Foam Diversion in Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Effect of Permeability and Injection Method
- Ahmed H. Al Ayesh (Delft University of Technology and Saudi Aramco) | Rodrigo Salazar (Delft University of Technology) | Rouhollah Farajzadeh (Delft University of Technology and Shell Global Solutions International) | Sebastien Vincent-Bonnieu (Delft University of Technology and Shell Global Solutions International) | William R. Rossen (Delft University of Technology)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- October 2017
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 1,402 - 1,415
- 2017.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Heterogeneous, layered reservoirs, foam modelling, EOR, SAG
- 3 in the last 30 days
- 337 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Foam can divert flow from higher- to lower-permeability layers and thereby improve the injection profile in gas-injection enhanced oil recovery (EOR). This paper compares two methods of foam injection, surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) and coinjection of gas and surfactant solution, in their abilities to improve injection profiles in heterogeneous reservoirs. We examine the effects of these two injection methods on diversion by use of fractional-flow modeling. The foam-model parameters for four sandstone formations ranging in permeability from 6 to 1,900 md presented by Kapetas et al. (2015) are used to represent a hypothetical reservoir containing four noncommunicating layers.
Permeability affects both the mobility reduction of wet foam in the low-quality-foam regime and the limiting capillary pressure at which foam collapses. The effectiveness of diversion varies greatly with the injection method. In a SAG process, diversion of the first slug of gas depends on foam behavior at very-high foam quality. Mobility in the foam bank during gas injection depends on the nature of a shock front that bypasses most foam qualities usually studied in the laboratory. The foam with the lowest mobility at fixed foam quality does not necessarily give the lowest mobility in a SAG process. In particular, diversion in SAG depends on how and whether foam collapses at low water saturation; this property varies greatly among the foams reported by Kapetas et al. (2015). Moreover, diversion depends on the size of the surfactant slug received by each layer before gas injection. This favors diversion away from high-permeability layers that receive a large surfactant slug. However, there is an optimum surfactant-slug size: Too little surfactant and diversion from high-permeability layers is not effective, whereas with too much, mobility is reduced in low-permeability layers. For a SAG process, injectivity and diversion depend critically on whether foam collapses completely at irreducible water saturation.
In addition, we show the diversion expected in a foam-injection process as a function of foam quality. The faster propagation of surfactant and foam in the higher-permeability layers aids in diversion, as expected. This depends on foam quality and non-Newtonian foam mobility and varies with injection time. Injectivity is extremely poor with foam injection for these extremely strong foams, but for some SAG foam processes with effective diversion it is better than injectivity in a waterflood.
|File Size||2 MB||Number of Pages||14|
Al Ayesh, A. H. 2016. Optimal SAG Design in Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Effect of Permeability on Foam Diversion. Master’s dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Alvarez, J. M., Rivas, H. J., and Rossen, W. R. 2001. A Unified Model for Steady-State Foam Behavior at High and Low Foam Qualities. SPE J. 6 (3): 325–333. SPE-74141-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/74141-PA.
Apaydin, O. G. and Kovscek, A. R. 2001. Surfactant Concentration and End Effects on Foam Flow in Porous Media. Transport Porous Med. 43 (3): 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010740811277.
Ashoori, E., Marchesin, D., and Rossen, W. R. 2011a. Dynamic Foam Behavior in the Entrance Region of a Porous Medium. Colloid. Surface. A 377 (1–3): 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2010.12.043.
Ashoori, E., Marchesin, D., and Rossen, W. R. 2011b. Roles of Transient and Local Equilibrium Foam Behavior in Porous Media: Traveling Wave. Colloid. Surface. A 377 (1–3): 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2010.12.042.
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., and Lightfoot, E. N. 2007. Transport Phenomena, second edition. New York City: John Wiley & Sons.
Boeije, C. S. and Rossen, W. R. 2015. Fitting Foam-Simulation-Model Parameters to Data: I. Co-Injection of Gas and Liquid. SPE Res Eval & Eng 18 (2): 264–272. SPE-174544-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/174544-PA.
Chen, Q., Gerritsen, M. G., and Kovscek, A. R. 2010. Modeling Foam Displacement With the Local-Equilibrium Approximation: Theory and Experimental Verification. SPE J. 15 (1): 171–183. SPE-116735-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/116735-PA.
Cheng, L., Reme, A. B., Shan, D. et al. 2000. Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low Foam Qualities. Presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 3–5 April. SPE-59287-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/59287-MS.
Computer Modelling Group (CMG). 2006. STARS User’s Guide, Version 2006. Calgary: CMG.
Computer Modelling Group (CMG). 2015. STARS User’s Guide, Version 2015. Calgary: CMG.
Ettinger, R. A. and Radke, C. J. 1992. The Influence of Texture on Steady Foam Flow in Berea Sandstone. SPE Res Eng 7 (1): 83–90. SPE-19688-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/19688-PA.
Faisal, A., Bisdom, K., Zhumabek, B. et al. 2009. Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 4–7 October. SPE-124197-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/124197-MS.
Falls, A. H., Hirasaki, G. J., Patzek, T. W. et al. 1988. Development of a Mechanistic Foam Simulator: The Population Balance and Generation by Snap-Off. SPE Res Eng 3 (3): 884–892. SPE-14961-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/14961-PA.
Farajzadeh, R., Andrianov, A., Krastev, R. et al. 2012. Foam-Oil Interaction in Porous Media: Implications for Foam Assisted Enhanced Oil Recovery. Adv. Colloid Interfac. 183–184 (15 November): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2012.07.002.
Farajzadeh, R., Lotfollahi, M., Eftekhari, A. A. et al. 2015. Effect of Permeability on Implicit-Texture Foam Model Parameters and the Limiting Capillary Pressure. Energ. Fuel. 29 (5): 3011–3018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00248.
Fisher, A. W., Foulser, R. W. S., and Goodyear, S. G. 1990. Mathematical Modeling of Foam Flooding. Presented at the 1990 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 22–25 April. SPE-20195-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/20195-MS.
Friedmann, F., Chen, W. H., and Gauglitz, P. A. 1991. Experimental and Simulation Study of High-Temperature Foam Displacement in Porous Media. SPE Res Eng 6 (1): 37–75. SPE-17357-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/17357-PA.
Grassia, P., Mas Hernandez, E., Shokri, N. et al. 2014. Analysis of a Model for Foam Improved Oil Recovery. J. Fluid Mech. 751 (July): 346–405. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2014.287.
Hussain, A. A., Rossen, W. R., Vincent-Bonnieu, S. et al. 2016. Foam Front Propagation Through a Water-Flooded Oil Reservoir. Oral presentation given at the 4th International Conference on Integrated Petroleum Engineering and Geosciences, Kuala Lumpur, 15–17 August.
Islam, M. R. and Farouq-Ali, S. M. 1990. Numerical Simulation of Foam Flow in Porous Media. J Can Pet Technol 29 (4): 47–51. PETSOC-90-04-03. https://doi.org/10.2118/90-04-03.
Kam, S. I., Nguyen, Q. P., Li, Q. et al. 2007. Dynamic Simulations With an Improved Model for Foam Generation. SPE J. 12 (1): 35–48. SPE-90938-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/90938-PA.
Kapetas, L., van El, W. A., and Rossen, W. R. 2014. Representing Slow Foam Dynamics in Laboratory Corefloods for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 12–16 April. SPE-169059-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/169059-MS.
Kapetas, L., Vincent-Bonnieu, S., Farajzadeh, R. et al. 2015. Effect of Permeability on Foam-Model Parameters–An Integrated Approach from Coreflood Experiments Through to Foam Diversion Calculations. Oral presentation given at the 18th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Dresden, Germany, 14–16 April.
Khatib, Z. I., Hirasaki, G. J., and Falls, A. H. 1988. Effects of Capillary Pressure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in Foams Flowing Through Porous Media. SPE Res Eng 3 (3): 919–926. SPE-15442-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/15442-PA.
Kloet, M., Renkema, W. J., and Rossen, W. R. 2009. Optimal Design Criteria for SAG Foam Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs. Presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 8–11 June. SPE-121581-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/121581-MS.
Kovscek, A. R. and Radke, C. J. 1994. Fundamentals of Foam Transport in Porous Media. In Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry, ed. L. L. Schramm, Chap. 3, 115–163. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Kular, G. S., Lowe, K., and Coombe, D. 1989. Foam Application in an Oil Sands Steam Flood Process. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–11 October. SPE-19690-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/SPE-19690-MS.
Lake, L. W., Johns, R. T., Rossen, W. R. et al. 2014. Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil Recovery. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Law, D. H.-S., Yang, Z.-M., and Stone, T. W. 1989. Effect of Presence of Oil on Foam Performance: A Field Simulation Study. Presented at the 1989 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Houston, 6–8 February.
Leeftink, T. N., Latooij, C. A., and Rossen, W. R. 2015. Injectivity Errors in Simulation of Foam EOR. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 126 (February): 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.026.
Lotfollahi, M., Farajzadeh, R., Delshad, M. et al. 2016. Comparison of Implicit-Texture and Population-Balance Foam Models. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 31 (April): 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.03.018.
Mohammadi, S., and Coombe, D. A. 1992. Characteristics of Steam-Foam Drive Process in Massive Multi-Zone and Thin Single-Zone Reservoirs. Presented at the 1992 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 30 March–1 April.
Moradi-Araghi, A., Johnston, E. L., Zornes, D. R. et al. 1997. Laboratory Evaluation of Surfactants for CO2-Foam Applications at the South Cowden Unit. Presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 18–21 February. SPE-37218-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/37218-MS.
Namdar Zanganeh, M. N., Kam, S. I., LaForce, T. C. et al. 2011. The Method of Characteristics Applied to Oil Displacement by Foam. SPE J. 16 (1): 8–23. SPE-121580-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/121580-PA.
Norris, S. O., Scherlin, J. M., Mukherjee, J. et al. 2014. CO2 Foam Pilot in Salt Creek Field, Natrona County, WY: Phase II: Diagnostic Testing and Initial Results. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 27–29 October. SPE-170729-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/170729-MS.
Osterloh, W. T. and Jante, M. J. 1992. Effects of Gas and Liquid Velocity on Steady-State Foam Flow at High Temperature. Presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 22–24 April. SPE-24179-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/24179-MS.
Patzek, T. W. and Myhill, N. A. 1989. Simulation of the Bishop Steam Foam Pilot. Presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 5–7 April. SPE-18786-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/18786-MS.
Persoff, P., Radke, C. J., Pruess, K. et al. 1991. A Laboratory Investigation of Foam Flow in Sandstone at Elevated Pressure. SPE Res Eng 6 (3): 185–192. SPE-18781-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/18781-PA.
Pickup, G. E., Jin, M., and Mackay, E. J. 2012. Simulation of Near-Well Pressure Build-Up in Models of CO2 Injection. Oral presentation given at the EAGE European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Biarritz, France, 10–13 September.
Rossen, W. R. 1996. Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Foams: Theory, Measurements and Applications, ed. R. K. Prud’homme and S. Khan, 413–464. New York City: Marcel Dekker.
Rossen, W. R. and Boeije, C. S. 2015. Fitting Foam-Simulation-Model Parameters to Data: II. Surfactant-Alternating-Gas Foam Applications. SPE Res Eval & Eng 18 (2): 273–283. SPE-165282-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/165282-PA.
Rossen, W. R. and Zhou, Z. H. 1995. Modeling Foam Mobility at the Limiting Capillary Pressure. SPE Advanced Technology Series 3 (1): 154–162. SPE-24180-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/24180-PA.
Rossen, W. R., van Duijn, C. J., Nguyen, Q. P. et al. 2010. Injection Strategies to Overcome Gravity Segregation in Simultaneous Gas and Water Injection Into Homogeneous Reservoirs. SPE J. 15 (1): 76–90. SPE-99794-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/99794-PA.
Rossen, W. R., Venkatraman, A., Johns, R. T. et al. 2011. Fractional Flow Theory Applicable to Non-Newtonian Behavior in EOR Processes. Transport Porous Med. 89 (2): 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-011-9765-2.
Rossen, W. R., Ocampo-Florez, A. A., Restrepo, A. et al. 2014. Long-Time Diversion in SAG Foam Enhanced Oil Recovery From Field Data. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 27–29 October. SPE-170809-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/170809-MS.
Rossen, W. R., Zeilinger, S. C., Shi, J. X. et al. 1999. Simplified Mechanistic Simulation of Foam Processes in Porous Media. SPE J. 4 (3): 279–287. SPE-57678-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/57678-PA.
Schramm, L. L. ed. 1994. Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry, Vol. 242. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Shan, D. and Rossen, W. R. 2004. Optimal Injection Strategies for Foam IOR. SPE J. 9 (2): 132–150. SPE-88811-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/88811-PA.
Skauge, A., Aarra, M. G., Surguchev, L. et al. 2002. Foam-Assisted WAG: Experience from the Snorre Field. Presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 13–17 April. SPE-75157-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/75157-MS.
Zhou, Z. H. and Rossen, W. R. 1994. Applying Fractional-Flow Theory to Foams for Diversion in Matrix Acidization. SPE Prod Fac 9 (1): 29–35. SPE-24660-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/24660-PA.