SPE 58804

Successful High-Pressure/High-Temperature Acidizing With In-Situ Crosslinked Acid

Diversion
M. Buijse, R. Maier, and A. Casero, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and S. Fornasari, ENI-AGIP
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 23-24 February 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract 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. Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.
Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A, fax 01-972-952-9435.
References at the end of the paper.
Abstract
This paper describes a very successful acid stimulation treat-
ment performed in AGIPs Trecate-Villafortuna Field. The ma-
trix acidizing treatment used in-situ crosslinked acid (ICA) as
the diverting agent. The treatment is unique because it repre-
sents the highest temperature application ever attempted for
such a system and falls under the definition of high-pressure
high-temperature (HPHT).
The design process included temperature simulations, de-
tailed laboratory testing, and a review of acid formulations that
were used successfully in the Trecate-Villafortuna Field and
elsewhere. Temperature simulations indicated that cooldown
from the bottomhole temperature (BHT) of 180C to at least
150C could be achieved despite the high treating pressures that
limited injection rates. Even after cooldown, serious concerns
about corrosion and the effectiveness of the ICA system still
existed. Laboratory support included fluid optimization for
high-temperature application of the ICA. The flow tests enabled
the selection of the most appropriate base acid systems and
demonstrated that the ICA system would indeed function at the
predicted high temperatures.
Success of the treatment must also be attributed to the
operational planning and close attention to experience gained
from previous stimulation treatments. The execution of the
treatment used all of the components considered to be state-of-
the-art in matrix acidizing treatment execution and evaluation:
prestimulation injection tests, spotting of acid with coiled
tubing (CT) to help reduce injection pressures and improve
zonal coverage, the use of the Maximum Pressure Maximum
Rate Diversion Technique (MAPDIR), and real-time treatment
pressure monitoring.
The paper will present job procedures and a detailed treat-
ment pressure analysis. It will also give details on the changes
in injectivity and the Productivity Index (PI) before and after
stimulation.
Introduction
The HPHT Trecate-Villafortuna well discussed in this paper
produces oil from a naturally fractured dolomite reservoir at a
depth of 6000 m. In this well, a new horizontal 220-m section was
drilled and completed as open hole. The goal of the acid
treatment was to remove the near-wellbore mud damage and to
improve the permeability of the horizontal drain. The high
pressure at 6000 m and the bottomhole static temperature
(BHST) of 182C, classify the acid treatment as HPHT.
During the treatment design phase, two major issues had to
be addressed:
Potential problems associated with the HPHT character of
the well: high acid-rock reaction rate, crosslinking chemis-
try, and corrosion of tubular goods
Proper diversion and optimal zonal coverage of the entire
220-m payzone
High-temperature acidizing poses a number of problems
during treatment design and execution, which are not normally
encountered during treatments at lower temperatures.
1,2
The
high acid-rock reaction rate requires the use of a retarded acid
system to ensure that acid will not all spend on the formation face
(compact dissolution) but will penetrate deeper into the forma-
tion. Protecting the tubulars against acid corrosion is another
serious challenge at high temperatures and requires careful
selection of the acid fluids and inhibitor package design. In the
following sections of this paper we will discuss these issues in
more detail.
Optimal zonal coverage is one of the most important factors
for successful matrix acid stimulation treatments. Especially in
heterogeneous, fractured formations, the high-permeability and/
or least damaged zones will tend to accept a large fraction of the
treatment acid. Only aggressive diversion will ensure treatment
of most or all of the payzone.
3
In other treatments in the same
SUCCESSFUL HIGH-PRESSURE/HIGH-TEMPERATURE ACIDIZING WITH
IN-SITU CROSSLINKED ACID DIVERSION
2 SPE 58804
field, retarded (HCl/organic) acid blends were pumped with
some success. In those treatments, diversion was achieved by
either using linear gelled acid or pumping nonacid, gelled
diverter stages. Analysis of the treatment results, however,
indicated that the jobs were not yet optimal. Analysts believed
that the diversion efficiency could be improved and the choice
was made to switch to in-situ crosslinked acid (ICA).
In carbonate formations, the combination of the use of in-
situ crosslinked acid and the MAPDIR technique has proven to
be highly effective.
4
The crosslinked acid is responsible for the
diversion, while the MAPDIR technique helps ensure efficient
wormhole growth. Since this was the highest temperature appli-
cation ever attempted for the ICA system, laboratory core flow
studies were performed to check that the crosslinking chemistry
would function at the high BHT.
During the treatment execution, state-of-the-art acidizing
techniques were used, such as pretreatment injection tests to
determine the injectivity and fracturing pressure. When it was
determined that injectivity was too low, acid was spotted with
CT to reduce injection pressure. The main treatment consisted
of bullheading stages of a retarded HCl/organic acid system,
alternated with ICA diverter stages. During the main treatment,
pump rates were kept at a maximum (MAPDIR) to optimize
wormhole generation.
Acid Selection in an HPHT Well
The relatively high BHST of 182C affected several aspects of
the acid treatment in the Trecate-Villafortuna field. The high
temperature made it necessary to:
use a retarded acid system to reduce acid-rock reaction rate
protect well tubulars against corrosion
review the effectiveness of the crosslinking chemistry of the
ICA diverter
Because temperature is a key parameter in the treatment
design, it is important to know what the actual bottomhole
treatment temperature is. During fluid injection, the near-
wellbore region will cool down, so the temperature during most
of the treatment will be less than 182C. A cooldown profile was
calculated with a wellbore temperature simulator and is dis-
played in Fig. 1. It is clear that a cooldown temperature of 150C
can be achieved within 1 hour with a flow rate of only 4 bbl/min.
However, even after cooldown to 150C, serious concerns about
corrosion and the effectiveness of the ICA system still existed.
HCl is usually the preferred acid for use in carbonate acidizing
because it is readily available and inexpensive, it dissolves
many types of damage, it has a high dissolving power, and it does
not generate insoluble byproducts. However, the reaction rate of
HCl acid with carbonate rock is fast and is directly dependent on
the temperature. At high bottomhole temperatures, a consider-
able fraction of the HCl will spend on the wellbore wall and little
live acid will penetrate deeper into the formation. Wormholes
will be short and will not bypass the damaged near-wellbore
region so little or no skin reduction will result.
5
One solution to
this problem is the use of a retarded acid system. Viscosifying the
acid, either by emulsification or gelling, is a proven and much
used method for acid retardation.
6
The disadvantage, however,
is that treatment pressures will be high and/or the injection rate
will be low because of the increased fluid viscosity.
An alternative method is the use of organic acids. Organic
acids are weak and spend at a slower rate on carbonate rock than
HCl does. Organic acid will therefore penetrate deeper into the
formation before spending, thereby creating wormholes long
enough to bypass the damaged region. However, the dissolving
power of organic acids is less than that of HCl, so a good practice
is the use of HCl/organic blends. When an HCl/organic blend is
pumped into a formation, the HCl spends quickly on near-
wellbore damage such as mud filtercake, whereas the organic
acid spends at a much lower rate and penetrates deeper into the
formation.
Proper corrosion protection is of the utmost importance in
high-temperature acidizing. The corrosiveness of acid increases
exponentially with temperature and acid strength. HCl/organic
acid blends are useful in this respect because their corrosiveness
is much less than that of plain HCl with equivalent strength. For
example, 13/11% HCl/acetic has a dissolving power equal to
20% HCl, but its corrosiveness is equal to that of 13% HCl.
1
Diversion with ICA and MAPDIR
In-situ crosslinked acid is a thin, gelled acid with an initial
viscosity of approximately 20 cp, which forms a highly viscous
crosslinked gel when the acid spends in the formation and the
pH increases to a value of approximately 2. The crosslinked gel
will effectively stop any further fluid invasion and divert sub-
sequent acid stages to different parts of the zone. More details
of the diversion mechanism and chemistry of ICA can be found
elsewhere.
4
The MAPDIR technique, introduced by Paccaloni,
7
is not a
diversion method. It will, however, improve acidizing effi-
ciency, because wormhole generation and acid penetration
depend strongly on the acid flow rate. In damaged, high-skin
sections of the payzone, the acid flow rate will be relatively low
and most of the acid will spend on the formation face (compact
dissolution) without much skin reduction. Increasing the acid
injection rate will help ensure deeper penetration of live acid.
High skin zones can benefit especially because the increased
flow rate may induce a transition from a compact dissolution to
a wormholing regime. The risk of compact dissolution increases
at higher BHT because of the increase in the acid-rock reaction
rate. Pumping acid at high rates is therefore a good practice in
HPHT carbonate wells.
The skin simulation shown in Fig. 2 illustrates the effect of
flow rate in carbonate acidizing. The calculation was performed
with a mathematical model that simulates acid flow and worm-
hole growth in heterogeneous wellbores. In Fig. 2, the skin
reduction is calculated as a function of acid volume, for several
combinations of injection rate and temperature. The benefits of
M. BUIJSE, R. MAIER, A. CASERO, S. FORNASARI SPE 58804 3
a high injection rate are clear: at 25 bbl/min, efficient wormhole
growth will occur, resulting in a relatively fast reduction of skin
and effective stimulation. A negative skin is reached after an
average of 0.1 m
3
/m acid (100C curve) is pumped. At a much
lower rate of 5 bbl/min, wormhole generation is not very efficient
and the skin is still approximately 10 after 0.3 m
3
/m acid is
pumped. At very low rates, live acid will not penetrate into the
formation at all and skin reduction will not occur.
Note that a low-rate treatment (or a soak) can still be
beneficial if part of the damage is very shallow, for example a
mud filtercake. To remove this damage, acid penetration into the
formation is not necessary. In the Trecate-Villafortuna treat-
ment, a small volume of acid was spotted in the wellbore before
the main treatment. This acid, although pumped at low rates,
proved to be very effective in removing mud filtercake, thereby
improving injectivity. During the main treatment, the MAPDIR
technique was used to optimize wormhole generation and acid
penetration.
Laboratory Tests
Initially, we planned to prepare ICA with the same HCl/acetic
blend that was designed for the main acid stages. However,
benchtop tests performed in the laboratory indicated that little
or no crosslinking occurred. The conclusion was that the acetic
acid complexed with the (metal) crosslinker, rendering it inac-
tive. It was therefore decided to prepare the ICA stages with 5%
HCl acid.
Since the tests represented the highest temperature applica-
tion for the ICA system, laboratory core flow tests were per-
formed to check the crosslinking chemistry. Tests were per-
formed in 2.5 cm by 10 cm carbonate cores with a permeability
of approximately 10 to 20 md. Either gelled acid or ICA were
pumped through the cores and the pressure difference over the
core was recorded. The gelled acid formulation was identical to
the ICA formulation, with the exception of the crosslinker
package, so initial viscosity of the two fluids was the same. In
Figs. 3 and 4 the results of tests at 148C and 176C are displayed.
At both temperatures, crosslinking in the ICA system was
responsible for a much higher pressure difference over the core,
compared to gelled acid. Furthermore, the two tests with ICA did
not result in a wormhole breakthrough, indicating the retarda-
tion of the wormhole growth rate. The conclusion of these tests
is that ICA is effective at temperatures up to at least 176C
(350F).
Treatment Execution
The composition of the main acid and the ICA stages are listed
in Table 1. The main acid stage was a 13/11% HCl/acetic blend,
which was heated to approximately 35C. Two-percent corro-
sion inhibitor and 2% inhibitor intensifier were added to the acid
to protect the tubulars. The nonemulsifier was added to help
prevent formation of acid-oil emulsions, both downhole and at
the surface. The mutual solvent minimized adsorption of addi-
tives on the formation rock. The 0.5% synthetic polymer was
added as friction reducer. The ICA stage, which was also heated
to approximately 35C, was prepared in 5% HCl with corrosion
inhibitor/intensifier. The 2% polymer was designed to give the
fluid a viscosity of approximately 20 cp when pumped. After the
fluid spent in the formation, the viscosity increased because of
crosslinking. At a pH of approximately 4, the crosslink was
expected to break again.
The treatment started with injection tests to determine
injectivity and fracturing pressure. It was decided earlier that the
main ICA treatment was only going to be pumped if an injection
rate of more than 1 bbl/min could be maintained at pressures well
below the limits set by the fracturing pressure and tubing
working pressure. As discussed above, a relatively high pump
rate is a requirement for success in these HPHT wells. In the first
injection test the maximum allowed wellhead treating pressure
(WHTP
max
) of 12,000 psi was reached at a rate of only 0.5 bbl/min.
A second injection test was performed after 19 hours of flow. In
this test the injection pressure stabilized at 9,050 psi at a rate of
0.3 bbl/min. We then decided to spot acid in the wellbore with
CT and squeeze it into the formation to improve injectivity. To
allow safe operation of the CT treatment, the wellbore fluid was
first displaced with 1.4 sg brine. After the acid squeeze, the well
was opened again for approximately 20 hours and another
injection test was performed. A pump rate of 2.2 bbl/min could
be maintained at a pressure of approximately 7,400 psi, which
was well below the limits set by fracture gradient or tubing
working pressure. We then decided to continue with the main
ICA treatment.
The main treatment was bullheaded. Coiled tubing was
considered as a placement method for the main treatment, but
this idea was abandoned because of the pressure and rate
limitations. The main treatment schedule is listed in Table 2. The
pressure and rate curves during the treatment are displayed in
Figs. 5 and 6. The job was pumped with alternating stages of HCl/
acetic acid and ICA. During injection of the HCl/acetic acid, the
pressure decreased, indicating stimulation. The pressure in-
creased following injection of ICA, which is considered to be
evidence of diversion (Fig. 6). At the position of the arrows, the
pressure increased, while the rate was constant. These increases
in pressure are caused by crosslinking of the ICA in the forma-
tion. The MAPDIR technique was used throughout the treat-
ment. The rate increased from 1 bbl/min at the beginning of the
treatment to 22 bbl/min at the end of the treatment.
The productivity index (PI) before and after the treatment is
listed in Table 3. The PI was calculated from the wellhead
pressure. Uncertainties in hydrostatic pressure made it difficult
to calculate the PI in terms of bottomhole pressure. The PI before
the treatment was low, 0.11 m
3
/day/bar. After the acid squeeze,
the PI increased five-fold to a value of 0.53 m
3
/day/bar. After the
main treatment the PI stabilized at a value of approximately
14 m
3
/day/bar.
SUCCESSFUL HIGH-PRESSURE/HIGH-TEMPERATURE ACIDIZING WITH
IN-SITU CROSSLINKED ACID DIVERSION
4 SPE 58804
Conclusions
1. The success of the HPHT acid treatment in the Trecate-
Villafortuna field can be attributed to:
design optimization through integration of laboratory
testing and the use of modern theories in carbonate
acidizing
use of state-of-the-art acidizing techniques during treat-
ment execution.
2. In-situ crosslinked acid can be successfully applied in
acidizing HPHT wells. Laboratory tests show that
crosslinking will occur at temperatures up to 176C. Field
results also demonstrate its effectiveness.
References
1. Van Domelen, M.S. and Jennings, A.R. Jr.: Alternate Acid Blends
for HPHT Applications, paper SPE 30419 presented at the 1995
Offshore Europe Conference, Sep. 5-8, Aberdeen, Scotland.
2. Van Domelen, M.S., Reddingius, A.A., Faber, M.J., and Buijse,
M.A.: High-Temperature Acid Stimulation Offshore The Nether-
lands, paper SPE 38171 presented at the 1997 European Formation
Damage Conference, June 2-3, The Hague.
3. Hill, A.D. and Rossen, W.R.: Fluid Placement and Diversion in
Matrix Acidizing, paper SPE 27982 presented at the 1994 Centen-
nial Petroleum Engineering Meeting, University of Tulsa, Tulsa,
OK, Aug. 29-31.
4. MaGee, J., Buijse, M.A., and Pongratz, R.: Method For Effective
Fluid Diversion when Performing a Matrix Stimulation in Carbon-
ate Formations, paper SPE 37736, presented at the 1997 Middle
East Oil Show, March 15-18, Bahrain.
5. Buijse, M.A.: Understanding Wormhole Mechanisms Can Im-
prove Acid Treatments in Carbonate Formations, paper SPE 38166
presented at the 1997 European Formation Damage Conference,
June 2-3, The Hague.
6. Buijse, M.A. and Van Domelen, M.S.: Novel Application of
Emulsified Acids to Matrix Stimulation of Heterogeneous Forma-
tions, paper SPE 39583 presented at the 1998 International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Feb. 18-19, Lafayette,
LA.
7. Paccaloni, G.: A New, Effective Matrix Stimulation Diversion
Technique, paper SPE 24781 presented at the 67th Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 4-7, 1992, Washington, DC.
Acid stage 13/11% HCl/acetic
2% corrosion inhibitor
2% inhibitor intensifier
1% nonemulsifier
1% mutual solvent
0.5% synthetic polymer
ICA stage 5% HCl
2% corrosion inhibitor
2% inhibitor intensifier
2% synthetic polymer
crosslinker
buffer
crosslink breaker
Table 1Composition of Treatment Fluids
M. BUIJSE, R. MAIER, A. CASERO, S. FORNASARI SPE 58804 5
Before treatment 0.11
After squeeze of 5.5 m
3
HCl/acetic
0.53
After main treatment (total 146 m
3
acid)
11.5
22 hours after main treatment 15
After flow stabilization 14
a
Calculated from wellhead pressure
Table 3Productivity Index (PI)
a
, m
3
/day/bar
Step Fluid Type
Pumped
Volume
(m
3
)
Max. Pump
Rate
(bbl/min)
Max. Pump
Pressure
(psi)
1 Fresh water 5 3.3 6,450
2 Preflush 5.8 4.7 7,580
3 HCl/acetic 10 6.5 9,000
4 ICA 5 6.6 9,284
5 HCl/acetic 20 7.1 9,300
6 ICA 10 7.9 8,971
7 HCl/acetic 20 12.2 8,077
8 ICA 10 12.2 7,819
9 HCl/acetic 20 15.0 7,895
10 ICA 14 14.3 7,778
11 HCl/acetic 28 20.8 8,487
12 Displacement 30 21.3 8,419
13 Postflush 7 5.6 8,094
14 Overdisplacement 28 5.1 5,502
Table 2Main Acid Treatment Schedule
SUCCESSFUL HIGH-PRESSURE/HIGH-TEMPERATURE ACIDIZING WITH
IN-SITU CROSSLINKED ACID DIVERSION
6 SPE 58804
Figure 1Temperature cooldown profile during a treatment in a 6200 m well.
Figure 2Skin reduction as a function of acid volume for different injection rates and temperatures. Well
parameters: wellbore radius = 0.055 m., wellbore length = 150 m., damage radius = 0.4 m. Solid curves are
for T=100C, dashed curves for T=150C.
M. BUIJSE, R. MAIER, A. CASERO, S. FORNASARI SPE 58804 7
Fig. 3Core flow test at 148C to compare ICA and gelled acid. The core was 2.5 x 10 cm, and the rate
was 1 ml/min.
Fig. 4Core flow test at 176C to compare ICA and gelled acid. The core was 2.5 x 10 cm, and the rate was
2 ml/min.
SUCCESSFUL HIGH-PRESSURE/HIGH-TEMPERATURE ACIDIZING WITH
IN-SITU CROSSLINKED ACID DIVERSION
8 SPE 58804
Fig. 5Wellhead pressure and pump rate during main treatment.
Fig. 6Enlarged area of Fig. 5. First two stages of ICA enter formation. Pressure increases at arrows indicate
crosslinking and diversion.