SPE 58790

An Economic, Field-Proven Method For Removing Fines Damage From Gravel Packs
F.O. Stanley, SPE, BJ Services Co. Indonesia, J.C. Troncoso, SPE, YPF-Maxus Southeast Sumatra B.V., A.N. Martin,
SPE, BJ Services Co. (Singapore), and Omar Ali Jamil, Brunei Shell Petroleum

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana 2324 February 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Its a fact of life many gravel packs plug up. As time passes,
skin factors go up and production rates go down. Much of the
money that was spent on creating a sand control completion
with minimum skin may eventually count for nothing. In order
to prolong the effectiveness of the gravel pack (GP) and as a
added benefit reduce the need for workovers, a method was
developed in the Far East to remove these fines and
dramatically reduce the skin factor. The method employs
relatively small volumes of a specialized HF (hydrogen
fluoride) acid system, designed to penetrate into the GP and
very near wellbore area. The HF acid system uses an organophosphonate (HV) acid to control the production of HF and to
control and drastically reduce potentially damaging secondary
and tertiary precipitates. The system will be referred to as
HV:HF Acid in this paper.
This HV:HF Acid system can be applied to any well with a
screen and/or GP that has damage caused by the migration of
formation fines and/or drilling mud particles. It is not limited
by the type of screen or gravel nor by the length or number of
sets of screens. The method has potentially enormous
implications throughout the world. Any well with a GP or
screen could potentially benefit from this method of treatment,
including long horizontal intervals, which up to now have
been very expensive to treat, due to the larger volumes of acid
normally recommended.
The results of this HV:HF Acid method will be illustrated
by 3 case histories from the Far East, including horizontal
wells. The observations from these treatments allow us to
conclude that this method is highly successful, cost effective,
and applicable to a broad spectrum of well conditions. The
reduced stimulation volumes provide better economics, so that

even long sections and horizontal wells can now be stimulated

at reasonable costs.
Introduction
Around the world there are literally thousands of gravel
packed wells which could benefit from a reliable and cost
effective method for removing damage caused by fines. Many
of these wells start out with relatively low skin factors and
then gradually show an increase in skin as the GP, a.k.a. the
filter, collects migrating particulates. In other areas of the oil
industry where filters are used (hydraulic systems, preparation
of completion fluids, engine lubrication etc), filters are cleaned
or replaced as they get plugged. Replacing a GP is a risky and
expensive process which involves the often problematic well
killing operation. Alternatively, cleaning the GP has the
potential to be a much more cost effective solution.
There are inherent problems associated with trying to
remove fines damage from the matrix of a GP. Firstly, the
fines themselves are usually composed of either quartz
particles (silica), silicates and alumino-silicates (clays and
feldspars) or, more commonly, a combination of these.
Because the GP is filtering out some of these particles, they
are generally much more concentrated in the GP area than they
originally were in the formation. The only method available
for removing these fines short of doing a workover is to
use some kind of hydrogen fluoride (HF) based acid system,
typically referred to as mud acid (as these acid systems were
first developed to remove formation damage caused by drilling
muds). The use of such acid systems to dissolve silica,
silicates and alumino-silicates is sometimes poorly understood
and can often result in the production of several different types
of precipitates. Indeed, the process of HF acidizing has been
described as an effort to remove more damage than the
damage created by the treatment itself 1 . Instances of HF
treatments actually reducing production (i.e. creating more
damage than they remove) are unacceptably common.
Another component of these inherent problems is that the
formations themselves are unconsolidated or poorly
consolidated and therefore require gravel packs and/or screens
for sand control. The action of mud acid systems on such
formations can sometimes result in further weakening of the
zone, causing additional production of fines and making the
original fines problem even worse. An initially successful

F.O. STANLEY, J.C. TRONCOSO, A.N. MARTIN AND OMAR ALI JAMIL

treatment would then have a very limited life. Published

information on successful GP cleanouts are rare and the data
that has been presented 2,3 are inconclusive on the long term
benefits of the treatments.
It should, however, be remembered that some penetration
into the formation is both useful and unavoidable. It can be
beneficial because much of the fines damage is located in the
perforation tunnels and the formation immediately adjacent to
the GP (especially in the case of open-hole gravel packs).
In short, attempts to remove fines damage have often been
failures. Engineers are understandably reluctant to risk these
treatments, although they are sometimes carried out as a final
effort to prevent a workover.
To summarise, there are four major problems associated
with cleaning fines damage from gravel packs:
1.
The particles which need to be removed can only
realistically be treated with some form of HF
treatment.
2.
During an HF treatment, the particles that need to be
removed can release substantial quantities of
precipitates and cause more damage than is removed
by the treatment.
3.
Because the screen and gravel are acting as a filter,
the concentration of these particulates is often much
higher in the GP and adjacent formation than in the
original formation.
4.
Penetration into the already weak or unconsolidated
formation by the HF system can result in the
production of additional fines, making the original
problem even worse.
The New Approach
The HV:HF Acid System. The original HV:HF Acid System
was first described in 19964 and has since been used on
hundreds of wells worldwide for matrix stimulation and nearwellbore damage removal. Numerous case histories for this
HV:HF Acid system are available 1, 4-7 and it is not the purpose
of this paper to repeat already published descriptions of the
system. Below is a summary of the main advantages of the
HV:HF Acid System for treating fines damage in gravel
packed wells:
1.
By varying the composition of the system, the acid
can be tuned to either fast reacting clay particles or
slow reacting silica fines.
2.
The active ingredient in the system works to help
prevent the formation of precipitates by either
complexing metallic ions or by crystal poisoning,
depending upon the nature of the potential
precipitate.
3.
The active ingredient has a strong anionic charge
which acts to strongly water wet the GP and
formation, maximising kro and minimising krw.
Conventional mud acid systems, which are typically
composed of a mixture of HCl and HF, will act to
preferentially attack the clay particles. This is due to the

SPE 58790

extremely high surface area to mass ratio of the clays

compared to silica. Once the HCl:HF combination has
attacked the clays, the primary mechanism preventing the
formation of precipitates is the excess HCl. This has little
effect on a large number of secondary and tertiary reaction
products, many of which will form precipitates.
A number of other alternatives to mud acid are available.
The most notable of these are fluoroboric acid 8,9 (HBF4 ) and
alumino-fluoric acid. These systems have been well known for
some time and have both strengths and weaknesses. The
systems use equilibrium reactions to delay the release of HF,
thus increasing penetration into the formation. As previously
discussed, this is not necessarily advantageous in this very
near wellbore application. Additionally, neither acid has a
mechanism which acts to prevent the formation of precipitates.
The fluoroboric acid system has a mechanism which displaces
aluminium from the surface of clays with boron helping to
prevent the breakdown of the clay. Unfortunately, this
aluminium can then be the cause of secondary and tertiary
precipitates.
There is also an effect of HF acid systems on the strength
of gravels and proppants. Previous work indicates that high
and intermediate density ceramic proppants can be
significantly weakened by HF systems, low density ceramics
are less affected and quartz grains are least affected. One of
the conclusions from this work is that the use of HBF4 can
make proppant/gravel strength reduction even worse.
Treatment Volumes. Treatment volumes for the HV:HF Acid
System have been kept very low, in order to minimise the
volume of acid which penetrates through the GP and into the
formation. Typically, treatment volumes for HV:HF are in the
range of 10 to 20 gpf (gallons per foot) of zone or screen
section.
Prior to the HV:HF acid stage, an HCl acid pre-flush is
pumped. On wells where organic deposition is suspected, a
separate solvent or acid-solvent pre-flush can be included or
mutual solvent can be added to the HCl pre-flush. Whatever
the composition, the task of the pre-flush fluids are to displace
away formation fluids, whilst at the same time dissolving
calcareous material. Because of the acid nature of the preflush, it will also dissolve iron-based minerals in the formation
(hematite, siderite, ankerite, etc) and also any iron deposits
(rust) in the tubulars. Therefore, the pre-flush should contain a
well designed iron control package and be of sufficient size
and strength such that the acid will have the capacity to
dissolve calcareous deposits once all the iron-based
compounds have been dissolved. For these treatments, it is
common to pump similar volumes of pre-flush to that of the
HV:HF stage. However, if significant levels of iron
compounds or calcareous material are expected, the volume
can be increased.
After the HV:HF stage, an acid overflush stage is pumped.
The acid stage is designed to remove the residual effects of the
HV:HF Acid System and as such should be designed with
similar volumes to those used in the HV:HF acid stage.

SPE 58790

AN ECONOMIC, FIELD-PROVEN METHOD FOR REMOVING FINES DAMAGE FROM GRAVEL PACKS

Placement Technique. The treatments can be placed with

either CT or by bullheading from the surface. CT is preferable,
since volumes injected ahead of the treatment are smaller and
placement is more uniform. Attachments to the coiled tubing,
such as rotating nozzles, can help improve contact of the acid
with the damage.
Foam Diversion. Foam diversion is an accepted technique 11
and has been successfully utilized with the HV:HF Acid
treatment. The methodology to design the foam is relatively
uncomplicated and has progressed through many years of
experience.
In the technique, used by Brunei Shell Petroleum (see Case
History CP-14), the liquid phase of the foam is a gelled water
based fluid mixed with 40 to 50 lbs/mgal polymer. Also
included in the liquid phase is NH4 Cl (clay control) and a
surfactant. If required, an organic clay stabiliser can also be
utilized.
The overall volume of the liquid phase is 25 to 30 % of the
volume of the total HV:HF Acid volume. This total diverter
volume is then divided into smaller diverter stages and placed
between each stimulation stage. The volumes of each of the
stages does not need to be equal. In general, when acid is
pumped into a well, it will follow the path of least resistance,
i.e. the path that needs the least stimulation. As this is the
easiest flow path, it is also the hardest to divert from.
Therefore, when designing the diversion for these treatments,
it is usual to start with smaller acid stages and larger diverter
stages and as the treatment progresses move to larger acid
stages and smaller diverter stages.
The nitrogen volume can be flexible, as a down hole foam
quality of anywhere between 65 and 75% will produce enough
stability and viscosity for this application. This will give
diversion capabilities that are moderately unaffected by
uncertainties in bhtp or permeability.
If coiled tubing is utilized (see YPF-Maxus case histories),
foam diversion is not as important for proper placement of
treatment fluids. Nitrified fluids, however, can be used for
fluid gradient control, especially on low bottom hole pressure
wells, yielding better treatment coverage across long intervals.
Case Histories
Brunei Shell Petroleum, Well Champion 14. CP-14 was the
first well to be treated using this technique, and has so far
produced spectacular results. See Table 1 for well data
summary.
CP-14 was originally completed in May 1972 as a single
string, single zone, open hole externally gravel packed well.
Over a period of time the gravel pack failed, and the well was
eventually closed in during 1979, due to excessive sand
production. In May 1985 the sand fill was cleaned out and a 31/2 internal gravel pack was set, inside the original gravel
pack (see completion diagram, Figure 1). Since then, a gradual
decline in production has been observed, and the well was
finally shut in during April 1995 at only 19 bopd (3 m3 /day).

It was believed that some of this production decline was

due to a gradual plugging up of the screen with formation
fines.
The original design for the stimulation of this well
involved pumping relatively large quantities of 9:1 mud acid
(50 gpf). BSP requested an investigation of this design, with a
view to modifying it if necessary, in order to employ up-todate technologies and to reduce the cost of the treatment.
There were two major points of concern. Firstly, pumping
large quantities of mud acid into an already deconsolidated
formation would probably tend to weaken the formation. It
was believed that the IGP screens were plugged up with
formation fines. This design could make things even worse,
rather than better. The second major concern involved the
mineralogy of the formation. No definite mineralogy data for
this well was available, however evidence from offset wells
suggested high levels of clays and iron compounds, as well as
considerable variation in these levels from well to well.
At the end of this investigation, it was recommended that
the interval be treated with 10 gpf (screen length) of the
HV:HF acid system as previously described, mixed so that the
equivalent strength of the HF was 1.5%, plus pre- and postflushes. As a safety measure, the acid system included a higher
than normal loading of iron control additives. Several foam
diverter stages would be used to promote coverage of the
entire set of screens. The relatively low acid volume was to
ensure that the minimum quantity of acid entered the
formation, so that most of the effort of the treatment would be
to clean the screens and gravel pack assembly. The reduced
acid volume also meant that the treatment had a significantly
lower cost than the original version.
The treatment was pumped through 1 coil tubing on 8th
October 1998. The pumping schedule is contained in Tab le 1.
The diverter stages were designed to be 65 % quality at
bottom hole conditions. The treatment was designed with
smaller acid stages, and larger diverter stages, at the
beginning, changing to larger acid stages and smaller diverter
stages at the end. The idea behind this is that the areas treated
first need least stimulation, but most diversion. However, the
areas treated last need most stimulation and least diversion.
Hence the above schedule.
The well, which had been virtually dead when it was shutin (April 1995) started to flow almost immediately after the
treatment was completed. Two weeks after the job, the well
was producing 176 bopd (28 m3 /day) of oil. 5 weeks after the
job the well was still producing at this rate. Pre- and posttreatment production are shown in Figure 2.
YPF-Maxus, Field Background. Two case histories from
YPF-Maxus in Southeast Sumatra, Indonesia are presented
(Table 1). These wells produce from predominantly high
permeability (multi-Darcy) fluvial sandstones of the Talang
Akar formation 12 . Most of the wells are completed in strong
water drive reservoirs and produce 34o API gravity crude oil
from poorly consolidated sandstones. They have average
porosity of 27 to 32 % and permeability of 1 to several

F.O. STANLEY, J.C. TRONCOSO, A.N. MARTIN AND OMAR ALI JAMIL

Darcies. Bottom-hole temperature pressures range from 180o

to 200o F. These poorly consolidated sandstones are fairly
clean, with relatively low clay content (less than 7%). The clay
composition consists of 90% kaolinite and the remaining 10%
is primarily illite. All these completions are produced with
electric submersible pumps (ESP).
Approximately eight years of production history exists in
the area where the two case history wells are completed. The
initial development consisted primarily of vertical and
deviated cased-hole GP completions. Although the sands are
relatively clean, the type of clays - in combination with the
high fluid rates (with high water cuts) and the GP means that
fines migration damage is a very common occurrence. A fieldwide practice to identify and confirm fines migration consists
of backflushing the GP with formation fluids, and monitoring
the gains in pumping bottom-hole pressure using down-hole
real time sensors installed in the ESP installations. The data, in
conjunction with the production gains (usually temporary)
makes for a very simple and effective way to identify fines
migration problems. Vertical and deviated GP completions are
routinely stimulated with high strength HCl:HF type acid
treatments to remove this damage. Most of the treatments are
successful in removing the damage but some of the wells
require re-stimulation after several months or years. The type
of down-hole installations (see Figures 3 and 4) coupled with
the high reservoir permeability, makes other analytical
techniques less reliable than this field backflush operation.
During the last three years, the field development has
relied primarily on horizontal open-hole gravel packs as the
preferred completion type. In these usually higher productivity
horizontal completions, fines migration probably does not play
as much of a role in the production rates or down-hole
pumping conditions when compared to vertical and deviated
wells. However, in cases where the damage affects the entire
open-hole GP, production rates will be reduced.
Due to the larger wellbore area of the open-hole horizontal
sections, back-flushing techniques in these GP completions
have not been as successful as in directional or vertical wells.
Analytical tools for skin determination may be required for
further detailed evaluation.
The following case histories are two acid applications to
remove GP and very near wellbore damage.
Case History - Aida A-9
The Aida A-9 well is a 500 ft horizontal open-hole GP
completed in December 1998 (Figure 3). As part of the
completion practices in the field, Aida A-9 was initially
stimulated using 2000 gals of a polymer specific enzyme
solution to remove drill-in fluid (DIF) damage from the
drilling operations, a standard operation in the area to remove
and dissolve polymer and calcium carbonate particles 13 .
Coiled tubing and nitrogen foam were utilized for effective
enzyme placement across the 500 ft interval. Initial production
was 2500 to 3000 bfpd with a productivity index (PI) of less
than 5.0 bfpd/psi, below expectations for this type of
completion and reservoir. Review of the completion and

SPE 58790

drilling operations did not yield any clear indication of the

type of the damage. Possible areas investigated were damage
incurred during completion operations, such as improper fluid
filtration, an inefficient GP job, and improper removal
techniques of the DIF mud. In early April 1999, 2000 gallons
of 10% HCl was bullheaded through the ESP to confirm if
excess calcium carbonate particles from the DIF still remained
in the GP and open-hole area. This treatment did not
noticeably improve production but did yield a very slight (and
temporary) increase in pumping bottom hole pressure. In early
May 1999, the ESP installation was pulled and coil, nitrogen
and foam were utilized to place another 2000 gals of enzyme
solution followed by 5000 gals of 10% HCl acid. The
treatment targeted starch polymer damage and calcium
carbonate particles plugging the GP. A slight improvement in
production was noted, however the well continued to underperform in comparison to offset producers. The post
stimulation drawdown was still unacceptable for a horizontal
completion in this zone.
The HV:HF Acid treatment, previously described4 , was
proposed to target damage incurred during production, such as
fines migration and organic damage as well as damage
associated with drilling and completion operations.
In mid-July 1999, the HV:HF treatment (Table 3) was
performed as follows: a toluene soak, followed by a 10% HCl
pre-flush, 15 gpf of the HV:HF Acid, a 10% HCl after-flush
and an NH4 Cl after-flush. All fluids were placed in the 500 ft
horizontal section with coiled tubing and special rotating
nozzles utilized for effective placement and penetration into
the GP area. All fluids were nitrified at approximately 400 scf
per barrel of fluid pumped.
The volume of approximately 15 gal of the HV:HF Acid
System per foot of section was designed to stimulate the GP
and the very near formation area adjacent to the GP. The
NH4 Cl afterflush was primarily used to displace the HV:HF
acid system away from the GP area during the 1 day period
while the completion was being re-run.
The treatment was very successful (see Figure 5) and
resulted in approximately a 5-fold increase in the productivity
index (30 bfpd/psi) and more than double the pre-treatment
production rates, from 4500 bfpd (200 bopd) to over 10,000
bfpd (400 bopd). This increase provided data to further prove
that fines and not DIF damage was the primary damage
mechanism limiting production on this well.
Widuri D-17
This case history depicts a different type of application of the
HV:HF Acid System. Widuri D-17, a 402 ft open-hole
horizontal GP completion, was placed on production in
December 1996. Several ESP installations have been run
during the wells life. Tear down reports of the failed electric
submersible pumps have consistently showed damage to the
pump due to production of solids. Sieve analysis indicated that
these sand particles or fines could be produced through the GP
screen with the formation fluids.

SPE 58790

AN ECONOMIC, FIELD-PROVEN METHOD FOR REMOVING FINES DAMAGE FROM GRAVEL PACKS

In July 1999, a program was prepared to gather basic data

for workover preparation to help determine where water is
produced. However, the well completion limits the number of
effective production logging tools that can be run under static
conditions. As a result, a GP evaluation tool and a video
camera were run in the Widuri D-17 horizontal section to
determine the mechanical condition of the GP screen and
assembly.
Some visible solids (scale and possible fines) were seen in
the horizontal section. Downhole video showed that the base
pipe of the 5-1/2 GP screen was badly corroded (L-80
material). Conversely, the wire-wrapped screen over the base
pipe appeared to be unaffected (stainless steel material). The
scale deposition and corrosion is apparently due to the CO2
present in the field where the D-17 is completed. Corrosion is
observed throughout the field but severe material loss in the
D-17 screen base pipe was unexpected. At this time, there is a
program underway to re-evaluate GP equipment material
selection to resolve this corrosion problem. Other important
findings from this evaluation program was the result of the GP
evaluation log. The original GP operations were able to fill
only 73% of the open-hole-screen annulus volume. The
logging data showed, as expected, areas with poor gravel
packing.
A more interesting finding was the change in gamma ray
radioactivity in the open-hole section. The gamma ray logging
data, after 2 years of production, when overlapped with the
original logging while drilling (LWD) open-hole gamma ray,
showed an almost perfect overlap over the first 200 feet of
heel section with separation thereafter on the lower 200 feet
toe section. It is hypothesized that this separation is a
qualitative indication, that the toe of the horizontal section
has probably produced more water since the higher gamma ray
is associated with the deposition of radioactive uranium
isotopes. It was also recognized that areas near the heel,
where the gamma ray readings overlap, possibly sustain more
damage during drilling and could plug up easier during
production because of higher drawdown pressures.
In order to help the mechanical integrity of the GP
assembly, an inner 3 screen was run inside the original GP
assembly (late July 99). The well, prior to the workover,
produced at a rate of 11,124 bfpd, 779 bopd (93% water cut).
Once the inner screen was run in place, the well was returned
to production at a rate of 8,764 bfpd, 175 bopd (98% water
cut). A rate reduction was observed with the introduction of
the inner screen, however the most dramatic change was that
the oil cut never recovered to the pre-workover level during
the 3-week runtime of the installation. Inspection of the ESP
installation showed the failure was due to production of fines.
These solids were either accidentally introduced during the
workover operations or were left in the wellbore from the
previous installation. Production, before and after the screen
installation, is illustrated in Figure 6. The replacement of the
failed ESP installation enabled access to the horizontal section
for downhole work.

The application of the HV:HF Acid System to stimulate

the heel section only, could result in an increase in oil rate
and a reduction in water cut. At the same time, a stimulation of
the GP through the inner screen could address potential
plugging of the screens. A treatment (Table 4) to address the
removal of fines plugging the inner screens, as well the 200
foot heel area consisted of: a toluene soak for organic
damage removal followed by a 15% HCl soak to treat for the
potential calcium carbonate scale identified by the video
camera. After, the following treatment was pumped: 15% HCl
pre-flush, 20 gpf of the HV:HF Acid System, a 15% HCl afterflush and NH4 Cl after-flush. All fluids were nitrified at 500 scf
per barrel of fluid pumped and placed across the 200
horizontal heel section with coiled tubing and special
rotating nozzles utilized for effective placement and
penetration into the GP area. The NH4 Cl over-flush was
primarily used to displace the acid system away from the GP
area during the 1 day period while the completion was being
re-run.
Prior to the stimulation, the D-17 tested at 98% water cut
(8764 bfpd) or 175 bopd. After the treatment the well
produced at 96% water cut (11,024 bfpd) or 441 bopd, a gain
of approximately 265 bopd and 2250 bfpd. The post treatment
lower water cut provides encouraging results that damage was
removed from the heel area by the HV:HF acid system.
Summary and Economic Discussion
A successful and economic method to stimulate long
horizontal GP completions as well as vertical and deviated
wells has been presented.
The reduced volumes of the HV:HF Acid System can be
used to treat fines damage in the GP, screen and very near
wellbore areas. The treatment can be specifically tailored to
treat long intervals, such as horizontal completions, where
reduced volumes make it more economically justifiable,
compared to conventional matrix treatments. Similarly,
vertical and deviated wells where near wellbore damage, GP
damage or screen fines plugging is recognized, this HV:HF
Acid System makes a much more economic alternative to the
larger volume conventional matrix treatment approach.
A comparison between the volumes for near wellbore
treatments and those larger volumes typically used for smaller
zones shows that the HV:HF Acid System presented here is a
remedial alternative, or a diagnostic tool. For instance the
Widuri D-17 treatment realized a production increase of 265
bopd and the Aida A-9 well gained 200 bopd. Assuming an
average treatment cost of US $80,000 and 18 $/bo, both
treatment costs were recovered in less than one month. A
remedial workover or a more conventional approach (larger
acid volumes) to damage removal in these wells would have
required a much larger cash disbursement, a much higher
associated risk and a higher incremental production rate for a
comparable payout.

F.O. STANLEY, J.C. TRONCOSO, A.N. MARTIN AND OMAR ALI JAMIL

Conclusions
1.
An advanced HV:HF Acid System has been
specifically designed and applied for the purpose of removing
fines from gravel packs and near wellbore areas.
2.
Field case histories demonstrate that the HV:HF Acid
System, with reduced volume, has increased production on
those wells stimulated.
3.
An economic acid system to treat horizontal gravel
packed wells has been developed which is inexpensive and
effective as compared to a conventional stimulation approach.
4.
Various types of well completions have been
successfully treated with this HV:HF Acid System, allowing
conclusions to be made that many wells in the industry can
benefit from similar lower volume treatments.
5.
Various placement techniques, including bullheading,
coiled tubing and foam diverting have been used for effective
zone coverage of the HV:HF Acid System.
Nomenclature
bhtp = bottom hole treating pressure
bfpd = barrels of fluid per day
bopd = barrels of oil per day
ESP = electrical submersible pump
kro = relative permeability to oil
krw = relative permeability to water
mgal = one thousand gallons

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank YPF-Maxus Southeast
Sumatra B.V., Brunei Shell Petroleum and BJ Services for
permission to use the data presented in this paper. We would
also like to thank John Anderson, Brent Sinanan, Stewart
Barrie, Jaap van Ballegooyen and Phil Rae for their valuable
contributions to this project.

13.

SPE 58790

presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference &

Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 Oct 1997.
Dean, G.D., Nelson, C.A., Metcalf, S., Harris R., and Barber, T.:
New Acid System Minimizes Post Acid Stimulation Decline
Rate in the Wilmington Field, Los Angeles County, California,
paper SPE 46201, presented at the SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 10-13 May 1998.
Kume, N.I., van Melsen, R.J., Erhahon, A.L., and Afolabi, F.A.:
New HF Acid System Improves Sandstone Matrix Acidizing
Success Ratio by 400% Over Conventional Mud Acid Systems
in Niger Delta Basin, paper SPE 56527, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
3-6 Oct 1999.
Thomas, R.L., and Crowe, C.W.: Matrix Treatment Employs
New Acid System for Stimulation and Control of Fines
Migration in Sandstone Formations, paper SPE 7566, JPT
August 1991, 1491-1500.
Kunze, K.R., and Shaughnessy, C.M.: Acidizing Sandstone
Formations with Fluoboric Acid, paper SPE 9387, presented at
the Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
SPE, Dallas, Texas, Sept 21-24 1980.
Roberts, S.S., Binder, M.S., and Lane, R.H.: Strength, Volume
and Weight Loss of Gravels and Proppants due to HF-Based
Acids, paper SPE 20168, presented at the SPE Formation
Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb 22-23, 1990
Smith, C.L., Andersen, J.L., and Roberts, P.G.: New Diverting
Techniques for Acidizing and Fracturing, paper SPE 2751,
presented at the 40th Annual SPE California Regional Meeting,
6-7 Nov 1969.
Carter, D.C., Kortlang, W., Smelcer, M., and Troncoso, J.C.:
An Integrated Approach To Horizontal Well Design And
Planning In Widuri Field, Offshore Southeast Sumatra,
Indonesia, paper IPA 98-2-116 presented at the IPA 26th annual
meeting, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 1998.
Stanley, F.O., Rae, P., and Troncoso, J.C.: Single Step Enzyme
Treatment Enhances Production Capacity in Horizontal Wells,
paper SPE 52818, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 9 11 March 1999.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Ross, D., and Di Lullo, G.: HV:HF Acid Treatments, Proven

Successful in South America, Brazilian Petroleum Institute
paper IBP-SE-076/98, presented at the Rio Oil & Gas
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 5-8 Oct 1998.
Svendsen, O.B., Kieven, R., Hartley, I.P.R., and Aksnes, N.:
Stimulation of High-Rate Gravel-Packed Oil Wells Damaged
by Clay and Fines Migration: A Case Study, Gullfaks Field,
North Sea, paper SPE 24991, presented at the European
Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, 16-18 Nov 1992.
Dietrich, M.J., and Hunter, W.L.: Design and Field Testing of
Matrix Acid Diversion Treatments in Widely Varying
Permeability Zones, paper SPE 21715, presented at the
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
7-9 April 1991.
Di Lullo, G., and Rae, P.: A New Acid System for True
Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs, paper SPE 37015,
presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Adelaide,
Australia, 29-31 Oct 1996.
Martin, A.N., and Smith, K.L.: New HF Acid System Produces
Significant Benefits in Nigerian Sandstones, paper SPE 38595,

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbls 1.589 873
bopd 1.589 873
ft 3.048*
ft 3 2.831 685
gal 3.785 412
gpf 8.666 695
lbm 4.535 924
*Conversion factor is exact.

E 01 = m3
E 01 = m3
E 01 = m
E 02 = m3
E 03 = m3
E 04 = m3 / m
E 01 = kg

SPE 58790

AN ECONOMIC, FIELD-PROVEN METHOD FOR REMOVING FINES DAMAGE FROM GRAVEL PACKS

TABLE 1 - Data on Existing Wells Treated With HV:HF Acid System

Well
No.

C-14

Aida
A-9
Wid
D-17

Date Drilled
Date
&
Treated
Type of
completion

05/1972
OHGP (has
2 screens)
12/1998
OHGP
12/1996
OHGP (has
2 screens)

With
HV:HF
Acid
System
10/1998

07/1999
09/1999

Well
Depth

Pay
BHST
Section

TVD/MD Length

Placement Method &

HV:HF Volume
Method

Production

Total
Oil
Gain

HV:HF
Volume

Pre acid
Fluid

Pre acid
Oil

Post acid Post acid

Fluid
Oil

gals
1330

bfpd
Shut-in
(was 20)

bopd
Shut-in
(was 19)

bfpd
188

bopd
176

bopd
157

feet
3466 /
3466

feet
132

F
200

3741 /
7795
3703 /
5054

500

192

Coil & nitrogen

7500

4500

200

10000

400

200

402
(only
200
used for
acid)

190

Coil & nitrogen

4000

8764

175

11024

441

265

Coil Tubing w/
foam diverters

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Pre-Flush
HV:HF Acid System
Overflush
Spacer
Diverter
Pre-Flush
HV:HF Acid System
Overflush
Spacer
Diverter
Pre-Flush
HV:HF Acid System
Overflush
Spacer
Diverter
Pre-Flush
HV:HF Acid System
Overflush
Displacement

TABLE 2 CHAMPION 14 PUMPING SCHEDULE

Fluid Type
Fluid Volume
gals
15% HCl
270
1.5% HF System
270
15% HCl
270
NH4 Cl
100
65Q Foam
150
15% HCl
330
1.5% HF System
330
15% HCl
330
NH4 Cl water
100
65Q Foam
125
15% HCl
330
1.5% HF System
330
15% HCl
330
NH4 Cl water
100
65Q Foam
100
15% HCl
400
1.5% HF System
400
15% HCl
400
NH4 Cl water
Tubing Volume + 20%

Stage #

Description
500 foot interval
Solvent soak
Pre-flush
HV:HF Acid System
Overflushes
Additional Overflush
Displacement

TABLE 3 AIDA A-9 PUMPING SCHEDULE

Fluid Type
Fluid Volume
gals
Toluene + additives
2000
10% HCl + additives
3750
3% HF system + additives
7500
10% HCl followed by NH4Cl + additives
7000
NH4 Cl water (no additives)
10000
NH4 Cl water (no additives)
Coil volume

N2 Volume
scf
400
400
400
400
0
0

Description
200 foot interval
Solvent soak
Acid soak scale
Pre-flush
HV:HF Acid System
Overflushes
Additional Overflush
Displacement

TABLE 4 WIDURI D-17 PUMPING SCHEDULE

Fluid Type
Fluid Volume
gals
Toluene + additives
1000
15% HCl + additives
4000
15% HCl + additives
4000
3% HF system + additives
4000
15% HCl followed by NH4Cl + additives
4000
NH4 Cl water (no additives)
4000
NH4 Cl water (no additives)
Coil volume

N2 Volume
scf
500
500
500
500
500
0
0

Stage #

1
2
3
4
5
6

Stage #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

From acid

Description

N2 Volume
scf

4700

3900

3100

J.C. TRONCOSO, F.O. STANLEY, A.N. MARTIN AND OMAR ALI JAMIL

SPE 58790

9-5/8 Casing
3040 ft

Packer
3-1/2 Tubing
Mule Shoe

3094 ft

3-1/2 Liner
7 Liner
3309 ft
3-1/2 IGP Screens

3334 ft

7 Wire Wrap Screens

3466 ft
3468 ft

Fig.1 Champion 14 wellbore schematic. Note the open-hole section with the failed 7 GP with the 3 Internal GP screens placed inside
them.

300

Production, bopd

250

200

150

100

50

0
Jan-92

Jan-93

Jan-94

Jan-95

Jan-96

Jan-97

Jan-98

Jan-99

Date
Fig. 2 Champion 14 production history. The well was shut in during April 1995, due to low production rates (less than 3 m3/day), until after
the treatment was pumped in October 1998. Latest available production data is from July 1999

SPE 58790

AN ECONOMIC, FIELD-PROVEN METHOD FOR REMOVING FINES DAMAGE FROM GRAVEL PACKS

Drive Pipe - 20" @

369'
"X" Landing Nipple W/2.813" ID @ +/- 300'

13 3/8" Surface Casing @

2052'

4-1/2" IPC Production Tubing

ESP - 35 stages
360 HP
2485 Volt

E.S.P.

Set @ 6550'

ESP (Electric Submersible Pump)

PSI

PSI unit - for downhole pump pressures

Gravel Pack Packer w/6.00" ID @

Hole deviation :
o

88.5 @

7164'

5-1/2" Blank Pipe @ 7189 - 7304'

casing point

Prod. Casing - '9 5/8"; 43.5#; N-80 Set @ 7392'

l
l

l
l

Horizontal 8 1/2"

Open Hole section

7392 - 7892' (500')

(35-1 sand)

l
l
l
l

l
l
l
l

l
l

l
l

'O' ring seal sub @

l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ____ _

Set shoe at 7792'

TD=7795' MD / 3741' TVD

5-1/2" Sand Excluding Device @ 7304 - 7786'

7787'

Fig. 3 Aida A-9 Wellbore Schematic

Drive Pipe - 20"

"X" Landing Nipple W/2.813" ID @

13 3/8" surface casing @

1597'

293'

4-1/2" IPC Production Tubing

ESP - 50 stages
360 HP - 2075 Volt
E.S.P.

Set @ 4440' MD

ESP (Electric Submersible Pump)

PSI

PSI unit - for downhole pump pressures

-

Packer: 6.0" ID @

4,460' MD with 3 1/2"

blank pipe: 4,482 - 4632' MD

Gravel Pack Packer w/6.00" ID @
Hole deviation :
o

77 @

casing point

5-1/2" Blank Pipe @ 4514 - 4598''

Horizontal 8 1/2"

Open Hole section

4652 - 5053' (401')

(35-1 sand)

l
l

l
l

l
l

l
l

TD= 5054' MD / 3703' TVD

Fig. 4 Widuri D-17 Wellbore Schematic

4,490'

l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ ____ _

Prod. Casing - 9 5/8"; 43.5#; N-80 Set @

3 1/2" Inner Screen @

4632 - 5023' MD

5-1/2" Sand Excluding Device @

'O' ring seal sub @
Set shoe at 7792'

4650'

5044'

4598 - 5043'

J.C. TRONCOSO, F.O. STANLEY, A.N. MARTIN AND OMAR ALI JAMIL

Oil Rate

Fluid Rate

1200

Oil Rate, bopd

1000

SPE 58790

12000
ESP Relaced

ESP Pulled, HCl &

Enzyme Treatments

800
HCl Treatment

10000
HV:HF
Treatment

8000

600

6000

400

4000

200

2000

0
Jan-99

Fluid Rate, bfpd

10

0
Mar-99

May-99

Jul-99

Sep-99

Nov-99

Date
Fig. 5 Aida A-9 Production History. Note the production increase in July 1999 when treatment w as applied to the well.

Fluid Rate

2000

20000

1600

16000
Run Inner GP

HV:HF
Treatment

1200

12000

800

8000

400

4000

0
Jan-99

0
Mar-99

May-99

Jul-99

Date
Fig. 6 Widuri D-17 Production History. Treatment was pumped in August 1999.

Sep-99

Fluid Rate, bfpd

Oil Rate, bopd

Oil Rate