IADC/SPE-191026-MS

Optimized Diversion System Applied in Stimulation Treatments in a Highly

Naturally Fractured Carbonate Formation: Successful Case Histories

Cristian Ramirez, Katya Rosa Campos, and Alfredo Daniel Gonzalez, Halliburton

Copyright 2018, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 27–29 August 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction
by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Chemical diverter systems, such as relative permeability modifiers (RPMs), can significantly reduce
effective permeability, mainly to aqueous-based fluids (e.g., acids), where the fluid enters into the interval
being treated. Graded salt is a granular solid used at all temperatures that has a wide particle-size distribution
(PSD) for bridging and sealing to provide effective diversion of treating fluids. This combined with an
RPM fluid can help divert the entire interval during a matrix-acid stimulation. This paper discusses a review
of wells treated, with excellent results, using such a chemical and bridging diversion system (CBDS) in
different fields in the southern region of Mexico.
If a formation has zones containing a large number of open, natural fractures, the resulting tendency is
for treatment fluids to flow into the zone(s) with the highest effective permeability or the least amount of
damage instead of creating a uniform distribution over the entire interval, as is necessary. An important
characteristic for a diverter product is creating a temporary skin effect during the injection of the treatment
that leaves no permanent damage or that can later be removed or dissolved.
The focus of this study was on gathering more detailed information for the selection of the diverter,
treatment design, and operational procedures. Additionally, the learning curve is presented associated with
the challenge of stimulating a specific zone within a complex mechanical wellbore and selecting the correct
candidate for applying a schedule of mechanical diversions and acid stimulations.
Laboratory study data are included to illustrate how the diverting process physically manifests, which
is used to substantiate the field designs. Understanding how chemical diverters interact with the formation
rock and fluid is fundamental to selecting the proper product for a specific treatment application.

Introduction
A successful matrix acidizing treatment depends on the efficient placement of the acid system to
remove formation damage in the near-wellbore (NWB) region. Many intervals that require treatment
are heterogeneous with formation permeability variations. The acid treatment tends to locate in higher-
permeability zones and avoid entry into lower-permeability or less-damaged formation zones. In some cases,
the higher-permeability zones are water producers; thus, the acid also enters those areas because of the effect
2 IADC/SPE-191026-MS

of relative permeability. In this and other cases, an acid treatment can result in significant increases in water
production after treatment (Eoff et al. 2004).
A key characteristic in the diverting process is to create a temporary flow limitation during injection
treatments that can degrade or dissolve after the treatment. Typical agents that have been used include ball
sealers, degradable particles, viscous fluids, and foams. These have been used with success, but each also
has potential drawbacks. Chemical diverter systems, such as RPMs, can significantly reduce the effective
permeability predominantly to aqueous-based fluids (such as acid systems) where the fluid enters the treated
interval. Temporary bridging agents (TBAs) are a granular solid that can be used over broad temperature
ranges, with a broad PSD for bridging and sealing to provide effective diversion fluid treatment.
The combination of both agents, called a chemical-mechanical system, helps divert more effectively at
various intervals opened during a matrix acid stimulation.

RPM System
The RPM system discussed in this work consists of a hydrophobically modified water-soluble polymer
resulting from hydrophobic groups introduced into the polymer chains. The RPM system adsorbs
permanently onto the rock surface of the pore-throat wall. The presence of hydrophobic groups contributes
to an increased level of polymer adsorption and changes rock interaction with reservoir fluids, in terms
of interfacial tension and capillary pressure, without allowing flow channels to be physically plugged
(Dalrymple et al. 2007). These characteristics provide benefits, such as an immediate reaction (shut-in time
is not required) and reduced permeability to water (more than oil and gas). Additionally, it is not affected
by multivalent cations, oxygen, or acids, it does not require a catalyst and does not form a gel, it does not
require special placement techniques, and it can be applied in all lithologies (Pinto and Gutierrez 2009). The
system exhibits low viscosity, typically less than 2 cp. The hydrophobic modification of the water-soluble
polymer allows multiple layers of the polymer to build up because of association of the hydrophobic groups
(Fig. 1) (Vasquez et al. 2010).

Figure 1—RPM system.

TBA's
The Temporary Bridging Agents or TBA's discussed here are white solid water-soluble granular materials
that can be used at all temperature ranges, with a broad PSD for bridging and sealing to provide an effective
diversion fluid treatment. The larger particles in the target area begin to form a bridge, and then the following
smaller particles continue to increase until such bridging is accomplished, reducing permeability. TBAs
are much less soluble in hydrochloric (HCl) acid than in water, but they are not soluble in oil and do not
IADC/SPE-191026-MS 3

degrade; however, if removal is necessary, a cleaning operation with water or an acid system (2 to 5%) and
brine should be sufficient.

Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed to measure permeability and flow in synthetic cores produced in the
laboratory with the following materials: 66.7% calcium carbonate, 4.1% calcium chloride, 4.1% bentonite,
12.6% silica, and 12.5% cement (consolidation agent). Additionally, compatibility and stability tests were
performed with oil samples from the Jujo field. Permeability tests were conducted at ambient temperature
conditions, and fluid loss was tested at 190°F and pressure of 1,000 psi to simulate downhole conditions.
Following are the primary objectives of such testing:

• Ensuring stability of both systems.

• Ensuring the initial goal of "divergence" during stimulation treatment by performing these tests at
both surface conditions (permeability tests) and at downhole conditions (fluid loss tests).
• After performing the divergence, the TBA could be removed or would degrade without causing
formation damage.

Regained Permeability Testing

Regained permeability testing was performed using a permeability tester according to API RP 10B-2/ISO
10426 (2010). A surface temperature condition and differential pressure of 100 to 200 psi were used.
The tests were performed in the following order:
1. Water permeability testing was performed to determine the initial permeability of the rock or
specimen.
2. Permeability testing using the chemical-mechanical systems was performed to observe the
permeability of the rock or specimen in the presence of the system (if permeability decreased, the
system could be used as a diverter).
3. The rock/specimen was washed and a third test was performed to determine whether the initial
permeability was recovered or the rock/specimen underwent any change.
A permeability tester is a piece of laboratory equipment that helps determine the permeability of a
specimen at pressure conditions. The sample is cured and confined in a cell in the cell holder, and a
differential pressure is applied for fluid flow.
Table 1 showed the permeability results, after pumped the diverter the regain permeability obtained was
90.94%.

Table 1—Results of the permeability test.

Time
Test Fluid Volume (mL) (minutes:seconds) Permeability (md) Comments

1 Water 150 1:58 692.26 Specimen relative water permeability.

2 Diverter 9 60:21 1.18 —

Water 126 72:0 16.15 Relative permeability determined

immediately after the test with diverter
system to assess the residual divergence of
the system.

3 Water 465 9:2 95.02 Results of tests performed to restore

permeability.

Water 108 1:35 629.59 Restored permeability.

4 IADC/SPE-191026-MS

Fluid Loss Testing

Fluid loss testing (Fig. 6) was used to determine static fluid loss in what is commonly called a filter press.
A confining volume of 170 mL of standard cement slurry was placed into the cell, where it was forced to
lose fluid by applying 1,000-psi of pressure at 190°F and flowed through a 325-mesh screen. This test was
carried out simply to illustrate the applicability of the test set up.
The test results on the diverter fluids were used to support results from the permeability test simulated at
downhole conditions. This laboratory test demonstrated and illustrated the physical effect of the diversion
and provided support during successful application of the field operation.

Procedure
The fluid loss test procedure was performed as follows:
1. Develop, confine, and cure the synthetic specimen inside the cell holder of the filter press (Fig. 2).
2. Condition the cell with temperature (190°F).
3. Place the synthetic specimen into the cell; do not use the 325-mesh screen.
4. Fill with 170 mL of system.
5. Apply the test pressure of 1,000 psi and start time.
6. Measure the flow rate through the specimen.
7. Register the volume collected and the time interval (Table 2).

Figure 2—Sample of the healing specimens.

Figure 3—Permeability tester.

IADC/SPE-191026-MS 5

Figure 4—(a) Results of the determination of permeability with water;

(b) sample of the specimen after determining permeability with water.

Figure 5—(a) Results of the permeability test with diverter system; (b) final
characteristic of the specimen at the end of the permeability test with diverter system.

Figure 6—Fluid loss tester.

6 IADC/SPE-191026-MS

Table 2—Results of the tests performed in the filter-press equipment.

Time
Test Fluid Volume (mL) (minutes:seconds) Rate (mL/sec) Comments

1 Water 60 0:11 5.45 Initial flow of the specimen.

2 Diverter 48 37:18 0.02 —

Water 80 08:48 0.15 Flow measured immediately after flowing

diverter system to evaluate the residual
divergence of the system.

3 Water 240 07:11 0.56 Resulted in restored flow when flowing

three times the test volume.

Water 80 0:17 4.70 Restored flow.

Compatibility Testing
Compatibility test was performed according to proprietary service company procedures and with reference
to ASTM D287-92 (2000), ASTM D4007-02 (2002), ASTM D6560-IP 143/01 (2004), and API RP 42 (1977).

Procedure
Compatibility testing was performed as follows:
1. Prepare the system to use.
2. Mix 50 cm3 of oil with 50 cm3 of each system, and then place them in a glass jar.
3. Shake the mixture vigorously for 30 seconds and place in a water bath at 190°F.
4. Verify the break (separation) of the mixture. During the first 10 minutes, record time and phase
characteristics.
5. Leave the jars in the water bath to complete 4 hours of testing.
6. After 4 hours, filter the systems through a 100-mesh screen (Fig. 7).
7. If a solid is retained in the mesh, determine whether it is soluble in hot water; record the amount of
solids and the solubility thereof (Fig. 8).
8. Issue results.

Figure 7—Test result of compatibility between diverter system with surfactant and oil sample from Well Jujo-34.
IADC/SPE-191026-MS 7

Figure 8—Result after washing the screen with hot water; residue is TBA.

Field Application—Well A
Well A is located in the southeast area of the mature oil fields in Mexico completed in Formation JST-1 and
is perforated at intervals of 5915 to 5960 m, 5975 to 6010 m, 6025 to 6035 m, and 6055 to 6100 m.
The well initially produced up to 5,000 B/D, which declined rapidly during the first year, reaching less
than 1,000 B/D. In mid-1989, a workover was performed, reperforating the same intervals and creating
a new interval. This resulted in increased production to more than 2,500 B/D; however, by the end of
1989, production decreased again and remained lower than 500 B/D with a high gas-oil ratio (GOR)
until mid-1996. In 2005, another workover was performed, creating new intervals; some production was
recovered as a result until 2008, when the well was closed. In 2011, matrix stimulation including radioactive
tracers was performed, pumping an aromatic nonreactant system, a retarded acid system, an emulsified acid
system, and a polymeric chemical diverting system. After this treatment, the well did not respond with
commercial production of hydrocarbons (Table 3). The results of the log radioactive tracing (Fig. 9) showed
where the acid systems entered, at which point it was observed that the upper perforated interval (5915 to
5960 m) accepted the entire treatment.

Table 3—Production data before treatment.

Total Gas Rate Injected Gas

Date Total Rate (B/D) Net Oil Rate (B/D) GOR (m3/m3) (MMscf/D) Rate (MMscf/D) Water Cut (%)

07/12/2007 40 — 5230 1.1 — 1.6

02/01/2008 55 — 3643 1.08 — 1.6

02/03/2008 79 77 2024 0.8 — 2.4

16/10/2008 98 97 2888 1.3 1.23 1.8

05/11/2008 5 5 34 788 0.8 1 6

25/03/2008 62 61 2173 1.5 7.75 0.6

8 IADC/SPE-191026-MS

Figure 9—Results of the log radioactive trace from 2011.

The logs taken in the openhole were reviewed (Fig. 10), and it was observed that the upper interval
had the best permeability profiles compared to lower intervals that were opened, which confirmed the acid
acceptance in the upper zone that was evidenced by the log radioactive tracing mentioned previously.
To perform the operation (Fig. 11 and Table 4), the following equipment was used: a high-pressure pump,
a blender, a batch mixer, and two nitrogen gas injection units of high and low pumping rates.
IADC/SPE-191026-MS 9

Figure 10—Petrophysical log process display.

Figure 11—Treatment plot.

10 IADC/SPE-191026-MS

Table 4—Pumping schedule.

N2 Gas Flow Bottomhole Gas N2 N2 Liq

Volume Rate Rate Rate Quantity Volume Rel (m3 Time
Stage Treatment System (m3) (m3/min) (bbl/min) (bbl/min) (%) (m3 std) std) (minutes)

1 Nitrogen 59.48 180.0 — 8 100 8018 — 44.5

2 Treated water 4.00 160.0 5.0 12 59.9 1006 201 6.3

3 CMDS 40.00 — 3.0 3 0.0 — — 83.9

4 Gelled acid system 5.00 160.0 5.0 12 59.9 1006 201 6.3

5 Solvent system 9.00 160.0 5.0 12 59.9 1812 201 11.3

6 Emulsion acid system 12.00 160.0 5.0 12 59.9 2415 201 15.1

7 Gelled acid system 5.00 160.0 5.0 12 59.9 1006 201 6.3

8 Treated water 3.00 200.0 5.0 14 65.1 755 252 3.8

9 Diverter service 10.00 160.0 5.0 12 59.9 2013 201 12.6

10 Solvent system 9.00 200.0 5.0 14 65.1 2264 252 11.3

11 Emulsion acid system 12.00 200.0 5.0 14 65.1 3019 252 15.1

12 Gelled acid system 5.00 200.0 5.0 14 65.1 1258 252 6.3

13 Treated water 3.00 240.0 5.0 16 69.1 906 302 3.8

14 Diverter system 10.00 200.0 5.0 14 65.1 2516 252 12.6

15 Solvent system 9.00 240.0 5.0 16 69.1 2717 302 11.3

16 Emulsion acid system 11.00 240.0 5.0 16 69.1 3321 302 13.8

17 Gelled acid system 5.00 240.0 5.0 16 69.1 1510 302 6.3

18 Solvent system 3.00 240.0 5.0 16 69.1 906 302 3.8

19 Nitrogen 66.90 240.0 — 11 100.0 9018 — 37.6

Fluid Total N2 + LIQ: 282.38 N2 Total: 45 466 Treatment 311.91

Time minutes
Liquids Total: 156.00 Total N2/Total Liquid) 291 5.2 hours
Rel. std m3/m3:

After testing the surface manifold equipment, the well was opened, having an initial tubing pressure of
143 psi and an annulus pressure of 55 psi. A prepad of 50,000 scm of nitrogen at rates of 1250 to 1570 scm/
min was pumped. At the same time, the annulus space (casing) was supported with nitrogen at a constant
rate of 380 scm/min during the entire operation.
At the end of the prepad, the operation continued with the first part of the treatment, initially pumping
31.5 bbl of treated water at a rate of 5 bbl/min plus nitrogen to keep the rock water-wet and to help ensure
the RPM would react on the formation. Immediately following, the main diverter system (salt particles in
a brine) was pumped. During this stage, the rate was lowered to 3 bbl/min without nitrogen to help ensure
the pumping of diverter salt particles prepared in the batch mixer would circulate throughout all the system
pumps and manifold equipment and be placed in the formation.
After washing with an aromatic nonreactant system, three stages of acid with nitrogen were pumped at a
constant rate of 5 bbl/min, separated by another diverter-based RPM. The nitrogen rate was increased during
each acid change stage to reinforce the diverting treatment systems. At every rate increase, the pressure
response was observed, which indicated that good diverting was being achieved to allow for placement of
the acid into the lower intervals.
The diverter system and acid systems were mapped with two different radioactive isotopes to observe
the placement of each part of system into the relevant intervals by performing a new log radioactive tracing
and comparing it to the previous log.
IADC/SPE-191026-MS 11

Regarding annulus pressure, a constant increase was observed during the first half of the operation until
the end of the diverting stage. Later, during the pumping of the rest of the treatment systems, a slight increase
in pressure was observed, which remained at approximately 1,500 psi, with a final pressure at the end of
the operation of 1,556 psi.
As a result of this treatment, the well had a good response with the commercial production of hydrocarbon
(Table 5). The results of the log radioactive tracing of this operation (Fig. 12) showed that the upper interval
accepted most of the diverter system, and diverting acid systems to lower intervals was achieved, stimulating
the lower zones of the formation and returning the well to hydrocarbon production.

Figure 12—Radioactive trace log results post-treatment.

12 IADC/SPE-191026-MS

Table 5—Production data after treatment.

Total Gas Rate Injected Gas

Date Total Rate (B/D) Net Oil Rate (B/D) GOR (m3/m3) (MMscf/D) Rate (MMscf/D) Water Cut (%)

08/06/2011 218 210 1266 1.55 1.5 3.6

09/06/2011 223 215 4319 5.4 1.5 3.6

Well Case D
Well D is an oil producer with an openhole slotted liner completion in a highly naturally fractured carbonate
reservoir. The area exposed in the 5-in. slotted liner section extended from 4520 to 4700 m, a 180-m interval
(590 ft). This reservoir was producing 39°API oil and had the following properties: k ~60 md; porosity:
6%; bottomhole temperature (BHT) ~154°C; and reservoir pressure ~5,334 psi. During drilling, 924 bbl
of drilling mud were lost to this section. An initial acid matrix stimulation treatment was performed and
included 145 bbl of aromatic solvent, 290 bbl of retarded acid system, and 63 bbl of RPM diverter. After this
stimulation treatment, Well D did not flow naturally; therefore, production had to be induced with nitrogen
placed using coiled tubing (CT). A production test showed 81% water cut with intermittent production.
Chemical tracers revealed that most of the acid treatment went to the bottom section (4620 to 4700 m). The
operator requested an optimized second stimulation treatment to enhance production from the upper section
without increasing water production; otherwise, this well would be abandoned.
It was decided to place a sand plug at the bottom section of the slotted liner using CT to help prevent
further stimulating this zone. The top of the sand plug was left at 4622 m. The matrix stimulation treatment
consisted of 157 bbl of aromatic solvent and 660 bbl of retarded acid system. For diversion purposes, the first
stage included 190 bbl of RPM diverter containing 2 lbm/gal of TBA to divert acid away from the bottom
zone. Additionally, another 63-bbl RPM diverter stage was included in the middle of the acid treatment.
Fig. 13 indicates the treatment plot for Well D.

Figure 13—Treatment plot for Well D.

A After this matrix stimulation treatment, Well D flowed without help (no need to induce production with
CT and nitrogen as before) with 931 B/D of oil, 2.29 MMscf/D, and 28.2% water cut (24/64-in. choke size).
IADC/SPE-191026-MS 13

Well Case S
Well S was completed with an openhole slotted liner with three open zones in a highly naturally fractured
carbonate reservoir. Water production increased up to 68%. Major water contribution was coming from
the lower zones. This reservoir was producing 42.5°API oil and had the following properties: k ~12 md;
porosity: 7%; BHT ~143.5°C; and reservoir pressure ~5,903 psi.
To treat the well, the solution consisted of temporarily isolating the water production zone, setting a sand
plug with 1 3/4-in. CT, and stimulating the upper zone using RPM diverter combined with TBA diverting
agent as the first treatment to help prevent stimulating a water zone. Fig. 14 shows the wellbore schematic.
The prejob production reported was 129 BOPD. After treatment, the well produced in natural flow at 296
BOPD.

Figure 14—Wellbore schematic of Well S.

Observations and Conclusions

The following conclusions are a result of this work:

• Laboratory testing was performed before treatment began to help ensure the effectiveness and
stability of the system at the surface (permeability testing) and bottomhole conditions (fluid loss
testing).
• The synthetic core flow laboratory tests demonstrated and illustrated the physical effect of the
diversion and provided support during successful application of the field operation.
• One significant advantage of this system is that, after diversion is achieved, it can be removed
or degrade itself quickly without causing formation damage, compared to other similar diverter
systems on the market.
• A clear difference can be observed between radioactive log-traced post-job results, showing the
entrance was more divergent (path with iridium—red color) in the first interval than the entry of
acid in the three bottom intervals (all acid stages were traced with scandium—yellow color).
• The design of this system achieved effective diversion and stimulated intervals that previously
could not be treated, achieving oil production in a well that was closed for more than three years.
• Presently, 20 treatments have been performed with this diverter system, achieving a success rate
greater than 85%.
14 IADC/SPE-191026-MS

• Every treatment represented a different issue, and a solution was possible with the divergence effect
achieved, which was verified with traced logs, production logs, and productions results.

References
API RP 42, Recommended practices for laboratory testing of surface-active agents for well stimulation, second edition,
1977. Washington, DC: API.
API RP 10B-2, Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements, First Edition (Includes Errata), 2010. Washington,
DC: API.
ASTM D287-92(2000)e1, Standard Test Method for API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products
(Hydrometer Method), 2000. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International.
ASTM D4007-02, Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Crude Oil by the Centrifuge Method (Laboratory
Procedure), 2002. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International.
ASTM D6560-IP 143/01, Standard Test Method for Determination of Asphaltenes (Heptane Insolubles) in Crude
Petroleum and Petroleum Products, 2004. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International.
Dalrymple, D., Gutierrez, M., Vasquez, J. et al. 2007. Results of Advanced Technology Utilization in Selective Water
Reduction. Presented at the Colombian Congress of Petroleum and Gas, Bogota, Columbia, 23–26 October.
Eoff, L., Dalrymple, D., and Reddy, B.R. 2004. Development of Associative Polymer Technology for Acid Diversion in
Sandstone and Carbonate Lithology. Presented at the SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 17–21 April. SPE-89413-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89413-MS.
Pinto, S.G. and Gutierrez, M. 2009. Lessons Learned from Relative Permeability Modifications in Colombia, South
America. Presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Cartagena,
Colombia, 31 May–3 June. SPE-121327-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/121327-MS.
Vasquez, J., Waltman, B., and Eoff, L. 2010. Field Implementation of a Novel Solids-Free System to Minimize Fluid
Loss during Overbalanced Workover Operations. Presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and
Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 14–17 June. SPE-130210-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/130210-MS.