foam flow small vs large scale facilities n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Foam Flow Small vs. Large Scale Facilities PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Foam Flow Small vs. Large Scale Facilities

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

Foam Flow Small vs. Large Scale Facilities - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 72 Views
  • Uploaded on

Foam Flow Small vs. Large Scale Facilities. Ayantayo Ajani The University of Tulsa. Outline. Introduction Objectives Small Scale Experimental Set up Data Collection Prediction of Holdup Preliminary Conclusions. Introduction.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Foam Flow Small vs. Large Scale Facilities' - mauli


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
foam flow small vs large scale facilities

Foam FlowSmall vs. Large Scale Facilities

Ayantayo Ajani

The University of Tulsa

outline
Outline
  • Introduction
  • Objectives
  • Small Scale Experimental Set up
  • Data Collection
  • Prediction of Holdup
  • Preliminary Conclusions
introduction
Introduction
  • Accumulation of formation water, condensed water or hydrocarbon condensate at the bottom of a well can cause decline in reservoir pressure and this will result in decline in gas well’s production rate
  • Chemical foamers are used as a means of artificial lift to enhance the productivity of gas wells
how do surfactants work
How Do Surfactants Work?
  • Foam consist of small bubbles surrounded by thin liquid film
  • The foam structure has a reduced gravitational gradient due to high gas holdup
  • The slippage between gas and liquid under foam conditions is reduced.
desirable characteristics
Desirable Characteristics
  • Stability – should be stable with little agitation; however, cannot be too stable so that it cannot be separated at separator
  • Flexibility & Tolerance – should create foam at varied conditions – different concentrations of brines and various temperatures
  • Concentration – should be effective at low concentration to be cost effective
objectives
Objectives
  • To build an experimental facility that will be used to study the foaming ability and unloading potential of surfactants.
  • To use stability and unloading rig test to evaluate efficacy of foamers (Bench Top Test)
  • To define appropriate measurement parameters for foam stability which will capture foam behavior as desired in gas wells
objectives1
Objectives
  • To investigate different foaming agents’ liquid unloading potential at different surfactant concentrations, temperatures, and formation brine compositions.
  • To extrapolate results from above in studying surfactant effect on pressure gradient and liquid holdup in 2-in and 4-in 40-ft vertical pipes (Large scale test)
objectives2
Objectives
  • To develop a model which will utilize the transient data in small scale facility (foam height vs. time, liquid collected vs. time) to predict the behaviour in gas wells
outline1
Outline
  • Introduction
  • Objectives
  • Small Scale Experimental Set up
  • Data Collection
  • Prediction of Holdup
  • Preliminary Conclusions
progress on experiment
Progress on Experiment
  • S-2158 - Completed
  • S-2557 - Completed
  • S-3311 - This ABM
  • S-2160
  • S-3442
experiments
Experiments
  • Bench Top Tests:
    • Surface Tension Test
    • Unloading Test
    • Stability Test
results surface tension test
Results – Surface Tension Test

400 ppm

600 ppm

2400 ppm

unloading test
Unloading Test
  • Features
    • Filtered compressed air at 18psi
    • Porous ceramic disc
    • Heating jacket
    • Weighing scale connected to PC
  • Procedure
data gathered liquid unloading
Data Gathered - Liquid Unloading
  • The unloading rate is reported as the percent of liquid transferred at 10 minutes after the test is started.
  • Unloading rate (mL/sec)
    • Quantifies the incremental unloading benefit (volumetric rate per time) associated with using a higher concentration of the surfactant.

X 100

stability test
Stability Test
  • Features
    • Modifications of the unloading rig
    • Unloading facility was used to conduct stability test
    • Stability and Unloading tests have similar foam quality
  • Procedure
data gathered at varying concentration stability test
Data Gathered at Varying Concentration - Stability Test
  • Drained volume with time
  • Volumetric rate of liquid drainage,
  • Half life – time to recover 50% of initial liquid
outline2
Outline
  • Introduction
  • Objectives
  • Small Scale Experimental Set up
  • Data Collection
  • Prediction of Holdup
  • Preliminary Conclusions
experimental observation stability test s3311
Experimental Observation : Stability Test (S3311)
  • Air rate driven:
    • 0.75 & 0.80 LPM vs 0.35 & 0.40 LPM (S2158)
  • Concentration lower limit
    • <600 ppm – 100 mL cannot be sparged fully
outline3
Outline
  • Introduction
  • Objectives
  • Small Scale Experimental Set up
  • Data Collection
  • Prediction of Holdup
  • Preliminary Conclusions
exploratory holdup model2
Exploratory Holdup Model
  • A relationship exist between pressure gradient and holdup in 4-in pipe up to the minimum pressure gradient point
    • Predict holdup
  • Residual/frictional pressure gradient dominates in 2-in pipe
    • Predict frictional pressure gradient
liquid holdup prediction under foam flow
Liquid Holdup Prediction Under Foam Flow
  • Slope of linear part of unloading plot (incremental unloading benefit associated with using a higher concentration of the surfactant, (mL/sec))
  • Rate of Liquid Removal,

(m/s)

liquid holdup prediction under foam flow1
Liquid Holdup Prediction Under Foam Flow
  • Unloading test data: 750 mL, 0.50 LPM
    • n
  • Unloading test data: 750 mL, 0.75 LPM
    • n
liquid holdup prediction under foam flow2
Liquid Holdup Prediction Under Foam Flow
  • Model is still been developed to accommodate slip at higher holdup values (>5%)
  • Two surfactants are yet to be tested
preliminary conclusions
Preliminary Conclusions
  • Half life values (slide 24)
    • S-2158 (70 secs)
    • S-3311 (38 secs)
    • S-2557 (36 secs)
      • S-2158 retains liquid more hence have highest volumetric rate of liquid removal (slide 36)
  • Using concentrations at half life:
    • S-2158 (1000ppm), S-2557 (600 ppm) & S-3311 (1000 ppm):
      • S-2158 unloads 75% of its initial mass at 10 minutes; S-2557 and S-3311 unloaded 54% and 67% respectively (slide 33)
preliminary conclusions1
Preliminary Conclusions
  • Holdup in the large scale test could be predicted by using the volumetric rate of liquid unloaded in the small scale unloading rig test.
  • S-2158 has a higher unloading potential than S-2557 and S-3311 based on its higher volumetric rate of liquid removal (slide 36)
    • To be justified further in the holdup analysis of the large scale test
preliminary conclusions2
Preliminary Conclusions
  • More stability and unloading tests are required for S-2557 to determine its optimum unloading potential
  • Concentration of foamers corresponding to highest half life value (stability test), percentage of unloaded mass at 10 minutes and volumetric rate of liquid removal (unloading test) are quite different from those measured with the tensiometer.
future work
Future Work
  • Conduct small scale test on S-2160 and S-3442
  • Conduct stability test at room temperature and high temperatures using saturated rock salt solution (alternative for formulated brine)
  • Conclude all large scale test summer 2014
  • Predict holdup and pressure gradient under foam flow
timeline
Timeline
  • Literature Review Ongoing
  • Building Facility Completed
  • Collection of Expt data Ongoing
  • Building Foam Flow Model Ongoing
  • Building Model/Validation Sept 2014
  • Final Report Oct 2014
foam flow small vs large scale facilities1
Foam Flow Small vs. Large Scale Facilities

Acknowledgements

Questions?

Recommendations