3 – The Impact of the Reservoir on
the Field Scaling Problem
Eric Mackay
Shell, Houston, 10-12 December 2013
Outline
Location of Scale Deposition
Impact on Scale Management
Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
Strategy Selection Process
Examples
Conclusions
Section 7: Slide 2 of 53
Outline
Location of Scale Deposition
Impact on Scale Management
Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
Strategy Selection Process
Examples
Conclusions
Section 7: Slide 3 of 53
Location of Scale Deposition
formation brine
seawater
a
i
f g
b c d e
Section 7: Slide 4 of 53
Around Injection Wells
Seawater contacts formation waters during
initial injection
100% seawater: Insignificant damage
Mixing zone is displaced away from injection well
quickly
Thermal fractures minimise impact of any solids
Mix of seawater and PWRI: Potential for
damage (SPE 80385)
Continuous supply of scaling ions for prolonged time
Inhibitor retention on rock – fluid unprotected?
Key to overcoming scale is presence of fractures
Section 7: Slide 5 of 53
Deep within Formation
Brine mixing most significant in aquifer
zones (where brines most mobile)
Scale may deposit, but over a very large
volume of rock, and thus locally impact is
minimal.
Porosity reduction typically < 0.01%!
Permeability effect imperceptible (SPE 68309)
Scale deposition deep within reservoir is
beneficial!
Reduced concentration of scaling ions at producer
wells
Section 7: Slide 6 of 53
What is the Evidence for
Reservoir Scaling?
Physical
Impact of dissolver treatments
Gamma vs. calliper logs
Low cation concentrations
Theoretical
Modelling of mixing and in situ deposition
-> low cation concentrations
Section 7: Slide 7 of 53
Evidence: Low Cation Conc.
Barium (mg/l)
Dilution line
% seawater Section 7: Slide 8 of 53
Impact on Ion Concentrations
90
Field A - actual
80
Field A - dilution line
Field A - modelled
70
barium concentration (ppm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% seawater Section 7: Slide 9 of 53
Mixing Away from Wellbore
Example: If the scale inhibitor
penetrates the formation up to 5 ft
away from the wellbore, what
happens if the mixing zone starts 10
ft away?
?
Section 7: Slide 10 of 53
Example: Alba Well
Squeeze 1
Squeeze 3
sea-water breakthrough Squeeze 2 Section 7: Slide 11 of 53
Example - Calculate Mixing Zone
0.30
Implications of Brine 0.20
50
Mixing within the reservoir 25
0.10
0.00
0
50
Y 25 25
0
50 25 X
2800
1800 days
2000
2400 days 50
Section 7: Slide 12 of 53
Example: Alba Well
sea-water breakthrough
Squeeze 3
Squeeze 2 Section 7: Slide 13 of 53
As Flow Converges near/in Wells
Flows converge due to:
Permeability layering (seawater breakthrough
first in high perm, while formation water still
being produced in low perm)
Areal streamlining (seawater breakthrough in
straight line connecting injector and producer,
while formation water still being produced
from flanks)
Section 7: Slide 14 of 53
Example of Permeability Layering
injected water 100 days
300
500
0 1
13 ft
Section 7: Slide 15 of 53
1,000 ft
Example of Areal Streamlining
converging
streamlines
FW
FW SW
Section 7: Slide 16 of 53
Near Well Formation
Flows converge in formation (sulphates)
Outwith treated zone – scale formation but how much
loss of PI?
Within treated zone – if above MIC no damage
Pressure decline in formation (carbonates)
CO2 bubble point may migrate down well and into
formation
Control by squeeze treatments
Section 7: Slide 17 of 53
In Completed Interval
Different zones producing different
brines
Gravel packs particularly susceptible
Turbulent mixing
Control:
Most commonly by squeeze treatments
Solid scale inhibitors in gravel pack or
fractures
Section 7: Slide 18 of 53
From Bottomhole to Wellhead
Sulphates may deposit anywhere
above point at which brines mix.
Mixing may begin in:
Reservoir (location variable)
Completed intervals (location variable)
Flow control valves in intelligent wells
(location fixed)
Junctions of multilateral wells (location fixed)
Section 7: Slide 19 of 53
From Bottomhole to Wellhead
Carbonates may deposit anywhere
above point at which:
Fluid pressure drops below CO2 bubble point
pressure
Rapid pressure drops occur due to flow
constrictions (eg valves)
Fluid temperature increases (eg due to
electric submersible pumps - ESPs)
Section 7: Slide 20 of 53
From Bottomhole to Wellhead
Sulphate and carbonate scales may be
controlled by
Continuous injection (via gas lift, capillary
tube, annular flow)
If cannot deliver inhibitor below lowest risk
zone then must place inhibitor by
• Squeeze (most common)
• Solid inhibitors in gravel pack or in fracture
Section 7: Slide 21 of 53
Outline
Location of Scale Deposition
Impact on Scale Management
Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
Strategy Selection Process
Examples
Conclusions
Section 7: Slide 22 of 53
Impact on Scale Management
If mixing seawater and produced water
(PWRI) for injection then:
Continuous injection of scale inhibitor to
protect injection well (pref. poorly adsorbing)
Apportion seawater and produced water
between wells to minimise risk
Fracture well to flow past damaged rock
Section 7: Slide 23 of 53
Impact on Scale Management
If in situ mixing then:
Should not expect cation concentrations to
return to dilution line after squeeze treatment
May be able to reduce MIC
If produced cation concentrations > 0, then
still need to protect
Section 7: Slide 24 of 53
Impact on Scale Management
If mixing in wellbore
Use gamma ray logs, callipers, PLTs,
reservoir simulator to identify where scale is
forming
Ensure inhibitor placement in affected zones
Alternatives
Acid dissolution (calculate impact of lost oil)
Alter brine composition (sulphate removal,
aquifer brines, PWRI)
Section 7: Slide 25 of 53
Impact on Scale Management
If scale only deposits above completed
interval consider
Continuous injection
• Annulus
• Capillaries
• Gas lift
Squeeze treatments
If scale only deposits downstream of
well head use continuous injection
(dedicated chemical line)
Section 7: Slide 26 of 53
Outline
Location of Scale Deposition
Impact on Scale Management
Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
Strategy Selection Process
Examples
Conclusions
Section 7: Slide 27 of 53
Factors that Affect Scale
Control During Well Life Cycle
CaCO3 scale
Low MIC BS&W
BaSO4 scale
Higher MIC profile
MIC profile Low scaling
tendency
Change product?
Low risk Stop
squeeze
SWB Peak SWB Increases
scaling Peak MIC reduces
cost (50:50) Reducing cost > 50% SW
Time Section 7: Slide 28 of 53
Outline
Location of Scale Deposition
Impact on Scale Management
Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
Strategy Selection Process
Examples
Conclusions
Section 7: Slide 29 of 53
SPE 87459
Strategy Selection Process
Seawater and Formation Brine Chemistry Full Field Reservoir Simulation
Laboratory testing of brine samples General model developed to predict production
Full Field Reservoir Simulation
impact of
ECLIPSE: Model adapted to predict data for scale
scaling ions +
TDS, Ca, Mg,
Fe, pH, temp Full Field Reaction-Transport Simulation
STARS: Impact of in situ scaling on produced brine chemistry
timing of seawater breakthrough
Scale Prediction Calculations
treatment injection profile along wells
Commercial thermodynamic models
water production profile along wells
well water production rates vs time
Scale Inhibitor Selection and Evaluation of MIC
Laboratory static and dynamic tests and corefloods
Near Well Squeeze Simulation
SQUEEZE V: Design treatment and optimise
inhibitor isotherm and MIC
Fluid Modification
Sulphate removal squeeze treatment frequency and inhibitor volume
Produced or aquifer
water injection
Economic Engineering Data
Chemical Inhibition Evaluation Reservoir, completion, well
Intervention costs & deferred oil and surface facility types.
Experience from analogues.
Scale Management Strategy Selection
Section 7: Slide 30 of 53
Outline
Location of Scale Deposition
Impact on Scale Management
Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
Strategy Selection Process
Examples
Conclusions
Section 7: Slide 31 of 53
Reservoir Flow and Precipitation
Mixing location of incompatible brines
Example 1: Why was well in severe scaling
regime for so long?
Effect of in-situ precipitation on
scaling tendency at wells
Example 2: Why were barium concentrations
low after apparently successful squeeze
treatments?
Section 7: Slide 32 of 53
Example 1: SPE 80252
Propagation of Mixing Zone
Section 7: Slide 33 of 53
Example 1: SPE 80252
Influence of Injection Wells
Section 7: Slide 34 of 53
Example 2:
Effect of In Situ Precipitation
water saturation mixing zone
BaSO4
deposition (lb/ft3)
Section 7: Slide 35 of 53
Example 2:
Effect of In Situ Precipitation
250 3000
2500
200
sulphate concentration (ppm)
barium concentration (ppm)
2000
150 Ba
Ba (no precip)
SO4 1500
100
SO4 (no precip)
1000
50
500
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
time (days) Section 7: Slide 36 of 53
Example 2:
Effect of In Situ Precipitation
250
Field B - observed
200 Filed B - dilution line
barium concentration (ppm)
Field B - modelled
150
deep reservoir mixing
100
deep reservoir + well/near
50
well mixing
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% seawater
Section 7: Slide 37 of 53
Inhibitor Placement
Placement Options
Example 3: Can adequate placement be
achieved without using expensive rig
operations?
Section 7: Slide 38 of 53
SPE 66374
Example 3:
Adequate Placement
production 500
400
300
prior to squeeze
flow rate (m3/d)
shut-in
200
INJ 1 bbl/m
INJ 5 bbl/m
100
INJ 10 bbl/m
1 year after squeeze
0
0 200 400 600 800
-100
injection
(squeeze) -200
well length (m)
• Good placement along length of well during treatment (> 5 bbls/min)
• Can squeeze this well
Section 7: Slide 39 of 53
SPE 66374
Example 3:
Inadequate Placement
production 100
0
0 200 400 600 800
-100
prior to squeeze
flow rate (m3/d)
shut-in
-200
INJ 1 bbl/m
INJ 5 bbl/m
-300
INJ 10 bbl/m
1 year after squeeze
-400
-500
injection
(squeeze) -600
well length (m)
• Cannot place into toe of well by bullhead treatment, even at 10 bbl/min
• Must use coiled tubing (from rig - cost), or sulphate removal
Section 7: Slide 40 of 53
SPE 87459
Example 4: Deepwater Field
Benguela CN6
Angola Block 14 Tomboco
Field Y
FB5 Complex
Subsea tieback CN6 Zone T2/T3
Tomboco
Field Y CN6
1 x 10” FL& Dry
Water depth: 1,247ft (380m) Zone T1
Tomboco
Field Y CN3 Center A 3P/3I
1 x 8” test line BB
Structure
CPT
Flow lines > 5 miles (8 km) 1 x 10” FL &
1 x 8” test line
Oil: 35.1o API; 0.51 cP 4P/3I
3,927 psia (270.8 bar)
LobitoX CN3 Center B 1 x 10” FL
225 oF (107 oC)
Field
LobitoX
Field
Wells: 6-5/8 in (5-1/2 in screens) Central
1 x 10” FL&
1 x 8” test line
7 prod: 5 horizontal, 2 high angle Center C 3P/3I
6 inj (high angle) 5 Miles
Scale
Pressure support & drive by
seawater injection Water Depth Contours (ft)
Section 7: Slide 41 of 53
SPE 71557
Scale Risk & Intervention Difficulty
6
Scaling Tendency Scale
Can be treated using May not be possible to treat
(Saturation Ratio) Risk conventional technology using conventional
3-29 1 5 technology
30-99 2
100-199 3 4
S
Scale Risk
200-299 4
ca Fields
Lobito X&Y
Lobito/ Tomboco
Tomboco
300+ 5
le 3
Ri
sk
2
Difficulty
Well Type
factor
Platform 1 1 Current BP Fields
BP Future Dev elopments
Access Sub-sea, dry tree 1.5 Selected Industry Data
Sub-sea wellhead 3
Cased and perforated, vertical 1 0
Cased and perforated, highly deviated 1.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Cased and perforated, gravel pack. Intervention
Intervention Difficulty
1.5
Completion
Short interval. Difficulty
Cased and perforated, gravel packed.
2
Long interval
Short OHGP, low angle well 2.5
Long OHGP, high angle well 4 Section 7: Slide 42 of 53
Field X Water Saturations
Section 7: Slide 43 of 53
Field Y Seawater Propagation
Section 7: Slide 44 of 53
Field X BaSO4 Deposition BaSO4 solid
concentration
3
(lb/ft )
Significant BaSO4 deposition near aquifer
Section 7: Slide 45 of 53
Fields X & Y Mixing Profiles
250
Mixing line
200
barium concentration (ppm)
Supported by aquifer
150
Supported by injectors
100
Large inter-well
distance
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% seawater Section 7: Slide 46 of 53
Water Volumes and Required MIC for
Example Well
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Oil Production (MBOPD) 15.0 19.3 27.6 11.1 5.9 3.9 2.8 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2
Water Production (MBOPD) 0.0 1.0 2.1 9.2 11.9 13.6 14.9 14.8 14.6 15.3 15.8 17.2
Cum Water Produced (MM BBLS) 0.00 0.37 0.77 3.36 4.34 4.96 5.44 5.40 5.33 5.58 5.77 6.28
Sea Water Fraction (%) 0% 11% 28% 62% 72% 78% 82% 85% 87% 90% 91% 92%
ASSUMING NO DROP OUT:
Ba Concentration (PPM) 230 205 165 88 65 51 41 34 29 24 22 19
MIC Proposed (PPM) N/A 15 25 50 20 15 15 10 7.5 5.0 5.0 2.5
ASSUMING DROP OUT:
Ba Concentration (PPM) 230 205 29 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
MIC Proposed (PPM) N/A 15 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 2.5-5 2.5-5 2.5
Section 7: Slide 47 of 53
Profiles Along Well During and After
Treatment
5000 100
High angle well
4000 80
% seawater
3000 60
2000 40
1000 20
water rate (bbl/d)
0 0
prod before treat 300 bpd
-1000 -20 shut-in before treat
pump @ 1 bpm
-2000 -40 pump @ 5 bpm
pump @ 10 bpm
shut in after treat
-3000 -60
prod 1 day after treat 450 bpd
prod 1 week after treat 450 bpd
-4000 -80
prod 1 year after treat 15750 bpd
%seawater before treat 8%
-5000 -100 %seawater 1 year after treat 65.5%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
well length (feet)
Placement Question: Can we get inhibitor into scaling zones?
Answer: Here yes (as for all other wells in Fields X and Y),
provided we can pump at high enough rate ~10 bpm Section 7: Slide 48 of 53
Squeeze Modelling of Well
Treatment to protect 2
million bbl water produced
(falls below MIC first near
toe)
Section 7: Slide 49 of 53
Inhibitor Volumes Required to
Achieve 1 Year Squeeze Lifetimes
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Produced water volume (MM BBLS) 0.00 0.37 0.77 3.36 4.34 4.96 5.44 5.40 5.33 5.58 5.77 6.28 47.60
MIC (PPM) NA 15 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 2.5-5 2.5-5 2.5
Chemical volume (BBLS)
Preflush 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Main Treatment 75 52.5 135 660 900 1155 1350 1425 600 600 660
Overflush 1.1 0.85 1.5 5 6.5 6.75 7.25 7.5 6 6.5 7
Total 0 86.1 63.4 152 680 922 1177 1372 1448 621 622 682 7823
Well down time (HOURS) 0 26 24 28 50 60 64 69 71 53 56 58 560
Section 7: Slide 50 of 53
Economic Comparison
Squeeze Treatments Fluid Modification
Cost of I II III IV V
Production Skid Un it on Skid Unit Squeeze Using Water Sulphate
Deferment Platform on Boat* Multi-Service Vo idage Wells Removing
only Vessel (MSV) Membrane
(SRM) Unit
Production Deferment Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
CAPEX High High
OPEX (field life) Medium Medium High Low Low
(CAPEX + OPEX)/$BBL 0.10 0.14 0.38 0.26 0.38
NPV Ranking 1 2 3= 3= 5
# of interventions 67 67 67
Cost/Intervention $MM 0.34 0.47 1.30
* Skid unit on boat connected to test line on platform
Section 7: Slide 51 of 53
Outline
Location of Scale Deposition
Impact on Scale Management
Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
Strategy Selection Process
Examples
Conclusions
Section 7: Slide 52 of 53
Conclusions
Modelling tools may assist with understanding of where
scale is forming and what is best scale management option…
identify location and impact of mixing
evaluate feasibility of squeeze option
calculate chemical requirements
… thus providing input for economic model.
Particularly important in deepwater environments, where
intervention may be difficult & expensive
But – must be aware of uncertainties…..
reservoir description
numerical errors
changes to production schedule, etc.
… so monitoring essential.
Section 7: Slide 53 of 53
