EOR: Contact Angle
1. Dynamic contact angle remains equal to the static contact angle, only when, the flow velocity remains to be very small. How easy would it remain to figure out such a scenario in a typical petroleum reservoir?
OR
Under what circumstances, will we be forced to consider contact angle to remain to be a function of the flow velocity? If so, how exactly, should we go ahead with dynamic-wetting associated with ‘spontaneous imbibition with dynamic contact angle’ (contact angle varying with flow velocity)? How to deduce the initial imbibition rate?
2. Whether Capillary Imbibition as described by Lucas-Washburn equation (which considers a fixed value of contact angle) can be modified in order to accommodate the variations associated with (a) the minerals on the solid grain surfaces; (b) the degree of roughness; and (c) the degree of interaction among the solid grain particles in the fluid – towards estimating dynamic contact angle, during an imbibition process?
3. Whether the measured dynamic contact angle would remain to be larger than the static contact angle during an imbibition process? If so, what should be the respective time-frame, over which, a sensible relationship between dynamic contact angle and the imbibition velocity of the fluid could get established?
4. For a petroleum reservoir with a relatively smaller pore radii, can we afford to ignore the effect of gravity on spontaneous imbibition, even during the later stage of spontaneous imbibition?
On the other hand, for a petroleum reservoir with a relatively larger pore radii, can we afford to ignore the effect of gravity on spontaneous imbibition, even at the initial stage of spontaneous imbibition?
5. How easy would it remain to deduce and segregate the magnitude of forces resulting from (a) gravity of the fluid (no-wetting phase fluid); (b) the frictional-resistance between fluid (non-wetting phase fluid) and capillary surface; and (c) the capillary forces – associated with a typical spontaneous imbibition process @ laboratory-scale?
Whether such laboratory-scale observation could be up-scaled directly to a larger field-scale scenario?
Also, feasible to define the intensity of friction between fluid and capillary surface, if the fluid remains associated with transition regime?
6. What are the typical circumstances, under which, the imbibition velocity remains to have (a) a negative linear correlation; and (b) a positive linear correlation - with the imbibition time in a log-log plot (for an imbibition with a constant contact angle)?
What is the physical significance of the imbibition distance being (a) positively; and (b) negatively correlated with the imbibition time in a log-log plot?
The ratio between surface energy and dynamic viscosity determines the velocity at the interface. I take this argument to mean that the contact angle remains a function of the flow velocity.From this we answer your theoretical and experimental questions relating to reactions in interfaces, the coefficient of friction, flow velocities, inhibition processes and characterization methods for moving from laboratory to reservoir scale. Detailed answers would require around 10,000 words and 200 references. Their scope of application is vast, touching on all materials, pharmacology, geological and seismic research, and artificial intelligence. These answers are of immediate industrial interest. I'm starting a program to publish these innovations, and I think the first one will be out before the summer. If you'd like to find out more quickly, please contact me at my private address .
I look forward to developing this thesis,
to read it. Happy research!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials Chemistry
- Polymer Chemistry