SPE-179842-MS

Methodology of Foam-Surfactant EOR for Pilot Design Studies in Naturally

Fractured Reservoirs
M. Abbaszadeh, Innovative Petrotech Solutions; F. Rodriguez De-La Garza, and A. E. Villavicencio, Pemex E&P

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 21–23 March 2016.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents a novel foam-assisted surfactant Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery (CEOR) of the
matrix oil in naturally fractured reservoirs. Foam reduces fluid mobility within fractures and diverts the
injected surfactant solution into matrix for wettability alteration and IFT reduction. Single–well cyclic
huff-n-puff and dual completion pilots are modeled to evaluate the effectiveness of this envisioned CEOR,
assess process mechanisms and demonstrate recovery conformance. In order to perform these foam-
surfactant injection studies, a dual porosity-dual permeability 3-D sector model of the gas cap in a
fractured reservoir is constructed, and co-injections of foaming surfactant in the nitrogen gas stream are
simulated. These pilot simulations implement a laboratory-based surfactant phase behavior and foam
model along with a compositional technique that captures surfactant-oil-brine phase behavior and tracks
IFT and rheology of microemulsion phases. Sensitivity studies to various CEOR process mechanisms,
injectivity characteristics, reservoir parameters and conformance are explored to guide an optimized pilot
design scheme within operational constraints to evaluate and monitor the extent of oil recovery efficiency.
The results show that while only a fraction of the released matrix oil is captured in the pilot arrangements
due to conformance, considerable volumes of oil drain from the gas cap matrix blocks down to the oil
column, thus substantiating the applicability of this envisioned foam-surfactant CEOR for naturally
fractured reservoirs. Cyclic huff-n-puff injection is shown to be a more appropriate configuration for
single-well pilot testing.

Introduction
Naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs hold more than half of the world’s oil reserves and contribute
significantly to global oil production. These reservoirs are often mixed-wet to preferentially oil-wet due
to rock-oil dominant chemistry and interactions over extended geologic times. Upon primary production
and depletion of reservoir pressure, gas cap is formed and usually aquifer encroachment occurs, bypassing
large volumes of matrix oil in both the gas cap and in the water invaded zone. As such, more volumes of
oil remain undrained in tight matrix blocks as the gas cap expands further over reservoir production life
cycle. The Akal field of Cantarell complex in Mexico is an example of such a fractured reservoir with
estimated remaining oil of 9 billion barrels in the gas cap and 5 billion barrels in the water invaded zone
after producing 15 billions of oil in 25 years1.
2 SPE-179842-MS

The oil-wet characteristics of carbonate rocks is an unfavorable condition for spontaneous water
imbibition during aquifer influx as well as during any aqueous-phase injection scenario. Wettability
alternation from oil-wet to intermediate and preferably water-wet is desirable in order to eliminate or even
reverse the capillary resistance and promote spontaneous imbibition into the matrix. In addition to
wettability alteration, injections of solvents, such as CO2, or chemicals mobilize matrix oil and accelerate
gravity drainage. This is accomplished by reduction in capillary pressures of matrix, reduction in IFT
between oil and water and increase in oil relative permeability2. As a result of IFT reduction by chemical
surfactants, Winsor type microemulsions3 are formed where oil and water are solubilized in aqueous and
oleic phases, respectively.
Another main issue of EOR from a naturally fractured reservoir is that most of the injected fluid will
flow in high permeability pathways and relatively little of it will sweep the tight matrix containing most
of the remaining oil. This is especially true in the gas cap. The challenge is placement of injected fluids
in the tight matrix blocks through conductive fracture network paths to promote oil recovery from the
matrix system. Without adequate mobility control, injected surfactant solution will flow through the
fractures in the gas cap and segregate not far from the vicinity of injection wells, leading to poor
volumetric coverage and insignificant transfer of the chemicals into the targeted oil-rich matrix blocks.
One way for mobility control is to create viscous foam in-situ within fracture network. Foam in porous
media is a dispersion of gas in liquid such that at least some part of the gas phase is made discontinuous
by lamellae4. This process reduces the mobility of the gas phase, where the mobility reduction is a
function of the surfactant structure, foam quality, fluid velocity, oil saturation and other variables. Foam
reduces mobility within the fracture network and diverts the injected chemical surfactant solution to the
tight matrix for subsequent mobilization and realease of matrix oil. Therefore, there is great potential to
achieve considerable oil recovery in naturally fractured reservoirs by employing combined foam and
chemical surfactants, where both low IFT benefits for reduced matrix oil saturation and improved
conformance for sweep efficiency are obtained.
As in any other EOR process applications, it is necessary to conduct pilot tests in order to assess the
efficiency of such envisioned foam-surfactant injections targeted to the oil-saturated matrix of fractured
reservoirs. The need for pilot testing is especially justified for fractured systems because the underlying
processes of mobility control, diversion of surfactant solution to matrix and induced CEOR are complex,
challenging and carry uncertainty. Proper design of such pilot tests in terms of testing configuration, the
manner of conducting the pilot, required foam quality, proper injection rate, testing duration, injectivity,
acquisition of performance data, and monitoring is essential to ensure success. It is not easy to apply
conventional injection-production well patterns due to the gravity segregated nature of the flow of fluids
in fractures. Single-well pilot testing is most promising and would serve as a first step for validating
applicability of this novel foam-surfactant injection for CEOR of complex naturally fractured reservoirs
with extreme contrast in fluid mobility between highly conductive fractures and tight matrix5.
This paper first provides a fundamental methodology for modeling the surfactant CEOR process
mechanisms and foam flow behavior with CMG-STARS commercial simulator. Laboratory-based sur-
factant phase behavior information along with Winsor microemulsion characteristics are transferred to the
simulator as a function of salinity due to differing injected and formation brine salinities. A unique
methodology is discussed for modeling microemulsions and their effects on fluid rheology within matrix.
Similarly, the foam flow model is based on laboratory tests to include key effects of velocity-dependent
shear thinning and foam dry-out or coalescence. After establishing adequate and validated modeling
methodology for the complex foam-surfactant processes, simulation studies are performed in a 3-D sector
model example of the gas cap of a naturally fractured reservoir to investigate various testing configura-
tions and strategies, and assess pilot design scenarios for foam-surfactant injections. These investigations
and sensitivity studies are useful for identifying the dominant design parameters and most important
uncertainties of such single-well field tests. As such, the simulated cases help gain insight into the
SPE-179842-MS 3

interplay and impact of various parameters and mechanisms of this specific CEOR technology of mobility
reduction in fractures by foam generation and subsequent diversion of injected surfactant solution into
matrix blocks. The knowledge gained and results obtained will assist in conducting an optimum
single-well pilot test to provide useful information for evaluation of enhanced oil recovery in fractured
reservoirs.

Modeling Methodology

This section describes the fundamental methodologies used to model the basics of foam-surfactant
injection and associated flow mechanisms along with the necessary modeling parameters needed for
subsequent single-well pilot design studies. Our methodology for simulating foam flow combined with the
complex chemical process of surfactant injection in the gas cap of naturally fractured systems is based on
the fundamental idea that foam flow is primarily restricted to the fracture network and the surfactant is
transported into matrix blocks where the intended surfactant flooding CEOR processes occur. This
approach is supported by the fact that foam decays in tight matrix due to the presence of oil and low fluid
velocity there, and that the surfactant EOR occurs within the matrix because there is very little oil in
fractures. As such, the complex scenario of fractured reservoir is decomposed into two separate parts of
modeling foam flow in fracture network and modeling surfactant EOR process mechanisms in matrix
system. Various technical aspects concerning foam model and surfactant flow in matrix, such as surfactant
phase behavior, microemulsion representation along with its rheology, altered rock relative permeability
and capillary pressure curves are described.
Surfactant Phase Behavior
Solubilization and IFT A proprietary surfactant blend of zwitterionic, anionic and cationic is used for
phase behavior studies with synthesized live oil of the reservoir fluid sample6. Typical salinity scan phase
behavior laboratory experiments were conducted at reservoir temperature of 100 °C and under different
volumetric combinations of sea water with salinity of 38,000 ppm and formation brine with salinity of
120,000 ppm. The results show that at low salinities close to sea water, Winsor Type I microemulsion
(ME) is formed and Winsor Type III-ME results for most of the remaining salinities. The estimated
numeric values of various phase volumes and the corresponding calculated solubility ratios for oil
(RSo⫽Vo/Vs) and water (RSw⫽Vw/Vs) for each of the pipettes in the salinity scan assays are used to model
solubility ratios, where Vs, Vw, and Vo are the surfactant, water, and oil volumes in the microemulsion
phases, respectively. The solubilization ratio is about 12, and the IFT is in the order of 0.003 dynes/cm,
as is also predicted by Chun Huh7 correlation:
(Eq. 1)

(Eq. 2)

where, R is the solubilization ratio, and ␴oe and ␴we are the interfacial tension between oil and ME, and
between water and ME, respectively. Usually, a⫽2 and c⫽0.3 for most cases, but they can be adjusted
based on measured laboratory data. At optimum salinity8, these interfacial tensions are equal because oil
and water have the same solubilization ratio values.
Microemulsion Winsor Type-III Because of the limitations of conventional commercial software, such
as CMG-STARS, in modeling only four phases of aqueous, oleic, gaseous and solid, it is not possible to
consider the middle phase ME of Type III explicitly as a separate fifth phase. Such commercial simulators
in their present format do not offer an explicit way to model all phase behavior of ME and the related
effects on fluid viscosities and IFT along with other fluid phases. Therefore, it is necessary to devise
4 SPE-179842-MS

indirect ways to adequately account for surfactant phase behavior effects. In our approach, microemulsion
Type III is combined with Type I as pseudo microemulsion Type I, and is modeled by partitioning
appropriate amounts of oil into water at a given salinity and by lowered interfacial tension accordingly9.
With proper partitioning liquid/liquid k-values, the partitioning of oil into the aqueous surfactant solution
(Type I) and partitioning of water and its components to the oil phase at higher salinities (Type II) can
be modeled. Once the partitioning is done, the modeling of microemulsion phase viscosities is managed,
as documented in Ref. 9. In this way, both splitting of components in phases as well as fluid mobility
effects induced by surfactant phase behavior are included in the simulator.
Partitioning K-Values Based on the calculated solubilization ratios and the formation of Winsor type
microemulsion phases, liquid-liquid k-values are computed for use in CMG-STARS to model the intended
foam-surfactant injections in single-well pilot testing of this paper. K-values of components are defined
as:
Oil-like component:
(Eq. 3)

Water-like component
(Eq. 4)

Oil is considered to be an oil-like component; while surfactant, water and TDS are water-like
components. When oil is modeled as a multicomponent fluid, it is assumed that all oil components
partition to the aqueous phase proportionally according to their initial composition (unless lab results
indicate otherwise), and that the composition of the partitioned oil is the same as the composition of the
non-partitioned oil.
Microemulsion Viscosity The following non-linear mixing equation is used to model viscosity of ME
for use in CMG-STARS:
(Eq. 5)

(Eq. 6)

where, f (xa) is a nonlinear function of molar fraction of key component ⬙a,⬙ xi is the molar fraction of
component i and ␮i is its viscosity. Oil is modeled as compositional with pseudo-components. For
ME-Type I, the key component ⬙a⬙ is salinity, TDS. For ME-Type II, the key component is water. The
f(xa) values are computed from Eq. 6 for specified ME viscosities at corresponding salinities, and are
transferred to the CMG-STARS simulation model of pilot foam-surfactant injections.
Tracking Winsor ME Phases The formation of a microemulsion phase requires presence of surfactant.
The amount and the type of ME depend on both surfactant and salinity, based on surfactant phase
behavior. Without the presence of surfactant, the partitioning of components into various phases would
not be possible, regardless of the amount of salinity, TDS. Thus modeling of ME types requires tracking
both surfactant and salinity simultaneously during a surfactant injection process. This unique modeling
technique is based on the tracking component ⬙tdsem⬙ created through kinetic reactions to couple surfactant
with salinity9:
(Eq. 7)

(Eq. 8)
SPE-179842-MS 5

Surfactant serves as a catalyst in the above reactions. In locations where there is no surfactant, there
will be no surfactant phase behavior phenomenon occurring and no ME will be formed regardless of the
magnitude of salinity in that location. In modeling algorithms, the partitioning of oil into water and water
with other components into oil is monitored through the tracking component tdsem instead of TDS.
Furthermore, surfactant is considered to be ineffective below the CMC; thus no tdsem is generated for
surfactant concentrations less than the CMC. The accuracy of the results depends on the rate of generation
and decay in Eqs. 7 and 8 to ensure near-complete conversion of TDS to tdsem in the presence of
surfactant. In fact the performance is dominated by the contrast between two reaction rate constants
instead of the absolute values of generation and decay reaction rate constants. The net reaction rate
describes the speed of tdsem destruction as compared to tdsem regeneration.

Altered Rock Curves

Imbibition tests were conducted with a reservoir core that was aged in the reservoir oil at reservoir
temperature to restore its oil-wet state similar to the in-situ condition. After aging, the core was immersed
in an imbibition cell filled with surfactant solution for about two months. The oil moved vertically and
was collected at the top of the cell. It was clear that oil came out of the core from the top and the main
driving force for recovery was a combination of gravity and capillary forces, and predominantly gravity.
The oil recovery data were used to model the imbibition tests in order to extract information on
wettability, IFT reduction characteristics of the surfactant solution, and surfactant-altered relative perme-
ability and capillary pressure curves. Imbibition tests without surfactant solution and with sea water brine
yielded very small oil recovery factors, indicating tendency to oil-wet rock wettability characteristics.
The numerical simulation for modeling the imbibition cell represents both the reservoir rock and the
surrounding space of the cell filled by the surfactant solution. The results of surfactant solution imbibition
are strongly dependent on the microemulsion phase in the core. Surfactant alters wettability and reduces
IFT to increase capillary number and mobilize oil due to lower capillary forces10,11. These mechanisms
are controlled by both the phase behavior of surfactant and the capillary desaturation curve that employ
the concept of trapping number (NT) and its effect in defining residual saturations through reduction in
IFT. Thus, numerical simulations incorporate both surfactant phase behavior and CEOR processes in
addition to fundamental knowledge of expected residual oil saturations for carbonate rocks12,13.
Two sets of relative permeability and capillary pressure curves for initial and final wettability
conditions are defined, and the altered relative permeability and capillary pressure curves for each phase
are calculated by interpolating between these two conditions by scale factors ␻1 and ␻2, as follows14:
(Eq. 9)

(Eq. 10)

For history matching purposes, different sets of relative permeability and capillary pressure data in
conjunction with capillary desaturation curve are used. The value of the trapping number in the capillary
desaturation curve varies in all model gridblocks over times in these imbibition simulations. Based on
exhaustive investigation of trapping numbers, the low trapping number of NT⫽2x10⫺4 was selected as the
most likely trapping number due to surfactant imbibition into the oil-saturated reservoir core, and the
corresponding altered rock curves of relative permeability and capillary pressure were obtained. Fig. 1
shows the estimated altered relative permeabilities by surfactant imbibition. These rock curves are then
used to scale the altered matrix rock relative permeability and capillary pressure curves in the reservoir
model for subsequent pilot design simulation studies.
6 SPE-179842-MS

Figure 1—Altered relative permeabilities from imbibition tests

Foam Model
Application of foams for chemical and solvent EOR processes15-19, mainly for gas mobility control,
requires a representative and predictive model for foam flow behavior and its mobility control charac-
teristics at different scales. In the empirical foam model, the effect of foam on gas mobility reduction is
expressed with a mobility reduction factor that is applied to reduce the relative permeability of the gas
phase depending on surfactant concentration, oil saturation and capillary number, capillary pressure20-22.
For this paper, a foam model was developed based on fine-scale numerical simulations and mathematical
analysis of the empirical foam model for representing foam-surfactant flow experiments conducted in a
vertical column of laboratory sand-pack at variable total velocities and at variable foam qualities. The
empirical foam model of CMG-STARS was used for parametric matching of laboratory data, and relevant
foam parameters of surfactant concentration, shear rate, capillary number and capillary dry-out on foam
flow rheology and behavior were calibrated, as described in detail in Ref. 6. The foam model is briefly
described below.
Gas relative permeability is altered by gas mobility reduction factor, FM, a dimensionless function that
accounts for various mechanistic processes associated with foam flow. This is expressed by
(Eq. 11)

(Eq. 12)

The term fmmob is a reference foam mobility reduction factor considered to introduce a base foam
mobility reduction factor without the impact of other factors. Various F factors in Eq. 12 account
empirically for the effects of surfactant concentration, oil saturation, gas flow velocity (shear thinning),
oil composition, salinity and foam coalescence or dry-out. In particular, F1 is for the surfactant concen-
tration effect, F3 is for the non-Newtonian power-law shear thinning effect where apparent foam viscosity
decreases when gas or total flow rate increases at a fixed foam quality, and F7 is for the foam coalescence
dry-out effect by the limiting capillary pressure phenomenon23 as foam quality increases:
(Eq. 13)

(Eq. 14)

(Eq. 15)
SPE-179842-MS 7

In Eqs.13-15, fmsurf is the critical surfactant concentration above which gas mobility is independent
of surfactant concentration Cs, and the exponent term ⫺4⬍epsurf⬍4 . Nc is capillary number, 0⬍fm-
cap⬍1 is reference rheology capillary number value and ⫺10⬍epcap⬍10 is the exponent. fmdry is
critical water saturation below which foam weakens and coalesces. epdry is the exponent that controls the
speed of foam dry out. These various foam model parameters are obtained by mathematical analysis and
1-D finite-difference numerical simulations of co-injected surfactant solution and nitrogen gas in foam
flow laboratory experiments. The modeling results in fmmob⫽220,000. Other important match parameters
are: fmcap⫽3.025x10⫺3, epdry⫽1000, fmdry⫽0.045 for the high permeability laboratory sandpack. For
naturally fractured reservoirs, where foam is targeted for fractures, fmdry is reduced further to represent
lower saturations for foam coalescence in fractures with low to minimal capillary pressure.

Pilot Design Studies

This section describes details of various aspects of single-well foam-surfactant injection studies in
naturally fractured reservoirs based on the modeling methodology described in previous parts. The
purpose is to illustrate how foam provides mobility control to the transport of aqueous surfactant solution
in fractures for its transfer to matrix for chemical surfactant flow process and subsequent CEOR of matrix
oil, using a 3-D sector model in the gas cap of a naturally fractured reservoir. For this purpose, first a
methodology for constructing the sector model is described followed by modeling intricacies of surfactant
adsorption in fractures and matrix. Sensitivity studies to cyclic huff-n-huff surfactant injection and
production, as well as dual completion testing configuration, are described to address the impacts of
injection rate, foam quality, soak period, number of cycles and flow geometry. Based on these investi-
gative and sensitivity studies, an optimum methodology for single-well foam-surfactant pilot test design
is provided to allow assessment of the intended CEOR performance for the accelerated recovery of matrix
oil in the gas cap of fractured reservoirs.

Sector Model
The sector model was constructed by selecting a large area around a central well that is targeted as the
main foam and surfactant injection well. Because the reservoir is highly permeable, pressure communi-
cation with other wells in the model and outside the sector is expected to occur throughout the reservoir
production history, and pressure transient effects essentially remain negligible. As such, the system would
behave like a series of connected tanks, and the communication with other reservoir parts can be managed
through tanks with appropriate volumes for material balance purposes. In building the sector model, the
communication of the sector with outside the sector is accounted for by placing boundary cells around the
sector and by modifying the volume of these boundary cells with respect to the reservoir volume. Pseudo
wells with appropriate production rates are also placed within these boundary volumes to preserve
material balance throughout the production history. The assignment of various volumes to the boundary
cells is determined through a trial and error process by matching the sector model well bottomhole
pressures and GOC with those of the full-field model. The sector model is shown in Fig. 2, which provides
semi-radial flow around the injection well over some distances away from the intended test well.
8 SPE-179842-MS

Figure 2—Sector model for pilot EOR studies

Adsorption
Fundamentals Laboratory static adsorption data are often measured on crushed rock samples, which
have different active mineral surface areas compared to porous rock. The measured adsorption is
expressed as
(Eq. 16)

where,
␣ ⫽ surfactant mass adsorbed per unit of rock mass, mg/g rock
␣s ⫽ surfactant mass adsorbed per unit active mineral surface area, mg/m2
Sv ⫽ specific active mineral surface area, m2/g rock
When relating adsorption on a crushed sample to that on a porous reservoir rock, the scaling
relationship is based on surface areas and according to Eq. 17:
(Eq. 17)

where, Srock is specific surface area of matrix rock and Slab is specific area of crushed matrix rock, both
measured by BET experiments. It is considered that the surface area of crushed lab sample is ⬙c1⬙ times
the surface area of reservoir matrix rock (and usually c1⬎1). Surface area can be related to rock properties
based on Carman-Kozeny equation24,25:
(Eq. 18)

Fs␶2 is Kozeny constant, in the range of 5-100.

Considering that Eq. 17 scales the lab sample crushed rock to matrix rock through surface areas, Eq.
18 is used in a similar fashion to relate adsorption in fracture to adsorption in matrix as:
(Eq. 19)

(Eq. 20)

Dynamic adsorption tests often accompany more simplistic static adsorption measurements. Often
crushed rock is used for dynamic adsorption measurements in long sandpack experiments along with inert
tracers. Effluent concentrations of surfactant and the tracking conservative tracer are utilized to compute
surfactant adsorption. The delay of surfactant breakthrough curve is a measure of the extent of dynamic
adsorption. Usually, because of flow characteristics in porous rock, dynamic adsorption is less than static
adsorption:
(Eq. 21)
SPE-179842-MS 9

where c3⬍1. The conversion of lab-measured adsorption data ⬙␣⬙ in mg surfactant per g rock to
simulation model ⬙asim⬙ in lbmole surfactant per ft3 PV rock is according to Eq. 22:
(Eq. 22)

Application to the Pilot Model To illustrate the impact of surfactant adsorption and uncertainty on it,
simulation runs were conducted in the 3-D sector model for cyclic huff-n-puff at surfactant injection rate
of 40,000 bbls/d with 1 wt% surfactant concentration and foam quality of 75% with foam strength
characterized by fmmob⫽44,000. This value of fmmob is 1/5th of the value determined from 1-D sandpack
laboratory experiments described before. There is fair amount of laboratory and field evidence in literature
that foam strength in terms of mobility reduction of the gas phase is lower in 3-D compared to 1-D due
to upscaling effects and related flow geometry factors. The reported experimental work and simulated
model results show that foam mobility reduction factor is about 5 times less in a 3-D flow compared to
1-D flow26.
Four cases are considered for a comparative study on the impact of adsorption, using cyclic surfactant
injections with 2 weeks injection, 1 week soak and 5 weeks production:
Case 1: no adsorption in matrix and fracture
Case 2: reduced adsorption in fracture to 1/1000th of matrix, c2⫽1000
Case 3: reduced adsorption in fracture to 1/10th of matrix, c2⫽10
Case 4: reduced adsorptions in matrix and fracture with c1⫽1.7 and c2⫽76, respectively
The basis for Case 4 is Eq. 20, where c2⫽76 for typical values of a naturally fractured reservoir
example considerd5: kf⫽10,000 md, km⫽1 md, ␾f⫽0.04, ␾m ⫽0.05, ␶f⫽1, ␶m⫽1.4, Fsf⫽1, Fsm⫽2
(assuming spheres for matrix grains). The measured static adsorption in the lab is 0.017 lbmole/ft3 PV,
following a Langmuir-type adsorption model. Furthermore, the scaling relationship between static and
dynamic adsorption is about c3⫽0.7. Simulations are done with dynamic adsorption values based on data
of surfactant moles absorbed versus surfactant molar concentration in microemulsion. For this purpose,
surfactant phase behavior is combined with the adsorption equations described in this paper.
Investigative simulation studies are made at gas production rate constraint of STG⫽5 MMscf/d for
Cases 1 to 4, and the oil production results are shown in Fig. 3. Loss of surfactant to matrix and fracture
systems by adsorption weakens the foam and limits the surfactant-induced CEOR of matrix oil drainage
to the near well region. In the presence of adsorption, chromatographic separation occurs between
surfactant and water components and the surfactant solution front lags the water front. As a result, some
parts of the invaded reservoir regions away from the well are essentially waterflooded both areally and
vertically, and much of the water gravitates down. Fig. 4 shows distributions of water and surfactant
components of the injected fluid at the end of the injection period. Our innovative tdsem-based tracking
technique correctly limits the modeling of the CEOR process with adsorption only to locations where
surfactant concentration is above the CMC.

Figure 3—Oil production profiles with different adsorption in fracture and matrix
10 SPE-179842-MS

Figure 4 —Distribution of surfactant and water concentrations with surfactant adsorption, end of 2-week injection

Huff-n-Puff Cyclic Injection

Sensitivity to Soak Period It is important to assess the impact of soak period on the performance of pilot
testing because during the soak period two opposing processes are taking place: imbibition of surfactant
into matrix for CEOR promotion, and gravity segregation of surfactant solution in fractures that reduces
the efficiency of surfactant transfer to matrix blocks. Simulations of the sector model were performed with
and without soak period for the cyclic foam-surfactant injection. Surfactant solution injection is for 2
weeks, soak period is 1 week and production is for 5 weeks. Surfactant injection rate is 40,000 bbls/d with
surfactant concentration of 1 wt% and foam quality of 75%. Production period is controlled by produced
gas rates at 5 MMscf/d and 10 MMscf/d. Fig. 5 shows the results. It is clear from Fig. 5 that bigger oil
volumes and at higher rates are captured without the soak period. The segregation of oil by gravity
drainage during the soak period reduces the capture efficiency of the surfactant-induced mobilized matrix
oil.

Figure 5—Oil production performance with and without soak period in cyclic injection operation

Matrix Oil Drainage within Reservoir Regions Different regions around the test well are considered to
study the extent of drainage of matrix oil by cyclic foam-surfactant injection/production. Fig. 6 shows
average oil saturations within the regions highlighted by the pink lines in the model. Cases with soak and
without soak periods are considered. Production is constrained at gas rates of 5 MMscf/d and 10 MMscf/d.
Also included in the figure is the average oil saturation by natural gravity drainage of matrix oil without
any injection and production. Fig. 6 shows that large saturation changes occur near the well region due
to effective surfactant transfer to those matrix blocks. There are considerable differences between various
SPE-179842-MS 11

foam-surfactant injection cases and the case of natural gravity drainage without any injection and
production. Natural gravity drainage results in a very small drainage in the sector model matrix oil
volume.

Figure 6 —Average matrix oil saturations in various regions in the sector model (regions are highlighted by pink)

Fig. 7 shows drained matrix oil volumes in different regions for injections without the soak period and
production at gas rates of 5 MMscf/d and 10 MMscf/d. A case of cyclic injection with a soak period of
1 week is also shown in Region 3 for comparison purposes. Although the case of Fig. 5 with the soak
period shows less oil production, the drainage of matrix oil in a specified region is not affected
significantly by the soak period, as seen in Fig. 7. Thus, during the soak period, the mobilized oil from
matrix gravitates downwards to the oil column.

Figure 7—Matrix oil drainage volumes in various regions in the sector model (regions are highlighted by pink)

The results of Fig. 7 indicate drainage of large volumes of oil from the matrix in Regions 1, 2 and 3
as compared to oil captured at the production well, and that the drained oil volume is not a strong function
of production conditions. Thus, the drained matrix oil is the consequence of surfactant-mobilized CEOR
oil. Average recovery factors for such CEOR in Regions 1, 2 and 3 are 31.7, 14.6 and 5.2%, respectively
for the case of gas production at the rate of 10 MMscf/d. The recovery factor is defined as the ratio of
change in oil volume within a region at the end of production period to oil volume in that region at the
12 SPE-179842-MS

start of injection. It is clear that the drainage of matrix oil is more from the region in the vicinity of the
test well; however, the amount of matrix oil drained is large in a bigger region because larger volumes
of reservoir rock are exposed to foam-surfactant. Also, there are considerable differences between
foam-surfactant injection cases and the case of natural gravity drainage, which results only in a small
drainage of the matrix oil volume in the sector region. This observation substantiates the importance of
this novel CEOR technology for naturally fractured reservoirs.
Capture efficiency is defined as volume of oil produced in percentage of mobilized matrix oil. Table
1 shows capture efficiencies calculated in this manner for different regions. The capture efficiency without
the soak period is bigger. Also, for Region 3 that contains more mobilized oil, capture efficiencies are
smaller. Both of these observations illustrate the significance of oil segregation and downward flow to the
oil column through the fracture network during the cyclic huff-n-puff testing scenarios. Therefore, the
volume of oil produced during the single-well test is not a direct representation of all the mobilized matrix
oil, whereas much of the matrix oil is drained by chemical surfactant away from the well that gravitates
down to the gas oil contact. Higher oil production, and also recovery factors, can be obtained by optimum
injection scheme and optimum coverage of the reservoir with intelligent well patterns and well geome-
tries, as compared to the inefficient single injector with a short injection period. Nonetheless, a single-well
pilot performance data will provide valuable information in modeling and assessing the foam-surfactant
CEOR process in the gas cap system, both near and away from the test well. Such information will aid
in the design and expansion of the process to field-scale schemes.

Table 1—Capture efficiency of mobilized matrix oil in cyclic huff-n-puff test well
Cyclic Injection Case Region 1 Region 2 Region 3

with soak period, qg⫽10 MMscf/d: 51.50% 18.70% 9.00%

without soak period, qg⫽ 10 MMscf/d: 68.90% 25.00% 12.00%
with soak period, qg⫽5 MMscf/d: 22.30% 8.40% 4.00%
without soak period, qg⫽ 5 MMscf/d: 32.30% 12.20% 5.80%

Sensitivity to Cycles Several variations of huff-n-puff cycles were considered without any soak period
for total test duration of nine weeks as follows:
Case a: (2 weeks injection, 7 weeks production)
Case b: (2 weeks injection, 2 weeks production), (1 week injection, 4 weeks production)
Case c: (2 weeks injection, 2 weeks production), (2 week injection, 3 weeks production)
For all cycles and cases, foam quality is 60% and surfactant solution injection rate is 30,000 bbls/d with
surfactant concentration of 1 wt%. The foam strength is assigned a base value of fmmob⫽44,000. The
production periods are constrained by produced gas rate at 5 MMscf/d. Fig. 8 shows the results.
Implementation of the second cycle increases oil production, and the increase in oil production is more
for longer injection periods (e.g., 2 week vs. 1 week). It is also seen that about 3 to 4 weeks of production
period is sufficient for each cycle. Based on these findings, the pilot testing can be designed according to
the operational constraints, surfactant availability, limitations of test duration and desired amount of
CEOR performance information to be collected.
SPE-179842-MS 13

Figure 8 —Effect of cycles and cycle durations on huff-n-puff single-well foam-surfactant injection

Sensitivity to Foam Quality and Surfactant Injection Rate Sensitivity runs were made at different
aqueous surfactant injection rate and different foam qualities for two weeks injection with no soak period.
Foam qualities are 40, 50, and 60% and the surfactant injection rates are 20,000 and 40,000 bbls/d. For
all cases, production is constrained at produced gas rate of 5 MMscf/d. Fig. 9 shows oil production
performance, which indicates that higher amounts of oil at higher rates are produced when foam is drier
with high quality, and also when the surfactant injection rate is high so that larger volumes of surfactant
solution are injected during the same period of injection. These results are consistent with the flow process
mechanism of foam-surfactant flooding. At higher foam qualities, foam is stronger and provides larger
mobility control between the fracture network and matrix system to allow for transfer of larger volumes
of surfactant solution from the fractures to matrix blocks. Similarily, high surfactant injection rates deliver
larger quantities of the surfactant solution to matrix. With increased transfer of surfactant solution to
matrix, more of the matrix oil is mobilized by IFT reduction and drained to the fracture pathways for both
production towards the well and for gravity segregation downward to the oil column. An optimized choice
between foam quality and surfactant injection rate could be possible to meet both operational and
economical constraints.

Figure 9 —Oil production performance at different foam qualities and surfactant solution injection rates
14 SPE-179842-MS

Fig. 10 shows bottomhole injection pressure and injection gas rate for various foam qualities and
various aqueous surfactant solution injection rates. The figure illustrates that high foam qualities require
high injection pressures with associated high volumes of co-injected gas for foam generation. The
information depicted in this figure is one of the key inputs into the design and conduct of field pilot tests
based on available facilities, surfactant quantities and gas for foam.

Figure 10 —Foam-surfactant injection pressures and associated gas injection rate for foam generation

Changes in matrix oil volume for different foam qualities and different surfactant injection rates are
shown in Fig. 11 for a particular region. It is seen that higher quality foams and higher injection rates
create larger drainage in the matrix oil volume. Comparing the oil produced in Fig. 9 with these changes
in matrix oil volume, capture efficiency is about 10% for 60% foam quality and 5% for 40% foam quality.
Thus majority of the oil mobilized by surfactant injection gravity segregates and flows downward to the
oil column and is not captured by the producer. This is especially true for wet foam of low quality.

Figure 11—Matrix oil volumes drained in the region shown at different foam qualities and injection rates

Fig. 12 shows distributions of foam mobility reduction factor, FM, in the x-direction at mid open
interval depth. Total fluid injection rates for different cases are indicated in the graph. The smaller the FM
is the stronger the foam is. The results of Fig. 12 indicate the following:
SPE-179842-MS 15

Figure 12—Foam mobility reduction factor profiles at different foam qualities and injection rates, 1 week production

– For the same foam quality, lower total fluid injection rate at reservoir condition gives stronger foam
because of the shear thinning effect of foam (cases a, b and cases c, d).
– For a specified foam quality and fluid injection rate, FM decreases and foam becomes stronger
away from the injection well where fluid velocity decreases and shear thinning effect causes
increase in foam apparent viscosity.
– There is a competition between foam quality and shear thinning effects. Stronger foam happens at
both high foam quality and also at low fluid flow velocity. Thus a low foam quality at low fluid
injection rate could possibly yield a stronger foam than a high quality foam at high injection rate
(cases b, d).
– There could be a balance between foam quality and injection rate so that foams with similar
strength could be generated (cases b, c). This finding is important for decision making on the design
and conduct of pilot based on availability of chemical material and injection fluids.

Dual CompletionTesting
Model Configuration Another configuration for single-well pilot testing is a dual completion scheme in
the same well, where a pre-foamed surfactant solution is injected in an upper interval and fluids are
produced from a lower interval in the gas cap. Under the dual completion scheme, fluids may be injected
through casing and produced through a tubing string. Fig. 13 shows the schematic of dual completion in
a well in the sector model. The variable geometric parameters are the injection and production interval
lengths and the spacing between them. For the example case discussed in this paper, the model targets a
window of about 125 m vertical column in the gas cap as a site for focused simulation studies. The test
area includes a 25 m injection interval at the top and a 50 m production interval at the bottom, with a 50
m reservoir space left in between to allow for the flow of any drained oil. Local grid refinement (LGR)
is placed around the well for improved numerical accuracy of the simulations.
16 SPE-179842-MS

Figure 13—Schematic of dual completion for single-well testing

Sensitivity Studies Sensitivity studies were conducted with respect to aqueous surfactant solution
injection rate and foam quality. Simulations were conducted for surfactant solution injection rates at
10,000, 20,000 and 30,000 bbls/d, foam qualities at 35%, 40%, 50%, 75% and produced gas rate at 4
MMscf/d. In all cases considered, surfactant concentration is 1 wt%, corresponding to 0.000634 mole
fraction in the injection stream. Fig. 14 shows produced oil rate and cumulative oil at different injection
rates and varied foam qualities. Fig. 15 shows the corresponding produced water (or surfactant solution)
along with the produced water cut. The results in this figure indicate higher water production than oil and
water cut of about 98% for all the cases considered. It is interesting to note that water cut for cyclic
injections was less than 10% in most cases considered.

Figure 14 —Oil production rate and cumulative oil at different surfactant injection rates and foam qualities
SPE-179842-MS 17

Figure 15—Produced water and water cut at different surfactant injection rates and foam qualities

The results of various sensitivity studies reveal the following two basic behaviors: i) wet foam of lower
quality yields higher oil production and higher water production for the same surfactant injection rate, ii)
higher injection rate gives lower oil production and lower water production rate for a fixed foam quality.
These observations may be explained by the fact that low-quality wet and weak foam does not propagate
the injected surfactant solution deeper into the reservoir, thus the surfactant solution is confined to the
vicinity of the well region for limited imbibition and drainage of matrix oil there. Also, the injected
surfactant solution has higher tendency for gravity segregation and capture at the production interval site
as it flows downward to the gas-oil contact. A similar behavior is seen at low injection rates compared
to high injection rates at a fixed foam quality due to foam shear thinning effect which increases the foam
strength at lower flow rates. These two effects combined yield higher oil and higher water production rates
for the lower surfactant injection rate of 10,000 bbls/d as compared to the higher injection rate of 30,000
bbls/d.
In general for regions around the well, lower quality wet foam imbibes more surfactant solution to the
matrix and yields higher changes in matrix oil saturation, while larger volumes of the reservoir are
contacted and drained with dry foam at the same surfactant injection rate. Fig. 16 compares oil saturations
in the reservoir at a horizon located in mid production interval for wet and dry foams of 35% and 75%
qaulities after two weeks of surfactant injection at the same rate of 20,000 bbls/d for both cases. It is seen
that the low-quality weak foam drains a limited region around the well, while the high-qaulity strong foam
transports the injected surfactant solution deeper into the reservoir and moblizes greater volumes of matrix
oil. Such moblized oil away from the test well, however, is not capured efficiently at the production
interval and thus drains to the oil column.
18 SPE-179842-MS

Figure 16 —Distribution of oil saturation profiles after two weeks of surfactant injection

The imbibed surfactant solution concentrations in Fig. 17 support this observation, where higher
surfactant concentrations are confined to the vicinity of the well region for low quality foam, and that the
high quality strong foam spreads the same amount of inejcted surfactant solution over larger volumes in
the reservoir. Although lesser amounts of matrix oil is darined near the well regions with high quality
foam, the surfactant solution reaches and drains matrix oil deeper into the reservoir. The mobilized oil
from matrix blocks at far away locations from the well will not have much chance to be produced, but will
gravitate to the oil column and will in turn increase recovery efficiency from the field.

Figure 17—Distribution of surfactant concentration in matrix after 3 weeks injection, effect of foam quality

The results of the dual completion testing indicate that oil production is less and at lower rates than the
huff-n-puff injection testing scenarios, primarily due to capture efficiency of the mobilized matrix oil by
CEOR. As such, the single-well pilot testing by cyclic huff-n-puff scheme is favored to allow for better
chance of assessing foam-surfactant CEOR performance in naturally fractured reservoirs.
Discussion
The recovery of bypassed and slowly gravity draining matrix oil in the gas cap of depleted or partially
depleted naturally fractured reservoirs is challenging. The complications arise from many aspects that
compound to make the recovery of matrix oil both technically and operationally a demanding endeavor
to undertake. Nonetheless, the need for such effort is justified otherwise vast reserves of hydrocarbons will
be left in the matrix system undrained as a reservoir undergoes more depletion and GOC contact advances
downward further to add to the volumes of more trapped and lost matrix oil over time.
SPE-179842-MS 19

CEOR, specifically surfactant flooding of the matrix in relatively light oil reservoirs, is a viable option.
However, the main issue is the placement of the chemical surfactant solution in the tight matrix through
very high permeable fracture network. Because of this large permeability contrast between fractures and
matrix, substantial mobility control is needed to retard the movement of injected fluids in the fractures,
establish pressure differentials, alter wettability towards water-wet characteristics and as a result transfer
the surfactant solution to the matrix. This mobility control is best achieved through viscous foam that is
generated by the same surfactant blend solution intended for the CEOR of matrix oil. The success of this
foaming and EOR-inducing surfactant in the recovery of matrix oil depends on a variety factors
encompassing technical, operational and economical aspects. Furthermore, a pilot testing is required to
directly assess the performance and effectiveness of such foam-surfactant chemical injections.
The detailed process modeling methodologies presented in this paper combined with alternate pilot
testing scenarios of cyclic huff-n-puff and dual completion along with detailed sensitivity studies on
various aspects of foam-surfactant injection illustrate the range of applicability and performance of
different testing conditions. For example, it is shown that when high-quality foam at high surfactant
injection rate is used, more of the injected surfactant is transferred to matrix over large volumes of
reservoir for considerable volumes of oil production at the testing well under the cyclic injection scheme.
However, such an injection scheme would require high injection pressures and large volume of gas for
foam generation. These requirements may or may not be possible based on operational conditions, need
for high performance pumps and compressors as well as availability of foaming gas for co-injection. Thus
alternate pilot test designs may have to be considered that better meet the requirements of chemical
material, availability of foaming gas, needed equipment, facilities and any other operational consider-
ations. For this purpose, it may be more economical or operationally feasible to perform the foam-
surfactant injection pilot test at compromised lower injection rates and with wet foam of lower quality to
reduce both injection pressure and required volumetrics of injectants. Some optimization is required.
The simulated pilot design sensitivities of this paper illustrate the ranges of performance of dual
completion and cyclic pilot testings under various scenarios to provide optimum or alternative test designs
that meet both technical and operational considerations of a given naturally fractured reservoir, and yet
furnish adequate performance data for the analysis of EOR processes and assessment of the efficiency of
matrix oil drainage. A tailored pilot test can then be designed based on the specifics of a naturally
fractured reservoir of interest and the surrounding economical and operations constraints. The fundamen-
tal modeling technology as well as pilot performance predictions under various sensitivities provided in
this paper will furnish essential guidelines and improve the success of such technology of foam-surfactant
CEOR applications to the recovery of vast volumes of matrix oil left undrained in the gas cap of typical
naturally fractured reservoirs.

Conclusions
● The techniques developed in this paper provide a methodology for modeling foam-surfactant
CEOR in naturally fractured reservoirs within the framework of available commercial simulators
along with their limitations. These techniques are essential for reliable pilot test design studies.
● The modeling of foam-surfactant CEOR in naturally fractured reservoirs is handled through proper
modelings of foam flow in fractures and surfactant ME processes in matrix because foam flow is
primarily restricted to the fracture system and surfactant CEOR occurs mainly in matrix blocks.
● A complex surfactant phase behavior combined with its flow characteristics is modeled through a
novel kinetic reaction-based technique of simultaneous tracking of surfactant and salinity to
preserve the underlying physics of surfactant flooding and microemulsion generation.
20 SPE-179842-MS

● Compositional modeling is used to simulate chemical surfactant flow and capture variations in oil
characteristics through proper partitioning k-values based on surfactant phase behavior, surfactant
concentration, brine salinity and oil composition.
● Simulation studies of single-well foam-surfactant injection scenarios in the gas cap of a fractured
reservoir show that this CEOR technology is capable of mobilizing matrix oil of the gas cap to
support feasibility of CEOR process implementation.
● Higher surfactant injection rates along with higher foam quality are more beneficial for cyclic
huff-n-puff pilot testing purposes. An optimized choice between foam quality and surfactant
injection rate can be made to meet both operational and economical constraints.
● The results of the dual completion pilot testing indicate that oil production is less and at lower rates
than cyclic huff-n-puff injection scenarios, primarily due to decreased capture efficiency of the
released matrix oil. Lower surfactant injection rates at low foam quality provide better capture but
yield higher water cuts.
● Much of the mobilized matrix oil gravitates to the oil column, uncaptured by the single-well testing
schemes. Thus, what is captured in a producer is just a snap-shot indication of an extensive CEOR
process that is occurring in the reservoir away from the well.
● The creative and validated simulation techniques presented in this paper offer findings that give
insight to the design and optimization of field-wide applications in addition to specific single-well
pilot testing scenarios.

Nomenclature
a⫽ surfactant adsorption, mg/g
C⫽ mass concentration, wt%
CMC ⫽ critical micellar concentration
FM ⫽ Foam mobility reduction factor, dimensionless
Fs ⫽ shape factor
GOC ⫽ gas oil contact
k⫽ permeability
krg ⫽ gas relative permeability
kfrg ⫽ foam relative permeability
ME ⫽ microemulsion
Mw ⫽ molecular weight, lb/lbmole
Nc ⫽ capillary number
Pc ⫽ capillary pressure, psi
RS ⫽ solubilization ratio
Sgv ⫽ specific area per unit grain volume.
So ⫽ oil saturation
TDS ⫽ total dissolved salts, salinity
V⫽ solubilized volume in microemulsion
xi ⫽ mole fraction of component i in oleic phase
wi ⫽ mole fraction of component i in aqueous ME phase
␾⫽ effective porosity
␶⫽ tortuosity
␴⫽ surface tension, dynes/cm2
␳⫽ density, g/cc
SPE-179842-MS 21

Subscript:
f⫽ fracture
m⫽ matrix
o⫽ oil
r⫽ rock
s⫽ surfactant
w⫽ water-
o/me ⫽ between oil and microemulsion
w/me ⫽ between water and microemulsion

Acknowledgement
We thank the support of PEMEX E&P and Rice U. Discussions with Dr. George Hirasaki are appreciated.

References
1. German, E.R., Rodriguez, F. and Silva, P.: ⬙EOR in Mexico, Technical and Regulatory Efforts to Increase Reserves
and Production,⬙ presented at the 34th Annual IEA-EOR Symposium, Stavanger-Norway, September 8-12, 2013.
2. Adibhatla, B. and Mohanty, K.K.: ⬙Oil Recovery from Fractured Carbonates by Surfactant-Aided Gravity Drainage:
Laboratory Experiments and Mechanistic Simulations,⬙ SPEREE (Feb. 2008).
3. Winsor, P.A., 1954. Solvent Properties of Amphiphilic Compounds. London: Butterworth’s Scientific Publications.
4. Hirasaki, G.J.: ⬙The Steam-Foam Process,⬙ J. Pet. Tech., 1989, 41, 5, 449 –456.
5. Abbaszadeh, M., Rodriguez-de la Garza, F., Yuan, C. and Pope. G.: ⬙Single-Well Simulation Study of Foam EOR in
Gas-Cap of the Naturally-Fractured Cantarell Field,⬙ paper SPE 129867 presented at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 24-28, April 2010.
6. Abbaszadeh, M., Kazemi-Nia Korrani, A., Lopez Salinas, J.L., Rodriguez-de la Garza, F., Villavicencio-Pino A. and
Hirasaki, G.J.: ⬙Experimentally-Based Empirical Foam Modeling⬙ SPE-169888, presented at the 2014 SPE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium to be held 12 ⫺16 April, 2014 in Tulsa, OK, USA.
7. Huh, C. ⬙Interfacial Tensions and Solubilizing Ability of a Microemulsion Phase that Coexists with Oil and Brine,⬙
Jour. of Colloid and Interface Science 71 (2), (1979): 408 –426. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9797(79)90249-2.
8. Hearly, R.N., Reed, R.L. and Stenmark, D.K.: ⬙Multiphase Microemulsion Systems.⬙ SPEJ. 16 (3), (1976): 147–160;
Trans., AIME, 261. SPE-5565-PA. DOI: 10.2118/5565-PA.
9. Abbaszadeh, M. and Ren, G.: ⬙Simulation Technologies for Surfactant Phase Behavior and Foam Flow Modeling in
Fractured Reservoirs,⬙ SPE 179842-MS, presented at the SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference
and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 16-18 September 2013.
10. Morrow, N.R., Lim, H.T., and Ward, J.S.: ⬙Effect of Crude-Oil-Induced Wettability Changes on Oil Recovery,⬙ SPE
13215, Formation Evaluation Journal 1: 89 –103, 1986.
11. Graue, A., Bogno, T., Moe, R.W., Baldwin, B.A., Spinler, E.A., Maloney, D. and Tobola, D.P.: ⬙Impacts of
Wettability on Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability,⬙ Society of Core Analysis, 07, 1999.
12. Tie, H. and Morrow, N.R.: ⬙Low Flood Rate Residual Saturation in Carbonate Rocks,⬙ International Petroleum
Technology Company, IPCT 10470, November 2005.
13. Kamath, J., Meyer, R. F., Nakagawa, and Frank M.: ⬙Understanding Waterflood Residual Saturation of Four
Carbonate Rock Types,⬙ SPE paper 71505, 2001 Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, LA, October 2001.
14. Fathi Najafabadi, N., Delshad, M., Sepehrnoori, K.,. Nguyen, Q. P. and Zhang, J.: Chemical Flooding of Fractured
Carbonates Using Wettability Modifiers,⬙ SPE 113369, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April, 19-23, 2008
15. French, T., Broz, J., Lorenz, P. and Bertus, K.: ⬙Use of Emulsions for Mobility Control during Steamooding,⬙ SPE
California Regional Meeting, 2-4 April 1986, Oakland, California.
16. Chambers, D.: ⬙Foams for Well Stimulation. Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry,⬙ L.
Schramm (ed.), American Chemical Society, 1994, Washington, DC, ACS Symposium No. 242.
17. Millard, M., Getzlaf, D. and Griffth, J.: ⬙Selection of Foam Flushes and Foamed Cement Proves Effective for
Remedial Operations of Low-Pressured Formations Case Histories,⬙ SPE Production and Operations Symposium,
22-25 March 2003, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
18. Heller, J.P.: ⬙CO2 Foams in Enhanced Oil-Recovery,⬙ Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum
Industry, 1994, 242, 201–234.
22 SPE-179842-MS

19. Li, R.F., Yan, W., Liu, S.H., Hirasaki, G.J. and Miller, C.A.: ⬙Foam Mobility Control for Surfactant Enhanced Oil
Recovery,⬙ SPEJ, 2010, 15, 4, 934 –948.
20. Mohammadi, S.S., Coombe, D.A. and Stevenson, V.M.: ⬙Test of Steam-Foam Process for Mobility Control in
South-Casper Creek Reservoir,⬙ J. Can. Pet. Tec., 1993, 32, 10, 49 –54.
21. Zhou, Z. and Rossen, W.R.: ⬙Applying Fractional Flow Theory to Foam Processes at the Limiting Capillary Pressure⬙.
SPE Advanced Technology Series 1995, 3, 1, 154 –162.
22. Cheng, L., Reme, A.B., Shan, D., Coombe, D.A. and Rossen, W.R.: ⬙Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low
Foam Qualities,⬙ SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2000.
23. Khatib, Z., Hirasaki, G. and Falls, A.: ⬙Effects of Capillary Pressure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in Foams
Flowing Through Porous Media,⬙ SPE Reservoir Engineering, 1988, 3:919 –926.
24. Kozeny, J. ⬙Ueber kapillare Leitung des Wassers im Boden.⬙ Sitzungsber Akad. Wiss, Wien, 136(2a): 271–306, 1927.
25. Carman, P.C.: ⬙Fluid flow through granular beds.⬙ Transactions, Institution of Chemical Engineers, London, 15:
150 –166, 1937.
26. Li, B., Hirasaki, J.G. and Miller, A.C.: ⬙Upscaling of Foam Mobility Control to Three Dimensions,⬙ paper SPE 99719,
presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 22–26 April
2006.