A rigorous approach to analyze bulk and coreflood foam screening tests

Abstract

Abstract There are many uses of foam in petroleum industry yet there is no dependable industry standard on screening a wide variety of foaming surfactants available for a particular application. This study aims to fill this gap. Three anionic foaming surfactants were characterized and tested with the two commonly used screening methods at room temperature and oil-free conditions. The results were comprehensively analyzed to compare their foaming performance. The analysis is more comprehensive than previously reported and covers many foaming attributes (peak and residual foamability, foam longevity, and rate of decay). The three surfactants for possible foaming applications in sandstone reservoirs were selected, and their foamability and foam stability performances were experimentally determined by bulk foam stability tests and coreflood tests. All methods agreed on the ratings of the three surfactants for peak and residual foaming attributes as follows in the following order of effectiveness: MFOMAX, AOS, and ENORDET. However, they broadly disagreed on ratings for other characteristics including onset of foaming, the time required for peak foaming, foam longevity, and foam decay rate. In conclusion, the screening tests revealed that the simple and faster bulk foam stability test could be cautiously used to screen out the poor performers to narrow the range of acceptable surfactants. Also, the new and rigorous analysis technique presented in this paper offers more insight than conventional half-life test. Graphical abstract

Keywords

• Bulk foam stability test
• Core flood
• Peak and residual foamability
• Foam longevity
• Rate of foam decay