SPE-195462-MS

Foam Assisted Gas Lift: The Impact of Different Surfactant Delivery Methods
on Oil Well Performance

Ana Martins and Marco Marino, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij; Murat Kerem and Manuel Guzman, Shell
Global Solutions International

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec featured at 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition held in London, England, UK, 3-6 June 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents the first comparison between two different injection methods for foam assisted gas
lift. Useful information for operators and technology developers are also provided concerning chemical
selection, testing, and deployment of this hybrid artificial lift technology in the field.
The trials have been conducted in a gas lifted oil well with severe slugging and water cut above 50%
(selection criteria as per SPE-184217-MS). The surfactant was delivered through a dedicated capillary
injection string during the first trial, and the effects of surfactant concentration and depth of injection were
evaluated. During the second trial, the surfactant was injected into the gas lift stream at the surface. Different
surfactants were utilised for both trials based on stability concerns and method of injection.
Both trialled injection methods successfully stabilized the well flow, terminating severe slugging while
increasing the drawdown and delivering an increase in gross production of circa 200%. These results,
together with the downhole pressure data collected during the first trial, confirm that the surfactant starts
foaming only at the depth where the lift gas enters the tubing. Injecting surfactant into the lift gas stream
required higher concentrations than using a dedicated injection string, difference attributable to the slightly
different chemistry, but even at those higher concentrations an anti-foamer injection was not required.
Concerning the response time, the well responded in 30 to 60 minutes with capillary string injection,
while 6 to 12 hours were required for injection into the lift gas stream. This suggests that the surfactant
probably moves slowly down on the annulus walls as a liquid film rather than travelling in droplets dispersed
in the gas phase. Based on the outcome of the two trials, it is concluded that the injection via the lift gas
stream is as effective as capillary string injection, at a fraction of the initial costs, with lower maintenance
requirements, while still allowing access to the well.

Introduction
Foam Assisted Gas Lift (FAGL) is a hybrid technology that combines two widely applied technologies, Gas
Lift (GL) and Foam Assisted Lift (FAL). GL is typically used in oil wells to reduce the hydrostatic column
and therefore the bottom hole pressure, thereby increasing the drawdown. Its effectiveness in depleted
reservoirs with high water cut, however, is limited, requiring high gas injection rate for a relatively low
2 SPE-195462-MS

oil production. FAL is traditionally used in gas wells to reduce the minimum velocity at which water can
be successfully transported upwards in the tubing, thereby reducing the minimum rate at which stable
production can be achieved. The earliest reference that can be found in the literature of combining GL and
FAL is from Bernadiner (1991), where the foaming agent was injected into the gas flow and came in the
gas-liquid flow inside the wells through the gas lift valves. Bernadiner concluded that foamed gas lift has
potential to be an effective method for producing oil from depleted reservoirs and reported gains of 31%,
13% and 122% in the three wells tested in Russia and Ukraine. Apart from this reference, the literature was
void of further work on this technology until 2016.
In 2015, a trial in a field in Netherlands operated by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM) by
Farag et al. (2016) proved the effectiveness of FAGL in a gas lifted well with high water cut (>70%) and
slugging behavior, reporting a clear flow stabilization effect –effectively changing the flow regime from
slugging to homogeneous– and gains of over 100% thanks to the flow stabilization and the consequent
reduction in hydrostatic head. This was achieved by injecting surfactant at an optimum concentration of
800 ppm. At these concentrations, no anti-foamer injection was required. In the same well, a permanent
capillary string was installed in 2017, and longer testing showed that the optimum foamer concentration
was between 350 and 400 ppm.
In 2017, a trial by Ahmad et al. (2017) in a Shell operated oil field in Malaysia reported an increase of 22%
of gross production. While Farag et al. (2016) used a tubing inserted capillary string to inject the surfactant
directly in the well at top of the inflow zone and required surfactant concentration of approximately 800
ppm, Ahmad et al. (2017) injected the surfactant directly in the gas lift line at surface and required surfactant
concentrations up to 7500 ppm. The much higher dose concentration required the use of an anti-foamer to
avoid upsets to the processing facility.
In this paper, we present the results of two trials executed in the same well between November 2016 and
February 2018. The said well is in the same field of the trial performed by Farag et al. (2016), but it is not
the same well. These trials corroborate the effectiveness of FAGL as a hybrid artificial lift technology for
producing oil from depleted reservoirs and provide a unique comparison between two methods of injection,
tubing inserted capillary string and direct injection in the gas lift line.

Field trial
Trial methodology
The key objectives of the first trial performed with a tubing inserted capillary string were to prove the
reproducibility of the results obtained by Farag et al (2016), and to provide insights on the effects of the
injection depth of the surfactant. Similarly, to what done by Farag et al. (2016), the capillary string was
inserted in the tubing and set at the target depth at the top of the inflow section at 1260 mTVD. The
well was then opened to production without surfactant injection for a period of approximately 24 hours
to obtain a baseline. We then started injecting the foamer via the capillary string at the same depth and
performed a chemical dose rate response test to evaluate the optimum foamer concentration. The second
objective of the trial was then achieved by pulling to shallower depths the capillary string while maintaining
surfactant injection at the optimum concentration identified in the previous step. Specifically, the surfactant
was injected at the top of the reservoir and at each gas lift valve depth. See Figure 1 for the well schematic.
SPE-195462-MS 3

Figure 1—Well diagram with relevant injection depths (a) and well deviation plot (b).

For the first trial, the installation of the capillary string was completed using NAM's well intervention
resources, which have significant experience in installing the same capillary string for deliquification
purposes in gas producing wells. The capillary string was provided with a pressure gauge in the bottom
hole assembly below the surfactant injection point to measure the pressure in the tubing during the different
steps of the trial.
For both trials, the well was routed to a two-phase separator to monitor and record liquid and gas
production. Liquids were measured with a Coriolis meter previously calibrated with live samples to provide
also water cut measurement. Water cut was also visually confirmed by taking samples during the test. The
total produced gas was measured with a vortex meter, while the gas lift injected in the well was measured
with an orifice meter. All measurements have an uncertainty range of +/- 10%.
As it will be described more in detail in the results section, this first trial proved that the surfactant starts
foaming only above the gas lift injection point in the well. This result triggered the need for the second trial
in which the surfactant was directly injected into the gas lift stream at surface. In this way, the surfactant
would enter the well together with the gas lift and would immediately start forming foam. The key objective
of the second trial, was therefore to compare the well performance and the well response time with these
two injection methods.
As the injection was performed at the surface into the lift gas stream, the chemical's arrival time at the
entry point to the tubing –i.e. the lift gas injection port– was not known. Considering the large annular
volume, it was expected that the well would require considerably more time to positively respond to the
foamer injection as opposed to surfactant delivery through a capillary line.
To prevent the risk of accumulation of the chemical into the dead space in the casing below the gas lift
valve, high purity TEG (tri-ethyleneglycol) was injected in the annulus upfront of the trial to fill this space.
Other options were considered, however TEG was chosen due to its thermostability.
4 SPE-195462-MS

Well selection
The well selected for the trail is a horizontal oil well producing in an onshore field in the Netherlands
operated by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM). Since the well is in the same field of the trial
executed by Farag et al. (2016), the same selection criteria could be applied. The well is gas lifted and is
producing at high water cuts (>70%). As shown in Figure 1, the well is completed with a 3.5 inch OD
tubing (2.992 inch ID), 5 side pocket mandrels, of which the first two equipped with 3/16 inch IPO gas lift
unloading valves and the third with a 1/4 inch orifice. At the sandface, the well is completed with an open
hole and wire-wrapped screen for sand control.
The well is not capable of free flowing, hence the need of gas lift as artificial lift method. Without any
surfactant injection, a normalized gross production of 100% is achieved with a gas lift rate of 16 KNm3/d.
The flow regime is slugging, with periods of 15 to 30 min. The slugging is severe, causing heavy vibrations
of the Xmas tree and flowline, and therefore a smart choke is normally applied to reduce the intensity of
the slugs. To reduce the number of parameters varied during the trial, a fixed choke setting at 23% was
applied at the start of the trial.

Surfactant selection, testing and qualification

Following a similar approach to the work carried out by Farag et al. (2016), live liquid samples from the
candidate well were collected before the trial for testing and qualification of the surfactant. The surfactant
selected for the first trial with a tubing inserted capillary string was the same used by Farag et al. (2016),
therefore for this trial only a chemical qualification verification was required.
The surfactant used for the first trial was not suitable for injection in the gas lift line due to risk of gunking
and blocking the gas lift valves when exposed to downhole temperature. Therefore, a new chemical had to
be selected that could provide similar performance with respect to the KPIs already used for the first trial,
added with new KPIs targeted to minimize the risk of evaporation of the solvent of the chemical and the
potential for solidification at downhole temperatures. For that reason, an internal laboratory gunking test
protocol was developed as well as a chemical gas stripping test. After heat aging of the chemical at the
downhole temperature and gas stripping the solvent out, the chemical residue still had to remain mobile,
despite a change in properties such as the viscosity, to prevent blockage of the gas lift valve.
The selected chemical had a similar base chemistry as the standard surfactant that had been applied in
the previous trial. However, to assess performance, the laboratory foamability tests with the field oil were
repeated with the outcome of 25-50% dose rate increase in comparison with the chemical for the injection
through capillary string.

Chemical injection considerations

Given the results obtained by Farag et al. (2016), a maximum injection concentration of ~1000 ppm was
expected. The chemical injection equipment was sized accordingly, and no provision was made for anti-
foamer injection. In both trials, chemical injection was started at low concentrations and increased in steps
to avoid a sudden increase in well performance that could cause upsets to the processing facilities. At each
step, a visual inspection of a live sample taken at the test separator was performed. The KPI was simple:
production increase with no visible foam at surface.

Injection methods
The first trial was performed with an identical setup of the one used by Farag et al. (2016), with a capillary
string made of Incoloy 625, with an OD of 1/4 in and a wall thickness of 0.035 in. This capillary string
was deployed using a mini-coiled tubing injector head. The second trial was performed by pumping the
surfactant directly in the gas lift stream at surface. The temporary connection was made downstream of the
gas lift measurement system and upstream of the casing side wing valve.
SPE-195462-MS 5

Evaluation and comparison

First trial: tubing inserted capillary string
As initially stated, the key objectives of the first trial were to evaluate the reproducibility of the results
obtained by Farag et al. (2016) and to evaluate the effect of different injection depths. After running the
capillary string to the target depth of 1260 mTVD, the well was opened to production without any surfactant
injection to obtain a stable base line against which to evaluate the well performance during the trial. After
approximately 24 hours, we started surfactant injection. Within 1 hour, the flow pattern stabilized, and the
gross rate increased by 90%. We then started a chemical dose rate response test to evaluate what was the
optimum surfactant concentration. Concentrations between 250 ppm and 500 ppm were tested, and the
optimum surfactant concentration was found at 350 ppm. Figure 2 and Table 1 provide an overview of the
well performance, surfactant concentration, and choke opening during the trial.

Figure 2—Overview of well performance, surfactant concentration,

and choke opening with surfactant injected via the capillary string.

Table 1—Summary of well performance and choke opening with surfactant injected via the capillary string.

The fast stabilization in the flow pattern gave the team enough confidence to increase the choke from
its applied value of 23%. At every new choke step a continuous and steady increase in gross flow rate
was observed until the choke was fully open and gross production increase of 158% was achieved. During
this entire process, the foamer dose rate was continuously adjusted to keep the optimum 350 ppm foamer
concentration based on gross production.
6 SPE-195462-MS

At the end of the test, foam injection was stopped and in approximately 30 minutes the well lost stability
and reverted to its original slugging regime. Foam injection was then started again, and the well regained
stability in approximately 30 minutes.
As mentioned in the previous section, no anti-foamer injection was required during the trial. This was
achieved thanks not only to the expected low concentration requirements, but also thanks to active control
of surfactant concentration by checking for foamability of produced fluids samples.
After having achieved the first key objective of the first trial, the second phase was initiated by pulling
the capillary string to shallower depth stations to investigate the effect of surfactant injection depth. The
well performance versus chemical injection depth (Figure 3) shows that the well performance remains
virtually unchanged up and until the gas lift injection valve, whilst above that depth the performance is
slowly reduced. This result showed that the surfactant requires the lift gas to generate foam on the upper
section of the tubing string.

Figure 3—Normalized gross production versus surfactant injection depth with the surfactant injected via the capillary string.

Second trial: injection in annulus with gas lift

The results of the capillary string injection trial provided inputs to design a second trial whereby the
surfactant was injected in the gas lift line at surface. The idea was that the chemical would be transported
by the lift gas and would enter the tubing via the gas lift valves. This flow path differed in many aspects
from the capillary string trial, including travel time and exposure to higher temperatures. Consequently, the
chemical used in the first trial was not suitable and a new chemical was selected as described in the previous
section about chemical selection.
For this trial, it was not necessary to have an initial flow period, since no well entry was required and
the well had to be shut-in only for a short time to connect the surfactant injection pump to the gas lift line.
After starting up the well, the surfactant injection was commenced at 250 ppm and quickly increased to 500
ppm, and finally to circa 900 ppm within approximately 5 hours. In this time span, the well flow pattern
stabilized but no increase in gross production was observed, suggesting that some foam was reaching the
tubing but not enough to make a significant impact. After having reached 900 ppm, the well's choke was
slowly opened, and some production gains were recorded, but not in the order of magnitude of what seen
in the first trial with the capillary string.
Finally, after approximately 12 hours, the well quickly tripled production, reaching peaks of 400% gross
flow rate with respect to a base of 100% (when no surfactant is injected). The foamer concentration was
readjusted and found 700 ppm to be the optimum foamer concentration, versus the 350-400 ppm required
for the capillary string injection. This chemical concentration requirement is in line with the foamability
lab tests results predicting a 25-50% dose rate requirement increase due to the different chemistry. Figure
SPE-195462-MS 7

4 and Table 2 provide an overview of the well performance, surfactant concentration, and choke opening
during the trial.

Figure 4—Overview of well performance, surfactant concentration,

and choke opening with surfactant injected via the gas lift system.

Table 2—Summary of well performance and choke opening with surfactant injected via the gas lift system.

At the end of the trial, the surfactant injection was stopped to evaluate the response time of the well.
After 6 hours without surfactant injection, the well reverted to its slugging regime. Foam injection was then
restarted and the well regained stability and higher flow rate after 6 hours.
Table 3 shows an overview of both trials’ objective and most significant results.
8 SPE-195462-MS

Table 3—Summary of field trials objectives and results.

Comparing injection methods

The field trials presented in this paper demonstrate the efficacy of FAGL as artificial lift method to extend
and accelerate production from depleted oil fields. Both capillary string and injection in the gas lift line
provide a comparable increase in production, leaving open the discussion to which delivery method is to be
preferred from a technical, economical, and operational perspective.
Figure 5 shows a schematic of a permanent FAGL installation with either a capillary string or injection
in the gas lift line, while Table 4 shows a summary of pros and cons of each method.

Figure 5—Schematic of FAGL installation with a capillary string (a) and with injection in the
gas lift line (b). The surface skid delivering the surfactant is the same in both configurations.
SPE-195462-MS 9

Table 4—Pros and cons of different injection methods.

In the case of injection via the tubing (Figure 5a), a capillary string is inserted in the tubing (for instance
via slickline), together with a modified subsurface safety valve that connects to the original control line.
The fluid in the control line is changed from hydraulic oil to surfactant. The back-pressure valve below
the modified subsurface safety valve allows to operate the safety valve and the surfactant injection in the
tubing sequentially: up to a certain pressure, only the subsurface safety valve opens; increasing the pressure
in the control line, the back-pressure valve below the safety valve opens, and the surfactant travels down
the capillary string and is injected in the tubing via the chemical injection valve. At surface, modifications
are minimal, requiring only to connect a surfactant pump to the existing control line.
In the case of injection via the gas lift line (Figure 5b), no well intervention is required. Modifications
are also minimal at surface, where the surfactant pump needs to be connected directly to the gas line.
From a technical perspective, the injection into the annulus is clearly to be preferred. The capillary string
requires more material, and therefore more maintenance and higher costs. Furthermore, a tubing inserted
capillary string prevents any well entry without first removing the capillary string itself. In a gas lifted well,
pressure survey and gas lift valves change out are a frequent matter, and they can easily become prohibitively
expensive with such an installation, especially in remote or offshore environments.
It becomes evident how injection into the casing via the gas lift line is economically preferable, especially
in the short term, due to the lower capital and operational expenditure. On the long term, however, the
residual risk of corrosivity of the foamer could pose an integrity threat, damaging the casing and causing
injection of gas lit in shallower formations or in other annuli (if present). Further work is required to fully
assess this risk and weigh it against the cost savings brought by this injection method.
Another important aspect is the response time of the well with each injection methods. In the field trials,
injection via capillary string required only 30 to 60 minutes to reach stable flow, instead of the 6 to 12 hours
required by injection via the gas lift line. This is due to the large ratio between surfactant injection rate and
annulus volume. Furthermore, with the injection in the gas lift line, the surfactant travels in the liquid phase
as a rivulet down the tubing and/or casing surfaces, transported downward by gravity and drag due to the
gas lift flow. For the trial via the gas lift line, the initial response time was longer (12 hours) with respect to
when foam injection was switched off and on again at the end of the test (6 hours). This can be attributed
to the fact that the casing and tubing surfaces along which the surfactant was travelling were already wet,
making it easier for the surfactant to travel down and reach the injection point.
Due to the slower response time of the gas lift line injection system, an unplanned shut-down could cause
several hours’ worth of surfactant to be accumulated in the annulus. At the following kick-off, this chemical
could enter the well mixing with produced liquids at a much higher concentration than during normal
operation. This higher concentration of foamer could upset processing facilities if not properly accounted
for. Remediation plans can be put in place, like kick-off to a test separator, or anti-foamer injection at kick-
off, but they increase the cost and/or complexity of this injection method.
10 SPE-195462-MS

Conclusions
The results of these comparative Foam Assisted Gas Lift (FAGL) field trials proved that the surfactant
can be successfully deployed either via tubing inserted capillary string or via the gas lift system without
significant change in performance. They also show that the optimum surfactant concentration required
in the field is significantly lower than the one required in the laboratory environment foamability tests,
most likely due to the improved chemical mixing that is difficult to be replicated, which makes the FAGL
application cost efficient and attractive. This lower injection dosage improves the economics for foam
injection and minimizes operational logistics that are especially critical when planning similar injection in
offshore environment.
The production gains delivered by both injection methods are similar because the surfactant starts
foaming only where lift gas enters the tubing. Furthermore, the proven effectiveness of injection into the
gas lift system would allow significant installation and maintenance cost savings. More importantly, access
to the well can be preserved for well interventions such as gradient surveys and gas lift valves change-out,
which are frequent for gas lifted wells in fields with changing inflow conditions. All these considerations
are particularly relevant for installation in remote, unmanned, or small footprint required locations.
Finally, long term corrosivity effects of surfactant injection in the annulus need further investigation.

References
1. Bernadiner, M. G. Foamed Gas Lift. Presented at the Production Operations Symposium held in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 7 – 9 April 1991. SPE-21639. doi:10.2118/21639-MS.
2. Farag, A., Robertson, T. Kerem, M. and Montero J. Foam Assisted in a Gas-Lifted Oil Well.
Presented at the SPE Middle East Artificial Lift Conference and Exhibition in Manama, Kingdom
of Bahrain, 20 November – 1 December 2016. SPE-184217-MS.
3. Ahmad, S.A., McGregor, S., Ekol, D., Sen, Y.M. and Davoren, S. Increasing Production via
Foam Assisted Gas Lift in a Mature Oil Well. Presented at the SPE Symposium: Production
Enhancement and Cost Optimization held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7 – 8 November 2017.
SPE-189201-MS.