Case Study: Effective and Economical Approach to Prevent Scale Formation Using Scale Inhibitor Squeeze into Reservoir

Ann Jie Lim, Abigail Lian De Cruz, Lakshmi Narayana Koyyalamudi, Mohd Syahezat Ismail, Azri Khairudin, Mohd Shakir Mohd Nawi, Izyan Haziqah Isrofeil, Luqman Hakim Zulkafli, M. S. M. Adib, Arsyamimi Mohamed
{"title":"Case Study: Effective and Economical Approach to Prevent Scale Formation Using Scale Inhibitor Squeeze into Reservoir","authors":"Ann Jie Lim, Abigail Lian De Cruz, Lakshmi Narayana Koyyalamudi, Mohd Syahezat Ismail, Azri Khairudin, Mohd Shakir Mohd Nawi, Izyan Haziqah Isrofeil, Luqman Hakim Zulkafli, M. S. M. Adib, Arsyamimi Mohamed","doi":"10.4043/32456-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Producing wells in Field T, Malaysia offshore have faced significant production impairment due to deposition of calcite and barite scale in the tubing and reservoir. A proactive approach is strategized to inhibit the scale formation along the inner wall of production tubing and reservoir through a scale inhibitor squeeze (SISQ) treatment with a lifespan of 2 years. The main objective of this approach is to eliminate the need of frequent stimulation jobs to maintain the production.\n Several attempts of scale inhibitor pumping in the past had been applied in the operator's production fields with different scale inhibitor (SI) formulations. However, some of the SISQ jobs were unsuccessful meanwhile some did not meet the treatment life targeted. A Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA) was conducted and the best practices and recommendations from the previous scale treatments were incorporated into this scale inhibitor squeeze treatment while the lessons learnt were implemented to prevent reoccurrence of unwanted events.\n In the past, most of the failed acidizing and SISQ jobs were caused by misdiagnosis of the root cause of production drop in wells, causing wrong selection of candidates right from the beginning. Another cause is the reaction between the chemical and existing scale in the tubing wall that resulted in the disintegration of the deposits, which subsequently block the flow of the well. There were also instances where coreflooding tests were not conducted due to unavailability of core samples. From the past failure contributors, the best practice proposed is to initiate any scale inhibition program by determining the correct root cause of production drop and to proceed with remedying the existing scale buildup. Examples of the solutions are through scale clean out, acidizing or workover before implementing a prevention solution such as SISQ. During the chemical selection stage, scale inhibitors should be selected based on a series of lab tests to study the performance of scale inhibitors, potential of damage formation, scale inhibitor retention core flood analysis, scale inhibitor thermal stability and fluids compatibility.\n Both wells B15 and D04 SS on which the SISQ jobs were conducted after acidizing job, have until now sustained their production. The MIC is well above 5 ppm target although approaching the end of 2-year treatment life. The Multifinger Imaging Tool (MIT) run downhole after one and a half years also indicated insignificant scale buildup on tubing wall. Permanent downhole gauge flowing pressure is also stable indicating no severe skin buildup. The produced water ions data, however, is insufficient to provide a view on the upward or downward trend of the scaling ions. In future replications, produced water ions sampling frequency should be increased.","PeriodicalId":196855,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Tue, May 02, 2023","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Tue, May 02, 2023","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/32456-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Producing wells in Field T, Malaysia offshore have faced significant production impairment due to deposition of calcite and barite scale in the tubing and reservoir. A proactive approach is strategized to inhibit the scale formation along the inner wall of production tubing and reservoir through a scale inhibitor squeeze (SISQ) treatment with a lifespan of 2 years. The main objective of this approach is to eliminate the need of frequent stimulation jobs to maintain the production. Several attempts of scale inhibitor pumping in the past had been applied in the operator's production fields with different scale inhibitor (SI) formulations. However, some of the SISQ jobs were unsuccessful meanwhile some did not meet the treatment life targeted. A Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA) was conducted and the best practices and recommendations from the previous scale treatments were incorporated into this scale inhibitor squeeze treatment while the lessons learnt were implemented to prevent reoccurrence of unwanted events. In the past, most of the failed acidizing and SISQ jobs were caused by misdiagnosis of the root cause of production drop in wells, causing wrong selection of candidates right from the beginning. Another cause is the reaction between the chemical and existing scale in the tubing wall that resulted in the disintegration of the deposits, which subsequently block the flow of the well. There were also instances where coreflooding tests were not conducted due to unavailability of core samples. From the past failure contributors, the best practice proposed is to initiate any scale inhibition program by determining the correct root cause of production drop and to proceed with remedying the existing scale buildup. Examples of the solutions are through scale clean out, acidizing or workover before implementing a prevention solution such as SISQ. During the chemical selection stage, scale inhibitors should be selected based on a series of lab tests to study the performance of scale inhibitors, potential of damage formation, scale inhibitor retention core flood analysis, scale inhibitor thermal stability and fluids compatibility. Both wells B15 and D04 SS on which the SISQ jobs were conducted after acidizing job, have until now sustained their production. The MIC is well above 5 ppm target although approaching the end of 2-year treatment life. The Multifinger Imaging Tool (MIT) run downhole after one and a half years also indicated insignificant scale buildup on tubing wall. Permanent downhole gauge flowing pressure is also stable indicating no severe skin buildup. The produced water ions data, however, is insufficient to provide a view on the upward or downward trend of the scaling ions. In future replications, produced water ions sampling frequency should be increased.
案例研究:将阻垢剂挤入储层有效经济地防止结垢
由于方解石和重晶石垢沉积在油管和储层中,马来西亚海上油田T的生产井面临着严重的生产损害。采用一种主动的方法,通过阻垢剂挤压(SISQ)处理来抑制沿生产油管内壁和油藏形成的结垢,其使用寿命为2年。这种方法的主要目的是消除频繁的增产作业来维持产量的需要。在过去的几次尝试中,在作业者的生产现场使用了不同的阻垢剂(SI)配方。然而,一些SISQ工作不成功,一些没有达到治疗寿命目标。进行了根本原因失效分析(RCFA),并将之前结垢处理的最佳实践和建议纳入到此次阻垢剂挤压处理中,同时实施了经验教训,以防止不良事件的再次发生。在过去,大多数酸化和SISQ作业的失败都是由于对油井产量下降的根本原因的误诊,导致从一开始就错误地选择了候选产品。另一个原因是化学物质与油管壁上现有的结垢发生反应,导致沉积物崩解,从而阻塞油井的流动。也有由于无法获得岩心样品而没有进行岩心注水测试的情况。从过去的失败因素来看,建议的最佳做法是通过确定产量下降的正确根本原因来启动任何阻垢计划,并继续补救现有的结垢。解决方案的例子是在实施SISQ等预防方案之前,先进行规模清洗、酸化或修井。在化学选择阶段,应根据一系列实验室测试来选择阻垢剂,研究阻垢剂的性能、形成损害的可能性、阻垢剂的保留、岩心水分析、阻垢剂的热稳定性和流体相容性。在酸化作业后进行SISQ作业的B15井和D04 SS井到目前为止都保持了生产。尽管接近2年治疗寿命的终点,但MIC仍远高于5ppm目标。多指成像工具(MIT)在井下运行一年半后,也显示油管壁上没有明显的结垢。永久的井下压力表流动压力也很稳定,表明没有严重的表皮堆积。然而,采出水离子数据不足以提供结垢离子上升或下降趋势的观点。在今后的重复实验中,应增加采出水离子的采样频率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信