On the Fate of Oil Ganglia during Immiscible Displacement in Water Wet Granular Porous Media

  • A. C. Payatakes
  • G. Woodham
  • K. M. Ng


In a series of previous publications a model was formulated for the study of the dynamics of oil ganglia populations during immiscible displacement in oil recovery processes. The model is composed of four components: a suitable model for granular porous media, a mobilization/breakup criterion, a Monte Carlo simulation method capable of predicting the fate (mobilization, breakup, stranding) of solitary oil ganglia, and two coupled ganglia-population balance equations—one applying to moving ganglia and the other to stranded ones. Central roles in this model are played by the probability of mobilization, the probability of breakup per rheon, the probability of stranding per rheon, the breakup coefficient and the stranding coefficient. These parameters have already been calculated for randomly shaped oil ganglia. However, stochastic simulations show that mobilized oil ganglia tend to get elongated and slender. The effect of slenderization on the aforementioned parameters is investigated here based on Monte Carlo simulation results.


Porous Medium Capillary Number Porous Media Model Population Balance Equation Immiscible Displacement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. N. Healy and R. L. Reed, Soc. Petrol. Eng. J., 14, 491 (1974).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. N. Healy, R. L. Reed, and D. G. Stenmark, Soc. Petrol. Eng. J., 16, 147 (1976).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. C. Nelson and G. A. Pope, SPE 6773 presented at 52nd Annual Fall Technol. Conf. and Exhib. SPE, Denver, Colorado, Oct. 9–12, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. C. Payatakes, K. M. Ng, and R. W. Flumerfelt, AIChE J., 26, 430 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. M. Ng and A. C. Payatakes, AIChE J., 26, 419 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. C. Melrose and C. F. Brandner, Can. J. Petrol. Technol., 13 (4), 54 (1974).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. L. Stegemeier, 81st National AIChE Meeting, Kansas City, MO, April 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. G. Oh and J. C. Slattery, Proceedings of 2nd ERDA Symposium on Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Sept. 1976.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. C. Melrose, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 48, 638 (1970).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. C. Payatakes, R. W. Flumerfelt, and K. M. Ng, 70th Annual AIChE Meeting, New York, Nov. 13–17, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. C. Payatakes, R. W. Flumerfelt, and K. M. Ng, 84th National AIChE Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, Feb. 26–March 1, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. C. Payatakes, R. W. Flumerfelt, and K. M. Ng, Proceedings of 4th DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Aug. 29–31, 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. C. Payatakes
    • 1
  • G. Woodham
    • 1
  • K. M. Ng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations