SPE 68860

Predicting Foamy Oil Recovery

Manuel Mastmann, SPE, Preussag Energie; Michael L. Moustakis, SPE; D. Brant Bennion, SPE, HYCAL

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in
Bakersfield, California, 2630 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
With a current recovery of only 5 percent, Albania's largest
oilfield Patos-Marinza, first commercially produced in 1939,
still yields a potential of more than 100 MMbbl reserves of 10
- 12API oil from a depth of 1600 m. A consortium consisting
of the Albanian Albpetrol, the German Preussag Energie, the
British Premier Oil, and the IFC, the private sector arm of the
World Bank, are making plans to improve oil recovery.
Testing wells producing 1-2 m3/d yielded rate
improvements with Progressive Cavity Pumps up to 30 m3/d
with sandcuts around 10 to 35 %. PVT analysis of the oil with
a relatively high solution-GOR of 35 m3/m3 shows a strong
tendency to foam (gas in microbubbles without forming a
continuous gas phase) below the bubble point, near the initial
reservoir pressure. Core tests with different depletion rates
resulted in primary oil recoveries of greater than 30 %.
For predicting project recovery and eonomics a black oil
simulation model was built with ECLIPSE on the basis of the
lab results. The sand production was inferred through channels
laid out in a star-like manner with a single cross connection.
Constructing type wells a sensible forecast including sand was
attained.
The paper discusses all measurements and results in the
context of present theories of foamy oil and Cold Heavy Oil
Production (CHOP).
Introduction
The Patos-Marinza Oilfield is an onshore field located east of
the city of Fier in South Central Albania (Fig. 1). It occupies
an area of approximately 24,000 hectares and was discovered
in 1926 starting commercial oil production in the early
1930s. Development to the north continued with drilling over

2300 wells, reaching the boundaries of the field in the late

1980s.
The main sandstone reservoirs dip at 8 13 from an
outcrop in the South containing mineable tar sands to the oil
water contacts at 1800 m in the north. There are multiple
stacked sand reservoirs of Upper Miocene (Messinian) age,
the most important ones being Gorani, Driza, and Marinza
(top to bottom). The Driza reservoir contains the majority of
OOIP and reserves. It consists of up to 6 sand layers numbered
from top to bottom, with the D1 being the main sand
continuous throughout the field. The Driza is a suite of
unconsolidated sandstones with porosity of 25 - 28 % and net
pay varying areally from 7 to 95 m (south to north).
Oil gravity also varies throughout the field depending on
the depth of the reservoir and the type of formation. Marinza
oil (north) has a gravity up to 825 kg/m (40 API) due to
greater depths and an areally closer position to the source
rock. The oil gravity in the Patos area (southern half of the
field) is about 998 kg/m (11 API) with dead oil viscosity
over 9000 mPa s under reservoir conditions.
Due to the unfavorable fluid properties oil recovery to date
amounts to less than 5 % under depletion drive. The wells
with a 2.5 acre spacing generally produce less than 1 m/d oil
with tubing insert pumps landed halfway to bottom due to
equipment limitations. Anglo Albanian Petroleum Ltd., the
operator of the consortium, performed tests with progressive
cavity pumps (PCP) to improve the oil recovery.
Setting the pumps below the perforated D1-sand resulted
in production rates up to 30 m/d heavy oil together with 15
35 % sandcut, greatly exceeding calculated values. The tests
provided initial rates and sand production, but were not long
enough to establish any declines. With the experience of
Canadian oilfieldsi, the analogy was drawn to the cold heavy
oil production mechanism (CHOP) currently investigated by
numerous institutions. For estimating future production and
ultimate recovery, a commercially available simulator was
employed, incorporating foamy-oil PVT data and Canadian
cold heavy oil production experience to infer channel
development.
Foamy Oil PVT Studies
Foamy oil behavior is a unique phenomenon associated with
low temperature production of viscous crude oils. It is
believed that this mechanism contributes significantly to the

M. MASTMANN, M.L. MOUSTAKIS, B. BENNION

abnormally high production rate of viscous crude oils

observed in many heavy oil production applications. This
portion of the paper describes the equipment and procedures
used in the Hycal laboratory program conducted to
characterize the Driza oil and also presents some of the salient
test results.
The basic mechanism of foamy oil behavior is related to
the existence of what is commonly termed a pseudo bubble
point. The true bubble point is the pressure at which, at the
reservoir temperature, the first small bubbles of free gas
evolve from solution in the oil and nucleate as a distinct free
gas phase. For most conventional oils having relatively low
viscosity, the gas rapidly coalesces into large bubbles and
evolves almost immediately from the oil to form a separate
and distinct gas phase. In many reservoirs, this forms a
secondary gascap during depletion operations and results in
high gas-oil ratios at production wells due to the high mobility
of a free gas phase in the porous media in comparison to the
more viscous oil. For this reason, for conventional or nonfoamy oils, the bubble point and the pseudo bubble point
have the same or very close to the same values.
For foamy oils, due to the high viscosity of the oil, the gas
bubbles cannot immediately coalesce together to form bubbles
large enough to allow gravitational forces to separate from the
oil. For this reason, the oil phase remains as a continuous
dispersed gas-oil emulsion with a higher and higher
concentration of increasingly larger bubbles trapped in a
milkshake-like format within the oil as the pressure is reduced.
The point for the foamy oil at which the bubbles of free gas
can finally start to escape from solution as a distinct free gas
phase is known as the pseudo bubble point.
For interest sake, it is worthwhile to note the differences
that foamy oil behavior may cause in some key transport
properties of crude oils below the bubble point, these being:
1. Above the True Bubble Point. Both foamy and nonfoamy oils behave in a similar fashion as all gas is solubilized
in solution in the oil and no free gas phase exists.
2. Formation Volume Factor. This is one of the properties
affected most strongly by foamy oil behavior and is believed
to be one of the major contributing causes to enhanced
productivity. Conventional oils shrink under the true bubble
point, due to the evolution of gas from the oil. Foamy oils,
however, can expand rapidly between the true bubble point
and the pseudo bubble point. This is because highly
compressible (and expandable) gas is liberated from solution,
but remains as a trapped phase in the oil. Therefore, its high
compressibility lends to the oil an artificially high
compressibility that is more gas-like than liquid in nature.
Since the free gas phase motion is retarded, oil (with the
trapped gas inside) is the only phase that can be mobilized
from the porous media until the pseudo bubble point pressure
is obtained and free gas is evolved from the oil.
The location of the pseudo bubble point can also be
determined from the inflection point where the tangent slope
of the formation volume factor (FVF) curve begins to decline,
indicating the liberation of free gas from the oil phase.

SPE 68860

3. Density. Foamy oil density performance inversely

mirrors the formation volume factor performance described
previously. Above the true bubble point, both foamy and nonfoamy oils behave the same. Once the true bubble point
pressure is passed, for a conventional oil, density increases
due to the evolution of gas from the oil phase. Conversely, for
a foamy oil, due to the entrapment of the extremely light gas
phase in the oil, density declines, sometimes radically, as the
pressure is reduced. Once again, the location of the pseudo
bubble point can be ascertained by a slope tangent analysis of
the configuration of the resulting density-pressure curve.
4. Gas-Oil Ratio. For a conventional oil, the gas-oil ratio
(GOR) obviously declines under the true bubble point due to
evolution of a free gas phase from the oil. Foamy oils,
however, result in a situation where the GOR remains constant
until the pseudo bubble point is reached. The pseudo bubble
point pressure can be easily defined by this method as well
(usually the easiest measurement to conduct).
5. Viscosity. This is a topic of some controversy among
researchers as to what happens to foamy oil viscosities
between the pseudo and true bubble points. For a conventional
oil, under the true bubble point, the viscosity increases as gas
freely evolves from the oil. For a foamy oil, conventional
wisdom is that the viscosity should remain relatively constant,
or perhaps decline slightly between the true and pseudo bubble
points, and then increase to the dead oil value between the
pseudo bubble point and zero pressure. However, it is a wellknown fact that gas-liquid foam rheology often results in
increases in viscosity (this being evident to anyone familiar
with foam-based drilling or fracture fluids). The major
difference here is the extreme viscosity of the base fluid phase
for a foamy oil and how this interacts with the gas phase. The
results appear to be very oil specific in this area and are also a
strong function of how rapidly pressure is depleted in the
given system. Significant differences in viscosity have been
calculated in open cells or capillary tubes versus in-situ in
porous media as well.
6. Effects of Depletion Rate. Unfortunately, foamy oil
behavior not only varies with oil type, viscosity, temperature
and gas type, but is also strongly related to depletion rate.
Rapid reductions in pressure allow little time for the gas
bubbles to nucleate and promote more foaming and lower
pseudo bubble point pressures. Slower depletion rates allow
more time for gravity and IFT forces to coalesce the liberated
gas phase and for gradual evolution to occur. Theoretically, if
a foamy oil is depleted infinitely slowly, performance should
approximate that of a conventional crude oil. Because varying
depletion rates occur in different locations in the reservoir,
usually a number (three minimum) of varying depletion rates
are conducted to note the effect on foamy oil behavior as a
function of depletion rate.
Foamy Oil Test Methodology (PVT Portion). Clean
degassed Driza reservoir crude oil was recombined with pure
methane gas at the reservoir temperature of 43C to yield
live recombined reservoir oil with a gas-oil ratio of
approximately 31 m/m for use in the laboratory program.

SPE 68860

PREDICTING FOAMY OIL RECOVERY

This oil was a common feedstock for all of the PVT and
coreflood tests conducted.
Due to the fact that foamy oil tendencies are more
pronounced at rapid depletion rates, the rapid test is conducted
first to ascertain if the oil exhibits any foamy oil tendencies. If
no foaming tendencies are observed, further lower rate
depletion tests are not required, and the data from the first test
will provide a suite of conventional black oil differential
liberation data for the oil of interest. If foamy oil tendencies
are observed, additional tests are conducted at slower
depletion rates to note the effect on pseudo bubble point
pressure and oil properties. For this program, we conducted
four complete PVT studies with the only variation being the
speed of the pressure reduction during the differential
liberation experiments. These tests were classified as rapid
(120 minutes per depletion step), mid-rate (24 hours for
each depletion step), slow (7 days for each depletion step)
and equilibrium (30-45 days per depletion step).
The foamy oil PVT studies provided the following data at
each depletion rate level:
- Formation volume factor as a function of depletion rate
and pressure.
- Oil viscosity (capillary viscometer) as a function of
depletion rate and pressure.
- Oil density as a function of depletion rate and pressure.
- Gas-oil ratio as a function of depletion rate and pressure.
- Conventional properties for the liberated free gas phase
(viscosity, density, compressibility factor, gas formation
volume factor, etc.).
- Oil single phase compressibility above the bubble point
and between the bubble point and pseudo bubble point.
- Location of the pseudo bubble point as a function of
depletion rate.
Figure 2 illustrates the configuration of the PVT
equipment used to conduct the studies with a photographic
illustration appearing as Figure 3. A 70,000 kPa rated, 110 cc
internal volume, optical cell with an internal volumetric
accuracy of 0.01 cc is the heart of the measurement apparatus.
Density is measured using a PAAR digital density meter, and
viscosity is measured by a capillary tube viscometer.
Tables 1-4 summarize the volumetric properties of the four
different rate depletion studies. The formation volume factor
data, gas-oil ratio, density and viscosity data from all four
depletion rate sets of data have been plotted and appear as
Figures 4-7.
Examination of the data suggests a classical expected
volumetric behavior with pronounced increases in formation
volume factor and the accompanying stability of GOR.
Reduction in apparent density is observed in the rapid rate
depletion tests in comparison to the slower rate and
equilibrium rate experiments. In general, the results of low
rate and equilibrium rate tests are not too dissimilar,
indicating that by the end of the seven-day equilibration
period, a relatively equilibrated depletion condition appears to
be in effect for this oil. The viscosity profile did not appear to
be strongly affected by depletion rate for the oil, indicating
that either the foamy tendency of the oil had little effect on the

apparent viscosity of the oil, or that the emulsion became

shear unstable in the capillary tube during measurements and
broke down. Hycal has acquired an ultrasonic viscosity
measurement system since this work has been conducted and
is proposing another set of measurements to determine if
shear-induced emulsion instability is the cause of the apparent
lack of effect of foamy oil behavior on the measured oil phase
viscosities in this work.
The results clearly indicate that the proposed multi-rate
depletion test method is a valuable one for illustrating foamy
oil properties and tendencies and approximate optimum rates
to promote foamy oil behavior.
Displacement Studies
Primary Pressure Depletion Tests. The objective of this
suite of tests is to determine the effect of foamy oil production
on primary recovery efficiency as a function of depletion rate.
The primary depletion tests were designed to provide the
following information:
- Recovery of oil-in-place for each facies type as a function
of both depletion pressure and rate of pressure depletion.
- Pressure at which the critical trapped gas saturation
begins to be generated (at different depletion rates).
- Pressure at which the mobile gas saturation is achieved (at
different depletion rates).
- -The value of the critical gas saturation.
- The value of the residual oil saturation at any level during
pressure depletion at various depletion rates.
The test procedure was as follows:
1. Mount a preserved or restored state core stack. Apply
net reservoir overburden pressure, heat to reservoir
temperature, bring to reservoir pore pressure via dead
(degassed) oil injection.
2. With reservoir pore pressure set at some value greater
than the true bubble point of the oil of interest, saturate the
core stack until effluent GOR matches injection fluid.
Determine permeability to live oil above the true bubble point
at two rates.
3. Shut-in the injection end of the core. Using a precision
pump, slowly reduce the pressure in the core from the initial
level (approx. 2500 psi), to 800 psi over a specified period of
time (30 hours for Tests 1 and 2) and from 2500 psi to zero psi
over an approximate 13 day period for Test 3 (full diameter
vertical core). Track, as a function of depletion pressure, the
produced oil and gas volumes on an incremental basis. From
this we can measure:
- The incremental stock tank oil produced as a function of
pressure. This will provide an evaluation of the cumulative
recovery of the OOIP as a function of pressure depletion at a
given rate.
- The pseudo bubble point should be observed by tracking
the GOR of the produced oil. Between the true and pseudo
bubble points, the evolved gas should remain trapped in the insitu and expelled oil. This means that, even though oil is being
displaced from the matrix by the expansion of in-situ gas
bubbles trapped as a dispersed phase inside the oil, the GOR
of the produced fluid will not change.

M. MASTMANN, M.L. MOUSTAKIS, B. BENNION

- Upon reaching the pseudo bubble point, free gas will

break out of the oil and begin to become trapped in the pore
system matrix to build up a trapped gas saturation. This means
that the GOR of the effluent fluid should actually drop for a
period as the somewhat depleted oil is forced from the pore
system, while the liberated free gas builds up the in-situ
trapped critical gas saturation.
- Once the critical gas saturation is achieved, free gas
becomes mobile. This should be evidenced by an increase in
GOR of the produced fluid as free mobile gas is produced. In
addition, a material balance of the deficit in gas production
during the gas buildup phase should allow the calculation of
the value of the critical free gas saturation required for
mobility.
Figure 8 provides an idealized type curve of the results of
such a primary depletion experiment. Figure 9 provides a
schematic illustration of the test apparatus. Tables 5 and 6
provide the results of the two rapid depletion rate tests
conducted on small diameter (3.81 cm) plug cores. Table 7
provides the results of a slower rate depletion test conducted
over a larger pressure range on a full diameter core sample.
The results (recovery versus pressure) have been plotted for
each of the tests and appear as Figures 10-11 respectively. For
the rapid depletion rate tests, some pronounced increased
production can be seen at pressures over 1000 psi due to
foamy oil effects. Results were different for the lower rate
depletion study.
The lower rate depletion was conducted starting at
approximately 3300 psi at a rate of approximately 250 psi per
day over a 13 day period. The results are interesting and are
presented in Table 7. In summary, they are:
1. Overall recovery was almost 65% of the OOIP in the
core with a maximum gas saturation of 44.12% at the final
zero psi depletion condition. Almost half of this recovery
occurred under 300 psi in the last 30 hours or so of the test.
This suggests that the foamy oil behavior is more suppressed
at lower depletion rates until low pressures where, due to
compressibility effects, the gas volume expands more rapidly
and appears to initiate a more pronounced foaming effect. This
is also evident in the pressure drop measured across the core
during the depletion with increasing delta P observed under
1000 psi and the most significant under 300 psi.
2. The instantaneous GOR data would suggest a classic
pseudo bubble point which appears to be near the actual
bubble point (point of initial produced oil GOR decline). This
suggests relatively small foamy oil effects at high pressures at
this lower depletion rate. The critical gas saturation (point of
GOR increase) appears to occur at around 2200 psi (only
about 2% gas saturation). This is fairly typical of rock in this
permeability range and suggests that we are seeing very little
foamy effect or high pseudo trapped gas saturation at high
pressures at this fairly slow depletion rate.
3. The GOR increases in the 2200-1500 psi range,
indicating mobile gas, but then drops again quite substantially,
accompanied by increased oil production in the 1500-1000 psi
range. This suggests another region of restricted flow and
foamy behavior, and we then see the same situation again at

SPE 68860

very low pressure, accompanied by the big slug of final oil

production. These results are somewhat atypical from the
classic theoretical response expected, but may be related to the
geometry and pore size distribution of the Driza sands. Since
we observed a somewhat similar surge introduction at low
pressure (1000-800 psi range) for the rapid rate Upper Driza
test conducted previously as a portion of the steamflood
experiments, there do appear to be some similarities.
4. Material balance closure was good, with almost 100% of
the OGIP (adjusted for the volume remaining trapped in the
core as well) being achieved at zero pressure. We actually
allowed the core to set for about six days at the final zero
pressure point to ensure that all of the gas had evolved.
Numerical Simulation
To date, there is no commercially available numerical
simulator to describe the complex rock and fluid mechanics
associated with foamy-oil sand production. Consequently, the
decision was made to use an industry-standard black-oil
simulator and focus on the unconventional fluid properties of
foamy-oil and not the mechanics of sand production and
channel or wormhole development. Production testing had
already confirmed foamy-oil sand production from which the
formation of channels would be inferred.
A widely used, general-purpose black oil simulator
(ECLIPSE, Mark of Schlumberger--GeoQuest) was used to
investigate two sets of foamy-oil PVT data. The main goals of
the simulation work were as follows:
- Verify the necessity of channels to reach production rates
achieved during field testing
- Calculate ultimate recovery factors with respect to
different depletion rate PVT and critical gas saturation
- Incorporate the effects of a partially depleted system to
reflect the current condition of the Driza reservoir
targeted for redevelopment
- Incorporate performance inefficiency into the model to
account for irregular channel geometry and drainage
uncertainties
Simulation Model Description. The model has been
constructed using the parameters shown in Table 8.
This base model was later modified to include three
identical sands designed to reflect a completion type (multiple
sands with an average net-pay of 30 meters). An impermeable
layer separated each of the three sands.
Assumptions. Several assumptions inherent to foamy-oil
production were necessary due to the limitations of the
numerical model. These assumptions focused on the inclusion
of channels, believed established early in the life of a well and
a uniform non-time dependent foamy-oil PVT region.
During a wells first 3 to 6 months, sand production is high
(up to 50% of the total volume of production) declining to
nominal levels (usually below 1%) within a year. This early
sand production is assumed to be a period of maximum
channel development. Nominal levels of sand production that
follow are believed to reflect channel maintenance.
The first assumption incorporated in the model was the
instantaneous establishment of full-length channels at the

SPE 68860

PREDICTING FOAMY OIL RECOVERY

onset of foamy-oil production. This resulted in peak

simulation rates that where much higher than field-test rates.
To negate this, a rate limit of 25 m3/d was included. This
reflected the average initial rate reached during field-testing.
Reducing the number of channels would lower the production
rate but was found to adversely affect the depletion rate within
the foamy-oil PVT region.
The second assumption included a well-defined, non timedependent, and uniform foamy-oil PVT region. Beyond
which conventional oil properties exist. No transition zone
was included in the simulation model. Differing foamy-oil
PVT data sets reflecting varying depletion rates would be
employed to establish a recovery factor variance.
To simulate a channel, a Dual Porosity / Dual Permeability system was utilized in the model. A simplified channel
geometry was adopted to model improved reservoir
conductivity ignoring any reservoir anisotropy. Figure 12
highlights the channel geometry incorporated.
In this figure, the conventional PVT region is highlighted
in blue and the foamy-oil PVT region in green. Channels are
shown in red. The conventional PVT region accounts for 44%
of the total oil in place. Regardless of well spacing, the model
assumes that the foamy-oil process will only be 56% efficient.
The use of a two PVT region model was to arbitrarily
include channel drainage inefficiency accounting for irregular
channel geometry and drainage uncertainties. To date,
production testing has not established a probable channel
geometry or length. Highlighting this fact was deemed
prudent due to the multicultural dynamics of the project.
Depletion PVT. Currently, pressures within the Driza
reservoir are partially depleted to 25% of original. For this
reason, a modified set of PVT data was created. The data set
tracks the conventional curves from initial reservoir pressure
to a 25% depleted state. Here the conventional curve builds to
join the foamy-oil curves. Figures 13 and 14 show the
resulting Modified Conventional curve (black line) for FVF
and GOR that were incorporated in the simulation model.
The lack of a high peak in the modified FVF data, which is
a normal characteristic of foamy-oils, is probably a
conservative estimate of actual behavior. In discussions with
Hycal, a foamy-oil system that is partially pressure depleted
and at equilibrium should exhibit larger than conventional
peaks in the FVF when a sufficient depletion rate is applied.
Of course, this is dependent on the presence of sufficient
solution gas. This appears to be the case for the Driza
reservoir, which has a high remaining solution GOR as seen in
field-testing and exhibited in laboratory testing.
Without actual laboratory data, the modified PVT data set
affords a method of estimating the behavior of a partially
depleted reservoir. Five wells were used in the simulation
model to deplete the reservoir. Wells produced at low volumes
reflecting historical rates. Once depleted, four wells were shut
in and the single-center well produced.
Model Limits. Comparing the production of a 200-meter
channel with a horizontal well of the same length and diameter
(0.076 m) derived a lower limit of channel permeability.
Channel diameter was constant over its entire length. The

selected diameter reflects an estimate based on reported

laboratory results of 2 to 10 cmii. The impact of varying
diameter was found negligible.
A close match between a channel and a horizontal well
was reached at 300 Darcy. This was reduced to 150 Darcy to
account for an assumed degree of channel inefficiency. The
cited literature suggests up to 2000 Darcy wormhole
permeability. This upper limit was arbitrarily reduced to 1500
Darcy.
The two critical-gas saturation values used in the model
were taken from the completed laboratory work. An upper
(D1 and D20) and lower (D3, D4, and D5) Driza oil and small
diameter (3.81 cm) core stacks were depleted from 174 atm to
55 atm. Under rapid depletion, the upper oil resulted in a
foamy-oil recovery of 39% with critical gas saturation (Sgc) of
25% and the lower oil recovered 26% of the oil during
depletion with an observed Sgc of 15%. Results from the fullcore depletion study were not completed at this time.
The numbers of channel extensions were limited to a
simple structure of 8 cross-connected channels in the central
layer of a 5-layer single-sand. The cross connection was
incorporated to increase block access near the end of the
channels without increasing near-well conductivity.
Workflow & Results. First, the ultimate recovery of a
single vertical well (no channels) was simulated for a
conventional and a foamy-oil system. The production results
of these two runs are contained in Table 9.
This comparison highlights the need to improve near-well
conductivity. Without channels, enhanced or foamy-oil fluid
properties alone are not capable of providing production rates
similar to those achieved in the field.
A number of sensitivities were run to estimate the number
of channels required to adequately contact the foamy-oil
region, provide a sufficient depletion rate, and meet or exceed
field-test rates. From this work, an eight-channel model was
adopted. This simple model was able to achieve desired
production rates and provide an adequate pressure drop within
the foamy-oil region.
The core depletion studies (HYCAL) provided a range of
critical-gas saturation (Sgc) and recovery factors. A number of
sensitivity runs were conducted focusing on Sgc and channel
permeability. The results indicated ultimate recovery
dependent more on Sgc than on channel permeability at the
same abandonment pressure. However, the 1500 mD channels
held peak production rates for slightly more than 2 years
whereas the 150 mD channels began declining within the first
six months.
Next a partially depleted reservoir case was set up to
reflect current reservoir conditions. Here, the system was
depleted to 25% of original pressure. This was accomplished
by producing five vertical wells over 8 years at a maximum
rate of 1 m/d. Once the desired pressure was reached only the
center well produced. Channel geometry did not exist until
this second phase of production started.
Table 10 summarizes the results of four simulation runs for
a partially depleted system as described above. The runs
represent sensitivities to Sgc and channel permeability. All

M. MASTMANN, M.L. MOUSTAKIS, B. BENNION

cases utilize a rate limit of 25 m3/d, 150-m channel, and a 2PVT region model. Abandonment pressure 650 psi for all
cases.
The results indicate total ultimate recoveries of between
14% and 20% for the two-PVT system. Ultimate recoveries
from the foamy-oil region, representing 56% of the models
total volume, exceeded 30% in the high permeability and high
Sgc case. Recoveries from the conventional region varied
between 6% and 8%, as would be expected for a conventional
heavy-oil system.
To establish a probability distribution to ultimate recovery,
a Monte Carlo simulation was run using a low of 13.8% and a
high of 20.7%. As discussed, these values reflect an assumed
inefficient system. The most likely value of the Monte Carlo
simulation was set at 15%. The results of the Monte Carlo
simulation were the following:

P90
14.64%

Most likely
15.00%

P50
16.20%

P10
18.36%

Conclusions
1. The foamy oil behavior of Driza oil appears atypical
exhibiting two periods of high production and increased
foaming. The second period occurs at a very low pressure.
2. Simplifying the mechanisms of foamy-oil production
(inferred channels and non-time dependent foamy-oil PVT)
affords the use of a commercially available black-oil simulator
to investigate foamy-oil PVT recoveries.
3. Foamy-oil PVT without channels and conventional PVT
with channels are not capable of simulating high production
rates as achieved in the field tests.
4. Simulated recovery factors of 18 30 % are possible
incorporating a simple channel geometry with high rate and
intermediate rate depletion PVT (critical gas saturation of 15
25 %). These results are comparable to a slow depletion rate
(full core) at a 600-700 psi abandonment pressure.
Nomenclature
MM = million
IFC = International Finance Corporation
PVT = pressure/volume/temperature
GOR = gas/oilRatio,Rs, m/m
IFT = interfacial tension
OOIP = original oil in place
OGIP = originalgas in place
FVF = formation volume factor, Bo
Sgc = critical gas saturation
P10 = probability case 10 %
RF = recovery factor, %
Subscripts
g = gas
o = oil
w = water
c = critical

SPE 68860

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the consortium of the Albanian
Albpetrol, the German Preussag Energie, the British Premier
Oil, and the IFC, the private sector arm of the World Bank, for
the permission to publish the findings of our work. Thomas
Scheer of Preussag Energie did a great job on the simulator.
We also would like to acknowledge the work of the Canadian
consultants D. Chorney, D. Hall, T. McDougall, and J. Krissa
in the field and for the design of the PC pumping system
specifically adapted for the purpose.
References
i

ii

Maurice B. Dusseault, Samir El-Sayed: Heavy-Oil Production

Enhancement by Encouraging Sand Production, SPE/DOE
59276 IOR, Tulsa, 2000
Jian Yang Yuan, Bernard Tremblay, Alex Bachin: A
wormhole/network model of cold production in heavy oil, SPE
ITOHOS, Bakersfield 1999

SPE 68860

PREDICTING FOAMY OIL RECOVERY

Table 1 : AAP-1 Rapid Depletion PVT Test Results

Pressure
GOR
Bo
Viscosity
Density
(psig)
(m/m)
(cp)
(g/cc)
2524
31.17
1.0697
1195
0.9719
2300
31.17
1.0727
900
0.9692
2150
31.17
1.1297
876
0.9203
2000
31.17
1.1437
974
0.9090
1850
30.89
1.1467
1067
0.9064
1700
28.79
1.1411
1182
0.9091
1550
26.08
1.1134
1399
0.9298
1400
24.24
1.0857
1582
0.9518
1250
21.99
1.0695
1847
0.9653
1100
20.05
1.0625
2173
0.9705
900
17.76
1.0539
2614
0.9770
700
14.81
1.0447
3087
0.9846
500
12.05
1.0367
3690
0.9897
300
8.27
1.0280
4286
0.9969
200
6.24
1.0238
4692
0.9990
100
3.49
1.0213
5655
0.9997
50
2.11
1.0193
6800
1.0007
0
0.00
1.0180
8129
1.0006
Table 3 : Slow Depletion PVT Test Results
Pressure
Rs
Bo
Viscosity
Density
(psig)
(m3/m3)
(cp)
(g/cc)
2600
31.93
1.0664
1055
0.9746
2300
31.71
1.0644
1105
0.9763
2150
31.34
1.0625
1237
0.9778
2000
28.82
1.0603
1271
0.9794
1850
26.88
1.0582
1281
0.9811
1700
24.54
1.0540
1354
0.9826
1550
22.25
1.0511
1443
0.9845
1100
16.18
1.0407
2253
0.9897
500
7.33
1.0281
3698
0.9960
0
0.00
1.0169
8099
1.0021

Table 2: Intermediate Depletion PVT Test Results

Pressure
GOR
Bo
Viscosity
Density
(psig)
(m/m)
(cp)
(g/cc)
2791
32.27
1.0642
1195
0.9783
2300
32.27
1.0691
900
0.9738
2150
31.91
1.0958
991
0.9499
2000
31.79
1.1119
1056
0.9361
1850
31.24
1.1110
1152
0.9365
1700
29.80
1.1060
1210
0.9398
1550
27.31
1.0987
1328
0.9442
1400
25.00
1.0854
1479
0.9538
1250
22.62
1.0735
1650
0.9631
1100
19.98
1.0637
1900
0.9710
900
16.80
1.0522
2411
0.9795
700
12.64
1.0404
2932
0.9879
500
9.32
1.0329
3826
0.9929
300
6.26
1.0256
4722
0.9980
200
4.50
1.0223
5483
0.9997
100
2.67
1.0195
6271
1.0016
50
1.30
1.0183
7052
1.0020
0
0.00
1.0167
8161
1.0026

M. MASTMANN, M.L. MOUSTAKIS, B. BENNION

SPE 68860

Table 4. Differential Liberation Oil Properties at 43C (Equilibrium PVT Test)

Liberated
Solution
Relative
Relative
Gauge
Oil
GOR
GOR
Oil Volume Total Volume
Pressure
Density
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(g/cc)
(psig)
(kPag)
4000
27579
0.9810
1.0597
1.0597
31.88
0.00
2470
17030
0.9746
1.0667
1.0667
31.88
0.00
2100
14479
0.9781
1.0603
1.0829
28.38
3.50
1600
11032
0.9836
1.0496
1.1342
22.07
9.81
1200
8274
0.9875
1.0414
1.2162
17.04
14.84
800
5516
0.9915
1.0335
1.3990
11.80
20.08
500
3447
0.9942
1.0275
1.7554
7.40
24.48
300
2068
0.9959
1.0235
2.4053
4.11
27.77
100
689
0.9983
1.0190
5.3584
1.05
30.83
0
0
0.9999
1.0170
40.5587
0.00
31.88
Density of residual oil = 1.0180 g/cc @ 15.5C
API Gravity of residual oil = 7.5
(1) Cubic meters of oil at indicated pressure and temperature per cubic meter of residual oil at 15C.
(2) Total cubic meters of oil and liberated gas at the indicated pressure and temperature per cubic
meter of residual oil at 15C.
(3) Cubic meters of gas at 101.325 kPa (abs) and 15C per cubic meter of residual oil at 15C.
(4) Cubic meters of liberated gas at 101.325 kPa (abs) per cubic meter of residual oil at 15C.

Table 5: Upper Driza Test Production

Cumulative Time
Pressure
Fractional PV
(hrs)
(psig)
of Oil Produced
0
2521
0
1.2
2176
0.008
2
1921
0.021
3.7
1739
0.049
8
1413
0.08
10.9
1252
0.1
15.4
1072
0.146
18.1
988
0.167
21
910
0.18
23.9
839
0.255
29.8
800
0.284

Table 6: Lower Driza Test Production

Cumulative Time
Pressure
Fractional PV
(hrs)
(psig)
of Oil Produced
0
2617
0
2.3
2284
0.012
8.1
2178
0.021
14.7
1993
0.034
19.7
1704
0.068
22.8
1544
0.096
24.3
1442
0.121
27.4
1224
0.156
30.9
1004
0.176
34.5
849
0.188
36.5
796
0.196

1462

1342

1284

191.3

196.8

173.1

1399

1522

168.7

185.8

1577

164.2

179.7

1671

1624

159.6

1728

154.2

1848

142.6

1810

1923

135.4

1766

1987

129.3

150.5

2050

123.2

146.3

2136

114.1

0.3

2323

2204

97.0

2401

89.5

108.4

0.3

2508

79.2

0.4

0.9

0.3

0.6

0.51

0.25

0.45

0.3

0.35

0.2

0.1

1.3

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.1

0.7

0.4

0.6

0.5

2801

0.5

2680

3023

29.8

0.1

0.2

62.7

3154

51.1

3333

Pressure Delta P
(psi)
(psi)

17.2

Cum
Time
(hrs)

SPE 68860

0.25

0.5

0.3

0.15

0.05

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.02

0.3

0.75

0.2

0.35

0.3

1.4

0.6

0.28

0.1

0.05

0.07

Inc
(cc)

6.67

6.42

5.92

5.62

5.47

5.42

5.32

5.22

5.12

4.82

4.62

4.52

4.42

4.4

4.1

3.35

3.15

2.8

2.5

1.1

0.5

0.22

0.12

0.07

Cum
(cc)

Dead Oil Production

7.07

6.80

6.27

5.96

5.80

5.74

5.64

5.53

5.43

5.11

4.90

4.79

4.69

4.66

4.35

3.55

3.34

2.97

2.6

1.17

0.53

0.233

0.127

0.074

Cum Res.
Condition Oil
(cc)

Length (cm)
Area (cm)
Bulk Volume (cc)
Pore Volume (cc)
Interval (m)
Temperature ()
Overburden Pressure (psi)
Pore Pressure (psi)
Initial Water Saturation

11

10

10

5.5

11

10

26

20

4.5

15.5

32

4.8

9.2

41

19.3

10.8

3.8

1.8

2.6

Lab
(cc)

9.46

7.74

8.6

8.6

4.73

7.74

9.46

8.6

22.36

17.2

4.3

3.87

0.86

13.33

27.52

3.44

4.13

7.91

35.26

16.60

9.29

3.27

1.55

2.24

STP
(cc)

Inc Gas Production

238.05

228.59

220.85

212.25

203.65

198.92

191.18

181.72

173.12

150.76

133.56

129.26

125.39

124.53

111.20

83.68

80.24

76.11

68.20

32.94

16.34

7.05

3.78

2.24

Gas
Production
Cum STP
(cc)

37.84

15.48

28.67

57.33

94.6

77.4

94.6

86.0

74.53

86.0

43.0

38.7

43.0

44.43

36.69

17.2

11.79

26.37

25.18

27.66

33.17

32.68

30.96

31.94

Inc
(m3/m3)

35.69

35.60

37.30

37.77

37.23

36.70

35.93

34.81

33.81

31.28

28.91

28.60

28.37

28.30

27.12

24.98

25.47

27.18

27.28

29.94

32.68

32.05

31.53

31.94

0.045

0.044

0.040

0.038

0.037

0.036

0.035

0.035

0.034

0.032

0.030

0.030

0.029

0.029

0.026

0.021

0.019

0.017

0.015

0.004

Sg

0.643

0.645

0.649

0.651

0.652

0.653

0.653

0.654

0.655

0.657

0.659

0.659

0.660

0.660

0.662

0.668

0.669

0.672

0.674

0.684

0.689

0.689

0.689

0.689

0.689

So

15.122
38.02
574.86
143.72
1470.51-1470.76
43
4400
3300-0
0.311

Cum
(m3/m3)

Gas-Oil Ratio

Table 7: Summary of Coreflood Study

PREDICTING FOAMY OIL RECOVERY

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

Sw

7.140

6.872

6.337

6.016

5.855

5.802

5.695

5.588

5.481

5.160

4.946

4.839

4.731

4.710

4.389

3.586

3.372

2.997

2.676

1.177

0.535

0.235

0.128

0.075

OOIP

8.514

8.176

7.889

7.579

7.275

7.109

6.836

6.504

6.202

5.414

4.809

4.656

4.518

4.487

4.013

3.030

2.903

2.747

2.461

1.184

0.586

0.253

0.136

0.080

Total

% Recovery

481

355

304

142

81

55

29

23

11

273.1

286.1

290.1

306.5

312.2

314.9

317.4

317.1

319.1

319.3

320.2

1.5

12.8

19.8

20.0

7.5

8.7

7.2

6.7

5.5

5.1

4.4

2.46

1.58

1.27

6.8

0.6

12.3

4.6

0.6

0.7

1.5

2.7

1.5

2.6

7.5

5.7

1.4

Inc
(cc)
3.15

60.32

53.52

52.92

40.62

36.02

35.42

34.72

33.22

30.52

29.52

28.02

25.42

17.92

12.22

10.82

Cum
(cc)
9.82

Dead Oil Production

m
D
D

%
%

PVT Regions
Conventional PVT
Foamy-Oil PVT
44
56

8
0.076
150
1500

Area
m 160 000
Thickness
m
10
Porosity
%
27
Pore Volume
m 432 000
IOIP
m 345 600
Initial Pressure bars
154
Permeability mD
360
Kv / Kh
0.25
Blocksize
m 10x10x2
Sand Sub-Layers
5

17.8 acres
22.2 acres

3 inches

2 173 585 bbls

2 233 psi

40 acres
33 ft

63.94

56.73

56.09

43.06

38.18

37.54

36.80

35.21

32.35

31.29

29.70

26.94

18.99

12.95

11.47

10.41

Cum Res.
Condition Oil
(cc)

30

40

80

110

80

90

280

510

185

465

350

475

179

42

20

Lab
(cc)
32

2790.53

2764.73

2730.33

2661.53

2566.93

2498.13

2420.73

2179.93

1741.33

1582.23

1182.33

881.33

472.83

318.89

282.77

Gas
Production
Cum STP
(cc)
265.57

3.79

57.33

5.59

20.56

114.67

110.57

160.53

162.44

159.10

266.60

115.77

54.47

27.01

25.8

17.2

Inc
(m3/m3)
8.74

46.26

51.66

51.59

65.52

71.26

70.53

69.72

65.62

57.05

53.60

42.19

34.67

26.38

26.09

26.13

Cum
(m3/m3)
27.04

Gas-Oil Ratio

0.441

0.391

0.387

0.296

0.262

0.257

0.252

0.241

0.221

0.214

0.203

0.184

0.128

0.086

0.076

0.069

Sg

0.248

0.298

0.302

0.393

0.427

0.431

0.437

0.448

0.468

0.475

0.486

0.505

0.560

0.602

0.613

0.620

So

SPE 68860

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

0.311

Sw

*intermediate depletion rate PVT

Critical Gas Saturation

Average Rate
Recovery
Recovery factor
Pr (@19 years)

%
m/d
m
%
bars a

Convential
PVT
5
1-<1
6600
2
132.5

64.572

57.293

56.650

43.483

38.559

37.917

37.167

35.562

32.671

31.601

29.995

27.212

19.183

13.081

11.583

10.512

OOIP

99.148

98.001

96.784

93.942

90.487

88.075

85.360

76.941

61.607

56.044

42.099

31.548

17.083

11.526

10.220

9.586

Total

% Recovery

Foamy-Oil
*ID - PVT
15
2-1
8700
2.7
119.2

Table 9: Results - vertical well [single PVT region, no channels]

25.8

34.4

68.8

94.6

68.8

77.4

240.8

438.6

159.1

399.9

301

408.5

153.94

36.12

17.2

STP
(cc)
27.52

Inc Gas Production

M. MASTMANN, M.L. MOUSTAKIS, B. BENNION

Table 8 : Model parameter, single sand

802

604

961

227.9

262.1

1071

243.1

1174

217.3

Pressure Delta P
(psi)
(psi)

207.4

Cum
Time
(hrs)

Channel Geometry
Number of Channels
ID
Permeability 1
Permeability 2

10

Hg/H2O
Injection
Bomb

Ruska
Pump

Hg/H2O
Collection
Buffer

Ruska Extraction
Pump

Rf
6.3%
30.7%
20.0%

10578
33856
44434

7.5%
18.7%
13.8%

10169
43137
53306

7.2%
23.8%
16.6%

140782
181013
321795

10921
34336
45257

Ruska
Pump

Hg/H2O
Buffer

Hg/H2O
Storage
Bomb

Viscosity
Tubes

Digital
Gauge

To
Sampling
Cell

To Density
Cell

OVEN

Purge/Clean/
Evacuate

7.8%
19.0%
14.1%

150 D, 8x150m Chnl,Sgc=15%

140782
181013
321795

150 D, 8x150m Chnl,Sgc=25%

140782
181013
321795

1500 D, 8x150m Chnl,Sgc=15%

IOIP (m3) Cum.Oil (m3)

140782
8834
181013
55602
321795
64436

1500 D, 8x150m Chnl,Sgc=25%

Figure 2. Conventional Oil PVT Apparatus

PVT 1
PVT 2
Total

N12R08

PVT 1
PVT 2
Total

N12R07

PVT 1
PVT 2
Total

N12R06

Region
PVT 1
PVT 2
Total

N12R05

Tanker Terminal

Gas Reservoir
Oil Pipeline
Refinery

Oil Reservoir

CakranMollaj

Fier

planned

Elbasan

11

Kucova

Ballsh-Hekal

Ballsh

Visoka

Patos-Marinza

Kucova

Patos-Marinza
Oilfield
44,170 Acres

Pekishti

Figure 1 : Oilfields in Albania

Figure 3. Photographic Illustration of PVT Apparatus

PREDICTING FOAMY OIL RECOVERY

Table 10 : Depleted Single-Sand Model

SPE 68860

20 km

12

Vi
sc
osi
ty
(c
p)

Bo

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Rapid

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

1500

2000

2500

2000

3000

Pressure (psig)

1500

Intermediate

1000

Slow

Pressure (psig)

Figure 7
Pressure vs

Intermediate

1000

500

Rapid

500

Figure 4
Pressure vs

Slow

3500

2500

Equilibrium

4000

3000

4500

G
as
Oil
Ra
tio
(m
/
m

Rapid

10

15

20

25

30

35

3000

4000

Equilibrium

5000

De
nsi
ty
(g/
cc
)

Rapid

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.02

500

1500

Intermediate

1000

2500

Slow

Pressure (psig)

2000

Figure 6
Pressure vs

3000

4000

Equilibrium

3500

SPE 68860

4500

Pseudo Bp

True Pb

Depletion Pressure at Constant Rate

Critical Gas
Saturation

Recovery Factor

Figure 8. Idealized Gas and Recovery Profile From a Primary Depletion Study

Slow

Pressure (psig)

2000

Intermediate

1000

Figure 5
Pressure vs Gas-Oil

M. MASTMANN, M.L. MOUSTAKIS, B. BENNION

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

500

Annular
Confining
Pressure

1500

2000

Pressure (psig)

2500

High
Accuracy
Gas - Oil
Separator

Figure 11
Mud Rate Depletion
T

1000

Injection Pump

Injection
Pressure
Gauge

Full Diameter Core Sample

Pressure Transducer
Core Holder

Figure 9. Primary Depletion Apparatus

SPE 68860

Percent Recovery OOIP

3000

3500

Fr
act
ion
al
PV
of
Oil
Pr
od
uc
ed

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

10

20

25

Upper Driza

Lower Driza

Cumulative Time (hrs)

15

30

35

Figure 10
Cumulative Time vs Fractional PV of Oil Produced

PREDICTING FOAMY OIL RECOVERY

40

13

10

15

20

25

30

35

500

1500

2000

2500

Mid-Rate Depletion
Modified Conventional

Pressure (psig)

Fast Depletion
Conventional

1000

3000

M. MASTMANN, M.L. MOUSTAKIS, B. BENNION

Solution GOR: Foamy-Oil & Conventional

AAP1-M:D1-D20

Figure 14 : Modified GOR-PVT

GOR (m3/m3)

Figure 12 : Channel geometry (red) and PVT-Regions (green/blue)

14

FVF (Rm3/Stm3)

1500

2500

Modified Conventional

2000

Mid-Rate Depletion

Pressure (psig)

Conventional

1000

Fast Depletion

500

Figure 13 : Modified FVF-PVT

1.000

1.025

1.050

1.075

1.100

1.125

1.150

1.175

Oil FVF: Foamy-Oil & Conventional

AAP1-M:D1-D20

SPE 68860

3000