PETROLEUM SOCIETY

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM PAPER 2007-118

A Theoretical Model for Optimizing Surfactant

Usage in a Gas Well Dewatering Process
H. LI, D. YANG
Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC), University of Regina

Q. ZHANG
China University of Petroleum (East China)

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 8th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (58th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 12 – 14, 2007. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract
Liquid loading significantly affects the production
performance of a gas well. The available dewatering techniques
include velocity string, foaming, gas lift, plunger lift and other
artificial lift methods, among which the foam-aided dewatering
method is the simplest and most economical one by effectively
utilizing the natural reservoir energy. It has always been a
challenging task to determine the surfactant usage due to its
cost and continuous consumption during the dewatering
process. In this paper, a method is developed and applied to
optimize the surfactant usage in a gas well dewatering process.
More specifically, surface tension and foam density are
measured at different surfactant concentrations. With a pre-
determine a calibration curve of the surface tension and foam
density versus the surfactant concentration, the minimum
critical velocity is determined as a function of the surfactant
concentration by using the modified Turner’s droplet model.
Then, a mathematical model is formulated to optimize the foam
dewatering performance by maximizing the gas production rate
per unit rate of the foaming agents. A field case is presented to
illustrate the optimization procedure of the model developed in
this paper. In comparison with the existing empirical methods,
it is found that the surfactant usage can be optimized and that
the foam dewatering technique performs better in wells with
high productivity, high gas-liquid ratio and small size tubing.
Introduction
Liquid loading is one of the severe problems encountered in
a mature gas reservoir. As pressure in the reservoir depletes,
liquid tends to accumulate in the wellbore due to the inability of
the gas to lift the reservoir liquid to the surface. The
accumulated liquid column, which imposes a backpressure to
the reservoir, significantly reduces gas production rate. Once
the gas production rate is reduced, it becomes more difficult to
remove the liquid by the gas itself in a gas well. Eventually, the
liquid loading will kill the well and affect the ultimate gas
recovery in the gas reservoir. For example, in the Sichuan Gas
Field, China, the average gas recovery is 40~60% in a water-
drive gas reservoir, whereas the recovery is up to 90% in a dry
gas reservoir[1].
Different measures have been adopted to solve the liquid
loading problem in a gas well[2, 3]. In practice, at the early stage
of the liquid loading, a small tubing or coiled-tubing is used to

1
increase the gas velocity and surfactants can be injected to
unload a gas well by foam. It should be noted that these
techniques take full advantages of the natural reservoir energy.
However, if the reservoir energy declines to a certain value at
which it is not sufficient to unload the produced liquid out of
the well, artificial lifting methods must be utilized. These
methods include the wellhead boosting, gas lift, plunger lift, jet
pump, and the combination of the above-mentioned lifting
methods[4, 5]. Obviously, the liquid unloading methods that
utilize the reservoir energy are more economical, among which
the foaming method is the simplest one. In principle, the foam
aids the gas well to unload the liquid by reducing surface
tension and density of the liquid phase and reducing the size of
liquid droplets as well. It has been found from laboratory
experiments that the foam can reduce the minimum critical
velocity of gas by several orders of magnitudes[6, 7].
Successful case studies pertaining to the foam-aided
dewatering techniques can be found elsewhere[7-12]. In principle,
effects of the foam on gas dewatering are mainly related to the
following factors: 1) gas production rate and gas-liquid ratio2];
2) quality and stability of the foam under reservoir conditions,
which are dependant on the temperature, pressure, salinity of
water, and the appearance of liquid hydrocarbons[10]; and 3)
dosage of surfactant (concentration of foaming agent) and cost
of surfactant in relation to the produced gas and liquid[13]. Also,
efforts have been made to improve performance of the foam
dewatering process by reducing the surfactant loss with
downhole injection tools[14, 15] and by enhancing the foamability
the surfactants and stability of foam[2, 3]. Although performance
of the surfactant solution and foam can be evaluated in the
laboratory at high pressures and elevated temperatures[16, 17], the
usage of surfactant in the field operations is still mainly
determined by using the empirical methods due to the complex
downhole environment. This may lead to unstable production
performance and/or higher production costs.
In this paper, a new method is developed and applied to
optimize the surfactant usage in a gas well dewatering process.
First, a calibration curve of the surface tension and foam density
the surfactant concentration is established by using the
experimental data. Then, the minimum critical velocity is
determined as a function of the surfactant concentration by
using the modified Turner’s droplet model. Theoretically, a
mathematical model is formulated for optimizing the foam
dewatering performance by choosing the ratio of the gas
production rate to the foaming agent rate as the objective
function. Once the objective function is maximized, the
determined surfactant usage is the optimum value for the gas
dewatering process. Finally, a case study is presented and
sensitive analysis has been made to quantify the effects of major
parameters on the gas dewatering performance.
Theoretical Model
Minimum Critical Velocity
The minimum critical velocity (MCV) is defined by the rate
at which the largest drop of liquid that can exist will move
upward. Numerous methods have been proposed to determine
the MCV for gas well unloading process. These methods
include the spherical droplet model[18, 19], flat droplet model[20],
liquid film movement model[18], and minimum kinetic energy
model[21], among which the Turner’s droplet model[18] has
received wide acceptance in the upstream oil and gas industry.
2
According to the Turner’s model, the minimum critical gas
velocity, V gc , can be calculated as[18]
σ 1 4 (ρ l − ρ g )1 4
Vgc = k (1)
ρ 1g 2
where σ is the gas-liquid surface tension, dyne/cm; ρ l and
ρg are densities of liquid and gas, lbm/ft 3 , respectively; and
k is the coefficient of the critical velocity,
(ft/sec) × (lbm/ft 3 )0.25 /(dyne/cm) 0.25 .
The parameter k can be expressed as
4mg c gN we
k=4 (2)
3Cd
where g is the acceleration due to gravity (32.17 ft/s 2 ); N we is
the Weber number, representing the ratio of the inertial force to
the surface tension; Cd is the drag coefficient; m and g c are
the conversion factors, respectively.
The drag coefficient Cd is related to the particle Reynolds
number, N Re = dv ρ g µ g , and the shape of the liquid droplets.
For a typical field application, the particle Reynolds number is
in the range of 10 4 ~ 105 [22]. This is the range where the drag
coefficient has a constant value of 0.44 for a spherical droplet or
of 1.00 for a flat droplet. It is assumed in the Tuner method that
the critical Weber number, NWe , is 30 and the drag
coefficient, Cd , is 0.44, so k = 1.593 . Although Tuner
suggested an upward 20% adjustment is needed for determining
the k value, Coleman, et. al.[18] found that the theoretically
calculated values without a 20% upward adjustment fit their
experimental data better. Thus, k = 1.593 is used for
determining the MCV of the gas in this study.
The corresponding minimum gas flow rate for a well to
continuously remove the liquids, Qgc , can be calculated by[18]
2402 pd h2 v gc
Q gc = (3)
(T + 460 )z
where Qgc is the minimum gas production rate, Mscf/d ; p is
pressure, psia ; d h is the hydraulic diameter of the flow area,
ft ; T is the temperature, °F; and z is the gas compressibility
factor.
Effect of Surfactants on Foam Properties
Surfactant is a substance that can absorb at an interface and
lower the surface tension of a liquid, σ [23]. Many surfactants
can reduce surface tension of water to about 30 dyne/cm from
its original value of 72 dyne/cm . The reduction of liquid
surface tension is a function of the adsorption of surfactant,
property of the liquid solution, type of surfactant, surfactant
concentration, pressure and temperature[8, 24]. Figure 1 depicts
the experimentally measured surface tension and foam-density
as a function of the surfactant concentration[8]. The experiment
was conducted with a commercial available surfactant product.
It can be seen from this figure that, with the increase of
surfactant concentration, the surface tension decreases sharply
at first, and then remains almost constant after the surfactant
concentration reaches its CMC. As shown in Figure 1, the foam
density decreases as the surfactant concentration increases.
Determination of Surfactant Concentration
In practice, application of foaming agent is mainly
constrained by choosing an economical foamer due to its
relative large usage of surfactants. The type of surfactants for a
gas well can be selected via compatibility tests in the laboratory
and the proposed screening criteria[10]. However, a proper
concentration of surfactant used in the fluid is difficult to be
determined in the laboratory experiments, which is usually
calculated by using the empirical methods. This may lead to
unstable production performance and/or higher production
costs. Here, a theoretical model is proposed to accurately
determine the surfactant concentration as a function of the gas
production rate. It is assumed that the gas density, ρ g , is
negligible since the density of foamed liquid is hundreds times
of the density of gas[8]. Thus, Equation (1) could be rewritten as
σ 1 4 ρ 1f 4
Vgc = k (4)
ρ 1g 2
As shown in Figure 1, the surface tension, σ , and foam
density, ρ f , are considered to be dependant on the mass
percentage concentration of the surfactant, C , for a given
surfactant at atmospheric pressure and temperature,
respectively[8, 23, 25]. Since both of these two functions decrease
monotonically, the multiplication of these two functions also
yields a monotonic decreasing function. This is termed the
calibration curve of the surface tension and foam density versus
the surfactant concentration, as shown in Figure 2, thus
σρ f = f (C ) (5)
In addition, the gas well is to be unloaded when gas
velocity, Vg , is equal to its MCV, Vgc , thus substituting
Equation (5) into Equation (4), and rearranging yields
Vg4 ρ g2
f (C ) =
(6)
k4
It is found from Equations (5) and (6) that f ( C ) acts as a
bridge between the experimental data and the theoretical MCV
model. Therefore, a simple and practical solution can be
obtained to determine the surfactant concentration. For a given
gas production velocity, Vg , f ( C ) can be determined by using
Equation (6), and then the corresponding surfactant
concentration, C , is determined by using the interpolation
method or graphical solution from the pre-determined
calibration curve as shown in Figure 2.
Determination of Surfactant Usage
The performance of the foam dewatering process is
evaluated by using the gas production rate per unit consumption
rate of the injecting surfactant, Qg / Qs , as the objective
function. Assuming that a gas well, with a constant reservoir
pressure, pr , produces gas and water only, that there is no
condensate, and that the producing gas-liquid ratio is constant,
then the inflow performance relationship (IPR) of the gas well
can be described as[26]
pr2 − pwf2 = Ag Qg (7)
where pwf is the flowing bottomhole pressure, psia; Ag is the
2
gas production resistance factor, psia /(Mscf/d) ; and Qg is the
gas production rate, Mscf/d .
3
The water production rate, Qw , can be expressed as
Qg
Qw = (8)
GLR
where GLR is the gas liquid ratio, Mscf/bbl .
So the required amount of surfactant can be obtained by
using the following equation[13]
Qs = Cnρ l (Qw + Qi ) (9)
where Qs is the surfactant dosage, lb/d ; Qi is the surface
surfactant injection rate, which is usually considered as a
constant during gas well operation, bbl/d ; and n is the
conversion factor, n = 5.61ft 3 /bbl .
Finally, substituting Equation (8) into Equation (9), and the
objective function can be obtained as follows,
Qg GLR
= (10)
Qs ⎛ Q ⎞
Cnρ l ⎜⎜1 + i ⎟⎟
⎝ Qw ⎠
Obviously, the object is to maximize the gas production rate
at a minimum consumption rate of the surfactant used for foam
generation. The detailed procedures for optimizing the
surfactant usage for a gas well dewatering process are described
as follows.
1) Select the proper type of surfactant for a certain gas well
via compatibility tests according to the USBM testing
procedures[27];
2) Surface tension and foam density are measured at different
surfactant concentrations. Then the calibration curve of the
surface tension and foam density versus the surfactant
concentration can be obtained;
3) Set the initial value of pwf (e.g., 0.1 × pr ), use Equations
(7) and (8) to calculate the gas production rate, Qg , and the
water production rate;
4) The gas flowing velocity can be determined by the
following equation[18]
Qg z (T + 460 )
Vg = (11)
2402 pd n2
5) Calculate the value of f (C ) using Equation (6);
6) Using the graphical solution or interpolation method from
the pre-determined calibration curve to obtain the
corresponding surfactant concentration C ;
7) Calculate the dosage of the surfactant, Qs , using Equation
(9);
8) Calculate the object function, Qg / Qs in Equation (10).
9) Increase Pwf by an incremental interval and Step 3 is
repeated until p wf is equal to pr and no gas is produced.
Then the optimization process is terminated. The surfactant
concentration, C , corresponded to the maximum value of
the object function is regarded as the optimum dosage of
the surfactant.
Case Study
Field Background
The Chishui Gas Field, located in Guizhou province of
China, is a mature field with a production history of more than
30 years. Since many gas wells in this gas field have suffered
from severe liquid loading problem, different gas dewatering
techniques have been applied for unloading the liquid and thus
increasing the gas production. For demonstration purpose, the
method developed in this study has been used to analyze the
optimum usage of the surfactant, compared to the existing
empirical methods. The physical properties of a gas well are
listed in Table 1. No condensate is produced from this well. A
surfactant solution is continuously injected down the annular
space by a surface injection pump with the pumping capacity of
0.6 bbl/d .
Comparison of the MCV Obtained by Using
Different Methods
The above-mentioned procedures are used to determine the
operation parameters for the foam-aided dewatering process. As
shown in Figure 3, the surfactant mass concentration is found to
be 0.083% when the gas production rate is 507.8 Mscf/d . The
other foaming operation parameters are listed in Table 2. Also,
the MCVs obtained from other models[18,19,20] are listed in Table
3. As can been seen from Table 3, the calculated MCV in this
study is smaller than those obtained from the Turner’s model
and Coleman’s model. This is mainly because the model
developed in this study considers the reduction of surface
tension and the foam density due to dissolution of surfactant.
On the other hand, the MCV is found to be the lowest by using
the Li’s model due to its consideration of droplet deformation.
Optimum Condition for Implementing Foam
Dewatering
For the gas well dewatering process, f (C ) is plotted as a
function of the flowing bottomhole pressure, pwf , in Figure 4.
It is worthwhile to mention that the function f (C ) , calculated
by the theoretical model, is found to be in the range of 0.52 ~
4.0×104 in figure 4, whereas the function f (C ) obtained from
the experiments is in the range of 1050~4957 (see Figure 2).
This means that the foam-aided dewatering process is not
always feasible for unloading liquid for a gas well. In principle,
the foam-aided dewatering technique performs better at a
moderate gas velocity, Vg . This is because the liquid droplets
can be lifted by the gas itself without surfactant when the gas
velocity is relatively large prior to the occurrence of the liquid
loading. On the other hand, there is no sufficient energy for the
gas to lift the foamed liquid to the surface if the gas velocity is
too low.
Figure 5 shows the relationship between the gas production
rate and the objective function. It can be seen that the objective
function increases as the gas production rate increases. This is
mainly ascribed to the fact that a well with high gas rate
possesses more native energy than those with low gas rate. In
this way, a well with a high gas rate is easier to bring liquid
droplets out of the well with the aid of surfactant. Thus, the
foam-aided dewatering process has a better performance at the
early stage of well loading process when the gas well still
maintains a relative high gas production rate. Also, the
relationship between the gas-liquid ratio and the objective
function is also plotted in Figure 5. Obviously, the object
function decreases as the gas-liquid ratio decreases at a given
gas production rate. This is because more foam is needed when
there is more liquid in the wellbore. It should be noted that a
low gas-liquid ratio not only increases the dosage of surfactants
but may also changes the flow regime in the wellbore from mist
4
flow to slug flow[2]. Since the Turner model was developed on
the basis of the mist flow regime, it is not suitable to use this
model to determine the MCV at a low gas-liquid ratio when the
slug flow occurs. It is suggested from field applications that the
foam-aided dewatering process is more suitable for gas wells
with the gas-liquid ratio between 1 and 8 Mscf/bbl[2].
Effect of Gas Well Production Resistance
Factor and Tubing Diameter
The objective function versus the flowing bottomhole
pressure at two gas production resistance factors and GLR =6.2
Mscf/bbl is depicted in Figure 6. It is shown that the objective
function increases as the production resistance factor decreases.
This is mainly due to the increase of the gas well productivity.
This means that less surfactant needs to be used for the foam-
aided dewatering process. This finding is consistent with that
from field applications[7].
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the calculated
dosage of surfactant and the tubing diameters at the gas
production rate of 507.8 Mscf/d and GLR = 6.2 Mscf/bbl . It
can be seen that the objective function decreases as the tubing
diameter increases. This is because a lower gas velocity is
expected in tubing with a larger diameter, and thus increases the
consumption of the surfactant.
Conclusions
In this paper, a pragmatic method is developed and applied
to optimize the surfactant usage in a gas well dewatering
process. Also, detailed procedures are provided for optimizing
the usage of surfactants for foam dewatering process by
choosing the ratio of the gas production rate to the surfactant
consumption rate as the objective function. The calculated
MCV in this study is smaller than those obtained from the
Turner’s model and Coleman’s model. This is mainly because
the model used in this study considers the surface tension and
the foam density as a function of surfactant concentration. A
field case is presented for design and analysis of the technique
developed in this study. It is found that the surfactant usage is
determined as a function of gas production rate and that the
foam dewatering process performs better in wells with high
productivity, high gas-liquid ratio and small tubing.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the Chishui Gas Field, Southern
Exploration and Production Company, SINOPEC, for
permission to publish this paper.
NOMENCLATURE
Notation
Ag = gas production resistance factor,
psia 2 /(Mscf/d) ;
C = surfactant mass percentage
concentration, %;
Cd = drag coefficient;
d = diameter of conduit, ft ;
dc = diameter of case, in ; Pressure Low Production Gas Wells; Drilling &
Production Technology, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 90-91,
dh = hydraulic diameter of the area of flow, November 2000.
ft ; 6. Saleh, S. and Al-Jamae’y, M., Foam-Assisted Liquid
g = acceleration due to gravity, 32.17 ft/s 2 ; Lifting in Low Pressure Gas Wells; paper SPE 37425,
presented at the SPE Production and Operations
gc = conversion factors, 32.17 lbm ⋅ ft/lbf ⋅ s 2 ; Symposium, Oklahoma, OK, March 1997.
GLR = gas-liquid ratio, Mscf/bbl ;
7. McWilliams, J.P. and Gonzales, D., Downhole Capillary
k = coefficient of critical velocity, Surfactant Injection System Pilot on Low Pressure Gas
(ft/sec) × (lbm/ft 3 )0.25 /(dyne/cm)0.25 ; Wells in the San Juan Basin; paper SPE 94293,
m = 0.00006852 (lbf/ft)/(dyne/cm) ; presented at the SPE Production and Operations
n = 5.61 ft 3 /bbl ; Symposium, Oklahoma, OK, April 2005.
8. Campbell, S., Ramachandran, S., and Bartrip, K.,
N Re = particle Reynolds number; Corrosion Inhibition/Foamer Combination Treatment of
N we = Weber number; Enhanced Gas Production; paper SPE 67325, presented
at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium,
p = pressure, psia ;
Oklahoma, OK, March 2001.
p wf = flowing bottomhole pressure, psia; 9. Campbell, S., and Bartrip, K., Ramachandran, S.,
pr = reservoir pressure, psia ; Corrosion Inhibition and Production Improvement via
Chemical Treatment; Paper 1051, presented at the
Qg = gas production rate, Mscf/d ; NACE Corrosion Conference, Houston, TX, March
Qgc = minimum gas production rate, Mscf/d ; 2001.
10. Jelinek, W. and Schramm L.L., Improved Production
Qi = surface surfactant injection rate, bbl/d ; From Mature Gas Wells by Introducing Surfactants into
Qs = surfactant dosage, bbl/d ; Wells; Paper IPTC/SPE 11028, presented at the
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha,
Qw = water production rate, bbl/d ; Qatar, November 2005.
T = temperature, °F ; 11. Geng, X., Zhao, X., Guo, H., and Wang, J., The
V = velocity, ft/s ; Reproduction Technology with Foam Displacement
Vg = gas production velocity, ft/s ; Fluid in Watered-Out Well; Drilling & Production
Technology, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 58-59, January 2004.
V gc = minimum critical gas velocity, ft/s ; 12. Bowman, C.W. and Collins, J.A., Increasing the
z = gas compressibility factor; Production From Marginal Gas Wells; paper SPE
100514, presented at the SPE International Oilfield
Greek symbols Corrosion Symposium, Aberdeen, Scotland, May 2006.
13. Vosika, J.L., Use of Foaming Agents To Alleviate
σ = surface tension, dyne/cm ; Liquid Loading in Greater Green River TFG Wells;
paper SPE/DOE 11644, presented at the SPE/DOE
ρf = density of foam, lbm/ft 3 ;
Symposium on Low Permeability, Denver, CO, March
ρg = density of gas, lbm/ft 3 ; 1983.
14. Silverman, S.A., Butler, W., Ashby, T., and Snyder, K.,
ρl = density of liquid, lbm/ft 3 ;
Concentric Capillary Tubing Boosts Production of Low
µg = gas viscosity, mPa ⋅ s . Pressure Wells; Petroleum Engineering International,
Vol. 70, No. 10, pp 71-73, October 1997.
15. Awadzi, J., Babbitt, J., Holland, S., Snyder, K., Saucer,
T., and Latter, K., Downhole Capillary Soap Injection
REFERENCES Improves Production; paper SPE 52153, presented at
the SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium,
1. Yang, C., Matching Technology of Drainage Gas
Oklahoma, OK, March 1999.
Recovery in Sichuan Gas Fields and Its Application;
16. Maini, B.B. and Ma, V.L, Laboratory Evaluation of
Natural Gas Industry, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 37-41, May
Foaming Agents for High-temperature Applications-I
1995.
Measurements of Foam Stability at Elevated
2. Lea, J., Nicken, H.V., and Wells, M., Gas Well
Temperatures and Pressures; Journal of Canadian
Deliquification; Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier,
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 25, Vol. 6, pp. 65-69,
Houston, TX, 2003.
November-December 1986.
3. Lea, J. and Nicken, H.V., Solving Gas-Well Liquid
17. Tyrode, E., Pizzino, A., and Rojas, O.J., Foamability
Loading Problems; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
and Foam Stability at High Pressures and Temperatures:
Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 30-36, April 2004.
I. Instrument Validation; Review of scientific
4. Huang, Y., Tan, H., Xiong, B., and Qu, L., The
Instruments, Vol. 74, No. 5, pp. 2925-2932, May 2003.
Research and Application on the Combined Technology
18. Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., and Dukler, A.E.,
of Dewatering Gas Production by Gas Lifting and Foam;
Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the
Drilling & Production Technology, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp.
Continuous Removal of Liquids From Gas Wells;
49-50, September 2001.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 9, No. 11, pp.
5. Huang, L., The Application of Combined Producing
1476-1482, November 1969.
Technology of Wellhead Boosting and Foam in Low

5
19. Coleman, S.B., Clay, H.B., McCurdy, D.G., and Norris, 27. Dunning, H.N., Eakin, J.L., and Walker, C.J., Using
H.L., A New Look at Predicting Gas-Well Load Up; Foaming Agents for Removal of Liquid from Gas Wells;
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. Monograph 11, US Bureau of Mines, American Gas
329-333, March 1991. Association, New York, 1961.
20. Li, M., Li, S.L., and Sun, L.T, New View on
Continuous-Removal Liquids From Gas Wells; SPE
Production & Facilities, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 42-46, SI Metric Conversion Factors
February 2002.
bbl × 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
21. Guo, B., Ghalambor, A., and Xu, C., A Systematic
dyne/cm× 1.0* E+00 = mN/m
Approach to Predicting Liquid Loading in Gas Wells;
SPE Production & Operations, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 81- ft× 3.048* E-01 =m
88, February 2006. ft3× 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
22. Duggan, J.O., Estimating the Flow Rate Required to in× 2.54 E+01 = mm
Keep Gas Wells Unloaded; Journal of Petroleum lbm× 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
Technology, Vol. 13, No. 12, pp. 1173-1176, November lbm/ft3× 1.601 846 E+01 = kg/m3
1969. psia × 6.894 757 E-03 = MPa
23. Schramm, L.L., Surfactants, Fundamentals and TC = (TF − 32) / 1.8
Application in the Petroleum Industry; Cambridge
*Conversion factor is exact.
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.
24. Matsuki, H., Kaneshina, S., Yamashita, Y., and
Motomura, K, Automatic Surface Tension
Measurements of Aqueous Surfactant Solutions by the
Drop Volume Method; Langmuir, Vol. 10, No. 11 , pp.
4394-4396, 1994.
25. Bikerman, J.J., Foams: Theory and Industrial
Applications; Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New
York, 1953.
26. Guo, B. and Ghalambor, A., Natural Gas Engineering
Handbook. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX,
2005.

6
 Table 1 Physical properties for a gas well
Parameter Unit Value Parameter Unit Value
Qg Mscf/d 507.8 GLR Mscf/bbl 6.2
Qw bbl/d 82.2 ρl lbm/ft 3
68.67
Qi bbl/d 0.60 ρg lbm/ft 3
0.045
pr psia 864.4 T °F 113
p wf psia 377.1 dc In 5.0
2
Ag psia /( Mscf/d) 1191.3 dh In 2.5

Table 2 Foaming operation parameters

Parameter Unit Value
C mass% 0.083
Qs lb/d 26.48
Q g / Qs Mscf/lb 19.2

Table 3 Comparison of the MCVs obtained from different models

Turner’s model[18] Coleman’s model[19] Li’s model[20] This study

MCV (ft/s) 14.01 11.68 5.19 10.45

70 80

Surface tension
Foam density 70
60
Surface Tension (dyne/cm)

60

Foam Density (lbm/ft3)

50
50

40 40

30
30

20

20
10

10 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Surfactant Concentration (mass%)

Figure 1 Effect of surfactant concentration on surface tension and foam density[8].

7
 Surface Tension × Foam Density (dyne/cm)(lbm/ft3)
6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Surfactant Concentration (mass%)

Figure 2 The calibration curve of surface tension and foam density versus the surfactant concentration.

15 600
Critical gas velocity
14 585
Gas production rate

Gas Production Rate (Mscf/d)

13 570
Critical Gas Velocity (ft/s)

12 555

11 540

10 525
507.8
9 510

8 495

7 480

6 0.083 465

5 450
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Surfactant Concentration (mass%)

Figure 3 The critical gas velocity versus the surfactant concentration.

8
 105 700
Function f(C)
IPR
600
104

Gas Production Rate (Mscf/d)

500
103
4
f(C)=Vg4ρg /k
2

400
102
300

101
200

100
100

10-1 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psia)

Figure 4 Function f(C) and inflow performance relationship (IPR) for a gas well.

120
GLR=8.0 Mscf/bbl
GLR=6.2 Mscf/bbl
100 GLR=5.0 Mscf/bbl
Objective Function (Mscf/lb)

80

60

40

20

0
450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550

Gas Prodution Rate (Mscf/d)

Figure 5 The objective function versus gas production rate at different gas liquid ratios.

9
 120
2
Ag=893.5 psia /(Mscf/d)
Ag=1191.3 psia2/(Mscf/d)
Objective Function (Mscf/lb) 100

80

60

40

20

0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psia)

Figure 6 The objective function versus the flowing bottomhole pressure at two production resistance factors and GLR =6.2 Mscf/bbl.

120

100
Objective Function (Mscf/lb)

80

60

40

20

0
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Tubing Diameter (in)

Figure 7 The objective function versus the tubing diameter at Qg =507.8 Mscf/d and GLR =6.2 Mscf/bbl.

10