SPE-199812-MS

Effective Wellbore Cleanup and Improvement of Injection Performance and

Conformance Using Coil Tubing Conveyed Tool for Waveform Dominated
Fluid Dispersion and Pin-Point Chemical Placement During Well Stimulation

Ankesh Nagar, Cairn Oil & Gas Vedanta Limited; Brett Davidson, Wavefront Technology Solutions Inc; Preyas
Srivastava, Nakul Verma, Pranay Shrivastava, Satish Kumar Nekkanti, Avinash Bohra, and Sanjeev Vermani, Cairn
Oil & Gas Vedanta Limited

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, TX, USA, 24-25 March 2020.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Poor conformance is a major concern of Mangala, Bhagyam & Aishwarya (MBA) fields. The presence
of high permeability streaks or thief layers between injection and production wells typically results in
pre-mature water breakthrough, high water cut and deficient volumetric sweep. As a result, significant
oil volumes in the reservoir may not be contacted by the injection fluid. Another concern is of low VRR
(Voidage Replacement Ratio) in some of the layers due to reduced injectivity in those sands. Consequently,
it has led to poor recovery from those sands. It is also a growing problem with the polymer deposition taking
place in the wellbore particularly Mangala (undergoing full-field polymer flooding), leading to challenging
wellbore cleanup operations.
Several methods have been used in the past, both mechanical and chemical to improve the treatment fluids
during stimulation. In this paper, we introduce a novel placement technique for Conformance Improvement
which is practical, effective and durable as well as another tool variant that helps cleanup challenging
wellbore environments. Typically, prior to the tool allowing for pin-point placement, the adjustable nozzle
tool is run to ensure that the perforation and wellbore is cleaned up thoroughly with help of advanced
fluid dynamics. The dynamic injection modulation (hereinafter referred to as, "DIM") tool for pin-point
stimulation placement improves the distribution of injected fluid in the reservoir matrix by the process of
dispersion. The tool generates an energized fluid pulse that allows fluid to be diverted away from established
fluid paths. The pressure pulse, as it travels dilates the pore spaces thus propagating the wave further into the
reservoir. The pin-point accuracy of placements leads to treating of reservoir layers which are left untreated
during conventional stimulation treatments where viscous fingering effects dominate. As a result, injection
fluid would divert into uncontacted layers to improve sweep efficiency. The other advantage of the tool is
the relatively easy integration of tool with existing infrastructure. The tool is easily run with coiled tubing
("CT") with only addition of an accumulator unit on surface.
This paper will document the tool physics, job design and Implementation technique for stimulation
using Fluid Modulation tool as well enhanced well cleanup. Particular attention is paid to multiple injector
2 SPE-199812-MS

and producer well stimulation case studies from these fields, the challenges faced, the solution proposed,
and finally the results obtained. The results observed across the field with respect to injection performance
is consistently greater than 75% over conventional methods used earlier. Also specifically, in scenarios of
difficult fill cleanups, the advanced wellbore cleanup tool variant helped in multiple polymer and sand fill
environment cleanouts over various wells over conventional methods of cleanup.

Introduction
The quest to discovering Mangala, Bhagyam & Aishwarya field in Northwestern part of India (Figure 1),
started with a few small discoveries made in southern Barmer Basin. But the development accelerated in
2004 with the discovery of large shallow tilted fault-block reservoirs in Fatehgarh sandstones in northern
area of the basin (Compton 2009; Kothari et al. 2014). The Mangala original oil in place (OOIP) 1,300
x 10^6 bbl, Bhagyam (500 x 10^6 bbl and Aishwarya (300 x 10^6 bbl) Fatehgarh fields are collectively
referred to as MBA.

Figure 1—Geographic Location of RJ-ON-90/1 Block in India

MBA Fatehgarh sandstones have excellent reservoir properties, with porosities of 20-35% and high
permeabilities that range up to 20 darcies or more (Beliveau 2007). Regionally, the Fatehgarh can be roughly
divided into a lower section dominated by multistory braided streams and an upper section dominated by
single-storey meandering streams.
The Upper Fatehgarh (UF) and Lower Fatehgarg (LF) can be further split into members based on detailed
stratigraphy; for example, at Aishwarya, the UF is split into FA1, FM2 while LF is split into FA3, FA4,
and FA5. In terms of reservoir quality, Bhagyam has the highest overall net-to-gross (NTG) and some of
the highest core permeabilities in the basin, followed by Mangala and Aishwarya (Shankar et al. 2019). It
is not surprising that Fatehgrag properties degrade slightly as depth increases from Bhagyam to Mangala
to Aishwarya.
From a fluids perspective, the MBA Fatehgarh oils have some unusual properties that lead to a few
developments with respect to north production and injection challenges. The oils are lacustrine-sources,
and thus very waxy, with average viscosities in the main oil columns of 7-30cp and Wats are a few degrees
lower than their respective reservoir temperatures, which range from 50 to 75 deg C. Other properties are
tabulated as per Table 1 below:
SPE-199812-MS 3

Table 1—Key Fluid properties by field

The MBA fields were developed with waterfloods using various combinations of patterns and edge line-
drives (depending on the specific field and reservoir member). It is important to re-emphasize that all the
injection water is heated above reservoir temperature to minimize potential for any wax dropout in-situ. In
order to overcome adverse mobility ratio and improve sweep efficiency thereby increased oil recovery, the
potential for chemical enhanced oil recovery (EOR) had been recognized from an early stage in the field
development, with polymer flooding identified for early implementation, with a follow up plan of stage
wise implementation of Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP) injection especially for Mangala.
Over past two years, the Mangala field polymer injectors have displayed multiple injectivity issues. In
addition, the Aishwarya and Bhagyam fields are dealing with low Void Replacement Ratios (VRR) for
their ongoing water injection, which if not rectified could adversely affect recovery. While various types of
injector stimulations are being used, injectivity increases are short lived. On the other hand, the Mangala
& Aishwarya field producers have observed increasing polymer concentration in producer wells and have
found to create ‘polymer debris deposition’ (Mittal et al, 2018) - inorganic scale debris agglomerated with
polymer and waxy oil making debris; which sticks at tubing walls, inside ESP/Jet pumps and at sand face
effecting the productivity as well as injectivity of some polymer injection wells.
The typical well construction (Panigrahi et al., 2016) of particularly the injectors across MBA are of
two types: Light Monobore and Heavy Selective Injectors as shown in Figure 2. The third type is a pre-
producer converted injector which were intially drilled and completed to produce and later with respect to
pattern requirements converted into injection particularly for ppolymer injection. The monobores injectors
are typically drileld in water leg of Fatehgarg formation while to address multi sand conformance, selective
completion design was in place. The design would help improve the areal and vertical sweep efficiency,
regulate and control the vertical conformance in injectors and aid in analysing inference between different
sand units that could be used to understand the field heterogeneties. But the very nature of reduced velocities
up the tubing from perforations also causes issues w.r.t inefficient lifting during wellbore cleanout especially
while lifting waxy/polymer debris.
4 SPE-199812-MS

Figure 2—(a) 4-1/2" Monobore Injector (b) 7" Heavy Selective Injector (c) Pre-Producer Converted Injector

Before we go further into understanding the injecitvity and conformance challenges for some of the
fields, it is important to understand that in any typical water or polymer flood management system/
field, maintaining optimum Voidage replacement Ratio (VRR) is most crucial for optimizing reservoir
performance and in a patternflood, a single injectors typically supports many nearby producers as well to
influence its performance.
For example, in Mangala (FM-1 reservoir member) was developed in an inverted 9 spot pattern hot water
injection floor from 2009-2015 (Grover et al., 2019) and then put under pattern polymer injection with infill
drilling to reduce the spacing and convert the patterns from inverted nine spot to five spot. At present, a total
of 55 number of 5 spot patterns are producing about ~ 55K BOPD of oil and injecting ~ 200,000 BWPD of
polymer solution at wellhead viscosity of 20-25 cp. The polymer flood impact was seen in terms of reduction
in layer water cut and well level water cut. Since start of 2018 (when this tool was brought in for trial as
well), water cut increase has been observed in many wells, which resulted in a higher decline rate. With the
processing facility operating at its liquid handling capacity limit, maintaining production therefore becomes
even more challenging. To add to this situation, conformance in polymer injectors which is often poor and
gets worse overtime of injected volumes, leads to an inefficient sweep and higher liquid production. Also
there are injectors, in which the injectivity itself reduces due to induced scaling (Fes/CaCo3) as well as near
wellbore damage/perforation blockage from total suspended solids (TSS) and oil-in-water (OIW) present in
the injection water which is further impacted by any incompatibility due to poor mixing of polymer mother
solution at the wellhead. Often, debris fill up has been observed in injection wells across perforations as
well as inside or sticking on tubulars.
This has necessitated the need for improved wellbore cleanout, injectivity improvement and conformance
improvement treatments across MBA particularly Mangala & Aishwarya undergoing polymer injection.

Injectivity and Conformance Challenges

Dynamic pressure data and WFT (Wireline Formation Tester) acquired in wells across Fategarh formation
showed a differential pressure of 350-500psi in the different sand units. Varying level of depletions observed
SPE-199812-MS 5

across the Fatehgarh formation in development wells suggested that these are different channel sand units
with varying static and dynamic properties in the Fatehgarh formation. These MDT data suggests lack
of vertical communication between sands units that further validates the distinct nature of each sand
unit. Moreover, Injection Profile Logs (IPLs) acquired in injectors show variable injectivity in units.
However, it is also observed that wells with initial better conformance; over volumes and time of injection
particularly once switched to polymer injection; resulted in further poorer conformance. These differences
in conformance and contract in injectivity of the sand unit and within them overtime leads to premature
breakthrough or ‘water cycling’ even in the most prolific sand units.

Figure 3—Example of Injection profile logs (IPL) - Poor Conformance

The other aspect of poor conformance during polymer injection is the process that typically occurs during
polymer injection into formations. During the first phase of injection as shown in Figure 4, the polymers
are severely degraded in the near wellbore region due to typical Darcy flow velocities larger than 10m/
d (Stavland et al. 2010). The bottomhole pressure slowly increases due to the injection of higher viscous
fluids than water. In second phase, after the Formation Parting Pressure (FPP) is reached, conditions change
substantially. The flow velocities in the formation decrease, the polymer get less sheared, polymers show
shear-thinning behavior within fractures but overall conformance gets skewed towards sand sections with
the least FPP.
6 SPE-199812-MS

Figure 4—Phase wise effects during HPAM polymer Solution injection into vertical wells (Clemens et al. 2013).

With respect to importance of achieving targeted injection volumes for a polymer flooded reservoir,
VRR plays a crucial role. VRR is the ratio of injection reservoir volume to the produced reservoir volume.
Therefore, in case VRR drops, it would mean that we would effectively push less reservoir fluid and
in simple terms reduce the effective reservoir fluid recovery. For the understanding of cases of polymer
injectors losing injectivity over a period, fundamentally polymer rheology and adsorption on core tests need
to conduct extensively to understand the baseline impact. In case of MBA although these two factors were
found to be satisfactory, the following factors have been found to responsible towards a reduced injection
performance (Glasbergen et al., 2015):

• Water Quality – Typically affected by types of contaminants such as clays, scale, bacteria and oil
droplets (Barkman et al., 1972). Produced water containing high amounts of solids or produced oil
droplets can cause injectivity issues in water injectors. While in polymer injectors, adding polymer
to such water, worsens the situation due to increased viscosity and possible interaction between
polymer and solids or between polymer and possible divalent species or trivalent iron content.
• Polymer Impurities: Impurities such as micro gel, cross-linked polymer particles or additives that
remain from the polymer manufacturing process as well as low cloud point polymers for a heated
water systems such as ours, can contribute to being another source of injectivity decline.
• Polymer Preparation: Improper Polymer Mother Solution Mixing with Hot Injection Water to
achieve desired viscosity at wellhead (from achieving a desired dilution ration) leading to fish eyes/
polymer lumps in injectors.
• Incompatibilities: The combination of solids, scales or oil and water and the polymer could cause
additional problems (Mittal et al, 2018). The same HPAM polymer that is used in EOR is also used
for water treatment and is designed to flocculate solids or oil to clean up the water. This can result in
a reduced polymer viscosity because some of the polymer is used for flocculation. It can also result
in larger size clusters due to agglomeration of polymer and particles. The larger clusters could filter
on the sand face and form an external filter cake. In serve cases, us as ours, the flocculation can
result in gels when inter-molecular (or inter-particle) cross-linking takes place.
SPE-199812-MS 7

• Infrastructure: Sources such as surface lines and completions that are used for transport of the
polymer solution from mixing facility to reservoirs; when susceptible to corrosion in lines or
accumulated gunk; can be made mobile by injection of a polymer solution. Subsequently, these
corrosion products can together with the polymer solution form a substance that cannot be injected
hence leading to plugged off perforations.
A combination of the above factors leads to the complete or a majority of perforations being blocked,
and debris build-up within the tubulars and wellbore all of which eventually severely impact well injection.
With such relevance of injection and conformance across the three mature fields, within a challenging
environment of polymer induced damage, scaling and waxy oil; it was necessary to evaluate the current
technology set that the industry offers for enhanced wellbore cleanouts and fluid distribution during
stimulation with precise control while being economical. The need for further fueled by learning how
conventional techniques were not resulting in desirable results.

Oil Industry Fluid Placement Tool and Stimulation Concepts

In the oil and gas industry various fluid placement techniques to optimize fluid injection or to clean
the wellbore and near-wellbore region are utilized. The physics behind these techniques vary as do the
applications (Geilikman, 1993; Spanos 2001; Spanos et al 2017).
Below we describe the three common groups of tools and stimulation concepts, Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5—Oil and gas industry common tool concepts and stimulation approaches

Figure 6—Depth of fluid penetration associated with common tool concepts and stimulation approaches
8 SPE-199812-MS

Pressure-Based
Spinning jetting tools and open coiled tubing CT represent pressure-based stimulation concepts having no
associated waveform being generated on fluid release. Both approaches provide a constant output of fluid
at a pressure associated with pump and nozzle size. In most cases both injections methods are used solely
with fluid however in certain instances an abrasive may be added in association with a spinning jetting tool
as a means to remove scale in tubulars. Spinning jetting tools provide for very near wellbore stimulation
with an approximate depth of fluid penetration into the reservoir matrix of 2".

Energy-Based (Acoustic-Based)
Energy-based or acoustic-based tools are characterized as low amplitude, high frequency devices that create
waveforms that are very flat (low changes in pressure) and resemble a sine wave. Tool designs generally
use some form of fluid manipulation to generate an acoustic response. Acoustic concepts provided for near
wellbore stimulation with a maximum depth of fluid penetration to be ≤6".

Acceleration/Momentum Based (high amplitude; low frequency)

The waveform associated with an acceleration/momentum-based tool has a saw-tooth shape and is
characterized as high amplitude, low frequency. Tools are generally designed to be an open/closed concept
of a sliding valve. The instantaneous sharp change in pressure (amplitude) in a very short period (rise time)
directs flow radially into the formation with significantly more energy, greater distribution, and depth of
penetration than other approaches described herein. Acceleration/momentum-based tools provide for deep
matrix stimulation with fluid penetration measured in excess of 36" (Davidson et al, 2018; Panter, 2008;
Coffey, 2012; Webb et al, 2006).

Limitations of Conventional Stimulation and Cleanup Techniques

Typically placing acid into a well through bullheading requires a thorough tubing pickling and at times
wellbore cleanout to ensure that the resulting treatment does not induce damage due to debris/impurities
within the wellbore getting into the formation. Even after adoption and execution of best of tubing pickling
practices, typically the bullheading treatments have found to give lesser effective treatments when compared
with acid or treatment placement using coil tubing (Wayne et al., 2003). The typical understanding suggests
that having the stimulation fluid enter the well via a dedicated conduit, adjacent to all points along the
length of a treatment interval would give better fluid placement and distribution into the formation than
fluid simply taking the least resistance and will, therefore, flow into the areas of highest permeability, the
ones generally least in need of stimulation fluid. Other diversion techniques such as benzoic flakes, rock
salt etc. are employed to improve treatment distribution especially during bullheading, but the success are
fairly limited. To achieve pin-point diversion using particulates with coiled tubing ("CT") has a limited
application due to solids being too coarse to pump through nozzles and nozzles themselves being small
typical of CT BHA’s.
The point where the comparison becomes interesting is cost. In general the difference in cost between
bullheaded treatments and CT placed treatments is the cost of CT Unit itself. Treatment volumes are
designed on a per foot basis and such placement techniques do not factor into total volumes pumped. The
additional cost of CTU needs to be traded off with the improved stimulation results and a techno-commercial
decision needs to be taken. In our case, not only we have found CT based stimulations to perform better
than bullheaded stimulation, but we also found that high pressure jetting tools in general provided better
results than simply spotting and squeezing or reciprocating CT through a typical five-port nozzle. Although
given the challenging conditions of cleanout and fluid placement, it was important to established a detailed
understanding of current set of tools in the industry (as in previous section) and the factors that influence
SPE-199812-MS 9

fluid placement in porous media; to arrive to better version of tools that can enable us to do so. The paper
will also cover actual well examples where repeated conventional cleanout did not lead to desirable results
and results later could only be achieved by the fluid pulsing cleanout tool.
When looking at the board spectrum of tools for wellbore; near wellbore; and, deep matrix stimulation it
important to bear in mind the energy that tool types bring to the system as such energy impacts the efficiency
of cleaning; matrix penetration; and, fluid dispersion. Figure 7 presents a scorecard related to such efficiency
for the cross-section of approaches discussed in this paper. It is clear from the author’s conclusions that
coiled tubing squeezing or bullheading would be the least favourable for either cleaning efficiency; matrix
penetration; or fluid dispersion. While a jetting tool is more favorable than an acceleration-based tool due to
the type of energy imposed on the system it is an acoustic-based tool that would provide the most efficient
cleaning capacity. In terms of matrix penetration and fluid dispersion efficiency an acceleration-based tool
eclipses all other tool types while an acoustic tool fairs much better than a jetting tool.

Figure 7—Efficiency tool types for cleaning; matrix penetration; and, fluid dispersion

Understanding Fluid Placement in Pours Media

Physics of Dynamic Fluid Modulation ("DIM")
Fluid placement through DIM is the application of pressure variations at the megascale (Darcy scale) to
cause dynamic flow processes at the pore scale. It enhances fluid injection and conformance of the injected
phase. In the past, models of porous media have been based on the thermodynamics of molecular mixtures.
This however does not account for dynamic variables, associated with DIM, such as porosity and saturation
which describe the effect of mechanical work at the pore scale and how it affects the dynamics at the
megascale.
Molecular diffusion, pore scale dispersion and megascale viscous fingering represent processes
associated with the mixing of the fluids at the molecular scale, at the macroscale (pore scale) and the
megascale respectively. Diffusion represents the mixing of the fluids at the molecular scale through the
molecular diffusion of the phases. Dispersion occurs due to an adverse viscosity ratio, a variation in flow
velocities within pores and due to pore and throat size distribution, all of which cause the fluids to mix at the
pore scale and to remain distinct phases at the molecular scale. Viscous fingering is caused by an unstable
mobility ratio between a displacing and displaced phase resulting in megascopic channels of the displacing
phase passing through the displaced phase. The primary objectives of DIM are to enhance fluid injection,
sweep efficiency and dispersion.
In the case of immiscible fluid flow the equations of motion for flow in porous media have been based on
Muscat’s equations. Here two equations identical in form to Darcy’s equation are used to describe fluid flow
10 SPE-199812-MS

and a concept called relative permeability is hypothesized which simply replaces permeability in Darcy’s
equation. However through simple thought experiments, this system of equations may be seen to not be
self-consistent and to be incomplete. What is missing from this description is that there are four independent
permeability type terms; two in each equation, and more important there is a new dynamic variable requiring
an additional equation to completely specify Newton’s second law. The additional equation of motion allows
for the dispersional motion of the fluid phases, which is enhanced by DIM.
In the case of miscible flow in porous media the convection diffusion equation has been used in analogy
with diffusive flow in the absence of a porous medium. The volume flux is used in place of the mass flux,
the Dupuit-Forcheimer assumption. In this description dispersion is not being accounted for except through
modifications of the dispersion tensor. In the proper description a Fokker-Plank equation is obtained and
again the large scale mass fraction (megascopic concentration) brings additional saturation type information
into the flow requiring an additional equation similar to the case of immiscible flow.
In the case of solid deformations, Biot theory has been used extensively. However this theory assumes
that a single energy potential can be constructed for a porous medium thus eliminating porosity as a dynamic
variable at the outset. As a result this theory lacked a degree of freedom required to completely specify
Newton’s second law. This eliminated the fluid flow associated with elastic deformations of the matrix and
thus porosity waves. Here porosity waves, which carry fluid through the medium, are allowed when porosity
becomes a dynamic variable.
The theory behind DIM has been shown to be more rigorous than previous theories, as it predicts certain
effects that classical theory cannot. Among the predicted effects that arise from solutions to the series of
equations is the existence of a porosity dilation wave that propagates at a velocity approximately 1/20th of
the compressional and shear waves (vP, vS). This wave has been measured and detected in wave trains; its
velocity is a function of the viscosity and compressibility of the phases, as well as the stress and density in
situ. In fact, the porosity dilation wave is in many ways analogous to a tsunami, which is a displacement
wave (rather than a strain wave) in water that also travels at a small fraction of the P-wave velocity. The
porosity dilation wave has a velocity that is governed by the speed at which a displacement wave can travel
in the liquid; in other words, its speed is that at which pore liquids behave incompressibly.
The micromechanical implications of a porosity dilation wave are very important. As the slow wave
moves through the porous medium at a velocity of 80-200 m/s, elastic pore volume dilation and contraction
takes place. This leads to large inertial effects at the pore throat scale because at these frequencies the pore
liquids behave incompressibly. These inertial effects provide additional forces to the liquids; for example,
accelerations applied to capillary interfaces between immiscible phases generate real forces: F = ma. These
can help overcome the pressure barriers that arise because of the surface tension, helping the immobile
phase to traverse through the pore throats and establish phase continuity.

Simplified Description of DIM

It is well established that a major contributor to the ability of fluids to flow in the ground is the size
of the pore spaces within rocks and soils. This is termed porosity. It is also well established that the
greatest obstacle to overall fluid injection and fluid recovery is related to pore space size and how efficient
fluids flow in interconnected pore pathways. This is termed "permeability". If pore space size and pore
interconnectivity govern fluid flow when extracting a liquid such as the case in oil production then those
same characteristics also govern how well a fluid can be injected and distributed into the ground. Hence,
porosity and permeability control both fluid extraction and fluid injection.
Assume water is going to be injected into the reservoir formation under constant pressure for the purpose
of establishing a drive mechanism during secondary oil recovery. This is referred to as "static water
injection" (Figure 8). Nature has set up a system of pores and pore interconnectivity. This can be somewhat
altered by processes such as fracturing or tectonic activity (earthquakes) but all things being equal it is
a pre-determined system. Flow rate and the distribution of the liquid injected into the rock formation are
SPE-199812-MS 11

dominated by that pre-determined system. The easiest explanation is that the pre-determined system is the
path of least resistance to flow. It is difficult to alter the path of least resistance simply by increasing the
pressure by which the liquid is injected. Furthermore, it is almost technically impractical for that water to
be distributed outside the path of least resistance. The term used in the oil industry referring to the efficacy
of how injected liquid is distributed is "sweep efficiency" or "displacement efficiency". Why does the path
of least resistance dominate? The answer is quite simple. Pore space size and pore interconnectivity remain
constant throughout the entire process. The same fundamental thought process can be applied to injection
during well stimulation – the predetermined system of pore and pore connectivity governs the "placement
efficiency" or sweep efficiency of treatment fluids.

Figure 8—Mechanisms of fluid flow for steady-state versus DIM

Now assume an acid is going to be injected into the reservoir formation for stimulation purposes
under constant pressure but an intermittent dynamic force is superimposed on that process. This is termed
"dynamic enhancement" or "dynamic flow". The magnitude and duration of the dynamic force is calculable
for every given rock. DIM intermittently changes both the size of the pore space and pore interconnectivity
through the applied dynamic force. How is this accomplished? DIM relies on the elastic properties of rocks
and soils. When a dynamically modulated fluid pulse is applied through the injected liquid it dilates the
pore space through an elastic response. This in turn causes not only the pre-determined pore network to
increase in size and interconnectivity but also opens up additional pore spaces to flow. Hence, DIM governs
how flow occurs because it overcomes the path of least resistance. The result is greater sweep or placement
efficiency. This represents greater overall post-stimulation gains of longer sustainability because a greater
volume of the reservoir rock was contacted by the treatment fluids.

How DIM enhances fluid placement in porous media

DIM Tool Development
With DIM the treatment fluid is pulsed into the formation and fluids flow into formation as a sequence of
waves and the pressure is increased in the reservoir proximal to tool placement. The optimum velocity range
12 SPE-199812-MS

of the wave generated by the tool (Figure 9) assuming water and silica sand is between 80m/sec (~260ft/
sec) and 350m/sec (~1,150ft/sec). This range is a function of pulse rise time which leads to dilation of the
pore space through an elastic response.

Figure 9—Optimum range of wave velocity associated with DIM to dilate the porous medium

The operating parameters for tool design to achieve maximized placement efficiency throughout the
reservoir considered as major design factors: pulse rise time and pulse amplitude. Pulse pressure decay and
pulse period are secondary attributes resulting from the interaction between tool functionality and reservoir
properties. These terms are defined below.
The DIM tool is a magnetic-based device that utilizes the sudden movement of a piston to create an
instantaneous high-amplitude impulse of high acceleration fluid pulse. The sudden acceleration forces the
liquid to be expelled into the reservoir proximal to the tools position with a sharp rise time, causing a
packet of porosity dilation waves to propagate from the well. The DIM tool can be pre-set for amplitudes
from 300psi (~2,070kPa) to 1,500psi (~10,350kPa). In almost all cases due to instantaneous displacement
efficiency the fluid pulse amplitude does not exceed the local fracture pressure of the porous medium.
Displacement efficiency being the percentage of net fluid volume entering the medium relative to the
volume injected during a pulse. The repetitious impulses create extremely high mixing in the near-wellbore
environment (sloshing in and out of the pore space), and the injected fluids will be well dispersed in the
porous medium because of the suppression of advective instabilities (i.e. viscous fingers). As liquids are
injected in this manner the displacement front progresses more uniformly, allowing for maximized contact
of the treatment fluid with the reservoir matrix.

DIM Modeling
Prior to any DIM stimulation a proprietary model is utilized to evaluate dynamic fluid pulsing efficiency
versus stead-state injection (Figure 10). The comparison utilizes a theoretical and computational model of
the DIM process and of viscous fingering. From the model then flows a precise pumping schedule to achieve
pin-point injection of treatment fluids along the completed interval of the reservoir.
SPE-199812-MS 13

Figure 10—Permeability profile, contact volumes, and porosity profile of each treatment layer

The volumetric sweep efficiency, Ev of the DIM process is primarily dependent upon the shape of
the fluid dispersion curve used by the model. From theory this curve has a similar shape across a broad
range of formation parameters and fluid pulse rates. Any variations in the shape due to variations in the
formation parameters like permeability are quite small and marginally impact output results. For all well
stimulation comparisons a theoretical dispersion curve based on permeability is utilized; and for these curves
the computed value of Ev is approximately 40% to 50%.
In addition to the above for the comparative analysis of Ev of non-DIM versus DIM fluid placement a
viscous fingering model is employed to represent the average behavior of viscous fingers that occur during
well stimulation. This model has a few input parameters to control the shape and evolution of the viscous
fingers. The most important of these input parameters is Ev. In the model Ev may vary from 10% to 35%
(or more) depending on the thickness of the fingers and the density of the fingers (i.e. the distance between
fingers). For the comparisons the same viscous fingering curve is used for all comparisons where Ev has a
value of 20%. This choice represents the assumption that by following the path of least resistance viscous
fingers bypass a large amount of in-situ fluid.

DIM Stimulation Procedure

Once a well is modeled and program for stimulation it is subject to a two-step DIM process involving a near
wellbore cleaning/stimulation stage followed by a main treatment phase involving deep matrix penetration.
The wellbore cleaning phase employs a multi-directional, cavitation-based fluid pulsing tool (MDCT) which
falls under the classification of an energy-based (acoustic) tool (Figure 11). The cavitation-based tool creates
a water hammering affect to remove detritus materials from the wellbore through a process called, cavitation
erosion and also acts to condition the near wellbore (≤6") region. The main treatment phase employs the
magnetic-based DIM flow-driven tool (Figure 12).

Figure 11—Multi-directional, cavitation-based (acoustic) fluid pulsing tool

Figure 12—Magnetic-based flow-driven DIM tool

14 SPE-199812-MS

What is cavitation and cavitation erosion? Cavitation is the formation of empty cavities in a liquid,
followed by their immediate and sudden implosion. Cavitation usually occurs when a liquid is subjected to
rapid changes in pressure that cause the formation of cavities in the liquid where the pressure is relatively
low. When subjected to higher pressure, the voids implode generating dynamic, intense shockwaves and a
water hammering effect. The high intensity localized energy released from the bubble implosion is strong
enough to cause yield and failure of solid materials through a process called, ‘cavitation erosion’, which
beneficially removes detritus materials often occurring in oil and gas production or injection wells.
Operationally the MDCT has two operating modes: extended and retrieved. In the extended mode the
tubulars and wellbore are subject to 360° of fluid flow through twelve fluid ports: 4 ports in the nose
cone and 8 ports in the main body. The two flow structures are joined by a slider that is fully extended in
its base condition allowing for all 12 ports to expel fluid. As the CT ingresses into the wellbore and the
cleaning procedure continues all 12 ports will continue to expel fluid with strong oscillatory motions. If a
fluid blockage or "tag" is encountered the weight placed on the tool by the CT will move the slider to the
retrieved position. The retrieved position disengages flow in the main body and now all fluid flow is directed
downward through the 4 ports in the nose. The repeated water hammer and shockwave effects initiated
by the cavitating action of the tool impacts the blockage through cavitation erosion causing yielding and
failure of the solid material. As the blockage is removed the fluid pressure in the CT begins the re-engage
the slider until it is fully extended and all 12 ports of the tool are again expelling fluid. This process may
repeat throughout a cleaning operation depending on the number of blockages encountered.
As previously noted the DIM tool operates entirely on a pressure differential where the opening and
closing of a downward shifting piston allows fluid to exit the tool at high acceleration and be force injected
deeper into the matrix while at the same time providing for more uniform distribution along the entire
completed interval.
Why employ a two-step process? While the DIM tool works effectively as a matrix stimulation method
to force inject fluids outside of the path of least resistance and deep into the reservoir it is not well suited
to scale and fill removal. This is because the energy content, or waveform, generated by the tool is that of a
high-amplitude; low frequency saw-tooth wave. In contrast, devices like the multi-directional, cavitation-
based tool that generate higher frequencies and lower amplitudes and having a sinusoidal waveform are
more suited to the removal of scale, etc. Hence, the multi-directional cavitation-based tool (MDCT) is used
to remove detritus material from the wellbore and to prepare the near wellbore region for matrix stimulation
via the DIM tool.

MDCT Cleanout Function Test

To understand the impact of the MDCT and compare it with a regular jet washing tool, an old scaled tubing
recovered with 8 microsevert/hr radioactivity in 2008 suspecting Barium Sulphate scaling (now reduced to
2 microsevert/hr), was setup to qualitatively understand the impact of jetting as MDCT is the recommended
cleanout tool to be run prior to DIM tool.
The function test involved following steps:
Step 1: R/U CT with conventional pressure-based jetting tool (5 nozzle action) and CT lowered into
scaled tubing joint and jetting conducted with 2% KCl at the bottommost section of the tubing only.
Step 2: Retrieve CT and break scaled up tubing section for inspection.
Step 3: R/U CT with MDCT (energy based) and CT lowered into scaled tubing joint and jetting conducted
with 2% KCl at the bottommost section of the tubing only.
To also confirm the multi directional nature of the MDCT, tool was tagged on bottom to confirm for
change in circulation pressure indicating jetting only through bottom nozzles.
Step 4: Retrieve CT and break scaled up tubing section for inspection.
SPE-199812-MS 15

As seen Figure 13, the CT there is a clear change in flow direction and higher circulation pressure as a
result of CT slacking weight.

Figure 13—Function Test CT Graph for MDCT Tool

The most interesting observation comes across upon verifying the results of Steps 2 and 4. As can be
seen in Figure 14, MDCT has given a much-enhanced cleanout and the manner of cleanout is such that the
resulting scales are removed in smaller pieces of roughly uniform size indicating the scale structure failure
with a uniform cavitation over a certain flow area. It is important to note that both tests did not involve any
introduction of chemicals and the impact is created strictly using fluid energy itself.

Figure 14—(a) Scaled Tubing as received (b) Scaled Tubing Inspection after Conventional Jetting Tool
Wash (c) Scaled Tubing Inspection after MDCT Wash (d) Nature of dislodged scale for MDCT function test

Case Study: Mangala Injector

Mang-‘A’ is a polymer injector well in Mangala FM-1 northern area where injectivity and conformance in
general is poor. The well was drilled and completed in July 2013 and was produced for a period of two years
months prior to be converted into a polymer injector to honor injection pattern. During Mid 2018, the VRR
16 SPE-199812-MS

in FM-1 north was dropping and there was a certain opportunity for injectivity improvement treatment.
Looking at the opportunity and the results of last conventional stimulation treatment in March 2018 resulting
in minimal (II improved from 0.7 BWPD/psi to 1.2 BWPD/psi over four months) improvement in well
injectivity; it was a good opportunity to implement DIM based well stimulation.
Implementing the two step process, the MDCT run was carried out as per mutually agreed plan using only
2% KCl and gel. The well returns were sampled, and as shown in Figure 15; the typical form of polymer
debris that is recovered from wellbore is a semi solid lump. Although, the MDCT run recovered samples
seemed to disperse the debris in smaller lumps as expected by its fluid impact theoretically.

Figure 15—(Left) Typical Polymer Deposit recovered from wells (Right) Recovered polymer during MDCT run

Following the MDCT run the DIM stimulation tool was function tested as discussed earlier and run in
hole as per recommended procedure. During stimulation, it was observed that there were no visible pressure
pulses on the circulation pressure chart as shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16—Pressure Pulse Signature on Mang ‘A’ during DIM Stimulation through 1.75" CT

This phenomenon is best understood by the lubrication theory where the attenuation of the pulse increases
with reduction in r2 (radius of the pipe or coil in this case). Hence, a larger OD CT would help in transiting a
pressure wave to surface while a smaller OD CT (1.75’ CT in our case); did not allow us to identify a visible
pressure pulse on surface during the injection downhole with CT for DIM stimulation. For example, DIM
SPE-199812-MS 17

stimulation through a 2-3/8" CT would give visual pressure pulse confirmation on the circulating pressure
chart, Figure 17.

Figure 17—Example of Pressure Pulse Signature through a 2-3/8" CT during DIM Stimulation

During the DIM Stimulation, pre-flush of 10% Mutual Solvent was followed up with 10% HCl to treat
the usually found oil covered scales typically FeS and CaCO3. This was followed by 2% KCl spacer and
10% DTPA; a strong chelating agent; found to soften the typical recovered polymer debris. Finally, the
entire treatment was overflushed with 2% KCl. Post treatment, the well was put on injection header, and
an immediate injectivity index gain from 1.3 to 2.7 BWPD/psi @ ITHP:110bar was established and a IFL
was conducted. IFL showed marginal improvement in conformance as depicted in Figure 18, with the top
sand establishing injection.

Figure 18—Mang ‘A’ Pre & Post DIM Stimulation Injection Flow Log Profile (IFL)

The injection parameters soon stabilized and over 3-4 months, the injectivity increased to 2.7 BWPD
as observed during the immediate stimulation non-stabilised injection period. Post this period, there were
18 SPE-199812-MS

issues observed with respect to water quality and polymer preparation leading to reduction in well injection
performance for a two month period. But surprisingly, the injection was able to revive back and achieved
a 120% improvement mark since the job. The well is continuing to maintain it injection performance
meanwhile a latest time-lapse conformance IFL is planned. The ability to have a sustainable and improving
injection performance overtime without any interim stimulations, seems to point towards the depth of
the treatment placed as well as the relative improvement in conformance allow inter-channel sand taking
injection to compete and influence well conformance overtime. The entire trend of the Mang ‘A’ injection
performance is illustrated in Figure 19.

Figure 19—Mang ‘A’ Injection Performance

Case Study: Aishwarya Injectors

The DIM Stimulations in Aishwarya were executed in the water leg injectors. Aish ‘B’ completed across
lower Fatehgarh reservoir members of Aishwarya (i.e. FA-3, FA-4, and FA-5). The nearby producers saw
an increase in ‘water cycling’ from the FA-3 sand and upon confirmation of IFL profile, it was realized
that Aish ‘B injector had a poor conformance in FA-3 while the other two units, took no injection. Given
the scenario of injection improvement and previous conventional stimulation techniques unable to improve
conformance; it was critical to implement DIM stimulation in this well.
Aish ‘B’, Figure 20 is an injector with a selective completion with injection across FA-3 and FA-4 through
SSDs (Selective Sliding Door), while FA-5 perforations can have a direct access to perforation once below
mule shoe. The well has an inclination of 52 degrees. Though the tool can pulse through a sliding sleeve, it
is practically difficult to guarantee DIM to be lines up across the SSD ports in the downhole environment
considering the form of accuracy of depth due to stretch and helical behaviour of CT. It is only recommended
to be placed across SSDs for stimulation purpose if the exact placement is determinable else there are high
chances of the tool pulsing into blank pipe leading to a null effect. Given this understanding, stimulation
across SSDs was executed by bullheading against a plug-in tail pipe with the specific SSD open and the other
closed. It is important to note that, given the ‘water cycling’ in FA-3, it was decided not to stimulate FA-3
while stimulation to be performed in FA-4 using bullheading technique and FA-5 using DIM stimulation
was finalized.
SPE-199812-MS 19

Figure 20—(Left) Well Construction for Aish ‘B’ (Right) Pre & Post DIM Stimulation Injection Profile Log Results in Aish ‘B’

During the two step process, MDCT run resulted in recovering large quantities of oil covered FeS scales
particularly recovered across the packer depth from 7" section to 3.5" tail pipe section. Once cleaned out
thoroughly, DIM stimulation using preflush of 10% Mutual Solvent, main treatment of 10% HCl and post
flush of 2% KCl was performed. Similar treatment was bullheading against FA-4 reservoir unit. The result
was an immediate improvement in well injectivity index from 5.5 to 7 BWPD/psi which is roughly 25%
but the most important feature was establishing good conformance across the sands as evident in Figure 21;
to optimize the injection performance in the region.

Figure 21—Injectivity Index Trend illustrating DIM Stimulation Impact in Aish ‘C’

Another well Aish ‘C’ a water leg injector with historical poor injection is situated in a low VRR region
and the region was witnessing historically low VRRs. To test the potential of improving the injection
performance in the region and to tackle the VRR problem, DIM stimulation was executed on this well.
The well construction is like Aish ‘B’ with MDCT run recovering only small quantity of debris from well.
DIM Stimulation was conducted across bottom most sand only using preflush of 10% Mutual Solvent, main
treatment of 10% HCl and post flush of 2% KCl. The well showed excellent immediate post job results as
in Figure and lasted for a minimum of 200% improvement over pre-treatment II for three months. Over
20 SPE-199812-MS

the longer term, the injection performance has still managed to stay 100% more than the pre-treatment II
without any interim stimulation.

Case Study: Challenging Cleanouts

With a polymer injection, water quality issues, corrosion and on-going chemical interactions; the result of
scaling or debris deposition is complex as explained earlier; and results in challenging wellbore intervention
and surveying scenarios.
For a good reservoir management in a polymer flooded field, it is critical to understand the injection
profiles across sands and manage the quantities of injection overall over different regions. Due to the
challenging wellbore environment and conditions, it becomes difficult many times to survey wells for
pressure or injection profiles as sand face is not accessible. This leads to making uncomfortable assumptions
from a reservoir model perspective which is not a suitable practice.
Mang ‘D’ is a polymer injector and since November 2015 is one of the prolific injectors of its pattern.
Since July 2017, the well has had multiple cases of shallow holdups, reported polymer deposition on tubing
walls and spinner clogging during IPL. The well construction is that of a selective injector as shown in
Figure 22. This did not allow for injection profile of the well to be established from July 2017 until January
2019 when MDCT was run to clean-up the well thoroughly. Interestingly between this period, four CT
interventions were made utilizing soaking and jetting of 10-15% acid, solvents, strong chelating chemicals,
nitrified cleanups; using deployment with a conventional five-port nozzle and jet wash but none of them
demonstrated improved conditions to result in a successful injection profile logging run.

Figure 22—(Left) Well Construction for Mang ‘D’ (Right) Post MDCT Cleanout Injection Profile Log Results in Mang ‘D’

Since there were multiple failures of conventional CT cleanup runs, a detailed look into the recovered
well debris was performed. A laboratory analysis Figure 23, helped understand that the debris comprised of
oil coated inorganic material-Iron Sulphide and carbonates indicating that Solvent and acid soluble material
is 88% and rest 12 % to be polymer.
SPE-199812-MS 21

Figure 23—" Laboratory Analysis of well recovered sample from Mang ‘D’ Polymer Injector

The opportunity of MDCT based cleanup was grabbed given the well history, about 1000m, 7" section
and 3.5" tail pipe was cleaned out using nitrified solvent, 10% HCl acid, and gel sweeps.
This treatment not only helped profile log the well after July 2017 but also resulted in an improvement
in injectivity index by ~ 18%. The injection profile log captured post the MDCT run resulted in a profile
as in Figure 22.
Similarly, the MDCT has proved to be an effective cleanout tool in varying nature of debris as illustrated
in Figure 24 and well constructions, where conventional techniques have not helped obtain the desirable
results. Tabulated cases in Table 2 represent set of MDCT success cases across fields drawing a clear
comparison.

Figure 24—Samples as recovered from wells (a) Sand recovered across perforations from a
Waste Water Injector (b) Mang Producer: Polymer recovered above SSD (c) Mang Polymer Inj:
Iron Sulphide Scale covered with Polymer & Oil (d) Aish Inj: Iron Sulphide Scale covered in oil
22 SPE-199812-MS

Table 2—Cases of Challenging Cleanout addressed using MDCT over Conventional Cleanouts

Conclusion and Way Forward

1. MDCT gives better results than conventional cleanup tools in challenging clean up environments.
2. DIM gave better results than conventional stimulation techniques in polymer and water injectors in
Mangala and Aishwarya.
3. The reason for stimulation and cleanup performance over conventional techniques is the sophisticated
physical principles behind the tool design resulting in effective fluid placement and dynamics for
desirable results.
4. The MDCT principle is now being planned to be incorporated towards stimulating ESP which are
clogged with polymer and scales; to help reduce ESP wear factors or a case of ESP stuck shaft.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the management of Cairn Oil and Gas, and Wavefront Technology Solutions
Inc, for granting permission to publish this paper along with support of the services provided by NESR
and SES for their Coiled Tubing Services. They would like to sincerely acknowledge the support of the
Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH), India and our Joint Venture Partner, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation (ONGC).
SPE-199812-MS 23

References
Beliveau D. 2007. Detailed Special Core Analysis Program: A Key to Aggressive Field Development Planning-Rajasthan,
India. Presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, London, 11-14 June, SPE-107204-MS.
Clemens, T., Deckers, M. et al. 2013. Polymer Solution Injection - Near Wellbore Dynamics and Displacement Efficiency,
Pilot Test Results, Matzen Field, Austria, EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, SPE Europec, London, United
Kingdom, 10-13 June, SPE-164903-MS.
Coffey Environments. 2012. Pulse Injection for CvRl Remediation Using Wavefront Technology. Presentation. Ecoforum
2012. Melbourne, Australia.
Davidson, B., Kolli, K., Spanos, T., Abouakar, A., Al Omari, M., Djelliout, M., Shanoun, D. 2018. Dynamic Fluid
Pulsation: A Novel Approach to Reservoir Stimulation Improves Post-Stimulation Gains. Presented at the Saudi Arabia
Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 23–26 April 2018.
Compton, P.M. 2009. The Geology of the Barmer Basin, Rajasthan, India, and the Origins of its Major Oil Reserve, the
Fatehgarh Formation. PetGeosci 15: 117-130.
Geilikman, M., Spanos, T., Nyland, E. 1993. Porosity Diffusion in Fluid-Saturated Media. Tectnophysics, 217, pp 111-115,
Elesvier Science Publishers, B.V., Amsterdam.
Glasbergen, G., Wever, D. et al. 2015. Injectivity loss in Polymer Floods: Causes, Preventions and Mitigations, SPE
Kuwait Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Mishref, Kuwait, 11-14 October, SPE-175383-MS.
Grover, K., Kolay, J. et al. 2019. Application of Pseudo Voidage Replacement Ratio Pseudo VRR Concept to Optimise
5 Spot Polymer Flood: A Mangala Field Case Study, SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai,
India, 9-11 April, SPE-194580-MS.
Kothari, V., Naidu, B., Sunder, V.R et al. 2014. Discovery and Petroleum System of Barmer Basin, India. Oral presentation
given at the Discovery Thinking Forum, AAPG International Conference and Exhibition, Istanbul, Turkey, 14-17
September.
Mittal, S., Anand, S. et al. 2018. Influence of EOR Polymers on Fouling in Production Wells and Facilities, SPE Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November, SPE-192943-MS.
Panigrahi, N., Bohra, A. et al. 2016. A Case Study of Open and Cased Hole Well Completions in More than 400
Wells in On-shore Block in India, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September,
SPE-181660-MS.
Panter, P. 2008. Mobilizing Residual Non-Aqueous Phase Contamination Using Pressure Pulse Technology. Proceedings
of the 6th International Conference on the Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalitrant Compounds. Monterey, CA,
May 19-21, 2008.
Shankar, V., Beliveau, D. et al. 2018. Waterflood Performance Analyses for the Bhagyam Viscous Oil Reservoir, SPE
Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference, Alberta, Canada, 13-14 March, SPE-189731-MS.
Spanos, T. The Thermophysics of Porous Media. 2001. Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics,
Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Spanos, T., Udey, N. 2017. The Physics of Composite and Porous Media. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, London,
United Kingdom.
Stavland, A., Jonsbraten, H.C., Lohne, A., Moen, A. and Giske, N. 2010. Polymer Flooding-Flow properties in Porous
Media Versus Rheological Parameters, SPE Europec Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, SPE-131103-MS.
Wayne, P., Stemberger, D. et al. 2003. Is Acid Placement Through Coiled Tubing Better Than Bullheading? SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing Conference, Houston, Texas, U.S.A, 8-9 April, SPE 81731.
Webb, E., Hassan, K., and Warren, J. 2006. Case Histories of Successful Stimulation Fluid Dispersion Using Pressure
Pulsation Technology. 12th European Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Roundtable, Aberdeen, UK, November
16, 2006.