SPE-201406-MS CO Foam Field Pilot Monitoring Using Transient Pressure Measurements
SPE-201406-MS CO Foam Field Pilot Monitoring Using Transient Pressure Measurements
SPE-201406-MS CO Foam Field Pilot Monitoring Using Transient Pressure Measurements
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition originally scheduled to be held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5 – 7
October 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 26 – 29 October 2020 and was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings were
published online on 21 October 2020.
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
This paper presents the analysis of transient pressure measurements from a recent CO2 foam pilot in East
Seminole Field, Permian Basin, USA. A surfactant-stabilized foam was selected to mitigate CO2 EOR
challenges in this field by reducing CO2 mobility in an effort toimprove sweep efficiency, oil recovery,
and CO2 storage potential. The surfactant system was designed in the laboratory by measuring surfactant
adsorption and verifying foam stability. A surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) injection strategy, with 10 days
of surfactant solution followed by 20 days of CO2, began in May 2019. The pilot monitoring program aimed
to evaluate reservoir response to foam injection. Surveys included CO2 injection profiles, CO2 tracer tests,
collection of injection bottom hole pressure/temperature data, and three-phase flow rates.
Injection BHP and temperature data from the downhole pressure gauge (DHPG) was used to evaluate the
pilot response during surfactant and CO2 injection. The analysis was conducted by examining the differential
pressure (dP) and differential temperature (dT) through time for the first nine SAG cycles. A high-resolution
two-dimensional radial flow model was developed to history match the measured transient pressure data.
The simulation model included the porosity and permeability distribution from a validated sector-scale
model of the pilot pattern and surrounding producers. The radial flow model was used to examine the
impact of foam and/or relative permeability on injectivity and mobility reduction when switching between
surfactant solution and CO2 in a SAG process.
Transient analysis showed that the temperature responses were quite similar during most SAG cycles.
On the other hand, differential pressures consistently increased during periods of surfactant injection and
decreased during the subsequent CO2 injection periods. The pressure increase (buildup) during surfactant
injection was due to a decrease in mobility, showing development of a mobility bank in the reservoir. There
are also questions regarding the impact of foam and/or relative permeability on injectivity and mobility
reduction when switching between surfactant solution and CO2 in a SAG process.
Introduction
This paper focuses on the use of traditional pressure measurements to monitor the effectiveness of foam
as a mobility control tool in the East Seminole Field, Permian Basin, and west Texas. The main objective
2 SPE-201406-MS
of the CO2 foam pilot was to achieve in-depth mobility control for improving the sweep efficiency and oil
recovery as well as reducing the producing gas-oil ratios (GOR). Pilot monitoring program was carried out
to evaluate reservoir response to foam injection (Alcorn et al, 2020).
CO2 foam injection is an effective method to control mobility during enhanced oil recovery processes
in petroleum reservoirs (Enick et al. 2012). When it is done optimally, CO2 foam has excellent potential to
improve sweep efficiency as well as CO2 storage. Foam is a mixture consisting of a continuous liquid phase
(surfactant solution) and a gas phase (CO2). This mixture becomes discontinuous due to the generation of
Therefore, this high permeability zone was targeted because foam is capable of forming in high permeability
streaks and diverting flow to unswept regions of the reservoir with lower permeabilities. The reservoir and
fluid properties are shown in Table 1.
Table 1—Reservoir and fluid properties of the San Andres unit in East Seminole Field.
Depth 5200 ft
Injection BHP and temperature data from the Downhole Pressure Gauge (DHPG) was used to evaluate
the pilot response during surfactant and CO2 injections. The analysis was conducted by examining the
differential pressure (dP) and differential temperature (dT) through time for 9 SAG cycles. A high-resolution
two-dimensional radial flow model was developed to history match the measured transient pressure data.
The simulation model included the porosity and permeability distribution from a validated sector-scale
4 SPE-201406-MS
model of the pilot pattern and surrounding producers. The radial flow model was used to examine the
impact of foam and/or relative permeability on injectivity and mobility reduction when switching between
surfactant solution and CO2 in a SAG process.
Objectives of this study were as follows:
• Evaluate if foam has generated based upon comparison to measured BHP and injection rates
• Tune foam model to observed pressures during pilot, if foam has formed.
Base values for foam model parameters were obtained by performing regression on the quality scan data
to fit the empirical foam model (Zheng et al. 2016; Sharma et al. 2017). Fig. 3 shows the foam characteristics
obtained based on regression analysis.
The simulation model was run using daily pilot injection rates using the rate control option of the
simulator.
SPE-201406-MS 5
Foam Modeling
There are two approaches to modeling foam transport in porous media; an explicit texture population-
balance model (Falls et al., 1988, Rossen et al., 1999) and an implicit texture local-equilibrium model (Cheng
et al. 2000; Farajzadeh et al. 2012). Population balance models explicitly represent the dynamics of lamella
creation and destruction along with the effect of the resulting foam on gas mobility. Gas mobility is reduced
according to bubble size (determined by rates of creation and destruction of lamellae). Local equilibrium
models represent the effect of bubble size implicitly by introducing factors for reducing gas mobility by foam
(2)
fmmmob refers to the maximum gas mobility reduction that can be achieved. Fwater, Fshear, Foil and Fsurf
capture the water saturation, shear rate, oil saturation and surfactant concentration dependence, all lying in
the range of 0 to 1 (Equation 3 through 6). The capillary number Nca represents the relative effect of viscous
and capillary forces.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Two water components were used to model foam behavior; one for surfactant solution and one for only
water. The base-case foam parameters were derived from laboratory foam quality and rate scans and fit
to the empirical local-equilibrium foam model by curve fitting regression (Rognmo et al. 2019; Ma et al.
2013; Sharma et al. 2017; Law et al. 1992; Cheng et al. 2000; Farajzadeh et al. 2012). Figure 5 below shows
the foam quality and rate scan used to derive the model parameters and Table 3 shows the base case foam
model parameters.
fmmob 192
fmdry 0.40
epdry 84
fmcap 9.0e-07
epcap 0.59
Figure 4—Plot showing the Injection History along with Measured Bottom Hole Pressures during the 9 SAG Cycles.
SPE-201406-MS 7
The radial simulation model assumed a constant effect of near by wells and this may be true only for
limited times. To check this assumption, the injection and production rates within the pilot pattern were also
plotted. Fig. 7 shows the total injection rates for the pilot pattern. As can be seen from this plot, the total
CO2 injection rate increased during Cycles 6 and 7 and decreased during Cycles 8 and 9. This is important
since the radial well model only simulates the central injector and does not take into account the effect of
injection / production of the nearby wells. These non-steady conditions are addressed later in the transient
analysis section.
Sensitivity Studies
Due to uncertainty in foam model parameters derived from laboratory data, sensitivity runs were set-up to
first test key foam model parameters. The following foam model parameters were adjusted for the sensitivity
study:
• FMDRY: The limiting water saturation below which the foam is no longer effective
• EPDRY: A weighting factor which controls the sharpness in the change of mobility
• FOAMSO: The maximum oil saturation above which foam is no longer effective
Table 4 below shows the parameter ranges for the sensitivity study.
Simulation
FMMOB FMDRY EPDRY FOAMFSO
Run
S1 92
S2 19
S3 0.45
S4 0.35
SPE-201406-MS 9
Simulation
FMMOB FMDRY EPDRY FOAMFSO
Run
S5 42
S6 168
S7 0.18
Figure 8 shows the sensitivity to foam strength parameters (FMMOB). As expected, the simulated
pressures agree better with the measured BHP as the foam strength is controlled by the set FMMOB value.
Sensitivity simulations to other foam parameters showed less of an impact and therefore, they are not shown
here. These results clearly show that the foam was formed downhole and it is weaker than expected.
The transient analysis was also applied to CO2 injection periods only. These results along with the
extended Fall-Off period are shown in Fig. 10.
Fall-Off Comparison
Due to operational reasons, the central injector was shut-in for an extended period before Cycle 9. This
created a Fall-Off test, which was also used to test different foam scenarios. Fig. 11 shows the simulated
results versus the measured dP/dT response during this Fall-Off period. As seen from this match, the
simulated case with a lower FMMOB value (gray curve) followed the measured response more closely than
SPE-201406-MS 11
the cases with higher mobility reduction (yellow and blue curves). In addition, the WAG case had a much
lower pressure response, compared to the cases with foam and the observed data. This may indicate that a
relatively weak foam has generated in the reservoir.
Figure 12—Simulated transient pressures CO2 Injection during Cycle 2 with different foam strength parameters.
12 SPE-201406-MS
Foam Propagation
One of the important objectives of this study was to determine the foam propagation distance/rate, if foam
has formed. For this, history-matched simulation model with tuned parameters was used. The simulator
models foam as an effective concentration of surfactant transported in the gas (CO2) phase. The figure
below shows the simulated foam propagation for the weak foam case (FMMOB=1.9) at the end of each
SPE-201406-MS 13
surfactant/CO2 cycle for Cycles 1, 5, and 8. These plots clearly indicate that foam has advanced deep in
high permeability layers during the pilot.
Conclusions
A CO2 foam pilot was conducted in East Seminole Field, Permian Basin, west Texas. Foam was selected
to reduce CO2 mobility in an effort to improve sweep efficiency, oil recovery, and CO2 storage potential. A
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the Norwegian Research Council CLIMIT program for financial support
under grant number 249742 (CO2 Storage from Lab to On-Shore Field Pilots Using CO2-Foam for Mobility
Control in CCUS) and Gassnova project number 618069. The authors also acknowledge industry partners;
Shell Global Solutions, TOTAL E&P USA, Equinor ASA, and Occidental Petroleum. The authors also
thank the field operator.
Nomenclature
fg Gas fraction or foam quality
cP Centipoise
K Permeability
mD Millidarcy
MPa Megapascal
Psig Pound per square inch, gauge
Mscf Thousand standard cubic feet
°API American Petroleum Institute gravity
14 SPE-201406-MS
Abbreviations
CCUS Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
SAG Surfactant Alternating Gas
WAG Water Alternating Gas
DHPG Downhole Pressure Gauge
BHP Botom Hole Pressure
MPZ Main Producing Zone
ROZ Residual Oil Zone
BT Breakthrough
Wt % Weight Percent
GOR Gas-Oil Ratio
MRF Mobility Reduction Factor
IWTT Interwell CO2 tracer test
PV Pore Volume
References
Alcorn, Z.P., Føyen T. Zhang L., Karakas, M., Biswal, S. L., Hirasaki, G., and Graue, A. 2019. CO2 Foam Field Pilot
Design And Initial Results. SPE-200450-MS., SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference 2020.
Alcorn, Z.P., Sharma, M., Fredriksen, S. B., Fernø, M.A., and Graue, A. 2019. An Integrated CO2 Foam EOR Pilot
Program with Combined CCUS in an Onshore Texas Heterogeneous Carbonate Field. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and
Engineering 22 (04): 1449–1466. https://doi.org/10.2118/190204-PA.
Alcorn, Z. P., Fredriksen, S. B., Sharma, M., Rognmo, A. U., Føyen, T. L., Fernø, M. A., & Graue, A. (2018, April 14).
An Integrated CO2 Foam EOR Pilot Program with Combined CCUS in an Onshore Texas Heterogeneous Carbonate
Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/190204-MS
SPE-201406-MS 15
Cheng, L., A. B. Reme, D. Shan et al 2000. Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low Foam Qualities. Proc., SPE/
DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma. SPE-59287-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/59287-MS.
Chou, S.I., Vasicek, S.L., Pisio, D.L., Jasek, D.E., Goodgame, J.A. 1992. CO2 Foam Field Trial at North Ward Estes.
Presented at the 67th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., October 4-7, 1992.
Enick, Robert Michael, David Kenneth Olsen, James Robert Ammer et al 2012. Mobility and Conformance Control
for CO2 EOR via Thickeners, Foams, and Gels -- A Literature Review of 40 Years of Research and Pilot Tests.
Proc. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 14-18 April, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA. SPE-154122-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/154122-MS.
Zheng, Y., Muthuswamy, A., Ma, K., Wang, L., Farajzadeh, F., Puerto, M., Vincent-Bonnieu, S., Eftekhari, A.A., Wang,
Y., Da, C., Joyce, J.C., Biswal, S.L. and Hirasaki, G.J. 2016. Insights on Foam Transport from a Texture- Implicit
Local Equilibrium Model with an Improved Parameter Estimation Algorithm. Ind Eng Chem Res, 55 (28), 7819–7829.