Reservoir Engineering-Laboratory Research - Dead-End Pore Volume and Dispersion in Porous Media; Discussion

In their analysis of Eqs. 29 and 30, the authors correctly deduce the following behavior limits for the "differential capacitance model". 1. When the rate group a is sufficiently large, the model reduces to that implied by Eq. 1, i.e., the simple convection-diffusion model. 2. When the rate group a is sufficiently small, the model reduces to that implied by Eq. 1 with 1 replaced by 1, i.e., the simple convection-diffusion model with a total pore volume equal to that occupied by the mobile fluid in the original model. Unfortunately, the authors' solution, Eq. C-1, to the transformed versions of Eqs. 29 and 30 does not exhibit the same limiting behavior. For example, as a approaches zero, Eq. C-1 reduces to the solution to Eq. 1 or, equivalently, the solution to Eqs. 29 and 30 for sufficiently large values of a. Therefore, it can be concluded that Eq. C-1 is not a general solution to Eqs. 29 and 30; this conclusion can be easily verified by substitution. I suggest that the correct form of Eq. C-1 is the following: It is generally realized that accounting for dispersion effects is an extremely tricky business; therefore no one should criticize the pragmatic approach of Coats and Smith who proceeded by accessible theory, made use of some available phenomenology, and who then took the trouble to check the consequences, against their own carefully undertaken experimental results. Here I should like to defend three assertions: (1) Coats and Smith copy the error of previous authors in the formulation of the so-called simple diffusion model (which error is then retained in their differential capacitance model); (2) improving the fit between data and the predictions of an arbitrary model by increasing the number of parameters is a triviality unless the parameters are disposable by being independently determined; and (3) existing experimental procedures lack sufficient resolution to clarify some current theoretical uncertainties. Taking first the view that all theoretical approaches (whether constructed by statistical, finite difference, or continuum arguments) tend to reduce to the same model form as fixed by the number and nature of the disposable parameters, one notices that the "finite-stage" model of Deans1 is equivalent to the Coats and Smith so-called differential capacitance model for the pertinent case where a