An Effective Matrix Diversion Technique
for Carbonate Formations
Alan Saxon, SPE, and Belgacim Chariag, SPE, Schlumberger, and M. R. Abdel Rahman,* SPE, Abu Dhabi Co.
for Onshore Operations
Summary
The removal of formation skin damage from carbonate reservoirs
is ordinarily accomplished by stimulation with hydrochloric acid.
Uniform coverage of the zone being treated during matrix acidiz-
ing stimulations of carbonate reservoirs is an accepted1 require-
ment for successful treatment. However, the task of achieving
efficient diversion and uniform zonal coverage is often difficult
because of permeability heterogeneity within the treated interval.
In this article we describe a technique that has been used suc-
cessfully to divert treating fluids in carbonate formations.
Introduction
Effective placement of the stimulation fluids evenly across the
zones being treated has always been a prime concern during ma-
trix acidizing of carbonate formations. This problem is com-
pounded when treating long perforated intervals, zonal heteroge-
neities or open hole intervals 共especially in horizontal
completions兲.
In this article we describe a technique that has been used with
success in the U.A.E. to divert treating fluids in carbonate forma-
tions. Actual data from several wells, both vertical and horizontal,
that have been treated in different fields are presented. The meth-
odology of candidate well selection, treatment design, and execu-
tion is described along with documented pre- and post-stimulation
treatment production log assessments that verify the success of the
technique.
The diversion technique uses coiled tubing 共CT兲 for fluid de-
ployment and diversion of the treating fluid is accomplished by
employing a temporarily activated crosslinked gelled acid system.
The creation of the diverter gel structure is dependent on the pH
of the fluid and dissipates upon spending of the acid.
The impact, in terms of improvements in injectivity or produc-
tivity, on the wells treated using this process over other types of
diversion techniques used in the area, was significant and is docu-
mented.
Laboratory study data from carbonate core flow tests are also
included to illustrate how the diversion process physically mani-
fests itself and is used to substantiate the field successes that were
encountered using this matrix diversion technique.
Diversion Technique
Coiled Tubing. It is generally accepted that, where possible and
economically viable, CT should be employed for the placement of
matrix treatment fluids2 in both cased and openhole situations.
Bull headed matrix stimulation of carbonate reservoirs tends to
result in a nonuniform treatment.3 This is especially true when
long, openhole sections are being treated.
Diverting Agent. The effectiveness of using particulate diverters
in carbonate formations has been questioned3 and it is not pos-
sible, in most instances, to use them in conjunction with CTs.
Foam has been used with success in carbonate reservoirs4 for
some time but requires, in most cases, that additional equipment
be mobilized to the location for on-site generation of the foam.
*Now with Schlumberger.
Copyright © 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 62173) was revised for publication from paper SPE 37734, first presented
at the 1997 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Bahrain, 15–18 March. Original manuscript
received for review 15 March 1997. Revised manuscript received 26 October 1999. Paper
peer approved 30 November 1999.
SPE Drill. & Completion 15 共1兲, March 2000
Consequently, a need arose for an effective matrix diverting agent
for use in carbonate reservoirs that could be placed through CT
where it was not anticipated to require nitrogen on location for
post-treatment well lifting operations. A derivative of a fluid origi-
nally designed for controlling fluid loss in acid fracturing treat-
ments was found suitable as such a diverting agent.5
The fluid in question was an acid-based system that develops a
crosslinked gel structure as a function of changes in pH. Essen-
tially, the system crosslinks at approximately pH 3 and forms a
firm crosslinked structure. The crosslinked gel structure starts to
break at around pH 4 as the acid continues to spend itself until the
gel has a minimal final viscosity 共Fig. 1兲. No particulate solids are
employed in the system so there is negligible residual formation
damage.
Combination. The use of CT 共to optimize fluid placement兲 to-
gether with the temporary crosslinked gelled acid system 共as an
effective diverting medium兲 suggested a viable technique to im-
prove the diversion process when treating carbonate formations.
Field Experiences
Water Injector Application. Description. To attain water injec-
tion targets for an onshore field it was decided that a campaign of
matrix acidizing treatments would have to be performed on se-
lected wells. It was noticed that the injection rate of several well
clusters had declined while still being supplied with water at the
system header pressure of 2,000 psi. The water flood scheme was
an inverted five-spot pattern and the carbonate formation being
injected into had two main parts, designated zone A and zone B.
There were typically two sets of perforations associated with zone
A whereas zone B was perforated as a single layer. The reservoir
formation is of the Lower Cretaceous period and is an oolitic
limestone with several sublayers that are separated by thin stylo-
lite barriers. There are marked contrasts in layer permeability and
porosity. The average reservoir pressure is 3,100 psi and the depth
of pay is 8,700 ft with a corresponding bottomhole static tempera-
ture of 245°F.
Some 19 vertical injector wells were identified as underper-
forming, delivering 42% less than the targeted total daily water
injection rate for these clusters. These wells were candidates for
matrix stimulation.
It had been previously established that there was typically a
nonuniform injection profile between the two layers with zone B
taking a greater amount of water. A more uniform injection profile
was also sought for any stimulation treatment performed.
Pilot Study. To optimize the effectiveness of the treatment in
terms of injectivity improvement, keeping cost in mind, four pilot
injector wells were treated with different techniques and different
pumping service providers. The pilot wells were very similar to
one another in construction and completion 共vertical cased wells兲.
However, the two zones, A and B, had different permeabilities of
around 5 and 10 md, respectively. The injection profile of each
pilot well was determined through production logs before and
after performing the acidizing treatment on each well.
Evaluation. Because of the different permeabilities of zones A
and B, the four pilot wells were each treated differently 共Table 1兲
and from interpretation of the changes in injection 共Table 2兲 it
was possible to make a decision as to which was the most effec-
tive treatment technique. It was found that the treatment per-
formed on well 4 gave the best results and improvement in injec-
tion profile 共Fig. 2兲. Well 4 was treated with a 15% HCl acid
blend conveyed through CT and used a temporarily activated
1064-6671/2000/15共1兲/57/6/$5.00⫹0.50 57
 TABLE 1– PILOT WELL PROJECT: SYNOPSIS OF THE
TREATMENT

Well Acid system Diversion Placement

1 Regular 15% HCl None CT used

2 Regular 15% HCl Foam CT used
3 Gelled 15% HCl None Bull headed
4 Blended 15% HCl X-linked acid CT used

injection profile logs were run. The treatment also resulted in a

Fig. 1–Illustration of the concept of viscosity generation of the
crosslinked acid gel system as a function of pH and the result-
ant break in viscosity as the pH increases from continued acid
spending.
crosslinked gelled acid system as a diverter. There was a more
uniform distribution of injectivity in well 4 as a result of perform-
ing the acid treatment, with more favorable injection into zone A
共Fig. 3兲. Nodal analysis performed using pre- and post-treatment
injection data for well 4 indicated an improvement in the damage
skin from ⫹6 to ⫺2.5 共Fig. 4兲.
The acid placement technique of Well 4 was based upon the
pre-treatment injection survey results 共Table 3兲. It was found that
Zone B was accepting nearly 2.7 times the amount of water/ft of
perforated interval compared to Zone A. Also, Zone B was taking
64% of the volume of water injected into the well compared with
the 24 and 12% being accepted into perforated intervals A-1 and
A-2, respectively 共the injection profile correlated with the kh dis-
tribution of the intervals兲. Thus it was decided to attempt to place
a greater volume of acid into the zone taking the lesser amount of
water was done on an empirical basis using field experience from
other areas. The treatment program 共Table 4兲 called for placing
the 1.5 in. diameter CT across Zone B 共with the higher water
intake兲 and injecting the treating fluid followed by the diverter
into this zone, moving the CT to the lowermost zone, A-1 共with
the second highest water intake兲 and repeating the process, finally
moving the CT up to the middle set of perforations, A-2 共with the
lowest water intake兲 and stimulating that zone with the 15% HCl
acid blend. The CT was reciprocated across the perforated interval
while the treating fluid exited the pipe at a pump rate of 1.3 to 1.6
bbl/min.
A subsequent treatment using the same technique as employed
on well 4 was performed on an offset water injection well 共desig-
nated well 5兲 in the same field. Again, pre- and post-stimulation
marked improvement in injection profile 共Fig. 5兲 and nodal analy-
sis 共Fig. 6兲 indicated a reduction in the skin damage from ⫹5 to
⫺2.
Campaign Results. Following this a campaign of treating the
remaining candidate water injectors 共including those injectors
treated with other, less efficient techniques兲 was iniated. The re-
sults from the 19 water injectors treated 共with a 15% HCl acid
blend conveyed through CT and a temporarily activated
crosslinked gelled acid system diverter兲 yielded an increase of
47% in the daily volume of water injected in this area of the field.
Oil Producer Applications. Vertical Well. An oil producing ver-
tical well in the same field as the previous water injection treat-
ment campaign was identified as a candidate for stimulation. The
well, designated well 6, was producing 1,800 B/D of oil and some
additional layers were perforated and opened but their contribu-
tion to the flow was negligible. A stimulation treatment 共Tables 5
and 6兲 was performed on the well using CT and the temporary
crosslinked gelled acid as a diverting medium to effect acid place-
ment across the various perforated intervals.
During the treatment the impact of diversion from an increase
in pressure on the CT/tubing annulus 共the annulus was full of
crude oil兲 was witnessed on the surface. Through the addition of a
hydrostatic oil column a plot of bottomhole injection pressure
became available 共Fig. 7兲. From this plot an increase in bottom-
hole injection pressure of up to 700 psi was evident during the
diversion process. After treatment the well responded positively
with an increase in the oil rate of 60%.
Horizontal Well. In a nearby field, also in the U.A.E., an oil
producer and potential gas injector well, in a carbonate formation
was treated with a similar technique.
A new horizontal well 共Well 7兲 in this field was completed
openhole 共1,000 ft long horizontal, 6 in. diameter兲 in an oil zone.
The well geometry indicated that the horizontal section penetrated
the reservoir at 8,900 ft true vertical depth 共TVD兲. The well was
drilled so that it eventually functioned as a gas injector. Directly
after completion of the well a bull headed acid treatment was

TABLE 2– PILOT WELL INJECTION CHANGES

Specific
Perforated Injection Injectivity
Height Before After Change Change
Well Zone (ft) (B/D) (B/D) (B/D) (B/D)

1 B 20 785 1,694 909 45

A 32 491 524 33 1
Total 942 18
2 B 22 319 2,234 1,915 87
A 30 281 286 5 0
Total 1,920 37
3 B 16 760 1,090 330 20
A 24 374 123 ⫺251 ⫺10
Total 79 2
4 B 24 1,219 2,200 981 41
A 30 685 1,666 981 32
Total 1,962 36

58 Saxon, Chariag, and Rahman: Matrix Diversion Technique SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2000
 Fig. 4–Well 4 „water injector…: A reduction in skin damage from
¿6 to À2.5 as a result of the matrix treatment.

TABLE 3– WELL 4: DESIGNED ACID DISTRIBUTION

Water Intake HCl Acid Blend

Fig. 2–Illustration of the changes in injectivity for each pilot Zone (% Total B/D) (gal/ft)
well as a result of performing the matrix stimulation treatment
B 64 100
in terms of pre- and post-treatment injection for both layers.
Well 4 has a much more even post-treatment injection profile A-2 12 130
for both zones. A-1 24 110

performed but the results were not satisfactory. It was suspected

that the wellbore was damaged from the residual effects of the
drilling process.
There was a requirement that the eventual gas injection in the
openhole be as homogeneous as possible throughout the horizon-
tal section. The well was to be tested as an oil producer before
utilizing it as a gas injector.
A matrix acidizing treatment was designed to remedy the situ-
ation. The plan was to run pre- and post-treatment production logs
into the openhole section, however, operational problems pre-
vented the pre-treatment logging run from being made.
The well was treated with a 15% HCl acid blend that was
pumped through CT 共Table 7兲. A temporarily activated
crosslinked gelled acid system was used as the diverter.
Results. After the treatment the well was flowed and a produc-
tion log run 共Fig. 8兲. The results indicated a relatively even con-
tribution to the oil flow throughout the length of the horizontal
section 共the larger flow capacity at the upper portion of the open-
hole section was most likely a consequence of the previous bull
headed acid treatment兲. The production logging tools were only
able to penetrate 800 ft of the openhole section.

Laboratory Studies
Objective. In order to simulate the diversion process of the tem-
porarily crosslinked gelled acid, laboratory studies were per-
formed.

TABLE 4– WELL 4: OUTLINE OF THE MATRIX

TREATMENT

Stage Event Description

1 RIH with CT to bottom of Zone A-1

Fig. 3–Well 4: An overview of the pre- and post-treatment flow
profiles.
2 Wash all perforations with 500 gal of 15% HCl;
reciprocating CT across Zones A and B
3 With CT at bottom of Zone B inject 2,400 gal of 15 %
HCl blend while reciprocating CT across Zone B
4 With CT at top of Zone B inject 2,050 gal of diverter
acid with CT static
5 Run in with CT to bottom of Zone A-1, inject 1,900 gal
of 15% HCl while reciprocating CT across Zone A-1
6 With CT at top of Zone A-1, inject 1,450 gal of diverter
acid with CT static
7 Pick up CT to bottom of Zone A-2, inject 1,700 gal
of 15% HCl blend while reciprocating CT across
Zone A-2
8 Displace CT and overflush fluid into the formation

Saxon, Chariag, and Rahman: Matrix Diversion Technique SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2000 59
 TABLE 5– WELL 6: OUTLINE OF THE TREATMENT

Stage Event Description

1 Run in with CT and tag TD at 8,716 ft
2 Pump 200 gal of 15% HCl preflush; displace with crude
to lift fill
3 With CT at 8,686 ft, close well and pump 500 gal of
15% HCl preflush, while reciprocating across whole
set of perforations
4 Displace with diesel
5 With CT at 8,574 ft, inject 1,000 gal of 15% HCl acid
blend
6 Pick up CT to 8,574 ft and inject 850 gal of diverter
acid
7 Run in with CT to 8,615 ft and inject 800 gal of 15%
HCl acid blend while reciprocating CT between 8,615
and 8,648 ft
8 Pick up CT to 8,615 ft and inject 700 gal of diverter
acid
9 Run in with CT to 8,658 ft and inject 550 gal of 15%
HCl acid blend while reciprocating CT between 8,658
and 8,682 ft
10 Pick up CT to 8,574 ft and inject 2,500 gal of crude at
the highest matrix rate (pumping down the annulus
and the CT)

TABLE 6– WELL 6: INTERVALS TO BE TREATED

Interval Height
(ft) (ft) Sequence Treated

8,574 to 8,578 4 First

8,584 to 8,608 24
8,615 to 8,625 10 Second
8,636 to 8,648 12
8,658 to 6,666 8 Third
8,677 to 8,682 5

Fig. 5–Well 5: An overview of the pre- and post-treatment flow

profiles.

Fig. 7–Plot illustrating the impact of the diversion during the

Fig. 6–Well 5 „water injector…: A reduction in damage skin from
¿5 to À2 as a result of the matrix treatment is seen.
treatment on well 6. The right axis depicts bottomhole-treating
pressure. The left axis is the pump rate and time is indicated on
the horizontal axis. The events highlighted in the plot are „a…
injection of 500 gallon preflush and some crude ahead of the
acid; „b… injection of diesel ahead a 1,000 gallon 15% HCl blend;
„c… first stage of the diverter „850 gallons… reaches the perfora-
tions; „d… second stage of the diverter „700 gallons… reaches the
perforations; and „e… start of displacing down the CT and the
annulus with crude.

60 Saxon, Chariag, and Rahman: Matrix Diversion Technique SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2000
 TABLE 7– WELL 7: OUTLINE OF THE MATRIX TREATMENT

15% HCl Blend Diverter

Stage Section Length (ft) Vol (gal) Placement Vol (gal) Placement

1 10,553 to 10,353 2,500 2 passes 1,250 1 pass upwards

2 10,353 to 10,153 2,500 2 passes 1,250 1 pass upwards
3 10,153 to 9,953 2,100 2 passes 850 1 pass upwards
4 9,953 to 9,753 2,100 2 passes 850 1 pass upwards
5 9,753 to 9,653 850 2 passes 0

Fig. 8–Well 6 „horizontal oil producer…: Illustration of the post-treatment production profile along 800 ft of the 1,000 ft horizontal
wellbore.

Fig. 9–Impact of the temporarily activated crosslinked gelled acid in creating a reduction in the apparent permeability of two core
samples that were subject to simultaneous injection. The two core samples had different initial permeabilities „31 and 12 md…. It
is of note that there was a greater reduction in the apparent permeability of the higher permeability core as a result of the diverter.

Information Required. Limestone cores of widely varying per- Acid was then injected through the cores共s兲 at a set flow rate for
meability were placed in a simultaneous dual flow test apparatus the desired length of time. The process was then repeated for the
and subjected to the following test sequence: diverter and subsequent acid stages.
䊉 determine permeability of core to brine;

䊉 inject acid to create wormholes and measure acid injection
response;
䊉 inject temporarily crosslinked gelled acid to create diversion;
䊉 resume acid injection to evaluate the effectiveness of the di-
verter stage.
Procedure. The tests were carried out at 150°F and the system
was pressurized to 1,000 psi using 2% KCl. Once the system
pressure was equalized, differential pressure was applied across
the cores and the KCl solution was injected at a manually set flow
rate. Once the differential pressure across the core共s兲 became con-
stant it was noted and derived core permeabilities were calculated.
Results. Several dual flow tests were carried out on cores of vary-
ing permeabilities. The indications were that the temporarily
crosslinked gelled acid diverter created an apparent permeability
reduction in the cores.* It was noted that this reduction in perme-
ability was more noticeable in the core with the higher permeabil-
ity than in the core with the lower permeability that was in tandem
with it 共Fig. 9兲. From the results of the laboratory testing it was
evident that
*Crowe, C. and Grannan, S.: Internal Schlumberger Dowell Report 共April 1993兲.

Saxon, Chariag, and Rahman: Matrix Diversion Technique SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2000 61
 䊉 temporarily crosslinked gelled acid is highly effective in re- Openhole Completion,’’ paper SPE 25412 presented at the 1993
ducing the flow of acid into permeable carbonates, and Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 3–6
䊉 injection of a temporarily crosslinked gelled acid stage would April.
redistribute flow, preferentially diverting acid from more to less 4. Zerhboub, M. et al.: ‘‘Matrix Acidizing: A Novel Approach to Foam
permeable zones. Diversion,’’ paper SPE 22854 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 6–9 October.
Conclusions 5. Mukherjee, H. and Cudney, G.: ‘‘Extension of Acid Fracture Penetra-
1. The combination of employing CT and a temporarily tion by Drastic Fluid-Loss Control,’’ JPT 共February 1993兲 102.
crosslinked gelled acid system as a diverting agent has proved
effective as a diversion process in carbonate formations.
2. A comparison between pre- and post-treatment flow profiles SI Metric Conversion Factors
indicated a more uniform placement of acid was accomplished by bbl ⫻ 1.589 874 E⫺01 ⫽ m3
use of this technique. gal ⫻ 3.785 412 E⫺03 ⫽ m3
3. The diversion technique has application in oil producers and ft ⫻ 3.048 E⫺01 ⫽ m
water injection wells 共both vertical and horizontal兲. in. ⫻ 2.54 E⫹00 ⫽ cm
4. Laboratory testing indicated that the temporarily crosslinked psi ⫻ 6.894 757 E⫹00 ⫽ kPa
gelled acid was effective in the redistribution of flow between
°F (°F⫺32)/1.8 ⫽ °C
zones of contrasting permeabilities.
SPEDC
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of Schlumberger
Dowell and of the Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Operations Alan Saxon is the Marketing Manager for Schlumberger in
共ADCO兲 for their permission to publish this article. Libya. He holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from
North Staffordshire Polytechnic and a degree from IFP. Saxon
References serves on the SPE Young Member Outstanding Service Award
1. Economides, M. and Nolte, K.: Reservoir Simulation, second edition, Committee. Belgacim Chariag is the Operations Manager
Prentice–Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 共1989兲 for Schlumberger in Qatar. He holds a BS degree in petroleum
2. Thomas, R.L. and Milne, A.: ‘‘The Use of Coiled Tubing During engineering from the U. of Texas. Mohamed Reda Abdel Rah-
Matrix Acidizing of Carbonate Reservoirs,’’ paper SPE 29266 pre- men is the Production Enhancement Group Manager
sented at the 1995 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Kuala for Schlumberger in Canada. He previously was a senior pro-
Lumpur, 20–22 March. duction engineer with Abu Dhabi Co. in Abu Dhabi. Abdel
3. Ginest, N.H. et al.: ‘‘Field Evaluation of Acid simulation Diverter Rahmen holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering from
Materials and Placement Methods in Arab-D Injection Wells With Cairo U.

62 Saxon, Chariag, and Rahman: Matrix Diversion Technique SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2000