.
6iiBf .
Field Foam Applications in Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects: Screening and
Design Aspects
Alex T. Turta, SPE and Ashok K. Singhal, SPE, Petroleum Recovery Institute, Calgary, Canada
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE International Conferenm and
Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 2-6 November 1998.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review ef
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(a). Contente of the paper, aa
prasented, have not bean reviewed by tha Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, doea not neeassarily reflect any
position of the Society ef Petroleum Engineers, ite oficera, or members. Papera presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication raview by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petrolaum Engineers. Electronic raprodu~ion, di$fibutlom or $t0ra9e ‘Jf anY Part of this PaPer
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Is
prohibited. Permission to repreduca in print is restricted to an abatract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknovdedgmant of where and by vhom the paper v.’ae presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75063-3836, U. S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
An in-depth analysis was conducted for over forty foam
applications in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects, and
numerous production well treatment operations involving the use
of foam in cyclic steam operations and in gas miscible floods, to
derive insights on screening and design aspects in such
applications. Foam can be used to solve conformance problems
caused by either a thief zone or gravity overrid$ The proper
identification of the cause, as well as of the production well(s)
affected is basic to the definition of the problem. Either
blockingkliverting foams or in-depth mobility control foams can
be placed through the injection wells. On the other hand, foam
treatment in production wells is done mainly to mitigate an
override problem. The most important factors in foam assisted
EOR projects were determined to be: (a) manner of foam
placement in the reservoir (injection of pre-formed fo~ co-
injection foam and SAG or surfactant alternating gas foam), (b)
reservoir pressure and c) permeability. While pre-formed foam
are effective mainly in the treatment of the production wells,
the co-injection foam and SAG can be employed for solving
specific sweep efficiency problems in EOR projects. It is
concluded that for designing a steam-foam project (which is
577
m
. . .
Society of Petroleum Engineers
essentially a low pressure foam application) a foam quality in
the range 45% to 80’% should be considered. In this kind of
application% a co-injection foam is to be employed and the
additives (surfactant and non-condensable gas) are to be injected
intermittently (on and o~, superimposed on a continuous steam
injection. Injection cycles as short as 7 days (2 days-on and 5
days-oil) should be considered. Under suitable conditions, an
oil rate increase of 1.5 to 5 times, a decrease in water cut by 20
0/0, and an incremental oil recovery of 60/0-12°/000IP can be
achieved with such an implementation. At high pressure, such as
in gas miscible flooding (COZ and hydrocarbon gas ), foam
application can result in excessive mobility reduction factors,
and infectivity reduction. Due to this reaso~ alternate injection
of stiactant solution and gas (SAG foam) is favoured over a co-
injection mode of placement. Recommendations for laboratory
tests in support of a proper design of the field pilot are presented.
Introduction
The first review of field applications of EOR foams was
published in 19891, and it was not until 1994-1995 that more
advanced EOR foam reviews2’3’4appeared in the public domain.
Building on the previous review, more than 40 foam field tests
are analyzed here. Unlike the previous reviews, our focus was
on the reservoir engineering aspects of foam applicatio~ mainly
on the mode of foam placement as a fimction of the problem to
be solved. Other differences from the previous reviews include:
For the various field tests presented, all available details are
tabulated to enable an easy analysis of the data.
- A reservoir engineering analysis is conducted for the basic
recove~ process on which foam injection was superimposed, in
order to establish “a-posteriori”, the nature of problem to be
2 A. T. TURTA AND A.K. SINGHAL
solved.
- Interpretation of the results of field foam application is based
on the results of ve~ recent laboratory foam tests on long
distance foam propagation.
In this paper only the key conclusions are presented, and details
can be made available upon request.
Characterization of the EOR Foams and of the
Problems to be Solved by them.
a) Problems solved by EOR Foams. In a gas-based (steam,
COZ,N2 or hydrocarbon gases) injection process the following
conformance/channelling/gravity override problems can be
solved by foams:
- Injectant overriding problem (OP).
- Thief zone in the upper part of the pay zonq Uppermost
located Thief Zone (UTZ).
- Not Uppermost located Thief Zone (Not-UTZ).
In all three cases, an unfavorable mobility ratio between the
displacing agent and the oil, and density contrast aggravate the
problem, or influence the nature of the problem. Under these
conditions, lateral channeling can also occur, caused by areal
heterogeneity in horizontal permeability.
b) Classes of Foams. Three classes of foam are used in EOR
- In-depth mobility control foam (MCF),
- Blocking/diverting foam - BDF (also known as
injection profile improvement foams), and
- Gas Oil Ratio (GOR ) control foam.
The foam can be placed around an injection well or a
production well. The mode of foam placement would depend
upon the nature of problem, the well around which foam is
placed and characterization of the foam as discussed here.
C) Injection Modes. In the field, the manner of placement of
foam has been more diverse in comparison to that in the
laboratory. The manner of injection is closely associated with
the way by which the foam is generated, to the extent that the
terms ‘foam generation’ and ‘foam injection mode’ are
interchangeable.
There are three types of foam generation
- Pre-formed foam, generated outside porous medium, before
entering the pay zone. Foam can be generated as follows:
- At the surfiace,using a foam generator,
578
SPE 48895
- During the downward flow through the tubing, and
- In the perforations, just before entering into the formation
(perforations generated foam - PGF). When using PGF, two
strings of tubing are needed otie for gas injection and the second
for stiactant solution injection.
- Co-injection foam, formed in-situ in the fist entrance segment
of porous medium (near the injector) during co-injection of
surfactant solution and gas. During co-injectio~ the surfactant
itself can be injected continually or along with the gas and water
(semi-continuous injection).
- SAG foam, generated by alternate injection of surfactant
solution and gas. During SAG injectio~ the foam is generated
in the reservoir while gas is displacing the stiactant solution
(during drainage of the surfactant solution by gas). For this
reason it is also called “drainage foam”. Drainage foam is
generated not only in the entrance segment of the porous
medium but rather everywhere in the surfactant invaded zone,
contacted by gas under flowing conditions, so long as some
minimum threshold amounts of the three factors (surfactant, gas
and motion) are exceeded.
Laborato~ investigations conducted by Huh and Handys
showed for the fist time that there are considerable differences
between pre-formed foam and co-injection foam on one hand,
and drainage foam on the other hand. While pre-formed and co-
injection foams, under certain conditions can completely block
the porous medium, the drainage foam never does. Also, for the
same foam quality, the mobility reduction factor (MN?) for
drainage foam is lower than that for the other foams.
There is a difference even between pre-formed foam and the
co-injection foam (formed in situ). The pre-formed foam
develops a high MRF soon after entry into the porous mediums>’.
On the other hand, the in-situ formed foam has a smaller MEWin
the entrance segment, which then acts as a foam generator.
d) Implementation. Most applications of foam in steam drive
projects involved co-injection foams, either continuously or
semi-continuously. Applications of foam in gas miscible
flooding projects can be of any of the types described above,
with numerous projects using the SAG injection mode. It is
worth pointing out that pre-formed foams have been successfully
used for short term production well treatments.
While GOR control foams are used for the treatment of
production wells in order to temporarily block the preferential
gas paths, the other two types of foam are used in injection wells.
SPE 48895 FIELD FOAM APPLICATIONS IN EOR PROJECTS: SCREENING AND DESIGN ASPECTS
The distinction between the MCF and BDI! is to some extent
arbitrary. It usually underlines the fact that BDF is used in small
volumes and this is related to the absence of crossflow and/or the
small swept volume, no matter how this zone was formed (by
overriding or due to a thief zone). On the other hand, in the
MCF application it is required that not only all the swept volume
be filled with foam, but also that within the swept zone, the foam
propagate all the way from the injector to the producer without
decaying (retaining its integrity as a foam). Therefore, the
conditions for application of MCF are extremely demanding. In
simplified terms, the MCF is used for solving an override
problem, while the BDF is used for UTZ and Not-UTZ
problems, in the absence of crossflow. If crossflow between
layers is present, either the MCF or the BDF can be used, but the
application is considerably more diflicuh in the case of MCF.
More details on selection of a specific mode of foam
placement to solve these problems are given in Table 1. As
mentioned earlier, for foam to form in-siw adequate supply of
gas and surfactant is required along with some degree of
agitatio~ which can be provided by shear associated with two
phase flow within pores. If one of these is missing or
inadequate, foam will not form. Similarly, for foam to be
sustained in-sire either a continual shear and a replenishment of
the surfactant solution/gas, or a long half life of the foam (“stiff
foam”) is required. Similarly, for propagating the foam over
long distances, its infectivity needs to be maintained and the
MRF needs to be low to moderate. Therefore, for a successfid
foam application%one has to determine:
a) The kind of problem to be solved, and which of the
injection wells are causing the problem.
b) Whether foam is the right solution.
c) If the foam should be applied at a production or an injection
well.
d) When the foam is to be applied at a specific injection well
for an override problem, the critical factors in its selection
will be sustained infectivity and long distance propagation
whereby a low to moderate MRF will be needed. For a UTZ
or Not UTZ problem around the injection well, these will
not be critical.
e) When the foam is to be applied at a specific production
well, there may be inadequate agitatiordshear in the target
region and little chance of stiactant replenishment, unless a
batch foam treatment is planned. Therefore, a long half life
will be critical. Sustained foam injectivity and long distance
579
3 ~
propagation will be less important in this case.
f) Based upon considerations summarised in Table 1, the
desirable attributes of the foam and its mode of placement
can be selected. Table 2 provides some recommendations
regarding different modes of foam placement.
g) Specific selection of surfactant must be based on laboratory
tests conducted under representative conditions of the
prototype.
For different EOR methods (ste~ COZ, Nz or hydrocarbon
gases), different modes of foam placements can be use~
depending upon whether the treatment is at an injection or a
production well. The key considerations in the selection of the
placement mode are: shear and continuos replenishment of
surfactant, infectivity constraints on continuous or alternate
injection, requirement for long distance propagation, and
whether the objective is shutting off the thief zone or mitigating
an override problem.
It will be shown later on that foam applications were generally
more successful when the mode of foam placement was selected
following this type of rationale, when the “offending well” and
the nature of problems were correctly identified, and when
surfactants were selected by laborato~ tests based on
representative conditions of foam placement in the field.
Laboratory Long Distance Foam Propagation
Investigation
There are apprehensions about the ability of foam to propagate
over long distances in porous medi% and unfortunately the field
tests do not contribute to the clarification of this issue; this is due
either to the inherent difficulties in the interpretation of the field
tests, or to the very demanding instrumentations required.
Laborato~ tests of long distance foam propagation may
contribute to the clarification of some of the foam infectivity
problems observed in the field.
The way a foam propagates within a porous medium is
extremely impotiant for the understanding of mechanism of
foam generation and flow. The change of pressure gradient or
mobility of foam in different sections of the porous medium is
more critical in understanding this mechanism . Not many
investigations on long distance foam propagation seem to have
been carried out. Perhaps this kind of tests are very complex
and time consuming.
The only investigation of the pre-formed foam flow in a long,
oil flee core, was conducted recently’. A high permeability (1.1
4 A. T. TURTA AND A.K. SINGHAL
mD), 1.8 m length Berea sandstone was used for the tests
conducted at 7 MPa. The pressure drop was measured along 6
sections of the core. After measuring the reference pressure
drop during the irjection of a gas-water mixture, a 95’%ofoam
quality was injected and pressure drops across each section were
recorded. The surilactant was Chaser GR-1080, at ‘a
concentration of 0.5 wt’%o. All tests were conducted at an
interstitial velocity of 4rn/day. Pseudo-steady state conditions
were not attained even after an injection of 9 PV of foam.
Moreover, a strong pressure build up occurred in the fist two
sections near the inlet of the core, while the pressure gradients
did not increase at all in the downstream sections. IraniG
reported the same phenomenon in some of his slim tube tests,
while using a foam of high quality (> 88%) at a pressure of 22.4
MPa. He attributed this pressure build-up in the Iirst one or two
sections to the probable generation of an excessive number of
foam Iamellae. This phenomenon may occur while injecting a
foam with at high quality but the reasons are not clear at this
time. It is important to mention that the tracking of foam flont
advance along the long tube was extremely difficult and was
practically impossible in both cases. Actually, it was very hard
to define a foam front.
An investigation of a C02 co-injection foam propagation in a 5
sectio~ 50 cm unconsolidated sand core of very high
permeability (15-3 1 D) was conducted at 3MPa using a foam
quality of 40% by Tortopidis and Shallcross8. The variation of
the pressure drop during propagation of co-injection foam is
shown in Figure 1. As is eviden$ the pressure drop in the fist
section is always smaller than those in all other sections. It was
concluded that the tirst section of core actually serves as an in-
situ foam generatoq in the first section the foam is less stable,
and pressure drop can be considered as a good measure for the
stability of the foam. This conclusion was confirmed by Chou’s
investigationsgwith low permeability cores (150-350 mD) and a
higher foam quality (80%). IrI both investigations 8’9it was
found that all other conditions being the same more foam
injection was required before the generation began for a weak
foam compared to the case of a strong foam. The tracking of the
foam front advauce along the core was easy. Behind the foam
front, the mobility of foam is reduced everywhere except in the
most upstream sectio% where the mobility is reduced to a
smaller extent. Apparendy, in the most upstream section the
foam “was behaving as a shear thinning fluid” which is very
advantageous for sustaining infectivity.
580
SPE 48895
An investigation of the drainage foam (SAG foam)
propagation was conducted by Raza10 in the early 1970’s and
more recently by Choug. Chou carried out a comparative
investigation of co-injection and SAG foams at a pressure of 14
MPa. He concluded that for foam propagation deep inside a
porous medium, drainage foam should be preferred to the co-
injection foam, although both foams are generated in-situ. A
similar conclusion about the superiority of SAG foam was
reached by Wangll when comparing it to the pre-formed foam.
On the other hand, as in the case of the co-injection foam, for
the drainage foam the pressure gradient in the first section is
smaller than in the other sections, which is favorable from the
point of view of infectivity. This conclusion was also confirmed
by Irani’s investigations. For the case of the oil free-cores, the
increase of pressure drop fi-om the inlet towards the foam
displacement front is obvious. This conclusion is also valid
when the residual oil is present in the core, with the difference
that the pressure drop in the most upstream section decreases
continuously after the foam ffont has passed through it. It can be
speculated that the difference may be due to the collapse of foam
in the presence of the residual oil.
Review of Field Foam Pilots
A total of 42 field foam tests are reviewed here. This review
covers four gases employed as the dispersed gas phase in foam
field pilots: steam, COZ, N2, and hydrocarbon gases (HG).
Steam and NZ were used in steam-foam applications, and COZ
and HG in gas miscible processes.
Foam applications in injection wells (pattern applications) as
well as in production wells are discussed. An “offending well”
is defined as a production well which experiences a pre-mature
breakthrough of the injectant. This usually means that there is
channeling of the injectant towards that production well, either
due to a thief zone or due to override of the injectant. For a
dipping oil formatio% under a pattern exploitation gas (or
steam) override could imply: a) injectant is channeling through
the upper part of the layer, and b) injectant is traveling faster
towards the producers located in the updip positions of the pay
zone.
Low Pressure Foam Application: Steam Drive. Out of 19
projects, 14 were in the Midway Sunset and Kern River fields in
where the reservoirs are shallow, and have a
California12-lG,
SP”E 48895 FIELD FOAM APPLICATIONS IN EOR PROJECTS:
good porosity and permeability. Oil viscosity is between 1000
and 4000 mPa.s. Surfactant was injected along with a low
pressure (0.7-3.5 MPa) steam hjection to solve overriding
problems. Individual steam injection patterns had areas in the
range 0.5-4 ha, and at the time of foam injectiow the steam drive
MS quite mature, having been in progress for 5 to 10 years. Oil
recovery at the start of foam injection was in the range of 300/0to
60’%000D?. The most commonly employed surfactants were
Chaser SD and Suntech. injected at concentrations in the range
of 0.1‘%0
to 0.5Y0.No surfactant pad was injected before the
foam injection.
Steam quality (surface conditions) before and during foam
injection was in the range of 40 to 80°/0. The relatively low
quality of the foam seemed to be advantageous. This is
confmned by two projects, Mecca and Bishop12,where, due to
the use of a very dry foam (over 90%) mediocre results were
obtained the major incremental oil response came very late,
after two years of foam injection for small patterns with areas of
only 1.2 to 1.4 h% the ratio of incremental oil/kg surfactant had a
very low value (0.04-0.05 m3/Kg), compared to those of all other
tests. For this case of very dty foam, the authors presented data
indicating a very slow propagation within the reservoir. For a
certain reservoir volume, say, close to the iqjection well, at least
10 pore volumes of foam have to be injected before the
surfactant solution saturation reaches about 30’%0(residual
saturation), and the water becomes mobile and flows out of that
volume, thus propagating fi.nther into the reservoir. The very
slow propagation of the foam front - due to excessive dryness of
the foam - was a very serious liitation in these two projects.
According to the findings of Kovscek et al.13,regardless of what
the injected foam quality is, writer and gas saturations in the
foam invaded zone of the porous medium adjust themselves at
values of around 30% and 70Y0,respectively.
An in-depth analysis of the results of all 19 steam-foam floods
showed that the most important factor for the success of these
projects was the foam injection mode. By far, the best results
(in terms of incremental oil/kg surfactant utilized) were obtained
in three projects*5’*G
(South Behidge , Midway Sunset, Section
15 and Midway Sunset, Section 26), where an on-and-off
injection of surfactant was superimposed on a continuous
kjection of steam, and small injection cycles were utilised.
The surfactant injection cycle length was one day for the South
Belridge project(12 hours on and 12 hours o~ and 7 days for
Midway Sunset, Section 15 and Section 26. A simiku
581
SCREENING AND DESIGN ASPECTS 5
conclusion was also reached in 1989 by Eson and Cookel while
reviewing various steam drive projects. They advocated an on-
and-off injection of surfactant just for the sake of economy.
However, even fi-om a mechanistic point of view, this injection
mode is also preferable. Although the life of foam may not be
very long, the adsorption-desorption mechanisms may still
contribute to achieving a good residual mobility reduction factor.
The residual mobility reduction factor was very good, as the
injection pressure stayed high, long after the injection of steam
additives was discontinued.
In several projects the authors claimed that an improvement of
areal sweep efficiency had also occurred, as demonstrated by
increases in the number of production wells responding
positively to the foam injection (in terms of bottom hole
temperature increase and/or incremental oil obtained).
Incremental oil recovery was calculated for 12 most successful
projects, and was in the range of 4,000-20,000 m3. Usually, the
oil rate increased 1.5-5 times, while the water cut decreased by
20%, for example from 80% to 60Y0. In Midway Sunset Section
15A and Moreni, Romania’]’, increased oil rate was seen for 1.5
to 2 years following foam injection.
In three projects - Mecca, Bishop and Dome Tumbadorlb’ls-
the pilots were confined, as they consisted of four inverted five
spot patterns enclosing a “confined” patterq centred around the
central producer. The incremental oil recovery (due to foam
injection) for those patterns was reliably determined as being in
the range of 6%-12%.
For the co-injection foam employed in the steam-foam
projects, although relatively high surfactant concentrations were
used, no blocking of the injection wells was noticed. This can be
explained to some extent by the high temperature, but mainly by
the low pressure environment generally, the low pressure foam
is not associated with high mobility reduction factors.
High Pressure Foam Application in Gas FIooding. In this
catego~ of tests only high pressure tests are presented for C02
miscible flooding and hydrocarbon miscible flooding, whereas
both low and high pressure foam applications are analyzed for
immiscible gas flooding.
Immiscible Gas Floodings. The low pressure ah-foam
injection Siggins Field Air-Water hjection’9 is probably, the first
foam field test in an EOR process. Foam was applied in a very
old oil field where many wells were never cemented. From this
low pressure test (3MPa), using a 90% foam quality, it was
6 A. T. TURTA AND A.K. SINGHAL
concluded that both for SAG injection and pre-formed foam
when water was injected following foam placement, there was
no mobility reduction for water.
Jn the Wilmington Block V Immiscible COZ Injectionzo the
foam was applied in a tertiary mode in a COZWAG process. It
was a classic immiscible COZprocess; the viscosity of oil was
13.5 rnPa.s. The problem was a thief zone at the top of the pay
zone; out of the three layers, the uppermost one was the most
permeable. An excellent improvement in the injection profile
was recorde~ before application of foam, 98% of the injected
fluid entered the uppermost layer; after foam placement only 57-
70% of the injectant continued to enter that interval. The test
conclusively proved that there was no mobility reduction for the
water injection following foam placement.
The application of foam in the Painter Field was carried out in
a Nz Injection for condensate recove&l. This foam test was
carried out at the highest reservoir pressure ever recorded in a
foam application (31 MPa) and it showed that a pre-formed 60%
quality foam was able to travel all the way down the wellbore -
3000 m-up to the pefiorations.
C02 Mticible Flooding. Out of 12 projects, six were located
in Texas. These reservoirs have very low permeability (between
2mD and 20 niD). Foam was applied to solve either an override
or a thief zone problem. The injection patterns covered areas in
the range 8-64 ha/pattern. At the time of foam injectiou the
secondary COZWAG processes were quite mature, having been
in operation for 6 to 12 years. Oil recovery at the start of foam
injection was estimated to be higher than 400/0- 500/000IP. In
all tests, excepting one pilot, the surfactant employed was CD-
128 (and CD-1045) at concentrations in the range of 0.2’% to
0.5%. In some tests a surfactant pad was injected before the
foam injection.
Foam quality at surface conditions was 20%-80Y0, with the
majority of the tests using an 800/0foam. The most important
factor for the success of these projects was the mode of foam
injection. Both co-injection foam and SAG foam were used.
Better results were obtained where an on-and-off injection of
surfactant was superimposed on a continuous water-gas injection
(like in the steam operations), or a small injection cycle SAG
procedure (fast or very fast SAG), was utilised. In time, for the
most successfid projects, the surfactant injection cycle length
was reduced to 2-15 days.
Mobil conducted five foam tests in two reservoirs: McEhno
Creek, Utah and East Mallet Unit, Texas22. The three McEhno
582
SPE 48895
Creek pilots were conducted in a highly stratified reservoir (19
layers and permeability in the range of 0.01-1000 mD). Both
SAG and co-injection were tried in this typical thief zone
problem. The reduction of GOR was two-folds. The main
problem was excessive infectivity reductio% mainly during co-
injection. It was noticed that the residual mobility reduction for
C02 injection was significantly larger in SAG applications than
in co-injection mode. In co-injection operations, the injection
pressure fell off more rapidly when surfactant injection was
stopped and only C02 injection was continued. Following co-
injection of gas and surfactant, after an injection of 70,000 bbl of
C02, the infectivity returned to the pre-foam value.
Corresponding value for restoring infectivity following a SAG
mode injection was 82,000 bbl of COZ.
The East Mallet pilotsz were conducted in a very low
permeability reservoir (5 mD), which at the time of COZ
injection had already produced over 40’Mo
of the 00IP. Again,
both SAG and co-injection modes were tested. Co-injection was
found to be difficult, as the infectivity decreased excessively.
The use of SAG cycles as short as operationally possible was
advocated for the first time during this projec~2.
The East Vacuum Grayburg-San Andres Unit (EVGSAU)
pi10~3-2G
is the second most successfid foam field test to date.
This pilot was based on an extensive amount of laboratory work,
and it was by fiu the best instrumented field pilot. The project
life of four years constitutes the longest period of a foam field
test so far. The offending well was located very close to the
injection well, and this encouraged a premature gas break-
through. A spectacular oil rate increase due to foam injection
was very obvious, at least for the fist two months. A unique
featore of this pilot is the fact that 85’%0
of the total sw+actantwas
injected in the adsorption slug and only 15°/0 was injected
during a fast SAG process.
The main results of the EVGSAU test are:
- The infectivity reductiow translated to a 25% increase of the
injection pressure, for the same rate of fluid (reservoir
conditions) tijected.
. 12% of the total injected fluid was diverted from the thief zone
to other zones.
For the offending well, a two-fold decrease of GOK
simultaneously with a two-fold increase in oil rate were
recorded.
- M improvement of areal sweep efficiency resulted, as the
incremental oil was produced both as a result of COZdiversion
 SPE 48895 FIELD FOAM APPLICATIONS IN EOR PROJECTS:
vertically (for the offending well) and areally, because three
more producers of the pattern have recorded incremental oil; oil
rate increase by 10 to 20 times occurred in two more pattern
producers.
The most successful foam application (North Ward Estes27)
involved the use of a small pattern (8ha) containing a very
heterogeneous sand (breakthrough of gas occurred after one
month of injection). The suri%actantused had good selective
mobility reduction and residual mobility reduction factors. A
very fast SAG process was implemented (2-day cycle: one day
of COZ injection and one day of surfactant solution injection),
followed by long periods of C02 injection. The quality of foam
was in the range of 50-80’%0.The injection pressure was strictly
monitored, and the fracturing pressure was never exceeded. For
the offending well, the GOR decreased 9-folds, while oil
production increased 15 times. A decrease in water cut was also
experienced. The C02 utilization ratio (C02 injectecUncremental
oil produced) decreased substantially, by a factor of three.
In the Joffre Vig Pilot?s foam was applied for solving an
override problem, in a reservoir operated in a C02-WAG mode,
where C02 contacted the upper third of the pay zone. No
apparent channeling was reported and no offending production
well was identified. This foam application was selected as a
post-tertia-y process, like a last resort for a pattern which was
nearing the end of its economic life, after 3 years of COZ WAG
followed by two years of water injectiow when the incremental
oil recovery due to the C02 flood was around 18°/0,for a total
recovery of 60’Yo.Given the large size of pattern (128 ha) and
the large value of incremental oil recovery due to C02 flood, a
large gas swept zone was created, so that the amount of
surfactant injected (11 tonnes) was probably too small.
Consequently, in spite of a good (normal) infectivity reductio~
no GOR reduction was recorded, and the oil rate increase was
insignificant. It is assumed that the oil displaced from the
unswept zone was pushed into the large swept zone, and it was
never produced.
Hydrocarbon Miwible Flooding. In the Pembina Ostracod
“G” PO0129test, the foam was generated by co-injection using
two different tubings since the prevention of hydrates formation
was a concern. Two small slugs of surfactant solution were
injected with gas in two batches. During the co-injectio% the
injection pressure increased considerably. Each time, upon
stopping foam injection and resuming gas injectiow the injection
pressure returned to the pre-foam injection value within a few
583
SCREENING AND DESIGN ASPECTS 7
days. Oil rate increased fkom 25 m3 to 33 m3, for a period of 3
months. Given the very small amounts of stiactant used (800
kg) the result, in terms of reduction of GOR and increase of oil
rate can be considered a success.
In the ‘Kaybob South Triassic A Pool, Unit 130 foam
applicatio~ a very concentrated stiactant solutions (2-5’%o)was
used in a SAG mode for an extremely large pattern (128 ha).
Good baseline data for gas-water injection was available. This
created the possibility of a rigorous comparison with surfactant
solution-gas infectivity data. The test convincingly showed that
for the SAG procedure, the faster the SAG, the better are the
results. Specifically, for the same amount of surfactant utilized,
switching from a cycle of 2 weeks (13 day- gas kjection and one
&y stiactant solution injection ) to two cycles of one
weeldcycle led to a reduction in infectivity by a factor of 4 (as
compared to only two times for a two week cycle). Ig the
sequence of injection (surfactant solution-gas-water), small slugs
of methanol were interspersed in order to prevent the formation
of hydrates. There were some positive results, but a longer
ptiormance period was neceswuy in order to determine the
efficacy of this foam application.
Foam Application in Production Wells
The foam treatment of the production wells has been applied
both in gas miscible flooding and in cyclic steam injection.
Override problems are encountered in both processes, with gas
coning in gas miscible flooding and steam (heat) override in
cyclic steam injection. Significant difficulties in evaluation of
the treatments exist in both cases.
Foam treatment in gas coning problems is a stand-alone
procedure, while foam application in cyclic steam means an
improvement to an existing stimulation procedure and as such, it
is more difficult to evaluate. The effectiveness of both
procedures are assessed based on incremental oil produced per
treatment, but for foam treatment in gas coning situations, the
reduction of GOR is an equally important target.
Cyclic Steam Injection Although it is claimed that foam has
been successfidly used in over 5,000 cyclic steam operations,
the pilots using foams have not been very well documented in
the literature, and very few convincing conclusions can be
drawn.
The published data concern only the application of foam in
thick formations (over 40 m). A cursory analysis of 21 cyclic
8 A. T. TURTA AND A.K. SINGHAL
steam-foam operations in California31 was conducted for the
tests carried out in the Midway Sunset I?iel@The stictant was
injected as small slugs of aqueous solution. An improvement in
steam injection profile was noticed. Out of 21 operations, the
evaluation was possible only for four operations.
From an analysis of 16 cases in Venezuela32’33it appeared that
two mechanisms might be responsible for the additional oil
recovery a) Diversion of steam (and heat) in non-invaded
arezty and b) Change of relative permeability curves due to the
surfactant injection (iicrease of relative permeability to water).
The incremental oil production over the classic cyclic steam
injection (without foam) was 24°/0. The surfactant was used in
concentration of 0.5-1Yo. Based on the altered steam injection
protiles, a parameter - steam diversion factor - was introduced32
to measure the efficiency of foam treatments. A dwect
comparison of continuous and semi-continuous additives
(surfactant and nitrogen) injection showed that the on-off
injection mode was superio~ a better steam diversion factor was
obtained for this kind of injection. For a total of 16 operations,
the average ratio of incremental oilkmrfactant (used) was 0.04 m3
kg.
Gas Coning Problems. All treatments were conducted at high
pressure conditions (17-38 MPa).
The following foam treatments tests were reviewed a) Prudhoe
Bay pilots34’35;b) Husky Oil pilots3c,c) Oseberg pilot ’37;d) UK
North Sea pilot38and e) Snorre Field Pilo?gd.
From the foregoing review of foam application in production
wells it was clearly seen that a pre-formed foam performed better
than the SAG foam. This is probably related to the segregation
of gas-surfactant solution in porous medium. It was also seen
that the SAG procedure can be successful only in the case of
high permeability formations, whereas a very fast SAG
procedure can be applied, using high surfactant solution
injection rates.
The idea of placing a surfactant solution pad and generation of
foam while backflowing the well, was tested in many cases. It
was hoped that the gas approaching the well would generate the
foam while immiscible displacing the surfactant solution.
However, the operations were totally ineffective.
The review also reveaIed that when backflowing the treated
wells, concentrations of stiactant close to the injection
concentrations seemed to indicate a failure of operation.
584
SPE 48895 I
Adapting Laboratory Testing Approaches to the Field
Needs.
Foam is a very comple~ two-phase composite fluid whose flow-
in-porous-medium mechanisms are not very well understood,
although a large vohune of research work has been devoted to
this goal.
An important aspect to be elucidated is the increase of mobility
reduction factor (MRF) of the foam with an increase in pressure,
In bulk foam tests, several investigations indicated that an
increased pressure stabilizes foam41.However, in porous media
the effect of pressure on foam strength has not yet been
investigated thoroughly.
The mechanism of MRF increase with increasing pressure was
studied by Sanchez and Schechter42 who suggested that this
trend was expected based on behaviour of foam in capillaries a
higher pressure increases the number of snap-off sites generating
a higher number of lamellae. Essentially, they proved both
theoretically and experimentally (using capillaries) that for the
same ‘foam quality and stiactant concentration, the relative
permeability to gas decreases with an increase in absolute
pressure. Also, they demonstrated that for the same foam quality
and pressure, the same tendency is also caused by increase in
surfactant concentration% a statement which is commonly
accepted among the specialists. These conclusions were
validated by Holt et a141. For their oil-tlee co-injection foam
floods, they found a clear increase of differential pressure with
increasing system pressure (Figure 2). They attributed this
behaviour to the reduced critical surfactant solution saturation
due to the reduced interracial tension with an increase of
pressure. According to the same authors, the reduction of
interracial tension stems both from an increase of adsorption of
surfactant on the gas-liquid interface, and a reduced density
difference between gas and liquid.
AIthough additional experimental work is necessary, it can be
provisionally concluded that for higher pressures, lower
surfactant concentrations are needed to obtain the same mobility
reduction factor. From this point of view, pressure is a positive
factor as it will reduce the surfactant requirement for attaining a
given value of MRF. Therefore, the effect of pressure on foam
behaviour can be beneficially exploited. Actually, in their high
pressure foam investigations, Sanchez and Schechter42obtained
good resistance factors even for foams having a surfactant
concentration of 0.0025°/o-0.001O/O.These conclusions seem to
be applicable to all foams (pre-formed, co-injection and drainage
 SPE 48895 FIELD FOAM APPLICATIONS IN EOR PROJECTS:
foams), although the ranges of concentrations maybe difkrent.
Given the wide-spread application and good results of on-and-
off surfactant co-iqjection foam and fiist SAG foam, new
laboratory tests should be conceived expressly for these
implementations. As a starting point for SAG fozq a better
laboratory testing could compare the variation of pressure drop
for the injection of a gas into a surfactant solution saturated
porous medium, to that obtained while injecting gas in the same
porous medium, saturated with water. The resistance factor for
the SAG case is usually smaller than for the co-injection case. A
comparison between pressure drop during SAG injection and co-
injection modes showed that the pressure drop during
surfactant/C02 co-injection is 2-10 times higher than for C02
following surfactant solution injection2G’43
mode). Additionally,
for the COZ SAG mode the pressure drop is continuously
decreasing. Therefore, when SAG mode is used in the field,
smaller values are to be employed in the design of the field
process.
Optimization of Foam Application in EOR Projects
From this review three main conclusions stand out, namely
- Foam should be used not as a stand-alone EOR process, but
only to improve an EOR process where a real problem exists
(either a thief zone problem or an override problem). The
offending well, associated with that problems, should be clearly
identified. There is no point of applying foam when offending
wells can not be identified or they do not exist. The better the
definition of the problem, the better are the prospects for the
optimization of the foam application. Arranged in the order of
increasing difficulty (from the “easiest to solve” to the “more
difficult to solve”) the EOR processes amenable to “foam fixes”
can be listed as follows: steam driv~, production wells treatment
for gas conning control; in-situ combustion COZ miscible
flooding hydrocarbon miscible flooding and cyclic steam
injection. Actually, for this ordering, the guiding factor was not
only the clear definition of the problem, but also the consistency
of the results from the fieldtests.
- In the design of a foam for a particular application the
reservoir pressure is an important parameter since higher the
pressure, a probable lower surfactant concentration is necessary
to achieve a given value of mobility reduction factor. Actually,
in making a choice between SAG, co-injection and pre-formed
fo~ the reservoir pressure, and the permeability of the rock,
should be carefidly considered. - A very flexible approach of
585
SCREENING AND DESIGN ASPECTS 9
foam injection should be adopted foam should not be injected
on a regular basis but only whenever necessary. This means that
the total designed amount of surfactant should be adjusted as
necessary, as far as the amount and timing are concerned.
Next, proposals for optimization are presented separately for the
case the foam is placed in injection wells, and for foam as a
treatment in production wells.
Injection Welk. For application in a steam drive, a continuous
injection of surfactant superimposed on a continuous injection of
steam is not recommended. only an on-and-off injection of
surfactant, applied on a continuous injection of steam should be
applied. For this injection mode, the exploration of the smallest
practical injection cycles is worthwhile. At the beginning of
application one can adopt a pre-determined cycle duration
coupled with a Iater installation of timers to automatictdly start
the surfactant injection when the injection pressure decreases to
a pre-determined value. This seems to offer an efficient way of
making the process more economical. The same statements are
valid for SAG injection mode, both for C02 injection and
hydrocarbon miscible, with the difference that on-and-off
injection refers to the solution surfactant rather than surfactant.
In optimizing foam applications for different EOR processes it
should be kept in mind that a good foam must result in an
increase in iqjection pressure. The onset of increase of injection
pressure may be observed afier several days of injectio~
depending on presence or absence of a stiactant pad, surfactant
concentratio~ foam quality, etc. On the other hand, the response
in terms of incremental oil due to foam injection may not be
apparent for 3 to 4 weeks, and it can last for months.
For the gas miscible flooding, the foam application strategy
may be fiuther optimized by reducing the surfactant
concentration by pressurizing the reservoir. In this respeci the
laboratory work could start at the lowest surfactant concentration
at which foam still exists; this is very important especially for the
cases when co-injection or pre-formed foams are to be used.
At this stage of knowledge, for the gas miscible flooding, it is
recommended to apply the foam in the best possible reservoir
situations. One of these is that of a thief zone located at the
upper part of an oil formation.
Production Wells. Gas coning may occur due to either a gas
cap, or an overriding miscible gas front. The problem is usually
well defined (override problem). It is recommended to use a
 10 A. T. TURTA AND A.K. SINGHAL
pre-formed foq with a relative high surfactant concentration
(0.5%-2Yo). SAG (in its variant of very fmt SAG) can be
considered only for high permeability formations. In both cases
(pre-forrned foam and SAG), it is recommended to end the
operation with the injection of a slug of very dry pre-formed
foam in an attempt to buildup a high resistance factor (pressure
gradient) before returning the well into production.
Conclusions
1. EOR foam can be applied to solve a problem during an
existing EOR process. The definition of the problem to be fixed
(a thief zone or an override problem) includes the identification
of the offending wells. Also, categorizing the kind of foam to be
applied - near well bore blockingkliverting foams or in-depth
mobility control foam - is important.
2. Three categories of EOR foams were used in the field: pre-
formed foam, co-injection foam and SAG foam. The SAG foam
is generated by injecting surfactant solution alternatively with
gas, and is generated while gas displaces surfactant solution.
3. Laboratory tests on long distance foam propagation showed
that the main difference between pre-formed foam and other
categories of foam is the behavior offoam in thefh-st sections of
the porous medium; compared to the average resistance factors
(along the core), the pre-formed foam develops higher resistance
factors, while the co-injection and SAG foams develop lower
resistance factors. A pre-formed foam of very high quality may
even totally block the porous medium. SAG foam has an overall
smaller resistance factor than those of other two foamy
However, it can never lead to a complete blockage of the porous
medium.
4. In the low pressure steam-foam projects foam was applied in
high permeability, shallow formations, to solve an override
problem. In most cases, foam was applied in very mature
projects using small patterns. Application of very dry foams was
seen to lead to economic ftilures. The most successful
application of foams was when the steam quality was in the
range 45°/0-800/0 and the additives (surfactant and non-
condensable gas) were injected in an “on” and “oft” mode,
superimposed on a continuous steam injection.
5. In the most successful steam-foam drive project a small
amount of surilactant w used for solving a clearly defined
problem. Very short injection cycles (7 days) were employed.
Steam injection pressure increased 1.5 to 4 times, and this
increase persisted for periods longer than one month following
586
SPE 48895 I
the shut-in of intermittent foam injection. Foam had a high
residual mobility factor for steam injection following steam-
foam.
6. In case of foam treatment of production wells with gas or
solvent coning, the best implementation consisted of injecting a
pre-formed foam. An alternate implementation%(injection of a
surflactantsolution slug followed by backtlow of the weli), has
not produced any positive results, as foaming with the free gas in
the formation does not take place.
7. The application of foam in gas miscible floods involves a
high pressure application in relatively low or very low
permeability formations, and it is associated with high values of
mobility reduction factor. The most serious problem was the
excessive infectivity reductioq which sometimes led to
fracturing of formation. Due to the same reasom the SAG
injection has been favoured over co-injection. For the SAG
implementations, both in C02, and hydrocarbon or other gases,
smaller the duration of the injection cycle, the better are the
results.
8. For COZmiscible flooding, the most successful foam test to
date was conducted in a small well pattern containing a very
heterogeneous sand. The surfactant had a good selective
mobility reduction and residual mobility reduction factor (for
COZ following foam), and a very fmt SAG process was
implemented. For this field test, at the offending well, the GOR
decreased by a factor of 9, while oil production increased by 15
times.
9. There were only three reported cases of foam application in
hydrocarbon miscible floods. The co-injection was found to
cause a considerable increase in injection pressure. When foam
was injected in a SAG mode, smaller the injection cycle, higher
infectivity reduction was noticed, without the risk of a total
blockage of the formation. More knowledge is required on foam
interaction with the recovery process, before the technique can
be reliably applied in the field.
10. In making a choice between different modes of foam
placements (SAG, co-injection and pre-formed foam) four
factors are very importan~ reservoir pressure, permeability, pay
thickness and expected duration of surfactant injection. For low
pressure and high permeability, the co-injection foam is effective
at normal surfactant concentrations, and it can be considered for
long term injection. For the high pressure and permeability,
probably the co-injection foam can be effective even at low
surfactant concentrations, providing that it is not considered for
 SPE 48895 FIELD FOAM APPLICATIONS IN EOR PROJECTS: SCREENING AND DESIGN ASPECTS
very long term injection. For low pressure and permeability,
either the co-injection at low surfactant concentrations, or SAG
at normal surfactant concentrations can be considered for
medium term injection. For high pressure and low permeability,
SAG at medium or even low surfactant concentrations can be
considered.
11. Evaluation of foam field pilot results in light of recent
laboratory results indicates that: a) A better definition of the
problem to be solved by foam, aided by improved diagnostic
techniques is necess~, b) There is an important gap between
the way the foam efficiency is perceived in laboratory testing
and in field applications. This leads to difficulties in
interpretation of field tests. Specific laboratory tests should be
performed, depending on the problem, category of foam and the
injection mode chosen. For instance, foaming surfactants for use
in a SAG injection should not be qualified by co-injection foam
(or pre-formed foam) core flooding tests; c) After choosing the
best foam and injection mode, an investigation of the pressure on
foam behaviour should be undertaken. More precisely, this
investigation should be done with an intent to reduce the
surfactant concentration, exploiting the positive effect of
pressure on mobility reduction factors; and d) - An in-depth
investigation of the “on-and-off” implementation of co-injection
foam, is worthwhile, in the light of the very good results seen
fi-omfield tests. An optimization study could lead to substantial
improvements in the economics of EOR foam application.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Brij Maini, Fred Wassmuh Vijay
Shrivastava and Karin Manhardt of PRI for their contributions,
made while reviewing the report on this subject. Also we are
gratefid to Fred Newbold of Amoco Exploration and Production
Technology in Houston who graciously shared his experience
with us.
The “Forum on EOR Foams” held at PRI on November 15th,
1995 was very usefld in clari@ng some subtle aspects of EOR
foam applications.
References
1. Eson, R.L. and Cooke, R.W. : “A ComprehensiveAnalysis of
Steam Foam Diverters and Application Methods” SPE 10785,
CalKoruiaRegionalMeeting,Bakersfield,April5-7,1989.
2. Hanssen,J.E., Castanier,L.M., Surgucev,L.M. and Dalland R.F. “
Field Experiences with Foam Processes, A Critical
Review” 16 th IEA Collaborative Project on Enhanced Oil Recovery
587
11
Workshop and Symposiuq Tokio, Japan, October 15-18,1995.
3. Hanssen, J.E., HOILT. and Surgncev, L.M. “ Foam Processes: An
Assessment of Their Potential in North Sea Reservoirs Based on a
Critical Evaluation of Current Field Experience” Preprint, SPEIDOE
Ninth Symposium on Improved Oil Recove~, Tuls~ Ok April 17-20,
paper 27768 (1994).
4. Hanssen, J.E., Surgucev, L.M., Svorstol, I. and Blaker, T. “SAGA
Irjection A New Combination IOR Process for Stratified Reservoirs”.
Seventh European IOR SymposiwqOctober 27-29, 1993, Moscow,
Russia.
5. Huh, D.G. and Handy, L.L.: “Comparison of Steady and Unsteady -
State Flow of Gas and Foaming Solution in Porous Media”. In SPE
Reservoir Engineering, February 1989.
6. hani, C. A. and Solomon, C.: “Slim Tube Investigations of COz-
Foams” SPE/DOE 14962.Fifth Symposium on EO~ Tnk+ OK., 20-23
April 1986.
7. Wassmuth, F., Schratmq L.L., Mannhardt, K. and Hodgins, L.: “
Scale up Evaluation of Mobility Control Foams” Petroleum Recovery
Institute, May 1996, Report 1996/1997-1.
8. Tortopidis, S. and Shallcross, D.C. :’!Carbon Dioxide Foam Flood
Studies Under Australian Reservoir Conditions” SPE 28811 Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australi~ 7-10 November
1994.
9 Chou, S.1.: “Conditions for Generating Foam in Porous Media” SPE
22628. The 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
Petroleum Engjneers, Dallas, Tx., October 6-9, 1991.
10 ~ S.H. “Foam in Porous Media Characteristics and Potential
Applications” In Sot. of Petr. Eng. Volume 10, No. 4, December 1970.
11 Wang, G.C. : “A Laboratory Study of COZ Foam Properties and
Displacement Mechanism” Fourth Symposium on EOR, Tuk.& OK.,
15-18 April 1984.
12, Patzec, T.W. and Koinis, M.T. : “Kern River Steam-Foam Pilots”
Journ. Petr. Techn. April 1990.
13. Kovscelq A.R. and Radke, C.J.: Chapter “Fundrnnentals of Foam
Transport in Porous Media” in Foams: Fundamentals and A~~lications
in the Petroleum Industrv, Schramm, L.L., editor. American Chemical
Society, Washington, D.C., 1994.
14. Friedmann, F.F., Smith, M.E., Guice, W.R., Gurnp,J~, and
NelsonJl,G,: “ Steam-Foam Mechanistic Field Trial in the Midway-
Sunset Field” SPE Reservoir Engineering, November 1994.
15. Ploeg, J.F. and Duerksen, J.H.: “Two successfid SteadFoam Field
Tests, Sections 15A and 26C, Midway-Sunset Field” SPE 13609
presented at California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, C% March 27-
29, 1985.
16. Djabbarsh, N.F., Weber, S.L. and Freeman, D.C.: “Laboratory
Design and Field Demonstration of Steam Diversion with Foam” SPE
20067 presented at California Regional Meeting, Ventur~ April 4-6,
1990.
17. Elliot, C.S., Aldea, C.H., Calarasu, D., Teisanu, F.L., Jiboteanu, M.
 12 A. T. TURTA AND A.K. SINGHAL
and Gutu, G.: “Field Trial Results Obtained with a Foam Block During
A Steam Drive Experiment in the Romanian Levantin&Moreni
Reservoir” 6th European IOR Symposium, Stavanger, Norway, May
21-23,1991.
18. Mohammadi, S.S., Van Slike, D.C. and Ganong, B.L.: “Steam-
Foam Pilot Project in Dome-Tumbador, Midway-Sunset Field” SPE
Reservoir Engineering, February 1989.
19. HolnL L.W. “Foam Injection Test in the Siggins Field, Illinois.
Journ.. Petrol. Technol. 22 (12) 1499-1506 (1970).
20. HohrL L.W. and Garrison, W.H. “C02 Diversion With Foam in an
Immiscible C02 Field Project. SPE Reservoir
Engineering 3 (1) 112-118 (1988).
21. Kuehne, D.L., Ehman, D.I. and Emanuel, A.S. “Design and
Evahration of a Nitrogen-Foam Field Trial.” Preprint,
SPE/.DOE EOR Symposiurnj Tuk~ Ok, April 17-20, SPE/DOE paper
17381 (1988).
22. Hoefner, M.L., Evans, E.M., Buckles, J.J. and Jones, T.A. “COz
Fomrx Results From Four Developmental Field Trials” Preprint,
SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsz Olq
A@ 17-20, SPE/DOE paper 27768 (1994).
23. Martin, F.D., Heller, J.P., Weiss, W.W., Jyung-Syung Tsau,
Zomes, D.R., Sugg, L.A. and Stevens, J.E.’’COFoamam FieId
Verification Pdot Test at EVGSAU Injection Project Phase l:Project
Planning and Initial Results” Preprint, SPE/DOE Eighth Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tuls~ Ok, April 22-24, SPE/DOE paper
24176 (1992).
24. Jyung-Syung Tsau and Heller, J.P. “COz-Foam Field Verification
Pilot Test at EVGSAU: Phase llIA - Surfactant Performance
Characterization and Quality Assurance” SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium
on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsaj April 17-201994, paper 27785.
25. Stevens, J.E. and Martin, F.D. “C02-Foam Field Verification Pilot
Test at EVGSAU Phase MB - Project Operations and Performance
Review” Preprint, 9th Symp. On Improved Oil Recovery, Tukaj OIG
April 17-20, SPEJDOE paper 27786 (1994).
26. Harpole, K.J. and Gerard, M.G. “COz-Foam Field Verification
Pilot Test at EVGSAU Phase llIC Reservoir Characterization and
Response to Foam Injection” Preprint, SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on
Improved 011 Recovery, Tukaj Okj April 17-20, SPE/DOE paper
27798 (1994).
27. Chouj S.1., Vasecekj S.L., Pisio, D.L., Jasekj D.E. and Goodgame,
J.A.’’CO2Foam Field Trial at North-Estes” DOWNIPER Symposium
on Field Application of Foams for Oil Production, Bakersfield, Ca.,
Febnuuy 11-12,1993.
28. Stephenson, D.j., GrahanL A. G. and Luhning, R.W. “Mobility
Control Experience in the Joflie Viking Miscible Carbon Dioxide
Flood” Paper presented at the 6th European IOR- Symposium,
Stavanger, Norway, May 21-23, 1991.
29. Chadj J., Matsall% P and Novosad, J.J. “Foam Forming surfactants
in Pembina/Ostracod ‘G’Pool” Preprint, CIM 88-39-40, presented at the
588
SPE 48895
39th Annual TechnicalMeeting of CIM, Calgary,June12-16,1988.
30. Liu, P.C. and Besserer, G.J. “Application of Foam Irjection in
Triassic Pool, Canada Laboratory and Field Tests Results”
Preprint, 63rd Ann. Tech. Conf SPE, Houston, Oct. 2-5., SPE paper
18080 (1988).
31. Fitch, J.P. and Minter, R.B.: “Chemical Diversion of Heat WiIl
Improve Thermal Oil Recovery” 51 st Annual Fall Technical
Coniierence and Exhibition of the SPE, New Orleans, Lnisiana, October
3-6,1976.
32. Ziritt, J.L., Rivas, O. and Bresolin, G.: “Design aud Evahration of
Pilot Tests of Steam Soak with Additives in Venezuelan Heavy Oil
Reservoirs” Fourth UNITAIUUNDP Conference on Heavy Oil and
Tar Sands, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, August 1988.
33. Robain~ R.M., Maraven,S.A. and Ziritt, J.L. : “ Evaluation of a
Surfactanti Steam-Soak Pilot Test in the Bolivar Coast, Venezuela”
Preprint, SPE/DOE EOR Symposiuq Tuk+ Ok April 17-20,
SPWDOE paper 17386 (1988).
34. Krause, R. E., Lane, R.H. aud Kuehne, D.L. “ Foam Treatment of
Producing Wells To Increase Oil Production at Prudhoe Bay” Preprint,
SPE/DOE EOR Symposium, Tuk++ Ok, April 22-24, SPE/DOE paper
24191 (1992).
35. Williamson, A. S., Gondouin, M.: “The Planning of a Large-Scale
Miscible Flood at Prudhoe Bay” In Journ. of Petr. Techn. October,
1986.
36. Wong, F., Fong, D, McIntyre, F. and Kuehne, D.L. “Design and
Field Trial Application of Foam in Production Wells to Improve
Conformance” Joum. of Canad. Petr. Techn. February 1997.
37. Aama, M.G., Skauge, A., Sognesand, S. and Stenhaug, M. “A Foam
Pilot Test Aimed at Reducing Gas Inflow in a Production Well at the
Oseberg Field”. Second International Workshop on Reservoir
Application of Foarq March 1-3, 1995, Roros, Norway.
38. Buckles, J., Aitken, A. “Foam Testing at the Beryl Field, Past and
Future”. Second International Workshop on Reservoir Application of
Foaq March 1-3, 1995, Roros, Norway.
39. Rudshaug, T.: “Field application of Foam Technology for
Improved Recovery in Snorre Field”. Presented at International Energy
Agency Collaborative Project on EOR. 17th International Workshop
and Symposium, Sidney, Australia, September 30- October 2, 1996.
40. Svorstoel, I, Bhdcer, T., Holt, T. and Vasssenden, F. : “Foam Pilot
Evaluations for the Snorre Field. Part k Project Planning and
Laboratory Results. Eighth European IOR Symposium May 15-17,
1995, VkmmLAustria.
41.Holt, T., Vassended, F. and Svorstol, I.: “Effects of Pressure on
Foam Stabili~, Implications for Foam Screening”. Tenth Symposium
on Improved Oil Recove~, TuIs& OK, April 21-22, 1996.
42. %nchezj M.J. and Schechter, R.S. : “Snrfactant Effects on the
Two-Phase Flow of Steam-Water and Nitrogen - Water Through
Permeable Media” Journ. Petr. Sci. and Eng., 3,1989, pp 185-199.
43. Prieditis, J. and Paulq G.S.:’’C02 Foam mobility Tests at
SPE 48895 FIELD FOAM APPLICATIONS IN EOR PROJECTS: SCREENING AND DESIGN ASPECTS 13

Resemoir Conditions in San Andres Cores” SPE/DOE 24178, EOR

Symposiuq Tuls~ Ok, April 22-24,1992.

589
 Table 1. Attributes of foam for different problems to be solved by foam injection
INJECTION WELS PRODUCTION WELLS I
Problems @ UTZ Non UTZ Override UTZ Non UTZ Override
Attributes of Foam
u
Adequate agitation YES YEs YIN NO NO NO
Easy surfactant YEs YEs Y-ES NO NO NO
replenishment
Long half life Not Not kllp Not bllp Imp. Imp. Imp.
Imp.
High MRF * * ** hp. Imp. Imp.
Continued foam * * Imp. * * *
injectivit y
Long distance * * Imp. * * *
propagation

Legend:
UTZ = Upper Thief Zone
Imp. = Important; * = Not critical; ** = Low to moderate mobility reduction factor

Table 2. Selection of mode foam placement for different EOR Processes

EOR Method @ HCMF/COz HCMF/COZ Cyclic Steam Steam

Attributes of foam injection production Steam Flood Flood
u well well Stimulation injection productio
n well n well
Shear and replenishment of J d
surfactant
Infectivity constraints
during co-injection (low
MRF)
Infectivity constraints .
during SAG
Requirement for long 4
distance propagation of
foam (low MRF,)
Requirement for short J
distance propagation of
foam (shut-off of thief zones
(High MRF, long half life)
Preferred mode of SAG with Pre-formed co- SAG or Pre-formed
placement low MRF foam* iujection co- foam
injection

Legend:
MR.F = Mobility Reduction Factor
SAG = $urfactant Alternating with Gas
HCMF = Hydrocarbon Gas Miscible Displacement
* = Pre-formed foam must have high MRF(> 10-20) and long half life (> 1-2 months).

590
 ~

\
\
\
\
\

-1

I
I
u .El
. tntl
‘ii
i+

“,

L-’%P 1 -1
I

591