1887

Abstract

Summary

We report a simulation study of surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) foam injection into a waterflooded oil reservoir. We show the effects of oil, and of SAG cycle size and number on sweep efficiency, and the long-term impact of a single surfactant slug on the areal sweep efficiency of a gas-flood.

Shan and Rossen (2004) show that a single-cycle SAG flood with fixed injection pressure can effectively overcome gravity override in a homogeneous reservoir with a uniform residual oil saturation. A single cycle works better than multiple cycles. We show that the presence of mobile oil can invalidate this model, but not simply because oil weakens or destroys foam. If foam is weakened by oil, moderately but uniformly, vertical sweep efficiency can still be good. Of course if oil kills foam nearly completely, gravity override occurs.

In our simulations, foam collapses where oil saturation is above a certain threshold value greater than waterflood residual. Oil mobilized by the foam bank flows downward. This can lead to an oil bank at the bottom of the reservoir, and in single-cycle SAG this oil bank is not displaced by foam if its oil saturation is sufficient to destroy foam. Meanwhile, gas flows upward and the low-mobility front advances rapidly across the top of the reservoir, leading to an override zone. It is the non-uniformity of the resulting oil saturation and gas mobility that invalidates Shan and Rossen’s model in this case. Instead there is an oil-rich zone at the bottom of the reservoir, foam above the oil-rich zone, and a foam-free override zone above the foam. In this case, if foam is injected in several relatively small slugs, oil production can be better than that with fewer relatively large slugs.

We also illustrate the impact of injecting a single surfactant slug on the areal sweep efficiency of a long-term gas-flood. By injecting a surfactant slug prior to the gas slug, stronger foam can form in parts of the reservoir with a lower oil saturation. Foam then diverts gas flow to oil-rich areas in the reservoir, in our case the bottom of the reservoir. In a conventional gas flood gas flows primarily across the top of the reservoir with poor sweep efficiency. By injecting a single surfactant slug ahead of gas, higher oil recovery can be achieved at the same injected PV of gas.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700342
2017-04-24
2020-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, L. E.
    1988. “Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations.” In . Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/17369‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/17369-MS [Google Scholar]
  2. Chabert, M., D.D’Souza, J.Cochran, E.Delamaide, P.Dwyer, L.Nabzar, and E.Lacombe
    . 2016. “A CO2 Foam Conformance Pilot in US Gulf Coast Region.” In. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/183352‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/183352-MS [Google Scholar]
  3. Cheng, L., A.B.Reme, D.Shan, D.A.Coombe, and W.R.Rossen
    . 2000. “Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low Foam Qualities.” In. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/59287‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/59287-MS [Google Scholar]
  4. Computer Modelling Group
    . 2007. Version 2007 User Guide. Calgary Alberta: Computer Modelling Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Grassia, P., E.Mas-Hernández, N.Shokri, S. J.Cox, G.Mishuris, and W. R.Rossen
    . 2014. “Analysis of a Model for Foam Improved Oil Recovery.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics751 (July): 346–405. doi:10.1017/jfm.2014.287.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2014.287 [Google Scholar]
  6. Khatib, Z. I., G. J.Hirasaki, and A. H.Falls
    . 1988. “Effects of Capillary Pressure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in Foams Flowing Through Porous Media.” SPE Reservoir Engineering3 (03): 919–26. doi:10.2118/15442‑PA.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/15442-PA [Google Scholar]
  7. Kloet, Marco, Wietse JoostRenkema, and William RichardRossen
    . 2009. “Optimal Design Criteria for SAG Foam Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs.” In. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/121581‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/121581-MS [Google Scholar]
  8. NamdarZanganeh, Maryam, and WilliamRossen
    . 2013. “Optimization of Foam Enhanced Oil Recovery: Balancing Sweep and Injectivity.” SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering16 (01): 51–59. doi:10.2118/163109‑PA.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/163109-PA [Google Scholar]
  9. Peaceman, D. W.
    1966. “Improved Treatment of Dispersion in Numerical Calculation of Multidimensional Miscible Displacement.” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal6 (03): 213–16. doi:10.2118/1362‑PA.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/1362-PA [Google Scholar]
  10. Rossen
    . 1995. “Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery.” In Foams: Theory, Measurements, and Applications, edited by Robert K.Prud’homme and Saad A.Khan. New York: Marcel Dekker.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Schramm, Laurier L.
    2005. “Petroleum Industry Applications.” In Emulsions, Foams, and Suspensions, 263–83. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/3527606750.ch11/summary.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Shan, D., and W.R.Rossen
    . 2002. “Optimal Injection Strategies for Foam IOR.” In. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/75180‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/75180-MS [Google Scholar]
  13. Skauge, A., M.G.Aarra, L.Surguchev, H.A.Martinsen, and L.Rasmussen
    . 2002. “Foam-Assisted WAG: Experience from the Snorre Field.” In. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/75157‑MS.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/75157-MS [Google Scholar]
  14. Surguchev, L. M., J. E.Hanssen, D. A.Coombe, and I.Svorstoel
    . 1995. “Simulation of WAG and Gas Injection with Potential Sweep Improvement by Application of Foam.” In. doi:10.3997/2214‑4609.201406943.
    https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201406943 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700342
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700342
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error