SPE 90938
Dynamic Simulations With an Improved Model for Foam Generation
S.I. Kam*, Q. P. Nguyen,† Q. Li†, and W. R. Rossen†
* - The University of Adelaide
†
- The University of Texas at Austin
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26–29 September 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
We present the first 1D simulations of dynamic foam
displacements with a new population-balance model
incorporating bubble creation controlled by pressure gradient.
For the first time, a population-balance model is fit to steady-
state experimental data for both the three foam states (coarse
foam, intermediate state, and strong foam) and the two strong-
foam regimes (low-quality and high-quality) observed in
laboratory studies. Simulations confirm the stability of the
coarse-foam and strong-foam states to small perturbations, and
the instability of the intermediate state.
In dynamic displacements, the model shows foam
generation as injection rates increase, or as liquid fraction of
injected fluids increases, in agreement with laboratory
observations.
When coarse foam is created instead of strong foam, there
is a narrow region of finer foam predicted near the gas
displacement front. This region appears to play a role in foam
generation. However, in the cases examined, foam generation
occurs at roughly the same injection rate as predicted by local-
steady-state theory. Because of this narrow region of finer-
textured foam, fronts can be sharper than estimated from
fractional-flow theory assuming a constant gas viscosity at its
steady-state value behind the displacement front.
If a strong foam forms in the low-quality-regime, the
kinetics of foam generation and destruction affect the length of
the entrance region in which foam forms. Therefore, the length
of the entrance region can be used to calibrate the kinetic
parameters in the model. The displacement front and the bank
behind it, however, are essentially what one would have
predicted from local-steady-state modeling. The complexities
of population-balance modeling are not necessary, if it is
known that strong foam will be created.
Introduction
Foam can improve sweep efficiency in gas-injection improved
oil recovery (IOR) processes,1-3 redirect acid flow in matrix
acid stimulation,4-6 and increase the efficiency of
environmental remediation of aquifers.7,8 A continuing goal of
foam research is the development of a fully mechanistic,
predictive model. This paper describes efforts toward such a
model and insights gained from application of the model to
dynamic displacements. Before providing a detailed
description of the model, it is worthwhile to review the
mechanisms of foam in porous media and the experimental
observations that the model attempts to reproduce.
Water and Gas Mobility
When strong foam forms in porous media the gas phase is
broken into discrete bubbles separated by liquid films called
lamellae.1,2,9 Bubbles are thought to be as large as pores, or
larger. Liquid and gas continue to flow as separate phases.
Numerous studies find that foam in porous media does not
directly alter the relative permeability krw or viscosity µw of
the aqueous phase in the foam.10-13 Specifically, the flow of
aqueous phase in the midst of foam is given by
u w = kk rw ( S w ) / µ w ∇p .................................................. (1)
where uw is water superficial velocity, k absolute permeability,
∇p the magnitude of pressure gradient (neglecting gravity for
simplicity) and krw the same function of water saturation Sw as
in the absence of foam
Foam does greatly reduce the mobility of gas, and to a
greater extent the smaller the bubble size of the foam.1,2,9,14,15
In mechanistic simulators,9,13,16-20 the bubble size is quantified
as nf, the number of lamellae per unit volume of gas phase.
The smaller the bubbles, the larger nf, and the lower the gas
mobility. The lamellae impart an effective yield stress to the
gas,15 trapping a significant portion of the gas in place even at
high pressure gradient,13,21 and resist the flow of the gas that
does flow. Because of both the yield stress and a shear-
thinning drag on the moving bubbles, the effective viscosity of
gas in foam is shear-thinning.
Foam Generation and Destruction
While gas mobility depends on bubble size, bubble size
itself depends on several processes that create and destroy the
lamellae that separate bubbles. The destruction of lamellae
increases as capillary pressure increases; in particular, foam is
observed to go through an abrupt collapse as capillary pressure
2 SPE 90938
rises to a limiting value, the "limiting capillary pressure"
Pc*.22-24 This implies that the rate of lamella destruction has a
singularity, approaching infinity at Pc*. As a practical result,
foam passes through a wide range of properties, from strong
foam to much weaker foam, in the immediate vicinity of Pc*,
which tends to hold Pc near Pc* over a range of superficial
velocities of gas and liquid. Because capillary pressure and
water saturation are related in porous media, the value of Pc*
corresponds to a limiting water saturation, Sw*. Because Pc is
nearly constant near Pc* over a range of superficial velocities,
Sw is likewise nearly constant near Sw* under these same
conditions.23 As a result (Eq. 1), pressure gradient ∇p is nearly
independent of gas superficial velocity when Pc is near Pc*.
An example is shown in the upper-left portion of Fig. 1.25 For
modeling purposes it may be easier to represent the rate of
lamella destruction as a function of water saturation and Sw*
than in terms of Pc and Pc*.
Much less is known about lamella destruction at other
conditions than in the vicinity of Pc* and Sw*.
Lamellae can created by several processes,26,27 including
"snap-off," i.e. creation of a new lamella by capillary
processes in a pore throat; by "leave behind" (lenses of liquid
stranded in pore throats during drainage of adjacent pores);
and "lamella division," which occurs when foam is flowing
and lamellae pass unoccupied pore throats. Details of these
processes can be found elsewhere.26-28 Recent studies29-32
indicate that the crucial step in foam generation is the
mobilization of lamellae as a function of pressure gradient ∇p,
setting off the process of lamella division. The creation of new
lamellae by division leads to a reduction in gas mobility; if
injection rates are fixed, this in turn leads to higher pressure
gradient, more mobilization and division, and an abrupt
change of state from weak or "coarse" foam to strong foam,
with orders of magnitude reduction in gas mobility. Gauglitz
et al.31 show that if one fixes pressure drop across the porous
medium instead of injection rates, one observes behavior
illustrated in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2, liquid injection rate is fixed and
gas flows at a pressure drop set by a pressure regulator
upstream of the beadpack. Pressure drops are moderate in Fig.
2 because the beadpack permeability is high (30.4 darcy);
nonetheless, the pressure drop with strong foam is of order
100 times higher than without foam. If gas injection rate were
fixed instead of pressure drop across the beadpack, upon
increasing gas injection rate, one would observe a point of
sudden creation of strong foam, with an increase in pressure
drop by a factor of about 100. Gauglitz et al.31 show similar
behavior holding injected quality (injected gas volume
fraction) fixed rather than liquid injection rate.
Fig. 2 illustrates three possible steady states at some
injection rates: (1) a coarse-foam state, where bubbles (if they
exist) are large, foam texture nf small, gas mobility relatively
high (though perhaps reduced somewhat from that without any
foam), and ∇p small. With high gas mobility, there is little
pressure gradient to mobilize existing lamellae, and the high-
mobility state is stable to small perturbations. (2) A strong-
foam state, with small bubbles, large nf, low gas mobility, and
large ∇p. (3) Between them, an intermediate state. Gauglitz et
al.31 found that this intermediate state was difficult to control
and appeared to be unstable, reverting to higher and lower gas
superficial velocities or even between complete plugging and
flow.
If one fixes injection rates rather than pressure drop, one
observes a jump from coarse foam to strong foam, i.e. the
abrupt change in state called "foam generation." This jump
occurs at lower injection rate if the liquid fraction of the
injected fluids is increased. Rossen and Gauglitz29 contend
that this results from a larger initial population of liquid lenses
and lamellae available for mobilization at higher injected
liquid fraction.
In addition, in the laboratory it is often seen that a
sufficient, through temporary, perturbation in injection rates or
other conditions can cause a jump from coarse foam to strong
foam that would not have occurred with steady injection rates.
Steady-State Strong-Foam Regimes
If strong foam is created, it exists in two steady-state flow
regimes.8,12,25,32,33,34 One is described above: If Pc is close to
Pc* (Sw close to Sw*), then pressure gradient ∇p is nearly
independent of gas superficial velocity. This is called the
"high-quality regime," or the "coalescence regime."35 At lower
foam qualities, there is a transition to another regime
illustrated in the lower-right portion of Fig. 1. Here pressure
gradient is nearly independent of liquid superficial velocity.
It is thought that in this regime bubble size is fixed at some
lower limit,8,25 possibly at roughly pore size. Therefore nf is
fixed, constant, at some maximum value nfmax which it cannot
exceed. (In contrast, in the high-quality regime nf < nfmax, and
nf is very sensitive to injection rates and especially to Pc and
Sw. In the low-quality regime Sw is not so near to Sw* as in the
high-quality regime and Sw is not constant.) Photographs of
effluent foam25,34 provide qualitative evidence of a small
bubble size, independent of injection rates, in the low-quality
regime. It is plausible that such a minimum bubble size might
exist, for two reasons. First, diffusion would tend to eliminate
bubbles smaller than pores, if formed.2 Second, new bubbles
cannot easily be created by division or snap-off if bubbles are
already smaller than pores. Bubbles smaller than pores do not
divide easily at splits in the pore pathway, and snap-off would
have to occur before the trailing lamella reached the pore
throat. Strictly, then, this maximum value nfmax is a result of a
sharp increase in lamellae destruction rate and a sharp
decrease in lamella creation rate as nf nears nfmax. In practice, it
is easier to model the low-quality regime simply by
postulating a maximum value of nf, nfmax, rather than the
complex changes in lamella-creation and -destruction
processes for nf near nfmax.32
Kim et al.34 report a modified low-quality regime for some
foams made with liquid or supercritical CO2. They show that
this behavior can be explained in the context of the low-
quality regime if gas viscosity depends on capillary pressure.
It is not clear how widely this sort of behavior extends.
The distinction between the two strong-foam regimes
shown in Fig. 1 is crucial. First, the rheology of the two
regimes is completely different, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Moreover, because the high-quality regime is sensitive to
capillary pressure but the low-quality regime is not, diversion
between layers differing in permeability is expected for foam
in the high-quality regime but not foam in the low-quality
regime. The foam quality at the transition between high-
SPE 90938
quality foam and low-quality foam depends on the factors that
control the two regimes, and in particular the limiting capillary
pressure of the particular foam formulation in the given
formation and on the permeability of the porous medium.
Further details on the low-quality and high-quality strong-
foam regimes are in Alvarez et al.25
Modeling Foam Behavior
There have been two approaches to modeling dynamic
foam displacements in porous media. In the population-
balance approach,9,13,16-20 foam texture nf is modeled
explicitly, using a balance equation on lamellae similar to the
mass balances for surfactant or water. The mechanisms
considered crucial to lamella creation and destruction are
represented explicitly in the balance on nf. An example is
given below. Meanwhile, gas mobility is expressed as a
function of nf, Sw and other factors. The population balance
can represent dynamic changes in foam texture without
assuming that foam texture has reached local steady state.
Until now, most population-balance models9,17-20 have been
based on lamella creation by repeated "Roof" snap-off,
governed by an aspect ratio between pore throats and adjacent
pore bodies. This explanation for foam generation is
problematic,36 and several studies have shown that in
homogeneous porous media foam is created by mobilization
of lamellae and subsequent division rather than primarily by
Roof snap-off.29-31
Fig. 3 shows water saturation and foam texture nf from a
population-balance simulation of co-injection of gas and
surfactant solution into a core filled with surfactant solution,
from Kovscek et al.18 The fit of this simulation to scans of
water saturation and pressure-drop data (not shown here) was
good. Foam texture in the model is nearly uniform behind the
foam front, but there is a maximum in nf near the gas
displacement front. (Other simulations from Kovscek et al.17
do not show this maximum in nf). The maximum is physically
justified, though it is too localized to be confirmed directly by
laboratory data. At the front, bubbles are convected
downstream to the front, and furthermore foam generation is
ongoing. Lamella destruction rate is low until Sw approaches
Sw* and Pc approaches Pc*. Thus in the leading edge of the
displacement front, foam texture overshoots its steady-state
value, until local water saturation falls enough to trigger
greater lamella destruction near Pc*, whence foam texture falls
to a roughly steady-state value in the foam bank.
Fig. 3 also shows a region near the inlet of the core in
which nf rises and foam is created from the injected liquid and
gas, in agreement with laboratory data.35
Kam and Rossen32 show that one can represent the high-
and low-quality strong foam regimes and the three foam states
(coarse, strong and intermediate) using a population-balance
model implementing foam destruction at Sw* and a maximum
value of nf, nfmax. The model was not as successful in
representing the nearly complete plugging of foam in the
intermediate regime. This same model predicts the existence
of two steady-state regimes within the strong-foam state,
illustrated in Fig. 4 (cf. Fig. 1), though Kam and Rossen did
not fit the model directly to data for the two regimes.
An alternative to population-balance modeling is to
assume local steady state at all locations in the
3
formation.5,20,37-44 Then one can represent foam texture
explicitly, if desired,20 or implicitly, as reflected in the change
in gas mobility for Sw near Sw*, for instance. Cheng et al.38
show that a local-steady-state model can represent the two
strong-foam regimes without explicitly representing nf. One
can allow for jumps between steady states when one state
reaches the limit of its range (foam generation or foam
collapse) in the context of a local-steady-state model.42 With
additional assumptions, local-steady-state modeling lends
itself to fractional-flow methods36,38,43,44 that provide useful
insights and simplicity of use. The local steady-state approach
is valid as long as the foam quickly attains the given local
steady state on the time and length scales of the displacement.
Rossen et al.37 show that in some cases, even on the core
scale, population-balance simulations can be modeled nearly
equivalently with fractional-flow methods, i.e. assuming local
steady state.
Local-steady-state modeling is much less complex, and
more numerically stable, than population-balance modeling. It
is important therefore to determine the conditions under which
this added complexity is required. A model that assumes that
foam immediately attains local steady state as strong foam is
clearly inadequate in cases where generation of strong foam is
in doubt. In this paper we present dynamic simulations of
steady co-injection of gas and liquid using a population-
balance model modified from that of Kam and Rossen.32 We
examine when and how foam generation occurs, and compare
foam generation in dynamic simulations to the steady-state
version of the same model and to trends in published
laboratory studies. When strong foam is created, we compare
the effect of kinetic parameters excluded from a local-steady-
state model on the simulation results at different length scales.
The model presented here is not predictive and does not
include all known foam mechanisms, though it does fit a
variety of steady-state data and qualitative trends observed in
foam-generation experiments. The model allows one to
consider the separate roles of lamella generation and
convection on foam propagation, compare steady-state
behavior to dynamic displacements, and examine the role of
local perturbations on foam generation and the stability of
steady states.
Before presenting simulation results, we tune the model to
both the foam-generation data of Fig. 2 and new steady-state
strong-foam data like those of Fig. 1 for the same foam
formulation and porous medium. This represents the first
tuning of a population-balance model to such a range of data.
The experimental data fitted here are for foam in a high-
permeability (30.4 darcy) beadpack. Therefore the pressure
gradients reported are much lower than would be observed in
lower-permeability, consolidated rock. Beadpacks and
sandpacks are appropriate for mechanistic studies of foam,
however, because the key features of foam behavior in
consolidated rock (three foam states,31 two strong-foam
regimes,8,12,25,33,34 abrupt foam generation upon increasing
injection rates,26,29,30,31 foam collapse at a limiting capillary
pressure,22,24 foam generation at a transition in
permeabilities26,30) are seen in beadpacks and sandpacks as
well as consolidated rock.
4 SPE 90938

Experimental Method and Results where rc is the rate of foam coalescence per unit volume of gas
Linear-flow experiments were conducted to characterize the phase and nf the number of lamellae per unit volume of gas. Cc
flow behavior of strong foam. Gas and surfactant solution and n are model parameters.
were co-injected into a vertically-mounted 1-ft long beadpack For gas viscosity in the presence of foam, we use the
(k=30.4 darcy and φ=0.31) with three pressure taps. The gas shear-thinning effective viscosity of Hirasaki and Lawson14
phase was nitrogen and the surfactant solution was prepared derived from the movement of long bubbles in tubes:
with 1.6 wt% of Aerosol MA 80I (Sodium dihexyl
sulfosuccinate, CYTEC, NJ) added into 3 wt% NaCl and 0.01 Cf nf
µg = µg +
f o
........................................................ (5)
wt% CaCl2 brine solution. These experimental conditions are ug
1/ 3
identical to those of the "Type 3" experiments in Gauglitz et
al.31 (Fig. 2) except that the gas and surfactant solutions were where µgo is gas viscosity in the absence of foam and Cf is a
injected at fixed rates in this study. Steady-state pressure model parameter. Parameter Cf varies widely among
gradient was calculated from pressure drop across in the third theoretical and experimental studies in tubes, beadpacks and
pack section. rock.45 We make no explicit account in this model for gas
Fig. 5 is a plot of pressure gradient as a function of trapping or gas yield stress. Separating these two factors is
superficial velocities of gas (ug) and water (uw) in the strong- complicated, because the yield stress is also the origin of gas
foam state. In other words, Fig. 5 represents the ∇p(uw,ug) trapping.46 Different population-balance models treat these
surface formed by combining the upper branch of the curve in effects differently.9,13,16-20
Fig. 2 with upper branches of curves at other values of uw. In the absence of a simple way to represent the effects of
These new data reflect the same types of steady-state strong- gas trapping and yield stress, here we assume
foam regimes shown in Fig. 1.
o
kk rg
Population-Balance Model ug = ∇p ............................................................... (6)
µg
f
It is not clear exactly how the rate of lamella creation in
porous media depends on pressure gradient and other factors.
Kam and Rossen32 suggest the following simple relationship: where krgo is gas relative permeability in the absence of foam
and µgf is given by Eq. 5. Thus Cf (Eq. 5) accounts both for a
m
rg = C g (∇p ) ............................................................(2) constant reduction in gas relative permeability with foam and
for gas effective viscosity with foam.
where rg is the rate of lamella creation per unit volume of gas Transport of liquid is governed by Darcy's law as well (Eq.
phase, ∇p is the magnitude of pressure gradient in Pa/m, and 1). The liquid-phase relative-permeability function and liquid-
Cg and m are model parameters. The theory of Rossen and phase viscosity are both assumed to be unaffected by foam.
Gauglitz29 for foam generation implies that lamella creation Relative-permeability functions for gas and liquid phases
depends on pressure gradient, but also on water saturation or in the absence of foam were estimated by curve-fitting data for
capillary pressure, which governs the presence of lenses or unconsolidated sandpacks:47
lamellae available to be mobilized. Specifically, foam 2.2868
generation is easier at higher water saturation, because there ⎛ 1 − S w − S gr ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
o
are more liquid lenses on the pore network, and these lenses k rg ....................................... (7)
can be mobilized at lower ∇p because of their arrangement on ⎝ 1 − S wc − S gr ⎠
the network.29 Therefore, here we have modified the rate of
lamella creation as follows: 1.9575
⎛ S w − S wc ⎞
k rw = 0.7888 ⎜ ⎟⎟ for Sw < 1 .............. (8)
rg = C g S w (∇p)
m
. ..................................................(3) ⎜1− S − S
⎝ wc gr ⎠
This relation is still not a complete description of all with Swc = 0.04 and Sgr = 0.
mechanisms of lamella creation, but does include the crucial This model has five adjustable parameters (Cg, m, Cc, n,
role of pressure gradient on lamella creation by mobilization. and Cf): two for lamella creation, two for lamella destruction,
Beyond that, our approach shares many features with and one for effective gas mobility as a function of bubble size.
previous population-balance models.9,13,16-20 Foam coalescence For modeling steady-state behavior, there are four independent
is governed by limiting capillary pressure, Pc*, and the parameters: (Cg,/Cc, m, n, and Cf). Only the ratio of Cg to Cc
corresponding water saturation, Sw*.22-24 No one knows how matters to steady-state properties.
the rate of coalescence (lamella destruction) should depend on
Sw or Pc, as long as it diverges toward infinity as Sw Model Fit to Steady-State Data
approaches Sw* or Pc approaches Pc*. We adopt the following The fitted values of model parameters are given in Table
expression: 1. This set does not represent a unique fit to the data or even
n necessarily an optimized fit. Steady-state behavior of the
⎛ 1 ⎞ model is determined by setting rc = rg. The model fit to the
rc = C c n f ⎜ ⎟ ...............................................(4)
⎜ S − S* ⎟ three foam states is shown in Fig. 2. The new model does a
⎝ w w ⎠ better job of fitting the near-plugging (low gas superficial
SPE 90938
velocity) in the intermediate state than the previous model fit
of Kam and Rossen.32
The model fit to the steady-state low-quality and high-
quality strong-foam regimes is shown in Fig. 6 for comparison
with Fig. 5. Pressure gradient is nearly independent of gas
superficial velocity (nearly vertical ∇p contours) in the high-
quality regime, and nearly independent of liquid velocity
(nearly horizontal ∇p contours) in the low-quality regime. In
the context of this model, obtaining absolutely vertical
contours in the high-quality regime would require a steady-
state water saturation that does not change at all with
superficial velocity of gas: for instance, a steady-state
saturation constant and nearly equal to Sw*. In fact, over most
of this figure, Sw is only about 0.000002 higher than Sw*
(0.0585 (Table 1)). (Sw* itself is so low because connate water
saturation is low in this high-permeability beadpack.) A
steady-state Sw so close to the singularity in rc at Sw* (Eq. 4)
gives nearly unchanging Sw and the desired vertical contours,
but leads to numerical problems in simulations involving the
high-quality strong-foam regime, as described below.
Within the low-quality strong-foam regime, nf = nfmax.
Making ∇p contours absolutely horizontal in this regime
would require completely de-coupling gas mobility from water
saturation, as suggested by Rossen and Wang.33 In this model,
gas mobility depends weakly on water saturation through
krgo(Sw) (Eqs. 6 and 7). A value of 8 x 1013 is selected for nfmax
for modeling and simulation, based on the characteristics of
beadpack used in the experiments, i.e. bubble size roughly
equal to pore size. Combined with Cf (Eq. 5), nf determines ∇p
in the low-quality strong-foam regime.
The model parameters in Table 1 and fits in Figs. 2, 5 and
6 represent the first population-balance model fit to both the
three foam states and the high-quality and low-quality regimes
in the strong-foam state.
For fitting steady-state data, only the ratio of the kinetic
parameters Cg/Cc matters; as long as this ratio is fixed, the
magnitudes of Cg and Cc do not matter. Therefore, to probe the
importance of the rates of kinetic processes of lamellae
destruction and creation, we hold (Cg/Cc) fixed and vary Cc.
The magnitude of Cg changes proportionately to Cc.
Numerical Simulation Approach
The numerical approach used for simulating dynamic
displacements is summarized in the Appendix. Briefly, we
used a simple upstream-weighted forward-difference
technique, similar to that of Rossen and Bruining,42 extended
to a second dependent variable, nf. In these simulations,
surfactant concentration is uniform in initial resident and
injected fluids, so there is no need for a material balance on
surfactant. Our simulations assume incompressible phases.
We were unable to simulate displacements in the high-
quality regime with the model parameters in Table 1. As
noted, steady-state water saturation in the high-quality regime
is extremely close to the singularity in rc at Sw*. This greatly
destabilized the numerical simulations, which tended to
alternate in the foam bank between strong foam and complete
foam collapse. We discuss this further below.
In all cases shown, the simulations reflect 1D foam
displacement through a 0.3 m (~1 ft) beadpack, in the absence
5
of gravity effects. Gravity would have been insignificant in
cases where strong foam formed, but would have been an
important factor with coarse foam (leading to override in a
horizontal beadpack or to differences between ∇p in the liquid
and gas phases with vertical flow). In all cases gas and liquid
are co-injected as separate phases, not as foam; that is, the
injected foam texture nf is zero.
Simulation Results
The parameter values in Table 1 apply to all simulations, and
all simulations assume a 0.3-m long porous medium
(beadpack).
Stability of the Three Foam States
By analogy to catastrophe theory,48 one would expect from
the shape of the data and model fit in Fig. 2 that the strong-
and coarse-foam states would be stable to small perturbations,
while the intermediate state would be unstable. Simulation
results confirm this expectation, based on the response of
simulations initially at steady state to perturbations in foam
texture nf. These simulations were conducted without
considering capillary-pressure gradients, to better reflect
stability on the field scale, where perturbation wavelengths
could be long and capillary-pressure gradients insignificant.
In each case injection rates and all properties throughout
the medium were set at the values corresponding to a given
steady state, based on the fit illustrated in Figs. 2 and 6.
Values of these properties are given in Table 2. Then a
perturbation of ±50% in steady-state nf was imposed in the
middle of the pack, injection continued, and the response to
the perturbation was simulated. In additional cases not shown
here, we find that varying Cc and Cg (holding their ratio fixed)
does not affect the results of stability tests but does determine
how rapidly perturbations diminish or grow. A variety of
values of Cc are selected for stability tests shown below.
Fig. 7 shows how Sw and nf respond to a perturbation in nf
for a foam in the coarse-foam regime. This condition
corresponds to point A in Fig. 2, with steady-state ∇p = 0.005
psi/ft. Note that there is no initial perturbation in Sw, but Sw
does change in response to the perturbation in nf. The
perturbation shrinks with time as it moves downstream,
however, indicating the stability of the coarse-foam state to
this perturbation. Every case we examined in the coarse-foam
state showed similar stability. A sufficiently large
perturbation, of course, or starting from a state sufficiently
close to the limit of the coarse-foam state (where ug starts to
decrease upon increasing ∇p in Fig. 2) could in principle
trigger formation of strong foam and a shift to that steady
state.
Fig. 8 shows how Sw and nf respond to a perturbation in nf
for a foam in the low-quality strong-foam regime. The initial
state is represented by point B in Fig. 6 and listed in Table 2
(∇p = 4.2 psi/ft). nf is already at nfmax in this case, so only a
negative perturbation in nf is possible. In this case as well, the
perturbation shrinks with time. Every case we examined in the
low-quality, strong-foam regime showed similar stability.
Fig. 9 shows an example in the intermediate state, which is
marked as point C in Fig. 2 (∇p = 0.5 psi/ft); see also Table 2.
Here the perturbation in Sw grows with time as it moves
6 SPE 90938
downstream, and nf quickly attains its maximum value nfmax in
the low-quality strong-foam state. In all cases in the
intermediate state, we observed unstable behavior if the
perturbation was given sufficient time to grow. The reason,
evidently, is that, near the intermediate foam steady state, net
foam generation rate (rg - rc) increases upon a perturbation
increasing the value of nf. This would eventually drive the
perturbed system either to the coarse-foam or strong-foam
steady state. Moreover, we never observed the intermediate
foam state in dynamic simulations of fixed-rate gas and liquid
injection, except when we chose that state as the initial
condition of the medium. Displacements did not come to this
state spontaneously.
Dynamic Displacements
The steady-state behavior of the population-balance model
indicates that at sufficiently low injection rates one ought to
reach a coarse-foam state throughout the medium, in
agreement with experimental studies of foam
generation.13,26,29-32 Starting from the coarse-foam state, as
injection rates increase, either in separate experiments or in
one continuing experiment, there should be an abrupt change
to a strong-foam steady state with much lower total mobility -
i.e., "foam generation." In steady-state analysis, this jump
occurs as superficial velocity first starts to decrease with
increasing pressure gradient (Fig. 2). This point represents the
limit of intrinsic stability of the coarse-foam regime; an
infinitesimal perturbation there would convert coarse foam to
strong foam. How sudden or abrupt this change might be in
real time in a coreflood experiment would depend on kinetic
effects excluded from the steady-state model (the magnitudes
of Cg and Cc, as distinct from their ratio). Steady-state analysis
of nearly the same model as used here32 indicates that the
jump from coarse foam to strong foam occurs at lower
injection rate the higher is the liquid fraction of injected fluids.
All these trends in the population-balance model at steady
state are consistent with laboratory observations. Simulations
confirm all these trends.
Coarse-Foam State. Fig. 10 shows a simulation of co-
injection of gas and liquid into a medium saturated with
surfactant solution, conditions where the steady-state analysis
predicts a coarse-foam steady state (cf. Fig. 2). In the
simulation of Fig. 10 there are 25 grid blocks, and capillary-
pressure gradients are neglected. The injection conditions are
consistent with point D in Fig. 2 (uw = 1.0157 x 10-6 m/s
(0.288 ft/d); ug = 2.571 x 10-6 m/s (0.729 ft/d); foam quality
=72% (cf. dashed line in Fig. 6); ∇p = 0.003 psi/ft) as steady-
state coarse foam. At the leading edge of the displacement
front, there is a steep rise in foam texture nf. Bubbles are
convected forward to the front, and additional lamellae are
created there by pressure gradient as well (Eq. 2). The highest
∇p in this case occurs at the leading edge of the foam bank
where nf is higher and ug small (Eq. 6). Both this and the Sw-
dependence of generation (Eq. 2) promote lamella creation at
the displacement front. Meanwhile, lamella destruction rate is
low at the front because Sw is high, far from Sw* (Eq. 4). Once
nf rises and Sw falls, however, lamella destruction overtakes
creation and the net rate of lamella creation (rg - rc) falls below
zero. Foam texture falls back to its steady-state texture
corresponding to coarse foam at these injection rates of gas
and liquid. Within the coarse-foam bank gas viscosity is
hardly altered by foam (µgf = 2.21 x 10-5 Pa s (0.00221 cp)),
and ∇p is only 0.003 psi/ft.
The sharp, narrow peak in nf in Fig. 10 raises concerns
about grid effects. Fig. 11 shows the effect of grid refinement,
still neglecting capillary-pressure gradients. The peak in nf
reaches virtually the same value as with the coarser grid, but
the peak is narrower. Gas is most viscous within the
displacement front, which makes the fall in Sw at the front
sharper than one would expect from foam viscosity in the
coarse-foam bank, especially with grid refinement. The
displacement front is sharper than one would predict from
fractional-flow theory assuming a constant gas viscosity at its
value in the coarse-foam bank, because gas viscosity is higher
within the displacement front. In some cases with coarse foam,
illustrated below, foam at the displacement front is viscous
enough to drive Sw below its steady-state value, and Sw then
rebounds to its higher, steady-state value behind the front.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the corresponding cases to Figs. 10
and 11, accounting now for capillary-pressure gradients. The
peak in nf is broader, though nf reaches virtually the same
value at the peak, and grid refinement has relatively little
effect on behavior.
Strong-Foam State. Fig. 14 shows a case at the same foam
quality as Fig. 10, with injection rate 8.15 times higher. Note
that the changes in injection rate at fixed foam quality in Figs.
10 ff. can be represented by the dashed line in Fig. 6. In the
laboratory, increasing injection rate promotes generation of
strong foam.29 At these conditions the steady-state analysis
predicts that only the strong-foam state can exist. There is an
extremely sharp front at the leading edge of the displacement.
Bubble are convected forward at the maximum texture nfmax;
there can be no further generation at the front, even though rg
> rc according to Eqs. 3 and 4, because nf is already at its
maximum value. Of course there can also be no overshoot in
the value of nf at the displacement front, as in Figs. 10 to 13,
for the same reason. Behind the displacement front, nf = nfmax,
which sets the value of Sw some distance above Sw* (Sw =
0.075 v. Sw* = 0.0585). The distance between Sw in the foam
bank and Sw* in this case helps the numerical stability of the
simulation.
Including capillary-pressure gradients in the calculations
made no difference to these results for strong foam with high
∇p.
Fig. 14 shows no entrance region within which strong
foam is created; Evidently strong foam is created almost
instantaneously from injected liquid and gas in the first grid
block. Various studies suggest that this region should be of
order a few inches.13,35 The lack of an entrance region
therefore suggests that the values of kinetic parameter Cc and
Cg are too large in this simulation. The effects of Cc and Cg are
discussed further below.
Transition from Coarse Foam to Strong Foam. Figs. 15
to 19 show a sequence of simulations with increasing total
injection rate, each time into a pack saturated with liquid. At
this foam quality (72%), steady-state analysis predicts that the
SPE 90938
coarse-foam state becomes intrinsically unstable at an
injection rate a little more than 6.03 times that in Fig. 10.
In Fig. 15, injection rate is 1.69 times that in Fig. 10; the
peak in nf is higher than in Fig. 10, but coarse foam still
results, though Sw is a little lower in the foam bank than in
Fig. 10 (as expected for steady-state strong foam at this
injection rate and quality). In Fig. 16, with injection rate 2.86
times that in Fig. 10, the peak in foam texture at the front
increases further. In Fig. 17, with injection rate 4.83 times that
in Fig. 10, gas viscosity in the front is so high that it drives Sw
below the steady-state coarse-foam value; but as foam
degrades behind the front Sw rebounds to the steady-state
coarse-foam value corresponding to this injection rate.
In Fig. 18, with injection rate another 5.79 times that in
Fig. 10, the peak value of nf grows as the front moves
downstream; in a separate simulation (not shown) for a 0.6-m
pack, strong foam results before the gas bank reaches the
outlet. Thus strong foam is created in a dynamic displacement
at an injection rate a little lower than that predicted from
steady-state analysis. In a laboratory experiment, an injection
rate near that in Fig. 18 would correspond to the critical
velocity for foam generation at this foam quality. In laboratory
experiments, near the threshold for generation of strong foam,
duplicate experiments give different results.29 We find that the
simulation results are also sensitive to small changes in
assumptions, discretization scheme or calculation method near
the threshold injection rate for foam generation.
In Fig. 19, with injection rate 6.26 times that in Fig. 10,
strong foam results soon after foam injection. This is expected,
since at this injection rate the coarse-foam state is intrinsically
unstable.
When capillary-pressure gradients are accounted for (not
shown), at the higher injection rates of Figs. 17 and 18, the
peak in nf at the displacement front is higher and broader than
with Pc gradients neglected. The formation of strong foam still
occurs between the injection rates of Figs. 18 and 19,
however. Including capillary-pressure gradients did not
significantly alter the critical velocity for foam generation.
We also simulated one long period of co-injection at
stepwise-increasing injection rates. This case more closely
matches the experimental protocol of Rossen and Gauglitz.29
In this case the porous medium is already partially drained by
gas before injection rate increases in each step. As in Figs. 15
to 19, strong foam was created when injection rate was raised
from 4.91 ft/d (cf. Fig. 17) to 6.40 ft/d (cf. Fig. 19). In other
words, in the simulations, the injection rates required to create
strong foam in a pack initially saturated with liquid was fairly
close to that for one already partially drained with gas.
In a separate series of simulations, not shown here, we
held gas injection rate fixed and increased liquid injection rate
in a series of displacements. Foam generation occurred at a
lower total injection rate than in Figs. 15-19 at the lower foam
quality, in agreement with Rossen and Gauglitz.29
Sensitivity to Kinetic Parameters. Figs. 20 and 21
illustrate the effect of kinetic parameters on displacements in
the coarse-foam state: specifically, the simulations of Fig. 10
with both Cc and Cg 100 times smaller and larger than in Fig.
10, respectively. With much smaller kinetic parameters (Fig.
20), the peak in nf is lower than in Fig. 10, suggesting a
7
potentially adverse effect on foam generation at higher
injection rates. Much-larger values of the kinetic parameters
(Fig. 21), however, leave the peak in nf much as in Fig. 10,
and suggest that larger values of kinetic parameters would not
alter the onset of strong-foam generation.
Fig. 22 shows the effect kinetic parameters on
displacements with strong foam: specifically, the simulation of
Fig. 14 with Cc and Cg both 10 times smaller than in Fig. 14.
Now there is an entrance region roughly corresponding to that
one might observe in the laboratory. With both parameters
another factor of 10 smaller (not shown), the entire 0.3-m pack
lies in the entrance region. Thus the length of the entrance
region offers one means of calibrating the magnitude of
kinetic parameters. It is noteworthy that the entrance region
has foam texture much coarser than strong foam, and the
transition to strong foam in the simulation is quite abrupt,
evidently triggered by a sufficient local pressure gradient.
Although the entrance region where foam is created is
extended with smaller values of Cc and Cg, the properties and
mobility of the foam bank that eventually forms are not altered
from that predicted by steady-state theory. The leading edge of
the displacement front is still sharp, because this front is not a
front of foam generation - it is a front governed by convection
of bubbles. Therefore the width of the front is not sensitive to
the kinetic parameters in the model.
Fig. 22 suggests a principle: If strong foam is created in
the medium from co-injected gas and liquid, the magnitude of
the kinetic parameters in the population balance have
relatively little effect on the displacement except in a small
region near the injection face. Most of the displacement could
be predicted by local-steady-state modeling, if one knows
strong foam will be created.
The effect of smaller kinetic parameters in Fig. 20, with
coarse foam, however, suggests that near the threshold for
generation of strong foam, kinetic parameters can affect the
magnitude of the peak in nf and thereby possibly whether
strong foam is created.
Kinetic parameters may play a more important role when
foam is created in situ by alternate injection of gas and liquid
("SAG" injection).39 In that case, a much weaker foam may be
present behind the displacement front, with convection of
bubbles to the front playing a smaller role than in Fig. 22,
where there is a strong-foam bank behind the front. In that
case the kinetics of foam creation within the foam front may
be crucial. Research on this topic is ongoing.
High-Quality Strong-Foam Regime. As noted, we were
unable to simulate displacements in the high-quality strong-
foam regime. For the given parameters, steady-state analysis
indicates that Sw in the high-quality regime is extraordinarily
close to Sw* (e.g., Sw = 0.058502 at steady state, compared to
Sw* = 0.058500). It is extremely difficult to avoid reaching the
singularity in rc at Sw* (Eq. 4), and complete foam collapse, in
this case. Simulations would require extraordinarily short time
steps to avoid driving Sw below Sw*. Moreover, the singularity
in rc causes wild fluctuations in nf (from nf = 0 to nf = nfmax in
adjacent grid blocks) even if Sw stays above Sw*.
We believe a singularity in rc, or something approximating
a singularity, is real; this singularity, and the abrupt change in
foam properties it produces, lies at the heart of most foam
8 SPE 90938
models over the last decade5,9,3,16-20,36-40 and has ample indirect
experimental support.22,35 It may not be necessary in general
that Sw be as close to Sw* as in our model fit to fit the high-
quality regime, however. Cheng49 found with a local-steady-
state foam model that if foam collapses over a range in Sw of
no more than a about 0.002, one observes ∇p virtually
independent of gas superficial velocity ug in the high-quality
strong-foam regime. Previous local-steady-state simulations in
our group used a wider range of Sw over which foam
collapses, 0.02,37,49 to speed up simulation times. Larger
differences between steady-state Sw and Sw* should make it
easier to simulate foam in the high-quality strong-foam
regime. In addition, more-sophisticated numerical techniques
may allow more efficient convergence on the steady state in
the foam bank for high-quality-regime foams.
Conclusions
1. For the first time, a population-balance model is fit to
experimental data for both the three foam states (coarse
foam, intermediate state, and strong foam) and the two
strong-foam regimes (low-quality and high-quality).
2. In dynamic displacements, the population-balance model
shows a transition from coarse foam to strong foam as
injection rates increase at fixed foam quality, or as liquid
fraction of injected fluids increases at fixed gas injection
rate, in agreement with previous laboratory studies. In
dynamic displacements, foam generation occurred at an
injection rate a little lower than that predicted by steady-
state analysis. This appears to reflect complex dynamics at
the gas front.
3. In steady co-injection of gas and surfactant solution, if a
bank of low-quality-regime strong foam forms, the kinetics
of foam generation and destruction affect the length of the
entrance region in which foam forms. Thus the length of
the entrance region can be used to calibrate the kinetic
parameters in the model. The displacement front is
practically unaffected by the magnitude of the kinetic
parameters, though. The displacement front, and the bank
behind it, are essentially what one would have predicted
from local-steady-state principles, if one knows which
steady state obtains in the foam bank. Local-steady-state
modeling would fit the displacement on the large scale.
4. When coarse foams are created, there is a narrow region of
finer foam predicted near the gas injection front. This
phenomenon has two important implications. First, it is
possible that this transient peak in texture near the
displacement front can perturb the system from one state to
another, i.e. trigger "foam generation." These dynamics did
not greatly alter the threshold injection rate for foam
generation in this study, however. Second, gas viscosity
varies within the displacement front, and this affects the
change in water saturation across the front. Fronts can be
sharper than estimated from fractional-flow theory
assuming a constant gas viscosity at the steady-state value
behind the displacement front.
5. Simulation results confirm the stability of the coarse-foam
and strong-foam states to small perturbations, and the
instability of the intermediate state. In the intermediate
state, a perturbation in foam texture grows with time.
6. The model described here is not yet predictive, and the
parameter set fit to the data is not necessarily unique.
Moreover, we had difficulty simulating displacements in
the high-quality strong-foam regime, because the steady-
state water saturation with foam is extraordinarily near the
singularity in lamella destruction rate at Sw*. Research on
these issues is continuing.
Nomenclature
SI units are assumed in all equations in the text, but customary
units are cited in the text and figures.
Cc = model parameter (Eq. 4)
Cf = model parameter (Eq. 5)
Cg = model parameters (Eq. 3)
fg = gas fractional flow (gas injected volume
fraction), usually expressed as %
fw = water fractional flow (injected liquid volume
fraction), usually expressed as a fraction < 1
G = mobility term defined by Eq. A3
k = permeability, units m2 in calculations but
reported in text as darcy
krgo = gas relative permeability in absence of foam
krw = water relative permeability
m = model parameter (Eq. 3)
n = model parameter (Eq. 4)
nf = foam texture or density (inversely related to
bubble size); lamellae/unit volume of gas (m-3)
nfmax = foam texture in the low-quality regime; maximum
attainable value of nf
N = total number of grid blocks in finite-difference
simulation
Pc = capillary pressure (Pa)
Pc* = limiting capillary pressure (Pa)
∇p = magnitude of pressure gradient (Pa/m)
R = net rate of lamella creation per unit volume of
porous medium
rc = rate of lamella destruction per unit volume of gas
phase (Eq. 4)
rg = rate of lamella creation per unit volume of gas
phase (Eq. 3)
Sgr = residual gas saturation
Sw = water saturation
Swc = connate water saturation
Sw* = water saturation at limiting capillary pressure
Pc* (Eq. 4)
∆t = time increment in finite-difference simulation
ug = gas volumetric flux or superficial velocity (m/s)
ut =total volumetric flux or superficial velocity (m/s),
i.e. (ug+uw)
uw = water volumetric flux or superficial velocity (m/s)
Vg = gas interstitial velocity,(ug/φ) (Fig. 4)
Vw = liquid interstitial velocity,(uw/φ) (Fig. 4)
∆x = grid-block size in finite-difference simulation
Greek Symbols
φ = porosity
µgf = effective gas viscosity in presence of foam (Eq. 5)
(Pa s)
µgo = gas viscosity in absence of foam (Pa s)
SPE 90938
µw = water viscosity
σ = gas-liquid surface tension
Subscripts and Superscripts
ι = grid block
t+∆t
= updated value at next time step
J
= property of injected fluids
Acknowledgments
This work was conducted with the support of the National
Petroleum Technology Office of the U.S. Department of
Energy, through contract DE-FC26-01BC15318 and also with
a grant from Schlumberger, Inc., and support from the Small
Research Grant Scheme of the University of Adelaide.
References
1. Schramm, L. L. (ed.): Foams: Fundamentals and Applications
in the Petroleum Industry, ACS Advances in Chemistry Series
No. 242, Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, DC (1994).
2. Rossen, W. R.: "Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery," in Foams:
Theory, Measurements and Applications, R. K. Prud'homme and
S. Khan (eds.). Marcel Dekker, New York (1996).
3. Terdre, N.: "Foam-Assisted Injection Trials Could Spread to
Other North Sea Fields," Offshore 63 (Aug. 2003), 70.
4. Gdanski, R. D.: "Experience and Research Show Best Designs
for Foam-Diverted Acidizing," Oil and Gas Journal (Sept. 6,
1993), 85.
5. Cheng, L., Kam, S. I., Delshad, M., and Rossen, W. R.:
"Simulation of Dynamic Foam-Acid Diversion Processes," SPE
J. (Sept. 2002), 316-324.
6. Nguyen, Q. P., Currie, P. K., and Zitha, P. L. J.: "Determination
of Foam Induced Fluid Partitioning in Porous Media Using X-
ray Computed Tomography," presented at the 2003 SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5-8 February.
7. Hirasaki, G. J., Jackson, R. E., Jin, M., Lawson, J. B.,
Londergan, J., Meinardus, H., Miller, C. A., Pope, G. A.,
Szafranski, R., and Tanzil, D.: "Field Demonstration of the
Surfactant/Foam Process for Remediation of a Heterogeneous
Aquifer Contaminated with DNAPL," in NAPL Removal:
Surfactants, Foams, and Microemulsions, S. Fiorenza, C. A.
Miller, C. L. Oubre, and C. H. Ward, (eds.), Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton (2000).
8. Mamun, C. K., Rong. J. G., Kam, S. I., Liljestrand, H. M., and
Rossen, W. R.: "Extending Foam Technology from Improved
Oil Recovery to Environmental Remediation, paper SPE 77557
presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference, San
Antonio, TX, 29 Sept.-2 Oct.
9. Kovscek, A. R., and Radke, C. J.: “Fundamentals of Foam
Transport in Porous Media,” in Foams: Fundamentals and
Applications in the Petroleum Industry, L. L. Schramm (ed.),
ACS Advances in Chemistry Series No. 242, Am. Chem. Soc.,
Washington, DC (1994).
10. Bernard, G. G., Holm, L. W., and Jacobs, W. L.: "Effect of
Foam on Trapped Gas Saturation and on Permeability of Porous
Media to Water," SPE J. (Dec. 1965), 195-300.
11. Sanchez, J. M., and Schechter, R. S.: "Surfactant Effects on the
Two-Phase Flow of Steam-Water and Nitrogen-Water Through
Permeable Media," J. Petr. Sci. Eng. 3, 185-199, (1989).
12. de Vries, A. S. and Wit, K.: "Rheology of Gas/Water Foam in
the Quality Range Relevant to Steam Foam," SPERE (May
1990) 185-192.
9
13. Friedmann, F., Chen, W. H., and Gauglitz, P.A.: "Experimental
and Simulation Study of High-Temperature Foam Displacement
in Porous Media," SPERE (Feb. 1991) 37-45.
14. Hirasaki, G. J., and Lawson, J. B.: "Mechanisms of Foam Flow
Through Porous Media - Apparent Viscosity in Smooth
Capillaries," SPEJ (April 1985), 176-190.
15. Falls, A. H., Musters, J. J., and Ratulowski, J.: "The Apparent
Viscosity of Foams in Homogeneous Bead Packs," SPERE.
(May. 1989) 155.
16. Falls, A. H., Hirasaki, G. J., Patzek, T. W., Gauglitz, P. A.,
Miller, D. D., and Ratulowski, J: "Development of a
Mechanistic Foam Simulator: The Population Balance and
Generation by Snap-Off," SPERE (Aug. 1988) 884-892.
17. Kovscek, A. R., Patzek, T. W., and Radke, C. J.: "A
Mechanistic Population Balance Model for Transient and
Steady-State Foam Flow in Boise Sandstone," Chem. Eng. Sci.
50, 3783-3799 (1995).
18. Kovscek, A. R., Patzek, T. W., and Radke, C. J.: "Mechanistic
Foam Flow Simulation in Heterogeneous and Multidimensional
Porous Media," SPE J. (Dec. 1997), 511-526.
19. Myers, T. J. and Radke, C. J.: "Transient Foam Displacement in
the Presence of Residual Oil: Experiment and Simulation Using
a Population-Balance Model," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39, 2725-
2741 (2000).
20. Bertin, H. J., Quintard, M. Y., and Castanier, L. M.:
"Development of a Bubble-Population Correlation for Foam-
Flow Modeling in Porous Media," SPE J (Dec. 1998), 356-362.
21. Gillis, J. V., Radke, C. J.: “A Dual Gas Tracer Technique for
Determining Trapped Gas Saturation During Steady Foam Flow
in Porous Media,” paper SPE 20519 presented at the 1990 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Sept. 23-26.
22. 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 (Aug. 1988)
919-926.
23. Rossen, W. R., and Zhou, Z. H.: "Modeling Foam Mobility at
the Limiting Capillary Pressure," SPE Adv. Technol., 3, 146
(1995).
24. Aronson, A. S., Bergeron, V., Fagan, M. E., and Radke, C. J.:
"The Influence of Disjoining Pressure on Foam Stability and
Flow in Porous Media," Colloids Surfaces A: Physicochem.
Eng. Aspects 83 109, (1994).
25. Alvarez, J. M., Rivas, H., and Rossen, W. R.: "A Unified Model
for Steady-State Foam Behavior at High and Low Foam
Qualities," SPE J (Sept. 2001), 325-333.
26. Ransohoff, T. C., and Radke, C. J.: "Mechanisms of Foam
Generation in Glass-Bead Packs," SPERE (May 1988), 573-585.
27. Chambers, K. T., and Radke, C. J.: "Capillary Phenomena in
Foam Flow Through Porous Media," in Interfacial Phenomena
in Oil Recovery, N. R. Morrow, (ed.), Marcel Dekker, New
York, 1990.
28. Chen, M., Yortsos, Y. C., and Rossen, W. R.: "Pore-Network
Study of Mechanisms of Foam Generation," SPE 90939,
presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, 26-29 Sept. 2004.
29. Rossen, W. R., and Gauglitz, P. A.: "Percolation Theory of
Creation and Mobilization of Foam in Porous Media," AIChE J.
36 (1990), 1176-1188.
30. Tanzil, D., Hirasaki, G. J., and Miller, C. A.: “Conditions for
Foam Generation in Homogeneous Porous Media,” paper SPE
75176 presented at the 2002 SPE/DOE Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 13-17 April.
31. Gauglitz, P. A., Friedmann, F., Kam, S. I., and Rossen, W. R.:
“Foam Generation in Homogeneous Porous Media,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 57 (2002), 4037-4052.
10 SPE 90938

32. Kam, S. I., and Rossen, W. R.: "A Model for Foam Generation surfactant. Here we use a simple forward-difference,
in Homogeneous Porous Media," SPE Journal 8 (Dec. 2003), upstream-weighted finite-difference solution for water
417-425. saturation Sw and foam texture nf. The continuous position
33. Rossen, W.R. and Wang, M.-W.: "Modeling Foams for Acid variable x is discretized into N grid blocks i (25, 50, 100 or
Diversion," SPEJ (June 1999), 92-100.
34. Kim. J. S., Dong, Y., and Rossen, W. R.: "Steady-State Flow 200 in cases shown below) of length ∆x = L/N, where L is the
Behavior of CO2 Foam," presented at the 2004 SPE/DOE length of the porous medium (0.3 m in all cases here).
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 17–21 April
2004. Mass Balance on Water
35. Ettinger, R. A., and Radke, C. J.: "The Influence of Texture on Values of water saturation are updated first. The mass
Steady Foam Flow in Berea Sandstone," SPERE (Feb. 1992) 83- balance on water
90.
36. Rossen, W. R., "A Critical Review of Roof Snap-Off as a ∂S w ∂u w
φ + = 0 .........................................................(A1)
Mechanism of Steady-State Foam Generation in Homogeneous ∂t ∂x
Porous Media," Colloids Surfaces A: Physicochem Eng.
Aspects, 225 1-24 (2003). is discretized as follows. Given N values Sw,i and nf,i at time t
37. Rossen, W.R., Zeilinger, S.C., Shi, J.-X., and Lim, M. T.: (along with all other local properties at t), each value of Sw,i is
"Simplified Mechanistic Simulation of Foam Processes in updated at time (t + ∆t) as follows:
Porous Media," SPE J, 4, 279-287 (Sept. 1999).
38. Cheng, L., Reme, A. B., Shan, D., Coombe, D. A., and Rossen,
W. R., "Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low Foam
S
t +∆t
w,i
=S
u ∆t
+ t
w,i φ∆x ( ) ( )
⎡f S
⎢⎣ w w,i−1
− fw S
⎤
w,i ⎥⎦

⎪⎪ ( ) ⎡⎢⎣ ( ) ( )⎤⎥⎦ ⎪⎫⎪ ..(A2)

Qualities," paper SPE 59287 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 3-5 April. ⎧
G S Pc S − Pc S
39. Shan, D., and Rossen, W. R.: “Optimal Injection Strategies for ∆t w,i w,i w,i −1
⎨ ⎬
( ) ⎢⎣ ( ) ( )⎥⎦⎭⎪
Foam IOR,” paper SPE 75180 presented at the 2002 SPE/DOE +
φ (∆x)2 ⎪ ⎡ ⎤⎪
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 13-17 April; −G S Pc S − Pc S
SPE J., in press. ⎩⎪ w,i+1 w,i +1 w,i
40. Shrivastava, V. K., Belgrave, J. D. M., Singhal, A. K., and
Coombe, D. A., "Numerical Simulation of Foam Flooding for with
Sweep Improvement," J. Can. Pet. Tech., 38 special issue #13 λw
(1999), p45. fw (Sw ) ≡
41. Vassenden, F., Holt, T., Ghaderi, A., and Solheim, A.: "Foam λw + λ g
Propagation on Semi-Reservoir Scale," SPEREE (Oct. 1999),
λwλ g . ..........................(A3)
436-441. G(Sw ) ≡
42. Rossen, W. R., and Bruining, J.: "Foam Displacements With λw + λ g
Multiple Steady States," presented at the 2004 SPE/DOE
−0.2
0.5 ⎛ ⎞
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 17–21 April
S w − S wc
2004. Pc = σ (φ k ) ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
43. Martinsen, H. A., and Vassenden, F.: “Foam-Assisted Water ⎝ 1 − S wc − S gr ⎠
Alternating Gas (FAWAG) Process on Snorre”, presented at the
10th European IOR Symposium, Brighton, UK, Aug. 18-20, All terms in Eq. A2 are evaluated at time t, except for Sw,i t+∆t
1999. on the left-hand side. When capillary-pressure gradients are
44. Rossen, W. R., and Z. H. Zhou: "Applying Fractional-Flow
neglected, σ is set to zero in Eq. A3.
Theory to Foam Processes at the 'Limiting Capillary Pressure',"
SPE Adv. Technol., 3, 154 (1995). For grid block 1 at the inlet, the injected fractional flow fwJ
45. Xu, Q., and Rossen, W. R.: "Effective Viscosity of Foam in is substituted for the fractional flow in the upstream grid
Periodically Constricted Tubes," submitted to Colloids and block, and, in effect, the capillary-pressure gradient upstream
Surfaces A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects. is assumed to be zero:

( )⎤⎥⎦
46. Rossen, W.R.: "Rheology of Foam in Porous Media at the
t +∆t u ∆t ⎡ J
'Limiting Capillary Pressure'," Revue de l'Institut Français du S =S + t f − fw S
Pétrole 47, 68-80 (1992). w,1 w,1 φ∆x ⎢⎣ w w,1
. ...(A4)

{ ( ) ⎣⎢ ( ) ( )⎦⎥}
47. Collins, R. E.: Flow of Fluids Through Porous Materials,
Research & Engineering Consultants, Inc., Englewood, CO +
∆t
−G S
⎡ ⎤Pc S − Pc S
(1961). φ (∆x)2 w,2 w,2 w,1
48. Poston, T. and Stewart, I.: Catastrophe Theory and Its
Applications, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, (1978). For the Nth grid block at the outlet, two adjustments are
49. Cheng, L.: “Simulation Studies of Foam-Acid Diversion,” Ph.D. made to satisfy the capillary end effect: a) a capillary pressure
dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2002. of zero is assumed downstream at the outlet, a distance (∆x/2)
from the center of the grid block; and b) the liquid flux out of
Appendix: Discretized Equations and Numerical the outlet uw,N is computed first (assuming zero Pc at the
Techniques outlet), and if this flux would be less than zero, indicating
A population-balance simulation for incompressible foam in liquid flow into the porous medium from the outlet, uw,N is set
porous media requires a material-balance equation for water to zero instead:
(or gas) and a population balance for lamellae.9,13,16-20 No mass
balance is needed for surfactant here, because here we model
cases in which all liquids have a uniform concentration of
SPE 90938 11

( ) m
( ) ( )
⎡ 0− Pc S w, N ⎤ ⎛ 1 ⎡P ⎤ ⎞
⎜ 2 ⎢⎣ w, N −1 + Pw, N ⎥⎦ − Poutlet
⎣ ⎦
u w , N = f w S w, N u t + G S w, N ⎟
∆x / 2 rg , N = C g S w, N ⎜ ⎟ . (A12)
⎜ ∆x ⎟
n n ⎝ ⎠
if u w, N < 0 , then u w, N = 0 ................... (A5)
For the purpose of pressure-gradient calculations, water
pressure is calculated as follows:
t +∆t u ∆t
Sw,N = Sw,N + t fw Sw, N −1
φ∆x ( ) uw,i µ w
Pw,i = P + ∆x .......................................(A13)
+
∆t
φ (∆x)2
( ⎡
⎣
) ( ) ( ⎤
G Sw,N ⎢Pc Sw, N −Pc Sw, N −1 ⎥ . .. (A6)
⎦ )
w,i +1 kk
rw,i
with the inlet pressure given by
∆t
− u
φ∆x w,N f J
J ∆x µ g u w
Pw = Pw,1 + . .........................................(A14)
Once all N values of Sw,i are computed, two checks are 2 kk
conducted: if the change in any Sw,i exceeds a tolerance value, rw,1
or any value of Sw,i has fallen below Sw*, the time step ∆t is Gas pressure is given by
reduced, and all Sw are recomputed for the smaller time step.
The process is repeated until the two conditions are satisfied. Pg = Pc + Pw . ..........................................................(A15)

After the N updated values of nf,i are computed, they are

Population Balance on Lamellae
The population-balance equation9,13,16-20 checked to verify that none have fallen below zero in that time
step. If they have, the time-step size is reduced, and the
φ
∂
∂t(Sg n +
f
∂
) ( ) (
n u g = φ S g rg − rc ................. (A7)
∂x f
) algorithm returns to calculating the set of Sw,i, followed by the
set of nf,i.
Once the set of Sw,i and nf,i are set for the new time step,
is discretized as follows: one must iterate for gas viscosity and local superficial
t +∆t velocities. Gas viscosity depends on gas superficial velocity,
⎡S n ⎤
⎢⎣ g f ⎥⎦i ⎢⎣ f ⎥⎦i (
= ⎡ S g n ⎤ + ∆t S g ⎡⎣ rg − rc ⎤⎦
i ) while gas superficial velocity depends on gas viscosity. An
iteration loop is used to resolve this interdependence for each
.......... (A8)
∆t ⎛ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎞ grid block. At the end of this iteration loop, all properties are
+ ⎜ n u − n u ⎟
φ∆x ⎝ ⎢⎣ f g ⎥⎦i −1 ⎢⎣ f g ⎥⎦i ⎠ determined for this new time step. The algorithm then
increments time again and proceeds as above.
with the lamella-creation and -destruction functions given by
Eqs. 3 and 4. Note that Sg,i=(1-Sw,i) on the left-hand side of Eq. Table 1. Model Parameters Fit to Data in
A8 uses the updated value of Sw,i, while all terms on the right-
Figs. 2 and 6
hand side refer to time t. For Eq. 3, the pressure gradient is
Foam parameters Other parameters
discretized as follows:
Cg/ Cc 15,488.894 S w* 0.0585
m k (m2) 30.4x10-12
⎛P −P ⎞ m 2.4
w,i −1 w,i +1
rg ,i = C g S w,i ⎜ ⎟ . ........................ (A9) n 0.28 φ 0.31
⎜ 2∆x ⎟ Cf 1.007x10-16 µw (Pa s) 0.001
⎝ ⎠
µgo (Pa s) 0.00002
Foam texture injected into the first grid block is zero: Swc 0.04
t +∆t
⎡S n ⎤
⎢⎣ g f ⎥⎦1 ⎢⎣ f ⎥⎦1 (
= ⎡ S g n ⎤ + ∆t S g ⎡⎣ rg − rc ⎤⎦
1 ) Sgr 0.0
........ (A10)
∆t ⎛ ⎡n u ⎤ ⎞ Table 2. Steady-State Properties Predicted
+ ⎜ 0 − ⎟
φ∆x ⎝ ⎣⎢ f g ⎦⎥1 ⎠ by the Model.
Coarse foam Intermediate Strong foam
with (Fig.7) foam (Fig. 9) (Fig. 8)
m uw (m/s) = 1.0157x10-6 1.0157x10-6 1.0157x10-5
⎛ P J − 1 ⎡P + P ⎤ ⎞ ug (m/s) = 1.742x10-5 2.836 x10-5 5.324x10-6
2 ⎣ w,1 w,2 ⎦ ⎟
rg ,1 = C g S w,1 ⎜
w
. .......... (A11) nf (1/m3) = 7.013x108 3.158x1012 8x1013(nfmax)
⎜ ∆x ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ∇p (psi/ft) = 0.005 0.5 4.2
Sw = 0.625 0.09564 0.10083
For the Nth grid block, Eq. A8 applies, with µgf (Pa s) = 0.0000227 0.0104 0.461
12 SPE 90938

Fig. 3. Transient foam-texture profiles from a population-balance

simulation of a laboratory coreflood, from Ref. (18).
Fig. 1. Pressure gradient (psi/ft) as a function of gas and water
superficial velocities ug and uw, from study of strong foam in
Berea sandstone, from Ref. (25). The high-quality regime 140
corresponds to the upper-left portion of the plot, where ∇p is
nearly independent of ug; the low-quality regime corresponds to
the lower-right portion of the plot, where ∇p is nearly independent 120 o
of uw. Dark points represent data. oo

100 20o
Model fit
a) 16o
5 strong foam Experiment
80 12
o
4.5
strong foam oo
Pressure Gradient, psi/ft

4 o
o
3.5 60 oo
o o
3 o
intermediate state o o
2.5 40 o
o o o o o o

2 oo
o 20
oo o o o o
o
1.5 20 o
16
1 coarse foam o
o 12
o o o o o o
0.5
0
0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Interstitial Liquid Velocity (Vw), ft/day
Superficial Gas Velocity (Ug), m/s
Fig. 4. Pressure gradient (psi/ft) as a function of gas and water
interstitial velocities Vg and Vw predicted by model of Kam and
32
Model fit Rossen without fitting model directly to data for the two
b) Experiment regimes. Open circles represent calculated values, not data.
10 strong foam
Pressure Gradient, psi/ft

generation”

70
1 C
“foam

gas superficial velocity (ug) x106, m/s

0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001

intermediate 60
0.1 78
state
50 6
9 10
0.01 A
D coarse foam 40
45
0.001
30
Superficial Gas Velocity (Ug), m/s 9
20 8
7
Fig. 2. Model fit (smooth curve) to data (dark diamonds) in which
31
10 6
5
liquid injection rate and pressure drop were fixed across a 1-ft
beadpack; a) linear axes. b) log-log axes. In an experiment with 0
fixed injection rates rather than fixed pressure drop, "foam 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
generation" would be observed at the point where coarse foam
would convert to strong foam, with jump in ∇p of about a factor of water superficial velocity (uw) x10 6, m/s
100. Points A, C and D, with pressure gradients of 0.005, 0.5 and Fig. 5. Pressure gradient (psi/ft) as a function of gas and water
0.003 psi/ft, respectively, correspond to the conditions in Figs. 7, superficial velocities ug and uw, for the same surfactant
9 and 10 below. formulation and porous medium as Fig. 2. Open circles represent
data.
SPE 90938 13

70 0
0.125
gas superficial velocity (ug) x106, m/s

0.006772213
60 0.12
78 0.013544426
50 6 0.115 0.02031664

Water saturation, Sw
9 10
0.11 0.033861067
40 B
45 0.105
30 fg ≈72%
9 0.1
20 8
0.095
7
10 6
5 0.09

0 0.085
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.08
water superficial velocity (uw) x10 6, m/s
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fig. 6. Model fit to data in Fig. 5, using same parameters (Table 1)
as used in Fig. 2. Open circles represent calculated values, not dimensionless position, x/L
data. Point B corresponds to the conditions of Fig. 8. Line
represents a fixed foam quality of 72%, the conditions in Figs. 10
ff.
0
a) 0.6262 9.00E+13
0.004032305
0.00806461 8.00E+13
0.012096915
7.00E+13
Water saturation, Sw

0.6257
0.020161524
Foam Texture, nf

6.00E+13
0
0.6252
5.00E+13
0.006772213
4.00E+13 0.013544426
0.6247
3.00E+13 0.02031664
2.00E+13 0.033861067
0.6242
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 1.00E+13
dimensionless position, x/L
0.00E+00
0
b) 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1.20E+09 0.004032305
0.00806461 dimensionless position, x/L
1.00E+09 0.012096915
Foam Texture, nf

0.020161524
8.00E+08 Fig. 8. Response of a low-quality-regime strong foam to
perturbation in foam texture nf. Times listed are time since
perturbation, in PV injected. There is no initial perturbation in
6.00E+08 water saturation. Perturbations in Sw and nf both decrease with
time. Steady-state properties, listed in Table 2, correspond to
4.00E+08 point B in Fig. 6. Cc = 0.001. 200 grid blocks.

2.00E+08

0.00E+00
0.4 0.5 0.6
dimensionless position, x/L

Fig. 7. Response of a coarse foam to perturbation in foam texture

nf. Times listed are time since perturbation, in PV injected. There
is no initial perturbation in water saturation. Perturbations in Sw
and nf both decrease with time. Steady-state properties, listed in
Table 2, correspond to point A in Fig. 2. Cc = 0.1. 200 grid blocks.
14 SPE 90938

0.1

0.098

0.096
Water saturation, Sw

0.094
0
0.092
6.42568E-05
0.09 0.000128514
0.00019277
0.088
0.000321284
0.086

0.084

0.082
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
dimensionless position, x/L

0
6.42568E-05
9.00E+13
0.000128514
8.00E+13
0.00019277
7.00E+13
0.000321284
Foam Texture, nf

6.00E+13
5.00E+13
4.00E+13
3.00E+13
2.00E+13
1.00E+13
0.00E+00
-1.00E+13 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
dimensionless position, x/L

Fig. 9. Response of foam in the intermediate state to perturbation

in foam texture nf. Times listed are time since perturbation, in PV
injected. There is no initial perturbation in water saturation. The
perturbations in Sw grows in magnitude, while nf reaches nfmax,
indicating a low-quality strong foam. Steady-state properties,
listed in Table 2, correspond to point C in Fig. 2. Cc = 1. 200 grid
blocks. Fig. 10. Simulation of co-injection of gas and liquid into a medium
saturated with surfactant solution, leading to a coarse-foam state.
-6 -6
ug = 2.57 x 10 m/s, uw = 1.0157 x 10 m/s (ut = 1.02 ft/d, fg = 0.72).
Steady-state properties correspond to point D in Fig. 2. 25 grid
blocks, and capillary-pressure gradients neglected. Cc = 0.1.
SPE 90938 15

Fig. 11. Simulation of the case in Fig. 10, with 100 grid blocks.

Fig. 13. Simulation of the case in Fig. 12, with 100 grid blocks.

Fig. 12. Simulation of the case in Fig. 10 (25 grid blocks), with
capillary-pressure gradients included.
16 SPE 90938

Fig. 15. Simulation of co-injection of gas and liquid into a pack

saturated with surfactant solution at the same foam quality as Fig.
10, at 1.69 times higher injection rate than Fig. 10 (1.72 ft/d). 25
grid blocks, and capillary-pressure gradients neglected.

Fig. 14. Simulation of co-injection of gas and liquid into a pack

saturated with surfactant solution, leading to a strong-foam state.
Foam quality is the same as in Fig. 10, with injection rate 8.15
times greater (8.31 ft/d). 50 grid blocks, and capillary-pressure
gradients neglected. Cc = 0.1.

Fig. 16. Simulation of co-injection of gas and liquid into a pack

saturated with surfactant solution at the same foam quality as Fig.
10, at 2.86 times higher injection rate than Fig. 10 (2.91 ft/d). 25
grid blocks, and capillary-pressure gradients neglected.
SPE 90938 17

Fig. 17. Simulation of co-injection of gas and liquid into a pack

saturated with surfactant solution at the same foam quality as Fig. Fig. 19. Simulation of co-injection of gas and liquid into a pack
10, at 4.83 times higher injection rate than Fig. 10 (4.91 ft/d). 25 saturated with surfactant solution at the same foam quality as Fig.
grid blocks, and capillary-pressure gradients neglected. 10, at 6.27 times higher injection rate than Fig. 10 (6.37 ft/d). 25
grid blocks, and capillary-pressure gradients neglected.

Fig. 18. Simulation of co-injection of gas and liquid into a pack

saturated with surfactant solution at the same foam quality as Fig.
10, at 5.79 times higher injection rate than Fig. 10 (5.89 ft/d). 25 Fig. 20. Simulation of the case in Fig. 10, with both Cc and Cg 100
grid blocks, and capillary-pressure gradients neglected. times smaller than in Figs. 10 and 11. 100 grid blocks, capillary-
pressure gradients neglected.
18 SPE 90938

Fig. 21. Simulation of the case in Fig. 10, with both Cc and Cg 100 Fig. 22. Simulation of the case in Fig. 14, with both Cc and Cg both
times larger than in Fig. 10. 100 grid blocks, capillary-pressure 10 times smaller than in Fig. 14. 100 grid blocks, capillary-
gradients neglected. pressure gradients neglected.