19691-foam performance under reservoir conditions

7/24/2019 19691-Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions

1/9

*

,

SPE

-~~[m

SPE 19691

Foam Performance Under Reservoir Conditions

F,E. Suffrldge, K,T. Raterman,an$ Q.C. Russell,Amoco ProductionCo.

n

SPE Members

1

@pY:ght16SS,SodetyotPotrokumEngineer%,nc.

Thispaperwaeprepared/orpresentationttheS4thAnnualTechnicalCo+rferencendExhibikmfth~SiocletyfPetroleumEngineereeldInSanAntonio,X,OctoberS-11,1SSS

l%kpaperwasselectedkwpreeentMonyan SPEProgramCommitteeottowiweviewofinformationontainednenebstraotwbmlttadbytheAlwr(8).CMantaofthepaper

sepresented,havenotbeanreviewedytheSccietyofPekokumEnehewsandbre eubjeoltoCoffeotknWtheWffIOf@).hemet.fldtu mt.d, * no ~fy *

y positionoftheSodetyofPetroleumEngineers,tsottioere,r

mambara.Paperapraaenfed tSPEmaatingareaubjeofopubketiorrevkwbyEditorlelCofnmlttaes}ttmSt@st

~b*ismdbm~d MmMmw.lm*mytibq. m~-~*~

$ %%%tiEbY=m thew k presented.WflfePubtkatio+wManager,WE, P.O.SoXS22S3S,Rlchsrdaon,X730SMS3S.Telex,730S2SSPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

thought to be coranon to miscible displacement proc-

esses.

Foams that fectively redt?:d gas permeability

The work herein reported was directed towmd

were formed over wide range of experimental condi-

tions. The

bility of selected foaming agents to

the selection of suitable foaming gents for use in

two field tests of foam. For these tests, f oam was

f o rst f o ars was evaluated in bulk foam measurement,

to be evaluated for its

bility to reduce gas ~obil-

scraening core tester

nd in reservoir condition

ity (C02 an enriched gas mixture) in n injection

core tests.

Resulte reported show that oil usually

well. Thus, laboratory ef fo r ts were directed to the

versely affacted foan performance with higher

selection

of

foaming agents that would provide f or

molecular weight lkanes showing less of n dverse

the maximum gas mobility raduction for the longest

effect for

the foaming agents tested.

Foam can be

practical period of time at +pecific reservoir con-

feetively generated in an oil-wet porous medium

ditions. As this work developed, it t,eceme obvious

but was shown to be much lass ef fac t i ve than in a

that varying reservoir conditions of tamperatura,

water-wet

medium for the feaming agents

studied, hydrocarbon composition,

water hardness and salin-

High pressure gradients of up to 4524 kPa/m

(200 psi/ft) rasulted in effective foam generation

ityt i~:jected gas composition, etc. significantly

affected foam performance. The purpose

of

this

with an effective foam continuing to 8500 pore voL-

umes of injected nitrogen. Tha enriched gas mixture

paper is to surrartarize the effects

of

these condi-

tions on foam performance.

usad in this study

was

shown to adversely affect

foam even though the foaming agent was selected

Laboratory Experimental Program

through screening testing. This showed the impor-

tance of including reservoir condition testing prior

Three levels

of

experimental testing

wera

to the final selection of a foaming agent f or a

established to select suitabla foaming agents$

given reservoir application, Effective foaming

agents were identified for use in pilot tasts in a

1. Sulk foam measurement (screening test),

typicaL West Texas c02 flood and in a typicaL Cana-

dian hydrocarbon miscible flood.

2, Screening core tests, and

INTRODUCTION

3, Reservoir condition core tests.

The concept of using foam to reduce gas mobil-

ity was initially patented by Bond and Holbrook in

Foaming agents tested

are

described in Table 1 nd

reservoir conditions for typical Wast Texas C02

1958. Although many individuals have studied

the

flood and a

typical

Canadian enriched gas flood are

properties of fo~g5in porous media~ the works of

sunsnarized in Tabla 2. Water alyses

for

thaea two

Bernard

nd Helm and

Raza6

are

classic studies,

fields re drtscribad in Tible 3. Altaough these two

Caa mobility reductions of perhapa 100 fold reported

waters wete simi~ar in composition, it ehould be

in these studies have suggested that foant could ba

noted that aalinitie? e low as about 2000 kg/m3

fectively used to blotk gas flow in certain reeer-

total dissolved oLids (TDS) to s high s bout

voir situations in addition to providing the poten-

220,000 kg/m3 TDS

were

leo examined. In this

tial for improving the adv~rse mobility ratio

study, Sol~roL 130 nd Slandol were tensively

used,

Referance$ nd illustrations at end of paper.

Soltrol 130, a ref ined

kane, was determined

to hsve an average lkane chain length of Cl l

nd


2/9

2

FOA PERFORMANCE UNDERIMMIUJOIR CONDITION5

will be so designated throughout this pa 3r.

Blan-

dol, a

white Oilt hao an average

kane chain length

of CIS nd will be so designated throughout this

paper.

The simpleet screening for fosming agents was:

dissolve, if possible, the foaming agent in che

ppropriate brine; pour this solution into a cylin-

der nd seal the cylinder$ shake the cylinder and

measure the foam height generated. Howevert our

xperience showed this technique to produce rather

arratic data. To provide more consistent screening

test results, the bulk foam test was developed as is

described in Figure 1. This test allowed the rapid

screening of surfactants at room temperature and

mospheric pressure conditions.

Specifically$ the

effects

of

differing salinitylhardae~s levels and

the effects of various hydrocarbons.on a given foam-

ing agent could be examined by this technique.

Note

that the larger the foam volume generated at a given

rate, the less ad~erse the effect of a given hydro-

carbon on that foaming agent.

A more rigorous test

of

a given foaming agent

was its performance in porous media.

For this evel

of testing, the screening c-re

teat, ac describad in

Ta>ia 4$ was developed. Most tests were performed

in 0.305-wI (1.O-ft) long Berea cores of 300-600 pm2

absolute permeability. Some tests were also par-

formed in cores of lengths of up to 1*22-m (6.0 ft).

All teats were

performed

t

constant pressure drop

conditions of usually 226 Wa/m (10 Psi t f t t

tbou~h pressure gradients of up to 4524 kPa/m

(200 pai/ft) were so tested. For screening tests,

ther humidified

ir or

humidified nitrogen war

used

s the gas phase. Moat screening tests were

terminated t l ess than 300 hours duration,

though

some were extended to 500 hours.

This test provided

for the examination of saLinity/hardnesst waterflood

residual oil saturation, pressure gradient/velocityt

nd wattability effects on foam performance.

The final level of testing examined foaming

agent performance

at reservoir

conditioi - as

described in Table 2 and Figur~s 2 and 3. Unlike

screening tests, these tests were performed at con-

stant velocity conditions ranging from about

0.15 m/day (0.5 ft/day) to 6.1 m/day (20 ft/day).

Incremental pressure drops were recorded along cores

t selected di stances from the injection faca, usu-

ly across 7+62-cm (3.O:in.) long segments of each

core, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.

Meet of

these tests were terminated after 300 hours of

injection.

ArI

in screening

core

tests, all injected

gases wsrs humidified with water so as to minimize

drying of foam. Reservoir condition testing allowed

the examination of the e f fec ts on foamj of gas com-

position, temperature, pressurej

etc, ,

in addition

to the effects studied in the screening core tests.

For these sets of reservoir conditions, a

restored-

sc~ .a San Andres dolomite core (West Texas C02 and

Serea cores (Canadian enriched gas) were thought to

be suitable models of reservoir nettability condi-

tions,

To si;nplify the comparison of screening core

test data where the absolute core permeabilities

varied by more than 100 pm2, effective air or nitro-

gen permeabilities were normalized to either the

absolute brine permeability or the oil permeability

t SUI for aach core, The normalized or relative

,

SP% 19691

gas parmnability data re preeentet in Figures 8-10.

Formalized data

re also present-d for the reservoir

condition test in Figme 16 to simplify comparison.

Effects of Hydrocarbons

Usually the presence of oil was found to be

deleterious to foam s:ability. The effect of oi l

West Texaa separator crude oil) on bulk f oam volume

can vary from relatively mild, as shown in the case

of a fluorinated surfactant in Figure 4. to essen-

tially catastrophic as shown i n the case of a Clo

d olefin sulfonate as shown in Figure 5. Note that

the more adverse the effect of oil as measured in

the bulk foam stability test, the greater is the ga

flow rate required to denerate foam in the pressnce

of that oil.

For the surfactants and oils tested, the trend

establi.ghed was that lower molecular weight alkanes

were m:ce adverse to foam volume.

Data shown in

Figure 6 indicate a marked difference in bulk foam

stability between Cll and Cls with CIE offering no

adversity to foam for this particular foaming agent.

For

this series of alkanes, it WOU1 1, xpected

that

gas

mobility in porous media it, de

presence o

foam and C~l would be much greatw than gas mobility

in the presence of foam, and C18.

LimiEed testing with romatic hydrocarbon ia

sunwnerized in Figure 7. These results implied that

the alkane ctiinponent domin~ced the

ffect that the

aromatic/alkane mixture had on foams

generated

with

this particular foaming gent, Alipal CO-128.

To confirm the e f fec ts of oil on Alipal CD-128

foama, series of screening core tests was con-

ducted using 0. 305-m (l.O-ft) long Berea cores t A

waterflood residual oil saturation.

These results

are shown in Figure 8. For comparison purposes, the

top curve is for gas injection at a waterflood SOR

(CIS)

in

the abaence of foam. Other curves shown

indicate the relative effectiveness of f oam t

reducing gas mobility in the prezence of CII West

Texas separator crude oil, and the Cla. Note that

the order of oil adversity shown in this core teat

eeries matched the order of adversity suggested by

the bulk foam test results shown in Figure 6.

Compare the Cls curve in Figure 8 to the lower

curve in the absence of a waterflood SOA shown in

Figure 9. For this comparison, the futm generated

in ths presence of the CIS is somewhat more effec-

tive in reducing gas permeability, Bulk

foam meas

urements indicated this trend on

foam performance

and cope test results confirmed that the presance of

CIS may have actually enhanced foam performance,

perhaps by causing the formation

of low

levels

of

oil-in-watar emulsions in ddition to foam.

Although not extensive; evaluated, other foam

ing agents have shown cn-sistent results with &he

above data in which

lower

molecular weight alkanes

tended to be more destabilizing to foam. These data

indicated the likelihood of having to match

given

foaming agent to the hydrocarbon representative of

given net

of reservoir conditions, In addition, the

bulk foam scrcenini test appeared adequately reli-

able as screening test so

s

to reduce the number

of core tests raquired in the selection

of

a cuit-


3/9

.

.

3PE 19691

F B SUFFRIDOZ K. T RATMMAN~ G. C. RUSSELL

b~o foaming

gent for a

specific reservoir tpplica-

ior of foame 8enerated under

unsteady-stat,~ condi-

tion.

tions.

These

data suggest

that oil presence may not be

Higher pressure gradients

and resulting highar

:svere

problem in miscible processes.

For misci-

velocity

(higher qhaar rate) conditions modified the

ble

processes, if foam is co be generated in zones

ability of frims to reduce gas

permeability. Varion

previously swept by C02 or an enriched gas, oil sat-

CAS foama generated with nitrogen in screeninc core

uration would be expected to be much

lower

than wat-

te-ts showed

shear

thickening characteristic, s

erflood residuals and oil remaining in these zones

indicated by reduced nitrogen permeability t higher

would likely be a higher molecular weight shear rates,

s

shown in Figure 11. Thie

character-

alkane/aromatic

residue because

of

solvent strip-

istic

was

so

observed at reservoir condition

ping. Lower oil saturations and higher carbon

using

the enriched gas

mixture,

aa shown in

number residues would not be expected to show severe

Figura 12. The opposite effect, that

of

ohear thin-

adversity

to

many surfactant systems.

ning, was shown by foams ganeruted in screening

core

tests using nitrogen and Enordet X2101, as shown

hi

~f:cts of Wettabiiity

Figure 13. Velocity was

over

1,219 miday

(4,000 ftldayi at the endpoint of the4tS24kPa/m

Serea core material was extensively used in

(200 psi/ft) test and an effective foam still

this study. By nature,

Berea is a strongly

water-

existed. Although neither characteristic was

wet, relatively clean sandstone. Its Wettsbility

expected to be practically

adverse

to foam pe-Torm-

can be readily modified by treatment with Quilon C,

ante away from the wellbore, thickening or tiinning

a DuPont product developed for modifying wazer-wet

behavior could

confound the

interpretation ok sear

7 Berea cores 5.08-cm (2.O-in.)

urfaces to oil-wet.

well

performance in an injection well test.

in diameter

by 30.5-cm (lZ-in.) long

were

treated

with Quilw.

C and determined to $e intermediate- to

Although these foams

effectively reduced

nitro-

oil-wet by the .hn~tt imbibition technique.

f

en permeability for large throughput volumes

2500 pore volumes t 1,810 kPa/m (80 psi/ft)],

Foam test resutts using Alipal CD-128 as a

foams

~enerated

t such

high gradients showed the

foaming

gent are suoanarized in Figures 9

nd 10.

@xp@ct?d trend of Wch shorter lifeti~s on an bee-

Foam ffectiveness in

reducing

r mobility in the

Lute time scale.

In

?

dditional test? illustrated

bsence

of

an oil saturation is shown

fo r

Quilon-

i n Fi gure 14, pressure gradients of

treated Berea nd untreated

Berea in Figure 9.

For

i,131-1,810 kPa/m (50-80

psi/ft) resulted in ever

both

nettability conditions,

foam

effectively

8500

pore volumes of nitrogen

injection throush

reduced air relative permeability with a more effec-

foam. ffffactive nitrogen

permeability reduction

tive

foam

observed in the

water-wet Berea core.

For

remained throughout the 149

hour lifetime of this

the

Quilon-treated comparison in the

presence of

a

test.

Had foam not been preeent, nitrogen pe~a-

w~terflood

residual :1 saturation, the results re

bility would have been

expected to be

t least

shown in Figure 10.

These results

indicated

much

150 ~z.

Further, effective foama have been gener-

less

effective foam in the Quilon-traated core,

ted

at

very low velocities of

about

0.1S mfday

Nevertheless,

air

relative permeability

was

reduced

(0.S ft/day) in 50 pm2 dolomite

cores. US foa

by

an order

of

magnitude over the no-foam

case

under

generation is practical

over

very

wide range of

intermediate- to oil-wet conditions.

At water-wet

velocity/pressure gradient conditions.

conditions, nitrogen relative permeabilities were

reduced by over two orders of

magnitude.

Thus ,

Foam at Reservoir Conditions

these

results illustrate the importance of including

representative nettability conditions in the

Bulk foam height measurements and screening

selection of a suitable fcaming agent for a given

core test results identified Enordet X2101 as being

reservoir application,

an effective foaming agent for uae at either the

typical West Texas or the

typical

Canadian hydrocar-

Pressure Gradient/Velocity

tTffects

bon miscible flood test conditions illustrated in

F;Sures 2 and 3.

Figure 15 sunsnarizes foam perform-

It was recognised early that foam texture has a

ante at the Wast Texas

conditions.

After about

pronounced

effect on

the

mobility of foam in porous

9.5 pore volumes (300

hours) of

C02 injection in the

media.g Furthert it was recognized that under

presence of foam, COZ

permeability

was reduced

steady-state flow condition, bubble sizeio affectad

approximately

a

factor of 10 compared to C02 permea-

foam mobility and that the dynamics of foam bubble

bility in the absence of

foam.

These data refLact

formatf;n controlled foam texture in porous

performance at the laat

pressure tap

[0.61-In

edia. For the data included in this paper, all

(24-in.) at the tap midpoint

from

the injection

foams were generated under unsteady-state flow con- 1

face]

of a

0.79-m (31-in.) long San

Andres

dolomite

ditions with no attempt made to separate the effects

core, For both data sets, oil saturation was t a

of

the dynamics of

foim

formation from

foam rheolog-

C02 residual of 8.3% pore

volut~e. This test was

ical properties. It was recognized that under

terminated

at 300 hour~ of

C02 injection with

e f fec-

unsteady-state

Jnditions, foam

texture would be

tive foam

continuing throughout the

test,

dynamic

and constantly changing with gas throughput,

However, it

was observed in the data to be presented

For tests

at

the

typical Canadian

miscible

that the effect

of

foam on gas mobility with gas

flood cortditiona, an enriched gaa mixture having

the

throughput was relatively consistent over large vol-

composition described in Table 2 was used,

Initial

umes

f or

a given

set of core

test conditions.

For

attempts to generate foam using this gas mixture nd

purposes

of

the following discussion, the terms of

Enordet X2101 resulted in a weak foam being Sener-

shear thickening and shear thinning will

be used

s

ated.

It was speculated that the combination

of

descriptive terms to describe

the

stabilized behav-

residual separator oil hd the intermediate compo-

..-

637


4/9

6

FOAM

PERPORMANcE

UNDER RMBRVOI R

CONDITIONS.

nonts (Cg-Cs) in the gas mixture destabilized the

foam. Since other testing had identified

Varion CA

*S

potential foaming agent for use at thie set of

condition, further core testing was ps?fcrmed with

the Varion

CAS. AL

illustrated in Figura 16, a very

effective foam was ge~erated at the mid and end sec-

tions

of

the 0.79-m (31-in.) long Berea core.

This

core

contained a residual oil saturation to the

enriched gas

of 9.7%

pore vohme during the foam

sequence. Note that there

was a

trend of increasing

foam effectiveness with diztance. This has been

observed in other tests with this surfactant and

dense phase ethane at core length~ of 0.91-m

(3oO ft) and 2.~,4-m (8.9 ft). It was speculated

that oil and w~.ter emulsions, as well as foam, were

formed with distaiice, resulting in additional

gas

permeability reduction. These results (the compar-

ison of Enordet X2101 and Varion CAS) have empha-

sized the importance of approximating reservoir

conditions in final testing to, select a foaming

agent for a give~. application.

OBSERVATIONSANDCONCLUSIONS,

Injection well field tests of foam at these two

sets

of reservoir conditions (West Texas C02 and

Canadian hydrocarbon miscible) have been success-

fully

performed with the

foaming agents selected.

In each field tes$lcase, measurable injectivity

reductions

occurreil.=t is concluded f rom t hi s

study that reservoir condition testing is a neces-

sary part of the evaluation procesz in selecting

foaming agents

f or a

specific reservoir application.

A number of observations concerning foam behavior

are relevant:

1.

2,

3.

4.

5.

It was reasoned that the presence of oil in

miscible processes (C02 or enriched gas) would

not severely

restrict

foaming because of the

expected lower saturation of solvent stripped

residual oil (higher chain length residues) in

swept zones.

The presence

of oi l i s

usually an adverse envi-

ronment for generating an effective foam; how-

ever, foaming agents can be identified that

wiLl effectively foam in the presence of oils.

For the foaming a&en? a

included in this study,

Lower molecular weight alkanes offered a more

adverse environment to foam than did higher

I,lolecular weight alkarves.

Bulk foam measurements and screening core

tests

are useful tools in the selection

of

foaming

ngenta for a given reservoir application.

Results from these tests should be confirmed in

a

limited number of core tests at reservoir

conditions before final selection of a foaming

agent for a given

reservoir.

Foam can be effectively generated at high

[4,524

kPa/m (200 psi/ft)] pressure ~adient~

and may be either shear thinning or shear

thickening, depanding upon the foaming agents

selected and the conditions tasted.

Effective foama can be generated in oil-wet

porous medii$ however, it is thou~-,t that care-

ful selection of foaming agent w~i be required

in

order

to successfully generate foam in an

oil-wet environment.

ACNNOULKDCEI I ENT

The authors thank the manageme~.c of the Amoco

?roduction Company for the privilege of publishing

this information.

Our

gratitude is so extended to

C, R. Chadwell, 1,

M. Cook,

J. ?4: Corgan, D. S.

Denham, S. Hendricks and R. Walters for performing

the laboratory experiments.

REFERENCES

.

1.

2,

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9*

Lo

11,

Boud, D. C, and Holbrook; 0. C., Gas Drive Oil

Recovery

Process,

w uoB@

patent 2~wit507~

December 1958.

Bernard, George C. and Holm~ L. W., Effect

of

Foam on Permeability of Porous Media

to

Gas9

SPEJ, September 1964, pp. 267-274.

Bernard, George C., Helm, L. W. and Jacobs,

W. L., Effect of Foam on Trapped Caa Satu-

ration and on Permeability of Porous Media to

Water, SPEJ, December 1965, pp. 295-300.

Helm. L, w,, ~t~e Mechanism of

Cae

nd Liquid

Flow Through Poroue Media in the Presents

of

December 1968, pp. 359-369.

Bernard,

George C.,

Holm~ L. W. nd Harvey,

Craig

P., Use of Surfactant to Reduce C@

Mobility in Oil Displacement?

August 1980.

Raza, S. H, Foam in Porous Hedia: Character-

istic and Potential Applications, ~,

December 1970, pp. 328-336.

Tiffin~ D. L. and Yellig, W. F. %ffects of

Mobile Water on Multiple Contact Miscible Gas

Displacements, SPEJ, June 1983, pp. 447-455.

Amott, Earl, Observations Relating

to

the

Nettability of Porous

Rockj

Transactions

AIME?

vol.

216, 1959, pp. 156-162.

Marsden, S. S.,

Jr.,

Eerligh J. J. P.,

Albrecht, R. A. and David,

A*)

Use of

Foam in

Petroleum Opevations$

Proceedings of the Sev~

enth World Petroleum Congress, Mexico City,

April 2-7, 1966, Elsevier, Essex, England~

vol. 3, pp. 235-242.

Falls,

A. ,.,

Must.era, J. J. and Ratulowski,

J., The Apparent Viscosity of Foams in Bead-

packe, BPE Reservoir Engineering, Hay 1989)

pp. 155-164.

Falls, A. H., et al., Development of Mechanis-

tic Foam Simulator: The Population Balance an

Generation by Snap-off, SPE Reservoir Engi-

neering, August 1988, pp. 884-892.


5/9

SPE 19691

TAtL12

Apparent

~ming

Ag*nt _

supplier

PraduetDa-criptiom Mole.16t

AliPal CO-128 CAQCorporation

dnlc.nic-st~oxy~ted

352

cohol sulfate ,

wmnoniumsalt

Enordat X2101 Shetl

Chemimi CO,

Anionic-Ethoxylated 35h

cohol

@:C~Cyi lUl-

fonatc, sodium salt

Zonyl FSK OuPc.nt Company Pluorlnattd Amphoteric

809

Varion GAS Sherex ChemlceL Co. Anphoceric-Coco mine- 3,70

propyt sultobecelne

TABLE 3

lnjeetiOnBrineSelini~

Ion COZ Flood Cae Flood

sodium

40,310

32,062

Celcium 11,600

13,600

Ilecnesium 2,800 2;223

Chloride 90,100

79,100

DienrbOnat* 580 9B

Sulfate 900 1,100

1.

2.

J.

h.

5.

l esc ewir Teat Condition8

Typical Ucrt Texas COZ Fioodl

~ocmmion:EenAndtesDolomite

Avcra~e

PermeabiLLtyl 1.16 1

Avera e

POre i~l

10.JX

Tam~t&ture8 105 F (40.6C)

Opereting Presaurel 1S00 p8ic ( 10 ,342 kPa)

TypkeL Can6dlan lhwiched ws Flood:

Forutienl GiluoodSendsCone

Avcrege Pecmcabi 1 i t y : 600 paz

Avara~e Porositgl 15.5%

Tcmpere turel 135 P (57 .2C)

OpcratincPce 9ure Zooo

p~ig (13, 790 kPa)

Solvent Composition

Mit rofpn

7.84 MOICz

Mwhene

>0.37

~er~ m Oioxide

0.37

Kthene 1S.06

PrOpcna

13.93

n-~utane B.36

n-P*n:en8 4.07

m mol. z

TABLE b

ScregninS Core Tsst Conditions

Un6tea6y-Stete Techniqug

400 psie (2,7S8 kPa) or 100 psie (689 kPe) sbseluto pressure

u rfactent-filled core

-- mey or My

not

contain waterflood ~

2-in. (S. OB-cm) diamet*r x 12-in. (30.S cm)

lcn~th Berea

Wumidifiad lJ2 or Air Cmwtant AP D 10 pei (69 kPe)

?SF (23.9c)

Glass Column

Foam

OH

Surfactant

Solution

Frit

Hydrator

Alr

Pump

QJ

PROCEDURE:

1.

2.

3*

4.

15 cc wrfactant soiution

5 cc oil

In]ec air to constant

foam height

Measure flow rate and

foam height

Figure1. BulkFoamTesIAppara us

w


6/9

Tompersture:

40. 6 {105?

Preaeum:

10,342kPa (1500 pelg)

Core Deecrtptton:

ComooeftmSan Andreadolomtto

100. cc la

Vohmle

r

.53=cm

1.18-in.)lax 78 era

(314n.) length

%nH %%-m9isiBdmk=m,

d

Inlit SectIon:

Middle Section:

Aba;Btinak m9.02 pm;

EndSection:

Aba. Brtnek x 6.15 pm

FlowVolocitles:

0.3.0,6 m/day (1.O.2.Gftlday)

13ecomblned

West

Texaa011@ SOF

i

Inlet

Middle Exit

I

SPE 19691

,,

Tempsraturw

59.2V (135P)

Pressure: 13,760kPa (2000pslg)

CoreDescription:

BereaSandstone

26100 average pom volume

300-600pmz AbsoluteBrinePermesbillties

5.08-cm(2.04n.) dia. x 61-om(244n.) length

FlowVelooltles: 0.61 m/day(2.0Wday and

SeparatorOil@ SWmday nday)

1 I II

11

Inlet

Middle

Exit

I

~ 6.4 cm

~ 15.2 cm

F@ma 2- West T WM Cm t ire Teat conditbna

Figure3- Cmnedian Hyffooarbon Mholbla Core Teat Condlba

{1

/

1

/

I

\

I

I

60-

I

I

/

40-

I

/

With Oil

------

20- /

No 011

/

/

o

I

.

I

o

1

Gas Flowrate,cc/rein

Figure4. BulkFoamStablllty.0,0568MZonyl FSK West Texas Separator Crude

640


7/9

*

., ---

\

\

%.,.

...

...

... .

...

*

,,

.,

. . . . .

.

%.

I

-----.. ---

I I t I

1

:8ss8

w oUmloAUJwj

-

\

\

\

-;

\

?5; g

\

\

~~

I

\

I

I

I

I

\

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

~

Ml

SPE 19691

\

\

/

\

i

\

1

\

1


8/9

I

0.1

0.01

I

Nooil

Preeent

O.ml

1

--

\

,p~%

r

---

k

I

/

\

-----

--41, ,

\

\__-

-/

O.0001

\

NoPoam

\water-wet

\

/0 /

O.owol

-

WIlon-Treeted

G--

------

I

0 ~

lm

Tkne, houre

30

5

0

Fgw e 9 . AJ ii I

CD 128

oam inTreated and Untreated Mea

Pf

J

//--

------

----

.

/

Y

226kl lm

.-

/

4S24 kWm

----- --

50

100

150

m

2

Pore Volumee

injected

0.1

O. 00001

1

/---__---

FI

,--

/-

---

/

0

- -

/

/

-~

13E@icl

--\/-\

No

Foem \\

.

\,

/

We?er-Wet

-Y

-

Quilon-Treeted

\

-

----- -

o~

1

J

1

10

lm

mm, houre

Fwr e 1 0- E ff ac t o f .W el ta bi li i Al @ C D-12 8 Foa m

E 10

a

L+

. -- _-- ---- -- ------ _--- -

1

1

I

I

I

J

EzEiiEl

-~

6.1mkiey

----- -

0.61 mhtey

O. om

1

I t

o

1 2 3

4

P.V.Throughftut

mll-She Thidmnmaf valimcAsFoams@Sm

F ii 12- Miscib k COnm im s :sh wlMkMin g &wkwior@MiMalw


9/9

SPE 19691

.

N

r

19691-foam performance under reservoir conditions

Documents