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.