Fractional-Flow Theory
of Foam Displacements With Oil
E. Ashoori, T.L.M. van der Heijden, and W.R. Rossen, Delft University of Technology
Summary
Fractional-flow theory provides key insights into complex foam
enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) displacements and acts as a bench-
mark for foam simulators. In some cases with mobile oil present,
the process can be represented as a two-phase displacement. We
examine three such cases.
A first-contact-miscible (FCM) gasflood with foam injection
includes a chemical shock defining the surfactant front and a mis-
cible shock defining the gas front. The optimal water fraction for
the foam, that which gives the fastest oil recovery in 1D, maintains
the gas front slightly ahead of the foam (surfactant) front.
The success of a foam process with FCM CO2 and surfactant
dissolved in the (supercritical) CO2 depends on the strength of
foam at very low water fractional flow, such as for a surfactant-
alternating-gas (SAG) process with surfactant dissolved in water.
The speed of propagation of the foam front depends on surfactant
adsorption on rock and on the partitioning of surfactant between
water and CO2 but is always less than the velocity of the foam
front in a SAG flood with surfactant ahead of the gas. A foam with
surfactant that partitions preferentially into water rather than into
CO2 would propagate slowly, regardless of the surfactants absolute
solubility or the level of adsorption on rock. An aqueous surfactant
preflush can speed the advance of foam, however.
An idealized model of a surfactant flood pushed by foam sug-
gests that it is best to inject a relatively high water content into
the foam to ensure that the gas front remains behind the surfactant
front as the flood proceeds. Any gas that passes ahead of the sur-
factant front would finger through the oil and be wasted.
We present simulations to verify the solutions obtained with
fractional-flow methods and illustrate the challenges of accurate
simulation of these processes.
Introduction
Miscible flooding is an attractive method to displace the residual
oil in a reservoir after primary- and secondary-recovery methods.
It can, in principle, recover all oil in the reservoir. But the low
viscosity and density of the gas phase causes instability and inef-
ficiency in the displacement front because of gravity override, gas
channeling, and viscous fingering (Lake 1989). Gas sweep can
be improved by water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection. However,
gravity segregation and low injectivity tends to impair the advan-
tages of this injection strategy (Le et al. 2008). This has inspired
the application of foam as an effective way to increase the sweep
efficiency of CO2 flooding.
Foam can improve sweep efficiency in gas-injection EOR
(Schramm 1994; Rossen 1996) and surfactant EOR (Li et al.
2008), redirect acid flow in matrix acid stimulation (Gdanski 1993;
Nguyen et al. 2003), and increase the efficiency of remediation of
aquifers (Hirasaki et al. 2000; Mamun et al. 2002). Foam in porous
media can be defined as a dispersion of gas phase in liquid phase
such that the liquid phase is connected and at least some gas paths
are blocked by thin liquid films (Rossen 1996).
The fractional-flow method, or the method of characteristics
(MOC), is useful in analyzing foam and other EOR processes
Copyright 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 121579) was accepted for presentation at the SPE International Symposium
on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 2022 April 2009, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 02 March 2009. Revised manuscript
received for review 11 November 2009. Paper peer approved 11 September 2009.
260
(Zhou and Rossen 1994, 1995; Rossen et al. 1999; Shrivastava
et al. 1999; Shan and Rossen 2004; Mayberry and Kam 2008;
Namdar Zanganeh et al. 2009) and for better understanding of
foam simulation models and their artifacts (Rossen et al. 1999;
Dong and Rossen 2007). Most applications of MOC to foam have
been limited to two-phase flow of gas and water; in some cases, it
is assumed that oil is present but immobile at its residual saturation.
Application of MOC for three-phase flow for foam is limited to a
few recent works. Mayberry and Kam (2008) apply this method
to an immiscible displacement of gas and oil, where foam strength
does not depend on oil or water saturation. Namdar Zanganeh
et al. (2009) extend this approach to cases where foam strength is
a function of water or oil saturation or both.
In some idealized cases, one can model foam flow in the
presence of mobile oil by two-phase fractional-flow methods.
Walsh and Lake (1989) show that an FCM solvent flood can
be represented as a two-phase displacement (aqueous phase and
nonaqueous phase). Where the nonaqueous phase is solvent, a
solvent/water fractional-flow curve applies; where it is oil, an
oil/water fractional-flow curve applies. They investigate the opti-
mal solvent-/water-injection ratio that gives the fastest advance
of miscible front. They show that the method can be extended
to allow for a residual-oil saturation behind the miscible front
and partitioning of solvent in the residual oil and injected water.
Walsh (1989, 1991) investigates miscible-flood design strategies
for chase-water, chase-gas, and chase-gas/water injection including
interference caused by small solvent-slug sizes.
In the following, after a brief review of the fractional-flow
method, we evaluate foam-process efficiency in 1D for three
examples:
An FCM gasflood with foam injection, where oil may or
may not destroy foam. We use this model as a simpler representa-
tion of the more-common case of multicontact-miscible (MCM)
displacement. If multicontact miscibility occurs, an MCM process
proceeds in 1D (in the absence of dispersion) much as an FCM
process (Walsh and Lake 1989).
An FCM gasflood with foam, with surfactant dissolved in
supercritical CO2.
An idealized surfactant flood using immiscible gas for mobil-
ity control.
For each of these cases, we derive the fractional-flow solution
for the foam displacement and find the water-saturation distribu-
tion. We investigate what controls the mobility and velocity of the
foam bank and propose optimal process designs (in the context of
idealized 1D displacements). We compare the solutions obtained
against fine-grid numerical simulations using the same models.
Fractional-Flow Method
Fractional-flow theory has been used to model water/oil or water/
gas immiscible flooding since 1941 (Buckley and Leverett 1942).
Its applications to various EOR processes are described by Pope
(1980), Lake (1989), and Walsh and Lake (1989), among others.
Assumptions include incompressible phases; Newtonian mobili-
ties; 1D displacement; absence of dispersion, gradients of capillary
pressure, and viscous fingering; and immediate attainment of local
steady state. In spite of these simplifying assumptions, fractional-
flow theory is reported to be accurate and useful in analysis of
field data in the foam field test at the Snorre field (Vassenden et al.
1999). The application of fractional-flow theory to foam displace-
ments is discussed more fully elsewhere (Zhou and Rossen 1995;
Rossen et al. 1999; Shan and Rossen 2004).
June 2010 SPE Journal
 Assuming local steady state means that surfactant is always
present in both water and gas at concentrations in equilibrium
with each other. In a process of surfactant injection in CO2, in the
absence of dispersion, surfactant concentration can take only one
of two values in each phase: either zero in both water and gas
phase, or the injected-surfactant concentration in the gas and the
concentration in water that is in equilibrium with that concentration
in the gas. In addition, we assume first-contact miscibility between
gas and oil for our first two examples. Like Walsh and Lake
(1989), we allow for a uniform residual-oil saturation left behind
the miscible shock and illustrate with one example. For the ideal-
ized surfactant flood, we assume that surfactant reduces oil/water
interfacial tension so effectively that, in effect, water displaces oil
miscibly. For an FCM displacement in the absence of dispersion,
there is only one mobile nonaqueous phase present at any loca-
tion, which is either oil or gas. For the idealized surfactant flood,
in the absence of dispersion, there are only two phases present at
any location: an aqueous phase with or without surfactant and a
nonaqueous phase that is either gas or oil.
The fractional-flow method proceeds as follows. First, one
identifies the injection condition, point J, and the initial condition
of the reservoir, represented by point I, on their respective frac-
tional-flow curves. Saturations advance through the medium with
dimensionless velocities equal to the slope of the fractional-flow
curve at that saturation. A valid, single-valued solution must have
monotonically increasing slope (velocity) from J to I. Buckley-
Leverett shocks, discontinuities in saturation along a single frac-
tional-flow curve, occur where rearward waves overtake forward
waves of lower velocity. To jump from one fractional-flow curve to
the other (e.g., at the boundary between surfactant at the injected
concentration and zero concentration), material balances on water
and surfactant or gas give algebraic conditions that must be satis-
fied at the jump. In the cases here, those conditions are equivalent
to a graphical condition that the jump velocity be equal to the
slope of the line linking points upstream and downstream of the
jump and passing though some third fixed point. Jump velocities
must also satisfy conditions for monotonically increasing velocity
from J to I.
Details of the foam model, which is based on data of Alvarez
et al. (2001), are provided in Appendix A. Derivation of jump con-
ditions for the gas/oil miscible shock and surfactant front (chemical
shock) for our three examples is given in Appendix B.
FCM Gasflood With Foam
We assume complete mutual solubility between gas and oil and
complete immiscibility of both with water. Therefore, gas mis-
cibly displaces oil in a jump (indifferent wave) that is governed
by a material balance on water and gas at the jump. This jump is
represented graphically by joining the compositions on either side
of the jump on the two fractional-flow curves by a line from the
I
1
Foam
0.9 Gas/water
0.8 Oil/water
0.7
Miscible shock
0.6
fw
0.5
Sw
GB1
0.4
0.3
J
0.2
OB
0.1
0 0
D
GB2
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
(a)
Fig. 1Displacement of oil at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that is FCM with oil. (a) Solution on frac-
tional-flow plot. (b) Saturation profile at tD = 0.4. Numbers are total relative mobility, in (Pas)1. In this and similar figures, boxed
values apply to a whole region of constant state. Unboxed values apply to the leading and trailing edge of a spreading wave.
June 2010 SPE Journal
upper-right corner ( fw = 1, Sw = 1) of the fractional-flow diagram
(see Appendix B for derivation of this condition). Walsh and Lake
(1989) show how the model can be extended to allow for leaving
residual-oil saturation behind in the gas bank and for allowing
solvent solubility in the water and in the residual oil behind the
gas front.
For a case of foam injection with FCM gas, there are, therefore,
four fractional-flow curves. Where surfactant is present in water
and gas is the nonaqueous phase, the foam fractional-flow curve
applies. If gas advances ahead of the foam bank, the gas/water frac-
tional-flow curve applies. Ahead of the point where gas miscibly
displaces oil, the oil/water fractional-flow curve controls behavior.
If surfactant advances faster than gas, then the oil/water fractional-
flow curve may be altered by the presence of surfactant (i.e., by
a large reduction in interfacial tension between oil and water).
We assume here that the surfactant has been chosen for foaming
properties, not for ultralow interfacial tension (Li et al. 2008);
therefore, we assume that the oil/water fractional-flow curve is
unaffected by surfactant and there are three fractional-flow curves
to be considered. See Table A-1 and Appendix A for a description
of the foam model and parameter values used here.
The surfactant front is governed by a chemical shock (strictly
an indifferent wave, not a shock) that is determined by material
balances on surfactant and water. If there is no adsorption, this
condition is represented graphically by a line drawn between the
saturations on either side of the jump on the fractional-flow curves
for gas/water flow with and without foam, where the line must
pass through ( fw = 0, Sw = 0). If there is adsorption, the line must
pass through a point D at coordinates (Sw = d < 0, fw = 0) (Eq.
B-7), where d is the pore volumes of surfactant solution required
to satisfy adsorption in one pore volume of rock. Lake (1989)
calls d the frontal advance loss. See material balance for different
shocks in Appendix B.
By assuming an FCM displacement with no residual oil behind
the miscible front and no dispersion, we avoid the issue of oils
effect on foam stability. Where gas and surfactant are present, there
is foam and no oil; where oil is present and no gas, there is no
foam, regardless of whether surfactant is present. If there were a
uniform immobile oil saturation behind the front, as in Walsh and
Lake (1989), accounting for it would simply mean adjusting the
gas-mobility reduction with foam for the effect of residual oil.
Fig. 1 shows the solution for one example, with injection of
foam at water fractional flow fwJ = 0.2 into a medium with no sur-
factant and oil initially at its waterflood-residual saturation. This
example corresponds to a case where surfactant is soluble only in
water, surfactant concentration in water is 4 kg/m3 (0.4 wt%), and
surfactant adsorption on the rock is 0.096 g/kg of rock. Assuming a
larger value of adsorption would shift point D to the left and reduce
the velocity of the foam bank. The injection point J is on the foam
fractional-flow curve at fw = fwJ = 0.2, and the initial condition I is
1
Gas GB1 I
0.9 Oil
439 200
0.8
0.7
0.6
OB
0.5 85 82
GB2
0.4 23566
J
0.3
4
0.2
Water+surfactant Water without surfactant
0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xD
(b)
261
 I
1
Foam 1
0.9 Gas/water GB I
0.9 Gas
0.8 Oil/water GB 240 200
Oil
0.8
0.7
Miscible shock 0.7
0.6
0.6
OB
fw

0.5

Sw
0.5 82
85
0.4 0.4
J J
0.3 0.3 Water without surfactant
3
0.2 0.2
OB Water+surfactant
0.1 0.1

0 0
D 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw xD
(a) (b)

Fig. 2Displacement of oil at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that is FCM with oil, for a case with greater
water fraction in the foam than in Fig. 1. In this case, for simplicity, the plot assumes no adsorption of surfactant. (a) Solution
on fractional-flow plot. (b) Saturation profile at tD = 0.4.

on the oil/water fractional-flow curve at Sw = 1Sor. In this case,
gas travels faster than surfactant and there is a gas bank ahead of
the foam, both because of adsorption and because the gas fraction
in the injected foam is greater than the gas saturation in the foam
bank. Therefore, the displacement proceeds as shown in Fig. 1.
The leading edge of the foam bank J is a chemical shock to the
foam-free gas/water fractional-flow curve at GB1. Ahead of this
bank, there must be a miscible shock to the oil fractional-flow
curve. There occurs first, though, a shock along the gas/water frac-
tional-flow curve to a second gas bank GB2, with nearly zero water
fractional flow, and then a miscible shock to a point of tangency
on the oil/water fractional-flow curve at point OB. Ahead of OB,
there is a spreading wave of increasing water saturation and a final
shock along the oil/water fractional-flow curve to I.
In the displacement, there are constant states J, GB1, and GB2;
ahead of GB2 is a jump to OB and a narrow spreading wave ahead
of it and then a shock to initial condition I. In 1D flow with no
dispersion or fingering, all oil is displaced with the velocity of the
miscible shock between GB2 and OB. The total relative mobilities
of J, GB1, GB2, OB, and I are 4, 439, 23 566, 85, and 200 (Pas)1,
respectively. Thus, in 2D or 3D, the displacement of oil by gas
ahead of the foam would be unstable to fingering, but the foam
front would be stable. This suggests that, because of fingering at
the unstable front, the actual velocity of oil displacement would
be the velocity of the foam bank.
The low mobility of foam bank J in this example (more than
10 times lower than the oil bank ahead of it) may make continu-
ous injection of this foam impractical in the field because of low
injectivity. One could, of course, use a weaker foam, with greater
mobility in bank J. SAG injection is an alternative to continuous
foam injection that maintains good injectivity with relatively low
mobility at the displacement front (Shan and Rossen 2004); using
surfactant dissolved in the injected gas is another such process. We
use this example to illustrate the fractional-flow technique, which
can be applied to a foam of greater or lesser strength, and to illus-
trate the determination of an optimal foam quality for a process of
continuous foam injection in 1D, as in the next subsection.
Effect of Foam Quality. If one increases the water fraction of
the injected foam, the velocity of the foam bank and of the mis-
cible shock approach each other. In the plots to follow, we assume
adsorption is zero [point D is at (0, 0)], but the extension to cases
with adsorption is straightforward. As fwJ increases, rst the sec-
ond gas bank disappears (Fig. 2) when point GB, determined by
a material balance on surfactant, also lies on the material-balance
line from (1, 1) that is tangent to point OB, which determines the
gas/oil front. With adsorption, point D moves toward the left and
fwJ would have to be larger to keep GB in this location. At some
sufciently high water fractional ow (Fig. 3), the miscible-shock
and chemical-shock velocities are equal; the gas bank ahead of
foam disappears. In this case D, J, and (1, 1) lie on the same
line, and therefore so do points GB and OB. At still higher water
fractional ow (Fig. 4), it is no longer surfactant propagation that
limits the velocity of the foam bank, rather it is gas propagation.
In this case, too much surfactant has been injected. We assume
that the surfactant does not stabilize a foam of oil with water, so

I
1
Foam 1
0.9 Gas/water GB I
Oil/water 0.9 Oil
0.8 200
Gas
Miscible shock 0.8
0.7 OB OB
0.7
96
0.6
0.6
fw

0.5
Sw

0.5
0.4
0.4
J J Water without surfactant
0.3 0.3
3
0.2 0.2
Water+surfactant
0.1 0.1

0 0
D 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
xD
(a) (b)

Fig. 3Optimal water fraction of foam for displacement of oil at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that
is FCM with oil. In this case, for simplicity, the plot assumes no adsorption of surfactant. (a) Solution on fractional-flow plot. (b)
Saturation profile at tD = 0.4.

262 June 2010 SPE Journal

 I
1
Foam
0.9 1
Gas/water
Oil I
Oil/water 0.9
0.8 Miscible shock 200
OB 0.8 Gas OB
0.7
0.7 102
0.6
0.6
fw

0.5

Sw
0.5
J
0.4
0.4
J Water without surfactant
0.3 0.3
3
0.2 0.2
Water+surfactant
0.1 0.1

0 0
D 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(a) Sw (b) xD

Fig. 4Displacement of oil at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that is FCM with oil, with higher injected-
water fraction than in Fig. 3. (a) Solution on fractional-flow plot. (b) Saturation profile at tD = 0.4. In this case, the propagation of
foam is limited by propagation of gas, not surfactant. This condition is satisfied as long as point D lies to the right of the exten-
sion of the line joining J and (1, 1) (i.e., the line representing the material balances that determine the gas/oil front).

foam collapses at the point where oil is displaced by gas; surfactant
travels ahead of this front but (by assumption) makes no difference
to the oil/water fractional-ow curve.
In this sequence of increasing water content of foam, the veloc-
ity of the miscible shock decreases. If this is the front at which oil
is displaced (as it is in 1D displacements without fingering or dis-
persion), then there is no advantage to increasing the water content
of the foam. If, however, the adverse mobility contrast between the
gas bank and the oil bank ahead of it causes gas to finger through
oil rather than displacing it, the effective velocity of oil recovery
would be that provided by the foam bank. This velocity increases
up to the point where the miscible-shock and chemical-shock
velocities are equal (Fig. 3) and decreases beyond this point. This
suggests a criterion for an optimal water fraction in foam for an
FCM flood based on the rate of foam propagation in 1D. In such
a process, foam delivers gas with good sweep because of its favor-
able mobility ratio. There is a small gas bank ahead of the foam,
too small to allow fingering to develop, that miscibly displaces the
oil ahead of it. As long as this displacement is efficient enough to
remove oil ahead of the foam bank, it would not matter whether
oil destabilizes foam or not. This determination of an optimal
water/gas ratio for foam is similar to the optimal WAG ratio of
Walsh and Lake (1989), except that the optimum ratio depends on
a material balance on surfactant as well as water and gas.
Foam With Surfactant Dissolved in Gas
SAG foam processes have several advantages over the process of
continuous foam injection examined in the preceding section. For
CO2 foam projects, SAG reduces corrosion in surface facilities and
pipe (Heller 1994). The SAG process also increases gas injectivity.
When gas is injected, water is displaced from the near-well region,
weakening foam near the well. As a result, gas mobility in the near-
well region rises and injectivity increases (Shan and Rossen 2004).
Increasing injectivity can reduce gravity segregation in cases where
injection pressure is constrained (Jamshidnezhad et al. 2008).
Two major issues in the SAG process are placement of surfac-
tant uniformly in the reservoir (Renkema and Rossen 2007; Kloet
et al. 2009) and maximizing injectivity (Rossen et al. 2006; Rossen
and Shen 2007; Jamshidnezhad et al. 2008). In a homogeneous res-
ervoir, a one-cycle SAG process, where one big slug of surfactant
is followed by one big slug of gas, gives better sweep and higher
injectivity than multiple-cycle SAG processes; sweep efficiency
is higher, the process proceeds faster, and gravity segregation is
mitigated (Shan and Rossen 2004). However, a single-slug SAG
be injected dissolved in gas or, more precisely, in supercritical CO2,
both the problems of sweeping low-permeability layers with foam
and maintaining high injectivity could be overcome.
Foam can be generated by injection of surfactant dissolved in
the CO2 phase (Kuhlman et al. 1994; Le et al. 2008). If surfactant
is injected dissolved in the CO2 phase, then injection of water is
not required because water is available in the reservoir. Therefore,
injectivity remains high, with advantages in overcoming gravity
segregation (Shan and Rossen 2004; Jamshidnezhad et al. 2008;
Kloet et al. 2009). In addition, in principle, surfactant goes wher-
ever gas goes, though (as shown later) sometimes at lower velocity
than gas. Lower-molecular-weight nonpolar compounds are among
the most soluble in CO2. Liu et al. (2001, 2002a, 2002b) report the
solubility of nonionic surfactants in CO2 at different temperatures
and pressures; see also Fan (2006). Their results indicate that the
solubility of several surfactants in CO2 is high. Du et al. (2008)
note that CO2 dissolved in water can reduce the solubility of sur-
factant in water.
Kuhlman et al. (1994) show that oil can form foam with gas in
the absence of water as a result of surfactant transport in CO2 and
subsequent partitioning into oil. However, for simplicity, we ignore
oil/gas foam here. Le et al. (2008) compare WAG (a SAG process
with surfactant injected in the CO2), conventional SAG injection,
and CO2 injection (without water) with dissolved surfactant; the
latter process gives higher recovery in their experiments. They
report that this injection strategy has the benefits of lower injection
pressure and a significant delay of CO2-breakthrough time.
We assume that the injected stream is 100% gas with dissolved
surfactant; surfactant is soluble in both water and gas; and the
medium is initially at waterflood-residual-oil saturation with no
surfactant present. We assume FCM displacement of oil by gas.
Similar to Walsh and Lake (1989), we allow for a residual-oil
saturation behind the gas bank and surfactant partitioning into this
residual oil, but we neglect gas solubility in the aqueous phase
for simplicity here. According to Appendix B, the velocity of the
surfactant front is
x D
s =
t D
Csg
fwu +
Csw Csg f u fwd
= = wu . . . . . . . . . (1)
Csg (1 SOM ) + Csa + Cso SOM Sw Swd
Sw +
u

process suffers from inability to place sufficient surfactant into Csw Csg
low-permeability layers in heterogeneous reservoirs, while mul-
tiple-slug SAG processes suffer from poor injectivity during liquid Here, Csg, Csw, and Cso are mass concentrations of surfactant in gas,
injection (Kloet et al. 2009). This suggests that, if surfactant could water, and gasflood-residual oil, respectively. Csa represents mass

June 2010 SPE Journal 263

 Foam D
1.2
Gas/water 1
Oil/water GB1 I
I 0.9
1 386 Gas Oil 200
0.8

0.8 0.7
Gas+surfactant
Miscible shock 0.6
fw

OB

Sw
0.6 0.5 82
GB2 85

GB1 0.4 23566

0.4 Foam bank
0.3
43
0.2
0.2 OB 573
0.1 J Water without surfactant
J Water+surfactant
0 0
GB2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw xD
(a) (b)

Fig. 5Displacement of oil initially at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that is FCM with oil, with sur-
factant injected in the gas, for a case of surfactant that partitions preferentially into gas. (a) Solution on fractional-flow plot. (b)
Saturation profile at tD = 0.4. Numbers are the total relative mobilities in (Pas)1.

of surfactant adsorbed on the rock per unit volume of pore space
[see Lake (1989)], and SOM represents miscible-flood-residual-oil
saturation. Superscripts u and d represent conditions upstream of
the jump and conditions downstream of the jump, respectively.
Eq. 1 indicates that the velocity of the surfactant front depends on
surfactant adsorption on rock and also on the partitioning of sur-
factant between water, CO2, and gasflood-residual oil. We consider
a medium initially at waterflood-residual-oil saturation, and two
cases reflecting the partitioning of surfactant into water and CO2:
Csg > Csw and Csw >Csg.
Case Csg > Csw. Assuming complete miscibility of oil and gas (SOM =
0), Eq. 1 indicates that the jump representing the surfactant front
C + Csa Csg
should pass through a point D, at (Sw, fw) = sg , .
C sw C sg C sw Csg
For Csg > Csw, this point is located above and to the right of (1,
1), between the lines representing fw = Sw and fw = 1. If Csw is
negligible in comparison with Csg, point D lies on the line fw = 1;
when adsorption is negligible, it is on the line fw = Sw; and if both
conditions apply, it is at (Sw, fw) = (1, 1). As Csw approaches Csg
from below (i.e., as partitioning of surfactant into water increases),
point D moves farther from (1, 1).
Fig. 5 shows the fractional-flow solution and displacement
banks for a case with point D far from (1, 1); specifically, this
corresponds to a case where surfactant concentration in gas is
approximately 5.5 times higher than in water, concentration of
surfactant in water is 2 kg/m3 (0.2 wt%), and surfactant adsorption
is 0.7 g/kg rock.
The leading edge of the foam bank has relatively low mobility,
but mobility is high at the injection point, as in a SAG process
(Shan and Rossen 2004). Mobility at J should be much greater, but
we have used here a foam model in which foam does not collapse
fully even at Swr; see Appendix A. Also, as in SAG processes, the
mobility at the leading edge of the foam bank is not nearly as low
as with foam injection with significant water fraction (see Fig. 1)
because the chemical shock seeks a point of tangency at very low
water fractional flow (in this case, 0.012), where foam has dried
out and weakened considerably. In particular, the process success
depends on whether foam collapses completely or only partially at
the limiting capillary pressure [see Zhou and Rossen (1995) and
Dong and Rossen (2007)]. If foam collapses completely at the
limiting capillary pressure, then mobility is high throughout the
foam bank; there is no mobility control anywhere in the process.
At the leading edge of the foam bank is a chemical shock to the
first gas bank; ahead of that, another Buckley-Leverett shock to a
second gas bank; and ahead of that, a miscible shock (the gas/oil
front) to a point of tangency at point OB. Ahead of OB, there is
a small spreading wave (oil bank) of increasing water saturation
and a final shock along the oil/water fractional-flow curve to I.
Ahead of the foam bank, the displacement is similar to that for
foam injection in the preceding section. The mobility of both gas
banks ahead of the foam is much greater than that of the oil bank
in front of them. We contend that, in two or three dimensions, these
high-mobility banks would finger through the oil and the actual
oil-bank velocity would be only slightly greater than the velocity
of the foam bank.
As Csg/Csw increases, point D approaches (1, 1); the chemi-
cal-shock velocity increases until the second gas bank, with its
enormous mobility, disappears, as in Fig. 6. This happens as the
chemical shock and the miscible shock cross at point GB on the
gas/water fractional-flow curve. In this figure, surfactant concen-
tration is 43 times greater in gas than in water; if surfactant con-
centration in water Csw is 0.4 wt%, then concentration of surfactant
in the gas is 17.2 wt%, and surfactant adsorption on the rock is
approximately 0.4 g/kg rock. We present this and the following
case to illustrate the effect of partitioning of surfactant between
water and gas phases on the displacement.
Fig. 7 shows the case for Csg/Csw , with no adsorption. In
this case, surfactant partitions exclusively into gas; if adsorption
is also negligible, surfactant advances at the same velocity as gas.
The chemical-shock and miscible-shock velocities are equal, and
the gas bank ahead of the foam disappears. At this point, in the
presence of dispersion, the effect of oil on foam may affect the
velocity and mobility of the foam bank. If, in all these cases (Figs.
5 through 7), as we argue, the foam-bank velocity would be the
effective velocity of oil displacement rather than the velocities of
high-mobility gas banks likely to finger through the oil, then this
is the optimal case. Like the miscible gasflood with foam created
by surfactant dissolved in water, described in a previous section,
the optimal case has the greatest velocity of the foam bank, with a
slight gas bank ahead to displace oil and keep oil from the foam. It
also has a slightly lower mobility at the leading edge of the foam
bank, arising from a point of tangency at slightly greater fw. For
a gasflood with surfactant dissolved in gas, the optimum requires
a surfactant that partitions nearly exclusively into gas, as well as
minimal adsorption. Whether one could create a stable foam with
minimal surfactant affinity for the water phase would need to be
determined in the laboratory.
Like Walsh and Lake (1989), one can extend this model to a case
with gasflood-residual oil behind the miscible shock. According to
C (1 SOM ) + Csa + Cso SOM Csg
Eq. 1, point D moves to sg ,
Csw Csg Csw Csg
and the miscible shock occurs on a line through [(1SOM), 1]
instead of (1, 1). Fig. 8 is the fractional-flow solution for a case
like Fig. 7 (Csg/Csw and no adsorption) and where we assume
that the foam fractional-flow curve is unaffected by the presence
of residual oil (SOM = 0.05). In practice, it is likely that residual oil
would weaken the foam, shifting the foam fractional-flow curve
toward the right, accelerating the foam bank but raising the mobil-
ity of the foam bank.

264 June 2010 SPE Journal

 I D
1 1 Gas
Foam GB I
0.9
Gas/water 240 200
0.8 Oil/water 0.8 Oil
GB
0.7
Miscible shock Gas+surfactant
0.6 0.6
fw

Sw
0.5 OB 82
85
0.4 0.4
Foam bank
0.3
33
0.2 0.2 573 Water without surfactant
OB Water+surfactant
0.1
J J
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw xD
(a) (b)

Fig. 6Displacement of oil initially at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that is FCM with oil, with surfactant
injected in the gas, for a case with greater partitioning of surfactant into gas than in Fig. 5. (a) Solution on fractional-flow plot.
(b) Saturation profile at tD = 0.4.

I D 1
1
Foam I
0.9
Gas/water Oil 200
0.8 GB 0.8
Oil/water
0.7 Gas+surfactant
OB
0.6 83
0.6
Miscible shock
Sw

0.5
fw

OB
0.4 0.4

0.3 Foam bank

33
0.2 0.2
573
0.1 J Water without surfactant

0 0
J 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
xD
0.2
Sw
(b )
(a)

Fig. 7Optimal displacement of oil initially at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that is FCM with oil, with
surfactant injected in the gas. Surfactant partitions completely from water into gas, without adsorption on rock. (a) Solution on
fractional-flow plot. (b) Saturation profile at tD = 0.4.

I D
1
Foam
0.9 1
Gas/water
I
Oil/water 0.9 Oil
0.8 200
0.8
0.7
Miscible shock Gas+Surfactant OB
0.7
0.6 87
OB 0.6
fw

0.5
Sw

0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3 0.3 Foam bank
31
0.2 0.2
573 Water without surfactant
0.1 0.1 J
J Trapped oil+surfactant
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 S 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
w
(b ) xD
(a)

Fig. 8Displacement of oil initially at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that is partially miscible with
oil, with surfactant injection in the gas. Surfactant partitions completely from water into gas, and there is no adsorption. For
simplicity, we assume remaining oil has no effect on foam. (a) Solution on fractional-flow plot. (b) Saturation profile at tD = 0.4.
SOM and Cso are 0.05 and 0.2, respectively.
June 2010 SPE Journal 265
 1 I
Foam
0.8
Gas/water
Oil/water 0.6
0.4
fw
OB
0.2
J GB2
0 0.4
GB2
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.2 Sw
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 xD
D (b)
1.2
(a)
Fig. 9Displacement of oil initially at waterflood-residual saturation by foam composed of gas that is FCM with oil, with sur-
factant injection in the gas, for greater partitioning of surfactant into water than into gas. (a) Solution on fractional-flow plot.
(b) Saturation profile at tD = 0.4.
Case Csw > Csg. According to Eq. 1, for Csw > Csg, point D is located
below and to the left of (0, 0), between the lines representing
fw = Sw and fw = 0. If Csg is negligible compared to Csw, point D
lies on fw = 0; when adsorption is negligible, it is on fw = Sw; and
when both conditions apply, it is at (0, 0). As Csg approaches Csw
from below, point D moves further from (0, 0). Fig. 9 shows one
example in which Csw > Csg. This example corresponds to a case
where surfactant concentration in water is approximately twice
that in gas, surfactant concentration in water is 4 kg/m3 (0.4 wt%),
and surfactant adsorption rate is quite low, approximately 0.004
g/kg rock. A larger value for adsorption would move point D to
the left and reduce foam-bank velocity from that given here. For
Csw > Csg, the chemical shock is always slower than the miscible
shock because of the position of point D relative to the point of
tangency on the foam fractional-ow curve. In other words, there
are always one or more gas banks ahead of the foam.
Apart from any effect on foam stability, greater partitioning of
surfactant from the gas to the aqueous phase is disadvantageous
because of reduced velocity of the foam bank. As Csw/Csg
(i.e., a foam with surfactant that partitions almost entirely into
water rather than CO2) point D moves toward (0, 0) or to the line
representing fw = 0, depending on the level of adsorption. The
foam bank propagates with near-zero velocity, regardless of the
surfactants absolute solubility in gas or level of adsorption on rock
(though a high level of adsorption also slows the front).
One could increase the velocity of slow-moving foam in this
case by initially injecting an aqueous surfactant slug, followed by
gas injection with dissolved surfactant. In this case, at first the foam
bank would move with the velocity of gas, as in a conventional
SAG process with a large slug of surfactant [see Shan and Ros-
sen (2004)]. Once gas advances beyond the position of surfactant
previously injected with water, the process would proceed as
described here.
Foam for Mobility Control in Idealized
Surfactant Flood
We consider an idealized surfactant flood in which surfactant
reduces oil/water interfacial tension to zero, allowing, in effect,
miscible displacement of oil by water. The fractional-flow curve
for oil and water with dissolved surfactant is then a diagonal line
from (Sw = 0, fw = 0) to (1, 1). In contrast to the preceding cases,
we assume that the surfactant has been optimized for ultralow
interfacial tension between water and oil and yet still forms a foam
of sufficient strength for mobility control (Li et al. 2008). For this
case, we assume there is no solubility of surfactant in the gas. There
are, in principle, four fractional-flow curves here: foam (water/gas
with surfactant); gas/water without surfactant; oil/water without
surfactant; and oil/water with surfactant. Which three play a part
in the displacement depends on whether gas propagates faster than
266
1
GB1 I
0.9
386 Oil 200
Gas
0.8
GB1
0.7
Gas+surfactant
0.6
OB
Sw
0.5 85 82
23566
0.8 1.0 Foam bank
0.3
43
0.2
573
0.1 J Water without Surfactant
Water+surfactant
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
surfactant. We assume no miscibility between oil and gas. There
are three phases in the displacement, but this idealized process
can be designed so that only two are present at any location:
water and gas or water and oil. We include surfactant adsorption
in this example in part to distinguish the chemical shock from the
oil/surfactant-solution fractional-flow curve. With adsorption of
surfactant, as for foam injection in the FCM flood with surfactant
dissolved in water (Fig. 1), the chemical shock is drawn through
point D at position (Sw = d, fw = 0); d is the number of pore
volumes of surfactant solution required to satisfy adsorption in one
pore volume of formation. See Appendix B for material balances
on the shocks.
Our solution requires that the foam bank be designed so that gas
propagates more slowly than surfactant. Otherwise, there are three
mobile phases ahead of the surfactant front (oil, water, and gas),
and the analysis of the displacement is much more complex (May-
berry and Kam 2008; Namdar Zanganeh et al. 2009). Moreover,
any gas traveling ahead of the foam bank would finger through oil
and water with no beneficial effect. One design where surfactant
travels ahead of gas is shown in Fig. 10. The initial condition I is
at residual-oil saturation with no surfactant present. The injection
condition is foam, injected with a fixed water fractional flow. If the
water fraction of the foam is large enough, then gas propagation
limits the foam-front velocity rather than surfactant propagation.
In this case, the material balance on gas at the foam front [long-
dashed diagonal line from (1, 1) on the phase diagram] gives a
lower velocity than a material balance on surfactant [line from
points D to J (not shown)]; hence, it is the propagation of gas that
controls the velocity of the foam bank. Ahead of this jump, there
is no gas; the jump is to a point on the oil/water (with surfactant)
fractional-flow curve, which is a straight line representing fw =
Sw. This point ahead of the jump is at (Sw = 1, fw = 1), giving a
surfactant bank SB. The next jump, to the oil/water fractional-flow
curve (without surfactant), is determined by the material balance
on surfactant, and it occurs along a line drawn from SB to point D.
Ahead of this jump is oil bank OB. Ahead of this bank is a shock
on the oil/water fractional-flow curve to initial condition I. There
are four regions of constant state: foam J, surfactant bank SB, oil
bank OB, and initial condition I, separated by the three jumps or
shocks with velocities given by the lines in Fig. 10. Foam bank
J has lower mobility than surfactant bank SB, which has higher
mobility than the oil bank OB. Therefore, in 2D or 3D, one might
expect fingering of the surfactant bank through the oil bank ahead
of it; this fingering would be especially problematic to a process
that relies on an orderly gradient of salinity or other properties
(Nelson 1982; Liu et al. 2008) to obtain ultralow interfacial tension
and mobilize oil with the surfactant bank. To minimize fingering,
one might choose to minimize the size of the surfactant bank
ahead of the foam.
June 2010 SPE Journal
 I SB
1
Foam
0.9 Gas/water SB
Oil/water 1
0.8 328 Oil I
Oil/surfactant OB 0.9
0.7 200
0.8 OB
0.6 Gas 104
0.7
J 0.6
fw

0.5

Sw
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3 J
0.3 2 Water without surfactant
0.2 0.2
Water+surfactant
0.1 0.1

0 0
D
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a) Sw (b) xD

Fig. 10Displacement of oil by foam in idealized surfactant flood. (a) Solution on fractional-flow plot. (b) Saturation profile at
tD = 0.4.

Fig. 11 illustrates the minimum water fraction in the foam
that prevents formation of a gas bank ahead of the foam; this also
gives the minimum size of the surfactant bank ahead of foam
while still maintaining that bank intact. The velocity of the foam
bank is maximized at this water fraction. At lower water fractions
than this, it is surfactant propagation that limits the propagation of
foam; gas passes ahead of the foam bank, and the velocity of the
foam bank is less than in Fig. 11. If gas fingers ahead of the foam
bank, one would expect that oil at high oil saturation, which may
destabilize foam, is directly in contact with the leading edge of the
foam bank; this may destabilize the foam and slow propagation
of the foam front.
This representation of a surfactant (or alkaline/surfactant) pro-
cess is simplified in several ways. In reality, some residual oil is
left behind the surfactant front, though one may hope that it does
not destabilize foam at the relatively low saturation present. Even
in a perfect application of this process, oil is mobilized by ultralow
interfacial tension within a portion of a gradient of salinity or other
properties (Nelson 1982; Liu et al. 2008), which represents another
wave displacement to be considered in this process. An extrapola-
tion from the idealized case would suggest that the gas content of
the foam should be selected so that the gas velocity is lower than
the velocity of the ultralow-interfacial-tension condition.
Simulations
Fine-grid 1D numerical simulations carried out with the STARS
simulator (Computer Modeling Group 2006; Cheng 2002) verify the
results obtained with fractional-flow theory and illustrate the difficulty
in obtaining accurate solutions with simulation. The assumptions of
our simulations match those of fractional-flow theory to the extent
possible. Specifically, a large backpressure (14 MPa) and very low
injection rates are employed; as a result, pressure difference (less than
200 kPa) across the medium is insignificant compared to backpres-
sure, and compressibility effects are insignificant. Capillary pressure
is neglected. Numerical dispersion (Stalkup 1990) of the surfactant
front and the gas/oil front is minimized by increasing the number of
gridblocks. Numerical dispersion has two effects: It spreads the sur-
factant front over many gridblocks, making foam strength vary near
the foam front, and it spreads the gas/oil displacement front, reducing
oil-phase viscosity near that front because of a large fraction of light
components and increasing gas-phase viscosity just behind the front
because of a large fraction of heavy components.
We address the effect of surfactant dispersion by making the
onset of foam abrupt at one-half the injected-surfactant concentra-
tion [Table A-1; see Rossen et al. (1999)]. This makes the foam
front sharp. Dispersion disperses surfactant around this shock in
asymmetric ways, however, and, as a result, dispersion still shifts
the position of the foam front by a modest amount (Cheng 2002).
One can adjust the position of the front at any given time by
adjusting parameter fmsurf (Cheng 2002), but, because dispersion
continues through the displacement, any given adjustment would
match the correct foam front at only one time.
In principle, in a similar way, one could reduce the effect of
dispersion of the oil/gas front by making oil and gas viscosities

I SB
1
Foam
0.9 Gas/water 1
0.8 Oil/water OB Oil I
0.9
Oil/surfactant 200
0.7 0.8 OB
0.7 104
0.6 Gas
0.6
fw

0.5
J
Sw

0.5
0.4
0.4 Water without surfactant
J
0.3 0.3
2
0.2 0.2
0.1 Water+surfactant
0.1
0
D 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 xD
(a) Sw (b)

Fig. 11Condition for minimum water fraction in foam that would give no gas bank ahead of the foam in an idealized surfactant
flood. This design also minimizes the size of the surfactant bank ahead of the foam. (a) Solution on fractional-flow plot. (b)
Saturation profile at tD = 0.4.

June 2010 SPE Journal 267

 1
GB1 Gas Oil I
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6 OB

Sw
0.5 GB2
0.4

0.3 J
0.2
Sw simulations 400gb
0.1
Surfactant No surfactant Sw simulations 1000gb
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xD

Fig. 12Comparison of water-saturation profiles at tD = 0.4 from fractional-flow solution and simulations with 400 and 1,000
gridblocks for case of foam injection (fwJ = 0.2) with gas that is FCM with oil; similar to Fig. 1, but with zero adsorption.

abrupt functions of composition: an abrupt change from oil viscos-
ity to gas viscosity at 50% fraction of light components in the given
phase, for instance. We did not attempt this adjustment.
Fig. 12 shows a comparison of fractional-flow solution and
numerical simulation for a case of injection of foam ( fwJ = 0.2) com-
posed of FCM gas with surfactant that is soluble only in water. This
corresponds to Fig. 1 but without adsorption. The fit is better with
1,000 gridblocks than with 400, as expected. The foam front in the
simulations trails that in the fractional-flow solution, which Cheng
(2002) showed to be a result of asymmetric numerical dispersion of
surfactant concentration. The variation of oil-phase viscosity in the
oil bank is evident from the shift in oil saturation in the oil bank.
This shift, relative to the fractional-flow solution, is qualitatively as
one would expect from fractional-flow theory if viscosity of the oil
phase were reduced toward the rear of the oil bank.
Fig. 13 compares simulations to the fractional-flow solution
for the case in Fig. 2 (i.e., disappearance of the second gas bank
at fw = 0.2877). As in Fig. 12, dispersion slows the foam bank,
which requires the reappearance of the second gas bank as though
adsorption were greater than it is and reduces the velocity of the
foam bank. The size of the spurious second gas bank decreases
with 1,000 gridblocks instead of 400.
Fig. 14 shows the same simulation as in Fig. 12 but with surfac-
tant concentration in the water and total mole fraction of heavy (oil)
components in each gridblock plotted also. The surfactant front
is spread over approximately 45 gridblocks and the gas/oil front
over approximately 100 gridblocks. Fig. 12 shows the effect of this
dispersion of the gas/oil front on the displacement. Fig. 15 shows
the effect of the dispersion of surfactant concentration if foam
strength is made a linear function of surfactant concentration in the
water (i.e., with fmsurf = injected concentration and epsurf = 1).
The shock at the foam front is accelerated artificially and smeared
over a large distance.
Fig. 16 shows the same case as Fig. 12 but simulated with
100 gridblocks. The distortions seen with 400 gridblocks in
Fig. 12 are greater still. In a 3D simulation, however, it would
be difficult to include even as many as 100 gridblocks in each
direction.
Fig. 17 compares the fractional-flow solution with numerical
simulation for the displacement in Fig. 5: surfactant injected in the
gas, with surfactant that partitions preferentially into gas. All five
predicted banks are present, though the position of the some of the
banks differs from the fractional-flow solution. The differences are
smaller for 1,000 gridblocks.
Conclusions
For an FCM gasflood with foam, the water/gas/oil displace-
ment can be represented as a two-phase displacement, with the

1
Gas Oil
GB I
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
OB
Sw

0.5

0.4
J
0.3

0.2
Sw simulations 400gb
0.1
Surfactant No surfactant Sw simulations 1000gb
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xD

Fig. 13Comparison of water-saturation profiles at tD = 0.4 from fractional-flow solution and simulations with 400 and 1,000
gridblocks for case of foam injection with gas that is FCM with oil at onset of disappearance of second gas bank (fwJ = 0.2877).
Compare to Fig. 2.

268 June 2010 SPE Journal

 1
0.9
5105

Water mole fraction (surfactant)

0.8

Sw ;Oil/gas mole fraction

0.7 4105
0.6
0.5 3105

0.4
2105
0.3
0.2 1105
0.1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xD
Sw simulations 400gb CO2 mole fraction in gas phase
Oil-component mole fraction in gas phase Oil-component mole fraction in oil phase
CO2 mole fraction in oil phase Simulated surfactant front

Fig. 14Simulation with 400 gridblocks from Fig. 12 showing dispersion of surfactant and gas/oil fronts.

1
GB1 I
0.9
Gas Gas Oil
0.8

0.7

0.6 OB
Sw

0.5 GB2
0.4

0.3 J No surfactant
0.2 Surfactant
0.1
S w simulations 400gb
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xD

Fig. 15Simulation of case from Fig. 12 with 400 gridblocks with gas-mobility reduction a linear function of surfactant
concentration.
1
GB1 Gas Oil I
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6 OB
Sw

0.5 GB2
0.4

0.3 J
0.2

0.1
Surfactant No surfactant Sw simulations 100gb
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xD

Fig. 16Simulation of case from Fig. 12 with 100 gridblocks.

June 2010 SPE Journal 269

 1
Gas Oil
0.9 GB1 I

0.8

0.7

0.6
OB
Sw
0.5 GB2
0.4

0.3 Foam bank

0.2
Sw simulations 400gb
0.1 J
Sw simulations 1000gb
Surfactant No surfactant
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xD

Fig. 17Comparison of water-saturation profiles at tD = 0.4 from fractional-flow solution and simulations with 400 and 1,000
gridblocks for case of foam injection with gas that is FCM with oil with surfactant injection in the gas; same as the case in
Fig. 5.

chemical shock defining the surfactant front and a miscible shock d = pore volume of surfactant solution required to
defining the gas front. The optimal water fraction in foam puts satisfy adsorption in one pore volume of rock
the gas front slightly ahead of the foam (surfactant) front. This epdry = parameter in foam model (regulates the slope of krg
process would recover oil efficiently, using foam to maintain curve near fmdry)
mobility control and gas to miscibly displace oil. In this idealized epsurf = parameter in foam model (regulates foam strength
representation, it does not matter if oil destabilizes foam because for surfactant concentrations below fmsurf )
all oil is displaced ahead of the foam front. fmdry = parameter in foam model (critical water saturation
A fractional-flow solution for an FCM gasflood with foam formed for foam collapse)
from surfactant dissolved in injected CO2 shows that mobility of fmmob = parameter in foam model (reference mobility-
foam depends on strength of foam at very low water fractional reduction factor)
flow, as for a SAG process with surfactant dissolved in water. The
fmsurf = parameter in foam model (surfactant concentration
speed of propagation of the surfactant front depends on surfac-
for full-strength foam)
tant adsorption on rock and also on the partitioning of surfactant
between water and CO2. A foam process with surfactant prefer- fw = water fractional ow
entially partitioning into gas has a greater rate of foam propaga- fwJ = water fraction of injected uids
tion than a process with surfactant preferentially partitioning into Fwater = factor to account for effect of water saturation on
water, separate from surfactants absolute solubility in both phases foam strength in foam model
and the level of adsorption on rock. In the latter case, an aqueous krg = gas relative permeability
surfactant preflush can speed the advance of foam. It remains L = medium length, m
to be shown experimentally whether a surfactant that partitions Pc = gas/water capillary pressure, Pa
preferentially into gas over water would produce adequate foam. SOM = gasood-residual-oil saturation behind the miscible
Furthermore, lower surfactant adsorption levels help accelerate shock
foam propagation for a foam with surfactant partially miscible in Sor = residual-oil saturation
both phases, as for conventional foam processes. Sw = water saturation
An idealized model of a surfactant flood can also be represented
Swr = residual-water saturation
as a sequence of two-phase displacements (water/gas in the
foam bank, water/oil in front) with two composition jumps, one t = time, seconds
representing the leading edge of the foam bank and the other the u = total superfacial velocity, m/s
leading edge of the surfactant bank. We derive conditions for an v = dimensionless velocity
optimal water fraction in the foam that keeps the gas front just vo, vs, vw = dimensionless velocity of shock based on material
behind the surfactant front but also minimizes the extent to which balance on oil, surfactant, or water (e.g., Eq. B-5)
surfactant advances ahead of the foam. x = displacement in 1D, m
Simulations confirm the accuracy of the fractional-flow solutions w = viscosity of water, Pas
and illustrate the challenges involved with numerical simulation. = porosity
Simulations conducted on all but very fine grids can be com-
pletely distorted by numerical dispersion. Superscripts and Subscripts
d = downstream of the shock
Nomenclature u = upstream of the shock
SI units are specied below. For equations in this text, it is only Acknowledgments
important that a consistent set of units be employed. In reporting We thank Computer Modeling Group (CMG) for the use of the
simulation results, we have sometimes used English units. STARS simulator and Dennis Coombe of CMG for advice on its
A = cross-sectional area, m2 use. We thank Alexey Andrianov for help and advice on application
Csa = mass of surfactant adsorbed on the rock per unit of STARS. Marco Kloet provided software we used in the analysis
volume of pore space, kg/m3 of first-contact-miscible displacements and surfactant flooding. We
Csg, Csw, Cso = mass concentrations of surfactant in gas, water, and thank Larry W. Lake and Tara LaForce for helpful comments on
gasood-residual oil, kg/m3 aspects of this work.

270 June 2010 SPE Journal

References
Alvarez, J.M., Rivas, H.J., and Rossen, W.R. 2001. A Unified Model for
Steady-State Foam Behavior at High and Low Foam Qualities. SPE J.
6 (3): 325333. SPE-74141-PA. doi: 10.2118/74141-PA.
Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C. 1942. Mechanism of Fluid Displacement
in Sands. Trans., AIME, 146: 107116.
Cheng, L. 2002 Simulation Studies of Foam-Acid Diversion. PhD thesis,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Cheng, L., Reme, A.B., Shan, D., Coombe, D.A., and Rossen, W.R. 2000.
Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low Foam Qualities. Paper
SPE 59287 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Sym-
posium, Tulsa, 35 April. doi: 10.2118/59287-MS.
Dong, Y. and Rossen, W.R. 2007. Insights from Fractional-Flow Theory
for Models for Foam IOR. Paper A20 presented at the 14th European
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Cairo, 2224 April.
Du, D., Beni, A.N., Farajzadeh, R., and Zitha, P.L.J. 2008 Effect of Water
Solubility on Carbon Dioxide Foam Flow in Porous Media: An X-
ray Computed Tomography Study. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (16):
62986306. doi: 10.1021/ie701688j.
Fan, X. 2006. Oxygenated Hydrocarbon-Based and Hydrocarbon-Based
CO2 Soluble Surfactants. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania.
Gdanski, R.D. 1993. Experience and Research Show Best Designs for
Foam-Diverted Acidizing. Oil & Gas Journal 91 (36): 8589.
Heller, J.P. 1994. CO2 Foam in Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Foams: Funda-
mentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry, ed. L.L. Schramm,
No. 242, 201234. Washington, DC: Advances in Chemistry Series,
American Chemical Society.
Hirasaki, G.J., Jackson, R.E., Jin, M., Lawson, J.B., Londergan, J.,
Meinardus, H., Miller, C.A. et al. 2000. Field Demonstration of the
Surfactant/Foam Process for Remediation of a Heterogeneous Aquifer
Contaminated with DNAPL. In NAPL Removal: Surfactants, Foams,
and Microemulsions, ed. S. Fiorenza, C.A. Miller, C.L. Oubre, and C.H.
Ward, Part 1, 3163. AATDF monograph series, Boca Raton, Florida,
USA: Lewis Publishers, CRC Press.
Jamshidnezhad, M., Chen, C., Kool, P., and Rossen, W.R. 2008. Well
Stimulation and Gravity Segregation in Gas Improved Oil Recovery.
Paper SPE 112375 presented at the SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
1315 February. doi: 10.2118/112375-MS.
Khatib, Z.I., Hirasaki, G.J., and Falls, A.H. 1988. Effects of Capillary
Pressure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in Foams Flowing
Through Porous Media. SPE Res Eng 3 (3): 919926. SPE-15442-PA.
doi: 10.2118/15442-PA.
Kloet, M.B., Renkema, W.J., and Rossen, W.R. 2009. Optimal Design
Criteria for SAG Foam Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs. Paper
SPE 121581 presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference
and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 811 June. doi: 10.2118/121581-MS.
Kuhlman, M.I., Falls, A.H., and Wellington, S.L. 1994. Gas/Oil Lamellae
and Surfactant Propagation in the Oil in Carbon Dioxide Foam. Paper
SPE 27788 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Sym-
posium, Tulsa, 1720 April. doi: 10.2118/27788-MS.
Lake, L.W. 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Le, V.Q., Nguyen, Q.P., and Sanders, A.W. 2008. A Novel Foam Concept
With CO2 Dissolved Surfactants. Paper SPE 113370 presented at the
SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 2023 April.
doi: 10.2118/113370-MS.
Li, R.F., Yan, W., Liu, S., Hirasaki, G.J., and Miller, C.A. 2008. Foam
Mobility Control for Surfactant EOR. Paper SPE 113910 presented at
the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 1923
April. doi: 10.2118/113910-MS.
Liu, J., Han, B., Li, G., Zhang, X., He, J., and Liu, Z. 2001. Investiga-
tion of Nonionic Surfactant Dynol-604 Based Reverse Microemul-
sions Formed in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. Langmuir 17 (26):
80408043. doi: 10.1021/la010743d.
Liu, J., Han, B., Zhang, J., Li, G., Zhang, X., Wang, J., and Dong, B.
2002a. Formation of Water-in-CO2 Microemulsions with Non-fluorous
Surfactant Ls-54 and Solubilization of Biomacromolecules. Chem-
istryA European Journal 8 (6): 13561360. doi: 10.1002/1521-
3765(20020315)8:6<1356::AID-CHEM1356>3.0.CO;2-N.
June 2010 SPE Journal
Liu, L., Han, B., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Li, G., and Yang, G. 2002b. Solubility
of Ls-36 and Ls-45 Surfactants in Supercritical CO2 and Loading Water
in the CO2/Water/Surfactant Systems. Langmuir 18 (8): 30863089.
doi: 10.1021/la011721u.
Liu, S., Li, R.F., Miller, C.A., and Hirasaki, G.J. 2008 ASP Processes: Wide
Range of Conditions for Good Recovery. Paper SPE 113936 presented
at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 1923
April. doi: 10.2118/113936-MS.
Mamun, C.K., Rong. J.G., Kam, S.I., Liljestrand, H.M., and Rossen, W.R.
2002. Extending Foam Technology from Improved Oil Recovery to
Environmental Remediation. Paper SPE 77557 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 29 Septem-
ber2 October. doi: 10.2118/77557-MS.
Mayberry, D. J. and Kam, S. I. 2008. The Use of Fractional Flow Theory
for Foam Displacement in Presence of Oil. SPE Res Eval & Eng 11
(4): 707718. SPE-100964-PA. doi: 10.2118/100964-PA.
Namdar Zanganeh, M., Kam, S.I., LaForce, T.C., and Rossen, W.R. 2009.
The Method of Characteristics Applied to Oil Displacement by Foam.
Paper SPE 121580 presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 811 June. doi: 10.2118/121580-MS.
Nelson, R.C. 1982. The Salinity-Requirement DiagramA Useful Tool
in Chemical Flooding Research and Development. SPE J. 22 (2):
259270. SPE-8824-PA. doi: 10.2118/8824-PA.
Nguyen Q.P., Currie, P.K., and Zitha, P.L.J. 2003. Determination of Foam
Induced Fluid Partitioning in Porous Media Using X-ray Computed
Tomography. Paper SPE 80245 presented at the International Symposium
on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 57 February. doi: 10.2118/80245-MS.
Pope, G.A. 1980. The Application of Fractional Flow Theory to Enhanced Oil
Recovery. SPE J. 20 (3): 191205. SPE-7660-PA. doi: 10.2118/7660-PA.
Renkema, W.J. and Rossen, W.R. 2007. Success of SAG Foam Processes
in Heterogeneous Reservoirs. Paper SPE 110408 presented at the at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, Califor-
nia, USA, 1114 November. doi: 10.2118/110408-MS.
Rossen, W.R. 1996. Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Foams: Theory,
Measurements and Applications, ed. R.K. PrudHomme and S. Khan.
New York: Marcel Dekker.
Rossen, W.R. and Shen, C. 2007. Gravity Segregation in Gas-Injection
IOR. Paper SPE 107262 presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE Conference
and Exhibition, London, 1114 June. doi: 10.2118/107262-MS.
Rossen, W.R., van Duijn, C.J., Nguyen, Q.P., and Vikingstad, A.K. 2006.
Injection Strategies to Overcome Gravity Segregation in Simultane-
ous Gas and Liquid Injection Into Homogeneous Reservoirs. Paper
SPE 99794 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, 2226 April. doi: 10.2118/99794-MS.
Rossen, W.R., Zeilinger, S.C., Shi, J.-X., and Lim, M.T. 1999. Simplified
Mechanistic Simulation of Foam Processes in Porous Media. SPE J.
4 (3): 279287. SPE-57678-PA. doi: 10.2118/57678-PA.
Schramm, L.L. ed. 1994. Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the
Petroleum Industry. Advances in Chemistry Series, 242. Washington,
DC: American Chemical Society.
Shan, D. and Rossen, W.R. 2004. Optimal Injection Strategies for Foam
IOR. SPE J. 9 (2): 132150. SPE-88811-PA. doi: 10.2118/88811-PA.
Shrivastava, V.K., Belgrave, J.D.M., Singhal, A.K., and Coombe, D.A.
1999. Numerical Simulation of Foam Flooding for Sweep Improve-
ment. J Can Pet Technol 38: 4553.
Stalkup, F.I., Lo, L.L., and Dean, R.H. 1990. Sensitivity to Gridding of Mis-
cible Flood Predictions Made With Upstream Differenced Simulators.
Paper SPE 20178 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 2225 April. doi: 10.2118/20178-MS.
STARS User Guide. 2006. Calgary, Alberta: Computer Modelling Group
(CMG).
Vassenden, F., Holt, T., Ghaderi, A., and Solheim, A. 1999. Foam Propaga-
tion on Semi-Reservoir Scale. SPE Res Eval & Eng 2 (5): 436441.
SPE-58047-PA. doi: 10.2118/58047-PA.
Walsh, M.P. 1989. An Analysis of Miscible Flooding Chase-Fluid Design
Practices: Part 2Strategies Involving Interference. Paper SPE 19669
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 811 October. doi: 10.2118/19669-MS.
Walsh, M.P. 1991. An Analysis of Miscible Flooding Chase-Fluid Strate-
gies. SPE Res Eng 6 (4): 437444. SPE-19866-PA. doi: 10.2118/
19866-PA.
271
Walsh, M.P. and Lake, L.W. 1989. Applying fractional flow theory to
solvent flooding and chase fluids. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 2 (4): 281303. doi: 10.1016/0920-4105(89)90005-3.
Zhou, Z.H. and Rossen, W.R. 1994. Applying Fractional-Flow Theory to
Foams for Diversion in Matrix Acidization. SPE Prod & Fac 9 (1):
2935; Trans., AIME, 297. SPE-24660-PA. doi: 10.2118/24660-PA.
Zhou, Z.H. and Rossen, W.R. 1995. Applying Fractional-Flow Theory to Foam
Processes at the Limiting Capillary Pressure. SPE Advanced Technology
Series 3 (1): 154162. SPE-24180-PA. doi: 10.2118/24180-PA.
Appendix AFoam Model
The foam-free fractional-flow functions used here are similar to those
of Cheng et al. (2000), based on the experiments of Alvarez et al.
(2001) for a strong foam in Berea core with no oil present. See Table
of the shock; Cs is the injected concentration of surfactant in water; and
Csa represents adsorption, quantified as amount of surfactant adsorbed
on the rock per unit volume of pore space. There is no surfactant down-
stream of the shock. The units (moles, mass) of the various C variables
are not important as long as they are consistent, although we cite mass
concentrations in the text. The material balance for water is
( Auf u
w ) ( )
Aufwd t = ASwu ASwd x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
In this equation, superscript d represents conditions downstream
of the shock.
We assume rectilinear flow geometry for simplicity. Time and
position, respectively, are dimensionalized as follows:
t x

A-1 for parameter values. Like the STARS foam model (Cheng et al. Audt Adx
2000; Computer Modeling Group 2006), we assume that foam reduces tD = 0
, xD = 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-3)
gas relative permeability according to the following relations: LA AL

1 With these definitions, the dimensionless velocity for each satura-

krg = krg0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1) tion in the displacement, defined as
1 + fmmob Fwater ...
dx D u dx
= = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-4)
arctan epdry ( Sw fmdry ) dt D dt
Fwater = 0.5 + . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
is equal to the slope of the fractional-flow curve at the given
saturation. If one rearranges the material balance on surfactant,
STARS includes additional Fi factors to account for oil saturation, Eq. B-1, into an equation for dxD/dtD and combines it with Eq.
surfactant concentration, capillary number, and other effects, which B-4, one obtains
do not concern us here. The function Fwater is from the 2006 version
fwu
of STARS. Eq. A-2 indicates that foam is weakened but not destroyed s = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-5)
for Sw < fmdry; see Zhou and Rossen (1995). Even at residual-water C
Swu + sau
saturation (Sw = Swr= 0.1), gas mobility is reduced by a factor of 82, a Cs
much smaller reduction than for full-strength foam but still significant.
This is an artifact of Eq. A-2 (Kloet et al. 2009); foam should collapse Similarly, the material balance on water, Eq. B-2, gives
as Sw Swr and Pc (Khatib et al. 1988). fwu fwd
For calculation of the effect of adsorption, we assume porosity w = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-6)
is 0.25 and grain density of the formation is 2500 kg/m3. Swu Swd
The chemical shock (i.e., the jump between the foam and gas/water
Appendix BDerivation of Fractional-Flow Shocks fractional-flow curves) must satisfy both conditions; therefore,
FCM Gasflood With Foam. We assume that surfactant is injected
only in the aqueous phase and has zero solubility in gas. We further fwu f u fwd
= wu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-7)
Swu + sau Sw Sw
assume no volume change on mixing and, for simplicity, that surfac- C d

tant occupies negligible volume in any phase. For the chemical shock Cs
(surfactant front), the material balance for surfactant is as follows:
This means that the chemical shock occurs along a line joining
input output = accumulation (Swu , fwu) and (Swd , fwd) and passing through (Csa/Csu, 0). We call this
latter point D. Here, with no solubility of surfactant in gas, Csu, the
( Auf u
w ) ( )
Csu 0 t = ASwuCsu + ACsa x . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-1) upstream surfactant concentration, is the surfactant concentration
injected in the aqueous phase, Csw. In the text, we define d as the
Here, A is cross-sectional area, u (not a superscript) is total superficial pore volumes of surfactant solution required to satisfy adsorption
velocity, and is porosity; superscript u represents conditions upstream for one pore volume of formation, which, for this case, is (Csa/Csw).

TABLE A -1PARAMETERS USED IN MODEL CALCULATIONS AND SIMULATIONS

Number of gridblocks 100, 400, or 1,000 1 1
Water viscosity 0.001 Pas
Oil viscosity 0.005 Pas
Gas viscosity 0.00002 Pas
Miscible displacement and surfactant flood*:
4.2
Water relative permeability 0.20 [(Sw0.1)/0.8]
1.3
Gas or oil relative permeability (without foam) 0.94 [(1Sw0.1)/0.8]
fmmob (reference mobility reduction factor) 55,000
fmdry (critical water saturation for foam collapse) 0.316
epdry (regulates the slope of krg curve near fmdry) 1,000
fmsurf (surfactant concentration for full-strength foam) injected concentration**
epsurf (regulates foam strength for surfactant
100**
concentrations below fmsurf)
* Except for oil/water flow with surfactant in the surfactant flood, for which fw = Sw.
** Except in Fig. 15.

272 June 2010 SPE Journal

If Sw = 1, it takes (1+d) pore volumes of surfactant solution to For the miscible shock, the material balance for water does not
satisfy adsorption and fill the pore space with surfactant solution. change, but one term must be added to the oil material balance,
If there is no adsorption, point D is at (0, 0). Eq. B-8, representing gasflood-residual-oil saturation:
Material balances on oil and water determine the miscible-
shock velocity. Given the assumption of complete miscibility of input output = accumulation
oil and gas and absence of dispersion, there is no oil upstream of
this jump. A material balance on oil gives ( ) (
0 1 fwu t D = SOM 1 Swu x D
)
input output = accumulation fw 1 f u fwd
o = = wu , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-12)
Sw (1 SOM ) Sw Swd
( ) (
0 1 fwd t D = 0 1 Swd x D
)
where we have used Eq. B-6 for the water material balance. Eq.
fw 1
o = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-8) B-12 says that the line representing the miscible shock must pass
Sw 1 through point [(1SOM), 1] instead of (1, 1) if oil and gas miscibil-
ity is not complete.
A material balance on water at the same jump again gives Eq. B-6. Walsh and Lake (1989) show how one also can incorporate
The two velocities must be equal, which gives solubility of gas in water.
1 fwd fwu fwd
= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-9) Foam in an Idealized Surfactant Flood. We consider an idealized
1 Swd Swu Swd miscible displacement of oil by water. To be able to solve the prob-
lem using two-phase fractional-ow methods, gas velocity should
According to Eq. B-9, the miscible shock is defined by a line passing control the foam shock, and surfactant is present in the water on both
through the values of (Sw, fw) upstream of the jump (on the gas/water sides of the jump. Therefore, for the foam shock, besides the material
fractional-flow curve) and downstream of the jump (on the oil/water balance for the water, a material balance for gas is also required.
fractional-flow curve) and also passing through (1, 1). In the next
section, we show how one can find the fractional-flow solution for input output = accumulation
a case with residual oil left behind the miscible front.
(1 fw ) 0 t D = (1 Sw ) x D
Foam With Surfactant Dissolved in Gas. For this case, we con-
sider the following effects: fwu 1
= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-13)
Surfactant soluble in gas (with value Csg) as well as in water Swu 1
(Csw); Csg is the injected-surfactant concentration in gas, and Csw is
the surfactant concentration in water in equilibrium with gas with
Consequently, the foam shock is a line connecting the upstream
surfactant concentration Csg
saturation point on the foam fractional-flow curve to the oil/water
Gasflood-residual-oil saturation (SOM) behind the miscible shock
fractional-flow curve with surfactant, passing through (1, 1). In
Surfactant partitioning into this gasflood-residual-oil satura-
the solution shown in Figs. 10 and 11, the point on the oil/water
tion at concentration Cso
fractional-flow curve is (1, 1).
Surfactant adsorption on the rock, with value (Csa) in units of
The next shock, to the oil/water fractional-flow curve, is deter-
amount of surfactant adsorbed on rock per unit volume of pore space
mined by material balances on surfactant and water.
In this example, the chemical shock (surfactant front) can be
determined by material balances on water (the same as Eq. B-6)
input output = accumulation
and for surfactant. There is no surfactant downstream of the jump,
but upstream there is surfactant in water, gas, and residual-oil (Csw fw 0 ) t D = (Csw Sw + Csa ) x D
phases, and adsorbed on rock. This material balance is
fw
input output = accumulation = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-14)
C
Sw + sa
{ f C + (1 f )C 0} t
w
u
sw w
u
sg D
Csw

( w
)
= SwuCsw + 1 S u SOM Csg + SOM Cso + Csa x D

Combining Eq. B-14 with Eq. B-6 indicates that the miscible shock
C
occurs along a line through sa , 0 .
Csg Csw
fwu +
Csw Csg
s = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-10)
Swu +
(1 S )
OM Csg + SOM Cso + Csa
Elham Ashoori has been a PhD researcher at Delft University
of Technology since 2008. She holds BS and MS degrees in
Csw Csg chemical engineering from Sharif University of Technology.
Ashooris research interests include foams for EOR and method
The jump must satisfy both Eqs. B-6 and B-10; therefore, of characteristics. She has been an SPE member since 2008.
Thom van der Heijden is working as a reservoir engineer for
Csg Statoil in Bergen, Norway, where he works on the application
fwu + of (gas-based) IOR methods such as WAG and foam injection.
Csw Csg f u fwd
= wu . . . . . . . . . . (B-11) He holds an MS degree in petroleum engineering from Delft
Swu +
(1 SOM )Csg + SOM Cso + Csa Sw Swd University of Technology and has been an SPE member since
Csw Csg 2004. William R. Rossen is professor of reservoir engineering at
Delft University of Technology. From 1989 to 2006, he was on the
faculty of The University of Texas at Austin. He holds BS and PhD
The chemical shock is a line from a point representing the conditions degrees in chemical engineering from MIT and the University
upstream of the jump (on the foam fractional-flow curve) and down- of Minnesota, respectively. His research interests include foams
stream of the shock (on the gas/water fractional-flow curve) through for well simulation and EOR, sweep efficiency in gas EOR, and
modeling complex displacement and flow processes in porous
(1 SOM ) Csg + SOM Cso + Csa Csg media. In 2002, he received the Distinguished Achievement
, . Award for Petroleum Engineering Faculty from SPE. He is a
Csw Csg Csw Csg Distinguished Member of SPE.

June 2010 SPE Journal 273