Modeling of Liquid Injectivity in Surfactant-Alternating-Gas Foam Enhanced Oil Recovery
- Jiakun Gong (Delft University of Technology) | Sebastien Vincent-Bonnieu (Shell Global Solutions International B.V.) | Ridhwan Zhafri Kamarul Bahrim (Petronas) | Che Abdul Nasser Bakri Che Mamat (Petronas) | Raj Deo Tewari (Petronas) | Jeroen Groenenboom (Shell Global Solutions International B.V.) | Rouhollah Farajzadeh (Delft University of Technology and Shell Global Solutions International B.V.) | William R. Rossen (Delft University of Technology)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- June 2019
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 1,123 - 1,138
- 2019.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Injectivity, Foam, SAG, EOR, Modelling
- 26 in the last 30 days
- 151 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
Surfactant alternating gas (SAG) is often the injection strategy used for injecting foam into a reservoir. However, liquid injectivity can be very poor in SAG, and fracturing of the well can occur. Coreflood studies of liquid injectivity directly following foam injection have been reported. We conducted a series of coreflood experiments to study liquid injectivity under conditions more like those near an injection well in a SAG process in the field (i.e., after a period of gas injection). Our previous experimental results suggest that the injectivity in a SAG process is determined by propagation of several banks. However, there is no consistent approach to modeling liquid injectivity in a SAG process. The Peaceman equation is used in most conventional foam simulators for estimating the wellbore pressure and injectivity.
In this paper, we propose a modeling approach for gas and liquid injectivity in a SAG process on the basis of our experimental findings. The model represents the propagation of various banks during gas and liquid injection. We first compare the model predictions for linear flow with the coreflood results and obtain good agreement. We then propose a radial-flow model for scaling up the core-scale behavior to the field. The comparison between the results of the radial-propagation model and the Peaceman equation shows that a conventional simulator based on the Peaceman equation greatly underestimates both gas and liquid injectivities in a SAG process. The conventional simulator cannot represent the effect of gas injection on the subsequent liquid injectivity, especially the propagation of a relatively small region of collapsed foam near an injection well. The conventional simulator’s results can be brought closer to the radial-flow-model predictions by applying a constant negative skin factor.
The work flow described in this study can be applied to future field applications. The model we propose is based on a number of simplifying assumptions. In addition, the model would need to be fitted to coreflood data for the particular surfactant formulation, porous medium, and field conditions of a particular application. The adjustment of the simulator to better fit the radial-flow model also would depend, in part, on the grid resolution of the near-well region in the simulation.
|File Size||849 KB||Number of Pages||16|
Al Ayesh, A. H., Salazar, R., Farajzadeh, R. et al. 2017. Foam Diversion in Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Effect of Permeability and Injection Method. SPE J. 22 (5): 1402–1415. SPE-179650-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/179650-PA.
Alvarez, J. M., Rivas, H. J., and Rossen, W. R. 2001. Unified Model for Steady-State Foam Behavior at High and Low Foam Qualities. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. SPE-56825-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/56825-MS.
Boeije, C. S. and Rossen, W. R. 2015. Fitting Foam-Simulation-Model Parameters to Data: I. Coinjection of Gas and Liquid. SPE Res Eval & Eng 18 (2): 264–272. SPE-174544-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/174544-PA.
Cheng, L., Reme, A. B., Shan, D. et al. 2000. Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low Foam Qualities. Paper presented at SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 3–5 April. SPE-59287-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/59287-MS.
Computer Modeling Group Ltd. (CMG). 2006. STARS User’s Guide. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: CMG.
Farajzadeh, R., Lotfollahi, M., Eftekhari, A. A. et al. 2015. Effect of Permeability on Implicit-Texture Foam Model Parameters and the Limiting Capillary Pressure. Energy & Fuels 29 (5): 3011–3018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00248.
Gong, J., Vincent-Bonnieu, S., Kamarul Bahrim, R. Z. et al. 2018.Modelling of Liquid Injectivity in Surfactant-Alternating-Gas Foam Enhanced Oil Recovery. Presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and GasWest Asia,Muscat, Oman, 26–28March. SPE-190435-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/190435-MS.
Gong, J., Vincent-Bonnieu, S., Kamarul Bahrim, R. Z. et al. In press. Laboratory Investigation of Liquid Injectivity in Surfactant-Alternating-Gas Foam Enhanced Oil Recovery. Accepted for publication by Transport in Porous Media.
Heller, J. P. 1994. CO2 Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry, ed. M. J. Comstock, Chap. 5, 201–234. Advances in Chemistry, Vol. 242. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
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., Vincent Bonnieu, S., Farajzadeh, R. et al. 2017. Effect of Permeability on Foam-Model Parameters: An Integrated Approach From Coreflood Experiments Through to Foam Diversion Calculations. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 530 (Oct): 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2017.06.060.
Khatib, Z. I., Hirasaki, G. J., and Falls, A. H. 1998. Effects of Capillary Pressure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in Foams Flowing Through Porous Media. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (3): 919–926. SPE-15442-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/15442-PA.
Kibodeaux, K. R. and Rossen, W. R. 1997. Coreflood Study of Surfactant-Alternating-Gas Foam Processes: Implications for Field Design. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, 25–27 June. SPE-38318-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/38318-MS.
Kibodeaux, K. R., Zeilinger, S. C., and Rossen, W. R. 1994. Sensitivity Study of Foam Diversion Processes for Matrix Acidization. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 September, SPE-28550-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/28550-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. M. J. Comstock, Chap. 3, 115–163. Advances in Chemistry, Vol. 242. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Kuehne, D. L., Ehman, D. I., Emanuel, A. S. et al. 1990. Design and Evaluation of a Nitrogen-Foam Field Trial. J Pet Technol 42 (2): 504–512. SPE-17381-PA. https://doi.org.10.2118/17381-PA.
Lake, L. W., Johns, R. T., Rossen,W. R. et al. 2014. Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil Recovery. Richardson, Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Leeftink, T. N., Latooij, C. A., and Rossen, W. R. 2015. Injectivity Errors in Simulation of Foam EOR. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 126 (Feb): 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.026.
Ma, K., Farajzadeh, R., Lopez-Salinas, J. L. et al. 2014. Non-Uniqueness, Numerical Artifacts, and Parameter Sensitivity in Simulating Steady-State and Transient Foam Flow Through Porous Media. Transp Porous Med. 102 (3): 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-014-0276-9.
Ma, K., Lopez-Salinas, J. L., Puerto, M. C. et al. 2013. Estimation of Parameters for the Simulation of Foam Flow Through Porous Media. Part 1: The Dry-Out Effect. Energy & Fuels 27 (5): 2363–2375. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef302036s.
Martinsen, H. A. and Vassenden, F. 1999. Foam-Assisted Water Alternating Gas (FAWAG) Process on Snorre. Presented at the 10th European IOR Symposium, Brighton, UK, 18–20 August. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201-406335.
Matthews, C. S. 1989. Carbon Dioxide Flooding. In Developments in Petroleum Science, eds. E. C. Donaldson, G. V. Chilingarian, and T. F. Yen, Chap. 6, 129–156. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Nguyen, Q. P., Currie, P. K., and Zitha, P. L. J. 2003. Determination of Foam Induced Fluid Partitioning in Porous Media Using X-Ray Computed Tomography. Presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 5–7 February. SPE-80245-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/80245-MS.
Nguyen, Q. P., Rossen, W. R., Zitha, P. L. J. et al. 2009a. Determination of Gas Trapping With Foam Using X-Ray Computed Tomography and Effluent Analysis. SPE J. 14 (2): 222–236. SPE-94764-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/94764-PA.
Nguyen, Q. P., Zitha, P. L. J., Currie, P. K. et al. 2009b. CT Study of Liquid Diversion With Foam. SPE Prod. & Oper 24 (1): 12–21. SPE-93949-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/93949-PA.
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.
Peaceman, D. W. 1978. Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation. SPE J. 18 (3): 183–194. SPE-6893-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/6893-PA.
Rossen, W. R. 1996. Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Foams: Theory, Measurements and Applications, eds. R. K. Prud’homme and S. Khan, Chap. 11, 413–464. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Rossen, W. R. 2013. Numerical Challenges in Foam Simulation: A Review. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–2 October. SPE-166232-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/166232-MS.
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., Ocampo-Florez, A. A., Restrepo, A. et al. 2017. Long-Time Diversion in SAG Foam Enhanced Oil Recovery From a Field Test. SPE Res Eval & Eng 20 (1): 1–7. SPE-170809-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/170809-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.
Schlumberger. 2010. ECLIPSE Industry-Reference Reservoir Simulator. Houston, Texas: Schlumberger.
Schramm, L. L. 1994. Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. Washington, DC: Advances in Chemistry, 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.
STARS is a trademark of Computer Modelling Group Ltd., 3710 33 Street NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2L 2M1, Canada.
Zanganeh, M. N., Kam, S. I., LaForce, T. 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.
Zanganeh, M. N., Kraaijevanger, J. F. B. M., Buurman H. W. et al. 2014. Challenges to Adjoint-Based Optimization of a Foam EOR Process. Computat. Geosci. 18 (3–4): 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-014-9412-4.
Zeilinger, S. C., Wang, M., Kibodeaux, K. R. et al. 1995. Improved Prediction of Foam Diversion in Matrix Acidization. Presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2–4 April. SPE-29529-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/29529-MS.
Zhou, Z. and Rossen, W. R. 1995. Applying Fractional-Flow Theory to Foam Processes at the “Limiting Capillary Pressure”. SPE Advanced Technology Series 3 (1): 154–162. SPE-24180-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/24180-PA.