Core Floods, Increased CO2 Storage Capacity Using CO2-foam

Published: 22 June 2020| Version 2 | DOI: 10.17632/4mp24c4jf7.2
Tore Føyen,


Experimental results from 13 unsteady state foam floods. Each experiment is separate into one worksheet. Each worksheet contains 7 columns of data: - "Inj SCO2", Injected volume supercritical CO2, as Pore volumes. - "QCO2 In", Injection rate of supercritical CO2, as ml/min - "Inj. Core prod", Injected volume adjusted for dead volumes in the system, as Pore volumes - "SH20", Core water saturation, as fraction of pore volume - "SCO2", Core CO2 saturation, as fraction of pore volume - "App visc", Apparent foam viscosity, as centipoise - "DP", Measured differential pressure, as mbar


Steps to reproduce

1) A minimum of 2.5 PV surfactant solution was injected at elevated pore pressure to satisfy surfactant adsorption, displace brine and fully saturate the pore space with surfactant solution. 2) CO2 was pumped to the top of the vertically aligned core, using rates corresponding to either L-scheme or H-scheme injection, see publication (add ref) for overview the injection rate schemes. 3) The core was cleaned by injecting a solution of 2-propanol (minimum 3PV injected) and re-saturated with brine (minimum 3PV injected). 4) Step 1) – 3) was repeated for all experiments, except the baseline brine experimented where no surfactant solution was injected. A constant surfactant concentration (0.5 wt. %) in synthetic seawater was used for all foaming agent solutions. Additionally, one baseline experiment without a foam agent (only synthetic seawater) is reported. An inline saturated the injected CO2 with water vapour. Produced fluids were separated at atmospheric conditions, the aqueous phase was collected and the produced CO2 was vented through a water adsorption column (Drierte). The mass of produced liquids and vapour were logged, and average water saturation calculated. The differential pressure across the core was logged using three Fuji differential pressure transmitters of different pressure ranges (320mbar, 5 Bar and 20 Bar), and reported as foam apparent viscosity calculated. Two CO2 injection schemes were used for each surfactant solution; a Low rate-scheme and the High rate-scheme The pore pressure was 200 barg and the overburden confinement pressure was 268 barg during injection of surfactant solutions and CO2 . The temperature in the core was 40 ͦC when injecting non-ionic surfactant solutions and 80 ͦC for the anionic surfactant solution.




Carbon Sequestration, Foam, Chemical Flooding, Enhanced Oil Recovery