SPE 160851

Wellbore Remediation using Microemulsion Technology to Increase

Hydrocarbon Productivity
Qusai A. Darugar, SPE, Lirio Quintero, SPE, Thomas A. Jones, SPE and Gianna Pietrangeli, SPE, Baker Hughes

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 8–11 April 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committee of Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box
833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Decreases in hydrocarbon production can be attributed to depletion in formation pressures or flow restrictions caused by
formation damage. Some of the most common causes of formation damage affecting permeability include the buildup of in-
situ emulsions due to crude oil interaction with drilling and completion fluids, water blockage, asphaltene and paraffin
deposition and alteration of near-wellbore wettability. In new wells, near-wellbore formation damage may be caused by
emulsion blockages when the whole mud, mud filtrate or completion fluids interact with the formation fluids.
Chemical treatments have been widely used to remediate damaged formations, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
Single-phase microemulsion fluids provide unique properties that can effectively remove emulsion blockages, remove
precipitated crude oil macromolecules, and reverse wettability to enhance hydrocarbon production. Carefully designed
microemulsion systems having an ultra-low interfacial tension, high solvency and compatibility with formation fluids can be
used to mobilize fluids and solids in wells.
This paper discusses the process of developing and qualifying a single-phase, temperature stable microemulsion system for
field applications. Case history results are presented that demonstrate how this technology, if applied properly, can
significantly enhance hydrocarbon production in poorly producing wells.

Introduction
Castro (2001) explains how the hydrocarbon productivity can be greatly reduced by near-wellbore damage caused by a
number of different mechanisms, including the presence of in-situ emulsions formed due to incompatibility between invading
drilling fluid’s filtrate and formation fluids. Older producing wells also incur damage due to asphaltene and paraffin deposits
that block the natural hydrocarbon flow. In openhole (OH) completions, the presence of filter cake in the near-wellbore region
can also reduce hydrocarbon productivity (Quintero et al. 2007).
Traditionally, acids, solvents and mutual solvents have been used to remediate formation damage, but the remediating
fluids’ incompatibility with formation fluids can lead to more damage and, therefore, can have a negative effect on
hydrocarbon productivity. Additionally, these solvents pose health and environmental risk.
Carefully designed single-phase microemulsion fluids provide a multitude of advantages over conventional solvents.
Microemulsion fluids are homogeneous, spontaneously formed and thermodynamically stable mixtures of oil and water
formed under certain conditions by means of surfactants (Fanun 2009, Ezrahi et al 1999; Salager and Anton 1999; Bohlen et
al. 1992). The term “microemulsion” has been used to describe multicomponent systems with different phases coexisting
together in a single phase. The microemulsion fluids (MEF) are formulated using a non-aqueous solvent, water, surfactant, and
sometimes co-surfactants, acids and lipophilic linkers (Salager et al. 1998). The phase behavior of MEF can be interpreted and
understood using Winsor’s approach (Salager et al. 2005). Specially selected surfactant combinations are used to formulate
microemulsion systems that reduce the interfacial free energy to nearly zero.
The use of MEF for wellbore remediation can remove skin damage by solubilizing oil from the filter cake and rendering
the residual filter cake solids water-wet (Quintero et al. 2005). Water-wet solids are then easily removed by natural formation
pressures when the well is put in production. Incompatible fluids can form in-situ emulsions that tend to be very viscous and
difficult to remove. MEF can be formulated so they are fully compatible with formation fluids and also aid in demulsification
of already present emulsions. MEF with ultra-low interfacial tension help mobilize solid aggregates inside the pore throats to
increase hydrocarbon flow. Anderson (1986) stated that the flow and distribution of fluids in the reservoir is highly dependent
upon and controlled by the type of wettability of the formation rock. The surfactants used in MEF can enhance the wettability
2 SPE 160851

of the rock formation to its naturally occurring water-wet state that tends to be best suited for optimum hydrocarbon
production. In addition to all the advantages discussed earlier, MEF can be formulated with greener solvents and surfactants to
minimize health and environmental risks. This also makes it easier to ship the fluid, as current regulations make shipping large
volumes of acid and aromatic solvents difficult.
All MEF formulations are tested extensively for a given application. For OH completions, the MEF is designed to slowly
solubilize oil in the filter cake to clean and change the wettability of oil-wet solids to water-wet evenly throughout the
reservoir interval, thereby minimizing premature channeling of the treatment fluid into the formation. For cased-hole
completions, the MEF is designed to work spontaneously to clean solid hydrocarbon deposits, emulsions and water blockages.
The selected formulations are tested by measuring the interfacial tension with different base oils and crude oils, a detergency
evaluation using a bottle-cleaning test and a contact angle measurement to determine the efficacy to clean and change the
wettability from oil-wet to water-wet. MEF is also tested for its compatibility with number of different crude oils, as
incompatibility with natural surfactants present in the crude oil can cause problems with in-situ emulsion formation. Modified
high pressure-high temperature (HP/HT) filtration evaluation is performed at varying temperatures to determine cleaning
performance of emulsified crude oil sludge using MEF. Return permeability tests are also performed to evaluate remediation
of damaged core samples with MEF. In this paper, laboratory data for evaluating the performance of MEF fluid will be
discussed. Three case histories are presented to show the benefits of using MEF for remediation to increase hydrocarbon
productivity.

Laboratory Studies

Microemulsion Formulation
Various combinations of solvents, co-solvents and surfactants were screened to determine the best solvent package for the
MEF system for wellbore remediation. The system formulation is based on Winsor phase behavior, low interfacial tension
measurements, and stability over the specified range of temperature. A generic formulation of the microemulsion system is
given in Table 1.

Table 1: Microemulsion Components

Solvent/co-solvent
Surfactant/co-surfactant
Brine
Acid

Interfacial Tension Measurement

The selected MEF system provided the lowest interfacial tension with a variety of oils. The interfacial tension
measurements of the MEF were performed with various crude oils at 140°F. Fig. 1 shows interfacial measurements of the
MEF with various crude oils. The results indicate that the interfacial tension is very low for the heavy and light crude oils. The
interfacial tension between MEF and heavy crude oil (~12° API) is initially high (1 mN/m), but quickly reduces to below 0.2
mN/m. The interfacial tension with lighter crude oils (~20°-30° API) almost immediately reduces to below 0.5 mN/m and
approaches about 0.1 mN/m.

Fig. 1: Interfacial measurements of MEF with various crude oils.

SPE 160851 3

Contact Angle Measurements

Contact angle measurements can provide useful information about the capability of MEF to clean crude oil residue and its
ability to change the wettability. In this test, first the contact angles of oil-treated glass slides were measured. The glass slides
were then treated with MEF solution. The contact angle for each slide was again measured. Fig. 2 shows the contact angle for
glass substrate treated with crude oil and then with MEF. For most crude oils tested, the measured contact angle was about
75°. After treatment with MEF, the measured contact angle was about 20°. The contact angle after treating the slides with
MEF was lower than the clean, untreated slides. This indicates that the MEF not only cleaned the crude oil from the surface of
the slide, but the surfactant package used also enhanced the wettability to a more water-wet state.

Fig. 2: Contact angle measurement on a glass substrate for crude oil-treated slides and same slides treated with MEF.

Thermal Stability Test

MEF stability tests were performed as a function of time and temperature. The microemulsion-based fluids were observed
for four weeks in a temperature range of 60°F-150°F. The photographs of MEF samples taken after 4 weeks at 60 °F and at
150°F shown in Fig. 3 prove that the single-phase microemulsion is stable in the required range of temperature.

Fig. 3: Stability of MEF at 60°F and at 150°F observed after 4 weeks.

Detergency Test
One of the important properties of MEF for wellbore remediation is to have good solvency capabilities, so that the MEF
can displace sludge and hydrocarbon deposits effectively. The ability of the MEF to clean crude oil from the bottom of the vial
is observed in Fig. 4. The crude oil is completely displaced from the bottom of the jar within 30 minutes after being in contact
with the MEF.

Fig. 4: Bottle-cleaning test. (a) Shows glass bottle coated with heavy crude oil, (b) shows initial MEF contact with crude oil.
4 SPE 160851

and (c) MEF in contact with crude oil after 30 minutes.

Crude Oil Solubilization Test

The MEF was tested for its ability to solubilize heavy and light crude oils from two different fields. The tests were
performed by placing 0.5 g of crude oil in a glass vial and then adding 10g of a MEF. The mixture was then put in an oven at
150°F. Solubilization of crude oil was then monitored as a function of time. Fig. 5 shows a series of pictures from time zero to
30 minutes after MEF was added to the vials containing crude oil. The images clearly show the excellent ability of the MEF to
solubilize crude oil. After 30 minutes at static conditions, the mixture of crude oil and MEF was slightly agitated and total
solubilization of the crude oil in the microemulsion was observed. The magnitude of solubilization depends on the miscibility
of the treatment solution with both brine and oil in the reservoir (Quintero et al. 2007). To enhance solubilization, oil and
water interaction with the surfactants should be increased (Salager et al. 2005, 3-21). The use of a lipophilic linker to bridge
the bulk phase and the adsorbed surfactant layer accounts for increased solubilization power of MEF formulation. The ability
of the MEF to solubilize crude oil is a result of high detergency and ultra-low interfacial tension between the crude oil and the
remediation fluid.

Fig. 5: Solubilization of light and heavy crude oil in MEF. Crude oil is displaced from the bottom of the vial within minutes
under static conditions. Total solubilization is observed when the MEF/crude oil mixture is lightly agitated.

MEF Compatibility with Different Crude Oils

Depending on the composition of the crude oil, there may be enough natural surfactant molecules to promote in-situ
emulsification when it comes in contact with the drilling or completion fluids. The in-situ emulsion is one of the known
formation damage mechanisms in oil wells. It is important to test the compatibility of the microemulsion fluid with a variety
of crude oils to make sure this problem does not arise. Fig. 6 shows a few representative crude oil compatibility tests with
MEF.
To test the compatibility, 2 mL of crude oil is added to a test tube followed by 2 mL of MEF and then agitated vigorously
for about a minute to promote the formation of emulsions (Fig. 6a-c at 0 mins). Within 15 minutes, all crude oils tested
showed complete separation indicating good compatibility of MEF. Not all single-phase microemulsion solutions are
compatible will the crude oils. To give an example, Fig. 7 shows the formation of viscous emulsion when incompatible fluids
are mixed. The emulsions formed are relatively stable and, therefore, after 60 minutes they still persist. The presence of
emulsions is undesirable and can cause blockages and reduce permeability.
SPE 160851 5

Fig.6: MEF compatibility test with (a) heavy crude oil (b) medium crude oil and (c) light crude oil.

Fig. 7: Formation of viscous emulsions when MEF is not compatible with formation crude oil.

Sludge Filter Cake Clean-up

A modified HP/HT filtration test is performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the MEF to clean the sludge formed with
crude oil and oil-based mud (OBM). Evaluation of the MEF in a HP/HT double-ended filter cell is used to demonstrate the
ability of the treatment fluid to clean up sludge or viscous emulsions under wellbore conditions. The main parameters
evaluated are: (1) breakthrough time and filtrate volume; (2) the characteristics of the cake before and after treatment; and (3)
the degree of water wettability of the treated solids. The sludge is made by mixing 75% crude oil with 25% of OBM. Fig. 8
shows a typical crude oil sludge filter cake before treatment.

Fig. 8: Untreated Crude oil/OBM filter cake.

Fig. 9a shows the weight of filtrate collected as a function of time. The MEF is a clear single-phase solution (Fig. 9b) that
turned dark after the treatment indicating the efficacy of the treatment solution to solubilize oil as shown in Fig. 9c. After the
treatment was complete, the filter cake (Fig. 9d) shows only a minimal trace of crude oil present. The solids from the filter
cake readily disperse in water (Fig. 9e), indicating that MEF efficiently changes the wettability of the solids from oil-wet to
water-wet.
Similarly, sludge cleaning tests were performed at 200°F, 250°F and at 300°F. Fig. 10 shows the filtration curve for all of
the tested temperatures. The sludge filter cake breakthrough time is temperature depended. The breakthrough time for 250°F
and 300°F is about 15 minutes and increases for 200°F and 150°F. This is the result of less viscous sludge filter cake formed at
6 SPE 160851

elevated temperatures.

Fig. 9: HP/HT filtration test at 150°F. (a) Filtration curve showing the time required to finish the test, (b) the solution of MEF,
(c) shows MEF solution after treatment (filtrate), (d) image of the filter cake after treatment and (e) solids from the filter cake
dispersed in water.

Fig. 10: Effect of temperature on MEF treatment to clean sludge filter cake.

Post-treatment observation shows the filter cake free from crude oil sludge at all the temperatures studied (Fig. 11). The
filter disk is rinsed in running water and all the solids easily dispersed in water, leaving the disk completely water-wet. Fig. 11
shows that the crude oil sludge is completely solubilized in MEF filtrate recovered from the HP/HT test for all temperatures.

Fig. 11: Images of filter cake after treatment; filter disc rinsed with water; filter cake solids dispersed in water and the filtrate
from the tests at 150°F and at 300°F.

Core, Formation Damage and MEF Cleanup Tests

Return-permeability analysis was performed on core samples from wells in Ecuador after simulated formation damage with
a drill-in fluid and a filtrate-crude oil emulsion, and additional permeability measurements after cleanup with MEF solution.
The cores, which are sandstones consisting of 75% quartz and 25% kaolinite (+ or – 5%), experienced significant reductions of
permeability from the drill-in fluid (Fig. 12, 50% return) and the filtrate-crude emulsion (Fig. 13, 31% return). Despite the
SPE 160851 7

permeability damage, the two-hour treatments with the MEF caused significant remediation, with the core exposed to the drill-
in fluid restored to 82% of initial permeability (Fig. 12), and the emulsion-injected core was improved to a 97% return
permeability (Fig. 13).

Fig. 12: Return permeability data show improved permeability for mud-exposed core sample treated with MEF.

Fig. 13: Return permeability data show improved permeability for filtrate-crude oil emulsion exposed core sample treated with
MEF.

Field Applications

Case I: MEF Treatment of OH Frac Packed Well

An operator in West Africa drilled a high-permeability reservoir with a synthetic-based drilling fluid and completed it as an
OH frac pack. The initial production was considered good, but after more than a year the production began to fall. As the
initial production was as good as expected, there were neither discussions about formation damage due to the drilling fluid nor
any evidence that the completion caused any skin problems. Analysis of the crude oil suggested that the damage could be
from asphaltene or paraffin deposition despite the crude oil being classified as light API oil.
The options available for remediation included a conventional aromatic solvent (xylene) surfactant blend or a MEF without an
aromatic solvent. Due to the lack of field trials with the MEF option, the operator chose to bullhead a xylene treatment to
dissolve the asphaltene or paraffin. The first treatment was not a success and a second xylene treatment was pumped. Like the
first treatment, the production did not increase.
For the third attempt, the operator decided to proceed with the MEF treatment. After squeezing this treatment into the
damaged frac pack, the well was brought back on line with higher productivity than when the well was originally put in
production. Fig. 14 shows the gradual decline in production over 16 months and the reduction in skin and productivity index
(PI). This figure shows the effect of the two xylene treatments and the MEF. The PI after the MEF treatment was more than
2.25 times greater than the initial production and the skin was almost 30% less after the treatment. The xylene treatment
resulted in no significant improvement in production. The conclusion was that the MEF was able to diffuse into the damaged
zone and disperse blockage.
8 SPE 160851

Fig. 14: Improvement in water injection after the MEF treatment.

Case II: MEF Treatment to Restore Gas Production in 58-Year Old Cased Well
An operator in the Western United States had problems with declining production in his 58-year old gas well. Previous
treatments in the field included standard acid treatments with mixed results. In one application in the field, the MEF described
in this paper was pumped and followed with an acid. The production increased but the service company and completion
engineer doubted whether the improvement was due to the acid or the MEF.
After months of discussion, the operator consented to pump the MEF and provide the acid as a contingency treatment in the
event the MEF was unsuccessful. The initial gas production was only 25 mcfd and the tubing pressure was only 50 psi. The
25 gallons was calculated to treat approximately 3 ft of the wellbore radially.
After bullheading 25 gallons of the MEF into the 12 ft perforation interval, the solution was allowed to soak for 18 hours.
After the soak time, the tubing pressure rose to more than 2500 psi. Due to the age of the well, the gas was flared to avoid
possible safety issues with the older casing.
After flaring the gas for 1 day, the tubing pressures settled in at 1400 psi and the production increased from 25 to 285 mcf
per day, representing a 14-fold increase in sustained production (Fig. 15). The acid was not pumped.
The general conclusion from this success is that MEF treatments are well-suited for diffusing into the rock matrix and reducing
the water block and dispersing other material that may be causing the damage.

Fig. 15: Pre- and post-treatment production and pressure.

Case III: MEF Treatment to Restore Oil Production in 30-Year Old Cased Well
An operator in the Asia Pacific region had problems with water cut oil production in a 30-year old well in a depleted oil
field. The suspected damage mechanism was not well defined; however, due to numerous workover operations, it was agreed
that the damage was most likely due to emulsion damage. After several failed remediation attempts of pumping aromatic-
based solvents across the perforations, a search for a more effective treatment was initiated that would, in a single application,
target the removal of emulsion damage, minimize phase trapping of water and mobilize solid aggregates.
One of the wells selected for remediation had two shallow perforation intervals, one between 456 ft and 476 ft and the
other between 610 ft and 612 ft. Due to the cost of a coiled tubing unit, the plans was to bullhead and squeeze the MEF
SPE 160851 9

treatment into the perforations at 40-45 gallons/ft and allow the solution to soak and diffuse into the damaged rock matrix
overnight.
After the soak period, the well was brought on line and began producing at levels recorded 5 years previous. As shown in
Fig. 16, the pre-treatment production was 13 BOPD and post-treatment production was a sustained 92 BOPD, representing a
607% increase in production. The pre-treatment water production was 97 BWPD and decreased to 80 BWPD, representing a
13% decrease in water production. Based on these results, it is evident that the MEF had a significant role in restoring the
production potential of this well. Reports from the operator have indicated that the production has been sustained for the 8
months since the treatment.

Fig. 16: Pre- and Post MEF Treatment.

Conclusion:
Microemulsion based fluids have proven to be excellent remediation fluids to increase hydrocarbon productivity. Factors
such as fluid compatibility, temperature stability, ultra-low interfacial tension properties, high detergency and cleanup
capabilities need to be considered when designing MEF fluid. Field case studies show the new MEF can improve hydrocarbon
productivity in previously damaged wells and it is an effective alternative to more expensive remediation techniques including
re-fracturing.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Baker Hughes for allowing us to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
BOPD = barrels of oil per day
BWPD = barrels of water per day
mN/m = milli Newton per meter
MEF =Microemulsion Fluid
MIN =Minute(s)
OBM =Oil-based Mud
OH =Open Hole
PI =Productivity Index
° =degree

References

Anderson, William G. 1986. Wettability Literature Survey – Part 1: Rock/Oil/Brine Interactions and the Effects of Core Handling on
Wettability. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1125-1144. SPE 13932. Journal of Petroleum Technology.

Bohlen, D.S., Vinson, P. K., Davis H.T. et al. 1992. Generic patterns in the Microstructure of Midrange Microemulsions. In Organized
Solutions, Surfactant Science Series, ed. S. E. Friberg and B. Lindman, 145-158. New York : Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Castro, L. 2001. Demulsification Treatment and Removal of In-situ Emulsion in Heavy-Oil-Reservoirs. SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield. SPE 68852.

Ezrahi, S., Aserin A., and Garti N. 1999. Aggregation Behaviour in One-Phase (Winsor IV) Microemulsion Systems. 1999. In Handbook of
Microemulsion Science and Technology, ed. P. Kumar and K. L. Mittal, 185-244. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
10 SPE 160851

Fanun, M. 2009. Microemulsions, properties and applications. In Surfactant Science Series vol 144. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Inc.
Boca Raton, Florida.

Pillai, V.; Kanicky, J.; Shah, D. 1999. Application of Microemulsion in Enhanced Oil Recovery. Handbook of Microemulsion Science and
Technology, ed. Promod Kumar and K. L. Mittal, 743-754. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Quintero, L., Jones, T., Clark, D.E. et al. 2007. NAF Filter Cake Removal Using Microemulsion Technology. Paper SPE 107499 presented
at the European Formation Damage Conference. Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May–1 June.

Salager, J.L., Anton, R.E., Sabatini, D.A. et al. 2005. Enhancing Solubilization in Microemulsions – State of the Art and Current Trends.
Journal of Surfactants and Detergents 8 (1): 3-21.

Salager, J.L. and Anton R.; Ionic Microemulsions. 1999. In Handbook of Microemulsion Science and Technology, ed. P. Kumar and K. L.
Mittal, 247-280. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Salager, J.L., Graciaa, A., Lachaise, J. 1998 Improving solubilization in microemulsions with additives. Part III: Optimization of the
lipophilic linker, J. Surfactants & Detergents (1): 403-406

SI Metric Conversion factors

°F (°F-32)/1.8 = °C
mN/m x 1.0 E – 03 = kg/s2
psi x 6.894 757 E +03 = Pa
mD x 9.869 233 E –16 = m2
BOPD x 1.8 E –06 = m3/s
BWPD x 1.8 E –06 = m3/s
Mcfd x 3.2 E –04 = m3/s