How
Through
Medium:
J.M4.
SPE,
Sanchez,
Summary.
indicates
and
that
swface
to
to
stable
hydrophilic
by
surface
relative
showed
form
medium.
Such
alteration
in
oil-wet
two
by
shifts
in
situ
the
surfactant
in ,m
relative
Or gas
porous
meditim,
not
been
occurred
and
indicated
the
solution
of
result
surfactant
of
formation
surfactant
for
foam
of
Nettability
is present
foam
flow
in
when
in tie
oil-wet
in ofl-wet
is approximately
equal.
initially
alteration
in the
Wongly
the
hydropho-
phase.
Of the
The
liquid
water-wfi
porous
mineral
oil
when
residual
system
hydrophobic
of
aqueous
water-wet
a residual
medium
foam
the
that
water-wet
porous
of
systems
alteration
essenwy.~tched
surfactant
of
the
an
chamcteristics
in both
from
surfact.ant,
added
flow
adsorption.
when
tbmugh
the
reduction
to
observed
with
surfactant
permeability
appears
pernzeabiity
have
however,
and
A comparison
in the presence
permeability
measurements,
gas
gas
reduction
relative
permeabfity
relative
of
medium
tension
in fiquid
porous
flow
Corp.
permeability.
concentrations
oil-wet
surface
shift
oti-wet
and
gas
Porous
Study
R&D
generation
in reducing
at similar
in
liquid
Transient
steady
mechanisms
of
liquid
the
a dramatic
curve
either
systeh.
that
Mobil
HazEett;
is effective
foam
is evidenced
permeability
of
and
OikWet
Laboratory
RD.
study
is formSd
media
abpity
and
laboratory
foam
water-wet
The
bic
an
Porous
media.
was
No
pment
oil
in the
was
p&sent.
Introduction
Per3&
al. 1 recentfy
et
fundamental
dia.
When
dia,
the
behavior
an aqueous
liquid
pathways
at the
same
ments
uid
of
an
supported
by
liquid
ent
in porous
the
absence
of
the
in
same
liquid.
saturation).
Because
the
foam
pores
largely
served
pore
pores
gas
an
umtzct
is
The
.$urface
occur
occur
in
ance
for
of
in-
in a smaller
the
of
foam
flow
9-13
flowing
Iarnellae
the
a flow-
tleir
foam
this
generation
snap-off
the
term
be
rela-
Two
consists
capillary
of
pressure
film
Falls
ob-
emough
a pore
occuis
type
of
has
been
only
during
smp-off
imbibition
10 noted,
to allow
type
occurs,in
pores
L/d
with
media.
into
of
The
They
this
stability
lag
cccurs
only
pressure.
reduced
to
initial
production
gas
pore
the
criteria
is
also
displacement
12 and
the
of
lamellae
greater
rely
oh
these
mechanisms
foundations
1.s
than
a result
developed
of
kunellae
kmnellae
et al. s~
critical
tie
by
existence
capillary
pressure
of
a water-wet
for
foain
i99280clety
.1 Peiro!eum
F.bcuay
1992
va-
foam
of
compti-
systems
that
films
in
in the
ab-
formation
and
permeable
to
of
the
was
reversed.
foam
formation
presented.
with
the
Kanda
silicone
gas
beads.
the
watm-wet
was
of
of
glass
the
trend
beads
reduction
noncoated
than
this
glass
porom
concentmtion,
mechanism
medium
treated
hydrophobic
@s
concentrations,
with
Media
a
smfactant
permeability
obtained
foam
at low
porous
@itial
soap
More
the
bridging
pore
recently,
flood
walls
Iescure
were
and
performance
as
pointed
out
significantly
unstable
Claridge27
was
They
and
and
ob-
much
le8s
asserted
because
of
described
a function
that
enhanced
VJatir-dtemathg-gm
integmlnahme
interpretation
the
from
pore
foam,
once
stabilization
models
Each
Evidence
of the
of
of
cOntiadiction
also
foam
forms
bifity
alteration
their
foam
of
work,
state.
that
the
poor:
of
rock
macroscopic
wettabifi~.
foam
in
both
oil
recovery
ofl-wet
and
Their
water-wet
compared
destabtition
oil
recovery
data
with
rests
this
in a hydrophobic
the
cunw
in oif-wet
which
to prompt
of
Unfortunately,
that
of
became
presented,
of
fandzmentzl
i3 diftimdt.
formation
theory,
helped
process.
on
media
investigation.
>rous
s~ace
porous
a continuous
to
As
medkun
in apparent
water-wet
wilf
be
as a result
a hydrophilic
netsbowu,
of
wetta-
state.
of
Apparatus
and
Procedures
Eveh
Fig.
pack.
Englmm
mom.
subsequently
than
tered
C@yrlght
water-wet
Porous
tested
surfactant
hydrophobic
a tYIIic~
be
during
19-21
water-wet
in a wide
A careful
on
Refi-
investigation
mdlum.
oil
of
nettability.
capl-
propagation
Bretherton.
a strongly
process
laboratory
011-Wet
that,
was
Experlmenta!
Khatib
presumes
formation
in detail.
and
may
of
tis
residual
interpretation
Schechter18
saturation.
stabJIty
the
in-
the enq
stranding
of
to 2-X=is largely
snap-
pore-level
solution
17 The
many
than
liquid
by
surfactant
to be
of
hap-
second
de$cziptions
at a given
facilitated
a
18 Furthermore,
type
snap-off
division.
is presumed
walls.
pressures
above
larger
conclusions
ratios
1*115 This
capillmy
of
geometrical
it is generated,
by
capilkies.
for
Both
Lmnellae
interstices
for
In
I%st
observed
sand
At
media
described
what
in
opening
this
in water-wet
Foam
Bernard2$
satisfactory
C02
o.ff
of
and
serwldmt
snap-off
accwmdation
is large
pre3ented.
bydrophoblc
in
9-12
fmt
of
aze
of
ditlicuk
of
as an EOR
md
of
of
pfimary
rwervoti
described
porous
effect8
nahme
question
most
assumption
in oil-wet
the
dis-
cannot
water-wet
inherently
of
been
prompted
smp-off
generations
mdanisms
foam
an oil-wet
and
Aspects
sand.
media
pha.w.
typM
fiquid
from
et al.
porous
gas
snap-off,
mechanism.
first
the
the
of
have
oil
medium.
will
Iifedme
in
Of
on
behavior
are
have
the
~fig
oil-wet.
state
and
potenti
through
foam
of
Bond
pressure
iiaction
and
models
the
reservoirs
3tabfity
No
using
As
out,
have
mobtition
possibility
the
lager
pointed
may
of
sence
Hence,
became
phase
foam
flow,
systems.
is tremendous
this
a condnuous
conshiction.
normslfy
as Nibid4
of
for
by
would
foam
riety
stites
on
$u*ces
70,
the
foam
to the
or
wetted
than
on
that
naturally
reservoirs
and
snapoff
mixed-wet
precise
For
gmter
premise
nettability
the
The
pressure
only
is
rock
unknown.
system
of
the
leads
a reswvoir
ndxed-wettabfity
through
and
between
is dependent
phase.
pba3e)
film
Iamellae.
snapdf
(gas)
an aqueouz
wetting
foam
by
dependence
24 Henm,
the
nonwetting
is snap-off
if
injectivi-
flow
results
gas
(gas)
capilfzry
The
where
(to
the
a continuous
and
generation
the
cccur.~
~.
explicitly
through
foam
pore
of
pores
of
angle
pem
is pres-
not
gas
in water-wet
the
number
time.
aS
assumption
mechanism
fiq-
absence
increased
to
(which
phase
through
the
formation
flow
pore
by
postulated.
throats,
liquid
will
can
where
on
drop
not
foam
been
of
diversion
nonwetdng
mechanism
while
were
state-
foam
Decreased
resistance
Furthermore,
by
proposed
Hoh,9
have
larger
hansit
pdm.ary
b-
when
diversion
absence
pores
depending
pore
The
curves
pressure
of the
Pressure
tie
Aqueous
connection
identical
and
water-filled
same
liquid
these
presence
gradient.
flow
in the
affected.
determined
hm
little
Both
on
smafl
me-
the
system
essentially
the
flow
in the
flows
fraction,
the
that
capillary
the
tive
to
flows.
of
both
increased
occupied
gradient.~
if the
relies
son
most
foam
in
porous
in
very
foam
pressure
the
reduction
network
ing
indicate
occupies
are
pore
whefe
Hence,
fmm
pxmeability
through
the
me-
Reservoir
phase
of
pass
penneabili~
increased
patiways.
values
move
on
porous
24
indicates.
creased
water-wet
observance
relative
steadgm
simply
into
Furthermore,
pores,
the
dizmssion
water-wet
pseudopbzse
would
curves
medii
of
the
gradient
gas
surfactint.
excellemt
is injected
foam
pcxmeability
added
flow
pressure.
the
Unchanged
ty
and
capillary
are
through
and
through
relative
an
foam
foam
phase
thatliquid
tfmsPo@d
presented
of
1 is a schematic
through
Fretiltered
of
a 2-Jm3
(0.2
the
fker
#m)
experimental
to
a tee
distilled
system.
located
water
Liquid
upstream
was
used
of
for
was
the
all
mebeadinns.
91
~R&m=P2121!oE
,..
.
:. ,
t-.
. ..
HPLC
r.,
,.:
~~)
PUMP
(:
.
cumON
NUPRO
flLT3R
ON/wF
VANE
RmJ.4Tm
CRmuAlw
CYLINOER
19.1
EXPer@ntal
,nd
The
surfactant
chosen
for
alpba+]efi-sulfonate
at 482.6
valve.
through
provided
the
at a tee
suring
ermy
before
tubing,
the
the
followed
lime
obtained
dia,
from
were
sikme.
coated
was
observed
spread)
Differential
for
One
the
0.69
by
in a watch
the
the
12.4
from
of
the
spaced
mm.
AU
pack
was
recorded
on
a Soltec,
tion
pressures
were
measure@
with
face
tensions
were
measured
by
values
by
ing
by
after
the pack.
the
water
gas
of
conhibuted
saturation
foam
was
to bead
of
is
trans-
differential
the
92
outki
rates
pressure
for
those
of
surfactznt
When
the
was
then
and
reduced
oil
g=
the
after
in
an
weight
of
collection,
gas
corn-
flow
rate
of
steady
water
at at-
dmplaced
by
produced
oif
the
and
those
no
or
SPIU-
through
the
the
satis-
foam
experiments
g/cm3
prokss
where
and
longer
and
the
then
flow
again
was
of
to
12%
and
This
PV
pack
in the
was
noted.
gas
recorded.
by
it with
the
colfected
two-phase
pack
displacing
produced,
oif
?1
a viscosity
intmducdinto
and
saturation
water
effectively
of
0.843
was
water
of the oil
surfactant
dynamics.
of
water
desaturation
where
This
flow
between
with
sNdy
water
was
of
Ii@Id
werepamed
for
Ofl
varied
saturated
flow.
for
with
amount
the value
gas
used
system
of
solution
a density
rates
degee
initially
adsorption
was
had
conditions
flow
expwimmfs
at 25C.
the
and
the
beginning
Pas
oil.
on
For
oil
mineral
than
this
Analysis.
Most
liquid
used
bility
to gas
Pressure
taps
were
used
(where
Total
system
mm
apart.
.pres.sme
The
disdlled
effectively
oil-wet
pack.
Sur-
a negligible
was
of weighfor
all
mass
amount
from
the
phases.
gas
flow
Dlscusslon
were
For
rate
to the
follow-
-l.
foam
permeabtity
to tie
flow
capable
data
r@ced
this,
was
the
to
reladve
following
cakulated
pemw
equation
at the
was
mean
of
the
pressure):
Representing
tive
rise.
used
the
and
the
kti=-qipilti(dpld$
Irjec-
gauge.
steady-state
and
of
data
recorder.
206.7-kPa
ResuIts
Data
For
that
Darcys
pores
flow
law
where
the
analysis
by
for
in tie
of
fluid
media,
pressure
~ctates
variables.
Hatziavrzmidis30
of
applies
rek-
a continuous
phase.
gas
flow,
This
in-
In those
the
relative
surfacmnts
Furthermore,
demcmstiates
pathindicates
simulation.
foam-fomdng
W29
use
law
evidence
flowing
reservoir
of
the
Darcys
Ommgh
aqueous
for
presence
many
through
experimental
the
vahiatde
capillary
a function
medii
limitations.
a Newtonian
is valid
to gas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)
many
porous
is extremely
permeability
..:
in porous
has
of
water-wet
formation
tlow
&ta
creeping
way.
that
ii
theoreti-
both
viscosity
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(1)
and
flow
0.013
saturating
under
was
surfactant
The
weighed
cal
Liquid
unchanged
colkting
the
Liquid
a prerequisite
of
mineral
about
clearly
mE/owvp.
and
yielded
conducted
before
Experimental
generated
relationship
sw=lm,
coflecdon,
remained
by
between
before
solution.
adsorption,
and
dctemdm?d
rate
difference
H20)
medium
5 PV
absence
calibrated
g was
flow
measured
manometer
greater
bahmx
0,1
used,
present.
ol
of
depending
porous
medium
water
cIn3.
was
much
capilfmy
A Metier
a, resolution
fmt
maximum-bubble-pressure
confirmed
Because
mass,
the
of
drop
used
59.4
d~ffemmial
measured
g with
measurements.
total
to
152.4
a O-to
and
pure
permeabtity
strip-chart
was
weighing
63(FJ
three-point
were
saturation
to
228.6
of
The
The
aqueous
solution.
white
was
flask.
of
Imin,
The
reck
the
liquid
were
were
and
3 cm3
the
beads
of
Rmemount
kpa.
pack
in
the
procedure
was
to 68.94
of
a drop
58.5
When
drops
transducer
13.78
presence
pressure.
was
tied
sikmated
surface
beads
packing
kpa.
pbrous
glass.
absolute
from
pressure
a second
length
1 and
tion
time
the
rates
fall
experiments
smfactant
were
oif-wet
the
nitrogen
me-
placing
uncoated
The
2 The
was
up
gas
of
me-
the
checked
ranged
to
medium,
along
with
water-wet
surface
of
a mercury
located
ing
the
nature
two
range
acbievd
rendered
witi
and
of
mesh
were
with
pressure
Liquid
infet
dimetbyl-dicfdoro-
calibrated
in the
method,
bid
on
beads
of beads
pm.
PV
The
measured
the
the
slugs
140
was
and
of
large
was
observed,
(initially
flask
that
flow
the
AU
of
to ensure
Gas
volumetric
mospheric
on
with
beads.
10.9
in the
measurements
inverted
flow
pressure
porous
time.
at en-
and
reaction
readilyinto
Total
were
length
was
layers
was
6.
@nt9
directed
,Experiments
The
sikmated
100
beads.
effectively
beads
from
the
joined
each
with
two-phase
transducer
pressures
within
of
rates
were
small
experiments
used.
sikumted
several
Ref.
the
needle
flow
was
the
consisted
For
were
wih
pack
in
of
between
Assocs.
to imbibe
on
separate
ducers.
sieved
a condensation
on
flow
desired.
beads
uncoated
(not
each
flow
(hydrophobic).
water
detailed
two-phase
treatment
and
di.sdfled
because
AUtech
oil-wet
Effort
before
However,
beads
glass
This
beadpack.
(an
regda!ed
slugs.,
through
strongly-
solution
the
conducted
at AUtech
aqueous
pregenerated
two-phase
1000~
micrometer
and
into
steady
was
ofnlrogen
was
glass
uncoated
SD
nitrogen
control
entry
liquid
Chaser
accurate
foam
pack.
was
a Nupro~
Nitrogen
entering
by
Scala
dia
no
into
study
tiough
fol
surfactant.
prepmitied
simple,
beadpack.
that
this
metered
appa~tU$
of
din@.28
kpa.and
TM
absence
were
obtained
~adients
a specitied
time.
for
each
data
were
noted,
Two
measurements
liquid
point.
Once
was
were
steady
coflected
made
permeability
are
altered
when
dispersions
flow
through
a relative
permeabiiV
porous
media.
at
for
Clearly,
taticm
the
foamlgas
is inadequate.
for
For
phase,
illusmating
SPE
Resmvok
trends
and
En@eexinE,
repre.3en-
correlating
Februarj
data,
IW2
1?
13
Q
n
No
5
a
,0.001
WA
0.005
W?A
0.010
WA.
Surfactant
AA%
u!
Q
~ 0
!4
.01:
&>*
.01,
@o
p*M@
J*
0.
~
A,
.1;
m
$
Oil Abs9nt
A
4
c
~
~A
a
z
E
Lu
00.
00
0
b=
:1:
Absent
Oil
No
0.001
Surfactant
wt%
0.010
W%
O.loowt%
.001-1
0
.0011
20
40
WATER
Fig.
2Liquid
wet
m@ia.
and
are
(which
Undf
relative
hope
of
fms
when
curve:
A relative
flow
more
Fig.
water-
global
permeability
trends
surfactant
in
data
foam
of
of
data
flOW
saturation
in porous
viscosity
estimating
utility
the
a simple
without
for
apparent
and
degree
than
reported
model
and
a high
representation
Experinmmtaf
of
iumedia
offer
the
magnitudes
best
of
ef-
meability
for
tially
oil-wet
bility
to water
&ta
ccmtinn
When
the
2 depicts
beadpack.
compariwn
porous
to tie
meiium.
remains
As
can
seen,
the
100%
of
when
the
one
cate
two-phase
ini-
permeaThese
the
of
water
liquid
and
relative
of
0.01
through
flows
of
This
the
oil-wet
a set
not
of
for
when
tie
by
saturation
phase
decreases
of
smafler
the
pore
been
about
a water
surfactant
shapes
previously
WmIM-p!XW
increases
aqueous
value
with
through
For
saturation
Likewise,
its baseline
Kpresent.
is added.
curves,
indi-
pathways
reported
when
for
foam.
media.
trend
changing
shift
water
permeability
combined
consistent
.mater
the
is present.
relative
porous
with
was
found
smfactit
mm
be
in the
liquid
relative
concentration.
observed
in Fis.
permeability
However,
3 at surfactant
a ?fighUy
concentrations
w%.
of
J.mterpretation
ence
of
gas
tated
by
per-
water
24
flow
medium,
in the
is added.
No
SM
0.1,
seventiuof
liquid
in
flow
3 shows.
as ~g.
of
obsewations,
that
60
in two-phase
d.WMtidy,
surfactant
30%,
These
60
SATURATION
permeability
Shit%
to about
to
yielded
relative
surfackmt
observations.
porous
permeability
effectively
conducted
be
when
to the
oil-wet
relative
data
experimem
report@
is ad&d
initially
the
These
unchanged
previously
surfactant
through
Fig.
water-wet
40
media.
permeability
surfactant
is present.
Resufts.
the
a baseline
20
3-Liquid
relative
flow
liquid
WATER
through
infonnadcm
is generally
a goti
analyzing
have
permeabilby
sigdkantly
factor
formation).
exists,
in two-phase
permeabtity
here.
provides
resistance
80
(sl[anated)
used
cetiy
SATURATION
permeability
relative
however,
60
foam
Fig.
through
the
in the
4.
Fig.
the
liquid
relative
initidfy
4 plots
oil-wet
permeability
hydrophobk
(1)
porous
the
shift
porous
liquid
media
relative
in the
in the
medium
pres-
is facili,
permeabfity
absence
of
of
surfac-
s
~
~
Oou
00
.1:
~
~
a
o
z.
Oil Absent
#Q
.01:
No
0.01
II
No
Surfacfant,
Oil-VJet
$
K
.001
vA%,
Oil-Wet
Surfactant,
Water-Wet
-r
20
40
WATER
60
SATURATION
.001
20
80
40
WATER
Fig.
4Comparisons
[o. that
SPE
in
Resemou
water-wet
E@,.ctig,
of
liquid
permeability
Febmq
in
oil-wet
media
Fig.
5Gas
[silanated)
media.
1S?2
60
/n
permeability
SATURATION
in
two.ph=
flow
thr6ugh
oil-wet
media.
93
14
m
a
Oil Presant
g
%WAO
~&m
00
H
$
.1:
00
*..
I.#
.mw
No
.001
u.!
>
i=
Sutfactant
0.001
V/t%
0.005
Wt%
0.010
VA%
~
E
20
40
80
60
No
0.100
Wt%
.01-1
-1
Surfactant
O
,
40
20
WATER
WATER
Fig.
6Gas
wet
media.
(z)
at,
liquid
of
water-wet
porous
thmugi
the
study
if the
mobility
5 depicts
phase
the
in the
is reduced
An
ther
0.001
flow
through
Fig.
water-
ktii
oil-wet
liquid
absence
medii
the
the
7Gas
permeability
solution
gas/water
flow
foam
oil-wet
the
gas
relative
phase
and
gas
less
practical
is reduced
of
absence.
of
at a surfactant
in surf%ctant
and
has
permeabfity
presence
in
media
by
the
flow
6.
Fig.
dia
through
no
added
oil-wet
beads
Gas
to 0.1
.Snrfactant
measurable
of
wt%
to
permeability.
Ffg.
the
water-wet
the
gas
0.01
on
tie
gas
of
relative
bic
in the
Figs.
&ta
and
hydrophobic
oil-wet
taken
demonstrate
that
medium
Sutfactant
and
on
the
iu
W%
5)
at the
flow
large
unsteady
foam
effect
shape
foam
and
me-
0.01
(Fig.
shown
pe~eability
of
cume
of
have
undec
Figs.
A surfac-
the. gas
beads
similar
These
water-wet
little
concentration
media
were
porous
of
compakon
porous
of
in the
to have
iden-
media.
concentrations.
is sesn
in~catis
Previous
oil-w
is essentially
porous
a comparison
smfactant
WI%
at a surfactant
hydrophilic
the
by
comparison
pennmbifity
through
surfactant
oil-wet
permeability
various
concemation
bowever,
seen
However,
reduction.
and
added
ioitially
relative
O.001
beads
gas
ability
m fur-
concentrations
effect
with
.swfactant
W%.
resulted
6)
of
of
the
be
gas
presence
concentration
gas
permeability
may
the
flow
present.
by
and
rasuks
6 depicts
in ~e
oil
reducdon
water-wet
otiy
surfactsnt.
concentration
permeabtity.
had
significance
surfactmt.
concentrdion
SATURATION
in two-phase
with
permeability
in both
tant
in
of
Gas
tical
media
remarkable
Remarkably,
m.dsurfactant
tbit of
in
through
6f wrfactant.
to
,mbies
porous
penneabfity
beads.
redwtiqn
wt%
the
itl the
dramatically
increase
in the
(3)
permeabililv
oil-wet
of
and
media
relative
water-wet.
A
two.phaae
permeability
surfactant,
Iiauid
the
in
(sllanated)
tie
presence
the
permeability
SATURATION
60.
and
(Fig.
sane
perme-
in hydrophodifferences
Is;
conditions..
can
signiiicmtly
form
in-sire
lower
gas
in
permea-
Injaction
60Oil
Present
500
go
o
Oo
40-
30-
Water-Wat
Pack
.0?7
20-
No
Oil-Wet
Surfactant
0.100
Vit%
20
40
60
0
0
80
10
20
30
TIME
WATER
8Llquld
(atlanated)
94
I
-1
.011
Fig.
permeability
media
Pack
10-
with
SATURATION
In two-phaaa
oil.
40
50
(minutes)
flow
througholl-wet
~9.
94mpafls0n
Nat
pack
when
of
transient
sutiactant
ia
SPE
rasponse
inJected
Reservou
of
with
oil-wet
oil
E@r.eeF.mz,
VS.
&
present.
February
1992
w..
btity
iri tie
mine
if foam
ence
of
absence
did
oil
comparison
of
rials
of
W-up
was
either
in the
havior
of
form
erzf
surfactant
medium.
was
noted
complete
porous
however,
with
prezence
water-wet
and
the
was
in the
w
of
surfactant
oil
J?q.
present
foam
the
through
performed.
of
generates
and
medium.
the
If
From
the transient
resulted
experimental
reduces
gas
oil
9,
iom
oif
in a rise
oil-wet
media.
not
e2.s
59.7
0.010
547
0.100
S9.8
0.500
37.9
adsorption
was
both
for
dominant
mechanism
in
an
presumes
of
foam
clear
initialfy
the
35
the
mL
of
generation,
that
aftcratiou
resulting
adsorpdcm
was
gest
works
that
tie
Fox
is
Owe
data
Ms
seeming
msdium
is
alters
the
to hydrophilic.
in Fig,
@ck
4.
The
that
of
uid
tO hy&opbilic
solids
observed
of
by
on
ous values
diffwent
(IFT)
Bemdt
water
of
decreased
to
aqueous
polyethylene
from
found
for
ever,
a lower
spreading
1$33.
&is
and
class)
angle
from
surfacomt
on
value
on
30
mN/m.
of
necessary
alteration
of
be
the
(pentsne
angles
adecane)
to
five
full
Reservoir
onto
46?
spreading
care
surface-active
Adsorption
some
was
the
Er@meti&
extent,
sorface
of
of
the
surface
of
on
tie
at
surface
and
of
tension
m the
w
water-wet
0.1
tension
of
of
the
fiquids,
series
27.6
tension
mN/m
of
experiments
and
Iow+mwgy
homologous
16.0
to
of
oil-wet
February 1992
beads
fn
c0ntr23t
was
sug-
spreading
is
by
on
reducing
supported
by
and
the
solidiliq-
surface
wettsbility
ton.$ion
spread
at
increase
in tie
is altered
from
surface
tension
on
was
a hydrophobic
that
been
the
aftered
absence
of
At
1),
of
the
the
likely
foam
foam
oil
lower
silanated
Further-
to
be
able
to
in water-wet
me-
in an initially
oil-
akemticm
to a hydrophilic
Figs.
5 .ad
6.
ffthe
then
the
two
The
rate
liquid
ratios
are
at each
reduction
f&
is clearly
systems
when
contact
are
and
for
surfactant
differences
the
oillsolid
may
be
interface.
absent.
ratio
of
A
the
io
into
Sii
glance
diffqence
the
types
allows
wettabi!i(y
fie
akeratibn
no
for
adsorption
of
systems.
smfactznt
equation
solid/oif
in
the
at the
explaPossibly,
adsorption
at a vaporlsolid
the
change
IFTS
as a possible
Ymmg-Dupre
between
Most
Of
low-energy
However,
adsorption
at the
unstTected
on
decrwm-ing
proposed
two
oil
in 23
7znd
DI. is present.
Proportional
was
the
essentially
the
with
interfaces
oil
waterhidhydrophobic-solid
is lowered.
observed
system.
water/oif
the
tension
of
in Figs.
cWnpaIi.$Ons
confimmd
same
expected.
interface
for
tie
vafue.Thus,
presence
angle
ZIsmanQ
was
partitioning
the
water/oil/solid
and
surface
angle
tie
become
with
demonstrated
contact
the
be
in
mineral
reported
Bemett
occur
obsurface
media
saturation
when
35 f..ucassen-Reynder@
by
Iiqoid
pemmabilily
surfactsnt
and
porous
operated
would
not
reduction
hydrophobic
were
may
is suFPorted
permeability
experiments
relative
of
to hydmpti]c
relative
of
medium.
observed
that the
for
to
a consis-
to occur.
more
nettability
to hydrophilic,
presence
mtion
hydrophobic
Aa-ation
remarkable
the
TabIe
snap-off
in gas
permeabfli~
and
solids.
(see
behavior
of
from
flow
porous
G=
in the
theory.
Models
the
because
identical
gas
the
reflect
comparison
Wettd+fity
8.
1000
generated,
similarity
liquid
similar
results
foam-generation
SD
medium
provides
state.
by
and
experimental
added
ze
medium
by
by
the
porous
described
surface
oilhlid
Le.3cure
tie
hydrophobic
hydrophobic
water/oilhydrophobic-solid
that
in
@.
altered
Con-
measured
to
Zisman32
solidhmpor
the
mechanisms
current
alteration
further
has
initiaffy
two
with
(hex-
prosem.
W%.
n-
hN/m
ensore
and
smfactsnt
solely
critical.
allowing
water/air/solid
Fox
on
polytetrafluoroethykme.
at a surface
taken
changes
and
a ccmcomitamt
watm-wet,
Surface
oil-wet
necessay
cause
a solution
the
accurately
gas
sd-
must
with
fifms
the
in wettabtity
it is not
Clearly,
claim
if the
becomes
tie
essentially
surfactamt
that
Hence,
the
tensions
the
complete
to hydrophilic.
angle
angles
material
concentration
result
oif-wet
wettabiliiy
ultimate
a decrease
angle.
of
here
served
72
out
hydrophilic.
reconciliation
(water-wet)
how-
taildown
may
contact
solely
contact
from
Much
at a surfactant
to
to hexa.d&ne)
ranged
(peutane).
occur
that
a function
measured
that
surface
a hydrophobic
solids
can
suggested
tube
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
role,
which
of
reported
porous
results
before
point
contzct
by
may
of
surface
the
Alteration
wet
au-
polytetrafluoroethylenq
was
onto
caused
This
static
concentration
suggested
Bemett
was
water.34
Adsorption
A
wt%
was
beads.
and
surfaces
interface
hydrophilic
Vari-
Siar
and
=7
wheress
surface.
dia
Indeed,
the
have
oil-wet
reduction
a miiior
below
in-
comm
tension
tilm.
g/g.
adsorption.
the
Zwman34
of
to
first
tk~ watedairlsolid
at a surface
30
was
addition
and
Zism2n34
defmed~
support
when
tension.
the
of
completely
below
have
of
besdpack
low-energy
the
surface
by
about
tensions
this
adsorption
the
Fox
play
hydrophobic
surface
oil-wet
surfactaot
of
>90
of
solutions
may
demonstrated
SPE
into
at 0.1
who
on
at pH
104
solution
authors
cosoc
liquidlvapor
td
liq-
hydrophobic
measured
contact
spresd
a hydrophobic
While
stmy
initially
ffom
added
obtained
of
surface-tension
Zisinan34
no
The
to
aqueous
on
teration.
alkanes
match-
surfactmt.
of
32 They
tension
able
authors
adsorption
tsct
data
occurred..
Various
They
the
on.the
equation
the
bead-
at similar
wettabili~
fall
by
were
a value
at surface
were
the
tensiou
was
in
as a fonction
at a surface
phase
tie
solids
Zimmm.
surfacmms.
film
of
oil-wet
and
surface
system
without
a change
is decressed
polyethylene
mimic
the
ol-wet
pores
beads
method.
between
tension
fFfs
more,
alteration
and
tension
or
present
indicates
by
the
aaifi-
porous
it essentially
in smaller
is
the
characteristics.
the
(hydmphoblc
terracial
gle
for
of
so @at
with
flow
clearly
SU1faCe
evidence
md]a
surfactant
This
that
is suppoti
cume
shifted
liquid
when
medium.
Solid
conclusion
water-wet
saturations
porous
concluding
of the @drophobic
pernwbifity
surfactant
observed
by
wettabifi~
relative
of
the
Mccaffery$l
resolved
fhis
liquid
bi the presence
es
for
paradox
of suifactant
was
adsorption
11 g of bmxis,
5.4X
supprits
low-energy
uid
cosine
reconciled?
tion
was
mrfactznt
signillcant
of
water-wet
mntaining
besds
contact-angJe
surface
porous
are
adsorption
greater
foam
condition,
how
sorfactant
find
bol?+sobuiondepletion
difference
beads
the
bomb
oif-wet
by
?he
hydrophobic
pres
oil-wet
a hydrophilic
we
on
a stmic
on
used.
The
the
clearly
in injection
it is
anionic
media,
Adsorption
messured
water-wet
saturation
f~
that
water-wet
measurablewith
was
Fig.
saturation
re~omse,
reiidts,
mobility
which
Tension
0.005
assertion
OD the
Young-Dupre
snap-off,
AS
(mN/m)
0.001
CIaridges27
grester
containing
injection-pressure
mineral
residual
min-
water-wet
introduced
Interstitial
abflow
phzse.
not
wqe
15%.
the
presence
transient
be-
in the
in
flow
waz
and
the
1000
for
This
flow
change
m the
to that
value.
From
Surface
0/,)
17,$y=c=+o=v
Discussion.-
SD
Hence,
result.
a nonwetting
solution
and
7.
was
this
no
12%,
pack
io
identical
two-phase
was
watw-wet
a steady
of
oil
beadpacks.
pack
pack
formed
and
oil-wet
oil-wet
water-wet
on
a comparison
gas
mineral
surfactant
of
used
and
remained
experiments
Water
subtracting
Fig.
essentially
that
added
of
in
(~
nmte-
2.
OF
CONCENTRATION
rapidly.
essentially
water
by
TENSION
OF
Concentration
presencf
Eq.
was
noted
l-SURFACE
imer-
in the
PV
PV
8 illustrates
with
tie
depicts
total
was
the
Fig.
in
bebavior.when
gas
when
Indeed,
that
with
remaimd
set
meiia
sure
3).
calculated
modifd
the
7 depicts
and
found
collapsed
contrast
(Fig.
indicating
oil,
of
absence
the
This
or
of
the
TABLE
pus.
FUNCTION
when
Fig.
maybe
modifying
oil
porous
oil
behavior
by
permoabtity
is in marked
sence
for
was
not
absence
oil-wet
in
in the
rexdts:
medium
surfactant.,
Permeab*
reduction
water
1000
details
interztitizl
did
Relative
SD
permeability
calculated
of
porous
.&wet
the
.,
.. .
to deter.
medium
8 present
and
. .
performed
pomuz
experimental
permeability
foam
the
gas
were
oil-wet
with
section.
the, volume
No
in the
the
The
saturation
.1.
form
Figs.
present
swfactant.
Experiments
ti m
oil.
not
was
oil.
effective
interstitial
Foam
stbial
of
waz
and
at
interface
indicates
solidlwater
95
IFTs
to
, contact
the
Dsta
ent,
foam
centers,
of
oiJ
forms
and
that
swiated
with
9.
with
observable
the
1. Pwscdf,
lower
pefnkment
presence
2.
able,
when
residuaf
oif
may
sdJJ
in foam
however,
is pres-
occupies
large
occur.
No
befwior
and
in-
ofl
3.
4.
in thepres-
more
work
Bernard,
akeration
smfactant
porous
of
reducing
surface
alteration
redts
at the
alteration
the
medium
the
adsorption
nettability
smface
in the
from
hydrophobic
horn
fDec.
D.G.
and Handy,
State
Plow
of
19S9)
N&id.
soJid/liquid
interface.
6.
in the
absence
flow
of
gas
This
indicates
medium
2.
ic.
the
FoaRI
of
the
tam
for
for
initialfy
of
of
in sn
steady
M.iaJJy
oil-wet
tie
with
of
a sikmated
J.M.:
hydrophobic
solid
foam-genemdon
a water-wet
W.R.:
of
by
SPE
the
initially
Symposmm,
initiaJJY
media
c&wet
and
porous
both
observed
curves
in the
medium
absence
wettaboily
surfactant
iJJ the
is
change
adsorption
essential,
presence
10.
resuk.$
from
and
with
the
gasilxinelhydrophobic-solid
6.
Gas
wet
permeability
reduction
is e.ssmtidJy
media.
identicaJ
Tbi.Y
hydrophobic
further
surface
for
for
sumorts
has
be_e;
Mast,
R.F.:
.%
surfac-
pore
absolute
PbD
same
surfactamt
concent-
and
kdtia!ly
a?.serdon
that
the
to
16.
oiJ-
kn
= relative
L,=
~E
length,
mS
hydropbific.
dp/dz
17.
Flnid
20.
pack
IIn&l
steady
two-phase
Of
pack
tldJy
ssturated
with
differential
pressure
lOhlllletriC
flow
, Sw
water
Vp
pore
gradient,
rate
of
dc
contact
fq
viscosity
kg
flcrz,
water,
21.
kg
kpahm
Fluid
pi
density
(measured
of
i,
of
Phsse
ti
i,
22:
Jiquid
phase),
23.
degr~s
:yface
of
tension
Jiquidlvapor
interface,
ti/m
OsL
~@Xfmid
temlon
of
solid@quid
interface,
IUN/m
mtwfacid
tension
of
solidhapor
interface,
&Jm
urement
for
his
of
caretid
suggestions.
for
96
permission
afl
his
dats
presented.
reading
of
We
also
to
thank
publish
help
in conducting
JU addition,
tie
manuscript
the
this
management
paper.
of
The
RCOV.
Effect
of Trace
Permeabiiities,3>
AMuat
Technical
Flow
Con-
Through
196S)
Porous
359-6%
Foam
Trans.,
Simulato~
SPERE
ff,33
Behavior
1972
of Foam
SPE
Mect@nisms
(Aug.
in Porous
Anmd
Meeting,
573-g5.
Medix
Pores,,
Model
(March
Generation
in Water-Wet
349.
of Some
En#and
in Porous
of Foam
1988)
Droplets
Brisfol,
M.
Porous
&
the
we
and
for
of
thsnl
his
MobJ
W&e,
7,
Pore
SPEl
systems,>:
1965).
Two-Phase
caretld
meas-
B. G..
many
R&D
Hurd
helpfd
Corp.
Minnesota,
C.J.:
Dishibution
Minneapolis
<CAn Extended
in Cylindrical
Foam
Drive
U.S.
aqd
(1981).
Evolution
Ca@Wries,S,
of
R. S.:
Media,
<The
for
Equation
Ckem.
Eng.
Sri,
Jnaea.sing
the Mechanism
and Exhibition,
Modon
of Foam
62C+3 presented
SPE
tbe Recvvery
(1961).
Mines
OD
paper
Conference
F. P.:
J@ess
Bnreau
and Schechter.
(1961)
of
1457-65.
Technical
Hiwsaki,
U.
Breakup
.The
tie.
of Lang
New
Bubbles
at the
F--
1976
SPE
Orleans,
Oct.
3-6,
in Tube$,
39 J.
Fluid
166-S8..
G.J,
and
J. B.:
fAv/SOn,
Viscosity
FJumerfelt,
R. W.
of Foam
MecJw6sm
in Smooth
and Prkditk,
(1988)
City
K@b,
2.1.,
on
Thrmzh
Ponm.s
Yu.
L~and
cal
Pore-Throat
FJow
in Porous
SPEI (ApriJ
Cap!llarks,,>
1983)
dia,
27.
in porous
Chem.
Seq.,
Me
New
2,
on
(Aug.
The
: YEffects
A.H,
Mobtities
in
of
Capi@y
Foams
FJowing
198S) 919-26,
intlience
Map-off,,,
J,
of $VettabiJim
Colfoid Interface
and
Criti-
%-i. (Feb.
461-72,
Wenatd!ity
and
Literature
Effects
tie
Survey-Pact
of Cwe
HandJ@
L RGcWOd/
m
WeUabiliQ,>,
19g61 1125-44.
Rwks,,>>
pa~r
Conference
D.C.
B.M.
an.ce
Rwk
Annual
SPE
and
of
Exhibition,
G. G.:
mtbe
1966
and
Claridg.,
New
and
Statei
SPE
of Foams
Foam
1544~
in Porous
Feb.
Flcdng
New
Tech-
26-29.
Dallas,
pretited
Exbibitio%
in Reser-
Amuat
Sept.
Meeting,
C02
SPE
19S2
Orleans,
Am@
E. L.:
paper
Conference
Wettabilhy
at the
Rheology
AfChE
Wetfatdlity,->
TedmicaJ
Mixed
10??71 pE.SWl@d
and Bernard,
pre?anted
Jxescure,
gPE
Ratio
J. C.: %erpreiation
vs.
of Foam
AUIericao
FaJJs,
Pbme
SPERS
N. C.:
Size
Jnteractiom
Bond,
and
Media,,,
W. G.:
(Oct.
and
GJ.,
Coalescence
No,
MobiJity
Control,
294325.
Wardlaw.
Anderson,
J.:
MobiJ@
ffiiS&i,
Pressure
JPT
26.
for
and
No.
Kanda.
nical
Bsrtos
oil
5-8.
Liquid
at tbe
AIME,
Pm~es
Fhdds
RJ 5866,
25. Meimse,
Acknowledgments
G.A.
Gradient,,,
by Snap+
(WY
01
dissertation,
A. N.:
OiJ,,,
Brine
nsv
thank
U.
Film
43,
Fried,
voir
We
SPE
Ott
of tie
Trans.,
, C@JJary
P.A.
Liquid
19863109,
g/m3
24.
oLv
(198~.
Enhanced
of a Mechanistic
T. C.:
of
g5-9R
K.K.:
Gmglhz,
York
Cm3jh
i, Pa. s
Phase
of
~erms
Austin
A.:
SPEJ (W&
SPERS
dia. S, Surfaczrmt-Based
m3
angle
Flow
176-90.
saturation
volume,
April
Pressure
Relative
Generation
Ransohoff,
Media-Apprent
mm
qi
3997
SnapOff
PfdJ
Meek
Of
Ms= m=
and
Packs,
19. Brethenon,
to
15087
OakWnd,
2?-11.
and
3.M.
(19SS)
fim2
permeability
pore
Ow ForSPE
Two-Phase
SPJ3DOE
of Gas ad
Development
ti$smtadrm,
Mobanty,
for
initiaJJy
mm
permeabflty,
tbe
Texas,
19g6
of Foam,
Aspects
1970)
14, 3Jaynes,
tension
phenomenon
IIIM2
diameter,
of
Orleans,
presented
S. G.:
Annual
d
at the
Mechanism
Oct.
C.J.
WCh
lg.
area,
flow
South:
an UnconsOli@d
and MomaJve,
SPE
Antonio,
13. Rwf,
tiose
Nomenclature
=
pap.
Mobilization
19S8
<Microscopic
, p.~
Radke,
of
Jntlumcing
NitmgewWater
New
Balance
in Glass-Bead
swfactant.
water-wet
the
aJtered
in tie
of
system.
the
both
U.
17-20.
R.S.
o.
presented
et cd.:
PopuJadon
Flow,
ration
ApriJ
Exiibitim,
The
on
U,
ti the
Schedmx,
15446
A.H.
Media,
15.
associated
POrOU$ Media
.Iwm
. . . . RM-Q7..
.. ..
when
suface
is a general
SPSRS
243.
FaJJs,
The
in the
match
of
SPE
AJME,
of which
of
and Umteady-
Meetig,
Tbrm@
Foam
of Surfa&nt
in the presence
presence
and
J.M.,
L.W.:
12.
peim~btity
on
m water,,,
Media,
di~ertation,
R@@
dissertation,
Tulsa,
Media
media
Steady
in Porous
P-tern
Effects
Pr=ated
Jfohn,
9.
porous
shifl
oiJ-wet
1~358
Quantities
IL
a substantial
of Foam
Me&n
inPomu.sMcdii,39
CaEfonda
Themiesof
and
network.
is evidenced
PhD
Medium,,
paper
Trans.,
234.
of
PhD
So
me
of Foams
NiuogenWater
femme
to hydrophil-
tbebry,
in Smd-
(157 1),
Wrfacta.nt
and
two-phase
medium
Effect
of fi13S Tbroueh
J.A.:
beadpack,
oikwet
porous
that
present.
the
The
the
penneabihly
watir-wet
5.
in situ
surfactsnt.
alteration
relative
reduction
through
of
data
assumption
is
Liquid
condkions
aheration
relative
Wrfactmt
4.
in
the
WettabjJity
Jiquid-phase
under
solution
forms
formation
reconcikzs
on
3.
ftiam
presence
wettabiJily
This
rests
suriwtant
smfactant
that
rmdt
of
and
AD&,
Agents,
Angeles
and propagation
S. Smchez,
with
W. L.:
Solution
,,
ROW
Acd&
Los
Rossen,
ery
Conclusions
compared
Flow
365-7Z
of Porous
:Comparison
Foaming
F. and Jensen,
Sanchez,
able
m gasibtieihydrophoblc-
reduced
Trans.,
L. L.:
and
SurfWe
Cdiimki,
paw
is significantly
295-30ti
Gas
Steamlwater
as7.
permeabdity
1991)
24
It
phenomenon
and Jacobs,
on Permeabiliq
: Non-Darcv
of
presentg
tension
of Foam
(Aug.
77-84.
B.H.
mation
to
surface
is a generaJ
temion
absence
systems.
1. Gas
196$
SFEI
em
Jnvestigatim
SPSRS
L.W.,
Wumdon
Huh,
5. .Frkdmm,
oiJ-wet
HoJm,
G. G.,
G=
Pres&ce
is needed
Laboratory
Pressure,
291.
(Feb.
con-
,(A
at EJevated
AJME,
injection
beadpack
pores
difference
avaif
wettabiJity
the
P. et al.:
stone
reduction
gadsurfactant
Because
smaJJer
the
an
This
is noted
angle
mechanisms.
of
hydrophilic.
during
in aninitialJy
because
soJid
in
for
these
reduction
of
water-wet
in Fig.
smp-off
dehmeate
of
any
is a result
in the
oiJ is currently
Foam
of
Referqicee
assertion.
contact
Jack
re.spnse
forms
explanation
ence
the
7)
a constagt
TWFXXJ
as demonwated
crete
to
@lg.
pressure
tht
pore.
that
for
surface.
Transient
dicates
unchanged
propordonakdsorption
in waterloilkdid
suggest
oti-wet
remain
the
change
permea.btity
an
must
supports
no
tension
in gss
ti
Tbis
kxficadng
surface
of
waterloif
angle.
Me7-10.
Perfmmat the
Orleans,
1986
W.
5-s.
SPE
Reservoir
E@neexinz,
February
1992
2S.
D.crkson,
J.H.,
Wall,
cfudinstipba~lefin
of Sfimda@
U.S.
Hydmarbon
Pateti
No.
29.
De%@
30.
ti
-e
~lev~
Hatziavmmidis.
p@t
,,
31.
R. G.,
and
Sulfonafe
A.S.
Knight,
Recovay
4,556,107
and W,t,
3,
T&olosy
TM
Formation,
Faamiudx
(kfay
tie
PbD
@f-
1930)
185-52..
A!nm-mt
Tmm-
Hyd&.,
of WettebtiW
Maiia,S
ln-
Mb
WERE
Pw2ictim
Phys.
Effect
in Porous
a Sub temmcnn
of GasJWater
of,,Dispemiors>
F. G.:
hjectio.
mdati
19S5).
m Steam
Foam:
D. T.: GA l%emv
for
cm-k
WCafferv.
Wean
Additives
From
(Dec.
K.:
J .D.:
DimerSurfactmt
10;
13-31.
on Relative
dihm.,
U.
Bemett,
ous
of Ca@y,
C&m.
Fowkes.
at fhe
tbe
(1959)
F.M.
ad
Interface
Surface
6S,
Energy
Constitution
of WettabfiW
of
by Aque-
Low-Enersy
J.
Solids,,
W. D.:
Harkim,
He
D
+,
A&M
the
$%3=
U.
U.
ing.
(Photo
The
Sate
of Momlayers
J. Am.
Chem
Ads@&
&c.
[1940)
phenomena.
He
from
holds
the
MS,
of
PhD
special
and
PhD
in
Texss
degress
in chemissl
from
engineer-
Randy
Doyle
leader
project
of
within
Group
at
interest
in
degress
by
Corp.
hum
technical
Recovety
w[th
S,
U.
the
interactions
Improved
engineering
and
ali
R&D
degfss
unavailable.)
Is
roc!dfluld
,.
MS
esfd
recovery
Mobil
a BS
Texas,
ffazlstf
Corp.
Solution.,.
and
of
at
holds
msthods
heavy.oil
Mobil
in
the
R&D
inteffaciai
chemical
Texas.
H.W.
Fox,
Relation
1241-46.
Solid-.%ue.ms
62,3377-86.
34.
W.A::
rsassrches
of
pmcsssss
Dallss.
.. . ;,.
and Zisman,
Solutions
Phys.
33.
M.K.
steam
.-..
%+
..... v
Alberta
32.
n
.+
Pcrmeabil-
*diss
mechanisms
and
Zimmn,
surfaces.
I.
W.A.:
Tim
of
SpreadinS
Liquids
J. Cdbid
Polytehatlmrwtbykne,,,
on
hw
.%-i. (1950)
5,514.
35.
Lucass@Reyndem,
J.
S1
l%ys.
E.H.:
(1963)
Chem.
*13VWSI033
Metric
Cp
dyneslcm
E-03
Pas
E+OO
=
=
mN/m
..=
Cm
~F32)/l.S
in.
2.54*
E+(M
md
9.S69
233
E04
ymq
psi
6.S94
757
E+OO
kpa
m4nuwdPt
SPE
WI.
m the
e-n,
Reservoir
Pwr
1989
sPER31
mcabnd
-P&
SPE
Engin-,
solids;
Factors
1 .O*
fmt.a, Is mad,
4t
.Wwerslo
Feb.
and Ad.w@on
1.0*
C&?lal
SPE
&i@es
969.
PresenIti
10. cu.
Contact
67,
Am.al
far ti,w
Oti,
9, 1989.
for PubllmMn
Aug.
Twbnlti
Cmfwa.m
Februmy
1S%2
20,
Revlti
1690,
rmnu,crlPt
Ps@,
& 3xhlblUon
[SPE
hsld
recatid
iw
In San
fiml
An!*
?7
0-30
HPLCPIJMP
PsM
PRESSUEGALU
3 WAYVALVE
PREsATummt
=%
6R#uAlED
&
*
0
A
m
oil Absml
No Sumt
0.001 wt%
0.005 w%
0.015 Wt%
00
o
QA
GIAbsenl
d
Ef@@o
o
o
Noswfmat
A O.001WI%
0.010 Wf%
O.loowl%
k?
.001
0
20
40
60
WATER SATURATKN
Fgure 2 Liquid ~ity
thmqh
80
20
60
60
.Oolk
n
WA7ER 8ATlN?A~%
in tw-pt.ase
4-o
flow
Film
water-wet mafia
No surfamnt, oil-wet
O.cl ?fR6,oil-wet
El
NOSdaCat,
water-wet
--~
211
WAmR
.
40
SATURATION%
80
permeability in
?J
OJ
u
(!3
csBAbI#
O(-J
-001 ~
o
20
40
WATER 8ATWfATfON
60
%
80
-m &--T-r4
20
40
60
WAIER 8AlURATfON %
80
.01-i
0
20
40
WATER SATURATION
60
1
80
19687
0
0
,.i-
.01
No Surfactant
0,100 M%
o
1
20
40
60
80
WATERSATURATION%
F~ure 8: Liquid permeabilityin two-phaseflow though
oil-wet (silanated) media- oil present.
70SurfactantIn@cWon
60-
at Time Zero
s
a
; 50U
$40W
K
~
30-
Water-WetFack
iii20
~
Oi>Wet Pack
10 F
10
20
30
40
50
60
TIME (minutes)
Figure9: Comparisonof transient responseof oil-wet vs water-wet
pack when surfactantis injected - oil present.