SPE 56541
Foamy Oil Flow in Primary Production of Heavy Oil under Solution Gas Drive
*
Brij B. Maini/ University of Calgary
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
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, 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
Foamy oil flow has received considerable attention in the
literature in last several years. It is believed to be a key factor
in producing the higher than expected well rates and the high
recovery factors observed in several Canadian and Venezuelan
reservoirs. However, beyond the recognition that it may
involve dispersed flow of gas, there is little agreement as to
what the underlying mechanisms are.
This paper presents a new mechanistic model of foamy
solution gas drive and experimental evidence in support of the
model. The main hypothesis in this model is that foamy oil
flow is simply two-phase gas-oil flow at high capillary
numbers. It occurs when the viscous forces become strong
enough to mobilize gas ganglia growing from bubble
nucleation sites.
The evidence in support of the existence of dispersed flow in
solution gas drive in viscous oil systems comes from the effect
of depletion rate on the performance of laboratory scale
solution gas drive tests. These tests show that the high rate of
pressure depletion at the production port results in: (1) a much
higher oil recovery factor and (2) a high pressure- gradient
within the sand-pack. Relatively high pressure-gradient
persists throughout the duration of the high rate test and
declines very slowly even after the flow has virtually stopped.
It implies that the mobility of the free gas is exceedingly
small, which strongly suggests that the gas is not continuous.
By contrast, a high pressure-gradient never develops in slow
depletion tests.
*
This work was done at the Petroleum Recovery Institute
The evidence in support of the suggested form of dispersed
flow comes from visual observations in etched glass
micromodels. These tests show that the dispersion is not a
result of nucleation of a very large number of bubbles but
forms by break-up of a much smaller number of nucleated
bubbles which become mobilized in the presence of high
pressure gradient.
Finally the conditions under which this type of dispersed flow
is likely to occur in the field are discussed.
Introduction
Foamy oil flow is the name commonly used to describe a form
of two phase oil-gas flow in porous media in which the gas
phase remains partially or completely dispersed in the oil. This
type of flow sometimes occurs in primary depletion of heavy
oil reservoirs under solution gas drive and is believed to be a
key factor in producing the higher than expected well rates
and high recovery factors in several Canadian and Venezuelan
reservoirs. It is generally accepted that the unusual inflow
behavior of primary depletion wells in these reservoirs can
only be explained by postulating an unconventional flow
mechanism that results in a drastic reduction of gas mobility
and trapping of a disproportionately large volume of gas
within the reservoir. However, beyond the recognition that it
may involve dispersed flow of gas, there is little agreement as
to what the underlying mechanisms are. The purpose of this
paper is to review the observed behavior of cold production
wells in Canada and present a mechanistic model of foamy
solution gas drive that is consistent with the field observations.
Laboratory observations that support the model are also
presented.
Cold Heavy Oil Production
Heavy oil producers in Canada have learned from experience
that some unconsolidated sand heavy oil reservoirs, exploited
with vertical wells under primary depletion conditions,
perform better when sand is allowed to freely flow into the
wells. The improvement in well productivity is so remarkable
that a new name, “cold production,” was coined to distinguish
this type of production from conventional primary depletion.
Both oil production rate and the oil recovery factor are much
2 BRIJ B. MAINI
higher when the sand is produced into the wells and
transported to surface with the oil. Oil production rates have
been reported to be more than ten times the flow rate predicted
by Darcy’s law. Also, the conventional wisdom predicts that
the solution gas drive recovery factor in these viscous oil
reservoirs should be in the range of 1% to 3% of original oil in
place (OOIP). With cold production, the actual and projected
recovery factors are in the range of 5% to 15% OOIP. The
typical reservoir characteristics associated with successful
applications of cold production are listed in Table 1. It should
be noted that it might be possible to apply the cold production
technology to reservoirs that do not fall within the range of
characteristics shown in Table 1. At present, the limiting
reservoir characteristics have not been clearly established.
New cold production wells go through a start-up phase during
which the sand cut and the fluid rate change in a characteristic
manner. Immediately on starting production the sand cut is
very high. The reported volume fraction of sand in this phase
is 10 percent to 50 percent (Elkin et al., 1972; McCaffery and
Bowman, 1991; Huang et al., 1997). As the production from
well continues, the fluid rate increases slowly while the sand
cut declines rapidly. After some time on uninterrupted
production, the sand cut stabilises at a lower value that seems
to be a function of viscosity of the crude oil. The reported
values of sand cut in this phase are in the range of 0.1% to 5%
by volume (Elkin et al., 1972; McCaffery and Bowman, 1991;
Huang et al., 1997). The oil rate continues to increase for two
to five years and then starts a slow decline as the reservoir
depletion effects begin to dominate the inflow performance.
The total volume of sand produced from cold production wells
over their productive life can range between 500 m3 to 1000
m3 for wells which typically produce 10 to 20 m3 of oil per
day. Progressive cavity pumps are used to handle this volume
of sand production. The wells are usually operated at or near
atmospheric back-pressure, i.e. the drawdown is kept near the
maximum.
It is believed that the sand production increases the fluid
mobility in the near well zone by increasing the permeability
in the affected zone. Continuing sand production generates a
growing zone of enhanced permeability that could be
considered a growing negative skin effect. The actual
morphology of the affected sand is not well understood; two
plausible models are networks of wormholes and uniformly
dilated sand. It is likely that the continued production of sand
more or less eliminates permeability damage in the near well
zone by fines migration or asphaltenes precipitation. The oil-
water-sand-gas mixture is produced as a foamy mass, which
goes to a stock tank for gravity segregation.
The field experience shows that the chances of success of cold
production can be improved by modifying the drilling,
completion and initial operation of these wells to promote
sand production. For example, it is desirable to use large
diameter, closely spaced perforations and to use under-
balanced perforating. Some operators use aggressive swabbing
after perforating for cleaning the perforations and initiating the
SPE 56541
sand flow. However, this sometimes causes the well to
become blocked with sand inside the casing before the pump
is operational.
It is important to ensure continuous production without
interruptions that could cause settling of sand in the tubing or
blockage of the pump intake. Sometimes, sanding-in of the
pump intake occurs due to a massive sand-influx. Many
operators use a 10 to 20 meter deep “sump” in their cold
production wells. This sump is an unperforated casing section
below the perforated zone that provides a buffer for occasional
massive sand influx. A large sump appears to reduce the
likelihood of sand related failure during start-up. The pump is
generally placed one meter below the top perforation.
Workovers are required more frequently in cold production
wells compared to their frequency in conventional wells. In
workovers, two objectives need to be considered: the well
should be cleaned of sand to allow re-installation of the
equipment, and the stable sand flow must be re-established. It
is this second objective that is often more difficult to meet.
Different operators employ different strategies for re-
establishing the sand-flow. These include a high rate injection
of fluid (designed to unblock perforations and destabilise the
near wellbore zone to re-establish sand-oil flow), injection of
heated oil, and injection of various chemicals.
Cold heavy oil production is accompanied by production of
two waste products that must be disposed. The sand that
settles at the bottom of stock tanks is water-wet and contains
up to 5% heavy oil residue. Another waste is an emulsion of
oil, clay, other fines and water that is very difficult to break. It
appears that the composition of oil in this emulsion is different
from the separated crude oil. It appears to have a larger
proportion of more surface-active components. Perhaps these
components adsorb preferentially on the clay particles and
other fines.
Foamy Oil Flow
The enhancement of fluid mobility resulting from the sand
production can explain the improved inflow performance of
cold production wells but it does not explain the two to three
fold improvement in the primary recovery factors. To explain
the improved recovery factors, it is necessary to postulate a
mechanism that traps a larger fraction of the released solution
gas in the reservoir. This mechanism appears to be the so-
called “foamy oil” flow. It is a different form of two-phase
flow in which at least a part of the released gas flows in the
form of dispersed bubbles. The actual structure of such gas-in-
oil dispersions and how they are formed are still not well
established. Much of the earlier discussion of foamy oil flow
in the literature was based on the concept of micro-bubbles,
i.e. bubbles much smaller than average pore throat size and
therefore free to move with the oil during flow through the
rock (Sheng et al., 1999). This type of dispersion can only be
generated by nucleation of a very large number of bubbles
(explosive nucleation) and by the presence of a mechanism
SPE 56541 FOAMY OIL FLOW IN PRIMARY PRODUCTION OF HEAVY OIL UNDER SOLUTION GAS DRIVE
that prevents these bubbles from growing into much larger
bubbles with decrease in the reservoir pressure.
An alternate hypothesis concerning the nature of foamy oil
flow is that it involves much larger bubbles migrating with the
oil and that the dispersion is created by break-up of bubbles
during their migration with the oil. The main difference
between the conventional solution gas drive and the foamy
solution gas drive is that the pressure gradient in the later is
strong enough to mobilise growing gas clusters after they have
grown to certain size. The pore level mechanisms involved in
foamy solution gas drive are discussed in the following
section.
Mechanistic Model of Foamy Solution Gas Drive
This model is based on the laboratory and field observation
that lead one to conclude that the differences between foamy
solution gas drive and the conventional solution gas drive stem
as much from the differences in operating conditions as from
the differences in rock-fluid properties. Laboratory depletions
in several different rock-fluid systems could be made to
behave like conventional solution-gas-drive by using a very
slow rate of pressure depletion (Maini 1999). On the other
hand, foamy flow ccould be induced in the same rock-fluid
system by using a fast rate of depletion. Wells in the same
reservoir under agrressive cold production show foamy oil
effects while with sand control and reduced drawdown, the
same wells tend to behave like normal solution-gas-drive
wells. Table 2 compares the pore level processes occurring in
conventional and foamy solution gas drives. Both processes
start by nucleation of gas bubbles driven by super-saturation
of dissolved gas in the oil. This nucleation is believed to occur
in the roughness of pore walls. It is likely that a large number
of bubbles are formed in the rough cavities of pore walls but
only a few actually grow out of these cavities and become
detached from the wall. This is due to the presence of a
capillary barrier to bubble growth (Yortsos and Parlar, 1989).
Up to this point the two processes are very similar. The
difference comes from what happens to the growing bubble
after it has become larger than the pore size. In conventional
solution gas drive the bubble remains trapped and continues to
grow without ever leaving the pore in which it originated. It
will eventually grow large enough to occupy several pore
bodies and will become connected to other bubbles that started
in other pores. Finally a continuous gas phase is created that
can flow out into the production well. In foamy solution gas
drive the bubble, after growing to a certain size, starts
migrating with the oil. This size depends on the relative
magnitude of capillary trapping forces and the viscous
mobilising forces. The migrating bubble continues to grow,
but is prone to break-up into smaller bubbles. The break-up of
migrating bubbles into smaller bubbles maintains dispersed
gas flow by counteracting the effects of bubble coelescence.
Since the gas remains dispersed in the oil, the produced GOR
remains low and a higher recovery factor is obtained. It should
3
be stressed that the two scenarios described above are the two
ends of a continuous spectrum of flow behaviour. The
transition between the conventional flow and dispersed flow
does not occur abruptly at a certain critical capillary number.
It appears to be a transition that occurs gradually above a
threshold capillary number.
In the following sections we present evidence in support of
this model of foamy oil flow. This comprises results of
depletion tests in linear sand-pack models and visual
observations in etched glass micro-models.
Linear Sand-Pack Depletion Tests
Linear depletion tests were carried out in a 200 cm long sand-
pack using the equipment shown schematically in Figure 1.
The effect of depletion rate on the performance of solution gas
drive was evaluated in several different oil-sand systems
(Maini 1999). Figure 2 presents the oil recovery performance
observed in four different tests with one of these systems. The
recovery factor was much higher in two fast depletion tests
compared to the two slow depletions. This remarkable
increase in the recovery factor comes from dispersed gas flow
in the fast depletions. This becomes apparent when we
compare the gas production history and the pressure history at
different locations within the sand-pack.
Figure 3 presents the pressure history and the gas production
history of a slow depletion test. It is noted that the pressure at
the inlet end of the sand-pack was always very close to the
outlet end pressure, i.e. the pressure gradient within the sand-
pack was always very small. It is also noted that the gas
production ceased and the entire sand-pack became pressure
depleted soon after the outlet end reached the final low
pressure. It shows that the fluid mobility near the end of the
depletion was high enough to deplete all parts of the sand-
pack simultaneously.
The pressure and gas production history of a fast depletion test
is shown in Figure 4. In this case a substantial pressure
gradient was maintained in the sand-pack at all times during
the depletion. There was very little continuing gas production
after 2000 minutes, even though there was more than 50 psi
pressure difference between the inlet and outlet ends of the
sand-pack. This pressure difference decayed very slowly with
time and a substantial pressure gradient was still present when
the experiment was stopped. Thus near the end of the run, the
gas saturation was about 25 % (as indicated by the cumulative
oil production), but the gas mobility was so low that a
substantial pressure gradient could be maintained over
extended periods. It strongly suggests that the gas phase was
not continuous, otherwise the gas mobility would be expected
to be high enough to quickly deplete the pressure.
Experiments with all other oil-sand systems showed similar
behaviour (Maini, 1999). Slow depletions resulted in low
pressure-gradients and low recovery-factors. In contrast, the
fast depletions were always accompanied by high pressure-
4 BRIJ B. MAINI
gradients and high recovery factors. The high pressure-
gradients persisted even when the flow virtually stopped. It
was concluded that the gas phase did not become continuous
in high rate depletion tests.
When the depletion tests conducted with different oils were
compared to evaluate the effect of oil viscosity, it was found
that the depletion rate needed to obtain the high recovery
factor became slower with increasing oil viscosity. With a
50,000 mPa.s oil, high pressure gradients and high recovery
factors could be obtained even in seven days decline test. On
the other hand with a 200 mPa.s viscosity oil, the depletion
time had to be shorter than a few hours to obtain the high
performance behaviour. It became apparent that the
experimental parameter that had a clear link to the depletion
performance was the pressure gradient generated within the
sand-pack and not the depletion rate on its own. It strongly
suggested that a high pressure gradient may be required to
generate the dispersed flow that results in high recovery
factors. This role of pressure gradient is also evident from
visual observations of bubble flow dynamics in etched glass
micro-models, which are presented in the following section.
Micro-model Observations
Two series of micro-model experiments were carried out to
visually examine the formation and flow of gas bubbles under
solution gas drive conditions. These experiments have been
described in detail elsewhere (Bora et al., 1997; Maini et al.,
1998; Bora; 1998). The first series examined the effects of
depletion rate and of the presence or absence of asphaltenes on
solution gas drive behaviour.
These tests showed that the pore scale flow behaviour was
dramatically different in slow and fast depletion tests. In slow
depletions, the bubbles did not become mobilized with the oil
and grew in size without ever leaving the pore in which they
originated. An example of this type of bubble is shown in
Figure 5. In contrast, the bubbles in fast depletions started to
move with the flowing oil soon after nucleation. The bubble
growth continued while the bubble was moving. The
mobilized bubbles tended to break into smaller bubbles during
their migration. The continued migration and breakup
eventually resulted in dispersed gas flow. A sequence of
snapshots leading to dispersed flow is shown in Figure 6.
The total number of bubbles nucleated during the slow
depletions was in the range of 1 to 10. The number of
nucleated bubbles was somewhat higher in fast depletions,
typically in the range of 5 to 20. The total number of bubbles
generated by bubble breakup in fas depletions was several
orders of magnitude higher compared to the number of
nucleated bubbles. It was concluded that the dispersed flow
was generated not by explosive nucleation but by bubble
breakup. Other conclusions drwan for this work were:
1. Bubble nucleation occurred mostly at pore walls.
2. Trapped impurities also acted as nucleation sites.
SPE 56541
3. The asphaltenes did not appear to play a significant role in
bubble nucleation.
4. Wettability did not appear to be a critical parameter in the
solution gas drive process.
5. In water-wet media, bubble nucleation sometimes occurred
in the trapped layer of water.
6. In fast depletion tests, the nucleation was not instantaneous
and new bubbles continued to be nucleated throughout the
entire depletion.
7. In slow depletion tests, a smaller number of bubbles
nucleated.
8. Coalescence of the gas bubbles was more likely to occur
when the liquid velocity was low and the bubbles remained
in contact for a longer period.
9. The presence of the asphaltenes appeared to hinder
coalescence.
10. Bubble break-up was likely to occur at high flow rates.
11. High oil viscosity coupled with high flow velocity lead to
dispersed flow.
12. The presence of a large number of microbubbles could not
be verified.
The second series of micromodel tests was designed to settle the
issue of microbubbles smaller than the optical resolution being
present without being detected. A heterogeneous pore network,
containing a well-defined pore size distribution and pore throat
size distribution, was used in these tests. The compressibility of
the live oil, undergoing pressure depletion within the pores of a
micromodel, was evaluated by measuring the volume expansion
as a function of declining pressure. The fluid compressibility
would be much larger than the liquid phase compressibility in
the presence of a large population of micro-bubbles. These tests
showed that, indeed, the compressibility of the oil became much
larger than the liquid phase compressibility before visible
bubbles were formed. This implied the presence of microbubbles
in large numbers. Fluid compressibility was also calculated after
appearance of the first visible gas bubble in the micromodel.
There was a smooth transition in fluid compressibility suggesting
that the visible bubbles are the result of unhindered growth of
these invisible microbubbles. Therefore, the process of gas
nucleation (i.e., appearance of a macroscopic visible gas
bubbles) appears to consists of the following succession of steps:
• formation of a large number of microbubbles in small
cavities in rough pore walls and trapping by capillary forces,
• growth of these trapped microbubbles,
• activation of some these sites when the pressure drawdown
balances capillary trapping forces, and
• growth of these released bubbles until they become visible.
SPE 56541 FOAMY OIL FLOW IN PRIMARY PRODUCTION OF HEAVY OIL UNDER SOLUTION GAS DRIVE
Since only a handful of visible bubbles were formed
(typically in single digit numbers), it is apparent that only a few
of the millions of microbubbles can overcome the capillary
growth barrier. The dispersed flow that was seen in high rate
tests was created by migration and break-up of these visible
bubbles. However, it was noted that in high rate tests, a larger
number of bubbles were able to overcome the capillary barrier in
pore wall cavities. Some of the other important conclusions
drawn from this series of tests were:
1. A high degree of supersaturation was required to initiate the
formation of visible gas bubbles in the micromodel.
2. Nucleation of the gas bubbles was found to occur randomly
within the porous medium and the nucleation site varied
between repeat runs.
3. The value of critical supersaturation was similar in heavy oil
and other oil samples denoting that the effect of the
asphaltenes in the nucleation behaviour was not very
significant.
4. Visual investigation of micromodel experiments revealed
that the pressure depletion rate played a dominant role in
determining the structure of gas-oil dispersion in porous
media, and thereby, the performance of the solution-gas-
drive process. Comparison of microvisual experiments
revealed that the pressure depletion rates had a similar effect
on the pore scale behaviour in both the homogeneous and
the heterogeneous micromodels. The slow depletion
experiments resulted in a classical solution-gas-drive type
displacement. On other hand, the fast depletion tests resulted
in a dispersion of gas in oil resulting in a foamy solution gas
drive process.
Based on the combined weight of these micromodel tests and
a large number of sand-pack depletion tests, the following
requirements emerge for the generation of dispersed flow
under solution gas drive conditions.
• Viscous forces acting on growing bubbles should exceed the
capillary trapping forces.
• Gravitational forces should not be capable of inducing
gravity segregation of the two phases.
• Interfacial chemistry effects that hinder bubble coalescence
may also be needed.
It is readily seen that whether or not these requirements are
met depends on the rock and fluid properties and the operating
conditions. In terms of the reservoir characteristics, dispersed
flow is more likely to occur when the permeability is high, the
oil is viscous and the interfacial tension between the oil and
the released solution gas is low. To generate the required
viscous force, a high drawdown pressure would be desirable.
The viscous trapping force decreases when the pore body/pore
throat aspect ratio becomes low. Therefore the foamy oil type
dispersed flow would be more likely to occur in well-sorted
unconsolidated sands that are partially dilated.
5
The foamy oil flow can be considered two-phase oil-gas flow
at high capillary number in which the behaviour is dominated
by dynamic of gas ganglia. The magnitude of pressure
gradient needed for onset of this type of flow can be estimated
using the capillary number relationships reported by Chatzis
and Morrow (1981). They reported a relationship between the
critical displacement ratio (∆P/Lσ) and air permeability.
Assuming the air permeability to be 3000 md and the
interfacial tension to be around 25 mN/m, the pressure
gradient required for ganglion mobilization, according to this
correlation, would be 25 kPa/m or approximately 1.0 psi/ft.
The pressure gradients generated in cold production of heavy
oil at high drawdown pressure are expected to be larger than
this value.
Field Implications
If one accepts the premise that foamy oil flow is a form of
non-Darcy two-phase flow in which the viscous forces have
become comparable to or stronger than the capillary forces,
then the implications in terms of field operations are not
difficult to determine. Promoting this type of flow requires
conditions that generate high pressure-gradients in the
reservoir. The magnitude of pressure gradient needed depends
on the sand characteristics and the interfacial tension between
the oil and the released gas. When a new well is put on
production, sufficient pressure gradient would be initially
available in the vicinity of the well in all heavy oil reservoirs
if a high drawdown pressure is used. However, as the
depletion propagates deeper into the reservoir, the pressure
gradient becomes smaller and may be no longer sufficient to
generate the dispersed flow. The drainage area that can sustain
dispersed flow would depend on the reservoir properties.
When sand is produced with the oil and it increases the fluid
mobility in the zone from which sand has been removed, the
reach of high pressure-gradients needed for foamy flow
becomes much longer. Since mobility becomes high in the
near well zone, the zone of high pressure-gradient moves
deeper into the reservoir. Thus, sand production is helpful in
sustaining the dispersed flow in reservoirs that would
otherwise exhibit this type of flow only during the initial
production period. It is apparent that even with sand
production, the drainage area that can be produced with foamy
flow is not boundless. The required pressure gradient would
be available only up to a certain radial distance away from the
well, beyond which the dispersed flow would not be
generated.
Conclusions
1. Foamy oil flow involves dispersed flow of gas in the form
of pore size or larger gas bubbles that become mobilized
due to the presence of high pressure gradient during the
depletion process.
6 BRIJ B. MAINI SPE 56541

2. Whether or not foamy flow occurs in primary depletion
depends not only on the oil properties but also on the sand
properties and the operating conditions.
3. The magnitude of pressure gradient needed for onset of
this type of flow is readily available in the near well
region in primary depletion of heavy oil reservoirs under
solution gas drive.
4. Sand production with the oil in Canadian reservoirs can
potentially extend the zone over which foamy flow occurs
in those reservoirs.
Calgary University et al. Heavy Oil & Oil Sands Technical
Symposium, Calgary, AB, March 14, 1991.
Sheng, J.J., Maini, B.B., Hayes, R.E., and Tortike, W.S., “Critical
Review of Foamy Oil Flow,” Transport in Porous Media 35:
157-187, 1999.
Yortsos, Y.C. and Parlar, M., "Phase Change in Binary Systems in
Porous Media: Application to Solution Gas Drive", Work
Performed Under Contract No. FG18-87BC14126, prepared for
the US Department of Energy, October 1989.

Acknowledgements
This work was done while the author was working at the
Petroleum Recovery Institute. Their permission to publish this
work is gratefully acknowledged. Contributions of Mr. Fausto
Nicola and Dr. Rupam Bora in conducting the experiments are
also acknowledged.

References

Bora, R., Maini, B.B. and Chakma, A., “Flow Visualization Studies
of Solution Gas Drive Process in Heavy Oil Reservoirs Using a
Glass Micromodel” SPE 37519, presented at the 1997
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium,
Bakersfield, California, 10-12 February.
Bora, R., “Cold Production of Heavy Oil – An Experimental
Investigation of Foamy Oil Flow in Porous Media,” Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Calgary, 1998.
Chatzis, I. And Morrow, N.R., “Correlation of Capillary Number
Relationship for Sandstones,” SPE 10114 presented at the 56th
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, Texas, October 5-7, 1981
Elkins, L.F., Morton, R. and Blackwell, W.A.: "Experimental
Fireflood in a Very Viscous Oil-Unconsolidated Sand
Reservoir, S.E. Pauls Valley Field, Oklahoma," paper SPE4086
presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX,
Oct. 8-11.
Huang, W.S., Marcum, B.E., Chase, M.R. and Yu, C.L., “Cold
Production of Heavy Oil from Horizontal Wells in the Frog
Lake Field” SPE 37545, presented at the 1997 SPE International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield,
California 10-12 Feb.
Maini, B., “Laboratory Evaluation of Solution Gas Drive Recovery
Factors in Foamy Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” Paper 99-44,
presented at the 1999 CSPG and Petroleum Society Joint
Convention, Calgary, June 14-18, 1999.
Maini, B., Das, S., Bora, R. Jackson, C., Fung, H. and Stanislav, P.,
“Improving Cold (Foamy) Heavy Oil Operations,” JIP Report
(97/98-3), Petroleum Recovery Institute, Calgary, March 1998.
McCaffrey, W.J. and Bowman, R.D., "Recent Success in Primary
Bitumen Production," paper No. 6 presented at the 8th Annual
SPE 56541 FOAMY OIL FLOW IN PRIMARY PRODUCTION OF HEAVY OIL UNDER SOLUTION GAS DRIVE 7

Table 1: Reservoir characteristics associated with successful applications of

“Cold Production” in Canada
Characteristics Value
Reservoir rock Unconsolidated sand
Depth, m 400 - 800
Net pay, m 4 - 25
Reservoir pressure, MPa 2.5 - 6
Reservoir temperature, oC 10 - 23
Porosity, % 30 - 34
Permeability, mD 500 – 10,000
Oil saturation, % 67 - 87
Oil Gravity, oAPI 11 - 1 6
Oil viscosity (in situ), mPa.s 1000 – 100,000
Solution gas/oil ratio 5 - 15
Primary drive mechanism Solution gas drive

Table 2: Comparison of pore level processes in conventional

solution gas drive and foamy solution gas drive.
Conventional solution gas drive
1. Pressure depletion creates supersaturation
2. Bubbles nucleate in rough cavities of pore walls
3. Some bubbles detach and start growing in pore bodies
4. Bubbles continue to grow in place without vacating the
pore in which they originated
5. Different bubbles originating in different pores grow
large enough to contact each other
6. Bubbles coalesce to form a continuous gas phase
7. Producing GOR increases rapidly once the gas starts to
flow as a continuous phase
8. Reservoir energy is depleted at a low recovery factor
Foamy solution gas drive
Pressure depletion creates supersaturation
Bubbles nucleate in rough cavities of pore walls
Some bubbles detach and start growing in pore bodies
Bubbles start migrating with the oil after growing to
certain size
Migrating bubbles keep dividing into smaller bubbles.
Dispersed flow is achieved by break-up of large bubbles
into smaller bubbles
Producing GOR remains low
High recovery factors are obtained.
8 BRIJ B. MAINI SPE 56541

Oil-Gas
Mixer DATA ACQUISITION
COMPUTER
PRESSURE TRANSDUCERS

Pressure
Depletion
Rate
SAND-PACK
Controller
Inlet Outlet
(Far End) (Production End) B.P.R.

To Gas Collection
Oil Collection
Transfer and Metering Vessel
Vessel
To Ruska Pump
DIGITAL BALANCE

Figure 1. Apparatus for solution gas drive tests in linear sand-packs

Hamaca Oil at 66 Deg. C

Comparison of Oil Production at Different Depletion Rates

300.0 300.0
Cumulative Oil Produced (mL)

24 Hours Decline
250.0 8 Days Decline 250.0
22 Days Decline
200.0 Maximum Drawdown 200.0

150.0 150.0

100.0 100.0

50.0 50.0

0.0 0.0
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Mid-Poiny Pressure (psi)

Figure 2. Typical effect of depletion rate on oil recovery.

SPE 56541 FOAMY OIL FLOW IN PRIMARY PRODUCTION OF HEAVY OIL UNDER SOLUTION GAS DRIVE 9

Hamaca Oil at 66 Deg C, 8 Days Decline

1200 20000
18000

Cumulative Gas Produced (Std. mL)

1000
16000

14000
800
Pressure (psi)

12000
Far end pressure
600 10000
Midpoint pressure
8000
Production end pressure
400
Cumulative Gas Produced 6000

4000
200
2000
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time (minutes)

Figure 3. Typical gas production and pressure history of a slow depletion test

MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN DEPLETION TEST IN 200 CM SAND-PACK

HAMACA CRUDE, 7000 kPa INITIAL PRESSURE, 67 DEG C TEMPERATURE
1200 18000

16000

Cumulative Gas Produced (Std. mL)

1000
14000

800 12000
PRESSURE (psi)

Production end pressure 10000

600 Far end pressure
8000
Midpoint pressure
400 Cumulative Gas 6000

4000
200
2000

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
TIME (min)

Figure 4. Typical gas production and pressure history of a fast depletion test
10 BRIJ B. MAINI SPE 56541

Figure 5. A typical large bubble formed in a slow depletion test in the uniform pores size micromodel.

A B

C D

Figure 6. Features of a fast depletion test showing growth, migration and breakup of gas bubbles
leading to dispersed flow.