Field Evaluation of a New Gelant for Water Control in Production Wells

1988 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.R. Avery ◽  
T.A. Wells ◽  
P.W. Chang ◽  
J.D. Millican
Keyword(s):  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Water Control ◽  
Production Wells

Study and Application of In-depth Water Control Technology for Production Wells

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (24) ◽  
pp. 2568-2577
Author(s):  
D. Caili ◽  
Y. Qing ◽  
G. Qilin ◽  
Z. Fulin
Keyword(s):  
Control Technology ◽  
Water Control ◽  
Production Wells ◽  
Depth Water

Comparison of Water Treatment Plant and Water Source Well: Field Evaluation of Waterflooding Project in Shushufindi-Aguarico Field

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oki Maulidani ◽  
Veronica Maldonado ◽  
Juan Gallardo ◽  
Victoria Zurita ◽  
Cristian Giol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Treatment ◽  
Water Injection ◽  
Treatment Plant ◽  
Water Reservoir ◽  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Water Treatment Plant ◽  
Water Source ◽  
Operational Cost ◽  
Injection Wells ◽  
Production Wells

Abstract Waterflooding project has been implemented in Shushufindi-Aguarico mature field since late 2014. Having a compatible and cost-effective injected water is one of the key elements to ensure the success of this project. In perspective, water treatment plant was constructed in 2014 during pilot stage while water sources wells were completed in 2019 as an alternative source of injected water at the expansion stage of waterflooding project. This paper presents the comparison between both systems used as part of the water injection strategy: the Water Injection Plant (WIP) and Water Producer Wells (WPW). A complete system of water treatment plant is located in one of the production stations. The process basically starts by collecting water from production wells and workovers then treating it mechanically using a flotation unit and chemically to remove solid as well as oil contents. The water is then injected into injection wells with the help of horizontal pumping system (HPS). In the system of water source wells, two wells were converted to produce water from Hollin water reservoir utilizing electrical submersible pumps (ESP). The water is directly injected without any treatment into injection wells given the analysis of its fluid properties. The initial investment for water treatment plant is four times compared to water source well providing equal injection capacity where the operational cost per barrel of injected water is similar. The operational cost for water treatment plant refers to surface facilities maintenance and daily chemical consumption while for water source well it refers to associated cost of ESP reparation and workover operation. The average run-life of the water source wells in Ecuador Oriente basin is 1,200 days. The biggest challenge of water treatment plant is dealing with solid content whereas for water source well is on how to ensure integrity of the well and the flowline system in the high temperature and CO2 environment. Continuous improvements have been performed to address these challenges such as chemical treatment adjustments, real-time surveillance of injection wells, and modification of flowline system. Water treatment plant not only provides compatible water for injection wells but also supports water handling capacity as it utilizes water from production wells. In the other hand, compatible and clean water from Hollin water reservoir is the main benefit of water source wells. This paper will outline the pros and cons of water treatment plant and water source well based on field evaluation in Shushufindi-Aguarico field. It outlines the operational experience and lessons learned that can be used as a guide and reference when evaluating water sources for a waterflooding strategy. Economical analysis as well as continuous improvement will also be presented in this paper to deliver an integrated analysis.

Field Evaluation of Storm-Water Control Measures for Highway Runoff Treatment

2012 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan J. Winston ◽  
William F. Hunt ◽  
Shawn G. Kennedy ◽  
Jason D. Wright ◽  
Matthew S. Lauffer
Keyword(s):  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Storm Water ◽  
Water Control ◽  
Highway Runoff

scholarly journals Production Data Analysis and Sonolog for Determining Artificial Lift Design and Well Characteristic

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Bambang Bintarto ◽  
Rizky Rahmat Auliya ◽  
Riza Andhika Mahendra Putra ◽  
Afif Surya Pradipta ◽  
Rafli Arie Kurnia
Keyword(s):  
Produced Water ◽  
Submersible Pump ◽  
Water Control ◽  
Injection Wells ◽  
Diagnostic Plot ◽  
Artificial Lift ◽  
Production Wells ◽  
Production History ◽  
Electric Submersible Pump

Tarakan Field, North Kalimantan is a part of PT. Pertamina EP Asset 5. The Tarakan Field has 5 structures in the form of Pamusian, Juata, Sesanip, Mangatal, and Sembakung. The Tarakan Field has 57 production wells and 6 injection wells. The wells at Tarakan field are produced with artificial lifts in the form of Sucker Rod Pump (SRP) totaling 25, Hydraulic Pumping Unit (HPU) totaling 11, Electric Submersible Pump (ESP) totaling 19 and Progressive Cavity Pump (PCP) totaling 2. The determination of artificial lifts is carried out by the design of well characteristics and production history. The design at Tarakan Field was carried out with an artificial lift in the form of ESP (Electric Submersible Pump). ESP is used according to reservoir and formation characteristics in Tarakan Field. Water Control Diagnostic Plot is a method used to analyze the effect of control on produced water. Water Control Diagnostic plot is plot between WOR and WOR derivative vs time. The plot was carried out on a log-log scale. The plot on the Water Control Diagnostic Plot is then analyzed against the graph created by the KS Chan. So from the analyzed plot, it is found whether or not there is a problem in the well at Tarakan Field. The results of the graph analysis on the well at Tarakan Field on the chart show that the field does not indicate a problem. Keywords: chan plot; design; esp; production

The Hand: Field Evaluation and Treatment

1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Loeb ◽  
Steven C. Mirabello ◽  
James R. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Field Evaluation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document