USMS

020155 Significant Factors for Successful Matrix Acidizing

H.O. McLeod, Conoco Inc.

Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This manuscript was provided to the Society of Petroleum Engineers for distribution
and possible publication in an SPE journal. The material is subject to correction
by the author(s). Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE Book Order Dept., Library Technician, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A.. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
 &}
~~l
i
I
f_jIL
SPE 20155 u
NEW MEXICO TECH
CENTENNIAL SYMPOSIUM

Significant Factors for Successful Matrix Acidizing

Harry 0. Mcleod, Conoco Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Centennial Symposium Petroleum Technology Into the Second Century at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM, October 16-19, 1989.

This paper was selected for presentation by the New Mexico Tech Centennial Symposium Committee. Contents of the paper, as presented. have not been reviewed by the Society
~f Pe~roleum Engmeers and are subJeCt to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
!Is oH1cers, or members. It submitted for publication, th1s paper is subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy
IS restncted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain consoicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Such a program was developed by Brannon, Netters

ABSTRACT
and Grimmer (2) who successfully acidized 35 of 37
wells (95% success) for an average production
Successful matrix acidizing depends upon: (1). good
increase of 343 BOPD. Other areas and formations
evaluation of candidate wells using (a) completion
still suffer from poor acidizing responses which
and production histories, (b) producing well flow
implies that opportunities for technology
analysis (nodal analysis) and (c) formation
development still exist.
composition analysis, (2). design for effective
coverage of all damaged perforations, (3).
Producing Well Analysis
selection of solvents, acids and acid compositions
to prevent or reduce incompatibilities and (4).
The greatest cost savings in matrix acidizing
effective well preparation and job supervision.
result from better engineering evaluation of
INTRODUCTION acidizing candidates. A good matrix acidizing
candidate is a well producing from a formation with
During the 1980's research and development in permeability greater than 10 mds. and whose
matrix acidizing focused more on the prevention of permeability in the near well bore or near
incompatibilities and proper on-site execution and perforation region has been reduced by solid
less on chemical product development. Advances in plugging. This plugging is either mechanical or
well flow analysis (nodal analysis) have also chemical. Mechanical plugging is caused by either
improved the selection of acidizing candidates and (1) the introduction of suspended solids in a
the evaluation of acidizing success. On-site completion or workover fluid or (2) the dispersion
supervision has been assisted by improved data of insitu fines by incompatible fluids and/or high
gathering equipment and on-site computing to better interstitial velocities. Chemical plugging is
monitor the progress of damage removal by caused by mixing incompatible fluids which
acidizing. Improvements continue to be made in precipitate solids. One example of formation
better acid coverage of damaged perforations damage by a solids- contaminated fluid is shown in
through the use of diverting agents and mechanical Figure 1. An unfiltered produced brine was used to
isolation devices. This paper will focus on these kill the well during a workover to repair a tubing
significant factors for successful matrix leak. In this example formation damage is obvious
acidizing. in the reduced productivity immediately after the
workover. This lowered productivity persisted
SELECTING SUCCESSFUL ACIDIZING CANDIDATES until an acid treatment removed the damage. Many
times the analysis of a damaged condition is not so
John Gidley (1) presented the results of an obvious.
extensive statistical review of one company's
acidizing success in sandstone reservoirs in the U. Often acidizing candidates are selected on the
S. He found that only 54% of 507 wells increased in basis of offset well comparisons. The
production following mud acid stimulation (his produc ti vi ties of offset wells are compared, and
Table 3). Our past experience supports these the poorer performing wells are selected for
findings. Where better evaluation and quality acidizing. Many times this selection is made
control have been implemented, the percentage of without sufficient well testing. Pressure buildup
successful treatments has improved to 7~ to 90%. testing may be too expensive in terms of lost
production during long shut- ins, or well
References and illustrations at end of paper

163
 SPE 2 015,
2 SIGNIFICANT FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL MATRIX ACIDIZING
NMTECH 890021

interference may circumvent reliable long time

Damage Identification
pressure data. Table 1 shows such an offset
comparison. On the basis of production only, three Once a damaged well is identified, it is helpful to
wells are acid candidates. However, when one evaluate the primary source of damage. Our
compares the formation potential through log experience shows damage most often occurs in new
analysis as expressed by net porosity feet, only
wells during overbalanced perforating or as a
one well is a reliable acidizing candidate, well
result of solids plugging from contaminated
B-1. Acidizing all three wells on the basis of
completion fluids. Completion fluids may be
production rate alone may provide only a 33%
contaminated by entrained solids in unfiltered
success. In water floods, it is also important to
brines or gel residues in fluids used to control
compare effective reser~oir pressures around each
well pressure while running downhole completion
well or to compare the injection rates from
equip ment. Familiarity with all sources of damage
adjacent water inj ectfon wells. If offset water
is a requisite tool for an engineer selecting the
injectivities are low, producfion will be less in
best remedial acid treatment. Good reviews of well
the affected producing well.
damage processes are provided by Krueger (6) and by
Amafuele, et al. (7). McLeod (8) also has provided
Where wells flow naturally, as in natural gas wells
a damage check list in his SPE Short Course Manual,
or new oil wells, pressure buildup tests provide a
Matrix Acidizing to Improve Well Performance. A
reliable measure of reservoir permeability and well
complete case history of damage analysis and
bore condition (skin factor, S). The skin factor
removal is provided by Schaible, et al. (9).
S, when positive, indicates restricted flow;
however, the restriction is not necessarily
Damage Removal by Chemical Solvents
formation damage. A skin factor of 5 to 20 or more
can result from inadequate perforation size and/or
Selection of a chemical for any particular
low shot density when combined with either
application will depend on which contaminants are
turbulent or two phase fluid flow. Two phase flow
plugging formation permeability. HCl will not
effects and turbulent flow cause high skin factors
dissolve pipe dope, paraffin, or asphaltenes.
by themselves or amplify the restriction caused by
Treatment of these solids or plugging agents
limited perforating. Such an example is shown in
requires an effective organic solvent (usually an
Figure 2. This gas well was perforated with
aromatic solvent like toluene, xylene, ·or
sufficient underbalance to achieve clean undamaged
orthonitrotoluene). Acetic acid effectively
perforations, yet the skin factor fromn the
dissolves calcium carbonate scale; however, it will
pressure build-up test was 11. A perforated well
not dissolve ferric oxide (iron oxide) scale. HCl
flow analysis technique (3) showed that this skin
dissolves calcium carbonate scale quite easily but
was caused mainly by turbulent flow of the gas into
has little effect on calcium sulfate scales.
the small perforations created by the small
Calcium sulfate can be converted to calcium
through-tubing perforating gun used in this well.
carbonate or calcium hydroxide by treatment with
potassium hydroxide or sodium carbonate. HCl then
We have analyzed other wells with high skins that
can be used to dissolve the converted scale.
were the result of limited perforating and two
Calcium sulfate also can be dissolved in one step
phase flow effects. One gas condensate well had a
with the sodium salt of ethylene diamine
skin factor of 29 which was the result of liquid
tetraacetic acid (EDTA). HCl will not dissolve
saturation build-up and turbulent flow around the
formation clay minerals or drilling mud.
wellbore after a compressor was installed to pull
Hydrofluoric acid (HF) must be used to dissolve
the well harder. Another well in a deep,
these aluminosilicates when they plug pore throats
overpressured oil reservoir had a positive skin
in the formation.
factor even after fracturing because of a solution
gas oil ratio over 1200 SCF/BBL and a high
Because different plugging solids require different
drawdown. Because of these experiences we use the
solvents for their removal, there is no universal
checklist shown in Table 2 before selecting acid
sol vent for wellbore damage. Treatment based on
candidates on the basis of high skin factors alone.
such a premise often will yield disappointing
Acidizing similar wells have resulted in
results. Never pump sol vent or acid into a well
productivity decreases because acidizing sometimes until the probable causes of damage and the best
produces damage where no damage existed prior to chemical to remove the damage have been defined.
acidizing. Proper evaluation of damage and treatment design
are illustrated by Clementz et al. (10) in the
Such skin factors can be defined by well flow successful removal of bacterial damage in water
analysis (3-5) to show when the skin factor is injection wells.
caused by the above effects or when the skin factor
is the result of permeability damage which can be FORMATION RESPONSE TO ACID
removed by properly designed and executed matrix
acid treatments. An example of such a damaged well Even though damage has been identified and an
is shown in Figure 3. This well was perforated appropriate acid or other cleaning agent is
adequately and should hav3 produced much better available to remove the damage, one must evaluate
after completion. Review of the completion the probable response of the formation (its fluids
procedure showed that formation damage probably and minerals) to either the acid or spent acid.
occurred during completion, and a standard There are many incompatibilties possible in
acidizing treatment was used to dissolve the acidizing various formations. These
damage. Performance significantly improved as incompatibilities result in solid precipitates
shown by the reduction of completion pressure drop whcih can plug pore throats so as to offset the
and increase of flow rate in this gas well. improvement of acid dissolving damaging solids.
Results can range from (1) no bad effects and

164
NMTECH 890021 Harry 0. McLeod
S'E20]55 3

complete cleanup of damage to (2) less than optimum production, and solvents can be used to loosen and
improvement to (3) plugging of the formation with partially or completely dissolve them. This action
acid generated precipitates. As an example, a gas helps the acid do a better job of dissolving acid
well producing 4 MMCFD from a sandstone reservoir soluble solids. When a well has been completed
was acidized to improve production. The well with oil base muds, pre-soaks with an aromatic
flowed only 2 MMCFD after acidizing. Subsequent solvent and producing back before acidizing have
detailed petrographic core analyses showed that a been helpful. Solvent formulations are available
combination of acid released fines and spent acid as a pretreatment to clean-up oil base mud
precipitates probably damaged the formation. Such filtrates and to restore a water wet condition to
incompatabilities are discussed below. the formation.

Formation Properties High sulfate ion contents (>1, 000 ppm) exist in
some formation waters. Spending HCl on calcium
We can prevent damage by predicting and dealing carbonates generates a high concentration of
with formation response before we acidize. While calcium ions which will precipitate calcium sulfate
it is sometimes easy to dissolve plugging solids, when spent acid mixes with formation water. This
the real test of success is dissolving the solids can be prevented by preflushing the formation water
without damaging the formation. This is why we away from the wellbore. In limestones, KCl or NaCl
must predefine how formation minerals will respond brines will work. In sandstones, NH c1 brine
to the proposed acid and predict how the spent acid should be used. 4
Such a pre flush comb1ned with
will react as it penetrates the formation. If we quick return of spent acid from the formation by
identify potential incompatibilities between acid swabbing has increased production rates after
and formation solids or fluids, we can prevent or acidizing in the San Andres formation in Eastern
control precipitation of reaction products in the New Mexico.
formation.
Formation Mineral Compatibility
Two properties of the formation are important:
formation mineralogy and formation permeability. Analyzing formation minerals is important to be
Defining formation mineralogy helps us confirm the design of the HCl acid preflush, HF acid treatment
type of acid to use an~ select its concentration. and overflush in sandstone formations. The
Defining formation permeability gives us the questions to be answered are:
information we need to estimate the matrix
injection rate and the difficulty of acid injection 1. How much of the formation will dissolve in
at low matrix injection rates or the risk of acid hydrochloric acid?
breakdown by fracturing. 2. How much of the formation will dissolve
quickly in HF acid, and
Formation Fluid Compatibility 3. Will acid reaction products precipitate?

Formation fluids must also be considered in the Where a high HCl solubility exists (20% or more),
treatment with acid. Shaughnessey and Kline (11) HF acid should not be used. Damage can generally
showed the difficulties with high bicarbonate ion be loosened by dissolving the HCl acid soluble
content in formation waters. The use of compounds. This allows insoluble compounds to be
hydrochloric acid was not. sufficient to keep the produced back out of the perforations and out of
well fro~ redamaging itself quickly. They used an the well. The use of HF in sandstones with a high
ingenious treatment with a form of EDTA to both carbonate content produces voluminous precipitates.
remove the calcium carbonate scale that had damaged
productivity and to prevent the recurrence of the Compounds of calcium carbonate, magnesium
scale for long periods of time. carbonate, and iron compounds are soluble in
hydrochloric acid, even chlorite clay. Sufficient
Another very serious problem with formation fluids volumes of hydrochloric acid must be injected ahead
is the reaction of crude oil with acid. Some oils, of HF to dissolve all these acid-soluble materials
particularly those black heavy oils (less than 30° before the HF or spent HF reaches them. The volume
API), react with acid to form either very damaging of HF acid used depends on injection rate and
sludges (precipitated asphaltenes) or very stable contact time. (This will be discussed later.) The
emulsions. A paper reporting this problem and the HF concentration is selected (Table 3) to prevent
treatment to prevent it was given by Moore, et or reduce damaging precipitates.
al.(l2). Sometimes sludge preventers and emulsion
breakers cannot prevent the formation of stable Some minerals will automatically reprecipitate
emulsions. Houchin and Hudson discuss similar fluoride compounds when high concentrations of HF
problems with organic deposits (13). Recent work are used, particularly 6% HF. Even 3% HF will
shows how dissolved iron creates more stable precipitate potassium fluosilicate when HF acid
sludges and emulsions with these crude oils (14). reacts with potassium feldspar. HF-dissolved
Some difficult crudes need a buffer of hydrocarbon sodium feldspars will not precipitate sodium
solvent between crude oil and acid that is mutually silicate with 3% HF or less.
compatible with both the crude oil and the acid.
The buffer reduces contact between acid and these When HF is used in a clay containing formation,
problem oils and prevents or reduces the problems hydrous silica will always precipitate. It is
with sludge and emulsions. Using this technique in important to design an overflush to displace the
one Wyoming oil field increased success from only quantity of hydrous silica 3-5 ft. away from the
25% to 75%. wellbore so that it will do the least amount of
damage. As long as the precipitates keep moving,
Asphaltene particles can precipitate during the likelihood of permanent damage is reduced. The

165
 SP£20155
4 SIGNIFICANT FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL MATRIX ACIDIZING NMTECH 890021
products can be flushed away and sometimes brine or crude oil) as discussed above.
stabilize formation fines by this process. If the
well is then returned to flow quickly, some of this 2. Treat with an adequate volume of proper
precipitate may be produced back and help clean up concentration HF.
the formation after the acid treatment. If too
little hydrochloric acid preflush is used in a. Volume For the most successful HF
formations with 5 to ~5% carbonate, residual treatment, over 125 gal/ft. of HF-HCl
carbonate near the wellbore will react with spent acid is required. Sometimes less can be
HF (fluosilicic acid or aluminum fluoride) and used where only shallow damage exists
voluminous precipitates will form. The hydrated around new perforations (25 to 75 gal/ft
precipitates will occupy a much larger volume than is sometimes used on new perforations to
that of the original c~ays and carbonate dissolved. remove mud damage or in a spearhead
treatment as an aid to perforation
Where a lot of iron rich minerals are in the breakdown prior to hydraulic fracturing).
formation, dissolved iron can reprecipitate in the
formation. It is well known that ferric iron b. Concentration - 3% HF - 12% HCl (regular
reprecipitates as acid spends to its normal pH of mud acid) is the normal concentration to
about 4. The precipitation of 10,000 ppm iron in use in damage removal of clean, quartzose
solution can be prevented by adequate treatment sands. Field experience in some
with a sequestering agent such as NTA, EDTA, citric formations shows weaker concentrations of
acid, or combinations of acetic and citric .5 to 1.5% HF are more effective for
acid(15-17). other sands. Mineral composition from a
service company lab analysis can also
Damage with iron hydroxides can be compounded by show when less than 3% HF should be used.
the high iron concentration that comes off the If the combined percentage of clay and
surface of the tubing during acid injection (18). feldspar is over 30%, use 1.5% HF or
Injecting acid through new tubing can be very less. Field experience with some tight
damaging in this respect (19, 20). New sandstones shows that concentrations as
manufactured tubing has a crust of mill scale, or low as 0.6% HF should be used; e. g., the
magnetite, which is a form of ferric/ferrous oxide. Morrow formation in Texas and New Mexico
This mill scale is loosened by the acid such that (21). If in doubt, an acid response test
the tubing is pickled during acid injection. on a typical core should be run if a core
Particles of mill scale can then be injected into sample is available. See Table 3 for
the perforations and be trapped there. Injected recommended acid concentrations.
acid will continue to dissolve the mill scale
creating ferric chloride that enters the formation. 3. Postflush or Overflush
If this ferric chloride combines with iron leached
out of iron-rich chlorite clay or other iron The overflush is an important part of a
compounds, a large amount of iron hydroxide successful HF acidizing treatment. An
precipitates are possible which can severely damage overflush has several purposes:
the formation. This aggravated iron damage can be
prevented by pickling new tubing to remove mill a. Displace unreacted HF acid into the
scale and then circulating the pickling acid back formation.
out of the well as discussed later. b. Displace HF acid reaction products away
from the wellbore.
Methods of Controlling Precipitates c. Remove the oil-wet relative permeability
problems caused by corrosion inhibitors.
Methods we can use to control the precipitates d. Reestablish oil or gas saturation near
caused by acidizing are (1) acid staging, (2) lower the wellbore.
acid concentrations, and ( 3) overflushing as
illustrated in the following guidelines: Typical overflushes for HF treatments are:

1. Preflush with: (a) 5 to 15% HCl, 1. 3% Ammonium chloride

(b) Acetic Acid 2. Weak Acid (3-7 1/2% HCl)
3. Diesel Oil (oil wells only)
The preflush displaces formation brine away 4. Nitrogen (gas wells only)
from the wellbore to prevent it from mixing
with reacted HF and causing a damaging The volume of overflush should be equal to or
precipitate. If the formation contains over 1 greater than the HF stage volume. For most
to 2% carbonate, an HCl preflush is needed to wells the overflush should be at least 200
dissolve the carbonate to (a) prevent waste of gals/ft. of perfs to push all the spent acid
HF, and (b) prevent formation of an insoluble past the critical flow radius of 3-5 ft. This
precipitate, calcium fluoride. large overflush is necessary to prevent the
near wellbore precipitation of amorphous
If calcium chloride workover brine has been silica. This occurs after spent HF contacts
used in the well prior to HF acidizing, it clay 6 inches or deeper in the formation. At
must be prevented from mixing with HF by formation temperatures of 200° F or more, this
preflushing any in the formation away from the precipitation occurs while the HF acid is
wellbore with HCl acid or NH Cl brine. being pumped into the formation. This
4 precipitate is somewhat mobile at first but
Preflushes can also be used to displace and may set up as a gel after flow stops. If it
isolate incompatible formation fluids (either is kept moving by overflushing with 3%

166
 SP£20155
NMTECH 890021 Harry 0. McLeod 5
ammonium chloride or weak acid, it will be into the formation in radial flow below fracture
diluted and dispersed away from the wellbore pressure to remove damage and restore the
where it does less harm. permeability to original reservoir permeability or
higher. More detailed procedures are available from
The best all around and most economic McLeod ( 8) who recommends the following steps for
overflush or an HF acid treatment is 3% treatment design:
ammonium chloride with 10% EGMBE and a
polyquarternary amine clay stabilizer. 1. Estimate safe injection pressures:

Also, certain chemicals can be added to acids a. Determine present fracturing gradient.
to prevent or reduce the precipitation of some b. Determine present bottom hole fracturing
compounds, e.g. , iron complexing agents, pressure.
sulfate scale inhibitors and sludge preventers c. Determine allowable safe injection
pressure at both the wellbore and at the
An example of the role of reservoir mineralogy was surface.
presented by Boyer and Wu (22) in evaluating acid 2. Estimate safe injection rate into the
treatments in the Kuparek River formation in damage-free formation.
Alaska. 3. Estimate safe injection rate into damaged
formation.
ACID TREATMENT DESIGN 4. Select stages required for fluid
compatibility.
Once you determine that a well is a good candidate 5. Calculate volume of each stage required:
for matrix acidizing, you are ready to design the
treatment. Essentially, the design process is a a. Crude Oil Displacement
systematic approach to estimating and calculating b. Formation Brine Displacement
pressure, injection rate, volumes, and c. Acetic Acid Stage
concentrations. d. Hydrochloric Acid Stage
e. Hydrofluoric Acid (HF and HCl) Stage
An acid design technique based on the work of f. Overflush Stage
Williams (23) for HF injection is available in the
SPE Monograph Acidizing Fundamentals (24). Although 6. Select acid concentrations according to
the technique is based on studies of one sandstone, formation mineralogy.
it does show the important effects of temperature
and injection rate on live HF penetration. This Acid Type and Concentration
SPE Monograph dramatically illustrates the small
depth of invasion of HF in sandstone, particularly Permeability and mineralogy determine the
when formation temperatures are 200° F or higher. compatible concentration of HCl or acetic acid in
Live HF acid usually will penetrate only about 6 the preflush stage and HF and HCl in the HF- HCl
in. to 12 in. into the sandstone before spending. acid stage. The recommendations for proper
This work has been extended by Hill, et al., (25) concentrations are provided in Table 3.
who incorporated the effect of specific We published the Acid Use Guidelines shown in Table
mineralogies and added the reaction kinetics of HF 3 in 1983 (20), but they were first formulated for
with the slower but finite quartz reaction rate. the Conoco in-house acidizing seminar in 1980 to
They also discussed the different reactivities of help choose acid concentrations and to provide a
clay minerals and the importance of their rationale for different acid concentrations being
morphology in the pore network. Mcilhenny et al. recommended in the indus try. Lower HF acid
(26) have also reviewed the progress to date in concentrations were first recommended in 1970 by
methods of predicting live HF penetration and Farley, et. al. (27) with Chevron to prevent
permeability increases in sandstone. These are unconsolidation in California sandstones. West
worthwhile developments, but a simple guideline of coast sandstones are generally rich in potassium
wellbore contact time offers a practical solution feldspars. Then Dave Holcomb (21) published work on
to acid volumes to remove near well bore damage. successful acid stimulation of the Morrow in West
Texas - New Mexico for the first time with weak
A practical acid design technique is based on HF acid (6 % HCl - 1.0 % HF and 3 % HCl .5 % HF.
~ontact time of 2 to 4 hours (20). Acid practices Later Lybarger et al.(28) developed the La-Slo
and results during the past 20 years indicate that technique in which they used 7.5 % HCl - 1.5 % HF
the time of dynamic contact with the wellbore for Gulf Coast sandstones.
damage is a correlating factor. In the 1960's acid
volumes of 200 to 300 gal/ft at injection rates up The guidelines are my personal judgements based on
to 2 bbl/min were commonly used. Over the years, industry practices and the chemistry of sandstone
both the rate and volume have declined to about 0.5 acidizing; however, they have not yet been
bbl/min and 75 gal/ft respectively. The one factor corroborated by extensive research. At the present
remaining fairly constant has been HF contact time time our acidizing in high permeability sandstones
with the wellbore. Most of the damage is placed is successful, and we hydraulically fracture with
critically at or in the perforations, and t~me is proppants in lower permeability sandstones
needed for acid to penetrate the more damaged following clean underbalanced perforating.
perforations or to dissolve silica and feldspar
fines. For some time I have been concerned with spent acid
precipitates. From 1975 to 1980 we had poor
Matrix Acidizing Design Guidelines success in acidizing several formations like the
Frio and Wilcox in Texas, and I began studying
Matrix acidizing is the process of injecting acid reasons for this lack of success. Quick,

167
 'i• .....

SPE 2 0155
6 SIGNIFICANT FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL MATRIX ACIDIZING NMTECH 890021
qualitative laboratory bench tests confirmed that i.e., smectite and illite.
precipitates occur depending on the solubility of
the acid reaction products. These were first In 1981, Simon, et.al (39), showed how HCl attacked
pointed out by Smith and Hendrickson (29), in chlorite clay extracting the iron and magnesium and
particular, the problem with sodium fluosilicate. leaving an amorphous alurninosilicate residue. John
Later Labrid (30) discussed the precipitation of Kullman (personal communication, 1988) observed
hydrous silica which caused some plugging in cores. plugging problems with these residues as well as
This damage was later demonstrated by Shaughnessy with rim coatings of chlorite liberated by HCl acid
and Kuntz (31). Shaughnessy and Kuntz left spent in core flow tests. This mineral is prevalent in
acid in the core for several hours, a condition the Morrow in the same areas where Holcomb worked
which occurs in a real ·acid job. This allows the and could be the reason that weaker acids worked
slow reaction rate between spent HF acid and clay better in that environment; i.e., they were easier
minerals/feldspars (aluminosilicates) to produce on the chlorite. That is the reason we recommend
the hydrous silica that decreases permeability. weaker acids on sandstones with significant
chlorite and also why we recommend use of acetic
Crowe (32) showed that there was little or no acid to dissolve carbonate and not attack chlorite
plugging during the injection of spent acid ahead of HF acid.
(fluosilicic acid) in a Berea core. This is
reassuring and matches the behavior we see during I would like to point out one thing about the
acid injection; however, plugging conditions are recommended acid concentrations that is often
worse during the static conditions of shut-in which misunderstood. The recommendations are not
Shaughnessy and Kuntz examined. The work by Crowe absolutes. This is a conservative approach to
did not address shut-in conditions or conditions of avoid problems with spent acid precipitates when no
inadequate preflush with HCl. Walsh et al. (33) previous experience exists in acidizing .a
presented theoretical work on the equilibrium of particular formation. If evaluated experience
spent acid and showed that plugging precipitates exists, that is the most reliable information.
were possible with various acid concentrations and Also, acid flow tests with cores are reliable if
mineral compositions in sandstones. long cores are used and if spent acid is left in a
portion of the unacidized core for the same period
Some recent research by J. Bertaux (34) dealt with of time and at the same temperature that will occur
recipitation and plugging problems in acidizing in a real downhole treatment. These tests are
sandstones containing potassium feldspars. The expensive and therefore seldom performed.
solubility of potassium fluosilicate is less than
half the solubility of sodium fluosilicate and is Also, notice that the guidelines do not
why we recommend lower concentration HF acid in the specifically address permeabilities between 10 md
presence of potassic feldspars like orthoclase or and 100 md. Our field results have been erratic
microcline, KALSi o . There is enough potassium in with such formations. Some treatments are very
3 8
orthoclase (potassium feldspar ) that the successful and some show little or no change. I
solubility of ~otassiurn fluosilicate is exceedeg at believe answers could be provided with detailed
normal reservo1r temperatures (less than 200 F) mineralogy and petrographic studies employing SEM,
by dissolving pure orthoclase in regular mud acid thin section and X-ray diffraction analysis along
(12% HCl - 3% HF). Bryant and Butler have observed with realistic core flow studies. Often these jobs
the generation of fines by the reaction of HCl with are in older fields with no cores available for
feldspars (35). such studies. Pore throat sizes in these
formations are small enough to screen dispersed,
The early work of Smith et al. and Hendrickson (36) undissolved clay sized fines or some spent acid
in acidizing various cores with different precipitates. I encourage comprehensive research to
permeabilities showed different responses to HF better define formation response to acids; however
acid. Smith (personal communication, Houston, TX, as a practical matter small hydraulic fracturing
1979) reported he found it more difficult to treatments are simpler and more cost effective than
stimulate wells producing from sandstones with matrix acidizing in these formations.
permeabili ties of 10 to 60 mds. , much lower than
the Berea sandstone permeability (100 to 300 mds.) ACID PLACEMENT AND COVERAGE
that is often used in HF acid experiments. Much of
this he attributed to the release of fines by the A leading cause of unsuccessful acid treatment is
acid, a result also reported by Lievaart and Davies failure to contact all the damage with the acid.
(37) in a recent article. Fluids pumped into a formation take the path of
least resistance. In a typical treatment, most
Long core tests were performed a few years ago by acid enters the formation though the least damaged
Rick Gdanski of Halliburton (personal perforation tunnels as the schematic in Figure 4
communication, Houston, Tx, 1985) in low shows. When this happens, it is easy to conclude
permeability sandstone at high temperatures. These that acidizing is very expensive and does not work
tests demonstrated increased permeability with HF well. Acidizing works well to remove damage when
in the first two four- inch cores in series and the type of damage is known, the treatment is
decreased permeability in the third four-inch core designed properly and it is properly executed.
in a total core length of 16 inches. Gdanski and
Peavy (38) also discussed depletion of the preflush Numerous methods help control acid placement.
HCl acid in sandstone acidizing by ion exchange of Selection is based on wellbore hardware, formation
the H+ with K+ or Na+ ions on the formation clay characteristics, and field experience. Additional
minerals. This also gives new insights into guidelines are provided by McLeod (8).
potential problems with sandstones rich in clay
minerals with high cation exchange capacities; The five main types of zone coverage techniques in

168
 . ·:'t.
~-1'
·i ,';
SPE 2 015 5
NMTECH 890021 Harry 0. McLeod 7
matrix acidizing are: (1). Mechanical, (2). combination of viscosity and sand packing helps
Particulate, (3). Viscosity, (4). Density divert acid to other perforations. The unique
Segregation, and (5). Combination. feature of this method as opposed to other
"particulate diverters" is that the perforation
Mechanical Techniques tunnel is packed with gravel-pack sand instead of
some other material that would prevent gravel-pack
Opposed Cup Packer or Perforation Wash Tool. - This slurry from entering the perforations during later
perforation wash tool allows selective injection of slurry placement. This method has been improved
acid into closely spaced perforations in high recently by Bob Hall (SPE Forum on Gravel Packing,
permeability formations. High rate and/or pressure Houston, 1989) as a method of prepacking
should be avoided when uS'ing either this tool or perforations in gravel packing operations with
closely spaced straddle_ packers. High pressures great success.
can cause the cups to leak or turn over or the tool
to separate at the port (the weakest part). High Soluble Particulate Diverters. - Selection of the
pressure can also establish communication behind optimal particulate diverter is based on the kind
pipe between the point of injection and nearby of fluid injected and/or produced. The diverter
perforations without removing damage from the must be temporary and easily removed; otherwise,
plugged perforation. This type isolation is best there will be a new kind of .damage to be treated
used for removing damage from severely plugged and removed (43-45). Improvements in the design
perforations in high permeability formations. A and application of particulate diverters are now
field example of this technique in a Gulf Coast available (47-49).
sandstone was given by McLeod and Crawford (4).
Oil-soluble resin (OSR) or polymer is one of
Squeeze Packer and Retrievable Bridge Plug. A today's more common diverting agents. OSR is
good method of isolating perforated intervals is to slowly soluble in toluene, xylene, condensate,
use a retrievable bridge plug and a squeeze packer. crude oil, and EGMBE (mutual solvent). OSR should
The bridge plug is set in blank sections of casing be mixed on site with a blender and immediately
between perforated sections. The treatment usually pumped, or added to the acid "on the fly" with a
begins with the lower set of perforations and chemical injection pump. If OSR diverters are mixed
finishes with the upper set. Straddle packers may off location or are allowed to stand for an hour or
be used in a similar way and have been used more, they will clump and may cause pump failure or
successfully in the Permian Basin to better clean plug perforations. OSR diverters should not be
damaged perforations (40). used with solvent-acid mixtures, which dissolve the
resin enough to reduce its effectiveness. The chart
Ball Sealers - Ball sealers can be divided into in Figure 5 is from the paper of Brannon, Netters
two categories: those heavier (sinkers) and those and Grimmer (2) who developed the application of
lighter (floaters) than the fluid. Sinkers have high concentrations of OSR to achieve significant
been used the longest and usually require 200% pressure increases by more effective diverter
excess and a high pump rate. The high pump rate action (29). Shown in Figure 6 are gamma ray logs
usually prohibits their use in sandstone matrix before and after using radioactive tracers with OSR
acidizing, but they may be used in fracture diverters in a California well. Such tracers are
acidizing or perforation breakdown. Floaters, or excellent diagnostic tools to find where the acid
neutral-density ball sealers, were developed by is going.
Erbstoesser (41) and provide excellent mechanical
isolation for matrix acidizing at injection rates Benzoic acid flakes or powder will dissolve in
of one bbl/min or higher. The density or specific toluene, xylene, alcohol, some condensates, and
gravity of these ball sealers is matched to the very slowly in water or gas. Benzoic acid is
fluid being pumped so better ball action will take popular because it is soluble in the fluids
place, especially compared with sinkers. However, normally encountered in most wells; however, if not
surface flowback equipment must be modified to well dispersed or mixed, it will plug perforations.
catch the floating ball sealers during flowback. Benzoic acid plugs do not dissolve fast because not
More modifications and alternative uses were enough fluid can flow by it to dissolve the plug.
recently proposed by Gabriel and Erbstoesser (42). One well took 6 months to return to normal
productivity after being treated with caked benzoic
Ball sealers are limited in their use and should acid powder delivered to location.
not be used in: (1) long intervals with high
perforation density, (2) wells perforated with more Viscous Acid
than four shots/ft, (3) low-rate treatments (~ to ~
bbljmin), and (4) gravel-packed wells. Regardless Thickening the acid through use of soluble
of the type of treatment or ball used, treatment polymers, nitrogen and foaming agents, or
will be more effective when density of the ball is dispersing oil (either as loose two-phase mixtures
very close to the density of the fluid used in the or with emulsifiers) are useful in high
treatment. permeability formations with deep damage.
Satisfactory design techniques are not yet
Particulates available; therefore, experience and on-site
flexibility are important for success. Excellent
Pre -Gravel- Pack Acid Treatments. One effective results have been obtained with staged foam slugs
way to divert acid in a treatment before gravel between acid stages in high permeability Gulf Coast
packing is to use slugs of hydroxyethylcellulose gas wells to remove near well bore damage. This
(HEC) gel and gravel-pack sand. Ammonium chloride technique is so promising because the diverter
brine mixed with HEC at a concentration of 90 disappears when the foam breaks with no chance of
lbm/1,000 gal can be mixed in 5-bbl batches with damage as with slowly dissolving particulates (50).
100 lbm of correctly sized gravel-pack sand. The
169
 SPE20155
8 SIGNIFICANT FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL MATRIX ACIDIZING NMTECH 890021

of these components through which the fluid travels

Density Segregation must be properly cleaned before pumping acid into
the formation. Surface tanks must be cleaned
Another variable that significantly affects acid before being filled with acid. The best tanks are
treatments is the fluid (1) in the rathole below rubber lined and cleaned of any formerly held
the lowest perforation and (2) just below the materials before the new acid and additives are
packer and above the top perforation. A rathole added to the tank. Surface lines through which the
fluid that is denser than the acid and a fluid acid is pumped should be cleaned with acid before
above the top perforation that is lighter than the the treatment. A small amount of acid can be
acid should be used. Failure to plan for this can flushed through the lines and into waste
cause acid to end up in.the rathole rather than the containment before final hookup for the well
formation. Acid left in the borehole can cause treatment. This may be accomplished in the step
casing leaks below the treated interval. The for acid cleaning well tubing.
effects of density segregation have been well
presented by Hong and Milhone (51). Spotting acid Borehole Cleanout - The well should be adequately
over the perforations before injecting is very prepared before the service company arrives on site
important in lower permeability formations, and to perform the acid treatment. All wellbore fill
density segregation must be planned to achieve the should have been circulated out to remove any
best contact of acid with damaged perforations in solids and sludge which has accumulated in the
these formations. Concentric tubing helps to rathole. If the formation pressure is very low,
achieve accurate placement of the acid in the lost circulation materials should be added to the
wellbore to take advantage of density segregation. circulating fluid in order to prevent the loss of
sludge and other materials to the formation. Fluid
Concentric Tubing. Concentric tubing is loss additives should be selected that dissolve in
preferred for matrix acid treatments because it (1) the produced well fluids. Oil soluble resins or
allows the rathole to be circulated clean, (2) benzoic acid particulates should be suitable for
permits better placement for acid contact with all this fluid loss control.
perforations, (3) bypasses production or injection
tubing debris, (4) can be acid cleaned on surface Fluids used to load the well prior to injecting
before running into the hole, and (5) pump rate is acid should be filtered to a "super clean" state to
limited automatically to 0. 5 to 1 bbl/min because prevent any damage during injection testing prior
of fluid friction pressure. to acidizing. No produced lease water should be
used if these produced waters have been
Checklist for Acid Placement contaminated with emulsion breakers or corrosion
inhibitors often found in water-oil separation
In planning acid treatments, answers to the facilities. Emulsion breakers and corrosion
following questions will help select the best inhibitors in produced water can oil-wet the
technique for your well. More detailed guidelines formation and reduce productivity.
are provided by McLeod (8).
Acid Cleaning Tubing In addition to borehole
1. What techniques are allowed by the present cleanout, good well preparation means that you
completion? acid-clean the tubing before injecting acid into
the formation in order to prevent plugging of the
2. Is mechanical isolation possible? perforations by tubing solids.

3. Can the rathole (borehole open below the

perforations) be isolated? Figure 7 shows the characteristics of acid being
pumped down tubing in a well. Pumping acid through
4. Can particulates be used safely for good acid tubing removes solids deposited on the pipe
coverage? surface. Acid-insoluble solids like pipe dope,
5. If particulates cannot be used, what types of paraffin, asphalt, and gypsum or barite scales may
viscous acid can be used? plug the perforations and even fill the wellbore.
Acid-soluble solids like calcium carbonate may just
JOB SUPERVISION spend the acid, whereas dissolved iron oxide or
iron sulfide may precipitate as the acid spends on
The key to successful job execution is thorough and other acid-soluble minerals in the formation.
effective job super v1s1on (20, 52-53). The Either acid cleaning the tubing and reversing to a
operating company responsible for supervising the surface pit or bypassing the production tubing with
job must prepare the well for the service company an acid-cleaned concentric tubing string will
to administer the acid treatment, monitor the prevent perforation plugging from tubing deposits
progress of the project before, during, and after (11). Figure 8 shows an injection pressure increase
the treatment, and properly evaluate the results. caused by pipe dope plugging when pumping acid as
The most important tasks associated with job well as normal pressure behavior when pumping acid
supervision are those related to well preparation through a clean tubing string.
and those we must perform to ensure quality
control. It used to be thought that iron control additives
would complex any iron removed from the tubing
Well Preparation (15); however, Maly (19) pointed out the excess of
iron that could be removed from the mill scale on
Treating fluids must leave surface tanks, travel new pipe or rust on older pipe. Several articles
through pipe, enter a wellbore, and pass through have been written about the prevention of ferric
the perforations into the formation so that the hydroxide precipitation (15-17). However, the
solvent can react with the damaging solids. Each reported data deals with concentrations of 10,000

170
 SPE 2 015 5
NMTECH 890021 Harry 0. McLeod 9
ppm or less. The dissolution of mill scale in the of the overflush.
tubing can theoretically lead to concentrations as
high as 75,000 parts per million, and field acid Field supervisors are focusing more on acid quality
cleaning tests confirmed this (18). No data has control (28, 54-55). Guidelines are available in
yet been generated to show how to sequester this the booklet hAcidizing Quality Control at the
much iron. That is why it is so important to Wellsite" by George King and George Holman, Amoco
either bypass new tubing wi'th cleaned concentric Research Co. (53) and elsewhere (52).
tubing strings or to pickle the tubing with acid
and recover the spent acid before injecting acid Two important techniques are useful before and
through the tubing into the formation. during pumping: injection testing and fluid
sampling and titration. Here are brief guidelines
Reducing agents have been used to take care of associated with each.
excess iron since Smith, et al. (15) and Crowe(l6)
stated that ferrous hydroxide will not precipitate Injection Testing - If there is a question as to
at a pH less than 7. However, in newly drilled how the formation will take acid, an injection test
wells or new completions, caustic mud filtrate should be performed with a "super clean" filtered
exists behind pipe at a pH of 11 or higher. Spent brine in order to test the ability of the formation
acid mixed with this filtrate will reach a pH of 7 to take fluid. If the formation is severely
or higher and therefore precipitate all dissolved plugged or damaged, the operation should be changed
iron. Iron sulfide (ferrous sulfide) precipitates so that a mini acid squeeze will be performed prior
at a pH of 2. Also, ferrous carbonate may to the main acid job to make sure that the
precipitate as acid completely spends on calcium formation is open to fluid. Such a treatment is
carbonate at a pH of about 4. illustrated in Figure 9 . After that the main acid
job should be circulated in place with hydrochloric
For high-pressure reservoirs, acid may be pumped acid placed across the formation before the packer
down the tubing close to the bottom and then flowed is set or before the bypass valve is closed. All
back to the surface waste pit. If the reservoir perforations should be covered by acid before
pressure will not hold the acid hydrostatic column, injection starts. Injection should start at a
foamed acid may be used to clean the tubing, or a pre-determined injection rate and the pressure
work string can be run with a packer, isolation observed to to determine the condition of the·
valve and circulating tool to isolate the formation wellbore. If the pressure rises close to the
while acid cleaning the tubing. If a work string pressure limit, the rate should be cut in half
is not used and if the production tubing cannot be until the pressure stabilizes at a level below the
cleaned properly, it should be bypassed by using a formation parting pressure.
concentric tubing string to pump the acid.
If the rate stabilizes at an acceptable injection
An extra advantage of using a concentric tubing rate, the HF acid should be pumped as scheduled,
string is to circulate brine to clean out the maintaining a constant injection rate. When the HF
rathole below the perforated interval before acid acid stage reaches the formation, a pressure drop
injection. When there are deep ratholes with is normally observed. The rate should not be
accumulated sludges, wellbores should be circulated changed as long as a positive pressure is observed
to surface pits. Injection wells may have at the wellhead. If the well goes on vacuum, the
accumulated corrosion deposits and/or bacterial rate should be instantly raised until a positive
slimes. Old producing wells may have loose scale pressure is observed at the well head. Hold the
deposits, hydrocarbon solids, or produced formation new rate steady as the acid is injected.
fines. Nevertheless, the constant injection rate of HF
acid into the wellbore should not exceed an optimum
Quality Control 1/2 barrel per minute unless the perforated
interval is greater than 25 ft. If the formation
Performing quality control checks before, during, is very thick, the rate can be . 02 barrels per
and after pumping can make the difference between a minute per foot of net pay. Other authors have
successful or an unsuccessful acid treatment. Even different opinions on allowable injection rates
(56,57).
before the pre-pumping quality control review,
on-site supervisors are encouraged to analyze the
equipment rigup: Sampling And Titration Sampling of all pumped
fluids for solids content and titration of all
1. Inspect all tanks which will be used to hold acids for HCl and HF concentration should be
acid or water. The tanks must be clean. performed on-site as a quality control measure. An
Small amounts of dirt, mud or other debris can excellent program was developed by Watkins and
destroy any acid job. Roberts (55) who reported large variations in acid
concentrations delivered to the well site. Brannon
2. Make sure the service company has the et. al. (2) also reported acid concentrations not
equipment to circulate the acid tank prior to to specification. Accurate acid concentration is
pumping. This step must be done to avoid very important since the formation andjor the
emulsion problems and to protect the tubulars. tubing can be harmed by strong acids. Standard
Acid corrosion inhibitors and other additives titration methods include neutralization of acid
can separate to the top of the tank in as samples by sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Delivered acid
little as two hours. concentrations are more accurate and consistent
when a known on-site titration program is to be
3. The line to the pit or tank should be laid and used. Pre-mixed acid should be rolled and
ready to connect to the wellhead so the acid circulated to make sure that all additive are
can be backflowed immediately after the end properly dispersed and that no additives,

171
 SP£20155.
10 SIGNIFICANT FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL MATRIX ACIDIZING NMTECH 890021
especially corrosion inhibitors, have separated and acidizing treatments. They show how on-site !
floated to the top of acid tanks or sunk to the data monitoring can follow and evaluate the
bottom. Titration of acid is an excellent test to progress of damage removal by acid. Figure 10
see whether acid is well mixed. In one case shows injection rate and pressure which
delivered 15% HCl was sampled and titrated to show Paccaloni plots on a pre-calculated chart of
6% HCl. The acid tank was "rolled" to mix well and pressure versus rate crossplotted by a family
titrated again. This time it titrated as 15% HCl. of skin factor curves based on stabilized
(steady state injection). The successive
Other Guidelines One way to promote quality points show clearly the reduction in skin
control is to follow guidelines that remind you of factor. Sometimes Paccaloni's plots are
ways to prevent the failure of an acid treatment. misleading because he ignores pressure
Acid jobs that do .not work usually have been transients when rates are changed as
troubled by one or more of the following problems illustrated by Prouvost and Economides in
according to King and Holman (53): Figure 11. Figure 12 shows rates, pressures
(both measured and simulated) and skin factor
1. Using acid on formations which were change during acidizing · as presented by
inadequately perforated or on Prouvost and Economides. Such plots are a
sandstones which were not damaged. tremendous help in analyzing on site acidizing
performance and in follow-up well analysis. More
2. Using the wrong type of acid to remove the information is also available in the excellent text
damage. on stimulation by Economides and Nolte (60).

3. Using dirty water to preflush or overflush. 3. A list of key questions guide on-site
evaluation of an acid treatment:
4. Failure to clean the acid or water tanks.
a. Did acid remove the damage?
5. Additive overuse or misuse.
b. Was additional damage caused at any time
6. Fracturing sandstone with acid (except with during pumping?
very small volume perf breakdowns). c. Is bottom hole sampling and analysis
7. Shutting in the acid treatment over two to necessary?
eight hours.
d. Are wellhead pressures and rates
An example of item 3 is shown in Table 4. After available for transient pressure analysis?
pumping this treatment, the well's production
changed from 16 BOPD, 4 BWPD to 9 BOPD, 850 BWPD. e. What difficulties during acid treatment
The plugging of the formation with contaminated could be related to poor performance?
fluid abetted communication of the HF acid stage
which opened up a mud channel to a nearby water f. What did other persons on site observe
sand. Houchin, et al. (58) provide good guidelines about the acid job?
on fluid filtration in acid treatments.
g. Do you need a follow up meeting to
EVALUATION OF ACID TREATMENTS discuss the results.

We can determine job success or failure using the 4. After the job, the following questions focus
following criteria: on productivity changes:

1. You know you have successful acidizing if you a. How did the well respond to the acid as
have: shown by production rate and pressure?

(a) acid cleaning of tubing, b. If the production rate did not increase,
(b) acid concentration designed for the was the well really damaged, or did
mineralogy and the permeability of the damage occur during or after the acid job
formation. (precipitation of solids or other
(c) additives and acids designed for proper problems)?
acid-reservoir fluid compatibility,
(d) properly prepared wellbore for effective c. What was the longer term improvement
acid coverage, after producing the well for two months?
(e) sufficient time provided for acid contact
and penetration of all perforations, and The tasks of execution and evaluation go hand in
(f) precipitation prevented or flushed away hand. Proper execution, quality control, and
from the wellbore. record keeping are prerequisite to the task of
accurate evaluation. Evaluation of unsatisfactory
2. The best source of acid evaluation information treatments is essential to recommending changes in
are the acid treatment report and the pressure chemicals and/or treating techniques and procedures
and rate chart of the acid treatment. that will provide the best treatment for future
we 11 ac idiz ing.
These data show the effect of acid volume on the
formation as the acid treatment proceeds. The CONCLUSIONS
papers of McLeod (59), Paccaloni et al. (56)
and Prouvost and Economides (57) are Many times acidizing is used as a diagnostic tool
significant to the on-site evaluation of to determine whether a well is damaged. Better

172
 SPE 2 015 5
NMTECH 890021 Harry 0. McLeod 11

engineering evaluations are possible with modern on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, l.A,
well flow analysis models and a better Feb. 26-27, 1986.
understanding of damage mechanisms and processes
that cause near well bore plugging. Use of these 10. Clementz, D. M., Patterson, D. E., Aseltine,
tools along with better formation typing (formation R. J., and Young, R. E.: "Stimulation of Water
fluids and minerals analyses) lead to more Injection Wells in the Los Angeles Basin by
effective treatment selection. New techniques are Using Sodium Hypochlorite and Mineral Acids,"
needed to better design acid diversion (zone JPT (Sept. 1982), 2087-2096.
coverage) which has improved with empirical
adjustments based on field performance and some 11. Shaughnessy, C. M. and Kline, W. E.: "EDTA
diversion experiments and .theory. Ultimately, the (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) Removes
treatment success hinges on on-site supervision by Formation Damage At Prudhoe Bay," JPT (Oct.
informed operating company supervisors and 1983) 1783-1792).
engineers who are supported by service company
quality control and data monitoring. 12. Moore, E. W., Crowe, C. W. and Hendrickson, A.
F.: "Formation, Effect and Prevention of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Asphaltene Sludges During Stimulation
Treatments, .. JPT (Sept. 1965), 1023-1028.
The author expresses his appreciation to the
management of Conoco Inc for permission to publish 13. Houchin, L. R. and Hudson, L. M.: "The
this paper and to the many engineers and Prediction, Evaluation and Treatment of
supervisors who have increased his understanding of Formation Damage Caused by Organic
well problems and the means to correct them. Deposition," paper SPE · 14818, Proc. 7th
Formation Damage Control Symp., Lafayette
REFERENCES (1986) 83-90.

1. Gidley, J. L.: "Acidizing Sandstone 14. Jacobs, I. C. and Thorne, M. A.: "Asphaltene
Formations: A Detailed Examination of Recent Precipitation During Acid Stimulation
Experience," paper SPE 14164 presented at the Treatments," paper SPE 14823, Proc. 7th
1985 SPE Ann. Tech. Conf., Las Vegas, Nev., Formation Damage Control Symp., Lafayette
Sept. 22-25. (1986) 131-136.

2. Brannon, D. H., Netters, C. K., and Grimmer, 15. Crowe, C. W., Nolan, T. J. and Smith, C. F.:
P. J.: "Matrix Acidizing Design and "Secondary Deposition of Iron Compounds
Quality-Control Techniques Prove Successful in Following Acidizing Treatments," JPT (Sept.
Main Pass Area Sands tone, " JPT (Aug . 19 8 7 ) , 1969) 1121-1129.
931-942.
16. Crowe, C. W.: "Evaluation of Agents for
3. McLeod, H. 0.: 11 The Effect of Perforating Preventing Precipitation of Ferric Hydroxide
Conditions on Well Performance, .. JPT (Jan. from Spent Treating Acid," JPT (April 1985)
1983) 31-39. 691-695.

4. McLeod, H. 0. and Crawford, H. R.: "Gravel 17. Hall, B. E. and Dill, W. R.: "Iron Control
Packing for High-Rate Completions", paper SPE Additives for Limestone and Sandstone
11008 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Acidizing of Sweet and Sour Gas Wells," Paper
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New SPE 17157, Proc. 8th SPE Formation Damage
Orleans, Sept. 26-29. Control Symposium, Bakersfield (1988) 131-140.

5. Crouch, E. C. and Pack, K. J.: "Systems 18. Gougler, P. D., Hendrick, J. E. and Coulter,
Analysis Use for the Design and Evaluation of A. W.: "Field Investigation Identifies Source
High Rate Gas Wells," paper SPE 9424 presented and Magnitude of Iron Problems," paper SPE
at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference, 13812, Proc. 1985 SPE Production Operations
Dallas, Sept. 21-24. Symp., Oklahoma City, 187-194.

6. Krueger, R. W.: "An Overview of Formation 19. Maly, George P.: "Close Attention to the
Damage and Well Productivity in Oilfield Smallest Details Vital for Minimizing
Operations," JPT (Feb. 1986) 131-151. Formation Damage," Proc., SPE Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Houston (1976)
7. Amaefule, J. 0., Kersey, D. G., Norman, D. K., 127-46.
and Shannon, P. M.: "Advances in Formation
Damage Assessment and Control Strategies," 20. McLeod, H. 0., Ledlow, L. B., and Till, M. V.:
paper CIM 88-39-65, 1988. "The Planning, Execution and Evaluation of
Acid Treatments in Sandstone," paper SPE 11931
8. McLeod, H. 0.; Matrix Acidizing to Improve presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
Well Performance, Short Course Manual, Society Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct.
of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 5-8.
1986.
21. Holcombe, D. L.: "Low Surface Tension
9. Schaible, D. F., Akpan, B., and Ayoub, J. A.: Hydrochloric-Hydrofluoric Acid Mixtures in Low
"Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Porosity, Low Permeability Sandstones," paper
Formation Damage, Offshore Louisiana," paper SPE 1284 presented at the 197 5 SPE Regional
SPE 14820 presented at the Seventh SPE Symp. Mtg., Oklahoma City, March 24-25.

173
 Si!E 2 0 15 5·
12 SIGNIFICANT FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL MATRIX ACIDIZING NMTECH 890021

22. Boyer, R. C. and Wu, C-H.: "The Role of Proc. SPE Int. Meeting on Petrol. Eng.,
Reservoir Lithology in Design of an Tianjin, China (1988) 473-483.
Acidization Program: Kuparuk River Formation,
North Slope, Alaska," paper SPE-11722 36. Smith, C. F., Ross, W. M. and Hendrickson, A.
presented at the 1983 Cal. Reg. Mtg., Ventura, F.: Hydrofluoric Acid
CA, March 23-25. Stimulation-Developments for Field
Application," paper SPE 1284 presented at the
23. Williams, B. B.: "Hydrofluoric Acid Reaction 1965 SPE Annual Meeting, Denver, Oct. 3-6.
With Sandstone Formations," J. Eng. Ind. (Feb.
1975) 252-58. 37. Lievaart, L. and D. R. Davies; "The Role of
Fines During Acidizing Treatments"; Mar.
24. Williams, B. B.,- Gidley, J. L., and Schechter, Petrol. Geol., V. 4, May, 1987, pp.l27-131.
R. S. : "Acidizing Fundamentals," Monograph
Series, SPE, Dallas (1979). 38. Gdanski, R. D. and Peavy, M. A.: "Well Return
Analysis Causes Re-Evaluation of HCl
25. Hill, A. D., Lindsay, D. M., Silberberg, I. H. Theories," paper SPE 14825 presented at the
and Schechter, R. S. : "Theoretical and Seventh Symp. on Formation Damage Control,
Experimental Studies of Sandstone Acidizing," Lafayette, LA, Feb. 26-27, 1986.
SPEJ (Feb. 1981), 30-42.
39. Simon, D. E., Kaul, F. W., and Culbertson, J.
26. Mcilhiney, J. E., Schalge, A. L., McKnight, R. N.: "Anadarko Basin Morrow-Springer Sandstone
S. and Robinson, J. R.: "Coreflood Stimulation Study," paper SPE 6757 presented
Acidization: Model, Measurement and at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference
Methodology," paper SPE 7891 presented at the and Exhibition,Denver, Oct. 5-7.
1979 SPE of AIME Int. Symp. on Oilfield and
Geothermal Chemistry, Houston, TX, Jan. 22-24. 40. Jared, C. B., Scott, T. A. and Evans, R. T.:
"Precision Perforation Helps Achieve Uniform
27. Farley, J. T., Miller, B. M. and Schoettle, Stimulation," Oil Gas J. (Nov. 19, 1984) 98,
V.: "Design Criteria for Matrix Stimulation 102-3.
with Hydrochloric-Hydrofluoric Acid," JPT
(April 1970) 433-440. 41. Erbstoesser, S. R.: "Improved Ball Sealer
Diversion, "J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1980),
28. Lybarger, J. H. and Gates, H. R.: "SGMA 1903-10.
Performance, Design-Part 1: New Acidizing
System Yields Sustained Production Increase," 42. Gabriel, G. A. and Erbstoesser, S. R.: "The
Oil Gas J., Oct. 16, 1978, 59-64. --Part 2: Design of Buoyant Ball Sealer Treatment,"
"Proper Reservoir Choice, Fluid Design Keys to paper SPE 13085 presented at the 1984 SPE
SGMA Success," Oil Gas J., Oct. 23, 1978, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
137-38, 141-42. Houston, Sept. 16-19.

29. Smith, C. F. and Hendrickson, A. F.: 43. Harrison, N. W.: "Diverting Agents-History and
"Hydrofluoric Acid Stimulation of Sandstone Application,"J. Pet. Tech. (May 1972) 593-98.
Reservoirs," JPT (Feb. 1965) 215-222.
44. Gallus, J. P. and Pye, D. S. : "Deformable
30. Labrid, J. C. : "Thermodynamic and Kinetic Diverting Agent for Improved Well
Aspects of Sandstone Acidizing," SPEJ (April Stimulation," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1969)
1975) 117-128. 497-504.

31. Shaughnessy, C. M. and Kunze, K. R.: 45. Crowe, C. W. and Cryar, H. B. Jr.:
"Understanding Sandstone Acidizing Leads to "Development of Oil Soluble Resin Mixture for
Improved Field Practices," JPT (July 1981) Control of Fluid Loss in Water Base Workover
1196-1202. and Completion Fluids," SPE 5662 presented at
the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
32. Crowe, C. W. : "Precipitation of Hydrated Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28-0ct. 1.
Silica From Spent Hydrofluoric Acid: How Much
of a Problem Is It?," JPT (Nov. 1986) 46. King, G. E. and Hollingsworth, H. F. :
1234-1240. "Evaluation of Diverting Agent Effectiveness
and Clean Up Characteristics Using a Dynamic
33. Walsh, M. P., Lake, L. W. and Schechter, R. Laboratory Model-High Permeability Case,"
E. : "A Description of Chemical Precipitation paper SPE 8400 presented at the 1979 SPE
Mechanisms and Their Role in Formation Damage Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
During Stimulation Stimulation by Hydrofluoric Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
Acid," JPT (Sept. 1982) 2097-2112.
47. Hill, A. D. andGalloway, P. J.: "Laboratory
34. Bertaux, J.: "Treatment Fluid Selection for and Theoretical Modeling of Diverting Agent
Sandstone Acidizing: Permeability Impairment Behavior," Pro~. SPE Production Operations
in Potassic Mineral Sandstones," paper SPE Symposium, Oklahoma City (1983) 253-60.
15884, 1986 SPE Europe Petrol. Conf. Proc.,
315-323. 48. Taha, R., Hill, A. D. and Sepehrnoori:
"Simulation of Sandstone-Matrix Acidizing in
35. Bryant, S. L. and Butler, D. C.: "Formation Heterogeneous Reservoirs," JPT (July 1986),
Damage From Acid Treatments," paper SPE 17597, 753-767.

174
 SP.E 2 015 5
NMTECH 890021 Harry 0. McLeod 13

49. Houchin, L. R., Dunlap, D. D., Hudson, L. M., 56. Paccaloni, G., Tambini, M., and Galoppini, M.:
and Begnaud, P. C.: "Evaluation of Oil-Soluble "Key Factors for Enhanced Results of Matrix
Resin as a Diverting Agent," paper SPE 15574 Stimulation Treatments," paper SPE 17154
presented at the 1986 Ann. Tech. Con£. , New presented at the 1988 SPE Formation Damage
Orleans, Oct. 5-8. Control Symp., Bakersfield, CA, Feb. 8-9,
1988.
50. Burman, J. W. and Hall, B. E.: "Foam as a
Diverting Technique for Matrix Sandstone 57. Prouvost, L. P., and Economides, M. J.:
Stimulation," paper SPE 15575 presented at the "Applications of Real-Time Matrix Acidizing
1986 SPE Ann. Tech. ~onf., New Orleans, Oct. Evaluation Method," paper SPE 17156 presented
5-8, 1986. at the 1988 SPE Formation Damage Control
Symp., Bakersfield, CA, Feb. 8-9.
51. Hong, K. C. and Milhone, R. S.: "Injection
Profile Effects Caused by Gravity Segregation 58. Houchin, L. R., Dunlap, D. D. and Hudson, L.
in the Wellbore," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1977) M.: "Field Mixing and Filtration of Acid
1657-63. Stimulation Fluids," Paper No. OTC-5244
presented at the 18th Ann. SPE Offshore
52. McLeod, H. 0.; "Matrix Acidizing," JPT (Dec. Technol. Con£. ,Houston, TX, May 5 - 8, 1986,
1983) 2055-2069. Proc. V. 3, 187-198.

53. King, G. E. and Holman, G. B.' Jr.: 59. McLeod, H. 0. and Coulter, A. w.: "The
"Acidizing Quality Control at the Wellsite," Stimulation Treatment Pressure Record - An
Booklet, Amoco Production Research Co., Tulsa, Overlooked Formation Evaluation Tool," JPT
OK. (Aug. 1969) 952-960.

54. Lybarger, J. H.: "Successful Well Work 60. Economides, M. J. and Nolte, K. G.: Reservoir
Demands Rigorous Quality Control," Oil Gas J., Stimulation, 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood,
May 23, 1977, 57-61. N. J. , 1989.

55. Watkins, D. R. and Roberts, G. E.: "On-Site

Acidizing Fluid Analysis Shows HCl and HF
Contents Often Varied Substantially From
Specified Amounts," J. Pet. Tech., May 1983,
865-871.

TABLE 1

OFFSET WELL COMPARISON

Well Number Production-Bblsjday Gas Oil Ratio Log Potential

_Qil Water ScfL:Bbl Porosit:::l Feet

B-1 30 5 600 4.0

B-2 30 0 800 2.0

B-3 so 10 500 3.0

B-4 10 0 1000 .5

175
 SP.E 2 0 15 5

TABLE 2

\o!HEN TO QUESTION A POSITIVE SKIN FACTOR AS AN INDICATOR OF DAMAGE

Formation damage may not exist when pressure buildup tests show a
positive skin factor, S. A high skin factor may be caused by incomplete
or low shot density perforating and velocity or two-phase flow effects.

If any of the following conditions exist, you may not have damage and
will need to perform a Production System Analysis and review reservoir
fluid properties to pinpoint what's going on.

High LGR, > 100 Bbl/MHCF (Gas Well)

High GOR ~ 1000 SCF/Bbl (Oil Well)

Three Phase Production (Water, Oil, Gas)

High Pressure Draw Down (P r - Pwf) > 1000 psi

High Flow Rate q/h > 20 BPD/Ft

q/N > 5 BPD/perf.

Perforations < 4 SPF

Perforated zero degree phasing

Perforated with small through tubing gun (gun diameter less than 2")

When reservoir pressure > bubble point pressure, and wellbore

pressure < bubble point pressure

TABLE 3 TABLE 4
ACID USE GUIDELINES
WELL P ACID TREATMENT
INJECTION RATE AND PRESSURE SEQUENCE

1. Establish injection with sea water.

SITUATION
2. Pump- in-pressure stabilized at 2800 psi at 1. 5 BPM
after pumping 30 bbls.
CARBONATE ACIDIZING:
3. Pumped 2000 gals. dispersed acid (HCl acid/toluene)
Perforating Fluid 5% Acetic
3/4 BPM at 2900 psi.
Damage Perforations (a) 9' Formic 4. Pressure rose to 3300 psi at 1/3 BPM before acid hit
(b) 10\ Acetic
perfs.
(c) 15\ HCl
5. Pressure fell to 2700 psi when acid at perfs.
Deep Wellbore Damage (a) 15\ HCl
(b) 28\ HCl 6. Pumped 4000 gals. regular mud acid at 2500 psi at 3/4 BPM.
(c) Emulsified HCl
7. Pumped 10 Bbl. ammonium chloride water.
SANDSTONE ACIDIZING: 8. Pumped 6000 gals. fluoboric acid at 3/4 BPM at 1700 psi.
HCl Solubility ~ 20% Use HCl only 9. Displaced acid from tubing with ammonium chloride water.

High Permeability (100 md plus) 10. Stop injection and rig down acid equipment.
(1)
High Quartz (80%), low clay (< 5\) 12\ HCl - 3\ HF (l)
High Feldspar (> 20\) 13.5% HCl - 1.5%( )
2
~~5~c~c= ~.;: ~~(2)
High Clay (> 10\)
High Iron Chlorite Clay

Low Permeability (10 md or less)

Low Clay (< 5\) 6% HCl - 1.5\ HF())

4
High Chlorite 3% HCl 0.5% HF( )

Note: (1) Pre flush w/15\ HCl

( 2) Pre flush wjSeques tered 5\ HCl
(3) Preflush w/7 .5\ HCl or 10\ Acetic
(4) Preflush w/5% Acetic Acid

176
 SUDDEN CHANGE (WORKOVER)
SYSTEM ANAL VSIS
WORKOVER WITH
>
<( PRODUCED BRINE
c D..
100 0
a: IX:
w
,..·.....;-r"·~~ \\ ........:·.\........ ~'•
D.
., \
' •• • 4!!
c
en •I w
...J
w
a:
a:
V OIL -....,1 IX:
::J
en
<( : ,. en
m w
I
10~ WA TER li IX:
w --1·~=--~--------.J
t-
<(
a:
..
i~~ ~. i"r-,i i i . -
--III
::
:
D..
z
1600
0
z .! i~~!i i ! : ~~! i=
0 n; ~ li ~I
i= I \is'§ I
I I
.I
~ 800
0 i i D..
/c::J
0
a: , BWPD
t I I
ii
••
:E
0
o ol , :8
D.
1
1976 1977 1978 1979 0 n IMMCF'/n\ 16 20
Fig. 1-Demeged well production history. Fig. 3-Completlon pressure drop before and alter ecldlzlng.
:j

SINGLE ZONE (SHALLOW DAMAGE)

6000
e,
Cii
0..
u.i
a:
::J
~
w
5000 ACID
a: P1 hr. = 5250
0..
w Pwf = 3481
....1
0
c~gtE
:X:
~
m= 120
I ACID
0
1: 4000 Kh = 50 MD FT
0
Ill s· = 11

ACID
~
3000 L-----------~-------------L------------~----------~
1 10 100 1000 10,000
"'
1\)
TIME, MINUTES

Fig. 2-Preasure build-up on South Texas gas well.

CASING--...
....0
\.1\
\J\
• CEMENT
Fig. 4-Acld entry Into formation through damaged per1oratlona.
 SPE 2 015 5

M.P. 311 B- 9

PUMPING TIME
1 DIVISION =15 Min.
TYPICAL PRESSURE RESPONSE
TO STIMULATION TREATMENT

CD XYLENE AT FORMATION

@ 10 °/o ACETIC ACID AT FORMATION

@ 10°/o HCI ACID AT FORMATION

@) RAISE VOLUME OF DIVERTER FROM 1/2 °/o _._I 0/o

@ 7 1/2
11
HCI I I 1;2 °/o HF ACID AT FORMATION

@ 3 °/o NH4 Cl AT FORMATION

(j) XYLENE AT FORMATION

Fig. 5-Pressure response to acidizing using OSR diverter.

178
 GAMMA RAY
AFTER
SURFACE
CASING

6700 ~ PRODUCTION
CASING TUBING CLEAN-UP

/
BY ACID ON WAY
INHIBITED CLEAR
UN REACTED HCI INTO FORMATION
ACID ACID
(CLEAN PIPE)

6800 REDUCED FERROUS

IRON CHLORIDE
(Fe+ 2 )

.....
..... PERFORATED
CD

INTERVAlS
COMPLETELY
FERRIC
DISSOLVED
CHLORIDE
OXIDIZED IRON
(Fe+ 3 )
6900

PARTIALLY IRON
DISSOLVED HYDROXIDE
IRON OXIDE (RUST)

·~SLUDGE

•1 · - EMULSION W/ PIPE DOPE

PIPE DOPE BALLS

7000
~
COATING IRON OXIDE fl'1
EXCESS PIPE DOPE 1\)
AT JOINT

.....0
Fig. 6-0il soluble resin diverter evaluation using radioactive tracer. Fig. 7-Cieaning tubing with acid. VI
u.
 INJECTION TEST
WITH
t. ~ \'s\ 2% N~4CI BRINE
,_~\}~ 0.15 BPM
\'~~

30 25
A PUMP TIME -MINUTES ~
QO PUMPING TIME - MINUTES
-. s
~
C»
C)

MINI- TREATMENT
vs\ WITH 100 GALS
sS\)"'E.-
""'~
15% HCL AND
~- 200 GALS 3% HF-
12% HCL
140
SHUT DOWN

(/)
30 25 -o
20 1"1
8 PUMP TIME -MINUTES PUMPING TIME - MINUTES N

Fig. 8-(a) Plugging perforations with pipe dope and (b) acid injection Fig. 9-Mini-acid treatment to open plugged perforations. ....c
U\
through clean tubing.
\IJ
 SPE 2 015 5

en
z
.........Q
<~ a:J
me~
~ffi ~
oc.. w

II
~~
en
enw-
~~

II
co
0

®hesatataon pumpang • continuous pumpang F trac. POint

w
a:
:;:,
en
en
w
a:
c.
c
< 2000
w
:I:
..J
..J
w
~

B INJECTION RATE bbtlman

Fig. 10-(a) Matrix acid preuure chart and (b) Job evaluation (from Paccalonl, SPE, 1988).

30

24
21
- (.) 18
-
~
Cl)

c:
15
12
...::.::: 9
CJ)

6
3
0
-3
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time (hours)
Fig. 11-Skln evolution during acid Job (from Prouvoat and Economldea, SPE, 1988).

181
;· :t .\ ;
.
I

6.6
6
:E 5.4
a.. 4.8
c:c
4.2
-...
CD
ca 3.6
c
3
-0
0
CD' 2.4
c 1.8
1.2
A .6

5000
en 4700
c.
...CD 4400
::::l
en 4100
en
...c.
CD
3800 ..
CD
0 3500
~
E 3200
-
0
0
CD 2900
B 2600

50
45
40

- 35

- 0
CD 30

CD 25
c
..X: 20
CJ)
15
10
5
0
0 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3
c Time (hours)
Fig. 12-Well B acid treatment data: (a) injection rates; (b) injection pressures, measured and simulated; and (c)
skin change during acid injection (from Prouvost and Economides, SPE, 1988).

182