Methodology to Remediate and Evaluate Surface Flowline Capacity with Coiled Tubing Cleanouts

Customers in Ecuador inject the byproduct formation water from production wells into injector wells. A limited injection rate bottlenecks production, which is economically undesirable. Two major contributors limit injection capacity: reservoir injectivity and flowline pressure losses. In the latter case, paraffins, asphaltenes, and scale, collectively referred to as "schmoo," progressively build in the flowline and reduce the internal diameter, limiting flow rate capacity. One cost-effective method to remediate flowlines with significant deposits is coiled tubing (CT) cleanouts. This unconventional method, which calls for optimized planning, execution, and performance evaluation, has been implemented in five flowlines. An economic analysis shows that remediating flowlines using CT cleanout yields significant savings as compared with replacement. After a candidate is identified, job planning takes into consideration flowline length and deviation (to identify maximum reach of CT), schmoo analysis (to design an optimal bottomhole assembly and fluid treatment), and execution logistics (to ensure a viable, reliable, and safe operation). After the cleanout, the flowline is put back into service, and the effectiveness of the treatment is estimated based on system flow rates and pressure losses. The equivalent internal diameter (ID) for the flowlines was improved by over 49% in each of the remediated flowlines, achieving an effectiveness of over 89% of nominal ID and increasing flow rates without a detrimental effect on system pressure. The cleanouts re-established nominal capacity in over 50k ft of flowline that no longer needed replacement. Lessons learned include the ability to complete the cleanout with water alone. The chemical analysis in planning stages showed the absence of carbonates, which enabled a mechanical cleanout with a high-pressure nozzle. Nonetheless, a chemical treatment was designed as a contingency. Another learning was that whereas tubing force models helped predict the reach of the CT, other factors created limitations. For example, the weld bead on the flowline limited the reach of the CT and required re-evaluating where to create cuts along the flowline. Finally, deploying the CT in a flowline required configuring the injector head horizontally, which required a customized base for safe rig up and operation of the injector head and pressure-control equipment. CT successfully cleaned out five flowlines with IDs ranging from 6-in. to 8-in. and re-established 89% to 98% of their nominal ID. As a result, the operator saved upwards of USD 14 million in flowline replacement costs, increased asset utilization, and decreased deferred injection. Historically, there is limited documented experience with flowline cleanouts using CT. The paper documents a repeatable methodology for candidate selection, planning, execution, and performance evaluation. It also provides basic building blocks to meet treatment design, rig-up, and execution requirements that are unique to this application.