Distinguished Author Series Matrix Acidizing by Harry 0. McLeod J. HHamy 0. MoLeod st. isa senior staff engineer with Conoco inc. in Houston, He has specialized in well competion and well stiuiation for the past 9 years. Before Joining Conoco he was director of information services and adjunct associate Drotessor of petroleum engineering atthe U. of Tulsa. McLeod also worked in wel ‘Stimulation research for Dowoll and Jersey Production Research Co,, and designed land supervised well perforating, acaizig, and hydrauie fracturing as a production fnginesr for Philips Petroleum Co, McLaod received a petroleum engineering degree from the Colorado Schoo! of Mines and MIS and PRO degrees trom tho U. of Oklahoma. Introduction Many excellent and useful papers have been written fon the subject of matrix acidizing. Included in this article is an extensive bibliography that should be useful to the engineer in the design and execution of 44 matrix acidizing treatment in limestone or sandstone formations. The first matrix acidizing jobs were very successful in stimulating oil production in carbonates, !“!® However, most of the recent attention to matrix acidizing concerns sandstones and the use of various hydrofluoric acid systems. 5? Matrix acidizing in carbonate formations still is beneficial in high-permeability, damaged formations (50 md or more). Damage can occur during drilling, completion, fr production of a well. In carbonates with permeabilities less than 10 md, acid fracturing ‘generally is used because much greater stimulation is ‘obtained with long, acid-etched fractures in low- permeability reservoirs. ‘Although the acid systems used in sandstones and carbonates differ, the same practices apply to both ‘Well Performance (Need for Acidizing) Successful acidizing depends on the presence of ‘damage and its location and intensity. The closer the damage is to the perforations, the more easily acid ‘can get to it, Compacted or crushed zone damage from perforating overbalanced can be removed easily by acid, since only about " in. [1.3 em] of damage. must be removed directly around the perforation. 58 Precipitates from previous acid treatments more than 1 f [0.3 m] from the wellbore in sandstone or 5 ft [1.52 ml in carbonate will be either impossible to reach with matrix acidizing or too expensive to treat.*® Deep solid plugging will be corrected more effectively by creating a conductive fracture through, the damage either by sand fracturing or acid fracturing. Nonplugging damage (e.g., oil wetting) may be several feet deep around the wellbore, but spot tt Sco Paver Enger of AME DECEMBER 1988 reverse wetting surfactants can penetrate and reverse the formation to a water-wet condition at reasonable cost. Oil wetting damage usually is less severe than solid plugging damage, so corrective chemicals can reach the affected area easily. High-permeability formations (those with 100 md ‘or more) seem to be dominated by either formation damage or tubing size flow restrictions. This is particularly true of gravel-packed offshore wells. ‘When well flow is markedly less than similar wells in the same reservoir, most of the drawdown probably is ‘occurring at the wellbore through a small zone of reduced permeability “Most recent geavel-pack-damage research has focused on gravel-packed tunnels and quality of the gravel in the tunne!.°7-° Current techniques have Improved so much in recent years that gravel-packed tunnels usually offer little flow resistance when perforating density is adequate. Nevertheless, reduced flow through gravel-packed wells still occurs. Current research focuses on (1) incompletely packed tunnels and (2) formation-sand damage near the entrance to the tunnels. Torrest®™ and Stein® described gravel shifting in tunnels when the gravel pack is not packed tightly during placement. Damage to formation sand before gravel placement will cause premature pressure outs resulting from viscous fluids entering damaged or reduced permeability near the perforations. Because of high pressures, pumping may bee halted before the gravel has concentrated adequately in the perforation tunnels. If the pumping ‘Stops t00 soon, the tunnels will be filled only partially with quality gravel. When the well is produced, formation sand will enter the tunnels, bridging on the ‘gravel inside the tunnel and packing the partially void tunnel with formation sand, which is much lower in permeability than the gravel. As the formation sand fills the tunnels, the pressure drop through the completion increases and the flow rate declines. This type of damage can be removed partially by 2055FORMATION SAND. (OAMAGED! /eORRATION SAND. (UNDAMAGED) screen Fcasing GRAVEL CEMENT Fig. 1—Gravelpacked tunne! with collapsed perforation. acidizing, but the completion will never reach its expected potential. A damaged completion may produce only 50 to 100 B/D (7.9 to 15.8 m3/a) oil before acidizing and 100 10 300 BID [15.8 to 47.4 m3/d] oil after acidizing; wheteas the potential of the ‘undamaged formation may be 1,000 to 2,000 B/D {158 to 316 m°/d] oil or more. ‘The true potential of the well can be reached only by replacement of the gravel pack Less severe damage will occur if the gravel is placed correctly in the perforation tunnel. If litle or ro gravel is placed outside the tunnel, formation sand will abut the tunnel entrance at the cement formation interface (Fig. 1). If this formation sand is clean and permeable, the pressure drop caused by spherical flow through the formation sand to the tunnel will be small; however, if any damage exists from polymer residue, pipe dope, oF formation fines, the pressure drop can be substantial and flow greatly reduced Damage can be removed with acid to achieve high sravel pack flow potential. *! Successful acidizing in these cases depends on the severity of the damage and the choice of the solvent used during the treatment. Success also depends on (1) favorable response of the formation to acid and (2) successful acid treatment execution. If damage is moderate (less than 90% loss in permeability), acid usually can dissolve the damage. If damage is severe (more than 99% loss in permeability), acid may not enter the perforation fast enough to dissolve the damage. Much research and laboratory testing of acid stimulation have been performed on permeable Berea sandstone cores; however, little research has been performed on severely damaged cores. More testing also is needed in actual wellbores, where clean and plugged perforations or perforation tunnels may exist side by side Even in a damaged well, there may be significant reservoir pressure drops during flow. Relative pressure drops in the reservoir and in the completion should be evaluated by accurate pressure transient testing. 5°? These well tests provide formation permeability data and a skin factor that characterizes the degree of damage. Skin factors as large as +30 ‘may occur and well productivities can be only 20% ‘of maximum, undamaged potential Before performing an acid treatment it is important to analyze the source of the skin, Is the damage being. 2055 caused by solids plugging, wettability alteration, or some other condition that acid may not be able to remove? These conditions could include insufficient perforation density or two-phase flow (relative Permeability or capillary pressure) restrictions. There are three main components to successful acidizing: (1) well preparation, (2) selection of solvent to remove damage, and (3) formation response to acid Damage Removal by Chemical Solvents Selection of a chemical for any particular application will depend on which contaminants are plugging formation permeability. HC] will not dissolve pipe dope, paraffin, or asphaltenes. Treatment of these solids or plugging agents requires an effective organic solvent (usually an aromatic solvent like toluene, xylene, or orthonitrotoluene). Acetic acid effectively dissolves calcium carbonate scale; however, it will not dissolve ferric oxide (iron oxide) scale. HCL dissolves calcium carbonate scale quite easily but has litde effect on calcium sulfate scales. Calcium sulfate can be converted to calcium carbonate or calcium hydroxide by treatment with potassium hydroxide or sodium carbonate. HCI then can be used to dissolve the converted scale. Calcium sulfate also can be issolved in one step with the sodium salt of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA). HCI will not dissolve formation clay minerals or drilling mud. Hydrofluoric acid (HF) must be used to dissolve these ‘aluminosilicates in rock pores around the wellbore. Because different plugging solids require different solvents for their removal, there is no universal solvent for wellbore damage. Treatment based on such a premise often will yield disappointing results. It is important to know the specific material that is damaging the formation around the wellbore. Never pump solvent of acid into a well until the cause of the damage and the best chemical to remove the damage have been defined. Formation Damage To identify the damage or plugging solids that must be removed by a solvent, you must be familiar with the main types of damage that occur in oil, gas, and water wells." Oilwell damage usually occurs during drilling, cementing, perforating, gravel packing, production, acidizing, well workovers, Chemical treatments, and injection operations. (The following paragraphs recommend HF only for sandstone formations; HCI is recommended for carbonates.) Drilling. Whole mud may invade extremely permeable formations with vugs or natural fractures such as those in many prolific carbonate reservoirs. ‘These carbonates respond to large-volume, high-rate acid treatments. Even high-permeability sandstones (about 1,000 md) may be damaged by poorly conditioned mud. Glenn and Slusser” showed that high-permeability formations could be invaded to significant depths by bentonite mud. However, if the. ‘mud contains properly sized bridging particles like JOURNAL. OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYbarite, whole mud does not invade a sandstone, 7! ‘Mud filtrates damage some sandstones because of swelling or migrating clays. "5 High-caleium muds ‘may cause near-wellbore calcium carbonate precipitation if formation waters are high in bicarbonate jon content. Damage by whole mud or formation clays may be removed by appropriate HF treatments for sandstones and HC! treatments for carbonates, ‘Cementing. Damage by cement filtrate (which usually contains calcium hydroxide or forms of calcium silicate) is reduced by good fluid-loss control in the cement slurry. Calcium hydroxide may be removed with either acetic acid or HCI. Caleium silicates must be removed with HF. Perforating. Damage may be severe when perforating overbalanced in the wellbore (hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore is higher than reservoir pressure). Permeability around the perforated hole may be reduced to from 2 t0 20% of original permeability, depending on the nature of the perforating fluid, 57-8 Overbalanced perforating will reduce permeability by compacting and plugging pores with crushed formation fines, perforating debris, and contaminants in the perforating fluid. Perforation damage usually is removed with HF in sandstone formations or with HC] in carbonate formations. Gravel Packing. Heavy damage in gravel packing can be caused when high-density gel/gravel slurry is pumped down into the perforations. Pumping this gel/gtavel slurry down dirty pipe will squeeze pipe dope, mill scale, and other contaminants into the perforations. Squeezing poorly hydrated polymers into the perforations also can damage both the formation and the gravel. Damage by formation clays occurs when perforations are washed before gravel packing." Such damage can occur easily ia formations with interbedded layers of sand and clay. Perforation washing will mix these layers and plug the permeable sand layers. If clay damage does ‘occur, HF can be used to remove it "Where severe pipe dope damage exists, acid may not penetrate the plugged perforation. The best practice is to avoid squeezing pipe dope into the perforations in the frst place. Tubing. may be cleaned by pumping acid down the tubing and then reversing to the surface. All dirty, spent acid should be produced back 10 a pit or tank before the gravel Slurties are pumped into the perforations. Using solventisurfactant soak treatments may loosen the pipe dope before acidizing the perforations, but i pipe dope damage is allowed to occur, itis difficult to correct completly. Production. Damage to a producing well can be caused by formation movement,” scale formation (precipitated solids),*™*® and casing leaks®® Whole formation production (collapsed periorations) can occur in weak or friable sands. This may be corrected by gravel packing or some other method of effective sand control. Fines migration also can DECEMBER 1988 coceur.*-* Fines can move through the reservoir and bridge at or near the perforations to cause in-situ filter cakes (plugging) inside the large pores in the sand. ‘When casing leaks occur, either incompatible formation waters or drilling mud residues may contaminate the perforated interval. Casing leak damage usually is treated with HF for sandstones of HC1 for carbonates. Acidizing Damage. If acid is bulheaded down tubing into a formation, pipe dope and/or iron scale (mill scale) may be squeezed into the formation with the acid.® The first acid that enters the formation already may have spent itself on iron oxide scales. Formations with either high concentrations of iron minerals or low permeability and abundant clay also can be damaged by acid injection. 9 Formations can be damaged easily by improper use of HF, Spent HF will precipitate silica, calcium uoride, and other compounds, especially when not enough HCI preflush is used 10 remove calcium carbonate in the formation prior to pumping the Hee Well Workovers. Workover fluids often contain suspended solids that can plug formation pores. Some produced brines contain corrosion inhibitors or ‘emulsion breakers from previous surface treatments that tend 0 oil wet the formation, Pumping cool fluids sometimes can cause paraffins or asphaltenes to precipitate in certain oil-bearing formations. Residual cement from casing repair jobs (or squeeze cementing ‘operations) may damage perforations. Wireline work may loosen iron scale or paraffin from the tubing. With all these possible forms of damage, itis important to maintain detailed records of what is pumped into and produced out of a well during workover, Workover fluid solids will settle into the rathole during the workover. Borehole samples may be collected with a wireline bailer and analyzed in the laboratory to show what substances may have damaged the formation, Once the most likely cause of the damage has been determined, choose the correct acidizing technique to remove the damage. For example, organic solvents may dissolve paraffin and asphaltenes. HCI dissolves sulfide or iron oxide scales. HF dissolves cement residue, Proper surfactants and/or solvents restore water wetness to the formation Chemical Treatments. Scale inhibitors can oil wet ‘carbonates and corrosion inhibitor treatments can oil wet sandstones. Damage cannot be prevented when these treatments are necessary to keep the well in operation; however, some inhibitors cause more ‘damage than others. Variable degrees of damage have been observed in corrosion inhibitor treatments of gas wells. Atomized nitrogen treatments seem 10 be less damaging than oil squeezes when injecting corrosion inhibitors in gas wells. Sometimes severe damage may be corrected by using tested solvent/surfactant wash treatments, 208720 SSP SHIFT! 1930 Fig. 2~Good-quality channel sand, East Cameron field, of: ‘shove Louisiana, Injection Wells. Injection wells may be damaged by oil carryover, corrosion products, incompatible water scales, and bacteria. Damage from oil carryover, and associated contaminants may be treated by solvent/acid dispersion. Corrosion products and calcium carbonate scale are removed easily with HCl Calcium sulfate scale must be converted 0 an acid soluble form or dissolved in one step with a soak of EDTA. Bacteria must be destroyed by an oxidizing agent (bleach) and/or special bacteria-destructive agents before acidizing for complete removal ‘Open communication and close working relations between engineers and operating personnel aid well problem diagnosis. Excellent completion and workover files are essential to analyzing wells that have been damaged. Formation Analysis It is sometimes easy to dissolve plugging solids. The key to success, however, is to dissolve the plugging solids without damaging the formation, You must know how the formation minerals will respond to the acid used in the treatment and anticipate how the spent acid will react as it invades deeply into the formation. Solids dissolved near the wellbore may precipitate deeper into the formation as they contact other minerals that react with either live or spent acid, To maximize matrix acidizing, reservoir quality formation mineralogy must be analyzed first." and 2058 10500 10600! Fig. 3—Lithology variation in offshore Louisiana well (Ship ‘Shoal fel}. One goal of formation analysis is to control or prevent precipitation of reaction products in the formation. Several contributions have been made in this area by D.K. Davies. ! Acid treatments for shaly, low-permeabitity formations require more care than treatments for cleaner, high-permeability zones. More positive ‘methods for zone coverage (.g., opposed cup packers, ball sealers, diverting agents) are required to assure uniform acid placement in nonuniform, layered deposits. Formations with a large amount of fines or clay minerals must be analyzed to determine the best acid, acid concentration, and appropriate additives for successful stimulation, Estimates of permeability and wellbore condition help predict injection rates before and after acid stimulation at injection pressures less than formation parting pressure, Formation quality is defined by depositional, detrital, and diagenetic quality Depositional Quality. Well-sorted, uniform sand from an offshore bar environment is the easiest 0 acidize. River channel sand is usually of somewhat lower quality but still can be acidized effectively. Alluvial or submarine fans are of somewhat lower quality because of rapid, intermittent deposition with lite or no reworking by ocean currents. Some of the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY0 sydevdojoud adoasoronw volo Ouuueas—y “Bia 2039 DECEMBER 1988vamencteo re ‘RON OxDE ‘swoor [EMULSION WPPE DOPE [ExcESS Pre DOPE Fig. 5—Tubing cleaning with acid. more difficult deposits to acidize are prodelta silt formations, which often are highly laminated sand and clay layers. These layers may be about % t0 2 i {0.32 to 5 em) thick, Detrital Quality. Detrtal quality can be quantified by particle-size distribution and mineralogy (the quality ‘of the deposited particles). As quartz content increases and grain size becomes more uniform, quality increases. Large volumes of unstable minerals and formation fines reduce quality. There is great Variation in this detrital quality along the Gulf of Mexico coast. Figs. 2 and 3 show logs of two sands with significantly different quality under microscopic ‘examination. The East Cameron sand in Fig. 3 is @ wall-sorted, uniform sand with little fine material The Ship Shoal sand in Fig. 4 is more lenticular with a somewhat lower permeability and more abundant Fines in the 10 to 40 micron [10 to 40 jam) range The East Cameron sand was gravel packed effectively and acidized for good productivity. The Ship Shoal sand was difficult to gravel pack and acidizing could not help low productivity 1a formation contains shale fragments mixed with stronger grains of the same size, itis classified as poor quality. Such formations oecur on the west coast of the U.S. in some alluvial deposits. The shale grains deform under stress, leading to excessive 2060 compaction and reduced permeability as reservoir pressure declines. Because of their relatively large size, shale fragments can be degraded by acid without being completely dissolved; these partially dissolved fragments ean migrate and further reduce permeability. Clean, uniform quartz sands are easy to acidize because secondary reactions are insignificant, Only the damaging, plugging solids are considered when selecting the acid. As sand quality decreases, acid can react quickly with formation fines or reactive grains such as weathered feldspar; therefore, the selection of an acid system becomes more critical. Such considerations usually are not important for carbonate formations. In carbonates, the overriding duality characteristic isthe formation permeability and uniformity of porosity." The more uniform the formation, the easier it is to acidize. Very heterogeneous formations require excellent zone coverage (diverting) techniques to increase the level of success. Dingenetic Quality. Abundance of acid-sensitive minerals in the formation can cause severe problems. One typical example in a carbonate formation is the solution and precipitation of anhydrite, which can be dissolved near the wellbore, then precipitated in a hydrated, bulky form deeper in the formation as the acid completely spends on highly soluble dolomite ind calcite minerals. Anhydrite reprecipitation has caused problems in the matrix aciization of dolomites with 5- to 20-md permeability for injection wells in enhanced recovery projects. Some carbonates are high in siderite or ankerite (iron carbonates) Pyrites (iron sulfide) may be present, These minerals are dissolved easily by HCI but precipitate as the acid reaches equilibrium with calcite or dolomite. Iron sulfides precipitate at a pHi of 2 to 3 and siderite at a pH of 3 t0 4, whereas HCI will spend to equilibrium with calcite at a pH of 4 to 5. Diagenetic mineral reactions usually are more serious in sandstones. Precipitates formed during an acid treatment ean filter out and bridge on the undissolved grain framework of the sandstone. Precipitates are less likely to be trapped near the acid-stimulated wellbore in carbonates because of the large, acid-etched channels. Two types of diagenetic minerals should be considered in sandstone acidizing: clay minerals and HClsoluble minerals. The four main types of clay minerals are kaolinite, illite, chlorite, and smectite ig. 4). Kaolinite is a hexagonal crystal plate found in stacks of crystals, often with the appearance of toothpaste squeezed out of a tube (Fig. 48). These clay particles are dispersed easily and can migrate through rock pores bridging in smaller pore throats. They usually are controlled with clay stabilizers in the final overflush after an HF treatment. lite isa fibrous clay (Fig. 4) that can be broken off or moved by high flow velocities or surges close to the wellbore, Pore throat bridging causes severe damage. Low acid injection rates and controlled JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYprosluction rates after treatment will reduce damage Abrams et al.*? described acid work on this particular elay mineral ‘Chlorite is troublesome clay in sandstone (Fi. 4c). It usualy is iron rich and partially soluble in LCL. The iron is extracted from the chlorite leaving a silica residue behind acid." Chlorite must be acidized cautiously or not at al. Iti preferable to select a completion procedure that will make aciizing unnecessary. Deep, abnormally pressured gas reservoirs often have significant chlorite, ‘Smectite is not a problem in acidizing if it is sparsely distributed (less than 3 wt%) in a high- permeability formation. Smectite content of 5 t0 10 ‘wt% is a problem (Fig. 4d). Any aqueous fuid, including acid, may cause great damage to the formation. If smectite is present in large quantities, gelled oil and proppant should be used in a hydraulic fracturing treatment to stimulate the well Other significant diagenetic minerals usually are soluble in HCI. Calcite and dolomite are dissolved easily in HCI and cause no secondary precipitation problems. In fact, if a sandstone contains 20% or more of HCI soluble minerals, HCI alone can remove damage.* Problems with dolomite and calcite occur only when they are associated with other acid-soluble minerals such as the iron compounds: siderite (iron carbonate), ankerite (iron-rich dolomite), hematite or limonite Giron oxides), and pyrite (iron sulfide). HCL dissolves the iron compounds, which then can reprecipitate as the acid completely spends on the calcite and dolomite. Iron compound precipitation may be prevented or controlled by iron-sequestering (Complexing) agents in the acid. Acids and Additives ‘The kinds of acids to use have been discussed in the section on formation damage; the, concentrations of acid to use are listed in Table 1.2° Aci concentrations are determined more by formation mineralogy than by the plugging solid damaging the formation. Various concentrations of acids will dissolve damage, particularly small amounts of damage critically placed around the perforations; however, lower acid concentrations reduce precipitate problems in acid-sensitive formations Al additives should be tested in the laboratory. ‘Compatibility of both five and spent acid with the formation fiuids should be tested. There are no universal additives for all formation acidizing problems. Field results and laboratory testing need to {0 hand in hand. A more thorough discussion is provided by other authors!" ‘Any potential incompatbilities between acid and formation solids or fluids must be identified before acidizing. 26-12 Fluid butters may be used to isolate formation fuids. Acid concentrations andior additives are tailored to formation mineralogy Surfactants should leave the formation in a water-wet state for maximum oil or gas producing rates. DECEMBER 1981 TABLE 1—ACID USE GUIDELINES rbonate Acizing rforating uid ‘5% acelle Damaged perforations ‘9% formic 0% acatic 15% HOI Deep wellvore damage “5% HCl 28% HCI Emulsiied HCI Sandstone Aciaizing Ht solvoiy (= 209%) ‘Use HCI only High permeability (100 md or more) High quartz (802%), low clay (= 586) 129% HCI and 38% HF High feldspar (> 2099): 13.89% HCl and 1.59% HE” High ciay (> 1080): 6.594 HCI and 196 HF** High iron chiorte clay: 3% HCI and 0.5% HE** Low permeabiliy (10 ma or less) Low clay (-<58) 68% HC! and 1.5% HF? High chlorite: 38 HCI and 0.59 HF* Acid Design Methods {An acid design technique based on the work of Williams?® for HF injection is available in the SPE Monograph Acidiing Fundamentals." Although the technique is based on studies of one sandstone, it does show the important effects of temperature and injection rate on live HF penetration. This SPE Monograph dramatically illustrates the small depth of invasion of HF in sandstone, particularly when formation temperatures are 200°F [93.3°C] or higher. Live HF usualy will penetrate about 6 in. [15.2 em] ito the sandstone before spending. ‘Another practical acid design technique is based on HF contact time of 2 to 4 hours." Acid practices and results during the past 20 years indicate that HF acid contact time is a correlating factor. In the 1960's acid volumes of 200 to 300 galft (757 to 1135 dim/mi at injection rates up to 2 bbl/min (0.32 m/min] were commonly used. Over the years, both the rate and volume have deetined 10 about 0.5 bbI/min [0.079 m/min} and 75 galt [283 dm?/m} respectively. The one factor remaining fairly constant has been HF contact time with the wellbore. This makes sense in that most of the damage is placed critically at or in the perforations and time is needed for acid to penetrate the more damaged perforations Well Preparation Injection fluids must leave surface containers, travel through conduits, enter a wellbore, and pass through the perforations into the formation so that the solvent ccan react with the damaging solids. Each of these ‘components through which the fluid travels must be properly cleaned before pumping acid into the formation. Surface containers must be cleaned before being filled with acid. The best containers are rubber lined and clean of any former components before the 2061acid and additives are added to the tank. Surface lines through which the acid is pumped should be cleaned ‘with acid before the treatment. A small amount of acid can be flushed through the lines and into the ‘waste pit before final hookup for the well treatment. ‘This may be accomplished in the step for cleaning ‘well tubing. Fig. 5 shows the characteristics of acid being pumped down tubing in a well. Pumping acid through tubing removes solids deposited on the pipe surface. ‘Acid:insoluble solids like pipe dope, paraffin, asphalt, ‘and gypsum or barite scales may plug the perforations or fill the wellbore. Acid-soluble solids like calcium carbonate may just spend the acid, whereas iron oxide or iron sulfide may precipitate in the formation as the dissolving acid spends on other acid-soluble ‘minerals. Either acid cleaning the tubing and reversing {0 a surface pit or bypassing the production tubing with an acid-cleaned concentric tubing string will prevent perforation plugging from tubing deposits. © For high-pressure reservoirs, acid may be pumped down the tubing close to the bottom and then flowed back to the surface waste pit. A small amount of acid pumped into the tubing removes all the rust scale and excess pipe dope. If the reservoir pressure will not hold the acid hydrostatic column, foamed acid may be used to clean the tubing. If the production tubing cannot be cleaned properly, it should be bypassed by using a concentric tubing string to pump the acid. ‘An extra advantage of using a concentric tubing string is to circulate brine to clean out the rathole below the perforated interval before acid injection. When there are deep ratholes with accumulated sludges, wellbores should be circulated to surface pits. Injection wells may have accumulated corrosion eposits and/or bacterial slimes. Old producing wells ‘may have loose scale deposits, hydrocarbon solids, or produced formation fines ‘Acid Placement and Coverage ‘A leading cause of unsuccessful acid treatments is failure to contact all the damage with the acid.”* Fluids pumped into a formation take the path of least resistance. In a typical treatment, most acid enters the formation through the least damaged or undamaged perforation tunnels. When this happens, it is easy to conclude that acidizing is very expensive and does not work well, But acidizing works well to remove damage if the type of damage is known and if the treatment is designed properly. A well-engincered acid treatment will not be effective unless it is properly placed. ‘Numerous methods help control acid placement. Selection is based on wellbore hardware, formation characterises, and field experience. "9-197 Opposed Cup Packer or Perforation Wash Tool. ‘The opposed cup packer or perforation wash ol allows selective injection of acid.°! Setting of cup spacing is predetermined and can vary from 4 in, [10.1 cm} to several feet. Generally 6 t0 12 in, [15.2 to 30.4 cm) is the recommended cup spacing for acidizing high-permeability formations. Fluid is 2062 pumped down the workstring and out a port between the two cups. Pressure causes the cups to expand and seal against the casing and the fluid to be injected through the perforations, High rates and/or pressures should be avoided when using the cup packer method because they can cause the cups to leak or turn over, oF the tool to Separate at the port (the weakest part). An optimal placement rate would be % to 4 bbl/min [0.4 to 0.079 m? min. The wash tool should be tested above the top perforations, then run below the bottom perforations and tested again. Do not test a few “stands in the hole.”* This causes the cups to expand and drag in the hole, thus wearing out. The cups should be retested every 25 ft [7.6 m] and after the job is finished to ensure that no leaks developed during the treatment. A four- of five-cup tool with two sets of uup and down facing cups will reduce the tendency to leak ‘Squeeze Packer and Retrievable Bridge Plug. Another method of isolating perforated intervals is to use a retrievable bridge plug and a squeeze packer. The bridge plug is set in blank sections of casing between perforated sections. The treatment usually begins with the lower set of perforations and finishes with the upper set. Inflatable straddle packers may be used in a similar way Ball Sealers. Ball sealers can be divided into two categories: those heavier (sinkers) and those lighter (Moaters) than the fluid, Sinkers have been used the longest and usually require 200% excess and a high pump rate. The high pump rate usually prohibits their use in sandstone matrix acidizing, but they may be used in limestone for matrix or fracture acidizing Floaters, or neutral-density ball sealers, were developed by Erbstoesser.! The density or specific ravi of these ball sealers is matched to the fluid being pumped so better ball action will take place, especially compared with sinkers. However, surface flowback equipment must be modified to eateh the floating ball sealers during flowback. More ‘modifications and alternative uses were recently pro- posed by Gabriel and Erbstoesser. " Ball sealers are limited in their use and should not be used in (1) long intervals with high perforation density, (2) wells perforated with more than four shotsft [12 shots'm}, (3) low-rate treatments (14 to bbi/min [0.4 to 0.079 m*/min}, and (4) gravel-packed wells. Regardless of the type of treatment or ball used, treatment will be more effective when density of the ball is very close to density of the fluid being used in the treatment Pre-Gravel-Pack Acid Treatments. One effective way to divert acid in a treatment before gravel packing is to use slugs of hydroxyethyleeliulose (HEC) gol and geavel-pack sand. Ammonium chloride ‘water mixed with HEC at a concentration of 90 om/1,000 gal [18 kg/m] can be mixed in S-bb! Lm") batches with 100 tom [45 kg} of correctly sized gravel-pack sand. The combination of viscosity JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY‘TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PUMPABLE DIVERTERS ‘WITH RECOMMENDED CONCENTRATIONS. |, Pre-Gravel-Pack Acid Treatments Five Bb of a 90 fom/t,000-gal HEC gelled 39% ammonium chloride with 100 lnm of correctly sized gravel pack cand, Ui. Perforated Completions 2 Ball Sealers 41. Neutral donsiy, or foators: $088 excess, 2. Sinkers: 20006 excess, 8. Oiesoluble resin or polymer: 0.5 10 § galt,000 gal . Benzoic ac: Ibm of perforations 1D Rock sa: 05 to tbmt (do not use with HF acta, . Unibeads (wax beads): 110 2 Ibm F Naphthalene fakes or moth bas: 0.25 to + Ibm (do not use in water injoction weil) IW, GravelPacked Wells Oil soluble resins may be used as in ILB.; however, they must be well mixed land added to the acid as itis pumped or else the diverter may plug the screen or gravel pack, and sand packing helps divert acid to other perforations. The unique feature of this method as ‘opposed to other “particulate diverters" is that the perforation tunnel is packed with gravel-pack sand instead of some other material that would prevent gravel-pack slurry from entering the perforations during later slurry placement. Particulate Diverters. Sclection of the optimal particulate diverter is based on the kind of fluid injected and/or produced. The diverter must be temporary and easily removed; otherwise, there will be a new Kind of damage to be treated and removed. 22S Cil-soluble resin (OSR) or polymer is one of today's more common diverting agents, OSR is soluble in toluene, aylene, condensate, crude oil, and EGMBE (mutual solvent). OSR should be mixed on site with a blender and immediately pumped, or added to the acid “on the fly" with a chemical injection pump. If OSR diverters are mixed off location or are allowed to stand for an hour or more, they will ‘clump and may cause pump failure or plug perforations, OSR diverters should not be used with solvent-acid mixtures, which dissolve the resin enough to reduce its effectiveness. Benzoic acid flakes or powder will dissolve in toluene, xylene, alcohol, some condensates, and gas, and very slowly in water. Benzoic acid is popular because itis soluble in the fluids normally encountered in most wells; however, if not well dispersed or mixed, it will plug perforations, Benzoic acid plugs do not dissolve fast because not enough fluid can flow by it to dissolve the plug. One well took 6 months to return to normal productivity after being treated with caked benzoic powder delivered to location Rock salt is used to divert acid treatments in carbonates, usually in mixtures with benzoic acid and polymer. Rock salt should never be used in HE treatments of ahead of HF treatments because of sodium fluorosilicate precipitation. Rock salt is soluble in water and in dilute (less than 10%) HCI. DECEMBER 1988 Unibeads™ (wax polymer beads) melt at specific bottomhole temperatures (BHT). They also are soluble in toluene, xylene, and some crude oils. Knowing the exact BHT is critical when using Unibeads as a diverting agent Naphthalene flakes (moth balls) are soluble in xylene, toluene, condensate, and gas. Since they are rot water soluble, they shoud not be used in water- injection wels. ‘A summary of pumpable diverters and their recommended concentrations is given in Table 2. Concentrie Tubing. Concentric tubing should be used as often as possible for matrix acid treatments because it (1) allows the rathole to be circulated clean, (2) permits better placement for acid contact ‘with all perforations, (3) bypasses production or injection tubing debris, (4) can be acid cleaned on surface before running into the hole, and (3) pump rate is limited automatically to 0.5 t0 1 bbi/min (0.16 m/min] because of fluid friction pressure. Density Separation. Another variable that significantly affects acid treatments is the fluid (1) in the rathole below the lowest perforation and (2) just below the packer and above the top perforation. A. rathole fluid that is denser than the acid and a fluid ‘above the top perforation that is lighter than the acid should be used. Failure to plan for this can cause acid to end up in the rathole rather than the formation. Acid left in the borehole can cause casing leaks below the treated interval. The effects of density segregation have been well presented by Hong ‘and Milhone, "> On-Site Supervision and Quality Control Field supervisors are focusing more on acid quality control. %8"!40 The following guidelines are quoted from the booklet ““Acidizing Quality Control at the Wellsite™ by George King and George Holman, Amoco Production Research Co. 8 ‘Quality Contro! Before Pumping. 1. Check service company ticket to be sure al additives for the job are on location. 2. Cireulate the acid storage tank just before the acid injection into the wel 206300 "9 M0 seco 3 2000 5 = 3 5 sooo whakerion aun. be WITH WELL DAMAGE ° o 07 700 ‘TIME — MINUTES Fig. 6—Injocton pressure bulldup with wellbore damage 3. Check the concentration of the HCI acid with @ titration kit. Take samples ofall acids and Auids to be pumped for later analysis if needed, 4. Make sure thatthe service company personnel know tho maximum surface pressure and stay below that pressure 5. Check the pressure-time recorder for proper ‘operation. Quality Control During Pumping 1. Wate the pressure response when acid reaches the formation: If the formation is sandstone, the surface pressure should slowly decrease if the rate is eld constant. If the surface pressure rises sharply oF rises continuously for several barrels of acid the acid may not be removing the damage or may be damaging the formation. Acid injection should be stopped and the well flowed back immediately. Samples of the backflowed acid and solids should be sent to the service company laboratory for analysis If the formation isa limestone, the pressure may drop rapidly and diverting stages may bo needed. ©. TE the treatment isan acid frac on limestone oF dolomite, the pressure may be stable or decline slowly after breakdown. A rapid drop in pressure may indicate need for fluid loss or diverting agent, 2. Note the pressure response when the diverting agent reaches the formation, In matrix acidizing, the surface pressure should rise slightly. If there is no diverter response, more diverter or a diferent diverter may be rede on the next treatment 3. Never exceed the breakdown pressure of the formation, (Do not fracture sandstone with acid, except during very smal-volume perforation treating operations with a “perf wash” ol). 4, In acdizing sandstone formations, hold the pump rate constant and keep the pressure below fracturing pressure 2064 Quality Control After Pumpis 1, Do not shut the well in after acid injection, Flow the well buck to tank or pitas soon as the flow line i connected. 2. Collect atleast, cone-quart samples of baeckflowed acid for analysis. Sample the acid backflow atthe beginning, middle, and near the end of the flow. If fn stab, get a sample from every other swab run Secure lab analysis for: ‘a, amount, size and type of solids. b. strength of rewemed acid ©. total iron content. 4d. presence of emulsions. «formation of any precipitates (besides iron). 3. Get the treatment report and pressure charts fo the office for evaluation and placement into the well file, Acid Treatment Evaluation Stabilized productivity may be analyzed when formation permeability is known. Standard analysis techniques are available for a semisteady-state flow analysis. Pressure buildup tests can also be run, after acid cleanup and after production stabilizes, 9-52 Postacidizing precipitation is implied if the acid actually removed damage during injection, but production remained unchanged or decreased. Acid precipitates that plug the formation often are detected by produced fluid sampling. Transient pressures during the acid treatment may be analyzed for formation permeability and wellbore condition. An example of analyzing acid injection pressure transients is presented by McLeod and Coulter." ‘The previous analysis is corrected as recommended by Earloughers! and Kazemi.“ Two injection pressure buildups were analyzed before and after acidizing. These two pressure transient examples are plotted in Figs. 6 and 7. Table 3 gives pertinent JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY3500 Baty 3060. 00 gh] sue INJECTION BUILD-UP _ — WITH DAMAGE REMOVED a 2 2000) 3 = 19 m0 3 E 1000 of, + 16 70 ‘ime minutes Fig. 7—Injection pressure buildup with damage removed: data, and Tables 4 and 5 show the calculations and results. Before the acid treatment, the data in Fig. 6 indicate that permeability was 16 md and the skin was +15, After acidizing, the data in Fig. 7 were analyzed to determine that the formation permeability was 19 md and the skin was reduced to —2. Stabilized water injection of 1,570 B/D [2494.7 1m?/d] was obtained at a surface pressure of 2,000 psi [14 MPa when the well was connected to the lease ‘water injection system. Table 5 presents the calculated stabilized injection rate at a surface pressure of 2,000 psi [14 MPa] using the data provided from the acid treatment pressure transients ‘The calculated rate is 1,540 B/D [245 m*/d] water, which is an unusually close match. Mast data evaluated from acid treatment records provide permeability and skin estimates within 10 to 25% of actual values, which is usually sufficient for evaluating the success of an acid treatment. "6 Obviously the data in this example show the large change in wellbore condition before and after acidizing. The injectivity increased about five-fold by this acid treatment To use transient analysis techniques on acid treatments, accurate data must be obtained. This requires close supervision by both the service company and the operating company. Constant injection rates and an accurate pressure-time recorder are required. Even better records are provided by a recorder that measures both rate and pressure vs. time. Conclusions Matrix acidizing can be very beneficial to many damaged oil, gas, and water wells, but not all matrix DECEMBER 1988 ‘TABLE 3—ACID TREATMENT EVALUATION DATA ‘Assumes Woll Data Tp, 0.25, (10)~%psi~" B= 10, and rg = 04M Buildup Data Before acdizing: n= ath @ = 0.35 bbiimin or $02 B/D 1m = 190 psileyole, and k= 159m After acidizing: 2 Bbllmin or 2,880 B/D, 910 psileycle, and 19 ma, treatments are successful even when the well is severely damaged. A complete and accurate well and formation analysis, treatment design, well preparation, job supervision, and followup evaluation all are requited to achieve maximum benefit from matrix acidizing Acknowledgments 1 thank the management of Conoco Ine. for permission to publish this paper and the many Conoco employees who have shared their knowledge and experiences with me during the past 9 years. T owe special thanks to Michael V. Till and Lewis B, Lediow, who have contributed to this work. 2065‘TABLE 4—INJECTION PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS BEFORE ACIDIZING (trom Fig. 6, m=190 pelieyele) hn and TABLE 5—1 ‘AFTER ACIDIZING ({rom Fi ‘and k TABLE 6—STABILIZED WATER INJECTION RATE General Aci 1626 98 162.6(50241x1) 3 ee a a30 mat n= 430127 = 189 md. References ng Willams, B.B., Gidley, Land Schechter, RS.: Acideing Fundamentals, Monograph Seis, SPE, Dal (1979) Grubb. WE. and Martin, FG? “A Gunde to Chemical Welt “Treatments” Pet Eng (hay-Nov. 1963). Fiagerald, PE, Marine, S17, and Saat, H-E. “Acidizing,” Petroteum Proton Hand Vel. Reservoir Engineering, ‘TC. Fick (e.), SPE, Dallas (1962) Chap 46 Muecke, T.W.. "Principles of Ack Stimulation,” paper SPE 10038 presented atthe 1982 SPE In. Petroleum Eakin and ‘Technical Symposiom, BeVing, China, March 18-26, Carbonate Acdiing k s +323) ae] = 1151( 2 Pe Ag oof 1.151(17.89-7.60+3.29) er aaoo-0 19 190 Fo zeKIKI0) Oa)? = 156. \JECTION PRESSURE BUILOUP ANALYSIS 7, m=910 pailcycte) 1626 nb ™ b. 182.6 2.8801000) 4 gy b. Se 514 matt 1s, SY 39.0 mo 27 of 151(2.61-787+3.23) 19 2975-0 49, (0 25xan10) (08)? 310 4] 16 = 1.154(-1.89)= 24 im (calculate expected injection rate at 4p =1,940 psi) 0.00707 KH 3p 9 = Blineinw) + $0.78) 8.00707(19}2741,940) a (nya 65004-21-0.75) nn 1.540 BWPO, a x 2 2 “Ari, M-F.A.- "Where We Stand on Chemical Treatment of Oi ‘Wells. paper 129 (B-1 presented at he Ninh Arab Pewoleum Congres. Horton, HL, Hendrickson, A.R., and Crowe, C.W.: “Matix Aciiing of Limestone. Reservoirs,” paper” APL 906-10-C presented a the 1968 spring meeting of API. Dallas, March Rowan, G "Theory of Acid Trealments of Limestone Formations" J. dau. Pet. (1087) 45, 421 Guin, J-A.: "Matrix Acization with Highly Reactive Acid, Soe Pet, Brg. J. (Dee. 1971) 290-98 Henichson, A... Burst, RE and Wieland, DR: “Engineer Guide for Panning Ackiving Treatments Based on Specific Reservoir Characteristics," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1960) 16-23 Tran, AIME, 219 Hendrickson, AR, Rosen RB. nd AKerm, £.N.: “New Technology Clarifies Aciizing Misconceptions," Word Oi Oly 1972) 63°67, icra, D.E, and Willams, BB “Characteristics of Acid Reacon in Limestone Formats,” Soe. Pet. Eng. (Dee. 1971) 406-18, Haris, OB, Mendrickion, A:R.. and Cotes, A.W. “High Concentration Acid Aide" Stinuition Rest in Carbonate Formations," J. Pet, Tech, (Ox. 1966) 1291-96, Harris, F'N.: “Applications of Aste Acid to Well Completion, Stimulton and Reconioning." J. Pet. Tech, Gul 1961) 637-28 Miler, B.D. and Bergstrom, .M.: "Results of Acidi-Oil Enulsion Simulation of Carbonate Forations, "paper SPE 638 presen atthe 1975 SPE Ann Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallis, Sept. 28-0ct 1 Fora, W.G.F: "Foumed Aci, An Eictiv Stimulation Fd," paper SPE 9385 presented at the 1980 SPE Anal Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, See. 21-24 (Crowe, CW. Mami, RC, and Michiels, A.M: “Evaluation ‘of Ac Gelliag Agent for Use in Well Stimulation,” paper SPE ‘9384 presented tthe 1980 SPE Ann Tectia Conference and Exhibition, Dallas. Sep. 21-24 Sandstone Aciizing ‘chub, PJ! “Mud Acid—ts Theory and Application to Oil sd Gas Wells.” Pet, Eng. (1943) 82-89. Smith C.F. and Hendrickson, AF.) “Hydeofluorie Acid ‘Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs J. Pet. Tech (Fed, 1968) 215-22 Smith, C.F, Ross, W.M., and Hendrickson, AF. “Hydroftaodc ‘Aci Stimulation™Developments for Field Application,” paper SPE 1284 prescaed atthe 1965 SPE Anal Meeting, Denver, et. 3-6 Guiewood. JR or al: “Predicting Results of Sandstone |Actizaion," J-"Pet. Tech. Gune 1970) 693-200 Farley, T., Miller, BM., nd Schoctle, V.- “Design Criteria foe Maris Slinultion with Hydrochloric Hydroiorc Ack," Pet Tech. (Apel 1970) 433-40, Willams, B.B.- “Hydrofuore Acid Reaction with Sandstone Formations," J. Eng Ind. (Feb, 1975) 252-58 Gidley. 3. Ryan, FP and Mayfield, TH. Stay ofthe Fick Application of Sandstone Aciizng," J. Pet, Tech. (Nov. 1976) 139-04 Kipchele, RL: “Mars Acidizng Redes Formation Damaee, Pet. Eng. (han, 1967) 73, Shavghnesty, C.M "Understanding Sandstone Aciizing Leads to Improved Field Practices,” J) Pet. Tech (uly. 1981) 196-1202, MeL2od, H.O., Lediow, LB, and Till, M.V.: “The Planning, ecttion and’ Evaluation of Acid Trentments in Sansone JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYFormations," per SPE 1931 presented at be 1983 SPE Annual “Technical Conerence and Exhibition, San Fraciso, Ost. 5-4 27. Pasealoni, Gz "Matix Staton Planting,” Ol and Gas J (Nov. 9 and Nov. 26, 1979) 158-60, 61-68. 28, DeGheto, "Chan Eases Fo Use of AGIP Matrix Stimltion Method if Computer Program No: Available,” Oi! ond Gas J (Nov. 29, 1982) 76-77 29, Fogle, H.S. and Csi, F.R :“Stonlation of Oa Storage Fields ‘o Restore Deliverability,” J, Pet Tech (Sept 1980) 1612-20, 30, Lybrger, JH. and Gates, H.R.:""SGMA Performance, Design Part I Now’ Acidzing System Yiels Sustained Production Increase," Ou and Gas J. (Ox 16, 1978) 39-64. "Patt? Proper Reservoir Choice, Fld Design Keys w SGMA Suess,” Oil ond Gas J (Ot. 28, 1978) 1542. Templeton, CC tal "Sel Generating Mas AC," J Pe. Teh (Get 1975) (199-1203, 232, Hall B.E. “A New Tengu for Generating In Sis Hyder ‘Ac for Deep Clay Damage Removal." J Per. Tech (Set. 1978) 1220-24 33. Hall, BE and Andesoo,B.W.: “Feld Results fora New Reade Sandstone Acidiing Sytem,” paper SPE 6871 presented a the 1977 SPE Annual Techical Conference and Exton, Denver, Ost, 912, 34, Thomas, RL and Crowe, C.W. Mate Teeaument Enploys| [New Acid Sytem for Stinulation and Control of ines Migration ‘in Sansone Formations," J. Pet. Tech: (Aug. 1981) 1491-98. 35. Kume, K-R. and Shaughnessy, CMC: “Acidiring Sansone Formations with Faoboric Acid,” paper SPE 9387 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Teceal Conference an Exh, Dales, Sept. 21-24 36, Abrams. A. Scheverman, eral “Higher pH Aci Stimulation Systems," J, Pet Tech (Dee. 1983) 2178-84. 237, Abrams, A. eal: "The Development and Applicaton ofa High HC Acid Stimulation fora Deep Missi: Gas Wel" pape SPE 7365 presented atthe 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conference ant Exhibition, Houston, Oct 1-3 838, Holomp, D.L-s"Low Safes Tension ydroclarHydflore ‘Acid Minaures in Low Porosity. Law Permeability Sandstoes,” paper SPE 1284 presented atthe 1978 SPE Regional Mestng. Oklahoma City, March 24-25. 239, Cardwell P.H.: "Chemical Removal of Clays,” Oil and Gas J (Feb. 26, 1988) 130-40. 40. Wieland, DR. and Vinson, M.E: “Engineered HCLHE “Treatments Provide Sucesful Stimulation in Cook Ine,” paper [SPE 4120 preset the 1972 SPE Annual Metin, Ss Anon, Oe 8 Vogt, F.C. and Anderson, ML: "Optimizing the Profitability of Marx Aciizing Treatmens,” paper SPE 4550 presented st {he 1973 SPE Annual Mocing, Lat Vegas, Sept. 30-Oct. 5, 42. Labrid, J.C, “Thermodynamics and. Kinetic Aspects of Argillacous Sandstone Acdang.” So, Pet. Eng J. (AH 1975) 128, 43. HL, A.D. et al: “Theoretical and Experimental Studies of Sandstone Aciizing.” Soe. Pet. Brg. J. (Feb. 1981) 30-2. 44. Willams, B.B. and Whiteley. MLE: "Hyrofagric Aci Reaction with Porous Sandstone," Soe Per. Eg. J Sot. 1971) 306-14 48. McCune, CC Aut, 1.W., and Dunlap, RG: “Reservoir Properties Affecting Matrix Acid Stimulation of Sansone," J Pet Tech. (May 1975) 633-40. 46. McCune, C.C ral: “A New Model ofthe Physi nd Chica Cages Sandstone During Aen,” Soe’ Pet, Bg. J (Ost 1975) 361-70, 47, Fogle, HS. Lund. K., and McCune, C.C.: Acidization 1— ‘The Kineis of the Dissolution of Sodium and Poussiun Beléspar in HEVHCL Aci! Mixtres,” Chem. Eng Sei, 30, 1325-32 48, Crowe, C.W.> "Prociptation of Hygatd Sia from Spent FHiygrofuoric Acid~How Mach of s Problem ii” paper SPE 1508S presented a the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sep, 16-19. 49, Taha, Re Hill, A’D.. and Sepehenoori, K.> “Simulation of Sandton Mart Acdizing in Heterogenous Reservoirs," paper SSPE 13128, presented at the 1984 SPE. Ano Toshnial Conference an! Extibton, Houston, Set. 16-19 Wall Performance 50, Matthews, C.S. and Russel, D.G. Pressure Buildup and Flow Tessin Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Dalas (1972) 1. 3 DECEMBER 1954 si se 8s 56. 37 58 8. 61 @. 6. arlooper, B.C. Jr. Advances Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Dalls (1977) 8, 78-79, Le, J. Wail Testing, Textbook Series, SPE, Dale (1982). MeLaod, HO Je" The Bt of Perforating Condoms on Well Performance," J. Pet. Tech. Jan. 1983) 31-39 Allen, 7.0. and Roberts, A.P.: Production Operations Well Completions, Workover and Sinan, 0 a8 Gas Consults Int ne, Tolsa (1978) 2, 115-16, low J.A., Kreger, RIP. -and Pye, DS.: "Effet of Perforation Damage on Well Prodociviy,” J. Pet. Tech, (Nov. 1974) Last Walsh, MP. Lake, L.W., and Schechter, RS. "A Desription ‘of Cheiical Precipitation Mechanisms and ter Role in Formation Damage During Stimulation by Hydrofluorc Ack,” paper SPE 10528 preset a the 192 SPE Symes oa Foran Damage Cont, Lafayete, LA, Maren 24-25, Willan’, BB Elio, LS. and Weaver, R.H.: “Praductivity of Inside Casing Gravel Pack Completions." J. Pet. Tech. (Api 1972) 419-25, Penberthy, W-L. Jr. and Cope, B.J.: “Design and Productivity ‘0 GravePacked Completions, paper SPE 8428 presented at the 1999 SPE Anna! Technical Conference and Exhiion, Las Veg, Sept. 28-26. ‘Maly. G.P- and Kruegr, RL. “Improper Formation Sampling Least prope Sletion of Gravel Sine" J. Pet. Tech (Ds. 91D) 1403-08 (Crouch, E.C. and Pack, KA: “Systems Analysis Use forthe Design and Evaluation of High Rate Gas Wells,” paper SPE 928 presented atthe 1980 SPE" Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24 ‘McLeod, 1.0. and Crawford, H.R: “Gravel Packing for High- Rate Completions, piper SPE L10D8 resented tthe 1982 SPE ‘Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sop 26-9, ‘Torres, RS.: “The lnlueace of Placement Conitons on the Responie of Gravel Packs to Pradiction, paper SPE 1101) presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept_ 26-29 Sein. N.! “Designing” Gravel Packs for Changing Well CContons,* World Ou (Feb. 1, 1985) 41-87 Formation 6 65, 6. 6. n n. 2. 1% 1s Kructer, RK “An Overview of Formation Damage and Weil Productivity ia Oil Field Operations," Proc. SPE Tn. Meeting ‘on Peuoloum Engineering, Bejing (1982) 19-108 Krueger, R:: "Advances in Well Completion and Stimulation During PTs Fust Quan Century," J Pe. Tech (Dec. 1973) ware, Paton, LD. an Abbot, W.A.: “Wel Completion and Workver Part 2~Dat Requirements for Completion Planning," Pet. En. Tau. (ay 1979) 104, 106, 110; "Past Formation Dasa: Howto Kent, Prevent, Treat” (Set. 1979) 66-75 Braunton, KJ. “vestigation of Well Daage History," Pro. SPE Int Mecting on Petolcum Engineering, Being (1982) 247-95, Kelan,D.K.: "Core Analy for Aid ia Reservoir Deseription” J. Pet Tech, (Now. 1982) 2483-91 Keelan, D-K. and Koop, E-H.: "The Role of Cores and Core ‘Analysis a Evaluation of Formation Damage," J. Pt. Tech. (May and Slusser, Mb: “Factors Affecting Well Productivity Drilling Fluid Panicle Invasion ino Porous Media," J Per Tech (May 1957) 132-39, ‘Abrams, A: "Mud Design to Miniize Rock Impairment Due {o Panicle Invasion." J. Pe. Teh. (May 1977) 386-92. Mungan, N., "Permeabilty Reduction Through Changes in pi and Saimity "J. Pet. Tech, (Dee. 1968) 1489-5 ‘Coulter. C.R. and Hower, W.: "Tae Ffet of Fu pH on Clays land Resulting Focmation Permeability,” Proc., SPE Southwest Pescoleum Short Course, Texas Teck U Lubbock (1975) 15-18 Walker, 1-0. Dearing, H-L. and Singson, 1.P "The Role of Pasi Lime Mais,” paper SPE 13161 presented tthe 1984 SPE Annual Tecinical Conference and Exton, Houston, Sep 16-19. ‘Thomis, D.C. Hsing, Hand Menzie, D.E.: "Evaluation of Cre ‘Duras Causd by Oi Based Dring and Coring Fis,” paper SPE. 13097, presented at the 1986. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exabition, Houston, Sept, 16-19. 206776, Maly, George P.: "Close Attcation othe Smallest Details Vita for Minimizing Formation Damage," Prc., SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Hoon (1976) 127-46, 17. Spies, Ri ea "Fe Experence Uilizing High Dewy Benes 5 Completion Fis,” oper SPE 9425 presente athe 1980 SPE ‘Annual Technical Conference snd Exhibition, Dali, Ses. 21-24 78, Jones, F.0. Je “Inilvence of Chemical Comoition of Water ‘on Clay Blocking of Permeability" J. Per. Tech (Api! 1968) iL. 79. Krueger, RIF, Ficher, P.W., and Vopel, LiC.: “Bifet of Presse Drawdown on the Cicamup of Clay- or Sil Blocked Sandstone," J. Pet Teoh (March 1967) 397-403, 80, Shaughnessy, CM. and Kline, W-E.: "EDTA Removes Formation Damage at Prudhoe Bay,""J. Pe. Teck. (Oct. 1983) 785-92 81. Smith, CF, Nolan, Tan Crenshaw, P-L "Removal and Inhibition of Caleium Sulfate Seale in Waterloed Projets." J Pet, Tech. (Nov, 19658) 1289-56, 2. Tyler, TN, Metger, RR, snd Twyford, LR. “Analysis and ‘Treatment of Formation Damage a Pro Bay, AK,” Pro ‘SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakerstcd (1988) 12. Formation Fines 83. Muccke,T.W.: “Formation Fins and Factors Controlling Their Movement in Poros Media." J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1979) 198-30 4, Grueseck, C. and Collins. RE.: "Entaiment sp Deposition fof Fine Partctes in Porous Media,” puper SPE 8330 presented the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exwibiton, as Vegas, Sept 23-26 45. Gabel, GVA. and Tramla, GR. "An Experineatallvestigtion of Fines Migracon in Prous Media,” paper SPE 12168 resent a the 1983 SPE Annual Techie Conference and Exton, Sen Francisco, Oct. 38 186, Kh, KC. and Fogler, H.S. “Wer Senstivigy of Sansone, Soc. Be. Eng. J. (Feb. 1983) 33-61, 87, Hagiwara, T= “Archie's or Permeability.” paper SPE 13100 presented al the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference ant Exhibition, Hovston, Sept 16-19, 88, Veley, CD: "How Hydeolyzable Metal Tons React with Clays 1p Conta Formation Water Sensi,” J. Pet. Tech aly 1972) 800-64, 89, Coulter, A.W.. Copeland, CT. and Marisherger, W.HL: “A. Laboratory Say of Cay Stabilizers,” J. Pet, Tech, (x. 1979) 261-270. Formation Damage 90, Coaler, A.W. Jr and Goglr, PD: Fie Tess india Tubing 1s Main Source of Iron Precipitation in the Welboe," Oi and Gas 1 (Sept 3, 1988) 87-88, 91. Crowe, C.W.: "Evaluation of Agen fr Preventing Precipitation of Feric Hydroxide from Spent Treating Acid," Proc, SPE Symposia om Formation Damage Control, Bakers (1988) 251 92, Smith, C.F. Chowe, C.W., and Nolan, TJ IL Second Deposition of ron Compounds Following Aci Treinen, J. Pet. Tech, (Sept. 1968) 1121-28 93, Bwing, B.C, Pabley, AS and Cllavay, RLF: "A Synergistic Chelation Systm for Acidiaing inthe Presence of High leon Concentration," paper SPE 11795 presented a the 1983 SPE ‘Symposium on Ofield and Geothermal Chemisty, Denver, ine 13. 98. Crowe, C.W. and Minor, $8 “Acid Corrosion Inhibitor ‘Adsorption and its Effect on Matrix Stimulation Ress SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Consol, Lafayete, LA (41982) 50-66, 98, Barnard, PJ “A. New Met of Restoring Water Inston (Capacity to Wells Plugged with Ion Sulfide and Free Sulu J. Pet. Tech. (Sept 1989) 12-14. 96. Crowe, C.W.: “Now Treatnien Technique o Remove Bacterial Residuts rom Water Injection Walls," J. Pe. Tech. (May 1958) 75-78 97, Clements, D.M. a: “Stimulation of Water Injection Weil in the Los Angeles Basia by Using Sodium Hypochloete and Minera ‘Avis, J Pet Tech (Sept 1982) 2087-96, Sandstone Geology ‘98. Davis, Dabid K.: Sandstone Reservirs, presented at 1980 SPE Galf Coast Section Shor Course, Houston, Feb. 26-27 2068 98, Davies, DK. "Cy Tecnology ad Well Stimulation,” presented a T980 Southwest Peroleum Short Course, Texas Tech. U. Lubbock 100, Davies D.K.: “Reservoir Stimulation of Diy Sandstone," Pro: 4h SPE Formation Damage Contol Symposam, Bakersfield (1980) 41-48 101, Neastm, 1.W.: "The Morphology of Dispersed Clay in Sandstone Reservoirs and is Effect om Santon Shaliess, Pee Space ana Fluid Flow Properties," paper SPE 6888 presented atthe 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Ot 32, 12 Pama, :D. and Thomas 1B: Some Applications of Seanning Electron Microscopy tothe Stay of Reserve Rock,” paper SPE 7580 presented atthe 1078 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ehibiton, Houston, Oct [3 108. Sion, DE. Kat F.W., pd Culertson,.N.: “Anadarko Basin Morrow Springer Sandstone Stimulation Study, paper SPE 6757 presented atthe 108] SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibivon, Denver, Ot, $7, 108, Speer, RM. eta" Method for Detestio and Oharsctrization ‘of Reservoir Rock, Deep Basin Gas Area, Wester Canada," J. Pat Tech (Sept, 1983) 1725-34 105, Lindi S3-How Mineral Content Affects Reservoir Quali of Sands," World Oil (Apri 1978) 99-102. 10s, Thomson, A.r- "Preservation of Porosity in the Deep Woodbine Tusesloosa Trend, Louisiana,” J. Pet. Tech, (Ma 1982) 1136-62. 107, Alma, W-R. and Darosteter, D.K.: “Delineation of Tends in Reservoir Quality.” paper SPE 7807 presented tthe 1978 SPE ‘Annual Techical Conference and Exhfoton, Howson, Oct. 1-3 108, Seder, RLM, Titker, C.N., and Meckel, L-D.: “Dela Reservar Types and their Characters," J. Pet Tec. (Nov. 1978) 1538-46, 10, Crocker, M-E., Donaldson, E.C.. and Marcin, 1M. Comparison and Arlys of Reserv Rocks and Related Clays paper SPE 11973 presented atthe 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Ox. 5-8 110, Sooder, DJ and Randolph, P-L. "Porosity. Permeability and Pore Sinctre of the Tight Mesa Verde Sandstone, Piceance Basin, CO," paper SPE 1313 presented atthe 1988 SPE Annual Techical Conference and Exhisiton, Hooston, Sept 16-19, 1, Horanaa,J.A. and Paynter, D.D.: "Drainage Anomalies in Galt Const Sandtones,” J. Pet. Tech, (Oct 1979) 1313-22 Carbonate Geology UD Ham, WB Clasifcation of Carbonate Rocks, AAPG, Tulsa (0962), Memoir 113, Black, LN. etal: “Lithology a5 2 Guide to San Andres Stimulation Proc, SPE Southwest Petroleum Short Course Lubbock (1975) 77-89. 11s, Ruzyla,K. and Fridman, G.M.: “Geological Heterogenities Important io Fuare Eaanced Recovery in Carbonate Reserv0is of Upper Ondoviian Red River Formation at Cabin Creek Field, Montana." Soc: Pet. Eng. J June 198) 429-44. 11, Powell, T.G. and Stevenson, GM.” Peuoogic Evaluation ofthe Silurian Inieriake Formation, Vida Field, Nowh-Easera ‘Montana —The Key to Revitalized Exploration in a Oi Fe," paper SPE 10139 presented atthe 1981 SPE. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibidon, San Antonio, Ost. 5-7. Acid Additives 1g Smith, CF, Dollarhide, FE, an Byth, NJ: “Ald Corrosion Inhibitors Are We Geting What We Need?"J, Pet. Tech. (May 1978) 137-47 117, Woodtoof, RA. Jt Baker, LR. and Jenkins, RA. J ‘Corrosion Inhibition of Hydrochloric yrofsoric Aida Solvent Mixtures at Elevated Temperate.” paper SPE 5685 presented at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ehibidon, Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. 118, Milian, M.R.= "Sour Gat Well Completion Practices in the Footil, Wesiem Canada,” paper SPE 10078 presented atthe 1981 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antoni, Ost 7 119, Gi, “Stmalation of Sandstone Formation mth he Aci Mutual Solvent Moto” J. Pet. Tech (May 1971) $51-58, 120, Hal B.E- "The Role of Muna Solvents in Sandstone Aczng I. Pet. Teck, (Dee. 1975), 1439-42 121, Gidley, 1 and Hanson, H.R. "Centra: Terminal Upset from Well Treatments revered,” Oiland Gas. (Fb. 1974) 53-58 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY122. Coppel, C-P.: “Factors Causing Emulsions Upsets in Surface Facts Following Acd Stimulation," J. Pe. Tech Set 1975) 1060-65. 123, Knobloch, :S.,Faoug Ali S.M., and Trevino Dig, Mi. The Role of Ack Additive Miaures om Asphaltene Precipitation," paper SPE 7627 presented at th I9TS SPE Eastern Regional Mecting, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1-3. 124 Coffey, M.D., Thompson, J. ami Carey, Mi: "Solven-Acit Dispersions Solve Dificu Stnulation and Clan Up Problems. paper SPE 1938 presoted athe 1974 SPE Rocky Mt Regional Mecting, Billings, May 15-17 125, Jere Haris, MJ. atl Coppel, C.P.: “Solvent Stimulation of| Low Gravity Oil Reservois,"J. Pot. Tech, (eb, 1968) 167-15 126, Precshof, G.W. et al: “Asphalc Substances in Crude Oils." Trans. AIME (1943) 181, 188 127, MeLaughi, W.A. and Rishon, EA. “Acidizng Asphalnic Oil Reservoirs with Acids Conining Saieye Aci," U.S. Pent No. 4,036.918 (1978), 128. Moore, EW., Cowe, C.W., and Henckson, A.R.: “Formation, Efct & Prevention of Aspen Sladges During Stimulation ‘Treaents," J Pet. Tech (Sept 196) 1023-28. ‘one Coverage and Acid Placement 129: Haron, NW: “Diverting Agents—History and Applicaton, J. et. Tech. (May 1972) 893-98 130. Galls, 1B. and Pye, D'S. “Deformable Diverting Agent for lnsproved Well Simulation.” J. Pt. Tech. (Apri 1968) 497-508, 134. Crow, C.W- and Ceyar, HB. Jr: “Development of Oil Soiuble Resin Mistre for Cont of Fld Loss in Water Base Workover snd Completion Flags,” SPE S652 presented atthe 1975 SPE ‘Annual Teshoical Conference and Exhibition, Dali, Sept. 28- oot 1 152, King, G.E, and Hollingsworth, HLF. “Evaluation of Divertig ‘Agent Efctivness nd Clean Up Characteristics Using a Dynamic [aboratory Model High Permeability Case" paper SPE 8400 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26 133, HI, A.D. and Galloway, PL: "Laboratory and Theoretical Modeling of Diving Agent Behavior." Poe , SPE Production Operations Symposiom, Oklahoma City (1983) 253-60 134, Bttstesser 8.8 "Improved Hall Sealer Diversion," J. Pet Teck (Now. 1986), 1903-10. 13S, Gabriel, G.A, and Esbstoeser, S.R.: “The Design of Buoyant Bal Sealer Treatment.” paper SPE 13085 presented a the 1984 ‘SPE Annual Technical Coneence and Exhibition, Houston, Spt. 16-19 136, Hong, K.C. and Milhone, RS. “Injection Profle Etec Caused by Gravity Segregation in the Weller "J. Pet. Tech. (De. 1977) Ios7-63, 157, Taylor, BB. and Plummer, R.A: “Gas Well Simulation Using Coiled Tubing and Acid with a Maal Solvent," paper SPEU1S rested atthe 1972 SPE Annual Techical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oc. 8-11 Quality Contr 18, King, GE. and Holman, G.B, Jr: “Aeiizing Quality Cont athe Walle,” Booklet, Amoco reduction Resear Co, Tulsa, ox. 159, Lyrae JH. "Sacessfol Well Work Demands Rigorous Quality Conta it and Gas J May 23, 1977), 57-6 Mo, Watkins, DAR. and Roberts, GE! “On-Site Acting Pid Analysis Shows HCL and HF Contents Often Varied Substantially From Specified Amounts,” J. Pt. Tech (May 1983), 865-71 Acid Treatment Evaluation "Mi, Meteo, 1.0, and Cour, A.W.: “The Stimulation Treament Preaure Recordan Overlooked Formation Bvaition Tool, J.P Tech. (Aug. 1969) 951-6 DECEMBER 1984 142, Kazemi, H., Merril, LS. and Jargon, J. “Problems in Interpret of Pressure Fall Of Tests in Reservoirs with and without Fluid Bunks," J. Pet. Teoh. (Sept 1972) 1147-56, 143, Crouch, E-C. and Pack, KJ: "Systems Analysis Use for the Design and Evaluation of High Rate Gas Well, paper SPE 928 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ehbition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24 ad. MeBride.J-R., Rathbone, MJ, and Thomas, RL: “Evaluation ‘of Fhaborc Acid Treatment in he Grand Ile Oshore Area sing ‘Multiple Rate Flow Test.” paper SPE 999 presented at the 1979 ‘SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas Sept. 23-26. MS, AlSal, AS, eal: “Analysis of Pub Neuton Decay-Time Logs ‘in Aeiized Carbonate Formations," Soc Pet. Eng. J. (Dee. 1975) 453-06, 16, Folnar, LW., Willams, .M., and Stevenson, EK. "Well Spacing Performance, Relative Perteablites and Acidization Effet in a Limestone Reserve." paper SPE 1584G presented tthe 1960 Annual Technical Conereae and Exhibition, Denver, Ont 25 Nomenclature formation volume factor, reservoir volume/surface volume compressibility, psi~! (kPa~'] thickness, ft [m} permeability, md slope, psilcycle [kPa/cycle] pressure, psi {kPal pressure change, psi {KPa] injection rate, bbl/min or B/D [m?/min or ‘m3/d) rgp = radius of damaged zone near the perforation, fm] perforation radius, ft [ml] wellbore radius, ft [ml] saturation, fraction viscosity, ep {Pas} porosity, fraction » SI Metric Conversion Factors bbl x 1.589873 E-O1 ep x LO E-03 ft x 3.048" E-01 gal X 3.785412 E-03 Ibm x 4'535924 E-O1 i x 6.894757 E+00 psi! x 1.450377 E-O1 ‘Corn act eat wer Dison Authr Seis chs ae gra ese peeiaon al - eit an eeu garage res ‘Tonio ne gene radeon often ances nau eat op