Introduction

 Foam : Dispersion of gas bubbles, separated by liquid films stabilized by surfactant

 Has a very peculiar behavior due to its close contact with solid phase, depend on pore size,
topology and flow conditions ( Tanzil et al., 2002)
 Its rheology that depends on the porous medium properties where it flows, and trapped bubbles
due to capillary effects ( Tang and Kovscek, 2006 )

Advantages

 Improve the cutting transport ( Duan et al., 2010)

 Control gas mobility and reduce gravity override or viscous fingering due to gas or steam
injection (Hirasaki, 1989)
 Can be used in EOR operations ( Blaker et al.,2002)
 Mobility will be high in low permeability regions and will be low in high permeability layers.
It can block spontan( Bertin et al., 1999; Rossen, 1996, Kovscek and Bertin, 2003)

Disadvantages

 Limited lifetime and coverage action, bad temperature resistance and bad oil tolerance
( Farajzadeh et al.,2012)
 Must adding viscosifying polymers or gelling polymers to enhance foam stability (Friedmann
et al.,1999; Romero et al., 2002; Shen et al., 2006, Telmadarreie and Trivedi, 2015)

Experimental Studies

1. Bulk experiments
 Performed in glass tubes following normalized procedures to determine foamability
 Foam ability : quantifies the ability of a foaming solution to generate a given volume of foam
 Foam stability is determined through measurement of the half life time of the foam
 Objective : to select product ( surfactant and polymer) and optimize the solution composition
( Ph, Salinity, Concentration)

2. Core flood
 Determine RF ( Resistance Factor) or MRF ( Mobility Reduction Factor) that quantify the
mobility reduction of flowing fluids due to presence the foam
 Can be generated in two ways, co-injection of gas and surfactant solution or Surfactant
Alternating Gas ( Gas)

Experimental

1. Surfactant and polymers selection

Two polymers
Non ionic polymer ( NIP)
Associate polymer (AsP) which consists in an
anionic acrylamide/acrylate backbone bearing a small
content of cationic hydrophobic group

2. Bulk experiments
 Foam ability : quantifies the ability of a foaming solution to generate a given volume of
foam ( surfactant alone or surfactant + polymer)
 Using Ross Miles type Method
 Pouring 200 ml of the foaming solution from a 77 cm height in a graduated cylinder
containing 50 ml of the same foaming solution

 Foam stability is determined through measurement of the half life time of the foam
 Measured using a glass tube where a foam column is generated by injecting gas
upwards through a porous plate in 50 ml of foaming solution
 When foam column height reaches 40 cm, gas injection is stopped and foam height
decay is measured as a function of time
 Half-life time : the time value at which foam height is equal to half its initial value
3. Core Flood Experimets
 Material and fluids

 Experimental set up

 Pressure tranducer : determine preesue drop at the core inlet and in two more section
 N2 is injected through mass flow controller; Foaming solution is injected using a liquid
pump
 Fraction collector : Measuring the effluent composition (Total organic Carbon (TOC) and
Total Nitrogen ( TN )) to determine the surfactant and polymer adsorption

Procedure

1. Sandpack is saturated with brine , single-phase dispersion is determined, k and ϕ is determined

2. Surfactant solution is injected ( 3PV) and surfactand adsorption is determined through TOC
measurement and single-phase dispersion front
3. Foaming solution ( surfactant + polymer) is injected and polymer adsorption is determined
through TN measurement and single-phase dispersion front
4. Gas + surfactant solution ( with or without polymer) are co-injected at a constant total flow
rate of 200 ml/h at a foam quality of 90% ( Q gas =180 ml/h, Qliq = 20 ml/hr) . Pressure Drop
are measured and RF is determined
5. When foam steady state flow is reached ( Qliq and ΔP is constant), NaCL = 20 g/l is injected
to determine the resistance to brine flow in presence of foam
6. Oil injection at 20 ml/hr to determine the foam resistance to an oil production resume

Results and Discussion

1. Surfactant Solution

Best choice : AS3 and NIS

2. Surfactant + Polymer
 Surfactant concentration : up to 4 CMC
 Polymer concentration : 2000 ppm
 Addition of NIP has almost no influence on IFT( Figure a and b) The reasons are
 NIP is only a viscosifying agent with no interfacial activity

 Diffusivity of NIP molecules is much lower than surfactant

  Figure c the IFT of the system is decreased due to the amphiphilic character of the polymer.
When concentration AS3 increase, the IFT decreased until reaching a new plateau ( CAC)
where polymer-surfactant formed due to the attractive force between the anionic surfactant
and the cationic hydrophobic groups of the associate polymer.
 Figure d no CAC is observed since the surfactant is non-ionic and the attractive forces are
weaker

 Figure 5 is show that addition of a polymer decreases foamibility . This is consequence of

the increase in solution viscosity which decrease surfactant diffusivity

 Increase the viscosity of the aqueous phase that slow down the drainage of liquid in
lamellae, thus preventing its rapid thinning and the eventual breakup

3. Core-Flood Experiment
 Surfactant and Polymer adsorption
 Addition NIP is no noticeable because NIP-solid interaction is very weak. Addition of AsP
the polymer can still adsorb after surfactant due to its cationic group
4 Foam Displacement


∆𝑃𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚
𝑅𝐹𝑔𝑎𝑠 =
∆𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚
∆𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 = 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
∆𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 = 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 @ 200 𝑚𝑙/ℎ𝑟
  AS3 + NIP : steady state is not reached just after gas breakthrough, but reach steady
state after almost 2 PV of gas and foaming solution
 AS3 +AsP : steady state is not reached quickly and recorded a continuous pressure
increase during injection 20 PV of gas + foaming solution
 NIS + NIP : steady state is not reached, but reach steady state after almost 1.2 PV of
gas and foaming solution
 NIS + AsP : reach steady state after almost 3 PV of gas and foaming solution
 NIP have positif influence on Anionic surfactant and slightly negative effect with non-
ionic surfactant
 Foam generation and stability is related to the type of surfactant polymer complexes
 The best mixture NIS + AsP
5 Foam Washout
∆𝑃𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚
𝑅𝐹𝑤 =
∆𝑃𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚
∆𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 = 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
∆𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 = 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 @ 20 𝑚𝑙/ℎ𝑟
  AS3 : RFw decreased from 45 to 13 during 0.5 PV that means foam is not stable and
is quickly destroyed by water.
 AS3 + NIP : First plateu RFw =24 . Second plateu Rfw = 18
 AS3 + AsP : Before 2 PV Rfw =400, After 23 PV Rfw is still 65
 NIS : First 0.3 PV, First plateu at RFw= 35 . Second 1.7 pv, Second Plateu at RFw=13
until stop water injection at 5.6 PV. Sw changes from 49% to 63% it means that
remaining doam inside the medium do offer to water flow
 NIS + NIP : the curve is quite similar to NIS but the difference is the extension of the
plateau.
 NIS + AsP : First Plateau 1 PV and RFw =170 . Second Plateau RFw 33
 The best mixture AS3 + ASP

6 Oil Back Flow

∆𝑃𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚
𝑅𝐹𝑜 =
∆𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚
∆𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 = 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑
∆𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑎𝑚 = 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 @ 20 𝑚𝑙/ℎ𝑟
 RFo is increase of the replacement of water by oil which is more viscous
 RFo is decrease slowly proves that major foam destruction by oil happens during early stage
of oil injection.
 RFo is between 2.8-6.2
 RFo is lower than RFw which means that resistance of foam to oil flow is much less than to
water flow ( oil acts as defoaming agent)
 Foam doesn’t resist to oil flow although creating a flow barrier to water

Conclusions

 Nonionic polymer has low interaction , Associate polymer shows a different beahvior due to
its hydrophobic parts which interact with the surfactant
 Bulk foam experiments show that polymer addition reduces foamibility and increase foam
stability
 RF depends on the foaming solution composition and the use of polymer solution.
 Associated polymer is very beneficial in term foam resistance to water flow.
 Oil flow affects foam stability. The foam generated with surfactant + polymer foaming solution
remains stronger than the foam generated by surfactant alone