Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V.: Foam Lifting Manual: Current Best Practices From The Land Asset

NEDERLANDSE AARDOLIE MAATSCHAPPIJ B.V.
Foam Lifting Manual: Current Best Practices from the Land Asset
Report: EP200609223511
Author:
Chad Wittfeld
Production Technology
Contributing Foam Team:
Gert de Vries
Dick Klompsma
Gerrit de Jong
Rob Smeenk
Efstathios Kitsios
Ewout Biezen
Production Chemistry
Well Services
Operations Engineering
Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
REDUCTION IN CRITICAL RATE..................................................................................................... 3

DELIVERY METHODS................................................................................................................... 3
BATCH FOAM................................................................................................................................ 3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
FOAM PRINCIPLES..................................................................................................................... 3
BATCH FOAM............................................................................................................................. 3
CONTINUOUS FOAM.................................................................................................................... 3
CANDIDATE SELECTION.............................................................................................................. 3
CHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................................................... 3
MATERIALS CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................... 3
CONTINUOUS FOAM INSTALLATION PROCEDURE..........................................................................3
POST-INSTALLATION MAINTENANCE.............................................................................................3
COST OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... 3
FOAM PRINCIPLES....................................................................................................................... 3
4.1
4.2
THE ROLE OF FOAM................................................................................................................... 3

NAM BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 3
THE CHALLENGES...................................................................................................................... 3
PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL........................................................................................................ 3
TYPICAL PROGRAM..................................................................................................................... 3
FOAM VOLUMES......................................................................................................................... 3
CHASER.................................................................................................................................... 3
DEFOAMER................................................................................................................................ 3
EVALUATION OF TREATMENTS..................................................................................................... 3
FALL RATE................................................................................................................................. 3
RESULTS TO DATE...................................................................................................................... 3
SUCCESSFUL WELL EXAMPLES.................................................................................................... 3
UNSUCCESSFUL WELL EXAMPLE.................................................................................................. 3
CONTINUOUS FOAM.................................................................................................................... 3
6.1
SUBSURFACE EQUIPMENT.......................................................................................................... 3
6.1.1
Modified SCSSV............................................................................................................... 3
6.1.2
LK-2 injection valve.......................................................................................................... 3
6.1.3
Capillary string.................................................................................................................. 3
6.1.4
Double back pressure valve............................................................................................. 3
6.2
SURFACE EQUIPMENT................................................................................................................ 3
6.2.1
IBC containers.................................................................................................................. 3
6.2.2
Pump Skid........................................................................................................................ 3
6.2.3
Filter................................................................................................................................. 3
6.2.4
Pump................................................................................................................................ 3
6.2.5
3-way valve...................................................................................................................... 3
6.2.6
Meters.............................................................................................................................. 3
6.2.7
Pressure Safety Valves.................................................................................................... 3
6.2.8
Skid operation.................................................................................................................. 3
6.2.9
Defoamer Skid.................................................................................................................. 3
6.3
RESULTS TO DATE..................................................................................................................... 3
6.4
WELL EXAMPLES....................................................................................................................... 3
6.5
ALTERNATIVE DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM...........................................................................................3
CANDIDATE SELECTION.............................................................................................................. 3
7.1
BATCH FOAM............................................................................................................................. 3
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
7.1.1
Water to condensate ratio................................................................................................ 3
7.1.2
Presence of downhole chemicals.....................................................................................3
7.1.3
Type of condensate.......................................................................................................... 3
7.1.4
Lab testing with sampled fluids......................................................................................... 3
7.1.5
Total Dissolved Solids...................................................................................................... 3
7.1.6
Suspended solids............................................................................................................. 3
7.2
CONTINUOUS FOAM.................................................................................................................... 3
7.2.1
Success on batch foam.................................................................................................... 3
7.2.2
Critical rate will be lowered enough..................................................................................3
7.2.3
Inflow performance optimized?......................................................................................... 3
7.2.4
Wellbore access............................................................................................................... 3
7.2.5
Temporary test well candidate?........................................................................................ 3
7.3
CLOSING REMARKS.................................................................................................................... 3
8
CHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................... 3
8.1
FOAMER REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................................... 3
8.1.1
Foaming Ability................................................................................................................. 3
8.1.2
No solids.......................................................................................................................... 3
8.1.3
Winterized........................................................................................................................ 3
8.1.4
Thermal stability............................................................................................................... 3
8.1.5
Non-corrosive................................................................................................................... 3
8.1.6
Elastomer compatibility.................................................................................................... 3
8.1.7
Emulsions......................................................................................................................... 3
8.1.8
Water in condensate emulsions.......................................................................................3
8.1.9
Condensate in water emulsions.......................................................................................3
8.2
COMPATIBILITIES OF FOAMERS WITH OTHER FLUIDS......................................................................3
8.3
DEFOAMERS.............................................................................................................................. 3
8.4
FOAMER PORTFOLIO AND PREFERRED PRODUCTS......................................................................3
8.4.1
Preferred batch foamer (satellite locations)......................................................................3
8.4.2
Preferred batch foamer (locations with facilities)..............................................................3
8.4.3
Preferred continuous foamer............................................................................................ 3
8.5
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS.......................................................................................................... 3
MATERIALS CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................. 3
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
10
WELL FLUID EXPOSURE............................................................................................................. 3

IBC TANKS................................................................................................................................ 3
OTHER SURFACE EQUIPMENT...................................................................................................... 3
FILTER FOULING......................................................................................................................... 3
ELASTOMER COMPATIBILITY........................................................................................................ 3
INSTALLATION........................................................................................................................... 3
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
11
PRE-INSTALLATION (HUD CHECK)............................................................................................... 3

PROCEDURE.............................................................................................................................. 3
SETTING DEPTH......................................................................................................................... 3
FLUID FLUSHING (MAC-GEL)........................................................................................................ 3
START-UP.................................................................................................................................. 3
INJECTION RATE......................................................................................................................... 3
POST-INSTALLATION MAINTENANCE....................................................................................3
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
12
LEAKS....................................................................................................................................... 3
FILTER PLUGGING...................................................................................................................... 3
INJECTION RATE MONITORING/SAMPLING......................................................................................3
CHANGING FOAM....................................................................................................................... 3
ABANDONING A FOAM WELL...................................................................................................... 3
COST OVERVIEW...................................................................................................................... 3
12.1
12.2
BATCH FOAM COST BREAKDOWN............................................................................................... 3

CONTINUOUS FOAM COST BREAKDOWN......................................................................................3
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
SURFACE MODIFICATIONS........................................................................................................... 3
CAPILLARY STRING..................................................................................................................... 3
MODIFIED SCSSV..................................................................................................................... 3
SUBSURFACE INSTALLATION........................................................................................................ 3
CHEMICALS............................................................................................................................... 3
MAINTENANCE/POST-INSTALLATION SERVICES..............................................................................3
COSTS TO DATE OF LAND INSTALLATIONS....................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in this document and the successes achieved and the knowledge gained to date
are the result of a multi-disciplinary effort that has persisted for several years. Although this document
was written and had contributions from members who now form the active Foam Team, many others
have been involved to date in various roles. Special acknowledgements are given to:
Production Technology and Production Chemistry staff who initiated the first trials and the
development of the first generation of continuous foam hardware
Operations staff in the various clusters who have worked with the batch foam wells and the
continuous foam installations
Well Services staff who have helped in planning, logistics and execution of batch foam jobs as
well as in installation and troubleshooting of continuous foam installations
Production Chemistry laboratory staff who have supported various lab tests
This support has been critical for success of the project to date, and will remain a critical requirement
as deployment of foam moves forward.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
Introduction
1.1 The Role of Foam

Liquid loading currently affects over 50 wells in the Land Asset, deferring an estimated 1MMm3/d, and
the reserves in the Land Asset that are held by liquid loaded wells is currently estimated at
approximately 2 mrd m3. More than 80 wells accounting for approximately 7.5 MMm3/d of capacity in
the OneGas offshore asset suffer from liquid loading as well.
Application of surfactants, or foam, for mitigating liquid loading in gas wells is a mature technique
that has been applied for decades in the onshore US as well as in other parts of the world. Foam was
identified as a potential solution to liquid loading in NAM wells and was first tried in the Land Asset in
October of 2003. Results were very positive and led to plans for further implementation.
An evaluation of all possible liquid loading solutions and the applicability to wells in the Land Asset
was carried out in April 2005, and the results of the study confirmed that foam was one of the
technologies most applicable to mitigating liquid loading in the Land Asset 1. It is a strategically
important technology for maximizing tail-end production from existing wells, and there is a strong drive
to realize wide implementation and to build up internal expertise in all aspects of foam lifting.
1.2 NAM Background
Foam began in NAM with a trial of batch foam in ~30 wells and temporary, manned tests of continuous
foam via a capillary string in 2 wells in the land asset. Following the encouraging results noticed in
these trials, it was decided to expand the application to more wells and increase the incremental gas
production from the technique.
Following the initial trials, batch foam has been deployed on a large-scale basis in the Land Asset, and
7 installations of continuous foam injection have taken place. Four of the installations have been
clearly successful, while the other three did not deliver the desired results for various reasons.
Various foamers have been tried, modifications have been made to equipment, and multiple well
interventions have occurred for maintenance of the different systems. Another 6 installations are
planned for the end of 2006 and beginning of 2007.
1.3 The Challenges
Due to the requirement to have sub-surface safety valves in all wells in the Netherlands, it was
required to use new equipment to deliver the foam downhole for continuous foam applications. The
equipment used was based on in-house designs and was outsourced to a vendor. The technique is a
world-first method of deploying chemicals downhole through a capillary string while still maintaining
full functionality of the SCSSV. Although the technique of foam lifting without SCSSVs is quite mature
in the onshore US, the introduction of new chemicals into NAM operations combined with the
deployment of a world first delivery technique has resulted in much learning to date. This learning and
the overall results of the project have been achieved with dedicated focus from a multi-disciplinary
team.
1.4 Purpose of this Manual
This document serves as an overview of the current best practices of foam lifting within NAM.
Experiences gained over the years since the project was kicked off have been summarized. This
document should be used to give an overview of the critical issues to be taken into account and how
to maximize the probability of success for anyone who is interested in applying foam lifting in an asset.
In addition to the manual, the foam team should be engaged at an early point to advise on the specific
aspects of a job.
1
Wittfeld, Chad, et al, Making the Most of Our Tail-End Production: Mitigating Liquid Loading, Apr 2005
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
This is a live document that will require updates on a regular basis.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
Summary
2.1 Foam Principles

The application of surfactants, or foam to liquid loaded wells enables the wells to flow below the
normal critical rate in given conditions by preventing liquid slip between the gas and liquids to be
unloaded. While industry publications indicate various numbers, NAM experience shows a reduction
in critical rate of at least 33%, and possibly as much as 50%. Foam is delivered primarily in two
manners- batch and continuous.
2.2 Batch foam
Batch foam is carried out by pumping a fixed volume of foam down the tubing periodically. The well is
closed in, a certain volume is pumped, and then the well is opened later. A typical foam job is 50 liters
of foamer pumped down the tubing, and a chaser of 200 liters of 1.05 KCl brine is pumped after the
foam job to aid the foam in falling down the tubing. Data suggests that the fall rate of a batch foam job
is approximately 100 meters per hour, and a well should be shut-in long enough to allow the batch to
travel down to the desired depth prior to opening the well for production.
It is recommended to do at least 5 batch foam jobs on a well before trying to draw a conclusion on
whether it has been successful or not. Ideally, the well should be put on a cycle with the batch foam
for several weeks, and if in doubt of the results, the well should be put on the same shut-in/open
schedule without foam for comparison. Wells with a regular intermittent production schedule make
this testing easier to carry out.
Close to 50% of the wells that have been tried with batch foam on a consistent basis have shown
successful results. Approximately 30% are still inconclusive, while 20% clearly show no improvement.
2.3 Continuous foam
In a continuous foam application a capillary string is run from surface down to near the perforations,
and foamer is injected continuously downhole while the well is produced. Typical installations of foam
injection via a capillary string in onshore operations outside of the Netherlands are carried out by
simply running a capillary string through the X-mas tree, inside the tubing down to the desired injection
interval. However, in NAM, SCSSVs are required for use in all wells. Therefore, a new system was
developed to allow injection of foam downhole via a capillary string while still maintaining full
functionality of the SCSSV system.
In this system, foam is used as the control line fluid to hold the flapper open as well as to be injected
downhole. The foam is pumped through a 3-way valve on surface and then into the control line going
down to the landing nipple. A modified SCSSV is set in the landing nipple that allows the foam to act
on the flapper valve or to pressure up against an LK-2 chemical injection valve that controls injection
into the capillary string. At a certain pressure the flapper opens, then at a higher pressure the LK-2
injection valve is opened and foam flows into the capillary string and eventually into the well.
Due to the fact that foam is used in place of the standard hydraulic oil, it is necessary to decouple the
well from the previously used hydraulic well control unit and install a new pump and other components
that are tied into the ESD system on location. The main components that are installed on surface for
foam injection are an IBC container and a pump skid that includes metering and a 3-way valve.
2.4 Candidate Selection
Depending on the environment where foam is desired to be applied, it may be easiest just to pump it
and see what happens. Should that not be possible, the following criteria are found to maximize the
probability of success:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
High water to condensate ratio

No downhole chemical injection that may act as a defoamer (i.e. corrosion inhibitors)
Successful foam testing in the laboratory with produced fluids from the well
No heavy condensate fractions
Critical rate will be lowered enough (well will be able to flow with a 33% reduction in critical
rate)
Inflow performance is already optimized
Wellbore access to setting depth for continuous foam applications
For continuous foam applications, batch foam should always be tried first to see if any reaction is
observed. A good reaction on batch foam will strengthen a case for continuous foam, but lack of
success does not necessarily mean that a well will not respond to continuous foam. At least one
example of this exists in the Land Asset where a well showed no reaction to batch foam but later was
successful with a continuous foam application. Another approach would be to carry out a temporary
test with a capillary string in a well to see how it would respond to a permanent continuous foam
system. However, there is a high chance that such a test may be inconclusive depending on the well
characteristics or lack of sufficient test time.
2.5 Chemical Considerations
The foaming chemicals available- both foamers and defoamers- have certain chemical qualities which
must be taken into account, some of which were not expected when foam was introduced into NAM.
Much of the focus in the project to date has been on the corrosivity of foamers due to dissolved
oxygen that is present, and thermal stability has also been identified as a very important issue.
Experience with various chemicals has led to creation of a standard criteria checklist 2 that must be
passed before any new foamer can be used. Some of the main criteria are the following:
Good foaming ability

Non-corrosive (for continuous foam applications)
Thermally stable (for given well conditions)
Winterized to 20 C
Compatible to elastomers (for continuous foam applications)
Low emulsion tendency
Special attention must be paid to compatibility of foamers with either other foamers or fluids that they
may come in contact with during operation. A chart of compatibilities with foamers and other common
fluids is presented in the main document.
Defoamer is recommended to be used on locations where process facilities exist. The required
defoamer depends on the type of foam used, as more concentrated foamers require stronger
defoamers.
A breakdown of all foamers tried to date and their advantages and disadvantages is presented in the
main document. Based on all considerations, the preferred product for batch foam applications on
locations with facilities is FoamerA. For batch foam on locations without facilities, FoamerI is the
preferred product. For continuous foam applications, FoamerI is the currently preferred foamer.
2.6 Materials Considerations
All metal materials on surface as well as subsurface must be stainless steel with at least 13% chrome
content to avoid potential corrosion due to the dissolved oxygen in foamers. Subsurface elastomers
used are of Kalrez quality, and the surface equipment contains a mix of Viton and NBR elastomers.
These have proven to be compatible with the foams that are used.
2
contact Gert de Vries for details
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
2.7 Continuous Foam Installation Procedure

Installation of a continuous foam system is typically carried out in 2-3 days and requires NAM wireline
and a BJ capillary string truck. Special consideration must be given to flushing of the control line with
an appropriate spacer to avoid foam coming in contact with hydraulic oil. A standard pump skid is
available for the surface modifications, but site-specific tie-ins and engineering work will always be
required in order to interface with the local ESD system.
2.8 Post-Installation Maintenance
Following the initial installation, the system will still require periodic maintenance. Leaks may occur
either in the surface or sub-surface equipment that will require intervention and replacement of
components. Surface filters may require periodic change-out as well should any fouling occur.
The injection rate should be monitored and if possible, samples should be taken and analyzed for
foam breakdown time to determine how much scope exists for reducing the foam injection rate as low
as possible.
2.9 Cost Overview
A typical installation cost for the subsurface and surface modifications for an onshore application is ~
xxx. The subsurface costs can vary depending on the materials and sizes of downhole equipment
required for different wells. The cost for the surface modifications can vary depending on whether or
not a defoamer skid is also required.
After installation the main costs will be the chemical usage and whatever maintenance may be
required on the system. The foam chemicals cost ~ x/ltr. Depending on the required injection rate
these costs range from xxx up to xxx per year. A typical leak fixing operation for a subsurface leak
will cost approximately xxx. The total cost to date of the installations on land have been calculated
with actual cost figures from SAP. The seven installations have an average cost of xxx to date.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
Foam Principles
3.1 Reduction in critical rate

The application of surfactants, or foam to liquid loaded wells enables the wells to flow below the
normal critical rate in given conditions by preventing liquid slip between the gas and liquids to be
unloaded. This reduction in slip is achieved by lowering the surface tension between the water and
gas as well as lowering the density of the water phase to be lifted out of the well. Examination of the
Turner equation for determining critical rate of gas flow in a well can demonstrate the theoretical effect
of foam on the critical rate:
Vt
1.593
l g 14
1
g2
Velocity- ft/s
Density- lbm/ft3
Surface tension- dynes/cm
Literature suggests that the surface tension can be reduced from a value of 60 to 30 dynes/cm, and
the density of the liquid droplets (l) will be reduced to 20% of the previous value. From this equation
and these reductions in value it can be calculated that the critical rate with foam generated downhole
should be reduced by ~30% as compared to the previous value. 3
Field experience from NAM installations supports this theoretical reduction in critical rate. Data from
WAV-18 is shown in the WePS curves below:
Campbell, et al, Corrosion Inhibition/Foamer Combination Treatment to Enhance Gas Production,

SPE 67325
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
10
The P-Q curve calculated by WePS shows that the well should be unstable at a THP of ~12 bar and
30,000 m3/d of flow through the 3 tubing. The test points plotted on the graph are taken from
periods of operation with continuous foam injection. Prior to installation of the foam injection the well
would flow only ~12,000 m3/d at various THPs. One point is demonstrating this flow in the plot. The
other test points after continuous foam injection was begun demonstrate that the well can flow at
THPs and rates where it was not previously possible to flow. By preventing liquid slip down to a
certain flow rate, the well behaves along its P-Q curve for unloaded flow down to a certain point at
which the foam cannot reduce liquid slip anymore. Similar to the theoretical reductions in critical rate,
the data from this well shows a reduction in the critical rate from 30,000 m3/d to 20,000 m3/d, which is
a reduction of ~33%. Data from MKZ-3 is shown in the figure below which shows stable flowing points
suggesting a reduction in critical rate from 180,000 to 100,000, which is a reduction of ~45%.
It should be stated that the flowing data from the point that was ~45% of the previous critical rate was
not a very long period, and therefore it is conservatively suggested that a 33% reduction should be
used based on NAM experience.
Some vendors claim that reductions in critical rate of close to 80% can be reached. However, no data
has been seen to date to support these claims and it is not recommended to make decisions based on
those claims at this time.
3.2 Delivery methods
Foam is delivered primarily in two manners- batch and continuous.
Batch foam: well is shut in and a certain volume of foam and chaser is pumped down the
tubing, then the well is opened up the next day.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
11
Continuous foam: a capillary string is run from surface down to near the perforations, and
foam is injected continuously downhole while the well is produced.
These two methods are described in more detail in the following sections.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
12
Batch Foam
Batch foam is carried out by pumping a fixed volume of foam down the tubing periodically. The well is
closed in, a certain volume is pumped, and then the well is opened later. For the land operations, well
services has a dedicated foam truck which can hold several types of foamer and the required chaser
liquid. Multiple wells can be treated in the same day if located nearby each other.
4.1 Typical program
A typical program for a batch foam job is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Close in well
Close kero-test valve
Bleed off pressure from kero-test and remove bleeder plug
Connect hose from foam truck
Open kero-test valve
Pump 50 liters of foam
Pump 200 liters of brine chaser
Close kero-test valve
Remove hose
Reinstall bleeder plug
Open kero-test valve
Open well next day and inject defoamer in flowline if required
4.2 Foam volumes

For batch purposes, a general rule of thumb is to try and pump a foam volume that will result in 10,000
ppm of foamer in the volume of water to be unloaded. However, it is often not known how much water
is present downhole when a job is to be pumped.
Without knowledge on the amount of liquids to be foamed, a typical foam job is 50 liters of foamer
pumped down the tubing. After a reaction is seen consistently, it is usually desired to reduce the foam
volume down to 25 to see if the same results are achieved. Overdose of foam can lead to emulsions
and also is wasteful of the chemical. Larger foam volumes of 100 or 150 liters can be tried if it is
suspected that a large amount of liquids is downhole.
4.3 Chaser
A chaser of 200 liters of 1.05 KCl brine is pumped after the foam job. The purpose of this is to mix
with the foam and help it to get down the tubing. In the beginning of the project, 1.15 NaCl brine was
used. The idea was that this heavy brine would help the foam travel through the condensate and
water that was present in the well, thus dispersing the foamer in the fluids to be lifted. This was
discontinued due to fear of creating salt bridges in the tubing. A salt bridge was found in one well, and
after switching to the KCl no other bridges have been observed. There has been no noticeable
change in performance of the batch foam injection with the KCl as compared to the NaCl.
For a certain period, the FoamerI foamer was pumped with no chaser at the recommendation of the
vendor. However, it was later noticed in the lab that the solvent package of this foamer could
evaporate at higher temperatures, leaving behind the very viscous pure foaming agent. Therefore a
chaser has been used again with this foamer to help ensure that it gets down the tubing. Results of
whether or not this makes a difference in the success rate with this chemical are still to be evaluated.
4.4 Defoamer
The approach taken to date has been that all locations where processing facilities exist (compressors,
glycol dehydration, etc.) require the use of defoamer, and all satellite locations do not require
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
13
defoamer as it is assumed that the foam breaks down while being transported in the flowline. No
problems have been observed due to foam from a satellite location to date.
The recommended procedure for defoamer injection for a batch foam job is to pump 10 ltr/hr of
defoamer for five hours when the well is opened up the day after the batch foam job. The defoam
injection should be started just prior to opening the well.
4.5 Evaluation of treatments

Unfortunately, batch foam and the evaluation of the results is not an exact science. Due to the
delivery method of the foam, the transient nature of the wells and other factors that vary every time a
job is carried out, it is recommended to do at least 5 batch foam jobs on a well before trying to draw a
conclusion. Ideally the well should be put on a cycle with the batch foam for several weeks, and if in
doubt of the results, the well should be put on the same shut-in/open schedule without foam for
comparison. Wells with a regular intermittent production schedule make this testing easier to carry
out.
An example of a well on a regular intermittent cycle is shown below:
80000
30
70000
25
20
50000
40000
15
30000
T H P (b a r)
P ro d u c tio n (m 3 /d )
60000
Flow (m3/d)
Foam job dates
THP (bar)
10
20000
5
10000
0
Foam jobs stopped,

same shut-in cycle
In the figure, the red lines indicate the dates where a batch foam job was pumped. Foam was
stopped for a period of 6-7 weeks to evaluate how the well responded to a shut-in cycle alone. In this
example, it can be seen that the production is more stable when the weekly foam jobs are carried out
as compared to the period when the foam was not injected. The foam was therefore continued on this
well after seeing this comparison.
4.6 Fall rate
Wells are typically left shut-in overnight to allow the foam to travel down the tubing to the liner/perfs
area. Acoustic liquid level tracking with the Echometer suggests that the fall rate is approximately 100
meters per hour. This means that for a 3000 meter deep well, a shut-in time of more than 24 hours is
required. This is based on measurements from the first couple of hours in the well; a batch foam job
has not been tracked through the whole tubing yet. However, it is recommended to use 100 meters
per hour as a conservative fall rate until further data is available.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
14
Depth (m)
WYK-4 Foam tracking

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Depth to top of foam
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time after first level detection (minutes)
4.7 Results to date

Approximately 60 wells have been tried on batch foam over the past few years. The wells are broken
down into the following categories:
Successful- these wells show clear improvement with batch foam as compared to similar
periods without batch foam
Unsuccessful- these wells clearly show no improvement with foam as compared to without
foam
Inconclusive- it is difficult to draw a conclusion from these wells due to a lack of consistent
treatments, periods with long pressure build-up or other factors.
Not applicable- foam has been tried on some wells that were either stably flowing already, or
were suffering from significant inflow impairment such as a HUD buildup or were of poor
reservoir quality and were interpreted to be liquid loading.
If the not applicable wells are removed, then the focus is put on the wells that are known to be
suffering from liquid loading as the primary reason for low production. The breakdown of the results
are shown in the figure below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
15
Batch foam well results (filtered)
Successful
Not successful
Inconclusive
Close to 50% of the wells that have been tried with batch foam on a consistent basis have shown
successful results. Approximately 30% are still inconclusive, while 20% clearly show no improvement.
4.8 Successful well examples
Successful wells can have varying reactions. Some examples are shown in the following figures.
Below is an example taken from WAV-8:
60000
Missed foam job, well loaded up
50
45
40000
40
35
30
30000
25
20
20000
10000
THP (bar)
Pro d u ctio n (m 3/d )
50000
Flow (m3/d)
Foam job dates
THP (bar)
15
10
5
In this case batch foam is carried out on the well on a regular schedule to maintain unloaded
production and prevent liquid loading from occurring. It can be seen in the circled periods that if one
of the regularly planned foam jobs is skipped, the well has a high chance of loading up.
WYK-11 is shown in the figure below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
16
120000
70
60
100000
40
60000
30
THP (bar)
Production (m3/d)
50
80000
Flow (m3/d)
Foam job dates
THP (bar)
40000
20
20000
10
In this example, the well flows very stable the majority of the time, but suffered from liquid loading at
one point due to a slightly higher pressure in the flowline. The well was shut-in overnight a few times
to try and produce intermittently, but did not work. After the first batch foam job the well came directly
back to the unloaded production levels and has stayed there since that time.
80000
40
70000
35
60000
30
50000
25
40000
20
30000
15
20000
10
10000
THP (bar)
Production (m3/d)
Finally, WAV-11 is shown in the following figure:
Flow (m3/d)
Foam job dates
THP (bar)
In this example, the well would show an increase in production directly after most batch foam jobs, but
it would decline quickly thereafter back down to liquid loaded levels. It was therefore moved to a
weekly batch foam frequency, and the average gas production increased due to the ability to keep the
well unloaded with more frequent batch foam. This example shows the importance of optimizing the
frequency of batch foam after a successful well has been identified. This well has been converted to
continuous foam after the good success observed on batch foam.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
17
4.9 Unsuccessful well example

An example of an unsuccessful well (COV-53) is shown in the figure below:
90000
80000
70
60
70000
50000
40000
40
30
THP (bar)
Production (m3/d)
50
60000
Flow (m3/d)
Foam job dates
THP (bar)
30000
20
20000
10000
0
10
This well clearly shows no increase in production when comparing periods before and after the foam
is pumped. Factors that affect the success of foam jobs are discussed in the candidate selection
section.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
18
Continuous Foam
Typical installations of foam injection via a capillary string in onshore operations outside of the
Netherlands are carried out by simply running a capillary string through the X-mas tree, inside the
tubing down to the desired injection interval. Sub-surface safety valves (SCSSSVs) are currently not
required in onshore wells where this technique is applied in other areas. However, in NAM, SCSSVs
are required for use in all wells. Therefore, a new system was developed to allow injection of foam
downhole via a capillary string while still maintaining full functionality of the SCSSV system. This
system requires modifications to typical SCSSV components on surface as well as subsurface. An
overview of a typical system is shown in the figure below:
3
7
10
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Component
IBC containers
Filter
Pump
Check valve
Coriolis meter
3-way valve
Control line in annulus
2.75" LNSV
2.75" Halliburton CISV
2.75" HRS lock mandrel
LK-2 assembly
Capillary string
Double Back pressure valve
Optional degasser
14
11
12
13
In this system, foam is used as the control line fluid to hold the flapper open as well as to be injected
downhole. The foam is pumped through a 3-way valve on surface and then into the control line going
down to the landing nipple. A modified SCSSV is set in the landing nipple that allows the foam to act
on the flapper valve or to pressure up against an LK-2 chemical injection valve that controls injection
into the capillary string. At a certain pressure the flapper opens, then at a higher pressure the LK-2
injection valve is opened and foam flows through the capillary string and eventually into the well after
passing the back-pressure valve.
5.1 Subsurface Equipment

The key components of the subsurface system are the following:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
19
5.1.1 Modified SCSSV

The ability to deliver the chemical downhole and still operate the flapper valve is achieved by using a
modified SCSSV. Two previous designs exist, and improvements are being made to incorporate
learnings and improvements into new designs. An example of the current design for 3 tubing wells
is shown with the flapper open and also with a closed flapper in the figures below:
The foam (pink line) travels down the control line and into the seal bore of the landing nipple, and then
is taken into the valve via a port. Once in the valve, the foam has two paths it can travel which are
controlled by pressure. One path is that it can pressure up on the flapper as in a normal SCSSV to
open the flapper, the other path is that it can travel down the side of the valve and into the capillary
string for injection downhole after passing through the LK-2 injection valve. This design is available
for the 2.75 nipples as well as the 3.813 nipples. A deep-set version exists for the 2.75, and the
valves are available in different materials.
For wells with landing nipples larger than 3.813, an insert sleeve is required in addition to the
modified SCSSV. The insert sleeve is installed first in the LNSV with wireline, and then the capillary
string and modified valve are landed in a nipple profile in the insert sleeve. Foam flows first through
the insert sleeve, then into the pathways described above. The insert sleeve is required due to
limitations on the BOP stacks that are available. The current used BOP stack functions to allow
diameters of up to 4 1/16 pass through, while still being able to close around the capillary string when
required. For the larger sizes of equipment, something closer to a drilling BOP would be required to
allow passage of equipment of that size, and that is not considered practical to use for these
operations.
The initial installations in wells with larger tubing were equipped with a somewhat different concept. It
is described in Appendix 1. This design was designed by NAM and machined locally, but has now
been replaced by the new Halliburton designs.
5.1.2 LK-2 injection valve
The injection downhole is regulated by a BKLK-2 chemical injection valve that sits directly under the
flapper valve. Typical settings for operation of the valve would be a flapper opening pressure of 70
bar, while the LK-2 valve is set only to open and allow injection above a pressure of 150 bar. This
allows also the possibility of holding the flapper valve open without injecting any foam downhole, if
desired. This valve is responsible for pressure regulation in the system. Any failure of this valve or
any of the seals upstream to hold pressure or operate in the desired setting will result in an inability to
hold the flapper open or to inject foam downhole.
The first installation of the 3 valve system did not have the LK-2 valve installed under the flapper.
Pressure maintenance in the system was dependent on the double back pressure valve that was set
at the end of the capillary string. Due most likely to the long length of the capillary string between the
flapper and the valve, this setup resulted in very irregular pressure behavior where the injection
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
20
pressure would sometimes come below the flapper closing pressure and the flapper would close. In
order to fix this, the LK-2 was incorporated into the design. A picture from WAV-18 shows the
pressure behavior before and after the installation of the LK-2 valve:
Hourly
350
100
80
1.E+0 5
315
90
72
90000
280
80
64
80000
245
70
56
70000
210
60
48
60000
175
50
40
50000
140
40
32
40000
105
30
24
30000
70
20
16
20000
35
10
10000
LK-2 installed under flapper
7-7-05
14-7-0 5
21-7-05
0 2-Aug -05 11 :35 :30 AM

WAV13-FR-4-18-1
25949
NM3/D
WAV13-PT-4-18-2
16.484
barg
WAV13-FI-17
44.132
l/d
WAV13-PI-17
161.9
bar
28-7-05
It is clear from the graph that the injection pressure (red line) is much more stable after the installation
of the LK-2 under the flapper, and it is therefore considered a necessary part of the installation.
5.1.3 Capillary string
The capillary string used is OD with a wall thickness of 0.035. The material is Incoloy 625.
Current experience in NAM indicates that limitations of this capillary string are depths of around 4000
meters, after which it may break under its own weight when being pulled out of a well. Vendor
modeling packages and experience may provide further insight into what is possible in different wells.
5.1.4 Double back pressure valve
This valve serves as the two barriers while running the assembly in the well. The valve has a certain
opening pressure and is typically set to hold the hydrostatic head in the capillary string, but not to
regulate the injection pressure of the system. That function remains with the LK-2 valve positioned
under the flapper.
It is also possible to run a downhole gauge as part of the bottomhole assembly. Should the string be
retrieved for any reason, the data can be downloaded.
5.2 Surface Equipment
Due to the fact that foam is used in place of the standard hydraulic oil to keep the flapper open, it is
necessary to decouple the well from the previously used hydraulic well control unit and install a new
pump and other components which are tied into the ESD system on location, otherwise the hydraulic
oil from the other wells would mix with the foam in case of a bleed down of pressure for a shutdown.
Because the system is used to operate the SCSSV, it must have tie into the existing ESD system and
provide full functionality for emergency situations. An example of the PEFS from a surface skid is
given in Appendix 3. The components that are installed on surface for foam injection are the following:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
21
5.2.1 IBC containers

The foam is typically stored on surface in IBC containers situated in a mother/daughter configuration.
The mother container is the lower IBC and it is in a fixed position, while the daughter container sits
above the mother and can be replaced when a refill on foam is required without requiring a shutdown
of the system. The containers are made of stainless steel and can hold ~1 m3 each. In order to check
the quantity of the foam in the IBC, mother container is preferably equipped with a sight glass for
visual inspection of the level by the operator. Most IBCs are delivered with a pressure vacuum valve.
As the valve is not suitable for pumping out, it must be replaced by a vent pipe.
5.2.2 Pump Skid
A standard pump skid has been designed for foam injection and can be reproduced for future
installations. The skid consists of the following components:
5.2.3 Filter
The first component in the pump skid is a filter upstream of the pump intake. The purpose of the filter
is to filter out any particles that may be present in the foamer that would lead to plugging or erosion of
downstream components. The mesh size of the filter has been specified to be 20 micron at the
moment. It is in place to protect the downhole equipment as well as the 3-way valve downstream of
the pump.
The initial installations only were equipped with coarse filters of 1 mm, and the WAV-18 downhole
equipment became plugged at the downhole double-back pressure valve. A full change-out of the
subsurface equipment was required to fix this. Standard industry recommendations are 100 micron
mesh filters to protect downhole capillary string installations. The mesh size was reduced to 20
microns to protect the 3-way valves downstream of the pump. The reason is described in the 3-way
valve section.
The filters had seen some problems with fouling in the past due to what was most likely corrosion
products coming from upstream of the filters, but this has not been seen after most installations were
switched to the non-corrosive FoamerI. This is discussed more in the chemical considerations
section.
5.2.4 Pump
The pumps used on the standard skid are Milton Roy plunger type injection pumps, with a maximum
injection pressure of 400 bar. The first series of skids have been equipped with standard pumps with
a maximum capacity of ~140 ltr/d and a turndown ratio of ~10:1 as observed in practice. The second
series of skids currently being built will be equipped with pumps with a capacity max ~50 l/d, as it has
been seen that the high injection rates are not required in most wells.
These pumps were selected in part due to the fact that they can deliver a constant injection rate
despite fluctuating downstream pressures. In initial installations pumps were used which had injection
rates very dependent on the discharge pressure, and this is not desirable to have in a system where a
constant chemical dosage rate is desired.
5.2.5 3-way valve
The 3-way valve is located downstream of the pump and is an essential part of the ESD functionality.
During normal operation the 3-way valve allows flow from the pump to the control line in the well.
However, when the SCSSV is required to close, the valve switches position and the line from the well
is open to a bleed down either into a open pit or to a separator, and the line from the pump to the well
is blocked off. This allows the control line to depressurize and the SCSSV to close.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
22
Problems were experienced with the existing 3-way valves in the HWCUs that were used for the first
installations. These problems were due to problems with the solenoid and material problems.
Therefore it was desired to make the 3-way valves part of the new skid design in order to avoid
problems. An electric 3-way valve was selected due to the possibility of a lack of instrument air on
some locations and also to eliminate the need to run air lines to the skid.
Upon initial installation of these valves in the new skid applications, almost all valves failed. After
failure analysis by the manufacturer, this was determined to be due to two possibilities- either erosion
due to too much solids or corrosion caused by the foamer. The solids requirements specified by the
manufacturer are NAS1638 class 9 specifications, which is quite stringent for oilfield applications and
is not consistent with experience of others with these valves. Because of this the mesh size of the
filters upstream of the pump was reduced down to 20 microns to protect the 3-way valves.
The other cause, corrosion, was presumed to be the most likely. A critical piece in the valve assembly
was delivered in AISI 4140 steel, which is not a stainless steel as requested initially. It is likely that the
failure of the valves was a result of corrosion due to the foamer in contact with this low alloy steel.
The part was changed out to stainless steel.
From the combination of the lower mesh filters and the higher alloy internals no problems have been
experienced with the 3-way valves.
5.2.6 Meters
A coriolis meter for flow metering and a pressure transmitter are incorporated into the skid. The
measurements are relayed to the PI system.
5.2.7 Pressure Safety Valves
To avoid over pressuring of the skid, pressure safety valves (PSVs) are installed in the discharge and
suction of the pumps. These PSVs are typically set to the minimum rating of the downstream
equipment, which is typically ~300 bar.
5.2.8 Skid operation
The system can operate in 3 different modes:
Manual- in this mode the pump will turn regardless of other events or measurements in the
system.
Foam injection- in this mode the foam injection is occurring at the desired rate. If the well is
shut-in then the injection will automatically stop.
Hold SCSSV open- in this mode, the pressure is regulated between two preset values- the
low-pressure setting and the high-pressure setting (LPS and HPS, respectively)- with the
objective of holding the SCSSV open without injecting foam. If the pressure falls to the LPS,
then the pump switches on until the HPS is reached, at which point it switches off again.
5.2.9 Defoamer Skid
For injection of low viscosity defoamers, a pump skid has been designed and deployed which differs
from the foam pump skid in the following manners:
No 3-way valve
No HPC/LPC function
Maximum capacity of 15 ltr/d
For higher viscosity defoamers that are expected to be used in new installations, an air driven pump is
currently being tested. Should this pump be successful, and then it may be applied and used in the
future installations
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
23
5.3 Results to Date

Seven continuous foam systems have been installed to date. Of these 7, 4 are clearly successful,
while the other 3 have not shown success. The criteria that contribute to the probability of success
are discussed in section 7.
450
100
400
90
80
350
70
300
60
250
50
200
40
150
Flow rate (m3/d)

Foam inj rate (ltr/d)
THP (bar)
30
100
20
50
0
1-14-04
THP (bar)
Production rate (km3/d), Inj rate (ltr/d)
5.4 Well Examples

The following figure is an example of a successful well, MKZ-3:
10
4-23-04
8-1-04
11-9-04
2-17-05
5-28-05
9-5-05
0
12-14-05
The red dashed line in the figure shows the time at which the well was put on continuous foam
injection. What can be seen in the figure is that prior to the well being on continuous foam injection,
the well could not produce stably and was only in production for very short periods on the order of
days or less before dying. After the installation of continuous foam, the well flowed stably at more
than 200,000 m3/d for approximately 9 months before suffering from a hydraulic leak in the X-mas
tree.
Another successful example, WAV-18, is shown in the figure below:
50
140
45
120
35
100
30
80
25
20
60
15
40
THP (bar), Inj rate (ltr/d)
Production rate (km3/d)
40
Flow rate (m3/d)

THP (bar)
Foam inj rate (ltr/d)
10
20
5
0
8-1-04
11-9-04
2-17-05
5-28-05
9-5-05
12-14-05
3-24-06
0
7-2-06
The red dashed line in the figure shows the time at which the well was put on continuous foam
injection. This well was able to produce prior to the installation of continuous foam, and it was being
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
24
treated with batch foam as well. What can be seen here is that although the well produced rather
stably prior to the continuous foam installation, the average production rate nearly doubled after
installation of continuous foam.
Examples also exist for the 3 wells that did not show any reaction, in which the production behavior
before and after was not changed.
5.5 Alternative Deployment System
An alternative system for deployment of continuous foam has been developed by Dynacoil (now BJ)
and was recently deployed in a Gulf of Mexico well operated by Chevron-Texaco. The modified
SCSSV for this system is shown in the figure below:
Locking Assembly
Uphole Micro
Stinger / Injection Port
Internal check valve
Downhole Cap
string Assembly
SCSSV Control
Line pressure seals
SCSSV Flapper
This concept does not use the control line that is connected to the HWCU for delivery of foam, but
rather makes use of a separate capillary string inserted through the X-mas tree that stings into a
receptacle in the modified SCSSV. The foam is pumped through this upper capillary string, through
the modified SCSSV, and then into the lower capillary string that transports the foam down to the
injection depth.
In order to allow the upper capillary string to be run into the well, this concept does require
modification of the X-mas tree design on surface so that the functionality of the actuated upper master
is not compromised. An example of a X-mas tree modified for this concept is shown in the figure
below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
25
In this figure, the X-mas tree on the right is an unmodified X-mas tree, and the figure on the left shows
the tree that has been modified to allow for the capillary string to feed into the well. The capillary
string feeds in and passes under the actuated upper master valve, but does feed through the lower
master valve4.
This system has some advantages and some disadvantages. The major advantage of the system is
that the foam delivery is decoupled from the safety valve functionality. This means that in the case of
leaks in the foam delivery system the SCSSV can still be held open for the well to produce. In
addition, this concept does not have foam-wetted parts of low alloy metals which are susceptible to
corrosion such as the 9Cr1Mo landing nipples that are part of the Halliburton system that NAM
currently uses. The significance of this aspect is described in section 8.1.5.
The major disadvantage of this system is the requirement to modify the X-mas tree. This modification
is likely to be expensive, and it also would have certain lead time requirements. In addition, multiple
designs may be required for different wells.
Hartman, Larry, Bolding, Jeffrey, Microstring Technology in Conjunction with Subsurface Safety
Valves, 1st European Gas Well Deliquification Conference, Zeegse, Netherlands, 20 th September, 2006
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
26
Candidate Selection
Industry experience has been combined with in-house experience to develop current best practices for
candidate selection. Some factors are directly linked to the ability to generate foam in the well, but
once foam is successfully generated there are other factors that still must be taken into consideration
to make a well successful.
6.1 Batch foam
Depending on the environment where batch foam is desired to be applied, it may be easiest just to
pump it and see what happens. This was the approach taken for the Land asset and may be
applicable when there is commitment to long-term trials and there is possibility to vary chemicals and
other parameters. In other, less flexible environments, such as offshore, it may be desired to try to
maximize the POS before carrying out a trial or campaign in order to achieve the best results and
demonstrate the need to continue with the batch foam jobs. The following are candidate selection tips
gained from industry as well as experience in the Land Asset.
6.1.1 Water to condensate ratio
Probably the most important factor for foam performance is the amount of water in the well and the
amount of condensate in the well. This is widely mentioned in industry and NAM experience as well
shows that this is important. This is usually referred to as the WCR. The foamers that are used are
designed to generate foam in the water phase, and condensates act as natural defoamers.
While a firm cut-off cannot be given at this time for how high of a WCR is required for good foam
generation, it is generally believed that at least a 3:1 WCR is required to make a good candidate.
Experience in NAM shows that a 1:1 ratio is not foamable in practice with the foamers that have been
tried to date.
6.1.2 Presence of downhole chemicals
Downhole chemicals that are applied for various reasons can also have large effects on foam
performance. For NAM specifically, the downhole corrosion inhibitors that are sometimes injected via
the SPM are known to be defoamers. This is shown in the figure below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
27
Influence of corrosion inhibitor on foam performance

350
foam build-up time (s)
300
250
200
Dyno 3696C
150
Servo Ck 337 C50
Servo Ck 352
100
50
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
ppm corrosion inhibitor
This figure shows the time required to build a foam column of 1000 mL vs the amount of corrosion
inhibitor dosed. It can be seen that the Servo products commonly used in the land asset raise the
foam build-up time by a factor of 2-3. The Dyno product, which was previously used in some wells in
the North, has less of an effect, but still influences performance in high concentrations.
Wells with downhole corrosion inhibition are not considered to be high probability of success (POS)
candidates at this time. Results from batch foam also support these laboratory results. Of the wells
with downhole corrosion inhibition that were tried with batch foam, no wells were evaluated as being
successful.
6.1.3 Type of condensate
In addition to the amount of condensate relative to water, the properties of the condensate are also
large factors. Condensates with heavier hydrocarbon fractions are observed in the lab to be much
more of a defoamer than light hydrocarbon fractions. Significantly higher foam concentrations are
required to achieve the same foam performance in the laboratory tests for wells with heavier
condensate. In addition, some suppliers of defoamers add C15+ fractions to aid in the defoaming
process.
6.1.4 Lab testing with sampled fluids
Prior to beginning foam in less flexible areas, it is essential that tests be carried out in the lab with
sampled fluids representative of that particular well in order to make a judgment on foaming
performance. There can be significant differences in the performance of different chemicals with fluids
samples from specific wells. In addition, there may be quite varying fluid compositions across a
certain field depending on the number of reservoirs that are produced in the area.
Foam testing in the laboratory is analyzed primarily on foam build-up time and break-down time of
fluids representative of the fluids to be foamed downhole. This is described further in the chemical
considerations section. An example of a foam test done with water from a Coevorden (COV) well are
shown in the figure below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
28
Foam stability (foam collaps time) COV-40 at 90 C (3,2 % foam dose rate)
with 10 and 30% condensate (liq vol intake 160 ml)
650.0
kationic foamer 10%
condensate
F o a m h e ig h t in m l
550.0
alkaline anionic foamer

10% condensate
450.0
alkaline anionic foamer
30% condensate
350.0
conc kationic foamer
10% condensate
250.0
conc kationic foamer
30% condensate
150.0
0
Minutes
3
10
In this figure, it can be seen that the foam stability of the different foamers, measured in terms of
break-down time, is very different for the same water sample, and this should be used as a relative
indicator of foam performance in such a well.
6.1.5 Total Dissolved Solids
While industry publications suggest that high levels of total dissolved solids may be detrimental to
foam generation, NAM experience has not seen this to be a significant factor. Areas of high success
such as WAV and MKZ have very saline brines, with TDS levels of 110,000 mg/l and 200,000 mg/l.
6.1.6 Suspended solids
Discussion with vendors indicates that suspended solids in large quantities may be an issue for foam
generation, but it has not been proven to be detrimental in NAM wells to this point. FeS was
mentioned as a risk due to its likely presence on the tubing walls in the sour wells with carbon steel.
However, there have been indications of positive results of foam application in sour wells.
A continuous foam string was installed in TUM-1, and while the production in the well did not increase
significantly, formation water was produced to surface, which had never been measured before in this
well. This was an indication of more water being lifted due to the foam injection, and it was later
concluded that the lack of a production increase was due to the very tight nature of the well and its
relative insensitivity to backpressure. ROW-2 also appears to be successful on batch foam
treatments. TUM-1 and ROW-2 are both completed with carbon steel tubing and have H2S levels of
12,000 ppm and 3,000 ppm, respectively, so FeS will be present in the well. These two examples
provide indications that foaming can be successful in wells where FeS is present.
6.2 Continuous foam
Continuous foam installations require far more time and money investment than batch jobs.
Therefore, there should always be a strong focus on candidate selection prior to executing an
installation. The factors pointed out above should be investigated, and in addition there are some
more factors below that should be evaluated as part of candidate selection.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
29
6.2.1 Success on batch foam

If a well shows a clearly successful reaction after batch foam treatments, it is considered to be a good
candidate for continuous foam application. Should a well show clear success, it is still recommended
to check some of the factors in this section to make sure that there are no inconsistencies with the
other factors known to contribute to success.
Should a well not show good batch foam success, that does not necessarily mean that it is not a
candidate for a capillary string. This has been experienced in WAV-18.
In the figure above, it can be seen that there was no clear response to any of the batch foam jobs
pumped with the FoamerB chemical despite trying 4 different batch foam jobs and varying the
volumes pumped. There was however success seen after pumping the FoamerE chemical in the well
on several different occasions. The well was then put on continuous foam and showed a clear
response to the FoamerB foaming chemistry (in a winterized version), despite not showing success
with this chemical during batch applications. This clearly demonstrates that a lack of batch foam
results due not necessarily mean that a well is not a good continuous foam candidate.
6.2.2 Critical rate will be lowered enough
When all of the right conditions are met and foam is generated downhole from the pumped
surfactants, it is still required to have sufficient flow potential in the well to produce the newly formed
fluids out of the well. As shown previously, industry literature as well as NAM experience shows that
wells can flow stably at flow rates of up to 33% less than the previous critical rate. It should be known
that the well would be able to provide an inflow of more than 66% of the critical rate at the system
pressure that the well produces against.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
30
This can be simulated with some confidence in WePS depending on the WGR of the well. For low
WGRs, a dry gas curve can be simulated with the same inflow performance as the well currently has.
This curve is an indication of what the well can produce at THPs higher than the liquid loading point of
the well. If the intersection of the THP and the P-Q curve is at a flow rate higher than the new critical
rate, then this confirms that the well should be able to flow stably with foam generated downhole. This
is demonstrated with the curve from WAV-18 below:
In this figure, the matched wet gas curve is shown along with the test points from periods before and
after foam and a dry gas curve. While slightly off of the data points, the dry gas curve gives an
indication of what the well produces with the foam injection at varying tubing head pressures.
6.2.3 Inflow performance optimized?
Foam addresses an outflow problem. It should be confirmed that inflow performance is not
significantly impaired as compared to previous testing prior to installing a continuous foam system. A
HUD check should be carried out prior to selection of the well to confirm no sand fill or salt/scale in the
well, and attempts should be made to confirm inflow performance by comparing the current IPR to
previous data.
Often it is difficult to effectively judge the inflow performance of a liquid loaded well due to the
unknown liquid hold-up that exists between the measured THP and the reservoir. Therefore it is very
useful to run a flowing pressure survey or an echometer survey to determine the flowing bottom hole
pressure during production. This flowing bottom hole pressure and production at the time can be
compared to estimated IPR curves to judge whether or not the well is more or less in line with
previous inflow performance. Such a survey can also help to quantify the gains from unloading the
well by knowing the actual amount of incremental backpressure caused by liquid loading, and
consequently the amount of incremental production that can be achieved by removing the liquid holdup. An example of a flowing pressure gradient is shown in the blue line in the figure below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
31
SCH-591 Flowing Pressure Survey

Pressure (bar)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
500
Measured depth (m)
1000
1500
2000
2500
Guage Pressure,
measured (bar)
Dry gas, 50,000 3m/d,
calc
Wet gas, 100,000 m3/d,
calc
3000
3500
4000
This survey from SCH-591 serves several purposes. First, it confirms that the well is suffering from
liquid loading. A normal gas production gradient is observed for the first ~500 meters, while from that
point down a gradient of ~0.15 bar/10 m is measured. The well was at this time flowing 50,000 m3/d
through a 5 tubing, so it is not possible that this pressure drop is due to friction. Two other curves
were calculated with WePS to demonstrate what expected bottomhole pressures would be with an
unloaded well. For a well flowing 100,000 m3/d (above critical rate), the bottomhole pressure is
estimated to be ~20 bar. Therefore more than 30 bar could be lifted off the reservoir by removing the
liquid hold-up.
The FBHP from the survey along with the flow rate at the time can be compared with the IPR of the
well or can be used to create an IPR for the well. An example of this is shown below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
32
Flowing survey match

Estimated inflow if
unloaded
For the SCH-591 case, the FBHP measured is shown on the IPR curve and a good match is obtained
to the data from previous tests. Without liquid loading, a bottomhole pressure of ~25 bar or lower is
expected with a FTHP of 15 bar. This new point on the IPR gives an indication of what the inflow will
be from the reservoir if the liquid hold-up is removed and what gains can be expected should foam be
generated downhole.
6.2.4 Wellbore access
Access to the desired setting depth should be confirmed prior to selecting the well for continuous
foam. Fish or any other restrictions should be known.
6.2.5 Temporary test well candidate?
In some cases, it may be desired to carry out a temporary test of continuous foam injection with a
capillary string. This is carried out by running a capillary string into the well and injecting foam,
typically as a continuous operation for a period of 4-5 days. Because the SCSSV is not operational,
this must be a manned operation for 24 hours a day. An estimate of the costs for this in a Land Asset
operation is ~ xxx for a 5-day test.
Not all wells are good candidates for a temporary test. For the money and resources that it requires, it
is not desired to have an inconclusive test. Therefore, a candidate should be selected that will let a
conclusion be drawn after 5 days. Wells that consistently load up and die within 1-2 days would make
good candidates for a test. However, some wells may flow for a period of more than a week before
loading up. These wells would not make good candidates for a 5-day test. Wells that have a problem
kicking off are also not considered good candidates for a test. An example of a good test candidate,
COV-53, is shown in the figure below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
33
Hourly
24-Dec-05 5:59:18 PM
COV24-FR-4-35-1
1.4921E-12
NM3/D
COV24-P T-4-35-1
15.999
barg
100 1.2E+ 05
83.333
1.E+05
66.667
80000
50
60000
33.333
40000
16.667
20000
0
15-12-05 16-12-05 17-12-05 18-12-05 19-12-05 20-12-05 21-12-05 22-12-05 23-12-05 24-12-05
It can be seen in the figure that when the well comes on stream it consistently dies within one day.
Therefore, if the well would be able to produce for several days with a continuous foam test, then it
would be very conclusive that the well had responded.
6.3 Closing Remarks
The criteria mentioned in this section are known from field experience and/or laboratory testing to
have influence on the probability of success of foam applications. A trial and error approach to
foaming may be appropriate when in situations where there is sufficient flexibility to try different
chemicals and wells. However, when in an environment with a lack of flexibility or higher costs, these
criteria should always be checked.
A positive result from batch foam tests is an excellent indication that a well should be successful on
continuous foam, but should not be used as a requirement to put a well on continuous foam. At least
one example exists where a well did not have success on batch foam with a certain foamer and was
later successful on continuous foam with that same foamer.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
34
Chemical considerations
The three main suppliers of foamers and defoamers to NAM are VendorA, VendorB and VendorC.
Initially one VendorA product, FoamerC, and one VendorB product, FoamerJ, were selected as the
preferred foamers for all wells based on some laboratory testing against certain criteria such as
foaming tendency and emulsions. After some months of trying these foamers, there was a drive to try
new foamers in areas where no success was observed from the original preferred products. In
addition, many problems arose due to corrosion of downhole equipment resulting from dissolved
oxygen in the foamers.
The desire to increase success rates as well as the problems experienced with corrosion led to the
use of several different foam products and the introduction of another vendor, VendorC. Experience
with the different products has been gained over time and resulted in identification of key parameters
that are important when selecting a foamer for a given application. A complete list of criteria that must
be satisfied has been prepared by production chemistry 5, and the following parameters are regarded
as the most important for the foam project.
7.1
Foamer Requirements
7.1.1 Foaming Ability

The purpose of pumping the foamer is to generate foam between the water and gas phases, which is
easier to lift out of the well than the water alone. The foaming ability is typically evaluated in terms of
the foam build-up time and also the foam breakdown time. Detailed foam testing procedures are
specified in the NAM foam testing document6. Different foamers will show different results in terms of
foam build-up and breakdown times, and this also varies with the produced fluids tested.
It is desired to have a good build-up of foam from the initial starting point of 200 mL. Typically, the
foam height after 2 minutes will be measured, or the time it takes to build up to 1000 mL in a
graduated cylinder. The foam build-up is an indication of how well foam is generated with a given
foamer and water sample. The other parameter, foam breakdown time, has varying opinions. Some
vendors claim that a longer breakdown time is preferred over a foam that breaks down very quickly in
order to ensure that the mixture remains foamed throughout the well. However, other vendors claim
that it is desired to have a quick breakdown time to ensure that there is no foam present when the
mixture reaches the facilities. To date, NAM has been focussed on longer breakdown times to ensure
maximum POS of unloading the well.
It is very important that the testing represents downhole conditions in the well that is being considered
for foam. This means that the sample of fluids used as well as the testing conditions must be
representative of what is downhole. Obtaining representative samples can be challenging at times.
Depending on the location of a sample point, chemicals may be injected upstream (i.e. surface
corrosion inhibition) which will influence the foam testing and provide results that are not
representative. In addition, there may be no sample point at all, or it may be in a separator where
several wells flow together. Samples can also be obtained in some cases with a downhole bailer, or
with a temporary separator from well services.
In addition to the sample being representative, the conditions at which the test is carried out must
reflect what is downhole as much as possible. Temperature can have a significant effect on the
results of a test, and foamers typically tend to perform worse at higher temperatures.
From all testing carried out in NAM as well as field experience, some foamers have emerged as being
stronger than others for a wide range of fluids. For instance, the FoamerH and FoamerI foamers have
consistently shown better laboratory results than the previously preferred FoamerC foamer. The
effects of this product in the field vs the FoamerC field experience is still being evaluated in terms of
5
6

Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
35
whether or not any results are seen in areas where no results were seen with the FoamerC. The
earlier example of WAV-18 showed that while there were no results on batch foam with FoamerB,
there was clear batch foam success with FoamerE.
7.1.2 No solids
Due to the injection system used to deploy continuous foam, solids should be avoided. Lack of focus
on this issue on WAV-18 resulted in a plugging of the downhole injection valve in the first few days of
injection. Solids can also cause erosion of equipment. The filter on the pump skid serves as a
protection against solids, but solids should still be minimized to avoid down-time and operator
intervention for replacing fouled filters.
Solids can be either present in the foamer when delivered or they can be a result of processes such
as corrosion that may take place in on-site storage tanks or the equipment that the foam travels
through on the way downhole. In the WAV-18 case, solids were caused by corrosion of the carbon
steel storage tank that was used.
There was also previous experience with solids in the FoamerC foamer due to lack of quality control
on the sourcing of additives to the foamer. This was detected at the supplier and had most likely been
the root cause of some equipment malfunction and frequent filter plugging on one well. For this
reason, excessive filter fouling should be investigated, as it may be an indication of impurities in the
foamer.
7.1.3 Winterized
All products used in NAM must be winterized to 20 C. This is typically catered for in foamer products
by the addition of glycol, methanol or isopropanol. The chemical supplier is responsible for addition of
these components, and mixing or addition of chemicals to foamers should not be attempted by NAM.
7.1.4 Thermal stability
Different types of foamers have different levels of thermal stability. Amphoteric foamers are typically
thermally stable to temperatures of up to 200 C, while other types of foamers such as anionic or
cationic are typically stable to less than 100 C. When a foamer is taken beyond this thermal stability
point, the product splits into separate phases. This can be seen in the picture below:
In this case the FoamerD is shown in normal conditions without being exposed to higher temperature
on the left, and the middle and right samples have each been exposed to 125 C for a period of 1 day.
Foaming performance is lost after the phase separation and more importantly the phases that result
are typically low pH acidic components. The pH of the different layers were each less than 1, and
even when 10% of the phases is mixed with water to simulate downhole conditions, the pH remains
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
36
close to 1. These components are clearly not desired in the well due to the acidic nature, and they
can also mix with formation water to form sulphate scale by-products.
The picture below shows the potential effects of the low pH fluids on the equipment in a well:
The picture shows the upper part of the double back pressure valve installed at the end of the capillary
string that was removed from COV-55 (top) and a new upper part of the valve (bottom). The damage
to this piece of the valve is clear, and more importantly, the remaining parts of the valve that are
screwed onto this piece were completely gone. The bottomhole temperature in this well is
approximately 102 C, and several foamers were used which had a thermal stability of less than 90 C.
It was concluded that the damage to this valve was the result of corrosion from the acidic components
that were formed due to breakdown of the foamers used under the temperature conditions in the well.
The thermal stability of the foamers that have been used to date are as follows:
Foamer
FoamerF
FoamerE
FoamerB
FoamerC
FoamerD
FoamerI
FoamerH
Deg C
82
82
204
204
90
>130
>130
7.1.5 Non-corrosive
The foamer fluids can contain dissolved oxygen of up to 7 ppm as measured in the laboratory. This
dissolved oxygen has been the source of extreme corrosion that has been observed in certain
components in the wells. This has also been demonstrated in lab tests. The corrosion due to this
oxygen is a problem in what is referred to as the foam wetted parts of the installations. Foam wetted
parts are parts where only foam is the fluid in contact with a material, and there is no mixing with other
fluids from the well. These parts include everything from the IBC tanks to the double backpressure
valve that is at the end of the capillary string.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
37
Corrosion due to oxygen is not expected to be a problem in the well after passing through the double
backpressure valve. This is because the 7 ppm of oxygen in the relatively low volumes that are
injected (15 ltr/d) will be combined with the flow from the well and will be diluted down to the ppb or
ppt levels that are not considered an issue for oxygen corrosion.
Oxygen corrosion has been observed on all metallurgies that are not stainless steels. This means
that anything less than a 13% chrome content will show corrosion. Initial versions of valves used
materials such as 9Cr1Mo and also lower alloys such as 42CrMo4, which is the same quality as
carbon steel such as AISI 4140 (despite the misleading 42Cr in the name). These components
showed significant corrosion and were determined to be not qualified for use in the installations. A
picture of the 42CrMo4 pulled out of MKZ-3 is shown in the picture below:
An example of pitting from a 9Cr1Mo piece pulled from WAV-18 is shown in the figure below:
The pits can be clearly seen in the 9Cr1Mo material of the valve. When certain parts are taken into
account that are exposed to both the well fluids on one side and are foam wetted on the other side, it
is required to have high nickel materials to prevent sulfide stress cracking in sour environments on the
13Cr or similar alloys. This requires metallurgy such as incoloy.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
38
This situation is a problem due to several reasons. First, higher alloy metallurgies such as incoloy are
more expensive and have longer lead times. More importantly, the landing nipples in the majority of
wells in the land asset are made of 9Cr1Mo. These landing nipples cannot be changed without a
workover, which is not economic in the majority of wells in the population of liquid loading. Excessive
corrosion over long periods of time could lead to a leak of the landing nipple, which would prevent
operation of a SCSSV and would prevent any further production from a given well. This is considered
unacceptable.
Fortunately, not all foamers show oxygen corrosion. FoamerI has a specially added chemical from the
vendor to prevent oxygen corrosion. An example of FoamerI and a VendorA foamer (FoamerC) are
shown in the picture below:
It can be clearly seen that the FoamerC gives much corrosion while the FoamerI sample remains in
perfect condition.
Work is currently ongoing with VendorA to develop foamers that are not corrosive for dissolved
oxygen.
7.1.6 Elastomer compatibility
Due to the importance of holding pressure in our foam deployment system, the foam must be
compatible with the elastomers used as pressure seals in the assembly. All elastomers that are used
downhole are made of Kalrez (or Halliburtons version, Ryton), and the surface equipment contains
various types of Viton and NBR. Damage from foamers to lower grade elastomers was suspected in
some early installations, and therefore it was decided that only Viton or higher grades of elastomers
would be used in the downhole equipment. Since that time, there have been no cases where
elastomers have been adversely affected by the foam fluids pumped into the well.
7.1.7 Emulsions
Emulsions are highly likely to be formed when foam is introduced into the mixture of water and
condensate coming from the wells. This has been confirmed with testing of various products and
various mixtures of water and condensate and also observed in the field. An example of some
laboratory testing is shown in the figure below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
39
The figure shows several samples of water and condensate, with or without foam added. The
samples were shaken and then observed for a certain period of time. From this picture, it can be seen
that for both salt water and sweet water a layer of water in condensate emulsion is present as well as
a hazy water phase indicating a condensate in water emulsion. The effect of different foamers on oil
in water is shown in the figure below:
Mineral oil contant (incl. aromatics) in waterphase
2000
0,05 % NaCl
10 % NaCl
1800
+ defoamer
+ defoamer
1600
1400
mineral oil (mg/l)
8 ml
4 ml
4 ml
+ defoamer
+ defoamer
8 ml
1200
8 ml
4 ml
1000
800
600
4ml
400
4 ml
8 ml
200
0
Blanco
FMW 3064
Foamer B
CDM 736
Foamer J
Blanco
Foamer
FMW 3064
Foamer B
CDM 736
Foamer J
In this figure, the amount of oil in water is tested in samples with no foam as well as two different types
of foamers- FoamerB and FoamerJ. Both of the foamers resulted in increased oil in water
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
40
measurements, and the addition of defoamer showed no influence on the results. What can be seen
here is that the amount of emulsion created was different for the different types of foam used, and this
must be taken into account when selecting a foam for a given application. In addition to the type of
foam, the concentration of foam injected also has a significant effect on the tendency to form
emulsions. Overdosing of foamers has led to emulsions being formed in the lab as well as in the field
that are worse than what is observed at lower concentrations.
7.1.8 Water in condensate emulsions
Chemicals have been tested in the lab and also used in the field to treat problems with water in
condensate emulsions resulting from overdosing applications. While certain chemicals have proven to
be effective, a universal solution does not exist and a suitable demulsifier would need to be identified
for applications involving different water and condensate compositions and different foamers.
7.1.9 Condensate in water emulsions
The ability to reduce or eliminate condensate in water emulsions is of particular importance to offshore
applications of foam where overboard discharge is the only available means of water disposal. For
condensate in water emulsions, no chemical has been identified yet that can be used to reduce OIW
levels to what is acceptable for overboard discharge on offshore installations. This does not mean
that it is not possible, but this has not been an area of focus to date for the primarily land based
project.
7.2 Compatibilities of foamers with other fluids
Should it be desired to change foam during operation, one foamer may come in contact with another
foamer in the delivery system or downhole. Compatibility of these fluids then becomes an important
issue. Compatibility testing was carried out in the laboratory at 5, 20 and 70 C, and the resulting
compatibility of different foamers is shown in the table below:
MacGel A MacGel B
Univis HVI
13
FoamerB FoamerC FoamerE FoamerG FoamerD FoamerH
FoamerI
FoamerB
FoamerC
FoamerE
FoamerG
FoamerD
FoamerH
FoamerI
FoamerJ
Okay
Not tested
Not to be mixed
Not tested at -5 C
Foamers have been pumped in contact with each other with minimal negative consequences to date.
However, this chart should be consulted any time such a change would be necessary to ensure that
no reactions take place which may lead to a blocked control line or capillary string in the well.
Special care needs to be given to mixing of foamers with hydraulic oil. Univis HVI is the hydraulic oil
used in the land asset and has been shown to not be compatible with certain foamers, particularly the
FoamerI which is the preferred foamer for continuous foam applications at this time. Mixing of
foamers and hydraulic oil is not recommended, and a spacer should be pumped in between the two to
ensure this does not happen when the system is switched from one fluid to the other. Mac-Gel is the
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
41
currently selected product that has been used and should be used in the future for all chemical
change-outs in the system. The performance of glycol and other generic products is currently being
investigated in the lab for use as a spacer.
7.3 Defoamers
Defoamers may be required on certain locations to prevent upsets in the facilities downstream of the
well. The approach taken to date has been that all locations where processing facilities exist
(compressors, glycol dehydration, etc.) require the use of defoamer, and all satellite locations do not
require defoamer. No problems have been experienced due to batch or continuous foam on satellite
locations to date. For locations with facilities, one problem was observed on TUM-1, where
continuous foam and defoamer were injected.
After several months of continuous foam injection on TUM-1, the glycol burner suffered problems and
had to be replaced. The root cause of the problems was determined to be salt in the glycol system
due to carryover of saline production water from the separator into the glycol system. Defoamer was
injected during the whole operation, but it was later discovered that the defoamer used in this
application, which was the standard defoamer used in the project to date, was not strong enough to
defoam some of the stronger foamers that were being tried on various wells including TUM-1. Other
factors which contributed to this carryover is the fact that this location only has one well feeding into
the glycol system, and the separator is most likely already operating out of its performance envelope.
However, there were no reports of salt in the glycol system prior to foam injection.
Lab tests following this incident confirmed that the defoamer being used was not strong enough
against certain foamers in the portfolio, particularly FoamerD and FoamerI. A market search has
taken place to identify suitable defoamers for use against our higher strength foamers. This has been
complicated by the following factors:
Ineffectiveness: many of the defoamers that have been tried do not show effective defoaming
against the foamers mentioned
Silicon oil: defoamers frequently contain silicon oil, and this is not allowed to be used due to
commercial agreements with our downstream refineries that our condensate is shipped to.
The silicon oil destroys the catalysts in the process.
High viscosity: many of the defoamers available on the market are highly viscous, which
complicates the possible delivery methods
One defoamer has been identified that does not contain silicon oil and is effective against all foamers
in our portfolio. This product is called DeFoamerA and is supplied by VendorB. However, this product
is still highly viscous and also is not winterized to NAM standards. It is therefore required to heat trace
any application of this during the wintertime. In addition to preventing freezing, the heat tracing helps
to ensure that the viscosity does not become too high during cold periods. More work is still ongoing
to identify suitable defoamers for high-strength foamers.
7.4 Foamer Portfolio and Preferred Products
Several different foamers have been tried to date in NAM. The foamers have varying pros and cons,
some of which are more important for batch or for continuous foam. Based on the issues described
earlier in this section, the foamers have been summarized in the following table:
Foamer
Performance
FoamerJ
FoamerB
FoamerC
FoamerA
FoamerF
FoamerE
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
Oxygen
corrosion*
Winterized
Thermally
stable (135 C)
Solids
contamination
Emulsions
Defoamer
DeFoamerA**
DeFoamerB***
DeFoamerB***
DeFoamerB***
DeFoamerA**
DeFoamerA**
42
FoamerD
FoamerH
FoamerI
DeFoamerA**
DeFoamerA**
DeFoamerA**
Poor performance
Medium performance
Good performance
* Only an issue for continuous foam applications
** May not be practical for batch application, but can be used for continuous installations
*** Easily pumpable and winterized for batch applications
7.4.1 Preferred batch foamer (satellite locations)

The oxygen corrosion is not considered to be an issue for batch jobs, only for foam-wetted areas of
continuous foam installations. For satellite locations where there are no facilities, foamers that meet
the thermal stability requirements of the wells should be tested with live fluid samples from the wells to
determine which chemical gives the highest POS for unloading the well. Should no fluid samples be
available, FoamerI would be the recommended chemical. This chemical has consistently shown
better foam performance in lab tests than the others in the portfolio.
7.4.2 Preferred batch foamer (locations with facilities)
For locations with facilities, defoamer is required. Depending on availability of pumps for high viscous
pumping and the weather at the time, it may be possible to follow the same procedure as
recommended for the batch foam on satellite locations. However, on the Land Asset it has been
decided that only FoamerA will be used on locations with facilities for the time being due to
impracticality of having a mobile, heat-traced defoamer skid for use during all times of the year.
7.4.3 Preferred continuous foamer
FoamerI is the preferred continuous foam chemical at this time due to the fact that it is the only
chemical that has shown no oxygen corrosion in lab tests or in the field. The major drawback to this
foamer is the fact that it is a strong foamer, and the only defoamer available that works is the highly
viscous, not-winterized DeFoamerA. This can be managed by heat tracing a semi-permanent
continuous foam installation.
7.5 Further Developments

One area being investigated is the development of a chemical that acts as a foamer as well as a CO2
corrosion inhibitor. Some work was initiated on this earlier in the project, but it was not progressed
due to the oxygen corrosion problems that were observed with the foamers. This work is now being
picked up again with the foamers that have shown protection against oxygen.
In addition to this, work is still ongoing to identify better defoamers.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
43
Materials Considerations
The materials that are required for operation with continuous foam injection are determined by the
fluids that come in contact with the hardware. For some parts in the foam delivery system, the foam
itself is the only fluid in contact with the material. However, for some parts of the chemical injection
valve the materials are exposed to the well fluids as well.
8.1 Well Fluid Exposure
The well fluids can vary depending on the reservoirs of production. The wells have been broken down
into 3 main categories:
Non-corrosive: very little/no CO2 and no H2S

Corrosive, sweet: corrosive for CO2 conditions, not sour (< 3.5 mbar H2S partial pressure)
Corrosive, sour: corrosive conditions for CO2, sour service (>3.5 mbar H2S partial pressure)
These categories define the two categories of materials standardly used for our valves now. The noncorrosive and sweet corrosive categories have been merged into a valve design that consists primarily
of 9Cr1Mo and 17-4 PH. The wells that are corrosive for CO2 and are sour service are made of
incoloy. While it is recommended to use stainless steels for all areas of the system, 9Cr1Mo has been
chosen for use in some of the subsurface valves. This is due to a desire to save cost and simplify the
downhole equipment after the non-corrosive foamer was identified.
8.2 IBC tanks
The storage tanks for foam that are currently used are IBC containers that are made of stainless steel
304. This prevents any possible corrosion by products from the foam. An earlier installation on WAV18 made use of an old carbon steel methanol storage tank, and the resulting quality of foam that was
being put into the system was completely filled with corrosion by-products. A picture of foam sampled
from the tank can be seen in the figure below:
In order to prevent this and to ensure as clean of foam as possible, only stainless steel IBC tanks are
currently used.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
44
8.3 Other surface equipment

In addition to the IBC tanks, the pump, all lines and instruments are made up of various types of
stainless steel (304, 316, Incoloy 925, etc). No carbon steel components should be used in the foam
system due to the potential for corrosion.
8.4 Filter fouling
As mentioned previously, a filter with a 20 micron mesh size is used upstream of the pump. This filter
has become clogged regularly on some wells and has required replacement. A picture of a dirty (left)
and clean (right) filter are shown in the figure below:
The solids clogging the filter consist mostly of iron and are likely the result of some corrosion taking
place. This appears to be occurring in small amounts despite the use of stainless steels upstream of
the filters. However, after changing to the FoamerI on these locations, the filters have not required
replacement, thus reinforcing the non-corrosive nature of the FoamerI.
8.5 Elastomer Compatibility
As mentioned previously, the foam must be compatible with the elastomers used as pressure seals in
the assembly. Damage to elastomers was observed in the beginning of the project on two different
installations. In WAV-18 the O-ring that moves inside the chamber of the double backpressure valve
was found to be badly damaged, and an O ring in the COV-55 assembly was found to be damaged
and leaking as well after being pulled and examined in the workshop.
The cause of the failures was suspected to be due to mechanical design flaws or possibly to chemical
attack of elastomers such as EPDM. As part of the failure investigation, elastomer testing was carried
out in the NAM laboratory, and more advanced testing was carried out by a supplier of elastomers to
measure changes to physical and chemical properties. The equipment was redesigned and it was
decided only to use Viton or higher quality elastomers in all subsurface equipment. Since the
redesign of the equipment and the switch to higher-grade elastomers, more experience has been
gained with the systems, and no issues with elastomers on surface or downhole have been observed.
This includes a mix of Kalrez (or Halliburtons version, Ryton) downhole, and various types of Viton
and NBR on surface.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
45
Installation
9.1 Pre-installation (HUD check)

Prior to installation, the hold up depth in the well should always be checked far enough in advance
that remedial action can be taken if necessary. This helps to eliminate surprises on the day of
installation of the components.
9.2 Procedure
A typical high-level outline of an installation is given below, and the numbers in parenthesis reference
graphical representation of the steps shown in Appendix 2:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Rig up NAM W/L (1)

Pull SCSSV from landing nipple (2)
Tag HUD and record depth
Rig down W/L
Rig up BJ quad BOP, injector head, stuffing box, and capillary string truck
RIH cap string along with double back pressure valve, stem and spring nose (3)
Perform pull tests every 500 meters
Tag HUD and space out to desired setting depth
From setting depth, pull up distance equal to depth of LNSV (+ 1-2 meters)
Close pipe rams and slip rams (4)
Bleed off pressure
Remove stuffing box
Attach mechanical slip device on top of quad BOP
Cut capillary string
Attach modified SCSSV to capillary string (5)
Rig down BJ cap string truck
Rig up NAM W/L
Attach running wireline toolstring to modified SCSSV assembly
Screw lubricator onto quad BOP
Release pipe rams and slip rams
Run down to LNSV
Set modified SCSSV in LNSV (6)
Rig down NAM W/L
This procedure is valid for LNSV up to 3.813. For installations of larger size, an insert sleeve is
required to be set first.
9.3 Setting depth
The setting depth for the coil is specified before the job and is typically based on examination of PLT
data or flowing pressure surveys if they exist. There is no clear rules for where to set the injection
point in the industry, but within NAM it is preferred to set the coil above at least 50% of the inflow to
ensure that the foam is taken upward in the well. A flowing survey can help to identify the amount of
backpressure that can be reduced off the formation by removing liquid hold-up at different setting
depths.
Production performance is not the only consideration for the setting depth. For wells with sand
production, erosion can occur on the capillary string or components hung on the bottom of the string.
This was seen in MKZ-3 and is shown in the figures below:
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
46
In this picture it can be seen that a hole was created in the capillary string, and the components below
that point were eroded as well. The string is made of incoloy 625, so corrosion is highly unlikely. The
capillary string was also filled with sand in the lower part, which suggests that the hole was created by
erosion from sand production. Due to this risk, it may be desired to set the capillary string just above
the perforations for wells where sand production is expected.
To achieve the desired setting depth during installation, HUD is first tagged and recorded with the
slickline unit after pulling the flapper valve. The HUD is then tagged again with the capillary string,
and it is spaced out to the desired setting depth. This tag and space-out method is the most accurate
way to land the end of the coil at the desired setting depth. Although several improvements have
been made since the first installations, the counter used in the capillary string truck itself is still
considered to not be very accurate. In one example, the proper procedure was not followed and it
resulted in the capillary string being set approximately 1000 meters above the desired injection point.
9.4 Fluid flushing (mac-gel)
In order to ensure that all of the hydraulic oil is flushed out of the system and that there is no
interaction of foam and hydraulic oil, which can be incompatible, the system should be flushed with a
product called Mac-gel or a similar chemical approved by production chemistry.
9.5 Start-up
When all equipment has been installed and function tested, the system is ready to be started up.
Typically a volume of ~25 liters of foam is pumped in the well through the modified SCSSV with the
well closed-in to aid in kicking the well off. The well is then opened up to the facilities and started with
the desired continuous injection rate.
9.6 Injection rate
The injection rate that is specified in the beginning is typically based on a concentration of ~0.1%
volume of foam per volume of water to be lifted. If good data is not available on water gas ratios, then
an estimate must be made for the initial injection period that can be optimized later.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
47
10 Post-installation Maintenance
After installation of a foam system, attention is still required to keep them running and functioning at
optimum levels. The following are some of the aspects that commonly require attention:
10.1 Leaks
Pressure maintenance in the system is clearly required to allow the system to function. Should any
leak paths occur anywhere in between the IBC containers and the LK-2 injection valve in the well,
then the foam is not going to be injected where desired, and the modified SCSSV will most likely not
be able to be held open. This means that not only will foam not be injected, but also the well will not
even be able to be produced intermittently while this equipment remains in the well.
There have been several random leaks that have occurred on surface and are not attributed to the
foam in any way. However, multiple cases of leakage have occurred due to problems with the LK-2
valve. The problems have ranged from leaking bellows within the valve to mechanical failure of the
seat of the valve, which has not been experienced in NAM before and is currently being investigated.
A leak in the system can be clearly seen with the PI injection data. A leak is typically characterized by
a decrease in the injection pressure and an increase in the injection rate. An example can be seen in
the figure below:
Hourly
1.E+05
350
100
80
315
90
72
90000
280
80
64
80000
245
70
56
70000
210
60
48
60000
175
50
40
50000
140
40
32
40000
105
30
24
30000
70
20
16
20000
35
10
10000
0
14-3-06
29-Mar-06 7:32:40 PM
WAV13-FR-4-18-1
-1.2363E-12
NM3/D
WAV13-PT-4-18-2
15.339
barg
WAV13-FI-17
0.36158
l/d
WAV13-PI-17
10.012
bar
16-3-06
18-3-06
20-3-06
22-3-06
24-3-06
25-3-06
27-3-06
In this figure, the circled area shows that the injection pressure goes down while the injection rate
goes up. Another indicator is that the production rate goes back down from 25,000 m3/d to 12,000
m3/d, which is the liquid loaded production of the well. This indicates that not all foam is getting down
to the injection point and is most likely leaking out somewhere at the SCSSV level or above.
The typical steps to be taken when a leak is observed in the data is the following:
1. Discuss with operations if they already know of anything wrong with the well
2. Have operations close the valve of the control line going to the well at the wellhead
3. Test the surface system by pressuring up with the pump to confirm no leakage on surface
4. Go to location with well services stand-alone pump to test downhole equipment independent
of surface system
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
48
5. If a downhole problem is confirmed, wireline and possibly the capillary string truck must be
planned in to replace the leaking equipment
For a system installed with a 2.75 or 3.813 flapper valve, it will not be required to pull the capillary
string to fix a leak. All pressure in the system is maintained by the LK-2 valve which sits in the
modified SCSSV that is installed. The downhole double-back pressure valve serves only to provide
two barriers during running and to try to keep the coil filled with foam to avoid creating a vacuum. It
does not serve to regulate pressure in the injection system. For wells with landing nipples larger than
3.813, the insert sleeve is required. The insert sleeve is a possible source of a leak path, and in a
worst case it would be required to be pulled and reinstalled. This would require the whole capillary
string to be pulled from the well so that the insert sleeve can be pulled and reinstalled.
To fix a problem with an LK-2, the whole system does not need to be pulled. A typical operation to
repair a leak is the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Rig up BJ Quad BOP

Rig up NAM W/L
Pull modified SCSSV from LNSV
Hang capillary string in BJ Quad BOP
Remove lubricator
Cut capillary string and remove modified SCSSV
Install new modified SCSSV
Test new assembly with pump at surface
Replace lubricator
Run modified SCSSV to LNSV
10.2 Filter plugging

The filters upstream of the pump have been required to be pulled and replaced several times during
the run-life of the current systems. This was due to some light corrosion that was taking place in the
system upstream of the filter. Since the wells have been switched to the non-corrosive foamer, Trifoam 820 Block, it appears that there has been no plugging of the filters.
10.3 Injection rate monitoring/sampling
Optimization of the foam injection rate is very important to minimize any emulsions formed as well as
the potential for foam in the installations. There are different methods for this optimization. The
easiest method is to simply lower the injection rate and monitor the effect on the production of the
well. However, this may result in loading up of the well if the rate is lowered too much, and depending
on the availability of personnel to adjust the rate it may stay loaded for a several days.
In order to prevent lowering the injection rate too much, a good sampling and analysis routine, if
possible, can help the optimization process. Samples of the produced fluids can be taken and then
without adding any chemicals a foaming tendency test can be carried out in the lab. Based on the
resulting foam build-up time and especially foam stability, it can be determined whether there is scope
to lower the injection rate. This method was successfully carried out on WAV-18 previously.
10.4 Changing foam
Should it be desired to change foams during operation, special attention should be given to mixing of
the different foamers to avoid incompatibilities. A suitable spacer such as Mac-gel should be used
between the different foamers to prevent mixing. The IBC container should be fully removed and a
new one placed with the new foamer. Mixing of different foamers in IBCs is not recommended.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
49
10.5 Abandoning a foam well

Should an installation not be successful and it is desired to go back to operations with a normal
flapper valve, certain steps must be taken. Obviously the subsurface equipment will need to be
pulled, and it is normally desired to switch back to the previous hydraulic well control unit as well.
These events can be done independent of each other. For instance, a normal flapper can be installed
and operated with foam as the hydraulic fluid with the foam surface installations while awaiting the
change back to the old system.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
50
11 Cost Overview
11.1 Batch Foam Cost Breakdown
Based on allocated costs to the batch foam jobs carried out to date, an average cost of xxx per
batch foam job can be expected for Land based operations. The cost will vary per well depending on
whether or not other wells can be serviced on the same day. By pumping on more wells in one day,
the costs of the whole day of a man and the batch foam truck are split over more wells.
11.2 Continuous Foam Cost Breakdown

A cost breakdown for a typical initial installation of continuous foam is given in the following table:
Cost Element
Surface Modifications
Well Services (W/L, cap string inst)
Hardware (sleeve)
Capillary string
Coiled Tubing Services
Contingency Costs (~15%)
Totals
Euros
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
In addition to these initial installation costs, OPEX will be spent on chemicals as well as possible
maintenance to the installations.
The example breakdown provided here is for a specific well, and costs of other installations will vary
depending on the specific type of equipment required. These elements are discussed in the sections
below:
11.3 Surface modifications
The approximate cost for surface modifications including all engineering, civil works, instrumentation
and the construction of a foam pump skid is ~ xxx. Should a defoamer skid be required, the total
costs are estimated to be ~ xxx.
11.4 Capillary string
The capillary string cost is dependent on the total length required for a given well. Capillary string
costs are ~ x per meter.
11.5 Modified SCSSV
The costs vary for the modified SCSSV depending on what size and type of valve is required. The
costs range from xxx up to xxx. Factors that influence the cost are the size, materials, and other
special requirements such as installation extensions for converted tubing-retrievable safety valves or
modifications for deep-set safety valves. New designs and part numbers that do not currently exist
also carry some initial engineering and tooling costs that may give a higher cost for the first valves of
that type.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
51
11.6 Subsurface Installation

The actual subsurface installation consists of NAM wireline and BJ resources. It is typically a two-day
job with the standard day rates applicable.
11.7 Chemicals
The OPEX associated with chemical costs can be significant depending on the amount of foamer
required for a well. The foamer chemicals typically cost ~ x per liter. For a well using 5 ltr/day of
foamer, this amounts to ~ xxx per year spent on chemicals assuming that the well produces 365
days a year. With the same assumption and a 100 liter per day injection rate (as used in MKZ-3), the
chemical costs are close to xxx per year.
11.8 Maintenance/Post-installation services
As described in the previous section, some post-installation maintenance may be required for fixing
leaks or replacing small components in the system. A typical leak fixing operation costs xxx. Other
factors to consider is that any downhole issues such as tubing leaks, leaking dummies in SPMs or
any situation that requires safeguarding of a well may require the subsurface equipment to be pulled
and possibly reinstalled later.
11.9 Costs to date of Land installations
The costs to date of the seven installations on land were summed up recently. An average cost,
including chemicals, of ~ xxx was calculated. This was high due to some initial learnings that are
not expected to be repeated, but it gives an overall idea of what an installation can cost.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
52
Appendix 1: Original Equipment Design for 5 & 7 tubing
This design consisted of an insert sleeve, which was placed in the LNSV. The capillary string was
hung off of a BKLK-2 valve that sits in the bottom of the insert sleeve. A standard flapper valve was
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
53
then run into the insert sleeve. Flow from the well would travel through the flow ports in the bottom of
the insert sleeve and then up through the flapper to surface. The foam would be injected through the
control line from surface, through the LNSV and into the insert sleeve, and it would then travel through
the insert sleeve into the LK-2 injection valve and then into the capillary string. This version was not
supplied by Halliburton, but instead was designed by NAM and machined locally.
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
54
Appendix 2: Installation Procedure for Modified SCSSV (up to 3.813)
Foam Lifting Manual

17-Jun-16
55
Appendix 3: Process Engineering Flow Scheme Example

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V.: Foam Lifting Manual: Current Best Practices From The Land Asset

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V.: Foam Lifting Manual: Current Best Practices From The Land Asset

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NEDERLANDSE AARDOLIE MAATSCHAPPIJ B.V.

Contributing Foam Team:

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

REDUCTION IN CRITICAL RATE..................................................................................................... 3

THE ROLE OF FOAM................................................................................................................... 3

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

WELL FLUID EXPOSURE............................................................................................................. 3

PRE-INSTALLATION (HUD CHECK)............................................................................................... 3

BATCH FOAM COST BREAKDOWN............................................................................................... 3

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

1.1 The Role of Foam

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

This is a live document that will require updates on a regular basis.

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

2.1 Foam Principles

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

High water to condensate ratio

Good foaming ability

contact Gert de Vries for details

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

2.7 Continuous Foam Installation Procedure

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

3.1 Reduction in critical rate

Campbell, et al, Corrosion Inhibition/Foamer Combination Treatment to Enhance Gas Production,

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

4.2 Foam volumes

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

4.5 Evaluation of treatments

Foam jobs stopped,

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

WYK-4 Foam tracking

Depth to top of foam

Time after first level detection (minutes)

4.7 Results to date

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

Batch foam well results (filtered)

Missed foam job, well loaded up

Pro d u ctio n (m 3/d )

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

Finally, WAV-11 is shown in the following figure:

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij

4.9 Unsuccessful well example

Foam Lifting Manual

Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij