Journal Pre-proof

Selection of suitable acid chemicals for matrix stimulation: A Malaysian Brown field
scenario

Suzanna Juyanty M. Jeffry, Kukuh Trjangganung, Ashvin A. Chandrakant, Bahrom

Madon, Allan Katende, Issham Ismail

PII: S0920-4105(19)31110-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106689
Reference: PETROL 106689

To appear in: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Received Date: 12 July 2019

Revised Date: 9 November 2019
Accepted Date: 12 November 2019

Please cite this article as: Jeffry, S.J.M., Trjangganung, K., Chandrakant, A.A., Madon, B., Katende, A.,
Ismail, I., Selection of suitable acid chemicals for matrix stimulation: A Malaysian Brown field scenario,
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106689.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

 Selection of Suitable Acid Chemicals for Matrix Stimulation: A
Malaysian Brown Field Scenario
Suzanna Juyanty M. Jeffrya , Kukuh Trjangganunga , Ashvin A. Chandrakanta , Bahrom Madona , Allan Katendeb,∗, Issham
Ismailc
a PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd, 50088 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
b School
of Chemical Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 420 Engineering North, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA
c Department of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Chemical and Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Abstract
Matrix acidizing in sandstone reservoirs require a series of chemicals to dissolve the plugging materials around the wellbore.
The selection of suitable chemicals is important because it is one of the key factors to ensure success in acidizing due to the
complex mineralogy of sandstone reservoirs. Furthermore, limited studies have been done to compare the chemical selections
between industry guidelines and the success rate from historical field execution, worldwide. In view of the current low oil
prices and increasing treatment costs, the selection of the chemicals is important to maximize oil gain. Hence, this project was
embarked to develop a database of the historical acid matrix stimulation chemicals used in a Malaysian brown field. This paper
also includes recommendations of the suitable acid chemicals for matrix stimulation for future applications. The selection of
chemicals can be enhanced by using the combination of historical experience, recommendations from industry guidelines and
simulation results to model the estimated potential economic oil gain of future matrix stimulation candidates. The comparison
on skin reduction and oil gain between the three chemicals short-listed from historical analysis and industry guidelines has
been conducted using nodal analysis and acid placement software namely; Prosper and Stimpro, which enabled the selection
of the most suitable chemicals. Where the selection of chemicals (Main flush chemicals are; 10% HCl - 1.5% HF, 12%
HCl - 2% HF and 12% HCl - 3% HF) can be enhanced by using the combination of historical experience, recommendations
from industry guidelines and simulation results to provide potential estimation in achieving economic in achieving economic
oil gain for future matrix stimulation candidates. From the project, a database has been established to review the chemicals
that have been applied in the selected Malaysia brown field and the oil gain formula has been identified as the success rate
indicator. The comparison on skin reduction and oil gain between the three chemicals shortlisted from historical analysis and
industry guidelines has been conducted using nodal analysis and acid placement software, which enabled the selection of the
most suitable chemicals. The most suitable chemicals were selected based on the highest average oil gain.
Keywords: Well Stimulation, Acidizing, Hydraulic Fracturing, Chemical Selection, Skin reduction.

1.Introduction drops.
The failure rate of acid jobs was found to be 32% (Shafiq
stimulation is a technique that can be used to
W ELL
improve the flow of oil or gas from a reservoir by
dissolving the plugging materials or creating new pathways
and Mahmud, 2017). While a number of other companies
have reported failure rates in the range of 25 to 30% (Nit-
ters et al., 2000). The reported causes of failure are due
near the wellbore (Aljawad et al., 2019, 2020; Assem et al.,
to the poor candidate selection, lack of mineralogical in-
2019; Carvalho et al., 2019; Crowe et al., 1992; Economides
formation, improper chemical selection (main acid, addi-
and Nolte, 2000; Economides et al., 2013; Livescu et al.,
tives, strength and volume), improper fluid placement (lack
2018; Rabbani et al., 2018; Schechter, 1993). The most
of diversion strategies) and shutting-in acid treatment for
commonly applied stimulation techniques are acidizing and
too long, which caused secondary and tertiary reactions in
hydraulic fracturing (Bing et al., 2019; Livescu and Craig,
the reservoirs (Kalfayan, 2008; Rae and Lullo, 2002).
2017; Nitters et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2019; Zhang et al.,
2019). Worldwide, acidizing is the most common method Sandstone formation contains various amounts of quartz,
because a majority of the reservoirs have moderate to very clays (such as kaolinite or illite), alkaline aluminosili-
good permeability and the need to conduct acid stimulation cates (such as feldspars and zeolites), carbonates (calcite,
arises when the initial rates of the wells are below expecta- dolomite, and ankerite), and iron-based minerals (hematite
tion or when the productivity of the reservoir significantly and pyrite) (Hu et al., 2017; Katende and Sagala, 2019;

∗ Corresponding author
Email addresses: suzannajuyanty@petronas.com.my (Suzanna Juyanty M. Jeffry),
allan_katende@hotmail.com,allan.katende@okstate.edu (Allan Katende), issham@utm.my (Issham Ismail)
Received: July 12, 2019. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING
Kleppe and Sjaeveland, 1992; Leong et al., 2018; Mwangi
et al., 2018,?; Nasr-El-Din et al., 2007; Torsaeter et al.,
1987). Hence, sandstone matrix acidizing usually requires
the use of carefully selected chemicals and a designed se-
quence of stages to manage the complex reactions between
hydrofluoric acid (HF) and siliceous minerals in the forma-
tion.
Improper chemical selection is one of the factors that
reduces the success rate of sandstone acidizing treat-
ments (Kalfayan, 2008). This is due to the lack of under-
standing in formation mineralogy (Economides and Nolte,
2000; Hanafy and Nasr-El-Din, 2018). Furthermore, the
chemical selection for matrix acidizing in sandstone forma-
tion is challenging due to the complex mineralogy of the
reservoirs. As different types of minerals has different ele-
ments, structures, surface area and sensitivity to acids (Ab-
delmoneim and Nasr-El-Din, 2015; Sandrine et al., 2017).
In fact, the mineral components of the reservoirs throughout
a field can vary greatly from one layer to another due to the
differences in lithology. Additionally, the permeability of
sandstone reservoirs derived from logs or cores throughout
a field usually shows varied trends due to reservoir hetero-
geneity (Livescu et al., 2018).
Although acid selection guidelines have been estab-
lished based on sandstone acidizing chemistry and indus-
try practices, they were derived from limited research stud-
ies (Shafiq and Mahmud, 2017). Furthermore, limited stud-
ies have been done to compare the chemical selection from
the industry guidelines with the success rate from historical
field execution, especially in Malaysian oil fields (Livescu
et al., 2018). Inappropriate stimulation treatments are inef-
fective and costly, often creating more problems than they
solve. In view of the current low oil price and increasing
treatment cost, the selection of the best chemical treatmen-
tis important to maximize the treatment gain (Kartoatmodjo
et al., 2007; Moore and Ramakrishnan, 2008).
This research work focuses on the selection of acid stim-
ulation chemicals using data from a Malaysian oil field. It
is an offshore brown field with 150 ft water depth. The
field was discovered in the 1960s. To-date, the field have
been productive for up to 40 years since its first oil. The
reservoirs are proven to have moderate to strong water drive
characteristics. All wells within the major reservoirs were
completed with internal gravel pack as the main sand con-
trol mechanism. The wells are productive under gas lift.
A majority of the wells in the field suffer formation dam-
age due to fines migration. The problem has become promi-
nent when water breaks through and the well production
shows water cut increases. In some of the wells, gross pro-
duction drops and water cut increases which indicate fines
migration continues to affect well productivity. Based on
inflow and outflow performance analysis, the gas lift perfor-
mance was found to be at optimum condition and the wells
are producing at maximum choke size. This concludes that
the drop in the wells production is due to the skin build-up
caused by formation damage. This brown field has experi-
enced acid stimulation due to various chemical applications.
Hence, this research was executed to verify the acid stimu-
lation chemicals selection by using various available data in
2
the field; such as the analysis of actual results from field ap-
plications, analysis of mineralogy data and simulation using
acid placement software.
This research work aims to select the best acid matrix
stimulation chemicals by comparing the actual results from
historical field application, analysis of field-wide mineral-
ogy data and simulation using acid placement software. The
chemicals selected from this project can be used as a refer-
ence for nearby fields or other fields with similar reservoir
characteristics.
2.Literature Review
Formation damage is described as the disturbance to the
flow of fluids into or out of a wellbore. The formation dam-
age phenomena is defined by the impedance to flow due to
the reduction in permeability in the near wellbore region,
relative permeability changes to the hydrocarbon phase and
inadvertent flow restrictions in the well completion (Car-
valho et al., 2019; Permadi et al., 2012; Shirazi et al., 2019;
Song and Kovscek, 2016). It is typically classified as ei-
ther natural or induced. Natural damage is caused from the
effect of reservoir fluids production. Meanwhile, induced
damage occurs due to the activities or operations conducted
on the well (Civan, 2016; Shirazi et al., 2019). Natural dam-
ages include fines migration, swelling clays, water-formed
scales, organic deposits, and mixed organic and inorganic
deposits. Induced damages are normally plugging caused
by entrained particles in injected fluids, wettability changes
originated from oil-based drilling fluids (Assem et al., 2019;
Bing et al., 2019; Carvalho et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2019;
Katende et al., 2019; Lufeng et al., 2019; Majid et al., 2018;
Nur et al., 2017; Oseh et al., 2019; Torsaeter et al., 1997;
Yuan et al., 2019) or injected fluids pumped into the reser-
voir and emulsions or sludges that are byproducts from re-
actions of acid in the reservoir (Farkha et al., 2017).
Fines migration is one of the primary causes of formation
damage during production. It is a complex phenomenon
that is mainly caused by formation mineralogy, salinity, pH
changes, permeability, turbulence and drag forces due to
fluid flow and fluid viscosity (Assem et al., 2019; Hibbeler
et al., 2003; Katende and Sagala, 2019; You and Bedrikovet-
sky, 2018). In sandstone reservoirs that naturally contains
high amount fines and clays, they can migrate along with the
produced fluid towards near wellbore, plug pore throats and
reduce well productivity. This condition is prominent when
the reservoirs are producing at high water cuts because wa-
ter increases the mobility of the fines (Hibbeler et al., 2003;
Katende and Sagala, 2019).
The two key factors which cause clay movement are
critical velocity and critical salt concentration (Khilar and
Fogler, 1983). Fines in the pores will remain in position
when the flow inside the pore spaces is within a certain max-
imum velocity. The critical velocity of clays depends on the
nature and strength of bonds between the pore surfaces and
clay particles and also its morphology distribution (Sarkar
and Sharma, 1990). Low salinity and high pH can cause
fines to be released (Katende and Sagala, 2019; Song and
Kovscek, 2016) and reduces the permeability of the reser-
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 3

voir as shown in Figure 1 bilizing agents to bind the clay particles together and pre-
vent movement towards near the wellbore area. Removal
techniques can be accomplished by pumping acid systems
containing hydrofluoric acid (HF). This is because HF is the
Flow direction only acid that is able to dissolve aluminosilicates. In some
Low Salinity fluids
cases, removal treatments may be followed-by prevention
High pH fluids
High flow rates methods to keep the fines from migrating to near well-
Particles attached to pore wall
bore regions again after the acid stimulation treatment (Guo
Particles in suspension et al., 2017).
Captured particles

Historically, mud acid is used in the early years to treat

Figure 1: Fines migration in the pore throat area (Xiao et al., 2017).
wells with fines migration problems. Throughout the years,
various acid systems formulations have been studied which
Migrating fines are treated by prevention or removal tech- pose advantages and disadvantages of their applications.
niques (Reinoso et al., 2016; Xiao et al., 2017). Prevention Variations in these formulations are able to treat various
techniques normally involves pumping clay’s orTable 1: Comparison
fines’ sta- of acid systems
concerns in the conventional acid systems (Table 1).
Acid Formula Author Advantages Disadvantages
Mud acid Smith and Hendrick- Dissolve quartz, feldspar and clay Fast reaction (above 200o F) and
son (1965) and able to remove other damage cause precipitation, corrosive, haz-
ardous
Retarded mud acid Al-Dahlan et al. Reduces mud acid reaction rate and Precipitation of potassium tetraflu-
(2001) allow deeper penetration at less oroboron (KBF4) when the fluo-
than 200o F boric acid reacted with feldspar.
Organic – HF acid Shuchart and Gdan- Use in HCl sensitive clay, lower Precipitation at higher temperature,
ski (1996) corrosion rate, less than 350o F high cost
Single-stage acid Gomaa et al. (2013) Eliminates need of preflush and Uncertainty in the reaction mecha-
postflush nisms and rate
Phosporic-HF and Shafiq et al. (2015) Lower corrosion potential Not suitable for high temperature
Fluoboric-formic applications, uncertainty in the re-
action mechanisms and rate
10% acetic acid Hartman et al. (2006) Good for high temperature applica- Applicable for high carbonate per-
tions centage only
Chelating agents Almubarak et al. Use for high temperature (300o F) No fluoride ion, limited application
Na3EDTA and HEDTA (2017); Mahmoud
et al. (2011)
Emulsified acid Shafiq and Mahmud Slow reaction rate and stable at high Not applicable for sandstone forma-
(2017) temperature tion
Nitrified acid Economides and Allow deeper penetration of acid, Require careful design for each job,
Nolte (2000) enhance flowback difficult to monitor during execu-
tion

There are variations of sandstone acidizing treatments, In matrix acidizing, additives are added into the chemical
which are usually customized to address various concerns formulation to stabilize clays, disperse paraffin and asphal-
such as minimizing precipitation reactions, controlling the tene, prevent iron precipitation, improve treatment coverage
swelling of clays, and maximizing the treatment coverage. and clean-up. The three important additives need to have in
The procedure with the maximum number of steps is listed acidizing formulations are corrosion inhibitors, iron control
below (Aboud et al., 2007; Gidley, 1971; Kalfayan, 2008; agents and water-wetting surfactants.
Kalfayan and Metcalf, 2000). Corrosion inhibitors and iron control agents are required
due to the use of acid in the formulations. Water-wetting
1. Tubing pickling surfactants are important to leave the formation in water-
2. Crude oil displacement (solvent) wet conditions to enhance the flow of oil and gas during
3. Formation water displacement flow back. For reservoirs with fines migration issues, post
4. Acetic acid stage stimulation prevention is important. Hence, fines stabiliz-
5. Preflush stage ing agents can be employed in the main flush and postflush
6. Main acid (HCl-HF) stage
to keep the fines in place while performing a slow bean-up
7. Postflush stage
8. Diverter stage process to prevent post stimulation fines migration.
9. Repeat steps 2-8 (if necessary) Another aspect to be considered during matrix stimula-
10. Overflush tion is the requirement of diversion (Ismail and Cheong,
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 4

2006). When acid is pumped into the well and formation,
the acid preferentially flows to the path of least resistance.
Hence, if a well varies in permeability and porosity, the acid
will travel to the highly permeable zones. In worst case sce-
narios, this may lead to some of the zones being left un-
treated (Houseworth et al., 2016).
Hence, diversion is required to improve zonal coverage
and achieve uniform acid placement throughout the higher
and lower permeable zones (Domelen, 2017). Uniform
placement is the key to remove pore system damage effec-
tively (Ariffin et al., 1998). Diversion is usually temporary
such that it can be removed when the acid treatment is com-
pleted or when the well is being produced back, post stim-
ulation (Poyyara et al., 2014). There are two general types
experience in acidizing, reservoir properties and petrophys-
ical data. The detailed workflow for evaluate and analysis
stage is shown in Figure 3. No laboratory analysis done in
this project to test the selected chemicals. The evaluation
process is done by using the selected software. The com-
parison on skin reduction1 and oil gain between the three
chemicals short-listed from historical analysis and industry
guidelines has been conducted using nodal analysis and acid
placement software namely Prosper and Stimpro, which en-
abled the selection of the most suitable chemicals. Further-
more, the analysis does not consider secondary and tertiary
precipitation reaction modeling and the effect of acid con-
centration towards precipitation tendencies.
Start

of diversion techniques, namely mechanical and chemical

Data Gathering
types. (1) Historical acid simulation jobs in field
(2) Reservior mineralogy, permeability, temperature
(3) Case study wells data inputs (PVT, well configuration, well test, artificial lift data)
The selection of treatment fluids is one of the most impor-
tant steps in acid stimulation design and planning stage. For (1) Analyze the gain (before and after
acid stimulation treatment)
(1) Analyze X-ray diffraction (XRD) data
from the field
Utilize Prosper
Software to
(2) Establish the success rate (2) Select chemicals (preflush, main flush, build well
sandstone acidizing, multiple fluid stages are to be designed (3) Select chemicals (preflush,
main flush, postflush and additives)
postflush and additives) using industry
guidelines
models, match
with current
performance and
and selected with each stage serving its own purposes (Has- with highest success rate
quantity Skin
factor for case

san et al., 2017). Guidelines have been developed based on study wells

studies and field experiences to simplify the fluid selection

process (Ali et al., 2017; Economides and Nolte, 2000). Af- Chemicals from
Historical Analysis
Chemicals from
Guidelines (1)
Chemicals from
Guidelines (2)
Utilize Stimpro
Software to
Utilize Prosper
to quantify oil
Results
processing,
simulate the gain for the
ter a fluid system has been selected, it has to be modeled in selected
chemicals and
selected
chemicals
analysis and
discussion

a relevant simulator to evaluate the treatment effectiveness. quantify final

Skin for all case
simulated in all
case study Selection of the
study wells wells most suitable
chemicals

End
3.Methodology Chemicals Selection from Chemicals Selection using Industry Final Chemical
Historical Analysis Guidelines Evaluate and Analyze
Selection

3.1.Overall Project Flow Figure 3: Project flow for evaluation and stage analysis.

3.2.Historical Analysis
Project Framing Data Gathering Evaluate and Results and
Topic Selection Literature review Analysis Discussions For brown fields with records of previous acidizing ac-
Problem identification Gather data from Historical analysis Results processing
Establish project brown field Chemical selection Analysis and discussion
tivities, the field results can be used to analyze the success
objectives and scope using industry
guidelines
Selection of most
suitable chemicals
rate. Evaluation of post acid job treatments is important
Nodal analysis on
current well
to measure the success and failure of the project. In this
performance project, the historical analysis was performed by using the
Acid placement analysis
Nodal analysis on data highlighted in Table 2.
expected oil gain
The success evaluation for any acid stimulation is done
by comparing the stabilized production (or injection) rate
Figure 2: Overall project flow. before and after the treatment execution. There are many
ways to define the success which can be set by the operators
This project covers only on sandstone reservoirs and uses or service companies based on the companies economic as-
the selected Malaysian brown field that has had historical sumptions (Rae and Lullo, 2002).
acid stimulation jobs done since the early life of the field. In this project, information from well test data was used
The chemicals selection for the field was enhanced by using as indicators for previous treatment performance analy-
the combination of historical experience, recommendations sis (Nitters et al., 2000; Paccaloni and Tambini, 1993). Oil
from industry guidelines and simulation analysis to provide gain was selected as the success indicator in this project be-
assurance in achieving economic oil gain for future matrix cause it is the ultimate result which can be physically seen
stimulation candidates. Figure 2 shows the overall flow of and measured from well performance after acidizing treat-
the project. ments. It is also a result from the combination of factors
The detailed analysis was done after the data gathering such as skin reduction, gross increase and water cut reduc-
process was completed; which requires data from historical tion or increment after the treatment.

1 It is defined as the skin value before the treatment minus the skin value after the treatment.
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 5
Table 2: Data required for historical analysis

No Data required Remarks

1 Well and string name To identify the previous acidizing candidates
2 Reservoir name To identify the reservoirs that have been stimulated
3 Deployment techniques Bullheading or coiled tubing unit (CTU)
4 Preflush, main flush and postflush chemicals used and To identify the chemicals used and its concentration
its concentration
5 Additives used To identify the chemicals used as additives in the
treatment fluids
6 Type of diverter To identify diverter used which improve the chemical
placement during acidizing
7 Pumping strategy Neat or nitrified fluid
8 Pre-stimulation oil rate and water cut To record the well performance before acidizing
9 Post-stimulation oil rate and water cut To record the well performance after acidizing

Table 3: Success rate definition from various matrix stimulation jobs around the world

No Area Summary of treat- Deployment Success criteria Author Remarks

ment method
1 Niger Delta Retarded mud acid 80% of wells treated Payback period: Kume et al. More stringent pay-
(offshore) treatment on oil using coiled tubing. 1 month (1998) back period due to
and gas wells hav- The rest by bullhead- low oil price in 1999;
ing fines migration ing i.e USD 12/bbl
problems
2 Agbami Organic mud acid Marine support Payback period: Nwaochei Shorter payback pe-
Deepwater, system treatment for vessel with dynamic 1 month et al. (2014) riod required due to
Nigeria oil wells having fines positioning tool, the usage of dual
migration problems Remote Operating conduit coiled tubing
Vehicle (ROV) and and ROV
coiled tubing
3 Brunei (off- Half strength mud Coiled tubing Oil gain: 200 Al-Araimi High gain required
shore) acid (9%HCl - 1% bopd and Jin due to the usage of
HF) treatment on oil (2006) coiled tubing
wells having fines
migration problems
4 Niger Delta Retarded mud acid Wells were treated Afolabi et al. Shorter payback pe-
(offshore) treatment on oil using coiled tubing. • Payback (2008) riod and low UEC re-
wells with heavy The rest by bullhead- period: 1.5 quired due to the us-
crude, clay swelling ing month age of coiled tubing
and fines migration
• Unit En-
problems
hancement
Cost (UEC):
USD 8/bbl
or RM
32/bbl

Generally, the case studies listed in Table 3 uses eco-
nomic indicators to define success. Matrix acidizing treat-
ment effectiveness and success definition should be evalu-
ated using both technical and economic criteria (Rae and
Lullo, 2002). For this project, oil gain was used as the main
success indicator because it is the ultimate result from the
effectiveness of the treatment and skin reduction (indicating
formation damage removal). In addition, the payback pe-
riod was also used to show the month where the investment
is being recovered according to the oil gain achieved after
the acidizing treatment. For this project, a minimum oil
gain of 100 bopd has to be sustained for minimum of three

2 Unit Enhancement Cost (UEC) is the cost per barrel of production gain from the acid stimulation treatment. It is used as indicator (one year term) for

production enhancement activities

J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING
months to achieve the payback from the cost of the treat-
ment. Hence, this criterion was used as the main success
indicator for the completed acidizing jobs in the Malaysian
brown field being studied. For long term basis, the normal
target Unit Enhancement Cost (UEC)2 value is RM45/bbl
to suit Malaysian offshore operations. Furthermore, a min-
imum oil gain of 100 bopd has to be sustained for one year
to achieve the UEC.
The oil gain, payback period and UEC used in this project
were less stringent compared to the basis used in other his-
torical acidizing jobs listed in Table 3 because the jobs
done in Malaysia were using the bull-heading deployment
method instead of using coiled tubing unit. Hence, the cri-
teria mentioned above is considered to be more practical
in evaluating the historical acidizing jobs in the Malaysian
brown field being studied. In Malaysia operations, the plat-
forms and jackets are very small. Hence, normally bull-
heading method is the preferred method of deployment
since coiled-tubing unit is unable to be placed on top of the
platform. For brown field, where the oil gain is normally
smaller compared to new fields, deployment method is also
preferred as the cost is much lower than the coiled-tubing
cost.
3.3.Chemical Selection using Industry Guidelines
Industry guidelines established by many practitioners
have been widely used across the world. However, the
guidelines establishment was based on limited specific in-
dustry applications (Economides and Nolte, 2000). Hence,
this research work also compared the chemicals suggested
by the industry guidelines with the historical field experi-
ences in the brown field.
The data used for this analysis were mineralogy data from
X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) results, formation permeability,
formation temperature and petrophysical interpretation data
(silt and clay content). Two guidelines were used in this
project that were established by (Economides and Nolte,
2000).
3.4.Nodal Analysis on Current Well Performance
This research work utilizes the Prosper software as a tool
for nodal analysis. For acidizing candidates, the chosen IPR
model needs to have the capability to quantify the skin value
before and after acidizing. The skin reduction will translate
into oil gain. The Darcy model was used to model IPR in
Prosper. The model uses the Darcy inflow equation above
bubble point and Vogel equation below bubble point. The
steady state Darcy and Vogel inflow equations are shown as
per Equations 1 and 2, respectively. Equation 1 can be re-
arranged to establish the Productivity Index, PI value as per
Equation 3 (Economides and Nolte, 2000).
 
kh Pr − Pw f
q= h   i (1)
141.2µβo In rrwe + s
Pw f 2
" # " #
q Pw f
= 1 − 0.2 − 0.8 (2)
qmax Pr Pr
6
kh
PI = h r  i (3)
141.2µβo In rwe + s
The skin was modeled in Prosper by entering the total
skin value. Building the model for acid stimulation candi-
dates requires well calibration and matching to the current
well performance to ensure correct basis of evaluation.
3.5.Acid Placement Analysis
This research work utilizes the Stimpro software as the
tool for acid placement analysis. The Stimpro software
system enables the design, simulation and analysis of ma-
trix acidizing treatments. The basic information required in
Stimpro was the same as the input in Prosper and the ad-
ditional important data inputs and specifications required to
complete the model are listed below:
1. Formation mineralogy data was taken from XRD to
emphasize on the clay contents, feldspars and quartz
content for acid dissolution modeling.
2. Specified ”Deep formation damage” in the damage
profile window to represent fines migration issue in
near wellbore condition.
3. Damage depth was defined to represent the extent of
the formation damage. In this project, a 3 ft radius was
assumed.
4. Skin value was taken from Prosper model.
5. Maximum allowable surface treating pressure
(MASTP) was based on fracture pressure gradient data
from the field to ensure acidizing below fracturing
pressure.
6. Treatment chemicals being evaluated were taken from
the historical experience from the field and two indus-
try guidelines (preflush, main flush, postflush, over-
flush recipe, its concentration and volume).
7. Diversion and pumping strategy (either neat or nitrified
fluid system) were based on guidelines and historical
experience from the field.
The fluid selection was based on all the aspects covered as
shown in the chemical selection flowchart. Once the chem-
icals were defined, the treatment schedule was generated,
which covers the step-by-step pumping schedule (preflush,
main flush, postflush, overflush and displacement), chemi-
cal volume and pumping rate.
After running each case, the pumping pressure and rate
trending was checked to see if the simulated pumping pres-
sure exceeded fracture pressure. If the condition was ex-
pected to happen, the pumping rate in the treatment sched-
ule was reduced. The acid placement profile is important
to see the acid invasion profile for each case. The resulting
skin value from Stimpro was used as input into Prosper to
quantify the expected oil gain from each case.
3.6.Nodal Analysis on Expected Oil Gain
For this step, Prosper was utilized to evaluate how skin
reduction for each chemical simulated in Stimpro translated
into oil gain. The Darcy IPR model was used since the eval-
uation required sensitivity analysis on skin value. All pa-
rameters in the model were maintained except for the skin
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 7

value. The minimum cut-off for economic oil gain of 100 2. A majority of the wells treated with Chemicals C
bopd used in this analysis was the same basis as the his- showed either water cut maintained or reduced as com-
torical analysis. The option with the highest oil gain was pared to water cut prior to acidizing.
selected. 3. All wells treated with Chemicals E showed water cut
increased after acidizing. This was one of the factors
3.7.Total Number of Case Studies that could suppress the oil gain and potentially could
Ten wells were identified for the case study that were happen when using these chemicals for future applica-
confirmed to have fines migration issues in the Malaysian tions.
brown field being studied. The chemicals selected from his-
torical analysis and industry guidelines were further ana-
lyzed through these 10 wells, which resulted in 30 case stud-
ies being built and analyzed. The chemical with the highest
average oil gain was selected as the most suitable chemical
in this field.

4.Results and Discussions

4.1.Historical Analysis
In the Malaysian brown field selected for the case study,
the required data for analysis was populated and combined
into a database containing all the chemicals applied in the
previous acid stimulation activities conducted in the field.
The database contains the wells being treated, chemicals
used (preflush, main flush, postflush, overflush and addi- Figure 4: Number of jobs and success rate for each chemicals system.
tives), deployment method, post treatment results, diverter
and pumping strategy.
Based on the database, 73 acidizing jobs have been con-
ducted in the field from 1986 until 2017 with overall success
rate of 58%. All wells were treated to remove the forma-
tion damage due to fines migration problems by the use of
various chemical formulations throughout the years. The
jobs were normally done in campaigns, by treating a group
of wells located at the same platform or jacket, mainly to
maximize the remediation effort in the problematic wells
and save cost (mainly on mobilization of the required equip-
ment).
The database was then further analyzed to determine the
trends of the various aspects of the acidizing treatment.
Subsequently, all the treatment chemicals applied through-
out the years of completed acidizing jobs, its concentration, Figure 5: Success rate for diversion methods.
additives used, diverter, pumping deployment and pumping
strategy were evaluated. The treatment chemical recipe evo- Further analysis was done on the diversion method used
lution was established, which shows that there were six dif- throughout the years of experience in acid stimulation.
ferent chemical recipes (namely Chemicals A until F) were Three methods were applied; without diversion, foam di-
applied throughout the years. Each chemical recipe was rep- verter and relative permeability modifier. The success rates
resented by combinations of different preflush, main flush, are shown in Figure 5. The foam diverter gave the highest
postflush, diversion methods, pumping strategies and de- success rate due to its effectiveness in gravel pack comple-
ployment methods as listed in Table 4. tion, as foam can easily flow through the gravel towards the
These recipes were used as the basis of grouping the wells higher permeability zones to temporarily block the zone and
for further analysis and to establish the success rate. The allow acid to be diverted to lower permeability zones (Afo-
success rates of each chemicals system are shown in Fig- labi et al., 2008; Kalfayan and Metcalf, 2000).
ure 4. Among the six chemicals systems, Chemicals C and The pumping strategy has also shown to play an impor-
E gave 100% success rates. Four jobs were conducted using tant role in giving good success rate to the treated wells.
Chemicals C, meanwhile three jobs were using Chemicals Based on the analysis in Figure 6, nitrified treatment showed
E. Chemicals C were selected as the best chemicals from 65% success. Nitrified chemicals alloweddeeper radial pen-
historical analysis due to the following factors: etration to treat the damaging materials, especially within
1. Chemicals C showed the highest success rate and the critical matrix and improved flow back due to the expan-
higher gain (additional 100 bopd) compared to Chem- sion of gas when pressure drops, as the fluid moves from the
icals E. downhole up to the wellhead (Houseworth et al., 2016).
 Table 4: Summary of historical analysis

Year 1986 - 1992 1999 - 2007 2008 - 2009 2010 - 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL
Parameters Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN
A B C D E F
(gal/ft) (gal/ft) (gal/ft) (gal/ft) (gal/ft) (gal/ft)
Preflush 15% HCl 45 10% HCl 75 10% HCl 75 Preflush 25 3% 50 7.5% HCl 55 -
1: 5% NH4Cl
NH4Cl
Preflush
2: 10%
HCl
Main 12% HCl - 75 10% HCl - 100 10% HCl - 100 10% HCl - 50 10% HCl - 50 0.23% 65 -
flush 3% HF 1.5% HF 1.5% HF 1.5% HF 2.3% HF HCl -
1.5% HF
Postflush 3% HCl 30 10% HCl 75 10% HCl 75 10% HCl 25 - - 5% 15 -
NH4Cl
Overflush 3% 25 3% 20 3% 20 5% 15 3% 15 - - -
NH4Cl NH4Cl NH4Cl NH4Cl NH4Cl
Diverter No di- - Foam di- 7 Foam di- 7 35 Relative 50 Foam di- 25 Foam di- 25 -
verter verter verter perme- verter verter
8

ability
modifier
Additives Preflush: Corrosion Preflush: Corrosion Preflush: Corrosion in- Preflush: Iron con- Iron control agent, Iron control agent, -
inhibitor, surfactant, inhibitor, mutual sol- hibitor, mutual solvent, trol agent, mutual corrosion inhibitor, corrosion inhibitor,
iron sequester- vent, non-emulsifier non-emulsifier (surfactant), solvent, demulsifier, acid retarder, mu- acid retarder, mu-
ing agent Main (surfactant), iron iron control agent, retarded clay stabilizer, cor- tual solvent, non- tual solvent, non-
flush:Corrosion in- control agent, acetic acid, clay stabilizer, fines rosion inhibitor, sur- emulsifier, clay emulsifier, clay
hibitor, surfactant acid, clay stabi- migration control agent factant Main flush: stabilizer, fines sta- stabilizer, fines sta-
Overflush: Corrosion lizer, Main flush: Main flush: Corrosion in- Iron control agent, bilizing agent, acetic bilizing agent, iron
inhibitor, surfactant, Corrosion inhibitor, hibitor, mutual solvent, corrosion inhibitor, acid sequestering agent,
iron sequestering mutual solvent, non-emulsifier (surfactant), acid retarder, mutual acetic acid
agent, clay stabilizer non-emulsifier (sur- iron control agent, clay solvent, demulsifier,
factant), iron control stabilizer, acid retarder, clay stabilizer, sur-
agent, clay stabi- fines migration control factant Postlush: Iron
lizer, acid retarder agent Postflush: Corrosion control agent, mutual
Postflush: Corrosion inhibitor, mutual solvent, solvent, demulsi-
inhibitor, mutual sol- non-emulsifier (surfactant), fier, clay stabilizer,
vent, non-emulsifier iron control agent, retarded corrosion inhibitor,
(surfactant), iron acid, clay stabilizer, fines surfactant
control agent, acetic migration control agent
acid, clay stabilizer
 Year 1986 - 1992 1999 - 2007 2008 - 2009 2010 - 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL
Parameters Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN Chemicals CONCN
A B C D E F
(gal/ft) (gal/ft) (gal/ft) (gal/ft) (gal/ft) (gal/ft)
Deployment method 22 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - -
(CTU)
Deployment method (Bull- 14 - 20 - 4 - 7 - 3 - 3 -
heading)
Pumping strategy (Nitri- 8 - 0 - 4 - 7 - 1 - 3 - -
fied)
Pumping strategy (Neat) 28 - 20 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
Total number of jobs 36 - 20 - 4 - 7 - 3 - 3 - 73
Success 18 - 11 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 42
Failure 18 - 9 - 0 - 3 - 0 - 1 - 31
Success Rate (%) 50 - 55 - 100 - 57 - 100 - 67 - 58
No of jobs with water cut 10 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 16
maintained
No of jobs with water cut 21 - 14 - 1 - 5 - 3 - 3 - 47
increased
No of jobs with water cut 5 - 3 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 10
reduced
9
 Table 5: Chemicals selected based on industry guidelines

Well Sample Guidelines 1:(Economides and Nolte, 2000) Remarks Guidelines 2: (Kalfayan and Metcalf, 2000) Remarks
No
Preflush Main flush Postflush Preflush Main flush Postflush
Well A 1 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 15% HCl 12% HCl - 3% HF 15% HCl Low clay
2 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 10% HCl 7.5% HCl - 1.5% HF 10% HCl Moderate clay
3 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 15% HCl 12% HCl - 3% HF 15% HCl Low clay
4 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 10% HCl 6.5% HCl - 1% HF 10% HCl High clay
5 10% HCl 13.5% HCl - 1.5% 10% HCl High silt, high clay 5% 15% HCl + Iron con- 5% High in carbon-
HF NH4Cl + trol NH4Cl + ates > 20%
3% HAc 3% HAc
6 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 5% 15% HCl + Iron con- 5% High in carbon-
NH4 Cl + trol NH4 Cl + ates > 20%
3% HAc 3% HAc
7 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 5% 15% HCl + Iron con- 5% High in carbon-
NH4 Cl + trol NH4 Cl + ates > 20%
3% HAc 3% HAc
8 5% HCl + 6% HCl - 1% HF + 5% HCl + 4% chlorite 10% HCl 6.5% HCl - 1% HF 10% HCl High clay
5% HAc 5% HAc 5% HAc
9 5% HCl + 6% HCl - 1% HF + 5% HCl + 6% chlorite 10% HCl 6.5% HCl - 1% HF 10% HCl High clay
10

5% HAc 5% HAc 5% HAc

10 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 15% HCl 12% HCl - 3% HF 15% HCl Low clay
11 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 5% 15% HCl + Iron con- 5% High in carbon-
NH4 Cl + trol NH4 Cl + ates > 20%
3% HAc 3% HAc
12 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 10% HCl 7.5% HCl - 1.5% HF 10% HCl Moderate clay
13 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 5% 15% HCl + Iron con- 5% High in carbon-
NH4 Cl + trol NH4 Cl + ates > 20%
3% HAc 3% HAc
Well B 14 10% HAc 12% HCl - 2% HF + 10% HAc 8% chlorite 10% HCl 6.5% HCl - 1% HF 10% HCl High clay
5% HAc
15 5% HCl + 6% HCl - 1% HF + 5% HCl + 6% chlorite 10% HCl 6.5% HCl - 1% HF 10% HCl High clay
5% HAc 5% HAc 5% HAc
Well C 16 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 15% HCl 12% HCl - 3% HF 15% HCl Low clay
17 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 15% HCl 12% HCl - 3% HF 15% HCl Low clay
18 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 15% HCl 12% HCl - 3% HF 15% HCl Low clay
19 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl High silt, low clay 15% HCl 12% HCl - 3% HF 15% HCl Low clay

Selected - 10% HCl 12% HCl - 2% HF 10% HCl 15% HCl 12% HCl - 3% HF 15% HCl
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING
Figure 6: Success rate for pumping strategy.
Figure 7: Success rate for deployment method.
In terms of the deployment method, two methods were
implemented in the field and the bullheading method gave
higher success rate compared to coiled tubing (CTU) as
shown in Figure 7. Since all wells were completed with
gravel packand the zone completed behind the SSD, CTU
might not have any effect in improving the chemical place-
ment since the chemicals may be dispersed when passing
through the high permeability gravel prior tobeing in con-
tact with the formation. Hence, the bull-heading method
combined with foam diverter was the superior choice when
having gravel packed completions (Afolabi et al., 2008;
Crowe et al., 1992).
In summary, combinations of Chemicals C pumped as ni-
trified fluid and the bull-heading method with foam diverter
were selected for further analysis. Chemicals C is termed as
Chemicals 1 and compared with the recommendations from
industry guidelines.
4.2.Chemical Selection using Industry Guidelines
Prior to initiating the analysis, XRD data was populated
for all the core samples acquired in three wells A, B and
C from the field. This information was combined with the
11
silt content, reservoir temperature and permeability. This
information was used to select the preflush, main flush and
postflush chemicals. Based on the data above, chemicals
were selected using the two guidelines and summarized in
Table 5. Guidelines 1 classified a majority of the samples
as high silt and low clay which concluded 10% HCl as the
preflush, 12% HCl – 2% HF as the main flush chemical and
10% HCl as the postflush. This recipe will be termed as
Chemicals 2 for further simulation in the case study wells.
Guidelines 2 classified majority of the samples as low clay
which concluded 15% HCl as the preflush, 12% HCl – 3%
HF as the main flush and 15% HCl as the postflush chem-
ical. This recipe will be termed as Chemicals 3 for further
simulation in the case study wells.
4.3.Final Chemical Selection for Simulation
Three chemicals were shortlisted for further analysis in
acid placement software as given in Table 6. From historical
analysis, Chemicals C were selected as the best chemicals
since it showed the highest success rate and gain. Chemicals
C was referred as Chemicals 1 for the simulation exercise.
Meanwhile, Chemicals 2 and 3 were the selected chemicals
from industry guidelines.
Below are the considerations for Chemicals 1 for simula-
tion and analysis:
1. Chemicals 1 contains 10% HCl preflush, 10% HCl –
1.5% HF main flush acid, 10% HCl postflush and 3%
ammonium chloride as the overflush fluids, which rep-
resents the selected Chemicals C from historical anal-
ysis (Table 4).
2. Acid retarder was used to allow delayed reaction and
extent the treatment radial penetration. The additives
scheme followed the actual field applications as shown
in historical analysis.
3. Nitrified fluids and foam diverter were used in between
the treatment stages.
Below are the considerations for the chemicals that were
selected using industry guidelines, which are referred as
Chemicals 2 and 3 for simulation and analysis (Table 6):
1. The preflush, main flush and postflush chemicals type
and its concentrations in Chemicals 2 and 3 were based
on the recommendations by the guidelines.
2. An acid retarder was used to allow delayed reaction
and extent the treatment radial penetration. The addi-
tives scheme followed the actual field applications in
historical analysis.
3. Foam was selected as the diversion method because
it is the preferred method when having gravel packed
completions.
4. Both pumping strategy and deployment method were
selected based on actual field experience as per Chem-
icals 1 since it showed higher success rates.
Ten wells, namely Well 1 until 10 were selected from the
brown field for evaluation and analysis, 30 cases were built
to evaluate the performance of the three shortlisted chemi-
cals.
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 12

Table 6: Chemicals selected for simulation

Source Historical analysis Industry guidelines

Results Chemicals C from historical (Economides and Nolte, 2000) Kalfayan and Metcalf (2000)
analysis
Chemicals for simu- Chemicals 1 Chemicals 2 Chemicals 3
lation
Preflush 10% HCl 10% HCl 15% HCl
Main flush 10% HCl - 1.5% HF 12% HCl - 2% HF 12% HCl - 3% HF
Postflush 10% HCl 10% HCl 15% HCl
Overflush 3% NH4 Cl 3% NH4 Cl 3% NH4 Cl
Diverter Foam diverter Foam diverter Foam diverter
Additives
• Preflush:Corrosion in- • Preflush: Corrosion in- • Preflush: Corrosion in-
hibitor, mutual solvent, hibitor, mutual solvent, hibitor, mutual solvent,
non-emulsifier (surfac- non-emulsifier (surfac- non-emulsifier (surfac-
tant), iron control agent, tant), iron control agent, tant), iron control agent,
retarded acid, clay sta- retarded acid, clay sta- retarded acid, clay sta-
bilizer, fines migration bilizer, fines migration bilizer, fines migration
control agent. control agent. control agent.
• Main flush: Corrosion • Main flush: Corrosion • main flush: Corrosion
inhibitor, mutual solvent, inhibitor, mutual solvent, inhibitor, mutual solvent,
non-emulsifier (surfac- non-emulsifier (surfac- non-emulsifier (surfac-
tant), iron control agent, tant), iron control agent, tant), iron control agent,
clay stabilizer, acid re- clay stabilizer, acid re- clay stabilizer, acid re-
tarder, fines migration tarder, fines migration tarder, fines migration
control agent. control agent. control agent.
• Postflush: Corrosion • Post flush: Corrosion • Postflush:: Corrosion
inhibitor, mutual solvent, inhibitor, mutual solvent, inhibitor, mutual solvent,
non-emulsifier (surfac- non-emulsifier (surfac- non-emulsifier (surfac-
tant), iron control agent, tant), iron control agent, tant), iron control agent,
retarded acid, clay sta- retarded acid, clay sta- retarded acid, clay sta-
bilizer, fines migration bilizer, fines migration bilizer, fines migration
control agent. control agent. control agent.

Deployment Bullheading Bullheading Bullheading

method
Pumping strategy Nitrified Nitrified Nitrified

4.4.Nodal
Table Analysis onand
7: Initial skin Current
current Well Performance
oil rate for case study wells which were used as the input in Stimpro software for acid
placement analysis. The results are summarized in Table 7.
Well no Current performance A majority of the wells had skin of more than +50 which
Initial skin Initial oil rate (bopd) indicated highly damaged formation (Civan, 2016; Saavedra
1 50 218 et al., 1998). Additionally, a majority of the wells were also
2 65 252 producing at oil rates ranging from 100 to 500 bopd. These
3 77 175 rates were used as the baseline oil rate prior to acidizing.
4 68 140
5 21 495 4.5.Acid Placement Analysis
6 55 300 Before performing the analysis using the Stimpro soft-
7 72 155 ware, the fracture pressure and treatment volume for each
8 50 180 of the wells were calculated. Acidizing simulation was done
9 65 160 below fracture pressure. Hence, these values were used as
10 100 125 the operational limits in the Stimpro model. The treatment
volume calculations used in this analysis were based on the
All ten wells were calibrated and matched against the volume used for Chemicals 1, which yielded the highest
welltest data to produce robust model that was representa- success rate in the year 2008 until 2009. The preflush and
tive of the current well performance. The calibrated models postflush were using 75 gal/ft, meanwhile main flush was
were utilized to quantify the initial skin prior to acidizing using 100 gal/ft.
J OURNAL P ETROLEUM
OF for
Table 8: Results S CIENCE
number of stages requirementAND E NGINEERING
for case study wells 13

Well no ReservoirCalculated Optimized troduced, the foam diverter goes into the higher permeabil-
height number number ity layers and temporarily blocks the layers to allow the sec-
of stages of stages ond stage acid to treat the lower permeability zones (Civan,
(ft) 2016; Kalfayan, 2008; Senters et al., 2017).
1 39 2 2
2 39 2 2
3 48 2 2
4 64 2 2
5 104 3 3
6 135 4 4
7 95 3 2
8 63 2 2
9 86 3 2
10 222 7 4
For number of stages, the initial calculations were based
on treatment interval height. However, after simulation, the
number of stages were optimized based on the results of the
Figure 8: Plots for Chemicals 1 in Well 1.
skin reduction. If adding more stages did not further reduce
the skin, the number of stages were not added further (Ta-
ble 8). Having a staged treatment is important to ensure all
parts of the intervals are distributed and complimenting the
usage of foam diverter in the wells (Afolabi et al., 2008).
The results for the treatment volume requirements are sum-
marized in Table 9. Both calculations were dependent on
the treatment height.
For the treatment using Chemicals 1 in Well 1, the fluid
was simulated as a two-stage pumping operation. The
pumping activity was kept below fracture pressure as shown
in Figure 8 to prevent acid from preferentially moving in-
side the fracture only and leaving the unfractured zones un-
treated.
Figure 9: Skin reduction, pumping flow rate and acid concentration plot
Figure 9 shows that the skin started to reduce when the for Chemicals 1 in Well 1.
main flush acid containing 10% HCl - 1.5% HF became in
contact with the formation. This was due to the reaction of The acid invasion profile in Figure 10 shows that the foam
HF in dissolving the clays and fines in the formation;(Al- diverter goes to the four bottom layers and helps to divert
Harbi et al., 2013; Salmi et al., 2018; Shafiq et al., 2015). the second stage acid to the top four lower permeability lay-
The same trend was observed when the main flush acid ers. The final skin from this case is 21.24 with a maximum
was introduced in the second stage to yield further skin re- radial penetration distance up to 125 inches away from the
Table 9: Treatment volume calculations for case study wells
duction. This was because when the foam diverter was in- wellbore.
Well Reservoir height (ft) Treatment volume calculation
no
Preflush Main flush Postflush Overflush Foam Displacement
volume volume vol- volume di- fluid
(gal) ume verter
(gal) (gal) (gal) (gal) (gal)
1 39 2925 3900 2925 780 273 1188
2 39 2925 3900 2925 780 273 1173
3 48 3600 4800 3600 960 336 1019
4 64 4800 6400 4800 1280 448 571
5 104 7800 10400 7800 2080 728 1759
6 135 10125 13500 10125 2700 945 2044
7 95 7125 9500 7125 1900 665 1910
8 63 4725 6300 4725 1260 441 1465
9 86 6450 8600 6450 1720 602 1372
10 222 16650 22200 16650 4440 1554 1484
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 14

mud, 2018; Ismail et al., 2011; Khilar and Fogler, 1983;

Nasr-El-Din et al., 2007; Zaman et al., 2013).

Figure 10: Acid invasion profile for Chemicals 1 in Well 1.

Figure 12: Skin reduction, pumping flow rate and acid concentration plot
For the treatment using Chemicals 2 in Well 1,the sim- for Chemicals 2 in Well 1.
ulation was repeated with the chemicals recommended by
the guidelines from Economides and Nolte (2000). The
treatment was also kept below fracture pressure as shown in
Figure 11.

Figure 13: Acid invasion profile for Chemicals 2 in Well 1.

For the treatment that used Chemicals 3 in Well 1, the

Figure 11: Plots for Chemicals 2 in Well 1. simulation was repeated with the chemicals recommended
by the guidelines from Kalfayan (2008). The treatment was
The same skin reduction trend was observed in Figure 12, also kept below fracture pressure (Figure 14) as per the pre-
indicating that the acid works in treating the zones during vious cases in Well 1.
both treatment stages. Similar to the previous case, the
skin further reduced at the second stage, indicating that the
foam diverter helped to divert the acid to lower permeabil-
ity zones and allowed the acid to treat those zones (Afolabi
et al., 2008; Civan, 2016; Kalfayan, 2008; Senters et al.,
2017). The acid invasion profile in Figure 13 shows that
most of the foam diverter flows into the bottom four lay-
ers which had higher permeability, thus allowing the sec-
ond stage treatment to go to the top four layers which have
lower permeability. The final skin for this case is 18.06
(63.9% skin reduction), which is 6.4% higher skin reduction
compared to the treatment using Chemicals 1 and achieved
maximum radial penetration distance up to 125 inches away
from the wellbore. Figure 14: Plots for Chemicals 3 in Well 1.
This case has showed higher skin reduction as compared
to the previous case due to higher concentration of HF acid. The skin reduction trend was similar with the two previ-
Higher percentage of HF resulted in higher acid-mineral re- ous cases as observed in Figure 15, indicating that the acid
action rate. Due to this factor, with the same treatment vol- works in dissolving the damaging substances during both
ume and pumping sequence, a faster reaction rate allowed treatment stages. Similarly, the skin reduced further at the
better dissolution process in removing the damage and re- second stage, indicating that the foam diverter helped to di-
sulted in higher skin reduction;(Abdelmoneim and Nasr-El- vert the acid to lower permeability zones and allowed the
Din, 2015; Economides and Nolte, 2000; Hong and Mah- acid to treat those zones (Civan, 2016; Ismail and Cheong,
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 15

2006; Kalfayan, 2008). reduction), which is 5.1% higher skin reduction compared
to the treatment using Chemicals 2 and achieved maximum
radial penetration distance up to 125 inches away from the
wellbore.
This case has shown the highest skin reduction as com-
pared to the previous two cases due to highest concentration
of HCl-HF acid in this formulation. The higher percentage
of HF resulted in higher acid-mineral reaction rate. Due to
this factor, with the same treatment volume and pumping
sequence, a faster reaction rate allowed better dissolution
process in removing the damage and resulted in higher skin
reduction; (Abdelmoneim and Nasr-El-Din, 2015; Econo-
mides and Nolte, 2000; Hong and Mahmud, 2018; Ismail
Figure 15: Skin reduction, pumping flow rate and acid concentration plot et al., 2011; Khilar and Fogler, 1983; Nasr-El-Din et al.,
for Chemicals 3 in Well 1. 2007; Zaman et al., 2013).
The simulations for treatment using Chemicals 1, 2 and
3 were repeated for Well 2 until 10 using the same method.
The summary of results for Well 1 until 10 is given in Ta-
ble 10. The table 10 exhibits the comparison of the initial
and the final skin when applying each of chemicals, the re-
sulting skin reduction values and their percentage.
In general, the skin reduction was consistently higher
when the acid concentration is increased, as seen in all the
case study wells. Higher skin reduction is the indication
of better damage removal. Relating these findings with the
chemical concentration used, a higher percentage of HCl-
HF resulted in higher acid-mineral reaction rate. Due to
this factor, the same treatment volume and pumping se-
Figure 16: Acid invasion profile for Chemicals 3 in Well 1. quence and faster reaction rate allowed better dissolution
Moreover, the acid invasion profile in Figure 16 shows process in removing the damaging materials and resulted
that most of the foam diverter flows into the bottom four lay- in higher skin reduction(Abdelmoneim and Nasr-El-Din,
ers which had higher permeability, allowed the second stage 2015; Economides and Nolte, 2000; Hong and Mahmud,
treatment to go to the top four layers which have lower per- 2018; Ismail et al., 2011; Khilar and Fogler, 1983; Nasr-
meability. The final skin for this case is 15.49 Table(69.0%
10: Skin skin
reduction forEl-Din
all case study
et al.,wells
2007; Zaman et al., 2013).
Well Initial Chemicals 1: 10% Chemicals 2: 12% Chemicals 3:
no skin HCl – 1.5% HF HCl – 2% HF 12% HCl – 3%
(Historical Analy- (Economides and HF(Kalfayan and
sis) Nolte, 2000) Metcalf, 2000)

Final Skin % Final Skin % Final Skin %

skin reduc- Skin skin reduc- Skin skin reduc- Skin
tion reduc- tion reduc- tion reduc-
tion tion tion
1 50 21.24 28.76 57.52 18.06 31.94 63.88 15.49 34.51 69.02
2 65 23.48 41.52 63.88 17.59 47.41 72.94 10.57 54.43 83.74
3 77 36 41 53.25 29.11 47.89 62.19 21 56 72.73
4 68 26.31 41.69 61.31 20.94 47.06 69.21 17.42 50.58 74.38
5 21 8.53 12.47 59.38 6.78 14.22 67.71 4.53 16.47 78.43
6 55 26.77 28.23 51.33 25.34 29.66 53.93 23.88 31.12 56.58
7 72 12.31 59.69 82.9 8.21 63.79 88.6 4.13 67.87 94.26
8 50 18.22 31.78 63.56 16.61 33.39 66.78 15 35 70
9 65 24.08 40.92 62.95 21 44 67.69 18 47 72.31
10 100 24.81 75.19 75.19 22.7 77.3 77.3 20.6 79.4 79.4
Average 62.3 22.18 40.13 64.41 18.63 43.67 70.09 15.06 47.24 75.82
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING
4.6.Overall Analysis
After quantifying the skin reduction, Prosper was utilized
to evaluate how skin reduction for each chemical translated
into oil gain. When skin was reduced, the IPR improved
and yielded higher Absolute Open Flow (AOF) value, which
corresponded to the Darcy Law. Since skin did not affect
VLP, it was maintained in all the three cases. For Well
1, higher skin reduction was observed from Chemicals 1,
2 to 3, which subsequently resulted in the improvement of
the IPR plots according to the increment of the skin reduc-
tion. The highest AOF value and gain was seen when using
Chemical 3. This showed that higher gain was observed
when the concentration of HCl-HF acid was increased. The
results for other wells showed the same trend as Well 1,
whereby the higher HCl-HF concentration yielded better
IPR and higher oil gain. Figure 17 summarizes the resulting
oil gain for all 30 case studies.
Figure 17: Gain comparison of chemicals simulated in each case study
wells.
Figure 18: Gain comparison for each option.
The oil gain for all the case study wells were averaged
for each chemical option and summarized as given in Fig-
ure 18 for comparison. The minimum cut-off for economic
oil gain was 100 bopd. This value was the same basis as
the historical analysis. The average gain for Chemicals 1, 2
and 3 were 238 bopd, 296 bopd and 390 bopd, respectively.
16
Since they were above the cut-off value, all options were
considered as economic.
Since higher skin reduction trends were seen when the
HCl-HF concentration was increased in all case study wells,
the oil gain for Chemicals 3 showed the highest value. In
addition, the incremental gain from Chemicals 1 to 2 and 2
to 3 were 58 and 95 bopd, respectively. This indicates that
Chemicals 3 is able to provide higher incremental oil gain
compared to other HCl-HF concentrations.
As seen in the previous analysis, the higher percentage of
HF resulted in faster acid-mineral reaction rate. It allowed
a better dissolution process in removing the formation dam-
age and resulted in higher skin reduction(Abdelmoneim and
Nasr-El-Din, 2015; Economides and Nolte, 2000; Hong and
Mahmud, 2018; Ismail et al., 2011; Khilar and Fogler, 1983;
Nasr-El-Din et al., 2007; Zaman et al., 2013). The miner-
alogy data from this field has also shown the suitability of
HCl-HF chemical in treating fines migration issues in this
field (Shah et al., 2017). In fact, laboratory studies have in-
dicated that the reaction rate of HF acid to sandstone miner-
als was proportional to the HF concentration. The HCl con-
centration slightly affected the reaction rate but was able to
promote the reaction between HF acid and sandstone min-
erals by providing the source of hydrogen to produce HF for
retarded acid (Li et al., 2016). Chemicals 3 which consists
of 15% HCl preflush, 12% HCl - 3% HF main flush acid,
15% HCl postflush, 3% NH4 Cl overflush and improved ad-
ditives scheme is the best chemical formulation to be ap-
plied in the field (Gidley, 1971).
5.Conclusions
The following conclusions have been drawn accordingly
from this research work:
1. A database has been established to review the perfor-
mance of six chemicals from 73 acidizing jobs exe-
cuted in the selected Malaysian brown field. The oil
gain of 100 bopd has been identified as the success rate
indicator, which shows success rate of 58%.
2. Evaluation of the shortlisted chemicals using Prosper
and Stimpro software has shown 15% HCl preflush,
12% HCl - 3% HF main flush acid, 15% HCl postflush,
3% NH4 Cl overflush and improved additives scheme
are recommended for future applications. The short-
listed chemical is expected to have more than 90% ef-
ficiency based on combination of historical analysis,
industry guidelines and simulation work.
3. Higher percentage of HF resulted in faster reaction
rate and reduction of treatment duration, which able to
save treatment cost as the job can be completed faster.
Lower cost shall also translate to better economics.
4. Applications of an acid retarder, foam diverter, nitri-
fied treatment and bull-heading method are found to
be effective in treating gravel packed wells with fines
migration issues. Based on the established database
from the Malaysia brown field being studied, the ap-
plications of an acid retarder, foam diverter, nitrified
treatment and bull-heading method are found to be ef-
fective in treating gravel packed wells with fines mi-
gration issues as seen in all the wells in the field.
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING
Conflict of Interest
None
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to
PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd, for providing the neces-
sary resources and for permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
AOF Absolute Flow Potential
IPR Inflow Performance Relationship
ρ Density
bopd barrels of oil per day
bbl barrel
k: Reservoir permeability, md
h: Net thickness, ft
PR : Reservoir pressure, psi
Pwf: Flowing bottomhole pressure, psi
µ: Fluid viscosity, cp
B: Formation volume factor, rb/STB
re: External boundary radius, ft
rw: Wellbore radius, ft
S: Skin
q: Liquid rate, bbl/d
qmax: Maximum liquid rate, bbl/d
Author Biographies
Suzanna Juyanty Mohd Jeffry is
a Principal Production Technologist
in PETRONAS. She holds a Msc.
Petroleum Engineering from Univer-
sity of Technology Malaysia (UTM)
in 2018 and Bsc. in Chemical En-
gineering from University of Technol-
ogy Petronas (UTP) in 2005, both with
great honours. She has 13 years of experience in the oil and
gas industry, mainly in the areas of Production Technology
such as; Area Development Plan, Field Development Plan,
production enhancement, surveillance and new technology
studies. She is involved in many acid matrix stimulation ac-
tivities. She is a member of Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Kukuh Trjangganung is a Prin-
cipal Production Technologist in
PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd. He has
experiences working in the oil and gas
industry, mostly in Field Development
Plan, Production enhancement and
Surveillance activities. He hold a Bsc
degree in Petroleum Engineering from University of Na-
tional Development, Jogjakarta and Magister Management
from ”Prasetiya Mulya” School of Management, Jakarta -
Indonesia.
Ashvin Avalani Chandrakanth
is a Production Technologist in
PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd. He
holds Bsc in Petroleum Engineering
from Texas A& M University. He is
currently involved in the surveillance,
production enhancement and fore-
casting activities supporting one of
Petronas Carigali’s field in Sarawak region.
17
Bahrom Madon is a Custodian Pro-
duction Technologist in PETRONAS
Carigali Sdn Bhd. He has experience
in the oil and gas industry. He holds
Bsc in Petroleum Engineering from
the University of Technology Malaysia
(UTM).
Allan Katende is now a new
PhD student research fellow at
Oklahoma State University(OSU)
sponsored by the School of Chem-
ical Engineering at Oklahoma
State University(OSU), Stillwa-
ter, Oklahoma, United States of
America(USA). Before moving to
the United States of America(USA), he holds an Msc.
Petroleum Engineering with great honour from the Nor-
wegian University of Science and Technology(NTNU) in
2015 and a Bsc. Mechanical Engineering where he grad-
uated summa cumlaude from Makerere University, Col-
lege of Engineering, Design, Art and Technology in 2013.
He has several industry experience on Oil and Gas Explo-
ration, Production and Recovery from the Norwegian Con-
tinental Shelf, Shale Oil & Gas production in Texas, USA
and in Uganda. He is actively involved in both teaching
and research and his research and teaching interests in-
clude but not limited to; Well Stimulation in both uncon-
ventional and Conventional reservoirs, Hydraulic Fractur-
ing and Fracture Conductivity in Unconventional reservoirs,
Drilling Engineering with emphasis on; Well Construction
and Well Integrity; Drilling Fluids, Hole Cleaning, Well
Control; Fluid Flow and Transport in Porous Media; Ex-
perimental and Numerical Simulation of Enhanced Oil Re-
covery methods; Thermodynamics; Nanotechnology and
its applications in Engineering; Materials Science; Frac-
tured Reservoirs; Reservoir Engineering in general; Shale
Well Modeling and Decline Curve Analysis; Petrophyiscs;
Physico-chemical and Environmental Engineering; Fluid
Mechanics; Multiphase Flow; Production Engineering; En-
gineering Mechanics & Mechanics of Materials. He has
also previously worked at the Department of Geoscience
and Petroleum at the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology as a Graduate Teaching Assistant for Fractured
Reservoirs.
Issham Ismail is an Associate Pro-
fessor at Department of Petroleum
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia. He is also a Chartered En-
gineer of the UK Council and Institute
of Marine, Science and Technology.
His research interests are in; formation
evaluation, drilling fluid, hole clean-
ing, applications of nanotechnology in
petroleum engineering, and flow assurance. He is actively
involved in both teaching and research. He has authored
three well completion and slickline operations books
published by UTM Press.
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING
Bibliography
S. S. Abdelmoneim and H. A. Nasr-El-Din. Determining the Optimum HF
Concentration for Stimulation of High Temperature Sandstone Forma-
tions. pages 1–16. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE European For-
mation Damage Conference and Exhibition, 3-5 June, Budapest, Hun-
gary, 2015. doi: 10.2118/174203-MS.
R. S. Aboud, K. L. Smith, L. F. Pachon, and L. J. Kalfayan. Effective
Matrix Acidizing in High-Temperature Environments. pages 1–10. So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 11-14 November, Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 2007. doi:
10.2118/109818-MS.
A. F. Afolabi, A. U. Opusunju, H. F. Jaspers, C. Onyekwere, C. O.
Onyekwere, and J. C. Davalos. Increasing Production in a Brown-
field With Heavy Crude and Fine Problems by Application of New HF-
Acid System: Case Histories. pages 1–8. Society of Petroleum En-
gineers, SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, 13-15 February, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2008.
doi: 10.2118/112558-MS.
N. M. Al-Araimi and L. Jin. A High Success Rate Acid Stimulation Cam-
paign - A Case History. pages 1–8. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 11-13 Septem-
ber, Adelaide, Australia, 2006. doi: 10.2118/101038-MS.
M. Al-Dahlan, H. Nasr-El-Din, and A. Al-Qahtani. Evaluation of Retarded
HF Acid Systems. pages 1–20. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 13-16 February, Hous-
ton, Texas, 2001. doi: 10.2118/65032-MS.
B. G. Al-Harbi, M. Al-Dahlan, M. Al-Khaldi, A. Al-Harith, and A. Abadi.
Evaluation of Organic Hydrofluoric Acid Mixtures for Sandstone Aci-
dising. pages 1–14. Society of Petroleum Engineers, International
Petroleum Technology Conference, 26-28 March, Beijing, China, 2013.
doi: 10.2523/IPTC-16967-MS.
S. A. Ali, L. Kalfayan, and C. Montgomery. Acid Stimulation. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, 2017. ISBN 978-1-61399-426-9.
M. S. Aljawad, H. Aljulaih, M. Mahmoud, and M. Desouky. Integration
of field, laboratory, and modeling aspects of acid fracturing: A compre-
hensive review. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 181,
2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.06.022.
M. S. Aljawad, M. P. Schwalbert, D. Zhu, and A. D. Hill. Improving acid
fracture design in dolomite formations utilizing a fully integrated acid
fracture model. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 184,
2020. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106481.
T. Almubarak, J. H. Ng, and H. Nasr-El-Din. Chelating Agents in Pro-
ductivity Enhancement: A Review. pages 1–25. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Symposium, 2731 March,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 2017. doi: 10.2118/185097-MS.
S. Ariffin, A. S. Arumugam, and A. S. Noriyati. Optimum acid system for
Trengganu offshore gas well acidizing process. pages 1–10. Malaysian
Science and Technology Congress, 1998.
A. Assem, H. T. Kumar, H. A. Nasr-El-Din, and C. A. D. Wolf. Location
and magnitude of formation damage due to iron precipitation during
acidizing carbonate rocks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineer-
ing, 179:337–354, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.04.073.
H. Bing, R. Zhang, M. Chen, J. Kao, and X. Liu. Investigation on acid
fracturing treatment in limestone formation based on true tri-axial ex-
periment. Fuel, 238:7473–484, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.08.057.
R. T. R. Carvalho, P. F. Oliveira, L. C. M. Palermo, A. A. G. Ferreira,
and C. R. E. Mansur. Prospective acid microemulsions development
for matrix acidizing petroleum reservoirs. Fuel, 238:75–85, 2019. doi:
10.1016/j.fuel.2018.10.003.
X. Cheng, J. Kleppe, and O. Torsæter. Simulation study of surfactant injec-
tion in a fractured core. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Produc-
tion Technology, pages 1–12, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s13202-019-0705-y.
F. Civan. Reservoir Formation Damage. Elsevier, 2016. ISBN 978-0-12-
801898-9.
C. Crowe, J. Masmonteil, and R. Thomas. Trends in Matrix Acidizing. Oil
Field Review, page 24–40, 1992. URL https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
54c5/9895ce1efaed5ed6a725bc6ac608c933f2c7.pdf.
M. S. V. Domelen. A Practical Guide to Modern Diversion Technology.
pages 1–22. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Oklahoma City Oil
and Gas Symposium, 27–31 March, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA,
2017. doi: 10.2118/185120-MS.
M. J. Economides and K. G. Nolte. Reservoir Stimulation. Wiley, 2000.
ISBN 0 471 49192 6.
M. J. Economides, A. D. Hill, C. Ehlig-Economides, and D. Zhu.
18
Petroleum Production Systems (2nd Edition) . Prentice Hall, 2013.
ISBN 13: 978-0-13-703158-0.
S. A. Farkha, F. A. Khoshnaw, and P. T. Jaf. Formation Damage Re-
moval Through Acidizing of an Oil Well After Drilling and Com-
pletion. European Scientific Journal, 13(9):154–168, 2017. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n9p154.
J. L. Gidley. Stimulation of Sandstone Formations with The Acid-Mutual
Solvent Method. pages 1–8. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 1971. doi: 10.2118/3007-PA.
A. M. Gomaa, J. Cutler, Q. Qu, J. Boles, and X. Wang. An Effec-
tive Single-Stage Acid System for Sandstone Formations. Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2013. doi:
10.2118/165147-MS.
B. Guo, X. Liu, and X. Tan. Petroleum Production Engineering. Elsevier,
2017. ISBN 9780128093740.
A. M. Hanafy and H. A. Nasr-El-Din. A New Method to Assess Stim-
ulation of Sandstone Cores Damaged by Fines Migration. pages 1–
19. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Western Regional Meeting,
22-26 April, Garden Grove, California, USA, 2018. doi: 10.2118/
190123-MS.
R. L. Hartman, B. Lecerf, W. W. Frenier, M. E. Ziauddin, and H. S.
Fogler. Acid-Sensitive Aluminosilicates: Dissolution Kinetics and
Fluid Selection for Matrix-Stimulation Treatments. pages 1–20. Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Production & Operations, 2006. doi:
10.2118/82267-PA.
M. H. Hassan, L. Rusman, A. A. Chandrakant, M. H. Haslan, N. S. Mok-
tar, and K. Abdussalam. An Innovative Approach for Stimulation
Treatment in Clastic Reservoir Quadruples Net Oil Production. pages
1–13. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Symposium: Production
Enhancement and Cost Optimisation, 7-8 November, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 2017. doi: 10.2118/189195-MS.
J. Hibbeler, T. Garcia, and N. Chavez. An Integrated Long-Term Solu-
tion for Migratory Fines Damage. pages 1–23. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, 27-30 April, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 2003.
doi: 10.2118/81017-MS.
L. V. Hong and H. B. Mahmud. A Comparative Study of Different Acids
used for Sandstone Acid Stimulation: A Literature Review. Interna-
tional Conference on Materials Technology and Energy, 217:1–7, 2018.
doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/217/1/012018.
J. Houseworth, J. Long, J. Birkholzer, and P. Jordan. Advanced Well Stim-
ulation Technologies in California. An Independent Review of Scientific
and Technical Information. California Council on Science and Technol-
ogy, California., 2016.
X. Hu, S.Hu, F. F. Jin, and S. Huang. Physics of Petroleum Reservoirs.
Springer, 2017. ISBN 978-3-662-55026-7.
A. S. I. Ismail, I. Ismail, W. A. P. Buah, and A. Piroozian. The Effect Of
Matrix Acidizing On The Compressive Strength Of Sandstone Forma-
tion. pages 175–191. Jurnal Teknologi, 2011.
I. Ismail and E. Y. E. Cheong. The Evaluation Of Polymers Perfor-
mance As Fluid Diversion Gelling Agents In Matrix Acidizing. Jour-
nal Teknologi, 44:154–168, 2006. URL https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v44.
382.
L. Kalfayan. Production Enhancement with Acid Stimulation. PennWell,
2008. ISBN 9781593701390.
L. Kalfayan and A. Metcalf. Successful Sandstone Acid Design Case His-
tories: Exceptions to Conventional Wisdom. pages 1–8. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, 1-4 October, Dallas, Texas, 2000. doi: 10.2118/63178-MS.
G. P. Kartoatmodjo, F. Caretta, S. R. Flew, and M. B. Jadid. Risk-Based
Candidate Selection Workflow Improve Acid Stimulation Success Ratio
in Mature Field. pages 1–12. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Asia Pa-
cific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 30 October-1 November,
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2007. doi: 10.2118/109278-MS.
A. Katende and F. Sagala. A critical review of low salinity water flooding:
Mechanism, laboratory and field application. Journal of Molecular Liq-
uids, 278:627–649, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.molliq.2019.01.037.
A. Katende, N. V. Boyou, I. Ismail, D. Z. Chung, F. Sagala, N. Hussein, and
M. S. Ismail. Improving the performance of oil based mud and water
based mud in a high temperature hole using nanosilica nanoparticles.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects,
577:645–673, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2019.05.088.
K. C. Khilar and H. S. Fogler. Water Sensitivity of Sandstones. pages
1–10. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Society of Petroleum Engineers
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING
Journal, 1983. doi: 10.2118/10103-PA.
J. Kleppe and S. M. Sjaeveland. Recent Advances in Improved Oil Recov-
ery Methods for North Sea Sandstone Reservoirs. Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate, 1992. ISBN 82-7257-340-7.
N. Kume, R. V. Melsen, L. Erhahon, and A. F. Abiodun. New HF Acid Sys-
tem Improves Sandstone Matrix Acidizing Success Ratio By 400Sys-
tem in Niger Delta Basin. pages 1–15. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3-6 October, Hous-
ton, Texas, 1998. doi: 10.2118/56527-MS.
V. H. Leong, H. B. Mahmud, M. C. Law, H. C. Y. Foo, and I. S. Tan.
A comparison and assessment of the modelling and simulation of the
sandstone matrix acidizing process: A critical methodology study.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 57:52–67, 2018. doi:
10.1016/j.jngse.2018.06.044.
N. Li, F. B. Zeng, J. Li, Q. Zhang, Y. Feng, and P. Liu. Kinetic mechanics
of the reactions between HCl/HF acid mixtures and sandstone minerals.
Journal of Natural gas Science and Engineering, 34:792–802, 2016.
doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.07.044.
S. Livescu and S. Craig. New Insights on Coiled Tubing Acid Tun-
neling Stimulation in Carbonate Reservoirs. pages 1–13. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
& Conference, 13-16 November , Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2017. doi:
10.2118/188294-MS.
S. Livescu, A. Vissotski, and S. Chaudhary. Improved Acid Placement
Modeling for Matrix Acidizing Optimization. pages 1–12. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, SPE European Formation Damage Conference
and Exhibition, 3-5 June, Budapest, Hungary, 2018. doi: 10.2118/
193119-MS.
Z. Lufeng, Z. Fujian, Z. Shicheng, L. zhun, W. Jin, and W. Yuechun. Eval-
uation of permeability damage caused by drilling and fracturing fluids
in tight low permeability sandstone reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 175:1122–1135, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.
2019.01.031.
M. A. Mahmoud, H. A. Nasr-El-Din, C. D. Wolf, and A. Alex. Sandstone
Acidizing Using A New Class of Chelating Agents. pages 1–17. So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Sym-
posium, 27–31 March, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 2011. doi:
10.2118/139815-MS.
N. F. F. Majid, A. Katende, I. Ismail, F. Sagalad, N. MdSharif, and
M. A. C. Yunus. A comprehensive investigation on the performance
of durian rind as a lost circulation material in water based drilling mud.
Petroleum, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.petlm.2018.10.004.
L. P. Moore and H. Ramakrishnan. Candidate Selection Methodologies
and Treatment Optimization. AAPG Annual Convention, pages 1–
25, 2008. URL http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2008/
08268moore/ndx moore.pdf.
P. Mwangi, P. V. Brady, M. Radonjic, and G. Thyne. The effect of or-
ganic acids on wettability of sandstone and carbonate rocks. Jour-
nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 165:428–435, 2018. doi:
10.1016/j.petrol.2018.01.033.
H. A. Nasr-El-Din, M. M. Samuel, and S. K. Kelkar. Investigation of a New
Single-stage Sandstone Acidizing Fluid for High Temperature Forma-
tions. pages 1–12. Society of Petroleum Engineers, European Forma-
tion Damage Conference, 30 May-1 June, Scheveningen, The Nether-
lands, 2007. doi: 10.2118/107636-MS.
G. Nitters, L. Roodhart, H. Jongma, V. Yeager, M. Buijse, D. Fulton,
J. Dahl, and E. Jantz. Structured Approach to Advanced Candidate
Selection and Treatment Design of Stimulation Treatments. pages 1–8.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 1-4 October, Dallas, Texas, 2000. doi: 10.2118/63179-MS.
G. Nitters, B. Pittens, and N. Buik. Well Stimulation Techniques for
Geothermal Projects in Sedimentary Basins. 2016.
A. B. M. A. Nur, M. H. Yunan, F. Sagala, and A. Katende. The Effect
of WAG Ratio and Oil Density on Oil Recovery by Immiscible Water
Alternating Gas Flooding. 45(5):80–90, 2017.
F. Nwaochei, D. Hackney, B. Olufemi, I. Carrillo, and A. Obembe.
Acid Stimulation in Agbami Deepwater- The Innovative Success Story.
pages 1–16. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 3-6 October, Houston, Texas, 2014. doi:
10.2118/172365-MS.
J. O. Oseh, M. N. A. M. Norddin, I. Ismail, A. R. Ismail, A. O. Gbadamosi,
A. Agia, and S. O. Ogiriki. Investigating almond seed oil as potential
biodiesel-based drilling mud. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engi-
neering, 181:106–201, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106201.
19
G. Paccaloni and M. Tambini. Advances in Matrix Stimulation Technol-
ogy. pages 1–8. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 1993. doi: 10.2118/20623-PA.
A. K. Permadi, M. A. Naser, L. Mucharam, and S. Rachma. Formation
Damage and Permeability Impairment Associated with Chemical and
Thermal Treatments: Future Challenges in EOR Applications. pages
1–12. The Contribution of Geosciences to Human Security, Logos Ver-
lag, Germany, 2012.
R. L. Poyyara, V. K. Patnana, and M. Alam. Optimization of Acid Treat-
ments by Assessing Diversion Strategies in Carbonate and Sandstone
Formations. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Geological and Environmental Engineering .,
8(9):979–984, 2014.
E. Rabbani, A. Davarpanah, and M. Memariani. An experimental study
of acidizing operation performances on the wellbore productivity index
enhancement. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Tech-
nology, 8(4):1243–1253, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s13202-018-0441-8.
P. Rae and G. D. Lullo. Achieving 100 Percent Success In Acid Stimulation
Of Sandstone Reservoirs. pages 1–7. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 8-10 October,
Melbourne, Australia, 2002. doi: 10.2118/77808-MS.
W. Reinoso, F. Torres, M. Aldana, P. Campo, E. Alvarez, and E. Tovar.
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.
pages 1–17. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE International Con-
ference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 24-26 February,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2016. doi: 10.2118/178996-MS.
N. Saavedra, R. Solano, J. Gidley, C.A.Reyes, P.Rodriguez, F.Kondo, and
J. Hernandez. Well Screening for Matrix Stimulation Treatments. World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal
of Geological and Environmental Engineering ., 1998.
A. A. Salmi, A. Al-Yaaribi, and S. Al-Ruzeiqi. Successful Acidizing of
an HF Acid Sensitive Formation Using a Protective Ion-Complexing
Agent. pages 1–12. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE/IADC Mid-
dle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, 29-31 Jan-
uary, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2018. doi: 10.2118/189360-MS.
P. Sandrine, A. Laurent, and V. François-D. Review on chemical
stimulation techniques in oil industry and applications to geother-
mal systems. Deep Heat Mining Association, pages 1–30, 2017.
URL http://engine.brgm.fr/Deliverables/Period2/ENGINE D28 WP4
ChemicalStimulation DHMA 052007.pdf.
A. K. Sarkar and M. M. Sharma. Fines Migration in Two-Phase Flow.
pages 1–7. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Journal of Petroleum Tech-
nology, 1990. doi: 10.2118/17437-PA.
R. S. Schechter. Oil well stimulation. Englewood Cliff, N.J. : Prentice
Hall, 1993.
C. W. Senters, R. S. Leonard, C. R. Ramos, T. M. Wood, and R. A.
Woodroof. Diversion - Be Careful What You Ask For. pages 1–20.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 9-11 October, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2017. doi:
10.2118/187045-MS.
M. U. Shafiq and H. B. Mahmud. Sandstone matrix acidizing knowl-
edge and future development. Journal of Petroleum Exploration
and Production Technology, 7(4):1205–1216, 2017. doi: 10.1007/
s13202-017-0314-6.
M. U. Shafiq, H. K. B. Mahmud, and M. A. Hamid. Comparison of
Buffer Effect of Different Acids During Sandstone Acidizing. IOP
Conference Series:, Materials Science and Engineering, 2015. doi:
10.1088/1757-899X/78/1/012008.
S. Shah, S. K. Singh, V. K. Bahuguna, and K. W. Rajendra. Successful Ma-
trix Acidization Using Organic Acid System for Sandstone Reservoir of
Western Onshore Fields of India: A Case Study. pages 1–9. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibi-
tion, 4–6 April, Mumbai, India, 2017. doi: 10.2118/185393-MS.
M. M. Shirazi, S. Ayatollahi, and C. Ghotbi. Damage evaluation of acid-oil
emulsion and asphaltic sludge formation caused by acidizing of asphal-
tenic oil reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 174:
880–890, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.11.051.
C. Shuchart and R. Gdanski. Improved Success in Acid Stimulations with
a New Organic-HF System. pages 1–20. Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers, European Petroleum Conference, 22-24 October, Milan, Italy,
1996. doi: 10.2118/36907-MS.
C. F. Smith and A. R. Hendrickson. Hydrofluoric Acid Stimulation of
J OURNAL OF P ETROLEUM S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING
Sandstone Reservoirs. pages 1–8. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1965. doi: 10.2118/980-PA.
W. Song and A. R. Kovscek. Direct visualization of pore-scale fines migra-
tion and formation damage during low-salinity waterflooding. Journal
of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 34:1276–1283, 2016. doi:
10.1016/j.jngse.2016.07.055.
O. Torsaeter, J. Kleppe, and T. van Golf-Racht. Multiphase Flow in Frac-
tured Reservoirs. Advances in Transport Phenomena in Porous Media,
128, 1987. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106481.
O. Torsaeter, R. Boe, and T. Holt. Damage evaluation of acid-oil emulsion
and asphaltic sludge formation caused by acidizing of asphaltenic oil
reservoir. Society of Core Analysts, pages 1–10, 1997.
J. Xiao, J. Wang, and X. Sun. Fines Migration: Problems and Treat-
ments. Oil and Gas Research, pages 1–4, 2017. doi: 0.4172/2472-0518.
1000123.
20
Z. You and P. Bedrikovetsky. Well Productivity Impairment Due to Fines
Migration. pages 1–23. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Interna-
tional Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 7-9
February, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2018. doi: 10.2118/189532-MS.
L. Yuan, Y. Wang, Q. Li, K. Chen, and Y. Li. Evaluation of a control-
released in-situ generated acid tablet for acid fracturing. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 174:384–393, 2019. doi: 10.1016/
j.petrol.2018.09.081.
M. A. Zaman, M. M. Alam, and M. A. Matin. Performance of Different
Acids on Sandstone Formation. Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology Review, 6(3):25–29, 2013.
R. Zhang, B. Hou, B. Zhou, Y. Liu, Y. Xiao, and K. Zhang. Effect of
Acid Fracturing on Carbonate Formation in Southwest China based on
Experimental Investigations. Journal of Natural Gas Science and En-
gineering, pages 1–45, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2019.103057.
 Highlights

• Matrix acidising in sandstone reservoirs is investigated.

• This case study uses data from a Malaysia brown eld, which has about 40 years of experience in matrix

stimulation.

• A Database was established from the case study eld that showed combination of acid retarder, foam diverter,

nitried treatment and bull-heading method are found to be eective in treating gravel packed wells with nes
migration issues as seen in all the wells in the eld.

• The study also shortlisted three combination of chemicals from the database and industry guidelines which

further evaluated using Prosper and Stimpro software, resulting in 15% HCl preush, 12% HCl - 3% HF main
ush acid, 15% HCl postush, 3% NH4Cl overush and improved additives scheme are recommended for future
applications.
 Statement of Interest

None.