Reduced corrosion iron sulfide scale removing fluids

Abstract

A low-corrosivity composition suitable for dissolving scale on metals. The scale includes iron sulfide scale. The composition includes an aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution comprising hydrogen peroxide; and an acidic solution comprising at least one acid, where the hydrogen peroxide and acid are present at concentrations such that the hydrogen peroxide does not break down to form visible bubbles at about room temperature, where the hydrogen peroxide and acid are present at concentrations such that iron sulfide scale is removed from a metal with iron sulfide scale, after the composition contacts the metal and iron sulfide scale at an elevated temperature greater than room temperature, and where the hydrogen peroxide and acid are present at concentrations such that pitting is not caused on the metal, the metal comprising carbon steel.

Claims

1. A low-corrosivity composition suitable for dissolving scale on metal, where the scale comprises iron sulfide scale, the composition consisting of: an aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution comprising hydrogen peroxide, where the hydrogen peroxide is present at about between 0.5% and about 1.5% by weight of the composition; and an acidic solution comprising at least one acid, where the acidic solution comprises acetic acid present at about between 0.25% and about 2.5% by weight of the composition, where the hydrogen peroxide and acid are present at concentrations such that the hydrogen peroxide does not break down to form visible bubbles at about room temperature, where the hydrogen peroxide and acid are present at concentrations such that the iron sulfide scale is removed from the metal with iron sulfide scale, after the composition contacts the metal and iron sulfide scale at an elevated temperature greater than room temperature, and where the hydrogen peroxide and acid are present at concentrations such that pitting is not caused on the metal, the metal comprising carbon steel, and where the balance of the composition is at least about 90 weight % water to form a dilute, low-corrosivity solution mixture.

2. The composition according to claim 1, where the elevated temperature greater than room temperature is at least about 95 C.

3. The composition according to claim 2, where corrosion to the carbon steel is less than about 0.05 lbs/ft.sup.2 after about 6 hours of the composition contacting the metal and iron sulfide scale at the elevated temperature.

4. A low-corrosivity method suitable for dissolving scale on metal, where the scale comprises iron sulfide scale, the method comprising the steps of: mixing the low-corrosivity composition of claim 1 to form a mixture; applying the mixture to the metal comprising iron sulfide scale; and promoting contact between the mixture and the metal comprising iron sulfide scale at the elevated temperature greater than room temperature such that the iron sulfide scale is removed from the metal after the composition contacts the metal and iron sulfide scale at the elevated temperature greater than room temperature, where the hydrogen peroxide and acid are present at concentrations such that pitting is not caused on the metal, the metal comprising carbon steel.

5. The method according to claim 4, further comprising the step of adding a hydrogen peroxide stabilizer.

6. The method according to claim 5, where the hydrogen peroxide stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of: stannates; acetanilide; phenol; pyrophosphates; nitrate; organophosphonates; and combinations thereof.

7. The method according to claim 6, where the hydrogen peroxide stabilizer comprises sodium stannate.

8. The method according to claim 4, further comprising the step of adding at least one component selected from the group consisting of: a viscosifying agent; a chelating agent; a surfactant; a foaming agent; and combinations thereof.

9. The method according to claim 4, where the elevated temperature greater than room temperature is at least about 95 C.

10. The method according to claim 9, where corrosion to the carbon steel is less than about 0.05 lbs/ft.sup.2 after about 6 hours of promoting contact.

11. The method according to claim 4, where the step of applying the mixture to the metal comprising iron sulfide scale is performed in a wellbore used in hydrocarbon production operations.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) No drawings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

(2) So that the manner in which the features and advantages of the embodiments of compositions and methods for scale removal, as well as others, which will become apparent, may be understood in more detail, a more particular description of the embodiments of the present disclosure briefly summarized previously may be had by reference to the embodiments thereof, which form a part of this specification. It is to be noted, however, that the experiments illustrate only various embodiments of the disclosure and are therefore not to be considered limiting of the present disclosure's scope, as it may include other effective embodiments as well.

(3) In a first example, Experiment 1, a scale treatment composition comprised about 0.5% by weight H.sub.2O.sub.2, a hydrogen peroxide stabilizer including sodium stannate, and about 0.25% by weight acetic acid. For the hydrogen peroxide stabilizer, optional amounts include between about 0.005% to 5% by weight of the hydrogen peroxide or between about 0.01% to 0.2% by weight of the hydrogen peroxide. The solution was balanced to 30 mL with water.

(4) About 0.2 g of pyrite particles of 20/40 mesh size were added to the 30 mL of the solution, and the combination was placed in a 95 C. heating bath. A reaction started within minutes, generating yellow-brown color in the solution, likely due at least in part to the generation of Fe.sup.3+ ions when FeS.sub.2 was oxidized. After about 2 hours, based on stoichiometry calculations, about 29% of hydrogen peroxide effectively reacted with the pyrite particles. After about 4 hours and about 6 hours, about 44% and 50%, respectively, of hydrogen peroxide effectively contributed to the dissociation process of the pyrite particles.

(5) Corrosion tests were carried out with 1018 carbon steel and 4140 steel alloy coupons in the same treatment fluid described previously in Experiment 1, and the samples mixed with the treatment composition were placed in the same 95 C. heating bath. One corrosion mechanism to be avoided while treating scales on metals is that iron of carbon steel is oxidized by hydrogen peroxide into iron ions. Corrosivity was assessed by the general corrosion rate and pitting rate of the steel coupons. The corrosion rate was measured by the mass loss per square foot during the entire test, while the pitting rate was measured by counting the number of pits on the metal sample after the test.

(6) The industrial standard is 2 hour tests, but 6 hours tests were conducted in this corrosion experiment to be conservative. After 6 hours of testing, the corrosion rate of the 1018 carbon steel coupon was 0.025 lbs/ft.sup.2, and the corrosion rate of the 4140 steel alloy coupon was 0.018 lbs/ft.sup.2. These rates are much lower than the industry-accepted standard of 0.05 lbs/ft.sup.2 for a two hour test. No pitting was observed on the surface of either of the metal coupons.

(7) In oilfield operations, embodiments of the treatment fluid composition could be added as liquid H.sub.2O.sub.2 solution on-the-fly, or as solid particles, for example urea peroxide (CAS Number: 124-43-6). Other fluid additives, such as for example surfactants, can be added as well. Compositions can be made viscous by adding viscosifying agents like polymers or viscoelastic surfactant (VES) molecules. Examples of polymers include polysaccharides like guar, guar derivatives, or synthetic polymers like acrylamide polymers or copolymers. Examples of VES compositions include anionic VES, cationic VES, nonionic VES and zwitterionic VES.

(8) Compositions and methods of the present disclosure are safe, clean, lead to low metal corrosion, low cost, fast, efficient, and operationally simple. Compositions are designed for Fe-containing scales like FeS.sub.2, so that the Fenton's reagent (a solution of hydrogen peroxide with ferrous iron as a catalyst that is used to oxidize) can be generated automatically (in other words a self-generated catalyst is formed) which strengthens the oxidation of the FeS.sub.2 scale and reduces and removes the scale. Iron ions will be released during the removal of FeS.sub.2 scales, which in turn can accelerate the dissolving reaction by hydrogen peroxide.

(9) As explained, compositions can further include a H.sub.2O.sub.2 stabilizer, such as for example sodium stannate. The stabilizer suppresses the decomposition of H.sub.2O.sub.2 into O.sub.2 bubbles. Therefore, most H.sub.2O.sub.2 can be used to oxidize the FeS.sub.2 scale instead of the H.sub.2O.sub.2 escaping as O.sub.2 bubbles. One function of stabilizers is to reduce catalytic decomposition of H.sub.2O.sub.2 induced by transition metals and other contaminants. Stabilizers can be metal chelating agents in addition to or alternative to colloids including stannates, pyrophosphates, organophosphonates, and combinations thereof. Stabilizer levels may vary from 0 to several thousand mg/L. Other stabilizers of H.sub.2O.sub.2 include acetanilide, phenol, organophosphonates, nitrate, and combinations thereof.

(10) The addition of an acid like acetic acid or similar acid can prevent and mitigate the precipitation of Fe ions formed during the reaction. Additionally or alternatively, chelating agents may be used instead to chelate Fe ions. Lowering fluid pH with the acid can also slow down decomposition of H.sub.2O.sub.2 into O.sub.2 bubbles. The addition of a viscosifying agent or foaming agent (such as sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES)) as well as quaternary ammonium can further reduce corrosivity to metal and increase fluid viscosity to aid in lifting solid residues from downhole to the surface after the scale treatment within a wellbore.

(11) In certain operations, hydrogen peroxide can be in the form of solution, for example, 0.5% solution. Hydrogen peroxide can also effectively be produced from urea peroxide, sodium percarbonate, and other sources.

(12) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Results of dissolution tests carried out in a similar manner to the experimental conditions described previously for Experiment 1. Volume Tempera- Iron (mL) of ture Mass Chemical Sample Sulfide Treatment Duration of bath Loss Efficiency No. Type Solution (hours) ( C.) (g) (%) S1 Pyrite 30 25.0 95 0.026 9.3 S2 Pyrite 30 49.0 95 0.031 11.1 S3 Pyrrho- 30 25.0 95 0.055 19.6 tite S4 Pyrrho- 30 49.0 95 0.068 24.3 tite S5 Pyrite 30 24.0 95 0.064 45.7 S6 Pyrite 30 48.0 95 0.067 48.1 S7 Pyrite 30 6.0 95 0.013 18.6 S8 Pyrite 30 24.0 95 0.016 22.2 S9 Pyrite 30 48.0 95 0.014 19.6 S10 Pyrite 30 4.0 95 0.019 26.7 S11 Pyrite 30 6.0 95 0.020 28.1 S12 Pyrite 60 4.0 95 0.036 25.9 S16 Pyrite 30 2.0 95 0.020 29.2 S17 Pyrite 30 4.0 95 0.031 43.6 S18 Pyrite 30 6.0 95 0.035 50.2

(13) Higher chemical efficiencies were achieved by dilution of acetic acid added to the sample compositions from 1.25% by weight to 0.25% by weight of the treatment solution. In other experiments, up to 73% chemical efficiency was reached by using the hydrogen peroxide compositions of the disclosure. Chemical efficiency was calculated according to actual mass loss divided by the theoretical amount of iron sulfide which, chemically, the amount H.sub.2O.sub.2 should dissolve. For example, for sample number S5 with 30 mL treatment solution and containing 0.15 g H.sub.2O.sub.2, it theoretically should dissolve 0.07 g FeS.sub.2. If the mass loss of pyrite is 0.07, the chemical efficiency would be 100%.

(14) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Results for certain corrosivity testing. Initial Mass Surface Corrosion Temp. Duration Loss Area Loss Metal ( F.) (hours) (g) (inches.sup.2) (lbs./ft..sup.2) Carbon Steel 1018 203 4 0.05715 1.3989 0.01297 Carbon Steel 1018 203 6 0.10895 1.3990 0.02473 Steel Alloy 4140 203 6 0.07827 1.4003 0.01775

(15) Corrosion loss was calculated by using the mass loss in pounds divided by the exposed surface area of the specimen in square inches. The industry accepts a 2-hour test. The longer the test duration, the more mass loss will occur. The longer duration of 6 hour tests are more conservative than the industrially-accepted standard. In order to ensure the chemical solution will effectively remove iron sulfide scale, but not cause corrosion damage to the tubing, and to ensure that the solution is pumpable via normal oil field equipment, its low corrosivity to carbon steel is essential.

(16) In one embodiment, an effective oxidizing-acidizing fluid is formed when the following products are mixed at, for example, a 1:1 volume ratio (50 mL:50 mL):hydrogen peroxide solution at about 3% by weight hydrogen peroxide solution and distilled white vinegar at about 5% acetic acid by weight. The mixture appears stable, without generating visible bubbles (showing little H.sub.2O.sub.2 decomposition) at room temperature upon mixing. A pure copper (Cu) object placed in the mixture turns the mixture into blue-green color within a few hours. This is caused, at least in part, because the copper is oxidized, and the oxide is then dissolved by the acid. The solution mixture is dilute, containing only 2.5% acetic acid by weight, and 1.5% H.sub.2O.sub.2 by weight. Compared to industrial H.sub.2O.sub.2 at concentrations of about 15-30% by weight, the mixture is much safer. In other embodiments, a hydrogen peroxide stabilizer can be added to the composition, such as for example sodium stannate, in addition to or alternative to other components such as for example surfactants, viscosifiers, and chelating agents.

(17) Iron sulfide scaling is a problem, for example in sour gas wells. As noted, iron sulfide can be dissolved with acids like 15% HCl; however, HCl is corrosive to metals, and toxic H.sub.2S gas is generated. Solubility of iron sulfide in acids is slow and difficult, and using acids alone may not efficiently remove the scale. Embodiments of solutions described here are able to dissolve FeS.sub.2 scale within a reasonably short period, without generating H.sub.2S gas or causing unsuitable levels of corrosion. Other dilute and weak acids can be used in addition to or alternative to acetic acid.