According to a recent study, more than 50 percent of the world's energy currently comes from oil and natural gas. So how does Production Chemistry discipline play a role in this? Can we use the discipline to enhance or accelerate production? And what happens if we get it wrong? Will it have a detrimental impact on production? The Production Chemistry threats to business are getting more challenging and frequent, reflecting the changing complexity of our Project and Operations portfolio (deeper water and complex interventions, longer subsea tie backs leading to colder fluids and more wax / hydrate challenges; or smaller tieback to hosts operated by others yielding compatibility challenges). Production chemistry threats in Project and Operations represent a significant challenge to safe and competitive operations. The impact of getting it wrong can be severe, leading to deferrals and increased operational costs. The root causes of many of these deferrals can be attributed to late or unstructured production chemistry involvement during the Project stage and limited support during Operations stage. The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of understanding the financial impact of production chemistry decisions to safety, production assurance, operational expenditure (OPEX) and capital expenditure (CAPEX) for Project and Operations. Moreover, this paper will highlight the criticality of engaging production chemistry at the appropriate project phase to get the desired outcome. This paper provides a number of case studies. In a number of cases, production chemistry engineers correctly evaluated the project threats during engineering design, leading to a correct selection of preventative barriers which proved to be financially favorable, and reduced HSSE risks throughout life of the asset. In addition, one case study describes the operational experiences where the impact of production chemistry was incorrectly assessed and a production loss was incurred during Operations stage. Based on these case studies, production chemistry engineers should be cognizant of the impact of their decisions on the projects including threat assessment and barrier selection throughout the project lifetime. In addition, the production chemistry engineers should be able to effectively communicate their technical decisions and associated reasoning and values provided with the project stakeholders.

Production chemicals being discharged into the natural environment are increasingly becoming scrutinized for their impact on the environment. New and existing chemicals for scale and corrosion control are likely to be impacted by the developing legislation and regulatory control. Therefore, there exists an urgent need to bring the marketplace new chemistry that is able to reduce the environmental impact while still retaining its excellent efficiency. This paper describes the development of novel polymeric chemistry, which has a dual functionality acting as both a scale and corrosion inhibitor under oil field conditions. This chemistry can be readily biodegradable and has achieved the stringent standards required for its use in the North Sea. Laboratory studies demonstrate that this chemistry can inhibit both carbonate and sulfate based scales. Corrosion experiments with or without flow suggest that greater than 90% of inhibition in a carbon dioxide rich environment can be achieved. The calcium compatibility of this chemistry far exceeds the performance of most commercially available scale inhibitors. The impact on oil and water separation, and subsequent oil in water content, is minimal. Introduction The development of multifunctional production chemicals has several strong drivers. First of all, significant cost savings can be achieved both in terms of chemical use and in facility requirements (e.g., a reduction in subsea umbilicals, hoses, and tiebacks). Secondly, using one chemical to replace at least two chemicals minimizes the potential compatibility problems. Finally, environmental discharges are substantially reduced. While all this is true there is one even stronger driver for the development of novel production chemicals. This is the green agenda. The oil industry has to be prepared for increasingly restrictive legislation concerning the use and disposal of oil-field chemicals. In the area of oil-field production chemicals, only Norway currently has formal legislation covering the environmental impact of the products used. The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) administers the various requirements. Elsewhere, the situation is less well developed. For example, in the UK sector of the North Sea, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is currently organizing a voluntary scheme of notification for production chemicals. More rigorous acceptance criteria are pending in line with Norway and the Paris Commission. In the US section of the Gulf of Mexico, a critical dilution factor is assigned to each platform. This factor dictates the amount of chemicals allowed to discharge into the ocean. The factor also is greatly influenced by the "greenness" of the chemicals involved in the oil production. Most recently, the CHARM (1,2) model was recommended in both the UK and Norwegian sections of the North Sea. The CHARM model calculates the ratio of the Predicted Environmental Concentration vs. the Predicted No Effect Concentration (PEC/PNEC ratio). The ratio relates to each chemical's discharge under standardized platform conditions. A ratio of less than unity is most desirable. Again, greener chemicals result in smaller ratios in the calculation and therefore less restriction of employing the chemical. Given that the concern of the protection of the environment is likely to accelerate rather than decline in the near future, there is a need for the oil industry to develop a new generation of environmentally friendly oil-field production chemicals.