SPE-173655-MS Coiled Tubing Deployed Gas and Water Shutoffs in Alaska Utilizing A Polymer Gel and Microfine Cement

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 15

SPE-173655-MS

Coiled Tubing Deployed Gas and Water Shutoffs in Alaska Utilizing a


Polymer Gel and Microfine Cement
D. B. Robertson, BP; M. A. Brown, Petrotechnical Resources of Alaska; L.H. Duong, BP; O.V. Ivanova,
Schlumberger; A. Tambe, BP

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24 –25
March 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
A common problem in oil and gas wells is excess free gas or water production from only certain portions
of the completed interval. Other portions of the lower completion may still have viable oil or gas
production potential if a method can be devised to successfully shut off the unwanted fluids. A coiled
tubing deployed profile modification technique was developed primarily to shut off excess free gas
production from the heel of cased and perforated horizontal oil wells. The technique has also been used
for water and gas shut-off in both vertical and horizontal wells in a variety of lower completion types. The
technique involves installing a temporary plug back to protect the toe or bottom most perforations to be
preserved, then pumping a polymer gel followed immediately by a microfine cement to shut off the
shallower or heel perforations. The objective of the gel and cement is to intentionally damage the rock
matrix for a radius of ~2 ft around the perforated intervals to be shut off, creating a zone of little or no
permeability adjacent to the wellbore. If successfully executed, there is no cement to be milled out of the
liner post squeeze and no restrictions or liner diameter reduction after the job. Approximately 30
horizontal wells have had a cumulative total of almost 13,000 ft of perforated intervals squeezed with this
method. The technique has also been used to shut off liner corrosion leaks in horizontal wells and for
perforation shut off in deviated wells. Post-job production logs in several of the wells indicated little or
no flow from the squeezed intervals even 1 to 2 years after the job.

Introduction
Initial production commenced from the Prudhoe Bay field in 1977. Various surface facilities reached gas
and water-handling constraints by the early 1980’s and well interventions commenced to reduce excess
free gas and water by selective profile modifications in the wellbores. By the early 1980’s the first coiled
tubing cement squeezes for gas and water shut off were performed (Harrison and Blount 1986). Since that
time, multiple coiled tubing units have been performing various well interventions 365 days per year, 24
hours per day, shutting down only for inclement weather or maintenance. Coiled tubing work has a
well-established track record in the North Slope of Alaska oilfields involving several thousand interven-
tions of various types. Established weather minimum working conditions are on the order of -40 °F
2 SPE-173655-MS

ambient temperature and/or when the wind chill is such that exposed skin will freeze in less than 5 min.
Procedures have evolved over the years to prevent personnel injury and operational issues related to Arctic
weather, but constant vigilance is still required. Fig. 1 is a photograph of a typical arctic winter coiled
tubing operation.

Figure 1—Typical North Slope of Alaska winter coiled tubing operations.

Most of the ~1700 wells in the Prudhoe Bay field penetrate either an extensive gas cap and/or the
aquifer in the sandstone reservoir. Excess free gas or water production mechanisms can be related to poor
primary cement jobs of production liners, fluid contact movements over time, coning, corroded or
damaged liner. There is no export line for gas sales and surface processing facilities are operated within
safe gas and water-handling limits. In general, any through tubing profile modification that can be
performed to reduce excess free gas and water rates, along with increasing oil rate or more time on
production, is beneficial to overall field production. Through the late 1980s and 1990s there was an active
gas and water shut off program wherein several hundreds of coiled tubing cement squeeze jobs were
performed. With many candidate wells, there was a continuous evolution in job design and execution
techniques over the years (Hornbrook and Mason 1989; Loveland and Bond 1996). Gas and water shut
off treatments involving polymer gels alone were also performed, but the long term profile modifications
desired were only achieved on a few jobs; typical lives were on the order of 9 months for gels alone
(Loveland and Bond 1996). Several combination polymer gel and Class G gas shut off cement squeezes
were also performed throughout the later 1990s with relatively good results noted, particularly for second
or third squeezes of failed cement squeezes that were initially performed with Class G cement only (Lai
et al. 1999).
Well completion types have also evolved over time, with a general trend toward smaller diameter upper
and lower completion tubulars. The original development wells were primarily deviated wells with 7-in.
or 9 5/8-in. cemented, perforated, production liners and 4 1/2-in., 5 1/2-in. or 7-in. tubing i.e. relatively
large tubing and liner diameters. Since the late 1990’s there has been a shift toward horizontal wells
targeting specific pockets of remaining oil and the thinning oil column at the base of the reservoir below
the gas/oil contact in up dip areas. Through tubing coiled tubing sidetracks are often used to access these
targets. Due to drill bit diameter limitations with coiled tubing sidetracks, 2 3/8-in. or 2 7/8-in. jointed pipe
is typically run as the production liner. In general, upper completion tubing has been downsized over the
years to 3.5-in. and 4.5-in., with some larger tubulars remaining. Fig. 2 depicts a typical horizontal well
completion along with potential water and gas production mechanisms at the heel of a horizontal well.
SPE-173655-MS 3

Figure 2—Example horizontal well completion illustrating gas and/or water entry at the heel of the horizontal wellbore.

The primary producing reservoir of the Prudhoe Bay field is a sandstone reservoir with permeabilities
varying both laterally and vertically from less than 10 millidarcies to several hundred millidarcies in some
areas. Reservoir temperature ranges from 200 °F to 230 °F. Reservoir pressure currently ranges from
2,800 psi to 3,600 psi at a datum depth of 8,800 true vertical depth subsea (TVDSS) throughout the field.
Most of the coiled-tubing-deployed cement squeezes in the past used some variation of Class G cement.
When Class G cement is used to perform coiled tubing cement squeezes, the particle sizes of the solids
are generally too large to enter the sandstone matrix. The shutoff mechanism is provided by cement
particles bridging off in the perforation tunnel against the formation face and building back into the liner,
often leaving a cement node or obstruction inside the liner. These cement nodes were insignificant, in
general, with larger-diameter liners in the past, but would have created an impassable obstruction in the
newer generation of smaller-diameter liners (see Fig. 3). This obstruction would prevent immediate
cleanout of excess cement in the liner prior to the cement setting up. Drilling out several thousand ft of
hard cement in small diameter liners was not thought to be an attractive option. A method of shutting off
several hundred ft of perforated intervals toward the heels of undulating horizontal wells with small
diameter liners was needed. The polymer gel and microfine cement technique was initially developed for
heel gas shut off in small diameter, cemented, perforated liners in horizontal wells; it has since been
applied in various diameter liners in both horizontal and deviated wells.

Figure 3—Pictorial depiction of perforation shutoff mechanism with Class G cement. Note little cement penetration into the matrix and
restriction inside liner due to cement node development.
4 SPE-173655-MS

A perhaps unexpected benefit of the polymer gel and microfine cement technique was a new-found
ability to more reliably shut off excess free gas or water from damaged or corroded production liner. With
damaged or corroded liner, there is no perforation tunnel for the Class G cement node building mechanism
to occur, so problems of this type had been particularly troublesome to remediate with prior squeeze
techniques. The polymer gel and microfine cement method has been used to shut off liner damage related
leaks with good results, likely because the shut off occurs within the reservoir matrix, so the liner
condition and perforations are less relevant. However, if corrosion is the liner damage mechanism it may
be inevitable that some other portion of the liner will eventually corrode unless something is done to alter
the corrosion dynamics.
The remainder of this paper further outlines the problem, the specific technique developed, and results.

Background Information/Problem Statement


The initial objective for the first well or job attempted was to shut off several hundred ft of gas-producing
perforations toward the heel of a horizontal well while preserving production from perforations toward the
toe of the well. The well was completed with a 2 7/8-in. liner and 4 1/2-in. tubing. A non-rig technique
was preferred due to generally lower cost, more readily available equipment, and more surgical control
of the treatment method.
The following criteria were established for the profile modification intervention job design:
1. Several hundred ft of perforations permanently shut off
2. No reduction in liner inside diameter after the job
3. No extensive milling of hard cement
4. Profile modification to be performed through the existing tubing with standard well intervention
equipment
The initial candidate well had a liner inside drift diameter of 2 1/3-in. Any reduction in liner diameter
prevents future access for surveillance or interventions and, in some cases, limits drawdown or chokes
back production. This requirement essentially rules out the use of most mechanical patch or isolation
methods inside small-diameter liners. Some wells with small-diameter liners and elevated gas rates
already have significant friction pressure drop along the length of the horizontal liner such that minimal
drawdown is applied at the toe of the well. Additional liner restrictions or inside diameter reduction would
further exacerbate the lack of drawdown and choke back production in the liner.
Several types of conformance chemical or products were considered, alone and in combination. These
included various polymer gels, precipitating type mixtures, various types of cement and cement-like
products, resins, etc (Ng and Adisa 1997). Single-stage treatments of a single product were initially
considered, but none of the available options were thought to meet all the criteria above. Eventually, a
combination treatment involving a polymer gel and microfine cement was selected to attempt to perform
the shutoff in the sandstone matrix. The gel would be pumped first to create a 2-ft radius of damaged
formation adjacent to the perforated interval, followed immediately by microfine cement with particle
sizes designed to achieve some matrix penetration prior to bridging off in the formation. The primary
objective of the gel is to provide a larger radius of damage for the near-wellbore pressure drop to occur
over when the well is on production; a secondary objective is to reduce injectivity so that the microfine
cement is not just pumped away into the formation. The radius of penetration of the microfine cement is
somewhat a function of permeability or pore throat size; the higher the permeability, the deeper the
microfine cement penetrates before it is likely to bridge off entirely.
SPE-173655-MS 5

Materials and Methods Used

The polymer gel chosen is from a family of rigid organic crosslinked gels that use a low molecular
weight polymer and a delayed, organic crosslinker. It was selected as it has a suitable working temperature
range for the given reservoir temperature and longer working times without the use of a retarder. The
solids-free, relatively low-viscosity gel readily penetrates the matrix and can be formulated to set up to
a very rigid gel within a few hours. This particular polymer gel has an adhesive nature and strong
intermolecular crosslink bonds. The polymer coats the matrix materials and adheres strongly. Subsequent
in-situ crosslinking achieves a rigid, continuous gel phase that effectively damages or plugs the near-
wellbore matrix. The working time on the gel was adjusted to allow penetration and crosslinking in the
formation. Since gels have a somewhat limited resistance to extrusion when high differential pressures are
applied, a tail microfine cement slurry was used to provide a more rigid near-wellbore seal less prone to
failures related to differential pressure extrusion. Fig. 4 illustrates conceptually the gel and microfine
cement shut off mechanism. Fig. 5 shows a typical gel viscosity profile. Fig. 6 is an image of a rigid gel
sample.

Figure 4 —Pictorial depiction of polymer gel and microfine cement squeeze shutoff mechanism. Note the radial penetration of both the
polymer gel and microfine cement into the matrix, and no cement nodes or restrictions inside liner.

Figure 5—Example gel setting chart for 210 °F reservoir temperature using a coiled tubing representative shear schedule.
6 SPE-173655-MS

Figure 6 —Polymer gel after setting.

As previously mentioned, much of the historical coiled tubing cement squeeze work at Prudhoe Bay has
relied on Class G cement bridging off in perforations and a filter-cake being built back into the wellbore
to effectively plug the perforations. Extensive testing has been done to fine-tune slurries and filter-cakes
for this specific application (Vorkinn and Sanders 1993). A key objective for the cement used in smaller
liners was completely contrary to this, (i.e. little or no filter-cake development or bridging in the
perforation tunnels). Ideally, maximum squeeze pressure would be achieved as the last of the cement was
pumped into the matrix, leaving no dehydrated cement inside the liner. A 14 lbm/gal microfine cement
was selected that seemed to exhibit the desired properties, primarily little bridging or filter-cake
development tendency and the ability to flow through sand-filled test fixtures in the laboratory. Formation
pore throat diameters vary throughout the field, but range up to approximately 30 ␮m in size. The average
particle size of the microfine cement is on the order of 5 ␮m. In theory, it should be possible to displace
at least some of the microfine cement into the higher-permeability zones with larger pore throats. Other
desirable properties were relatively low viscosity for pumping down coiled tubing, repeatable thickening-
time performance, little or no free water, and relatively low initial shear strength. Ultimate compressive
strength is often a key metric for cement, but for this application it was considered to be of less concern;
even a few hundred pounds per square inch of compressive strength was thought to be adequate after the
microfine cement set up within the matrix pore spaces.
Due to the use of coiled tubing for deployment of the gel (in some cases) and cement stages, it was
critical that laboratory testing closely represented the actual conditions the gel and cement were likely to
encounter. Bottomhole gauge data was collected from comparable jobs to develop detailed pressure, shear,
and temperature schedules to ensure sufficient working times for placement of treatments. Testing
schedules for the gel and the cement would include multiple stages, representing shear through surface
equipment, pumping through the coiled tubing with subsequent pressure and shear, and squeeze condi-
tions as the fluid is forced into the formation. A typical practice on coiled tubing cement squeeze jobs is
to load the well with ~100 oF seawater just prior to cementing to remove all gas and hydrocarbons from
the wellbore. This cools down the near-wellbore region somewhat, which is also factored into the gelation
and cement thickening-time schedules.
The laboratory testing sequence for the gel was as follows:
1. Ramp up from ambient temperature to ~185 °F over 35 min, with the rheometer at a shear rate of
850 sec⫺1 (simulating the pumping through coiled tubing).
2. Ramp up from 185 °F to static reservoir temperature over 200 min, with the rheometer at lower
SPE-173655-MS 7

shear rate of 100 sec⫺1.


3. Hold at reservoir temperature with the lower shear rate of 100 sec⫺1 until the test is completed.
The laboratory testing sequence for the cement was as follows:
1. Perform mixing and shearing of cement for 3 hr, representing surface equipment conditions: 90 °F
and atmospheric pressure.
2. Ramp up to 135 °F and 4,000 psi in 30 min, representing pumping the cement down the coiled
tubing.
3. Ramp up to 160 °F and 5,600 psi in 30 min, representing gradually increasing squeeze pressure
applied.
4. Ramp up to 175 °F at 5,600 psi in 60 min, representing holding squeeze pressure.
5. Ramp down to 3,500 psi in 30 min and start a 1 °F/min increase to reservoir temperature and hold
until the end of the test, representing the cement in place, and gradually warm to reservoir
temperature.
Fig. 7 and 8 illustrate the cement thickening-time performance and unconfined compressive strength
development, respectively.

Figure 7—Microfine cement slurry thickening-time chart for 214 °F, replicating shear in coiled tubing.

Figure 8 —Microfine cement slurry unconfined compressive strength development at 214 °F.

One question to resolve was a design basis for both polymer gel and the microfine cement volumes to
be pumped. It was recognized that the polymer gel may not penetrate in a uniform radial fashion adjacent
to the perforations due to permeability variations along the perforated interval. Typical job designs for gels
8 SPE-173655-MS

alone often involve a radius of several ft of penetration to account for this effect. Considering that the gel
would be backed up by a more rigid cement cap in this case, a 2-ft radius of gel in the matrix adjacent
to the perforated interval was selected as the initial design basis. This seemed to work, so has been used
consistently. The microfine cement volume was bounded by the minimum amount of cement required to
cover all perforations (generally ⬍10 bbl) and the maximum volume of the batch mixer available (45 bbl).
Generally, volumes of 20 to 45 bbl are pumped, depending on perforation interval length, liner diameter,
prejob injectivity, etc. Prejob injectivity is used as one of the key indicators of how the well is likely to
behave during treatment and how much of the conformance products to pump. There is a general bias to
err on the side of pumping more of the conformance products than less as they are a relatively small
portion of the total job cost; it is more cost effective to pump larger volumes of the conformance products
and achieve a successful squeeze the first time than to pump less of the conformance products and have
to perform multiple squeezes.
The general overall process used for candidate evaluation and gas or water shut off implementation is
as follows:
1. Drift well to verify clear access through the tubing and liner.
2. Run a production log to verify oil, gas, and water entry locations. Run additional diagnostic logs
as needed, including, for example, logs to determine the presence of cement channels, fluid
saturations or contacts, and run liner and tubing caliper surveys.
3. Verify mechanical integrity of completion via pressure testing as needed.
4. Perform injectivity test as needed if no prior injectivity data available.
5. Acidize perforations to ensure all perforations are open to accept the conformance fluids.
6. Install composite bridge plug, sand back, or other device to isolate toe perforations to be preserved.
7. Pump polymer gel followed immediately by microfine cement into the perforations above the plug.
8. Apply squeeze pressure.
9. Contaminate by jetting with a linear biopolymer and circulate out any excess gel or cement
immediately after squeeze pressure is bled off while the materials are still liquid.
10. Wait on gel/cement that is behind pipe to set.
11. Pressure test the wellbore; an underbalance or inflow test can also be performed if desired.
12. Mill out the composite plug or remove the isolation device.
13. Return well to production.
The prejob diagnostics, steps 1 to 4 above, are critical to the success of the later gas or water shut off.
They are intended to provide a thorough understanding of the well condition and gas or water entry
mechanism. The diagnostics also provide a basis for estimating project costs and predicting post-job well
performance. In some cases the prejob diagnostics may well confirm the candidate is not viable.
Obtaining representative production logging data in small-diameter liners at elevated gas rates can be
challenging. Production logging tools are typically conveyed on 1 1/2-in. or 1 3/4-in. outside diameter
coiled tubing in the horizontal wells. The coiled tubing occupies a large portion of the cross-sectional area
of the small-diameter liners and causes a significant choking effect, often to the point that there is little
or no drawdown at the toe of a horizontal well with the logging tools conveyed to the toe of the well. A
combination of wellbore hydraulics modelling along with logging data obtained is used to further assess
these candidates. Larger liners, such as 4 1/2-in. liners, do not have the same friction pressure-drop
characteristics and have been somewhat easier to diagnose.
It was thought to be important to squeeze both gel and cement into all perforations possible. In an
attempt to ensure all perforations were open to accept the conformance fluids, the perforations were
acidized immediately prior to pumping the gel and microfine cement. All perforations were acidized, both
those to be shut off and those to be preserved. The acid was then overflushed significantly to push it
farther away from the wellbore to prevent near-wellbore precipitate damage. In most cases increased
SPE-173655-MS 9

injectivity was observed during acidizing, perhaps indicating removal of perforation damage, scale, or
fines.
Many of the initial jobs were performed by pumping the polymer gel down the coiled tubing, and then
pumping a small freshwater spacer, followed by the microfine cement. The friction pressure drop related
to the gel being pumped down the coiled tubing resulted in relatively low rates and extended pump times
with larger volumes of gel. The low rates in particular led to concerns regarding freezing of the gel inside
the coiled tubing during winter Arctic operations. The treating procedure was later modified to mitigate
the freezing risk by bullheading the polymer gel down the production tubing after installing the temporary
plug back, then running in with coiled tubing and pumping the microfine cement down the coiled tubing.
Results
Coiled-tubing-deployed gas and water shut offs using the polymer gel and microfine cement technique
have been performed on approximately 30 wells over the last few years. The majority of these profile
modifications have involved shutting off gas-producing heel perforations in horizontal wells. Some of the
profile modification interventions have involved shutting off water from the heel of horizontal well.
Example case studies are provided for these two cases below. The technique has also been used in
deviated or non-horizontal wells; some caveats regarding this are noted below.
The lengths of perforation intervals squeezed/shut off have ranged from roughly 25 ft up to 1,790 ft,
with an average of 450 ft of perforations shut off. Six shots per foot is a common perforation density, so
the average number of perforations shut off was on the order of 2,700 perforations per well. The maximum
perforation length squeezed off was 1,790 ft of 6 shots/ft perforations, or 10,740 individual perforations
in a single well. Total cumulative perforation footage squeezed among all wells is on the order of 13,000
ft, or about 2.5 miles of perforated footage.
Initial success rates on the first few wells were near 100% at returning uncompetitive wells to sustained
production. The good initial success rate was likely at least somewhat due to better candidates being
performed first. More speculative candidates were attempted over the next few years. As anticipated, the
success rate decreased with poorer quality candidates. More recent success rates are on the order of 60 to
70%, with a mixture of some good candidates and some less certain candidates. Candidate quality is
primarily related to the ability to obtain definitive prejob surveillance or diagnostic logs for an accurate
understanding of where the excess gas or water is entering the wellbore.
One of the more impressive aspects of the technique is the longevity of the shutoffs, considering each
job is attempting to plug thousands of holes in the liner in the form of perforations. Post-job production
logs have been run on five wells 1 to 3 yr after the gas shut off treatment. All have shown little or no flow
from squeezed perforations.
Liner corrosion leaks have historically had a very low probability of successful repair with conven-
tional Class G cement squeeze techniques used in the past. With the current generation of small-diameter
liners, mechanical patch options are very limited due to inside diameter limitations. Two liner corrosion
leak repairs have been performed with the polymer gel and microfine cement, one to shut off gas and the
other to shut off water, both toward the heels of horizontal wells. Both were very successful, likely
because the fluid shutoff is performed in the matrix, so liner condition is less critical. However, the repair
may be relatively short term if the corrosion mechanism is still ongoing. Some other portion of the liner
may eventually corrode and begin to produce unwanted gas or water.
Case Study Well A: Horizontal Well Heel Gas Shutoff
Well A was completed with 4 1/2-in. tubing and a 4 1/2-in. liner. It was initially completed with two sets
of perforations, 250 ft of perforations nearer the heel, and 625 ft of perforations toward the toe of the
horizontal liner. Within several months of initial production, the gas/oil ratio had risen to uncompetitive
levels. The well was intermittently produced, when field gas-handling capacity allowed, over a period of
10 SPE-173655-MS

several more months, but with diminishing time on production. A coiled-tubing-conveyed production log
was run that indicated all the gas entry at the heel of the well and essentially no flow from the toe of the
well. A coiled tubing heel-gas shut off was performed using the techniques described herein to shut off
flow from the 250 ft of perforations toward the heel. The well was returned to full-time production at
competitive gas/oil ratios. A later production log confirmed the squeezed perforations were holding back
unwanted free gas. Fig. 9 provides additional detail on the horizontal wellbore trajectory, perforated
intervals, and prejob and post-job logging results. Fig. 10 shows prejob and post-job production trends.

Figure 9 —Well A example log display showing (from top down) wellbore trajectory, production profile post gas shutoff, pre squeeze
production profile, resistivity, gamma ray. A production log was run both before and after the-job.

Figure 10 —Well A production chart illustrating high gas rates, minimal time on production pre gas shut off, followed by sustained
production at lower gas rates after heel gas shutoff.
SPE-173655-MS 11

Case Study Well B: Horizontal Well Heel Water Shutoff


Well B was completed with 4 1/2-in. tubing and a 2 7/8-in. liner. It was initially completed with four sets
of perforations, 25 ft of perforations nearer the heel and 60 ft of perforations nearer the toe of the
horizontal liner. The well was producing at elevated water rates for some time. Solids production was also
suspected. It was thought that the elevated water rate was likely limiting drawdown on the well and
potentially oil rate, so a coiled-tubing-conveyed production log was run to diagnose the water entry
mechanism. The production log indicated significant water entry at the heel of the well both from the
perforations and from unperforated intervals. A liner caliper survey confirmed liner wall loss throughout
the heel portion of the liner. A coiled-tubing-deployed heel-water shutoff was performed using polymer
gel and microfine cement. The well was returned to full-time production at significantly lower water rates
and increased oil rate. No post-job production log has been run because production trends indicate a
successful water shut off. Fig. 11 provides additional detail on the horizontal wellbore trajectory,
perforated intervals, and pre squeeze logging results. Fig.12 shows prejob and post-job production trends.

Figure 11—Well B example log display showing (from top down) wellbore trajectory, assumed production profile after water shutoff,
presqueeze production profile, resistivity, gamma ray. Note flow at roughly 8825 TVDss from damaged liner. No production log has
been run after the squeeze since the well is producing as anticipated.
12 SPE-173655-MS

Figure 12—Well B production chart illustrating elevated water rates, shut-in period before water shutoff, followed by full-time
production at reduced water rate, increased oil rate after the-job.

Lessons Learned
The treatments that were unsuccessful were reviewed to determine the reason for failure and what might
be done differently to improve success. Of the unsuccessful jobs, 50% were thought to be related to
candidate selection, 30% due to low productivity index post-job, and 20% due to operational difficulties
(primarily stuck bottomhole assemblies when cement milling was required). Candidate selection was the
term used to go into all the aspects of evaluating whether a candidate was suitable. It is often difficult to
obtain accurate, representative production logs due to the choking effect caused as coiled tubing is run into
relatively small-diameter liners; the additional friction pressure drop in the liner due to the annular flow
path reduces drawdown so that it is not possible to obtain logs under normal producing conditions. In
some cases, flow instability during logging also makes log interpretation difficult. The candidates are
evaluated based on the data obtained, but if the data did not offer clear conclusions, in some cases it was
elected to proceed with the work anyway with recognition of the additional uncertainty.
Roughly 30% of the unsuccessful jobs were due to little or no productivity after the job. One caveat
with the technique is that it is critical not to place the damaging gel and microfine cement into the
perforations to be preserved. This has been successfully achieved for the most part, where it has been
possible to install composite bridge plugs in the liner. However, on one deviated well (nonhorizontal), the
bottom perforations were sanded back, and the polymer and microfine cement were pumped above this
sand to shut off gas from the upper perforations. There was approximately 20 ft of blank pipe between
the upper and lower perforations. It seems that somehow the damaging conformance fluids entered the
perforations to be preserved and damaged them also. It was not possible to reestablish flow from the well
even after reperforating, adding perforations, performing an injection test, and performing an oxidizer type
treatment. It is uncertain how the damaging fluids reached the lower perforations; possibilities include
flow through the sand back, flow behind pipe, and inaccurate depth control. In a few cases, the
productivity of the post-job producing perforations was simply too low for sustained flow without
recurring hydrates, unrelated to gel or cement damage. This example highlights both the effectiveness of
the treatment and the need to be extremely careful with conformance fluid placement.
SPE-173655-MS 13

Twenty percent of the unsuccessful jobs were due to the microfine cement setting up in the wellbore
prior to circulating out the excess cement; the coiled tubing milling bottomhole assemblies later got stuck
during milling, and fishing was not successful. To avoid cement setting up inside the liner it is
recommended to limit hesitation time to well less than the planned or laboratory test thickening-time. If
squeeze pressure is not obtained after some hesitation, either circulate out any excess microfine cement
or overdisplace it into the formation. Criteria were established for when to perform an immediate
resqueeze if all the gel and cement are pumped away without obtaining the desired squeeze pressure. If
injectivity was low (⬍0.25 bbl/min at 1,000 psi) after pumping all the conformance materials behind pipe,
in some cases no additional conformance products were pumped and a successful pressure test was
obtained a few days later after the materials had time to set up.
On one well, the polymer gel alone was pumped initially, and it was not possible to follow with
microfine cement for several days due to difficulty entering the liner top with the coiled tubing nozzle.
Consideration was given to using only the gel as the conformance fluid and not following up with the
microfine cement in this well to see if both products were needed. The gel was allowed to set up for
several days, until well past full gelation time. An injectivity test was performed to verify that the desired
zone was effectively isolated. Relatively good injectivity was observed with only the polymer gel in the
formation, which provided little confidence it would not flow back and begin producing excess gas soon
after drawdown was applied. It was decided to pump the microfine cement to ensure the desired interval
was fully isolated.
One potential concern with the polymer gel and microfine cement was adverse interactions if the two
products were allowed to mix in the wellbore. Laboratory testing confirmed that a rubbery substance could
form with various combinations of the products. (Fig. 13 and 14) The solution adopted was to ensure
adequate water spacers were placed between the polymer gel and microfine cement to keep them
adequately separate until they were in the formation. However, the rubbery type substance seems almost
desirable as a formation damaging conformance type product for gas and water shut off.

Figure 13—50/50/mix of polymer gel and microfine cement with excessive gelation observed in mixing cup during laboratory testing
for gel/cement interactions.
14 SPE-173655-MS

Figure 14 —50/50 mix of polymer gel and microfine cement resulted in rubbery substance that was pulled out of mixing cup on mixing
paddle during laboratory testing for gel/cement interactions.

Summary and Conclusions


1. Coiled-tubing-deployed gas and water shutoffs using a combination of a hardening polymer gel
followed immediately by a microfine cement have been performed on approximately 30 wells in
Alaska.
2. The technique has allowed heel gas and water shutoff attempts in horizontal wells where there
were few remediation options in the past.
3. The technique has been used to squeeze up to 1,790 ft of perforations at 6 shots/ft in single well.
Total cumulative perforation footage squeezed is approximately 13,000 ft.
4. The coiled tubing polymer gel and microfine cement technique has been successfully used to shut
off unwanted fluids from liner damage or corrosion leaks; few options were available to address
this issue prior to development of this method.
5. When the job is successfully executed, there is no cement to be milled out of the liner and no
reduction of liner inside diameter after the job.
6. Post-job production logs performed on five wells to date confirmed negligible squeezed perfora-
tion leakage even 1 to 2 yr after the job; these initial data seem to indicate the technique may be
providing a longer-lasting seal than prior methods used.
7. It is critical to ensure that the conformance fluids are not allowed to contact the perforations to be
preserved; they may be permanently damaged if this happens.

Acknowledgements
We thank the management of BP Exploration (Alaska) and the Prudhoe Bay Working Interest Owners for
allowing us to prepare and publish this paper. We would also like to recognize the innovative efforts of
the various incarnations of the Prudhoe Bay Production Engineering and Well Interventions groups over
the years that have led to the evolution and implementation of various profile modification techniques.
Views expressed represent those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Prudhoe Bay Working
Interest Owners.
SPE-173655-MS 15

References
Harrison, T.W. and Blount, C.G. 1986. Coiled Tubing Squeeze Cement Technique at Prudhoe Bay,
Alaska. Presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Oakland, California, USA, 2– 4 April.
SPE-15104-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15104-MS.
Hornbrook P.R. and Mason, C.M. 1989. Improved Coiled-Tubing Squeeze-Cementing Techniques at
Prudhoe Bay. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 8 –11 October. SPE-19543-MS.
Loveland, K.R. and Bond, A.J. 1996. Recent Applications of Coiled Tubing in Remedial Wellwork
at Prudhoe Bay. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA,
26 –27 May. SPE-35587-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/35587-MS.
Lai, Q.J., Bond, A.J., Cahalane, T.W. et alet al. 1999. Gel-Cement Combination Squeezes for Gas
Shutoff. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 26 –28 May.
SPE-54596-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/54596-MS.
Ng, R.C. and Adisa, O.L. 1997. Coiled Tubing Resin Squeeze to Mitigate Water Production in
Offshore Gravelpack Wells. presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 5-8 October. SPE-38836-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/38836-MS.
Vorkinn, P.B. and Sanders, G.S. 1993. Cement Slurry Qualification, Field Mixing, and Quality
Assurance Procedures for Coiled-Tubing Squeeze Operations in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Presented
at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 26 –28 May. SPE-26089-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26089-MS.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy