Numerical Study of Immiscible Foam Propagation in Porous Media in the Presence of Oil Using an Implicit-Texture Foam Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gas injection is one of the established methods in enhanced oil recovery. Nevertheless, poor sweep efficiency and viscous instabilities result in early gas breakthrough. Lowering injected gas mobility through foaming is a potential solution to solve the forenamed challenges. Although foaming of the injected gas has been proposed in various stages of oil production, comparatively few studies are carried out about foam injection modeling in the presence of oil. In this study, we aimed to numerically investigate the immiscible foam propagation in a thick, heterogeneous, water-flooded sandstone reservoir with a primary goal to control the surge of the produced gas–oil ratio (GOR) and also the possible incremental oil production by foam. To this end, the implicit-texture local-equilibrium foam model was used to address that how a stable foam front could affect fluid saturation and their mobility in the presence of waterflood residual oil. We treated the reservoir model by considering a pair of horizontal injection/production well through the upper and lower parts of the reservoir to mimic the foam-assisted gravity drainage scheme. Foam generation was considered through alternating (SAG) and simultaneous injection of gas and surfactant solution, and its performance was compared with continuous gas injection and water alternating gas injection. Results showed that gas-phase mobility was reduced in the presence of foam, leading to delaying of gas breakthrough and thereby improvement of gas sweep efficiency. The latter caused a significant reduction in produced gas–oil ratio, enhanced the control of the front movement, and resulted in better oil sweeping. In comparison to the SAG method, occurrence of fingering phenomena in foam co-injection was less likely. In addition, foam front in co-injection method exhibited relatively slower movement compared to the SAG method. Also, with ignoring the prescribed pressure constraint in injection well, the stability and uniformity of the generated foam front decreased, leading to more occurrences of fingering and thus reduction in oil recovery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".