1 / 27

Buenos Aires, 7 al 10 de agosto de 2012

OPTIMIZING DEFOAMER USAGE IN DRILLING & CEMENTING APPLICATIONS: TECHNOLOGY REVIEW & TESTING METHODOLOGIES. Luciana Bava , Amir Mahmoudkhani, Robert Wilson , Leanne Levy, Patricia De Palma and Henry Masias Atlanta R&D Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Buenos Aires, 7 al 10 de agosto de 2012.

camille-banks
Download Presentation

Buenos Aires, 7 al 10 de agosto de 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OPTIMIZING DEFOAMER USAGE IN DRILLING & CEMENTING APPLICATIONS: TECHNOLOGY REVIEW & TESTING METHODOLOGIES Luciana Bava, Amir Mahmoudkhani, Robert Wilson, Leanne Levy, Patricia De Palma and Henry Masias Atlanta R&D Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Buenos Aires, 7 al 10 de agosto de 2012

  2. Foam Generation • Foam is a colloidal dispersion of gas in a liquid or a solid. • Pure liquids do not foam • Tap water, in spite of being aerated, does not foam • Bubbles collapse immediately on the surface • To generate foam, it is necessary to have a surface active component that stabilize the inclusion of dissolved and entrained gasses.

  3. Foaming/Defoaming Systems Examples of foaming/defoaming systems in upstream Oil & Gas industry under dynamic fluid conditions

  4. Well Completion Cement

  5. Drilling and Cementing Additives • Most common additives used to modify the behavior of drilling and cement systems are surface active molecules that cause the working fluid to foam during mixing • Such additives include: • Cement: retarders, dispersants, fluid loss control additives, gas migration control agents and ductility improvement additives. • Water base drilling muds: salinity chemicals, dispersants, lost circulation materials and gelling agents and viscosifiers Cement G + Gas Migration Additive Blend, 1800 ikg/m3 - without defoamer (left), with defoamer (right)

  6. Foam in Drilling and Cementing Operations • Excessive slurry foaming can have several undesirable consequences: • Loss of hydraulic pressure during pumping can occur owing to cavitation in the mixing system • Air entrainment may cause higher than desired slurry densities • Air entrainment also increases the risk of gas permeability and of improper wetting and mixing • Liquid or Dry Defoamersare used

  7. Well Cementing – Cement Mixing Recirculating Centrifugal Pumps (max 4000 L /min) Slurry Tubs: 1000 – 8000 L

  8. Well Cementing – Cement Mixing Dry Defoamers Liquid Defoamers Foam Generation

  9. Performance Evaluation Methods

  10. Non-Systematic Testing Methods Blender Foam Test Sparge Foam Test Foam Height • Simple & inexpensive • Good for initial screening • Measurements based on foam height • May not accurately represent system under study (A vs. B) • Single point data • Single shear rates and fix mixing time • Difficulty in replicating field conditions A B Time

  11. Modified Blender Test Mahmoudkhani et al., “An Innovative Approach for Laboratory Evaluation of Defoamers for Oilfield Cementing Applications”, SPE 143825, Brasil Offshore Conference and Exhibition, Brazil, June 2011

  12. Foam and Entrained Air Test (FEAT) Ancillary Gas DFM Density & Flow Meter Data Recording Temp Controller Foam Cell Variable Rate Pump P Drain

  13. Foam and Entrained Air Test (FEAT) Fluid composition may be altered by addition of chemical components at any point during the test Data collected every 0.5 second At precision of 0.00005 g/mL

  14. Defoamer performance Blender Test FEAT Study This comprehensive study approach (FEAT + Blender) is needed for proper laboratory validation and qualification under simulated field conditions (accounting for different dosage practices, additives, mixing regimes, etc.)

  15. Performance Evaluation:Defoamer Chemistry & Cement Additives

  16. Dispersant-Salt System FEAT analysis of silicone and non-silicone chemistries on 4% sodium polynaphthalenesulfonate + 30% salt solution.

  17. Dispersant-Salt System Blender foam test data in the dispersant-salt system, 4% sodium polynaphthalenesulfonate + 30% salt solution. All defoamers are dosed at 0.20% BWOC (by weight of cement)

  18. Latex System Silicone A Blank Non-Silicone D FEAT analysis of silicone and non-silicone chemistries on latex solution.

  19. Latex System Blender foam test data in latex system. All defoamers are dosed at 0.20% BWOC (by weight of cement)

  20. PVA (fluid loss additive) System Blender foam test data in latex system. All defoamers are dosed at 0.20% BWOC (by weight of cement)

  21. Dry vs. Liquid Defoamers Dry Defoamers Liquid Defoamers • Dry Defoamers are prefer for better stability, ease of handling and storage • Dry Defoamers are suitable for harsh climate areas • Cannot be used as trimmer, a second (and liquid) defoamer is required

  22. High Surface Area Solids High adsorption Slow / incomplete release Improved / Fast Release Dry Defoamers Conventional Dry Defoamers (silica) Adsorption Release Improved / Fast Release Dry Defoamers Substrate Defoamer

  23. Fast Release vs. Conventional Dry Defoamers FR Dry: fast release dry defoamer Dry: conventional dry defoamers Liq: liquid defoamer • Fast Release Dry Defoamers: • Outperform conventional Dry Defoamers with a performance level comparable to Liquid Defoamers • Reach maximum performance at lower dosages

  24. Summary 1: Foam Generation and Testing

  25. Summary 2: Choice of Defoaming Chemistry

  26. Summary 3: Form of Defoamer (Liquid, Conventional Dry or Fast Release)

  27. Thank you luciana.bava@kemira.com patricia.depalma@kemira.com

More Related