Gas Flooding

Muhammad Haziq Bin Yussof

CO2 Foam (Surfactant) Mechanisms
What?
• Surfactant Solution
FLOW

1 2 3 4
How?
CO2 Surfactant CO2 Water
• SAG or Co-injection Injection Solution Injection Injection
• CO2 mobility control Injection Post-Flush

Why?
• Increases reservoir sweep
• Improves CO2 utilisation
CO2 Foam EOR Pilot Design, Workflow
Modeling, Laboratory Investigations,
and Application

1st Case Study

 QUEEN FIELD

Field Pilot Location Area

The central portion of Queen Field

QFS wells 2, 3, and 4 showed favorable distribution of

reservoir flow zones and appreciable connectivity

Reservoir flow zones are continuous and display Figure 4

average permeabilities

{
Inverted 5-spot pattern

Modern logs, QFS wells 1, 2, and 3

routine core showed favorable
analysis, and fluid distribution of
samples were reservoir flow zones
collected and are and appreciable QFS 1 QFS 2 QFS 3
being analyzed connectivity Figure 5
 Ft.
Stockton

• Field Production Size –

3000 acres
• Cyclical sequence of
mixed siliciclastic and
carbonates with lesser
amounts of evaporites
Queen • Reservoir rock
composed of arkosic

Field sandstone interbedded

with variable amounts
of dolomite and
anhydrite
 Modelling
Workflow

Reservoir Calibration and Probabilistic Fluid Model

Modelling Screening of workflow Initialization,
Static Models MMP

to have
uncertainty in
to describe the to create many performance
spatial equally probable prediction for
used in flow
distribution of realizations, while reservoir
simulations to
parameters preserving the characterization,
gain insights into
through the first moment and to capture the
the performance
integration of (mean) and flow dynamics as
of CO2 foam at
wellbore data second moment a trade-off
reservoir scale.
with the geologic (variance) of between
model available well data complexity and
simulation
runtime
 Laboratory Investigations

CO2 foam systems

• aims to determine effects of reservoir
for mobility control pressure on CO2 foam performance for field
to optimize EOR implementation
potential

Effect of foam on • to determine foam behavior at

oil recovery at two repressurized conditions and to investigate
different pressures the potential for miscible flooding
Enhanced Oil Recovery and Mobility Reduction by CO2 Foam

An additional 4.1%OOIP was

recovered the incremental recovery was similar
trend to 41 bar

82bar
The effect of pore
pressure was studied in
41bar CO2 foam produced reasonable
The low incremental recovery two tertiary CO2 foam
and the amount of PVs injected
OOIP (3.8%) after a total of 1.1 suggest poor sweep efficiency injections focusing on
PV injected by the generated foam the reduction of gas
mobility by foam, CO2-
oil miscibility, and oil
recovery
 Foam Quality
effect of reservoir
The green crude oil on foam,
and is the likely
graph shows explanation for
the reduced MRF
average MRF observed during
as foam quality CO2 foam EOR
test
is altered from
high-to-low
gas fractions.

The red point at 80% foam

quality represent the MRF
calculated from the equivalent
EOR experiment at 82bar.

Mobility reduction factor (MRF) as a function of foam quality at 82bar and 35°C.
 An Integrated Carbon-Dioxide-Foam
Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Pilot Program

2nd Case Study

Muhammad Haziq Bin Yussof
 Field Pilot Location Area Criteria
EAST SEMINOLE FIELD
1. The chosen producer in the well pair should • Discovered 1940
experience rapid gas breakthrough from CO2 injection • Produce 12% OOIP
ahead of the CO2 foam, relative to the surrounding
production wells.

Producing well

2. A high GOR, relative to adjacent producers, should Figure 1

be observed in the selected production well.

experimentally study
3. The injection wellhead pressure should be lower
than that of comparable injection wells to offer a
the injection of CO2
larger window for operational flexibility and to foam for analysis on
mitigate injectivity issues because large pressure gross oil recovery,
increases are expected during foam injection.
Water Injector
well improved sweep
Injector well efficiency, and foam
4. The well pair should be in close proximity to effects on CO2 mobility
minimize geological uncertainty and maximize
interwell connectivity.
 The East
Seminole
Field

• A heterogeneous cyclical
carbonate consisting of
more than 190 ft of
subtidal, intertidal, and
supratidal deposits

San • The net pay is 110 ft and

is characterized by 12 to
15% porosity and an
Andres average permeability of
• 13 md. Thin high-
permeability zones occur
Unit throughout the pay
section, with
permeabilities up to 300
md
 Modelling

Geologic and • The structure of the static geologic model was generated
using the integration of petrophysical well logs, core data,
Reservoir and regional stratigraphy to define the geologic framework
Modelling in the extended pilot area

• To assist the pilot injection design and scale up the

Numerical optimized laboratory foam system, numerical modeling with
the 3D reservoir model was used to set up a compositional-
Modeling simulation case for the extended pilot area
 decreasing apparent
Foam-Quality/Rate Scans 0.5 wt% surfactant
viscosity with
increasing flow rate,
solution had the demonstrating the
highest calculated shear-thinning
highest-
apparent viscosity behavior of foam and
apparent-
viscosity foam increased gas-phase
mobility

relatively small
reduction in foam highest apparent
apparent viscosity
viscosity for the 1 wt%
Expensive
surfactant solution

The main objective of the foam-quality scans was to determine the optimal gas fraction
(fg) or foam quality that generates the most-efficient and the highest-apparent-viscosity
CO2 foam with reservoir core and fluids considering field-scale economic constraints.
 CO2-Foam EOR Corefloods

No oil was recovered during the incremental recoveries were observed

subsequent surfactant preflood regardless of surfactant concentration

Early water
breakthrough and Increase in
two-phase viscosity
production from the
start of injection

pureCO2 flood injected 30% more

CO2 compared with CO2 foam and
recovering an additional 37 6 5%
OOIP

Oil-saturation (fraction of PV) vs. PV injected for the CO2 EOR baseline after waterflooding (Core H) and five
CO2-foam EOR corefloods performed after waterflooding (Cores A, B, C, D, and E). Blue curves correspond
to waterflood, orange to surfactant preflush, red to CO2, and green to CO2 foam.
Limitation and Challenges – Future Consideration
At the laboratory scale, CO2 foam has been shown to overcome the unfavorable mobility ratio
of supercritical CO2 in systems of variable heterogeneity

Despite the favorable results of laboratory experiments, displacement mechanisms across

larger scales are still not well understood.

Difficulty has been encountered when monitoring the propagation of CO2 foam in the reservoir
and attributing additional oil recovery specifically to the foam rather than to the increased
volume of CO2 injected.

The wide range of reservoir heterogeneities, operational challenges, and complex fluid systems
establishes the need for a more integrated methodology for advancing CO2 foam technology.

Integrating traditional laboratory techniques, detailed core scale CO2 foam injection studies,
geologic description and modeling, and validated reservoir scale simulation models can provide
new insights into the behavior of dynamic fluids across multiple scales.
 Main Issue why choose CO2

CO2 EOR in the Permian

Growing concerns
Basin has occurred The unfavorable CO2
regarding greenhouse gas The limited EOR Mobility control aims to
throughout the past 40 properties, mostly density
emissions has led to investigations in the Queen, subdue the density and
years but lower than and viscosity, are main
renewed interest in utilizing renewed developmental viscosity differences
expected oil recoveries are contributors to these
CO2 as an EOR method as interest, and the success of between CO2 and reservoir
often reported due to challenges which can be
part of Carbon Capture, neighboring fields’ EOR fluids using thickeners, gels,
gravity segregation, viscous combated with foam for
Utilization, and Storage operations. and/or foams.
fingering, and poor sweep mobility control.
(CCUS).
efficiency.

CO2-EOR Mobility Challenges

a) Poor aerial sweep

b) Gas channelling
c) Gravity Override