Colloidal Dispersion Gels: An Analysis of Vendor Claims Regarding Gel Placement and Permeability Reductio

Using various oil recovery techniques increases the cost of producing oil. On the other hand, if the oil price is high, increase in oil recovery through that method has monetary benefits. We have analyzed literature that encourage the use of Colloidal Dispersion Gel as a substitute to polymer flooding. The literature, which involves some laboratory work by different researchers, claim that the CDGs can enter deep into the reservoir and at the same time provide resistance factors (Rf) and residual resistance factors (Rrf) better than polymer flooding. We have analyzed these claims and compared them with various concepts of reservoir engineering and with laboratory results obtained by other research scientist. We have also reviewed a recent field report, which claims to have obtained incremental oil recovery of 2.3% OOIP. We have put forward our reasons why we think that the claims given in all the papers seem to be invalid.;From our analysis, it is clear that there is no credible evidence that CDGs can propagate deep into and at the same time provide greater resistance and residual resistance factors as compared to polymer flooding.;We conclude that the money spent on crosslinker for the CDG formation is a waste and do no good in recovering any extra oil, from that of a polymer flood. On the contrary, CDG flood may actually damage the reservoir by face plugging of gels and extensive loss of polymer. Although we have proved in this thesis that aluminum from the CDG cannot flow all the way through the reservoir and be produced in the production wells, in one exception Chang et al. (2006) reported oil fields in China to have produced 1-20% aluminum. We agree with the reason that some unreacted HPAM and aluminum in the injected concentration would have been in excess. However, there is no evidence that the CDGs provide greater Rf and Rrf as compared to values obtained from conventional polymer floods.