Article

Cite This: Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455 pubs.acs.org/EF

A New Dimensionless Approach to Assess Relative Permeability

Modifiers
Faaiz Al-Shajalee,*,†,‡ Ali Saeedi,*,‡ and Colin Wood*,§
†
University of Kirkuk, Kirkuk, Iraq
‡
Curtin University, Department of Petroleum, Kent Street, Perth 6102, Australia
§
CSIRO, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

ABSTRACT: Water production is one of the common problems that is faced in mature gas reservoirs. A number of methods
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

exist to tackle this problem, including injecting polymer that can selectively reduce water production. There are many factors
that affect this treatment, such as rock permeability and porosity, flowing fluid phases, polymer concentration, and the
dependency of polymer thickness on the flow rate of each phase. In this manuscript, we propose a dimensionless form of the
effective pore radius (r−eff) that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of such a treatment. This form takes into account the
Downloaded via CURTIN UNIV on June 29, 2020 at 09:15:08 (UTC).

thickness of the absorbed polymer layer onto the pore surfaces of the rock, which is an important factor controlling the
performance of the treatment. Our newly developed r−eff explicitly demonstrates the effects of the above factors by considering
them during its calculation. This manuscript also demonstrates the application of r−eff in analyzing the outcome of a number of
experiments conducted in this work. With regard to the gas phase, our experiments show that at low flow rates (0.2−1 cm3/
min) as the polymer concentration increases from 1000 to 8000 ppm, r−eff decreases and is less than unity for concentrations of
1000−4000 pppm, indicating improved post-treatment permeability to gas. When the gas flow rate is increased to 2 cm3/min
and beyond, the r−eff is almost equal to one across all polymer concentrations. This is attributed to the polymer layer losing its
effects on flow behavior due to possible increasing polymer rigidity caused by increasing shear rate. With regards to the water
phase, although r−eff follows a different trend against polymer concentration than that of gas, it remains less than one across all
concentrations used, indicating the desirable reduction in post-treatment permeability to the water phase. Further analysis on
the experimental results using the Forchheimer equation reveals the presence of three flow regimes with increasing gas flow rate.

1. INTRODUCTION results by Zheng et al.5 show both increasing and then

Currently many hydrocarbon fields are nearing their maturity
and excessive water production from production wells has
become a major challenge to the oil and gas industry. Chemical
approaches are broadly utilized to reduce water production.
This can include polymer gels or inorganic cements, but these
are only applicable when the water producing zone can be
treated. In the case where water producing zones cannot be
identified, polymers can be injected in the area around the
producing wells. Some classes of polymer can selectively
reduce the production of water while having a minimal impact
on hydrocarbon. These materials are known as relative
permeability modifiers (RPMs). To date, a number of
experimental investigations and field trials have been carried
out to understand the behavior of RPMs with the oil/water
system. However, there is very limited data available regarding
the gas/water systems.
All the existing literature agrees that by increasing the
concentration of the injected polymer the adsorption is
enhanced so that the thickness of the adsorbed polymer
layer increases on the internal pore walls of a porous medium.
This may eventually decrease the permeability to all fluids
flowing in the medium.1−6 However, there is no universal
consensus about the effect of pretreatment absolute perme-
ability of the medium on the eventual permeability reduction.
Mennella et al.2 and Qi et al.6 claim that permeability
reduction decreases with increasing absolute permeability,
whereas Jinxing et al.7 have concluded the opposite. The
decreasing of permeability reduction with increasing absolute
permeability of their rock samples.
As indicated before, many researchers8,2 indicate that the
presence of the adsorbed polymer layer on the pore wall is
expected to lessen the flow pore size for all phases in the same
way and ultimately modify their permeabilities. However,
Mennella et al.2 claim that assuming the polymer layer
thickness not to be constant and that it depends on every
flowing fluid phase would yield a more consistent interpreta-
tion of the experimental data. Grattoni et al.,1 Mishra et al.,4
and Mennella et al.2 report that the post-treatment effective
pore size would depend on the spatial distribution of expanded
and shrunken regions of the polymer layer which depends on
the flowing fluid phase considered.
Using capillary tubes and sand packs, the measured gas, oil,
and water permeabilities in the presence of a polymer/gel were
found to vary with flow velocity (shear rate) according to a
power law.9−11,4 For a non-deformable porous medium, the
power-law model can only be attributed to the elastic
properties of the non-Newtonian or deformable fluid
(polymer/gel), something that may not be expected from a
Newtonian fluid (oil, water, and gas).10,9,12,13 Zaitoun and
Kohler8 and Mishra et al.4 also report that the adsorbed
Received: January 14, 2019
Revised: February 22, 2019
Published: March 14, 2019

© 2019 American Chemical Society 3448 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00135

Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455
Energy & Fuels
polymer molecules in a porous medium deform under
hydrodynamic forces (shear stress) exerted on it and ultimately
that this would affect the permeability.
Grattoni et al.,1 Ali and Barrufet,14 and Zaitoun and
Pichery15 emphasize the importance of shear dependency or
the deformation of the adsorbed polymer layer on permeability
reduction. They show in their results that this dependency,
which is a function of polymer concentration, would eventually
affect flow behavior of different fluid phases. Zaitoun and
Kohler8 imply that the presence of the adsorbed polymer layer,
which attracts the wetting phase to it, brings about several
effects including reduction of the flow of the wetting phase as
well as inducing a lubrication effect toward the non-wetting
phase. They also state that this lubrication influence increases
with increasing the viscosity contrast between the non-wetting
and wetting phases and decreases with increasing the viscosity
contrast in the case of using a non-wetting phase.
The mechanisms behind the ‘Disproportionate Permeability
Reduction (DPR)’ of RPMs on fluid phases is still a matter of
controversy. The wall effect of the adsorbed polymer layer on
the inner walls of a porous medium may induce one or all of
the four effects of wettability, steric, lubrication, and swelling/
shrinking. The wall effect is considered a primary mechanism
behind the relative permeability modification.8,16−21,15 More-
over, the polymer layer thickness may change as affected by
many parameters such as the phase that is being flowed, flow
rate (shear rate), and polymer rheology.8,2,1,4,9−13 Therefore,
reporting experimental results in terms of polymer thickness or
pore radius may be more meaningful.
The first aim of this research was to experimentally study the
effect of an RPM agent (i.e., a cationic polymer) and its
concentration on water and gas permeability reductions in a
number of sandstone rock samples of different permeability. A
new dimensionless parameter called the dimensionless effective
pore radius (r−eff) that can help to interpret and compare the
resulting experimental data in a more insightful, streamlined,
and objective manner is also outlined. If evaluated as a final
quantitative figure to evaluate the effectiveness of an RPM
treatment, r−eff may seem similar to the commonly used residual
resistance factor (Frr). However, this newly developed
parameter explicitly reflects the effect of a number of important
parameters of the rock−fluid−polymer system (e.g., pore sizes,
permeability, porosity, and thickness of the adsorbed polymer
layer) on the final results of the treatment. Finally, the
Forchheimer equation has been also used here to observe gas
flow regime changes.
2. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
2.1. Materials. Four cylindrical water-wet Berea Sandstone core
plugs with similar porosities were used in this study (Table 1). The
permeability of each rock varied to some degree across the study. To
Table 1. Characterization of the Rock Samples Used and the
Polymer Concentration Used to Treat Each during Core
Flooding
rock polymer
sample length diameter porosity permeability concentration
no. (cm) (cm) (%) (mD) (ppm)
1 4.881 3.798 21 350 1000
2 4.947 3.792 22 375 2000
3 4.82 3.779 21 410 4000
4 4.77 3.789 21 426 8000
3449
Article
determine the mineral composition of this Berea Sandstone, X-ray
diffraction (XRD) was used on an offcut of a sample, and the results
are shown in Table 2, which reveal a mineralogy typical of sandstones.
Table 2. Berea Sandstone Mineral Composition As
Obtained from XRD Analysis
phase weight percent
quartz 81.2
microcline (max) 4.8
kaolin 5.7
illite/muscovite 4.5
albite, low 3
dolomite 0.5
calcite 0.3
The brine used in core-flooding experiments was a synthetic brine (2
wt % KCl) prepared by dissolving an analytical grade KCl (Sigma-
Aldrich) in distilled water. The gas phase was a high purity bottled
nitrogen gas (99.99 wt %, BOC Gas). We also used a cationic
poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride) solution
(Table 3) with four different concentrations as our RPM agent
(Table 1). The earlier mentioned synthetic brine was used to dilute
the polymer and to arrive at the concentrations listed in Table 1. The
reason behind using a cationic polymer was due to its positively
charged ions that can be adsorbed well on the negatively charged
Berea Sandstone pore surfaces. As discussed in the earlier section of
the manuscript, adequate adsorption of an RPM agent is essential for
achieving the possible relative permeability modification effect of the
agent.
2.2. Rheological Properties. A series of rheological tests were
conducted using a HAAKE RheoWin rheometer on different
concentrations of the polymer solution to determine its behavior
and the effect of shear stress on shear rate (Figure 1). According to
the results obtained, these solutions show a non-Newtonian shear
thickening behavior, so the viscosity varies depending on the applied
stress or force. The polymers also show enhanced shear thickening
behavior with increasing solution concentration, so the increasing
shear rate and polymer concentration would lead to an increase in
polymer rigidity.
2.3. Core-Flooding Tests. A schematic of the core-flooding setup
used in this work is presented in Figure 2. The flooding experiments
were conducted at room temperature with a confining pressure of
10.35 MPa and a pore pressure of 6.90 MPa.
After petrophysical characterization of the core samples, they
underwent a core-flooding experiment that consisted of three major
steps as outlined below. The basic preliminary characterization
included drying the samples in an oven at 65 °C for 24 h or until their
weights stabilized. Subsequently, they underwent nitrogen porosity
and permeability measurements, whose results are included in Table
1.
Before Polymer Treatment:
1. A core sample was installed inside the core holder. The sample
was vacuumed for 24 h, and then the sample was saturated with the
2% KCl brine under constant pressure for another 24 h.
2. Brine was injected at different flow rates to measure the sample’s
absolute permeability (k).
3. Gas was injected under constant flow rate until no more brine
was produced and it achieved a constant differential pressure across
the sample (i.e., establishing irreducible water saturation (Swirr)). The
relative permeability to gas at irreducible water saturation krg1 (Swirr)
was calculated using the final measured differential pressure. This step
was repeated with different gas flow rates (1−70 cc/min).
4. Brine was injected with a constant flow rate until no more gas
was produced and it achieved a constant differential pressure across
the sample (i.e., reaching residual gas saturation Sgr.). The relative
permeability to brine at residual gas saturation krw1 (Sgr) was
calculated using the final measured differential pressure. This step was
repeated with different brine flow rates (1−4 cc/min).
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00135
Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455
Energy & Fuels
Table 3. Characteristics of the Polymer Used in This Study as the RPM Agent
Figure 1. Results of the rheology tests showing the effect of shear rate
on shear stress.
Polymer Treatment:
5. Three pore volumes of a polymer solution with a specific
concentration (Table 1) was injected through the core sample.
6. The sample was aged in contact with the polymer solution for 48
h.
After Polymer Treatment:
7. Brine was injected at constant flow rate to displace free/
unreacted polymer solution from the sample.
8. Gas under a constant flow rate was injected until no more brine
was produced and it achieved a constant differential pressure across
the sample (i.e., reaching irreducible water saturation Swirr). The
relative permeability to gas at irreducible water saturation and
adsorbed polymer krg2 (Swirr+polymer) was calculated using the final
measured differential pressure. This step was repeated with different
gas flow rates (1−70 cc/min).
Figure 2. Core flooding test equipment.
3450
Article
9. Brine was injected under constant flow rates until no more gas
was produced and it achieved a constant differential pressure across
the sample (i.e., reaching residual gas saturation (Sgr)). The relative
permeability to brine at residual gas saturation and adsorbed polymer
krw2 (Sgr+polymer) was calculated using the final measured differential
pressure. This step was repeated with different water flow rates (1−4
cc/min).
The data measured or calculated from the above outlined
experimental procedure was subsequently used to calculate a number
of important parameters using specific equations that will be
presented and discussed in the next section of the manuscript.
2.4. Dimensionless Parameters. The residual resistance factor
(Frr) is a critical parameter introduced in the literature to evaluate the
performance of an RPM agent.22 This parameter is calculated
separately for each of the fluid phases whose permeability is to be
modified. The general equation used to calculate Frr is provided
below.
ΔPa
Frr =
ΔPb (1)
where ΔPa and ΔPb are the decreases in pressure during injection that
is recorded across a core sample for a fluid phase after and before the
RPM treatment, respectively.
As indicated earlier, it is expected that the DPR effect of an RPM
agent would be realized by leaving a very thin layer (approximately a
micrometer) on the internal pore surfaces of the treated porous
medium. Since the polymer layer thickness is not always constant and
is affected by many parameters such as the flowing phase, flow rate
(shear rate), polymer rheology and concentration, pore sizes,
etc.,8,2,1,4,9−13 evaluating any experimental results using a parameter
expressed in terms of polymer thickness and pore radius may be more
meaningful and insightful. The pretreatment effective or average pore
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00135
Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455
Energy & Fuels Article

radius for the medium in combination with Frr has been used by where Yg and Xg are the Forchheimer Y (m−2) and Forchheimer X
Zaitoun and Kohler8 to estimate the effective thickness of the (m−1) functions, respectively; Qg1 is the gas volumetric flow rate at the
adsorbed layer of the RPM polymer/gel using the following equation. inlet (m3/sec), A the cross sectional area (m2), L the length (m), and
i 1 yz
e = r jjj1 − z
0.25 z
P1 and P2 the measured pressures at the inlet and outlet of the porous

k {
medium, respectively.
Frr (2)
where e is the estimated average hydrodynamic polymer/gel layer 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
thickness (μm), r is the average pore radius (μm) for brine flow which This section of the manuscript presents and discuss the
can be calculated using eq 3,8 and Frr is the residual resistance factor experimental results obtained in the current study. Initially, the
as calculated using eq 1. results are interpreted and discussed in the context of the
i 8k y
r = jjjj brine zzzz
0.5 commonly used Frr. Subsequently, in order to demonstrate its

k ϕ {
effectiveness, the same experimental data are analyzed,
(3) interpreted, and discussed using the newly developed r−eff.
where kbrine is the brine permeability and ϕ the porosity of the porous Another objective of this section is to interpret the results
medium as modeled using a bundle of capillary tubes. obtained in this work using the Forchheimer equation to
Subsequently, the post-treatment effective porous radius can be determine the possible flow regimes that may be encountered
estimated using the following equation by taking into account the within the porous media as the gas injection flow rate changes
fraction of the original radius taken up by the presence of the with and without the presence of the adsorbed polymer layer.
adsorbed polymer/gel layer. 3.1. Effect of Rock Permeability and Polymer
reff = r − e (4) Concentration. Table 4 shows the residual resistance factors
where reff is the post-treatment effective pore radius (μm).
Dimensionless variables have been used in many technical areas, Table 4. Average Frrw, Frrg, and Frrw/Frrga
such as fluid dynamics and in fluid flow in porous media, as simple polymer
and effective comparison tools especially when there are many cases rock porosity permeability concentration Frrw/
of a similar nature to be evaluated in a study that has different features no. (%) (mD) (ppm) Frrw Frrg Frrg
that need to be compared with each other. Thus, for different core 1 21 350 1000 2.38 0.6 5.55
samples that, for example, have different permeability values (i.e., with 2 22 375 2000 2.05 0.8 2.6
different initial pore radii) and have been treated with different
3 21 410 4000 1.15 0.8 1.86
polymer concentrations (i.e., resulting in different adsorbed polymer
thicknesses), the dimensionless form of eq 4 would be very helpful for 4 21 426 8000 2.75 2 1.41
comparing the results obtained for one sample to those obtained for
a
Water and gas flow rate range = 1−4 cm3/min.
other samples. Therefore, we propose the dimensionless effective pore
radius to be calculated using the following equation. of water and gas as obtained from the experiments and the
− r calculated ratio between them along with the rock perme-
reff = eff
r (5) abilities and polymer concentrations used. It is worth noting
where reff and r are defined by eqs 3 and 4, respectively. that each Frr value reported in this table for each fluid phase is
As indicated earlier, r−eff may be regraded very similar to Frr in that the average value calculated across all phase injection flow rates
it is a ratio between the pre- and post-treatment of a parameter explored (i.e., 1−4 cm3/min). For visual inspection, the Frrw
impacted by an RPM treatment (i.e., ΔP for the case of Frr and reff for and Frrg values are then plotted in Figures 3 and 4 against
the case of r−eff). However, the critical advantageous feature of r−eff is polymer concentration and rock permeability, respectively. As
that it explicitly reveals the interlink between the effectiveness of the revealed by the figures, Frrw decreases initially with an increase
treatment and important properties of the rock−fluid−polymer in both rock permeability (from 350 to 410 mD) and polymer
system through utilizing outputs of eqs 1−4. The Frr may only be concentration (from 1000 to 4000 ppm) but then increases
explicitly related to permeability of the porous medium under
investigation through ΔP as it may be calculated from the Darcy’s
equations.
2.5. Forchheimer Equation. The Forchheimer equation, as
presented in eq 6, is in the form of an equation for a straight line and
has been widely used to interpret the experimental data that show
inertial effects (i.e., non-Darcy flow). However, Zimmerman et al.23
state that this equation can be also utilized over any range of flow
rates as it produces similar results to those obtained from the Darcy’s
equation at low values of flow rate.
1
Yg = + βX g
k (6)
−1
where β is the inertial resistance coefficient (m ) and also
(P12 − P22)
Yg = Q g1
2μg LP1 ( ) A (7)
and
ij Q g1 yz
jj zz
j z
μg RT jk A z{
PM
1
Xg = Figure 3. Relationship between polymer concentration and Frrw and
(8) Frrg.

3451 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00135

Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455
Energy & Fuels Article

is that with Frrw/Frrg values of more than unity and, in general,

the higher the value the better the outcome of the treatment.
Figures 5 and 6 show the effect of both rock permeability and

Figure 4. Relationship between rock permeability and Frrw and Frrg.

with further increases in the rock permeability to 426 mD and

polymer concentration to 8000 ppm. All of the reviewed Figure 5. Relationship between polymer concentration and Frrw/Frrg.
literature report an ever increasing Frrw with an increase in the
polymer concentration as attributed to the increase in the
thickness of the adsorbed polymer layer.2,6,7,5 The apparent
contradiction between our results and previously published
data is believed to have been caused by the increase in rock
permeability at the same time as the increase in the polymer
concentration. In other words, the final value of Frrw resulted
from every experiment would be dictated by the competing
and opposite effects of pore radius (which increases with
increase in permeability) and adsorbed polymer layer (which
increases with increase in polymer concentration). With
regards to the trend observed in Frrw versus sample
permeability, a similar behavior has been reported in the
literature.2,6,7,5 This indicates that a uniform trend of ever
decreasing or increasing Frrw versus rock permeability may not
be expected. In our work, this trend can be explained by the
discussion presented above when addressing a similar trend
observed for variation in Frrw versus polymer concentration.
With regard to the gas phase, Figures 3 and 4 reveal an
increasing Frrg with an increase in both rock permeability and
Figure 6. Relationship between rock permeability and Frrw/Frrg.
polymer concentration. The observed trend in Frrg versus
polymer concentration is in agreement with those presented in
polymer concentration on Frrw/Frrg for the experiments
all of the previously published literature.1−6 The reason for Frrg
conducted in this work. According to these figures, the ratio
behaving differently against the polymer concentration to that
observed for Frrw could be due to the fact that the adsorbed decreases with an increase in concentration and permeability.
polymer layer may have an impact on the gas flow in different Most importantly, these data reveal that the concentration of
ways compared with the water flow. Figure 3 reveals that 1000, 1000 ppm is the best treatment concentration for our polymer
2000, and 4000 ppm polymer concentrations have resulted in solution and 8000 ppm is the worst.
an even improvement in the gas flowing behavior as shown by 3.2. Dimensionless Effective Pore Radius. As discussed
Frrg for concentrations that are less than unity. This earlier a primary objective of this section of the manuscript is
improvement, for the polymer concentrations used and for to put the earlier developed dimensionless effective pore radius
the range of gas flow rates (1−4 cm3/min) applied, may have (r−eff) into use. The use of this parameter would yield similar
been induced by the lubrication effect of the adsorbed polymer final conclusions as those obtained by analyzing Frr. However,
layer facilitating the gas flow as a mechanism which is also using r−eff would be more insightful for the same reasons
suggested by ref 8. Concerning the observed trend in Frrg presented and discussed previously.
versus rock permeability, as discussed for the water phase Figure 7 shows the combination effect of rock permeability
previously, similar trends have been reported in the literature. and polymer concentration and gas flow rate on r−eff. Overall,
Technically, for the evaluation of the effectiveness of an this figure indicates that r−eff decreases with increasing polymer
RPM treatment, the ratio of Frrw/Frrg is often more insightful concentration. Generally, for all polymer concentrations, with
than individual Frrw and Frrg on their own. The best treatment an increasing gas injection flow rate, the calculated r−eff would
3452 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00135
Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455
Energy & Fuels Article

effect on water effective permeability followed by the

concentrations of 2000, 1000, and 8000 ppm.
3.3. Flow Regime. Since, where possible, the construction
of a linear relationship is the easiest way to graphically model
and interpret a data set, we have chosen the Forchheimer
equation, as characterized by eqs 6−8, to discuss the
occurrence of different flow regimes that may be induced
during our experiments as the fluid injection flow rate varies.
Another reason for using this equation is that compared with
the Darcy equation, the Forchheimer equation is considered
more general in that it can be used over a much wider range of
flow rates.23 Figures 9−12 present the calculated Forchheimer

Figure 7. Relationship between gas flow rate and r−eff with changing
polymer concentration.

eventually approach unity. At a relatively low gas flow rate

(0.2−1 cm3/min) and for polymer concentrations of 1000−
4000 ppm, r−eff is greater than one. This outcome implies
improvement in gas permeability after treatment which, as
indicated before, may be attributed to the lubrication effect of
the adsorbed polymer. Improvements in post-treatment gas
permeability have also been obtained by Zaitoun and Kohler,8
Zaitoun et al.,24 and Dovan and Hutchins.21 The concentration
of 8000 ppm results in a reduction in effective permeability to
gas which may be caused by the high thickness and increased
Figure 9. Forchheimer relationship with 1000 ppm polymer
rigidity of the polymer layer formed under this polymer concentration.
concentration. With gas flow rates higher than 2 cm3/min, and
across all concentrations, r−eff is almost equal to one, which may
imply that the polymer layer has lost its effects on flow
behavior. This effect may be attributed to increase in polymer
layer rigidity because of increase in the shear rate.
Figure 8 presents the same data as Figure 7 but for the water
phase. As can be seen, all the calculated r−eff values are less than

Figure 10. Forchheimer relationship with 2000 ppm polymer

concentration.

Figure 8. Relationship between liquid flow rate and r−eff with changing
polymer concentration.

one, meaning, as also apparent from Figure 3, that a reduction

in effective permeability to water was achieved after all polymer
treatments. In general, the less the value of r−eff, the better the
outcome overall. Although Figure 8 shows that all concen-
trations used could decrease water effective permeability,
different trends are observed in this figure compared with
Figure 7. This means that the parameters investigated have
different effects on water flow compared with the gas flow. Figure 11. Forchheimer relationship with 4000 ppm polymer
Overall, the 4000 ppm concentration seems to have the least concentration.

3453 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00135

Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455
Energy & Fuels Article

• The ratio of Frrw/Frrg was found to be easier to use to

Figure 12. Forchheimer relationship with 8000 ppm polymer
concentration.
plots for the gas flow rate range of 0.2−70 cm3/m with and
without the presence of the adsorbed polymer layer whose
thickness and behavior may change with changes in the
polymer concentration. In general, all of these figures for the
two states of pre- and post-polymer treatment show three
distinct flow regimes. The first and the third regimes show a
linear profile, while the middle ones may be regarded as a
nonlinear transition zone from the first linear regime to the
second. In the flow rate range explored, treatments with
polymer concentrations of 1000, 2000, and 4000 ppm result in
an improvement in gas flowing behavior over the first flow
regime and the transition zone. As indicated before, such an
improvement may be due to the lubrication effect induced by
the adsorbed polymer layer. When the gas flow rate exceeds a
critical value (Qg = 2 cm3/m), the polymer layer, very likely,
becomes too rigid because of its shear thickening behavior, and
therefore, r−eff would be reduced to a minimum (Figure 7) due
to the loss of the lubrication effect of the polymer layer.
Treatment with 8000 ppm shows a reduction in gas
permeability in all the identified flow regimes. This may be
because 8000 ppm treatment is expected to induce the highest
adsorbed polymer layer thickness or the least r−eff (Figure 7)
and also the highest thickening effect in the rheology tests
(Figure 1).
4. CONCLUSION
In this work we studied the competing and opposite effects of
rock permeability and polymer concentration on water and gas
permeability reductions during the experimental evaluation of
an RPM treatment. The results of the study have been
interpreted and discussed initially using a common technique
where Frr is used as a critical parameter in evaluating the
effectives of such a treatment. Subsequently, a new
dimensionless parameter referred to as the dimensionless
effective pore radius (r−eff) was developed and used to interpret
the same data. Finally, the Forchheimer equation was used to
analyze the possible flow regimes that may be encountered
determine the effectiveness of an RPM treatment in the
context of changing rock permeability and polymer concen-
tration. As expected from an RPM treatment, this ratio was
always greater than one for all the cases explored in this work.
• By using the more traditional technique based on the use
of Frr and the newly developed r−eff to interpret the results
obtained in this work, we demonstrated that while r−eff can
reproduce similar outcomes as those of Frr, r−eff may be
considered a more insightful factor due to the way it is
calculated and what it represents.
• The interpretation of the data obtained using the
Forchheimer equation shows three regimes of gas flowing
behavior with increasing injection gas flow rate. The first and
third phases exhibit linear relationships with the gap between
the two phases bridged by a nonlinear transition flow regime.
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Authors
*E-mail: alzubaidiengineer@yahoo.com. Phone: +61-
415518542.
*E-mail: Ali.Saeedi@Curtin.edu.au. Phone: +61-8-9266 4988.
*E-mail: Colin.Wood@csiro.au. Phone: +61-8-6436 8701.
ORCID
Faaiz Al-Shajalee: 0000-0002-0590-7694
Colin Wood: 0000-0001-6160-0112
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ NOMENCLATURE
e = average hydrodynamic polymer layer thickness (μm)
r = average pore radius (μm)
Frr = residual resistance factor at the steady stage (fraction)
reff = effective porous radius (μm)
r− = dimensionless effective pore radius (fraction)
γ = shear rate (s−1)
γ− = dimensionless shear rate (fraction)
ϕ = porosity
A = core surface (m2)
k = absolute permeability (μm2)
L = core length (m)
M = molar mass (kg mol−1)
P = pressure (Pa)
Q = inlet flow rate (m3 s−1)
R = perfect gas constant (J mol−1 K−1)
T = temperature (K)
X = Forchheimer variable (eq 6,)
Y = Forchheimer variable (eq 7)
β = inertial resistance coefficient (m−1)
μ = dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
ρ = fluid density (kg m−3)

■
during gas injection as the injection flow rate varies. The
following specific conclusions may be drawn from the results SUBSCRIPTS
obtained and the discussions presented earlier:
• Rheology tests show that the polymer used here is a non- 1, 2 = core inlet, outlet
Newtonian shear thickening solution and its rigidity increases w, g = water, gas
with increasing the shear rate and polymer concentration.
• The competing and opposite effects of rock permeability
and polymer concentration on Frrw and Frrg as reported in the
■ REFERENCES
(1) Grattoni, C. A.; Al-Sharji, H. H.; Yang, C.; Muggeridge, A. H.;
literature were demonstrated by the results obtained in this Zimmerman, R. W. Rheology and Permeability of Crosslinked
study. Polyacrylamide Gel. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2001, 240, 601−607.

3454 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00135

Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455
Energy & Fuels Article

(2) Mennella, A.; Chiappa, L.; Bryant, S. L.; Burrafato, G. Pore-scale

Mechanism for Selective Permeability Reduction by Polymer
Injection. SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium 1998, 1.
(3) Ogunberu, A. L.; Asghari, K. Water Permeability Reduction
Under Flow-Induced Polymer Adsorption. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology 2005, 1.
(4) Mishra, S.; Bera, A.; Mandal, A. Effect of polymer adsorption on
permeability reduction in enhanced oil recovery. J. Pet. Eng. 2014,
2014, 1.
(5) Zheng, C.; Gall, B.; Gao, H.; Miller, A.; Bryant, R. Effects of
Polymer Adsorption and Flow Behavior on Two-Phase Flow in
Porous. SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium 1998, 1.
(6) Qi, Z.; Wang, Y.; Liu, C.; Yu, W.; Wang, S.; Li, K. A Laboratory
Evaluation of a Relative Permeability Modifier for Water Production
Control. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2013, 31 (22), 2357−2363.
(7) Liu, J.; Lu, X.; Liu, J.; Hu, S.; Xue, B. Mechanism and gelling
effects of linked polymer solution in the core. Petroleum Exploration
and Development 2013, 40 (4), 507−513.
(8) Zaitoun, A.; Kohler, N. Two-Phase Flow Through Porous
Media: Effect of an Adsorbed Polymer Layer. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition 1988, 1.
(9) Al-Sharji, H.; Grattoni, C.; Dawe, R.; Zimmerman, R. Flow of oil
and water through elastic polymer gels. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 2001, 56
(2), 145−152.
(10) Al-Sharji, H. H.; Grattoni, C. A.; Dawe, R. A.; Zimmerman, R.
W. Pore-Scale Study of the Flow of Oil and Water through Polymer
Gels. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 1999, 1.
(11) Song, Z.; Liu, L.; Wei, M.; Bai, B.; Hou, J.; Li, Z.; Hu, Y. Effect
of polymer on disproportionate permeability reduction to gas and
water for fractured shales. Fuel 2015, 143, 28−37.
(12) Cohen, Y.; Christ, F. Polymer retention and adsorption in the
flow of polymer solutions through porous media. SPE Reservoir Eng.
1986, 1 (02), 113−118.
(13) Saphiannikova, M. G.; Pryamitsyn, V. A.; Cosgrove, T. Self-
consistent Brownian dynamics simulation of polymer brushes under
shear. Macromolecules 1998, 31 (19), 6662−6668.
(14) Ali, L.; Barrufet, M. Using centrifuge data to investigate the
effects of polymer treatment on relative permeability. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
2001, 29 (1), 1−16.
(15) Zaitoun, A.; Pichery, T. A Successful Polymer Treatment For
Water Coning Abatement in Gas Storage Reservoir. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition 2001, 1.
(16) Tielong, C.; Yong, Z.; Kezong, P.; Wanfeng, P. A relative
permeability modifier for water control of gas wells in a low-
permeability reservoir. SPE Reservoir Eng. 1996, 11 (03), 168−173.
(17) Zaitoun, A.; Bertin, H.; Lasseux, D. Two-Phase Flow Property
Modifications by Polymer Adsorption. SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium 1998, 1.
(18) Elmkies, P.; Lasseux, D.; Bertin, H.; Pichery, T.; Zaitoun, A.
Polymer Effect on Gas/Water Flow in Porous Media. SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium 2002, 1.
(19) Nieves, G.; Fernandez, J.; Dalrymple, E. D.; Sierra, L.; Eoff, L.;
Reddy, B. Field Application of Relative Permeability Modifier in
Venezuela. SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium 2002, 1.
(20) Dawe, R. A.; Zhang, Y. Mechanistic study of the selective action
of oil and water penetrating into a gel emplaced in a porous medium.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 1994, 12 (2), 113−125.
(21) Dovan, H.; Hutchins, R. New polymer technology for water
control in gas wells. SPE Prod. Facil. 1994, 9 (04), 280−286.
(22) White, J.; Goddard, J.; Phillips, H. Use of polymers to control
water production in oil wells. JPT, J. Pet. Technol. 1973, 25 (02), 143−
150.
(23) Zimmerman, R. W.; Al-Yaarubi, A.; Pain, C. C.; Grattoni, C. A.
Non-linear regimes of fluid flow in rock fractures. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2004, 41, 163−169.
(24) Zaitoun, A.; Kohler, N.; Marrast, J.; Guerrini, Y. On the use of
polymers to reduce water production from gas wells. In Situ (USA)
1990, 14 (2).

3455 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00135

Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 3448−3455