Response of Mobility Control Agents to Shear, Electrochemical, and Biological Stress

  • T. P. Castor
  • J. B. Edwards
  • F. J. Passman


Bench-top studies were carried out in the laboratory to evaluate the degradation of Polyacrylamides and polysaccharides under simulated conditions of shear, electrochemical, and microbial stress. Effects were evaluated in solutions with varying concentrations of univalent and polyvalent electrolytes (0-100,000 ppm) at different values of temperature. The effect of microbial stress was evaluated by inoculating pure cultures of anaerobes and aerobes into solutions of the biopolymers and copolymers and measuring the bulk properties as a function of time to determine kinetics of biological and chemical degradation. The viscoelastic responses of the Polyacrylamides as indicated by their screen factor and the filterability of the polysaccharides were monitored at the above conditions. Core flooding tests were carried out to further evaluate the chemical integrity of the mobility control agents under simulated field conditions. Average pressure drop and breakthrough concentrations as a function of pore volume throughput were used to evaluate the rheological and retentive behavior of the copolymers and biopolymers in brine-saturated and partially oil-saturated sandstone cores. The rheological behavior of fluids in the reservoir cores is correlated with the degradation of polymers from bulk phase measurements of shear viscosities, screen factors and millipore filter ratios.


River Water Formation Water Resistance Factor Retentive Behavior Formation Brine 
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.
    J. M. Maerker, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 311 (August 1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. R. Jennings, J. H. Rogers, and J. J. West, J. Pet. Tech., 391 (March 1971).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. B. Sandiford, personal communication (October 1978).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. M. Maerker, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 172 (August 1975).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. G. McCaffery and F. L. Edillson, Petroleum Recovery Institute, Research Note RN-5 (January 1, 1977).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. C. Allred, in “API recommended practice for biological analysis of subsurface injection waters,” Amer. Petrol. Institute, New York, p. 4, 1965.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Makula and W. R. Finnerty, J. Bacteriol., 95, 2102 (1969).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. S. Bastin, Science, 63, 21 (1926).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. S. Bastin and Greer, Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 14, 143 (1930).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Lipton, SPE 5099 presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting of the SPE-AIME, Denver, Colorado (April 1975).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. P. Castor
    • 1
  • J. B. Edwards
    • 1
  • F. J. Passman
    • 1
  1. 1.Energy Resources Co. Inc.CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations