SPE
SPE 13246
An Unusual Case of Salt Plugging in a High-Pressure Sour Gas VW
by M.C. Place Jr. and J.T. Smith,’ She;) G) Co
SPE Members
●NOWretired.
Copyright 19S4 .Scdety of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
This paper waa praeented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition heid in iiouatmi, Texas, w+ . .. . . . . I&I
jeotto correction by the author. Permission to coPy is restricted to an abatract of not more than 3@J w*. Write SpE, 6ZW Noflh Central Expmeeway,
Drawer 6470S, Dallas, Texas 7520S USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
During the course of development of the deep
Mississippi Smackover trend Shell encountered a
particularly troublesome production problem in one
well, the Shell Ridgway 1-R well in the Southwest
Pineywooda Field. This well plugs after producing
approximately 1 BCF of gas and must be treated on
a regular baais by injecting fresh water to
re~~ore the productivity of the well. Eight other
Shell wells in three fields in the deep
Miasiaaippi Smackover trend have produced without
encountering this problesn. We have concluded that
the plugging observed in the Shell Ridgway 1-R
well is caused by the deposition of NaCl in the
well bore. We believe that a trace of brine
(tO.05 bbl/MMCF) is produced from an anomalously
high %eter saturation interval in thie well. This
- --- .- -
high water saturation interval ia located *3UU Ic.
above the gaa water contact in the field. Other
zonea having low water aaturationa were penetrated
at greater depths in the well. We believe that
this unexpected production of a small amount of
brine from an isolated interval within the pay
section possibly combined with the nature of the
*~e~~ ~Wletion created the plugging problem.
Initially we did not consider that brtne flow
could occur in a well completed ?300 ft. above the
gas water contact. Instead we thought that
transport of NaCl in the high preaaure aour gas
might be responsible for the plugging. To
evaluate this possibility we aiipporte&a pregram
conducted by Dr. James B. Hyne of the Univerafty
of Calgary to measure the volubility of salt at
reservoir conditions j.nthe aour gas. His
measurements show that trace amounts of NaCl are
carried in the high pressure sour gaa. However,
we were not able to use Hyne’s reeults to explain
the difference between the.production
characteriatfcs of the Shell Rfdgway #l-R well and
the other wells in the trend. Hyne’s results do
raise a warning that under certain conditions
References and illustration
●
c .+m~,
.. g, 19s4.The meterial iS Wb
plugging due to t4aCldeposition in the resewoir
may occur in high pressure sour gaa wells. Tn
this paper we shall develop our understanding of
this plugging problem by presenting material on
two wells: the Shell Ridgway 1-R well in the
Southwest Pineywoods Field, and the Shell Burch #1
well %n the Thomasvllle Field. These two wells
have pay zones of similar quality and are located
i= s$~.i~er~OSLtimS relative to the gas water
contacts in their respective ftelda. The
following ftema will be discuaaed:
1) Characteristics of the pay intervals,
reservotr conditions and structural settings
for the two wells.
2) Completion and production histories for the
two wells:
3) The volubility of NaCl in sour gaa baaed on
the work of Dr. Ryne and the implications of
these data for the plugging problems.
4) Chemical evidence to support the hypothesis
that NaCl depoaitfon occurs from brine
flowing into the Shell Ridgway l-R well.
5) A suggested prognosis of the sequence of
ew=ts during a plugging and treatment cycle
of the Shell Ridgway 1-R well.
Structural Setting, Reservoir Conditions and Field
Water Levels:
Figure 1 shows the structural relation
betwean the ThoteaavilleantiSouthweet Ficeywseds
fields with locationa of the wells which will be
di.vcuased. Table 1 presents reservo%r conditions
and gaa compositions for the fields in the trend.
Gaa production in the trend was initiated July 5,
1972, from the Shell Burch #1 well in the
Thomaaville field, The pay tnterval waa from
-19,430 ft. aubaea to -19,940 ft. subsea. The
Shell D’Lo Royalties #1 had been drilled and
encountered water in the Smackover at -20,019 ft.
subsea or 79 ft. below the deepest pay in the
Shell Burch #1.
at end of paper.
2 AN UNUSUAL CASE OF SALT PLUGGII
Production in the Southwest Phey Woods field
was initiated January 12, 1975, when the Shell
Ridgway #1 was opened to production. After
producing for 22 days at *3O MMSCF/D the well was
shut in to test for tubing corrosion. During this
operation a teat tool became lodged in the well.
Attempts to remove the tool were unsuccessful and
the well was plugged and abandoned on May 6, 1975.
The replacement well, Shell Ridgway #l-R was
completed and placed on production in September,
1977 from the open hole interval -21,412 to
-21,661 ft. subsea. The deepest pay occurred at a
subsea depth of -21,638 ft. The Shell Ridgway #1
well had penetrated to -21,713 ft. with no porous
LLUM LL
zones in the bottom 60 ft. ‘--- W== iws.waed
‘“ ‘---
that the field water level was deeper than -21,713
ft. and that the deepest pay in the Shell Ridgway
1-R was at leaat 75 ft. above the gas-water
contact. Later when the Shell Clark #1 well was
drilled, the water level in the Southwest Piney
Woods field was located at -21$801 ft. subsea
which was 163 feet below the deepest pay in the
Shell Rldgway #1-R well. Since the Shell Burch
well had produced gae for more than five yeare
with part of the pay only 79 feet above the field
water level, water production from the Shell
Ridgway #l-R did not seem likely when the deepeet
pay was 163 ft. above the field water level.
Petrophysical Evaluation of the Pay Zones:
The pay zones of the deep Mississippi
Smackover trend are dolomitic sandstones. For a
-L414t”
given porosity, the per==...... ~ecreg@eg as the
dolomite content increases.
Becauae of the variable lithology a
cross-plot technique is required for porosity
estimation from log data. The sidewall neutron
and sonic logs were used for the Shell Burch #1
well and the density plus compensated neutron logs
were used for the Shell Ridgway #l-R well.
Figures 2 and 3 present log data and calculated
porosity and water saturation values of the
~ro+~~~i~?.~G~e~ in the tWO welle. In addition
the locations of the perforation are shown for
the Shell Burch #l well. The Shell Ridgway #l-R
well was completed as an open hole from 21,976 ft.
to 22,225 ft. Note the low reeistivity of the
porous pay Zoiieei= the Shell XidgW~~ #l-n well
from 22,032 to 22,042 and from 22,064 to 22,06S.
The calculated water saturation for these two
zones are 35% and 50% compared to a range of 11%
to 27% for the perforated intervals of the Shell
Burch #1 well.
In addition to these two pay zones with
hfgher than normal water saturations, there are
other porous low permeability highly dolomitized
sands in the Shell Ridgway #l-R between 22,052 and
22,084 ft. Figure 4 is an expanded presentation
of this interval showing all of the intervals
which might contribute water. We eetimate the air
permeability of these high water saturation
intervals to be between 0.05 and 0.2 md. These
low porosity-low resistivity stringers are located
approximately 300 ft. above the gaa-water contact
IN A HIGH PRESSURE SOUR GAS WELL SPE 13246
in this field. Initially we had assumed that the
high water saturation resulted from an unusually
high capillary pressure for the rock and thus we
didanot expect water production from this zone. In
view of all the other evidence on the performance
of this well, we now believe that these stringera
are isolated high water saturation zones
Completion and Production Histories:
Figure 5 is a comparison of the initial
completions in the fields under discussion. Note
that the Shell Ridgway #1 and #l-R wells were
completed open hole with the tubing terminated
above the productive intervals whereas the Shell
Burch #1 was completed by perforating a liner
cemented thru the productive interval.
The initial completion of the Shell Burch #1
well consisted of 36 perforations at the depths
shown in Figure 2 which was designed to open 241
feet of pay to production. The well was opened
for production on July 5, 1972. During the first
few weeks of production several different choke
settings were used until a satisfactory set of
operating conditions were established on August 1.
The production rate and estimated flowing bottom
hole pressure for the Shell Burch #1 well from
July 5, 1972 to June 12, 1973 are shown in Figure
6. Note that over this long time period there was
no evidence of a decline in productivity of the
weli. The well was shut-in several tines for
various reasons but at no time waa there any
treatment of the well to improve the productivity.
The well was shut in on June 12, 1973 to repiace
the tubing and to recomplete the well with a
larger number of perforations. During this
initial production period the Shell Burch #1
produced 4.3 BCF of gas.
- -..1... +kr,
Tinedecision to LOUPA=.= Ch 11 Ridqav
...=-e-- -.--=-,
#1-R well open hole waa for logistical rather than
technical considerations. The Shell Rldgway #1
produced very well in this manner although there
were several unexplained fluctuations in the FBHP
(flowing bottom-hoie pressure) as reflected in the
annulus pressure. Initially, the Shell Ridgway
#l-R produced at a rate of 25 million cubic feet
per daytith FBHP of 19,000+ psi (AP 3000f psi).
To gather reservoir performance data, it was
planned to produce at 25 million cubic feet per
day for several days, then vary the rate and
finally hold the rate at 25 million cubic feet per
day and monitor the FBIIP. After about three weeka
of production, the PBIiPexperienced an abnormal
decline, and within a six-day period the rate
dropped from 252 million cubic feet per day to 15
million cubic feet per day while the FBIIPdropped
7000 psi to 8500 psi, a drawdown of 14,000t psi.
Figure 7a is a history of the initial production
cycle; Figure 7b is the companion FBHP history.
At this juncture, it was apparent that the well
was plugging; the plugging material or mechan%am
wae unknown. It waa speculated that either
sulfur, salt or something else waa the plugging
materiel. Based on the hypothesis that the
pressure drop was cauaing something to precipitate
SPE 13246 MORRIS C. PLACE, JR. AND JOHN T. SMITH
from the gas, it waa decided to choke the well and
increase the FBHP with a goal that perhaps the
increase in pressure would reverse the
precipitation. As ahown in Figure 8a, this
appeared to be initially successful, and then the
well nearly completely plugged. Figure 9b ia
companion FB?IP. Throughout this entire production
cycle, there was no evidence of plugging in the
tubing.
p~~~~~~~ ~~m~~~~ ~eep Wssissippi Smackover
completions had experienced’apparent fill problems
prior to being tubed through completions; but once
they were tubed through, no similar plugging
problems were experienced. Because of this
previous good experience with tubed through
completion, it was decided to recomplete the well
as a tubed through completion. The well was
uneventfully killed without any evidence of
plugging in either the tubing or tubing-casing , expected from Hynes’s data to cauae a deposition
annulus. During the workover, both o%i, for
posstble sulfur plugging, and water, for possible
salt plugging, were injected into the well. A few
short production tests were also made during the
workover. However, the goal of the workover was
never accomplished, and the well was returned to
---~....+~--~- +h .nmF4eqlFStiQn
~LUUULL&”.,AL. .,.~
g~~m.
~“..LA~...-.-
in Figure
. .
9.
When the well was returned to production, it
ccztinued to plug after a limited period of
production. Injection of water restored the
productivity of the Weli. TFnecycles of
production and the volumes of water used in the
injection treatments through June 1978 are ahown
iii Figiii~ 1(?. ~~a>j~i= Of chgS~ creetEe?ltsShQW~d
that injection of abQut 1000 bbl. of water would
result In about a billion cubic feet of production
befQre the well required rewaahing and that by
pumping the water slowly, this water volume could
be reduced.
The water wash ia always injected without
diverters and because of the apparent success, the
plugging material appears to be in the well bore
rather than the formation. The well currently
produces in this manner and is economic.
Salt Volubility in Sour Gas:
A possible mechanism for salt plugging would
be the deposition of salt initially dissolved in
the dense, hot, high pressure sour gas. A study
was undertaken to determine if this hypothesis was
reasonable and, if so, to what extend this
mechanism may have contributed to the problem.
Dr. James B. Hyne, University of Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, was retained to do this work.
T-a 2..71..
~llLtLaLLysome .,.A~4TIcY
t-ma .aw,c+=efit~Ye’redQne
-S-V=AU5.,=- -..=-.
to confirm that high pressure sour gas will
dissolve sodium chloride and then a suite of more
pzecise experi~ents were run to determine more
accurately the level of sodium chloride
volubility.
The most significant results obtained by H~e
and Co-workers are presented in Figures 11 and 12.
3
The data they reported show the variation in the
volubility of NaCl in Shell Ridgway #1-R gas aa
pressure, temperature and water content are
varied. We have plotted on Figure 11 points
corresponding to the initial bottom hole pressure
and temperature corresponding to the initial
bottom hole pressure and temperature conditions
for both wells. We have drawn lines connecting
these initial conditions to pointa which represent
the flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP) and
temperature conditions during the initial
production periods for both wells. For the Shell
Burch #1 well (which showed no evidence of
plugging) we used an average FBHP over the initial
period. This average FBHP was set at 11,000 psi
based on the curve of FBHP vs. time ahown in
Figure 6. The original reservoir pressure waa
17,500 pai (Table 1). As shown in Figure 11, the
drop in pressure from 17,500 pai to 11,000 psi is
of NZKX
-11.31.IIAWOQ
= L.-l AV,.IKL”. .
C4m,-a ~h-
“J...-.= . ..-
Qhrall
-..---
~iJ~ch #1
well contains more H2S in the gas than does the
Shell Ridgway #1-R well (ace Table 1) we believe
this expected drop in NaCl content to be a
conservative estimate.
When the well was shut-in for a workover
necessitated by tubing failure in June 1973, the
total production was 4.3 BCF. There were 241 ft.
of pay opened for flow so the production was 17.8
MMCF/ft. of pay. TherefQre, in the Sheii Burch #i
~=11 the ~redi~ted amonnt of NaCl deposition was
43 LB/ft. of pay up to June, 1973. As shown by
the performance curves in Figure 6 there was no
evidence of any significant change in the
productivity of the Shell Burch #1 well between
the initiation of stable flow conditions in
August, 1972 and June, 1973. Therefore, we can
infer that negligible plugging occurs in the
reservoir for this amount of inferred NaCl
deposition.
The initial production period for the Shell
Ridgway #l-R well is shown in Figures 7a and 7b.
Note that the FBHP waa estimated to be 18,400 psi
during the first 10 days or so of production. The
expected drop in NaCl content due to the decrease
in pressure from 22,000 psi (Table 1) to 18,400
pSi iS 1.6 lb/MMSCF. We thtnk that the well was
plugging during this flow period. The plugging
became apparent in the latter part of September
1977 when both the production rate and the FBHP
abruptly decreaaed (see Figures 7a and 7b). The
rate of plugging undoubtedly was increased by the
decrease in FBHP. However, the well continued to
p~adg=XvezSfter the FBHP was increased to 18~400
psi or more as shown in Figure 8A and 8B. The
well was essentially completely plugged after
producing 0.75 BCF. Measurements of the tubing
pressure, annulus pressure and flow rate were
available throughout this flow period. Analysis
of these data showed that the plugging problem was
not in the tubing and, therefore, had deveiQped
either in the open hole or in the formation.
The total amount of pay in the Shell Rldgway
#1-R well was 98 ft. Accordingly severe plugging
L AN UNUSUAL CASE OF SALT PLUGGING IN A HIGH PRESSURE SOUR GAS WELL
in the Shell Ridgway #l-R had occurred after
producing 7.3 NMCF/ft. of pay. The inferred
amount of NaCl deposition neglecting the influence
of the reduced FBHP during part of the flow period
is 212#/ft. of pay. This is to be comparecito
-,.541/<.-g =..-*.,4*h mm &sez-v~hle plugging in the
z4Jw/LL. u. pay “4.... ...
Shell Burch #1 well. Clearly the difference in
performance of these two wells suggests that
deposition of NaCl in the formation can not be
causing significant impairment.
‘lhisconclusion is strengthened when one
considers the differences in the completions of
-L- .... ..
L[leLWU 11- 4----
wi?u~, * n.avfnra~e~ liner vs. open
r-----
hole. If the plugging in the formation due to
transport of NaCl in the gaa phaae had been the
cauae of the Shell Ridgway #l-R impairment, we
would expect the problem to be worse with a
perforated completion than with an open hole
completion. This is particularly true for the
Shell Burch #1 well which initially was completed
L.-
Dy L3k@t~~,S. .-1.,?6
UI,,A, a., --vfm-ntinn~
~----------- throu~h a
cemented 5“ production liner.
We know that this initial completion caused a
restricted productivity to exist. When the Shell
Burch #1 waa worked over in 1974 it waa
reperforated with 125 jet ahots over the original
completion interval. This raiaed the flow rate
from 14.5 MMSCF/Day to over 30 MMSCF/Day at about
the same flowing tubing pressure. Because of this
restricted productivity during the initial flow
period, an unusually large friction of the *6000
psi drawdown pressure in the Shell Burch #l well
was being dissipated close to the perforation
during the period from July, 1972 to June 1973.
This should have aggravated any tendency to plug
due to NaCl deposition in the formation.
Therefore, we can not believe that the Shell
Ridgyay #1-R well was plugged by tranaport of NaCl
in the gas phaae while the Shell Burch ahowed no
evidence of plugging for a set of conditions which
should have created more severe plugging by this
mechanism.
If tranaport of NaCl in the gas phaae is
responsible for plugging we expect the plugging to
occur in the formation close to the well bore
where the pressure gradient ia greatest. As
previously noted, the response of the Shell
Ridgway #l-R to treatment indicated that the
plugging was probably occurring in the open hole.
In this connection, relatively small volume water
injections (250 to 300 bbl) repeatedly restored
the well productivity to its initial level. We do
not think that this is compatible with plugging in
the formation since moat of the injectton will go
into the least plugged part of the pay section.
Even though we do not believe that formation
plugging due to deposition of NaCl from the gas
phase haa occurred in any of the Shell wells in
the deep Smsckover sour gas area, we think that
there are conditions where this type of plugging
could occur. For example, if a well were drilled
and completed so that there was a serious akin
condition, then the draw down pressure would be
concentrated in a smell volume of rock adjacent to
SPE 13246
the well bore.This might cause enough NaCl to be
deposited in this smell volume of rock to create a
plugging problem.
“—..,. z-- *.nl
fiv~aen~~LUL &WL n -.4t4nq ~~~i~e ~r~ne
“~y-..-..
Production in the Shell Ridgway #l-R Well:
Background Information:
Ae discussed in the Production History
section, periodic injections of water down the
tubing and out into the formation were required to
msintatn aatiafactory well productivity. Becauae
of the eaae of restoring the well productivity we
suspected that some water soiu-biematerial was
being deposited in the open hole.
In an effort to determine the composition of
the plugging material, systematic analysea of the
water solutions recovered from the Shell Ridgway
#l-R separator were started in June 1978. By
August 1978 we had preliminary indications that
NaCl was probably responsible for the piuggtng.
Our evidence waa the occurrence of erratic
variations in the Cl content of the produced water
just before and while the well was losing
productivity. In October, 1980 a careful series of
analyses were performed before a water waah and on
the water recovered after the wash. A comparison
of these results with the earlier analyses
indicated that NaCl deposition from brine flowing
into the well waa very probable. In 1983 the
Shell Clark well of the Southwest Piney Woods
field started producing a significant amount of
formation water. Comparison of analysea of this
water from the Shell Clark well with the results
from the Shell Ridgway well added confirmation to
the hypothesis that NaCl deposition from moving
brine was occurring in the Shell Ridgway well.
Interpretation of the Analyses of Produced Water:
To control corrosion in the deep sour gas
wells, oil containing a corrosion inhibitor ia
circulated down the annulua and produced up the
tubing with the gaa. The oil ta reused and ia
treated with an alkaline solution to remove sulfur
which would otherwise build up in the oil. Some
of the alkaline treatfng solution remains
emulsified in the oil. Thus the circulating
in~ibft~r oil intr~duces so~e water containing
Na , HS , S , HC03 and C03 into the production
stream. The water sampled at the well head
separator ia a mixture60f water condensed from the
gas phase (*1O bbla/10 SCF), water flowing into
the well from the formation and this water
introduced with the circulating oil.
The salta dissolved in the samples of
produced water are derived from three sources; the
gaa stream, water produced from the formation and
water emulsified in the circulation oil. Table 2
presenta some analyses obtained in July and August
1978 which illustrate our interpretation problem.
The separator water samples were obtained both
before and after a water injection treatment on
July 25, 1978. Note that the typical Smeckover
SPE 13246 MORRIS C. PLACE, JR. AND JOHN T. SMITH
brine is essentially a solution of chloride aalta
whereas the alkaline solution emulsifie~ in the
.{~~t,l~tin=OiI
-—— contains very little Cl . From
--.-.---.-.-=
the ratio of neq/L Cl- to meq/L NaT in the
separator water samplea we infer that these
separator water samples contain about 90% spent
sulfide salta and about 10% formation salta
di~~o~~ed i= ~gter ~~rgely condensed from the gas
stream.
Aside f$om the problem created by the large
amount of Na ~$ing circulated around the system,
most of the Ca entering the well at this time
was being precipitated as CaCOq by the alldine
solution. Thus CaC12 entering-the well w%ii
appear aa NaCl in the produced water. Because of
these difficulties we were unable to use direct
analysis for NaCl in the water returned after an
injection as evidence for NaCl plugging.
Our analyses did show a significant change in
the composition of the salts being produced from
the summer of 1978 to the fall of 1980. As
discussed later we believe this change indicates
that NaCl has been deposited from the brine in one
or more sands which are producing brine into the
~Q~~ ,
Composition Change Expected for a Moving Brine
Phase in A Producing Gaa Sand:
Aa the pressure of a gas phase in equilibrium
with water is decreased at constant temperature,
the mole % water in the gas phase increases.
Therefore, gas flowing through a sand containing a
water phaae will evaporate water aa it moves
toward a lower pressure regime. For a water phase
having the composition of the Smeckover brine this
evaporation can cause NaCl to be deposited. Let
ua suppose that the water phaae ia mobile and has
reached saturation with NaC1. Given these
conditions, continued production from the zone
will cause the brine produced along with the gas
to become increasingly depleted with respect to
NaC1. As a result, analyses of the produced
fluids will show that the ratio of Cl to any
cation which is not being deposited will decreaae
-- ---A...-.*4*-
U- 4“ev0ss~~G ThiS is the change we
p&”uub.&”..A..-.-..
observed. Our results are presented in the next
section.
Change with Time in Composition of Produced Salts:
Our interpreta~~on @ll+be ~aaed-on ~he
follow@g ratios Ca /Li , K /Li , Cl /Li and
C1-/Ca . We chose these particular $onstit~ents
because we do not think that eitherK orLi w~}l
be crystallized out of the brine and beeaiiseC$
is the major cation $? the brine other than Na .
We found that the Ca data were useless unless
the water recovered from the separator had a pXl
less than 7.2b This severely limited the amount
of uaeable Ca results. In order to eliminate
Sesle fLmzmtioll .4-
. . the tmhin*
-----=: Ccmtimlous
circulation down the annulus of deionized water
containing NaCl waa initiated in November 1978 and
continued-through August 1980. During this period
ueeful Cl values could not be obtained.
5
Finally we could not uae data on certain
samples because of unpredictable changes which
aroae. We have already mentioned the erratic
-. t-h.
changes In u content whickl ~~?~i~~d .... ~e~~
“w!IeP.
was plugging rapidly. In addition there were
composition changes during the first two days of
returns after an injection which we were not able
to interpret aatiafactorily. We think the
following processes were responsiiiiefor these
unpredictable variation in composition.
i) ‘Rapiti
prectpitatioiiw-Z .T-fl~
A . ..4...-
,.=bA_WL.&..e a mli,eino
..-=g-.-=
period which would cause Cl to be too low.
2) Breaking loose pieces of NaCl which would
~edis~~&v.e .W.hlerA
they ~ere swent
---r- into the
condensed water zone and thus cause Cl- to be
too high.
3) Solution of CaC03 and K-feldspar in $%e
injection water which could cauae Ca and K+
to be too high in the returned waters.
We were not able to uae the data obtained
during the periods affected by the above processes
for a quantitative interpretation. Accordingly we
have used only data obtained between the third and
tenth day after the return flow started following
an injection for our interpretation. The critical
.. *- =A”..”ae
observations are preseiitedLU ZASU..- la
.. . ~q ~~~
15. The majority of the points represent an
average of four analyses from samples taken over a
period of three daya to six days. Only two
observations were available for a few points.
The significant conclusions we can draw from
Figures 13, 14 snd 15 are:
1) The ratios of Ca++/Li+ and K+jLi+ appeared to
remain constant with time. From this we can
infer that none of these cations are being
deposited in the formation since it is
unlikely that any process would deposft all
three in the came proportion considering the
wide range in thefr amounta and chemical
properties.
2) A ~i~ificant-dec~ease in the ratios of
Cl /K and Cl lLi occurred between the
latter half of 1978 and October 1980. l’h~
only process which could remove enough Cl
from the produced stream-to+cauae t~e
observed decreases in Cl /K and Cl /Li+ is
the precipitation of NaCl from the produced
fluids. Selective removal of NaCl from
flowing brine la expected aa brine ia
evaporated. On the other hand selective
removal of NaCl from a flowing gas phase is
not expected to arise as the gas pressure is
reduced due to depletion.
Another piece of evidence which supports the
conclusion that NaCl is being crysta$&ize~ out of
the flowing brine is the ratio of Ca /C1 being
produced in September and October 1980. This
ratio varied from 20.3 to 20.5 for samples having
a pH<7.2. The expected ratio for the Smsckover
Brine in Southwest Pineywoods fieii is 6.23 based
on a sample of high salintty water produced from
the Shell Clark #l well. This ratio is close to
6 AN ~tlSUAL CASE OF SALT PLUGGING IN A HIGH PRESSURE SOUR GAS WELL
th$+val~e 0.20 reported by Collinsi for the
Ca ICI ratio of an average Smackover brine.
Accordingly we believe that NaCl ia being
selectively lost from the fluids produced by the
“.–.,
>neu “.>—----411u
nxagway r~-m ..all
w=...
In view of the log data which indicate the
presence of low permeability high water saturation
zones between 22042 ft. and 22083 ft. (see Figure
4) we believe that brine flow is occurred in this
depth interval. These sands have high enough gas
saturationa to flow gas as well which will cause
evaporation and NaCl deposition in the reservoir.
This selectfve loss of Na$l will accoup~ for tie
change in the ratios of K , Li and Ca to c1 .
Hypothesized Description of Plugging and Treatment
Cycle of the Shell Ridgway #l-R Well:
The relative positions of the bottom of the
tubing, the depth at which brine entry occurs and
the depths of the main pay are critical to the
explanation of the observed well plugging. First
note from Figures 5 and 9 that the end of the
tubing string is slightly above the open hole
interval. Thus, fluids injected down the annulus
can not wash the formation face while the well ia
flowing at a high rate. Second, note from Figures
3 and 4 that the main pay section of the well is
below 22,100 ft. whereas the high water saturation
aanda are between 22,042 ft. and 22.083 ft.
Because of this unexpected location of the zones
which produce water, moat of the produced gaa
flows past the zones which produce water.
The main pays have low water saturation (15
to 26%) and thus can be assumed to contain an
immobile water phase. Aa gas is produced from
these pays evaporation of water from the immobile
brine will create an annular ring of low water
saturation rock containing a concentrated brine
(meiniy CaCi j around the well hors. On ths sther
hand, any br $ne entering the well bore from a high
water saturation zone will be leas concentrated.
Therefore, the gas produced from the good pay
Intervals which haa equilibrated with a more
concentrated brine can evaporate water from any
brine capable of flowing into the well. The
result of this evaporation process will be to
deposit NaCi in the weii bore.
Now let us consider the water injection
process. The injected freshwater plus any
dissolved NaCl will largely enter the good pay
zones which are more permeable than the high water
saturation zonea. This water will dilute the
concentrated brine left from the previous
production cycle. As the well is put back on
production the readily producible water will be
rapidly recovered and the good pay zones will be
left with an annular ring of low salinity water
around the well bore. During the early part of
each production cycle the water content of the gas
produced from the good pay zones wI1l be
controlled by equilibration with the low salinity
water in this annular ring. NaCl deposition in
the bore hole cannot start as long aa this ring of
SPE 13246
low salinity residual brine remains in the good
pay zones.
After a sufficiently long period of gas
production enough evaporation will have occurred
to return the annular ring to its original
cond~tion of low saturation and high salinity.
When this saltnity exceeds that of the traces of
brine being produced in the overlying high water
saturation zones another episode of NaCl
deposition snd plugging will start. The radial
extent of the ring of low salinity water left
after an injection will increase as the volume of
water injected during the treatment increaaes.
Thus the volume of gaa which can be produced
before plugging occurs again will increase aa the
volume of injected water increases.
There are two obvious solutions to the
problem Shell encountered in the Shell Ridgway
#l-R well. The first solution is to complete the
well with a cemented and perforated liner so that
production from such isolated high water
saturation zones can be eliminated or at least
minimized. The second solution is to use a tubed
through completion and to circulate a few barrels
per MMCF of water down the annulus to stop the
evaporation process in the well bore. The plan
had been to recomplete the Shell Ridgway #l-R as a
tubed through completion. Tineloss
‘ of .L. Sal. 4..
LII~ ~A5,, ~.,
the hole mede this impossible. The economics of
the alternative at that stage were such that the
cyclical production and water injectfon procedure
described in this report has been continued.
Conclusions
1. The Shell Ridgway #l-R suffered loss of
productivity because of the precipitation of
sodium chloride in the open hole portion of
the completion.
2. The source of the sodium chloride was the
~zc+zct-~~ of trace brine (*.05 bbl/MKCF]
from an anomalously high water saturation
interval.
3. The well ia economically produced by periodic
fresh water injections.
4. Although salt precipitation from the gas is
not b=~ie.:edt,;hg~~ CaUSed the problem in
the Shell Ridgway #l-R, it is a potential
problem when producing hot, sour, high
pressure gas wells.
References:
1. Collins, A. G. (1975) Geochemistry of
Oilfield Waters, Elsevier, pg. 236.
Acknowledgements:
The authors wish to thank Shell Oil for granting
permission to publish thi= =~ik. arid tc =kn=?lew!ge
the assistance of Mr. R. K. Jarrell in the
Interpretation of the logs and in particular of
Mr. R. L. Sandera whose records and memory of the
production history of the Thomasville complex were
essential for the preparation of this report.
 Table I
Deep Mississippi Sour Gas

Bottomhole Mol. 0/0

Press.
. Temp. Carbon Hydrogen
Field (psi) (OF) Methane Dioxide Sulfide

Thomasville 17,500 365 57 8 35

Piney Woods 18,300 375 51 3 “46

Southwest 22,000 385 69 3 28

Piney Woods

TABLE 2

REPRESENTATIVE WATER ANALYSES

mg!L Qwq/L

(Hs: + s-+)=
DATE Li+ Na+ K+ Ca++ Cl- cl- (Hco ~ + C03 )

RIDGWAY 1-R SEPARATOR WATERS 1978

7-17 0.71 9400 80 2.8 1150 32.4 379

7-20 0.67 9900 75 9.8 900 25.4 407

~k~
8-01 0.63 8500 55 3.9 960 27.i

8-07 0.52 9300 43 1.3 840 23.7 381

RIDGWAY ALKALINE TREATING SOLUTION

7-02 0.03 3.6 3.3 70 2.0 1800

AVEtiGE SMACKOVER BRINE REF. 1

174 66,975 2,841 34,534 171,686 4840 100

.
 SVALUATtON OF
RESISTIVITY SIDEWALL PAY ZONES
GAMMA R&Y’ OEEP NEUTRON
WATER
INDUCTION PC4+OSITV %
API UNITS POROSITY SATLM4TWN
OHMS NM Ll::~R;:E x %

so% 20030 00 s 20 0 .25 so

?~”

<

8
;
O ABANDONEO
(1

+ DRY HOLE [)
$ H ~ 2-L

~ GAS WELL
i: ‘

8
~

PIN EYWOODS al

+ ~~$ % El

+5 5’ 3
-9 ORIGINAL ●ERFoRA WONS ON 4..V.71
[+ PERFORAWMSADDED OURtMG RECWUETf~ ON 44.74
cONTOURS TOP SMACKOVER SS
1 MILE
1 I
Pig. l–Thc+nssville onnplex, Rsnkin CountY MS Figure 2 – Logs and evaluation of Shell Burch 1 productive interval.

I DENSITY
NEUIWJN
‘--
— I EvALIMTION
I
POROWTV !4 POROSITY WATER SATURATION
GAMMA nAv
I., MSSTONEMATnlX % %
k
API uNITS -10 0s10 o=-%
: =
k -

I I 1 ,
I I

Figurs 3 – MS and evaluation of Shell Rid@say 1-R productive inte~al. FUUIW 4 – Detail of Huh Water Saturation Zones in Shell Ridgway 1-R
 ,s— ................ ..---~.lf~’””~””””””
.
!,

-q

~,,
sCHEMATIC OF
SCHEMATIC OF INITIAL COMPLETIONS 1-,, I ,,, I ❑ ,y I I
TYPICAL completion 1= *UUE
(RIOGWAY 16 1-R) , AU6 SEn OCT Uov
JAM fu

PINEY WOOOS FIELO

JULY
t--- 1973
ANO THOMASVILLE FIELO SOUTNWEST PINEY WOOOS FIELO 1972
DEPTH IN FEET

IKIO

100
PRUOUCTION CASING

L= CIRCULATING ~~
lwo (PRODUCINGI STRING

GGG

Gm30

\\
2orsl

14000
Fwurt 6. krhm.ru Cur”” for Sb41 Bwch 1

16000 PRoDUCTION RATE

MMCFIO
30
18(WO

_ PERFORATIONS
t
2GGGG 25
OPEN HOLE
IPRESSURE
i
-J ya# PSI)
220rm 22,225’ TO— L
20

24000 I
23.4 -
15

FIG,5 DEEP SMACKOVER

1s.4
COMPLETION METHODS
10

13.4
5

S.4
oP
L
SEPT OCT NOV
..
1977

IFIG. 71, SHELL RIOGWAY ‘I-R

FIG. 7a SHELL RIDGWAY 1-R APPROXIMATE FLOWING
PRODUCTION RATE BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE
 FIG.9 PRODUCING CONFIGURATION
RIOGWAY 1-R

PRODUCTION CASING

CIRCULATING (PROOUCING) STRING

2s.4
u j

1
13.4
[

18,4

I
SEPT OCT NOV
t
13.4

S.4
~
1 _TOPOF

EISH
FISH

DRILL COLLARS, ETC.

1977 OPEN HOLE 6

— BOTTOM OF FISH
FIG.8b SHELL RIDGWAY 1-R
FIG. * SHELL RIDGWAY 1-R
APPROXIMATE FLOWING t
PRODUCTION RATE +!
22,225’ TD—
BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE

RIoGWAV MANAGEMENT NO. 1.R

PRODUCTION RATE
MMCFIO
301-

25

a
0 .

20
p.

~~ n .

10

h. YI
,,
[

,1,,
5
WORKOVER
t
(LEFT FISH IN HOLE) 1~211 544M
,,([,1,152 M 603 M
o 33M
I
MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY
SEPT OCT NOV OEC JAN FEB
197s
1977

SHELL RIDGWAY 1-R PRODUCTION HISTORY

FIGURE 10
 FIG. 11

NACL VOLUBILITY IN RIOGWAY 1-R

GAS AT A RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF
50% VS PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE

● INITIAL

7
/ 2+
●

z~oc
RIDGWAY 1.R

6
y

5
1 /“ ‘L”W’NG /

!4J4 I //’”!/
~~
5
~

A 1750C
:3 -
z o

y
2-
BURCH 1
FLOWING

1-
:/0

/
t
~“./ . 23000
1s000 21OOO
90D0 12000 16C4)0
0 3000 6~
PRESSURE PSI

FIG. 12

SOLUBILITV
----— .— OF NACL IN RIOGWAY
1-R GAS VS WATER CONTENT AND
PRESSURE

--------------------
20,000 Psl
2oow

0
0
o 0
/e tnntmm
.-, --- -.
200W
o
y---

4
1
75 100
25 60
..-. —....
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ‘x
 FIG.13

● ✎ ✿
✿
●
●

100 X*
x —— ——— x
—x—x—x ——— —
. 90 ,
. x
> x

80,I

MO,
L 4
I
681012
I I I
2468101
I I I I I
24681012
t 1

19s0
I 1

1979
YR. 1976

DATE OF OBSERVATION

*. 13-Change ~nh thw Oi catiin comfmsitii d Rii ~. 1-R @u* ~er

FIG. 14

24

22

[
20

lB

16 \
\
14

12
.
WK
I \,
101- \

2
II
. . , I t
1 1 1 , ,
1 I
n , . . . .I 2468 10 1
24eu1u’
MO. ” 4 6 B 10 12
1980
1979 1
YR. 1976

DATE OF OBSERVATION

Fig. lMMI!Y wilh UIIW d CliK ralbd Rklww NG. 1-R pmdti wier.
 1 I 1 1
1 I
1 I I
I 1 I I ‘Dt 12
o]
I I 2468
2 4 6 8 ‘0 ‘2
MO. 4 6 8 10 ‘2 1980
1979
YR.
1978
DATE OF OBSERVATION

Fig. l~hange with time of Cl/Ii ratio of Ridgway No. 1-R produced water.