IPTC 11181

A Full-Field Simulation Study of the Effect of Foam Injection on Recovery Factor of an

Iranian Oil Reservoir
S.M. Seyed Alizadeh, SPE, and N. Alizadeh, SPE, Amir Kabir University of Technology, and B. Maini, SPE,
University of Calgary

Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 46 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In some of Iranian oil reservoirs gas is injected for pressure
maintenance as well as displacement of oil by gas. In some of
these fields, it comes to a premature breakthrough of injected
gas due to high permeability in some regions of the reservoir
or because of the geometry of the reservoir.
Foam injection appears to be a promising tool in solving
the problem with thief zones and low recovery from EOR
methods such as immiscible gas injection in Iranian oil
reservoirs. It can also mitigate the effect of gravity override
and achieve increased displacement efficiency in these
reservoirs.
Introduction
Field application of foam is becoming a proven technology,
surfactant costs withstanding, to control the mobility of
gaseous phases in porous media. Foam has been employed in
large number of documented field trials world wide [1].
Typical applications span from steam and co2 foam to
alleviate gravity override and channeling, production well
treatments to reduce GOR, to gelled-foams for long-lasting
plugging of high permeability channels. Foam processes have
also been studied and field tested for use as groundwater
aquifer clean up methods [1].
Foam has been employed in more than 30 documented
field trials world wide, mainly in the USA. In the North Sea,
foam has been tested in production well treatments both on the
Oseberg field and on the Snorre field in the Norwegian sector,
and on the Beryl-field in the British sector. Late in 1998, a
large injector treatment started on Snorre, involving injection
of almost 1000 tonnes surfactant [2].
In the present work, foam is injected into the reservoir and
then using a field-scale simulation study, we investigate the
effect of foam injection on gas mobility and oil recovery
improvement. The obtained results reveal a significant

incremental recovery. Gas breakthrough is also retarded

remarkably.
Geological Overview of the Field
The M field was discovered in 1962/63 and subsequent
drilling has confirmed two reservoirs (Asmari and Bangestan).
This simulation study is concerned only with the shallower
Asmari reservoir.
It was put on production in 1974. A total of 47 wells have
now been drilled on the field, of which 12 are dedicated to
producing the Asmari reservoir and one well utilized as an
observation well.
The Asmari formation is recognized as a regionally
extensive geological unit, and it is known to contain a number
of large oil accumulations; one of these is located at M field.
Despite some complex reservoir lithology, there is good
evidence of pressure communication within the Asmari
between some of the different accumulations around the
Ahwaz area. This is associated with a strong subsurface
aquifer system.
The structure is a northwest-southeast trending asymmetric
anticline. It is defined by seismic with no surface expression,
and it is located on the Khuzestan plain. This area slopes
gently at a rate of 1 m in 5 km to the southwest between
Ahwaz and Khorramshahr. The M structure is located some 60
km north of the Persian Gulf.
The Asmari structure covers an area 42 x 5.5 km at the
mapped spill point (around 2,400 mss). The hydrocarbonbearing reservoir covers an area 30 x 3 km with the reservoir
crest located at 2,144 mss.
The M structure has a dip of 6 to 8 and 5 to 6 on the
northeast and southwest flanks respectively. However, the dip
decreases toward the southeastern and northwestern
extremities.
The first field study for the Asmari was prepared by BP in
1974 using 3 wells. That study divided the Asmari into 5 units.
Zone 1: Upper carbonate
Zone 2: Upper sandstone
Zone 3: Middle carbonate
Zone 4: Lower sandstone
Zone 5: Lower carbonate
In 1978 Shir Mohammadi reviewed the reservoir and
separated it into 8 zones. Zones 1, 6 and 8 were mainly
carbonate whereas Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 were mainly sandstone,
and Zone 7 was locally sandy.
Zone 1: Carbonate rocks.
Zone 2: Sandstone (mainly).

Zone 3: Sandstone (mainly).

Zone 4: Sandstone (mainly).
Zone 5: Sandstone (mainly).
Zone 6: Carbonate rocks.
Zone 7: Carbonate rocks with local sandstone
developments.
Zone 8: Carbonate rocks
The present simulation study has retained the 8 zone
model. The first 3 zones plus a very small part of Zone 4 are
recognized as oil bearing. Thus, the simulation model is based
on three hydrocarbon bearing layers.
The Foam Model
ECLIPSE 2002a version simulator is used for the current
simulation study.
The physics of the foam flooding process is in general very
complex. For example, when foam bubbles form in a porous
medium the bubble size will typically fill the pore size of the
rock matrix. These bubbles will tend not to move until they are
compressed (hence reducing their size) by applying a higher
pressure. Then in turn more bubbles will be generated at the
new higher pressure, but with the original bubble size [3].
The Foam Model of this simulator is a preliminary model.
It does not attempt to model the details of foam generation,
flow and collapse. In this model we assume the foam is
transported with the gas phase, and hence we model the foam
by a tracer in the gas phase that accounts for adsorption on to
the rock and decay over time [3].
Simulation Model Description
The reservoir to be modeled consists of 9 layers. Zone 1 is a
fractured zone, thus the first three layers have been defined as
fractured using its relevant keyword in GRID section of the
input data file. Within the limits of the available data, and
recognizing there are some fractured layers in the reservoir, a
dual porosity model was selected as the most practical
approach for the reservoir modeling under present conditions.
The position of the fractured layers is illustrated in figure 1.
After creating the structural framework and property
model, the desired type of griding system can be implemented
for the model. It is worthwhile to note that a corner point
griding has been used for this purpose.
The number of grid cells in reservoir simulation (upscaled) model is 56 12 9 = 6,048 grid cell for M Asmari
Reservoir, as been detailed in table 1. However, one should
note that the same number of grid cells are allocated for
fracture cells as the model is dual porosity. As a consequence
the total number of cells sums up to 12,096.

IPTC 11181

Table 1-Details of reservoir griding

Direction

No. of Grids

56

12

Fractured
Layers

Single Poosity
Layers

Fig. 1-Schematic of the reservoir model with fractured layers of

zone I

PVT Analysis of the Field

The reservoir fluid is an undersaturated oil of 29 API gravity,
viscosity of 1.18 cp and a GOR of 450 SCF/STB. The bubble
point pressure is around 2,155 psia. The crude is characterized
as a sweet Iranian intermediate-gravity.
Dry Gas data entry
The properties of gas above the dew point or well beyond
the critical point are specified as a table of formation volume
factor and viscosity versus pressure. The keyword format is
columns of pressure, gas formation volume factor and
viscosity in that order from left to right. Instead of
representing in tabular form, Bg and g data, are shown in
figures 2 and 3 respectively.

Fig. 2-Gas Formation Volume Factor (Bg) as a function of pressure

IPTC 11181

Live Oil data entry

The properties of oil above (undersaturated) and below
(saturated) the bubble point are entered as a table of pressure,
formation volume factor and viscosity versus bubble point
Gas/Oil Ratio. The undersaturated FVF and viscosity must be
specified at the highest pressure in the table.
The corresponding data which consist of o are illustrated
in figure 3 whilst those include Rs and Bo is portrayed in figure
4.
It should be noted that there are usually some additional
data which defines the properties of undersaturated oil at the
specified values of RS corresponding to each bubble point
pressure in the experiments. These are the Oil FVF as well as
the oil viscosity above the bubble point as a function of
pressure.
There are 31 tables each of which contains the above data.
In order to avoid huge volume of data in tabular form to be
included in this paper, they are shown in figures 5 and 6.

Increasing
pressure
direction

Fig. 5-Oil FVF (Bo) above the bubble point as a function of

pressure

Increasing
pressure
direction

Fig. 3-Viscosity of Oil and Gas phases as a function of pressure

Fig. 6-Oil Viscosity (o) above the bubble point as a function of

pressure

Water PVT data entry

The PVT properties of water are also declared in the
model. At reference pressure of 3840 psia, water viscosity of
0.65 cp, formation volume factor of 1.027 bbl/STB and
compressibility of 5.35e-6 psi-1 was entered for the current
model.

Fig. 4-Bubble Point GOR and Oil FVF as a function of pressure

Reference densities of the phases

All PVT properties are functions of pressure in the black
oil model. The surface densities of each component are also
pressure and temperature dependent.
The data used for the model is oil density of 54.33 lb/ft3,
water density of 69.23 lb/ft3 and gas density of 0.068 lb/ft3.

IPTC 11181

Porosity/Permeability Relationship
The iso-permeability maps in this model were built using a
porosity/permeability relationship. To obtain the relationship,
using routine core analysis, core data measurements of
samples taken from different layers were used, and then by
applying geometrical average the following correlations were
attained:

of curves (drainage and imbibition) of Pc for each rock type,

hence a voluminous number of saturation tables are used in the
current model.
For fracture system, relative permeability was set equal to
saturation (straight line relative permeability). Also, the
capillary pressure in the fractures was neglected (Pcf=0).
Below comes the drainage as well as imbibition Pc curve
for rock type 10 as an example (figures 7 to 10).

Zone I:

K x = 0 .097 EXP (13 . 23 )

K x = 0 .0098 EXP (36 . 71 )

(1)

for

g 2 .68
g 2 .68

for
for

g 2 .68
g 2 .68

(2)

for

g 2 . 68
g 2 . 68

(3)

for

Zone II:

K x = 0 .063 EXP (21 .65 )

K x = 0 .038 EXP (32 .27 )

Zone III:
K x = 0 . 196 EXP

K x = 0 . 098 EXP

(21 .08 )
(27 .38 )

for

Drainage

where g is the matrix grain density whose data is provided

in the form of pre-generated maps. The above correlations
were entered in the simulator (Property Calculator in FloGrid)
to generate the iso-K maps.
According to the following three criteria, 10 different rock
types have been classified for matrix using their relevant
formula. The 11th rock type represents the fractures.

Fig. 7-Drainage capillary pressure curve for Oil/Water system

Lithology of the layers comprising the reservoir

Capillary behavior of the rock samples in the lab
Porosity frequency distribution of each lithology

Fluid and Rock-Fluid Interaction Data

The SCAL data (Saturation Tables) including capillary
pressure and relative permeability which are utilized in
defining the saturation distribution and the mechanism of
multiphase flow in porous media should be determined for
each rock type of the reservoir.
There are two series of relative permeability and PC
measurements on the rock samples; the Gas/Oil system as well
as the Water/Oil system. To obtain the sets of Gas/Oil and
Water/Oil curves each belonging to a specific rock type the
following procedure was performed in Core Lab:

Imbibition

At first, all the test data were classified based on

the 10 rock type categories.
For every rock type all the available test data were
collected, analyzed and averaged.
Fig. 8-Imbibition capillary pressure curve for Oil/Water system

These averaged curves provide a basis for attaining the

desired Kr and Pc curves in accordance with each rock type.
The special core analysis on the rock samples has determined
the hysteresis in capillary pressure curves.
Hysteresis Option
The results of special core analysis reveal that hysteresis
exists in the core samples.
Since there are 11 rock types in the model, including the
fractures, and the existence of hysteresis necessitates a couple

IPTC 11181

factor, , of 0.011 was defined for the simulation model based

on the Kazemi and Gilman equation [4].

Drainage

Fig. 9-Drainage capillary pressure curve for Oil/Gas system

Fig. 11-Vertical/Horizontal permeability relationship

Table 2-Property Data for Fracture Cells

Imbibition

Property

value

NTG

Porosity

0.001

PermX

500 md

Fluid Contacts and Initialization

In order to run a simulation, the initial conditions at the
beginning of the simulation should be defined. These are:

Fig. 10-Imbibition capillary pressure curve for Oil/Gas system

Permeability Anisotropy
To account for the anisotropy in the vertical direction, the core
data were plotted on a log-log scale and the
relation Y = 0 .2606 X 0.89 was proposed based on the best
straight line passing through the data-points. Thus, a value of
K v = 0.89 K h for permeability in the Z-direction has been
used in the model. More details are shown in figure 11.
Defining Fracture Properties
To define the porosity, permeability and also Net-to-Gross
Ratio for the fracture cells, the relevant data are entered as
listed in table 2.
It is worthwhile to note that by the aid of fracture analysis
of FMI logging files as well as tracer testing, different fracture
properties have been determined. Fracture spacing in X, Y and
Z directions was considered as 100ft, 100ft and 20ft
respectively. However, an equivalent matrix-fracture coupling

Initial pressure and phase saturation for each grid cell

Initial solution ratios, that is gas-oil and/or oil-gas
ratio for each cell
Depth dependence of reservoir fluid properties, which
are API, saturated GOR, bubble point, saturated OGR
and dew point versus depth.
Initial analytical aquifer conditions
Fluid contact depths, that is OWC and/or GOC

For the current study, the datum depth, pressure at datum

depth, depth of WOC and capillary pressure at WOC are
utilized to initialize the model. Initial pressure was specified to
be 3490 psia at the reference depth of 7100 ft. initial WOC is
measured to be at a depth of 7486 ft.
It should be noted that an initial GOC depth of 5000 ft is
defined which is well above the top asmari depth. This is
because the reservoir is initially undersaturated, thus no GOC
initially exists.
The existence of an active bottom-drive aquifer for this
reservoir was proved. To account for this, an analytical CarterTracy aquifer has been defined for this model. First, the

IPTC 11181

aquifer was connected to the reservoir from bottom of the

lowermost layer. Then, the initial aquifer properties were
specified for the model. Initial quifer data are covered in table
3.
Table 3-Initial aquifer data used in the model
Property

Value

Datum Depth

7100 ft

Permeability

150 md

Porosity

20%

Also, since the reservoir under study is initially

undersaturated and the existence of an active aquifer has been
confirmed, so the analytical aquifer parameters such as
permeability, porosity, thickness, angle of influence and the
aquifer connections to the reservoir (reservoir grid cells to
which it can be connected) are considered as matching
parameters.
Table 4-The results of matching initial fluids in place
for the model
Change in

Total Compressibility

3.6E-6 psi

Inner Radius

6000 ft

Thickness
Angle of Influence

-1

Calculated

OIIP

Pore

(MMSTB)

Volume (%)

Total Reservoir
Pore Volume
(Res. bbl)

Total
Dissolved
GIIP
(MMMSCF)

3024.515521

18741470433

1633.387632

200 ft

10

3274.676346

20311937048

1768.486823

360

11

3299.692429

20468983710

1781.996742

11.6

3314.702078

20563211707

1790.102693

11.61

3314.952239

20564782173

1790.237792

11.612

3315.002271

20565096267

1790.264812

Matching Initial Fluids in Place

The latest estimation of the OIIP for asmari reservoir in M
field, based on the production data up to 2001 is 3315
MMSTB.
To make sure that the geological model which is input to
the simulator is validated and the amount of initial fluids in
place calculated by the simulator are in agreement with
reports, first, a simulation run was carried out.
The model gives an OIIP of 3024.515 MMSTB which is
unsatisfactory and not close to the estimated value noted
before.
To get a match for this property, different methods can be
applied. For the sake of simplicity and not to change a lot of
parameters, reservoir pore volume in different layers have
been changed to get an ultimate match.
Table 4 summarizes the results of different pore volume
changes in order to obtain the target OIIP value for the
reservoir.
The first row of the following table shows the total values
of fluids in place calculated by simulator for grid blocks. An
increase of 11.612 % in the initial total reservoir pore volume
calculated by simulator appears to yield us an acceptable OIIP
estimate.
History matching of Reservoir Past Performance
Matching Parameters Estimation
In order to get an acceptable history match, correction to
some of the assumptions was made and some parameters were
changed.
According to uncertainty of fractures parameters and
regarding to the fact that in a fractured reservoir, the main
production path is from the fractures, so the fractures
properties were deliberated as history matching parameters
which include and transmissibility factor of the fractures.

History matching results

In this study, several models were constructed to have a
simulator model close to the reservoir real behavior. In this
regard there was an effort to obtain oil production history,
pressure, and GOR of the field by alteration of matching
parameters in acceptable ranges and the adjustment of these
amounts in the simulator model. The model was run several
times for history matching purposes.
According to these conditions, the best possible matching
in the field pressure, GOR and oil production rate was taken
with adjustment of all matching parameters in the model.
Since none of the existing wells have cut any water to date, it
was not possible to take a history match of reservoir water cut.
Obtained results are shown in figures 12 to 15.
The main reason of rather steep decline in the reservoir
pressure could be due to low permeability of layers in zone 3.
The permeabilities were increased by changing the
corresponding transmissibilities of these layers.

IPTC 11181

Simulated oil rate

Observed oil rate

80000
70000

Oil Rate (STB/Day)

60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time (Year)
Fig. 12-Reservoir oil production rate history match

Simulated pressure
Observed pressure
3600

3400

Pressure(Psia)a))

3200

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000
0

10

15

20

Time (Year)
Fig.13 -Reservoir pressure history match

25

30

35

IPTC 11181

Some other useful information regarding the history

matching is the amount of the water encroachment by active
aquifer which is present in the model. Figure 15 shows the
total amount of water influx (AAQT) into the reservoir until
the end of history matching period.
In fact, one of the key parameters whose properties have been
changed to obtain the acceptable match with the observed data

is the analytic Cater-Tracy aquifer defined in the current

model. With alteration of these properties the required
pressure support for the reservoir has been controlled. The
total water influx by aquifer and the total water production
from the wells up to the end of history matching date, as
calculated by simulator, are 403.577 MMSTB and 21.374
MMSTB respectively.

s im ulated GOR
Obs erved GOR

0.8
0.7

GOR (Mscf/STB)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

10

15

20

Time (Year)
Fig. 14-Reservoir Gas/Oil ratio history match

Fig. 15-Cumulative aquifer influx during history matching period

25

30

35

IPTC 11181

Prediction of Reservoir Performance

Reservoir future performance, optimum production and
different scenarios for production increase using EOR
methods were analyzed by the use of built simulation model
following adjustment of the parameters for achievement of
reservoir history match in a reservoir simulation trend.
With enough confidence in reservoir modeling, the
performance of the reservoir for three different scenarios was
evaluated. In this regard necessary restrictions were defined
for production and injection wells such as extra water
production, maximum bottom-hole injection pressure and
minimum oil rate of each production well, etc.
Production and injection well constraints

Under production conditions, a producing bottomhole

pressure of 1,000 psi is assumed for all the following
scenarios. For gas injection as well as foam injection
scenarios, a maximum bottomhole pressure of 3,000 psi was
specified.
According to the production history of the reservoir, a
maximum well oil production rate of 10,000 STB/Day is
assumed. However, this value was increased to 15,000
STB/Day in the injection scenarios.
Each of the injectors, are set to have a maximum gas
injection rate of 1,000 Mscf/Day.
The simulator injects gas at the maximum specified rate or
at the maximum rate allowed by the bottomhole pressure
constraint, whichever was less.
The Scenario of Natural Depletion
This scenario is considered as the base case for the
simulation and it takes advantage of the natural power of the
reservoir. No additional wells were drilled in addition to those
actually drilled in the reservoir. Furthermore, there are 14
vertical producers in the model.
According to the data from drilling and completion reports,
the name of the wells and the layers in which they are
produced based on their chronological order is as follows: (the
numbers in parenthesis denote the wellhead position of the
wells)
Well P1 (34, 5) was drilled on February 12, 1974 and
perforated in layers 4 to 9.
Well P7 (26, 6) was drilled on June 9, 1974 and
perforated in layers 3 to 6.
Well P8 (18, 6) was drilled on March 4, 1978 and
perforated in layers 2 to 4.
Well P9 (37, 5) was drilled on July 9, 1978 and
perforated in layer 1 only.
Well P10 (23, 5) was drilled on September 11, 1978
and perforated in layer 1 only.
Well P11 (32, 7) was drilled on September 29, 1990
and perforated in layers 7 and 8.
Well P12 (35, 6) was drilled on September 30, 1991
and perforated in layers 3 to 8.
Well P34 (29, 7) was drilled on April 12, 1995 and
perforated in layers 7 and 8.
Well P42 (21, 7) was drilled on December 8, 1998
and perforated in layer 7 only.

Well P43 (31, 6) was drilled on December 6, 1999

and perforated in layers 7 to 9.
Well P47 (33, 6) was drilled on July 9, 2001 and
perforated in layers 7 to 9.
Well P48 (22, 6) was drilled on August 25, 2001 and
perforated in layers 1 to 6.
Well P56 (20, 6) was drilled on June 12, 2004 and
perforated in layers 7 and 8.
Well P58 (40, 5) was drilled on December 30, 2004
and perforated in layer 3 only.
Table 5 lists the cumulative oil production for each of the
wells present in this scenario. Some of the wells such as P09,
P34, P47 and P56, as can be observed from the figures,
produce a low fraction of total reservoir oil production which
makes them suitable candidates for conversion to injection
wells in the following scenarios.
Table 5-Cumulative oil production of each well
during primary production scenario
Well No.

Cumulative oil production (STB)

P01

99,284,120

P07

106,279,050

P08

99,753,400

P09

3,087,002

P10

63,093,404

P11

49,118,240

P12

59,486,000

P34

958,520

P42

110,596,768

P43

33,572,704

P47

640,046

P48

68,316,000

P56

323,118

P58

34,580,140

The contributions of four significant drive mechanisms to

recovery are illustrated in figure 16. These mechanisms are oil
expansion, rock compaction, water influx and gas influx (both
solution gas drive and free gas drive).
The graph quantifies the proportion of oil produced by
each physical process, accumulated during the simulation. As
it can be seen, at early years of production which the reservoir
fluid is still undersaturated, recovery associated with oil
expansion and rock compaction are quite important and they
provide a high fraction of total recovery.
Nevertheless, as time goes by and reservoir pressure
declines, the major drive mechanism which is responsible for
the oil production is water influx. The solution/free gas drive

10

IPTC 11181

has the lowest contribution in the oil production as it is usually

the weakest drive mechanism.
Determination of Appropriate Injection Criteria
Defining the Injection wells in the model
According to the geological reports of this field, reservoir
seismic data is sparse, relatively old (2D only) and of poor
quality. The map for the Top Asmari reservoir depth structure
was created using well log information from most of the
drilled wells.There are uncertainties with the structural map
interpretation on the flanks and the northern and southern tip
areas at either end of the reservoir where little well data was
available. Due to these uncertainties, most of the wells are
drilled on the crestal area of the structure.
Based on the above explanations and considering the fact
that four of the production wells possess a low cumulative oil
production in the first scenario (refer to table 5), the most costeffective way of defining the injection wells is thought to be
the conversion of wells P09, P34, P47 and P56 from
production wells to injectors. Thus, a total number of four
injectors are implemented in the injection scenarios.
Figure 17 depicts the top view of the wellhead position of
the producers/injectors in those scenarios.
Sensitivity Analysis to Specify the Appropriate Perforation
Intervals for Injectors
Different sensitivity runs are executed to investigate the
effect of the completion interval on injection well
performance.
Typically the foam will suffer from enhanced decay in the
presence of water [3]. The lowermost layers (zone III layers)
are adjacent to the bottom-drive aquifer. During production
from reservoir, water encroaches into the neighboring layers
and causes water saturation to increase in zone III. This is

quite unfavorable for the injected foam in that zone and could
speed up the rate of foam decay.
Figures 18 to 20 depict the amount of injected as well as
decayed foam in zones I to III. From the diagrams it can be
deduced that lower layers are not favorable candidates to
complete the injectors in.
As shown in figure 18, it is clear that very little fraction of
the total injected foam is decayed when it is injected to the
fractured layers which constitute the uppermost zone (Zone I)
of the reservoir.
In the case of injection into zone II, as illustrated in figure
19, considerable amount of the injected foam becomes
ineffective by adsorption and decay over time.
According to figure 20, the foam decay increases rapidly
when injected in zone III. Thus, inadequate foam remains in
solution to assist in mobility reduction of the injected gas. This
could lead to lower sweep efficiency in the reservoir. The
reason for such a finding could be the vicinity of Zone III
layers by the aquifer. This, in turn, causes water saturation to
increase in these layers as water encroaches into the reservoir.
As mentioned previously, water saturation has a detrimental
effect on foam stability and speeds up its acceleration.
Furthermore, due to the gravity override phenomenon,
injected gas does not lead to high vertical sweep efficiency if
injected into lower layers.
Based upon the above discussion, the first three layers
(zone I) are chosen to be completed in the injectors.
The carbonate rocks of the uppermost zone (Zone I) appear
to have more tendency to adsorb the injected surfactant in
comparison to the other zones which mainly consist of
sandstones. However, laboratory experiments on core samples
taken from different zones with different lithology should be
done to confirm this conclusion.

water
influx

oil expansion

rock
compaction

gas
influx

Fig. 16-Cumulative oil production obtained from different drive mechanisms in natural depletion scenario

IPTC 11181

11

Location of
injectors

Fig. 17-Top view of the locations of the injection wells used in injection scenarios
Total Injected Foam

Injected, Adsorbed and Decayed Foam

Total Injected Foam

Decayed Foam

Injected, Adsorbed and Decayed Foam

Decayed Foam

Adsorbed Foam

Adsorbed Foam

700000

700000
600000

500000

A m o u n t o f F o a m (L B )-

A m o u n t o f F o a m (L B )-

600000

400000

300000

200000

400000

300000

200000

100000

100000

0
11323

500000

0
12323

13323

14323

15323

16323

17323

Time (Days)

Fig. 18-Amount of injected, adsorbed and decayed foam in zone I

11323

12323

13323

14323

15323

16323

17323

time (Days)

Fig. 19-Amount of injected, adsorbed and decayed foam in zone II

12

IPTC 11181

Total Injected Foam

Injected, Adsorbed and Decayed Foam

Decayed Foam
Adsorbed Foam

700000

Amou nt of Foam (LB)-

600000

500000

scenarios. The lowest average pressure for this case is around

2000 Psia.
As shown in figure 22, the producing GOR has a dramatic
increase for the case of immiscible gas injection and it
becomes steady at approximately 1.5 MSCF/STB. The use of
foam appears to be quite effective in decreasing the amount of
GOR.

400000

300000

200000

100000

Beginning of
prediction

11323

12323

13323

14323

15323

16323

17323
foam
injection

time (Days)

Fig. 20-Amount of injected, adsorbed and decayed foam in zone III

The Scenario of Immiscible Gas Injection

The second scenario to be presented is injection of
immiscible gas into the reservoir under study. Based on the
results from the previous scenario, four of the production wells
(P09, P34, P47 and P56) have been converted to injectors.
Besides, four additional wells were drilled as producers in the
most prolific areas of the reservoir. The field plateau target oil
rate was selected as 120,000 STB/Day.
The original producers in the first scenario (with the
exception of P9, P34, P47 and P56) are defined in the same
way (identical completion intervals and wellhead positions)
for this scenario. The following additional producers were
drilled as infill wells:
Well P61 (29, 5) was drilled vertically on January 12,
2005 and perforated in layers 4 to 7.
Well P63 (19, 5) was drilled vertically on January 12,
2005 and perforated in layers 4 to 7.
Well P70 (32, 5) was drilled vertically on January 12,
2005 and perforated in layers 4 to 7.
Well P79 (38, 6) was drilled vertically on January 12, 2005
and perforated in layers 4 to 7.
The Scenario of Foam Injection
This is the last scenario to be considered in the current
study. Like the former scenario, some wells initially as
producers are changed into injection wells after some years of
production (P09, P34, P47 and P56). Also, the same additional
wells are drilled as producers in January 12 2005. The field
plateau target oil rate was selected as 120,000 STB/Day.
The concentration of foam in the injection stream of each
injector was set as 0.03 lb/STB.
Comparison of Different Scenarios
In order to compare the above scenarios, each group of results
is plotted in the same graph. As it can be seen from figure 21,
foam injection maintains reservoir pressure compared to other

immiscible gas
injection

Fig. 21-Reservoir pressure comparison in injection scenarios with

base case

immiscible gas
injection

foam
injection

Beginning of
prediction

Fig. 22-Reservoir GOR comparison in scenarios No.2 and 3 with

base case

Utilizing immiscible gas injection, the field oil production

rate reaches a plateau of 120,000 STB/Day steadily for almost
two years and becomes stabilized at around 50,000 STB/Day
during last 5 years of production.
As depicted in figure 23, the use of foam has resulted in a
plateau rate of 120,000 STB/Day which maintains for nearly

IPTC 11181

13

five years and becomes steady at 51,000 STB/Day during last

three years.
The key parameter to assess the feasibility of an EOR
process is the recovery factor achieved by it. Regarding figure
24, it is observed that the best scenario from recovery factor
viewpoint is scenario No.3. Foam injection has resulted in
incremental oil recovery in excess of 10% compared to the
natural depletion. However, economical analysis must confirm
this scenario.

With regard to the table presented below, foam injection

scenario is the recommended case for future development of
the filed under study.
According to little difference in recovery factor between
first and second scenarios and also considering the fact that the
cumulative gas production is very high in the second case,
injection of immiscible gas is not economically justifiable

foam
injection
foam
injection
immiscible gas
injection

immiscible gas
injection

Beginning of
prediction

Fig. 24-Recovery comparison in different scenarios during the

prediction phase (last 15 years)

Fig. 23-Oil production rate comparison in injection scenarios with

base case
Table 6-Short description of the simulated cases
No. of wells
Case
No.

Cumulative
Oil
Production
(MMSTB)

Cumulative
Gas
Production
(MMMSCF)

BC(no
injection)

727.93

Immiscible
Gas injection

Foam
injection

Incremental
Recovery
Factor
( % of OIIP)

Pressure
at the end
of
simulation
(Psia)

Time on
Plateau
Rate
(Years)

Comments

Old
wells

New
wells

489.24

14

---

4.4

1802

----

---

879.214

637.5

14

8.4

1940

Four of the wells converted

to injectors in 2005.
Four new producers drilled
in 2005

1069.076

480.18

14

12.4

2060

Four of the wells converted

to injectors in 2005
Four new producers drilled
in 2005

14

Conclusions
1. According to the obtained results, foam injection
appears to be promising tool in decreasing the gas-oil
ratio. While injecting the same amount of gas as in
immiscible gas injection process, the amount of GOR
in foam injection is remarkably diminished. This
eliminates the demand for early upgrading the
degassing and NGL facilities to cope with large
volume of produced gas. Therefore, use of foam is
economically justifiable compared with injection of
immiscible gas.
2. Based on the attained results of the study, foam
injection maintains the reservoir pressure, hence
preserves the potential energy of reservoir and
prevents from early depletion of reservoir.
3. The application of foam has a significant effect on
increasing the recovery factor of the reservoir. Thus,
it can be implied that the use of foam flooding
improves the sweep efficiency considerably and
recovers additional oil from unswept areas of the
reservoir. The supporting reason for this conclusion is
the attained results that exhibit the higher incremental
recovery factor of the reservoir, achieved by applying
foam compared with injection of immiscible gas.
4. Care should be taken in selecting the completion
intervals for injectors. As discussed previously, foam
decay can be accelerated in presence of high water
saturation. This, in turn, results in reducing the
effectiveness of the injected foam. So one should
avoid completing the injection wells in the layers
close to aquifer.
Recommendations
To be able to reach the production target and increase the total
recovery during the decline period, a special focus on further
data acquisition and comprehensive reservoir studies is
essential. Data acquisition and further studies are needed as an
integrated part of the field developments, and the development
plans should regularly be revised taking new knowledge into
account. This will contribute to reduce uncertainty and
improve success rate of new wells. An improved reservoir
understanding is of special importance for evaluation of
extensive IOR efforts, like gas injection and infill drilling.
In general, the following issues are recommended:
1. The model is suitable for scoping studies of future
development schemes, but it can be improved by
adding information such as core data obtained from
new drilling. The existing development well density
is very low, and is equivalent to one well per 8 km2
(2,000 acres). Most of the reservoir is of very good
quality and consequently reservoir sweep efficiency
could be improved with closer well spacing.
2. Fractures play an important role for production
performance and reservoir properties. Fracture
characterization plays an important role in further
field development. Necessary data for development
of a reliable fracture model to predict direction, size,
special distribution and frequency of natural fractures

IPTC 11181

3.

4.

is needed, and should be included in the reservoir

model.
Since the data used in the foam model are not related
to the Asmari reservoir, an experimental reservoir
study on core samples from this reservoir should be
conducted to obtain the foam data of the particular
filed under study.
Data for better understanding of fluid contacts,
pressure regimes and communication in the reservoir
is needed.

Nomenclature
Pc = capillary pressure

Bg = gas formation volume factor

= gas viscosity

Bo

= oil formation volume factor

= oil viscosity

= matrix shape factor

K r = relative permeability
Acknowledgment
Special thanks are due to management of Tehran Petroleum
Research Center for permission to use their license of
ECLIPSE simulator.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.

Kovscek, Anthony R.: Reservoir Simulation of Foam

Displacement Processes, 7th UNITAR international
conference, Beijing, China, Oct. 27-31, 1998.
Torleif Holt, Frode Vassenden and Amir Ghaderi: Use of
Foam for Flow Control of Gas, 9th oil and gas conference,
RIPI, Iran.
Eclipse 100 Technical Description 2002a, Schlumberger
Geoquest, 2002.
Gilman J. R., Kazemi, H.: Improvements in Simulation of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, paper SPE 10511
presented at the 6th SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation, New Orleans, Louisiana, Jan. 31-Feb. 3, 1982.