Gorell, Homsy - 1983 - A Theory of The Optimal Policy of Oil Recovery by Secondary Displacement Processes - SIAM J Appl Math

A Theory of the Optimal Policy of Oil Recovery by Secondary Displacement Processes
Author(s): Sheldon B. Gorell and G. M. Homsy

Source: SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 79-98
Published by: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2101146
Accessed: 05-09-2017 19:25 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics
This content downloaded from 139.82.148.238 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 19:25:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SIAM J. APPL. MATH. ? 1983 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Vol. 43, No. 1, February 1983 0036-1399/83/4301-0007 $01.25/0
A THEORY OF THE OPTIMAL POLICY

OF OIL RECOVERY BY SECONDARY
DISPLACEMENT PROCESSES*
SHELDON B. GORELLt AND G. M. HOMSYt
Abstract. We consider the stability of the displacement of a viscous fluid in a porous medium by a
less viscous fluid containing a solute. For the case in which the total amount of injected solute is fixed, we
formulate a theory for the optimal injection policy, i.e., the policy which minimizes the growth constant
of the Saffman-Taylor-Chouke instability. The result is a nonlinear constrained eigenvalue problem with
the viscosity ratio, a, of the two fluids and the total solute, N, as parameters. We develop perturbation
solutions for large and small N and numerical solutions for all N. Several features of the optimal policy
which have been noted or demonstrated empirically by previous workers are proven, and new features of
the solution are discussed.
1. Introduction. The need to produce oil from porous reservoirs in a more

efficient manner is one which is immediate and has a large global impact. The field
of enhanced oil recovery is therefore one which is currently quite active, and a variety
of specific processes which lead to improved recovery efficiency are under intensive
study. We shall be interested in so-called secondary recovery processes which attempt
to produce oil by displacement with a second fluid, usually air or water. This is often
accompanied by the addition of surfactants, energy, polymers in dilute quantities,
gases and foams. For a detailed description of some of these processes, see Shah and
Schecter (1977). In many cases, additives are used because the macroscopic boundary
between oil and displacing fluid becomes unstable if the displacing fluid has a lower
viscosity than the oil. This appears to have been recognized as early as the 1940's,
and definitive stability analyses are due to Saffman and Taylor (1958), and Chouke,
van Meurs and van der Poel (1959). These authors showed that a certain instability
of the boundary between oil and displacing fluid will occur if the displacement velocity
U is such that U > Uc where
(1.1) (k2 k1) Uc + (P2 -P1)g cos O = 0

with U = Uc being the critical velocity. Here ,u is the viscosity, k is the permeability,
p the density, a the angle of inclination with respect to the vertical, g is the gravitational
acceleration and the subscripts 1, 2 refer to the displacing and displaced fluid,
respectively. Furthermore, the growth constant, o, of a small disturbance exhibits a
maximum as a function of wave number if surface tension acts at the macroscopic
boundary. Certain of these results are recapitulated below. Without surface tension
the growth constant is unbounded with increasing wave number, leading to a prediction
of greater instability the shorter the wave length. With surface tension, a cutoff wave
number exists. In the case of porous media, this presents a dilemma, since, although
surface tension acts upon the oil-water interface, it does so on the microscopic length
scale of the pores or particles comprising the medium and not on the macroscopic
scale assumed by Darcy's law. Both sets of authors recognized this, as many previous
and past authors had, and both reported Hele-Shaw model experiments, for which
the effect of surface tension may be rigorously treated.
* Received by the editors April 13, 1981, and in revised form November 10, 1981. This work was
supported by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy.
t Department of Chemical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
79
80 SHELDON B. GORELL AND G. M. HOMSY
Surface tension in porous media is treated empirically through an effective surface

tension acting at the macroscopic interface between oil and the displacing fluid. Such
an empiricism cannot be rigorously justified, and the proper treatment of surface
tension in instability problems of this sort is, at present, lacking. We adopt its use
here as an expedient, as experiments show a clearly preferred mode, indicating that
a cutoff wave number exists. In this paper we are generally concerned with processes
in which the effect of the additive (referred to below as the solute) is to weaken or
eliminate the Saffman-Taylor-Chouke instability. We furthermore restrict ourselves
to the case in which the primary mechanism for this effect is to increase the viscosity
of the displacing fluid.
Among the earliest works on the subject of front stabilization is that of Slobod
and Lestz (1960). These authors reported, among other things, that the severity of
the instability was reduced by using a sequence of slugs of polymer additive, decreasing
in concentration, which resulted in a stepwise decrease in the viscosity of the displacing
fluid. In this way, processes with an unstable viscosity ratio were effectively stabilized.
Furthermore, they found that a smooth decrease in concentration (viscosity) resulted
in complete stabilization over the duration of the displacement process.
Mungan (1971) later performed similar experiments in both porous media and
two-dimensional Hele-Shaw configurations, using both polyacrylamide and polyethyl-
ene oxide, two commercial polymer additives. Using a policy of grading the concentra-
tion, he was able to completely stabilize displacements with large unfavorable
viscosity ratios. It is worth pointing out that the concentration profile used was
one for which the concentration of injected polymer decreased exponentially with
time (distances from the front), with a relaxation constant determined in an ad-hoc
fashion.
Later, Uzoigwe, Scanlon and Jewett (1974) pointed out that the concentration
levels Mungan used were not economically viable for production in the field. They
therefore undertook a two-dimensional numerical simulation of the graded concentra-
tion (viscosity) process in which polymer injection policies were examined by trial-and-
error using over 100 separate computer runs. The conclusions of interest in this context
were that the concentration must be smoothly decreased from a value resulting in a
near viscosity match at the front, that the concentration should fall to zero a finite
distance in back of the front, and that the best policy seems to be one in which the
concentration decreased exponentially over the finite distance.
The only theoretical study known to us on the subject is an unpublished work
by Pearson (1977). Pearson formulated the linear stability problem for displacing
fluids whose viscosity is a known given function of position relative to the displacement
front; see Fig. 1. He reported numerical results for the cases in which this function
was either linear or exponential over a finite lepgth to the rear of the advancing
interface. For the parameters studied, he found the exponential profile to be the more
stable.
In this paper we develop a theory which is capable of describing the optimal
policy which if followed, minimizes the effects of the Saffman-Taylor-Chouke instabil-
ity. Many features of the results of earlier investigators may be proven with such a
theory, and many new features of the problem are derived here for the first time.
2. Basic equations and scaling. In this section we present the basic equations
which govern flow through a porous medium. It is assumed that the flowing fluids are
neutrally buoyant and incompressible and the medium is homogeneous with a constant
permeability. Then motion is described by (2.1) and (2.2), the continuity equation
OIL RECOVERY BY SECONDARY DISPLACEMENT 81
and Darcy's law,
(2.1) V v=O,
(2.2) VP=-,uv.
Although the quantity ,u appearing in (2.2) is the viscosity of the fluid divided by the
permeability of the medium, we shall refer to it throughout as the viscosity.
We wish to consider flows for which the viscosity varies with distance due to the
addition of a solute. Adsorption, dispersion and diffusion of the solute in the porous
medium are neglected. It is further assumed that the relationship between solute
concentration and viscosity, , (c), is known and invertible to give c = c (,). The
continuity equation for solute is thus
(2.3) Dc =0.
Dt
In terms of viscosity Dc/Dt = (dc/d,t)Du/Dt, so (2.3) is equivalent to
(2.4) DtL .
Dt
We consider a two-dimensional problem with the base uniform flow in the x1

direction and no variation in the z direction. Letting v = (u, v), (2.1), (2.2) and (2.4)
can be rewritten
au av
(2.5) ax1 ay
(2.6) I =-ul
(2.7) ay -,v,
ay A
(2.8) aA+u ag +V =O.
(2.8) ~~~~~~at ax, ay
These equations admit the simple solution describing steady displacement
u=U, V=0, tL= ko(x1-Ut),
P = -uj' Ro(x' - Ut) dx' 3Po(x, t).

xo
We are interested in the stability of this solution. Linear perturbations to this base
state are considered and the x1 coordinate is transformed into the moving reference
frame x = x1 - Ut. The resulting linear stability equations governing small disturbances
are
au' av'
ax ay
(2.10) d= =-,- u 'U-uAu',a
apt
(2.11) P=' loV
ay
(2.12)
(2.12), ~~~
+a~~~~at
' dLodx =
Since the equations are linear in disturbance quantities, any real perturbation
can be decomposed into its Fourier components and analyzed separately. Consider a
disturbance velocity in the x direction of the form
(2.13) u' = +(x) exp {iky +crt},
where o- is the disturbance growth constant, and k is the disturbance wavenumber in

the y direction. Then (2.9), (2.11) and (2.12) imply that
(2.14) v t = k _ -exp {iky + ot},
(2.15) ' = -0-- r(x) exp {iky +ot},

dx
(2.16) P' -go(x)k -2 dq exp {iky + ot}.

Cross differentiating (2.10) and (2.11) and subtracting and substituting the expression
for u', v' and ,ui yields an ordinary differential equation governing +r(x):
(2.17) go Q_2,, +d/ kt>+ U d41 = O.

dx2 dx dx o- dx
Boundary conditions for (2.17) are obtained by consi
interface. Across an interface u' should be continuous and the pressure drop should
equal the surface tension times the curvature. If the base state has a sharp interface
at x = 71o, then the perturbed system will have one at x = -ro+ii'(y, t) where 71'(y, t) <<
iqo. Requiring a fluid element initially at the interface to remain there gives, to first
order, adl'/at = ujx =t70+71 . Therefore,
(2.18) 71 ( y, t) = 0 (,o)cr-l Iexp liky + oat}.

the total pressure at the interface is
P('rio +r'q) = Po(-r1o +711 (Y, t)) + P'('ro)
(2 .19) = Po(71 o) + 71 (y y t)-|p +P' (710)

ax X=7 I
= Po(,qo) - to(70)[ 0k2q +-u0(71o) expjiky+ot}.
It is instructive at this point to consider the simplest possible single interface

problem, that in which viscosity profiles are constant. We wish to find the growth
constant o- when a fluid with viscosity gi displaces one with viscosity /2(> 1). It is
assumed that there is an effective surface tension T acting at the interface x = rio. If
the displacement is in the positive x direction, then
(2.20) A (x) = A2A x<>tio0,

1,i X <7 0.
Solution of (2.17) is trivial when , (x) is constant, which is the problem first solved
by Saffman and Taylor (1958), and by Chouke, van Meurs and van der Poel (1959).
The solutions for +(x) which decay far from x = 71o are
(2.21) (x) = Ir(iqo) ek(x- ), x>7io,

The form of +f(x) in (2.21) insures that u' is continuous across the interface. The
pressure is obtained by applying (2.19) at either side of the interface.
(2.22) P =Po(7lo)-A2[Uo-1-k-1]O(f&o)exp{iky+o-t} atx =iqo,

P-= Po(71o) - I[Uo-1 + k-1]f(7o) exp {iky + o-t} at x = 710.
The curvature of the interface is (iq')yy to lowest order where q' is given by (2.1
The pressure drop across x = o10 is therefore
(2.23) P-P- = Tyy

Combining (2.22)-(2.23), we find
(2.24) 0f = (12-111)Uk - Tk
/11+/12
It can be seen that when surface tension is present there is a cutoff wavenumber
beyond which o- is negative. Also, there is a maximum growth constant 0m, which
occurs at wavenumber km:
(2.25a) 0-m = _((y + 9 )U(y 1U /
(2.25b) km 1((IL )
As is well known, the displacement process is unstable (stable) when 12 is greater

(less) than / 1.
As we pointed out in the introduction, processes exist which attempt to minimize
the degree of instability by injection of solutes which lead to a viscosity variation
within the displacing fluid. We seek the viscosity profile which minimizes the maximum
growth constant, subject to an integral constraint on the total amount of additive. We
develop a theory for this profile in the next section. In the case of varying puo(x)
boundary conditions at an interface may be derived in a manner analogous to (2.21)-
(2.23).
Consider the two interface problem depicted in Fig. 1. Without loss of generality,
the interfaces are taken to be at x = 0 and x = -1. I may be finite or infinite. There
are three regions that must be considered. In region 1, -0 o<x x -1, which may be
taken to contain water, the viscosity is a constant designated by ,-L. Region 2, which
may be taken to be oil, extends from x = 0 to x = a) and is characterized by constant
viscosity A2(> Z1). The intermediate region is for -I <x < 0, and here the viscosity
varies with x. The effective surface tension T acts at x = 0.
Equation (2.17) must be solved in each of the three regions. The solutions in
regions 1 and 2 are simple decaying exponentials
(2.26) (X) = | k(x +l)

ql(-I e 9 x<-l
viscoityRs()EvaluatiNg e a e(X) l
REIO I0 < <-0 REGION 2
)0 (0
; z *y 8? / INTERMEDIATE LSUFC
Th rxoftepolelisi slig(.7interio-l < x <0(? whrIh
-4 ~~~~0
X
FIG. 1. Schematic of the 2)iscosity profile in a displacement process.
The crux of the problem lies in solving (2.17) in the region - 1< x <O0 where the
viscosity is Auo(x). Evaluating the pressure at each interface gives rise to the following
boundary conditions at x = 0,
P+ = PO(O) - ,u2[U'r- - k -']+(0) exp {iky + ot},

P- = Po(O)- .k(O)[/'(O)k-2+ UC-'1 (0)1 exp {iky +o-t}.
Applying (2.22) where 7' = fr(O)o'-- exp {iky + ot} gives
(2.27) tk(O)'(O)=O(O){-ktk2+ Uk2 2-,U (0))-
Following the same procedure with no surface tension acting at x = -l gives
(2.28) ki(-l)ufr'(-l) = fr(-l) j k1 +Uk( (iu -,ao0)

The second order ordinary differential equation (2.17) with boundary conditions
(2.27) and (2.28) fully specifies the problem. The problem is now made dimensionless
using scales obtainable from the solution for constant viscosity. Defining quantities
a* = u(x)= ()
k*= k , a/=2
13km '
x ='I3kmx, L = '/3kml,
/* =f(x)
U'
results in a dimensionless formulation of the problem. For notational convenience the

*'s will be dropped, but unless otherwise specified we are working with dimensionless
quantities. For convenience we let A = 1/o- and the dimensionless equation and
boundary conditions become
(2.29) (0"-k 2)+ 'q'+k2A a1)y'+=?0
(2.30) ,u(0)qO'(0) = (-ka +(A 1) k2((a -A(O))-k2(a -1)) f(O),
(2.31) Z (-L)f'(-L) = (k + k2A (-?) (1- Z (-L))) e(-L)
We note for future reference that (2.29) may be written in self -adjoint form,
(2.32) (uf')'-k2if +3t'i = 0,
where 18 = k2A ((a + 1)/(a -1)).

Equations (2.29), (2.30) and (2.31) specify a linear eigenvalue problem where A
is the eigenvalue and f (x) is the eigenfunction. For any A (x) it is possible that m
eigenvalues and eigenfunctions can exist. The eigenvalue with the smallest positive
real part gives rise to largest growth constant 1/A, and this is the eigenvalue of interest.
The problem is complicated because A appears in both the differential equation and
the boundary conditions.
It will be shown in the next section how (2.29), (2.30) and (2.31) can be used to
develop a condition for the optimum viscosity profile , (x). This is the profile which
minimizes the maximum growth constant. It is convenient to simplify (2.31) at this
point however.
Whenever there is a positive jump in viscosity without surface tension it is easy
to show that a positive unbounded growth constant will result. Since we are assuming
that surface tension only acts at x =0, that is the only place where A (x) can be
discontinuous. In particular, there cannot be a viscosity jump at x = -L. Therefore,
(2.33) A (-L)= 1
and (2.31) is replaced by its simplfied version,
(2.34) 0'(-L) = k (-L)
3. Formulation of the optimum problem. In the derivation of (2.29), (2.30) and

(2.34) we explicitly assumed that the variation in viscosity was attained by controlling
the concentration of a solute and that the concentration-viscosity functionality for the
solute was invertible. In a process in which only a limited amount of solute is to be
used, we wish to develop a scheme which will best utilize the additive. The most
obvious approach is to produce the concentration profile which minimizes the growth
constant.
Suppose the total amount of additive is constrained such that in dimensional form
(3.1) A Jc(x') dx'=M,
where
c (x) is the additive concentration as a function of x,

A is the cross-sectional area in the y-z direction,
M is the total number of moles of additive.
In general, the concentration-viscosity

where ,u is the viscosity of the displacing fluid and c' is a constant with units of
concentration. The inverse functionality is represented as c = ef-gl(/, 1). Substituting
into (3.1) and nondimensionalizing as in ? 2, we find,
0
(3.2) JfA (x)) dx =N.
Here N = -V3kmM/Ac is the dimensionless amount of material added. To illustrate

the general formulation, the particular case when ,t = ,u 1(1 + (clc)) will be analyzed.
For this linear situation fl(, (x)) = , (x) - 1, so the particular version of (3.2) is
0
(3.3) SIL (x)-l)dx=N.
Equations (2.29), (2.30), (2.33), (2.34) and (3.2) provide enough information to
solve the optimum problem. First, it is assumed that solutions IL (x), +f(x) exist w
give rise to the least unstable situation, i.e., which minimize the growth constant. Now
consider perturbations from these extremizing functions characterized by a small
parameter E. These perturbed functions are denoted , (x, E), {4r(x, s), where , (x, 0)=
,u (x) and +r(x, 0) = +(x). Expanding in a perturbation series in E yields
(3.4) A (X, E) = A (X) + E,U. (X, 0) + O (E ),

(3.5) 0f(X,,E)= fr(X) +Ei(,(X, 0)+O(E 2).
These functions must still satisfy (2.29), (2.30), (2.33), (2.34) subject to (3.2). Thus
(3.6) (1X (X, E)O4(X, E)) k Z (X, E)o (X, E) + pA,(X, E)o (X, E) = 0,
(3.7) A (0, E)f'(0, E) = (-ka + 1 (a - (0, E))-k 2 (a -1))f (0, E),
(3.8) fr'(-L, E) = kO(-L, E),
(3.9) ,u(-L, 1,
0
(3.10) Jf-1r(k(x, E)) dx =N,
where as before 8 = k2A ((a + 1)/(a - 1)).

The 0(1) equations obtained by setting E = 0 reproduce the original problem for
the extremizing functions ,t (x), +r(x). Since the optimal eigenfunction +r(x) and profile
,u(x) occur at E = 0, this implies that A attains a local extremum, i.e., A8j5= = 0.
Therefore, E = 0 corresponds to a stationary value of 13, so fle Ie = =0. In this analysis
ke = 0 because the problem is solved for fixed wavenumber. At a later stage a search
in k will produce the wavenumber corresponding to the largest minimum growth
constant. Substituting (3.4) and (3.5) into (3.6)-(3.10) at order E gives the following
equations relating A (X, 0), +?' (X, 0), ,u(x) and +i(x):
(A (X ) ?' (X, 0))- k2 Z (x )O (X, 0) + 13t(X )0. (X, 0) = _(tt (X, 0)0,(X ))
(3.11) +k gL(X, 0)f(x)-1?(X, 0)f(x),
/he (0, 0)q (0) + L (0)0'(0(, 0) = (-ka + 1 (a (

(3.12) -iG/.46(0? 0)((0),
(3.13) ql(-L, 0) = kq(-L, 0)
(3.14) gs(-L, 0) = 0,
0
(3.15) 1 8(x,0) d (f-1(A(x))) dx = 0.

-L d,u
Now consider (2.29). With boundary conditions (2.30) and (2.31), this problem
viewed as a linear operator on +f(x) is formally self-adjoint with respect to the inner
product defined as (ij, (2) = J|Lf1(x)t2(X) dx. Taking the inner product of each term
in (3.11) with fr(x), integrating by parts, using (2.29) and the boundary conditions,
we find that
(3.16) (E (X, 0), [(fr)2 + 2f3(' + k2f2]) 0.

Now consider (3.15), which may be interpreted as the inner product
( X )d (-, ( (X)))) = O.
Equations (3.15) and (3.16) state that these are two quantities which are orthogonal
to p.., (x, 0). Therefore, these quantities must be parallel and can differ at most by a
multiplicative constant. This leads to (3.17) where a is an undetermined constant.
(3.17) (q,I)2f+l2,3q,,f +k2'(2 - a-d(f (,u(x))).

d,ut
The specific version of (3.17) for the linear case (where f '(tk (x)) = ,u (x) -1 and
the integral constraint is (3.3)) becomes
(3.18) (0i,)2 + 2In' + k+k2f2 = a.
It should be noted that , (x) does not appear explicitly in (3.18).

Until now the wavenumber k has been held fixed. For any k, functions ,u (x),
+i(x) can be found which minimize a. We must however search over k to find the
largest minimum o. Since a = 1/A and ,3 = k2((a + 1)/(a - 1)), the criterion used to
determine the most dangerous wavenumber km is
(3.19) k kkm
4. Solution. In this section we will present the solution for the case when the
viscosity is linear with concentration. At this point it is useful to restate the full problem.
(4.1) A (x)(`"(x) - k2(x)) +'(x)&,b(x) +3,'(x)or (x) = 0,

(4.2) (,fr(x))2 + 2f3'(,(x) 'q(x) + k2q,2(x) = a,
(4.3) IL (0)qf'(0) = {-ka +,8 (a - , (O)) - (a - 1)k23}q (0),
(4.4) q'(-L) = kf(-L),
(4.5) (-L) 1,
0
(4.6) LL(Au(x)-1)dx=N,
(4.7) =k 1
The independent parameters are the viscosity ratio a, and the amount of injected
material N. The unknowns are the functions +if(x), it (x) and the constants k, 13, a and
L. It is interesting to note that the injection length L cannot be specified independently,
and is found as part of the solution. It is also of interest to note that the problem is
strongly nonlinear. The solution procedure was carried out in three steps. An
asymptotic analysis was used to obtain results for N << 1. The full problem was then
solved numerically for a specific value of a, with the small N analysis used to validate
the numerical procedure. The computations for large N are useful in determining the
nature of the solution as N -+ o0. An asymptotic solution for N >> 1 completed the
analysis.
4.1. Solution for N<cl. As N -+ 0, the important length scale is N12. If new
stretched distances x, L are defined as
(4.8) x =N- X3,

(4.9) L = N-"2L,
then the full problem in stretched coordinates is now given by equations (4.10)-(4.16).
(4.10) x ( (2)+ '(^)'GxE) +N"N1,. 'G() )) -Nk2 (x)fr(x) 0
(4.11) (i4'(x))2 +N 22138fr(^)r'GxE) +N(k2I2(C) - a) = 0,
(4.12) , (0) 0'(0) = N /2{ -ka + 1g (a - t (0)) - (a - 1)k 2I3}0(0),

(4.13) L('(-I2) =N"2k,f(-L),
(4.14) (_L)= 1,
0
(4.15) | (,(x)-1) dx^ =N't2,
(4.16) k =1 m0.
Since the entire problem is homogeneous we will take (0) =1 as a normalization

condition. Now it is desirable to obtain solutions as asymptotic expansions in powers
of N1/2. Thus, we expand,
o(A^) = o(AE) +N1/201 (A) +N (A2GE) + O(N3/2)9

u (x) = AO(A) 112A (A ) + O(N312)9
L =L,+N'12L2+ O(N),
13 =13o+N112f3 +Nj32+O(N3/2),
a =ao+N 1/2al+Na2+ O(N312).
Substituting these small N expansions into (4.10)-(4.15) and equating like powers of
N gives a sequence of linear problems which may be solved to give the following
results through third order.
+(A): io= 1,
(4.17) = ,
02 = -2k (k + F ? _ k?2
OIL RECOVERY BY SECONDARY- DISPLACEMENT 89
R(x): 14=o1,
2k2
(4.18) k +o
A 2 = (3k - 21ok
A Vk+Po
L: L1- k
(4.19)
L2 S2o- 3k
a o=a-1 (1-k2)
(4.20) 1 =0,
k2+2kfo
2-(a -1)(1-k2)'
a: ao=2k(k+1o0),
(4.21) a1 = -4k(k +130)3/2,
a2= 2k132+10k2(k +13o)+ 2?kio(k +flo).

These results are for a wavenumber, k, which is an unspecified 0(1) constant.
Equation (4.16) can be used to determine the most dangerous wavenumber. Since
013 =0, k2/13 = k2/30 -Nk2 82/13o + 0(N312). If the value of k which maximizes k2/18
is represented as k = k0 +Nk2, then
(4.22) k=ko+Nk2 ak 13)| ko ak( ) |k ak(+N o ko

At
0 (1): - =k) 09
(4.23) 0 k ko
a {k2132
O(N): k2 a(ka212 k2
TP .80 k)
Since flo and 132 are given by (4.20), (4.22) and (4.23) imply that the most
dangerous wavenumber is
(4.24) km- = f- N (7a +5) +0o(N312).

1 3 9(a +1)(a -1)
Of course these results can be used to obtain an expression for the largest growth
constant
2 am
(4.25) 0rm ~- N-4 a1(= )+0N1)
_ 1 - + o(N32).
When N = 0 these results reduce to dimensionless versions of those obtained in

(2.24) and (2.25). Then the viscosity profile becomes flat (, (x) = 1) and the injection
length L goes to zero because of the scaling (4.9). Equations (4.20), (4.24) and (4.25)
are simply corrections to the case considered in (2.20) for small amounts of solute.
As N increases, the viscosity profiles develop more curvature, the growth constant
and most dangerous wavenumber both decrease, and the injection length increases.
Although the functionality changes, these trends continue as N increases beyond the
range of applicability of the perturbation analysis.
4.2. Numerical solution. The system of equations (4.1)-(4.7) were solved numeri-
cally with a = 100. The choice of a = 100 for these calculations is somewhat arbitrary.
Actual viscosity ratios can vary widely depending on the type and composition of oil
being displaced. The qualitative features of the solution remain the same for any value
of a chosen. Because of the structure of (4.1)-(4.7), the problem of finding a numerical
solution may be reduced from one of finding 13, L, ,u(x), fr(x), etc., to solving an
ordinary differential equation and a one-dimensional search for A (0). Finite differences
were used and the maximization over k was done with a second one-dimensional
search. Details of this development are given in the Appendix. The unknowns of
interest are L, A (0), A (x), km and Cm. These quantities are presented in Figs. 2-5
functions of N. In Figs. 2 and 5 the asymptotic results for both small and large N
(developed below) are also presented.
As N increases both the shape of the optimal injection profile A (x) and the length
scale L change. In Fig. 6, we have normalized these results by plotting (, (x)-
1)/(, (0)-1) against x/L for a range of N from 0.17 to 5 x 104. This figure shows
I I 1111111 1 I IIlIijl III 111111 1 1 111111 1 1 111111 1 1 111111 1 1 111111 1 1 1
1000
100
L 10-
1.0
.1
.001 .01 .1 I 10 100 1000 10,000
N
FIG. 2. Injection length L as a function of N; a = 100; - - - asymptotic results for large and small N.
100 " I I I Il1l 1 1 1 lll 1 1 1 1111 1 1 '111 " 'I I -,, I llY
80
l1(0) 60
40
20
.001 .01 .1 I 10 100 1000 10,000
N
FIG. 3. The viscosity at the interface as a function of N; a = 100.
0.6-
0.5
0.4
km
0.3
0.2
0.1
0'
.001 .01 .1 10 100 1000 10,000
N
FIG. 4. The most dangerous wavenumber'km, as a function of N; a = 100.
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.6
.001 .01 .1 I 10 100 1000 10,0000
N
FIG. 5. The growth constant, o,mn for the optimal policy as a function of N; a = 0o;--- asymptotic
results for large and small N.
1.0 r , , ,
0.4
N 0. 163
0.2 .
41.074
47650
0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
x
FIG. 6. The normalized optimal viscosity profiles as afunction of distance with Nas aparameter; a=l100.
how the overall shape of ,u (x) changes with N. For small N, the curves are nearly
linear, in agreement with the previous asymptotic results, c.f. (4.18)-(4.19). More
curvature is seen in the results for larger N. An asymptotic analysis for large N given
below indicates that the profiles become exponentials. The full viscosity profiles can
be recovered by using Figs. 2 and 3 to obtain L and , (0) and Fig. 6 to obtain the shape.
4.3. Solution for N >> 1. The numerical results indicate that k, a and o- approach
zero, , (0) approaches a, and L increases as N gets large. We have used our numerical
results to infer the following behavior at large N:
a 0 O(N-2/3), km - 0(N-113), 3 - O(N1/3), L O(N), , 0O(N-1).
It is now appropriate to define the following 0(1) quantities.
k=kN113, (3 =N-13, a=aN213, L=LN-1, x=xN
The scaled versions of (4.1)-(4.7) are
(4.26) t$'x)-k2 (x ))Ex ) +N43, X ()'=0
(4.27) 2f80 (X)q'(x) + k2qi(1) - a +N-4/3(,'( ))2 =0

(4.28) / (0) f,'(0) = N2k3(a + f3(a - tk (0))N213 - (a
(4.29) 0E'(-L-) =N N3k+(L),
(4.30) (-L)= 1,
(4.31) | (x)dx=1+L,
(4.32) (k ()
For large N, the solution may be expanded in an asymptotic series in N-2/3, as

follows:
+(X i+ (X) +o(N2/3
X)= po(X) +N2N31(i) +

(3= 3o2+N-2(3 1 N 3 + -
a =0+ O(N-2/3),
L = L +N-2/3L1 +0 (N-4/3)
km = ko+N23k +(N
Once again it is assumed that il (0) = 1. Substituting the large N expansions into
(4.26)-(4.32) results in a sequence of problems, the first of which is nonlinear. To
second order, these problems can be solved analytically. The problem at lowest order
is
22
21oqoqo + o = ao,
/4(0) = a, Ao(-Lo) = 1,
oo(O) = 1, Oo(-Lo) = O,
0
| 0 o(f) di 1 + L0.
Since (qlo)'= 2q,oifr, the nonlinear differential equation for ko(l) reduces to a
simple linear equation for 1g(x). The solution is
k2
(4.33) go(x) = a exp I
k2~~~~~~~~-
In a
(4.35)Lo=~
a - In a - 1'
(4.36) -w =a-lna-1,
(4.37) at = exp 41 4
`A2
(4.38) ao -l
The condition 1o(i(0) - k2(a - 1)) = -ka appears at O(N0 23). With (4.36) this
implies
(4.39) 1(0) =-j(a - 1)k2a a ))

As of yet, the maximizing km is unknown at 0 (N
go k - 1 =-lU 0,1iZo where u 1(O) is given
z1(-Lo) 1 - o (-Lo), g 1 (x-) dx = O.

- Lo
The solution is
(4.40) = I (0) 2 e w-
(4.41) 1 a(a-1-Ina)
(4.42) L1- a(a-1- lna)2
The function uo(xi) is independent of wavenumber because k2/f3o is a function

only of a. Therefore, to leading order, the injection length Lo and the growth constant
are also independent of wavenumber. the value of ko becomes important in determining
1.Z1(1) and L1 as well as the next correction to the growth constant. They are all a
function of k through (4.39). To determine ko, (4.32) is used since
k k ( 1N-2/3 81 + O(N4),
da(k io a k 28 (
Therefore, to leading order (4.32) implies
(4.43) 0
From (4.39), (4.41) and (4.43) the result for ko is
(4.44) ko a-n-l'\1
( 3(a-1)i
By using ,u1(0) evaluated at k = ko in (4.40), (4.41) and (4.42), we can obtain results
which are a function only of a. The maximum growth constant C,m is
m= ( (a -ln a - 1)N
(4.45) (a2-1) 2/3
3 a (a(a-n a-1) N-5/3+o(N-7/3)
The equation for crm indicates that it can be made arbitrarily small for large N,
yet it will always remain positive. Therefore, unstable flows will always result. Since
L is a 0(N) quantity, as N - oo the location of the end of the injection of solute
approaches -oo. Therefore, within the context of this problem there is a stable interface
only when an infinite amount of solute is used.
S. Discussion. When a limited amount of additive is used to stabilize an unstable

displacement process in a porous medium the optimum injection policy may be found
using the theory developed here. Explicit results have been given for the case in which
the viscosity is linear in the additive concentration, but more general relationships
may be treated in a similar manner. More general behaviors alter the quantitative
features of the results but do not substantially affect the general conclusions. For any
function f1(,u) the small and large N asymptotic scalings are still valid. Thus for
N<< 1 L 0(N1/2), and o-,,, km are 0(1), and for N >> 1 L O(N), km_O(N 113),
om - O(N-'). The details of the solutions for a general fl(,) are more complicated
because results can only be determined implicitly in terms of integrals involving f-1G(t)
and its derivatives. We will discuss this further in a future paper. The present results
may be used to predict a nunmber of interesting consequences of following an optimal
policy.
When only a finite amount of additive is used, there is a jump in viscosity at th
leading interface, and the profile varies continuously thereafter, with the concentration
going to zero at a finite distance. Figure 3 gives the variation of u (0) with N for
a = 100, and (4.18) and (4.40) give the asymptotic variations. Thus the optimal policy
is not necessarily to initially inject solute at a concentration sufficient to produce a

perfect viscosity match at the interface. This fact does not seem to have been recognized
before.
The parameter L is related to the time over which solute is injected in a
displacement process with constant displacement velocity. As seen in Fig. 2, this
quantity is generally an increasing function of N, indicating that injection with differing
amounts of solute should be over different periods of time. Again, this does not seem
to have been recognized.
Our results also make explicit the optimal profile, , (x); see Fig. 6. For small N,
, (x) is nearly linear, while for large N it is well approximated by an exponential.
This in turn indicates an injection policy in which the concentration of injected material
decreases exponentially in time. As we have noted in the introduction, this fact has
been determined empirically, sometimes on a trial-and-error basis. We provide here
the first proof of this fact and a demonstration of the conditions for which it is true
and the assumptions necessary for its proof.
Of greatest interest is the maximum dimensionless growth constant. In the present
scaling, this starts as an 0(1) quantity for-small N and decreases to an O(N-1) quantity
for large N (see Fig. 5 and (4.25) and (4.45)). Thus the displacement process can
never be made unconditionally stable, but the growth constant of the instability may
be made arbitrarily small by the addition of sufficient amounts of solute, and this
amount may be computed explicitly from our theory. Thus, one would design such a
process to render the e-folding time of the instability large relative to the residence
time of the front in the oil-bearing formation.
Referring to Fig. 5, it is clear that stabilization of the process when a = 100 is
most affected for values of N, 40 _ N _ 4000. Addition of less solute will only slightl
stabilize the process and addition of solute corresponding to N > 4000 will bring about
only a small degree of further stabilization. Our results thus indicate a "most active"
range of N, dependent upon a, over which solute injection represents an efficient
process for the production of oil. This seems to us to have great importance in the
recovery of oil by solute injection.
Appendix-method for numerical solution. We start with the basic equations

(4.1)-(4.7). Instead of using (4.1) and (4.2) as the basic differential equations, an
alternate formulation is used to develop a replacement for (4.1). Using the transforma-
tion X (x) = Vp. (x)o (x), (4.1) and the boundary conditions (4.3) and (4.4) are replaced
by
(A. 1) +"(x) + { - 2 + k ( - i)} (x) = 0,
(A.2) ,u (0)q '(0) = q (0){-ka + f3 (a - . (0)) -

(A.3) ,u (-L)+ '(-L) = q (-L){k + 21 '(-L)}.
This formulation is self-adjoint. Using the integral constraint (4.6) and a method
exactly analogous to that in ? 3 it is possible to develop an equation which describes
the extremizing eigenfunction +l(x) and viscosity profile p. (x). That equation is
(A.4) 00 -( = Iatt2
( 2jL+ .3q5=,(x)
2)1 ap
where a is the same unknown constant as in (3.18). Transforming (A.4) back in terms
of fr(x) results in (A.5).
(A.5) [,u(x)(0(x)0'(x )+i6 2(x))]' = aim (x).

This equation can be used instead of (4.1). It should be noted that Equation (A.5) is
only an alternate form of (4.1). Substituting (A.5) into (4.2) results in the original
equation (4.1).
Integrating (4.5) gives
(A.6) ,(x)(f(x)f'(x)+I3fr2(x)) = a | ,dx +b.
Evaluating (A.6) at x = -L and x = 0 with boundary conditions (4.3), (4.4), (4.5)

and integral condition (4.6) yields
(A.7) (k +?g)q2(-L) = b,
(A.8) (a ( k)-(a -1)k2a)f2(O)= a(N+L)+f2 (-L)(k+fl).
Evaluating (4.2) at x = -L and x =0 with the same integral and boundary
conditions gives (A.9), (A. 10)
(A.9) 2k (k + ?3)+2(-L) = a,
(A. 10) +2()[ T(at, k, ,u(0)) + U(ag, k, ,u (O)) + V(at, k, ,u (O))] - aIu()
where
T(at, k, im (O)) a t- 2a (a - 1)k+ (at k 1)k-20

U(a, k, ,u (0)) 2k3a (a - 1) - 2ka2,
V(a, k, , (O)) =k 2( 2 + A 2(0)).
Combining (A.8), (A.9) and (A.10) results in equations for /3 and a:
(A.11) Q 2+Rf +S = 0,
where
Q = [ag -(at - 1)k2 -, (0)][at - (at - l1)k2 +, (0)],
R = 2k[(a - 1)k2-a] 4a + 1 2k(N?+L)J'

(A.12)
S = k2 [a22+,2(0) (1 + 2k L))1
2k[/3 (a -(a - 1)k 2) - ka ]f2(0)

1+2k(N+L)
It is now possible to outline the scheme for numerical s

is a quadratic equation in Pi. The positive root correspond
(4.2) when it is treated as a quadratic in (fr'). When compar
N asymptotic analysis, it becomes obvious that the positive roots are the ones which
reduce to the correct results. Therefore,
-R +1WR2-4QS
(A. 13) A 2Q
(A.14) /r'(x) =-3r(x) + _'(p 2k2)-r(X) + a.
The numerical scheme is as follows:

(1) Specify a and N +L.
(2) Guess , (0).
(3) Use (A.13) searching over k to get 8pm which maximizes (k2/j3) at k =km.
Use k = kmi, = 3m in subsequent calculations.
(4) Set fr(0) = 1 and use (A.12) to get a.
(5) Use (A.9) to get qi(-L).
(6) Solve (A.14) starting at qf(0) = 1 and marching back to +l = +r(-L). This
gives L.
(7) Solve (4.1) for A (x) marching forward starting at x = -L where ,u = 1 to
x = 0. This gives a calculated ,u (0).
(8) If the calculated ,u (0) is not equal to the initially guessed ,u (0), try a different
guess for , (0) and go back to step (2).
It should be noted that the choice of a linear concentration-viscosity relation led
to (4.2) in which , (x) does not appear explicitly. Therefore, (4.1) and (4.2) are only
weakly coupled through the constants k and P. With any other concentration-viscosity
functionality the numerical scheme would be more difficult because ,u (x) would appear
in an equation analogous to (4.2).
Acknowledgment. We wish to thank Dr. H. J. Pearson who provided us with a

copy of his unpublished work and Professor J. B. Keller who suggested the method
of formulation.
REFERENCES
R. L. CHUOKE, P. VAN MEURS AND C. VAN DER POEL (1959), The instability of sl
viscous liquid-liquid displacements in permeable media, Trans. AIME, 216, pp. 18
N. MUNGAN (1971), Improved waterflooding through mobility control, Canad. J. Chem. En
H. J. PEARSON (1977), The stability of some variable viscosity flows with applications t
unpublished report, Cambridge Univ.
P. G. SAFFMAN AND G. I. TAYLOR (1958), The penetration of a fluid into a porous medi
cell containing a more viscous liquid, Proc. Roy. Soc., A245, pp. 312-329.
D. SHAH AND R. SCHECTER, eds. (1977), Improved Oil Recovery by Surfactant and Poly
Academic Press, New York.
R. L. SLOBOD AND S. J. LESTZ (1960), Use of a graded viscosity zone to reduce fingering in miscible phase
displacements, Producers Monthly, 24, 10, pp. 12-19.
A. C. UZOIGWE, F. C. SCANLON AND R. L. JEWETr (1974), Improvements in polymer flooding: The
programmed slug and the polymer-conserving agent, J. Petrol. Tech., 26, pp. 33-41.

Gorell, Homsy - 1983 - A Theory of The Optimal Policy of Oil Recovery by Secondary Displacement Processes - SIAM J Appl Math

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gorell, Homsy - 1983 - A Theory of The Optimal Policy of Oil Recovery by Secondary Displacement Processes - SIAM J Appl Math

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Theory of the Optimal Policy of Oil Recovery by Secondary Displacement Processes

Author(s): Sheldon B. Gorell and G. M. Homsy

A THEORY OF THE OPTIMAL POLICY

SHELDON B. GORELLt AND G. M. HOMSYt

1. Introduction. The need to produce oil from porous reservoirs in a more

(1.1) (k2 k1) Uc + (P2 -P1)g cos O = 0

Surface tension in porous media is treated empirically through an effective surface

and Darcy's law,

In terms of viscosity Dc/Dt = (dc/d,t)Du/Dt, so (2.3) is equivalent to

We consider a two-dimensional problem with the base uniform flow in the x1

u=U, V=0, tL= ko(x1-Ut),

P = -uj' Ro(x' - Ut) dx' 3Po(x, t).

(2.10) d= =-,- u 'U-uAu',a

(2.13) u' = +(x) exp {iky +crt},

where o- is the disturbance growth constant, and k is the disturbance wavenumber in

(2.14) v t = k _ -exp {iky + ot},

(2.15) ' = -0-- r(x) exp {iky +ot},

(2.16) P' -go(x)k -2 dq exp {iky + ot}.

(2.17) go Q_2,, +d/ kt>+ U d41 = O.

(2.18) 71 ( y, t) = 0 (,o)cr-l Iexp liky + oat}.

P('rio +r'q) = Po(-r1o +711 (Y, t)) + P'('ro)

(2 .19) = Po(71 o) + 71 (y y t)-|p +P' (710)

= Po(,qo) - to(70)[ 0k2q +-u0(71o) expjiky+ot}.

It is instructive at this point to consider the simplest possible single interface

(2.20) A (x) = A2A x<>tio0,

(2.21) (x) = Ir(iqo) ek(x- ), x>7io,

(2.22) P =Po(7lo)-A2[Uo-1-k-1]O(f&o)exp{iky+o-t} atx =iqo,

(2.23) P-P- = Tyy

(2.25a) 0-m = _((y + 9 )U(y 1U /

As is well known, the displacement process is unstable (stable) when 12 is greater

(2.26) (X) = | k(x +l)

Th rxoftepolelisi slig(.7interio-l < x <0(? whrIh

P+ = PO(O) - ,u2[U'r- - k -']+(0) exp {iky + ot},

(2.27) tk(O)'(O)=O(O){-ktk2+ Uk2 2-,U (0))-

Following the same procedure with no surface tension acting at x = -l gives

(2.28) ki(-l)ufr'(-l) = fr(-l) j k1 +Uk( (iu -,ao0)

results in a dimensionless formulation of the problem. For notational convenience the

(2.29) (0"-k 2)+ 'q'+k2A a1)y'+=?0

(2.30) ,u(0)qO'(0) = (-ka +(A 1) k2((a -A(O))-k2(a -1)) f(O),

(2.31) Z (-L)f'(-L) = (k + k2A (-?) (1- Z (-L))) e(-L)

(2.32) (uf')'-k2if +3t'i = 0,

where 18 = k2A ((a + 1)/(a -1)).

(2.34) 0'(-L) = k (-L)

3. Formulation of the optimum problem. In the derivation of (2.29), (2.30) and

(3.1) A Jc(x') dx'=M,

c (x) is the additive concentration as a function of x,

In general, the concentration-viscosity

(3.2) JfA (x)) dx =N.

Here N = -V3kmM/Ac is the dimensionless amount of material added. To illustrate

(3.3) SIL (x)-l)dx=N.

(3.4) A (X, E) = A (X) + E,U. (X, 0) + O (E ),

(3.10) Jf-1r(k(x, E)) dx =N,

where as before 8 = k2A ((a + 1)/(a - 1)).

(3.11) +k gL(X, 0)f(x)-1?(X, 0)f(x),

/he (0, 0)q (0) + L (0)0'(0(, 0) = (-ka + 1 (a (

(3.15) 1 8(x,0) d (f-1(A(x))) dx = 0.

(3.16) (E (X, 0), [(fr)2 + 2f3(' + k2f2]) 0.

(3.17) (q,I)2f+l2,3q,,f +k2'(2 - a-d(f (,u(x))).

(3.18) (0i,)2 + 2In' + k+k2f2 = a.

It should be noted that , (x) does not appear explicitly in (3.18).

(4.1) A (x)(`"(x) - k2(x)) +'(x)&,b(x) +3,'(x)or (x) = 0,

(4.8) x =N- X3,

(4.10) x ( (2)+ '(^)'GxE) +N"N1,. 'G() )) -Nk2 (x)fr(x) 0