BASRAH UNIVERSITY FOR OIL AND GAS

COLLEGE OF OIL AND GAS ENGINEERING

OIL AND GAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Stimulation Operation Report

Matrix Acidizing

GROUP NAMES

AHMED AYAD KHALIFA

HASSAN DHIAA ABDULKHALIQ
HAMEED HUSSIEN REDA
 ABSTRACT

Well stimulation techniques are applied on a regular basis to enhance productivity and
maximize recovery in oil and gas wells. Among these techniques, matrix acidizing is probably
the most widely performed job because of its relative low cost, compared to hydraulic fracturing,
and suitability to both generate extra production capacity and to restore original productivity in
damaged wells. The acidizing process leads to increased economic reserves, improving the
ultimate recovery in both sandstone and carbonate reservoirs.

Matrix acidizing consists of injecting an acid solution into the formation, at a pressure
below the fracture pressure to dissolve some of the minerals present in the rock with the primary
objective of removing damage near the wellbore, hence restoring the natural permeability and
greatly improving well productivity. Reservoir heterogeneity plays a significant role in the
success of acidizing treatments because of its influence on damage removal mechanisms, and is
strongly related to dissolution pattern of the matrix. The standard acid treatments are HCl
mixtures to dissolve carbonate minerals and HCl- HF formulations to attack those plugging
minerals, mainly silicates (clays and feldspars).

A matrix acidizing apparatus for conducting linear core flooding was built and the
operational procedure for safe, easy, and comprehensive use of the equipment was detailed. It
was capable of reproducing different conditions regarding flow rate, pressure, and temperature.
Extensive preliminary experiments were carried out on core samples of both Berea sandstone
and Cream Chalk carbonate to evaluate the effect of rock heterogeneities and treatment
conditions on acidizing mechanisms.

1
Table of Contents

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................1

Table of Contents …………………… ………………………………………………………….2

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................3

Two Basic Acidizing Treatments:-...............................................................................................4

General matrix acidizing procedure:-.........................................................................................5

Purposes/Applications:-................................................................................................................6

Selecting Successful Acidizing Candidates:-...............................................................................9

Formation Damage Diagnosis:-..................................................................................................10

Identify Extent/Type of Damage:-..............................................................................................11

Damage Removal by Chemical Solvents:-.................................................................................11

Formation Response to Acid:-....................................................................................................13

Acid Placement and Coverage:-.................................................................................................14

Sandstones Acidizing:-................................................................................................................16

Chemicals in Use for Matrix Acidizing:-...................................................................................17

Sandstone Acidizing:-..................................................................................................................17

Carbonates Acidizing:-................................................................................................................19

Acid for Carbonates:-..................................................................................................................19

General Acidization steps............................................................................................................20

Limitations:-.................................................................................................................................20

Recommendations:-.....................................................................................................................20

Conclusion:-..................................................................................................................................21

References:-..................................................................................................................................22

2
 INTRODUCTION

Matrix acid stimulation is a relatively simple technique that is one of the most cost-
effective methods to enhance well productivity and improve hydrocarbon recovery. Carbonate
acidizing is usually performed with HCl except in situations where temperatures are very high
and corrosion is an issue. Acids attack steel to produce solutions of iron salts while generating
hydrogen gas. Over the years, many different acidizing systems have been developed for specific
applications.

Matrix acidizing is one of the oldest well-stimulation techniques used to remove damage
near the wellbore. It was initially applied in carbonate reservoirs and over the years it has been
extended to more complex mineralogies. So far, matrix acidizing is often considered for many
people as risky to undertake due primarily to heterogeneous nature of formation minerals and an
appreciable degree of unpredictability of their response to acid formulations1; however, it is a
relatively simple stimulation technique that has became one of the most cost-effective method to
improve significantly the well productivity and hence the hydrocarbons recovery.

During matrix acidizing treatments the acid is injected at pressures below the parting
pressure, to avoid fractures being created during the treatments, searching for improving the
permeability in the vicinity of the wellbore rather than affecting the reservoir to a great extent;
the acid reacts within a few inches form wellbore in sandstones and a few feet in carbonates2. In
sandstone formations, matrix acidizing may enhance significantly the well performance by
removing the near wellbore damage, primarily associated with plugging of pores by siliceous
particles as the consequence of drilling, completion, stimulation, perforating, and production
operations; therefore their natural permeability can be restored.

3
Two Basic Acidizing Treatments:-

Acidizing is used to either stimulate a well to greater than ideal matrix reservoir flow or to
remove damage. These are two distinct and different purposes, the field applications and results
of which are often merged or confused. Basically, there are two types of acid treatments that are
related to injection rates and pressures. Injection rates resulting in pressures below fracture
pressure are termed “matrix acidizing,” while those above fracture pressure are termed “fracture
acidizing.”

Fig.1-Matrix acidizing injection rates below fracturing

pressure

4
 Fig.1 shows the increase in pressure linearly with rate until parting pressure is attained,
at which time rate can continue to increase with little change in pressure above parting pressure.
Matrix acidizing is used primarily for damage removal, while fracture acidizing is used to
enlarge the effective wellbore by creating an acid-etched fracture deep into the wellbore for
relatively low-permeability formations to improve well productivity several-fold.

General matrix acidizing procedure:-

The general matrix acidizing procedure is:

 Cutting and preparation core samples;

 Saturation of core samples with brine
 Prepare acid mixture and brine
 Refill pumps with hydraulic oil and accumulators with acid and brine
 Assemble of core samples into core holder adjusting inlet and outlet face and
pressurize the Viton sleeve.
 Set the desired back pressure from nitrogen supply.
 Pump the fluids in the correct sequence through the core sample. If temperature is
required turn the heaters on once start pumping the brine, not before.
 Switch the pump of and close the inlet valve, release the back pressure to zero and the
confining pressure as well.
 Disassemble the equipment and clean all the parts in contact with the fluids.

5
Purposes/Applications:-

A matrix treatment restores permeability by removing damage around the wellbore, thus
improving productivity in both sandstone and carbonate wells. Although the acid systems used in
sandstone and carbonate differ, the same practices apply to both. In the absence of damage,
the large volume of acid that is required to improve the formation permeability in the vicinity of
the wellbore may not justify the small incremental increase in production, especially in
sandstone.
In carbonate rock, hydrochloric acid enlarges the wellbore or tends to bypass damage by forming
wormholes. The permeability increase is much larger in carbonate than in sandstone.
The effect of damage on well productivity and flow is illustrated in Fig.2 and Fig.3.

Severe damage (kD/k less than 0.2) is usually close to the wellbore, within 12 in, as in Fig.2
More moderate damage (kD/k greater than 0.2) may occur much deeper (3 ft from the wellbore
or more), as described in Fig.3 Oil well flow behavior is greatly affected by the geometry of
radial flow into the wellbore; 25% of the pressure drop takes place within 3 ft of the wellbore if
no damage is present, as shown in Fig.4 Because of the small flow area, any damage to the
formation at that point may account for most of the total pressure drop (drawdown) during
production and, thereby, dominate well performance.

6
Fig.2-Effect of damage on well productivity—shallow damage

Fig.3-Effect of damage zone on flow—deep damage.

7
8
Selecting Successful Acidizing Candidates:-

Wells may perform poorly or less well than expected because of three different factors:
(1) an inefficient mechanical system (wrong size tubing in a flowing well or inefficient artificial
lift equipment for pumping or gas lift wells), (2) low reservoir permeability, or
(3) wellbore restriction because of formation damage or incomplete perforating.

A good matrix acidizing candidate is any well producing from a formation with permeability
greater than 10 md and the permeability of which in the near-wellbore or near-perforation region
has been reduced by solid plugging.

This plugging is either mechanical or chemical. Mechanical plugging is caused by either the
introduction of suspended solids in a completion or workover fluid or the dispersion of in-situ
fines by incompatible fluids and/or high interstitial velocities. Chemical plugging is caused by
mixing incompatible fluids that precipitate solids. If formation damage is the cause for poor
production, the well is a good candidate for acidizing. Several methods can be used to evaluate
the presence of damage: production history plots that show sudden change, slope change, and
gradual change; offset well comparison; pressure buildup tests; and well performance analysis.

9
Formation Damage Diagnosis:-

Well testing and well test analysis generate a skin factor and well completion efficiency. This is
insufficient alone for formation damage diagnosis. Well performance analysis has provided a
beneficial tool to identify the location and thickness of damage at flow points in the near
wellbore area. Models of flow into perforations and gravel-packed tunnels provide a way to
relate the location and severity of damage to the completion procedure that preceded it.

Well diagnosis is not just an evaluation of whether a well is damaged. Picking a potentially
successful acidizing candidate involves not only the fact that a well is damaged but what kind of
damage and where it is located around the wellbore.

Damage is often most severe and localized at the point of flow entry into the wellbore. The
improvement in damage analysis through well performance is rather recent, as evidenced by the
work of several authors. Most of this occurred through emphasis on improving gravel-packed
completions in high-rate oil wells by means of multirate testing and improved wellbore models.
Some of this work has focused on identifying specific damage mechanisms.

10
Identify Extent/Type of Damage:-

To select the appropriate acid, one must diagnose the probable type of damage and the extent of
penetration into the formation. Drilling solid infiltration is shallow (less than one in.); drilling
fluid filtrate can invade the formation 3 ft or more. Perforation damage is shallow and varies in
severity according to the perforating procedure. Water injection well damage can be quite deep
when moderately clean fluids are injected over long periods of time with small unfiltered solids
in the fluid. Likewise, incompatible fluids may precipitate deeper in the formation. Repeated acid
treatments also may leave damage deeper in the formation. Shallow damage can be quite severe
in that thin filter cakes or internal bridging under high differential pressure can have very low
permeability. Deep damage is usually more moderate but can be quite difficult to reach with
reactive fluids like acid and, thus, may require deep treatments like hydraulic fracturing or acid
fracturing.

Damage Removal by Chemical Solvents:-

Selection of a chemical for any particular application depends on which contaminants are
plugging the formation. HCl acid and other acids do 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 does not dissolve ferric oxide (iron oxide) scale.
HCl acid dissolves calcium carbonate scale quite easily but has little affect on calcium sulfate
scales. Calcium sulfate can be converted to calcium carbonate or calcium hydroxide by treatment
with potassium hydroxide or sodium carbonate. HCl acid then can be used to dissolve the
converted scale. Several cycles of such treatment may be necessary to remove all the scale.

11
Calcium sulfate also can be dissolved in one step with the sodium salt of ethylene diamine tetra
acetic acid (EDTA), but at a higher cost. HF acid must be used to dissolve formation clay
minerals or drilling-mud solids when they plug pore throats in the formation.

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 yields
disappointing results. Never pump solvent or acid into a well until the probable causes of damage
and the best chemical to remove the damage have been defined.

Fig.5-summary solvent selection for the type of damage

12
Formation Response to Acid:-

Even though damage has been identified and an appropriate acid or other cleaning agent is
available to remove the damage, one must evaluate the probable response of the formation (its
fluids and minerals) to either the acid or spent acid. There are many incompatibilities possible in
acidizing various formations.

These incompatibilities result in solid precipitates, which can plug pore throats so as to offset the
improvement by acid dissolving pre-existing, damaging solids. Results can range from no bad
effects and complete cleanup of damage to less than optimum improvement to plugging of the
formation with acid-generated precipitates. As an example, a gas well producing 4 MMft3/D
from a sandstone reservoir was acidized to improve production.

The well flowed only 2 MMft3/D after acidizing. Post-treatment analysis showed that
production was restricted by the small perforations (small inflow area) created with a through
tubing gun in underbalanced perforating; however, no permeability damage was present.
Subsequent detailed petrographic core analysis indicated that a combination of acid-released
fines and spent-acid precipitates damaged the formation during the acid treatment.

13
Acid Placement and Coverage:-

A leading cause of unsuccessful acid treatment 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 perforation tunnels, as the schematic in Fig.6
shows.

When this happens, it is easy to conclude that acidizing is very expensive and does not work
well. Acidizing works well to remove damage when the type of damage is known, the treatment
is designed properly, and it is properly executed. Extreme damage may require more than what is
discussed. Actions required may include a chemical soak and swabbing the soak back before
acidizing or re-perforating, and/or fracturing to bypass damage.

Numerous methods help control acid placement. Selection is based on wellbore hardware,
formation characteristics, and field experience. The four main types of zone coverage techniques
in matrix acidizing are mechanical, particulate, viscosity, and density segregation. These
methods also can be combined in treatments.

14
Fig.6-Acid entry into formation through perforations

15
Sandstones Acidizing:-

The goal of sandstone matrix acidizing is to remove siliceous particles such as formationclay ,feldspar ,
and quartz fines that are blocking or bridging porethroats.

This is accomplished by injecting acid formulations containing hydrofluoric (HF) acid or its precursors, as
HF is the only common acid that dissolves siliceous particles sufficiently.

Standard treatments include pre-flush and/or post flush stages of HCl acid to minimize the potential for
calcium fluoride and other secondary precipitation.

Fig.7- Acid selection for Sandstones

16
Chemicals in Use for Matrix Acidizing:-

Acids

 Mineral dissolution (surface or the whole grain)

 Mobilization of mineral grains by decomposition of the rock structure

Chelating agents

 Precipitation inhibitor
 Complexing ions in the fluid
 Reducing reactivity of specific mineral surfaces (ion exchange processes, adsorption)

Additives

 Corrosion inhibitor
 Iron control
 Clay controller

Sandstone Acidizing:-

 Typical acid treatment in sandstones consists of the injection of an HCl pre-flush, with
50gal/ft of formation a common pre-flush volume, followed by the injection of 50 to 200
gal/ft of HCl-HF mixture.
 A post-flush of diesel, brine or HCl then displaces the HCl-HF from the tubing or
wellbore.
 Once the treatment is completed, the spent acid should be immediately produced back to
minimize damage by the precipitation of reaction products.
 A sandstone acidizing treatment design begins with the selection of the type and
concentration of acid to be used.

17
 The volumes of pre flush, HCl-HF mixture and post-flush required and the desired
injection rate(s) are considered next.
 All acid treatments, the placement of the acid is an important issue—a strategy to ensure
that sufficient volumes of acid contact all productive parts of the formation should be
carefully planned.
 The types and amounts of additives to be used in the treatment must be determined on
the basis of the completion, formation and reservoir fluids.

Fig 8- Typical stage sequence for a sandstone acidizing treatment

18
Carbonates Acidizing:-

Carbonate formations generally have a low permeability and can be highly fissured :-

• HCL is used as basic rock dissolution agent.

• Wormholes form in the process of dissolution of rock.

• Other additives are used as per compatibility with rock minerals.

Acid for Carbonates:-

Hydrochloric acid (5 to 28 wt %).

• HCl + organic acids (15/9 HCl/formic acid).

•Acetic &/or formic acid (< 13, 9 wt %).

•Emulsified acids (up to 28 wt% HCl).

•In-situ gelled acids (~ 5 wt% HCl).

•In-situ generated acids.

19
General Acidization steps

•Pre-flush stage (5% -10% HCl)

 0-100 gal/ft of formation.

 To remove carbonates.
 To push Nacl or KCl away from well-bore.

•Acid stage

 HF to dissolve clay/sand.
 HCl to dissolve carbonates.

•After-flush stage (10% EGMBE): Ethylene Glycol MonoButyl Ether

 To make the formation water wet.

 To displace acid away from well-bore.

Limitations:-

•Low HCl concentration and contains Fe (III).

•Polymer residue.

•Iron contamination may affect the performance of the acid.

Recommendations:-

• Acid concentration ~ 3 -5 wt %.

• 25 -30% of the total acids used.

• Not recommended for tight formations.

• Not recommended for sour wells.

• Flow Well back after acid treatments.

20
Conclusion:-

1. Matrix acidizing, with the appropriate systems in correctly identified candidate wells,
is the most cost-effective way to enhance oil production in sandstone and carbonate
reservoirs.

2. Increased understanding of the chemistry and physics of the acidizing process as well
as improvements in wellsite implementation have resulted in better acidizing success.

3. Use of computer software that includes all known rules and guidelines for sandstone
acidizing can greatly improve the success ratio by eliminating inappropriate designs and
standardizing treatments.

4. New acid systems with improved performance were developed specifically to address
many of the problems inherent in sandstone acidizing.

21
References:-

1. McLeod, H.O.: “Matrix Acidizing to Improve Well Performance,” Short Course Manual,
SPE, Richardson, Texas (1986).
2. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson,
Texas (1977) 5, 8 and 14.
3. Gdanski, R.: “A Fundamentally New Model of Acid Wormholing in Carbonates,” paper SPE
54719 presented at the 1999 European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 31 May–1 June.
4. Gidley, J.L.: “Acidizing Sandstone Formations: A Detailed Examination of Recent
Experience,” paper SPE 14164 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 22–25 September.
5. Nitters, G. et al.: “Structured Approach to Advanced Candidate Selection and Treatment
Design of Stimulation Treatments,” paper SPE 63179 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October.
6. Brannon, D.H., Netters, C.K., and Grimmer, P.J.: “Matrix Acidizing Design and Quality-
Control Techniques Prove Successful in Main Pass Area Sandstone,” JPT (August 1987) 931.
7. McLeod, H.O., Ledlow, L.B., and Till, M.V.: “The Planning, Execution, and Evaluation of
Acid Treatments in Sandstone,” paper SPE 11931 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, 5–8 October.
8. Farina, J.R.: “An Approach to Estimating Skin Damage and Appropriate Treatment Volumes,”
Proc., 18th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course Association, Lubbock, Texas (1971)
53–57.
9. McLeod, H.O.: “Significant Factors for Successful Matrix Acidizing,” paper SPE 20155
presented at the 1989 Centennial Symposium—Petroleum Technology into the Second Century,
New Mexico Tech., Socorro, New Mexico, 16–19 October.
10. McLeod, H.O.: “The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance,” JPT (January
1983).

22
23