Foam for CO2 EOR in a Carbonate Reservoir: Scale-up from Lab to Field

  • M. SharmaEmail author
  • Z. P. Alcorn
  • S. B. Fredriksen
  • M. A. Fernø
  • A. Graue
Conference paper


Carbon dioxide has been used for more than five decades in fields for tertiary oil recovery; and because of commercial and environmental reasons, it has received lot of attention in the last few years. Based on the experience with large-scale CO2 flooding, it is well understood that even with a high local displacement efficiency, the process suffers from poor volumetric sweep due to reservoir heterogeneity, viscous instability and gravity override. Based on laboratory studies, foam has been found to address these limitations at small-scale, however understanding of CO2-Foam flow at field-scale is limited within industry. Field pilots performed so far have shown technical success especially near well, but there exist a gap to establish a methodology to scale-up the CO2-Foam technology to large-scale. A research program was established to run CO2-Foam field trial in a field with heterogeneous carbonate reservoir onshore in west Texas, USA to guide technology scale-up. The research aims at implementing a modelling and monitoring approach as part of the roadmap. The static model created by integrating geologic framework, well logs and core data, and dynamic model created based on analysis of reservoir engineering data, including relative permeability, fluid phase behaviour and EOR coreflood studies forms the basis for reservoir simulation study for the pilot area. In this paper, we provide an overview of various elements of the three-dimensional numerical model. We demonstrate the application of a systematic approach to incorporate the uncertainties associated with model inputs, which is used to guide decision making for the baseline survey. The success will be validated via an appropriate monitoring plan in the ongoing pilot program.


CO2 Foam Mobility control Field pilot Uncertainty 



Barrels of oil per day


Barrels of water per day


Constant composition expansion


Carbon capture utilization and storage


Equation of state


Foam model parameter in Fshear


Foam model parameter in Fwater


Foam model parameter in Fsurf


Foam model parameter in Fshear


Foam model parameter in Fwater


Mobility reduction factor


Maximum gas mobility reduction factor


Foam model parameter in Fsurf


Key performance indicator


Million standard cubic feet per day


Main pay zone


Oil initially in place




Residual oil zone




Residual oil saturation for water


Uncertainty parameter


U.S. bureau of mines


Water-alternating-gas (CO2)



The authors acknowledge the Research Council of Norway CLIMIT program for financial support under grant number 249742—CO2 Storage from Lab to On-Shore Field Pilots Using CO2-Foam for Mobility Control in CCUS and industry partners; TOTAL E&P, Shell E&P and Statoil Petroleum AS. The authors acknowledge the Research Council of Norway and the industry partners; ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS, Aker BP ASA, Eni Norge AS, Maersk Oil Norway AS, DONG Energy A/S, Denmark, Statoil Petroleum AS, ENGIE E&P NORGE AS, Lundin Norway AS, Halliburton AS, Schlumberger Norge AS, Wintershall Norge AS of The National IOR Centre of Norway for support.


  1. Alcorn ZP, Fernø M, Graue A (2016) Workflow for optimal injection of CO2 to enhance oil recovery in mature oil fields: a preliminary study for a field pilot program. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-180029-MS.
  2. Alvarez JM, Rivas H, Rossen WR (2001) A unified model for steady-state foam behavior at high and low foam qualities. SPE J 6(03):325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng L, Reme AB, Shan D, Coombe DA, Rossen WR (2000) Simulating foam processes at high and low foam qualities. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-59287-MS.
  4. Chou SI, Vasicek SL, Pisio DL, Jasek DE, Goodgame JA (1992) CO2 foam field trial at north ward-estes. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-24643-MS.
  5. Falls AH, Hirasaki GJ, Patzek TW, Gauglitz DA, Miller DD, Ratulowski J (1988) Development of a mechanistic foam simulator: the population balance and generation by snap-off. SPE Res Eng 3(3):884–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farajzadeh R, Andrianov A, Krastev R, Hirasaki GJ, Rossen WR (2012) Foam-oil interaction in porous media: implications for foam assisted enhanced oil recovery. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 183–184:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernø MA, Eide Ø, Steinsbø M, Langlo SAW, Christophersen A, Skibenes A, Ydstebø T, Graue A (2015a) Mobility control during CO2 EOR in fractured carbonates using foam: laboratory evaluation and numerical simulations. J Petrol Sci Eng 135:442–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernø MA, Steinsbø M, Eide Ø, Ahmed A, Ahmed K, Graue A (2015b) Parametric study of oil recovery during CO2 injections in fractured chalk: influence of fracture permeability, diffusion length and water saturation. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 27(2):1063–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernø MA, Gauteplass J, Pancharoen M, Haugen Å, Graue A, Kovscek AR, Hirasaki G (2016) Experimental study of foam generation, sweep efficiency, and flow in a fracture network. SPE J 21(4):1140–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harpole KJ, Hallenbeck LD (1996) East Vacuum Grayburg San Andres Unit CO2 flood ten year performance review: evolution of a reservoir management strategy and results of WAG optimization. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-175000-MS.
  11. Haugen A, Mani N, Svenningsen S, Brattekås B, Graue A, Ersland G, Fernø MA (2014) Miscible and immiscible foam injection for mobility control and EOR in fractured oil-wet carbonate rocks. Trans Por Med 104:109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heller JP (1994) CO2 foams in enhanced oil recovery. In: Schramm LL (ed) Foams: fundamentals and applications in the petroleum industry, advances in chemistry series. American Chemical Society, Washington DC, 242:201–234Google Scholar
  13. Heller JP, Boone DA, Watts RJ (1985) Field test of CO2 mobility control at rock creek. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-14395-MS.
  14. Hoefner ML, Evans EM (1995) CO2 foam: results from four developmental field trials. SPE Res Eng 10(4):273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holm LW, Garrison WH (1988) CO2 diversion with foam in an immiscible CO2 field project. SPE Res Eng 3(1):112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Honarpour MM, Nagarajan NR, Grijalba Cuenca A, Valle M, Adesoye K (2010) Rock-fluid characterization for miscible CO2 injection: residual oil zone, seminole field, permian basin. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-133089-MS.
  17. Islam MR, Farouq-Ali SM (1990) Numerical simulation of foam flow in porous media. J Can Pet Tech 29(4):47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarrell PM, Fox CE, Stein MH, Webb SL (2002) Practical aspects of CO2 flooding. society of petroleum engineers, SPE Monograph Series, vol. 22Google Scholar
  19. Jian G, Puerto MC, Wehowsky A, Dong P, Johnston KP, Hirasaki GJ (2016) Static adsorption of an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant on carbonate minerals. Langmuir 32(40):10244–10252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonas TM, Chou SI, Vasicek SL (1990) Evaluation of a CO2 foam field trial: Rangely weber sand unit. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-20468-MS.
  21. Kibodeaux KR, Rossen WR (1997) Coreflood study of surfactant-alternating-gas foam processes: implications for field design. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-38318-MS.
  22. Kim JS, Dong Y, Rossen WR (2005) Steady-state flow behavior of CO2 foam. SPE J 10:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Law DHS, Yang ZM, Stone TW (1992) Effect of presence of oil on foam performance: a field simulation study. SPE Res Eng 7(2):228–236. SPE-18421-PA.
  24. Leeftink TN, Latooij CA, Rossen WR (2015) Injectivity errors in simulation of foam EOR. J Petrol Sci Eng 126:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ma K, Biswal SL, Hirasaki GJ (2012) Experimental and simulation studies of foam in porous media at steady state. AIChE Spring Meeting, Houston, TX, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  26. Masoudi R, Giddins MA, Karkooti H, Jalan S, Gil AAV (2015) Foam simulation from coreflood to field scale. In: Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific enhanced oil recovery conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 AugGoogle Scholar
  27. Mukherjee J, Norris SO, Nguyen QP, Scherlin JM, Vanderwal PG, Abbas S (2014) CO2 foam pilot in Salt Creek Field, Natrona County, WY: phase I: Laboratory Work, reservoir simulation, and initial design. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-169166.
  28. Mukherjee J, Nguyen QP, Scherlin JM, Vanderwal PG, Rozowski P (2016) CO2 Foam pilot in Salt Creek field, Natrona County, Wyoming: phase III: analysis of pilot performance. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-179635.
  29. Nguyen QP, Hirasaki GJ, Johnston KP (2015) Novel CO2 foam concepts and injection schemes for improving CO2 sweep efficiency in sandstone and carbonate hydrocarbon formations. Technical Report, U.S. Department of Energy, Award No. DE-FE0005902.
  30. Osterloh WT, Jante MJ (1992) Effects of gas and liquid velocity on steady-state foam flow at high temperature. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-24179-MS.
  31. Rossen WR (2013) Numerical challenges in foam simulation: a review. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-166232.
  32. Rossen WR, Zeilinger SC, Shi JX, Lim MT (1999) Simplified mechanistic simulation of foam processes in porous media. SPE J 4:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanders A, Jones RM, Linroth MA, Nguyen QP (2012) Implementation of a CO2 foam pilot study in the SACROC field: performance evaluation. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-160016.
  34. Schlumberger (2015) Technical description. ECLIPSE Reservoir Simulation SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  35. Turta AT, Singhal AK (1998) Field foam applications in enhanced oil recovery projects: screening and design aspects. In: Society of petroleum engineers, SPE-48895.
  36. Wang FP, Lucia JF, Kerans C (1998) Integrated reservoir characterization study of a carbonate ramp reservoir: Seminole San Andres Unit, Gaines County, Texas. SPE Res Eval Eng 1(2):105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xu Q, Rossen WR (2004) Experimental study of gas injection in surfactant-alternating-gas foam process. SPE Res Eval Eng 7:438–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Sharma
    • 1
    Email author
  • Z. P. Alcorn
    • 2
  • S. B. Fredriksen
    • 2
  • M. A. Fernø
    • 2
  • A. Graue
    • 2
  1. 1.The National IOR Centre of NorwayUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway
  2. 2.Department of Physics and TechnologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations