CT Coreflood Study of Transient Foam Flow with Oil

Jinyu Tang, S. Vincent-Bonnieu, W. Rossen
{"title":"CT Coreflood Study of Transient Foam Flow with Oil","authors":"Jinyu Tang, S. Vincent-Bonnieu, W. Rossen","doi":"10.2118/196202-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n We present a CT coreflood study of foam flow with two representative oils: hexadecane C16 (benign to foam) and a mixture of 80 wt% C16 and 20 wt% oleic acid (OA) (very harmful to foam). The purpose is to understand the transient dynamics of foam, both generated in-situ and pre-generated, as a function of oil saturation and type. Foam dynamics with oil (generation and propagation) are quantified through sectional pressure-drop measurements. Dual-energy CT imaging monitors phase saturation distributions during the corefloods. With C16, injection with and without pre-generation of foam exhibits similar transient behavior: strong foam moves quickly from upstream to downstream and creates an oil bank. In contrast, with 20 wt% OA, pre-generation of foam gives very different results from co-injection, suggesting that harmful oils affect foam generation and propagation differently. Without pre-generation, initial strong-foam generation is very difficult even at residual oil saturation about 0.1; the generation finally starts from the outlet (a likely result of the capillary-end effect). This strong-foam state propagates backwards against flow and very slowly. The cause of backward propagation is unclear yet. However, pre-generated foam shows two stages of propagation, both from the inlet to outlet. First, weak foam displaces most of the oil, followed by a propagation of stronger foam at lower oil saturation. Implicit-texture foam models for enhanced oil recovery cannot distinguish the different results between the two types of foam injection with very harmful oils. This is because these models do not distinguish between pre-generation and co-injection of gas and surfactant solution.","PeriodicalId":325107,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Mon, September 30, 2019","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Mon, September 30, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/196202-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We present a CT coreflood study of foam flow with two representative oils: hexadecane C16 (benign to foam) and a mixture of 80 wt% C16 and 20 wt% oleic acid (OA) (very harmful to foam). The purpose is to understand the transient dynamics of foam, both generated in-situ and pre-generated, as a function of oil saturation and type. Foam dynamics with oil (generation and propagation) are quantified through sectional pressure-drop measurements. Dual-energy CT imaging monitors phase saturation distributions during the corefloods. With C16, injection with and without pre-generation of foam exhibits similar transient behavior: strong foam moves quickly from upstream to downstream and creates an oil bank. In contrast, with 20 wt% OA, pre-generation of foam gives very different results from co-injection, suggesting that harmful oils affect foam generation and propagation differently. Without pre-generation, initial strong-foam generation is very difficult even at residual oil saturation about 0.1; the generation finally starts from the outlet (a likely result of the capillary-end effect). This strong-foam state propagates backwards against flow and very slowly. The cause of backward propagation is unclear yet. However, pre-generated foam shows two stages of propagation, both from the inlet to outlet. First, weak foam displaces most of the oil, followed by a propagation of stronger foam at lower oil saturation. Implicit-texture foam models for enhanced oil recovery cannot distinguish the different results between the two types of foam injection with very harmful oils. This is because these models do not distinguish between pre-generation and co-injection of gas and surfactant solution.
含油瞬态泡沫流CT岩心驱油研究
我们介绍了用两种代表性油——十六烷C16(对泡沫有益)和80 wt% C16和20 wt%油酸(对泡沫非常有害)的混合物——对泡沫流动的CT岩心驱油研究。目的是了解原位和预生泡沫的瞬态动力学,以及含油饱和度和类型的函数。泡沫动力学与油(产生和传播)是量化通过分段压降测量。双能CT成像监测岩心注水过程中的相饱和度分布。对于C16,无论是否预先产生泡沫,注入都表现出相似的瞬态行为:强泡沫从上游迅速移动到下游,形成油库。相比之下,当OA浓度为20%时,预生成泡沫的结果与共注入泡沫截然不同,这表明有害油对泡沫产生和扩展的影响不同。如果没有预生成,即使在残余油饱和度约为0.1时,初始强泡沫也很难生成;一代最终从出口开始(可能是毛细血管末端效应的结果)。这种强泡沫状态反向传播,非常缓慢。反向传播的原因尚不清楚。然而,预生成泡沫从入口到出口呈现两个传播阶段。首先,弱泡沫取代了大部分石油,随后在低含油饱和度下,更强的泡沫扩散。用于提高采收率的隐织体泡沫模型不能区分两种泡沫注入非常有害的油的不同结果。这是因为这些模型没有区分气体和表面活性剂溶液的预生成和共注入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信