SPE-181615-MS

Challenges During Execution, Construction and Operational Readiness

Phase of Surface Facilities in a Full Field Polymer Flood Project

Santosh Mohanram, Premashis Bhaumik, and Shagun Jain, Cairn India Limited

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September 2016.

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 is a follow up paper to SPE-169709-MS and discusses key challenges in Surface Facilities
Project implementation during the Construction and Operational Readiness phase of the Project and presents
available performance results from the full field implementation.
The key areas discussed include (a) operational difference in the available technologies for high
concentrated polymer dissolution, (b) transfer of high viscous Polymer Mother Solution with minimum
viscosity loss - refinement of the pressure drop calculations based on actual experience (c) efficacy of
pumping facility with high viscosity non Newtonian liquid flow with varying turn down-challenges and
lessons learnt based on field experience and (d) supply chain strategy for polymer logistics
The paper also presents preliminary performance results from the full field implementation of world's
largest single polymer injection facility as compared to expected challenges and perceived mitigation during
design phase.

Introduction
On behalf of Joint Venture, Cairn India Ltd (CIL) is the operator of the Rajasthan Block located in the
northern Barmer basin of Rajasthan state, India. The field was initially developed with hot water flood,
using injection water heated up to 75~85°C. However, due to the unfavorable mobility ratio of the crude oil
with respect to water, CIL is currently implementing Chemical EOR process (Polymer flood) to accelerate
and increase the oil recoveries.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques are methods of increasing recovery from oil fields. CIL
recognized the potential for EOR at an early stage of development for its Mangala fields. The reservoir
quality, drive mechanism, oil properties make these fields ideal for the application of chemical flooding
EOR methods. Due to high viscosity contrast between oil and water, the injected water is not able to displace
the oil very efficiently, resulting in some bypassed oil under a conventional water flooding scheme. By
adding chemicals such as polymers, the injected water attains a viscosity close to that of the oil, which
improves the displacement and overall sweep.
Based on the positive response of the EOR pilot in the Mangala field, a full field polymer flood
development plan has been implemented at Mangala. The challenges of selecting right facility design was
2 SPE-181615-MS

of paramount importance once pilot study confirms the benefits over water flood from reservoir perspective.
Multilayered pattern drive with 129 injectors in an intense brownfield execution poses immense challenges
for facility engineering. Thus the world's largest polymer injection plant was built primarily by scaling up
the Pilot understanding, available literature, vendor inputs and market feedback.

New facility
The current facility set up consists remote well pads (having both producing and injection wells) connected
with the production fluid and injection water network. Well fluid gathering, processing, oil export and
injection water pumping facility is located in a Central Processing Terminal within the proximity of the field.
A Central Polymer Preparation Facility has been constructed to prepare the concentrated polymer solution
(Mother Solution) at various levels of concentration. The Concentrated polymer solution is transferred from
this Central Polymer Facility (CPF) to the various existing well-pads (15 nos.) via a pipeline distribution
and once at the well pads the concentrated polymer solution is diluted with the injection water at a specific
dilution ratio and injected into the individual wells through the existing injection water lines after boosting
the pressure; the viscosity of the diluted Polymer Solution is around 30 cP. Augmentation of some of the
existing facilities and addition of some new surface facilities has been carried out at the Central Processing
Facility for handling the back-produced polymer associated with the well fluid. The typical scheme of the
polymer injection facility is shown below.

Figure 1—Typical Polymer Injection Facility Overview

Key Challenges during Execution, Construction and Operational Readiness

Phase of Surface Facilities
Operational difference in the available technologies for high concentrated polymer dissolution
The Industry has only two standard technologies for dissolving polymer into water: the eductor type
or slicing/mixing units, both of which have been used in many polymer projects around the world.
Conventional eductors work on the venturi principle and allows for the mixing of the polymer powder and
water up to certain concentrations. Slicing units on the other hand reduce the polymer particle size by a
cutting head and thereby reducing the polymer particle into a uniform size thus allowing for significantly
higher polymer concentrations without affecting the polymer molecular weight.
The slicing unit in recent years has demonstrated a compact design for polymer dissolution. On the basis
of operating experience it is seen that the slicing design is more compact and is capable to produce highly
concentrated polymer Mother Solution with less sensitivity to flow variation.
SPE-181615-MS 3

The Eductor technology implemented in Mangala was customized to handle higher solid and liquid flow
and been found to effectively prepare 15,000 ppm of polymer. The Mother Solution prepared using eductor
however need more maturation time as compared to the slicing unit.
The overall comparison between the two systems is tabulated below. The comparison stated below are
specific to the Project and do not refer to the generic design of these systems.

Transfer of high viscous Polymer Mother Solution with minimum viscosity loss - refinement of the
pressure drop calculations based on actual experience
Transfer facility of viscous Polymer Mother Solution. For a centralized polymer facility concept, it is
crucial to design a robust Mother Solution transfer facility. This also warrants an in-depth understanding of
polymer solution rheology and flow behaviour. In view of the optimally utilizing the existing water flood
network, the selected surface facility concept necessitated that the Polymer solution be prepared at a high
concentration; thus, the flow assurance of high viscous Mother Solution became a key success criteria for
the project. A network of over 15 km of pipeline network was conceptualised for transfer of concentrated
polymer solution at 2000-3000 cP (at a shear rate of 7.34 s-1)
The following sections give in detail various design aspects for pressure drop estimation for Non-
Newtonian viscous Mother Solution. The sections also gives a validated approach for sizing basis for Mother
Solution pipeline network. The sections also explains the process of theoretical estimation of pressure drop
and subsequent validation with actual pressure drop.
Mother Solution Rheology. Mother Solution is a Non-Newtonian shear thinning fluid and thus follows
power law (τ = Kγn) where n<1 and
{Equation-1}
τ is shear stress
γ is shear rate or velocity gradient.
μeffective is effective viscosity
K & n are consistency coefficient & liquidity index respectively; characteristics flow factors of Non-
Newtonian fluid at a particular condition.
Significance of K & n values
4 SPE-181615-MS

From power law equation, following can be concluded.

• For same n, higher K will cause higher shear stress (or pressure drop) at a particular shear rate.

• For same K, higher n will cause higher shear stress (or pressure drop) at a particular shear rate.
This is not true for extremely low shear rates (i.e. lower than 1s-1).
• Lower the n value, higher will be the sensitivity of μeffective to shear rate. Hence, n value indicates
the extent of shear thinning effect in fluid.
From above it can be concluded that any polymer solution with lower K and n value will cause lower
pressure loss in a pipeline network (for shear rate >1). [Refer Figure-2]

Figure 2—Significance of K & n

Equations governing Pressure drop

For laminar flow (Re<~2,100), pressure drop of Mother Solution along a pipeline is as follows:

{Equation2}

and
{Equation-3} for
Non-Newtonian
fluids
L is Pipe Length, D is Pipe Diameter, Q is flow rate, K & n are consistency coefficient & liquidity index,
V is Velocity and p is Density
Inference from the pressure drop equation (equation-2):

• Pressure drops are sensitive to both K & n values (depends on polymer type and concentration)

• Pressure drop linearly varies with Length.

• Pressure drop does not vary significantly with change in flow rate (as n<1).

◦ 100% increase in flow will lead to only 15% increase in pressure drop for fluid with n=0.2.

◦ 100% increase in flow will lead to only 3% increase in pressure drop for fluid with n=0.04.

Explanation:
SPE-181615-MS 5

According to basic phenomenology, the resistance to flow increases with increase in flow rate for a
particular pipeline system. However, in case of shear thinning, the effective viscosity decreases with increase
in velocity (or flow rate). This behavior of fluid, to a certain extent, nullifies the increase in pressure drop
due to increase in flow rate.
Validation from site observations. Pressure drop for a Non-Newtonian fluid in a pipeline can be calculated
using equation-2 and is impacted by K & n values of the fluid. Hence, a realistic and correct usage of K &
n value is a key to estimate any pressure drop calculation.
Based on viscosity vs shear rate data of Mother Solution prepared in lab (CIL & vendor lab data) K and
n values were estimated.
At CIL lab, Mother Solution used for assessment is prepared by using synthetic brine with polymer
concentration of 15,000 ppmw. Viscosities at varying shear rate were measured for two Polymer Mother
Solutions at CIL lab.
Based on lab data, following K and n values were established:

Polymer used for Mother Solution K (Pa. sn) n

Polymer A (solution @ 62°C) 17.4 0.18

Polymer B (solution @ 62°C) 13.75 0.22

Additional K and n values were established by CPF vendor for polymer solution of15,000 ppmw
concentration in synthetic bine:

Polymer used K (Pa. sn) n

Polymer C (solution @ 55°C) 24.54 0.04

Polymer C (solution @ 60°C) 19.44 0.176

It is to be noted that the Mother Solutions prepared from Polymer-A, Polymer-B and Polymer-C @~
60°C have close K & n values.
Post commissioning of the Mother Solution transfer facility, site observations were used to validate the
applicability above estimated K & n values and refine pressure drop analysis.
At the time of site observation, Polymer A was being used at the Mother Solution preparation facility.
K and n values were derived from following sources:
1. Viscosity of Mother Solution, prepared at CPF (sample from Maturation tank outlet), measured at lab
2. Observed Pressure drops at site and back calculating K & n values
For an ideal case, all the K & n values derived from site observations should have converged at K & n
value estimated for Polymer A Mother Solution. But due to use of different polymers, polymer degradation
while transportation, slippage effects and real time measurement errors etc., a region of K & n values can
be generated.
It is essential that an operating envelope is generated such that it accounts for all variations of K & n
values based on available current information, so that a robust system design can be adopted.

K and n as per Lab analysis of Mother Solution prepared at CPF

Mother Solution sample was collected from maturation tanks during facility in operation. Concentration
and viscosity measured from collected sample is summarized below:
6 SPE-181615-MS

At CIL CPF laboratory, viscosity is reported for 62°C temperature and 7.34 (1/sec) shear rate.

Concentration ppmw Viscosity cP

Maturation Tank Sample-1 ~13,300 ~3,400

Maturation Tank Sample-2 ~12,500 ~2,950

Now substituting above data in (equation-1) μeffective = Kγn-1, different K values can be estimated for varying
n values. [Refer curves tagged "Lab: 3400cp @7.3/s shear" and "Lab: 2950cp @7.3/s shear" in Figure-3]

Figure 3—K and n values established for site data and lab prepared polymer solution

One of the curves generated from the sample data passes through Polymer-A Mother Solution K&n value
and the other curves is only slightly below the value. Hence, property of Mother Solution prepared at CPF
is very similar to that prepared at lab.

K and n as per Observed actual Pressure drops in Pipeline Network at site

Based on Mother Solution flow rates at well pads, discharge pressure at CPF & arrival pressures at well
pads received from site, K & n values are back calculated from equation-2 using iterative method.
There are five independent headers from CPF to various well pads. Now by substituting pressure drop
and flow rate site data for each header in equation-2, K&n values satisfying site observations are estimated.
Hence each header gives a trend of K&n values. Refer figure-3 for K and n values corresponding to each
header.
The K vs n curves indicate all K and n values satisfying a pressure drop and flow for a pipeline. Any value
below the graph will result in lower pressure drop and any value above it will result in higher pressure drop.
It also observed that at high shear some Non-Newtonian fluids appear to violate the zero-velocity
boundary condition at the surface. This effect is believed to be result of a thin layer near surface that has a
lower viscosity than the bulk of the fluid. The lower viscosity of the thin fluid layer can be due to either lower
polymer concentration or sheared polymer. This low viscous thin layer creates a film around the surface
through which bulk of the viscous fluid flows. This reduces stress and gives the appearance of a "slip".
As the observed Pressure drop is less than that theoretically calculated, slippage in some pipeline sections
is a possibility. The same was also observed during Polymer flow loop test. [Refer SPE-169709-MS]
However, the impact of slippage cannot be explicitly identified and hence the gain due to slip factor is
not considered for pressure drop calculations while designing pipeline network system (for conservative
approach)
SPE-181615-MS 7

Updating of Pressure Drop estimation approach for future projects. In figure-3, K and n curves and
points are representative of potential K & n values. Theoretically all these curves should have intersected
at a point and thus giving a unique K and n value. This not being the case, multiple potential K and n values
are observed and a region of K vs n values is generated. Now by extending previously stated conclusion,
for any K and n value lying below a region will cause lesser pressure drop compared to that by K&n values
in the mentioned region.
To estimate pressure drop across a pipeline for a specific Mother Solution flow, certain pressure drops
are assumed and different K&n values to achieve this pressure drop are estimated. These estimated K&n
values are then plotted along with potential K&n values which have been observed in field from different
sources as indicated in section 2.
Thus estimated hypothetical K & n curves for different pressure drops are generated. (Refer dotted curved
in figure-4). All these curves will be parallel to each other (as we cannot have two pressure drops for same
K&n value). The pressure drop corresponding to lower-most curve (dotted curves) above which there are
no realistic K and n values, becomes the estimated pressure drop across the pipeline system.

Figure 4—Hypothetical K&n curves for varying pressure drops

Efficacy of pumping facility with high viscosity non Newtonian liquid flow with varying turn down-
challenges and lessons learnt based on field experience
Considering industry practice for viscosity sensitive fluid, positive displacement pumps were used for High
Pressure Injection of the Polymer Mother Solution. Double Acting Double Diaphragm Pumps were used
for Mother Solution injection into the individual wells after dilution through available injection water at
1:4 Ratio.
The Mother Solution is transferred from CPF by individual headers 1 to 5 through independent Mother
Solution transfer pumps. These five headers are used to transfer the Mother Solution across 15 well pads
of Mangala. At the individual well pad, a common line receives the polymer solution at a pressure of
approximately 4 – 20 barg. A double acting diaphragm pump further boosts it to the required injection
pressure by a variable speed drive motor. The Mother Solution is diluted by injection water to the required
viscosity in a static mixer before being injected to the individual well.
8 SPE-181615-MS

Figure 5—Representation of Various Headers from Central Polymer Facility to various clusters of Well Pads

The material of construction of the piping is DSS (Duplex Stainless Steel).

Figure 6—Typical Representation of Pumping Arrangement in a Well Pad

The Polymer Injection Pumps at Well Pads are designed to operate with a suction pressure of 4 barg and
discharge pressure of 125 barg. However, it is observed that the suction pressure of the polymer injection
pump is varying from 4 barg to 20 barg whereas the discharge pressure varies from 5 barg to 80 barg. The
discharge pressure is expected to further increase to the design limit of 125 barg.
At the Well pads, the number of wells that are on polymer injection varies; in addition to this, the injection
pressure and flow to these wells fluctuate with well head injection pressure.
The high pressure injection pumps are low shear positive displacement diaphragm pumps. Low shear
pumps are considered for this application to reduce the Mother Solution from shearing. Each well is provided
with this diaphragm pump to boost the pressure and these pumps are controlled by a variable speed drive.
This wide variation in pressures is managed by varying the speed of the pump and adjusting the stroke
length. In addition to the pressure the flow also varies with time and the flow to the individual well can
vary from 3 to 9.3m3/hr.
SPE-181615-MS 9

The following section describes the challenges faced and the field investigations, modifications done
thereof
Piping system failures were experienced largely attributed to vibration induced fatigue. These failures
occurred both at the suction and discharge lines of the Positive Displacement Pumps. The vibration is
attributed mainly to the non-Newtonian behavior of the polymer fluid. The viscoelastic nature of the Polymer
Fluid is believed to induce flow related vibrations in the system. Also, the volume and the pressure of
injection changes with time. The positive displacement pumps also exhibits pulsation as the fluid is pumped
through it. The suction and discharge accumulators provided at the suction and discharge of the pumps need
to suitably designed to ensure that they are designed for the entire operating range of flow and pressure.
The following field investigations, trial and modifications were explored and executed:

• Changes to flow, pressure of the suction and discharge piping

• Maintaining and monitoring the suction and discharge accumulator/dampener pressure

• Providing additional pipe supports at the suction and discharge piping

• Re-designing the accumulator/dampener design for a wider range of operating pressures

• Removal of piping equipment wherever possible to reduce the weight on the weld joint

• Providing additional stiffeners for the pipe support

• Avoiding the cantilever of pipes or providing support at both directions

• Reducing the length of small bore pipe branch connection to the main pipe

• Usage of flexible hose for connection at the suction and discharge piping close to the pumps in
order to release the fatigue energy caused due to pulsation
• Providing a buffer volume of storage at the pump suction to ensure seamless flow to the pump
suction
Based on the above trials and modifications, the following were found to be most effective in addressing
the issues of flow induced vibrations:
1. Provision of buffer volume at the pump suction will help in providing enough suction volume to the
pumps especially when multiple pumps are operating in parallel.
2. Pulsation dampeners should be designed for the entire range of operation both at the suction and
discharge side.
3. Where the suction system pulsation levels are significantly high, redesigning of the suction header
is critical to avoid pump from cavitation and starvation. Cavitation causes shock wave that gets
transmitted through the suction piping; this can excite acoustical resonance causing piping vibration
at the mechanical frequency of the pipe span leading to failure.
4. The number of piping elements on the system must be kept to a minimum as possible.

Supply chain strategy for polymer logistics

The full field implementation of the project warrants handling a huge amount of polymer. The polymer
consumption during the full field flood is expected to be 60000-65000 Metric Tons per year. This is a
significant volume of global PAM consumption and PAM consumed in the Oil Industry.
In order to ensure uninterrupted delivery, a robust supply chain strategy was developed focusing on
right inventory levels, mode of transport, medium of movement and overall operating model. Polymer
from multiple suppliers is bought to the Mundra Port in India in the form of Containers (~20-25 Tons per
Container) and inland transportation is carried out via railway transportation (inland transportation is around
10 SPE-181615-MS

~600 kms). The total cycle time for one batch of containers is 75 days and orders are placed on a monthly
basis to ensure consistent maintenance of inventory levels.

Conclusion
The Non-Newtonian characteristics of the Polymer Mother Solution poses significant challenges in the
overall design and implementation of the Polymer Flood. The following points summarize the points
discussed in detailed in the paper:
1. Both the technologies for Polymer dissolution have been successful in preparing high concentration
of polymer Mother Solution.
2. The Pressure drop estimation for Concentrated Polymer Solution flow is dependent on the Rheology
of the Polymer Solution and an approach as outlined in the paper will provide a more realistic estimate
of the actual pressure drop.
3. The Visco-Elastic nature of the Polymer Fluid needs to be considered rigorously in the design phase
in order to prevent flow induced vibration issues.
4. In order to ensure uninterrupted delivery, a robust supply chain strategy needs to be developed
focusing on right inventory levels, mode of transport, medium of movement and overall operating
model

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the following people and organizations:
1. Senior Management of Cairn India Limited for key business support and strategy guidance.
2. Colleagues at Cairn India Limited for their support and advice at various stages of Project
Implementation.
3. All Contractors and Suppliers who worked tirelessly with us in delivering the Project successfully.

References
1. SPE-169709: Challenges in 'Surface Facilities Implementation' for a Full field Polymer Flood
Project, Premashis Bhaumik, Santosh Mohanram, Cairn India Limited
2. SPE-179807: Challenges in Full Field Polymer Injection Mangala in Field, Nirav Mehta, Gautam
Kapadia and Paneer Selvam, Cairn India Limited
3. Sizing pipe for Non Newtonian flow – W.L McCabe, J.C Smith, Peter Harriot, Unit Operations
of Chemical Engineering, Calculating liquid regimes, Blazo Ljubicic, Brown Fintube-Koch
Company, USA
4. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook