CO2 Foam Field Verification Pilot Test at EVGSAU: Phase IIIC—Reservoir Characterization and Response to Foam Injection

Harpole, K.J.; Siemers, W.T.; Gerard, M.G.

doi:10.2118/27798-ms

Cited by 32 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a number of subsurface applications that utilize gas injection, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), aquifer remediation, and hydraulic fracturing [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] . However, the efficiency of these applications is limited due to the high mobility of gas, which results in problems like viscous fingering and gravity override 12 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Gas Type on Foam Transport in Porous Media

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the results of an experimental investigation of the effect of gas type and composition on foam transport in porous media. Steady-state foam strengths with respect to three cases of distinct gases and two cases containing binary mixtures of these gases were compared. The effects of gas solubility, the stability of lamellae, and the gas diffusion rate across the lamellae were examined. Our experimental results showed that the steady-state foam strength is inversely correlated with the gas permeability across a liquid lamella, a parameter that characterizes the rate of mass transport. The results are also in good agreement with existing observations that the foam strength for a mixture of gases is correlated with the less soluble component. Three hypotheses with different predictions of the underlying mechanism that explain the role of gas type and composition in foam strength are discussed in detail.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Gas Type on Foam Transport in Porous Media

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laboratory results showed that Chaser TM CD1045 was an effective foaming agent at reservoir conditions for EVGSAU cores. 21 The field trial at EVGSAU [22][23][24][25] confirmed these findings. The surfactant showed great effectiveness as a CO 2 mobility reduction agent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Cost Reduction and Injectivity Improvements for CO2 Foams for Mobility Control

Grigg¹,

Tsau²,

Martin³

2002

Proceedings of SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractThis paper identifies chemical cost reduction derived from the synergistic effects of co-surfactant systems using a good foaming agent and a less expensive poor foaming agent. The required good foaming agent is reduced by at least 75%. Also the effect on injectivity is reduced by as much as 50% using the co-surfactant system, compared to a previously used surfactant system. Mobility control of injected CO 2 for improved oil recovery can be achieved with significant reduction in the chemical cost of SAG, improved injectivity of SAG, and improved economics of CO 2 injection project when compared to reported systems.

show abstract

“…A comparison between pressure drop during SAG injection and co-injection modes showed that the pressure drop during surfactant/CO 2 co-injection is 2-10 times higher than for CO 2 following surfactant solution injection 26,41 mode. Therefore, when SAG mode is used in the field, smaller values are to be employed in the design of the field process.…”

Section: Adapting Laboratory Testing Approaches To the Field Needsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The East Vacuum Grayburg-San Andres Unit (EVGSAU) pilot [23][24][25][26] is the second most successful foam field test to date. This pilot was based on an extensive amount of laboratory work, and it was by far the best instrumented field pilot.…”

Section: High Pressure Foam Application: Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Foam Applications in Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects: Screening and Design Aspects

Turta¹,

Singhal²

2002

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An in-depth analysis covering over forty foam applications in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects and numerous production well treatment operations was conducted, to obtain insights on screening and design of such applications. Foam can be used to solve conformance problems caused by either a thief zone or gravity override; proper identification of the cause, as well as of the affected production well(s) is basic to definition of the problem. Either blocking/diverting foams or in-depth mobility control foams can be placed through the injection wells. On the other hand, foam is placed in production wells mainly to mitigate an override problem.The most important factors in foam assisted EOR projects are: (a) manner of foam placement in the reservoir (injection of pre-formed foam, co-injection foam and SAG or surfactant alternating gas foam), (b) reservoir pressure and c) permeability. While pre-formed foams are effective in the treatment of production wells, co-injection foam and SAG foam can be employed for solving specific sweep problems. For designing a steam-foam project (which is a low pressure foam application), foam quality in the range 45% to 80% should be considered. In this application, a co-injection foam is employed and the additives (surfactant and non-condensable gas) are injected intermittently (on and off), superimposed on a continuous steam injection. Injection cycles as short as 7 days are common. Under suitable conditions, an oil rate increase of 1.5 to 5 times, a decrease in water cut by 20 %, and an incremental oil recovery of 6%-12% OOIP can be achieved with this implementation. At high pressure, such as in gas miscible flooding, foam application can result in excessive mobility reduction factors, and injectivity reduction. Due to this reason, in these projects, alternate injection of surfactant solution and gas (SAG foam) is favoured over a coinjection mode of placement. Low Pressure Foam Application: Steam Drive.Out of 19 projects reviewed, 14 were in the Midway Sunset and Kern River fields in California 12-16 , where the reservoirs are shallow, with good porosity and permeability. Oil viscosity is between 1000 and 4000 mPa.s. Surfactant was injected along with a low pressure (0.7-3.5 MPa) steam injection to solve overriding problems. Patterns areas were in the range 0.5-4 ha, and at the time of foam injection, the steam drive was quite mature, having been in progress for 5 to 10 years, with a current oil recovery in the range of 30% to 60% OOIP. The most commonly employed surfactants were Chaser SD and Suntech injected at concentrations in the range of

show abstract

CO2 Foam Field Verification Pilot Test at EVGSAU: Phase IIIC—Reservoir Characterization and Response to Foam Injection

Cited by 32 publications

References 8 publications

Role of Gas Type on Foam Transport in Porous Media

Role of Gas Type on Foam Transport in Porous Media

Cost Reduction and Injectivity Improvements for CO2 Foams for Mobility Control

Field Foam Applications in Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects: Screening and Design Aspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About