Title, 24pt Arial Bold - East Texas

Utilizing Operating Systems to Effectively

Manage Completions and Production

Chemicals

January 2013

Todd Wauters

Global Business and Development Manager

Becky Ogden

Technical Training Manager

2 © 2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Safety Moment

Emergency exits and evacuation discussion


Overview

Introductions

MVP 2.0

– System Description

– Key Differentiators

Case Histories

– West Texas

– Rocky Mountains

– East Texas

– Northeast

Conclusion

Q & A


MVP 2.0 System Description

Multi-Value Plus

– Chemical reporting system designed and maintained internally by Multi-Chem

– Combines the customer data with analysis and production data which is exportable into multiple formats

– Examples

• Treatment Program Information

• FRAC Reporting

• Customer Cost and Usage Reports

• Observations

• Field Analyses

• Failure Analyses

• Customer Well/Production Information

• Lab Analysis and Data


MVP 2.0 Key Differentiators

Accessible via Internet, 24-7

Real time, trending data linked to actual locations/injection

points

Key Performance Indicators- aka KPI’s

Monitoring reports (field tests as well as laboratory tests)

MSDS/PDB’s

Reporting speed & efficiency

Tool for system reviews/DOT Audits

Combines multiple reports to provide complete location

histories without further research

Automatic backup of data each night


MVP 2.0 Key Differentiators

Linked with laboratory systems to provide actual lab reports

uploaded daily, accessible for a registered user from any

computer with internet access

Complete application and monitoring analysis: (Drill down to

a specific Location)

Financial Reports: Executive Summary (50,000’ overview)

down to location specific

Can be drilled down to the specific well/location to bring all

database/analytical/usage reports into one consolidated

report

Recommendations can be uploaded and viewed by locations

with the history stored within the system


MVP 2.0 Examples


Case Histories – West Texas

Customer A-

– Iron Sulfide (FeS) was causing rod parting and rod cutting of the tubulars which resulted in a high frequency of failures (reducing production and increasing costs)

– MVP 2.0 was utilized to monitor various chemical treatments which were not bringing down the FeS levels (Initial well bore grindouts indicated a 30% interface with 4% water wet solids)

– Change to AcroClear treatment program was monitored by tracking grindouts and failures by location

Program results-

– Clean grindouts and elimination of FeS

– Significant failure reduction

– Production increase of 4 bbls/day



29

11

4

8

5

37

16

10 12

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bb

ls O

il

Well Name/Number

Customer A- Tracking Production Data

BBls Oil Pre-AcroClear BBls Oil Post AcroClear

Well A Well B Well C Well D Well E



6

9

6

9

4

7

0

1

0 0 0 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Bb

ls O

il

Well Name/Number

Customer A- Tracking Failure Reduction

Failures/year Pre-AcroClear Failures Post-AcroClear

Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6



Customer B-

– Injection well was not taking water due to high amounts of

FeS

– MVP 2.0 analysis tracking and trending tools were used to

monitor millipore filtration in conjunction with an AcroClear

treatment program

Results-

– The well which was not previously taking water started

taking water at 250 bbls/day at 1750 PSI



Customer B- Tracking Lab and Field Analysis



Customer C-

– Pipeline customer with severe corrosion rates

– MVP 2.0 coupon monitoring and failure reporting

were used to trend corrosion rates in MPY’s

– Effective biocide program was developed as a direct

result of coupon corrosion rate trending within the

system

Results-

– Corrosion rate reduction of 2.02 mpy to 0.25 mpy

– BS&W reduced from 1.5% to 0.1%



Customer C- Tracking Corrosion Rates and Failures


Case Histories – Rocky Mountains

Customer D-

– Water disposal well was not taking water due to high levels of FeS and safety concerns were high due to increasing H2S levels

– A chemical program consisting of 3 combined chemicals was tracked in MVP 2.0 and shown to be ineffective at reducing FeS and H2S

– In addition, this customer was replacing a minimum of 16 filters per day due to clogging, and incurring significant costs from filter replacements, labor, and heightened safety hazards from potential H2S exposure

– The customer and operators were able to utilize MVP 2.0 combined with an AcroClear treatment program to monitor failure rates and program costs

Results-

– Initial chemical program cost was $89,000 per year combined with $16,934 in filter replacements, labor, hazard removal and safety concerns

– Chemical program after utilizing MVP 2.0 and AcroClear- $31,000 per year, no filter replacements at the 26 day point, and FeS and H2S elimination


Case Histories – Rocky Mountains

Customer D- Tracking Water Injection Quality


Case Histories – East Texas

Customer E-

– Overall operations cost reduction was identified as the primary focus for the customer

– The Multi-Chem team identified pump optimization as the leading contributor to cost reduction

– MVP 2.0 was used to trend the effects that modified pump rates and custom chemicals were having on production rates

Results-

– Reduced costs in all measured categories

– Cost related to production reduced as well ($/mcf, $/bbl)

– Chemical usage reduced by 36%

– Wells unloaded more water by 38%



Customer E- Reducing Cost Through Pump Optimization


Conclusion

Summary-

Q & A-


“SERVICE IS WHAT GOT US HERE AND SERVICE IS WHAT WILL KEEP US HERE.” JAMES B. ARCHER – 1993

Title, 24pt Arial Bold - East Texas

Documents

Transcript of Title, 24pt Arial Bold - East Texas