Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Late Life Production Boost for BP Miller with Combined Scale Squeeze and Chemical
Water Shut Off Treatments
G. Williams, SPE, A. MacDonald, SPE, J. Wylde, SPE, Clariant Oil Services; C. Shields, C. Smitton, H. Frampton, SPE,
BP Exploration Operating Company; J. Morgan, Jimtech; A. Morris, Alamo Ecosse
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 8th international Symposium on Oilfield Scale
held in Aberdeen, U.K., 31st May - 1st June 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the authors. Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The current, late life production on the Miller field is
characterised by high water cut wells that need frequent scale
inhibitor squeezes to manage the production of scale. In
addition, the wells are often choked back due to plant water
constraints. The key to managing the decline in oil production
is therefore to reduce water production. This allows the wells
to flow un-choked and also lightens the fluid column,
increasing drawdown and oil rate in the well. Other
advantages include increased scale inhibitor squeeze (SISQ)
life, reduced OPEX costs and reduced environmental impact
of overboard discharge of produced water and production
chemicals. However, the presence of scale in the wells means
that intrusive surveillance and mechanical water shut off
would require costly milling to gain access. The field is
therefore ideal for the use of chemical selective water shut off
(SWSO) treatments, which can be deployed without access to
production logging data. BP Miller and Clariant have
progressively applied SWSO treatments on a range of wells.
A dilute solution of cross-linkable polymer is bullheaded
down the wells and reacts with added cross-linker in situ.
After cross-linking, the web of polymer is inflated in the
presence of water, effectively blocking the flow path, whilst
deflating in the presence of oil. Since the whole producing
zone is treated, water will be retarded without the need to
know where it is coming from. Providing due precautions are
taken, this can be highly successful. For example, in May
2.
SPE 100660
2.
3.
4.
With the above limitations in mind, there has been a longstanding requirement for a low risk, cost effective option for
water shut off. This requirement has been fulfilled with the
application of selective water shut off systems (or relative
permeability modifiers) [2]. These are chemical treatments
that are bullheaded from surface through the production tubing
and into the formation. Once in place they allow the passage
of hydrocarbons whilst hindering water production. Due to
this selective mechanism, it is not necessary to know where
the water is coming form in order to treat a well. These
treatments can therefore be deployed without obtaining
production logging data. They are therefore ideal for the
Miller field, where the presence of scale in the wells prevents
mechanical access.
There are various selective water shut off (SWSO) systems
available [3]. Some use high molecular weight polymers
which adsorb onto the surface of the producing formation,
altering the wettability properties and so reducing the
permeability of the rock to water relative to oil. However, this
approach can be limited as only a surface coating is formed.
The type used on Miller uses a cross-linking polymer which
can form a three-dimensional network across the entire pore
space.
Miller Field Background
The Miller field is operated by BP Exploration and Operating
Company and is located in the North Sea on the UK
Continental Shelf across blocks 16/7b and 16/8b. The platform
has 10 producer wells with first oil occurring mid-way through
1992. The 38 API crude is exported down the Forties
Pipeline System and is processed at Grangemouth. Produced
gas travels down the Miller Gas Pipeline to the mainland
SPE 100660
pressure (THP) rose sharply to 1,600 psi (still well below the
3,000 psi maximum allowable pressure) as the tubing was
cleared of hydrocarbons. After the main treatment was
injected the THP steadily fell to zero and only after the rate
was increased during the over flush and water shut off
treatment stages did the THP rise to 300 psi.
Field Application on Slot 32 / A18
Slot 32/A18 is a vertical producer well, cased and perforated
with 200 feet of producing interval. The producing formation
consists of layered sandstone and shales. Permeability in the
producing layers is mostly in the range 100-200 mD, with
isolated streaks of up to 1000 mD. Porosity is typically 22%.
Slot 32 was assessed as most likely to contain distinct oil and
water producing zones, based on the high degree of reservoir
structure and on production history. Analysis of well fluids
indicated that near 100% formation water is produced
(indicated by Barium ion concentrations of 650 750 ppm). It
is believed that this water production is from a high pressure
layer lower in the stratigraphy, with dry oil production
remaining in some of the thinner and / or lower pressured Jsands (Figure 4).
However, limited well access prevented production logging,
and it was therefore necessary to design the initial treatment
without confirmation of the fluid inflow pattern into the well.
To manage this application risk, the performance of the
system was investigated in the laboratory using field specific
long sand pack tests [2]. It was found that the properties of the
system could be altered by increasing or decreasing the
concentrations of polymer and cross-linker used. The higher
the concentrations, the higher the reduction in the effective
permeability to water, and therefore the greater the degree of
water shut off which will be expected. However, a
concentrated treatment that would give a high degree of water
shut off could also cause more damage to oil production (and
be harder to remediate) in the event that the oil and water do
not form distinct production streams in the reservoir.
This was the first well to be treated after the success seen with
initial test treatments on a low value producer, Slot 40/A08
[2,6]. Four treatments in total have been performed to date on
Slot 32/A18. The first treatment was intended to demonstrate
the potential for water shut off while minimising the risk of
damage to the well. Following a successful first treatment, the
polymer concentration was increased for the second, and then
increased again for the third and subsequent treatments.
1.
2.
3.
SPE 100660
SPE 100660
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Pa s
= kPa
=m3
= m2
SPE 100660
WSO
980 bbl
Displacement
546 bbl
9
8
7
1200
1000
5
Pressure
800
Pump Rate
:3
0
:0
0
:1
0
:1
0
13
12
11
11
:1
5
:1
5
:4
5
:4
5
10
10
09
09
:0
5
:4
5
08
08
:1
5
:4
5
:4
5
07
07
:4
5
:1
5
06
05
:0
1
:1
5
:1
5
05
05
04
04
03
03
02
02
:4
5
0
:1
5
0
:4
5
200
:4
5
:2
5
400
:3
8
600
Overflush
1450 bbl
1400
02
Pressure (psi)
1800 Preflush
100 bbl Main Treatment
1000bbl (20% SI)
1600
06
Time
J-sand
Oil
K-sand
Ion
Na+
K+
Ca2+
Mg2+
Sr2+
Ba2+
Fe2+
HCO3SO42ClSWBT%
Slot 23
A12
19,250
1,100
590
270
18
200
1
2,200
1,100
30,000
45 55
Slot 29
A25
26,400
1,200
550
75
25
240
1
2,200
600
42,000
40 50
Slot 32
A18
26,500
1,100
650
120
70
730
1
2,200
200
45,000
0 10
SPE 100660
Water bpwd
Oil bopd
Water cut %
9,795
9,414
-4%
9,901
4,135
-58%
8,200
7,100
-13%
7,447
9,335
+25.6%
413
1,147
+178%
728
1,378
+89%
1,400
1,800
+29%
800
1,312
+64%
96
89
-7%
93
75
-20%
85
80
-7%
90
88
-2%
400%
Water
Oil
300%
200%
100%
0%
Fe
b05
M
ar
-0
5
Ap
r05
M
ay
-0
5
Ju
n05
Ju
l-0
5
Au
g05
Se
p05
O
ct
-0
5
N
ov
-0
5
Treatments
1, 2,3 and 4
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change
Water cut %
85
82
-3%
100%
90%
80%
Se
p05
Oil bopd
1,192
1,246
+4%
Oil
Au
g05
Water bpwd
6,548
5,754
-12%
Water
Ju
l-0
5
Treatment 1
Before
After
Change
110%
Ju
n05
05
83
83
0%
85
82
-3%
87
85
-2%
M
ay
-
3,000
3,000
0%
2,859
2,859
0%
2,355
2,558
+9%
05
15,000
15,000
0%
16,075
13,000
-19%
15,352
14,843
-3%
Ap
r-
Water cut %
05
Oil bopd
M
ar
-
Water bpwd
Treatments
1, 2 and 3
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change