The Challenge that Completion Types Present to Scale inhibitor squeeze Chemical Placement: A Novel Solution using a Self-Diverting Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The control of inorganic scale deposition within the reservoir under both natural depletion and injection water support has been a challenge to the oil industry for a number of decades. The challenge has remained identifying the location of water breakthrough within the production interval and the subsequent injection of scale inhibitor into these zones to prevent scale formation within the near welbore and production tubing. As completion technology has advanced, and more complicated completions have been developed and installed to increase the rate of oil recovery, the challenges of water management and scale control have become significant factors if long term production from these wells is to be maintained. This paper will outline the challenges of chemical deployment via bullheading into subsea wells completed in high permeability reservoirs with sand control technology. The factors considered when designing a self-diverting scale inhibitor system will be outlined in terms of viscosity profile of the chemical and overflush fluid, impact of temperature on fluid viscosity, pump rate, shear effects, tubing diameter vs. wellbore friction and the impact of radial flow on viscosity. Modelling data from vertical and horizontal production wells will be used to illustrate the challenges that pump rate changes and a self-diverting scale inhibitor system has to overcome to allow effective deployed of scale inhibitor without the need for coiled tubing in long (500ft to 3,000 ft) wells in 2 Darcy reservoirs. The value of this technology in terms of the economic factors will be outlined with field examples where coiled tubing and bullhead applications will be compared and contrasted to illustrate the value in terms of total cost of operation that the self-diverting technology can offer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".