SPE 54083
Investigation of Foamy Oil Effect from Laboratory Experiments
D. Urgelli, SPE, M. Durandeau, SPE, H. Foucault, J-F. Besnier, TOTAL
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Bakersfield, California, 1719 March 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The heavy oils from Venezuela and Canada are being
considered with a growing interest due to some promising
large reserves. From many case histories, the implementation
of a cold production scenario has been able to produce this oil
at a reasonable cost due to an improved ultimate oil recovery
higher than expected. A foamy oil behaviour has been
postulated to partially explain the phenomenon.
A series of 5 experiments has been performed to carefully
assess the hypothetical foamy oil effect on the ultimate
recovery during the natural depletion process. Two parameters
were studied: the gravity force impact and the depletion rate in
order to upscale these data to the field application. A highly
permeable long core was used with heavy reservoir oil
(9API). The porous media was set at initial reservoir
conditions (60 bar(g), 49C) with irreducible water saturation
for each of these experiments. The cold production process by
natural depletion was implemented at constant depletion rate
with an accurate monitoring of the back-pressure regulator.
Comparing laboratory experiments conducted in horizontal
or vertical flow direction at low depletion rate, gas gravity
segregation effect seems to already improve the oil recovery at
the laboratory scale although it is difficult to demonstrate the
presence of a continuous gas phase. These results could
indicate that the nucleation of the gas bubbles to create a gas
phase is a very slow process due to the oil viscosity effect,
above 1500 cP at reservoir condition in the presented case.
The gas bubbles remain partly trapped within the oil and move
with the liquid phase at least up to the threshold saturation. At
field scale, corresponding to much lower depletion rate, this
effect may be more significant particularly in unconsolidated
sands where the vertical permeability is very high.
The ultimate recovery defined at laboratory scale appears
to be significantly dependent on the depletion rate as expected
and already reported in the literature. It has however to be
noted that the mechanism, developed at high rate at the
laboratory scale, is not applicable to field production. At low
depletion (2.5 bar/d), about 19% IOIP were recovered whereas
42% IOIP were recovered at 12 bar/d and 45% IOIP at 25
bar/d.
The critical pressure at which free gas production occurred
was estimated for each experiment. A pseudo 4.5% critical
gas saturation was determined for the low depletion rate
whereas a high depletion rate yielded 25.5% critical gas
saturation.
Introduction
Several heavy oil reservoirs in Canada [1] and Venezuela [2]
are produced following a Cold Production process where a
foamy oil behaviour of the reservoir oil is highlighted. This
foam is an oil containing a higher volume fraction of gas and
has the consistency of a chocolate mousse, which often
persists in stock tanks for several hours if not several days.
This kind of reservoir shows abnormally high production in
term of production rate as well as effective recovery factor.
Although the cold production mechanism is not fully
understood, some authors have tried to explain these
favourable behaviours. Two main phenomena are presented in
the literature [3]. The first aspect is related to sand production.
This phenomenon is specific to Canadian fields whereas, in
Venezuela, high sand production has not been yet really
tested. On Clear Water field, it was observed a high sand
production (30% of total production) which decreases and
becomes stable after few months. Dusseault [4] showed that
sand production is favourable, particularly with the
development of the progressive cavity pump technology. He
shows that, with sand production (1-3%), the flow rate
increases from 0.3-2 m3/d to 5-15 m3/d. In some Canadian
fields, it was observed, and confirmed, that the more wells
produce sand, the better is their oil troughput. The sand
production benefit would not be limited near wellbore. It is
speculated that long high permeable channels appear which
develop from the wellbore and improve drastically the wells
productivity.
The second aspect is related to the foamy oil behaviour
which was initially reported by Smith [5] and then well
2 D. URGELLI, M. DURANDEAU, H. FOUCAULT, J-F. BESNIER
documented by Maini [6]. The gas released from the oil due to
decline in pressure tends to remain dispersed in oil in the form
of very small bubbles due to viscous forces of the continuous
oil phase. The existence of three forms of gas is consequently
reported at any given time or pressure: the dissolved gas which
is a part of the liquid oil phase, the dispersed gas behaving
thermodynamically like a separate gas phase but
hydrodynamically like a part of the oil phase, and free gas, a
part of which becomes trapped while the remaining part flows
independently. The expected change in term of viscosity, due
to the dispersed gas phase in the oil, is however not
highlighted by laboratory measurements [7].
In the laboratory, it is possible to observe other phenomena
due to foamy oil. Maini et al. [3] observed and concluded that
critical gas saturation (Sgc) can be very high (~40%) and that
gas bubbles are trapped in the heavy oil until the gas saturation
became higher than Sgc. Firoozabadi [4] observed the gas
mobility decrease with the foam formation. Bora et al. [10]
examined the foamy oil behaviour in a Glass Micromodel and
concluded that the production of heavy oil is not accompanied
by a large population of micro-bubbles and asphaltenic
constituents did not play a significant role in nucleation and
stabilisation of the gas bubbles as speculated before.
In this paper, we present laboratory experiments designed
to evaluate the foamy oil behaviour and particularly to try to
evaluate the impact of the gravity forces compared to viscous
forces during this solution gas drive depletion mechanism. As
already proven by some preliminary study performed by
Intevep [11], the use of reservoir conditions including geo
mechanical constraints and reservoir fluid oil is compulsory to
insure the robustness of the experiment. Five experiments
have been so far performed to study the gravity force effect
and the depletion rate. Considerable attention was brought to
the depletion rate by trying to carry out such experiments at a
very low depletion rate and by using laboratory equipment at
their operational detection limits.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The objective of the experimental work was to study and to
better understand the foamy behaviour during depletion
trying to liaise the impact of gravity forces and gas segregation
on the viscous forces effect. Two kinds of experiments were
conducted: gravity force effects experiments and depletion
rate experiments.
For each experiment and in order to avoid the compaction
which was occurring in some experiments reported in the
literature during the depletion phase, an outcrop Sandstone
composite Core (length: 66.4 cm, Ka: 850 mD, porosity:
0.158) was used instead of Unconsolidated rock or sand pack
tube.
The foamy reservoir oil was recombined from stock tank
oil samples of Zuata field, a Venezuelan heavy oil (9API)
reservoir. The viscosity of the reservoir oil at its saturation
pressure and 49C was around 1500 cP with a low GOR (13
Sm3/m3). Its bubble point pressure was 49 barg at 49C.
SPE 54083
The composite Core was mounted in a Core holder as
described in the sketch shown on figure I. This experimental
bench is fully automated to have a continuous follow-up of the
experimental procedure and data acquisition in real time. The
depletion is implemented at very low constant rate. A sensitive
detection of any additional produced gas volume versus time
was compulsory to be able to detect the free gas mobility. A
permanent very precise flow meter on the gas production line
was consequently used. The production GOR is in fact the
main parameter to try to track the free gas mobility and
understand the foamy behaviour.
All depletion experiments were initiated at 60 barg and
49C slightly above the initial reservoir conditions (52 barg &
49C) in order to get data in the monophasic condition and
ensure the quality of the measurements. All these data are
reported in Table 1.
Five experiments have been so far performed. Orientation
of the core, depletion rate and production side are the
parameters which have been changed from one experiment to
another. Experiment 1 involves the core placed in vertical
position producing by the bottom outlet and a depletion rate
of 2.5 bar/d. Experiment 2 is equivalent to Experiment 1
except the production side. The depletion was started by the
top outlet in order to minimise the gas trapping and then from
the bottom once the free gas mobility has been observed.
Experiment 3 involves the core placed in horizontal position
using the same depletion rate as Experiments 1 & 2 (2.5
bar/d). Comparing Experiments 1, 2 and 3, the gravity effects
could be studied. The last two experiments (4 and 5) are
identical to Experiment 3 except the depletion rate. A different
depletion rate was used: 25 bar/d and 12 bar/d respectively in
order to validate our experiment with depletion rates currently
used in the literature.
The main results of these experiments are shown in the
Table 2. The parameters studied are the critical pressure
corresponding to the pressure at which the free gas starts to be
produced, the corresponding critical gas saturation (Sgc)
defined from the critical pressure and the PVT phase envelope
and the oil recovery at a given reservoir pressure..
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Gravity effects:
Figures 2, 3 and 4 present the main parameters analysed for
the experiments 1, 2 and 3 respectively at the same low
depletion rate (2.5 bar/d). To determine the critical pressure,
the criterion is the fast increase of GOR indicating the
mobility of the free gas.
Comparing experiments 1 and 2 for which the only
difference is the production outlet strategy (bottom or
top/bottom), it appears that the mobility of gas is not
influenced by the production side at the beginning and up to
about 30 barg. The critical pressure is equal to 39 barg in both
cases if we take into consideration the accuracy of such type
of measurement. When the core is put on horizontal position
SPE 54083 INVESTIGATION OF FOAMY OIL EFFECT FROM LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
(experiment 3), the critical pressure is observed at 44 barg,
slightly above the critical pressure (39 barg) observed during
experiment 1 & 2. No explanation was found to explain such a
discrepancy because the depletion rate is the same in these
three cases and consequently the zone affected by the
depletion is small and limited to the producing end of the core.
It is however noticeable that the oil production curves are
identical (Figure 5) up to a pressure of 40 barg corresponding
to about the critical pressure of the experiment performed in
vertical position. Below 40 barg, the oil recovery is always
lower when the Core is placed in horizontal position than in
vertical position. This is a strong indication that the gravity
effect is activated at least below this pressure and a higher gas
saturation (free bubbles or free gas phase) is present at the top
of experiments 1 & 2 corresponding to a better gas expansion
impact.
The impact of high gas saturation at top of the core may be
also highlighted by the higher recovery, observed during
Experiment 1, at pressure around 30 barg when Experiments 1
& 2 are compared. When the production side is moved from
the top to the bottom outlet, the recovery increases slightly
more rapidly leaving more gas saturation to be expanded.
Although the depletion rate used during these three
experiments (2.5 bar/d) was still too high compared to a real
field application, the gas segregation of the free gas phase
might be one of the mechanisms to partially explain the higher
effective recovery factor encountered in the cold production
process. At this depletion rate level and during the time scale
of these experiments, it cannot however be concluded whether
this gas phase is continuous or most likely dispersed.
The gas saturation at which the free gas starts to be mobile
has been estimated from the critical pressure previously
determined and from the PVT phase envelope diagram of the
initial reservoir fluid . These pseudo Sgc are reported in
Table 1. The average Sgc value is in the range of 3.8 to 4.5 %.
Depletion rate
Two others experiments performed in horizontal position
using a faster depletion rate were also conducted. Although the
depletion rates used for these two experiments have no
practical field application meaning, these two experiments
were designed to better understand the mechanisms previously
reported in the literature. Figures 6 and 7 present the results of
the Experiment 4 (depletion rate equal to 12 bar/d) and
Experiment 5 (depletion rate equal to 25 bar/d) respectively.
Comparing experiments 3, 4 and 5 gives the influence of the
depletion rate on oil recovery, critical pressure and gas
saturation. The results were as expected: the more the
depletion rate increases, the higher the oil recovery and the gas
saturation which confirm the results already reported by Maini
[6]. For example, Experiment 5 reaches an effective recovery
factor of 45% IOIP whereas Experiment 3 gives only 19%
IOIP (Figure 8).
In term of critical pressure, the tendency is opposite: when
the depletion rate increases, the critical pressure decreases.
The critical pressure is 30 bar under bubble point for the case
3
where depletion rate was equal to 25 bar/d. This could indicate
that the gas is trapped on the opposite side of the depletion
outlet due to a very fast pressure transmission inside the core.
The gas phase, in a continuous or dispersed state, has then
some difficulty to travel inside the core to be produced at the
outlet due to the high oil viscosity.
Some gas slugs are also observed in the production data
(Figures 6 and 7). At these high depletion rates, an additional
phenomenon appears in relation with the gas mobility.
Observing the differential pressure between inlet and outlet of
the core, for these two experiments (Figures 9 and 10), few
maximums are noted slightly below the critical pressure and
are mainly due to gas slugs.
The oil recovery is higher because the gas is trapped, then
expands and gives energy to the oil system. Conversely, when
the depletion rate is low, the pressure is transmitted to the
opposite side of the core very slowly and free gas phase is
produced more continuously. It has also been observed that the
amount of gas produced at low rates is higher than the one
produced at higher depletion rates.
In term of critical saturation, for a high depletion rate, a
pseudo Sgc value is estimated in the range of 15-25.5%
although it was estimated at 3.8 to 4.5 % at low depletion
rates. This means that to mimic the behaviour of the gas phase
during the simulation of a Cold Production process it may be
compulsory to use a Sgc value which will depend on the
depletion rate and consequently on the distance to the
producers.
Conclusion
Although Foamy oil behaviour is not still completely
understood at the present time, a set of experiments was
designed and performed to carefully assess the hypothetical
foamy oil effect on the ultimate recovery during the primary
heavy oil production as well as the impact of the gas gravity
segregation at low depletion rate.
Gas gravity segregation of the free gas phase, in dispersed
or continuous gas state, is already active at a low depletion
rate of 2.5 bar/d. At the field scale, this rate represents the
pressure drop in the well bore of an horizontal well of Zuata
Field when opening the well at initial reservoir pressure. A
depletion rate of 0.024 bar/d is currently expected at few
hundred meters of the producer in such a field with the current
development scenario. Although its kinetic is slow, gas gravity
segregation may have a large impact on the recovery
mechanism in unconsolidated reservoir where the vertical
permeability is very high. Wells location has to be
consequently optimised to maximise this effect.
It is always difficult at the Laboratory level to carry out
such experiment in real representative field condition which
are not practically accessible due to the accuracy limits of the
equipment.
The up-scaling of such experiments is very important once
experiments are properly designed to simulate the prevailing
mechanisms which may occur in the reservoir. In the
presented case, high depletion rate experiments cannot be up-
4 D. URGELLI, M. DURANDEAU, H. FOUCAULT, J-F. BESNIER SPE 54083

scaled to simulate reservoir flow rate but low depletion rate
experiments are properly designed to simulate the gas gravity
segregation phenomenon occurring in the reservoir. A new
experiment with the core in vertical position using a very low
depletion rate (0.5 bar/d) is already planned to better evaluate
the Gas gravity drainage mechanism applied to heavy oil
reservoir. Simulation work is also planned to better quantify
the prevailing mechanisms developed during these
experiments.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank TOTAL S.A. for permission to present this
paper and SINCORs partners, PDVSA, STATOIL &
TOTAL S.A., to give access to Zuata heavy reservoir oil
samples without which this study could not have been
undertaken.
[9]. "Gas and Liquid Mobilities in Cold Production of Heavy
Oil Reservoirs", A. Firoozabadi, M. Pooladi-Darvish, V. Eleri,
SPE 38873, 1997 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, 5-8 Oct. 1997
[10]. Flow Visualization Studies of Solution Gas Drive
Process in Heavy Oil Reservoirs Using a Glass Micromodel,
R. Bora, B.B. Maini, A. Chakma, SPE 37519, 1997 SPE
International Thermal Operations & Heavy Oil Symposium,
Bakersfield, Ca, 10-12 February 1997
[11]. Caracterizacion del caracter espumante en Zuata,
San Diego Norte Intevep, 1997.

References Reservoir Temperature, F 120.2

Oil Gravity, API 9
[1]. Cold Production of Heavy Oil from Horizontal Wells in
GOR 13
the Frog Lake Field, W.S. Bill Huang, B.E. Marcum, M.R.
Chase & C.L. Yu, SPE 37545, 1997 SPE International Initial reservoir pressure, psig 1000.7
Thermal Operations & Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield, Bubble point pressure, psig 710.5
Ca, 10-12 February 1997 Oil Viscosity at bubble point pressure, cP 1000
Table 1: PVT Analysis
[2]. Production Improvement Strategy For Foamy Hamaca
Crude Oil: A Field Case, M. de Mirabal, H. Rodriguez, R.
Gordillo, SPE 37544, 1997 SPE International Thermal
Operations & Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield, Ca, 10-12
February 1997
1 2 3 4 5
[3]. Sand Production and Foamy Oil Flow in Heavy-Oli Swi (%) 15 15 15 15 15
Reservoirs, Y. Wang, SPE 37553, 1997 SPE International Depletion rate (bar/d) 2.5 2.5 2.5 12 25
Thermal Operations & Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield,
Ca, 10-12 February 1997 Position (vertical/horizontal) V V H H H
Production direction Bott. Top/ Bott. Bott. Bott.
[4]. "Cold Production and Enhanced Oil Recovery", M. Bott.
Dusseault, JCPT, Nov. 93. Finale pressure(bar) 15 15 15 8 8
Oil recovery (%IOIP) 18 21 19 42 45
[5]. "Fluid Flow and Sand Production in Heavy Oil Reservoirs
Under Solution Gas Drive, G.E. Smith, SPE Prod. Eng. May, MOBILITY OF GAS
1988, page 169-80 Critical pressure (bar) 39 39 44 26 19

[6]. "Foamy Oil Flow in Heavy Oil Production", B. Maini, Critical saturation (%PV) 4.5 4.5 3.8 15 25.5
JCPT, Vol 35, N6, PP21-24.
Table 2: Results of experiments
[7]. Understanding Foamy Oil Mechanisms for Heavy Oil
Reservoirs During Primary Production, M. Huerta, C. Otero,
A. Rico, I. Jimenez, M. de Mirabal, & G. Rojas, SPE 36749,
1996 SPE Annual Thecnical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Ca, 6-9 October, 1996

[8]. "Significance of Foamy Oil Behaviour in primary

Production of Heavy Oils", B.B. Maini, H.K. Sarma, A.E.
George, JCPT, Vol 32, N9, PP50-54, Nov. 93.
SPE 54083 INVESTIGATION OF FOAMY OIL EFFECT FROM LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS 5

Pcpc=70 bars, T= 49c Depletion

volume VERTICAL CORE
DEPLETION RATE : 2.5 bar/d EXPERIMENT 1: OIL PRODUCTION vs PRESSURE

200 200
1 2 3
180 180
P in 2m long core P out
holder 160 160
Torilis 1850

Produced Oil Voulme - Std cm3

Pcritical: 39 bar(g)
140 140
70 bar(g),49 c

GOR Sm3/Sm3
120 120

100 100

Gazometer Balance
80 80
Recovery: 18%
60 60

40 40

Pump Chromatographe 20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pressure - bar(g)
1: Safety valve Oil production DGazVolume/DOilVolume
2 and 3: Depletion valve
Depletion volume: tubing 1/8, length: 5 cm
Overburden pressure (Pcp): constant at 70 bar(g), 49C

Figure 1: Experimental equipment Figure 2 : Experiment 1 Depletion rate: 2.5 bar/d

Vertical position - Bottom production

VERTICAL CORE
DEPLETION RATE : 2.5 bar/d
EXPERIMENT 2: OIL PRODUCTION vs PRESSURE

200 200

180 180
Bottom production
160 160
Pcritical: 39 bar(g)
Produced Oil Volume - Std cm3

140 140

GOR Sm3/Sm3
120 120

100 100

80 80
Recovery: 21%

60 60
Top production
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pressure - bar(g)
Oil Volume DGasVolume/DOilVolume

Figure 3 : Experiment 2 Depletion rate: 2.5 bar/d, Vertical position, Bottom production
6 D. URGELLI, M. DURANDEAU, H. FOUCAULT, J-F. BESNIER SPE 54083

OIL PRODUCTION vs PORE PRESSURE

90 90

80 80
Depletion rate: 2,5 bar/d
Direction: Vertical - Top/Bottom production
70 70 HORIZONTAL CORE
Recovery: 21% IOIP
DEPLETION RATE : 12 bar/d EXPERIMENT 4: OIL PRODUCTION vs PRESSURE
Produced oil volume - Std cm3

Recovery: 19 % IOIP
60 60

Recovery factor - %IOIP

200 200
Recovery: 18% IOIP
180 180
50 50

160 Pcritical: 26 bar(g) 160

Depletion rate: 2,5 bar/d

Produced Oil Volume - Std cm3

40 Direction: Vertical - Bottom production 40
140 Recovery: 42% 140
Depletion rate: 2,5 bar/d
Direction: Horizontal

GOR Sm3/Sm3
30 30 120 120

100 100
20 20
80 80

10 10 60 60

40 40
0 0
20 20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pressure - bar(g) 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Oil volume - Experiment 1 Oil volume - Experiment 3 Pressure - bar(g)
Oil volume - Experiment 2 Oil Volume DgasVolume/DOilVolume

Figure 5: Oil recovery for Experiments 1, 2 and 3 Figure 6 : Experiment 4 Depletion rate: 12 bar/d
Horizontal position
Bottom production

HORIZONTAL CORE

OIL PRODUCTION vs PORE PRESSURE

180 60

160
HORIZONTAL CORE 50
Recovery: 45% IOIP
Produced oil volume - Std cm3 & GOR Sm3/Sm3

DEPLETION RATE : 25 bar/d

EXPERIMENT 5: OIL PRODUCTION vs PRESSURE 140

200 200 Recovery: 42% IOIP

120 40

Recovery factor - %IOIP

180 180
Depletion rate: 25 bar/d
160 Pcritical: 20 bar(g) 160 100 Direction: Horizontal
Recovery: 45%
Produced Oil Volume - Std cm3

30
140 140
80
GOR Sm3/Sm3

120 120
Recovery: 19 % IOIP Depletion rate: 12 bar/d
60 Direction: Horizontal 20
100 100

80 80 40
Depletion rate: 2,5 bar/d
Direction: Horizontal 10
60 60
20
40 40

20 20 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 0 Pressure - bar(g)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pressure - bar(g) Oil volume - Experiment 3 Oil volume - Experiment 4
Oil volume - Experiment 5 Oil Recovery - Experiment 3
Oil Volume DGasVolume/DOilVolume Oil Recovery - Experiment 4 Oil Recovery - Experiment 5

Figure 7 : Experiment 5 Depletion rate: 25 bar/d Figure 8 : Oil recovery for Experiments 3, 4 and 5
Horizontal position
Bottom production
SPE 54083 INVESTIGATION OF FOAMY OIL EFFECT FROM LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS 7

HORIZONTAL CORE HORIZONTAL CORE

DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE vs PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE vs TIME

16,00 18,00

14,00 Pcritical : 26 bar(g) 16,00

Pcritical : 19 bar(g)

14,00
12,00
Differential Pressure - bar(g)

12,00
10,00

Pressure - bar(g)
Depletion rate:12 bar/day Depletion rate: 25 bar/day
10,00
8,00
8,00

6,00
6,00

4,00
4,00

Depletion rate: 2.5 bar/day Depletion rate: 2.5 bar/day

2,00
2,00

0,00 0,00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pressure - bar(g) Pressure - bar(g)
Differential Pressure (bottom) - Experiment 3 Differential Pressure (bottom) - Experiment 3
Differential Pressure (bottom) - Experiment 4 Differential Pressure (bottom) - Experiment 5

Figure 9 : Differential pressure Figure 10 : Differential pressure

for Experiments 3 and 4 for Experiments 3 and 5