Development and Implementation of a

Scale-Management Strategy for

Oseberg Sr
Niall Fleming, SPE, Kari Ramstad, SPE, Synnve H. Eriksen, SPE, Erlend Moldrheim, SPE, and
Thomas Rudberg Johansen, SPE, Hydro Oil & Energy
Summary
Oseberg Sr field, operated by Hydro Oil & Energy, is situated
130 km west of the Norwegian coast on the eastern flank of the
Viking Graben structure. It comprises a sequence of fault-bounded
structural units of varying geological complexity. Within these
units, the reservoir intervals are of moderate to poor quality and
can exhibit strong contrasts in permeability and formation water
composition. Reservoir support is provided by combined injection
of gas and Utsira aquifer water. The wells are a combination of
platform and subsea and comprise extended reach horizontals with
complex geometry and lesser numbers of vertical wells.
Detailed scale predictions have been performed to identify the
scaling risk for each producer. From these, it was identified that
the major risk to well performance and integrity was CaCO
3
pre-
cipitation in the upper tubing with potential failure of the down-
hole safety valve. The risk varied from negligible to severe and
reflected the variable composition of the produced water and well
operating conditions. The scale predictions provided the basis for
a technical and economic evaluation to identify an appropriate
scale-management strategy for Oseberg Sr. For those wells com-
pleted with downhole chemical injection lines, the option to use
these for scale inhibition was considered cost effective. In other
wells where this option was not available, scale inhibitor injection
into the gas lift system or squeezing using a viscosified treatment
was considered viable.
The paper will provide the technical and economic reasoning
for the scale-management strategy selected along with field case
histories for each treatment type (i.e., experience with treatment
using chemical injection lines, injection of scale inhibitor into the
gas lift system, and squeezing).
Overview of Oseberg Sr Field
Oseberg Sr field began the first oil production in 2000 and will
continue to expand with an active drilling program to 2010 and
beyond. The field currently comprises 16 producers, of which 13
are platform wells and three are producing wells from subsea
templates (Fig. 1). These wells are supported by a combination of
Utsira aquifer water and WAG (water-alternating-gas) injectors.
The decision to use the Utsira water (Table 1) rather than seawater
for reservoir support was made early in the field planning phase
(Lien et al. 1998). As a result, sulphate scaling of the near-wellbore
and tubing is eliminated and the only concern is carbonate scale
forming in the upper tubing.
The Jurassic Reservoir targets include channel deposits of un-
certain connectivity, deltaic sequences with associated turbidites,
and deepening upward sequence going to deep marine, pelagic
deposits. North-south trending faults are common and associated
with the formation of the Viking Graben. These faults can com-
partmentalize the field into reservoir units of distinct formation
water composition, temperature, and pressure characteristics
(Table 1). The typical reservoir temperature is 107C, and initial
reservoir pressure was approximately 290 bar (current reservoir
pressure ranges between 150 and 300 bar).
Well geometry is complex and controlled by reservoir and
structural geology. A typical Oseberg Sr well is horizontal, but
the well pathway can be tortuous as it passes from one structural
unit to the next.
Development of a Downhole
Scale-Management Strategy
Mineral scale is a commom problem in the oil and gas production
industry. Precipitation and deposition of CaCO
3
may occur dur-
ing pressure decrease of the produced water. Determination of
scaling risk, possible prevention strategy, and proper treatment
options are of great importance to field performance (Hinrichsen
and Edgerton 1998).
The rationale behind the development of a scale-management
strategy for Oseberg Sr was to evaluate the risk for scale genera-
tion downhole with respect to asset integrity and the economic
impact on oil revenue generation. With regards to asset integrity,
the principle area of focus was CaCO
3
scaling of the downhole
safety valve with implied platform security issues (Ramstad et al.
2005; Lewis et al. 2003). These safety valves are tested in general
once each month depending on the scaling severity. Failure of the
valve because of scale results in significant downtime with enor-
mous consequences for lost revenue. A worst-case example of this
would be failure of the downhole safety valve (DHSV) in one of
the subsea wells. In this situation, the well could be shut in for up
to 4 weeks depending on weather conditions, mobilization of an
intervention boat or floating rig and chemicals, and performing an
acid and scale squeeze job. Under such circumstances, lost revenue
could accumulate up to approximately USD 15,000,000. In con-
sequence, the approach of Hydro on Oseberg Sr has been to
perform a scaling risk analysis to identify where in the system the
problems could occur and, on the basis of this, pre-emptively treat
the wells. Various treatment strategies have been considered, tech-
nically evaluated, and costed. The choice of strategy selected was
well-dependent and was related to completion type, well geometry,
and the effectiveness of product deployment on scale mitigation.
With respect to the scale inhibitor deployed, a key aspect of the
strategy, and in line with Hydros policy, was the selection of
chemicals that showed minimal environmental impact. The Nor-
wegian sectors environmentally acceptable chemicals (yellow or
green) are classified as (Law 2001):
PLONOR-list (Pose Little or No Risk to the Environment).
Biodegradability >60% and toxicity >10 mg/l or Log P
ow
<3
(bioaccumulation).
Biodegradability 20 to 60% and toxicity >10 mg/l and Log
P
ow
<3.
Inorganic and toxicity >1 mg/l.
Chemicals of environmental concern and should be replaced
are defined as red and classified as follows:
Biodegradability <20%.
Biodegradability 20 to 60%and Log P
ow
>3 (toxicity irrelevant).
Biodegradability 20 to 60% and toxicity <10 mg/l (Log
P
ow
irrelevant)
Toxicity <10 and Log P
ow
>3 (biodegradability irrelevant).
Inorganic and toxicity <1 mg/l.
Copyright 2007 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 100371) was accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE International
Oilfield Scale Symposium, Aberdeen, 30 May1 June. Original manuscript received for
review 27 February 2006. Revised manuscript received 18 October 2006. Paper peer
approved 26 October 2006.
307 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
Products not falling into these categories are only considered
for use if they are necessary for safety requirements. These prod-
ucts are defined as follows:
Degradability <20% and Log P
ow
>5.
Degradability <20% and toxicity <10 mg/l.
Hormonal disrupters, organo-halogens, radioactive, etc.
The principal difference between Norway and the other
producing countries within the North Sea is that Norway will
only accept biodegradation tests performed in seawater. For the
other countries, freshwater test results are acceptable. As a re-
sult, many products regarded as biodegradable by other
countries are considered persistent in Norway and therefore cannot
be used.
Downhole Scale PredictionsThe Basis of the Strategy. Mul-
tiSCALE (2004) software simulations have been used for evalu-
ating scaling potential in wells on the Omega Sr (X-wells),
Omega Nord (Y-wells), and K-structures (Z-wells) of the Oseberg
Sr Field. The MultiSCALE code calculates thermodynamic equi-
libria based on water chemistry and PVT data in a Pitzer ion model
system. The Technical University of Trondheimin a project sup-
ported by Hydro, Statoil, and the former Sagadeveloped this
software. Within these companies, it has become the standard
scale-prediction software because of its flexibility and accuracy of
results obtained. Reservoir oil composition, formation water com-
position, lift gas composition, reservoir gas cap composition, and
pressure vs. temperature data from the top of the perforated inter-
val to wellhead were used in the model to predict scale potential.
Representative water compositions are given in Table 1. Organic
acids were not measured. The model assumed equilibrium with a
saturation ratio (SR) of 1.0 in the reservoir and calculated SRs
upward in the wells as a function of pressure, temperature, and
Fig. 1Oseberg Sr field map.
308 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
fluid property changes. Details of the methodology used, and as-
sumptions made in the calculations, are given in the Appendix.
The principal objective of this phase in the strategy develop-
ment was to rank wells according to the calculated scaling risk.
Using MultiSCALE simulations, the saturation ratios and maxi-
mum amount of carbonate scale precipitated were assessed for
each well and the effects of gas lift evaluated. In Fig. 2, SR in the
produced water from Well X-24 is plotted against pressure. The
conditions were: Wellhead 16 bar and 96C; DHSV 26 bar and
98C; gas-lift valve (GLV) 118 bar and 106.6C, and reservoir 218
bar and 107.5C.
The scale predictions performed in the present study show that
the Omega Nord wells have a negligible scaling risk, whereas all
other wells on Oseberg Sr have a variable risk of CaCO
3
scale in
the tubing. For some of the wells, there was a general trend of
increasing CaCO
3
risk on moving upward with a significant risk in
the vicinity of the downhole safety valve at approximately 300 m
measured depth (MD). It was also observed that the SR was low-
ered by 0.1 to 0.3 at the gas lift valve. This is caused by the
addition of CO
2
from the lift gas into the water phase giving a
lower pH and is in agreement with the experience from the Os-
eberg st field and others (Ramstad et al. 2005; Kaasa et al. 2000).
The gas lift gas composition is given in Table 2. Based on the
calculations, the wells were ranked as follows according to the
scaling risk, with particular emphasis paid to CaCO
3
precipitation
in the vicinity of the downhole safety valve.
Significant: X-17 and X-24.
Moderate: X-19, X-22, X-25, X-28, Z-11, and Z-13.
Low: Y-33, Y-37, Y-43, and Y-44.
When ranking the wells, parameters such as well pressure and
temperature profiles, production rates, gas-lift rate, and drawdown
were considered. Any changes in production conditions might
change the scaling potential, and careful monitoring of the well
performance was recommended. After ranking of the wells, the
next step was to consider the scale-management strategy.
Technical Evaluation of Scale-Management Strategies Consid-
ered. As stated earlier, the choice of strategy selected was well-
dependent and related to completion type, well geometry, and the
effectiveness of product deployment on scale mitigation. During
the development phase of Oseberg Sr, it was decided that all
wells would be completed with a downhole chemical injection
line. A further decision made at this stage was that reservoir sup-
port would be provided by injection of the Utsira aquifer water.
Based on scaling experiences from the Brage Field, injection of
seawater was not recommended (Lien et al. 1998). Consequently,
only CaCO
3
was expected to form mainly in the upper part of the
tubing. Therefore, the installation of chemical injection lines at
well completion was considered a cost-effective means of scale
treatment. The chemical injection line allows the transport of scale
inhibitor from topside down through the annulus, where it is re-
leased into the production stream. For Oseberg Sr, the well
completions are designed such that the outlet of the chemical in-
jection line is typically of 100 m total vertical depth (TVD) over
the top of the perforated interval. However, as will be demon-
strated later, the experience on Oseberg Sr with injection lines has
been less than favorable, with several lines blocked.
The completions for all platform wells on Oseberg Sr include
the facility for gas lift. Hydro has had positive experience with the
use of scale inhibitors injected into the gas lift system on another
North Sea field. Therefore, for those wells with a nonfunctioning
chemical injection line, the injection of inhibitor into the gas-lift
stream was considered an option. The inhibitor is injected with the
Fig. 2MultiSCALE
TM
predictions of the SR of CaCO
3
in produced water from Well X-24 plotted as a function of pressure and
temperature.
309 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
gas at the wellhead, where it passes down the annulus and collects
in the annulus sump to a level immediately below the gas-
lift valve. Movement of gas over the surface of the inhibitor causes
it to be carried through the gas-lift valve and into the produc-
tion stream.
For subsea wells with a nonfunctioning chemical injection line,
the only option available was squeeze treatment. The objective in
this case was to have sufficient release of inhibitor into the
production stream to protect the downhole safety valve in the
upper part of the tubing rather than prevent scale formation around
the perforations.
Squeeze treatment was also considered for the horizontal plat-
form wells. Because scale was expected in the upper tubing, the
main consideration with squeeze treatment here and with the sub-
sea wells was to avoid significant inhibitor loss to the well heel and
have as much inhibitor as possible within the near-wellbore region
(1 to 2 m) for the first third to half of the perforated interval. It was
hoped that this strategy could increase the volume of water pro-
tected against CaCO
3
precipitation and, therefore, reduce the num-
ber of treatments.
One of the main technical and economic considerations in the
development of a scale-management strategy for Oseberg Sr was
gas-lift scale inhibition vs. squeeze treatment for the platform
wells. In Well X-24, inhibitor injection into the lift gas was initi-
ated in June 2004 and had functioned very effectively in protecting
the downhole safety valve. Inhibitor deployment in this well was
out of necessity, because previously there had been failures of the
safety valve that required acid washes. In addition, the X-24 brine
composition was unique in Oseberg Sr and had a severe CaCO
3
scaling potential (Table 1). Therefore, scale treatment through the
gas-lift system had a proven track record in this field. However, it
was considered appropriate to undertake a technical evaluation of
squeeze treatments for the other platform wells that had a much
lower scaling potential to determine relative effectiveness of
squeezing vs. gas-lift inhibitors.
Nonviscosified vs. Viscosified Squeeze Treatment. As part of
the technical evaluation, the value of viscosifying the squeeze
treatment was considered. Considerable focus has been directed to
the development of viscosified squeeze applications in horizontal
wells (James et al. 2005). The rationale for this is to achieve better
inhibitor placement in these wells and therefore a longer squeeze
lifetime. In simple terms, improved placement is achieved by lim-
iting the volume of inhibitor entering higher permeability intervals,
with more inhibitor volume available for placement along the pro-
duction interval(s). Squeezing is normally performed to protect
against scale formation in the producing interval(s). However, in
the case of Oseberg Sr, the objective of squeezing was to protect
the upper tubing.
Well X-28 was used as the candidate well to evaluate vis-
cosified squeezing. This is a tortuous horizontal well that crosses
different formations and through the gas cap and oil/water pro-
ducing intervals (Fig. 3). Consequently, multiphase flow occurs
in the well. Placement strategy was to preferentially place
chemical along approximately the first 500 m of the production
zone and to minimize the volume of scale inhibitor entering
the heel.
Extensive placement modeling has been performed using the
Place-iT software package (Stalker et al. 2006). This soft-
ware has come as a result of a joint industry project and is spe-
cifically designed to examine near-wellbore radial placement of
non-Newtonian (shear-thinning) fluids during inhibitor squeeze
applications. The placement model has been validated using core-
floods, and by correlation with an industry-standard reservoir
simulation package.
In the placement modeling undertaken with Place-iT, con-
sideration was given to localized pressure gradients, layer pressure
quality, crossflow, reservoir heterogeneity, viscous fingering
caused by high viscosity contrast between the injected fluid and
fluid in place, and frictional effects. The general conclusions from
this modeling were that more even placement could be simulated
using shear-thinning viscous fluids at different flowrates when
compared to nonviscosified products. Primarily, this relates to
their ability to overcome effects relating to crossflow and also to
minimize injectivity differences caused by the main fluid type (oil,
water, or gas) produced from the different intervals.
One of the important observations made from the modeling was
that enhanced placement into lower-permeability zones can have a
positive or negative effect on squeeze lifetime, depending on
which zones produce water. Placing more chemical into lower-
permeability, gas-producing zones before these begin to produce
water was shown to reduce the return profile initially. However, it
benefited the late stages of squeeze returns by giving a boost in
Fig. 3Well pathway of Well X-28.
310 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
inhibitor concentration as water breakthrough occurred in
these intervals.
In addition to the modeling, laboratory testing was undertaken
to determine the efficiency of the breaker. A breaker was incor-
porated into the squeeze package to reduce viscosity to approxi-
mately 1 cp at ambient temperature after 12 hours to ease well
startup. The testing demonstrated that there was no impairment to
inhibitor performance with and without the breaker. In addition,
permeability from coreflooding showed a 99% recovery after treat-
ment with the viscous package, indicating that it was nondamaging
(Table 3). It should be noted that there is a marked difference
in the absolute brine permeability measurement (approximately
750 mD) and the pretreatment brine permeability at S
or
due to
kaolinite mobilization.
To determine the real benefits of viscosified treatments, it was
decided to take Well X-28 that had previously not been squeezed
and compare the results of treatment with a nonviscosified fol-
lowed by a viscosified package. The key performance indicator
would be the volume of water protected to minimum inhibitor
concentration (MIC). At the time of this writing, the well has had
a nonviscosified squeeze and is planned to be squeezed with a
viscosified treatment once MIC is reached.
Economic Evaluation of Scale-Management Strategies Consid-
ered. Aside from the technical evaluation of the scale-management
strategies, an important aspect was to determine the relative long-
term economic impact for each strategy. The combination of
technical and economic evaluations would then allow the optimum
scale-management strategy for Oseberg Sr to be defined. Given
the uncertainties in field development, it was decided to limit
the economic forecast to 3 years ahead. In line with Hydros
policy, the cost per barrel of oil was set at USD 25.00. Certain
assumptions had to be made when making the forecast that in-
cluded the following:
1. Deferred oil production after squeezing was taken on 1 day
for platform wells and 1.5 days for subsea wells. This difference
was because of the observed delay in the subsea wells reaching the
same production level after squeezing that was performed before.
2. Oil and water production per well was defined to be the same
as at the time of doing the economic evaluation.
3. Volume of lift gas per well was also taken to be the same as
that measured during the evaluation period.
4. Squeeze lifetime was taken to be 9 months and was based on
the forecast of the subsea well Z-13. For any 1 year, this would
mean either 1 or 2 squeezes for each well, depending on when in
the previous year a squeeze was performed. This was reflected in
the economic forecast per well.
The fixed costs were scale inhibitor per liter, boat hire for
squeezing the subsea wells, along with manhours and equipment
hire from the service company.
Tables 4 through 6 show the 3-year forecasts per well for the
scale management strategies considered. As the tables clearly dem-
onstrate, the most cost-effective means of downhole scale man-
agement was by way of the chemical injection lines. Unfortu-
nately, on Oseberg Sr only two of the wells that are cutting water
have lines that function (X-17 and X-22). The cost of nonfunc-
tioning lines to the field is enormous, with squeezing and gas-lift
scale inhibition significantly more expensive and technically more
challenging. With regards to squeezing, the main cost element is
that of deferred oil rather than chemical/operational costs. This is
particularly so for Z-13 such that at the time of writing, this evalu-
ation typically produced approximately 2,000 Sm
3
oil per day.
Each squeeze on X-13 is calculated to cost USD 647,000, of which
approximately USD 143,000 (22% of total) is allocated to chemi-
cal/manning cost plus boat hire. If the current oil price of approxi-
mately USD 70/bbl is considered instead of the Hydro-specified
USD 25/bbl, the percentage difference between deferred oil and
chemical/operational cost would be significantly greater.
For injection of inhibitor into the gas-lift system, the major
control on cost was the gas-lift rate. As has been demonstrated in
the laboratory (Fleming et al. 2003), the inhibitor must be injected
at a level that is lower than the gas:scale inhibitor (SI) ratio that
gives gunking, especially in the gas-lift valve. X-28 has a rela-
tively high gas-lift injection rate of 200 000 Sm
3
/d. Therefore, a
high inhibitor dosage was calculated to avoid gunking, and this is
reflected in the costing given in Table 6. X-24 does not need to be
gas-lifted to produce effectively and, therefore, inhibitor injection
was not controlled by gas volume. The major control on gas-lift
scale-inhibition cost for this well was the relatively high concen-
tration of inhibitor required to control the severe CaCO
3
scaling in
the vicinity of the downhole safety valve.
From the technical and economic evaluation, it is apparent that
inhibitor application through the chemical injection lines was the
best option and should continue for X-17 and X-22. For the other
platform wells, the main decision was injection of inhibitor into the
gas-lift system vs. squeezing. Technically gas-lift inhibition was
considered the most effective means of protecting the downhole
safety valve. However, given the large cost difference between the
two forms of scale management, it was decided to go for squeez-
ing. The exception to this was X-24, where the scaling regime in
the upper tubing dictated a much higher scale-inhibitor concentra-
tion than could be achieved through squeezing.
Implementation of the Downhole
Scale-Management Strategy on Oseberg Sr
This section will detail the experiences with the downhole scale-
management methods employed on Oseberg Sr. Three case his-
tories will be described as follows:
1. Chemical injection lines.
2. Gas-lift scale inhibition.
3. Squeezing subsea wells.
Chemical Injection Lines. Continuous injection of scale inhibitor
is the most reliable method for preventing scale formation (Hin-
richsen and Edgerton 1998). Other than monitoring of the water
cut in the well to ensure correct inhibitor dosage, it requires mini-
mal maintenance. On Oseberg Sr, one of the major challenges
with respect to the chemical injection lines is achieving commu-
nication between the surface injection point and the downhole
outlet. There are various reasons for this, but one of the major
controls on downhole inhibitor injection is that the internal diam-
eter of the line narrows from 7 mm (ID) to 0.7 mm as it passes
through the annulus safety valve (Fig. 4). This is a consequence of
311 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
space limitations within the valve. The line functions in only two
wells (X-17 and X-22) that are cutting water.
The first instance in which a problem was observed involved
the chemical injection line in X-28. This well had been in produc-
tion for more than 1 year and with a water cut>50%, it had become
necessary to initiate downhole inhibitor injection to avoid scaling
of the tubing. As with other lines, the one in X-28 was filled with
a glycol-based liquid on well completion that functions to prevent
corrosion and hydrate formation. Hydrate blocking of chemical
injection lines caused by gas leakage has been reported in the
literature (Osa et al. 2001). Laboratory tests had proven that the
liquid contained within the line would be compatible with the scale
inhibitor. However, upon injection of the inhibitor, the line was
pressured up and bled off 11 times without achieving communi-
cation with the outlet.
On the basis of the experiences previously described, a new
approach was taken to begin injection of scale inhibitor by way of
the downhole chemical injection line at well startup. In February
2005, production started from X-25, and downhole inhibitor in-
jection was initiated at a low flowrate (1 l/h) into a production
stream consisting solely of oil.
In July 2005, a caliper run was performed on this well that
encountered a sudden decrease in inner tubing diameter (2- to
3-in.) 2 m over the chemical injection line outlet. There was ob-
served some deposit on the tractor when it returned to the surface.
Analysis of the deposit showed it to be CaPO
4
, a surprising result
given that the well continued to produce without water. The only
source of P was from the phosphate ester scale inhibitor that had
been injected downhole. From an analysis of events at well startup,
it was realized that injection of the scale inhibitor had begun ap-
proximately 24 hours too early when the tubing was filled with
CaCl
2
completion fluid rather than oil. The inhibitor was incom-
patible with the elevated Ca
2+
concentrations and had precipitated.
This reduction in internal diameter over approximately a 2-m sec-
tion had fortunately not reduced well performance.
Fig. 5 shows the production history of X-25 from well start up
to January 2006. Oil production stabilized at approximately 800
Sm
3
/d before showing a sharp decrease in August 2005. In addi-
tion, the gas/oil ratio (GOR) had increased steadily from well
startup to approximately 600 Sm
3
/Sm
3
in August and September.
In September 2005, large variations in the chemical injection line
pressure occurred from 50 to >200 bar (the typical operating pres-
sure was 10 bar). Furthermore, the bottomhole pressure (BHP)
began to vary unexpectedly, which made steering of the well dif-
ficult. It was realized that there was a relationship between line
pressure and BHP with high line pressure equivalent to the periods
with low BHP pressure. The BHP gauge was placed 10-m down-
stream of the outlet to the chemical injection line. When the line
suddenly depressurised, it caused a pressure surge immediately
above the line outlet and was reflected in a spike in BHP.
The previously described events of decreasing production, in-
creasing GOR, and variation in line and tubing pressures could be
explained by gunking of the scale inhibitor (Fleming et al. 2003).
Vapor loss from the scale inhibitor to free gas would cause gunk-
ing. With no produced water, the gunk had begun to progressively
choke the well, causing the production decrease and periodically
blocking the outlet of the chemical injection line, causing pressure
variation. As soon as this was realized, continuous injection of
inhibitor was stopped, with the line being tested once each week
for 1 hour. In October, with oil production down to 300 Sm
3
/d, an
intervention was planned with a glycol soak to redissolve the
gunked inhibitor. This job was successful and oil production in-
creased to 600 Sm
3
/d.
X-25 was the last well on Oseberg Sr completed with a chemi-
cal injection line that narrowed to 0.7 mm within the annulus
safety valve (ASV). Now all new wells are completed with a 7-mm
line that narrows to 3.86 mm through the ASV. Oseberg Sr has
had no problems with the injection of inhibitor through these
new lines.
Gas-Lift Scale Inhibitors. Well X-24 is a severe CaCO
3
well with
failure of the downhole safety valve occurring after 4 days with no
scale inhibition. It is characterized by a much higher Ca
2+
con-
centration in the produced water than the other Oseberg Sr wells
(1,200 ppm compared to a more typical 700 ppm, Table 1), and it
is this that gives it a high scaling risk in the upper tubing. The well
started production in July 2002 with first water breakthrough in
October 2002. By mid-May 2004 with a water cut of approxi-
mately 50% and having performed three acid jobs, it was apparent
that a strategy was required to protect the downhole safety valve
against scale formation. Given the success of treating wells on a
similar field (Fleming et al. 2003) with gas-lift scale inhibition, it
was decided to investigate the possibility of deploying this on Well
X-24. With deployment of this type, the inhibitor must not gunk
under high gas to product ratios; it had to be thermal-stable with
injection gas at temperatures up to 150C, and it had to show low
corrosivity with the completion. After a laboratory evaluation of
gas-lift scale inhibitors that followed procedures given in paper
SPE 80374, injection of inhibitor began in June 2004. Injection
started at 7 l/h from the wellhead with the first detection of scale
inhibitor in the produced water 12 hours later. The required con-
centration of the injected scale inhibitor product in the production
stream was 250 ppm, of which 10% was pure scale inhibitor, and
90% was a solvent blend. With 7 l/h injection, the product was
detected to be lower than MIC, and therefore injection was in-
creased accordingly, Fig. 6. At this injection rate, there was con-
siderable variation in scale inhibitor detected, but the concentration
was for the most part higher than MIC. The variation in concen-
tration showed no obvious relationship with gas-injection rate,
which is perhaps one area where better understanding is required
of the exact physical controls on inhibitor transport through the
gas-lift valve and into the production stream.
In the later half of 2004, scaling of the DHSV in F-24 occurred
during optimization of the inhibitor dosage into the lift gas system.
312 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
Similarly, in February 2005, there was scaling of the DHSV, but
the reason in this case was that severe weather had caused a delay
to inhibitor supply to the platform. This failure had occurred after
4 days with no scale-inhibitor injection and indicated the severity
of the scaling problem. Most importantly, it indicated that the
injection of scale inhibitor was effective in protecting the down-
hole safety valve when dosed at the correct concentration. An acid
job was performed, and normal operations were restarted.
In May 2005, as part of a PLT logging campaign, a caliper log
was run on X-24 (Figs. 7 and 8). This indicated a progressive
increase in CaCO
3
scale thickness on moving upward from the
gas-lift injection valve. The maximum thickness of scale was ob-
served 50 to 100 m below the downhole safety valve (296-m MD)
where the internal tubing diameter had decreased from 4.75 to 3.5
in. The lack of scale further up in the tubing was caused by pre-
vious acid treatments in the area down to the safety valve. It was
observed that the scaling profile found by the caliper replicated
very well the predicted amount of scale with the greatest amount
in the vicinity of the DHSV. However, there had been no failures
of the safety valve during inhibitor injection. Therefore, the scale
was interpreted as having formed either before the start of inhibitor
injection in June 2004 or during the scaling events of late 2004
and/or February 2005.
In June 2005, an acid job was undertaken in which a viscous
pill was used to suspend the dissolver within the tubing to allow
correct placement. Soaking with acid combined with brushing was
seen as the optimum method for scale removal. A second caliper
run was performed after the acid soak and showed that most of the
tubing was clean other than a zone between 1,100 and 500 m,
where 0.25-in.-thick scale remained (Fig. 7). Before the acid job,
the oil production was approximately 450 Sm
3
/d, but this increased
to 850 Sm
3
/d after the treatment. The buildup in reservoir pressure
during shut in was the main contributor to this increase, while the
increase in tubing diameter gave an extra 100 Sm
3
/d oil.
One general operating experience from gas-lift scale inhibitor
application is that no gunking has been observed at any point
within the gas-lift system. Furthermore, after optimization of the
scale inhibitor dosing into the gas-lift system, there have been no
failures of the downhole safety valve.
Squeezing Subsea Wells. The K template is situated approxi-
mately 14 km southwest of Oseberg Sr platform and comprises
two producers (Z-11 and Z-13) and two injectors (Z-12 and Z-14).
Fig. 4Schematic of the chemical injection line.
Fig. 5Well X-25 production history.
313 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
This section will describe a case history from the squeezing of the
subsea Well Z-13.
The well began production in August 2000 and initially pro-
duced at an oil rate of approximately 3,000 Sm
3
/d (Fig. 9). In
mid-2003, the oil rate increased to approximately 4,000 Sm
3
/d and
remained stable until August 2004, when the well was choked back
for a period to minimize sand production. Water cut continued to
rise throughout 2004 and into 2005. In April 2005, with the water
cut at 47% (1,900 Sm
3
water/d), it was decided to pre-emptively
squeeze the well. An increase in wellhead temperature to approxi-
mately 100C caused by increasing water cut gave the potential for
CaCO
3
formation in the upper tubing (Fig. 10). Therefore, there
was a technical argument to protect the downhole safety valve.
Furthermore, given the high oil production, there was a strong
economic argument to avoid potential downtime caused by scaling
of the downhole safety valve. In the selection of the most appro-
priate inhibitor for squeezing, a major factor was the potential
squeeze lifetime achievable, particularly for the subsea wells. A
further consideration was ease of inhibitor detection to monitor the
squeeze performance.
Z-13 is a deviated well and produces more than a 32-m perfo-
rated interval (Fig. 11). Given the high cost of squeezing this well
(Table 5), it was decided to go for a large squeezed volume of 290
m
3
of a 10% scale inhibitor solution that would be placed approxi-
mately 1 to 5 m in from the wellbore with a 15-m
3
preflush and
overflush. Because this was the first squeeze on the well, the
Fig. 7Details of caliper runs before and after acid job in Well X-24 in May/June 2005.
Fig. 6Well X-24 gas lift scale-inhibitor return profile.
314 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
volume of produced water protected higher than MIC (1 ppm) was
conservatively estimated at 250 000 Sm
3
.
The major challenge was an operational one of pumping the
squeeze to ensure correct placement. Scale treatments of subsea
wells by way of bull heading over large distances have been re-
ported earlier (Breng et al. 1999). Inhibitor injection through the
chemical injection line would have given limited pump rate. Be-
cause of the short perforation interval, there was no need for use of
diverting agents. It was decided that the most effective means of
delivering the chemical was by way of the water injection system
that could achieve a pump rate of 3,000 l/min. During the opera-
tion, a boat would be required to control the remotely operated
vehicle (ROV) that would switch the water injection line to the
Z-13 wellhead as soon as the entire injection water line volume
had been displaced into the injector by the squeeze package train.
Given the high pump rates, timing would be critical to prevent
some of the squeeze chemical going into the injector.
In April 2005, the job was performed successfully. To date, >1
350 000 Sm
3
(8 500 000 bbl) of water has been protected higher
than the MIC of 1 ppm with no failures of the downhole safety
valve (Fig. 12). One of the learning experiences from this opera-
tion is that within a short production interval with high flowrates,
it is possible to squeeze scale inhibitor relatively deep into the
reservoir (in this case, approximately 5 to 6 m from the wellbore)
to maximize squeeze lifetime.
Conclusions
1. The development and implementation of a downhole scale-
management strategy for Oseberg Sr has involved a detailed
technical and economic assessment of the technology available
and their long-term financial impact.
2. The primary economic decision has been to pre-emptively treat
wells to protect the downhole safety valve from CaCO
3
scale.
This was considered important because the cost implications for
lost production revenue caused by valve failure, well shut in,
and subsequent acid wash far outweighed the cost of performing
the pre-emptive treatment.
3. The choice of technology used to prevent scale has in part been
controlled by well completion (especially a functioning chemi-
cal injection line) and also by treatment economics (squeezing
vs. gas-lift scale inhibitor injection).
4. With respect to the choice of chemical deployed, the principal
control has been the environmental profile of the product.
5. Out of the deployment methods selected, the most challenging
has been injection into the gas-lift system. With deployment of
this type, the inhibitor could not gunk under high gas to product
ratios; it had to be thermal-stable with injection gas at tem-
peratures up to 150C, and it had to show low corrosivity with
the completion.
6. In the selection of the most appropriate inhibitor for squeezing,
a major factor was the potential squeeze lifetime achiev-
able, particularly for the subsea wells. A further consider-
ation was ease of inhibitor detection in order to monitor the
squeeze performance.
7. Where it functioned on Oseberg Sr, deployment of inhibitor
by way of the downhole chemical injection line was technically
the simplest solution. Other than monitoring of the water cut
in the well to ensure correct inhibitor dosage, it requires mini-
mal maintenance.
Nomenclature
a activity
K
sp
thermodynamic solubility product
Log P
ow
log (C
octanol
/C
water
)(bioaccumulation)
S
or
residual oil saturation
Fig. 83D view of scale surface below the downhole safety
valve of Well X-24 before the June 2005 acid job. The scale is
etched from previous acid washes.
Fig. 9Well Z-13 production history.
315 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
Acknowledgments
The authors express thanks to Hydro Oil & Energy and the part-
ners in Oseberg Sr, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, Petoro, Statoil,
and Total for permission to publish the contents of this paper. We
thank M-I Production Chemicals, Bergen, for their important con-
tribution made to the implementation of the scale-management
strategy. The work performed by Scaled Solutions Ltd. on mod-
eling of the viscosified squeeze on X-28 is also acknowledged.
References
Breng, R., Bakken, K.O., Vikane, O., and Angelsen, A. 1999. A Stimu-
lation Treatment of a Subsea Well Using a Scale Dissolver. Paper SPE
50736 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry, Houston, 1619 February. DOI: 10.2118/50736-MS.
Fleming, N., Stokkan, J.A., Mathisen, A.M., Ramstad, K., and Tydal, T.
2003. Maintaining Well Productivity Through Deployment of a Gas
Lift Scale Inhibitor: Laboratory and Field Challenges. Paper SPE
80374 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale,
Aberdeen, 2930 January. DOI: 10.2118/80374-MS.
Hinrichsen, C.J. and Edgerton, M.C. 1998. Preventing Scale Deposition in
Oil Production Facilities. Paper presented at the IBC 4th International
Conference on Advances in Solving Oilfield Scaling, Aberdeen, 2829
January.
James, J.S. et al. 2005. Application of a Fully Viscosified Scale Squeeze
for Improved Placement in Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 94593 pre-
sented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aber-
deen, 1112 May. DOI: 10.2118/94593-MS.
Kaasa, B. et al. 2000. How to Predict CaCO
3
Scale in Gaslifted Subsea
Wells and ESP Completed Platform Wells. Paper SPE 60202 presented
at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, 26
27 January. DOI: 10.2118/60202-MS.
Law of Activities in the Petroleum Industry, FOR 2001-09-03-1157 56.
Oslo: Petroleum Safety Authority, Ministry of Labour and Social In-
clusion.
Lewis, D.R. et al. 2003. Scale Mitigation Enhances Safety and Production.
Paper SPE 81569 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain,
912 June. DOI: 10.2118/81569-MS.
Lien, S.C., Lie, S.E., Fjellbirkeland, H., and Larsen, S.V. 1998. Brage
Field, Lessons Learned After 5 Years of Production. Paper SPE 50641
presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague,
2022. DOI: 10.2118/50641-MS.
MultiSCALE
TM
6.1. 2004. A computer programme for the prediction of
mineral deposition in oil operation. Developed by the Technical Uni-
versity of Trondheim in a project supported by Statoil, Hydro and Saga.
Olso: Petrotech Knowledge a.s.
Osa, K. et al. 2001. Blocking of Subsea Injection Lines. Paper presented at
the NIF 12th International Oil Field Chemistry Symposium, Geilo,
Norway, 14 April. Fig. 11Well Z-13 completion schematic.
Fig. 10Well Z-13 scale prediction from bottomhole to wellhead.
316 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
Prosper. 2005. A well performance, design and optimisation program that
is part of the Integrated Production Modelling Toolkit (IPM). Edin-
burgh: Petroleum Experts, U.K.
Ramstad, K., Tydal, T., Askvik, K.M., and Fotland, P. 2005. Predicting
Carbonate Scale in Oil Producers From High-Temperature Reservoirs.
SPEJ 10 (4): 363373. SPE-87430-PA. DOI: 10.2118/87430-PA.
Stalker, R., Graham, G.M., and Wahid, F. 2006. Simulating Chemical
Placement in Complex Heterogeneous Wells. Paper SPE 100631 pre-
sented at the SPE International Oilfield Scale Symposium, Aberdeen,
31 May1 June. DOI: 10.2118/100631-MS.
Appendix 1Methodology for Downhole Scale
Predictions
The saturation ratio (SR) in the scale predictions is defined as follows:
SR =
a
Ca
2+
a
CO
3
2
K
sp
CaCO
3

where a
i
represents the activity of the Ca
2+
and CO
3
2
ions, re-
spectively, and K
sp
is the thermodynamic solubility product of calcite.
SR<1 the system is undersaturated; hence, no precipitation.
SR1 the system is saturated.
SR>1 the system is supersaturated, and precipitation may occur.
The lift gas composition used in the calculations was based on a
sample taken topside before injection. The oil compositions were
as recombined reservoir fluids, while the water compositions were
based on samples taken at the wellhead. The input was processed
in the PVT model in MultiScale 6.1, and all rates were given at
standard conditions. GOR and water cut were at standard condi-
tions. The gas cap composition was found from a flash at the
bubble point in the reservoir, and the gas cap rates were tuned at
standard conditions for each actual well corresponding to the mea-
sured GOR.
Consequently, Prosper (2005) simulations have been used for
the pressure and temperature profiles. Some Prosper files devi-
ate from measurements found in well tests. Approximations were
made to give a realistic approach to trends in pressure and tem-
perature based on trends from nearby wells.
Drawdown was assumed to be 50 bars for all Omega Sr wells
(X-wells). Less drawdown was assumed in wells from Omega
Nord and K-structure, because most of these wells still had pres-
sures close to original reservoir pressure.
Organic acids had not been measured in the produced water.
Adding 200 mg/l of organic acids to the water composition in the
calculations did not have any significant influence on the results.
This was checked on Wells X-22 and Z-13. Organic acids were
therefore omitted in the predictions.
The formation water has been tuned to equilibrium (SR1)
with calcite in the presence of the original recombined reservoir oil
for the individual wells. This has been done at the reservoir pres-
sure and temperature estimated shortly before water breakthrough.
In the cases of depletion in the reservoir, no flash has been per-
formed to the oil phase before the tuning, but this is believed to
have minor implication to the scale calculations.
Pure water was added to the system at reservoir conditions to
compensate for H
2
O being present but not detected in the hydro-
carbon phase.
The saturation ratio and the maximum amount of CaCO
3
that
could precipitate at equilibrium were predicted using MultiSCALE
6.1. The scaling potential along the well was determined by run-
ning a multiprofile at given pressure and temperature from Prosper
files and applying production rates, water cut, GOR, and gas-lift
rates from well tests for each well.
Referring to previous field experiences (Lien et al. 1998),
the scaling potential for the downhole safety valve was defined
as follows:
SR>2.4 Significant scaling potential.
SR>1.7 Moderate scaling potential.
SR<1.4 Low scaling potential.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft 3.048* E01 m
*Conversion factor is exact.
Niall Fleming is a production engineer on Oseberg Sr. He has
served on the both the Scale ATW and Scale Conference
committees. He holds a PhD degree from Imperial College.
Kari Ramstad has worked in scale research within Hydro for
several years. He has served on the Scale Conference com-
mittee. He holds a PhD degree in chemistry. Synnve H. Eriksen
has held several positions within Petroleum Technology for Hy-
dro. Currently, he works as a production engineer on Oseberg
Sr. Erlend Moldrheim is a production engineer on Oseberg
Sr. He holds a PhD degree in chemistry from the University of
Bergen. Thomas Rudberg Johansen is a production engineer
on Oseberg Sr. He holds a Masters degree in petroleum en-
gineering from NTNU, Trondheim.
Fig. 12Scale squeeze-inhibitor return profile, Well Z-13.
317 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations