Evaluating Evaporative Processes - Gas Lift Chemical Applications, Halites and Gunking

N. Goodwin, G. Graham
{"title":"Evaluating Evaporative Processes - Gas Lift Chemical Applications, Halites and Gunking","authors":"N. Goodwin, G. Graham","doi":"10.2118/190712-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper describes a number of different evaporative processes which can cause flow assurance issues within oilfield production systems including chemical application via gas lift systems, halite deposition and gunking in injection lines. Similarities and differences are described and laboratory test methods are presented for each case.\n While the challenges all involve evaporative processes, each system is different and requires suitable approaches to evaluate and mitigate the risks. These attempt to mimic the field system in the laboratory and allow observation under controlled conditions. Laboratory test methods vary from basic static bottle tests, through glass capillaries in autoclaves to dynamic tests using brine and a partially saturated gas phase, or neat chemical and dry gas lift media. In particular, the challenges when applying a chemical via a gas lift system will be described including field case studies.\n Static tests with unlimited volume to evaporate produce a worst case for any evaporative process. However, it is frequently too severe to produce any useful results. Instead a test regime should be designed to mimic the field conditions. For example, evaporation within a pressure vessel can mimic the self-limiting process within a downhole injection line. Application of a chemical via a gas lift system requires a dynamic test where hot pressurised dry gas and neat chemical are co-injected with continual monitoring of gunking as indicated by flow path restrictions. Halites require a similar dynamic test method but with extensive modelling of the in situ saturation ratio to fully understand the system.\n This paper will present case studies, summarise our understanding of the different evaporative processes, and give best practice guidelines for laboratory evaluation of the risks and mitigation strategies.","PeriodicalId":10969,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Thu, June 21, 2018","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Thu, June 21, 2018","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/190712-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

This paper describes a number of different evaporative processes which can cause flow assurance issues within oilfield production systems including chemical application via gas lift systems, halite deposition and gunking in injection lines. Similarities and differences are described and laboratory test methods are presented for each case. While the challenges all involve evaporative processes, each system is different and requires suitable approaches to evaluate and mitigate the risks. These attempt to mimic the field system in the laboratory and allow observation under controlled conditions. Laboratory test methods vary from basic static bottle tests, through glass capillaries in autoclaves to dynamic tests using brine and a partially saturated gas phase, or neat chemical and dry gas lift media. In particular, the challenges when applying a chemical via a gas lift system will be described including field case studies. Static tests with unlimited volume to evaporate produce a worst case for any evaporative process. However, it is frequently too severe to produce any useful results. Instead a test regime should be designed to mimic the field conditions. For example, evaporation within a pressure vessel can mimic the self-limiting process within a downhole injection line. Application of a chemical via a gas lift system requires a dynamic test where hot pressurised dry gas and neat chemical are co-injected with continual monitoring of gunking as indicated by flow path restrictions. Halites require a similar dynamic test method but with extensive modelling of the in situ saturation ratio to fully understand the system. This paper will present case studies, summarise our understanding of the different evaporative processes, and give best practice guidelines for laboratory evaluation of the risks and mitigation strategies.
评价蒸发过程。气举化学应用,盐和蒸发
本文介绍了一些不同的蒸发过程,这些过程可能会导致油田生产系统中的流动保证问题,包括气举系统中的化学应用、岩盐沉积和注入管线中的堵塞。描述了相似性和差异,并为每种情况提出了实验室测试方法。虽然所有挑战都涉及蒸发过程,但每个系统都是不同的,需要适当的方法来评估和减轻风险。这些尝试在实验室中模拟现场系统,并允许在受控条件下进行观察。实验室测试方法各不相同,从基本的静态瓶测试,通过高压灭菌器中的玻璃毛细管,到使用盐水和部分饱和气相,或纯化学和干气举介质的动态测试。特别是,当通过气举系统应用化学品时,将描述包括现场案例研究在内的挑战。对于任何蒸发过程来说,无限体积的静态测试都会产生最坏的情况。然而,它往往过于严重,无法产生任何有用的结果。相反,应该设计一个模拟现场条件的测试制度。例如,压力容器内的蒸发可以模拟井下注入管线内的自我限制过程。通过气举系统应用化学品需要进行动态测试,其中热压干气体和纯化学品共同注入,并根据流动路径限制连续监测堵塞情况。岩盐岩需要类似的动态测试方法,但需要对原位饱和比进行广泛的建模,以充分了解该系统。本文将介绍案例研究,总结我们对不同蒸发过程的理解,并为实验室评估风险和缓解战略提供最佳实践指南。
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