SPE-201406-MS CO Foam Field Pilot Monitoring Using Transient Pressure Measurements

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 16

SPE-201406-MS

CO2 Foam Field Pilot Monitoring Using Transient Pressure Measurements

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


Metin Karakas, Zachary Paul Alcorn, and Arne Graue, University of Bergen

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

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

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


thin liquid films called lamellae (Rossen al. 1996). The foam mobility depends on the foam texture; the finer
the foam texture, the lower the CO2 mobility. It has been shown that the foam density is a direct function
of density of the lamellae (Falls et al. 1988). Laboratory studies clearly show that foam strength is very
important in achieving the desired reservoir displacement efficiency. Additionally, solubility of surfactant
in CO2 and water phases as well as the adsorption of CO2 on the rock, play a crucial role during foam
displacements (Schramm, 1994).
Surfactants are commonly used to generate foams in porous media. They are also screened to ensure
the success of a CO2 foam. Recent research suggests that various (cationic, nonionic and zwitterionic)
surfactants as the main candidates for CO2 foams in EOR (Jian et al., 2019). Several studies have been
conducted to examine the texture and stability of CO2 foams as a function of the surfactant structure and
formulation. These variables include, water/CO2 ratio, surfactant concentration, water salinity, etc. These
works show that the surfactant characteristics, along with foam strength, etc. could be adjusted for an
optimum foam displacement during CO2 EOR processes. However, surfactant-based foams breakdown in
the formation due to presence of oil, adsorption of the surfactant to the rock and at high temperatures and
salinities. Therefore, it is also important to maintain the foam strength (or stability) during the entire injection
period in field applications. Recent work suggests that the addition of silica nanoparticles to the surfactant-
stabilized CO2 foams may increase the strength and stability of the foam systems (Rognmo et al. 2018).
There are several strategies to generate foam in porous media. These include co-injection of gas (CO2)/
surfactant or surfactant alternating gas (CO2) injection (the SAG method). In co-injection process, the gas
(CO2) and the surfactant solution are simultaneously injected and foam is formed in-situ. In the SAG method,
surfactant and CO2 are injected in alternating slugs. In low permeability reservoirs, SAG injection may be
preferred due to increased gas injectivity. Additionally, with the use of SAG method, the contact between
CO2 and water is minimized which may reduce corrosion in surface facilities and piping (Haroun et al. 2017).

Field Pilot Description


A surfactant-stabilized foam was chosen to address CO2 EOR challenges in this field. 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. Surveys included CO2 injection profiles, CO2 tracer tests, collection of injection bottom
hole pressure/temperature, and three-phase flow rates.
The pilot area is an inverted 40 acre 5-spot pattern with a central injection well and four surrounding
producers (Figure 1) located in the East Seminole Field, Permian Basin, west Texas. The field produces from
the San Andres unit, a heterogeneous cyclical carbonate. The reservoir interval has an average permeability
of 13 mD, pay thickness of 110 ft, and consists of six flow zones separated by impermeable flow barriers.
Pilot wells were selected based upon rapid CO2 breakthrough, high producing GORs, and close proximity
(Alcorn et al., 2018). Two production wells, P1 and P4, were the focus of the baseline data collection
and pilot monitoring because they experienced the most rapid CO2 breakthrough time from tertiary CO2
injection. Composite logs from the pilot injection well indicated a 10 ft thick high permeability streak of
200 mD. Historical injection profiles showed that this zone has been taking the majority of the injected CO2.
SPE-201406-MS 3

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.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


Figure 1—Pilot pattern (shaded area) and surrounding wells in East Seminole Field.
The pilot injection well was I1 and the monitored producers were P1 through P4.

Table 1—Reservoir and fluid properties of the San Andres unit in East Seminole Field.

Reservoir Characteristic Value

Depth 5200 ft

Permeability 1 to 300 md (average: 13 md)

Porosity 3 to 28% (average: 12%)

Pay Thickness 110 ft

Reservoir pressure (initial) 2500 psig

Reservoir pressure (current) 3400 psig

Fracture pressure 3900 psig

Reservoir Temperature 104°F

Oil gravity 31 °API

Formation brine salinity 70,000 ppm

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.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


• Determine the foam propagation distance/rate, if foam has formed.

Radial Model Set-up and Initialization


The model included one injector (I1) to simulate the 9-cycle SAG pilot period. The grid contained 28 layers,
which were refined from the base sector model. Radial grid extended to 700 ft from the injector and the grid
sizes increased logarithmically from the injector. Layers and perforations were from the history-matched
(HM) sector model. The model includes historical water and CO2 injection before pilot.
Fig. 2 below shows the permeability distribution in the radial model. The surfactant selected for the pilot
was found to have very low adsorption reservoir rock in the laboratory so adsorption was excluded from
the simulation study

Figure 2—Permeability distribution in the radial model. The number


of radial and vertical grid blocks are 20 and 28, respectively.

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

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


as a function of water saturation, oil saturation, surfactant concentration, and shear thinning due to flow rate.
Local-equilibrium models assume foam is present anywhere gas and water is present along with an adequate
surfactant concentration. The effect of foam was modeled in this work using the local-equilibrium approach
The decrease in gas mobility during foam floods is accounted for in local equilibrium models by scaling
the gas relative permeability for no foam floods (krgnf) by a mobility reduction factor (FM), whereas the
water relative permeabilities remain unchanged.
(1)
The effect of water saturation, shear rate, surfactant concentration and oil saturation (Farajzadeh et al.
2012) on mobility reduction factor was studied, given by the expression:

(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.

Table 2—Radial Simulation Model Parameters

Simulation Model Parameter

Number of Grid Blocks 20 × 1 × 28 (r, theta, z)

Outer Radius 700 ft

Total Thickness 145 ft

Initial Water Saturation (Sw) 0.50


6 SPE-201406-MS

Starting Reservoir pressure 3118 psia

Fracture pressure 3900 psig

Reservoir Temperature 104°F

Oil gravity 31 °API

Formation brine salinity 70,000 ppm

Permeability and porosity from HM

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


sector model.

Average Permeability 13.5 md

Average Porosity 0.08

Initial conditions at 1 April 2019.

Table 3—Base Case Foam Parameters

Foam Parameter Value

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

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


Figure 5—Laboratory foam characteristics (from Rognmo et al. 2019)

Measured Injection Rates and Pressures


The reservoir response to foam was evaluated by analyzing bottom-hole pressure (BHP) response during
surfactant and CO2 injection. Fig. 4 shows injection rates of CO2 (red curve) and surfactant solution (green
curve) and the measured BHP (black curve) at the injector well for nine complete pilot SAG cycles. Injection
rates during the pilot were 520 rb/day and 470 rb/day for surfactant solution and CO2, respectively. The
volumetric ratio of injected CO2 relative to the total volume of CO2 and surfactant injected was used to
evaluate injected foam quality per cycle. The aim was to inject foam at 70% quality (0.70 gas fraction)
per cycle as determined in the laboratory studies. The foam qualities ranged from 61% to 71%, which was
within the designed target.

Base Case Simulations


The simulated BHP was compared to actual surveys to evaluate foam generation and CO2 mobility
reduction. Fig. 6 shows the Surfactant Alternating Gas (SAG) simulation results assuming base case foam
parameters (red curve). As can be seen in this plot, the simulated pressures were significantly higher than
the measured BHP. In addition, the simulated pressures assuming a Water Alternating Gas (WAG) scenario
are shown (blue curve), which were slightly lower but more consistent with the measured pressures, which
suggests a weaker foam than expected.

Figure 6—Simulated Pressures using base case foam parameters.


8 SPE-201406-MS

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.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


Figure 7—Total Injection measured BHP for the Pilot.

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:

• FMMOB: The reference mobility reduction factor

• 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.

Table 4—Foam Sensitivity Parameters

Simulation
FMMOB FMDRY EPDRY FOAMFSO
Run

Base Case 192 0.4 84 0.28

S1 92

S2 19

S3 0.45

S4 0.35
SPE-201406-MS 9

Simulation
FMMOB FMDRY EPDRY FOAMFSO
Run

Base Case 192 0.4 84 0.28

S5 42

S6 168

S7 0.18

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


S8 0.38

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.

Figure 8—Simulated pressures using different foam strength parameters.

Transient Pressure Analysis


An alternative analysis was carried out using the pressure changes (instead of the absolute pressures) for
each cycle. This analysis showed consistent results for both surfactant and CO2 injection periods. Transient
analysis provided a useful tool to analyze unsteady-state flow at the pilot injector. Fig. 9 shows dP/dT
through time for the first five SAG cycles. Delta pressures (dP) and delta temperatures (dT) are calculated
by subtracting the absolute values from the last stabilized pressure and temperature before each injection
cycle, a technique widely used in transient pressure analysis. Similarly, delta t (dt) refers to differential time
from the start of a particular injection cycle. Differential pressure (dP) increased for each surfactant cycle,
which may be related to a foam bank developing further into the reservoir. The dP of Cycle 1 < Cycle 2 <
Cycle 3 < Cycle 4 < Cycle 5. The increased BHP during surfactant cycles could also be related to relative
permeability and/or viscosity effects. A WAG at the end of the pilot would rule this out.
10 SPE-201406-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


Figure 9—Transient Pressure and Temperatures for the first five
SAG cycles. dP1 corresponds to slug 1, dP2 to slug 2, and so on.

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.

Figure 10—Transient analysis of CO2 Injection periods for the first


8 Cycles. Also shown is the pressure Fall-Off result before Cycle 9.

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.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


Figure 11—Simulated transient pressures during Fall-Off period with different foam strength parameters.

Transient Surfactant and CO2 Injection Comparisons


Transient data was also used to compare the model pressure response with the measured ones during
Surfactant and CO2 injection periods. These are shown in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. These
comparisons showed similar results to that observed during the Fall-Off period, suggesting a weak foam
strength.

Figure 12—Simulated transient pressures CO2 Injection during Cycle 2 with different foam strength parameters.
12 SPE-201406-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


Figure 13—Simulated transient pressures CO2 Injection during Cycle 8 with different foam strength parameters.

Figure 14—Cross-sectional (r-z) plot showing simulated foam concentration


for the weak foam case (FMMOB=1.9) case at the end of Cycles 1, 5, and 8.

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

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) injection strategy was implemented, with 10 days of surfactant solution
followed by 20 days of CO2. Injection BHP and temperature data 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 radial model proved to be useful to assess the reservoir foam strength during this pilot. While the
pressure data alone may not be enough to describe the complex physics of in-situ foam generation, it is a
powerful indicator of foam strength. In this particular pilot application case, it appears that the reservoir
foam strength was weaker than that expected in the laboratory.
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.
Based on the detailed comparisons and the transient analysis of measured bottomhole pressure data, it
could be concluded that foam was generated downhole. However, history matched foam model parameters
are significantly different from the expected values based on laboratory studies. Sensitivity studies show that
the foam mobility reduction factor (FMMOB) is the most dominant parameter. Based on the history-matched
model results, it could be said that foam has significantly advanced during the pilot in high permeability
layers. However, considering the non-unique nature of estimating the foam parameters (Ma et. al., 2014), the
effect of other foam processes (foam propagation and its effectiveness) should be addressed directly by more
explicit saturation measurements such as resistivity measurements and monitoring (Karakas et al. 2018).

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

rb/day reservoir barrels per day


Mscf/day Thousand standard cubic feet per day
Sor Residual oil saturation, fraction of pore volume
fmmob Foam model, maximum gas mobility reduction factor
fmdry Foam model parameter in Fwater
epdry Foam model parameter in Fwater
fmsurf Foam model parameter in Fsurf

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


epsurf Foam model parameter in Fsurf
FM Foam model, mobility reduction factor
krgnf Gas relative permeability with no foam

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

SI Metric Conversion Factors

Acre × 4.046873 E+03 = m2


°API 141.5/(131.5+ °API) = g/cm3
bbl × 1.589873 E – 01 = m3
cp × 1.0 E – 03 = Pa·s
°F (°F – 32)/1.8 = °C
ft × 3.048 E – 01 = m
psi × 6.894757 E + 00 = kPa

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.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022


Falls, A.H., Hirasaki G.J., Patzek, T.W., Gauglitz., P.A., Miller, D.D. and Ratulowski, T. 1988. Development of a
Mechanistic Foam Simulator: The Population Balance and Generation by Snap-Off. SPE Reservoir Engineering 1988,
3 (03): 884–892. https://doi.org/10.2118/14961-PA
Farajzadeh, R., A. Andrianov, R. Krastev et al 2012. Foam–oil interaction in porous media: Implications for foam
assisted enhanced oil recovery. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 183-184: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cis.2012.07.002.
Haroun, M., Mohammed, A. M., Somra, B., Punjabi, S., Temitope, A., Yim, Y., … Corova, F. (2017, November
13). Real-Time Resistivity Monitoring Tool for In-Situ Foam Front Tracking. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/188391-MS
Heller, J.P. 1966. Onset of Instability Patterns Between Miscible Fluids in Porous Media. Journal of Applied Physics
1966, 37, 1566–1579.
Heller, J.P., Boone, D.A., and Watts, R.J. 1985. Field Test of CO2-Foam Mobility Control at Rock Creek. Presented at the
SPE 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada USA. September 22-25, 1985. SPE-14395.
Hoefner, M.L. and Evans, E.M. 1995. CO2 Foam: Results from Four Developmental Fields Trials, SPE Reservoir
Engineering, November 1995, p. 273–281.
Jian, Guoqing, Zhang, Leilei, Da, Chang, Puerto, Maura, Johnston, Keith P, Biswal, Sibani L, & Hirasaki, George J.
(2019). Evaluating the Transport Behavior of CO2 Foam in the Presence of Crude Oil under High-Temperature and
High-Salinity Conditions for Carbonate Reservoirs. Energy & Fuels, 33(7), 6038–6047.
Karakas, M., & Aminzadeh, F. (2018, April 22). Optimization of CO2-Foam Injection through Resistivity and Pressure
Measurements. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/190061-MS
Law, D. H. S., Z. M. Yang, T. W. Stone. 1992. Effect of the Presence of Oil on Foam Performance: A Field Simulation
Study. SPE Reservoir Engineering 7 (02). SPE-18421-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/18421-PA.
Leeftink, T.N., Latooij, C.A. and Rossen, W.R. 2015. Injectivity errors in simulation of foam EOR. J Petrol Sci Eng 126,
26–34.
Ma, Kun, Jose L. Lopez-Salinas, Maura C. Puerto et al 2013. Estimation of Parameters for the Simulation of Foam
Flow through Porous Media. Part 1: The Dry-Out Effect. Energy & Fuels 27 (5): 2363–2375. https://doi.org/10.1021/
ef302036s.
Ma, Kun, Farajzadeh, Rouhi, Lopez-Salinas, Jose L, Miller, Clarence A, Biswal, Sibani Lisa, & Hirasaki, George J. (2014).
Non-uniqueness, Numerical Artifacts, and Parameter Sensitivity in Simulating Steady-State and Transient Foam Flow
Through Porous Media. Transport in Porous Media, 102(3), 325–348.
Martin, F.D., Heller., J.P., Weiss, W.W., and Tsau, J.S. 1992. CO2-Foam Field Verification Pilot Test at EVGSAU Injection
Project Phase 1: Project Planning and Initial Results. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, 22-24 April, 1992. SPE/DOE-24176
Martin, F.D., Stevens, J.E. and Harpole, K.J. 1995. CO2 Foam Field Test at the East Vacuum Grayburg/San Andres Unit.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, November 1995, p. 266–272
Rognmo, A.U, Heldal, S, & Fernø, M.A. (2018). Silica nanoparticles to stabilize CO2-foam for improved CO2 utilization:
Enhanced CO2 storage and oil recovery from mature oil reservoirs. Fuel (Guildford), 216, 621–626.
Rognmo A., Fredriksen, S.B., Alcorn, Z.P., Sharma, M., Føyen T., Eide, Ø., Fernø M.A., and Graue, A. 2019. Pore-to-
Core EOR Upscaling for CO2 Foam for CCUS. SPE Journal Preprint July 2019. https://doi.org/10.2118/190869-PA
Rossen, W.R. 1996. Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Foams Theory, Measurements, and Applications. eds.
Prud'homme, R.K. and Khan, S.A. volume 57, ch. 11, p 414–464, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York
Rossen, W.R., Zeilinger, S.C., Shi, J.X. and Lim, M.T., 1999. Simplified Mechanistic Simulation of Foam Processes in
Porous Media. SPE J. 4, 279–287.
Sharma, M., Z P. Alcorn, S B. Fredriksen et al Numerical Modeling Study for Designing CO2-foam Field Pilot.
IOR 2017 – 19th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery Stavanger, Norway, 24 April. https://
doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201700339.
Schramm, L. L. 1994. Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. Washington, DC: American
Chemical Society.
16 SPE-201406-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.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/20ATCE/3-20ATCE/D031S023R006/2371602/spe-201406-ms.pdf by University of Bergen user on 12 January 2022

You might also like