Simultaneous Well Stimulation and Scale Squeeze Treatments in Sandstone and Carbonate Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In many oilfields the relatively small number of high-cost, highly productive wells, coupled with a carbonate and or sulfate scaling tendency (upon waterflood breakthrough of injected seawater) requires effective scale management along with removal of near-wellbore damage in order to achieve high hydrocarbon recovery. The nature of the well completion strategy in new fields such as frac packs for sand control and acid stimulation for carbonate reservoirs had resulted in some wells with higher than expected skin values due to drilling fluid losses, residual frac gel, fluid loss agents, and fines mobilization within the frac packs where applied. The paper will present how the challenges of managing impaired completions and inorganic scale forced innovation in terms of when to apply both stimulation and scale inhibitor packages to sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. This paper will outline a novel process for non-conventional batch chemical applications where bullhead stimulation treatments have been displaced deep into the formation (<20ft) using a scale inhibitor overflush. Not only does this benefit the stimulation by displacing the spent acid and reagents away from the immediate wellbore area, but the combined treatment provides cost savings with a single mobilization for the combined treatment. The paper will describe the laboratory testing that was performed to qualify the treatments for both sandstone and an HP/HT gas condensate carbonate reservoir. The lessons learned fromcarbonate corefloodevaluationunder HT/HP conditions when appling stimulation fluids with and without scale inhibitor present in the treatment stageswill be presented. Many similar fields are currently being developed in offshore Brazil, West Africa and Middle East, and this paper is a good example of best-practice sharing from another oil basin.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".