Anomalous Foam-Fractional-Flow
Solutions at High-Injection Foam Quality
A. Roostapour, SPE, and S.I. Kam, SPE, Louisiana State University
Summary
A thorough understanding of foam fundamentals is crucial to the
optimal design of foams for improved oil recovery (IOR) or
enhanced oil recovery (EOR). This study, for the first time, presents
anomalous foam-fractional-flow solutions that deviate significantly
from the conventional solutions at high-injection foam qualities by
comparing method-of-characteristics and mechanistic bubble-popu-
lation-balance simulations.
The results from modeling and simulations derived from core-
flood experiments revealed the following:
 There are three regions—Region A with relatively wet (or
high fw) injection conditions in which the solutions are consistent
with the conventional fractional-flow theory; Region C with very
dry (or low fw) injection conditions in which the solutions deviate
significantly; and Region B in between, which has a negative dfw/
dSw slope showing physically unstable solutions.
 For dry-injection conditions in Region C, the solutions
require a constant state (IJ) between initial (I) and injection (J)
conditions, forcing a shock from I to IJ by intersecting fractional-
flow curves, followed by spreading waves or another shock to
reach from IJ to J.
 The location of IJ in fw vs. Sw domain moves to the left (or
toward lower Sw) as the total injection velocity increases for both
weak and strong foams until it reaches limiting water saturation.
Even though foams at high-injection quality are popular for
mobility control associating a minimum amount of surfactant solu-
tions, foam behaviors at dry conditions have not been thoroughly
investigated and understood. The outcome of this study is believed
to be helpful to the successful planning of foam IOR/EOR field
applications.
Introduction
Foams have been used in the petroleum industry as a versatile
means in IOR and EOR processes to control gas-phase mobility
and to overcome permeability variations (Kovscek and Radke
1994; Schramm 1994; Rossen 1996). Numerous field-scale treat-
ments and pilot tests show a significant production enhancement
after surfactant/foam applications, including Snorre field in the
North Sea (Blaker et al. 2002), Midway-Sunset field (Duerksen
and Ploeg 1985), Prudhoe Bay (Krause et al. 1992), and Guada-
lupe field (Mohammadi and McCollum 1989). A recent increase
in oil price allows surfactant foams to be a more viable option
with other chemical additives such as polymers and alkaline (Sri-
vastava et al. 2009).
Previous studies show that successful foam applications for
mobility control are typically accompanied by a large fraction of
gas trapped in the media that does not contribute to the flow
(Kovscek and Radke 1994; Falls et al. 1989; Bertin and Kovscek
2003), and this high trapped-gas saturation indirectly causes a
large pressure buildup for foam propagation in linear-flow experi-
ments, as evidenced by various experimental techniques such as
magnetic-resonance imaging, computed tomographic (CT) scan-
ning, and chemical tracers. For example, Radke and Gillis (1990)
reported a trapped-gas saturation higher than 70% in their experi-
Copyright V
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 152907) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 14–18 April 2012, and revised for publication. Original manuscript
received for review 19 December 2011. Revised manuscript received for review 16
September 2012. Paper peer approved 10 December 2012.
40
ments that used fired Berea sandstone with the help of chemical
tracer. Tang and Kovscek (2004) also reported 56 to 80%
trapped-gas saturation in their study that used a gas-tracer tech-
nique in combination with CT scans in Berea sandstone. Nguyen-
Quoc et al. (2002) used an X-ray CT-scan apparatus to measure
the trapped-gas saturation in a Berea core, and they measured 50
to 70% gas trapped in porous media from two series of flow
experiments in which foam with 90% quality is injected at the
total rates of 0.3 and 0.4 cm3/min. Kil et al. (2009), a study of CT
images based on a conservative estimate of diffusion coefficient,
however, estimated flowing-gas fraction one or two orders of
magnitude lower than other studies.
Similar to other miscible and immiscible processes such as
polymer flooding (Pope 1980) and solvent flooding (Walsh and
Lake 1989), fractional-flow analysis has been used as an efficient
tool to characterize the nature of foam displacement in porous
media. This mathematical tool was first introduced by Buckley
and Leverett (1942) to interpret secondary-oil-recovery processes
such as waterflooding and gas injection. The fractional-flow solu-
tions typically consist of a shock and a series of spreading waves
that describe the changes in water saturation in porous media,
which can, in turn, be translated into saturation profiles, effluent
history, time/distance diagrams, and pressure profiles. Previous
studies investigated many different aspects of foam displacement
in porous media implemented into the framework of fractional-
flow analysis, including foam flow with no oil present (Zhou and
Rossen 1995; Alvarez et al. 2001; Kam and Rossen 2003; Ashoori
and Rossen 2012; Roostapour and Kam 2012), foam flow with oil
present (Mayberry and Kam 2008; Zanganeh et al. 2011), and
foam-diversion modeling in two isolated layers (Rosman and
Kam 2009).
The experimental study of Gauglitz et al. (2002) shows that
foams can exhibit three different foam states (strong-foam, inter-
mediate-foam, and weak-foam), and the surface that represents
the steady-state pressure gradient can be expressed by a 3D sur-
face, as illustrated by Fig. 1. This concept, later called foam catas-
trophe (Kam 2008), indicates that the steady-state pressure
gradient during foam flow is multivalued when injection rates are
fixed, but is single-valued if injection pressure is fixed. The con-
ventional fractional-flow methods have been attempted to merge
with mechanistic foam modeling to reproduce such foam proper-
ties (Dholkawala et al. 2007; Afsharpoor et al. 2010).
The main objective of this study is to investigate the mecha-
nisms of foam displacement in porous media by use of fractional-
flow analysis and mechanistic foam simulation. The focus is espe-
cially on the deviation from conventional fractional-flow analysis
at dry (or low fw) foam-injection conditions, which is a common
practice in field foam applications. Such an anomalous behavior
at very dry injection conditions has been reported experimentally
(Kibodeaux and Rossen 1997; Wassmuth et al. 2001; Xu and Ros-
sen 2004), but the mechanisms behind it have not been clearly
understood.
Methods
Earlier studies of Falls et al. (1988), Patzek (1988), and Ettinger
and Radke (1992) show how mechanistic foam modeling and sim-
ulation can be achieved by combining material balance and bub-
ble-population balance.
The mass-balance equation for the immiscible gas/liquid two-
phase system can be simplified into a fractional-flow equation:
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

locus of foam
generation
g
stron
∇p foam
Ga
s
Fl
ow
Ra
e
coars
t
e
foam
wR ate
Liquid Flo
Fig. 1—Multivalued foam-catastrophe surface represented by
three different foam states (Gauglitz et al. 2002).
@ ut @
ðSj Þ þ ð fj Þ ¼ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
@t / @x
where Sj and fj are the saturation and fractional flow of phase j,
respectively; / is the porosity of the media; ut is total injection
velocity; and t and x are time and space, respectively. Lake (1989)
presents in-depth discussions about derivations and assumptions
to reach Eq. 1 that include 1D flow, isothermal conditions, rock
and fluid properties with no sorption, reaction or interphase mass
transfer, and immediate attainment of a local steady state.
Bubble-population balance keeps track of the change in foam
texture (i.e., the number of foam films or lamellae) in time and
space. The following equation applies when the medium is rela-
tively wet (Falls et al. 1988; Kovscek et al. 1995):
@ @
/ ðSg nf Þ þ ðnf ug Þ ¼ /Sg ðRg  Rc Þ . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
@t @x
where Rg and Rc are the rates of lamella creation and coalescence,
nf is foam texture, and Sg is gas saturation. Note that this bubble
population balance equation is valid only when the capillary pres-
sure (Pc) at the time and location of interest are lower than the
limiting capillary pressure (P*c ), or Pc < P*c . The solution of this
equation becomes trivial with nf ¼ zero (or no foam films present),
if Pc > P*c or the medium is relatively dry. The use of the limiting
capillary pressure (P*c ) can be translated into the use of the limit-
ing-water saturation (S*w) such that Pc < P*c is equivalent to
Sw > S*w, and Pc > P*c is equivalent to Sw < S*w.
Among many studies available in the literature, this study fol-
lows the mechanistic modeling and simulation technique pre-
sented by Afsharpoor et al. (2010), which is an extension of Kam
and Rossen (2003), Kam et al. (2007), and Kam (2008) with the
concept of trapped-gas saturation (Kovscek and Radke 1994) and
effective foam viscosity (Hirasaki and Lawson 1985). The model
is derived from the minimum pressure gradient for mobilization
(and subsequent lamella mobilization and division) for lamella
creation (Rossen and Gauglitz 1990; Kam and Rossen 2003) (cf.
Rg term in Eq. 2) and the limiting capillary pressure for lamella
coalescence (Khatib et al. 1988) (cf. Rc term in Eq. 2). Details of
this foam model are summarized in Appendix A.
Results and Discussion
As shown by Eq. A-1 the Appendix A, the foam model borrowed
in this study has both a lamella-creation mechanism driven by the
mobilization pressure gradient and a lamella-coalescence mecha-
nism driven by the limiting capillary pressure. This, in turn,
means that the resulting mechanistic foam-fractional-flow curve is
a function not only of saturation but also of total injection veloc-
ity, as pointed out by Dholkawala et al. (2007) and Kam (2008).
Table 1 lists input parameters describing foam characteristics and
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
TABLE 1—PARAMETER VALUES FOR FOAM MODELING
IN THIS STUDY
Limiting water saturation, S*w 0.0585
Connate-water saturation, Swc 0.04
Residual gas saturation, Sgr 0.0
Absolute permeability, k (m2) 3.0  10–11
Water viscosity, lw (Pas) 0.001
Gas viscosity, lg (Pas) 0.00002
Maximum fraction of trapped-gas saturation, Xtmax 0.8
Gas-trapping parameter, b 5.0  10–11
rock and fluid properties used in the modeling and simulation in
this study.
Fig. 2 shows mechanistic foam-fractional-flow curves at dif-
ferent total injection velocities (ut) ranging from 2.8  105 to
7.0  105 m/s to demonstrate how the multivalued foam-catas-
trophe surface (Fig. 1) affects the curves. This characteristic of
the foam-catastrophe surface results from the bubble-generation
mechanism derived from the “minimum mobilization pressure”
and the “lamella mobilization and division mechanism” in porous
media. [Please see Kam and Rossen (2003) for more details.] The
nature of velocity-dependent fractional-flow curves results in the
following observations: at given injection condition (J) specified
by fw on the y-axis, the number of intersections is either one or
three; and, if three, the intersection at the lowest and highest water
saturations (Sw) corresponds to the strong-foam and weak-foam
states, respectively, whereas the saturation value in the middle is
for the intermediate state, which cannot be obtained in fixed-rate
foam-injection experiments (Kam et al. 2007; Kam 2008). [There
still might be two intersections on rare occasions when the injec-
tion condition (i.e., a horizontal line in the fw-vs.-Sw domain)
touches the inflection point.] It should be noted that any part of
the curve with a negative slope (or negative dfw/dSw value) is
physically unstable and therefore cannot be observed in actual
foam-displacement experiments (Dholkawala et al. 2007). This
study investigates the nature of foam displacements in a broad
range of injection velocities, but it presents two representative
cases: ut ¼ 3.7  105 m/s for weak-foam propagation and ut ¼
7.0  105 m/s for strong-foam propagation. Mechanistic foam
simulation shows that an abrupt transition from weak foam to
strong foam, or so-called foam generation, occurs at approxi-
mately ut ¼ 5.0  105 m/s. In all cases investigated in this study,
the initial condition (I) of the media is 100% saturated with sur-
factant solutions. The results at other injection ut values attempted
in this study, although not shown because of space limitation, are
consistent with the results with these two ut values.
Weak-Foam Propagation. Fig. 3 shows the fractional-flow
curve at ut ¼ 3.7  105 m/s, which consists of three foam states.
If the focus is on the weak-foam state only, one can find that there
are, in general, three different types of injection conditions (J):
Region A with a relatively wet-injection condition in which dfw/
dSw > zero; Region C with a relatively dry-injection condition in
which dfw/dSw > zero; and Region B in between with dfw/
dSw < zero. To examine the effect of foam propagation in differ-
ent regions, this study selects four different injection conditions:
J1 at fw ¼ 0.30 in Region A; J2 at fw ¼ 0.11 in Region B; and both
J3 at fw ¼ 0.045 and J4 at fw ¼ 0.002 in Region C, at the same ini-
tial condition (I) of Sw ¼ 1. The selection of these four injection
conditions (J1 through J4) is somewhat arbitrary. But, on the basis
of numerous injection conditions investigated in this study (not all
shown), these four injection conditions are believed to represent
all different types of displacement solutions that cover all of
Regions A, B, and C.
Figs. 4a and 4b show the saturation profiles at J ¼ J1 and
J ¼ J2. In the case of injection conditions in Region A with J1
(Fig. 4a), the nature of displacement in mechanistic foam simula-
tion (solid lines) is consistent with the conventional understanding
41
 Velocity Increasing
Water Fractional Flow, fw 1 1.0 1

Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

0.8 0.8 0.8

Velocity Increasing
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 ut = 2.8×105 m/s 0.2 ut = 3.7×105 m/s 0.2 ut = 4.0×105 m/s

0 0.0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw

Velocity Increasing
1.0 1.0 1
Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2
ut = 7.0×105 m/s 0.2
ut = 5.3×105 m/s 0.2
ut = 4.2×105 m/s

0.0 0.0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw

Fig. 2—Velocity-dependent mechanistic foam-fractional-flow curves in a wide range of total injection velocities (ut) resulting from
foam-catastrophe surface.

of fractional-flow solutions (dotted lines), which is the entire dis- oscillations, the average Sw behind the shock is very close to the
placement process governed by a single saturation shock from J1 Sw value corresponding to J2 in Fig. 3. Similar observations are
to I. In the case of injection conditions in Region B with J2 (Fig. found at other injection conditions in separate trials (not shown)
4b), although the propagation of the shock is well-captured, the within Regions A and B.
simulation shows oscillations in terms of Sw behind the shock. Figs. 5a and 5b show the saturation profiles at J ¼ J3 and
This is similar to what Kam et al. (2007) reported—mechanistic J ¼ J4, and Fig. 6 shows more-detailed information about the
simulation does not provide a stable Sw value behind the shock locations of J3 and J4, plotted together with the boundaries
because of a negative dfw/dSw value, or physically unachievable between Regions A and B [i.e., dfw/dSw ¼ 1 at (Sw, fw) ¼ (0.4005,
solution. It is interesting, however, to point out that even with 0.13)], and Regions B and C [i.e., dfw/dSw ¼ 1 at (Sw,
fw) ¼ (0.407, 0.046)], the tangent point “T” from I [i.e., (Sw,
fw) ¼ (0.403, 0.031)], and the constant state “IJ” [i.e., (Sw,
1.0 fw) ¼ (0.343, 0.007)]. In both injection conditions, simulation
results disagree with fractional-flow solutions. More specifically,
for injection condition J3 (Fig. 5a), fractional-flow analysis con-
strong foam state

te
te

0.8 structs a shock from I to J3 directly, whereas simulation shows a

sta
Water Fractional Flow, fw

intermediate sta

shock from I to the constant state IJ (0.343, 0.007), followed by

m

another shock to J3. For injection condition J4 (Fig. 5b), frac-

a
fo

tional-flow analysis constructs a shock from I to the tangent point

ak

0.6
we

(0.403, 0.031), followed by spreading waves to J4, whereas simu-

Region A
lation shows a shock from I to the constant state IJ (0.343, 0.007),
dfw/dSw > 0
e
in

0.4
followed by spreading waves to J4.
tl

Two important aspects are worth noting: in both J3 and J4, the
en
ng

"J1" constant state given by IJ is identical and because the simulation

ta

forces a shock from I to IJ (rather than the tangent point T in Fig.

0.2
"J2"
6), the foam front in the simulation propagates more slowly than
Region B, dfw/dSw < 0 that in fractional-flow analysis. In fact, several other attempts
"J3" tried with different injection conditions in Region C (not shown)
Region C, dfw/dSw > 0
0.0 all show the constant state behind the shock to be always identical
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 [i.e., IJ at (Sw, fw)¼ (0.343, 0.007)] as long as the injection condi-
"J4"
Water Saturation, Sw tion falls within the same region. Further investigation reveals
that if the injection condition is drier than IJ (or, fw of J less than
Fig. 3—Weak-foam fractional-flow curve at ut 5 3.7 3 1025 m/s: fw of IJ), the shock to IJ is followed by spreading waves, and if
four different injection conditions (J1 through J4) are examined the injection condition is wetter than IJ (or fw of J more than fw of
to see the effect of three different Regions (A, B, and C). IJ), the shock to IJ is followed by the second shock from IJ to J.

42 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 1 "I" 1 "I"

saturation shock

saturation shock
PVI=0.081
0.8 PVI=0.121 0.8

Water Saturation, Sw

Water Saturation, Sw
PVI=0.162
PVI=0.243
0.6
0.6 PVI=0.243
"J" PVI=0.364
0.4 "J" PVI=0.324
PVI=0.485 0.4
PVI=0.405
PVI=0.607
0.2
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
Dimensionless Distance, XD 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Distance, XD
(a) (b)

Fig. 4—Saturation profiles at two different injection conditions at total injection velocity (ut) 5 3.7 3 1025 m/s: (a) J1 with fw 5 0.30
(Region A in Fig. 3) and (b) J2 with fw 5 0.11 (Region B in Fig. 3).

1 "I" 1 "I"
PVI=0.121
PVI=0.121
Water Saturation, sw

Water Saturation, sw
0.8 0.8
PVI=0.243
PVI=0.243
PVI=0.364
0.6 PVI=0.364 0.6
PVI=0.485
"J" PVI=0.485
0.4 0.4 PVI=0.607
PVI=0.607

intermediate constant state

0.2 intermediate constant state 0.2
"J" spreading waves

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Distance, XD Dimensionless Distance, XD

(a) (b)

Fig. 5—Saturation profiles at two different injection conditions at total injection velocity (ut) 5 3.7 3 1025 m/s: (a) J3 with fw 5 0.045
and (b) J4 with fw 5 0.002 (both in Region C in Fig. 3).

1.0 0.05 dfw/dSw=∞∞ at

(0.407,0.046)
dfw/dSw=∞
Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

J3
0.8 (0.4005,0.13) 0.04
Tangent Point

(0.407, 0.045)
(0.403, 0.031)

0.6 0.03
∞
dfw/dSw=∞ A
(0.407,0.046)
0.4 0.02

J4
0.2 0.01 (0.252,0.002)
Swc "IJ"
B (0.04, 0) (0.343, 0.007)
0.0
C 0.00
0.0 0.2 "IJ"0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4

Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw

Fig. 6—Location of constant state (IJ ) in comparison with injection conditions (J3 and J4) in Region C (ut 53.7 3 1025 m/s): Simula-
tion forces the shock to be constructed by intersecting the fractional-flow curve.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 43

 1 "I" 1 "I"
PVI=0.121 PVI=0.121

Water Saturation, Sw

Water Saturation, Sw
0.8 0.8
PVI=0.243 PVI=0.243

0.6 PVI=0.364 0.6 PVI=0.364

PVI=0.485 PVI=0.485
"J"
0.4 PVI=0.607 0.4
PVI=0.607

intermediate constant state

"J" intermediate constant state
0.2 0.2
2ndshock spreading waves

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Distance, XD Dimensionless Distance, XD
(a) (b)

Fig. 7—Saturation profiles with injection condition (J ) at (a) J3 and (b) J4 in comparison with Fig. 5: After constant state (IJ ) is
forced, fractional-flow analysis can reproduce simulation results.

This behavior is not typical but anomalous because it violates the at fw ¼ 0.20 in Region A; J2 at fw ¼ 0.017 in Region B; and J3 at
entropy condition (Luckhaus and Plotnikov 2000) that does not fw ¼ 0.008 and J4 at fw ¼ 2.86  106, both in Region C.
allow the fractional-flow curves to be intersected by the shock Figs. 9a and 9b and Figs. 10a and 10b show the saturation
construction. This strange behavior is discussed in later sections. profiles at J1, J2, J3, and J4 with conventional fractional-flow solu-
Fig. 7 shows saturation profiles similar to those in Fig. 5 with tions (dotted lines) and mechanistic simulation results (solid
J3 and J4 (i.e., dry foam injection in Region C); this time the con- lines). These four cases leading to strong foams are very similar
stant state (IJ) borrowed from the simulation is incorporated into to those responses in weak foams (see Figs. 4 and 5): The injec-
the factional-flow analysis. The results in Fig. 7 show that the tion condition in Region A (i.e., J1) shows good agreement
new fractional-flow solution agrees well with simulation results between the two solutions (Fig. 9a); the injection condition in
when the predetermined constant state IJ from the simulation is Region B (i.e., J2) shows oscillations behind the shock (Fig. 9b);
implemented in the modeling. and the injection conditions in Region C (i.e., J3 and J4) lead to an
identical constant state (IJ), which requires the shock waves to
intersect fractional-flow curves, thus deviating from the conven-
Strong-Foam Propagation. Fig. 8 shows the fractional-flow tional fractional-flow solution of constructing a tangent line.
curve at ut ¼ 7.0  105 m/s, which ends up with strong-foam Fig. 11 shows that the location of the constant state IJ (0.0585,
propagation in simulation. Similar to the weak-foam case (see 7.3  106) observed in simulations (see Figs. 10a and 10b) at the
Fig. 3), the fractional-flow curve at higher total injection velocity injection condition of J3 and J4, plotted with the boundaries
also consists of three different regions: Region A with a relatively between Regions A and B [i.e., dfw/dSw ¼ 1 at (Sw, fw) ¼ (0.0585,
wet-injection condition (dfw/dSw > 0); Region C with a relatively 0.0186)] and Regions B and C [i.e., dfw/dSw ¼ 1 at (Sw,
dry-injection condition (dfw/dSw > zero); and Region B in be- fw) ¼ (0.248, 0.008)] and the tangent point “T” [i.e., (Sw,
tween with dfw/dSw < 0. Four different injection conditions are J1 fw) ¼ (0.247, 0.007)]. Figs. 12a and 12b show the updated

1.0 "I" 0.05

strong foam state
Water Fractional Flow, fw
Water Fractional Flow, fw

0.8 0.04
Region "B" and "C"
Region "A"

A
dfw/dSw > 0
0.6 0.03
weak foam state

0.4 0.02
"J2"
B
"J1" dfw/dSw < 0
0.2 0.01
"J3"
C
dfw/dSw > 0
0.0 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Water Saturation, Sw "J4" Water Saturation, Sw

Fig. 8—Strong-foam fractional-flow curve at ut 5 7.0 3 1025 m/s: four different injection conditions (J1 through J4) are examined to
see the effect of different Regions (A, B, and C).

44 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 1 1
"I" "I"

0.8 0.8 PVI=0.153

PVI=0.153

Water Saturation, Sw

Water Saturation, Sw
PVI=0.306

saturation shock

saturation shock
PVI=0.306
0.6 0.6 PVI=0.459
PVI=0.459
PVI=0.612
0.4 PVI=0.612 0.4
PVI=0.765
PVI=0.765
"J"
0.2 0.2

"J"
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Distance, XD Dimensionless Distance, XD
(a) (b)

Fig. 9—Saturation profiles at two different injection conditions at total injection velocity (ut) 5 7.0 3 1025 m/s: (a) J1 with fw 5 0.20
(Region A in Fig. 8) and (b) J2 with fw 5 0.017 (Region B in Fig. 8).
1 1
"I"
PVI=0.153
PVI=0.153
0.8 0.8
Water Saturation, Sw

PVI=0.306
PVI=0.306

saturation shock
Water Saturation, Sw
PVI=0.459
saturation shock

0.6 0.6 PVI=0.459

PVI=0.612
PVI=0.612
0.4 PVI=0.765 0.4
PVI=0.765

"J"
0.2 0.2

Constant State "J" Constant State

0 0
2nd 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
shock Dimensionless Distance, XD Dimensionless Distance, XD

(a) (b)

Fig. 10—Saturation profiles at two different injection conditions at total injection velocity (ut) 5 7.0 3 1025 m/s: (a) J3 with fw 5 0.008
and (b) J4 with fw 5 2.86 3 1026 (both in Region C in Fig. 3).

1.0 "I" 0.05

(0.248,0.008)
dfw/dSw=∞

0.8 0.04 dfw/dSw=∞∞

Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

(0.0585,0.0186)
A
Tangent Point "T"
Region "B" and "C"
Region "A"

(0.247,0.007)

0.6 0.03

0.4 0.02

"J2" B
"J1"
0.2 0.01
"J3"
C "IJ"
(0.0585, 7.3×106)
0.0 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 "J4" 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Swc
Water Saturation, Sw (0.04,0) Water Saturation, Sw

Fig. 11—Location of constant state (IJ ) in comparison with foam injection at dry conditions (J3 and J4) in Region C (ut 5 7.0 3 1025
m/s): Simulation forces the shock to be constructed by intersecting the fractional-flow curve.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 45

 1 1
"I" "I"
PVI=0.153
PVI=0.153
0.8 0.8
PVI=0.306

saturation shock
Water Saturation, Sw

saturation shock
PVI=0.306

Water Saturation, Sw
PVI=0.459
0.6 0.6 PVI=0.459

PVI=0.612
PVI=0.612
0.4 PVI=0.765 0.4
PVI=0.765

"J"
0.2 0.2

Constant State "J"

0 0
Constant State
2nd 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
shock Dimensionless Distance, XD Dimensionless Distance, XD

(a) (b)

Fig. 12—Saturation profiles with (a) J 5 J3 and (b) J 5 J4 in comparison with Fig. 10: After constant state (IJ ) is forced, fractional-
flow analysis can reproduce simulation results.

fractional-flow solutions when the constant state (IJ) is borrowed the fraction of flowing-gas saturation (Xf) play a role in foam
from simulations, which shows good agreement between the two. modeling are provided in the Appendix, and the equations to deal
Once again, without implementing IJ, the conventional fractional- with these two fractions (Eq. A-3) are from earlier studies of
flow analysis shows a deviation from simulation results. Kovscek and Radke (1994). For clarification, Xtmax sets the upper
limit of Xt, but Xt value itself, which varies with time and space,
Effect of Trapped-Gas Saturation. Although only two total interacts with other foam properties (e.g., lamella creation and co-
injection velocities (ut ¼ 3.7 105 and 7.0  105 m/s) are pre- alescence mechanisms, foam viscosity, and foam texture) in
sented here, the same trials are repeated in a wide range of injec- mechanistic foam modeling.
tion velocities. The overall responses are the same, which is Fig. 14 presents a series of mechanistic foam-fractional-flow
summarized in Fig. 13: When the injection condition is very dry curves with ut ¼ 3.7  105 m/s in a wide range of Xtmax from 0 to
and in Region C (e.g., J3 or J4), the conventional fractional-flow 0.82 (meaning that from no gas to up to 82% of gas, respectively,
solutions are not consistent with mechanistic simulation results. can be trapped during foam flow). The curve at Xtmax ¼ 0.80 is
The existence of such a constant state (IJ) that forces the satura- identical to that in Fig. 3. Note that a reduction in Xtmax means
tion shock to intersect the fractional-flow curve is caused by less foam trapped, which indirectly implies a lower effective
trapped-gas saturation, which is often used as an input parameter foam viscosity and a coarser foam texture. Therefore, the entire
in foam modeling and simulations. This is further explained in fractional-flow curves tend to shift to the right, approaching a typ-
Figs. 14 through 16. It should be noted that in all modeling and ical gas/water two-phase fractional-flow curve, when Xtmax comes
simulations in Figs. 2 through 12, the maximum fraction of nearer to zero. On the other hand, an increase in Xtmax makes the
trapped-gas saturation (Xtmax) is assumed to be 0.8 (Table 1). fractional-flow curve shift to the left and become curvy. The solid
Details about how the fraction of trapped-gas saturation (Xt) and circles in Fig. 14a show the position behind the shock from

1 “I” “I”
1
“Region A”

“Region A”
Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

“J1” “J1”

∞
dfw/dSw=∞
dfw/dSw=∞
“B”

“J2”
“B”

“J2”
dfw/dSw=∞
“C”

“J3”
“C”

“J3” dfw/dSw=∞
“J4”
“IJ” “J4” “IJ”
0 1 0 1
Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw
(a) (b)

Fig. 13—Schematics summarizing mechanistic foam-fractional-flow solutions: (a) weak foam and (b) strong foam. In both cases,
there exists a constant state (IJ ) forcing the saturation shock front to intersect the curves.

46 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 1.0 1.0

X tmax X tmax
0.8 0.8

Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

0.82 0.82
0.81 0.81

0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8

0.77 0.77

0.7 0.7
0.4 0.4 0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2 0.2 0.2
0
0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw
(a) (b)

Fig. 14—Effect of trapped-gas saturation on mechanistic foam fractional flows in a wide range of maximum trapped-gas saturation
(Xtmax): (a) saturation behind shock from conventional fractional-flow analysis (tangent line) and (b) saturation behind shock from
simulation (weak foams with ut 5 3.7 3 1025 m/s).

1.0 1.0
X tmax X tmax
0.85 0.85
0.8 0.8
Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

0.8 0.8

0.75 0.75

0.73 0.6 0.73 0.6

0.72 0.72

0.7 0.7
0.4 0.4
0.65 0.65
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.2 0.2
0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0.0 0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw
(a) (b)

Fig. 15—Effect of trapped-gas saturation on mechanistic-foam fractional flows in a wide range of maximum trapped-gas saturation
(Xtmax): (a) saturation behind shock from conventional fractional-flow analysis (tangent line) and (b) saturation behind shock from
simulation (strong foams with ut 5 7.0 3 1025 m/s).

0.35 0.30

0.30
0.25
Water Fractional Flow, fw

Water Fractional Flow, fw

0.25
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15

0.10
0.10
Simulation
0.05 Simulation
0.05
Fractional Flow Fractional Flow

0.00 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation, Sw Water Saturation, Sw
(a) (b)

Fig. 16—Direct comparison of saturations behind shock between two methods: (a) ut 5 3.7 3 1025 m/s (weak foams) and (b)
ut 5 7.0 3 1025 m/s (strong foams).

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 47

tangent-line construction in conventional fractional-flow analysis,
whereas the open circles in Fig. 14b show the position behind the
shock from mechanistic simulations. The comparison between
Figs. 14a and 14b shows that the saturation values behind shock
are not much different for Xtmax ¼ 0 to 0.77, and, beyond that, the
difference between them becomes more pronounced when Xtmax
increases.
The same response is observed with ut ¼ 7.0  105 m/s in
Fig. 15 in which a series of mechanistic foam-fractional-flow
curves are shown in a wide range of Xtmax from 0 to 0.85. Once
again, the curve at Xtmax ¼ 0.80 is identical to that in Fig. 8. The
saturation values behind the shock between the two methods are
similar up to Xtmax ¼ 0.65, beyond which the difference increases
dramatically when Xtmax increases. Figs. 16a and 16b directly
compare the saturation values behind the shock from fractional-
flow solutions (solid circles) and simulation results (open circles)
for ut ¼ 3.7  105 and ut ¼ 7.0  105 m/s, respectively.
Implications of the Results in This Study. The results of this
study, especially those in Figs. 14 through 16, reveal three impor-
tant aspects regarding foam propagation in field applications.
First, the propagation rate of the foam front [i.e., the slope of a
straight line connecting I (Sw, fw) ¼ (1, 1) and a circle in Figs. 14
and 15], which increases with decreasing Xtmax (i.e., with a
smaller trapped-gas saturation, or a coarser foam, equivalently),
can change significantly depending on the level of Xtmax. For
example, in the case of strong-foam propagation in mechanistic
foam simulation in Fig. 15b, foam-propagation rate at Xtmax ¼
zero is more than three times faster than foam-propagation rate at
Xtmax ¼ 0.80, which can result in an enormous error in predicting
foam-breakthrough time. Second, even at the same Xtmax, conven-
tional fractional-flow analysis tends to overestimate the propaga-
tion rate of the foam front because it ignores the presence of
constant-state IJ. For example, at Xtmax¼ 0.85, conventional frac-
tional-flow analysis (Fig. 15a) and mechanistic simulation (Fig.
15b) estimate foam-propagation rates of 1.266 [i.e., Dfw/DSw 
(1–0)/(1–0.21)] and 1.062 [i.e., Dfw/DSw  (1–0)/(1–0.0585)],
respectively; the difference between these is not negligible. Third,
this discrepancy between conventional fractional-flow analysis
and mechanistic simulation is ultimately because of trapped-gas
saturation. In other words, if no gas is trapped during foam flow
(although this is against our current understanding), then these
two solutions should coincide with each other.
These three aspects emphasize the importance of laboratory tests
in accurately measuring trapped-gas saturations. Although the
needs for such experimental data is presented in this study by show-
ing how foam-propagation rate is commingled with other foam-
flow properties and breakthrough time, the practical difficulty of
monitoring bubble sizes, bubble-size distribution, and the trapped-
gas saturation has been a major impediment in foam research.
The results also imply that the gap between fractional-flow sol-
utions and mechanistic foam simulations might be resolved if a
mechanistic foam model is “fully” mechanistic. Even though
existing foam models in the literature are reasonably successful in
describing foam mechanisms piece by piece, no mechanistic foam
models yet cover what determines, or how to describe, the maxi-
mum trapped-gas saturation and how the trapped-gas saturation
should be adjusted at different flow conditions as a function of
time and space.
This study also shows that the presence of three regions
(Regions A, B, and C) is not affected by the weakness or strength
of the foam. (This study defines weak and strong foams, depend-
ing on whether the injection velocity is greater or less than the
foam-generation velocity above which fine-textured foams are
created and maintained.) Irrespective of weak or strong foams, the
difference between fractional-flow solutions and mechanistic sim-
ulations matters only when the injection condition is very dry.
The exact criterion about this depends not only on rock and fluid
properties but also on foam-flow characteristics.
It is noteworthy that caution should be paid when the position
behind the shock (IJ) is obtained by numerical simulation so that
determination of the position is not affected by numerical artifacts
48
such as timestep size, number of gridblocks, over- or undershoot-
ing/relaxation, and numerical algorithms (such as forward vs.
backward and explicit vs. implicit). The IJ positions in this study
are compared and shown to be consistent with those calculated by
different types of numerical techniques, especially fully implicit
simulations with a matrix solver, which are discussed in the Ap-
pendix of Afsharpoor (2009).
Conclusions
This study investigated foam-displacement mechanisms in porous
media with fractional-flow analysis and mechanistic simulations.
The outcome of this study can be summarized with the following
major conclusions:
• Velocity-dependent mechanistic fractional-flow curves were
constructed by combining fractional-flow analysis and mecha-
nistic foam models. The results showed that there existed three
different possible injection conditions depending on injection-
water fraction ( fw): Region A, relatively wet-injection condi-
tions (i.e., high fw) with dfw/dSw > zero; Region C, very-dry-
injection conditions (i.e., low fw) with dfw/dSw > zero; and
Region B, in between (intermediate fw), with dfw/dSw < zero.
• For foam-injection conditions in Region A, the solution from
conventional fractional-flow analysis agreed well with the
results from mechanistic foam simulation. For injection condi-
tions in Region B, there was no physically stable solution
resulting from negative dfw/dSw, which was well-reflected in
mechanistic simulation by the oscillation of water saturation
behind the shock front.
• For injection conditions in Region C, which represented very
dry foam injection, the solution from mechanistic-foam simula-
tion showed the presence of a new constant state behind
the shock, which disagreed with a tangent-line construction in
conventional fractional-flow analysis. Furthermore, this new
constant state requires a saturation shock construction by inter-
secting the fractional-flow curve, which did not follow the en-
tropy condition.
• This discrepancy between fractional-flow analysis and mecha-
nistic foam simulation occurred because of the trapped-gas sat-
uration, a common and well-accepted symptom associated with
foam flow in porous media. If gas trapping was negligible [or
the maximum trapped-gas saturation (Xtmax) is zero, equiva-
lently], these two solutions were identical; otherwise, the differ-
ence between two solutions became more pronounced with
increasing Xtmax. This implies that predicting the propagation of
foam front in actual field applications cannot be performed reli-
ably without accurate measurements of the trapped-gas satura-
tion in advance.
Nomenclature
Cc ¼ foam-model parameter
Cf ¼ foam-model parameter
Cg ¼ foam-model parameter
fj ¼ water fractional flow of phase j ( j ¼ w or g, for water or
gas, respectively)
k ¼ absolute permeability
k0rg ¼ relative permeability to gas (no foam)
kfrg ¼ relative permeability to gas (with foam)
krw ¼ relative permeability to water
n ¼ foam-model parameter
nf ¼ foam texture
nfmax ¼ maximum foam texture
P ¼ pressure
Pc ¼ capillary pressure
P*c ¼ limiting capillary pressure
Rc ¼ rate of lamella coalescence
Rg ¼ rate of lamella generation
Sgr ¼ residual gas saturation
Sj ¼ saturation of phase j ( j ¼ w or g, for water or gas,
respectively)
Swc ¼ connate-water saturation
S*w ¼ limiting water saturation
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 t ¼ time
ut ¼ total injection velocity
x ¼ space or length
Xf ¼ fraction of flowing gas
Xt ¼ trapped-gas saturation
Xtmax ¼ maximum trapped-gas saturation
b ¼ gas-trapping parameter
/ ¼ porosity
lg ¼ gas viscosity
lfg ¼ gas viscosity in the presence of foam
lw ¼ water viscosity
Acknowledgments
We appreciate support from Chevron Incorporated, the Donald
W. and Gayle A. Keller Distinguished Professorship, and the Ru-
ral Research Institute.
References
Afsharpoor, A. 2009. Mechanistic Foam Modeling and Simulations: Gas
Injection During Surfactant-Alternating-Gas Processes Using Foam-
Catastrophe Theory. MS thesis. Louisiana State University (August 2009).
Afsharpoor, A., Lee, G.S., and Kam, S.I. 2010. Mechanistic Simulation of
Continuous Gas Injection Period During Surfactant-Alternating-Gas
(SAG) Processes Using Foam Catastrophe Theory. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65
(11): 3615–3631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2010.03.001.
Alvarez, J.M., Rivas, H.J., and Rossen, W.R. 2001. Unified Model for
Steady-State Foam Behavior at High- and Low-Foam Qualities. SPE
J. 6 (3): 325–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/74141-PA.
Ashoori, E. and Rossen, W. 2012. Can Formation Relative Permeabilities
Rule Out a Foam EOR Process? SPE J. 17 (2): 340–351. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/134906-PA.
Bertin, H.J. and Kovscek, A.R. 2003. Foam Mobility in Heterogeneous
Porous Media. Transport Porous Media 52 (1): 17–35. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022312225868.
Blaker, T., Aarra, M., Skauge, A. et al. 2002. Foam for Gas Mobility Con-
trol in the Snorre Field: The FAWAG Project. SPE Res Eval & Eng 5
(4): 317–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/78824-PA.
Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C. 1942. Mechanism of Fluid Displacement
in Sands. Trans. Am. Inst. Mechanical Eng. J. 146: 107–116.
Dholkawala, Z.F., Sarma, H.K., and Kam, S.I. 2007. Application of Frac-
tional Flow Theory to Foams in Porous Media. J. Pet Sci & Eng 57
(1): 152–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2005.10.012.
Duerksen, J.H. and Ploeg, J.F. 1985. Two Successful Steam-Foam Field
Tests, Sections 15A and 26C, Midway-Sunset Field. Paper SPE 13609
presented at the 55th SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield,
California, 27–29 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13609-MS.
Ettinger, R.A. and Radke, C.J. 1992. Influence of Foam Texture on Steady
Foam Flow in Berea Sandstone. SPE Res Eng 7 (1): 83–90. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/19688-PA.
Falls, A.H., Hirasaki, G.J., Patzek, T.W. et al. 1988. Development of a
Mechanistic Foam Simulator: The Population Balance and Generation
by Snapp-Off. SPE Res Eng 3 (3): 884–892. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
14961-PA.
Falls, A.H., Musters, J.J., and Ratulowski, J. 1989. The Apparent Viscosity
of Foams in Homogeneous Bead Packs. SPE Res Eng 4 (2): 155–164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16048-PA.
Gauglitz, P.A., Friedmann, F., Kam, S.I. et al. 2002. Foam Generation in
Homogeneous Porous Media. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57 (19): 4037–4052.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(02)00340-8.
Hirasaki, G.J. and Lawson, J.B. 1985. Mechanisms of Foam Flow in Po-
rous Media: Apparent Viscosity in Smooth Capillaries. SPE J. 25 (2):
176–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12129-PA.
Kam, S.I. 2008. Improved Mechanstic Foam Simulation With Foam Ca-
tastrophe Theory. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng Aspects
318 (1): 62–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2007.12.017.
Kam, S., Nguyen, Q., Li Q. et al. 2007. Dynamic Simulations With an
Improved Model for Foam Generation. SPE J. 12 (1): 35–48. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/90938-PA.
Kam, S.I. and Rossen, W.R. 2003. A Model for Foam Generation in Ho-
mogeneous Porous Media. SPE J. 8 (4): 417–425. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/87334-PA.
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Khatib, Z.I., Hirasaki, G.J., and Falls, A.H. 1988. Effect of Capillary Pres-
sure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in Foams Flowing Through
Porous Media. SPE Res Eng 3 (3): 919–926. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
15442-PA.
Kibodeaux, K.R. and Rossen, W.R. 1997. Coreflood Study of Surfactant-
Alternating-Gas Foam Processes: Implications for Field Design. Paper
SPE 38318 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long
Beach, California, 25–27 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/38318-MS.
Kil, R., Nguyen, Q., and Rossen, W. 2009. Determining Trapped Gas in
Foam from CT Images. Paper SPE 124157 presented at the SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
4–7 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/124157-MS.
Kovscek, A.R., Patzek, T.W., and Radke, C.J. 1995. A Mechanistic Popu-
lation Balance Model for Transient and Steady-State Foam Flow in
Boise Sandstone. Chem. Eng. Sci. 50 (23): 3783–3799. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(95)00199-F.
Kovscek, A.R. and Radke, C.J. 1994. Fundamentals of Foam Transport in
Porous Media. In Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petro-
leum Industry, ed. L.L. Schramm, Advances in Chemistry Series 242.
Washington DC: American Chemical Society.
Krause, R.E., Lane, R.H., Kuehne, D.L. et al. 1992. Foam Treatment of
Producing Wells To Increase Oil Production at Prudhoe Bay. Paper
SPE/DOE 24191 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–24 April. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/24191-MS.
Lake, L.W. 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Luckhaus, S. and Plotnikov, P.I. 2000. Entropy Solutions to the Buckley-
Leverett Equations. Sib. Math. J. 41 (2): 329–348. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF02674603.
Mayberry, D.J. and Kam, S.I. 2008. The Use of Fractional-Flow Theory
for Foam Displacement in Presence of Oil. SPE Res Eval & Eng 11
(4): 707–718. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/100964-PA.
Mohammadi, S.S. and McCollum, T.J. 1989. Steam-Foam Pilot Project in
Guadalupe Field, California. SPE Res Eng 4 (1): 17–23. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/15054-PA.
Nguyen-Quoc, P., Zitha, P.L.J., and Currie, P.K. 2002. Effect of Foam
Films on Gas Diffusion. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 248 (2): 467–476. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1006/jcis.2001.8155.
Patzek, T.W. 1988. Description of Foam Flow in Porous Media by the
Population Balance Approach. In Surfactant-Based Mobility Control:
Progress in Miscible-Flood Enhanced Oil Recovery, 326–341, ACS
Symposium Series No. 373, ed. D.H. Smith. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Chemical Society.
Pope, G. 1980. The Application of Fractional Flow Theory to Enhanced Oil
Recovery. SPE J. 20 (3): 191–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/7660-PA.
Radke, C.J. and Gillis, J.V. 1990. A Dual Tracer Technique for Determin-
ing Trapped Gas Saturation During Steady Foam Flow in Porous
Media. Paper SPE 20519 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 23–26 September.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/20519-MS.
Roostapour A. and Kam S. 2012. Modeling Foam Delivery Mechanisms
in Deep Vadose-Zone Remediation Using Method of Characteristics.
J. Hazard Mater. 243: 37–51.
Rosman, A. and Kam, S.I. 2009. Modeling Foam-Diversion Process Using
Three-phase Fractional Flow Analysis in a Layered System. Energy
Sources, Part A—Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects 31
(11): 936–955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701752875.
Rossen, W.R. 1996. Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Foams: Theory,
Measurements and Applications, 413–464, ed. R.K. Prud’homme and
A. Khan. New York: Marcel Dekker. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
food.19970410116.
Rossen, W.R. and Gauglitz, P.A. 1990. Percolation Theory of Creation
and Mobilization of Foams in Porous Media. AIChE J. 36 (8):
1176–1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690360807.
Schramm, L.E. 1994. Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Pe-
troleum Industry. ACS Advances in Chemistry Series No. 242, Wash-
ington DC: American Chemical Society.
Srivastava, M., Zhang, J., Nguyen, Q.P. et al. 2009. A Systematic Study of
Alkaline-Surfactant-Gas Injection as an Enhanced Oil Recovery Tech-
nique. Paper SPE 124752 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
49
 0
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4–7 October. Relative permeability to water (krw), gas with no foams (krg ),
http://dx.doi.org/10,2118/124752-MS. and gas with foams (kfrg):
Tang, G-Q. and Kovscek, A.R. 2004. Measurement and Theory of Gas Trap-  1:9575
ping in Porous Media During Steady-State Foam Flow. Paper SPE 90142 Sw  Swc
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, krw ¼ 0:7888 ;
1  Swc  Sgr
Texas, 26–29 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/90142-MS.  2:2868
Walsh, M. and Lake, L. 1989. Applying Fractional Flow Theory to Sol- 0 1  Sw  Sgr
krg ¼ ;
vent Flooding and Chase Fluids. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2 (4): 281–303. 1  Swc  Sgr
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0920-4105(89)90005-3.  
f 1  Sw  Sgr 2:2868
Wassmuth, F.R., Green, K.A., and Randall, L. 2001. Details of In-Situ krg ¼ Xf                ðA-5Þ
Foam Propagation Exposed With Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1  Swc  Sgr
SPE Res Eval & Eng 4 (2): 135–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/71300-
Gas viscosity in presence of foam ( lgf):
PA.
Xu, Q. and Rossen, W.R. 2004. Experimental Study of Gas Injection in Cf nf
Surfactant-Alternating-Gas Foam Process. SPE Res Eval & Eng 7 (6): lgf ¼ l0g þ h i1=3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-6Þ

438–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84183-PA. ug 
/Sg Xf
Zanganeh, M.N., Kam, S., LaForce, T. et al. 2011. The Method of Charac-
teristics Applied to Oil Displacement by Foam. SPE J. 16 (1): 8–23. Darcy’s equation for water, for gas with no foams, and for gas
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/121580-PA. with foams: all in the same line
Zhou, Z. and Rossen, W.R. 1995. Applying Fractional-Flow Theory to
0 f
Foam Processes at the “Limiting Capillary Pressure.” SPE Adv Tech- kkrw ðSw Þ kkrg ðSw Þ kkrg ðSw Þ
nol 3: 154–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/24180-PA. uw ¼ rp; ug ¼ rp; ug ¼ rp
lw l0g lgf
                   ðA-7Þ
Appendix A—Foam Model Applied in This Study
(Afsharpoor et al. 2010) Alireza Roostapour is a PhD student in the Craft and Hawkins
Rate of lamella creation and lamella coalescence (Rg and Rc): Department of Petroleum Engineering at Louisiana State Uni-
versity (LSU). He earned a BS degree in chemical engineering
     from Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)
Cg rp  rp0 rp0
Rg ¼ erf pffiffiffi  erf pffiffiffi ; and an MS degree in petroleum engineering from Colorado
2 2 2 Schools of Mines. Roostapour is specifically interested in EOR
 n
Sw methods and foam flow in porous media with application in
Rc ¼ Cc nf ; Sw > Sw            ðA-1Þ both EOR and subsurface remediation. He has 3 years’ experi-
Sw  Sw
ence as a reservoir engineer and is a member of SPE.
Foam texture (nf): Seung Ihl Kam is a Donald W. and Gayle A. Keller Distinguished
       Associate Professor in the Craft and Hawkins Department of Pe-
Cg Sw  Sw n rp  rp0 rp0 troleum Engineering at LSU. He was a tenured faculty member at
nf ¼ erf pffiffiffi  erf pffiffiffi ;
2Cc Sw 2 2 the University of Adelaide in Australia before joining LSU in 2006.
Kam obtained BS and MS degrees from Seoul National University
nf < nf max                        ðA-2Þ in energy resources engineering and petroleum engineering
respectively, and PhD degree from The University of Texas at Aus-
Value of trapped-gas saturation (Xt) and flowing-gas saturation tin in petroleum engineering. His research interests cover multi-
(Xf ): phase flow in porous media and pipes, complex fluid systems,
  and capillary/interfacial phenomena that have applications in
bnf IOR/EOR, drilling/fracturing operations, subsea flow assurance,
Xt ¼ Xtmax ; Xf ¼ 1  Xt . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-3Þ and subsurface remediation. Kam has published more than 40
1 þ bnf
papers in refereed journals and presented more than 50 techni-
Gas saturation (Sg) in terms of trapped-gas saturation (Sgt) and cal papers in scholarly meetings. He currently serves SPE as an as-
sociate editor of SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering and as a
flowing-gas saturation (Sgf ): member of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
Program Committee. Kam is also an associate editor of the Jour-
Sg ¼ Sgt þ Sgf ¼ Xt Sg þ Xf Sg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-4Þ nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.

50 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering