MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1995198462 · doi:10.2118/87459-pa

Integrated Risk Analysis for Scale Management in Deepwater Developments

2005· article· en· W1995198462 sur OpenAlex
Eric Mackay, M. M. Jordan, N. D. Feasey, D. Shah, Pradeep Kumar, Syed A. Ali

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueSPE Production & Facilities · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Établissements canadiensNalco (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSubseaScale (ratio)Submarine pipelineProcess (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)EngineeringReservoir engineeringPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMarine engineeringPetroleumGeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Summary Owing to the increased cost of scale management in subsea developments, compared with platform or onshore fields, and because of the more-limited opportunities for interventions, it is becoming increasingly important to carry out a risk-analysis process for scale management as early as possible in the field-development plan. This process involves identifying the potential scale risks and analyzing and comparing the options available for managing those risks. This paper discusses how this risk-analysis process should be carried out, with a strong emphasis on the need to integrate all the available production-chemistry and reservoir-engineering data. To demonstrate this process, an example is used from a development complex that lies in water depths greater than 400 m (greater than 1,300 ft) offshore west Africa. The process involves the following steps: Analysis of available brine samples to identify maximum scaling potential. Laboratory testing of available scale inhibitors to identify chemistry best suited to this system. Study of analog fields to identify scaling risks in these fields, and how these risks have been managed, with implications for fields currently being studied. Modification of full-field reservoir-simulation model to predict seawater breakthrough and duration of seawater production to identify when and for how long the wells would require to be treated to control scale and how much inhibitor would be needed. This process involves using flow profiles derived from the reservoir-simulation model and applying them in a near-well squeeze simulator to predict treatment performance in terms of time taken for return concentrations to decrease to the minimum inhibitor concentration determined by laboratory studies. Well-by-well analysis of predicted seawater-production profiles and total-water production rates to identify the potential for correct placement of inhibitor by bullhead treatments in zones at risk of scale deposition. Modification of reservoir model to study the impact of in-situ scale deposition on brine chemistry at the production wells and the revision of requirements for inhibitor squeeze treatments. Economic analysis of options available for scale management comparing sulfate reduction to inhibitor squeezing on the basis of the treatment specifications identified above. The result of this process in the reservoirs in question, which have a moderate-to-severe scaling tendency, has been to demonstrate that inhibitor placement by bullheading would result in satisfactory placement for all wells. If the assumption is made that no scale deposition takes place in the reservoir, then sulfate reduction becomes a viable option, owing to the requirement of regular treatments and relatively high chemical concentrations. However, taking into account cation losses, owing to scale deposition deep within the reservoir, the requirements for chemical treatments reduce and squeezing becomes the preferred option. From the simulation models, differences between the reservoirs concerned, in terms of the contribution aquifer waters make to scale control, were identified with some wells at much higher risk than others owing to the volumes of potentially scaling brines that are expected to be produced. This paper clearly demonstrates that a cross-discipline approach using reservoir engineering, production chemistry, and completion engineering can lead to a more-complete assessment of the scale risk and the correct economic selection of the control program.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,584
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,572

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,220
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle