SPE 114342

Review of Practical Experience & Management by Polymer Flooding at

Daqing
H.Z. Dong, S.F. Fang, Harbin Institute of Technology; D.M. Wang, SPE, E&D Research Institute of Daqing Oil
Field Company; J.Y.Wang, SPE, Daqing Oil Field Company; Z. Liu, W.H. Hong, E&D Research Institute of
Daqing Oil Field Company
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 19–23 April 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper describes successful experiences employed during polymer flooding at Daqing that will be of considerable value
to future chemical floods, both in China and elsewhere. Based on laboratory findings, new thoughts have been developed that
expand conventional ideas concerning favorable conditions for mobility improvement by polymer flooding. Particular
advances integrate reservoir engineering approaches and technology which is elementary for successful application of
polymer flooding. These include: (1) Considering permeability differential among the oil zones and interwell continuity,
optimizing the oil strata combination and well pattern design. (2) The injection procedures and injection formula are the key
points when designing a polymer flood project. These points include: profile modification is needed before polymer injection
and zone isolation is of value during polymer injection, higher molecular weight of the polymer used in the injected slugs,
large polymer bank size, higher polymer concentrations and injection rate based on the well spacing and injection pressure.
(3) Characterizing the entire polymer flooding process in five stages, with its dynamic behavior distinguished by the water
cut changes. Additional techniques involved with reservoir engineering should also be considered, such as dynamic
monitoring using well logging, well testing, and tracers. Effective techniques are also needed for surface mixing, injection
facilities, oil production, and produced water treatment.
Continuous innovation and effective response to new challenges must be a priority during polymer flooding. New
directions and opportunities at Daqing will (1) explore the feasibility of polymer flood application in poorer (“third-class”)
strata, (2) to identify new polymers to suit portions of the reservoir with higher temperatures and higher water salinities, and
(3) continually see improvements in our approach to polymer flooding.

Introduction
Laboratory research began in the 1960s, investigating the potential of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes in the Daqing
Oil Field. For polymer flooding technology, from a single-injector polymer flood with small well spacing began in 1972.
During the late 1980s, a pilot project in central Daqing was expanded to a multi-well pattern with larger well spacing.
Favorable results from these tests—along with extensive research and engineering from mid 1980 through the 1990s—
confirmed that polymer flooding was the method of choice to improve areal and vertical sweep efficiency at Daqing, as well
as providing mobility control.1,2 Consequently, the world’s largest polymer flood was implemented at Daqing, beginning in
1996. By 2007, 22.3% of total production from the Daqing Oil Field was attributed to polymer flooding. Polymer flooding
should boost the ultimate recovery for the field to over 50% original oil in place (OOIP)—10-12% OOIP more than from
water flooding. At the end of 2007, oil production from polymer flooding at the Daqing Oilfield was more than 10 million
tons (73 million barrels) per year (sustained for 6 years). Recently, the industrial application has been expanded into the
second-class, less-permeable strata.

1 New Thoughts Concerning Favorable Conditions for Polymer Flooding

1.1 Favorable Conditions

In the 60’s to 80's, petroleum professionals in many countries conducted extensive studies and pilots test on polymer
flooding technology. But from statistical data, the incremental recovery of polymer over water flooding was on the average
2 SPE 114342

only 2 to 5% original oil in place3 (OOIP) when using low polymer molecular weight and small polymer bank size. For
these projects, the economic results were not satisfactory. Consequently, polymer flooding was viewed as marginal and prone
to failure.
The Daqing oil field is a large river delta-lacustrine facies, multilayer, heterogeneous sandstone in an inland basin. The
reservoir is buried at a depth of 1,000 meters approximately with a temperature of 45ºC. Oil viscosity at reservoir temperature
ranges from 6 to 9 mPa-s, and the total salinity of the formation water varies from 3,000 to 7,000 mg/L. Based on laboratory
results,3,4 Daqing was realized to have favorable conditions for polymer flooding if the process used higher polymer
molecular weight and larger polymer bank sizes than conventional previous polymer floods. Favorable features for polymer
flooding at Daqing include low reservoir temperature, low salinity, low content of high valence ions, and relatively high oil
saturation left in the reservoir after water flooding, as well as the suitable reservoir heterogeneity (the Dykstra-Parsons
coefficient of permeability variation ranged from 0.4 to 0.7).

1.2 Mobility Ratio Improvement

At Daqing, during water flooding, the endpoint mobility ratio was 9.4. With this unfavorable mobility ratio, viscous fingers
can form that lead to severe channeling, especially when zones with different permeability are present. 5, 6
By injecting a viscous polymer solution, the mobility ratio was increased to the point of making it favorable.
The viscosity of the injected polymer solution was typically 35 to 40 mPa-s. If polymer degradation was not significant, this
level of viscosity decreased the mobility ratio from 9.4 to about 0.3. When fluids can freely cross flow between strata, the
rate of movement of a polymer front is independent of permeability, so long as the reciprocal of the mobility ratio is greater
than the permeability contrast between the strata.5,6
Fig. 1 provides a relationship between water cut and water saturation based on the reservoir conditions of Daqing.
If μo / μw =15 (mobility ratio is 9.4), the oil displacement efficiency (ED) is only 50% when the water cut achieves 98%.
However, if the μo / μw =1 (mobility ratio is 0.63), the oil displacement efficiency can increase to 61% when water cut
reaches 98%. Thus, ED can be increased greatly by polymer flooding.
In recent years, the polymer flooding has been expanded to more heterogeneous parts of the Daqing field. For these cases,
the viscosity of injected polymer solution has been designed at 50 mPa-s or more with new polymers.

100
Water cut, %

90 ED=50% fw=98%

80 ED=61%

70
μo/μw=15

60
μo/μw=1

50
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Water saturation
7
Fig. 1—Water cut changes with different viscosity ratios

2 Optimization of Well Pattern Design for Polymer Flooding

When selecting oil strata for polymer flooding, a number of guidelines should be followed. The connectivity factor between
injector and producers, permeability differential, and well spacing are the key points when optimizing the well pattern.
Designs should vary to accommodate differences in gelological properties for diverse parts of the field.

2.1 Connectivity Factor

The effectiveness of polymer flooding is dominated by the connectivity factor: the less interwell continuity, the lower the
ultimate oil recovery and incremental oil.
Connectivity factor (N) is defined as the pore volume accessed by polymer solution (Vp) divided by the total pore volume
of the oil zones (Vt) (see Eq. 1).
N = Vp / Vt .......................................................................................................................................................(1)
Fig. 2 (obtain through simulation) indicates that the incremental oil recovery by polymer flooding declines noticeably
when the connectivity factor is reduced below 70%. The connectivity factor should be great than 70% when designing the
well pattern design and when choosing the polymer molecular weight.
SPE 114342 3

water flooding polymer flooding EOR

70 10

Incremental oil recovery (%)

Ultimate recovery (%)
60 8

50 6

40 4

30 2

20 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
connectiv ity fator (%)
8
Fig. 2— Connectivity factor vs. effectiveness of polymer flooding

2.2 Permeability Differential

When selecting the target oil zones for polymer flooding, oil strata with similar reservoir properties should be combined. The
objective is to promote uniform sweep of the zones, enhance the ultimate oil recovery, and get the maximum economical
benefit. To achieve these goals for polymer flooding, permeability differential should be less than 5 for a given set of oil strata
while the combined thickness should be at least 5 m.9
Fig. 3 shows a result based on the numerical simulation: the less the permeability differential, the lower water cut
obtained. Under the same injection parameters, the water cut can be reduced from 69.8% with permeability differential is 5 to
62.8% with permeability differential is 2.

100

90
Water cut (%)

80

70
permiability differential 2
permiability differential 3
60
permiability differential 5

50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Injection pore volume (PV)

Fig. 3— Water cut vs. permeability differential during polymer flooding

2.3 Well Pattern

The well pattern has a relatively small effect on the incremental oil recovery by polymer flooding. Table 1 provides a
comparison of various well patterns based on numerical simulations. The results indicate that the incremental recovery is
10.9% for a line-drive pattern and 10.6% for an inverted 9-spot. For a 5-spot, the incremental oil recovery is 10.3%. However,
the injection volume will be 3 times less for the inverted 9-spot than for the 5-spot—leading to a temptation to inject above
the fracture pressure when using the inverted 9-spot pattern. Also, the connectivity factor will be much smaller with a line
pattern than with the 5-spot. Therefore, the 5-spot pattern appears attractive.

Table 1— Well pattern vs. oil recovery10

well pattern ultimate recoveryby WF, % ultimate recovery by PF, % EOR,%
line in positive 39.6 50.2 10.6
line in diagonal 40.6 51.5 10.9
5-spot 40.3 50.6 10.3
4-spot 39.7 49.8 10.1
9-spot 39.2 49.2 10.0
inverted 9-spot 38.4 49.0 10.6
Parameters: 5 layers, net pay=12 m, Vk=0.70, φ=0.26, k=101, 260, 491, 938, and 3207×10-3 μm2
4 SPE 114342

2.4 Well Spacing

As mentioned in Section 2.1, connectivity factor is the most important factor when designing the well spacing. No matter the
distance between injectors and producers, the connectivity shouldn’t be less that 70%. Based on numerical simulation, for oil
zones with average permeability above 300-400 ×10-3 μm2 and net pay above 5 m, the well spacing at Daqing should be
designed from 200-250 m. For oil zones with average permeability above 100-200 ×10-3 μm2 and net pay from 1-5 m, 150-
175 m is an ideal well spacing. Injection pressure and injection rate are also of concerned when designing well spacing. Eq 1
(based on empirical data at Daqing) indicates that the maximum allowable injection pressure (pmax) increases with the square
of well spacing (l). Consequently, changing well spacing will result in a change of injection pressure and production time.
Based on Eq 2,10 a smaller well spacing allows a larger injection rate.
pmax = l2 φ q (180 Nmin)............................................................................................................................................(2)
pmax—highest allowable wellhead pressure, MPa.
l—distance between injector and producer, m
φ—porosity, %
Nmin —lowest apparent water intake index, m3/d•m•MPa
q —injection rate, PV/yr

3 Zone Management before Polymer Flooding

3.1 Profile Modification before Polymer Injection
Under some circumstances, use of gel treatments or other types of “profile modification” methods may be of value before
implementation of a polymer or chemical flood.5 If fractures cause severe channeling, gel treatments can greatly enhance
reservoir sweep if applied before injection of large volumes of expensive polymer.11-13 Also, if one or more high permeability
stratum are watered out, there may be considerable value in applying profile modification methods before starting the
polymer flooding or other EOR project.
For some Daqing wells with layers with no cross flow, numerical simulation demonstrated that oil recovery can be
enhanced 2-4 % original oil in place (OOIP) with profile modification before polymer injection. (10-12% OOIP was the
typical EOR due to polymer flooding alone.) As expected, the benefits from profile modification decrease if it is
implemented toward the middle or end of polymer injection.14,15
Based on field experience with profile modification at Daqing, candidate wells typically have layers with a high water
cut, high water saturation, and a large difference in water intake from other layers. (Water intake index = injection rate
divided by Δp times net pay of the injectors.16). Additional criteria used to identify wells that are candidates for profile
modification include:
① The pressure at the start of polymer injection is lower than the average level for injectors in the site.
② The pressure injection index, PI, is less than the average value in the pilot site.17 PI, is defined by Eq. 3.
1 t
t ∫0
PI = p (t )dt ....................................................................................................................................................(3)
p(t) is the well pressure after the injector is shut in for time t.
③ Injection pressures are less than the average level and the water cut at the offset production wells are larger than the
average level.

3.2 Separate Layer Injection

If cross flow can occur between adjacent strata, sweep in the less permeable zones can be almost as great as that in the high
permeability zones if the mobility ratio times the permeability differential is less than unity.11 However, if no cross flow
occurs between strata, sweep in the less permeable zone will be no better than approximately the square root of the reciprocal
of the permeability differential.11
At Daqing, a means was devised to improve this sweep problem when cross flow does not occur. Based on theoretical
studies and practical results from Daqing pilot tests,19 separate layer injection was found to improve flow profiles, reservoir
sweep efficiency, and injection rates, and can reduce the water cut in production wells. Numerical simulation studies reveal
that the efficiency of polymer flooding depends importantly on the permeability differential between layers and when
separate layer injection occurs.
An example based on numerical simulation is provided in Table 2, where the permeability differential was 2.5 and
flooding occurred until 98% water cut was reached. In this case, the incremental recovery using layer separation was 2.04%
more than the case with no layer separation.
Our theoretical studies and pilot tests revealed that the conditions which favor separate layer injection at Daqing
include:20
①The permeability differential between oil zones ≥ 2.5;
②The net pay for the lower permeability oil zones should account for at least 30% of the total net pay;
③Layers should be separated by at least one meter and should show consistent lateral continuity between wells.
SPE 114342 5

Table 2—Effect of separate layer injection.

Dznet, keff, Water cut, OOIP,
Injection method Layer -3 2
m 10 µm % %
Lower 5 400 98 53.36
Separated Higher 1000 98 53.34
Combined 10 700 98 53.35
Lower 5 400 94 45.33
Not separated Higher 5 1000 99.6 57.29
Combined 10 700 98 51.31

4 Optimization of Polymer Injection Formula

4.1 Polymer Solution Viscosity

The polymer solution viscosity is a key parameter to improve the mobility ratio between oil and water and adjust the water
intake profile. As injection viscosity increases, the effectiveness of polymer flooding increases. The viscosity can be affected
by a number of factors such as polymer molecular weight, polymer concentration, degree of HPAM hydrolysis, temperature,
salinity and hardness. When designing the viscosity of polymer flooding project, all of above factors should be considered.
The effectiveness of a polymer flood is directly determined by the magnitude of the polymer viscosity. The viscosity
depends on the quality of the water used for dilution. A change in water quantity directly affects the polymer solution
viscosity. At Daqing, the water quantity changes with the rainfall, ground temperature and humidity during the seasons. The
concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in the water source are lower in summer and higher in winter. Consequently, the polymer
viscosity is also relatively higher in summer and lower in winter.
Using a medium Mw HPAM polymer, the injection polymer concentration and solution viscosity can be adjusted
according to Fig.4. These curves can be used during project design for the effective permeability ranges from 0.1 µm2 to 0.3
µm2 at Daqing. The curves were valuable in adjusting polymer concentrations to respond to changes in water quality
(salinity). In this application, for a medium Mw polymer (12 to 16 million Daltons), 40 mPa•s was recommended. This
viscosity level was sufficient to overcome (1) the unfavorable mobility ratio (i.e., 9.4) and (2) permeability differential up to
4:1.

60

Salinity: 7000 mg/L

polymer viscosity, mPa-s

50
Salinity: 4000 mg/L
40
Salinity: 1000 mg/L

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

polymer concentration, mg/L

21
Fig. 4—Viscosity versus concentration for different salinities. (15 million Daltons polymer).

For a high Mw polymer (17-25 million Daltons) or extra high Mw polymer (25 to 38 million Daltons), 50 mPa•s viscosity
could be provided cost-effectively. For new polymers that provide special fluid properties, additional laboratory
investigations are needed before implementation in a polymer flood.

4.2 Polymer Molecular Weight

The effectiveness of a polymer flood is affected significantly by the polymer Mw. As illustrated in Fig. 5, polymers with
higher Mw provide greater viscosity. For many circumstances, larger polymer Mw also leads to improved oil recovery.
Coreflood simulation (Table 3) verifies this expectation for cases of constant polymer slug volume and concentration.
6 SPE 114342

Table 3—Effect of polymer molecular weight (Mw) on EOR

6
Mw, 10 daltons Waterflood recovery, % Polymer flood EOR, % Ultimate recovery, %
5.5 32.7 10.6 43.3
11 32.9 17.9 51.8
18.6 32.2 22.6 54.8
Total injected polymer mass: 570 mg/L•PV. Polymer concentration: 1,000 mg/L. 3 zones. Heterogeneity: Vk=0.72.

70

60
38 m illion daltons
polymer viscosity, mPa-s

50
25 m illion daltons
40

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

polymer concentration, mg/L

22
Fig. 5—Viscosity versus concentration and Mw for high Mw with polymers used in a site from south of Daqing

Our laboratory tests with a fixed polymer solution volume injected confirmed that oil recovery increases with increased
polymer Mw.23 The reason is simply that for a given polymer concentration, solution viscosity and sweep efficiency
increase with increased polymer Mw. Stated another way, to recover a given volume of oil, less polymer is needed using a
high Mw polymer than a low Mw polymer.
The above argument must be tempered because the levels of mobility and permeability reduction (i.e., the resistance
factor and residual resistance factor) for polymer with a given Mw can increase with decreasing permeability.24 This effect is
accentuated as Mw increases. Mechanical entrapment can significantly retard polymer propagation if the pore throat size and
permeability are too small. Thus, depending on Mw and permeability differential, this effect can reduce sweep efficiency. A
trade-off must be made in choosing the highest Mw polymer that will not exhibit pore plugging or significant mechanical
entrapment in the less permeable zones.
Two factors should be considered when choosing the polymer molecular weight. On the one hand, choose the polymer
with the highest Mw practical to minimize the polymer volume. On the other hand, the Mw must be small enough so that the
polymer can enter and propagate effectively through the reservoir rock. For a given rock permeability and pore throat size, a
threshold Mw exists, above which polymers exhibit difficulty in propagation.
Generally, two main steps should be adopted when selecting the optimum polymer molecular weight. First, the maximum
allowable polymer molecular weight (Mw) can be estimated for a given formation permeability (kwater) using the empirical
equation (developed based on Daqing data):

Mw = 11,111 (kwater + 0.005)...................................................................................................................................... (4)

Fig.6 plots a line calculated by Eq 4. For permeabilities above line, polymer solution can be effectively enter and propagate
through the rock. For permeabilities below the line, polymer may block the rock.
Second, to avoid pore-blocking by polymer molecules, the ratio of pore throat radius to the Root Mean Square (RMS)
radius of gyration of the polymer should be greater than 5.26
Based on lab results and practical experience at Daqing, a medium polymer molecular weight (12-16 million Daltons) is
applicable for oil zones with average permeability greater than 0.1 µm2 and net pay greater than 1 m. A high polymer
molecular weight (17-25 million Daltons) is appropriate for oil zones with average permeability greater than 0.4 µm2. Table 4
shows Mw vs. the RMS radius for various polymers. Table 5 lists resistance factors (Fr) and residual resistance factors (Frr)
for different combinations of polymer Mw and core permeability. The reservoir cores used in Table 5 were from a large sacle
site of Daqing.
SPE 114342 7

0.18

2
Permeability to water, um
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
b lo cked
0.06
unb lo cked
0.04
r eg r essio n
0.02
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000

Polym er m olecular w eight, 104 Daltons

25
Fig. 6—Maximum allowable polymer molecular weight vs. permeability

Table 4—Polymer Mw vs. RMS radius.

6
Mw,10 Daltons RMS, µm RMS×5, µm
6.5 0.148 0.74
8.2 0.162 0.81
12 0.202 1.01
17 0.245 1.225
28 0.312 1.56
38 0.36 1.8

Table 5 —Fr and Frr for different kair and Mw

6 2
Mw, 10 Daltons kair,μm Fr Frr Note

0.498 8.5 3.2

15 0.235 10.1 4.1
0.239 7.75 5.0 block polymer
20-30 1.000 27 4.7
38 1.500 53 3.6

Another new idea uses polymers with a broad range molecular weights. The polydispersity index (dn) for a polymer with
a nomal molecular weight distribution can be estimated using Eq. 5.27

dn = (σn2 / Mn2 ) + 1 = Mw / Mn .........................................................................................................................................(5)

Based on laboratory research, polymers with a broad molecular weight distribution have a diverse hydrodynamic radius
when they flow through the pores because of their dispersive molecular weight and molecular radius of gyration.
Consequently, displacing oil using this type of polymer might enter and propagate more effectively through the different pore
throat sizes and reduce the volume of inaccessible pores. Coreflood results (Table 6) suggest that increased dn could lead to
increased EOR.
Analysis of the permeability distribution at the injection station of the site shows that 12.1% of the net pay has keff ≤
200×10-3 μm2, 57.51% has 200×10-3 μm2< keff ≤700×10-3 μm2, and 30.9% has keff >700×10-3 μm2. During application of mixed
molecular-weight polymers at this location, three polymers [having molecular weight ranges of (1) 12 to 16, (2) 25 to 30, and
(3) 35 to 40×106 Daltons, respectively] were mixed and injected.
Fig. 7 shows dn values and Mw distributions determined using gel permeation chromatography (GPC) and Multi-Angle
Laser Light Scatter (MALLS) for three combinations of mixed molecular weight polymers. In this case, Sample 3 was
selected to have the optimum molecular weight distribution.
8 SPE 114342

Table 6—Core Flood Results Using Polymers with Different Mw Distributions.

Water flood recovery, Ultimate Recovery Polymer EOR,
Module dn % OOIP % OOIP % OOIP Vk

A1 2.0 27.6 14.3 41.9 0.72

A2 9.2 27.6 15.2 42.8 0.72
A3 23.0 28.7 15.5 44.2 0.72
B1 2.0 37.6 11.6 49.2 0.6
B2 9.2 37.6 13.2 50.8 0.6
B3 23.0 38.4 14.1 52.5 0.6
C1 2.0 48.2 5.5 53.7 0
C2 9.2 48.3 5.7 54.0 0
C3 3.0 48.9 6.2 55.1 0

Mixture, % of each polymer (with dn,

Sample 6
given Mw range in 10 Daltons) Mw/Mn
30%(35 -40)+60%(25 -30)
1 1.154
+10%(12 -16)
20%(35 -40)+60%(25 -30)
2 1.856
+20%(12 -16)
10%(35 -40)+60%(25 -30)
3 5.310
+30%(12 -16)
4 100%(25 -30) 1.071

Fig. 7—Polydispersity index (dn) of several polymer mixtures.

Table 7 shows field results from the application of mixed molecular weight polymer at an Injection Station. They
demonstrate favorable incremental oil production and reduced water production than at Injection Station 3#, where a more
monodisperse (i.e., unmixed) polymer was used.

Table 7—Comparison Between Application of Braod Range Mw Polymer and a Single Mw Polymer
Comparison
6 Injection
Injection station Mw, 10 Daltons Incremental oil production Reduction in water production,
concentration
(times)* ％
3# 25 1200 2.42 33.05
4# 1:6:3 1022 3.07 42.49
*Compared with time before response, 1# with higher concentration values noted at polymer mass = 640 mg/L•PV.with others stations.

4.3 Polymer Solution Concentration

Polymer concentration determines the polymer solution viscosity and the size of the required polymer solution slug. The
polymer solution concentration dominates every index that changes during the course of polymer flooding.
①Higher injection concentrations cause greater reductions in water cut and can shorten the time required for polymer
flooding. For a certain range, they can also lead to an earlier response time in the production wells, a faster decrease in water
cut, a greater decrease in water cut, less required pore volumes of polymer, and less required volume of water injected during
the overall period of polymer flooding. Table 8 shows the effectiveness of polymer flooding as a function of polymer
concentration when the injected polymer mass is 640 mg/L•PV. As polymer concentration increases, enhanced oil recovery
increases and the minimum in water cut during polymer flooding decreases.
However, consideration should also be given to the fact that higher concentrations will cause higher injection pressures
and lower injectivity. Considering the technical feasibility and conditions at Daqing, the average injection polymer
concentration ranges from 1,000 mg/L to 1,400 mg/L for our projects. For individual wells, the concentration can be adjusted
to meet particular conditions.
SPE 114342 9

Table 8—Ultimate recovery and EOR versus polymer concentration

Polymer, mg/L Minimum water cut, % Ultimate recovery, % EOR, %
600 87.1 50.58 7.69
800 85.0 52.52 9.64
1,000 83.1 52.83 9.95
1,200 82.4 52.89 10.01
1,500 81.0 53.03 10.15

②Additional steps can increase effectiveness when using slugs with higher polymer concentrations. First, effectiveness
can be improved by injecting polymer solutions with higher concentrations during the initial period of polymer flooding. The
increase in effectiveness comes from the wells or the units that experienced in-depth vertical sweep improvement during the
early stages of polymer flooding. Second, the increase in water cut during the third stage of polymer flooding (i.e., after the
minimum in water cut) can be controlled effectively using injection of higher polymer concentrations. Based on the two
injection stations where high polymer concentrations were injected in the Daqing field, the water intake profile became much
more uniform after injecting 2,200 to 2,500 mg/L polymer solution in 2004.28 Another example revealed that the higher
polymer concentration injected from the very beginning of polymer flooding also shows positive behavior when Vk is around
of 0.65. Table 9 compares results from injecting a conventional polymer concentration (1,200 ppm) vs. a higher
concentration (2,000 ppm) when the injection pore volume was 0.36 PV.

Table 9—Comparison between higher injection concentration and conventional concentration

Comparision
Injection Mw Injection
6 Incremental oil production Extent of fluid production reduction
station 10 Daltons concentration
(times) （％）

3# 25 1,200 2.42 33.05

1# 25 2,000 2.89 38.59

4.4 Polymer Volume

An important mechanism of polymer flooding is to improve the mobility between oil and water and to increase the swept
volume. Based on theory, 7, 24 oil recovery efficiency decreases with increased mobility of the injectant. Consequently to
avoid fingering, a continuous polymer flood could be used instead of a water flood. However, because polymer solutions are
more expensive than water, economics limit the volume of polymer that should be injected.
Based on our theoretical research and practical experiences, the polymer volume should be determined by the gross water
cut of the flooding unit. Generally, when the gross water cut achieves 92%-94%, the polymer injection should be stopped.
For large polymer banks, polymer was produced from wells after the water cut increased back up to 92%. So, more
extended injection of polymer hurts income and economics because the produced polymer is effectively wasted.
Fig. 8 plots the incremental oil (expressed per ton of polymer injected). Based on our economic evaluation, optimum
effectiveness can be obtained if a suitable time to end polymer injection is chosen, followed by a water-injection stage. For
Daqing, the optimum polymer mass ranged from 640 mg/L•PV to 700 mg/L•PV. Projects at Daqing were profitable within
this range, for the oil prices experienced over the past 12 years.
Incremental by polymer, tons

80
of oil per ton of polymer

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950

Polymer mass, mg/L.PV

29
Fig. 8—Incremental oil versus polymer mass.

To better understand the origin of this optimum, consider the following two points (trade-offs). First, field data (Table 10)
revealed that the rate of increase in water cut (defined in the right column of Table 10) was notably less for polymer masses
of 640 mg/L•PV or greater than for those less than 640 mg/L•PV.
10 SPE 114342

Table 10—Incremental recovery versus polymer mass30

Polymer mass, Ultimate recovery, Incremental extent
mg/L•PV % of recovery, % / mg/L·PV

570 50.74
665 51.24 0.0147
760 53.26 0.0118
855 54.28 0.0107
950 55.10 0.0086

Second, numerical simulation and our economic evaluation revealed that when income from the polymer project matched
the investment (i.e., the “break-even point”), the incremental oil was 55 tons of oil per ton of polymer [when the oil price was
1280 Chinese Yuan per metric ton or about 25.5 US$/bbl, and the polymer mass was 750 mg/L•PV (See Fig. 8)]. Of course,
the optimum polymer mass depends on oil price. With the current high oil prices, greater polymer masses could be
attractive.33

4.5 Injection Rate

The polymer solution injection rate is another key factor in the project design. It determines the oil production rates. Table 10
shows the effect of injection rate on the effectiveness of polymer flooding. It shows that the magnitude of the injection rate
has little effect on the final recovery. It also has a minor effect on the fraction of the injected polymer mass that is ultimately
produced (fourth column of Table 11). However, the injection rate has a significant effect on the cumulative production time.
Lower injection rates lead to longer production times, higher rates speed up the shear degradation. So when we design a
project, the injection rate shouldn’t be too small or too large.

Table 11—Effect of injection rate on polymer flooding

Inj. rate Ultimate EOR Polymer prod./inj. Prod. time, Inj.
PV/yr recovery % % % years PV
0.08 51.51 12.32 48.36 9.54 0.763
0.10 51.36 12.17 48.46 7.62 0.762
0.12 51.22 12.03 48.57 6.34 0.761
0.14 51.07 11.88 48.68 5.43 0.760
0.16 50.94 11.78 48.81 4.75 0.760
0.18 50.81 11.62 48.93 4.22 0.760
0.20 50.68 11.49 49.06 3.79 0.758

Fig. 9 shows how reservoir pressure changes with the injection rate after the completion of polymer injection. As
expected, the average reservoir pressure near the injectors increases as the injection rate increases while decreasing near
production wells. Also, higher injection rates cause a larger disparity between injection and production. Injection rates must
be controlled (i.e., not too high) to minimize polymer flow out of the pattern or out of the target zones.

16
Reservoir Pressure, MPa

15 Injector Producer
14

13

12

11

10

8
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

Injection rate, PV/Yr

Fig. 9—Injection rate vs. reservoir pressure.

SPE 114342 11

In summary, the injection rate affects the whole development and effectiveness of polymer flooding. At Daqing, Eq. 1
(see Section 2.4) can be used to relate the highest pressure at the injection well head and the average individual injection rate
with the polymer injection rate, the average apparent water intake index for different reservoir conditions. In general, the
injection rate shouldn’t exceed the reservoir fracture pressure.
To maximize the term of oil production and maximize ultimate production, the injection rate at Daqing should be
maintained from 0.14 ~ 0.16 PV/yr with 250 m well spacing and 0.16 ~ 0.20 PV/yr for 150 m to 175 m well spacing.
Incjection rates should generally be within these ranges unless special circumstances or reservoir conditions necessitate
changes.

5 Polymerflood Performance
5.1 Stage Characteristics
Based on our observations of the response to polymer flooding, we characterize the entire polymer flooding process in five
stages (see Fig.10).31-33
(1) The initial stage of the polymer flood where water cut has not yet started to decrease. This stage ranges from the very
beginning of polymer injection typically to 0.05 PV. During this time, the polymer solution hasn’t begun to work.
(2) The response stage where a decrease in water cut can be seen. At Daqing, this stage typically occurs from 0.05 to 0.20
PV of polymer injection. During this time, the polymer solution penetrates deep into the formation and forms the oil bank.
Typically, about 15% of the EOR is produced during this stage.
(3) The period where the water cut change is relatively stable. The minimum water cut was observed during this period.
This stage typically lasts from 0.20 to 0.40 PV of polymer injection. The oil production rate reaches its peak value, and about
40% to the total EOR is produced during this stage. Oil production begins to decrease and the produced polymer
concentration begins to increase.
(4) The stage where water cut increases again rapidly. This stage typically lasts from 0.40 to 0.70 PV of polymer
injection. Areal sweep reaches its maximum; oil production declines, the polymer concentration and the injection pressure
follow steady trends. About 30% of the total EOR is produced during this stage.
(5) The stage of the follow-up water drive. This stage lasts from the end of polymer injection to the point where water cut
reaches 98%. Water cut increases continually; the produced polymer concentration production declines rapidly; and the fluid
production capability increases a little. The EOR produced during this stage is around 10-12% of the total.

100
initial follow-up water
95 responsive

90 steady
water cut (%)

85

80

75
increasing

70

65

60
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Injection Pore Volume(PV)

Fig. 10—Water cut changes for six pilot sites

5.2 Dynamic Behavior of Water Cut

Most key indexes change during the different stages of polymer flooding. These indexes include water cut, fluid production
capability, injection capability, and injection profile. The most definitive factor is change in water cut. During the course of a
polymer flood, water cut increases at the start of polymer injection (before the polymer flood had taken effect) and also
during the later stages of the polymer flood. Water cut declines during the response associated with the second stage of
polymer flooding (described above). Finally, water cut can be relatively stable during the third stage of polymer flooding.

5.2.1 Quantifying Changes in Water Cut at Daqing

At Daqing, several empirical correlations describe the behavior of water cuts:
(1) Response time (M1), which can be affected by initial water cut value before the polymer flood (f), the proportion of the
channel sand body (λ), permeability differential (kd), Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation (Vk), well pattern
12 SPE 114342

density (m), and polymer injection formula(θ)

M1 = 143.78λ －170.2f + 19.8kd + 114.9Vk －22.68m－50.35θ.............................................................................(6)

(2) Degree of water cut reduction (△F), which is affected by initial water cut value before polymer flood (f), proportion of
the channel sand body (λ), oil recovery before polymer flood (R), and connectivity factor between injectors and producers
(N), as well as the proportion of wells with seperate layer (S).

△F = 45.35λ －14.95f －49.4R－27.4N + 45.8S..................................................................................................(7)

(3) Time of lowest water cut (M2), which is affected by initial water cut value before polymer drive (f), proportion of the
river channel sand body (λ), density of well pattern (m) and oil recovery before polymer flood (R), permeability differential
(Kd), connectivity factor (N), and proportion of the wells which adopted the measures of profile modification (B).

M 2 = 61.9λ − 367 Kd + 57.4m − 8.8 f + 1262 R + 21.2 N + 163.8B ...........................................................................(8)

(4) Time of water cut increasing again (M3), which is affected by the oil recovery before polymer flood (R), proportion of
the channel sand body (λ), initial water cut value before polymer flood (f), and connectivity factor (N) as well as the
proportion of the wells which be adopted the measures of profile modification (B) and separate layer injection (S).

M 3 = 1308 .1R + 319 .5λ + 527 .5 f + 283 .1N + 45 .8 S + 149 .9 B ..........................................................................(9)

5.2.2 Classes of Water Cut Changes

Several preconditions can result in different classes of water cut changes, such as the location of producers, formation
development, and polymer injection formula. Based on results from pilot sites, four classes of water cut can be identified as
shown in Figs.11 to 14. They are: U, V, √ and no response.
Most of U class cases are located the better developed formations. There is much remaining oil and higher connectivity.
This class accounts for 20% of all investigated production wells. The V class cases are associated with patterns with little
remaining oil and/or poor connectivity. 30% of the wells fall into the V class. The √ class wells are located in oil strata where
the permeability decreases gradually from top to the bottom of the formation. The speed of water cut increase is slower than
for the water cut decrease. This class accounts for 50% of the production wells. Most of the 4th class (no response) wells are
located near by faults or the boundary of pilot sites or adjacent to the old water drive linear pattern. Only a small fraction of
the wells fall into this class.
For those unfavorable classes of water cut (the latter 3 types with short duration, with lower water cut, or with lower
effectiveness), corrective measures should be taken during polymer flooding.

100 100
Water cut, %
Water cut, %

90 90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
199707 199810 200001 200104
199604 199707 199810 200001 200104 200207
Production time, yr-m on production time, yr-mon

Fig. 11— Class U Fig. 12—Class√

100
100
Water cut(%)

80
Water cut(%)

80

60 60

40 40

20 20
199612 199808 200004 200112 200308 199612 199803 199906 200009 200112 200303

Production tim e (yr-m on) Production time (yr-mon)

Fig. 13— Class V Fig. 14—No response

SPE 114342 13

6 Additional Techniques
Operators may be interested in additional technologies, such as: ① surface facilities including polymer hydration and mixing,
transportation and injection of polymer, and treatment of produced fluids during polymer flooding.34 ② oil production
technology, such as techniques of separated-layer injection and perforation with high density, large diameter, and deep
penetration,19 and ③ dynamic performance monitoring of polymer flooding using well logging, well testing, and tracers.35
This section focuses on two topics: polymer solution mixing (including selection of the water source and polymer solution
make-up) and injection and produced water treatment (including oily water treatment).

6.1 Mixing and Injection

Chemical stability, mechanical degradation, and biological degradation affect polymers and polymer flood performance. To
maintain chemical stability for the polymer, good water quality, an effective protective package (chelating agent), stainless
steel pipeline, and nonmetal tanks are very necessary for the water used in mixing the polymer solution. The influence of
dissolved salts, such as Ca2+, Mg2+, and Fe2+, are particularly important because their presence lessens the effectiveness of the
viscosifying agent. To maintain mechanical stability for the polymer, pipe line flow rates should be sufficiently low, and
devices, such as electrical-magnetic flow meters, mixers, valves, pumps, and filters, should not allow high shear or high
pressure gradients that degrade polymer molecules. To prevent biological degradation of the polymer, use a protective
package (bactericide), such as formaldehyde. This is typically solved using a biocide pre-flush and an ongoing biocide
injection. It should be noted, however, that biocides are prone to adsorption by reservoir rock and dissolution in the oil. Both
of these effects reduce the effectiveness of biocides.
Fig. 15 shows viscosity data for samples at different points along the polymer flow stream. Most viscosity loss occurred
from the high pressure injection pumps and mixing system to the near-well bore—amounting to about 70% of the total loss.
Consistent with other work,36 the greatest restriction to flow and the greatest mechanical degradation occurred from entering
the porous rock at the high velocities at the injection sand face. Concerning this problem, necessary measurements should be
adopted in the process of injection to reduce the viscosity loss.

37
Fig. 15—Polymer solution viscosities at various points

6.2 Produced Water Treatment

Produced water treatment by polymer flooding is not only related to produced water utilization, but also to environment
protection.
Since some polymer exists in the produced water, the viscosity of the produced water will be increased and make it
difficult to separate oil and water. Based on Daqing’s experience, three treatment processes can be applied: (1) natural
settling by gravity, (2) flocculation settling, and (3) pressure boosting pump.
After being treated, produced water from polymer flooding and dehydration stations can be reused and re-injected in new
well patterns. In locations where the produced water quantity can not satisfy the injection requirements, underground water
and surface water are treated to reach the quality required 38,39
According to Daqing criteria, some specifications should be followed when during water treatment. First, for gravity
settling tanks, the oil content shouldn’t be greater than 1,000 mg/L for inlet water, and 30% to 50% of the oil content and
suspended solids should be eliminated in producing the outlet stream. Second, coagulation settling tanks are used after the
gravity settling stage (secondary settling tanks). They function to raise the oil-water density difference, to increase oil drop
14 SPE 114342

floatation speed and the suspended solid settling speed, and to reduce settling time and promote oil removal efficiency (by
adding coagulant into the tank). After this stage, the oil content and suspended solid content should be less than 50 mg/L
within the outlet water.

7 New Challenges
Continuous innovation and effective response to new challenges must be a priority during polymer flooding. New directions
and opportunities at Daqing will focus on three approaches: (1) explore the feasibility of polymer flood application in poorer
(“third-class”) strata, (2) develop new polymers to suit portions of the reservoir with higher temperatures and higher water
salinities, and (3) continually seek improvements in our approach to polymer flooding.

7.1 Exploitation of Poorer Strata

Each reservoir is unique and may not follow the best thought out set of criteria. Thus reservoirs may be found that fit all the
criteria and fail, while another reservoir that is expected to not work does well. For Daqing, although some reservoirs lie at
the margin of favorable conditions for polymer flooding (keff < 50×10-3 µm2, net pay < 1 m), they still may be reasonable
targets for polymer flooding. Assessing this feasibility is one of the new challenges for Daqing. Based on the results from a
pilot test, a lower molecular weight polymer (less than 8 ×106 Dalton) is suited for the poorer strata where the well space
ranged from 100 to125 m. Laboratory results indicate that the Fr and Frr values of 3.17 and 1.35 can be achieved, and the
viscosity can be 21 mPa-s for rock with an air permeability of 173.9×10-3 µm2. Field results (Fig. 16) show that the gross
water cut dropped after polymer injection, but the decrease in water cut was less than in the other classes of oil strata. Future
research will focus on the feasibility, workable conditions, and limitations of varying other polyme injection parameters, such
as injection viscosity, concentration, pressure changes, and polymer performance.

100
95
Water cut (%)

90
85
80
75 1st-class
70 2nd-class

65 3rd-class

60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Polymer bank size (mg/L.PV)
Fig. 16—Water cut compare among different class oil strata

7.2 New Polymer Development

Research is needed to develop new temperature-resistant and salinity tolerant polymers for harsh reservoir conditions. Some
salinity-tolerant polymers40 (called “KYPAM”) and temperature-tolerant salinity-tolerant polymers41,42 (called “KYP”) were
developed at Daqing that provides higher viscosities in saline waters than those provided by conventional HPAM polymers.
At present, a type of polymer has appeared its pretty properties in temperature-tolerant salinity-tolerant
Tables 12 and 13 compare temperature and viscosities for the new polymer with conventional HPAM polymers with
medium molecular weight (7 to 15 million Daltons). Viscosities were measured before and after shearing. The new salinity-
tolerant polymer provided the highest viscosity in the more saline water, and it experienced a smaller percentage change in
viscosity after shearing.
The above polymers can all be produced at about the same cost, so polymer performance is the main criterion of
importance. In more saline waters, the salinity-tolerant polymer will be preferred. For very fresh waters and high-
permeability rock, the new type of polymer will be preferred. In very fresh water and less-permeable rock, the medium Mw
polymer may be most functional.
SPE 114342 15

Table 12—Viscosities for solutions with 1,000 mg/L polymer

Viscosity Before shear Afer shear % retained

New polymer 52.5 mPa-s 36.9 mPa-s 70.3

Medium Mw HPAM 38.9 mPa-s 16.8 mPa-s 43.2

Table 13—Viscosities for temperature with 6,400 mg/L salinity

Polymer concentration, mg/L 500 1000 1500 2000

20℃ 93.9 836.8 1535 2565

30℃ 86.8 821.0 1485 2515

40℃ Viscosity, mPa-s 82.9 802.8 1465 2395

60℃ 75.6 772.8 1335 2380

80℃ 68.9 740.5 1285 2330

Reservoir condition: Kenzyak oilfield

Although this kind of polymer has shown it’s capability of salinity-tolerance and temperature-tolerance, future agents are
needed to suit special reservior conditions (salinity >10,000 mg/L, temperture >60ºC).

7.3 Continually Approaches to Polymer Flooding.

A critical task at Daqing is to seek suitable approaches to be applied in those areas that have entered the last stage of polymer
flooding or where the gross water cut is close to 98%. Although steam and microbes have shown merit,6 well pattern
reforming from 5-spot to 9-spot for steam or a suitable micro bacteria option are still the large problems for the future. Two
other options are considered below.

7.3.1 Recovery of Unswept Mobile Oil

Based on core analysis and polymer flooding mechanisms, two main types of mobile oil remain after polymer flooding.
One type is mobile oil in areally unswept parts of the flooding patterns. This oil exists away from the most effective stream
lines, especially if a high permeability layer is present. Table 14 provides simulation results for 4 methods to develop this
remaining oil. The result shows that injecting a small polymer slug targeted at the unswept areas after polymer flooding can
increase oil recovery. The second method (converting production wells to injection wells or converting injection wells to
production wells) is the most economical choice.43

Table 14—Options for recovering unswept oil

Option Ultimate recovery, % Incremental recovery, %

Polymer Flooding 48.36

Converting producers to injectors or
52.57 4.21
converting injectors to producers
Perforating into previously undeveloped
53.54 5.18
layers
Infill drilling 54.16 5.8
3 layers with low, medium, high permeability, re-injection of 300 mg/L·PV polymer into unswept areas.

7.3.2 Development of Vertically Remaining Oil on the Top of Thick Oil Zones
Another type of rich remaining oil is located in poor reservoir rock at the top of a very thick oil zone. As a kind of visco-
elastic fluid, the polymer-enhanced foam has a greater displacement capability than polymer under the certain conditions for
this type remaining oil.44-47 So, it may be an option to improve the EOR after polymer flooding.
Fig. 17 show results of numerical simulation for foam injection into a well pattern. Foam controls the displacement fluid
16 SPE 114342

flow in the higher permeable layer, and pushes oil out from the lower permeable layer. The saturation of remaining oil in the
lower permeable layer (top layers with significant remaining oil in the two illustrations below) was reduced from 0.64 (left
illustration) to 0.53 (right illustration). With foam injection, 17.89% of the remaining oil was produced.

Fig. 17—Using foam to change the distribution of remaining oil.

3 layers with net pay: 1.55, 6.9, 0.81 m；keff are 683.6, 566.2, 268.1×10-3 µm2, Sw are 0.6305, 0.5853, 0.3589, fw=97.8% before foam
injection.

8 Conclusions
Based on over 12 years of experience at the Daqing Oil Field, we identified reservoir engineering approaches and technology
that is elementary for successful application of polymer flooding. Also, the surface facilities and other technologies
contribute greatly to a successful project. Although new challenges face extended applications polymer flooding at Daqing,
we are hopeful that additional development and exploration using polymer flooding will lead to recovery of significant oil
reserves in future.
(1) Daqing has favorable conditions for mobility improvement by polymer flooding using high polymer molecular
weights and large bank sizes.
(2) To achieve an effective polymer flood, the well pattern design and the combination of oil strata must be optimized. To
obtain the best benefit, the connectivity factor should be above 70%, and the permeable differential cannot be greater than 5
in a single unit of flooded zones. For the main target oil zones in the best class and second class oil strata at Daqing, well
spacing with 5-spot patters should be 50 to 250 m.
(3) Using profile modification in the higher permeable layer and separate layer injection for wells with significant
permeability differential between layers and no cross flow, oil recovery can be enhanced 2-4 % original oil in place (OOIP)
over polymer flooding alone.
(4) Economics and injectivity behavior can favor changing the polymer molecular weight and polymer concentration
during the course of injecting the polymer slug. Polymers with molecular weights from 12 to 38 million Daltons were
supplied to meet the requirements for different reservoir geological conditions. The optimum polymer injection volume
varied around 0.64 to 0.7 PV, depending on the water cut (92-94%) in the different flooding units. The average polymer
concentration was designed about 1,000 mg/L, but for an individual injection station, it could be 2,000 mg/L or more. At
Daqing, the injection rates should be less than 0.14-0.20 PV/yr, depending on well spacing.
(5) Using the character of changes in water cut, the entire polymer flooding process can be characterized in five stages.
(6) The selection of water source for the polymer solution and produced water treatment should follow certain criteria to
assure the effectiveness of polymer flooding.
(7) To recover unswept mobile oil at Daqing, foam is being explored for possible application after polymer flooding.

Nomenclature
B = proportion of the wells that adopted profile modification, fraction
Dznet = net zone height, m
dn = polydispersity index, Mw/Mn
Fr = resistance factor
Frr = residual resistance factor (permeability before/after polymer placement)
△F = degree of water cut reduction, %
f = initial water cut, %
kair = permeability to air, μm2
kd = permeable differential between zones, fraction
keff = effective permeability, μm2
SPE 114342 17

kwater = permeability to water, μm2

l = distance between injector and producer, m
Mw = weight average molecular weight, Daltons
Mn = number average molecular weight, Daltons
M1 = response time PV
M2 = time of lowest water cut, PV
M3 = time of water cut increasing again，PV
m = density of well pattern, per well/m
N = connectivity factor，%
Nmin = lowest apparent water intake index, m3/d•m•MPa
P = pressure, MPa
PI = pressure index for an injector, MPa
PV = pore volumes
pmax = highest wellhead pressure, MPa
Δp = pressure difference from wellbore to formation, MPa
q = injection rate, PV/yr
R = oil recovery before polymer flooding, %
S = proportion of the wells that adopted separate layers, fraction
t = time, min
Vk = Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation, fraction
θ = factors affected by polymer injection formula
λ = proportion of channel sand body, fraction
φ = porosity
Vp = Pore volume that can be accessed by polymer molecules, m3;
Vt = Total pore volume of the reservoir, m3;
Spi = Connectivity factor for well pattern i in the oil zone j, m2;
Hpi = interwell continuity of net pay between injectors and producers that can be accessed by the polymer molecules, m;

References
1. Wang Demin, Cheng Jiecheng, Wu Junzheng, et al:. “Producing by Polymer Flooding more than 300 Million Barrels of Oil, What
Experiences Have Been Learnt?,” paper SPE 77872 presented at the 2002 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Melbourne, Australia, 8-10 October.
2. Wang Yupu and Liu He: “How 50 Million Tons Annual Production Has Been Maintained For 27 Years In Daqing Oilfield—A
Successful Story,” paper SPE 87048 presented at the 2004 SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset
Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 29-30 March.
3. Wang Zhiwu, Zhang Jingcun, Jiang Yanli：“Evaluation of Polymer Flooding in Daqing Oil Field and Analysis of its Favorable
Conditions,” paper SPE 17848 presented at the 1998 International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China, 1-4 November.
4. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S.: “EOR Screen Criteria Revisited─Part 1: Introduction to Screen Criteria and Enhanced
Recovery Field Projects,” SPERE (August 1997) 189-198.
5. Sorbie, K.S. and Seright, R.S.: “Gel Placement in Heterogeneous Systems with Cross Flow,” paper SPE 24192 presented at the 1992
SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April 22-24.
6. Wang, Dongmei et al.: “Sweep Improvement Options for the Daqing Oil Field,” SPEREE (Feb. 2008).
7. Jang, Yanli et al.: “Optimization Conditions for Polymer Flooding,” Petroleum Industry Publishing Company of China, Beijing, 12,
(1994) 3-5.
8. Fu Tianyu, et al: “Caculation Method of Connectivity Factor for Polymer Flooding,” J. Petroleum Geology & Oilfield Development in
Daqing 23(3), (2004) 81-82.
9. Shao Zhenbo, Lijie: “The Target Oil Zones and the Strata Combination of Second-Class Reservoir,” Petroleum Geology & Oilfield
Development in Daqing, 23(1), (2004) 55-56.
10. Li Ruizhang, Chen Fuming: “Reasonable Well Pattern and Spacing for Polymer Flooding in Daqing”. Yearly report, 1995.
11. Zhang, G. and Seright, R.S.: “Conformance and Mobility Control: Foams versus Polymers,” paper SPE 105907 presented at the 2007
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, Feb. 28-Mar. 2.
12. Seright, R.S., Lane, R.H., and Sydansk, R.D.: “A Strategy for Attacking Excess Water Production,” SPEPF (Aug. 2003) 158-169.
13. Trantham, J.C., Threlkeld, C.B., and Patternson, H.L.: “Reservoir Description for a Surfactant/Polymer Pilot in a Fractured, Oil-Wet
Reservoir—North Burbank Unit Tract 97,” JPT (Sept. 1980) 1647-1656.
14. Li, Ying et al: “The Study of Adjustment Measures during Polymer Flooding,” Yearly Report (2002) 12.
15. Chen, Fuming et al.: “Summarization on the Technology of Modification Profile In-Depth in Daqing,” Petroleum Geology & Oilfield
Development in Daqing, 23(5), (2004) 97-99.
16. Yuan, Qingfeng et al.: “Terms of Oil/Gas Reservoir Engineering,” SY/T, 6174-2005.
17. Qiao, Erwei et al: “Application of PI Decision Technique in PuCheng OilField,” Drilling & Production, 23(5), (Sept. 2000) 28-25.
18. Wu, Lijun et al.: “Study of Injection Parameters for Separate Layers during the Period of Polymer Flooding,” Petroleum Geology &
Oilfield Development in Daqing, 24(4), (2005) 75-77.
18 SPE 114342

19. Zhang, Yaru et al.: “Discussing on The Technical of String with Back flush for Separate Layers during the Period of Polymer
Flooding,” Oil & Gas Ground Engineering, 23(9), (2004) 26-27.
20. Wang Dongmei, Seright Randy, et al: “Key Aspects of Project Design for Polymer Flooding,” paper SPE 109682 presented at the 2007
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11–14 November.
21. Wang, Dongmei et al.: “The Development Project Design of Polymer Flooding for Eastern in Sazhong in Daqing,” Yearly Report, 12,
(2002) 34-35.
22. Gao Shuling et al.: “The Development Project Design of Polymer Flooding For the Central of Xing4-5 in Daqing,” Yearly Report, 12,
(2004) 16-17.
23. Wu, Wenxiang et al.: The Polymer Molecular Weight and the Factors Affecting Flow Properties,” Journal of Daqing Petroleum
Transactions, 25(1), (2001) 18-20.
24. Vela, S., Peaceman, D.W. and Sandvik, E.I.: “Evaluation of Polymer Flooding in a Layered Reservoir with Cross flow, Retention, and
Degradation,” SPEJ, 16(2) (April 1976) 82-96.
25. Chen Peng, et al: “Method for Determining Relative Molecular Mass of Polymer in Medium-Low Permeable Reservoirs,” Petroleum
Geology & Oilfield Development in Daqing, 24(3), (2005) 95-96.
26. Chen Jiecheng, et al: “Optimum on Molecular Weight of Polymer for Oil Displacement,” Acta Petrolei Sinica, 1(5), (2001) 23-25.
27. He Manjun and Chen Weixiao: Hign Molecular Physics, Shanghai, Fudan University Publishing Company (1998) 188-208.
28. Yang, Fulin et al.: “High Concentration Polymer Flooding is Successful,” paper SPE 88454 presented at the 2004 SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 18-20 October.
29. Shao, Zhenbo et al.: “The Determinate Method of Reasonable Polymer Volume,” Petroleum Geology & Oilfield Development in
Daqing, 20(2), (2001) 60-62.
30. Wang, Dongmei et al.: “The Development Project Design of Polymer Flooding for Eastern in Sazhong in Daqing,” Yearly Report, 12,
(2002) 34-35.
31. Guo, Wankui et al.: “The Current Situation on EOR Technique in Daqing,” Petroleum Geology & Oilfield Development in Daqing,
21(3), (2002) 1-6.
32. Liao, Guangzhi et al: “The Effectiveness and Evaluation for Industrialized Sites by Polymer Flooding in Daqing,” Petroleum Geology
& Oilfield Development in Daqing, 23(1), (2004) 48-51.
33. Shao, Zhenbo, et al: “Study of the Dynamic Rules for Polymer Flooding in Industrial Sites in Daqing,” The Thesis Collection for EOR
Technology, 12, (2005) 1-8.
34. Lu Lei et al: “Flocculation of Wastewater Produced in Polymer Flooding”, CHINESE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE,28(4),(2007)761-765.
35. Dong Ran et al: “Anylisis of the Application of Well Logging With Electromagnetic Flowmeter in Polymer Flooding”, West China
Exploration Engineering, 111(2005)126-127.
36. Seright, R.S.: “The Effects of Mechanical Degradation and Viscoelastic Behavior on Injectivity of Polyacrylamide Solutions,” SPEJ
(June 1983) 475-85.
37. Zhang Jingcun, et al: Tertiary Recovery, Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, (1995) 23-24.
38. Liu He, Tang Shushan et al: “Techniques of Re-Injecting 100% of Produced Water in Daqing Oilfield,” paper SPE 100986 presented at
the 2006 International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, 5-7 December.
39. Xia Fujun, Zhang Baoliang et al: “Polymer Produced Water Treatment,” Environment Protection on Oil/Gas Field, 11(3), (2001).
40. Luo Jianhui, et al.: “Performance Properties of Salt Tolerant Polymer KYPAM for EOR,” Oilfield Chemistry, 19(1) (March, 2002) 25.
41. Liu Pingde, Zhang Mei, et al.: “Synthesis and Performance of New-type Polymer KYP,” Journal of Daqing Petroleum Institute, 24(2)
(Apr, 2005) 92-94.
42. Xie Jun, Zhang Junliang, et al.: “Appraisal of Performance Index of Polymers for High-Temperature and High-Salinity Reservoirs,”
PERIODICAL of OCEAN UNIVERSITY of CHINA, 37(2) (2007) 335-340.
43. Gao Shuling, Shao Zhenbo, et al.: “Development remaining Oil Nearby Distrubiton Stream Lines”, Petroleum Geology & Oilfield
Development in Daqing, 25(3), (2006) 88-91.
44. Huh, C. and Rossen, W.R.: “Approximate Pore-Level Modeling for Apparent Viscosity of Polymer-Enhanced Foam in Porous Media,”
SPE 99653 presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa Ok, 22-26 April.
45. Sydansk, R.D.: “Polymer-Enhanced Foams Part 1: Laboratory Development and Evaluation,” SPE Advanced Technology Series, 2(2),
(April 1994) 150-159.
46. Sydansk, R.D.: “Polymer-Enhanced Foams Part 2: Propagation Through High-Permeability Sand Packs,” SPE Advanced Technology
Series, 2(2), (April 1994) 160-166
47. Zhengquan L. et al.: “The Feasibility Studies of Polymer Foam Flooding in Guodao Oil Field,” paper SPE 101189, presented at the
2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, 11-13 September.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa⋅s
ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
in. x 2.54* E+00 = cm
md x 9.869 233 E-04 = μm2
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
*Conversion is exac