OTC 19787

Oil Recovery and Surfactant Adsorption During CO2-Foam Flooding

Guoqiang Yin,* SPE, Reid B. Grigg, SPE, and Yi Svec,* SPE, Petroleum Recovery Research Center, New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology

Copyright 2009, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 47 May 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
Three carbon dioxide (CO2) foam flooding parameters are addressed in this paper: optimum gas fractional flow, surfactant
adsorption behavior, and oil recovery versus CO2/aqueous phase injection methodologies. Experimental test conditions were
selected to simulate some of the reservoirs in west Texas (1540 psig and 110F). All tests in this study were conducted in
fired Berea sandstone cores to minimize core property changes during a series of CO2 foam flooding tests. CO2 and aqueous
phase were co-injected during the test. The CO2 foam flow behavior in the absence and presence of oil and the optimum oil
recovery methodologies associated with different stages are described in this paper.
This study demonstrates that, with similar residual oil in the core, CO2 foam had higher oil recovery than CO2brine coinjection. Additional oil was recovered with CO2 foam injection following CO2brine co-injection. However, no additional
oil was recovered if CO2 foam injection was applied first. The surfactant adsorption equilibrium was characterized by the
occurrence of foam.
Introduction
The idea of using foam for mobility control was first proposed and patented by Bond and Holbrook in 1958.1 Fried2
conducted foam drive experiments and reported a sharp pressure drop across the foam bank and reduced gas mobility through
porous media. Since then, there have been extensive reviews on foam research such as Heller and Taber,3 Marsden,4
Hirasaki, 56 and Chang and Grigg.7 CO2 foam will increase the apparent viscosity of displacing fluid and improve the oil
recovery by decreasing mobility. Several researchers have reported that CO2 foam can selectively reduce mobility of CO2 by
a greater fraction in higher than in lower permeability regions. 810
Gas frictional flow ratio, fg, can be used to predict foam flow behavior. At a constant gas flow rate, qg,, Khatib et al.11
showed that foam mobility decreases slightly with increasing fg ranging from 50% to 98%. But for fg > 98%, foam mobility
increases with increasing fg. Also, Patton et al,13 Hirasaki and Lawson,14 Marsden and Khan,4 and Chang and Grigg15 found
that foam mobility decreases with increasing fg. On the other hand, Lee and Heller9 reported that foam mobility increases
with increasing fg. Yaghoobi and Heller10 found that foam mobility increases slightly as fg increases up to about 85%;
thereafter, foam mobility increases rapidly. Persoff et al.16 found that, at a constant gas flow rate (qg), foam mobility
decreases with increasing liquid flow rate (ql); The results by Lee et al.9 demonstrated that, foam mobility increases with
increasing qt. At a constant total flow rate, qt, De Vries and Wit12 reported that, foam mobility decreases as fg increases until
the break point (where the pressure gradient reaches the maximum); beyond that point it increases. Chang and Grigg15 also
showed that foam mobility increases with increasing qt, the total mobility decreases with increasing qg.
The destabilizing effect of crude oil on foam was first examined by Bernard and Holm.18 They reported the foams
effectiveness in reducing gas mobility greatly diminished when crude oil was present. More recently, Jensen and
Friedmann19 studied the propagation rates of nitrogen and steam foams at 149C in partially oil-saturated Berea sandstone
cores. They found that the oil saturation must be decreased below 15% saturation before oil-sensitive foam could propagate.
They also concluded that the type of oil had little effect on the overall propagation rate of the different foams, but the type of
*Note: These authors currently work for Shell Oil Company.

OTC 19787

surfactant had dramatic effects. The oil-insensitive surfactant produced a foam that propagated through the medium more
rapidly than the oil sensitive surfactants. The pressure drop associated with the foam created with the oil-insensitive
surfactant responded more rapidly. Raterman20 investigated the oil destabilization of nitrogen in porous media and concluded
that the destabilization of foams by oil in a porous media correlates strongly to the inherent probability of pseudo-emulsion
film drainage and oil penetration of the gas/liquid interface.
Due to the different results as mentioned above, it was necessary to perform additional tests to verify or refute the
differences. This study investigated CO2 foam flow behavior and its application based on this purpose.
Experimental Setup and Procedures
Materials
Two fired Berea sandstone cores were used for this study. Each core is 6 inches long and 2 inches in diameter (see Table 1).
CO2 is the injected gas phase and Chaser CD1045 (CD) is the primary surfactant utilized that was supplied by Chaser
International with 46.8 wt% active aqueous solution. Calcium lignosulphonate (CLS) is a byproduct of the paper industry and
a weak surfactant. The aqueous phase was 3 wt % brine solution (CaCl2:NaCl = 1:2). The properties of the crude oil used are
listed in Table 2.

Table 1. Properties of Berea Sandstone

Core ID

OD,
in

ss-1

2.003

ss-2

2.028

Initial Pore
3
Volume, cm

Initial
Porosity, %

Initial Water
Permeability, md

5.998

49.75

16.06

26.22

5.785

68.25

22.29

450

Length,
in

Table 2. Specifications of Crude Oil Sample

Item Description
Sample Identification
API Gravity
Average Molecular Weight
Refraction Index @ 20C
n-C7 Asphalt Weight Composition
Viscosity @20C

Value
E-S1XG-01
33.3
237
1.48
0.54
15.80

Unit
degree
g/mol
none
%
cp

Apparatus setup
Oil-free coreflooding setup. The core flooding apparatus (Fig. 1) was designed and built to obtain the required
information while varying gas fractional flow, flow rate and surfactant concentration. A series of three filters were
placed upstream of the core and acted as a foam generator and filter, the final and smallest aperture being 0.5 um. The
coreholder can accommodate a core up to 2 inches in diameter and 24 inches long, with a maximum working pressure of
10,000 psi. One Honeywell pressure transducer was incorporated in the design to measure differential pressure across the
core. Two syringe pumps, pump A & B, were used to inject distilled water into the backside of the accumulator filled
with the fluids used in coreflooding. Pump A was used to drive the aqueous accumulator and Pump B was used to drive
the gas accumulator. Two backpressure regulators (BPR) were installed downstream of the accumulator to control the
flow rate of CO2 and aqueous solution. The core outlet pore pressure was maintained at 1540 psi using a BPR. The
effluent was recovered in the first trap flask; the remaining CO2 gas would pass through the second flask trap and a wet
test meter before releasing into the air. The amount of produced CO2 was recorded at the wet test meter.

OTC 19787

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of oil-free coreflooding setup.

Oil recovery apparatus setup. The apparatus used to perform oil recovery experiments was similar to Fig. 1, with the
difference that a burette with a plug on the top fixed on a frame, used as an oilgas separator, replaced the first liquid trap
shown in Fig. 1. The CO2 separated from the liquid inside the burette and was dried in the second trap that contained a drying
agent. The dry gas is then passed through a wet test meter and a bottle of distilled water as in Fig. 1. For each sample, the
volume of oil and aqueous phase as well as the weight of the total liquid in the burette were measured and recorded. The
bottom liquid was drained off and the top oil was remained in the burette. The total volume of recovered CO2 was obtained
from the wet test meter reading. The weight of the liquid absorbed in the dry agent was obtained by weighing the flask before
and after the tests. The liquid densities were determined and the volume of the liquids collected with the burette and absorbed
by the dry agent was calculated. Using the known injected volumes at core conditions for aqueous and CO2 phases and the
volumes of aqueous, oil, and gas produced, the oil, aqueous, and gas saturations in the core can be determined.
Experimental procedures
CO2brine co-injection test. For this test, the total flow rate, qt, was kept constant and the flow fraction ratios between brine
and CO2 were varied. For each ratio, the flooding was continued until the pressure drop across the core reach the steady state.
The pressure drop along the core plug was recorded and the mobility of the core was determined, which were subsequently
used as the baseline to obtain the foam mobility reduction factor (MRF) subsequent tests.
CO2surfactant co-injection foam flooding. Experiments performed are listed in Table 3. As can be seen, there are three
general types of injection models: 1) vary the surfactant/CO2 fraction flow ratio with a constant total flow rate (qt); 2) vary
the surfactant solution flow rate with a constant CO2 flow rate constant; and 3) vary the CO2 flow rate with a constant CD
solution flow rate. The core effluent was collected and the concentration of CD was determined to calculate the adsorption
and desorption in the core. Normally, each test interval was stopped after the pressure drop across the core reached steady
state. At the end of each test, the core was flushed with CD surfactant-free brine until the pressure drop across the core was
returned to the value obtained at the initial core conditions at the same flow rate.
Table 3. Experimental Procedures used in CO2 Foam Flooding
Core ID

ss-1

Concentration of CD
surfactant used

0.05 wt%

Foam Flooding Mode

0.25 wt%

fixed ql, change qg to realize variable fg

ql=10cm /hr

fixed qg, change ql to realize variable fg

qg=20 cm /hr

fixed qt, change qg/ql to realize variable fg

qt=20 cm /hr

fixed qg, change ql to realize variable fg

qg=40 cm /hr

fixed qt, change qg/ql to realize variable fg

qt=100 cm /hr

fixed qg, change ql to realize variable fg

qg=40 cm /hr

0.05 wt%
ss-2

Flow Rate

OTC 19787

Oil recovery experiments. At the start of each test, degassed brine was injected into the evacuated core to re-determine the
pore volume at a pore pressure of 2000 psi. Then the core was flushed with 2~3 PV brine to further saturate the core and the
initial brine volume in the core was recorded. Finally, crude oil was injected into the core to residual brine status. This was a
two-stage process. First, 1.52 PV oil was injected followed by a 48 hr soak period. Then additional 34 PV oil was injected
until no additional brine was being produced. The oil saturation process was conducted at ambient pressure (12.7 psia ) and
temperature ( 75F ).
Six experiments were performed; see Table 4 for procedure details. In Experiment 1, the core was reduced to waterflood
residual oil saturation by brine flooding, further reduced with CO2brine co-injection, and then CO2CD surfactant solution
co-injected until no oil production occurred. In Experiment 2, once the core was saturated with oil, CO2 and CD surfactant
solution was co-injected until no oil production occurred. Then CO2/brine was co-injected, followed by brine injection. In
Experiment 3, after the oil saturation in the core was reduced to the waterflood residual oil by brine injection, the core was
flushed with CD surfactant solution. Then CO2CD surfactant solution was co-injected into the core followed by CO2brine
co-injection. In Experiment 4, saturating the core with oil reducing the brine to residual water, the fluid was displaced by
brine, then CO2brine co-injection, then CO2/mixed surfactant solution (0.5 wt% CLS +CD @ 0.05 wt% CD ) co-injection
until no oil production occurred. In Experiment 5, the core oil saturation was reduced to residual oil with brine flooding, then
CO2CD surfactant solution co-injection into the core. Experiment 6 was designed to repeat Experiment 1 to evaluate the
effect of core property changes due to the volume of injectants passing through the core during the numerous experiments.
The breakthrough time of oil, CO2 and aqueous solution as well as the incremental oil recovery were recorded for each step
during each experiment. Samples were collected at 1530 min intervals and the effluent fluids were then analyzed for oil,
brine, and surfactant. Between experiments, the core was cleaned with 500 ml tetrahydrofuran (THF) and was then dried and
evacuated for the next oil recovery experiment.
Table 4 Summary of Oil Recovery Experimental Procedures
Run #

Flow Rate
3
(cm /hr)

Flow Rate Ratio

CO2:Brine/CD
solution

% OOIP
Recovery

(1) Brine displaced oil

80

58.7

(2) CO2/brine displaced oil

40

4:1

20.2

(3) CO2/(CD @ 0.25wt%) displaced oil

40

4:1

5.9

(1) CO2/(CD @ 0.25wt%) displaced oil

40

4:1

79.7

(2) CO2/brine displaced oil

40

4:1

1.9

(3) Brine displaced oil

80

0.0

(1) Brine displaced oil

80

55.8

(2) Injected CD @0.25wt%

80

4:1

2.4

(3) CO2/(CD @ 0.25wt%) displaced oil

40

4:1

19.2

(4) CO2/brine displaced oil

40

4:1

1.0

Experimental Procedures

(1) Brine displaced oil

80

(2) CO2/brine displaced oil

40

4:1

13.9

(3) CO2/(CD @ 0.05wt%+CLS @ 0.5wt%) displaced oil

40

4:1

1.7

(4) CO2/(CD @ 0.05wt%+CLS @ 0.5wt%)

80

0.0

(5) CO2/(CD @ 0.05wt%+CLS @ 0.5wt%) displaced oil

40

4:1

1.5

(1) Brine displaced oil

80

56.6

(2) CO2/(CD @ 0.25wt%) displaced oil

40

4:1

20.2

(3) Brine displaced oil

80

1.2

(1) Brine displaced oil

80

55.7

(2) CO2/brine displaced oil

40

4:1

17.6

(3) CO2/(CD @ 0.25wt%) displaced oil

40

4:1

5.7

57.6

Repeat Experiment 1

OTC 19787

Calculations
Liu et al.21 described the gas mobility concept and its calculation method as shown in Eq. 1. In this study, the total mobility
is defined as the ratio of the total injection rate per unit of superficial area to the pressure gradient required for simultaneous
flow of gas (CO2 or N2) and brine/surfactant through the core,9 as shown in Eq. 2 below.
qg

g = 1.60717 A dp -------------------

(1)

ds
q g + ql

t = 1.60717

dp
ds

-------------

(2)

Results and Discussions

1 CO2 foam flow behavior in absence of oil
1.1 CO2brine co-injection base mobility tests. A series of baseline experiments were carried out by co-injecting CO2 and
brine into a brine-saturated core until a steady-state pressure drop across the core was achieved. As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, at
a constant total flow rate, gas mobility increases with increasing gas fractional flow fg. The total mobility increases with
increasing fg ranging from 0.6 to 0.9, but decreases when fg is less than 0.6.

Figure 2. Gas mobility of CO2brine co-injection as a function of fg at constant total flow rate.

Figure 3. Total mobility of CO2brine co-injection as a function of fg at constant total flow rate.

1.2 Three foam flow zones. The effect of capillary pressure is important for any type of multiphase flow in porous media,
especially when flow rates are low and the heterogeneity in the core is high. Gas fractional flow, fg, will alter the water or gas
saturation in the reservoir. The limiting capillary pressure divides the foam into a stable foam regime from an unstable foam
region in porous media. The limiting capillary pressure determines critical gas fractional flow, fg*.21 In order to determine
fg*, a series of coreflooding experiments were conducted for both core plugs. For Core ss-1, the 0.05 wt% CD surfactant

OTC 19787

solution phase flow rate was varied from 0.20 to 1250 cm3/hr at a constant CO2 gas flow rate of 20 cm3/hr. For Core ss-2,
while keeping a constant gas flow rate of 40cm3/hr, two sets of experiments were performed with CD surfactant solution
concentration of 0.05 wt% and 0.25 wt % CD, respectively, and flow rates were ranged from 1.12 cm3/hr to 1250 cm3/hr.
The gas mobility, g, for Core ss-1 and Core ss-2 as a function of fg/(1-fg) at a constant gas flow rate is shown in Figure 4.
The results show that, the relationship between the gas mobility and fg can be characterized by three straight lines intersecting
at fg* and the pseudo-single phase flow fraction fgo. When fg< fgo, the gas mobility increases with increasing fg. When fg> fgo,
the foam flow demonstrates behavior similar to the results obtained by Liu, et al21; when fgo fg fg*, gas mobility decreases
with increasing fg; when fg fg*, the gas mobility increases with increasing fg. Thus, the foam flow regime can be divided
into three zones: single phase zone (fg<fgo), low gas fractional flow zone (fgo fg fg*) and high gas fractional flow zone (fg>
fg*).

Figure 4. Determination of fg* at constant gas flow rate with 110F and 1540 psig in a fired Berea sandstone core.

The reason for the existence of fg* in foam flow due to the limiting capillary pressure have been elucidated in detail
previously.8,11,21 However, the region of the single-phase zone (fg< fgo) for the foam flow has not previously been identified
in the literature. When CD surfactant solution flow rate is very high, the flow can be considered to be a single- phase flow.
According to Darcys law, the pressure drop across the core should be proportional to the aqueous flow rate. With a constant
gas flow rate qg, when increasing fg the aqueous flow rate will decrease, leading to a lower pressure drop gradient across the
core (dp/ds). According to Eq. 1, the gas mobility will linearly increase.
Table 5 Comparison of Test Results with Those of Liu et al.21
CD
Surfactant
Conc.

Core
ID

Gas
Type
used

Gas Flow
Rate,
3
cm /hr

Core
Permeability
K, md

ss-1

CO2

20

26.22

0.05 wt%

0.063

0.500.05

ss-2

CO2

40

450

0.05 wt%

0.043

0.7540.05

ss-2

CO2

40

450

0.25 wt%

0.054

0.850.05

Ls-2

N2

22

25.61

0.25 wt%

none

0.850.05

fg

fg

Remarks

cores used
in this study
core used by Liu et al.

21

1.3 Factors to affect the critical gas fractional flow value (fg*). Table 5 lists the results from this study and from Liu et
al.21 to determine fg*. Surprisingly, with different core, gas, core permeability, and gas flow rate, the same fg* value was
obtained for both cores (ss-2 and Ls-2). It appeared that the type of the surfactant and the surfactant formulation are
significant factors in determining the value of fg*. As can be seen, for Core ss-2, even though all the condition are exactly
same, the different CD concentrations lead to the different fg*, the higher the CD concentration, the higher fg*. Comparing
the results of fg* value, permeability and gas flow rate obtained with the same 0.05 wt% CD solution and CO2 gas for Cores

OTC 19787

ss-1 and ss-2, it was found that the higher the permeability and flow rate, the higher the fg* value. Without adequate
evidence, it is difficult to conclude which of the two parameters (surfactant concentration or permeability) plays a more
significant role in determining the gas fractional flow value. Alvarez et al.22 studied the relationships between the effect of
permeability and flow rate on the fg* and demonstrated that either increasing flow rate or permeability will increase fg*. The
results of this study are consistent with their observation.
1.4 Effect of fg on foam mobility
1.4.1 Effect of fg on foam mobility with constant total flow rate. Experiments for Cores ss-1 and ss-2 were performed
with CD concentration of 0.05 wt% at a constant flow rate of 20 cm3/hr and 100cm3/hr, respectively, while varying fg. Even
though there were several variables such as permeability and total flow rate, the similar relationships for both core plugs
between the total motility and fg were observed. As shown in Fig. 5, fg* lies between 0.6 and 0.7 for Core ss-1 and Core ss-2.
With increasing fg, the total mobility decreases when fg fg* and increases when fg>fg*. The Mobility Reduction Factor
(MRF)23 is an expression used to evaluate the magnitude of the mobility reduction in laboratory foam tests. The MRF is
defined as the total mobility of CO2brine divided by the total foam mobility, where both mobility measurements are
conducted at the same CO2liquid volumetric injection ratio. Figure 6 shows the changing tendency of MRF for Cores ss-1
and ss-2 with variable fg at two constant total flow rates. The maximum MRF for Core ss-1 is 50.92 at fg=0.6 but for Core ss2 it is 103.61 at fg=0.8. This shows the characteristic of foam to reduce foam mobility selectively, that is, the higher the
permeability of the core, the more foam mobility will be reduced.

Figure 5. Total mobility as a function of fg at a constant total flow rate, CD=0.05 wt%.

120.00
ss-1 core/ qt=20cc/hr
ss-2 core/qt=100cc/hr

100.00

MRF

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Gas Fractional Flow, fg

Figure 6. Schematic graph to determine the optimum fg with the maximum MRF.

OTC 19787

1.4.2 Effect of fg on foam mobility with a constant CO2 gas flow rate. To obtain the mobility change, three series of
experiments were conducted with constant CO2 gas flow rate,. For Core ss-1, the experiments were conducted with CD
concentration of 0.05 wt% at a constant CO2 flow rate of 20cm3/hr, while for Core ss-2, experiments were performed with
CD concentration of 0.05 wt% and 0.25 wt% at a constant CO2 flow rate of 40 cm3/hr. The plot (Fig. 7) of total mobility as a
function of fg/(1-fg) was also characterized as three intersected straight lines with two cross points of fgo and fg*. It shows
that at a constant CO2 gas flow rate the total mobility was independent of fg when fg< fgo, decreased with increasing fg when
fgo fg fg* and increased with increasing fg when fg>fg*.

Figure 7. Plot of total mobility at a constant CO2 flow rate.

1.5 Surfactant adsorption and desorption at reservoir conditions. In this study, both the adsorption and desorption
behavior of the foam were investigated in Core ss-2; the experimental strategies are outlined in Table 6. Adsorption was
conducted by co-injecting 0.25 wt% CD surfactant solution and CO2. Desorption was then conducted by injecting surfactantfree brine solution. The normalized effluent CD concentration versus PV of injected CD solution is shown in Fig. 8.
Table 6. The Experimental Sequence for Adsorption and Desorption
Core ID

Displacing fluid sequence

Determination

(1) 0.25 wt% CD and CO2

CD and CO2 co-injection

(2) CD surfactant free brine

Desorption

ss-2

The adsorption process was characterized by a rapid, short period of adsorption. As shown in Fig. 8, with an initial CD
surfactant solution concentration of 0.25 wt%, the foam was observed to produce in the effluent after 7 PV of CD surfactant
solution injection and the adsorption equilibrium seemed to be established after 10 PV injection.

Figure 8. Adsorption profile for CD solution in Core ss-2 at 110F and 1540 psig.

OTC 19787

The behavior of CD desorption is shown in Fig 9. The initial CD concentration in the core solution is 0.25 wt%. The effluent
CD concentration drops rapidly after switching to the injection of CD-free solution. This rapid drop in produced CD
followed by a long tail of low concentration corresponds to earlier studies in which desorption was not 100% reversible, at
least in a comparable time frame studied.24 The final recovered CD mass provided an equivalent core retention density of
1.82 mg/g.

Figure 9. CD surfactant desorption profile in Core ss-2.

2 CO2 foam flow behavior in Berea Sandstone in the presence of oil

Figure 10 illustrates the differential pressure profiles during CO2CD surfactant solution co-injection at different oil
saturations in the same Berea sandstone core. It indicates that, the higher the oil saturation before the start of foam injection,
the lower the differential pressure. This indicates that oil destabilizes CO2 foam in porous media, which has a potential to
selectively plug high watercut zones. The gradually increasing differential pressure can be interpreted as the effect of the CO2
gas entrapment in pore throats. Without gas, the differential pressure will decrease rather than increase (Fig. 11). Plot II in
Fig. 10 shows that the differential pressure linearly increases as fluid is injected. As the oil saturation decreases, foam
stability increases.

150
Plot I-derived from Exp.3
So =20.5%

135

Pressure Drop (psi)

120
Plot II -derived from Exp.5
So =30.5%

105
90
75
60
45

Plot III-derived from Exp.2

So=64.6%

30
15
0
0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Total fluid injected, PV

Figure 10. Differential pressure characteristics during CO2 foam flooding at different oil saturations.

10

OTC 19787

3 Oil recovery experiments

To determine the most efficient EOR strategy, six experiments were implemented using Core ss-2. To avoid an excessive
differential pressure across the core, an 80 cm3/hr brine injection rate and 40 cm3/hr CO2-CDbrine co-injection rates were
used. The gas-to-liquid fractional flow ratio was selected as 4:1 based on the optimum result obtained previously.
3.1 Oil recovery efficiency when CO2/CD co-injection was used as a secondary recovery option. Figure 12 shows the oil
recovery as a function of PV injected. In Experiment 2, CO2CD surfactant solution was co-injected into the core at initial
oil saturation. The ultimate oil recovery was 79.7 % with 3.98 PV total fluid injection. There was negligible additional oil
produced during the subsequent CO2 brine co-injection and brine injection. In contrast, 59.7% and 20.2% oil was recovered
at 5.13 PV brine injection (waterflood) and 3PV CO2brine co-injection, respectively, during Experiment 1. An additional
5.9% oil was recovered with 7 PV CO2CD surfactant solution co-injection. The results demonstrate that foam flooding as a
secondary recovery method can recover additional oil with a significantly lower injection volume.
16.0

14.0

Pressure drop ( psig)

12.0

10.0

Before brine injection,

So=63.12%

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

Brine injected, PV

Figure 11. Differential pressure characteristics during oil displacement.

Oil Recovery Percentage,%

Oil Recovery in Experiment 1

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

Total Pore Volume Injected

Brine flooding-1

CO2/brine flooding-1

(a)

CO2/CD flooding

20.00

OTC 19787

11

Oil recovery in Experiment 2

100.0
Cummulative Oil Recovery
Percentage, %

90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Pore Volume Injected

CO2/CD foam flooding

CO2/brine flooding

Brine flooding

(b)
Figure 12. Plot of oil recovery results in Experiments 1 and 2.

3.2 CO2CD co-injection used as a tertiary recovery option at the high oil saturation stage. Figures 13 and 14 illustrate
two different oil recovery results from Experiments 4 and 5. For each experiment the oil recovery by waterflood is similar
(57%0.6%), which indicates that the core flow characteristics did not change significantly during these tests. The oil
saturation at the end of the brine injection was about 30%. In Experiment 4, the second stage was CO2brine co-injection, by
which 13.9% of oil was recovered with 2.9 PV total fluid injected. In Experiment 5, the second stage was CO2CD surfactant
solution co-injection, by which 20.2% of oil was recovered with 3.6 PV total fluid injected. Obviously, the CO2CD
surfactant solution co-injection in Experiment 5 was more efficient in oil producing than the CO2brine co-injection in
Experiment 4.

Cummulative O il Recovery Percentage,

%

Oil Recovery in Experiment 4

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Brine flooding
CO2/brine flooding
CO2/(CD+CLS) co-injection
CD+CLS pre-slug buidling
CO2/(CD+CLS) co-injection

50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Pore Volume Injected

Figure 13.

Plot of oil recovery results in Experiment 4.

30.00

12

OTC 19787

Oil Recovery in Experiment 5

100.0

Cummulative Oil recovery

percentage, %

90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Pore volume o injected

Brine flooding

CO2-CD co-injection

Post brine flooding

Figure 14. Plot of oil recovery results in Experiment 5.

Figure 15. Plot of oil recovery results in Experiment 6.

3.3 CO2CD co-injection used as a tertiary recovery option at the low oil saturation stage. In Experiment 6 the oil
residual saturation in the core was reduced to around 19% after CO2/brine co-injection. Figure 15 shows the oil recovery for
CO2CD surfactant solution (0.25wt%) co-injection in Experiment 6. Results show that, 5.7% OOIP additional oil was
recovered after 6.0 PV CO2CD surfactant solution was injected. Experiment 6 (Fig. 15) is a repeat of experiment 1 (Fig. 12a). The results of two experiments are consistent. The reversed case in Experiment 2 (Fig. 12-b) showed that no additional oil
was recovered by CO2brine co-injection after CO2foam. Those experiments demonstrated that even after a CO2flood,
CO2foam flood can recover additional oil.

Conclusions
1.

2.
3.

Three flow regions were identified: a single aqueous phase region, a low gas fractional flow region and a high gas
fractional flow region. In the single phase region, for a constant CO2 gas flow rate, the gas mobility increased with
increasing of fg and the total mobility was independent of fg. With increasing fg, the gas mobility and total mobility
both decreased in the low gas fractional flow region and increased in the high gas flow fractional region.
The core permeability and the concentration of surfactant play a major role in affecting the critical fractional flow
ratio fg*: the higher the concentration and permeability, the higher the fg*.
The adsorption equilibrium was characterized by the occurrence of foam. The desorption of the surfactant are
characterized as a rapid, short period of desorption from the rock surface followed by a long period of slow
desorption process.

OTC 19787

4.
5.

13

The crude oil indeed has a significant destabilizing effect on CO2 foam. The higher the oil saturation in the core, the
stronger the effect. These characteristics can be a potential for selective plugging of high watercut zones.
Foam flooding can reduce waterflood and CO2 flood oil residual, which indicates that additional oil can be
recovered by CO2 foam following waterflood or CO2 flood.

Acknowledgements
The authors express their appreciation for the funding provided by the U.S. DOE and the State of New Mexico, and the
permission of the New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center a research division of New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology, to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
CD
CLS
CSG
CWG
SAG
WAG
A
C/Ci
dp
dp/ds
fg
fg*

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

fgo
K
Ls
MRF
N2
PV
qg
qt
ql
ss
g
t

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

surfactant Chaser CD1045TM

calcium lignosulfonate
co-injection of surfactant and gas
co-injection of water and gas
surfactant alternating gas
water alternating gas
cross-sectional area of the core, cm2
normalized concentration, fraction
pressure drop of entire core
pressure gradient, psi/cm
gas fractional flow, fraction
critical gas fractional flow, fraction
Inflexion value from single phase to low gas
fractional flow foam zone, fraction
permeability, md
limestone
mobility reduction factor
nitrogen
pore volume, fraction
gas flow rate, cm3/hr
total flow rate, cm3/hr
liquid flow rate, cm3/hr
sand stone
gas mobility, md/cp
total mobility, md/cp
fluid densities, g/cm3

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Bond, D.C and Holbrook, O.C.: Gas Drive Oil Recovery Process, U. S. Patent No. 2,866,507 (Dec. 1958).
Fried, A.N: The Foam Drive Process for Increasing the Recovery of Oil, Report RI-5866, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington,
DC (1961).
Heller, J.P. and Taber, J.J.: Mobility Control for CO2 FloodsA Literature Survey, topical report, Contract No: DE-AC2179b4ClC689 U.S. DOE, Washington, DC (Oct. 1980).
Marsden, S.S and Khan, S.A.: The Flow of Foam Through Short Porous Media and Apparent Viscosity Measurements, SPEJ
(March 1966) 17; Trans., AIME 237.
Hirasaki, G.J.: The Steam-Foam Process, JPT (May 1989a) 449.
Hirasaki, G.J.: Supplement to SPE 19505, The Steam-Foam Process-Review of Steam-Foam Process Mechanisms, paper SPE
19518, SPE online elibrary, Richardson, TX (1989b).
Chang, S.H. and Grigg, R.B.: Foam Displacement Modeling in CO2 Flooding Processes, paper SPE/DOE 35401 presented at
the 1999 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 2124 April.

14

OTC 19787

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.

Yang S.H. and Reed R.L.: Mobility Control using CO2 foams, paper SPE19689 presented at the 1989 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, San Antonio, Oct. 811.
Lee, H.O., Heller, J.P., and Hoefer, A.M.W.: Change in. Apparent Viscosity of CO2 Foam with Rock Permeability, SPERE
(November 1991) 421428.
Yaghoobi, H. and Heller, J. P.: Laboratory Investigation of Parameters Affecting CO2-Foam Mobility in Sandstone at Reservoir
Conditions, paper SPE 29168 presented at the 1994 Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, Charleston, 810 Nov.
Khatib, Z.I., Hirasaki, G.J., and Falls, A.H.: Effects of Capillary Pressure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in Foams
Flowing through Porous Media, SPERE, (August 1988) 919926.
De Vries, A.S. and Wit, K.: Rheology of Gas/Water Foam in the Quality Range Relevant to Steam Foam, SPEJ, (1990), 5 (2),
185192.
Patton, J.T.Holbrook, S.T. and Hsu, W.: Rheology of Mobility Control Foams, SPEJ (June 1983) 456.
Hirasaki, G.J. and Lawson, J.B.: Mechanisms of Foam Flow Through Porous Media-Apparent Viscosity in Smooth Capillaries,
SPEJ (April 1985) 176190.
Change, S.H. and Grigg, R.B.: Effects of Foam Quality and Flow Rate on CO2-Foam Behavior at Reservoir Temperature and
Pressure, paper SPE 56856 presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April 1922.
Persoff, P. et al.: A Laboratory Investigation of Foam Flow in Sandstone at Elevated Pressure, SPERE (Aug. 1991) 365.
Hu, P.C. Tuvell, M.E., and Bonner, G.A.: Evaluation of Alpha-Olefin Sulfonates in Steam Diversion, paper SPE 12660
presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 1518.
Bernard, G. G. and Holm, L.W.: Effect of Foam on Permeability of Porous Media to Gas, SPE 983 presented at the 1964 SPE
Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct. 1114.
Jensen, J.A. and Friedmann, F.: Physical and Chemical Effect of an Oil Phase on the Propagation of Foam in Porous Media,
paper SPE 16375 presented at the 1987 SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, April 810.
Raterman, K.T.: An Investigation of Oil Destabilization of Nitrogen Foams in Porous Media, paper SPE 19692 presented at
1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 811.
Liu Y., Grigg. R.B and Svec R.K: Foam Mobility and Adsorption in Carbonate Core, paper SPE 99756 presented at the 2006
SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 2226.
Alvarez, J.M., Rivas, H.J. and Rossen, W.R.: Unified Model for Steady-State Foam Behavior at High and Low Foam Qualities,
SPEJ (September 2001) 325333.
Schramm L.L.: Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. American Chemical Society, Washington DC,
1994.
Bai, B.J., Grigg, R.B., Liu Y. and Zeng Z.W., Adsorption Kinetics of Surfactant Used in CO2 Foam Flooding onto the Berea
Sandstone, paper SPE 95920 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 912.