SPE 88767 Near Wellbore Stimulation by Acoustic Waves

Fred van der Bas, Eric de Rouffignac, Pedro Zuiderwijk, Shell International Exploration and Production B.V., Diederik van Batenburg, Halliburton

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 11th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 1013 October 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.

Introduction Acoustic waves are traditionally used in the oil industry for exploration and appraisal during seismic and logging surveys. Acoustic waves also have been used for stimulation of oil reservoirs. Beresnev and Johnson1 presented an excellent overview of past activities, claimed successes and failures in this area. The two main applications are near wellbore cleaning and enhanced oil recovery. This paper reports on developments in the near wellbore area, specifically, high frequency acoustic stimulation and, as such, is an extension of earlier papers by Wong et al.2,3 and van der Bas et al.4 Near wellbore formation damage can arise from many activities during drilling, completion and production. One of the most pervasive mechanisms is the plugging of pores by solid particles. This may be caused by external sources such as drilling mud and/or drilled solid invasion, or may originate in the formation itself; for example, when clay fines are mobilized during production. It is not always possible to prevent formation damage, and well stimulation techniques to remove or mitigate the impact of formation damage have been used in the industry for more than half a century. Although conventional well stimulation techniques - both matrix stimulation and fracturing - have been applied very successfully, they do suffer from significant limitations, particularly in long horizontal wells or in wells with multiple branches. Acoustic cleaning is a promising well stimulation technology to combat the effects of formation damage. It complements the existing stimulation technologies and enlarges the range of options available for cost effective well stimulation. It uses high frequency sound waves to shake loose damaging particles and can be substantially enhanced by maintaining an underbalance pressure in the well. In this paper we review and extend on the experimental work in the linear configuration that was described in the previous papers 2-4. The experiments described in this paper are, to our knowledge, the first to be conducted with oil and connate water. The ultimate proof of the feasibility of acoustic stimulation, of course, requires field trials.

Abstract Near-wellbore formation damage reduces the productivity in most of the existing oil and gas wells. The formation damage is caused by the invasion of fluids during the drilling and completion process and in a later stage by the deposition of particles (fines, scale, asphalthenes, etc) due to production. The conventional technique to remove these types of damage is injection of fluids to dissolve the damage. The treatments typically involve pumping of chemicals (acid, corrosion inhibitor etc.) under matrix conditions. Controlled placement of the treatment fluids in the zones that need to be treated is difficult and sometimes impossible in particular in long, horizontal intervals. A promising new technique to remove the near-wellbore damage is high-frequency acoustic stimulation; a specially designed acoustic tool is utilized on wireline or coiled tubing to selectively treat the required reservoir intervals. The preferred application of this tool is at underbalance pressure condition: damage particles mobilized by the acoustic waves are removed from the reservoir interval by the production flow. The paper reports on the ongoing acoustic stimulation research. Laboratory work showing the potential of acoustic cleaning has been previously reported; it was performed on sandstone cores saturated with brine in a laboratory set-up using linear acoustic waves. Recent acoustic cleaning experiments examined the effect of various other conditions i.e. oil saturated rock and gravel pack completion. Results from these experiments are presented here.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 88767

Conventional Stimulation Both matrix stimulation and hydraulic fracture treatments involve the pumping of specialized fluids. These techniques are invasive and several critical issues are apparent: Compatibility between injected fluid and in-situ rock/fluid, tubing and even surface equipment Fluid placement, diversion and penetration into the formation Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) aspects of handling and injecting, under high pressure, of complex chemical mixtures In matrix stimulation of sandstone reservoirs, acid/rock interaction often produces unwanted precipitates that further reduce formation permeability. Numerous new acid formulations and procedures have been proposed to eliminate or minimize this negative impact, but lithological heterogeneities in sandstone do not always make the task easy. Moreover, many of these techniques require the pumping of multiple stages of chemically different fluids. For example, in mud acid stimulation, carefully designed acid preflush and post-acid displacement stages are needed. From the outset, fluid placement and diversion techniques involving multistages of different fluids become critical. So it is not surprising that mud acid stimulation in a long horizontal openhole section is still prohibitive, even with the use of coiled tubing. Similar limitations apply to stimulation of long horizontal sections in carbonate reservoirs. Nearly all operators and service companies have publicly emphasized the importance of HSE and in some instances companies are even competing on HSE statistics5. The potential HSE-risks of handling corrosive chemical mixtures under high pressure are obvious. Furthermore, legislation regulating the use of chemicals, in for example the North Sea Area, becomes progressively more restrictive6. It is likely that acid stimulation will no longer be an option in those areas as critical components of the acid formulations may no longer be permitted and environmentally acceptable substitutes may not be identified.

from a stimulation method that eliminates the need for aggressive chemicals and the difficulties associated with fluid placement/diversion. For example, we anticipate a significant gain using acoustic stimulation for the removal of filter cake in horizontal wells - still one of the most important challenges facing operators. Furthermore, with a desire for lower operating expenses, acoustic cleaning could potentially provide an attractive alternative stimulation method. Instead of having to shut in the production, invading the near wellbore formation with acids and other chemicals, it might be possible, perhaps even desirable, to perform stimulation while producing i.e., underbalanced well stimulation. Therefore, injected fluids and in-situ rock/fluid compatibility issues and the associated negative effects of precipitates are totally eliminated. In addition, productivity improvement can be monitored while underbalanced acoustic stimulation is carried out. With that information, real time optimization of stimulation can be performed; e.g., repeatedly treat a certain zone until desired improvement is observed. Studies on acoustic cleaning with respect to wellbore stimulation have been presented1-4, 7-11. However, the precise mechanisms responsible for the cleaning action are complex and investigation is still on-going. In standard industrial applications under atmospheric conditions, the cleaning mechanism is associated with cavitation, i.e. the formation, growth, and implosive collapse of vapor bubbles in liquids. However, downhole pressures representative for typical well conditions tend to suppress cavitation. In most of our experiments, we apply sufficiently high fluid pressures to suppress cavitation. Under these conditions, cleaning effects have still been clearly observed2-4. Some researchers have also investigated acoustic stimulation in combination with advanced oxidation techniques for application in oil and gas wells12. Promising results for the removal of barium sulfate scale are presented in the paper. It is, however, not clear if these researchers considered the effect of high fluid pressure. Recent papers and information available through the internet indicate that other groups are also applying or developing acoustic stimulation tools. In Oman, Petroleum Development Oman has conducted three trial runs with a Piezo-Electric Sonic Tool in October 2002. One of three wells showed production increase for one month after the treatment. The other two wells did not show any improvement13. Additional information on the tool such as operating principle, tool size, and frequency range used has not been published. The US Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored a team of companies that developed a low-cost sonic cleaning tool to remove damage from gas storage wells14. The wireline tool is about 60 cm long and has a 5 cm diameter. The device is tunable within the range from subsonic to 3 kHz. One successful field trial is reported on the DOE website. However, details on the field trial results are not provided.

Acoustic Stimulation The use of acoustic waves for wellbore stimulation avoids the need for designer fluids or complex acids, hence eliminating the associated problems discussed above. Instead, a suitably designed downhole acoustic tool is needed. In addition, a wireline or coiled-tubing conveyed acoustic cleaning tool would have the advantage of much better zonal control, allowing the precise wellbore interval to be stimulated at will. This is important because stimulation of water or gas bearing reservoir intervals can be easily avoided. More and more new wells have a tendency to be complex, with slotted liners or screen completions, long horizontal and/or multiple horizontal sections, and in some cases sensitive downhole instrumentation. Such wells would benefit

www.petroman.ir

SPE 88767

In this paper, we limit our discussion to the use of an acoustic horn that generates an acoustic frequency of 20 kHz. The amplifier delivers a maximum power of 2000 Watt. The amplitude of the acoustic wave is maintained in the range of 10 to 20 micrometer in a converter, and a booster can multiply this amplitude by a factor of 2.

Overview of Previous Experimental Results This section summarizes the experimental results presented in earlier papers2-4. All experiments discussed were conducted at 100 bar fluid pressure and at a temperature of 25 C.
Figure 1: A View of the Internal Configuration of Linear Cell

Experimental Equipment Linear Acoustic Cell. Figure 1 shows a picture of the experimental set-up that has been used to investigate the efficiency of acoustic cleaning. The near wellbore formation is represented by a cylindrical core sample. The core sample has a diameter of 7.5 cm and a maximum length of 20 cm. An acoustic horn is mounted some distance away from one end of the core sample. The acoustic horn has a diameter of 38 mm and the distance between the horn and core face can be varied from 25 to 70 mm. The gap between the core face and the acoustic horn represents the wellbore annulus and if desired, it is possible to place a screen, slotted liner or even a layer of gravel pack between the horn and the core sample. Fluid can flow in either direction within the core. Mud or other treatment fluids can be pumped from the wellbore annulus, at the core front, with leak-off at the other end to build an external and internal filter cake on the core face. The flow through the core sample can be in either direction to simulate fluid injection (from the wellbore into the formation end) or production (fluid flow from the formation toward the wellbore where the horn is placed). Generally, the flow of hydrocarbons is simulated with a 2% KCl solution. For some of the experiments described in this paper a light oil (SHELLSOL D70) has been used. The core is mounted in an elastomer sleeve with ports to measure the temperature and pressure along the core. Therefore, we are able to deduce pressure drop along the core and back-calculate the permeability. Typically, the applied fluid pressure is 100 bar and the confining stress on the core sample is 180 bar, which is the maximum pressure allowed in the set-up. The maximum temperature of the core holder and the injected fluid is 120 C. We have the freedom of placing either a hydrophone within the cell (without the core present) or an accelerometer at the end of the cell (with the core present). With the hydrophone, we can measure the acoustic pressure or output power generated by the acoustic horn. The accelerometer yields information on wave attenuation, and provides information about the depth of stimulation.

Significant enhancement of filter cake clean-up has been observed using high-frequency (20 kHz) acoustic waves. Regained permeability values up to 100% (indicating original permeability has been restored) have been achieved using acoustic treatments of Berea core samples damaged with calcium-carbonate drilling fluids. For comparison, conventional clean-up by flow without acoustics typically results in regained permeabilities in the range from 5-50%. Acoustic stimulation is also effective when applied through slotted liners or screens. A regained permeability of 70% was obtained using a damaged rock sample behind a slotted liner. A similar number was obtained for filter cake clean-up from rock surface behind a screen. Experiments that involve the acoustic removal of (production) fines have also been conducted. The regained permeability due to the fines damage was 10%. In the first 2.5 cm core section the permeability was restored to 90% due to the acoustic treatment, indicating almost all the fines have been removed. The effect of the acoustic treatment decreases along the core length; in the last core section at 10 20 cm from the core surface the regained permeability after the acoustic treatment was about 50%. Other important observations are that series of acoustic bursts are more effective than a continuous acoustic signal. Further work then focused on the duration of the individual acoustic bursts. The acoustic clean-up of a calcium-carbonate filter cake from a Berea core using a series of short (0.5 s) bursts are as effective as long acoustic burst (3.5 s): similar regained permeability values have been achieved. However, the energy required for the short bursts (0.5 s) is much lower compared with a similar number of 3.5 s acoustic bursts. These experiments also showed that little permeability increase was regained after five subsequent bursts independent of burst duration. More effective acoustic cleaning is achieved under producing conditions compared with static conditions (well shut-in); acoustic clean-up with production flow requires less time, less energy and results in higher regained permeability values. Acoustic waves break bridges formed by the damaging particles and/or detach particles from the pore walls and suspend these particles into the pore space fluid. Flow is required to transport the damage out of the pore space. However, acoustic clean-up using a low flow rate is more

www.petroman.ir

SPE 88767

effective, the possibility of building new bridges with the suspended damaging particles increases with velocity. One observation during a large number of acoustic cleaning experiments is a slightly decreasing pressure drop after the application of the first acoustic burst. This phenomenon occurs more often when short acoustic bursts have been applied compared to longer burst times. Thereafter, the regained permeability always shows an increasing trend with the number of acoustic bursts.

Conceptual Acoustic Cleaning Procedure The initial concept of the application of high-frequency acoustic stimulation under field conditions was to run the tool as a conventional logging tool in a shut-in well. The acoustic tool would be run to bottom on wire-line and would be activated along the selected damaged intervals on its way up and production could be resumed once the tool was removed from the well. However, based on the experimental work summarized in the previous section, it was realized that a different procedure was required. The most important change is probably that we now propose to stimulate the well while it is not shut-in but producing. The following concept acoustic cleaning procedure has been developed based on the experimental results and has been tested in the linear acoustic set-up in the laboratory. The well is choked back to produce at a low rate. The acoustic bursts interval is 0.5 s on and 0.5 s off (a total interval time of 1 s). The acoustic tool is moved at a constant speed from bottom to top of the selected interval. Logging speed is determined by the transmitting element window and the requirement that each point to be treated should be exposed to at least five subsequent bursts. Several passes with the acoustic tool are probably required to optimize the treatment results. Acoustic cleaning is improved significantly if applied simultaneously with a low production velocity. Flow is the mechanism to transport the acoustically suspended damaging particles from the pore space. The linear experiments showed that the transport of particles at a relative low flow rate shows improved results compared to higher flow rates: the chances of building new bridges with the transported particles increases with increasing velocity. In general the well needs to be choked back to obtain this optimum flow rate. The linear experiments also showed that series of short acoustic bursts result in similar cleaning compared to longer burst time. A shorter burst is preferred as it allows for a faster logging speed and reduces the total energy requirements for the tool. Since the first acoustic burst can result in an opposite effect (increased pressure drop), a minimum number of three acoustic bursts are required per area reservoir rock, while the tool is moving upwards.

Figure 2: Oscilloscope image of a series of acoustic bursts showing the electrical power (channel 1) and acceleration (channel 2).

Five subsequent bursts appear to give the optimum cleaning results in the previous experiments. This number of bursts together with the size of the acoustic window of the tool will determine the logging speed.

Experimental Results The previous section outlines the procedure to use a series of short acoustic bursts with a short rest time in between. One experiment has been conducted to investigate the clean-up using this procedure. Another experiment has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of acoustic cleaning through a gravelpack. Experiments have also been performed using light oil as producing fluid instead of the 2% KCl brine, which has been used up to now. Acoustic cleaning procedure The concept acoustic cleaning procedure considers of multiple series of 5 acoustic bursts of 0.5 sec and a rest time of 0.5 sec followed by a longer period to simulate time between passes. A Berea core sample of 100 mD was damaged using a calcium-carbonate water-based mud following the standard procedure. The regained permeability after clean-up using brine flow without acoustics was about 30%. After the first series of acoustic bursts (frequency 20 kHz and amplitude 40 micrometer, see Figure 2) the regained permeability increased to 66% (See Figure 3). After the next series of acoustic bursts the regained pervmeability increased to about 80%. No significant improvement was observed after a third series of bursts. After the first series of 5 acoustic bursts the regained permeability of 66% is slightly lower compared with previous acoustic clean-up results using a similar number of acoustic bursts with a longer rest time between the bursts. The final regained permeability of 80% is in the range of the previous acoustic clean-up experiments. However, there appears to be room for further optimization.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 88767

Energy 100

Regained perm 25

Energy 100

Regained perm 25

Regained permeability (%)

60

15

Regained permeability (%)

80

20

60
Oil-based drilling fluid with calcium-carbonate

15

40

10

40
15 bursts 5 bursts 25 bursts 25 bursts

10

20

20

5 bursts
0

5 bursts 0.5 s bursts

5 bursts
0

0 Clean-up by oil 0.5 s bursts 0.5 s bursts 0.5 s bursts 0.5 s bursts

Clean-up by brine

0.5 s bursts

0.5 s bursts

Figure 3: Acoustic cleaning using the proposed procedure

Figure 5: Acoustic cleaning of core damaged with oil-based drilling fluid with calcium-carbonate

Gravel Pack completion Acoustic cleaning of a filter cake from reservoir rock in a gravel pack completion has been investigated. The experiment was conducted by packing 20/40 mesh sand in the annulus between a slotted liner and the rock surface. The slotted liner was used because it does not filter the particles removed from the filter cake and shows a similar reduction of the acoustic energy as a screen. The gravel was placed with the core sample in the cell and saturated with brine. Thereafter the calcium-carbonate drilling fluid was flushed through the gravel pack and leak-off through the core sample was allowed to build the filter cake on the core surface. After clean-up with brine the regained permeability was around 50% (see Figure 4). Acoustic cleaning using a wave amplitude of 20 micrometer increased the regained permeability to 70% after 12 bursts. Additional treatment with acoustic did not enhance the cleaning of the rock sample. The 70% regained permeability value is similar to the value obtained with the slotted liner only and also similar to the value obtained with a wire wrap screen without gravel in front of the core. Acoustic Cleaning in Oil All previous acoustic cleaning experiments have been carried out in a 2% KCl solution. The effect of oil in the wellbore and pore space on the acoustic filter cake removal has been investigated using light oil (SHELLSOL D70).
Energy 100 Regained perm 25

Acoustic clean-up has been investigated using 100% oil and a sample damaged with an oil-based drilling fluid. Another core sample containing oil at connate water saturation was damaged using a water-based drilling fluid. Figure 5 gives an overview of the regained permeability obtained by clean-up using oil flow with and without acoustics. The core was damaged using an oil-based fluid with calcium-carbonate particles. This fluid with calcium-carbonate particles controls the fluid-loss effectively, which results in low damage value (70% regained permeability). Acoustic cleaning of this damaged core resulted in an increased permeability; the regained permeability is increased to 90% by the acoustic cleaning treatment. In another experiment an oil-based drilling fluid was used without the leak-off control particles. The invasion depth is about 3 cm and clean-up by flow results in a regained permeability of 30% only. Acoustic cleaning resulted in a significant improvement, the regained permeability increased to 80% (see Figure 6). The last experiment in this series using oil simulates the downhole drilling conditions closely. A core sample containing oil at connate water saturation was damaged with a water-based drilling fluid.
Energy 100 Regained perm 25

80

20

Input Electrical Energy (kJ)

Regained permeability (%)

80
Oil-based drilling fluid without particles

20

60

15

60

15

40
20 bursts

10

40
10 bursts 10 bursts

10

20
12 bursts

20
5 bursts

Clean-up by brine

0.5 s bursts

0.5 s bursts

Clean-up by oil

0.5 s bursts

0.5 s bursts

0.5 s bursts

Figure 4: Acoustic cleaning of reservoir rock in a gravel pack completion.

Figure 6: Acoustic cleaning of core damaged with oil-based drilling fluid.

www.petroman.ir

Input Electrical Energy (kJ)

Regained permeability (%)

Input Electrical Energy (kJ)

80

20

Input Electrical Energy (kJ)

SPE 88767

Energy 100

Regained perm 25

Regained oil permeability (%)

80 Relative perm to oil = 0.9 60

20

15

40

10

20 5 bursts 0 5 bursts

Input Electrical Energy (kJ)

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the managements of Shell and Halliburton for their permission to publish this paper. The contributions and discussion with many colleagues are acknowledged: Gerrit Nitters (Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.), George Anderson, Bob Birchak, Jim Venditto, and Kwang Yoo (Halliburton).

References
0

Clean-up by oil

0.5 s bursts

0.5 s bursts

Figure 7: Result of acoustic filter cake removal in oil from a core at residual water saturation.

Initially the core sample was saturated with a 2% KCl solution and subsequently flushed with oil. The relative oil permeability was 0.9. The effective permeability to oil has been taken as reference to calculate the regained permeability values. The core sample at connate water saturation was damaged using a calcium-carbonate water-based drilling fluid. The core sample was cleaned by flowing oil; the regained permeability is about 30%, which is comparable to the experiments using brine. Acoustic clean-up using a series of short bursts increased the regained permeability to 50%, additional acoustic bursts resulted in a regained permeability value of 60% (see Figure 7). This value of 60% is low compared with regained permeability obtained using acoustic clean-up in brine, which can be caused by a decreased relative permeability due to the increased water saturation or by reduced drag forces on the damaging particles. In the linear acoustic cell the acoustic pressure measured in the oil is lower compared with brine, which is due to the different acoustic properties between the oil and brine. Conclusions Acoustic stimulation is a novel technique to selectively clean-up wells and is enhanced by underbalanced pressure conditions. A concept acoustic cleaning procedure for field application has been outlined based on previous experimental results. The proposed procedure has been verified in a laboratory experiment. Acoustic treatments enhance the clean-up of filter cake significantly even in a laboratory model of a gravel pack completion. Effectiveness of acoustic cleaning in oil is slightly reduced compared with cleaning in brine.

1. Beresnev, I.A. and Johnson, P.A.: Seismic Stimulation of Oil Reservoirs: A Review of Theory and Methods, Geophysics 59 No. 6 (1000), 1993. 2. Wong, S.W. et al.: Near Wellbore Stimulation by Acoustic Waves, SPE 82198, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 2003. 3. Wong, S.W. et al.: High Power/High Frequency Acoustic Stimulation A novel and Effective Wellbore Stimulation Technology, SPE 84118, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct 2003. 4. Van der Bas, F., et al.: Radial Near Wellbore Stimulation by Acoustic Waves, SPE 86492, SPE Int. Symp. on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, February 2004. 5. Donnelly, J.: Q&A with John Gibson, JPT, May 2003. 6. Killaars, J., and Tholens, R., Effects of Harmonised Mandatory Control System (OSPAR Decision 2000/2) on Service Companies, SPE 74084, Presented at SPE International Conference on. HSE in Oil and Gas Exploration, Kuala Lumpur, March 2002. 7. Aarts, A.C.T. et al.: Enhancement of Liquid Flow Through a Porous Medium by Ultrasonic Radiation, SPE Journal 4 (4), Dec. 1999. 8. Venkitaraman, A. et al.: Ultrasonic Removal of Near-Wellbore Damage Caused by Fines and Mud Solids, SPE 27388, SPE Int. Symp. on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, February 1994. 9. Roberts, P.M. et al.: Ultrasonic Removal of Organic Deposits and Polymer-Induced Formation Damage, SPE Drilling & Completion 15 (1) March 2000, pp 19-24. 10. Poesio, P.. et al.: An Investigation of the Influence of Acoustic Waves on the Liquid Flow Through a Porous Material, J. Acoustic Soc. Am. 111 (5), Pt. 1, May 2002. 11. Poesio, P. and Ooms, G.: Acoustic Removal of Colloidal Particles From Berea Sandstone, SPE 86490, SPE Int. Symp. on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, February 2004.. 12. Wilkey, M.L., et al., The use of Advanced Acoustic Cavitation for Application in the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, Technology Options for Producer Survival, 1999 Oil & Gas Conference, Dallas, TX, June 1999 13. Harthy, A. et al., Screen and Near-Wellbore Cleaning and Stimulation Tools Evaluation: Recent Experience with Operations, SPE 89653, SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, March 2004, Houston, TX. 14. Sonic Waves Help Recover Natural Gas from Clogged Storage Sites, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/02/tl_sonictool.html

www.petroman.ir