English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the February 2006 issue of JPT, H.L. Chang et al. reported on some of the pilot and commercial-scale field activities of polymer flooding and alkaline/surfactant/polymer (ASP) flooding that were performed in China (Chang et al. 2006). Unquestionably, polymer flooding and ASP flooding are proven processes, and China should be proud of their work in these areas. Unfortunately, the article also advocated a controversial technology [flooding with aqueous colloidal-dispersion gels (CDGs)] as being superior to polymer flooding. I submit that this claim is misleading and generally incorrect. CDGs [i.e., relatively low concentrations of partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) crosslinked with aluminum citrate] should not be applied without carefully examining the purported science and engineering behind this process. Chang et al. speculated that low-concentration aluminum citrate/HPAM microgels propagate through porous rock like superpolymer solutions. Specifically, they suggested that these CDG formulations penetrate deep into porous matrix reservoir rock and subsequently provide higher resistance factors (effective viscosities in porous media) and residual resistance factors (permeability-reduction factors) than comparable HPAM polymer solutions without cross-linker. However, independent results from three university research laboratories demonstrated conclusively that this assertion is not correct (see Seright 2006 and Wang et al. 2006 for details). Another assertion made in the February article (Conclusion 3 on page 87) is that "a large amount of CDG would preferentially enter the high-permeability or thief zones and divert polymer or water into medium- and low-permeability zones." This assertion contradicts basic calculations with Darcy's law (Seright 2006). Furthermore, the field evidence given to support CDG gels can readily be attributed to other, more plausible, factors. In many cases, questions arise whether the aluminum citrate had a positive effect on the field results. More details can be found in Seright 2006 and Wang et al. 2006.

journal of petroleum technology

Discussion and Reply to "Advances in Polymer Flooding and Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Processes as Developed and Applied in the People's Republic of China"