SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 21639

Foamed Gas Lift

M.G. Bernadiner, U. of Michigan
SPE Member

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 7-9, 1991.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract sUb~itted by the author(s). Contents of t~e paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the aut~or(s). The .ma~enal, as presen~ed~ does no! necessarily ref!ect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Edl!onal Co~mlttees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. lIIustratio~s may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT Several regimes, bubble, slug, and annular, are observed in

Gas lift, a broadly applied method for producing oil, consists of
gas injection into production wells to reduce the liquid density in
the wells and increase the liquid inflow. Gas lift technology
requires large gas volumes to be injected. If the reservoir pressure
is depleted, the effectiveness of gas lift is dramatically reduced.
To increase effectiveness and to extend gas lift applications to
producing oil from depleted reservoirs, a foamed gas lift method
has been investigated in laboratory and oilfield experiments. The
method consists offoaming agent injection into a gas-liquid flow.
A laboratory set-up based on scaling parameters was used to study
the productivity of the gas lift well exploiting the drainage area of
the well. The laboratory experiments were perfonned over a wide
range of the scaling parameter, describing the reservoir pressure
depletion, with and without foaming agent. The results show that
foamed gas lift would be efficient, especially if the gas lift well
cannot produce without the addition of foaming agent. Analysis
of the gas-liquid flow structure inside a vertical tube displayed the
conditions of effective application of the foaming agent to improve
gas lift technology. Oilfield experiments analyzed with probability
theory corroborated that foamed gas lift is a very effective
technological method if the reservoir is depleted
INJROPUCTIQN
The gas lift oil production method has seen years of international
use to carry liquids from underground deposits. A basic idea of
gas lift technology is to decrease the flow specific density inside
the wells. The method consists of natural gas or air injection into
wells to create a gas-liquid mixture. That decreases the pressure
gradient from the point of gas injection to the surface. The lower
pressure gradient creates the lower bottom hole pressure and,
higher pressure gradient across the reservoir. The latter increases
the liquid inflow. However, as pennanent reservoir pressure
declines, greater gas volumes are required in order to maintain
liquid inflow.
vertical gas-liquid flow. Each regime is detennined by local
pressure and the gas flow rate. The bubble regime fonned under
very low gas flow rates is characterized by gas bubbles of small
sizes. As gas flows upward, the pressure decreases and the gas
flow rate increases. This pressure change causes an increase of a
bubble size. The following bubble coalescence creates slugs of
size close to the tubing diameter, forming the slug regime. A
subsequent gas flow rate increase or pressure decrease is
responsible for slug instability and transformation of the slug flow
into the annular regime.
Many experimental and theoretical investigations of the gas-liquid
structure and gas lift characteristics have been done to detennine
parameters of the gas lift wells and to estimate an optimal gas
injection rate to maintain well productivity. 1-8 However, the gas
lift well productivity decreases due to reservoir pressure depletion.
To maintain productivity the injected gas flow rate must be
increased. If the reservoir pressure is very low, the gas lift
becomes ineffective even under high injection gas flow rates.
The current paper investigates the application of a foaming agent to
improve gas lift if the reservoir pressure is very low. The idea of
foam gas lift is explained by the following. Suppose the initial
liquid column in a well of the depth 1 equals ho and a foaming
agent is injected into the liquid to create a solution of concentration
C. Assume a gas injected at flow rate Qg creates inside the well a
foam of quality G(Qg, C). If Gxho > 1, a part of the liquid,
equaled Aha = Gxho - 1, will come out the well, and the bottom-
hole pressure will decrease by Alplg value. This product depends
on the gas flow rate, Qg, and the concentration, C,. The effect of
the foaming agent on the gas lift can be increased by varying Qg
and C. The paper reports results of the experimental and oilfield
investigations of the foamed gas lift to increase the well
productivity.
SCALING PARAMETERS

The liquid flow rate, Qt, from the reservoir into the gas lift well
depends on the reservoir penneability K and thickness h, the
References and illustrations at end of paper. reservoir pressure Pres, the radius of the external reservoir

75
 2 FOAMED GAS LIFT
boundary RI, liquid viscosity J.l.I, gas lift well diameter d w, and
bottom hole pressure P. According to Dupuit's fonnula the liquid
inflow yields
21tKh(P res - P)
QI = J.I.~n(2RI!dJ (1)
The bottom hole pressure, P, depends on a surface pressure, P sur,
and the gas-liquid flow structure inside the well. The gas-liquid
flow structure and bottom hole pressure are defined by the
following physical parameters of gas and liquid such as
viscosities, J.l.g and J.l.I, densities, Pg and PI. flow rates, Qg and QI,
and an average pressure,Pa , across the well; geometrical
parameters of the well, diameter, d w, and length, I, and interaction
between gas and liquid across an interface, described by interfacial
tension, 0", and characteristic size of the gas bubbles, r.
Considering the liquid flow rate as a function of the remaining
parameters we obtain from (1)
21tKh(P res - P sur)
QI = J.I.~(2Rl/dJ f(J.l.i' Pi' P, Qg' I, d"" s, r) (2)
i = I, g.
Let us introduce the following dimensionless groups
J.I. = J.l.I!J.l.g, P = PI/Pg, L = 1/dw, R = r/dw,
.1Il = (Pres - Psud/Plgl, 2
Fr = ug /gdw ,
We = O"/.1pgd w, Eu = PafpgUg2 ,.........•.... (3)
Re = Pgugdw/J.l.g, q=QI!Qg
(here Ug = 4Qg/1tdw2 and.1p =PI - Pg).
Transfonn the functional ratio, (2), to dimensionless fonn to
obtain the following
21tKhp~1/J.l.lln(2Rl/dJ= f(J.I., p,L, R, Fr, We, Re, Eu, q)...(4)
Here the Froude number, Fr, describes the ratio between inertial
and gravitational forces in the vertical flow; the Euler number, Eu,
represents the ratio of hydrodynamic pressure and inertial force in
the gas flow; the Reynolds number, Re, a ratio of the inertial and
viscous forces, is negligible in the vertical flow; the Weber
number, We, characterizes a ratio of the interfacial tension and
buoyancy force. .1Il shows the reservoir pressure depletion. The
gas-liquid regime characterizes R number. If bubble regime takes
place, R number is much less than 1 and R does not affect gas lift.
In this case the effect of the interfacial tension, i.e. Weber number,
also negligible. 2 When the bubble regime transforms to slug
regime and then transition flow followed by consequence of
foamed regime and annular regime, R increases. If R ~ 1 the
effect of We number increases. A We number decrease due to a
decrease of the interfacial tension causes a division of the gas
bubbles of big sizes into small bubbles.
Consider now Fr and Eu numbers assuming the gas density is a
linear function of pressure (ideal gas)
pg =!3P (5)
The product (prEu) yields
76
SPE 21639
Fr Eu = (!3gdt l (6)
If the well diameter d w is greater then 15 mm (0.6"), it has
negligible effect on the vertical gas-liquid flow structure, 2 and Eu
number can be omitted. 4 Considering J.I. parameter is slightly
variable and omitting it, we can write following functional ratios
QI . = {f(P,.1P, Fr, We, R, q); R 2: 1.....(7)
21tKhp~1/J.l.lln(2Rl/dJ f(p, .1P, Fr, q); R« 1
From the above analysis, one can conclude that many scaling
parameters affect the gas-liquid flow. 3,4 However, in the
experimental conditions all scaling parameters can not be realized
simultaneously. The main reason is a limited length of the vertical
tube in laboratory set-ups. (One of the possible laboratory
methods, proposed in 1934 by professor Krilov, A.P. is a
separate investigation of each gas lift regime, coordinating
boundary conditions between the regimes).
LABORAlPRY SET-up
A laboratory investigation of gas lift was perfonned using the set-
up shown in Figure I. The apparatus consisted of a vertical glass
tube (9) of 25 rom (I") inner diameter and 2.05 m (6.1") length
connected by tubing with valves (4) and (6) and a resistance (5)
with a tank (7) containing a liquid. The placement of the tank (7)
was varied between the bottom and the top of the vertical tube (9).
The gas flow rate inside the tube (9) was maintained by a gas
cylinder (1) with a regulating valve (2). Flow rate was measured
by a gas flowmeter (3). The set-up was designed to investigate
parameters of the gas lift well exploiting the drainage area and
estimate the gas lift well productivity under different conditions.
The set-up modeled a liquid inflow from the drainage area to the
gas lift well.
The ratio between the experimental gas flow rate and the gas flow
.rate in the well follows from Fr number
By equating q for the well and for laboratory set-up and
associating q with Fr, one can obtain taking into account (8)
Q/d
5/2 Imod = Q/d 5/2 I
w weU .. ·· ..····.... (9)
.1Il number determines the behavior of the well-reservoir system.
The experimental analogue of this number is the ratio of the liquid
level value in the tank, hI, and the tube length, H,
hl/H = .1Il = (Pres - Psur)/Plgl... (lO)
Let us introduce a value, A., for the resistance and an experimental
dimensionless liquid flow rate, Qi/A.PlgH. By equating the well
and experimental dimensionless flow rate, and using (9) one
obtains
21tKh(lIH)(dldJ 5/2
A. = J.l. ln(2R tldJ (11)
1
Equation (11) detenninesthe dependence of the resistance on the
reservoir parameters and set-up characteristics. An additional
requirement of the resistance is a linear dependence of the liquid
flow rate, QI, on the hydrostatic pressure, hi, in the range, 0 < hI
 SPE 21639 M. G. BERNADINER
< H. The resistance was designed as an artificial cylindrical
porous media of K1 permeability, d1 diameter, and 11 length. The
A. value of the resistance obtained by Darcy's law yields
This ratio permits choice of the resistance characteristics, such as
permeability KI, diameter dl and length 11. In the set-up the
resistance had 25 mm (I") diameter, 13 em (5.1") length, 0.315
porosity, and 530 D permeability determined from (12). Figure 2
exhibits a linear dependence of the water flow rate on hi at the
range 0 < hI < 2 m (0 < hI < 6 feet).
LABQRATORY EXPERIMENTS
Laboratory gas lift experiments were performed at several values
of hi: 190 em (5.7 feet), 143 em (4.3 feet), 95 em (2.85 feet), and
50 em (1.5 feet), corresponding with the reservoir pressure
depletion values of 0.93, 0.7, 0.465, and 0.244, respectively.
Characteristic curves, Ql versus Qg, were obtained and the
pressure drop required to force flow upward along the vertical
tube was determined using Figures 2 and 3. Introducing a specific
density, Pm, of the gas-liquid flow, the pressure drop, M>, across
the tube becomes
AP::; Plghl - PmgH (13)
The specific density, Pm, depends on the volumetric gas
saturation, S, inside the tube
Pm::; PI(1 - S) + p gSP/Po (14)
From (13) and (14) one can obtain a ratio for the gas saturation
S ::; 1 + AP/PlgH - hl/H (15)
The dependence of the gas saturation of the gas-liquid flow inside
the tube on the gas flow rate in Figure 4 exhibits that only the gas
flow rate affects the liquid column expansion. The liquid flow rate
is a function of the ratio between the pressure drop across the tube
and the hydrostatic pressure. The pressure drop is determined by
the gas flow rate, and the hydrostatic pressure depends on hl/H.
A visual investigation of the gas-liquid flow structure inside the
tube performed during the experiments gave a relation between the
liquid flow rate and the gas-liquid flow structure. An increase in
the gas flow rate to 100 cc/sec caused a sharp increase in the gas
saturation and a decrease in the specific density of the gas-liquid
flow (Figure 4). This resulted in an intense increase of the liquid
flow rate (Figure 3). No bubble regime was observed and the
slug regime was observed up to 100 cc/sec gas flow rate. At Qg::;
100 cc/sec the slug regime became instable and waves appeared on
the slug surface. Wave amplitudes increased due to increase of the
gas flow rate over 100 cc/sec, and the slug regime transformed·
into the transition flow. The interval Qg from 100 cc/sec to 200
cc/sec corresponded with the transition tlow. The transition flow
transformed to the developed foam regime when Qg became
greater than 200 cc/sec. If hl/H ::; 0.93, correspondmg to the
reservoir pressure close to hydrostatic, a weak increase of the
liquid flow rate occurred with the transition flow. At hl/H values
equaled 0.244, liquid flow was possible only in the developed
foamed regime. The gas flow rate in this case was very high, and
the liquid flow rate was very low.
Foamed gas lift experiments were performed by filling tank with a
foaming agent aqueous solution, and repeating the experimental
procedure described above. The dependence of the liquid flow
rate and the pressure drop across the tube on the gas flow rate at
77
3
different value of hl/H with and without foaming agent in the gas-
liquid flow are shown in Figure 5,a,b.
If hi/H ::; 0.93 (reservoir pressure close to hydrostatic pressure)
and Qg was less then 100 cc/sec, the stable slug regime took place
in the tube, and application of the foaming agent was almost
ineffective. The effect of the foaming agent on the liquid flow rate
was a slight increase just at the gas flow rate over 100 cc/sec.
Application of the foaming agent significantly increased the liquid
flow rate if hl/H «1. In the experiments, the productivity was
zero without the foaming agent application, but was restored when
foaming agent was added into the liquid. The foaming agent
addition was more effective in the transition flow from the slug
regime to the developed foamed regime. Maximum effectiveness
was displayed at the developed foamed regime.
Investigation of the gas-liquid structure in the slug regime with
and without foaming agent showed that the foaming agent did not
affect size and vertical velocity of the slugs (Figure 6). An
increase in the gas flow rate was responsible for instability of the
slugs and waves were observed on the slug surface. The
surfactant in the liquid caused foam films perpendicular to the flow
direction. The latter resulted a transformation of the unstable slugs
into a foam structure and a decrease of the gas-liquid relative
velocity.
Increase of the foaming agent concentration from 0.07 to 0.3 wt %
did not change the qualitative conclusions. The effectiveness of
the foaming agent was significantly greater at h1/H value less than
0.7, shown in Figure 5. Using the dependence of the pressure
drop, M>, on the gas flow rate with and without the foaming agent
in Figure 5,a,b and equations (15) one can calculate the gas
saturation, S. Results shown in Figure 7 demonstrate a significant
increase of the gas saturation and, respectively, the liquid column
expansion. The increase in the gas saturation decreases the
specific density of the flow and increases the l?ressure drop a~ro~s
the vertical tube. The greater pressure drop Increases the lIqUId
flow rate (Figure 5,b).
OILFIELD EXPERIMENTS
Oilfield experiments were performed in gas lift wells #1 and #2 in
the Feodorovskoe oilfield (Siberia, USSR) and in gas lift well #3
in the Ribalskoe oilfield (Ukraine, USSR). The wells had a 2.87"
tubing diameter and 5.75" casing diameter. Parameters such as
well depth, initial reservoir pressure, reservoir pressure depletion,
water cut of the well production, and volume of gas injected are
manifested in Table 1. Well data, especially productivity of #1
well, were unstable and waved permanently during time. To
determine an average well productivity probability theory methods
were used for analysis of the current well data. It was found that
well productivity must be measured for five or six hours to get
10% accuracy of the average value. The average well
productivities before the foaming agent i~jection, determined
during 15 hours of measurement, are shown In Table 2.
The foaming agent was injected into the gas flow and came in the
gas-liquid flow inside the wells through the gas lift valves. The
foaming agent concentration in the gas-liquid flow was
approximately 0.3 wt %. The well productivity with the foaming
agent injected was measured for 57 hours, and the average values
are shown in Table 2. Student's rati09 was employed to compare
the average well productivities with and without the foaming
agent. The results in Table 2 exhibit that application of the
foaming agent made a significant impact only in wells #1 and #3
but had no effect in well #2, where the pressure depletion was
much less. These results correspond with the laboratory
experiments.
 FOAMED GAS LIFT SPE 21639
4

CONCLUSION
Table 1
The laboratory and oilfield experiments have shown that foamed Gas lift well characteristics
gas lift has potential to be an effective method for producing oil
from depleted reservoirs. Well Well !nit res. Reservoir Water Gas volume
depth pressure pressure cut injected
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS # ft psi depletion % scm/day
Special thanks are due to Mrs. Zinaida P. Titova who participated 1 8800 3860 0.74 60 8000
in the laboratory experiments.
2 8000 3500 0.82 57 9600
Grateful thanks are due to Mr. Karsten E. Thompson for his help
in preparing the paper for publication. 3 17000 5076 0.75 42 15000
REFERENCES

1. Kirkpatrick, C.V. : "Advances in Gas-Lift Technology," API Table 2

Drilling and Production Practices, 1959 : p.p. 24-60. Average well productivity
2. Mamaev, V.A., Odishariia, G.E., Klapchuk, O.V., Tochigin, Well Without With
A.A., and Semenov, N.E., Gas-liQuid Flow Inside Tubes, foaming agent foaming agent
Nedra, Moscow, 1981 : p. 270 (in Russian). # bbVday bbVday
3. Bernadiner, M.G., Hydrodynamics of Gas lift Wells, VINm, 1 333 436
Moscow, 1987 : p. 80 (in Russian).
2 298 311
4. Brawn, K.E., Gas Lift Theory and Practice, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1967 : p. 924. 41 91
3
5. Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Dukler, A.E. : "Modeling Flow-
Pattern Transition for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in
Vertical Tubes," AIChE J., 1980 : v. 26, p.p. 345-354.

6. Fernandes, R.C., Semait, T., and Dukler, A.E. :

"Hydrodynamic Model for Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical
Tubes," AIChE J., 1986: v. 29, p.p. 981-989.

7. Poettman, F.H., and Carpenter, P.G. : "The Multiphase Flow

of Gas, Oil, and Water through Vertical Flow Strings with
Application to the Design of Gas-Lift Installations," API
Drilling and Production Practices, 1952 : p.p. 257-317.

8'. Ansari, A.M., Sylvester, N.D., Shoham, 0., and Brill, J.P. :
"A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-
Phase Flow in Wellbores," SPE 20630, presented at the 65
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, September, 23-26,1990.

9. Youden, W.J., Statistical Methods for Chemists, John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., New York, 1955: p. 126.

78
 SfE 21639

40

Jl
o h1tH =0.93
9 U D h1tH =0.7
Q) 30
7
--
0
U
U
20
..

+
h1 tH

h1 tH
=0.465
=0.244

a- .....
10

200 400 600 800

Figure 1 Qg, cc/sec
Schematic of the laboratory set-up 0.02 , - - - - - - - - - - - - .
1 • gas cylinder; 2 - regulating valve;
3 - gas flowmeter; 4, 6 - valves; 5 - resistance;
7 - tank for liquid; 9 - collected cylinder;
9 - vertical. glass tube.

0.01

1:-,. :
40,------
30
20
0.00 +--r---r-~___r-.__..__........-_I
a 10
o 200 400 600 800
o......-....-....--.-~ Qg, cc/sec
0.00 0.01 0.02
Ii P, MPa Rgure 3
Dependence of water flow rate, 01, and pressure
Figure 2
Characteristic curve of the resistance (5) drop, ~P, on gas flow rate, Og

1.0

S
0.8
••
DO
0.6 .0
0
D o h1tH =0.93
0.4 IJ)
0 D h1tH =0.7
.. h11H= 0.465
0.2·
o + h11H = 0.244

0.0 +---r-...--r---r-r--r----r--l
o 200 400 600 800
Qg, cc/sec
Figure 4
Gas saturation,S, vs. gas flow rate, Og.

79
 seE 21639

40 30

(,)
CI) 30 (,)
20
--
Ul CI)
(,)
(,)
20
--
Ul
(,)
(,)

0
10
-0 10
o wilier
• 0.07 wi 'Yo foaming agent solution
0.07 wi 'Yo foaming agent soI..ion
0
0 0 200 400 600 800
0 200 400 600 800
Qg, cc/sec Qg, cc/sec

0.02 0.015
as
D.
::E
as 0.010
0: D.
<l 0.01 ::E
0: 0.005
<I

0.00
200 400 0.000
0 600 800 200 400 600 800
0
Qg, cc/sec Qg, cc/sec
h1/H '"' 0.93 h1/H = 0.7

Figure 5,a
Uquidflow rate. QI, and pressure drop. 6P, vs. gas flow rate, Qg. with and withpout foaming agent

80
 SPE 21639

30 -r------------. 12,-----------..
o wafer
• 0.07 wt % loaming agenl solution 10
• 0.3 wt % foaming agent solution
(.)
(.) 8
CI)

--
CI)
Ul

--
Ul
( .)
(.)
( .)
(.)
6

" " 2

200 400 600 800

Qq, (:c!sec
o water
• 0.07 wt % loaming agent solution

• 0.3 wt 'Yo foaming agent solution

0.006 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001
0.000 +-......~---.r--~ ........__.____...--l
o 200 40(1 600 800
Qg, cc!sec
h1/H = 0.244

Figure S,b
Liquid flow rate, QI. and pressure drop, 6P. vs. gas flow rate. Qg. with and wilhpout foaming agent

81
 SPE 21639

30 I I
o
1.0 1.0
E
(,) 20 o I
0.8 0.9

-
.c
C)
c
.!
10·

o
• •
o
o
• 0
i
S
0.6
S
0.8
h1/H_0.465
0.4 0.7
oI ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I
o 20 40
Qg, cc/sec
60 80100
o 21l 0
•
water
0.07 WI % foaming agent solutlOll
0.6
0.07 WI % foaming agent solution
0.0 0.5
o water, hl/H =0.93
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
• 0.07 WI % foaming agent solution, hl/H = 0.93
A 0.07 WI % foaming agent solution, hl/H = 0.7 Qg, cc/sec Qg, cc/sec
• 0.07 WI % foaming agent solution, hl/H = 0.465 1.0 1.0

co 0.8
N
S
60 S

·0
::~V
(,)
h1/H-0.7 0.9
- 50
Q)
Ul
A
E
(,)
40 •• 0
0 water
0 0.07 WI % foaming agent solution
30 • 0
> 0.2
0 0.8 I .,. J 6, i ' i , I
20 i 0 200 400 600 800
o 200 400 600 800
Qg, cc/sec
10 I , Iii I ' I , I ' Qg, cc/sec
o 20 40 60 80100 o water
• 0.07 WI % foaming agent solution
Qg, cc/sec • 0.3 WI % foaming agent solution

Figure6 Figure 7
Slug length and velocity V vs. gas flow rate, Og Gas saturation, S. vs. gas flow rate, ag, with and without foaming agent