An Investigation of Mechanistic Foam Modeling for Optimum Field Development of CO2 Foam EOR Application

Abstract

Summary While there are a number of mechanistic foam models available in the literature, it still is not clear how such models can be used to guide actual field development planning in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) applications. This study aims to develop the framework to determine the optimum injection condition during foam EOR processes by using a mechanistic foam model. The end product of this study is presented in a graphical manner, based on the sweep-efficiency contours (from reservoir simulations) and the reduction in gas mobility (from mechanistic modeling of foams with bubble population balance). The main outcome of this study can be summarized as follows: First, compared to gas/water injection with no foams, injection of foams can improve cumulative oil recovery and sweep efficiency significantly. Such a tendency is observed consistently in a range of total injection rates tested (low, intermediate, and high total injection rates Qt). Second, the sweep efficiency is more sensitive to the injection foam quality fg for dry foams, compared to wet foams. This proves how important bubble-population-balance modeling is to predict gas mobility reduction as a function of Qt and fg. Third, the graphical approach demonstrates how to determine the optimum injection condition and how such an optimum condition changes at different field operating conditions and limitations (i.e., communication through shale layers, limited carbon dioxide (CO2) supply, cost advantage of CO2 compared to surfactant chemicals, etc.). For example, the scenario with noncommunicating shale layers predicts the maximum sweep of 49% at fg = 55% at high Qt, while the scenarios with communicating shale layers (with 0.1-md permeability) predicts the maximum sweep of only 40% at fg = 70% at the same Qt. The use of this graphical method for economic and business decisions is also shown, as an example, to prove the versatility and robustness of this new technique.

Experimental Investigation of a Polymer-Enhanced N2 Foam Performance for Enhanced Oil Recovery

“…27 In addition, the polymer can compete with the surfactant at the interface for adsorption, reducing the surfactant adsorption loss and, thereby, enhancing the stability of the foam in the porous media. 28 According to the classification of gas types, foam can generally be divided into air foam, 29,30 CO 2 foam, 31,32 N 2 foam, 33,34 natural gas foam, 35,36 and the like. Nitrogen is chosen as the gas source for the foam system herein because it is an inert gas, non-toxic, and difficult to burn and has the advantages of an abundant source, high compression coefficient, and significant expansion.…”

“…According to the classification of gas types, foam can generally be divided into air foam, , CO 2 foam, , N 2 foam, , natural gas foam, , and the like. Nitrogen is chosen as the gas source for the foam system herein because it is an inert gas, non-toxic, and difficult to burn and has the advantages of an abundant source, high compression coefficient, and significant expansion.…”

Perspectives of Foam Generation Techniques and Future Directions of Nanoparticle-Stabilized CO2 Foam for Enhanced Oil Recovery

“…NPs are an effective additive for foam stability. As a result of the increased diffusivity and greater interface of NPs, researchers discovered that foam made with NPs shows high stability. , Foam usually consists of both liquid and gas. The gas may be air, CO 2 , nitrogen gas, or any other gas suited for the creation of foam.…”

Mitigation of Gravity Segregation by Foam to Enhance Sweep Efficiency

“…The gas saturation should be much higher there because the presence of foam in that zone can increase the trapped gas saturation. Therefore, we assume that 70% of gas is trapped in the transition zone [34].…”