Experimental investigation on mobility reduction factor of surfactant-alternating-gas foam flooding

Hamed Hematpour, Syed Mohammad Mahmood, Negar Hadian Nasr, Mojtaba karimi, Mahmood Bataee


Foam flooding is one of the common Enhance Oil Recovery (EOR) methods to mitigate the drawbacks of gas injection process. Whereas Surfactant-Alternating-Gas SAG is a common technique in the real cases, all developed foam flow models have been developed based on pre-generated foam flooding. This study aims to investigate the effect of different existing parameters in the current foam models on SAG foam process.

A set of core flooding experiments were designed to meet the mentioned objective. These experiments considered the effect of several parameters on the mobility reduction factor (MRF) including: surfactant types, flow rate, surfactant concentration, and salinity. A high core permeable core was considered as the porous medium, three different anionic surfactants (AOS, IOS and MFOAMX) were employed as the foaming agents, and the nitrogen gas was utilized as injected gas. Pressure drop throughout the flooding was monitored and MRF was calculated for each experiment. The results were interpreted using the ANOVA method to find out the most effective parameter in SAG foam process. The results revealed that the surfactant concentration plays the main role in MRF, however, salinity effect is not significant. Besides that, changing water saturation during the flooding, leaded to significant changes in MRF.

Full Text:



Aarra, M.G., Skauge, A. & Martinsen, H.A., 2002. FAWAG: a breakthrough for EOR in the North Sea. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 29 September-2 October, San Antonio, Texas. pp. 3103–3114.

Aronson, A.S. et al., 1994. The influence of disjoining pressure on foam stability and flow in porous media. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 83(2), pp.109–120.

Behera, M.R. et al., 2014. Foaming in micellar solutions: effects of surfactant, salt, and oil concentrations. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 53(48), pp.18497–18507.

Bond, D.C. & Holbrook, C.C., 1958. Gas drive oil recovery process, Patent Number: 2,866,507.

Chalbaud, C., Moreno, R. & Alvarez, J.M., 2002. Simulating Foam Process for a Venezuelan Pilot Test. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 29 September-2 October, San Antonio, Texas.

Cheng, L. et al., 2000. Simulating foam processes at high and low foam qualities. In Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma,3-5 April.

Falls, A.H. et al., 1988. Development of a mechanistic foam simulator. SPE Reservoir Enginnering, 3(3), pp.884–892.

Farzaneh, S.A. & Sohrabi, M., 2013. A review of the status of foam applications in enhanced oil recovery. In EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec held in London, United Kingdom, 10–13 June 2013.

Fergui, O., Bertin, H. & Quintard, M., 1998. Transient aqueous foam flow in porous media: experiments and modeling. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 20(1), pp.9–29.

Hematpour, H., Mahmood, S.M. & Sahbib Asl, A.M., 2016. Foam modeling approaches in enhanced oil recovery : A review. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 7(22), pp.1–8.

Hematpur, H., Karimi, M. & Rashidi, M., 2014. A brief review on foam flow modeling through porous media. International Journal of Petroleum and Geoscience Engineering (IJPGE), pp.104–119.

Hematpur, H., Mahmood, S.M. & Amer, M.M., 2016. Experimental investigation of flow rates effect on surfactant-alternating-gas foam process. Jurnal Teknologi, 78(6–4), p.55.

Hirasaki, G.J., 1989. The Steam-Foam Process--Review of Steam-Foam Process Mechanisms. Society of Petroleum Engineers, p.SPE-19518-MS.

Holm, L.W., 1968. The Mechanism of Gas and Liquid Flow Through Porous Media in the Presence of Foam. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 8(4), pp.359–369.

Huh, D.G. & Handy, L.L., 1989. Comparison of steady and unsteady state flow of gas and foaming solution in porous media. Society of Petroleum Engineers journal, 4(1), pp.77–84.

Jiménez, A.I. & Radke, C.J., 1989. Dynamic Stability of Foam Lamellae Flowing Through a Periodically Constricted Pore. In J. K. Borchardt & T. F. Yen, eds. Oil-Field Chemistry. American Chemical Society, pp. 460–479.

Khatib, Z.I., Hirasaki, G.J. & Falls, A.H., 1988. Effects of capillary pressure on coalescence and phase mobilities in foams flowing through porous media. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 3(3), pp.919–926.

Kibodeaux, K.R. & Rossen, W.R., 1994. Sensitivity study of foam diversion processes for matrix acidization. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 25-28 September, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Kristiansen, T.S. & Holt, T., 1992. Properties of Flowing Foam in Porous Media Containing Oil. Proceedings of SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Available at: http://www.spe.org/elibrary/servlet/spepreview?id=00024182.

Lappin, G., 1989. Alpha Olefins Applications Handbook G. Lappin, ed., CRC press.

Leas, W.J., Jenks, J.H. & Russell, C., 1950. Relative permeability to gas. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2(3), pp.65–72.

Ma, K. et al., 2013. Estimation of Parameters for the Simulation of Foam Flow through Porous Media . Part 1 : The Dry-Out Effect. Energy & Fuels, 27(5), pp.2363–2375.

Mohammadi, S., Collins, J. & Coombe, D.A., 1995. Field application and simulation of foam for gas diversion. In IOR 1995 - 8th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery 15-17 May, Vienna, Austria. pp. 133–143.

Nguyen, Q.P. et al., 2000. Experimental and modeling studies on foam in porous media : a review. In SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, 23-24 February, Lafayette, Louisiana.

Osoba, J.S. et al., 1951. Laboratory measurements of relative permeability. Transactions of the AIME, 192, pp.47–56.

Renkema, W.J. & Rossen, W.R., 2007. Success of SAG foam processes in heterogeneous reservoirs. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11-14 November, Anaheim, California, U.S.A.

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

Rossen, W.R. & Boeije, C.S., 2013. Fitting foam simulation model parameters for SAG foam applications. In SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2-4 July. pp. 2–4.

Schramm, L.L., 1994. Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry, Washington DC: ACS Advances in Chemistry.

Spirov, P., Rudyk, S.N. & Khan, a a, 2012. Foam assisted WAG, snorre revisit with new foam screening model. In Society of Petroleum Engineers - North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition 2012, NATC 2012: Managing Hydrocarbon Resources in a Changing Environment. pp. 624–641.

Tore, B. et al., 2002. Foam for gas mobility control in the Snorre Field: the FAWAG project. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 5(4), pp.317–323.

Vries, A.S.D. & Wit, K., 1990. Rheology of gas/water foam in the quality range relevant to steam foam. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 5(2), pp.185–192.

Wasserstein, R.L. & Lazar, N.A., 2016. The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), pp.129–133.


  • There are currently no refbacks.