OTC 21141

Two Years After First Oil Paraffin and Scale Flow Assurance Management
Lessons Learned
Jonathan J Wylde - Clariant (Canada) Inc.

Copyright 2011, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 25 May 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This paper describes the evaluation of paraffin and scale risk management based on real production samples, and how this
differed to the assumptions made during the basis of design.
The production facility has two unmanned tiebacks with a field total of just under 20 wells. For first oil the paraffin and scale
management strategy, like most of the flow assurance strategy, was based on pre-production samples. Two years after first
oil, almost all the wells were sampled the first such exercise of its kind gathering large and representative chemical free
crude oil and produced water.
Produced water samples were analyzed enabling a system-wide scale review for production wells, departing pipelines and
major processing vessels and equipment. Some scale had already been observed in the process, in the hydrocyclones and heat
exchangers, and this evaluation helped to highlight the other key risk areas and develop appropriate mitigation strategies
not based on pre-production data and samples. This aided the operator in instigating a more robust scale inhibitor injection
strategy, in particular for the subsea in-field flow lines.
The areas identified as having a paraffin deposition risk in the field were the fluids arriving from the subsea tiebacks where
the arrival temperatures were lower than the cloud points. Cold finger testing identified that greater than 60% inhibition
efficacy was realized when 10 to 50 ppm of the incumbent wax inhibitor was used.
Details are given on some of the shortcomings in the chemical injection system, capturing the lessons learned in control of
wax and scale inhibitor distribution through the subsea injection system. Information is given on how this was countered
using the most efficient and cost effective chemical mitigation strategy. Practical advice is then offered on how to better
interpret pre-production samples to better predict and design flow assurance strategies prior to first oil.

Introduction
The field is an oil and gas asset development located in the Gulf of Mexico in water between 85 to 190 feet deep. It produces
oil and gas with associated condensate. The designed processing capacity of the facility is 100 MBOPD and 280 MMcf/d of
gas. The produced oil has a gravity between 28 to 34 API, and is low in sulfur and acid. The design anticipated the wells to
produce up to 20% BS&W in late field life. Based on laboratory results, asphaltene deposition was not expected to be a
concern; however, the pre-production crude samples had over 6% paraffin with a cloud point as high as 82F. The crude oil
export specification is 0.5% BS&W, and a TVP of 11.0 psia.
The basis of design was for a phased field development:

Phase 1 (Years 1 to 4): Oil production and full gas re-injection. This includes installation of a central production
facility with three satellite wellhead platforms. Oil is exported to an onshore terminal via pipeline.

OTC 21141

Phase 2 (Years 5 to 10): Early gas sales may be considered which occurs concurrently with oil production and gas
re-injection. Gas sales will be a potential 150 to 200 MMcf/d, and will be exported as wet or dry gas via a new
purpose-built gas export line.

Phase 3 (Late Field Life / Gas Sales): Gas sales of 250 to 350 MMcf/d to field depletetion. Oil production is
expected to decline to unsustainable levels and therefore no gas re-injection will be required.

The equipment installed for first oil production was:

A central production and processing platform including power generation, utility, flare, life support systems and
living quarters.
Three wellhead platforms (WHP) two remote and one bridge linked to the central processing platform.
An export oil pipeline.
Intra-field production flow lines connecting the WHPs to the central platform, and intra-field gas injection flowlines
from the central platform to the gas injection wells on the various WHPs.

Figure 1 shows the field architecture layout drawing giving a schematic overview of the development, and Figure 2 shows a
simplified schematic of the liquid processing equipment on the central platform.

Basis of Design Flow Assurance Assumptions

Paraffin / Wax
Pre-production crude oil samples were obtained during drilling appraisal whilst well samples were analysed using classic
PVT analysis. Stock tank oil was also available and this was used for higher crude-consuming paraffin deposition and
inhibition tests a summary of the data has been included in Table 1. The oils analyzed are all typical of a medium sweet
crude with the exception of WHP 3, which had a higher wax content, whilst WHPs 1 and 2 had a higher asphaltene content.
Using the pour point analysis, it was concluded unlikely that there would be any flow problems and pour point depression
would not be required.
During testing of stock tank oil, the wax appearance temperature (WAT) was challenging to measure accurately and, due to
the critical nature of this parameter to deposistion, this was a challenge to the basis of design. Two different techniques, cross
polarized miscroscopy (CPM) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), were used and yielded different values hence the
range reported. This phenomenon may have been due to sample contamination, differences in sample handling,
homoegenization, sub-sampling and analytical technique it was not possible to conclude which. For design purposes the
decision was made to use values of 77F for WHPs 1 and 2 and 82F for WHP 3.
There were further concerns regarding the SARA analysis which indicated possible asphaltene instability. Previous
depressurization laboratory testing for asphaltene deposition had, however, shown that standard operating conditions would
be well outwith the deposition envelope. It was considered prudent to design a solvent wash system for oil well completions
that utilized suitable elastomeric components.
Even with the conflicting WAT data, wax deposition was a concern as the information showed quite categorically that WHP
3 was more waxy. Further analysis determined that by using insulated flowlines a majority of deposition could be controlled.
Wax deposition was determined to be likely from all crudes at any exposed subsea surfaces, and at exposed dead legs during
cool, wet weather. Deposition on crude storage tank walls was determined to be unlikely and it was assumed that this would
manifest itself as a waxy sludge layer resulting from gravitations.
Insulated intra-field flowlines were therefore installed to protect against wax deposition by maintaining the crude arrival
temperature above the WAT (the overall U-value for the insulation was 1.25BTU/hr/ft2) and provision was made for pigging
these flowlines during late field life. Wax deposition in the export pipeline would be controlled by regular pigging. A backup wax inhibitor injection system was installed and a suitable chemical was identified via cold finger experimentation,
yielding efficiencies up to 70%. However, the project team was concerned that the recommended wax inhibitors required too
high an injection rate and anticipated it to be an inhibitively high cost operation.

OTC 21141

Scale Flow Assurance Basis of Design

Table 2 shows the aquifer water analysis sampled during drilling. Generalizing the samples are all low TDS, high
bicarbonate, no sulfate, with relatively high organic acids. The basis of design for scale mitigation assumed these
compositions to be typical for the field.
Scale modelling was performed at the conditions summarized in Table 3 to determine the risk upon water breakthrough. All
brines had the potential to deposit CaCO3 scale with the harshest scaling predicted at WHP 1 some of the modeling outputs
have been placed in Figure 3 the volume of scale predicted ranged from 285 to 310 mg.L-1. As expected, scaling volume
and tendency increased with increasing pressure and temperature. In summary, the scaling severity could be described as
medium-severity with respect to CaCO3.
Looking at analogous field developments in the near proximity, it was determined likely that CaCO3 scale formation would
deposit in the formation and tubing thus requiring scale squeezing. These operations were therefore planned for when
designing the WHP facilities and wells. Consideration was given to completing wells with a downhole scale inhibitor
injection string, but the experience of other operators indicated that CaCO3 scale deposition was still likely to occur across
the performation interval and near wellbore region. The reliability of downhole injection strings was determined questionable
by the project team, as approximately 50% of strings installed by two North Sea operators had become unserviceable and, as
a consequence, the additional cost was too challenging to justify inclusion.
A range of scale inhibitor chemistries was assessed using industry standard compatibility testing, static jar tests and dynamic
scaling loop testing using the worst case water chemistry. The dynamic scale loop tests provided a guideline to the working
minimum inhibitor concentration (MIC) in the field. In the absence of scale inhibitor, all brines failed to scale sufficiently in
the loop at 130F. The test temperature was increased to 170F in order to produce tube blockage and allow MIC
determination under the harshest conditions likely to be encountered in the field. The final product selection was to use a
detaphosphonate scale inhibitor with an MIC ranging from 10 to 20 ppm. The strategy was to not inject scale inhibitor on
start-up, as it was anticipated that water would not initially be produced. Careful monitoring of the production rates and
process trends was determined to be sufficient enough to ascertain the best time to begin injection.

Lessons Learned After Flow Assurance Re-Evaluation Two Years Following First Oil
Paraffin / Wax Flow Assurance Post-First Oil Assessment
Samples were taken from all the online wells during an extensive campaign in December of 2007 with 11 of the online
wells sampled. This was the first such sampling campaign of its kind since first oil, and after two full years of production
provided the most representative data gathered for the field.
Experimentation was performed on these samples to evaluate waxing tendency. This was combined with process information
gathered during a detailed offshore platform survey to determine the overall waxing risk to the process. Further, an
observational check of the mitigational strategies was assumed during the project phase. Most importantly, the
experimentation aimed to determine whether the current 10 ppm of wax inhibitor injection was sufficient to control wax
deposition based on the properties of individual and commingled crude oil samples. Cold finger tests were performed to
evaluate the performance of products on commingled samples blended in such a way to mimic the highest risk waxing
areas.
The physical properties of the crude oils have been summarized in Table 4. Various analytical techniques were used to
determine the wax and asphaltene content of the crude oil as well as the WAT and pour point. The WAT results differed
significantly from the basis of design measurements all being considerably higher, i.e. worse in terms of flow assurance
risk. A previous study in September 2005 showed the WAT to be 122F for WHP 2 and 111F for WHP 3. It would seem
that the WAT has increased with time this is not uncommon as initial production has more light ends (associated with the
gas cap) and once these deplete, the heavier crude oil displays a higher waxing tendency.
The asphaltene content measured in these post-first oil samples was similar to that of pre-production samples but
significantly the wax content was lower this was hypothesized to be because there was significant contamination of the preproduction samples, potentially with drilling and completion fluids. Pour point measurements showed the crude did not have
a gelling propensity, as no pour point above 10F was measured.
At the time of testing, the field treatment was to inject 10 ppm of a wax inhibitor to the WHP 2 and 3 subsea headers prior to
the produced fluids entering the in-field subsea flow lines. The testing focus thus shifted on more field representative cases
where mixtures of the individual crude samples were made (based on production rates) according to the following ratios:

OTC 21141

WHP 2: WHP2, Well 1 40%, WHP2, Well 2 60%

WHP 3: WHP 3, Well 1 36%, WHP 3, Well 2 27%, WHP 3, Well 3 16%, WHP 3, Well 4 21%
Pour point and cloud point measurements were taken on blank and samples treated with 10, 50 and 100 ppm of wax inhibitor
from WHP 2 and 3 results have been summarized in Table 5. It can be seen that 10 ppm of wax inhibitor had no effect on
the WAT or pour point, nor was any effect observed when higher concentrations were added. To sense check these data, pour
points and WATs were taken using 10 ppm wax inhibitor on the highest wax content individual wells WHP 2, Well 1;
WHP 1, Well 1; WHP 3, Well 2; and WHP 3, Well 4. Again, however, 10 ppm of wax inhibitor did nothing to suppress
either the WAT or pour point.
The fluid arrival temperature at the Central Platform of WHP 2 fluids varied between 128 and 140F, whilst WHP 3 arrival
temperature varied between 117 and 129F. The seabed temperatures have been summarized in Table 6 and for context
WHP 2 is in 165 ft of water, WHP 3 in 160 ft and the Central facility 110 ft. WHP 1 arrival temperature was much higher and
well above the WAT, as this flowline passed over a bridge to the Central Platform. The integrity of flow assurance in the infield lines flowing WHP 2 and 3 fluids to the Central Platform was at risk of wax deposition. Arrival temperatures from both
subsea flowlines were much lower than the measured WAT. It was unclear where exactly in these subsea flowlines wax
deposition could be occurring because a flowline temperature profile was not available. It was likely, however, that the major
risk area for wax deposition was closer to the Central Platform in both cases due to the subsea flowlines being insulated. A
slight risk of deposition probably existed along the entire length of the flowline, as the ambient seabed temperature could
cause the skin temperature to be lower than the WAT. The likely form of wax would be a soft / mushy coating of wax on the
pipeline wall with entrained oil.
Cold finger experiments were performed to evaluate the efficacy of the current wax inhibitor treatment. The test is based on
the fact that the wax in a crude oil/condensate will deposit on a surface whose temperature is below the WAT. A sample was
heated to homogenize any wax crystals already precipitated, then a cold finger placed in the sample and the assembly itself
placed in a warm bath while the cold finger was still connected to a chiller bath. Wax crystals would then be deposited on the
cold finger. The results of the cold finger experiments are summarized in Tables 7 (WHP 3) and 8 (WHP 2). It can be seen
that wax deposition was higher in the WHP 3 experiments which intuitively makes sense, as the wax content in this crude
mixture was slightly higher; however, disproportionately higher volumes of wax were deposited in the WHP 2 experiments.
It can be concluded that the distribution of the wax components in the WHP 3 crude were likely to be on average a higher
carbon number than those in WHP 2.
WHP 3 results show that 10 ppm of the incumbent wax inhibitor surprisingly provided a significant amount of protection
against wax adsorption onto the cold finger almost 50% inhibition was obtained with the current field dose rate of
chemical, and increasing the treat rate to 50 ppm gave approximately 65% inhibition. The typical success criteria for this test
is a result of >60% inhibition. Increasing the treatment rate to 100 ppm gave a result of approximately 75%. WHP 2 results
were better still which was in line with the overall lower wax deposition tendency displayed by this crude oil mixture. Just
10 ppm of the incumbent wax inhibitor gave over 60% inhibition against deposition of wax on the cold finger. Increasing the
dose rate to 50 ppm yielded almost 80% inhibition and further increasing the dose rate to 100 ppm gave in excess of 80%
inhibition.
The wax inhibitor injection system performed poorly as distribution could not be adequately controlled. The platform
chemical technicians reported the injection rate control device (IRCD) gave unreliable operation. Wax inhibitor was being
injected to the export system, as well as WHPs 2 and 3. It was impossible to determine the relative distribution of this
chemical to each of those locations. No flow meters worked because the rates were too low (out of range) and the chemical
technicians relied on a tank level drop each day to determine the total wax inhibitor injection rate and assumed an equal
distribution to each location. IRCD units are unreliable if metering to each injection location cannot occur, as valve settings
will be different due to varying backpressures at the different injection locations.

Scale Flow Assurance Post-First Oil Assessment

The opportunity was taken to gather produced water samples at the same time as the crude oil sampling from eleven
individual wells. This enabled an in-depth evaluation of the scaling potential, differences from the basis of design and
allowed for optimization of the system-wide scale control strategy.
Prior to this sampling exercise, scale deposition had been reported in the process system notably in the electrostatic heater
treater and the produced water hydrcyclones. Figure 4 shows photographs of these solid deposits. The samples were dried and
ashed and identification of the elemental composition of the ashed solids was performed using a combination of energy

OTC 21141

dispersive x-ray analysis (EDX) and x-ray diffraction (XRD). The drying and ashing showed some minor aqueous and
hydrocarbon components to the samples but the majority was inorganic. The EDX results have been summarized in Table 9
and show that all the samples were dominated by calcium and calcium carbonate, with the exception of one electrostatic
heater treater sample which also had 12 to 13% of barium suggesting deposition of barium sulfate. Siliceous material was
detected in all samples indicated by silicon composition up to 17%.
The origin of the calcium carbonate material in the process is unclear. Two hypotheses seemed plausible: In-situ origin
caused by scale formation of the produced water due to depressurization through the process; or drilling weighting agents
returning from the clean-up of newly drilled wells. This latter hypothesis was proposed because particle size distribution
analysis on one of the scale deposits showed it to be similar to the drilling mud slurry utilized for the well.
An extensive modeling exercise was performed based on sampling campaign water analyses, which has been summarized in
Table 10. The results of the scale modeling suggested:

Production wells: At tubing head temperatures and pressures, barite scale would form for WHP 1, Well 1 produced
water due to the higher sulfate content; injection of scale inhibitor was recommended. Calcite scale would form for
WHP 3, Well 2 and WHP 1, Well 1 produced water, and likewise scale inhibitor injection was recommended. All
waters collected from production wells showed siderite scale potential due to high bicarbonate contents.
Departing in-field pipelines: WHP 1 flowline had a barite and calcite precipitation challenge, thus scale inhibitor
injection was recommended. All the departing pipelines showed siderite scaling tendency.
CPP facilities: the HGOR separator exhibited a barite and calcite precipitation challenge, and scale inhibitor
injection was recommended.

These results validated the observation of mild calcite scale in the process system. Small amounts of barite and siderite were
also speculated because of existence of elemental barium, iron and sulfur in the scale samples.
Dynamic Scale Loop (DSL) testing was performed on a composite mix of the water chemistries at 100F and 140F to
represent topside conditions. The DSL testing did not yield a scaling blank after 17 hours. The most severe waters, WHP 1,
Well 4 and WHP1, Well 1, were chosen for secondary testing at 140C yet still did not scale in a blank test after more than
eight hours. It is likely that the scale forming in the field is doing so slowly and, therefore, it is challenging to evaluate in the
laboratory.
The strategy adopted was to not inject scale inhibitor until more evidence of scale formation was apparent. This was
determined to be robust because it also comprised regular field observations and monitoring. The scale samples that had been
recovered thus far were during routine maintenance operations and had not themselves caused process upsets or blockages. It
was sustainable to continue to remove scale deposits during routine operations this would continue until the burden of
removal became too great.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The wax deposition propensity and treatment efficacy were evaluated, combining a field audit and laboratory evaluation of
samples taken during a comprehensive well sampling exercise. The following conclusions were drawn:

The wax content of the crude oils tested ranged from 1.38 to 2.90 wt%, with the WAT varying from 136 to 144F
and the pour point not greater than 9F.
WHPs 2 and 3 were identified as having a wax deposition risk, as the fluid arrival temperatures at the Central
Platform were lower than the WATs.
At 10, 50 and 100 ppm incumbent wax inhibitor, there was little or no effect observed on the WATs and pour points
of any crude oil mixtures tested.
Cold finger wax inhibition testing identified that greater than 60% inhibition efficacy was realized when 10 ppm of
the incumbent wax inhibitor was used for WHP 2 crude oil, and when 50 ppm was used for WHP 3 crude oil.
The results of this study differed significantly to the basis of design. The WATs were lower and the wax content
higher. The difference in WATs can be ascribed to later production being richer in heavier end components with
pre-production samples having more light ends associated with the gas cap. The difference in wax content was most
likely due to contaminated samples.

It was recommended to ensure injection of 10 ppm of the wax inhibitor into the commingled fluids departing WHP 2 to the
Central Platform to protect the intra-field subsea flowline. For WHP 3, 50 ppm of wax inhibitor injection was recommended

OTC 21141

to be injected into the departing fluids. However it was acknowledged that there was little or no control on the distribution of
wax inhibitor injected due to the flow indicators being out of range. Therefore, it was required to inject 50 ppm of wax
inhibitor to both WHP 2 and 3, i.e. based on gross oil production from both tiebacks, to ensure adequate distribution of wax
inhibitor to the required locations this assumed that there was a similar distribution of wax inhibitor to all injection points,
validated to a degree by calculation.
The scale deposition propensity determined through the post-production sampling exercise did not yield significant
differences between the basis of design assumptions and the post-first oil case. The following conclusions can be drawn:

The basis of design water compositions, whilst less saline overall, did have a higher concentration of scaling ions
than those measured during the well sampling exercise. It is acknowledged however, that water of condensation
could be diluting the wellhead samples taken post-production.
The basis of design predicted scale formation in the process as well as downhole. To date, no scale has been
determined to have formed downhole but scale has been removed from the process.
Some barium (sulfate) has been observed in scale samples, but it is unclear whether this was due to in-situ
precipitation or was a result of drilling fluid contamination.
Consideration to the injection of scale inhibitor to prevent calcite scaling has been given; however, the strategy to
date has been to not inject, rather focus on monitoring process trends. This has been sustainable because of the
relatively low water production and low scaling potential. There is, of course, risk associated with this when scale
formation is known to be occurring, but routine monitoring can manage this risk.
A process acidization job has been evaluated and was based on glacial acetic acid injection.

OTC 21141

Table 1: Stock tank crude oil properties from the two different reservoir panels in the field development
Stock Tank Crude Oil Properties
COMPONENT

Wellhead Platforms

Wellhead

1 and 2

Platform 3

29.0

33.3

67 to 93

82 to 134

Wax content (wt%)

5.2

6.7

Pour Point (F)

<10

52

Acid Number (mg KOH/g)

0.98

0.55

Sulfur Content (wt%)

0.64

0.41

Asphaltene content (wt%)

2.8

1.06

API Gravity
Wax Appearance
Temperature (F)

Table 2: Pre-production water analysis results from different reservoir panels in the field development

COMPONENT

Wellhead
Platform 2

Wellhead Platform 1

Wellhead

(mg/L)

Platform 3

(mg/L)
Sodium, Na

5,600

5,820

6,010

7,680

44

43

56

56

49

156

306

150

23

26

50

10

30

20

60

6,568

8,558

8,865

12,592

Potassium, K

2+

Calcium, Ca

Magnesium, Mg

2+

2+

Barium, Ba
2+

Iron, Fe (Total)
-

Chloride, Cl

Bicarb., HCO3

(mg/L)

2,641

1,592

1,293

1,324

2-

180

968

283

331

7.70

7.47

7.47

7.09

Sulfate, SO4

Bromide, Br
pH

Table 3: Production conditions provided as part of the basis of design

Wellhead
Platform 1

Wellhead
Platform 2

Wellhead
Platform 3

2,625

2,855

2,760

Wellhead P (psia)

450 to 1,160

450 to 1,160

450 to 1,160

Bottom hole T (F)

170

170

170

110 to 130

110 to 130

110 to 130

Bottom hole P (psia)

Wellhead T (F)

OTC 21141

Table 4: Results of the crude oil wax appearance temperature, pour point, wax and asphaltene content testing on postfirst oil production samples
Sample Point

WHP 2
Well 1

WHP 2
Well 2

WHP 1
Well 1

WHP 1
Well 2

WHP 1
Well 3

WHP 1
Well 4

Asphaltene %

1.91

2.53

1.42

2.10

2.18

2.10

Wax %

2.90

1.38

2.40

1.92

1.70

1.87

WAT (F)

144

140

144

136

142

140

Pour point (F)

<5

<5

<5

<5

57

57

Sample Point

WHP 1
Well 5

WHP 3
Well 1

WHP 3
Well 2

WHP 3
Well 3

WHP 3
Well 4

Asphaltene %

2.38

1.00

1.71

2.10

1.13

Wax %

1.25

1.60

2.70

1.83

2.00

WAT (F)

144

136

140

144

144

Pour point (F)

<5

<5

<5

<5

69

Table 5: Results of the crude oil wax appearance temperature, pour point using 10 ppm of wax inhibitor (WI) on
representative WHP 2 and 3 fluids
Sample
Point

WHP 2
Blank

WHP 2
10 ppm
WI

WHP 2
50 ppm
WI

WHP 2
100 ppm
WI

WHP 3
Blank

WHP 3
10 ppm
WI

WHP 3
50 ppm
WI

WHP 3
100 ppm
WI

WAT (F)

144

144

140

140

136

136

136

136

Pour point
(F)

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

Table 6: Seasonal seabed seawater temperature by depth

Depth (ft)

Dry Season F

Wet Season F

min

max

min

Max

77

83

80

86

66

73

84

78

87

131

69

86

73

87

197

66

82

71

85

OTC 21141

Table 7: Summary of the WHP 3 cold finger experiments using the incumbent
wax inhibitor at 10, 50 and 100 ppm
PPM

Mass (g)

% Inhibition

Comments

WHP 3 Blank

0.7680

Blank

Soft, easy to remove

WHP 3 Incumbent Inhibitor

10

0.4144

46.0

Soft, easy to remove

WHP 3 Incumbent Inhibitor

50

0.2704

64.8

Soft, easy to remove

WHP 3 Incumbent Inhibitor

100

0.2014

73.8

Soft, easy to remove

Table 8: Summary of the WHP 2 cold finger experiments using the incumbent wax inhibitor
at 10, 50 and 100 ppm
PPM

Mass (g)

% Inhibition

Comments

WHP 2 Blank

0.4561

Blank

Soft, easy to remove

WHP 2 Incumbent Inhibitor

10

0.1698

62.8

Soft, easy to remove

WHP 2 Incumbent Inhibitor

50

0.0932

79.6

Soft, easy to remove

WHP 2 Incumbent Inhibitor

100

0.0775

83.0

Soft, easy to remove

Table 9: Semi-quantitative EDX analysis result summary on all scale samples removed from the process
Element
C
O
Na
Mg
Al
Si
S
Cl
K
Ca
Fe
Ba

Electro Heater
Treater
Feb 29, 2008
0
12.45
0.51
0.46
1.90
7.89
2.87
1.52
1.10
54.53
3.63
13.04

Hydrocyclone
Feb 21, 2008

Hydrocyclone
Nov 14, 2007

Hydrocyclone K-liners
Nov 15, 2007

0
21.45
0
0
0.36
5.60
0.53
0
0
71.05
1.02
0

0
15.96
0.50
0.76
2.35
17.00
3.58
0.92
0.92
40.98
5.03
12.00

0
23.30
1.49
0
0.69
0
0
0
0
72.50
2.03
0

10

OTC 21141

Table 10: Produced water analyses from extensive post-first oil sampling exercise from wells across the field
WHP 3Well 1

WHP 3Well 2

WHP 3Well 3

WHP 2Well 2

WHP 1Well 5

WHP 1Well 3

WHP 1Well 4

WHP 1Well 1

Central
Plat.

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

8,783

8,044

6,998

9,322

6,400

7,227

11,473

1,705

1,504

2.50

2.50

8.50

2.75

2.00

1.50

24.75

15.25

10.25

1.00

3.75

1.75

4.75

1.00

1.25

5.25

3.25

0.25

3.00

2.50

1.75

1.00

1.00

16.75

3.75

15.25

0.25

3.25

2.25

2.00

0.50

1.00

15.75

6.75

9.00

2.25

4.00

1.75

2.00

5.00

4.50

3.75

0.50

0.00

12,000

11,000

9,500

14,000

8,500

10,000

17,500

13,000

12,000

2,672

2,672

2,428

915

2,440

2,086

805

2,330

2,281

Sulfate, SO4

154

49

34

53

51

45

32

1,550

0.00

pH

8.8

8.5

8.4

8.6

8.5

8.5

7.0

7.9

7.3

Production Rate
(BWPD)

122

208

103

131

33

39

825

118

N/A

COMPONENT
Sodium, Na+
2+

Calcium, Ca

Magnesium, Mg

2+

2+

Barium, Ba

Strontium, Sr

2+

2+

Iron, Fe (Total)
-

Chloride, Cl

Bicarb., HCO3
2-

OTC 21141

11

Figure 1: Schematic overview of the field architecture

12

OTC 21141

Wellhead Platform 3
CAN

Wellhead Platform 2
KAI 1

HP Separator

Wellhead Platform 1
KAI 2

HGOR
Separator

Oil Trim
Exchanger

IP Separator

Oil Heater

Produced Water
Hydrocyclone

LP Separator

Flotation Cell

Electrostatic
Heater Treater

To Skim Pile

Figure 2: Simplified schematic of the central processing platform equipment as well as how the wellhead
platform wells are manifolded

OTC 21141

13

Figure 3A: Scale precipitation modeling for Wellhead Platform 1 waters using a bottom hole temperature of 170F
and 2,625 psia and wellhead choke of 110F and 450 psia with all intermediate temperatures and pressures

Figure 3B: Scale precipitation modeling for Wellhead Platform 1 waters using a bottom hole temperature of 170F
and 2,625 psia and wellhead choke of 130F and 450 psia with all intermediate temperatures and pressures

Figure 4: Solids removed from the process plant. Electrostatic heater treater sample Feb 29, 2008 (left); hydrocyclone
Feb 21, 2008 (right)