Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification SeminarDeliquification SeminarMarietta College, Marietta, Ohio
June 7 - 8, 2010
Using Foam Technology as an Artificial Lift Method
Jaime De Los Santos,Director of East CoastDirector of East Coast
FAL Programg
FAL: Foam assisted Lift• Liquid Loading will occur on all gas wells which
produce formation or condensed fluids. The question to ask is:to ask is:– When will the loading cycle begin?– How effective and efficient will the program be in controlling
the liquid loading?
22010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
June 7 – 8, 2010
FAL Programg
Li id L di O Ti• Liquid Loading Over Time:
BREAK THROUGH
SLUGSLUG‐ANNULARTRANSITION
ANNULAR MIST
June 7 – 8, 2010 32010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Decreasing Gas Rate
FAL Programg
A l d i d F A i t d Lift (FAL)• A properly designed Foam Assisted Lift (FAL) Program can be an integral part of the production plan to keep a well flowing at its true potential
• FAL is a process, not an applicationp , pp
• The process is measured by the percentage ofThe process is measured by the percentage of success and efficiency achieved in the FAL program
June 7 – 8, 2010 42010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
FAL Programg
A l ld b t t FAL• An example would be to create a FAL program that generates 90% to 100% efficiency VS. a simple application that generates a lower percentage of efficiency
• Remember – The measure of a truly successful FAL program is not that you foamed a well, but rather the efficiency at which you unloaded therather the efficiency at which you unloaded the well and maintained incremental gas flow
June 7 – 8, 2010 52010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
FAL Programg
Th t f• Three steps for a successful FAL program:– Proper well diagnostics– Proper product selection– Proper application
assessment
June 7 – 8, 2010 62010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Well Diagnostics
Foaming Agent Candidate Information Sheet Customer Name: Lease:
gField:
Well Number: Bottom Hole Temperature: °F Surface Temperature: °F WHSIP: psi Bottom Hole Pressure: psi Flowing Tubing Pressure: psi Gas Sales Line Pressure: psi
Tubing Inside Diameter: inches Casing Inside Diameter: inches Packer Depth (if applicable): feet Depth to End of Tubing: feet Depth to Top Perforation: feet Depth to Bottom Perforation: feet Total Casing Depth: feet Does this well utilize a capillary/velocity/coil tubing string Yes No
When selecting candidate wells for a FAL program it is criticalDoes this well utilize a capillary/velocity/coil tubing string Yes No
If yes please include: size design depth to EOS Current Fluid Level (if known): Is this well horizontally completed: Yes No
If horizontally completed, what is the diameter (inches) and length (feet) of each lateral:
for a FAL program, it is critical to gather as much data as possible including production history wellbore schematics
Average Gas MMSCFD (million standard cubic feet per day): Current Gas Sales Price: mcfd
Gas Specific Gravity: Gas Water Content: lbs/mcf
Average BWPD (barrels of water per day): Water Specific Gravity:
history, wellbore schematics, downhole and surface pressures, temperatures, etc.
Produced Brine Chloride Level: ppm
Average BOPD (barrels of oil per day): Oil/Condensate Gravity: Produced Condensate to Produced Water Ratio: Please attach a downhole completion profile/diagram for each well and sixty (60) days of average production volumes including BWPD, BOPD, and MSCFD for each well prior to liquid
June 7 – 8, 2010 72010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
40507-ETHICS COMMITMENT EXCELLE NCE INNOVATION
g p g , , p qloading if possible.
Well DiagnosticsgModeling programs can be a very efficient tool when selecting candidate wells for a FAL program. However, it is critical to understand that the output data from any modeling program is only as good as the input data
Pounds per Gallon Brine (lbs/gal) 8.400 Pounds mcf Gas (lb/mcf) 9.000
Mist Foam AnalysisIf terminal
velocity with f i l
good as the input data.
( )CFD 300,000
Gas Temperature (oF) 120 Pipe Diameter (in) 1.950
Terminal Velocity without Foam (ft/sec) 53.654
Well Velocity (ft/ ) 167 495
foam is less than well
velocity, the well is a good
candidate for a mist foam
li tiWell Velocity (ft/sec) 167.495
Terminal Velocity with Foam (ft/sec) 43.808
Depth of Well (ft) 5,000 Foam Density (lbs/gal) 2.000
Stable Foam Analysis
application.
If bottom hole pressure is
less than head
June 7 – 8, 2010 82010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Foam Density (lbs/gal) 2.000
Bottom Hole Pressure 1,200
Head Pressure (psi) 520
pressure look for other
alternatives.
Echometer Well Analyzer Packagey g
Multi-Chem currently uses two intrinsically safe Echometer systems for the candidate selection and treatment design phase of the FAL process.
June 7 – 8, 2010 92010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection
M lti Ch ’ F A i t d Lift P d t Li• Multi-Chem’s Foam Assisted Lift Product Line:– Liquid Foaming Agents – 104 products
• Low temperature products – 37 (� 200 F)• Low temperature products – 37 (� 200 F)• High temperature products – 60 (� 200 F)• Hydrocarbon products – 7y p
– Liquid Foaming Agents with multi-treatment packages – 58
• i.e. corrosion, scale, salt dispersion, etc.
– All liquid foaming agents are formulated in the field, utilizing fresh produced brine and hydrocarbon fluidsutilizing fresh produced brine and hydrocarbon fluids
June 7 – 8, 2010 102010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection
H d F i A t ff t th iti l t ?• How does a Foaming Agent affect the critical rate?
SurfaceLiquid Density(lb/cu-ft)
Surface Tension
(dynes/cm)
Critical Rate(mcfd)
Without foaming agent 67 72 220
With 34 30 150foaming agent 34 30 150
June 7 – 8, 2010 112010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection
T t M th d• Test Methods– Field VS. Lab
Blender / malt mixer for– Blender / malt mixer for water based foaming agent selectionSparge method for– Sparge method for hydrocarbon or combination hydrocarbon / water foaming agent selectionagent selection
– Produced fluids VS. synthetic brine / hydrocarbonhydrocarbon
June 7 – 8, 2010 122010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection
A li ti C id ti• Application Considerations– Fluid composition (water analysis essential)
• Scale / Corrosion• Scale / Corrosion• Solubility / dispersion / emulsion tendencies
– Presence of solids– Temperature– Residence time– Addition of optional components (i.e. corrosion
inhibitors, scale inhibitors, salt dispersants, etc.inhibitors, scale inhibitors, salt dispersants, etc.
June 7 – 8, 2010 132010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection: Blender VS. SpargeProduct Selection: Blender VS. Sparge
It i t l i t t t tili th t t• It is extremely important to utilize the proper test methods when selecting liquid foaming agents in order to achieve the highest level of product performance
• Blender / high shear testing should be utilized when l ti li id f i t f d h lselecting liquid foaming agents for downhole
applications in high to 100% water ratio wells• It is critical to duplicate as closely as possible the• It is critical to duplicate as closely as possible the
amount of shear being generated downhole
June 7 – 8, 2010 142010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection: Blender VS. SpargeProduct Selection: Blender VS. Sparge
• Ignoring the reaction of downhole shear during product selection can result in:– Foam locking
E l i– Emulsion– Improper product selection (productivity variation)
• When to use blender / high shear testing:– Any time you are testing water based foaming agentsy y g g g– Wells producing 100% water– Wells producing higher water to condensate ratio– Wells with high bottom hole pressure / turbulent flow
June 7 – 8, 2010 152010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection: Blender VS. SpargeProduct Selection: Blender VS. Sparge
• Sparge / low shear testing is primarily performed using either nitrogen or methane gas at a 50 LPH rate as the agitation source
• Fluid volumes required are the same as with the blender / high shear testing However due to theblender / high shear testing. However, due to the test method, a much lower shear rate is observed
June 7 – 8, 2010 162010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection: Blender VS. SpargeProduct Selection: Blender VS. Sparge
• When to use sparge / low shear testing:– When illustrating slug flow in a liquid loaded well to an
audienceaudience– When selecting 100% hydrocarbon foaming agents– When selecting combination hydrocarbon / water foaming g y g
agents for wells producing a higher percentage of condensate to water ratio
– In wells which yield a very low bottom hole pressure / lessIn wells which yield a very low bottom hole pressure / less turbulent flow (where over-treatment is commonly observed, test in conjunction with high sheer blender testing)
June 7 – 8, 2010 172010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection
A id Stiff F• Avoid Stiff Foam– Shaving cream quality foam produces a tight dry foam
which produces friction. A well cannot unload stiff foam pany easier than it can unload heavy water
“If a little works well, a lot does not necessarily work better”
June 7 – 8, 2010 182010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection: Hydrocarbon FoamingFoaming
• Best utilized when attempting to provide foam assisted lift to wells producing 65% and above condensate to water ratio VS. water-based foaming agentsfoaming agents
• Primary chemistries currently being studied:– FluorocarbonFluorocarbon– Silicon– Amine
• Testing must be performed via sparge method VS. blender method due to short “half-life” of foamfoam
June 7 – 8, 2010 192010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection: Hydrocarbon FoamingFoaming
• Continuous application VS. batch application method is recommended with hydrocarbon foaming agents
• Cost of hydrocarbon foaming agents are much higher than conventional water based foaming agentsthan conventional water-based foaming agents
• Injection rates for hydrocarbon foaming agents in high hydrocarbon to water ratio wells are typically 500 tohydrocarbon to water ratio wells are typically 500 to 2500 ppm VS. 2500 to 25,000 ppm of conventional water-based foaming agents.
• Currently utilizing both 100% hydrocarbon foaming agents and combination hydrocarbon / water foaming agents for high hydrocarbon percentage wellsagents for high hydrocarbon percentage wells
June 7 – 8, 2010 202010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Product Selection: HydrocarbonFoamingFoaming
• Combination hydrocarbon / water foaming agentfoaming agent
• Sparged combination hydrocarbon / water foaming at 80% hydrocarbon g yand 20% produced water
• Pictures indicate individual foam columns for both water andcolumns for both water and hydrocarbon indicating complete foaming of fluids is occurring
• Picture to far right indicates no emulsion occurred during foaming or after foam break
June 7 – 8, 2010 212010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Application Assessmentpp
• Application Method– Batch: manual / cyclic / automated– Continuous: annular / capillary / plunger lift / gas lift / coil
tubing / tubing punch / in conjunction with compressiontubing / tubing punch / in conjunction with compression
• Diagnostic TreatmentDiagnostic Treatment– Batch application is an excellent tool to determine well’s
response to the addition of a foaming agent– Apply product to the loaded area– Analyze the reaction
Determine most efficient treatment design for long term– Determine most efficient treatment design for long term application (batch VS. continuous)
June 7 – 8, 2010 222010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Application Assessmentpp• Best Practices
C f– Communicate process to facilitate understanding• It is critical to train all personnel involved on the overall FAL
process
– Flow conditions will change with time• Continuously trend gas production• Ongoing review of foaming agent performanceOngoing review of foaming agent performance• Evaluation of changing condensate and water ratios• Adjust foaming agent selection, application rates and dilution
rates as requiredrates as required
– Review program frequently with the production team• Quarterly reviews of the program is recommended• Base decisions on production improvement VS. cost
June 7 – 8, 2010 232010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Case History #1y
• Approximately 700 Wells– Approximately 8000 foot packerless completions – Gas wells with varying water and condensate rates
• 154 wells with foaming agent in MeOH from supplier “B”pp– Average production increase of 22 MCFD per well was
achieved– Emulsion problems– High cost of product application
June 7 – 8, 2010 242010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Case History #1y
• Re-evaluation of wellsRe-evaluation of wells– FAL process developed and implemented– Average production increase of 114 MCFD per well was g p p
achieved – 418% increase VS. previous program
I i f � $25 856 600– Increase in revenue of � $25,856,600 per year
June 7 – 8, 2010 252010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Case History #2y
• Well producing 600 MCFD, 0 BCPD, 400 BWPD• 3.5 inch tubing, horizontal completion,
approximately 14,000’W ll l d d d il h t i ti f 1 2 k• Well loaded up daily, shut-in time of 1-2 weeks for pressure build up
• Previous attempts to use foaming agent were• Previous attempts to use foaming agent were unable to keep the well on line
• Well evaluated and proper product selectedp p p– Foaming agent applied continuously via capillary– Constant production of 1.6 MMCFD, 0 BCPD, 650 BWPD– Steady revenue of $2,920,000 annually
June 7 – 8, 2010 262010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Case History #3y
• Mature offshore field with 5 candidate wells– 2 wells flowing; 3 wells shut-in
• Diagnostic Review– Echometer analyses were utilized in conjunction with a
d li t d t i th l d d t t f hmodeling program to determine the loaded state of each well
– 4 wells were found to be at varying levels of liquid loading
– 1 well was found not to be loading / loaded based upon Echometer analysis and well flow historyy y
June 7 – 8, 2010 272010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Case History #3y
• Applicationpp– Multiple batch applications of liquid foaming agent was
performed on each candidate well
• ResultP d ti i f 9 5 MMCFD @ $5/MCF– Production gain of 9.5 MMCFD @ $5/MCF
– Revenue increase of $17,337,500 annually
June 7 – 8, 2010 282010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Summaryy
• Foam Assisted Lift is an important tool– When performed properly, it can be the difference
between success VS. failureThe process is measured by the percentage of success– The process is measured by the percentage of success and efficiency achieved in the FAL program
– Onsite evaluation of produced fluids and products is essentialessential
– Modeling programs are useful tools; however, to find the “unlikely candidates” you must look beyond modeling programs
– The use of Echometer analysis can be a very useful tool when production data is not available
– Ongoing program reviews are essential
June 7 – 8, 2010 292010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Continued Education
• Two books which discuss both mechanical and h i l f ll d li ifi tichemical means of gas well deliquification are
recommended:– Gas Well Deliquification “Solutions to Gas Well LiquidGas Well Deliquification Solutions to Gas Well Liquid
Loading Problems” by Dr. James Lea– Gas Well Deliquification “Second Edition” by Dr. James
LeaLea– Multi-Chem was a contributor to the “Second Edition”
• Chapter 8 “Use of Foam to Deliquify Gas Wells”
– Both books can be purchased online at www.amazon.com or www.barnesandnoble.com
June 7 – 8, 2010 302010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Copyrightpy gRights to this presentation are owned by the company(ies) and/or author(s) listed on the title page. By submitting this presentation to ( ) p g y g pthe Gas Well Deliquification Workshop, they grant to the Workshop, the Artificial Lift Research and Development Council (ALRDC), and the Southwestern Petroleum Short Course (SWPSC), rights to:
– Display the presentation at the Workshop.– Place it on the www.alrdc.com web site, with access to the site to be
as directed by the Workshop Steering Committee.Pl i CD f di ib i d/ l di d b h– Place it on a CD for distribution and/or sale as directed by the Workshop Steering Committee.
Other use of this presentation is prohibited without the expressed written permission of the author(s) The owner company(ies) and/orwritten permission of the author(s). The owner company(ies) and/or author(s) may publish this material in other journals or magazines if they refer to the Gas Well Deliquification Workshop where it was first presented.
31June 7 – 8, 2010 2010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
DisclaimerThe following disclaimer shall be included as the last page of a Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Course. A similar disclaimer is included on the front page of the Gas Well Deliquification Web Site.The Artificial Lift Research and Development Council and its officers and trustees, and the Gas Well Deliquification Workshop Steering Committee members, and their supporting organizations and companies (here-in-after referred to as the Sponsoring Organizations), and the author(s) of this Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Training Course and their company(ies), provide this presentation and/or training material at the Gas Well Deliquification Workshop "as is" without any warranty of any kind, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the information or the products or services referred to by any presenter (in so far as such warranties may be excluded under any relevant law) and these members and their companies will not be liable for unlawful actions and any losses or damage that may result from use of any presentation as a consequence of any inaccuracies in, or any omission from, the information which therein may be contained.The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in these presentations and/or training materials are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Sponsoring Organizations. The author is solely responsible for the content of the materials.The Sponsoring Organizations cannot and do not warrant the accuracy of these documents beyond the source documents, although we do make every attempt to work from authoritative y g ysources. The Sponsoring Organizations provide these presentations and/or training materials as a service. The Sponsoring Organizations make no representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the presentations and/or training materials, or any part thereof, including any warrantees of title, non-infringement of copyright or patent rights of others, merchantability, or fitness or suitability for any purpose.
32June 7 – 8, 2010 2010 Appalachian Basin Gas Well Deliquification Seminar
Top Related