SPE-179806-MS

Impact of Oil on Steam Foam Formulations at 250°C

Amandine Cuenca, Emie Lacombe, Max Chabert, and Mikel Morvan, Solvay; Eric Delamaide, IFP Technologies
Inc.

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 21–23 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The most widespread thermal EOR method relies on steam injection. Steam is employed to warm up the
reservoir, increase oil mobility and in turn enhance heavy oil recovery. In steam injection processes,
recovery of oil is limited by steam channeling due to reservoir heterogeneities. Early breakthrough implies
large consumption of steam and incomplete reservoir drainage. A low cost viable option to minimize heat
loss consists in generating steam foam in situ. Foam will reduce steam mobility, increase its apparent
viscosity and reduce steam channeling. Foam should form and flow in reservoir swept regions containing
residual oil saturation. For a field application, where the residual oil saturation may vary from 0 to 30%
depending on the recovery method applied, any effect of the oil on foam stability becomes a crucial
matter. The scope of this work is to design an appropriate foaming surfactant solution in reservoir
representative conditions of 250°C. We study the impact of crude oil on its foaming properties.
Previous publications demonstrate that formulation viscosity as well as foamability and foam stability
are key parameters to optimize steam mobility reduction in model porous media. It is also well known that
measuring foam properties at 200°C in presence of heavy crude oil is an experimental challenge. Injecting
heavy oil in common equipment is often problematic, due to its high viscosity and low flowability. Our
methodology is based on the use of high pressure/high temperature set-ups, such as sapphire view cell to
measure foam stability, capillary rheometer to measure formulation viscosity and high temperature
sandpack experiments to measure gas mobility reduction in model porous media. We also present a new
high pressure/high temperature screening tool based on disposable containers to evaluate foaming
properties in presence of heavy crude oil.
We have shown in previous work that long chain surfactants present high foam forming ability at
200°C. We build on our knowledge to demonstrate foam existence at 250°C. This study highlights the
performance of new foaming formulations at this temperature. Our development effort has been concen-
trated on building a novel experimental setup and also providing data to evaluate the impact of heavy
crude oil on foaming performances. Based on our experimental results, we demonstrate that foam stability
in presence of crude oil can be improved by surfactant synergetic associations.
Overall, this work offers new insights to design efficient steam foaming formulations up to 250°C, in
particular in presence of heavy crude oil. This novel approach helps in developing more efficient steam
foam EOR solutions and in optimizing steam injection processes.
2 SPE-179806-MS

Introduction
Most thermal EOR methods are based on steam injection to mobilize heavy oil by decreasing its viscosity
with temperature rise. However, steam gravity override and channeling, accentuated by reservoir rock
heterogeneities cause high consumption of steam and incomplete drainage of oil. Foam is employed to
greatly reduce gas mobility and effectively counter the tendency of gas to channel and override the
reservoir due to unfavorable viscosity and density balance between gas and liquids in place. Foams have
high flow resistance; they preferentially invade areas of high permeability with low residual oil saturations
and consequently divert gas to lower permeability unswept areas. Usage of foam translates into better
sweep efficiency and improved oil production. Reviews of field tests attest the successful utilization of
foam (Hirazaki 1989) (Castanier and Brigham 1991) (Delamaide and Kalaydjian 1996).
Understanding the impact of oil on foam in the reservoir is a multi-scale issue. To address it, one should
appreciate the behavior of foam in porous media and in bulk from formation to destruction mechanisms
as well as the stabilization of gas bubbles in presence of oil droplets by adsorption of surfactant molecules
at multiple interfaces.
Foam at reservoir scale
A recurring concern with the application of foam as an EOR method is the stability of foam in contact with
crude oil. Most oils have defoaming properties. Defoaming effect depends strongly on oil saturation. In
immiscible gas flooding applications, foam is used as an oil displacing fluid and foam stability to oil is
essential. In steam processes, limited foam stability to oil is sufficient. Let us give the example of steam
assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). Foam is mainly employed to prevent heat losses. They originate from
steam channeling in thief zones and undesired heat transfer between steam and the overburden rock at the
top of the steam chamber. When foam acts as a diverting agent, foam is placed into swept zones of low
oil saturation and should remain stable. Oppositely, insulation properties of foam are unwanted at the edge
of steam chamber at oil contact to promote heat transfer between steam and heavy oil. As a result, steam
processes require intermediate foam stability to oil, i.e. foam should be stable in presence of low oil
saturation and unstable in presence of high oil saturation.
Influence of oil on foaming properties in porous media and in bulk
Literature review How does oil influence foaming properties in porous media and in bulk is a subject
of debate in the literature. Several phenomena are likely to influence foam stability in presence of oil: oil
type, oil saturation, surfactant solution (Nikolov et al. 1986) (Manlowe and Radke 1988) (Sagar and
Castanier 1997) (Mannhardt et al. 2000) (Vikingstad et al. 2005) (Farajzadeh et al. 2012) (Vincent-
Bonnieu et al. 2014) (Osei-Bonsu et al. 2015) (Chabert et al. 2013), rock wettability (Hutchinson et al.
1992).
Vikingstad et al. (Vikingstad et al. 2005) study the influence of oil type: different alkane oils and
different crude oils on bulk foam stability. High molecular weight oil (alkane ⬎ C12 and crude oil
containing 6 wt.% of asphaltene) induces more stable bulk foam than low molecular weight oil (crude oil
containing 80 wt.% of paraffin). Osei-Bonsu et al. (Osei-Bonsu et al. 2015) investigate bulk foam stability
in presence of hydrocarbon oil. C14-C19 hydrocarbon oil of high viscosity and density has less impact of
foam stability than C10-C12 oil. Farajzadeh et al. (Farajzadeh et al. 2012) underline the importance to
determine experimentally the limiting oil saturation for example in order to simulate foam displacement
with oil. Vincent-Bonnieu et al. (Vincent-Bonnieu et al. 2014) carry out coreflood experiments with and
without oil, and explain that pressure gradient build up due to foam formation is retarded in presence of
oil until oil saturation significantly dropped. A first phase of oil production takes place until oil saturation
is low enough to allow foam formation. Coreflood experiments suggest that oil becomes detrimental to
foam at oil saturations above 5% to 30% (Jensen and Friedmann 1987) (Hutchinson et al. 1992) (Schramm
1994) and obviously depend on oil type, surfactant type and even foam quality fg: dryer foam (fg ⬎ 95%)
SPE-179806-MS 3

has less tolerance to oil than wet foams (fg ⬍ 80%) (Mannhardt et al. 2000) (Vincent-Bonnieu et al. 2014).
Finally, in oil wet reservoir rock, foam propagation is conditioned by the ability of a surfactant solution
to stabilize an aqueous film on top of the oil film, which is commonly named pseudoemulsion film.
Otherwise, dewetting of the water film from the rock surface will provoke liquid lamella breakage and
foam rupture (Hutchinson et al. 1992) (Farajzadeh et al. 2012).
We now understand the complexity of foam/oil interactions. In a rationalisation effort, one shall
differentiate foam sensitivity to oil:
– Foam that is resistant to oil shows no interaction with oil. Film passes over oil without rupturing.
This is what is observed with fluorocarbon surfactant foams (Sagar and Castanier 1997).
– Foam that has moderate interactions with oil, when oil is emulsified in contact with foam. Foams
have the capacity to transport more oil by carrying emulsified droplets inside foam structure: in the
plateau borders and lamellae, with occasional lamella rupture.
– Finally, foam that is sensitive to oil and emulsifies oil into small droplets. Oil usually invades and
bridges liquid lamellae and cause frequent rupture.
Mechanisms of foam/oil interaction Among a number of mechanisms of foam/oil interaction suggested
in the literature, 3 main models have emerged. Foam destruction by oil involves the emulsification of oil
into small droplets and then penetration of the droplets at the aqueous solution/gas interface thereby
rupturing the foam lamella. The measurement of surface and interfacial tensions at equilibrium in
reservoir conditions can be employed to evaluate oil ability to destabilize foam by calculating entering
coefficient, spreading and bridging coefficient (Harkins and Feldman 1922) (Bergeron et al. 1993)
(Denkov et al. 2014) or lamellae number (Schramm and Novosad 1990), which reflect oil emulsification,
imbibition of oil droplet into lamella, entry of oil droplet into gas-liquid interface, spreading of oil on the
gas-liquid interface and the formation of unstable bridge across lamella. The third approach is pseudo-
emulsion film models (Nikolov et al. 1986) (Manlowe and Radke 1988) (Schramm 1990). Foam can only
be stable in presence of oil if there is an aqueous film remaining to separate oil and gas, called
pseudoemulsion film. Finally, some experimental observations on bulk foam stability in presence of oil
shows that in the case of stable pseudoemulsion films, oil droplets can accumulate in the plateau borders,
inhibiting drainage and producing more stable foam (Koczo et al. 1992).
However, the fundamental mechanisms of foam/oil interaction and their correlation with performances
in porous media remain difficult to understand as discussed in many studies (Mannhardt et al. 2000)
(Vincent-Bonnieu et al. 2014).
Foam at bubbles/droplet scale
At the bubble/droplet scale, surfactant molecules play a major role in foam stabilization. Surfactants
adsorb at oil/aqueous solution and gas/aqueous solution interfaces in a dynamic equilibrium with micelles.
Preferential adsorption onto water/oil interface can cause eventual destruction of pseudoemulsion films
and thus destruction of foam in presence of oil. To stabilize foam films, surfactant solutions should be
chosen as a function of physicochemical properties, such as surface and interfacial tensions, kinetic of
adsorption of surfactant molecules at interfaces as well as bulk and interfacial rheology. Thus, stable
foams can be generated in the presence of oil if an appropriate foaming agent, usually composed of several
surfactants is selected.
Paper aims and methodology
This paper describes an experimental approach to design efficient steam foaming formulations in
reservoir representative conditions up to 250°C and in presence of heavy oil. Foaming performances of
different surfactant formulations are evaluated at 200°C and 250°C with bulk foam stability tests in a high
pressure/high temperature set-up. Most performing formulations are then tested in a novel experimental
set up designed to screen bulk foam stability in presence of heavy oil. Finally, dynamic properties of
4 SPE-179806-MS

surfactant solutions are characterized: formulation viscosity using capillary rheometer is measured and
apparent viscosity of foam, as well as gas mobility reduction with sandpack experiments at 200°C are
quantified for each formulation. Taking into account the impact of heavy crude oil on foaming perfor-
mances, the results are discussed to determine the most promising formulation in a steam foam process.
Materials and methods
Formulation backbone for heavy crude oil recovery
In previous formulation work (Cuenca et al. 2015), long chain surfactants achieved good foaming
performances at 200°C. To further improve performances, only long chain surfactants have been
pre-selected among our internal product database and combined with new foam boosters. New surfactant
formulations arising from that selection have thus been evaluated.
Sample preparation Surfactant blends are solubilized in 5 g/L NaCl water at a constant total concen-
tration of 0.5 wt. % active. Formulations are stirred during 24h at 60°C and injected right after preparation
at this temperature.
Formulation names Optimized formulation F1 contains long hydrophobe chain sulfonates mixture. FB1
and FB2 a mixture of long hydrophobe chain sulfonates, supplemented with different new foam boosters
as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1—Formulation denomination and chemical structures

indications
Formulations Chemical structures

F1 Mixtures of long hydrophobe chain sulfonates

FB1 Formulation based on F1 ⫹ foam boosters
FB2 Formulation based on F1 ⫹ foam boosters

Crude oil characteristics The properties of the crude oil employed are listed in Table 2.

Table 2—Crude oil characteristics

Viscosity (mPa.s)
API gravity Density (kg/m3) at 50°C

Crude oil 9° 1.007 5000

As previously explained, a consistent set of experiments, including bulk foam stability tests, surfactant
solution viscosity and steam foam flood in sandpacks should be implemented to reflect accurately foam
behavior in a reservoir. Each setup is described in the next paragraphs for ease of reading, even if some
of them have already been presented in previous publications.
Viscosity measurement of formulations at 200°C
Formulation viscosity influences drainage destabilization process of a bulk foam. The higher the
viscosity is, the slower the drainage. Thus, formulation viscosity is an important parameter to measure to
be able to compare formulation efficiency in bulk foam stability as well as in foam flooding experiments.
Capillary rheometer at high pressure and high temperature Formulation viscosities are measured at
200°C and 50 bars by means of a capillary rheometer setup represented in Figure 1. At high pressure, a
liquid pump injects formulations at constant flow-rates into a capillary of known geometry. The latter is
placed in a furnace at desired temperature and pressure sensors are connected at the inlet and outlet to
SPE-179806-MS 5

calculate pressure drop. The outlet pressure is maintained above saturating vapour pressure at 50 bars by
a back-pressure regulator to prevent any evaporation. The apparent viscosity of formulations is determined
from the pressure drop versus flow rate relation in the capillary. Chosen injection flow rates of 0.5, 0.4,
0.3, 0.25, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 mL/min are slow enough to ensure good thermalisation of the formulation before
entering the capillary. The capillary of constant cross section: 125 ␮m in diameter and 60 cm long. Other
tubings have negligible hydrodynamic resistance as compared to the capillary one. See previous publi-
cations (Cuenca et al. 2015) for detailed calibration step and justification of chosen flow rates.

Figure 1—Schematic representation of the capillary rheometer experimental setup

The apparent viscosity in a cylindrical capillary is given by Poiseuille law:

with ␩ the apparent viscosity, ⌬P⫽P2-P1 the pressure drop, Q the flow rate, R the capillary radius and
L the capillary length. For a newtonien fluid, the relation between pressure drop and flow rate is linear
and gives the apparent viscosity of formulations.

Bulk foam stability tests in absence and in presence of oil at 200°C and 250°C
High pressure / high temperature view cell A high pressure/high temperature view cell allows the
study of foam performances in bulk tests. The cell of 10 mL volume is at first filled with formulation and
equilibrated at 200°C and 30 bars or 250°C and 50 bars. Foam is then generated by co-injection of
formulation and gas into a 7 ␮m pore diameter sinter. Formulation is injected at 1.6 mL/min and nitrogen
at 2.4 mL/min. Foam quality, defined as gas proportion in the foam volume is set at fg ⫽ 60%. Wet foam
of fine texture then enters at the bottom of the cell, passes through liquid formulation and accumulates at
the top of the cell, while equal volume of formulation exits the cell to work at constant pressure.
Experimentally, two liquid or gas pumps are employed to inject fluids. A back pressure regulator
allows pressure control of the complete set-up. For each temperature, the working pressure is chosen
above saturation vapor pressure to avoid boiling. Nitrogen is employed to prevent gas condensation
artefacts occurring with pure steam. The experimental setup is sketched in Figure 2. Sapphire windows
allow lightening and a CCD camera records foam pictures as a function of time to evaluate foam stability.
6 SPE-179806-MS

Figure 2—High pressure/high temperature (maximum 300 bars and 300°C) view cell for bulk foam stability

Sinter generated foams have fine texture, close to what should be observed in a porous media. The
pictures of foam destabilization allow the determination of foam height as a function of time, from which
we calculate the foam half life time. As soon as foam injection stops, initial time t0 is taken and the foam
half-life time t1/2 is defined as the time necessary to reach half of the initial height of the foam.
This experimental setup enables the ranking of formulations, but does not represent an absolute
quantitative measurement of the foam life in a porous media as previously explained.
High throughput screening setup at high pressure and temperature in presence of crude oil Bulk
foam stability test in presence of crude oil is an experimental challenge. Heavy crude which oil is highly
viscous, cannot easily flow in small inox tubing and sticks to the walls of visualisation cells. In these
conditions, experiments with crude oil would require several days of cleaning with classified organic
solvents. To suppress time consuming cleaning step, we concentrated our development effort to build a
new set-up using disposable glass vials. It can be used up to 200°C and 25 bars. A first reference
experiment is done without oil. The 10 mL vial is filled with surfactant solution and equilibrated at 200°C
and 25 bars. Foam is produced by co-injection of liquid and gas into a 7 ␮m pore diameter sinter.
Formulation is injected at 3.2 mL/min and nitrogen at 4.8 mL/min, so that foam quality, fg ⫽ 60%. Foam
enters the vial at the top by the flush tube, while liquid goes out at the bottom by the dip tube. Constant
pressure of the entire setup is ensured by the back pressure regulator, as illustrated in Figure 3. Foam
pictures are recorded using a CCD camera at fixed time intervals. From pictures analysis, the temporal
evolution of foam height is followed and the foam half life time measured.
SPE-179806-MS 7

Figure 3—Glass vial setup for high temperature (maximum 30 bars and 200°C) foam stability experiments in presence of crude oil

Similar experiment is then done in presence of crude oil with oil saturation in the vial of 5%.
Foam apparent viscosity or gas mobility reduction factor measurements at 200°C
The next stage in evaluating the potential of a particular formulation involves foam flow character-
ization in a one-dimensional sandpack. Sandpack experiments at 200°C and 50 bars are carried out to
evaluate the apparent viscosity of foam and the gas mobility reduction factor as a function of interstitial
velocity.
Sandpack setup at high temperature / high pressure The model porous media typically consists of a
metal cylinder packed with glass beads of diameter between 150 and 215 ␮m. The close packing of glass
beads is ensured by two stainless steel sinters placed in the fittings. Figure 4 represents the sandpack setup.
The cylinder is 12.5 cm long and 1 cm in diameter. The sandpack porosity is evaluated at 41% by weight
difference of the empty and filled cylinder. It results in a pore volume of 4.04 mL and the measured
permeability is 0.71 D as listed in Table 3.

Figure 4 —Schematic representation of the sandpack experimental setup

Table 3—Sandpack characteristics

Length L (cm) Diameter d (cm) Permeability k (D) Porosity Ø Pore Volume PV (mL)

12.5 1 0.71 0.41 4.04

Liquid and/or gas are injected in the sandpack with two high pressure pumps. The sandpack is placed
in an oven for temperature regulation at 200°C. Inlet and outlet pressures are measured with pressure
8 SPE-179806-MS

sensors. The outlet pressure is chosen to prevent boiling at 50 bars and fixed by a back-pressure regulator
equipped with a membrane. Membrane back pressure regulators are well suited to multiphase flows.
Water injection at 200°C-50 bars for porous media permeability measurement The first step
consists of porous media permeability measurement by water injection at different flow rates. The flow
of a single phase through a porous media can be described by Darcy⬙s equation:

with k the porous media permeability, L the length, ␩ the fluid viscosity and ⌬P, the pressure drop, Q
-4
total the total flow rate and A is the sandpack section. Water viscosity at 200°C and 50 bars is 1.34⫻10
Pa.s.
From the knowledge of flow rates imposed and the measured pressure drop, we can calculate the
permeability of the porous media.
Flow rates/interstitial velocity array explored and number of pore volume definition In a po-
rous media, fluids flow through pores and throats at interstitial velocity v interstitial, such that

Five interstitial velocities are chosen to reflect fluid velocities in the reservoir close to the wellbore and
far from the well. Common values are from 2 to 150 ft/day.
Thus, each interstitial velocity corresponds to a selected flow rate (Table 4).

Table 4 —Flow rates/interstitial velocity array

Total flow rate (cc/min) 1 0.5 0.318 0.212 0.519
Interstitial velocity (ft/day) 145.9 72.9 46.5 31.0 23.2

The total volume of fluid injected is often expressed as a number of pore volumes PV. The number of
pore volumes represents the volume of fluid injected (liquid⫹gas) divided by the pore volume of the
porous media.
Water/Gas co-injection at 200°C-50 bars, ⌬Pfoamflood measurement Foam has an impact of gas
mobility reduction. To quantify that impact, a reference experiment consists in measuring the pressure
drop resulting from water/gas co-injection in the sandpack, ⌬Pwater/gas flood. Experiments are performed at
constant gas fraction fg of 80% and different imposed total flow rates.
Surfactant solution/Gas co-injection at 200°C-50 bars, ⌬Pfoamflood measurement Foam flood-
ing experiments consist in the measurement of ⌬Pfoamflood ⫽ P2 - P1at different flow rates and constant
gas fraction fg of 80%. The sandpack is pre-flushed with surfactant formulation before gas injection. Foam
is formed continuously in the porous media by the co-injection of non-condensible gas (nitrogen) and
surfactant formulation. An increase in the pressure gradient indicates foam generation within the
sandpack. Pressure gradient reaches a steady state when foam formation and foam breaking are at
equilibrium into the sandpack. Once steady state is reached for a given flow rate, the next higher flow rate
is explored.
Calculation of foam apparent viscosity We use here the notion of apparent viscosity of foam,
obtained using the Darcy formula:

The apparent viscosity depends on many experimental parameters. Foam flooding theory describes
well the rheological behavior of foam in a porous media. It is deduced from the evolution of apparent
SPE-179806-MS 9

viscosity with interstitial velocity in a homogeneous porous media and in absence of oil, sketched in
Figure 5. Two characteristical regimes are described: strong foam regime and weak foam regime. In the
weak foam regime, foam exhibits a Newtonian behavior. In the strong foam regime, foam has an average
shear thinning behavior.

Figure 5—Schematic representation of the evolution of the apparent viscosity of foam as a function of interstitial velocity in both strong
foam in black and weak foam regimes in blue

Calculation of MRF Mobility Reduction Factor The flow of foam in a porous medium is responsi-
ble for gas mobility reduction. The gas mobility reduction factor MRF is defined by the ratio of gas
mobility in presence and in absence of foam according to the expression:

with Q, the total flow rate (liquid ⫹gas) in each configuration.

Results and discussion

Formulations foaming efficiency will now be compared in the light of experimental results. We will pay
special attention to the impact of temperature, of formulation viscosity and of crude oil.

Formulations performances in bulk foam stability tests

Impact of temperature Foam half-life time measurement at 200°C/30 bars and 250°C/60 bars in
absence of oil is determined for each formulation from picture analysis (Figure 6).
10 SPE-179806-MS

Figure 6 —Sequence image of foam obtained at 200°C – 30 bars (left) and 250°C – 50 bars (right) for different formulations

The first images show the experiment start-up: the injection of a pre-formed foam into the cell filled
with formulation. t0 represents the time when foam injection is interrupted. It is chosen as the initial state
of the foam. The foam half-life time is determined for each formulation (Figure 7). Four identical
experiments are carried out in a row to obtain representative value of foam half life time.

Figure 7—Foam half life time at 200°C – 30 bars (left) and 250°C – 50 bars (right) for different formulations

Based on development efforts, new formulations F1, FB1 and FB2 demonstrate high foaming
performances at 200°C. Foam half life time reaches more than 3 hours for 10 mL foam of formulation FB2
at 200°C. These formulations show even better results than previously published ones (Cuenca et al.
2015), where the foam half life time record did not exceed an hour. To resist at long time scale, all
formulations shall demonstrate strong resistance to coalescence, which is the dominant foam aging
mechanism involved in porous media.
Foam half-life time decreases with temperature. Here, the foam half-life time of formulation F1 varies
from several hours at 200°C to about 15 minutes at 250°C. Foam temperature sensitivity is often
interpreted in terms of weaker interfacial adsorption and lateral cohesion of surfactant molecules at the
interface due to thermal motion and thus weaker lamella stabilization (Donaldson et al. 1989) (Rosen et
al. 2000). Sharma et al. (Sharma et al. 1984) discuss the link between lateral cohesion of surfactants and
foam stability. They study different combination of surfactants of various chain lengths. Careful choice
of surfactants results in higher lateral cohesion and higher foam stability. Finally, we observe an inversion
of performances of formulation at 250°C as compared to 200°C. This may be explained by degradation
SPE-179806-MS 11

of the foam booster at 250°C. The newly developed formulation F1 matches almost formulations FB1 and
FB2 in terms of foam stability and can still be used at 250°C.
Impact of formulation viscosity In this section, previous foam stability results will be related to vis-
cosity measurements.
After calibration of the capillary rheometer with water of known viscosity at 200°C, formulation
viscosities are measured. Figure 8 shows the pressure drop signal obtained with formulation F1 at 200°C.
The mean pressure drop is calculated for each flow rate. Experimental data of mean pressure drop versus
flow rate are adjusted and the slope of the curved allows viscosity calculation. Formulations F1, FB1 and
FB2 have the same bulk viscosity at 200°C (Table 5), so the differences observed in bulk foam half life
time are not related to drainage slow down due to high bulk viscosity.

Figure 8 —Illustration of the pressure drop signal obtained with capillary rheometer for formulations F1 at 200°C and 50 bars. Insert:
Evolution of pressure drop versus flow rate, experimental data (dots) and fitting curve (line)

Table 5—Summary of viscosity measurements for different for-

mulations at 200°C and 50 bars
Formulations Viscosity at 200°C and 50 bars (Pa.s)

water 1.34.10⫺4
F1 2.03.10⫺4
FB1 2.04.10⫺4
FB2 2.04.10⫺4

Other physical properties of formulations are prone to impact bulk foam stability other than bulk
formulation viscosity. It was recognized that the surface viscosity for example can influence the stability
of foam.
Surface viscosity is related to the interfacial packing of surfactant molecules at the interface. Previous
studies (Sharma et al. 1984) deals with the influence of surfactant combinations of different chain lengths
on surface viscosity.
12 SPE-179806-MS

Impact of crude oil Foam half-life time is measured at 200°C - 25 bars in absence and in presence of
crude oil in the glass vial setup. At first, we notice that foam half-life times are shorter compared to the
values obtained with the view cell (Figure 7 & 9). The main difference holds in foam injection method.
In the view cell, foam is injected in a surfactant filled cell from the bottom. Gas bubbles go through
surfactant solution and accumulate at the top of the cell to form the foam. While in the glass vial setup,
foam is injected from the top, resulting in dryer foam. As steam foam half life time depends strongly on
initial foam texture and liquid fraction, it is not surprising to obtain different foam half-life time values
with glass vial setup as compared to view cell.

Figure 9 —Foam half life time at 200°C – 25 bars without oil (blue) and with 5% crude oil (red) for different formulations

Foam stability of formulation FB1 is only very slightly disrupted by the presence of 5% crude oil,
regardless of whether foam is in contact with large or small droplets (Figure 9 & 10). Thus, formulation
FB1 generates foam with moderate interactions with the present heavy crude oil. Oil is emulsified in
contact with foam. Formulation FB1 foam should have the capacity to transport oil by carrying emulsified
droplets inside foam structure: in the plateau borders and lamellae, with occasional lamella rupture. The
zoom in Figure 10, shows droplets of oil trapped inside plateau borders. This observation attests the
existence of a stable pseudo emulsion film with formulation FB1. The use of foam booster improves the
stability of foam in presence of heavy crude oil. Formulation FB2 should also perform well in presence
of crude oil. Formulation F1 is more affected by crude oil than FB1. We observe a different foam/oil
interaction on the magnified picture with imbibition of oil into the lamella and Plateau borders. In the light
of literature, one can expect lower impact of foam stability from heavy crude than lighter crude oil, which
is confirmed by our results. Thermal EOR with steam foams seems well suited for the recovery of heavy
oil.
SPE-179806-MS 13

Figure 10 —Image sequence of foam obtained with formulations F1 and FB1 in absence and in presence of 5% crude oil in two
conditions: large droplets and emulsified oil at 200°C – 25 bars
14 SPE-179806-MS

As discussed in the introduction, the ability of oil to destabilize foam results from the equilibrium
between surface and interfacial energies in presence of three phases: water containing surfactants, oil and
gas. Future work might involve surface and interfacial tension measurements to evaluate entering,
spreading and bridging coefficients as well as lamella number and try to investigate further the mecha-
nisms involved in foam stability in presence of crude oil. However, the determination of surface tension
and interfacial tension at 200°C – 30 bars would require further experimental developments. So far, the
literature has not come to a consensus about the prediction ability of such coefficients.

Formulation performances in high temperature foam flooding

Foam apparent viscosity and gas mobility reduction factor measurements in sandpack 200°C50 bars
Sandpack permeability measurement We measure the sandpack permeability by water flow
through the porous media. Figure 11 provides experimental data obtained at 200°C – 50 bars. Mean
pressure drop value calculated for each plateau is plotted as a function of flow rate. The slope of the curve
allows permeability calculation: 0.7 Darcy in this case.

Figure 11—Pressure drop signal as a function of time for different flow rates at 200°C – 50 bars. Insert: Pressure drop as a function of
flow rate. Experimental data are plotted in dots and fitting curve appears in blue. The sandpack permeability is calculated from the slope
of the fitting curve

Reference experiment of water/gas co-injection A reference experiment is systematically per-

formed by measuring the pressure drop in the sandpack due to water/gas co-injection. ⌬Pwater/gasflood
reflects the mobility of gas without any foam. Figure 12 shows ⌬Pwater/gasflood for two total flow rates
(liquid ⫹ gas) 0.5 mL/min and 1 mL/min. After each change of flow rate, we observe a transient state,
which corresponds to relative permeability adjustment before reaching a steady state after few PV
injected.
SPE-179806-MS 15

Figure 12—Pressure drop signal as a function of the number of pore volumes injected in the sandpack during water/gas co-injection
experiment for different flow rates at 200°C – 50 bars. Insert: Evolution of pressure drop as a function of interstitial velocity

The mean value of ⌬Pwater/gasflood at steady state is then plotted as a function of interstitial velocity in
Figure 12. Data obtained for each interstitial velocity is summarized in Table 6 and will be used to
calculate MRF.

Table 6 —⌬Pwater/gas values at different interstitial velocities at 200°C – 50 bars

Total flow rate (mL/min) 0.159 0.212 0.318 0.5 1
Interstitial velocity (ft/day) 23 31 46 73 146
⌬PWater/gas flood (bars) 0.03 0.042 0.07 0.13 0.3981

Influence of interstitial velocity on foam apparent viscosity and MRF Finally, ⌬P foam is flood
measured for each interstitial velocity, see Figure 13. From the data obtained, we calculate foam apparent
viscosity and gas mobility reduction factor for a wide range of interstitial velocities. Formulation FB2 is
chosen for a full characterization of foam rheological properties.
16 SPE-179806-MS

Figure 13—Pressure drop signal as a function of the number of pore volumes injected in the sandpack during surfactant solution/gas
co-injection experiment for different flow rates at 200°C – 50 bars

Figure 14 represents the apparent viscosity variation as a function of interstitial velocity for the three
formulations. They present a shear-thinning rheological behavior. The apparent viscosity decreases when
interstitial velocity, i.e. shear rate increases. Shear-thinning behavior is characteristic of the strong foam
regime and reveals foaming quality of the formulation FB2. This means that the gas ratio FB2 foam can
withstand without viscosity drop is above 80%.

Figure 14 —Evolution of the apparent viscosity of foam (left) and gas mobility reduction factor (right) as a function of interstitial velocity
obtained with formulation FB2 at 200°C – 50 bars
SPE-179806-MS 17

The interest in studying foaming behavior in a wide range of velocities is to explore flow conditions
from the well bore (high velocity flow) to the far end of the reservoir (low velocity flow). Foam has very
high apparent viscosity at low interstitial velocity, which should help reduce gas channeling. Foam
injectivity is guaranteed by low viscosity at high shear rate. Performances of formulations F1, FB1 and
FB2 are compared in Figure 15.

Figure 15—Evolution of the apparent viscosity of foam (left) and gas mobility reduction factor (right) as a function of interstitial velocity
obtained with formulations F1, FB1 and FB2 at 200°C - 50 bars

MRF values are also meaningful. For example, gas mobility has been reduced by a factor 98 at
interstitial velocity of 31 ft/day. The layout of the curve is identical to the foam apparent viscosity curve.
Only formulation FB2 has been fully qualified on a wide range of interstitial velocities. The perfor-
mance of formulations F1, FB1 and FB2 is now compared in terms of flow properties at high interstitial
velocities. We observe that all formulations have the same shear-thinning behavior at high interstitial
velocities. So we can extrapolate shear-thinning rheological behavior of all formulations at low interstitial
velocities. The ranking of formulations based on apparent viscosity values gives F1⫽ 45 cP ⬍ FB2 ⫽ 60
cP ⬍ FB1 ⫽ 70 cP at interstitial velocity of 73 ft/day. Overall, all formulations demonstrate their ability
to generate foam at high temperature and to reduce gas mobility by a factor of about 15 at high interstitial
velocity and more than 100 at low interstitial velocity. One can note higher differentiation of apparent
viscosity and MRF at lower velocities. Basically, the higher the flow rate is, the higher the energy
provided for foaming, the smaller the contribution of lamellae stability. We thus recommend the reader
to evaluate foaming properties in porous media in a range of interstitial velocities to differentiate foaming
formulation efficiency.
Correlation between bulk foam stability and apparent viscosity The link between model porous
media, such as sandpack experiments and bulk foam performances is still subject to debate.
A summary of formulations characteristics at 200°C appears in Table 7. We can note that formulations
F1, FB1 and FB2 have the same bulk viscosity at 200°C, but different foam stability and MRF. Overall,
we verify that formulations incorporating foam boosters perform better than F1 both in terms of foam half
life time and MRF at 200°C. However, with formulation development efforts, F1 also demonstrates good
foaming efficiency at 200°C and 250°C.
18 SPE-179806-MS

Table 7—Comparison of foam half life time and foam apparent viscosity for formulations F1, FB1 and FB2 at 200°C
Foam apparent viscosity (cP)
Formulations Foam half life time at viⴝ73 ft/day

F1 1 h 51 min 44.8
FB1 2 h 24 min 70.4
FB2 3 h 11 min 59.6

Although sandpack experiment setup has been developed as a screening tool and cannot replace proper
coreflood experiments, it provides a rapid way of pre-evaluating performances of a given surfactant
formulation in a porous media close to reservoir conditions.

Conclusion
A range of bulk foam experiments were performed with different formulations. The stability of foam in
the presence of crude oil was analyzed. All experiments were performed at high temperature: 200°C or
250°C. The following conclusions can be drawn from these experiments:
The development of a high temperature/high pressure glass vial setup allowed the study of bulk foam
in presence of crude oil. This new screening tool brings valuable information about foam resistance to oil.
In order to understand the influence of oil on foaming properties, more fundamental studies could be
performed. In particular, the evaluation of surface properties of formulations at 200°C would allow the
determination of entering, spreading and bridging as well as lamella number. However, the stability of
pseudoemulsion film allows foaming formulations to withstand oil. Further experimental developments
would be required.
All three formulations decrease gas mobility. New surfactant formulations demonstrated foaming
ability at 200°C and even 250°C, which are much better than standard ones. They should allow reducing
the steam fingering, channeling and gravity segregation phenomenon in steam injection processes. Their
ability to withstand oil should allow oil transportation properties, so an increase in oil recovery is
expected. To investigate further, foaming performances should also be demonstrated in coreflood
experiments as close as possible to reservoir conditions. For example, reservoir wettability might
influence foam impact in presence of oil.

References
Bergeron, V., Fagan, M. E., & Radke, C. J. 1993. Generalized entering coefficients: a criterion for foam stability against
oil in porous media. Langmuir, 9 (7), 1704 –1713.
Castanier, L. M., and W. E. Brigham. 1991. An Evaluation of Field Projects of Steam With Additives. SPE Reservoir
Engineering 6 (01): 62–68.
Chabert, M., Nabzar, L., Rohaida, S. et al. 2013. An integrated workflow for the design of a foam pilot in Malaysia. In
EAGE IOR Symposium, EAGE IOR Symposium, Saint Petersburg, Russia., Vol. B29.
Cuenca, A., Lacombe, E., Morvan, M., Le Drogo, V., Giordanengo, R., Chabert, M., Delamaide, E. 2014. Design of
Thermally Stable Surfactants Formulations for Steam Foam Injection. SPE 170129. Paper presented at the SPE Heavy
Oil Conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 10-12 June 2014.
Delamaide, E., and Kalaydjian. 1996. A Technical and Economical Evaluation of Steam Foam Injection Based on a
Critical Analysis of Field Applications. SPE 35692. Paper presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting.
Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 22-24 May 1996.
Denkov, N. D., Marinova, K. G., & Tcholakova, S. S. 2014. Mechanistic understanding of the modes of action of foam
control agents. Advances in colloid and interface science, 206, 57–67.
Donaldson, E. C., Chilingarian, G. V., & Yen, T. F. (Eds.). 1989. Enhanced oil recovery, II: Processes and operations.
Elsevier.
Farajzadeh, R., Andrianov, A., Krastev, R., Hirasaki, G. J., & Rossen, W. R. 2012. Foam– oil interaction in porous media:
Implications for foam assisted enhanced oil recovery. Advances in colloid and interface science, 183, 1–13.
SPE-179806-MS 19

Georgieva, D., Cagna, A., Langevin, D. 2009. Link between surface elasticity and foam stability. Soft Matter 5 (10):
2063–2071.
Harkins, W. D., & Feldman, A. 1922. Films. The spreading of liquids and the spreading coefficient. Journal of the
American Chemical Society, 44 (12), 2665–2685.
Hirasaki, G. J., Lawson, J. B. 1985. Mechanisms of foam flow in porous media: apparent viscosity in smooth capillaries.
SPE Journal 25 (2): 176 –190.
Hirasaki, G. J. 1989. The Steam-Foam Process. Journal of Petroleum Technology 41 (05): 449 –456.
Hutchinson, D. A., Demiral, B. D. M., & Castanier, L. 1992. Steam foam studies in the presence of residual oil. SPE 23709.
In SPE Latin America Petroleum Engineering Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Jensen, J. A., & Friedmann, F. 1987. Physical and Chemical Effects of an Oil phase on the Propagation of Foam in Porous
Media. In SPE California Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Koczo, K., Lobo, L. A., & Wasan, D. T. 1992. Effect of oil on foam stability: aqueous foams stabilized by emulsions.
Journal of colloid and interface science, 150 (2), 492–506.
Koottungal, L. 2014. Worldwide EOR Survey. Oil and Gas Journal, April 07.
Kornev, K. G., Neimark, A. V., Rozhkov, A. N. 1999. Foam in porous media: thermodynamic and hydrodynamic
particularities. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 82: 127–187.
Kovscek, A. R., Radke, C. J. 1993. Report No. DOE/BC-93000174.
Manlowe, D. J., & Radke, C. J. 1990. A pore-level investigation of foam/oil interactions in porous media. SPE Reservoir
Engineering, 5 (04), 495–502.
Mannhardt, K., Novosad, J. J., & Schramm, L. L. 2000. Comparative evaluation of foam stability to oil. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, 3 (01), 23–34.
Osei-Bonsu, K., Shokri, N., & Grassia, P. 2016. Fundamental investigation of foam flow in a liquid-filled Hele-Shaw cell.
Journal of colloid and interface science, 462, 288 –296.
Nikolov AD W. 1986. The efect of oil on foam stability: Mechanisms and implication for oil displacement by foam in
porous media, SPE 15443.
Rosen, M. J., Dahanayake, M. 2000. Industrial Utilization of Surfactants: Principles and Practice, Amer Oil Chemists
Society.
Sagar, N. S., & Castanier, L. M. 1997. Oil-foam interactions in a micromodel (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University).
Schramm, L. L., & Novosad, J. J. 1990. Micro-visualization of foam interactions with a crude oil. Colloids and Surfaces,
46 (1), 21–43.
Schramm, L. L., & Wassmuth, F. 1994. Foams: basic principles. Advances in Chemistry Series, 242, 3–3.
Sharma, M. K., Shah, D. O., & Brigham, W. E. 1984. Correlation of chain length compatibility and surface properties of
mixed foaming agents with fluid displacement efficiency and effective air mobility in porous media. Industrial &
engineering chemistry fundamentals, 23 (2), 213–220.
Sharma, M. K., Shah, D. O., & Brigham, W. E. 1985. The influence of temperature on surface and microscopic properties
of surfactant solutions in relation to fluid displacement efficiency in porous media. AIChE journal, 31 (2), 222–228.
Vikingstad, A. K., Skauge, A., Høiland, H., & Aarra, M. 2005. Foam– oil interactions analyzed by static foam tests.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 260 (1), 189 –198.
Vincent-Bonnieu, S., & Jones, S. A. (2014). Comparative study of foam stability in bulk and porous media (Doctoral
dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology).