SPE 165169

Formation Damage and the Importance of a Rigorous Diagnostic: a Case

History in Nigeria Deep Water
Jean-Noël Furgier, Cédric Lebecq, Xavier Degos, Frédéric Martin, Total E&P

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 5–7 June 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Total operate a field located 150 kilometers off the Niger Delta at a water depth of 1,400 meters. This field is the
first deep-offshore development involving light oil with high gas content. In the field's Miocene reservoir the fluid is
under saturated (~ 80 bar) and in ‘critical conditions’, i.e. the gas and liquid hydrocarbons are in a single phase, at
high pressure and temperature.
Several turbiditic-type reservoir layers are developed with 22 oil producer wells, 20 water injector wells and 2 gas
injector wells.
Reservoir G is a lobe sand body with good petro-physical characteristics (Permeability = 300 to 500 mD, Porosity ~
20%). This reservoir is developed with 2 producer wells, well 7 and well 9, completed with frac-packs, and 2 water
injector wells for pressure maintenance.
In September 2009, six months after first oil, well 7 and well 9 lost 70% of their potential following the decline of
their productivity index. The impact was 20,000 bpd production shortfall.
This paper describes the investigation process that was conducted to identify the cause of the decline. The
process included pressure transient analysis, geochemical analysis, core flooding tests and scale modeling. A trial
and error approach was adopted when designing well intervention in order to get as much information as possible
and firm up the most realistic cause of production damage.
This paper also highlights the fact that a proper diagnostic requires a multi-discipline approach, an open mind and
a comprehensive risk analysis.
2 SPE 165169

Prologue
The field
This field was discovered in 2000 by Total Upstream Nigeria Ltd (TUPNI). Located 150 kilometers off the Niger
Delta at a water depth of 1,400 meters, it is the first deep-offshore development involving light oil with high gas
content. In the field's Miocene reservoir the fluid is in ‘critical conditions’, i.e. the gas and liquid hydrocarbons are in
a single phase, at high pressure and temperature.
Several turbiditic-type reservoir layers are developed with 22 oil producer wells, 20 water injector wells and 2 gas
injector wells.
Oil and gas production is processed on board a FPSO designed for a maximum capacity of 185,000 bpd of oil and
15MSm3/d of gas. The produced gas is partly re-injected and partly exported onshore to a liquefaction plant via a
neighbour field facilities. This hybrid injection/export gas scheme optimizes hydrocarbon recovery: gas is injected
only in reservoirs which can benefit from this type of pressure support.
Reservoir G
Reservoir G is a lobe sand body with good petro-physical characteristics (Permeability = 300 to 500 mD, Porosity ~
20%).

Well 8

Well 7

Well 11

Well 9
Well 25

Figure 1: structural map of reservoir G

This reservoir is developed with 2 producer wells, well 7 and well 9, and 2 water injector wells for pressure
maintenance. Well 7 is completed with one single frac-pack over a 44m perforated interval. Well 9 is completed
with two stacked frac-packs over 32 and 13m perforated intervals. Both wells are equipped with downhole gauges,
located above the Sand Screens. Their initial potential is 13,000 bopd and 15,000 bopd respectively.

Well 9 Well 7

Well 11 Well 25

Figure 2: schematic of wells in reservoir G

SPE 165169 3

Problem and stakes

In September 2009, six months after first oil, Well 7 and Well 9 lost 70% of their potential following the decline of
their productivity index. The impact was 20,000 bpd production shortfall.
At well start up, the saturation pressure was 84 bars above static pressure. However, due to a late start of water
injection, the current depletion was 20 bars, and the wells were operated with 60bars draw-down.

Act 1 : Try and learn

Evaluation
A thorough investigation was conducted. Pressure build up tests confirmed the presence of a near well bore
damage. A high skin increase was seen on Well 7 over a three month period from the moment the bottom hole
flowing pressure passed below 356 bars. A k.h decrease was seen on Well 9 from the moment the bottom hole
flowing pressure passed below 360 bars. Several possible causes of formation damage were screened:

Possible Relative
Asphaltene
Mineral scaling Fine migration Liquid banking permeability
Root Cause deposit
effect
Likelyhood unlikely possible unlikely unlikely possible
damage
not first choice in
no water is rejected in high appeared above
high
Comment produced in permeability reservoir
permeability,
those wells reservoir saturation
clean sands
pressure
Table 1: possible causes of formation damage

The four first possible causes were rapidly discarded. Asphaltene deposit was kept as the most likely damage
mechanism because the pressure seemed to play a major role, but also because asphaltene deposits had been
observed during gas swelling PVT cell experiments.

Well 7

Figure 3: Well 7, evolution of pressure, PI and skin

4 SPE 165169

Well 9

Figure 4: Well 9, evolution of pressure, PI, skin and k.h

The phenomenon of asphaltene desposit is directly linked to the density of the fluid at reservoir conditions. This
density decreases when the reservoir pressure decreases from 393 bar initial pressure to 330 bar saturation
pressure. The most dangerous zone is just above saturation pressure. Below saturation pressure, the quasi critical
separation between oil and gas generate a large quantity of liquids which density increases when pressure
continues decreasing. The dissolving capacity of the liquid phase increases rapidly below saturation pressure. 10
bar below saturation pressure, this capacity is equivalent to the fluid dissolving capacity at initial pressure. All
asphaltene can then be re-dissolved.
A “red zone” was defined for each well, corresponding to the pressure window were the risk is considered
maximum: it is between saturation pressure and reservoir pressure when productivity started decreasing.

Figure 5: evaluation of asphaltene deposition risk vs pressure

The first remedial action was to choke the wells to maintain their BHFP above asphaltene deposition pressure (or
“red zone”). The second remedial action planned was a well stimulation to remove the damage. On the longer
term, the plan was to re-pressurize reservoir G and to perform asphaltene inhibitor squeezes from the FPSO.
SPE 165169 5

Intervention
WELL 7
The stimulation was conducted in January 2010 with a coiled tubing from a drill ship. It consisted in injecting 47m3
of xylene in the perforations with the intention of dissolving asphaltene deposit. During the injection in the first well,
Well 7, the monitoring of bottom hole injection pressure showed absolutely no effect of the treatment. A second
treatment was pumped, consisting in 31m3 of a blend of micro-surfactant and formic acid. As soon as the
treatment reached the perforations, injection pressure decreased dramatically, indicating an effective damage
removal.
Post treatment PI was increased from 15 to 103 Sm3/d/bar. The ineffectiveness of the solvent made asphaltenes
less plausible as damage mechanism, and effectiveness of micro surfactant blend promoted emulsion as possible
damage cause.
WELL 9
The intervention program was consequently modified on the second well, Well 9. The well was first treated with
7m3 of micro surfactant only with the aim of eliminating any emulsion. This treatment did not show any effect on
the injection pressure. Then, 36m3 of a blend of micro surfactant mixed with formic acid was pumped. When the
blend hit the formation, the injection pressure dropped sharply, indicating an effective treatment.
At well re-start, the productivity index was increased from 30 to 75 Sm3/d/b. The treatment resulted in a decrease
of skin on Well 7, and in an increase of k.h on Well 9. The production forecast could be increased by 20,000 bpd.

Well 7 Well 9
Pre-stim Post-stim Pre-stim Post-stim
PI (m3/d/bar) 15 103 30 75
Skin 118 14.9 8.9 16.2
Kh (md.m) 10800 11500 2670 9540
Table 2: production results after first stimulation

Post job interpretation

The initial damage diagnostic proved to be incorrect; also a new risk evaluation was performed using indications
gathered during well intervention.
• Recurrent damage despite wells operated above “red zone” attenuated the role played by bottom hole
flowing pressure in productivity damage.
• Inefficient action of Xylene gave a strong indication that deposit origin could not be only Asphaltenes.
• No reaction of micro-surfactant without acid showed that damage by simple emulsion is unlikely.
• The efficient action of micro-surfactant with formic acid indicated that damage could be either acid soluble
(mineral deposits) or organic deposits dissolvable in low Ph environment (strong emulsion, naphtenates).
• The immediate action of micro-surfactant with formic acid indicated that the damage was located in the
near well bore.
• The correlation between PI decrease and cumulated production volume indicated that the damage
mechanism was likely to be an accumulation of deposits.
• Fines were supposed to be a possible cause of damage.

Act 2: a “déjà vu”

The two wells were operated with precautions to avoid damage recurrence: the reservoir pressure was increased
by 14 bars with water injection, and the wells were operated to keep the bottom hole pressure above the “red
zone”. Despite those precautions, well productivity declined again, and in June 2010, 60% of their potential was
lost, with same PBU signatures (high skin increase on Well 7, and k.h decrease on Well 9). The production
shortfall was 11,000 bopd.
6 SPE 165169

Well 7 PI
Well 9 PI

Figure 6: production decrease after first stimulation

Limit for asphaltene Limit for asphaltene

deposition Well 7 Well 9
deposition

Figure 7: evolution of BHP and PI

Evaluation
Core flooding tests were carried out with reservoir samples, with the objective of verifying whether presence of
fines could explain the damage. Core samples were flooded with completion brine and formation brine at stepping
up rates. The measured permeability remained fairly insensitive to flow rate, indicating that no mobile fines could
damage the core. In addition, dispersion tests and Capillary Suction tests confirmed that the clayed layers are not
reactive with completion and formation brines.
Mineral scaling remained the main possible cause, although no water was produced and scaling models predicted
a low risk because bottom hole pressure was not low enough. Indeed the risk of mineral scale deposit is much
higher at wellhead. Considering the low salinity, high bicarbonate formation water, an alternative scenario could be
envisaged where calcium ions introduced by completion brine could create calcium carbonate that would in turn re-
precipitate in the near well bore. To minimize this risk, it was decided to replace calcium chloride by potassium
chloride as completion brine for the next interventions.
Fluids sampled before and after treatment were investigated in depth in Total lab to re-assess the risk of
asphaltens. The existence of light asphaltene-like organic deposits was confirmed, although it was impossible to
determine whether deposits were coming from the tubing or the near well bore reservoir. These deposits were
highly soluble in aromatic solvents such as xylene; thus the inefficiency of the treatment with xylene proved that the
presence of those deposits is not the main reason of productivity decline. In addition, the organic deposits
extracted from samples taken immediately after the treatment were insoluble in surfactant blend with organic acid.
This blend proved to be very efficient to restore well productivity, so it could be inferred that the key of productivity
decline mitigation was not related to organic deposits.
SPE 165169 7

Possible Relative
Asphaltene
Mineral scaling Fine migration Liquid banking permeability
Root Cause deposit
effect
Likelyhood possible unlikely unlikely unlikely unlikely

Cumulative damage No improvement

deposit. rejected in high appeared above when pumping
Comment Lab tested permeability reservoir xylene
Acid soluble reservoir saturation
material pressure
Table 3: possible causes of damage after first stimulation

Intervention
Nine months after the first stimulation interventions, another campaign was initiated to re-restore productivity of
both wells, which had been decreasing continuously since then. The objective was to restore sustainably well
productivity, and also to understand the damage mechanism. A coiled tubing was used again to pump a sequence
consisting of a pre-flush of base oil, 8m3 of a blend of 15%Hcl dispersed in xylene, a post flush of base oil and
32m3 of micro-surfactant blended with 10% formic acid and 10% acetic acid in KCl brine. The purpose of pumping
xylene-HCl blend was to confirm the effect of acid. The blend of micro-surfactant with acid was kept in the pumping
sequence as it was proven to be efficient in the previous intervention. Base oil was injected before and after the
treatment to assess the evoluation of injectivity index in similar conditions, and also to allow running a Memory
Production Logging Tool (MPLT) in Well 9 to assess the localization of flow and damage over the two zones.
During injection of xylene-HCl blend, a sharp pressure drop indicated the efficiency of acid. When base oil was
injected, the injectivity index decreased due to the difference of fluid viscosity. This index improved again when
surfactant blend with acid was pumped, compensating the loss during base oil injection.
Pressure build up tests were performed after the stimulation. They showed a PI increase from 16 to 74 Sm3/d/b on
Well 7, and a PI increase from 28 to 54 Sm3/d/b on Well 9. The treatment resulted in a decrease of skin on both
wells, and in an clear increase of k.h on Well 9.

Well 7 Well 9
Pre-stim Post-stim Pre-stim Post-stim
PI (m3/d/bar) 16 74 28 54
Skin 81 14 71 17
Kh (md.m) 7730 9460 2530 9530
Table 4: production results after second stimulation

Post job interpretation

The outcome of the stimulation allowed confirming:
• The efficiency of xylene-HCl blend;
• That micro-surfactant blend after xylene-HCl blend did not bring any additional improvement;
• Damage was located at the very near wellbore
At that time, it became evident that the cause of damage was related to deposition of acid soluble material, calcium
carbonate being the most probable culprit. As deposition due to thermodynamic variations (pressure decrease in
perforations) was already ruled out by scaling models, another hypothesis was elaborated: is it possible that
saturation water evaporates (actually, as the fluid is in critical phase, we cannot say if it is liquid or gas) when
submitted to high pressure drop in near well bore and perforations, provoking a slow precipitation of mineral
contents?
During the last stimulation, around 2.5m3 of 15% HCl removed the damage. This volume of acid can dissolve
8 SPE 165169

around 500kg of CaCO3. The BSW necessary to precipitate 500kg to 1000kg of CaCO3 is 0.05 to 0.1%. 1000kg of
CaCO3 (0.370m3) can block 20m of producing perforations (considering 25% of perforations connected to frac,
12spf, 7cm long and 1” diameter perforation tunnels full of proppant). Those calculations show that this hypothesis
is very realistic. The 0.05 to 0.1% BSW is such a low value that it can be non recordable and the well considered
as water free. Despite no significant water production, the volume of calcium carbonate that can precipitate is
enough to block the perforations.
With this hypothesis, pressure drawdown is the main driving parameter of the deposition rate: higher the pressure
drawdown, higher the deposition rate. The absolute pressure can also play a role since at lower pressure the
volume expansion of the fluid can be more important than at higher pressure. However, the effect of this parameter
is minor compared to the effect of the pressure drawdown. It is also interesting to note that according to this
hypothesis the productivity decline will be stopped as soon as production of formation water increases: the fraction
of evaporated water would decrease relatively to the total volume of water; hence the concentration of mineral in
solution would not increase enough to precipitate anymore.

Figure 8 : schematic of lower completion and location of carbonate precipitation

Epilogue
In order to improve the sustainability of productivity restoration, the well operating philosophy was revised in order
to reduce draw down on Well 7, to maintain the Well 9 flow rate constrained, and to slow down ramping up rate
when starting up the wells.
Well 7 produced steadily for 15 months and then started to decline. Pressure build up tests showed an increase of
skin and a decrease of k.h. Well 9 started declining straight after the last stimulation. Pressure build up tests
showed that the main reason was a reduction of k.h, while the skin somewhat improved. A third intervention was
planned in June 2012.
Well 7 was stimulated with a xylene-HCl blend. A post clean up PBU showed that both skin and k.h were restored
to the same values as after the previous treatment.
Well 9 was stimulated with an alcoholic acid (blend of alcohol and acid). The objective was to validate this recipe
that would be used if the treatment was to be bull headed in the well instead of being placed with a coil tubing. The
purpose of the alcoholic acid was to prevent hydrate formation in the well when pumped through the Xmas tree.
The evaluation of injectivity index pre and post stimulation did not show significant improvement; also a xylene-HCl
blend was pumped straight after. It did not show better improvement either. Nevertheless the post clean up PBU
proved that although the skin did not improve, the k.h increased to its previous value and the production was
improved.
SPE 165169 9

Well 7 Well 9
Pre-stim Post-stim Pre-stim Post-stim
PI (m3/d/bar) 39 90 29 59
Skin 32 13 18 24
Kh (md.m) 6000 8000-8400 3800 9500
Table 5: production results after third stimulation

Further acid treatments are still planned. The focus is now on working out solutions to reduce operating cost, the
first of it being performing the stimulation with a light well intervention vessel rather than with a drilling ship.

Conclusion
The two production wells in G reservoir experienced fast productivity decline. No obvious reason for such decline
could be found. Instead, a list of possible causes was established and a well intervention was prepared
consequently. As often, asphaltene deposits and fine migration came first in the list, as they are easy culprits.
A rigorous “trial and error” approach together with the involvement of multi-discipline expertise allowed identifying
the most likely cause of damage. The effectiveness of mitigation actions tends to demonstrate that the diagnostic is
accurate.
The main lessons of this case history are:
• Do not jump too fast on “evident” cause of damage;
• Involve multi-discipline expertise early in the remediation process;
• Rigorous “trial and error” approach is efficient when each step results are thoroughly evaluated;
• “No water production” does not mean that mineral scaling is not possible.

Aknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Sapetro, CNOOC Ltd, Petrobras and
Total Upstream Nigeria for permission to publish the result of this work.
10 SPE 165169

References
SPE 117251: Acid Emulsified in Xylene: A Cost-Effective Treatment to Remove Asphaltene Deposition and
Enhance Well Productivity, W. Abdel Fatah, SPE, Sapesco, and H.A. Nasr-El-Din, SPE, Texas A&M University
SPE 49265: Modelling and Interpretation of Condensate Banking for the Near Critical Cupiagua Field, Sheng-Tai
Lee, BPX Houston, TX, and Martial Chaverra, BPX-Colombia
SPE 62930: Condensate Banking Dynamics in Gas Condensate Fields: Compositional Changes and Condensate
Accumulation Around Production Wells, R.J. Wheaton and H.R. Zhang, BG International
SPE 64662: Condensate Banking Dynamics in Gas Condensate Fields: Changes in Produced Condensate to Gas
Ratios, H.R. Zhang,* SPE Member, and R.J. Wheaton, BG International
SPE 89904: Condensate-Bank Characterization From Well-Test Data and Fluid PVT Properties, Manijeh
Bozorgzadeh, SPE, and Alain C. Gringarten, SPE, Imperial College London
SPE 93210: The Impact of Condensate Blockage and Completion Fluids on Gas Productivity in Gas-Condensate
Reservoirs, H.A. Al-Anazi, SPE, J.R. Solares, SPE, and M.G. Al-Faifi, Saudi Aramco
SPE 94018: Application of Build-Up Transient Pressure Analysis to Well Deliverability Forecasting in Gas
Condensate Reservoirs Using Single-Phase and Two-Phase Pseudo-Pressures, M. Bozorgzadeh, SPE, and A.C.
Gringarten, SPE, Imperial College, London
SPE 98359: Evaluation of Alcohol-Based Treatments for Condensate Banking Removal, G.A. Alzate, SPE, U.
Nacional de Colombia; C.A. Franco, SPE, and A. Restrepo, SPE, BP; and D.L. Barreto-Alvarez, SPE, J.J. Del
Pino-Castrillon, SPE, and A.A. Escobar-Murillo, SPE, U. Nacional de Colombia
SPE 105362: The Identification of Condensate Banking With Multiphase Flowmeters—A Case Study B.C.
Theuveny, P.D. Maizeret, N.S. Hopman, and S. Perez, Schlumberger Oilfield Services
SPE 121113: Well Test Analysis in Tight Gas Reservoirs, Jose Umberto A. Borges/Petrobras; Mahmoud
Jamiolahmady/Heriot-Watt University
SPE 90530: The Significance of Non-Darcy and Multiphase Flow Effects in High-Rate, Frac-Pack Gas
Completions, E.P. Lolon, SPE, Texas A&M University, S.T. Chipperfield, SPE, Shell International E&P Inc., D.A.
McVay, SPE, Texas A&M University, and S.K. Schubarth, SPE, Norton Proppants Inc.
SPE 107341 : First Application of Novel Microemulsion Technology for Sand Control Remediation Operations - A
Successful Case History from the Rosa Field, a Deepwater Development Project in Angola, F. Lavoix, SPE, P.
Leschi, SPE and E. Aubry, Total E&P; L. Quintero, SPE, X. Le Prat, SPE and T. Jones, SPE, Baker Hughes
Drilling Fluids
SPE 94604: One Step Acid Removal of Invert Emulsion, Lirio Quintero, Tom Jones, and David E. Clark/ Baker
Hughes Drilling Fluids
SPE-107499 : NAF Filter Cake Removal Using Microemulsion Technology, Lirio Quintero, SPE, Thomas A. Jones,
SPE, David E. Clark, SPE, Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids, and Allan Twynam, SPE, BP
REPORT: IMPROVED CHEMICAL DESIGNS FOR OBM SKIN DAMAGE REMOVAL FOR PRODUCTION AND
INJECTION WELLS, Dave Marshall, Tom Jones, Lirio Quintero, Adrian Smith and Alex McKellar BakerHughes
Drilling Fluids, 2007.
SPE 81568: Prodution Improvement by Downhole Demulsification – A Simple and Cost Effetive Approach, Bapan
K. Dutta, SPE, BAPCO and Hani H. Ahmed, SPE, BAPCO
SPE 88564: Kikeh ESS Well Test – A Case History of Deepwater Well Test, Offshore Malaysia, Kenneth C
Hampshire, SPE, Murphy Oil Sarawak, Dan Stokes, Murphy Oil Sarawak, Norjusni F. Omar, SOE, Weatherford (M)
Sdn Bhd, Patrick G. Tomkins, SPE, Baker Hugues Inteq
SPE 93407: A Mechanistic Study of Naphthenate Scale Formation, A.G. Shepherd, SPE, G. Thomson, R.
Westacott, and A. Neville, School of Mechanical Engineering, U. of Leeds, and K.S. Sorie, SPE, Heriot-Watt U.
SPE 100430: Preventing Naphthenate Stabilised Emulsions and Naphthenate Deposits on Fields Producing Acidic
Crude Oils, C. Hurtevent, Total, and S. Ubbels, Champion Technologies
SPE 106074 : Experimental Investigation and Modeling of Naphthenate Soap Precipitation Kinetics in Petroleum
Reservoirs, S. Sarac, SPE, and F. Civan, SPE, U. of Oklahoma
SPE 106499: Understanding the Factors Influencing the Formation and Control of Calcium Naphthenate Solids
SPE 165169 11

and Stabilised Emulsions Using a Novel Laboratory Flow Rig, Helen Williams, Sarah Dyer, and Gordon Graham,
Scaled Solutions Ltd.
SPE 112434 : Mechanisms, Parameters, and Modeling of Naphthenate Soap-Induced Formation Damage, S.
Sarac, SPE, and F. Civan, SPE, University of Oklahoma
SPE 114034: Thermodynamic Modeling of Naphthenate Formation and Related pH Change Experiments
Murtala A. Mohammed and K.S. Sorbie, Heriot-Watt University; and A.G. Shepherd, Heriot-Watt University and
Shell Global Solutions International BV
SPE 121522: Successful Naphthenate Scale and Soap Emulsion Management, Gerard Runham & Colin Smith /
Maxoil Solutions
SPE 21675: Predicting Skin Effects Due to Formation Damage by Fines Migration, H.A. Ohen, Core Laboratories
Div. of Western Atlas IntI., and F. Civan, U. of Oklahoma, SPE Members
SPE 26577: Unconventional Acid Design Used To Stimulate Sandstone Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico, J.W.
Ewing, Chevron USA Production Co.; Todd Clements, BJ Services; Syed Ali, Chevron USA Production Co.; and
D.O. Dunlap, BJ Services
OTC 17039: Control of Formation Fines to Provide Long-Term Conductivity in Weak, Unconsolidated Reservoirs
P.D. Nguyen, R.G. Dusterhoft, and B. Clarkson, Halliburton
PETSOC 91-50: VELOCITY PROFILES IN PERFORATED COMPLETIONS, J. H. Eng, D. B. Bennion, J.B. Strong,
Hycal Energy Research Laboratory Ltd.,
PETSOC 93-08: VELOCITY PROFILES IN PERFORATED COMPLETIONS, BY J. H. Eng, D. B. Bennion, J.B.
Strong, Hycal Energy Research Laboratory Ltd.,
SPE 97659: Controlling Formation Fines at Their Sources To Maintain Well Productivity, P.D. Nguyen, J.D.
Weaver, R.D. Rickman, R.G. Dusterhoft, and M.A. Parker, Halliburton
SPE 120847: Correlating Flowing Time and Condition For Perforation Plugging By Suspended Particles,
Tung V. Tran, Faruk Civan, SPE, University of Oklahoma, and Ian Robb, SPE, Halliburton Services
SPE 121897 : Fines Migration in a High Temperature Gas Reservoir – Laboratory Simulation and Implications for
Completion Design, Michael Byrne, SPE, Senergy and Steve Waggoner, SPE, Carigali Hess
SPE 65040 : Development of an Ecofriendly Scale Inhibitor for Harsh Scaling Environments, N. Fleming, SPE,
H.M. Bourne, SPE, C.J. Strachan, and A.S. Buckley, TR Oil Services
SPE 80398: Development of a Suitable CaCO3 Scale Inhibitor System for use in Ultrahigh Temperature and
Pressure Wells, J.J. Wylde, S.F. McKay (Clariant Oil Services) and M. Falla (TotalFinaElf)
SPE 107745 : Fighting Lead and Zinc Sulphide Scales on a North Sea HP/HT Field, K. Orski, SPE, B. Grimbert, C.
Menezes, E. Quin, Total E&P UK Ltd
SPE 122140 : Salt Precipitation in Gas Reservoirs, Q. T. van Dorp,1 SPE, Delft University of Technology, M.
Slijkhuis, SPE, Wintershall and P.L.J. Zitha, SPE, Delft
SPE 130521 : The Diagnosis of Decline and Successful Recovery of PI in a ‘DRY’ HPHT Gas Well That has been
Affected by In-situ CaCO3 Scale and Salt Deposition, Rex Wat, SPE, Anne Marie Busch Iversen, SPE, Yngve
Heggheim Belsvik, SPE, Statoil ASA
SPE 132606 : Productivity Loss in Gas Wells Due to Salt Deposition, Duc Le, SPE, University of Tulsa;
Jagannathan Mahadevan, SPE, University of Tulsa