3 – The Impact of the Reservoir on

the Field Scaling Problem

Eric Mackay

Shell, Houston, 10-12 December 2013

 Outline

 Location of Scale Deposition

 Impact on Scale Management
 Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
 Strategy Selection Process
 Examples
 Conclusions

Section 7: Slide 2 of 53
 Outline

 Location of Scale Deposition

 Impact on Scale Management
 Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
 Strategy Selection Process
 Examples
 Conclusions

Section 7: Slide 3 of 53
 Location of Scale Deposition
formation brine
seawater
a
i

f g

b c d e
Section 7: Slide 4 of 53
 Around Injection Wells

 Seawater contacts formation waters during

initial injection
 100% seawater: Insignificant damage
 Mixing zone is displaced away from injection well
quickly
 Thermal fractures minimise impact of any solids
 Mix of seawater and PWRI: Potential for
damage (SPE 80385)
 Continuous supply of scaling ions for prolonged time
 Inhibitor retention on rock – fluid unprotected?
 Key to overcoming scale is presence of fractures

Section 7: Slide 5 of 53
 Deep within Formation

 Brine mixing most significant in aquifer

zones (where brines most mobile)
 Scale may deposit, but over a very large
volume of rock, and thus locally impact is
minimal.
 Porosity reduction typically < 0.01%!
 Permeability effect imperceptible (SPE 68309)
 Scale deposition deep within reservoir is
beneficial!
 Reduced concentration of scaling ions at producer
wells

Section 7: Slide 6 of 53
 What is the Evidence for
Reservoir Scaling?
 Physical
 Impact of dissolver treatments
 Gamma vs. calliper logs
 Low cation concentrations
 Theoretical
 Modelling of mixing and in situ deposition
-> low cation concentrations

Section 7: Slide 7 of 53
 Evidence: Low Cation Conc.
Barium (mg/l)

Dilution line

% seawater Section 7: Slide 8 of 53

 Impact on Ion Concentrations
90
Field A - actual
80
Field A - dilution line
Field A - modelled
70
barium concentration (ppm)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% seawater Section 7: Slide 9 of 53
 Mixing Away from Wellbore

Example: If the scale inhibitor

penetrates the formation up to 5 ft
away from the wellbore, what
happens if the mixing zone starts 10
ft away?

?
Section 7: Slide 10 of 53
 Example: Alba Well

Squeeze 1

Squeeze 3

sea-water breakthrough Squeeze 2 Section 7: Slide 11 of 53

Example - Calculate Mixing Zone

0.30
Implications of Brine 0.20
50
Mixing within the reservoir 25
0.10
0.00
0
50
Y 25 25
0
50 25 X
2800
1800 days
2000
2400 days 50
Section 7: Slide 12 of 53
 Example: Alba Well

sea-water breakthrough

Squeeze 3

Squeeze 2 Section 7: Slide 13 of 53

As Flow Converges near/in Wells

 Flows converge due to:

 Permeability layering (seawater breakthrough
first in high perm, while formation water still
being produced in low perm)
 Areal streamlining (seawater breakthrough in
straight line connecting injector and producer,
while formation water still being produced
from flanks)

Section 7: Slide 14 of 53
Example of Permeability Layering
injected water 100 days
300
500
0 1

13 ft

Section 7: Slide 15 of 53
1,000 ft
Example of Areal Streamlining
converging
streamlines

FW

FW SW

Section 7: Slide 16 of 53
 Near Well Formation

 Flows converge in formation (sulphates)

 Outwith treated zone – scale formation but how much
loss of PI?
 Within treated zone – if above MIC no damage
 Pressure decline in formation (carbonates)
 CO2 bubble point may migrate down well and into
formation
 Control by squeeze treatments

Section 7: Slide 17 of 53
 In Completed Interval

 Different zones producing different

brines
 Gravel packs particularly susceptible
 Turbulent mixing
 Control:
 Most commonly by squeeze treatments
 Solid scale inhibitors in gravel pack or
fractures

Section 7: Slide 18 of 53
 From Bottomhole to Wellhead

 Sulphates may deposit anywhere

above point at which brines mix.
 Mixing may begin in:
 Reservoir (location variable)
 Completed intervals (location variable)
 Flow control valves in intelligent wells
(location fixed)
 Junctions of multilateral wells (location fixed)

Section 7: Slide 19 of 53
 From Bottomhole to Wellhead

 Carbonates may deposit anywhere

above point at which:
 Fluid pressure drops below CO2 bubble point
pressure
 Rapid pressure drops occur due to flow
constrictions (eg valves)
 Fluid temperature increases (eg due to
electric submersible pumps - ESPs)

Section 7: Slide 20 of 53
 From Bottomhole to Wellhead

 Sulphate and carbonate scales may be

controlled by
 Continuous injection (via gas lift, capillary
tube, annular flow)
 If cannot deliver inhibitor below lowest risk
zone then must place inhibitor by
• Squeeze (most common)
• Solid inhibitors in gravel pack or in fracture

Section 7: Slide 21 of 53
 Outline

 Location of Scale Deposition

 Impact on Scale Management
 Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
 Strategy Selection Process
 Examples
 Conclusions

Section 7: Slide 22 of 53
 Impact on Scale Management

 If mixing seawater and produced water

(PWRI) for injection then:
 Continuous injection of scale inhibitor to
protect injection well (pref. poorly adsorbing)
 Apportion seawater and produced water
between wells to minimise risk
 Fracture well to flow past damaged rock

Section 7: Slide 23 of 53
 Impact on Scale Management

 If in situ mixing then:

 Should not expect cation concentrations to
return to dilution line after squeeze treatment
 May be able to reduce MIC
 If produced cation concentrations > 0, then
still need to protect

Section 7: Slide 24 of 53
 Impact on Scale Management

 If mixing in wellbore
 Use gamma ray logs, callipers, PLTs,
reservoir simulator to identify where scale is
forming
 Ensure inhibitor placement in affected zones
 Alternatives
 Acid dissolution (calculate impact of lost oil)
 Alter brine composition (sulphate removal,
aquifer brines, PWRI)

Section 7: Slide 25 of 53
 Impact on Scale Management

 If scale only deposits above completed

interval consider
 Continuous injection
• Annulus
• Capillaries
• Gas lift
 Squeeze treatments
 If scale only deposits downstream of
well head use continuous injection
(dedicated chemical line)

Section 7: Slide 26 of 53
 Outline

 Location of Scale Deposition

 Impact on Scale Management
 Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
 Strategy Selection Process
 Examples
 Conclusions

Section 7: Slide 27 of 53
 Factors that Affect Scale
Control During Well Life Cycle
CaCO3 scale
Low MIC BS&W
BaSO4 scale
Higher MIC profile
MIC profile Low scaling
tendency
Change product?
Low risk Stop
squeeze

SWB Peak SWB Increases

scaling Peak MIC reduces
cost (50:50) Reducing cost > 50% SW

Time Section 7: Slide 28 of 53

 Outline

 Location of Scale Deposition

 Impact on Scale Management
 Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
 Strategy Selection Process
 Examples
 Conclusions

Section 7: Slide 29 of 53
 SPE 87459

Strategy Selection Process

Seawater and Formation Brine Chemistry Full Field Reservoir Simulation
Laboratory testing of brine samples General model developed to predict production

Full Field Reservoir Simulation

impact of
ECLIPSE: Model adapted to predict data for scale
scaling ions +
TDS, Ca, Mg,
Fe, pH, temp Full Field Reaction-Transport Simulation
STARS: Impact of in situ scaling on produced brine chemistry

timing of seawater breakthrough

Scale Prediction Calculations
treatment injection profile along wells
Commercial thermodynamic models
water production profile along wells
well water production rates vs time
Scale Inhibitor Selection and Evaluation of MIC
Laboratory static and dynamic tests and corefloods
Near Well Squeeze Simulation
SQUEEZE V: Design treatment and optimise
inhibitor isotherm and MIC
Fluid Modification
Sulphate removal squeeze treatment frequency and inhibitor volume
Produced or aquifer
water injection
Economic Engineering Data
Chemical Inhibition Evaluation Reservoir, completion, well
Intervention costs & deferred oil and surface facility types.
Experience from analogues.
Scale Management Strategy Selection
Section 7: Slide 30 of 53
 Outline

 Location of Scale Deposition

 Impact on Scale Management
 Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
 Strategy Selection Process
 Examples
 Conclusions

Section 7: Slide 31 of 53
Reservoir Flow and Precipitation

 Mixing location of incompatible brines

 Example 1: Why was well in severe scaling
regime for so long?
 Effect of in-situ precipitation on
scaling tendency at wells
 Example 2: Why were barium concentrations
low after apparently successful squeeze
treatments?

Section 7: Slide 32 of 53
Example 1: SPE 80252

Propagation of Mixing Zone

Section 7: Slide 33 of 53
Example 1: SPE 80252

Influence of Injection Wells

Section 7: Slide 34 of 53
Example 2:
Effect of In Situ Precipitation

water saturation mixing zone

BaSO4
deposition (lb/ft3)
Section 7: Slide 35 of 53
Example 2:
Effect of In Situ Precipitation
250 3000

2500
200

sulphate concentration (ppm)

barium concentration (ppm)

2000
150 Ba
Ba (no precip)
SO4 1500

100
SO4 (no precip)
1000

50
500

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
time (days) Section 7: Slide 36 of 53
Example 2:
Effect of In Situ Precipitation
250
Field B - observed
200 Filed B - dilution line
barium concentration (ppm)

Field B - modelled
150
deep reservoir mixing
100

deep reservoir + well/near

50
well mixing
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% seawater

Section 7: Slide 37 of 53
 Inhibitor Placement

 Placement Options
 Example 3: Can adequate placement be
achieved without using expensive rig
operations?

Section 7: Slide 38 of 53
 SPE 66374
Example 3:
Adequate Placement
production 500

400

300
prior to squeeze
flow rate (m3/d)

shut-in
200
INJ 1 bbl/m
INJ 5 bbl/m
100
INJ 10 bbl/m
1 year after squeeze
0
0 200 400 600 800
-100
injection
(squeeze) -200
well length (m)

• Good placement along length of well during treatment (> 5 bbls/min)

• Can squeeze this well
Section 7: Slide 39 of 53
 SPE 66374
Example 3:
Inadequate Placement
production 100

0
0 200 400 600 800
-100
prior to squeeze
flow rate (m3/d)

shut-in
-200
INJ 1 bbl/m
INJ 5 bbl/m
-300
INJ 10 bbl/m
1 year after squeeze
-400

-500
injection
(squeeze) -600
well length (m)

• Cannot place into toe of well by bullhead treatment, even at 10 bbl/min

• Must use coiled tubing (from rig - cost), or sulphate removal
Section 7: Slide 40 of 53
 SPE 87459

Example 4: Deepwater Field

Benguela CN6
 Angola Block 14 Tomboco
Field Y
FB5 Complex

 Subsea tieback CN6 Zone T2/T3

Tomboco
Field Y CN6
1 x 10” FL& Dry
 Water depth: 1,247ft (380m) Zone T1
Tomboco
Field Y CN3 Center A 3P/3I
1 x 8” test line BB
Structure
CPT
 Flow lines > 5 miles (8 km) 1 x 10” FL &
1 x 8” test line
 Oil: 35.1o API; 0.51 cP 4P/3I
 3,927 psia (270.8 bar)
LobitoX CN3 Center B 1 x 10” FL
225 oF (107 oC)
Field

LobitoX
Field
 Wells: 6-5/8 in (5-1/2 in screens) Central
1 x 10” FL&
1 x 8” test line

 7 prod: 5 horizontal, 2 high angle Center C 3P/3I

 6 inj (high angle) 5 Miles

Scale
 Pressure support & drive by
seawater injection Water Depth Contours (ft)

Section 7: Slide 41 of 53
 SPE 71557

Scale Risk & Intervention Difficulty

6
Scaling Tendency Scale
Can be treated using May not be possible to treat
(Saturation Ratio) Risk conventional technology using conventional
3-29 1 5 technology

30-99 2
100-199 3 4
S

Scale Risk
200-299 4
ca Fields
Lobito X&Y
Lobito/ Tomboco
Tomboco
300+ 5
le 3
Ri
sk
2
Difficulty
Well Type
factor
Platform 1 1 Current BP Fields
BP Future Dev elopments
Access Sub-sea, dry tree 1.5 Selected Industry Data
Sub-sea wellhead 3
Cased and perforated, vertical 1 0
Cased and perforated, highly deviated 1.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Cased and perforated, gravel pack. Intervention
Intervention Difficulty
1.5
Completion
Short interval. Difficulty
Cased and perforated, gravel packed.
2
Long interval
Short OHGP, low angle well 2.5
Long OHGP, high angle well 4 Section 7: Slide 42 of 53
Field X Water Saturations

Section 7: Slide 43 of 53
Field Y Seawater Propagation

Section 7: Slide 44 of 53
 Field X BaSO4 Deposition BaSO4 solid
concentration
3
(lb/ft )

Significant BaSO4 deposition near aquifer

Section 7: Slide 45 of 53
 Fields X & Y Mixing Profiles
250

Mixing line
200
barium concentration (ppm)

Supported by aquifer
150
Supported by injectors
100
Large inter-well
distance
50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% seawater Section 7: Slide 46 of 53
 Water Volumes and Required MIC for
Example Well
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Oil Production (MBOPD) 15.0 19.3 27.6 11.1 5.9 3.9 2.8 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2
Water Production (MBOPD) 0.0 1.0 2.1 9.2 11.9 13.6 14.9 14.8 14.6 15.3 15.8 17.2
Cum Water Produced (MM BBLS) 0.00 0.37 0.77 3.36 4.34 4.96 5.44 5.40 5.33 5.58 5.77 6.28
Sea Water Fraction (%) 0% 11% 28% 62% 72% 78% 82% 85% 87% 90% 91% 92%
ASSUMING NO DROP OUT:
Ba Concentration (PPM) 230 205 165 88 65 51 41 34 29 24 22 19
MIC Proposed (PPM) N/A 15 25 50 20 15 15 10 7.5 5.0 5.0 2.5
ASSUMING DROP OUT:
Ba Concentration (PPM) 230 205 29 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
MIC Proposed (PPM) N/A 15 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 2.5-5 2.5-5 2.5

Section 7: Slide 47 of 53
 Profiles Along Well During and After
Treatment
5000 100
High angle well
4000 80

% seawater
3000 60

2000 40

1000 20
water rate (bbl/d)

0 0
prod before treat 300 bpd
-1000 -20 shut-in before treat
pump @ 1 bpm

-2000 -40 pump @ 5 bpm

pump @ 10 bpm
shut in after treat
-3000 -60
prod 1 day after treat 450 bpd
prod 1 week after treat 450 bpd
-4000 -80
prod 1 year after treat 15750 bpd
%seawater before treat 8%
-5000 -100 %seawater 1 year after treat 65.5%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
well length (feet)

Placement Question: Can we get inhibitor into scaling zones?

Answer: Here yes (as for all other wells in Fields X and Y),
provided we can pump at high enough rate ~10 bpm Section 7: Slide 48 of 53
 Squeeze Modelling of Well
Treatment to protect 2
million bbl water produced
(falls below MIC first near
toe)

Section 7: Slide 49 of 53
 Inhibitor Volumes Required to
Achieve 1 Year Squeeze Lifetimes

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Produced water volume (MM BBLS) 0.00 0.37 0.77 3.36 4.34 4.96 5.44 5.40 5.33 5.58 5.77 6.28 47.60
MIC (PPM) NA 15 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 2.5-5 2.5-5 2.5
Chemical volume (BBLS)

Preflush 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Main Treatment 75 52.5 135 660 900 1155 1350 1425 600 600 660
Overflush 1.1 0.85 1.5 5 6.5 6.75 7.25 7.5 6 6.5 7
Total 0 86.1 63.4 152 680 922 1177 1372 1448 621 622 682 7823
Well down time (HOURS) 0 26 24 28 50 60 64 69 71 53 56 58 560

Section 7: Slide 50 of 53
 Economic Comparison

Squeeze Treatments Fluid Modification

Cost of I II III IV V
Production Skid Un it on Skid Unit Squeeze Using Water Sulphate
Deferment Platform on Boat* Multi-Service Vo idage Wells Removing
only Vessel (MSV) Membrane
(SRM) Unit
Production Deferment Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
CAPEX High High
OPEX (field life) Medium Medium High Low Low
(CAPEX + OPEX)/$BBL 0.10 0.14 0.38 0.26 0.38
 NPV Ranking 1 2 3= 3= 5
# of interventions 67 67 67
Cost/Intervention $MM 0.34 0.47 1.30
* Skid unit on boat connected to test line on platform

Section 7: Slide 51 of 53
 Outline

 Location of Scale Deposition

 Impact on Scale Management
 Factors that Affect Scale Control
During Well Life Cycle
 Strategy Selection Process
 Examples
 Conclusions

Section 7: Slide 52 of 53
 Conclusions
 Modelling tools may assist with understanding of where
scale is forming and what is best scale management option…

identify location and impact of mixing

evaluate feasibility of squeeze option
 calculate chemical requirements
… thus providing input for economic model.

 Particularly important in deepwater environments, where

intervention may be difficult & expensive

 But – must be aware of uncertainties…..

 reservoir description

numerical errors

changes to production schedule, etc.
… so monitoring essential.

Section 7: Slide 53 of 53