A Comparative Study of Gas Flooding and Foam-Assisted Chemical Flooding in Bentheimer Sandstones

Abstract

A laboratory study of principal immiscible gas flooding schemes is reported. Very well-controlled experiments on continuous gas injection, water-alternating-gas (WAG) and alkaline–surfactant–foam (ASF) flooding were conducted. The merits of WAG and ASF compared to continuous gas injection were examined. The impact of ultra-low oil–water (o/w) interfacial tension (IFT), an essential feature of the ASF scheme along with foaming, on oil mobilisation and displacement of residual oil to waterflood was also assessed. Incremental oil recoveries and related displacement mechanisms by ASF and WAG compared to continuous gas injection were investigated by conducting CT-scanned core-flood experiments using n-hexadecane and Bentheimer sandstone cores. Ultimate oil recoveries for WAG and ASF at under-optimum salinity (o/w IFT of 10−1 mN/m) were found to be similar [60 ± 5% of the oil initially in place (OIIP)]. However, ultimate oil recovery for ASF at (near-)optimum salinity (o/w IFT of 10−2 mN/m) reached 74 ± 8% of the OIIP. Results support the idea that WAG increases oil recovery over continuous gas injection by drastically increasing the trapped gas saturation at the end of the first few WAG cycles. ASF flooding was able to enhance oil recovery over WAG by effectively lowering o/w IFT (< 10−1 mN/m) for oil mobilisation. ASF at (near-)optimum salinity increased clean oil fraction in the production stream over under-optimum salinity ASF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

References

  1. Aderangi, N., Wasam, D.T.: Coalescence of single drops at a liquid–liquid interface in the presence of surfactants/polymers. Chem. Eng. Commun. 132(1), 207–222 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrianov, A.I., Liu, M.K., Rossen, W.R.: Sweep efficiency in CO2 foams simulations with oil. In: IOR 2011-16th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery (2011)

  3. Aronson, A.S., Bergeron, V., Fagan, M.E., Radke, C.J.: The influence of disjoining pressure on foam stability and flow in porous media. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 83(2), 109–120 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blunt, M., Zhou, D., Fenwick, D.: Three-phase flow and gravity drainage in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 20(1–2), 77–103 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brooks, R.H., Corey, A.T.: Properties of porous media affecting fluid flow. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 92, 61–88 (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buckley, S.E., Leverett, M.: Mechanism of fluid displacement in sands. Trans. AIME 146(1), 107–116 (1942)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Castanier, L.M.: Introduction to computerized X-ray tomography for petroleum research. In: US Department of Energy Technical Report DOE/BC/14126-7. Stanford University, CA (USA). Petroleum Research Inst. (1988)

  8. Chatterjee, J., Wasan, D.T.: A kinetic model for dynamic interfacial tension variation in an acidic oil/alkali/surfactant system. Chem. Eng. Sci. 53(15), 2711–2725 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Darcy, H.: Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon: exposition et application. Victor Dalmont (1856)

  10. Dietz, D.N.: A theoretical approach to the problem of encroaching and by-passing edge water. In: Akad. Van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam. Proc. B vol. 56, pp. 83–92 (1953)

  11. Dong, M., Foraie, J., Huang, S., Chatzis, I.: Analysis of immiscible water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection using micromodel tests. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 44(2), 17–25 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Du, D., Zitha, P.L.J., Uijttenhout, M.G.: Carbon dioxide foam rheology in porous media: a CT scan study. SPE J. 12(2), 245–252 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. El Din Saad Ibrahim, A.S.: Investigation of the mobilization of residual oil using micromodels. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2009). https://doi.org/10.2118/129515-STU

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Farajzadeh, R., Andrianov, A., Bruining, J., Zitha, P.L.J.: Comparative study of CO2 and N2 foams in porous media at low and high pressure-temperatures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48(9), 4542–4552 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Farajzadeh, R., Andrianov, A., Zitha, P.L.J.: Investigation of immiscible and miscible foam for enhancing oil recovery. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49(4), 1910–1919 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fatemi, M.S., Sohrabi, M.: Experimental investigation of near-miscible water-alternating-gas injection performance in water-wet and mixed-wet systems. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2013). https://doi.org/10.2118/145191-PA

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fayers, F.J.: Enhanced Oil Recovery: Proceedings of the Third European Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Bournemouth (1981)

  18. Gauglitz, P.A., Friedmann, F., Kam, S.I., Rossen, W.R.: Foam generation in homogeneous porous media. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 4037–4052 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guo, H., Zitha, P.L.J., Faber, R., Buijse, M.: A novel alkaline/surfactant/foam enhanced oil recovery process. SPE J. 17(4), 186–195 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hagoort, J.: Oil recovery by gravity drainage. Soc. Pet. Eng. 2, 139–150 (1980). https://doi.org/10.2118/7424-PA

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hecht, E.: Optics, 4th edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hirasaki, G.J., Zhang, D.L.: Surface chemistry of oil recovery from fractured oil-wet carbonate formations. SPE J. 9(2), 151–162 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hirasaki, G.J., Miller, C.A., Puerto, M.: Recent advances in surfactant EOR. SPE J. 16(4), 889–907 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hosseini-Nasab, S.H., Zitha, P.L.J.: Systematic phase behaviour study and foam stability analysis for optimal alkaline/surfactant/foam enhanced oil recovery. In: IOR 2015-18th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery (2015)

  25. Howe, A.M., Clarke, A., Mitchell, J., Staniland, J., Hawkes, L.A.: Visualising surfactant EOR in core plugs and micromodels. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2015). https://doi.org/10.2118/174643-MS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang, D.D., Honarpour, M.M.: Capillary end effects in coreflood calculations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 19(1–2), 103–117 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Janssen, M.T.G., Zitha, P.L.J., Pilus, R.M.: Oil recovery by alkaline-surfactant-foam (ASF) flooding: effect of drive foam quality on oil bank propagation. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2018). https://doi.org/10.2118/190235-MS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jong, S., Nguyen, N.M., Eberle, C.M., Nghiem, L.X., Nguyen, Q.P.: Low tension gas flooding as a novel EOR method: an experimental and theoretical investigation. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2016). https://doi.org/10.2118/179559-MS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kang, W., Liu, S., Meng, L., Cao, D., Fan, H.: A novel ultra-low interfacial tension foam flooding agent to enhance heavy oil recovery. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2010). https://doi.org/10.2118/129175-MS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Khorshidan, H., James, L.A., Butt, D.S.: The role of film flow and wettability in immiscible assisted gravity drainage. In: International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Colorado, USA (2016)

  31. Klitzing, R.V., Espert, A., Asnacios, A., Hellweg, T., Colin, A., Langevin, D.: Forces in foam films containing polyelectrolyte and surfactant. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 149(1), 131–140 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kovscek, A.R., Radke, C.J.: Fundamentals of foam transport in porous media. In: Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry, pp. 115–163 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lake, L.W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Laplace, P.: Mécanique celeste 10. Supplement to the tenth edition (1806)

  35. Lide, D.R.: CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Liu, S.H., Hirasaki, G.K., Miller, C.A.: Favorable attributes of alkaline-surfactant-polymer flooding. SPE J. 12(1), 5–6 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Oren, P.E., Billiotte, J., Pinczewski, W.V.: Mobilization of waterflood residual oil by gas injection for water-wet conditions. Soc. Pet. Eng. (1992). https://doi.org/10.2118/20185-PA

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Peksa, A.E., Wolf, K.H.A., Zitha, P.L.J.: Bentheimer sandstone revisited for experimental purposes. Mar. Pet. Geol. 67, 701–719 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rossen, W.R.: Foams in enhanced oil recovery. In: Prud’homme, R.K., Khan, S. (eds.) Foams: Theory Measurements and Applications. Marcel Dekker, New York (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rossen, W.R., Gauglitz, P.A.: Percolation theory of creation and mobilization of foams in porous media. AIChE 36, 1176–1188 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rossen, W.R., Van Duijn, C.J., Nguyen, Q.P., Vikingstad, A.K.: Injection strategies to overcome gravity segregation in simultaneous gas and liquid injection into homogeneous reservoirs. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2006). https://doi.org/10.2118/99794-PA

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sebastian, H.M., Lawrence, D.D.: Nitrogen minimum miscibility pressures. Soc. Pet. Eng. (1992). https://doi.org/10.2118/24134-MS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shabib-Asl, A., Ayoub, M.A., Alta’ee, A.F., Saaid, I.B.M., Valentim, P.P.J.: Comprehensive review of foam application during foam assisted water alternating gas (FAWAG) method. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 8(17), 1896–1904 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Shandrygin, A., Shelepov, V., Ramazanov, R., Andrianov, N., Klemin, D., Nadeev, A., Yakimchuk, I.: Mechanism of oil displacement during wag in porous media with micro-inhomogeneities. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2015). https://doi.org/10.2118/176629-MS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sharma, B., Brigham, W.E., Castanier, L.M.: A Report on CT-Imaging Techniques for Two-Phase and Three-Phase In-Situ Saturation Measurements. Prepared for US Department of Energy, Stanford University (1997)

  46. Shupe, R.D.: Chemical stability of polyacrylamide polymers. J. Pet. Technol. 33(8), 1513–1529 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Simjoo, M., Dong, Y., Andrianov, A., Talanana, M., Zitha, P.L.J.: CT scan study of immiscible foam flow in porous media for enhancing oil recovery. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52(18), 6221–6233 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Srivastava, M., Zhang, J., Nguyen, Q.P., Pope, G.A.: A systematic study of alkali surfactant gas injection as an enhanced oil recovery technique. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2009). https://doi.org/10.2118/124752-MS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Szlendak, S.M., Nguyen, N.M., Nguyen, Q.P.: Laboratory investigation of low-tension-gas flooding for improved oil recovery in tight formations. SPE J. 18(5), 851–866 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Talebian, S.H., Masoudi, R., Tan, I.M., Zitha, P.L.J.: Foam assisted CO2-EOR: a review of concept, challenges, and future prospects. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 120, 202–215 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Tang, S., Tian, L., Lu, J., Wang, Z., Xie, Y., Yang, X., Lei, X.: A novel low tension foam flooding for improving post-chemical-flood in Shuanghe oilfield. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2014). https://doi.org/10.2118/169074-MS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Treiber, L.E., Archer, D.L., Owens, W.W.: A laboratory evaluation of the wettability of fifty oil producing reservoirs. SPE J. 12(6), 531–540 (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vizika, O.: Effect of the spreading coefficient on the efficiency of oil recovery with gravity drainage. In: Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, 205th National Meeting. American Chemical Society, Denver, CO, March 28–April 2 (1993)

  54. Wasan, D.T., Shah, S.M., Aderangi, N., Chan, M.S., McNamara, J.J.: Observations on the coalescence behaviour of oil droplets and emulsion stability in enhanced oil recovery. Soc. Pet. Eng. (1978). https://doi.org/10.2118/6846-PA

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Winsor, P.A.: Solvent properties of amphiphilic compounds. Butterworths Scientific Publications. Ltd., London (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Young III, T.: An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 95, 65–87 (1805)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang, Y.P., Sayegh, S.G., Luo, P., Huang, S.: Experimental investigation of immiscible gas process performance for medium oil. Soc. Pet. Eng. (2010). https://doi.org/10.2118/133203-PA

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhu, T., Ogbe, D.O., Khataniar, S.: Improving the foam performance for mobility control and improved sweep efficiency in gas flooding. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43(15), 4413–4421 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zitha, P.L.J., Du, D.X.: A new stochastic bubble population model for foam flow in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 83(3), 603–621 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zitha, P.L.J., Nguyen, Q.P., Currie, P.K., Buijse, M.A.: Coupling of foam drainage and viscous fingering in porous media revealed by X-ray computed tomography. Transp. Porous Media 64(3), 301–313 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is the result of collaboration between Delft University of Technology, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Petronas and Shell. We are grateful to Petronas and Shell for funding the project. The authors thank Petronas for the supply of materials and data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martijn T. G. Janssen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: Pressure Drop Versus Oil Bank Shape During AS Slug Injection

Appendix A: Pressure Drop Versus Oil Bank Shape During AS Slug Injection

In order to study the relationship between the observed pressure drops (Fig. 6) and corresponding shapes of the oil bank (Fig. 7) Darcy’s law, in combination with Brooks and Corey model for relative permeabilities (Brooks and Corey 1966), was applied to simple test cases presented in Table 10 and Fig. 17. The formulas used are shown below. A simplified one dimensional Darcy’s law was assumed:

$$ \Delta P = {u_{\text{tot}}}\left( {\frac{{{f_{\text{o}}}{\mu_{\text{o}}}}}{{{k_{\text{ro}}}k}} + \frac{{{f_{\text{w}}}{\mu_{\text{w}}}}}{{{k_{\text{rw}}}k}}} \right)L $$
(A.1)

where ΔP, utot, μa, \( \;{k_{\text{ra}}} \), k, fa and L represent the pressure drop, total superficial velocity, viscosity of phase a, relative permeability of phase a, absolute permeability to brine, fractional flow of phase a and the core length, respectively. Subscripts o and w refer to the oil and water phases, respectively. The relative permeabilities are derived using Brooks and Corey model:

$$ {k_{\text{ro}}} = {k_{{\text{r}}{{\text{o}}^*}}}{\left( {\frac{{{S_{\text{o}}} - {S_{\text{or}}}}}{{1 - {S_{\text{or}}} - {S_{\text{wc}}}}}} \right)^{{n_{\text{o}}}}} $$
(A.2)
$$ {k_{\text{rw}}} = {k_{{\text{r}}{{\text{w}}^*}}}{\left( {\frac{{{S_{\text{w}}} - {S_{\text{wc}}}}}{{1 - {S_{\text{or}}} - {S_{\text{wc}}}}}} \right)^{{n_{\text{w}}}}} $$
(A.3)

where \( {k_{{\text{r}}{{\text{a}}^*}}} \) and na represent the end-point relative permeability and the Brooks–Corey exponent for phase a, respectively. Pressure drops are derived using a space interval of 1.0 cm (i.e. for every cm pressure drops are calculated using the saturation distributions presented in Fig. 17). Note that we only address the variations in phase saturations, i.e. relative permeabilities, and its impact on the total pressure drop.

Table 10 Parameters used to derive the pressure drop analytically for the two model cases shown in Fig. 17
Fig. 17
figure17

Simplified test cases that represent the development of the oil bank during AS slug injection at, respectively, under-optimum (left) and (near-)optimum (right) salinity conditions. Note that the development of the oil bank in the model has similar characteristics as the observations made during the performed experiments (Fig. 7). Water saturations were calculated using 1 − So. The total amount of oil present at each time was held constant; assuming no oil being produced

The derived total pressure drop profiles, i.e. the sum of pressure drops calculated over 1.0 cm sections, are shown in Fig. 18. Qualitatively they are similar to the observed pressure drops during AS slug injection in the experiments conducted (Fig. 6): a sharp increase followed by a more gradual increase (under-optimum) and a sharp increase followed by a gradual decrease [(near-)optimum]. The higher pressure drops during under-optimum compared to (near-)optimum injection is due to the relatively high peak So (close to 1 − Swc) within the oil bank. The reduction in water mobility, \( \frac{{{k_{\text{rw}}}k}}{{{\mu_{\text{w}}}}} \), has the greatest impact on the increase in pressure drop. Furthermore, as injection continued at under-optimum salinity conditions, the oil bank grew continuously while maintaining its peak So, thus enlarging the total pressure drop.

At (near-)optimum salinity injection first a sharp increase in pressure drop is seen due to the formation of the sharp oil bank at early injection times (similar to under-optimum salinity injection). Afterwards, peak So reduced and the oil bank became more uniform. The constant, relatively low, So of around 0.5 revealed a slight reduction in total pressure drop as the peak So within the oil bank was reduced significantly. This effect could not be compensated by the growth of the oil bank. Further development of the oil bank hardly effects the pressure drop as the expansion at the leading edge is neutralised by a slight reduction in peak So.

Fig. 18
figure18

Total pressure drop profiles constructed for the two simplified models shown in Fig. 17. Note that qualitatively it represents the observations made during AS slug injection in Exp. 4 and 5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janssen, M.T.G., Pilus, R.M. & Zitha, P.L.J. A Comparative Study of Gas Flooding and Foam-Assisted Chemical Flooding in Bentheimer Sandstones. Transp Porous Med 131, 101–134 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-018-01225-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Alkaline
  • Surfactant
  • Foam
  • Oil
  • Immiscible gas injection
  • Water-alternating-gas
  • Enhanced oil recovery