CRITICAL REVIEW

1. INTRODUCTION

During the fracturing of shale field, the main problem was inorganic scale and corrosion
due to which flow assurance problems have arose. The inappropriate use of the chemical
inhibitors has caused the LOE (loss of expenditure).It has been shown here that the corrosion
control challenges are related to shale gas development and to control the chemical treatment
processes, a systematic work flow is required.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Flow assurance is basically related to the restriction in flow, these issues may arise due to
inorganic solids, corrosion and erosion, organic solids and complex multi-fluid flow issues. Out
of which the inorganic scale and corrosion are considered as the biggest flow assurance issues.
Carbonates and sulphates are most common inorganic scales. The corrosion factor depends
upon the presence of water. This shale area is encountered generally at depths starting
from 6000 to 9000ft, it's miles a black, siliceous source rock with four-
eight% total organic carbon content material (TOC), forty five% quartz, 20-forty% illite
clay, 8% calcite and dolomite, 7% feldspar, 5% pyrite, 3% siderite, and no loose water;
water gift is bound to both clay materials or in micro -pores with average matrix porosities of
1 -6%. the field carries forty gravity oil, condensate, wet and
dry fuel; gas can occur as answer gas, free fuel inside the matrix, natural fractures and
adsorbed gas in the organics. Hydraulic fracturing is typically used at some point
of this subject. This paper therefore pursuits to broaden a chemical control gadget for
this field that are represented via the improvement of suitable scale and
corrosion hazard assessment paintings flows based totally on a examine group approach, that
is to ensure sufficient chemical being delivered to the excessive threat wells even as now
not losing inhibitors in low priority wells. Fifteen pilot wells were decided on in the examine
institution to run via the work flow.

3. METHADOLOGY

The following methods are used:

Scale Prediction Model:

For 15 pilot wells two methods were used, SPM-A for 14 wells and Stiff Davis Method for the
last one. Both were used for scale prediction.

Method 1 SPM-A:

Used for scale prediction purposes. This method predicted calcite and iron sulphide and
not iron sulphide as there is no H2S calculated during measurements. There are 3 options in SPM-
A, one is to use alkalinity and CO2 mol % at STP for calculations, both were measured on site and
T/P conditions for this case was 87F/368psi. Second is to use pH and alkalinity at STP for
calculations, both were measured on site and T/P conditions for this case is considered to be
87F/368psi. Third is to use pH and CO2 mol% at STP to calculate condition's, both were measured
on site and T/P conditions for this case is considered to be 87F/368psi.

Results:

Three parameters are used for input data I.e, pH, CO2 mol% and alkalinity. The problem
with these parameters is that pH is less reliable, cannot use bicarbonate as alkalinity if system has
organic acids and CO2 mol% depends upon the equilibrium state of the gas. Co2 is considered
because of its distribution in three phases that gas, oil and water. For the further accuracy of
results two software's were used that are SPM-B and SPM-C which were build in EOS to measure
composition changes and Co2 /H2S partitioning. At the bottom-hole conditions, SPM-B and SPM-
C show similar results of calcite, iron sulphide, iron carbonate and no barite and these are also
closely matched with SPM-A (option-1). At wellhead conditions, SPM-B and SPM-C results do not
match for calcite , iron carbonate and iron sulphide, this maybe because of using different
software's for Co2/H2S partition. Whereas barite results are same for these two and can be
compared with SPM-A (option-1).

Corrosion Prediction Models:

1. CPM-A:

Uses iron count equation to measure iron in water production. Mn corrosion can also be
calculated using the same equation.

Fe mpy=(11.95*water bbl/day*Fe ppm)/ (Tubing ID inch * Length ft)

 2. CPM-B:

Norsok M-506 is used which is point based model and it is necessary to run it with T/P, CO2 ,HCO3
and flow conditions w.r.t to the desired location.

3.CPM-C:

This requires the large input data so it is used as comparison with the CPM-B and Norsok M-506.

Results:

Corrosion rates measured by Norsok M-506 and CPM-C show similar results at BH and
WH. While Fe shows higher values and Mn shows lower values for water samples which shows
these can only be used for historical comparison.

CPM-C can also be used to measure the effect of velocity on corrosion which shows that it has
significant impact on BH condition due to high T/P and Less impact on WH conditions due to low
T/P. CPM-C also provides the Corrosion rate profile. (graphs explain latter)

4. DISCUSSIONS
PROBLEM+ SOLUTION +RESULTS
5. RECOMMENDATION
DRAWBACKS OF SOLUTION
PROS & CONS
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of SPM-A:
Two modifications are required in SPM-A, one is to input H2S ppm in brine for Fe S
prediction and use of up to date information for BH T/P conditions and WH T/P conditions.
CPM-C:
This requires the large input data.