Assessment of Foam Properties and Effectiveness in Mobility Reduction for CO2-Foam Floods

Tsau, Jyun‐Syung; Grigg, Reid B.

doi:10.2523/37221-ms

Cited by 15 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[64][65][66][67][68][69][70] It has been shown both in the laboratory and, more importantly, in field demonstration projects that CO 2 foam can improve CO 2 floods in heterogeneous reservoirs. Extensive laboratory evaluations on the effectiveness of CO 2 foam have been reported, but only a limited number of field tests have been performed, with mixed results.…”

Section: Chapter 4 Cost Reduction and Injectivity Improvements For Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…68,70,85 Calculations show that the adsorption requirements of the rock are often greater than those required to generate a foam. A reservoir having 20% porosity will require 1552 bbls of fluid for 100% saturation of an acre-ft. Surfactant concentrations required for a foam range from 0.05 to 0.5 wt%, or 0.18 to 1.8 lbs/bbl of brine.…”

Section: Improving Surfactant Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This figure contains four series of adsorption curves produced in two different studies, using different core samples. [66][67][68] This figure is very instructive because it shows the trend of increasing adsorption with increasing surfactant concentration and possible scatter due to method and rock samples. Figure 43 contains adsorption isotherms for three different carbonate cores.…”

Section: Improving Surfactant Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…68 This agent replaces some of the required adsorption of a more expensive foaming agent. Even though it has been shown that in and of itself lignosulfonate is not a good foaming agent, 66,67 when used with a cosurfactant such as CD1045, lignosulfonates can replace some of the good foaming agent in solution and the synergistic effect results in excellent foam.…”

Section: Improving Surfactant Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Improving Co2 Efficiency for Recovering Oil in Heterogeneous Reservoirs

Grigg¹,

Svec²

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Chapter 4 Cost Reduction and Injectivity Improvements For Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Improving Surfactant Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Improving Surfactant Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Improving Surfactant Adsorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving Co2 Efficiency for Recovering Oil in Heterogeneous Reservoirs

Grigg¹,

Svec²

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Anionic surfactant Chaser International CD 1045™ (CD), which has been identified as one of the best foaming agents, [104][105][106] was used in this study. It was supplied by Chaser International as 46.7 wt% active aqueous solution.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Gas Flooding Efficiency

Grigg¹,

Svec²,

Zhang³

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document is the Final Report for the project, "Improved Gas Flooding Efficiency," Department of Energy Contract No. DE-FC26-04NT15532. This study focuses on laboratory studies with related analytical and numerical models, as well as work with operators for field tests to enhance our understanding of and capabilities for more efficient enhanced oil recovery (EOR).Much of the work has been performed at reservoir conditions. This includes a bubble chamber and several core flood apparatus developed or modified to measure interfacial tension (IFT), critical micelle concentration (CMC), foam durability, surfactant sorption at reservoir conditions, and pressure and temperature effects on foam systems.Carbon dioxide and N 2 systems have been considered, under both miscible and immiscible conditions. The injection of CO 2 into brine-saturated sandstone and carbonate core results in brine saturation reduction in the range of 62 to 82% brine in the tests presented in this paper. In each test, over 90% of the reduction occurred with less than 0.5 PV of CO 2 injected, with very little additional brine production after 0.5 PV of CO 2 injected.Adsorption of all considered surfactant is a significant problem. Most of the effect is reversible, but the amount required for foaming is large in terms of volume and cost for all considered surfactants. Some foams increase resistance to the value beyond what is practical in the reservoir. Sandstone, limestone, and dolomite core samples were tested.Dissolution of reservoir rock and/or cement, especially carbonates, under acid conditions of CO 2 injection is a potential problem in CO 2 injection into geological formations. Another potential change in reservoir injectivity and productivity will be the precipitation of dissolved carbonates as the brine flows and pressure decreases.The results of this report provide methods for determining surfactant sorption and can be used to aid in the determination of surfactant requirements for reservoir use in a CO 2 -foam flood for mobility control. It also provides data to be used to determine rock permeability changes during CO 2 flooding due to saturation changes, dissolution, and precipitation.v

show abstract

Foam Generation, Propagation and Stability in Porous Medium

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been several foam field applications in recent years. Foam treatments targeting gas mobility control in injectors as well as gas blocking in production wells have been performed without causing operational problems. The most widely used injection strategy of foam has been injecting alternating slugs of surfactant in brine with gas injection. This procedure seems to be beneficial as injection is easy to perform and control below fracturing pressure. Simultaneous injection of surfactant solution and gas may give difficulties, especially with interpretation of the tests, if fracturing pressure are exceeded during the injection period. This paper reviews critical aspects of foam for reservoir applications and intends to motivate for further field trials. Key parameters for qualification of foam are: foam generation, propagation in porous medium, foam strength and stability of foam. Stability is discussed, especially in the presence of oil at reservoir conditions. Data on each of these topics are included, as well as extracted summary of relevant literature. Experimental studies have shown that foam is generated at low surfactant concentration even below the CMC (critical micelle concentration). Results indicate that in situ foam generation in porous medium may depend on available nucleation sites. In situ generation of foam is complex and has been found to be especially difficult in oil wet carbonate rocks. Foam propagation in porous medium has been summarized, and propagation rate for a given experiment seems to be constant with time and distance. Laboratory studies confirm a propagation rate of 1-3 m/day. Field tests performed have not given reliable information of foam propagation rate, and future field pilots are encouraged to include observation wells in order to gain information of field-scale foam propagation. Foam strength is generally high with all gases. The exception is CO 2 at high pressure where CO 2 becomes supercritical. Stability of foam has been studied in laboratory and field tests, and has confirmed long-term stability of foam.

show abstract

Assessment of Foam Properties and Effectiveness in Mobility Reduction for CO2-Foam Floods

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Improving Co2 Efficiency for Recovering Oil in Heterogeneous Reservoirs

Improving Co2 Efficiency for Recovering Oil in Heterogeneous Reservoirs

Improving Gas Flooding Efficiency

Foam Generation, Propagation and Stability in Porous Medium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About