Foam EOR As An Optimization Technique For Gas EOR - A Comprehensive Review of Laboratory and Field Implementations

energies
Review
Foam EOR as an Optimization Technique for Gas EOR:
A Comprehensive Review of Laboratory and Field
Implementations
Ayomikun Bello †, * , Anastasia Ivanova † and Alexey Cheremisin †
Center for Petroleum Science and Engineering, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology,
Moscow 121205, Russia
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: Foam-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is poised to become one of the most promising tertiary
recovery techniques to keep up with the continuously increasing global energy demands. Due to their
low sensitivity to gravity and permeability heterogeneities that improve sweep efficiency, foams are
the preferred injection fluids over water or gas. Although foam injection has been used in the field to
improve oil recovery and control gas mobility, its success is still hindered by several conceptual and
operational challenges with regard to its stability and foamability under reservoir conditions. This
can be attributed to the insufficient attention given to the mechanisms underlying foam generation
and stability at the microscopic level in many studies. For a deeper understanding, this study reviews
the most pertinent published works on foam-EOR. The major objective is to provide a broad basis
for subsequent laboratory and field applications of foam-EOR. In this work, we highlighted foam
classification and characterization, as well as the crucial factors impacting foam formation, stability,
and oil recovery. Additionally, the principal mechanisms of foam generation are thoroughly explained.
Finally, the most recent developments in foam generation and stability improvement are discussed.
Foam-EOR is comprehensively reviewed in this work, with an emphasis on both theoretical and
practical applications.
Citation: Bello, A.; Anastasia, I.;
Cheremisin, A. Foam EOR as an
Keywords: foam; surfactants; nanoparticles; oil; recovery; mobility
Optimization Technique for Gas EOR:
A Comprehensive Review of
Laboratory and Field
Implementations. Energies 2023, 16, 1. Introduction
972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Historically, the main (and most important) source of annual energy consumption has
en16020972 been petroleum. Petroleum-based products are used to heat buildings and power vehicles,
Academic Editor: Rouhi Farajzadeh such as cars and planes that carry passengers and cargo. Plastics, polyurethane, solvents,
and thousands of other intermediate and finished goods for the industrial sector are all
Received: 21 December 2022 produced by the petrochemical industry using petroleum as the raw material [1,2]. To put
Revised: 5 January 2023
this into perspective, the global average oil consumption in 2020—including biofuels—was
Accepted: 9 January 2023
about 91 million barrels per day [3].
Published: 15 January 2023
While a decrease in global oil demand is predicted to have a negative impact on
energy exports, domestic oil consumption is anticipated to rise in the next decades despite
increased interest in and investments in renewable energy. According to the Organization
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), global oil demand and consumption will, in
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. fact, recover from the COVID-19 pandemic by 2036 and rise steadily to roughly 109 million
This article is an open access article barrels per day by 2045 [4]. From this, it can be deduced that the petroleum sector will
distributed under the terms and be prompted to develop new techniques and improve existing ones which are capable of
conditions of the Creative Commons increasing oil production rates from conventional and unconventional deposits to fulfill
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the rising energy demand.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Oil production is divided into three stages: primary, secondary, and tertiary. The
4.0/). first process in recovering oil from deposits is called primary production, and it comprises
Energies 2023, 16, 972. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020972 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 972 2 of 52
oil extraction from a reservoir by using its natural driving forces. These driving forces
can be gravity drainage, gas drive, and water drive, among others [5]. During primary
recovery, only about 5–10% of the original oil in place (OOIP) may be recovered [6,7].
The second stage of oil recovery is known as secondary production. At this stage, oil
is displaced and driven toward the producing wells by injecting water or gas to replace
generated fluids. This stage aims to maintain or raise reservoir pressure while displacing oil
toward the wellbore. The third and last stage of recovery is known as tertiary production.
Additionally, it is frequently known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR). In order to extract oil
from formations, primary and secondary recovery methods rely on the pressure difference
between the surface and underground wells. However, in order to facilitate production,
tertiary production entails modifying the reservoir rock properties and also the composition,
and physical and chemical characteristics of oil, such as viscosity, specific gravity, and
interfacial tension. Tertiary production can be divided into three major groups: chemical
EOR, gas EOR and thermal EOR [5].
Chemical EOR involves injecting chemical solutions into reservoirs, such as surfactant,
polymer, and alkali solutions, to enhance waterflooding performance generally and help
with the release of trapped oil. Gas EOR involves injecting gases—such as natural gas,
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane, or other hydrocarbon gases—into oil reservoirs to
dissolve oil and improve its flow to production wells. Thermal EOR is used in deposits
with high-viscosity oils (API gravity under 20) [8]. The reservoir is typically heated with
steam or hot water injections to reduce oil viscosity and increase its mobility to the surface
for production. Figure 1 provides a summary of the various techniques.
Figure 1. Stages of oil recovery.
Enhanced oil recovery generally aims to boost sweep efficiency both on a macroscopic
scale and a microscopic scale. The overall displacement efficiency, E, % can be used to
describe its effectiveness:
E = Ev Ed (1)
where Ev = macroscopic sweep efficiency (volumetric sweep), %; Ed = microscopic sweep
efficiency (displacement sweep), %.
Macroscopic displacement refers to the region of the reservoir that the injected fluid
has been able to contact, whereas microscopic displacement specifies the volume of the
oil that has been displaced from the reservoir by the injected fluid [5]. The volume of oil
left behind in the swept zone and the remaining oil in the unswept zone make up the
trapped oil in the reservoir. Therefore, EOR techniques are used to increase the efficiency
of microscopic and macroscopic sweeps to enhance oil recovery.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 3 of 52
Typically, large capillary numbers are aimed to enhance Ed with EOR techniques. The
capillary number shows the relationship between viscous and interfacial forces:
µV
Nc = (2)
cosθ ∗ σ
where µ = viscosity of injected fluid, mPa · s; σ = interfacial tension (IFT), mN/m;
V = velocity of injected fluid, m/s; θ = contact angle (wettability), degrees.
From Equation (2), it can be inferred that, an increase in the injected fluid viscosity
and/or a decrease in IFT is required to produce a high capillary number. Surfactants are
used for these purposes because they are known to increase viscosity and decrease IFT by
up to four orders of magnitude [9]. According to Hirasaki et al. [10], it is also possible to
inject gases as solvents to reduce the IFT and improve microscopic displacement efficiency.
In order to improve Ev , polymer flooding can better serve as a mobility control agent by
increasing viscosity but not IFT. To obtain favorable mobility control, Ev must be improved.
The following formula describes the mobility, M of a phase:
k
M= (3)
µ
where k = permeability, mD; µ = viscosity of injected fluid, mPa·s.
The mobility ratio of the displacing and displaced fluids is one of the most crucial
elements determining the effectiveness of EOR techniques. The mobility ratio should
be below 1 for an effective flooding process [11]. However, it is typically greater than
1 during gas EOR since the reservoir fluid has a higher viscosity than gas. Therefore,
gravity override and viscous fingering frequently result in poor volumetric (macroscopic)
sweep efficiency in gas field operations and subsequently gas breakthrough, which would
ultimately reduce the efficiency of the EOR process [12]. Hence, foam-EOR is suggested as
an effective method of mitigating this. This stems from the formation of foam lamella that
can restrict gas mobility for a more efficient sweep. To displace reservoir oil, the formation
of a strong foam can result in a uniform propagation front and, thus, directing gas and
liquid phases to the previously unswept zones [9].
Foam-EOR is currently a developing technique in the petroleum industry and, thus,
just a few review papers are published on it. The majority of them are concentrated on
the use of foam-EOR only in unconventional formations, such as hydraulic fracturing
fluids, surfactant reviews for foam-EOR, CO2 foam reviews, or nano-stabilized foams.
Wang et al. [13] provides an in-depth analysis of the development of technologies for
increased oil recovery. This review, however, only considered how well foam can be
applied to shale and tight reservoirs. Although it covered every other EOR approach in
detail, foam received little attention. The foam was categorized by the authors as a gas
mobility control agent that can aid in the improvement of the viscosity of the injected
gas. The authors went on to explain that although CO2 miscible flooding is a proven and
promising EOR technique, it is still unable to achieve a perfect sweep efficiency because
macroscale reservoir heterogeneity can lead to fingering and channeling, which can cause
the less viscous phase (gas) to only flow toward the high permeability zones.
Moortgat et al. [14] provide additional evidence in favor of this. In order to investigate
how heterogeneity affects miscible gas flooding, the authors developed a three-phase
compositional model through numerical simulation experiments. The authors discovered
that a significant volume of reservoir fluids would be left behind once the miscible phase
propagates across a high permeability zone.
By concentrating on foam-EOR, Wanniarachchi et al. [15] moved a bit further away
from Wang et al. [13]; yet, the state-of-the-art assessment focuses on the use of foam for
shale gas extraction. The effectiveness of foam-based fracturing fluids for recovering shale
gas was explicitly reviewed by the authors. The capacity to reuse foam was cited as a major
benefit since, following the flooding process, the injected foam may simply be collected
through a well because it is compressed under reservoir conditions. The little foam bubbles
Energies 2023, 16, 972 4 of 52
will become larger, degenerate, and eventually escape through the wellbore as a result
of the pressure being released following the flooding process. The authors asserted that
foam-EOR is more efficient than most injection fluids, including water, although requiring
larger capital investments due to the equipment and technology needed.
The work of Pal et al. [16] concentrates on the mechanisms of surfactant recovery and
related processes such as wettability alteration, surfactant adsorption, and IFT reduction.
The use of foam as an alternative to the surfactant flooding technique in carbonate reservoirs
was discussed. According to the authors, when polymers, gas, or water-alternating-gas
injection methods are impractical because of unfavorable conditions, such as low perme-
ability, high temperature, or high salinity, among others, foams can be used for mobility
control. Additionally, they emphasized that while gas has a very high microscopic sweep
efficiency, its viscosity is substantially lower than that of water and the majority of reservoir
oils, which affects conformance and mobility on the displacement front. In order to lower
the mobility ratio, foams can be generated by dispersing gas in a continuous liquid solution.
As it is evident, none of the aforementioned studies was able to clarify the arguments
around certain findings relating to the key interaction processes of foam-EOR. In addition,
there are important findings from fresh articles published in recent years that were left out
of earlier review papers. The recent findings, notably the laboratory results, have further
highlighted several research gaps that accounted for some failed field and pilot tests. As
a result, this study provides a thorough and in-depth description of foam and its wide
applicability at laboratory and field scales. By highlighting the results, difficulties, and
potential outcomes, this study provides information on the current status and development
of foam-EOR. The fundamental research gaps are given the most attention. The outcomes
of several field pilot tests, lab-scale flooding experiments, and insights from modeling and
simulation studies were examined, along with recommendations for enhancing oil recovery
in future foam-EOR experiments.
The goal of this review paper is to present an all-inclusive opinion about the feasibility
of foam to recover oil in various reservoirs, as well as an academic viewpoint on the practice
and analysis of the problems and counterarguments surrounding its recovery processes.
2. From Gas EOR to Foam-EOR: Problems and Motivations

Gas EOR involves injecting gases into existing and depleted oil deposits, as was
discussed in Section 1. Injected gases, which may include mixtures of light hydrocarbons
(C1 –C4 ) or non-hydrocarbons (nitrogen, CO2 , flue, or even hydrogen sulfide), are usually
vapors at atmospheric pressure and temperature. At reservoir pressures and temperatures,
these gases could, however, transform into supercritical fluids and start to behave similar
to liquids [5]. As a result, a key component of the oil recovery mechanism is the mass
interchange of components between the injected gas and oil phase [17]. If miscibility
is attained, the interchange rate increases and oil recovery improves. By decreasing oil
viscosity when some gas components condense into the oil, gas EOR can achieve high
oil recovery [17]. The oil trapped by capillary forces is expected to be miscible with the
gases that are injected. Following that, the resulting phase forces the oil components to the
surface for production.
In the majority of oil production operations at the secondary or tertiary stages, the
gas injection has been frequently used for several reasons. Among the gases previously
described, CO2 and nitrogen injections have been considered the most successful and
promising [18–21]. It is interesting to point out that nitrogen may be preferred due to its
cheaper price and availability compared to CO2 [19,22]. However, according to Abdelaal et
al. [23], CO2 has an advantage over nitrogen since it is easily miscible with oil, causing oil
to swell and have less viscosity and interfacial tension under specific reservoir conditions.
As a result, CO2 is the gas of choice for injection into light and medium oil reservoirs [18].
Zhang et al. [24] further stated that CO2 is used for significant field activities since
it is readily available in natural resources and may be generated through a variety of
industrial processes. This is a beneficial topic for environmentalists because injecting CO2
Energies 2023, 16, 972 5 of 52
into formations to improve oil recovery can also aid in CO2 storage in the reservoir, having a
positive effect on the environment. Therefore, CO2 injection can be seen as a carbon storage
technique that is crucial for reducing CO2 emissions, which are the main contributors
to global warming. However, in other formations, nitrogen is preferred because, when
injected under high pressure, it may result in a miscible slug that helps release trapped oil
from the reservoir rock [25].
Laboratory tests on improved oil recovery using nitrogen were carried out in the work
of Siregar et al. [26]. Nitrogen was injected at different rates into core samples containing
crude oil with an API gravity of 38.5. The results showed that increasing the injection rate
results in higher oil recovery. Additionally, gas analysis tests before and after injection were
carried out, and a change in oil composition was found. After injection, it was found that
the components of the oil were carbon and oxygen. The fraction of gas that was free of
oxygen decreased with increasing injection rates as a result of the oxidation process. The
authors asserted that the oxidation process aided the recovery process.
Gas has many promising advantages as a displacement agent, but its application is
subject to several limitations. The majority of EOR methods aim to recover the most oil
by having the injected fluid make as much contact as possible with the reservoir. In other
words, it is important to improve both the sweep efficiency and the pore-scale displacement
efficiency [27]. Since gases are often less dense and viscous than formation water and
reservoir oil, they eventually separate and break through. This is usually referred to as
gravity override. It not only leads to an early breakthrough of the injected gas but also
causes gas wastage and reduces sweep efficiency [28].
Additionally, oil recovery is particularly effective when contact between gas and
reservoir fluids is formed and miscibility is attained since the mobility ratio will be lower
than 1 [29,30]. Gravity, on the other hand, causes the propagation front to become unstable,
which leads to the formation of finger-like structures made of the oil and gas mixtures and
the massive accumulation of oil that follows. The fingers are more obvious as the mobility
ratio exceeds 1 [30]. This is called viscous fingering and it strongly affects oil recovery
by increasing pore-scale displacement efficiency while decreasing sweep efficiency. The
illustration of this phenomenon is shown in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2. Viscous fingering during gas EOR.
To improve the poor volumetric (macroscopic) sweep efficiency of gas injection, dif-
ferent gas flooding optimization techniques have been tried. For instance, it is possible
to optimize gas in a water-alternating gas system (WAG). In this process, gas and water
injections are alternated (i.e., gas is injected first, followed by water, gas is injected again,
Energies 2023, 16, 972 6 of 52
etc.) [31]. Water has a higher viscosity than gas, thus as the gas and water mix, the gas
mobility ratio decreases, improving sweep efficiency.
The implementation of WAG to increase sweep efficiency has been proven to be an
efficient means of controlling gas mobility, which leads to a higher oil recovery [31,32].
However, as seen in Figure 3 below, gas still tends to move to the higher portion of the
formation during the WAG injection cycle [32]. According to Gauglitz et al. [33], segregation
happens as a result of gravity when there is a significant permeability and density difference
between the injected gas and formation fluids. As rock heterogeneities increase, water
and gas will flow through the high permeability layers, and segregation will become more
visible [32]. Therefore, in order to achieve optimal oil recovery, it is crucial to take into
account the volume of water and gas that must be injected throughout a WAG operation.
Figure 3. Gas and water injection cycles during WAG.
Another mobility control technique is foam-assisted WAG (FAWAG), also known as

foam injection [34]. Foam is a mixture of liquid and gaseous phases in which the liquid
phase continuously wets the rock formation while the gaseous phase, which is preserved
as bubbles, is discontinued by thin liquid coatings [33]. The oil recovery process can be
considerably enhanced by increasing sweep efficiency and pore-scale displacement by
injecting foams. The presence of foam lamella, which decreases gas mobility, enables this.
By making the gas more viscous, foams can stabilize the oil displacement process.
Additionally, as seen in Figure 4, gas flooding alone cannot effectively recover oil; the
WAG method is superior but still leaves some unswept zones. Foam, on the other hand,
has the best sweep efficiency because it can redirect gas flow from high to low permeability
zones and minimize gas mobility there [9,35]. Furthermore, the surfactant which is present
in the liquid phase of the foam is capable of reducing interfacial tension and capillary
forces. In Ferno et al. [36], CO2 foam was found to have a higher recovery efficiency when
compared to the injection of CO2 gas in fractured core samples. The authors attributed this
to an improved viscosity of the propagation front.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 7 of 52
Figure 4. Comparison of gas, water-alternating gas (WAG), and foam injections.
3. Overview of Foam
3.1. Foam Structure
Foam has been given a variety of definitions and descriptions by various authors.
However, they all agreed on one thing—“the result of a gaseous phase dispersing into a
liquid phase”. In essence, the foam will be formed if a gas and a liquid are mixed. Usually,
a foaming agent such as surfactant is used to prepare the liquid phase. Due to their broad
use in everyday life and industrial importance, foams have long been of significant interest.
A few examples are included in Table 1 below:
Table 1. Applications of foam in everyday life.
Group Uses
Food and beverages Beer, ice cream, coffee, champagne [37–39]
Detergent Dishwashing soaps, bottle cleaning process [40]
Waste treatment Sewage treatment, foam fractionation [41,42]
Agriculture Fumigant, insecticides, disinfectants [43,44]
Cosmetics Shaving cream, bubble bath foams, hair shampoo [45]
treatment of psoriasis, sunburn, eczema, seborrheic,
Pharmaceutical andmedical application acne [46–48];
drug delivery [49,50]
The foam may be applied in the petroleum industry at several stages, including well
drilling, reservoir injection, and oil production. Foam as an oil recovery agent is the main
emphasis of this work. Bond and Holbrook [51] first proposed the idea of using foam
as an oil recovery technique, when the authors showed how to generate foam in an oil
reservoir by sequentially injecting gas and an aqueous surfactant solution to improve
sweep efficiency.
Foam bubbles are linked by very thin liquid layers, known as lamellae [52]. The
plateau boundaries resemble liquid tubes at the junctions of the lamellae. Each lamella is
in contact with the liquid phase and its neighboring lamella [53]. The lamellae result in
continuous liquid phases since lamellae are connected throughout the foam channels and
make up the primary components of foam generation and stability. An illustration of the
foam structure is shown in Figure 5 below:
Energies 2023, 16, 972 8 of 52
Figure 5. Foam structure.
3.2. Classification of Foams

3.2.1. Based on the Structure and Phase Arrangements—Wet and Dry Foams
When gas bubbles are injected into a liquid more quickly than they can evaporate,
a foam structure will always form. A brief dispersion can still develop even though the
bubbles will coalesce as soon as the liquid between them drains away. Wet foam is made
up of sphere-shaped bubbles that are spaced apart [54,55]. The spherical bubbles in foam
change into foam cells with polyhedral forms and are separated by almost flat liquid
layers. This results in dry foam [56]. The surface tensions along the liquid films cause the
arrangements of films to align at equal angles. The bubbles organize themselves into a
polyhedral structure so that along the lamella border, three lamellae always align at an
angle of 120◦ (Figure 6). The point where they meet is referred to as the plateau border [57].
Figure 6. Polyhedral structure of the foam.
3.2.2. Based on the Formation Volume—Bulk Foam and Foam in Porous Media
Bulk foam is defined as a volume of foam that is significantly larger than the size
of the individual bubbles. Because the bubble size is very small compared to the size of
flow channels, bulk foam is typically considered a homogeneous phase in which the liquid
and gas phases have similar velocities [58]. Bulk foam is usually used in characterizing
Energies 2023, 16, 972 9 of 52
foamability, which is the ability of a foaming solution to form a foam. Bulk foam can be
generated to carry out static tests that can be used for screening different parameters, such
as the type of surfactant, concentration, salinity, temperature, and the effect of crude oil
composition.
Foam in porous media, on the other hand, refers to the generation of foam for eval-
uating its conformity and performance in porous media. Usually, glass bead pack, core
samples or microfluidic chips are used to represent the porous media [59]. In the porous
media, foam can be produced in three different modes [9]:
• In situ: direct injection of the liquid and gas phases into the porous medium simulta-
neously;
• Pre-generated: injection of pre-generated foam using a foam generator or another
mechanical device;
• Surfactant-alternating gas (gas): alternate injections of gas and liquid phases into the
porous media.
3.2.3. Based on Gas Quantity—Low Quality and High Quality

Foam quality refers to the ratio of gas volume to foam volume at a particular pressure
and temperature [60].
VG
Γ= · 100 (4)
VG + VL
where Γ = foam quality, %; VG = volume of gas, mL; VL = volume of liquid, mL.
Low-quality foam is typically described as having a quality of up to 52%. In this
instance, the gas bubbles are spherical and rarely come into contact with one another. Since
there is a lot of free fluid in this system, foam viscosity is low and will affect the capacity
of the system for fluid loss. High-quality foam, on the other hand, has a quality between
52% and 96% [61]. Because the gas bubbles are coming into contact with each other more
frequently, the viscosity will increase the foam of high-quality polygonal bubbles, and
is known as Polyederschaum; a foam of low quality produces bubbles that are roughly
spherical and are separated by a thick layer known as kugelschaum [62,63].
3.2.4. Based on The Lamella Numbers

The lamella number (L), a measure proposed by Schramm et al. [64], is used to
determine the extent of oil imbibition into foam lamella. Different types of crude oil cause
foam to behave differently, and oils are normally considered to have a negative impact on
foam stability. The following three metrics, spreading coefficient (S), entering coefficient
(E), and bridging coefficient (B), can be used to conduct a qualitative investigation of the
phenomena. Below is a definition of the formulas:
S = σw− g − σw−o − σo− g

E = σw− g + σw−o − σo− g (5)
2 2 2
B = σw− g + σw−o − σo− g
where σ = interfacial tension, mN/m; o, w, g = oil, water, and gas indices, respectively.
Thus, Schramm et al. [64] suggested the relationship below:
σw− g
L = 0.15 (6)
σw−o
Foams were divided into A, B, and C (based on the values), representing L < 1, 1 < L >
7, and L > 7, respectively. The most stable foams, those that do not react with oil, are Type
A foams. Both E and S have negative values for them. Type B foams are relatively stable
and have negative S and positive E values. In this case, foam lamellae interact with oil,
yet they do not collapse. Type C foams have positive values for S and E and are unstable.
These foams frequently absorb oil, which causes the foam lamellae to separate.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 10 of 52
4. Role of Surfactants in Foams Generation

Surfactants arrange themselves at the gas–liquid interface when they are dispersed in
water, with the hydrophilic heads staying in the liquid phase and the hydrophobic tails
extending out of the liquid phase (Figure 7). The surfactant monolayer then acts as an
additional mass to oppose the diffusion of a substance across it, which helps to reduce
foam coarsening [65].
Due to their ability to change the wettability of rocks, surfactants have a significant
impact on foam generation. Wettability is a crucial factor that significantly influences oil
recovery in reservoirs that fully or partially use chemical EOR techniques [66,67]. The
propensity of a fluid to spread preferentially onto a solid phase when additional fluids are
present is known as wettability.
Typically, the contact angle is used to describe the wetting properties. The rock is
considered water-wet if the contact angle is between 0◦ and 75◦ ; intermediate-wet if it
is between 75◦ and 115◦ ; and oil-wet if it is between 115◦ and 180◦ [68]. In foam-EOR,
wettability alteration is crucial, especially when the foam is intended to recover oil after
primary and secondary EOR procedures, which typically fail to mobilize trapped oil due
to high capillary forces. Furthermore, since the viscous forces in the porous media are
ineffective at displacing oil, the majority of unswept oil is retained in the low permeability
zone of the rock, leaving an imbibition process as the only effective method of oil recovery.
Surfactants can considerably alter the wettability of rock surfaces depending on their
hydrophilic head charges.
Figure 7. Arrangement of surfactant molecules at the foam lamella.
Two processes of surfactant-induced wettability modification in carbonate reservoirs

were presented in the works of Standnes et al. [66,69]. They include removing the oil-wet
layers to reveal the original water-wet layers beneath, and adding a water-wet layer on
top of the oil-wet ones. The first is better suited for cationic surfactants and the second
for anionic.
Reduction of the interfacial tension is another function of surfactants in foam-EOR.
In oil reservoirs, the capillary, viscous, and gravitational forces interact to some extent
to control the rate of oil recovery [70]. The following equations describe the relationship
between these three types of forces:
Gravitational forces
Bond number( NB ) = (7)
Capillary forces
Viscous forces
Capillary number( NC ) = (8)
Capillary forces
Energies 2023, 16, 972 11 of 52
A decrease in capillary forces results in a desirable value for the bond and capillary
numbers in each of these equations. The following equation describes the capillary force as
a function of the IFT between oil and water:
2σo−w cosθc
FC = (9)
r
where σo−w = interfacial tension between oil and water, mN/m; θ = contact angle, degrees;
r = pore radius, mm.
Morrow et al. [71] assert that the bond number is crucial and that lowering IFT
may have either a good or negative impact on imbibition. Although a drop in capillary
imbibition may result from a reduction of IFT, imbibition can still happen as a result
of gravitational forces. This demonstrates the strong correlation between capillary and
gravitational forces and the IFT value. Surfactants decrease IFT, which weakens the capillary
adhesive forces that hold trapped oil in the porous media. As a result, oil droplets pass
through pore throats more easily and move in the direction of the displacement front [19].
A recent test on spontaneous imbibition by Mohammed et al. [68] involved a cationic
surfactant and limestone core samples. The findings showed that when the core samples
were subjected to distilled water, the oil-wet nature of the core samples and the negative
capillary forces resisted the gravitational forces. When the core was subjected to a cationic
surfactant solution, the same outcomes were attained, and oil recovery was not noticed
until 10 days had passed. This is a result of the wettability alteration, which improved
capillary imbibition.
5. Governing Mechanisms of Foam-EOR

5.1. Mobility Control Mechanisms of Foam-EOR
Foam exists as a gas–liquid mixture in the porous media, where the liquid continu-
ously wets the rock and the lamella causes the gas to become discontinuous. The foam is
introduced to develop a system that would enable uniform gas mobility for oil recovery in
porous media. Its mechanisms are discussed below.
Gas mobility can be controlled with foam by stabilizing the displacement front. As
previously discussed, viscous, capillary, and gravity forces are difficult to manage in gas
EOR, therefore, surfactants are introduced as chemicals to minimize viscous instability.
Foam stabilizes the displacement front by bubble movement and rearrangement of the
bubble interfacial area [72]. A bubble requires more pressure to move at a constant rate
than an equivalent volume of liquid. This, therefore, increases the actual velocity of the gas.
Similar to how surfactant movement at the gas–liquid interface causes a surface tension
gradient to delay bubble motion, viscosity is also increased by surfactant mobility [73]. At
the pore scale, the wetting phase takes up the smallest pore channels while foam continues
to flow through the high permeability and porosity zones. There is a significant amount of
gas trapped in the averagely-sized pores. As a result, the pore space that is expected to be
filled up with gas will be blocked, which lowers the relative gas permeability [74].
Foam can also be used to control gas mobility by reducing capillary forces. In
Zhang et al. [75], the authors injected CO2 into a micromodel. The methodology em-
ployed in this work consists of a core flooding setup where cores packed with cleaned
sand at a back pressure of 3.5 MPa and temperature of 27 ◦ C was used to evaluate the
performance of foam injection. Their findings, however, indicated that the residual oil
trapped in the model could not be displaced by CO2 since oil and gas had a high mobility
ratio. This result underlined the necessity to first emulsify the oil in order to separate it
from the porous media, which can be done by introducing a chemical phase that can reduce
interfacial tension and result in the development of oil-water emulsions at the displacement
front. More oil and water are solubilized to form emulsions when the chemical phase
moves through the porous media, which leads to the mobilization of oil.
There are other parameters involved besides IFT reduction to achieve a considerable
change in the capillary number. The parameter, known as the contact angle in Equation (9),
Energies 2023, 16, 972 12 of 52
can be used to characterize wettability. The interactions between surfactants and the solid
surface of the porous medium cause wettability to change during a foaming operation. The
adsorbed surfactant on the surface lowers surface tension and changes the ability of the
rock for wetting with water or oil. Although surfactant adsorption on the rock is important,
it is not necessarily sufficient to change wettability. The degree to which this is necessary
depends on several parameters, including the original wettability of the rock, the structure,
the type and the concentration of the surfactant, residual oil properties, and brine salinity.
In [76], visualization of the oil-wet micro-cell and core flood tests were performed. It
was revealed that when the porous media was oil-wet, much fewer bubbles were produced
due to lamellae detachment and collapse. Similarly, investigations by Sanchez et al. [77] in
oil-wet porous media showed that foam formation is a result of the wettability alteration
from oil-wet to water-wet. These arguments suggest that a water-wet system is the best
wettability condition for foam generation. However, the results of Lescure et al. [78]
contradict this. The experiments involved a foam flood and a comparison of wettability
measurements. The findings revealed that as a result of significant surfactant adsorption
in a water-wet medium, foam is more effective in an oil-wet medium than in a water-wet
one. However, in order to develop a valid theory, a wide range of concentrations must be
thoroughly investigated. Future research should also take into account a foaming agent
that performs well in both water- and oil-wet environments.
The last mobility control mechanism with foam is improvement in interfacial mass
transfer. It is known that foam increases the possibility of gas interactions with oil since
it can control gas mobility in a porous medium. This is a beneficial mechanism for gases,
particularly CO2 , because mass component interchange greatly boosts miscibility and,
consequently, oil recovery. Furthermore, foam might result in large flow resistance and
a longer retention period for gas in the porous media. This means foam can prevent or
completely stop gas fingering, mobilizing oil by reducing its viscosity and swelling. This
is consistent with the findings of Farajzadeh et al. [79], where the authors stated that the
addition of surfactant at a high pressure significantly improved the mass transfer of CO2
into water and oil.
5.2. Mechanism of Foam Generation in the Porous Media

The size and distribution of the pore throats have a significant impact on foam gen-
eration in the porous media, because foam bubbles can be filled into one or more of the
pores. In the porous media, foam exists as a discontinuous phase. To visualize and pinpoint
the primary mechanism of foam generation in the porous medium, Ransohoh et al. [80]
conducted glass bead tests at the pore scale level. These mechanisms were further verified
by Almajid et al. [81] in their study using silicon micromodels.
The first of these mechanisms is Snap-off (Figure 8). It is the dominant mechanism
for generating foam bubbles in porous media and the most probable foam generation
mechanism during the co-injection of liquid and gas phases. It is a mechanical process that
takes place repeatedly during a multiphase flow in porous media [82]. It is referred to as a
mechanical process because it involves the formation of foam bubbles in the pore throat by
the wetting phase due to the flow of gas bubbles through the pore throat [80].
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8. Snap-off mechanism process of foam generation in the porous media (adapted from
Ransohoh et al. [80]).
Energies 2023, 16, 972 13 of 52
When the gas phase reaches the liquid phase-filled throat, it is blocked at the upstream
side by the pore throat. When the capillary entry pressure is surpassed, it causes the
interface to become curved and increases the capillary pressure, allowing the generated
foam bubble to flow through the pore throat. The pressure inside the foam bubble lowers
as expansion occurs at the interface, and a wedging layer is created as a result of a negative
capillary pressure gradient [83,84]. Thus, a foam bubble is snapped off and the liquid is
forced into the pore throat from the pore body. An important criterion for snap-off to occur
is that capillary pressure at the throat must be higher than capillary pressure at the front
of the interface. Notable, the ratio of pore body to pore throat needs to be approximately
higher than 2 for this to happen [80].
The second mechanism is lamella division (Figure 9). Large bubbles split into smaller
ones during lamella division. This happens when the interface stretches around the
branching point as illustrated in Figure 9, and the flow of foam bubbles branches in
different directions as a result of this [80]. Foam generation with the lamella division
mechanism requires a pre-generated foam with a large bubble size to pore body ratio to be
injected into the porous medium. Moreover, there must be a significant pressure gradient
for the lamella to divide [85].
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Lamella division mechanism of foam generation in the porous media (Adapted from
Ransohoh et al. [80]).
As seen in Figure 10, the leave-behind occurs when two gas menisci enter the adjacent
branching pore bodies that are filled with liquid.
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Leave-behind mechanism of foam generation in the porous media (Adapted from Ranso-
hoh et al. [80]).
In the snap-off and lamella division mechanisms, the formed lamellae are relatively
perpendicular to the direction of flow [84]. The lamellae from leave-behind, on the other
hand, are parallel and are frequently related to a continuous gas phase that is present at
the start of a foam flooding operation [80]. The invasion of two or more gas fronts from
different directions into a liquid-saturated medium causes the leave-behind mechanism,
unlike the snap-off and lamella mechanisms, to produce less stable and weaker foams. This
causes the generation of continuous gas bubbles, which build up to create parallel rows of
many lamellae and obstruct the passageways, creating dead-end paths. Generally, foam
Energies 2023, 16, 972 14 of 52
generation by the leave-behind mechanism is not recommended because it results in the

generation of weak and unstable foam [82].
Pinch-off is another mechanism for foam generation that was found in microfluidic
channels by Liontas et al. [86]. While neighbor-neighbor pinch-off is caused by two neigh-
boring bubbles, neighbor-wall pinch-off happens when a bubble is pinched off by the
adjoining bubble and the walls of the channels [86]. These mechanisms occur at a high
capillary number.
5.3. Mechanism of Foam Instability

All foams have significant surface tension, which makes them thermodynamically
unstable. Foam requires more effort to be generated and becomes less stable when surface
tension increases [87]. Gas diffusion (Ostwald ripening, bubble disproportionation) is
the most crucial mechanism since it underlies all the other mechanisms (drainage and
coalescence), making it the cause of foam instability. The stages that foam can go through
before being completely destroyed are depicted in Figure 11. While some foams undergo
the whole stages, others collapse as a result of an external disturbance [88].
Figure 11. Progression of foam stability from generation to coalescence.
In order to explain gas diffusion, let us consider Figure 12 below:
Foam film
Foam bubble
P3 P1
Plateau border
P2
Figure 12. The pressure difference between foam bubbles ( Adapted from Langevin et al. [89]).
Points P1, P2, P3 represent arbitrary points within a foam bubble, outside of a foam
bubble, and in the foam film respectively. Thus, the differential pressure between points in
and outside of a foam bubble can be represented by the Laplace equation presented below:
2γ
P1 − P2 = (10)
R
where P1 and P2 represent pressure in and outside the foam bubble respectively, MPa; γ is
the surface tension, N/m and R is the bubble radius, m.
The theory of surface tension postulates that the pressure inside the bubble is higher
than the pressure outside due to surface tension, which tries to reduce the surface area
Energies 2023, 16, 972 15 of 52
and needs to be counterbalanced so that the bubble does not collapse. Thus, since there is
no pressure difference over a flat contact, the pressure in the film must be higher than the
pressure outside the bubble [89].
P1 = P3 > P2 (11)
The repulsive interaction between the two surfaces, which may have an electrostatic
origin as a result of the ionization of the surfactant head groups, is solely responsible
for the pressure increase in the film [87,90]. As a result, the plateau border experiences
lower pressure, which acts to drain liquid from films between bubbles and increase the risk
of collapse.
Additionally, for smaller bubbles, the pressure and solubility of the dispersed gas
phase are higher. Diffusion from small gas bubbles to bigger ones or the bulk liquid phase is,
therefore, driven by a force [88]. The solubility of the dispersed gas phase in the continuous
liquid phase affects the rate of diffusion. For instance, foam in carbonated drinks exhibits
this behavior, where more bubbles quickly arise after the first foam generation occurs when
the drink is poured into a cup.
Note that a bubble has a higher pressure than the gas around it and that this pressure
increases as the bubble becomes smaller. A wider bubble size distribution results from gas
diffusion from small to large bubbles over time. This can be quantified using Henry’s law
to assess gas solubility in the liquid [91].
6. Factors Affecting Foam Stability

Several changes start to occur as soon as foam is generated. Through gas diffusion in
the continuous phase, the smaller bubbles continue to enlarge and may eventually dissolve
to result in disproportionation and Ostwald ripening. The bubbles emulsify quickly and
separate to form a foam layer on top of a bulk liquid. The liquid then drains from the
foam into the bulk liquid and the lamella between foam bubbles breaks, which causes
the bubbles themselves to distort one another and form a polyhedral foam, leading to
bubble coalescence.
6.1. Gibbs–Marangoni Effect

As was noted in earlier sections, pure liquids cannot produce stable foam in the
absence of a surfactant. When gas is put into a liquid phase (just water), as soon as all
the water has been drained away, it coalesces almost instantly. Contrarily, the liquid–gas
interface expands in the presence of surfactant solutions, upsetting the equilibrium at the
surface, and a restoring force known as the Gibbs–Marangoni effect emerges to restore the
equilibrium [92,93]. A dilatational elasticity is created because of a surface tension gradient
that is present, due to the surfactant. This is known as Gibbs elasticity [94]. The flow of
surfactant molecules from the bulk liquid to the interface is then caused by the surface
tension gradient. This phenomenon is referred to as the Marangoni effect [92]. Thus, the
Gibbs–Marangoni effect stabilizes the foam by preventing the thinning and disturbance of
the liquid film between the gas bubbles.
At various surfactant concentrations, the maximum foaming behavior is perfectly
explained by the Gibbs–Marangoni effect. Surfactant molecules near the interface cause
the surface area of the foam bubble to increase, which in turn creates an inward strain.
Because the gradient moves the surfactant to the areas with thinner layers, the concentration
of surfactant at the interface decreases proportionally as the surface area increases [95].
Foamability will, therefore, be quite low. This is why the surfactant concentration reduces
in a foaming system when a stable film expands.
Due to the substantial supply of surfactant that diffuses to the surface at high surfactant
concentrations, the differential surface tension relaxes too quickly. It also creates a very
thin coating with low foamability, giving the restoring force enough time to balance out the
conflicting forces. The maximum foaming ability is produced at the intermediate surfactant
concentration range [95,96]. Gibbs–Marangoni effect can therefore affect foam stability due
to the surface tension phenomenon.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 16 of 52
6.2. Interfacial Tension

The gas–liquid interface, which separates the dispersed and continuous phases, is a
tiny intermediate boundary, as was previously mentioned. Due to the large surface area of
the gas bubbles, they have high surface energy [94]. However, relatively low interfacial
energy is required to produce stable foams. Surfactants or any other additive that can
reduce interfacial tension is added to achieve this. Another method to achieve this is to
supply enough mechanical energy by mixing or agitation.
Due to the synergy between surface energy and foam stability, interfacial tension is
crucial to foam-EOR. Hosseini-Nasab et al. [97] describe a foam technique for mobilizing
residual oil following water flooding. This was accomplished by combining two anionic
surfactant formulations, the first of which was used to achieve a low IFT and the second
was used to create a stable foam by co-injecting CO2 and N2 gases. According to their
findings, a lower IFT resulted in significantly higher oil recovery with a smaller mobility
reduction factor. In reality, the authors claimed in their conclusion that the ultralow IFT
reduction was the main mechanism for one of the generated foam variants. This proves
how crucial IFT reduction is during foam-EOR.
Similar findings were made by Yekeen et al. [98], where it was discovered that a
significant decrease in decane-liquid IFT improved foam stability. This improvement was
attributed to adsorption and tighter packing of the adsorbed surfactant molecules at the
gas–liquid interface, foam lamella, and plateau borders. The strength of the film is necessary
for a foam system to be stable. Indeed, IFT needs to be decreased to an ideal amount in
order to improve oil displacement via foam injection. By increasing the concentration of
the surfactant, IFT reduces and a more stable foam can be generated.
6.3. Gravitational Drainage

Gravitational drainage is a crucial process in foam stability because it involves the
interaction of viscous gas flow, surfactant molecule diffusion and convection, and their ad-
sorption at the film interface [99]. Gravitational effects are very important in the generation
of stable foams because they control how much liquid is drained from the foam. When
the foam is sufficiently stable, it dries out and a vertical pressure gradient in the liquid bal-
ances the gravitational force, resulting in a vertical profile of the liquid component. Liquid
drainage causes the liquid layers to thin out, which causes the foam bubbles to coalesce.
Additionally, the gravitational impact of liquid moving from top to bottom due to gas
diffusion through the liquid layers causes the foam to dry up and become unstable [100].
6.4. Wettability
Surfactants can change the rock wettability from being oil-wet to more water-wet. On
oil-wet rock surfaces, foam formation via a snap-off mechanism is typically restricted. This
is because the film on the surface needs to be continuously wetted, which is necessary
for the passage of liquid from the pore body to the pore throat, and a prerequisite for
the snap-off [80]. If the surfactant adsorption is insufficient, the lamella may still become
unstable on the oil-wet surface following foam generation. Since the film is continuously
wetted, the lamella is initially stable across the water-wet surface. The surfactant monomers
can, however, adsorb at both the gas–water and water-oil interfaces as the lamella moves
toward and over the oil droplet or a wet surface. This leads to a larger disjoining pressure
and a more continuous film on the surface [101]. Alternately, the oil droplet may enter
the gas–liquid interface if the film that separated the gas bubbles from the oil droplet is
unstable, which would result in the lamella pinching off.
The effect of wettability on foam stability and generation has been investigated experi-
mentally by several authors. Flooding tests were performed by Kanda et al. [102] using
glass bead packs that were either oil- or water-wet. The results showed that the foam in the
oil-wet system was unstable. They asserted that the oil-wet surface had caused the foam
films at the pore throats to become unstable.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 17 of 52
Similar to this, Kuhlman et al. [103] and Kristiansen et al. [104] reported poor foam
stability in oil-wet pores. In oil-wet porous media, foam generation and stability can be
limited, but it is also feasible that foam can be produced and stabilized. This may occur if
the surfactant adheres to the surface and changes the wettability toward more water-wet.
This argument is supported in the work of Sanchez et al. [105] where it was revealed that
wettability modification toward water-wet is a crucial condition for generating stable foams.
According to the findings, the residual oil prevented the oil-wet system from changing its
wettability since the surfactant components were less effective at doing so because they
were concurrently adsorbing at the oil-solid and water-solid interfaces. Similar findings
were made by Mannhardt et al. [106] where it was illustrated that weak and unstable foams
were generated when the cores were intermediate-wet with residual oil.
6.5. Oil Presence

The ability of foams to remain stable for as much time as possible in the reservoir when
coming into contact with oil is one of the difficulties of foam-EOR. This is important for
achieving favorable mobility control as well as a favorable oil recovery rate. Experimental
studies have demonstrated that some of the components in the oil phase cause foam
to become more unstable in the reservoir. Low molecular weight oil dispersed in the
surfactant solution, according to Aveyard et al. [88], shortens the half-life of the foam.
However, experiments by Mannhardt et al. [106] demonstrated that stability in the presence
of oil can be increased if the foaming agents are properly selected and screened. The authors
noted that the tolerance of foam to oil increased with the addition of fluorinated surfactants
to various types of hydrocarbon surfactants. Additionally, a group of foam flow studies was
carried out by Pu et al. [107] in which foam was generated in the porous media and showed
greater stability when oil with a larger molecular weight was present. The spreading of oil
droplets is a common mechanism by which oil droplets affect foam stability. According to
the proposed theory, oil droplets squeeze between the film surfaces during foam generation
spread over one of the film surfaces, breaking the lamella. Nikolov et al. [108] provided
evidence for this. The authors reported that the process of oil solubilization from the
oil phase into the micelles contained in the liquid phase might play an important role in
foam stability.
Farzaneh et al. [65] explained that the pseudo-emulsion film influences how much oil
affects foam stability. This is the aqueous film that forms between the gas and oil phases
in the foam system. While an unstable pseudo-emulsion film will have a detrimental
stabilizing effect on foam, a stable pseudo-emulsion film can stabilize foam and even
increase stability as oil saturation increases. The authors explained that the oil droplets will
drain more slowly in the plateau borders than in the surrounding aqueous phase due to
the buoyant force of the oil droplets and the obstacle to their movement within the plateau
borders. Therefore, the plateau borders are rather thick and can delay liquid drainage when
a stable pseudo-emulsion film is present. If the films are unstable, however, the oil droplets
agglomerate on the plateau edges and grow larger as a result of more foam drainage.
6.6. Thermobaric Conditions

The two key reservoir parameters that determine the stability of foam are pressure
and temperature. An increase in pressure is advantageous to foam stability, according
to many studies. This is because there will be more resistance to liquid drainage and
Ostwald ripening as pressure rises since the liquid layers grow larger and stronger [9,58].
Additionally, as pressure rises, less gas will diffuse between the lamellae, thus increasing
foam stability. Wang et al. [109] demonstrate this (Figure 13) phenomenon.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 18 of 52
Dimensionless Half-life
5 N2
CO2
4
1
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Pressure (MPa)
Figure 13. Effect of pressure on CO2 and N2 foams stability. (Adapted from Wang et al. [109]).
In this study, the performance of foam under high pressure and temperature conditions
was investigated using a visualizing foam meter. The setup mainly consists of a high-
pressure cell, a fluid injection system, and observation windows for measuring foams
generated in the visual chamber. Under pressure varying from 6 to 14 MPa, six surfactants
were examined, and their half-lives were used to assess the stability of the foam. CO2 and
N2 were co-injected to generate foam.
According to the authors, increasing pressure will generally increase the density of
gas and make it more hydrophobic, which can aid in the embedding of the surfactant
hydrocarbon tails into the oil phase.
Oppositely, temperature increase generally causes a decrease in foam stability because
the half-life is reduced. This is due to the fact that when the temperature rises, the liquid
phase has a greater tendency to evaporate, which causes the bubbles to quickly collapse
and release the gas they contain [60,92]. Furthermore, when the temperature rises, the gas
phase becomes more soluble and the interfacial strength between the gas and liquid phases
decreases. This causes the foam to become more unstable by increasing liquid drainage [60].
The viscosity and elasticity of the foam lamella will decrease at higher temperatures, which
will have a significant impact on the performance of the foam although the extent of the
deterioration of foam stability may depend on the chemical composition or hydrocarbon
chain length of the foaming agent used (Figure 14).
100
SDS
SDBS
80 SDS’
Half-life (min)
60
40 SDS - 86% Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate

SDBS - Sodium Dodecyl Benzene Sulfonate
SDS’ - 98% Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate
20
0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Temperature (°C)
Figure 14. Effect of temperature on foam stability (Adapted from Wang et al. [109]).
Energies 2023, 16, 972 19 of 52
The work of Wang et al. [110] also demonstrates how temperature affects foam stability.
Experiments were carried out to investigate the influence of temperature on the stability
of foams generated from different types of surfactants. Although the authors highlighted
that anionic surfactants are less impacted by temperature compared to cationic and non-
ionic surfactants, foam stability decreased with increasing temperature in all cases. They
attributed this to decreased surface viscosity, which led to quicker liquid drainage at higher
temperatures. The results of Liu et al. [111] further support this. The authors of this study
demonstrated that at higher temperatures, bubble size increased uncontrollably, which
caused a rapid collapse.
6.7. Salinity
The percentage of salt ions in the liquid phase is another parameter that has a deciding
impact on the stability of foams. At high salinity, the presence of salt ions in the bulk fluid
reduces the surface potential at the gas–liquid interfaces, hence reducing the repulsion
between the two layers [60,112]. Increased salinity, in this case, causes a decrease in double-
layer repulsion, which promotes liquid to drain from the foam lamella. As a result, foam
stability decreases as salinity increases.
The ionic interactions between the foaming agent (surfactant) and salt can determine
how foam behaves. Consequently, depending on the strength of the interactions, foam
stability can be improved or worsened [113]. To illustrate the effects of salt on foam stability,
both positive and negative effects are discussed below.
In the work of Bello et al. [60], the foam was generated using 0.3 wt.% of AOS surfactant
with salinity ranging from 0 wt.% to 15 wt.% MgCl2 . Figure 15 below demonstrates that
foam stability is only improved at low salinity, and stability degrades when a salt content
goes above 2%. The authors attributed this to the forceful deposition of additional ions on
the surface of the foam film, which led to a partial neutralization of the electric charges.
This decreased the electrostatic repulsion and hence made the foam films unstable.
20
Foam height (cm)
18
16
14
12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Salt concentration (wt.%)
Figure 15. Effect of temperature on foam stability (Adapted from Wang et al. [109]).
The findings of the study by Le et al. [114] appear contrary. The authors investigated
the stability of foam under dynamic conditions for salinity ranging from 5 to 25 wt.% NaCl.
Ethomeen C12 was employed as the foaming agent. According to their findings, the foam
was noticeably more stable at higher salinity (Figure 16).
Energies 2023, 16, 972 20 of 52
Normalized foam height

1
0.8
0.6
0.4 5% NaCl
15% NaCl
0.2 20% NaCl
25% NaCl
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time elapsed, hours
Figure 16. The positive influence of salinity on foam stability (Adapted from Le et al. [114]).
According to the authors, the success of this interaction at higher salinity was due to
the compression of the electrical double layer and an increase in the maximum disjoining
pressure at higher salinity. Bello et al. [60] asserted that bubble coalescence typically begins
early in many surfactants at high salinity conditions, which worsens the foam stability.
However, in the work of Le et al. [114] where Ethomeen was used, the ionic interactions
between the protonated amine headgroups with the Cl− counter ion strengthened the
molecular density of the surfactant.
7. Laboratory Studies of Foam-EOR

The harsh conditions of reservoirs, as was covered in earlier sections of this work,
have the biggest negative impact on the stability of foam and its use as an oil recovery
agent. This has piqued the curiosity of researchers, who are stepping up attempts to find
solutions for foam instability. This section only focuses on the investigations of foam-EOR
in the laboratory and thus, advances in improving foam stability will be discussed in a
section below.
In order to assess the potential of foam as an EOR agent, Haugen et al. [115] described
tests including the application of foam in low permeability, oil-wet core samples. According
to the findings, less than 10% of the oil was recovered with water, surfactant, or gas injection.
On the other hand, pre-generated foam injection was able to recover up to 78% of the
original oil in the core. The authors attributed this to poor gas mobility in the fractured
rock, which led to an increase in differential pressure and a diversion of flow toward the
oil-saturated matrix.
To study the impact of injection mode on foam-EOR, John et al. [116] presented
investigations comprising laboratory experiments and numerical modeling. Pre-generated
foam was injected into the core sample at 34 MPa and 55 ◦ C. The findings indicated that
CO2 foam, as opposed to pure CO2 and WAG, can recover more oil after flooding with
water. The results of their numerical simulation were also similar. The calculated mobilities
demonstrated the improved efficiency of CO2 foam as a blocking agent, reducing CO2
mobility while increasing its effective viscosity.
An ultra-low interfacial tension foaming agent was used by Kang et al. [117] for the
dual purpose of reducing oil-water IFT and enhancing foam stability in core samples
containing heavy oil. In order to lower IFT and increase foam stability, the authors em-
ployed commercially available surfactants, modified natural carboxylates, and partially
hydrolyzed polyacrylamides. The gas phase used was nitrogen. Their results showed
that foam flooding can also be applied in heavy oil as ultimate oil recovery was improved
to approximately 23% initial oil in place over waterflooding recovery. The authors at-
tributed this to the ultra-low interfacial tension between oil and water as well as an effective
mobility control.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 21 of 52
The foam was used as a thermal EOR technique by Chen et al. [118]. The paper focuses
on an investigation of the viability of a foam-assisted SAGD (FASAGD) through numerical
simulation. Their simulation results demonstrated that a significant volume of stable foam
was generated and accumulated in the area between the wells. Additionally, the inclusion
of steamed foam helped in limiting steam breakthrough and produced superior recovery
results than the traditional SAGD. Cumulative oil recovery was increased by roughly 30%
with FASAGD compared to the cases without foam (Figure 17).
180
Cumulative oil produced, m3
160
140
SAGD
120 FASAGD
100
SAGD - Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage
80
FASAGD - Foam-Assisted SAGD
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200 1 400 1 600 1 800 2 000 2 200
Cumulative steam injected, CWE m3
Figure 17. Comparison of the recovery efficiency between SAGD and FA-SAGD (Adapted from Chen
et al. [118]).
A comprehensive summary of laboratory foam-EOR experiments is given in Table 2 be-

low:
Energies 2023, 16, 972 22 of 52
Table 2. Laboratory studies of foam-EOR.
Foam Injection Liquid Phase Gas Phase Oil Thermobaric Permeability Main
Reference Salinity Porous Medium Porosity (%) Results
Mode Component(s) Component(s) Specifications Conditions (mD) Mechanism
Improved CO2
foam recovery
Extra heavy
Microfluidic Increased performance;
[12] Pre-generated 0.3 wt.% Neodol CO2 and N2 crude oil API 4.1 MPa; 44 ◦ C N/A N/A N/A
model viscosity N2 foam was
11.5◦
more stable than
CO2 foam.
Foam tends to
become drier
when diverted
into the low
0.2 wt.% Coco PDMS Sweep profile permeable region
[35] Pre-generated Air N/A Ambient N/A N/A 45
betaine surfactant microfluidic chip improvement especially in the
case of wet foam;
Foam effectively
improved the gas
sweep efficiency.
Foam
significantly
increased oil
recovery
4 wt% NaCl,
1 wt.% AOS n-Decane with Edwards Increased compared to pure
[36] Pre-generated CO2 9 MPa; 20 ◦ C 3.4 wt% CaCl2 , 11–60 18–25
surfactant viscosity 1.01 cp limestone viscosity CO2 injection by
0.5 wt% MgCl
adding a viscous
component to the
oil recovery
process.
There was
1:1 blend of
formation of a
cocamidopropyl
Isopar G (0.843 less stable front
betaine and
[58] Pre-generated N2 cp)and Isopar V Ambient 0.25 M NaCl Microfluidic chip 5200 57.5 N/A as the foam
sodium dodecyl
(10.840 cp) quality increased,
sulfate (SDS)
leading to less oil
surfactants
recovery.
Significant
improvement in
Medium-heavy
Gas breakthrough oil recovery of up
[119] Pre-generated 0.3 wt.% Neodol CO2 crude oil with 4.1 MPa; 44 ◦ C 30,000 ppm NaCl Microfluidic chip N/A N/A
reduction to 90%;
API 19.1◦
Reduction of
injected CO2 .
Energies 2023, 16, 972 23 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Foam Injection Liquid Phase Gas Phase Oil Thermobaric Porous Permeability Main
Reference Salinity Porosity (%) Results
Mode Component(s) Component(s) Specifications Conditions Medium (mD) Mechanism
N2 foam
exhibited better
foamability
and stability
CTAB, DTAB, 3500– Indiana Increased than CO2 foam;
[120] Pre-generated CO2 and N2 Crude oil 80 ◦ C 50–100 15–20
AOS, AES 179,863 mg/L limestone viscosity CTAB showed
excellent oil
recovery of 92%
cumulative
recovery factor.
Foam
displacement
efficiency was
81.24%, which
was 37.94%
higher than
steam flooding;
Foam increased
the flow
resistance of
steam and
Crude oil with Uniform
0.5% Surfactant 5 MPa; improved
[121] Pre-generated N2 viscosity N/A Sand pack 1124 and 5735 33 propagation
solution 50–300 ◦ C micro-sweep
11,310 cp front
efficiency;
Thermal foams
can
significantly
enhance the
injection profile
by propagating
hot water and
steam evenly
across the
reservoir.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 24 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
HSF foam
generates large,
stable bubbles
GINF-1 and Crude oil with
Diversion of in presence of
[122] Pre-generated LINF-2 Air viscosity of 25 ◦ C 6150 mg/L Sand pack 1208 31
gas flow oil, beneficial to
surfactants 23 cp
block high
permeability
areas
AS formulation
was found to
have a
well-defined
optimum
Crude oil with Bentheimer
[123] Pre-generated IOS surfactant N2 5 MPa; 60 ◦ C 1.6 wt.% NaCl 1300 20 IFT reduction salinity for
API 37.82◦ sandstone cores
which the IFT
drops by at
least four
orders of
magnitude
Foam strength
increased with
surfactant
Hexadecane concentration;
Bentheimer
[124] Pre-generated AOS surfactant N2 with viscosity 2 MPa; 20 ◦ C 0.5 M NaCl 2500 21 N/A Surfactant
sandstone cores
3.06 cp pre-flushing is
a better foam
injection
strategy.
Foam
formulation
shows an
Core samples
Anionic Crude oil API enhanced oil
[125] Pre-generated N2 5 MPa; 65 ◦ C 106.75 g/L from sultanate 0.5 N/A IFT reduction
surfactant 28◦ recovery ability
of Oman
in low
permeability
carbonate core
Energies 2023, 16, 972 25 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Air-foam
generated in
the porous
medium could
improve the
Heavy crude 3.5 MPa;
Industrial Increased flow resistance to
[126] SAG Air oil with Ambient 160,599 mg/L Sand pack 165.71–1696.51 32.75–41.64
surfactant resistance the flow of the
viscosity 500 cp temperature
injected fluid;
Improvement
of sweep
efficiency and
oil recovery.
Sweep
efficiency was
increased from
46.18% to
77.93% after
0.5 wt.% SDS, Crude oil with Sweep
3712 ppm 2D quartz glass foam injection;
[127] Pre-generated ABS, AAS N2 viscosity Ambient 4320 37.5 efficiency
NaHCO3 plates model Oil
surfactants 3170 cp improvement
displacement
efficiency
increased from
72.76% to
84.01%.
The mixed
CO2 /N2 foam
system enables
0.5 wt% 12.4 MPa; 90 Berea Increased the increase of
[23] Pre-generated CO2 + N2 Crude oil ◦C 253.88 g/L 71.83 19.79
surfactant sandstone cores viscosity oil recovery by
62.5% over the
pure CO2 foam
system
Energies 2023, 16, 972 26 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Foam strength
decreases in the
presence of oil;
Foam has a
1 wt.% reservoir oil
24.1 MPa; 220,000 ppm Carbonate Gas flow greater effect
[128] in situ Ethomeen C12 CO2 with viscosity 50–240 15.9–40
120 ◦ C NaCl outcrops diversion on gas relative
surfactant of 8 cP
permeability in
higher
permeable
zones.
in situ injection
is the most
Artificial effective mode
in situ, SAG, AOS 0.4 wt.% Crude oil with
[129] N2 12.9 MPa; 45 ◦ C 3722 mg/L 3-layer sand 1300 N/A N/A and the
Pre-generated surfactant viscosity 9.6 cp
pack core alternate
injection is the
poorest.
Foam reduced
steam mobility
500 ppm HSF-X Crude oil with by more than
Gas mobility
[130] Pre-generated surfactant N2 viscosity 100 ◦ C–200 ◦ C N/A Sand pack 2280 N/A 40%;
reduction
solution 40000 cp Foam increased
oil recovery by
20%.
Improvement
of microscopic
displacement
IOS,
was attributed
ethoxylated Wolfcamp dead
Carbonate Sweep profile to the
[131] Pre-generated carboxylate, Ethane crude oil 10.3 MPa; 75 ◦ C 22.7 wt% NaCl <15 28.6
outcrop cores improvement attainment of
decyl glucoside viscosity 5.2 cp
miscibility
surfactants
between the
injectant and
crude oil
Energies 2023, 16, 972 27 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Foam
successfully
Malaysian improved the
AOS + betaine Berea
[132] Pre-generated CO2 crude oil with 10.3 MPa; 80 ◦ C N/A 314 18.69 IFT reduction cumulative oil
surfactants sandstone
API 43◦ recovery from
57.58% to
74.08%.
Oil recovery
was higher in
oil-wet cores
than in
water-wet
cores;
Miscible
8.2 MPa; 48 ◦ C conditions that
n-decane
0.5% AOS for CO2 and 5 wt.% NaCl; Edwards Sweep profile generated CO2
[133] Pre-generated CO2 , N2 viscosity 0.92 5–20 18–26
surfactant 4 MPa; 20 ◦ C 3.8 wt.% CaCl2 limestone improvement foam were
cP
for N2 significantly
more efficient
than
immiscible
conditions,
which
generated N2
foam.
Oil foams
behave as non-
Newtonian
Kerosene and fluids and their
Berea
[134] Pre-generated FC-432 N2 Crude oil 5.7 MPa N/A 139.6 23.1 N/A behavior
sandstone core
surfactant closely fit the
Bingham-
plastic
model.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 28 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Gas blocking
capacity of
foams can be
2000 ppm AOS Piedemonte 10.3 MPa; Piedemonte Diversion of correlated with
[135] SAG HC N/A N/A N/A
surfactant crude oil 100 ◦ C core samples gas flow the gas rate in
the quality and
strength of the
foam
Foam
generation and
propagation is
subject to the
in situ, 0.5% AOS Bentheimer destabilizing
[136] N2 Hexadecane 5 MPa; 21 ◦ C 3 wt.% NaCl 2820 22 N/A
Pre-generated surfactant sandstone effects of oil on
foam and
depends partly
on the injection
strategy.
Oil recovery of
over 60% was
achieved after
IOS +
water flooding,
Carboxylate + Crude oil Limestone Increased
[137] Pre-generated N2 6.9 MPa; 69 ◦ C 214,000 ppm 10 20 even after
APG viscosity 1.2 cp outcrop cores viscosity
reducing the
surfactants
surfactant
concentration
by 75%.
Oil recovery
factor was
enhanced by
0.5% AES Sand pack Sweep profile 7.4% through
[138] Pre-generated Air Crude oil 12.2 MPa; 56 ◦ C 2910 mg/L 320 58.5
surfactant model improvement air foam
flooding and
4.9% after
water flooding
Energies 2023, 16, 972 29 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Foam injection
improved
heavy oil
recovery after
water flooding
Sandstone and
in homogenous
Na-DDBS Heavy oil with carbonate
[139] Pre-generated CO2 10.3 MPa; 22 ◦ C 1000 ppm N/A N/A IFT reduction core sample
surfactant viscosity 670 cp outcrop core
and could
samples
produce more
than 10% of the
residual oil
after water
flooding.
Maximum
recovery of
47.7% of
residual oil in
Fluorosurfactant low
Limestone
[140] Pre-generated and Triton X N2 crude oil 7.2 MPa; 60 ◦ C 21,600 ppm 1.65–202.38 11.93–19.36 N/A permeability
samples
surfactant was observed
compared to
43% in high
permeability
core.
Oil recovery for
in situ injection
Keshang crude was 4.98%
in situ, 0.4% AOS 9.5 MPa; Keshang core Increased
[141] N2 oil with 9038 mg/L 159 N/A higher than
Pre-generated surfactant 28.7 ◦ C samples viscosity
viscosity 8 cp that of
pre-generated
injection.
in situ foam
Yangsanmu injection mode
AOS, Dodecyl
crude oil with can effectively
[142] in situ betaine CO2 12.3 MPa; 63 ◦ C 4500 mg/L Sand pack N/A N/A IFT reduction
viscosity reduce oil
surfactants
557.5 cp viscosity and
oil–water IFT.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 30 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Recovery factor
of CO2
flooding was
only 24% due
to the
heterogeneous
nature of the
fractured core.
Anionic and West Texas
Silurian Improvement Co-injection of
non-ionic CO2 Wasson crude
[143] Pre-generated CO2 10.3 MPa; 35 ◦ C NaCl dolomite 150 N/A of sweep CO2 and water
soluble oil with
outcrop profile increased the
surfactants viscosity 7.1 cp
RF to 35%,
which was
further
increased to
54% when a
water-soluble
surfactant was
added.
A higher
injection rate
and/or
permeability
ratio result in
Anionic and Tight Reduction of
Crude oil with an earlier gas
[144] Pre-generated non-ionic CO2 9 MPa N/A sandstone core 5–15 11.64–20.64 gas
viscosity 7.5 cp breakthrough
surfactants samples breakthrough
and causes less
oil to be
produced
before the gas
breakthrough
Energies 2023, 16, 972 31 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Foam
Liquid Phase Gas Phase Oil Thermobaric Porous Permeability Main
Reference Injection Salinity Porosity (%) Results
Component(s) Component(s) Specifications Conditions Medium (mD) Mechanism
Mode
An easy way to
improve the
CO2 foam
properties at
North Sea oil Berea
0.5% AOS reservoir
[145] Pre-generated CO2 , N2 with viscosity 22 MPa; 100 ◦ C 36,340 ppm sandstone core 349 and 436 21.8 and 21.9 N/A
surfactant conditions is
2.1 cP sample
suggested as
introducing
nitrogen into
the gas phase.
Propagation of
foam was
Industrial Mixture of Indiana
Pre-generated, Crude oil with Increased strongly
[146] surfactant natural gas 5.51 MPa; 32 ◦ C N/A limestone core 9.7 18.6
SAG viscosity 3 cp viscosity influenced by
Masurf FS-3020 liquids sample
the injection
strategy
A cumulative
oil recovery of
67% was
achieved after
Limestone
Pre-generated, Crude oil with Increased foam injection,
[147] Surfactant N2 6.9 MPa; 80 ◦ C 20 wt% NaCl outcrop core 46.3 N/A
SAG viscosity 1.1 cp viscosity in which foam
samples
was able to
produce 25%
incremental oil
recovery.
Foam exhibited
higher
apparent
Mixed Crude oil with 10700 mg/ L Sandstone core Increased
[148] Pre-generated Methane 20 MPa; 94 ◦ C 493 25 viscosity in
surfactant viscosity 5 cp Na+ samples viscosity
cores with
higher
permeability.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 32 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
By increasing
the surfactant
concentration
Crude oil with
Bentheimer Sweep profile from 0.1% to
[149] in situ AOS surfactant N2 viscosity 2 MPa; 21 ◦ C 0.5 M of NaCl 2500 21
sandstone cores improvement 1%, foam
3.28 cp
exhibited a
better front-like
displacement
With nitrogen
foam, most oil
production was
achieved
Mixture of Reduction of
Oil with API Bentheimer within the first
[150] Pre-generated surfactants CO2 , N2 Ambient 3 wt.% NaCl 1200 22 gas
20.18◦ sandstone cores PV of foam
AOS, SDS, FS breakthrough
injection. CO2
was after the
1.5 PV foam
injection.
The presence of
oil decreases
the ability of
foam to
[151] in situ Surfactant N2 and Air Crude oil Ambient 1 wt.% NaCl sandstone cores 32 and 1000 20 N/A decrease the
permeability of
a porous
medium to
water.
The addition of
polymer to the
N85 foaming
solution
Non-ionic accelerates the
Heavy crude
Surfonic N85 Increased foam
[139] SAG CO2 dead oil Ambient N/A Sand pack 38,000 37
(Huntsman) viscosity generation and
1320 cp
surfactant increases its
stability in
heavy-oil-
saturated
porous media.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 33 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Foam injection
significantly
enhanced
sweep
efficiency in
fractured
systems in
1 wt.% Water-wet
Sweep profile terms of greater
[152] Pre-generated Bio-Terge AS40 N2 n-decane Ambient N/A silicon 700 52
improvement pore occupancy
surfactant micromodels
by gas and
larger contact
area with
displaced fluid
compared to
continuous gas
injection.
CO2 foam
significantly
increased the
Heavy crude contact area
8000 ppm NaCl
0.3 wt.% AOS oil with between the oil
[153] in situ CO2 4.1 MPa; 50 ◦ C and 2000 ppm Micromodel 10,000 61 IFT reduction
surfactant viscosity of and gas and
CaCl2
8670 cp thus, the
efficiency of the
recovery
process.
Pressure has a
positive impact
on the foam
stability,
although the
extent of this
1 wt.%
SDS, AOS Crude oil depends on
[154] in situ N2 13.8 MPa; 65 ◦ C synthetic Core sample 7530 36.49 N/A
surfactants viscosity 38 cp surfactant type;
seawater
A stable foam
has a better oil
recovery
performance
than gas
injection.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 34 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Unlike gas
injection, the
oil recovery
from the matrix
0.5 wt.% AOS 13.79 MPa; Microfluidic Increased in foam
[155] Pre-generated N2 n-decane 1 wt.% NaCl 29,130 25
surfactant 80 ◦ C chip viscosity injection is
improved by
the viscous
cross-flow
mechanism.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 35 of 52
8. Field Applications of Foam-EOR

Many pilot studies have been carried out on foam flooding as a promising EOR method
for depleted oil fields. According to Yang et al. [156], three categories of factors mainly
influence the performance of foam injection during pilot tests. These include characteristics
of the target formation, the chemical composition of the foam and, lastly, the injection
scheme and foam quality.
Blaker et al. [157] and Skage et al. [158] reported the Snorre foam injection, which is
regarded as the largest foam application in the petroleum industry. The Snorre oil field
is located in the Norwegian part of the North Sea. The formation’s permeability ranges
between 400 and 3500 mD, and the oil viscosity is 0.789 cP. The reservoir temperature
was reported as 90 ◦ C. Waterflooding was first implemented in this field; however, after
two years, a WAG pilot project with two injection wells and three production wells was
launched. The injection gas used was a mixture of hydrocarbon gas with a high mole
fraction of intermediate components. After some time, one of the producing wells had
an early gas breakthrough, prompting foam injection. C14−16 alpha-olefin sulfonate was
used as a surfactant to generate foam. A packer was used to mechanically segregate the
foam in the intended high permeability layer. The injection rate was regulated to ensure
that the fracture pressure was not exceeded. Skauge et al. [158] stated that there were no
major operational issues during the injection of foam chemicals and gas and that the oil
rate increased. Foam injection was estimated to have produced around 250,000 sm3 of oil.
In the Huan-Xi-Ling oil field, nitrogen foam flooding was implemented. The subsea
depth of this formation is 1080 meters. The average porosity and permeability are 1065
mD and 29.7%, respectively. It is a heavy oil field with oil viscosity ranging from 110–129
cP. Skauge et al. [158] reported that steam flooding was initially utilized in this reservoir,
and pilot foam injection was only started after the cumulative recovery factor reached
33%. The pilot injection was allowed to run for 33 months. During that time, there was
a recovery of 5.5% of OOIP. The pilot area was then enlarged to a 9-well pattern for a
total of 54 months. During this time, the total oil recovery was estimated to be 9.75% of
OOIP. Compared to water injection wells, foam injection wells had higher injectivity and a
higher oil production rate. This shows that foam injection is not just for enhancing sweep
efficiency in gas flooding; it can also increase oil production following steam and water
flooding cycles.
Foam flooding in Russian oil fields has only been mentioned in a few publications. In
an oil field in Western Siberia, foam treatments using viscoelastic surfactants, crosslinked
polymer, and nitrogen foam were described in Oussoltsev et al. [159]. Even though it was
used as a hydraulic fracturing fluid, where the generated foam gave promising results.
Longer effective lengths of fractures and higher fracture conductivity were achieved due to
the improved rheological properties of the foams and high conductivity due to the high
gas phase.
Saifullin et al. [160] provided the closest reference to non-hydraulic fracturing foam
operation. The field studied was the Messoyakhskoye oil field, operated by Gazprom Neft.
Gas channeling from the gas caps in the producing wells has been causing problems for the
operators. The authors explored how foam may be employed as a gas-blocking agent in
both production and injection wells. Their findings showed that foam injection might be
used to mitigate early gas breakthroughs in production wells.
Table 3 summarizes some of the foam injection pilot tests that have been conducted.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 36 of 52
Table 3. Field studies of foam-EOR.
Geological
Reference Field Problem/Aim Liquid Phase Gas Phase Injection Parameters Main Mechanism Results
Characteristics
Average porosity = 12%
CO2 production was
Average
much lower;
permeability = 8 mD Pre-treatment of 12000
CO2 breakthrough Chevron chaser CD1040 Oil production was
Rangely Weber Sand Reservoir bbl surfactant slug Sweep profile
[161] Poor sweep efficiency with average surfactant CO2 slightly higher;
Unit, Colorado temperature = 71 ◦ C followed by 55000 bbl improvement
High gas production concentration 0.46% Foam reduced CO2
Oil viscosity = 1.7 cp of 79% foam quality
injectivity for as long as
Initial res.
2 months.
pressure = 18.9 MPa
Average Foam was generated
Poor sweep efficiency
permeability = 15 mD without delay;
Early CO2 Average foam quality
North Ward-Estes Field, Reservoir Chevron chaser CD1040 Reduction of gas Foam reduced CO2
[162] breakthrough CO2 between 50% and 80%
Texas temperature = 28 ◦ C 0.1–0.5% breakthrough injectivity by 40%;
Low tertiary oil was maintained
Oil viscosity = 1.4 cp Foam lasted up to
production
Initial res. 6 months.
pressure = 7.6 MPa
Average
permeability = 506.6 Foam did not propagate
mD Viscous fingering a significant distance
Joffre Viking Field, 0.2 wt% of the
[163] Reservoir Gravity segregation CO2 N/A N/A into the reservoir;
Alberta, Canada surfactant
temperature = 56 ◦ C Poor mobility of CO2 modest increase in oil
Oil viscosity = 1 cp production.
Initial res.
pressure = 7.8 MPa
Energies 2023, 16, 972 37 of 52
Table 3. Cont.
Geological
Characteristics
Absence of any sign of
Average oil bank;
porosity = 21.7% Possibility of CO2 foam
Average breaking down
Rock Creek, West Low oil production
[164] permeability = 21.5 mD Alipal CD-128 CO2 N/A N/A (thermal/chemical
Virginia High gas mobility
Reservoir degradation);
temperature = 22.8 ◦ C Inability to lower the
Oil viscosity = 3.2 cp mobility under
reservoir conditions.
Average
permeability = 13 mD
Reservoir
Poor areal sweep 70% foam quality in an
East Seminole field, temperature = 40 ◦ C Huntsman L24−22 Sweep profile CO2 injectivity was
[165] efficiency CO2 inverted 40-acre
Permian Basin, USA Oil API gravity = 31◦ surfactant 0.5 wt.% improvement reduced by 70%
Unfavorable mobility five-spot well pattern
Initial res.
pressure = 17.2 MPa
Brine salinity = 70,000
ppm
Foam achieved some
Average diversion of injected
porosity = 11.7% fluid away from high
Average permeability zone into
East Vacuum Grayburg permeability = 11 mD Early CO2 lower permeability
2500 ppm chevron
[166] San Andres Unit, New Reservoir breakthrough CO2 80% foam quality Diversion of gas flow zones;
Chaser CD-1045
Mexico temperature = 40.5 ◦ C Gas channeling Positive performance of
Oil API gravity = 38◦ foam injection was seen
Initial res. in a reduction in CO2
pressure = 11 MPa production and increase
in oil rate performance
Average porosity = 7.6%
CO2 injectivity
Average
decreased by more than
Scurry Area Canyon permeability = 19.4 mD
Poor mobility control 50% compared to CO2
Reef Operational Reservoir Sweep profile
[167] Poor vertical ELEVATE CO2 N/A injection alone;
Committee field, temperature = 57.8 ◦ C improvement
conformance Foam improved vertical
Permian basin, USA Oil API gravity = 42◦
conformance at the
Initial res.
injector.
pressure = 24 MPa
Energies 2023, 16, 972 38 of 52
Table 3. Cont.
Geological
Characteristics
High injection rate of
Foam gas blocking
>100 MMSCF/d to
effect and divergence
promote foam
Cusiana field, Average porosity = 9% Poor tertiary oil at near-wellbore level
[168] AOS C12 /C14 CH4 generation, after Diversion of gas flow
Colombia Oil API gravity = 34◦ recovery was achieved;
which, the well was
improvements in
returned to 35
sweep efficiency
MMSCF/d
Reduction in
Reservoir
production GOR;
temperature = 90 ◦ C A total of 2000 tons of
Poor mobility control Gas breakthrough Foam injection was
[169] Snorre field, North Sea Permeability = 400– AOS Hydrocarbon gas AOS surfactant was
Gas breakthrough reduction estimated to have
3500 mD injected
produced around
Oil viscosity = 0.789 cp
250,000 sm3 of oil.
Oil Oil production
N2 and fluid are
viscosity = 24–452 cp increased and the
injected as small daily
Average water cut decreased in
Early breakthrough of slugs for 10–15 days
SZ oil field, Bohai Bay, porosity = 25% the pilot of the SZ oil
[170] injected water; Surfactant N2 with a cumulative gas Increased viscosity
China Average field;
High water cut injection of
permeability = 745 mD Cumulative oil
2,592,000–3,888,000 m3 ,
Reservoir production increased
for 3–6 months.
temperature = 65 ◦ C to 30,283 m3 per year.
The recovery rate of
Average foam flooding was
porosity = 29.7% over 1.5%, higher than
Oil that of water drive;
viscosity = 110–129 cp Pressure depletion Average injection rate During foam flooding,
Average permeabil- after 9 years of steam was 142.1 m3 /d, and average injection
[171] Liaohe oilfield, China Surfactant N2 Diversion of gas flow
ity = 1079 mD huff-n-puff; average foam quality pressure was increased
Initial reservoir Poor sweep efficiency was 60%. to 8 Pa. It proves that
pressure = 10.7 MPa the flow resistance of
Reservoir foam liquid increases
temperature = 49.7 ◦ C. due to gas blockage
effect in foam flooding.
About 600 bbls of Reduction of injectivity
Initial reservoir
Poor sweep efficiency; foaming solution was in the gas injector;
Piedemonte field, pressure = 10.3 MPa Sweep profile
[135,172] Low recovery of AOS Surfactant Hydrocarbon gas injected and the gas Positive impacts on
Colombia Reservoir improvement
residual oil injection rate was GOR and the oil rate of
temperature = 100 ◦ C
20–30 MMSCF/d. the producers.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 39 of 52
Table 3. Cont.
Geological
Characteristics
Steam foam was
Average porosity = 30% generated by Improved vertical
[173] Kern river field Poor sweep efficiency 0.5 wt.% AOS surfactant N2 Increased viscosity
API gravity = 13 continuous injection of sweep
39.7 m3 /d
bottom- hole injection
Extremely
pressure increased from
heterogeneous sand Understand 35 gal/hr of Chaser
0.7 to 2 MPa, indicating
rich reservoir mechanisms of steam Surfactant chaser SD1020 mixed with 30 Sweep profile
[174] Midway Sunset field N2 good foam generation;
Average porosity = 25% diversion caused by SD1000 SCF/min of nitrogen improvement
improvements in both
Average foam was injected.
vertical and areal sweep
efficiency
Average porosity = 35%,
Foam injection resulted
Average
into 183,000 barrels of
permeability = 1500–
About 178,000 lbs of incremental oil
3500
South Belridge Field, Initiation of a foam surfactant and 15 Sweep profile production;
[175] mD AOS surfactant N2
Kern County steam diversion pilot MMSCF of nitrogen improvement Foam diverted steam
Reservoir
were injected and improved vertical
temperature = 204.4 ◦ C
and areal sweep
Initial res.
efficiency
pressure = 2 MPa
CAPTOR 4020X was
diluted in industrial Significant decrease in
Average
water to a concentration water cut;
Low oil production rate of 1–2% active matter. Supplementary oil
Levantine–Moreni Initial res.
[176] due to heavy and CAPTOR 4020X N2 20–30 m3 slugs of Increased viscosity production relative to
reservoir, Romania pressure = 2 MPa
viscous oil foaming solutions were steam drive was
Oil viscosity = 800 cp
injected. N2 injection estimated at 1060
Reservoir
pressure varied from tonnes.
temperature = 17 ◦ C
40–70 bar
Foam injection caused a
400 bbl of foaming
more uniform water
agent solution was
Average porosity = 19% injection profile in the
injected at a constant
Average injection well;
Determine effect of bottom-hole pressure of
permeability = 75 mD Neutral blend of Water mobility reduced
foam on gas and water 3 MPa;
Oil viscosity = 8 cp anionic surf with a to about 70%;
[177] Siggins field, Illinois injectivity; Air 100 bbl of the chemical Gas mobility reduction
Average small amount of Air mobility was
Effect of foam on water tracer solution was
temperature = 18.3 ◦ C non-ionic surfactant reduced by more than
injection profile. injected at 3 MPa;
Initial res. 50% and the severe
Approximately 850,000
pressure = 0.7 MPa channeling of air to the
SCF of air was injected
production well
at 3 MPa.
stopped.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 40 of 52
Table 3. Cont.
Geological
Characteristics
Foam successfully
Reservoir
diverted gas to a
temperature = 130F About 21,000 bbl of 1%
previously unswept
Reservoir Alipal CD-128 solution
Poor distribution and interval;
pressure = 6.2–7.6 MPa was used with a volume
[178] Wilmington field sweep efficiency of Alipal CD-128 CO2 /N2 Diversion of gas flow Increase in oil
Permeability = 100– of gas designed to
injected CO2 production but
1000 mD generate a foam quality
excessive gas
Porosity = 24–26% of 90%.
production in some
Oil gravity API = 13–14
wells.
Reservoir
temperature = 78.8 ◦ C Nitrogen breakthrough; Foam injection
During foam injection,
Initial res. Gas channeling; temporarily reduced
Painter reservoir, the wellhead pressure
[179] pressure = 31 MPa High N2 mobility Surfactant 0.5% N2 N/A injectivity but was not
Wyoming ranged from 28.9 to
Average causing gas coning and effective in controlling
30.3 MPa
permeability = 7 mD shuts off production gas channeling.
Oil gravity = 44 API
Average porosity = 8.2% Foam reduced gas
Evaluate SAG foam
Average CO2 injection rate was injectivity;
generation technique
East Mallet Unit Well 31, permeability = 2.15 mD 1000 MMSCF/day. A Foam reduced gas
for reduction of CO2 Gas breakthrough
[180] Hockley county, Texas Oil viscosity = 1.078 cp CD-128 surfactant CO2 total of 20,200 active production;
production and reduction
Slaughter field Average res. lbm of CD-128 Foam increased overall
improvement of oil
pressure = 17.2– surfactant oil production by 22%
production
18.6 MPa and 31%.
A total of 80,500 lbm With foam, gas
active surfactant was production was reduced
McElmo Creek Unit Average
injected. The average by 50% relative to the
Well P-19, San Juan permeability = 10 mD Severe gas production; Gas breakthrough
[180] CD-128 and CD-1045 CO2 wellhead injection rate of CO2 injected,
County Greater Aneth API gravity = 41.4◦ breakthrough reduction
pressure increased from while oil production
field Initial res.
5.5 to 14.5 MPa during was maintained at a
pressure = 14.7 MPa
foam injection higher level.
Average A 10 m3 slug of
porosity = 11.5% surfactant solution was
Successful reduction of
Average injected at the
gas injectivity was
permeability = 92 mD Gas breakthrough; beginning of each week
Kaybob South Triassic Sweep profile observed after foam
[181] Oil viscosity = 0.414 cp Gas gravity override; Dowfax surfactant N2 of the water injection
Unit, Alberta, Canada improvement injection;
Reservoir Poor sweep efficiency. cycle. Alternate
Slight reduction in
temperature = 88 ◦ C two-week cycle of gas
GOR.
Initial res. and two-week cycle of
pressure = 17.6 MPa water followed.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 41 of 52
Table 3. Cont.
Geological
Characteristics
Improved volumetric
Average
sweep efficiency;
Oil production rates
Reservoir To lower the mobility of Gas and water injection
were more than
Madisonville West, temperature = 120 ◦ C injected gas and rates were around 3000 Sweep profile
[182] Surfactant N2 doubled;
Woodbine, Texas Initial res. increase its residence MCF/d and 1200 improvement
Gas utilization was
pressure = 26.2 MPa time MCF/d respectively
improved;
Oil API gravity = 39◦
Low GOR was
Porosity = 13%
confirmed.
Permeability = 0.01– To temporarily block Strong gas injection
10 mD high conductivity blockage was observed;
Porosity less than 6% layers; Incremental oil
Cupiagua, Recetor field,
[183] Initial res. To improve injection Petrostep C1 N2 N/A Diversion of gas flow production of 30% and
Colombia
pressure = 41.4 MPa conformance; 12% in 2 pilots;
Average To improve sweep Decreasing trend of
temperature = 126.7 ◦ C efficiency. GOR.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 42 of 52
9. Advances in Foam-EOR
The biggest challenge with the implementation of foam-EOR is foam stability, and in
order to solve this instability, various researchers have proposed and investigated different
methods to advance foam-EOR.
Nanoparticles have been introduced into the liquid phase in various experiments
because of their ability to improve foam stability. This is because nanoparticles can be
irreversibly adsorbed into the fluid due to their high adsorption energy as well as high
chemical and thermal stability [184]. Thus, they serve as stabilizing agents which can
provide optimal conditions with respect to temperature, pressure, and salinity. Surface-
coated silica nanoparticles have been found to stabilize emulsions, thereby improving
phase mobility [185,186]. Binshan et al. [187] found that hydrophilic silica nanoparticles
may change the wettability of rocks and lower interfacial tension, suggesting that they can
be employed as EOR agents. In the experiments conducted by Hendraningrat et al. [188],
their optimum nanoparticle concentration was 0.05 wt.%. The authors further stated that
the smaller the nanoparticle size, the higher the oil recovery, although this does not apply
to all cases. Furthermore, nanoparticles have been shown to create adsorption layers
on the rock surface, considerably altering the wettability and interfacial tension of the
formation [189,190].
Several studies have suggested several mechanisms to explain the enhanced oil re-
covery of nanoparticles. Al-Anazi et al. [25] claimed that an increase in recovery factor
was possible because of the tiny size of nanoparticles, which allows them to absorb and
de-adsorb easily while being transported through the reservoir. When the attraction force
is greater than the repulsive force, adsorption occurs. Diffusion and convection also play
a role in nanoparticle transfer in the pores. The authors further stated that pore throat
clogging is caused when the size of the nanoparticle is bigger than the pore throat of the
porous medium.
The mechanism of wettability change in surfactants is similar to that of nanoparti-
cles [191]. Wettability is a key factor that affects oil displacement. It refers to the capacity
of a fluid to adhere to a solid surface in the presence of immiscible fluids. Changing the
wettability of the rock from strongly oil-wet to water-wet is highly important for most
EOR operations. In the case of nanoparticles, they change rock wettability by replacing
carboxylic particles on the rock surface and forming a wedge layer that pushes out residual
oil due to disjoining pressure. Furthermore, as nanoparticles adhere to the rock surface,
they create textured surfaces that act as a buffer, separating and releasing oil droplets from
the porous medium, and this results in increased oil production.
In [192], the adsorption of nanoparticles on the porous medium resulted in forming a
composite nanostructure surface with improved water-wetting properties. Furthermore,
Jun et al. [17] studied the influence of hydrophilic and lipophilic polysilicon nanoparticles
on the wettability of a polished synthetic-silica surface at various concentrations. The
findings are consistent with those of Hendraningrat et al. [188], which assert that increasing
the concentration of nanoparticles reduces the contact angle of crude oil and changes the
wettability to a more water-wet state. The authors believe that smaller nanoparticles tend
to lower the contact angle more than larger nanoparticles due to stronger electrostatic
repulsion on smaller sizes.
The disjoining pressure is another interaction mechanism between nanoparticles and
the porous medium that improves oil recovery [193,194]. This refers to the attraction and
repulsive force between thin layers at the surfaces of two fluids [195]. Figure 18 below
shows that nanoparticles form microstructures in enclosed areas, such as foams, gels, and
emulsions. This adds a third interface to the two that already exist. By increasing the
entropy of the total dispersion, nanoparticles distributed in the liquid tend to form wedge-
shaped structures to facilitate a push toward the oil-rock interface, thereby allowing greater
freedom for the nanoparticles in the bulk liquid [196].
Energies 2023, 16, 972 43 of 52
Figure 18. Disjoining pressure mechanism of nanoparticles.
A recent work carried out by Bello et al. [60] describes a comprehensive set of CO2
and N2 foam stability experiments in the presence of silica nanoparticles. The experiments
were conducted at ambient and elevated temperatures and with a wide range of salinity.
As it can be seen in Figure 19, their results showed that indeed, nanoparticles can increase
foam stability by reinforcing the thin liquid film between foam bubbles, thereby reducing
liquid drainage rate and forming a stronger and more stable foam.
N2 foam
400 CO2 foam
Foam half-life (in minutes)
300
200
100
0
with 0% NP with 0.05% NP with 0.1% NP
Figure 19. Influence of nanoparticles on foam half-life (Adapted from Bello et al. [60]).
Ionic liquids are a new group of chemical blends that can be used to improve foam
stability. According to Khan et al. [197], the key benefit of an ionic liquid is its stability in
high temperature and high salinity reservoir conditions. Ionic liquids can also significantly
lower IFT and change wettability. Nandwani et al. [198] studied the potential application of
ionic liquids for IFT reduction and enhanced oil recovery. Ionic liquids of 1-alkyl-3-methyl
imidazolium bromide was used and compared with a typical cationic surfactant, CTAB.
Their findings demonstrated that ionic liquid lowered IFT more effectively than CTAB,
even at low concentrations. Additionally, the residual oil that was trapped in the core after
waterflooding, the ionic liquid showed the maximum oil recovery. Further evidence for the
promising effect of ionic liquids can be found in Pillai et al. [199]. Ionic liquids demonstrated
an ability to lower contact angle by altering an oil-wet rock surface to water-wet, as seen in
Figure 20.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 44 of 52
100
80
Contact angle (°)

60
40
20
0
Water C8 mimBF4 C10 mimBF4 C12 mimBF4
Figure 20. Wettability alteration ability of ionic liquids (Adapted from Pillai et al. [199]).
The authors attributed this to the formation of an ion pair between the positive head
groups of ionic liquids and the adsorbed negatively charged carboxylic groups of crude oil
on the rock surface.
Stable active chemicals are required to improve foam-EOR, and research has demon-
strated that ionic liquids can meet the needs of the oil industry for foam-EOR approaches.
10. Conclusions
This work provided information on the current status and development of foam-EOR
applications by emphasizing the results, current potential, and technical challenges being
faced in the lab and the field. The ability to demonstrate how foam can enhance oil recovery
in reservoirs with heterogeneous formations has advanced. Although there existed some
issues with its use in the field, foam is a significant agent for diverse applications in EOR
procedures. The following points can be drawn from this review paper:
• The processes underlying the foam-EOR process continue to be the subject of discus-
sion among different researchers, because diverse distinct mechanisms are responsible
for various foam applications, injection modes, and foam formulations.
• A wide knowledge gap still exists in foam generation and stability at high tempera-
tures, pressures, and salinity, despite decades of research on foam-EOR. One of the
biggest challenges of advancing foam-EOR to the field is the fact that several ear-
lier research studies were carried out under ambient conditions. Thus, a thorough
understanding of foam properties under reservoir conditions is required to obtain
optimum results.
• In porous media, the injection mode of foam plays a great role in oil recovery. Foam
can be generated outside the porous medium before entering the pay zone with the
aid of a foam generator or just downward flow through the tubing (pre-generated
foam). Foam can also be generated in situ by co-injection of surfactant solution and gas.
Lastly is the SAG foam where foam is generated by alternate injection of surfactant
solution and gas. There is a considerable difference between these three methods and
should be optimized before foam-EOR operation.
• Pressure has an increasing effect on foam stability as foam bubbles at high pressures are
smaller than those formed at low pressures, reducing the propensity to liquid drainage.
The temperature on the other hand has a reverse effect as high temperature increases
gas diffusion and propensity to liquid drainage and hence reduces foam stability.
• The success of foam-EOR in the field is governed by several criteria, according to the
reported field pilot experiments. Thus, thorough laboratory research should serve as a
prerequisite for choosing the surfactant. The injection technique should be validated
by studies that use a precise reservoir description and foam model.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 45 of 52
• To improve the interaction of foam with crude oil in the reservoir, it is crucial to
identify the ideal wetting conditions and type of oil.
• Foam bubbles are challenging to maintain due to Ostwald ripening. Thus, it is difficult
to generate stable foam for long periods. However, this review paper suggests several
approaches, which include the addition of nanoparticles, polymers, ionic liquids, and
binary surfactants.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian
Federation under agreement no. 075-10-2022-011 within the framework of the development program
for a world-class research center.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Johnston, R.J.; Blakemore, R.; Randolph, B. The Role of Oil and Gas Companies in the Energy Transition; Atlantic Council Global
Energy Center, Washington, USA, 2020; pp. 78–78.
2. Oil and petroleum products explained Oil and the environment. U.S. Energy Information Administration,2021, 3, 103–111.
3. Sonnichsen, N. Daily demand for crude oil worldwide. Statista, 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/daily-global-
crude-oil-demand-since-2006/
4. U.S. Energy Information Administration. April 2021 Monthly Energy Review; U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2021;
Volume 26, pp. 4–5.
5. Martin, F.D.; Colpitts, R.M. Reservoir Engineering; Vol. Sigma, Houston, TX 1993. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/B9780884156437500091.
6. Gbadamosi, A.O.; Kiwalabye, J.; Junin, R.; Augustine, A. A review of gas enhanced oil recovery schemes used in the North Sea. J.
Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2018, 8, 1373–1387.
7. Bello, A.; Ozoani, J.; Kuriashov, D. Proppant transport in hydraulic fractures by creating a capillary suspension. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
2022, 208, 109508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109508.
8. Mokheimer, E.M.A.; Hamdy, M.; Abubakar, Z.; Shakeel, M.R.; Habib, M.A.; Mahmoud, M. A comprehensive review of thermal
enhanced oil recovery: Techniques evaluation. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2019, 141, 030801.
9. Farajzadeh, R.; Andrianov, A.; Krastev, R.; Rossen, W.R.; Hirasaki, G.J. Foam-oil interaction in porous media-Implications
for foam-assisted enhanced oil recovery (SPE 154197). In Proceedings of the 74th European Association of Geoscientists
and Engineers Conference and Exhibition 2012 Incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2012: Responsibly Securing Natural Resources,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 4 - 7 June 2012; pp. 4996–5016.
10. Hirasaki, G.J. Application of the theory of multicomponent, multiphase displacement to three-component, two-phase surfactant
flooding. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 1981, 21, 191–204.
11. Somasundaran, P.; Zhang, L. Adsorption of surfactants on minerals for wettability control in improved oil recovery processes. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 2006, 52, 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2006.03.022.
12. Emadi, A.; Sohrabi, M.; Jami, M.; Ireland, S.; Robertson, G. Visual investigation of extra-heavy oil recovery by CO2/N2 foam
injection. In Proceedings of the 16th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery 2011, Cambridge, UK. 12 - 14 April, 2012;
pp. 236–255. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201404761.
13. Wang, L.; Tian, Y.; Yu, X.; Wang, C.; Yao, B.; Wang, S.; Winterfeld, P.H.; Wang, X.; Yang, Z.; Wang, Y.; et al. Advances in
improved/enhanced oil recovery technologies for tight and shale reservoirs. Fuel 2017, 210, 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2017.08.095.
14. Moortgat, J.; Li, Z.; Firoozabadi, A. Three-Phase Compositional Modeling of CO2 Injection by Higher-Order Finite Element
Methods with CPA Equation of State. In Proceedings of the Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA. SPE,
February 2011. https://doi.org/10.2118/141907-ms.
15. Wanniarachchi, W.A.M.; Ranjith, P.G.; Perera, M.S.A. Shale gas fracturing using foam-based fracturing fluid: A review. Environ.
Earth Sci. 2017, 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6399-x.
16. Pal, S.; Mushtaq, M.; Banat, F.; Sumaiti, A.M.A. Review of surfactant-assisted chemical enhanced oil recovery for carbonate
reservoirs: Challenges and future perspectives. Pet. Sci. 2017, 15, 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-017-0198-6.
17. Yao, J.; Sun, H.; Fan, D.; Wang, C.; Sun, Z. Numerical Simulation of gas transport mechanisms in tight shale gas reservoirs. Pet.
Sci. 2013, 10, 528–537.
18. Arshad, A.; Al-Majed, A.A.; Maneouar, H.; Muhammadain, A.; Mtawaa, B. Carbon dioxide (CO2) miscible flooding in tight oil
reservoirs: A case study. In Society of Petroleum Engineers - Kuwait International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Proceedings
Energies 2023, 16, 972 46 of 52
of the KIPCE 2009: Meeting Energy Demand for Long Term Economic Growth; Kuwait City, Kuwait. December 2009; pp. 524–535.
https://doi.org/10.2118/127616-ms.
19. Sheng, J.J. Enhanced oil recovery in shale reservoirs by gas injection. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 22, 252–259. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.12.002.
20. Rao, D. Gas injection EOR - a new meaning in the new millennium. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2001, 40, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.2118/
01-02-das.
21. Nobakht, M.; Moghadam, S.; Gu, Y. Mutual interactions between crude oil and CO2 under different pressures. Fluid Phase
Equilibria 2008, 265, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2007.12.009.
22. Hussen, C.; Amin, R.; Madden, G.; Evans, B. Reservoir simulation for enhanced gas recovery: An economic evaluation. J. Nat.
Gas Sci. Eng. 2012, 5, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2012.01.010.
23. Abdelaal, A.; Gajbhiye, R.; Al-Shehri, D. Mixed CO2/N2Foam for EOR as a Novel Solution for Supercritical CO2Foam Challenges
in Sandstone Reservoirs. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 33140–33150. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c04801.
24. Zhang, L.; Ren, S.; Ren, B.; Zhang, W.; Guo, Q.; Zhang, L. Assessment of CO2 storage capacity in oil reservoirs associated
with large lateral/underlying aquifers: Case studies from China. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 1016–1021. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.02.004.
25. Al-Anazi, B.; Al-Jabra, M. Enhanced oil recovery techniques and CO2 flooding. Nafta 2010, 61, 391–395.
26. Siregar, S.; D. Hidayaturobbi, A.; A. Wijaya, B.; N. Listiani, S.; Adiningrum, T.; Irwan, I.; I. Pratomo, A. Laboratory Experiments on
Enhanced Oil Recovery with Nitrogen Injection. ITB J. Eng. Sci. 2007, 39, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.5614/itbj.eng.sci.2007.39.1.2.
27. Sahimi, M.; Reza Rasaei, M.; Haghighi, M. Gas injection and fingering in porous media. In Gas Transport in Porous Media; Springer:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 133–168.
28. Hudgins, D.A.; Llave, F.M.; Chung, F.T. Nitrogen miscible displacement of light crude oil. A laboratory study. SPE Reserv. Eng.
Soc. Pet. Eng. 1990, 5, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.2118/17372-pa.
29. Faisal, A.; Bisdom, K.; Zhumabek, B.; Mojaddam Zadeh, A.; Rossen, W.R. Injectivity and gravity segregation in WAG and SWAG
enhanced oil recovery. SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib. 2009, 2, 1286–1308. https://doi.org/10.2118/124197-ms.
30. Clancy, J.P.; Gilchrist, R.E.; Cheng, L.H.; Bywater, D.R. Analysis of Nitrogen-Injection Projects To Develop Screening Guides and
Offshore Design Criteria. JPT, J. Pet. Technol. 1985, 37, 1097–1104. https://doi.org/10.2118/11902-pa.
31. Christensen, J.R.; Stenby, E.H.; Skauge, A. Review of WAG field experience. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2001, 4, 97–106.
32. Afzali, S.; Rezaei, N.; Zendehboudi, S. A comprehensive review on Enhanced Oil Recovery by Water Alternating Gas (WAG)
injection. Fuel 2018, 227, 218–246.
33. Gauglitz, P.A.; Friedmann, F.; Kam, S.I.; Rossen, W.R. Foam generation in homogeneous porous media. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2002,
57, 4037–4052. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(02)00340-8.
34. Shabib-asl, A.; Ayoub, M.A.; Alta’ee, A.F.; Saaid, I.B.M.; Valentim, P.P.J. Comprehensive review of foam application during foam
assisted water alternating gas (FAWAG) method. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 8, 1896–1904. https://doi.org/10.19026
/rjaset.8.1179.
35. Ma, K.; Liontas, R.; Conn, C.A.; Hirasaki, G.J.; Biswal, S.L. Visualization of improved sweep with foam in heterogeneous porous
media using microfluidics. Soft Matter 2012, 8, 10669–10675. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2sm25833a.
36. Ferno, M.A.; Eide, O.; Steinsbø, M.; Langlo, S.A.; tophersen, A.; Skibenes, A.; Ydstebø, T.; Graue, A. Mobility control during CO2
EOR in fractured carbonates using foam: Laboratory evaluation and numerical simulations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 135, 442–451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.10.005.
37. Dickinson, E. Stabilising emulsion-based colloidal structures with mixed food ingredients. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 710–721.
38. Rodríguez Patino, J.M.; Carrera Sánchez, C.; Rodríguez Niño, M.R. Implications of interfacial characteristics of food foaming
agents in foam formulations. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2008, 140, 95–113.
39. Kralova, I.; Sjöblom, J. Surfactants used in food industry: A review. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2009, 30, 1363–1383.
40. Stevenson, D.G. The role of foam in detergent action. J. Soc. Dye. Colour. 1952, 68, 57–59.
41. Dacewicz, E.; Grzybowska-Pietras, J. Polyurethane foams for domestic sewage treatment. Materials 2021, 14, 933.
42. Rodríguez González, C.A.; Caparrós-Mancera, J.J.; Hernández-Torres, J.A.; Rodríguez-Pérez, Á.M. Nonlinear analysis of rotational
springs to model semi-rigid frames. Entropy 2022, 24, 953.
43. White, D.; Gurung, S.; Zhao, D.; Tabler, T.; McDaniel, C.; Styles, D.; McKenzie, S.; Farnell, Y.; Farnell, M. Foam or spray application
of agricultural chemicals to clean and disinfect layer cages. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2018, 27, 416–423.
44. Robinson, W. Insecticidal Foams Require Knowledge and Precision; Pest Control Technology, Ohio, USA. 2012.
45. Arzhavitina, A.; Steckel, H. Foams for pharmaceutical and cosmetic application. Int. J. Pharm. 2010, 394, 1–17.
46. Zhao, Y.; Brown, M.B.; Jones, S.A. Pharmaceutical foams: Are they the answer to the dilemma of topical nanoparticles?
Nanomedicine 2010, 6, 227–236.
47. Purdon, C.H.; Haigh, J.M.; Surber, C.; Smith, E.W. Foam drug delivery in dermatology. Am. J. Drug Deliv. 2003, 1, 71–75.
48. Raj Singh, T.R.; Woolfson, A.D.; Donnelly, R.F. Investigation of solute permeation across hydrogels composed of poly(methyl
vinyl ether-co-maleic acid) and poly(ethylene glycol). J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2010, 62, 829–837.
49. Zhao, Y.; Brown, M.B.; Jones, S.A. The topical delivery of benzoyl peroxide using elegant dynamic hydrofluoroalkane foams. J.
Pharm. Sci. 2010, 99, 1384–1398.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 47 of 52
50. Aguzzi, C.; Rossi, S.; Bagnasco, M.; Lanata, L.; Sandri, G.; Bona, F.; Ferrari, F.; Bonferoni, M.C.; Caramella, C. Penetration and
distribution of thiocolchicoside through human skin: comparison between a commercial foam (Miotens) and a drug solution.
AAPS PharmSciTech 2008, 9, 1185–1190.
51. Bond, D.C.; Holbrook, O.C.; Lake, C. Gas Drive Oil Recovery Process United States Patent Office, USA, 1958.
52. Hirasaki, G.J. The Steam-Foam Process; Journal of Petroleum Technology, US. 1989.
53. Breward, C.J.; Howell, P.D. The drainage of a foam lamella. J. Fluid Mech. 2002, 458, 379–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112
002007930.
54. Drenckhan, W.; Hutzler, S. Structure and energy of liquid foams. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2015, 224, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1
016/j.cis.2015.05.004.
55. Axelos, M.A.V.; Boué, F. Foams As Viewed by Small-Angle Neutron Scattering. Langmuir 2003, 19, 6598–6604. https:
//doi.org/10.1021/la020965r.
56. Furuta, Y.; Oikawa, N.; Kurita, R. Close relationship between a dry-wet transition and a bubble rearrangement in two-dimensional
foam. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 37506. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37506.
57. Magrabi, S.A.; Dlugogorski, B.Z.; Jameson, G.J. Bubble size distribution and coarsening of aqueous foam. Chemical Engineering
Science 1991, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(99)00098-6.
58. Osei-Bonsu, K.; Grassia, P.; Shokri, N. Investigation of foam flow in a 3D printed porous medium in the presence of oil. J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 2017, 490, 850–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2016.12.015.
59. Korneva, K.G.; Neimarkb3, A.V.; Rozhkov, A.N. Foam in porous media: Thermodynamic and hydro dynamic peculiarities.
Advances in Colloid and Interface Science,1999; pp. 127–187.
60. Bello, A.; Ivanova, A.; Cheremisin, A. Enhancing N2 and CO2 foam stability by surfactants and nanoparticles at high temperature
and various salinity. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 215, 110720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110720.
61. Belyadi, H.; Fathi, E.; Belyadi, F. Chapter Seven—Unconventional reservoir development footprints. In Hydraulic Fracturing in
Unconventional Reservoirs, 2nd Ed.; Belyadi, H., Fathi, E., Belyadi, F., Eds.; Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston, Texas, 2019; pp.
97–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817665-8.00007-2.
62. Thitakamol, B.; Veawab, A. Foaming behavior in CO2 absorption process using aqueous solutions of single and blended
alkanolamines. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie070366l.
63. Pugh, R.J. Experimental techniques for studying the structure of foams and froths. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2005, 114–115, 239–251.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2004.08.005.
64. Schramm, L.L.; Novosad, J.J. Micro-visualization of foam interactions with a crude oil. Colloids Surfaces 1990, 46, 21–43.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-6622(90)80046-7.
65. Farzaneh, S.A.; Sohrabi, M. Experimental investigation of CO2-foam stability improvement by alkaline in the presence of crude
oil. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2015, 94, 375–389.
66. Standnes, D.C.; Austad, T. Wettability alteration in chalk 1. Preparation of core material and oil properties. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2000,
28, 111–121.
67. Ivanova, A.; Orekhov, A.; Markovic, S.; Iglauer, S.; Grishin, P.; Cheremisin, A. Live imaging of micro and macro wettability
variations of carbonate oil reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery and CO2 trapping/storage. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12. https:
//doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04661-2.
68. Mohammed, M.A.; Babadagli, T. SPE-170034-MS Alteration of matrix wettability during alternate injection of hot-water/solvent
into heavy-oil containing fractured reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 2014;
pp. 10–12.
69. Standnes, D.C.; Austad, T. Wettability alteration in chalk 2. Mechanism for wettability alteration from oil-wet to water-wet using
surfactants. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2000, 28, 123–143.
70. Wu, Y.; Shuler, P.J.; Blanco, M.; Tang, Y.; III, W.A.G. An Experimental Study of Wetting Behavior and Surfactant EOR in Carbonates
With Model Compounds. Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recoverym Tulsa, 22 - 26 April, 2008.
71. Morrow, N.R.; Mason, G. Recovery of oil by spontaneous imbibition. Current Opinion and Interface Science, 2001. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/S1359-0294(01)00100-5
72. Worthen, A.J.; Bryant, S.L.; Huh, C.; Johnston, K.P. Carbon dioxide-in-water foams stabilized with nanoparticles and surfactant
acting in synergy. AIChE J. 2013, 59, 3490–3501. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.14124.
73. Liu, S.; Li, R.F.; Miller, C.A.; Hirasaki, G.J. Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Processes: Wide Range of Conditions for Good Recovery.
SPE J. 2010, 15, 282–293. https://doi.org/10.2118/113936-pa.
74. Schramm, L.L. Foam Sensitivity to Crude Oil in Porous Media. In Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society, Washington
D.C.: 1994; pp. 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1021/ba-1994-0242.ch004.
75. Zhang, Y.P.; Luo, P.; Huang, S. SPE 131368 Improved Heavy Oil Recovery by CO2 Injection Augmented with Chemicals. Presented
at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China. June 2010. https://doi.org/10.2118/131368
-MS
76. Schramm, L.L.; Mannhardt, K. The effect of wettability on foam sensitivity to crude oil in porous media. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 1996,
15, 101–113.
77. Sanchez, I.; Hazlett, A. Foam Flow Through an Oil-Wet Porous Medium: A Laboratory Study SPE (Society of Petroleum
Engineers) Reservoir Engineering; (United States). 1992. https://doi.org/10.2118/19687-PA
Energies 2023, 16, 972 48 of 52
78. Lescure, B.; Claridge, E.; of Houston SPE Member. SPE 15445 C02 Foam Flooding Performance vs. Rock Nettability. presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana. October1986. https://doi.org/10.2118/15445-MS
79. Farajzadeh, R.; Salimi, H.; Zitha, P.L.; Bruining, H. Numerical simulation of density-driven natural convection in porous
media with application for CO2 injection projects. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2007, 50, 5054–5064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2007.08.019.
80. Ransohoh, T.C. Mechanisms of Foam Generation in Glass-Bead Packs Society of Petroleum Engineers, USA. 1988. https:
//doi.org/10.2118/15441-PA
81. Almajid, M.M.; Kovscek, A.R. Pore-level mechanics of foam generation and coalescence in the presence of oil. Adv. Colloid
Interface Sci. 2016, 233, 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2015.10.008.
82. Osterloh, W.T.; Jante, M.J. Effects of Gas and Liquid Velocity on Steady-State Foam Flow at High Temperature presented at the
SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma April 1992. https://doi.org/10.2118/24179-MS
83. Lau, H.C.; Development, S.; O’brien, C.S.M. Effects of Spreading and Nonspreading Oils on Foam Propagation Through Porous
Media Society of Petroleum Engineers, USA. August, 1988. https://doi.org/10.2118/15668-PA
84. Khatib, Z.; Hlrasaki, S.G.D.C.; Falls, S.A.D.C.; Co, S.D. Effects of Capillary Pressure on Coalescence and Phase Mobilities in
Foams Flowing Through Porous Media SPE Res Eng 3 (03), USA. 1988. https://doi.org/10.2118/15442-PA
85. Friedmann, F.; Chen, W.H.; Gaugntz, P.A. Experimental and Simulation Study of High-Temperature Foam Displacement in
Porous Media Media. 1st February, 1991. https://doi.org/10.2118/17357-PA
86. Liontas, R.; Ma, K.; Hirasaki, G.J.; Biswal, S.L. Neighbor-induced bubble pinch-off: Novel mechanisms of in situ foam generation
in microfluidic channels. Soft Matter 2013, 9, 10971–10984. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3sm51605a.
87. Yu, W.; Kanj, M.Y. Review of foam stability in porous media: The effect of coarsening. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109698.
88. Aveyard, R.; Clint, J.H. Foam and thin film breakdown processes. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 1996, 1, 764–770.
89. Langevin, D. Influence of interfacial rheology on foam and emulsion properties. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2000, 88, 209–222.
90. Denkov, N.D. Mechanisms of foam destruction by oil-based antifoams. Langmuir 2004, 20, 9463–9505.
91. Tittlemier, S.A.; Halldorson, T.; Stern, G.A.; Tomy, G.T. Vapor pressures, aqueous solubilities, and Henry’s law constants of some
brominated flame retardants. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2002, 21, 1804–1810.
92. Amani, P.; Karakashev, S.I.; Grozev, N.A.; Simeonova, S.S.; Miller, R.; Rudolph, V.; Firouzi, M. Effect of selected monovalent salts
on surfactant stabilized foams. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 295, 102490.
93. Tan, S.N.; Fornasiero, D.; Sedev, R.; Ralston, J. Marangoni effects in aqueous polypropylene glycol foams. J. Colloid Interface Sci.
2005, 286, 719–729.
94. Zhu, J.; Da, C.; Chen, J.; Johnston, K.P. Ultrastable N2/water foams stabilized by dilute nanoparticles and a surfactant at high
salinity and high pressure. Langmuir 2022, 38, 5392–5403.
95. He, G.; Li, H.; Guo, C.; Liao, J.; Deng, J.; Liu, S.; Dong, H. Stable foam systems for improving oil recovery under high-temperature
and high-salt reservoir conditions. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 211, 110145.
96. Emami, H.; Ayatizadeh Tanha, A.; Khaksar Manshad, A.; Mohammadi, A.H. Experimental investigation of foam flooding using
anionic and non-ionic surfactants: A screening scenario to assess the effects of salinity and pH on foam stability and foam height.
ACS Omega 2022, 7, 14832–14847.
97. Hosseini-Nasab, S.M.; Zitha, P.L. Investigation of Chemical-Foam Design as a Novel Approach toward Immiscible Foam Flooding
for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 10525–10534. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01535.
98. Yekeen, N.; Padmanabhan, E.; Idris, A.K. Synergistic effects of nanoparticles and surfactants on n-decane-water interfacial tension
and bulk foam stability at high temperature. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 179, 814–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.04.109.
99. Sett, S.; Sinha-Ray, S.; Yarin, A.L. Gravitational drainage of foam films. Langmuir 2013, 29, 4934–4947. https://doi.org/10.1021/
la4003127.
100. Koursari, N.; Arjmandi-Tash, O.; Trybala, A.; Starov, V.M. Drying of Foam under Microgravity Conditions Microgravity Science
and Technology, Springer, Germany. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12217-019-09715-9.
101. Wu, Q.; Ding, L.; Ge, J.; Guérillot, D. Probing the effect of wettability on transport behavior of foam for enhanced oil recovery in a
carbonate reservoir. Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 14725–14733.
102. Kanda, B.M.; Schechter, R.S.; Spe-aime, M. On the Mechanism of in Porous Foam Media Formation. 1976.
103. Kuhlman, M.I.; Co, S.D. Visualizing the Effect of Light Oil on CO2 Foams presented at the SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana. October 1990. https://doi.org/10.2118/6200-MS
104. Kristiansen, T.S.; Holt, T.; Members, I.S. Properties of Flowing Foam in Porous Media Containing Oil Presented at the SPE/DOE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma. April 1992. https://doi.org/10.2118/24182-MS
105. Sanchez, J.M.; Hazlett, R.D. Foam flow through an oil-wet porous medium: A laboratory study. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1992, 7, 91–97.
106. Mannhardt, K. Core flood evaluation of solvent compositional and wettability effects on hydrocarbon solvent foam performance.
J. Can. Pet. Technol. 1999, 38.
107. Pu, W.; Jiang, R.; Pang, S.; Qiu, T.; Sun, Z.; Shen, C.; Wei, P. Experimental investigation of surfactant-stabilized foam stability in
the presence of light oil. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2019, 41, 1596–1606. https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2019.1632208.
108. Nikolov, A.D.; Wasan, D.T.; Huang, D.W.; Edwards, D.A. The effect of oil on foam stability: Mechanisms and implications for
oil displacement by foam in porous media. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, October, 1986. https://doi.org/10.2118/15443-MS
Energies 2023, 16, 972 49 of 52
109. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Ren, S.; Lu, J.; Wang, X.; Fan, N. The stability study of CO 2 foams at high pressure and
high temperature. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 154, 234–243.
110. Wang, H.; Guo, W.; Zheng, C.; Wang, D.; Zhan, H. Effect of Temperature on Foaming Ability and Foam Stability of Typical
Surfactants Used for Foaming Agent. J. Surfactants Deterg. 2017, 20, 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11743-017-1953-9.
111. Liu, Y.; Grigg, R.B.; Svec, R.K. CO2 Foam Behavior: Influence of Temperature, Pressure, and Concentration of Surfactant. Presented
at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 2005. https://doi.org/10.2118/94307-ms.
112. Obisesan, O.; Ahmed, R.; Amani, M. The effect of salt on stability of aqueous foams. Energies 2021, 14, 279.
113. Pandey, A.; Sinha, A.S.K.; Chaturvedi, K.R.; Sharma, T. Experimental investigation on effect of reservoir conditions on stability
and rheology of carbon dioxide foams of non-ionic surfactant and polymer: Implications of carbon geo-storage. Energy 2021,
235, 121445.
114. Le, L.; Ramanathan, R.; Nasr-El-Din, H. Evaluation of an ethoxylated Amine surfactant for CO2-foam stability at high salinity
conditions. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11 November,
2019.
115. Haugen, Å.; Fernø, M.A.; Graue, A.; Bertin, H.J. Experimental study of foam flow in fractured oil-wet limestone for enhanced oil
recovery. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2012, 15, 218–228.
116. John, Z.; Ingebret, F.; Roman, B. Experimental and simulation of CO2-foam flooding in fractured chalk rock at reservoir conditions:
Effect of mode of injection on oil recovery. Presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
July 2010. https://doi.org/10.2118/143512-MS
117. Kang, W.; Liu, S.; Meng, L.; Cao, D.; Fan, H. A novel ultra-low interfacial tension foam flooding agent to enhance heavy oil
recovery. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 24 April 2010. https://doi.org/10.2
118/129175-MS
118. Chen, Q.; Gerritsen, M.G.; Kovscek, A.R. Improving steam-assisted gravity drainage using mobility control foams: Foam
assisted-SAGD (FA-SAGD). Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 24 April 2010.
https://doi.org/10.2118/129847-MS
119. Emadi, A.; Sohrabi, M.; Jamiolahmady, M.; Ireland, S.; Robertson, G. Mechanistic study of improved heavy oil recovery by
CO2-foam injection. presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19 July 2011, Volume 1,
pp. 67–85. https://doi.org/10.2118/143013-ms.
120. Hassan, A.M.; Ayoub, M.; Eissa, M.; Bruining, H.; Al-Mansour, A.; Al-Quraishi, A. A New Hybrid Improved and Enhanced Oil
Recovery IOR/EOR Process Using Smart Water Assisted Foam SWAF Flooding in Carbonate Rocks; A Laboratory Study Approach Presented
at the SPE, International Petroleum Technology Conference, Virtual; 16 March 2021. Volume 3500. https://doi.org/10.2523/iptc-2138
1-ms.
121. Pang, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhu, L. A laboratory study of enhancing heavy oil recovery with steam flooding by adding nitrogen foams. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 128, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.02.020.
122. Cao, R.; Yang, H.; Sun, W.; Zee Ma, Y. A new laboratory study on alternate injection of high strength foam and ultra-low interfacial
tension foam to enhance oil recovery. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 125, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.018.
123. Guo, H.; Faber, R.; Buijse, M.; Zitha, P.L. A novel alkaline-surfactant-foam EOR process. presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19 July, 2011; Volume 2, pp. 1475–1491. https://doi.org/10.2118/145043-ms.
124. Simjoo, M.; Dong, Y.; Andrianov, A.; Talanana, M.; Zitha, P.L. A CT scan study of immiscible foam flow in porous media for
EOR. Presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman, 16 April, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 859–877.
https://doi.org/10.2118/155633-ms.
125. Chevallier, E.; Chabert, M.; Gautier, S.; Ghafram, H.; Khaburi, S.; Alkindi, A. Design of a Combined Foam EOR Process for a
Naturally Fractured Reservoir Presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman. 26 March 2018.
Volume 2, p. 190363. https://doi.org/10.2118/190363-MS
126. Lang, L.; Li, H.; Wang, X.; Liu, N. Experimental study and field demonstration of air-foam flooding for heavy oil EOR. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 2020, 185, 106659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106659.
127. Wu, Z.; Liu, H.; Pang, Z.; Wu, C.; Gao, M. Pore-Scale Experiment on Blocking Characteristics and EOR Mechanisms of Nitrogen
Foam for Heavy Oil: A 2D Visualized Study. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 9106–9113. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01769.
128. Alsumaiti, A.M.; Hashmet, M.R.; Alameri, W.S.; Anto-Darkwah, E. Laboratory Study of CO2 Foam Flooding in High Temperature,
High Salinity Carbonate Reservoirs Using Co-injection Technique. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 1416–1422. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
energyfuels.7b03432.
129. Qingfeng, H.; Youyi, Z.; Yousong, L.; Rui, W. Studies On Foam Flooding EOR Technique For Daqing Reservoirs After Polymer
Flooding, presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA. 14 April, 2012; pp. 14–18.
130. Mukherjee, B.; Patil, P.D.; Gao, M.; Miao, W.; Potisek, S.; Rozowski, P.; Dow, T. Laboratory Evaluation of Novel Surfactant for
Foam Assisted Steam EOR Method to Improve Conformance Control for Field Applications. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil
Recovery Conference, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA. 14 April, 2018. pp. 14–18. https://doi.org/10.2118/190263-MS
131. Sdman, M.; Kostarelos, K.; Sharma, P.; Lee, J.H. Application of Miscible Ethane Foam for Gas EOR Conformance in Low-
Permeability Heterogeneous Harsh Environments. Soc. Pet. Eng. (SPE) 2020, 25, 1871–1883. https://doi.org/10.2118/201189-PA.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 50 of 52
132. Ahmed, S.; Hashmet, M.R. Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS; Siti Rohaida Bt Mohd Shafian, PETRONAS Research Sdn Bhd the
SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition society of Petroleum Engineers, USA. 2018; pp.
23–26.
133. Åsmund Haugen.; Mani, N.; Svenningsen, S.; Brattekås, B.; Graue, A.; Ersland, G.; Fernø, M.A. Miscible and Immiscible
Foam Injection for Mobility Control and EOR in Fractured Oil-Wet Carbonate Rocks. Transp. Porous Media 2014, 104, 109–131.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-014-0323-6.
134. Al-Attar, H.H. Evaluation of oil foam as a displacing phase to improve oil recovery: A laboratory study. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2011,
79, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2011.08.013.
135. Ocampo, A.; Restrepo, A.; Limited, E.; Lopera, S.H.; Mejia, J.M. Creation of Insitu EOR Foams by the Injection of Surfactant
in Gas Dispersions-Lab Confirmation and Field Application, Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA. 14 April, 2018; Volume 2, p. 190219. https://doi.org/10.2118/190219-MS
136. Tang, J.; Vincent-Bonnieu, S.; Rossen, W.R. CT coreflood study of foam flow for enhanced oil recovery: The effect of oil type and
saturation. Energy 2019, 188, 116022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116022.
137. Das, A.; Nguyen, N.; Farajzadeh, A..R.; Southwick, J.G.; Vicent-Bonnieu, S.; Global, S.; International, S.; Khaburi, .S.; Kindi, A.A.;
Nguyen, Q.P. Laboratory Study of Injection Strategy for Low-Tension-Gas Flooding in High Salinity, Tight Carbonate Reservoirs Presented
at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman; 26 March, 2018; pp. 26–28. https://doi.org/10.2118/190348-MS
138. Jin, Z.; Wende, Y.; Guangming, Y.; Taotao, L.; Wenbiao, D.; Wei, F. Study on the EOR Experiment and Field Test of Air Foam Flooding
in Wuliwan Oilfield; Institute of Physics Publishing China: 2018; Volume 186. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/186/4/012015.
139. Telmadarreie, A. Evaluating the Performance of CO 2 Foam and CO 2 Polymer Enhanced Foam for Heavy Oil Recovery: Laboratory
Experiments in Unconsolidated and Consolidated Porous Media SPE International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Kuwait City,
Kuwait; 10 December, 2018. Volume 2, p. 193785.
140. Bageri, A.S.; Sultan, A.S.; Kandil, M.E. Evaluation of Novel Surfactant for Nitrogen-Foam-Assisted EOR in High Salinity Carbonate
Reservoirs; SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman. 31 March, 2014. https://doi.org/10.2118/169717-MS
141. Hou, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Luo, Y.; Weng, R.; Guoqing, J. Studies on nitrogen foam flooding for conglomerate reservoir. Presented at the
SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, Muscat, Oman, 16 April, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2118/152010-MS
142. Jin, F.; Liu, Z.; Pu, W.; Zhong, D.; Yuan, C.D.; Wei, B. Experimental Study of in situ CO2 Foam Technique and Application in
Yangsanmu Oilfield. J. Surfactants Deterg. 2016, 19, 1231–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11743-016-1862-3.
143. Ren, G.; Nguyen, Q.P.; Lau, H.C. Laboratory investigation of oil recovery by CO2 foam in a fractured carbonate reservoir using
CO2-Soluble surfactants. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2018, 169, 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.04.053.
144. Zhang, K.; Li, S.; Liu, L. Optimized foam-assisted CO2 enhanced oil recovery technology in tight oil reservoirs. Fuel 2020, 267,
117099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117099.
145. Solbakken, J.S.; Aarra, M.G. CO2 mobility control improvement using N2-foam at high pressure and high temperature conditions.
Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2021, 109, 103392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103392.
146. Sie, C.Y.; Nguyen, Q.P. A non-aqueous foam concept for improving hydrocarbon miscible flooding in low permeability oil
formations. Fuel 2021, 288, 119732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119732.
147. Xiong, D.; Ahmed, S.; Alameri, W.; Al-Shalabi, E.W. Experimental Investigation of Foam Flooding Performance in Bulk and
Porous Media for Carbonates Under Harsh Conditions. Soc. Pet. Eng. (SPE) 2022, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2118/209326-MS.
148. Bahrim, R.Z.K.; Zeng, Y.; Bonnieu, S.V.; International, S.G.S.; Groenenboom, J.; Malaysia, S.; Shafian, S.R.M.; Manap, A.A.A.;
Tewari, R.D.; Biswal, S.L. A Study of Methane Foam in Reservoir Rocks for Mobility Control at High Temperature with Varied Permeabilities:
Experiment and Simulation Paper Presented at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia; 17
October, 2017; Volume 2, p. 186967. https://doi.org/10.2118/186967-MS
149. Simjoo, M. Effects of Oil on Foam Generation and Propagation in Porous Media; Presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2nd July, 2013; pp. 2–4. https://doi.org/10.2118/165271-MS
150. Andrianov, A.; Farajzadeh, R.; Nick, M.M.; Talanana, M.; Zitha, P.L. Immiscible foam for enhancing oil recovery: Bulk and porous
media experiments. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 2214–2226. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie201872v.
151. Bernard, G.G.; Jacobs, W.L. Effect of foam on trapped gas saturation and on permeability of porous media to water. Soc. Pet. Eng.
J. 1965, 5, 295–300.
152. Gauteplass, J.; Chaudhary, K.; Kovscek, A.R.; Fernø, M.A. Pore-level foam generation and flow for mobility control in fractured
systems. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2015, 468, 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2014.12.043.
153. Farzaneh, S.A.; Sohrabi, M. Visual Investigation of Improvement in Extra-Heavy Oil Recovery by Borate-Assisted CO 2 -Foam
Injection. Transp. Porous Media 2018, 122, 487–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-018-1016-3.
154. Norouzi, H.; Madhi, M.; Seyyedi, M.; Rezaee, M. Foam propagation and oil recovery potential at large distances from an injection
well. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2018, 135, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.05.024.
155. Fathollahi, A.; Rostami, B.; Khosravi, M. Fluid displacement mechanisms by foam injection within a microfluidic matrix-fracture
system. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 176, 612–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.01.109.
156. Yang, W.; Wang, T.; Fan, Z.; Miao, Q.; Deng, Z.; Zhu, Y. Foams Stabilized by in Situ-Modified Nanoparticles and Anionic
Surfactants for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 4721–4730. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b03217.
157. Blaker, T.; Aarra, M.G.; Skauge, A.; Rasmussen, L.; Celius, H.K.; Martinsen, H.A.; Vassenden, F. Foam for gas mobility control in
the Snorre field: The FAWAG project. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2002, 5, 317–323. https://doi.org/10.2118/78824-PA.
Energies 2023, 16, 972 51 of 52
158. Skauge, A.; Aarra, M.G.; Surguchev, L.; Martinsen, H.A.; Rasmussen, L. Foam-Assisted WAG: Experience from the Snorre
Field. In Proceedings of the SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 13 April, 2002; pp. 315–325.
https://doi.org/10.2523/75157-ms.
159. Oussoltsev, D.; Fomin, I.; Butula, K.K.; Mullen, K.; Gaifullin, A.; Ivshin, A.; Senchenko, D.; Faizullin, I. Foam fracturing: New
stimulation edge in Western Siberia. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers—SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition Moscow, Russia. 28 October,2008, Volume 1, pp. 636–648. https://doi.org/10.2118/115558-ms.
160. Saifullin, E.R.; Yuan, C.; Zvada, M.V.; Varfolomeev, M.A.; Shanbosinova, S.K.; Zharkov, D.A.; Nazarychev, S.A.; Malakhov,
A.O.; Sagirov, R.N. Laboratory Studies For Design of a Foam Pilot For Reducing Gas Channeling From Gas Cap in Production Well in
Messoyakhskoye Field SPE Res Eval and Eng 25 (03), USA; 11 August, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2118/206435-ms.
161. Jonas, T.M.; Chou, S.I.; Vasicek, S.L. Evaluation of a C02 foam field trial: Rangely Weber Sand Unit. presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 23 September, 1990.
162. Chou, S.I.; Vasicek, S.L.; Pisio, D.L.; Jasek, D.E.; Goodgame, J.A. CO2 foam field trial at North Ward-Estes. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., 4 October, 1992.
163. Stephenson, D.J.; Graham, A.G.; Luhning, R.W. Mobility Control Experience in the Joffre Viking Miscible C02 Flood Presented at the
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico; 3 March, 1993.
164. Heller, J.P.; Boone, D.A.; Watts, R.J. Testing CO2-foam for mobility control at Rock Creek. In Proceedings of the SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Morgantown, West Virginia, 6 November, 1985.
165. Alcorn, Z.P. 2 SPE-200450-MS presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Virtual. April, 2020.
166. Harpole, K.J.; Siemers, W.T.; Gerard, M.G.; Petroleum, P. C02 Foam Field Verification Pilot Test at EVGSAU: Phase IIIC-Reservoir
Characterization and Response to Foam Injection; Presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
April 1994; pp. 17–20.
167. Sanders, A.W. The Dow Chemical Company, Mark Linroth; Kinder Morgan, Houston, Texas. July 2012.
168. Ocampo, A.; Restrepo, A.; Cifuentes, H.; Hester, J.; Orozco, N.; Gil, C.; Castro, E. Successful Foam EOR Pilot in a Mature Volatile Oil
Reservoir Under Miscible Gas Injection; Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China. 26 March,
2013; pp. 26–28.
169. Aarra, M.G.; Skauge, A.; Martinsen, H.A. FAWAG: A breakthrough for EOR in the North Sea. SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September, 2002. https://doi.org/10.2118/77695-MS
170. Ma, K.; Jia, X.; Yang, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Z. Nitrogen Foam Flooding Test for Controlling Water Cut and Enhance Oil Recovery in Conventional
Oil Reservoirs of China Offshore Oilfield; SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia. 22 October,
2013; pp. 22–24. https://doi.org/10.2118/165808-MS
171. Lin, Y.; Yang, G. A successful pilot application for N2 foam flooding in Liaohe oilfield. In Proceedings of the All Days. SPE, 2006.
172. Ocampo, A.; Restrepo, A.; Technologies, G.; Clavijo, J.; Cifuentes, H. Use of Foams EOR in Piedemonte Fields - A Successful
Mechanism to Improve Gas Sweep Efficiency in Low Porosity and Naturally Fractured Reservoirs; SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Virtual. 20 July, 2020.
173. Patzek, T.; Co, S.D.; Kolnls, M. Kern River Steam·Foam Pilots; Journal of Petroleum Technology, USA. 1 April, 1990. https:
//doi.org/10.2118/17380-PA
174. Friedmann, F.; Smith, M.E.; Guice, W.R.; Petroleum, C.; Co, T.; Gump, J.M.; Nelson, D.G. Steam-Foam Mechanistic Field Trial in
the Midway-Sunset Field SPE Res Eng 9 (04), USA. 1 November, 1994. https://doi.org/10.2118/21780-PA
175. Djabbarah, N.; Weber, S.; Freeman, D.; Corp, D.; Muscatello, J.; Ashbaugh, J.; Covington, T. Laboratory Design and Field
Demonstration of Steam Diversion With Foam Presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California. 4 April,
1990. https://doi.org/10.2118/20067-MS
176. Kemelix, S.E.I.; Aldea, W.C.E.H.; Calarasu, D.; Teisanu, F.L.; Gaze, M.J.I.D.C.S.P.P.P.S.; Petroliera, R.G.S.D.P. Field trial results
obtained wlth a foam block during a steam drive experiment in the romanian levantine-moreni reservoir Journal of Petroleum
Technology, USA. 5th September, 1991.
177. Holm, L.W. Foam injection test in the siggins field, Illinois. J. Pet. Technol. 1970, 22, 1499–1506.
178. Holm, L.; Garrison, W.H. CO2 Diversion With Foam in an Immiscible CO2 Field Project SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 27 October, 1988.
179. Kuehne, D.L. Design and Evaluation of a Nitrogen-Foam Field Trial Joural of Petroleum Technology, USA. 1990. https:
//doi.org/10.2118/17381-PA
180. Hoefner, M.L.; Evans, E.M. C02 Foam: Results From Four Developmental Field Trials SPE International Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China. 2 November, 1995.
181. Liu, P.C.; Besserer, G.J. Application of Foam Injection in Triassic Pool, Canada: Laboratory and Field Test Results SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas. 2 October, 1988. https://doi.org/10.2118/18080-MS
182. Katiyar, A.; Patil, P.D.; Rohilla, N.; Rozowski, P.; Evans, J.; Bozeman, T.; Nguyen, Q. Industry-first hydrocarbon-foam EOR
pilot in an unconventional reservoir: Design, implementation and performance analysis. (Presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA), 22 July, 2020. https://doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2019
-103.
183. Ocampo, A.; Restrepo, A.; Rendón, N.; Coronado, J.; Correa, J.; Ramirez, D.; Torres, M.; Sanabria, R. Foams Prove Effectiveness
for Gas Injection Conformance and Sweep Efficiency Improvement in a Low porosity Fractured Reservoir-Field Pilots Presented
Energies 2023, 16, 972 52 of 52
at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 10 December2014; pp. 10–12. https:
//doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-17950-MS
184. Bello, A.; Ozoani, J.; Adebayo, A.; Kuriashov, D. Rheological study of nanoparticle-based cationic surfactant solutions. Petroleum
2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2022.01.003.
185. Zhang, T.; Roberts, M.R.; Bryant, S.L.; Huh, C. Foams and emulsions stabilized with nanoparticles for potential conformance
control applications. SPE Int. Symp. Oilfield Chem. 2009, 2, 1024–1040. https://doi.org/10.2118/121744-ms.
186. Espinosa, D.; Caldelas, F.; Johnston, K.; Bryant, S.L.; Huh, C. Nanoparticle-stabilized supercritical CO2 foams for potential
mobility control applications. SPE-DOE Improv. Oil Recovery Symp. Proc. 2010, 2, 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.2118/129925-ms.
187. Binshan, J.; Shugao, D.; Zhian, L.; Tiangao, Z.; Xiantao, S.; Xiaofeng, Q. A Study of Wettability and Permeability Change Caused
by Adsorption of Nanometer Structured Polysilicon on the Surface of Porous Media. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, 8 October, 2002, pp. 915–926. https://doi.org/10.2523/77938-ms.
188. Hendraningrat, L.; Li, S.; Torsæter, O. A coreflood investigation of nanofluid enhanced oil recovery. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2013,
111, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.07.003.
189. Scerbacova, A.; Ivanova, A.; Grishin, P.; Cheremisin, A.; Tokareva, E.; Tkachev, I.; Sansiev, G.; Fedorchenko, G.; Afanasiev, I.
Application of alkalis, polyelectrolytes, and nanoparticles for reducing adsorption loss of novel anionic surfactant in carbonate
rocks at high salinity and temperature conditions. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2022, 653, 129996. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2022.129996.
190. Ivanova, A.A.; Phan, C.; Barifcani, A.; Iglauer, S.; Cheremisin, A.N. Effect of Nanoparticles on Viscosity and Interfacial
Tension of Aqueous Surfactant Solutions at High Salinity and High Temperature. J. Surfactants Deterg. 2019, 23, 327–338.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jsde.12371.
191. Giraldo, J.; Benjumea, P.; Lopera, S.; Cortés, F.B.; Ruiz, M.A. Wettability alteration of sandstone cores by alumina-based nanofluids.
Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 3659–3665. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef4002956.
192. Karimi, A.; Fakhroueian, Z.; Bahramian, A.; Pour Khiabani, N.; Darabad, J.B.; Azin, R.; Arya, S. Wettability alteration in carbonates
using zirconium oxide nanofluids: EOR implications. Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 1028–1036. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef201475u.
193. Derjaguin, B.V.; Churaev, N.V. Structural component of disjoining pressure. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1974, 49, 249–255. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(74)90358-0.
194. Bello, A.; Ivanova, A.; Cheremisin, A. Application of Nanoparticles in Foam Flooding for Enhanced Oil Recovery and Foam
Stability in Carbonate Reservoirs. In Proceedings of the 83rd EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition. European Association of
Geoscientists & Engineers, Madrid, Spain, 13th June, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202210009.
195. Bergeron, V. Forces and structure in thin liquid soap films. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 1999, 11, R215. https://doi.org/10.1088/0953
-8984/11/19/201.
196. Wasan, D.; Nikolov, A.; Kondiparty, K. The wetting and spreading of nanofluids on solids: Role of the structural disjoining
pressure. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011, 16, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2011.02.001.
197. Khan, M.S.; Lal, B.; Shariff, A.M.; Mukhtar, H. Ammonium hydroxide ILs as dual-functional gas hydrate inhibitors for binary
mixed gas (carbon dioxide and methane) hydrates. J. Mol. Liq. 2019, 274, 33–44.
198. Nandwani, S.K.; Malek, N.I.; Lad, V.N.; Chakraborty, M.; Gupta, S. Study on interfacial properties of Imidazolium ionic liquids as
surfactant and their application in enhanced oil recovery. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2017, 516, 383–393.
199. Pillai, P.; Mandal, A. Wettability modification and adsorption characteristics of imidazole-based ionic liquid on carbonate rock:
Implications for enhanced oil recovery. Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 727–738.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Foam EOR As An Optimization Technique For Gas EOR - A Comprehensive Review of Laboratory and Field Implementations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foam EOR As An Optimization Technique For Gas EOR - A Comprehensive Review of Laboratory and Field Implementations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foam EOR As An Optimization Technique For Gas EOR - A Comprehensive Review of Laboratory and Field Implementations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

energies

Energies 2023, 16, 972. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020972 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Figure 1. Stages of oil recovery.

2. From Gas EOR to Foam-EOR: Problems and Motivations

Figure 2. Viscous fingering during gas EOR.

Figure 3. Gas and water injection cycles during WAG.

Another mobility control technique is foam-assisted WAG (FAWAG), also known as

Figure 4. Comparison of gas, water-alternating gas (WAG), and foam injections.

Table 1. Applications of foam in everyday life.

Figure 5. Foam structure.

3.2. Classification of Foams

Figure 6. Polyhedral structure of the foam.

3.2.3. Based on Gas Quantity—Low Quality and High Quality

3.2.4. Based on The Lamella Numbers

S = σw− g − σw−o − σo− g

4. Role of Surfactants in Foams Generation

Figure 7. Arrangement of surfactant molecules at the foam lamella.

Two processes of surfactant-induced wettability modification in carbonate reservoirs

5. Governing Mechanisms of Foam-EOR

5.2. Mechanism of Foam Generation in the Porous Media

(a) (b) (c)

generation by the leave-behind mechanism is not recommended because it results in the

5.3. Mechanism of Foam Instability

Figure 11. Progression of foam stability from generation to coalescence.

In order to explain gas diffusion, let us consider Figure 12 below:

6. Factors Affecting Foam Stability

6.1. Gibbs–Marangoni Effect

6.2. Interfacial Tension

6.3. Gravitational Drainage

6.5. Oil Presence

6.6. Thermobaric Conditions

40 SDS - 86% Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate

Normalized foam height

7. Laboratory Studies of Foam-EOR

A comprehensive summary of laboratory foam-EOR experiments is given in Table 2 be-

Table 2. Laboratory studies of foam-EOR.

8. Field Applications of Foam-EOR

Table 3. Field studies of foam-EOR.

Figure 18. Disjoining pressure mechanism of nanoparticles.

Contact angle (°)

You might also like