Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Mobility control during CO2 EOR in fractured

Carbonates using foam: Laboratory Evaluation and
numerical simulations

M.A. Fernø, Ø. Eide, M. Steinsbø, S.A.W. Langlo,

A. Christophersen, A. Skibenes, T. Ydstebø, A.
Graue
www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

PII: S0920-4105(15)30133-9
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.10.005
Reference: PETROL3198
To appear in: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
Received date: 9 August 2013
Revised date: 2 October 2015
Accepted date: 6 October 2015
Cite this article as: M.A. Fernø, Ø. Eide, M. Steinsbø, S.A.W. Langlo, A.
Christophersen, A. Skibenes, T. Ydstebø and A. Graue, Mobility control during
CO2 EOR in fractured Carbonates using foam: Laboratory Evaluation and
numerical simulations, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.10.005
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Mobility Control during CO2 EOR in Fractured Carbonates Using Foam:
Laboratory Evaluation and Numerical Simulations
Fernø, M. A., Eide, Ø., Steinsbø, M., Langlo, S.A.W., Christophersen, A., Skibenes, A., Ydstebø, T. and Graue, A.
Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, NORWAY

Abstract
Laboratory miscible CO2 and CO2-foam injection tests were performed to study CO2 EOR in fractured
carbonate core plugs and to evaluate the feasibility of using foam for mobility control in fractured
systems. A significant oil recovery was observed during CO2 injections at miscible conditions ranging
between 75 and 92% OOIP in cores with irreducible initial water saturation. In fractured core plugs
viscous displacement was negligible and the recovery was mainly driven by diffusion. Injection of pre-
generated CO2-foam accelerated oil recovery compared to pure CO2 injection in fractured core plugs, by
adding a viscous displacement in addition to diffusion. A conceptual numerical model was built to study
the effect of reduced fracture conductivity on oil recovery efficiency and the impact of system size and
orientation on diffusion dominated oil recovery during CO2 injection in fractured systems.

1. Introduction
It is estimated that more than 60% of the world's oil reserves are stored in carbonate reservoirs,
characterized by large heterogeneities and natural fractures with mixed or oil-wet conditions (Roehl and
Choquette, 1985), thus a large percentage of remaining oil reserves may be found as residual oil in
carbonate reservoirs. Secondary oil recovery in fractured carbonate reservoirs is typically low due to
ineffective water injection (Hirasaki and Zhang, 2004). This makes carbonates good candidates for CO2
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), because CO2 can achieve miscibility with oil at pressures of only 100-300
bar (Skjæveland and Kleppe, 1992).

Injection of CO2 as a technique for EOR has been used for over 40 years (Enick et al., 2012). In the United
States, CO2 EOR currently contributes 280 000 barrels of oil per day, just over 5% of the total U.S. oil
production. CO2 injection for enhanced oil recovery can be an effective way to recover additional oil after
waterfloods or pressure depletion, while at the same time store large quantities of CO2 underground
(Malik and Islan, 2000). The microscopic sweep during CO2 injection is potentially very high as a result of
miscibility between oil and CO2, diffusion and oil swelling. The macroscopic sweep efficiency, however, is
generally low as a result of the high CO2 mobility and low density. This causes fingering, gravity
segregation, and early breakthrough in the production well, resulting in the need to recycle large
quantities of CO2. This is especially challenging in fractured reservoirs, defined here as dual porosity
systems with bulk oil located in low permeability matrix surrounded by a high permeable fracture
network, where the contribution from viscous forces is limited. Here, the main production mechanism is
gravity drainage, with the additional benefit of diffusion and volume expansion of oil, especially near or at
miscible conditions (van Golf-Racht, 1982). Laboratory experiments indicate that miscible
displacement/drainage aided by diffusion in fractured reservoirs can be an efficient production
mechanism (Firoozabadi, 1994), however, it requires close fracture spacing for the rate of diffusion to
significantly contribute to oil recovery (Firoozabadi, 1994; Thompson and Mungan, 1969; Trivedi and
Babadagli, 2008). In most fractured reservoirs gas-oil gravity drainage is a slow process, with early
breakthrough of injected gas and poor CO2 utilization (see e.g. (Grigg and Schechter, 1997; Jonas et al.,
1990)).

The poor macroscopic sweep efficiency associated with the large mobility of the injected CO2 may be
improved with CO2-foam to produce a more favorable mobility ratio to increase sweep, and thereby
improve oil recovery (Talebian et al., 2013). Foam effectively increases the viscosity of the gas phase by
mixing gas and surfactant solution, creating a discontinuous gas phase separated by thin water films
(lamella) stabilized by the surfactant. While there have been several successful foam pilots (see e.g.
(Blaker et al., 2002; Li et al., 2009; Mukherjee et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2008), historically
very few foam pilots in fractured reservoirs have been performed, and those few have largely been
deemed unsuccessful (Enick et al., 2012; Smith, 1988). This has been attributed to the lack of foam
generation mechanisms in fractures, namely snap-off, film division and leave-behind. Recent research,
however, confirms in-situ foam generation in single fractures (Buchgraber et al., 2012; Kovscek et al.,
1995), leading to increased sweep (Yan et al., 2006) and flow diversion within a rough-walled carbonate
fracture network during co-injection of surfactant and gas (Fernø et al., 2014). Hence, the reported
unsuccessful foam pilots in fractured reservoirs may be related to operational issues or lack of optimized,
field-specific surfactants (Castanier and Hanssen, 1995; Prieditis and Paulett, 1992), rather than lack of
foam generation mechanisms in fractured reservoirs. With the development of better surfactants
(Buchanan, 1998; Cui et al., 2014; Elhag et al., 2014; Ryoo et al., 2003), the injection of foam in naturally
fractured reservoirs is increasingly recognized as a potential EOR technique in fractured reservoirs
(Farajzadeh et al., 2012; Haugen et al., 2012; Lopera Castro et al., 2009; Panahi, 2004; Pancharoen et al.,
2012; Zuta and Fjelde, 2010). A comprehensive literature review of CO2 mobility control, including foam,
may be found in (Enick et al., 2012).

This work presented in this paper is part of a larger, ongoing, experimental program on CO 2 injection for
EOR in different oil/brine/rock systems at reservoir conditions (see e.g. (Eide et al., 2015a; Fernø et al.,
2014; Steinsbø et al., 2015). Within the experimental program both fractured and whole core samples are
used and several parameters are varied and investigated such as i) different rock types (with a range of
different porosity, permeability and wettability conditions); ii) oil composition (pure mineral oils and
crude oils); iii) temperature and pressure conditions (CO2 is injected both in its liquid and in its
supercritical state and at both miscible and not miscible conditions with the oil phase); iv) different initial
water saturations (secondary and tertiary CO2 injections) and v) EOR efforts such as CO2-foam injection
for mobility control. The objective of the present work is to build on previous results and study CO2 EOR in
fractured limestones to evaluate CO2-foam acceleration on oil recovery efficiency. A conceptual numerical
model was used to reproduce the experimental results by adjusting the fracture hydraulic conductivity
and history match important parameters such as initial water saturation and wettability.

2. Material and Methods

2.1 Rock material
Edwards limestone from near Garden City, TX, was obtained in the form of 6”x12”x12” blocks. The rock
material was composed of calcite minerals with pore space consisting of mainly moldic pores (derived
from dissolution of fossils) and interparticle porosity. The original interparticle porosity was reduced
significantly by recrystallization of calcite. BET surface area (m 2/g) ranged between 0.2-0.4. Porosities in
core plugs drilled from the same block ranged from φ=0.18-0.25, whereas the absolute permeability
ranged from K = 11-60 mD. The pore geometry was highly heterogeneous (with pore size ranging from 1
μm to 2 mm) and the outcrop rock material was assumed strongly water-wet based on MRI
measurements of wettability and imbibition tests (Fernø et al., 2010; Johannesen et al., 2008).

2.2 Fluids
The core plugs were initially saturated with laboratory made synthetic brine or n-Decane. Injected CO2
was in its liquid state and first contact miscible with n-Decane at the experimental conditions 20 °C and 90
bar (Ayirala et al., 2006). Minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) was estimated to 54 bar at 20 °C using
CMG Winprop. CO2 and n-Decane viscosity and density at experimental conditions were found in NIST
Chemistry WebBook (Linstrom and Mallard, 2013), or measured in the laboratory (brine). Fluid
properties and compositions are listed in Table 1.

2
Table 1. Fluid properties and compositions.
Fluid Composition Density [g/ml] Viscosity [cP]
4wt%NaCl,
Synthetic formation brine 3.4wt%CaCl2 1.05 @ 20°C, 1bar 1.09 @ 20°C, 1bar
0.5wt%MgCl
Surfactant solution 1wt% AOS14-16
n-Decane C10H22 0.737 @ 20°C, 90bar 1.01 @ 20°C, 90bar
Decahydronaphthalene C10H18
North Sea Crude oil 0.85 @ 80°C, 1bar 2.7@ 80°C, 1bar
Liquid CO2 >99.99% 0.843 @ 20°C, 90bar 0.0788 @ 20°C, 90bar

2.3 Core Plug Preparation, Aging and Fracturing

Fourteen cylindrical core plugs were drilled from larger Edwards limestone blocks, rinsed with water and
dried at 80 °C for at least 48 h. The core plugs were saturated with brine under vacuum, and porosity was
determined from weight measurements. Matrix permeability (KMAT) was calculated using Darcy's law
during constant flow rate injection. The core plugs initially saturated with brine were drained with a
constant differential pressure gradient of 2 bar/cm to irreducible water saturation (Swi) with either n-
Decane or crude oil. Two wetting conditions were studied: strongly water-wet (SWW) and moderately oil-
wet (OW). The outcrop material was originally SWW and the mineral oil n-Decane did not influence the
wetting conditions during the CO2 injection tests. Moderately oil-wet states were established by a dynamic
aging technique in crude oil (Aspenes et al., 2003; Fernø et al., 2010; Graue et al., 2002; Graue et al., 1999).
After primary drainage with crude oil, the flow of crude oil was reduced to constant injection rate 3 ml/h,
continuously injecting crude oil through the core plugs during an aging period of 6 days. The direction of
flow was reversed midway. After aging the crude oil was displaced from the core plugs by injecting 5PV
decahydronaphthalene followed by 5PV n-Decane to avoid asphaltene precipitation, to stop the aging and
to establish more reproducible experimental conditions by using the mineral oil n-Decane as the oil phase
throughout the experiments. The wetting conditions were verified experimentally and measured using the
Amott-Harvey method (Amott, 1959).

Eight core plugs were fractured longitudinally with a band saw and thereafter reassembled with a 1mm
wide polyoxymethylene (POM) spacer to maintain a high permeable, open fracture. The POM spacer
contained separate apertures connected by high conductive flow channels and has been used in several
previous experiments without affecting fluid flow (Eide et al., 2015). The procedure to prepare a fractured
core plug with a POM spacer is shown in Figure 1: (A) The core plug was fractured longitudinally. (B) A
POM spacer was placed in the fracture. (C-E) The fractured core plug was reassembled and wrapped in
aluminum foil. (F-H) Inlet and outlet end pieces were also wrapped in aluminum foil. Before CO 2 injection
tests all core plugs were wrapped in aluminum foil to reduce exposure of CO 2 towards the rubber sleeve
inside the core holder. The core plugs were placed in a core holder and net confinement pressure of
approximately 15bar was kept constant during all injections. The fractured core plugs were initially
flooded with oil to fill the vertical oriented fracture before system permeability after fracturing (KFRAC)
was measured during different constant oil flow rates at S wi. Basic core properties, permeabilities and
wetting conditions are listed in Table 2.

3
Figure 1. The preparatory procedure prior to CO2 injections in fractured core plugs.

Table 2. Core properties.

Core Diameter Length Porosity KMAT KFRAC IAH
[cm] [cm] [%] [mD] [mD]
L17 5.16 7.25 0.25 51.1 n/a 1
L6 4.97 7.36 0.24 29.3 n/a 1
L10 4.96 7.08 0.24 29.6 n/a 1
L9 4.99 7.59 0.22 24.5 n/a 1
L33 4.97 7.05 0.25 33.6 n/a 1
L14 4.96 7.27 0.23 28.2 n/a -0.06
L21 5.72 7.29 0.17 nm 1080 1
L22 5.74 7.34 0.17 nm nm 1
L23 4.98 7.13 0.22 58.7 1342 1
L26 4.96 7.47 0.23 28.0 1318 1
E33 4.91 7.17 0.24 28.5 261 1
E6 4.92 7.19 0.23 27.5 1980 OW
E32 4.92 7.19 0.22 21.0 265 -0.32
E39 3.81 6.85 0.23 11.6 1021 -0.08
n/a=not applicable; nm=not measured

2.4 Experimental Setup

Liquid CO2 was injected in core samples at Swi (ranging between 0 to 0.34) at 20 °C and 90 bar, which was
first contact miscible condition between CO2 and n-Decane. The constant volumetric injection rates
applied (2-4ml/h) corresponded to front velocities between 15 and 25 cm/day. Oil production was
measured downstream a back pressure regulator (BPR) at ambient pressure in a graded cylinder. The
BPR maintained a constant outlet pressure at approximately 90 bar throughout each experiment. Injection
pressure and pressure drop across the core sample were recorded and the net confinement pressure was
15 bar above the injection pressure. Duration of injection tests was generally until no additional oil was
recovered and up to 120 h. The initial oil production from the fracture network was not included in the
reported oil recoveries, which only included oil production from the porous matrix blocks adjacent to the
fracture network. Foam was pre-generated using two injection pumps to co-inject surfactant solution and
CO2 through a sandpack with constant volumetric flow rate (2-4 ml/h) and a foam quality of 90% (fg=0.9)
was used in all tests. The sandpack was fully saturated with surfactant solution (to minimize surfactant
absorption) before surfactant and CO2 were co-injected through the sandpack to generate foam. The core
plugs were by-passed until a stable differential pressure across the foam generator was measured and the
core plugs were not pre-flushed with surfactant before CO2-foam injection tests.

4
3. Numerical Model
A single porosity model was used to match the experimental CO 2 injections in fractured, partially oil- and
brine-saturated cylindrical Edwards limestone core plugs. A single semicylinder (Cartesian grid
34x21x12) was used due to system symmetry and to reduce simulation time (see Fig 2). This approach
was previously verified to accurately reproduce the oil recovery process by CO 2-oil diffusion in similar
systems [Eide et al., 2015]. Injection and production wells were placed in transverse fractures at the inlet
and outlet end face, connected with a longitudinal fracture. Longitudinal fracture dimensions were equal
to the experimental core plug fracture properties (normally L = 70mm, H = 50mm, W = 1mm). The two
transverse fractures at the inlet and outlet had the same height and width. All fractures were modeled
explicitly with linear relative permeability and no capillary pressure. Experimentally measured porosity,
permeability and fluid saturations was used as input in all matrix cells. A no-flow boundary was placed at
the curved circumference of the semicylinder. In whole core plug simulations the longitudinal fracture
was changed to a no-flow boundary. Oil and CO2 was modeled as a single phase, because phases were first-
contact-miscible at experimental condition, with molecular diffusion within the oil phase active in the
simulations. Diffusion of CO2 into the water phase was negligible at experimental conditions, and set to
zero. During CO2 injections in fractured systems (see Fig 2), all fractures were initially CO2-filled, and the
matrix was filled with oil. The exchange of fluids from the CO2 in the fractures and oil in the matrix
occurred by diffusion to produce that majority of the oil. The presence of initial water saturation affected
CO2-oil diffusion through water-shielding effects, modeled by increasing the effective diffusion length i.e.
increasing the tortuosity. In the model tortuosity is the ratio of the true path length traveled by a molecule
flowing through the medium to the macroscopic distance traveled, and increasing initial water saturation
was reflected by increasing the tortuosity.

Soi = 1.0 So = 0.7 So = 0.4 Sor = 0.1

Figure 2. The numerical CMG GEM single porosity model with three CO2-filled fractures (blue) adjacent to
an oil-filled rock matrix (red) constituting a fractured, semicylinder core plug. Flow was predominantly
through a longitudinal fracture connecting the inlet and outlet, and oil was produced by diffusion. Over
time, the oil saturation decrease symmetrically.

Simulation of foam injection is an active research area and a comprehensive literature survey may be
found in (Ma et al., 2013). The injection of foam in a fractured system is not yet established as a viable EOR
method, although recent results are promising (Farajzadeh et al., 2012; Fernø et al., 2014). One of the
main benefits of injecting foam for EOR is the increased apparent viscosity of injected gas phase. We do
not attempt to model foam flow in fractured systems explicitly here, but rather conceptually represent
foam flow as reduced fracture hydraulic conductivity. While not a comprehensive foam simulation, this
approach describes mobility reduction in the fracture only, without affecting the flow properties of the
matrix. This is consistent with previous experimental observations, which indicated that foam was
destroyed in the matrix due to the high oil saturation (Haugen et al., 2012). When the numerical model
reproduced the experimental results with changes in studied parameters (presence of fractures, initial
water saturation and wettability conditions), the validated model was used to investigate the influence of
system size and orientation, parameters that could not be studied experimentally.

5
4. Results and Discussion
Fourteen experimental secondary CO2 injection tests were performed in Edwards limestone core plugs,
studying the effect fracture permeability, variations in initial water saturation, the wettability preference
and injection scheme. Initial state before CO2 injection and injection scheme for the core plugs are listed in
Table 3. Measured oil production versus time for selected core plugs may be found in Table A.1 in the
Appendices.

Table 3. Experimental conditions and results for secondary CO2 injection.

Core Fracture Wetting Swi Injection Rf1PV Rf2PV PV Sor RF
State Scheme [frac OOIP] [frac OOIP] Injected [frac OOIP]
L17 WHOLE SWW 0.00 CO2 0.68 0.92 2.8 0.00 1.00
L6 WHOLE SWW 0.14 CO2 0.64 0.81 4.3 0.11 0.87
L10 WHOLE SWW 0.20 CO 2 0.69 0.86 3.2 0.06 0.92
L9 WHOLE SWW 0.23 CO2 0.74 0.89 3.5 0.07 0.91
L33 WHOLE SWW 0.29 CO2 FOAM 0.70 0.89 2.1 0.06 0.91
L14 WHOLE OW 0.34 CO2 FOAM 0.75 0.92 2.2 0.01 0.98
L21 FRACTURED SWW 0.00 CO2 0.22 0.34 12 0.07 0.93
L22 FRACTURED SWW 0.00 CO 2 0.33 0.50 10.6 0.08 0.92
L23 FRACTURED SWW 0.13 CO2 0.26 0.40 10.0 0.22 0.75
L26 FRACTURED SWW 0.23 CO2 0.21 0.33 7.7 0.12 0.84
E33 FRACTURED SWW 0.19 CO2 FOAM 0.45 0.67 4.3 0.17 0.78
E6 FRACTURED OW 0.19 CO2 FOAM 0.45 0.67 4.3 0.07 0.91
E32 FRACTURED OW 0.17 CO 2 FOAM 0.53 0.80 3.2 0.07 0.92
E39 FRACTURED OW 0.11 CO2 FOAM 0.36 0.62 6.0 0.16 0.82

4.1 CO2 injection in Edwards limestone

Average oil recovery in 14 experimental CO2 injection tests was 90% OOIP, ranging between 75 and 100%
OOIP and the development in oil recovery versus PV injected for all tests are shown in Figure 3. Oil
production efficiency in terms of PV injected, however, varied from 2.1 to 12. After 1PV CO2 injected, 69%
OOIP was on average produced in whole (or unfractured) cores, compared to 25% OOIP in fractured
cores. After 2PV injected, the recoveries were 87% OOIP in whole cores and 39% OOIP in fractured cores.
CO2 injection in whole cores were identified by: 1) a late CO2-breakthrough, where most of the oil was
produced before the breakthrough, 2) a high production rate from the onset of CO2 injection, 3) a short tail
production and 4) differential pressure across the core sample indicating a viscous displacement of oil. In
contrast, oil recovery from fractured systems was identified by: 1) a rapid breakthrough of CO2 before
0.05PV injected, where most of the oil was produced after CO2-breakthrough, 2) a low production rate
from the onset of CO2 injection, 3) a long tail production and 4) no differential pressure across the core
length, which indicated recovery by diffusion. This corroborates previous results in chalk (Eide et al.,
2015b; Fernø et al., 2015).

Six CO2 foam injection test were performed to evaluate foam injections in fractured systems to increase
and accelerated oil production rate. A more efficient oil recovery was observed during CO2-foam
compared to CO2 injections: after 1PV injected RF=45%OOIP and after 2PV injected RF= 69% OOIP, on
average. Final oil recovery varied slightly in core plugs with similar test conditions, but the rock material
was heterogeneous with large variation in pore size distribution and high permeable zones.. The core ID,
fracture state, initial water saturation and wetting condition are listed for each test and also the CO 2
injection scheme. Figure 3 shows the accelerated oil recovery rate during CO2 foam injections in
fractured core plugs (black)compared to pure CO2 injections in fractured core plugs (grey).

6
 1.0

0.9

0.8
L17 Whole Swi=0 SWW
Recovery factor [fraction OOIP]

L6 Whole Swi=0.14 SWW

0.7
L10 Whole Swi=0.20 SWW
L9 Whole Swi=0.23 SWW
0.6
L33 Whole Swi=0.29 FOAM
L14 Whole Swi=0.34 OW FOAM
0.5
L21 Frac Swi=0 SWW

0.4 L22 Frac Swi=0 SWW

L23 Frac Swi=0.23 SWW

0.3 L26 Frac Swi=0.23 SWW

E33 Frac Swi=0.19 FOAM
0.2 E6 Frac Swi=0.19 OW FOAM
E32 Frac Swi=0.17 OW FOAM
0.1 E39 Frac Swi=0.11 OW FOAM

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pore Volume Injected

Figure 3. Development in oil recovery during CO2 injection versus PV injected in all experimental core
plugs.

4.2 The presence of fractures

The presence of a fracture reduce the oil recovery rate because the injected CO2 flows the path of least
resistance thought the fracture, and oil in the rock matrix is produced by a combination of diffusion,
gravity (depending on system size and horizontal or vertical injection) and oil swelling, with negligible
contribution from viscous forces. The reported oil recovery rate in Figure 4, including both experimental
and numerical simulation of fractured and whole systems, is not representative to what can be expected in
an actual fractured reservoir because of the combined effect of small system size, large fracture surface
area and volume compared to the matrix (Darvish, 2007; Eide et al., 2014). For instance, in the fractured
chalk field Ekofisk, the total fracture volume constitute less than 1% of total reservoir volume (Agarwal et
al., 2000), compared to ~10% in the experiments, and fracture spacing is larger in Ekofisk than what was
used in this study. Still, the results show that the conceptual numerical model accurately reproduced the
experimental results and demonstrate the major impact from fractures on the rate of recovery dominated
by diffusion.

7
 1.0

0.9

0.8
Recovery factor [fraction OOIP]

0.7

0.6

Sim Whole Swi=0

0.5
Sim Frac Swi=0

0.4 L17 Whole Swi=0 SWW

L22 Frac Swi=0 SWW

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time [day]

Figure 4. Development in oil recovery during CO2 injection versus time for whole (core plug L17) and
fractured (core plug L22) limestone core plugs as well as numerical simulations. The presence of a
fracture reduced the oil recovery rate and the final oil recovery.

4.3 The effect of initial water saturation on CO2 diffusion

Final oil recovery was 92-100%OOIP in baseline core plugs without initial water saturation and 75-
92%OOIP in core plugs with irreducible initial water saturation. The presence of water reduced final oil
recovery in all tests, and the oil recovery rate in fractured core plugs. Figure 5 shows development in oil
recovery during CO2 injection in whole and fractured core plugs versus time, including both experimental
and numerical results. Increased water saturation reduces the CO2-oil diffusion in a water-wet porous
medium by making the surface area between oil and CO2 smaller (Grogan and Pinczewski, 1987; Shyeh-
Yung, 1991; Zekri et al., 2007). In fractured systems a decreased oil production rate was observed with
increasing initial water saturation, and this was modeled by increasing the tortuosity with the assumption
that the presence of water will reduce continuous oil paths. In the whole systems higher initial water
saturation resulted in increased oil recovery efficiency in terms of PV injected due to the relatively lower
oil saturation compared to core plugs without water present.

8
 1.0

0.9

0.8
Recovery factor [fraction OOIP]

0.7 Sim Whole Swi=0

Sim Whole Swi=0.2

0.6 Sim Whole Swi=0.5

Sim Frac Swi=0

0.5
Sim Frac Swi=0.2

0.4 Sim Frac Swi=0.5

L17 Whole Swi=0 SWW

0.3 L9 Whole Swi=0.23 SWW

L22 Frac Swi=0 SWW

0.2
L23 Frac Swi=0.23 SWW

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time [day]

Figure 5. Development in oil recovery during CO2 injection in whole core plugs (core plugs L17 and L9)
and fractured core plugs (core plug L22 and L23). A consistent shift to lower oil recovery with the
presence of an irreducible water phase present in the pore space for fractured core plugs was observed.

4.4 Foam Injection and Fracture Conductivity

As Figure 3 clearly demonstrated, CO2-foam significantly increased the oil recovery rate compared to
pure CO2 injection in terms of PV injected. The final recovery, however, was not increased because foam
does not increase the microscopic displacement efficiency compared with CO2 injection in these small
systems. The mechanism resulting in the higher oil recovery during CO2-foam was the reduction in
fracture conductivity that generated a significant differential pressure across the system and added a
viscous component to the oil recovery process, in addition to diffusion. Figure 6 shows development in oil
recovery and differential pressure versus PV injected during CO2-foam injection at different wettability
conditions and fracture states. The oil recovery rate in the oil-wet core plug L14 was similar to the
recovery rate during pure CO2 injection in the strongly water-wet core plug L9. The lack of an accelerated
production during foam injection indicated that foam did not generate in the oil-saturated matrix. The
development in differential pressure during foam injection in strongly water-wet core plug L33 supported
this observation: a low and stable differential pressure (70 mBar) was observed until the average oil
saturation decreased below SO=0.2 when the pressure started to increase (>100 mBar). The pressure
increase at low oil saturations showed the adverse effect of oil on foam generation, where high oil
saturation had a tendency to destabilize the lamella, which was a pronounced effect with the mineral oil n-
Decane and the surfactant (AOS 14-16) used in this study. The adverse effect is enhanced at oil-wet
conditions, with oil coating the surface leading to lamella collapse (Rossen, 1995). When the oil saturation
was low, foam could also be generated in the matrix. The increased pressure gradients during foam
injection in fractured core plugs (E6 and E33) were similar to the whole, low-permeable core plug L33.
This observation can be explained by higher apparent viscosity in fractured systems, effectively reducing
the fracture conductivity.

9
 L33 Whole Swi=0.29 SWW FOAM L14 Whole Swi=0.34 OW FOAM E33 Frac Swi=0.19 SWW FOAM
E6 Frac Swi=0.19 OW FOAM L9 Whole Swi=0.23 SWW L23 Frac Swi=0.23 SWW
L33 dP E33 dP E6 dP

1.0 500

0.9 450

0.8 400
Recovery factor [fraction OOIP]

Differential pressure [mbar]

0.7 350

0.6 300

0.5 250

0.4 200

0.3 150

0.2 100

0.1 50

0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pore Volume Injected

Figure 6. Development in oil recovery during CO2-foam injection in whole and fractured water-wet and
oil-wet cores. Differential pressure during foam floods is included.

4.5 Oil recovery and fracture conductivity

Figure 7 shows development in oil recovery versus time for whole and fractured systems during CO2 and
CO2-foam injection, including both experimental and simulated results. CO2-foam results were modeled as
reduction in the fracture conductivity by decreasing the fracture permeability. With high fracture
permeability (25000 mD) the oil production was dominated by gravity and diffusion. With decreasing
fracture permeability, the contribution from viscous forces on oil recovery increased, resulting in an
accelerated oil recovery. The decreasing fracture permeability conceptually describes the effect of foam,
which lowers gas mobility (by increasing the apparent gas viscosity) and effectively reduces fracture
hydraulic conductivity. Thus, a foam flood that only reduces gas mobility in the fracture and where foam is
instantaneously destroyed in the matrix, will resemble the flooding characteristics of a whole core plug.

The beneficial oil production acceleration effect of foam in fractured samples was not affect by matrix
wettability (see Figure 6) and may be explained with a change in fracture surface wettability by the
injected surfactant in oil-wet systems towards more water-wet conditions (Sanchez and Hazlett, 1992).
Stable foam creates a viscous pressure drop that forces the CO2 into the matrix, displacing, swelling and
mobilizing the oil (Farajzadeh et al., 2010; Rossen, 1995). The small size of the fractured core plug
systems exaggerates the rate of diffusion compared to reservoir scale. In larger systems where diffusion is
less dominate, the added viscous forces during foam injections are expected to contribute more to oil
recovery and also at an earlier stage as oil saturation close to the fracture will decrease below the critical
oil saturationvalue relatively faster in a large matrix block compared to a small matrix block.

10
 1.0

0.9

0.8
Sim 20 mD
Recovery factor [fraction OOIP]

Sim 50 mD
0.7
Sim 500 mD
Sim 10000 mD
0.6
Sim 25000 mD
L17 Whole Swi=0 SWW
0.5
L33 Whole Swi=0.29 SWW FOAM

0.4 L14 Whole Swi=0.34 OW FOAM

L22 Frac Swi=0 SWW

0.3 L23 Frac Swi=0.23 SWW

E33 Frac Swi=0.19 SWW FOAM

0.2 E6 Frac Swi=0.19 OW FOAM

E32 Frac Swi=0.17 OW FOAM
0.1 E39 Frac Swi=0.11 OW FOAM

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time [day]

Figure 7. A reduction of fracture conductivity increased the oil recovery rate by increasing the transport
of CO2 from the fracture to the matrix.

4.6 The effect of diffusion, system size and orientation

A history match of the experimental results with varying parameters influencing the oil recovery such as
e.g. fractures, water saturation and wettability (see sections 4.2-4.3) was used to validate the numerical
model. The validated model was also used to evaluate parameters that were not studied experimentally
such as variations in diffusion coefficient, system size and orientation. Figure 8 shows development in oil
recovery versus time for a whole system (with and without diffusion) and a fractured system (with and
without diffusion and with vertical and horizontal orientation). The system length was L = 0.1 m, similar
to the experimental core plug injection tests (see Table 2). All vertical CO2 injections were gravity stable
i.e. CO2 was injected from the bottom. The effect of deactivating diffusion as a recovery mechanism in
whole systems was small, but in fractured systems the oil recovery efficiency was significantly reduced.
Final oil recovery, however, was not affected by deactivating diffusion in the vertical oriented system and
the horizontal system reached a relatively high final oil recovery RF = 74% after 111 days. The high final
oil recoveries (but slower, especially for the horizontal oriented system) in fractured systems showed that
diffusion was not the only recovery mechanism, but definitely accelerated the miscible oil displacement. A
similar trend (reduced oil recovery rate, but high final oil recovery) was also observed in simulations were
the system orientation was varied. The much slower oil recovery in the horizontal oriented system may be
explained by a gravity segregation of the injected CO2 in the vertical oriented fracture. The history match
between the experimental core plug results and the numerical model, indicated that diffusion was the
dominating recovery mechanism and that gravity and system orientation was less significant in terms of
oil recovery in the experimental size system.

11
 1.0

0.9

0.8
Recovery factor [fraction OOIP]

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
Whole, Horizontal
Whole, Horizontal, No diffusion
0.3
Fractured, Vertical
Fractured, Vertical, No diffusion
0.2
Fractured, Horizontal
Fractured, Horizontal, No diffusion
0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Time [day]

Figure 8. Development in oil recovery during CO2 injection in a numerical model with experimental size.
In experimental size systems diffusion was the dominating recovery mechanism.

Figure 9 shows development in oil recovery versus time for a whole system (with and without diffusion)
and a fractured system (with and without diffusion and with vertical and horizontal orientation) in a
system, which was one order of magnitude larger (L = 1.0 m) compared with the experimental core plug
size (L = 0.1 m). In the larger size system final oil recovery was similar to final oil recovery in smaller size
systems, but the recovery efficiency was much slower in terms of time. In the experimental size systems
final oil recovery in whole systems was reached after 1 day and after 17 days (in one order of magnitude)
larger size systems. As for the experimental sized system, the effect of diffusion in whole systems was
small, but also the fractured systems was less affected by deactivating the diffusion compared with the
experimental size system. In the larger fractured systems, the gravity effects was much more prominent:
the gravity stable vertical injections was much more efficient compared to horizontal injections,
regardless if diffusion was activated or not. The same trends, in terms of oil recovery efficiency, was
observed in system size even one order of magnitude larger (L=10.0 m, not shown). The importance of
gravity and system orientation increased, while the importance of diffusion decreased, with increasing
matrix size.

12
 1.0

0.9

0.8
Recovery factor [fraction OOIP]

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
Whole, Horizontal
Whole, Horizontal, No diffusion
0.3
Fractured, Vertical
Fractured, Vertical, No diffusion
0.2
Fractured, Horizontal

0.1 Fractured, Horizontal, No diffusion

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time [day]

Figure 9. Development in oil recovery during CO2 injection in a numerical model with one order of
magnitude larger size compared to experimental size core plugs. The importance of diffusion decreased
and gravity and system orientation increased, with increasing system size.

5. Conclusion
Laboratory CO2 and CO2-foam injection tests were performed to study CO2 EOR in fractured carbonate
core plugs and to evaluate the feasibility of using foam for mobility control in fractured systems. A
conceptual numerical model was built to study the effect of reduced fracture conductivity on oil recovery
efficiency and the impact of system size and orientation on diffusion dominated oil recovery during CO 2
injection in fractured systems. With this approach we have the following key observations:

1. Fractures significantly reduced the rate of oil recovery during pure CO2 injection and the injected
CO2 mainly flowed in the fracture. Oil recovery during CO2-injection in fractured core plugs was
mainly driven by molecular diffusion, with negligible viscous displacement driving CO2 from the
fracture to the matrix. The relative effect of diffusion was exaggerated in small core plugs, and oil
production rate decreased with increasing system size or increased fracture permeability.

2. Foam significantly increased the oil recovery rate compared to pure CO2 injection by adding a
viscous component to the oil recovery process. The increased pressure gradients measured
experimentally was a result of the decreased CO2 mobility by increasing the apparent CO2
viscosity with foam. Six CO2 foam injection tests all showed an accelerated oil recovery rate
compared to pure CO2 injections, with increased differential pressure across the core due to
reduced fracture conductivity. Foam flow was mainly in the fracture and not affected by initial
matrix wettability. Foam was not stable in the matrix with high oil saturation, due to the
combined effect of lamella destruction by oil and surfactant adsorption.

13
Acknowledgement
The authors are indebted to the Norwegian Research Council for financial support under Petromaks
project 200538 “Integrated Enhanced Oil Recovery in Fractured and Heterogeneous Reservoirs”. Statoil, BP
and ConocoPhillips are also thanked for their financial contribution.

Appendices

Table A.1 Oil production versus time for selected core plugs.
Core L9 L14 L17 L22 L23 E6 E33
Time [h] Recovery factor [fraction OOIP]
1 0.169 0.088 0.022 0.006 0.020 - 0.052
2 0.316 0.195 0.137 0.071 0.068 0.059 0.091
4 0.502 0.387 0.306 0.160 0.144 0.164 0.170
6 0.634 0.557 0.444 0.232 0.208 0.269 0.250
8 0.742 0.727 0.574 0.300 0.260 0.373 0.329
10 0.808 0.812 0.684 0.366 0.308 0.447 0.448
12 0.839 0.898 0.772 0.421 0.348 0.504
14 0.866 0.919 0.835 0.460 0.381 0.557
16 0.882 0.919 0.874 0.496 0.417
18 0.890 - 0.902 0.529 0.606
20 0.893 0.962 0.923 0.558 0.469 0.656
22 0.897 - 0.944 0.575 0.699
24 0.897 0.962 0.970 0.601
26 0.901 - 0.988 0.630 0.549 0.793
28 0.901 0.996 0.653 0.814
30 0.905 0.962 0.996 0.670 0.835 0.725
31 0.905 0.996 0.676 0.845
32 0.905 0.996 0.686 0.629 0.745
33 0.905 0.996 0.696 0.866
34 0.905 0.983 0.996 0.706 0.765
35 0.905 0.996 0.715 0.877
40 0.905 0.996 0.761 0.775
42 0.905 0.996 0.774 0.669 0.908
44 0.996 0.787 0.784
47 0.810
48 0.908
50 0.830
51
52 0.840
59 0.710
62 0.784
65 0.730
70 0.898
75 0.750
76
82 0.921

14
References
Agarwal, B., Hermansen, H., Sylte, J.E. and Thomas, L.K., 2000. Reservoir Characterization of Ekofisk
Field: A Giant, Fractured Chalk Reservoir in the Norwegian North Sea - History Match. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 3(6): 534-543.
Amott, E., 1959. Observations Relating to the Wettability of Porous Rock. Trans. AIME, 216: 156-162.
Aspenes, E., Graue, A. and Ramsdal, J., 2003. In situ wettability distribution and wetting stability in
outcrop chalk aged in crude oil. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 39(3-4): 337-
350.
Blaker, T. et al., 2002. Foam for Gas Mobility Control in the Snorre Field: The FAWAG Project.
Buchanan, J.G., 1998. The exploration history and controls on hydrocarbon prospectivity in the
Wessex basins, southern England, UK. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
133(1): 19-37.
Buchgraber, M., Castanier, L.M. and Kovscek, A.R., 2012. Microvisual Investigation of Foam Flow in
Ideal Fractures: Role of Fracture Aperture and Surface Roughness, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Castanier, L.M. and Hanssen, J.E., 1995. Foam Field Tests: State of the Art and Critical Review, 8th
European IOR Symposium, Vienna, Austria.
Cui, L. et al., 2014. Adsorption of a Switchable Cationic Surfactant on Natural Carbonate Minerals.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Darvish, G.R., 2007. Physical effects controlling mass transfer in matrix fracture system during CO2
injection into chalk fractured reservoirs., NTNU, Doctoral theses at NTNU.
Eide, Ø. et al., 2015a. CO2 EOR by Diffusive Mixing in Fractured Reservoirs. Petrophysics, 56(1 (Feb.)):
23-31.
Eide, Ø., Fernø, M.A., Alcorn, Z. and Graue, A., 2015b. Visualization of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil
Recovery by Diffusion in Fractured Chalk. SPE Journal.
Eide, Ø., Fernø, M.A. and Graue, A., 2014. Visualization of CO2 EOR by Diffusion in Fractured Chalk,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elhag, A.S. et al., 2014. Switchable Amine Surfactants for Stable CO2/Brine Foams in High
Temperature, High Salinity Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Enick, R.M., Olsen, D.K., Ammer, J.R. and Schuller, W., 2012. Mobility and Conformance Control for
CO2 EOR via Thickeners, Foams, and Gels -- A Literature Review of 40 Years of Research and
Pilot Tests, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA.
Farajzadeh, R., Wassing, B.M. and Boerrigter, P.M., 2010. Foam Assisted Gas Oil Gravity Drainage in
Naturally-Fractured Reservoirs, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Florence, Italy.
Farajzadeh, R., Wassing, B.M. and Boerrigter, P.M., 2012. Foam assisted gas–oil gravity drainage in
naturally-fractured reservoirs. J Petrol Sci Eng, 94–95(0): 112-122.
Fernø, M.A. et al., 2014. Experimental Study of Foam Generation, Sweep Efficiency and Flow in a
Fracture Network, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Fernø, M.A. et al., 2015. Parametric Study of Oil Recovery during CO2 injections in Fractured Chalk:
Influence of fracture permeability, diffusion length and water saturation. Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering In Press.
Fernø, M.A., Torsvik, M., Haugland, S. and Graue, A., 2010. Dynamic Laboratory Wettability
Alteration. Energ Fuel, 24: 3950-3958.
Firoozabadi, A., 1994. Miscible Displacement in Fractured Porous Media: Part I--Experiments. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
Graue, A., Aspenes, E., Bogno, T., Moe, R.W. and Ramsdal, J., 2002. Alteration of wettability and
wettability heterogeneity. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 33(1-3): 3-17.
Graue, A., Viksund, B.G. and Baldwin, B.A., 1999. Reproducible Wettability Alteration of Low-
Permeable Outcrop Chalk. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2(2): 134-140.

15
Grigg, R.B. and Schechter, D.S., 1997. State of the Industry in CO2 Floods. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Grogan, A.T. and Pinczewski, W.V., 1987. The Role of Molecular Diffusion Processes in Tertiary CO2
Flooding. J Petrol Technol, 39(5): 591-602.
Haugen, Å., Fernø, M.A., Graue, A. and Bertin, H.J., 2012. Experimental Study of Foam Flow in
Fractured Oil-Wet Limestone for Enhanced Oil Recovery. SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, 15(2): pp. 218-228.
Hirasaki, G. and Zhang, D.L., 2004. Surface Chemistry of Oil Recovery From Fractured. Oil-wet,
Carbonate Formations. SPE Journal, 9(2): 151-162.
Johannesen, E., Howard, J.J. and Graue, A., 2008. Evaluation of Wettability Distributions in
Experimentally Aged Core Plugs, International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts,
Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Jonas, T.M., Chou, S.I. and Vasicek, S.L., 1990. Evaluation of a C02 Foam Field Trial: Rangely Weber
Sand Unit. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Kovscek, A.R., Tretheway, D.C., Persoff, P. and Radke, C.J., 1995. Foam flow through a transparent
rough-walled fracture. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 17: 75-86.
Li, Z. et al., 2009. Enhance Foam Flooding Pilot Test in Chengdong Of Shengli Oilfield: Laboratory
Experiment And Field Performance. International Petroleum Technology Conference.
Linstrom, P.J. and Mallard, W.G. (Editors), 2013. NIST Chemistry WebBook, NITST Standard Reference
Database Number 69, 20899, http://webbook.nist.gov, (retrieved June 28, 2013). National
Institue of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD.
Lopera Castro, S.H., Restrepo, A. and Ocampo, A., 2009. Use of Divergent Fluids as an Alternative For
Enhanced Recovery in Naturally Fractured Cores. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Ma, K. et al., 2013. Estimation of Parameters for the Simulation of Foam Flow through Porous Media.
Part 1: The Dry-Out Effect. Energy & Fuels, 27(5): 2363-2375.
Malik, Q.M. and Islan, M.R., 2000. Potential of Greenhouse Gas Storage and Utilization Through
Enhanced Oil Recovery in Canada. World Petroleum Congress.
Mukherjee, J. et al., 2014. CO2 Foam Pilot in Salt Creek Field, Natrona County, WY: Phase I:
Laboratory Work, Reservoir Simulation, and Initial Design, SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Panahi, H., 2004. Improving the Recovery Factor of Heavy Crude Reservoirs by Co-injecting CO2 and
Other Conventional Gaseous Injecting Materials at Immiscibility Condition with Foam. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
Pancharoen, M., Ferno, M.A. and Kovscek, A.R., 2012. Modeling foam displacement in fractures.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 100: 50-58.
Prieditis, J. and Paulett, G.S., 1992. CO2-Foam Mobility Tests at Reservoir Conditions in San Andres
Cores. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Roehl, P.O. and Choquette, P.W., 1985. Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Rossen, W.R., 1995. Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery. In: R.K. Prud'homme and S.A. Khan (Editors),
Foams : theory, measurements, and applications. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Ryoo, W., Webber, S.E. and Johnston, K.P., 2003. Water-in-Carbon Dioxide Microemulsions with
Methylated Branched Hydrocarbon Surfactants. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 42(25): 6348-6358.
Sanchez, J.M. and Hazlett, A.D., 1992. Foam Flow Through an Oil-Wet Porous Medium: A Laboratory
Study. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 7(1): 91-97.
Sanders, A. et al., 2012. Implementation of a CO2 Foam Pilot Study in the SACROC Field: Performance
Evaluation, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Shyeh-Yung, J.-G.J., 1991. Mechanisms of Miscible Oil Recovery: Effects of Pressure on Miscible and
Near-Miscible Displacement of Oil by Carbon Dioxide, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. 1991 Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., Dallas, Texas.

16
Skjæveland, S.M. and Kleppe, J., 1992. SPOR - Recent Advances in Improved Oil Recovery Methods
For North Sea Sandstone Reservoirs. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Chapter 9: 207-250.
Smith, D.H., 1988. Injectivity and Surfactant-Based Mobility Control, Surfactant-Based Mobility
Control. ACS Symposium Series. American Chemical Society, pp. 429-438.
Steinsbø, M. et al., 2015. Foam as Mobility Control for Integrated CO2-EOR in Fractured Carbonates
EAGE IOR 2015 – 18th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Dresden, Germany.
Talebian, S.H., Masoudi, R., Tan, I.M. and Zitha, P.L.J., 2013. Foam assisted CO2-EOR; Concepts,
Challenges and Applications, SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Thompson, J.L. and Mungan, N., 1969. A Laboratory Study of Gravity Drainage in Fractured Systems
Under Miscible Conditions.
Trivedi, J.J. and Babadagli, T., 2008. Efficiency of diffusion controlled miscible displacement in
fractured porous media. Transp Porous Med, 71(3): 379-394.
van Golf-Racht, T.D., 1982. Fundementals of Fractured Reservoir Engineering. Developments in
Petroleum Science 12. Elsevier, New York.
Yan, W., Miller, C.A. and Hirasaki, G.J., 2006. Foam sweep in fractures for enhanced oil recovery.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects
Yu, H. et al., 2008. Air Foam Injection for IOR: from Laboratory to Field Implementation in Zhongyuan
Oilfield China. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Zekri, A.Y., Shedid, S.A. and Almehaideb, R.A., 2007. Possible alteration of tight limestone rocks
properties and effect of water shielding on the performance of supercritical CO2 flooding for
carbonate formation, SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Zuta, J. and Fjelde, I., 2010. Transport of CO2-Foaming Agents During CO2-Foam Processes in
Fractured Chalk Rock.

HIGHLIGHTS
 Laboratory CO2 injections in fractured carbonate cores produced on average 90%OOIP.
 CO2 foam effectively accelerated oil recovery in fractured systems.
 Increased apparent CO2 viscosity with foam reduced fracture conductivity.
 A conceptual numerical model was built to match experimental results.
 The numerical model was used to investigate fracture conductivity.

17