SPE 130788

Downhole Scale Control on Heidrun Field Using Scale Inhibitor Impregnated Gravel Olav Martin Selle, Frode Haavind, Marit H. Haukland and Arild Moen, Statoil; Carl F. Hals and Kåre Øien, Schlumberger; Catherine Strachan and Graham Clark, Clariant Oil Services

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Conference on Oilfield Scale held in Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 26–27 May 2010. 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 Scale inhibitor impregnated gravel (SIIG) is a new technology for combined sand and scale control that features porous ceramic proppant particles that are impregnated with scale inhibitor chemistry. The particles have been designed to be suitable for gravel pack pumping operations and can be pumped as 100% scale inhibitor impregnated particles or mixed with conventional gravel. The scale inhibitor impregnation technology has been optimised to provide a steady, controlled release of scale inhibitor chemical on contact with produced water. The technology provides for the first time in the oil industry a method of placing large quantities of solid state scale inhibitor in gravel packs. In typical gravel packed deepwater completions, particularly, sub-sea wells, the technology offers considerable cost benefits for scale control when compared to scale inhibitor squeeze treatments and negates the need for pre-emptive squeeze treatments in anticipation of seawater breakthrough. After qualification of the product through a comprehensive laboratory development programme a field trial has been performed on a Heidrun well. The well was a sidetrack from the mother well, and it was chosen for the field trial as the initial water breakthrough was predicted to contain around 20% sea water. The field trial demonstrated that placement of the scale inhibitor impregnated particles could be successfully performed. However, the loss of scale inhibitor to the gravel pack fluid was higher than anticipated since it took three weeks between gravel packing and startup of the well. Despite the high intial loss of scale inhibitor to the gravel pack fluid the release of inhibitor during production was as planned. Unfortunately it did not protect the well from scaling since the mixing of sea water and formation water probably took place in the near well area behind the gravel pack. This paper will provide a detailed description of the laboratory development of SIIG technology and, in addition, will also present details of the first gravel pack deployment of this technology for combined sand/scale control in a Heidrun well. Introduction The deposition of inorganic scale during the production of hydrocarbons is a major problem. The primary effect is deferment of oil production due to scale deposition in the near well bore and tubing of production wells and in the propped hydraulic fractures, gravel and fracture packs. Scale problems are currently managed by the use of preventative and remedial chemical treatments that often involve significant costs to the operator, especially in advanced and deepwater wells (Wigg and Fielder, 1995, Schmidt, 1995, Thornton et al. 1997, Shuler and Jenkins, 1991). Previous papers have described the development of porous scale inhibitor impregnated proppants (SIIP) and highlighted the initial returns from field trials performed in onshore wells on the North Slope of Alaska (Bourne et al. 1995, Collins, 1997, Webb et al. 1997) and in offshore North Sea wells (Norris et al. 2001).

However, the SIIP was not considered to be applicable to gravel pack application because the the maximum concentration of scale inhibitor that could be incorporated into the solid matrix was approximately 12 wt%/v. This scale inhibitor content was

2 SPE 130788

considered too low to provide a reasonable scale control lifetimes in this type of well completion. The SIIP technology has therefore been further developed into SIIG technology (scale inhibitor impregnated gravel) with a much higher scale inhibitor content to produce a stable product suitable for deployment in gravel packs. One SIIG treatment has recently been deployed on a Heidrun well. The treatment was designed to protect the gravel pack and sand screen against scaling during sea water breakthrough.

The well is a deviated oil producer in the Garn and Ile formations at Heidrun. It is completed with an openhole gravel pack, 5 ½” wire wrapped screens in a 7” hole and has gas lift. The completion diagram for the well is presented in Figure 1. The formations are of good quality; Garn has a permeability of ~ 2000 mD, while Ile has a permeability of ~ 500 mD. The porosity is in the range of 30 to 32 %. The expected sea water cut (percent of the total water production) was expected to be 20% on start up, and the well would require scale protection from the start of production. Only barium sulphate scale is an issue in this well as precipitation of calcium carbonate was not anticipated.

Fig. 1 Heidrun well completion diagram. Screens are installed in Garn and Ile formations.

The Heidrun Field and the effort to extend scale inhibitor squeeze life has been described earlier (Selle et al. 2002). The field is located in the Haltenbanken area offshore Mid-Norway. Seawater injection is used on the field to increase recovery and for pressure support. With Ba2+ levels ranging from 60 to 300 ppm, downhole scale control is a particular challenge. Background

Gravel Packing Gravel packing is a commonly applied technique to control formation sand and fines production from oil and gas wells. A typical gravel pack completion is presented in Figure 2. In a gravel pack completion a screen is placed in the well across the productive interval. Specially sized, high permeability gravel pack sand is mixed in a carrier fluid and circulated into the well to fill the annular space between the screen and the formation. Any gap or interruption in the pack coverage will enable undesirable sand or fines to enter the producing system. The success of an openhole gravel pack is dependant upon the formation type, screen type, appropriate fluid loss control, formation stability, borehole geometry, the size and density of the gravel and the β wave placement pressure. The Heidrun asset has over the past decade developed gravel packing best practices/methodologies to overcome these challenges and to achieve good gravel placement.

SPE 130788 3

Fig. 2 Typical gravel pack completion Scale Control in Gravel Packs Sustaining the well productivity is dependent on preserving the high conductivity of the gravel pack. This is at risk when bottomhole conditions encourage the formation of mineral scales. Scale control in gravel packs in the Heidrun wells has been previously achieved by conventional bullhead squeeze treatments and remedial dissolver jobs (Wat et al. 2001). However, the bullhead squeeze operation is a non-selective process that leads to uncertainties in the extent of coverage of water producing zones and therefore the full length of the gravel pack is often not protected. To address the issues of scale inhibitor placement in gravel packed wells, whilst also delivering long term treatments, SIIG technology has been developed for combined scale and sand control in such wells. SIIG is an improvement on SIIP technology, which was originally designed for use in hydraulic fracturing treatments. The SIIG technology features highly porous (up to 25%), high strength proppant particles that are impregnated with scale inhibitor chemistry. The particles have been designed to be suitable for gravel pack pumping operations, and can be pumped as 100% impregnated particles or mixed with conventional gravel. The technology was optimised for the downhole scaling conditions in this particular well. The scale inhibitor will remain dormant in the gravel pack until contact with water providing a steady, controlled release of chemical into the produced water. This concept is illustrated in Figure 3. The scale inhibitor will be preferably released at or above minimum inhibitor concentration (MIC) for as long as possible. This eliminates any waste of inhibitor when only oil or gas is produced, and potentially reduces the number of well interventions required by scale squeeze treatments. In addition, the SIIG technology does not rely on adsorption/desorption processes that are essential for the success of conventional squeeze treatments, and the concerns about effective scale inhibitor retention are minimised. The SIIG technology can also protect the whole of the gravel pack, and for squeeze treatments in long openhole completions this is usually only possible with mechanical or chemical diversion. However, the technology cannot protect the well outside the gravel pack.

4 SPE 130788

Fig. 3 Scale inhibitor release in gravel pack

The development of the SIIG technology for the Heidrun Asset was not an easy task. A suitable product for field deployment could be defined as a scale inhibitor impregnated gravel that has sufficient strength to maintain gravel pack conductivity whilst being able to provide effective scale control during well production. Thus it was necessary to increase the scale inhibitor impregnation capacity of the gravel by increasing the internal porosity of the gravel whilst maintaining the strength of the product. This could not be achieved with standard light weight based gravels. It was therefore necessary to develop a high porosity, high strength proppant (HSP) based upon bauxite which could contain > 20wt%/v impregnated scale inhibitor and still pass the conductivity test for gravel pack application. The pack permeability data for 20/40 mesh HSP SIIG is presented in Figure 4.

Fig. 4 SIIG gravel pack permeability data for 20/40 mesh HSP

The proppant size and type and the scale inhibitor to be impregnated were all selected by industry standard techniques to match Heidrun requirements. In addition, the impregnated scale inhibitor solution has been formulated to improve its compatibility with the gravel pack fluid.

SPE 130788 5

Scale Inhibitor Evaluation The scale inhibitor identified for impregnation was selected to meet the Norwegian environemtal requirements and to provide adequate scale protection under Heidrun downhole conditions with 20% seawater breakthrough. A polymeric based scale inhibitor was identified for evaluation. The performance of the selected scale inhibitor was evaluated using conventional dynamic scale loop tests that are used for screening scale inhibitors for downhole squeeze or continuous injection applications (Oilfield Scale Research Group, 1995). The Heidrun brine chemistry used for the MIC evaluation for Ile formation is detailed in Table 1 below. Table 1 Heidrun Ile formation water composition Concentration / mg/L Ion Species Heidrun FW Seawater Na+ 17400 11150 K+ 420 420 Ca2+ 990 400 Mg3+ 230 1410 Ba2+ 140 12 Cl- 33,100 20310 HCO3

- 940 150 SO3

- 5 2800 The performance data for the selected scale inhibitor is presented in Figure 5. The data indicated that the minimum inhibitor concentration (MIC) required for effective scale control under 90/10 ratio formation water/sea water (FW: SW) conditions was 2 ppm. Additional tests with formation water from Heidrun Tilje formation (Ba = 265 ppm) gave under 70/30 FW: SW conditions a MIC of 50 ppm. The anticipated MIC for the well with 20 % seawater would be between 5 – 10 ppm.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 3600 7200 10800 14400 18000 21600 25200 28800 32400

Time (secs)

Diff

eren

tial P

ress

ure

(psi

)

Blank SIGG Scale Inhibitor

10 ppm

8 ppm

6 ppm

4 ppm

2 ppm

0 ppm

Fig. 5 Dynamic Scale Inhibition Performance of SIIG Scale Inhibitor SIIG Manufacture The SIIG was produced using a vacuum impregnation and a rotary drying technique. The impregnation fluid contained the required active scale inhibitor and a number of other components designed to improve compatibility with the gravel pack fluid and to allow the production of a final product with very low moisture content (< 0.2%) and low fines content. This low moisture content was necessary for long term product storage and application in humid environments.

6 SPE 130788

The features of the SIIG are presented in Figure 6. Quality assurance (QA) of the manufacturing (impregnation) process and quality assurance (QC) of the SIIG was also seen as critical aspect of the pre-job preparation, and inspections and controls during the manufacturing were conducted. A final QA/QC lab testing was conducted upon receipt of the field batch of the SIIG. Samples of the SIIG were taken at various points during the manufacturing process and their physical appearance and fines production potential was examined using a specially designed turbidity technique and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) respectively. In addition, the impregnated scale inhibitor content was measured to make sure it met the required specifications. The general appearance of SIIG under a light microscope is depicted in Figure 6. This highlights the regular rounded nature of SIIG. A detailed SEM image of a cross-section of one SIIG bead also demonstrates the porous nature of the material.

Fig. 6 Features of 20/40 mesh HSP SIIG Static Fluid Compatibility Tests Static experiments were performed to evaluate the compatility of the SIIG with the various fluids encountered during the gravel pack process and to examine the scale inhibitor dissolution kinetics at low temperatures (10°C and 20°C) while gravel packing, and at Heidrun downhole temperature (85°C) during shut in. The static jar tests were performed in Heidrun formation water, 1.20 SG (specific gravity) NaCl, and 1.20 SG CaCl2. The gravel pack fluid normally used at Heidrun is 1.20 SG NaCl. The scale inhibitor analysis for these tests was performed by dialysis/HPLC. The uncertainty in the analysis in the range of 50 – 2500 ppm scale inhibitor is ±10%, and more than 10% if the concentration is above 2500 ppm. The uncertainty is greater for higher concentrations because the samples need to be diluted. No direct compatibility problems were encountered and the scale inhibitor dissolution kinetics from the SIIG indicated that <20% of the impregnated scale inhibitor was released into a static gravel pack fluid of 1.2 SG NaCl after 24 hours at 85oC, see Figure 7. This amount was significantly decreased at the lower temperatures in both 1.20 SG NaCl and 1.20 SG CaCl2 which would be expected from this type of product in a field depolyment. After test periods of up 600 hours more than 30% of the impregnated scale inhibitor was released in 1.20 SG NaCl. For 1.20 SG CaCl2 the release is less, see Figure 8. Here the temperature was ramped up from room temperature to reservoir temperature to mimic the temperature profile for the gravel pack fluid during gravel packing. Typical time for completing a new well at Heidrun is 12 days (288 hours); that is from when the gravel pack operation start-up until the upper completion is installed and the well is ready for production. If operational problems occur, this time period may be much longer.

SPE 130788 7

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Time (hours)

#gra

m In

hibi

tor d

isso

lved

/tota

l #gr

am

activ

e In

hibi

tor

Formation water at 85C1.20 SG NaCl at 85C1.20 SG NaCl at 20C1.20 SG NaCl at 10C

Fig. 7 Static scale inhibitor dissolution kinetics of SIIG in Heidrun formation water and 1.20 SG NaCl at different temperatures

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (hours)

#gra

m In

hibi

tor d

isso

lved

/tota

l #gr

am

activ

e In

hibi

tor

1.20 SG CaCl2 at 27 - 85C

1.20 SG NaCl at 27 - 85C

Fig. 8 Dissolution kinetics of SIIG in 1.20 SG NaCl and 1.20 CaCl2 at temperature ramping from 27 to 85°C Dynamic Release Tests Dynamic release tests were performed to provide information on the effects of fluid velocity on scale inhibitor release from the SIIG under simulated field conditions. The tests were performed in a specially designed cell at the typical field flow rates encountered in a gravel packed well.

Two sand packs were made by packing 100% SIIG and two were made by packing 50% SIIG and 50 vol% standard light weights 20/40 gravel. The tests were conducted at residual oil saturation, and stock tank crude from Heidrun A-22 was used for sandpack saturation purposes. In the experiments with 100% SIIG 232.77 grams of the inhibitor were used, i.e. 53.53 grams active impregnated scale inhibitor, and for the tests with 50% SIIG and 50% 20/40 standard light weight gravel 25.9 grams of active impregnated inhibitor were used. The sand packs were mounted vertically during saturation. The sand packs were evacuated and formation water was pumped in at 85°C. Initial water saturation (Swi) was established by injecting stock tank oil from the top of the sand pack at back pressure of 10 bars. The initial rate was 0.5 ml/min until breakthrough of oil. The rate was then raised to 5 ml/min and finally 10 ml/min. Residual oil saturation by water flooding (Sorw) was obtained by injecting formation water from the bottom of the sand pack. Data for the different sand packs are given in Table 2 below.

8 SPE 130788

Table 2 Sand pack data for dynamic scale inhibitor release rate tests

Sand pack Length (cm)

Diameter (cm)

PV (ml) Sorw(%) Kw at Sorw (mD)

100% SIIG 11.5 3.8 57.4 30.6 890 100% SIIG 11.0 3.8 53.0 30.1 910 50% SIIG + 50% standard light weight 20/40 11.0 3.8 50.6 31.2 950

50% SIIG + 50% standard light weight 20/40 10.9 3.8 50.1 32.1 880

Typical well rates anticipated for the well were converted to laboratory rates in the specially designed flow cell. Two different rates were applied, 2 and 15 ml/min. This corresponded to a water production of 270 and 2020 m3/day respectively. Effluent samples were taken continuously from 1 to 10 PV, then at intervals up to 500 PV and analysed for scale inhibitor content by dialysis/HPLC. The results from the dynamic release rate experiments are given in Figure 9. The SIIG inhibitor return profiles are very favourable indicating that the SIIG could provide adequate scale control at 20% seawater breakthrough conditions. The initial wash out of the impregnated scale inhibitor was very low, leaving the majority of the deployed inhibitor within the SIIG and thus available to inhibit against formation of scale in the gravel packs. However, these experiments did not take into account the 12 days soaking period from the start of the gravel packing process until the well is finished and ready for production.

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

PV

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pm)

100% SIIG 15 ml/min50% SIIG 15 ml/min100% SIIG 2 ml/min50% SIIG 2 ml/min

Fig. 9 SIIG scale inhibitor return profile at 2 and 15 ml/min The mass balance data for the dynamic release tests was calculated and is presented in Table 3. As shown here lager quantities of scale inhibitor was detected than was actually present in the sand pack. The difference is probably due to some uncertainty with the scale inhibitor analysis. However, the data indicates that for both the high and low rates with 100% SIIG it seems that all of the the active scale inhibitor is released during the flooding with produced water. However, for the tests with 50% SIIG at both the high and low rate only about 1/5 of the active scale inhibitor was released. This has been seen in previous experiments as well, but we have no good explanation to why this is happening. The data also indicates that the scale inhibitor release rate from SIIG is not rate dependent.

SPE 130788 9

Table 3 Calculated mass balance for SIIG Dynamic Release Rate Tests

Total active scale inhibitor in the sand pack (gram)

Total active scale inhibitor dissolved (gram)

100% SIIG and 15 ml/min 53.5 66.0 100% SIIG and 2 ml/min 53.5 57.5 50% SIIG and 15 ml/min 25.9 5.1 50% SIIG and 2 ml/min 25.9 5.4

Gravel Pack Placement Test The introduction of high density SIIG represented a change in gravel pack pumping design parameters for Heidrun, as seen in Table 4. It was therefore necessary to ensure that introduction of this new technology did not jeapordize the placement aspects of the treatment. This initiated a gravel pack placement qualification project. The project involved a ‘yard test’ gravel pack pumping job using a large-scale well model where all dimensions (ID/OD) were real size besides the length. Samples of representative fluid and gravel were used during the experiment in order to, as closesly as possible, mimic real job conditions. The purpose of the experiment was to study the alpha and beta wave behaviour and to identify the degree of risk of having a premature screen-out. The test was successful as the pressure during the test was below critical limits and the sand pack efficiency was over 100 % of defined annulus capacity. A summary of the test data is found in Table 5. Table 4 Specification of gravel pack material SIIG Standard gravel

Mesh Size 20/40 20/40

Gravel Bulk Density 1,68 1,64

Gravel Pack- Packing volume fraction

0,59 0,59

Gravel specific gravity 2,8 2,71

Proppant Grain Porosity 0,23 -

Gravel Concentration 33.10 kg/m3 brine 27.27 kg/m3 brine

Table 5 Data from onshore testing in large-scale well model

Washpipe OD: 4 inch Gravel bulk density: 1.68 g/ccScreen baspipe OD: 5.5 inch Slurry pumped: 29 m3Wire wrap OD: 6.06 inch Gravel Placed 518 litreSwell Packer OD: 8.25 inch* Theoretical capacity of annlus: 463 litrePacker Base Pipe OD:7 inch (Top screen to bottom screen)OH ID: 8.5 inch Total pack efficiency: 100+ %Gravel conc.: 30 kg/m3 Carrier fluid: 1.20 SG NaCl

Slurry rate: 1100 lpm Proppant type:20/40 porous scale inhibited

10 SPE 130788

Field implementation results The gravel pack operation in the well went very well. A total of 725 m3 slurry with 33 kg/m3 gravel concentration was pumped at a rate of 1100 lpm. Pumping time was approx. 11.5 hours. The volume of gravel used was 13.97 m3 which corresponds to a pack efficiency of 96.6 %. The alpha wave packing was 54 % and the beta wave 46 %. The returning gravel pack fluid was sampled for scale inhibitor analysis, and the results are presented in Table 6. The brine slurry samples indicated that high levels of scale inhibitor were initially released in the gravel pack fluid. However, this was expected after a well shut in period of 3 weeks. Table 6 Scale inhibitor concentrations of samples taken during gravel packing

Scale inhibitor (ppm)

Brine Sample 1 4517

Brine Sample 2 4726

SIIG/Brine Slurry Mix 1 20007

SIIG/Brine Slurry Mix 2 39709

SIIG/Brine Slurry Mix 3 40453

The SIIG scale inhibitor return profile from the gravel pack during start up and production of the well show that even though higher levels of scale inhibitor than anticipated were initially released, the SIIG still worked as planned; see Figure 10.

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

020

000

4000

060

000

8000

0

1000

00

1200

00

1400

00

1600

00

Produced water/m3

[Sca

le In

hibi

tor]

mg/

l

0

20

40

60

80

100

120%

Sca

le In

hibi

tor l

eft i

n pr

oppa

nt

Res. SI w ater (ppm) % SI left in proppant

Fig. 10 SIIG Scale Inhibtor Return Profile from the Heidrun well However, the liquid productivity index (PI) in the well dropped significantly after production start up, see Figure 11. Most likely did the well experience formation damage due to the precipitation of scale since the Ba concentration fell from 74 ppm to zero within hours as plotted in Figure 12.

SPE 130788 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

08.04.2007 08.05.2007 07.06.2007 07.07.2007 06.08.2007 05.09.2007

PI [S

m3/

D/b

ar]

Fig. 11 Productivity Index (PI) of the well after SIIG gravel pack job The water cut of the well leveled out at around 27% after start up and the ion data indicated that the the sea water cut from sulphate concentration initially was started out at zero then increased rapidly to around 55%, see Figure 12.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

08.apr 13.apr 18.apr 23.apr 28.apr 03.mai

ppm bariumSea water cut

Fig. 12 Barium concentration and sea water cut during start up of the well Since the scaling appeared to happen behind the gravel pack the impregnated gravel was not able to handle that scaling scenario. The water composition was determined by IC (Ion Cromatograph) and an analysis of the measured Ba ion data compared to what it should be if dilution had just occurred is presented in Figure 13. Clearly, the measured Ba values are below the sea water cut dilution line and deposition of BaSO4(s) was occurring.

12 SPE 130788

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Ba cons. [mg/l]

SW c

ut [%

]

SW cut dilution line Measured values

Fig. 13 Sea water cut dilution line for barium concentration in the well Even if the scale inhibitor released from the impregnated gravel was above MIC (Figure 10), scaleing occurred and the well lost productivity. It was therefore decided to close the well waiting for a scale inhibitor squeeze job, and later a scale dissolver job. The squeeze job was able to protect the well as the Ba concentration increased from zero to 39 ppm, see Figure 12. This shows that the scaling occurred behind the gravel pack where the scale inhibitor released from SIIG was unable to protect. Conclusions

• Scale Inhibtor Impregnated Proppant has been further developed to enable effective deployment in gravel packs. • Gravel packing with scale inhibitor impregnated gravel is now a proven method from an operational aspect, and can

be planned for on future Heidrun wells. • Scale inhibitor impregnated gravel is in general qualified for use at Heidrun field for wells with initial sea water

breakthrough. • However, several limitations in using scale inhibitor impregnated gravel technology have been revealed:

– Suited for wells with medium to low scale potential. – Suited for wells where scaling occurs in the gravel pack, sand screen or the tubing. – 20 – 35 % of the scale inhibitor content might be lost while completing the well. – Mixing scale inhibitor impregnated gravel and ordinary gravel 50/50 might release only 20 % of the total

amount of scale inhibitor, while unmixed scale inhibitor impregnated gravel releases all. – The residual scale inhibitor concentration was difficult to detect, which may have given some uncertainty

in mass balance calculations Future work

Further development of SIIG is currently ongoing to improve on the scale inhibitor chemistry to reduce the intial release to completion fluids and to provide more effective scale protection under moderate barium sulphate scaling conditions at higher seawater breakthough. The use of non aqueous deployment fluids will also be considered. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the management of Schlumberger, Clariant Oil Services and Statoil and their partners in the Heidrun asset (Petoro, ConocoPhillips Skandinavia, and Eni Norge) for permission to publish this paper. The results and opinions presented in this paper do not necessarily reflect the view of the Heidrun partnership. The authors would also like to thank Karin Stene, Statoil and Harald Førdedal, former Statoil, for their valuable contribution during planning of the well and SPE for accepting this paper for publication. Nomenclature FW = formation water HSP = high strength proppant IC = ion chomatography MD = measured depth MIC = minimum inhibitor concentration QA = quality assurance

SPE 130788 13

QC = quality control SG = specific gravity SIIG = scale inhibitor impregnated gravel SIIP = scale inhibitor impregnated proppant SEM = scanning electron microscope Reference List Bourne, H.M., Knapstad, B., Nistad, T., Neigart, B., Ravenscroft, P., Read, P., 1995, "A Novel Scale Inhibitor Delivery System for Horizontal and Problem Wells". Paper presented at IBC Scale Conference.

Collins, I.R., 1997, " Scale Inhibitor Impregnated Particles - Field Applications" Paper presented at IBC Scale Conference.

Norris, M., Perez, D., Bourne, H.M., Heath, S.M., 2001, “Maintaining Fracture Performance through Active Scale Control” Paper SPE 68300 presented at the 3rd International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, UK.

Oilfield Scale Research Group, 1995, "Experimental Procedures Manual Version 2.0" Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriott Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.

Schmidt, T., 1995, "Experience with Controlling Scale in Gravel Packs" Paper presented at IBC Scale Conference.

Selle, O.M., Wat, R.M.S., Vikane, O., Nasvik, H., Chen, P., Hagen, T., Montgomerie, H., Bourne, H., 2003, “A Way Beyond Scale Inhibitors – Extending Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Life Through Bridging” Paper SPE 80377 presented at SPE Oilfield Scale symposium, Aberdeen, UK.

Shuler, P.J., Jenkins, W.H., 1991, "Prevention of Downhole Scale Deposition in the Ninian Field" SPE Production Engineering, May.

Thornton, A.R., Bourne, H.M., Ntombo-Tsibah, H., Taylor, K., 1997, "First Experience of Squeezing a Multi-Lateral, Horizontal Well in the Tern Field" Paper presented at IBC Scale Conference.

Webb, P., Nistad, T., Knapstad, B., Ravenscroft, P., Collins, I.R., 1998, "Economic and Technical Advantages of a Revolutionary Chemcial Delivery System for Fractured and Gravel Packed Wells: comparative Analysis of Onshore and Offshore Subsea Applications" Paper SPE 39451 presented at SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Lousiana, USA.

Wat, R., Selle, O.M., Børstad, H., Vikane, O., Hagen, T., Chen, P., MacLean, A., 2001, “Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatment Strategy on Heidrun” Paper SPE 68944 presented at SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hauge, The Netherlands.

Wigg, H., Fielder, M., 1995, "Establishing the True Cost of Downhole Scale Control" Paper presented at IBC Scale Conference. Appendix 1 Static jar test procedure for 85°C

1000 ml of the Heidrun well formation water was placed in an oven at 85°C for 2 hours 5.0 grams (1.15 g active inhibitor) of SIIG particles was transferred to a glass tube (50 ml) and placed in an oven at 85°C

for 2 hours The tubes were placed inside a separator bottle With the aid of a pipette, 50.0 ml of heated formation water was transferred to each of the tubes containing 5.0 g of the

SIIG particles The separator bottles were sealed with a heat resistant cap and placed in the oven. 50 ml samples were extracted with a 50 ml syringe equipped with a 0.90 x 70 mm needle and a 1.2 µm disc filter after

0.5, 2, 6, 12, 24 hours. One bottle, containing 5.0 grams SSI and 50 ml HFW, for one time step was used i.e. a total of five bottles.

The static jar tests at 20 and 10°C were performed by use of a water bath.

14 SPE 130788

The long term static jar tests were performed by use of a water bath.

• 2.5 grams of SIIG particles was transferred to a glass tube (50 ml) and placed in the water bath at 27°C • With the aid of a pipette, 25.0 ml of heated 1.20 SG NaCl and 1.20 SG CaCl2 was transferred to each of the tubes

containing 2.5 g of the SIIG particles • 25 ml samples were extracted with a syringe equipped with a 0.90 x 70 mm needle and a 1.2 µm disc filter

Mixing and packing procedure of the dynamic flooding experiments

SIIG particles and standard light weight 20/40 gravel were mixed and packed in the following way:

1. Equal amount of SIIP particles and 20/40 standard light weight gravel were transferred to a 1-litre glass bottle.

2. The bottle was sealed and turned upside down 40 times to homogenise the mixture. 3. The mixture was transferred to a rubber sleeve in batches of approximately 50 ml. 4. During transfer the sleeve was slanted from the vertical by approximately 20°. Between transfers of each

batch of mixture the holder was raised to vertical position and the mixture deposited in the sleeve compacted by hand using a large Teflon dowel.