Foam

How

Through

Medium:
J.M4.

SPE,

Sanchez,

Summary.

indicates
and

that

swface

to

to

stable

hydrophilic

by

surface

relative

showed

form

medium.

Such

alteration

in

oil-wet

two
by

shifts

in

situ

the

surfactant

in ,m

relative

Or gas

porous

meditim,

not

been

occurred

and

indicated

the

solution
of

result

surfactant

of

formation

surfactant

for

foam

of

Nettability
is present

foam

flow

in

when

in tie

oil-wet

in ofl-wet

is approximately

equal.

initially

alteration

in the

Wongly

the

hydropho-

phase.

Of the

The

liquid

water-wfi
porous

mineral

oil

when

residual

system

hydrophobic

of

aqueous

water-wet

a residual

medium

foam

the

that

water-wet

porous
of

systems

alteration

essenwy.~tched

surfactant

of

the

an

chamcteristics

in both

from

surfact.ant,

added

flow

adsorption.

when

tbmugh

the

reduction

to

observed

with

surfactant

permeability

appears

pernzeabiity

have

however,

and

A comparison

in the presence

permeability

measurements,

gas

gas

reduction

relative

permeabfity

relative

of

medium

tension

in fiquid

porous

flow

Corp.

permeability.

concentrations

oil-wet

surface
shift

oti-wet

and
gas

Porous

Study

R&D

generation
in reducing

at similar
in

liquid

Transient

steady

mechanisms

of

liquid

the

a dramatic

curve

either

systeh.

that

Mobil

HazEett;

is effective

foam

is evidenced

permeability

of

and

OikWet

Laboratory

RD.

study

is formSd

media

abpity

and

laboratory

foam

water-wet

The

bic

an

Porous
media.

was

No

pment
oil

in the

was

p&sent.

Introduction
Per3&

al. 1 recentfy

et

fundamental
dia.

When

dia,

the

behavior
an aqueous
liquid

pathways
at the

same

ments
uid
of

an

supported

by

liquid

ent

in porous

the

absence
of

the

in

same

liquid.

saturation).

Because
the

foam

pores

largely

served

pore

pores
gas

an

umtzct
is

The

.$urface

occur

occur

in

ance

for

of

in-

in a smaller

the

of

foam

flow

9-13

flowing

Iarnellae

the

a flow-

tleir

foam

this

generation

snap-off
the

term

be
rela-

Two

consists

capillary

of

pressure
film

Falls

ob-

emough

a pore

occuis

type

of

has

been

only

during

smp-off

imbibition

10 noted,

to allow

type

occurs,in

pores

L/d

with

media.

into
of

The

They

this

stability
lag

cccurs

only

pressure.

reduced

to

initial

production

gas

pore

the

criteria
is

also

displacement
12 and

the

of

lamellae

greater

rely

oh

these

mechanisms

foundations

1.s

than

a result

developed

of

kunellae

kmnellae

et al. s~

critical

tie

by

existence

capillary

pressure

of

a water-wet
for

foain

i99280clety

.1 Peiro!eum

SPE Reservoir ti@nedng,

F.bcuay

1992

va-

foam

of

compti-

systems

that
films

in

in the

ab-

formation

and

permeable

to

of

the

was

reversed.

foam

formation

presented.
with
the

Kanda
silicone

gas

beads.

the

watm-wet

was

of

of

glass

the

trend

beads

reduction

noncoated

than

this

glass

porom

concentmtion,

mechanism

medium
treated

hydrophobic

@s

concentrations,

with

Media
a

smfactant

permeability

obtained

foam

at low

porous

@itial

soap

More

the

bridging

pore

recently,
flood

walls

Iescure

were

and

performance

as

pointed

out

significantly

unstable

Claridge27

was

They

and

and

ob-

much

le8s

asserted

because

of

described

a function

that

enhanced

VJatir-dtemathg-gm

integmlnahme

interpretation
the

from

pore

foam,

once

stabilization
models
Each

Evidence

of the
of

of

cOntiadiction
also

foam

forms

bifity

alteration

their

foam
of

work,

state.

that

the

poor:

of

rock

macroscopic

wettabifi~.

foam

in

both

oil

recovery

ofl-wet

and

Their
water-wet

compared

destabtition

oil

recovery

data

with

rests
this

in a hydrophobic
the

cunw

in oif-wet

which

to prompt

of

Unfortunately,

that

of

became

presented,

of

fandzmentzl

i3 diftimdt.

formation

theory,

helped

process.

on

media

investigation.

>rous

s~ace

porous
a continuous

to

As

medkun

in apparent

water-wet
wilf

be

as a result

a hydrophilic

netsbowu,

of

wetta-

state.

of
Apparatus

and

Procedures

Eveh
Fig.

pack.

Englmm

mom.

subsequently

than

tered
C@yrlght

water-wet

Porous

tested

surfactant

hydrophobic

a tYIIic~

be

during

19-21

water-wet
in a wide

A careful

on

Refi-

investigation

mdlum.

oil

of

nettability.

capl-

propagation

Bretherton.

a strongly
process

laboratory

011-Wet

that,

was

Experlmenta!
Khatib

presumes

formation

in detail.

and

may

of

tis

residual

interpretation

Schechter18

saturation.

stabJIty

the

in-

the enq

stranding

of

to 2-X=is largely

snap-

pore-level

solution

17 The

many

than

liquid
by

surfactant

to be

of

hap-

second

de$cziptions

at a given
facilitated
a

18 Furthermore,

type

snap-off

division.

is presumed

walls.

pressures

above

larger

conclusions

ratios

1*115 This

capillmy

of

geometrical

it is generated,
by

capilkies.

for

Both

Lmnellae

interstices

for

In
I%st

observed
sand

At

media
described

what

in

opening

this

in water-wet

Foam

Bernard2$

satisfactory

C02
o.ff

of
and

serwldmt

snap-off

accwmdation

is large

pre3ented.

bydrophoblc

in

9-12

fmt
of

aze

of

ditlicuk

of

as an EOR

md

of

of

pfimary

rwervoti

described

porous

effect8

nahme

question

most

assumption

in oil-wet

the

dis-

cannot

water-wet

inherently
of

been

prompted

smp-off

generations

mdanisms

foam

an oil-wet

and

Aspects

sand.

media

pha.w.

typM

fiquid

from

et al.

porous
gas

snap-off,

mechanism.

first

the

the
of

have

oil

medium.

will

Iifedme

in

Of

on

behavior

are

have

the
~fig

oil-wet.

state

and

potenti

through

foam
of

Bond

pressure

iiaction

and

models
the

reservoirs

3tabfity

No

using

As

out,

have

mobtition

possibility

the

lager

pointed
may

of

sence

Hence,

became

phase

foam

flow,

systems.

is tremendous

this

a condnuous

conshiction.

normslfy

as Nibid4

of

for

by

would

foam

riety

stites

on

$u*ces
70,

the

foam
to the

or

wetted

than
on

that

naturally

reservoirs

and

snapoff

mixed-wet

precise

For

gmter

premise

nettability

the

The

pressure

only

is

rock

unknown.

system

of

the

leads

a reswvoir

ndxed-wettabfity

through

and

between

is dependent

phase.

pba3e)

film

Iamellae.

snapdf
(gas)

an aqueouz

wetting

foam

by

dependence

24 Henm,

the

nonwetting

is snap-off

if

injectivi-

flow

results

gas

(gas)

capilfzry

The

where

(to

the

a continuous

and

generation

the

cccur.~

~.

explicitly

through

foam

pore

of

pores

of
angle

pem

is pres-

not

gas

in water-wet

the

number
time.

aS

assumption

mechanism

fiq-

absence

increased
to

(which

phase

through

the

formation

flow

pore

by

postulated.

throats,

liquid

will

can

where

on

drop

not

foam
been

of

diversion

nonwetdng

mechanism

while

were

state-

foam

Decreased

resistance

Furthermore,
by

proposed

Hoh,9

have

larger

hansit

pdm.ary

b-

when

diversion

absence

pores

depending

pore

The

curves

pressure

of the

Pressure

tie

Aqueous
connection

identical
and

water-filled

same

liquid

these

presence

gradient.

flow

in the

affected.

determined

hm

little
Both

on

smafl

me-

the

system

essentially

the

flow

in the

flows

fraction,

the

that

capillary

the

tive

to

flows.

of
both

increased

occupied

gradient.~

if the

relies

son

most

foam

in

porous
in

very

foam

pressure

the

reduction

network

ing

indicate

occupies

are

pore

whefe

Hence,

fmm

pxmeability

through

the
me-

Reservoir

phase

of

pass

penneabili~

increased

patiways.
values

move

on

porous

24

indicates.

creased

water-wet

observance

relative

steadgm
simply

into

Furthermore,

pores,
the

dizmssion

water-wet

pseudopbzse

would

curves

medii
of

the

gradient

gas

surfactint.

excellemt

is injected
foam

pcxmeability

added

flow

pressure.
the

Unchanged

ty

and

capillary

are

through

and

through

relative

an

foam

foam

phase

thatliquid

tfmsPo@d

presented
of

1 is a schematic
through
Fretiltered

of

a 2-Jm3
(0.2

the

fker
#m)

experimental
to

a tee

distilled

system.

located
water

Liquid

upstream
was

used

of
for

was
the
all

mebeadinns.
91

~R&m=P2121!oE

,..

.
:. ,

t-.

. ..

HPLC

r.,
,.:

~~)

PUMP

(:

.
cumON

NUPRO
flLT3R

ON/wF

VANE
RmJ.4Tm
CRmuAlw
CYLINOER

19.1

EXPer@ntal

,nd

The

surfactant

chosen

for

alpba+]efi-sulfonate
at 482.6
valve.
through

provided

the

at a tee
suring
ermy

before

tubing,

the

the

followed

lime

obtained
dia,

from

were

sikme.

coated

was

observed
spread)

Differential

for

One

the

0.69

by

in a watch

the

the

12.4

from
of

the

spaced

mm.

AU

pack

was

recorded

on

a Soltec,

tion

pressures

were

measure@

with

face

tensions

were

measured

by

values

by

ing

by
after

the pack.

the

water

gas

of

conhibuted

saturation

foam

was

to bead
of
is

trans-

differential
the

92

outki

rates

pressure
for

those

of

surfactznt

When
the

was

then
and

reduced

oil

g=
the

after

in

an

weight

of

collection,

gas

corn-

flow

rate

of

steady

water

at at-

dmplaced

by

produced

oif

the

and

those

no

or

SPIU-

through

the

the
satis-

foam

experiments
g/cm3

prokss

where

and

longer
and

the

then

flow

again

was

of

to

12%

and

This

PV

pack

in the

was

noted.

gas

recorded.

by

it with

the

colfected

two-phase

pack

displacing

produced,

oif

?1

a viscosity

intmducdinto
and

saturation

water

effectively

of

0.843

was

water

of the oil

surfactant

dynamics.

of

water

desaturation

where

This

flow

between

with

sNdy

water

was
of

Ii@Id

werepamed

for

Ofl

varied

saturated

flow.

for

with

amount

the value

gas

used

system

of

solution

a density

rates

degee

initially

adsorption

was

had

conditions
flow

expwimmfs

at 25C.

the

and

the

beginning

Pas

oil.

on

For

oil

mineral

than

this

Analysis.

Most
liquid

used

bility

to gas

Pressure

taps

were

used

(where

Total

system

mm

apart.

.pres.sme

The

disdlled

effectively
oil-wet

pack.

Sur-

a negligible

was

of weighfor

all

mass

amount
from

the

phases.

gas

flow

Dlscusslon
were

For

rate

to the
follow-

-l.
foam

permeabtity

to tie
flow

capable

data

r@ced

this,

was

the

to

reladve

following

cakulated

pemw

equation

at the

was

mean

of

the

pressure):

Representing
tive

rise.

used

the

and

the

kti=-qipilti(dpld$

Irjec-

gauge.

steady-state

and

of

data

recorder.

206.7-kPa

ResuIts

Data

For

that

Darcys

pores

flow

law

where

the

analysis

by

for

in tie
of

fluid

media,

pressure

~ctates

variables.

Hatziavrzmidis30

of

applies

rek-

a continuous

phase.

gas

flow,

This

in-

In those
the

relative

surfacmnts

Furthermore,

demcmstiates

pathindicates

simulation.

foam-fomdng
W29

use
law

evidence

flowing

reservoir

of

the

Darcys

Ommgh

aqueous
for

presence

many

through

experimental

the

vahiatde

capillary

a function

medii
limitations.

a Newtonian

is valid

to gas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)

many

porous

is extremely

permeability

..:

in porous

has

of

water-wet

formation

tlow

&ta

creeping

way.

that

ii

theoreti-

both

viscosity

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(1)
and

flow

0.013

saturating

under

was

surfactant

The

weighed

cal

Liquid

unchanged

colkting

the

Liquid

a prerequisite

of

mineral

about

clearly
mE/owvp.

and

yielded

conducted

before

Experimental

generated

relationship
sw=lm,

coflecdon,

remained

by

between

before

solution.

adsorption,

and

dctemdm?d

rate

difference

H20)

medium

5 PV

absence

calibrated

g was

flow

measured

manometer

greater

bahmx
0,1

used,

present.

ol

of

depending

porous

medium

water

cIn3.

was

much

capilfmy

A Metier

a, resolution

fmt

maximum-bubble-pressure

confirmed

Because

mass,

the

of

drop

used

59.4

d~ffemmial

measured

g with

measurements.
total

to

152.4

a O-to

and

pure

permeabtity

strip-chart

was

weighing

63(FJ

three-point

were

saturation

to

228.6

of
The

The

aqueous

solution.

white

was

flask.

of

Imin,

The

reck

the

liquid

were

were

and

3 cm3

the

beads
of

Rmemount

kpa.

pack

in

the

procedure

was

to 68.94

of

a drop

58.5

When
drops

transducer
13.78

presence

pressure.

was

tied

sikmated

surface

beads

packing

kpa.

pbrous

glass.

absolute

from

pressure

a second

length

1 and

tion

time

the

rates

fall

experiments

smfactant

were

oif-wet

the

nitrogen

me-

placing

uncoated

The

2 The

was

up

gas

of

me-

the

checked

ranged

to

medium,

along

with

water-wet

surface
of

a mercury

located

ing

the

nature

two

range

acbievd

rendered

witi

and

of

mesh

were

with

pressure

Liquid

infet

dimetbyl-dicfdoro-

calibrated

in the

method,

bid

on

beads

of beads

pm.

PV

The

measured

the

the

slugs

140

was

and

of

large

was

observed,

(initially

flask

that

flow

the

AU

of

to ensure
Gas

volumetric

mospheric

on

with

beads.

10.9

in the

measurements

inverted

flow

pressure

porous

time.

at en-

and

reaction

readilyinto

Total

were

length

was
layers

was

6.

@nt9

directed

,Experiments

The

sikmated

100

beads.

effectively

beads

from

the

joined

each
with

two-phase

transducer

pressures

within

of

rates

were

small

experiments

used.

sikumted

several

Ref.

the

needle
flow

was
the

consisted

For

were

wih

pack

in

of

between

Assocs.

to imbibe
on

separate

ducers.

sieved

a condensation

on

flow

desired.

beads

uncoated

(not
each

flow

(hydrophobic).

water

detailed

two-phase

treatment

and

di.sdfled

because

AUtech

oil-wet

Effort
before

However,

beads

glass

This

beadpack.

(an

regda!ed

slugs.,

through

strongly-

solution

the

conducted

at AUtech

aqueous

pregenerated

two-phase

1000~

micrometer

and

into

steady

was

ofnlrogen

was

glass

uncoated

SD

nitrogen

control

entry

liquid

Chaser

accurate

foam
pack.

was

a Nupro~

Nitrogen

entering

by

Scala

dia

no

into

study

tiough

fol

surfactant.

prepmitied

simple,

beadpack.

that

this

metered

appa~tU$

of

din@.28

kpa.and
TM

absence

were

obtained

~adients

a specitied

time.

for

each

data

were

noted,

Two

measurements

liquid

point.

Once

was
were

steady

coflected
made

permeability

are

altered

when

dispersions

flow

through

a relative

permeabiiV

porous

media.
at

for

Clearly,
taticm

the

foamlgas

is inadequate.

for

For

phase,
illusmating
SPE

Resmvok

trends

and

En@eexinE,

repre.3en-

correlating
Februarj

data,
IW2

1?
13
Q
n

No

5
a

,0.001

WA

0.005

W?A

0.010

WA.

Surfactant

AA%

u!
Q

~ 0

!4

.01:

&>*

.01,

@o

p*M@

J*

0.
~

A,

.1;

m
$

Oil Abs9nt

A
4

c
~

~A

a
z
E
Lu

00.
00

0
b=

:1:

Absent

Oil

No

0.001

Surfactant
wt%

0.010

W%

O.loowt%

.001-1
0

.0011

20

40

WATER

Fig.

2Liquid

wet

m@ia.

and

are

(which

Undf

relative

hope

of

fms

when

curve:

A relative

flow

more

Fig.

water-

global

permeability
trends

surfactant

in

data

foam

of
of

data
flOW

saturation

in porous

viscosity

estimating

utility

the

a simple

without

for

apparent
and

degree

than

reported
model

and

a high

representation

Experinmmtaf
of

iumedia

offer

the

magnitudes

best
of

ef-

meability

for

tially

oil-wet

bility

to water

&ta

ccmtinn

When

the

2 depicts

beadpack.

compariwn
porous

to tie

meiium.

remains

As

can

seen,

the

100%
of

when
the
one

cate

two-phase

ini-

permeaThese

the

of

water

liquid

and

relative

of

0.01

through

flows

of

This

the

oil-wet

a set
not

of

for

when

tie

by

saturation

phase

decreases

of

smafler

the

pore
been

about

a water

surfactant

shapes

previously

WmIM-p!XW

increases

aqueous

value

with

through

For

saturation

Likewise,

its baseline

Kpresent.

is added.

curves,

indi-

pathways
reported

when
for

foam.

media.
trend

changing

shift

water

permeability

combined

consistent

.mater

the

is present.

relative

porous

with

was

found

smfactit

mm

be

in the

liquid

relative

concentration.

observed

in Fis.

permeability

However,

3 at surfactant

a ?fighUy

concentrations

w%.
of

J.mterpretation

ence

of

gas

tated

by

per-

water

24
flow

medium,

in the

is added.

No
SM

0.1,

seventiuof

liquid

in

flow

3 shows.

as ~g.

of

obsewations,
that

60

in two-phase

d.WMtidy,

surfactant

30%,

These

60

SATURATION

permeability

Shit%

to about

to

yielded

relative

surfackmt

observations.

porous

permeability

effectively
conducted

be

when

to the

oil-wet

relative
data

experimem

report@

is ad&d

initially

the

These

unchanged

previously

surfactant

through

Fig.

water-wet

40

media.

permeability

surfactant

is present.

Resufts.
the

a baseline

20

3-Liquid

relative

flow

liquid

WATER

through

infonnadcm

is generally

a goti

analyzing

have

permeabilby

sigdkantly

factor

formation).
exists,

in two-phase

permeabtity

here.

provides

resistance

80

(sl[anated)

used

cetiy

SATURATION

permeability

relative

however,

60

foam
Fig.

through

the

in the
4.

Fig.
the

liquid

relative

initidfy
4 plots

oil-wet

permeability

hydrophobk
(1)
porous

the

shift

porous
liquid

media

relative
in the

in the

medium

pres-

is facili,

permeabfity
absence

of

of
surfac-

s
~
~

Oou
00

.1:

~
~

a
o

z.

Oil Absent

#Q

.01:

No

0.01

II

No

Surfacfant,

Oil-VJet

$
K

.001

vA%,

Oil-Wet

Surfactant,

Water-Wet

-r
20

40

WATER

60

SATURATION

.001

20

80

40

WATER

Fig.

4Comparisons

[o. that

SPE

in

Resemou

water-wet

E@,.ctig,

of

liquid

permeability

Febmq

in

oil-wet

media

Fig.

5Gas

[silanated)

media.

1S?2

60

/n

permeability

SATURATION

in

two.ph=

flow

thr6ugh

oil-wet

media.

93

14

m
a
Oil Presant
g

%WAO

~&m

00

H
$

.1:
00

*..

I.#

.mw

No

.001

u.!
>

i=

Sutfactant

0.001

V/t%

0.005

Wt%

0.010

VA%

~
E

20

40

80

60

No

0.100

Wt%

.01-1

-1

Surfactant

O
,

40

20
WATER

WATER

Fig.

6Gas

wet

media.

(z)

at,

liquid

of

water-wet

porous

thmugi

the

study

if the

mobility

5 depicts
phase

the

in the

is reduced
An
ther
0.001

flow

through

Fig.

water-

ktii

oil-wet

liquid

absence

medii

the

the

7Gas

permeability

solution

gas/water

flow

foam

oil-wet

the

gas

relative

phase

and

gas

less

practical

is reduced
of

absence.

of

at a surfactant

in surf%ctant

and

has

permeabfity

presence

in

media

by
the

flow

6.

Fig.

dia

through

no

added

oil-wet

beads
Gas

to 0.1
.Snrfactant

measurable

of

wt%

to

permeability.

Ffg.

the

water-wet

the

gas

0.01

on

tie

gas

of
relative

bic

in the

Figs.

&ta

and

hydrophobic

oil-wet

taken

demonstrate

that

medium

Sutfactant

and

on

the
iu

W%

5)

at the

flow
large

unsteady
foam

effect

shape

foam

and
me-

0.01

(Fig.

shown

pe~eability

of

cume
of

have
undec

Figs.

A surfac-

the. gas

beads

similar

These

water-wet

little

concentration

media

were

porous

of

compakon

porous

of

in the

to have

iden-

media.

concentrations.

is sesn

in~catis

Previous

oil-w

is essentially
porous

a comparison

smfactant
WI%

at a surfactant

hydrophilic
the

by

comparison

pennmbifity

through

surfactant
oil-wet

permeability

various

concemation

bowever,

seen

However,

reduction.

and

added

ioitially

relative

O.001

beads

gas

ability

m fur-

concentrations

effect

with

.swfactant

W%.

resulted

6)

of
of

the

be

gas

presence

concentration

gas

permeability

may
the

flow

present.

by

and

rasuks

6 depicts

in ~e

oil

reducdon

water-wet

otiy

surfactsnt.

concentration

permeabtity.
had

significance

surfactmt.

concentrdion

SATURATION

in two-phase

with

permeability

in both

tant

in

of

Gas
tical

media

remarkable

Remarkably,

m.dsurfactant

tbit of

in

through

6f wrfactant.

to

,mbies

porous

penneabfity

beads.

redwtiqn
wt%

the

itl the

dramatically

increase

in the
(3)

permeabililv

oil-wet

of

and

media

relative

water-wet.
A

two.phaae

permeability

surfactant,

Iiauid

the

in

(sllanated)

tie

presence

the

permeability

SATURATION

60.

and

(Fig.
sane

perme-

in hydrophodifferences

Is;

conditions..

can

signiiicmtly

form

in-sire

lower

gas

in

permea-

Injaction

60Oil

Present

500

go
o
Oo

40-

30-

Water-Wat

Pack

.0?7
20-

No

Oil-Wet

Surfactant

0.100

Vit%

20

40

60

0
0

80

10

20

30

TIME
WATER

8Llquld

(atlanated)

94

I
-1

.011

Fig.

permeability
media

Pack

10-

with

SATURATION

In two-phaaa
oil.

40

50

(minutes)

flow

througholl-wet

~9.

94mpafls0n

Nat

pack

when

of

transient

sutiactant

ia

SPE

rasponse
inJected

Reservou

of
with

oil-wet
oil

E@r.eeF.mz,

VS.

&

present.

February

1992

w..

btity

iri tie

mine

if foam

ence

of

absence

did
oil

comparison
of

rials

of

W-up

was

either

in the

havior

of

form

erzf

surfactant
medium.

was

noted

complete

porous
however,

with

prezence

water-wet

and

the

was

in the
w

of

surfactant

oil

J?q.

present

foam

the

through
performed.

of

generates

and

medium.
the

If

From

the transient
resulted

experimental

reduces

gas

oil

9,

iom

oif

in a rise

oil-wet

media.

not

e2.s
59.7

0.010

547

0.100

S9.8

0.500

37.9

adsorption
was

both

for

dominant

mechanism

in

an

presumes
of

foam

clear

initialfy

the

35

the

mL

of

generation,

that

aftcratiou

resulting

adsorpdcm

was

gest

works
that

tie

Fox
is

Owe

data

Ms

seeming

msdium

is

alters

the

to hydrophilic.

in Fig,
@ck

4.

The

that

of

uid

tO hy&opbilic

solids

observed
of

by

on

ous values
diffwent

(IFT)

Bemdt

water
of

decreased
to

aqueous

polyethylene

from

found

for

ever,

a lower

spreading

1$33.

&is

and

class)

angle

from

surfacomt

on

value

on

30

mN/m.

of

necessary

alteration

of

be

the

(pentsne

angles

adecane)

to

five

full

Reservoir

onto

46?

spreading
care

surface-active

Adsorption

some

was

the

Er@meti&

extent,

sorface

of

of

the

surface

of
on

tie

at

surface

and
of

tension

m the
w

water-wet

0.1

tension

of

of

the

fiquids,

series

27.6

tension

mN/m

of

experiments

and

Iow+mwgy

homologous

16.0
to

of

oil-wet

February 1992

beads
fn

c0ntr23t

was

sug-

spreading

is

by

on

reducing

supported

by

and

the

solidiliq-

surface

wettsbility

ton.$ion

spread

at

increase

in tie

is altered

from

surface

tension

on

was

a hydrophobic

that

been

the

aftered

absence

of

At
1),

of

the

the

likely

foam
foam

oil

lower

silanated
Further-

to

be

able

to

in water-wet

me-

in an initially

oil-

akemticm

to a hydrophilic

Figs.

5 .ad

6.

ffthe

then

the

two

The
rate

liquid

ratios

are

at each

reduction

f&

is clearly

systems

when

contact

are

and
for

surfactant

differences

the

oillsolid

may

be

interface.

absent.
ratio

of

A
the

io
into
Sii

glance
diffqence

the

types

allows

wettabi!i(y

fie

akeratibn

no

for

adsorption

of

systems.

smfactznt

equation
solid/oif

in
the

at the
explaPossibly,

adsorption

at a vaporlsolid

the

change

IFTS

as a possible

Ymmg-Dupre

between

Most
Of

low-energy

However,

adsorption
at the

unstTected

on

decrwm-ing

proposed

two

oil

in 23
7znd

DI. is present.

Proportional

was

the

essentially

the

with

interfaces

oil

waterhidhydrophobic-solid

is lowered.

observed
system.

water/oif

the

tension

of

in Figs.

cWnpaIi.$Ons

confimmd

same

expected.

interface

for

tie

vafue.Thus,

presence

angle

ZIsmanQ

was

partitioning

the

water/oil/solid

and

surface
angle

tie

become

with

demonstrated

contact

the

be

in

mineral

reported

Bemett

occur

obsurface

media

saturation

when

35 f..ucassen-Reynder@
by

Iiqoid

pemmabilily

surfactsnt

and

porous
operated

would

not

reduction

hydrophobic

were

may

is suFPorted

permeability

experiments

relative
of

to hydmpti]c

relative

of

medium.

observed

that the

for

to

a consis-

to occur.

more

nettability

to hydrophilic,

presence

mtion

hydrophobic

Aa-ation

remarkable

the

TabIe

snap-off

in gas

permeabfli~

and

solids.

(see

behavior

of

from

flow

porous

G=

in the
theory.

Models

the

because

identical

gas

the

reflect

comparison

Wettd+fity

8.

1000

generated,

similarity

liquid

similar

results

foam-generation
SD

medium

provides

state.

by

and

experimental

added

ze

medium

by

by

the

porous

described

surface

oilhlid

Le.3cure

tie

hydrophobic

hydrophobic

water/oilhydrophobic-solid

that

in

@.

altered

Con-

measured
to

Zisman32

solidhmpor

the

mechanisms

current

alteration

further

has

initiaffy

two

with

(hex-

prosem.

W%.

n-

hN/m

ensore

and

smfactsnt

solely

critical.

allowing

water/air/solid

Fox

on

polytetrafluoroethykme.

at a surface

taken

changes

and

a ccmcomitamt

watm-wet,

Surface

oil-wet

necessay

cause

a solution

the

accurately

gas

sd-

must

with

fifms

the

in wettabtity
it is not

Clearly,

claim

if the

becomes
tie

essentially

surfactamt

that

Hence,

the

tensions

the

complete

to hydrophilic.

angle

angles

material

concentration

result

oif-wet
wettabiliiy

ultimate

a decrease

angle.

of

here

served
72

out

hydrophilic.

reconciliation

(water-wet)

how-

taildown

may

contact

solely

contact

from

Much

at a surfactant

to

to hexa.d&ne)

ranged

(peutane).

occur

that

a function

measured

that

surface

a hydrophobic

solids

can

suggested

tube

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)

role,

which

of

reported

porous

results

before

point

contzct

by

may

of

surface

the

Alteration

wet

au-

polytetrafluoroethylenq
was

onto

caused

This

static

concentration

suggested

Bemett

was

water.34

Adsorption
A

wt%

was

beads.

and

surfaces

interface

hydrophilic

Vari-

Siar

and

=7

wheress

surface.

dia

Indeed,

the

have

oil-wet

reduction

a miiior

below

in-

comm

tension

tilm.

g/g.

adsorption.

the

Zwman34

of

to

first

tk~ watedairlsolid

at a surface
30

was

addition

and

Zism2n34

defmed~

support

when

tension.

the
of

completely
below

have

of

besdpack

low-energy

the

surface
by

about

tensions

this

adsorption

the

Fox

play

hydrophobic

surface

oil-wet

surfactaot

of

>90
of

solutions

may

demonstrated

SPE

into

at 0.1

who

on

at pH

104

solution

authors

cosoc

liquidlvapor

td
liq-

hydrophobic

measured

contact

spresd

a hydrophobic

While

stmy

initially

ffom

added

obtained

of

surface-tension

Zisinan34

no

The

to

aqueous

on

teration.

alkanes

match-

surfactmt.

of

32 They

tension

able

authors

adsorption

tsct

data

occurred..

Various

They

the

on.the

equation

the

bead-

at similar

wettabili~

fall
by

were

a value

at surface

were

the

tensiou

was

in

as a fonction

at a surface

phase

tie

solids

Zimmm.

surfacmms.

film

of

oil-wet

and

surface

system

without

a change

is decressed

polyethylene

mimic

the

ol-wet

pores

beads

method.

between

tension

fFfs

more,

alteration

and

tension

or

present

indicates

by
the

aaifi-

porous

it essentially

in smaller

is

the

characteristics.
the

(hydmphoblc

terracial

gle

for

of

so @at

with

flow

clearly

SU1faCe

evidence

md]a

surfactant

This

that

is suppoti
cume

shifted

liquid

when

medium.

Solid

conclusion

water-wet

saturations

porous

concluding

of the @drophobic

pernwbifity

surfactant

observed

by

wettabifi~

relative
of

the

Mccaffery$l

resolved

fhis

liquid

bi the presence

es

for

paradox

of suifactant

was

adsorption

11 g of bmxis,

5.4X

supprits

low-energy

uid

cosine

reconciled?

tion

was

mrfactznt

signillcant

of

water-wet
mntaining

besds

contact-angJe

surface

porous

are

adsorption

greater

foam

condition,

how

sorfactant

find

bol?+sobuiondepletion

difference

beads

the

bomb

oif-wet

by

?he

hydrophobic

pres

oil-wet

a hydrophilic

we

on

a stmic

on

used.

The

the

clearly

in injection

it is

anionic

media,

Adsorption

messured

water-wet

saturation

f~

that

water-wet

measurablewith

was

Fig.

saturation

re~omse,

reiidts,

mobility

which

Tension

0.005

assertion

OD the

Young-Dupre

snap-off,

AS

(mN/m)

0.001

CIaridges27

grester

containing

injection-pressure

mineral

residual

min-

water-wet

introduced

Interstitial

abflow

phzse.

not

wqe

15%.

the

presence

transient

be-

in the
in

flow

waz

and

the

1000

for

This

flow

change

m the

to that

value.

From

Surface

0/,)

17,$y=c=+o=v

Discussion.-

SD

Hence,

result.

a nonwetting

solution

and

7.

was

this

no

12%,

pack

io

identical

two-phase

was

watw-wet

a steady

of

oil

beadpacks.

pack

pack

formed

and

oil-wet

oil-wet

water-wet

on

a comparison
gas

mineral

surfactant

of

used

and

remained

experiments

Water

subtracting

Fig.

essentially

that

added

of

in

(~

nmte-

2.

OF

CONCENTRATION

rapidly.

essentially

water

by

TENSION
OF

Concentration

presencf

Eq.

was

noted

l-SURFACE

imer-

in the

PV

PV

8 illustrates

with

tie

depicts

total

was

the

Fig.

in

bebavior.when

gas

when

Indeed,

that

with

remaimd

set

meiia

sure

3).

calculated

modifd

the

7 depicts
and

found

collapsed

contrast

(Fig.

indicating

oil,

of

absence

the

This

or

of

the

TABLE

pus.

FUNCTION

when
Fig.

maybe

modifying

oil

porous

oil

behavior

by

permoabtity

is in marked

sence

for

was

not

absence

oil-wet

in

in the

rexdts:

medium

surfactant.,

Permeab*

reduction

water

1000

details

interztitizl

did

Relative

SD

permeability

calculated

of

porous

.&wet

the

.,

.. .

to deter.

medium

8 present

and

. .

performed

pomuz

experimental

permeability

foam

the

gas

were

oil-wet

with

section.

the, volume
No

in the

the
The

saturation

.1.

form

Figs.

present

swfactant.

Experiments
ti m

oil.

not

was

oil.

effective

interstitial

Foam
stbial

of

waz

and

at

interface
indicates
solidlwater

95

IFTs

to

, contact

the

Dsta

ent,

foam

centers,

of

oiJ

forms

and
that

swiated

with

9.

with

observable

the

1. Pwscdf,

lower

pefnkment

presence

2.

able,

when

residuaf

oif

may

sdJJ

in foam
however,

is pres-

occupies

large

occur.

No

befwior

and

in-

ofl

3.

4.

in thepres-

more

work

Bernard,

akeration

smfactant

porous

of

reducing

surface

alteration

redts
at the

alteration

the

medium

the

adsorption

nettability

smface

in the

from

hydrophobic

horn

fDec.
D.G.

and Handy,

State

Plow

of

19S9)

N&id.

soJid/liquid

interface.

6.

in the

absence

flow

of

gas

This

indicates

medium
2.

ic.

the

FoaRI
of

the

tam

for

for

initialfy
of

of

in sn

steady

M.iaJJy

oil-wet

tie

with

of

a sikmated

J.M.:

hydrophobic

solid

foam-genemdon

a water-wet

W.R.:

of

by

SPE

the

initially

Symposmm,

initiaJJY
media

c&wet

and

porous

both

observed

curves

in the

medium

absence

wettaboily

surfactant

iJJ the

is

change

adsorption

essential,
presence

10.

resuk.$

from

and

with

the

gasilxinelhydrophobic-solid

6.

Gas

wet

permeability

reduction

is e.ssmtidJy
media.

identicaJ

Tbi.Y

hydrophobic

further

surface

for
for

sumorts

has

be_e;

Mast,

R.F.:

.%

surfac-

pore

absolute

PbD

same

surfactamt

concent-

and

kdtia!ly

a?.serdon

that

the

to

16.

oiJ-

kn

= relative

L,=
~E

length,

mS

hydropbific.

dp/dz

17.

Flnid

20.

pack

IIn&l

steady

two-phase

Of

pack

tldJy

ssturated

with

differential

pressure

lOhlllletriC

flow

, Sw

water

Vp

pore

gradient,

rate

of

dc

contact

fq

viscosity

kg

flcrz,
water,

21.

kg

kpahm

Fluid

pi

density

(measured

of

i,

of

Phsse

ti

i,

22:

Jiquid

phase),

23.

degr~s

:yface

of

tension

Jiquidlvapor

interface,

ti/m

OsL

~@Xfmid

temlon

of

solid@quid

interface,

IUN/m

mtwfacid

tension

of

solidhapor

interface,

&Jm

urement
for

his

of
caretid

suggestions.
for
96

permission

afl

his

dats

presented.

reading

of

We

also
to

thank

publish

help

in conducting

JU addition,

tie

manuscript
the

this

management
paper.

of

The

RCOV.

Effect

of Trace

Permeabiiities,3>

AMuat

Technical

Flow

Con-

Through

196S)

Porous

359-6%

Foam

Trans.,

Simulato~

SPERE

ff,33

Behavior
1972

of Foam

SPE

Mect@nisms

(Aug.

in Porous

Anmd

Meeting,

573-g5.

Medix

Pores,,

Model

(March

Generation

in Water-Wet
349.
of Some

En#and

in Porous

of Foam

1988)

Droplets

Brisfol,

M.

Porous

&

the
we

and

for
of

thsnl
his

MobJ

W&e,

7,

Pore

SPEl

systems,>:

1965).

Two-Phase

caretld

meas-

B. G..
many

R&D

Hurd

helpfd

Corp.

Minnesota,

C.J.:

Dishibution

Minneapolis

<CAn Extended

in Cylindrical

Foam

Drive

U.S.

aqd

(1981).

Evolution

Ca@Wries,S,

of

R. S.:

Media,

<The

for

Equation

Ckem.

Eng.

Sri,

Jnaea.sing

the Mechanism

and Exhibition,

Modon

of Foam

62C+3 presented

SPE

tbe Recvvery

(1961).

Mines

OD

paper

Conference

F. P.:

J@ess

Bnreau

and Schechter.

(1961)

of

1457-65.

Technical

Hiwsaki,

U.

Breakup

.The

tie.

of Lang

New

Bubbles

at the

F--

1976

SPE

Orleans,

Oct.

3-6,

in Tube$,

39 J.

Fluid

166-S8..

G.J,

and

J. B.:

fAv/SOn,

Viscosity

FJumerfelt,

R. W.

of Foam

MecJw6sm

in Smooth

and Prkditk,

(1988)

City

K@b,

2.1.,
on

Thrmzh

Ponm.s

Yu.

L~and

cal

Pore-Throat

FJow

in Porous

SPEI (ApriJ

Cap!llarks,,>

1983)

dia,
27.

in porous

Chem.

Seq.,

Me
New

2,

on

(Aug.

The

: YEffects

A.H,

Mobtities

in

of

Capi@y

Foams

FJowing

198S) 919-26,

intlience

Map-off,,,

J,

of $VettabiJim

Colfoid Interface

and

Criti-

%-i. (Feb.

461-72,
Wenatd!ity
and

Literature

Effects

tie

Survey-Pact

of Cwe

HandJ@

L RGcWOd/
m

WeUabiliQ,>,

19g61 1125-44.

Rwks,,>>

pa~r

Conference
D.C.

B.M.

an.ce

Rwk

Annual

SPE

and

of

Exhibition,
G. G.:

mtbe

1966

and

Claridg.,

New

and

Statei
SPE

of Foams

Foam
1544~

in Porous
Feb.

Flcdng

New

Tech-

26-29.

Dallas,

pretited

Exbibitio%

in Reser-

Amuat

Sept.

Meeting,

C02
SPE

19S2

Orleans,

Am@

E. L.:
paper

Conference

Wettabilhy
at the

Rheology

AfChE

Wetfatdlity,->
TedmicaJ

Mixed

10??71 pE.SWl@d

and Bernard,

pre?anted

Jxescure,

gPE

Ratio

J. C.: %erpreiation

vs.

of Foam

AUIericao

FaJJs,

Pbme

SPERS

N. C.:

Size

Jnteractiom

Bond,

and

Media,,,

W. G.:

(Oct.

and

GJ.,

Coalescence

No,

MobiJity

Control,

294325.

Wardlaw.

Anderson,

J.:

MobiJ@

ffiiS&i,

Pressure

JPT

26.
for

and

No.

Kanda.

nical
Bsrtos

oil

5-8.

Liquid

at tbe

AIME,
Pm~es

Fhdds

RJ 5866,

25. Meimse,

Acknowledgments
G.A.

Gradient,,,

by Snap+

(WY

01

dissertation,

A. N.:

OiJ,,,

Brine

nsv

thank

U.

Film

43,

Fried,

voir

We

SPE
Ott

of tie

Trans.,

, C@JJary

P.A.

Liquid

19863109,

g/m3
24.

oLv

(198~.

Enhanced

of a Mechanistic

T. C.:

of

g5-9R

K.K.:

Gmglhz,

York

Cm3jh

i, Pa. s

Phase

of

~erms

Austin

A.:

SPEJ (W&

SPERS

dia. S, Surfaczrmt-Based

m3

angle

Flow

176-90.

saturation
volume,

April

Pressure

Relative

Generation

Ransohoff,

Media-Apprent

mm

qi

3997

SnapOff

PfdJ

Meek

Of

Ms= m=

and

Packs,

19. Brethenon,
to

15087

OakWnd,

2?-11.

and

3.M.

(19SS)

fim2

permeability

pore

Ow ForSPE

Two-Phase

SPJ3DOE

of Gas ad

Development

ti$smtadrm,

Mobanty,

for

initiaJJy

mm

permeabflty,

tbe

Texas,

19g6

of Foam,

Aspects

1970)

14, 3Jaynes,

tension

phenomenon

IIIM2

diameter,

of

Orleans,

presented

S. G.:

Annual
d

at the

Mechanism

Oct.

C.J.

WCh

lg.
area,

flow

South:

an UnconsOli@d

and MomaJve,

SPE

Antonio,

13. Rwf,

tiose

Nomenclature
=

pap.

Mobilization

19S8

<Microscopic

, p.~

Radke,

of

Jntlumcing

NitmgewWater

New

Balance

in Glass-Bead

swfactant.

water-wet

the
aJtered

in tie

of

system.

the

both

U.

17-20.

R.S.
o.

presented

et cd.:

PopuJadon

Flow,
ration

ApriJ

Exiibitim,
The

on

U,

ti the

Schedmx,

15446

A.H.

Media,

15.

associated

POrOU$ Media

.Iwm
. . . . RM-Q7..
.. ..

when

suface

is a general

SPSRS

243.

FaJJs,
The

in the

match
of

SPE

AJME,

of which

of

and Umteady-

Meetig,

Tbrm@

Foam

of Surfa&nt

in the presence

presence

and

J.M.,

L.W.:

12.
peim~btity

on

m water,,,

Media,

di~ertation,

R@@

dissertation,

Tulsa,

Media

media

Steady

in Porous

P-tern

Effects

Pr=ated

Jfohn,

9.

porous

shifl

oiJ-wet

1~358

Quantities

IL

a substantial

of Foam

Me&n

inPomu.sMcdii,39

CaEfonda

Themiesof

and

network.

is evidenced

PhD

Medium,,

paper

Trans.,

234.
of

PhD

So
me

of Foams

NiuogenWater

femme

to hydrophil-

tbebry,

in Smd-

(157 1),

Wrfacta.nt

and

two-phase

medium

Effect

of fi13S Tbroueh

J.A.:

at the 19%5 SPE

beadpack,

oikwet

porous

that

present.

the

The

the

penneabihly

watir-wet
5.

in situ
surfactsnt.

alteration

relative

reduction

through

of

data

assumption

is

Liquid

condkions

aheration

relative

Wrfactmt
4.

in

the

WettabjJity

Jiquid-phase

under
solution
forms

formation

reconcikzs

on

3.

ftiam

presence

wettabiJily

This

rests

suriwtant
smfactant

that

rmdt

of
and

AD&,

Agents,

Angeles

and propagation

S. Smchez,
with

W. L.:

Solution
,,

ROW

Acd&

Los

Rossen,

ery

Conclusions
compared

Flow

365-7Z

of Porous

:Comparison

Foaming

F. and Jensen,

Sanchez,

able

m gasibtieihydrophoblc-

reduced

Trans.,

L. L.:

and

SurfWe

Cdiimki,

paw

is significantly

295-30ti

Gas

Steamlwater

as7.

permeabdity

1991)

24
It

phenomenon

and Jacobs,

on Permeabiliq

: Non-Darcv

of

presentg

tension

of Foam

(Aug.

77-84.

B.H.

mation
to

surface

is a generaJ

temion

absence

systems.

1. Gas

196$

SFEI

em

Jnvestigatim

SPSRS

L.W.,

Wumdon

Huh,

5. .Frkdmm,

oiJ-wet

HoJm,

G. G.,

G=

Pres&ce

is needed

Laboratory

Pressure,

291.

(Feb.

con-

,(A

at EJevated

AJME,

injection

beadpack

pores

difference

avaif

wettabiJity

the

P. et al.:

stone

reduction

gadsurfactant

Because

smaJJer

the

an

This

is noted

angle

mechanisms.

of

hydrophilic.

during

in aninitialJy

because

soJid

in

for

these

reduction

of

water-wet

in Fig.

smp-off

dehmeate

of

any

is a result

in the

oiJ is currently

Foam

of

Referqicee

assertion.

contact

Jack

re.spnse

forms

explanation

ence

the

7)

a constagt

TWFXXJ

as demonwated

crete

to

@lg.

pressure

tht

pore.

that

for

surface.

Transient
dicates

unchanged

propordonakdsorption

in waterloilkdid

suggest

oti-wet

remain

the

change

permea.btity

an

must

supports

no

tension

in gss

ti

Tbis

kxficadng

surface

of

waterloif

angle.

Me7-10.

Perfmmat the
Orleans,

1986
W.

5-s.

SPE

Reservoir

E@neexinz,

February

1992

2S.

D.crkson,

J.H.,

Wall,

cfudinstipba~lefin
of Sfimda@
U.S.

Hydmarbon

Pateti

No.

29.

De%@

30.

ti
-e
~lev~
Hatziavmmidis.
p@t

,,

31.

R. G.,

and

Sulfonafe

A.S.

Knight,

Recovay

4,556,107

and W,t,

3,

T&olosy

TM

ify and lm~ibbion

.... (1973).
.-. .-, .

Formation,

Faamiudx

(kfay
tie

PbD

@f-

1930)
185-52..
A!nm-mt
Tmm-

Hyd&.,

of WettebtiW

Maiia,S

ln-

Mb

WERE
Pw2ictim

Phys.

Effect

in Porous

a Sub temmcnn

of GasJWater

of,,Dispemiors>

F. G.:

hjectio.

mdati

19S5).

m Steam
Foam:
D. T.: GA l%emv
for

cm-k

WCafferv.

Wean
Additives

From

(Dec.

K.:

J .D.:

DimerSurfactmt

10;

13-31.

on Relative

dihm.,

U.

Bemett,
ous

of Ca@y,

C&m.

Fowkes.

at fhe

tbe

(1959)

F.M.

ad

Interface

Surface
6S,

Energy

Constitution

of WettabfiW

of

by Aque-

Low-Enersy

J.

Solids,,

W. D.:

Harkim,

He

D
+,

A&M
the

$%3=

U.

U.

ing.

(Photo

The

Sate

of Momlayers

J. Am.

Chem

Ads@&

&c.

[1940)

phenomena.

He

from

holds

the

MS,

of

PhD

special
and

PhD

in

Texss

degress

in chemissl

from

engineer-

Randy

Doyle

leader

project

of

within

Group

at

interest

in

degress

by

Corp.

hum

technical

Recovety
w[th

S,

U.

the

interactions

Improved

engineering

and
ali

R&D

degfss

unavailable.)
Is

roc!dfluld

,.

MS

esfd

recovery

Mobil

a BS

Texas,

ffazlstf

Corp.

Solution.,.

and

of

at

holds

msthods

heavy.oil

Mobil

in

the
R&D

inteffaciai
chemical

Texas.

H.W.

Fox,

Relation

1241-46.

Solid-.%ue.ms

62,3377-86.
34.

W.A::

rsassrches
of

pmcsssss

Dallss.

.. . ;,.

and Zisman,

Solutions

Phys.
33.

M.K.

steam

.-..
%+
..... v

Alberta
32.

n
.+

Pcrmeabil-

*diss

mechanisms

and

Zimmn,

surfaces.

I.

W.A.:

Tim

of

SpreadinS

Liquids

J. Cdbid

Polytehatlmrwtbykne,,,

on

hw

.%-i. (1950)

5,514.
35.

Lucass@Reyndem,

J.
S1

l%ys.

E.H.:
(1963)

Chem.

*13VWSI033

Metric

Cp
dyneslcm

E-03

Pas

E+OO

=
=

mN/m
..=
Cm

~F32)/l.S

in.

2.54*

E+(M

md

9.S69

233

E04

ymq

psi

6.S94

757

E+OO

kpa

m4nuwdPt

SPE

WI.
m the
e-n,

Reservoir

Pwr
1989

sPER31

mcabnd
-P&
SPE

Engin-,

solids;

Factors

1 .O*

fmt.a, Is mad,

4t

.Wwerslo

Feb.

and Ad.w@on

1.0*

C&?lal

SPE

&i@es

969.

PresenIti
10. cu.

Contact
67,

Am.al

far ti,w

Oti,

9, 1989.

for PubllmMn

Aug.

Twbnlti

Cmfwa.m

Februmy

1S%2

20,

Revlti
1690,

rmnu,crlPt
Ps@,

& 3xhlblUon

[SPE
hsld

recatid
iw
In San

fiml
An!*

?7

0-30

HPLCPIJMP

PsM

PRESSUEGALU

3 WAYVALVE

PREsATummt

=%

6R#uAlED

FGURE 1: Experimental Apparatus for Steady, Two-Phase Flow

Measurements in- Preserce and Absence of Surfactant.
I

&
*

0
A
m

oil Absml

No Sumt
0.001 wt%
0.005 w%
0.015 Wt%

00
o

QA

GIAbsenl
d

Ef@@o

o
o

Noswfmat

A O.001WI%
0.010 Wf%
O.loowl%

k?

.001
0

20

40

60

WATER SATURATKN
Fgure 2 Liquid ~ity
thmqh

80

20

60

60

.Oolk
n

WA7ER 8ATlN?A~%

in tw-pt.ase

4-o

flow

Film

water-wet mafia

No surfamnt, oil-wet
O.cl ?fR6,oil-wet

El

NOSdaCat,

water-wet

--~
211
WAmR

3: Lquid ~ifl~throuoh oil-wat @m#sd)

.
40
SATURATION%

Fgure 4 Comparison of fii

mdm

80

permeability in

Oil-l@ media to that m wa$w-wwt.

?J

OJ
u

(!3

csBAbI#

O(-J

-001 ~
o

20

40

WATER 8ATWfATfON

60
%

80

-m &--T-r4
20

40

60

WAIER 8AlURATfON %

80

.01-i
0

20

40
WATER SATURATION

60

1
80

19687

0
0
,.i-

.01

No Surfactant

0,100 M%

o
1

20

40

60

80

WATERSATURATION%
F~ure 8: Liquid permeabilityin two-phaseflow though
oil-wet (silanated) media- oil present.

70SurfactantIn@cWon
60-

at Time Zero

s
a
; 50U
$40W
K
~

30-

Water-WetFack

iii20
~

Oi>Wet Pack

10 F

10

20

30

40

50

60

TIME (minutes)
Figure9: Comparisonof transient responseof oil-wet vs water-wet
pack when surfactantis injected - oil present.