Technology Workshop BBP-Pertamina

Technology Workshop:
Oilfield Chelates
Deventer, The Netherlands
April, 23rd 2019
Agenda
Safety & Introduction
Formation Damage and Well Stimulation Overview
Oilfield Chelates Portfolio
Dissolvine StimWell Field Cases
Q&A
Safety First
Site Map
3
4
AkzoNobel Specialty Chemicals
is Now Nouryon
A Bit of History
1838 Noury & Van der Lande – Deventer (grains, mills)

Grains → Flour → Improvers → Peroxides
1965 Take Over by KZO
1969 AKU + KZO = Akzo
1994 Akzo + Nobel = AkzoNobel (P&C, SC)
Paints & Coatings
2017 AkzoNobel Separation
Specialty Chemicals
2018 Take over of AkzoNobel Specialty Chemicals by

Carlyle & GIC → NOURYON
5
https://www.nouryon.com/markets/oil-and-gas/
6
Formation Damage and Well
Stimulation Overview
7
Productivity Troubleshooting
Optimum rate
Start
(k, h, m, DP)
Job evaluation Wells Hierarchization Job evaluation
Tubing cleaning
No
Q ˂ Qopt? /descaling job
Yes
Poor Surface transport Careful selection of fluid or
Flowline, manifold,
assessment Organic (paraffin, combination of fluids:
separation
asphaltene, sludge) - Xylene
OK - Diesel
Characterization
Art. Lift optimization, water Poor Upstream: Artificial Lift, Inorganic (scale, sand, - Acids
or gas conformance excessive water/gas proppant) - Chelating agents
Yes
OK - Viscous pills
Failed Well integrity OK Tubing No
Workover assessment Formation Damage
obstruction?
“n” possible
Damage Diagnosis
mechanisms
Remove Damage
Chemical/matrix treatment
mechanism Selection of stimulation
strategy
Hydraulic stimulation/ By-pass Damage
extended worm-holing Mechanism
Formation Damage
❑ One expensive, usually inevitable, headache

in O&G business.
❑ Any restriction imposed to hydrocarbon that

impairs its flow from reservoir to a well
through porous medium
Pr
𝑄 DP
𝐽= P(DFP)
∆𝑃 DPs Damaged
S>0 zone
rs
re
9
Well Stimulation
❑ Remedial well work to eliminate or bypass formation damage mechanism(s)
❑ A mean to enhance well-reservoir

communication by creating additional
flow channel(s) in naturally low influx wells
Pr
DPs (In Calcite)
𝑄 DP
P(DFP)
𝐽= S<0
∆𝑃 DPs
Damaged
zone
rs
re
10
Productivity Index
J = Q / DP
0.00707 Kh ( P − P )
Q= E w
 r 
m Bo  Ln e + S 
r
 w 
K  r
S = o - 1 ln d
 Kd  rw
11
Skin Factor components
Sd Skin factor due to reduced permeability (absolute initial permeability and/or relative
permeability - main fluid) – Formation Damage
S c+q Skin factor due to completion components and well deviation
Perforation skin factor:

Sp Lenght perforated << net pay zone (spheric flow) Insuficient or plugged perforation
tunnels
Effect of phase change

Σ Spseudo Pwf < P bubble point gas phase Kro reduced
Pwf < Pdew point liquid phase Krg reduced
12
Tackling Formation Damage
Data gathering and

analyzing
Post-treatment
performance
assessment Diagnosis
Delivery and Stimulation

execution strategy: selection
and design
13
Data gathering & analyzing
Which data and why?
✓ Good information = better diagnostic = confident candidate = field success = profitable/payback
Completion/metallurgy:
Production history/Events:
Flow restriction devices?
14
Mud invasion profiles
15
Well testing:
16
Well testing (cont.):
S=10 S=0
Step Rate Test (SRT)/Step Down Test (SDT) Nodal Analysis
17
Data gathering and

analyzing
Post-treatment
performance

and design
18
Damage Mechanisms
Damage Mechanisms
Adverse Clay swelling Particulate Emulsions Fines migration

wettability plugging
Phase trapping/
reduced kr Scale / inorganic Organic
precipitates precipitates
Internally induced Almost inevitable

while producing (Recurrence)
Very commonly a combination of
mechanisms, especially in aging
Externally induced Needs to be properly wells
treated just once
19
Damage Mechanisms: Wettability Change
❑ Oil wettability thickens oil film on matrix pore surface, reducing available
flow space.
❑ Reduced relative permeability causes increase in water cut and speeds up
water coning.
❑ Wettability changes can also influence fines migration
water-wet rock vs oil-wet rock
20
Damage Mechanisms: Water Blockage
❑ After water source has invaded the formation, capillary forces strengthens water blockage, while
viscous forces weakens it:
( )
Where:
s Fvis dP siw = Interfacial tension; i = oil or gas; w = water;
Fcap iw dr r . l K = permeability
K w l = Length of increased water saturation
❑ Defining non-dimentional capillary number Nca: So, water blockage hinders the most when:
•
 dP  Permeability is low
  l K •
   dr  rw Reservoir pressure is low
N ca =  Viscous Forces  = •
 Capilary forces  s iw Interfacial tension is high (eg. Gas wells)
• Reservoirs with highly sensitive Kr vs Sw
❑ Field observation implies that: Removal of water blockage requires:
If Nca >> 1, water blockage is weak, thus easily removes naturally • Reduction of interfacial tension (appropriate surfactants)
If Nca << 1, water blockage is strong and will persist unless treated • Well swabbing
21
Damage Mechanisms: Inorganic precipitation
Cristal growth
❑ Formation Water can be source of scale precipitation as consequence of
Clustering
equilibrium disturbance, being CaCO3 the most common scale.
Mineral Ions in solution

❑ Pressure drop leads to CO2 release and pH increase, decreasing CaCO3
solubility
Flocculation of
colloidal particles
❑ Externally induced precipitation comes as a consequence of mixing
incompatible water during completion, workover and water injector for
secondary or enhanced recovery.
Deposition
❑ Other common scales on the field are: CaSO4, BaSO4, SrSO4, FeCO3,
FeS, in which factors such as P, T, pH, corrosion, salt concentration,
control their precipitation.
22
Damage Mechanisms: Organic precipitation
❑ Asphaltene precipitation is the most common and problematic type of organic O
OH
precipitation. S
❑ Precipitation is highly sensitive to pressure drop and to lesser extent, O

S
temperature drop. Incompatible oil and acidic fluids also induce precipitation. OH
NH2
0,45
(fraction)
0,4 Molecular structure

en la fase liquida
0,35
onset
% Asfaltenosasphaltenes
0,3
0,25
0,2
Dispersed
0,15
0,1 T = 297 °F
T = 286 °F Max. floc. Precipitation in the formation
0,05 T = 200 °F
Pb Pwf Pres
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
psi
Presión / psia
Internally induced precipitation (Production related) Externally induced precipitation
23
Damage Mechanisms:
Clay Instability & Fines Migration
❑ Fines migration occur when particles smaller than 40 microns (authigenic clays, quartz,
feldspars) filling pore spaces detach and move, later creating bridges in pore throats.
❑ Clay instability including swelling further impairs permeability either by migrating and
KAOLINITE plugging throats or by increasing their size thus reducing pore space.
❑ Causes are related with: Salinity change, pH change,

wettability alteration, increase in flow rate.
ILLITE
❑ Formations with more than 10% clay
content (authigenic) tend to have lower
critical flow rates, thus are easily
affected by fines migration. Weak bonds
(clay-surface)
SMECTITE
24
Processes that potentially cause
Formation Damage
Drilling
Potential mechanisms:
Full invasion of ▪ Particle plugging

mud
▪ Clay Swelling
Efficient seal 1/7dpt > dp
▪ Wettability change
1/7dpt < dp < 1/3dpt
▪ Emulsion
Mud phase ▪ Sw/Kr change

Filter cake solids invasion
▪ Inorganic precipitation
Mud phase base dp > 1/3dpt
Hydrocarbon
25
Formation Damage
Cementing
• Invasion of spacers and washers

• Invasion of cement filtrate
Potential mechanisms:
▪ Clay instability/swelling
▪ Fines migration Wettability change
▪ Natural surfactant activation - Emulsions
▪ Sodium silicate precipitation
26
Formation Damage
Completion and workover
Additives Potential Mechanisms Conditions Potential Mechanisms

Salts Inorganic precipitation Over balance Fluid invasion / water block
Corrosion Inhibitors Wettability change Drag of solids / rust in pipe Plugging
Threads/connection grease Compacted/plugged
Plugging Perforating
perforation tunnels
Polymers
27
Formation Damage
Well Stimulation
HCl - Potential Mechanisms HF - Potential Mechanisms Hydraulic fracturing - Potential

Mechanisms
Emulsion / Sludge Na, K – Fluorosilicate Precipitation
Plugging due to polymers
Asphaltene precipitation Silica hydroxide precipitation
Water block
Clay stability/migration Ca, Al fluoride precipitation
Emulsions
Unwanted precipitation Grain-cement dissolution / matrix
deconsolidation/sand production Unwanted reaction/precipitation due to
oxidants/breakers
- Presence of Fe +2 (eg: chlorite): pH > 4.5 then FeCO3 precipitation
- Presence of Fe+3 (eg: rust): pH > 2, then Fe(OH)3 precipitation
28
Damage Mechanism(s) Identified,
Now What?
Data gathering and
analyzing
Post-treatment
performance

and design
29
By-pass or Eliminate Damage?
Sandstone Limestone
Hydraulic Fracturing Matrix Stimulation Acid Fracturing
Reactive / Acid based Non-Reactive / Solvent based
✓ Clay swelling ✓ Emulsions

✓ Particulate plugging ✓ Adverse wettability
✓ Inorganic precipitate ✓ Phase trapping
✓ Fines migration ✓ Organic precipitates
Damage mechanism identification will drive: fluid type, additives selection and pumping rates.
30
By-pass or Eliminate Damage?
Damage radius influence
100%
Critical flow
Does data suggest 90% radius
No treatment-
Completion efficiency
Stimulation will no 80%
workover/sidetrack 70%
improve PI? 60%
yes 50%
40%
30%
Matrix acidizing Frac-acid 20%
candidate? candidate? 10% Critical flow radius

0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Radial extent damaged zone (ft)
J/Js, K=10% J/Js, K=20% J/Js, K=40%
Moderate Very Tight
to low K Formation
Near wellbore damage has the greatest

impact in well productivity
Source: Schlumberger NEXT - Candidate selection guidelines
31
Acidizing Treatment Design
Source: Schlumberger NEXT - Candidate selection guidelines Treatment Main Steps
32
Data gathering and

analyzing
Post-treatment
performance

and design
Formation Damage & Well Stimulation Basics 33

Delivery & Execution
Injectivity Main Post-

Pre-flush
test treatment flush
❑ What: washing down the tubing or injection string to remove all kinds of pipe
dope (mud, rust, scale)
❑ Why: pumping any treatment through a dirty pipe will loosen debris from its
walls and sweep them into the formation, causing severe damage.
❑ How: circulating from downhole (above open interval) pickling stage: usually a
compatible mix of organic solvents with mild inhibited acids. Casing-tubing
circulation, CTU or bull heading (much harder).
❑ When: before each stimulation treatment, specially bull heading ones
34
Tubing Main Post-

Pre-flush
pickling treatment flush
❑ What: short pumping stages to determine annular communication FracCAT* OXY

LC-2505
04-22-2016
PRC Post Job Plot Tr. Press AN_PRESS Slurry Rate
and formation ability to receive fluids 2000 1.0
Max P @1464 psi

0.9
❑ Why: avoid loosing fluid to casing or different formation, adjust 1500

0.8
pumping rates , volumes. Safety limits, establishing pre-stimulation 0.7
Pressure - psi
Rate - bbl/min
0.6
conditions (flow regime, damage severity and fracture gradient). 1000 0.35 bpm 0.5
0.4
❑ How: Compatible fluid pumping initially at low pumping rate which is 500 0.03 bpm
0.3
0.2
gradually increased while monitoring downhole pressure. 0.1
0 0
16:40:06 17:00:56 17:21:46 17:42:36 18:03:26
❑ When: Before pre-flush pumping, most frequently in tight formations Time - hh:mm:ss
with vertical perforated completions. It can be optimized as a part of © Schlumberger 1994-2012
the pre-flush stage. 35

Tubing Injectivity Main Post-

pickling test treatment flush
❑ What: pumping stage(s) with compatible fluid(s) to prepare the formation for main treatment.
❑ Why: remove oily layer from rock surface to improve contact and proper reaction with StimWell, ease
flow-back of treatment by lowering capillary forces, avoid direct contact between treatment and crude
oil (when combined with risky acids)
❑ How: injecting a batch of an properly selected fluid. Selection depends on formation characteristics
and damage type to be removed: organic solvents mixture with water wetting agents and mutual
solvents are usually good choice for most acid treatments. If plugging dissolution is the target,
minimum pumping rate is required to avoid pushing further the damage intended to treat.
❑ When: It is highly recommended at every matrix stimulation treatment just before main treatment
injection.
36
Tubing Injectivity Main Post-

pickling test treatment flush
Notice appropriate pre-flush formulation will increase treatment success probabilities:
37
Tubing Injectivity Post-

Pre-flush
pickling test flush
Which fluid/formulation? Damage

Radius
✓ Hydrochloric acid?
✓ Mud Acid?
✓ Acetic acid?
✓ Formic Acid
✓ Chelating agents?
✓ Plain?
✓ Emulsified?
✓ Nitrified (foamed)?
Sandstone: acid dissolves Carbonate: acid creates new
Depends on: damage diagnosis, minerals that plug the pore flow paths by dissolving
formation properties, well space. Uniform dissolution formation rock. Wormhole
conditions, cost-effectiveness … formation
38
Tubing Injectivity Main

Pre-flush
pickling test treatment
❑ What: displacing the main treatment off the injection string to completely place it into the formation. In some
treatments (combined acids for sandstones), over-flush might also be needed with extra displacement fluid
volume to push the treatment deeper into the formation.
❑ Why: when secondary reactions are expected, acid treatment must be placed outside the critical near
wellbore radius, allowing itself to fully waste, thus avoiding damaging precipitates in that area.
❑ How: when over-displacement is not needed, just pump an additional volume corresponding to injection
string capacity (some consider an additional safety factor to account tubing expansion while pumping). Non
miscible fluid is desirable to avoid further dilution of acid (specially in bull-heading operations). In sandstone
stimulation including HF, a water based displacement volume should be enough to push wasted acid out to
3-4 ft away of the wellbore.
39
Data gathering and

analyzing
Post-treatment
performance

and design
Formation Damage & Well Stimulation Basics 40

Post-treatment assessment
Inflow Performance Flow Back sampling

10000
Concentration (ppm)
9000
8000
7000
6000
Ca
5000
Mg
4000
K
3000
2000 S
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Sample nr
41
Cost-Effectiveness
𝑟𝑒 1 𝑟𝑤ℎ
Productivity gain vs treatment volume 𝑃𝐼𝑓 𝐿𝑛 𝑟𝑤 + 𝑆𝑖 𝑆𝑓 ~ − 1 ∙ 𝐿𝑛
4
Critical flow
2500 ~ 𝐾𝑓 𝑟𝑤
𝑃𝐼𝑖 𝐿𝑛 𝑟𝑒 + 𝑆 ൘𝐾
Treatment volume (gal/ft)

Productivity index gain (times)
3.5 radius 𝑓
3
2000 𝑟𝑤 𝑖
2.5 1500
2 Pay-back Period with treatment depth
1000 80
1.5 Critical flow
70 h=100ft
1 radius Si=5
500
0.5 60 rw=0,25ft
Payback (days)
0 0 50 re=450 ft
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
11
13
15
17
19
40
Treatment radius (ft) 30
Kf/Ki=10 PIf/PIi Kf/Ki=1000 PIf/PIi Coverage (gal/ft) 20
10
2 0
𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ($) 𝑓(𝑟𝑤ℎ ) 1 10 100
𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘~ ~
𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 ($/𝑑) 𝑓 1ൗ Treatment depth (ft)
𝐿𝑛(𝑟𝑤ℎ ) Kf/Ki=1000 Kf/Ki=10
42
Typical failure causes in well acidizing
❑ Damage diagnosis/characterization
❑ Placement issues, thief zones, diversion Change in Damage Skin factor
❑ Fluid-Fluid incompatibility : emulsions, sludge, unwanted Sandstone matrix Skin can be reduced
acidizing at zero at best
reactions…
Can generate
❑ Improper acid flow-back procedures Carbonate acidizing
negative skin
❑ Insufficient acid volume Hydraulic fracture -6 to -2
❑ Water blockage Acid fracturing -2 to +2
❑ Contact with water layer: increase in water cut/ killing
OH gravel pack +2 to +10
natural flow or gas lift
❑ Unrealistic expectations? CH gravel pack +5 to +20
❑ Copy-Paste jobs without post-mortem analysis

Statistical field data, source: Schlumberger NEXT
43
Major challenges in acidizing
Even after proper selection of candidate well, when using traditional inorganic and organic acids be prepare
to handle:
Large amount of additives and stages to avoid:

– Corrosion
– Emulsion/sludge
– Unwanted reactions, precipitation
– Clay incompatibility
Flow Back hassle:

– Collecting, treating and disposal of hazardous material
– Downtime cost, environmental implications, flaring
HSE: risks to personal, installations and environment
44
Formation Damage & Well Stimulation
Basics: Summary
❑ Overall productivity assessment: Well Stimulation not always the answer

❑ Proper diagnosis of Formation Damage will lead to the best treatment to restore
productivity (Good quality data is a must)
❑ Damage in the critical matrix radius is the target of matrix stimulation
❑ Wells without a performance gap will not respond well to matrix treatments
(realistic expectations)
❑ Well testing and previous acidizing history: best source of information for
candidate selection and treatment designs
45
Dissolvine®
Oilfield Portfolio
Athens, March/2019
What is a chelating agent?
Greek word origin “chele” meaning claw.
• Chelates are chemical agents that interact (complex) with metal ions, changing the
chemical property of the metal ion.
• Effective on almost all multivalent metal ions (calcium, iron, zinc, etc.)
• Metal ions are almost always more soluble once chelated.
Metal ion
[Metal-complex] Chelate
47
Where can chelates be used in oilfield
Gas sweetening
H2S Removal
Production
Scale Removal –
Surface facilities
Cementing
Cement retardation
Production
Scale Removal –
Downhole equipment Production
Scale Removal –
Tubing/Casing
Injection
Scale Removal
Completion
Filter Cake
Removal
Stimulation
Stimulation
Matrix Treatment
Iron control
1. Descaling 2. Stimulation 3. Completion 4. Cementing 5. Gas Sweetening

48
1. Chelates in
Descaling
49
Scale Dissolution by Chelation
= SO4
= Ba
Chelating Agent
(claws)
= BaSO4
Structures of Chelates offered by Akzo
StimWell
EDTA MGDA GLDA
HEDTA EDG (HEIDA) DTPA
51
Why So Many Products?
Criteria for Selecting the Right One
Application: How strong DTPA > EDTA > HEDTA > MGDA > GLDA > EDG
a chelate is needed?
Biodegradability GLDA, MGDA, EDG vs EDTA, HEDTA, DTPA
Formulation pH Acid vs di, tri, tetrasodium salt
Solubility GLDA vs EDTA / NH4 vs K vs Na
Compatibility with enzymes GLDA > EDTA > DTPA
Registrations / approvals Chemical / OSPAR

Scale Dissolution by Chelation
Chelate
treatment
✓ Scale removal without corrosion

✓ No H2S risk: works at elevated pH
53
Chelate selection:
CaSO4·2H2O (Gypsum) scale dissolution
160
140 EDTA and DTPA are the

Dissolved Ca after 30 min
120 best choices for

100
CaSO4·2H2O
(mmol/l)
80 pH 5
pH 8
GLDA is the best
60
pH 11 biodegradable option.
40
20
0
EDTA DTPA
HEDTA GLDA*
EDG*
NTA*
With CaSO4, a high pH more effective than low pH

54
Chelate selection:
Effect of type of chelate on BaSO4 dissolution

100% • BaSO4 powder
• 70°F
• Stirring, 24 hr
Scale dissolution (wt%)
80% • Analysis of filtrate by

ICP
60%
40%
20%
0%
Dissolvine
DTPA-K5 EDTA-K4 DTPA-Na5 EDTA-Na4 HEDTA-K3 GLDA-Na4
StimWell DDH
Dissolvine StimWell DDH 55

Increasing dissolution rate
• Powdered BaSO4
BaSO4 Dissolution using a Catalyst
• K5-DTPA (SW DDH)
550
diluted 1:1 in fresh
500
water
450
• 176 °F
400 • Static conditions
Lbs BaSO4 / 1,000 gal
350
300
250
No additives
200
1% KOH
150 Including KOH accelerates
2% KOH
100
reaction rate thus decreases
5% KOH
downtime and increases
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 effectiveness
Time (hrs)
56
Chelate selection:
Iron sulfide scale dissolution at higher pH

Descaling result on Greigite after 6 hours at 60°C with excess chelate
Greigite
700
Total Fe
600
500
[Fe] (mg/kg)
400
300
200
100
0
EDTA, 7 EDTA, 9 DTPA, 7 DTPA, 9 HEDTA, 7 HEDTA, 9 best option:
chelate, pH DTPA at neutral pH
Better results are obtained at lower temperatures
57
CaCO3 scale dissolution
Reaction mechanisms: Protonation and chelation

Advantages Disadvantages
Acids ✓ Available and cheap Corrosion
✓ Well known Fe precipitation
2 HCl + CaCO3 → Ca2+ + 2 Cl- + CO2 + H2O ✓ High dissolving power Early spent
HSE concerns
(1.8 lb/gal for 15% HCl)
Problems escalate
‘Protonation reaction mechanism’ at HT
Chelates ✓ No corrosion! Lower dissolving

✓ Excellent HSE power (0.52 lb/gal for
chelate4- + CaCO3  [chelate-Ca]2- + CO32- ✓ Controlled reaction 20% EDTA)
✓ Good Fe-control Limited solubility in
‘chelation reaction mechanism’ some chelates
✓ No corrosion!
Soluble chelate at low pH: GLDA ✓ Excellent HSE, readily biodegradable
✓ Controlled reaction
4H+ + GLDA4- + 2CaCO3  Ca [GLDA - Ca] + CO2 + H2O ✓ Good Fe-control
✓ Higher dissolving power than high pH chelates
‘At low pH: protonation & chelation reaction mechanism’ (20wt% GLDA: 0.66 lb/gal)
58
Scale dissolution
In brief: • Chelates are effective scale removers for a variety of inorganic

scale and mixed scales
• Chelates are gentle to tubes (even Cr-based)
• The chelates recommended by Nouryon are safe to work with
• When used at elevated pH against sulfide scale, chelates give
no risk of H2S formation
• Chelate selection must take into account: scale type, pH,
solubility, HSE.
• Since most scales in oilfield are mixed, dissolution tests are
best to “screen” different chelates to select the most suitable
59
2. Chelates in
Matrix Stimulation
60
Challenges of conventional Acidizing
1. Face dissolution
inefficient worm-holing
2. Corrosion: asset
integrity concerns
3. Harmful chemicals
2 5 HSE concerns
4. Unwanted
precipitation:
formation damage
1 4
5. Sludge/emulsions:
formation damage
6. Acid Flowback
3 6 neutralizing/disposal
hassle/flaring
61
Dissolvine® StimWell™ HTF
An alternative is a safer, low corrosive and environmentally friendly system based on chelating agents:
Dual-reaction mechanism:
Acid dissolution:
(aq)
+
StimWell HTF +
Complexation:
(CaCO3 solid) (aq)
Dissolvine® StimWell™ HTF Legend:

pH 3.8 (CaCO3 and Fe scales) = CO3
= Ca
=
Dissolvine® StimWell™ Portfolio 62

Performance in Limestone
❑ Slow reacting fluid, controlled dissolution
allows creating deep wormholes instead of
becoming early spent Inlet
HCl reacts violently causing

face dissolution 2D CT
scan
Dissolvine® StimWell™ HTF causes
less face dissolution
Pink desert calcite 3D CT

scan
T= 200°F
1 cm3/min
15% HCl
Product features and benefits 63
Comparison with HCl
Dissolvine® StimWell™
is more effective
Indiana limestone
than HCl at High T
10 20 inch cores!!
T= 250°F
Pore volume to breakthrough
2
15% HCl
0
0 1 2 3
Flow rate (cm 3/min)

Compatible with clays
Fully
compatible with 1.60 20
clays and 1.40
improves 16
Illite content (%)

1.20
Permeability ratio
permeability in
(Kfinal/Kinitial)
1.00 12
sandstone
formations 0.80
0.60 8
when carbonate
material is 0.40
4
present 0.20
0.00 0
Berea Bandera Kentucky Scioto

Iron Under Control
Asphaltenes
Precipitation Iron control:
No precipitation
Sulfides Iron
Hydroxides

No problems with spent fluid
Iron control
Spent Dissolvine® • Corrosion
• Need for
StimWell neutralization No problems!!
has a near neutral
pH and requires no Citric acid
post treatments to
Acetic acid
protect upstream
No iron control
• Corrosion
equipment • Fe-precipitation
• Fe-precipitation
• Sludge formation
• Sludge formation
• Need for
neutralization
HCl
Low pH pH neutral

Excellent HSE Profile
15% HCl NTA-Na3 EDTA-Na4 HEDTA-Na3
No Labeling Required!
DANGER Additionally:
• H314 • H302, 319, • H302, 318, • H319 ✓ Readily biodegradable in

• Causes severe 351 332 • Eye irritation FW (>60% in 28 days)
skin burns • Harmful if • Harmful if
✓ Ultimately biodegradable
and eye swallowed swallowed
in SW (>80% in 63 days)
damage • Eye irritation • Harmful if
• Carcinogen inhaled ✓ Non Toxic
suspect • Eye damage ✓ Gold Classification in the
North Sea

Reduced chemical usage
• Dissolvine®
• HCl StimWell™
• Corrosion • 0.2wt% water
inhibitor wetter
• Demulsifier • Minor amounts
• Intensifier of CI (depending
• Iron control agent on Temperature
and metallurgy)
• Anti sludge agent

Dissolvine® StimWell™ DDH
One mechanism: Chelation

Complexation:
StimWell DDH + (aq)

(aq)
(BaSO4 solid)
Legend:
Dissolvine® StimWell™ DDH
= SO42-
pH 11.8 (CaSO4, BaSO4, SrSO4)
= Ba
=
Dissolvine® StimWell™ Portfolio 70

BaSO4 Formation Damage Removal
Core-flood experiments: Damaged Permeability Restoration
Permeability
2 4 5
1
Original core Brine saturation:

Koriginal Permeability
permeability
BaCl2 (aq) StimWell DDH gain assessment
assessment
+ Chemical
Na2SO4 (aq) 3 treatment
K loss
=
K gain
BaSO4 (s) + 2NaCl Catalyst?
Damaged Stages?
Barite precipitation
Kdamaged inside porous permeability Soaking?
medium: assessment Rate?
Formation
Damage
Pores volumes (PV)

Cores permeability referenced to its initial value
1
StimWell DDH is able to restore damaged
0.8 97%
permeability after one or two treatment stages,
Experiment 1
permeability
Original
0.6
Permeability
recovered depending on the magnitude of damage
0.4
171 mg
48% BaSO4
0.2
damaged dissolved
0
1 Ki/Ki Kd/Ki Kf1/Ki Kf2/Ki Treatment details:
Ki/Ki Kd/Ki Kf1/Ki Kf2/Ki • Experiment 1: 1 stage, 50% SW DDH, 5
Experiment 2
0.8 97%
permeability
0.6 Original 78% recovered PV @ 1cc/min + 24 hrs soaking. 85 ºC,
Permeability permeability
recovered 40 bar. Bandera SS, Ki =3.74md.
0.4
299 mg 168 mg • Experiment 2: 2 stages, 50 % SW DDH,
0.2 63% BaSO4 BaSO4
damaged dissolved dissolved 5 PV each @ 1 cc/min. 24 hrs soaking.
0
Ki/Ki
Ki/Ki Kd/Ki
Kd/Ki Kf1/Ki
Kf1/Ki Kf2/Ki
Kf2/Ki 85 ºC, 40 bar. Bandera SS, Ki =4.07md .

Cores permeability referenced to its initial value
1.00
• Using KOH as a catalyst increases damage
Experiment 3
0.80 97%
Original permeability removal efficiency:
Permeability 97%recovered
0.60 Original permeability
Permeability recovered • Experiment 3: 50% SW DDH, 5 PV @
0.40 48% damaged
168 mg
22%
BaSO4
1cc/min + 24 hrs soaking. 85 ºC, 40 bar.
damaged
0.20 dissolved:
Bandera SS, Ki = 4.07 md.
0.00
1.20
Ki/Ki Kd/Ki Kf1/Ki • Experiment 4: 50% SW DDH + 2.5 wt% KOH
1.00
115% addition, 5 PV @ 1cc/min + 24 hrs soaking.
Experiment 4
0.80 Original permeability

Permeability recovered 85 ºC, 40 bar. Bandera SS, Ki = 4.07 md
0.60 78%
Original
permeability
Permeability
0.40 38% recovered
282 mg
63% damaged BaSO4
damaged
0.20 dissolved: StimWell DDH is able to also dissolve Ca, Mg, Fe, Sr
0.00 based minerals, thus it aids to further increase
Ki/Ki Kd/Ki Kf1/Ki
permeability in rocks containing calcite, dolomite, siderite,
among others
(Dis)solves many scale problems
Dissolution tests, samples from the field:

Solubility in Dissolvine® StimWell™
Main components Origin
HTF DDH
Calcite (CaCO3) Asia 96% (4hr@200°F)
Siderite (FeCO3) Asia 97% (4hr@200°F)
Iron sulfide (FeS) Europe 83% (4hr@200°F)
Goethite (Fe2O3·H2O)
South América 89% (4hr@300°F)
Gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O)
Calcite (CaCO3)
Asia 85% (1hr@200°F)
Anhydrite (CaSO4)
Barite (BaSO4) Asia 32% (4hr@248°F) 100% (4hr@248°F)
Celestine (SrSO4)
Europe 81% (6hr@221°F)
Anhydrite (CaSO4)

Low corrosion profile in Low Carbon
All Dissolvine®
1.2
StimWell™ products
are gentle to low
1 carbon
0.8
Corrosion (lbs/sq ft)
0.6 No CI
0.001v% CI
0.4
0.2
• L-80 carbon steel
0 • 300°F
• N2 head space
HTF DGH DDH Acetic Citric Formic
• 6 hour metal loss
at temperature

Low corrosion profile in Chrome
0.8 All Dissolvine®
• Cr-13 (UNS S41000) StimWell™ products
• 300°F are gentle to Cr-13
• N2 head space
0.6 • 6 hour metal loss at
Corrosion (lbs/sq.ft)
temperature
0.4
0.2
0
HTF DGH DDH 10wt% Acetic 10wt% Citric 10wt% 20wt%
Formic HEDTA

Recap: Dissolvine® StimWell™
In Sandstone, Dissolvine® StimWell™ will attack Dissolvine® StimWell™ will not
formation damage mechanisms consisting in:
– Alter pH drastically during treatment
– Particle plugging due to: Carbonate and Iron
based solids (HTF), Ca, Ba and Sr sulfate (DDH) – Impact wettability of formation
in the near wellbore due to scale precipitation or – Cause clay swelling or fines migration in the
mud invasion
formation
In addition, in Limestone, Dissolvine® StimWell™
– Cause precipitations due to secondary or
HTF will further enhance well-reservoir
communication through: tertiary reactions
– Creation of flow path (wormholes) by dissolving

carbonate minerals from the rock matrix while
keeping Iron in solution
Dissolvine® StimWell™ HTF 77

Dissolvine StimWell
Field Study Cases
78
StimWell field applications
CaCO3 Descaling (SW-HTF) Fe-Control (SW-HTF)

Limestone Wormholing (SW-HTF) ESP Cleanout (SW HTF, SW-DGH)
Sandstone Acidizing (SW-HTF) BaSO4 removal (SW-DDH)
StimWell field applications 79

Field case: Gulf of Mexico
Driver: Avoiding flow-back hassle/costs
Wells conditions:
Challenges:
• 11 off-shore gas wells • High corrosion rate (H2S and HT)

• Sandstone formation • High CRA
• High CRA: G-3, G-50 • Low reservoir pressure gradient
• 390 °F - 410°F
• Vertical wells
• 10% H2S and 4% CO2
• CaCO3 self-scaling
• Average depth: 20,000 ft MD
Worldwide field applications 80

Pre-testing:
✓No signs of sludge with or without iron salts
✓Fully compatible with a number of brines and mixture of brines
✓No Corrosion Inhibitor needed at 300 F or 395 F in CR-13,

Duplex-2205, C-276 Hastelloy, G-3 or G-50.
Treatment design guidelines:
✓ Pre-flush: Xylene to remove any organic deposit near wellbore
✓ Main Treatment: 50% Dissolvine® StimWell™ pumped nitrified at 1- 2 bpm to account low formation pressure
✓ Post-flush: treatment displaced with 1 to 1,5 tubing capacity of N2. To prevent water blockage.
✓ Flow back: was initiated immediately, no neutralization of the spent acid was required

Summarized treatments and results:
Pre-flush Main treatment Production Increase
Well Treatment date
Fluid Volume (bbls) Main treatment fluid Volume MMPCPD
1 dec-13 xylene 12 SW (Stimcarb)-Nitrified SW (2300 SCF/d) 16 gals/ft 0,6
2 dec-13 xylene 12 Nitrified SW (Stimcarb-2000 SCF/d) 27.8 gals/ft 3,6
3 dec-13 xylene 12 SW (Stimcarb)-Nitrified SW (2000 SCF/d) 14.6 gals/ft 1,7
4 dec-13 xylene 12 SW (Stimcarb)-Nitrified SW (2500 SCF/d) 18.75 gals/ft 0,1
5 jan-14 - - Nitrified SW (Stimcarb-1800 SCF/d) 20.7 gals/ft 3,5
6 jan-14 xylene 12 SW (Stimcarb)-Nitrified SW (1800 SCF/d) 20 gals/ft 0
7 jan-14 xylene 12 SW (Stimcarb)-Nitrified SW (2600 SCF/d) 56.5 gals/ft 0
8 jan-14 xylene 12 Nitrified SW (Stimcarb-2000 SCF/d) 30 gals/ft 1,1
9 July-15 xylene 12 Nitrified SW (Stimcarb-2000 SCF/d) 18.75 gals/ft 1,3
10 July-15 xylene 12 Nitrified SW (Stimcarb-2000 SCF/d) 20.7 gals/ft 2,1
11 July-15 xylene 12 Nitrified SW (Stimcarb-2000 SCF/d) 20 gals/ft 0,8
Overall production increase 14,8

Flowback samples analyzed:
✓ pH between 5.7 to 6.5

✓ Dissolution of Calcite, Siderite, Halite and some sulfate based scales were identified through ICP
✓ Concentration of Mo, Cr, Mn and Ni was negligible. No signs of corrosion

Summary of Benefits:
✓ Easy to handle and apply in the field

✓ Convenient flow back of the spent fluid required no additional chemical treatment or neutralization for
downstream processing
✓ Dissolves inorganic scales effectively while being gentle with tubular metallurgy due to low corrosive
character
✓ Meets strict regulations and environmental guidelines
✓ Fluid became of regular use in the field until today
Savings around USD 2500-5000
per day to neutralize acidic flow
back during 5-7 days

ESP Cleanout & Stimulation – Asia Pacific
Well conditions Challenge
• Off-shore oil well in Malaysia • ESP was installed in 2008

• Sandstone formation • Scaling problems resulted in replacement of ESP
twice
• 160°F
• Previous HCl treatment resulted in production decline
• Vertical well
due to incompatibility with clays
• L-80 tubular
• In 2012, new scaling issues at ESP intake
• ESP present
• Rig was expensive and poorly available
• 1800 meters total depth
• Ideal solution would dissolve scales while being gentle
to ESP and tubular, so ESP pump could be left
downhole
Pre-testing:
• Solid samples taken during DIFA was analysed to optimize treatment program.
Findings of ESP Dismantle Inspection and Failure Analysis (DIFA), June 2012
• Key pump elastomers were subjected to an extended
soak in 20% GLDA@210oF for 1 month with no damage
to their integrity.
• The ESP power cable was soaked in 20% GLDA (without

corrosion inhibitor) for 45 hours at 200oF with no material
damage to the cable.
Pre-testing (cont.): Dissolution result
(weight % dissolved)
Sample 1
95.8 %
Solid inside ESP impeller and diffuser
Sample 2
97.2 %
Solid on top of ESP (near Auto FlowValve)
Treatment design guidelines:
✓ 1st stage: 15 bls thru tubing with 4hr soaking to dissolve scale in top of ESP
✓ 2nd stage: 60 bls thru ESP with 4hr soaking to dissolve scale below ESP and near wellbore
✓ 3rd stage: 98 bls thru annulus to push into formation to dissolve matrix plugging, 24hr soaking
Results:
Flowback analysis
• PI improvement from 1.35 bpd/psi to 1.77 bpd/psi sustained for
6 months, no adverse impact to the well tubular and ESP in
stable parameters
• No evidence of ESP corrosion by products.
• Flow back was near neutral and posed no problems
Main benefits according to customer:
✓ The chemical was easy to handle, mix and apply for offshore operations
✓ No damage to the integrity of ESP, cable or tubular
✓ No increase in water cut and sand production
✓ ESP operating with stable parameters

✓ Long sustainability of productivity index improvement (PI=30%)
✓ Cost effective and fast return of investment
Published as SPE 166335. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 30 September-2 October,
2013, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Field case: Water injector
Driver:
Sensitive clays, low pressure made Flow Back of conventional acids time
consuming. Over-displacement preferred
Selective Water Injector Well
• BH temperature : 110 °F.

• Completion design : Cased perforated
mandrel #4 • Porosity/Permeability : 20% / 44 – 173 md
• Perforation interval : 3740 ft – 3809 ft (37 ft)
• Mandrel depth : 3749 ft
• Reservoir pressure : 675 psi – 1,023 psi
• Sensitive clays : Kaolinite, Chlorite/Smectite
SPE-185464 • Field Treatment of an Injector well in a Sandstone Formation Using a Low Corrosive…. • A. Dos Santos
1803(L1) 1821(R1)
63.0(L2) DRL ORI G DRI LL DI R RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS W O WELL STI MULATION RGL SLI CKLINE OPERATIONS 261447(R2)
I C WATER I NJECTOR RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS
RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS
1606 RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS 1742
62.0 IP-1 RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS
RGL SLI CKLI NE OPERATI ONS 232893
1409
61.0
IP-2 1664
204340
1212
60.1
1585
175787
Scale sample obtained
from blocked mandrel
1015 1506
59.1 147234
818 1427
58.1 118680
IP-3
622 1349
57.1 90127
425 1270
56.1 61574
228 1191
55.1 33021
30.8 1112
54.2 4467
-166 1034
53.2 A S O N DJFM AM JJASONDJFM AM J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S M -24086
11 12 13 1 1
O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 15
4 6
(L1) WaterVolInj (L2) Test_I nj_Choke (R1) Test_I nj_Press (L1) Test_BWI PD (L1) LAST_BWI PD_RECOMMEND_POT (L1) Test_BWI PD_NV (R2)
WI NJCUM_Proy
Injectivity performance over time
Dissolution and Core-Flood Tests Results
Test Temperature GLDA Soaking Sample Dissolution
(°F) (wt%) (hrs) Grinded (wt%)
A 300 20 4 Yes 89
B 150 20 4 Yes 69
C 110 20 4 Yes 57
D 110 12 4 Yes 42
E 110 12 8 Yes 53
F 110 12 4 No 94
✓ GLDA dissolves 42%-94% of scale sample

✓ Highly heterogeneous scale
✓ Longer soaking compensates low temperature
✓ Core-flood test shows compatibility with clays (20% GLDA)
Job Program
Steps:
1. Dummy installation
2. Tubing Pickling
Description: Isolation of mandrels out of
3.
jobInjectivity
Description:
scope with Test #1 (dummies)
Circulate
blank 7.5% HCl valves
tubing to
4. Stage
casing 1 GLDA
Description:
throughInjection
SSD onof top
NHto Clmandrel
4of at
assembly
Function: Focus treatment 4
5. Stage
increasing 2
Description: GLDA
rates
Inject
belowst
1 batch MASP GLDA (bull-
Function: Avoid spending treatment in
6. Injectivity
heading).
Description: Test
Shut-in
Inject#2 st
well
2alongbatch
(overnight
GLDA soaking)
(bull-
Function: Avoid
any scale/rust spending
laid treatment
the in
tubing/avoid
Description:
heading).
any
Function:
scale/rustNH
Shut-in4Cl
Dissolution
laid at of
well
alongincreasing
(2hr
thesoaking)
scale rates
tubing/avoid
within
injecting loose solids
Function: Post solids
Job remaining
Dissolve
injecting assembly.
injection loose Injectivity
Extend contactassessment
scaletime
in
and evaluation
well,
with perforations and near-wellbore
scale.
TREATMENT RESULTS
Step Rate Test Pre and Post treatment
2500
II=15,04bwpd100psi GLDA Treatment
Injection Pressure (psi)
2000
II=22,95 bwpd100psi 5 Mandrels open
(# 1-5) 1 Mandrel
1500 open (# 4)
1000
Post-Job SRT
500
Pre-Job SRT
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
barrel per minute (bpm)
Injectivity Index before and Water Injection rates over time before and
after the treatment after the treatment
Results based on Step Rate Tests:
Well 1, 2016 Well 2, 2017 Well 3, 2018
95
BaSO4 descaling - Steam Injectors
The Challenge
❖ Steam cycles becoming less
efficient over time, impacting
less and less in production
❖ Poor well-reservoir
communication was suspected
to be hindering steam flow into
the formation
Steam rate (ton/d)
Water cut (%)
Liquid rate (m3/d)
Oil rate (ton/d)
Tubing temperature (deg.C)
Fraction O2(%)
Fraction CO2 (%)
Gas Vol.Comb (scm/d)
SPE- 193723-MS • Effective Matrix Acidizing Based in Chelating Agents: A Case Study in Romanian Heavy Oil Reservoirs • A. Dos Santos
Considerations For Treatment Selection
❖ Scale samples retrieved contained: CaCO3, CaSO4, Iron Oxides, Ba and Sr sulfates.
❖ Drilling mud and completion fluid contained Barite (BaSO4)
❖ Drilling mud remains and inorganic scale precipitation were suspected to be plugging slotted liners thus
steam was not reaching near-wellbore area
❖ Conventional acids were highly corrosive to the aged tubulars
❖ Main concern: previous conventional acidizing alone proved not fully effective, sulfate scales including
BaSO4 needed additional (pre-)treatment to clear the way and open new flow channels
❖ Prior experience in neighboring fields, low corrosion profile and BaSO4 solubility steered the attention
into chelating agents
Corrosion Data And Compatibility Tests
Corrosion in L-80 @ 250 deg.F (no C.I.) ❖ K5-DTPA is able to meet corrosion
1.0000 14 criteria below 0.05 lb/sft weight loss
0.9000 after 6 hrs without Corrosion
12
0.8000 Inhibitor (C.I.)
0.7000 10
0.6000
❖ Good compatibility between crude
8
0.5000
oil and 20 wt% K5-DTPA: full phase
0.4000
6 separation and an unexpected
0.0062 lb/sft
reduction of the heavy oil viscosity
0.3000 4
0.2000
2
0.05 lb/sft 0.1000
0.0000 0
20 wt% 20 wt% 20 wt% 10 10 wt% 20 wt% H- 10 wt%
DTPA-K5 EDTA-Na4 MGDA wt%Acetic Citric acid NA-20 Formic acid
acid
lb/sft pH
Treatment Design and Execusion
❖ Mutual Solvent pre-flush: to remove oil

layer from scale for better contact with
cleaning fluid. Facilitates flow-back after
treatment
❖ Descaling stage containing 20 wt% K5-

DTPA. 24 hours soaking time to allow
dissolution of scale along liner and within
slots, clearing the way for main treatment
❖ Matrix acidizing with 7.5 wt% HCl

formulation to attack deeper formation
damage
❖ NH4Cl displacement
Treatment Results ❖ 6 Wells treated following same strategy
❖ High injectivity of acidizing stage indicates

removal of clogs from inner liner and slots
Treatment ❖ Slots cleanout cleared the path for steam

injection homogeneously along the pay
zone
❖ Reduced viscosity of heavy oil facilitated

flow-back and post-job activities, reducing
downtime
Production pre-treatment Production Post-
Treatment
❖ After new steam cycle, net production
averaged 3 to 7 times of improvement
(TOI). After 3 months, stabilized at 2-3 TOI
Summary of publications
Fore more details about this and additional field cases and overall studies published, please
see below list of SPE papers available:
Subject Reference
Field applications SPE 163332 SPE 173774 SPE 183230
SPE 166335 SPE 170701 SPE 185332
SPE 168163 SPE 185464 SPE 189538
Carbonate coreflood SPE 127923 SPE 165120 SPE 140149
SPE 133497 SPE 172572
Sandstone coreflood SPE 139815 SPE 164130
Fe-control SPE 143301 SPE 147395
Corrosion SPE 152716
SPE 160849
HSE SPE 157467
SPE 168145
Reaction rates SPE 139816
SPE 164480
Filter-cake removal SPE 155426
StimWell™ HTF- Story Field Cases 101

Thank you
102

Technology Workshop BBP-Pertamina

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology Workshop BBP-Pertamina

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology Workshop:

Safety & Introduction

Formation Damage and Well Stimulation Overview

Oilfield Chelates Portfolio

Dissolvine StimWell Field Cases

1838 Noury & Van der Lande – Deventer (grains, mills)

2018 Take over of AkzoNobel Specialty Chemicals by

Job evaluation Wells Hierarchization Job evaluation

❑ One expensive, usually inevitable, headache

❑ Any restriction imposed to hydrocarbon that

❑ A mean to enhance well-reservoir

S c+q Skin factor due to completion components and well deviation

Perforation skin factor:

Effect of phase change

Pwf < Pdew point liquid phase Krg reduced

Data gathering and

Delivery and Stimulation

Flow restriction devices?

Mud invasion profiles

Step Rate Test (SRT)/Step Down Test (SDT) Nodal Analysis

Data gathering and

Delivery and Stimulation

Adverse Clay swelling Particulate Emulsions Fines migration

Internally induced Almost inevitable

Mineral Ions in solution

❑ Precipitation is highly sensitive to pressure drop and to lesser extent, O

0,4 Molecular structure

Internally induced precipitation (Production related) Externally induced precipitation

❑ Causes are related with: Salinity change, pH change,

Full invasion of ▪ Particle plugging

Mud phase ▪ Sw/Kr change

• Invasion of spacers and washers

▪ Fines migration Wettability change

▪ Natural surfactant activation - Emulsions

▪ Sodium silicate precipitation

Completion and workover

Additives Potential Mechanisms Conditions Potential Mechanisms

HCl - Potential Mechanisms HF - Potential Mechanisms Hydraulic fracturing - Potential

- Presence of Fe +2 (eg: chlorite): pH > 4.5 then FeCO3 precipitation

- Presence of Fe+3 (eg: rust): pH > 2, then Fe(OH)3 precipitation

Delivery and Stimulation

Hydraulic Fracturing Matrix Stimulation Acid Fracturing

Reactive / Acid based Non-Reactive / Solvent based

✓ Clay swelling ✓ Emulsions

candidate? candidate? 10% Critical flow radius

Near wellbore damage has the greatest

Source: Schlumberger NEXT - Candidate selection guidelines

Source: Schlumberger NEXT - Candidate selection guidelines Treatment Main Steps

Data gathering and

Delivery and Stimulation

Formation Damage & Well Stimulation Basics 33

Injectivity Main Post-

❑ When: before each stimulation treatment, specially bull heading ones

Tubing Main Post-

❑ What: short pumping stages to determine annular communication FracCAT* OXY

Max P @1464 psi

❑ Why: avoid loosing fluid to casing or different formation, adjust 1500

pumping rates , volumes. Safety limits, establishing pre-stimulation 0.7

with vertical perforated completions. It can be optimized as a part of © Schlumberger 1994-2012

the pre-flush stage. 35

Tubing Injectivity Main Post-

Tubing Injectivity Main Post-

Notice appropriate pre-flush formulation will increase treatment success probabilities:

Tubing Injectivity Post-