SPE 77808

Achieving 100 Percent Success In Acid Stimulation Of Sandstone Reservoirs

Phil Rae, SPE, and Gino Di Lullo, SPE, BJ Services
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Melbourne, Australia, 810 October 2002.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Acid stimulation of sandstone reservoirs is viewed by many as
a risky enterprise and one that should be undertaken only as a
last resort. Much of this reluctance stems from the complex,
heterogeneous nature of sandstones(1) and the unpredictability
of their response to conventional oilfield acid formulations.
Indeed, with an inappropriate acid design, or poor job
procedures, even the best candidate well can be damaged,
sometimes irreversibly. With the loss of experience and
expertise due to industry downsizing, there is some concern
that the risk of such failures has increased.
This paper discusses the implementation of an acidising
methodology with the goal of attaining 100 percent success in
acid stimulation treatments. A cornerstone of the strategy
involved the development of a personal acidising mentor for
every engineer to help them avoid the pitfalls of inappropriate
design. The only practical way to achieve this was by the use
of computers, programmed with the many rules used by
human experts in the design of acid treatments. These rules
take into account such variables as mineralogy, temperature,
formation fluids, permeability, porosity and tubular
metallurgy, amongst others. Integration of these rules, based
on an array of algorithms coupled with heuristic principles,
outputs a preferred acid design along with recommended acid
volumes, pre- and post-flushes, nitrogen ratios for flowback
and a customized message board with hints, tips or warnings
about the potential treatment. The design advisor also
incorporates recommended loadings of corrosion inhibitors,
iron control agents, clay control additives, surfactants,
solvents, anti-sludges and diverting agents, etc. as and
when required.

Application of this approach has helped fill the gap caused by

the widespread loss of experienced industry personnel and has
accelerated the learning process among younger engineers. It
has also helped ensure that only appropriate acid treatments
are recommended and pumped in any location, worldwide.
The paper reviews the results of over 100 acid jobs designed
using this methodology.
Introduction
The science of acidising has its origins over 100 years ago
when Herman Frasch of Standard Oil patented the use of
hydrochloric acid to stimulate carbonate formations(2).
However, it was not until the 1930s that attempts were made
to improve production from sandstone reservoirs by injecting
mixtures of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids. These early
treatments were not particularly successful, however, and this
relegated these HCl/HF mixtures to only occasional use in
those wells that were deemed to have suffered drilling mud
damage. It was not until the 1960s that treatments containing
hydrofluoric acid again saw widespread use in well
remediation. This was largely due to the publication of studies
on the chemical interactions of HF with typical sandstone
formation minerals, along with guidelines for treatment
optimisation. This work eliminated much of the mystery
surrounding the use of HF and put its use in practical terms
that petroleum engineers could understand(3). However, in
spite of this, acidising sandstone formations remained a hit-ormiss enterprise(4). It was fabulously successful in some areas,
totally disastrous in others. Indeed, throughout the 1970s and
80s, most production engineers and service company
personnel could recite details of some catastrophic acid job
that they had either heard about, or actually been
involved with.
These failures tended to overshadow the successful
treatments, not because of greater numbers but because of the
fallout surrounding such events, in the oilfield. As a
consequence, in many areas, HF acidising activity in
sandstone formations all but ceased(5). In part, this was also
due to the development of alternative stimulation techniques,
such as skin-bypass fracturing. Yet, of all remedial treatments,
small matrix acid jobs can, potentially, represent the best
return-on-investment due to their relative simplicity and
minimal equipment requirements. Given this fact, and the fact
that sixty to seventy percent of the worlds sub-surface

P. RAE, G. DI LULLO

hydrocarbon deposits are located in sandstone reservoirs, it is

clearly of interest to find methods to improve the ratio of
success to failure.
However, it is worth commenting, at this point, that in all
realms of human endeavour, there is always a level of failure.
The important thing is to learn from any failure and to use that
knowledge to improve future designs. It is also important to
note that, in all but a very few exceptional cases, "failure"
does not mean loss of the well. It is merely an indication of an
inappropriate treatment and one that requires better design
input. Generally, such wells can still be successfully
remediated.
In examining the reasons for the disparity, between the
successful application of sandstone matrix acidising and those
treatments that were unsuccessful, most authors have arrived
at similar conclusions. The principal reasons for poor response
following acidising are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

Poor candidate selection

Lack of mineralogical information
Wrong acid design (strength, volume, etc)
Use of inappropriate acid additives
Insufficient iron control
Use of contaminated/dirty fluids or neglecting to pickle
tubing string
g) Improper placement of acid (eg. lack of diversion,
plugged perforations)
h) Long shut-in time without recovering injected fluids
While there are several reasons, above, related to factors
like insufficient information or poor field procedures, the
majority relate to engineering and treatment design issues.
Clearly, selection of an inappropriate candidate well for
acidising will, at best, produce mediocre or disappointing
results, at worst, disastrous ones. Thus, it is first important to
examine actual well performance (based on DST, production
tests or similar) and compare this with expectation, based on
theoretical performance. In older wells, production history
should be examined, looking, in particular, for anomalous
behaviour or events, superimposed on the general trend. An
ever simpler method is to compare production to that in
neighbouring wells and to normalise the production using the
formation flow capacity (kh).
Such exercises can easily be undertaken by engineering
staff, using well system analysis software. The same software
can also identify wells where stimulation would prove
ineffective due to completion limitations (inadequate
perforations, tubing size, chokes, etc). This is not rocket
science and it requires relatively little effort to identify an
under-performing well. The next step is to identify the reason
for that under-performance and establish whether it can be
remediated economically by acidising. It bears repeating, that
the best stimulation candidates are the good wells the high
producers that are not producing at optimal rates due to some
sort of formation damage. Therefore, wells with high
formation permeability and substantial reservoir pressure, but

SPE 77808

with high skin, are the wells to target initially, in any

stimulation campaign.
Unfortunately, because they are perceived to represent the
highest risk in the event of failure, these same wells are rarely
the ones that are offered up for acidising. Instead, the low
permeability, low pressure, old wells are usually the proffered
candidates the wells with the highest likelihood of failure
and the least upside productive potential, in the event
of success(4).
Acid System Design
While the candidate selection process requires relatively
standard petroleum engineering skills, taught by academic
faculties all over the world, the selection of an appropriate
acid design is a rather more esoteric affair. Part of this
problem stems from the complex and heterogeneous nature of
most sandstone matrices. The interactions between the many
different mineral species and the injected acid depend not only
on the chemical compositions of both but also on temperature,
pressure, surface morphology, pore size distribution and pore
fluid composition.
Over the years, researchers have run many thousands of
core flow tests, solubility tests, and the like, to establish some
ground rules on which acids are applicable for which types of
mineral. While this is an imperfect science, for the reasons
noted above, there is some general consensus on when to use
which type of acid. For example, formations with high
carbonate contents (>15%) have been found to respond best to
simple hydrochloric acid treatments. This is logical, since
minerals with such high carbonate levels react unfavourably
with acids containing HF, or would require inordinate amounts
of hydrochloric acid preflushes. The latter would probably
result in deconsolidation and/or disintegration of the rock.
Similarly, formations with high levels of chlorite, an ironbearing clay, respond best to acid formulations based on acetic
acid rather than hydrochloric acid, since the former limits iron
liberation and thereby reduces the risk of precipitates from
iron reaction products. In formations with high levels of
feldspar (>20%), most experts would agree that it is wise to
limit the strength of HF acid stages to reduce the formation of
complex fluorosilicate precipitates and other species that
would result from excessive dissolution of the mineral by
stronger acid. A final example is the use of organic acid
formulations at elevated temperatures. Such acids are less
aggressive than mineral acids, permitting the use of larger
volumes and achieving deeper penetration into the rock matrix
while, simultaneously, being less corrosive to the
well tubulars.
There are many such rules that must be learned by an
individual who wishes to become adept in matrix acidising
and, as noted above, this does represent a slight problem.
However, with proper training, this is a relatively insignificant
challenge since there are only a finite number of variants on
the theme of acid type and strength.
The second, and much more daunting, part of the problem
stems from the proprietary nature of many of the systems used
by individual companies. Even with an effort to make

SPE 77808

ACHIEVING 100 PERCENT SUCCESS IN ACID STIMULATION OF SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS

everything as generic as possible, there is a bewildering array

of additives that can, should, or sometimes must, be included
in an acidising formulation. The types of additive that are used
in acidising belong to several principal categories, including:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

Corrosion Inhibitors and Inhibitor Aids

Iron Control Agents and Sulphide Scavengers
Clay Stabilizers and Fines Stabilizers
Surfactants and Non-Emulsifiers
Solvents and Mutual Solvents
Friction Reducers and Gelants

In each category, there are many individual additives that

can be selected on the basis of well conditions and the
principal fluid composition. The rules that govern the use of
these additives are complex but, generally, factors that are
considered include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)

Type of acid
Acid strength
Formation temperature
Mineralogy
Permeability
Rock Strength (degree of consolidation)
Formation pressure
Formation fluid composition
Presence/absence of scale
Type of completion
Completion metallurgy
Treatment conduit (eg. tubing, coiled tubing)
Additive compatibility

Many of these same factors, individually or in

combination, guide the selection of an appropriate
concentration at which the specific additives will be used.
With so many variables, and so many additives to choose
from, the number of possible combinations is enormous. There
may, of course, be more than one appropriate design for a
certain set of conditions. However, there are also many totally
inappropriate designs that could be arrived at by individuals
who do not know all of the rules, or have insufficient
experience. Application of one of these bad designs could
easily result in one of those disastrous acid jobs,
mentioned previously.
Clearly, on the basis of the above, it takes many years of
applied effort to achieve any serious degree of proficiency in
acidising. Yet, as an industry, we have lost many of those who
have dedicated themselves to mastering the subject, through
lay-offs and early retirement. This has left a gap, in terms of
expertise in acidising, in both the operating companies and the
major service companies. This seems counter-intuitive when
one considers that the need of many oil producing provinces is
to enhance their production, in a cost-effective manner.
However, the problem is, in many ways, the classic chickenand-egg dilemma. As noted in the abstract, many people
consider acidising to be a relatively high-risk enterprise, with
a low success rate, so they see no reason to invest in it. They

carry it out infrequently, only as a last resort, and therefore do

insufficient treatments to establish its efficacy. Young
engineers, with insufficient training or poor expertise because
of the infrequent application of the technology, can end up
designing some of these jobs, with predictable (poor) results.
And so the cycle of under-investment, under-training, underapplication and under-performance is repeated.
Acid Design Mentor
On the basis of our belief that acidising represents one of the
most effective methods for production enhancement, we
decided to provide our engineers with tools to help fasttrack their knowledge of acidising. Given that the design of
an effective acid treatment represents no more than the
application of a matrix of logical decisions, based on
particular rules, it lends itself to computer assistance.
Admittedly, the number of rules is quite large but, once built,
a computer program that encompasses these rules is capable of
providing excellent acid designs. Note that the program is not
an interrogative one, where questions are posed sequentially to
arrive at a final recommended course of action. This program
produces a complete design based on all input data and any
parameter changes are immediately reflected in the proposed
design. This feature is useful in conducting parametric studies
and sensitivity analyses. There are numerous benefits to
applying this approach, including:
a)

Standardisation designs for identical well conditions

(mineralogy, temperature, etc) will, logically enough, be
identical. This makes sense and helps rationalise and demystify the design process.
b) Training the speed at which computers process
information allows the user to make input changes and
view the revised outputs, quasi-instantaneously. This
provides a valuable training opportunity. At the same
time, equipping the program with context sensitive help
provides another means to deliver valuable training.
c) Assured competence young engineers are guided by the
program to ensure that they have all the relevant input
data for a candidate well.
d) State-of-the-Art Design Methodology the output design
is the optimum one, based on the accumulated wisdom of
many acidising experts, not just one individual. More
experienced engineers can benefit because the program
incorporates the latest knowledge, including new and
improved acid systems, that they may be unaware of.
e) Reinforcement of Good Practices using a standard
program for acid design helps ensure that the same
procedures and good practices are applied, worldwide eg.
tubing pickling, solvent preflushes, where needed, etc.
f) Simplification of the Design Process this is a key point.
The program can suggest appropriate loadings of key
additives, including corrosion inhibitors and various other
additives, using established rules and values from design
databases. This takes much of the work out of the
design process.

P. RAE, G. DI LULLO

The program was built and engineering staff were trained

in its use, in a series of workshops. While not yet universally
applied, it is being widely used around the world and we are
already seeing benefits from its application. Table 1 is a
summary of over 100 jobs done in many fields worldwide,
since the instigation of this initiative that produced over
450,000 additional barrels of oil per month.
It is interesting to note that the predominant impact of
properly designed and excuted acid treatments, is a spectacular
growth in the demand for them. Once people realise the
exceptional value of acidising, they zealously promote its use.
In places like Bolivia, Peru and Venezuela, the number of jobs
has more than tripled in the last year.
Other Developments
While the implementation of an appropriate and specific
design methodology can do much to improve results, it cannot
achieve success alone. Much of that has come from the wider
understanding and improved discussion that the use of the
software has engendered. However, a great deal of the success
also comes from the replacement of the old generic, acid
systems that were routinely used in many areas (and continue
to be used by some companies) with new, improved
acid systems.
The old generic acids consist of mixtures of
hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid, known in the industry as
mud acid. Traditionally, the ratio of HCl to HF has varied
from 4:1 (ie. 12:3 or 6:1 ) to as much as 9:1. The rationale
for these relatively high ratios of HCl:HF is the fact that
dissolution of clays by HF mixtures produces many secondary
reaction products that can, in turn, re-precipitate in the
formation and cause damage. These damaging reaction
products, produced by conventional mud acids, are slightly
more soluble if the pH is kept low throughout
the treatment(6)(7).
In contrast to this, our methodology has featured the
widespread application of improved acid systems, specifically
designed for use in sandstone reservoirs. One such system,
reported by numerous authors elsewhere in the literature(8)(9)
(10)(11)
, has some special properties that minimize or eliminate
many of the problems commonly associated with sandstone
acidizing. The acid is retarded, allowing deep penetration of
live acid into the sandstone matrix. The acid also has a
controlled reaction with clay components of the matrix and
attacks quartz to a greater extent than conventional mud acids.
These properties significantly reduce the risk of near-wellbore
deconsolidation while allowing uniform porosity and
permeability enhancement to a greater depth. The acid also
minimizes the reprecipitation of secondary reaction products
that normally result from the reaction of HF with clays.
Finally, it should be noted that this acid system is much less
corrosive and safer to handle than mud acid. The pH of the
live acid is typically around pH 3.5 4.5 compared with
Regular Mud Acid, which has a pH below zero. Therefore, in
terms of corrosion inhibitor loading, this new acid requires
less inhibitor to protect both coiled tubing and well tubulars.
Due to its lower inherent corrosivity, it is also a much safer

SPE 77808

option to use in the clean-up of gravel packed wells, since

there is a greatly reduced risk of damage to screens.
One of the most persuasive arguments in support of this
acid system is that it almost eliminates the risk of iron-based
precipitates, as reported by Nasr-El-Din et al(12)(13).
The final but, perhaps, most exciting advantage of this acid
system is the ability to prepare it on-the-fly from relatively
small quantities of concentrated liquid additives. This can be
done
using
a
customised
fully-automated,
blending/proportioning unit to produce a final acid that
contains well-controlled concentrations of HF that can be
varied, at will, from 0.5% to 6%. The unit requires only a
supply of fresh water, which constitutes from 70-90 percent of
the final acid treating solution, depending upon the required
blend. Thus, no HF mixtures need to be prepared in mix tanks
on board the rig/platform, or at the wellsite, and treatments
can be accurately sized in accordance with specific well
requirements and reservoir response. Furthermore, problems
of disposal of unused acid, buyback/restocking charges, not to
mention the hazards associated with the cutting and blending
of dangerous chemicals, like Ammonium Bifluoride and
concentrated HCl, are eliminated(8).
The safety advantages, as well as the logistics and
environmental benefits, of using this acid system are
convincing enough in themselves. However, the results of
using this acidizing process are now well documented in the
literature. The acid system has been used in thousands of
treatments, worldwide, by major operators and independents.
It has been used in a wide variety of sandstone formations
under diverse conditions of temperature and rock
permeabilities in countries like Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia,
Australia, Nigeria, Ecuador, Venezuela, Trinidad, Peru,
Bolivia, the United States, Egypt and Philippines.
Other new acid systems have been introduced for use as
preflushes. One of these new systems combines a powerful
iron complexing agent and a scale inhibitor to eliminate the
risk of iron precipitation, a common cause of treatment failure.
Results obtained with this new system in diverse and very
challenging mineralogies were extremely impressive and this
has been borne out in the field. Other new systems, which
have yet to be field tested, feature biodegradable blends with
very low corrosivity. This helps minimise inhibitor loadings,
thereby making the acids as environmentally-friendly as
possible, fulfilling one of our commitments to improved
stewardship of the biosphere. These acids are also safer to
handle, reducing risks to personnel and equipment.
Conclusions
1. Sandstone matrix acidising has been under-utilised due to
its perceived complexity and an inconsistent record
of success.
2. Improvements in understanding the chemical and physical
processes involved in acidising, coupled with
improvements in wellsite methods, have made it possible
to increase the success ratio in acidising.

SPE 77808

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

ACHIEVING 100 PERCENT SUCCESS IN ACID STIMULATION OF SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS

The ability of a well-designed acid treatment to

spectacularly improve well productivity is still poorly
appreciated by many people.
The use of computer software that encompasses all the
known rules and guidelines for sandstone acidising can
greatly improve the success ratio by eliminating
inappropriate designs and standardising treatments.
The same approach can greatly facilitate the training of
young engineers by providing a design mentor on every
desk, capable of interacting with and guiding the novice
and expert, alike.
New acid systems with much improved performance have
been developed specifically to address many of the
problems inherent in sandstone acidising. These new
acids help eliminate many of the problems of
conventional acids and have been instrumental in the
success of this initiative.
Matrix acidising, with the appropriate systems in correctly
identified candidate wells, represents a cost-effective
method to enhance well productivity in both sandstone
and carbonate reservoirs(14).

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank BJ Services for permission to
publish this paper. Special acknowledgment is made to Dr.
Nelson Chaves from PDVSA for his outstanding support on
promoting and implementing best acidizing praticies in west
Venezuela. Thanks also to the many people involved in the
field implementation of this initiative and the execution of the
treatments. Also, thanks to Leonard Kalfayan for the many
constructive conversations on the program and to Christine Fai
for help with the manuscript.
References
1.
2.
3.

Ali A. Syed, Sandstone Diagenesis, Applications to

Hydrocarbons Exploration and Production, USA (1981)
Frasch H. Increasing The Flow of Oil Wells US Pat 556, 669
(March 17, 1896)
Smith C.E. and Hendrickson AR Hydrofluoric Acid
Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs JPT (Feb 1965) 215

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

Kalfayan L, Production Enhancement With Acid Stimulation

Pennwell Corporation (2000) 51
Williams, B.B., Gidley, J.L., Schechter, R.S. Acidizing
Fundamentals Monograph Volume 6, chapters 3, 4, 8 and 9,
SPE 1979
Crowe C.W., Precipitation of Hydrated Silica from Spent
Hydrofluoric Acid: How Much of a Problem Is It? JPT (Nov
1986) 1234
Gdanstri R.D., Fluosilicate Solubilities Impact HF Acid
Compositions SPE 27404, Symposium on Formation Damage
Lafayette Feb 7-10 (1994)
Di Lullo, G. and Rae, P. A New Acid for True Stimulation of
Sandstone Reservoirs, paper SPE 37015 presented at the 1996
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, CO, 6-9 October
Ross, D. and Di Lullo, G. HV:HF Acid Treatments, Proven
Successful in South America, paper IBP-SE-076/98 presented
at the 1998 Rio Oil & Gas Conference held in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 5-6 October
Kume, N., van Melsen, R., Erhahon, L., and Abiodun, A.F.
New HF Acid System Improves Sandstone Acidizing Success
Ration by More than 400% Over Conventional Mud Acid
System in Niger Delta Basin, paper SPE 56527 presented at the
1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, TX, 3-6 October
A.N. Martin and K.L. Smith, New HF Acid System Produces
Significant Benefits in Nigerian Sandsones, SPE Paper 38595,
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition
san Antonio, Texas 5-8 October 1997
H.A. Nasr-El-Din, M.N. Al-Dahlan, A.M. As-Sadlan, H.A. AlZamil, Iron Precipitation During Acid Treatments Using HFBased Acids presented at SPE Internation Symposium and
Exhibition, Lafayette, February 20-21, 2002
Crowe C.W., Evaluation of Agents for Preventing Precipitation
of Ferric Hydroxide from Spent Treating Acid JPT (April
1985) 691-695
A. Daneshy, Economics of Damage Removal and Production
Enhancement paper SPE 30234, presented at the Society of
Petroleum Engineers European Formation Damage Symposium,
The Hague, Netherlands, May 15-16, 1995
F.O. Stanley, J.C. Troncoso, A.N. Martin, Omar Ali Jamil, An
Economic, Field-Proven Method For Removing Fines Damage
From Gravel Packs paper SPE 58790, presented at the SPE
International Symposium, Lafayette, February 23-24, 2000

P. RAE, G. DI LULLO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

Country

Solvent Base

Pre Acid

Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela

Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Brine + Terpene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Xylene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Terpene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Diesel + Xylene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene

HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL
HCL
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL
HCL/HV
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV

Acid Type

Completion
Type

HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
Slotted-CSG
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
CSG
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP
HV/HF+Boric
GP

SPE 77808

Production Before
Acid
Oil
GAS Water
BPD MCFD
%
0
106
0
75
50
0
27
10
0
4
142
5
45
1034
0
70
1371
2
70
8456
7
171
70
116
0
4817
0
27
10
0
1
0
144
237
0
13
75
0
7
317
0
1550
179
0
20
115
0
4
733
0
361
508
0
132
175
0
14
436
0
436
71
0
12
41
0
2
102
0
101
74
0
0
80
0
0
47
0
6
222
0
51
90
0
0
166
0
155
116
0
128
12
0
3
170
0
61
42
0
0
54
0
17
289
0
11
112
0
37
100
0
10
2
0
16
240
0
40
105
0
0
61
0
85
107
0
13
91
0
0
73
0
3
27
0
9
52
0
0
27
0
2
103
0
8
50
0
4
78
0
14
34
0
13
22
0
24
60
0
0
86
0
18

3 Month Production
After Acid
Oil
GAS
Water
BPD MCFD
BPD
18
90
2
185
134
20
40
60
0
11
290
152
61
1847
11
196
585
3
320
14132
20
342
80
390
4
7288
47
60
0
0
1447
0
805
736
0
155
221
0
186
678
0
26
470
0
4
531
0
15
930
0
164
450
0
135
362
0
10
2702
0
900
173
5
0
214
0
8
203
0
138
263
0
0
210
0
0
60
0
7
305
0
135
109
0
0
257
0
390
217
0
240
43
0
12
249
0
91
87
0
0
127
0
41
387
0
187
171
0
189
131
0
13
123
0
324
311
0
29
125
0
0
264
0
399
125
0
0
135
0
0
227
0
6
115
0
87
96
0
0
42
0
9
152
0
12
65
0
5
207
0
8
39
0
46
32
0
11
120
0
0
325
0
85

SPE 77808

55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

ACHIEVING 100 PERCENT SUCCESS IN ACID STIMULATION OF SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS

Country

Solvent Base

Pre Acid

Acid Type

Completion
Type

Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Brunei
Indonesia
Malaysia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia

Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
Terpene
-

HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCL/HV
HCI
HCI
HCI
HCI
HCI
HCI
HCI
HCI
HCI

HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF

GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
CSG
CSG
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
CSG
GP
GP
CSG
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP

HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF+Boric
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF
HV/HF

Production Before
Acid
Oil
GAS Water
BPD MCFD
%
91
0
33
85
0
3
179
0
3
58
0
0
47
0
0
84
0
0
44
0
0
36
0
0
36
0
34
57
0
0
30
0
1
19
0
18
24
0
1
62
0
8
65
0
55
106
0
128
57
0
33
133
0
77
39
0
46
98
0
5
55
0
2
69
0
10
120
0
44
26
0
14
65
0
4
198
0
65
45
0
7
66
0
0
72
0
0
123
0
12
225
0
9
59
0
19
3
0
0
1
0
1
12
0
10
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
10
0
380
3
0
0
1
0
0
10
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
5
200
0
96
200
0
15
43
0
99
198
0
98
16
0
97
98
0
93
197
0
90
642
0
95

3 Month Production
After Acid
Oil
GAS
Water
BPD MCFD
BPD
159
0
3
164
0
20
422
0
243
93
0
0
102
0
0
132
0
0
81
0
0
51
0
0
70
0
1
153
0
0
110
0
3
125
0
162
37
0
16
325
0
65
93
0
367
130
0
145
66
0
73
153
0
399
58
0
40
146
0
38
85
0
2
157
0
140
223
0
100
45
0
4
210
0
230
410
0
21
354
0
52
72
0
0
97
0
0
287
0
75
366
0
73
77
0
26
219
0
4
21
0
29
86
0
202
10
0
6
6
0
76
15
0
1
25
0
1
32
0
400
18
0
30
22
0
5
38
0
25
12
0
0
85
0
10
5
0
44
176
0
5
400
0
96
645
0
10
403
0
96
441
0
96
523
0
16
340
0
95
392
0
90
895
0
94