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

Abstract

Summary 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 (ID), 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 ID for the flowlines was improved by more than 49% in each of the remediated flowlines, achieving an effectiveness of more than 89% of nominal ID and increasing flow rates without a detrimental effect on system pressure. The cleanouts reestablished nominal capacity in more than 50,000 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 though 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 reevaluating 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 (PCE). CT successfully cleaned out five flowlines with IDs ranging from 6 to 8 in. and reestablished 89 to 98% of their nominal ID. As a result, the operator saved upward of USD 14 million in flowline replacement costs, increased asset usage, 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.