{"title":"Several Decades of Fluid Diversion Evolution, Is There a Good Solution?","authors":"A. Casero, A. Gomaa","doi":"10.2118/207953-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The success of any matrix treatment depends upon the complete coverage of all zones. Consequently, the selection of the diversion technology is critical for treatment success. While various types of diverting agents are commercially available, the proper selection of optimal diverter depends on many factors, including well completion and history, compatibility with reservoir and treatment fluids, treatment objectives, operational constraints, and safety and environment considerations.\n The study will cover five major types of non-mechanical diversion technologies considered as potential solutions for offshore deepwater oil reservoirs: dynamic diversion, relative permeability modifiers (RPM), viscoelastic surfactants (VES), particulate diversion, and perforation diversion. All of them, but a dynamic diversion, are based on different chemicals or products to be added to the injected treatment fluid, and occasionally some can be complementary to each other.\n Given the offshore and deepwater settings, mechanical diversion techniques were not covered in the study, aiming to find a solution that would achieve acceptable diversion while minimizing operational effort, which would enable riser-less intervention and the use of light intervention techniques.\n This study was driven by the need to effectively stimulate a 500ft of a cased and perforated interval with a permeability of 500 md, and injection rate limited to 16 bpm due to completion limitations. The sandstone formation, with static in situ temperature of 270F, was far beyond the applicability of dynamic diversion and, to achieve the desired full coverage for the planned scale inhibition treatment required and combination with another diverter system was needed.\n The process applied included compatibility tests, regained permeability tests, and test well trials. Depending on the specific diversion product analyzed the testing procedures were adapted to obtain the information to properly guide to the optimal solution.","PeriodicalId":10981,"journal":{"name":"Day 4 Thu, November 18, 2021","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 4 Thu, November 18, 2021","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/207953-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The success of any matrix treatment depends upon the complete coverage of all zones. Consequently, the selection of the diversion technology is critical for treatment success. While various types of diverting agents are commercially available, the proper selection of optimal diverter depends on many factors, including well completion and history, compatibility with reservoir and treatment fluids, treatment objectives, operational constraints, and safety and environment considerations.
The study will cover five major types of non-mechanical diversion technologies considered as potential solutions for offshore deepwater oil reservoirs: dynamic diversion, relative permeability modifiers (RPM), viscoelastic surfactants (VES), particulate diversion, and perforation diversion. All of them, but a dynamic diversion, are based on different chemicals or products to be added to the injected treatment fluid, and occasionally some can be complementary to each other.
Given the offshore and deepwater settings, mechanical diversion techniques were not covered in the study, aiming to find a solution that would achieve acceptable diversion while minimizing operational effort, which would enable riser-less intervention and the use of light intervention techniques.
This study was driven by the need to effectively stimulate a 500ft of a cased and perforated interval with a permeability of 500 md, and injection rate limited to 16 bpm due to completion limitations. The sandstone formation, with static in situ temperature of 270F, was far beyond the applicability of dynamic diversion and, to achieve the desired full coverage for the planned scale inhibition treatment required and combination with another diverter system was needed.
The process applied included compatibility tests, regained permeability tests, and test well trials. Depending on the specific diversion product analyzed the testing procedures were adapted to obtain the information to properly guide to the optimal solution.