CO2 Foam EOR Pilot Design, Workflow

Modeling, Laboratory Investigations, and

Application

1st Case Study

Muhammad Haziq Bin Yussof

1
 Field Pilot Location Area

The central portion of Queen Field

Figure 4
QFS wells 2, 3, and 4 showed favorable distribution of
reservoir flow zones and appreciable connectivity

Reservoir flow zones are continuous and display

average permeabilities

Inverted 5-spot patter

Figure 5

• Adhering to the field development plan, it was deemed appropriate to analyze the
central portion of Queen Field for the pilot area location,
• An inverted 40 acre 5-spot pattern has been identified with well QFS-1 as the
injector and wells QFS-2, 3, 4, and 5 as the producers (figure 4).
• QFS wells 1, 2, and 3 showed favorable distribution of reservoir flow zones and
appreciable connectivity (figure5)
• Modern logs, routine core analysis, and fluid samples were collected and are being
analyzed.

2
 Ft.
Stockton

• Field Production Size –

3000 acres
• Cyclical sequence of
mixed siliciclastic and
carbonates with lesser

Queen
amounts of evaporites
• Reservoir rock
composed of arkosic
Field sandstone interbedded
with variable amounts
of dolomite and
anhydrite

3
 Modelling
Workflow

Reservoir Calibration and Probabilistic Fluid Model

Modelling Screening of workflow Initialization,
Static Models MMP

to have
uncertainty in used in flow
to describe the to create many performance simulations to
spatial equally probable prediction for gain insights into
distribution of realizations, while reservoir the performance
parameters preserving the characterization, of CO2 foam at
through the first moment and to capture reservoir scale
integration of (mean) and the flow dynamics and will be
wellbore data second moment as a trade-off discussed in
with the geologic (variance) of between second phase of
model available well data complexity and project
simulation development.
runtime

• Reservoir Modeling
• The objective of reservoir modeling is to describe the spatial distribution of
parameters through the integration of wellbore data with the geologic
model. When available, conventional core and thin section data were
calibrated to available logs (neutron, density, and resistivity). Correlation of
reservoir zones throughout the pilot area provided the basis for reservoir
geometry and structure
• Calibration and Screening of Static Models
• A limited amount of historical data is available to calibrate the reservoir
model for the pilot area. Therefore, a geostatistical simulation method
used to create many equally probable realizations, while preserving the
first moment (mean) and second moment (variance) of available well data.
This spatial distribution of static properties in the model governs the flow
pattern for each realization. The limitation to this approach is that the time
required to calibrate all realizations to historical data and run production
forecasts increases significantly with the number of realizations in the
ensemble, and can be prohibitive.
• Probabilistic workflow
• It is natural for an integrated reservoir model to have uncertainty in

4
 performance prediction owing to availability of finite amount of data for
reservoir characterization, and use of a less-detailed model to capture the
flow dynamics as a trade-off between complexity and simulation runtime.
Given these limitations, the probabilistic modeling framework used in this
work and presented here aids in quantifying the impact of uncertainties on
the expected performance prediction
• Fluid Model Initilization
• MMP prediction by multiple mixing cell method and method of
characteristics suggest that first contact miscibility cannot be achieved until
the reservoir pressure is increased significantly; however, there is a
possibility of achieving miscibility through multiple contacts. The generated
fluid model will be used in flow simulations to gain insights into the
performance of CO2 foam at reservoir scale and will be discussed in second
phase of project development.

4
 Laboratory Investigations

CO2 foam systems

for mobility control • aims to determine effects of reservoir
pressure on CO2 foam performance for field
to optimize EOR implementation
potential

Effect of foam on oil • to determine foam behavior at

recovery at two repressurized conditions and to investigate
different pressures the potential for miscible flooding

• Laboratory work is being performed to test CO2 foam systems for mobility control
to optimize EOR potential as a part of the ongoing reservoir management
workflow. Primary depletion of the Queen has resulted in a depressurized
reservoir from initially 1500 psi to a current state of 350 psi. Associated laboratory
work therefore aims to determine effects of reservoir pressure on CO2 foam
performance for field implementation
• Due to anticipated variable reservoir pressures, this first set of experimental work
aims to determine the effect of foam on oil recovery at two different pressures.
Laboratory CO2 foam injections were therefore conducted at 600 psi (~41bar) and
at near original hydrostatic pressure (1200 psi/~82bar) to determine foam
behavior at repressurized conditions and to investigate the potential for miscible
flooding.

5
 Enhanced Oil Recovery and Mobility
Reduction by CO2 Foam

The effect of pore pressure

was studied in two tertiary
CO2 foam injections focusing
on the reduction of gas
mobility by foam, CO2-oil
miscibility, and oil recovery

• At a pore-pressure of 41bar,
• CO2 foam produced reasonable OOIP (3.8%) after a total of 1.1 PV injected
(open blue circles, Figure 13).
• The low incremental recovery and the amount of PVs injected suggest poor
sweep efficiency by the generated foam.
• At 41bar the injected CO2 is in gas phase and the density and viscosity is
low which results in limited mobility reduction
• With a pore-pressure of 82bar, the oil production during CO2 foam was
accelerated compared with 41bar, whereas the incremental recovery was similar.
• An additional 4.1%OOIP was recovered after injecting 0.31 PVs (open red
circles, Figure 13).

• The higher density and viscosity of the CO2 combined with the foaming agent
reduce gas mobility significantly and improve sweep efficiency

6
 Foam Quality

Mobility reduction factor (MRF) as

a function of foam quality at 82bar
and 35°C. The green graph shows
average MRF as foam quality is
altered from high-to-low gas
fractions.
The red point at 80% foam quality
represent the MRF calculated from
the equivalent EOR experiment at
82bar.

• Mobility reduction factor (MRF) as a function of foam quality at 82bar and 35°C.
The green graph shows average MRF as foam quality is altered from high-to-low
gas fractions.
• The MRF at a foam quality of 80% was 227, approximately double the observed
MRF during the co-injection for EOR at 82 bar (red circle in Figure 14).
• The detrimental effect of reservoir crude oil on foam, and is the likely explanation
for the reduced MRF observed during CO2 foam EOR test (Figure 13) compared
with foam stability (Figure 14).
• If foam is degraded, surfactant may partition into the oil or create emulsions
between the water and oil phase present
• Sweep efficiency by foam is reduced and oil recovery is low.

7
 Main Issue why choose CO2

Growing concerns CO2 EOR in the Permian

The unfavorable CO2
regarding greenhouse The limited EOR Basin has occurred Mobility control aims to
properties, mostly
gas emissions has led to investigations in the throughout the past 40 subdue the density and
density and viscosity, are
renewed interest in Queen, renewed years but lower than viscosity differences
main contributors to
utilizing CO2 as an EOR developmental interest, expected oil recoveries between CO2 and
these challenges which
method as part of and the success of are often reported due reservoir fluids using
can be combated with
Carbon Capture, neighboring fields’ EOR to gravity segregation, thickeners, gels, and/or
foam for mobility
Utilization, and Storage operations. viscous fingering, and foams.
control.
(CCUS). poor sweep efficiency.

CO2-EOR Mobility Challenges

a) Poor aerial sweep

b) Gas channelling
c) Gravity Override

8
 An Integrated Carbon-Dioxide-Foam
Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Pilot Program

2nd Case Study

Muhammad Haziq Bin Yussof

9
 Field Pilot Location Area

1. The chosen producer in the well pair should experience rapid gas
breakthrough from CO2 injection ahead of the CO2 foam, rela  ve to
the surrounding production wells.

Figure 1
2. A high GOR, relative to adjacent producers, should be observed in
the selected production well.

3. The injection wellhead pressure should be lower than that of

comparable injection wells to offer a larger window for operational
flexibility and to mitigate injectivity issues because large pressure
increases are expected during foam injection.

4. The well pair should be in close proximity to minimize geological

uncertainty and maximize interwell connectivity.

Figure 5

• East Seminole Field is in the Permian Basin of west Texas (Fig. 1) and was
discovered in the early 1940s, with estimated OOIP of 38 million bbl. The field was
developed throughout the 1960s, producing 12% of OOIP through pressure
depletion. Waterfloods beganEast Seminole Field is in the Permian Basin of west
Texas (Fig. 1) and was discovered in the early 1940s, with estimated OOIP of 38
million bbl. The field was developed throughout the 1960s, producing 12% of OOIP
through pressure depletion. Waterfloods began

10
 The East
Seminole
Field

• A heterogeneous cyclical
carbonate consisting of
more than 190 ft of
subtidal, intertidal, and
supratidal deposits

San • The net pay is 110 ft and

is characterized by 12 to
15% porosity and an
Andres average permeability of
• 13 md. Thin high-

Unit permeability zones occur

throughout the pay
section, with
permeabilities up to 300
md

The East Seminole Field produces from the San Andres Unit, a heterogeneous cyclical
carbonate consisting of more than 190 ft of subtidal, intertidal, and supratidal
deposits. The net pay is 110 ft and is characterized by 12 to 15% porosity and an
average permeability of 13 md. Thin high-permeability zones occur throughout the
pay section, with permeabilities up to 300 md. Subtidal dolostone facies make up the
bulk of the reservoir rock, and are often interbedded with shaly mudstone layers.

11
 Modelling

Geologic and • The structure of the static geologic model was generated
using the integration of petrophysical well logs, core data,
Reservoir and regional stratigraphy to define the geologic framework
Modelling in the extended pilot area

• To assist the pilot injection design and scale up the

Numerical optimized laboratory foam system, numerical modeling with
Modeling the 3D reservoir model was used to set up a compositional-
simulation case for the extended pilot area

• The structure of the static geologic model was generated using the integration of
petrophysical well logs, core data, and regional stratigraphy to define the geologic
framework in the extended pilot area. The extended pilot area includes the
selected inverted five-spot pilot pattern and peripheral injectors (Fig. 3). The
geologic framework was built through interpretation of cycles within the San
Andres Reservoir. In carbonate platform reservoirs, high-frequency cyclicity and
rock fabric units are the two critical scales for generating geologic- and simulation-
scale models (Wang et al. 1994).
• To assist the pilot injection design and scale up the optimized laboratory foam
system, numerical modeling with the 3D reservoir model was used to set up a
compositional-simulation case for the extended pilot area. The details of the initial
extended-pilot-area simulation and fluid model can be found in Sharma et al.
(2017). The initial geologic model has since been updated because of concerns
over simulation run time and computational expense caused by the high amount
of layers in the z-direction of initial realizations. The geologic model was therefore
revised, as used in this work, by scaling up and merging layers with less variance in
petrophysical properties. The extended model grid had dimensions 59 58 28 with
approximately 65,000 active grid cells. Individual grid-cell sizes were 50 50 ft with
thicknesses ranging from 1 to10 ft. Porosities and permeabilities range from 1 to

12
19% and 0.01 to 125 md, respectively

12
 Foam-Quality/Rate Scans

The main objective of the foam-quality scans was to determine the optimal gas fraction (fg)
or foam quality that generates the most-efficient and the highest-apparent-viscosity CO2
foam with reservoir core and fluids considering field-scale economic constraints.

• Foam quality was evaluated at different gas fractions to determine the optimal
ratio of CO2 and surfactant solution that generates strong foam in the reservoir-
core/fluid system.
• Apparent foam viscosity vs. gas fraction demonstrates that the highest-
apparent-viscosity foam was generated at fg ¼ 0.70 (dashed line) when
considering economically feasible fg (high CO2 fraction and low aqueous
fraction).
• The relatively small reduction in foam apparent viscosity between fg ¼ 0.30
to 0.70 compared with fg ¼ 0.70 to 0.90 does not justify the choice of a
more-expensive CO2/surfactant-solution ratio.
• Therefore, a gas fraction of 0.70 is recommended for field testing.
• However, the actual gas fraction for field implementation will be
challenging to control because of the injection-mode strategy and multiple
zones of injection and mixing near the wellbore. Nonetheless, the foam-
quality scans reveal a target of volume fractions for field injection
• The foam-rate scans conducted at foam quality of 0.70 resulted in the highest
calculated apparent viscosity at a flow rate of 1 ft/D (Fig. 8).
• The rate scan using 0.5 wt% surfactant solution had the highest calculated
apparent viscosity of 48 cp (Fig. 8, blue circle), whereas the highest

13
 apparent viscosity for the 1 wt% surfactant solution was 27 cp (Fig. 8, green
circle).
• The range in apparent viscosities between the 0.5 and 1 wt% surfactant
solution can be attributed to variable permeabilities and the Sor of the core
material.
• The scan using 0.5 wt% surfactant solution had a core permeability of 27.7
md, and the scan using 1 wt% surfactant solution had a core permeability
of 7.9 md.
• This difference in permeability affects the performance of foam. Core
material with higher permeability has been shown to generate higher-
apparent-viscosity foam than cores that have lower permeability values
and higher capillary entry pressure (Lee et al. 1991).
• Rate scans show a decreasing apparent viscosity with increasing flow rate,
demonstrating the shear-thinning behavior of foam and increased gas-
phase mobility.
• For field application, shear-thinning behavior is desirable near the injection
well, where flow rates are high and gas-mobility reduction is modest.

13
 CO2-Foam EOR Corefloods

Oil-saturation (fraction of PV) vs. PV injected for the CO2 EOR baseline after waterflooding (Core H) and five
CO2-foam EOR corefloods performed after waterflooding (Cores A, B, C, D, and E). Blue curves correspond to
waterflood, orange to surfactant preflush, red to CO2, and green to CO2 foam.

• Oil saturation and apparent viscosity (in cp) vs. PV injected for the CO2 and CO2-
foam injections. Waterflood recovery (blue curves) showed early water
breakthrough and two-phase production from the start of injection
• Waterflood recovery was on average 32.2 6 6.1% of OOIP.
• No oil was recovered during the subsequent surfactant preflood (orange curves).
When introducing CO2 foam (green curves), similar incremental recoveries were
observed regardless of surfactant concentration.
• Using 0.5 wt% surfactant solution recovered an incremental of 28.5 6 6.0% of
OOIP, whereas 1.0 wt% surfactant solution produced an additional 29.2 6 2.2% of
OOIP.

• CO2-foam injections were benchmarked against a pure-CO2 flood (red curve) after
waterflood. An important note was that the pureCO2 flood injected 30% more CO2
(fg ¼ 1.0) compared with CO2 foam (i.e., fg ¼ 0.70, fsurf ¼ 0.30). A total of 1.7 PV
of CO2 was injected during the CO2 flood, recovering an additional 37 6 5% OOIP,
which was above average for all CO2-foam floods (i.e., 28.8 6 3.9% of OOIP) in Fig.
9. Additional recovery by CO2 foam, after CO2 injection, was 15% of OOIP,
reducing Sor to 0.04 6 0.04 and indicating improved recovery performance by
foam, even at low residual oil saturations

14
Limitation and Challenges – Future Consideration
At the laboratory scale, CO2 foam has been shown to overcome the unfavorable mobility
ratio of supercritical CO2 in systems of variable heterogeneity

Increased performance of CO2 foam for mobility control has also been demonstrated in
more heterogeneous systems, which included a fracture.

Despite the favorable results of laboratory experiments, displacement mechanisms across

larger scales are still not well understood.

Difficulty has been encountered when monitoring the propagation of CO2 foam in the
reservoir and attributing additional oil recovery specifically to the foam rather than to the
increased volume of CO2 injected.

The wide range of reservoir heterogeneities, operational challenges, and complex fluid
systems establishes the need for a more integrated methodology for advancing CO2 foam
technology.

Integrating traditional laboratory techniques, detailed core scale CO2 foam injection
studies, geologic description and modeling, and validated reservoir scale simulation
models can provide new insights into the behavior of dynamic fluids across multiple scales.

15
 Main Issue why choose CO2

Growing concerns CO2 EOR in the Permian

The unfavorable CO2
regarding greenhouse The limited EOR Basin has occurred Mobility control aims to
properties, mostly
gas emissions has led to investigations in the throughout the past 40 subdue the density and
density and viscosity, are
renewed interest in Queen, renewed years but lower than viscosity differences
main contributors to
utilizing CO2 as an EOR developmental interest, expected oil recoveries between CO2 and
these challenges which
method as part of and the success of are often reported due reservoir fluids using
can be combated with
Carbon Capture, neighboring fields’ EOR to gravity segregation, thickeners, gels, and/or
foam for mobility
Utilization, and Storage operations. viscous fingering, and foams.
control.
(CCUS). poor sweep efficiency.

CO2-EOR Mobility Challenges

a) Poor aerial sweep

b) Gas channelling
c) Gravity Override

16