19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
Transcript of 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
1/9
*
,
SPE
-~~[m
SPE 19691
Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
F,E. Suffrldge, K,T. Raterman,an$ Q.C. Russell,Amoco ProductionCo.
n
SPE Members
1
@pY:ght16SS,SodetyotPotrokumEngineer%,nc.
Thispaperwaeprepared/orpresentationttheS4thAnnualTechnicalCo+rferencendExhibikmfth~SiocletyfPetroleumEngineereeldInSanAntonio,X,OctoberS-11,1SSS
l%kpaperwasselectedkwpreeentMonyan SPEProgramCommitteeottowiweviewofinformationontainednenebstraotwbmlttadbytheAlwr(8).CMantaofthepaper
sepresented,havenotbeanreviewedytheSccietyofPekokumEnehewsandbre eubjeoltoCoffeotknWtheWffIOf@).hemet.fldtu mt.d, * no ~fy *
y positionoftheSodetyofPetroleumEngineers,tsottioere,r
mambara.Paperapraaenfed tSPEmaatingareaubjeofopubketiorrevkwbyEditorlelCofnmlttaes}ttmSt@st
~b*ismdbm~d MmMmw.lm*mytibq. m~-~*~
$ %%%tiEbY=m thew k presented.WflfePubtkatio+wManager,WE, P.O.SoXS22S3S,Rlchsrdaon,X730SMS3S.Telex,730S2SSPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
thought to be coranon to miscible displacement proc-
esses.
Foams that fectively redt?:d gas permeability
The work herein reported was directed towmd
were formed over wide range of experimental condi-
tions. The
bility of selected foaming agents to
the selection of suitable foaming gents for use in
two field tests of foam. For these tests, f oam was
f o rst f o ars was evaluated in bulk foam measurement,
to be evaluated for its
bility to reduce gas ~obil-
scraening core tester
nd in reservoir condition
ity (C02 an enriched gas mixture) in n injection
core tests.
Resulte reported show that oil usually
well. Thus, laboratory ef fo r ts were directed to the
versely affacted foan performance with higher
selection
of
foaming agents that would provide f or
molecular weight lkanes showing less of n dverse
the maximum gas mobility raduction for the longest
effect for
the foaming agents tested.
Foam can be
practical period of time at +pecific reservoir con-
feetively generated in an oil-wet porous medium
ditions. As this work developed, it t,eceme obvious
but was shown to be much lass ef fac t i ve than in a
that varying reservoir conditions of tamperatura,
water-wet
medium for the feaming agents
studied, hydrocarbon composition,
water hardness and salin-
High pressure gradients of up to 4524 kPa/m
(200 psi/ft) rasulted in effective foam generation
ityt i~:jected gas composition, etc. significantly
affected foam performance. The purpose
of
this
with an effective foam continuing to 8500 pore voL-
umes of injected nitrogen. Tha enriched gas mixture
paper is to surrartarize the effects
of
these condi-
tions on foam performance.
usad in this study
was
shown to adversely affect
foam even though the foaming agent was selected
Laboratory Experimental Program
through screening testing. This showed the impor-
tance of including reservoir condition testing prior
Three levels
of
experimental testing
wera
to the final selection of a foaming agent f or a
established to select suitabla foaming agents$
given reservoir application, Effective foaming
agents were identified for use in pilot tasts in a
1. Sulk foam measurement (screening test),
typicaL West Texas c02 flood and in a typicaL Cana-
dian hydrocarbon miscible flood.
2, Screening core tests, and
INTRODUCTION
3, Reservoir condition core tests.
The concept of using foam to reduce gas mobil-
ity was initially patented by Bond and Holbrook in
Foaming agents tested
are
described in Table 1 nd
reservoir conditions for typical Wast Texas C02
1958. Although many individuals have studied
the
flood and a
typical
Canadian enriched gas flood are
properties of fo~g5in porous media~ the works of
sunsnarized in Tabla 2. Water alyses
for
thaea two
Bernard
nd Helm and
Raza6
are
classic studies,
fields re drtscribad in Tible 3. Altaough these two
Caa mobility reductions of perhapa 100 fold reported
waters wete simi~ar in composition, it ehould be
in these studies have suggested that foant could ba
noted that aalinitie? e low as about 2000 kg/m3
fectively used to blotk gas flow in certain reeer-
total dissolved oLids (TDS) to s high s bout
voir situations in addition to providing the poten-
220,000 kg/m3 TDS
were
leo examined. In this
tial for improving the adv~rse mobility ratio
study, Sol~roL 130 nd Slandol were tensively
used,
Referance$ nd illustrations at end of paper.
Soltrol 130, a ref ined
kane, was determined
to hsve an average lkane chain length of Cl l
nd
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
2/9
2
FOA PERFORMANCE UNDERIMMIUJOIR CONDITION5
will be so designated throughout this pa 3r.
Blan-
dol, a
white Oilt hao an average
kane chain length
of CIS nd will be so designated throughout this
paper.
The simpleet screening for fosming agents was:
dissolve, if possible, the foaming agent in che
ppropriate brine; pour this solution into a cylin-
der nd seal the cylinder$ shake the cylinder and
measure the foam height generated. Howevert our
xperience showed this technique to produce rather
arratic data. To provide more consistent screening
test results, the bulk foam test was developed as is
described in Figure 1. This test allowed the rapid
screening of surfactants at room temperature and
mospheric pressure conditions.
Specifically$ the
effects
of
differing salinitylhardae~s levels and
the effects of various hydrocarbons.on a given foam-
ing agent could be examined by this technique.
Note
that the larger the foam volume generated at a given
rate, the less ad~erse the effect of a given hydro-
carbon on that foaming agent.
A more rigorous test
of
a given foaming agent
was its performance in porous media.
For this evel
of testing, the screening c-re
teat, ac describad in
Ta>ia 4$ was developed. Most tests were performed
in 0.305-wI (1.O-ft) long Berea cores of 300-600 pm2
absolute permeability. Some tests were also par-
formed in cores of lengths of up to 1*22-m (6.0 ft).
All teats were
performed
t
constant pressure drop
conditions of usually 226 Wa/m (10 Psi t f t t
tbou~h pressure gradients of up to 4524 kPa/m
(200 pai/ft) were so tested. For screening tests,
ther humidified
ir or
humidified nitrogen war
used
s the gas phase. Moat screening tests were
terminated t l ess than 300 hours duration,
though
some were extended to 500 hours.
This test provided
for the examination of saLinity/hardnesst waterflood
residual oil saturation, pressure gradient/velocityt
nd wattability effects on foam performance.
The final level of testing examined foaming
agent performance
at reservoir
conditioi - as
described in Table 2 and Figur~s 2 and 3. Unlike
screening tests, these tests were performed at con-
stant velocity conditions ranging from about
0.15 m/day (0.5 ft/day) to 6.1 m/day (20 ft/day).
Incremental pressure drops were recorded along cores
t selected di stances from the injection faca, usu-
ly across 7+62-cm (3.O:in.) long segments of each
core, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.
Meet of
these tests were terminated after 300 hours of
injection.
ArI
in screening
core
tests, all injected
gases wsrs humidified with water so as to minimize
drying of foam. Reservoir condition testing allowed
the examination of the e f fec ts on foamj of gas com-
position, temperature, pressurej
etc, ,
in addition
to the effects studied in the screening core tests.
For these sets of reservoir conditions, a
restored-
sc~ .a San Andres dolomite core (West Texas C02 and
Serea cores (Canadian enriched gas) were thought to
be suitable models of reservoir nettability condi-
tions,
To si;nplify the comparison of screening core
test data where the absolute core permeabilities
varied by more than 100 pm2, effective air or nitro-
gen permeabilities were normalized to either the
absolute brine permeability or the oil permeability
t SUI for aach core, The normalized or relative
,
SP% 19691
gas parmnability data re preeentet in Figures 8-10.
Formalized data
re also present-d for the reservoir
condition test in Figme 16 to simplify comparison.
Effects of Hydrocarbons
Usually the presence of oil was found to be
deleterious to foam s:ability. The effect of oi l
West Texaa separator crude oil) on bulk f oam volume
can vary from relatively mild, as shown in the case
of a fluorinated surfactant in Figure 4. to essen-
tially catastrophic as shown i n the case of a Clo
d olefin sulfonate as shown in Figure 5. Note that
the more adverse the effect of oil as measured in
the bulk foam stability test, the greater is the ga
flow rate required to denerate foam in the pressnce
of that oil.
For the surfactants and oils tested, the trend
establi.ghed was that lower molecular weight alkanes
were m:ce adverse to foam volume.
Data shown in
Figure 6 indicate a marked difference in bulk foam
stability between Cll and Cls with CIE offering no
adversity to foam for this particular foaming agent.
For
this series of alkanes, it WOU1 1, xpected
that
gas
mobility in porous media it, de
presence o
foam and C~l would be much greatw than gas mobility
in the presence of foam, and C18.
LimiEed testing with romatic hydrocarbon ia
sunwnerized in Figure 7. These results implied that
the alkane ctiinponent domin~ced the
ffect that the
aromatic/alkane mixture had on foams
generated
with
this particular foaming gent, Alipal CO-128.
To confirm the e f fec ts of oil on Alipal CD-128
foama, series of screening core tests was con-
ducted using 0. 305-m (l.O-ft) long Berea cores t A
waterflood residual oil saturation.
These results
are shown in Figure 8. For comparison purposes, the
top curve is for gas injection at a waterflood SOR
(CIS)
in
the abaence of foam. Other curves shown
indicate the relative effectiveness of f oam t
reducing gas mobility in the prezence of CII West
Texas separator crude oil, and the Cla. Note that
the order of oil adversity shown in this core teat
eeries matched the order of adversity suggested by
the bulk foam test results shown in Figure 6.
Compare the Cls curve in Figure 8 to the lower
curve in the absence of a waterflood SOA shown in
Figure 9. For this comparison, the futm generated
in ths presence of the CIS is somewhat more effec-
tive in reducing gas permeability, Bulk
foam meas
urements indicated this trend on
foam performance
and cope test results confirmed that the presance of
CIS may have actually enhanced foam performance,
perhaps by causing the formation
of low
levels
of
oil-in-watar emulsions in ddition to foam.
Although not extensive; evaluated, other foam
ing agents have shown cn-sistent results with &he
above data in which
lower
molecular weight alkanes
tended to be more destabilizing to foam. These data
indicated the likelihood of having to match
given
foaming agent to the hydrocarbon representative of
given net
of reservoir conditions, In addition, the
bulk foam scrcenini test appeared adequately reli-
able as screening test so
s
to reduce the number
of core tests raquired in the selection
of
a cuit-
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
3/9
.
.
3PE 19691
F B SUFFRIDOZ K. T RATMMAN~ G. C. RUSSELL
b~o foaming
gent for a
specific reservoir tpplica-
ior of foame 8enerated under
unsteady-stat,~ condi-
tion.
tions.
These
data suggest
that oil presence may not be
Higher pressure gradients
and resulting highar
:svere
problem in miscible processes.
For misci-
velocity
(higher qhaar rate) conditions modified the
ble
processes, if foam is co be generated in zones
ability of frims to reduce gas
permeability. Varion
previously swept by C02 or an enriched gas, oil sat-
CAS foama generated with nitrogen in screeninc core
uration would be expected to be much
lower
than wat-
te-ts showed
shear
thickening characteristic, s
erflood residuals and oil remaining in these zones
indicated by reduced nitrogen permeability t higher
would likely be a higher molecular weight shear rates,
s
shown in Figure 11. Thie
character-
alkane/aromatic
residue because
of
solvent strip-
istic
was
so
observed at reservoir condition
ping. Lower oil saturations and higher carbon
using
the enriched gas
mixture,
aa shown in
number residues would not be expected to show severe
Figura 12. The opposite effect, that
of
ohear thin-
adversity
to
many surfactant systems.
ning, was shown by foams ganeruted in screening
core
tests using nitrogen and Enordet X2101, as shown
hi
~f:cts of Wettabiiity
Figure 13. Velocity was
over
1,219 miday
(4,000 ftldayi at the endpoint of the4tS24kPa/m
Serea core material was extensively used in
(200 psi/ft) test and an effective foam still
this study. By nature,
Berea is a strongly
water-
existed. Although neither characteristic was
wet, relatively clean sandstone. Its Wettsbility
expected to be practically
adverse
to foam pe-Torm-
can be readily modified by treatment with Quilon C,
ante away from the wellbore, thickening or tiinning
a DuPont product developed for modifying wazer-wet
behavior could
confound the
interpretation ok sear
7 Berea cores 5.08-cm (2.O-in.)
urfaces to oil-wet.
well
performance in an injection well test.
in diameter
by 30.5-cm (lZ-in.) long
were
treated
with Quilw.
C and determined to $e intermediate- to
Although these foams
effectively reduced
nitro-
oil-wet by the .hn~tt imbibition technique.
f
en permeability for large throughput volumes
2500 pore volumes t 1,810 kPa/m (80 psi/ft)],
Foam test resutts using Alipal CD-128 as a
foams
~enerated
t such
high gradients showed the
foaming
gent are suoanarized in Figures 9
nd 10.
@xp@ct?d trend of Wch shorter lifeti~s on an bee-
Foam ffectiveness in
reducing
r mobility in the
Lute time scale.
In
?
dditional test? illustrated
bsence
of
an oil saturation is shown
fo r
Quilon-
i n Fi gure 14, pressure gradients of
treated Berea nd untreated
Berea in Figure 9.
For
i,131-1,810 kPa/m (50-80
psi/ft) resulted in ever
both
nettability conditions,
foam
effectively
8500
pore volumes of nitrogen
injection throush
reduced air relative permeability with a more effec-
foam. ffffactive nitrogen
permeability reduction
tive
foam
observed in the
water-wet Berea core.
For
remained throughout the 149
hour lifetime of this
the
Quilon-treated comparison in the
presence of
a
test.
Had foam not been preeent, nitrogen pe~a-
w~terflood
residual :1 saturation, the results re
bility would have been
expected to be
t least
shown in Figure 10.
These results
indicated
much
150 ~z.
Further, effective foama have been gener-
less
effective foam in the Quilon-traated core,
ted
at
very low velocities of
about
0.1S mfday
Nevertheless,
air
relative permeability
was
reduced
(0.S ft/day) in 50 pm2 dolomite
cores. US foa
by
an order
of
magnitude over the no-foam
case
under
generation is practical
over
very
wide range of
intermediate- to oil-wet conditions.
At water-wet
velocity/pressure gradient conditions.
conditions, nitrogen relative permeabilities were
reduced by over two orders of
magnitude.
Thus ,
Foam at Reservoir Conditions
these
results illustrate the importance of including
representative nettability conditions in the
Bulk foam height measurements and screening
selection of a suitable fcaming agent for a given
core test results identified Enordet X2101 as being
reservoir application,
an effective foaming agent for uae at either the
typical West Texas or the
typical
Canadian hydrocar-
Pressure Gradient/Velocity
tTffects
bon miscible flood test conditions illustrated in
F;Sures 2 and 3.
Figure 15 sunsnarizes foam perform-
It was recognised early that foam texture has a
ante at the Wast Texas
conditions.
After about
pronounced
effect on
the
mobility of foam in porous
9.5 pore volumes (300
hours) of
C02 injection in the
media.g Furthert it was recognized that under
presence of foam, COZ
permeability
was reduced
steady-state flow condition, bubble sizeio affectad
approximately
a
factor of 10 compared to C02 permea-
foam mobility and that the dynamics of foam bubble
bility in the absence of
foam.
These data refLact
formatf;n controlled foam texture in porous
performance at the laat
pressure tap
[0.61-In
edia. For the data included in this paper, all
(24-in.) at the tap midpoint
from
the injection
foams were generated under unsteady-state flow con- 1
face]
of a
0.79-m (31-in.) long San
Andres
dolomite
ditions with no attempt made to separate the effects
core, For both data sets, oil saturation was t a
of
the dynamics of
foim
formation from
foam rheolog-
C02 residual of 8.3% pore
volut~e. This test was
ical properties. It was recognized that under
terminated
at 300 hour~ of
C02 injection with
e f fec-
unsteady-state
Jnditions, foam
texture would be
tive foam
continuing throughout the
test,
dynamic
and constantly changing with gas throughput,
However, it
was observed in the data to be presented
For tests
at
the
typical Canadian
miscible
that the effect
of
foam on gas mobility with gas
flood cortditiona, an enriched gaa mixture having
the
throughput was relatively consistent over large vol-
composition described in Table 2 was used,
Initial
umes
f or
a given
set of core
test conditions.
For
attempts to generate foam using this gas mixture nd
purposes
of
the following discussion, the terms of
Enordet X2101 resulted in a weak foam being Sener-
shear thickening and shear thinning will
be used
s
ated.
It was speculated that the combination
of
descriptive terms to describe
the
stabilized behav-
residual separator oil hd the intermediate compo-
..-
637
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
4/9
6
FOAM
PERPORMANcE
UNDER RMBRVOI R
CONDITIONS.
nonts (Cg-Cs) in the gas mixture destabilized the
foam. Since other testing had identified
Varion CA
*S
potential foaming agent for use at thie set of
condition, further core testing was ps?fcrmed with
the Varion
CAS. AL
illustrated in Figura 16, a very
effective foam was ge~erated at the mid and end sec-
tions
of
the 0.79-m (31-in.) long Berea core.
This
core
contained a residual oil saturation to the
enriched gas
of 9.7%
pore vohme during the foam
sequence. Note that there
was a
trend of increasing
foam effectiveness with diztance. This has been
observed in other tests with this surfactant and
dense phase ethane at core length~ of 0.91-m
(3oO ft) and 2.~,4-m (8.9 ft). It was speculated
that oil and w~.ter emulsions, as well as foam, were
formed with distaiice, resulting in additional
gas
permeability reduction. These results (the compar-
ison of Enordet X2101 and Varion CAS) have empha-
sized the importance of approximating reservoir
conditions in final testing to, select a foaming
agent for a give~. application.
OBSERVATIONSANDCONCLUSIONS,
Injection well field tests of foam at these two
sets
of reservoir conditions (West Texas C02 and
Canadian hydrocarbon miscible) have been success-
fully
performed with the
foaming agents selected.
In each field tes$lcase, measurable injectivity
reductions
occurreil.=t is concluded f rom t hi s
study that reservoir condition testing is a neces-
sary part of the evaluation procesz in selecting
foaming agents
f or a
specific reservoir application.
A number of observations concerning foam behavior
are relevant:
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
It was reasoned that the presence of oil in
miscible processes (C02 or enriched gas) would
not severely
restrict
foaming because of the
expected lower saturation of solvent stripped
residual oil (higher chain length residues) in
swept zones.
The presence
of oi l i s
usually an adverse envi-
ronment for generating an effective foam; how-
ever, foaming agents can be identified that
wiLl effectively foam in the presence of oils.
For the foaming a&en? a
included in this study,
Lower molecular weight alkanes offered a more
adverse environment to foam than did higher
I,lolecular weight alkarves.
Bulk foam measurements and screening core
tests
are useful tools in the selection
of
foaming
ngenta for a given reservoir application.
Results from these tests should be confirmed in
a
limited number of core tests at reservoir
conditions before final selection of a foaming
agent for a given
reservoir.
Foam can be effectively generated at high
[4,524
kPa/m (200 psi/ft)] pressure ~adient~
and may be either shear thinning or shear
thickening, depanding upon the foaming agents
selected and the conditions tasted.
Effective foama can be generated in oil-wet
porous medii$ however, it is thou~-,t that care-
ful selection of foaming agent w~i be required
in
order
to successfully generate foam in an
oil-wet environment.
ACNNOULKDCEI I ENT
The authors thank the manageme~.c of the Amoco
?roduction Company for the privilege of publishing
this information.
Our
gratitude is so extended to
C, R. Chadwell, 1,
M. Cook,
J. ?4: Corgan, D. S.
Denham, S. Hendricks and R. Walters for performing
the laboratory experiments.
REFERENCES
.
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9*
Lo
11,
Boud, D. C, and Holbrook; 0. C., Gas Drive Oil
Recovery
Process,
w uoB@
patent 2~wit507~
December 1958.
Bernard, George C. and Holm~ L. W., Effect
of
Foam on Permeability of Porous Media
to
Gas9
SPEJ, September 1964, pp. 267-274.
Bernard, George C., Helm, L. W. and Jacobs,
W. L., Effect of Foam on Trapped Caa Satu-
ration and on Permeability of Porous Media to
Water, SPEJ, December 1965, pp. 295-300.
Helm. L, w,, ~t~e Mechanism of
Cae
nd Liquid
Flow Through Poroue Media in the Presents
of
December 1968, pp. 359-369.
Bernard,
George C.,
Holm~ L. W. nd Harvey,
Craig
P., Use of Surfactant to Reduce C@
Mobility in Oil Displacement?
August 1980.
Raza, S. H, Foam in Porous Hedia: Character-
istic and Potential Applications, ~,
December 1970, pp. 328-336.
Tiffin~ D. L. and Yellig, W. F. %ffects of
Mobile Water on Multiple Contact Miscible Gas
Displacements, SPEJ, June 1983, pp. 447-455.
Amott, Earl, Observations Relating
to
the
Nettability of Porous
Rockj
Transactions
AIME?
vol.
216, 1959, pp. 156-162.
Marsden, S. S.,
Jr.,
Eerligh J. J. P.,
Albrecht, R. A. and David,
A*)
Use of
Foam in
Petroleum Opevations$
Proceedings of the Sev~
enth World Petroleum Congress, Mexico City,
April 2-7, 1966, Elsevier, Essex, England~
vol. 3, pp. 235-242.
Falls,
A. ,.,
Must.era, J. J. and Ratulowski,
J., The Apparent Viscosity of Foams in Bead-
packe, BPE Reservoir Engineering, Hay 1989)
pp. 155-164.
Falls, A. H., et al., Development of Mechanis-
tic Foam Simulator: The Population Balance an
Generation by Snap-off, SPE Reservoir Engi-
neering, August 1988, pp. 884-892.
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
5/9
SPE 19691
TAtL12
Apparent
~ming
Ag*nt _
supplier
PraduetDa-criptiom Mole.16t
AliPal CO-128 CAQCorporation
dnlc.nic-st~oxy~ted
352
cohol sulfate ,
wmnoniumsalt
Enordat X2101 Shetl
Chemimi CO,
Anionic-Ethoxylated 35h
cohol
@:C~Cyi lUl-
fonatc, sodium salt
Zonyl FSK OuPc.nt Company Pluorlnattd Amphoteric
809
Varion GAS Sherex ChemlceL Co. Anphoceric-Coco mine- 3,70
propyt sultobecelne
TABLE 3
lnjeetiOnBrineSelini~
Ion COZ Flood Cae Flood
sodium
40,310
32,062
Celcium 11,600
13,600
Ilecnesium 2,800 2;223
Chloride 90,100
79,100
DienrbOnat* 580 9B
Sulfate 900 1,100
1.
2.
J.
h.
5.
l esc ewir Teat Condition8
Typical Ucrt Texas COZ Fioodl
~ocmmion:EenAndtesDolomite
Avcra~e
PermeabiLLtyl 1.16 1
Avera e
POre i~l
10.JX
Tam~t&ture8 105 F (40.6C)
Opereting Presaurel 1S00 p8ic ( 10 ,342 kPa)
TypkeL Can6dlan lhwiched ws Flood:
Forutienl GiluoodSendsCone
Avcrege Pecmcabi 1 i t y : 600 paz
Avara~e Porositgl 15.5%
Tcmpere turel 135 P (57 .2C)
OpcratincPce 9ure Zooo
p~ig (13, 790 kPa)
Solvent Composition
Mit rofpn
7.84 MOICz
Mwhene
>0.37
~er~ m Oioxide
0.37
Kthene 1S.06
PrOpcna
13.93
n-~utane B.36
n-P*n:en8 4.07
m mol. z
TABLE b
ScregninS Core Tsst Conditions
Un6tea6y-Stete Techniqug
400 psie (2,7S8 kPa) or 100 psie (689 kPe) sbseluto pressure
u rfactent-filled core
-- mey or My
not
contain waterflood ~
2-in. (S. OB-cm) diamet*r x 12-in. (30.S cm)
lcn~th Berea
Wumidifiad lJ2 or Air Cmwtant AP D 10 pei (69 kPe)
?SF (23.9c)
Glass Column
Foam
OH
Surfactant
Solution
Frit
Hydrator
Alr
Pump
QJ
PROCEDURE:
1.
2.
3*
4.
15 cc wrfactant soiution
5 cc oil
In]ec air to constant
foam height
Measure flow rate and
foam height
Figure1. BulkFoamTesIAppara us
w
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
6/9
Tompersture:
40. 6 {105?
Preaeum:
10,342kPa (1500 pelg)
Core Deecrtptton:
ComooeftmSan Andreadolomtto
100. cc la
Vohmle
r
.53=cm
1.18-in.)lax 78 era
(314n.) length
%nH %%-m9isiBdmk=m,
d
Inlit SectIon:
Middle Section:
Aba;Btinak m9.02 pm;
EndSection:
Aba. Brtnek x 6.15 pm
FlowVolocitles:
0.3.0,6 m/day (1.O.2.Gftlday)
13ecomblned
West
Texaa011@ SOF
i
Inlet
Middle Exit
I
SPE 19691
,,
Tempsraturw
59.2V (135P)
Pressure: 13,760kPa (2000pslg)
CoreDescription:
BereaSandstone
26100 average pom volume
300-600pmz AbsoluteBrinePermesbillties
5.08-cm(2.04n.) dia. x 61-om(244n.) length
FlowVelooltles: 0.61 m/day(2.0Wday and
SeparatorOil@ SWmday nday)
1 I II
11
Inlet
Middle
Exit
I
~ 6.4 cm
~ 15.2 cm
F@ma 2- West T WM Cm t ire Teat conditbna
Figure3- Cmnedian Hyffooarbon Mholbla Core Teat Condlba
{1
/
1
/
I
\
I
I
60-
I
I
/
40-
I
/
With Oil
------
20- /
No 011
/
/
o
I
.
I
o
1
Gas Flowrate,cc/rein
Figure4. BulkFoamStablllty.0,0568MZonyl FSK West Texas Separator Crude
640
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
7/9
*
., ---
\
\
%.,.
...
...
... .
...
*
,,
.,
. . . . .
.
%.
I
-----.. ---
I I t I
1
:8ss8
w oUmloAUJwj
-
\
\
\
-;
\
?5; g
\
\
~~
I
\
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Ml
SPE 19691
\
\
/
\
i
\
1
\
1
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
8/9
I
0.1
0.01
I
Nooil
Preeent
O.ml
1
--
\
,p~%
r
---
k
I
/
\
-----
--41, ,
\
\__-
-/
O.0001
\
NoPoam
\water-wet
\
/0 /
O.owol
-
WIlon-Treeted
G--
------
I
0 ~
lm
Tkne, houre
30
5
0
Fgw e 9 . AJ ii I
CD 128
oam inTreated and Untreated Mea
Pf
J
//--
------
----
.
/
Y
226kl lm
.-
/
4S24 kWm
----- --
50
100
150
m
2
Pore Volumee
injected
0.1
O. 00001
1
/---__---
FI
,--
/-
---
/
0
- -
/
/
-~
13E@icl
--\/-\
No
Foem \\
.
\,
/
We?er-Wet
-Y
-
Quilon-Treeted
\
-
----- -
o~
1
J
1
10
lm
mm, houre
Fwr e 1 0- E ff ac t o f .W el ta bi li i Al @ C D-12 8 Foa m
E 10
a
L+
. -- _-- ---- -- ------ _--- -
1
1
I
I
I
J
EzEiiEl
-~
6.1mkiey
----- -
0.61 mhtey
O. om
1
I t
o
1 2 3
4
P.V.Throughftut
mll-She Thidmnmaf valimcAsFoams@Sm
F ii 12- Miscib k COnm im s :sh wlMkMin g &wkwior@MiMalw
-
7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions
9/9
SPE 19691
.
N
r