SPE-186886-MS

Reservoir Damage Removal by Zero-Cost Hydraulic Fracturing in a Water

Injector, Offshore Vietnam

Vu Huu Huy and John Sutherland; Pham Thi Thuy, Hoang Long Joint Operating Company

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 17-19 October 2017.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
In Te Giac Trang oil field, wells are completed with monobore design and with thru-tubing perforation
carried out offline following the well completion phase. Producers in the field are perforated
with underbalanced conditions through gas-lift application, which has resulted in relatively low-skin
completions. In 2014 the first water injector was drilled in the field, with the same completion design applied
as for the producers, however with no gas lift mandrels and surface gas lift line installed for cost saving.
As a result, perforation of the injector was carried out without underbalanced conditions. The well started
injection in November 2014 at 4k bwpd, with the bottom-hole injection pressure (BHIP) kept below the
formation fracture pressure (FFP). Injection performance was below expectation, therefore in November
2015 re-/extended-perforation of key sand layers was carried out in order to increase the injection rate. Well
injectivity however significantly reduced immediately following the re-/extended-perforation.
Pressure fall-off (PFO) tests were carried out on the injector, indicating significant near-wellbore damage
following the re-perforation. Skin factor increased from +14 before the re-/extended-perforation to +50
afterwards. Impairment of the well injectivity was expected to be due to debris plugging the perforation
tunnels. After thorough review of the options for remedial treatment, it was proposed to hydraulically
fracture the formation using the existing water injection system. The objective of this treatment was to create
and keep fractures open over a period of time, so that debris in the perforation tunnels could be pushed far
away into the formation.
The treatment was carried out in February 2016, during which the water injection rate was increased
to 12k bwpd, with BHIP significantly higher than FFP, and maintained at this over 3 days. PFO testing
following the treatment indicated successful damage removal, with skin factor reduced to + 10. Subsequent
well injection rate has been stable at 8k bwpd, with BHIP lower than FFP.
This paper describes the process of injection well performance evaluation, including PFO testing,
acquiring reliable FFP, and application of remedial treatment through proppant-free hydraulic fracturing.
The paper also covers the lessons learned on the design phase of injection well completion, on perforating
and on the capacity of the water injection facility.
2 SPE-186886-MS

Introduction
The field is located in concession Block 16-1, Cuu Long Basin, offshore Vietnam, and is operated by
Hoang Long Joint Operating Company (HL JOC). The field consists of multiple fault blocks, with the most
productive reservoirs found in Lower Miocene sandstones. The reservoirs have low structural relief and
comprise multi-layered, thinly bedded, highly porous and permeable sand units. The wells are therefore in
general drilled with low angles in the reservoir sections and completed with monobore design to facilitate
offline thru-tubing perforation, production logging and zonal water shut-off by use of bridge plugs and
straddle packers as required.
The field started production in August 2011, with development and appraisal drilling continuing
to take place. Reservoir pressure depletion levels are monitored, including through formation pressure
measurements taken as appropriate when drilling new wells. The highest depletion levels are observed in
the most productive Lower Miocene reservoir sections. The first water injection well was drilled in 2014 to
provide support to the main producing area in the northernmost fault block.
Normally, for producers in the field, following the well completion phase, offline perforating is carried
out through the completion tubing to perforate the 4-1/2" cemented liner. In order to minimise formation
damage, gas lift is used to unload completion fluid from the wellbore and keep the well flowing during
the perforating operation. Around 500 – 800 psi underbalance is usually applied, depending on reservoir
productivity. This practice has successfully delivered relatively low-skin cased-hole completions for over
20 producers in the field, with total skin factors in the range from 0 to +6.
The same completion concept for producers was applied to the water injector (Figure 1) except that gas
lift side pocket mandrels in the completion string along with surface gas lift and flowline were not installed
for cost saving, considering that significant reservoir damage was not expected for balanced perforating
conditions. Log interpretation (Figure 2) indicated porosity 14 – 17% and permeability 100 – 400mD with
total net reservoir of 43m for the planned Lower Miocene perforation intervals. In order to achieve as even
as possible water injection distribution over the entire perforation section, for maximum sweep efficiency,
two sands with high kh (M8 and M9) were not fully perforated. In total, 10 intervals were perforated, with
perforation length of 40m, using 2-7/8"OD 6spf HMX gun. Water injection rate was expected to be around
10-15k bwpd.
SPE-186886-MS 3

Figure 1—Well Completion Schematic

Figure 2—Composite Log over Perforated Intervals

Following offline perforation, water injection started in November 2014 at a rate of 4k bwpd, with BHIP
of 4500 psia and injectivity index of 5.4 bwpd/psi (Figure 3). A formation breakdown test was carried out
4 SPE-186886-MS

a few weeks after injection started, to ensure that matrix injection was taking place. The formation fracture
pressure (FFP) was found to be 5140 psia at downhole gauge, equivalent to 12.5 ppg. The injection rate
was subsequently maintained at 4k bwpd, with BHIP below FFP. Production logging was then carried out,
indicating very limited injection into the M8 and M9 layers; therefore, in November 2015 these layers were
additionally perforated to fully cover the net pay, and some other key sand layers were re-perforated, in
order to improve well injectivity (Figure 4). Injection was shut-in 2 days before the perforating operation
to allow balancing of the tubing and reservoir pressures. The same 2-7/8" OD gun system was then used
over 5 runs for balanced perforating with injection seawater in the wellbore. The injection rate however
dropped to 1k bwpd at the same level of BHIP (Figure 5). The well was then shut-in after 2 days of injection
for investigation.

Figure 3—Injection Performance before Re-/Extended-Perforation

Figure 4—Composite Log Showing Re-/Extended-Perforation Intervals

SPE-186886-MS 5

Figure 5—Injection Performance after Re-/Extended-Perforation

Formation Damage Evaluation

Several pressure fall-off (PFO) tests were carried out before the re-/extended-perforation operations. The
results consistently indicated a kh of around 9850 mD.ft and a total skin factor of +14, which served as a
useful baseline for later comparison (Figure 6). Note that this total skin factor included partial penetration
skin, mainly from the M8 and M9 sands.

Figure 6—Pressure Fall-off Test before Re-/Extended-Perforation

6 SPE-186886-MS

In January 2016, water injection was restarted in the well and maintained for 3 weeks before shut-in for
PFO testing, which showed skin factor had increased from +14 to +50 after the re-/extended-perforation
operations (Figure 7). Such high skin factor indicated severe formation damage.

Figure 7—Pressure Fall-off Test after Re-/Extended-Perforation

Figure 8 shows the results of production logging carried out in March 2015. It was noted that the M3,
M4 and M11 sand layers took the bulk (some 65%) of the well injection volume. As a result these layers
did not have re-/extended-perforation carried out in November 2015. Re-/extended-perforation was applied
to the sand layers which were taking significantly less injection volume than expected.

Figure 8—PLT Results before Re-/-Extended-Perforation

SPE-186886-MS 7

It could be understood if the skin factor from balanced perforating was significantly higher than that from
underbalanced perforating, as any perforating debris not removed from perforation tunnels would restrict
fluid flow. However, using the same balanced perforating procedure as in the original perforation job, a
dramatic injectivity decrease, with skin factor increasing from +14 to +50, was never expected.
Subsequent investigations for planning remedial work were made, involving the consideration of a
number of options as follows:

• Run a downhole camera to check if the perforation tunnels were plugged up by perforating debris,
downhole scale or corrosion products from carbon steel tubing/ injection pipeline. As a camera
would not be able to see deep enough inside perforation tunnels, this option was ruled out.
• Apply acid/ chemical treatment to dissolve scale/ debris inside the perforation tunnels. As the
mechanism and the type of scale or debris were not understood, this option was also ruled out.
• Perform implosion treatment in which implosion chambers are placed across the impaired
perforation intervals to generate a dynamic underbalance for perforation clean-up. Given that all
perforation intervals were suspected to have damage, along with experience of this application in
some of the producers in the field, this option was not expected to greatly help towards solving
the problem.
• Apply conventional hydraulic fracturing, involving pumping fluid at high pressure down the
wellbore to fracture the reservoir rock. In normal application the induced fracture is kept open
by use of proppant in order to maintain fracture conductivity. This industry proven technique,
if properly designed, is highly effective in bypassing formation damage. However, one of the
main constraints of this method is the requirement to pull the well completion, then carrying out
the treatment through a frac-string followed by re-running the completion. The requirement to
pull the completion is due to concern that proppant carried in high-rate slurry could damage the
downhole safety valve leading to a well control issue. Coil tubing deployment was also evaluated
as an alternative to running a frac-string, eliminating pulling the completion; however, the low-rate
capacity restricts coil-tubing application. In summary, propped hydraulic fracturing was expected
to be effective but was not selected due to operational complexity and high associated costs.

Proppant-Free Hydraulic Fracturing

Based on the formation breakdown test carried out in the injector in late 2014, it was evident that the
formation could be fractured using the existing completion and field water injection facility. After thorough
review of all options for remedial work, it was proposed to inject water above FFP and to keep the induced
fracture open for a period of time, so that debris in the perforation tunnels could be pushed far away into
the formation, therefore removing near-wellbore damage and reducing skin factor.
In order to ensure that the injection pressure exceeded the FFP during fracturing treatment, another
formation breakdown test was carried out to revalidate the FFP value acquired previously. The formation
breakdown test procedure was as follows:
1. Shut in the well long enough prior to FFP testing so that the bottom-hole pressure is close to shut-
in formation pressure.
2. Re-start water injection and perform step-up rate testing. Suggested injection rates are 5, 10, 20, 40,
60, 80 & 100% of anticipated maximum injection rate. Each rate step should last exactly as long as
the preceding rate step. Injection rate can be a bit higher or lower than the plan, however the choke
size should be kept fixed at each rate step.
3. Record each time step with injection rate and injection pressure.
8 SPE-186886-MS

4. Plot pressure versus injection rate. If the formation fracture pressure has been exceeded, a slope change
should be clearly seen, otherwise the test may indicate that the formation is accepting fluids without
fracturing.
Figure 9 shows the formation breakdown test chart including 8 rate steps, with each step lasting for
approximately 30 minutes. Stabilised pressures and the corresponding injection rates were then picked up
for plotting, as shown in Figure 10. With bottom-hole pressure on the X-axis and injection rate on the Y-axis,
the slope of the straight lines represents dynamic injectivity index (bwpd/psi). The intersection between the
two straight lines indicates the FFP, at which point the slope changes from 3.4 to 30.3 bwpd/psi. The FFP of
5180 psia at downhole gauge (equivalent to 12.6 ppg) was almost same as the result from the previous test.

Figure 9—Formation Breakdown Test Data

SPE-186886-MS 9

Figure 10—Formation Breakdown Test Chart

At the end of the last rate step, the injection rate was increased to 12k bwpd, with BHIP of 5310 psia
(Figure 11). After the first 6 hours at this rate, there were some turbulence effects from upstream of the
wellhead choke, however the fracturing condition was still maintained over 3 days at average injection rate
of 11.3k bwpd, before the well was shut in due to an emergency system shutdown. Although it was planned
to inject above FFP for 7 days, the 3-day treatment was still expected to be effective in reducing the skin
factor and increasing injectivity.

Figure 11—Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment

10 SPE-186886-MS

Results
Normal matrix water injection was resumed following the fracturing treatment. Subsequent step rate testing
indicated that the well injectivity index had increased from 3.4 to 6.9 bwpd/psi, which was even higher
than that following the original well perforation operation (5.4 bwpd/psi). PFO testing after the treatment
showed that the formation damage had been successfully removed (Figure 12). Total skin factor reduced
from +50 to +10, which is closer to the range of skin observed in the producers.

Figure 12—Formation Damage Removal after Hydraulic Fracturing

Production logging was carried out in April 2017, with results (Figure 13) showing generally better zonal
injectivities & water distribution compared to the survey carried out prior to re-/extended-perforation. To
date, water injection in the well has been in stable at 8k bwpd with BHIP of 4,800 psia (Figure 14). The
treatment also added some room for future injection rate increase whilst maintaining BHIP below FFP.
SPE-186886-MS 11

Figure 13—PLT Results after Re-/-Extended-Perforation

Figure 14—Injection Performance after Hydraulic Fracturing

Conclusions & Lessons Learned

The following conclusions and lessons learned were made from this case study:
1. Formation damage following balanced perforating was successfully reduced by proppant-free
hydraulic fracturing using the existing well completion and water injection system.
12 SPE-186886-MS

2. The success of the treatment offered significant cost saving and eliminated operational complexity
compared with conventional hydraulic fracturing operations.
3. The procedure can be repeated in the well if required, and optionally applied for other future water
injectors in the field.
4. Underbalanced perforating is not only necessary for oil producers, but also for water injectors, in
order to avoid significant formation damage. Therefore, gas lift and flowline should be available for
underbalanced perforating and flowback of wells prior to starting water injection.
5. The field water injection system needs to provide injection pressures higher than the anticipated
formation fracture pressures, for hydraulic fracturing treatments to be carried out if needed.
6. Well completion/ tubing design has to cover stress analysis relating to stimulation including hydraulic
fracturing treatments.
7. Permanent downhole pressure gauges, which are installed in all wells in the field, both producers
and injectors, are useful in providing bottom-hole pressure data for well performance monitoring,
including pressure transient analysis.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the management of Hoang Long Joint Operating Company, PetroVietnam
E&P, SOCO/OPECO and PTTEP for permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
bwpd barrels of water per day
BHIP bottom-hole injection pressure
FFP formation fracture pressure
PFO pressure fall-off

References
1. Jonathan Bellarby: "Well Completion Design", First Edition (2009).
2. Prakash Kumar, Alok Kumar Singh, Arunabh Parasher: "Water Injector Perforation – A
Challenge and an Art", SPE Paper 165891 (2013).
3. Kent Folse, Richard Dupont, Joshua Malbrough et al.: "Perforating for Injection Wells", SPE
Paper 91409 (2004).
4. L.A. Behrmann, K.G. Nolte: "Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations", SPE Paper
59480 (1999).
5. P.F. Dymond, P.R. Spurr: "Magnus Field: Surfactant Stimulation of Water-Injection Wells", SPE
Paper 13980 (1988).
6. R.W. Paige, L.R. Murray, J.P. Martins, S.M. Marsh: "Optimising Water Injection Performance",
SPE Paper 29774 (1995).
7. H.A. Al-Anazi, H.A. Nasr-El-Din, M.K. Hashem, J.A. Hopkins: "Matrix Acidizing of Water
Injectors in a Sandstone Field in Saudi Arabia: A Case Study", SPE Paper 62825 (2000).
8. P.J. van den Hoek, Z.I. Khatib, G.J. Siemers: "Causes of Injectivity Problems during Fractured
Water Disposal and Their Remediation", SPE Paper 74416 (2002).
9. E.J.L. Koning, H. Niko: "Application of A Special Fall-Off Test Method in a Fractured North Sea
Water Injector", SPE Paper 16392 (1985).
10. Nainwal, Surendra Prasad et al.: "Water Frac Application in Injectors Improves Water-Flooding -
An Innovative Approach", SPE Paper 101156 (2006).