Laboratory Investigation of Low-Tension-
Gas Flooding for Improved Oil Recovery in
Tight Formations
S.M. Szlendak, N. Nguyen, and Q.P. Nguyen, University of Texas at Austin
Summary
This paper establishes low-tension gas (LTG) as a method for sub-
miscible tertiary recovery in tight sandstone and carbonate reser-
voirs. The LTG process involves the use of surfactant and gas to
mobilize and then displace residual crude after waterflood at a
greatly reduced oil/water interfacial tension (IFT). This method
allows extending surfactant enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in sub-
20-md formations in which polymer is impractical because of
plugging, shear, or the requirement to use a low-molecular-weight
polymer.
The proposed strategy is tested through the coinjection of
nitrogen and a slug/drive surfactant solution. Results indicate
favorable mobilization and displacement of residual crude oil in
both tight-carbonate and tight-sandstone reservoirs. Tertiary re-
covery of 75–90% of residual oil in place (ROIP) was achieved
for cores with 2- to 15-md permeability. High LTG tertiary recov-
ery is contrasted with results from reference surfactant (no gas)
flooding (28% ROIP tertiary recovery) and immiscible gas coin-
jection (no surfactant) flooding (13% ROIP tertiary recovery). In
addition, high initial oil saturation was tested to determine the
process tolerance to oil and to evaluate the potential for applica-
tion during secondary recovery. Under such conditions, this
method achieved a recovery of 84% of oil originally in place
(OOIP), suggesting the potential application of this process at sec-
ondary recovery.
To better understand the physical mechanisms that affect mo-
bilization and displacement, the early production of an elongated
oil bank at reduced fractional flow of oil was shown to be an at-
tribute of high crude-oil relative mobility and low pore volume
(PV) available to mobile oil. This should favorably affect eco-
nomics during chemical flooding by accelerating the production
of an oil bank. Next, by application of salinity as a conservative
tracer and oil material balance, gas saturation during LTG floods
was calculated to be 18 to 22%. By comparing effluent salinity
profiles across floods, a qualitative understanding of in-situ fluid
dispersion associated with macroscopic displacement stability is
developed. The results indicate that in-situ foaming was present,
which enabled mobility control, and that stable displacement of
in-situ fluids was achieved during flooding.
Introduction
Many tight-sandstone and -carbonate reservoirs under waterflood
are considered unsuitable candidates for EOR. These reservoirs
represent large volumes of currently unproduced oil that cannot
be economically extracted by current thermal, chemical, or misci-
ble-gas EOR methods. A few of the economic and technical con-
straints that limit these technologies are low permeability, low or
high reservoir thicknesses, reservoir depth and pressure, reservoir
temperature, reservoir salinity, availability of miscible gas, and
crude-oil viscosity (Lake 1989; Taber et al. 1997).
To scale chemical flooding to ultratight carbonate and sand-
stones of 2 to 35 md, the replacement of polymer is required
Copyright V
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 159841) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–10 October 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 30 June 2012. Revised manuscript
received for review 16 May 2013. Paper peer approved 31 May 2013.
October 2013 SPE Journal
because of the plugging and shear degradation of polymer (Martin
1974, 1986; Maerker 1975; Sorbie 1991; Stavland et al. 2010).
The LTG process, as described in this paper, replaces polymer
used in conventional alkali surfactant/polymer (ASP) flooding
with low-gas-quality nitrogen foam.
Existing foam research that focuses on the creation of high-
strength, high-gas-quality foam is poorly suited for tight reser-
voirs because of the ultrahigh flow rates and pressure drops asso-
ciated with the creation and propagation of high-strength foam.
Furthermore, the salinity and surfactant concentrations used by
many authors to create stable foam are often poorly suited for oil
mobilization through the reduction of IFT.
A low-quality, low-rate injection strategy is tested on the basis
of a mechanistic understanding of foam generation and propaga-
tion in porous media. It is believed that a “weak foam” regime
exists with the desired rheological properties for the stable dis-
placement of light crudes (See LTG in the Tight Formations sec-
tion). If this behavior exists, it may reflect favorably on the ability
of an LTG process to economically produce residual crude oil in
tight reservoirs.
This study tests the ability for the LTG process to effectively
mobilize and displace tertiary oil in tight formations at economic
rates and pressure drop. A chemical formulation is designed, and
a series of corefloods is performed to evaluate the overall process
effectiveness and potential for economic application in tight reser-
voirs. A total of five corefloods is included within this study.
Data from oil recovery and fractional flow, salinity and mix-
ing, sectional pressure drop, and microemulsion and surfactant
production are used to evaluate LTG flooding. Reference floods
are used to establish tolerance and to determine the relative
process contributions of gasflooding and surfactant flooding. In
addition, the effects of high initial oil saturation are tested to
determine the process tolerance to oil and to evaluate the potential
for application during secondary recovery.
High oil saturation has the potential to destabilize the liquid
lamellae that provide the resistance to gas flow by means of the
separation of a dispersed gas phase. Reduced apparent viscosity
and gas fingering are typically associated with unstable-lamellae
environments and can result in critical failure during reservoir-
displacement processes. A high degree of process tolerance to-
ward initial oil saturation also would indicate favorably for appli-
cation at secondary recovery. Such application has the potential to
improve reserves capture and payback by accelerating recovery
and reducing high pressure gradients typically associated with
flooding tight reservoirs.
Foam in the Oil-Field
The use of foam in the oil field was first proposed by Bond and
Holbrook (1958) and has since been used to decrease the mobility
of injected gas. Significant applications in the petroleum industry
include acid diversion in well stimulation, well drilling and frac-
turing, environmental remediation, and EOR.
The injection of aqueous-phase foaming surfactant during
water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection or gas/liquid coinjection
processes has been shown to substantially reduce the mobility of
the injected fluid and to improve ultimate oil recovery through
increased sweep efficiency (Shi and Rossen 1998; Blaker et al.
2002).
851
 A significant number of field trials of gas/liquid (foam) coin-
jection and surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) injection have been
conducted. These trials include more than 11 foam field trials
with N2, CO2, air, or hydrocarbon gas in the North Sea that are
described together by Shan (2001) and Rossen and Van Duijn
(2004). In these studies, a variety of injection strategies and sur-
factants was used. Results varied; however, large increases in oil
production and reductions in produced gas were observed for a
number of pilots. This behavior can be attributed to increases in
mobility control and sweep efficiency.
Micellar-Foam Flooding
Some limited work toward surfactant oil mobilization with
coupled foam mobility control flooding exists. Such work is given
the term “micellar-foam flooding,” for purposes of this review,
although it may be referred to differently by the authors. Results
of these mostly experimental studies and one field pilot indicate
that the design for oil mobilization, ideal foam viscosity, process
stability, and overall effectiveness is not well-developed. These
individual studies are described in depth later. Common process
pitfalls during these studies include
 Poor control of aqueous-phase chemistry to achieve
specific conditions suitable for the generation of microemulsions
(“microemulsion environment”) with desired interfacial properties
and of the type to both mobilize and displace crude oil. This is typi-
cally achieved through a progression from Windsor Type III to
Windsor Type II(–) microemulsion environment (ASP process
analogy).
 Poor control and understanding of the destabilizing effects
of crude oil and microemulsions on foam strength.
 Reliance on unrealistic flow rates or high gas quality to
achieve “high strength” foam state. Accompanying unrealistic
pressure gradient because of “high-strength” foam.
 Improper use of ultrahigh-permeability sandpacks or other
porous media in which foam generation, stability, and rheology
will deviate from that of actual reservoir permeabilities. Charac-
teristic lack of fundamental study of foam flooding in tight
formations.
Initial micellar-foam-flooding studies by Kamal and Marsden
(1973) and Lawson and Reisberg (1980) demonstrated that during
flooding in a porous medium, injected foam (Kamal and Marsden)
and alternating gas/dilute-foaming-surfactant injection (Lawson
and Reisberg) could effectively displace a 0.05-, 0.1-, and 0.25-
PV concentrated (5%) surfactant slug. Tertiary recovery during
the Kamal study was poor (20 to 50% incremental) compared
with benchmark surfactant/polymer flooding and likely reflects
poor foam stability for mobility control. In addition, the ultrahigh
sandpack permeability of 23.6 darcies is a poor analogy for actual
reservoir conditions.
Better overall recovery was observed during the Lawson and
Reisberg study and was strongly correlated with both observed
pressure drop and residual gas saturation. Alternating gas/dilute-
foaming-surfactant injection resulted in ultrastrong foam strength
that is likely untenable for field-type applications. Gas/liquid
coinjection resulted in weaker foam that exhibited desirable,
although highly variable, foam strength. These results indicate the
importance of both foam strength for flood success and the ability
for the micellar foam flooding to generate foam of sufficient
strength in situ. Compelling recovery profiles were observed with
high oil cut, which is indicative of an oil bank; however, remain-
ing oil saturation after flooding of 10 to 20% indicates that ideal
oil/water IFT may not have been achieved. In addition, the body
of the study encompasses more-permeable rock outcrop cores of
450 to 500 md in which foam rheology and propagation likely
differ.
Srivastava et al. (2009) and Srivastava (2010) include the first
systematic study of micellar foam flooding that incorporates the
effects of a microemulsion environment. The concept of salinity
gradient is introduced as a process analogy to current ASP flood-
ing. Further, the effects of salinity and microemulsion environ-
ment on foam stability are studied to best optimize the micellar-
852
flooding process. This work resulted in good tertiary recovery (60
to 90%) and ASP process characteristics—shock front and oil
bank. However, the 5:1 gas/liquid ratio used requires greater than
8 PV of injected fluid for process completion. In addition, the
core outcrops used exhibited higher permeability (100 to 250 md)
in which foam mechanisms likely differ.
Li et al. (2010) and Guo et al. (2012) provide additional exper-
imental studies of micellar foam flooding. High flow rates (more
than 20 ft/D) and permeability (more than 1 darcy) associated
with these sandpack floods (Li et al.) and corefloods (Guo et al.)
make these floods poor analogies for flooding in tight reservoir
rock. Both Li and Guo place emphasis on the creation of a “strong
foam” environment, which is poorly suited for flooding in tight
rock.
Additional authors have tested the addition of polymer to foam
to improve stability (Shen et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2011) with var-
ied effects (both stabilization and destabilization observed).
Although a potentially viable strategy for increasing the apparent
viscosity of foam, this technique is excluded from this paper
because of both existing concerns for polymer application in tight
formations and a desire to study only foam mechanisms and to
avoid the additional impact that polymer addition may have.
The single known micellar-foam-flood pilot is described by
Wang et al. (2001) for the Northern Daqing oil field. Poor labora-
tory recovery of less than 50% of ROIP was observed for micel-
lar-foam and micellar-polymer (ASP) flooding, indicating an
apparent poor understanding and control of microemulsion envi-
ronment. Further, a designed gas/liquid ratio of 3:1 was unachiev-
able in field setting because of poor injectivity, forcing the
reduction to 0.34:1 during injection. Nonetheless, the ultimate re-
covery of 33% of ROIP current and 44% of ROIP forecast is com-
parable to laboratory data and reflects the ability for the process to
scale up effectively.
Relevant Foam Theory
As described by Schramm (1994), foam is defined as a dispersion
of gas in a bulk liquid. Gas, in the form of bubbles, is separated
by thin films called lamellae (singular, lamella). In porous media,
these lamellae typically span the pore walls and are especially
concentrated at constricted pore throats. During gas flow, the
lamellae exhibit a resistance to flow because of both (1) the vis-
cous shear stresses in thin films between the pore walls and the
gas/liquid interface and (2) the forces required to push lamellae
through constricted pore throats. Foam strength is, therefore, a
function of the stability and generation of these liquid lamellae.
The liquid lamellae generated are thermodynamically unsta-
ble. The steady-state presence of foam involves constant genera-
tion and destruction of foam lamellae. Synthetic surfactants are
used that act at the gas/liquid interface to stabilize the lamellae
and thus foam. Liquid drainage from lamellae causes lamellae to
drain until a critical thickness is achieved and the lamellae thin
film ruptures, described by Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek
(DLVO) theory. Drainage effects are driven by capillarity and
gravity. These effects are counteracted by the stabilizing effects
of electrostatic repulsion, capillary pressure reduction, and the
Gibbs-Marignoli effect (Scheludko 1967; Djabbarah and Wasan
1985; Weaire and Hutzler 1997).
For foam generation in porous media, three mechanisms that
contribute are gas “snap off,” lamellae “leave behind,” and
“lamellae division.” These individual mechanisms for lamellae
generation and destruction are described in the work by Shen
et al. (2006), Renkema and Rossen (2007), and Ransohoff and
Radke (1988).
Foam-Generation Conditions
Two foam regimes are believed to exist within porous media—a
low-quality regime and a high-quality regime (Osterloh and Jante
1992; Nguyen et al. 2000; Gauglitz et al. 2002). Low-quality
foams are also known as “coarse” or “weak” foams. For such
foams, lamellae are generated through snap off and lamellae leave
October 2013 SPE Journal
behind. Because of induced pressure gradients that are too low to
overcome capillary forces at the pore-throat constrictions, these
generated lamellae remain static. This restricts the number of
lamellae that are present and results in reduced resistance to flow
and a coarse or weak foam state.
The second foam regime is the high-quality regime that is also
known as that of “strong foam.” This foam regime is associated
with the mobilization of lamellae that were previously generated
at the pore throats through snap off or leave behind. After dis-
placement from these constrictions, these mechanisms are capable
of generating additional lamellae. In addition, mobilized lamellae
can reproduce through lamellae division as they flow through the
pore network. This is of particular importance because of the lim-
ited pore-throat geometries that enable the other two mechanisms.
A much greater range of pore network throats and constrictions is
capable of forming lamellae under these conditions.
The required pressure gradient for lamellae mobilization
(DPmin) is directly related to the in-situ capillary pressure for the
pore throats at which the static lamellae exist. Rossen and Gau-
glitz (1990) and Shi (1996) present the required pressure gradient
for the creation of a strong foam, which is directly associated with
the mobilization of liquid lamellae. By presenting a model based
on percolation theory with beadpack data, a reduction in perme-
ability is shown to be associated with an increase in DPmin accord-
ing to the relationship DPmin scales as !k–1/2. This is contrasted
with other models on the basis of a limiting capillary pressure
relation that shows that DPmin scales as k1/2 (Ransohoff and
Radke 1988; Gauglitz et al. 2002).
The exact nature of the n-exponent that dictates the DPmin vs.
k relationship is beyond the scope of this study. It is considered to
be of lesser importance because of forecasted DPmin values for ei-
ther relation that would be several orders of magnitude higher
than feasible in formations of 10 md. In addition, the empirical
data used to develop these models are most commonly those of
micromodels, beadpacks, sandpacks, or high-permeability rock-
outcrop cores. The permeability range used in this study falls out-
side of the range dictated by these experiments. This is further
amplified by the increased variability in pore size (and throat) dis-
tribution for tight formations, causing a diminished correlation
between macroscopic permeability and actual in-situ conditions at
the pore throats.
Tested Hypothesis
Current foam-mobility-control research has an emphasis on
achieving a “high-strength” foam state. High-strength foam is
associated with high in-situ pressure gradients because of the
large-scale generation and displacement of stable lamellae. Previ-
ously noted resistance factors (RFs) associated with high-strength
foam (RF ¼ 200 to 500), which make design for highly permeable
sands difficult, would be untenable for tight rock (less than 20
md), the objective of this study.
Further, as described previously, conventional foam theory
indicates an inverse relationship between minimal critical pressure
gradient for creation of high-strength foam and rock permeability.
This is based on an understanding of lamellae mobilization as
the critical factor in achieving large populations of in-situ liquid
lamellae that impede flow. As such, a conventional high-strength
foam state may not be achievable for tight formations under pra-
ctical conditions, even if such a state were considered to be
desirable.
On the basis of the empirical data from Chou (1991) and
Friedmann et al. (1991) and relevant foam theory (as described
previously), it is believed that a “weak-foam” region exists that
can provide a desirable flow-resistance factor for displacement of
light crudes in tight porous media. In this regime, lamellae gener-
ation is primarily driven by snap off and leave behind mecha-
nisms that are only poorly dependent on pressure gradient or
capillary pressure. These lamellae will primarily be of the immo-
bile variety because of the high in-situ capillary pressures demon-
strated at the small pore throats and should provide a reduced but
still sufficient resistance to flow [Balan et al. (2012) has shown
October 2013 SPE Journal
that gas relative permeability is exponentially reduced with
trapped-gas saturation].
In addition, preferential flow and partitioning of mobile lamel-
lae (lamella division) may be present in the higher-permeability
channels in which capillary pressures are reduced. If present, this
could favorably affect displacement efficiency by preferentially
impeding flow in the higher-permeability regions. This character-
istic of widely varied pore-throat-size distribution and related cap-
illary pressures in tight formations would be reflected on a
macroscopic level by a critical pressure-gradient transition zone.
Instead of a critical capillary pressure causing a discontinuity in
foam strength as lamellae are mobilized throughout the medium,
PV available to lamellae mobilization would be a function of
induced capillary pressure. As pressure is increased, smaller and
smaller channels would exist that allow for the mobilization of
liquid lamellae. This would indicate that foam strength is a func-
tion of pressure gradient or other factors affecting in-situ capillary
number such as gas saturation.
Experiment Description
Materials. Surfactants and Cosolvents. Two surfactants were
used—an alcohol propoxy sulfate (with C16–17 branched alcohol
hydrophobe and seven propylene oxide groups) and an internal ole-
fin sulfonate (IOS) (with C15–18 twin-tailed hydrophobe). IOS has
been shown to demonstrate good foaming behavior at low concen-
tration. The cosolvent triethylene glycol monobutyl ether (TEGBE)
was added to improve equilibration time during this study and could
likely be removed during field study, because observed microemul-
sions viscosity was low. Surfactant chemistry and formulation were
similar to those used by Srivastava (2010) for light crude oil. Other
surfactants and surfactant combinations have been used by authors
as part of ASP or micellar-foam flooding. These surfactants are
described in their respective papers and in Liang et al. (2011) in
which several different surfactants are tested for a high-tempera-
ture, high-salinity environment.
Alkali and Synthetic Brine. Alkali reduces surfactant adsorp-
tion on rock surfaces, can generate soap in the presence of a
reactive crude oil, and can speed microemulsion equilibration
(Hirasaki and Zhang 2004). Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) is a
common alkali and is used in this flood. For formations with con-
centrations of divalent cations in solution (Ca2þ and Mg2þ), the
undesirable precipitation of sodium carbonate can take place in
the form of insoluble salts (carbonates). To minimize and ensure
consistent absorption for all corefloods, 1% Na2CO3 was added to
synthetic brine and injected chemical formulations. In addition, to
prevent carbonate precipitation, divalent cations were excluded
from all injected fluids. NaCl was added to achieve the brine com-
position of 1.00% Na2CO3, 3.46% NaCl (wt%).
Outcrop Cores. Texas Cream limestone cores exhibited the
permeability type and consistency desired for this study. Four
cores (LTG 1–4) exhibited 10.8- to 14.2-md permeability to brine.
A low-permeability streak in one core (LTG 5) resulted in lower
overall average permeability (2.6 md). Core dimensions were
1.5  12 in. For preparation, cores were aged dry at 120 C for 30
days after cutting.
Crude Oil. Crude oil used for floods had a viscosity of 1.9 cp
and a gravity of 458 API. Phase-behavior tests indicate that mix-
ing of the crude with Na2CO3 resulted in no observable produc-
tion of microemulsions or soap, indicating the crude is minimally
reactive/not reactive.
Experimental Procedure
Aqueous-Stability and Phase-Behavior Tests. Aqueous-stabil-
ity and phase-behavior tests were performed to determine the
ideal chemical formulation for chemical slug injection. Criteria
and process for screening are described in detail by Flaaten et al.
(2009). Several surfactant/cosolvent concentration pairings were
tested across a salinity spectrum to select a ratio that exhibited the
desired microemulsion phase window, high oil solubility, and sur-
factant stability. The selected chemical formulation had the
853
 50
Solubilization Ratio (cc/cc)
40
30
Water Solubilization Ratio
20 Oil
Solubilization Ratio
10
0 outside the scope of this study.
20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000
Soft Brine (mg/LTDS)
Fig. 1—Oil and water solubilization data for selected surfactant
formulation (t 5 7 days). Optimal salinity solubilization ratio of
32 corresponds to oil/water IFT of 310–4 dynes/cm.
properties 1.25% surfactant at 3:1 alcohol propoxy sulfate to in-
ternal olefin sulfonate with 1.0% TEGBE.
Fig. 1 depicts the oil/surfactant solubility ratio as a function of
total dissolved solids (TDS). TDS is the sum of a consistent 1.0%
Na2CO3 and a variable NaCl concentration. Optimal salinity was
observed at approximately 35,000 ppm TDS with a solubilization
ratio of r* ¼ 32 (cm3/cm3) and implied oil/water IFT of 310–4
dynes/cm according to the Chun Huh equation (Huh 1979).
Higher salinity values correspond with water-in-oil Windsor
Type II(þ) microemulsions, whereas lower salinity values corre-
spond with oil-in-water Windsor Type II(–) microemulsions.
Through the use of a negative-process salinity gradient, as is com-
mon with ASP flooding, a progression across optimal salinity is
induced. This is performed to introduce favorable salinity toler-
ance, reduction of microemulsion viscosity, and decreased surfac-
tant absorption. In addition, when injecting surfactant/gas (foam),
synergistic effects between the Type II(–) and foam stability are
observed (Srivastava et al. 2009). “Microemulsion environment”
is used to describe the aqueous-phase conditions that correspond
with microemulsion production if contacted by oil (e.g., Type III
microemulsion environment).
Drive Chemical Selection and Testing. Foam-stability tests are
commonly performed to determine the extent to which the
injected surfactant solution is able to stabilize foam. Bulk-foam
tests that are frequently undertaken test the rate at which a high-
quality bulk solution of foam decays, as described by Guo et al.
(2012) and Nguyen (2010). These tests, however, often diverge
with available data for flow in porous media because of different
foam rheological properties and the importance of foam-genera-
tion mechanisms on the creation of a high in-situ population of
liquid lamellae. For purposes of this study, bulk-foam tests were
used on a purely qualitative basis to indicate the presence of stable
foam. Surfactant type and concentration were derived from previ-
ous authors who observed favorable drive apparent viscosity dur-
ing gas/surfactant displacement with nitrogen (Srivastava 2010).
Bulk-foam tests were conducted for both slug and drive chemi-
cal solutions in the presence of experiment crude oil and without
experiment crude oil. For injected slug solution, stable foaming
was observed for aqueous samples only, with diminished foaming
observed during testing with crude oil included. This is because
of the destabilizing effects associated with Windsor Type III
microemulsions on foam stability. Depending on the extent of
destabilization, this attribute can be considered to have favorable
implications for process conformance.
For chemical drive solution, the generation of stable foam was
observed for samples that contained crude oil and for those that
did not contain crude oil. This can be attributed to reduced salinity
and a lower Windsor Type II(–) microemulsion environment in
which microemulsions are not believed to correlate with a high
854
degree of lamellae destabilization. The presence of stable drive
apparent viscosity because of foam is critical for process stability,
and therefore it is desired for drive fluid to exhibit foaming prop-
erties throughout a wide range of crude-oil saturations.
Coreflood Apparatus. The coreflood apparatus used in this
experiment is described by the schematic (Fig. 2). Overall design
is consistent with that of coreflood experiments conducted by
other researchers. Two backpressure regulators (BPRs) were used
at the coreholder effluent to maintain elevated experiment pres-
sure. A pressure of 580 psi was selected for N2 flooding as a com-
promise between the desire to minimize gas expansion and the
desire to minimize nitrogen miscibility effects, both of which are
Liquid rates were controlled with a Jasco PU-2080 HPLC
pump that was tested to show 61% accuracy over the range of
rates used in the experiment. Gas rate was controlled with a
Brooks Sla5850 mass flow controller with regulated upstream
(gas supply) and downstream (with backpressure regulator) pres-
sures of 1,150 and 1,100 psi, respectively. Good control of mass
rate (63%) was shown down to rates equivalent to 0.25-ft/D gas
interstitial velocity. Average core pressure at waterflood comple-
tion was used as the pressure for required gas-flow calculations by
use of real-gas behavior. This was shown to be a good approxima-
tion, with average experiment pressure deviating by less than
1.5% for all points during chemical flooding. Pressure was
observed at XD ¼ 0.00, 0.25, 0.75, and 1.00.
Coreflood Preparation. Synthetic brine, limestone cores, and
injected chemical slug and drive were prepared as described in
the Materials subsection. Samples from prepared batches were
taken, mixed with study crude oil, and compared with reference
phase behavior to ensure that fluid properties were consistent with
desired composition and properties.
Injected slug, drive, crude oil, and brine were placed in indi-
vidual accumulators inside the oven to eliminate the effects of
thermal expansion during injection. Chemical slug and drive were
placed in volumetric accumulators and were displaced by a lower-
density immiscible mineral oil. The partitioning of surfactant into
mineral oil was not observed. Crude oil was placed in a volumet-
ric accumulator and displaced with a higher-density deionized
water. Synthetic brine was placed in a piston accumulator. Aque-
ous solutions demonstrated minimal thermal expansion, whereas
crude oil was measured to expand 2.5% during heating from
standard conditions to 45 C. This was corrected for during vol-
ume balances that were used to calculate in-situ saturations.
Limestone cores were enclosed in aluminum and heat-shrunk
plastic liner with ends exposed. End pieces were not required
because of coreholder influent/effluent dispersion grid patterns
that reduce flow-convergence effects. The core was placed in the
coreholder, and holes were drilled at 3 and 9 in. to accommodate
coreholder pressure taps. Mineral oil was used to fill the confining
sleeve and set confining pressure at 1,300 psi. The setup was leak
tested with nitrogen at 800 psi.
Coreflood Procedures. After preparation and installation of
experiment fluids and core, the following procedures are used to
describe the experiment:
 Brine Saturation. The setup and core were vacuumed for 12
hours and then saturated at low rate to 100% brine. Material-bal-
ance calculations were used to calculate brine PV. Salinity-tracer
measurements were used to verify material-balance calculations
during one test flood.
 Establishing Core Wettability. Oven temperature was set to
an experimental temperature of 45 C, and a 10-PV brine volume
was displaced through the core at a low rate during a period of 5
days. High Na2CO3 concentrations in the displacing brine (1.0%)
were used to establish a low-absorption environment for later
chemical flooding.
 Permeability. Permeability to brine was measured at several
discrete flow rates over a wide range. Results were used to
October 2013 SPE Journal
 Confining Fluid
BPR BPR

Fraction
Collector

3 in
Core Absolute Pressure
Transducer
Hydraulic
Fluid Pump Differential Pressure
Transducer

12 in

6 in
BPR Absolute Pressure
Transducer

Bleed Absolute Pressure

Transducer

3 in
BPR

Mass Flow
Controller
Nitrogen (N2)

pump

Flood fluids: Crude oil,

Flood Gas Reservoir brine, Clug
Represents Oven formulation, Drive
Volume formulation

Fig. 2—Schematic of coreflood apparatus used in this study.

determine sectional permeability and also establish an improved
transducer calibration. Linear regression of measured sectional
pressure drop vs. flow rate was used to normalize to a zero flow
rate/pressure drop of zero.
 Oil Saturation. Oil injection was performed at 10 cm3/hr
(approximately 6 ft/D) for tD ¼ 2 PV, at which point fractional
flow of water ( fw) 0. Irreducible water saturation (Swi), initial oil
saturation (Soi), and relative permeability of oil at residual water
saturation (k0ro) were calculated. Capillary end effect was a con-
cern but not believed to be significant as per subsequent
discussion.
 Waterflood. Oil was displaced by injecting brine at 2 ft/D,
the same rate as with chemical-flood injection. The 2 PV of brine
was injected, at which point fw varied between 97 and 100%.
Remaining oil saturation (Sor@2PVw), water saturation
(Sw@2PVw), and relative permeability of brine at 2 PV of water
injected (krw@2PVw) were calculated.
 Slug Injection. After waterflood, 0.3 PV of previously pre-
pared chemical slug was coinjected with nitrogen at 50% gas frac-
tion—tD total ¼ 0.6 PV—at a liquid rate (qL) of 1 ft/D that was
equivalent to total fluid injection rate (qtotal) of 2 ft/D. Use of a
T-valve for mixing resulted in approximately 0.0025 PV of gas/
liquid alternating injection that was determined visually from 1.5
in. gas/liquid slugs at the influent (known tubing inside diameter).
Flow streams for injected fluids were pressurized to match in-situ
core conditions before beginning pressure communication to
remove pressure shock and to improve material balance.
 Drive Injection. Drive injection followed slug injection at
identical rate and gas quality. Injection proceeded until either 0%
oil cut or tD total ¼ 3.5 PV.
Fluids Processing and Measurement. A fractional collector
and burette were used to measure volumes of produced fluids for
Procedures 4 through 7 and 4 and 5, respectively. Production of
microemulsion during certain portions of slug and drive injection
required the heating of select samples to an elevated temperature
of 80 C to break microemulsion. Results were recorded before
and after microemulsion breaking, with small quantities of highly
stable microemulsion still present for select samples. Salinity was
measured for a clean aqueous phase (if present) by means of a sa-
linity probe and calibrated to reference salinities of batch reser-
voir brine, chemical slug, and chemical drive.
Material Balance. Material balance was used for all recovery
and saturation because of the presence of gas that negated the use
of aqueous-phase tracers for oil saturation. In addition, the use of

October 2013 SPE Journal 855

 TABLE 1—FLOOD OBJECTIVES AND INJECTION STRATEGY

Injection Strategy

Experiment Res (%wt) Slug (%wt) Drive (%wt) Description/Objective

Salts (same in 1.00% Na2CO3 1.00% Na2CO3 1.00% Na2CO3

all experiments) 3.46% NaCl 1.73% NaCl 0.0% NaCl
Surfactants and þ þ þ
alcohols
LTG_Tert_#1 None 1.25% APS:ISO¼3:1, 0.10% IOS Base-case LTG flood
1.00% TEGBE
LTG_Tert_#2 None 1.00% APS:ISO¼3:1, 0.10% IOS Reference LTG repeatability
1.00% TEGBE and low-permeability flood
Surf_Tert_#3 None 1.25% APS:ISO¼3:1, 0.10% IOS Reference surfactant flood (no gas)
1.00% TEGBE
Gas_Tert_#4 None None None Reference brine/gas coinjection
flood (no surfactant)
LTG_Oil_#5 None 1.25% APS:ISO¼3:1, 0.10% IOS Effect of high initial oil saturation j
1.00% TEGBE Potential for secondary recovery

X-ray imaging was discounted because of high experimental pres-
sures and likely saturation changes during transportation at lower
pressures.
Capillary End Effect. Capillary end effect during oilflooding
was a concern for these experiments because of unidirectional oil-
displacement conditions and low permeability. Recorded steady-
state pressure gradient during oilflooding varied between 100 and
350 psi for all floods (permeability-dependent) and represented
the maximal flow rate across all floods that could be used and
allow operation within the conditions of not exceeding apparatus
specifications or damaging flooded cores. Mostly uniform relative
permeability to oil (kro) across core sections for all floods was
exhibited, with sectional kro values varying by less than 15% from
the core average kro for all floods. In addition, kro variability was
mostly length-independent, with lowest sectional kro values exhib-
ited by each of the sections for at least one coreflood.
This sectional uniformity in kro is consistent with capillary end
effect not having a substantial impact on relative permeability cal-
culations because of a higher relative contribution from viscous
forces. If capillary end effect had been substantially contributing,
it would be expected that the lower steady-state oil saturation in
the final 3 in. of core (X–1
D ¼ 0.75) would have resulted in a higher
normalized (to sectional absolute permeability) pressure drop and
–1
thus lower calculated kro for XD ¼ 0.75 than for other sections
(XD ¼ 0 to 0.75).
Coreflood-Study Attributes
Five corefloods were used in this study. The objectives of each
flood are described in Table 1. LTG_Tert_#1 is contrasted with
Floods 2 through 5 to establish chemical and permeability toler-
ance (LTG_Tert_#2), relative contributions from surfactant flood-
ing (Surf_Tert_#3) and gasflooding (Gas_Tert_#4), and impact of
high initial oil saturation upon LTG oil mobilization and displace-
ment. In addition, reference floods were used to validate models
used to evaluate important process attributes such as apparent
drive viscosity, displacement efficiency, and stability of displac-
ing fluids.
The injection strategy to conduct these five floods is also
expressed in Table 1. Consistent liquid formulations were used
for all floods except Gas_Tert_#4, in which surfactant was re-
moved from the formulation, and LTG_Tert_#2, in which lower
surfactant concentration was used to test the tolerance for reduced
chemical injection.
Before chemical flooding, the five floods exhibited properties
expressed in Table 2. These values were calculated from volume
and pressure measurements at the steps described by Procedures 1
through 5. Four cores (LTG 1 through 4) exhibited 10.8- through
14.2-md permeability to brine. A low-permeability streak in one
core (LTG 5) resulted in lower overall average permeability (2.6
md). Porosity (U), Soi, and So@2PVw are all similar across floods.
Similar relative k0ro was observed across all three sections in
each of the floods (data not shown), indicating uniformity in oil
saturation. This is likely because of very favorable mobility ratios
during initial oil saturation. Substantial variation in krw@2PVw was
observed across the three sections with dimensionless distance
XD ¼ 0 to .25 demonstrating the highest krw. This is consistent with
diminished displacement efficiency and discussed in detail in the
Results and Discussion section. Higher relative permeability to oil
in LTG_Tert_#2 is believed to be caused by the higher DP during
oil saturation. Likewise, the higher krw is believed to be caused by
the lower permeability of XD ¼ 0 to 0.25 (1.2 md), which resulted in
an increased weighting for XD ¼ 0 to 0.25 in the overall average.
Results and Discussion
Establish High Tertiary Recovery. Recovery Profile. Tertiary
recovery of 91% of ROIP was achieved during LTG_Tert_#1
flooding. Including waterflood, resulting total recovery was 95%
of OOIP with remaining oil saturation after chemical flooding of

TABLE 2—NOTABLE PROPERTIES BEFORE CHEMICAL FLOODING

krw@2PVw
k U Soi Sor@2PVw
Experiment (md) (%) (%) (%) kro XD¼0–1 XD¼0–1 XD¼0–0.25 XD¼0.25–0.75 XD¼0.75–1.0

LTG_Tert_#1 10.8 21.2 56 29 0.35 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.08

LTG_Tert_#2 2.6 20.9 51 30 0.44 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.08
Surf_Tert_#3 14.2 22.4 53 33 0.33 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.10
Gas_Tert_#4 11.7 20.7 56 27 0.35 0.09 0.22 0.07 0.10
LTG_Oil_#5 14.6 22.4 51 n/a 0.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a

856 October 2013 SPE Journal

 100%
EOR
90% TOR
Oil Recovery (% ROIP), or
Oil Cut
80% (incl micro)
OilCut (%oil/%liquid)
Pure Oil Cut
70%
60%
Microemulsion breakthrough (0.65 PVLiquid)
50%
Gas BT(0.15 PVLiquid)
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Injected PVLiquid
Fig. 3—Oil recovery and fractional-flow profile for LTG_Tert_
#1—10.8 md, Texas. Cream limestone, 29% ROIP, 50% injected-
gas quality.
So ¼ 3%. Fig. 3 presents recovery and fractional-flow information
vs. dimensionless-liquid injected (tDL) for LTG_Tert_#1. Consist-
ent oil cut ( fo) of 20 to 30% was observed from tDL ¼ 0.2 PV to
0.8 PV. This resulted in tertiary recovery of 73% of ROIP by
tDL ¼ 0.8 PV and 79% of ROIP by tDL ¼ 1.0 PV.
The percentage of oil produced that was in bonded microemul-
sion form reflected 30% of total recovered oil. Of the 30% of
recovered oil in bonded microemulsion form, 20% (two-thirds)
was easily broken by raising temperature to 75 C for a period of 2
days. Such microemulsions are more likely to be broken in a cost-
effective manner during field emulsion-breaking activities.
Observed results are similar to successful conventional ASP
and other chemical EOR floods in which a high fractional flow of
oil is observed during a period of production corresponding with
an oil bank. The elongation of the oil bank at lower (but consist-
ent) oil cut is believed to be a function of low oil viscosity and
low pore space available to mobile oil (capillary effects in low
permeability) and is discussed in detail in the Elongated Oil Bank
subsection. It is not believed to be as a result of diminished dis-
placement efficiency.
Secondary increase of oil production starting at tDL ¼ 0.7 PV
coincided with production of a microemulsion bank. Successful
ASP tests at high permeabilities (not possible for low permeabil-
ity) often exhibit similar behavior with secondary microemulsion
production observed at approximately 1-PV injection. For this
flood, by accounting for in-situ gas saturation at microemulsion
breakthrough (19%, discussed later), microemulsion production
was shown to take place at 0.9 to 1.2 PV (liquid injected/liquid in
situ). This is consistent with conventional ASP flooding in high-
permeability rocks.
Pressure Profile. Observed sectional pressure gradient during
LTG_Tert_#1 is shown in Fig. 4. Pressure gradient is normalized
to sectional length and absolute permeability according to the
relationship presented in Eq. 1. Pressure gradient increases during
displacement as residual oil is mobilized and an oil bank is
formed. This is attributed to decreases in total apparent fluid mo-
bility as oil saturation increases from residual oil saturation (ROS)
until a relative minimal apparent fluid mobility is achieved (rela-
tionship is discussed further in the Mobility Ratio and Apparent
Viscosity section). As the oil bank progresses out of the section, oil
saturation decreases, and a reduction in pressure gradient is ob-
served. A “shock-like” progression from Section 1 (XD ¼ 0 to 0.25) !
Section 2 (XD ¼ 0.25 to 0.75) ! Section 3 (XD ¼ 0.75 to 1) is observed,
with a decrease in the pressure gradient for the upstream section
being accompanied by a rise in the pressure gradient for the follow-
ing section. The elongation of the pressure wave is apparent for
Section 3. This is believed to be a product of an elongate oil bank, a
characteristic already noted and discussed in detail in the Elon-
gated Oil Bank subsection.
October 2013 SPE Journal
100.0
Normalized Pressure Gradient (PSI/ft)
Slug Drive
90.0
80.0
XD = 0.1
70.0 XD = 0–0.25
60.0
XD = 0.25–0.75
50.0 XD = 0.75–1
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Liquid PV Injected (PVLiquid)
Fig. 4—Sectional pressure profile for LTG_Tert_#1—10.8 md,
Texas. Cream limestone, 29% ROIP, 50% injected-gas quality;
2 ft/D rate of advance.
   
DP DP ksection
¼  . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
DL normalized DL section kcore average
Steady-state pressure gradient is achieved in all three sections
by tDL ¼ 0.85 PV, with upstream sections reaching steady-state
pressure gradient at earlier periods. This was shown to correspond
with a substantial reduction in oil fractional flow as measured by
the fractional collector. Accounting for in-situ gas and oil satura-
tion at breakthrough (18 and 12%, respectively), steady-state pres-
sure gradient was achieved at a liquid injection of 1.14 in-situ
water volume. The completion of the process at a value near 1.0
in-situ water volume indicates that reduced mixing and favorable
“shock-like” displacement was observed.
Late-stage steady-state pressure gradient of 25 psi/ft was stable
during the measured tDL ¼ 3 PVperiod. The high-pressure gradient
is a function of the high rate of advance used (vtotal fluid ¼ 2 ft/D),
which was performed for experimental convenience and to accel-
erate flood timelines. In addition, the observed steady-state pres-
sure drop is actually less than that of the waterflood steady-state
pressure drop. This is because of diminished waterflood displace-
ment efficiency for later sections of the core that take place during
unstable waterflood displacement. This results in reduced relative
permeability to water. As is discussed in detail later (see the Mac-
roscopic Stability Attributes section), through better displacement
efficiency, LTG reduces observed pressure gradient while main-
taining stable displacement.
Similar displacement properties were observed during flooding
at qtotal ¼ 0.5 ft/D (not included), and it is believed that compara-
ble displacement can be achieved at substantially lower rates.
Rate independence of this process is contrary to strong-foam liter-
ature that indicates the existence of a critical minimal flow rate.
However, flow rates used in this study are several orders of mag-
nitude less than that required to achieve a critical flow rate for
propagation of strong foam in 10-md rock.
Salinity Profile. As previously described, there is a strong
relationship between microemulsion type and IFT. A reduction of
oil/water IFT by three orders of magnitude or more can be
observed as microemulsion type progresses to Type III from ei-
ther Type II(–) or Type II(þ). Further, optimal salinity that corre-
sponds with such a microemulsion type can deviate substantially
from observed results during phase-behavior pipette testing
because of the absorption of surfactant, degradation of surfactant,
activity of crude oil, and ion exchange or mixing of salt ions
(among other factors).
As a design consideration, a negative salinity gradient is often
used to ensure that optimal salinity is achieved within the reser-
voir. Fig. 5 presents the observed effluent salinity for LTG_
Tert_#1. Salinity is strongly correlated with microemulsion type,
and therefore can be used as a powerful tool to evaluate the
857
 Oil Recovery (% ROIP), or Oil Cut (%)
50,000 Type II(+) 1 Cum.LTG_Tert_#2
0.9 Cum.LTG_Tert_#1

Microemulsion Environment
Total Oil Cut LTG_Tert_#1
40,000 Type III 0.8 Total Oil Cut LTG_Tert_#2
.70 PV
0.7 Pure Oil Cut LTG_Tert_#2
Salinity (ppm)

30,000 0.6
0.5
20,000 0.4
Effluent Salinity Type II(–) 0.3
Drive Salinity
10,000 Slug Salinity
0.2
Reservoir Salinity 0.1
0
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Injected PVLiquid Liquid PV Injected (PVLiquid)

Fig. 5—Effluent salinity profile and microemulsion environment Fig. 6—Oil recovery and fractional-flow profile for LTG_Tert_#2
for LTG_Tert_#1—10.8 md, Texas. Cream limestone, 29% ROIP, (2.6 md, Texas. Cream limestone, 30% ROIP, 50% quality, 1.0%
50% quality. slug surfactant concentration) vs. LTG_Tert_#1 (10.8 md, Texas.
Cream limestone, 29% ROIP, 50% quality, 1.25% slug surfactant
concentration).
conditions encountered during flooding. Early effluent salinity
(0 to 0.65 PVL) is that of in-situ reservoir brine and corresponds to those of LTG_Tert_#1. In addition to a reduction in permeabil-
with the formation of a lower Type II(þ), upper Type III ity (2.6 vs. 10.6 md) because of a low-permeability streak in the
microemulsion. outcrop block, slug surfactant concentration was reduced from
This is followed by a sharp decrease in salinity until injected 1.25 to 1.00% (wt%) to test the threshold for reduced surfactant.
slug salinity is achieved. This transition crosses the optimal condi- Comparable data were observed for recovery, fractional flow,
tions for the Type III microemulsion formation, and ensures that observed pressure profile, apparent drive viscosity, and in-situ gas
ultralow IFT behavior is observed. Because most oil exists as part saturation. Results are mostly shown as part of comparison tables
of a single-phase oil bank that precedes the microemulsion front, included in later portions of this paper.
a short period of ultralow IFT is sufficient for oil mobilization if Fig. 6 presents recovery data for LTG_Tert_#2 vs. recovery
effective mobility control is present (Nelson and Pope 1978). data for the LTG_Tert_#1 flood that was discussed previously.
As the flood continues, the salinity continues to decrease until Overall recovery is slightly lower at 75 vs. 91%, which is believed
injected drive salinity is achieved. Low salinity has the advantage to be a function of reduced flood length, experimental error in oil
of decreasing microemulsion viscosity (associated with Type III material balance, and/or reduced concentration of injected
microemulsions), which enables more-effective displacement of surfactant.
mobilized oil. In addition, conditions that correspond with Type Similar high oil cuts were observed that constituted a large oil
II(–) microemulsion formulation also correspond with more-stable bank (during tDL ¼ 0.15 to 0.6 PV). Oil-bank production was for a
foam propagation in the presence of crude oil. This allows for slightly shorter period of time than for LTG_Tert_#1, which
increased apparent viscosity of displacing fluids and more-effec- appears to be a function of reduced oil mobilization in the last
tive process stability and displacement of preceding fluids. section of the core because of factors previously noted. This is
described in greater detail later, in which pressure-derived mobil-
Use of Reference Floods To Determine Tolerance ity data are used to visualize this relationship.
and Process Contributions
Reference Flood: Process Tolerance. Application of LTG to Reference Floods: Gas Coinjection and Surfactant Injection.
tighter rock (LTG_Tert_#2) resulted in process attributes similar Surfactant and gas tertiary flooding were used to compare effec-
tiveness and to establish the relative contribution of these related
processes. As noted in Table 1, Surf_Tert_#3 used the same injec-
100% LTG Oil Recovery tion strategy as LTG_Tert_#1 with the notable exception that the
90% Surfactant Flood Recovery gas-injection fraction was reduced from 50% to 0%. During Gas_-
80% Gas Flood Recovery Tert_#4, surfactant was removed from the formulation, and all
Oil Recovery (%RO)

LTG vs. Gas Flood+

70% Surfactant Flood
other parameters were held constant to those of LTG_Tert_#1.
Results from surfactant injection (Surf_Tert_#3) reflect the rel-
60% ative effectiveness and contribution of oil/water IFT reduction.
50% This is considered an unstable displacement process because of
40% the lower relative mobility of mobilized oil vs. injected brine.
30% Results from gas coinjection (Gas_Tert_#4) reflect contributions
from gas injection at the initial reservoir IFT environment. This
20%
flood captures recovery contributions from immiscible gas dis-
10% placing oil-filled pores and increases (or decreases) in mobility
0% control during gas/liquid flow. Increased mobility control due to
00
25

50
75
00
25
50

75
00
25

50
75

00

lamellae production is not captured by either reference flood. In

0.
0.

0.
0.
1.
1.
1.

1.
2.
2.

2.
2.

3.

Total Injected PV (PVTotal Liquid)

addition, effects of increased gas displacement of oil at low IFT
are not captured by the selected reference floods.
Fig. 7 presents the cumulative oil recovery vs. dimensionless
Fig. 7—Comparison of cumulative oil recovery for LTG_Tert_#1, total fluid injected (tD total) for reference gas coinjection, surfac-
Surf_Tert_#3, and Gas_Tert_#4. LTG flooding is shown to sub-
stantially improve recovery over combined surfactant and gas tant injection, and LTG flooding. Total fluid injected is a different
coinjection floods after 0.50 PVtotal fluid injected. LTG flooding is metric from liquid injected (tDL) that is used for previous plots in
delayed with respect to PVtotal fluid caused by the 50% gas qual- this paper. Total liquid injected is more directly correlated with
ity used. Potential exists to accelerate recovery with respect to mixing and displacement because of low gas saturation; however,
PVtotal fluid (shift left) by reducing gas fraction. total fluid injected is more closely correlated with allowable

858 October 2013 SPE Journal

 60.0%
LTG Oil Cut
Surfactant Flood Oil Cut
50.0%
Gas Flood Oil Cut
40.0% LTG vs. Gas +
Surfactant Oil Cut
Oil Cut (%)
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
00
25
50
75
00
25
50
75
00
25
50
75
00
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
–10.0%
Total Injected PV (PVTotal Liquid)
Fig. 8—Oil cut for LTG_Tert_#1, Surf_Tert_#3, and Gas_Tert_#4.
injection rate and, therefore, actual economics. The figure shows
that recovery with LTG was approximately equal to the sum of
surfactant- and gas-injection floods until tD total ¼ 0.75. After this
point, total recovery with LTG continues to increase, whereas sur-
factant-flood and gasflood recovery remain mostly constant.
Fig. 8 presents the fractional flow of oil vs. tD Total. Compari-
son of LTG flooding vs. the combined oil recovery of gas and sur-
factant (G þ S) flooding yields several notable results. Initially
higher G þ S oil production (tD total approximately 0.05 PV) is
because of oil production ahead of early gas breakthrough during
the gasflood. Later gas breakthrough during LTG flooding results
in a delayed and larger quantity of oil production ahead of this
breakthrough (tD total approximately 0.2 PV). From tD total ¼ 0.25
to 0.50 PV, combined G þ S oil production is greater than LTG
flooding. This is primarily because of the contribution from sur-
factant flooding, which experiences an earlier breakthrough of a
(smaller) oil bank because of an increased liquid-injection rate
(qL ¼ qtotal for surfactant flooding, vs. qL ¼ 0.5  qtotal for LTG
flooding and gasflooding at 50% gas fraction).
After tD total ¼ 0.50 PV, LTG oil production is substantially
higher than the combined G þ S production. This is a result of a
higher overall recovery and production delay because of the injec-
tion of a gas fraction. If reduced gas quality during LTG flooding
can achieve mobilization and displacement properties similar to
those of tested gas fraction, the potential exists to accelerate LTG
recovery with respect to tD total. In Figs. 7 and 8, this would be
expressed by shifting the recovery and fractional flow curves to
the left.
Gasflooding (no surfactant) is negatively affected by the high
relative mobility of a free-gas phase that will occur after gas
breakthrough when surfactant is not present for mobility control.
Almost no increase in oil recovery is observed after tD total ¼ 0.50
PV. Surfactant-flood oil production mostly terminates after
tD total ¼ 1.00 PV. This coincides with the approximate effluent ar-
rival of Type II(–) microemulsions for the flood. Such microemul-
sions correlate with a higher oil/water IFT relative to Type III
microemulsions that will have preceded this environment. This
may cause previously mobilized oil to become trapped by capil-
lary forces again if sufficient mobility control is not present to dis-
place the fluids first.
Reference Flood: Oil Effect and Secondary Recovery. As
noted in Table 1, LTG_Oil_#5 used the same chemical-injection
strategy as LTG_Tert_#1 but is, instead, at initial oil saturation
(Soi). Fig. 9 presents results for recovery and fractional flow for
LTG_Oil_#5 and a reference waterflood. The reference water-
flood was selected because it exhibited similar petrophysical prop-
erties—k 63%, Soi  62%.
Results show that production at high oil cut (more than 85%)
is extended from tD total ¼ 0 to 0.25 PV observed during water-
flooding to tD total ¼ 0 to 0.45 PV during LTG injection. The pro-
duction of water during this period is because of remaining water
October 2013 SPE Journal
100.0%
Oil Recovery (% Ro), or Oil Cut (%)
LTG Recovery
90.0% Waterflood Recovery
LTG Oil Cut
80.0%
Waterflood Oil Cut
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Total Injected PV
Fig. 9—Oil-recovery and fractional-flow profile for LTG_Oil_#5
(14.6 md, 51% OOIP, 50% quality, 1.25% slug surfactant concen-
tration) and reference waterflood (14.2 md, 53% OOIP).
mobility as a result of the experiment preparation process used,
and it is not believed to be a characteristic of early breakthrough
during either waterflood or LTG flooding. By extending the pe-
riod of high-oil-cut production, LTG flooding is able to produce
53% of OOIP before breakthrough. This is contrasted with 32%
of OOIP for waterflooding recovery before breakthrough.
Additional oil production occurs at a 10 to 25% fractional flow
of oil in liquid until tD total ¼ 2.0 PV (tDL ¼ 1.0 PV) in which ulti-
mate recovery is 80% of OOIP. Production during this period may
correspond with the production of a diminished tertiary oil bank
in a manner similar to tertiary-recovery floods discussed previ-
ously. Fractional flow during this oil bank is slightly less than that
of tertiary-recovery floods and is reflective of higher final oil satu-
ration after chemical flooding (which was observed through mate-
rial balance).
The higher final oil saturation after LTG flooding for second-
ary application (LTG_Oil_#5) may be an attribute of reduced
aqueous-phase mixing between reservoir brine and injected slug
at higher oil saturation (Soi vs. Sorw). This is because of the nega-
tive salinity gradient that was used for LTG floods, in which mix-
ing between higher-salinity in-situ reservoir brine and lower-
salinity injected slug is required to achieve an aqueous-phase
composition (environment) suitable for Type III microemulsion
production. Such an environment is correlated with ultralow IFT
and is necessary for high oil mobilization. The reduction in aque-
ous-phase volume that is within the optimal range for oil/water
IFT reduction may then result in reduced or incomplete mobiliza-
tion of residual oil and overall lower final recovery. This recovery
may be improved if injected slug salinity were closer to optimum
instead of within the suboptimal range. This is, however, a com-
promise, given the better foam stability demonstrated for the sub-
optimal salinity environment.
In addition, the partitioning of the surfactant at the oil/water
interface may cause some production of surfactant. This is
because of the higher relative interstitial velocity of the oil bank
as it expands. This causes mobilized oil to flow forward from
the chemical front as it is displaced by additional oil. For
LTG_Oil_#5, this mechanism is amplified by higher initial oil sat-
uration. Nonetheless, because high recovery was still achieved, it
is not believed that this mechanism will cause a significant deple-
tion of surfactant during upscaling that would affect displacement
stability.
Fig. 10 presents the pressure-gradient profile for LTG_Oil_#5
and reference waterflood (w/ absolute permeability within 2% of
LTG_Oil_#5). Pressure response for LTG_Oil_#5 is similar to
that of LTG_Tert_#1. One notable exception is that LTG_Oil_#5
has an initially lower pressure gradient. This is because of an
unusually high endpoint relative mobility for oil as a result of low
oil viscosity (lo ¼ 1.9 cp), which results in an average total rela-
tive mobility that is higher at Soi than it is after a 2-PV waterflood
(Sw@2PVw).
859
 Normalized Pressure Gradient (PSI/ft)
80.0 0.18
Slug Drive XD = 0.1
0.16 λw (m=3)

Relative Mobility (λ) (1/cp)

70.0 XD = 0–0.25
XD = 0.25–0.75 0.14 λo (n=2)
60.0 XD = 0.75–1
Ref. Waterflood 0.12 λtotal ΔSw = 9%
50.0 0.1
40.0 0.08
30.0 0.06
0.04
20.0
0.02
10.0
0

0%

0%
0.0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Liquid PV Injected (PVLiquid) Water Saturation (Sw)

Fig. 10—Sectional pressure profile for LTG_Oil_#5 (14.6 md, Fig. 11—Corey-type relative-mobility curves for Case 1—lo 5
51% OOIP, 50% quality, 1.25% surfactant slug) and reference 1.9 cp, lw 5 0.8 cp, Soi 5 56%, Sor 5 29%. Values represent
waterflood (14.2 md, 53% OOIP); 2-ft/D advance for both floods. actual physical parameters of LTG_Tert_#1.

High oil endpoint relative mobility also enables LTG flooding
to reduce observed pressure gradient vs. waterflood. Pressure gra-
dient at tD total ¼ 2 PV for the waterflood is approximately three
times greater than it is for LTG flooding. This is because poor dis-
placement efficiency during waterflood results in an oil saturation
closer to the mobility minimum for substantial portions of the
core. On the other hand, the reduced pressure gradient during
LTG flooding is not believed to be caused by decreased displace-
ment efficiency. Instead, increased oil recovery, which is known
to take place, and increased displacement efficiency combine to
result in a more uniform and larger decrease in So (to SoSor).
The 1:1 ratio of drive mobility (measured during late-stage flood-
ing in which almost all oil is removed from the core) to initial oil
mobility would indicate that near-ideal displacement takes place.
Understanding Select Physical Attributes
LTG Gas Breakthrough. Early production of oil at tDL ¼ 0.1 PV
(LTG_Tert_#1 and LTG_Tert_#2) was likely associated with dis-
placement of crude oil by slight increases in gas saturation from
some free flow of gas—gas breakthrough was observed at tDL ¼
0.15 PV (tD total ¼ 0.3 PV). High recovery, consistent and high oil
fractional flow, pressure data, and high in-situ gas saturation (dis-
cussed later) indicate that a stable dispersed gas phase was present
during injection. Flow of free gas is believed to be the result of a
diminished rate of advance for the surfactant front relative to
injected gas (described later). Of importance is that neither of the
described mechanisms indicates that the production of a free gas
is caused by the breakdown of foam.
One factor that is believed to contribute to free flow of gas is a
maximal in-situ gas saturation, which is a function of capillary
0.18
λw (m=3)
0.16
Apparent Mobility (λ) (1/cp)
number, and may be lower than injected-gas fraction (50%). Max-
imal gas saturation will occur in which gas occupies the largest
and most-permeable pores for immiscible (gas/liquid) displace-
ment. An approximate quantification of these large pores can be
determined on the basis of the calculation of PV available to mo-
bile oil (PVMO) that is determined during oil/waterflood by initial
(Soi) and residual (Sorw) oil saturation (Eq. 2). During oil/water-
flood, the low-permeability pores are saturated by a wetting water
phase, medium-permeability pores are saturated by immobile oil,
and high-permeability pores are saturated by mobile oil. For
LTG_Tert_#1, PVMO is 27%. If the maximal gas saturation is
related to PVMO, then 50% injection-gas quality will flow in gas-
filled pores that occupy 27% of PV. On the other hand, injected
liquid fraction of 50% will flow in liquid-filled pores that occupy
73% of PV. This will result in a required higher interstitial veloc-
ity for injected gas vs. injected liquid that is manifested in free
gas evolving out of the front of the surfactant bank.
PVMO ¼ Soi Sorw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
As a second factor, during coinjection processes, surfactant
surface absorption and preferential partitioning at the oil/water
interface will result in a diminished rate of advance of an avail-
able surfactant front (for gas/liquid lamellae production). Gas that
may otherwise advance at the same rate as other injected fluids
may then become uncontacted by surfactant as the surfactant front
advances at a slower rate.
Elongated Oil Bank/Tertiary Recovery. During tertiary recov-
ery, a mobile oil bank forms because of diminished oil relative
mobility vs. water relative mobility at high water saturation. As a
result of surfactants mobilizing residual oil, oil saturation ahead of
the surfactant front will increase until oil achieves a greater mobil-
ity than water. After this is achieved, oil will advance at a faster

0.14 λo (n=2) rate than the remaining water. This is expressed through an expand-
ing oil bank that has an oil saturation that corresponds with the oil
0.12 λtotal
ΔSw = 31% achieving mobility required to advance at the correct relative ve-
0.1 locity for material balance. The oil saturation that corresponds with
0.08 required oil mobility for material balance is determined in the brief
0.06 Oil-Bank Sensitivity Study section (see later). This was performed
to show the relative impact of low oil viscosity and low formation
0.04 permeability.
0.02 Figs. 11 and 12 present the Corey-type (Eqs. 3 through 8) rela-
0 tive-mobility profiles for two example cases. Corey exponents of
n ¼ 2 (oil) and m ¼ 3 (water) were used for both cases. Case 1
0%

%
0%
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

reflects interpreted petrophysical data for LTG_Tert_#1, whereas

10

Water Saturation (Sw) Case 2 has higher crude-oil viscosity (40 vs. 1.9 cp) and higher
PV available to mobile oil (45 vs. 27%). PV available to mobile
Fig. 12—Corey-type relative-mobility curves for Case 2—lo 5 40 oil is often positively correlated with formation permeability.
cp, lw 5 0.8 cp, Soi 5 70%, Sor 5 25%. Values represent common The elongation of the oil bank is a function of low oil viscosity
physical parameters for ASP flooding. and low PV available to mobile oil (capillary effects in low

860 October 2013 SPE Journal

 7.000 25%

vr oil bank = (voil bank – vInjected fluids)/

vr oil bank

ΔSoil bank = (So oil bank – Sor)

6.000 ΔSoil bank
Water at (1–Sorw) 20%
Injected 5.000

VInjected fluids)
chemical
4.000 15%
(vinj) Oil Bank (Soil bank, voil)
3.000 10%
Immobile Oil (Sorw)
2.000
5%
1.000
Mobilized
Oil 0.000 0%
Δx 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Pore Volume Available to Mobile Oil (PVMO)
Fig. 13—Schematic of model for mobilization and displacement
during tertiary recovery. Tertiary-displacement model used in
oil-bank sensitivity study assumes perfect mobilization and dis- Fig. 14—Sensitivity study of PV available to mobile oil (PVMO 5
placement at shock fronts and no microemulsion contributions. Soi—Sorw) upon oil-bank size (DSoil bank) and oil-bank relative
velocity (m r oil bank). Input parameters: lo51.9 cp, lw 5 0.8 cp,
Sorw 5 43% – PVMO/2, Soi 5 43% 1 PVMO/2.

permeability). Low oil viscosity results in higher apparent mobil-

ity for the oil phase (ko). This reduces the required increase in oil
saturation for oil relative mobility to surpass water relative mobil-
ity (krw) and results in a smaller saturation amplitude but longer
oil bank. Low PV available to mobile oil amplifies the effects that
changes in saturation can have on petrophysical properties such as
relative permeability. Numerically, low oil viscosity (lo), relative
to water viscosity (lw), has the effect of shifting the dimensionless
water-saturation (S0w) value that corresponds with the oil bank,
whereas low pore space has the effect of amplifying the impact
that a change in water saturation (Sw) has upon S0w
Corey-type relative permeability equations ar
Sw Swi
S0w ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
1 Swi Sorw
krw ¼ krw  ðS0w Þn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
kro ¼ kro  ð1 S0w Þm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
krw
kw ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
lw
kro
ko ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
lo
ktotal ¼ ko þ kw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
Oil-Bank Sensitivity Study/Tertiary Recovery. After the iden-
tification of the effect that oil viscosity (lo) and endpoint satura-
3.000
vr oil bank So oil bank
ΔSoil bank Swo
tions (PVMO ¼ Soi Sorw) have on oil-bank properties, a simple
displacement model for tertiary recovery was developed. It
assumes perfect oil mobilization, uniform displacement, and no
microemulsion phase (Fig. 13). By performing an oil mass bal-
ance at the chemical shock front, oil-bank properties such as oil
saturation of the oil bank (Soil bank), oil-bank saturation increase
vs. ROS(DSoil bank), and oil-bank relative velocity  r oil bank

voil bank
can be determined.
vinj
Fig. 14 presents the effects of varied PV available to mobile
oil (PVMO) on  r oil bank and DSoil bank. Residual (Sorw) and initial
(Soi) oil saturations were defined as linear functions of PVMO
(Eqs. 9 and 10). The selected relationship results in Sorw ¼ 28%
and Soi ¼ 58% (PVMO ¼ 30%) or Sorw ¼ 23% and Soi ¼ 63%
(PVMO ¼ 40%), which is similar to values observed for flooding
in water-wet rocks. Increases in PVMO correspond with increases
in DSoil bank. This is because of the expanded range for S0w and
diminished effect that a change in Sw has on S0w. With increases in
PVMO, there is an accompanying decrease in  r oil bank.
Sorw ¼ 43% PVMO =2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
Soi ¼ 42% þ PVMO =2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
Fig. 15 presents the effects of varied crude-oil viscosity (lo)
on  r oil bank, DSoil bank, and S0w Increases in crude-oil viscosity
will result in a lower S0w to achieve desired oil relative mobility
(as noted in the Cases 1 and 2 apparent mobility curves). Because
S0w is initially at unity before displacement, lower S0w will corre-
spond with a larger saturation change. This larger saturation
change is captured by DSoil bank, which increases with increases in
80% viscosity. In addition, larger DSoil bank results in more volume
available for mobilized oil (per unit length). This increased
70%
So oil bank, ΔSoil bank, Swo

2.500 volume diminishes the rate of advance for  r oil bank. Note that the
60% calculations of  r oil bank, DSoil bank, and S0w are based on these
2.000 assumptions: uniform ROS (Sorw) present at the start of the flood,
50%
Vr oil bank

homogeneous porous media, immediate mobilization of 100% of

1.500 40% Sorw upon chemical front contact, uniform displacement of mobi-
30% lized crude oil, and no effects of microemulsion viscosity or mix-
1.000
ing upon displacement. A more detailed description of these
20% calculations is shown in Appendix A.
0.500
10%
0.000 0%
0 20 40 60 80 Effluent-Salinity Tracers for Gas Saturation
Crude Oil Viscosity (μo), cP Aqueous-phase concentration can be determined with salinity as
a conserved single-phase tracer. Consider the binary injection of a
Fig. 15—Sensitivity study of effects of crude-oil viscosity (lo) single-phase conservative tracer displacing an in-situ fluid of a
upon oil-bank relative velocity (m r oil bank), oil-bank saturation different tracer concentration (but similar mobility). The measure-
(Soil bank), oil-bank saturation change (DSoil bank), and nondi- ment of tracer concentration vs. tD will show a characteristic pro-
mensional oil-bank water saturation (S0w). gression from initial-tracer concentration to final-tracer

October 2013 SPE Journal 861


TABLE 3—GAS SATURATION AT TRACER
BREAKTHROUGH (tD1)
tDL @ tracer Soil Sgas
midpoint (tD1) @ tD1 @ tD1
LTG_Tert_#1 0.68 0.11 0.21
LTG_Tert_#2 0.69 0.13 0.18
Surf_Tert_#3 0.74 0.25 <0.01
Gas_Tert_#4 0.72 0.23 0.05
LTG_Oil_#5 0.67 0.11 0.22
concentration. Assuming complete contact between injected and
initial tracer-bearing fluids, which is typically the case for a wet-
ting aqueous phase, the dimensionless time at which the transition
takes place (halfway point) will correspond with phase saturation
at breakthrough.
To apply this methodology to LTG flooding, several assump-
tions are made: Salinity is a conservative tracer; perfect contact is
achieved between the displacing and displaced aqueous phase;
and injected drive fluids do not affect initial-brine/injected-slug
mixing. Because a sharp transition in salinity is observed from
reservoir-brine to injected-slug salinity (DtDL ¼ 0.1), it is believed
that reduced dispersion was present during LTG flooding.
Because of the large slug size (DtDL ¼ 0.3), it is not believed that
injected drive substantially affected reservoir brine/injected slug
mixing. Other assumptions regarding tracer conservation and per-
fect contact of displaced fluids are consistent with existing tracer
applications.
The salinity profile for LTG_Tert_#1 (Fig. 5) shows that a
transition between initial-reservoir salinity and injected-slug sa-
linity takes place at tD1 ¼ 0.70 PVliquid. This indicates that water
saturation is 70% at this point. By the use of additional data for
oil saturation at this point (Soil @ tD1), which is determined from
material balance, gas saturation at tD1 can be determined (Eqs. 11
through 15). Table 3 presents dimensionless time of tracer transi-
tion (tD1), oil saturation at this time (Soil @ tD1), calculated gas
saturation (Sgas @ tD1), and gas saturation vs. PV available to mo-
bile oil (Sgas/PVMO) for the five study floods.
It is unknown how strongly gas saturation at tD1 corresponds
with early-stage displacement gas saturation. However, it is
believed that gas saturation has achieved a steady-state value by
tD1 and is reflective of ultimate gas saturation attainable during
flooding. Changes in gas saturation during this process would
result in either increased apparent viscosity caused by foam prop-
agation and decreased krw, or decreased apparent viscosity caused
by increased relative mobility of the gas phase (“gas coning”).
Both mechanisms would result in changes in observed pressure
gradient, and it is deemed highly unlikely that the two would
achieve the perfect balance required for steady-state pressure-
gradient behavior. Other literature (Rossen and Gauglitz 1990)
affirms this conclusion, with minimal increases in displacement
efficiency and gas saturation observed after gas breakthrough.
Results show consistent measured gas saturation (21, 18, and
22%) for the three LTG floods, signifying tolerance for increased
oil saturation, decreased permeability, and/or surfactant concen-
tration. In-situ gas saturation was approximately equal to PVMO
and is reflective of gas occupying most of the high-permeability
pore regions. LTG gas saturation contrasts with measured gas sat-
uration of 5% for gas coinjection (no surfactant) and indicates
that the presence of surfactant in LTG flooding was effective in
stabilizing an increased dispersed gas phase. Gas saturation of 5%
corresponds to 9% of OOIP, 18% of ROS, or 16% of PVMO and is
similar to results obtained in WAG/gas-coinjection studies. Sur-
factant flooding was used to validate the overall methodology.
The obtained result of Sgas@tD1 ¼ 0.7% contrasts with actual gas
saturation of Sgas@tD1 ¼ 0%.
Creservoir þ Cslug
Ctracer midpoint ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ
2 is manifested in higher calculated macroscopic mobility ratios for
862
Swater@tD1 ¼ ðtDliquid Þ@Ctracer midpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ
Stotal ¼ 1 ¼ Swater þ Sgas þ Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
Sgas/ Sgas @tD1 ¼ 1 Swater@tD1 Soil@tD1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð14Þ
PVMO
Soil@tD1 ¼ Soil@2PVwaterflood DSchemical flood@tD1 . . . . . . . .ð15Þ
0.77
1.08
0.03
0.16 Macroscopic Stability Attributes/Mobility Ratio
n/a and Apparent Viscosity
1D coreflood displacement has the potential to mitigate effects
from poor displacement efficiency and unstable displacement
with respect to actual reservoir application. As such, an under-
standing of the in-situ mobility of the phases is important to deter-
mine how effectively the process will upscale. This is especially
relevant for chemical flooding in which the mobility of oil/water
microemulsion and mobilized crude is often substantially lower
than that of injected brine. In a reservoir, this has the potential to
cause the amplification of existing instabilities and to cause
injected fluids to bypass regions of high remaining oil saturation.
As previously described, two shock fronts propagate during
ASP or LTG flooding for tertiary recovery. For tertiary flooding, a
forward shock front is characterized by an oil bank displacing
(some) mobile water, whereas a secondary shock is characterized
by injected fluids mobilizing residual oil and forming an advanc-
ing oil bank.
Calculations: Mobility Ratios
Given by a dimensionless ratio called the mobility ratio (M), a ra-
tio of displacing and displaced fluid mobilities can characterize
displacement efficiency and process stability (Eq. 16). A mobility
ratio less than or equal to unity indicates favorable displacement
(Lake 1989; Habermann 1960).
kdisplacing
R¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð16Þ
kdisplaced
Three relative mobility values are used to evaluate displace-
ment across floods. They are the relative mobility of injected flu-
ids (kdrive), oil bank (koil bank), and displaced water at residual oil
(kwro). These values correspond with the relative mobility of the
displacing and/or displaced fluids in the two shock fronts. The cal-
culation of relative mobility and mobility ratios during flooding is
based on 1D Darcy’s law as described in Eqs. 17 and 18:
kr qL
k¼ ¼ ðfrom 1D Darcy’s lawÞ . . . . . . . ð17Þ
l k  A  DP
 
qL q
k1 k  A  DP 1
R¼ ¼  ¼ DP 1
q ;
k2 qL
k  A  DP 2 DP 2
k1 ¼ k2 ; L1 ¼ L2 ; A1 ¼ A2                  ð18Þ
For calculation of koil bank and kwro, endpoint relative perme-
ability values from oilflood and waterflood were used, respec-
tively. It is worth noting that this method is an oversimplification
of koil bank because it assumes Soil bank is equal to Soi for mobility
calculations. As described in the Elongated Oil Bank subsection,
the oil bank will elongate at lower So that will result in reduced ko
according to a Corey relation.
To determine kwro, k0rw from the influent section (XD ¼ 0 to 0.25)
was used to establish kwro for all sections (Eq. 19). This is consist-
ent with normalizing to true residual oil conditions if XD ¼ 0 to 0.25
is taken to be at such conditions. This selection was performed
because of poor displacement efficiency during waterflood in
which k0rw (XD ¼ 0.25 to 1) < 0.5  k0rw (XD ¼ 0 to 0.25). This results
in diminished in-situ k0rw and diminished reference mobility. This
October 2013 SPE Journal
 4.0 0.7
(xd) 0 => .25
3.5 (xd) .25 => .75
0.6
(xd) .75 => 1
(xd) 0 => 1
3.0

Injected Fluids Mobility Ratio

0.5
Rvs water at residual oil
2.5
Rvs oil bank 0.4
Rvs brine @ 100%
2.0
0.3
1.5

0.2
1.0

Due to differing krw during 0.1

1.5 early displacement

0.0 0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Injected PVLiquid

Fig. 16—Observed chemical-flood mobility vs. brine-flood mobility (Rvs. 100% Sw), vs. oil-bank mobility (Rvs. oil bank), and vs. water
mobility at Sorw (Rvs. WRO) for LTG_Tert_#1. All three mobility ratios can be presented in the same plot by varying the y-axis (mobil-
ity ratio). Reference koil bank and kWRO were nearly identical for the specific conditions in LTG #1 and, as such, are aggregated to-
gether on the left y-axis.

XD ¼ 0.25 to 1 if in-situ conditions are used instead of true residual
conditions.
To determine koil bank, average k0ro (XD ¼ 0 to 1) was used to es-
tablish koil bank for all sections (Eq. 20). Because of mostly uni-
form sectional k0ro, individual sectional k0ro values could have been
used; however, the overall average was believed to reflect reduced
experimental error because of a larger DP and DL.
Calculation of kDrive is based on observed pressure gradient
during chemical flooding. This calculated mobility will have mod-
erate error during early-stage displacement because of the high
contribution of the mobility of displaced fluids to overall observed
pressure gradient. However, for late-stage processes in which
injected fluids are the primary flowing phase, this assumption
should be valid.
kwro ðXD¼each section Þ ¼ k0w ðXD¼0 to 0:25 Þ
koil bank ðXD¼each section Þ ¼ k0o ðXD¼0 1 Þ  k0o ðXD¼each section Þ
                   ð20Þ
The mobility ratios that were calculated are shown later. Drive
mobility vs. mobility at 100% water saturation (Rvs. 100% Sw) does
not have a physical representation but is used to provide an under-
standing of foam strength (Eq. 21). On the other hand, drive mo-
bility vs. oil-bank mobility (Rvs. oil bank) and drive mobility vs.
waterflood swept interval (Rvs. WRO) are physically related to the
stability of the process (Eqs. 22 and 23).
For the forward shock front, drive mobility (kdrive) is used in
place of koil bank in reflecting the mobility of the displacing fluid.
This substitution is performed because oil-bank instability is only
a manifestation of the Soil bank ¼ Soi approximation used. Coning
of the entire oil bank through forward swept interval (1–Sorw) is
not possible because the forward relative flow of oil results in a
decrease in Soil bank and thus a reduction in koil bank (all the way to
ko ¼ 0 at Sorw). As such, process stability is more truly a function
of the ability for the injected drive to displace the least mobile of
the two displaced banks.
Calculation of RvsWRO is affected by the poor waterflood dis-
placement efficiency in downstream sections of the core. This
results in kw@2PVw = kwro for these downstream sections. To cor-
rect for this, k0rw (XD ¼ 0 to 0.25) is treated as the true endpoint
mobility of water at ROS. The calculated mobilities for the down-
stream sections (XD ¼ 0.25 to 1) are then normalized by the ratio of
measured endpoint relative permeability k0rw (XD ¼ analyzed section)
to the “true” endpoint mobility. This results in a calculated kwro
for each of the sections, allowing for comparison with the meas-
ured drive mobility for each section. From a macroscopic perspec-
tive, it is believed that this replacement is valid because
waterflood fingering channels will be near ROS. A process that
demonstrates stability with respect to these fingers should be sta-
ble overall.
kdrive
Rvs:100%sw ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð21Þ
k100%Sw
kdrive kdrive
Rvs:oil bank ¼ ¼ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð22Þ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ð19Þ koil bank ko
" #
0
kdrive kdrive ðkrw ÞXD ¼analyzed section
Rvs:WRO ¼ ¼ 
kwro kw@2PVw 0 Þ
ðkrw
XD ¼0 to 0:25 @2PVw
                   ð23Þ
Evaluating Mobility Ratios (LTG_Tert_#1)
Fig. 16 shows observed chemical-flood mobility vs. 100%-water-
saturation mobility (Rvs. 100% Sw), vs. oil-bank mobility
(Rvs. oil bank), and vs. waterflood swept interval (Rvs. WRO) for
LTG_Tert_#1. Because the reference mobility for each of the
three cases is a single scalar value, the same mobility behavior
and trends are exhibited for all three mobility ratios with only rel-
ative magnitude varying.
As fluid is displaced from the core, a slight drop in mobility ra-
tio is followed by a rise to sectional steady-state values. This
behavior is shown to progress along the core, with a fall in mobil-
ity being attributed to microemulsion viscosity and diminished
mobility associated with the formation of an oil bank. The accom-
panying rise in mobility is associated with the displacement of oil
out of the measured section. A final steady-state mobility value is
achieved that corresponds to the relative mobility of the injected
drive at final in-situ phase saturations and IFTs. This behavior is
consistent with that already discussed when introducing LTG_
Tert_#1.

October 2013 SPE Journal 863

 Consistent steady-state Rvs. 100% Sw  0.20 is exhibited for all
sections by approximately tDL ¼ 1.1 PV. This would correspond
with an apparent viscosity of approximately 4.5 cp on the basis of
a final relative permeability to injected fluids (kr inj) of 1.0. The
assumption that kr inj ¼ 1.0 is based on the high overall flood re-
covery, resulting in So of approximately 3% upon completion
(known from material balance). Remaining oil will occupy sec-
tions only with ultralow permeability that should contribute mini-
mally to permeability. This is affirmed by the fact that the
observed pressure drop does not appreciably change after
tDL ¼ 0.85 PV, a period in which oil saturation was measured to
1 , not
drop from 7 to 3%.
Steady-state mobility ratio is the same for both Rvs. oil bank and
Rvs. WRO (1.3) because of calculated similar reference mobility
values (koil bank and kwro) for the flood conditions in LTG_
Tert_#1.
Uniformity across sections indicates that mobility control did
not deteriorate during the progression of the chemical front, with
dispersed gas likely exhibiting similar impacts on relative perme-
ability to injected liquid throughout the core.
Rapid progression to steady-state behavior indicates a high
degree of process tolerance to crude oil. Potentially destabilizing
crude/water microemulsions have the potential to result in dimin-
ished mobility control. This would be observable through mobil-
ity overshoot (a rise above steady-state behavior followed by a
fall) and a long period of time required to achieve steady-state
behavior.
Main Conclusions and Future Work
Key Findings:
 Low-quality, low-rate coinjection of gas (N2) and an aque-
ous-phase surfactant (called LTG in this paper) was effective in
mobilizing and displacing residual oil to waterflood in approxi-
mately 10-md carbonate cores. Final tertiary recovery of 91% was
achieved (95% of OOIP), with recovery of 73% of ROIP by
tDL ¼ 0.8 PV and 79% of ROIP by tDL ¼ 1.0 PV liquid injected.
 The tested method exhibited many of the properties charac-
teristic of successful ASP and chemical EOR floods. These
include the production of a large bank of free oil at high oil cut
before the production of oil/water microemulsion. In addition,
pressure data indicate the sharp progression of a microemulsion
or mobile oil phase through the core.
 LTG showed good process tolerance to permeability vari-
ability and surfactant concentration, with similar process attrib-
utes achieved among floods. These attributes include similar
propagation of injected and mobile fluids, observed apparent vis-
cosities and mobility ratios, production profile, and overall
recovery.
 Recovery was shown as a substantially higher recovery
(47% greater) than the combined recoveries achieved by individ-
ual surfactant-injection and gas-coinjection floods. These refer-
ence floods constitute elements of the LTG process and were used
for further comparison and model validation.
 Application during secondary recovery demonstrated results
consistent with the tertiary floods that were also performed. This
indicates that the potentially destabilizing effects of high initial
oil saturation on lamellae stability and foam strength did not
noticeably affect displacement and other mechanisms.
 Flooding was shown to decrease pressure drop associated
with secondary recovery compared with waterflood. This is a con-
sequence of high relative mobility of the oil phase (lo¼1.9) and
the diminished overall relative mobility that occurs because of
incomplete displacement during waterflood. As such, stable terti-
ary displacement can occur at pressure gradients less than those of
waterflood. These findings are of high significance because of the
potential to both capture additional recovery during tertiary flood-
ing and reduce the high pressure gradients associated with water-
flooding—a concern for application of waterflood in tight
formations.
 Early gas breakthrough, which was observed (tD approxi-
mately 0.3 PVtotal), is not believed to be a function of unstable
864
foam propagation or failure. Instead, it is likely caused by the
presence of free gas that evolves ahead of an injected surfactant
front caused by (i) diminished rate of advance of free surfactant
relative to bulk-injected fluids because of absorption and parti-
tioning at the oil/water interface and (ii) higher interstitial velocity
of injected gas vs. injected surfactant liquid caused by reduced
PV available for a third gas phase.
 An elongated oil bank was exhibited by LTG flooding in this
study. This is shown to be a characteristic of low oil viscosity
dS0w
(lo ¼ 1.9 cp) and tight saturation window
dSw
because of unstable displacement. This is a potentially favorable
attribute of this process because of floods exhibiting stable dis-
placement; an elongated oil bank will allow for earlier oil produc-
tion and more immediate payback.
 Effluent salinity was shown to be an effective tracer for the
measurement of dispersion and gas saturation when using a salin-
ity gradient. LTG gas saturation of 18 to 22% was observed dur-
ing slug breakthrough through use of material balance and
effluent salinity tracers. This is contrasted with 5% gas saturation
observed by gas coinjection and indicates that a high degree of
dispersed gas was present during LTG flooding. This is consistent
with the propagation of stable foam because increased dispersed
gas saturation is often associated with lamellae production.
 Mobility ratios (R ¼ 1.3) between injected fluids and oil
bank or displaced water at true residual oil were calculated for
LTG floods. Uniform (across core sections) calculated mobility
ratios near 1.0 indicate that the stable displacement of light crude
oil in tight formations can be achieved. This is contrasted with
surfactant flooding (no gas) in which the lack of mobility control
resulted in higher mobility ratios and lower implied displacement
efficiency (on the basis of lower krw final in downstream
sections).
 Steady-state apparent viscosity of injected fluids was calcu-
lated to be approximately 4.5 cp during late-stage LTG flooding
on the basis of observed mobility ratios and implied late-stage
krIF of approximately 1.0. This is contrasted with apparent viscos-
ity near 0.8 cp for gas-coinjection flooding (no surfactant) and
indicates that a degree of foaming was present that restricted the
mobility of injected fluids. This affirms that foam can propagate
in low-permeability porous media and also gives a quantitative
value for the capability of foam for mobility control in such
formations.
Future Work. Coinjection of surfactant and gas was used to
model mobilization and displacement under ideal conditions in
which gas and liquid are both flowing as a set volume fraction.
Actual reservoir application of foam flooding typically requires
the use of SAG injection to mitigate near-wellbore pressure drop
and increase injectivity. Mixing farther along into the reservoir
will create an expanding low-mobility region caused by foam gen-
eration and propagation. This mixing region will exhibit a range of
gas-fractional-flow and gas-saturation values that may exhibit
varying apparent viscosity. This relationship is moderately well-
understood for a highly permeable medium (Shan and Rossen
2004; Rossen and Van Duijn 2004); however, minimal literature
exists for foam generation and displacement in tight formations.
To better understand this relationship and to scale it to LTG flood-
ing, it is suggested that a series of corefloods be performed at var-
ied gas fractional flow. Coupling these floods with reference SAG
floods, an improved understanding of foam generation and rheol-
ogy may be developed for application of field-scale LTG flooding.
Nomenclature
fo ¼ fractional flow of oil, cm3/cm3
fw ¼ fractional flow of water, cm3/cm3
k ¼ permeability, md
kr ¼ relative permeability
kr2PVw ¼ relative permeability to water at 2 PV water
injected
October 2013 SPE Journal
 krIF ¼ relative permeability to injected chemical-flood
fluids
kro ¼ relative permeability to oil
k0ro ¼ endpoint relative permeability to oil
krw ¼ relative permeability to water
k0rw ¼ endpoint relative permeability to water
L ¼ length, in.
PV ¼ pore volume, cm3; also used as nondimensional
PV, volume injected/PV
PVliquid ¼ volume of liquid injected with respect to PV, vol-
ume injected/PV
PVMO ¼ pore volume available to mobile oil, defined as
Soi – Sorw
PVtotal fluid ¼ volume total fluid injected with respect to PV, vol-
ume injected/PV
qL ¼ liquid rate, cm3/h
qtotal ¼ total fluid rate, cm3/h
R ¼ mobility ratio
Rvs. 100% Sw ¼ injected drive mobility during chemical flooding
vs. mobility at 100% water saturation
Rvs. oil bank ¼ injected drive mobility during chemical flooding
vs. (approximate) oil-bank mobility
Rvs. WRO ¼ injected drive mobility during chemical flooding
vs. water mobility at ROS
So ¼ oil saturation, %
So@2PVw ¼ oil saturation after 2 PV water injected, %
Soi ¼ initial oil saturation, %
Soil bank ¼ oil saturation of the oil bank, %
Sorw ¼ residual oil saturation after waterflooding, %
Sw ¼ water saturation, %
Sw@2PVw ¼ water saturation after 2 PV water injected
Swi ¼ irreducible water saturation, %
S0w ¼ dimensionless water saturation, %
tD total ¼ dimensionless fluid injected, PVtotal fluid injected/
PV
tD1 ¼ dimensionless time of tracer transition
tDL ¼ dimensionless liquid injected, PVliquid injected/PV
XD ¼ dimensionless distance
Xoil bank ¼ oil-bank dimensionless distance
DP ¼ pressure drop, psi
DSoil bank ¼ oil-bank saturation change, %; defined as Soil bank –
Sorw
 r oil bank ¼ relative velocity of the oil bank ( oil bank/ inj)
lo ¼ oil viscosity, cp
lw ¼ water viscosity, cp
U ¼ porosity
k ¼ relative mobility, 1/cp
kdrive ¼ relative mobility of the injected foam drive, 1/cp
ko ¼ oil relative mobility, 1/cp
koil bank ¼ oil-bank relative mobility, 1/cp
k0o ¼ endpoint oil relative mobility, 1/cp
kw@2PVw ¼ water relative mobility after 2 PV water injected,
1/cp
kw ¼ water relative mobility, 1/cp
k0w ¼ endpoint water relative mobility, 1/cp
kwro ¼ water relative mobility at residual oil, 1/cp
r* ¼ solubilization ratio, cm3/cm3
References
Balan, H.O., Balhoff, M.T., and Nguyen, Q.P. 2012. SPE paper 154233
presented at the Eighteenth SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 14–18 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/154233-MS.
Blaker, T., Aarra, M.G., Skaug, A. et al. 2002. Foam for Gas Mobility
Control in the Snorre Field: The FAWAG Project. SPE Res Eval &
Eng 5 (4): 317–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/788824-PA.
Bond, D.C. and Holbrook, C.C. 1958. Gas Drive Oil Recovery Process.
U.S. Patent No. 2,866,507 (December).
Chou, S.I. 1991. Conditions for Generating Foam in Porous Media. Paper
SPE 22628 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6–9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
22628-MS.
October 2013 SPE Journal
Djabbarah, N.F. and Wasan, D.T. 1985. Foam Stability: The Effect of Sur-
face Rheological Properties on the Lamella Rupture. AIChE J. 31 (6):
1041–1043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690310623.
Flaaten, A.K., Nguyen, Q.P., Pope, G.A. et al. 2009. A Systematic Labora-
tory Approach to Low-Cost, High-Performance Chemical Flooding.
SPE Res Eval & Eng 12 (5): 713–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
113469-PA.
Friedmann, F., Chen, W.H., and Gaulitz, P.A. 1991. Experimental and Simu-
lation Study of High-Temperature Foam Displacement in Porous Media.
SPE Res Eval & Eng 6 (1): 37–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/17357-PA.
Gauglitz, P.A., Friedmann, F., Kam, S.I. et al. 2002. Foam Generation in
Homogenous Porous Media. Chemical Eng. Sci. 57: 4037–4052.
Guo, H., Zitha, P.L.J., Faber, R. et al. 2012. A Novel Alkaline/Surfactant/
Foam Enhanced Oil Recovery Process. SPE J. 17 (4): 1186–1195.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/145043-PA.
Habermann, B. 1960. The Efficiency of Miscible Displacement as a Func-
tion of Mobility Ratio. Petrol. Trans., AIME 219: 264–272.
Hirasaki, G. and Zhang, D.L. 2004. Surface Chemistry of Oil Recovery
From Fractured, Oil-Wet, Carbonate Formations. SPE J. 9 (2):
151–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/80988-PA.
Huh, C. 1979. Interfacial Tensions and Solubilizing Ability of a Microe-
mulsion Phase That Coexists with Oil and Brine. J. Colloid and Inter-
face Sci. 71 (2): 408–426.
Kamal, M. and Marsden, S.S. 1973. Displacement of a Micellar Slug
Foam in Unconsolidated Porous Media. Paper SPE 4584 presented at
the Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, Las Vegas, Nevada, 30 September–3 October. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/4584-MS.
Lake, L.W. 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Upper Saddle River, New Jer-
sey: Prentice-Hall.
Lawson, J.B. and Reisberg, J. 1980. Alternate Slugs of Gas and Dilute Sur-
factant for Mobility Control During Chemical Flooding. Paper SPE
8839 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–26 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8839-MS.
Li, R.F., Yan, W., Liu, S. et al. 2010. Foam Mobility Control for Surfac-
tant Enhanced Oil Recovery. SPE J. 15 (4): 928–942. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/113910-PA.
Liang, X., Xiang, M.-H., Yang, Y. et al. 2011. The Laboratory Research
on Ultra-Low Interfacial Tension Foam Flooding System With High-
Temperature and High-Salinity. Applied Mechanics and Materials
71–78: 2163.
Liu, S., Zhang, D.L., Yan, W. et al. 2008. Favorable Attributes of Alka-
line-Surfactant-Polymer Flooding. SPE J. 13 (1): 5–16. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/99744.
Maerker, J.M. 1975. Shear Degradation of Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacryl-
amide Solutions. SPE J. 15 (4): 311–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
5101-PA.
Martin, F.D. 1974. Laboratory Investigations in the Use of the Use of
Polymers in Low Permeability Reservoirs. Paper SPE 5100 presented
at the SPE Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, 6–9 October. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/5100-MS.
Martin, F.D. 1986. Mechanical Degradation of Polyacrylamide Solutions
in Core Plugs From Several Carbonate Reservoirs. SPE Form Eval 1
(2):139–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12651-PA.
Nelson, R.C. and Pope, G.A. 2004. Phase Relationships in Chemical
Flooding. SPE J. 18 (5): 325–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6773-PA.
Nguyen, N.M. 2010. Systematic Study of Foam for Improving Sweep Effi-
ciency in Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery, MS thesis, The University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (December 2010).
Nguyen, Q.P., Alexandrov, A.V., Zitha, P.L. et al. 2000. Experimental and
Modeling Studies on Foam in Porous Media: A Review. Paper SPE
58799 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 23–24 February. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/58799-MS.
Osterloh, W.T. and Jante, M.J. 1992. Effects of Gas and Liquid Velocity
on Steady-State Foam Flow. Paper SPE 24179 presented at the SPE/
DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–24
April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/24179-MS.
Ransohoff, T.C. and Radke, C.J. 1988. Mechanisms of Foam Generation
in Glass-Bead Packs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (2): 573–585. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/15441-PA.
865
Renkema, W.J. and Rossen, W.R. 2007. Success of SAG Foam Process in
Heterogeneous Reservoirs. Paper SPE 110408 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference, Anaheim, California, 11–14 November.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/110408-MS.
Rossen, W.R. and Gauglitz, P.A. 1990. Percolation Theory of Creation
and Mobilization of Foam in Porous Media. AIChE J. 36: 1176–1188.
Rossen, W.R. and Van Duijn, C.J. 2004. Gravity Segregation in Steady-
State Horizontal Flow in Homogeneous Reservoirs. J. Petrol. Sci. and
Eng. 43: 99–111.
Scheludko, A. 1967. Thin Liquid Films. Advance Coll. Interface Sci. 1:
391.
Schramm, L.L. 1994. Foams: Fundamentals & Applications in the Petro-
leum Industry, ACS Advances in Chemistry Series 242, Washington,
DC: American Chemical Society.
Shan, D. and Rossen, W.R. 2004. Optimal Injection Strategies for Foam
IOR. SPE J. 9 (2): 132–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/75180-PA.
Shen, C., Nguyen, Q.P., Huh, C. et al. 2006. Does Polymer Stabilize Foam
in Porous Media? Paper SPE 99796 presented at the SPE/DOE Sympo-
sium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–26 April.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99796-MS.
Shi, J. and Rossen, W.R. 1998. Improved Surfactant-Alternating-Gas
Foam Process to Control Gravity Override. Paper SPE 39653 paper
presented at SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 19–22 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/39653-MS.
Sorbie, K.S. 1991. Polymer-Improved Oil Recovery. Glasgow, Scotland:
Blackie and Sons Ltd.
Srivastava, M. 2010. Foam Assisted Low Interfacial Tension Enhanced
Oil Recovery Process. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, Texas (May 2010).
Srivastava, M., Zhang, J., Nguyen, Q.P. et al. 2009. A Systematic Study of
Alkaline-Surfactant-Gas Injection as an EOR Technique. Paper SPE
124752 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4–7 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
124752-MS.
Stavland, A., Jonsbraten, H.C., Lohne, A. et al. 2010. Polymer Flooding—
Flow Properties in Porous Media Versus Rheological Parameters. Pa-
per SPE 131103 presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Con-
ference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 14–17 June. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/131103-MS.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S. 1997. EOR Screening Criteria
Revisited—Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced
Recovery Field Projects. SPE Res Eval & Eng 12 (3): 189–198. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/35385-PA.
Wang, D., Cheng, J., Yang, Z. et al. 2001. Successful Field Test of the
First Ultra-Low Interfacial Tension Foam Flood. Paper SPE 71491
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/71491-MS.
Wang, J., Jijiang, G., Zhang, G. et al. 2011. Low Gas-Liquid Ratio Foam
Flooding for Conventional Heavy Oil. J. Petrol. Sci. 8: 335–344.
Weaire, D. and Hutzler, S. 1997. A Review of Foam Drainage. Advances
in Chemical Physics 102: 315.
Appendix A
Oil-Bank Calculations. See Fig. 13 or in-text discussion for
detailed discussion regarding physical model used. Mass balance
for oil was performed at the trailing shock front (surfactant/chem-
icals displacing residual oil) to determine volume rate of oil mobi-
lization. From this, the relative velocity of the oil bank vs.
injected fluids velocity was determined that corresponded with no
oil-volume accumulation at this front (Eq. A-1). This equation has
two unknowns, relative oil-bank velocity ( r oil bank) that is
defined by the velocity of the oil bank relative to the velocity
of injected fluids ( oil bank/ inj) and oil saturation in the oil bank
866
(Soil bank). An additional relationship was introduced to relate  r oil
bank to the superficial velocity of the two phases forward of the
mobilization front (Eqs. A-2 and A-3). These superficial velocities
are related to the relative phase mobilities (Eq. A-5) with a 1D
Darcy’s relationship (Eq. A-4). The relative phase mobilities (ko
and kw) are already known as functions of dimensionless water
saturation (S0w), which is a direct relationship of Soil bank and the
known residual oil and initial oil saturation (Sorw and Soi). Substi-
tution is then used to determine Eqs. A-6 and A-7. This results in
a relationship with three equations (Eq. 15 and Corey Eqs. for ko
and kw) and three unknowns (Soil bank, ko, and kw). Because Soil
0 0
bank is directly related to Sw and known parameters, a value of Sw
0
that solves Eq. A-7 is determined. A unique solution for Sw is
achieved by applying the criterion 0< S0w<1.
X
Mo ¼ 0 ¼ Voil in  qo Voil out  qo
¼ ðvoil in  Aoil in voil out  Aoil out Þ  qo :
0 ¼ ðvoil bank vinj Þ  ðSo oil bank Sor Þ vinj  ðSorw Þ:
voil bank Soil bank
¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-1Þ
vinj ðSoil bank Sorw Þ
Given:
uo ¼ voil bank  ðSoil bank Sorw Þ ¼> Soil bank  vinj . . . . . ðA-2Þ
uw ¼ vinj uo ¼> vinj Soil bank  vinj . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-3Þ
From 1D Darcy’s law,
DP  k  kr  A q DP  k  kr
q¼ ¼> u ¼ ¼ . . . . . . . . .ðA-4Þ
lL A lL
DP  k  kro kro
uo lo  L l ko
¼ ¼ o ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-5Þ
uw DP  k  krw krw kw
lw  L lw
uo So oil bank  vinj Soil bank
¼ ¼ . . . . . . . . . . ðA-6Þ
uw vinj So oil bank  vinj 1 Soil bank
ko Soil bank
¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ðA-7Þ
kw 1 Soil bank
Stefan M. Szlendak is a reservoir engineer at Chevron. He holds
a BSc degree in mechanical engineering from Vanderbilt Uni-
versity and an MSc degree in petroleum engineering at the
University of Texas at Austin, where his research interests
included mechanisms and application of foam for chemical
EOR in tight formations.
Nhut M. Nguyen is currently a PhD candidate at the Depart-
ment of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin. He holds an MSc degree in petroleum
engineering from the same department. Nguyen’s research
interests include application and modeling of LTG flooding in
tight formations for tertiary and secondary recoveries.
Quoc P. Nguyen earned his PhD degree in petroleum engi-
neering from Delft University of Technology. He joined the fac-
ulty of the University of Texas at Austin in 2005. Nguyen is the
Foundation CMG Industrial Research Chair in innovative hydro-
carbon recovery processes. His current research program is
focused on advanced gas and chemical EOR methods in (low-
permeability, high-salinity, high-temperature) hydrocarbon for-
mations, improved production of unconventional resources (oil
sand, shale oil, and gas), and engineering of complex fluids
(foam, emulsion, polymer gel, and nanoparticle dispersions) for
subsurface conformance control.
October 2013 SPE Journal