IPAO3-E-109 PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION ‘Twenty-Ninth Annual Convention & Exhibition, October 2003 IS ACID PLACEMENT THROUGH COILED TUBING BETTER THAN BULLHEADING? Wayne P. Mitehell* Dario Stemberger** AWN. Martin** ABSTRACT It has long been postulated that placing acid into a well through coiled tubing provides for better stimulation treatments than those achieved by simply bullheading. Commonsense suggests that having the stimulation fluid enter the well via a dedicated conduit, adjacent to all points along the length of a treatment interval, will produce more uniform stimulation of that interval. However, the opposing argument is that, irrespective of the delivery method, all fluid follows the path of least resistance and will, therefore, flow into the areas of highest permeability, the ones generally least in need of stimulation, Diversion techniques, employed to improve treatment distribution, can often be applied to regular bullhead treatments as easily or even more easily than they can with coiled tubing. This is not necessarily so when pumping stimulation fluids through SSD’s (Sliding Side Door) or through the ESP (Electric Submersible Pump) itself. Controlled tests to compare bullheaded and coiled tubing delivered treatments are difficult, as no two wells are identical. This paper evaluates 19 wells to provide statistical evidence of which delivery system does generally provide for the best end results, The paper suggests what the underlying reasons for the spread of results might be and suggests criteria as to when coil is, and is not, the best probable choice. It also discusses innovative methods to improve treatment distribution in wells, thereby maximizing stimulation efficiency. INTRODUCTION The Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), operates a number of fields offshore in the = GROOC SES Lad, s+ BU Services ava Sea, located in a block to the southeast of the island of Sumatra (see Figure 1). CNOOC, together with previous operators of this block (Maxus, YPF and Repsol) have for many years been using acid stimulation to enhance the production from their wells. Many different types of treatments have been performed, and many different methods for placing the acid have been used. ‘The wells operated by the NBU (North Business Unit) of CNOOC tend to be very high water cut (averaging 96%), relatively high permeability sandstones (Talang Akar formation). All sandstone wells are completed with screens and some kind of sand control, usually a gravel pack. All wells are produced using electric submersible pumps (ESP's) for artificial lift, as reservoir pressures tend to be low. ‘As 90% of CNOOC’s producing intervals have a sand control completion, the predominant form of, stimulation is matrix acidizing, using both HF- (hydrofluoric acid) and HCl- (hydrochloric acid) based systems. CNOOC and its predecessors have a significant history of stimulation successes (Stanley et al., 199a, 1999b, 2000). The case histories presented, however, deal only with HF-based acid systems. As every well is producing via an ESP, there is a major decision to be made when selecting and proposing a well as a candidate for acid stimulation. Can a workover be justified? Or, alternatively, is it nearly as effective to bullhead the treatments down the existing production string? Compared to most offshore operators, CNOOC is usually in a much better position to perform a workover. Running a large scale ESP operation necessarily involves a continuing series of pump replacements, and so CNOOC usually has between 3 and 5 workover barges servicing wells at any giventime. Nevertheless, the expense of pu installing the completion still has to be justified. Hence, all coil tubing acid stimulations were combined with pump repairs. Another mit factor in the decision to pull the pump, is that due to contractual obligations with the ESP provider, whenever a pump is pulled, it must be replaced with a new guaranteed pump. This then, necessarily adds to the costs involved, in deciding whether to use coil tubing on a producing well. The choice of whether or not to perform a workover has a dramatic implication for the stimulation treatment. If the workover cannot be justified, then the acid stimulation has to be bullheaded down the completion. Whenever possible, the treatment is routed through a sliding side door (SSD) placed in the completion and above the ESP. However, most of the NBU completions do not incorporate SSD’s so the treatment must be bullheaded through the ESP. If a workover can be justified - either through the expected gains from the treatment or because the ESP has failed and the well needs to be re-completed anyway — then the options for placing the acid stimulation are significantly improved. CNOOC have the option of either running in hole with a packer and RBP on a treating string, and selectively tre discrete intervals, or the treatment can be placed with coiled tubing. CNOOC’s predecessors were so convinced that coil tubing was the obvious choice for placement, that whenever a pump failed this became the standard stimulation placement technique. The advantages and disadvantages of both methods will be discussed later. This paper compares the results from 19 different treatments performed in the Talang Akar formation, using both coiled tubing and bullheading through the ESP as the placement technique. The first of these treatments was performed in July 1999, and they are ongoing. It has often been stated that the most important part of coiled tubing is “the hole down the middle” — this paper provides evidence to justify this statement. Background A survey of the literature surrounding coiled tubing treatments reyeals that very little work has been published to-compare the results of bullheaded and CT-based treatments. Indeed, a paper search on the 642 SPE website (www.spe.org) yields +/- 270 papers with “Coiled Tubing” in the title, most of which are concerned with fracturing through coiled tubing, drilling with coiled tubing, metal fatigue, the effects of tubing geometry changes and stress analysis. In short, there is a considerable body of work concerned with the mechanical aspects of coiled tubing operations. There are also a significant number of papers that have been published to celebrate the successes achieved in specific situations, or to overcome specific challenges, Most of these papers are, no doubt, valuable and have contributed to the sum of knowledge surrounding coiled tubing and its operations. However, very little ‘work has been published that compares the successes (or failures) of treatments performed with and without coiled tubing, Taylor and Plummer (1972) discussed the advantages of using coiled tubing for gas well stimulation, for ‘treatments performed in several different Willcox fields in Texas. Of the 22 treatments presented, only 2 were bullheaded, and both of these treatments were performed on wells which were “Off Production” prior to the treatments (making a quantitative assessment of the treatment’s success very difficult). Whilst the 20 coiled tubing treatments seem to have been very successful, there is no way to assess how successful they were compared to the bullheaded treatments. ‘Thomas and Milne (1995) compared the results of coiled tubing and bultheaded treatments for 11 treatments performed in horizontal wells in carbonate reservoirs. This paper showed that the 6 wells treated conventionally with bullheaded treatments averaged an increase in injectivity index of 61 bfpd/psi, whilst the 5 coiled tubing treatments average an increase of 120 bfpd/psi. However, it is clear from the results presented that the coiled tubing treatments were performed on the poorest wells ~ ie. those with the greatest skin factors’ and hence the most to be gained from dissolving away near wellbore damage. Geology The producing horizons in the Widuri field are characteristic of other fields in the northem Asri Basin, even though the reservoir names may be different. They represent the last Talang Akar formation sands deposited in the Asri Graben, whenthe area was submerged in early Miocene time. The Widuri field produces from six sand reservoirs, interbedded with shales and coals in a 350° thick clastic sequence informally called the Gita member. The geological age is late Oligocene-early Miocene. The depositional setting changes up through the sequence from fluvial environments in the lower units to marginal marine in the upper units. The deeper, fluvial 36 and 35 series sands are widespread, poorly consolidated quartz sandstone, medium to coarse grained and pebbly in some layers, with high porosities (27-33%) and permeabilities in the mult Darcy range. The units range up to 80f. thick in parts, reflecting the stacked sandbodies present. The overlying 34 series sands are deltaic and more confined; the sands are finer grained, but porosities and permeabilities remain high. Sandbody thicknesses, approach 60. in some areas. The more confined reservoir in the shallower 34 sand (34-1) has a weak water drive, similar to the overlying isolated 33 series sands. The 33 series sands at the top of the sequence reflect a low energy depositional setting, with fine- grained sands possessing similar porosities but lower permeabilities (in the 100s to few Darcies range). Sandbodies are usually not stacked, and are normally thinner than 30ft... In the Asri Basin this productive interval is sealed by 50-100ft. of shale, coal and limestone interbeds that marks the top of the Gita member. Description of Treatments Most formations in the NBU suffer from slight to acute forms of fines migration damage. Scale and paraffin deposition usually represents only a minor damage factor; however, a5 water cuts have increased even farther, it does appear that the scaling tendency has also increased. Scale composition is typically Caco Because the damage mechanism is primarily due to fines migration, HF-based stimulation fluids have been incorporated and have proved very successful. Typical fluid sequences are slightly larger HCI preflushes (as compared to HF acid volume), HF ‘main acid treatment, HCI post flush, followed by ammonium chloride brine overflushes. Diversion Techniques Regardless of whether the stimulation fluid is bullheaded or pumped through coiled tubing, fluid diversion options are very limited. The main reason itation with coiled tubing, are the small nozzles typical of coiled tubing BHA’s. Solid particulates such as benzoic acid flakes are too coarse to pump through the nozzles. One of the easiest and ‘most convenient diversion fluids is foam (brine with a foaming agent plus nitrogen) or foamed gel (brine plus gelling agent, plus foaming agent, plus nitrogen) Typical foam qualities were usually kept at 75%. ‘Treatment Placement Techniques via Bullheading ‘The majority of wells in the NBU, are completed with high rate ESP’s typically producing at 10,000 to 20,000 bfpd or even higher. The completion string is usually IPC (internal plastic coated), typically requires a surface packer with injection port, is in the range of 4.5” to 5.5” and typically does not incorporate an SSD. Bullhead treatments are thus necessarily forced through the pump vanes and become rate-limited treatments due to the pressure drop across these vanes. However, the pumps are typically quite large and the maximum rate acheivable by bullheading is still in excess of that achieved through 1-1/2”coiled tubing, Typical treatments begin with pumping nitrogen down the annulus until stabilized injection rates are obtained. This helps to ensure treating fluids do not U-tube up the annulus. The treatments are then usually broken into stages as follows: 1, Solvent Preflush 2. 7.5 to 10% HCI preflush (1.25 to 1.5 times volumes of retarded HF acid treatment volume) HE Main Acid (75 to 150 gpf on vertical wells and 10 to S0 gpf on horizontal wells ~ depending on treatment aim (to clean up screens only or for deeper penetration). 4, 7.5% to 10% HCI postflush (volumes typically same as main acid volume). 5. 3% NHACI overflush (volume dependent on depth of penetration desired), 6. Foam Diversion. ‘The total number of stages is then determined by total treatment interval and splitting the areas up into 15 to 30 foot sections. The intent is to allow for a more uniform fluid diversion over the entire interval. It is 643generally believed that the diversion stages would block permeable sections, forcing the acid to Penetrate into new unstimulated areas, thereby increasing production. It is also believed that more diversion stages would lead to improved acid penetration of unstimulated reservoir. Typical injection rates range from 2 to 3 bpm. Treatment Placement Techniques via Coiled Tubing Coiled tubing placement of stimulation fluids has always been considered more effective, but due to the added expense of the coiled tubing unit (CTU), not necessarily an economic choice in many instances. Due to the belief that coiled tubing placement was indeed justified, all workovers with stimulation incorporated the use of coiled tubing. In general, stimulation of the formations was undertaken using a proprietary speed controlled rotating jetting nozzle, which has proven to inject fluids deeper into the formation than regular jetting nozzles. All coiled tubing stimulation treatments were done with this jetting nozzle. Treatment design was such that all fluids were nitrified in order to produce back the spent acid as quickly as possible. Foam was used in all treatments. at 75% quality. Coiled tubing was reciprocated along the entire wellbore during the stages while evenly squeezing the treatment fluids into formation. Typical injection rates are lower than bbullheaded treatments at Ito 1.5 bpm. Cost Differential In general the difference in cost between bullheaded treatments and coiled tubing placed treatments is the cost of the CTU itself. Treatment volumes were designed on a per foot basis and as such placement techniques did not factor into total volumes pumped. It must be said that although all the coiled tubing treatments were done only on wells where the pump had already failed, the cost of the pump and time to replace it should not be taken into consideration here, ‘The pump would have been replaced regardless of whether or not a stimulation treatment was performed. If one normalizes the costs involved in the 6 coiled tubing stimulations versus that in the 13 bullhead ‘operations, by omitting pump replacement costs and the barge time required to pull and rerun the pump, then the average cost of the coiled tubing increased the overall average cost of the treatment by USD 25,000. RESULTS ‘As can be seen from Figure 2, the longer term effects of stimulation via coiled tubing are clear. The average 30 day post CTU placed treatment production, results in an average oil production increase of 199 bopd, whilst the bullhead treatments increase was only 9 bopd. This equates to a PI. increase in 14.9 bfpd/psi compared to 2.9 bfpdipsi for bullhead treatments. OBSERVATIONS ‘As can be seen from the above data, coiled tubing placed stimulations produce much better results than treatments that are bullheaded down the existing completion’s string. A possible cause for this is pinpoint placement of the treating fluid across the entire interval, rather than having the fluid flow in the most permeable and perhaps wettest part of the reservoir. An important fact to note however, is that ofien times the ESP will be producing at rates below its ROR (recommended operating range). In this case, the pump is running at sub optimal levels and often times this will lead to pump failure in short order. Thus, if one waits until the pump fails, it becomes necessary to perform 4 well intervention in order to replace the pump. Although the bullheaded treatments did not perform as well as the coiled tubing treatments, it should be noted that these treatments ~ on average — produced more than enough incremental oil to justify the cost of the treatment, Additionally, it should also be noted that these treatments had several disadvantages over “conventional” bullheaded treatments, as the ESP significantly reduced the maximum pumping rate and prevented the use of particulate diverting agents Often, declining rates can be monitored real time and 4 preemptory intervention can be designed, whereby a small acid stimulation is pumped through the existing ESP to bring production back up to within the ROR of the pump. There is ample data to provide definitive conclusions that stimulations through the ESP can prolong ESP life in some cases thereby increasing NPV through higher production and less welll intervention costs. However, once a pump fails, itappears conclusive that coil tubing placed stimulations are significantly more effective. Another significant factor affecting the quality of the coiled tubing treatments is the jetting tool used in the BHA. The powerful jets produced by this tool allow the fluid to easily pass through the screens and into the gravel, as demonstrated by both laboratory and yard tests. This means that the fluid can mechanically Gisturb filter cake residues and fines, as well as chemically, CONCLUSIONS 1. Coiled tubing placed stimulation, provides a greater PI. increase, for a longer period of time. 2. The added costs involved with coiled tubing do not detract from the incremental benefit achieved. 3. Bullheading acid through an ESP is a relatively inexpensive way to stimulate a well but does not appear to provide long term benefits. However, it should be noted that enough incremental production was obtained to make these treatments economically justifiable 4. Coiled tubing does enable stimulation fluids to be placed where they are needed. 5. The rotary jetting tool allows the treatment fluids to be placed well behind the screens and into the gravel and perforation tunnels, increasing the effectiveness of the treatment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is in many ways a summation of the work carried out by a number of different individuals, of which the authors are merely the last three. During the three and a half years and 19 treatments, the following individuals have been heavily involved in these projects and share credit for the successes achieved: Juan Troncoso, Rick Stanley, Fausto Carretta, Brent Sinanan, Chris Selle, Bambang Tjipto Sentosa, Nangkok Lampitar, Jorge Burgos, John Chesson, Phil Rae, Atikah bte Ahmad, Rini Heryani, Pravase Thayanukulvat, Lance Portman and Antares Munir. In addition, the authors would also like to acknowledge the vital contribution made to the success of these treatments by the numerous operations personnel involved — both offshore and onshore. A special thank you goes to John Armon for his geological background information, Finally, the authors would also like to acknowledge the support and assistance given by CNOOC SES and BJ Services throughout these treatments and the preparation of this paper. Nomenclature BHA = Bottom hole assembly CTU = Coiled tubing unit ESP Electrical submersible pump HCI Hydrochloric acid HE Hydrofluoric acid, hydrogen fluoride NBU = North business unit ssD Sliding side door SI Metric Conversion Factors bipd/psi x 2.305916 E-02 = m3/day/kPa bopd x 1.589 873 E-01=m3/day bwpd x 1.589 873 E-01 =m*/day bpm x 1589873 E-01 = m'/minute inch x2.54* E401 =mm * Conversion factor is exact. REFERENCES Stanley, F.0., Troncoso, J.C., and Rae, P., 1999. Enzyme Treatments Greatly Enhance Production on Horizontal Completions in Indonesia, Proceedings 27" Annual Convention and Exhibition of the Indonesian Petroleum Association, Jakarta, Indonesia, p. 263-278. Stanley, F.0., Rae, P., and Troncoso, J.C., 1999. Single Step Enzyme Treatment Enhances Production Capacity on Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 52818, presented at the SPE/ADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 1999. Stanley, F.0., Troncoso, J.C., Martin, A.N., and Jamil, 0.A., 2000, An Economic, Field-Proven Method For Removing Fines Damage From Gravel Packs, paper SPE 58790, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage, Lafayette, LA, Feb 2000.Taylor, D.B., and Plummer, R.A., 1972. Gas Well Stimulation Using Coiled Tubing with a Mutual Solynet, paper SPE 4115, prepared for the 47" Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE, San Antonio, TX, Oct 1972. ‘Thomas, RL. and Milne, A., 1995, The Use of Coiled ‘Tubing During Matrix Acid Stimulation of Carbonate 646 Reservoirs, paper SPE 29266, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 1995. van Everdingen, AF. and Hurst, W., 1949, The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, 1949, Trans., AIME, 186, p. 305-324.BORNEO SUMATRA {® JAVA SEA aera JAVA, ¢ 1 - Area of the Java Sea operated by CNOOC Southeast Sumatra Ltd, 729 0. BWPD m BOPD 614 500 400 300 264 200 100 a7 is 3! —s ctu All Bullhead 3 8 8 8 g 8 30 Day % Rate Increase gure 2 - Comparison of average percentage production gains 30 days after treatment