SECTION 1 ~ GENERAL

1.3 Foaming Oil

Page 1 of 4

1.3 FOAMING OIL

INTRODUCTION

Historically, “Foaming Crude” has caused severe problems on well test applications. Foaming crude has led to
pollution, loss of valuable data, and serious difficulties when trying to operate equipment.

All Crude Oils & Gases that are produced offshore whether during Well Testing operations or Well Clean Up
operations will normally be passed through a Separator vessel. These separators are typically horizontal in design
and have a typical OD of around four feet. These vessels are particularly susceptible to oil foaming conditions.
These conditions are exacerbated by a number of factors including oil composition, mechanical turbulence,
separator inlet nozzle design & other factors, which may include the presence of large quantities of Nitrogen.
When the pressure is reduced on certain types of crude oils, foam (or froth) can be caused by the liberation of a
large amount of micro bubbles in the oil as the gas comes out of solution, where these bubbles are encased in a
thin film of oil. In other types of crude oil the viscosity and surface tension of the oil may mechanically lock gas in
the oil and cause an effect similar to foam.

Main causes of foaming crude:

− High pressure drops both in vessel and inlet piping, especially at low operating pressures, this creates
mechanical turbulence and produces foam.
− Composition of crude (High GOR’s).
− Presence of nitrogen, (especially prevalent during Coiled tubing & workover ops).
− Poor separator design.
− Heavy Oils (22 API or less) at relatively low temperatures.

1. Because of foaming, crude oil gets carried over in the gas stream whilst gas entrained in the foamy oil gets
carried under in the liquid stream. This will prevent accurate metering of the produced fluids and will also
make control of the separator very difficult. Stable foams will significantly alter separator level control
capability.

2. Where possible, sufficient information should have been made available from the operating company to allow
for identification of a foaming problem before equipment mobilisation. This would allow equipment to be
selected that best suits the needs of a foaming oil well and for chemical additives etc. to be chosen to help
"break" the foam. However, it is essential that a close monitoring of well effluent behaviour, through the
collection of samples, be carried out during the initial clean-up period of crude oil wells in order to ensure that
there will be no problems with foaming oil during a test.

Š Presence of foam during a Well Test or Clean Up operation can cause the following:
− Pollution due to carry over in the gas line.
− Prevent good separation and reduce separator capacity.
− Disrupt liquid and gas metering.
− Disrupt pumping operations.
− Cause potential burning problems.

Š The main factors that assist in "breaking" foaming oil are:

− Good separator design
− Settling
− Agitation
− Heat
− Chemical additives

GTR – Issue 2, Rev O

Sept 2002
 SECTION 1 ~ GENERAL
1.3 Foaming Oil
Page 2 of 4

PREVENTING GOOD SEPARATION AND REDUCING SEPARATOR CAPACITY

Foam creates a problem during well testing as it greatly reduces the capacity of the separator.
This is due to the fact that the liquid level, with foaming oil, will be higher than normal for a given quantity of oil
(due to area filled by the bubbles causing the frothing effect).

This in turn lowers the retention time in the separator and reduces it's efficiency to separate foaming oil, resulting
in gas entrained oil travelling down the oil line and through the liquid meters.

CAVITATION

Foaming oil can cause problems with cavitation when pumping with centrifugal type pump.

Cavitation can also occur at the separator oil dump valve, in the form of the dump valve 'hunting' as it tries to hold
a constant liquid level in the separator.

BURNING PROBLEMS

Burning problems can occur on foaming oil wells, any liquid droplets that are carried over from the separator body
through the gas line may not be atomised & burnt. The obvious undesirable consequence of this could be
pollution in the sea. This is unacceptable and therefore suitable foaming controls must be adopted.

The main factors in "breaking" foaming oil are: -

1. Separator Design

The best way to handle incoming foam is to apply a shear force in order to “break it” down. It is important
however, that the shear force applied should not be so high that the entrained droplets are not reduced in size. It
is also important that a proportion of the bulk liquid does not turn into droplets by re-entrainment at the gas/liquid
interface.

Foam generation in the vessel can be minimised by maximising the gas from liquid separation within the inlet
device and ensuring that the contours of the inlet device are smooth.

Š Use of Cyclonic Inlet Devices

Cyclonic devices are used to reduce incoming fluid stream momentum.

This is achieved in two ways, by separating the liquids and vapour into two discrete outlets and by evenly
distributing the emissions from those outlets downstream, by means of a secondary device, or as many other
devices as is practicable inside the vessel. Expro have fitted up to four double banks of cyclones inside some
separator vessels.
The result of the cyclone banks is to further reduce momentum and optimise gas/liquid and liquid/liquid
separation.
Expro have successfully carried out Well Testing operations on “known foaming crude” applications.

They are also used to ensure pre separation of incoming bulk liquids and thus reduce foam
The cyclonic inlet devices should have smooth surfaces, which will create high centrifugal forces. These high
centrifugal forces will cause a significant proportion of the foam to be broken down thus reducing the
proportion of foam to total liquids.

The cyclones apply a controlled shear force to the incoming liquids.

Š Possible Problems with Inlet Cyclones

Although beneficial with respect to the reduction of the stream momentum, different pressure drops across
the cyclone outlets may occur. The result is that, if incorrectly designed and controlled, gas may exit through
the liquid outlet (blow-by) or liquids may exit through the gas outlet (carry-over).
This may greatly reduce the effects of “foam breaking”.

GTR – Issue 2, Rev O

Sept 2002
 SECTION 1 ~ GENERAL
1.3 Foaming Oil
Page 3 of 4

2. SETTLING

Increasing the retention time of the oil as it passes through a separator allows more time for the foam to "break"
out of the oil. If this approach is combined with cyclonic inlet devices, foam can be virtually eliminated from the
vessel.

This solution may not be practical in all cases due to the oil flow rates. One answer to this is through the use of
stage separation, whereby the two or more separators are used in series, with the operating pressure of each
separator being dropped at each stage. This allows more gas to break out at each stage and thus reduce the
foaming problems. Oil flow rate measurements are not made until the final stage at which point there should be
no problem with foam giving false flow rates.

NOTE: It may be necessary to have an additional separator or knock-out vessel tied into the gas line(s) from the
upstream separator(s) in order to collect and measure any oil that has carried over with the foam before
allowing the gas to flare (ie, acting as a gas scrubber). Gas rates should be measured at this point to
obtain accurate flow data.

3. AGITATION

NOTE: Agitation is not easily achievable in well testing situations.

Agitation is helpful in "breaking" foaming oil where the foam bubbles are mechanically locked by the surface
tension and viscosity of the oil. It does this by causing the gas bubbles to coalesce and separate from the oil in
less time than would be required were agitation not employed. Agitation is not easily achievable in well testing
situations

Agitation can be obtained by stirring, vibrating, the baffle plates within the separator vessel will have a limited
“agitation effect” on the crude.

4. APPLICATION OF HEAT

Heat is one of the best methods of "breaking" foaming oil, as it reduces the oil viscosity and the surface tension of
oil assisting in the release of gas that is mechanically retained in the oil. The heat is normally applied to the oil
through the use of a heat exchanger (direct/indirect).

The heated oil will flow into the separator(s) where the normal separation process will take place. This process
coupled with the use of the separator internal baffle plates to agitate and coalesce the gas bubbles, provides a
very effective method of removing foam bubbles from foaming oil.

5. CHEMICALS

Any chemical that reduces the surface tension of crude oil will assist in "breaking" foaming oil.

Silicon defoamers are currently considered the most effective chemicals to use for this purpose. They appreciably
reduce the foaming tendency of the oil by destabilising the surface of a foaming oil to such an extent that the foam
bubbles can no longer support themselves, i.e. the thin film that exists between pockets of gas either ruptures or
are not permitted to form. This allows entrained gases to escape easily, leaving a clear interface.

These antifoam chemicals should be injected at the lowest point in the test string as possible, e.g. sub-sea tree,
etc.

Drawbacks with Antifoam chemicals

Some antifoam chemicals will have much better results than others in the effective treatment of foaming
problems. If it is possible to analyse the crude before the test program in order to choose an effective chemical,
then this should be done. In practice however, this is rarely the case and a system of trial and error is used on site
to determine the best chemical additives to use.

GTR – Issue 2, Rev O

Sept 2002
 SECTION 1 ~ GENERAL
1.3 Foaming Oil
Page 4 of 4

It is good practice to load out a selection of antifoam chemicals if problems with foaming crude oil are anticipated.
This may have considerable cost implications to the client.
There is no such thing as a “standard” antifoam chemical. There are literally hundreds of antifoams on the market
and each one has different properties and will have different effects in dealing with foaming problems.

6. ADDITIONAL METHODS

Additional methods that may assist in the reduction of foaming problems are to:-

− Avoid large pressure drops, especially at low pressure areas of the system. This can be done through the
use of stepped pressure reductions across more than one choking device, e.g. step down the well pressure at
the choke manifold and again at the heat exchanger.

− If it is practical to do so, the separator back pressure should be kept as high as possible (if not using stage
separation) this will prevent the liberation of gas bubbles.

FIGURE 1.3.1 - TYPICAL CYCLONIC SEPARATOR INLET DEVICE

Š Foam Elimination

As can be seen by the diagram above, a typical separator inlet cyclonic device will be connected directly to
the vessel inlet nozzle. These can be retro fitted to existing fleet separator vessels. These devices will greatly
improve fluid management within the separator and can virtually eliminate foam.

How it Works

There are a number of different makes and models on the market, they all work in virtually the same manner.
They typically consist of a group or banks of cylindrical tubes that are connected to the vessel inlet nozzle.
Fluids enter the tubes tangentially, creating centrifugal force. Liquids are spun outward against the walls of
the tubes causing natural gas/liquid separation.
The centrifugal forces created within these tubes can be many times the force of gravity. Not only can these
devices prevent foaming, they can also be tailored to provide greater efficiency in gas/liquid or liquid/liquid
applications.
To prevent gas from blowing out of the tubes bottom openings, the tubes are partially immersed in the liquid
phase to create an effective seal.

Increased Throughput

These devices can improve vessel throughput dramatically. Retrofitting of these devices has doubled
separator throughput in some applications.
It is certainly worthwhile considering retrofitting these devices to separator vessels if they are to be used
consistently in “foaming oil” situations.

GTR – Issue 2, Rev O

Sept 2002