Half-Century of Heavy Oil Polymer Flooding from Laboratory Core Floods to Pilot Tests and Field Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reservoir development is increasingly moving towards the heavy oil resources due to the rapid decline in conventional oil reserves. With the production of conventional low gravity crude oil being surpassed by heavy oil production in Alberta, the vast fields of heavy oil have been considered an emerging source of energy to the growing demands for oil and gas. Although the applications of thermal methods have been successful in many enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, they are usually uneconomic or impractical in deep and thin pay zones reservoirs. Therefore, polymer flooding is a preferred EOR technique in such reservoirs. An application of polymer flooding in heavy oil reservoirs dates back to more than half a century ago. However, it has long been considered a suitable method for reservoirs with viscosities up to 100 centipoises only. Recently, this EOR technique has attracted great attentions and become a promising method for oil recovery from heavy oil reservoirs with viscosities ranging from several hundreds to several thousands of centipoises. The main reasons for such a widespread application of the technique in heavy oil reservoirs during the last two decades have been rises in oil prices, extensive use of horizontal wells and advances in the polymer manufacturing technology. This paper aims to review the advances and technological trends of polymer flooding in heavy oil reservoirs since the 1960s. Upon the review, complete data sets of the laboratory works, pilot tests and field applications are established. The database provides qualitative description and quantitative statistics regarding both scientific research and practical applications. Then suitable ranges of some crucial affecting reservoir properties and polymer characteristics for successful field applications are examined. Finally, new screening criteria are developed specifically for heavy oil reservoirs based on an analysis of the data. The criteria are compared with the previously established ones. The outcome of this paper can be used as guidelines for screening, planning, design and eventually implementation of future projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".