Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Foam assisted CO2-EOR: A review of concept, challenges,

and future prospects
Seyedeh Hosna Talebian a,n, Rahim Masoudi b,1, Isa Mohd. Tan c,2, Pacelli Lidio Jose Zitha d,3
a
EOR Center, Department of Petroleum and Geosciences, Universiti Technologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
b
Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS), Level 28, Tower 1, PETRONAS Twin Towers, KLCC, 50088 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Department of Applied Science, Universiti Technologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
d
Delft University of Technology, Department of Geotechnology, Delft, The Netherlands

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Foam assisted CO2 enhanced oil recovery has attracted increasing attention of oil companies and
Received 1 October 2012 research institutions, mainly due to the potentially high benet of foam on CO2-EOR performance.
Accepted 20 May 2014 Numerous theoretical and experimental studies, limited numbers of pilot tests as well as cases of
Available online 4 June 2014
eld applications have indicated that foaming of CO2 can greatly improve the EOR process, at both the
Keywords: microscopic and macroscopic levels. However, there are still various conceptual and operational
foam assisted CO2-EOR challenges, which may compromise the success and application of foaming process.
CO2 mobility control The oil recovery mechanisms involved in a CO2 foam ood, the complex ow behavior of the system,
capillary force reduction and the synergy between gas mobility control foaming agent and ultra-low IFT surfactants have been
capillary number denition
identied as the main challenges of this process. The unavailability of reliable predictive tools due to the
interfacial mass transfer
less understood concepts and phenomena adds more challenges to the process results and application
foam simulation analysis
justications.
A literature review of the foam assisted CO2-EOR process is presented in this paper to reveal
its strengths, highlight the knowledge gaps, and suggest ways to bring physical understandings of
experiments into foam projects' performance evaluation and simulation models for potential eld
application purposes.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
2. Foam-enhanced CO2-EOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
2.1. Stabilizing the displacement front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
2.2. Reducing the capillary forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
2.2.1. Capillary number application in the process assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
2.3. Modifying the rock wettability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
2.3.1. Surfactant adsorption on the rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
2.3.2. Preferred rock wetting nature for FAWAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
2.4. Enhancing the interfacial mass transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
2.4.1. Delayed gas ngering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
2.4.2. Oil transport through the lamellae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
3. Foam enhanced CO2-EOR issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
3.1. Laboratory studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
3.2. Challenges of foam simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 60 5 368 7073.
E-mail addresses: hsn.talebian@gmail.com, hosna.talebian_g01701@utp.edu.my (S.H. Talebian), Rahim_Masoudi@petronas.com.my (R. Masoudi),
isa_mtan@petronas.com.my (I.Mohd. Tan), p.l.j.zitha@tudelft.nl (P.L.J. Zitha).
1
Tel.: 60 3 2331 2918.
2
Tel.: 60 5 368 7618.
3
Tel.: 31 15 278 84 37.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.05.013
0920-4105/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215 203

3.3. Pilot studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

3.4. Pilot to eld development limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
4. Foam enhanced CO2-EOR prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
4.1. CO2 soluble surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
4.2. Polymer and nanoparticles as foam-stabilizing agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
4.3. Combining gel conformance control with CO2-foam mobility control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

1. Introduction
Carbon dioxide physical properties and its multiple interactions
with oil, over a wide pressure and temperature range as found
in many oil reservoirs, make it a valuable displacing uid
(Mathiassen, 2003). CO2 dissolves in oil, at the same time the oil
components transfer into the CO2-rich phase, and the resulting
mixture can displace oil more efciently in the CO2 swept zone
(Schramm and Wassmuth, 1994). CO2 recovers more oil via the
generation of miscibility by lowering the CO2/oil interfacial tension
(IFT). Even non-miscible CO2 injection is still economically attrac-
tive due to the reduced oil viscosity and oil swelling (Jarrell et al.,
2002). Moreover, due to the extremely low solubility of water
in dense CO2 (less than 10 mol% in the temperature range of
40180 1C and ambient pressure) (Tassaing et al., 2004), the
mutual solubility of oil and CO2 is not reduced. Overall, micro-
scopic sweep efciency in CO2-oods can be high.
However, CO2 viscosity ( 0.01 cP) is inherently lower than those
of water ( 1.0 cP) and most of the crude oils (0.610 for conventional
oil), which can lead to a number of conformance and mobility issues,
and instability in the displacement front. Due to the adverse mobility
ratio, ngers of CO2 grow from the displacement front, and cause a
premature gas breakthrough, and inefcient gas utilization. Further-
more, the tendency of a lower density CO2 ( 0.050.5 g/cm3) to
migrate toward the upper part of the pay zone, a condition known as
gravity override, causes even more oil to be missed. In heterogenoeus
reservoirs, unfavorable mobility ratios lead to even more severe
channeling; CO2 ows along the high permeability streaks. Conse-
quently, the volumetric sweep efciency remains low and CO2 does
not contact a large part of the recoverable oil in the lower permeability
regions (Sanders et al., 2010b). Fig. 1(a) and (b) demonstrates the
conformance and mobility issues involved in CO2-EOR, respectively.
A solution to mobility-based sweep efciency problem is to
increase the viscosity of the injected uid and improve the macro-
scopic sweep efciency (EMA) of the process. Water-alternating-
with-gas (WAG) is considered as the technology of choice to control
CO2 mobility, and the mechanical techniques (i.e. inll drilling,
horizontal wells, various completion practices, and cement or
packers for isolation.) have been employed to help the CO2
conformance (Enick and Olsen, 2011). However, CO2-WAG also
suffers from viscous instabilities and gravity segregation problems,
especially in heterogenous reservoirs (Wang, 1984; Rogers and
Grigg, 2000). The problem is exacerbated with the high solubility
of CO2 in brine causing a chemical reaction with water, and altering
the phase behavior of the gas/crude oil system (Masoudi et al.,
2006).
To overcome the conformance and mobility limitations of CO2-
EOR and expand its eld of application, new chemical techniques
have been introduced to take advantage of the synergistic combi-
nation of chemical- and gas-EOR methods. CO2 thickeners, con-
formance control gels and in depth mobility control CO2-foams
have been investigated. The governing mechanisms of foam
assisted CO2-WAG, also known as low-tension CO2 process
(Nguyen et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2011), in porous
media (fractured/non-fractured), and at extreme reservoir condi-
tions of high temperature, pressure and salinity, are not fully
understood and need more elaboration (Llama, 2011). This paper is
focusing on the most recent conrmed facts, and controversial
issues involved in the process based on microscopic and macro-
scopic views. Gaps are identied, and the future prospective works
to address them are provided.
2. Foam-enhanced CO2-EOR
Bond and Holbrook (1958) were the rst to show that foam
generated in oil reservoir by consecutive injection of aqueous
surfactant solution and gas, for both miscible and immiscible gas
drives, could increase sweep efciency. The concept however, was
not immediately adapted, due to the lack of understanding of the
mobility control mechanism by foam (Li et al., 2008).

Fig. 1. (a) CO2-EOR conformance issue and (b) CO2-EOR mobility issues, listed as: (1) poor area sweep, (2) gas channeling and (3) gravity override (Hanssen et al., 1994).
204 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215
Nomenclature
EOR enhanced oil recovery
HSE health, safety, environment
IFT interfacial tension
m microemulsion
MRF mobility reduction factor
SMR selective mobility control
WAG water alternating with gas
WAGS water alternating gas with surfactant injected in CO2
EMA macroscopic sweep efciency
Nca capillary number
P nc limiting capillary pressure
Snw limiting water saturation
Snor limiting residual oil saturation
C nS limiting surfactant concentration
interstitial velocity, L/t, m/s, ft/d
u Darcy velocity, L/t, m/s, ft/d
m viscosity, m/Lt, mPa s (cP)
Foam in porous media is a gasliquid mixture where the liquid
phase forms a continuum wetting the rock, whereas a part or all of
the gas is made discontinuous by thin liquid lms called lamellae
(Kovscek and Radke, 1994; Gauglitz et al., 2002). Co-injection or
alternate injection of surfactant solution and CO2 results in the
formation of foam in porous media. Foam can also be formed
when the surfactant dissolved in supercritical CO2 is injected in
porous media, without the need to inject liquid slug. Scientically,
CO2-in-water (C/W) macro-emulsion is more correct in this case.
However, the term foam has come to dominate the literature in
respect to CO2-EOR (Sanders et al., 2010b; Mclendon et al., 2012).
2.1. Stabilizing the displacement front
The CO2-EOR displacement process is controlled by viscous,
capillary, and gravity forces. Chemicals are added to modify
the balance between these forces. Foaming agents are known to
mitigate viscous instability. Mobility control by reducing viscous
instability is a function of foam that results in further sweep
improvement and incremental oil recovery or production accel-
eration (Lawson and Reisberg, 1980).
Foam affects gas mobility in complex ways. The rst mechan-
ism is associated with moving bubbles and re-arrangement of
bubbles interfacial area. The exceeding pressure drop to drive a
bubble at a constant velocity exceeds that of an equivalent volume
of liquid, hence increasing the effective viscosity of the gas phase
(Xu, 2003). Surfactant movement at the gasliquid interfaces
induces a surface-tension gradient, which slows down the bubble
motion and this increases the effective foam viscosity (Schramm
and Wassmuth, 1994). The second and major mechanism that
reduces gas mobility is trapping of the gas phase in foam,
surrounded by liquid lamella (Radke and Gillis, 1990; Llama,
2011). At the pore level, foam tends to ow through the high
permeability and high porosity zones, while the wetting phase
occupies the smallest pore channels (Friedmann and Jensen, 1986).
A signicant trapping of gas occurs in the intermediate-sized
pores, where the capillary forces are sufciently large to immobi-
lize a large fraction of the foam bubbles. Hence, the pore space,
which would otherwise carry gas, is blocked and the gas relative
permeability is reduced signicantly. An apparent increase in gas
viscosity is achieved due to reduced gas ow rate, while the actual
gas viscosity remains unchanged. However, it is not possible to
k absolute permeability, L2, md
P pressure differential over the core length, m/Lt2, Pa,
MPa, psi
L core length, m, ft
sg=w gaswater interfacial tension, dyne/cm, mN/m
sw=o oilwater interfacial tension, dyne/cm, mN/m
c chemical slug
t total displaced phases
V om solubilised oil volume in microemulsion
V wm solubilised water volume in microemulsion
krw water relative permeability, fraction
krg gas relative permeability, fraction
krf foam relative permeability, fraction
C se effective salinity, m/L3, meq/mL
C sel lower effective salinity limit of a type III ME,
m/L3, meq/mL
C seu upper effective salinity limit of a type III ME,
m/L3, meq/mL
distinguish unambiguously the contributions made by either
viscosity or relative permeability caused by foams (Rossen, 1992).
The fraction of gas trapped within foam at steady state
condition in sandstone, ranges from approximately 85% to 99%
(Radke and Gillis, 1990). The amount of trapped gas in bubbles is
governed by pressure gradient, pore size/geometry, and foam
texture. However, there is not sufcient experimental data to
explain properly the relationship between foam texture and gas
mobility reduction (Nguyen et al., 2000). Radke and Gillis (1990)
proposed a schematic summary of the pore-level microstructure of
foam during ow through porous media, as shown in Fig. 2.
Foam also alleviates gravity segregation. It does not alter the
density of gas, but shifts the competition between viscous and
gravity forces, especially if operation strategies maximize injectiv-
ity. Computer Tomography (CT) imaging of coreoods, where the
dominant feature of the experiment is the CO2 gravity override
with and without foam during a miscible ood (Wellington and
Vinegar, 1985) are illustrated in Fig. 3(a) and (b). The CO2 (blue,
injected on the left hand side), injected into a horizontal core
containing water and waterood residual oil, formed a single
gravity tongue that overrides both the oil (doped to appear red)
and the brine (yellow), as shown in Fig. 3(a). When the experiment
was repeated with a surfactant solution (yellow) injected prior to
CO2, the occurrence of CO2 foam behind oil and brine became
Wetting
liquid
Fig. 2. Pore scale schematic of gas trapping function of foam in porous media,
while the cross-hatched space indicates solid grains, the dotted space reects the
wetting liquid (Radke and Gillis, 1990).
 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215 205

apparent, which prevents gravity and viscous instabilities as
shown in Fig. 3(b).
Foam provides mobility control in a selective manner that can
smooth out heterogeneities. The uniqueness of foam behavior over
the other chemical agents (i.e. polymer) is that it is stronger and
acts like a more viscous uid in high-permeability regions than in
low-permeability ones (Nguyen, 2010). The strong foam formed in
high permeability regions diverts the injected uids into the low
permeability regions, providing mobility and conformance control.
This property of foam known as selective mobility reduction (SMR)
has been observed in different research works (Tsau and Heller,
1992; Hanssen et al., 1994). Srivastava (2010), replaced polymer
with foam in a chemical drive, and reported a more robust
a to substantial EOR. He attributed the observed effect to a change of
b
c detach oil from the porous medium by lowering the capillary forces
d
a sion phase. As long as the microemulsion slug is still able to
b (Doorwar and Mohanty, 2011). A blob of trapped oil being pulled
propagation in higher permeability channels rather than polymer,
since foam is more stable in that part. The SMR function of foam is
illustrated in Fig. 4 in a layered reservoir rock and a layered micro-
model (CEOR-Alliance, 2011) as the macro- and micro-scales,
respectively.
Tsau and Heller (1992), testing 10 different surfactants through
the core, reported specied types of surfactants that showed
behaviors contrary to the optimistically assumed SMR mechanism.
It highlights the need for more investigations to ascertain the
underlying mechanism involved in CO2-foam mobility.
2.2. Reducing the capillary forces
Beeson (1963) reported experimental studies where surfactant
injection was accompanied by a gas-driven solvent bank, leading
the rock wettability from water-wet to oil-wet. Marsden (1986)
however, suggested that it is more likely that an oil emulsication
by foam could produce a bigger contribution to improved oil
recoveries. In 2010, a micro-model study involving CO2 injection
showed that residual oil trapped in the model could not be
released by CO2, once a channel was created in the micro-model,
due to a highly unfavorable mobility ratio between oil and gas
(Zhang et al., 2010). This nding emphasizes the need to rst
through emulsication mechanism. The interactions between sur-
factants in the slug and oil favorably lower the interfacial tension
between oil and water and lead to the formation of oil-in-water
emulsions at the displacement front. As the chemical slug propa-
gates through the porous media, more oil and water are solubilised
into the microemulsion, resulting in the mobilization of residual oil,
as well as the formation of an oil bank right in front of microemul-
solubilize oil and water, the ow remains a single phase (Nguyen,
2010). Fig. 5(a)(c) are sequences of images from a recent work on
visualization of the pore-scale displacement in a silicon micromodel
out from the sides of ow channels due to the surfactant slug
contact is shown.

c 2.2.1. Capillary number application in the process assessment

d studies measuring the magnitude of macroscopic capillary number
Fig. 3. (a) Gravity override as CO2 (blue) is injected into a waterooded core
containing residual oil (red) and brine (yellow), (b) foam formation as CO2 (blue) is
injected into a waterooded core containing residual oil (red) and a surfactant
solution (yellow) (Wellington and Vinegar, 1985). (For interpretation of the
references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)
The increase in viscous forces, in combination with the decrease
in interfacial tensions due to foam development and propagation,
can be related via the capillary number. Recent experimental
during foam ooding conrm that the formation of oil bank in the
rst few injected pore volumes, coincides with a large increase
of capillary number (from 1.0E 06 to maximum 2.4E 03), and
improved oil production (Simjoo et al., 2012).
Originally, the capillary number was proposed to correlate the
residual saturation of oil, displaced by water, to the ratio of viscous

Fig. 4. Foam SMR property in macro- and micro-scale: foam efciently diverts gas bubbles from the high to the low permeability zones (with courtesy to http://ceor-alliance.com).
206 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215

Fig. 5. (a) Trapped oil left behind after the waterood, capillary forces prevent oil from crossing through pore throats, (b) trapped oil gets mobilized in contact with alkaline-
surfactant slug, (c) the mobilized blob of oil being pulled into the ow channel, forming a microscopic oil bead, which is eventually washed away by the ow current
(Doorwar and Mohanty, 2011).

to capillary forces in a capillary ow

Fv vw
N cow 1
F c sw=o cos

where F v and F c are the viscous and capillary forces, respectively,

and v is interstitial velocity. The term sw=o is the IFT between
displacing and displaced phases, which in this case is between
water and oil, and is the oil/water contact angle. It is also correct
to use Darcy velocity uw instead of interstitial velocity of the
displacing uid. The relationship between the two forms would
be N ncow N cow , where N ncow is based on Darcy velocity, and is
porosity of the medium (Green and Willhite, 1998). If Darcy's law
is introduced into Eq. (1), and Darcy velocity is used in a water-wet
rock, then
n kkrw jp j
N cow
sw=o
where krw is the relative permeability of the displacing phase, k is
absolute permeability, and p is the ow potential gradient.
In foam ooding simulators, it is assumed for foam ood that
gas is displacing water (i.e. in the absence of oil, or in the presence
of immobile oil). The capillary number denition used for this case
is hence a relationship between gas relative permeability and gas/
water IFT
kkrg jp j
N ncgw
sg=w cos
Sheng (2011) pointed out that for surfactant-related processes,
where there is multiphase ow (i.e. oil/water/microemulsion)
at the displacing front, the capillary number denition is more
complex. He considered 6 different binary conjugates for the
3 phases present in the system, and proposed 2 capillary number
denitions for each phase, being displaced by the other two
phases. For example, capillary number denitions for oil phase are
uw w kw pw =L
N cow or
sow sow
um m km pm =L
N com or
som som
Fig. 6. Interfacial tension representation at different microemulsion types.
where the residual oil (o) in this system is being displaced by both
water (w) and microemulsion (m).
2
By considering the different possible interactions between the
uids present in a chemically enhanced system, capillary number
is proposed as (Sheng, 2011)
uc c
Nnc 6
sct cos
where c denotes the chemical slug and t represents the total
displaced phases including oil, and water banks. Fig. 6 is an
illustration of different types of microemulsions present in the
system as the salinity decreases. As can be seen in Fig. 6, in a
3 Type II (  ) system, only som exists and all the water amount is
solubilised into the microemulsion, and the saturations of m/o
system is equal to 1. In a Type II ( ) system, only smw exists, and
saturations of w/m is 1. However, in Type III system, both som and
smw exist, and the volumes of solubilised oil V om and solubilised
water V wm are the same only at the optimal salinity. The three
types of microemulsions and the effect of salinity of brine on the
surfactant phase behavior have been explained in detailed else-
where (Sheng, 2011).
Sheng (2011) also proposed a method for the average IFT s at
any salinity
4
8
< smo
> C se r C sel
s smo V omVomV wm smw V omVwmV wm C sel o C se o C seu 7
5 >
:s
mw C se Z C seu
 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215 207

where V om and V wm are the volume of solubilised oil and water in

the microemulsion phase, respectively, and C se is the effective
salinity.
To investigate the effect of increased surfactant saturation on
the oil recovery and foam ood mechanisms, Simjoo and Zitha
(2013) plotted oil saturation as a function of capillary number
during the foam ood. They used the denition for capillary
number as
kkrf p=L
Nc 8
sw=o
where krf is foam relative permeability, which equals to 1 for the
sake of simplicity in calculations. Foam is considered as the single-
phase uid in their work.
According to the above, the considerations that need to be
taken while calculating capillary number for a foam ood system
with possible 4 phases present (i.e. gas, water, oil, and microemul-
sion), and the nal residual saturation of each phase are
highlighted.

2.3. Modifying the rock wettability

Reduction of IFT is not the only way to accomplish a large

change in capillary number. The contact angle term (cos ) in Nca
(Eq. (1)), points out another practical way to a large increase in
capillary number. It can be obtained by means of altering the
wettability in a manner that the contact angle approaches 901,
which means intermediate wettability. Taking advantage of this
approach, large Nca and consequently low residual oil saturations
can be achieved, even in an immiscible displacement. The differ-
ence is that in a miscible process, IFT between oil and miscible
solvent decreases gradually, while when an initially water-wet
rock approaches a mix-wet condition due to a chemical agent (i.e.
surfactant), Nca suddenly rises up to a large amount.
Anionic surfactants are suitable for wettability modication in
water-wet systems (Ayirala, 2002). In intermediate-wet reservoirs,
of 901 naturally will yield large capillary number for any value of
IFT and rock permeability (k), and minimizing IFT using solvents
may not be as important as in strongly water-wet reservoirs. For Fig. 7. (a) Oil contacts rock in an oil-wet/mix-wet system and (b) water surrounds
oil-wet reservoir, since oil-rock adhesion forces far outweigh the oil and contacts rock in water-wet system (Ayers, 2001).
capillary forces in retaining the oil on the rock surface, surfactant
function to alter the wettability (and not to reduce IFT) and the
oil may coat part of the solid surface, preventing a water-soluble
spreading behavior of oil within the three uids (oil, brine, gas)
surfactant from accessing the surface. On the other hand, the oil-
system would be of primary importance (Rao, 2001).
lm coating the surface may cause additional mechanisms of
Wettability alteration and the importance of contact angle, are
surfactant loss depending on the type of oil, and alter system
often ignored in both experimental and simulation works, due to
wettability toward more oil-wet by adsorption of the heavy-ends
the lack of condence to quantify reservoir wettability in a
on the rock surface. However, wettability is reported to shift from
meaningful and repeatable manner, or an erroneous assumption
oil-wet towards water-wet, due to the surfactant adsorption in a
that all the rocks are water-wet (cos 1), and remain water-wet
number of studies (Ayirala, 2002).
through the chemical-EOR process (Rao, 2001).
In water-wet system, type of oil does not have any effect on
adsorption levels since water surrounds oil and the aqueous
2.3.1. Surfactant adsorption on the rock surfactant solution is in contact with the solid surfaces, as shown
Wettability alteration in foaming process occurs as the result of in Fig. 7(b). In mixed-wet systems, compensating effects of a
interactions between surfactants and the solid surface of the decrease in the accessible solid-water interface and increase in
porous rock. The adsorbed surfactant on the surface reduces the oilwater interface, there is relatively small effect of oil type on
surface tension and modies the wetting preference of rock to adsorption.
water or oil. Adsorption of surfactant on the rock is necessary but Pre-ushing the reservoir rock with a cheaper surfactant as
not always sufcient for surface wettabiliy alteration. The extent of sacricial agent is suggested to be a better foam injection strategy.
surfactant adsorption is a function of the original wetting state of It can help satisfy the capacity of adsorption sites, and hence
the rock, rock characteristics, surfactant structure and concentration, reduce the adsorption of the primary surfactant (Holm, 1982; Liu
type of the residual oil, temperature, brine salinity and hardness, and Grigg, 2006). Nevertheless, since foam function is precisely to
solution pH, and the presence of divalent cations (i.e. Ca ) change the ow pattern to areas that no chemical has passed
(Schramm, 1994; Ayirala, 2002). before, it seems difcult to place the sacricial chemical in the
Ayers (2001) illustrated the details of oil-wet and water-wet same zones that will make contact with the following foaming
systems, as shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b). In oil-wet system, Fig. 7(a), agent surfactants.
208 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215
2.3.2. Preferred rock wetting nature for FAWAG
The wetting nature of the reservoir rock is an important
variable in feasibility studies, since it not only governs uids
distribution in the reservoir pore space, but also inuences the
uid ow behavior during oil production (Kulkarni, 2005). If the
rock is strongly water-wet and CO2 is injected in WAG mode, water
can shield the globules of residual oil from the CO2 due to a
phenomenon called water blocking (Tifn and Yellig, 1983), which
adversely impacts the process. The saturation of the CO2-rich
phase will be limited by the presence of injected water, and as a
result, might not have sufcient capillary pressure to enter all the
pores containing the remaining oil. Therefore, oil in the smaller
pores might not be in contact with CO2 and could remain trapped
(Jarrell et al., 2002). Although it was pointed out in another study
(Hadlow, 1992) that alternate injection of water and gas is not
detrimental to CO2 ood and water-blocking is not a signicant
problem for strongly water-wet reservoirs, continuous CO2 ood-
ing has been used successfully so far and probably continues to be
used in future (Jarrell et al., 2002; Fatemi et al., 2011).
As described in Fig. 8(a) and (b), CO2-WAG is more efcient in
strongly oil-wet or mixed-wet porous media. The connected oil
layers spreading on the lms of connate water (wetting layer)
facilitate the oil ow and recovery in this case in a process called
lm drainage (Fatemi et al., 2011). If the lm drainage mechanism
is dominant and active, it could potentially lead to very low
residual oil saturation.
Limited and conicting experimental results are available to
evaluate the inuence of rock wettability on stability and perfor-
mance of foam (Romero-Zeron and Kantzas, 2006). Researchers
conducted visual micro-cell (Schramm and Mannhardt, 1996) and
coreood (Suffridge et al., 1989) experiments in both hydro- and
oleo-philic atmospheres, observed that when the medium is not
water-wet, because of lamellae detachment and collapse, signi-
cantly less stable foams is formed compared to the same crude oils
and water-wet surfaces. Sanchez and Hazlett (1992) experiments
in initially oil-wet porous medium demonstrated that foam
formation is a result of wettability alteration from oil-wet to
water-wet. From the above results, it has been concluded that
favorable environment for foam is water-wet system and it is
difcult to form foam in a medium that is not water-wet
(Farajzadeh et al., 2012). However, another foam ood perfor-
mance vs. wettability experiment indicated that CO2 foam is more
efcient in oil-wet medium than in water-wet due to larger
surfactant adsorption in the water-wet medium (Lescure and
Claridge, 1986).
Considering different effects of rock wettability on the perfor-
mance of CO2-WAG and foam processes, dening the favorable
rock wetting nature for foam assisted CO2WAG (FAWAG) is still an
issue that needs extensive study to obtain a consistent theory. An
intelligent surfactant or foaming agent with optimal performance
Fig. 8. (a) Water-wet rock mechanism; oil is trapped as globules surrounded by
water, and act as choke valves and (b) mixed-wet/oil-wet rock mechanism; oil
remains as a lm on the rock, and can be gradually stripped away by owing water
(Jarrell et al., 2002).
in both water wet, and mixed/oil wet conditions would be an
option to be considered for future studies.
2.4. Enhancing the interfacial mass transfer
The formation of foam can control mobility of CO2 inside the
porous media, hence increase the opportunity for CO2 to contact
oil. It is anticipated that the interfacial mass-transfer between CO2
and oil in-place is favorably enhanced in this system. At the same
time, there exist CO2aqueous solutionoil three phase contacts,
when foam trains pass across oil drops in un-swept pores. A brief
description of the mechanisms that formation of foam can affect
mass transfer is followed.
2.4.1. Delayed gas ngering
If stable enough in the presence of oil, foam can cause large
ow resistance and provide a higher retention time for CO2 inside
the porous media, which is the essential ingredient for a
successful phase interaction. Foam-induced delayed gas ngering
is anticipated to enhance CO2oil interfacial mass-transfer and
gas dissolution, which in turn can mobilize oil in-place by oil
viscosity reduction and swelling (Radke and Gillis, 1990;
Srivastava, 2010).
Several authors reported a signicant enhancement in the
mass transfer of CO2 into water and oil (n-Decane) due to
surfactant presence at elevated pressures (Farajzadeh et al.,
2007). However, there is still a need to measure the effect of
surfactant on mass transfer extent, at higher pressures (Aleidan
and Mamora, 2010).
2.4.2. Oil transport through the lamellae
According to experiments both in bulk and porous media,
when foam lamellae move along a thin channel and come into
contact with residual oil, different interaction models at the foam/
oil interface can occur. These interactions are classied as emulsi-
cationimbibition, pseudo-emulsion lm thinning, entering, and
spreading (Farajzadeh, 2009). At the rst place, there may be no
signicant interaction, and the foam train would simply advance
unchanged over the oil. As long as foam spreads over the oil
(or foam-forming surfactant partition in the oil), some oil could
become emulsied into the aqueous phase, and lms of aqueous
solution separating oil from gas (pseudo-emulsion lms) will be
produced. Alternatively, the oil could spread over the foam, like
defoaming agents that act by spreading out over the lamellae
surfaces or by penetrating and rupturing the surfaces form within
the lamellae (Schramm, 1994). Afterwards, the foam will be
destabilized in the present and contact of more free oil (Denkov,
1999). Fig. 9(a) demonstrates the movement of gas bubbles
trapped in foam lamellae, across an oil droplet, as the pseudo-
emulsion lm separates the gas bubbles from the oil globule and
no rupture occurs (Bergeron et al., 1993). Fig. 9(b) shows how the
oil globules enter the gaswater interfaces of two bubbles, at the
three phase contact lines (Denkov, 1999).
Radke and Gillis (1990) studied foam/oil interactions in a micro
visual glass cell. They reported that stability of foam in the
presence of emulsied oil depends rst on the stability of
pseudo-emulsion lm and then on the ability of oil to enter the
foam lm surface and spread on it. Furthermore, Schramm and
Novosad (1990) highlighted the importance of pseudo-emulsion
lm stability on the movement of crude oil in the porous medium.
The degree of emulsication of the crude oil into the moving foam
greatly affects the oil transport. They observed that pseudo-
emulsion lm was less stable with ner emulsions. They concluded
that the oil transport is best in the systems where the degree of
emulsication and the stability of the pseudo-emulsion lm are
 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215
intermediate. This nding is however, in contrast with what
Nikolov et al. (1986) observed as the stability of pseudo-emulsion
lm is higher with smaller crude oil drops in the alpha olen
sulfonate (AOS) foaming agent. A possible reason for this difference
may come from different types of crude oils used, and the effect of
oil properties, such as viscosity on foam/oil interactions. It can be
concluded that the stability of foam in the presence of oil is related
to the stability of the foam pseudo-emulsion lm, which is
dependent on surfactant type as well as type of the oil.
Fig. 10 presents the results of a bulk experiment focusing on the
stability of a newly-developed CO2-philic surfactant foaming agent
(FOMAX), in contact with a Malaysian crude oil (Dulang) to show
the emulsion mechanism and ability of foam bubbles to carry
Oil drops
Fig. 9. (a) Foam owing through porous medium containing oil (Bergeron et al.,
1993), and (b) oil drops trapped in Plateau channels after foam train contacts
immobile oil in rock channels (Denkov, 1999).
Fig. 10. Bulk experiments of oil transport through the lamellae channels at 90 1C and atmospheric pressure: (a) AOS foam is not able to carry sufcient amount of oil,
(b) FOMAX foam carrying oil drops via emulsion mechanism, and (c) oil drops shown in the FOMAX lamellae structure.
209
oil drops through the lamelle Plateau channels. The oil emulsica-
tion character of FOMAX is compared with the bench mark AOS
foaming agent, as can be seen in Fig. 10.
Results of Kristiansen and Holt (1992) on foam ow in the
presence of residual oil in core plugs are taken as the support for
the emulsicationimbibition mechanism of oil drops into the
foam structure. Fig. 11 shows the efuent of a surfactant alternat-
ing gas (SAG) coreood dynamic displacement test carried out by
using Malaysian crude oil (Dulang) and FOMAX surfactant at the
reservoir conditions. As can be inferred from Fig. 11(a), the foam
break through contains oil drops inside the foam lamellae exiting
the core holder. Fig. 11(b) also shows the produced oil-in-water
emulsion as the result of foam ooding.
3. Foam enhanced CO2-EOR issues
When a CO2 ood is underway in a reservoir, the initiation of
foaming process is expected to cause inevitable changes in the
injection schedule due to its limitations. Foam is sensitive to
several parameters including oil and water saturations, surfactant
formulation and concentration, gas ow rate, formation brine
salinity, reservoir heterogeneity and capillary pressure (Khatib
et al., 1988). Foam may collapse at high oil saturation and low
water saturation and in the presence of light oils rather than
heavier oils (Zanganeh, 2011). Thus, it is of extreme importance to
have through knowledge of the physical aspects involved in foam
ow through porous media, at the target reservoir conditions
before starting any foam EOR process. This section addresses some
of the least-understood, challenging areas involved in different
scales of foam research; from laboratory to simulations, and from
pilot to eld development experiences.
3.1. Laboratory studies
For planning, monitoring and predicting the foam project
performance, foam behavior in both 1-D and 3-D scales are under
investigation, and pursued in many experimental studies. Recent
studies, comparing the foam ow in 1-D column test and 3-D
sandpack, showed that foam mobility is larger in the homogenous
3-D compared to the 1-D system (Li et al., 2006). Hence, 1-D
experiments may not represent the foam behavior in 3-D system,
210 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215
Fig. 11. Efuent recovered from the coreood test using FOMAX surfactant in SAG mode: (a) Foam break through during the chasing water injection and (b) oil drops
suspended in the efuent solution.
and simulations heavily based on the 1-D test results should be
cautiously used in the eld application design.
The effect of oil on foam stability has been a subject of debate
for long time (Schramm, 1994). Most of foam/oil interaction
characterizations have been performed in bulk column tests,
where the foam height is considered as the representative of the
ability of surfactant to produce stable foam in the presence of oil
(Manlowe and Radke, 1990). However, one should take note that
theories of oil/foam interactions based on bulk experiments may
not necessarily be related to foam ow in porous media, and the
physics of foam in bulk and porous media are rather different
(Andrianov et al., 2012). Mechanisms of foam generation and
coalescence in porous media are related to foam lm, foam
texture, and capillary pressure (Kovscek and Radke, 1994), which
are radically different from the bulk tests. Furthermore, the oil
used in the column test is limited to dead oil, which is different
from the live oil present in the reservoir rock, containing high
amount of light components.
Various core-ood tests in the presence of different crude oils
showed that the foam is destabilized more by light oils. On the
other hand, a study used pure alkenes did not nd any general
correlation between foam destabilization and oil carbon number
(molecular weight). This can point to a danger in studying foam
destabilization by single-component pure hydrocarbon oils if the
results are intended to reect the action of reservoir crude oils that
contain many components (Schramm and Novosad, 1992). The
effect of different oils could be described in a manner of oil
viscosity, in which the more viscous oils would be expected to
emulsify more slowly than the others, and this slow emulsication
would be expected to retard the rate of foam lamellae breakage.
Since oil saturations greater than the critical saturation (Snor :
510%), tend to signicantly reduce the effectiveness of foams in
coreood tests (Schramm, 1994), the use of CO2 foams as a
secondary oil recovery mechanism may not be advantageous
or widely feasible. Nevertheless, recent studies on foam in the
presence of oil provided tangible evidence of foam adequate
stability and ability to recover signicant amount of oil remaining
in the core after waterood (Farajzadeh et al., 2012; Simjoo et al.,
2012). However, the sandstone cores used in these studies were
partially saturated with oil, leaving a part free of oil, namely as
foam generation chamber, to generate foam that did not comple-
tely decay upon coming in contact with oil (Simjoo et al., 2012).
Development of strong foam in realistic situations, where oil is
present in the entire porous media is still of question, and further
laboratory studies are still needed to provide answers to this
question.
Because measuring in-situ foam texture is practically impos-
sible, and due to some biases regarding off-situ bubbles-size
measurements from the efuent ow of coreood experiments,
it is still controversial how to control foam behavior inside
the porous media to achieve desired outcomes. Whether pre-
generated foam would obtain a new texture when injected into a
porous medium, or the critical conditions under which the
different foam generation mechanisms become important, have
not been claried yet. Micromodels can provide an insight into
how foam is generated and destroyed, the mechanisms that
dominate bubble-size distribution, and the foam rheological pro-
perties. However, dimensionality of micromodels is the main
limitation in extrapolating the microscopic observations to core-
ood studies (Nguyen et al., 2000).
 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215
3.2. Challenges of foam simulation
Efforts to capture the detailed physics of foam ow in porous
media have resulted in models with many parameters that need to
be determined from the experimental data. However, the physics
of the process is in general very complex; The ow performance in
the foam ooding should be handled with dynamically created
phases (water, oil, gas, microemulsion, and other HC phases),
foamoil interactions, dependence of foam stability on several
parameters (salinity, wettability, temperature, oil composition),
and nally up-scaling the parameters derived from the coreood
experiments for eld scale modeling are still not fully understood.
Addition of the above complexities to these models leads to few
concerns about their practicality. Therefore, it is recommended for
the user of the simulation models to know what can be expected
from a model to deliver in terms of the physics of the process.
Fig. 12 illustrates the foam material balance in a unit cell of the
reservoir, as it is generated in-situ, propagated, degraded, and
in-situ re-generated under proper conditions. Foam lamellae
generation mechanisms in the porous medium are snap-off,
lamella-division, and leave-behind, and well-documented else-
where (Kovscek and Radke, 1994; Nguyen et al., 2000). In-situ
generated foam is then transported through the porous medium
and distributed into decayed foam, adsorbed foam, the effective
foam (Spirov et al., 2012), and the temporarily trapped foam. Foam
loss would be through foam natural decay over time, which could
be enhanced due to increased temperature and pH, or foam
coalescence due to lamellae stretching and squeezing while foam
is owing through pores (Jimnez and Radke, 1989). The adsorp-
tion of foam on to the rock is other foam loss mechanism, which
may result in surfactant induced wettability alteration. Trapped
foam or the temporarily solid foam lamellae, which is not owing
through the core like other uids, can be another state of the foam.
Desorption of part of the adsorbed surfactant, can raise the
surfactant concentration in the unit cell, which under favorite
conditions for the key components such as surfactant, oil and
water saturationsC nS ; Snor ; Snw , can bring about foam re-generated
in-situ. The foam re-generation, which is a relatively new concept
observed in recent laboratory studies, can result in signicantly
extending the life of the foam, and increasing the oil recovery.
However, the so-called proper conditions are yet to be dened and
used in models.
The existing theoretical models for foam process can be
classied into four groups know as population-balance, local-
equilibrium method, fractional ow, and nally models based on
network analysis or percolation approach. The population-balance
foam model is the most comprehensive mechanistic foam model
in terms of the physics of foam generation and decay. The
signicant achievement of this model is that it can track dynami-
cally mobility of foam and accounts for non-Newtonian gas
Fig. 12. Foam balance in a unit cell of reservoir rock.
211
mobility with respect to bubble population. Fractional-ow theory
or model based on method of characteristics can provide qualita-
tive predictions of foam displacement in an ad/hoc manner, which
can be used as the rough estimate prediction tool. Percolation
approaches also can provide qualitative predictions. However, in
contrast to fractional-ow method, this method may require
intensive computations and limited to their assumptions. The
functionality and limitations of each of the above methods have
been discussed in various works (Falls et al., 1988; Chou, 1990;
Kam et al., 2007; Zanganeh, 2011).
The concept of local-equilibrium method has been adopted in
different commercial simulators (i.e. CMG STARS, ECLIPSE) with
different modications. Ma et al. (2013) have recently examined
CMG STARS for foam ow through the porous media and proposed
an approach to obtain the model tting parameters for different
experimental conditions successfully.
The ECLIPSE black oil model (ECLIPSE 100) model does not
attempt to capture the details of foam generation and coalescence
mechanisms, and the effective foam is treated as the surfactant
concentration that acts to decrease the mobility of the gas, as is
transported in either the water or the gas phase as a tracer. The
main effect of foam ood captured is the gas mobility reduction
factor, in which the foam mobility reduction factor (MRF) is
attributed to the concentration of lamellae in gas phase. Effects
of gas velocity, oil saturation, surfactant (foam) concentration,
water saturation, and capillary number can be added through the
MRF function of foam. Surfactant concentration effect is consid-
ered through the oilwater interfacial tension changes for capillary
number calculations. The reference capillary number for foam
ood in simulator is calculated, when gas is displacing water
(without surfactant added yet), in a rock considered strongly
water-wet, and remains water-wet during the whole process.
The newly-released version of ECLIPSE compositional model
(ECLIPSE300) has aimed phenomenological modeling of the foam
process in terms of foam adsorption and decay, IFT reduction
function, and wettability alteration. In the new version of simu-
lator, foam and surfactant are modeled as separate water compo-
nents having their own properties different from the ones of pure
water (ECLIPSE Technical Manual, 2013). The surfactant model
provides a way to model the transformation of collapsed foam into
a surfactant dissolved in water. In such a model, foam component
would act on the mobility of the gas phase, while surfactant
may change capillary pressure, miscibility, and wettability. Foam
adsorption and desorption can be modeled using chemical reac-
tions, in which the surfactant is converted from water components
into a solid component and vice versa, respectively. The change to
wettability is then modeled, dependent on the adsorbed solid
concentration, by interpolating between two extreme states of low
and high concentrations of adsorbed solids. However, as discussed
in the previous section, the surfactant adsorption and wettability
212 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215

modication depend on the type of oil surrounding the oil-wet
rock. The differences in the adsorption levels depending on the
composition of oil in grid cells, is not considered in the current
version of simulator. The advantage of introducing chemical
reaction mechanism in foam simulation is that the concept can
be used to model other processes involved in foam ood. The
dissolution of CO2 in aqueous solution, or in case of CO2-soluble
surfactants, the solubility of surfactant component (water compo-
nent) into CO2 (gas component) can be captured in this way.
Although there is no example of foam simulation considering
trapped foam, it can also be implemented in simulation using
chemical reaction.
In general, studies on the available commercial simulators
suggest that there is still a room for renements in capturing the
detailed physics of foam system. Furthermore, since their adopted
methods are heavily dependent on the experimental ndings for
model tuning process, they might be hard to rely on for full-eld
scale predictions.
3.3. Pilot studies
After mobility control trial at Joffre Viking oil eld, which was
unsuccessful because of the foam propagation failure, there are no
reports of CO2-foam pilot tests using brine-soluble surfactants for
mobility control (Enick and Olsen, 2011). This may be due to
undesirable results of several trial tests, in combination with some
practical difculties including maintaining foam at a specied
quality deep within the formation, forming weak foams in low-
permeable, oil-bearing zones compared to generating strong
foams in high-permeable, watered-out zones, and nally demand-
ing logistics of SAG mobility control treatments, especially for
cycles of very short duration.
3.4. Pilot to eld development limitations
In any of the different schemes used for pilots, to answer the
question why successful pilots did not make a transition to wider
eld applications, developers are dealing with the challenges such as
scale-up from pilot to full eld, remote onshore environments,
offshore application issues, chemical supply, storage, transfer limita-
tions (Waldman, 2012; Zain, 2012), and HSE concerns (Razali, 2012).
Separation and post-processing techniques of produced uids are
also of concern (Janssen, 2012). Answers to the problems associated
to transition to the larger scale is not clearly specied and out of
scope of this work. However, it should be noted that, in addition to
the concerns on the fundamental physics/sciences and economic
challenges, the comfort level and mindset of the ones involved in the
approval process play a key role.
Table 1 presents the results of US eld trials of CO2-foam
ooding during 1990s (Jonas et al., 1990; Chou et al. 1992;

Table1
CO2-foam Field Trials, USA (1990s), (Jonas et al., 1990; Chou et al., 1992; Enick and Olsen, 2011).

Field name Problem Lessons learnt Success?

Joffre Viking 1990 CO2 22 times as mobile as reservoir oil and brine Slow foam propagation,
Viscous ngering/gravity segregation Modest rise in oil production
Wasson 1994 Extremely high cyclic gas production rates Delayed CO2 breakthrough,
Reduced CO2 production
EVG/SAU 1992 Signicant CO2 breakthrough SAG for offending well provided:
Near well-bore conformance issue Positive oil response, Delayed CO2B.T.,
Thoroughly documented eld test Reduced CO2 production
SACROC 1984 Conformance issue Dual-porosity reservoirs are not the
best candidates for foams
Wilmington 1984 Extremely high CO2 production during WAG Dramatic increase of gas ow to less
permeable zones
Uneven distribution of injected uids In-depth permeability reduction
SAG should be followed by surfactant
or CO2
Rock Creek 1984 High residual oil after miscible CO2 ood Co-injection of CO2 and surfactant
Frontal instability Foam formation in well
No intention for conformance issue Reduced injectivity
Operational problems
Wertz pre-1991 Need for conformance control Short-lived, unsatisfactory
conformance,
Need to divert CO2 using by SAG Ineffective diversion of in-situ
generated foam to fractured portions
North Ward-Estes 1992 Poor sweep efciency due to vertical conformance issue, Strong in-situ generated foam
Problematic producer caused Reduced CO2 injectivity,
high gas production/early B.T. Signicant CO2 diversion from high
permeability zones,
Foam used to selectively retard gas ow Reduced CO2 production at
problematic producer
Incremental oil recovery
Rangely Weber 1990 Signicant CO2 production Foam placed in formation despite
hydraulic fractures in injector
Need to divert CO2 away from watered-out thief zones into Lower gas production, improved gas
less permeable oil-rich layers utilization
Higher oil production
EMU31 1991 Need for reversible conformance control Foam 310 times less mobile than CO2
in the presence of oil
Most appropriate situation for foam Reduced gas injectivity
No: Technical/Economical
Yes: Technical
No: Economical
Yes: Technical
Economic can be modied; sacricial
surfactant/less surfactant usage
No adverse/benecial effects
Partial: Water injection after foam
formation collapsed foam
No: Nor mobile oil front, neither
foam pass the observation well
No: SAG abandoned in favor of
polymer gel conformance control
methods
Yes: Key benet related to reduction
of CO2 recycling,
Foam can dramatically improve CO,
utilization in reservoirs containing
large thief zones
Yes: Foam was found less expensive
conformance technique than
polymer gels
Yes: The most conclusive evident of
foam effect on conformance/mobility
control

Multiple thin intrazone thief zones, not vertically Fluid diversion from thief zones
differentiated thief zones, thief zones capable of oil Continued gas production cut
production 8 weeks after SAG ended
Increased entire oil recovery
 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215
Enick and Olsen, 2011). The initial problem of the reservoir, foam
function, and the consequent results of foam injection are also
presented in this table. Reduced CO2 injectivity is a common
observation in mostly all of the trials, which in some cases resulted
in reduced CO2 production, and increased oil production
accordingly.
4. Foam enhanced CO2-EOR prospects
Sufcient amount of effective foam is indispensible for each
type of mobility reduction mechanism and conformance control.
The formation of strong foam with the ability to propagate a
considerable distance from the injection well, due to the trapped
surfactant mobilization, improves the mobility ratio and diverts
the injected uids to other regions of the rock that can cause the
transport of oil droplets before the rupture. Three distinct types of
foam-stabilizing compounds have been considered: CO2-soluble
non-ionic surfactants, nanoparticles, and gel conformance control.
4.1. CO2 soluble surfactants
To mitigate the conventional SAG operational problems, slow
foam propagation, and reduced injectivity, and to provide additional
options for generating foam in-situ, the idea of dissolving surfactant
in the injected high pressure CO2 rather than brine has been
developed (Le et al., 2008). The CO2-soluble surfactant in this
process would be present where the CO2 ows in the formation
(sometimes at lower velocity than gas) and the injected CO2 is
diverted into the oil bearing zones by surfactant in a more effective
manner. Given the large amounts of brine in the pore space, foam
could still be generated in-situ, which can reduce or even eliminate
the need for alternating injections of brine. Therefore, excellent gas
injectivity less gravity segregation, and no issue of salinity and
hardness are expected in the reservoir. Surfactant adsorption on the
porous rock and its partitioning between water and oil is also
reduced which helps accelerating foam propagation (Rossen, 2012).
The result of core-ood experiments conducted to compare
conventional SAG with novel injection strategies (water-alternat-
ing-gas with surfactant injected in CO2 or WAGS, and continuous
CO2 injection with dissolved-surfactant) was reported by Le et al.
(2008). Ultimate oil recovery of SAG and WAGS was almost
the same, while novel CO2 injection gave a substantially higher
recovery, nearly 61% of OOIP. In essence, CO2-soluble surfactants
would be the recommended foam-stabilizing agent available for
eld operations dedicated to the continuous injection of CO2.
Recent results of displacement experiments conducted on mixed
wettability SACROC carbonate core plugs, where surfactant is
dissolved in both CO2 and brine slugs have shown that the
pressure drop, which is a signature of in-situ foam propagation,
when surfactant was dissolved in the brine, was 1.53 times
greater than in the CO2-dissolved surfactant test (Mclendon et
al., 2012). CT images of the cores from the SACROC pilot ood have
not published yet, however the results are indicative of a CO2
diversion to the previously CO2-free zones due to the CO2-
surfactant solution implementation (Sanders et al., 2010a).
The overall results indicate that slightly CO2-soluble, water-
soluble, non-ionic surfactants can provide mobility control improve-
ment during CO2 ooding, while bringing new opportunities for the
operators for designing continuous or alternating injection strategies.
4.2. Polymer and nanoparticles as foam-stabilizing agents
The addition of polymer was recommended to enhance the
foam properties by several authors (Ali and Selby, 1986; Khatib
et al., 1988; Kutay and Schramm, 2004). Polymer increases foam
213
stability by increasing liquid phase viscosity, which slows the rate
of liquid drainage and the rate of gas diffusion from foam
(Schramm and Wassmuth, 1994). The type of applied polymer
depends on the desired application and selected reservoir condi-
tions. Low concentrations of polyacrylamides for instance, showed
higher foam resistance and longer foam persistence. However, the
relationships between the physical characteristics of polymer-
thickened foams and their performance in porous media are
unclear (Zhu et al., 1998). The mechanism, which leads to foam
stability by polymer, is yet to be understood (Schramm and
Wassmuth, 1994), and discussion about polymer foam stability is
still open. Some recent studies even claim that polymer destabi-
lizes foam especially in the presence of oil, raising water saturation
and hence water relative permeability (Shen et al., 2006).
Recently, the notion of stabilizing foams with nanoparticles
(rather than surfactants) has been raised. These particles can be
readily dispersed in the brine that is injected alternately with CO2,
and irreversibly adsorbed at CO2-water interface, providing longer
term foam stability than traditional surfactants (Worthen et al.,
2013). Johnston and co-workers pioneered the use of nanoparti-
culate matters for generating Pickering emulsions (particle-stabi-
lized emulsions) of CO2-in-water (C/W) foams as an alternative to
surfactant-stabilized CO2 foams(Adkins et al., 2007; Enick and
Olsen, 2011). Nanoparticles (i.e. Silica) have been used to stabilize
CO2-in-water emulsions and foam, since they are available
at reasonable prices and from environmentally benign materials
for lab-scale experiments, or in bulk for pilot tests. Because the
primary particle size of nano-silica can be as small as several nm,
the dispersion of these particles in brine yields a transparent
solution that can readily ow through porous media with pore
throats that may be  1000 nm in diameter. Unlike surfactants,
such particles could be used without loss of the foam-stabilizing
agent due to adsorption or chemical degradation. The effect of a
mixture of silica nanoparticles and a cationic surfactant on the
stability of C/W foam has also been tested recently and assessed in
terms of interfacial properties. The resulted stable foam showed a
good synergism between nanoparticles and surface active materi-
als (Worthen et al., 2013). In essence, the initial lab tests, especially
for the generation of mobility control foams, appear to be
promising (Espinoza et al., 2010; Worthen et al., 2013), but the
process has yet to be fully assessed in lab tests, reservoir cores, or
pilot tests.
4.3. Combining gel conformance control with CO2-foam
mobility control
In-depth gel placement for carbon dioxide conformance control
to block thief zones has been used in both pilot and eld tests
since 1980s (Wagner and Weisrock, 1986; Sydansk, 1988; Seright,
1988). More expensive and less reversible than foam, gels are
reported to be more robust and effective conformance control
agents according to the eld trials conducted in the late 1970s and
continuing to the present day (Enick and Olsen, 2011). However,
the choice of foam or gel for conformance control is still case
sensitive, depending on the characteristics of reservoir thief zones.
Remarkable mobility reductions have also been reported for gel-
based techniques in extremely high permeability ow paths, in
which foams are generally inefcient. Nevertheless, in other cases,
gels are incapable of being used for effective mobility control
purposes due to dramatic increase in viscosity. Hence, operator
should consider the conditions of the reservoir before employing
any of these chemical techniques. Given the few CO2 foams that
were tested in the eld for mobility control/sweep improvement,
perhaps pilot tests of gel-based conformance control followed
by SAG mobility control foam can improve interest in CO2 foam
technology.
214 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215
5. Summary
Based on the extensive survey of the foam assisted CO2-EOR
process and the challenging criteria highlighted, a summary of the
take away points can be made as
(1) Although there are still numerous debates among the
researchers on understanding the foam phenomena and
the mechanisms involved in this process at different applica-
tions, there is a fair consensus of its benets when applied
at the right condition, and emplaced correctly at the proble-
matic zone.
(2) Oil production by foam occurs due to formation of oil bank in
the rst few injected pore volumes, as the result of gas
mobility reduction and increased capillary number. Followed
by a long tail production of dispersed oil transported by the
owing foam lamellae, at a constant capillary number.
(3) Capillary number can couple IFT and mobility reduction effects
of foam for the foam functionality assessments. However, care
must be taken regarding the correct denition of this dimen-
sionless number.
(4) The necessity of working on practical criteria for foam assisted
CO2-WAG process in order to dene the favorable rock wetting
nature, favorable oil type for better oilfoam interactions,
limiting oil and water saturations for foam stability, and
limiting surfactant concentration and capillary pressure for
in-situ foam regeneration is highlighted.
(5) Foam balance inside the unit cell of rock illustrated, and how
the simulation tools encounter the phenomenological model
of foam discussed.
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank EOR Center of University Techno-
logi PETRONAS for providing research facilities. Mr. M. Sagir is
kindly appreciated for performing the bulk foamoil interaction
experiments and sharing the results.
References
Adkins, S.S., Gohil, D., Dickson, J.L., Webber, S.E., Johnston, K.P., 2007. Water-in-
carbon dioxide emulsions stabilized with hydrophobic silica particles. R. Soc.
Chem. 9 (48), 63336343.
Aleidan, A.A., Mamora, D.D., 2010. SWACO2 and WACO2 efciency improvement in
carbonate cores by lowering water salinity. In: Proceedings of the Canadian
Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference. Calgary,
Alberta, October 1921.
Ali, F.S.M., Selby, R.J., 1986. Function, characteristics of EOR foam behavior covered
in laboratory investigations. Oil Gas J. 84, 5.
Andrianov, A., Farajzadeh, R., Mahmoodi, N., Talana, M., Zitha, P.L.J., 2012. Immis-
cible foam for enhancing oil recovery: bulk and porous medi experiences. Ind.
Eng.Chem. Res. 51, 22142226 (American Chemical Society Publications).
Ayers, J., 2001. Boundry Tension and Wettability. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/
108307241.
Ayirala, S.C., 2002. Surfactant-induced Relative Permeability Modications for Oil
Recovery Enhancement (M.Sc. thesis). Louisiana State University.
Beeson, D.M., 1963. Recovery of Oil from Partially Depleted Reservoirs. U.S. Patent
No. 3100524.
Bergeron, V., Fagan, M.E., Radke, C.J., 1993. Generalized entering coefcients: a
criterion for foam stability against oil in porous media. Langmuir 9, 17041718.
Bond, D.C., Holbrook, C.C., 1958. Gas Drive Oil Recovery Process. Patent No.
2,866,507.
CEOR Alliance. http solutions/Gas mobility control (latest access 02.07.13).
Chou, S.I., 1990. Percolation theory of foam in porous media. SPE/DOE 20239. In:
Proceedings of the SPE 7th EOR Symposium. Tulsa, OK, April 2225.
Chou, S.I., Vasicek, S.L., Pisio, D.L., Jasek, D.E., Goodgame, J.A., 1992. CO2 foam eld
trial at North Ward-Estes. SPE 24643. In: Proceedings of the 67th SPE-ATC.
Washington, DC., October 47.
Denkov, N.D., 1999. Mechanisms of action of mixed solidliquid antifoams. 2.
Stability of oil bridges in foam lms. Langmuir 15 (24), 85308542.
Doorwar, S., Mohanty, K.K., 2011. Pore-sacle ngering during viscous oil displace-
ment. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Society of Core
Analysts. Austin, TX, September 1821.
ECLIPSE reservoir simulation software, version 2013.1, 2013. Technical Description.
Schlumberger.
Enick, R.M., Olsen, D.K., 2011. Mobility and Conformance Control for Carbon Dioxide
Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR) via Thickeners, Foams, and Gels A Detailed
Literature Review of 40 Years of Research. U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL), Tulsa, OK.
Espinoza, D., Caldelas, F., Johnston, K.P., Bryant, S.L., Huh, C., 2010. Nanoparticle-
stabilized supercritical co2 foams for potential mobility. In: Proceedings of the
SPE 129925, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK.
Falls, A.H., Hirasaki, G.J., Patzek, T.W., Gauglitz, D.A., Miller, D.D., Ratulowski, T.,
1988. Development of a mechanistic foam simulator: the population balance
and generation by snapp-off. SPE 14961-PA. SPE Res. Eng. 3 (3), 884892.
Farajzadeh, R., 2009. Enhanced Transport Phenomena in CO2 Sequestration and CO2
EOR (Ph.D. thesis). Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft Uni-
versity of Technology.
Farajzadeh, R., Andrianov, A., Krastev, R., Hirasaki, G.J., Rossen, W.R., 2012. Foamoil
interaction in porous media: implications for foam assisted enhanced oil
recovery. In: Proceedings of the SPEEOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia.
Muscat, April 1618.
Farajzadeh, R., Salimi H., Zitha P.L.J., Bruining J., 2007. Numerical simulation of
density-driven natural convection in porous media with application for CO2
injection projects. In: Proceedings of the SPE-EUROPEC/EAGE Conference.
London, June 1114.
Fatemi, S.M., Sohrabi, M., Jamiolahmady, M., Ireland, S., Robertson, G., 2011.
Experimental investigation of near-miscible water-alternating-gas (WAG)
injection performance in water-wet and mixed-wet systems. In: Proceedings
of the Offshore Europe Conference. Aberdeen, September 68.
Friedmann, F., Jensen, J.A., 1986. Some parameters inuencing the formation and
propagation of foams in porous media. In: Proceedings of the SPE-California
Regional Meeting. Oakland, CA, April 24.
Gauglitz, P.A., Friedmann, F., Kam, S.I., Rossen, W.R., 2002. Foam generation in
homogeneous porous media. J. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 40374052.
Green, D.W., Willhite, G.P., 1998. Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE Textbook Series.
Guo, H., Faber, M.J., Buijse, M.A., Zitha, P.L.J., 2011. A novel alkaline-surfactant-foam
EOR process. In: Proceedings of the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference
Kuala Lumpur, July 1921.
Hadlow, R.E., 1992. Update of industry experience with CO2 injection. In: Proceed-
ings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference. Washington, DC.
Hanssen, J.E., Holt, T., Surguchev, L.M., 1994. Foam processes: an assessment of their
potential in North Sea reservoirs based on a critical evaluation of current eld
experience. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium.
Tulsa, OK, April 1720.
Holm, L.W., 1982. Design, performance and evaluation of the uniood micellar-
polymer process Bell Creek Field. In: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical
Conference. New Orleans, LA, September 2629.
Janssen, A., 2012. Enhanced uid separation for chemical oods. In: Proceedings of
the SPE Chemical Flooding-EOR Workshop. Penang, Malaysia, May 1316.
Jarrell, P.M., Fox, C.E., Stein, Michael, H., Webb, S.L., 2002. Practical aspects of CO2
ooding. SPE Monogr. Ser. 22, 2125.
Jimnez, A.I., Radke, C.J., 1989. Chapter 25: dynamic stability of foam lamellae
owing through a periodically constricted pore, oil eld chemistry. ACS
Symposium Series, vol. 396, pp. 460479.
Jonas, T.M., Chou, S.I., Vasicek, S.L., 1990. Evaluation of a CO2 foam eld trial:
Rangley Weber Sand Unit. In: Proceedings of the SPE 20468, 65th SPE-ATC.
New Orleans, LA, September 2326.
Kam, S.I., Nquyen, Q.P., Li, Q., Rossen, W.R., 2007. Dynamic simulations with an
improved model for foam generation. In: Proceedings of the SPE-90938-MS,
SPE-ATC, Houston, TX, September 2629.
Khatib, Z.I., Hirasaki, G.J., Falls, A.H., 1988. Effects of capillary pressure on
coalescence and phase mobilities in foams owing through porous media.
SPE Reserv. Eng. 3, 919926.
Kovscek, A.R., Radke, C.J., 1994. Fundamentals of foam transport in porous media.
In: Schramm, L.L. (Ed.), Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petro-
leum Industry. American Chemical Society, Washington DC (Advances in
Chemistry Series No. 242).
Kristiansen, T.S., Holt, T., 1992. Properties of owing foam in porous media
containing Oil. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Sympo-
sium. Tulsa, OK, April 2224.
Kulkarni, M.M., 2005. Multiphase Mechanisms and Fluid Dynamics In Gas Injection
Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes (Ph.D. thesis). The Craft and Hawkins Dep. of
Pet. Eng., Louisiana State University, LA.
Kutay, S.M., Schramm, L.L., 2004. Structure/performance relationships for surfac-
tant and polymer stabilized foams in porous media. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 43,
1928.
Lawson, J.B., Reisberg, J., 1980. Alternate slugs of gas and dilute surfactant for
mobility control during chemical ooding. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK, April 2023.
Le, V.Q., Nguyen, Q.P., Sanders, A., 2008. A novel foam concept with CO2 dissolved
surfactants. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery. Tulsa, OK, April 2023.
Lescure, B.M., Claridge, E.L., 1986. CO2 foam ooding performance vs. rock wett-
ability. In: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
New Orleans, LA, October 58.
 S.H. Talebian et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 120 (2014) 202215
Li, B., Hirasaki, G.J., Miller, C.A., 2006. Upscaling of foam mobility control to three
dimensions. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery. Tulsa, OK, April 2226.
Li, R., Le Bleu, R., Liu, S., Hirasaki, G.J., Miller, C.A., 2008. Foam mobility control for
surfactant EOR. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery. Tulsa, OK, April 2023.
Liu, Y., Grigg, R.B., 2006. Foam mobility and adsorption in carbonate core. In:
Proceedings of the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Sypmosium. Tulsa, OK, April 2226.
Liu, S., Miller, C.A., Li, R.F., Hirasaki, G.J., 2010. Alkaline/surfactant/polymer pro-
cesses: wide range of conditions for good recovery. SPE J. 15, 282293.
Llama, O.G., 2011. Mobility Control of Chemical EOR Fluids Using Foam in Highly
Fractured Reservoirs (M.S. thesis). Faculty of the Graduate School, The Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin.
Ma, K., Lopez-Salinas, J.L., Puerto, M.C., Miller, C.A., Biswal, S.L., Hirasaki, G.J., 2013.
Estimation of Parameters for Simulation of Foam Flow Through Porous Media.
Part1: The Dry-Out Effect. J. Energy Fuels, vol. 27, pp. 23632375 (ACS
Publications).
Manlowe, D.J., Radke, C.J., 1990. A pore-level investigation of foam/oil interactions
in porous media. SPE 18069-PA. SPE Res. Eng. 5 (4), 495502.
Marsden, S.S., 1986. Foams in Porous Media. U.S. Dept. of Energy, National
Petroleum Technology Ofce, Tulsa, OK.
Masoudi, R., Tohidi, B., Danesh, A., Todd, A., Yang, J., 2006. Measurement and
prediction of salt solubility in the presence of hydrate organic inhibitors. SPE
Prod. Oper. 21, 182187.
Mathiassen, O.M., 2003. CO2 as injection gas for enhanced oil recovery and
estimation of the potential on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (Ph.D. thesis).
Dept. Pet. Eng. and Applied Geophysics, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim.
Mclendon, W.J., Koronaios, P., McNulty, S., Enick, R.M., Biesmans, G., 2012. Assess-
ment of CO2-soluble surfactants for mobility reduction using mobility mea-
surements and CT imaging. In: Proceedings of the SPE-Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium. Tulsa, OK, April 1418.
Nguyen, N.M., 2010. Systematic Study of Foam for Improving Sweep Efciency in
Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery (M.S. thesis). The University of Texas at Austin.
Nguyen, Q.P., Alexandrov, A.V., Zitha, P.J.L., Currie, P.K., 2000. Experimental and
modeling studies on foam in porous media: a review. In: Proceedings of the SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control. Lafayette, LA, Febru-
ary 2324.
Nikolov, A.D., Wasan, D.T., Huang, D.W., Edwards, D.A., 1986. The effect of oil on
foam stability, mechanisms and implications for oil displacement by foam in
porous media. In: Proceedings of the SPE 15443, SPE-ATC. New Orleans, LA,
October 58.
Radke, C.J., Gillis, J.V., 1990. A dual gas tracer technique for determining trapped gas
saturation during steady foam ow in porous media. In: Proceedings of the SPE
Annual Technical Conf. and Exhibition. New Orleans, LA, September 2326.
Rao, D., 2001. Gas injection EOR a new meaning in the new millennium. J. Can.
Pet. Technol. 40 (2), 1118.
Razali, H.M., 2012. General requirement of chemical EOR from HSE perspectives. In:
Proceedings of the SPE-Chemical Flooding-EOR Workshop. Penang, Malaysia,
May 1316.
Rogers, J.D., Grigg, R.B., 2000. A literature analysis of the WAG injectivity
abnormalities in the CO2 process. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK, April 35.
Romero-Zeron, L., Kantzas, A., 2006. Inuence of wettability on foamed gel mobility
control performance in unconsolidated porous media. J. Can. Pet. Technol.
45 (2), 111.
Rossen, W.R., 1992. Rheology of foam in porous media at the limiting capillary
pressure. Rev. Inst. Fr. Pet. 47 (68), 6880 (also appeared In: Proceedings of the
Sixth European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Stavanger, Norway, May
2123, 1991).
Rossen, W.R., 2012. Gravity Segregatiojn in Gas-Injection EOR. http://www.citg.
tudelft.nl.
Sanchez, J.M., Hazlett, R.D., 1992. Foam ow through an oil-wet porous medium: a
laboratory study. SPE Res. Eng. 7, 9197.
Sanders, A., Jones, R., Mann, T., Patton, L., Linroth, M., Nguyen, Q., 2010a. Successful
implementation of CO2 foam for conformance control. In: Proceedings of the
16th Annual CO2 Flooding Conference. Midland, TX, December 810.
Sanders, A., Nguyen, Q.P., Nguyen, N., Adkins, S., Johnston, K.P., 2010b. Twin-tailed
surfactants for creating CO2-in-water macroemulsions for sweep enhancement
in CO2-EOR. In: Proceedings of the SPE-International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference. Abu Dhabi, November 14.
215
Sheng, J., 2011. Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and Practice.
Elsevier, Gulf Professional Publishing, USA.
Schramm, L.L., Novosad, J.J., 1990. Micro-visualization of foam interactions with a
crude oil. Colloids Surf. 46 (1), 2143.
Schramm, L.L., Novosad, J.J., 1992. The destabilization of foams for improved oil
recovery by crude oils: effect of the nature of the oil. Pet. Sci. Eng. 7 (12),
7790.
Schramm, L.L., (Ed.), 1994. Foam Sensitivity to Crude Oil in Porous Media. Foams:
Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC, pp. 165197 (Chapter 4).
Wassmuth, F., 1994. Foams: Basic Principles. In: Schramm, L.L. (Ed.), Foams:
Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry, vol. 242. American
Chemical Society, pp. 345 (Chapter 1).
Schramm, L.L., Mannhardt, K., 1996. The effect of wettability on foam sensitivity to
crude oil in porous Media. Pet. Sci. Eng. 15, 101113.
Seright, R.S., 1988. Placement of gels to modify injection proles. In: Proceedings of
the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK, April 1720.
Shen, C., Nguyen, Q.P., Huh, C., Rossen, W.R., 2006. Does polymer stabilize foam in
porous media? In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery. Tulsa, OK, April 2226.
Simjoo, M., Dong, Y., Andrianov, A., Talanana, M., Zitha, P.J.L., 2012. A CT scan study
of immiscible foam ow in porous media for EOR. In: Proceedings of the
SPE-EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia. Muscat, April 1618.
Simjoo, M., Zitha, P.J.L., 2013. Effects of oil on foam generation and propagation in
sandstone porous media. In: Proceedings of the 17th European Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery. St. Petersburg, Russia, April 1618.
Spirov, P., Rudyk, S., Khan, A., 2012. Foam assisted WAG, snorre revisit with new
foam screening model. In: Proceedings of the SPE-North Africa ATC. Cairo,
Egypt, February 2022.
Srivastava, M., 2010. Foam Assisted Low Interfacial Tension Enhanced Oil Recovery
(Ph.D. thesis). The University of Texas Austin.
Suffridge, F.E., Raterman, K.T., Russell, G.C., 1989. Foam performance under reservoir
conditions. In: Proceedings of the SPE-ATC. San Antonio, TX, October 811.
Sydansk, R.D., 1988. A new conformance-improvement-treatment chromium gel
technology. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium.
Tulsa, OK, April 1720.
Tassaing, T., Oparin, R., Danten, Y., Besnard, M., 2004. Watercarbon dioxide
mixtures at high temperatures and pressures as studied by infrared and Raman
spectroscopies. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Proper-
ties of Water and Steam. Kyoto, Japan, August 29September 3.
Tifn, D.L., Yellig, W.F., 1983. Effects of mobile water on multiple-contact miscible
gas displacements. SPE J. 23, 447455.
Tsau, J.S., Heller, J.P., 1992. Evaluation of Surfactants for CO2-Foam Mobility Control.
In: Proceedings of the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference.
Midland, TX, March 1820.
Wagner, O.R., Weisrock, W.P., 1986. Field application of lignosulfonate gels to
reduce channeling. In: Proceedings of the SPE 61th ATC. South Swan Hills
Miscible Unit, Alberta, Canada, New Orleans, LA, October 58.
Waldman, T., 2012. Design considerations for chemical EOR facilities. In: Proceedings
of the SPE-Advanced Technologies Workshop. Penang, Malaysia, May 1316.
Wang, G.C., 1984. A laboratory study of CO2 foam properties and displacement
mechanism. In: Proceedings of the SPE-EOR Symposium. Tulsa, OK, April 1518.
Wellington, S.L., Vinegar, H.J., 1985. CT studies of surfactant-induced CO2 mobility
control. In: Proceedings of the SPE-ATC. Las Vegas, NV, September 2226.
Worthen, A., Bryant, S., Huh, C., Johnston, K.P., 2013. Carbon dioxide-in-water foams
stabilized with nanoparticles and surfactant acting in synergy. AIChE J. 59 (9),
34903501.
Xu, Q., 2003. Theoretical and Experimental Study of Foam for Enhanced Oil
Recovery and Acid Diversion (Ph.D. thesis). The University of Texas Austin.
Zain, T.F.M., 2012. Storage, logistic and chemical transferring in offshore environ-
ment. In: Proceedings of the SPE-Chemical Flooding-EOR Workshop. Penang,
Malaysia, May 1316.
Zanganeh, M.N., 2011. Simulation and Optimization of Foam EOR Processes (Ph.D.
thesis). Faculty of Civil Eng. and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology.
Zhang, Y., Luo, P., Sam Huang, S.-S., 2010. Improved heavy oil recovery by CO2
injection augmented with chemicals. In: Proceedings of the SPE-International
Oil and Gas Conference. Beijing, China, June 810.
Zhu, T., Strycker, A., Raible, C.J., Vineyard, K., 1998. Foams for mobility control and
improved sweep efciency in gas ooding. In: Proceedings of the SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK, April 1922.