FOAMS Introduction: The continued use of gas injection to improve oil recovery and the prospects for its

increased use throughout the world provides impetus to improve sweep efficiency of injected gas. !or" is #eing carried out to improve understanding and the economics of mo#ility control agents. There are no reservoirs that are completely homogeneous. The porous media in the reservoir are characteri$ed #y a si$e distri#ution of pores and pore throats% which leads to non&uniform displacement. According to 'arcy(s law% the mo#ility of a single phase in porous media is inversely proportional to its viscosity. )ases used in gas&flooding% li"e *O+% hydrocar#ons% ,+% etc.% are normally less viscous and less dense as compared to #oth water and crude oil% which results in gravity overriding and gas channeling through the high permea#ility $ones. Thus% gas flooding normally has poor volumetric sweep efficiency% especially in an immisci#le displacement% with the displacing phase #eing a lower viscosity. A need for mo#ility control in gas flooding has led to the use of foam for sweep improvement and profile modification. -arious oil recovery processes are "nown and used in the industry% such as waterflood% fireflood% micellar flood% gas drive% misci#le flood% and polymer flood. As mentioned a#ove% the foam process is also "nown and used. Foam is employed to improve the efficiency #y which the displacing fluid sweeps the reservoir and contacts and recovers oil. The utility of the invention lies in the improvement in sweep efficiency when used in enhanced oil recovery processes. Sweep efficiency is defined as the volume of formation swept over total volume.+ Foam is colloidal disersion in which a gas is dispersed in a continuous li.uid phase. Surfactants are added to the solution to sta#ili$e foam #y reducing interfacial tension. Many studies demonstrated that surfactant sta#ili$ed foam could drastically reduce the gas mo#ility in the porous media% conse.uently improving volumetric sweep efficiency and oil recovery. There is considera#le interest in the application of foams in enhanced oil recovery processes involving misci#le or immisci#le gas displacement /*O+% hydrocar#on gases etc.0. From a reservoir perspective foams can provide a means to counteract the displacing agent1s naturally high mo#ility and low density and therefore can reduce fingering /channeling0 and gravity override. Foams can also #e applied near&well to reduce gas coning.2 )ases such as steam% car#on dio3ide /*O+0 and hydrocar#on gases are injected into oil reservoirs to increase the recovery of oil. These gases are much less dense and less viscous than the oil they attempt to displace% so they tend to finger through or migrate to the top of the reservoir% leaving most of the oil #ehind. Foams can help these gases to sweep oil reservoirs more efficiently. 4 5se of Foam:

Foams are injected into the geological formations for gas diversion in Improved Oil 6ecovery /IO60% acid diversion in matri3 acid well stimulation% and environmental remediation. Foam can #e injected continuously or in alternating slugs of gas and li.uid. In IO6 and environmental remediation% it is often useful to inject gas and surfactant solution in alternating slugs% called surfactant&alternating&gas or SA) injection. SA) injection holds several advantages over continuous co&injection of gas and li.uid. As a part of Improved Oil 6ecovery /IO607 foams can #e used in the following ways /details of which can #e found later when the field cases are discussed0: 0 Foam used as stimulant to increase gas production +0 Foams used to reduce water cut 20 Foams used to reduce the gas mo#ility 40 )as shut off using foam 6eason for using Foam: !ater&solu#le polymers of high molecular weight such as partially hydroly$ed polyacrylamides are the usual method of providing mo#ility control and thus improving sweep efficiency in surfactant and al"aline8surfactant processes for enhanced oil recovery. Foam offers the prospect of further improvement in sweep efficiency% especially in heterogeneous reservoirs% #ecause foam mo#ility is lower /apparent viscosity is higher0 in layers of high permea#ility than in those of low permea#ility. !hile additional surfactant is needed to generate the foam% its amount and cost is less than the decrease in the amount and cost of polymer #ecause half or more of the injected fluid is gas in the foam case. 6ecovery of residual oil is e3cellent in #oth cases for the surfactant mi3ture used. Apparent viscosity of the foam is appro3imately a factor of five larger in the sand pac" with the higher permea#ility% confirming the a#ility of foam to provide a more uniform sweep than polymer. The use of foam to improve the sweep efficiency of the displacing fluid involves the utili$ation of two foam properties. The first is the high resistance to flow that is associated with foam. The second property is the high gas&li.uid surface area. Thus% only relatively small amounts of an a.ueous solution of a foaming agent need #e used with relatively large amounts of gas or dense fluid. The gas disperses in the li.uid% generating a large interfacial area and a large volume of foam% there#y increasing the resistance to flow. If this resistance to flow is in those regions of the reservoir where the resistance is least% then the displacing fluid is forced to flow through regions of higher resistance% sweeping larger portions of the reservoir and recovering larger .uantities of oil. Thus% the use of foam improves sweep efficiency. The foaming agent is selected for a particular reservoir #rine #ecause the foam& producing characteristics are influenced #y the nature of reservoir roc"% such as car#onate or sandstone% the properties of the reservoir% such as temperature and pressure% and composition of the reservoir fluids% such as salinity% divalent ion concentration% p9% etc.+ The water used in the a.ueous solution may #e fresh water% produced reservoir #rine% or car#onated water. 5nder typical reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure% the foam is comprised of thin films of a li.uid which are separated #y the displacing fluid% which is either a gas or a dense fluid.

A preferred method of generating the foam in&situ within the reservoir comprises injecting the a.ueous slug together with or ahead of a slug of the displacing fluid. The a.ueous slug can also #e injected #etween two slugs of the displacing fluid. The si$e or volume of the a.ueous slug varies #etween a#out and :;< /vol.0 of the pore volume. The si$e of the displacing fluid slug is dictated #y reservoir si$e% well spacing% reservoir fluids saturation% and reservoir and roc" properties. The ratio of the displacing fluid slug si$e to the a.ueous slug si$e can vary #etween a#out ;;: and : . The displacing fluid can #e one or a mi3ture of the following car#on dio3ide% nitrogen% air% methane% ethane% propane% #utane% hydrogen sulfide% flue or e3haust gas% or stream.+ !hat is it= 9ow is it formed= Foams% which are mi3tures of a gas phase% a li.uid phase and a surfactant% meet all the #asic re.uirements for a good fracturing fluid7 however% the fluid properties of foam are derived from a structure different from that found in gelled water. The .uality of the foam is defined as the volume of gas divided #y the total volume of the foam. )enerally% the higher the .uality of the foam the higher its viscosity.
Foam quality % f g /<0 = qg qg +w > ;;<

The high apparent viscosity of foam is due to the interfacial structure of the foam #u##les.? In very low .uality foams% e.g. @elow ?; .uality% the spherical gas #u##les have freedom to move with little restriction from adjacent #u##les. In foams a#ove appro3imately ?; .uality% the #u##les touch each other and allow less freedom of movement within the total fluid. In high .uality foams% i.e. a#ove A? .uality% the #u##les are crowded together and no longer have spherical shapes. Movement within the fluid is very restricted7 hence% high apparent viscosity results. In a static foam% li.uid will drain from the fluid% and the foam that remain on top effectively increases in .uality. As the .uality of the foam increases% viscosity also increases as the #u##les distort from a spherical shape and the lamella assumes a planar configuration. Sand particles are held in place #y the foam structure and do not readily settle through it. !hen the .uality of the static foam increases% the structure #ecomes somewhat rigid% lending greater support to the sand. Foams in the range of B? to C; .uality are typically used in foam fracturing. So proppant is easily transported #y the foam and then supported once the fracture has #een created. As a result the proppant is more uniformly distri#uted within the fracture rather than simply allowed to settle to the #ottom of the fracture. Foam has shown to have e3cellent fluid loss properties for low permea#ility formation. Formation clays which are water sensitive can either e3pand to reduce permea#ility or migrate to #loc" flow channels upon contact with water. Foam helps minimi$e water damage to the formation #ecause of the overall low water content of the fluid. Additional clay protection can #e achieved #y the use of inorganic salts and polymeric clay sta#ili$ers. A major advantage of a foam fracturing fluid is its fluid recovery efficiency. ? !hen pressure is released at the wellhead% the low hydrostatic head in the well#ore presents

lower resistance to production of the foam frac fluid than for a gelled water fluid. The compressi#le nature of foam also helps #ring the li.uid #ac" due to e3pansion of the gas in its return to the well#ore. This gas e3pansion is most #eneficial to wells with low formation pressure. The clean up of a foam fracturing treatment is usually accomplished within two days% whereas% a gelled water fracturing treatment may re.uire several days. A particularly preferred procedure for carrying out the process of this invention comprises the following steps: 0 A displacing fluid% such as car#on dio3ide% is introduced into the formation at an injector well. As the injection of the fluid is continued% the fluid flows through the regions of least flow resistance% contacting the oil and displacing it. Thus% oil recovery is achieved within the shortest period. +0 !hen the produced gas /displacing fluid08oil ratio approaches levels that are too high for the process to #e economical% an a.ueous slug comprising the mi3ed surfactant system% such as ;.? wt. < of each of the surfactant foaming agent and a lignosulfonate foaming agent is injected. This slug will again preferentially flow through those regions of the reservoir where resistance of flow is least% where most of the oil was recovered as in step . The si$e of the a.ueous slug is a#out ?< of the total pore volume. 20 Injection of the displacing fluid is resumed. Initially% the displacing fluid will flow through those portions of the reservoir where resistance to flow is least% or regions of high permea#ility. There the displacing fluid will disperse throughout the a.ueous slug and generate foam. As more foam is generated% the resistance to flow increases in these regions of high permea#ility. *onse.uently% the displacing fluid is forced to flow through regions of lower permea#ility and displace additional .uantities of oil. 'uring the e3ecution of this step% the si$e of the displacing fluid slug depends on the displacing fluid itself% as well as on the reservoir si$e% well spacings% reservoir fluids saturations and properties% and reservoir and roc" properties. 40 Steps two and three may #e repeated as fre.uently as deemed necessary% until the economics of the process #ecome unfavora#le.

FIDE' *ASD ST5'IDS TO IEE5ST6ATD T9D !AF FOAM IMG6O-DS S!DDG DFFI*ID,*F A,' MO'IFIDS T9D G6OFIED: Foam used as stimulant to increase gas production: Foam fracturing is e3tensively used to simulate gas production in cases where the permea#ility is really low B. *ompared to gelled water which was the traditional fracturing fluid% foams fare much #etter as it tends to recover the fluid more efficiently. The reason #ehind this is that the foams have a lesser pressure head when the well is opened for production and the hydrocar#ons do not have to encounter much resistance and can #e produced easily. Foam in general is more compressi#le than gelled water and this property also aids in higher recovery efficiency #y having greater sweep efficiency and modifying the profile of the e3isting system B. The post clean up of foams is also much .uic"er as compared to gelled water which can ta"e several days B. This means that you could start producing from the well much faster if you use foams as your fracturing fluid. A comparison was done #etween the foam and gelled water was done to find out which is #etter. In Gi"e *ounty% Hentuc"y% a group of four wells were selected and two of them were fractured using foam and two of them were fractured using gelled water. The average production of the wells is shown #elow.

/SGD C:B FOAM F6A*T56I,): Theories% procedures and results% #y I.S )aydos and G.* 9arris 9alli#urton Services% :C;% p.:0

It is clearly visi#le that in this particular case foam is #etter as the production decline is steady and not too much. Also no shut in period is re.uired in order to #uild up the pressure% hence less time is wasted. Eoo"ing at the graph we can safely say that the production rates for the wells which used foam as their fracturing fluids have a much production rate. 9ence% it is very imperative to decide which fracturing fluid to use in a particular jo#. It all depends on the fluid properties of the reservoir7 hence a careful and detailed approach would reap rich dividends% li"e in the a#ove case which was reservoir producing gas.

Foams used to reduce water cut Foams are also used to reduce the water cut% thus producing more oil. An e3ample of where this was J!ell AK where a surfactant #ased foamed 9cl /hydrochloric acid0 was used A. This foam was used to plug the high permea#le $one. This was done to prevent water production from the high permea#le $one% thus reducing the water cut. It was estimated that this permea#le has $one had already produced of a cumulative of A;%;;; #arrels A.The plugging of this $one meant that fluid /oil0 from the lesser permea#le $ones faced lesser competition in their path to the well #ore. As a result of this% although the rates were low% there a considera#le drop in the water production and oil was the main fluid #eing produced. *learly% foam in this case has modified the profile of the e3isting system% hence increasing the oil cut. As a result of this treatment% water was no longer a major pro#lem and did not have to #e treated at the surface as the water cut had gone down considera#ly.

Foams used to reduce the gas mobility )as mo#ility is usually very high as compared to the mo#ility of oil. This difference in mo#ility affects the sweep efficiency. Sometimes gas mo#ility needs to #e chec"ed and controlled so as to get a #etter sweep efficiency i.e. prevention of cusping. *ontrol of mo#ility would mean a modification in the e3isting profile and a #etter sweeping of the e3isting oil. Oil #eing more viscous moves at a lower rate% gas on the other hand has a greater mo#ility and thus sometimes #ypasses the oil and fails to displace it. The main o#jective is reducing the permea#ility of the driving fluid /gas in this case0 in more permea#le strata. 9ence achieving higher sweep efficiency in the less permea#le $one% thus producing more of the oil. Foams are used to chec" and impede this mo#ility% thus #ringing the mo#ility ratio as close to as possi#le. This would ensure a #etter sweep efficiency. D3periments were

carried out on Indiana limestone cores to prove this . It was shown after la# tests that gas mo#ility decreases with increasing foam .uality until a critical foam .uality% after which it increases . 9ence% it is very important for us remain #elow that critical foam .uality. This foam .uality is determined #y carrying out constant core&flooding e3periments . Also% tests show that if we increase the concentration of surfactants the gas mo#ility would decrease . Figure #elow demonstrates how foam .uality gas mo#ility varies with foam .uality Lfg(.

F.liu /SGD0% 6.@ )rigg /SGD0 % +;;B% p.A Eoo"ing at the a#ove figure it appears that gas mo#ility decreases slightly as we increase the foam .uality till it reaches critical foam .uality after which it increases. Our aim is to determine that critical foam .uality and ma"e sure that it is not e3ceeded as our purpose would #e defeated. Increase in gas mo#ility would mean that it would not properly sweep the oil and a lot of it would #e left #ehind. Gas shut off using foam: Sometimes the )as Oil ratio of the wells is so high that it is uneconomical to continue production. In such cases% the foam treatment is used to reduce and impede the unwanted flow of gas C. A classic e3ample where such a "ind of foam treatment was successful was the *hampion field in @runei C. 2 candidate wells were chosen to illustrate the #enefits of using foam in comparison with other techni.ues such as gel treatment% side trac" or sca# liners etc. Out the 2

wells the results of one well *G& ;4 were e3amined in detail. It was found that after using the foam there was a considera#le decline in the )O6 #ut there was a decline in the oil production. This was due to the fact the foam was plugging the gas $one% #ut that was affecting the oil as well as the oil and gas $ones were very near #y and due to permanent residual nitrogen gas. A graph of this is given #elow and this clearly shows that.

/'.I Eigthelm% SGD% I. )ronsveld %+;;;% p.C0

/'.I Eigthelm% SGD% I. )ronsveld %+;;;% p.C0 Eoo"ing at the a#ove figures% it can #e said that foam does reduce the )O6 #y modifying the e3isting profile of the system% #ut also affects the oil rate and causes it to decline slightly. 9ence% it must #e used in moderation and after a lot of consideration ta"ing into account the economics as ultimately we have to ma"e sure the treatment is resulting in overall profits.

CONCLUSION: Ei"e any other method% foam treatment has its pros and cons. It is very important to study the reservoir and its properties #efore deciding on an DO6 techni.ue. Foam is used to modify the e3isting profile of the reservoir #y changing the mo#ility and permea#ility of the $one under consideration and thus enhance the oil or gas recovery. Some of the advantages of foam treatment are highlighted #elow: & & & Foam treatment helps greatly reduce the water cut% thus increasing the oil cut and ultimately the profits. In gas reservoirs% it can #e used to stimulate the gas production #y increasing the mo#ility of the gas #y modifying the profile of the reservoir and improving the sweep efficiency. Foam treatment can #e used to shut off the gas production i.e. reduce the )O6.

There are some disadvantages of foam as well% li"e it plugs the permea#le $one which could mean a production loss of oil. 9ence% careful economics have to #e carried out #efore a foam treatment is done to ensure overall profits. References: 6eferences: 0 Eiu.F.% )rigg.6.@.% 6.H. Svec.: JFoam Mo#ility and adsorption in car#onate coreK% +;;B +0 Sweep improvement in enhanced oil recovery http:88www.patentstorm.us8patents84A;2A:A&description.html Accessed on: +Cth Iune% +;;A 20 Foams can #e effective in the presence of oilM @y Eaurier E. Schramm http:88www.acs.ucalgary.ca8Nschramm8foamoil.htm Accessed on: +Cth Iune% +;;A 40 Foams for Improved Oil 6ecovery http:88www.pe.ute3as.edu8Nwrossen86esearch8 Accessed on: +Cth Iune% +;;A

?0 Foam for Mo#ility *ontrol in Dnhanced Oil 6ecovery Grocesses 5sing Surfactants http:88aiche.confe3.com8aiche8+;;B8techprogram8G?4 C.9TM Accessed on: +Cth Iune% +;;A B0 )aydos.I.'% 9arris.G.*.: JFoam fracturing procedure% theories and resultsK% :C; A0 Mohammed.S.H.% ,asr&Dl&Adin.9.A.: JSuccessful Application of foamed -iscoelastic Surfactant @ased AcidK% +;;? C0 Eigthelm.'.I.% )ronsveld.I.: J)as shut off using foam: The solution for unwanted gas productionK% +;;;