SPE 113913

Air Foam Injection for IOR: from Laboratory to Field Implementation in

ZhongYuan Oilfield China
Hongmin Yu, Baoquan Yang, Guorui Xu, Jiexiang Wang and Shao Ran Ren, SPE, China University of Petroleum,
Weimin Lin, Liang Xiao and Haitao Gao, ZhongYuan Oilfield Co. Ltd., Sinopec, China

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923April2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.


Abstract
The Hu-12 Block, located in ZhongYuan Oilfield, Henan Province China, contains many small but highly
heterogeneous oil reservoirs, with low permeability oil bearing formations and high permeability mixed (oil/water) layers.
The reservoir temperature is 90
o
C, and the original reservoir pressure of nearly 25 MPa, and with high salinity of formation
water (around 200,000 mg/l). After 20 years of water injection, the recovery factor achieved was only 20-25%, and average
water cut has reached to over 95%. N
2
gas injection has been tried with less success due to early gas breakthrough from high
permeability zones. Since 2006, high pressure air foam and air injection (Air Foam Alternative Air Injection, AFAAI) has
been proposed and implemented in one of the reservoirs, in order to block high permeability water zones and increase the
sweeping efficiency of air and water injection. A series of laboratory experiments have been conducted to study the oxidation
kinetics of air/air foam with oil and the blocking and displacement efficiency of air foams in different oil sands. Reservoir
simulation has also been carried out for predicting the reservoir response to air foam injection and optimizing the injection
process. Air foam and air injection was started in the field since May 2007 in a well group with 1 injector and 4 producers,
using a small high pressure air compressor (40 MPa, 7 m
3
/min air rate). Up to now, 460,000 Nm
3
air and 2920 m
3
foam
surfactant solution have been injected into the reservoir. The field results show that no oxygen/N
2
breakthrough was observed
and a significant increase in oil production with water cut reduced by 4%. The detailed laboratory study and field experience
are presented in this paper.

Introduction
There are many successful air injection projects for light oil reservoirs reported in the literature,
1-3
and low temperature
oxidation (LTO) process of air and air foam injection for IOR have attracted some attentions in recent years probably due to
high oil price and the improvement of air injection facilities.
4-6
Air foam technique has the advantages of both air and foam
injection processes, with its lower cost in gas supply, thermal effect of air injection, and mobility control function of foams. It
can decrease the relative permeability of injected fluids, block high permeability zones, improve sweep efficiency, and
increase oil recovery. Air foam alternative air injection (AFAA) is an innovative IOR technology for light oil reservoirs with
high water cuts, and highly heterogeneous oil bearing formations. For light oil reservoirs, the mechanisms of IOR via air
injection is much like a conventional gas injection, with some other effects resulted from LTO reactions, which generate heat
and flue gases containing CO
2
and N
2
. The thermal effect may reduce oil viscosity and promote evaporation of light oil
components, but it is not essential for light oil reservoirs.
7-9
In this study, the feasibility of using the air and air foam injection
techniques in a light oil reservoir with medium to high permeability has been assessed, and a field pilot has been
implemented.
The targeted reservoir is classified as the Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit in the Hu-12 Block of ZhongYuan Oilfield, China. It
composes of mixed oil and water bearing formations with permeability varies from 100 mD to 1000 mD. The porosity of the
sandstone is of 21%, the reservoir temperature of 90
o
C, and the original reservoir pressure of 25 MPa. The current reservoir
pressure is less than 20 MPa. The oil viscosity at reservoir conditions is around 3.96 cp and the formation water is with high
salinity of 200,000 mg/l. The average effective pay-layer thickness is only 16 m but it is highly heterogeneous, and so water
injection was not effective. It was speculated that high permeability water zones or channels could be formed during
extensive water flooding, which greatly reduced the sweeping efficiency of water. The oil recovery factor achieved was only
21% after water injection over 20 years. The current water cut in the field is around 95%. Gas injection has been considered
2 SPE 113913
as an alternative IOR method. In 2005, nitrogen injection was tried in the field, but it was not successful due to early gas
breakthrough in just 3 days. Thereafter, air and air foam injection has been considered to take the advantages of air foam for
blockage of high permeability zones and increasing sweeping and displacement efficiency of air and water flooding. A
research program has been launched to study the oxidation characteristics of air and air foam at reservoir conditions, and the
blockage and displacement efficiency of air foam. A field pilot has been conducted since June 2007.
Laboratory studies include LTO experiments, sandpack flood and displacement experiments in order to evaluate oxygen
consumption rate during air/air foam injection, and to investigate the efficiency of air foam for blockage and oil
displacement. A LTO kinetics model and an empirical model of foam displacement have been established, which can be used
for reservoir simulations. The first field pilot has been carried out since May 2007, in a group of wells consisted of one
injector and four producers (the Injector Hu-12-152 Group). High pressure air compressors (40 MPa, 7 Nm
3
/min of air rate)
are used in the field for air injection. The details of the experimental study and field implementation are described in the
paper.
LTO Experiments of Air and Air Foam
The oxidation experiments of air/air foam with oil packed sands have been conducted using a small batch reactor (SBR)
and sandpack flooding facilities. The SBR experiments were described in details in our previous studies for light oil LTOs.
7-9

The sandpack flooding equipment for air and air foam injection is shown in Figure 1, in which air foam can be generated by
mixing air and foam surfactant solution outside or inside the sandpack tube. The oil sample was from the Hu-12 block of
ZhongYuan Oilfield. In the SBR experiments, the oxidation rate can be determined from the pressure reduction due to
oxygen consumption; the higher the pressure reduction, the higher the oxidization rate. In the sandpack flooding or
displacement experiments, air and air foam are continuously injected into the sandpack tube. The contents of O
2
and CO
2
in
produced gas were monitored, and used as a measure of the oxidization rate. Air foam was generated by mixing air and foam
surfactant solution in a volume ratio of 1:1 at high pressure conditions.
Figure 2 shows one of the experimental results of in a series of LTO reactions using the SBR reactor, which was packed
with oil sands (S
w
= 30%, S
o
= 40%) and filled with air and air foam, respectively. The data show that the oxidation rate of air
foam was obviously lower than that achieved when air alone was in the reactor. Previous studies have shown that the
presence of water in the sandpack has little effect on oxidation rate. Therefore, the reaction rate reduction by the foams is
probably due to that contacts of oil and oxygen can be reduced by the liquid firms around the foam bubbles. Similar results
were obtained in experiments with various oil/water saturation, and at different pressure and temperature conditions. The
results imply that the presence of air foam may delay the oxidation reaction under static conditions.
Figure 3 shows the experimental results using the sandpack flooding facility, in which air or air foam was injected
passing through the sandpack saturated with oil and water (S
w
= 30%, S
o
= 40%). Air injection was conducted up to 600
hours, and then air foam was injected for over 220 hours. The gas injection rate was 4.95 Sml/min at 20 MPa. The O
2
and
CO
2
contents in the produced gas were measured to calculate the oxidation rates at different temperatures after gas
breakthrough. During air flooding period, the O
2
in the air was steadily reduced, with more and more CO
2
produced. The
higher the temperature, the more CO
2
can be generated. However, it is interesting to note that the reaction rate (or the O
2

reduction rate) was only slightly reduced after air injection was switched to air foam injection for a period over 220 hours in
comparison with air injection. That means that, at flowing or dynamic conditions, the presence of foam has little effect on the
oxidation rate. This is probably because that air foams formed and broke-up frequently when they flew through the
sandpacks, in which O
2
can be released from foam bubbles to react with oil. During air foam injection at reservoir
conditions, the formation and break-up of foams are of a dynamic nature, so that air foam may have little influence in
reducing oxidation rate if considering the residual time of air in the reservoir or the reaction time was long enough for
oxidation. The oxidation models derived from air flooding can be slightly modified and used in air foam injection.
The kinetics parameters of the LTO reactions can be determined by the SBR experiments at various conditions, and
verified by matching the sandpack flooding experiments.
9
For the oil studied, the activation energy, in terms of the
Arrheniuss reaction model, is determined as E=47-50 kJ/gmol, and the reaction enthalpy is 615 kJ/gmol. The pre-
exponential constant was scaled up to k=1,000,000 for reservoir simulations.
IOR and Displacement Experiments of Air Foams
Air and air foam flooding experiments were conducted using the sandpack flooding facility (Figure 1). Two types of
experiments have been carried out: (1) the foam blockage experiments to optimize foam formulations and to study its
mobility control effect, and (2) the IOR or displacement experiments to investigate oil displacement efficiency of air foams.
In the air foam blockage experiments, only water was saturated in the sandpack. The pressure drop across the tube
during foam injection was measured for the calculations of resistance factors against water flooding. Experiments were
performed at 10 MPa and 90
o
C. The data show that the best air and foam surfactant (ZY-01) solution ratio is in the range of
1:1 to 2:1, in which the highest resistance factor (up to 100) can be achieved. Air and solution ratio of 1:1 has been used in
SPE 113913 3
the laboratory testing. The stability of air foam formed is higher at lower temperatures and at higher pressures. The air foam
system formulated can have a good blockage capability in the sandpack with permeability as high as 7000 mD.
The IOR experiments with water, air and air foam flooding were conducted at 90
o
C and 9-20 MPa. The tube was first
packed with sands, and then it was saturated with water and oil in-situ at high temperatures. The oil saturation was achieved
by injecting oil into the tube to displace water until no water was produced. Figure 4 shows the displacement results obtained
by water, air foam injection and followed by water flooding in a sandpack with permeability of 500 mD (tube size D=10 cm,
L=1 m). The oil displacement efficiency achieved by first water injection was around 37%, while up to 62% has been
achieved by air foam and followed by further water flooding. The measured pressure drop across the tube is also shown in
the figure, indicating that air foam could provide a good mobility control effect of the injectant. Air foam injection can
achieve extremely high displacement efficiency.
Figure 5 shows the results in another experiment with 200 mD sandpack (tube size D=2.5cm, L=0.6 m). Oil
displacement efficiency achieved by water flooding was around 43%, and up to 46% by air injection (3% incremental), while
up to 65% has been achieved by air foam and followed by water injection. In fact, a high displacement achieved by the last
water injection after foam was due to water pushing foams to displace oil. It is also interesting to note that, at the
experimental conditions, air injection can only achieve 3% incremental oil recovery (the tube was in a horizontal position)
due to a high air and oil mobility ratio that caused early air breakthrough. The presence of air foam greatly reduced the
mobility of air, and the network of air foam probably behaves like highly viscous gel to displace oil out. Similar results have
been obtained in many other experiments at various conditions; all showing high displacement efficiency can be achieved by
air foam injection.
In general, over 15% incremental oil recovery can be obtained by foam injection after water flooding. The mechanisms
of a high displacement efficiency of air foam and its suitability at different reservoir conditions are worthy to be further
investigated in details.
Field Pilot
The first round of the field pilot was carried out in the Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit of the Hu-12 Block, in which well Hu-12-
152 is used as injector and other 4 wells (Hu-12-32, 36, 153 and 83) as producers (as shown in the well location diagram in
Figure 6). Well Hu-12-152 used to be a water injector. The Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit contains three oil layers divided by thin
shale barriers. The connectivity between the three oil layers is good. The geological oil reserve of the unit is about 1.12
million tons, with only 21.7% OOIP has been recovered by water flooding so far, and the average water cut currently in the
unit is about 97.2%. During air injection process, a gas monitoring system has been in place to monitor the CO
2
and oxygen
contents in the produced gas for safety control and oxidation rate assessment.
The testing scheme of injections for well Hu-12-152 is described in Table 1 and Figure 7. The injection started in June
2007. A preflush slug of 770 m
3
, mainly foam surfactant solution, was injected first, followed by the main slug (0.1 PV in
terms of the reservoir volume controlled by the well group), composed of air foam and air alternatively. A backflush slug (0.1
PV,) of water is then injected after the main slug. This scheme (with various sizes of air, air foam or water slugs) will be
repeated for a few years, and the volume of each slug can be varied depending on the field results. Three more injector
groups will be tested (injector wells Hu-12-17, Hu-12-65 and Hu-12-68) using a similar injection scheme as that of well Hu-
12-152.
Good production response to the injections of well Hu-12-152 has been observed so far. Figure 7 shows the injection
pressures (well head) measured during air and air foam injections for Hu-12-152. The relatively lower pressure during foam
injection was probably due to the static hydraulic head of the air foams (air and water ratio was 1:1). The daily fluid
production rates from the Hu-12-152 group (4 producers) since May 2007 to January 2008 are illustrated in Figure 8. Oil
production has increased but total liquid production has been decreased due to reduction in water cut after air and air foam
injection. The average daily water cuts measured in the four producers are shown in Figure 9, indicating 4% less water has
been produced, while total oil production has increased by over 20%. Obviously, the injection of air and air foams has an
effect for energy supply and maintenance of reservoir pressure, while at this early stage of the injection, the increased oil
production could be mainly due to the improvement of sweeping efficiency by air foams rather than the displacement of oil
by air or air foams. High permeability zones or channels could be blocked by the injected air foams and foams generated in-
situ, which improved the conformance of the reservoir and increasing the sweeping efficiency of water and air.
There has been no gas breakthrough (oxygen and nitrogen) observed in all producers during 3 months of air and air
foam injection. Nitrogen content in the produced gas has shown a slight increase in producer well Hu-12-32 (it is near the
injector), but no oxygen was detected so far. This indicates that LTO reactions are active in the reservoir for consuming
oxygen effectively.
The field pilot (injector Hu-12-152) has fulfilled its purposes for the testing of the air compressor, the well injectivity of
air foams, the safety monitoring scheme, and corrosion conditions of the injector and producers. It proved that the equipment,
the injection program, and the field safety monitoring scheme were all capable for extending the air injection operation to the
4 SPE 113913
whole unit, while serious corrosion by oxygen has been observed on the injection tube when the tube was pulled out for
inspection. The corrosion condition in the producers is fine at present due to no air or CO
2
breakthrough. Anti-corrosion
measures have been proposed for further field operations, such as using anti-corrosion tubes and dosing corrosion inhibitors
in the annulus (tube and casing) to mitigate the oxygen and CO
2
corrosions.
Reservoir Simulation of Air Foam Injection
A conventional reservoir simulator has been deployed for the reservoir simulation of air and air foam injection in the
project. In building the geo-model, the Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit was subdivided into three barrier layers vertically (layer 8
6
, 8
7

and 8
8
). Corner grids were used and the total node points are 19200 (80803). The grid sizes in X and Y directions are both
30 m, and in Z direction they are 10 m, 14 m and 10 m, respectively. History matching was run from June 1986 to May 2007,
with production and injection histories of 94 wells (55 oil wells and 39 water injections wells) involved. The matched
parameters include oil reserves, water cut, oil production rate and water injection rate of the whole unit and individual wells
with over 90% confidence. The kinetics of LTO reactions and foam models were also established for the simulation of air
and air foam injection processes. Nine components, including water, surfactant, C
10
+
, C
7-9
, C
3-6
, C
1-2
, CO
2
, N
2
and O
2
, are
assumed in the fluid compositional model.
Kinetics Model of Oxidation
The LTO experiments described above show that similar reaction rate can be achieved in the presence of air and air
foam at flowing conditions in oil sands, it was therefore assumed that oxidation will occur when oil and oxygen contact
whether it is in the forms of air or air foam. It was also assumed that only the heavy components of the oil taking part in the
oxidation, producing CO
2
and water. A simplified reaction scheme, in terms of oil and oxygen consumption to produce CO
2
,
is given in the reservoir simulation model as below:
C
10
+
+ 1.5O
2
0.967 C
10
+
+ CO
2
+ H
2
O (1)
Due to the complicity of the LTO reactions, only material balance is considered in the stoichiometry, while the
molecular change of the oil component is not considered. The activation energy and pre-exponential constant of the
reactions were figured out by matching the experimental results. The reaction orders of C
10
+
and O
2
are assumed to be 1 at
reservoir conditions.

Foam Models
Foams will form when gas contacts with surfactant in the reservoir. In the simulation model, the presence of foams was
simulated more like a phase rather than a component. It is assumed that the existence of foams will decrease gas mobility and
improve oil displacement, and this can be achieved by decreasing the relative permeability of gas. For simplicity, the relative
permeability of gas when foam is present can be calculated as
10

FOAMf k k
rg
F
rg
= (2)
where,
rg
k is the gas relative permeability in the absence of foams, and FOAMf is the interpolation factor for converting the
relative permeability curve of gas to that of foams. Three cases have been considered:
FOAMf = 1, no foams are formed, and gas mobility is not reduced;
FOAMf = 0.1, weak foams are formed, and gas mobility is slightly reduced
FOAMf = 0.005, strong foams can be formed with great reduction on gas mobility.
The values of FOAMf are controlled by the surfactant concentration, and need to be adjusted according to field
experience and laboratory data. The effect of foams on improving displacement efficiency can be considered by adjusting
gas-liquid relative permeability curves, but for the Hu-12 block, mobility control can be the prevailing mechanism of IOR at
early stages of air and air foam injections.
Field Predictions
Following the first round pilot operation of injection of well Hu-12-152, three more wells (Hu-12-17Hu-12-65Hu-
12-68) were selected as air injectors to carry out water alternated air and air foam injections (WAA-AF) in a larger scale for
the Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit. The WAA-AF injection scheme is proposed based on the following IOR mechanisms:
(1) to increase sweeping efficiency of water and air by foams blockage capability;
(2) to mobilize oil by air foams high displacement efficiency;
(3) to increase reservoir energy of and maintain reservoir pressure by water and air injection.
The reservoir simulation model described above was used to design, predict and optimize the field project under various
SPE 113913 5
injection schemes. Based on the operational conditions of the air compressors available in the field, the air injection rate of
each well was designed as 10,000 Nm
3
/d. The air foam injection is based on air and surfactant solution ratio of 1:1 in terms
of volume at reservoir conditions, which is conducted as 15 days air foam injection followed by 15 days of air injection.
Continuous air foam injection of long time is not sustainable due to low injectivity, and also it is not economic. In the
designed field operation schemes, air foam slug is firstly injected, followed by air and water slugs for certain time intervals,
and then the injection time pattern is repeated. Table 2 listed the simulation results for the field operations under different
injection schemes for 15 years. The total injection volume is about 0.45 PV (0.029 PV/year). Water injection was used as a
base case for comparison, i.e. only 1.8% OOIP can be produced if water flooding is continued for 15 years. Air injection
alone was not considered due to early gas breakthrough that was observed in the field test using N
2
, in which N
2
broke-
through in only 3 days after N
2
gas was injected in well Hu-12-152.
The simulation results show that high IOR (up to 13.2% OOIP, Scheme 2) can be achieved by air foam and air injections
(without water slug injection), but the air and oil exchange ratio is higher than the combined air foam, air and water slug
injection schemes (Schemes 3 and 4). For the WAA-AF schemes, 10-11% incremental oil recovery can be achieved by
different water, air and air foam slug combinations for 15 years operation, which can be further improved via optimizing the
injection rate, slug volumes and the injector position in terms of maximum oil recovery or best economics.
Conclusions
The feasibility study of air foam and air injection process has been conducted for a light oil reservoir with high
heterogeneity. Laboratory studies include LTO oxidation rate of air foam and crude oil at reservoir conditions, and the
displacement efficiency of air and air foam flooding. A field pilot project has been conducted in order to test the injection
facilities, the safety monitoring scheme and the reservoir response to air foam injections. The following conclusions have
been drawn:

1. The crude oil of the Hu-12 Block in ZhongYuan oilfield has good LTO reaction characteristics, which can consume
oxygen effectively in a short time at reservoir conditions. The presence of air foams may reduce the reaction rate at static
conditions, while the foam has little effect on oxidation at dynamic (flowing) conditions. Oxidation kinetics models have
been derived for the oil and formation rock systems, which can be used in reservoir simulations.
2. The flooding experiments using sandpacks show that the displacement efficiency by air foam is very high, over 15%
(OOIP) incremental oil recovery can be achieved by foam injection after water flooding. Air foam also has excellent
mobility control capability, which can block high permeability zones effectively and reduce early gas breakthrough. The
displacement efficiency in the sandpacks by air injection alone horizontally is low.
3. The field pilot project was successful in testing the air injection facilities, the injectivity of air foams and the safety
monitoring scheme. Good reservoir responses have been obtained, in terms of increasing oil production, reducing water
cut, foam blockage and LTO reactions, but serious corrosion by oxygen has been observed on the injection tube. There
has been no oxygen breakthrough observed in all producers in more than 6 months of air and air foam injection, only very
little increase in nitrogen content in one well near the injector being observed.
4. A reservoir simulation model has been established for the targeted oil block, which includes a history-matched geo-
model, oxidation kinetics and foam models. Field predictions were made for various schemes of water alternative air and
air foam (WAA-AF) injections. The simulation results are prospective for the reservoir to apply WAA-AF injection in a
larger scale (4 injectors), over 13% OOIP of incremental oil recovery can be achieved during 15 years operation.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sinopec for the financial support of this research and ZhongYuan Oilfield Company
Limited for allowing this paper to be published. The assistance of Fu Zhijun and Li Xiaodong in experimental work is also
greatly appreciated.

References
1. Fassihi, M.R. and Gillham, T.H.: The Use of Air Injection to Improve the Double Displacement Process, Proc., 1994
DOE/NIPER Symposium on In-Situ Combustion Practices, Tulsa (2122 April) 143157.
2. Gillham, T.H., Cerveny, B.W., Turek, E.A. and Yannimaras, D.V.: Keys to Increasing Production Via Air Injection in
Gulf Coast Light Oil Reservoirs, paper SPE 38848 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 58 October.
3. Watts, B.B., Hall, T.F. and Petri, D.J.: The Horse Creek Air Injection Project: An Overview, paper SPE 38359
presented at the 1997 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, 1821 May.
6 SPE 113913
4. Zhao Bin, Gao Haitao, Yang Weidong.: Potentials of Improved Oil Recovery by Air Injection in ZhongYuan Oilfield,
[J in Chinese], Oil & Gas Field Surface Engineering, 2005, 24(5):22-23.
5. Pascual, P., Crosta, D., Lacentre, P. and Coombe, D.: Air Injection into Water Flooded Light Oil Reservoirs:
Laboratory and Simulation Results for Barrancas Field, Argentina, paper SPE 94092, presented at the SPE
Europec/EAGE annual conference, Madrid, 13-16 June 2005.
6. Stokka, A., Oesthus, A. and Frangeul, J. : Evaluation of Air Injection as an IOR Method for the Giant Ekofisk Chalk
Field, paper SPE 97481, presented at SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala
Lumpur, 5-6 December 2005.
7. Greaves, M., Ren, S.R, and Rathbone, R.R.: Improved Residual Light Oil Recovery by Air Injection (LTO Process),
CJPT (2000) 39:1, 57.
8. Ren, S.R, Greaves, M., and Rathbone, R.R.: "Oxidation Kinetics of Light Crude Oils at Reservoir Temperature, Trans.
IChemE (1999) 77:A, 385.
9. Ren, S.R, Greaves, M., and Rathbone, R.R.: Air Injection LTO Process: A Feasible IOR Technique for Light Oil
Reservoirs, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal (SPEJ), March 2002:90-98.
10. Renkema, W.J. and Rossen W.R.: Success of SAG Foam Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs, paper SPE 110408,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, California, 11-14 November 2007.


Table 1 Injected fluid slugs for the first round field pilot of Injector Group Hu-12-152 in the Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit

Injection slugs Fluid Type Water / m
3
Air /10
4
Nm
3

Foam surfactant
solution / m
3

PV controlled
by the group wells
Preflush Surfactant solution 770

0.017

Air foam 23.0 2150
Main slug
Air 23.0
0.1
Backflush Water 4500

0.1



Table 2 Reservoir simulation results of various injection schemes of WAA-AF for the Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit

Scheme Process Description
Operation
Time, year
Incremental
oil production (tons)
IOR,
%OOIP
Air/Oil ratio
(Nm
3
/tons)
1 water flood 15 21007.8 1.8 ---
2
air foam/air
0.5 : 1 years
15 148264.3 13.2 1477.1
3
air foam*/air/water
1 : 3 : 1 years **
15 123553.6 11.0 1418.1
4
air foam/air/ water
1 : 2.5 : 1.5 years
15 116264.5 10.4 1318.5
* the air foam injection is conducted via 15 days of air injection, followed by 15 days of air foam injection (injecting air and foam
surfactant solution together into the injection tube in a reservoir volume ratio of 1:1), and the 15:15 days pattern is repeated for the
time period indicated in the table.
** the 1:3:1 years pattern is as 1 year air foam injection, followed by 3 years air injection, and then 1 year water injection.


SPE 113913 7


Figure 1 Experimental set-up for air and air foam flooding in sandpack tubes saturated with water and oil.
18.4
18.8
19.2
19.6
20.0
20.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (hour)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
M
P
a
)
no foam
presence of foam

Figure 2 Pressures measured in SBR experiments with oil saturated sands in the presence of air and air foam at high pressures (20 PMa)
and at 100
o
C; The data show that, at static conditions, the presence of air foam can reduce the oxidization rate in comparison with air alone
with oil.


Figure 3 O
2
or CO
2
contents measured in sandpack flooding experiments using air and air foam at 20 MPa and 90-110
o
C. Air foam was
injected after 600 hours of air injection; the data show that, at dynamic or flow conditions, the oxidization rate in the presence of air foam is
slightly reduced in comparison with air flooding: O2 content in the produced gas is slightly increased and that of CO2 slightly reduced
during foam flooding.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (hour)
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

g
a
s

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
%
)
O2 content
CO2 content
90
100 100
Air foam
Air flood
90
o
C
Sandpack Tube
8 SPE 113913
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Injection pore volume (PV)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
%
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
k
P
a
)
Displacement
efficiency
Pressure difference
Water
flood
Air foam
flood
Water
flood

Figure 4 Oil displacement experiment at 90
o
C and 20 MPa in a high permeability sandpack (500 mD, tube size D=10 cm, L=1 m)
saturated with water and oil in-situ; the pressure difference was measured across the tube. Oil displacement efficiency achieved by water
flooding was around 37%, while up to 62% has been achieved by air foam and followed by water injection.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
injection pore volume (PV)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
%
)
Water
flood
Water
flood
Air
flood
Air foam
flood

Figure 5 Oil displacement experiment at 90
o
C and 20 MPa in a low permeability sandpack (200 mD, tube size D=2.5 cm, L=0.6 m)
saturated with water and oil in-situ. Oil displacement efficiency achieved by water flooding was around 43%, and up to 46% by air
injection (3% incremental), while up to 65% has been achieved by air foam and followed by water injection.



Figure 6 Well location and pattern in the Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit of Hu-12 Block. Well Hu-12-152, Hu-12-17, Hu-12-65 and Hu-12-68
have been configured as air and air foam injectors.

SPE 113913 9




Figure 7 The fluid injection scheme of the pilot test designed for injection well Hu-12-152: the main slug, composed of 2,150 m
3
foam
surfactant solution, 460,000 m
3
air, was injected in an air foam alternative air injection mode.

10
20
30
40
2007-05 2007-06 2007-07 2007-08 2007-09 2007-10
Time (Date)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
M
P
a
)
Air inj Pres
Air foam inj Pres

Figure 8 Injection pressures (well head) measured during air and air foam injection in the filed pilot for Injector Hu-12-152 : the lower
pressure during foam injection was probably due to the static hydraulic head generated by air foams (air and water volume ratio was 1:1 at
reservoir condition).
100
150
200
250
300
2007-05 2007-07 2007-09 2007-11 2008-01
Time (Date)
T
o
t
a
l

d
a
i
l
y

f
l
u
i
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

(
m
3
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
T
o
t
a
l

d
a
i
l
y

o
i
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

(
t
)
Total daily fluid
production rate
Total daily oil
production rate

Figure 9 The daily fluid production rates for the 4 producers in the injection well group Hu-12-152 from 2007.5 to 2008.1. Air and air
foam injection started in 2007.6. Oil production has increased but water production was decreased after air and air foam injection.
Main-slug, 0.1PV
Backflush
0.1PV
Preflush
0.017PV
Air foam

Air

10 SPE 113913
90
92
94
96
98
100
2007-05 2007-07 2007-09 2007-11 2008-01
Time (Date)
T
o
t
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

c
u
t

(
%
)

Figure 10 The daily water cut measured from the injection well group Hu-12-152 (including 4 producers) from 2007.5 to 2008.1. Air and
Air Foam injection started in 2007.6. Water production and water cut has been reduced after air and air foam injection.




Figure 11 A 3D (reservoir simulation) grid model formulated for the Middle SaSan 8
6-8
Unit in Hu-12 Block