Advertisement

Experimental evaluation of polymer-enhanced foam transportation on the foam stabilization in the porous media

  • A. DavarpanahEmail author
  • R. Shirmohammadi
  • B. Mirshekari
Original Paper

Abstract

With the addition of polyacrylamide homopolymer (PAM) to the foam solution which is known as polymer-enhanced foam (PEF), the lamella strength in the surface could be enhanced and subsequently the membrane liquid drainage is weakened, and the diffusion of gas phase would reduce. In this comprehensive study, the comparison of different types of polymers on the property of a foaming agent is taken into the experimental evaluation. To do this, polyacrylamide homopolymer (PAM), flopaam (FA920) with the mixture of surfactants and its comparison with the utilization of only surfactants are being evaluated to generate the polymer-enhanced foam (PEF) in the porous medium. Furthermore, the performances of the foaming agent are analyzed regarding the pressure drop measurement at the displacement of the foam and the resistance factor of the gas phase (RFgas) is investigated. Consequently, polymer addition would increase the RFgas regarding the more propagation of foam in the porous media which has caused more foam stabilization. The property of PEF is utterly dependent on the type of used polymer, and according to the results, the amphiphilic polymer has experienced more resistance due to more reactions with a surfactant.

Keywords

Polymer-enhanced foam Polyacrylamide homopolymer Resistance factor Foam propagation Flopaam Porous medium 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank my friend Mr. Afshin Hosseini Hemat and Dr. Kamran Valizadeh for their guidance and support throughout this research.

Funding

There is no financial support provided from any specific governmental and institutional organization to complete this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aramideh S, Borgohain R, Naik PK, Johnston CT, Vlachos PP, Ardekani AM (2018) Multi-objective history matching of surfactant-polymer flooding. Fuel 228:418–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bureiko A, Trybala A, Kovalchuk N, Starov V (2015) Current applications of foams formed from mixed surfactant–polymer solutions. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 222:670–677.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2014.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chassenieux C, Nicolai T, Benyahia L (2011) Rheology of associative polymer solutions. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 16:18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2010.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Z, Zhao X (2015) Enhancing heavy-oil recovery by using middle carbon alcohol-enhanced water flooding, surfactant flooding, and foam flooding. Energy Fuels 29:2153–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox SJ (2015) Simulations of bubble division in the flow of a foam past an obstacle in a narrow channel. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 473:104–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2014.10.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davarpanah A (2018) A feasible visual investigation for associative foam >\ polymer injectivity performances in the oil recovery enhancement. Eur Polym J 105:405–411.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2018.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B (2018) A simulation study to control the oil production rate of oil-rim reservoir under different injectivity scenarios. Energy Reports 4:664–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davarpanah A, Akbari E, Doudman-Kushki M, Ketabi H, Hemmati M (2018a) Simultaneous feasible injectivity of foam and hydrolyzed polyacrylamide to optimize the oil recovery enhancement. Energy Explor & Exploit 0144598718786022Google Scholar
  9. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B, Jafari Behbahani T, Hemmati M (2018b) Integrated production logging tools approach for convenient experimental individual layer permeability measurements in a multi-layered fractured reservoir. J Pet Explor Prod Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0422-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falls A, Musters J, Ratulowski J (1989) The apparent viscosity of foams in homogeneous bead packs. SPE Reserv Eng 4:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farajzadeh R, Andrianov A, Krastev R, Hirasaki G, Rossen WR (2012) Foam–oil interaction in porous media: implications for foam assisted enhanced oil recovery. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 183:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farajzadeh R, Ameri A, Faber MJ, Van Batenburg DW, Boersma DM, Bruining J (2013) Effect of continuous, trapped, and flowing gas on performance of Alkaline Surfactant Polymer (ASP) flooding. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:13839–13848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher A, Foulser R, Goodyear S (1990) Mathematical modeling of foam flooding. In: SPE/DOE enhanced oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  14. Gochev G (2015) Thin liquid films stabilized by polymers and polymer/surfactant mixtures. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 20:115–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2015.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guo F, Aryana S (2016) An experimental investigation of nanoparticle-stabilized CO2 foam used in enhanced oil recovery. Fuel 186:430–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guo F, Aryana SA (2018) Improved sweep efficiency due to foam flooding in a heterogeneous microfluidic device. J Pet Sci Eng 164:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hou J, Luo M, Zhu D (2018) Foam-EOR method in fractured-vuggy carbonate reservoirs: mechanism analysis and injection parameter study. J Pet Sci Eng 164:546–558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.01.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jakobsen TD, Simon SB, Heggset EB, Syverud K, Paso K (2018) Interactions between Surfactants and Cellulose Nanofibrils for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Ind Eng Chem Res 57:15749–15758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeong S-W, Corapcioglu MY (2003) A micromodel analysis of factors influencing NAPL removal by surfactant foam flooding. J Contam Hydrol 60:77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamali F, Hussain F, Cinar Y (2015) A laboratory and numerical-simulation study of co-optimizing CO2 storage and CO2 enhanced oil recovery. SPE J 20:1227–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kovscek A, Radke C (1993) Fundamentals of foam transport in porous media. Lawrence Berkeley Lab, BerkeleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kristen N, Vüllings A, Laschewsky A, Miller R, von Klitzing R (2010) Foam films from oppositely charged polyelectolyte/surfactant mixtures: effect of polyelectrolyte and surfactant hydrophobicity on film stability. Langmuir 26:9321–9327.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la1002463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langevin D, Monroy F (2010) Interfacial rheology of polyelectrolytes and polymer monolayers at the air–water interface. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 15:283–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2010.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu P, Zhang X, Wu Y, Li X (2017) Enhanced oil recovery by air-foam flooding system in tight oil reservoirs: study on the profile-controlling mechanisms. J Pet Sci Eng 150:208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manan M, Farad S, Piroozian A, Esmail M (2015) Effects of nanoparticle types on carbon dioxide foam flooding in enhanced oil recovery. Pet Sci Technol 33:1286–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pang Z, Lyu X, Zhang F, Wu T, Gao Z, Geng Z, Luo C (2018) The macroscopic and microscopic analysis on the performance of steam foams during thermal recovery in heavy oil reservoirs. Fuel 233:166–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Razmjoo A, Qolipour M, Shirmohammadi R, Heibati SM, Faraji I (2017) Techno-economic evaluation of standalone hybrid solar-wind systems for small residential districts in the central desert of Iran. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 36:1194–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rossen WR (1996) Foams in enhanced oil recovery foams: theory. Meas Appl 57:413–464Google Scholar
  29. Sett S, Sinha-Ray S, Yarin AL (2013) Gravitational drainage of foam films. Langmuir 29:4934–4947.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la4003127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh R, Mohanty KK (2017) Foam flow in a layered, heterogeneous porous medium: a visualization study. Fuel 197:58–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stocco A, Rio E, Binks BP, Langevin D (2011) Aqueous foams stabilized solely by particles. Soft Matter 7:1260–1267.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C0SM01290D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sun L, Wang B, Pu W, Yang H, Shi M (2015) The effect of foam stability on foam flooding recovery. Pet Sci Technol 33:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sun C, Hou J, Pan G, Xia Z (2016) Optimized polymer enhanced foam flooding for ordinary heavy oil reservoir after cross-linked polymer flooding. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 6:777–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor S (2018) Interfacial chemistry in steam-based thermal recovery of oil sands bitumen with emphasis on steam-assisted gravity drainage and the role of chemical additives. Colloids Interfaces 2:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Telmadarreie A, Trivedi JJ (2016) New insight on carbonate-heavy-oil recovery: pore-scale mechanisms of post-solvent carbon dioxide foam/polymer-enhanced-foam flooding. SPE J 21:1655–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Üzüm C, Kristen N, von Klitzing R (2010) Polyelectrolytes in thin liquid films. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 15:303–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2010.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang C, Li HA (2016) Stability and mobility of foam generated by gas-solvent/surfactant mixtures under reservoir conditions. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 34:366–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang J, Ayirala SC, AlSofi AM, Al-Yousef AA, Aramco S (2018) Smart water synergy with surfactant polymer flooding for efficient oil mobilization in carbonates. In: SPE EOR conference at oil and gas West Asia. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  39. Wei B, Li H, Li Q, Lu L, Li Y, Pu W, Wen Y (2018a) Investigation of synergism between surface-grafted nano-cellulose and surfactants in stabilized foam injection process. Fuel 211:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wei P, Pu W, Sun L, Pu Y, Wang S, Fang Z (2018b) Oil recovery enhancement in low permeable and severe heterogeneous oil reservoirs via gas and foam flooding. J Pet Sci Eng 163:340–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu F-P, Liu J, Wei X-M, Pu C-S (2018) A study on oxygen consumption mechanism of air-foam flooding in low-temperature oil reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 161:368–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xu X, Saeedi A, Rezaee R, Liu K (2015) Investigation on a novel polymer with surface activity for polymer enhanced CO2 foam flooding. In: SPE international symposium on oilfield chemistry. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  43. Zaccagnino F, Audebert A, Cox SJ (2018) Simulation of surfactant transport during the rheological relaxation of two-dimensional dry foams. Phys Rev E 98(2):022801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zeng Y, Ma K, Farajzadeh R, Puerto M, Biswal SL, Hirasaki GJ (2016) Effect of surfactant partitioning between gaseous phase and aqueous phase on CO2 foam transport for enhanced oil recovery. Transp Porous Media 114:777–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang Y, Wang Y, Xue F, Wang Y, Ren B, Zhang L, Ren S (2015) CO2 foam flooding for improved oil recovery: reservoir simulation models and influencing factors. J Pet Sci Eng 133:838–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Petroleum Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Renewable Energies and Environment, Faculty of New Sciences & TechnologiesUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations