This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]

On: 19 November 2014, At: 06:10

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Petroleum Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpet20

Characteristics Analysis of Cold Foam

and Hot Foam During Steam Flooding in
Heavy Oil Reservoirs
a a a
C. Lu , H. Liu & Z. Pang
a
MOE Key Laboratory for Petroleum Engineering of the Ministry of
Education, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China
Published online: 24 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: C. Lu, H. Liu & Z. Pang (2014) Characteristics Analysis of Cold Foam and Hot
Foam During Steam Flooding in Heavy Oil Reservoirs, Petroleum Science and Technology, 32:19,
2321-2328, DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2013.812114

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2013.812114

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Petroleum Science and Technology, 32:2321–2328, 2014
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-6466 print / 1532-2459 online
DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2013.812114

Characteristics Analysis of Cold Foam and Hot Foam During

Steam Flooding in Heavy Oil Reservoirs

C. Lu,1 H. Liu,1 and Z. Pang1

Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 06:10 19 November 2014

1
MOE Key Laboratory for Petroleum Engineering of the Ministry of Education, China University
of Petroleum, Beijing, China

Hot foam with steam following in the process of foam injection and cold foam without steam following
are investigated. Through static and dynamic evaluation experiments, foaming agents are screened and
the effects of factors on foam blocking capacity are studied. Then the blockage and displacement
experiments of cold and hot foam are conducted. The results show that cold foam has larger blocking
strength and is preferred to start up low permeability contrast layers. Hot foam is recommended to use in
higher ones and due to the temperature sensitivity of heavy oil, the oil production of hot foam is larger
than that of cold foam, whatever continuation or slug injection.
Keywords: blockage and displacement comparison, cold foam and hot foam, heavy oil, multipermeability
contrast, steam flooding

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to large distinction between steam and heavy oil in viscosity and density, steam channeling
in the process of steam flooding will severely increase the heterogeneity of reservoir and decrease
steam thermal efficiency.
In recent years, the function of nitrogen foam to enhance heavy oil recovery has been investigated
extensively. It can decrease the mobility of gas and steam, block high permeable parts, reduce the
residual oil saturation, and improve displacement efficiency (Isam and Farouq, 1988; Kam et al.,
2007; Li et al., 2008). However, nitrogen foam is a thermodynamic instability system. For steam
flooding process, high temperature leads to the decomposition of surfactant, the increase of diffusion
of gas through foam films and accelerating destruction of lamella (Ziegler, 1988; Farajzadeh et al.,
2008). Although some kinds of high temperature foaming agents occur, there still exists a gap
between its tolerance temperature and injected steam temperature.
Hence, under current limited ability of foaming surfactant, there comes an irreconcilable contra-
diction. On one hand, owing to the sensitivity and reversibility of heavy oil to the temperature, it
is significant to increase steam quality and temperature to enhance the thermal effect of steam in a
pursuit of high fluidity of oil. Under this condition, hot foam is preferred. On the other hand, it is not
expected that foam stability is under too much impact of high temperature. Under such condition,
cold foam is recommended. So it is extremely significant to determine foam injection model to assist
steam flooding in heavy oil reservoirs.

Address correspondence to C. Lu, MOE Key Laboratory for Petroleum Engineering of the Ministry of Education, China
University of Petroleum, Beijing, China. E-mail: luchuan2106@163.com

2321
 2322 C. LU ET AL.

In this article, the comparison of blockage and displacement efficiency of cold foam and hot foam
was fully investigated by means of experimental methods.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Quantification of Static and Dynamic Performance of Foaming Agents

In order to evaluate the properties of bulk-foam stability, foaming volume (Vmax ), half-life (Th ), and
Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 06:10 19 November 2014

foam comprehensive evaluation index (FCEI) were used (Lu, 2013). FCEI can consider the effects
of Vmax and Th simultaneously.
In order to evaluate the blocking performance of foaming agents under the influence of high
temperature steam, the resistance factor (Rf ) is defined as follows:

Pf
Rf = (1)
Psgw

Where psgw is the basic pressure drop and pf is the work pressure drop.

2.2 Blockage and Displacement Evaluation of Cold Foam and Hot Foam

In order to evaluate the blocking performance of cold foam and hot foam, a series of experiments
based on multipermeability contrast sand tubes are conducted. Continuous cold foam or hot foam
injection after steam flooding is firstly performed. After that, experiments aiming to evaluate the
function of cold foam slug injection or hot foam slug injection followed by steam flooding are
conducted.

3. EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE

3.1 Apparatus

The dynamic evaluation experiments of foam blocking characteristics are conducted in a series of
single sand tubes that are 60 cm long with 3.8 cm inner diameter. The evaluation experiments of
foam blockage and displacement are conducted in five parallel sand tubes. Each tube is 30 cm long
with 3.8 cm inner diameter.

3.2 Static Evaluation Experiments of Foaming Agent

The Waring blender method is used to determine Vmax and Th (Duan et al., 2004). In order to test
foaming agents under different high temperature, 100 mL of foaming agent solution with 0.5 wt%
was put into a high-temperature and high-pressure reactor. For the sake of evaluating the tolerance of
foaming agent to high temperature, it was placed into a sampler with 250◦ C for different durations of
time. Then the foaming agent was taken out to normal temperature for following static evaluations.
 ANALYSIS OF COLD FOAM AND HOT FOAM 2323

TABLE 1
Static Characteristics of Foaming Agents Under Different High Temperatures

Temperature 150◦ C Temperature 180◦ C Temperature 200◦ C

Foaming Agent Vmax /Th FCEI Vmax /Th FCEI Vmax /Th FCEI

3# 150/24 0.866 60/14 0.202 40/8 0.077

4# 140/20 0.673 70/12 0.202 30/6 0.043

3.3 Dynamic Evaluation Experiments of Foaming Agent

Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 06:10 19 November 2014

In order to obtain psgw , formation water, steam, and N2 flew past the sand tube simultaneously.
Then foaming agent solution, steam, and N2 flew past the sand tube to obtain pf . Then based on
Eq. (1), Rf was received. When the evaluation experiment of one influencing factor was finished, the
sand tube was refilled with glass bead for next experiments to evaluate other factors. All experiments
were conducted at 200◦ C.

3.4 Multiparallel-tube Experiments of Cold Foam and Hot Foam

The blockage and displacement experiments conducted in five parallel sand tubes are used to evaluate
the adaptability of cold and hot foam continuous injection and slug injection in heterogeneous layers.
For cold foam continuous injection, the sand tubes were firstly displaced by steam until the high-
permeability sand tube reached high water cut level (fw = 0.90). Then N2 and foaming agent was
injected with 4 and 2 mL/min. The cold foam flooding would not stop until the water cut of high-
permeability tube reached 0.98. For the hot foam injection, the injection rate of steam, foaming
agent solution and N2 was 1.5, 0.5, and 4 mL/min, respectively.
For slug injection experiments, cold and hot foam was injected when high-permeability sand tube
reaches high water cut and the injection pressure fallen back to 200 kPa, and then, after 0.15 PV
foam slug injection, steam flooding continued.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Static Evaluation of Foaming Agent

Based on FCEI under normal temperature, #3 and #4 foaming agents are first selected. Table 1 shows
the static characteristics of these two foaming agents under different high temperature. The result
shows #3 foaming agent has better comprehensive quality than #4 foaming agent. The following
high temperature duration experiment also proves #3 foaming agent is better. So #3 foaming agent
is selected for the following experiments.

4.2 Dynamic Evaluation of Foaming Agent

4.2.1 Effect of Surfactant Concentration on Resistance Factor

The effect of different surfactant concentration in the range of 0.2∼2.5 wt% is studied without
the influence of oil. From the experiment results it can be obtained that 0.5 wt%, is the turning
 2324 C. LU ET AL.

1400

1200 Cold foam

Hot foam
1000
Pressure(kPa)

800

600

400
Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 06:10 19 November 2014

200

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
PV

FIGURE 1 Displacement pressure curves of cold foam and hot foam.

point for foam resistance factor becoming stable. This indicates that the CMC still exists under high
temperature and it is almost the same value we measured under normal temperature.

4.2.2 Effect of Gas Liquid Ratio on Resistance Factor

The effect of the gas liquid ratio of 1/4, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, and 4/1 on resistance factor is investigated.
The results illustrate that with the increase of the gas liquid ratio, the foam resistance factor increases
firstly and then steps into stable stage. Summarizing previous experiments results (Thompson and
Gdanski, 1993; Wang, 2012), it indicates that there exists low critical gas liquid ratio (L-CGLR) and
high critical gas liquid ratio (H-CGLR). Below L-CGLR, the foam quality is too low to form enough
bubbles to block porous channel. So with the increase of gas liquid ratio, the blocking capacity
strengthens. However, if the gas liquid ratio exceeds H-CGLR, the larger flow velocity of gas makes
the lamellae thinner and destroys foam stability. The foam blocking ability can keep at a high level
when gas liquid ratio is between L-CGLR and H-CGLR.

4.2.3 Effect of Oil Saturation on Resistance Factor

The existing oil can reduce foam lifetime by reducing surfactant concentration at the gas/water
interface and decreasing apparent foam viscosity. Generally, the blocking ability of foam seems to
vanish when the resistance factor is below 4 (Lu et al., 2003). It can be obtained from the experiment
results that when oil saturation exceeds 20%, the resistance factor is below 4 and the blocking ability
almost disappears.

4.3 Foam Blockage and Displacement Experiments

4.3.1 Pressure Difference of Continuous Cold Foam and Hot Foam Injection

Figures 1 and 2 show the pressure response along with foam injection PV and the startup pressure
needed for each sand tube when cold foam and hot foam injected.
 ANALYSIS OF COLD FOAM AND HOT FOAM 2325

800 800

700 700

Starting pressure /kPa

Starting pressure /kPa
600 600
foam effect
500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200
Hot foam
Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 06:10 19 November 2014

100 Cold foam 100

0 0
0 5 10 15
Permeabiltiy ratio

FIGURE 2 The startup pressure needed for sand tubes with different permeabilty contrast for cold foam and hot
foam injection (without No. 8 sand tube).

No. 8 sand tube (k = 8019 mD) and No. 7 sand tube (k = 4013 mD) start up in the steam flooding
process, indicating the pure steam flooding is effective enough for high permeability tubes with
permeabilty contrast below 2. Then the steam-channeling path being formed in No. 8 and No. 7
tubes results in the inlet pressure dropping drasticly and other three tubes with higher permeability
contrast having hardly any production. When the water cut of No. 8 sand tube reaches 0.90, cold
foam is injected. It becoms evident from Figure 2 that the needed startup pressure of sand tubes
with permeabilty contrast between 4.00 and 12.28 increases linearly along with the increase of
permeability grade. This indicates the steam-channeling path in high permeability tubes are getting
plugged and cold foam shows obvious superposition charateristic. For hot foam, the tubes with
permeability grade below 10.4 need higher blocking pressures and the startup pressure of tubes of
which contrast between 4.00 and 12.28 increases in function of power. Although the final stable
pressure of hot foam is 580 kPa, which is lower than that of cold foam, it may be beneficial for the
sand tubes with higher permeability grade.

4.3.2 Blockage and Displacement Characteristics of Continuous Cold and Hot Foam

For cold foam injection, the tubes with high permeability contrast react much faster and the highest
permeability tube needs more time to reach high water cut again after foam injection. While for hot
foam injection, the displacement efficiency of high permeability contrast tubes do not increase as fast
as cold foam during the initial hot foam injection stage, and the startup of tubes with permeability
contrast between 4.00 and 8.49 is hysteretic than cold foam injection. This phenomenon confirms
the negative influence of high temperature on foam blockage stability.
In addition, the displacement efficiency of higher permeability tubes (No. 8 and No. 7 tube) for
hot foam has exceeded the value for cold foam after 3.68 PV of hot foam injection., and the recovery
difference in medium permeability tube (No.6 tube) is small (43.78% for cold foam and 41.14%
for hot foam). In summary, oil production per unit foaming agent of hot foam is 29.98%, which is
1.24% higher than that of cold foam. This fact shows that although high temperature steam weakens
the stability of foam, its effect on the enhancement of oil fluidity is obvious and beneficial.
 2326 C. LU ET AL.

1400
Cold foam
1200
Injection pressure(kPa) Hot foam
1000

800

600
Hot foam
400
Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 06:10 19 November 2014

200
Cold foam
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
PV

FIGURE 3 Injection pressure curves of cold foam and hot foam.

4.3.3 Blockage and Displacement Characteristics of Cold and Hot Foam Slug

Figure 3 compares the measured injection pressures versus 0.15 PV of cold foam slug and hot
foam slug injection experiments. At the very beginning of foam injection, liquid expansion with the
influence of high temperature steam in sand tube makes the hot foam build up a higher pressure.
However, the increase of hot foam injection does not lead to the inlet pressure enlarging remarkably,
and it is much easier to be destroyed so the plugging pressure quickly drops after a short-term rising
in the following steam flooding. For the cold foam, the highest plugging pressure is higher and the
blockage time is longer. After steam flooding continues, the blocking pressure continues to rise to
525 kPa and the inlet pressure does not drop until steam is injected 0.18 PV.
However, the enhanced oil recovery of hot foam is 14.49%, which still stays 0.98% higher than
that of cold foam. So some recognition might be summarized: if better blockage capacity is to be
acquired, cold foam is better; if higher oil recovery is wanted, hot foam may be preferred. Generally,
at the beginning of steam flooding with mild steam breakthrough, it is not recommended to inject
cold foam to pursuit for high foam stability and strong blockage effect. Nevertheless, due to serious
steam breakthrough in the medium and late stage of steam flooding, cold foam can be used to
effectively block steam-channeling path and water-channeling path.

5. SITE APPLICATION

XQ45 block in Henan Oilfield in China is a typical shallow-thin-layer heavy oil reservoir. In
September 2011, due to oil production declining and steam channeling within well group 4101 and
4502, hot foam injection was firstly performed to assist steam flooding and No. 3 foaming agent
selected in this study was used. In January 2012, the hot foam injection was conducted in all of
seven well groups. In May 2012, due to serious steam channeling within and among groups, cold
foam was performed.
It can be seen from Figure 4 that at the beginning of steam flooding, hot foam is effective enough
to temporarily block channels and improve oil production. While from the second cycle of hot foam
injection it can be seen that even injecting hot foam in all seven well groups, the tendency of water
cut declining and oil promoting is just like the first cycle. This indicates that the effect of hot foam
 ANALYSIS OF COLD FOAM AND HOT FOAM 2327

60 1.00
Hot foam Hot foam Cold foam
50 0.95

Oil production(t/d)
40 0.90

Water cut
30 0.85

20 0.80
oil production
Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 06:10 19 November 2014

10 rate 0.75
water cut

0 0.70
2011/5 2011/9 2011/12 2012/3 2012/6 2012/10
Time

FIGURE 4 Production curves of seven well groups.

is limited and steam channeling is becoming more serious. Under such condition, cold foam was
performed and the good result was clearly obtained. The water cut decreased from 0.96 to 0.85 and
the lasting time of foam effect was much longer. This application provides a guiding role to instruct
the application of cold foam and hot foam.

6. CONCLUSIONS

1. Under high temperature, the CMC is still the turning point for resistance factor becoming
stable. The foam blocking ability can keep at a high level when gas liquid ratio is between
L-CGLR and H-CGLR. When oil saturation exceeds 20%, the foam blocking ability almost
disappears.
2. Based on five-parallel sand tubes experiments, continuous cold foam has stronger blocking
ability and it is beneficial for the startup of layers with permeability ratio below 10.4. Due
to the extraordinary temperature sensitivity of heavy oil, the hot foam may be preferred to
restart layers with higher permeability ratio., and the produced oil per foaming agent when
hot foam injected is 1.24% higher than that of cold foam.
3. In the process of cold foam slug and hot foam slug injection experiments, liquid expansion
with the influence of high temperature steam leads to the sudden pressure rising when hot
foam is injected. Nevertheless, the cold foam can acquire higher blocking pressure and longer
blocking time. Under the same injection parameters, the enhanced oil production of hot foam
is still 0.98% higher than that of cold foam.
4. The application of hot foam and cold foam in Henan oilfield provides a guiding role in
selecting foam injection model to assist steam flooding in heavy oil reservoirs.

FUNDING

The authors acknowledge the financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 51274212) and National Science and Technology Major Projects of China (No. 2011ZX05009-
004-05).
 2328 C. LU ET AL.

REFERENCES

Duan, M., Hu, X. Q., Ren, D. M., and Guo, H. J. (2004). Studies on foam stability by the actions of hydrophobically modified
polyacrylamides. Colloid Polym. Sci. 282:1292–1296.
Farajzadeh, R., Krastev, R., and Zitha, P. L. J. (2008). Foam film permeability: theory and experiment. Adv. Colloid Interface
Sci. 137:27–44.
Islam, M. R., and Farouq, A. S. M. (1988). Numerical simulation of foam flow in porous media. SPE-88–39-04, SPE Annual
Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 12–16.
Kam, S. I., Frenier, W. W., Davies, S. N., and Rossen, W. R. (2007). Experimental study of high-temperature foam for acid
diversion. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 58:138–160.
Li, R. F., Yan, W., Liu, S. H., Hirasaki, G. J., and Miller, C. A. (2008). Foam mobility control for surfactant EOR. SPE-
Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 06:10 19 November 2014

113910-MS, SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 19–23.
Lu, C., Liu, H. Q., Lu, K. Q., Liu, C., and He, F. (2013). Flexibility study on nitrogen-foam flooding for shallow-thin heavy
oil reservoirs. Pet. Geol. Recovery Efficiency (China) 20:70–73.
Lu, G. Z., Liu, X. T., You, Q. D., and Luan, Z. A. (2003). Experiment on nitrogen hot-water foam flooding in laboratory. J.
Univ. Pet. (China) 27:50–53.
Thompson, K. E., and Gdanski, R. D. (1993). Laboratory study provides guidelines for diverting acid with foam. SPE Prod.
Facil. 8:285–290.
Wang, J., Liu, H. Q., Ning, Z. F., and Zhang, H. L. (2012). Experimental research and quantitative characterization of
nitrogen foam blocking characteristics. Energy Fuels. 26:5152–5163.
Ziegler, V. M. (1988). Laboratory investigation of high-temperature surfactant flooding. SPE Res. Eng. 3:586–596.