Several Decades of Fluid Diversion Evolution, Is There a Good Solution?

A. Casero, A. Gomaa
{"title":"Several Decades of Fluid Diversion Evolution, Is There a Good Solution?","authors":"A. Casero, A. Gomaa","doi":"10.2118/207953-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The success of any matrix treatment depends upon the complete coverage of all zones. Consequently, the selection of the diversion technology is critical for treatment success. While various types of diverting agents are commercially available, the proper selection of optimal diverter depends on many factors, including well completion and history, compatibility with reservoir and treatment fluids, treatment objectives, operational constraints, and safety and environment considerations.\n The study will cover five major types of non-mechanical diversion technologies considered as potential solutions for offshore deepwater oil reservoirs: dynamic diversion, relative permeability modifiers (RPM), viscoelastic surfactants (VES), particulate diversion, and perforation diversion. All of them, but a dynamic diversion, are based on different chemicals or products to be added to the injected treatment fluid, and occasionally some can be complementary to each other.\n Given the offshore and deepwater settings, mechanical diversion techniques were not covered in the study, aiming to find a solution that would achieve acceptable diversion while minimizing operational effort, which would enable riser-less intervention and the use of light intervention techniques.\n This study was driven by the need to effectively stimulate a 500ft of a cased and perforated interval with a permeability of 500 md, and injection rate limited to 16 bpm due to completion limitations. The sandstone formation, with static in situ temperature of 270F, was far beyond the applicability of dynamic diversion and, to achieve the desired full coverage for the planned scale inhibition treatment required and combination with another diverter system was needed.\n The process applied included compatibility tests, regained permeability tests, and test well trials. Depending on the specific diversion product analyzed the testing procedures were adapted to obtain the information to properly guide to the optimal solution.","PeriodicalId":10981,"journal":{"name":"Day 4 Thu, November 18, 2021","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 4 Thu, November 18, 2021","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/207953-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The success of any matrix treatment depends upon the complete coverage of all zones. Consequently, the selection of the diversion technology is critical for treatment success. While various types of diverting agents are commercially available, the proper selection of optimal diverter depends on many factors, including well completion and history, compatibility with reservoir and treatment fluids, treatment objectives, operational constraints, and safety and environment considerations. The study will cover five major types of non-mechanical diversion technologies considered as potential solutions for offshore deepwater oil reservoirs: dynamic diversion, relative permeability modifiers (RPM), viscoelastic surfactants (VES), particulate diversion, and perforation diversion. All of them, but a dynamic diversion, are based on different chemicals or products to be added to the injected treatment fluid, and occasionally some can be complementary to each other. Given the offshore and deepwater settings, mechanical diversion techniques were not covered in the study, aiming to find a solution that would achieve acceptable diversion while minimizing operational effort, which would enable riser-less intervention and the use of light intervention techniques. This study was driven by the need to effectively stimulate a 500ft of a cased and perforated interval with a permeability of 500 md, and injection rate limited to 16 bpm due to completion limitations. The sandstone formation, with static in situ temperature of 270F, was far beyond the applicability of dynamic diversion and, to achieve the desired full coverage for the planned scale inhibition treatment required and combination with another diverter system was needed. The process applied included compatibility tests, regained permeability tests, and test well trials. Depending on the specific diversion product analyzed the testing procedures were adapted to obtain the information to properly guide to the optimal solution.
几十年的流体导流演变,有好的解决方案吗?
任何基质处理的成功取决于所有层的完全覆盖。因此,导流技术的选择对治疗成功至关重要。虽然市面上有各种类型的暂堵剂,但最佳暂堵剂的正确选择取决于许多因素,包括完井和历史、与油藏和处理流体的相容性、处理目标、操作限制以及安全和环境考虑。该研究将涵盖五种主要的非机械导流技术,这些技术被认为是海上深水油藏的潜在解决方案:动态导流、相对渗透率调节剂(RPM)、粘弹性表面活性剂(VES)、颗粒导流和射孔导流。除了动态转移外,所有这些都是基于要添加到注入处理液中的不同化学品或产品,偶尔有些可以相互补充。考虑到海上和深水环境,机械导流技术不在研究范围内,研究的目的是找到一种解决方案,既能实现可接受的导流,又能最大限度地减少操作工作量,从而实现无隔水管修井和使用轻型修井技术。该研究的主要原因是需要有效增产500英尺的套管井段和射孔段,渗透率为500 md,由于完井限制,注入速度限制在16 bpm。砂岩地层的静态原位温度为270F,远远超出了动态导流的适用性,为了实现计划中的阻垢处理的完全覆盖,需要与另一种导流剂系统相结合。应用的过程包括相容性测试、恢复渗透率测试和试井试验。根据所分析的特定导流产品,调整了测试程序以获取信息,以适当地引导到最优解。
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