SPE 39681

Foam/Oil Interactions at Reservoir Conditions

K. Mannhardt, SPE, Petroleum Recovery Institute, J.J. Novosad, SPE, Petroleum Recovery Institute, and L.L. Schramm,
Petroleum Recove& Institute

copyright 1998, Sc@ty

In applications where it is desirable to place a foam into swept

(low oil saturation) zones, a foam with intermediate or low
stability to oil maybe adequate. If a foam is to be used as an
oil displacing fluid or for GOR control in producing wells,
foam stability to oil is essential.
Core flood experiments by different investigators suggest
that oil becomes detrimental to foam at oil saturations above 5
to 20?4..1 Among a number of mechanisms of foam/oil interactions suggested in the literature, 15 three main models have
emerged in attempts to predict foam stability to oil: spreading
and entering coefficients, Iamella number, and pseudoemulsion film models. The classical spreading and entering coefficients, based on interracial tensions measured with bulk liquids, have been used with some success,6>7but do not correlate with foam stability to oil in eneraL2-5~8~9A geome~
dependent s reading coefflcien~
coefficient, ? andaYilmexcess
!!e;~9Y;~~~n%%%
in order to take into account thin film forces important in
foam/oil encounters in porous media. The kunella number
attempts to quanti@ the observation that oil can become emulsified and imbibed into foam lamellae which tends to destabilize a foam to various degrees,2~11~i2Pseudoemulsion film
models state that a foam can only be stable in the presence of
oil if the oil is wetted by the aqueous phase, i.e. if oil and gas
phases remain separated by a stable film of aqueous phase (the
pseudoemulsion film) .3-513 Although different models have
been successfully applied to different situations, translating
the fundamental mechanisms of foam/oil interaction into generally applicable rules for field application remains Wicult.
The objective of this work was to evaluate the performance
of six foams in the absence and presence of crude oil using
different experimental techniques: core floods in Berea and
North Sea reservoir sandstone, bulk foam heights in a blender
and in a high pressure cell, lamella breakage frequency in an
etched-glass micromodel, and interracial parameters. The purpose of the core floods was to screen a series of promising
surfactant candidates for the application of foam in the North
Sea. A large amount of experimenta114 and simulation15 work
was simultaneously carried out by Norsk Hydro, and has led to
a successful field test. 16 The other experimental techniques
have been used by others as screening tools or to evaluate
foardoil interactions. They were used in this work to study
possible correlations with core flood performance.

cd Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper w
prepared for p+osant8tion at MO 1990
Sympaium held in Tulsa, Oklahcmm, 19-22 Aprd 199S

SPE/OOE

Imprwed

011 ReCOWV

This pap
v-m Aected for presentation by an SPE Program Ccmmiltea fdlwng review C4
information contained in n abctract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have nd been rmewd by the Scciety of Petroleum Engineers and are sutject to
.mmction by the author(s), The materiat, as presm!ted, does not necessarily reflect any pition of the Swiety of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication rww
by Editorial Canmittees of the Scciety of Petroleum
Engineerx. Electronic reprcdution, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for canmercial purpmes without the written consent of the .%dety of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reprcduce in print !s restricted to an abstract of not rrwe than ?03 wrd%
illw.tratiors may not be copied, The abstract m~t catain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by wham rho paper was presented. Wiite Librarian, SPE, PO
SoX S333S8,
Richardsq
TX 750S33628,
U. S. A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Foam mobility reduction factors (MRFs) were measured
through foam floods in Berea and North Sea sandstone cores
with three conventional surfactants (Chaser GR-108O, Enordet
X-2001, and Dow XSS-8432 1.05), either by themselves $r
mixed with a fluorinated surfactant (Fluorad FC-75 1), at 75 C
and 13.8 MPa. Several other experimental methods were also
used to evaluate possible correlations in foam performance:
bulk foam stability, etched-glass micromodel observations,
and interracial parameters.
The presence of oil reduced foam MRFs of different surfactants to different degrees. Excellent MMs were still attained with Chaser and Enordet in the presence of residual oil,
while Dow was ineffective. The addition of Fluorad enhanced
the oil tolerance of Chaser and Dow foam, but did not provide
any benefit to Enordet. MRFs measured in an oil-free North
Sea reservoir core were lower than in Berea core, but were
affected relatively less by oil. The tested foams exhibited oil
transporting properties. Each foam adjusted to its own residual
oil saturation and corresponding level of mobility reduction.
Foam performance in core floods did not correlate in general
with predictions based on the other experimental methods.
Introduction
Foams have been considered for mobility control in solvent,
gas, or vapor injection IOR processes, for blocking and diverting using either conventional or gelled foams, and for
GOR control at production wells. In a diverse range of applications, a foam encounters a range of oil saturations, which
necessitates designing a foam with the required stability to oil.

Deceased
287

K.MANNHARDT, J.J. NOVOSAD, L.L. SCHRAMM

Some fluorinated surfactants form foams that are very stable in the presence of oiL2~17They are, however, more costly
than hydrocarbon surfactants by one to two orders of magnitude. In this study, a fluorinated surfactant was used as an additive at relatively low concentmtion to improve the oil tolerance of three conventional surfactants.

SPE 396S1

to 0.33 PV oil from Berea cores and 0.48 PV from the reservoir core.
The core was brought to reservoir conditions (75C and
13.8 MPa). Brine and methane were simultaneously injeeted
to determine baseline pressure drops in the absence of surfacta.nt, at a constant total fluid flow rate and three gas fractional
flows. Constant pressure drops were usually attained within 2
hours. 5 to 10 PV of 0.257. surfactant solution in sea water
were injected over 10 or more hours to satis& the adsorption
requirements of the rock. Surfactant solution (0.250A) and
methane were then co-injected to steady state at the same flow
rates and gas fractional flows (foam qualities) used for the
baseline experiments. The surfactant concentration was increased to 0.500/q then 1.OYO,and the foam floods repeated.
Steady state was usually reached within 5 hours, except at the
lowest surfactant concentration in the presence of oil, where
more time was required.
The combined methanelaqueous phase flow rate was 42
mm resulting in apparent linear velocities of 3.9 to 4.1 rrdd in
the Berea cores, and 3.6 tid in the resemoir cores. Foam
qualities were 95XO,
90%.,and 80Yo.Oil recoveries were measured downstream of the BPR during gadliquid co-injection. At
the end of a sequence of experiments, each core was dismantled and extracted in boiling toluene to obtain an independent
estimate of fluid saturations. Each surfactant was tested in a
separate core in the absence and presence of oil.

Experimental
Materials. Cores were either Berea sandstone (length 30 cm
diameter 3,8 cm porosity 23?4.,absolute permeability to air
940 to 1200 red), or reservoir sandstone (length 17 cm diameter 3.7 cm, porosity 26/0, absolute permeability to air
3400 to 3900 md) from the Osebcrg field (North Sea), supplied by Norsk Hydro. The resemoir cores were extracted in a
chlorofotimethanol mixture and dried before use.
Four commercial surfactants were used: Chaser GR-108O
(Chaser International, proprietary blend containing mostly
alpha olefin sulfonates), 13nordet X-2001 (Shell Chemical
Company, alcohol ethoxyglycerylsulfonate), Dow XSS84321.05 (Dow Chemical, mixture of Clo diphenyletherdisulfonate and C14-16 alpha oletin sulfonate), Fluorad FC-751
(3M Company, fluoroalkylsulfobetaine). They will be
referrred to as Chaser, Enordet, Dow, and Fluomd in this paper. Cited concentrations are active concentrations in Yow/vin
sea water. The three hydrocarbon-based surfactants (Chaser,
Enorde~ and Dow) were used either by themselves or mixed
with Fluorad (1:9 by mass Fluorad to Chaser, Enorde~ or
Dow).
The brine was filtered (0,45 pm) synthetic sea water, and
the gas was methane (CP grade, 99 vol%). Crude oil (Oseberg
Field, North Sea) was supplied by Norsk Hydro and cleaned
by centrifugation and filtration (0.22 pm). The viscosity and
density of the dead oil at 23C and ambient pressure were 9.5
rnpas and 0.87 g/cm3, respectively. Methane-saturated oil had
a GOR of 70 and a density of 0.75 g/cm3 at 75C and 13.8
MPa.

Bulk Foam Experiments (Blender). Foam heights were

measured at ambient conditions in a blender fitted with a
plexiglass column (diameter 6 c% height 60 cm). 300 ml of
0.50% surfactant solution were agitated at maximum speed for
5 minutes. The foam column always reached its maximum
height after 2 to 3 minutes. Mixing was stopped and the height
of the foam column above the bulk liquid measured as a fimction of time. The cylinder was cleaned, and the experiment
repeated with 300 ml of surfactant solution and 6, 15, or 33 ml
of crude oil.

Core Floods. The core was contained in a stainless steel core

holder within a lead sleeve to which confining pressure (24
MPa) was applied. Liquids were injected by displacement
from floating piston vessels using HPLC pumps. Methane was
supplied either from a cylinder, its flow rate being controlled
by a mass flow controller, or from a Ruska pump. Pressure
drops across the core were monitored by differential pressure
transducers. System pressure was controlled by a gas dome
type backpressure regulator (BPR).
A core was mounted in the core holder. The pore volume
was determined by gas expansio~ the absolute permeability to
air was measured, and the core was saturated with brine. Some
cores were now ready for foam testing in tie absence of oil.
Other cores were oil-flooded with dead oil (5 to 10 PV at 60 to
160 ml/h) at ambient conditions (23C, atmospheric pressure)
until Sti was reached, then waterflooded with brine at ambient conditions until oil production ceased (4 to 9 PV at 50
mlh). Irreducible water saturations were about 320/. in Berea
cores and 24% in a reservoir core. Watcrfloods produced 0,30

Bulk Foam Experiments (High Pressure CelI). Bulk foam

experiments at 75C and 13.8 MPa were carried out in a high
pressure window cell (height 31 cm volume 300 ml). 0.50%.
surfactant solution and methane were co-injected through a
foam generator (2 pm sintered stainless steel filter) into the
bottom of the cell via a tube that protmded several centimeters
into the cell. Flow rates were 35.1 ml/h methane (mass flow
controller) and 3.9 mlh surfactant solution (HPLC pump), for
a nominal foam quality of 904. The foam height above the
liquid level was measured as a fimction of time. The liquid
was drained periodically from the bottom of the cell to prevent
the injected gas phase from bubbling through the accumulated
liquid. After 8 hours, fluid injection was stopped. The foam
was allowed to decay overnight and a final measurement of
the foam height was taken. The effect of oil on foam was determined by injecting methane-saturated crude oil together
with surfactant solution and methane. The oil flow rate yva5
0.2 mI/h or 5% of the aqueous phase flow rate.
288

SPE 39681

FOAM/OIL INTERACTIONS AT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS

The experiments were repeated at higher flow rates: 315

ml/h methane, 35 mlh surfactant solution (gOO/o nominal foam
quality), and 1.8 mlih oil (5Yoof aqueous phase flow rate). In
the absence of oil, the CCI1was always filled with foam within
60 to 80 minutes, and flow was stopped. In the experiments
with oil, flow was stopped after 400 to 500 minutes, and a
final measurement of foam height was taken after allowing the
foam to decay overnight.

taking into account film thinning by liquid drainage or

changes in foam texture. Several of the blender experiments
were run in duplicate, with satisfactory reproducibility.
In the absence of oil, Chaser and Enordet generated more
foam than Dow (Fig. 1). The presence of Fluorad did not significantly atlect initial foam heights in the absence of oil, but
improved foaming with all three surfactants in the presenee of
oil. Chaser foam was quite stable to oil, generating more foam
with 10/0oil than Enordet and Dow with 2/0 oil, While the
performance of Enorde~luorad and Dow/Fluorad was reduced compared to oil-free case, Chaser/Fluorad foam was
completely unaffected by oil up to the highest oil content
tested.
Because of the excellent performance of Chaser in the
presence of oil, this surfactant was tested with two other light
crude oils, one from the Judy Creek field (Alberta) and the
other from the Gullfaks field (North Sea). The Judy Creek oil
was more detrimental to foam than both North Sea oils (Fig.
2). Reasons for the differences were not investigate but evidently oil composition can strongly affect foam performance,
consistent with simiIar experiments conducted at Norsk Hydro. 14 Blank blender tests were run using 300 ml of Oseberg
oil (without any aqueous phase), or 300 ml of brine (without
surfactant) with 15 ml of Oseberg oil. No foam was generated
in either experiment.

Etched-Glass Micromodel Experiments. The procedure for

evaluating foandoil interactions in a micromodel has been
described in detail elsewhere.2~11,12The micromodcl provides
a single flow channel for foam and a separate port for injecting
oil into the foams ffow path, allowing observation of foam/oil
interactions at the point of entry of the oil through a video
system mounted on a stereo-microscope.
Methane was supplied from a pressure vessel, its flow rate
being adjusted by a pressure regulator, differential flow controller, and micro-needle valve, 0.50/0 surfactant solution was
supplied through a HPLC pump. Methane and surfactant solution were co-injected through a foam generator (60 ~m sintered stainless steel filter) before entering the model. In order
to further control the extremely low flow rates required to observe foam flow, part of the pre-genetated foam was diverted
to a waste container upstream of the model. Crude oil was
supplied from a manually operated syringe which allowed fine
control of oil flow into the model. The nominal foam quality
was about 95/0in the foam generator. The average combined
flow rate of methane and surfactant solution entering the
model was approximately 0.36 ml/min. All experiments were
run at ambient conditions.

Bulk Foam Experiments (High Pressure Cell). Results of

the bulk foam experiments in the high pressure cell depended
on injection rates. At the lower flow rate (39 mlh), in the absence of oil, rates of foam generation were almost constant
over 8 hours, and similar for all six surfactant systems. When
oil was preseng the Chaser/Fluorad mixture genemted foam at
a lower rate; none of the other five surfactant systems generated any foam. A higher flow rate (350 mlih) promoted foam
formation in the presence of oil and allowed the surfactants to
be ranked. The liquid collecting at the bottom of the cell had
to be drained frequently, causing some disturbance to the foam
column and scatter in the data.
In the absence of oil, all six surfactant systems filled the
cell with foam within about an hour (Fig. 3). Although foam
genemtion was reduced in the presence of oil, all three hydrocarbon surfactants, when used by themselves, generated at
least some foam in the presence of oil. Their foaming capacity
was improved by the addition of Fluorad.
The ratio of foam height at the termination of flow into the
cell to foam height after allowing the foam to decay overnight
under static conditions (Table 1) can be taken as a measure of
foam stability under static conditions, again not taking into
account changes in foam texture or quality. In the absence of
oil, Chaser foam was more stable than Enordet and Dow
foams. The stability of Enordet and Dow foams was enhanced
by the addition of Fluorad. In the presence of oil, foams generated with all three hydrocarbon surfactants collapsed under
static conditions over the period of observation. With Fluora4
foam stability became similar to the oil-free case.
The bulk foam tests yield two kinds of information: foam-

Interracial Properties. At 23C and atmospheric pressure,

surface tensions (against air) of synthetic sea water, crude oil,
and 0.50%0 surfactant solutions were measured by the
Wilhelmy plate method (IQ-Ms K 12). Interracial tensions of
0.50%0surfactant solutions against crude oil were determined
using the spinning drop technique (University of Texas Model
300). 18 The brine/oil interfaciaJ tension was measured by the
Du Nouy ring method (Kriiss K12).
At 75C and 13.8 MPa, surface tensions (against methane)
and interracial tensions (against methane-saturated crude oil)
were measured by the captive drop method, described in detail
ekewhere. 19 A bubble or droplet was placed against a solid
substrate, designed to be wetted by the external phase, in a
windowed high pressure chamber filled with a second, immiscible fluid. The drop or bubble shape was analyzed using the
methods outlined in Ref. 13. Surfactant concentrations were
().50%,
Results and Discussion
Bulk Foam Experiments (Blender). Maximum foam heights
in the blender can be taken as a measure of the foaming capacity of the surfactants under high shear, Foam heights
measured as a fimction of time after stopping the blender provide a measure of foam stability under static conditions, not
289

K. MANNHARDT, J.J. NOVOSAD, L.L. SCHRAMM

ing capacity under dynamic conditions, and the stability of

static foam. Both kinds of information may be intuitively important in the resewoir. The former relates to the ease with
which a foam maybe genemted or re-generated when gas and
liquid phases flow simultaneously. Once a foam has been
placed, part of the foam becomes statiomuy, thus diverting
flow to other regions of the reservoir. The stability of foam
under static conditions is of interest in this situation. Although
bulk foam tests have sometimes been used for surfactant
screening20~21 the fundamental differences between bulk
foams and foams in porous media have been pointed out.3~22
Solid/liquid interactions and porous medium-dependent capilhuy forces contribute to or dominate foam behavior in porous
media. Furthermore, the mode of foarrdoil contact and the
flow rates in bulk foam experiments may not be representative
of foam flow in porous media.

SPE 396S1

tion in the presence of oil. The dependence of MRF on foam

quality is surfactant and reek specific. Because a foam cannot
be formed at very low or very high gas fractio~ the MRF must
go through a maximum at some foam quality for all systems,
although the maximum was not always observed over the
range of foam qualities investigated.
The surfactant system that performed beat in Berea core at
Sor (Chaser/Fluorad) was tested in reservoir cores (F@ 7).
MRFs in the oil-free reservoir core were lower than in oil-free
Berea core. In the presence of oil, MRFs were reduced only
slightly from the oil-free case, approached those measured in
the absence of oil under some conditions, and were similar to
those measured in Berea core at Sor
The pressure tmce measured during Chaser foam injection
into a Berea core at Sor, at a surfactant concentration of
0.25Yqis shown in Fig. 8. Low pressure drops were recorded
during the first two foam floods, at foam qualities of 95V0and
90Y0. Small amounts of oil were gradually produced. When
the foam quality was lowered to 80%.,the mte of oil production increased, accompanied with a gradual increase in pressure drop over three days. By contrr@ pressure drops in oilfree cores genemlly stabilized within about 5 hours at all foam
qualities and surfactant concentrations. When the foam quality
was increased back to 95%o,the pressure drop remained higher
than the value originally measured at this foam quality, shown
as hysteresis in Fig. 4% because of a lower oil saturation. This
kind of behavior was consistently observed in all core floods
of this study, with the exception of the Dow surfactan~ which
did not genemte much foam at all in the presence of oil. Very
little additional oil was produced when the surfactant concentration was increased to 0.5% and 1.OVO.Hysteresis in MRF
was not observed in any of the oil-free cores (Fig. 4c, 4 e).
These observations have implications for foam injection
sequences applied in the field. A foam may first be generated
at a relatively low foam quality. The injected liquid flow rate
may then be reduced while still maintaining mobility reduction.
Oil recovery data are summarized in Table 2. Significant
amounts of oil were produced from the Berea cores during
brine/methane injection, but not from the reservoir core because of its lower waterflood residual oil saturation. Very little
oil was recovered from any of the cores during the surfactant
pre-flush, indicating that the foaming surfactants did not lower
interracial tensions sutllciently to improve microscopic displacement efficiency. Foam flooding produced additional oil.
Because the cores had been flooded with brine/methane and
surfactant prior to foam injection, oil recove~ by foam can be
attributed to oil transporting properties of the foam itself.
A comparison of oil recoveries by foam in Berea core (Table 2) indicates that Chaser/Fluorad foam recovered the most
oil. The highest MRF in the presence of oil was also generated
with this surfactant (13g. 5). The surfactant that performed the
poorest in the presence of oil (Dow) also recovered the least
amount of oil during foam flooding. Considering the limited
accuracy of the oil recovery measurements during foam
flooding, ranking the other surfactants on this basis is not justified.

Foam Performance in Core Floods. The mobility reduction

factor (MRF) was used as a measure of foam effectiveness in
core floods. MRF is defined as the ratio of the steady state
pressure drop across a core during simultaneous surfactant/gas
injection to the corresponding baseline pressure drop during
brine/gas injection, Detailed MRF data are shown in Fig+ 4,
and a summary of MRF ranges measured over the range of
foam qualities and surfactant concentrations investigated appears in Fig 5.
In oil-free Berea cores, excellent MRFs were attained with
all surfactants. The addition of Fluorad did not significantly
affect Chaser and Dow MRFs in the oil-free cores, and
slightly lowered Enordet MRFs.
The presence of residual oil affected different surfactants
to different degrees. Chaser MRFs were lowered by an order
of magnitude or more (Fig, 4a), but could be improved significantly by the addition of Fluorad (Fig. 4b). Dow foam was
essentially ineffective in the presence of oil (Fig. 4e). When
mixed with F1uora& its MRFs were improved (Fig. 4f), but
became no higher than those measured with Chaser by itself
(Fig. 4a). Enordet foam appeared to be almost unaffected by
oil. In fact, some of the MRFs at Sor were higher than the
corresponding values in the oil-free core (Fig. 4c). The series
of experiments at SOrwas repeated in a separate core (Fig. 6).
MRFs at Sor were lower than those in Fig. 4c. The poor reproducibility for the Enordet foam floods at Sor was attributed
to emulsion formation, which may have contributed to the
measured pressure drops and was observed in the produced
fluids with this particular surfactant, As a check for reproducibility in MRFs measured with Enordet in oil-free core, several
experiments with Enordet only were appended to the experiments with Enordet/Fluorad. MRFs were quite reproducible
with previously measured values (Fig. 4c, d). In contrast to
Chaser and Dow, the addition of Fluorad did not provide much
benefit to Enordet foam in terms of oil tolerance (Fig. 4d).
MRF generally increased with surfactant concentration,
consistent with the observations of others. This dependence
tended to be stronger in the presence of oil, implying that
higher surfactant concentrations are beneficial to foam forma-

290

SPE 39681

FOAM/OIL INTERACTIONS AT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS

for Chaser/Fluomd (Fig. 5).

Maximum measured MRFs are plotted against oil saturation in Fig 9, from data in Table 3. The range of MRFs at
zero oil satumtion reflects differences between surfactants,
with the average as indicated by the data point. A steep decrease in MRF over a relatively small range of oil saturations
(9 to 11%) is evident. A critical oil saturation of 12 to 15%
has been found by others.23 The foams that generated the
highest MRFs were also the ones that reduced the oil saturation the most. A relatively low foam quality (800A) was required to initiate foam generation and bring the oil saturation
to a suitably low level for effective foam formation. Apparently, at least some foam stability to oil is required during the
initial foam floods. This foam then tmnsports oil, resulting in a
reduction in oil satumtion, which in turn leads to the generation of stronger foam. Each surfactant achieves a level of mobility reduction according to its own foam flood residual oil
saturation.
Based on MRF ranges or maximum MRFs, the surfactants
can be ranked as follows in terms of foam performance in the
presence of oil:
Chmer/Fluomd > Enordet > Chaser, Enordct/Fluorat
Dow/Fluorad > Dow
The ratio of pressure gradient generated by foam in the
presence of oil to the corresponding pressure gradient in the
oil-free core can be taken as a measure of relative foam sensitivity to oil (Figs. 10 and 11). The lower the ratio, the more
sensitive a foam is to oil. The data for each surfactant were
chosen to be at nearly constant oil saturatio~ i.e. include only
data points measured after most oil recovery by foam had been
completed.
For Chaser and Chaser/Fluora~ the ratio of pressure gradients increases when the foam quality is lowered (Fig. 10).
Wetter foams have better stability to oil for these surfactant
systems. With Enordet and Enordefiluorad, the opposite
trend is observed, duplicate data are not consistent and ratios
greater than unity were obtained. Possibly, emulsion formation
contributed to the pressure drops measured at Ser. The DOW
surfactant by itself did not generate effective foam, as indicated by the lowest ratios, and a trend with foam quality is not
evident for Dow/Fluorad.
Most surfactant systems show an increasing trend in the
ratio of pressure gradients with increasing surfactant concentration (Fig. 11), indicating improved foam stability to oil at
higher surfactant concentmtions. Enordet and Enordet/Fluorad
are again exceptions.
Based on the data in Figs. 10 and 11, the surfactants can be
qualitatively ranked as follows:
EnordetlFluorad > Chaser/Fluorad, Enordct > Chaser,
Dow/Fluorad > Dow
This ranking differs from the one derived from maximum
MRF, but it is also based on a different properly of the foam.
The ratio of pressure gradients is a measure of the relative
decrease in foam performance when oil is present. It says
nothing about the level of mobility reduction achievable. For
example, Enordet/Fluomd MRFs decrease relatively little in
the presence of oil compared to the oil-free case, but the
maximum MRF for this surfactant system is still lower than

Foam Performance in an Etched-Glass Micromodel. Foam

experiments in the single-channel micromodel were evaluated
as described in detail in previous work:2*11312Type A foams
show no intemction with oil; foam films pass over oil without
rupturing. Type B foams have moderate stability to oil. When
lamellae contact oil, the oil is emulsified and carried in the
Plateau borders and lamellae for some distance, with occasionally lamella rupture. Type C foams cause oil to emulsify
into very small droplets that become extensively imbibed into
the foam lamellae and cause frequent lamella ruptures.
In addition to these qualitative observations, the lamella
breakage frequency (@, defined as the number of lamella
breakages per second, was determined from video tapes by
counting the number of lamella breakages over 10 minutes. In
the absence of oil, Jb was always zero. Previous experiments
gave breakage frequencies lower than 0.01 S-l for Type A
foams, between 0.01 and 0.038 S-l for Type B foams, and
higher than 0.038 S-l for Type C foams.
Results from the mieromodel experiments are shown in
Table 4. Two experiments were run in duplicate, with excellent reproducibility as shown. All six foams emulsified and
imbibed oil and showed a moderate degree of Iamella rupture,
indicating Type B foam behavior. Breakage frequencies for
Chaser, Enordet, and Dow were consistent with Type B
foams, while the breakage frequencies for the surfactant mixtures were in the range for Type A foams, Fluorad by itself
exhibited Type A foam behavior and zero breakage frequeney,
consistent with previous work.2
Previous work has shown that Type B foams have the capacity to transport more oil than Type A or Type C foams by
carrying emulsified oil droplets inside the foam structure
while retaining a modetate degree of stability to oil. 12 Mieromodel observations of this study were consistent with these
observations. The core flood results (Table 2) agreed qualitatively with the mieromodel observations in that some oil recovery was observed with all foams. However, lamella breakage frequencies do not correlate with core flood performance.
For example, Dow and Enordet have similar breakage frequencies, but clearly show significant differences in core flood
performance. Based on Iamella breakage frequencies, Chaser
would be predicted to be the poorest performe~ this is clearly
not borne out by the mobility reduction factors.
Interracial Parameters. The emulsification of oil droplets
into Plateau borders and foam lamellae has been quantified by
the lamella number:2
L =o.15yw/yo/w

........................................................ (1)

L> 1 implies that small enough oil droplets can be produced to

permit their movement within a Iamella. A higher Iamella
number implies a higher degree of emulsification.
From thermodynamics, a droplet of oil surrounded by
aqueous phase will penetrate the aqueous phaseigas interface
291

K. MANNHARDT, J.J. NOVOSAD, L.L. SCHRAMM

sPE 39661

predict Chaser/Fluorad to be the best performer in the presence of oil, and Dow to be the worst, which corresponds to the
core flood data. The addition of Fluorad to Chaser and Dow
lowers spreading and entering coeftlcients, which is borne out
in improved core flood performance in the presence of oil.
Based on the coefficients, Enordet is also predicted to generate
more stable foams when mixed with Fluomd. This is, however, not observed in the core floods. A one-to-one correlation
of spreading and entering coeftlcients at ambient conditions
with core flood MRFs is thus not possible. Surprisingly, the
correlation becomes worse with reservoir condition coefflcients: Chaser is predicted to perform poorly compared to the
other systems, which is not reflected in the core flood results.

when entering is favored, or when the entering coefficient is

positive:

E =yw +yo/wY........................................................(2)
After entering, the oil will spread at the aqueous phase/gas
interface if the spreading coeftlcient is positive:
S=yw yo/w .yo ................................................~....... (3)
From Equations 2 and 3,

E =S+2y0/W ............................................................... (4)

Comparison of Foam Performance by Different Experimental Approaches From the results presented, the surfac-

implying that entering is always more favorable than spreading.

If E is negative, then S must be negative also @q. 4). Oil
will not penetrate or spread at the aqueous phase/gas interface,
and is not expected to act as a dcfoamer. If E>O and S<0, the
oil is drawn through the aqueous phase/gas intefiace, but does
not spread at this interface. This condition may or may not
cause destabilization of the foam, depending on whether the
oil droplets seriously reduce coherence of the lamellae. If E>O
and S>0, the oil will penetrate the aqueous phase/gas interface
and spread as a film on the lamella surfaces, generally leading
to Iamella rupture.
Equilibrium surface and interracial tensions at ambient and
reservoir conditions, as well as interracial parameters derived
from thew are listed in Tables 4 and 5. The tensions did not
exhibit any time dependence. The addition of Fluorad to the
three hydrocarbon surfactants lowered surface and interracial
tensions to the same degree, resulting in Iamella numbers that
were essentially the same for single surfactants and mixtures
(Eq. 1). Spreading and entering cocfticients were dominated
by surface tensions; they increased in the same order as surface tensions exactly at ambient conditions and approximately
at reservoir conditions. The addition of Fluorad always resulted in a decrease in spreading and entering coefficients.
Lamclla numbers (at ambient conditions) indicate Type B
foams. With Chaser, Enorde6 and Dow, this corresponds to
the qualitative micromodel observations and to lamella breakage frequencies. The surfactant mixtures are more stable in the
micromodel than would be expected from the lamella number
and the qualitative observations.
Correlations between core flood performance and any of
interracial parameters are not evident. Larnella numbers are
very similar for all surfactant systems, yet there are clearly
differences in core flood MRFs. Most notably, the poor
MRFs generated with Dow and the significant improvement
in MRF achievable by mixing Dow with Fluorad are not reflected in the lamella numbers. Because previous lamella
number correlations and the coefficient in Equation 1 are
based on ambient condition experiments, the lower lamella
numbers at reservoir than at ambient conditions do not necessarily imply better foam stability to oil at reservoir conditions.
Spreading and entering coefficients at ambient conditions

tants can be ranked in order of decreasing foam performance

as follows:
Blender tests (ambient conditions):
Chaser/Fluorad > Chaser > Enordet/Fluorad, Dow/Fluorad >
Enordet > Dow
Bulk foam tests (reservoir conditions):
Chaser/Fluorad > Enordet/Fluomd > Chaser, Dow/Fluorad >
Enordetj Dow
Lamclla breakage frequency (ambient conditions):
EnordetJFluomd > Chmer/Fluorad, Dow/Fluorad > EnordeL
Dow > Chaser
Spreading and entering coefficients (ambient conditions):
Chaser/Fluorad > Enordet/Ftuorad, Dow/Fluorad > Chaser >
Enordet > Dow
Spreading and entering coefficients (reservoir conditions):
Chaser/FluoraL EnordetlFluorad > Dow/Fluorad, Enordet >
Dow > Chaser
Lamella number (ambient and reservoir conditions):

All surfactants approximately equal

Core flood MRF (reservoir conditions):
Chaser/Fluotad > Enordet > Chaser, Enordet/Fluorat
Dow/Fluorad > Dow
Comparing the two kinds of bulk foam tests, there is no
one-to-one correspondence in the observed trends in foam
stability. However, the trends are similar considering the accuracy of the experiments and the somewhat subjective ordering
of the surfactants.
Spreading and entering coefficients have their origins in
the study bulk foam stability. It therefore seems reasonable
that these coetlicients are the most likely to correlate with the
bulk foam experiments. The surfactant ranking of the blender
tests is similar to the ranking by ambient condition spreading
and entering coefficients. Larger differences are observed
between reservoir condition bulk foam experiments and interracial coefilcients,
Correlations between Iamella breakage frequeney12 or lamella numberl and MRF have been reported. Correlations of

292

SPE 39681

FOAM/OIL INTERACTIONS AT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS

foam performance in cores with classical spreading and entering coeftlcients have also been successfid in some cases.67
Foam performance in the core floods of this study does not
correlate in general with spreading and entering coefficients,
kunella number, Iamella breakage frequency, or bulk foam
experiments. In order to evaluate foams for field applicatio~ it
is necessaxy to perform core floods at reservoir conditions.
Summary

Nomenclature
. entering coefficient Lft2, mN/m

;
MW

Pv
s=
s.
s.

and Conclusions

Mobility reduction factors were measured through core floods

in Berea and North Sea reservoir sandstone with methane and
three commercial surfactants (Chaser GR-108O, Enordet X2001, and Dow XSS-8432 1.05), either by themselves or mixed
with Fluorad FC-751, at 75C and 13.8 MPa over a range of
surfactant concentrations and foam qualities. A number of
other experimental methods was also used to evaluate possible
correlations: bulk foam stability, etched-glass micromodel
observations, and intcrfacial parameters. The following conclusions were reached:
1. All surfactants perform well in terms of gas mobility reduction in oil-free Berea core. Maximum attainable MRFs
range from 160 to 710.
2. Different surfactant systems exhibit different degrees of
sensitivity to oil, with maximum MRFs from 4 to 290. Depending on conditions, excellent MRFs are attained with
Chaser and Enordet in the presence of residual oil, while
Dow foam is ineffective. Theaddition of Fluorad enhances
Chaser and Dow foam performance in the presence of oil,
but does not provide any benefit to Enordet foam.
3. MRFs measured with Chaser/Fluorad in an oil-free North
Sea reservoir core are lower than in Bcrca core. Residual
oil affects the foam relatively less in the resewoir core than
in Berea core.
4. The tested foams are found to have oil transporting properties both in the rnicromodel and in core floods. For those
surfactants that are able to generate foam in the presence of
oil, a relatively low foam quality (800A)is necessa~ to initiate foam formation and oil transport. This in turn leads to
a lowered oil saturation and increased foam performance,
Each foam adjusts to its own residual oil saturation and
corresponding level of mobility reduction.
5. The core flood data suggest three methods of improving

%=
YOh
yw

= lamella breakage frequency, t-l, S-l

= lamella number
= mobility reduction factor
= pore volume
spreading coefficient, L/t2, mN/m
= residual oil saturation
= irreducible water saturation
oil surface tension, L/t2, mN/m
oil/water
interracial tensiou L/t2, mN/m
=
=
water surface tensio% L/t2, mN/m

Acknowledgements

This project was funded to 50% by Norsk Hydro (BergeL

Norway). Norsk Hydro, and Arne Skauge and Morten Aarm of
Norsk Hydro, are gratefidly acknowledged for providing
funding for permission to publish the results, and for their
ideas and constructive comments. The contributions of Vladimir MasaQ Monty Hans, Laurie Hodgins, and Audrey Camero~ who carried out the experimental work, are gratefidly
acknowledged.
References
1. Schrarnm, L.L., Foam Sensitivity to Crude Oil in Porous Medi~ Foams, Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum
Industry, L.L. Schranuu (Ed.), Advances in Chemist.g Series
242, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. (1 994) 165.
2. Schrarnrn, L.L., and Novosad, J.J., Tvficro-Visualization of
Foam Interactions with a Crude Oily Co/l. SW-J (1990) 46,21.
3. Manlowe, D.J., and Radke, C.J., A Pore-LevelInvestigationof
Foam/Oil Interactionsin Porous Media; SPE Res. Eng. (1990)
5,495.

4.

5.

6.

7.

foam performance in the presence of oil: lowering foam

quality, increasing
surfactant
conccntratio~
or using
Fluorad FC-751 as additive. The relative improvement in
foam stability to oil by each of these methods is surfactant-

Bergeron, V., Fagm M.E., and Radke, C.J., Generalized Entering Coetlicients: A Criterion for Foam Stability against Oil in
Porous Media: f.ungmuir (1 993) 9, 1704.
Lobo, L., and Wasan, D.T., Mechanisms of Aqueous Foam
Stability in the Presence of Emulsified Non-Aqueous-Phase
Liquids: Structure and Stability of the Pseudoemulsion Filu
Lmgmuir (1993)9, 1668,
Kristiansenj T.S., and Holtj T., Properties of Flowing Foam in

Porous Media Containing oil; paper SPWDOE 24182, presented at the 1992 SPFYDOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, TUIW OK 22-24 April.
Lau, H.C., and OBrien, S.M., Effects of Spreading and Nonspreading Oils on Foam Propagation Through Porous Medi%
SPERes. Eng. (1988) 3,893.

HansseL J.E., and Dallan~ M., Foams for Effective Gas

Blockage in the Presence of Crude Oil, paper SPWDOE 20193,
presented at the 1990 SPUDOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tul% OK, 22-25 April.
9. Raterm~ K.T., An Investigation of Oil Destabilization of
Nitrogen Foams in Porous Medi% paper SPE 19692, presented
at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX, 8-11 Oct.
10. Kuhlma~ M.I., Visualizing the Effect of Light Oil on C02
Foams; paper SPJYDOE 17356, presented at the 1988
SPWDOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK 1720 April.
11. Schrarnm, L.L., and Novosad, J.J., The Destabilization of
8.

dependent.
6. While some similarities in trends exist foam performance
in the core floods of this study does not correlate in general
with predictions based on any of the other experimental
methods tested. An evaluation of foams for field application requires core flood experiments at rescnoir conditions.

293

K. MANNHARDT, J.J. NOVOSAD, L.L. SCHRAMM

SPE 396S1

S1 Metric Conversion Factors

x 1.0*
E-02 = m
cm
x I.0*
E+OO = mpa.s
Cp

Foams for Improved Oil Recovery by Crude Oils: Effect of the

Nature of the OilYJ. Pet. Sci.Eng.(1992) 7,77.
12. Schramm, L.L., Tur@ A., and Novosad, J.J., Microvisual and
Corefloocl Studies of Foam Interactions with a Light Crude oil:

cu. in. x 1.638706

X2.54*
in.
Ibf
X4.448222
X4.535924
Ibm
X 9.869233
md
ml
x 1.0*
x 6.894757
psi
(F-32)/l.8

SPE Res. Eng. (1993) 8,201.

13. Nikolov, A.D., Wasan, D,T., Huang, D.W,, and Edwards, D.A.,

The Effect of Oil on Foam Stability: Mechanisms and Implications for Oil Displacement by Foam in Porous Medi% paper
SPE 15443, presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 5-8 Oct.
14. Aarra, M. G., and Skauge, A., A Foam Pilot in a North Sea Oil
Reservoti Preparation for a Production Well Treatmen~ paper
SPE 28599, presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 25-28 Sept.
15. Surguchev, L.M., SoegnesrmL S., Skauge, A., and Aarr% M.G.,
Modelling and History Matching of Foam Field Pilot, Oseberg
Fiel~ presented at the 1995 European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Proceedings Vol. 2, 29, Viennaj Austriq
15-17 May.
16. Aarra, M.G., Skauge, A., Soegnesand, S., and Stenhaug, M., A
Foam Pilot Test Aimed at Reducing Gas Inflow in a Production
Well at the Osebcrg Field; Pet. Geoscience (1996)2, 125.
17. Novosad, J.J., Mannhardt, K., and Rendall, A., The Interaction
between Foam and Crude Oils; paper 89-40-29, presented at
the 1989 Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
CIM, Brmff, Alber@ 28-31 May.
18. Cayias, J.L., Schcchter, R.S., and Wade, W.H., The Measurement of Low Intcrfacial Tension Vla the Spinning Drop Technique: Adsorption at Interfaces, K.L. Mittal (Ed.), ACS Symposium Series 8, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
(1975)234.
19. Schramm, L.L., Fisher, D.B., Schtirch, S., and Cameron, A., A
Captive Drop Instrument for Surface or Interracial Tension
Measurements at Elevated Temperatures and Pressures, CoIl.
Sur$ A:Physiccchem. Eng. Aspects (1995) 94, 145.
20. Borchardg J.K., Bright D,B., Dickson, M.K., and Wellington,
S.L., Surfactants for Carbon Dioxide Foam Flooding, Effects of
Surfactant Chemical Structure on One-Atmosphere Foaming
Properties; Su#actant-Based A40biIi@ Control, Progress in
Miscible-Flood Enhanced Oil Recovety, D.H. Smith (Ed.), ACS
Symposium Series 373, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. (1988) 163.
21. Borchard~ J.K., Structure-Property Relationships for MobilityControl Surfactrmts, Su~actant-Based A40bili& Control, Progress in Miscible-Flood Enhanced Oil Recove~, D.H. Smith
(Ed.), ACS Symposium Series 373, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. (19X3) 181.
22.Ransohoff, T.C., and Radke, C.J., Mechanisms of Foam Generation in Glass-Bead Packs, SPE Res. Eng. (1988)3, 573.
23.Mannhrrd4 K, and Svorstcd, L, Foam Propagation in Snorre
Reservoir Core - Effects of Oil Saturation and Ageing~ paper
052, presented at the 1997 European Symposium on Improved
Oil Recovery, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22 Oct.

* Conversion

294

factor is exact

E+OI = cm3
E+OO = cm
E+OO = N
E+02 = g
E-04 = j.un2
E+OO = cm3
E-03 = MPa
. Oc

SPE 39661

FOAM/OIL INTERACTIONS AT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS

Table 1. Foam stability under static conditions

a high pressure cell

oil-free
with oil
Chaser/Fluorad oil-free
with oil
oil-free
Enordet
with oil
Enordet/Fluorad oil-free
with oil
Dow
oil-free
with 0//
oil-free
Dow/Fluorad
with oil
(1) No foam generated
(2) Duplicate experiments
Chaser

in

Normalized foam height after

overnight foam decay
Low flow rate
High flow rate
experiments
experiments
0.68
0:5(1)
0.00
0.54
0.62, 0.53(2)
0.56
0.91
0.27
0:71 )
0.00
0.66
0:11)
0.81
0.27
0:(1)
0,00
0.96
0.92

O:?l )

Table 2. Oil recovery

Chaser
(Berea core)
Chaser/Fluorad (Berea core)
Enordet
(Berea core)
Enordet (repeat) (Berea core)
Enordet/Fluorsd (Berea core)
Dow
(Berea core)
Dow/Fluorad
(Beres core)
Chaser/Fluorad (Reservoir
core)
(1) Could not measure oil recovery, oil emulsifk

(mfim)
72.4
27.2
28.8
22.6
31.2
26.3
32.1

Dow/Fluorad

25.5

Fluorad

s and micromodel

obsel

7
re-flush
0.000
0.001
O.offi

floods
0.077

0.000
0.001
0.003
0.000

:(1)
0.007
0.047
0.053

qf

effluent.

29
235
289
64
45
4
36
164

13

11
8
11
12
17
13

10

tient conditions

ations,

(mN/m)
20.8

1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.8

-0.2
-6.0
2.2
-2.5
3.1

3.4
-3.2
5.8
0.7
6.7

2.4
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.7

1.4

-3.1

-0.3

2.7

Table 5. Interracial properties

0.028
0.007
0.010
0.003

11.0
15.4
11.5
13.2
11.9
i3.4

W:(1)
A&)

-sL_B!_

at 75C and 13.8 MPa

y.
,.
,,,

nnw

(Berea core)
(Berea core)
(Berea core)
(Berea core)
(Berea core)
(Berea core)
(Berea core)
(Reservoir core)

-4.2
5.5
-15.2
0.5
17,7
I
(1) Type A by breakage frequency, type B by observation of emulsification and by Iamella nur
(2) Duplicate experiments.
-

Crude oil
Chaser
Chaser/Fluorad
Enordet
EnordetiFluorad

oam floodin
Foam
Surfec.

Table 3. Maximum measured MRFs and foam flood

residual oil saturations from toluene extraction
I Max. MRF at ] Foam flood
.%
SW

Ydw
Sea water
Crude oil
Chaser
Chaser/Fluorad
Enordet
Enordet/Fluorad
Dow

I PV) dunm
Brine/methane
injection
0.093
0.118
0.135
0.045
0.090
0.063
0.066
0.000

Chaser
Chaser/Fluorad
Enordet
Enordet (repeat)
EnordetlFluorsd
Dow
Dow/Fluorad
Chaser/Fluorad

ble 4. InterFacial propert

(mN/m)

(mN/m)

(mN/m)

2.7
2.0
2.6
2.5
2.1

1.7
-1.5
-0.4
-1.6
0.3

7.1
2.5
4.6
3.4
4.5

Y&

L
0.86
0,
1.88
0.76
0.71
0.96

SPE 396S1

K. MANNHARDT, J.J. NOVOSAD, L.L. SCHRAMM

10

so

(a) Chaser

(b) Chaser/Fluorad

30

g b::
- - -

___

- ___

- 20 - $:,=,=J=p=.. -,,_,
--====+:=::=::=::=::=::=:=:====:=::4
E
QI
2

IA--J
o

10

20

30

40

.50

60

10

20

40

60

Time (min.)

Time (min.)
so (c) Enordet

~d)Enordet/Fluorad

30

.
g
-

20

-A--

-~-. &- . . . . . ..- ----- A-----------------------%B-,,

-.,-.._,O._.._.,
-,,-.,
_,._,._.._,
._..
_.._.._
*..-..
-.,-,.-.,

A----------

. . ..- A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r

10

30

20

40

50

30

20

10

60

40

50

40

50

Time (min.)

Time (min.)

(9 Dow/Fluorad

e) Dow

---A

------------------------------------------

.,

10

40

20

50

10

20

Time3~min,)
No oil
n

Time~min.)

270 oil
----A

------

s~o

-----f

Oil
+--

Fig. 1- Bulk foam heights In a blender at ambient conditions.

1070 oil
--*---

..

FOAM/OIL INTERACTIONS

SPE 39661

30

F
~
E
.-0)

..

AT RESERVOIR

.. . .

11

CONDITIONS

(a) Chaser and Chaser/Fluorad

Chaser

L=:

NoOil

<
)

faullraksm ________
-- 5% *____
5%
Oseberg oil
20 - 1:::: n:::::~ :,::::: ::,,::::,:,,
~,:
:, .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i::::~
-*-*

:o2
Ifi . . A-o

~,

5%

. + ----------------

Judy Ck,

2% .Judy
Oil
. . . . .Ck.
. --------------

10

Oil
I

40

20

50

,-.:
*
F
lW

ao

200

600

Time (rein)

Time~min.)

(b) Enordet

and Enordet/Fluorad

Fig. 2- Effect of three crude OIIS on bulk foam

heights genemted In a blender at ambient conditions with Chaser surfactant.

-.._.-.,_,.
~dLx*o-A*e..-.._,_,.
&

;a

...........:
...?.:..2

!:

,:

E
to 0
2

__:---

--~?.

------

------

------

------

...-9--

,W
m
,

t:

ix
Z&
Time (rein)
(c) Dow and Dow/Fluorad

90

E
~

pf-$-::
~ n

.-m

6)
k

Ir,/;;
[
+

90

If

,*,,_-A-..-.-AA
,,,0.

,/

If
0

,4,.*

..L-----.-

./;

- I rl

k
A

,./,

-A-=/ ,.,
fl,.
,/;DA

glF+

5C0

AAA

~20

lCO

.. ..

m..

.:

./;m

~k

lid

400

Soo

Time (rein)
-H-.*.-

Surfaotant

--*--

single

-..*..-

Sufictant

Single

surfactant

mixture

surfactant
mixture

no oii
- no oil

- oii
- oii

-. ..
Fig. 3 = Bulk foam heights In a high
high flow rate experiments.

297

pre8sure

cell,

K. MANNHARDT,

12

1000j

J.J. NOVOSAD,

(b) Chaser/Fluorad

(a) Chaser

&
A

------

SPE 39681

L.L. SCHRAMM

1000
-----

. ----- A------

--8

&. . . . . . . . ..--. -..=.6==8

Ii)

80

100

90

100

90

Foam qual~ (%)

Foam quality (%)

(A
,.., Fnnrdat
-,,-, ---

(d) Enordet/Fluorad

~-_.-.-.-----Y~\y
--------

.Y~
.

a-.
x
%$

&

e
,

80

100

Foam quali~
(e)

1000 +

Ga

80

100

Foam quality (%)

(%)

Dow
I

1~

1000

(o Dow/Fluorad

50

60

100

Foam quality (%)

Foam quality (%)

----D---lz?zzl

Fig. 4- Moblllty rsductlon factors measured with SIX surfactants In Bersa

sandstone, oil-free and at Ser.
298

--------

--------

Oil-free

13

FOAM/OIL INTERACTIONS AT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS

SPE 39681

,,:,:,
;
.
,
.;..,
.-.
;! II,.,,,,
..,.:>
:,...
.*;,
..,.,.
1
:,*:,
eservoi
core

B.ar~acore

1000,

Enordet

El

.:4,;

..
.=.

.*
.i

,,,,~,
.,,
:.,.
..:

ij:

,?.i.
E!/
l!!

100

Foam qual~ (%)

Fig. 6 = Duplicate set of core floods: Enordet In Berea

sandstone at Ser. (oil-free core data and legend as in
Fig. 4.)

i!

L3-

25

Fig. 5- Range of MRF measured over a range of foam

quallty and tmfactant concentration.

Chaser/Fluorad, Resewoir Core

~,,.,

. . . . ..-----=

. . . ..fj

&

100

60

Foam quali~

50

(%)

1so

100
Time

a o

(h)

Fig. 8- Pressure drop during co-lnjectlon of 0.25%

Chaser and methane Into Berea core at Ser.

Fig. 7 = Moblllty reduction factors measured with

Chaser/Fluorad [n reservoir core, oil-free and at
Ser. (Legend as In Fig. 4.)

299

14

K. MANNHARDT, J.J. NOVOSAD, L.L. SCHRAMM

SPE 39681

700
u-

600

!&00

E
3400

-- ------- --------

....
0

j:
; I

100
e

0 -,.,.,.,.,.,.,,,.,.,

. ).,.7.,.,.,?.

01234567891011

12131416161718

Oil saturation (%)

Fig. 9- Dependence

of MRF on OH saturation.

~1
~ - +=
-------------------5 o
---------d=

: ----. ----

$:

---------

-----*
-------

0.,

i-

&

Enordet

---_.<

-:$~fi
~w,nu

----

Chaser

0.01
80

100

Foam q~~ity

(%)

Fig. 10- Effect of foam quallty on the ratio (pressure

gradient at Sor)/(pressure gradient In oil-free core)
at 0.5% surfactant concentration.

Enordet/flu ----------Enordgt

Ip =

=
0:

& ---------

. ._...-J
-----

~~$$;;::::;::::::::::-:-Chaser
Enordat~
A-----------g-----------------------4
Dow/Flu=

=!5
L&
d~

01

Do ~

0.01

,
0

,
0.5

0.25

Surfactant

,
0.75

concentration

(%)

Fig. 11 = Effect of surfactant concentration on the ratio

(pressure gradient at Sor)/(pressure gradient in oil-free
core) at 80% foam quality.

300