SPE 71480
Development of a Foam Monitor for High Pressure Separators
M.K. Poindexter, SPE, and S.C. Marsh, Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P., and G. Fransen, Agar Corporation
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Many deepwater platforms installed in the Gulf of Mexico
produce large amounts of both gas and oil. Due to the limited
space aboard these vessels, some separation equipment may
become undersized particularly when record setting production
rates are attempted. Additionally, there is increased activity in
adding new subsea production to platforms that are within
specified production limits. When the increased throughput
arrives, separation equipment can be overloaded. In other
instances, the addition of a new well (or wells) to existing
production can greatly change the foaming characteristics of the
overall composite. If the change is towards more severe
foaming, an immediate problem can arise.
The high pressure separator (HPS) is where gas/oil separation
begins. It is imperative that efficient separation occurs in the
HPS, otherwise performance in downstream vessels will
likewise diminish. With enough foaming, the platform can be
forced to take an unwanted, and sometimes unexpected,
shutdown.
Foaming can often be viewed as a two-fold problem. While
foam (or liquid carry-over) takes place through the overhead
outlet of the HPS, there is generally simultaneous gas carry-
under through the bottom outlet of the separator. This “double
problem” can often be observed by watching process gauges
(e.g. pressure, flow rate, and level monitors). While these
monitors are often useful for detecting foam, they are located
either after the HPS or often do not respond quickly to an
impending foam situation. To develop an immediate response to
separator foaming, a probe was developed to monitor the
conditions directly within the HPS. Lab development and field
evaluation of a probe capable of handling the high pressure and
flow rates of a HPS will be reviewed. Examples of using the
probe to assist in selection and optimization of antifoams will
also be presented.
Introduction
The ability to continuously and economically produce
petroleum from reservoir to production facility without
interruption has been recently termed as flow assurance.1
Deposition of solids, such as waxes, asphaltenes, hydrates, and
scale, is cited as a major area for concern. However, even
uninterrupted fluid flow can still experience flow assurance
problems. Two common examples include unwanted
emulsification and foaming.2 Being able to predict, monitor,
and prevent such problems is critical to ensure production
remains optimized under any process condition. This paper
will focus on one particular aspect of flow assurance, namely a
new way to detect and respond to foam inside a HPS.
A number of foam/liquid level monitors are reported in the
literature, and some have found use in petroleum and
petrochemical applications.3 A few of the more common
techniques include capacitance, electromagnetic radiation,
neutron-backscatter, differential pressure, and sonic echo (e.g.
sonar, sonic, and ultrasonic) devices. Since the density, and
other chemical properties, of foams are less easy to distinguish
than liquids, it is often more facile to detect the liquid level
below the foam than the foam/gas interface.3b
For years, energy absorption (i.e. radio frequency
(RF)/microwave-based) probes have been used to effectively
monitor the water concentration in oil/water emulsions.4 The
probes have found application in both oil-continuous and
water-continuous systems. By operating in the radio/
microwave region (specifically, up to 2.45 GHz), the probes in
effect detect water concentration. The probe has three main
components: a transmitter, antenna, and signal conditioner.
The output of the device is a 4-20 mA signal that is
proportional to the water/hydrocarbon ratio (where higher
milliampere readings correspond to higher water
concentrations). From field usage, it has been demonstrated
that the probe will also effectively monitor foam where the
liquids are highly polar (e.g. amine and glycol units).
Recent lab work confirmed that the probe has additional
capabilities namely monitoring systems where water or other
polar materials are absent.5 By calibrating the 4-20 mA output
signal such that the span is between gas (i.e. 4 mA) and crude
oil (20 mA), the probe proved capable of monitoring the
2 M.K. POINDEXTER, S.C. MARSH, G. FRANSEN
relative gas/oil ratio with excellent reproducibility in both lab
and field evaluations. Furthermore, this concept could be
extended beyond crude oil to any non-aqueous, non-polar
liquid where foam detection is needed.
The quality of foam is defined by the volume percent gas
of a gas/liquid mixture where dry foams have high ratios and
wet foams have low ratios.6,7 Having a monitor capable of
instantaneously and continuously distinguishing foam quality
(i.e. gas/oil ratio) could be useful in systems where foam is
either desired or undesired. By determining real-time foam
quality, operators could in effect characterize their process and
make necessary adjustments to maintain an acceptable gas/oil
ratio. Furthermore, careful placement of the probe (or better
yet, series of probes) would permit identification of the “foam
front” as it progresses or intensifies through a vessel of
interest. This mode of monitoring would allow quantification
of the foam quality wherever a probe was present.
For a HPS, where gas separation is critical and
accessibility is difficult, an operator using a foam probe (or
series of foam probes) could establish the status of the
contents within the vessel at any given instant. By
ascertaining the process conditions within the HPS, more lead-
time would be achieved for making process changes versus
using more traditional monitors located downstream of the
separator.
Laboratory Foam Studies
Lab work with the probe involved placement of a small scale
demo version (12.7 mm OD shaft, 510 mm overall length, see
Figure 1) vertically in a 500 mL glass sparge cylinder and then
foaming a sample of crude oil so that the probe was surrounded
by several different gas/oil conditions. Figure 2 illustrates both
the antenna and antenna guard. Foam was generated by sparging
nitrogen gas through a glass frit of medium porosity (10-20 µm)
that was surrounded by a reservoir of crude oil (46 mL). Figure
3 shows the basic setup for these experiments. The guard is not
drawn in Figure 3 for simplicity.
To understand how the probe would behave if placed in the
upper half (gas phase) or lower half (liquid phase) of a HPS, the
probe was placed at three heights with respect to the crude oil
reservoir. In the first experiment (see the left portion of Figure
4), the end of the probe was positioned just above the surface of
the crude oil when no gas was flowing. Introduction of nitrogen
gas through the frit generated foam. Both foam volume (see the
left ordinate of Figure 4) and the output of the probe in
milliamperes DC, which was acquired using a multimeter (see
the right ordinate), were recorded versus time.
The signal resided at 3.60 mA before the start of any foaming,
and returned to this value once the foam had collapsed even
though there was residual oil wetting the probe shaft, antenna,
and antenna guard. While foam was rising up the probe to a
maximum value of 155 mL (see blue dashed line), the probe
signal changed to 3.63 mA (see red solid line). While the change
in signal output was quite small, it was realized that the 4-20 mA
signal could be recalibrated to any set of conditions (e.g. air
versus oil, as opposed to air versus water).8
SPE 71480
The next experiment involved adding more crude oil to the
sparge cylinder such that the gas/liquid interface was at the 90
mL mark (see the middle portion of Figure 4). This setup was
to represent a condition when the probe was residing at the
interface. Sparging was again performed such that the foam
height rose to 465 mL. During the course of this run, the
probe signal dropped from an initial reading of 3.72 mA to
3.64 mA, and then returned to 3.72 mA after the foam had
collapsed. Once again, the small droplets of crude oil
remaining on the shaft after foaming did not interfere with
reproducibility.
The third experiment was a variation of what was just
described, namely, that more crude oil was placed in the
sparge cylinder such that the antenna was totally covered with
crude (see the right portion of Figure 4). This additional crude
oil changed the signal so that the start point was now 3.77 mA.
Sparging with nitrogen resulted in a maximum foam volume
of 485 mL, at which point the probe signal dropped to 3.66
mA. Cutting off the gas flow and allowing the foam to
collapse resulted in the signal returning the original value of
3.77 mA. This third experiment represents probe behavior for
gas carry-under conditions.
As seen in Figure 4, the rise and fall of the probe signal is
proportional to the foam height in the first study, but inversely
proportional to the foam height in the second two studies. The
reason becomes clear when one considers that the probe reads
a low value for air and a higher value for oil. Foam values
would therefore always be somewhere between the air and oil
values. In the first study, the probe starts in air and then
detects foam. The foam it detects has signal values lower than
those from the other two experiments as this foam is less
dense (or has a higher foam quality value). The reverse occurs
when the probe is initially submerged in oil and then foam is
created.
Another purpose of starting the experiments at different crude
oil heights was to demonstrate that the probe would be capable
of detecting foam formation under any scenario. For example, if
the probe was inside a HPS and the liquid level was to change
for whatever reason, the probe should still be able to see changes
in the oil/gas composition.
Ancillary Laboratory Studies
Antenna. The above studies used an antenna guard with an
internal diameter (ID) of 16 mm. A second, larger guard (ID
28.5 mm) was also evaluated. Due to the larger diameter guard,
it was necessary to use a different sparge vessel (spec. a 1 L
graduated cylinder). In each of the three crude oil depths
discussed in Figure 4, the starting signal with the larger antenna
guard never wavered from 2.08 mA. Thus, the distance the
signal travels is critical to accurately detect foam and the quality
of foam.
Mist. Misting is believed to almost always be present in the
separator due to the extremely high gas flow rates (often >200
MMSCFD). If the probe were placed in the gas phase and
misting occurred to varying degrees, then this phenomenon
might interfere with accurate foam detection by signaling a
SPE 71480 DEVELOPMENT OF A FOAM MONITOR FOR HIGH PRESSURE SEPARATORS
false positive. To determine whether the probe could identify
mist, two spray bottles were filled with water (note: the probe
is much more sensitive to water than oil), held at a close
range, and used to liberally soak the probe. A negligible
signal change was detected (+0.02 mA). This result suggested
that the probe would not be sensitive to mist composed of
hydrocarbon and thus, the presence of mist would not mask
the formation of foam.
Temperature. Temperature effects on the probe signal were
considered since different wells often possess different
temperatures, and temperature fluctuations, though generally
minor within the separator, could be envisioned. Additionally,
it was deemed advantageous to know if a probe used at one
location would behave similarly if placed in a second location.
Six different Gulf of Mexico crudes, at 225 mL, were
individually added to a 500 mL graduated cylinder. With the
probe immersed, readings were recorded when the contents
were at three temperatures (21, 42, and 54 °C). As shown in
Figure 5, the probe signal was not altered during this
temperature increase for all six crudes. The same held true for
non-polar solvent toluene; however, for a polar solvent, like
methanol, a clear dependence on temperature was observed
with the signal being inversely proportional to temperature.
This inverse relationship of signal output to temperature mimics
how the dielectric constant of polar or polarizable molecules
(like methanol, ethanol, or acetone) changes with respect to
temperature, whereas non-polar molecules do not show such a
strong dependence.9
Field Results
The field probes are a large-scale version of the unit shown in
Figure 1. Field units have 31.75 mm OD shafts with lengths
that depend on the dimensions of the HPS. Since the probe is
an intrusive device and will need to continuously withstand
both high pressure and flow conditions within the separator,
the probe’s structural integrity needed to be determined before
installation. Past experience with the probes in similar high
pressure environments indicated that probe integrity would not
be compromised. However, a tensile pull test was performed
with bored through Swagelok stainless steel tube fittings (i.e.
those planned for use in the HPS). Separation did not occur
until a peak load of 28,718 pounds. Using the cross sectional
area of the fitting, the equivalent internal pressure was
calculated to be 23,405 psig, a value well in excess of that
experienced in field systems.10 Additional compression force
and shear stress calculations were performed for several HPS
process scenarios.11 The results predicted the probe structure
would be well within safety limits. To date, several probes
have been in service for more than two years. After repeated
field inspections, no structural problems have been noted with
any probe.
Probes have been installed such that the antenna resided in
either the gas or liquid phase. Depending on available entry
points, both horizontal and vertical installations have been
made. Lab work indicated that the probe would detect
changes in either phase.
3
In two instances, a probe was placed in the gas phase. In
both cases, the probe never detected process changes (e.g. well
switching or flow rate changes) or antifoam dosage changes.
However, probes located in the bottom portion of six different
separators have consistently detected process changes often
with extreme sensitivity. It is uncertain whether the insertions
into the gas phase were at places where foaming was not
present or whether foaming in the separator is radically
different from that depicted by the static, vertically oriented
laboratory setup shown in Figure 3. The high gas flow rates
experienced in a HPS would likely take a drier foam (if it ever
exists) directly into a mist, while wetter, more dense foams
might reside in the lower portion of the HPS. As gas/oil
separation progressively diminishes, a wet foam front could be
envisioned traveling into the lower portion of the separator
until gas carry-under begins to occur into the adjoining
downstream intermediate or low pressure separator. Field
results indicate that this is what the liquid phase probes are
detecting.
Figures 6-9 illustrate instances where the probe detected
various process and antifoam changes. In Figure 6, a high gas
producing well was removed from the HPS which was
producing several commingled wells. The change was readily
noted in both the HPS gas rate meter and the liquid phase
probe (denoted as B). An ordinate scale is not included as five
different parameters are represented in the figure. Four of the
five parameters have extremely different scale ranges (only
the two probes have the same scale, 0-100% output which
corresponds to the 4-20 mA signal output). Meters for both
the downstream intermediate pressure separator (IPS) and
combined gas rate, as well as the gas phase probe (denoted as
probe A), did not detect this process change.
Antifoam optimization is depicted in Figure 7. The liquid
phase probe readily tracked three separate antifoam dosage
reductions while none of the gas meters were able to detect the
chemical reductions. In Figure 8, an antifoam known to
reduce gas carry-under was introduced to the HPS. Upon
introduction, the liquid phase probe was once again the only
parameter able to detect the change. The gas phase probe
would periodically rise or fall, as shown in Figure 8; however,
these changes never corresponded to any known process or
antifoam dosage change. As a final example, Figure 9
represents a production rate increase which lasted for about 80
minutes. The change was readily noted in the combined gas
rate increase and slightly noted in the HPS gas rate. The
liquid phase probe was also able to follow the increased
production, though the signal change was relatively minor.
During this process change, no foaming was detected aboard
the platform. Thus, there are instances when noticeable
production rate increases do not necessarily lead to a critical
condition such as foaming.
Water Production. The examples described above involved
little to no water in the production fluids. However,
breakthrough of water recently occurred at one installation.
While the amount of water is still relatively low (up to 6%),
the presence of water was noted in a higher value probe
4 M.K. POINDEXTER, S.C. MARSH, G. FRANSEN
reading when there was no foaming. In this instance, the
probe was initially calibrated with oil only at 18 mA (not 20
mA as previously described). This procedure was done for
several sites to help determine when water breakthrough was
occurring. The probe still functions well with regard to
detecting foam as the signal drops noticeably under such
circumstances; however, the higher value probe readings vary
slightly as the water content varies. Future work will focus on
determining how much water is needed before accurate foam
detection is compromised.
Summary and Conclusions
Locating RF/microwave-based probes directly into the liquid
phase of high pressure gas/oil separators permits instantaneous
detection of subtle wet foam changes as they occur. While
traditional monitors (like pressure, flow rate, and level gauges)
are able to follow process conditions to some degree, none are
located directly inside the separator. Thus, there is a time delay
in what they detect and what is occurring in the vessel. Having
immediate access to separator process conditions allows for
quicker response to unwanted foaming.
The probe is able to detect process changes such as well
switching, when the production ratio of several wells is varied,
or when throughput changes are made. Certain well mixtures
can be more difficult to process and might need different
chemical treatments to maintain desired production rates.
Optimizing antifoam addition has also been demonstrated.
Before gas carry-under (and corresponding liquid carry-over)
becomes a problem, the foam probe is able to see impending
foam before the situation worsens.
Future applications could focus on placing a gas phase probe
further back in the separator near the gas overhead exit. Due to
the lack of entry points, there are often few choices for inserting
probes into existing separators. One way to avert a limited
number of choices is to design separators with probe designated
entry points.
Abbreviations
DC= direct current
GHz = gigahertz (109 cycles/sec)
HPS = high pressure separator
ID = inner diameter
IPS = intermediate pressure separator
mA = milliampere
mL= milliliter
MMSCFD= million standard cubic feet per day
µm= micrometer
OD = outer diameter
RF= radio frequency
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Oilfield Chemicals Research Group of
Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P. for financial support of
this work and to the Agar Corporation for the use of various
test equipment. Specific thanks go to John Hera, Dale Landry,
Steve Neff, Gregg Swindle, and John Waldvogel (all of
SPE 71480
Nalco/Exxon) for assistance in conducting field evaluations,
Andrei Strikovski (Agar) for performing compression force
and shear stress calculations, and Ismael Fiecas (Agar) for
making the probe calibrations. Additionally, thanks go to Bob
Adamski, Sheila Dubey, and Gene Holloway (all of Equilon
Enterprises LLC) for developing and sharing the 500 mL glass
foaming apparatus used in the laboratory studies.
References
1. Fu, B. Flow Assurance – A Technological Review of
Managing Fluid Behavior and Solid Deposition to Ensure
Optimum Flow, Deeptec 2000 7th Annual International
Forum on Deepwater Technologies, Aberdeen, U.K.; IIR
Limited, January 26-28, 2000.
2. Laurence, L.L. Foaming Crudes Require Special
Separation Techniques. World Oil 1981 (November), 103.
3. For reviews on foam/liquid level monitors, see: (a) Hall, J.
Measuring Interface Levels – Matching Devices with
Applications. Instrum. Control Syst. 1981, 54(10), 31. (b)
Liptak, B.G. Level Measurement. Chem. Eng. 1993,
100(3), 130.
4. (a) Agar, J.; Zanker, K.J. (assigned to Agar Corporation),
US 4,503,383; March 5, 1985, filed January 7, 1982. (b)
Agar, J. (assigned to Agar Corporation), US 4,774,680;
September 27, 1988, filed September 19, 1986.
5. Poindexter, M.K.; Emmons, D.H.; Marsh, S.C.; Edwards,
M.C. (assigned to Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P.),
US 6,121,602; September 19, 2000, filed June 18, 1998.
6. (a) Schramm, L.L.; Wassmuth, F. Foams: Basic Principles,
in Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the
Petroleum Industry; Schramm, L.L., Ed.; Advances in
Chemistry Series 242; American Chemical Society:
Washington, DC, 1994, p 7. (b) In the preceding text, for a
formal definition of foam quality see, Chambers, D.J.
Foams for Well Stimulation, in Foams: Fundamentals and
Applications in the Petroleum Industry; p 359.
7. Bikerman, J.J. Foams, Springer-Verlag: New York, 1973,
p 1.
8. The 4-20 mA signal for the lab unit, a simplified demo
unit, was calibrated against air and water. Recalibration
was not possible, nor necessary for the lab studies.
9. For dielectric constant dependence on temperature for
numerous liquids, see CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics, 67th ed.; R.C. Weast, Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton,
1986-1987, p E-50.
10. Tests were kindly performed by the Swagelok Company.
11.Unpublished results. Sample calculations are available
upon request from Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P. or
the Agar Corporation.
SPE 71480 DEVELOPMENT OF A FOAM MONITOR FOR HIGH PRESSURE SEPARATORS 5

Figure 1. Probe used in laboratory studies. Figure 2. Antenna (bottom) and antenna
guard (top)

probe

500 500

400 400

300 300

N 2 sparge
200 200
foam volume
100 100 (millilite rs)

crude oil
re s e rv o ir

frit
T e flon threaded
glass sparge adapte r
tube

N 2 inle t
Figure 3. Configuration of probe in laboratory foam studies.
6 M.K. POINDEXTER, S.C. MARSH, G. FRANSEN SPE 71480

600 3.78
sparge off
3.76
500
3.74
Foam Volume (mL)

Probe Signal (mA)

probe end
submerged in 3.72
400 hydrocarbon
3.70

300 3.68
sparge
off 3.66
200
3.64

sparge 3.62
100 off
probe end partially
submerged in 3.60
hydrocarbon
0 3.58
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Minutes
Figure 4. Probe sensitivity studies.

6.00

5.50
5.27
Probe Signal (mA)

4.94
5.00
4.81
Crude 1
Crude 2 methanol
Crude 3
4.50
Crude 4
Crude 5
Crude 6
4.00
Toluene crudes 1-6 and toluene
Methanol

3.50

3.00
15 25 35 45 55

Temperature (°C)

Figure 5. Effect of temperature and fluid composition on probe signal.

SPE 71480 DEVELOPMENT OF A FOAM MONITOR FOR HIGH PRESSURE SEPARATORS 7

gas phase probe (A) reading

liquid phase probe (B) reading

high gas producing well removed

from the HPS mixture
HPS gas rate
combined gas rate

IPS gas rate

Time
Figure 6. High gas producing well removed from the HPS mixture.

antifoam
liquid phase probe (B) reading reduction antifoam
reduction antifoam
reduction

gas phase probe (A) reading

HPS gas rate combined gas rate

IPS gas rate

Time
Figure 7. Antifoam optimization using the liquid phase probe.
8 M.K. POINDEXTER, S.C. MARSH, G. FRANSEN SPE 71480

gas phase probe (A) reading

addition of antifoam to
liquid phase probe (B) reading prevent gas carry-under

combined gas rate

HPS gas rate

IPS gas rate

Time
Figure 8. Liquid phase probe detecting introduction of an antifoam that prevents gas carry-under.

liquid phase probe

(B) reading

combined gas rate increase gas phase probe (A) reading

HPS gas rate increase

IPS gas rate

Time
Figure 9. Production rate increase detected by liquid phase probe and gas meters.