Effect of surfactants on liquid loading in vertical wells. (July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ajani, Abdulkamil; Kelkar, Mohan; Sarica, Cem; Pereyra, Eduardo
• Is Part Of: International journal of multiphase flow. Volume 83(2016)
• Page Start: 183
• Page End: 201
• Publication Date: 2016-07
• Subjects: Vertical pipes -- Gas well deliquification with surfactants -- Flow regimes in foam flow -- Pressure gradient -- Liquid holdup -- Critical velocity under foam flow; Multiphase flow -- Periodicals; Écoulement polyphasique -- Périodiques; Multiphase flow; Periodicals; 620.1064
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.03.019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-9322

Abstract

Highlights: Tested anionic, 2 amphoteric, sulphonate and cationic foamers in 2-inch and 4-inch upright pipes Measured pressure drop, liquid holdup and studied foam flow regimes with concentration Quantified effect of surfactants on liquid loading in 2-inch and 4-inch 40 feet vertical pipes Demonstrated that gas wells can be optimally unloaded at concentrations lower than the CMC Abstract: Most gas wells produce some amount of liquid. The liquid is either condensate or water. At high rates, the gas is able to entrain liquid to the surface; however, as gas well depletes, the liquid drops back in a gas well (called liquid loading) creating a back pressure on the reservoir formation. Addition of surfactants to the well to remove liquid is one of the common methods used in gas wells. Liquid loading in vertical gas wells with and without surfactant application was investigated in this study. Anionic, two types of amphoteric (amphoteric I and amphoteric II), sulphonate and cationic surfactants were tested in 2-inch and 4-inch 40-feet vertical pipes. Pressure gradient and liquid holdup are measured. Visual observation with a high speed camera was used to gain insight into the direction of foam flow in intermittent flow and foam film flow under annular flow conditions. Liquid loading is initiated when the liquid film attached to the wall in annular flow starts flowing downwards. Introduction of foam causes the gas velocity at which film reversal occurs to decrease; this shift increases with increasing surfactant concentration and it is more pronounced in 2-inch pipe than in 4-inch pipe. That is, the benefit of surfactants is much more pronounced in 2-inch pipe than in 4-inch pipe. The reason for postponement of liquid loading is reduction in the liquid holdup at low gas velocities which reduces the liquid holdup in foam flow compared to air-water flow. However, at higher gas velocities, the pressure drop in 2-inch compared to 4-inch pipe increases rapidly as the surfactant concentration increases. The selection of optimum concentration of the surfactant is a balance between the reductions in the gas velocity at which liquid loading occurs compared to increase in the frictional loss as the concentration increases. We provide guidelines about the selection of the surfactant concentration. Visual observations using high speed camera show differences in the behavior under foam flow conditions. Unlike air-water flow, the liquid film attached to the wall is replaced by thick foam capturing the gas bubbles. The type of roll waves which carry the liquid in 2-inch pipe is different than what was observed in 4-inch pipe. Compared to 4-inch pipe, the roll waves in 2-inch pipe are much thicker. This partly explains the differences in 2-inch versus 4-inch pipe behavior.