Reservoir Engineering-Laboratory Research - Improved Secondary Recovery by Control of Water Mobility; Discussion

The reported decreases in water mobility do not seem unusual in view of non-Newtonian fluid properties. Shear stress vs shear rate diagrams have been reported for other solutions of water-soluble polymers. Some of these polymers are similar to the type mentioned by the author. Generally, the shear stress-shear rate is a non-linear function for these solutions. Data for plotting apparent viscosity vs shear rate can be obtained from this function. Apparent viscosity is defined as the ratio of shear stress to shear rate at a given shear rate. When plotted, the apparent viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate. This behavior is typical of a pseudoplastic fluid. For some water-soluble polymer solutions, the apparent viscosity decreases more than 50 times while the shear rate increases 1,000 times. Thus, viscosity of a pseudoplastic fluid only has meaning at a specified shear rate. Results of Fig. 1 could be explained in these terms. Viscosities measured in the Ostwald viscometer represent values at a given shear rate. Some average shear rate is affecting the polymer solutions while flowing through the core. This average value fixes the apparent viscosity as long as the flow rate remains constant. Viscosities measured by the two methods will be equal if shear rates are the same. The results indicate that shear rate in the core is lower (higher apparent viscosity) than in the viscometer. In the paper by Johnson, Bossler and Naumann, the relative permeability is independent of viscosity ratio. Thus, the relative permeability with respect to water flow at residual oil should be independent of the flowing phase viscosity. Polymer solutions will appear as Newtonian fluids The discussion emphasizes the nature of the "resistance factor effect" as discussed in the paper. Repeated anomalies arising in hundreds of experiments led us to the conclusion that non-Newtonian flow is not the only factor. Several of the key anomalies are as follows: 1. Measured viscosities over a range of shear rates from <1 sec-&apos; to 1,000 sec-&apos; do not account for but a minor fraction of the R observed in cores when compared in similar shear-rate ranges. 2. The slope of R vs flow rates in cores is always different from that expected from viscometer shear-rate measurements as shown in Fig. 2. in a core, the level of viscosity being fixed at a given flow rate. With these conditions, the definition of resistance factor R by Eq. 2 is simplified to Since , is constant with rate, R becomes a measure of the apparent viscosity in a core at a given flow rate. Variation in flow rate could easily account for the changes of R shown in Fig. 5. Also, this points to the fallacy of assuming R to be a unique parameter. The constant resistance factors at different flooding velocities appear to be in disagreement with the above discussion. The author furnishes Fig. 2 to support his arguments. As shown, the resistance factors remained substantially constant in the two cores over a considerable range of flooding velocities. However, in the 73-md core, the factor increases at lower rates. This behavior agrees with known characteristics of some pseudoplastic material. These materials act both as Newtonian and as non-Newtonian fluids in different regions of shear rate. Some exhibit first Newtonian, then non-Newtonian, finally, Newtonian character. Others are first non-Newtonian and then Newtonian. This latter type would explain the results with the 73-md core. The Fann-instrument results are not significant since shear rates in the core may be much different than with the viscometer. The higher resistance factor at high rates in the 150-md core is more difficult to explain. The greater resistance at increased flow rates could be attributed to what might be termed temporary bridging. As envisioned, changes in polymer configuration occur at the higher energy associated with the increased flow rate. These changes could cause less effective passage of polymer through the core. Correspondingly, increases in pressure drop will occur. These will be interpreted as higher resistance factors. 3. Most polymer solutions are non-Newtonian and many are more shear-rate sensitive than the polymers in question, yet only a very few polymers demonstrate useful R values. Gogarty&apos;s assumption that viscosities in cores and vis-cometers will be the same if measured at the same shear rate is only valid if non-Newtonian rheology is the only parameter. The experimental evidence does not validate this assumption. The anomalies observed in the equilibrium displacement experiment shown in Fig. 5 are not explained on the basis of varying flow rates since the rates were held constant. M