Foam increases sweep efficiency during gas injection in enhanced oil recovery processes. Surfactant alternating gas (SAG) is the preferred method to inject foam for both operational and injectivity reasons. Dynamic SAG corefloods are unreliable for direct scaleup to the field because of core-scale artifacts. In this study, we report fit and scaleup local-equilibrium (LE) data at very-low injected-liquid fractions in a Bentheimer core for different surfactant concentrations and total superficial velocities. We fit LE data to an implicit-texture foam model for scaleup to a dynamic foam process on the field scale using fractional-flow theory. We apply different parameter-fitting methods (least-squares fit to entire foam-quality scan and the method of Rossen and Boeije 2015) and compare their fits to data and predictions for scaleup. We also test the implications of complete foam collapse at irreducible water saturation for injectivity. Each set of data predicts a shock front with sufficient mobility control at the leading edge of the foam bank. Mobility control improves with increasing surfactant concentration. In every case, scaleup injectivity is much better than with coinjection of gas and liquid. The results also illustrate how the foam model without the constraint of foam collapse at irreducible water saturation (Namdar Zanganeh et al. 2014) can greatly underestimate injectivity for strong foams. For the first time, we examine how the method of fitting the parameters to coreflood data affects the resulting scaleup to field behavior. The method of Rossen and Boeije (2015) does not give a unique parameter fit, but the predicted mobility at the foam front is roughly the same in all cases. However, predicted injectivity does vary somewhat among the parameter fits. Gas injection in a SAG process depends especially on behavior at low injected-water fraction and whether foam collapses at the irreducible water saturation, which may not be apparent from a conventional scan of foam mobility as a function of gas fraction in the injected foam. In two of the five cases examined, this method of fitting the whole scan gives a poor fit for the shock in gas injection in SAG. We also test the sensitivity of the scaleup to the relative permeability k_rw(S_w) function assumed in the fit to data. There are many issues involved in scaleup of laboratory data to field performance: reservoir heterogeneity, gravity, interactions between foam and oil, and so on. This study addresses the best way to fit model parameters without oil for a given permeability, an essential first step in scaleup before considering these additional complications.

Foam can improve sweep efficiency in gas-injection-enhanced oil recovery. Surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) is a favored method of foam injection. Laboratory data indicate that foam can be non-Newtonian at low water fractional flow f_w, and therefore during gas injection in a SAG process. We investigate the implications of this finding for mobility control and injectivity, by extending fractional-flow theory to gas injection in a non-Newtonian SAG process in radial flow. We make most of the standard assumptions of fractional-flow theory (incompressible phases, one-dimensional displacement through a homogeneous reservoir, instantaneous attainment of local equilibrium), excluding Newtonian mobilities. For this initial study, we ignore the effect of changing or non-uniform oil saturation on foam. Non-Newtonian behavior at low f_w implies that the limiting water saturation for foam stability varies as superficial velocity decreases with radial distance from the well. We discretize the domain radially and perform Buckley–Leverett analysis on each narrow increment in radius. Solution characteristics move outward with fixed f_w. We base the foam model parameters and non-Newtonian behavior on laboratory data in the absence of oil. We compare results to mobility and injectivity determined by conventional simulation, where grid resolution is usually limited. For shear-thinning foam, mobility control improves as the foam front propagates from the well, but injectivity declines somewhat with time. This change in mobility ratio is not that at steady state at fixed water fractional flow in the laboratory, however, because the shock front in a non-Newtonian SAG process does not propagate at fixed fractional flow (though individual characteristics do). Moreover, the shock front is not governed by the conventional condition of tangency to the fractional-flow curve, though it continually approaches this condition. Injectivity benefits from the increased mobility of shear-thinning foam near the well. The foam front, which maintains a constant dimensionless velocity for Newtonian foam, decelerates somewhat with time for shear-thinning foam. For shear-thickening foam, mobility control deteriorates as the foam front advances, though injectivity improves somewhat with time. Overall, however, injectivity suffers from reduced foam mobility at high superficial velocity near the well. The foam front accelerates somewhat with time. Conventional simulators cannot adequately represent these effects, or estimate injectivity accurately, in the absence of extraordinarily fine grid resolution near the injection well.