SPE 91787 Field-Scale Polymer Flooding: Lessons Learnt and Experiences Gained During Past 40 Years

Y. Du, SPE, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and L. Guan, SPE, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE International Petroleum Conference in Mexico held in Puebla, Mexico, 89 November 2004. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract Early in 1964, Pye and Sandiford established the fact that polymer flooding can result in greater oil recovery than the conventional water flooding. Many additional papers sustaining and extending this information have since appeared in the literature. In the past forty years, many field-scale polymer flooding projects have been put into production and lots of information has been available from which to draw conclusions regarding of lessons learnt and experiences gained on field-scale polymer-flooding. The purpose of this paper is to examine the ranges of some important parameters within which successful polymer flooding has been achieved and to present lessons learnt and best practices on polymer flooding, thus direct to design and further achieve a high-performance polymer-flooding project. Introduction Mechanisms of Polymer Flooding In the reservoir, oil and water are immiscible fluids. As a result, neither one can completely displace the other in the subsurface condition. This is reflected by the non-zero irreducible water (Swir) and residual oil saturation (Sor) on an oil-water relative-permeability curve. In the lab, no matter how large volume of water has been injected into a core, the oil saturation will never be lower than Sor only by the conventional water flooding. However, it has been known for many years that the efficiency of a water flooding can be greatly improved by lowering the water-oil mobility ratio in the system. Such a change may lead to better sweep efficiency and also to more efficient oil displacement in the swept zone. By adding of suitable polymer solutions to injected water, the water mobility can be reduced and oil recovery increased as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Cluster Type Residual Oil by Polymer Flooding and Water Flooding.[1]

During polymer flooding, a water-soluble polymer is added to the injected water in order to increase water viscosity. Depending on the type of polymer used, the effective permeability to water can be reduced in the swept zones to different degrees. It is believed that polymer flooding cannot reduce the Sor, but it is still an efficient way to reach the Sor more quickly or/and more economically. According to Riley B. Needham [2], polymer solutions may lead to an increase in oil recovery over that from a conventional water flooding by three potential ways: (1) through the effects of polymers on fractional flow, (2) by decreasing the water/oil mobility ratio, and (3) by diverting the injected water from zones that have been swept. The above three effects can make the polymer flooding process more efficient. Early pilot studies on polymer flooding can be traced back to 1944. Detling[3] (Shell Development Co.) obtained a U.S. patent covering the use of several additives for viscous water flooding. His objective was to increase the viscosity of the flooding water and then to improve water-oil mobility ratios. During the next two decades, many studies [4-13] have shown up like mushrooms and many patents have been granted covering specific water-soluble polymers or specific conditions of viscous water flooding in the world. In 1964, Pye and Sandiford [14] published the fact that the mobility of the brine used in water flooding was greatly reduced by the addition of very small amounts of hydrolyzed polyacrylamide, a water-soluble polymer. This reduction in brine mobility resulted in greater oil recovery than that attributable to conventional water flooding. Many additional

SPE 91787

papers sustaining and extending this information have since appeared in the literature [15-25]. All of these studies laid a solid theoretical foundation for the polymer flooding in the field scale practices. However, field scale practice of polymer flooding is a technically sophisticated process and is usually muti-million dollar investment. For this reason, a thorough knowledge of the reservoir and the applicability of the polymer flooding are essential to the success of the project. Reservoir rock and fluid properties determine the mechanism and the effectiveness of a specific polymer flooding process displacing the reservoir oil and water from the formation. In addition, the project must indicate an adequate rate of return on the investment. Oil recovery, price of crude, cost of chemicals, and cost of wells and equipment are important in making economic evaluations. We will further discuss the reservoir characteristics favorable to polymer flooding in detail later. Polymer Types and Properties Polymers that have been used in actual polymer flooding can be classified into two general types: synthetic polymers and biopolymers. A synthetic polymer at most times means polyacrylamides. Polyacrylamide is a condensation polymer with an unusual property. The structure of polyacrylamide is similar to that of polyethylene, but have a hydrogen on every other carbon replaced by an amide group, CONH2. The molecule is composed of repeating CH2CH(CONH2) units. The amide groups allow for linking between polymer strands. The CONH2 group from one molecule can react with the same group of another molecule, forming a link between them with the structure CONHCO. This produces a network of polymer chains, like a tiny sponge. The free, unlinked amide groups, because they contain NH2 groups, can form hydrogen bonds with water molecules. This gives the tiny cross-linked sponges a great affinity for water. Polyacrylamide can absorb many times of its mass in water. Ionic substances, such as salt, cause polyacrylamide to release its absorbed water. A variety of polyacrylamides are available from several manufacturers. In general, the performance of a polyacrylamide in a flooding situation will depend on its molecular weight and its degree of hydrolysis. In a partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide, some of the acrylamide is replaced by, or converted into, acrylic acid. This tends to increase viscosity of fresh water, but to reduce viscosity of hard waters. Biopolymer is derived from a fermentation process, rather than by direct synthesis from their monomers in a chemical reactor. The most commonly encountered biopolymer is xanthan gum, which is produced by the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris. In terms of molecular weight, biopolymers fall toward the low end of the range encountered with polyacrylamides. Their molecular structure gives the molecule great stiffness. This characteristic gives biopolymer excellent viscosifying power in high-salinity waters and makes them very resistant to shear degradation. In very fresh waters, however, they have less viscosifying power than polyacrylamides.

Reservoir Conditions Favorable to Polymer Flooding To date, some field polymer flooding information has been available from which to draw conclusions regarding the most suitable/favorable reservoir and fluid characteristics for polymer flooding applications. The purpose of this paper is to examine the ranges of some important parameters within which successful polymer flooding has been achieved, and to present lessons learnt and best practices on polymer flooding, thus direct to design and further achieve a high-performance polymer-flooding project. While analyzing the applicability of polymer flooding to a given reservoir, the importance of a complete understanding of the reservoir and fluid characteristics cannot be overemphasized. Such characteristics as the mobility ratios, permeability and its variation, porosity, the fluid saturation, the relative permeability, the formation temperature and pressure, the formation type, the rock minerals and water properties can have a dramatic effect on the success or failure of the flooding process. Each reservoir must be analyzed in light of its own properties and characteristics. The following are some critical factors to be considered while designing a polymer-flooding project. Mobility Ratio Mobility ratio here means the brine mobility at residual oil saturation to the oil mobility at irreducible water saturation. Published successful tests have occurred in the range from 0.1 to 42. In terms of oil viscosity, the highest record value is 126 cp for which success has been achieved. Permeability The level of reservoir permeability and permeability variation can have great influence on the success of a polymer-flooding project. Reservoir permeability dominates the water injection rate, which will in turn control well spacing and project life. The well spacing and project life affects the economics of the project. In other words, all else being equal, the projects of a very low permeability reservoir developed on 2-acre spacing definitely will not perform as good as a relative high permeability reservoir developed on 5-acre spacing. Polymer solutions used for flooding have lower injectivities than the solvent brine because of their high viscosity and reduced mobility. Usually this effect is compensated for by the increased volumetric displacement efficiency of the polymer solutions so that flood life is not extended. However, under pressure-limited conditions, as often encountered in shallow, low-permeability reservoirs, decreased injectivity may be an economic problem. As a rule of thumb, cares should be taken if polymer flooding is conducted with a very low average permeability reservoir. The range of average permeabilities in which successful floods have been conducted is from 20 md to 2,300 md. Permeability variation (Dykstra-Parsons V-factor) lies in the range from 0.28 to 0.80. Effective Porosity Effective porosity here only refers to the porosity involving connected void space, whereas total porosity involves total void space whether connected or not. Effective porosity can be

SPE 91787

further classified as intercrystalline intergranular porosity and fracture matrix porosity. The type and nature of porosity may have considerable influence on recovery efficiency by polymer flooding. For a given oil saturation, porosity determines the oil in place and the volume of recoverable oil present and thus directly affects the economics of the process. In addition, porosity also determines the total amount of polymer needed for a given flooding operation. In addition, the nature of the pore surfaces and space is also very important in determining the flow and adsorption or retention characteristics of the reservoir rock. The relative absence or presence of clays in the pore spaces and in the pore throats will have considerable effect on the flow behavior and permeability of the reservoir rock. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) studies are an invaluable tool in the study of porosity in sandstone reservoir rocks. Mobile Oil Saturation In general, low mobile oil saturation is an adverse factor for polymer flooding as well as for water flooding. Simulation results of polymer floods by Needham [2] indicate that mobile oil saturation is a key variable to determine whether a polymer flood can be successful. Heterogeneous reservoirs containing oil, which could be produced at high WOR, have significant volume of remaining mobile oil. They are good candidates for polymer flooding. However, successful polymer floods have been observed in the mobile oil saturation range from 0.15 to 0.46, an extremely wide range. Initial Water Saturation It has been stated in some literature that high initial water saturations can be deleterious to polymer flooding. However, some projects were successful in spite of their high initial water saturations, even as high as 0.47. Depth Temperature and Pressure Reservoir depth usually controls the temperature and initial pressure (in normal pressure system) of a reservoir. Favorable temperature may keep polymer stable without degradation. The deepest and hottest successful flood was operated at 6,500 ft and 229oF. There seems limited reason to believe that greater depths and higher temperatures cannot be polymerflooded successfully, provided that the usual precaution is observed to maintain an absolutely oxygen-free system (0.0 ppm) by chemical means. However, reservoirs with temperatures above 300oF should be avoided because of polymer decomposition above that point, even in the absence of oxygen. Depletion Stage Economic and technical successes have been reported for polymer floods in both secondary and primary applications. On the basis of published results to date, secondary floods recover substantially more oil with less polymer usage than

tertiary floods. Polymer flooding is therefore best to be applied in the early life of a water flood. The average preference of floods initiated at WOR > 10 appears to be significantly lower. Projects started near the end of primary depletion tended to be more successful than that started during the secondary recovery stage. The earlier polymer flooding is initiated in the flood life, the more likely it will be successful. Formation Type Successful floods have been conducted in both sandstone and oolitic limestone formations. Grossly vugular limestones have been avoided because laboratory evidence indicates that no appreciable resistance effect can be generated in these rocks. Economic and technical successes have been reported for polymer floods in both sandstones and carbonates. Rock Minerals The presence of different minerals can affect the efficiency of the process. Certain clays swell when contacted with nonequilibrium waters and can have drastic effects on water and polymer injectivity. In addition, in the case of a preflush, ion exchange with the clays can increase the concentration of multivalent ions seen by the micellar solution. Gypsum (CaS04*2H20) is a slightly water-soluble mineral present in some reservoirs. However, the volubility of calcium can possibly be high enough to cause precipitation of petroleum sulfonate and to react with polyacrylamide, which reduces the viscosity of the polymer solution and reduces the efficiency of the flooding. Similarly, other clays can reduce the effectiveness of a miceller-polymer flood by adsorbing surfactant, by adding calcium to the flooding solution, and by adsorbing polymer, all of which have a negative effect on the flooding process. The presence of clay minerals is very important. In the consideration of micellar-polymer flooding, a high concentration of clay minerals can increase the ion exchange capacity of the rock and thus affect both the micellar and polymer slug behavior. It is imperative that a thorough mineralogy study be conducted on the reservoir prepared for polymer flooding. Water Salinity The salinity of reservoir brines can either be a favorable or unfavorable effect on some polymers and micellar solutions depending on the total salt concentration and the concentration and type of monovalent and divalent salts in the reservoir brine. The degradation of micellar solutions can be accelerated by the precipitation of petroleum suifonates in the slug as they contact reservoir brines containing multivalent ions such as calcium and magnesium. Micellar solutions can be designed to be compatible with reservoir brines. However, if care is not taken in the design, multivalent ions in the brine can cause the micellar solution to break up into a water phase and oil rich phase or may cause the precipitation of surfactants.

SPE 91787

Figure 2. Effect of salinity on the viscosity of 0.05 percent polymer solution[27].

The viscosity of partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide polymers is quite sensitive to both the brine and the presence of multivalent ions. Figure 2 illustrates the effect of salinity on the viscosity of Dow Pusher 500 and 700 polyacrylamide solutions [26]. The loss in viscosity, when a polymer contacts the high concentration reservoir brine or divalent ions, results in increasing mobility of the buffer solution, which may result in fingering and other displacement inefficiencies. As stated previously, a preslug is often injected to displace the reservoir brine. Where compatibility presents no problem, the use of a fresh water source rather than more saline brine can lead to lower concentration requirements, hence lower polymer costs, for the same mobility effect. Polymer Selection Polymer type selection All else being equal, a high-molecular-weight polymer will produce higher viscosities and resistance factors than a lowmolecular-weight polymer for a given concentration. These potential advantages may be offset by a greater tendency for shear degradation, which reduces molecular weight, and by a reduced injectivity, which can be significant in lowpermeability formations. For large-scale applications, polyacrylamides are available in powder form (90% + active), in the form of a pumpable inverse emulsion (33 to 55% active), or can be manufactured on site in a concentrated solution form. Each polymer type has advantages and disadvantages. Polyacrylamides have a relatively low price, develop good viscosities in fresh waters, and adsorb on the rock surface to produce a long-lasting permeability reduction (the residual resistance effect). Their primary disadvantages are a tendency to shear degradation at high flow rates and poor performance in high-salinity water (low viscosity and frequently excessive retention). The primary advantages of biopolymer are their excellent viscosifying power in high-salinity waters and their resistance to shear degradation. Biopolymers are not retained

on rock surfaces and thus propagate more readily into a formation than polyacrylamides. This can reduce the amount of polymer required for a flood but sometimes it also means that there is limited residual resistance effect. Both polymer types are restricted in the range of reservoir condition where they can be effective. Biopolymer thermally degrades too fast at temperatures above 200oF (93oC). At temperatures above 170oF (77oC), polyacrylamides may precipitate in waters containing too much calcium. In principle, this does not prevent their being used successfully in fresh water, but makes control of the salinity of the floodwater much more critical. The results from polymer core flooding have indicated that the polymer molecular weight is a very important parameter in increasing the viscosity of the polymer solution and reducing the water permeability. The higher the polymer molecular weight, the higher the viscosity of the polymer solution, the more the permeability is reduced, and the higher the oil recovery that will be achieved. But if the polymer molecular weight is too high, the polymer may plug the formation pore space as it flows through it. In order to find the optimal polymer weight, which is suitable for a certain formation pore space, the matching relation between the polymer molecular weight and the reservoir permeability must first be studied. A rule of thumb is that when five times the gyration radius of the polymer molecule is smaller than the median size of the pore space of the reservoir, the polymer molecule will not plug the formation pore space. A good practice is 1). Analyze the data of the core taken from the polymer flood area and find out the lower limit value of the permeability in which 75% of the net thickness is swept out by the polymer flood. 2). According to mercury injection data, the median pore space radius is determined, which corresponds to the lower limit permeability. 3). The suitable polymer molecular weight is determined from the relation between the molecular weight and permeability. All of the tests included in the tables used an essentially linear, highly soluble, partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide as the mobility control agent. Considerable variation in the properties of this material is possible, particularly in the higher molecular weight. In reservoirs with high permeability, the polymers with higher molecular weights are often preferred in order to achieve an adequate resistance factor. In other reservoirs, conversion from the existing polymer type to a recently available polymer of higher molecular weight has allowed reduction in concentration to achieve the same resistance effect with a considerable cost reduction. Practical considerations for the polymer solution are that [28] : (1) it must be injectable into the reservoir, (2) it must survive, and (3) it must be able move through the reservoir and provide the required viscosity. Concentration of the polymer slugs On condition of the same amount of polymer injected, the more heterogeneous the reservoir is, the better the displacement results with a polymer slug of high concentration compared to that of low concentration [29]. With an increase of the injected slug concentration, cumulative fluid injection for the entire period of polymer flooding decreases and the

SPE 91787

amplitude of water cut reduction of the produced fluid increases. For this case, the oil recovery increases 0.4 and the lowest water cut decreases 10% when the concentration of the polymer solution injected increases from 400 mg/L to 800 mg/L; while only 0.l% for oil recovery and 7.8% for water cut with a concentration increase from 800 mg/L to 1,200 mg/L. The infectivity of the polymer solution decreases with a rise of injection pressure caused by the high concentration of the polymer slug. There are some special cases. Given the reservoir rock and fluid properties prevalent in the Hale and Mable leases, a lowconcentration polymer flood is just as a higher-concentration flood as long as the total pounds of polymer injected is the same by Hovendlck, M. [30]. For the same volume of the polymer injected, we can use high-concentration small slug or the low-concentration large slug. Evaluation of the high-concentration small slug vs. the low-concentration large slug was done by simulating a singlepattern consisting of 20 layers with crossflow only at the wellbore [31]. Oil displacement was by fractional flow, and areal sweep was imposed according to mobility ratio correlations. Polymer viscosity was treated in terms of resistance factor polymer retention was successfully included. Slug Size Successful projects have used slug sizes varying from 7 percent PV to 33 percent PV. Smaller slug sizes have been tested, thus far without success. Combination of the Polymer Slugs Because a small amount of polymer injected results in a small size polymer slug in the reservoir, it is easy for the post water slug to breakthrough the polymer slug. Thus a sufficient amount of polymer injected as a mobility control is needed. However, under condition of a large amount of polymer injected, it is difficult for the post water slug to breakthrough the polymer slug. Therefore, the effect of mobility control is not as obvious as that for small amounts of polymer injected. Quality Control A good program for quality control is helpful and necessary in the field to minimize the chance for formation plugging and to ensure that the injected fluids meet the design specifications. Fortunately, a good quality control program requires only relatively simple tests. Important quality control parameters can be held to reasonable tolerances throughout the life of a polymer project Viscosity control is critical to a successful polymer project. The viscosity test insures that the polymer is properly mixed and that its viscosity falls within the specified range. These quality control tests are run frequently during the start-up phases. After operating procedure was worked out and the mixing procedures become routine, one or two quality checks per day should normally be sufficient. Unsuccessful Floods Observation The following summarized some possible published reasons for the failure of polymer flooding. Tertiary stage. The unsuccessful floods were undertaken in reservoirs that had been extensively flooded by other

processes. When the polymer flooding initiated, the hydrocarbon resource in place was limited. Hence, resulted in poor performance. High oil viscosity. Oil viscosities are high. As indicated under the discussion of successful floods, the highest Oil viscosity in which success has been achieved to date is 126 cp. Extremely small polymer slug. The polymer slug is too small to improve the flooding efficiency. The conclusion to be drawn from former studies is that slug sizes smaller than 7 percent PV have not been successful. Injectivity problems. Projects suffered from low injectivity. Especially for the shallow reservoirs with low average permeability, the water injectivity is low. If polymer were added to the water, the injectivity will be very low. The low injectivity makes it harder to maintain the reservoir pressure by limited number of injectors. Best Practices Several key steps may be taken during the designing and implementation of the field scale project to increase the probability of a successful polymer flood. 1. Reservoir characteristics. Reservoir characteristics were studied in detail before polymer flooding was identified as a potential method of improving flood performance and recovery efficiencies. Adverse reservoir characteristics were identified early during the planning of the project [2, 27, 28 and 32]. 2. Laboratory tests. Laboratory tests were conducted to (1) identify polymers, (2) optimize polymer concentration, (3) quantify polymer degradation and retention, (4) help to design polymer slug, optimize the does of biocides and oxygen scavengers [29, 32 and 33]. 3. Fractional flow calculations. Fractional flow calculations were useful screening guides to estimate polymer flooding potential. 4. Simulation. Computer simulation was used to design the optimal polymer concentration and slug size [32, 33]. 5. Tests. Pressure transient tests may be used to improve reservoir description [32]. Polymer injection tests were conducted to: (1) determine sustained rates and pressures, (2) measure in-situ polymer viscosity, and (3) evaluate the physical handling of flake and liquid polymers. Field injectivity tests were essential to determine polymer injectivity and provided evidence about the polymer molecular weight and viscosity. These tests may support laboratory and computer observations. 6. Quality control. Four quality and performance control measures were instituted [32]: a polymer quality control laboratory was built at the delivery point, a production evaluation laboratory were constructed at the field to monitor injected and produced fluids, well test data were frequently obtained with computer-controlled test satellites, and maximum field withdrawal was assured with computer controlled pumpoff controls. Bacterial control in polymer solutions sometimes may appear attainable according to laboratory results but could not be sustained in the field. 7. Continues efforts and close field monitoring. Successful field implementation requires continuous efforts and close field monitoring to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the polymer EOR techniques.

SPE 91787

REFERENCES
1. Wang, D., Li, Q., Gong, X. and Wang, Y.: The Engineering and Technical Aspects of Polymer Flooding in Daqing Oil Field, Paper SPE 64722 presented at the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, 710 November 2000. 2. Needham, R. B. and Doe, P. H.: Polymer Flooding Review, SPE 17140, SPE Distinguished Author Series, Dec. 1987. 3. Detling, K. D.: Process of Recovering Oil from Oil Sands, U. S. Patent No. 2,341,500, Feb. 8, 1944. 4. Albaugh, F. W.: Water Drive, U. S. Patent No. 2,533,546, Dec. 12, 1950. 5. Binder, G.G., West, R. C. and Andresen, K.H.: Water Flooding Secondary Recovery Method, U. S. Patent No. 2,731,414 , Jan. 17, 1956. 6. Beeson, C. M.: Waterflooding Method for Secondary Oil Recovery, U. S. Patent No. 2,771,138, Nov. 20, 1956. 7. Sindiford, B. B. and Keller, H. F.: Secondary Recovery of Petroleum, U. S. Patent No. 2,827,964, Mar. 25, 1958. 8, Vori Enerigelhardt, W., Trommsdort, E. and Turin, W.: Process for Increasing the. Yield of Oil Upon the Flooding with Water of Oil Deposits, U. S. Patent No, 2,842,492, Jul. 8, 1958. 9. Meadors, V. G.: Waterflooding Method of Secondary Recovery, U. S. Patent No. 2,920,041, Jan. 5, 1960. 10. Bernard, G. G: Water Flooding Process, U. S. Patent No. 2950,760, Aug. 30, 1960. 11. Backhaus, L., Bulian, W. and Kiesewetter, A.: Compositions for Use in Secondary Recovery of Petroleum by Flooding, German Patent No. 1,097,931, Jan. 29 1961. 12. Kolodny, E. R.: Polyacrylamide Preparation, U. S. Patent No. 3,002,960, Oct. 1961. 13. Patton, J. T.: Thickening Agent and Process for Producing Same, U. S. Patent No. 3,020,207, Feb. 6, 1962. 14. SANDIFORD, B.B.: Laboratory and Field Studies of Water Floods Using Polymer Solutions to Increase Oil Recoveries, SPE 844, J.P.T, 1964 15. Ustick, R. E. and Hillhouse, J. D.: Comparison of Polymer Flooding and Waterflooding at Huntington Beach, California, J. P. T., Sep. 1967, P1103 16. Jones, M. A.: Waterfood Mobility Control: A Case History, J. P. T., Sep. 1966, P1151 17. Sherborne, J. E., Sarem, A. M. and Sandiford, B. B.: Flooding Oil-containing Formations with Solutions of Polymer in Water, Proc., Seventh World Pet. Cong., Mexico City, 1967. 18. Moore, J. K.: Reservoir Barrier and Polymer Water Flood, Northeast Hallsville Crane Unit, J. P. T., Sep. 1969, P1130. 19. Burcik, E. J.: A Note on the Flow Behavior of Polyacrylamide Solutions in Porous Media, Prod. Monthly, Jun. 1965.

20. Gogarty, W. B.: Mobility Control with Polymer Solutions, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Jun, 1967, P161. 21. Mungan, N., Thompson, J. L. and Smith, F. W.: Some Aspects of Polymer floods, J. P. T. , Sep. 1966, P1143. 22. Dauben, D. L. and Menzie, D. E.: Flow of Polymer Solutions Through Porous Media, J. P. T. , Aug. 1967, P1065. 23. Slater, G. E. and Farouq Ali, S. M.: Prediction of Sweep Efficiency in Polymer Flooding, Prod. Monthly, Oct. 1968. 24. Lee, K. S. and Claridge, E. L.: Areal Sweep Efficiency of Pseudoplastic Fluids in a Five-Spot Hele-Shaw Model, Sot. Pet. Eng. J., Mar. 1968, P52. 25. Smith, F. W.: The Behavior of Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Solutions in Porous Media, J. P. T., Feb. 1970, P148. 26. Schurz, G.: Field Preparation of Polymer Solutions Used to Improve Oil Recovery, SPE Paper 4254 presented at Symposium on the Handling of Oilfield Waters, Los Angeles, Dec. 4-5, 1972. 27. Poettman, F. H.: Micellar-Polymer Screening Criteria and Design, SPE 7068 presented at the Fifth Symposium on Improved Methods for Oil Recovery of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Tulsa, USA, Apr. 16-19, 1978. 28. Pratap, M., Gupta, R.K. and Singh, D.:Field Implementation of Polymer EOR Technique- A Successful Experiment in India. SPE Paper 38872 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in San Antonio, TX, 5-6 Oct. 1997. 29. Wang, D. and Liu, H.: Application Results and Understanding of Several Problems of Industrial Scale Polymer Flooding in Daqing Oil Field, paper SPE 50928 presented at the 1998 SPE International Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, 2-6 Nov. 1998. 30. Hovendlck, M.D.: Development and Results of the Hale/Mable Leases Cooperative Polymer EOR Injection Project, Vacuum (Grayburg-san Andres) Field, Lea county, New Mexico, SPE 16722, SPE Reservoir Engineering, Aug. 1989. P363. 31. Clampitt, R.L. and Reid, T.B,: An Economic Polymer flood in the North Burbank Unit, Osagc County, Oklahoma, paper SPE 5552 presented at the 1975 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sep. 28-Oct. 1, 1975. 32. Weiss, W.W., Baldwin, R.W.: Planning and Implementing a Large-Scale polymer Flood, SPE12637, J.P.T., 1985. 33. Caatagno, R. E., Shupe, R. D., Gregory, M. D. and Leacarboura, J. A.: Method for Laboratory and Field Evaluation of a Proposed Polymer Flood, SPE 13124. SPE Reservoir Engineering, Nov. 1987, P452.