LABORATORY STUDY REGARDING THE INFLUENCE OF

POLYMER’S RHEOLOGY ON INACCESSIBLE PORE VOLUME AT “X”

FIELD
Erdico Prasidya Saktika, Rizky Aulia Rahman
UPN “Veteran” Yogyakarta

Abstract
Theoretically, the higher the polymer’s viscosity, the higher the mobility
ratio, thus the displacement of oil by the injection fluid becomes more efficient and
the Recovery Factor becomes higher. However, there is a phenomenon where the
polymer with higher viscosity does not guarantee a greater result in terms of
recovery factor. Apparently, this phenomenon occurred because of the presence of
Inaccessible Pore Volume (IPV) which caused by the molecular size difference
between the pore and the polymer, so that the polymer cannot enter the pore of rock
containing oil, thus reducing the recovery factor. This paper will analyze the
influence of polymer’s rheology on the value of IPV in the “X” Field using rheology
and injectivity test at laboratory scale of FP3630S and ChemEOR polymer on Berea
core. Inorganic salt is used as tracer to differentiate the molecular size of the
polymer.
The result of rheology and concentration measurement shows the graph shift
between the polymer and the tracer. The measurement of the area below
concentration curve versus pore volume is set to determine the value of IPV for
each polymer. The rheology test indicates that ChemEOR has a higher viscosity
than FP3630S, yet it has a lower RF than FP3630S (9.49% to 15.81%) when it
comes to coreflood test. The rheology test also confirms that the FP3630S
polymer’s molecular size is smaller than ChemEOR’s. The result of injectivity test
shows that FP3630S polymer has IPV value of 23%, lower than ChemEOR which
is 30%. This confirms that the molecular size of the polymer influences the presence
of IPV, and the presence of IPV interfere the displacement of oil by the polymer,
thus reducing the recovery factor.
Keywords: Polymer, Inaccessible Pore Volume (IPV), Rheology, Adsorbance
1. Introduction
As the reservoir pressure needed in natural flow decrease as time goes, another
method is needed to increase the oil recovery, and one of them is polymer flood.
Polymer flood is a method in which water injected to reservoir is enhanced by
polymer to improve the mobility ratio between water and oil, then increasing the
displacement efficiency and finally increasing the recovery factor (RF).
Theoretically, higher polymer viscosity leads to higher oil recovery. However,
when coreflood test is conducted, the result doesn’t always follow the proposed
theory. Under certain condition, higher polymer viscosity generates less RF and
vice versa. This phenomenon is caused by Inaccessible Pore Volume (IPV), a pore
which polymer cannot enter when injected due to the molecular size difference.
Since this IPV phenomenon affects the recovery factor of polymer flood, a method
to determine IPV is needed to analyze the effect of polymer’s rheology on IPV
value.

Rheology Behavior of Polymer

ChemEOR and FP3630S is polyacrylamide-based polymer which is classified as

inorganic polymer. Inorganic polymer is known to be vulnerable to salinity. To
observe the effect of salinity on viscosity, we use Brookfield LVDV3T Viscometer
CV40 Spindle. The viscosity data acquired then is used to measure the designated
mobility ratio of the polymer and oil using this formula:

(1)

Inaccessible Pore Volume (IPV)

Polymer flooding’s effectivity may reduce when inaccessible pore volume (IPV)
occurs. Due to large molecular size of polymer, some pore volume cannot be
entered, thus leaving some space not swept by the polymer. To prove the presence
of IPV, Dawson and Lantz (1972) compared the time needed by water and polymer
to pass through a core during injection using the formula as follows:
 L A w L L A p L
tw   ;tp   (2)
Vw q Vp q

As a result, the time needed for water to pass through the core is longer than
polymer. This indicates that the polymer did not pass through all pores, making it
faster to reach the front. Juan Zhao et al. (2010) stated in order to measure the IPV,
core injection with double slug (polymer and tracer) is used. The measurement
compares the normalization curve of concentration vs pore volume area between
the polymer and its tracer. The normalization of concentration is formulated as
follows:
Cp*= Cp/Cp0 ; Cs*= Cs/Cs0 (3)
The area below the curve is measured as follows:
∫(Cs ∗ − Cp ∗)dPV/PV (4)

2. Methodology
To achieve the results needed, several approaches are made to analyze the effect of
IPV. The approach used in this analysis are literature study and laboratory study.
The literature study is used to collect and review the theories needed to support the
laboratory study regarding the IPV. Meanwhile, the laboratory study is divided into
rheology test and injectivity test. FP3630S and ChemEOR polymer is prepared with
various concentration. Rheology test is conducted upon these polymers to measure
the viscosity with shear rate, concentration, and salinity as independent variables.
Afterwards, injectivity test using Atomic Adsorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) is
conducted to measure the adsorbance of the tracer, and UV/vis Spectrophotometer
is conducted to measure the adsorbance of the two polymers on Berea core. The
adsorbance value of the tracer and each polymer are then converted into
concentration according to the standard curve of each substance.
3. Results and Discussion
Polymer’s Rheology
The rheology of the polymer is examined using Brookfield LVDV3T Viscometer
CV40 Spindle to analyze the viscosity of polymer with shear rate, concentration,
and salinity as independent variables.
1. Shear rate variable
The test is conducted under 1000 ppm polymer concentration and 1000
ppm salinity.

Figure 1 – Shear Rate vs Viscosity Graph

Result shows that the decline of ChemEOR is steeper than FP3630S’,
indicating that ChemEOR’s viscosity is more susceptible to shear rate
change, which is called shear degradation.
2. Concentration variable
Polymer’s viscosity is measured in various concentration (500, 1000,
1500, and 2000 ppm) under 1000 ppm salinity and 7 s-1 shear rate
condition.
 Figure 2 – Polymer Concentration vs Viscosity Graph
The graph shows that ChemEOR has higher viscosity than FP3630S under
the same concentration.
3. Salinity variable
The test is conducted in 200, 1000, 2000, and 5000 ppm salinity with
constant polymer concentration and shear rate (1500 ppm and 7 s-1).

Figure 3 – Salinity vs Viscosity Graph

The result shows that the viscosity decline of each polymer tend to be the
same, indicating both polymers have resistance to salinity that is not much
different.

Based on the mobility ratio designed for Field “X” that has been calculated before,
the viscosity needed to improve the mobility value is set to 25 cp and based of
concentration vs viscosity graph (Figure 2), less ChemEOR concentration is
 needed to reach the determined viscosity value than FP3630S (700 to 1010 ppm).
Later, a coreflood test on Field “X” was conducted before using 1000 ppm of
polymer concentration. Based on that data, the injectivity test on the polymers is set
at the concentration of 1000 ppm.
Coreflood Test
Coreflood test on Field “X” using ChemEOR and FP3630S with the same
concentration (1000 ppm) generates results as follows:
Table 1 – Coreflood Test Result on Field “X”

PARAMETER UNIT POLYMER PERFORMANCE RESULT

Core
General Chemical Polymer ChemEOR FP3630S
Information Konsentrasi ppm 1000 1000
Viscosity1 cp
Brine Permeability md 352.06 312.41
Gas Porosity % 22.90 23.95
Core Properties
Brine Porosity % 21.04 21.62
Pore Volume cm3 6.16 6.07
OOIP cm3 3.90 4.30
Oil Saturation
Initial Oil Saturation, Soi % 63.34 70.84
Cumulative Oil cm3 1.15 1.27
Recovery Factor, RF %IOIP 29.49 29.53
Water Flood
Residual Oil cm3 2.75 3.03
Residual Oil Saturation, Sor % 44.67 49.91
Cumulative Oil cm3 0.37 0.68
Recovery Factor, RF %IOIP 9.49 15.81
Polymer Flood (and
Recovery Factor, RF %ROIP 13.45 22.44
Post Flush)
Residual Oil cm3 2.38 2.35
Residual Oil Saturation, Sor % 38.66 38.71
Cumulative Oil cm3 1.52 1.95
Total Flood
Recovery Factor, RF %IOIP 38.97 45.35
ChemEOR polymer generates 9.49% IOIP increasement from polymer
flood, meanwhile FP3630S generates 15.81% IOIP increasement.
Injectivity Test
Injectivity test is conducted to measure the adsorbance of the polymer on rock
surface. The scenario for injectivity test is done as follows:

Brine Brine Brine

Core Injectio Tracer Injection Polymer Injection
Prepara
-tion n(Pre- Injection (Pre-Flush Injection (Post-
Flush 1) 2) Flush)

Figure 4 – Scenario for Injectivity Test

Each effluent of fluid from the injectivity test is then contained in a cuvet and later
the adsorbance is analyzed by UV/vis Spectrophotometer for polymer and Atomic
Adsorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) for the tracer, and later, the adsorbance is
converted into concentration.
As for tracer adsorbance, the result of AAS test is shown as the table and graph
below:
Table 2 – ChemEOR’s Tracer AAS Test Result
Sample Name Absorbance KCL Concentration (ppm)
KCL 1 pv 1.0698 0
KCL 2 pv 0.8617 0
KCL 3 pv 0.8009 0
KCL 4 pv 0.7863 0
KCL 5 PV 0.7743 5.912149
KCL 6 PV 0.9874 10.03995
KCL 7 pv 1.1009 12.23862
KCL Flush 1 pv 1.3371 16.81288
KCL Flush 2 pv 1.3561 17.18089
KCL Flush 3 pv 1.4025 18.07966
KCL Flush 4 pv 1.4358 18.72455
KCL Flush 5 pv 1.3796 17.63608
KCL Flush 6 pv 1.2171 14.48866
KCL Flush 7 pv 1.0489 11.23077
KCL Flush 8 pv 0.8800 7.959388
 Effluent 0.6 cc/min 0.2813 0
Effluent 1cc/min 0.2169 0

Table 3 – FP3630S’ Tracer AAS Test Result

Sample Name Absorbance KCL Concentration
(ppm)
KCL 1 pv 0.3847 0
KCL 2 pv 0.2834 0
KCL 3 pv 0.2525 0
KCL 4 pv 0.2145 0
KCL 5 pv 0.2861 0
KCL 6 pv 0.4856 0.519308
KCL 7 pv 0.7411 4.809494
KCL Flush 1 pv 0.9416 8.176157
KCL Flusg 2 pv 1.0444 9.902307
KCL Flush 3 pv 1.112 11.0374
KCL Flush 4 pv 1.1393 11.4958
KCL Flush 5 pv 1.0564 10.1038
KCL Flush 6 pv 0.9277 7.942758
KCL Flush 7 pv 0.7944 5.704472
KCL Flush 8 pv 0.646 3.212638
Effluent 0.6 cc/min 0.5103 0.934054
Effluent 1cc/min 0.247 0
The concentration value is then converted to normalized concentration using
equation (2). The result is plotted into graph below:

Figure 5 –Pore Volume vs ChemEOR’s Tracer Normalized Concentration

Graph
 Figure 6 –Pore Volume vs FP3630S’ Tracer Normalized Concentration
Graph
The adsorbance of polymer is measured by UV/vis Spectrophotometer on 216 nm
wavelength. The result is shown by the tables and graphs below:
Table 3 – ChemEOR Polymer UV/vis Spectrophotometer Test Result
Sample Name Adsorbance ChemEOR Concentration
(ppm)
Polymer 1 pv 0.022963 0
Polymer 2 pv 0.053578 0
Polymer 3 pv 0.184629 0
Polymer 4 pv 0.966107 637.9384
Polymer 5 pv 1.113170 801.7149
Polymer 6 pv 1.129170 819.5333
Polymer 7 pv 1.160590 854.5241
Polymer Flush 1 pv 1.291220 1000
Polymer Flush 2 pv 1.001860 677.7547
Polymer Flush 3 pv 0.366689 0
Polymer Flush 4 pv 0.263493 0
Polymer Flush 5 pv 0.222719 0
Polymer Flush 6 pv 0.172280 0
Polymer Flush 7 pv 0.143279 0
Effluent 0.6 cc/min 0.062682 0
Effluent 1cc/min 0 0

Table 4 – FP3630S Polymer UV/vis Spectrophotometer Test Result

Sample Name Adsorbance FP3630S Concentration

(ppm)
Polymer 1 pv 0.414718 0
 Polymer 2 pv 0.436481 0
Polymer 3 pv 0.873065 63.15952
Polymer 4 pv 1.381520 751.499
Polymer 5 pv 1.504050 917.3784
Polymer 6 pv 1.522790 942.7484
Polymer 7 pv 1.565080 1000
Polymer Flush 1 pv 1.535260 959.6301
Polymer Flush 2 pv 1.050930 303.9507
Polymer Flush 3 pv 0.628014 0
Polymer Flush 4 pv 0.525793 0
Polymer Flush 5 pv 0.454478 0
Polymer Flush 6 pv 0.420694 0
Polymer Flush 7 pv 0.368825 0
Effluent 0.6 cc/min 0.412431 0
Effluent 1cc/min 0.292038 0

The result is the plotted to graph using similar method to the tracer.

Figure 7 – Pore Volume vs ChemEOR Normalized Concentration Graph

Figure 7 – Pore Volume vs FP3630S Normalized Concentration Graph

The graphs of each polymer and its tracer can be merged into one graph so the
IPV can be calculated.

Figure 8 – ChemEOR and Tracer Combined Normalization Concentration

Graph

Figure 9 – FP3630S and Tracer Combined Normalization Concentration

Graph
IPV Result
After the normalized concentration curve of each substance is established, the IPV
value of each polymer can be calculated by subtracting the area below the curve
between the polymer and its tracer. Since the result of IPV using equation (3) seems
to be negative, another approach is used to calculate the area, which is by dividing
the area into multiple trapezoids. Once the area below the curve is known, the next
step is the same as mentioned before.
The IPV value of ChemEOR is calculated to be 40.3%, meanwhile the IPV value
of FP3630S is 23.12%. Comparing to the recovery factor acquired by each polymer,
which is 9.49% on ChemEOR and 15.81% on FP3630S, the result of the study
shows that the higher the value of IPV, the less the recovery factor acquired because
less pore volume can be entered by polymer molecule due to its large molecular
size, thus reducing the sweep efficiency. This explains that higher viscosity does
not always yield better result in recovery factor.
4. Conclusion
From the laboratory study that has been conducted, molecular size of the polymer
is one of the parameters which affects the recovery factor of polymer flooding.
Greater molecular size yields higher viscosity, which means higher oil
displacement. On the other hand, a big molecular size polymer cannot enter small
area of rock pore due to its size difference, leading to a phenomenon called
inaccessible pore volume (IPV). In this case, ChemEOR polymer which has a
higher viscosity than FP3630S polymer generates less recovery factor due to higher
IPV value. This shows that rheology of polymer, especially the molecular size
should be taken into consideration on polymer selection. A further research might
be needed to examine the effect of other parameter on IPV but from this study, it
can be concluded that the rheology of polymer affects the presence of IPV, and the
IPV affects the recovery factor of polymer flooding.
5. Acknowledgement