.
Controlling Formation Damage Using Clay Stabilizers: A Review Z.J. Zhou; Z.J. Zhou AOSTRA/ARC/CANMET/lndustry Research Program Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar W.O. Gunter; W.O. Gunter AOSTRA/ARC/CANMET/lndustry Research Program Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar R.G. Jonasson R.G. Jonasson AOSTRA/ARC/CANMET/lndustry Research Program Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, June 1995. Paper Number: PETSOC-95-71 https://doi.org/10.2118/95-71 Published: June 06 1995 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Zhou, Z.J., Gunter, W.O., and R.G. Jonasson. "Controlling Formation Damage Using Clay Stabilizers: A Review." Paper presented at the Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, June 1995. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/95-71 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsPetroleum Society of CanadaPETSOC Annual Technical Meeting Search Advanced Search AbstractClay minerals in hydrocarbon reservoirs often cause formation damage. The wellknown examples are fines migration, clay swelling, and hydrothermal mineralreactions. In the last few decades, numerous clay stabilizers have beendeveloped to control formation damage related to clay minerals. Claystabilizers have wide applications in acidizing, fracturing, sand control, workovers, and enhanced oil recovery. Field applications of clay stabilizershave been proven 10 be economic.Hydroxylaluminum (OH-Al) polymers are one of the first group of claystabilizers developed in the late sixties. Due to their high charge, polynuclear OH-AI cations are favoured by negatively charged clay surfaces andthus provide a strong stabilization effect for clay minerals. The adsorption isirreversible and OH-AI polymers can stabilize clayspermanently. However, OH-AIpolymers are stable only in a narrow pH range (3.5 - 6.0); they are notcompatible with basic solutions and their applications are limited to near wellregions. In recent years cationic organic polymers (COP) have been widely usedas clay stabilizers. They are complete soluble in water and compatible withacids and bases. They also provide permanent stabilization to clays. Some COPsave good thermal stabilities up to 250"C However, COPs with high molecularweights may cause damage in low permeability reservoirs. In thermal recovery, ammonium based salts have been used to buffer the pH of the steam condensateand residual liquids. These steam additives are effective in controllingmineral reactions,- but they are ineffective in ontrolling clay swelling orfines migration unless a high concentration of NH4+ismaintained in the flooding solutions good understanding the interactionsbetween clay minerals and clay stabilizers is essential to their successfulapplication.IntroductionIt has been widely recognized that the clay minerals can cause significantformation damage to hydrocarbon reservoirs. Well known examples are finesmigration and smectite swelting which can reduce reservoir permeability by orethan 90%. This formation damage often leads 10 poor productivity and thus cansignificantly raise the cost of oil recovery. In the past thirty years, thepetroleum industry has made a great effort to control/minimize the formationdamage related to clay minerals. The result of this effort is he development ofnumerous chemicals often called clay stabilizers in the industry. From itsconception, clay stabilizer has evolved from simple inorganiccompound2–5 in the 60's to inorganic polymers in the 70's6–9, and to complex organic polymers in the 80's and90's10–15. Many of them have been used in drilling, completion, acidizing, fracturing, sand control. Workover, water flooding, steam injection, etc.. The economic success in applying clay stabilizers depends on an engineerunderstands of the formation damage and his choice of clay stabilizer(s). Toefficiently use clay stabilizers, it is important to evaluate the applicabilityand limitation of each and every clay stabilizer available.In this paper, we will first summarize clay-related formation damage and major mechanisms of clay stabilization. A comprehensivereview is made on clay stabilizers published in referred and patent literature.Some laboratory results and field cases will be presented to illustrate theapplicability and efficiency of three classes of clay stabilizers: inorganicpolymers, organic polymers, and steam additives. Keywords: ofclay stabilizer, organic polymer, mineral reaction, rock/fluid interaction, production chemistry, polymer, fluid dynamics, formation damage, upstream oil & gas, fluid compatibility Subjects: Formation Damage, Production Chemistry, Metallurgy and Biology, Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Improved and Enhanced Recovery, Downhole chemical treatments and fluid compatibility, Flow in porous media This content is only available via PDF. 1995. Petroleum Society of Canada You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Heavy and extra-heavy oil reservoirs located in Western Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces) collectively represent one of the largest accumulations of hydrocarbons in the world. Over the past 20 years, a sustained field and laboratory reasearch program aim ar economic recovery of Canadian heavy oil and bitumen has taken place. This has resulted in the development and commercialization of many recovery processes using steam. Current production from active thermal projects is about 18,000 m(3) per day.To cope with the large variation of geological and petrophysical conditions found in such oil reservoirs, a wide variety of successful steam-based recovery processes have evolved. These include steam stimulation above and below fracture pressure, pressure cycle steam drive, steam drive, and steam-assisted gravity drainage from both underground and surface access. The principal mechanisms believed to be taking place in each case will be outlined. Pertinent applications of each steam process in relationship to the micro and macro description of the reservoir essential economic recovery are discussed.
Summary This paper presents a case history of the Phase A steam-assisted gravity-drainage (SAGD) test conducted by the Alberta Oil Sands Technology & Research Authority (AOSTRA) at its underground test facility (UTF). Reservoir description, the recovery process, design of wells and other critical hardware, production operations history, and performance analysis are discussed. Phase A demonstrated a commercially viable combination of recovery, production rate, and steam/oil ratio (SOR). Completions design and production engineering progressed significantly. Phase B scaleup considerations and commercial economic projections also are discussed.
