AUTOMATING SANDSTONE
ACIDIZING USING A RULE BASED SYSTEM
Ali A. Garrouch
Haitham M. Lababidi
AbAllah Ebrahim
Kuwait University
REFERENCE
Ebrahim, A., Garrouch, A.A., and
Lababidi, H. 2014, Automating sandstone
acidizing using a rule-based system,
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and
Production Technology, v. 4, no. 4, p. 381-
396.
2
Outline
Purpose of Acidizing Oil an Gas Fields
Sandstone Acidizing Stages
Causes of Failure of Sandstone Acidizing
Challenge/Study Objectives
Expert System Development
Expert System Validation
Conclusions
Reference
3
Damage Types - Considered
1. Particle damage from drilling
2. Fines migration
3. Clay swelling
4. Polymer residue from drilling
5. Bacterial infestation
6. Surfactant stabilized emulsions
7. Water blocks
4
Zone of altered permeability ks, near a well.
rs
pe
rw
h ks
Zone of
altered
permeabilit
y
re e
Near well-bore zone: ideal, real and stimulated
bottom- hole pressures.
rw
rs
k
ks Reservoir
Pressure
Stimulated well
ps (due to
pw stimulation) Undamaged
(Ideal) well
ps (due to
damage)
Damaged (Real)
well
How Does a Well Produce?
pwh
pR
Natural flow-rate
Pwf
pflowline
qo
p Nodal
Analysis
pwf
,
,
,
Types of Damage
Begin by estimating the damage skin (Sd) from the
total skin:
Evaluate single skin ( Spp , Sp , S , SG, Sf)
Openhole and GR, API
0 20 40 60 80 100
Production log 4250
Traces Oil
MG Well 4300
4350
Depth 3,750
STB/D
ft 4400
0.1
4450
p/q 0.01
psi/STB/D
0.001 4500
1 10 100 1000
0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Rt, ohm-m
t, hr
Sandstone Acidizing Stages
Pre-flush
Main Acid: 12% HCl-3% HF
Over-flush
10
Pre-flush Stage
Usually HCl (5-15% in strength)
Displaces water, minimizing contact of
HF acid with Na+ and K+ ions.
HCl removes CaCO3 cementing material
11
Main Acid Stage
Usually 12% HCl-3% HF
HF reacts with clays, fines, drilling mudcake, and
silica to improve near-wellbore permeability.
HCl keeps pH low and helps to prevent
secondary HF reactions.
12
Traditional Guidelines
Condition Acid
HCL Solubility > 20% Use HCL only
High Permeability (100md plus)
High Quartz (80%), low clays(<5%) 10% HCL-3% HF (1)
High Feldspar (>20%) 13.5% HCL-1.5% HF (1)
High Clay (>10%) 6.5% HCL-1% HF (2)
High Iron Chlorite Clay 3% HCL-0.5% HF (2)
Low Permeability (10 md or less)
Low Clay (<5%) 6% HCL-1.5% HF (3)
High Chlorite 3% HCL-0.5% HF (4)
Notes:
(1)Preflush with 15% HCL
(2)Preflush with sequestered 5% HCL
(3)Preflush with 7.5% HCL or 10% acetic acid
(4)Preflush with 5% acetic acid
13
Overflush
Displacement of acid flush away from wellbore
area
Oil wells: NH4Cl/Weak HCl/mutual solvent (if
necessary)
Surfactant/Mutual Solvent:
Leave formation water-wet
Facilitate flow-back
Nitrogen: Promotes flow-back in low pressure wells
Results are not always as expected.
14
Causes of Failure of Sandstone Acidizing
The global success rate for sandstone acidizing is
generally about 30%.
A quote by a Leonard Kalfayan
“With acidizing, there are many more exceptions to
the rules than there are rules. In fact, true success in
acidizing is associated with the better
understanding of the exceptions.”
15
Causes of Failure of Sandstone Acidizing
poor candidate selection.
lack of mineralogical information
wrong acid design,
use of inappropriate acid additives,
insufficient iron control.
Formation of emulsions
Formation of asphaltene sludge
16
Effect of HCl:HF Acid Strength on Sludging
Effect of HCl Strength on Sludging
Causes of Failure of Sandstone Acidizing
The major defects of HF are the formation of by-products
like:
• calcium fluoride (CaF2), with calcareous material
• sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6)
• hydrated silica (SiO2.2H2O)
• potassium hexafluorosilicate (K2SiF6)
19
Causes of Failure of Sandstone Acidizing
The major defects of HCl is the formation of
precipitates
•Ferrous Hydroxide (Fe(OH2), if HCl is
neutralized and pH~7
•Gelatinous precipitates in contact with
Zeolites (natrolite, analcime)
•Ferric Hydroxide (Fe(OH3),
•Iron sulfide scale (FeS), if do not use a
reducing and a sequestering agent.
20
Challenge/Study Objectives
Design a sandstone acidizing job that is damage
type specific, taking into account acid-mineralogy
interaction and acid-crude interaction.
Multiple damage types may be suspected, and all
should be considered in designing the treatment.
This is a very perplexing task to the practicing
engineer.
21
Expert System Development
The acidizing advice must account for the following variables:
Damage Type
Rock Mineralogy
Reservoir Temperature
Rock Permeability
Formation fluids
Amount, type, distribution of clays
Degree of rock consolidation
Presence of sour gas 22
Expert System Development
Methodology
The treatment design will include the following stages:
1. Formation oil displacement stage
2. Formation water displacement stage
3. Acetic acid stage
4. HCl pre-flush stage
5. Main acid stage
6. Over-flush stage
23
Expert System Development
Acid Types Expanded
Fluoboric acid: a clay acid
Phosphonic acid blends
Acidic chelant-based blends
Mud acids
EDTA (Ethylene diamene tetracetic acid)
HCL/Acetic acid/Citric acid/Formic acid
Erythorbic acid 24
Fluoboric Acid
Fluoboric acid is recommended when the sandstone
contains potassic minerals to avoid damaging
precipitates and in the case of fines migration owing
to its fines stabilization properties.
25
Acid – chelant blends
Acidic-Chelant based blends: are obtained by
mixing a chelating agent with an acid based salt.
Boric acid, or ammonium bifloride are examples of
acid based salts.
Examples of a chelating agent: EDTA, HACA
26
Acid-chelant blends
The advantage of chelant based fluids is their ability
to
Dissolve both calcium and aluminosilicates
Prevent the possible precipitation of reaction by-products
by sequestering many of the metal ions present in the
aqueous solution: ca2+, Fe2+, Al3+ ions.
Treat formations with low clay content.
Treat formations with high calcite content
Treat formations with high iron content.
Treat formations with Zeolite bearing minerals.
Treatment restricted for high temperature formations
27
Phosphonic acid blends
The phosphonic acid formulation offers the
following benefits:
Retarded reaction rate, hence the ability to get the
acid deeper into the formation before becoming
completely spent.
No risk of insoluble precipitates such as CaF2,
Na2SiF6, K2SiF6 and SiO2.2H2O.
The ability to leave the formation water-wet.
28
Expert System Structure
Stage 1
Formation Oil Displacement
Stage 2
Formation Water Displacement
Stage 3
Acetic Acid Pre-Flush
Type of Damage
Stage 4 Damage Types
HCL Pre-Flush 7, 11, 12, 13 & 14
Damage Types Damage Type Damage Types Damage Type
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 15 8, 9 & 10 17
Stage 5a Stage 5b Stage 5c Stage 5d
Main Acid Chloride Scale Sulfate Scale Water Blocks
Stage 6
Over-Flush
Stage 7
Diversion Selection 29
Expert System Development – Decision Trees
30
Stage no. 2: Formation Water Displacement Stage
Inject water with ammonium
chloride (NH4CL) at concentrations
between 3% and 8% depending on
the formation water salinity
Stage no. 3: Acetic Acid Pre-flush Stage
Are there any iron compounds
in the formation: Yes
- pyrite, or
- siderite, or
- hematite, or
- Magnetite, or
- Antcerite ?
No
Inject 3% to 10% acetic acid
according to Table below:
Yes CaCO3 Acetic acid volume
Are there any (gal/ft
- chlorite clay, or 0-5 25
- mixed layer clay, or 5-10 50
- Illite 10-15 75
15-20 100
Are there any zeolites
No like Yes
- analcime, or
- natrolite ?
No
No action needed
33
Expert System Development – Decision Trees
34
Expert System Development – Decision Trees
35
Expert System Development – Decision Trees
36
Expert System Development – Decision Trees
37
Expert System Development – Decision Trees
38
Expert System Log in Details
[Link]
Username: KCUser88
Password: KC@q88
39
Graphical User Interface
40
Graphical User Interface
41
Graphical User Interface
42
Graphical User Interface
43
Graphical User Interface
44
Graphical User Interface
45
Graphical User Interface
46
Graphical User Interface
47
Graphical User Interface
48
Graphical User Interface
49
Graphical User Interface
50
Graphical User Interface
51
Graphical User Interface
52
Graphical User Interface
53
Field Case I: Niger Delta Region (Nigeria)
Low pressure SS oil producer
Mineralogical makeup of the rock shown in Table (next)
Permeability ranges from 100 md to 5000 md
Crude downhole specific gravity = 0.663
Reservoir temperature = 188 oF
Water cut about 60%
Pay thickness = 21.7 ft
Presence of zeolites, feldspars, and clays
Mud reports indicate mud losses
Water-Based mud
Crude is paraffinic
Iron-rich minerals exist as authigenic
Feldspars exist as detrital
54
Field Case I: Niger Delta Region (continue)
Location Niger Delta
Intermediate matrix treatment is needed Depth (ft) 6230
Quartz 73.2
N2 is required for diversion K-Feldspar 13.6
Main problem: Fines Migration Plagioclase
4.1
(Calcium-Sodium Feldspar)
Illite/Smectite 0.7
Mica 0.0
Kaolinite 6.3
Chlorite 0.0
Dolomite 0.0
Calcite 0.0
Siderite 1.4
Pyrite 0.7
Hematite 0.0
Zeolite 0.7
TOTAL 100.0
55
Field Case I: Niger Delta Region (Solution)
Stage One: inject a mixture of diesel and toluene at 75:25
ratio. Soak overnight and flow back. Inject a mutual
solvent.
Stage Two: inject water with ammonium chloride at
concentrations between 3% and 8%
Stage Three: Acetic acid preflush: no action is needed.
Stage Four: HCl preflush: inject HCl 3% + Fluoboric
acid+Erythorbic acid + EDTA.
Stage Five: inject phosphonic acid, 50-150 gal/ft.
56
Field Case I: Niger Delta Region (Solution)
Stage Six: Over-flush stage: inject 8% [Link] Two:
Formation water displacement stage: inject water with
ammonium chloride at concentrations between 3% and 8%,
depending on the formation water salinity.
Stage Seven: Diversion: inject foam.
57
Conclusions
We developed an web-based expert system for
designing matrix acidizing of sandstones.
The system helps automate a very perplexing
designing task.
The system can be easily upgraded with new scientific
advances in the area.
The expert system accounts for compatibilities
between crude, mineralogical composition, reservoir
properties, and acid types.
58
REFERENCE
Ebrahim, A., Garrouch, A.A., and Lababidi, H.
2014, Automating sandstone acidizing using a
rule-based system, Journal of Petroleum
Exploration and Production Technology, v. 4, no.
4, p. 381-396.
THANK YOU
59