Brines and Other Workover Fluids - gekengineering.com
Transcript of Brines and Other Workover Fluids - gekengineering.com
Brines and Other Workover Fluids
• Purposes
• Selection
• Filtration needs
• Placement
• Fluid Loss Control
• Cleanup and Displacement of Muds
• Limitations
• Alternatives
3/14/2009 1George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Purposes of Brines
1. Mud displacement prior to cementing,
2. Debris removal,
3. Controlling formation pressures during completion and intervention operations,
4. Enabling repair operations as a circulating or kill fluid medium,
5. As packer fluids,
3/14/2009 2George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Purposes of Brines (cont.)
6. In some stimulations as base fluids;7. Enable cleanup of the zone prior to running screens;8. Reduce friction while running screens & equipment;9. Avoid damaging the well after completion,
stimulation, or repair;10. Allow other well operations to be conducted.
3/14/2009 3George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Will Circulating a Well Really Clean It Out?
• Not necessarily.
• Clean-out efficiency depends on:– Ability to remove the solids from returning fluids,
– Fluid hydraulics - the flow rates in every section,
– Ability to disperse, then lift solids out of the well,
– Ability to effectively remove the dope, mud cake, residues, etc., from the pipe walls.
3/14/2009 4George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Returns from a cleanout scraper run – dope, wireline grease, rust, mud, etc., are common components.
3/14/2009 5George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Selection of the Brine
• Must Satisfy:1. Well control at every phase of the operation.2. Must be able to filter the brine to 5 to 10 microns with
beta of 1000.3. Compatibility with the formation, well equipment and all
operations and fluids.4. Corrosion and scale dropout must be controllable.5. Cleanup requirements from the formation6. Cleanup and disposal requirements at the surface7. Cost and availability to fit the well.
3/14/2009 6George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Brine Type Brine Formula Density Range (ppg)Chloride Salt NaCl 8.4 - 10.0Chloride Salt KCl 8.4 - 9.7Chloride Salt NH4Cl 8.4 - 8.9Bromide Salt NaBr 8.4 - 12.7Mix NaCl/NaBr 8.4 - 12.5Formate Salt NaHCO2 8.4 - 11.1Formate Salt KHCO2 8.4 - 13.3Formate Salt CsHCO2 13.0 - 20.0Formate Salt KHCO2/CsHCO2 13.0 - 20.0Formate Salt NaHCO2/KHCO2 8.4 - 13.1Chloride Salt CaCl2 8.4 - 11.3Bromide Salt CaBr2 8.4 - 15.3Mix CaCl2/CaBr2 8.4 - 15.1Bromide Salt ZnBr2 12.0 - 21.0Mix ZnBr2/CaBr2 12.0 - 19.2Mix ZnBr2/CaBr2/CaCl2 12.0 - 19.1
Brine Types and Respective Density Ranges
World Oil, Modern Sand Face Completion, 2003
3/14/2009 7George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Lower Density Fluids
Nitrogen gas 0.1 to 2.6 lb/gal
water foam 3.5 to 8.3 lb/gal
kerosene and diesel 6.7 to 7.1 lb/gal
20o crude 7.8 lb/gal
30o crude 7.3 lb/gal
Most low density fluids are not be usable because of migration, flash point, or stability issues.
3/14/2009 8George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Displacement and Pill Design
• The displacement must be designed to obtain effective mud removal (dispersement and lift) & water wetting of casing.
• Keys: – disperse and thin the drilling fluid– compatibility with the following fluids (brine, acid, cement,
etc.– lift out debris and junk– water wet pipe– remove pipe dope effectively – displace the mud
Source: Wellcert3/14/2009 9George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Brines for Displacement
1. A thinning base fluid flush.
2. An effective brine transition system must further thin and strip the mud and create wellbore displacement.
3. A carrier spacer must sweep out the solids and clean any coating from the pipe or rock that could cause damage problems.
4. A separation spacer must do the final cleaning and separate the residual mud from the brine.
5. The brine must sweep the spacer out. At this point the well should be clean.
3/14/2009 10George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Cleaning and Transition SpacersSpacer Type Function Minimum
Annulus Coverage
WBM OBM
Base Fluid Thin & mud condition – start dispersement
250 to 500 ft Water, and some brines
Base oil (composition varies)
Transition Mud to spacer, cuttings removal
500 to 1000’ Viscous pill Viscous Pill
Wash Clean pipe 500 to 1500’ Water+ WBM surfactant
Oil + OBM surfactant
Separation Separate wash from completion brine
500 to 1000’ Viscous pill Surfactant gel? Some water gels if compat.
Completion Fluid
Completion fluid Fill Completion Fluid
Completion Fluid
3/14/2009 11George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Brine Flush Contact Times
Pump Rate, bpm
Annular Velocity,
ft/min
Barrels Pumped
Column Length, ft
Contact Time,
minutes on one foot.
8 150 200 3743 25
10 187 400 7486 40
12 225 400 7486 33
9-5/8” casing in 12-1/4” hole, annular area = 0.3 ft2
3/14/2009 12George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Flow profile in a well with decentralized pipe. Note That most of the flow comes along the top of the pipe. This affects cleanup and residence time of the fluid on the wellbore. The lower section of the wellbore may remain buried in cuttings and never have contact with any of the circulated fluids.
Major flow area
3/14/2009 13George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Displacement of the annulus to displace fluids and mud cake depends partly on velocity.
The annulus changes as casing replaces the drill string. As the annular space decreases –velocity for any rate increases in the smaller area and the back pressure on the bottom hole may also increase.
Circulating down the casing and up the small annulus can produce very high friction pressure and raised BHP.
3/14/2009 14George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Displacement Considerations• Well control is key consideration in selection of
the pill sequence.• In many cases, it is only possible to get thin, light
fluids into turbulence• Pumping fluids to displace oil based fluids
without suitable surfactant/solvent packages to disperse the mud can result in sludges that are insoluble except in aggressive solvents
• For deepwater wells, low temperatures can impact surfactant effectiveness
3/14/2009 15George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Carrying Capacity
• Pills in turbulence lose carrying capacity if the annular velocity drops below that required for turbulence (e.g. entering larger diameter pipe such as a riser)
• In high mud weight, the risk of inducing barite sag needs to be considered if mud is thinned (displacement pills thin the mud to the point it can no longer support barite)
3/14/2009 16George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
LEARNING• As depth and hole angle increase, the minimum pill
volume (based on largest annular hole length) should increase to allow for contamination, e.g.:– If MD < twice TVD, annular fill length > 80 m (260 ft), – If MD > twice TVD, annular fill length > 125 m (410 ft),
• Contact time (the time that critical points in the well are exposed to the pill) depends on reaction of surfactant/solvent to mud. For surfactant pills, plan for contact times of greater than 4 minutes for best results.
3/14/2009 17George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
BEST PRACTICES AND DESIGN CRITERIA
• Good mud thinning fluid is continuous phase of the mud: – for water based mud pumping 50 bbl (8m3) of water
as the first displacement pill will effectively thin mud,– 50 bbl (8m3) of the mud base fluid can be pumped in
the case of oil based muds. (check oil compatibility)• Before any displacement, the compatibly of the spacers
with the mud and the ability to water wet steel surfaces should be checked at ambient and bottom hole temp to confirm compatibility.
• In deep water, tests at lower temperature will be needed
3/14/2009 18George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
BEST PRACTICES AND DESIGN CRITERIA
• All tests should be done on field mud samples to ensure mud is effectively sheared and has representative particles/cuttings
• Water wetting surfactants are generally effective >3% vol/vol concentration, little additional benefit is obtained above 10%.
• Solvents and mechanical or hydraulic agitation are required to remove sludges and pipe dope
3/14/2009 19George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Displacement
• Displacement of mud from an annulus is complex. The main driving forces:– time of contact – flow rate and frictional forces– density– mechanical agitation– pipe centralization
3/14/2009 20George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
RISKS AND ISSUES
• Fluid Interface area increases w/ hole angle• In deviated wells the eccentricity of the
displacement string may reduce displacement. Pipe rotation and/or reciprocation is needed.
• At low temperature (<40oC/104oF), OBM is very viscous ( synthetic based muds are worst), circulating to warm the annular contents reduces the problem.
3/14/2009 21George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
RISKS AND ISSUES
• High circulation rates may be better (even in laminar flow), they reduce the boundary layer thickness on the casing wall. (Watch wash-out potential of soft sands)
• Turbulence is best, flow rate must be calculated allowing for pipe eccentricity. A complete wellbore hydraulics check is necessary.
• High rates (300 ft/min?) may reduce the fluff (80% of the outer layer of the filter cake that does not contribute to fluid loss control); sharply reducing the amount of solids in the well without reducing fluid loss control.
3/14/2009 22George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
BEST PRACTICES AND DESIGN CRITERIA
• High flow rates will always be better even if turbulence cannot be achieved
• Pipe movement will improve displacement efficiency.• Multi-function circulating subs should be used, currently
the best tools open by setting weight down, incorporating a clutch mechanism to allow rotation.
• Do not stop displacement once pills enter the annulus• Circulate to warm mud and fine up shakers (increase
screen mesh number) to reduce particles in the fluid when possible, condition mud (reduce rheology).
• Use reverse circulation if possible when displacing with lighter fluids.
3/14/2009 23George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Muds, Cakes, Breakers and Particles
• Drilling mud is the best known particulate based fluid loss control system.
• Particles are sized to bridge on the face of the formation. Carbonate and salt are most common.
• Breakers are acid, oxidizers and enzymes.• Filter cakes very effective in preventing losses as long
as over-balance pressure is maintained. • Cakes are very sensitive to swabbing, but are never
completely removed..• Tool systems sensitive to plugging by particulates.
3/14/2009 24George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Particles – Damage?
• “Dirty” particles, unsized particles, debris and pipe dope are severe formation damage problems.
• Protecting the perforations with the right particles during a workover improves chances of well improvement afterwards.
• The type of carrier fluid and the gels are v. important
Clear (no particles) brines are not always best solution
3/14/2009 25George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Particulate Pill Displacement
• A spacer or displacement pill for displacing a polymer system carring sized particulates should be 0.2 to 0.25 ppg heavier and about three times the low shear rate viscosity (at 0.06 sec-1) of the fluid being displaced.
3/14/2009 26George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
PI Change, Perfs Not Protected
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
% C
hang
e in
PI
Short Term PI ChangeLong Term PI Change
0.3 0.5 1.1 2.1 3.1 6 18.9
PI of Wells
SPE 26042
Data from a set of Alaska wells where the perforations were not protected during a workover. No protection shows significant long term damage.
3/14/2009 27George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
PI Change After Workover - Perfs Protected
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11% C
hang
e in
PI
Short Term PI ChangeLong Term PI Change
0.3 1.2 3.1 4.6 8.4
PI of wells
SPE 26042
When perfs were protected, that was little risk of long term damage.
3/14/2009 28George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Kill Pills: Summary of Overall Effectiveness in Non Fractured Wells
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
% C
hang
e in
PI
Sized Borate Salts (4)
Cellulose Fibers (3)
Sized Sodium Chloride (12)
No Near Perf Milling (6)
Near Perf Milling or Scraping (3)
No Near Perf Milling (8)
SPE 26042
Near Perf Milling or Scraping (10)
HEC Pills No Pills
Sized particulates, particularly those that can be removed, are much less damaging than most polymers.
3/14/2009 29George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Formation Damage by Gels
• Gels– Linear gels not recommended for high
overbalance or high permeability formations – too much depth of damage.
– HEC is not always clean breaking.
– Breaker selection is critical to removing the damage from a linear gel.
3/14/2009 30George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Linear HEC Pill needed per ft of zone, 80 lb/1000 gal or 3.36 ppb
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1000 750 500 250
Overbalance Pressure, psi
Pill
Vol.
Req
uire
d, b
bl p
er ft
of z
one
1 Darcy500 md250 md 100 md
World Oil, Modern Sandface Completion Practices, 2003
3/14/2009 31George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Fluid Loss Rate vs. Pressure Differential for Various Permeabilities
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 100 200 300 400 500
Overbalance Pressure, psi
Loss
Rat
e, b
bl /
hr /
ft of
zon
e he
ight
500 md250 md100 md50md
1 cp fluid,
s = +5
Modified from World Oil, Modern Sandface Completion Practices, 2003
3/14/2009 32George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Breaker
• Breaker must stay with the part of the gel that causes the damage– penetrate to the distance that gel penetrates, or– stop at the wall – with the gel wall cake.
• Breakers:– Acid, internal breaker, or enzyme– Many breakers adsorb or spend in the formation,
before they work.
3/14/2009 33George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Brine Stability
• The stability of the brines at high salt loadings can be very “touchy” with temperature drops causing salt precipitation.
• Increases in temperature decreases brine density and may leave the brine under-saturated to salt.
• Additions of gas, alcohol, some surfactants, shear and reduction in temperature can lead to salt precipitation.
• Salt may affect the way polymers hydrate or disperse.
3/14/2009 34George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
NaCl Brine Density Variance with Temperature
15
15.2
15.4
15.6
15.8
16
16.2
16.4
16.6
16.8
17
60 110 160 210 260 310 360
Temperature (F)
Brin
e D
ensi
ty (l
b/ga
l)
SPE 12490
100o C20oC The reduction of brine density as it comes to equilibrium in the well may explain why a well can go from a no-flow condition to flow within a few hours after being killed.
3/14/2009 35George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Temperature ChangesGOM Seafloor Temperature
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
35 40 45 50 55 60
Sea Floor Temperature, F
Wat
er D
epth
, ft
Composite data from DTC3/14/2009 36
George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com
Temperatures in the Well? Circulating or High Rate Injection?
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Tubing
Tbg Fluid
Casing 1
Undisturbed
Circulation pump rate = 8-BPM
BHST= 122*F
BHCT= 98*F
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Undisturbed
Tbg Fluid
Tubing
Casing 1
Frac job pump rate = 35-BPM
BHST= 125*F
BHTT= 86*F
3/14/2009 37George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Salt-Out or “Freezing” Temperature of a Brine
Salt Content
Cry
stal
lizat
ion
Tem
p
Adding salt lowersfreezing point of wateruntil the point at whichadditional salt precipitates
Eutectic Point
3/14/2009 38George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Composition Determines TCT (true crystallization temperature)
Density CaCl2 CaBr2 TCT(ppg)* (wt %) (wt %) (OF / OC)12.5 34.40 10.80 60/ 15.512.5 32.20 13.13 44/ 6.712.5 22.84 20.55 15/ - 2.812.5 00.00 41.55 - 33/ - 36
*1.50 SG
3/14/2009 39George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Density Change with Temp Change
DDH = DS (1 + 0.000252 (TS - TDH))
What is downhole density (DDH) of a 16.4 lb/gal surface density (Ds) brine (60oF) when downhole temperature increases to 230oF?
DDH = (16.4) (1 + 0.000252 (60-230)
DDH = 15.7 lb/gal
Formula from OSCA3/14/2009 40George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Brine Density Change with Pressure
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
0 1000 2000 3000
Pressure, psi
Brin
e D
ensi
ty (g
/cc)
ZnBr2/CaBr2 (19%/wt)ZnBr2/CaBr2/CaCl2(37% /wt)CaBr2 (45% /wt)
NaBr (54% /wt)
CaCl2 (65% /wt)
NaCl (70% /wt)Typical change was 0.0015 g/cc
SPE 12490
There is a slight increase in density with applied pressure, usually about 0.1 ppg.
3/14/2009 41George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Temp Expansion of Fluids Pressure Effect on FluidsExpansion Coef. Compression Coef.
Fluid System Density, ppg vol/vol/oFx104 lb/gal/100oF vol/vol/oFx106 lb/gal/1000 psiDiesel 7 3.8NaCl 9.49 2.54 0.24 1.98 0.019CaCl2 11.45 2.39 0.27 1.5 0.017NaBr 12.48 2.67 0.33 1.67 0.021CaBr2 14.3 2.33 0.33 1.53 0.022ZnBr2/CaBr2/CaCl2 16.01 2.27 0.36 1.39 0.022ZnBr2/CaBr2 19.27 2.54 0.48 1.64 0.031
At 12,000 psi from 76F to 345F At 198F from 2,000 to 12,000 psi
Temperature and Pressure Effects on Completion Fluids
World Oil, Modern Sand Face Completion, 20033/14/2009 42
George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com
Brine Selection – Circulating Density
• Match density needs on both static (ESD) needs, and circulating density (ECD) needs. Consider friction effects on BH press while circulating.
• Remember – brine must exert pressures in a window between controlling pore pressure or shale heaving and fracturing the formation.
• Brine density changes with temperature (can drop by >1 lb/gal) and a small increase with pressure (0.1 lb/gal).
• Carried solids add density to the brine – easily by 0.5 to 2+ lb/gal.
3/14/2009 43George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
11.35 11.40 11.45 11.50
ESD - (lb/gal)Tr
ue V
ertic
al D
epth
- (ft
)
ESD
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 5000 10000
BH Pressure - (psi)
True
Ver
tical
Dept
h - (
ft)
Pressure
Note: Fluid Density is Greater at the Mud line than at the Surface
Courtesy of MI-LLC
Hydrostatic Pressure at TVD CaCl2 Brine in a 14,000 ft Wellbore in 8,000 ft Water
Brines have small density changes due to temperature, pressure, and contamination; and larger density changes due to suspended solids.
3/14/2009 44George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Adding solids to any fluid, either at the surface or downhole increases it density. 0.5 to 2+ lb of solids are common in cleanout with circulated fluids.
3/14/2009 45George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Completion Fluid - Checklist
• Is the formation liquid sensitive to liquid relative permeability effects?
• Compatibility with formation? (clay and minerals)
• Compatibility with formation fluid? (emulsion, sludge, foam, froth)
• Tanks and surface equipment clean?(pumps, lines, hoses, blenders)
• Are polymers breakable? How is breaker added?
• Polymers, hydrated, sheared and filtered? Filter level? Beta rating?
• Minimize the pipe dope?
• Corrosion reactions understood?
• Erosion potential understood?
3/14/2009 46George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Special Case - Horizontal Wells
• Hole circulated to a large volume of fluid to stop losses.
• Minimum amount of solids can be used where internal tool sticking is a possibility
• Suspension of solids beyond 60o deviation is difficult.• Penetration to furthest reaches of the well is
required – buckling considerations?• Very sensitive to swabbing.
3/14/2009 47George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Filtration and Cleaning
• Brine and ? (tanks, lines, pumps, etc.)• Pickle the tubulars?• NTU or particle count as a measure? How clean is
clean? = Avg pore throat x 0.2?• Beta rating and micron rating important• Tank arrangement when filtering (from dirty tank to
clean, not in a loop)• Filter type
– DE or Cartridge (no resin coated cartridges)
3/14/2009 48George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
3/14/2009 49George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Filtration Ratings
• NTU - a turbidity indicator - can be mislead by natural color of water. An NTU of 20 to 30 is generally clean.
• Nominal filter rating - estimate of the size of particle removed - don’t trust it. Filtration efficiency improves with bed build-up
• Absolute filter rating - size of the holes in the filter. Filtration efficiency improves with bed build-up
• Beta rating - a ratio of particles before filtration to after. A good measure of filter efficiency.
• Suggestion – use a 5 to 10 micron rating with a beta rating of 1000 for most clear brine applications.
3/14/2009 50George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Beta Rating
• Beta = number of filter rating and larger size particles in dirty fluid divided by number of those particles in clean fluid.
• Beta = 1000/1 = 1000 or 99.99% clean
3/14/2009 51George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Filtration Considerations
• Very clean fluids have high leakoff rates• Fluids with properly blended fluid loss control
materials added after filtration have a better chance of cleanup than with the initial particles in the fluid. Particles must be sized to stop at the face of the formation.
• All gelled fluids should be sheared and filtered – even the liquid polymer fluids.
3/14/2009 52George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
3/14/2009 53George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Solid polymer lumps or “Fisheyes” and microgels filtered from liquid HEC polymer.Microgels or “fisheyes” after straining a liquid HEC dispersion through a 200 mesh screen in a shear and filter operation for gravel pack fluid preparation.
3/14/2009 54George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Scrapers and Brushes – Physically Cleaning the Well
• Available tools
• Damage potential
3/14/2009 55George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Effect of Scraping or Milling Adjacent to Open Perforations
-60-50-40-30-20-10
01020
1 2
% C
hang
e in
PI
Short Term PI ChangeLong Term PI Change
Perfs not protected by LCM prior to scraping
Perfs protected by LCM
SPE 26042
One very detrimental action was running a scraper prior to packer setting. The scraping and surging drives debris into unprotected perfs.
3/14/2009 56George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Casing Scraper – Designed to knock off perforation burrs, lips in tubing pins, cement and mud sheaths, scale, etc.
It cleans the pipe before setting a packer or plug.
The debris it turns loose from the pipe may damage the formation unless the pay is protected by a LCM or plug.
3/14/2009 57George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
3/14/2009 58George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Placement Methods
• Circulating – preferred – watch effective circulation density (friction pressures)
• Spotting – watch density induced drift – 0.05 lb/gal difference can start density migration.
• Bullheading - next to last resort.• Lubricating - last resort.
• Consider coiled tubing for most accurate spotting and ability to circulate fluids into place with minimum contamination.
• Remember that fluid density differences of even 0.05 lb/gal will start density segregation.
3/14/2009 59George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Fluid Loss Control
• Methods: viscosity, particulates, mechanical
• Best method? – depends on application and options afterward.– Viscosity based methods often leave polymer debris
– Particulates must be sized with small, medium and large particles to build a tight cake at the surface. Don’t use them in cased and perforated completions???
– Mechanical methods preferred, but not always practical.
3/14/2009 60George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Fluid Loss Control Systems
fluid (pumped) mechanical
gels (linear and x-link)
bridging particulates
downhole valves
plugs
micron particles
resin particles
larger mixed particles
flappers (watch the throat size)
ball checks
Removal methods? Removal methods?
3/14/2009 61George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
In the Formation / At the Formation Face (Not in Perf)
• Gels – high vis. limits the fluid loss by pressure drop.– May not work in high perm
(>0.5 darcy).
– Temperature greatly affects performance.
– Cleanup is a problem.
• Particulates bridge at the formation face.
Particulates are very effective in controlling fluid loss, but are also very sensitive to swabbing, dissolving in carrier fluids and must be sized for the formation pores and natural fractures.
3/14/2009 62George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Particulate Systems
• Sized carbonates and salts are most common. Penetration depth = 0.125” (3mm)
• Do not use in most perforated completions unless the perforations have been packed with gravel.
• Gravel pack tools and tools with close clearances should not be exposed to particulate laden fluids.
• Gel carriers for particulates still require breakers.
3/14/2009 63George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Considerations for Fluid loss Control Selection
BHT Formation sensitivity to treatment fluids
Onshore / Offshore / Deepwater
BHP Treatment/completion fluid types
Rig cost per day
Overbalance or underbalance
Frequency and amount of surge/swab loads
Rig equip available -pumps, tanks, lines,
Vertical and horizontal permeability variations
Formation sand strength
All tubular sizes in the flow path
Formation sand size and pore throat size
Sand production and presence of cavity
Mobilization time available
Production rate Producer or injector Regulations on use and disposal
Produced fluid types Wellbore deviation through the pay
Natural or hydraulic fractures present
SPE 54323
3/14/2009 64George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Areas for Fluid Loss Control
• In formation matrix
• At the formation face
• Inside the perf tunnel
• On the fracture pack
• Inside the casing (on the perforation)
• On a sand-back plug
• In the gravel
• Inside the screen
• Above the screen or in the BHA
• Inside the tubing
• At the surface
Each location requires different plug construction methods and removal considerations.
3/14/2009 65George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Cleanup
• Gel break and damage issues
• Fluid imbibition effects
• Other fluid unloading issues
3/14/2009 66George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Cleanup
• How to remove from the reservoir (through the fractures or the matrix). Is a surface/interfacial reduction surfactant needed? Is gas needed? Is the formation initially undersaturated to water (yes, it can and does happen).
• From the wellbore – effective unloading is plagued by well deviation and low flow rates from small coiled tubing and other non rotating strings.
3/14/2009 67George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Problems - unwanted foams during backflow
• Foam is an emulsion where gas is the internal phase (mist is an emulsion with gas as external phase). Foams are used to unload brines – BUT the forms may cause a problem at the surface.
• Foaming conditions– some oils (ppm conc. of C6-C9organic acids and alcohols)– diesel - (particularly bad and varies from lot to lot)– some acid additives (emulsifiers, salts, inhibitors)– XCD polymers (and others)
• Look for and destroy the stabilizer to break the foam.
3/14/2009 68George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Brine Tankage Required
1. Volume of prod. Casing – annulus & below packer?
2. Displacement volume of work string
3. Displacement volume of producing string including packers
4. Volume of manifolds, lines, hoses and pumps
5. Volume of transport tankage (usable)
6. Volume of filtering system (all tanks, lines and pods)
7. Volume of pill tank
8. Pickle flush volume
9. Spare volume for safe operation
3/14/2009 69George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Special Topics
• Alternatives to a clear brine
• Gravel pack brines
• Brine handling and preparation
• Solids free gels
• Corrosion
• Hydrates
• Best Practice Learnings
• Toxicity
3/14/2009 70George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Alternatives to a Clear Brine
• Emulsions, Foams, Muds– Will it be stable?
– What will stop fluid loss?
– What will clean up or degrade?
– What will damage least?
– Can an oil be ever be used in a gas zone??
3/14/2009 71George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Is mud a viable kill fluid for high temp and high pressure wells?
• How much perm damage does it cause?– Against the formation?– In the perforations?– In a naturally fractured formation?– Against a gravel pack or screen?
• Is the damage reversible?– If you have high wellbore pressures, some of the
mud damage is reversible - SOME!
3/14/2009 72George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Fluids for Gravel/Frac Pack
• Water - low viscosity brines, low molecular weight salts
• HEC - high molecular weight, water soluble polymer, straight chain
• Xanvis - high molecular wt bio polymer, water soluble. Branched chain, lower damage than HEC?
3/14/2009 73George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Water
• Advantages - no mixing, no breakers, high leakoff, easier to get turbulence
• Disadvantages - low gravel carrying capacity (+/- 2 ppg), more fluid lost, compatibility problems?
3/14/2009 74George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
HEC
• Advantages: mixes easily??? (still must shear and filter), easy to break??? (we’ve had problems here), commonly available
• Disadvantages: lower leakoff rates, lower sand carrying capacity than bio-polymers
3/14/2009 75George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
XC
• Advantages: shear thinning, higher leakoff, good carrying capacity
• Disadvantages: said to wet some formations (anionic), x-links with calcium and iron (water composition more critical), harder to mix, breaks rapidly above 125oF ?
3/14/2009 76George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Brine Handling and Preparation
Brines HEC XC
Min Filter Req 5 to 10 mu 10 mu 10mu
Beta rating B=1000 B=10-100 B=10-100
Shear Req? N/A 2 bpm/1200 psi 2 bpm/600
Gravel Conc. 1-5 ppg 1-15 ppg 1-15 ppg
Breaker N/A acid, enz, ox oxidizers
Brine Compat? N/A <15.5 ppg KCl & NH4Cl
Leakoff excellent fair good
3/14/2009 77George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Solids Free Gels
• Surfactant gel
• Requires clay control (early problems)
• Breaks with oil
• Not perfect, but generally better than gels.
3/14/2009 78George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Breakers for HEC-Gelled Brines
Breaker BHT
HCl 130 to 200F
Ammonium hypochlorite 130 to 200F
Enzymes below 130 F
No Breaker Required? Above 200 F?
3/14/2009 79George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Corrosivity
• In oxygen free environment, CaCl2/CaBr brines exhibit very low corrosion rates if the pH is kept between 7 and 10.
• Lime and magnesium oxide are used to increase the pH of the brines.
• Use of sulfite oxygen scavengers in large concentrations can potentially cause CaSO4 precip. Use other methods.
• Biocide may not be needed in more concentrated brines.
3/14/2009 80George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Corrosion From Brines –example from Materials,
Corrosion and Inspection: http://upstream.bpweb.bp.com/mci/default.asp
Material General Corrosion
Pitting/Crevice Corrosion
SSC CL SCC Relative Failure Risk
Low Alloy Steel Y Y Low
13 Chrome Y Y Y Low/Med
Super Cr 13, etc. Y Y Y Y High
Alloy 450 Y Y Y Med
17-4PH Y Y Y High
Duplex Stainless Y Y Y High
Austenitic Y Y High
Super Austenitic Y Y Low
Ni Alloys Y Y Low
HPHT Production Operations, March 16, 2005, EPTG, BP 113/14/2009 81
George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com
Hydrates and “Freezing”
• Sea floor temperatures
• Gas expansion cooling
• Is the brine naturally hydrate formation resistant?
• Is it tolerant of antifreeze?
3/14/2009 82George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Dense Brines Inhibit HydratesHydrate inhibition by CaCl2 Brine
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
8.3 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.9 11.1 11.3 11.5 11.7
Brine Density lb/gal
Hyd
rate
For
mat
ion
Tem
p °F
15 kpsi10 kpsi5 kpsi2.5 kpsi
Hydrate equilibrium pressure for pure water
calculated using CSMHYD, VK 917 gas
SafeMaybeSolvent Needed
3/14/2009 83George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
LEARNINGS
• Proper disposal required for all chemicals.• Mixed displacement pills and mud have to be
separated from the mud and packer fluid for disposal (zero discharge issues)
• Brine/Water/Acid pumped without surfactants/solvents to displace oil muds (e.g. for an inflow test) prior to clean up can form sludges, these will not be broken down by subsequent clean up pills
• Clean up pills containing surfactants can foam during mixing (particularly when put through a hopper) and during flowback.
3/14/2009 84George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Viscosifier Learnings
• XCD/ biozan are preferred for mixing viscous pills but do not work in calcium brines,
• HEC will not support solids. • Polymers should be checked for suitability at the
anticipated temperature (thermal thinning an issue particularly >135oC/275oF).
3/14/2009 85George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
LEARNING
• The use of a circulating sub to allow high flow rates is recommended.
• As steel surfaces water wet, pipe rotation may not be possible due to friction and displacement of solids becomes much more difficult.
• Displacement must exceed solids settling rate and (e.g. 0.18 ft/sec for 40/60 mesh sand in water) not stop once pills are in the annulus.
• Displacement optimized for smallest production casing ID can leave bypassed mud in larger OD’s for tapered casing strings.
• Reverse circulation is most effective if packer fluid is lighter than mud (watch bridging potential)
3/14/2009 86George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Many Brines are Sensitive to Temperature When Viscosified
• Brine type sensitive – NaCl to ZnCl
• Temperature sensitivity is also affected by concentration
• Liquid vs. dry polymer makes a difference.
3/14/2009 87George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Stability of Dry HEC in Socium Chloride
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
8.6 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10 10.2
Sodium Chloride Density, ppg
Tem
pera
ture
, F
Transition Zone
Precipitation, Separation or Lost Viscosity
HEC Active and Soluble
SPE 587283/14/2009 88
George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com
Liquid HEC in Zinc Based Brines
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
15 16 17 18 19 20
Zinc Brine Density, ppg
Tem
pera
ture
, F
HEC Active and Soluble
Transition Zone
SPE 587283/14/2009 89George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Species Acute Toxic Threshold Concentration (mg/l)Zinc
bromideCesium formate
Potassium formate
Sodium formate
Algae 0.32 1600 3700 2000
Invertibrates 1.6 340 300 3900
Fish ? 260 1700 6100
Brief toxicity data for standard test organisms. SPE 27143
3/14/2009 90George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com