Scale Control within North Sea Chalk/Limestone Reservoirs. The Challenge of Understanding and Optimizing Chemical Placement Methods and Retention Mechanism: - Laboratory to Field.
- Myles Martin Jordan (Nalco Co.) | Fredrik Arthur Sjursaether (Schlumberger) | Ian Ralph Collins (BP Exploration)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Production & Facilities
- Publication Date
- November 2005
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 262 - 273
- 2005. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.1.1 Exploration, Development, Structural Geology, 5.3.4 Integration of geomechanics in models, 1.10 Drilling Equipment, 2.2.2 Perforating, 2.5.2 Fracturing Materials (Fluids, Proppant), 1.14 Casing and Cementing, 5.2 Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, 5.4.1 Waterflooding, 1.8 Formation Damage, 4.2.3 Materials and Corrosion, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 4.3.4 Scale, 1.2.3 Rock properties, 3.2.4 Acidising, 5.2.1 Phase Behavior and PVT Measurements, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 5.8.7 Carbonate Reservoir, 3 Production and Well Operations, 3.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Design, Implementation and Optimisation, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating
- 3 in the last 30 days
- 651 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
The scale-control challenges for two North Sea carbonate reservoirs are reviewed in this paper. While carbonate reservoirs are not the largest source of hydrocarbons within the North Sea, they are very significant on a global basis.
The mechanism of scale-inhibitor chemical retention observed for phosphonate, polymer, and vinyl sulfonate copolymer (VS-Co) inhibitors on carbonate-reservoir substrates is outlined. Chemical placement represents the most significant technical challenge when performing scale-inhibitor squeeze treatments into fractured chalk reservoirs. Examples from more than 50 field treatments applied in reservoirs E and V, in which both phosphonate and VS-Co chemicals have been deployed, are used to illustrate the difference in chemical retention observed in laboratory evaluations. The laboratory studies demonstrated clear potential for significant extension in treatment lifetime by changing from a phosphonate to a VS-Co-based scale inhibitor. The selection and qualification of chemical-placement systems for deployment of inhibitors in fractured carbonate reservoirs are also outlined. To this end, novel technologies to enhance conventional scale-inhibitor-chemical placement are vital to economic success during waterflood projects.
The correct selection of scale inhibitor for the control of mineral scale within reservoirs and associated production tubing is vital if economic hydrocarbon production is to be maintained. The following section outlines the principle differences between carbonate and sandstone reservoirs, which make scale-inhibitor selection and application a technical challenge.
What is Carbonate? Carbonate reservoirs are principally composed of carbonate minerals, which include calcite (CaCO3), dolomite (Ca,MgCO3), ankerite (Ca,Mg,FeCO3), and siderite (FeCO3). Carbonate reservoirs can be sub-divided into chalk and limestone. Chalk reservoirs are composed of small spherical/plate-like particles (cocoliths) of calcium carbonate from the skeletons of marine organisms, which became compacted and cemented to form rock with a higher primary porosity - this is shown in Fig. 1. Limestone is generally formed by the deposition of fine carbonate mud with associated fragments of biogenetic material (shells, etc) which is compacted to form rock.1,2 Such a limestone reservoir would generally have a low primary porosity but a high secondary porosity owing to the dissolution of some of the rock caused by reaction of pore fluids during burial.
Fluid Flow in Carbonate Reservoirs Flow within carbonate reservoirs generally occurs as a result of fluid flow within fractures (both natural and induced), which enhance production. The fluid flows first through interconnecting pores, and then, along the fracture paths to the well bore. The pores formed during sediment deposition are generally poorly connected within carbonate reservoirs resulting in a lower permeability/porosity ratio than for sandstone reservoirs. The deposition of scale, both carbonate and sulphate, within carbonate reservoirs results in a decline in total production rate, with the fractures becoming restricted owing to the deposition of scale as a film. In the smaller fractures, the deposition and restriction of flow could be associated with the migration of scale particles which block, or reduce, fluid paths. Mechanical or acid generated fractures can sustain a significant amount of damage (95% of the fracture face not contributing) before the fluid production from such a well is significantly impacted.3
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||12|
1. Tucker, M.E.: "Sedimentary Petrology, An Introduction," Geoscience, 3,96-157.
2. Leeder, M.R.: Sedimentology Process and Product, Blackwell (1985)15-29and 285-302.
3. Seright, R.S., Liang, J., and Seldal, M.: "Sizing Gelant Treatments inHydraulically Fractured Production Wells," SPEPF (November 1998) 223.
4. Jordan, M.M. et al.: "The Effective Management of Scale Within and FromCarbonate Oil Reservoirs, North Sea Basin," paper presented at the 2002 NIFIntl. Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Geilo, Norway, 17-20 March .
5. Carlberg, B.L.: "ScaleInhibitor Precipitation Squeeze for Non-Carbonate Reservoirs," paper SPE17008 presented at the 1987 SPE Production Technology Symposium, Lubbock,Texas, 16-17 November.
6. Browning, F.H. and Fogler, H.S.: "Precipitation and Dissolution ofCalcium-Phosphonates for the Enhancement of Squeeze Lifetime," SPEPF(August 1995) 144.
7. Malandrino, A. et al.: "Mechanistic Study and Modelling ofPrecipitation Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Processes," paper SPE 29001 presentedat the 1995 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio,Texas, 14-17 February.
8. Jordan, M.M. et al: "ScaleInhibitor Adsorption/Desorption vs. Precipitation: The Potential for ExtendingSqueeze Life While Minimising Formation Damage," paper SPE 30106 presentedat the 1995 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 15-16 May.
9. Rabaioli, M.R. and Lockhart, T.P.: "Solubility and Phase Behavior ofPolyacrylic Scale Inhibitors and Their Implication for Precipitation SqueezeTreatments," paper SPE 28998 presented at the 1995 SPE InternationalSymposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio, Texas, 14-17 February.
10. Bourne, H.M. et al.: "The Role of Additives on Inhibitor PrecipitateSolubility and Its Importance in Extending Squeeze Lifetimes," paper presentedat the 1997 IBC Technical Conference on Advances in Solving Oilfield Scaling,Aberdeen, 24-26 January.
11. Przybylinski, J.L.: "Adsorption and DesorptionCharacteristics of Mineral Scale Inhibitors as Related to the Design of SqueezeTreatments," paper SPE 18486 presented at the 1989 SPE InternationalSymposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 8-10 February.
12. Sorbie, K.S. et al.: "TheEffect of pH on the Adsorption and Transport of Phosphonate Scale InhibitorThrough Porous Media," paper SPE 25165 presented at the 1993 SPEInternational Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, New Orleans, 2-5 March.
13. Graham, G.M. and Sorbie, K.S.: "The Effect of Molecule Weight on theAdsorption/Desorption Characteristics of Polymer Scale Inhibitors on SilicaSand and in Sandstone Cores," paper presented at the 1994 Natl. Assn. ofCorrosion Engineers Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 28 February-4 March.
14. Jordan, M.M. et al.: "The Effect of Clay Minerals, pH, Calcium andTemperature on the Adsorption of Phosphonate Scale Inhibitor onto ReservoirCore and Mineral Separates," paper presented at the 1994 Natl. Assn. ofCorrosion Engineers Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 28 February-4 March.
15. Jordan, M.M. et al.: "Phosphonate Scale InhibitorAdsorption/Desorption and the Potential for Formation Damage in ReconditionedField Core," paper SPE 27389 presented at the 1994 SPE Formation DamageControl Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7-10 February.
16. Graham, G.M. and Sorbie, K.S.: "Examination of the Change inReturning Molecular Weight Obtained During Inhibitor Squeeze Treatments UsingPolyacrylic Based Inhibitors," paper SPE 29000 presented at the 1995 SPEInternational Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio, Texas, 14-17February.
17. Jordan, M.M.et al.: "The Correct Selection and ApplicationMethods for Adsorption and Precipitation Scale Inhibitors for SqueezeTreatments in North Sea Oilfield," paper SPE 31125 presented at the 1996SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14-15February.
18. Wattie, I., Graham, G.M., and Sorbie, K.S.: "Scale Inhibitor Selectionfor Application in a Chalk Reservoir" SPE paper prepared for presentation atthe 1999 SPE Oilfield Scale Symposium: Field Application and Novel Solutions,Aberdeen, 27-28 January.
19. Graham, G.M. et al.: "Scale Inhibitor Selection Criteria for Downhole(SQUEEZE) Application in High Volume Horizontal Wells in a Fractured ChalkReservoir," paper SPE 65025 presented at the 2001 SPE International Symposiumon Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 13-16 February.
20. Jordan, M.M., Sjursaether, K., and Collins, I.R.: "Scale Control WithinNorth Sea Chalk/Limestone Reservoirs.The Challenge of Understanding andOptimizing Chemical Placement Methods and Retention: Laboratory to Field,"presented at the 2004 Natl. Assn. of Corrosion Engineers Conference, NewOrleans, 28 March-1 April.
21. Norris, M. et al.: "Maintaining Fracture PerformanceThrough Active Scale Control," paper SPE 68300 presented at the 2001 SPEInternational Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, 30-31 January.
22. Mackay, E.J. et al.: "Modeling of Scale InhibitorTreatments in Horizontal Wells: Application to the Alba Field," paper SPE39452 presented at the 1998 SPE Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette,Louisiana, 18-19 February.
23. Collins, I.R., Jordan, M.M., and Taylor, S.E.:"The Development and Application of aNovel Scale Inhibitor for Deployment in Low Water Cut, Water Sensitive or LowPressure Reservoirs," paper SPE 60192 presented at the 2000 SPEInternational Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, 26-27 January.
24. Lawless, T.A. et al.: "Rock/Fluid Interactions and Resulting PhaseBehavior Considerations for the Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Design of Carbonates,"paper 53 presented at the 1994 Natl. Assn. of Corrosion Engineers Conference,Baltimore, Maryland, 28 February-4 March.
25. Graham, G.M. and Juhasz, A.: "Modification of Surface WettablityFollowing Chemical (Scale Inhibitor) Adsorption in Chalk and Dolomite Cores:Stimulation vs. Damage," paper SPE 73716 presented at the 2002 SPEInternational Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 20-21 February.
26. Robertson, E.J. et al.: "Design of Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatments inFractured Wells: Analysis and Field Application," paper SPE 65371 presented atthe 2001 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 13-16February.
27. Chang, F., Qu, Q., and Frenier, W.: "A Novel Self-Diverting Acid Developedfor Matrix Stimulation of Carbonate Reservoirs," paperSPE 65033presented at the 2001 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,Houston, 13-16 February.
28. Taylor, D. et al.: "Viscoelastic Surfactant BasedSelf-Diverting Acid for Enhanced Stimulation in Carbonate Reservoirs,"paper SPE 82263 presented at the 2003 SPE European Formation Damage ControlConference, The Hague, 13-14 May.
29. Ravenscroft, P.D., Cowie, L.G., and Smith, P.S.: "Magnus Scale Inhibitor SqueezeTreatments—A Case History," paper SPE 36612 presented at the 1996 SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 6-9 October.
30. Jordan, M.M., Egderton, M., and Mackay, E.J.: "Application of ComputerSimulation Techniques and Solid Divertor to Improve Inhibitor SqueezeTreatments in Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 50713 presented at the 1999 SPEInternational Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 16-19 February.