SPE-174711-MS

Combination of Foam Assisted Lift & Gas Lift (FAGL) to De-liquefy Gas
Wells
Imran Tayyab, M. Farooq M. Uddin, Qazi I. Ahmed, M. I. Rehman, Syed Qazi Munawar Azam; United
Energy Pakistan Limited, All SPE members
Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the PAPG/SPE Pakistan section Annual Technical Conference held in Islamabad, Pakistan, 24-27 November 2014.
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; illustrati ons may not be copied. The abstract must contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Liquid loading is an ineluctable problem encountered by gas wells as their reservoir pressure declines and
Gas-Liquid Ratio (GLR) increases. Foam Assisted Lift (FAL) is one of the modern methods for
dewatering gas wells by reducing effective density and surface tension of produced fluid. Gas lift is also a
widely used method that reduces flowing bottom-hole pressure by injecting gas in the well to lower
hydrostatic head.
This paper proposes a combination of above mentioned technologies called Foam Assisted Gas Lift
(FAGL) and recommends its efficiency over two specific scenarios; a) when reservoir pressure is low
and static liquid level remains below bottommost SPM, b) when there is a considerable liquid column in
wellbore and gas injection pressures are limited due to surface constraints, injecting foam decreases the
hydrostatic head and requires less gas injection pressure to offload the well. In either case, FAL can
offload the well but the stabilized rates achieved are uneconomical compared to the soap requirement per
day. FAGL is applied on mature wells having low reservoir pressures and completed with single
SPM. These wells had frequent load-up issues and FAL/gas-lift failed due to low reservoir inflow. After
FAGL is implemented, frequent load-up issues have been resolved and wells began to produce at
increased stabilized rates. FAGL also emerged as an economical option because it reduced the soap
/injected gas requirement per day and increased gas rates and overall recovery.
For wells with deep SPMs, depleted reservoir pressure and liquid loading problems, FAGL could be an
economical de-liquefaction method when compared to standalone gas-lift or FAL due to its lower OPEX.

Introduction
Selecting the right artificial lift method is very important for gas wells when they load-up due to decrease
in reservoir energy and increase in water production. Most gas wells produce liquid either condensate,
water or both at some stage of their producing life. Often production and holdup of water in wellbore
leads to increased hydrostatic head that impedes production from reservoir. With declining reservoir
pressure, drawdown is minimized and well ceases to flow. To further produce the reservoir, it is crucial to
use artificial lift methods. Conventionally used techniques include Gaslift, Plunger lift, etc. Of late, the
use of foam to offload gas wells has gained popularity due to its inexpensive operating cost, easy
installation and operation.
However, the dilemma of low OPEX Foam Assisted Lift (FAL) system is that they are the most suitable
on marginal producers where profits are minimal. Furthermore most FAL systems are not expected to
improve production many folds and rather they only reinstate gas rates. Historically FAL have been
implemented in different forms such as using soap sticks or dry powder to create foam in the wellbore.
Only recently, complete soap injection systems have been developed that uses an injection string to
continuously inject liquid soap into the wellbore.
This paper briefly explains the working principle of FAL & Gas lift and proposes a new technique that is
a combination of both methods called Foam Assisted Gas Lift (FAGL). Case study of a well is discussed
in which initially, both of these artificial lift methods were used individually. Their production behavior
and deficiencies respective to this well are also outlined. Finally, FAGL is implemented in this well to
overcome these shortcomings. The benefits of FAGL are explained in detail together with an economic
analysis.
Gas Lift
Gas Lift is one of the most versatile artificial lift methods available and is conventionally used for both
production enhancement and de-liquefication of gas wells. In gas lift a stream of high pressure gas is
injected into the production string through gas-lift valves or orifice located in Side Pocket Mandrels of the
tubing. This creates a mixture of formation fluid(s) and injected gas, lowering the hydrostatic head of
wellbore fluid column which decreases the flowing bottom-hole pressure and consequently enables the
depleted reservoir pressure to produce the well.
In-comparison with other artificial lift methods, gaslift is generally less efficient than pump assisted lifts.
This is because unlike pumps, Gas lift doesnt add energy by doing work in the system, instead only
reduce the density of wellbore fluids. Furthermore due to frictional losses, Gaslift generally does not
lower the flowing bottom hole pressure to significant levels in low energy reservoirs. Nevertheless, major
benefits of gaslift include; operation with higher solid production, suitability for high GLR wells (as most
pumps efficiency severely deteriorates with increased gas production) and reasonable economics if
required surface setup (like treatment facility and compressors) are already installed in the production
system. However this method is not effective with depleted reservoirs that have limited liquid column
above gas injection depth.

Foam Assisted Lift

There are many techniques available to inject soap in the wellbore and most recent technique is to use a
capillary string in the wellbore. This capillary string is connected to a surface pump that injects the soap
into the string. Key advantage of this system is that it can be deployed through rigless intervention where
the capillary string is snubbed down the production tubing in a live well. Figure-9 depicts the major
components of conventional capillary injection system.
Conventional capillary soap injection system comprises of 1/4 inch or 3/8 inch OD stainless steel
capillary string, chemical injection or foot valve, capillary hanger, fluid pump(s) and a storage tank for
soap/chemical. Working of this system is outlined as follow; Soap (basically a surfactant) is injected via
pump into the capillary string and into tubing through the injection valve. This soap reacts with formation
fluids to form foam that lowers gas slippage, reduces density, minimizes the surface tension and unloads
the wellbore liquid to initiate gas flow from reservoir. Because of the durable and elastic nature of the
stainless steel alloys, the capillary string can be easily and economically detached from a wellbore and reinstalled in another well. However there are also certain limitations of FAL system that make it unsuitable
for many scenarios. Following are a few limitations:

Well intervention is not possible on a well with FAL due to the installation of capillary string
hence wellbore tool cannot pass through.
FAL is also not appropriate for low energy reservoirs, as reservoir energy is required to lift the
foam column.
As foam creation requires agitation, FAL requires inflow from the reservoir. Therefore reservoirs
with minimum inflow are not suitable candidates.
High CGR wells

Foam Assisted Gas Lift

Two of the more efficient artificial lift methods for gas well deliquification are mentioned in previous
sections. However due to the design of the well or maturity of the reservoir, implementing either of the
two as a standalone system might not be effective. Foam Assisted Gas Lift (FAGL) is a technique in
which both FAL and Gaslift are used in the well simultaneously. There are various reasons why using
both techniques simultaneously performs better in terms of production enhancement and well economics
and these will be outlined in this study.
Basic working principle of FAGL is identical to both its constituent methods. In FAGL, both gas and soap
are injected in tandem. This soap injected downhole creates foam and increases liquid height. Further the
injected gas provides energy to flow this liquid column to the surface enabling the well to effectively
offload. This process minimizes hold-up below gas injection point and ensures minimum drop out from
the flow stream.
There are two prime scenarios where it is more efficient than its counterparts; a) when the well depth and
reservoir pressure are such that the static fluid column does not reach lowermost gas lift valve for
conventional gas injection, b) when productivity of the reservoir is low and FAL produces the well for
certain period of time until liquid column accumulates again loading up the well.

However as is the case with all artificial lift techniques, FAGL has certain limitations where it might not
be the feasible technique for Gas well Deliquification:

Not suitable for production systems were gaslift setup and high pressure gas is not available
therefore high CAPEX will be required for FAGL implementation
Not suitable for low energy reservoir that cannot provide adequate agitation and lift for foam
creation
Well intervention is not possible with capillary string installed in well
Not suitable for wells with excessive condensate production as condensate hinders foam
formation.

Case Study
Well M-1 Introduction
Well M-1 is 7500 ft MD deep, completed in early cretaceous sandstone reservoirs; Sand-Y and Sand-Z.
Sand-Y is average 10% porosity, gas condensate reservoir with average absolute permeability of ~50 mD
and initial water saturation of ~13%. Sand-Z is average 8% porosity gas reservoir with average absolute
permeability of ~40 mD and initial water saturation of ~20%. Total dynamic in-place estimated using P/Z
method for both sands is 68 BCF.
The packer is installed at 6840 ft KB; end-of-tubing is at ~6890ft KB and Side Pocket Mandrel at ~6800ft
KB. The top of perforation is ~200ft MD below the gas injection point.

Well M-1 Natural Production

Well was perforated in Sand-Y initially and produced ~18 BCF with increasing water production. Further,
Gas rates dropped below 1 MMscfd with WGR of ~300 STB/MMscf. causing the well to load-up. To
revive production, well was perforated in Sand-Z. The well revived at higher rates of ~7 MMscfd,
however commingled production of Sand-Y & Sand-Z was short-lived. To further produce the well, it
was put on compression. With reduction of FWHP due to compression, gas rates improved to ~12
MMscfd decreasing WGR to ~30 STB/MMscf. Well produced on compression for ~10 years with steady
decline in gas rates.
Reservoir pressure recorded in 2008 was ~800 psi, while initial reservoir pressure was ~3300 psi hence
indicating 75% depletion in pressure. The well ceased to flow in late 2011 and produced a total of ~39
BCF on natural production.
Figure-2 plots the natural production (gas rates, water, oil rates) against time.
Well M-1 Gas Lift Production
Gaslift was selected on M-1 as a deliquification technique since the well was completed with SPM (for
chemical injection) and high pressure gas was available for injection. Gas lift was started in May 2012
with gas injection rate of ~0.4 MMscfd. The well revived at gas rates of ~1.7 MMscfd and increased
WGR of 150 STB/MMscf.

Within six months of gas lift production, gas rates declined to ~1.2 MMscfd with WGR of ~200
STB/MMscf indicating liquid loading in the wellbore. Due to decline in reservoir pressure and 200ft
difference between perforation and Gas-lift valve, this method was not optimally producing the well.
Therefore a new artificial lift system was evaluated to produce the well expeditiously and with improved
profitability. Well M-1 cumulatively produced ~40.6 BCF till November 2012, where contribution from
Gaslift was ~1.6 BCF.
Figure-3 plots the gaslift production (gas rates, water, oil rates) against time.
Well M-1 Foam Assisted Lift (FAL) Production
FAL system was implemented on M-1 after evaluation of critical velocity and compatibility testing of
soap with reservoir fluid. FAL setup was installed with 6950ft capillary string to inject soap near the
perforations. At the time of installation, there was no industry standard nodal analysis package to model
the flow of a well under soap injection. Therefore it was not possible to directly calculate the incremental
production from FAL system and a directional cost-to-benefit analysis was conducted.
The well was put on FAL production in December 2012 and a stepwise soap injection scheme was carried
out to closely monitor & optimize wells response to soap injection. Production was initiated with an
injection rate of 0.5 GPD that was increased to 5 GPD that improved the gas production to 1.5 MMscfd.
To further identify the proportionality between soap injection and gas rate, injection was increased to 6
GPD however this resulted in slight decrease in gas rates. This indicated that soap injection rate is only
directly proportional to gas rate up to an extent, after which increase in soap rate lowers production. This
phenomenon is explained by Li et al [1].
Well load up frequently due to liquid fall back in wellbore during FAL production. Furthermore, all
attempts to offload the well using frac tanks and increased soap injection did not work because there was
not adequate influx from the reservoir to agitate and create foam. As Gaslift setup was already installed it
was utilized to offload M-1. After production gas rates reinstated, Gaslift was suspended and well
produced on FAL alone until it loaded up again and the cycle restarted. Eventually, this load-up frequency
increased to once every month causing significant production loss from the field.
This raised the need to evaluate a method that will reduce the frequent load-up issue and stabilize
production from the asset. As gas-lift was used to offload the well, it was decided to inject gas and soap
simultaneously and monitor production response while also evaluating the economics of this new system.
Figure-4 plots the FAL production (gas rates, water, oil rates) against time.
Well M-1 Foam Assisted Gas Lift (FAGL) Production
Foam Assisted Gas Lift was initiated in Well M-1 in October 2013 and is producing on the same till date.
As stated above, FAGL was implemented to resolve the frequent load-up issue of Well M-1. Therefore
the foremost challenge after implementing FAGL was to predict the resultant LGR as this parameter
prominently affects the efficiency of foam creation downhole.
Second step in FAGL evaluation was to identify the gas and soap injection rate. There are many
commercial packages available to model Gaslift, however that was not the case with foam injection
systems at that time. Initial injection rates were kept similar to what was used in standalone FAL and

Gaslift .To optimize injection rates, stepwise changes were made. The idea was to start the well with
higher injection rates and gradually decrease them while monitoring gas production. The final injection
rates were set at 2 GPD soap and ~0.3 MMscfd gas injection.
As shown in Figure-5, with decrease in soap and gas injection rate, no subsequent reduction of gas
production was observed. Although initial production of the well was erratic, this was due to the transient
stage where wellbore hydraulics were not stabilized. After ~3 weeks of fluctuating production, gas rates
finally stabilized at ~1.3 MMscfd, ~300 BWPD with a WGR of ~230 STB/MMscf. This marked a ~0.3
MMscfd gas increment in-comparison with FAL.
To further quantify advantages of FAGL over FAL, decline curve analysis (DCA) was conducted on
production rates of Well M-1, when it was producing on FAL and FAGL respectively. The objective was
to calculate the reserves for both artificial lift methods and asses the overall incremental recovery. Fig-7
and Fig-8 shows DCA of FAL and FAGL respectively. As seen in the figures, the decline rate for FAL is
0.067 and for FAGL is 0.0185 Monthly Nominal. This increased decline rate for FAL is probably due to
the ineffective unloading of wellbore fluids by FAL. The reserves for FAL were 0.15 BCF while for
FAGL are ~1.9 BCF. Therefore by implementing FAGL, the overall field recovery was improved by 3
percent.
Figure-5 plots the FAGL production (gas rates, water, oil rates) against time.
After implementing FAGL on M-1, following triumphs were achieved:

Production of well is stabilized at ~0.3 MMscfd, higher in-comparison with FAL production.
Average CGR increased from ~20 to ~40 STB/MMscf. This improved production of condensate
increased the profitability of the well.
Well has been producing stably for 9 months without any incident of load-up. Thus FAGL
resolved the major issue faced by FAL.
Due to lower injection rate of soap, and increased gas production, wells OPEX was reduced,
improving the economics of the field.
The overall recovery of the field was improved by 3%

Well M-1 Economic Evaluation

Operational benefits of FAGL were discussed above and it was outlined that by running Gaslift and FAL
simultaneously, the OPEX of the well was reduced, which is counter intuitive. To carry out an extensive
economic analysis and outline the benefit of FAGL, OPEX of well-1 was compared for years 2010 to
2014. Figure-6 outlines the numbers used in economic analysis.
As shown in figure-5, the rate of soap injection was reduced to 2 GPD from 6 GPD when Well M-1
started production on FAGL. This marked 66 percent decrease in soap requirement per day. As per the
contract with service provider, each soap gallon costs 45 US dollars therefore 66 percent reduction in
soap requirement translates to a saving of 5400 US dollars per month.
In 2010 and 2011 the well was producing naturally, in 2012 it was producing on Gas lift, in 2013 Foam
Assisted Lift was producing the well, while finally in late 2013 and 2014, M-1 was being produced
through FAGL. To compare apples with apples, annual profitability of M-1 was compared for each year

when it was producing on different artificial lift methods. The revenue was calculated using gas and oil
price of $4/MMBTU and $100/BBL respectively. As depicted by Figure-7, the profitability of M-1 on
FAGL was US 3 million dollars per annum while it was US 1.5 million dollars per annum on FAL. This
translates into 100% increase in profit by implementing FAGL on M-1.
Moreover, as an alternative economic analysis, lifting cost of M-1 was also compared for years 2013 and
2014. Lifting cost for a well is defined as the OPEX incurred to produce one barrel of oil equivalent from
any well. All Artificial lift mechanisms have different OPEX hence a well will have different lifting cost
when produced through different lift techniques. The results demonstrate 12% reduction of lifting cost
when M-1 was producing on FAGL in comparison with FAL.
Conclusion
FAGL was implemented in Well M-1 which was previously producing on Gaslift and then on Foam
Assisted Lift (FAL). Well had frequent load up issues on FAL, and always required Gaslift to reinstate
production. To eliminate frequent load-up problem, FAGL was implemented on M-1. FAGL not only
eradicated the load-up issue, it also increased the reserves of the asset by ~3%. Soap requirement per day
was reduced by 66% in comparison with FAL and economic analysis revealed an overall lifting cost
reduction of ~12%. This simplistic approach turned out to be an innovative solution for a marginal
producer like M-1 and resolved most deficiencies of FAL and Gaslift without any capital expenditure.
Recommendation
Based on the analogy of Well M-1, FAGL can be implemented on the wells that fall within the following
criteria:

Well loads-up frequently on FAL alone due to inefficient liquid unloading.

Static fluid column does not reach lowermost SPM for conventional Gaslift.
Gaslift setup and high pressure gas is available

Nomenclature
BCF = Billions cubic feet
CAPEX = Capital Expenditure
CGR = Condensate Gas Ratio, STB/MMscf
DCA = Decline Curve Analysis
FAGL = Foam Assisted Gas Lift
FAL = Foam Assisted Lift
FWHP = Flowing Well Head Pressure, Psi
GLR = Gas-Liquid-Ratio, MMscf/STB
GOR = Gas Oil Ratio, MMscf/STB

GPD = Gallons per Day

KB = Kelly Bushing, ft
MMscfd = Million standard cubic feet per day
OPEX = Operating Expenditure
Psi = Pounds per square inch
SLC = Specific Lifting Cost
SPM = Side Pocket Mandrel
STB/MMscf = Standard Barrel per million cubic feet
SPM = Side Pocket Mandrel
WGR = Water Gas Ratio, STB/MMscf
References
1. H. Li, D. Yang, Q. Zhang: A theoretical Model for Optimizing Surfactant Usage in a Gas Well
Dewatering Process, Petsoc paper 2007-118
2. B.P. Price, B. Gothard: Foam Assisted Lift Importance of Selection and Application, SPE
106465, April 2007
3. James F. Lea, Henry V. Nickens, Mike R. Wells: Gas Well Deliquification, Second Edition

Fig 1 - M-1 Total Production History

Fig 2 - M-1 Natural Production History

Fig 3 - M-1 Gaslift Production History

Fig 4 - M-1 FAL Production History

Fig 5 - M-1 FAGL Production History

Lift
Method
Natural
Natural
Gaslift
FAL
FAGL

Year

Oil
(BOPD)

Gas
(MMscfd)

Total
Production
(BOE/year)

Total
Expense
($M/year)

Profitability
($MM/year)

Lifting
Cost
($/BOE)

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

1
0
2
19
40

1.6
1.4
1.2
0.9
1.4

101054.7
88103.4
76247.2
63572.9
70344.8

478
435
258
513
497

1.9
1.6
1.6
1.5
3.0

4.7
4.9
3.4
8.1
7.1

Fig 6- Economics Analysis

Makhdumpur-1
5

10

FAL Production
4

B=0
Di = 0.0674 Monthly Nominal
qi = 0.53 MMscfd
Reserves = 0.15 BCF

Gas Rate (CD), Mcf/d

10

10

10

Gaslift
Production

10

FAL
Production

FAGL
Production

10

-1

10

2011

12

13

14

15

16

17
18
Date

19

20

21

22

23

24

Fig 7 - M-1 FAL DCA

Makhdumpur-1
5

10

FAGL Production
B=0
Di = 0.0185 Monthly Nominal
qi = 1.3 MMscfd
Reserves = 1.9 BCF

Gas Rate (CD), Mcf/d

10

10

10

Gaslift
Production

FAL
Production

FAGL
Production

10

2011

12

13

14

15

16

17
18
Date

Fig 8 - M-1 FAGL DCA

19

20

21

22

23

24

Fig 9 - Basic FAL Surface & Subsurface Components