Extending The Life Of Subsea Wells With

Long Tiebacks By Foamer Injection Subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell

18 May 2016

Obinna Ugoala – Presenter

Andrew McMahon, Gatsbyd Forsyth, Jishnu BordoIoi, Jon Bradley, Liam Newson,
Kevin McNamee (Nalco-Champion)
2
Introduction: Armada Hub

• Located in the Central Northsea

– 250km NE of Aberdeen

• Discovery: 1980
• Start of Development: 1994
• Start of Production: 1997
• Originally Gas field Development
– Subsequent tie-in of Oilfields (subsea)
– Maria (2008)

– Rev (2009)

– Northwest Seymour (2011)

– Gaupe or Pi (2012)

– Varg (2013)

– All fields Productions are by Depletion drive

• Water Depth: 90m

• Platform – block 22/5b

3
Armada Hub Fields Layout

4
Challenge: Overcoming Liquid Loading Issues During Late Life

• Late Field/Well Life Production Challenge

– Increase in Liquid-to-Gas Ratio (LGR) and associated low reservoir pressure

Problem Location in the Manifestation Consequence

Flow Conduit
Wellbore Hydrostatic Column Growth Rate Reduction / Well dying
Process Upset
Flowline and/or Pipeline Slugging
(Separation Challenge)
Additional Backpressure Rate Reduction

Wellbore Liquid Loading Flowline/Pipeline Loading

Prod. Choke FTHT Prod. Choke

FTHT

Wellbore DeltaP
FL DeltaP FTHP
FL DeltaP FTHP

5
Remediation: Options to Overcome Liquid Loading

• System Natural Lift Improvement

– Well Focussed
– Well interventions (e.g: stimulation – where opportunity exists to improve IPR)
– Workover (e.g: sidetrack, velocity string) – where potential exists and cost justifiable

– Flowline/Pipeline Focussed
– Increase in well count (where opportunity and economics agree)
– Third party gas (where opportunity exists)

• Artificial Lift Options

– Gas lift system
– Pumps
– Rod pumps, hydraulic jet pumps, electrical submersible pumps, subsea multiphase pumps,

– Foaming
– Application of foaming agents (possibly most cost-effective, having the right setup)

6
Subsea Wells Foaming Application: Areas For Consideration
• Identification of Problem Location
– Wellbore, flowline/pipeline or both
– While a pipeline liquid loading problem can be resolved via wellbore foamer injection; wellbore liquid loading
problem may not be resolved via flowline/pipeline foamer injection

• Identification of The Right Type of Foaming Agent

– Suitability for gas well, oil well or both
– Foam stability in any combination of the three phases (gas, oil and water)

– Ionic state of the foaming agent

– compatibility with the formation rock wettability (core testing if unsure)

• Identification of Foaming Agent (Foamer) Conveyance Path

– Umbilical Availability
– Spare umbilical(s) – Maria case

– Umbilical for Injected Chemical that is no-longer required (Chemicals Compatibility check and/or flushing) - Gaupe case

– Mixing (or Simultaneous injection) of foamer and other injected chemical (Chemicals Compatibility check and
minimum effective concentration/loading for each chemical necessary)

– Wetted Path Compatibility Check

– Compatibility with piping and completion components material(s) 7
Subsea Wells Foaming Application: Areas For Consideration
• Determination of Foamer Loading (Concentration/Rate Requirement)
– Dosage/Volume for batch Treatment
– Start-up of well might require batch dosing followed by periodic/continuous foaming

– Injection Rate for periodic or continuous foamer application

– Minimum foamer rate/concentration to maintain stable foam in the production conduit (Lab tests and field iteration)
– Determination of minimum injection rate to maintain stable downhole flow; very vital (modelling and field trials)

• Determination of the Foaming Strategy (this will be Well condition/stage dependent)

– Periodic (Intermittent)
– Used for well kick-offs (sometimes)
– Support well flow when rate (or FTHT) falls below a set limit and stop after a period of injection

– Continuous injection
– Used for well kick-off
– Inject foamer so long as the well is open

• Foam Handling at Surface

– Selection of appropriate Anti-foam (Lab. tests and field trials)
– Guidance on Anti-foam injection rate (Lab. tests and field iteration)
– Selection of appropriate Anti-foam injection point (preferably upstream of the Separator to allow for some mixing time) 8
Subsea Wells Foaming Application: Areas For Consideration

• Foam Impact on Separators/Separation Process (Poor OiW/ WiO)

– Spill/Carry Overs
– Increased transient liquid returns (especially at start-up)

– Impaired interface level (poor level control)

– Possible improvement in level control with nucleonic devices

– Increased solids (fines, sand, organics and/or sludge) returns into the separators that might
reduce residence time/efficiency
– Strategy for possibly more vessel monitoring (thermographics)/cleaning frequency

• Consideration of Prevailing Logistical and/or Operational Constraints/Requirements

– Export Route Waiver (where applicable)
– Chemical Permits – foamer and anitfoam (e.g DECC, FPS or other authorities; where applicable)
– Material shipment requirements
– Platform space availability
– Stocking of additional chemical inventories

9
Some Field Results

10
 Gaupe South DHCI Line
(Foamer Path)

• Well Type: Subsea Horizontal well with smart

completion (ICVs)
– Separate ICVs for Oil and Gas legs

• Pipeline: 8 inch diameter by 7.4 Km length

• Oil Rate: 150 - 400 stb/d

• Gas Rate: 2 - 4 mmscf/d

• Water Rate: 20 – 50 stb/d

• Reservoir Pressure: 65 barg

• Reservoir Temperature: 127 degC

• Reservoir Depth: 3280m / 3475m (MD)

Gaupe South Foaming Project

Liquid Loading Location
Foaming Strategy
Foamer Selection
Foamer loading
Wellbore
Periodic and later changed to Continuous
Nonionic surfactant and suitable for both Gas
and Oil well conditions (Foaming Agent A)
Foamer diluted in 4% KCl (initially MEG).
Batch dosing plus Periodic/continuous foamer
loading for well restart.
Periodic/Continuous injection
Foamer: 100 ml/min
KCl: 200 ml/min

2015 Production Gain Approximately 40%

11
Gaupe South Foaming – Periodic Injection

Well Kick-off with foamer

FTHP Prod. Choke FTHT
Periodic Injections

First Prod. With Foamer (Aug 01, 2015)

Well Kick-off with Foamer:
Batch Foamer Dosage + Periodic Injection

12
Gaupe South Foaming – Continuous Injection

FTHP Prod. Choke FTHT

Foamer Turned
off for 1.5 days

13
 Maria Terrace DHCI Line
(Foamer Path)
• Well Type: Subsea Horizontal well with Slotted liners

• Pipeline: 12 inch diameter by 11 Km length

• Oil Rate: 100 - 300 stb/d

• Gas Rate: 1 - 3 mmscf/d

• Water Rate: 1 – 20 stb/d

• Reservoir Pressure: 130 barg

• Reservoir Temperature: 149 degC

• Reservoir Depth: 4140 m (MD)

Maria Terrace Foaming Project

Liquid Loading Location
Foaming Strategy
Foamer Selection
Pipeline
Periodic to deliquify pipeline
Nonionic surfactant and suitable for both Gas
and Oil well conditions (Foaming Agent A)
Foamer diluted in 4% KCl (Initially MEG).

(Not required for well restart)

Foamer loading
2015 Production Gain
Periodic injection
Foamer: 100 ml/min
KCl: 200 ml/min
Approximately 90%

14
Maria Terrace Foaming – Periodic Injection

Foaming Episodes Foaming Episodes

for FL Clearing for FL Clearing

Foaming Episodes
for additional FL
clearing

Start of FL Foaming
(April 17, 2015)

FTHP FTHT
15
Lessons Learnt

16
Lessons Learnt
• Better Chance of Success if Foamer is Injected Downhole (DH)
– Both wellbore and flowline/pipeline liquid loading can be simultaneous managed as
shown in Maria and Gaupe case histories
– Consider the benefit of installing DH chemical injection lines in new wells that can be used
later in the well/field life to maximise recovery

• Increased Activity in Sand Monitors (more sand production alerts)

– Although more solids are returned, sand erosion risk is lower as foamed systems lack
velocity necessary for erosion due to the artificially high viscosity of foams

• Caution with Transient Time of the Flow Conduit

– Be ready to manage possible large slug arrivals (This can strain vessels capacity)
– Ensure to have an estimate of the arrival time for each well foam
– Important when more then one well is foamed as not to overwhelm the vessels with the high
foam concentration; especially, in the case of well start-ups with batch doses (Best to stager
restarts)

17
Lessons Learnt
• Possible Excursions in Topside Separation Performance (Particularly OiW)
– Requires careful monitoring by operations team
– Armada benefits from ancillary media-based water polishing unit
– Labour and running cost implications

• Watch out for Umbilical/Downline Content Siphoning (can lead to failed restart)
– Hydrostatic Difference in wellbore and Downline of the Injection Path

Prod. Choke DHCIV Closed

FTHP FTHT

DHCIV Opened
Foamer injected but well
failed to restart; period used
to refill umbilical content

Foamer
Batch Dosing
18
Lessons Learnt
• In Foamer Injection System with Simultaneous Injection of Foamer and Diluent; Always
Remember that Concentration Change(s) will take Umbilical/Downline Volume/time to
Effect (reach DH)
– Allow enough time to implement change(s) and monitor response

• Some Well Kick-offs (Restarts) with Foamer can Take Longer Time / be More Challenging
than Others (Driven by)
– Prevailing well LGR and remaining reservoir energy
– Foamer loading (Concentration/Rate)
Fast Restart Response Slow Restart Response
DHCIV Opened
DHCIV Opened

Prod. Choke FBHP Prod. Choke

FTHP FTHT

FTHP FTHT

19
Best Practice

20
Best Practices
• Foaming Implementation
– Consider having a Pilot (or Test) phase before setting up a permanent system
or scheme
– This will help in fine turning of the system (foaming) and also provide input data for
the permanent setup.

• Well Kick-off with Foamer

– Batch Dose Well and Soak for 12 to 24 hours prior to Restart
– The batch dosing allows for sufficient foamer quantity to match the standing column
of liquid in the wellbore following Well SI (target 0.2% foamer concentration). Necessary for
stable foam generation at start-up.
– Soak period allows for reasonable mixing of the foamer and standing liquid column
by diffusion (short period Well agitation can enhance the mixing process)

21
Best Practices
• Start Continuous Foamer Injection Ahead of Well Opening
– 1 to 2 hours prior to opening the Well to ensure the foamer is available on demand at
the wellbore entry point
– Siphoning of some of the umbilical content has been experienced to occur (leads to failed well restart)

• Avoid Neat Foamer Injection (where possible) – Deliver the Foamer with a Diluent (e.g x
% KCl)

– Achievement of DH minimum stable injection rate at manageable foamer volumes

– Cost management
– Management of umbilical content freezing risk (geographical region dependent)
Viscosity vs Temp. Trend of Foaming Agent A Dilutions with KCl or NaCl Test Label Description

Incumbent Neat Foaming Agent A (with MEG/Water mix)

Sample 3 Foamer A with 2% KCl @ 75:25 mixture ratio

Sample 6 Foamer A with 4% KCl @ 75:25 mixture ratio

Sample 11 Foamer A with 4% NaCl @ 50:50 mixture ratio

Sample 12 Foamer A with 4% NaCl @ 75:25 mixture ratio

22
Best Practices
• Revise Well Beanup Procedure
– Target slightly aggressive Tree choke opening whilst the Topside choke is
used to manipulate the Riser as Slug-catcher (where slug-catcher is not available)
– Small choke increments (5 – 10%) every (5 -15 min); where possible
– Focus on maintaining liquid momentum in the wellbore during Well restarts

• Shut-in Well for Couple of Days of Pressure Buildup (PBU)

– Might be necessary in cases of repeated failed restart attempts
– 5 days to 2 weeks might be necessary depending on well’s LGR

– Allows some wellbore liquids to drain back into the reservoir

– Re-establishes static equilibrium

23
Acknowledgements / Thank You / Questions

The authors would like to thank the management of BG Group (Royal Dutch Shell
Subsidiary), Centrica, Lundin and Nalco-Champion for support and permission to
share this document/knowledge

24