Transport in Porous Media

, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 777–793 | Cite as

Effect of Surfactant Partitioning Between Gaseous Phase and Aqueous Phase on \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) Foam Transport for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Article

Abstract

\(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) flood is one of the most successful and promising enhanced oil recovery technologies. However, the displacement is limited by viscous fingering, gravity segregation and reservoir heterogeneity. Foaming the \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) and brine with a tailored surfactant can simultaneously address these three problems and improve the recovery efficiency. Commonly chosen surfactants as foaming agents are either anionic or cationic in class. These charged surfactants are insoluble in either \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) gas phase or supercritical phase and can only be injected with water. However, some novel nonionic or switchable surfactants are \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) soluble, thus making it possible to be injected with the \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) phase. Since surfactant could be present in both \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) and aqueous phases, it is important to understand how the surfactant partition coefficient influences foam transport in porous media. Thus, a 1-D foam simulator embedded with STARS foam model is developed. All test results, from different cases studied, have demonstrated that when surfactant partitions approximately equally between gaseous phase and aqueous phase, foam favors oil displacement in regard to apparent viscosity and foam propagation speed. The test results from the 1-D simulation are compared with the fractional flow theory analysis reported in the literature.

Keywords

Nonionic surfactant Partition coefficient \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) Foam Gas breakthrough Mobility control Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) IMPES Fractional flow theory 

List of Symbols

\(C_\mathrm{sg} \)

Surfactant concentration in gas phase

\(C_\mathrm{ss} \)

Surfactant concentration on the solid phase

\(C_\mathrm{sw} \)

Surfactant concentration in water phase

\(C_\mathrm{threshold} \)

Threshold concentration for surfactant in water phase

epdry

Foam model parameter in F2

epsurf

Foam model parameter in F1

F1 to F6

Dependent functions in the range of 0 to 1 in STARS model

\(f_{\mathrm{g},\mathrm{avg}}.\)

Average foam quality

FM

Mobility reduction factor

fmdry

Foam model parameter in F2

fmmob

Reference to the maximum gas mobility reduction that can be achieved

fmsurf

Foam model parameter in F1

\(k_\mathrm{rg}^\mathrm{f} \)

Relative permeability of gas phase in the state of foam

\(k_\mathrm{rg}^\mathrm{nf} \)

Relative permeability of gas phase in the absence of foam

\(k_\mathrm{rg}^\mathrm{o} \)

End point relative permeability of gas phase

\(k_\mathrm{rw} \)

Relative permeability of water phase

\(k_\mathrm{rw}^\mathrm{o} \)

End point relative permeability of water phase

\(K_{ij}^*\)

Dispersion tensor of species i in phase j

\(K_\mathrm{sg}^*\)

Dispersion tensor of species surfactant in gas phase

\(K_\mathrm{sw}^*\)

Dispersion tensor of species surfactant in water phase

\(K_\mathrm{sgw} \)

Partition coefficient of surfactant between gas phase and water phase

L

Length of 1-D formation

\(n_\mathrm{g} \)

Corey exponent for gas phase

\(n_\mathrm{w} \)

Corey exponent for water phase

\(\overrightarrow{N_\imath }\)

Flux of species i

\(N_p \)

Number of phases

NX

Number of grid blocks

p

Pressure

\(p_\mathrm{g} \)

Gas pressure

\(p_\mathrm{w} \)

Water pressure

\(\hbox {Pe}_\mathrm{g} \)

Peclet in gas phase

\(\hbox {Pe}_\mathrm{w} \)

Peclet number in water phase

\(S_\mathrm{gr} \)

Residual gas saturation

\(S_j \)

Saturation of phase j

\(S_\mathrm{w} \)

Water saturation

\(S_\mathrm{wr} \)

Residual water saturation

TPV

Total pore volume of injection

\(R_i \)

Generation and consumption term in conservation equation

t

Time

\(\overrightarrow{u_\jmath }\)

Superficial velocity of phase j

\(u_\mathrm{g} \)

Superficial velocity of gas phase

\(u_\mathrm{w} \)

Superficial velocity of water phase

v

Interstitial velocity

\(W_i \)

Total mass of i in bulk volume

\(W_\mathrm{g} \)

Total mass of gas in bulk volume

\(W_\mathrm{w} \)

Total mass of water in bulk volume

x

Distance

\(\phi \)

Porosity

\(\rho _j \)

Density of phase j

\(\rho _\mathrm{g} \)

Density of gas phase

\(\rho _\mathrm{s} \)

Density of solid phase

\(\rho _\mathrm{w} \)

Density of water phase

\(\omega _{ij} \)

Mass fraction of species i in phase j

\(\omega _{is} \)

Mass fraction of species i in phase solid phase

\(\mu _\mathrm{app} \)

Apparent viscosity of foam

\(\mu _\mathrm{g} \)

Viscosity of gas

\(\mu _\mathrm{w} \)

Viscosity of water

References

  1. Abbaszadeh, M., Kazemi Nia Korrani, A., Lopez-Salinas, J.L., Rodriguez-de La Garza, F., Villavicencio Pino, A., Hirasaki, G.: Experimentally-based empirical foam modeling. In: Presented at the SPE improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12 April, SPE-169888-MS (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Ashoori, E., van der Heijden, T., Rossen, W.R.: Fractional flow theory of foam displacements with oil. In: Presented at the SPE international symposium on oilfield chemistry, Woodlands, Texas, USA, 1 January, SPE-121579-MS (2009)Google Scholar
  3. Boeije, C.S., Rossen, W.: Fitting foam-simulation-model parameters to data: I. coinjection of gas and liquid. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 18, 264–272 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, L., Reme, A., Shan, D., Coombe, D., Rossen, W.: Simulating foam processes at high and low foam qualities. In: Presented at the SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, SPE-59287-MS (2000)Google Scholar
  5. Chen, Y., Elhag, A.S., Cui, L., Worthen, A.J., Reddy, P.P., Noguera, J.A., Ou, A.M., Ma, K., Puerto, M., Hirasaki, G.J., Nguyen, Q.P., Biswal, S.L., Johnston, K.P.: \(\text{ CO }_2\)-in-water foam at elevated temperature and salinity stabilized with a nonionic surfactant with a high degree of ethoxylation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54, 4252–4263 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, Y., Elhag, A.S., Poon, B.M., Cui, L., Ma, K., Liao, S.Y., Reddy, P.P., Worthen, A.J., Hirasaki, G.J., Nguyen, Q.P., Biswal, S.L., Johnston, K.P.: Switchable nonionic to cationic ethoxylated amine surfactants for \(\text{ CO }_2\) enhanced oil recovery in high-temperature. High-salinity carbonate reservoirs. SPE J. 19, 249–259 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conn, C.A., Ma, K., Hirasaki, G.J., Biswal, S.L.: Visualizing oil displacement with foam in a microfluidic device with permeability contrast. Lab Chip. 14, 3968–3977 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cui, L., Ma, K., Abdala, A.A., Lu, L.J., Tanakov, I., Biswal, S.L., Hirasaki, G.J.: Adsorption of a switchable cationic surfactant on natural carbonate minerals. In: Presented at the SPE improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12–16 April, SPE-169040-MS (2014)Google Scholar
  9. Cui, L., Ma, K., Puerto, M., Abdala, A.A., Tanakov, I., Lu, L.J., Chen, Y., Elhag, A., Johnston, K.P., Biswal, S.L., Hirasaki, G.: Mobility of ethomeen C12 and carbon dioxide foam at high temperature/high salinity and in carbonate cores. SPE J. (2016)Google Scholar
  10. Elhag, A.S., Chen, Y., Chen, H., Reddy, P.P., Cui, L., Worthen, A.J., Ma, K., Hirasaki, G.J., Nguyen, Q.P., Biswal, S.L., Johnston, K.P.: Switchable amine surfactants for stable \(\text{ CO }_2\)/brine foams in high temperature. High salinity reservoirs. In: Presented at the SPE improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, SPE-169041-MS (2014)Google Scholar
  11. Falls, A., Hirasaki, G., Patzek, T.e al, Gauglitz, D., Miller, D., Ratulowski, T.: Development of a mechanistic foam simulator: the population balance and generation by snap-off. SPE Reserv. Eng. 3, 884–892 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farajzadeh, R., Lopez-Salinas, J.L., Ma, K., Biswal, S.L., Miller, C.A., Hirasaki, G.J.: Estimation of parameters for the simulation of foam flow through porous media: part 3; non-uniqueness, numerical artifact and sensitivity. In: Presented at the SPE enhacned oil recovery conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2 July, SPE-165263-MS (2013)Google Scholar
  13. Lake, L.: Enhanced Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers (2010)Google Scholar
  14. Le, V.Q., Nguyen, Q.P., Sanders, A.: A novel foam concept with \({\text{ CO }}_2\) dissolved surfactants. In: Presented at the SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, SPE-113370-MS (2008)Google Scholar
  15. Liontas, R., Ma, K., Hirasaki, G.J., Biswal, S.L.: Neighbor-induced bubble pinch-off: novel mechanisms of in situ foam generation in microfluidic channels. Soft Matter 9, 10971–10984 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li, R.F., Le Bleu, R.B., Liu, S., Hirasaki, G.J., Miller, C.A.: Foam mobility control for surfactant EOR. In: SPE-113910-MS. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  17. Ma, K.: Transport of surfactant and foam in porous media for enhanced oil recovery processes. https://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/71996 (2012)
  18. Ma, K., Farajzadeh, R., Lopez-Salinas, J.L., Miller, C.A., Biswal, S.L., Hirasaki, G.J.: Non-uniqueness, numerical artifacts, and parameter sensitivity in simulating steady-state and transient foam flow through porous media. Transp. Porous Media 102, 325–348 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ma, K., Ren, G., Mateen, K., Morel, D., Cordelier, P.: Modeling techniques for foam flow in porous media. SPE J. 20, 453–470 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ren, G.: Dynamics of supercritical \(\text{ CO }_2\) foam in porous media with \(\text{ CO }_2\) soluble surfactuants. http://www.pge.utexas.edu/images/pdfs/theses12/renguangwei.pdf (2012)
  21. Ren, G., Zhang, H., Nguyen, Q.: Effect of surfactant partitioning on mobility control during carbon-dioxide flooding. SPE-145102-PA (2013)Google Scholar
  22. Rossen, W.R.: Numerical challenges in foam simulation: a review. In: Presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA September 30 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. Schramm, L.L.: Foams : fundamentals and applications in the petroleum industry. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomas, S.: Enhanced oil recovery—an overview. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. Revue de l’IFP 63, 9–19 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Xing, D., Wei, B., McLendon, W.J., Enick, R.M., McNulty, S., Trickett, K., Mohamed, A., Cummings, S., Eastoe, J., Rogers, S., Crandall, D., Tennant, B., McLendon, T., Romanov, V., Soong, Y.: \(\text{ CO }_2\)-soluble, nonionic, water-soluble surfactants that stabilize \(\text{ CO }_2\)-in-brine foams. SPE J. 17, 1172–1185 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yongchao Zeng
    • 1
  • Kun Ma
    • 1
    • 4
  • Rouhi Farajzadeh
    • 2
    • 3
  • Maura Puerto
    • 1
  • Sibani L. Biswal
    • 1
  • George J. Hirasaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biomolecular EngineeringRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Shell Global Solutions InternationalRijswijkThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Total E&P Research and Technology USA, LLCHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations