IMPROVING GAS PRODUCTION OF HASSI RMEL FIELD BY MATRIX ACIDIZING TREATMEMT

M.Khodja-Saber ; N.Allem, Centre de Recherche et Developpement Sonatrach, Boumerds, Algeria. F.Benallegue ;Production engineering Departement Sonatrach, Algiers, Algeria; A.Hebbel Production engineering Departement Sonatrach, Hassi-Rmel, Algeria

Abstract
Matrix acidizing treatments was introduced to Hassi Rmel field as a mean of restoring and optimizing wells productivity after work-over operations. If the principle of matrix acidizing appears straightforward, the practice is a mine field of complex decisions. Services companies offers a vast selection of acid systems and diverters. The question that should always be asked before any other is why is the well under producing and then will production increase with matrix acidizing Production may be constricted for a reason other then damage around the borehole. In the latter half of 1998, a large campaign of matrix acidizing treatments began in the Hassi RMel gas field. Well testing results had indicated that many of the wells in the field showed extremely high damage skin factors. In some wells its approached 200. Despite such severe near wellbore damage, the wells in the Hassi RMel field are still capable of producing at very high flow rates due to the extremely good reservoir characteristics. Matrix acidizing was evaluated to be the best option to remove this near wellbore formation damage. The acidizing treatments were performed a six month period by three services companies using different acid system. A unique feature of this series of treatments was that a production logging tool (PLT) was run before, immediately after, and 180 days after the acidizing treatments in every well treated. Somme wells shows good response and others not1 The aim of this work is to answer those questions by selecting the right acid system, in order to restore the production rate, without generating other problems. We tried to find correlation between wells history, pressure analysis and tests laboratory results (core flow tests, XR diffraction mineralogy, fluid-rock compatibility, fluid-fluid compatibility, scanning microscopy) in order to find the way to the right acid design.

Introduction
Sandstone matrix acidizing long has been used as a means of improving production of oil and gas by removing formation damage and increasing permeability of the zone around the wellbore2. Laboratory and field studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of this type of treatment In spite of widespread use, however many formations do not respond satisfactorily to conventional HCl/HF treatments. This normally is attributed to rapid spending of HF near the wellbore . Somme wells show good stimulation but later experience an unusually rapid decline in production rate. The decline usually are attributed to plugging by migratory clays and other fines3.

1- Field and reservoir description The Hassi RMel gas field is located on the northern edge of the Sahara Desert, 550 km south of Algiers. It is one of the 10 largest gas fields in the world. The producing horizon is the Trias-Argilo-Greseux (TAG) formation which is made up of three layers of variable thickness. These layers are designated A, B, and C.

- Layer A, called Niveau A - Layer B, called Niveau B - Layer C, called Niveau C 2- Initial Treatment Design
Wells to be acidized generally had sediment accumulated in the wellbore at least up to the lowermost perforation. Some wells had sediment covering a portion of the lower perforations.. The precise reason for such severe damage cant be definitively stated. Older wells were generally drilled with oil based mud and often had been worked over in the interim with salt saturated, water based mud containing bentonite The tubing in the well was 7 diameter in most cases as shown on figure 1.

Figure 1. Typical Hassi Rmel Gas well completion

3- Field results : Case history

One of the key features in this acid campaign was the gathering of production log data both before and after the treatments to quantify the success, or lack thereof, for every treatment. Of particular interest was to determine whether damage in the wells was being removed uniformly from all perforated layers, despite the differences in their petrophysical properties. Figure 2 shows the percentage increase or decrease in production by layer The most readily apparent observation is that of the three wells treated where Niveau A was present, the net result was a production loss both immediately after the treatment as well as 180 days later.

Figure 2. PLT measurements after acid treatment

Figure 3 presents the same data for the wells, but expresses it as the actual gain or loss in production in m 3 /day. It shows the true magnitude of the volumetric increases in production rate realized in Niveau C compared to Niveau B, despite the higher percentage gains in Niveau B as compared to the pre-treatment flowrate

The cause of the poor response to acidizing of Niveau A in wells where Niveau B and Niveau C is present is now strongly believed to be due to the permeability contrast of this layer.

Figure 3. Post job production results after acid treatment

The cause of the poor response to acidizing of Niveau A was related to may be three reasons : - A cross flow during the acid job with a good response of the two layers B and C which present higher permeability. - Diverting stage are not enough to isolate the three layers during acid treatment. - Zone A is a dirty zone with presence of anhydrite, clays and dolomites which can react with HF/ HCl acids to form insoluble products and damage the porous media5. This last reason was worth investigated with laboratories tests and further analysis.

4- Laboratory experiments 4-1 Rock mineralogical characterization Samples were analysed using X-ray diffraction analysis and scanning electronic microscopy. 4.2 Solubility tests The solubility of the rock in different acids are determined in order to select the right strength and type of acid .

4.3 Flow tests The main steps are : 1- Cores water saturation 2- Initial permeability determination (Ki) by flowing an inert oil. 3- Flow test with the selected acids solutions in three sequences : 4- Final permeability determination (Kf) by flowing an inert oil. 5- Ka/Ki ratio determination after acid treatment 5- Discussion of results 5-1 Petrophysical and mineralogical description of Hassi Rmel reservoir - The permeability of samples taken from the three producing layers shows that Layer A shows an average of 250 mD, Samples from Layer Band C, shows greater values about 700 mD. - Xr Analysis shows that quartz is the principal mineral detected in all samples. Plagioclase feldspath and potassium feldspath are presents. Pyrite and dolomite were detected. Anhydrite cement is locally very abundant. Illite, chlorite are the present clay minerals. 5-2 Acid flow tests 5.2.1 Tests with ACID 1
Sandstone Acid treatment, act with limiting the reaction rate of the fluohydric acid on clays.

1- Diffraction analysis results

TABLE I

X-ray Diffraction analysis Sampl e 1 2 3 4 Depth (m) 2107.3 0 2114.4 5 2115.4 0 2123.8 0 Qtz (%) 60 65 78 95 Clay (%) 27 27 18 4 Illit. (%) Layer A 10.8 6.75 7.2 1 Chl (%) 16.2 20.25 10.8 3 Anh. (%) 10 2 2 Dol. (%) Tr Tr Tr Feld. (%) 3 6 2 1

5 6 7 8

2130.8 5 2153.6 5 2178.8 0 2214.2 5

53 80 98 90

2 19 2 10

Layer B 0.3 Layer C 9.5 1.4 1

1.7 9.5 0.6 9

45 17 Tr -

Tr

Tr 1 tr Tr

2- Flow tests results

TABLE II

Tests flow results Sampl e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Depth (m) Kair (mD) Ki (mD) 18.4 95.85 25.4 98.6 2.43 61.1 136.2 133.8 Kf (md) Layer A 9.5 44.35 10.5 41.1 Layer B 0.95 Layer C 27.7 51.2 46.8 %D 48.4 66.6 57 58.3 70 54.6 62.4 65.0 Ka (mD) 45.1 162.6 19.9 121.4 1.60 266.6 297.2 229.5 Kr1 4.7 3.6 1.9 3 1.68 9.6 5.8 4.9 Kr2 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.2 0.66 4.36 2.18 1.7

2107.3 42.26 0 2114.4 345.65 5 2115.4 113.64 0 2123.8 169.93 0 2130.8 5 11.14

2153.6 457.01 5 2178.8 534.28 0 2214.2 719.12 5

3- Discussion The acid flow tests performed with ACID 1 shows good response with a permeability factor of 1.8. This acid has the unique ability to stabilize formations fines by reacting
6

with all siliceous fines and fusing them7. The high anhydritic sample content shows the worst response (0.66%).

Acid flo w , HR samp le , San d sto n e acid Diffre n ts min e ralo g y

1,6 14% An h ,G:2 1,4 1,2 1 T m atr ice Pr e flu s h Ove r flu s h 10% Ar g ,G:0,9 8% An h ,G:1,7(6-1,5)

Ka/Ki

0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Acid volum e (cc)

Figure 4. Acid flow curve of Acid 1

5.2.2 Tests with ACID 2

Three (03) systems were tested in this case : - Sandstone completion. (HCl/HF 1.3.5% /1.5% mixture) - Volcanic Acid. (Glycolic and HF acid) - Clay safe H acid. (acetic and HC acidl)

1- Diffraction analysis results

TABLE III X-ray Diffraction analysis Sample 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Depth (m) 2111.40 2103.85 2123.30 2150.90 2121.60 2169.65 2165.4 Qtz (%) 52 50 65 80 37 96 95 Clay (%) 13 1 7 16 2 2 2 Illit (%) Layer A 7.8 0.3 1.4 7 Layer C 0.8 0.8 Chl (%) 5.2 0.7 5.6 30 2 1.2 1.2 Anh. (%) 31 45 7 60 2 2 Dol (%) 4 Tr Fel. (%) 3 4 21 4 1 Tr 1

2- Flow tests results TABLE IV Tests flow results Sample 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Depth (m) 2111.40 2103.85 2123.30 2150.90 2121.60 2169.65 2165.40 Kair (mD) 88.36 73.47 420.2 67.32 2.29 3169 3408.5 Ki (mD) 33.0 22.4 380.9 10.45 0.95 960.5 1051 Kf (mD) Layer A 10.9 8.6 105.8 5.09 0.38 Layer C 405.3 429.5 %D 66.9 61.6 71.4 51..3 60 57.8 59.1 Ka (mD) 69.1 40.6 420.2 18.34 25.6 1039 939 Kr1 6.3 4.7 3.97 3.6 67.3 2.56 2.2 Kr2 2.1 1.8 1.1 1.75 26..9 1.1 0.9 Acid S.C S.C Volc. Volc C.S.H S.C Volc

S.C : Sandstone Completion Acid. Volc : Volcanic Acid. C.S.H : Clay Safe H Acid.

Acid Flow, HR sample Sandstone completion acid Diffrents mineralogy

1,2 1 Preflush 0,8 Ka/Ki 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 2%Anh,G:0,89 10% Arg,G:1 98% Qrz:G:2 T,m artice Overflush

Acid volume (cc)

Figure 5. Acid flow curve for acid 2

3- Discussion
The tests show that : - An increase in the permeability factor even with critical mineralogy samples (anhydrite, clays) for the 2111.40 m depth sample, the permeability factor increase of about 2.1 Results obtained with Volcanic Acid show a bad response to the acid (0.8). Treatment of those 8 samples indicate damaging by dissolving feldspaths .

5.2.3 Tests with ACID 3

1- Diffraction analysis results

TABLE V X-ray Diffraction analysis Sample 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Depth (m) 2161.60 2124.40 2147.80 2098.75 2162.45 2238.35 2164.70 2186.85 2215.20 Qtz % 80 90 93 53 80 78 95 95 98 Clay % 6 2 2 39 10 13 3 2 2 Illit. % Layer A * 0.6 0.5 19.5 1 10.4 Layer C 0.3 0.6 0.3 Chl % 1.4 1.5 19.5 9 2.6 2.1 1.4 1.7 Anh. % 14 3 1 3 2 8 tr tr Dol. % Tr 1 Fel % Tr 5 4 5 4 1 2 3 -

2- Flow tests results TABLE VI Tests flow results * The cores are not damaged. Sample 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Depth (m) 2161.60 2124.40 2147.9 2098.75 2162.45 2238.35 2164.70 2186.85 2215.20 Kair (mD) 324.9 144.24 57.13 18.19 258.36 129.83 152.12 3344.2 999.64 Ki (mD) 35 27 8.1 4.0 71.5 39 25.4 980.25 293.5 Kf (mD) 19 13 4.06 1.3 27.7 * 9.4 410.6 71 %D Layer A 46.4 51..9 49.8 67.5 61.3 * Layer C 62.9 58.1 75.8 Ka (mD) 16.5 55.1 3.7 6.0 121 65.6 135.5 20.7 3 Kr1 0.9 4.3 0.91 4.6 14.4 0.05 0.03 Kr2 0.5 2.1 0.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 5.3 0.02 0.01 Acid MSR 12-3 MSR 12-3 MSR 12-3 MSR 12-3 MSR 6-1.5 MSR 6-1.5 MSR 12-3 MSR 12-3 MSR 12-3

Acid flow , HR sam ple, MSR Acid different m ineralogy 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 0 Overflush T,m atrice

20%Arg,G:0,9 96%Qrz,G:2

Ka/Ki

Preflush

200

400

600

800

1000

Volum e acide (cc)

Figure 6 . Acid flow curve of acid 3.

3- Discussion
The permeability factor gained after the MSR 12-3 tests on the samples N 18, 23 and 24 are respectively 0.02, 0.01 and 0.5. Those samples present HCl sensitive mineralogy and metal ions such as Fe, Al Ca, and Mg are dissolved from the minerals, leaving an insoluble silica gel mass that can extremely damage 9. Research studies10 has shown that all types of clays have a temperature above which they are unstable. The results obtained with the clays clean samples provide a permeability factor increase of 1.5 to 5.3 and confirm HCl sensitive formations. - SEM observations show the presence of insoluble spherical precipitates of Al fluosilicates from HCl and chlorite reaction.

CONCLUSION
The results o f the acidizing campaign carried out in 1998 in the Hassi RMel gas field have led to a better understanding of how such treatments can be optimised to produce maximum production increases.In order to prevent the poor results observed after acidizing treatments in Niveau A, it should be mechanically isolated (with tubing inflatable packers) from the other higher permeability intervals. The poor results observed after acidizing treatment of Niveau A can be also related to the presence of anhydrite, clays and dolomites which can react with HF/and HCl acids to form insoluble products . At last, we recommend systematic perforations clean up after work over operations with a properly formulated surfactant/dispersant package added to an organic acid which help the break down of the mud filter cake. The acidizing treatments results has shown after while corrosion problems and solid precipitates in bottom hole leading to selcct a retarded acid the one who gave the best results in the laboratory.

References
1. Optimization of Matrix Acidizing Treatments in the Hassi RMel Gas Field F.R. Behenna, Halliburton Energy Services, R. Sennad, Sonatrach, M.B.Marquardt, Halliburton Energy Services. 2. Oyenein, M.B., et al: Factors to Consider in the Effective Management and Control of Fines Migration in High Permeability Sands Paper SPE 30112 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, 15-16 May 1995.

10

3. Ghalem, Tahar, Blanc, Georges, and Rocca, Mark: Characterization of Hassi RMel Reservoir Rocks by an Unconventional Method Using Well Logs and Core Analysis Data, Paper SPE 9340 presented at the 55 th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, Sept. 21-24. 4. Behenna, F.R.: Acid Diversion from an Undamaged to a Damaged Core Using Multiple Foam Slugs, Paper SPE 30121 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, 15-16 May 1995. 5. Thompson, K, Gdanski, R.D.: Laboratory Study Provides Guidelines for Diverting Acid With Foam, Paper SPE 23436 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky Oct. 22-25, 1991. 6. Morphy, P.H., et al,: Operational Experience With Foam Diverted Acid Jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, Paper SPE 39423 presented at the 1998 International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb. 18-19, 1998. 7. Gdanski, R.D.: Kinetics of the Tertiary Reaction of HF Acid on Alumino-Silicates, Paper SPE 31076 presented at the 1998 International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb. 14-15, 1996. 8. Toni Ezeukwu. Fines migration control in high water- cut Nigerian oil wells. Problems and solutions . SPE paper 39482. 1998. 9. M.A.Buijse. M.S. van Domelen. Novel application of emulsified acids to matrix stimulation of heterogeneous formations SPE paper 1998. 10. A.B.M. Simanjuntak and Al. ESEM Observations coupled with coreflood tests improve matrix acidizing Designs ; SPE paper 27405. 1994.

11

12