SPE-178996-MS

Removing Formation Damage From Fines Migration in the Putumayo Basin

in Colombia: Challenges, Results, Lessons Learned, and New
Opportunities after More Than 100 Sandstone Acidizing Treatments
Wildiman Reinoso, Fredy Torres, and Manuel Aldana, Grantierra; Pablo Campo, Emilce Alvarez,
and Erika Tovar, Halliburton

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Conference & Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 24 –26
February 2016.

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
This paper summarizes a wide variety of sandstone acid stimulation case histories, highlighting different
aspects, such as mechanical conditions and operational practices. These include injection sequence
changes, injectivity factor calculations, treatment volumes, quality control during pumping, pressure
response, and the influence of each on treatment performance.
To date, more than 100 sandstone acidizing treatments have been performed in several Colombian oil
fields, targeting the Villeta and Caballos formations in the Putumayo basin. Fines migration has been the
main damage mechanism treated with this type of chemical stimulation. Three main steps were performed
when sandstone acidizing treatments were conducted: preflush, primary treatment, and post-flush. A
fines-control retarded hydrofluoric (HF) acid system was selected as the primary acid system. This
retarded system removes deep damage caused by fines and swelling clays and helps prevent fines
migration.
Challenges, results, lessons learned, and new opportunities from the understanding of theoretical
aspects, acid-removable skin analysis, and integration of coreflooding tests with computer simulations as
well as post-treatment results showing several-fold increases in oil productivity are presented in this paper.
Treatments developed in reservoirs with a temperature of 180°F, as well as use of scale inhibitors and
treatments assisted with relative permeability modifiers (RPMs) to control water production, are dis-
cussed. Also, results of testing with a biodegradable chelating agent that could provide an alternative
treatment for some scenarios are presented. The aminopolycarboxylic acid (as described by Reyes et al.
2013) used is soluble in a low-pH aqueous medium and is compatible with HF acid.
The step-by-step procedures identify the parameters that have the most influence on treatment
performance and provided outstanding results. The resulting lessons learned can be applied for future
applications in many more candidate wells with similar conditions.
2 SPE-178996-MS

Introduction
Sandstone acidizing technology has improved significantly as a result of field analysis, fundamental
research, and applied research; however, it is still considered to be the most complicated well stimulation
method, from a chemical point of view, because it involves complex chemical reactions. Studies and
analyses have revealed a complex reaction process based on acid concentration, temperature, and the
target formation mineralogy. As such, it is important for engineers to know and understand each variable
involved in the process to perform a successful acidizing treatment.
This paper focuses on an acidizing stimulation campaign from 2011 to the present in two fields, whose
primary targets are reservoirs in the Caballos and Villeta formations in the Putumayo basin. The Putumayo
basin is located in southern Colombia, and it is the northern continuation of the Oriente basin (Ecuador)
and Marañon basin (Peru) to the south. The Putumayo basin shows a stratigraphic sequence containing
early Cretaceous (marine) to Miocene-Pliocene sediments (fluvial). Fig. 1 illustrates the location of the
Putumayo basin, and Table 1 summarizes the basic reservoir parameters of the T sand of the Villeta and
Caballos formations in one of these fields.

Figure 1—Location of Putumayo basin

Table 1—Basic reservoir parameters for Villeta and Caballos

formations
Formation Villeta Caballos

Reservoir T sand Caballos

True vertical depth [TVD] (ft) 7,900 8,050
Reservoir pressure (psi) 3,000 3,100
Reservoir temperature (°F) 180 181
Oil gravity (°API) 27 28
Gross sand (ft) 40 150
Permeability (md) 350 150
Porosity (%) 12.5 11

Mineralogy
To perform a successful acidizing treatment, engineers should know the composition of the formation at
the treatment point. The dominant mineral component and temperature of the target formation will
SPE-178996-MS 3

determine the most effective preflush, HF/hydrochloric (HCl) acid treatment blend, and post-flush/
treatment volume. The presence of potassium feldspars, sodium feldspars, illite, and zeolites is a primary
concern because these compounds can form or contribute to forming significant matrix-blocking precip-
itates, such as sodium or potassium fluorosilicates and aluminum fluorides, during HF/HCl acid treat-
ments. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses were performed on the
T sand and Caballos formation samples to determine mineralogical composition and distribution. The
samples were examined to estimate grain size, the framework grain suite, authigenic minerals, and pore
space properties. Results of these analyses are as follows.
T Sand Villeta Formation
The T sand samples examined are fineto medium-grained sandstones. They are composed primarily of
quartz grains cemented primarily with quartz overgrowths and authigenic clays. Rare to minor cements
include solid hydrocarbon, pyrite, and dolomite. XRD analyses show that all of the sandstone samples are
composed primarily of quartz (average ⫽ 89.4%) and clay minerals (average ⫽ 8.6%).
Feldspars are absent from all but one sample (0.2% plagioclase; 4,886.6 ft). Given that virtually all of
the framework grains are quartz, with possibly minor argillaceous grains, the sandstone is classified as
quartzarenites. Clay mineral content averages 8.6%, with kaolinite being the most abundant. SEM
photographs show authigenic kaolinite filling intergranular areas and possibly replacing grains. Quartz
overgrowths have grown around kaolinite platelets (Fig. 2); this indicates that kaolinite formed before the
overgrowths. Most of the macropores are primary intergranular. Intercrystal micropores are associated
with authigenic kaolinite. Average porosity for the examined samples is 14.9% (range ⫽ 13.7 to 17.8%),
average Klinkenberg permeability is 748 md (range ⫽ 97.5 to 1550 md), and average grain density is 2.66
g/cc (range ⫽ 2.65 to 2.66 g/cc).

Figure 2—SEM photograph of T sand formation

Caballos Formation
Samples in this formation are all sandstones. Estimated average grain size ranges from very fine sand to
medium sand, with most of the samples in the fineto medium-sand range. The framework grain suite is
dominated by quartz. The grains are cemented primarily by quartz overgrowths and authigenic clays. Less
common cements include analcime, siderite, dolomite, solid hydrocarbon, and pyrite. XRD determined
4 SPE-178996-MS

that all of the samples are composed primarily of quartz (average ⫽ 86.2%) and clay minerals (average
⫽ 7.8%). Feldspars are rare to absent from these sandstones, with potassium-feldspar and plagioclase
averaging less than 1%. This confirms the SEM observation that virtually all of the framework grains are
quartz, with possibly minor argillaceous grains, and the sandstones should be classified as quartzarenites.
Clay mineral content averages 7.8%, with illite and mixed-layer illite/smectite more common than
kaolinite (Fig. 3). SEM photos show that these clays are authigenic. They coat grains, fill intergranular
areas, and have replaced grains. Quartz overgrowths have grown around kaolinite platelets and analcime;
this indicates that kaolinite and analcime formed before the overgrowths. In most of the samples, quartz
overgrowths have grown around illitic clay; this indicates that the illitic clay formed before the
overgrowths. However, there are rare examples of illitic clay growing on quartz overgrowths; this
indicates that there is some illitic clay formation after quartz overgrowth precipitation.

Figure 3—SEM photograph of Caballos formation

Fines Migration as the Main Damage Mechanism

Fines migration and further accumulation in the near-wellbore (NWB) area and permeability impairment
has been studied and reported by many authors in the industry (Civan and Knapp 1987). Fines migration
can occur in sandstones during abrupt increases in production, including those following workover or
stimulation. Fines that are mobile in producing fluids can bridge and accumulate at pore throats and
constrictions, thereby reducing matrix permeability. For the Caballos and Villeta formations described in
this paper, the detrimental effect of fines movement has been documented through production analysis and
extensive laboratory studies. The presence of kaolinite can be noted in Figs. 2 and 3. High production
declinations and critical rate tests performed indicate that fines migration is the main formation damage
mechanism. Additionally, the presence of calcium carbonate and asphaltenes has been evidenced during
the well-intervention operations.
Critical Velocity Test
A sample was submitted for critical velocity testing to synthetic formation brine. A plug from the
formation, approximately 1.5 in. in diameter by 2.5 in. in length, was used for the test. The test was
accomplished by monitoring permeability to brine at flow rates that were increased to 30 cm3/min and
then decreased to the starting flow rate, and then the results at each step were compared to the initial
SPE-178996-MS 5

low-flow-rate permeability. The flow direction was reversed at the end of the test and permeability was
redetermined to investigate possible fines migration. Graphical reports of the critical velocity tests are
provided in Figs. 4 and 5. Reports showed that the fines present appear to be mobile or negatively
affecting the permeability of the sample.

Figure 4 —Critical velocity measurement

Figure 5—Interstitial velocity vs. Delta K. Note: Delta K is the difference between initial permeability and the resulting permeabilities
after increases in interstitial velocity
6 SPE-178996-MS

Designing an Effective Treatment

Matrix acidizing is a process in which an unsteady, nonisothermal, three-dimensional (3D) flow in porous
media reacts with chemicals. Acidizing can lead to continuous variation in the porosity and permeability
of the porous medium because of dissolution of the rock matrix and precipitation of the formation
products. When acidizing a sandstone reservoir, removing the formation damage caused by drilling,
workover, or completion processes is the goal. Acidizing can restore the original formation permeability
of the sandstone reservoir in the areas where the treatment is adequately placed.
The most commonly used fluids for matrix stimulation of siliceous-clay-containing formations are mud
acids [a blend of HCl and HF acid, acetic acid (C2H4O2), or formic acid (CH2O2)]. These conventional
treatments have generally proven effective for only a relatively short period of time, with an abrupt
post-treatment production decline usually attributed to plugging by migratory clays and fines. A number
of different explanations have been proposed to explain this behavior. One is that acid reacts rapidly with
the formation in close proximity to the wellbore, often only a few inches around the wellbore, and
therefore spends rapidly. Subsequently, clay fines migrate into the acidized NWB area and replug the
formation. Another possible contributing factor is that the mud acid system actually weakens the structure
of clays in the formation matrix and therefore generates additional fines.
The rapid decline in productivity observed after many conventional mud acid treatments led to the
development of numerous fluid systems to help improve post-treatment productivity. The objective of
many of these fluids was to achieve deeper live acid penetration into the formation using a ⬙retarded⬙ acid
with a controlled release of HF acid into solution.
The designs described in this section were based on a treatment of the Villeta T sand and Caballos
formations, which represent an effective zone height between 30 and 60 ft, respectively. To determine
appropriate fluids, acid types, concentrations, and treatment volumes, a software simulator with a logical
process was used. The structured process consisted basically of two phases.

Candidate Selection and Skin Analysis

A well producing from a sandstone formation is a reliable candidate for acidizing only if acid-removable
skin is present. With respect to acid treatment design, it is important to determine not only whether
damage is present (positive skin) but also, if it is, whether the damage can be removable with acid
treatment. In this phase, the best candidate well for stimulation treatment is selected, regardless of the type
of stimulation/remediation required. Also, the best treatment for the type of damage is determined.
Fig. 6 shows the results from a formation damage advisor tool that ranked potential damage mecha-
nisms. Fines migration was confirmed as the primary damage mechanism. This result agrees with the
mineralogy and the detailed surveillance of skin by pressure transient analysis (PTA), which indicated a
progressive increase in formation damage with production rate.
SPE-178996-MS 7

Figure 6 —Formation damage identification

Tables 2 and 3 show skin values provided by PTA in Well 1 and Well 2, having a total skin prejob
value of 32 and 60, respectively. These wells were selected as well candidates because they showed to
have potential for improved productivity based on general information about the (undamaged) reservoir
quality, such as permeability, thickness, porosity, saturation, etc.

Table 2—PTA for T sand of Well 1

Water RP Pwf DD FE
Date Test BFPD Cut (%) BOPD BWPD (psi) (psi) J (%) S (%)

31-Oct-11 PBU 315 0.2 314 1 1,907 1,014 0.353 47 30.2 25.2
23-Jan-12 PBU 188 0.2 188 0 1,752 725 0.183 59 36.0 22.2
14-Jun-12 PBU 370 0.6 368 2 1,675 575 0.336 66 32.0 18.3

Table 3—PTA for Caballos of Well 2

Date Test BFPD Water Cut (%) BOPD BWPD RP (psi) Pwf (psi) J DD (%) S FE (%)

22-Dec-11 PBU 189 0.4 188 1 1,845 401 0.131 78 32.7 18.4
18-Jan-12 PBU 143 0.2 143 0.3 1,849 397 0.098 79 50.8 18.5
15-Jun-12 PBU 70 1.0 69 0.7 1,808 641 0.060 65 60.0 10.4

Fluid Selection
Once it has been determined that acid-removable formation damage is present and that treatment is
mechanically feasible, the appropriate fluids, volume, and concentrations are selected. To determine the
correct HF acid fluid for avoiding secondary precipitations, considerations for the choice of preflushes to
condition the formation proved to be essential. The proper choice of preflush was based on the acid
stability of the clays, carbonate removal, and the avoidance of deep clay swelling (Gdanski 1997).
For this stage, the software has two applications—an acid expert and a geochemical simulator. The acid
expert, based on mineralogy, reservoir parameters, and type of damage inputs, provides acid formulation
8 SPE-178996-MS

recommendations for a matrix acidizing treatment. The geochemical simulator confirms that there are no
issues with the formation of precipitates during the progression of the secondary reaction.
Fig. 7 shows that the recommended treatment consisted of the following stages: organic preflush, brine
conditioner, acid preflush, retarded HF (RHF) acid, and a fines stabilizer system. Kaolinite migration can
be controlled by using clay stabilizers in the post-flush after HF acid stimulation (McLeod 1984).

Figure 7—Fluid selection for treatment acid design

RHF acid is an acid system that has proven to be successful. Conventional matrix acidizing with HF
acid is only effective for removing shallow clay damage 1 or 2 in. from the wellbore. RHF acid is a
retarded HF acid system designed for treating sandstone formations that have been damaged from the
migration and/or swelling of silica, feldspars, and clays up to 2 to 6 in. from the wellbore. Formations with
significant kaolinite and/or illite are particularly sensitive to this type of damage. The fluoride content of
RHF acid is equivalent to the fluoride content of 1.5% HF acid, but its effective dissolving power is
equivalent to 1.1% HF acid. However, because of its retarded nature, in its reactions with sand, it is as
effective in removing clay damage as 1.5% HF acid. The primary advantages of using RHF acid include
the following:
● Deeper penetration of live HF acid into the formation.
● Retarded reaction with quartz sand and silica to promote deep damage removal and improve
compatibility with feldspar-containing formations.
● Minimized damage to formation consolidation—it reacts less with the quartz cementation that
holds the formation grains together.
● Acts as a clay stabilizer to control fines migration during and following the treatment.

Laboratory Testing
Several laboratory tests were performed, such as determining the compatibilities between stimulation and
formation fluids and interfacial measurements. Finally, and to help ensure an optimal treatment, coreflood
tests were conducted.
SPE-178996-MS 9

Compatibility Tests
Emulsion tests were performed to verify no stable emulsion was formed between the crude oil of every
well and the treatments proposed. Fig. 8 shows an example of this type of test performed at 180°F, where
there was emulsion breaking presenting 100% of separation in every relationship tested. Also, a low
interfacial tension (IFT) value of 0.018 mN/m was obtained for this case.

Figure 8 —Emulsion testing examples between crude oil and acid treatment

Coreflooding
Laboratory flow tests on field cores with a multistage stimulation treatment design using RHF acid as the
primary treatment were conducted during the fluid selection stage and before treatment execution. Fig. 9
shows the regained permeability after application of the full treatment in a sample of the Caballos
formation.

Figure 9 —Coreflooding test with stimulation trend

10 SPE-178996-MS

The permeability was improved from 20 to 80 md, with a 4.0 improvement factor (Kfinal/Kinitial).

Stimulation Treatment
Three steps are necessary when acidizing sandstone reservoirs: preflush, main flush, and post-flush. The
stimulation trend was designed for these steps as follows:
● Tubing Pickling: performed with HCl or acetic/formic acid, depending on the logistics at the
location. The treatment was pumped to a circulating sleeve (not into formation) before pumping
the stimulation fluid sequences.
● Organic Preflush: a low-IFT aromatic-aliphatic solvent mixture was used as a preflush and was
allowed a 2-hr soaking period to dissolve asphaltenes covering the target fines. Low IFTs also
promoted a rapid cleanup of dissolution products during flowback.
● Brine Conditioner: 5% ammonium chloride allowed the establishment of chemical equilibrium,
dissolving nonsoluble salts potentially present in the organic phase pumped ahead. It is necessary
for ion exchange and to avoid incompatibility with the acidic fluids.
● Acid Preflush: a mixture of organic acids (acetic and formic) was used as a preflush to dissolve
calcium carbonate before the RHF acid main treatment.
● RHF Acid (Main Treatment Fluid): A RHF (15 wt% HCl acid, 1.5 wt% HF acid, and 5 wt%
AlCl3·6H2O) acid system that has proven to be successful was used as the main treatment. The
system also contained chelating agents to control aluminum scaling and iron precipitation, a
surfactant as a penetrating agent, and a polymer used to stabilize several types of mineral fines
commonly produced from many formations.
● Fines Stabilizer Brine: 5% ammonium chloride with a stabilizer was used to help minimize the
tendency to disperse or defloculate naturally occurring fines within the formation matrix.
Additionally, some treatments were assisted with the use of RPMs to achieve the combined benefits of
water control and acid stimulation. The RPM described here is a hydrophobically modified water-soluble
polymer (HMWSP) that can be pumped after acidizing treatments. Under formation conditions, the
HMWSPs decrease the relative permeability of rock (reservoir) to water, with almost no effect on the
permeability to hydrocarbons. This is important because it allows production of higher oil volumes
without unacceptable quantities of associated water production.

Injectivity Factor
Before an acid stimulation treatment, common practice is to inject brine into the interval to be stimulated
to help ensure all of the treatment can be injected at adequate rates without reaching fracturing pressures.
The term injectivity factor (IF) was arbitrarily assigned to the relationship between injection pressure in
psi and injection rate in barrels per day (B/D).
(1)

where
Injectivity Factor ⫽ psi/(B/D)
Injection Pressure ⫽ surface pressure gauge reading at injection rate (psi)
Injection Rate ⫽ fluid injection rate at injection pressure (B/D)
An IF summary for a typical stimulation trend is presented in Table 4. The value obtained during the
injectivity test was the highest, indicating a stage of low injectivity. When the acid stages (preflush and
main treatment) react with the formation, the IF is low, indicating an increase of the injectivity.
SPE-178996-MS 11

Table 4 —IFs for typical stimulation trend

Treatment Stage Rate (B/D) Pressure (psi) IF (psi/B/D)

Injectivity test 1,440 3,400 2.3

Organic preflush 1,728 3,000 1.7
Acid preflush 1,440 900 0.6
RHF acid 3,024 750 0.2
Fines stabilizer brine 4,320 1,700 0.4

IFs have been used as a reference to predict the probability of success in every sandstone acidizing
treatment. When the reduction in this value is remarkable (more than ten times), a very good response
from the well in terms of oil production has been evidenced.

Well Mechanical Conditions

Well completions are performed with tubing conveyed perforating (TCP) using 4 1/2- to 4 5/8-in.
perforating guns with 5 shots per foot (SPF) in 7-in. casing. Both producers and injectors use 3 1/2-in.
9.3-lb/ft tubing. For formation isolation, 7-in. hydraulic packers are used, followed by sliding sleeves to
allow communication with the formation by opening and closing them with a shifting tool and a slickline
unit, as necessary. For injection wells in the Caballos formation, sliding sleeves are used. For the T sand
formation, these are not required because injection is performed through the annulus. In producing wells,
as many sliding sleeves are placed as there are open formation areas, with the addition of one circulating
sliding sleeve for pumping circulated treatments and to conduct pickling operations.
Jet pumps are used as the lifting system for producing wells, which are fished before the stimulation
treatment and then re-installed to perform post-stimulation flowback for each stage when the conditions
stabilize. Currently, efforts are being made to migrate to electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) using a
Y-tool to perform future stimulation treatments through coiled tubing (CT) without requiring removal of
the pump, which should help optimize time and reduce costs.
In the case of injection wells, produced water is treated to adjust injection parameters, such as dissolved
solids, chlorides, conductivity, iron, turbidity, hardness, alkalinity, etc. and then is pumped through two
injection systems at 2,600 or 3,000 psi. Before the stimulation treatment can be conducted, a slickline unit
is used to open and close the sliding sleeves and test the well bottomhole assembly (BHA) pressure to
verify its integrity. At this point in the operation, some drawbacks have been experienced, such as
obstructions during running in hole (RIH), faulty sliding sleeves, communication through the tubing/
casing annulus resulting from poor cement, or unseating the packer when the stimulation is performed
commingled (in more than one formation), some of which required halting operations to correct the
problem.

Treatment Execution and Records

The selected methodology for defining the treatment sequence and operational procedure to execute
interventions at each well has been similar because the well mechanical conditions are common. To date,
more than 100 stimulation stages have been performed, all using a bullheading technique. Some case
histories are discussed in detail. Table 5 summarizes all of the acid stimulation stages performed during
this campaign.
12 SPE-178996-MS

Table 5—Summary of acid stimulation stages during campaign

Case History 1: Typical Acid Stimulation in T Sand

A preliminary pipe test was performed with sliding sleeves closed for 16 min until reaching 4,200 psi to
test the integrity of the downhole equipment. Afterward, a pickling treatment was performed using 3 bbl
of organic solvent treatment followed by 19 bbl of acid treatment. The treatments were circulated down
and then reversed to surface with 3% KCl brine until neutral pH returns were observed. Before
stimulation, 70 bbl of 5% ammonium chloride was circulated down the production tubing through the
circulating sliding sleeves. The circulating sleeve was closed, and an injectivity test using 50 bbl of 5%
ammonium chloride was performed, reaching 1.4 bbl/min with 1,948 psi of pressure at the surface. A total
of 12 bbl of organic solvent preflush was pumped and displaced with 71 bbl of 5% ammonium chloride,
thus forcing the solvent preflush into the formation. During this stage of the treatment, a slight increase
in pressure was observed, followed by a pressure drop at the end of the treatment stage. The treatment was
allowed to soak for 2 hr to enable a reaction between the solvent preflush and the organic material in the
formation. After this time, 25 bbl of acid preflush were pumped and displaced with 71 bbl of 5%
ammonium chloride to force the acid preflush into the formation. The initial rate was 1.3 bbl/min with
1,850 psi of pressure at the surface. The pump rate increased to 1.8 bbl/min with 1,250 psi when the acid
preflush was injected into the formation, thus demonstrating the removal of carbonate material in the
NWB area. After displacing the acid preflush, 64 bbl of RHF acid treatment, followed by 64 bbl of
post-flush treatment (fines stabilizer brine), was pumped and displaced into the formation with 71 bbl of
5% ammonium chloride. Before the treatment entered into the formation, the pump rate was 1.6 bbl/min
at 391 psi at the surface. When the treatment ⫹ 7 bbl of post-flush entered into the formation, the flow
rate increased to 1.8 bbl/min at 391 psi at the surface. At the end of the RHF stage, the pump rate stabilized
at 1.75 bbl/min and 595 psi. Finally, 100 bbl of 5% ammonium chloride brine was overflushed to remove
reaction residues from the well. Fig. 10 shows the typical performance of the acid stimulation treatment
applied to this well.
SPE-178996-MS 13

Figure 10 —Performance during acid stimulation in T sand

After stimulation, the T sand was open to production, showing a change in oil rate production from
1,272 to 2,307 BOPD, which represented an increase of 81% (Fig. 11). In the following months, the
stimulation production decline rate was 19 bbl/month or 0.8% of daily production.

Figure 11—Well response to acid stimulation in T sand

Case History 2: Acid Stimulation and Conformance

This well was drilled and completed to 5,724 ft measured depth (MD). Previous successful acidizing
treatments had been performed on similar wells using the following dosages: 20 gal/ft of organic
14 SPE-178996-MS

treatment, 80 gal/ft of organic acid preflush, 100 gal/ft of RHF acid, 100 gal/ft of fines stabilizer brine,
and 70 gal/ft of 5% ammonium chloride as an overflush. In October 2012, a stimulation treatment for the
T sand was performed. Table 6 shows the results obtained after the stimulation treatment in the T sand
formation. The skin factor dropped from 32 to -2.9, representing a productivity regain (J/Jo) of 2.17
(0.729/0.336).

Table 6 —PBU for T sand before and after stimulation

Water RP Pwf DD FE
Date Test BFPD Cut (%) BOPD BWPD (psi) (psi) J (%) S (%)

14-Jun-12 PBU 370 0.6 368 2 1,675 575 0.336 66 32.0 18.3
Stimulation of T sand (October 30, 2012)
6-Dec-12 PBU 677 0.4 674 3 1,670 741 0.729 56 -2.9 100.0

Recently, high water production had been identified in this well, and it was necessary to assist the acid
stimulation treatment using a RPM. The RPM was used to decrease permeability to water in the treated
zone. It was also desirable that the treatment would not significantly affect hydrocarbon production
because of increased water cut. The recommended treatment was successfully applied in this well,
providing more than a two-fold improvement in oil productivity (Qo before ⫽ 134 BOPD; Qo after ⫽ 364
BOPD). Also, a reduction in water cut of 10% was evidenced (before ⫽ 63%; after ⫽ 53%).
Case History 3: Acid Stimulation and Scale Inhibition
This well produces mainly from the Caballos formation, and it had been stimulated to remove formation
damage from fines migration and was protected from calcite deposition downhole using scale inhibitor
squeeze treatments with a polyacrylate product. Recently, rapid declines in inhibitor residuals occurred,
and a solution for this issue was required. In the stimulation laboratory, different scale inhibitors were
tested, and a new phosphonate product showed the best performance, even at a lower concentration. It
helped prevent scales in formation brines containing high levels of calcium ions, and it can be used with
high total-dissolved-solids (TDS) and produced fines. A stimulation treatment was developed to restore
productivity (from 25 to 350 BOPD), and it was followed by a squeeze treatment using 330 gal of the
phosphonate in 250 bbl of 3% KCl brine. Fig. 12 shows the production history for this well. Inhibitor
residuals were evaluated, and very good levels of retention were attained (approximately 6 months).

Figure 12—Well response to acid stimulation and scale inhibition in Juanambú-1

SPE-178996-MS 15

Follow-Up to Well Responses

The effectiveness of the acid stimulation stages was determined in terms of additional barrels of oil after
treatment. Fig. 13 shows oil production results for the campaign performed during 2013. Oil production
increases were noted in all cases. For this particular year, a total increase in oil production of 3,524 BOPD
was achieved. Oil production increases in 2014 and 2015 show a similar tendency.

Figure 13—Oil production before and after stimulation in nine wells stimulated during 2013

Key Reasons for Success

There are a limited number of reasons for a sandstone acidizing treatment failure, which can be avoided
with proper treatment planning and execution. This is not to say that a success rate of 100%— on a
well-by-well basis—is readily attainable, but it could be possible in a particular field or with a limited
selection of wells (Rae and Di Lullo 2002).
However, some problems cannot be controlled. These include unforeseen mechanical problems,
especially downhole problems with the well and tools, as well as problems with stimulation equipment on
location (Kalfayan 2008). In the stimulation campaigns discussed here, the rate of success was approx-
imately 97%, but the few treatment failures experienced were associated with problems relating to sliding
sleeves, which are opened and closed during every stimulation stage. The main problem was the lack of
isolation, which prevented the proper distribution of treatment fluids. However, a 97% rate of success is
still high; as it turns out, most acidizing treatment successes can be attributed to the following:
● Wells with Formation Damage: a fines migration mechanism was confirmed in the Caballos and
Villeta formations. Mineralogy studies, critical velocity tests, and production data analyses all
support this conclusion. An acid-removable skin should have been present.
● Use of Correct Acid Treatment: acid-removable damage might be present, but the proper acid
treatment should be used to remove the damage. Core flood tests showed that an effective
dissolution of the damage was achieved. Also, the pressure response during stimulation stages
evidenced this behavior.
● Use of Correct Volumes or Concentrations: certain formations are sensitive to acid volumes and
concentrations, especially with respect to HF acid. Dosages presented in Case History 2 are typical
for these treatments and have proved to work effectively in the target formations.
● Quality Control: quality control should be used during rig up of equipment, before pumping,
during pumping, and after pumping/during flowback. Quality control helps ensure that all fluids
16 SPE-178996-MS

and tanks are as clean as possible and that the additives used are applied in the correct sequence
and at the correct concentrations to help avoid incompatibilities.
● Pumping the Acid Treatment below Fracturing Pressure: sometimes, acid treatments must be
pumped above fracturing pressure just to break down perforations and initiate flow. However, it
is generally accepted that sandstone acidizing must occur in the matrix—within the pore spac-
es—to remove the damage in the pore throats.
● Adequate Contact with the Damage: effective damage dissolution is the target, even in the
presence of calcium carbonate and asphaltenes. For this, a suitable design of preflushes is required.
New Opportunities
With current decreasing oil prices, it is important to find new alternatives to generate a strategy to lower
the cost per barrel of oil produced. Two new alternatives for (1) stimulation design and (2) deployment
of the treatment are presented as options to implement in future stimulation treatments.
Applications of an Alternative Aminopolycarboxylic Acid
Preliminary laboratory tests at 180°F were performed using a new acidizing fluid containing an environ-
mentally relevant chelating agent and aminopolyocarboxylic acid. The chelating agent is biodegradable,
is stable in fluid media from pH 1 to 7 and at high temperatures, and helps stabilize the dissolved ions
during an acidizing treatment. Unfortunately, the first results did not match the performance obtained with
previous stimulation treatments. These results will be used as a starting point for future tests.
Deployment Methods

A stimulation treatment is designed to increase the rate at which the formation delivers hydrocarbons
and increase the overall recoverable reserves. However, no matter how well-designed an acid stimulation
treatment might be, if the acid is not placed accurately throughout the wellbore, then the treatment will
fail to maximize production. As mentioned previously, currently efforts are being made to migrate to ESPs
using a Y-tool to allow performing future stimulation treatments through CT without requiring removal
of the pump, which should help optimize time and reduce costs. Recently, a retrievable straddle packer
deployed with 1 1/2-in. CT was proposed. It is a tension-sheared tool developed to enable sequential
stimulation stages, reducing intervention time. This solution demonstrates the innovative use of thru-
tubing wellbore isolation tools and should be beneficial to all completion engineers in need of methods
to stimulate wells with the same mechanical conditions.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are a result of this work:
● Fines migration was confirmed as the main damage mechanism present in the Caballos and Villeta
formations. Mineralogy studies, critical velocity tests, and production data analyses all support this
statement.
● The acid stimulation treatment was designed to remove formation damage caused by fines
migration and focused on enhancing the production capacity, and it was applied successfully in
these fields.
● A suitable design of the stimulation treatment pumped yielded an effective dissolution of the main
damage mechanism, even in the presence of calcite scale and asphaltenes.
● Acid stimulation combined with using RPMs and scale inhibitors proved to be a successful field
application for recovering oil production rates and reducing water cut.
SPE-178996-MS 17

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Grantierra and Halliburton for permission to publish this paper. They also thank the
technical personnel in the field for their assistance in procuring all of the technical data required to write
this paper.

Nomenclature
BFPD ⫽ Barrels of fluid per day
BOPD ⫽ Barrels of oil per day
BWPD ⫽ Barrels of water per day
DD ⫽ Drawdown condition (%)
FE ⫽ Flow efficiency (%)
ft ⫽ Feet
gal/ft ⫽ Gallons per foot
HF ⫽ Hydrofluoric acid
HCl ⫽ Hydrochloric acid
J ⫽ Productivity index after stimulation treatment (B/D/psi)
Jo ⫽ Productivity index before stimulation treatment (B/D/psi)
PBU ⫽ Pressure buildup
Pwf ⫽ Bottomhole flowing pressure (psi)
PV ⫽ Pore volume
RP ⫽ Reservoir pressure (psi)
S ⫽ Skin factor
SPF ⫽ Shots per foot

Reference
Civan, F. and Knapp, R. M. 1987. Effect of Clay Swelling and Fines Migration on Formation Permeability. Presented at
the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 8 –10 March. SPE-16235-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16235-MS.
Gdanski, R. D. 1997. Kinetics of the Primary Reaction of HF Alumino-Silicates. Presented at the SPE Production
Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 9 –11 May. SPE-77808-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
37459-MS.
Kalfayan, L. 2008. Production Enhancement with Acid Stimulation. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Corporation.
McLeod, H. O. 1984. Matrix Acidizing. JPT 36 (12): 2055–2069.
Rae, P. and Di Lullo, G. 2002. Achieving 100 Percent Success in Acid Stimulation if Sandstone Reservoirs. Presented at
the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, 8 –10 October. SPE-77808-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77808-MS.
Reyes, E. A., Smith, A., and Beuternaugh, A. 2013. Carbonate Stimulation with Biodegradable Chelating Agent Having
Broad Unique Spectrum (pH, Temperature, Concentration) Activity. Presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas
Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 10 –13 March. SPE-164380-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/164380-MS.