Review Investigates Selection of Viscosities for Injected Polymers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
_ This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 222035, “Selecting Injected Viscosity in Polymer Flood Projects: A Controversial and Critical Question,” by Eric Delamaide, SPE, IFP Technologies. The paper has not been peer reviewed. _ Polymer injection is now a mature enhanced-oil-recovery process, and numerous large-scale expansions are currently underway while new projects are being designed globally. Some practitioners advocate injecting very high viscosities, while others advocate the opposite. The paper explains why the question of polymer-viscosity selection remains without a clear answer and describes the arguments of both positions using case studies. Paper Scope The complete paper is a comprehensive review of global projects in which the issue of injected-polymer viscosity has been explored by the author in a variety of scenarios and contexts. Because of the detailed nature of the review of these studies, this portion of the paper, which makes up its majority, is not included here; instead, the discussion and conclusions reached by this paper’s author are preserved and included in this synopsis. The aspects of the issue detailed in the complete paper include the following: - Polymer viscosity and recovery factor ---- Microscopic displacement efficiency ---- Areal sweep efficiency ---- Vertical sweep efficiency --------- Multilayer reservoirs with crossflow --------- Multilayers with no crossflow ---- Field experience --------- Monolayer reservoirs --------- Multilayer reservoirs with crossflow --------- Multilayer reservoirs without crossflow - Concentration and adsorption - Injectivity and fracturing ---- When fracturing is not desired/expected ---- When fractures are desired/expected ---- Field cases - In-depth polymer flow ---- Field cases - Surface facilities issues - Operations Discussion This paper discusses the effect of injected-polymer viscosity on various aspects of a project, from recovery to surface facilities. The review includes both theoretical arguments and practical field experience because these do not always align. In theory, increasing polymer viscosity to achieve a favorable mobility ratio is preferable and would lead to the highest recovery, particularly in the case of multilayered reservoirs with crossflow. Increasing polymer viscosity to achieve mobility ratios below 0.1, however, seems difficult to justify. In multilayered reservoirs with no crossflow, vertical sweep efficiency will, in practice, be limited, even with an infinite polymer viscosity, unless significant volumes of polymer are injected. Finally, field experience has shown that increasing polymer viscosity does not always result in increased recovery. In the case of polymer injection, theory can be misleading and should be considered with caution. Discussion on viscous crossflow, and field experience in heavy oil, has shown hidden complexity. Increasing injected-polymer viscosity in heavy-oil fields, as suggested by some authors, ignores the economic realities of heavy-oil operations. Heavy oil is sold at a significant discount compared with West Texas Intermediate, and reducing operating costs is paramount. Increasing injected viscosity did not guarantee an increase in recovery as shown in Tambaredjo and a field case in Saskatchewan, though polymer cost increased significantly. In addition, in western Canadian fields, injection pressure is regulated—injecting 0.5 pore volumes can take almost 20 years. Thus, many factors must be considered besides theory, which is what operators are doing.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».