SPE 86519

Improved Production with Mineralogy-Based Acid Designs

Zhizhuang Jiang, Donghong Luo, SPE, Zhiyun Deng, ConocoPhillips China Inc.; King Kwee Chong, SPE, Rick Gdanski,
SPE, Halliburton
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 1820 February 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper presents a case history on new sandstone acidizing
technology using a nonhydrofluoric formulation to
successfully treat a high carbonaceous sandstone formation.
The improved understanding of the chemical complications of
hydrofluoric (HF) on dirty sandstones led to the design of a
nonhydrofluoric treatment on the high carbonate content
(dirty) sandstone formation.
Previous treatments using various formulations of HF acid
failed to remove the high skin associated with several wells in
this formation. A new approach was taken to identify the
damage mechanism and evaluate damage removal options
based on the formation mineralogy. This approach analyzed
the potential chemistry risks associated with using HF type
treatments in the presence of particular mineralogies
and temperatures.
The new approach also used logging and reservoir
modeling technology to forecast the estimated production
profile of the complex multilayered formation. Candidate
wells were identified by comparing the forecast production
profile potentials to the surveyed production profiles based on
production logging (PLT) of the prescreening candidates. The
final treatment candidate was then selected for the trial of the
new treatment formulation. The treatment was specifically
tailored based on the identified mineralogy and encompassed
the damage prevention strategies. The result was a 40%
increase in oil production for the well, but a 2-fold to 10-fold
increase for the treated zone, depending on pretreatment
production assumptions.
Introduction
XJG oilfields are located offshore in the South China Sea
around 130 km southeast of Hong Kong.1 The fields are
composed of three geological structures named XJG 1, XJG 2
and XJG 3, the first one being discovered in 1984 and

targeting sands from the mid-Miocene XH formation and

finding up to 44 stacked reservoirs bearing black oil.
Appraisal wells were drilled and tested; commercial
production started in 1994 following the installation of
two platforms.
Oil gravity varies from 26 to 40 API, saturating
unconsolidated sandstones with average porosity of 25% and
permeability measured in a Darcy plus range. The formation is
prone to produce sand, and typical completions at the
beginning exhibited internal gravel packs inside a 9 5/8-in.
casing, but recently shifted over to expandable sand screens in
open hole making water control difficult to achieve. Reservoir
pressure has been strongly supported by a bottom water drive
aquifer, which has kept the pressure only a few psi below its
original value. The water drive has helped to sweep
hydrocarbons, but on the other hand, has also caused rapid
breakthrough in high permeability layers.
Electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) are used in all wells
in the field to improve productivity and handle high volumes
of water. Field average water cut at this stage is around 84%
with a total field liquid production close to the limit of fluid
handling capacity of the facilities. XJG reservoirs are being
developed using two fixed platforms. As of this writing, all 24
available slots on platform XJG-2 have already been drilled
and completed, while XJG-3 has one slot left available for an
extended reach drilling (ERD) well in the near future. This
situation limits the option of infill drilling to accelerate
oil recovery.
The combination of high permeable formation streaks and
active aquifer accelerates water breakthrough in perforated
zones, raising the average field water-cut. The oil production
is near 85,000 BOPD while total fluid production is close to
the 550,000 BFPD capacity of fluid handling and water
disposal of the existing surface facilities on the platforms.
Production logging is performed on a regular basis to monitor
zonal fluid contribution. Reservoir zones are isolated by
external packers and flowing through sliding side doors (SSD)
valves. Water control is achieved by closing the SSDs to the
high water-cut zones, but it is hard to determine exactly where
the water is coming from or how much hydrocarbon has been
left across the perforated intervals grouped in that zone.
While other reservoir zones in a well are still producing
hydrocarbons, it is premature to work over the well even when
several SSDs have already been closed. Because of the
multiple external packers existing in the wellbore, workovers
are expensive and risky, and therefore avoided. With
limitations on infill drilling, another approach to improve

SPE 86519

production is to identify damaged zones that can be restored to

higher productivity with an acid treatment. However,
identification of acidizing candidates is complicated by the
large number of horizons in each well and the isolation of each
zone with separate sand screens and SSDs. The SSDs make it
much easier to control high water-producing zones and to
specifically select a zone for acidizing, but the SSDs also
present challenges for zonal coverage of acid within that zone.
Furthermore, improvements in production must deal with the
platform capacity bottleneck for processing produced fluids,
and so acidizing candidates must be focused on zones with
minimal water production. Once the fluid processing
bottleneck has been corrected, additional acidizing candidates
can be considered that may also produce additional formation
water. Until then, candidate selection criteria will be focused
on zones that have a high apparent damage and low potential
for water production.
Previous Acid Treatment Observations
It was clear from previous acid treatments that simply
pumping acid without consideration of the formation
mineralogy was not having success, and therefore a review of
previous treatments was appropriate. The acidizing candidates
selected were those zones in which fluid contributions were
below expectations. This decision was based on the k-h
contribution compared to the observed PLT contribution.
A newly developed petrophysical analysis technique2
improved the candidate selection process for production
enhancement treatments such as matrix acidizing. This process
allows automatic zoning based on log data such as
permeability, stress contrast, or lithology. Automatic zoning
provides information for stimulation design, reservoir
simulation, and economic forecasting. The procedure
enhances both the stimulation design and reservoir simulation
with minimal time and effort. Once the stimulation is
performed, production rates and declines are monitored to
enhance the modeling process. In effect, the technique
becomes a continuous improvement process.

The automatic zoning procedure provides quantitative

values to rank pay zones by establishing each zone k-h value.
Candidates for a stimulation design are identified by
comparing the calculated production distribution based on the
expected permeability-height (k-h) profile for each zone with
the physical PLT data. Underperforming zones are highlighted
and further reviewed. Of course, uncertainty exists for the first
estimates of the k-h values from logging data alone. However,
production data can lead to improved permeability values by
optimizing the permeability coefficients for area-specific
permeability equations to match the production history curve.
Once identified, it was suspected that those zones that
underperformed were damaged due to reservoir fines
migrating during production of the formation fluids and were
plugging the near-wellbore region, and possibly the gravel
pack itself. As such, HF acidizing fluids were considered the
obvious choice for damage removal.
Table 1 reports details of the previous acid treatments. For
acid treatments conducted in 1996, all acid blends consisted of
a 13.5% HCl/1.5% HF formulation for the mainstage at 200
gal per ft of zone (gpf). The mainstage was preceded with 100
gpf 15% HCl containing iron-sequestering agents, and overdisplaced with 100 gpf 15% HCl. Except for one case, all
treatments used 3% NH4Cl brine foamed to 70 quality with N2
as a diverter to divide the treatments into three stages. The
treating fluids themselves were commingled with N2 gas. An
economic evaluation of the treatments indicated of those wells
treated in 1996, only one well came out as
economically successful.
In 1997, it was decided to perform two more acid
treatments using a retarded, or slow reacting, HF acid
formulation (see Table 1). It was thought that perhaps the fines
migration was deeper and required a slower reacting HF
system. One treatment used foam as diverter and divided the
fluids into three stages; the other treatment was performed as
one single stage.

Table 1Details of Previous Acid Treatments

Well
X3
X5
X4
X1A
X4
X7

Treatment
1/6/1996
5/19/1996
7/21/1996
7/31/1996
7/7/1997
12/1/1997

Placement
Bullhead
CTU
Bullhead
Bullhead
CTU
CTU

Diverter
None
Foam
Foam
Foam
Foam
None

Stages
1
3
3
3
3
1

Acid Blend
13.5% HCl, 1.5% HF
13.5% HCl, 1.5% HF
13.5% HCl, 1.5% HF
13.5% HCl, 1.5% HF
Slow reacting HF
Slow reacting HF

SPE 86519

Table 2Production Results of Previous Acid Treatments

Well
Before treatment:
After treatment:
Before treatment:
After treatment:
Before treatment:
After treatment:
Before treatment:
After treatment:

X3
X5
X4
X1A

Before treatment:
After treatment:
Before treatment:
After treatment:

X4
X7

Total Fluid
Oil
(BFPD)
(BOPD)
1996 Acid Treatments
3,228
2,582
3,248
2,663
3,965
3,172
8,805
5,371
10,187
5,739
11,033
4,082
9,937
5,813
10,119
6,122
1997 Acid Treatments
9,914
3,073
5,373
900
3,401
2,976
1,464
1,098

Increased Oil
(bbl, %)

Water-Cut
(%)

Choke*

20
18
20
39
56
63
42
39

46
46
50
68
41
38
35
36

69
83
12
25

38
43
47
52

81, 3%
2,199, 69%
-1657, -29%
309, 5%

-2173, -71%
-1878, -63%

th

*Choke as 64 s of an in.

Table 2 compares the production results before and after

the acid treatments. For the acid treatments in 1996, the X1A
and X3 wells showed a slight increase (3 to 5%), while the X5
well showed an excellent improvement (69%). The
improvements for X1A and X3 were not considered economic
successes. Unfortunately, the X4 well exhibited a 29% loss in
production. The only significant success, Well X5, was
performed with a coiled-tubing unit (CTU). It was considered
that carbonate scaling in the wellbore likely spent much of the
acid in the other three treatments performed in 1996, thereby
releasing debris into the injected fluids and possibly plugging
the gravel packs. Use of the CTU enabled the acid to bypass
wellbore scales.
The production results from the 1996 acid treatments
initially suggested that fines migration might be deeper than
expected. Therefore, in 1997, a slow reacting HF system was
selected and two treatments were placed using a CTU.
Furthermore, one treatment was conducted with foam
diversion and one without. The X4 candidate from the
previous campaign was selected as a candidate. Unfortunately,
the second acid treatment reduced production even more. The
X7 well responded in a similar fashion.
It became apparent that the formation was not receptive to
HF acidizing treatments. An effort was made to obtain and

review formation mineralogy data for understanding the issues

between HF acid treatments and formation response.
Ultimately, it was found that the heterogeneous nature of the
formations made it easy to overlook the high carbonate
content in some sections. The excessive carbonate content was
essentially incompatible with any HF acidizing fluids and
caused deep matrix precipitation of fluosilicates and complex
aluminum fluorides.
Well and Challenge Description
The field of interest is the XJG-3 field, located offshore south
China Sea. This field has 24 wells producing from multiple
zones perforated with 12 spf, completed with gravel packs for
sand control, and employing SSDs for isolation. Comingled
production is driven by ESPs and a strong water drive with
total water-cut in the range of 80 to 90%. Fortunately, modern
logging techniques allow estimation of total fluid production
and water-cut from each zone. The particular well of interest
was XB9, completed in four zones with gravel pack and SSDs.
The zones and their descriptions are reported in Table 3.
Zones X10C and X11 were completed sharing the same set of
gravel pack and SSD, therefore, production from those zones
could not be differentiated. The well architecture is shown in
Fig. 1 and a well log in Fig. 2.

Table 3Expected Production Contribution Based on k-h

Zone
X10B
X10C
X11
X13

Permeability
(md)
2970
1688
1446
1240

Height
(ft)
59
13
15
46

k-h
(md-ft)
174,000
22,000
21,000
57,000

k-h Contribution
(%)
63%
8%
8%
21%

SPE 86519

Fig. 1Well schematic for Well XB9.

SPE 86519

Fig. 2Well log for Well XB9.

Table 4 reports the historical normalized total fluid

contribution from the four zones. It was determined that zone
X13, at 10,150 ft MD (9,165 ft TVD), was performing below
expectations. That zone has a bottomhole static temperature
(BHST) of 240F, a porosity of 21%, and an average
permeability of 1,240 md. In early 2001, the well was logged
for determination of the source of the high water rates. Table 4
shows that the bulk of the fluid production was from the X10B
zone and was responsible for 74% of the total fluid production
at a water-cut of 80%. The X10C/X11 zones were producing

as expected, but with a 56% water-cut. The X13 zone,

however, was still underperforming and was later found to
have an apparent total skin of 140.
The individual contributions of oil and water from each
zone to the total production are reported in Table 5. The
X10B zone contributed 85% of the water and 49% of the oil.
The apparently damaged X13 zone contributed only 2% of the
total water production, but also contributed 28% of the total
oil production.

SPE 86519

Table 4Observed Total Fluid Contribution Based on PLTs

Zone

k-h Expectation
(%)

1996 PLT
(%)

2001 PLT
(%)

Zonal Water-Cut
(%)

X10B
X10C/X11
X13

63
16
21

82
8
10

74
16
10

8
56
14

Table 5Production Contributions by

Zone, February 2001
Oil
Water
Zone
(BOPD)
(BWPD)
X10B
925 (49%) 3,652 (85%)
X10C/X11 435 (23%) 545 (13%)
X13
518 (28%)
86 (2%)
4,283 (70%
Total
1,877
water-cut)

The historical production from the X13 zone is reported in

Fig. 3. In early 2001, the water-cut from the X13 zone was
determined to be about 14%. Using this value, the oil
production from early 1998 through mid-2001 gradually
declined from about 550 to 400 bbl of oil per day (dashed line
in Fig. 3). In early 2002, the choke on the well was increased
from 30 to 68 (64ths of an in.). Assuming the same water-cut
from each zone, and keeping the proportion of production
from each zone the same, the apparent oil production from the
X13 zone essentially doubled. However, as will become clear,
increased drawdown made both of these assumptions invalid.
Production was also declining for the entire XB9 well. The
increase in choke size in March 2002 resulted in restoring oil
production to 1,900 BOPD, which was approximately the
same as that from the previous year. Unfortunately, the water
production was over twice the level of a year earlier. The well
response is shown in Fig. 4. Production continued to decline,
and two months later, the choke was increased to 128 (64ths).
Oil production stabilized at about 1,400 BOPD, while water
production remained nearly constant during the same period at
about 9,000 BWPD.
A further evaluation of the data suggested that Zone X13
had begun making much more water because of higher
drawdown. This raised the possibility of damage resulting
from fines-migration plugging of the near wellbore or
carbonate scaling. In fact, there was evidence by mid-2002
that the oil contribution from Zone X13 had fallen to about 90
BOPD at a skin of 140.
Damage Mechanisms
The X13 zone had been identified as underperforming since
1996, and therefore, drilling damage was considered a
possibility. The well was originally drilled and completed in
1995 with a water-based mud; therefore, clay swelling in the
producing interval by mud filtrate invasion was a possible
damage mechanism. The well was perforated overbalanced,
which suggests that perforation clean-out may not have been

achieved. After the gravel pack was in place, producing the

well would not remove either the mud filtrate or the
perforation debris. It is thought that these early practices may
have led to the poor performance of the X13 zone.
The next challenge was to identify possible production
damage mechanisms. A useful starting place was the
formation composition. The log indicated that the formation
was shale and sandstone. However, this information is
insufficient for identifying damage mechanisms and
limitations for fluid selection. A preferred source for the
formation composition is X-ray analysis data.3 Table 6 reports
the average mineralogy for an offset well, X2x, as determined
by X-ray analysis. It was assumed that this analysis would be
representative for Well XB9.
Quartz and feldspar are usually related to structural
minerals, and therefore should not contribute to a damage
mechanism. Kaolinite is a migrating clay that often begins to
move and plug when water production increases. On average,
kaolinite was only present at 2%, though its abundance varied
from 0 to 13%. Gravel-pack screens are effective for
controlling sand production, but they do little to address fines
migration. Illite-smectite (a mixed layer clay) can swell in
fresh water and weak brines (less than 6% NaCl);4,5 it was
present at 15%, though it varied from 4 to 43%. This finding is
often associated with shale layers, but is also found within
producing zones as well. Calcite and dolomite did not present
a damage mechanism, though it will be seen that they did limit
treatment options. Total carbonate content varied from 0 to
35%. In brief, the mineralogy suggested fines migration and
clay swelling as possible damage mechanisms for X13.
A water analysis was available for Well XB9, but it should
be considered that the water represented the commingled
composition from four zones. Table 7 reports the water
analysis. A scaling tendency calculation was performed and
indicated a very slight barium sulfate scaling tendency.
However, at this point, barium sulfate was not considered a
likely damage mechanism. A strong scaling tendency for
calcium carbonate at pH 6.8 and 240F was predicted and was
considered a likely damage mechanism. The true magnitude of
the scaling tendency for calcium carbonate depends on the true
downhole pH. The downhole pH can be substantially lower if
carbon dioxide is present in the reservoir and kept in solution
by pressure. In fact, the common scaling mechanism for
explaining calcium carbonate scale is the rise in pH that
occurs when carbon dioxide is released from solution by a
pressure drawdown. As such, the increased drawdown of the
well in early 2002 may have triggered both an increase in
water production and an increase in carbonate scaling.

SPE 86519

Fig. 3Production history for Zone X13.

Fig. 4Production history for Well XB9.

SPE 86519

Table 6Mineralogy Assumed

for Well XB9
Average
Range
Mineral
Content
(%)
(%)
Quartz
48
40 to 70
K-feldspar
11
5 to 11
Kaolinite
2
0 to 13
Illite-smectite
15
4 to 43
Calcite
11
0 to 20
Dolomite
7
0 to 15

Table 7Water Analysis for

Well XB9
Ion
Content (mg/L)
Sodium
9,790
Calcium
1,075
Magnesium
190
Barium
5
Chloride
17,200
Bicarbonate
444
Sulfate
136
pH
6.8

The water analysis also raised a question concerning

swelling clays. It is known that smectite requires at least 6%
NaCl to keep from swelling. However, the water analysis
indicated an equivalent of about 3% NaCl was being produced
from the well. As such, the possibilities were that the clays
were in a state of partial swelling, that the calcium in the water
was preventing clay swelling, or that the illite-smectite clays
were swollen but located in layers that did not affect
production. In essence, there was uncertainty as to the role of
clay swelling in this heterogeneous reservoir.
Mineralogy Driven Options
The possible damage mechanisms for Zone X13 were
identified as drilling damage, fines migration, clay swelling,
and carbonate scaling. In principle, acid systems are available
for attacking all these problems. Historically, acid systems
tend to be chosen based on the type of damage present and
with minimal consideration to formation mineralogy and the
negative consequences that can occur. However, it became
clear during the study that acid/rock interactions are much
more complex than previously assumed and must be taken into
account. Failure to consider these interactions can readily
explain previous treatments that did not improve (and may
have further damaged) production.
Drilling damage and fines migration can often be removed
with HF acidizing systems. Unfortunately, the carbonate
content (calcite plus dolomite) of 15 to 30% made HF acid a
poor choice for this operation. There are many complex
secondary and tertiary reactions of HF with carbonates that

can cause severe damage deep within the matrix.6 The

preferred maximum carbonate content is 5%. Fortunately, it is
entirely possible that removal of the carbonate could release
some of the drilling damage in the perforations.
Removal of carbonate scale is readily accomplished with
acid. However, clay content and BHST must be taken into
account when choosing the type of acid. Clays are known to
be unstable in HCl, depending on their composition and the
temperature. Zeolites, for example, are usually unstable in HCl
below 100F, while kaolinite is stable up to 200F. No clays
are stable in HCl at 240F, although quartz and feldspar are
stable. Pumping strong HCl into a sandstone formation above
the stability temperature of the clays can lead to damage of the
matrix permeability during pumping.7 Fortunately, most clays
are very stable in 10% acetic acid, even to elevated
temperatures.8 However, HCl and acetic acids, by themselves,
will not remove fines-migration damage.
Acetic acid has one other issue associated with it. Acetic
acid can cause clay swelling, if used alone.9 The presence of
illite-smectite indicates that clay swelling could be an issue,
and therefore, a mixture of acetic acid and ammonium
chloride is preferred. The modified acid system could remove
matrix carbonate and thereby remove drilling damage, it could
dissolve carbonate scale without destroying formation clays,
and it could contact smectite clays without causing swelling.
Additional additives could be used to reduce emulsion
tendencies, improve water-wetting contact with the damage,
and prevent corrosion of the tubulars.
Compatibility between acid and oil can also be an
important issue in some reservoirs. Acids can create sludges
and emulsions when contacting oils in the reservoir. HClbased systems have good dissolving power, but can require
extra additives for maintaining good compatibility between the
acid and oil. Organic acids, such as acetic acid, are much
milder and are less likely to cause sludging problems when
contacting black oils.
Treatment Design and Execution
The improved acid design addressed the relevant issues raised
by the review of previous acid treatments and review of the
formation mineralogy. Scale buildup in the tubulars had
apparently been a problem. Therefore, a small acid treatment
was pumped to clean the tubing across the zone of interest.
The SSD was closed and a CTU used to pump 2,000 gal of
10% acetic acid for removal of carbonate scale from the pipe.
This was circulated to surface with 13,000 gal of filtered
seawater fortified with 3% KCl. When the returns were clear,
the wellbore was circulated with 12,000 gal of 5% ammonium
chloride (NH4Cl), which left a fluid in the wellbore that would
not cause clay swelling either before or after ion exchange in
the formation. The CTU was then pulled out of the hole in
preparation for bullheading the main acid treatment into
the formation.
The main acid treatment consisted of 5,600 gal (120 gpf)
of 10% acetic acid containing 5% NH4Cl, 0.2% of a
penetrating surfactant, and 0.5% of a fines suspending/
foaming agent. This blend assured that none of the clays at
240F would be damaged by the acid and cause plugging,
none of the swelling clays would swell and cause plugging,
carbonate scale would be readily removed from the gravel-

SPE 86519

pack screen and perforations, damage would be penetrated and

plugging fines suspended, and compatibility with the
formation crude oil would be maximized. A preflush of 1,000
gal of 5% NH4Cl (with 500 scf/bbl of N2) was pumped ahead
of the acid. The acid was overdisplaced into the formation
with 2,000 gal of 5% NH4Cl, then the wellbore displaced with
10,000 gal of filtered seawater fortified with 3% KCl. These
fluids were all at least 35,000 ppm in chlorides, and therefore,
would not cause clay swelling either before or after ion
exchange in the matrix. All fluids used 500 scf/bbl of N2 to
provide continual diversion and energy assist for recovery.
The acid treatment was bullheaded into the formation. The
entire acid treatment was pumped at 4 bbl/min and the final
tubing displacement volume was pumped before the first
nitrified preflush reached the perforations. The pressure
response during the acid treatment is shown in Fig. 5. During
the first 1 hr and 20 min of injection, the wellbore fluid was
pumped into the formation at 4 bbl/min and 2,500 psi.

Fig. 5Zone X13 acid treatment pressure response.

However, the tubing pressure (dashed line in Fig. 5)

exhibited a quick rise in pressure as the nitrified preflush
reached the formation. The pump rate was quickly reduced to
2 bbl/min. The pressure broke back somewhat when the acid
stage reached the formation, but the nitrified acid kept the
treatment pressure high during the entire stage and therefore
pump rate was reduced to 1.25 bbl/min to keep the tubing
pressure below design criteria. As such, part of the pressure
decline during the 1.5 to 2 hr timeframe was caused by a lower
injection rate, and some decline was due to damage removal.
The higher treating pressure provided by the nitrified
fluids assured improved zonal coverage, or diversion, across
the X13 zone. In addition, the 1.25-bbl/min pump rate gave
nearly four times the contact time for the acid to react on the
carbonate scales within the gravel pack and perforations, as
compared to 4 bbl/min. The overflush stage reached the
formation after 3 hr of pumping and showed a higher treating
pressure. This response was presumably caused by a higher
nitrogen quality in the last stage. In brief, the challenge of
obtaining good zonal coverage behind an SSD was achieved
by the use of N2 to provide foam diversion.

10

Production Results
The production response from the acid treatment on Well XB9
is reported in Fig. 6. The acid treatment provided an
immediate improvement of 600 BOPD, even on a smaller
choke size of 42 (64ths) and at a higher wellhead pressure of
700 psi (600 psi higher than the previous 6 months).
Furthermore, the increase in oil production was provided
without an increase in water production. The immediate postacid treatment water-cut for the well was 81%.
Assigning production contributions to various zones in a
complex reservoir with complex completions is a serious
challenge. The challenge was particularly acute in this
operation because PLTs were not available for the changes in
production during 2002. However, some assumptions can be
made that at least provide some limiting cases. The biggest
challenge was in understanding the change in water-cut that
occurred in March 2002 when the well was drawn down
harder. The increase in water production, without a
proportional increase in oil production, indicates that the water
cut for each zone had increased. On a historical basis, the
water-cut for Well XB9 had increased from 70% in February
2001 to 86% in March 2002. If the water in each zone
increased proportionally and held constant to the same oil
contribution, then the water cut for each zone had increased
from 80, 56, and 14% to 91, 77, and 30% for X10B,
X10C/X11, and X13, respectively. However, it is even more
likely that the water-cut for X13 had increased to 50%
water-cut. Using these modified water-cuts for the four zones,
and assuming that oil production for the top three zones after
March 2002 was unchanged, the decline in oil production

Fig. 6Production results for Well XB9.

SPE 86519

associated with increasing damage in the H13 zone can be

estimated. Table 8 reports the results of those calculations.
The analysis provides two possible limiting cases for the
production of Zone X13 at the time of the acid treatment in
December 2002. Pretreatment production may either be the
last value of 518 BOPD in February 2001, or it may be as low
as 55 BOPD as implied in November 2002. In one limiting
case, the acid treatment has provided a two-fold increase in
production by removing old damage, probably from drilling
damage and fines migration. In the other limiting case, the
acid treatment has provided over a ten-fold increase in
production by removing recently caused damage, probably
from carbonate scaling. Table 9 provides one estimate of the
implied production contributions based on the case of the acid
treatment removing both new damage caused by carbonate
scaling and some old damage.

Table 8Implied Pre-acid Production

Contributions by Zone, 2002
Zone

March Oil July Oil

(BOPD)
(BOPD)

November
Oil (BOPD)

X10B
910
910
910
X10C/X11
435
435
435
X13*
305
55
55
Total
1,650
1,400
1,400
*Assumes water-cut for Zone X13 increased
from 14% to 50%.

SPE 86519

11

Table 9Implied Production Contributions by Zone, December 2002

Zone

Oil
(BOPD)

Water
(BWPD)

Implied Zonal
Water-Cut
(%)

X10B
910 (44%)
6,830 (77%)
88
X10C/X11
435 (21%)
1,310 (15%)
75
X13
735 (35%)
735 (8%)
5
Total
2,080
8,875 (81% water-cut)
*Assumes all production improvement came from acidized zone, X13.

The decline slope for Well XB9 since the treatment suggests
that the well continues to experience a production induced
damage. It is quite possible that the damage mechanism
continues to be carbonate scaling, though the decline slope is
not as steep as in early 2002. Acidizing is an effective method
to remove carbonate scale, but does not prevent carbonate
scaling. Another acid treatment may be required soon for this
well, but should be followed by a scale inhibitor squeeze
treatment. It would be preferred that the acid treatment be
returned to the surface before performing the squeeze
treatment so that released debris and diversion effects can
be removed.
The complexities of candidate selection and verifying acid
treatment success are readily illustrated by this case history.
The uncertainties of zonal contributions of both water and oil
can make a full understanding difficult. However, it becomes
very clear that a combination of technologies must be used if
cost-effective decisions are to be made about improving
production on these types of fields.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions
can be made.
Identification of stimulation candidates in complex oil
reservoirs with complex completions that produce both oil
and water can be accomplished with a combination of
production logging and geophysical analysis techniques
coupled with reservoir simulation.
Candidate selection alone is insufficient for treatment
success and must also involve proper identification of the
relevant damage mechanisms and mineralogy driven
remediation options.
Sandstone formations with an average carbonate content
of 20% are simply too high to be good HF acidizing
candidates because of severe secondary and tertiary
precipitations that can cause matrix damage that can
reduce production.
The X13 zone of the XB9 well was probably damaged
most by carbonate scaling that was effectively removed
with organic acid without causing clay decomposition, as
would be expected with HCl at the BHST of 240F.

Implied PostAcid PLT*

(%)
71
15
14

The XB9 well continues to show an unexpectedly high

production decline, suggesting continuing carbonate
scaling. Carbonate scaling can be readily prevented with
properly designed scale inhibitor squeeze treatments.
Acknowledgements
In addition to Halliburton and ConcocPhillips China Inc. for
approval and permission for presenting this work, thanks
and appreciation are also extended to Mr. Tuan Ma,
ConocoPhillips, Principle Reservoir Engineer, for taking time
to review the paper and provide comments. The authors also
wish to acknowledge Shell and their co-developed STIM2001
software used during this project.
References
1. Luo D., Jiang, Z., Gutierrez, J., Schwab, K., and Spotkaeff, M.:
Optimizing Oil Recovery of XJG Fields in South China Sea,
paper SPE 84861 presented at 2003 International Improved Oil
Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
October 20-21.
2. Kessler, C., Frisch, G., Hyden, R., and Stegent, N.: New
Petrophysical Process Improves Reservoir Optimization by
Linking Stimulation Design, Reservoir Modeling, and Economic
Evaluation, paper SPE 62544 presented at the 2000 Western
Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, June 19-23.
3. Gdanski, R.: Formation Mineral Content Key to Successful
Sandstone Acidizing, Oil and Gas J. (30 August 1999) 90.
4. Hower, W.F.: Influence of Clays on the Production of
Hydrocarbons, paper SPE 4785 presented at the 1974 AIME
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans,
Louisiana, February 7-8.
5. Gdanski, R.: Right KCl Mix Prevents Clay Swelling,
American Oil and Gas Reporter (April 2000) 131-133.
6. Gdanski, R. and Shuchart, C.: Advanced Sandstone Acidizing
Designs Using Improved Radial Models, paper SPE 38597
presented at the 1997 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, October 5-8.
7. Gdanski, R.: A Model of HF Reactivity and Damage
Removal, paper presented at the 1999 NIF 10th International
Oil Field Chemicals Symposium, Fagernes, Norway, February
28-March 3.
8. Underdown, D.R., Hickey, J.J., and Kalra, S.K.: Acidization of
Analcime-Cemented Sandstone, Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE
20624 presented at the 1990 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 23-26.
9. Gdanski, R.: Fractional Pore Volume Acidizing Flow
Experiments, paper SPE 30100 presented at the 1995 European
Formation Damage Symposium, The Hague, Netherlands,
May 15-16.