Quantitative Modeling of the Effect of Oil on Foam for Enhanced Oil Recovery
- Jinyu Tang (Delft University of Technology) | Mohammed N. Ansari (Delft University of Technology) | William R. Rossen (Delft University of Technology)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- June 2019
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 1,057 - 1,075
- 2019.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- sweep efficiency, foam, mobility control, foam simulation, effect of oil on foam
- 17 in the last 30 days
- 164 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
The effectiveness of foam for mobility control in the presence of oil is key to foam enhanced oil recovery (EOR). A fundamental property of foam EOR is the existence of two steady-state flow regimes: the high-quality regime and the low-quality regime. Experimental studies have sought to understand the effect of oil on foam through its effect on these two regimes. Here, we explore the effect of oil on the two flow regimes for one widely used foam model.
The STARS (CMG 2015) foam model includes two algorithms for the effect of oil on foam: In the "wet-foam" model, oil changes the mobility of full-strength foam in the low-quality regime, and in the "dry-out" model, oil alters the limiting water saturation around which foam collapses. We examine their effects as represented in each model on the two flow regimes using a Corey relative permeability function for oil. Specifically, we plot the pressure-gradient contours that define the two flow regimes as a function of superficial velocities of water, gas, and oil, and show how oil shifts behavior in the regimes.
The wet-foam model shifts behavior in the low-quality regimes with no direct effect on the high-quality regime. The dry-out model shifts behavior in the high-quality regimes but not the low-quality regime. At fixed superficial velocities, both models predict multiple steady states at some injection conditions. We perform a stability analysis of these states using a simple 1D simulator with and without incorporating capillary diffusion. The steady state attained after injection depends on the initial state. In some cases, it appears that the steady state at the intermediate pressure gradient is inherently unstable, as represented in the model. In some cases, the introduction of capillary diffusion is required to attain a uniform steady state in the medium. The existence of multiple steady states, with the intermediate one being unstable, is reminiscent of catastrophe theory and of studies of foam generation without oil.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||19|
Al Sumaiti, A., Shaik, A. R., Mathew, E. S. et al. 2017. Tuning Foam Parameters for Mobility Control Using CO2 Foam: Field Application To Maximize Oil Recovery From a High Temperature High Salinity Layered Carbonate Reservoir. Energy Fuels 31 (5): 4637–4654. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02595.
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.
Arnold, V. I., Kazarinoff, N., Afrajmovich, V. S. et al. 1999. Dynamical Systems V: Bifurcation Theory and Catastrophe Theory. Berlin: Springer.
Basheva, E. S., Ganchev, D., Denkov, N. D. et al. 2000. Role of Betaine as Foam Booster in the Presence of Silicone Oil Drops. Langmuir 16 (3): 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.1021/la990777+.
Bergeron, V., Fagan, M. E., and Radke, C. J. 1993. Generalized Entering Coefficients: A Criterion for Foam Stability Against Oil in Porous Media. Langmuir 9 (7): 1704–1713. https://doi.org/10.1021/la00031a017.
Boeije, C. S. and Rossen, W. 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. Presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 3–5 April. SPE-59287-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/59287-MS.
Computer Modelling Group (CMG). 2015. STARS User’s Guide, Version 2015. Calgary: CMG.
Dalland, M., Hanssen, J. E., and Kristiansen, T. S. 1994. Oil Interaction With Foams Under Static and Flowing Conditions in Porous Media. Colloid. Surface. A 82 (2): 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-7757(93)02628-R.
de Araujo Cavalcante Filho, J. S., Delshad, M., and Sepehrnoori, K. 2018. Estimation of Foam-Flow Parameters for Local Equilibrium Methods by Use of Steady-State Flow Experiments and Optimization Algorithms. SPE Res Eval & Eng 21 (1): 160–173. SPE-179597-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/179597-PA.
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 Interf. Sci. 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. Energy Fuels 29 (5): 3011–3018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00248.
Frye, G. C. and Berg, J. C. 1989. Antifoam Action by Solid Particles. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 127 (1): 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(89)90023-4.
Garrett, P. R. 1979. The Effect of Polytetrafluoroethylene Particles on the Foamability of Aqueous Surfactant Solutions. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 69 (1): 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(79)90085-7.
Gauglitz, A. P., Friedmann, F., Kam, S. I. et al. 2002. Foam Generation in Homogeneous Porous Media. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57 (19): 4037–4052. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(02)00340-8.
Hahn, P.-S., Ramamohan, T. R., and Slattery, J. C. 1985. Mobility Control in the Displacement of Residual Oil by an Unstable Foam. AIChE J. 31 (6): 1029–1035. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690310620.
Harkins, W. D. and Feldman, A. 1922. Films: The Spreading of Liquids and the Spreading Coefficient. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 44 (12): 2665–2685. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01433a001.
Hirasaki, G. J. and Lawson, J. B. 1985. Mechanisms of Foam Flow in Porous Media: Apparent Viscosity in Smooth Capillaries. SPE J. 25 (2): 176–190. SPE-12129-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/12129-PA.
Kam, S. I. and Rossen, W. R. 2003. A Model for Foam Generation in Homogeneous Media. SPE J. 8 (4): 417–425. SPE-87334-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/87334-PA.
Kapetas, L., Vincent Bonnieu, S., Farajzadeh, R. et al. 2017. Effect of Permeability on Foam-Model Parameters: An Integrated Approach From Core-Flood Experiments Through to Foam Diversion Calculations. Colloid. Surface. A 530 (5 October): 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2017.06.060.
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.
Kim, J., Dong, Y., and Rossen, W. R. 2005. Steady-State Flow Behavior of CO2 Foam. SPE J. 10 (4): 405–415. SPE-89351-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/89351-PA.
Kruglyakov, P. M. and Vilkova, N. G. 1999. The Relation Between Stability of Asymmetric Films of the Liquid/Liquid/Gas Type, Spreading Coefficient and Surface Pressure. Colloid. Surface. A. 156 (1): 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(99)00105-3.
Lake, L. W., Johns, R. T., Rossen, W. R. et al. 2014. Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil Recovery. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Lotfollahi, M., Farajzadeh, R., Delshad, M. et al. 2016a. Comparison of Implicit-Texture and Population-Balance Foam Models. Presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman, 21–23 March. SPE-179808-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/179808-MS.
Lotfollahi, M., Kim, I., Beygi, M. R. et al. 2016b. Experimental Studies and Modeling of Foam Hysteresis in Porous Media. Presented at SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Tulsa, 11–13 April. SPE-179664-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/179664-MS.
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.
Ma, K., Mateen, K., Ren, G. et al. 2018. Mechanistic Modeling of Foam Flow Through Porous Media in the Presence of Oil: Review of Foam-Oil Inter- actions and an Improved Bubble Population-Balance Model. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 24–26 September. SPE-191564-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/191564-MS.
Ma, K., Ren, G., Mateen, K. et al. 2015. Modeling Techniques for Foam Flow in Porous Media. SPE J. 20 (3): 453–470. SPE-169104-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/169104-PA.
Myers, T. J. and Radke, C. J. 2000. Transient Foam Displacement in the Presence of Residual Oil: Experiment and Simulation Using a Population-Balance Model. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39 (8): 2725–2741. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie990909u.
Osterloh, W. T. and Jante, M. J. Jr. 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.
Rong, J. G. 2002. Experimental Evaluation of Foam in Environmental Remediation. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (May 2002).
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 Wang, M.-W. 1997. Modeling Foams for Acid Diversion. Presented at SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 2–3 June. SPE-38200-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/38200-MS.
Schramm, L. L. ed. 1994. Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Shen, C., Nguyen, Q. P., Huh, C. et al. 2006. Does Polymer Stabilize Foam in Porous Media? Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22–26 April. SPE-99796-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/99796-MS.
Simjoo, M. and Zitha, P. L. J. 2013. Effects of Oil on Foam Generation and Propagation in Porous Media. Presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 2–4 July. SPE-165271-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/165271-MS.
Tang, J., Vincent-Bonnieu, S., and Rossen, W. R. 2017. The Effect of Oil on Steady-State Foam Flow Regimes in Porous Media. Presented at the IOR 2017–19th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Stavanger, Norway, 24–27 April.
Wiggins, S. 2013. Global Bifurcations and Chaos: Analytical Methods. New York City: Springer.
Xu, Q. and Rossen, W. R. 2003. Effective Viscosity of Foam in Periodically Constricted Tubes. Colloid. Surface. A 216 (1): 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00547-2.
Zeeman, E. C. 1977. Catastrophe Theory: Selected Papers, 1972–1977. Boston, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Zeng, Y., Muthuswamy, A., Ma, K. et al. 2016. Insights on Foam Transport From a Texture-Implicit Local-Equilibrium Model With an Improved Parameter Estimation Algorithm. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55 (28): 7819–7829. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b01424.