IPTC 11181

A Full-Field Simulation Study of the Effect of Foam Injection on Recovery Factor of an

Iranian Oil Reservoir
S.M. Seyed Alizadeh, SPE, and N. Alizadeh, SPE, Amir Kabir University of Technology, and B. Maini, SPE,
University of Calgary

Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference

incremental recovery. Gas breakthrough is also retarded
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology remarkably.
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4–6 December 2007.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
Geological Overview of the Field
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference The M field was discovered in 1962/63 and subsequent
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or drilling has confirmed two reservoirs (Asmari and Bangestan).
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
This simulation study is concerned only with the shallower
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Asmari reservoir.
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous It was put on production in 1974. A total of 47 wells have
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
now been drilled on the field, of which 12 are dedicated to
producing the Asmari reservoir and one well utilized as an
Abstract observation well.
In some of Iranian oil reservoirs gas is injected for pressure The Asmari formation is recognized as a regionally
maintenance as well as displacement of oil by gas. In some of extensive geological unit, and it is known to contain a number
these fields, it comes to a premature breakthrough of injected of large oil accumulations; one of these is located at M field.
gas due to high permeability in some regions of the reservoir Despite some complex reservoir lithology, there is good
or because of the geometry of the reservoir. evidence of pressure communication within the Asmari
Foam injection appears to be a promising tool in solving between some of the different accumulations around the
the problem with thief zones and low recovery from EOR Ahwaz area. This is associated with a strong subsurface
methods such as immiscible gas injection in Iranian oil aquifer system.
reservoirs. It can also mitigate the effect of gravity override The structure is a northwest-southeast trending asymmetric
and achieve increased displacement efficiency in these anticline. It is defined by seismic with no surface expression,
reservoirs. and it is located on the Khuzestan plain. This area slopes
gently at a rate of 1 m in 5 km to the southwest between
Introduction Ahwaz and Khorramshahr. The M structure is located some 60
Field application of foam is becoming a proven technology, km north of the Persian Gulf.
surfactant costs withstanding, to control the mobility of The Asmari structure covers an area 42 x 5.5 km at the
gaseous phases in porous media. Foam has been employed in mapped spill point (around 2,400 mss). The hydrocarbon-
large number of documented field trials world wide [1]. bearing reservoir covers an area 30 x 3 km with the reservoir
Typical applications span from steam and co2 foam to crest located at 2,144 mss.
alleviate gravity override and channeling, production well The M structure has a dip of 6 to 8° and 5 to 6° on the
treatments to reduce GOR, to gelled-foams for long-lasting northeast and southwest flanks respectively. However, the dip
plugging of high permeability channels. Foam processes have decreases toward the southeastern and northwestern
also been studied and field tested for use as groundwater extremities.
aquifer clean up methods [1]. The first field study for the Asmari was prepared by BP in
Foam has been employed in more than 30 documented 1974 using 3 wells. That study divided the Asmari into 5 units.
field trials world wide, mainly in the USA. In the North Sea, Zone 1: Upper carbonate
foam has been tested in production well treatments both on the Zone 2: Upper sandstone
Oseberg field and on the Snorre field in the Norwegian sector, Zone 3: Middle carbonate
and on the Beryl-field in the British sector. Late in 1998, a Zone 4: Lower sandstone
large injector treatment started on Snorre, involving injection Zone 5: Lower carbonate
of almost 1000 tonnes surfactant [2]. In 1978 Shir Mohammadi reviewed the reservoir and
In the present work, foam is injected into the reservoir and separated it into 8 zones. Zones 1, 6 and 8 were mainly
then using a field-scale simulation study, we investigate the carbonate whereas Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 were mainly sandstone,
effect of foam injection on gas mobility and oil recovery and Zone 7 was locally sandy.
improvement. The obtained results reveal a significant Zone 1: Carbonate rocks.
Zone 2: Sandstone (mainly).
2 IPTC 11181

Zone 3: Sandstone (mainly). Table 1-Details of reservoir griding

Zone 4: Sandstone (mainly).
Zone 5: Sandstone (mainly). Direction No. of Grids
Zone 6: Carbonate rocks.
Zone 7: Carbonate rocks with local sandstone X 56
developments.
Zone 8: Carbonate rocks Y 12
The present simulation study has retained the 8 zone
Z 9
model. The first 3 zones plus a very small part of Zone 4 are
recognized as oil bearing. Thus, the simulation model is based
on three hydrocarbon bearing layers.

The Foam Model

ECLIPSE 2002a version simulator is used for the current
simulation study.
The physics of the foam flooding process is in general very
complex. For example, when foam bubbles form in a porous
medium the bubble size will typically fill the pore size of the
rock matrix. These bubbles will tend not to move until they are Fractured
compressed (hence reducing their size) by applying a higher Layers

pressure. Then in turn more bubbles will be generated at the

new higher pressure, but with the original bubble size [3]. Single Poosity
The Foam Model of this simulator is a preliminary model. Layers
It does not attempt to model the details of foam generation,
flow and collapse. In this model we assume the foam is
transported with the gas phase, and hence we model the foam
by a tracer in the gas phase that accounts for adsorption on to
the rock and decay over time [3]. Fig. 1-Schematic of the reservoir model with fractured layers of
zone I

Simulation Model Description

PVT Analysis of the Field
The reservoir to be modeled consists of 9 layers. Zone 1 is a
The reservoir fluid is an undersaturated oil of 29° API gravity,
fractured zone, thus the first three layers have been defined as
viscosity of 1.18 cp and a GOR of 450 SCF/STB. The bubble
fractured using its relevant keyword in GRID section of the
point pressure is around 2,155 psia. The crude is characterized
input data file. Within the limits of the available data, and
as a sweet Iranian intermediate-gravity.
recognizing there are some fractured layers in the reservoir, a
dual porosity model was selected as the most practical
Dry Gas data entry
approach for the reservoir modeling under present conditions.
The position of the fractured layers is illustrated in figure 1. The properties of gas above the dew point or well beyond
After creating the structural framework and property the critical point are specified as a table of formation volume
model, the desired type of griding system can be implemented factor and viscosity versus pressure. The keyword format is
for the model. It is worthwhile to note that a corner point columns of pressure, gas formation volume factor and
griding has been used for this purpose. viscosity in that order from left to right. Instead of
The number of grid cells in reservoir simulation (up- representing in tabular form, Bg and µg data, are shown in
scaled) model is 56 × 12 × 9 = 6,048 grid cell for M Asmari figures 2 and 3 respectively.
Reservoir, as been detailed in table 1. However, one should
note that the same number of grid cells are allocated for
fracture cells as the model is dual porosity. As a consequence
the total number of cells sums up to 12,096.

Fig. 2-Gas Formation Volume Factor (Bg) as a function of pressure

IPTC 11181 3

Live Oil data entry

The properties of oil above (undersaturated) and below
(saturated) the bubble point are entered as a table of pressure,
formation volume factor and viscosity versus bubble point
Gas/Oil Ratio. The undersaturated FVF and viscosity must be
specified at the highest pressure in the table.
The corresponding data which consist of µo are illustrated Increasing
in figure 3 whilst those include Rs and Bo is portrayed in figure pressure
4. direction
It should be noted that there are usually some additional
data which defines the properties of undersaturated oil at the
specified values of RS corresponding to each bubble point
pressure in the experiments. These are the Oil FVF as well as
the oil viscosity above the bubble point as a function of
pressure.
There are 31 tables each of which contains the above data.
In order to avoid huge volume of data in tabular form to be
included in this paper, they are shown in figures 5 and 6.

Fig. 5-Oil FVF (Bo) above the bubble point as a function of

pressure

Increasing
pressure
direction

Fig. 3-Viscosity of Oil and Gas phases as a function of pressure

Fig. 6-Oil Viscosity (µo) above the bubble point as a function of

pressure

Water PVT data entry

The PVT properties of water are also declared in the
model. At reference pressure of 3840 psia, water viscosity of
0.65 cp, formation volume factor of 1.027 bbl/STB and
compressibility of 5.35e-6 psi-1 was entered for the current
model.

Reference densities of the phases

All PVT properties are functions of pressure in the black
oil model. The surface densities of each component are also
pressure and temperature dependent.
Fig. 4-Bubble Point GOR and Oil FVF as a function of pressure
The data used for the model is oil density of 54.33 lb/ft3,
water density of 69.23 lb/ft3 and gas density of 0.068 lb/ft3.
4 IPTC 11181

Porosity/Permeability Relationship of curves (drainage and imbibition) of Pc for each rock type,
The iso-permeability maps in this model were built using a hence a voluminous number of saturation tables are used in the
porosity/permeability relationship. To obtain the relationship, current model.
using routine core analysis, core data measurements of For fracture system, relative permeability was set equal to
samples taken from different layers were used, and then by saturation (straight line relative permeability). Also, the
applying geometrical average the following correlations were capillary pressure in the fractures was neglected (Pcf=0).
attained: Below comes the drainage as well as imbibition Pc curve
for “rock type 10” as an example (figures 7 to 10).
Zone I:
⎧⎪ K x = 0 .097 × EXP (13 . 23φ ) for ρ g ≺ 2 .68 (1)
⎨
⎪⎩ K x = 0 .0098 × EXP (36 . 71φ ) for ρ g ≥ 2 .68

Zone II:
⎧⎪ K x = 0 .063 × EXP (21 .65φ ) for ρ g ≺ 2 .68 (2) Drainage
⎨
⎪⎩ K x = 0 .038 × EXP (32 .27φ ) for ρ g ≥ 2 .68
Zone III:
⎧⎪ K x = 0 . 196 × EXP (21 .08 φ ) for ρ g ≺ 2 . 68 (3)
⎨
⎪⎩ K x = 0 . 098 × EXP (27 .38 φ ) for ρ g ≥ 2 . 68

where ρg is the matrix grain density whose data is provided

in the form of pre-generated maps. The above correlations
were entered in the simulator (Property Calculator in FloGrid)
to generate the iso-K maps.
According to the following three criteria, 10 different rock
types have been classified for matrix using their relevant
formula. The 11th rock type represents the fractures.
Fig. 7-Drainage capillary pressure curve for Oil/Water system
• Lithology of the layers comprising the reservoir
• Capillary behavior of the rock samples in the lab
• Porosity frequency distribution of each lithology

Fluid and Rock-Fluid Interaction Data

The SCAL data (Saturation Tables) including capillary Imbibition
pressure and relative permeability which are utilized in
defining the saturation distribution and the mechanism of
multiphase flow in porous media should be determined for
each rock type of the reservoir.
There are two series of relative permeability and PC
measurements on the rock samples; the Gas/Oil system as well
as the Water/Oil system. To obtain the sets of Gas/Oil and
Water/Oil curves each belonging to a specific rock type the
following procedure was performed in Core Lab:

• At first, all the test data were classified based on

the 10 rock type categories.
• For every rock type all the available test data were
collected, analyzed and averaged.
Fig. 8-Imbibition capillary pressure curve for Oil/Water system
These averaged curves provide a basis for attaining the
desired Kr and Pc curves in accordance with each rock type.
The special core analysis on the rock samples has determined
the hysteresis in capillary pressure curves.
Hysteresis Option
The results of special core analysis reveal that hysteresis
exists in the core samples.
Since there are 11 rock types in the model, including the
fractures, and the existence of hysteresis necessitates a couple
IPTC 11181 5

factor, σ, of 0.011 was defined for the simulation model based

on the Kazemi and Gilman equation [4].

Drainage

Fig. 9-Drainage capillary pressure curve for Oil/Gas system

Fig. 11-Vertical/Horizontal permeability relationship

Table 2-Property Data for Fracture Cells

Property value
Imbibition
NTG 1

Porosity 0.001

PermX 500 md

Fluid Contacts and Initialization

In order to run a simulation, the initial conditions at the
beginning of the simulation should be defined. These are:

• Initial pressure and phase saturation for each grid cell

• Initial solution ratios, that is gas-oil and/or oil-gas
Fig. 10-Imbibition capillary pressure curve for Oil/Gas system ratio for each cell
• Depth dependence of reservoir fluid properties, which
Permeability Anisotropy are API, saturated GOR, bubble point, saturated OGR
To account for the anisotropy in the vertical direction, the core and dew point versus depth.
data were plotted on a log-log scale and the • Initial analytical aquifer conditions
relation Y = 0 .2606 X 0.89 was proposed based on the best • Fluid contact depths, that is OWC and/or GOC
straight line passing through the data-points. Thus, a value of
K v = 0.89 × K h for permeability in the Z-direction has been For the current study, the datum depth, pressure at datum
depth, depth of WOC and capillary pressure at WOC are
used in the model. More details are shown in figure 11. utilized to initialize the model. Initial pressure was specified to
be 3490 psia at the reference depth of 7100 ft. initial WOC is
Defining Fracture Properties measured to be at a depth of 7486 ft.
To define the porosity, permeability and also Net-to-Gross It should be noted that an initial GOC depth of 5000 ft is
Ratio for the fracture cells, the relevant data are entered as defined which is well above the top asmari depth. This is
listed in table 2. because the reservoir is initially undersaturated, thus no GOC
It is worthwhile to note that by the aid of fracture analysis initially exists.
of FMI logging files as well as tracer testing, different fracture The existence of an active bottom-drive aquifer for this
properties have been determined. Fracture spacing in X, Y and reservoir was proved. To account for this, an analytical Carter-
Z directions was considered as 100ft, 100ft and 20ft Tracy aquifer has been defined for this model. First, the
respectively. However, an equivalent matrix-fracture coupling
6 IPTC 11181

aquifer was connected to the reservoir from bottom of the Also, since the reservoir under study is initially
lowermost layer. Then, the initial aquifer properties were undersaturated and the existence of an active aquifer has been
specified for the model. Initial quifer data are covered in table confirmed, so the analytical aquifer parameters such as
3. permeability, porosity, thickness, angle of influence and the
aquifer connections to the reservoir (reservoir grid cells to
Table 3-Initial aquifer data used in the model which it can be connected) are considered as matching
parameters.
Property Value
Table 4-The results of matching initial fluids in place
for the model
Datum Depth 7100 ft
Change in Total
Permeability 150 md Total Reservoir
Calculated OIIP Dissolved
Pore Volume
Porosity 20% Pore (MMSTB) GIIP
(Res. bbl)
Volume (%) (MMMSCF)
-1
Total Compressibility 3.6E-6 psi
0 3024.515521 18741470433 1633.387632
Inner Radius 6000 ft

Thickness 200 ft 10 3274.676346 20311937048 1768.486823

Angle of Influence 360º 11 3299.692429 20468983710 1781.996742

11.6 3314.702078 20563211707 1790.102693

Matching Initial Fluids in Place
The latest estimation of the OIIP for asmari reservoir in M
field, based on the production data up to 2001 is 3315 11.61 3314.952239 20564782173 1790.237792
MMSTB.
To make sure that the geological model which is input to 11.612 3315.002271 20565096267 1790.264812
the simulator is validated and the amount of initial fluids in
place calculated by the simulator are in agreement with
reports, first, a simulation run was carried out.
History matching results
The model gives an OIIP of 3024.515 MMSTB which is In this study, several models were constructed to have a
unsatisfactory and not close to the estimated value noted
simulator model close to the reservoir real behavior. In this
before. regard there was an effort to obtain oil production history,
To get a match for this property, different methods can be
pressure, and GOR of the field by alteration of matching
applied. For the sake of simplicity and not to change a lot of parameters in acceptable ranges and the adjustment of these
parameters, reservoir pore volume in different layers have amounts in the simulator model. The model was run several
been changed to get an ultimate match.
times for history matching purposes.
Table 4 summarizes the results of different pore volume According to these conditions, the best possible matching
changes in order to obtain the target OIIP value for the in the field pressure, GOR and oil production rate was taken
reservoir.
with adjustment of all matching parameters in the model.
The first row of the following table shows the total values Since none of the existing wells have cut any water to date, it
of fluids in place calculated by simulator for grid blocks. An was not possible to take a history match of reservoir water cut.
increase of 11.612 % in the initial total reservoir pore volume
Obtained results are shown in figures 12 to 15.
calculated by simulator appears to yield us an acceptable OIIP The main reason of rather steep decline in the reservoir
estimate. pressure could be due to low permeability of layers in zone 3.
The permeabilities were increased by changing the
History matching of Reservoir Past Performance corresponding transmissibilities of these layers.
Matching Parameters Estimation
In order to get an acceptable history match, correction to
some of the assumptions was made and some parameters were
changed.
According to uncertainty of fractures parameters and
regarding to the fact that in a fractured reservoir, the main
production path is from the fractures, so the fractures
properties were deliberated as history matching parameters
which include σ and transmissibility factor of the fractures.
IPTC 11181 7

Simulated oil rate

Observed oil rate

80000

70000

60000
Oil Rate (STB/Day)

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (Year)

Fig. 12-Reservoir oil production rate history match

Simulated pressure
Observed pressure

3600

3400

3200
Pressure(Psia)a))

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (Year)

Fig.13 -Reservoir pressure history match

8 IPTC 11181

Some other useful information regarding the history is the analytic Cater-Tracy aquifer defined in the current
matching is the amount of the water encroachment by active model. With alteration of these properties the required
aquifer which is present in the model. Figure 15 shows the pressure support for the reservoir has been controlled. The
total amount of water influx (AAQT) into the reservoir until total water influx by aquifer and the total water production
the end of history matching period. from the wells up to the end of history matching date, as
In fact, one of the key parameters whose properties have been calculated by simulator, are 403.577 MMSTB and 21.374
changed to obtain the acceptable match with the observed data MMSTB respectively.
s im ulated GOR

Obs erved GOR

0.8

0.7

0.6
GOR (Mscf/STB)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (Year)

Fig. 14-Reservoir Gas/Oil ratio history match

Fig. 15-Cumulative aquifer influx during history matching period

IPTC 11181 9

Prediction of Reservoir Performance • Well P43 (31, 6) was drilled on December 6, 1999
Reservoir future performance, optimum production and and perforated in layers 7 to 9.
different scenarios for production increase using EOR • Well P47 (33, 6) was drilled on July 9, 2001 and
methods were analyzed by the use of built simulation model perforated in layers 7 to 9.
following adjustment of the parameters for achievement of • Well P48 (22, 6) was drilled on August 25, 2001 and
reservoir history match in a reservoir simulation trend. perforated in layers 1 to 6.
With enough confidence in reservoir modeling, the • Well P56 (20, 6) was drilled on June 12, 2004 and
performance of the reservoir for three different scenarios was perforated in layers 7 and 8.
evaluated. In this regard necessary restrictions were defined • Well P58 (40, 5) was drilled on December 30, 2004
for production and injection wells such as extra water and perforated in layer 3 only.
production, maximum bottom-hole injection pressure and Table 5 lists the cumulative oil production for each of the
minimum oil rate of each production well, etc. wells present in this scenario. Some of the wells such as P09,
P34, P47 and P56, as can be observed from the figures,
Production and injection well constraints produce a low fraction of total reservoir oil production which
Under production conditions, a producing bottomhole makes them suitable candidates for conversion to injection
pressure of 1,000 psi is assumed for all the following wells in the following scenarios.
scenarios. For gas injection as well as foam injection
scenarios, a maximum bottomhole pressure of 3,000 psi was Table 5-Cumulative oil production of each well
specified. during primary production scenario
According to the production history of the reservoir, a
maximum well oil production rate of 10,000 STB/Day is
assumed. However, this value was increased to 15,000 Well No. Cumulative oil production (STB)
STB/Day in the injection scenarios.
Each of the injectors, are set to have a maximum gas P01 99,284,120
injection rate of 1,000 Mscf/Day.
P07 106,279,050
The simulator injects gas at the maximum specified rate or
at the maximum rate allowed by the bottomhole pressure P08 99,753,400
constraint, whichever was less.
P09 3,087,002
The Scenario of Natural Depletion P10 63,093,404
This scenario is considered as the base case for the
simulation and it takes advantage of the natural power of the P11 49,118,240
reservoir. No additional wells were drilled in addition to those P12 59,486,000
actually drilled in the reservoir. Furthermore, there are 14
vertical producers in the model. P34 958,520
According to the data from drilling and completion reports,
P42 110,596,768
the name of the wells and the layers in which they are
produced based on their chronological order is as follows: (the P43 33,572,704
numbers in parenthesis denote the wellhead position of the
P47 640,046
wells)
• Well P1 (34, 5) was drilled on February 12, 1974 and P48 68,316,000
perforated in layers 4 to 9.
P56 323,118
• Well P7 (26, 6) was drilled on June 9, 1974 and
perforated in layers 3 to 6. P58 34,580,140
• Well P8 (18, 6) was drilled on March 4, 1978 and
perforated in layers 2 to 4. The contributions of four significant drive mechanisms to
• Well P9 (37, 5) was drilled on July 9, 1978 and recovery are illustrated in figure 16. These mechanisms are oil
perforated in layer 1 only. expansion, rock compaction, water influx and gas influx (both
• Well P10 (23, 5) was drilled on September 11, 1978 solution gas drive and free gas drive).
and perforated in layer 1 only. The graph quantifies the proportion of oil produced by
• Well P11 (32, 7) was drilled on September 29, 1990 each physical process, accumulated during the simulation. As
and perforated in layers 7 and 8. it can be seen, at early years of production which the reservoir
• Well P12 (35, 6) was drilled on September 30, 1991 fluid is still undersaturated, recovery associated with oil
and perforated in layers 3 to 8. expansion and rock compaction are quite important and they
• Well P34 (29, 7) was drilled on April 12, 1995 and provide a high fraction of total recovery.
perforated in layers 7 and 8. Nevertheless, as time goes by and reservoir pressure
• Well P42 (21, 7) was drilled on December 8, 1998 declines, the major drive mechanism which is responsible for
and perforated in layer 7 only. the oil production is water influx. The solution/free gas drive
10 IPTC 11181

has the lowest contribution in the oil production as it is usually quite unfavorable for the injected foam in that zone and could
the weakest drive mechanism. speed up the rate of foam decay.
Figures 18 to 20 depict the amount of injected as well as
Determination of Appropriate Injection Criteria decayed foam in zones I to III. From the diagrams it can be
deduced that lower layers are not favorable candidates to
Defining the Injection wells in the model complete the injectors in.
According to the geological reports of this field, reservoir As shown in figure 18, it is clear that very little fraction of
seismic data is sparse, relatively old (2D only) and of poor the total injected foam is decayed when it is injected to the
quality. The map for the Top Asmari reservoir depth structure fractured layers which constitute the uppermost zone (Zone I)
was created using well log information from most of the of the reservoir.
drilled wells.There are uncertainties with the structural map In the case of injection into zone II, as illustrated in figure
interpretation on the flanks and the northern and southern tip 19, considerable amount of the injected foam becomes
areas at either end of the reservoir where little well data was ineffective by adsorption and decay over time.
available. Due to these uncertainties, most of the wells are According to figure 20, the foam decay increases rapidly
drilled on the crestal area of the structure. when injected in zone III. Thus, inadequate foam remains in
Based on the above explanations and considering the fact solution to assist in mobility reduction of the injected gas. This
that four of the production wells possess a low cumulative oil could lead to lower sweep efficiency in the reservoir. The
production in the first scenario (refer to table 5), the most cost- reason for such a finding could be the vicinity of Zone III
effective way of defining the injection wells is thought to be layers by the aquifer. This, in turn, causes water saturation to
the conversion of wells P09, P34, P47 and P56 from increase in these layers as water encroaches into the reservoir.
production wells to injectors. Thus, a total number of four As mentioned previously, water saturation has a detrimental
injectors are implemented in the injection scenarios. effect on foam stability and speeds up its acceleration.
Figure 17 depicts the top view of the wellhead position of Furthermore, due to the gravity override phenomenon,
the producers/injectors in those scenarios. injected gas does not lead to high vertical sweep efficiency if
injected into lower layers.
Sensitivity Analysis to Specify the Appropriate Perforation Based upon the above discussion, the first three layers
Intervals for Injectors (zone I) are chosen to be completed in the injectors.
Different sensitivity runs are executed to investigate the The carbonate rocks of the uppermost zone (Zone I) appear
effect of the completion interval on injection well to have more tendency to adsorb the injected surfactant in
performance. comparison to the other zones which mainly consist of
Typically the foam will suffer from enhanced decay in the sandstones. However, laboratory experiments on core samples
presence of water [3]. The lowermost layers (zone III layers) taken from different zones with different lithology should be
are adjacent to the bottom-drive aquifer. During production done to confirm this conclusion.
from reservoir, water encroaches into the neighboring layers
and causes water saturation to increase in zone III. This is

water
influx

oil expansion rock gas

compaction influx

Fig. 16-Cumulative oil production obtained from different drive mechanisms in natural depletion scenario
IPTC 11181 11

Location of
injectors

Fig. 17-Top view of the locations of the injection wells used in injection scenarios

Total Injected Foam

Total Injected Foam
Injected, Adsorbed and Decayed Foam Decayed Foam
Injected, Adsorbed and Decayed Foam Decayed Foam
Adsorbed Foam
700000 Adsorbed Foam
700000

600000
600000

500000
A m o u n t o f F o a m (L B )-

A m o u n t o f F o a m (L B )-

500000

400000
400000

300000 300000

200000 200000

100000 100000

0
0
11323 12323 13323 14323 15323 16323 17323 11323 12323 13323 14323 15323 16323 17323
Time (Days) time (Days)

Fig. 18-Amount of injected, adsorbed and decayed foam in zone I Fig. 19-Amount of injected, adsorbed and decayed foam in zone II
12 IPTC 11181

Total Injected Foam

Injected, Adsorbed and Decayed Foam Decayed Foam
scenarios. The lowest average pressure for this case is around
Adsorbed Foam
2000 Psia.
700000 As shown in figure 22, the producing GOR has a dramatic
increase for the case of immiscible gas injection and it
600000 becomes steady at approximately 1.5 MSCF/STB. The use of
foam appears to be quite effective in decreasing the amount of
GOR.
Amou nt of Foam (LB)-

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000
Beginning of
prediction
0
11323 12323 13323 14323 15323 16323 17323
time (Days) foam
injection

Fig. 20-Amount of injected, adsorbed and decayed foam in zone III

The Scenario of Immiscible Gas Injection immiscible gas

The second scenario to be presented is injection of injection
immiscible gas into the reservoir under study. Based on the
results from the previous scenario, four of the production wells
(P09, P34, P47 and P56) have been converted to injectors.
Besides, four additional wells were drilled as producers in the Fig. 21-Reservoir pressure comparison in injection scenarios with
most prolific areas of the reservoir. The field plateau target oil base case
rate was selected as 120,000 STB/Day.
The original producers in the first scenario (with the
exception of P9, P34, P47 and P56) are defined in the same
way (identical completion intervals and wellhead positions)
for this scenario. The following additional producers were immiscible gas
drilled as infill wells: injection

• Well P61 (29, 5) was drilled vertically on January 12,

2005 and perforated in layers 4 to 7.
• Well P63 (19, 5) was drilled vertically on January 12, foam
2005 and perforated in layers 4 to 7. injection
• Well P70 (32, 5) was drilled vertically on January 12,
2005 and perforated in layers 4 to 7.
Well P79 (38, 6) was drilled vertically on January 12, 2005
and perforated in layers 4 to 7.
Beginning of
The Scenario of Foam Injection prediction
This is the last scenario to be considered in the current
study. Like the former scenario, some wells initially as
producers are changed into injection wells after some years of
production (P09, P34, P47 and P56). Also, the same additional
Fig. 22-Reservoir GOR comparison in scenarios No.2 and 3 with
wells are drilled as producers in January 12 2005. The field base case
plateau target oil rate was selected as 120,000 STB/Day.
The concentration of foam in the injection stream of each Utilizing immiscible gas injection, the field oil production
injector was set as 0.03 lb/STB. rate reaches a plateau of 120,000 STB/Day steadily for almost
two years and becomes stabilized at around 50,000 STB/Day
Comparison of Different Scenarios during last 5 years of production.
In order to compare the above scenarios, each group of results As depicted in figure 23, the use of foam has resulted in a
is plotted in the same graph. As it can be seen from figure 21, plateau rate of 120,000 STB/Day which maintains for nearly
foam injection maintains reservoir pressure compared to other
IPTC 11181 13

five years and becomes steady at 51,000 STB/Day during last With regard to the table presented below, foam injection
three years. scenario is the recommended case for future development of
The key parameter to assess the feasibility of an EOR the filed under study.
process is the recovery factor achieved by it. Regarding figure According to little difference in recovery factor between
24, it is observed that the best scenario from recovery factor first and second scenarios and also considering the fact that the
viewpoint is scenario No.3. Foam injection has resulted in cumulative gas production is very high in the second case,
incremental oil recovery in excess of 10% compared to the injection of immiscible gas is not economically justifiable
natural depletion. However, economical analysis must confirm
this scenario.

foam
injection
foam
injection
immiscible gas
immiscible gas injection
injection

Beginning of
prediction

Fig. 23-Oil production rate comparison in injection scenarios with Fig. 24-Recovery comparison in different scenarios during the
prediction phase (last 15 years)
base case

Table 6-Short description of the simulated cases

No. of wells
Pressure
Cumulative Cumulative Incremental Time on
at the end
Case Oil Gas Recovery Plateau
of Comments
No. Production Production Factor Rate
Old New simulation
(MMSTB) (MMMSCF) ( % of OIIP) (Years)
wells wells (Psia)

BC(no
727.93 489.24 14 --- 4.4 1802 ---- ---
injection)

Four of the wells converted

Immiscible to injectors in 2005.
879.214 637.5 14 4 8.4 1940 2
Gas injection Four new producers drilled
in 2005

Four of the wells converted

Foam to injectors in 2005
1069.076 480.18 14 4 12.4 2060 5
injection Four new producers drilled
in 2005
14 IPTC 11181

Conclusions is needed, and should be included in the reservoir

1. According to the obtained results, foam injection model.
appears to be promising tool in decreasing the gas-oil 3. Since the data used in the foam model are not related
ratio. While injecting the same amount of gas as in to the Asmari reservoir, an experimental reservoir
immiscible gas injection process, the amount of GOR study on core samples from this reservoir should be
in foam injection is remarkably diminished. This conducted to obtain the foam data of the particular
eliminates the demand for early upgrading the filed under study.
degassing and NGL facilities to cope with large 4. Data for better understanding of fluid contacts,
volume of produced gas. Therefore, use of foam is pressure regimes and communication in the reservoir
economically justifiable compared with injection of is needed.
immiscible gas.
2. Based on the attained results of the study, foam Nomenclature
injection maintains the reservoir pressure, hence Pc = capillary pressure
preserves the potential energy of reservoir and
prevents from early depletion of reservoir. Bg = gas formation volume factor
3. The application of foam has a significant effect on
increasing the recovery factor of the reservoir. Thus,
μg = gas viscosity
it can be implied that the use of foam flooding σ = matrix shape factor
improves the sweep efficiency considerably and Bo = oil formation volume factor
recovers additional oil from unswept areas of the
reservoir. The supporting reason for this conclusion is μo = oil viscosity
the attained results that exhibit the higher incremental K r = relative permeability
recovery factor of the reservoir, achieved by applying
foam compared with injection of immiscible gas.
Acknowledgment
4. Care should be taken in selecting the completion
Special thanks are due to management of Tehran Petroleum
intervals for injectors. As discussed previously, foam
Research Center for permission to use their license of
decay can be accelerated in presence of high water
ECLIPSE simulator.
saturation. This, in turn, results in reducing the
effectiveness of the injected foam. So one should
References
avoid completing the injection wells in the layers
1. Kovscek, Anthony R.: “Reservoir Simulation of Foam
close to aquifer. Displacement Processes”, 7th UNITAR international
conference, Beijing, China, Oct. 27-31, 1998.
Recommendations 2. Torleif Holt, Frode Vassenden and Amir Ghaderi: “Use of
To be able to reach the production target and increase the total Foam for Flow Control of Gas”, 9th oil and gas conference,
recovery during the decline period, a special focus on further RIPI, Iran.
data acquisition and comprehensive reservoir studies is 3. “Eclipse 100 Technical Description 2002a”, Schlumberger
essential. Data acquisition and further studies are needed as an Geoquest, 2002.
integrated part of the field developments, and the development 4. Gilman J. R., Kazemi, H.: “Improvements in Simulation of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs”, paper SPE 10511
plans should regularly be revised taking new knowledge into
presented at the 6th SPE Symposium on Reservoir
account. This will contribute to reduce uncertainty and Simulation, New Orleans, Louisiana, Jan. 31-Feb. 3, 1982.
improve success rate of new wells. An improved reservoir
understanding is of special importance for evaluation of
extensive IOR efforts, like gas injection and infill drilling.
In general, the following issues are recommended:
1. The model is suitable for scoping studies of future
development schemes, but it can be improved by
adding information such as core data obtained from
new drilling. The existing development well density
is very low, and is equivalent to one well per 8 km2
(2,000 acres). Most of the reservoir is of very good
quality and consequently reservoir sweep efficiency
could be improved with closer well spacing.
2. Fractures play an important role for production
performance and reservoir properties. Fracture
characterization plays an important role in further
field development. Necessary data for development
of a reliable fracture model to predict direction, size,
special distribution and frequency of natural fractures