ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566

Published online 20 November 2012 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/apj.1696

Research article
Mobility control requirement in multiphase displacement
processes in porous media
James J. Sheng*
Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Received 28 May 2012; Revised 13 October 2012; Accepted 18 October 2012

ABSTRACT: According to the conventional mobility control requirement, the displacing phase mobility (e.g. polymer) should
be equal to or less than the sum of the mobilities of several displaced phases (e.g. water and oil). When the oil mobility is much
lower than the water mobility, the sum of the displaced phase mobilities will be almost the same as the water mobility. Then,
according to the requirement, the displacing polymer mobility is almost the same as the water mobility. As a result, the polymer
solution will flow preferentially along water channels, leaving oil undisplaced.
In this paper, we propose that the displacing phase mobility (polymer) should be equal to or less than the lowest mobility of
displaced phases (generally, oil phase mobility) multiplied by its normalized saturation. This mobility requirement is validated by
extensive simulation results at different conditions. It is also justified by field practices. Some published experimental data are analyzed
to justify the proposed requirement. The proposed mobility requirement provides a criterion for mobility control design in multiphase
displacement processes in porous media. © 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEYWORDS: mobility control; channel flow; displacement stability; multiphase flow; EOR; polymer flooding

INTRODUCTION mobility, respectively. The unit of relative mobility is the

Mobility control is one of the most important concepts
in any enhanced oil recovery (EOR) process. It can
be achieved through injection of chemicals to change
displacing fluid viscosity or to preferentially reduce
specific fluid relative permeability, through injection
of foams, or even through injection of chemicals to
modify wettability. This paper does not address a
specific mobility control process. Instead, it discusses
the general concept of the mobility control requirement
in displacement processes such as EOR processes.
The existing mobility control requirement is that the
displacing fluid mobility should be equal to or less than
the total mobility of displaced multiphase fluids. Let
us use polymer flooding as an example to explain
what the problem could be when we use this mobility
control requirement. In this case, the displacing phase
is polymer, and the displaced phases are water and oil.
For the convenience of discussion, we first define
relative oil, water, and total mobility. The mobility is
defined as the effective permeability (k) divided by
the viscosity (m) of the phase: l = k/m. If k is replaced
by relative permeability, kr, we have relative mobility:
lrj = krj /mj. Here the subscript j represents the phase j,
j = w, o, t for water phase, oil phase, and total relative
*Correspondence to: James J. Sheng, Petroleum Engineering, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
E-mail: james.sheng@ttu.edu
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
inverse of the viscosity unit, for example, (mPa
s)1 or
(cP)1. An example of water and oil relative permeability
curves is shown in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, the parameters for
the Corey-type[1] of relative permeability equations are
as follows: Swc = 0.2, Sor = 0.2, kwr = 0.3, the oil relative
permeability at the connate water saturation kor = 0.85,
the exponent for oil no = 2 and the exponent for water
nw = 2. The corresponding water, oil, and total relative
mobilities are shown in Fig. 2, with the water and oil
viscosities being 1 and 10 mPa
s, respectively. Figure 2
also shows the minimum total relative mobility, the
water mobility, oil mobility, and total mobility at a given
saturation. The total mobility is the sum of water and oil
mobilities.
When discussing viscous fingering, generally, we
deal with the case of displacing one mobile fluid (e.g.
oil) by another fluid (e.g. water). The concept is that
the displacing fluid mobility in the upstream (lu)
should be equal to or less than the displaced fluid
mobility in the downstream (ld). We often use the term
mobility ratio (Mr), which is defined as the ratio of the
displacing (upstream) phase mobility to the displaced
(downstream) phase mobility:
lu
Mr ¼ : (1)
ld
The displacement is favorable if Mr ≤ 1, and unfavorable
if Mr > 1.[2]
556 J. J. SHENG Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering
0.9 X 
krw lrj linj
0.8
Mr ¼ X u ¼ ≤1: (2)
lt
Relative permeability
0.7 kro lrj d
0.6
0.5 In a case where several mobile fluid saturations are
0.4 not known, the total mobility of these fluids cannot be
0.3 calculated, because it is a function of saturations, and
0.2 these saturations are generally unknown. Gogarty[7]
0.1 and Gogarty et al.[8] chose to use the minimum total
0 mobility to avoid this problem:
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Sw (fraction) jX   k
lrj u
Figure 1. Water and oil relative permeabilities. Mr ¼ X minimum
 ≤1: (3)
lrj d

0.35
Prats[9] stated that a parameter commonly used in
Total reservoir engineering as a measure of the stability of a
Relative mobility (1/mPa·s)

0.30 Water displacement front, in the absence of capillary and

0.25 Oil gravity forces, is the ratio of the pressure gradient,
@p/@n, normal to and on the downstream side of the
0.20
displacement front to that on the upstream side. There
0.15
t is no proof for this statement, however (Michael Prats,
0.10 minimum t personal communication, May 12, 2008). From Darcy’s
w
law, this pressure gradient ratio can be expressed as
0.05 o
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Sw (fraction) (4)
Figure 2. Water, oil, and total relative mobilities.

Here, u is the volumetric velocity normal to the

In the waterflooding process, Craig et al. found that [3] front. In waterflooding, if we assume that only water
if the water mobility was defined at the average water flows upstream and only oil downstream, it follows that
saturation behind the displacement flood front—that is, ud = uu. Then, the previous equation becomes
lu = lu ¼ lðSw Þ—the data on areal sweep vs mobility  
@p
ratio would match those data obtained by Slobod @n lu
and Caudle[4] and Dyes et al.[5] using miscible fluids  d ¼ : (5)
in which there was no saturation gradient behind
@p ld
@n u
the front. Although the displacing fluid mobility
should include the mobility of the movable oil behind The preceding equation shows that the ratio of
the flood front, the oil mobility was considered to pressure gradient is equivalent to the mobility ratio in
be insignificant compared with the water mobility. this case, being the same as the well-known concept of
When they discussed this subject, only oil was mobility ratio.
assumed to be movable ahead of the front. In other None of the previous discussions take into account
words, the oil saturation ahead of the front is the initial one important factor: the difference in phase mobilities
oil saturation (Soi = 1  Swc). Here, Swc is the immobile (velocities). In the case of polymer flooding, when
connate water saturation. However, there is no theoretical the oil mobility is much lower than the water mobility,
justification for using this method of calculating the sum of the displaced phase mobilities will be almost
mobility ratio. the same as the water mobility. Then, according to the
In EOR processes, such as polymer flooding, one requirement, the displacing polymer mobility is almost
fluid (or even several fluids) displaces several mobile the same as the water mobility. As a result, the polymer
fluids (e.g. water and oil). According to the conventional solution will flow preferentially along water channels,
concept, when one or several fluids displace several leaving oil undisplaced.
mobile fluids ahead, the total mobility of displacing More recently, Araktingi and Orr[10] investigated
fluids should be equal to or less than the total mobility the effect of heterogeneous porous media on viscous
of the several displaced fluids:[5,6] fingering. They indicated that if variations in permeability
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering MOBILITY CONTROL, CHANNEL FLOW,
DISPLACEMENT STABILITY, EOR, POLYMER 557

are uncorrelated, or if the variation of the permeability
field is small, then finger patterns are similar to those
observed for homogenous porous media. When the
permeability is sufficiently variable and the correlation
length is a significant fraction of the flow length,
however, the permeability distribution dominates the
formation of fingers, and the fingers follow the same path
regardless of the mobility ratio.
Daripa and Pasa[11] investigated the effect of diffusion
in the displacing process of water-polymer-oil in a
Hele-Shaw model, i.e. water displacing polymer solution
and polymer solution displacing oil. They found that
diffusion has stabilizing effect on the displacement.
Taghizadeh et al.[12] studied sweep efficiency of a
solvent injected into a heavy oil reservoir where viscous
forces are dominant. In other words, the displacement
through an individual pore will be dictated by the
hydrodynamic forces required to move the high viscosity
oil. Therefore, the sweep efficiency is affected by the
spatial correlation between hydraulic conductivities.
None of these authors considered multiphase displace-
ment processes. In the mobility and conformance control
of CO2 flooding, the research was focused on developing
chemicals such as thickeners, foams and gels.[13]
In this paper, we first use the simulation approach to
demonstrate that the existing concept about mobility
control in displacing multiphase phases is invalid.
Then, we derive a new criterion regarding the mobility
control requirement when one phase displaces several
phases, on the basis of a channel flow model. Finally,
we also present numerical verification and analyze some
published experimental data to justify the proposed
criterion.
SETUP OF SIMULATION MODEL
mobilities at any saturation are known. The model uses
an isotropic permeability of 10 mD.
We did an extensive grid sensitivity study. Recovery
factors and water cuts at different injection pore volumes
and water saturation profiles between the injector and
the producer at 0.5 pore volumes of injection from
models of different grid block sizes were compared.
At the end, we chose a model of 300  1  10 blocks
as the base grid model.
DISCUSSION OF THE CONCEPT OF MOBILITY
CONTROL REQUIREMENT
As mentioned earlier, when one fluid displaces several
mobile fluids ahead, it is assumed that the displacing
fluid mobility should be equal to or less than the total
mobility of the several mobile fluids ahead, according
to the literature.[6,15–17] This section discusses the
validity of this statement. The displacing fluid is a
polymer solution (water phase). The viscosity of a
polymer solution is changed to a target viscosity by
varying polymer concentration in the solution.
We start with case visc01, which is the same as the
base model, a homogeneous model with permeability
of 10 mD and oil saturation of 0.5. In visc01, the polymer
solution viscosity behind the displacing front, the oil
viscosity, and the water viscosity in the displaced zone
(ahead of the displacing front) are the same (1 mPa
s),
as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the mobility of the
polymer solution in the displacing zone is the same as
the total mobility of water and oil in the displaced zone
in which the initial water saturation and oil saturation
are the same (0.5) and their relative permeability is the
same (0.5). In mathematical formula, this mobility is
expressed by

Our first task is to evaluate the validity of the conven- krw ðSw ¼ 1Þ 1
¼ ¼
tional concept about the mobility control requirement mp 1
using a simulation approach. For the simulation work, krw ðSwi ¼ 0:5Þ kro ðSwi ¼ 0:5Þ 0:5 0:5
we used the UTCHEM-9.0 simulator.[14] We started þ ¼ þ :
mw mo 1 1
with a two-dimensional XZ-cross section model of
91.44  0.3048  3.048 m3  10ft3. One injection well In this case, mp = 1 mPa
s.
and one production well are at the two extreme ends in
the X direction, and they are fully penetrated. The injec-
tion velocity is 1 ft/day; the initial water saturation and Table 1. Recovery factors after one pore volume at
oil saturation are 0.5. The displacing fluid is a polymer different mobilities.
solution. The purpose of using the polymer solution in
the model is to change the viscosity of the displacing Case mo mp RF Mobility, l
fluid. Therefore, polymer adsorption, shear dilution ID Soi (mPa
s) (mPa
s) (%) (mPa
s)1
effect, and others, are not included in the model. To visc01 0.5 1 1 99.78 linj = lt
simplify the problem, it is assumed that the oil and water visc02 0.5 100 1.98 3.00 linj = lt
densities are the same; capillary pressure is not included; visc03 0.5 100 100 98.34 linj = lo
water and oil relative permeabilities are straight lines with visc04 0.5 10 10 28.20 linj = lt
visc05 0.5 10 10 98.34 linj = lo
the connate water saturation and residual oil saturation visc06 1.0 10 10 99.79 linj = lt
equal to 0; and the water and oil viscosity is 1 mPa
s.
Under these assumptions and conditions, the fluid RF, recovery factor.
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
558 J. J. SHENG
Case visc02 is the same as case visc01, except that
the oil viscosity is increased to 100 mPa
s, and the
polymer concentration is adjusted using the inequality
2 with equal sign used so that the polymer mobility
is equal to the total mobility of oil and water
phases ahead of the displacing front. In this case,
mp = 1.98 mPa
s.
Case visc03 is the same as case visc02, except that
the polymer concentration is adjusted so that the
polymer mobility is the same as the oil mobility only
(not total mobility). Note that in case visc03, as well
as in cases visc01 and visc02, the initial oil saturation
is 0.5. In this situation, the cross-sectional area available
for polymer to displace the oil phase is half the whole
cross-sectional area. The other half cross-sectional area
is used for polymer to displace the water phase ahead.
In other words, the polymer mobility to displace the
oil is reduced by half. Mathematically, we should
determine the polymer viscosity required using the
following equation:
krw ðSw ¼ 1Þ kro ðSwi Þ
 ð1  Swi Þ ¼ : (6)
mp mo
This equation is derived later. From this equation, we
have mp = 100 mPa
s.
Now we have the three cases: visc01, visc02, and
visc03. The recovery factors at one pore volume (PV)
injection and the main conditions are presented in
Table 1. Interestingly, although in the two cases visc01
and visc02, the injection fluid mobility is the same as
the total mobility of oil and water ahead in their respective
cases, the recovery factors at one PV injection are
extremely different (98.78% in visc01 vs 3% in visc02).
According to the conventional theories, however, the
recovery factors in visc01 and visc02 should be similar
100
90 visc03-fw
80
Recovery factor (RF), %
70
60
visc01-fw
50
40
30
visc01-RF
20
10
visc03-RF
0 0
0 0.2 0.4
Injection volume, PV
Figure 3. Recovery factors and water cuts for visc01, visc02, and visc03. This
figure is available in colour online at www.apjChemEng.com.
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering
because, in both of these cases, the displacing fluid
mobility is equal to the total mobility of the displaced oil
and water.
In case visc03, even though the oil viscosity is
100 mPa
s, the same as that in visc02, when the injection
fluid mobility is adjusted to be the same as the oil
mobility only (not the total mobility) based on
Eqn (6), the recovery factor is 98.34%, almost the same
as that in case visc01 (only 1% difference). On the
basis of these results, we can see that to satisfy the
mobility control requirement for a high oil recovery
factor (favorable displacement condition), the injection
mobility should be equal to or less than the oil mobility
corrected by the initial oil saturation by Eqn (6), not the
total mobility of fluids ahead of the displacing front.
Figure 3 shows the recovery factors and water cuts
for visc01, visc02, and visc03. For visc01, water and
oil viscosities are the same. For the whole injection
period, oil is produced, and the water cut is maintained
at 50%, as shown in the dotted line. The oil recovery
factor curve is almost a cross-corner diagonal. For
visc02, although the displacing fluid mobility is the
same as the total mobility of the displaced oil and water
because of the relatively high mobility of water phase,
the water (polymer solution and initial mobile water)
bypasses the high viscous oil. Therefore, the water
cut is very high (>98%) during the entire injection
period, as shown in the solid line at the top; and the
oil recovery is very low, as shown in the solid squares
at the bottom. For visc03, the displacing fluid mobility
is the same as the oil mobility corrected by initial
oil saturation. Before 0.5 PV injection, because of
the low viscosity (1 mPa
s) of initial mobile water
(compared with 100 mPa
s of the oil), the water cut is
close to 1.0, as shown in the empty triangles at the
top. Meanwhile, the high viscous displacing fluid
moves the oil forward, and the oil replaces the pore
1
visc02-fw 0.9
0.8
Water cut (fw), fraction
0.7
visc01-RF
0.6 visc02-RF
visc03-RF
0.5
visc01-fw
0.4 visc02-fw
visc03-fw
visc03-RF 0.3
0.2
visc03-fw
0.1
visc02-RF
0.6 0.8 1
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering
space evacuated by the initial mobile water ahead of it.
After 0.5 PV, basically half of the pore space near the
production end is fully occupied by oil. Therefore,
the water cut after 0.5 PV is almost 0. At one PV injec-
tion, almost all the oil is displaced out of the pore, as
shown in the solid triangles.
The cases of visc04 and visc05 are the duplicates
of visc02 and visc03, respectively, except that the oil
viscosity is reduced from 100 to 10 mPa
s. The results
shown in Table 1 repeat the same observation as that
from visc02 and visc03. The recovery factor in visc04
is 28.2%, much lower than that of visc05, which is
98.34%. Next, we run case visc06, which is the same
as case visc04, except that the initial water saturation
is changed from 0.5 to 0, and the injection water
viscosity is equal to the oil viscosity (10 mPa
s) so that
the (total) mobility ratio is 1. The recovery factor at one
PV injection is 99.79%, compared with the recovery
factor of 28.2% for case visc04. For the two cases,
the total mobility ratios are the same (equal to 1). The
only difference is the initial mobile water saturation.
The comparison of these two cases shows that the
mobility control requirements for the flow systems
with a single-phase fluid and multiphase fluids ahead
of the displacing front are different.
The water saturation distributions for the previous
cases can further explain what would happen at
different mobility ratios. The water saturation profile
for case visc01 at 0.5 PV injection is shown in Fig. 4.
Because the mobility ratio between the displacing fluid
and displaced fluid is 1, the displacing front is stable.
The finger is not further developed, and the displacing
front is sharp. In the figure, the water saturation in the
Sw ~ 1
Figure 4. Water saturation profile at 0.5 PV injection (visc01 data). This figure
is available in color online at www.apjChemEng.com. This figure is available in
colour online at www.apjChemEng.com.
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
MOBILITY CONTROL, CHANNEL FLOW,
DISPLACEMENT STABILITY, EOR, POLYMER 559
left half side is close to 1, and that in the right half side
is close to 0.5.
In case visc02, the oil viscosity is increased to
100 mPa
s. The oil mobility is then relatively small so that
the water mobility is almost equal to the total mobility (oil
and water) in the displaced zone. The polymer concen-
tration is adjusted so that the polymer solution mobility
is equal to the total mobility of the displaced water and
oil. Interestingly, the water saturation in most of the
displaced area (in the right hand side) shown in Fig. 5
is about 0.495, less than the initial water saturation of
0.5. The reason is that most of the oil is not produced,
and some oil immediately nearby the injector is dis-
placed and spreads over the rest of the area in the right
hand side. The initially existing water is produced
immediately after the producer is opened, and the
injected thickened water breaks through the producer
after the initial water is produced. The observed
phenomenon can also be verified in the recovery factor
and water-cut curves in Fig. 4.
THEORETICAL INVESTIGATION
The conventional mobility ratio in multiphase flow is
defined as the displacing fluid mobility divided by
the total mobility of displaced water and oil phases.
From the previous section, we can see that the unit
mobility ratio based on the conventional definition
is not a valid criterion to distinguish favorable’ and
unfavorable’ mobility control conditions. We have
found that a better criterion should be the unit mobility
ratio, which is defined as the displacing fluid mobility
Sw ~ 0.5
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
560 J. J. SHENG Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering

Sw ~ 0.495

Figure 5. Water saturation profile at 0.5 PV injection (visc02 data). This figure
is available in color online at www.apjChemEng.com.

divided by the oil mobility multiplied by the oil saturation
[Eqn (6)]. In this section, we attempt to justify the
proposed idea from the stability of displacement front.
Let us assume that the displaced water and oil two-phase
flow can be described by two separate flow channels:
oil and water. The flow model therefore can be schema-
tically represented as shown in Fig. 6.
In Fig. 6, pi and po are the inlet pressure (injection
pressure) and outlet pressure (flowing pressure),
respectively; xof and xwf are assumed displacement
fronts at the oil channel and water channel, respectively;
q1, q2, qo, and qw are the injection rate in the oil channel,
injection rate in the water channel, oil rate, and water
rate, respectively, with q1 = qo and q2 = qw; the cross-
sectional areas of the oil and water channels are
equal to their respective saturations in the displaced
zones, So and Sw. The distance from the inlet to the
outlet is L.
pi xof po
q1 qo
Oil Channel (So)
q2 Water Channel (Sw) qw
0 xwf L
Inlet Outlet
Now, we consider the flow in the oil channel. We
assume the displacement is piston-like, and no oil is
left behind the displacement front. Accordingly, the
displacing rate q1 in the upstream swept zone is
kkwr ASo ðpi  pof Þ
q1 ¼ ; (7)
mu xof
where k is the absolute permeability, kwr is the endpoint
water relative permeability at the residual oil saturation
Sor, A is the cross-sectional area, pof is the pressure
at the front xof, and So is the normalized movable oil
cross-sectional area (initial normalized oil saturation):
So ¼ So  Swc
: (8)
1  Sor  Swc
Note that the water relative permeability here should be
the upstream phase relative permeability (e.g. polymer
solution). To simplify the discussion, we just use water
relative permeability. In the downstream unswept zone,
the oil flow rate, qo, is
kkro ðSw ÞAðpof  po Þ
qo ¼ : (9)
mo ðL  xof Þ

Figure 6. Schematic of flow channels. For the oil channel,

© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering MOBILITY CONTROL, CHANNEL FLOW,
DISPLACEMENT STABILITY, EOR, POLYMER 561
j k
pi  po ¼ ðpi  pof Þ þ ðpof  po Þ 0
e ¼ ei exp ðMroc  1ÞC ðt  ti Þ : (16)
mu xof q1 mo ðL  xof Þqo
¼ þ Equation (16) shows that e grows exponentially with
kkwr ASo kkro ðSw ÞA (10)
time when Mroc > 1, is unchanged when Mroc = 1, and
qo mu decays exponentially when Mroc < 1. From the stability
¼ ½xof þ Mroc ðL  xof Þ;
kkwr ASo of displacement front, Mroc should be equal to or less
than 1. In other words, the criterion for the mobility
where control requirement in EOR processes should be

kwr =mu So linj  kwr =mu So

Mroc ¼ ¼ So : (11) Mroc  ≤1: (17)
kro ðSw Þ=mo lo kro ðSw Þ=mo

The physical meaning of Mroc defined by Eqn (11) is

From Eqn (10) and the material balance of the the mobility ratio of the displacing fluid to the displaced
injected water within dt, oil phase in the assumed oil channel. This mobility ratio
in the assumed oil channel is the mobility ratio of the
displacing fluid to the displaced oil phase multiplied by
dxof qo
¼  the normalized movable oil saturation, So .
dt ASo ð1  Swc  Sor Þf Prats[9] stated that a parameter commonly used to
kkwr ðpi  po Þ measure the stability of a displacement front is the ratio
¼ (12) of the pressure gradient @p/@n normal to and on the
mu fð1  Swc  Sor Þ½Mroc L þ xof ð1  Mroc Þ
downstream side of the displacement front to that on
C the upstream side. In this case, the upstream pressure
¼ ;
½Mroc L þ xof ð1  Mroc Þ gradient in the oil channel based on Eqn (7) is
 
@p ðpi  pof Þ q1 mu
¼ ¼ : (18)
where C is a constant defined by @n u xof kkwr ASo
The downstream pressure gradient in the oil channel
kkwr ðpi  po Þ based on Eqn (9) is
C¼ : (13)
mu fð1  Swc  Sor Þ  
@p ðpof  po Þ qo mo
¼ ¼ : (19)
@n d ðL  xof Þ kkro ðSw ÞA
Let us assume a small perturbation e in xof,
Then
de dðxof þ eÞ dxof
¼   
dt dt dt @p

¼C ½ 1
Mroc L þ ðxof þ eÞð1  Mroc Þ
@n
 d
@p
@n u
¼
kwr =mu So
kro ðSw Þ=mo
: (20)


1
Mroc L þ xof ð1  Mroc Þ  Comparing Eqn (20) with Eqn (11), we can see that
 
@p
CeðMroc  1Þ 0
 ¼ C ðMroc  1Þe; Mroc ¼
@n
 d : (21)
½Mroc L þ xof ð1  Mroc Þ2 @p
@n u
(14)
where In other words, according to Eqn (21), the physical
meaning of Mroc is the ratio of the downstream pressure
0 C gradient to the upstream pressure gradient in the assumed
C ¼ : (15)
½Mroc L þ xof ð1  Mroc Þ2 oil channel. This ratio should be equal to or less than 1.
From a practical design point of view, because pressure
gradients are not available, we have to use the definition
From Eqn (14), we have Eqn (11) for Mroc. In this paper, Mroc is simply called the
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
562 J. J. SHENG
mobility ratio. Keep in mind that the mobility ratio
used in this paper is in the assumed oil channel, or the
conventional mobility ratio multiplied (or corrected) by
the normalized oil saturation. In the assumed water
channel, generally, the displacing fluid is a polymer
solution or other aqueous phase, and its viscosity
is higher than that of the existing water except in a
thermal recovery process. Therefore, the displacement
is stable. In a thermal recovery process, such as steam
flooding, however, the displacement is actually stable,
although the injected steam has lower viscosity.[15–17]
The reason is that small steam fingers, if formed, tend to
lose heat at relatively high rates, ultimately resulting in
condensation and disappearance of the steam fingers.[9]
The derivation of mobility control requirement (the
inequality 17) does not explicitly include the effect of
viscous coupling. However, the derivation explicitly
considers the phase saturations. As shown by Rose,[18]
the saturation significantly affects the values of viscous
coupling. Another fact is that the formulation presented
in this paper (the inequality 17) uses measured relative
permeability data that actually include the viscous
coupling effect. Therefore, the formulation presented in
this paper implicitly considers the viscous coupling effect.
When the inequality 17 is derived, it is considered
that a displacing fluid displaces the oil phase in the
oil channel following the meniscus approach similar
to that employed by Panfilov and Panfilova.[19] Actually,
Eqn (12), in this paper, is equivalent to Eqn (2) in
Panfilov and Panfilova except our Eqn (12) does not
include a capillary pressure term. The effect of capillary
pressure is less significant compared with the external
pressure gradient imposed by the injected displacing
phase in practical flooding situations, as discussed in
the subsection on the Effect of kr Curves.
The mobility control requirement defined in the
inequality 17 suggests that displacing fluid (generally
water phase) permeability should be reduced and/or
the viscosity should be increased. Mobilization of
recapturing of fines in low salinity waterflooding may
give rise to reduction of the permeability in the water
swept zones.[20,21] Thus, low salinity waterflooding will
help satisfy the mobility control requirement by reducing
the permeability in the initially high-permeability zones.
In this case, the inequality 17 can be used to estimate
the level of permeability reduction, which can satisfy
the mobility control requirement. If the permeability
reduction from low salinity waterflooding is not high
enough, the displacing fluid viscosity needs to be
increased by adding polymer, for example.
In the case using colloidal dispersion gels (CDG),
which are crosslinked polymer solutions, the displacing
solution viscosity is increased, and some polymer
particles block some pore throats so that the injected
solution is diverted, and equivalently, the water relative
permeability is reduced.[22] The dual effect of reduced
water relative permeability and increased displacing
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering
solution viscosity can be included in the mobility control
requirement defined in the inequality 17. From the
inequality 17, we can estimate the required CDG solution
viscosity if the relative permeability reduction is known,
or vice versa.
NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
This section investigates mobility effect on oil recovery
factor in different formations: homogeneous, two-layered
heterogeneous, and heterogeneous with a random
permeability distribution. The effects of kr shape,
capillary pressure and gravity are investigated as well.
Effect of mobility ratio in a homogeneous
formation
After a discussion of the mobility control requirement
using the simplified flow model, this section moves to
a model with realistic water and oil relative permeability
curves. The relative permeability curves are shown in
Fig. 1. Others are the same as those in the simplified
model discussed earlier; particularly, the initial water
saturation is 0.5. Again, capillary and gravity are not
included.
Figure 7 shows the simulation results of the recovery
factors after one PV injection vs mobility ratio, which
is defined as the injection fluid mobility divided by
the oil phase mobility multiplied by the normalized
oil saturation [Eqn (11)]. This figure clearly shows that
with the mobility ratio less than 1, the recovery factors
are insensitive to the mobility ratio; with the mobility
ratio greater than 1, the recovery factors decrease stee-
ply with the mobility ratio. The unit mobility ratio is a
kind of turning point. Figure 8 is similar to Fig. 7,
except that the mobility ratio in the horizontal axis is
defined as the injection fluid mobility divided by the
total mobility [Eqn (2)]. The turning point in this figure
is around 0.2, not 1.
When the initial water saturation is 0.7, which is more
representative in a tertiary recovery process, the recovery
factor vs the two different mobility ratios are shown in
100
Recovery factor (%)
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mobility Ratio (Mroc)
Figure 7. Recovery factors vs the mobility ratio
defined in Eqn (11) for a homogeneous model
(Swi = 0.5).
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering MOBILITY CONTROL, CHANNEL FLOW,
DISPLACEMENT STABILITY, EOR, POLYMER 563
100
Recovery factor (%)
Effect of mobility ratio in a layered formation

The layered model discussed here is a two-layer

10
0.01 0.1 1 10
Mobility Ratio (
Figure 8. Recovery factors vs the mobility ratio
defined in Eqn (2) for a homogeneous model
(Swi = 0.5).
Figs. 9 and 10. These two figures more clearly
show that if we define the mobility ratio using the oil
mobility [Eqn (11)], the unit mobility is a better turning
point. In other words, when the mobility ratio is less than
1, the recovery factor will not be sensitive to mobility
ratio; when the mobility ratio is greater than 1, the
recovery factor is very sensitive to the mobility ratio.
Therefore, these results support our proposed idea that
the mobility control requirement is as follows: the
displacing fluid mobility should be equal to or less than
the less-mobile phase mobility (generally, oil mobility)
in the downstream multiplied by the normalized phase
saturation in a homogeneous formation.
100
Recovery factor (%)
model: top layer permeability is 5 mD, and bottom
layer permeability is 50 mD. The ratio of vertical
permeability to horizontal permeability is 0.1, and the
100
total injection volume is two PV. The rest of input data
inj/ t)
are the same as the homogeneous model. The initial
water saturations of 0.5 and 0.7 were used. From the
simulation results, oil recovery factors vs the mobility
ratio defined by Eqns (11) and (2) were plotted for
comparison, similar to Figs. 7–10, but the figures are
not shown here to avoid a lengthy presentation. From
those figures, we learn that if we define the mobility
ratio as Mroc in Eqn (11), the unit mobility ratio is a
much better criterion than the conventional one using
the total mobility in Eqn (2).
Effect of mobility ratio in a heterogeneous
formation
We also tested the concept using a heterogeneous
model in which the random permeability distribution
was generated using the geo-statistical software devel-
oped by Yang.[23] The input average permeability is
10 mD; the coefficient of permeability variation (or
simply permeability variation[24]) is 0.86; and the
dimensionless correlation length is 0.67. The ratio of
vertical permeability to horizontal permeability is 0.1,
and the total injection volume is two PV. The rest
of the input data are the same as the homogeneous

model. Similar to the case using a layered model,

we tested two initial water saturations, 0.5 and 0.7.
10 And we compared the results using the two definitions
of mobility ratio. The comparison shows that the
observations in the homogeneous model are still valid
1 in the heterogeneous model. In other words, if we
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mobility Ratio (Mroc) define the mobility ratio as the ratio of injection
(displacing) fluid mobility to oil mobility multiplied
Figure 9. Recovery factors vs the mobility ratio by the normalized oil saturation, the unit mobility ratio
defined in Eqn (11) for a homogeneous model is a much better criterion than the conventional one
(Swi = 0.7). using the total mobility.
Note that only absolute permeability heterogeneity
is included in the model. The modified mobility ratio
[Eqn (11)] does not include absolute permeability.
100
The flow paths are along high permeability channels
Recovery factor (%)

(zones). This phenomenon is more obvious when the

conventional criterion is used than when the modified
10 criterion is used, because the modified criterion provides
better mobility control.

1
0.1
Effects of capillary pressure and gravity
0.001 0.01 1 10
Mobility Ratio (λinj/λt)
The derivation of the mobility control requirement
Figure 10. Recovery factors vs the mobility ratio (the inequality 17) does not include capillary pressure
defined in Eqn (2) for a homogeneous model or gravity. Including these effects will make the
(Swi = 0.7). formula so complex that a simple, general and practical
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
564 J. J. SHENG Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering

mobility control criterion cannot be obtained. In general, 0.9

capillary pressure tends to oppose the formation of 0.8 krw

Relative permeabilities
saturation discontinuities in homogeneous sand, whereas 0.7 kro
gravity tends to promote complete vertical segregation 0.6
of fluids. Thus, in a reservoir in which water advances 0.5

upwards to displace oil, the capillary and gravity 0.4

effects oppose each other and tend somewhat to cancel. 0.3

0.2
At high rates of displacement, the viscous force may
0.1
dominate and their effects are obscured. At extremely
0
low displacement rates, viscous force may be negligible 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
and the balance between capillary and gravity controls Sw (fraction)
the saturation distribution.[25] The effect of capillary
pressure also depends on wettability and heterogeneity
Figure 11. Convex water and oil relative permeabilities.
in rock properties. For example, in the case of a water-wet This figure is available in color online at www.
reservoir where there is a tight channel, water will apjChemEng.com.
preferentially flow through this tight channel. However,
this may not happen if the reservoir is oil wet. Let us
look at the numerical effects of capillary pressure and
gravity on oil recovery factors. On the basis of the data
100

Recovery factor (%)

sets for the homogeneous cases presented in Fig. 9 in
which the initial water saturation is 0.7, we added
capillary pressure and gravity data. The maximum
10
capillary pressure at Swc is 27.4 psi and decreases with
the saturation according to the function of 27:4So . The
2

gravity effect is turned on. The oil recovery factors

1
from these new runs are almost the same as those 0.01 0.1 1 10
presented in Fig. 9 with the digits in decimal position Mobility Ratio (Mroc)
being different (differences of <1%). That means the
effects of capillary pressure and gravity on oil recovery Figure 12. Recovery factors vs the mobility ratio
factors in these cases are insignificant. The same defined in Eqn (11) for a homogeneous model with
convex kr curves (Swi = 0.7).
observation about the capillary pressure was reported
in one of the author’s earlier papers.[26]

Effect of kr curves
When validating the mobility control criterion (the
inequality 17) in the proceeding subsections, typical
kro and krw curves are used, as shown in Fig. 1. The
shapes of the kr curves are concave. To check whether
the proposed mobility control criterion could also be
valid in different types of kr curves, further convex kr
curves shown in Fig. 11 are used. The exponents for
kro and krw are changed from 2 in Fig. 1 to 0.8. The
simulation models are based on the base model except
that the initial water saturation is 0.7. Figure 12 shows
the recovery factors vs the mobility ratio defined in
Eqn (11). It shows that the Mroc = 1 is a reflection point.
In other words, the proposed criterion is also valid
when different shapes of kr curves are used.
EXPERIMENTAL JUSTIFICATION
Wang et al.[27] performed polymer flooding tests after
the cores were completely watered out when the water
cut reached 98%. We know that increasing displacing
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
fluid viscosity would result in a higher oil recovery fac-
tor, but at a higher polymer cost. The objective of the
work of Wang et al. was to find out at what range of
the viscosity ratio, mu/mo, the incremental oil recovery
factor would be the highest for the unit increase in
the viscosity ratio. In other words, at what range of
the viscosity, the polymer flooding would be most
effective. They found that the most effective range of
the viscosity ratios, mu/mo, were 2–4, for those
watered-out cores. In those watered-out cores, the
average oil saturation was about 0.45. The detailed
data, especially relative permeability data, were not
presented in their paper.
We have derived that the optimum mobility
ratio, Mroc, is 1. Now, we want to find out what are
the values of Mroc in the experiments of Wang et al.,
which correspond to their most effective viscosity ratio
of 2–4. If the Mroc of Wang et al. are close to 1, our
derived Mroc is validated more or less by their experi-
ments. We made the following estimates.
The water cut at the watered-out was 0.98. The oil
viscosity was 9 mPa
s in their experiments. We assume
the water viscosity was 1 mPa
s. According to the
fractional flow equation,
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering MOBILITY CONTROL, CHANNEL FLOW,
DISPLACEMENT STABILITY, EOR, POLYMER 565

1 1 means that the inequality 17 is not a perfect criterion.

fw ¼ kro mw
¼ kro ð1Þ
¼ 0:98; The subsequent numerical simulation results also show
1þ krw mo 1þ krw ð9Þ that, in some cases, the unit mobility ratio is not a
perfect turning point in the plot of recovery factor
the estimated krw/kro is about 5. In the definition of vs mobility ratio Mroc. We have tried to improve the
Mroc, kwr/kro and So are used. So, we need to find these mobility ratio definition [Eqn (11)] as a criterion for
two parameters. the mobility control requirement. For example, the initial
If we assume that the endpoint kwr at Sw = 1  Sor is oil cut at the outlet was used to replace the normalized oil
about twice the krw at the water saturation of 0.55 (oil saturation. Note that the initial normalized oil saturation
saturation of 0.45), then kwr/kro = 10. If we further in Eqn (11) is the average saturation at the start of
assume Swc = 0.2 and Sor = 0.3, then So = (0.45 – 0.3) / an EOR process. This statement could be valid in a
(1 – 0.2 – 0.3) = 0.3. small coreflood scale, but not in a field scale. In a field
Remember that the effective viscosity ratios were 2–4 scale, there is a saturation variation. However, we did
in the experiments of Wang et al. If we use Eqn (11), the use field-scale simulation cases to check the validity
estimated mobility ratios are of our proposed criterion. We also used a smaller
  ! relative permeability corresponding to the normalized
kwr =mu So kwr mo  oil saturation to replace the endpoint water relative
Mroc ¼ ¼ So permeability kwr considering that the some movable
kro ðSw Þ=mo kro mp
  oil is left behind the front. So far, we have found that
1 1 Eqn (11) is the best formula.
¼ ð10Þ to ð0:3Þ ¼ 0:75 to 1:5:
4 2 In designing the mobility control requirement for
an EOR process, the final criterion should be the
Now we have found that Mroc is 0.75–1.5. The derived economic parameters of the project such as net–
Mroc = 1 is in the middle of this range. Therefore, Mroc present–value. The condition 17 can serve as a starting
is supported by their experiments. The parameters used point for the economic evaluation. On the basis of the
to estimate Mroc are summarized in Table 2. work presented in this paper, we may conclude that
In addition to viscosity thickening property, polymer the existing concept, that the displacing fluid mobility
has other mechanisms to enhance oil recovery such as should be equal to or less than the total mobility of
viscoelastic property, which is not included in the the displaced multiphase fluids, is invalid. Instead, the
inequality 17. Although we have verified Mroc = 1 from displacing fluid mobility should be equal to or less than
the experimental data, we cannot state that the inequal- the displaced oil mobility corrected by oil saturation.
ity 17 is seamlessly proved by the experiments. How- Such criterion should be used to design the concentration
ever, because the viscosity thickening property is the of the mobility control agent.
main mechanism of polymer flooding, the experiments
have at least justified the validity of the inequality 17.
Wang et al.[27] tried to define a viscosity ratio as a CONCLUDING REMARKS
criterion for the mobility control requirement. How-
ever, we have to point out that the mobility control With our simulation study, the existing concept, that
requirement should depend on the relative permeability the displacing fluid mobility should be equal to or less
ratios and fluid saturations, in addition to the viscosity than the total mobility of the displaced multi-phases, is
ratio, as defined in Eqn (11). not valid. Instead, the displacing fluid mobility should
be equal to or less than the displaced oil mobility. We
should use such criteria to design the concentration of
FURTHER DISCUSSION mobility control agent.

When we derived the mobility control requirement (the

Acknowledgements
inequality 17), several assumptions were made, which
The author appreciates the help from Dr. Mojdeh
Delshad in using UTCHEM. The author would like to
Table 2. Parameters used to estimate Mroc.
acknowledge the useful discussions with Dr. Ramon
kwr/kro 10 Bentsen, Dr. George Hirasaki, and Mr. Michael Prats.
mu/mo 2–4
Swc 0.2 REFERENCES
Sor 0.3
So 0.45 [1] R.H. Brooks, A.T. Corey. J. Irrig. Drain. Div., 1966; 6, 61.

So 0.3 [2] F.F. Craig. The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX, 1971.
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj
566 J. J. SHENG
[3] F.F. Craig Jr., T.M. Geffen, R.A. Morse. Trans. AIME, 1955;
204, 7–15.
[4] R.L. Slobod, B.H. Caudle. Trans. AIME, 1952; 195, 265–270.
[5] A.B. Dyes, B.H. Caudle, R.A. Erickson. Trans. AIME, 1954;
201, 81–86.
[6] L.W. Lake. Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 1989.
[7] W. B. Gogarty. US Patent No. 3,443,636, 13 May 1969.
[8] W.B. Gogarty, H.P. Meabon, H.W. Milton. JPT, 1970;
(February), 141–147.
[9] M. Prats. Thermal Recovery, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Dallas, TX, 1982.
[10] U.G. Araktingi, F.M. Orr Jr.. SPE Adv. Tech., 1993; 1(1), 71–80.
[11] P. Daripa, G. Pasa. Transport Porous Med., 2007; 70(1), 11–23.
[12] O. Taghizadeh, K. Sepehrnoori, S. L. Bryant. Paper SPE
110681 presented at the SPE Western Regional and Pacific
Section AAPG Joint meeting, Bakersfield, CA, 31 March–2
April, 2008.
[13] R. M. Enick, D.K. Olsen. DOE/NETL-2012/1540 report,
2012.
[14] UTCHEM-9.0: Technical Documentation for UTCHEM-9.0,
A Three-Dimensional Chemical Flood Simulator, Austin,
July 2000; pp. 1–256.
© 2012 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering
[15] G. J. Harmsen. Paper PD9 presented at the Eighth World
Petroleum Congress, Moscow, 13–16 June, 1971.
[16] C.A. Miller. AICHE J., 1975; (May), 474–479.
[17] J. Hagoort, A. Leijnse, F. van Poelgeest. JPT, 1976; (December),
1409–1419.
[18] W. Rose. Transport Porous Med., 1990; 5, 97–102.
[19] M. Panfilov, I. Panfilova. Transport Porous Med., 2005; 58,
87–119.
[20] H. Yuan, A.A. Shapiro. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., 2011; 78, 618–626.
[21] P. Lemon, A. Zeinijahromi, P. Bedrikovetsky, I. Shahin. J.
Can. Petrol. Technol., 2011; (Sept/Oct), 82–94.
[22] K. Spildo, A. Skauge, M.G. Aarra, M.T. Tweheyo. SPEREE,
2009; (June), 427–432.
[23] A.-P. Yang. Stochastic heterogeneity and dispersion. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1990.
[24] H. Dykstra, R.L. Parsons. Secondary Recovery of Oil in the
United States, 2nd edn, API, Washington, DC, 1950; pp. 160–174.
[25] S.E. Buckley, M.C. Leverett. Trans. AIME, 1942; 146(1),
107–116.
[26] J.J. Sheng. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. (2012), Published online
in Wiley Online Library, DOI: 10.1002/apj.1640
[27] K.-L. Wang, G.-Z. Liao, Z.-Y. Yang, J.-L. Li. Oilfield Chem.,
2001; 18(4), 354–357.
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013; 8: 555–566
DOI: 10.1002/apj