Laboratory Study of

Foaming Surfactants as
Steam-Diverting Additives
J. H. Duerksen, SPE, Chevron Oil Field Research Co.

Summary. ~team-foam processes to improve the efficiency of steam stimulation and steamflooding are being
developed. The objectives of the laboratory study were to develop a steam-foam surfactant for field testing and
to elucidate the mechanisms of steam-foam EaR. More than 50 commercial and experimental surfactants were
screened for foamability; some were also screened for thermal stability at steamflood conditions.
Results showed that: many sulfonate surfactants have good thermal stability; foam requires constant
regeneration to be effective; foamability varies inversely with temperature and directly with gas-phase nitrogen
concentration; foamability is adversely affected by brine but is relatively insensitive to foam liquid volume
fraction (LVF); and effective foam can be generated at reservoir flow rates. One of our proprietary sulfonates
was selected for field testing on the basis of good thermal stability, superior foaming performance, significant
reduction of steamflood residual oil saturation, and good solubility characteristics.

Introduction
Steam injection is currently the dominant EaR process,
accounting for about 80% of 1982 EaR production in the
U.S. I Two types of reservoir problems can cause re-
duced steam use efficiency-gravity override and steam
channeling. With gravity override, gravitational forces
cause the low-density steam to rise to the top of the for-
mation where it displaces oil. When steam breaks through
at the producing well, a significant fraction of the initial
oil in place is bypassed in the lower part of the reservoir.
In the case of steam channeling, a relatively high-
permeability zone causes the steam to channel through and
to displace the oil from that zone, while bypassing signi-
ficant oil in adjacent, lower-permeability zones.
Because of the high cost of fuel to generate the inject-
ed steam, major research efforts have been directed re-
cently toward overcoming the effects of gravity override
and steam channeling. One of the more promising methods
is the injection of surfactants with steam to form a resis-
tive foam that can divert the steam into the bypassed
zones.
Phillips Petroleum Co. and Shell Oil Co. have patent-
ed the steam-foam and hot-water-foam recovery processes
in both uniform and stratified reservoirs. 2-5 In the Phil-
lips patents,2,3 the foaming agent or the foaming agent
plus polymer is injected with steam to plug a high..:
permeability zone temporarily. In the Shell steam-foam
process, 4 a foam-forming mixture of steam, noncondens-
able gas, and surfactant is injected into a steam override
channel to divert the steam and to accelerate channel
growth.
Laboratory studies at steamflood conditions pave been
reported by Shell,6 CLD Group Inc., 7,8 Stanford U. Pe-
troleum Research Inst. (SUPRI) , 9 and Sandia Natl. Lab-
oratories. \0 Shell found that C 16-18 linear alpha-olefin
Copyright 1986 Society of Petroleum Engineers
sulfonate was a superior foamer when combined with
nitrogen and sodium-chloride brine. CLD selected Ther-
mophoam BW-D, an alpha-olefin sulfonate, for field test-
ing on the basis of laboratory performance and
commercial availability. From extensive screening
studies, SUPRI selected Suntech IV, a C 15-18 alkyl-
toluene sulfonate, for field testing. Sandia found that the
most promising surfactants for geothermal drilling foams
were the alkyl and alkyl-aryl sulfonates.
Steam-foam field tests have been reported by CLD
Group Inc., II Shell,6 SUPRI,12 and Chemical Oil
Recovery Co. (CORCO). \3 Of five field tests conduct-
. ed by CLD, four were successful in improving sweep ef-
ficiency and producing significant quantities of
incremental oil. Since 1976, Shell has conducted two Kern
River field tests that demonstrated increased injection
pressure, incremental oil production, improved sweep ef-
ficiency, and the importance of noncondensable gas.
SUPRI conducted a Kern River field test in which in-
creased injection pressure and significant incremental oil
production were observed. On the basis of the reductions
in the steam/oil ratio, CORCO claimed significant in-
cremental oil recovery in their Kern Front field test.
In summary, most of the steam-foam field tests report-
ed to date have demonstrated incremental oil recovery.
Table 1 summarizes seven of the. well-documented suc-
cessful field tests, including calculated values for pounds
of surfactant per incremental barrel of oil. The data sug-
gest that small, frequent slugs of surfactant plus nitrogen
provide the best chance of economic success.
Additional laboratory and field tests are required to op-
timize the application of foaming surfactants to steamdrive
EaR. This paper reports the results of a laboratory study
of foaming surfactants as steam-diverting additives. The
objectives were to develop a surfactant for field testing
and to elucidate the mechanisms of steam-foam EaR.

44 SPE Reservoir Engineering, January 1986

 TABLE 1-SUCCESSFUL STEAM/SURFACTANT FIELD TESTS
I

Air or N2
Injection Injection Estimated
Surfactant Company Field Mode (scfllbm surfactant)* Ibm surfactant/incremental bbl oil
BW-D CLD/DOE Midway-Sunset Small slugs 216 0.15
BW-D CLD/DOE Midway-Sunset . Small slugs 190 0.20
BW-D CLD/DOE San Ardo Small slugs 158 8.3
BW-D CLD/DOE San Ardo Continuous 136 2.3
Stepan flo 30 Shell Kern River Continuous 22 13
Suntech IV SUPRI/DOE Kern River Large slugs 7 to 10 2.2
COR 180 CORCO/DOE Kern Front Small slugs o 1.4

"Based on 100% active surfactant.

Surfactant Thermal Stability
In a steamflood, long-term thermal stability is necessary
for effective steam diversion deep in the formation. Previ-
ous results 9,IO showed that sulfonates were the most ther-
mally stable and produced the best foams at steamflood
conditions. In general, the test procedures were all very
similar. Surfactant solutions were aged in pressurized ves-
sels at constant temperature for varying times. To deter-
mine surfactant decomposition, the solutions were
analyzed before and after aging.
In this investigation, solutions of two commercial sul-
fonates (Schwebel and Thermophoam BW-D) were aged
at 400 and 450°F [204 and 232°C] for 10 and 20 days.
Two sulfonate concentrations, two salt concentrations, and
unbuffered and buffered solutions were used. A typical
set of thermal stability data for the unbuffered Schwebel
sulfonate is shown in Fig. 1. The results indicated good
thermal stability at 400°F [204°C], an apparent reduc-
tion in thermal stability in the presence of NaCI, and no
improvement in thermal stability with buffering to a neu-
tral pH.
. The observed desulfonation data were consistent with
the mechanism for hydrolytic desulfonatioIl. described in
the literature. 14 The sulfonate reacts with water to
produce hydrocarbon, sulfuric acid, and sodium sulfate.
Additional desulfonation mechanisms are required, how-
ever, to account for the observed H 2 S production and the
reduction in sulfonate concentration that was greater than
the increase in sulfate concentration.
Some of the proprietary sulfonate surfactants prepared
by Chevron Research Co. (CRC) were screened at 480°F
[249°C] for up to 5 days. They all showed excellent ther-
mal stability at these conditions.
Because the desulfonation reaction took place in a closed
vessel in the absence of sand, the reaction may not ade-
quately represent the desulfonation rate in an open reser-
voir. In the reservoir, desulfonation products could be
consumed by the rock or become separated from the react-
ing sulfonate, driving the desulfonation reaction to com-
pletion. 14 .
Surfactant Foamabillty
To divert steam in a steamflood effectively, a surfactant
must have good thermal stability and must also be able
to generate a foam that will significantly increase the
resistance to the flow of steam in the steam zone. About
50 surfactants were screened for foamability in stainless-
steel-wool packs, consolidated Boise sandpacks, and un7
consolidated sandpacks made from either Ottawa sand or
reservoir core material.

Screening Criteria. Reliable screening criteria are re-

10 c
o quired to evaluate effectively the ability of foamable sur-
~c
c factants to increase the resistance to the flow of steam in
!0.8 8 8c
a porous medium. Several investigators 4 ,6,lS,16 have used
the ratio of steam or gas-flow pressure drops in a sand-

I
00.6
CD
8
!'5
pack, with and without su?'actant, as a screening criterion.

1i en
j
~0.4 l"ii. Pi P, - p. Dec......es After Steam Breakthrough
High Steam Production

..
Steam Zone ~ __--::-::-:-.-:1 No 011 Production
(S." High Steam k/JJ.)
l Sulfate
Z
E
o ~...::~.::.---; High 011 Production

~0.2 'tJ
C
~. III
%:
o ______- L_ _ _ _ _ _---IO
~ a.
Unheated Zone
Low 011 Production
o 10 20 (High So. Low 011 k/JJ.)
Days at 400°F

Inlector Producer
Fig. 1-Thermal degradation of 10% Schwebel surfactant,
0% NaCI solution-sulfonate, pH, and sulfate concentra-
tion after 400°F exposure. Fig. 2-Steamdrive with gravitational override.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, January 1986 45

 of high oil viscosity, p., and low kip.. Similar zones can
N; Metering
Valve
be defined when steam channels through a high-
I permeability sand in a heterogeneous reservoir.
The purpose of injecting a foamable surfactant is to form
a foam that will increase the resistance to the flow of steam
sufficiently in depleted Steam Zone 1 to divert a signifi-
cant portion of the steam into Steam Zone 2 and Hot-
Water Zone 3. This will accelerate both the oil produc-
Foam
'tion from these zones and the downward growth of the
Generator steam zone into the unheated zone.
Resistance Factor RI. Rl evaluates the effectiveness
Insulated Box I Separator of a steam-diverting foam in Steam Zone 1, which is at
residual oil saturation. It is defined as the ratio of the
, steam-zone pressure drop in the presence of foam to the
Cartridge Visual steam-zone pressure drop in the absence of foam. The
Wet Test
Heater (2) Autoclave Meter higher'the value, the better the steam-diverting capabili-
Fig. 3-Vlsual autoclave. schematic. ty of the surfactant. This Rl criterion is similar to that
used by Phillips and Shell.
Resistance Factor R2. R2 is the ratio of the foam pres-
sure drop in Steam Zone 1 to the foam pressure drop in
50 Steam Zone 2. For effective steam diversion from Steam
Zone 1 into Steam Zone 2, the foam should cause a high
'iii 40 pressure drop in Steam Zone 1 and a low pressure drop
D. in Steam Zone 2. Therefore, the higher the value of R2,
0:- the better the surfactant.
<I
.. Resistance Factor R3. R3 is the ratio of Steam Zone

-. 0
as
CD
c:
30
o
A
AOS Sulfatex
Petrofoam
2 pressure drop in the presence of foam to Steam Zone
2 pressure drop in the absence of foam. Because Steam
Zone 2 is a high oil producer, it is undesirable to block
CD 20 EI Schwebel it with foam. Therefore, the lower the value of R3, the

"E
as
0
<:> Thermophoam BW-O
o Water- N2
better the surfactant.

Foam Generator Tests. Apparatus and Procedure. We

u. 10
0 1,000 psig [6890 kPa] maximum temperature and pres-
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Foam Liquid Volume Fraction
Fig. 4-Effect of foam liquid volume fraction on pressure
drop across foam generator at 400°F and 500 pslg.
For the visual autoclave foam generator tests in this
study, the three screening criteria used to evaluate sur-
factants in the absence of crude oil were (1) the half-life
of the generated foam (i.e., the time required for half of
the liquid phase to drain out of the foam), (2) the pres-
sure drop across the foam generator, and (3) a resistance
factor, R, which is the ratio of the foam generator pres-
sure drop with and without surfactant in a mixture of flow-
,ing water, nitrogen, and water vapor.
Three resistance factors more accurately screened the
steamflood perfornlance of foamable surfactants in the
presence of crude oil. The schematic cross section of a
heavy-oil steamflood in Fig. 2 shows the relationship be-
tween the resistance factors and steamflood performance.
After steam breakthrough in a gravity override situa-
tion, most of the injected steam will flow through the
depleted Steam Zone 1 and produce no oil. Most of the
oil production comes from two zones: (1) Steam Zone 2
has a mobile oil saturation, So, and a high oil mobility,
kip., and (2) Hot-Water Zone 3 has a high So and a high.
kip.. Little oil is produced from unheated Zone 4 because
designed and built a visual autoclave with the capability
of operating at steamflood conditions (500°F [260°C] and
sure). The purpose of the visual capability was to allow
the observation of foamability at .Steamflood conditions.
A schematic of the apparatus is shown in Fig. 3.
The foam generator at the top of the autoclave consist-
ed of a 21h-in. [6.35-cm] length of lA-in. [O.64-cm]
stainless-steel tubing packed with about 2.5 g of stainless-
steel wool. The glass vessel· inside the autoclave was
graduated to allow measurement of the generated foam
volume and liquid drainage from the foam as a function
of time. The U-tube at the bottom of the glass vessel al-
lowed siphon dumping when the vesssel filled with liq-
uid during testing or during flushing between tests. This
made it unnecessary to cool and to dismantle the autoclave
benyeen tests, thus accelerating the testing program.
Surfactant solution, nitrogen, and crude oil could be
metered to the foam generator individually or simultane-
ously. Effluent steam was condensed, and the associated
nitrogen was metered through a rotameter and wet-test
meter. For a selected test temperature and pressure, the
flow rates of nitrogen and water or surfactant solution
were calculated to give the desired LVF at foam genera-
tor operating conditions.
Effect of Foam L VF. As foam moves through a steam
zone in the reservoir, the L VF of the foam will increase
as a result of condensation of some of the steam phase
and mixing of the foam liquid phase with reservoir water.
To evaluate this effect on foam performance, a series of
tests was run in the visual autoclave at 400°F [204°C]

46 SPE Reservoir Engineering. January 1986

 TABLE 2-EFFECT OF NaCI/CaCI 2 BRINE ON·
RESISTANCE FACTOR OF ALPHA-OLEFIN
SULFONATES AT 400°F AND 500 psig Conditions:
16
0.5% Active Sulfonate
Resistance Factor' 10 cc/Min of Foam
Surfactant In De-ionized Water In Brine * , 14
Sulfatex AOS 18.7 . 1.0
Petrofoam 22.5 11.3 12
Schwebel 18.7 1.3
BW-D 14.7 .1.3
10
IIp surfactant solution + nitrogen
ap
·Resistance l a c t o r - - - - - - - - - psi
IIp water or brine + nitrogen 8
··Brine contains 1% NaCl, 500 ppm CaCI 2 .
6
Surfactant
oSulfatex AOS
and 500 psig [3450 kPa]. The LVF was varied from 0.01 4 OPetrofoam
to 0.187. The gas phase of the foam was about half nitro- fj.Schwebel
gen and half water vapor.· Surfactant concentration in the 2 o Thermophoam BW-D
liquid feed was 0.5% active. Results of the tests are shown QWater + N2
in Fig. 4. 0
Thepressure drop across the foam generator increased 300 350 400 450
significantly as the foam LVF was increased from 0.01 Temperature, OF
to 0.05. From 0.05 to 0.187, the pressure drop was rela-
Fig. 5-Pressure drop across foam generator VB. temper-
tively insensitive to the LVF. Also~ the pressure drop was ature at 500 pslg.
much higher with foam than with water/nitrogen over the
entire LVF range investigated. We observed that as the
LVF increased, the vohune of the foam collected in the
graduated glass vessel inside the autoclave also increas~d. TABLE 3-EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON
RESISTANCE FACTOR OF CRC SURFACTANTS
On the basis of these results, we predict that good per- IN BRINE*
formance will be maintained as the foam moves through
the reservoir and the LVF increases. These tests, how- Resistance Factor"
ever, do not account for the dilution of the surfactant con- Surfactant At 375°F At 400°F At 425°F
centration in the reservoir as steam condenses and the LVF Stepanflo 30 27.4 25.1 21.2
increases (see the section on Effect of Surfactant Concen- Suntech IV 21.7 17.5 14.3
tration). CRC Sulfonate 6 22.3 18.6 14.6
CRC Sulfonate 13 27.8 18.9 19.3
Because an LVF of 0.075 gave a pressure drop that was CRC Sulfonate 8 28.6 24.5 23.4
close to a maximum (Fig. 4), this value of the LVF was CRC Sulfonate 1 19.1 16.3
used in most of the screening tests. CRC Sulfonate 3a 20.4 17.0 16.3
. Effect of Brine. To determine the effect of brine on CRC Sulfonate 2 20.0 17.9
CRC Sulfonate 3b 21.4 19.9 16.6
foaming effectiveness at 400°F [204°C] in the foam
CRC Sulfonate 4 17.0 11.0 1.1
generator, four commercial alpha-olefin sulfonate surfac~
tants were tested in de-ionized water and in a brine con- ·Brine contains 1% NaCI and 500 ppm CaCI 2 "
taining 1 wt% NaCI and 500 ppm CaCI 2 • Shell reported IIp surfactant + brine + nitrogen
that NaCI was necessary to make an effective foam. 6 ··Resistance lactor- - - - - - - - -
IIp brine + nitrogen
Divalent calcium ion was included in the brine because
it is present in the formation water and causes precipita-
tion of sulfonates as the calcium salts. Results of the tests perature, a number of commercial and proprietary sur-
are shown in Table 2. For all four surfactants, the pres- factants were tested at two or more temperatures.
ence of the brine was detrimental to foaming performance. The initial tests in the visual autoclave were run on four
Because brine was detrimental to performance and be- commercial sulfonates-Thermophoam BW-D, Petrofoam
cause steam generator feedwater and reservoir water RW, Sulfatex AOS, and Schwebel. The solutions were
would contain a mixture of salts, most of the screening 0.5% active sulfonate in de-ionized water. No crude oil
tests reported here were done either with the artificial was present. Because the nitrogen flow rate at test condi-
brine discussed or with produced Kern River reservoir tions was held constant, the flow rate of water vapor.in-
water. creased as the temperature was increased, resulting in a
Effect of Temperature. The temperature of the steam decre£fsing ratio of nitrogen to water vapor and an increas-
zone in a steamflooded reservoir will vary depending on ing foam flow rate with increasing temperature. The
such parameters as reservoir permeability and steam in- desired foam LVF was 0.05, but because of a miscalcu-
jection rate. For shallow, heavy-oil reservoirs in Califor- lation, it decreased at the higher temperature levels.
nia, the temperature can typically vary from more than To compare the pressure drops across the foam gener-
400°F [204 0c] in the vicinity of the injection well to less ator as a function of temperature, the pressure drops were
than 250°F [121 0c] in the vicinity of the producing wells. normalized to a foam flow rate of 0.6 cu in.linin [0.17
To evaluate the sensitivity of foam effectiveness to tem- qn 3 / s], assuming a linear dependence of pressure drop

SPE Reservoir Engineering, January 1986 47

 TABLE 4-EFFECT OF VAPOR-PHASE NITROGEN Boise Sandstone Core 2" Dia x 12" Long
CONCENTRATION ON RESISTANCE FACTOR OF Injection at 200 pSig. 0.10 LVF. S2 cc N2 and S cc of
SURFACTANTS IN BRINE· AT 400°F 1% Thermophoam BW-D Solution/min at Shulln
o 200"F (0 psig Back Pressure) 0300°F
Resistance Factor" 200 [!] 2S0°F (20 psig Back Pressure) & 300°F (Repast)
o 27SOF 0 32SOF
Surfactant At 50 mol% N2 At 5 mol% N2 V 290°F (40 psig Back Pressure) () 3SOOF
Petrofoam 11.3 3.1
Sontech IV 17.5 6.2
Amphosol CA 14.8 1.8
Stepanflo 30 25.1 10.4
Stepan 1246 24.8 13.7
CRC Sulfonate 1 16.3 2.0
CRC Sulfonate 2 17.9 3.7
CRC Sulfonate 3a 17.0 12.9
CRC Sulfonate 3b 19.9 9.7
CRC Sulfonate 4 11.0 2.5
CRC Sulfonate 5 25.2 9.8
CRC Sulfonate 6 18.6 10.0
CRC Sulfonate 8 24.5 19.1 20
CRC Sulfonate 13 18.9 15.9

"Brine contains 1% NaCI and 500 ppm CaCI 2 •

Ap surfactant + brine + nitrogen 100~~-2LO~~~~~-~L-~-8LO~-100L-~~1~~~~1~

"Resistance factor= - - - - - - - -
Ap brine + nHrogen Shut In Time, Minutes

Fig. 7-Statlc foam stability tests-decline of pressure

drop across core as a function of time and temperature.

24
lation between foam flow behavior (i.e., pressure drop)
in a porous medium and static-foam stability. Because the
20 flowing pressure drop is easier to measure and more ac-
R1 curately represents the flow behavior in a reservoir, it was
the primary criterion for screening foaming surfactants.
16
a:: All the eRe sulfonates listed in Table 3 (except Sul-
... fonate 4) showed good foamability up to 425°F [218°C] .
....0
() 12 The temperature dependence of the resistance factors is
as similar to the best commercial sulfonates, Stepanflo 30
u.. 6
CD
()
and Suntech IV. Of our sulfonates tested, Sulfonate 8 gave
c 5 the best performance and was as good as the best com-
....as
(I) R2 4 mercial surfactant (Stepanflo 30).
'iii 3 Effect of Nitrogen. The Phillips patent 2 reports that
CD
a:: an effective steam-diverting foam can be made with only
2 steam as the gaseous phase of the foam. Other studies have
1 found that some noncondensable gas in the steam is nec-
essary to make an effective foam. 4,6,8

~~~
R3
AAS AOS CRC Sulfonate
Sulfonate Type
Fig. 6-Surfactant resistance factor ranges by sulfonate
type.
on foam flow rate. The results. are plotted in FIg. 5, in-
cluding the pressure drops with water plus nitrogen in the
absence of surfactant.
The pressure drops with foam are significantly higher
than with water plus nitrogen but show a dramatic
decrease with increasing temperature. How much ofthis
decrease is a result of the increasing temperature and the
decreasing ratio of nitrogen to watef vapor is not known.
The foam drainage time also showed a significant
decrease with increasing temperature, indicating a corre-
We tested 14 surfactants in the steel-wool foam gener~
ator at two nitrogen concentrations in the gaseous phase-
50 and 5 mol %. All the surfactants were tested in brine
solution at 400°F [204 0C]. The measured resistance fac-
tors are shown in Table 4.
The performance of all the surfactants. showed a depend-
ence on the nitrogen concentration in the gaseous phase.
The performance decreased with decreasing nitrogen con-
centration. eRe Sulfonates 8 and 13 showed the smallest
dependence on nitrogen concentration.
Effect of Kern River Oil and Produced Water. To de-
termine the effects of reservoir crude oil and water on
the foaming effectiveness of surfactants, screening tests
were performed in the steel-wool foam generator with pro-
duced crude oil and water from the Kern River field.
Stabilized pressure drops obtained at residual and mobile
oil saturations with and without surfactant were used to
calculate Rl, R2, and R3. Ranges of values are plotted
in Fig. 6 for alkyl-aryl sulfonates, alpha-olefin sulfonates
and our proprietary sulfonates. On the basis of these re-
sults, we made the following conclusions.

48 SPE Reservoir Engineering, January 1986

 TABLE 5-0TTAWA SANDPACK PRESSURE DROP (Ap) RESULTS WITH KERN
RIVER CRUDE OIL AND WATER AT 400°F AND 300 pslg

t.p, psi
b,p, psi Surfactant Surfactant Surfactant
Surfactant SOT ~ SOT +SOT +SO +Sor
Stepanflo 30 4.3 9.1 5.1 66.6 21.1 29.9
Thermophoam BW-O 6.6 7.7 5.6 6.4 20.6 15.1
CRC Sulfonate 10 4.4 9.5 6.3 194 29.4 196
CRC Sulfonate 7 4.8 6.7 5.6 188 40.7 201
CRC Sulfonate 8 2.0 5.3 3.3 163 39.2 161
CRC Sulfonate 11 1.7 3.9 2.0 179 30.9 179
CRC Sulfonate 11 (repeat) 5.3 7.5 5.6 236 32.4 237
CRC Sulfonate 13 1.8 4.2 2.0 196 52.4 -
CRC Sulfonate 12 1.5 4.0 2.8 128 25.7 105
CRC Sulfonate 15 8.1 9.5 8.4 102 32.5 88.4
CRC Sulfonate 9 3.0 6.8 4.6 214 33.0 210
CRC Sulfonate 13 (repeat) 6.7 7.0 5.5 201 93.4 185
CRC Sulfonate 14 6.7 8.2 7.3 184 36.7 ~91

1. All three classes of surfactant make good foams in

TABLE 6-0TTAWA SANDPACK RESIDUAL
the presence of residual oil saturation (high Rl), but the OIL SATURATIONS WITH KERN RIVER
alpha-olefin and the eRe sulfonates do better than the CRUDE AT 400°F AND 300 pslg
alkyl-aryl sulfonates.
2. Our sulfonates ar~ more effective than the alpha- Porosity S or
Surfactant (%) (%)
olefin and alkyl-aryl sulfonates in blocking the residual
oil zone (high Rl) while at the same time not blocking No surfactant 44.6 11.2
Thermophoam BW-O 45.1 6.2
the oil-producing, mobile oil zone (high R2, low R3). Stepanflo 30 45.3 1.5
CRC Sulfonate 15 45.2 6.2
Consolidated Core Tests. Steam, nitrogen, and 1 % Ther- CRC Sulfonate 12 46.5 2.9
mophoam BW-D solution were injected into a 2-in. CRC Sulfonate 9 44.4 4.7
CRC Sulfonate 7 44.8 0.9
[5.1-cm] -diameter, 12-in. [30.5-cm] -long Boise core CRC Sulfonate' 13 45.1 1.4
maintained at various temperatures. Because of equipment CRC Sulfonate 8 46.1 1.9
pressure constraints, the core inlet pressure was limited CRC Sulfonate 11 44.4 0.6
to a maximum of 200 psig [1380 kPa]. CRC Sulfonate 11 (repeat) 46.8 0.7
A static foam stability test was run in which a steady-
state pressure drop with flowing steam and foam was first then at mobile So, and again at S or' This was repeated
established across the core. Then, the core was shut in with surfactant present to make a foam. The results are
and the rate at which the pressure drop declined was listed in Table 5.
measured. The base pressure drops with no surfactant show con-
The results plotted in Pig. 7 show that as temperature siderable variation from sandpack to sandpack even
increases the stability of the foam decreases. At temper- though the same sand source was used in all tests. Insuffi-
atures above 300 0P [149°C] , the decline in pressure drop cient replicate tests were performed to evaluate the ef-
is very rapid. These data indicate that in a reservoir un- fect of these base variations on foam pressure drop. Prom
der steamflood the foam will not behave as an immobile the few repeat tests that were conducted (Table 5), the
plug because stationary foam will quickly degrade, re- use of resistance factors apparently was not adequate to
quiring constant regeneration with flowing steam and gas. eliminate the effect of these variations. As a result, o'nly
general performance comparisons and conclusions can be
Unconsolidated Sandpack Tests. Ottawa Sandpacks. To made. The data show that our sulfonates perform signifi-
represent foaming effectiveness in a crude-oil reservoir cantly better than the two commercial surfactants tested.
more closely, surfactant screening tests were performed Table 6 lists Sor measured on the Ottawa sandpacks af-
in :j4-in. [1.9-cm] -diameter, 6-in. [15.2-cm] ~long sand- ter flooding with water/nitrogen and with foam. The base
packs packed with 140-mesh Ottawa sand. The sandpacks Sor with no surfactant is quite typical for Kern River
were saturated with crude oil and water from the Kern heavy oil after steamflood. The Sor's after surfactant are
River field. A fresh sandpack was used for each test. all significantly lower than the base value. The lowest
The tests were run at 300 psig [2070 kPa] and 400 0P values were achieved with eRe Sulfonate 11.
[204 0C]. The flow rate of water or 0.5 % active surfac- The plofof Sor vs. sandpack pressure drop (Pig. 8) in-
tant solution was 3.56 mLimin. Nitrogen flow rate was dicates an inverse dependence of pressure drop on the
0.49 cu in.lmin [0.134 cm3/s] at test conditions. Nitro- S or' These data and the observed delay in pressure build-
gen was calculated to be about 20 mol % of the gas phase. up after the start bf surfactant injection suggest that the
To represent mobile oil, Kern River crude was injected mechanism of foam pressure drop buildup involves the
at 0.3 mLimin. displacement of some of the steamflood S or before an ef-
Pressure drop across the sandpack was measured with fective foam is formed. Similar but less pronounced reduc-
flowing water and nitrogen at residual oil saturation, S or' tions in Sor were observed in the Kern River sandpacks.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, January 1986 49

 CI),...
12 ga: 8
I

10
ONo Surfactant
6AOS
OCRC Sulfonates
ca .:
Ui· 0
.-
II)
CI)
[tIL
-
()
ca
4
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o I
Ineffective : Effective: Foam
8 I . I
Foam I I
0.5 L
I
0
~ 0
en. 6 I
I
i!- 0.4 I
\ I'
I
4 \ I Effluent
\ 0.3 l/
I
\ I
I
2
'h 0.2
I

°0~----~50------10LO-----1~5-0-----20LO----- 0.1 I Feed

Sandpack Pressure Drop, psi
Fig. 8-0ttawa sandpack residual oil saturation (So,) vs.
sand pack pressure drop.
Kern River Sandpacks. Effect of Surfactant Concen-
tration. To evaluate the effect of our sulfonate concen-
tration on foaming effectiv~ness in a crude-oil reservoir,
a test was conducted in a Kern River sandpack (* in. [1.9
cm] in diameter by 6 in. [15.2 cm] long) with CRC Sul-
fonate 11 at three concentration levels-0.05,0.1, and
0.5 active wt%. Core material, crude oil, and water used
in the test were all taken from the Kern River field. Test
conditions and injection rates were the same as those used
in the Ottawa sandpacks. An Sor was first established,
then followed by surfactant injection. R1 and feed and ef-
fluent surfactant concentrations are plotted vs. liquid ef-
fluent volume inFig. 9.
Based on R1 in the presence of residual oil, no effec-
tive foam was made during 1,000 mL (about 40 PV) of
liquid effluent production at 0.05 and 0.1 % sUlfonate con-
centration in the liquid feed to the sandpack. The sulfonate
concentration in the sandpack effluent was only about one-
third of the feed value during 0.05 % injection. During
the first 0.1 % feed injection, the effluent concentration
started low and approached the feed value at 1,000 mL
of effluent. During the 0.5 % and the following 0.1 % feed
injections, the effluent concentration quickly reached the
feed concentration.
From these observations, the sulfonate losses to the
sandpack or to the residual crude oil during the 0.05%
and the first 0.1 % sulfonate injection lowered the aque-
ous sulfonate concentration sufficiently to prevent the for-
mation of an effective foam. Further study, however, of
the loss mechanisms is needed.
We observed the apparent surfactant concentration ef-
fects in steel-wool foam generator tests at 400°F [204 0c]
and 500 psig [3540 kPa] and noted surprising differences
in the performance of four of our similar sulfonate sam-
ples. At 0.5 % active concentration, two of the samples
performed well and two performed poorly. The two that
performed well at 0.5 % active performed poorly at 0.3 %
active. One of the samples that performed poorly at 0.5%
I
o~~~___ JL___-L~~I__
o 500 1000 1500 2000
Liquid Effluent Volume, ml
Fig. 9-Effect of CRC sulfonate concentration on foam ef-
fectiveness in Kern River sand pack at 400°F and 300 pslg.
active was tested at and performed well at 1.0% active.
These results suggested that performance was strongly de-
pendent on concentration.
To determine whether these results were an artifact of
the test procedure, additioilal concentration tests were per-
formed in the steel-wool generator with one sample of
our sulfonate. Tests were run at concentrations of 0.5,
03, 0.2, and 0.1 % active. The tests at 0.2 and 0.1 % ac-
tive were run longer than the tests at 0.5 and 0.3% ac-
, tive. Pressure-drop results are plotted vs. time in Fig. 10.
When plotted vs. time, there are large differences in
performance between different feed concentrations. Even
at the lowest feed concentration (0.1 % active), however,
a significant pressure drop is generated if the test is run
long enough. When these data are plotted vs. weight of
surfactant injected, differences in performance are much
smaller. Because no sand was present in these tests, these
and previous results suggest that it is necessary to achieve
low Sor before an effective foam can be made. The re-
sults also suggest that the amount of steamflood residual
oil displaced by steam-surfactant is a function of the
weight of surfactant injected.
In terms of field application, the results suggest that in-
itially a relatively high surfactant concentration (0.5% ac-
tive or higher) should be injected until a high injection
pressure is achieved. Thereafter, it may be possible to
maintain a high injection pressure with lower surfactant
concentrations.
Effect of Flow Rate. All the previously described sand-
pack tests were conducted at flow rates that would nor-
mally exist within about 5 ft [1.5 m] of the steam injection
wellbore (about 1.5 ftlmin [7.6 x 10 -3 mls] gas-phase
velocity). To determine whether an effective R1 could be
generated at flow rates that would exist farther from the
wellbore, a low flow rate test was performed in a Kern .
River sandpack with the previously described procedure.

50 SPE Reservoir Engineering, January 1986

 4.0
CRC Sulfonate
Feed Concentration, % Active 'i R1 = 8.9
"! 60 00.5%
S:
Co 3.0 End of 0.5% and Start of 5%
Ii e
e
0
00.3% 0
Surfactant Injection (R1 = 8.4)
50 G 0.2%
!! !!
::J 8> 0.1% ::J
2.0
:40
'" '"!!'"
It
...
II.

.9I! 30 ...CoIJ
CD 1:1
c: c:
~ 20 ~
E
..
t1. 10
0.00
2 3
Time (Days)
4 5 6

Fig. 11-Low-flow-rate test with eRe sulfonate in Kern

00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 River sandpack at 400°F and 300 psig.
Time, Minutes

Fig. 10-Effect of eRe sulfonate concentration on pres-

sure drop buildup across a steel-wool foa~ generato~ ~s Conclusions
a function of time at 400°F and 500 pslg With Kern River We made the following observations at typical steamflood
,residual oil saturation.
conditions.
1. Many sulfonate surfactants have good thermal sta-
bility.
In previous tests, the pressure drop was measured across 2. Foam requires constant regeneration at flowing con-
the entire 6-in. [15.2-cm] length of the sandpack. In this ditions to maintain its resistance to steam flow in a porous
test, the pressure drop was measured across only the mid- medium.
dle 3 in. [7.6 cm] of the 6-in. [15.2-cm] -long pack to 3. Foamability varies inversely with temperature and
avoid the possibility of end effects on pressure drop. The directly with gas-phase nitrogen concentration.
gas-phase· pore velocity was about 0.15 ft/min 4. For four commercial alpha-olefin sulfonates, foam
[7.6 x 10 -4 m/s], which corresponds roughly to a reser- effectiveness was relatively insensitive to foam L VF but
voir steam velocity 50 ft [15.2 m] from the injector with was adversely affected by brine.
a lO-ft [3.0-m] -thick steam zone and 500 BID [79.5 5. An effective foam was generated in reservoir core
m 3 /d] injection of 6O%-quality' steam at 400°F [204°C]. material at flow rates occurring far from the injection
Fig. 11 is a plot of the sandpack pressure drop as a func- wellbore.
tion of time. The base pressure drop across the middle One of our proprietary sulfonates was selected for field
3 in. [7.6 cm] of the 6-in. [15.2-cm] -long pack was 0.28 testing on the basis of good thermal stability, superior
psi [1.93 kPa]. When our 0.5% active sulfonate was in- foaming performance, significant reduction of steamflood
jected, the response time for an initial increase in pres- Son and good solubility characteristics.
sure drop was about 8 hours. Based on the 15-minute
response time observed in· the Ottawa sandpack runs at
about 10 times the gas-phase velocity, the expected Nomenclature
response time for the low-flow-rate run would be about k = permeability, md
21,2 hours. The 8-hour observed response time probably p = pressure, psi [kPa]
resulted from the difference in where the pressure drop R = r~sistance factor
was measured. In the Ottawa sandpacks, the pressure drop S = saturation, %
was measured across the entire 6-in. [15.2-cm] pack. In Il = viscosity, cp [Pa· s]
the Kern River sandpack, it was measured across the mid-
dle 3 in. [7.6 cm]. If the foam buildup follows a frontal Subscripts
advance, a pressure buildup in the middle 3 in. [7.6 cm] i = initial
sbould take proportionately longer than a pressure build-
o = oil
up at the inlet of the sandpack. Future tests will be run
in longer sandpacks to investigate the frontal advance of r = residual
foam generation and pressure buildup.
After the initial response in the middle 3 in. [7.6 cm], Acknowledgments
the pressure drop built up relatively quickly over about I would like to acknowledge the contributions of R.G.
12 hours and then followed a very slow ramp until about Wall, who provided many of the proprietary Chevron Oil
4 days into the test when the ramp increased. At about Field Research Co. sulfonates, and M.L. Knoles, who
5 days, the surfactant concentration was increased to 5 % conducted most of the laboratory tests.
active to determine whether the ramp could be increased
further, with no apparent effect. The run was terminated References
after 6 days because of experimental difficulties. At that
1. "Annual Production Report," Oil and Gas J. (April 5, 1982)
time, Rl had reached 8.9 and was still increasing. These 139-59.
results show that a significant increase in pressure drop 2. Needham, R.B.: "Plugging High Permeability Earth Strata," U.S.
can be achieved at low flow rates. Patent No. 3,412,793 (1968).

SPE Reservoir Engineering, January 1986 51

 3. Clampitt, R.L.: ':Selective Plugging of Formations with Foam," 12. Brigham, W .E.: "Field Pilot of Steam Drive with In Situ Foaming, "
U.S. Patent No. 3,993,133 (1976). . Enhanced Oil Recovery and Improved Drilling Technology, Prog-
4. Dilgren, R.E. et al.: "Steam-Channel-Expanding Steam Foam ress Review, Nos. 28-31, DOEIBETC-8114, 8211-3:
Drive," U.S. Patent No. 4,086,964 (1978). 13. Eson, R.L.: "Field Demonstration of the Conventional Steam Drive
5. Dilgren, R.E. and Owens, K.B.: "Hot Water Foam Oil Produc- Process with Ancillary Materials," Final Report, DOE/SF/I0762-3,
tion Process," U.S. Patent No. 4,161,217. (1979). U.S. DOE (March 1983).
6: Dilgren, R.E., Deemer, A.R., and Owens, K.B.: "The Labora- 14. Isaacs, E.E., Prowse, D.R., and Rankin, J.P.: "The Role of
tory Development and Field Testing of Steam/Noncondensable Gas Surfactant Additives in the In-Situ Recovery of Bitumen from Oil
Foams for Mobility Control in Heavy Oil Recovery," paper SPE Sands," J: Cdn. Pet. Tech. (May-June 1982) 33-41.
10774 presented at the 1982 SPE California Regional Meeting, San 15. Owens, K.B. and Dilgren, R.E.: "Steam Foam Drive Process,"
Francisco, March 24-26. U.K. Patent Application GB 2095 309 A (1982).
7. Bowman, R.: "Field Demonstration of the Conventional Steam 16. Engle, C.V.: "Evaluating Surfactants," U.S. Patent No. 4,148,217.
Drive Process with Ancillary Materials, First Annual Report, Oct.
.1, 1979-Sept. 30, 1980," DOE/SF/10761-1, U.S. DOE (Oct. 51 Metric Conversion Factors
1981).
8. Doscher, T.M. and Hammershaimb, E.C.: "Field Demonstration
ell in. X 1.638 706 E+01 em 3
of Steam Drive With Ancillary Materials," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1982) ell ft X 2.831 685 E-02 m3
1535-42. (OF-32)/1.8 _ °C
9. AI-Khafaji, A.H. et al.: "Steam Surfactant Systems at ReserVoir lD. X 2.54* E+OO em
Conditions," paper SPE 10777 presented at the 1982 SPE California lbm x 4.535 924 E-01 kg
Regional Meeting, San Francisco, March 24-26.
10. Rand, P.B. and Montoya, O.V.: "Aqueous Foam Surfactants for psi x 6.894757
I
E+oo kPa
Geothermal Drilling Fluids: I. Screening," Sandia Natl. Labora- .. Conversion factor is exact: SPERE
tories, SAND 79-2036 (Jan. 1980).
11. Bowman, R.: "Field Demonstration of the Conventional Steam Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office April 14,
1984. Paper accepted lor publication Dec. 18, 1984. Revised manuscript received Jan.
Drive Process with Ancillary Materials," Final Report, 5, 1985. Paper (SPE 12785) first presented at the 1984 SPE California Regional Meet-
DOE/SF/I0761-3, U.S. DOE (June 1983). ing held in Long Beach April 11-13.

52 SPE Reservoir Engineering, January 1986