Optimal Injection Strategies for Foam IOR
D. Shan,* SPE, and W.R. Rossen, SPE, U. of Texas at Austin
Summary
Miscible-gas foam field trials have employed a variety of injection
strategies, with mixed results. Using simulation, we compare
foam-injection strategies in homogeneous reservoirs with a variety
of foam models. The optimal injection strategy for overcoming
gravity override with foam in a homogeneous reservoir is alter-
nating injection of separate, large slugs of gas and liquid at fixed,
maximum-allowable injection pressure. This strategy minimizes
both gravity override and time of injection, with minimal rise in
injection-well pressure. Injection of gas at maximum pressure can
partially reverse the effects of gravity slumping of surfactant dur-
ing injection of liquid. The process is remarkably insensitive to the
detailed properties of the foam, as long as foam does not collapse
abruptly and completely at a “limiting water saturation” Sw*. How-
ever, care is needed to exclude the effects of numerical artifacts in
simulating such a process, especially if foam collapses abruptly
and completely at Sw*.
An idealized model for the process reveals the mechanisms
responsible for process success, why injection at fixed injection
pressure is better than injection at fixed rate, why details of foam
behavior play a secondary role in sweep efficiency, and why nu-
merical artifacts can be difficult to identify.
Introduction
Since 1900, gas, such as steam, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and
reinjected field gas, has been widely used as a driving fluid to
improve oil recovery.1,2 However, reservoir heterogeneity, low gas
density, and high gas mobility cause poor sweep efficiency, which
limits the application of gas in improved-oil-recovery (IOR) pro-
cesses. Because of low gas density, gas tends to rise to the top of
the reservoir and override the oil-rich zone. High mobility of gas
in the formation leads directly to viscous instability in the reser-
voir, and makes gravity override and heterogeneity much worse by
forming high-mobility channels. Fortunately, foam can improve
the sweep efficiency of injected gas by reducing gas mobility and
the effects of reservoir heterogeneity.3,4 Foams have been used in
IOR processes and achieved some success in field applications.5–18
Foam does not alter the water relative permeability function or
liquid viscosity.19–22 Foam greatly reduces gas mobility by trap-
ping some bubbles and resisting the movement of flowing gas
bubbles.23–26 Trapped gas reduces mobility by reducing gas rela-
tive permeability, while in flowing bubbles, gas has a large effec-
tive viscosity. Gas mobility in the presence of foam is dominated
by foam texture, or bubble size.23–26 Smaller bubbles reduce gas
mobility more than large bubbles.
Lower capillary pressure Pc favors foam generation24,27 and
stability,28,29 and higher capillary pressure causes foam collapse.
In fact, foam appears to suffer abrupt collapse at a single “limiting”
value of Pc, Pc*.28 This mechanism holds Pc close to Pc* and
water saturation Sw constant at Sw* ≡ Sw(Pc*) over a range of flow
rates and foam qualities (gas volume fraction).30 Gas mobility and
water fractional flow change abruptly over a narrow range of val-
ues of Sw near Sw* because of foam collapse. It is not yet clear
whether foam collapses completely at this saturation. At lower
foam qualities, there exists a second foam-flow regime,31 but it
plays a small role in the discussion to follow.
* Now at Schlumberger Data and Consulting Services
Copyright © 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 88811) was revised for publication from paper SPE 75180, presented at
the 2002 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 13–17 April. Original manu-
script received for review 29 May 2002. Revised manuscript received 10 March 2004.
Manuscript peer approved 11 March 2004.
132
In reality, the relative permeability and viscosity effects of
foam are inextricable.32 Computationally, it is equivalent to alter
gas mobility for foam by modifying either gas viscosity or relative
permeability or both. In the models described here, gas relative
permeability alone is altered to account for all effects of foam on
gas mobility.
Methods of Foam Injection. Foam can be placed in the reservoir
by either coinjection of liquid and gas at fixed quality (gas volume
fraction), or surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) injection, where al-
ternating slugs of surfactant solution and gas are injected. For CO2
projects, SAG processes may be preferred to minimize corrosion to
surface facilities and piping.33,34 Continuous foam injection
should be used if one wants to create and maintain foam in the
near-well region, or to ensure that both gas and liquid enter the
same zones in a heterogeneous reservoir.
Different foam-injection strategies have been used in field trials
because of stratigraphic differences, foam behavior, and opera-
tional concerns. Shan35 lists 11 foam field trials with CO2, N2, air,
or hydrocarbon-gas foam.5–11,13–15,17,18 Six employed coinjection
of gas and liquid, seven SAG injection at fixed injection rates, and
two SAG injection at fixed injection pressure. (Some field trials
tested more than one method of injection.) Determining the opti-
mal injection strategy is a major goal of this work.
For continuous foam injection at fixed injection rate, the only
way to improve sweep efficiency with continuously injected foam
is by raising the injection-well pressure.36,37 In such a process,
low-mobility foam extends from the displacement front back to the
injection well, where most of the pressure drop occurs. The re-
quired rise in injection-well pressure could fracture the injection
well, rendering a continuous-injection foam process impractical.
Shi and Rossen38 show that foam processes employing SAG
injection at fixed injection pressure control gravity override better
than continuous foam injection or SAG at fixed injection rate,
based on numerical simulations. They limited their study to gas
injection following injection of a large (infinite) slug of liquid. The
effects of liquid-slug size or multiple slugs were not considered.
Here we extend that study of gravity override in homogeneous
reservoirs to finite, multiple slugs of liquid and gas, with particular
focus on optimal injection strategies for both fluids. Fractional-
flow analysis indicates the reasons for the success of this process:
Most of the well-to-well pressure drop is focused near the dis-
placement front, where sweep efficiency is determined. An ideal-
ized model based on this concept shows why the process works,
why it is relatively insensitive to the details of behavior of the
foam formulations, and why real foam formulations may not live
up to the ideal process efficiency.
For simplicity, this report focuses on foam mobility in the
absence of oil, and “liquid” and “water” are used interchangeably
to designate the aqueous phase.
Fractional-Flow Analysis of SAG Processes
Fractional-flow methods are useful in analyzing foam39,40 and
other IOR processes.1 The assumptions made include incompress-
ible phases; Newtonian mobilities; one-dimensional displacement;
absence of dispersion, gradients of capillary pressure, and viscous
fingering; and immediate attainment of local steady state. In spite
of its simplifying assumptions, others41 have found fractional-flow
theory to be accurate and useful in analysis of field data in the
foam field test at the Snorre field. The application of fractional-
flow theory to foam displacements is discussed more fully else-
where.39,40
For the purposes of this study, three insights from fractional-
flow theory are essential: First, in fractional-flow methods, one
June 2004 SPE Journal
Fig. 1—Fractional-flow curves for two different surfactant con-
centrations based on the Fisher model. Dotted line represents
shock front for gas injection into surfactant bank with 0.02% Fig. 2—Time/distance diagram for gas injection into large slug
surfactant concentration. of surfactant: fixed-Pc* model based on data of Persoff et al.
Foam collapses completely at the shock front at the leading
edge of the gas bank. Numbers in boxes represent total relative
plots fractional-flow curves from the mobilities of the individual mobility [in (Paⴢs)–1] in regions of constant state, bounded by
phases, and then time/distance diagrams for a given displacement. solid lines; numbers in ellipses are total relative mobilities for
Fig. 1 shows the fractional-flow curves for foam at two surfactant specific locations within spreading waves.
concentrations based on the model of Fisher et al.40,42,43 The
time/distance diagrams describe the movement of saturation waves
surfactant solution in a 1D reservoir initially at 100% liquid satu-
in a 1D displacement; examples are shown below. Second, during
ration. The vertical axis is dimensionless position xd [i.e., (x/L) in
gas injection in a SAG displacement, there is a shock front from
a rectangular reservoir and (r/Re)2 in a cylindrical reservoir], where
the high liquid saturation initially present to a point on the frac-
x⳱horizontal position and L⳱reservoir length in a rectangular
tional-flow curve at extremely low water fractional flow fw (high
reservoir, and r⳱radial position and Re⳱outer radius in a cylin-
foam quality), as illustrated in Fig. 1. Only saturations below the
drical reservoir. The horizontal axis in each figure is dimensionless
point of tangency are actually observed in the displacement. Ob-
time (i.e., pore volumes injected). Thus, lines drawn through the
taining steady-state data in this crucial range is difficult, and pub-
origin represent waves moving downstream from the injection
lished data are rare. We use five different foam models below
point, and the slope of a wave on the plot indicates wave velocity
because all current foam models, when applied to SAG processes,
in the porous medium. The width of a wave in the plot represents
are extrapolations based on data taken at higher fw. All five models
the width of the wave in the porous medium. The region next to the
we use are reasonable extrapolations from data. They represent
vertical axis represents the initial state of the core or reservoir. A
both a range of behavior one might observe with different foam
number in a box or circle, respectively, on these figures represents
formulations and the uncertainty in extrapolating data to the low
the total relative mobility in (Pa·s)–1 for a constant-state region
values of fw crucial to SAG processes.
(bounded by solid lines on the plot) or a single characteristic in a
The third insight from fractional-flow theory concerns the pres-
spreading wave (dotted line on the plot). In each case the initial
sure response during gas injection in a SAG process and is dis-
saturation (along the vertical axis) is 100% liquid saturation; the
cussed below.
mobilities of the initial state differ somewhat between the cases
Foam Models because parameter values specified in the models differ.35,43
The fixed-Pc* foam model extrapolated from data of Persoff
We employ five foam models. Three are based on extrapolations of
et al. (Fig. 2) has a shock front from the initial saturation to a state
the data of Persoff et al.,39,43,44 and two on the model of Fisher
of complete foam collapse, the latter with enormous mobility
et al.,42,43 which is in turn based on the data of Lee and Heller45
[29540 (Pa·s)–1].39,40 The “2% progressive-collapse” model43 fol-
at different surfactant concentrations. For simplicity, we refer to
lows the data of Persoff et al. as far as they extend, but at lower fw
the latter two cases simply as the Fisher model. Model details are
foam is assumed to coarsen progressively over a narrow (2%)
given by Shi43 and Shan.35
range in Sw. It (Fig. 3) has a narrow moderate-mobility bank [243
Figs. 2 through 6 show the time-distance diagrams for these
(Pa·s)–1] and, behind it, a spreading wave of increasing mobility
five foam models for gas injection into a large (infinite) slug of
extending back to the injection well. In the “10% progressive-
collapse” model43 (Fig. 4) foam collapses more gradually as a

Fig. 3—Time/distance diagram for gas injection into a large slug

of surfactant: 2% progressive-collapse model. There is a narrow Fig. 4—Time/distance diagram for gas injection into a large slug
region of uniform mobility followed by a spreading wave. of surfactant: 10% progressive-collapse model.

June 2004 SPE Journal 133

Fig. 5—Time/distance diagram for gas injection into a large slug
of surfactant: Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant concentration.
function of water saturation; the moderate-mobility bank is wider,
and mobilities are lower behind this bank. In the Fisher model
based on data for 0.02% surfactant concentration43 (Fig. 5), mo-
bilities are a bit lower at the leading edge of the gas bank than in
the water bank ahead, but increase rapidly in a spreading wave
behind that. In the Fisher model for 0.5% surfactant concentration
(Fig. 6), mobilities are extraordinarily low at the leading edge of
the gas bank, and stay low except very close to the injection point
(horizontal axis).
All of these models assume local steady state rather than at-
tempting to represent the complex dynamics of foam generation
and destruction mechanisms.24–26 A local-steady-state foam model
roughly similar in form to that in Figs. 3 and 437 was validated by
others in simulation of the foam test at the Snorre field.41
Mobility During Liquid Injection After Gas. Many studies find
that foam does not change the water relative permeability func-
tion,19–22 but none of these studies examined specifically the case
of post-foam injection of liquid.46–48
Here, the same mobility functions are used during foam injec-
tion and gas and liquid injection in SAG processes. Refinement of
this assumption must await definitive experimental studies.
134
Fig. 6—Time/distance diagram for gas injection into a large slug
of surfactant: Fisher model with 0.5% surfactant concentration.
Foam Simulator and Numerical Issues
We use UTCOMP, an isothermal, 3D, equation-of-state composi-
tional simulator for miscible-gas flooding,49,50 modified for
foam.40,43 UTCOMP models cylindrical flow by constructing a
pie-shaped grid, where the width of a gridblock increases propor-
tionately to the distance from the well.35 In this work, there are 200
gridblocks in the radial direction, and the outer radial boundary is
maintained at a fixed pressure of 2,000 psi. Gas volumes and
injection rates cited below are at the initial reservoir pressure of
2,000 psi. Table 1 lists reservoir parameters used in the simulations.
Chang49 and Liu50 recommend the third-order method in
UTCOMP with TVD as the best way to reduce numerical artifacts
in simulations. We used this method in all results reported here.
Gravity Override in SAG Processes
Gravity override results from a competition between gravity (and
density difference) and horizontal pressure gradient.36,38 For a
foam process with continuous foam injection, water saturation in
the foam bank is nearly uniform and constant.36 For a process that
perfectly obeys the fixed-Pc* model, water saturation in the foam
bank is absolutely uniform and constant.40 Foam mobility is very
low throughout the foam bank. Especially in a cylindrical reser-
voir, high velocity and low foam mobility near the injection well
cause high injection pressure, which risks fracturing the forma-
tion.9 Moreover, velocity and pressure gradient at the displacement
front decrease as the displacement front moves away from the
well, promoting gravity override.36
In contrast, for SAG processes, during gas injection, water
saturation declines and mobility increases toward the injection
well (Figs. 2 through 6), helping to avoid fracturing the formation.
Fig. 7 shows total relative mobility as a function of position after
0.2 PV gas injection into a large bank of surfactant in a cylindrical
reservoir using the Fisher model at 0.02% surfactant concentration.
The shock front is near the middle of the reservoir at r⳱0.5 Re (or
xd⳱0.25 on Fig. 5). High mobility near the injection well results
from drying out and partial foam collapse there; it is not the result
of any shear-thinning rheology, which has been excluded from the
model.43 There is a low-mobility zone behind the shock front, a
high-gas-mobility zone near the well, and a single gridblock with
extremely low mobility at the shock front. According to Fig. 7, a
SAG process can employ higher injection rate to prevent gravity
override without exceeding the allowed injection pressure, because
foam mobility is high near the well during gas injection. With
relatively high mobility ahead of and behind the displacement
front, a SAG process with fixed injection pressure can focus much
of the reservoir pressure drop at the displacement front to fight
gravity override. In a SAG process with fixed injection rate, how-
ever, decreasing frontal velocity in radial flow reduces pressure
gradient at the front and promotes gravity override. Shi and Ros-
sen38 compare continuous foam injection and fixed-injection-rate
and fixed-injection-pressure SAG processes in rectangular and cy-
June 2004 SPE Journal

Fig. 7—Total relative mobility after 0.2 PV gas injection into a
large slug of surfactant for a SAG process in a 1D cylindrical
reservoir: Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant concentration
(Fig. 5): simulation result.
lindrical reservoirs using the Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant
concentration. They report that the fixed-injection-pressure SAG
minimizes gravity override and injection time. A wider range of
examples, with this and other models, is shown below.
Comparison of Gas-Injection Strategies. In this section, we as-
sume a large (infinite) slug of surfactant ahead of gas in order to
compare different gas-injection schemes.
In Fig. 8a, based on the Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant
concentration, gas and liquid at 80% foam quality are injected
simultaneously into a cylindrical reservoir at a total injection rate
108 ft3/D. In this and following figures, x represents horizontal
position in a rectangular or (more often) a cylindrical reservoir. At
steady state, the position where gas and water segregate com-
pletely is about 0.45 Re and the pressure difference across the
reservoir is about 350 psi at that time. At this point, the foam bank
has stopped advancing into the reservoir.36 Given the uniform,
low-mobility foam zone, it takes approximately 570 days to inject
0.4 PV gas and water. Higher injection rate would allow foam to
propagate somewhat further into the reservoir, but at the cost of
higher injection pressure, with higher risk of fracturing the formation.
Figs. 8b and 8c show water saturations after 0.4 PV gas injec-
tion for a SAG process at a fixed injection rate of 2,205 ft3/D, in
which injection pressure rises to a maximum of 350 psi, and a SAG
process at a fixed injection pressure of 2,350 psi. The case with the
fixed, maximum pressure drop (Fig. 8c) clearly gives better sweep
efficiency. Figs. 8d and 8e show water saturations for a SAG
process at a fixed injection rate of 315 ft3/D (7 times lower than in
Fig. 8b) and for a SAG process at a fixed injection pressure of
2,050 psi (pressure drop 7 times smaller than in Fig. 8c). The
fixed-pressure SAG processes give better sweep than fixed-rate
SAG process at the same maximum injection pressure. Moreover,

Fig. 8—Water saturation in a 2D cylindrical reservoir using the Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant concentration. (a) Continuous
foam injection (fw=0.2, qt=108 ft3/D, maximum pressure drop=350 psi); (b) gas is injected at fixed rate of 2,205 ft3/D, maximum
pressure drop=350 psi; (c) gas is injected at fixed pressure of 2,350 psi; (d) gas is injected at fixed rate of 315 ft3/D, maximum
pressure drop=50 psi; (e) gas is injected at fixed pressure of 2,050 psi.

June 2004 SPE Journal 135

it takes 104 days and 40 days, respectively, for SAG processes at
fixed injection rate and at fixed injection pressure to inject 0.4 PV
gas in Figs. 8d and 8e. As in continuous foam injection,36 pressure
gradient is the crucial factor in controlling gravity override in SAG
processes. The cases with higher fixed injection rate or pressure
(Figs. 8b and 8c) give a better sweep than the cases with lower
fixed injection rate or pressure (Figs. 8d and 8e).
Fig. 9 compares different injection strategies based on the
Fisher model with 0.5% surfactant concentration. In Fig. 9a, 80%-
quality foam is injected at a total injection rate of 1 ft3/D. At steady
state, gas overrides at about 0.46 Re, and the pressure drop across
the reservoir is approximately 350 psi. Gas is injected at a fixed
injection rate of 120 ft3/D in Fig. 9b, and a fixed injection pressure
of 2,350 psi in Fig. 9c, respectively. After 0.4 PV gas injection, the
injection pressure for SAG process at fixed rate (Fig. 9b) decreases
to 260 psi, which is still high enough to prevent gravity override,
so this case gives almost the same sweep efficiency as the SAG
process at fixed pressure. It takes 578 days for the SAG process at
fixed injection rate to inject 0.4 PV gas (Fig. 9b), and over 85,000
days to inject the same volume of gas as part of an 80%-quality
foam (Fig. 9a), but only 480 days for the SAG process at fixed
injection pressure (Fig. 9c). Figs. 9d and 9e show water saturations
for SAG processes at a fixed injection rate of 17 ft3/D (7 times
lower than in Fig. 9b) and at a fixed pressure of 2,050 psi (pressure
drop 7 times smaller than in Fig. 9c). These two cases give worse
sweep because of lower injection rate and injection pressure. Figs.
8 and 9 show that injection-well pressure plays a larger role in
Fig. 9—Water saturation in a 2D cylindrical reservoir using the Fisher model with 0.5% surfactant concentration. (a) Continuous
foam injection (fw=0.2, qt=1 ft3/D, maximum pressure drop=350 psi); (b) gas is injected at fixed rate of 120 ft3/D, maximum pressure
drop=350 psi; (c) gas is injected at fixed pressure of 2,350 psi; (d) gas is injected at fixed rate of 17 ft3/D, maximum pressure
drop=50 psi; (e) gas is injected at fixed pressure of 2,050 psi.
136
controlling gravity override than details of foam behavior, as dis-
cussed further in following sections. Injection rate, however, is
sensitive to details of foam behavior.
Figs. 10 and 11 show similar comparisons for the 2% and 10%
progressive-collapse models based on the data of Persoff
et al.35,43,44 The gas saturation in the gas bank is approximately
0.65 with these two models, compared to 0.8 to 0.85 with the
Fisher models (Fig. 1). Therefore, the gas banks have progressed
further at 0.4 PV gas injection in Figs. 10 and 11b and c than in
Figs. 8 and 9. Figs. 9d and 10d represent 0.2 PV gas injection,
unlike the other cases. The fixed-injection-pressure SAG has better
sweep than the other two injection strategies at the same maximum
injection-well pressure.
Thus, a SAG process at fixed injection pressure gives better
sweep efficiency than either continuous foam injection or a SAG
process at fixed injection rate. If injection rate and injection pres-
sure are sufficiently high, all three processes can succeed (see, for
instance, Ref. 36).
Gas Injection Into a Finite Liquid Slug. At the point gas breaks
through the surfactant bank in a SAG process, one expects no
further improvement in sweep efficiency. Fig. 12 illustrates what
happens when gas breaks through a finite surfactant slug in a 2D
cylindrical reservoir. This and following figures plot both surfac-
tant concentration in the aqueous phase and gas saturation. In all
cases, a concentration of 5,000 units (half the injected concentra-
tion) is sufficient to trigger foam formation.40 In this case, injec-
June 2004 SPE Journal
Fig. 10—Water saturation in a 2D cylindrical reservoir using the 2% progressive-collapse model. (a) Continuous foam injection (fw
=0.2, qt=16 ft3/D, maximum pressure drop=225 psi); (b) 0.4 PV gas is injected at fixed rate of 1,604 ft3/D, maximum pressure
drop=225 psi; (c) 0.4 PV gas is injected at fixed pressure of 2,225 psi; (d) 0.2 PV gas injected at fixed pressure of 2,050 psi (different
gray scale; saturations are similar to other cases).

tion of 0.05 PV surfactant solution is followed by gas injected at
a fixed injection pressure of 2,100 psi. After 0.2 PV gas injection,
gas breaks through the surfactant front at about 0.38 Re, quickly
rises, and overrides the rest of the reservoir. As in the SAG foam
project in the Snorre field,18,41 the effectiveness of foam degrades
when gas breaks through the surfactant front. Thus, the ability of
foam to overcome gravity override cannot extend beyond the front
of the surfactant bank.
Thus, there are two necessary conditions for foam to overcome
gravity override: Sufficient surfactant solution to sweep the region
of interest, and sufficient pressure gradient to avoid gravity seg-
regation in this region. For processes with sufficient pressure gra-
dient, surfactant propagation limits sweep efficiency. For pro-
cesses with sufficient surfactant, gravity and pressure gradient
limit sweep efficiency.38
Multiple SAG Cycles. Comparison Between One SAG Cycle and
Two SAG Cycles. Once SAG injection is selected for field appli-
cation, the slug sizes are important design considerations. Fig. 13
shows surfactant concentration and water saturation after 0.6 PV
total injection for one SAG cycle and two SAG cycles, for a SAG
process at fixed injection rate. For the case with one SAG cycle,

Fig. 11—Water saturation in a 2D cylindrical reservoir using the 10% progressive-collapse model. (a) Continuous foam injection
(fw=0.2, qt=16 ft3/D, maximum pressure drop=225 psi); (b) 0.4 PV gas is injected at fixed rate of 922 ft3/D, maximum pressure
drop=225 psi; (c) 0.4 PV gas is injected at fixed pressure of 2,225 psi; (d) 0.2 PV gas injected at fixed pressure of 2,050 psi (different
gray scale; saturations are similar to other cases).

June 2004 SPE Journal 137

Fig. 12—(a) Surfactant concentration and (b) water saturation after injection of 0.2 PV gas at 2,100 psi into 0.05 PV surfactant
solution in 2D cylindrical reservoir using the Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant concentration. On the left plot, a surfactant
concentration of 5,000 units (medium gray) is sufficient to trigger foam formation.

0.2 PV surfactant solution is injected first at an injection rate of
31.4 ft3/D, followed by 0.4 PV gas injection with an injection rate
of 1,260 ft3/D. During injection of the first liquid slug there is no
gas in the reservoir, so no liquid slumping occurs initially. For the
case with two SAG cycles, 0.1 PV surfactant solution with an
injection rate of 31.4 ft3/D is followed by 0.2 PV gas with an
injection rate of 1,260 ft3/D in the first cycle, followed by a second
cycle the same as the first. There is gravity segregation during the
injection of the second liquid slug in this process. Fig. 13 shows
that the process with one SAG cycle gives nearly piston-like dis-
placement, while gas override has already occurred at 0.6 PV
injection for the process with two SAG cycles. The reason is clear
from the surfactant front in Fig. 13: The surfactant front propagates
further along the top of the reservoir, where override occurs, with
only one SAG cycle.
Fig. 14 shows water saturations for processes with one SAG
cycle and two SAG cycles with fixed injection pressure of gas in
both. Liquid is injected at a fixed injection rate of 31.4 ft3/D and
gas is injected at fixed pressure of 2,200 psi (the maximum injec-
tion pressure of the case in Fig. 13). After 0.6 PV gas and liquid
injection, the process with one SAG cycle gives slightly better
sweep efficiency than the process with two SAG cycles.
Thus SAG with fewer, larger slugs gives a somewhat better
sweep efficiency than the case with many smaller slugs. The rea-
son, we believe, is a coupling between gravity segregation and
surfactant propagation. In the two-SAG-cycle process, surfactant
fills the lower portion of the reservoir not penetrated by gas, with
water saturation Sw⳱100%. Where gas sweeps, in this process,
Sw≈20%, and a given volume of foam requires only one-fifth
as much surfactant solution as a region with Sw⳱100%. In
other words, a relatively small underride zone with Sw⳱100%
represents what could have been a much larger region filled with
foam. In the two-cycle SAG process, a large portion of the injected
surfactant slug lies useless in the underride zone. Meanwhile,
in Figs. 13a and 14a, the piston-like sweep with the one-slug
process helps to push surfactant ahead and maximizes the propa-
gation of surfactant.
Liquid Slumping and Optimal Gas-Injection Strategy. In prin-
ciple, liquid slumping only a short distance downward could de-
prive the top of reservoir of the surfactant solution needed for
foam. Surfactant is treated as an aqueous-phase tracer in the simu-
lator,40 with no change in aqueous-phase density; the only factor to
cause gravity slumping here is the large density difference between
liquid and gas.

Fig. 13—Surfactant concentration (top) and water saturation (bottom) for SAG processes at fixed injection rate in a 2D cylindrical
reservoir using the Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant concentration. (a) One SAG cycle: 0.2 PV liquid is injected at 31.4 ft3/D, then
0.4 PV gas is injected at 1,260 ft3/D. (b) Two SAG cycles: 0.1 PV liquid is injected at 31.4 ft3/D, followed by 0.2 PV gas injected at
1,260 ft3/D, followed by a second cycle the same as the first.

138 June 2004 SPE Journal

Fig. 14—Surfactant concentration (top) and water saturation (bottom) for SAG processes at fixed injection pressure in a 2D
cylindrical reservoir using the Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant concentration. (a) One SAG cycle: 0.2 PV liquid is injected at 31.4
ft3/D, then 0.4 PV gas is injected at 2,200 psi. (b) Two SAG cycles: 0.1 PV liquid is injected at 31.4 ft3/D, followed by 0.2 PV gas
injected at 2,200 psi, followed by a second cycle the same as the first.
Fig. 15 shows the performance of four cases after 0.6 PV
injection with two SAG cycles and different gas-injection pres-
sures: 10, 30, 50, and 100 psi above reservoir pressure. The res-
ervoir is initially saturated with surfactant-free water with
Sw⳱100%. The liquid-injection strategy is same for all cases, with
an injection rate of 31.4 ft3/D. Surfactant-concentration contours
and water saturations in Fig. 15 illustrate that higher gas-injection
pressure gives both better gas sweep efficiency and less surfactant
slumping. Comparison of these cases indicates that gas override
and surfactant slumping go together. Better sweep of gas, with
higher pressure gradient, helps the liquid propagate further along
the top of the reservoir.
Thus, injecting gas at the maximum allowable injection pres-
sure for SAG processes not only prevents gas override within the
surfactant bank, but also decreases surfactant slumping, both of
which help gas sweep further.
Redistribution of Liquid During Gas Injection. A worst-case
scenario for slumping of the surfactant slug occurs during injection
of surfactant into a field with a gas present, but no foam. Highly
mobile gas can redistribute, facilitating slumping of the surfactant
front. Fig. 16 shows a two-SAG-cycle process with gas, but no
surfactant or foam, initially present in the reservoir (Swi⳱0.8). The
first cycle comprises 0.1 PV liquid injected at an injection rate of
31.4 ft3/D, followed by 0.2 PV gas injected at a modest 50 psi
above reservoir pressure. The second cycle is same as the first one.
During the first 0.1 PV liquid injection, severe gas override and
surfactant slumping occur, because gas mobility is initially high.
However, the following period of gas injection with 50-psi pres-
sure drop across the reservoir partially redistributes surfactant so-
lution, with surfactant solution propagating further along the top of
the reservoir. During injection of the second gas slug, liquid again
propagates along the top of the reservoir, thus helping to prevent
gas override. It appears that foam can push surfactant back toward
the top of reservoir to mitigate gravity slumping that occurs during
injection of liquid. Thus fixed-pressure SAG injection with suffi-
cient pressure drop can at least partially heal a process of gravity
slumping during liquid injection.
Fig. 17 illustrates a case in which insufficient injection pressure
in a previous SAG cycle led to gravity override. At the end of
injection of the first liquid slug, the contour lines of the surfactant
concentration are vertical, because (by assumption) surfactant so-
June 2004 SPE Journal
lution has the same density as water. The first gas slug is injected
at 2,010 psi. Gas largely overrides the liquid slug because of in-
sufficient pressure gradient. Then, 0.1 PV surfactant solution is
injected into the reservoir. By this point, gas override is significant,
and liquid slumping is starting to deplete the top of the reservoir.
Then, 0.2 PV more gas is injected at a larger fixed pressure of
2,050 psi. During this period, the high pressure gradient pushes
liquid back up to the top of reservoir. Gas injection with sufficient
pressure gradient can partially reverse gravity slumping during
injection of liquid.
Optimal Liquid Injection Strategy. For the SAG project in the
Snorre field,18,41 the high well pressure experienced during injec-
tion of the liquid slug caused fracturing of the formation, with loss
of surfactant, and reduced effectiveness of foam. Fortunately, Figs.
16 and 17 suggest that liquid-injection strategy is not crucial to
success against gravity override (as long as fracturing is avoided),
because even if slumping of surfactant occurs, the following period
of gas injection with sufficient pressure gradient can at least par-
tially heal this problem. This is especially important because the
mobility of a liquid slug injected after foam is still not fully re-
solved.46–48 Nonetheless, one can still make the following gener-
alization: It is best to inject liquid at fixed pressure, just below
fracturing pressure, to accelerate the process and minimize the
time for gravity segregation during liquid injection. Shan35 shows
an example in which liquid injection at fixed injection rate doubles
the injection pressure, while injection at fixed, lower pressure
gives nearly the same sweep efficiency.
Sensitivity to Missing Data at Low Water Fractional Flow. For
continuous foam injection in a given reservoir, gravity override
depends only on injection-well pressure.36 Shi and Rossen suggest
that sweep efficiency in fixed-pressure SAG processes may like-
wise be independent of foam properties.38 Fractional-flow theory
predicts that the effectiveness of SAG processes depends on foam
strength at extremely high foam quality (low fw),39,40 but it is
difficult to conduct steady-state corefloods at this condition.51,52
Thus, if process performance were independent of this behavior, it
would simplify field process design.
Figs. 8 through 11 compare the performance of four foams with
very different mobilities at low fw (Figs. 3 to 6) under similar
conditions. These differences in foam models represent the differ-
139
Fig. 15—Surfactant concentration (top) and water saturation (bottom) for SAG processes in a 2D cylindrical reservoir with different
gas-injection pressures using the Fisher model with 0.02% surfactant concentration. All cases have two SAG cycles with the same
liquid-injection strategy, but different injection pressure for gas. In the contour plots of surfactant concentration, the second
contour from the right indicates 5,000 units, the minimum concentration for foam formation.

ences of foam properties between different foam formulations, and
the uncertainty in foam behavior at the low fw that controls SAG
floods. The sweep efficiency with continuous foam injection (Figs.
8a to 11a) depends only on injection-well pressure, as expected.36
The sweep efficiency of fixed-pressure SAG processes with the
same injection pressure is also remarkably similar. For instance,
the Fisher foam with 0.5% surfactant concentration is approxi-
mately 100 times stronger than with 0.02% concentration (see
Figs. 5 and 6), but performance of the foams in fixed-pressure
SAG floods at the same injection pressure (Figs. 8c and 9c, or 8e
and 9e) is similar.
Injection rate is sensitive to foam strength, however, as noted
above. Sweep efficiency with a fixed-injection-rate SAG process
also depends more on foam model than with fixed-pressure SAG.
It appears that Shi and Rossen’s conclusion38 should be modi-
fied: The performance of a fixed-pressure SAG process changes
remarkably little with differences between foam models; pressure
gradient is a more important factor than details of foam behavior
in controlling gravity override in fixed-injection-pressure SAG
processes. We propose an explanation below. For now, we note
that for the 0.02%-concentration Fisher model, a larger fraction of
the well-to-well pressure drop is dissipated across the water bank
than for 0.5% concentration, because with 0.02% surfactant con-
centration, the foam bank has higher mobility (Figs. 5 and 6).
Therefore, the case with 0.5% surfactant concentration focuses
more of the well-to-well pressure drop on the gas displacement
front than that with 0.02% concentration.
Sweep With Complete Foam Collapse in Shock Front. The
data of Persoff et al.44 are also consistent with a model in which
foam collapses completely in a shock front at the leading edge of
the foam bank (Fig. 2).38,40 In finite-difference simulation, foam
cannot form and collapse in a shock front with zero width; the
minimum width of the front is one gridblock (see the lowest-
mobility gridblock in Fig. 7). Therefore, artificial numerical dis-
persion is introduced by finite-difference simulation. As the gas
front moves across one gridblock, or, more precisely, drains the
water from one gridblock and moves on to the next, foam is
created and then collapses as the gridblock drains. For the fixed-
Pc* model (Fig. 2), there should be no low-mobility bank at all,39
but finite-difference simulation artificially introduces at least one
gridblock with low mobility.40
Comparing the two Fisher models (Figs. 8 and 9), the one with
the narrower low-mobility zone (0.02% concentration) has similar
sweep efficiency but much higher injectivity than the case with the

140 June 2004 SPE Journal

Fig. 16—Water saturation and surfactant concentration after injection of slugs for SAG processes in a 2D cylindrical reservoir. Gas
is initially present in the reservoir, with 80% initial water saturation. 0.1 PV surfactant is injected at 31.4 ft3/D, followed by 0.2 PV
gas injected at 2,050 psi. The second cycle is same as the first.
broader bank of much lower mobility (0.5% concentration). For a
process in which foam collapses in the shock front, the width of the
low-mobility bank is one gridblock; as gridding is refined, the
width of this bank decreases. Sweep efficiency does not at first
suffer. Fig. 18 shows the sweep efficiency of a foam that obeys the
fixed-Pc* model, with 50, 200, and 500 gridblocks along the radial
direction. It is remarkable that gravity override does not worsen
more rapidly as the gridblock size decreases. An explanation is
suggested here.
Nevertheless, the similarity in sweep efficiency masks an arti-
fact in these simulations that is apparent in a plot of injection rate
vs. time. Fig. 19 shows cumulative gas injection for the same three
cases. The simulation is not approaching a constant behavior as
gridblock size is reduced, but injection rate is increasing with
increasing grid refinement, apparently without limit in the range of
grid refinements shown. In these simulations, injection rate is
regulated largely by the single low-mobility gridblock at the lead-
ing edge of the gas bank. As the gridblock size shrinks, injectivity
increases. This symptom is a warning sign that the simulation as a
whole is controlled by numerical dispersion at the gas shock front
and is unreliable.
June 2004 SPE Journal
An Idealized Model for SAG Displacements
From the previous examples, it appears that the ideal SAG process
introduces a spreading wave with low mobility at the gas displace-
ment front and very high mobility near the injection well (Figs. 3
to 6). Shan35 shows that the pressure drop across the spreading
wave in a fixed-rate SAG process in a 1D cylindrical flow is
constant in time. This observation motivates the following ideal-
ized model for SAG foam displacements, in which all resistance to
flow is concentrated in a narrow (but slowly spreading) zone at the
gas displacement front, with infinite mobility ahead of and behind it.
Model Formulation. Fig. 20 shows a schematic of the idealized
model of foam SAG processes. We assume that that the mobility
ahead of and behind the displacement front is much (infinitely)
greater than mobility in a low-mobility zone at the displacement
front. Water saturation ahead of the front is uniform at 100%.
Reservoir pressure is fixed at the top of reservoir at the production
well, and, because mobility is infinite in the water bank, the pres-
sure in the water bank is fixed by hydrostatics. For the gas bank
behind the displacement front, water saturation is uniform at Swf,
gas density is close to zero, and, because mobility is infinite there,
141
Fig. 17—Surfactant concentration (top) and water saturation (bottom) for SAG process in a 2D cylindrical reservoir using the Fisher
model with 0.02% surfactant concentration. 0.1 PV liquid is injected at 31.4 ft3/D, followed by 0.2 PV gas injected at 2,010 psi. Then,
0.1 PV liquid is injected at 31.4 ft3/D, followed by 0.2 PV gas injected at 2,050 psi.

the gas-phase pressure is uniform. Therefore, the whole well-to-
well pressure drop ⌬P is focused on a low-mobility zone with
thickness ␶, which is assumed for simplicity’s sake to be narrow
compared to the length of the reservoir. As in a spreading wave in
1D (as in Fig. 4), the thickness of the front ␶ is assumed to increase
proportionately to the distance that the front has traveled, s. The
following derivation applies to either a rectangular or cylindrical
reservoir. For simplicity, horizontal position variable x represents
either x (rectangular reservoir) or r (cylindrical reservoir).
Applying Darcy’s law to the low-mobility zone, the Darcy
velocity of gas inside the low-mobility zone is
ug = k␭rfⱍⵜPⱍ, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

142 June 2004 SPE Journal

Fig. 18—Water saturation after 0.01 PV gas injection into a large surfactant slug in a 2D cylindrical reservoir based on fixed-Pc*
model with 50×10, 200×10, and 500×30 gridblocks. Gas is injected at 2,050 psi.

where ug⳱gas Darcy velocity within the zone, ␭rf⳱gas relative vidual points in the front at positions [x(t),z(t)]. For each point
mobility in low-mobility zone, assumed to be constant throughout [x(t),z(t)], there is the distance s(t) that this point has moved since
the displacement, and |ⵜP|⳱the magnitude of the pressure gradi- the beginning of the displacement. The movement of the front is
ent in the low-mobility zone. Pressure gradient across the front is everywhere perpendicular to the front, with angle ␣ defining the
determined by the width of the front local normal to the front as illustrated in Fig. 20:
ⱍⵜPⱍ = ⌬P Ⲑ ␶, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
and ␶, the width of the low-mobility front, is proportional to s, the
␣ = arctan 冉冊 ⭸x
⭸z t
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
distance the front has traveled: where (⭸x/⭸z)t is the slope of the front at a given location at a given time;
␶ = ␶ *s Ⲑ L*, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) dx k␭rf
vx = = ⱍⵜPⱍ ⭈ cos共␣兲 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
where the characteristic front width ␶*⳱a parameter of the model dt 共1 − Swf兲␾
and L*⳱a length scale to be determined below. (␶*⳱the width of dz k␭rf
the front when it has traveled a distance L*.) For 1D rectilinear or vz = = ⱍⵜPⱍ ⭈ sin共␣兲 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
cylindrical flow, s⳱x or r, respectively, but for 2D flow we give dt 共1 − Swf兲␾
a more complex definition. ⌬P − ⌬␳gz 共⌬P − ⌬␳gz兲L*
ⱍⵜPⱍ = = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
Therefore, the interstitial velocity v of displacement front is ␶ ␶*s
k␭rf ⱍⵜPⱍ ds
v= , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) = 共vx2 + vz2兲1 Ⲑ 2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
共1 − Swf兲␾ dt
where ␾⳱porosity of reservoir. The Darcy velocity ug, interstitial where vx and vz⳱the velocity of the front (perpendicular to the
velocity v, and pressure gradient across the low-mobility zone are front) in the x and z directions, respectively, at a given point;
perpendicular to the interface between the gas and water zones. To ⌬P⳱well-to-well pressure difference at the top of the reservoir,
track the movement of the front, we track the movement of indi- ⌬␳⳱the density difference between phases, g⳱gravitational ac-

Fig. 19—Cumulative-injection profiles for the cases in Fig. 18. Fig. 20—Schematic of the idealized model for SAG displacements.

June 2004 SPE Journal 143

celeration, and ␶⳱the thickness of low-mobility zone. The initial
兰 ␲x dz, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
d H
conditions (IC) and boundary conditions (BC) are qt共t兲 = 共1 − Swf兲␾ 2
dt 0

IC: at t = 0, x = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) where x, the position variable in the model, stands in for r.
IC: at t = 0, s = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11) To allow for gas trapping, in all cases we forbid the front to
retreat [i.e., forbid (dXD/dtD)<0 and (dZD/dtD)<0 for any point on
BC: at z = 0, ␣ = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12) the front] even if ⌬P decreases during the injection process.
The dimensionless differential equations for the positions of For a fixed-pressure SAG process, a single family of curves
individual points on the displacement front are [XD(ZD)] as a function of tD (Fig. 21) describes all displacements.
In addition, the characteristic width ␶* or mobility ␭rf of the low-
dXD 共1 − ZD兲 ⭈ cos共␣兲 mobility zone affects the scaling of tD (and the injection rate), but
= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
dtD sD not the shape of the front. Gravity override for this idealized fixed-
pressure SAG process depends only on density difference between
dZD 共1 − ZD兲 ⭈ sin共␣兲
= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14) phases (⌬␳g) and well-to-well pressure difference (⌬P). In the
dtD sD idealized model, for given ⌬P, sweep efficiency is independent of
dsD
dtD
= 冑冉 冊 冉 冊dxD
dtD
2
+
dzD
dtD
2
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
the details of foam behavior [i.e., (␭rf/␶*)] as long as model as-
sumptions are satisfied—much lower mobility near the leading
edge of the gas bank than ahead of the bank or near the injection
where well. This explains much of the response of the fixed-injection-

冉 冊
pressure SAG process to the different foam models in Figs. 8
⭸XD ⌬␳gx through 11 above.
␣ ≡ arctan , XD ≡ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
⭸ZD tD ⌬P At the start of the displacement, the front is vertical; it begins
to tip over because the pressure difference between gas and water
⌬␳gz k␭rf⌬␳g is greater at the top of the reservoir than at the bottom, because of
ZD ≡ , tD ≡ t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
⌬P 共 − Swf兲␾␶*
1 hydrostatic effects present in the liquid but not the gas. A fixed-
⌬␳gs ⌬P pressure SAG process is so successful in the idealized model be-
sD ≡ L* ≡ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18) cause all that is needed is a well-to-well injection pressure that is
⌬P ⌬␳g well above the hydrostatic pressure difference in the liquid phase
These definitions of dimensionless position and time differ from across the reservoir height. Even if ⌬P is not much larger than this,
those in fractional-flow theory.1 The boundary conditions are and the front starts to tip over, the displacement is aided by the fact
that the front moves normal to its direction. Thus even as the front
IC: at tD = 0, XD = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19) tilts over, the front moves normal to this direction (i.e., downward
IC: at tD = 0, sD = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20) toward the unswept portions of the reservoir).

BC: at ZD = 0, ␣ = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21) Comparison With Simulation. Of the foam models in Figs. 2

In the final model, ␭rf and ␶* appear only in the ratio (␭rf/␶*). The through 6, the Fisher model with 0.5% surfactant concentration
model is unchanged, as ␶* → 0 as long as this ratio holds constant. (Fig. 6) best fits the assumptions of the idealized model. Fig. 22
Injection rate qt(t) can be determined from the advance of the shows the displacement front of the Fisher model with 0.5% sur-
front with time. In a rectangular reservoir, factant concentration in a rectangular reservoir 200 ft long and 30
ft high, with an injection pressure of 2,050 psi. For this model,
Swf⳱0.15. Fig. 23 shows the predictions of the idealized model at
兰 x dz, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
d H
qt共t兲 = 共1 − Swf兲␾W the same PV injection. The displacement fronts are very similar.
dt 0

where W⳱the width of the reservoir in the y direction, and H⳱its Comparison With Fixed-Rate SAG Process. To model a fixed-
height in the z direction. In a cylindrical reservoir, rate SAG process in the context of the idealized model, one must

Fig. 21—Dimensionless progress of gas injection in the idealized model for fixed-injection-pressure SAG displacement.

144 June 2004 SPE Journal

Fig. 22—Water saturation after 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 PV gas injection into a rectangular reservoir using Fisher model with 0.5%
surfactant concentration in simulator. Gas is injected at 50 psi above reservoir pressure.
adjust ⌬P over time to maintain injection rate fixed. In our calcu-
lations, we approximated fixed-qt injection as follows. At each
timestep, we compute the advance of the front by forward differ-
ence and iterate on ⌬P until qt is within 1% of its fixed value. We
used 105 timesteps in a typical model run. The calculation diverges
at the start, when sD⳱zero (Eqs. 13, 14, and 18); therefore, we
start with sD⳱0.001 at tD⳱0 for all ZD. This small error at the
start rapidly becomes insignificant as the front advances over
larger distances.
Figs. 24 and 25 compare fixed-rate SAG injection to fixed-
injection-pressure SAG in a rectangular and a cylindrical reservoir.
In these figures, Swf⳱0.1515. The dimensionless front shapes are
identical for fixed-pressure SAG in rectangular and cylindrical
geometries for the same values of XD, but the PV injected at a
given value of XD differs in the two geometries. In a fixed-qt
process in a rectangular reservoir (Fig. 24a), ␶ and ⌬P increase
with time until the low-mobility front reaches the production well.
The increase in ⌬P with time in this case helps gas sweep toward
the bottom of reservoir later in the flood. In the fixed-⌬P process
in the same rectangular reservoir, gas is injected at a fixed pressure
Fig. 23—Displacement front position after 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 PV of
gas injection into a rectangular reservoir of Fig. 22 using the
idealized model. Gas is injected at 50 psi above reservoir pres-
sure. Other parameters are listed in Table 1.
June 2004 SPE Journal
12 psi above reservoir pressure, the injection pressure at the end of
the fixed-qt process. In the fixed-⌬P case, injection rate decreases
with time, but is always higher than 1 ft3/D. The fixed-⌬P process
gives somewhat better sweep efficiency than the fixed-qt process
because of higher ⌬P at the start of injection in the latter case. In
this example, neither process sweeps to the bottom of the reservoir,
because 12 psi injection pressure is insufficient to overcome hy-
drostatic pressure difference over a height of 30 ft. (For simplicity,
gas density is taken as zero in calculations with the idealized model.)
In a cylindrical reservoir (Fig. 25), the maximum pressure for
the fixed-qt process occurs near the start of injection, while the
injection rate of the fixed-⌬P process increases with time. Still, the
injection rate and injection pressure of the fixed-⌬P process are
always greater than for the fixed-qt process. In the fixed-qt process,
injection pressure decreases over time, and gas stops entering the
lower injection interval after a certain time. Injection rate in a
fixed-⌬P process increases to keep pressure drop constant. Gas
sweeps the entire formation in the fixed-⌬P process. The improve-
ment in sweep efficiency would be even greater in a process with
lower injection rate and correspondingly lower injection pressure.
Deviations From Idealized Assumptions. The other foam models
do not give as good fit to the idealized model as in Figs. 22 and 23.
All of the models have high mobility near the injection well, in
accord with the model assumptions, but not all fit the assumptions
that gas-bank mobility is much lower than that of the water bank
ahead of it (Figs. 3 through 5). We believe that if much of the
well-to-well pressure drop is dissipated in the water bank ahead of
the foam, less is focused at the displacement front, and sweep
efficiency suffers. The simulations also reflect another important
mechanism missing from the idealized model: gas moving upward
increases the mobility in the spreading wave at the top of the
reservoir. In contradiction to the idealized model, the mobility of
the front is not uniform in the reservoir; it is higher at the top of the
reservoir, where gas override and water slumping increase total
mobility. See Shan35 for further discussion.
A Model for Effects of Numerical Dispersion at the Shock
Front. In a 1D cylindrical or rectilinear displacement, the width of
a spreading wave increases proportionately to distance the wave
has traveled, as assumed for front width ␶ above. Numerical dis-
145
Fig. 24—Displacement-front positions during gas injection into a large surfactant slug in a rectangular reservoir using the idealized
model. (a) Gas is injected at 1 ft3/D and the maximum pressure is 12 psi above reservoir pressure. (b) Gas is injected at fixed
pressure 12 psi above reservoir pressure.

persion, on the other hand, spreads a shock front into a front of
finite, relatively fixed width (one or two gridblocks) as the dis-
placement proceeds. As noted above, for a foam process obeying
the fixed-Pc* model, the only low-mobility zone is that provided
by numerical dispersion at the shock front. For analyzing the effect
of numerical dispersion on simulation results, it is useful to con-
sider a different model, in which ␶ is fixed and independent of s.
For this model,
dXD
= 共1 − ZD兲 ⭈ cos共␣兲 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
dtD
dZD
= 共1 − ZD兲 ⭈ sin共␣兲 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
dtD
IC: at tD = 0, XD = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28)
BC: at ZD = 0, ␣ = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (29)
As in the original model, ␭rf and ␶ appear only in the ratio
(␭rf/␶). The model is unchanged as ␶ → 0 as long as this ratio holds
constant.
Fig. 26 shows the behavior of this model. Sweep efficiency is
comparable to that in Fig. 21, though the sweep at the bottom of
the reservoir is a little lower in Fig. 26 than in Fig. 21. In the
original model, the slow advance of the front at the bottom of the
reservoir gives small s, small ␶, and larger |ⵜP|, partially mitigating
the effects of poorer sweep there. This effect is missing when front
width ␶ is fixed. Processes where ⌬P is much greater than ⌬␳gH,

冉 冊
however, would correspond to small values of ZD (see Figs. 21 and
⭸XD ⌬␳gx 23) and show excellent sweep.
␣ ≡ arctan , XD ≡ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
⭸ZD tD ⌬P This result helps explain the spurious high sweep efficiency
observed with the fixed-Pc* model with abrupt, complete foam
⌬␳gz k␭rf⌬␳g collapse (Fig. 18). There, a low-mobility zone one gridblock wide
ZD ≡ , tD ≡ t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27)
⌬P 共1 − Swf兲␾␶ is provided by numerical dispersion at the displacement front (Fig.

146 June 2004 SPE Journal

Fig. 25—Displacement front positions during gas injection into a large surfactant slug in a cylindrical reservoir using the idealized
model. (a) Gas is injected at 230 ft3/D and the maximum pressure is 15 psi above reservoir pressure. (b) Gas is injected at fixed
pressure 15 psi above reservoir pressure.
7). Nevertheless, the narrow low-mobility zone, a numerical arti-
fact, gives reasonably good sweep efficiency and little deteriora-
tion upon refinement of the grid; as noted, the model predicts that
the width of the low-mobility zone ␶ does not affect the shape of
the front (see Fig. 18) but does affect injectivity (see Fig. 19). In
reality, sweep efficiency must deteriorate eventually with increas-
ing grid refinement, as the pressure drop across the single low-
mobility gridblock becomes insignificant compared to the pressure
drop in the liquid bank ahead of the foam.
Discussion
Both the idealized model and the simulations presented throughout
this report assume that injection and production rates can be ad-
justed as needed to maintain fixed injection and production pres-
sures, with corresponding (potentially large) increases in rates of
produced fluids. There may be operational barriers to implement-
ing this strategy in practice.
For this study, we have excluded the effects of surfactant ad-
sorption. Surfactant adsorption slows the propagation of surfactant
and is an important economic consideration in foam applications.
June 2004 SPE Journal
It is easily modeled in the context of fractional-flow theory.1,39
With adsorption, one needs larger slugs of surfactant to sweep a
given volume of reservoir with foam.
This study has also excluded the effects of oil on foam.3,4,53
Most crude oils significantly weaken foam, especially in oil-wet
reservoirs. At this time, there is no consensus on the best way to
account for the effects of oil, which can depend on oil composition
and can be complicated by movement of oil during the foamflood.
In principle, fractional-flow theory can handle multiphase, multi-
component foam displacements with oil present, though the analy-
sis becomes more complex.54 If the oil remains immobile during
the foam displacement,53 it would be relatively simple to accom-
modate the weakening effect of oil on foam in the context of
two-phase (gas/water) fractional-flow theory.
As a first step toward understanding gravity override in real,
heterogeneous reservoirs, this study has considered homogeneous
reservoirs. In addition to its benefits in overcoming gravity over-
ride, foam can be stronger in higher-permeability media and
thereby mitigate the effects of permeability variations.3,4,26 More-
over, foam created as gas attempts to migrate vertically across
layer boundaries24,43,55,56 would help suppress gravity override in
147
Fig. 26—Dimensionless progress of gas injection in the idealized model for fixed-injection-pressure SAG displacement with front
width ␶ fixed.

heterogeneous reservoirs. Fuller investigation of these mechanisms
on the field scale must await further study.
Conclusions
The following conclusions derive from our simulation study:
1. A SAG process at fixed injection pressure better controls grav-
ity override in homogeneous reservoirs than either continuous
foam injection or a fixed-rate SAG process.
2. Sufficient surfactant slug size and sufficient pressure gradient
are both necessary conditions for foam to overcome gas over-
ride. Surfactant slug size determines the potential region of
sweep and sufficient pressure gradient prevents gravity segre-
gation in this region.
3. The case with one large SAG cycle gives somewhat better sweep
efficiency than that with more numerous, smaller SAG cycles.
4. For cases where gravity override has taken place during the first
SAG cycle, better injection strategies in the following SAG cycles
can reduce surfactant slumping and improve sweep efficiency.
5. Gas should be injected at the maximum allowable injection
pressure; this not only increases gas sweep efficiency within
the surfactant bank, but also decreases surfactant slumping.
6. Liquid should likewise be injected at maximum allowable in-
jection pressure; this puts liquid most rapidly into the reservoir
and minimizes segregation during liquid injection.
7. Differences between foam models (i.e., differences between
surfactant formulations) have only a moderate effect on gravity
override in SAG processes with the same fixed injection pres-
sure. The differences in sweep observed among foam models
may reflect differences in the fraction of the well-to-well pres-
sure drop dissipated in the water bank ahead of foam. Although
different foam models give similar sweep efficiency in fixed-pres-
sure SAG injection, they do differ significantly in injection rate.
8. If fractional-flow theory indicates that foam both forms and
collapses within the shock front in a SAG displacement, con-
clusion 7 does not apply. Ironically, in such a case, a finite-
difference simulation still gives a low-mobility bank at least
one gridblock wide. This numerical artifact then provides
sweep improvement in the simulation, and the sweep effi-
ciency may not change much upon grid refinement. The symp-
tom of the artifact is that injectivity increases without bound
upon increasing grid refinement.
An idealized model, in which all resistance to flow is confined to
a narrow bank between high-mobility fluids ahead of and behind
the displacement front, matches simulation results if the foam bank
has much lower mobility than both the water ahead and the dried-
out region near the injection well. The following conclusions de-
rive from this model:
9. In the ideal SAG process, the well-to-well pressure drop is
focused entirely in the displacement front. Then, the well-to-
well pressure drop need only compete with the hydrostatic
pressure difference over the height of the reservoir; thus, mod-
erate injection pressures give very good sweep efficiency. In
addition, even as the displacement front tilts over from over-
ride, it then tends to sweep downward from the override zone.
10. Fixed-rate SAG processes suffer from declining injection pres-
sure in radial flow, reducing pressure drop at the front over
time compared to the hydrostatics with which it competes.
Gravity override worsens as a result. The fixed-⌬P SAG pro-
cess gives marginally better sweep efficiency than a fixed-rate
SAG process in a rectangular reservoir because of higher ⌬P at
the start of injection.
11. Because the idealized model takes no account of details of
foam behavior, it explains why sweep efficiency in a fixed-
pressure SAG process is relatively insensitive to the details of
foam behavior. It also helps explain why even a spurious low-
mobility zone, created by numerical dispersion, can by itself
give reasonable sweep efficiency in simulation. If, however,
the foam process creates a weak foam, so that the water bank
ahead of the foam accounts for a significant portion of the
well-to-well pressure drop, then process efficiency suffers
somewhat. These inferences are supported by the simulations
with five foam models shown here.
Nomenclature
Consistent (for instance, SI) units are assumed in Eqs. 1 through
29, but customary units are cited in the text and figures. Both SI
and customary units are given below.
fw ⳱ water fractional flow, fraction
g ⳱ gravitational acceleration, L/t2, N/kg [lbf/lbm]
H ⳱ height of reservoir (Fig. 20), L, m [ft]
k ⳱ absolute permeability, L2, m2 [md]
L ⳱ length of rectangular reservoir (Fig. 20), L, m [ft]
L* ⳱ length set equal to ⌬P/⌬␳g in rendering position
variable dimensionless
Pc ⳱ gas/water capillary pressure, m/Lt2, Pa [psi]
Pc* ⳱ limiting capillary pressure for foam stability, m/Lt2, Pa
[psi]

148 June 2004 SPE Journal

 ⌬P ⳱ well-to-well pressure drop, m/Lt2, Pa [psi]
|ⵜP| ⳱ magnitude of pressure gradient, m/L2t2, Pa/m [psi/ft]
qt ⳱ total injection rate, L3/t, m3/s [ft3/D]
r ⳱ radial position in cylindrical reservoir, L, m [ft]
Re ⳱ outer radius of cylindrical reservoir, L, m [ft]
s ⳱ distance front has traveled (Eq. 9), L, m[ft]
sD ⳱ dimensionless distance front has traveled (Eq. 18)
Sw ⳱ water saturation, fraction
Swf ⳱ average water saturation in foam bank (Eq. 4), fraction
Swi ⳱ initial water saturation, fraction
Sw* ⳱ water saturation at limiting capillary pressure, fraction
t ⳱ time, t, s [day]
tD ⳱ dimensionless time in idealized model (Eq. 17)
ug ⳱ superficial or Darcy velocity of gas (Eq. 1), L/t,
m/s [ft/D]
v⳱ interstitial velocity of displacement front (Eq. 4), L/t,
m/s [ft/D]
vx, vz ⳱ velocities of displacement front in x and z directions,
respectively
x⳱ horizontal position in rectangular reservoir (Figs. 20,
22 through 24) or, in Figs. 8 through 18 and Figs. 20
and 25, horizontal position in cylindrical reservoir, L,
m [ft]
xd ⳱ dimensionless position in fractional-flow theory (Figs.
2 through 6); (r/Re)2 in cylindrical flow
XD ⳱ dimensionless horizontal position in idealized model
(Eq. 11); (r/Re) in cylindrical flow
z⳱ vertical position in reservoir (Fig. 20), L, m [ft]
ZD ⳱ dimensionless vertical position in idealized model
(Eq. 17)
␣⳱ angle to horizontal of normal to displacement front in
idealized model (Fig. 20)
⌬␳ ⳱ difference in densities between water and gas, m/L3,
kg/m3 [lbm/ft3]
␭rf ⳱ gas relative mobility in low-mobility zone in idealized
model (Eq. 1), Lt/m, (Pa⭈8;s)–1 [cp–1]
␶⳱ thickness of low-mobility zone in idealized model (Eq.
3), L, m [ft]
␶* ⳱ characteristic thickness of low-mobility zone in
idealized model (Eq. 3), L, m [ft]
␾⳱ porosity, fraction
Acknowledgments
This work was conducted with the support of the Natl. Petroleum
Technology Office of the U.S. DOE, through contracts #DE-
AC26-99BC15208 and #DE-AC26-99BC15318, the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board’s Advanced Technology Program,
and the Improved Well Performance Program, a consortium of
operating and service companies at the Center for Petroleum and
Geosystems Engineering at the U. of Texas at Austin. We thank
Gary Pope, whose comment triggered the development of the ide-
alized model presented here, and Frode Vassenden for fruitful and
stimulating discussions of fractional-flow theory and foams.
References
1. Lake, L.W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey (1989).
2. Moridis, G.: “Special Report: Enhanced Oil Recovery,” Oil and Gas J.
(15 April 2002) 43.
3. Schramm, L.L. (ed.): Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the
Petroleum Industry, ACS Advances in Chemistry Series, Am. Chem.
Soc., Washington, DC (1994) 3, No. 242.
4. Rossen, W.R.: “Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery,” Foams: Theory,
Measurement, and Applications, R.K. Prud’homme and S. Khan (eds.),
Marcel Dekker, New York City (1996).
5. Holm, L.W.: “Foam Injection Test in the Siggins Field, Illinois,” JPT
(December 1970) 1499.
June 2004 SPE Journal
6. Chad, J., Matsalla, P., and Novosad, J.J.: “Foam Forming Surfactants in
Pembina/Ostracod ‘G’ Pool,” paper presented at the 1988 Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Soc. of CIM, Calgary, 12–16 June.
7. Liu, P.C. and Besserer, G.J.: “Application of Foam Injection in Triassic
Pool, Canada: Laboratory and Field-Test Results,” paper SPE 18080
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Houston, 2–5 October.
8. Jonas, T.M., Chou, S.I., and Vasicek, S.L.: “Evaluation of a CO2 Foam
Field Trial: Rangely Weber Sand Unit,” paper SPE 20468 presented at
the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Or-
leans, 23–26 September.
9. Kuehne, D.L. et al.: “Design and Evaluation of a Nitrogen-Foam Field
Trial,” JPT (April 1990) 504.
10. Chou, S.I., Jasek, D.E., and Goodgame, J.A.: “CO2 Foam Field Trial at
North Ward-Estes,” paper SPE 24643 presented at the 1992 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4–7
October.
11. Krause, R.E. et al.: “Foam Treatment of Producing Wells to Increase
Oil Production at Prudhoe Bay,” paper SPE 24191 presented at the
SPE/DOE 1992 Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22–24
April.
12. Heller, J.P. and Watts, R.J.: “Two Field Tests of CO2 Foam,” paper
presented at the 1993 DOE/NIPER Symposium on Field Application of
Foams for Oil Production, Bakersfield, California, 11–12 February.
13. Hoefner, M.L. et al.: “CO2 Foam: Results From Four Developmental
Field Trials,” paper SPE/DOE 27787 presented at the 1994 SPE Sym-
posium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 17–20 April.
14. Aarra, M.G. et al.: “A Foam Pilot Test Aimed at Reducing Gas Inflow
in a Production Well at the Oseberg Field,” presented at the 1995
European Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Vienna, 1–17 May.
15. Martin, F.D., Stevens, J.E., and Harpole, K.J.: “CO2-Foam Field Test
at the East Vacuum Grayburg/San Andres Unit,” SPERE (November
1995) 266.
16. Patzek, T.W.: “Field Applications of Steam Foam for Mobility Im-
provement and Profile Control,” SPERE (May 1996) 79.
17. Svorstol, I., Vassenden, F., and Mannhardt, K.: “Laboratory Studies for
Design of a Foam Pilot in the Snorre Field,” paper SPE/DOE 35400
presented at the 1996 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recov-
ery, Tulsa, 21–24 April.
18. Blaker, T. et al.: “Foam for Gas Mobility Control in the Snorre Field:
The FAWAG Project,” paper SPE 56478 presented at the 1999 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
19. Bernard, G.G., Holm, L.W., and Jacobs, W.L.: “Effect of Foam on
Trapped Gas Saturation and on Permeability of Porous Media to Wa-
ter,” SPEJ (December 1965) 295; Trans., AIME, 234.
20. de Vries, A.S. and Wit, K.: “Rheology of Gas/Water Foam in the
Quality Range Relevant to Steam Foam,” SPERE (May 1990) 185.
21. Holm, L.W.: “The Mechanism of Gas and Liquid Flow Through Porous
Media in the Presence of Foam,” SPEJ (December 1968) 359; Trans.,
AIME, 243.
22. Huh, D.G. and Handy, L.L.: “Comparison of Steady- and Unsteady-
State Flow of Gas and Foaming Solution in Porous Media,” SPERE
(February 1989) 77.
23. Falls, A.H., Musters, J.J., and Ratulowski, J.: “The Apparent Viscosity
of Foams in Homogeneous Bead Packs,” SPERE (May 1989) 155.
24. Falls, A.H. et al.: “Development of a Mechanistic Foam Simulator: The
Population Balance and Generation by Snap-Off,” SPERE (August
1988) 884.
25. Friedmann, F., Chen, W.H., and Gauglitz, P.A.: “Experimental and
Simulation Study of High-Temperature Foam Displacement in Porous
Media,” SPERE (February 1991) 37; Trans., AIME, 291.
26. Kovscek, A.R. and Radke, C.J.: “Fundamentals of Foam Transport in
Porous Media,” Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petro-
leum Industry, L.L. Schramm (ed.), ACS Advances in Chemistry Se-
ries, Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, DC (1994) 3, No. 242.
27. Rossen, W.R. and Gauglitz, P.A.: “Percolation Theory of Creation and
Mobilization of Foams in Porous Media,” AICHE J. (August 1990) 36,
1176.
28. Khatib, Z.I., Hirasaki, G.J., and Falls, A.H.: “Effects of Capillary Pres-
sure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in Foams Flowing Through
Porous Media,” SPERE (August 1988) 919.
149
29. Aronson, A.S. et al.: “The Influence of Disjoining Pressure on Foam
Stability and Flow in Porous Media,” Colloids Science Surfaces A:
Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects (1994) 84, 109.
30. Rossen, W.R. and Zhou, Z.H.: “Modeling Foam Mobility at the Lim-
iting Capillary Pressure,” SPE Advanced Technology Series (1995) 3,
146.
31. Alvarez, J.M., Rivas, H.J., and Rossen, W.R.: “Unified Model for
Steady-State Foam Behavior at High and Low Foam Qualities,” SPEJ
(September 2001) 325.
32. Rossen, W.R.: “Rheology of Foam in Porous Media at the ‘Limiting
Capillary Pressure,’” Revue I.F.P. (1992) 47, 68.
33. Matthews, C.S.: “Carbon Dioxide Flooding,” Enhanced Oil Recovery
II, Processes and Operations, E.C. Donaldson, G.V. Chilingarian, and
T.F. Yen (eds.), Elsevier Science Co., New York City (1989).
34. Heller, J.P.: “CO2 Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery,” Foams: Funda-
mentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry, L.L. Schramm
(ed.), ACS Advances in Chemistry Series, Am. Chem. Soc., Washing-
ton, DC (1994) 3, No. 242.
35. Shan, D.: “Simulation Study of Gravity Override for Foam Processes,”
MS thesis, the U. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (2001).
36. Shi, J.-X. and Rossen, W.R.: “Simulation of Gravity Override in Foam
Processes in Porous Media,” SPERE (April 1998) 148.
37. Cheng, L. et al.: “Simulating Foam Processes at High and Low Foam
Qualities,” paper SPE 59287 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 3–5 April.
38. Shi, J.-X. and Rossen, W.R.: “Improved Surfactant-Alternating-Gas
Foam Process to Control Gravity Override,” paper SPE 39653 pre-
sented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, 19–22 April.
39. Zhou, Z.H. and Rossen, W.R.: “Applying Fractional-Flow Theory to
Foam Processes at the ‘Limiting Capillary Pressure,’” SPE Advanced
Technology Series (1995) 3, No. 1, 154–162.
40. Rossen, W.R. et al.: “Simplified Mechanistic Simulation of Foam Pro-
cesses in Porous Media,” SPEJ (September 1999) 279.
41. Martinsen, H.A. and Vassenden, F.: “Foam-Assisted Water Alternating
Gas (FAWAG) Process on Snorre,” presented at the 1999 European
IOR Symposium, Brighton, U.K., 18–20 August.
42. Fisher, A.W., Foulser, R.W.S., and Goodyear, S.G.: “Mathematical
Modeling of Foam Flooding,” paper SPE/DOE 20195 presented at the
1990 SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22–25
April.
43. Shi, J.-X.: “Simulation and Experimental Studies of Foam for En-
hanced Oil Recovery,” PhD dissertation, the U. of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas (1996).
44. Persoff, P. et al.: “A Laboratory Investigation of Foam Flow in Sand-
stone at Elevated Pressure,” SPERE (August 1991) 365; Trans., AIME,
291.
45. Lee, H.O. and Heller, J.P.: “Laboratory Measurements of CO2-Foam
Mobility,” SPERE (May 1990) 193.
46. Rossen, W.R. and Wang, M.-W.: “Modeling Foams for Acid Diver-
sion,” SPEJ (June 1999) 92.
47. Kibodeaux, K.R., Zeilinger, S.C., and Rossen, W.R.: “Sensitivity Study
of Foam Diversion Processes for Matrix Acidization,” paper SPE
28550 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 September.
150
48. Cheng, L. et al.: “Simulation of Dynamic Foam-Acid Diversion Pro-
cesses,” paper SPE 68916 presented at the 2001 SPE European For-
mation Damage Symposium, The Hague, 21–22 May.
49. Chang, Y.: “Development and Application of an Equation of State
Compositional Simulator,” PhD dissertation, the U. of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas (1990).
50. Liu, J.: “High-Resolution Methods for Enhanced Oil Recovery Simu-
lations,” PhD dissertation, the U. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
(1993).
51. Kibodeaux, K.R. and Rossen, W.R.: “Coreflood Study of Surfactant-
Alternating-Gas Foam Processes: Implications for Field Design,” paper
SPE 38318 presented at the 1997 SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Long Beach, California, 25–27 June.
52. Xu, Q. and Rossen, W.R.: “Experimental Study of Gas Injection in
Surfactant-Alternating-Gas Foam Process,” paper SPE 84183 presented
at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
5–8 October.
53. Myers, T.J. and Radke, C.J.: “Transient Foam Displacement in the
Presence of Residual Oil: Experiment and Simulation Using a Popu-
lation-Balance Model,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. (2000) 39, 2725.
54. Zeilinger, S.C.: “A Modeling and Experimental Study of Foam in Acid
Diversion and Enhanced Oil Recovery,” PhD dissertation, the U. of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (1996).
55. Rossen, W.R.: “Foam Generation at Layer Boundaries in Porous Me-
dia,” SPEJ (December 1999) 409.
56. Tanzil, D., Hirasaki, G.J., and Miller, C.A.: “Mobility of Foam in
Heterogeneous Media: Flow Parallel and Perpendicular to Stratifica-
tion,” paper SPE 63228 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp × 1.0* E–03 ⳱ Pa⭈s
ft × 3.048 E–01 ⳱ m
md × 1.0132 E–03 ⳱ ␮m2
psi × 6.895 E+03 ⳱ Pa
*Conversion factor is exact.
Dan Shan is a reservoir engineer with Schlumberger Oilfield Ser-
vices, Data and Consulting Services. e-mail: dshan@houston.
oilfield.slb.com. Her duties include technical support and con-
sulting on reservoir simulation of subsurface hydrocarbon res-
ervoirs, as well as field development plan generation. Shan
holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from Tsinghua U.,
China, and an MS degree in petroleum engineering from the
U. of Texas at Austin. William Rossen is a professor in the Dept.
of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the U. of Texas at
Austin. e-mail: wrossen@mail.utexas.edu. His research interests
include study of creation and flow of foam in porous media,
from microscopic mechanisms to field-scale simulation. Rossen
holds an SB degree from the Massachusetts Inst. of Technology
and a PhD degree from the U. of Minnesota, both in chemical
engineering.
June 2004 SPE Journal