , Unl v e r s i t y of
W iscons in, Mad i son.
Ckauveteau, G., 1981b, "Mol ecu 1 ar Interpretation o f Severa 1
Different Properties o f F l o w o f Coiled Polymer
S o l u t i o n s T h r o u g h P o r o u s M e d i a in O i l R e c o v e r y
Conditions," Society o f Petrol eum Engineers, paper no.
10060.
Christopher, R, H. a n d Middl eman, 5.. 1965, "Power-Law F l o w
Through a Packed Tube," I8EC Fundamentals,
vol. 4,
no. 4, pp. 422-425.
Cohen, Y. a n d C h r !st, F. R., 1984, "Pol ymer R e t e n t i o n a n d
A d s o r p t i o n in t h e F l o w o f P o l y m e r S o l u t i o n s T h r o u g h
P o r o u s Media," S o c i e t y o f Petrol eum E n g i n e e r s , paper
no. 12942.
Cohen, Y. and C h r i s t , F. R,, 1986, " P o l y m e r R e t e n t i o n a n d
A d s o r p t i o n i n t h e F 1 o w o f P o l y m e r Sol ut ions T h r o u g h
Porous Hedia," Society of Petro 1 eum Encli n e e r ~Reservoi r
Enni neer i RQ, March,
pp. 1 13- 1 18.
C o 1 1 ins, R. E., 1961. F 1 o w of F l u i d s T h r o u s h P o r o u s
Materials, Petroleum Publishing, Tulsa.
Craig,
F.
F.,
1971,
The
Reservoir
Enqineering Aspects
of Waterf 1 ood ing, Monograph no. 3, Society o f Peto 1 eum

Engineers, Da1 las.
Dawson, R . a n d Lantz, R . B., 1974, " I n a c e s s ibl e P o r e V o 1 u m e
in P o 1 yrner F 1 sod i ng," Soc i ety of Petro 1 eurn Engineers,
paper no. 3522.
D e M a r c o , M.,
1968* " S i m p 1 if i e d M e t h o d P i n p o i n t s
Injection We1 1 Problems," World 0 2 , pp. 95-100.
E a r 1 o u g h e r , Jr., R . C.,
1 9 7 7 , A d v a n c e s in W e 1 1 T e s t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
M
o
n
o
g
r
a
p
h
no. 5 , S o c i e t y o f P e t r o l e u m
-Engineers, D a l l a ~ .
Fanchi, J, R., 1985, "CHEM2D: A T w o D i m e n s i o n a l , ThreePhase, Nine Component Chemical Flood Simulator, Volumes
I, 1 1 , a n d 111," D e p a r t m e n t o f Energy, D O E / B C 10033,
Apri 1 .
Gencer, C. S. a n d Ikoku, C. U . , 1984, "We1 1 T e s t A n a l y s i s
for Two-Phase F low o f Non-Newtonian Power-Law a n d
N e w t i o n i a n F 1 u i d s , ' V o u r n a l of E n e r a y R e s o u r c e s
Technolosv, June, vol. 106, pp. 295-305.
G o g a r t y , W.
B.,
1967a, "Rheo 1 o g i ca 1 Propert i es o f
P s e u d o p 1 a s t ic F 1 u i b s in P o r o u s Media," Soci e t v f
o
Petroleum Engineers Journal, June, pp. 149-160.
Hal 1 ,
H. N., 1963, "How t o Analyze Waterflood Injection We1 1

Performnce," World Oil, October, pp. 128-130.
Hawkins, M.
Journal
F.,Jr.,
1965, " A N o t e o n t h e S k i n Effect,"
of Petreleu3 Techno!ssv, December, p. 65.
Hirasaki, G. J. a n d Pope, G. A., 1974, "Anal y s i s of F a c t o r s

Influencing M o b i l i t y and Adsorption Tn t h e f l o w o f
Pol yrner Sol ution T h r o u g h P o r o u s Media," S o c i e t y f
o
Petrol eum Enaineers Journa 1 , August, pp. 337-346.
Morner, D. R., 195 1, "Pressure Bui i dup in We1 1 s," Proceeding
o f -the Third
Wor 1d P e t r o l e u m C o n ~ r e s s , T h e Hague,
s e c t i o n I I, p. 503-523.
Huh, C. a n d Snow, T. M., 1985, " W e 1 1 T e s t i n g with a NonNewtonian Fluid in the Reservoir," Society of Petroleum
Eng i neers, paper no. 14453,
Ikoku, C. U. and Rarney Jr., H. J,, 1979, "Transient F 1 o w

o f Non-Newtonian Power-Law Fluids in Porous Media,"
Society fo Petro 1 eum Encai neers Journa 1 , June, pp. 164174.
Ikoku, C. U . and Rarney Jr., H. J., 1980, "Wet 1 bore
Storage and Ski n Effects Dur i ng the Trans i ent F l ow o f
Non-Newtionian Power-Law Fluids in Porous Media,"
Society of Petrol eum Enqineers Journa 1, February, pp.
25-38,
Hkoku, C. U. and Rarney Jr., H. J., 1982, "Pressure Behavior
During Po 1 yrner F 1 ow in Petrol eurn Reservoi rs," Journa 1
of Enersy Resources Technology, June, vol. 104, pp.
149-156.
Rogers, J - H . ; and West, T. J., 19711.
Jennings, R. Fa.;
"Factors Influencing Mobility Control by Polymer
Sol ut ions," Journa 1 of Petrol eum Technol oay, March, pp.
391-401.
Lecourt i er, J. and C b , a u v e t e a u , G . , :984, "Propagat i on of
Polymer S l u g s Through Porous Media," Sociery o f
Petrol uem Engineers, paper no. 13034.
Lee, J., 1 9 5 2 ,
Testing, 50ciet.y o f Perrol eurn
Engineers, Dal las.
Lund, 8 . and Ikoku- C. U., 1980, "Pressure Transient
Behavior o f Non-Newtonian/Newton i a n C o m p o s i t e
Reservo i rs ," Soc iety of Petro 1 eurn Engineers, paper no.
9401.
Maerker, J. M.,
1975, "Shear Degradation of Partia 1 1 y
Hydro 1 yzed Po1 yacry l a m ide S o 1 ut i o n s ," S o c i e t y f
o
Petroleum Ennineers Journal, August, pp. 311-322.
Maerker, J. M.,
1976, "Mechan'ical Degradation of Partia 1 1 y
Hydro 1 yzed Po 1 yacry l am ide So 1 ut i ons 1 n Unconso 1 i dated
P ~ r o u sMedia," Soc i etv f
o Petro 1 eurn Enai neers Journa l ,
1976, August, pp. 172-174.
Marsha 1 1 , R. J. and Metzner, A, B . , 1966, "F 1 o w o f
Vlscoelastic Fluids Through Porous Media," Society o f
Petro l eum Engineers, paper no. 1687.
W a r s h a l 1, R. J. a n d M e t z n e r , A. B.,
1967, "F low o f
Viscoelastic F l u i d s Through P o r o u s Media," I B E C
Fundarnenta 1 S, August, v o 1. 6, no. 4, pp. 393-400.
riatthews, C. 5. and Russel 1 , D. G., 1967, P r e s s u r e B u i ldup
a n d --F 1 o w T e s t s i W e I 1 s, S o c i e t y o f P e t r o 1 eurn
Engi neers, Da 1 1 as.
M i 1 t o n Jr,, H. W.;
Argabright, P. A.; a n d Gogarty, W. 5..

1983, "EOR Prospect Eva 1 uat ion Us i ng F i e 1 d Manufactured
P o 1 ymer ,I' S o c i ety o f P e t r o 1 eum E n g i neers, paper no.
11720.
Moffftt, P. D. a n d Menzie, D. E., 1978, "We1 1 Injection

T e s t s o f Non-Newtonian F 1 u ids," S o c i e t y o f P e t r o 1 eum
Engineers, paper no. 7177.
M o r r i s , C. W . a n d J a c k s o n , K. M., 1 9 7 8 , " M e c h a n i c a 1
Degradation of Partial ly H y d r o l y z e d P o l y a c r y l a m i d e
S o 1 ut i o n s in P o r o u s Pled i a," S o c i e t y o f P e t r s 1 eurn
Mungan,
N.,
1972,
"Shear Viscosities
P o i y a c r y l a m i d e S o l u t i o n s , " S o c i e t y fo
Ensineer$ Journa T , December, pp. 469-472.
o f Ionic
Petroleum
Nowak, T. J. zlnd Lester, G. W., 1955, " A n a l y s i s o f P r e s s u r e

F a 1 1 -Off C u r v e s O b t a i n e d in Water I n ject i o n We 1 1 s t o
D e t e r m i n e I n j e c t i v e C a p a c i t y a n d F o r m a t i o n Damage,"
Petro 1 eurn Transactions , A I ME, pp. 96- 102.
Odeh, A. S. a n d Yang, H. T., 1979, "F 1 o w o f Non-Newtonian
Power-Law F 1 u i d s T h r o u g h P o r o u s Med i a," S o c i ety of
Petrol eum Ensi neers Joerrna 1 , dune, pp. 155- 163.
Poettmann, F. H., 1983, I m p r o v e d Oil R e c c v e r y , Interstate
Oil Compact Commission, Oklahoma City
Poettmann, F. H.,
Mf nes.
1985, L e c t u r e notes, Col o r a d o School o f
1965, " N o n - N e w t o n i a n
S a d o w s k i , T. J. a n d B i r d , R. 3..
I.
T h e o r e t i c 3 1 ,'I
F l o w T h r o u g h P o r o u s Media.
Transactions of &he Society
RRheol onv, pp. 243-250.
S a d o w s k i , T. J.,
1 9 6 5 , " N o n - N e w t o n ia n F 1 o w T h r o u g h
P o r o u s Media. I I. Exper i m e n t a l ," T r a n s a c t i o n s of the
Society f
o Rheolosv, pp. 251-271.
Sav i n s , J. G.,
1969, "tdon-Newtonian F 1 ow T h r o u g h P o r o u s
Media," I n d u s t r i a l and E n q i n e e r i n q Chemistry, October,
v o 1 . 6 1, no. 10, pp. 18-47.
Seright,
R. S.,
1980,
Viscoelas
Polyacrylamide
Engineers, paper
and
S m i t h , J.
Tech.,
"The E f f e c t s o f Mechnical D e g r a d a t i o n
t i c Behavior on I n j e c t i v i t y o f
Solutions," Society o f Petroleum
no. 9297.
T.,
1982, P r e s s u r e T r a n s i e n t
Lubbock, Texas.
Ana 1 y s is,
Texas
1964, "The N a t u r a l Time o f a V i s c o e l a r j t i c

T r u e s d e l 1 , C.,
F l u i d : I t s S i g n i f i c a n c e a n d Measurement," P h y s i c s of
F l u i d s , August, pp. 1134-1142.
1949, "The A p p l i c a t i o n
Van E v e r d i n g e n , A . F. a n d H u r s t , W.,
o f t h e Lap1 a c e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n t~ F l o w P r o b l e m s i n
f
the A Il?E,
R e s e r v o i r s , " P e t r o 1 eurn T r a n s a c t i o n s o
December, v o l
186, pp. 305-324.
Van Poo 1 1 en, H. M. a n d J a r g o n , J. R . , 1969, " S t e a d y - S t a t e

and Unsteady-State F 1 ow o f Non-Newton i a n F 1 u ids Through
f
P e t r o 1 eurn Ens i n e e r s Journa l ,
Porous Media," Soc S e t y o
March, pp. 80-88.
Voge 1 , P. a n d P u s c h G . ,
198 1,
"Some A s p e c t s o f t h e
I n j e c t i v i t y o f Non-Newtonian F l u i d s i n Porous Media,"
e d i t e d b y F. J o h n F a y e r s ,
Enhanced 8 i e c o v e r v ,
E l s e v i e r , New York, pp. !79-196.
V o n g v u t h i p o r n c h a i , S. a n d Raghavan, R.,
1984, " P r e s s u r e
Fa 1 1 o f f B e h a v i o r i n V e r t i ca 1 1 y F r a c t u r e d We 1 I s: NonNewton ia n Pswer-taw F 1 u i ds,"
Soc i e t y o f P e t r o 1 e u m
V o n g v u t h i p o r n c h a i , S. and Raghavan, R.,
1985, "We 1 1 T e s t
Ana 1 y s i s o f D a t a Domi n a t e d b y S t o r a g e a n d S k i n : NonN e w t i o n i a n Power-taw F l u l d s , " S o c i e t y o f P e t r o l e u m
Welge, H. J., 1952, "A S i m p l i f i e d M e t h o d f o r C o m p u t i n g O i l
R e c o v e r i e s by Gas o r Water D r i ve," T r a n s a c t i o n s f
o the
A.I.M.E.,
v o l . 91, p.195
W e i n s t e i n , H.;
N o 1 en, J. S.; a n d Chappe 1 e a r , J. E.,
1986,
"Second C o r n p a r a t f v e S o l u t i o n P r o j e c t : A Three-Phase
f
P e t r o l eum Techno l o s v , March,
Coning Study," Journa 1 o
pp. 3 4 5 - 3 5 3 .
UNCITED REFERENCES
A 1 -Far i ss, T. and Pi nder, K. L.,
1985, "F 1 o w Through Porous

Media o f e Shear-Thinning L i q u i d with Yield Stress: A
Friction Factor Corre 1 a t ion," Soc i ety o f Petro 1 eum
App 1 eyard, J. R . ; Cheshire, I. M.; and Po I 1 ard, R. K . , 1981,

"Special Techniques for F u l ly I m p 1 icit Simulators,"
Recovery,
i
J
edited by F. John Fayers, Enhanced Q
E l sevier, New York, pp. 395-408.
Argabr ight, P. A*; Rhudy, J. S.; and Phi 1 1 ips, 8. L., 1982,
"Part ia 1 l y Hydro1 yzed Pol yacryl amides with Superior
F l o o d i n g a n d Injection Properties," S o c i e t y o f
Petro 1 eum Eng ineers, paper no. 1 1208.
Aziz, K. a n d S e t t a r i , A * , 1979, P e t r o l e u m R e s e r v o i r
S i r n u ?ation, E 1 sevier Appl i ed Science, New York.
Aziz, K., 1981, "Numerics 1 Model 1 ing of EOR Processes,"
edited by F. Johr! Fayers, Enhanced Q 3 Recovery,
El sevier, New York, pp. 367-379.
BaiJa1, S , K., i980, F l o w Behavior
Media Pennwel 1, Tulsa.
-
-rsf Polymers in
Psraus
B e n s o n , S. b.l.
a n d B o d v a r s s a n , G. S , ,
1982,
"Nonisothermal Effects During Injection and Falloff
Tests," 50c i ety o f Petro 1 eum Eng i neers, paper no.
1 1 137.
Bird, R. B,, 1975, "Usefu 'l Non-Newtionian Mode 1 s," Annual'
Review f
s Fluid Mechanics, vol. 8, Annual Reviews, Palo
A1 to, pp. 13-35,
Bird, R . 8.; Armstrong, R . C.; a n d Hassager, O., 1982,
Dynamics of Polvmerie Liquids, vol. 1, John W i ley, New
York, pp. 270-273.
Caraahan, B.; L u t h e r , H. J.; a n d W i 1 k e s , J. 0., 1969,
App1 ied Nurner ica 1 Methods, John W i 1 ey, New York.
Castagno, R. E.;
Shupe, R. D.;
Gregory, M, 13.; e n d
Lescarboura, J. A . , 1984, " A Method for Laboratory and
Field Evaluation of a Proposed Polymer Flood," Society
of Petroleum Engineers, paper no. 13124.
Chauveteau, G. and Zaitoun, A., 198Ta, "Basic Rheol o g i ca 1
Behaviour of Xanthan Polysaccharide Solutions in Porous
Media: Effects of Pore Size and Polymer Concentration,"
edited b y F. John Fayers, Enhanced Qil Recovery,
El sevier, New York, pp. 197-212.
Claridge, E l L a , 1979, " A Layered Pattern Simulator for
Non-Newtonian Fluids in Graded Viscosity Banks,"
Society of Petrol eum Engineers. paper no. 7691.
A
Crichlow, H. B., 1977, Modern Reservoir Enwineerinq
Simulation Approach, Prentice-Ha1 1 , Englewood Cliffsp
New Jersy.
Crochet, M. J. and Walters. K., 1983, "Numerical Methods i n
Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics," edited by Van Dyker
M i 1 ton; Wehausen, J. V , ; and hum1 ey, John L., Annual
Review pf Fluid Mechanics, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto,
pp. 24 1-260.
Dake,
L. P., 1978, Fundamentals of g s e v o i r Enqineerinq,

Elsevier Scientific Publishing, .--w York.
Daubin, D. L. and Menzie, D. E., 1967, " F l o w of Polymer

So 1 ut ions Through Porous Media," Journa 1 0
5 Petro i e u m
Techno 1 oqy, August, pp. i065-1073.
Doe,
P. H.; Carey, B. 5.; and H e lmuth, E. 5.. 1 9 8 4 , "The

Nat f o n a l Petro 1 eum Gounr i 1 EOR Study: Cherni c a 1
Processes," Soe i ety of Petro l eum Engineers, paper no.
13240.
Dominguer, J. G. and W i l lhite, G. P.; 1977, "Retention and

F l o w Characteristics of Polymer Solutions in Porous
Media," Society of Petro 1 eum Enni neerg Journa 1 , Apr i 1 ,
pp* 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 .
Ershaghi, I. and Handy, L. h.,

1971. "Mobility o f
Po1 ymer So1 utfons i n Porous Media," Society o f
Petro 1 eum Engi neers, paper no. 3683.
Ewing, R . E.,
1983, The Mathematics f
o
Reservoir
Simulation, Frontiers in Applied Hathematics no. 1 ,
S o c i e t y o f Industrial a n d A p p l ied Mathematics,
Philadelphia.
Ferrer, J,, 1972, "Some Mechansitic Features o f Flow of
P o 1 yrners Through Porous Pled i a ," Soc i ety of Petro 1 eum
Foul ser, R. W. S., 1981, "Some Considerations Concerning the
Efficiency of Chemical Flood Simulators," edited by F.
J. Fayers, Enhanced O i l Recovery, E 1 sevier, New York,
pp. 409-424.
Gaitonde, N. Y . a n d Middl eman, S., 1966, "Flow of
Viscoelastic Fluids Through Porous Media," Society of
Petro 1 eum Engineers, paper no. 1685.
Gencer, C. S., 1982, We 1 1 Test Ane l y s i s for Two-Phase
Flow of Viscoelastic and Newtonian Fluids, Masters
Thesis, Uni versity of Tut sa.
1967b. "'obi
i ity Contro 1 With Po1 ymer
Gogarty, W . B.,
Solutions," Society f
o Petroleum Enqineers Journal,
June, pp. 161-173.
Gogarty, W . B . ; L e v y , G , L.; a n d Fox, V, G., 1972,
"Vi scoe'!ast 1 c Effects in Pol ymer F 1 ow Through Porous
Media," Society of Petrol eum Engineers, paper no. 4025.
H a r v e y , A , H, a n d M e n z i e , D. E., 1 9 7 0 , " P o l y m e r
Solution Flow in Porous Media," Society of Petroleum
Enqi neers Journa i , June, pp. 1 1 1- 1 18.
Heemskerk, J.; Janssen-van Rosmal en, R.; Holtslag, R , J.;
and Teeuw, B., "Quantification of Viscoelastic Effects
of Polyacrylamide Solutions," Society of Petroleum
Eng i neers, paper no. 12652.
1978, Transient F 1 o w of Non-Newtoniaq PowerPorous Media, Doctoral Dissertation,
Stanford Uni versi ty,
I koku, C. U.,
Law Fluids in
-
Ikoku, C. U. and Ramey Jr., H. J., 1978, "Numerical

S o l u t i o n of t h e Nonlinear Non-Newtonian Partial
Differential Equation," Society of Petroleum Engineers,
paper no. 7661.
Ikoku, C. U., 1982, "We1 1 Test Ana 1 ysi s for Enhanced O i 1

Recovery Projects," J o u r n a l of Energy Resources
TecRnoFoqy, June, volb 104, pp. 142-148.
Jones, R .
S.: Pope, G. A . ; Ford, H. J.; and hake, h. W.,

P r e d i c t i v e Model f o r Water a n d Po1 ymer
F t ooding," Society o f Petrol eurn Engineers, paper no.
12653.
1984,
Jones, W. M. and Maddock, J. L., 1966, "Flow o f Viscoelastic

Liquids: Comparison of Departures from Laminar F l o w in
Porous Beds and in Tubes," Society o f P e t r o l e u m
Kazemi, H.; Merri 1 1 , L. 5 . ; and Jargon, J. R.,
1972,
"Probl ems in Interpretation of Pressure Fa 1 l -Off Tests
in Reservoirs with and without F l u i d Banks," J o u r n a l ,?.f
P e t r o 1 eurn Techno 1 osy, September, pp. 1 147-1 156.
K 1 e i n, J. and
K u 1 i cke, W. M . ,
1980, "Po 1 ymer-Po 1 y m e r and
Po1 ymer-Soi i d Interaction and Their Re1 evance for
Po 1 ymer Appl ication in Enhanced O i 1 Recovery," Society
of Petrol eurn Engineers, paper no. 8980.
Koning, E . J. L. and Niko, H., 1985, "Fractured WaterInjection We1 1 s: A Pressure F a 1 laff Test f a r
Oetermi n ing Fracture D i mens icns ," Soc i ety of Petro 1 eurn
Letkernan, J. P. and Ridings, R. L., 1970, " A Numerical
Con i ng Mode l ,lr Soc ietv 0
2
Petro 1 eurn Ena i neers Journa 1 ,
December, pp. 4!8-424.
MacDonal d , R. C. and Coats, M . H., 19513, "Methods for
Numerical Simulation o f Water and Gas Coning," Society
of
- Petroleum Engineers Journal, December, pp. 425-436.
McDona 1 d, A. E., 1979, "Approximate Sol utions for F 1 o w o f
Non-Newtonian Power t a w F 1 u ids Through Porous Media,"
Society o f Petroleum Engineers, paper no. 7690.
McKin 1 ey, R. M.;
Jahns,
H. 0.;
Harris, W. W . ;
and Greenkorn,
1966, "Non-Newton ian F 1 o w in Porous Med i a ,"

A.1.Ch.E. Journal, January, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 17-20.
R.
A.,
Meister, J. J.; P l e d g e r Jr., H.; Hogen-Esch, T. E.; a n d

But l es, G. 6 . . 1980, "Retention o f Pol yacryl arnide b y
Berea Sandstone, Baker Do 1 om i te, and Sod i um Kao l i n S t e
D u r 5 n g P o 1 y m e r F 1 o o d i ng," S o c i e t y o f P e t r o 1 e u m
M e r r i 1 1 Jr., L. S.; K a z e m i , H.; a n d G o g a r t y , W. B.,
1974, "Pressure Fa1 loff A n a l y s i s in R e s e r v o i r s w i t h
F 1 uid Banks," Journa 1 of Petrol eum T e c h n o I o s v , Ju l y,
pp. 809-818.
M o r a d i - A r g h i t A. a n d D o e , P. H.,
1984, "Stab i 1 i t y o f
Po 1 y a c r y 1 a m ! d e s in H a r d B r i n e s a t E l e v a t e d
Temperatures," Soc i ety of P e t r o 1 eum Engi neers, paper
no. 13033.
Mungan, N.; Smith, F. W.; a n d Thompson, J. L., 1966, "Some
Aspects o f P o 1 ymer F 1 oods," Journa 1 f
o
P e t r o 1 eurn
Techno 1 o g y , September, pp. 1 143-1 150.
Mungan, N,, 1969, "Rheo 1 o g y and Adsorption o f Aqueous
Po 1 ymer S o 1 ut ions ," The Journa 1 of Canad i ac Petro 1 eum
Techno 1 sqy, Apr i l -June, pp. 45-50.
1983, "Numerical
M u r t h a , J. A. a n d E r t e k i n , T.,
S i m u l a t i o n OF Power-taw F l u i d F l o w in a Vertical ly
Fractured R e s e r v o ir,lz Society o f Petroleum Engineers,
paper no. 1201 1.
N o u r i , H..
H. a n d R o o t , P. J,, 1971, " A S t u d y o f
P o 1 ymer S o 1 ut i o n Rheo 1 ogy, F 1 o w Beha v i or, a n d 0 i l
D i s p l a c e m e n t Processes," S o c i e t y o f P e t r o l e u m
Omar, A. E., 1983, "Effect s f Pol ymer Adsorption on Mobi 1 fty
Rat i 0," S o c i ety o f P e t r o ? eurn Eng i neers, paper no.
11503.
Park, H. C.; Haw 1 ey, M. C.; and B 1 anks, Fi. F., 1973, "The
F l ow of Non-Newton ian So 1 ut i ons Through Packed Beds ,"
Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper no, 4722.
P i rson, 5. J.;
Boatman, El
and Nett t e, R. L., 1964, '"
Prediction o f Relative Permeability Characteristics of
I ntergranu 1 a r Reservoir Rocks from E 1 ectr i c a 1
R e s i st i v i t y M e a s u r e m e n t s , " J o u r n a l of P e t r o 1 e u m
Techno 1 OQY, May, pp, 561-570.
Pope,
G. A.,
1980, "The A p p l i c a t i o n o f F r a c t i o n a l F l o w
Theory t o Enhanced O i 1 Recovery," S o c i e t y
Petroleum
Ens i neers Journa 1 , June, pp. 19 1-205.
Pye,
D. J., 1964, " I m p r o v e d S e c o n d a r y R e c o v e r y b y C o n t r o l

f
P e t r o 1 eum Techno 1 o g ~ ,
o f Water Mobi 1 it y , " J o u r n a 1 o
August, pp. 91 1-916.
S a n d i f o r d , 6. B.,
1964, " L a b o r a t o r y a n d F i e l d S t u d i e s s f
Water F l o o d s U s i n g P o l y m e r S o l u t i o n s t o I n c r e a s e O i 1
Recoveries," Journa 1 of P e t r o 1 eum Techno l o q y , August,
pp. 917-922.
M.,
1970, "On t h e T h e o r y o f P o l y m e r S o l u t i o n
Sarem, A.
F 1 o o d i n g P r o c e s s , " Soc i e t y o f P e t r o 1 eurn E n g i n e e r s ,
p a p e r no. 3002.
W.,
1980, " S t e a d y - S t a t e
S c h n e i d e r , F. N, a n d O w e ~ s , %J.
Measurements o f Re 1 a t i ve Permeabi 1 it y f o r Po 1 ymer-Qi 1
Systems," S o c i e t y o f P e t r o l e u m E n g i n e e r s , p a p e r no.
9408.
1975, "A Computer Mode 1 f o r TwaS e t t e r i , A. a n d A z i z , K.,

Phase C o n i n g Simu 1 a t ion,ll
Society o
f
P e t r o l eurn
Engineers Journa 1 , June, pp. 221-236.
S l ater,
6 . E . a n d F a r o u q - A 1 i , S. M.,
197'0,
"TwoDimensional Polymer F l o o d Sirnu1ation."
S o c i e t y of
P e t r o 1 eurn Engineers, paper no. 3003.
S l a t t e r y , J. C.,
1966, q ' F l s w o f V i s c o e l a s t i c F l u i d s
Through Porous Media," Soc ie t y o f P e t r o 1 eum Engineers,
p a p e r no. 1684.
Smith,
F. W.,
1968,
"A Rapid Method o f D e t e r m i n i n g
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f L i q u i d F l o w i n P o r o u s Media,"
J o u r n a 1 ~f P e t r o 1 eurn Techno 1 oav, November, pp. 12 191220.
S m i t h , F. W . ,
1970, "The B e h a v i o r o f P a r t i a l 1 y H y d r o 1 y z e d
Po 1 y a c r y 1 amide S o 1 u t ions i n Porous Media," Journa 1 f
o
P e t r o 1 eurn Techno 1 ogv, February, pp. 148- 156.
S o n i e r , F.; B e s s e t , P.; a n d Ornbret, O., 1973, "A Nurnerica l
Mode 1 o f Mu 1 t i p h a s e F 1 ow A r o u n d a We 1 1 ," S o c i e t y of
P e t r o l e u m Engineers J o u r n a l , December, pp. 311-320.
S o r b i e , K. S. a n d R o b e r t s , L. J., 1 9 8 4 , "A Mode1 f o r

Calculating Polymer Injectivity including t h e Effects
of Shear Degradat i on," Soc iety o f Petro 1 eum Engi fleers,
paper no. 12654.
Sosa, A.; R a g h a v a n , W.; and Linon, T J., 1981, "Effect 0.F
Re 1 at i ve Perneabi 1 ity and Mobl I r t y Ratio on Pressure
Fa 1 1 o f f Behav ior", J o u r n a 1
Petrol e u g T e c h n o 1 o g y .
June, pp. 1 125- 1 135.
S t a 1 k u p Jr., F. I ., 1983, M i sc i bl e D i s p 1 acement, M o n o g r a p h
no. 8, Society o f Petrol eum Engineers, Da 1 l as.
S z a b o , M.
T.,
1972, " M o l e c u l a r a n d M i c r o s c o p i c
I nterpretat ion of t h e F 1 o w of Hydro l yzed P o 1 yacry 1 amide
So 1 ut ion T h r o u g h P o r o u s Media," S o c i e t y o f P e t r o 1 eurn
Teeuw, D. a n d Hesse 1 ink, F. T., 1980, "Power-taw F 1 o w a n d
H y d r o d y a n m i c B e h a v i o u r o f B i o p o l y m e r S o l u t i o n s in
P o r o u s Media," S o c i e t y of P e t r o 1 eurn Engineers, p a p e r
no. $982.
T i n k e r , 6. E.; B o w m a n , R. W.; a n d P o p e , G. A., 1 9 7 6 ,
" D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f I n - S i t u M o b i l i t y a n d We1 1 b o r e
Impairment from Po 1 ymer ln.ject!:vity Data," Journa 1 of
Petrol eurn Techno 1 ogy, May, pp. 586-596.
Van D o m s e l a a r , H. R.,
1982, "The Apparent V i s c o s i t y o f
Power-Law F l u i d s and Its Application in Polymer Drive
sir nu la ti on^,^ Society o f Petroleum Engineers, paper no.
10613.
V e l a , 5.; P e a c e m a n , 8. W . ;
a n d S a n d v i k , E . I.,
1976,
"Evaluation o f Polymer Flooding in a Layered Reservoir
with Crossflow, Retention, and Degradation." S ~ c i e t yof
Petroleum Encgineers Journal, April, pp. 82-96.
F. H. L.; D u d a , J.
a n d K l a u s , E. E . ,
1979,
"Inf 1 uences of P o l yner S o l ut ion Propert ies on F 1 o w In
P o r o u s Media," S o c i e t y o f P e t r o l eum Engineers, p a p e r
Wang,
no. 8418.
W a r d , J. 5 . a n d M a r t i n , F. 13..
1 9 8 0 , "Prediction o f
V i s c o s i t y f o r Partial ly H y d r o l y z e d P o l y a c r y l a m i d e
S o l u t i o n s in t h e P r e s e n c e o f C a l c i u m a n d M a g n e s i u m
Ions." Society o f Petrol eum Engineers, paper no. 8978.
APPENDIX A
SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT
14.1
Governins Equations
The simulator bui It for this study was designed t o
mode 1 the inject i v ity o f non-Newton i an so 1 ut i ons. In the

general case, the flow of three substances
polymer solutions, are o f interest.
- oil, water, and
The surfactant
concentrat ion in a mice l 1 ar so 1 ution wi 1 1 be treated in the

same way a s polymer i n solution,
Three analytical flow
equations are therefore required t o describe the flow o f the

three substances.
The equations for radial axisymmetric
flow are as follows:

Oil Phase
(A. 1)
Water Phase
Polymer Species
In equation ( A , 3 )
4,
is a base porosity which is not a
function of pressure, and y r is the specific gravity of the

rock.
For these three coupled, second-order, partial
differentia1 equations, there are five unknowns.
The
unknowns are water and oi l pressure, water and ol 1

saturation, and surfactant/polymer concentration.
It is
necessary t o introduce two additional relations related t o

two-phase f 1 ow t o so 1 ve the f 1 ow equat ions.
One equation i s
related t o cap! 1 lary pressure and the other t o the sum of

the saturations (equations CA.43
So
Po
- P w -- PcwO(sw9
S
, = 1.0
Equations (A.1)-(A.5)
unknowns.
and CA.51).
(A,.4)
(A.5)
result in five equations and five
When a problem is discretized i n space and time,
these five equations must be solved at each node.

equations (A.1)-(A.5)
can be solved, it is
equations (A. 1 ) - ( A . 3 )
In f inite-difference form.
Before
necessary t o put
The
deve I opment o f t h e finite difference equations is discussed

in the next section.
dispersion term.
In equation ( A . 3 )
there is no
The transport of the surfactant/polymer is
assumed t o completely dominate dispersion.

To be able t o simulate pressure injectivity and fa1 loff
tests, another expression for the wellbore is needed. The
f 1 ow in and out of the we1 1 bore can be described as fol 1 ows:
--
9s
(surface rate)
CS dPwf
-
qsf
(A.6)
dt
(sand face rate) (we1 1 bore accumu 1 at ion)
Where Cs is the wellbore storage coefficient.

4.2
Finite Difference Equations

The finite difference equations are based on a block-
centered grid.
In a block centered geometry the blocks are
selected first, and then the nodes are centered in the

b l ocks.
The a 1 ternat i ve method to the bl ock centered grid
is the point centered grid.
The point centered grid is
rnathernat i ca 1 1 y more r i gorous, but for a 1 most a 1 1 petro 1 eum

engineer ing prob 1 ems the type of gri d makes no pract i ca l
difference.
The block centered geometry i s the standard
geometry used in the petroleum industry for simulators in

radia 1 coordinates (Weinstein, No1 en, and Chappe 1 ear 1986).
F igure A. I i 1 1 ustrates the geometry of the s imu 1 ator.
The
finite difference equations can be thought of as a statement
of the material balance on each cell, which is expressed by

equation ( A . 7 ) .
(Rate of Material In) - (Rate of Material Out)
+ (Sources + Sinks)
= (Rate of Accumulation)
(8.7)
We use the central-difference approximation for the

left hand sides of equations A
For instance, the
left hand side o f t h e water equation takes the f o r m g i v e n by
equation ( A . 8 1 ,
with the exception o f being multiplied by
the format ion thickness h.
The n superscript denotes the current known time level,

while the n+l superscript denotes the unknown time level.
The transmi ssibi 1 iti es for oi 1 , water, and pol ymer are gi ven
in equations ( A . 9 )
through (A.111, respectively.
The radii
are as given in Figure A . 1 .
(A.9)
(A. I01
A 1 1 re1 ati ve permeabi l it ies, resistance factors, and
viscosities in the transmissibi?ites are calculated at the

upstream location to ensure convergence to the BuckleyLeverett solution.
The right hand sides of equations
Cell Boundary
--------Cell
Node
Figure A . l
Simulator Geometry
(A.11-(A.3)
can be approximatedas in equation ( A . 1 2 ) .
subscript i indicates the cel 1 number.
The
The rock
compressibility is assumed to be n e g l i g i ~ l eand the porosity

can therefore be assumed to be constant.
( A . 121
The pore volume of a cell i s given by equation ( A . 1 3 ) .

( A . 1.3)
Using the definition of pore volume for a cell, and equation

(A.
I 1 1 and
( A . 121,
equation ( A . 2 ) can be wr i tten in the
compact, finite-differerice form of equation I A . 1 4 ) ,
with the
addition of a source/sink term.
( A . 14)
The development sf finite difference equations for oil

and polymer is exact1 y the s a m e as for water.
term in equation
conditions.
(A. 14)
The source
s used t o imp 1 ement the boundary
The transmissihilities of the reservoir are
taken a s zero a t the external drainage radius and at t h e

w e 1 1 bore.
Any f 1 o w i n or out of the reservoir i s then
control led by the source term.
The source term a t t h e
we I I bore is written as i n equation ( A . 1 5 ) .
0.007082
8,
r 2
n+ 1 kh ( pwf
12
'
py+ )
- ln(rll/~/rw)- 0.5
( A . 15)
+ s
The injectivity at the we! 1 must be written in terms of

total mobility,
If a negative skin exists at the wellbore,
that is a stimulated condition; i t is possible for the

apparent we 1 1 bore radi us to exceed the outer radius o f the
first ce 1 1
in
contact with the we 1 l bore.
The apparent
we 1 1 bore radius due t o skin is equa l t o rwe-s.
When the
apparent we1 lbore radius exceeds the outer radlus of the

first ce 1 1
, a negat i ve pressure drop resul ts.
To
overcome
the prob 1 em o f the negat i ve pressure drop in a st imu l a t e 4

well, the skin factor i s set to zero, and the permeability
of the first few ce l 1 s i s increased.
The permeabi 1 ity in
the first few cef 1s is increased using a relation developed

by Hawkins (1965) to yield an equivalent s k i n factor, which
i s given
in equation ( A . 1 6 ) .
s = (k/ks - 1.0)
The subscipt
ln(rs/rw)
CA. 16)
denotes the radius and permeabi t ity of t h e
skin z o n e , and k
is t h e permeabi 1 ity o f t h e virgin
formation.
The productivity at the external drainage radius fs
The
written only in terms o f the mobility o f the phase.

water boundary condition at the externa I drainage is
gi
ven
The subscript I denotes the last ce 1 t
in equation ( A . 1 7 ) .
at the drainage radius.
n+ 1
0 . 0 0 7 0 8 2 kh (pI
2
- pren+l)
(A. 17)
((rlllz/(re-rI)) ln(F-I/ri-l,z) - 0.5
s )
Equations ( A . 1 5 ) and ( A . 1 7 ) are used for either the Neumann

or Dirichlet boundary conditions,
For the Neumann boundary
condition the rate i s specified and for the Dirichl et

boundary condition the pressure pWf ar pr,
is specified.
The final finite difference equation t o develop is for

we 1 i bore storage.
(A.6)
The finite difference form o f equation
is given in equation ( A . 1 8 ) .
Equation (A.15) would be substituted for qSf h equation

(A. 1 8 ) .
A.3
SolutionProcedure
The solution of equations (A.l)-(A.5)
uses a sequential
IMPES (implicit in pressure--explicit in saturation)

procedure.
Water and oil equations are combined to obtain a
pressure equation i n terms of water pressure only.
This
pressure equation, having a parabolic form, is solved to

obtain the pressure surface.
This pressure i s substituted
in the water equation to calculate the water saturation

expl icit 1 y.
Fina 1 1 y, water pressure and saturat f on are used
in the surfactant/polymer flow equation to obtain the

po 1 ymer concentrat i o n imp 1 ic it 1 y.
Performi ng the
manipulations as outlined and putting the result in the form

o f a tridiagona 1
The coefficient
matrix resu 1 ts in equations ( A . 1 9 ) - ( A . 2 2 ) .
a!
is equal to B,,i/Bo*i.
A1 1
transmissibi 1 ities, capi 1 1 ary pressures, and a

calculatedat t h e n t i m e levei.
are
The inclusion of wellbore
storage simply adds one more equation to the matrix, based

o n equation ( A . 1 8 ) .
( A . 19)
Main Diaqonal :
VP:
Subd i agona 1
Riqht Hand Side Vector:
The values E i , A i , and B i are the coefficients for the

pressures pW,j - l ,
pW,
and pw, i+ l , respect i ve 1 y.
Th i s
systemof equations is easily solveddirectly using the

Thomas a1 gorithim for the lmpl icit l y unknown water
pressures.
The water saturations can then be calculsted
expl icitly at the n+l time level using equation ( A . 1 4 ) .

Using equations ( A . 4 ) and ( A . 5 1 ,
the oi 1 pressures and
saturations can be calculated at the n+l time level, if t h e

water pressures and saturations are known.
At thls point
a11 pressures and saturations are known.

The polymer flow equation can now be solved.
original ly formulated the polymer equatfon ( A . 3 )
exp1
icitly.
When
was solved
The expl icit solution of the polymer equation
becomes unstable when more than one pore volume is injected

into a ce 1 1 during a t irne step; the concentration prof i 1 e
then begins to o s c i 1 late.
To a1 1 eviate this problem, the
polymer equation was solved implicitly.
The implicit
sol ution of the polymer equation a1 lows much larger time
steps.
The implicit formulation of the polymer equation
results in a bS-diagonal matrix, since the polymer equation

is
solved with a backward difference formulation.
The bi-
diagonal matrix can be sol ved by either back substitution or

by the Thomas algsrithim.
The form of the bidiagonal matrix
is:
Subd i aqona l
Riqht Hand S i d e Vector:
The values A i and E i are the coefficients f o r t h e

concentrat ions C?+l and
~7':.
respect i ve 1 y. The quantity
( A ~ + ~ - A ~ ) / ( c ~ + ~ -is
c ? the
)
chord slope o f the
adsorption/retentisn curve, and i s taken to be a constant
for the time s t e p .
If the concentration in a cel 1 starts to
drop, the chord slope is set to zero, and the concentration

is
recomputed.
Setting the cord slope t o zero for
decreasing concentrations makes the adsorption/retention
irreversible.
Having reached this point, equations ( A . 1 ) through
iA.5)
have been sol ved.
The interstitial velocity, apparent
viscosity, adsorption, and resistance factor are now updated

for a1 1 cel 1s.
A.4
The next time step can now be computed.
Capabilities, Limitations and Assumptions of the

Simulator
Based on the discussions of Chapters 2 and Appendix A
thus far, the capabi 1 it i es of the s imu 1 ator have been

stated.
Table A . l briefly reviews the capabilities of the
simulator.
,
What the simulator is not designed to consider
wi 1 1 a 1 so be discussed.
With a sirnul ator formulated in
radial coordinates, there are some limitations and

advantages.
The radial coordinate system fs well suited to
transient radial we1 1 testing.
The radial coordinate system
cannot rigorously handle fracturedwells.
I f t h e fracture
lengzh is quite smal 1 then appreciable error wil 1 probably

not result using this simulator; however, no t e s t i n g
has
been done to verify the amount of error.

The radial system does not rigorously handle the
boundary condition at the external drainage radius for many
situations.
For example, in a five- or nine-spot pattern,
there wil 1 be fingering toward the sinks (producing we1 Is).

Fingering towards the sinks is not accounted for in the
Tab1 e
A. 1
Summary of Simulator Features

Geometry
One dimensional,
radial coordinate system.
centered nodes, logarithmically distributed.
Block
B o un d a ~Conditions
1.
2.
Wellbore - pressure specified (Dirichlet) or rate

specified (Neumann)
Drainage radius - pressure specified or closed
Completion Effects
1.
Skin
2. Wellbore Storage - a. full fluid column
b. risinglfalling fluid level
Phase Options
1.
Single phase, water-polymer flow
2. Two phase, oil and water-polymer flow
Permeability
-Relative
-1.
2.
Pirson's equations
Tabular input of relative permeability
Polymer Flow Effects

1.
Langmuir adsorption isotherms
2. Residual resistance factor - permeability reduction
3. Inaccessible pore v~lurne
4. Polymer concentrations
meal osy
i.
2.
3.
4.
Carreau fluids
Modified power law fluids
Newtonian fluids
Viscosity table as a function
velocity
Shear-Rate, Velocity Relations

1.
Savins
2. Jennings, Rogers, and West
3. Christopher - Middl eman
of
interstitial
simulator.
The simulator is a single-layer radial
simulator.
In a reservoir which is highly strat.ified, the
effect of multiple layers could cause the simulator to be

significantly in error.
It is not possible to handle
gravity effect for a tilted reservoir in a meaningful

using a radial coordinate system;
way
therefore, the effects of
underrunning or override are not considered in the

simulator.
The simulator is designed for single-phase (water
po 1 ymer
or two-phase (oi 1 and
water-pol ymer) f1 ow.
Th i s
obviously assumes that the reservoir is above the bubble

point, and there is no free gas saturation.
The upstream
weighting built into the simulator is currently designed

only for injection.
production occurs.
rheology
effects.
5s
Erroneous results wi!I be obtained i f

For micellar solutions, only the
modelled and not the interf3c;al tension
Capillary pressure is not consldered in the model,
other than to relate the oil and water pressures.

Degradation Ts not directly considered i n the model;
rheological data is assumed to be appropriately corrected
for all types of degradation.
All adsorption/retention is
considered to be irreversible; in some cases,

adsorption/retention may have some reversibility.
Simulators i n radial coordinates can have stability
probl ems i f the time steps are too 1 arge, un 1 ess the
simulator is fully imp1 icit.
Since this simulator is not
fui ly implicit, some caution must be exercised in selecting

t ime-step size.
The pri r;cipa 1 source of instabi 1 i ty is the
srna l 1 size of the near we 1 I bore ce 1 1 s.
Once the near
we 1 1 bore ce 1 1 s have stabi 1 ized at some condition. larger
time steps can be taken.
What this means i s
whenever
there i s a shock t o the system, sma l 1 time steps shou 1 d be

taken,
Examples of
shock include, when water injection i s
commenced i n a reservoir at irreducible water saturation or

when
po 1
ymer i n ject i on
is
commenced.
After a short period of tl:rne, the near we1 ltssre cei
1s
have stabilized at residual oil saturation for water

injection.
In the polymer injection case, concentrations in
thenearwellborece!ls stabilize rapidly.
Usually a day of
injection is enough to stabi 1 ize the near wel lbore c e i Is.

Time steps are distributed 1 ogarithmical 1 y to minimize any
stabi 1 ity prob 1 ems at ear 1 y times.
After the initial stabilizing period, time steps can
typical l y be taken as large as 5 days with no instabi 1 ity.
The number of time steps required to see virtually no change
i n the results depends on the changes in concentrations and
injection rates.
If the rates and concentrations do not
change on a day to day basis, one or two time steps per day
is adequate, with additional time steps causing no change in

the result.
Significant changes in the d a y to day rates and
concentrations
wi1 1
require additional time steps;
typical l y , 5 to 10 time steps per day is adequate.

The simulator is currently dimensioned to handle 103
radial cells.
50
and 100 ce 1 1
Runs were made for the same cases at 1 0 , 20,

The number o f c e 1 1 s requ i red t o obta i n
s.
convergence of the numerical solution is a function of the

residual resistance factor.
Smal 1 amounts of numerical
dispersion in the polymer concentration front can cause

large reductions in the reservoir permeabil ity when t h e
residual resistance factor is large.
resistance factor
is
close to i . 0 ,
When the residclal
improved answers were
oistainedwhen going from 10 t o 20 cells; however, no

significant change was obtained between 2 0 and 50 cells when
comparing w e 1 ibore pressures and rates.
23
Figure A . 2 camwares
and 50 ce 1 1 s for We 1 1 8 , when the res idua 1 res i stance
factor i s 1.35.
11.3,
When the residual resistance factor was
as for We1 1 fC, 50 ce 1 1 s were required to for con-
vergence of the wellbore pressures and rates.

compares 20, 50, and 100 ce 1 1 s for We 1 1 C.
Figure A . 3
The more radia 1
ce l 1 s , the better the ident i f icat ion o f the f 1 ood front

location for
any
displacement process.
If flood front
location is of importance,the maximum number of cel 1s should
be
used.
If just wellbore pressures and rates are
importsnt, between twenty and fifty cells is adequate.

A.5
Simulator Verification
The principal method of testing the simulator was the
comparison of simulator results with analytical solutions.

The s imu 1 ator resu 1 ts were compared to ana 1 yt ica 1 so 1 ut ions
for the following situations:
1.
Injection test
2.
Falloff test
3.
Steady-state flow
4.
Hall plot
5.
Wellbore storage
6.
Buckley-Leverett displacement
7.
Miscible polymer-water displacement
The comparison of simulator results with analytical

solutions was done using a hypothetical data set, called
We 1 1
A.
The data for We 1 1 A is given in Appendix 5 .
The
data for We 1 1 A was app 1 ied to sing1 e- and two-phase f 1 ow.

A
brief review of a port ion of the tests run f o 1 1 ows.

Figure A . 4 gives the simulator results for a f a \ 1 off
test using 20 cells.
The input skin and permeability is 3.0
and 100 md. respect i ve 1 y .

test
p 1 ot,
Based on the s 1 ope of the fa 1 1 off
a permeabi l ity of 99.7 md
skin is calculated to be 3.030.
is
ca 1 culated.
The
Figure A.5 is for the
same
data plotted in Figure A . 4 ,

dimensionless form.
Dimensionless pressure is plotted
versus dimensionless time.

A.5
but the results are plotted in a
The dimensionless plot in Figure
compares the analytical sol ut ions of Van Everdingen and
Hurst ( 1 9 4 9 ) with the simulator results.
The definition of
dimensionless pressure and time are as follows.
Figure A . 6
20 cells.
i l l ustrates an injection test run with u s i n g
The input skin and permeability are 3.0 and 100.0
md respectively.
The calculated skin is 3.030 and the
ca 1 cul ated permeabi 1 i ty is 99.6 md based on t.he injection

plot.
Figure A - 7 is a comparison with the Van Everdingen

is for the
and Hurst dimensionless solutions.
Figure A,$
same data as i n Figures A . 6 and A . 7 ,
except the outer
boundary has been closed.
The closed outer boundary case
serves a s amaterial balance check.
Basedon the amount of
material added to the reservoir, the sirnu l ator shoul d

converge to a new stabilized reservoir pressure.
The new
stabi 1 ized reservoir pressure ca 1 cu 1 ated by the simulator

when the well
In Figure A . 8
is
shutin was used to verify material balance,
1000 barrels
of water was injected during two
IT
O'OT
( ~ d 3)I I . ? S s 3 y d
s!~?YINO~SISN!&I(I
'
days,
The new average reservoir pressure calculated by the
simulator after shutin is 1099.3 psis,
Based on material
bal ance and the compressi b i 1 i ty re1 at ionship the new average
reservoir pressure is 1099.3 psia.
Tests like those
mentioned above, and others, were used to verify the
transient behavior o f t h e simulator, The equations as

developed in section 3.1 were used to calculate skin and
permeabi 1 ity.
It was also necessary to verify the steady state
solution of the simulator.
Water injection was maintained
a t a constant rate for a single phase t o establish steady

state f 1 o w .
The s imu 1 ator w i 1 l ca 1 cu 1 ate the same so 1 ut ion
as the steady state Darcy equation.

prepar
-1
Hall plots were also
and ana 1 yzed us i ng eqljat i ons ( 4 - 8 ) and (4.12).
The
simulator matches the s lope of the Ha 1 1 plot as ca l cu 1 ated

using equation (4.81.
test case.
The Hal
Figure A - 9 i i l ustrates a ha1 1

1
plot
s 1 ope based on simul ator input is
(psia-days)/STB and the slope from the Hal
0.400
plot is 0,399
(psia-days)/STB,
The two phase flow cal culations made by the sirnul ator
were verified
so 1 ut ion.
by comparison with the Buckley-ieverett
The Buck 1 ey-ieverett equst ion for a 1 i near system
is given in equation ( A . 2 8 ) .
dx
(-)5
dt
5.615 q
"
df,
(-4
(A.28)
dSw
Where the value A is the cross sectional area of the linear

system.
Equation ( A . 2 8 )
can a1 so be sol ved for flow in
radia 1 coordinates, when the space coordinate is changed to

r , and A is set equal t o 2JI$h.
Equation ( 1 4 . 2 8 ) changed for
radial coordinates is given equation (A.29).
The sol ution t o equation ( A . 2 9 )

saturat ion i n rad ia l
for tracking a particular
ccord i nates,
i s g i ven by equat.i on
(A.30) ( C o !lins 1975, p. 1 4 9 ) . .
The subscript 0 denotss time zero, and the subscript t

denotes some time in the future.
some constapt saturation.
The subscript
Figure A . I O
Sw
is f o r
illustrates a
corn~arisonof the Buckley-Leverett analytical solution with

the simulator using 20, 50, and 100 ce! 1s.
In Figure A . 1 0
15644.3 barrels of water has been injected, which yields a
theoretical flood front of 99.2 feet.

The accuracy of the we 1 1 bore storage ca 1 cu i at ions was
verifed
by
making log-log plots.
Figure A . 1 1
i s a test case
for we1 lbore storage with a rising 1 iquid level and a ful 1
fluid column.
The wellbore storage coefficient ( C s ) for a
fu 1 I f 1 uid col umn of water is equal to cWVwb, where

the vo 1 ume of the we 1 I bore.
is
Vwb
The we 1 1 bore storage
coefficient put into the simulator is 0.108 ft3jpsi for a

rising liquid level.
The wellbore storage coefficient
calculated from figure A . 1 1
is 0.110 ft3/psi.
The solution of the concentration equation was tested

aga inst ana l yt ica 1 so l ut ions a l so.
When an aqueous po 1 ymer
solution displaces water, the displacement process i s

miscible, and therefore piston-like displacement occurs if
molecular dispersion and diffusion, and adsorption are
ignored.
The concentration distribution in space can easily
be calculated for piston-like d4splacement based on

'volumetric considerations.
Figure A . 1 2 compares the
analytical solution with the simulator calculated

concentrations for Wet 1 A,when 20, 5 0 , and 1 0 0 ce1 Is are
used.
In Figure A. 12 adsorption has been set to zero.
The
amount of polymer injection Is 19225.0 barrels in Figure

A.12,
which yields a theoretical flood front of 75.6 feet.
It
can be s e e n t h a t t h e r e i s some numerical dispersion in the

concentration front, addition of more ce 1 1 s to the s imu 1 ator
reduces the numerical dispersion in the flood front.
In addition to testing with analytical solutions, t.he
mater i a 1 bal ance error was cal cul ated a t the end o f every
t !me step, and the cumu 1 ati ve material balance error w a s

recorded.
percent;
Typical
that is,
material
ba1 ance error is 1 *
after injecting a million barrels of
fluid, a material balance error of 1.0 barrels would be

expected.
Material ba 1 ance tests were a 1 so done with the
externa 1 dra i nage rad i us c 1 osed.
When f 1 u id was injected
and the outer boundary was closed, the average reservoir

pressure was ca 1 cu 1 ated after the reservoi r had stabi 1 ized.
U s i n g the
compressi b i 1 i t y and t h e mater f a 1
ba 1 a n c e
equations, the calculated pressures agree with the simulator

for six significant figures.
APPENDIX R
WELL
DATA
Table B.1
Well A* Data and Reservoir Properties
= Depth = 3000 feet

= Wellbore volume = 25.0
V,
C,,
barrels
Rising/Falling fluid wellbore storage coefficient

=
0.1081 feet3/barrel
C S F = Full wellbore storage coefficient = 0.00042
feet3/barrel
h
Reservoir thickness = 30.0 feet
k = Absolute permeability = 100 m d .
4 = Porosity
= 0.20
re = External drainage radius = 1000.0 feet
r, = Wellbore radius
0.50 feet
P, = Pressure at the external drainage radius = 1000.0 psia
Initial reservoir pressure = 1000.0 psis
pi
,u
= Oil viscosity = 5.0 ep
c,
B,
= Oil
IJ,
= Water viscosity = 0.80 c p
c,
Water Compressibility = 3.0 *
lov6
B
,
Water formation vol ume factor
Oil compressibility = 15.0 *

formation volume factor
res. bbl/STB
at 1000 psia
1.2
psi-'
1.0 res. bbl /STB
at 1000 psia
YF = Rock specific gravity
2.68
Table 5.2
Adsorption/Retention
Resistance Factor Data, Well A
Rrfw
residual resistance factor t o water = 5.00
Rrfo
residual resistance factor to oil = 1.20
Amax = maximum polymer adsorption/retention = 0.020 m g / g
f c = inaccessible pore volume = 1.00
Lanqmuir Adsorption Isotherm

Concentration (PPM)
Adsorption/Retention (mg/g)
Table 8 . 3
Carreau Rheological Data, Well A
Concentration(PPM)
ra
!J o
!J-
Table 6 . 4
Apparent Viscosity as a F u n c t i o n f Interstitial Velocity,
We1 1 A
S a v i n s shear rate-velocity relation used
Interstitial Velocity (feet/day)

Conc.(PPM)
0.01
0.10
1.OO
10.00
100.0
1000.0
Table 6 . 5
Relative Permeability Data, Well A
0.000
1.00000
0.0000
0.150
0.95000
0.0000
0.200
0.75000
0.0040
0.250
0.58750
0.0102
0.300
0.44620
0,0166
0.350
0.33250
0.0232
0.400
0.24500
0.0305
0.450
0.17700
0.0392
0.500
0.12000
0.0497
0.550
0.07240
0.0630
0.600
0.03745
0.0797
0.650
0.01627
0.1000
0.700
0.00564
0.1244
0.750
0.00077
0.1525
0.775
0.00038
0.1698
0.788
0.00019
0.1784
0.800
0,00000
0.1870
1.000
0.00000
1.0000
(8lair and Weinaug 1969)
APPENDIX C
WELL B DATA
Table C.l
Well 8 , Data and Reservoir Properties
Data based on Milton, Argabright, and Gogarty ( 1 4 8 3 )

Location: Big Horn Basin, Wyoming
Formation: Tensleep sandstone
Injected fluids: fresh water, brine, polyacrylarnide solution
L = Depth = 4350 feet
= Wellbore volume = 28.0 barrels
V,
C,,
Rising/Falling f l u i d wellbore storage coefficient

= 0.0835 feet3/barre 1
CSf = Full wellbore storage coefficient = 0 . 0 0 0 4 7
feer3/barre 1
h = Reservoir thickness = 50.0 feet
=
k = Absolute permeabl lity

4
91.0 m d .
Porosity = 0 . 1 5
re = External drainage radius = 1320.0 feet

r,
Wellbore radius = 0.33
feet
p, = Pressure at the externat drainage radius

pi =
1180 psia
Initial reservoir pressure = 1180 psia
s = Skin = 7.2
,u
= Water viscosity = 0 . 7 0
cw = Water compressibility
cp
= 3.0
psi-'
8, = Water formation vol ume factor = 1.0 res. b b l /STB
at 1180
Yf
Rock specific gravity
= 2.68
psia
Table C.2
Adsorption/Retention and Resistance Factor Data, Well B
--
Rrfw
,,A
resistance factor to water = 1.35
= residual
= maximum polymer adsorption/retention = 0 . 0 2 0
F,
mg/g
inaccessible pore volume = 1.00
Concentration (PPM)
Adsorption/Retention (rng/g)
Table C.3
m
t V im
s i t y a s a Funct i o n ? i nterst it i a l V e 1 oc i t~
Well B
Interstitial Velocity (feet/day)
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.0
1000.0
0.0
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
250.0
3.50
3.50
2.30
1.40
0.70
0.70
500.0
5.00
5.00
3.00
1.80
0.70
0.70
1000.0
10.00
10.00
5.50
2.00
0.70
0.70
2000.0
45.00
45.00
20.00
6.00
0.70
0.70
Conc.(PPM)
Table C - 4
Fluid 1 n . j e c t i o n Summary, We1 1 B
Injected Vol.
Date
(bbl)
A v g . Rate
(bb 1 /day)
We 1 1 head
Pressure
F l u i d Type
fresh
water
po 1 y m e r
(250 ppm)
polymer
( 5 0 0 ppm)
pol y m e r
(950 ppm)
poi y m e r
( 7 5 0 ppml
fresh
water
brine
br inle
Table C.5
S u m m a r y o f Daily I n . i e c t i o n R e s u l t s ,
Date
Average Daily
R a t e (bbl/day)
Well
Average Wellhead
Pressure ( p s i g )
B
Fluid Type
F.W.
F.W.
F.W.
pol y m e r
( 2 5 0 ppm)
11
11
PO 1 y m e r
(500 p p m )
11
I1
p o l ymer
(950 ppm)
11
11
It
11
P1
11
Ti
11
po 1 y m e r
(750 p p m )
IT
II
Table C.5
Date
Average Daily
R a t e (bbl/day)
(continued)
Average W e l l h e a d
F l u i d Type
APPENDIX D
WELL
DATA
Table 0.1
Well C , Data and Reservoir Properties
Location: Pennsylvania
Formation: Sandstone
Injected fluids:
L
Micellar solution, polyacrylamide, brine
Depth = 1800 feet
Vw = Wellbore volume = 50.0 barrels

Csr
Rising/Falling fluid wellbore storage coefficient
Csf = Full wellbore storage coefficient = 0.00084

feet3/barrei
h = Reservoir thickness = 17.0 feet
Absolute permeability to water = 27.0 m d .
k =
4 = Porosity = 0.203
pe = Pressure at the external drainage radius = 300 psia

pi
Initial reservoir pressure
re = External drainage radius

r, = Wellbore radius = 0.375
445 psia
280.0 feet
feet
uw = Water viscosity = 1.00 cp

cw = Water Compressibility
Bw
3.0
Water format ion vo 1 ume factor
Yf = Rock specific gravity = 2.68
lov6
=
psi-'
1.0 res. bb 1 / S T 8
at 1 0 0 0 psia
Table D . 2
Adsorption/Retention
- Resistance Factor
Data, W e l s
RrFw = residual resistance factor t o water = 11.30

=
F,
maximum polymer adsorption/retention = 0.020 mg/g
inaccessible pore volume = 1.00
Lanqrnuir
Adsorption Isotherm
Concentration (PPM)
Adsorption/Retention (rng/g)
Table 0.3
Carreau
-
Rheoloqical
Concentration(PPM)
Data, Well C
Uo
!J w
Table 0.4
Apparent V i s c o s it y a s a Function o f Interst i t ia 1 V e 1 oc i ty,
Savins shear rate-velocity relation used

Interstitial Veiocity ( f e e t / d a y )
Conc.iPPM)
0.01
0.10
1.00
10,OO
100.0
1000.0
T a b l e D.5
Summary o f Daily
Date
Injection R e s u l t s , Well C
A v e r a g e Da i 1 y
Rate ( b b l / d a y )
A v e r a g e We1 1 head
Pressure (psig)
f l u i d Type
mice1 l a r
solution
( 2 3 0 0 ppm)
I1
I1
po 1 yrner
(2300 pprn)
po 1 yrner
(2500 ppm)
11
11
PO 1 y m e r
(2800 ppm)
11
Ii
polymer
(3100 pprn)
11
It
p o l yrner
( 3 4 3 0 ppmi
It
1I
T a b l e D.5
Date
3/3 1
4/ 1
4/2
4/ 3
4/4
4/5
4/6
4/7
4/8
4/ 9
4/10
4/11
4/12
4/13
4/14
4/15
4/16
4 / 17
4/18
4/19
4/20
4/2 1
4/22
4/23
4/24
4/25
4/26
4/27
4/28
4/29
4/30
5/ 1
5/2
5/3
5/4
5/5
5/6
5/7
5/8
5/9
5/10
5/11
5/12
Average Da i 1 y
Rate (bbl/day)
(continued)
Average Wellhead
F l u i d Type
fresh
water
11
I1
11
11
11
71
*1
11
11
It
I1
I1
11
I1
11
11
I1
f(
I*
11
11
11
11
11
1I
TI
IT
11
I1
I1
s1
11
II
I(
11
11
1I
It
11
11
11
tl
11
I1
11
11
11
11
11
TI
I*
If
B1
19
1T
IT
Table 0.5
Date
Average D a i l y
Rate ( b b l / d a y )
(continued)
Average Wellhead
P r e s s u r e (psig)
F l u i d Type

Tesis Hall Plot PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tesis Hall Plot PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tesis Hall Plot PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYZING INJECTIVITY OF NUN-NEWTONIAN FLUIDS:

A N APPLICATION OF THE HALL PLOT

Fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree o f Master o f

applied to the injection of non-Newtonian fluids, which i s

A two-phase numer i ca 1 reservo i r

simulator in radial coordinates was developed to model the

s i m u 1 ator was used to verify the Ha 1 1 p 1 ot for non-Newtonian

Ana l yt i ca 1 methods were a 1 so used where appropriate

to evaluate the injectivity of non-Newtonian fluids. The

Based both on the

fie 1 d inject i v ity data and the hypothet i ca 1 examp 1 es

. ... .... . . .. . . . .. . ....

Qualitative Analysis of the Hall Plot . .

Analysis of Well A (Hypothetical) . . .

Areal Sweep Efficiency at Breakthrough,

Apparent Viscosities of Polyacrylamide

Apparent Viscosities as a Function of

Comparison of Shear Rate-Interstitial

Langrnuir Adsorption Isotherm

Comparison of Hal1 Integration Methods,

Hall Plot for the Bradford Field

Bottomhole Injection Rate Versus Time,

Hall Plot, Well A, Comparison of Single

Bottomhole Pressure versus Time, Well A ,

Apparent Viscosity versus Interstitial

Hall Plot, Rate Control History Match,

Bottomhole Pressure Versus Time, Rate

Hall Plot, Pressure Control History

Bcttornhole Rate Versus Time, Pressure

Comparison of Hall Integration Methods,

Hall Plot, Rate Control History Match,

Bottomhole Pressure Versus Time, Rate

Hall Plot, Pressure Control History

Bottomhole Rate Versus Time, Pressure

Comparison of Hall Integration Methods,

Comparison of 20, 50, and 100 Cells,

Well A, Falloff Test Case

Well A, Injection Test Case

Well A, Injection Test,

. .... ... ... ..

Wellbore Storage Plot Test Case

Comparison of Simulator and Laboratory

Comparison of Analytical Methods with

Hall Plot Integration Correction Example

Hall Plot Integration Correction Example

Hall Plot Integration Correction Example

Hall Plot Integration Correction Example

Adsorption/Retention - Resistance Factor

Carreau Rheologicai Data, Well A

Apparent Viscosity as a Function of

Relative Permeability Data, Well A

Adsorption/Retention - Resistance Factor

Apparent Viscosity as a Function

Fluid Injection Summary, Well B

Summary of Daily Injection Results, Well

Adsorption/Retention - Resistance Factor

Carreau Rheological Data, Well C

Apparent Viscosity as a Function

Summary of Daily Injection Results, Well