SPE-191251-MS

Stability Improvement of CO2 Foam for Enhanced Oil Recovery Applications

Using Nanoparticles and Viscoelastic Surfactants

Ahmed Farid Ibrahim and Hisham Nasr-El-Din, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 25-26
June 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) was started in 1950. Low sweep efficiency and early breakthrough issues
were associated with the CO2-EOR system. Foam-EOR was introduced to improve the sweep efficiency
instead of polymers to avoid formation damage caused by polymers. Foam stability reduces in high-salinity
environments, high-temperature formations (>212°F), and in contact with crude oil. The present study
the using of nanoparticles and viscoelastic surfactants (VES) to improve foam mobility control for EOR
application.
This paper study the CO2-foam stability with using alpha olefin sulfonate (AOS) as a foaming agent and
the change on the mobility-reduction factor (MRF) for different foam solutions by adding nanoparticles and
VES. To achieve this objective, foam-stability for different solutions was measured at 77 and 150°F using
high-pressure view chamber (HPVC). Interfacial tension measurements were conducted to investigate the
destabilizing effect of crude oil on the different foam systems. Coreflood experiments were conducted using
Buff Berea sandstone cores at 150°F, saturated initially with a dead-crude oil. The CO2 foam was injected
with 80% quality as tertiary recovery mode. The oil recovery and the pressure drop across the core were
measured for the different foam solutions.
Adding silica nanoparticles (0.1 wt%) of size 140 nm and viscoelastic cocamidopropyl betaine surfactant
(cocobetaine VES) (0.4 wt%) to the AOS (0.5 wt%) solution improves both foam stability and MRF.
In contact with crude oil, unstable oil-in-water emulsion formed inside the foam lamella that decreased
foam stability. A weak foam was formed for AOS solution, but the foam stability increased by adding
nanoparticles and VES. The interfacial tension measurements revealed positive values for the spreading
and the bridging coefficients. Hence, the crude oil spread over the gas-water interface, and lamella films
were unstable due to the bridging of oil droplets. The oil recovery from the conventional waterflooding (as
a secondary recovery before foam injection) was 48% of the original oil-in-place. From the series coreflood
experiments, AOS was not able to enhance the oil recovery. However, more oil was recovered in the presence
of nanoparticles (12 %) and VES (18%).
Nanoparticles and VES were able to improve the foam stability for AOS solution. Adding nanoparticles
is highly recommended for EOR applications, particularly at high temperatures.
2 SPE-191251-MS

Introduction
Carbon dioxide (CO2) flooding was practically initiated for EOR applications in the 1950s. Due to low CO2
viscosity comparing to the crude oil viscosity, low sweep efficiency and early breakthrough challenges were
associated with CO2 flooding (Chen et al. 2012). CO2-foam has been introduced in the 1960's to increase
the sweep efficiency and avoid the viscous fingering (Bian et al. 2012). Wang and Li (2014) investigated
the ability of the foam to work as a blocking agent that reduces the mobility of the displacing fluid. Hence,
the CO2 foam was introduced as a mobility control agent on the EOR operations (Xing et al. 2012).
CO2-foam was used as a replacement for the polymer to avoid formation damage. Foam also has low
water and high gas content, which reduces the formation damage in the water sensitive formations and allow
fast cleanup and recovered permeability (Xiao et al. 2016). However, foam stability decreases especially in
severe reservoir conditions at high temperature, and in contact with crude oil (Chen et al. 2012). Surfactants
tend to degrade at high temperature and will not be able to foam the system.
The instability effect of crude oil on the CO2-foam system is another challenge for the use of the foam in
EOR application (Lau and Brien 1988). The foam stability was highly affected by the composition of the
crude oil. The presence of light component extremely decreases the foam stability (Simjoo et al. 2013).
Zhao et al. (2015) added Polymers or VES as a thickener to the foam system to increase the foam stability.
Mixing surfactants (non-ionic surfactant and anionic surfactant) improves the foam stability (Andrianov et
al. 2012). Betaines are known for the ability to improve foam stability by generating viscous surface layer
that delays the lamella drainage effect in contact with oil (Basheva et al. 2000).
Nanoparticles have been used to increase the foam in EOR operations (Emrani and Nasr-El-Din 2017;
Kalyanaraman et al. 2017; Singh et al. 2014; Mohd et al. 2014; and Mo et al. 2012). Nanoparticles can be
adsorbed at the interface between gas/liquid to stabilize the bubbles in foams. As the nanoparticles are solid,
the generated foam has potential to resist high-temperature and high-salinity reservoir conditions Espinoza
et al. (2010). Yu et al. (2012) showed that nanoparticles adsorption to the rock surface is low, and can't
decrease the formation permeability. San et al. (2017) studied the effect of salt concentration on the stability
of on nanosilica-stabilized CO2-foam. They showed that as salt concentration increased from 1 to 10 wt%,
the mobility decreased from 13.1 to 2.6.
This study aims to assess stabilizing the CO2-foam system by adding nanoparticles and in EOR
applications. The experimental work included: (1) foam stability measurements for different solutions
combined with optical microscope analysis to examine the effect of the nanoparticles and VES on foam
stability, (2) interfacial tension measurements to understand the deteriorate effect of oil on foam stability,
and (3) coreflood tests to understand the effect of nanoparticles, VES in presence of oil on MRF.

Experimental Studies
Material
5 wt% NaCl brine was used as a base solution for the experiments. AOS surfactant was used as a foaming
agent with 40 wt% active material. CO2 gas cylinder was used with a purity of 99.99 mol%. Silica
nanoparticles (SiO2) (140 nm) and viscoelastic surfactant cocamidopropyl betaine (cocobetaine) (VES)
were used to stabilize the foam. The concentrations of the additives in the foam solutions were 0.5, 0.4,
and 0.1 wt% for AOS, VES, and SiO2, respectively. The solutions were mixed using a magnetic stirrer, then
homogenized with an ultrasonic homogenizer.
Table 1 shows the mineralogy of the sandstone core (permeability = 111 md) used in this study. Table
2 gives the properties of the dead-crude oil.
SPE-191251-MS 3

Table 1—Mineralogy of Berea sandstone cores.

Mineral Quartz Kaolinite Microline Muscovite Smectite

Concentration, wt% 91 3 4 1 1

Table 2—Viscosity and density of dead crude oil.

Temperature,°C Viscosity, cp Density, g/cm3

25 3.03 0.82

30 2.44 0.81

40 2.04 0.81

50 1.71 0.80

60 1.88 0.79

70 1.61 0.78

Foam Stability Tests. Fig. 1 presents a diagram of the CO2 foam generation apparatus. This apparatus was
adjusted after (Emrani, et al. 2017) to allow injecting crude oil into the system.
Initially, 50 ml of the foam solution was injected from the bottom into the chamber, then 1 vol% crude
oil was then injected from the top. CO2 was used to increase the system pressure to the working pressure
and the temperature was set at the operating temperature. The system left to heat up for 2 hrs. The valve at
the bottom of the cell was then opened to bubble the CO2 into the solution by opening the CO2 valve at the
bottom of the cell. CO2 bubbles formed in the solution and moved to the top of the cell. After generating a
certain foam column, the height was measured continuously with time to evaluate the foam stability. The
time when the foam height decreases to half of its initial height is called the half-life of foam (Liu et al. 2005).
4 SPE-191251-MS

Figure 1—A schematic diagram of the equipment used to measure foam stability.

Interfacial Tension Measurements (IFT). IFT of the foam solutions, in the presence of nanoparticles and
VES with CO2 and crude oil, and IFT of the crude oil with the CO2, were determined by the drop-shape
analysis setup (DSA) (Fig. 2). For IFT measurements of the CO2 with crude oil and the foam solutions,
the HPHT cell was filled with CO2 at the working pressure, then the temperature controller was set at the
required temperature. The crude oil or the foam solution droplet was then injected through a needle (outside
diameter 1/16 in.) from the top. For IFT measurements of the foam solutions with the crude oil, the cell
was first filled with the foam solution at the working pressure, then the temperature controller was set at
the desired temperature. The oil droplet was then injected from the bottom. Then, a drop image of taken
by a digital camera and then processed with the DSA analysis software to get the interfacial tension These
measurements were conducted at 150°F and, the pressure was varied from 800 up to 1200 psi. Three runs
were conducted for each measurement, and the average is recorded within an error of ± 1 in the results.
SPE-191251-MS 5

Figure 2—A schematic diagram of the drop shape analysis system used for IFT measurements.

Coreflood Study. Fig. 3 shows a diagram of the coreflood setup used after (Ibrahim, et al 2017). 4 stainless-
steel piston accumulators were used to store the crude oil, the brine, the CO2, and the solutions. 2 syringe
pumps were used to displace the fluids an allow coinjection process. The pressure transducer was used to
measure the pressure difference across the core and LabVIEW software was used to record the data with
time.
6 SPE-191251-MS

Figure 3—Schematic for coreflood setup, where 1,2 = accumulators, 3 = CO2 cylinder, 4
= syringe pump, 5 = core holder, 6 = oven, 7 = back pressure regulator, 8 = N2 cylinder, 9
= hand pump for overburden pressure, and 10 = pressure transducer, 11 = PC recorder.

Core Preparation and Experiment Procedures. Cylindrical Buff Berea sandstone core was used (6 in.
length and 1.5 in. diameter). The core was first dried in an oven at 150°F for 24 hrs and the dry weight
recorded (Wdry). The core was then saturated with 5 wt% for four hours NaCl under vacuum. The initial
core permeability was measured using 5 wt% NaCl brine. The saturated-core weight was recorded (WW-
sat). The cores were stored in the brine until it was time to run the experiment. The pore volume (PV) for
the core was calculated as a function of the brine density (ρbrine = 1.035 g/cm3 at 77°F) and the difference
between the saturated-core weight and the dry-core weight (Eq. 1).

(1)

where PV = the core pore volume, WW-sat and Wdry = the saturated-core and the dry-core weights, respectively.
ρbrine = the brine density.
Fig. 4 shows schematic for the procedures of coreflood experiments. After pore volume and permeability
measurements, the core was saturated with the crude oil. The core inserted vertically on the core holder and
the back pressure was set at 1,100 psi and the overburden pressure was set at 1,700 psi. The oven temperature
was set at 150°F. The crude oil was then injected at 0.2 cm3/min for 5 PV until no water was coming out
then this step repeated at 0.5, 1 and 2 cm3/min for 2 PV to ensure reaching the maximum oil saturation. The
original-oil-in-place (OOIP) of the core is equal to the displaced water was collected. The weight of the
SPE-191251-MS 7

oil-saturated core was measured (WO-sat). The initial oil-in-place also calculated from the weight difference
between the water-saturated and oil-saturated cases (Eq. 2).

(2)

where Voi= the initial oil-in-place, WW-sat and WO-sat = the core weight in water-saturated and oil saturated-
cases, respectively. ρbrine and ρoil – the brine and crude oil densities, respectively.
Waterflooding stage was then followed as a secondary recovery mode. 5 wt% NaCl was injected at 0.5
cm3/min, and the produced oil collected with time for 5 PV until no oil observed on the production, then
the flow rate was increased to 1 and 2 cm3/min to ensure reaching the residual oil saturation. The weight
of the water-flooded core was measured (WW-flood).
On the CO2/brine coinjection stage (baseline stage), 5 wt% NaCl brine was injected first to pressurize
the system and no more oil produced as it was a continuation of the waterflooding stage. CO2 was then
coinjected with the NaCl brine at 80% quality (gas volume/total volume = 80%). The total injection flow
rate was 2 cm3/min, where the CO2 and the brine flowrates were 1.6, and 0.4 cm3/min, respectively. The
produced oil was collected over time for 6 PV until no more oil was recovered from the outlet. The pressure
drop across the core was recorded.
The different foam solutions were then injected in series. Foam solution was injected for 2 pore volumes
to satisfy the adsorption requirements for the rock. CO2 and the foam solutions were coinjected to generate
foam at 80% quality (gas volume/total volume = 80%). The foam was injected at 2 cm3/min. The produced
oil was collected over time for 6 PV until no more oil was produced and the pressure drop across the core was
recorded. NaCl brine was injected before any foam stage to pressurize the system and ensure no movable
oil from the previous stage.

Figure 4—Flowchart of the procedures of coreflood experiments.

Results and Discussion

Foam Stability Results
Fig. 5 shows the results of two sets of experiments at 800 psi, one set at room temperature (77°F) and another
set at 150°F. The foam stability for AOS solution with no oil was conducted first as a base case. At room
8 SPE-191251-MS

temperature, a foam height of 20 cm was formed initially, then the foam decayed with time to reach 10 cm
after 15 min (foam half-life =15 min). At 150°F, the foam becomes unstable, and the half-life decreased to
2 min. In contact with oil, the AOS was not able to generate stable foam, where the half-life was 4 and 0.5
min at 77 and 150°F, respectively. Two reasons explain the deleterious effect of oil on the foam stability.
First, the oil droplets tend to spread on the gas/liquid interface. As a result, the stable gas/liquid interface
changes to unstable gas/oil interface, which accelerates the rupture of the foam lamellae. Second, oil forms
an emulsion on the foam lamella. The oil droplets on the unstable emulsion agglomerate together and form
a bridge that accelerates the drainage of the foam lamellae, hence, the foam decays faster (Koczo et al.
1992). With adding nanoparticles to the AOS solution the foam half-life increased to 9 min at 77°F. The
nanoparticles can be adsorbed between the gas-liquid interface in the foam lamella, which enhances the
foam stability by decreasing the liquid-gas interfacial area. The foam stability decreased at high temperature
(150°F) to 4 min. by adding VES to the system, the foam stability improved to 5 min, where the VES work
as a thickener and decreases the temperature effect. VES formed a viscoelastic layer on the bubble surface,
which increases the lamella thickness and prevent the shrinkage effect.

Figure 5—Foam stability results for the different foam solutions at 800 psi. The additives
concentrations were 1 vol% oil, 0.5, 0.4, and 0.1 wt% for AOS, VES, and SiO2, respectively.

IFT Results
The effect of oil on foam stability controlled by three different mechanisms: entry of oil droplet in the gas-
liquid interface, spreading of oil on it, and formation of a bridge across the foam lamella. The oil destroying
effect on the foam can be determined by evaluating the entering coefficient (E), spreading coefficient (S)
and bridging coefficient (B) (Lau and Brien 1988). E, S, and B can be calculated as follows,
(3)
(4)
SPE-191251-MS 9

(5)
where σgw,σow,and σgo= IFT between CO2 and water, oil and water, and between oil and CO2, respectively.
Fig. 6 presents a flowchart to predict the foam stability in contact with oil from the signs of the E, S and B
coefficients (Simjoo et al. 2013). The oil droplet should be able to enter the gas–water interface to destabilize
the foam. Once the entry condition achieved (E is positive) and the oil droplet spread on the gas-liquid
interface (S is positive), the gas/water interface will expand. As a result, the foam film becomes thin and
ruptures. If there is no spreading (S is negative) and the oil drop forms a microemulsion at the gas/water
interface, foam film may rupture once oil droplets bridge between both surfaces of the lamella (B is positive).

Figure 6—Flowchart to predict the foam stability from the signs of the E, S, and B coefficients.

Table 3 presents the IFT measurements for the different foam solutions with the crude oil and CO2 at 800
and 1,200 psi with a temperature of 150°F. Eqs. 5-7 were then used to calculate E, B, and S coefficients
for the different foam systems (Table 4). E values were positive for all foam system that indicating the oil
entering condition was favorable. Once the oil entered the foam lamellae as a microemulsion on the AOS
and AOS/SiO2 foam systems, it started to spread on the lamella surface (S > 0) and generate unstable bridge
(B>0) that break the foam lamella and destabilize the foam. Fig. 7 shows a microscopic analysis of the
AOS foam system in contact with crude oil. The oil entered the foam lamellae as an unstable emulsion that
spread on the lamella surface.
The foam system in the presence of VES gave E slightly lower than 0 at 1,200 psi, indicating stable
foam. At 800 psi, the entering coefficient is positive, and the oil entered the foam lamellae. In this case, the
oil formed a stable emulsion inside the lamella and prevent the spreading (S < 0) and the bridging (B < 0)
effects. Fig. 8 shows microscopic analysis for foam system in the presence of VES. The foam lamella has a
viscoelastic behavior that keeps the oil emulsion stable inside the foam lamella and prevents the spreading
and the bridging effect.
10 SPE-191251-MS

Table 3—IFT results for the different foam solution with the crude oil and CO2 at 150°F with working pressure of
800 and 1,200 psi. The additives concentrations were 0.5, 0.4, and 0.1 wt% for AOS, VES, and SiO2, respectively.

Interfacial tension, dyne/cm

System
800 psi 1,200 psi

CO2/Brine 28.53 20.5

CO2/AOS 19.47 14.7

CO2/AOS+SiO2 13.30 8.4

CO2/AOS+ SiO2+VES 12.06 7.99

Oil/Brine 11.62 10.9

Oil/AOS 0.64 0.65

Oil/ AOS+SiO2 0.43 0.42

Oil/ AOS+ SiO2+VES 0.43 0.42

Oil/CO2 12.15 8.67

Table 4—Entering, spreading, and bridging coefficient for the different

foam systems at 150°F with working pressure of 800 and 1,200 psi.

800 psi 1200 psi

Foam System
E, dyne/cm S, dyne/cm B, (dyne/cm)2 E, dyne/cm S, dyne/cm B, (dyne/cm)2

CO2/Brine 28.01 4.76 801.62 22.33 0.33 445.78

CO2/AOS 7.96 6.68 231.74 6.67 5.38 141.29

CO2/AOS+ SiO2 1.58 0.72 29.49 0.15 −0.69 −4.43

CO2/AOS+ SiO2+VES 0.34 −0.52 −1.96 −0.26 −1.10 −11.14

Figure 7—Microscopic analysis for AOS foam to track the oil

microemulsion that spread on the lamella surface and destabilize the foam.
SPE-191251-MS 11

Figure 8—Microscopic analysis for AOS, VES, and nanoparticles foam system with stable oil microemulsion.

Coreflood Results
The core porosity was 18.6 vol% with absolute water permeability 111 md. For the oil saturation stage
(primary drainage), the crude oil was injected at different flow rates until no water was observed on the
outlet flow to ensure reaching the residual water saturation. The initial oil saturation was 57 vol% with
OOIP of 18.5 cm3. NaCl brine was injected first at 0.5, 1, and cm3/min as a secondary recovery mode to
ensure no recoverable oil by waterflooding only. The oil recovery from the water recovery as a secondary
mode was 48 % of the initial oil-in-place and residual oil saturation 29.2 vol%. Fig. 9 shows the pressure
drop across the core at different injection rates (0.5 to 2 cm3/min) and the corresponding recovery factor
during the waterflooding stage. At 0.5 cm3/min, most of the oil was produced (recovery factor = 46%) and
then the recovery factor slightly increased (48%) after the flow rate increased to 1 cm3/min.
12 SPE-191251-MS

Figure 9—Pressure drop across the core at different injection rates

and the corresponding recovery factor during the waterflooding stage.

After the waterflooding stage, CO2 was coinjected with NaCl brine as a tertiary recovery method and the
produced oil was collected for 6 pore volumes until no more oil was produced. The tertiary recovery factor
(total produced oil volume from tertiary recovery/oil-in-place after the secondary recovery mode) was only
26.4 %. The reason for that is the viscosity fingering and lower displacement efficiency. The pressure drop
across the core was monitored which represent the Δp_g in Eq. 1 (Fig. 10). The different foam solutions
were then injected, as shown in Fig. 4. The MRF can be calculated from the apparent viscosity for the
system in the presence and the absence of foam which is a function of the pressure drop across the core on
both cases (Eq. 6) (Bian et al. 2012):

(6)

where Q = the flow rate, k = the absolute core permeability, A, L core dimensions, Δpf, and Δpg = the
pressure drop across the core with and without foam, respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the mobility reduction factor for the different foam systems as calculated from Eq. 6. Fig.
12 shows the recovery factor from the tertiary mode. Table 5 shows the total oil recovery factor and the
residual oil saturation after the injection of the different foam solutions.

Table 5—Total oil recovery factor, and residual oil saturation after the injection of the different foam
solutions. The additives concentrations were 0.5, 0.4, and 0.1 wt% for AOS, VES, and SiO2, respectively.

Total Oil Recovery Factor, vol% Residual Oil Saturation, fraction

CO2/brine 62 0.22

CO2/AOS 63 0.21

CO2/AOS+SiO2 68 0.18

CO2/AOS+SiO2+VES 71 0.16
SPE-191251-MS 13

By adding 0.5 wt% AOS, a weak foam was generated. The mobility reduction factor equals one where the
pressure drop across the core was equal to the base case. Hence, the AOS did not control the gas mobility.
As a result, AOS was not able to enhance the oil recovery with an apparent viscosity similar to that for the
water-alternative-gas system (with no AOS in the solution). Oil recovery from the AOS foam increased by
1.5% compared to the water/gas system. Similar results were observed by Ibrahim et al. (2017) in parallel
coreflood experiments.
The mobility reduction factor increased in the presence of nanoparticles in the solution. Emrani et al.
(2017) explained that the nanoparticles adsorb to the interface between the liquid/gas phases and minimize
the contact area between them; as a consequence, they can build a barrier that prevents bubbles coalescence
and improves the foam stability. Increasing the mobility reduction factor reflects improving the displacement
efficiency. As a result, the tertiary recovery factor increased to 38.5%.
Adding VES to the system stabilizes the emulsion and delay the foam decay that improves the foam
stability as shown by the foam stability tests. Therefore, mobility reduction factor improved and the oil
recovery increased to 43.7% as well. Moreover, adding VES to the foam solutions increases the liquid
viscosity, which retards the drainage of liquid initially. This keeps the liquid film thicker increase the foam
half-life time.

Figure 10—Pressure drop across the core for the base case (the CO2/brine coinjection).
14 SPE-191251-MS

Figure 11—Mobility reduction factor for the different foam systems. The additives
concentrations were 0.5, 0.4, and 0.1 wt% for AOS, VES, and SiO2, respectively.

Figure 12—Recovery factor from the tertiary recovery mode after the injection of the different foam
solutions. The additives concentrations were 0.5, 0.4, and 0.1 wt% for AOS, VES, and SiO2, respectively.
SPE-191251-MS 15

Conclusions
This study investigated the effect of VES and silica nanoparticles on foam stability and the oil recovery.
The main conclusions are summarized as follows:
The foam stability and MRF increased in the presence of silica nanoparticles and viscoelastic surfactant
in the AOS solution.
For the AOS foam system, the interfacial tension measurements revealed positive values for the spreading
and the bridging coefficients. Hence, the crude oil spread over the gas-water interface, and lamella films
were unstable due to the bridging effect.
AOS was not able to enhance oil recovery with an MRF of one, and almost no more oil was recovered
by AOS foam.
Adding nanoparticles and VES to the foam systems improved the foam MRF and produce extra oil (12%
by adding nanoparticles, 18% by adding nanoparticles and VES).
Nanoparticles and VES were able to improve the foam stability for AOS solution. Adding nanoparticles
and VES is highly recommended for EOR applications.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Crisman Institute and Texas A&M University for its support to conduct this work.
The authors also thank Gia Alexander for proofreading this paper.

Abbreviations
AOS alpha olefin sulfonate
EOR enhanced oil recovery
HT high temperature
HP high pressure
IFT interfacial tension
MRF mobility reduction factor
VES viscoelastic surfactant
PV core pore volume

Nomenclature
A cross-section area of the core, cm2
B oil bridging coefficient
E oil entering coefficient
K absolute core permeability, md
L core length, in.
Q total flow rate, cm3/min
S oil spreading coefficient
V oil volume, cm3
W core weight, g
ρbrine brine density, g/cm3
Ø core porosity, volume fraction
Δp pressure drop across the core, psi
μ fluid viscosity, cp
σgw CO2/water interfacial tension, dyne/cm
σow oil/water interfacial tension, dyne/cm
σgo oil/CO2 interfacial tension, dyne/cm
16 SPE-191251-MS

Subscripts
w water
o oil
w-flood waterflooding
r residual

References
Andrianov, A., Farajzadeh, R., Mahmoodi Nick, M.et al. 2012. Immiscible Foam for Enhancing Oil Recovery:
Bulk and Porous Media Experiments. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 51 (05): 2214–2226. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie201872v.
Basheva, E. S., Ganchev, D., Denkov, N. D.et al. 2000. Role of Betaine as Foam Booster in the Presence of Silicone Oil
Drops. Langmuir 16 (03): 1000–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/la990777.
Bian, Y., Penny, G. S. and Sheppard, N. C. 2012. Surfactant Formulation Evaluation for Carbon Dioxide Foam Flooding
in Heterogeneous Sandstone Reservoir. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
14-18 April. SPE 154018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/154018-MS.
Chen, Y., Elhag, A. S., Poon, B. M.,et al 2012. Ethoxylated Cationic Surfactants for CO2 EOR in High Temperature, High
Salinity Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 14-18 April. SPE
154222. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/154222-MS.
Emrani, A. S., Ibrahim, A. F., and Nasr-El-Din, H. A. 2017. Mobility Control using Nanoparticle-Stabilized CO2 Foam as
a Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid. Presented at the SPE Europec featured at 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Paris,
France, 12-15 June. SPE-185863-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/185863-MS.
Emrani, A. S., and Nasr-El-Din, H. A. 2017. An Experimental Study of Nanoparticle-Polymer-Stabilized CO2 Foam.
Colloids and Surfaces, A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 524 (01): 17–27.
Espinoza, D. A., Caldelas, F. M., Johnston, K. P.,et al. 2010. Nanoparticle-Stabilized Supercritical CO2 Foams for Potential
Mobility Control Applications. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 24-28
April. SPE 129925. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/129925-MS.
Ibrahim, A. F., Emrani, A., and Nasr-El-Din, H. A. 2017. Stabilized CO2 Foam for EOR Applications. Presented at
the Carbon Management Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 17-20 July. CMTC-486215-MS. https://
doi.org/10.7122/486215-MS.
Kalyanaraman, N., Arnold, C., Gupta, A.,et al. 2016. Stability Improvement of CO2 Foam for Enhanced Oil-Recovery
Applications Using Polyelectrolytes and Polyelectrolyte Complex Nanoparticles. Journal of Applied Polymer Science,
134 (01):1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/app.44491.
Koczo, K., Lobo, L. A., and Wasan, D. T. 1992. Effect of Oil on Foam Stability: Aqueous Foams Stabilized by Emulsions.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 150 (02): 492–506. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(92)90218-B.
Lau, H.C. and Brien, S. M. 1988. Effects of Spreading and Nonspreading Oils on Foam Propagation through Porous
Media. SPE Res Eng. 3 (03): 983–986. http://dx.doi: 10.2118/15668-PA
Liu, Y., Grigg, R. B., and Bai, B. 2005. Salinity, pH, and Surfactant Concentration Effects on CO2-Foam. Presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands, Texas, 2-4 February. SPE-93095-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/93095-MS
Mo, D., Yu, J., Liu, N.,et al. 2012. Study of the Effect of Different Factors on Nanoparticle-Stabilized CO2 Foam for
Mobility Control. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8-10
October. SPE 159282. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/159282-MS.
Mohd, T. A. T., Shukor, M., Ghazali, N.et al. 2014. Relationship between Foamability and Nanoparticle Concentration of
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Foam for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Applied Mechanics and Materials. 548 (01): 67–71.
Trans Tech Publications.
San, J., Wang, S., Yu, J.et al., 2017. Nanoparticle-Stabilized Carbon Dioxide Foam Used in Enhanced Oil Recovery: Effect
of Different Ions and Temperatures. SPE J. Preprint. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179628-PA.
Singh, R., and Mohanty, K. K. 2014. Synergistic Stabilization of Foams by a Mixture of Nanoparticles and
Surfactants. Presented at the Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 12–16 April. SPE-169126-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/169126-MS.
Simjoo, M., Rezaei, T., Andrianov, A.et al. 2013. Foam Stability in the Presence of Oil: Effect of Surfactant Concentration
and Oil Type. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 438 (01): 148–158.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2013.05.062
SPE-191251-MS 17

Xiao, C., Balasubramanian, S. N., and Clapp, L. W. 2016. Rheology of Supercritical CO2 Foam Stabilized by
Nanoparticles. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 11-13 April.
SPE-179621-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179621-MS.
Xing, D., Wei, B., McLendon, W. J.et al. 2012. CO2-Soluble, Nonionic, Water-Soluble Surfactants That Stabilize CO2-in-
Brine Foams. SPE, J. 17 (04). http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/129907-PA.
Wang, C., and Li, H. Z. 2014. Foam Stability of Solvent/Surfactant/Heavy-Oil System under Reservoir Conditions.
Presented at the SPE International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, 8-10 December, Mangaf, Kuwait.
SPE-172888-MS. http://dx.doi:10.2118/172888-MS.
Yu, J., Liu, N., Li, L.,et al. 2012. Generation of Nanoparticle-Stabilized Supercritical CO2 Foams. Presented
at the Carbon Management Technology Conference, Orlando, Florida, 7-9 February. CMTC 150849. http://
dx.doi.org/10.7122/150849-MS.
Zhao, G., Fang, J., Dai, C.et al. 2015. Enhanced Foam Stability by Adding Dispersed Particle Gel: A New 3-Phase Foam
Study. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11-13 August.
SPE-174597-MS. http://dx.doi:10.2118/174597-MS.