Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Topicstobecovered:
1.
Souringcontrolbynitrateinjectioninlowtemperaturefields
2.
WhatistheelectrondonorfornitratereductionintheEnermarkfield?
3.
Caninjectednitrateoxidizeironsulfideformeddownhole?
4.
Microbialcommunityinlowtemperatureoilfieldundernitrateinjection
SO42SRB
CO2
hNRB
H2S
oil organics
NO3hNRB
CO2
NO2-, N2
NR-SOB
H2S
NO3NR SOB
NR-SOB
S0, SO42-
NO2-, N2
Hightemperatureoilfields:
sulfideproductionlimitedtoinjectionwellboreregionbecauseof:
Coolingofinjectorwellboreregionbywaterinjection
oC)elsewhereinreservoir
Hightemperature(6080
h
(
) l
h
Nutrientrichnessbymixingofinjectionandreservoirwaters
Sulfideproductioneffectivelyremediatedbynitratebecauseonlya
limitedregionofthefieldneedstobetreated.
g
Gullfaksfield
Gullfaks
field
Sunde&Torsvik,
2005
Canfieldsat:
lowerdepth(1000m)and,therefore,
lower downhole temperature
lowerdownholetemperature
besuccessfullytreatedwithnitrate?
Coleville
Coleville
1996
MHGC
2007
Makeup
p water (MW)
(
)
Production
well
Injection water
To pipeline
IW
Injection
well
WP
Oil
W t
Water
Water
PW
Produced water
Water plant
2.Souringcontrolbynitrateinjectioninonshorefieldsoflowtemperature
NewprojectMHGCfield:
850mdepth,30oCdownholetemperature
Heavyoil(16degreesAPIgravity)
2000:startofwaterinjection
2000: start of water injection
Injectionwater(IW)3500m3/day
Oilproduction1000m3/day
Producedwaterreinjection(PWRI)
Makeupwater4mM(400ppm)sulfate
IW(PW:makeupwater=3:1)is1mMsulfate
(
k
3 )i
lf
PW0mMsulfateandonaverage0.1mMsulfide
EvidenceforSouring:
2006:sulfide(gasphase)increasing
Delaycausedbysulfidescavengingofreservoirrock
Souringcouldhavebeenpreventedby:
Souring could have been prevented by:
usingmakeupwaterwith0sulfate
H2S (ppm
H
mv)
10
8
6
4
2
0
11-29-06 1-18-07
3-9-07
4-28-07
6-17-07
8-6-07
Date
9-25-07 11-14-07
1-3-08
2-22-08
MHGClongtermfieldwidenitrateinjection:
Injectednitrateconcentration2.4mMfieldwide
= 150 ppm nitrate = 1 2 mM Ca(NO3)2 =200ppmcalciumnitrate
=150ppmnitrate=1.2mMCa(NO
= 200 ppm calcium nitrate
Stillgoingontoday
Weeklynitratesqueezesat14IWfromJanuary2008 April2009
FieldwidenitratepulsesfromJuly2008 March2009toMarch
2009.
23
23-MW
17
17-WP
8 IW
8-IW
9-PW
17
23
21
20
Wemonitor:
3Makeupwaters(MWs)
3Waterplants(WPs)
3 Water plants (WPs)
2Injectionwells(IWs)
15productionwells(PWs)
15 production wells (PWs)
every23weeks
78
15
5 4
18 19
14 13
16
22
11
10
9
12
Sampling at Waterplant 1 WP
SamplingatWaterplant1WP
Waterplant
Nitratetanks
SamplingPoint
Nitrate
Makeupwater
p
22MW
Productionwells
Production
wells
2PW,3PWetc.
Waterplant1WP
Injectionwells
e g 14 IW
e.g.14IW
Waterplant17WP
Injectionwells
e.g.8IW
Nitrate
Productionwells
6PW,7PWetc.
Nitrate
NitrateatSSite1WP
P(mM)
14
y=0,9293x
R=0,9397
12
10
8
1WP
14IW
7% loss of nitrate
7%lossofnitrate
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
NitrateatSite17
7WP(mM
M)
Nitrateat14IW(mM)
25
y=0,8637x
R=0,8458
20
15
17WP
10
8IW
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
Differenceiscausedbybiocidedosing
Overall conclusions:
Overallconclusions:
Nitratedeliveredeffectivelybytheinjection
i
d li
d ff i l b h i j i
systemtothefield
Lossesduringtransport(duetowallgrowthof
d i
(d
ll
h f
NRB)are715%.
Producingwells
g
15monitored
Mostarehorizontalwellsandreceivewaterfrom
more than one injection well
morethanoneinjectionwell
SamplingPoint
Th fi t 5
Thefirst5weekslookgreatbutwhytherecovery?
k l k
t b t h th
?
IW
PW
1mMsulfate 1mMsulfide
sulfide
sulfide
sulfide
0.1mMsulfide
SRB
Oilorganics
IW
PW
1mMsulfate 1mMsulfate
1mMsulfide
NRB
2mMnitrate 2mMnitrite
SRB
1mMN2
sulfide
Oilorganics
sulfide
0.1mMsulfide
Injectionwatercontains1mMsulfate
j
Thisisreducedto1mMsulfidebySRBpresentasabiofilmclosetothe
injectionwellbore
Nitrate
Nitrateinjectiongivesinitiallystronginhibitionofsulfatereductionin
injection gives initially strong inhibition of sulfate reduction in
thisregion
However,becausethefieldislowtemperaturebacteriacangrow
anywhere
SRBregrowasabiofilmdeeperinthereservoir
Sulfideconcentrationsrecovertoinitiallevels.
HenceNRBandSRBgrowindifferentadjacentzones.
Werefertothisasmicrobialstratification
Canthestratificationbebrokenbychangingthe
continuous
ti
nitrateinjectionintoapulsing
it t i j ti i t
l i nitrate
it t
injectionregime?
Bioreactorstudiessuggestthatthisisso
Bioreactor studies suggest that this is so (seeposterby
(see poster by
CameronCallbeck)
(A)
Site18PW
Site14IW
IKm
Site19PW
Sitte16PW
Site13PW
13PW
(B)
16PW
1WP
nitrate
14IW
nitratesqueezes
18PW
19PW
Nitrate Squeezes at 14 IW
NitrateSqueezesat14IW
Weekly;
Weekly;1000L
1000 L
slugof45%
calciumnitrate
l i
i
injecteddirectly
intoinjectionwell
g
14IWfeeding
producer13PW
NITRATE,mM
WEEKS
Responseat13PW
p
Canapulsingnitrateinjectionstrategyalsoworkfieldwide?
Nitrate (m
mM)
35
25
(A)1WP
30
(C)17WP
20
25
20
15
15
10
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
40
60
80
100
Time (weeks)
Highnitratedoseswereinjectedfor1weekatthetwomain
High
nitrate doses were injected for 1 week at the two main
waterplants
120
Thisgavenitrate/nitritebreakthroughat7PW
0,1
(A)
0,05
Csulfatee (mM)
Csulfidde (mM)
0 06
0,06
0,04
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
50
100
(B)
4
3
2
1
0
20
40
60
80
100
150
(D)
0,8
Cnitrite (mM
M)
Su
ulfide (mo
ol/day)
0,02
-1 0
(C)
0,6
0,4
0,2
120
0
0
Time (weeks)
50
100
150
Csulfide (m
mM)
0,5
(D)3PW
0,4
0,4
0,06
0,2
0,2
0,04
0,1
0,1
0,02
0
0,1 0
0
Wate
er (m3/day
y)
(G)12PW
0,08
03
0,3
0,3
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
60
(B)2PW
260
120
300
20
40
60
80
100
120
60
80
100
120
200
(E) 3 PW
(E)3PW
50
(H)12PW
160
40
220
120
30
80
180
20
140
10
40
100
Sulfide (m
S
mol/day)
0,1
0,5
(A)2PW
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
40
60
80
100
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
Fig. 4
12
(F)3PW
10
(C)2PW
20
40
14
12
120
120
(I)12PW
10
8
6
4
2
0
50
100
150
Time (weeks)
50
100
150
CiVi/Vi (mM)
0,200
(A)
0,150
0,100
0,050
0 000
0,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Averageconcentrationandtotal
sulfideproductionforallPWs
show:
V
Vi (m3/day
y)
1600,000
(B)
1400,000
stabilizationduringpulsingnitrate
injection
1200,000
1000 000
1000,000
patterndominatedby2PW
800,000
CiVi(mo
ol/day)
20
40
60
80
100
120
60
80
100
120
250,000
(C)
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0,000
0
20
40
Time(weeks)
Conclusions:
Nitrate(2mM)dosedeffectivelythroughthefield
Fieldwidesulfidedecreased70%inthefirst5weeksfollowedby
recovery;amodelexplainingtherecoverywaspresented
d l
l i i
h
d
Local
Localincreasednitratedosefromweeks33
increased nitrate dose from weeks 33101
101eliminated
eliminated
productionofsulfideatoneproductionwell
Applicationoffieldwidehigherdosesfromweeks6496stabilized
sulfideproduction
WeshouldconcentrateonPWsthatcontributemosttototal
sulfide production
sulfideproduction
Topicstobecovered:
1.
Souringcontrolbynitrateinjectioninlowtemperaturefields
2.
WhatistheelectrondonorfornitratereductionintheEnermarkfield?
Lambo, A. J., Noke, K., Larter, S. R., and Voordouw, G. (2008) Competitive, microbially
mediated reduction of nitrate with sulfide and aromatic oil components in a low
temperature, western Canadian oil reservoir. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:8941-8946.
3.
Caninjectednitrateoxidizeironsulfideformeddownhole?
Lin, S., Krause, F., and Voordouw, G. (2009) Transformation of iron sulfide to greigite by
nitrite produced by oil field bacteria.
bacteria Appl
Appl. Microbiol
Microbiol. Biotechnol
Biotechnol. 83:369-376
83:369 376.
4.
Microbialcommunityinlowtemperatureoilfieldundernitrateinjection
Bacterial
BacterialcomponentshowedincreasedNRB
component showed increased NRB
Archaeal(methanogen)componentshowed
d
decreaseddiversity
d di
i
Before
After
Before
After
Thankstotheteam(onfirstsamplingtriptoMHGCfield)
Tom Jack
Adewale Lambo
Sasha Grigoryan
Shiping Lin
Johanna Voordouw
Sabrina Cornish
Rhonda Clark
Adjunct Professor
PDF
PDF
Technician
Technician
Graduate Student
Project
j
Manager
g
Baker Petrolite
Baker Petrolite
Pat Stadnicki
Bill Clay
Enerplus
Enerplus