Disc Contents © IPA, 2006 - 29th Annual Convention Proceedings, 2003

IPA03-E-109
Contents

Search
PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Twenty-Ninth Annual Convention & Exhibition, October 2003

IS ACID PLACEMENT THROUGH COILED TUBING BETTER THAN BULLHEADING?

Wayne P. Mitchell*
Dario Stemberger**
A.N. Martin**

ABSTRACT Java Sea, located in a block to the southeast of the

It has long been postulated that placing acid into a
well through coiled tubing provides for better
stimulation treatments than those achieved by simply
bullheading. Commonsense suggests that having the
stimulation fluid enter the well via a dedicated
conduit, adjacent to all points along the length of a
treatment interval, will produce more uniform
stimulation of that interval. However, the opposing
argument is that, irrespective of the delivery method,
all fluid follows the path of least resistance and will,
therefore, flow into the areas of highest permeability,
the ones generally least in need of stimulation.
Diversion techniques, employed to improve treatment
distribution, can often be applied to regular bullhead
treatments as easily or even more easily than they can
with coiled tubing. This is not necessarily so when
pumping stimulation fluids through SSD’s (Sliding
Side Door) or through the ESP (Electric Submersible
Pump) itself.
Controlled tests to compare bullheaded and coiled
tubing delivered treatments are difficult, as no two
wells are identical. This paper evaluates 19 wells to
provide statistical evidence of which delivery system
does generally provide for the best end results. The
paper suggests what the underlying reasons for the
spread of results might be and suggests criteria as to
when coil is, and is not, the best probable choice. It
also discusses innovative methods to improve
treatment distribution in wells, thereby maximizing
stimulation efficiency.
island of Sumatra (see Figure 1). CNOOC, together
with previous operators of this block (Maxus, YPF
and Repsol) have for many years been using acid
stimulation to enhance the production from their
wells. Many different types of treatments have been
performed, and many different methods for placing
the acid have been used.
The wells operated by the NBU (North Business
Unit) of CNOOC tend to be very high water cut
(averaging 96%), relatively high permeability
sandstones (Talang Akar formation). All sandstone
wells are completed with screens and some kind of
sand control, usually a gravel pack. All wells are
produced using electric submersible pumps (ESP’s)
for artificial lift, as reservoir pressures tend to be low.
As 90% of CNOOC’s producing intervals have a sand
control completion, the predominant form of
stimulation is matrix acidizing, using both HF-
(hydrofluoric acid) and HCl- (hydrochloric acid)
based systems. CNOOC and its predecessors have a
significant history of stimulation successes (Stanley et
al., 1999a, 1999b, 2000). The case histories presented,
however, deal only with HF-based acid systems.
As every well is producing via an ESP, there is a
major decision to be made when selecting and
proposing a well as a candidate for acid stimulation.
Can a workover be justified? Or, alternatively, is it
nearly as effective to bullhead the treatments down
the existing production string?

INTRODUCTION Compared to most offshore operators, CNOOC is

usually in a much better position to perform a
The Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation
workover. Running a large scale ESP operation
(CNOOC), operates a number of fields offshore in the necessarily involves a continuing series of pump
replacements, and so CNOOC usually has between 3
* CNOOC S ES Ltd.
** BJ Services and 5 workover barges servicing wells at any given
time. Nevertheless, the expense of pulling and re-
installing the completion still has to be justified.
Hence, all coil tubing acid stimulations were
combined with pump repairs. Another mitigating
factor in the decision to pull the pump, is that due to
contractual obligations with the ESP provider,
whenever a pump is pulled, it must be replaced with a
new guaranteed pump. This then, necessarily adds to
the costs involved, in deciding whether to use coil
tubing on a producing well.
The choice of whether or not to perform a workover
has a dramatic implication for the stimulation
treatment. If the workover cannot be justified, then
the acid stimulation has to be bullheaded down the
completion. Whenever possible, the treatment is
routed through a sliding side door (SSD) placed in the
completion and above the ESP. However, most of the
NBU completions do not incorporate SSD’s so the
treatment must be bullheaded through the ESP.
If a workover can be justified - either through the
expected gains from the treatment or because the ESP
has failed and the well needs to be re-completed
anyway – then the options for placing the acid
stimulation are significantly improved. CNOOC have
the option of eit her running in hole with a packer and
RBP on a treating string, and selectively treating
discrete intervals, or the treatment can be placed with
coiled tubing. CNOOC’s predecessors were so
convinced that coil tubing was the obvious choice for
placement, that whenever a pump failed this became
the standard stimulation placement technique. The
advantages and disadvantages of both methods will be
discussed later.
This paper compares the results from 19 different
treatments performed in the Talang Akar formation,
using both coiled tubing and bullheading through the
ESP as the placement technique. The first of these
treatments was performed in July 1999, and they are
still ongoing. It has often been stated that the most
important part of coiled tubing is “the hole down the
middle” – this paper provides evidence to justify this
statement.
Background
A survey of the literature surrounding coiled tubing
treatments reveals that very little work has been
published to compare the results of bullheaded and
CT-based treatments. Indeed, a paper search on the
SPE website (www.spe.org) yields +/- 270 papers
with “Coiled Tubing” in the title, most of which are
concerned with fracturing through coiled tubing,
drilling with coiled tubing, metal fatigue, the effects
of tubing geometry changes and stress analysis. In
short, there is a considerable body of work concerned
with the mechanical aspects of coiled tubing
operations. There are also a significant number of
papers that have been published to celebrate the
successes achieved in specific situations, or to
overcome specific challenges.
Most of these papers are, no doubt, valuable and have
contributed to the sum of knowledge surrounding
coiled tubing and its operations. However, very little
work has been published that compares the successes
(or failures) of treatments performed with and without
coiled tubing.
Taylor and Plummer (1972) discussed the advantages
of using coiled tubing for gas well stimulation, for
treatments performed in several different Willcox
fields in Texas. Of the 22 treatments presented, only 2
were bullheaded, and both of these treatments were
performed on wells which were “Off Production”
prior to the treatments (making a quantitative
assessment of the treatment’s success very difficult).
Whilst the 20 coiled tubing treatments seem to have
been very successful, there is no way to assess how
successful they were compared to the bullheaded
treatments.
Thomas and Milne (1995) compared the results of
coiled tubing and bullheaded treatments for 11
treatments performed in horizontal wells in carbonate
reservoirs. This paper showed that the 6 wells treated
conventionally with bullheaded treatments averaged
an increase in injectivity index of 61 bfpd/psi, whilst
the 5 coiled tubing treatments average an increase of
120 bfpd/psi. However, it is clear from the results
presented that the coiled tubing treatments were
performed on the poorest wells – i.e. those with the
greatest skin factors7 and hence the most to be gained
from dissolving away near wellbore damage.
Geology
The producing horizons in the Widuri field are
characteristic of other fields in the northern Asri
Basin, even though the reservoir names may be
different. They represent the last Talang Akar
formation sands deposited in the Asri Graben, when
the area was submerged in early Miocene time. The
Widuri field produces from six sand reservoirs,
interbedded with shales and coals in a 350’ thick
clastic sequence informally called the Gita member.
The geological age is late Oligocene-early Miocene.
The depositional setting changes up through the
sequence from fluvial environments in the lower units
to marginal marine in the upper units. The deeper,
fluvial 36 and 35 series sands are widespread, poorly
consolidated quartz sandstone, medium to coarse
grained and pebbly in some layers, with high
porosities (27-33%) and permeabilities in the multi-
Darcy range. The units range up to 80ft. thick in
parts, reflecting the stacked sandbodies present. The
overlying 34 series sands are deltaic and more
confined; the sands are finer grained, but porosities
and permeabilities remain high. Sandbody thicknesses
approach 60ft. in some areas. The more confined
reservoir in the shallower 34 sand (34-1) has a weak
water drive, similar to the overlying isolated 33 series
sands. The 33 series sands at the top of the sequence
reflect a low energy depositional setting, with fine-
grained sands possessing similar porosities but lower
permeabilities (in the 100s to few Darcies range).
Sandbodies are usually not stacked, and are normally
thinner than 30ft.. In the Asri Basin this productive
interval is sealed by 50-100ft. of shale, coal and
limestone interbeds that marks the top of the Gita
member.
Description of Treatments
Most formations in the NBU suffer from slight to
acute forms of fines migration damage. Scale and
paraffin deposition usually represents only a minor
damage factor; however, as water cuts have increased
even farther, it does appear that the scaling tendency
has also increased. Scale composition is typically
CaCO3 .
Because the damage mechanism is primarily due to
fines migration, HF-based stimulation fluids have
been incorporated and have proved very successful.
Typical fluid sequences are slightly larger HCl
preflushes (as compared to HF acid volume), HF
main acid treatment, HCl post flush, followed by
ammonium chloride brine overflushes.
Diversion Techniques
Regardless of whether the stimulation fluid is
bullheaded or pumped through coiled tubing, fluid
diversion options are very limited. The main reason
for this limitation with coiled tubing, are the small
nozzles typical of coiled tubing BHA’s. Solid
particulates such as benzoic acid flakes are too coarse
to pump through the nozzles. One of the easiest and
most convenient diversion fluids is foam (brine with a
foaming agent plus nitrogen) or foamed gel (brine
plus gelling agent, plus foaming agent, plus nitrogen).
Typical foam qualities were usually kept at 75%.
Treatment Placement Techniques via Bullheading
The majority of wells in the NBU, are completed with
high rate ESP’s typically producing at 10,000 to
20,000 bfpd or even higher. The completion string is
usually IPC (internal plastic coated), typically
requires a surface packer with injection port, is in the
range of 4.5” to 5.5” and typically does not
incorporate an SSD. Bullhead treatments are thus
necessarily forced through the pump vanes and
become rate-limited treatments due to the pressure
drop across these vanes. However, the pumps are
typically quite large and the maximum rate acheivable
by bullheading is still in excess of that achieved
through 1-1/2”coiled tubing.
Typical treatments begin with pumping nitrogen
down the annulus until stabilized injection rates are
obtained. This helps to ensure treating fluids do not
U-tube up the annulus. The treatments are then
usually broken into stages as follows:
1. Solvent Preflush
2. 7.5 to 10% HCl preflush (1.25 to 1.5 times
volumes of retarded HF acid treatment volume)
3. HF Main Acid (75 to 150 gpf on vertical wells
and 10 to 50 gpf on hor izontal wells – depending
on treatment aim (to clean up screens only or for
deeper penetration).
4. 7.5% to 10% HCl postflush (volumes typically
same as main acid volume).
5. 3% NH4Cl overflush (volume dependent on
depth of penetration desired).
6. Foam Diversion.
The total number of stages is then determined by total
treatment interval and splitting the areas up into 15 to
30 foot sections. The intent is to allow for a more
uniform fluid diversion over the entire interval. It is
generally believed that the diversion stages would
block permeable sections, forcing the acid to
penetrate into new unstimulated areas, thereby
increasing production. It is also believed that more
diversion stages would lead to improved acid
penetration of unstimulated reservoir. Typical
injection rates range from 2 to 3 bpm.
Treatment Placement Techniques via Coiled
Tubing
Coiled tubing placement of stimulation fluids has
always been considered more effective, but due to the
added expense of the coiled tubing unit (CTU), not
necessarily an economic choice in many instances.
Due to the belief that coiled tubing placement was
indeed justified, all workovers with stimulation
incorporated the use of coiled tubing. In general,
stimulation of the formations was undertaken using a
proprietary speed controlled rotating jetting nozzle,
which has proven to inject fluids deeper into the
formation than regular jetting nozzles. All coiled
tubing stimulation treatments were done with this
jetting nozzle. Treatment design was such that all
fluids were nitrified in order to produce back the
spent acid as quickly as possible. Foam was used in
all treatments at 75% quality. Coiled tubing was
reciprocated along the entire wellbore during the
stages while evenly squeezing the treatment fluids
into formation. Typical injection rates are lower than
bullheaded treatments at 1 to 1.5 bpm.
Cost Differential
In general the difference in cost between bullheaded
treatments and coiled tubing placed treatments is the
cost of the CTU itself. Treatment volumes were
designed on a per foot basis and as such placement
techniques did not factor into total volumes pumped.
It must be said that although all the coiled tubing
treatments were done only on wells where the pump
had already failed, the cost of the pump and time to
replace it should not be taken into consideration here.
The pump would have been replaced regardless of
whether or not a stimulation treatment was
performed.
If one normalizes the costs involved in the 6 coiled
tubing stimulations versus that in the 13 bullhead
operations, by omitting pump replacement costs and
the barge time required to pull and rerun the pump,
then the average cost of the coiled tubing increased
the overall average cost of the treatment by USD
25,000.
RESULTS
As can be seen from Figure 2, the longer term effects
of stimulation via coiled tubing are clear. The average
30 day post CTU placed treatment production, results
in an average oil production increase of 199 bopd,
whilst the bullhead treatments increase was only 9
bopd. This equates to a P.I. increase in 14.9 bfpd/psi
compared to 2.9 bfpd/psi for bullhead treatments.
OBSERVATIONS
As can be seen from the above data, coiled tubing
placed stimulations produce much better results than
treatments that are bullheaded down the existing
completion’s string. A possible cause for this is
pinpoint placement of the treating fluid across the
entire interval, rather than having the fluid flow in the
most permeable and perhaps wettest part of the
reservoir. An important fact to note however, is that
often times the ESP will be producing at rates below
its ROR (recommended operating range). In this case,
the pump is running at sub optimal levels and often
times this will lead to pump failure in short order.
Thus, if one waits until the pump fails, it becomes
necessary to perform a well intervention in order to
replace the pump.
Although the bullheaded treatments did not perform
as well as the coiled tubing treatments, it should be
noted that these treatments – on average – produced
more than enough incremental oil to justify the cost of
the treatment. Additionally, it should also be noted
that these treatments had several disadvantages over
“conventional” bullheaded treatments, as the ESP
significantly reduced the maximum pumping rate and
prevented the use of particulate diverting agents.
Often, declining rates can be monitored real time and
a preemptory intervention can be designed, whereby a
small acid stimulation is pumped through the existing
ESP to bring production back up to within the ROR
of the pump. There is ample data to provide definitive
conclusions that stimulations through the ESP can
prolong ESP life in some cases thereby increasing
NPV through higher production and less well
intervention costs. However, once a pump fails, it
appears conclusive that coil tubing placed
stimulations are significantly more effective.
Another significant factor affecting the quality of the
coiled tubing treatments is the jetting tool used in the
BHA. The powerful jets produced by this tool allow
the fluid to easily pass through the screens and into
the gravel, as demonstrated by both laboratory and
yard tests. This means that the fluid can mechanically
disturb filter cake residues and fines, as well as
chemically.
operations personnel involved – both offshore and
onshore. A special thank you goes to John Armon for
his geological background information.
Finally, the authors would also like to acknowledge
the support and assistance given by CNOOC SES and
BJ Services throughout these treatments and the
preparation of this paper.
Nomenclature

CONCLUSIONS BHA = Bottom hole assembly

CTU = Coiled tubing unit
1. Coiled tubing placed stimulation, provides a ESP = Electrical submersible pump
greater P.I. increase, for a longer period of time. HCl = Hydrochloric acid
HF = Hydrofluoric acid, hydrogen fluoride
2. The added costs involved with coiled tubing do NBU = North business unit
not detract from the incremental benefit achieved. SSD = Sliding side door

3. Bullheading acid through an ESP is a relatively SI Metric Conversion Factors

inexpensive way to stimulate a well but does not
appear to provide long term benefits. However, it bfpd/psi × 2.305 916 E-02 = m3/day/kPa
should be noted that enough incremental bopd × 1.589 873 E-01 = m3/day
production was obtained to make these treatments bwpd × 1.589 873 E-01 = m3 /day
economically justifiable. bpm × 1.589 873 E-01 = m3 /minute
inch × 2.54* E+01 = mm
4. Coiled tubing does enable stimulation fluids to be
placed where they are needed. *Conversion factor is exact.

5. The rotary jetting tool allows the treatment fluids

to be placed well behind the screens and into the
gravel and perforation tunnels, increasing the
effectiveness of the treatment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is in many ways a summation of the work
carried out by a number of different individuals, of
which the authors are merely the last three. During
the three and a half years and 19 treatments, the
following individuals have been heavily involved in
these projects and share credit for the successes
achieved: Juan Troncoso, Rick Stanley, Fausto
Carretta, Brent Sinanan, Chris Selle, Bambang Tjipto
Sentosa, Nangkok Lampitar, Jorge Burgos, John
Chesson, Phil Rae, Atikah bte Ahmad, Rini Heryani,
Pravase Thayanukulvat, Lance Portman and Antares
Munir. In addition, the authors would also like to
acknowledge the vital contribution made to the
success of these treatments by the numerous
REFERENCES
Stanley, F.O., Troncoso, J.C., and Rae, P., 1999.
Enzyme Treatments Greatly Enhance Production on
Horizontal Completions in Indonesia, Proceedings
27th Annual Convention and Exhibition of the
Indonesian Petroleum Association, Jakarta, Indonesia,
p. 263-278.
Stanley, F.O., Rae, P., and Troncoso, J.C., 1999.
Single Step Enzyme Treatment Enhances Production
Capacity on Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 52818,
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 1999.
Stanley, F.O., Troncoso, J.C., Martin, A.N., and
Jamil, O.A., 2000. An Economic, Field-Proven
Method For Removing Fines Damage From Gravel
Packs, paper SPE 58790, presented at the SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage,
Lafayette, LA, Feb 2000.
Taylor, D.B., and Plummer, R.A., 1972. Gas Well
Stimulation Using Coiled Tubing with a Mutual
Solvnet, paper SPE 4115, prepared for the 47th
Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE, San Antonio, TX,
Oct 1972.
Thomas, R.L. and Milne, A., 1995. The Use of Coiled
Tubing During Matrix Acid Stimulation of Carbonate
Reservoirs, paper SPE 29266, presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, March 1995.
van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W., 1949. The
Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow
Problems in Reservoirs, 1949, Trans., AIME, 186, p.
305-324.
 BORNEO

SUMATRA

JAVA SEA

Jakarta

JAVA

Figure 1 - Area of the Java Sea operated by CNOOC Southeast Sumatra Ltd.

800
729
700
BWPD BOPD 614
30 Day % Rate Increase

600

500

400

300 264

200

100 47
16 31

0
All Bullhead CTU

Figure 2 - Comparison of average percentage production gains 30 days after treatment.