Acid Technology
Pertamina Client School
Prabumulih
August 11 - 12, 2009
Stimulation Purposes
• Remedy, or even improve, the natural
connection of the wellbore with the reservoir
• Enhance the reservoir value by providing faster
delivery hydrocarbon fluids
• Increase ultimate
economic recovery
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
2
Stimulation Techniques
• Fracturing: injection above fracture pressure
– Provides large contact area between the wellbore and the reservoir
– Alters flow from reservoir to the well
– Indicated for low permeability formations
– Production improvements: beyond natural (non-damaged) flow capacity
• Matrix acidizing: injection below fracture pressure
– Acid reacts inside the rock matrix around the wellbore
– Indicated for highly permeable (>10 mD), damaged formations
– Production improvements
– Carbonates: can go beyond natural flow capacity
– Sandstones: max out at natural flow capacity
• Acid washes: no injection into formation
– Clean tubulars, perforations, gravel packs
• Perforating: connect cased wellbore to formation
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
3
Choosing a Stimulation Technique
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
4
Top 10 Reasons Not to Frac
1. Weak barriers separating water zone
2. No height containment
3. Naturally fractured/fissured formations (excessive leak off)
4. High Kh formations with deep damage
5. Difficult to access damage (gravel-pack, screens)
6. Unproppable formations (soft rocks)
7. Weak tubulars
8. Bad cement sheath
9. Flowback restrictions
10. Uncertain potential and economic risk
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
5
Matrix Acidizing History
• First acid stimulation in 1895, first patent from Standard Oil in 1896
– Limestone formation, HCl injection
– Outcome: increased well output, but highly corroded tubulars
– Process was abandoned
• Revival in the 1930s for carbonate formations when the first corrosion inhibitor
was introduced by Dow Chemicals
• Sandstone acidizing took off in 1940 with the introduction of Mud Acid by Dowell
• Process is highly dependent on:
– Formation lithology: sandstones or carbonates
– Formation temperature: controls reaction rates, inhibition efficiency
– Formation damage mechanisms: numerous, identifying the correct damage is the most
challenging part of the matrix stimulation process
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
6
Carbonate versus Sandstone
• Carbonate:
– A large fraction of the matrix is soluble (>50%)
– Acid creates new flow paths
by dissolving formation rock
• Sandstone:
– A small fraction of the matrix is soluble
– Dissolution of permeability
damaging minerals and
pore lining material
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
7
Matrix Success Rate
• ARCO study (1990 - 1992 at Thumbs)
– Fracturing failure rate = 5%
– Matrix acid failure rate = 32%
• Amoco study (1994 - 1996 in Permian Basin)
– Acid jobs pay-out < 40% of the time
– Texaco and Chevron had similar results in the area.
• Hassi-Messaoud Field (SPE 39485)
– 1995: positive gain 68% (ave 1.11 m3/hr)
– 1996: positive gain 74% (ave 1.35 m3/hr)
– 1997: positive gain 78% (ave 2.34 m3/hr)
• Why?
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
8
Why are there failures?
• Damage identification Chelant
Production BPD
1400
HCl Mud Acid
1000
600
200
0
15 Months
OIL
WATER
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
9
Why are there failures?
• Lift optimization: fluid level could not be reduced.
ESP installed
10000 100
bopd
bwpd 98
mcfpd 96
1000 fluid above pump
94
Water Cut
Water Cut, (%)
Production
92
100 90
88
86
10
84
82
1 80
3/11/98 4/25/98 6/9/98 7/24/98 9/7/98 10/22/98 12/6/98 1/20/99 3/6/99
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
10
Why are there failures?
• Placement
40
30
20
Change in Water Cut (%)
FOAMMAT DIVERSION SERVICE
10
POST-JOB WATER CUT: 18.8%
0
-10
WITHOUT DIVERSION
-20
POST-JOB WATER CUT: 45.5%
-30
-40
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
11
Why are there failures?
• Damage characterization
• Placement
• Improper candidate selection
• Insufficient acid volume
• Precipitation of reaction by-products
– Poor fluid selection
– Improper acid flowback procedures
• Fluid-fluid incompatibility
– Emulsions
– Sludge (asphaltenes, iron hydroxide)
• Artificial lift
• Water block
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
12
Acidizing Engineering Process
• Candidate selection
• Formation damage characterization
• Stimulation technique determination
• Treatment design => Pumping Schedule
– What to pump, How to pump it, Which volumes
• Treatment execution
• Treatment evaluation
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
13
Top 10 Reasons Not to Acidize
1. Low Kh
2. Unknown reservoir production profile and decline
3. Unknown reservoir rock-fluid properties and minerals
4. Unknown water and gas sources
5. Unknown workover histories
6. Uncertain formation damages, location, and extent
7. Uncertain reaction precipitation
8. Placement restriction
9. Uncertain fluid compatibility (sludging)
10. Uncertain wellbore integrity (soft rock, bad cement shealth,
sanding)
Matrix Stimulation Engineering Solutions
14
