SPE 125077

A Field Demonstration of a New Chemical Stimulation Treatment for

Fluid-Blocked Gas Wells
Mark L. Butler, SPE, John B. Trueblood, Trueblood Resources Inc.; Gary A. Pope, SPE, Mukul M. Sharma, SPE,
The University of Texas at Austin; and Jimmie R. Baran Jr. and Doug Johnson, SPE, 3M Company

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009.

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 does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The loss of productivity due to liquid blockage in gas wells is a common problem. Dropout of condensate from gas and/or
water accumulates in the pores of the rock near a producing well or within a hydraulic fracture, causing a significant
reduction in gas relative permeability, curtailing production. As a solution to this problem, we have developed a chemical
treatment designed to increase flow rates of blocked gas wells. The treatment alters the wettability of the solid surface,
minimizing capillary pressure and increasing the relative permeabilities of gas and condensate. In laboratory core flood
experiments, application of this chemical treatment increased flow rates by a factor of about 2 for two-phase flow of gas and
condensate, gas and water, and gas and volatile oil. To bring this technology from the laboratory into the field, we stimulated
a blocked gas well. The initial results of this field trial are reported in this paper and demonstrate the treatment was highly
effective.

Introduction
Over time, many gas wells reach a point where flow rates are reduced due to the accumulation of oil, condensate and/or water
blockage and may eventually become uneconomic. In gas condensate reservoirs, liquid begins forming as the pressure drops
below the saturation or dewpoint pressure of the gas (Afidick et al., 1994; Ayyalasomayajula et al., 2005). Since the largest
pressure drop occurs near the producing well, the formation of this condensate phase usually starts near the wellbore. The
condensed liquid becomes trapped by capillary forces and is retained in the rock as a result of low liquid mobility. Production
avenues in the formation are subsequently blocked, reducing relative permeability to gas and causing production to decline.
This loss of productivity due to liquid blockage is an especially serious problem for rich condensate gases. Depending on the
reservoir’s fluid composition, pressure and temperature, the liquid dropout from the gas phase may be as high as 30-40%.
Even for dry gas wells, a 1% liquid dropout reduces production significantly which has been reported to decline by a factor of
2 to 4 as a result of condensate accumulation (Afidick et al., 1994).
Hydraulic fracturing is commonly used to increase well productivity but has limitations. One such limitation is significant
condensate saturation will simply buildup in the fracture reducing conductivity (Mohan, 2005). In fields where there is
significant liquid blockage in the formation, fracturing is not always effective. Other conventional methods such as gas,
microemulsion, surfactant or solvent injection may also prove only marginally effective. There is a need for an inexpensive,
durable and alternative solution to this common problem.
A new approach under development is the use of an innovative chemical treatment solution to alleviate liquid blockage
(Kumar, 2006; Kumar et al., 2006; Bang, 2007; Bang et al., 2008; Bang et al., 2009). The treatment solution consists of an
active chemical in a solvent that is brine tolerant. The active chemical is a non-ionic polymeric fluorinated surfactant that is
non-reactive, but interacts with the substrate under reservoir conditions to alter the wettability of the surface. This change in
wettability increases the relative permeabilities of gas and condensate (Bang et al., 2006). The selection of an appropriate
solvent mixture to deliver the chemical is an important part of the chemical treatment. A mixture of 2-butoxyethanol and
ethanol was used as the solvent in this application. More details about the chemistry of the fluorochemical, alternative
solvents and the method of selecting solvents can be found in Bang (2007) and Bang et al., (2008).
In extensive laboratory experiments (at field pressures, temperatures and flow rates) application of the experimental
treatment increased gas and condensate flow rates in core samples by about 1.5 to 3.0 times over an extended time, without
plugging or other undesirable effects (Bang, 2007). These treatments have been shown to be durable for thousands of pore
volumes of subsequent flow of the gas-condensate/oil fluid.
2 SPE 125077

One application of this new chemical stimulation technology is to increase the productivity of marginal gas wells in the
United States. About two-thirds of all US wells are low volume producers. Due to the costly nature of increasing their
output, these wells are often not re-worked even though significant reserves remain in the ground below. Such marginal
wells, if even partially improved, will provide an important source of remaining natural gas reserves in the United States
without requiring substantial capital investment or controversial land use issues.
Trueblood Resources Inc., a small independent US oil and natural gas producer focusing on exploration and development
of such mature reserves in Oklahoma and Texas has been experiencing condensate and fluid blockage with a subsequent
decline in well production. They are collaborating with 3M and The University of Texas at Austin to test and further develop
this technology in their wells.

Geology and Well Characteristics

For a suitable demonstration, we selected the Mike 5-34 well, owned and operated by Trueblood Resources Inc., and located
in Sec. 34 T22N R23W, Ellis Co. Oklahoma. For several years, the well had exhibited evidence of fluid blockage and its
sandstone reservoir, permeability, water saturation, pressure and temperature were in ranges previously tested with the
experimental treatment in the laboratory: average permeability was 20 md, average water saturation 30%, reservoir pressure
2,971 psi, and temperature was 204 Fo.
The Mike 5-34 well, completed in March, 2006, was producing from the Pennsylvanian Lower Morrow and Primrose
sands. Geologically, the Lower Morrow and Primrose sands are separated into a series of numbered chrono-stratigraphic
depositional sequences containing numerous marine channels, deltaic and shore face sands. The marine channels are the most
prolific producers and are the major target in this part of the Anadarko basin (Fig. 1). Interconnection of the channel sands is
common and was likely caused by the erosion of channels across earlier channels and/or other sand facies within and across
depositional sequences.
Geologically and petrophysically, the Mike 5-34 Lower Morrow 7 (M7) sand is very comparable to those found in earlier
wells drilled and completed in adjacent M7 sand channels. Figure 2 shows the Lower Morrow and Primrose sections in the
TRI Mike 5-34,Sun Hofweiler #1 and VE Falconer Beisel #1 wells; all are very similar in geologic and petrophysical
character for the M7 sand. The Hofweiler #1 and the Biesel #1 were drilled in 1966 and completed in a parallel M7 channel
approximately 5 miles northeast of the Mike 5-34. The Hofweiler #1 had an IP of 38 mmscfd and the Biesel #1, 32 mmscfd.
The initial oil production was not reported. Reserve recoveries, to date, are 16.0 Bscf and 116 Mbo for the Hofweiler #1
and 10.4 Bscf and 80Mbo for the Biesel #1.Intial BHP for both of the older wells was approximately 4300 psi. Measured
BHP of the M7sand from which the Mike is producing is 2971 psi.
The most direct older to newer well log comparison is between the Mike 5-34 and the Hofwieler #1 with the logs in the
Mike 5-34 showing slightly higher resistivity and density porosity measurements (Figs. 2 and 3). Formation water
resistivities in this area are consistent and have been measured in the M7 sand with an Rw=0.08 at 200 degrees F.
Calculations using the log measurements and measured Rw values for the M7 sands in the Mike 5-35 and the Hofweiler #1
wells show water saturations in the 25-35% range (Fig. 3). Despite having substantial remaining bottom hole pressure and
many petrophysical characteristics similar to the earlier wells, initial production from the M7 sand in the Mike 5-34 well, was
only 210 mscfd with minor water production. This was after a moderate stimulation procedure similar to that used on the
earlier wells.
Within 4 months of production, daily rates had declined to 100 mscfd and the water production ceased. The well was
swab tested recovering 10 barrels of water which improved production temporarily but rates never increased to more than
150 mscfd for more than a few days. Over the next two months the well was periodically swabbed, generally with 2-3 barrels
of water recovered, but daily production rates remained in the 90-100 mscfd range. The well’s poor performance could not
be explained by either liquid loading in the tubing, reservoir quality or pressure depletion. There was no indication of a
limited reservoir or other mechanical failures to explain its marginal performance. Ultimately after 7 months of production,
the M7 in the Mike declined to an uneconomic rate of 4 mscfd.
Extensive investigations continued into possible reasons for the anomalously low production and ultimately included
geologic, petrologic, petrophysical, historical production, pressure, geochemical and reservoir fluids data. All data indicated
that the Lower Morrow reservoirs contain either condensate or volatile oil and when the saturation pressure is reached, the
relative permeability to oil and gas is greatly reduced even with substantial remaining reservoir pressure.
The problem is historically illustrated by many of the decline curves for older Lower Morrow wells in this area. The
Beisel #1 well decline curve, shown in Fig. 4, is a particularly good example. It is bimodal with earlier gas and oil production
declining at approximately 30%. The later production, interpreted to be post bubble point, shows a 5% decline with gas and
particularly oil production greatly curtailed. Additionally, many older wells in this area that have been shut in for extended
periods show an increase in bottom hole pressure. This behavior is anomalous for a depletion drive reservoir. We attribute
this behavior to the fluid block which can effectively reduce the measurement of actual bottom hole pressures in short period
tests.

Field Demonstration. After determining that the performance of the M7 sand at the Mike 5-34 well was likely a result of
liquid blockage from volatile oil and condensate in the reservoir, a treatment plan to remediate the well was designed. The
goal was to determine a straight-forward and simple procedure that required no special equipment or unique field practices.
SPE 125077 3

The basic design, described in more detail below, incorporated a low pressure pump truck to displace treatment fluid into the
near well bore area using a nitrogen flush.
The M7 zone was isolated using a down hole packer and the treatment pumped at 1-3 bpm with low treating pressures of
approximately 1500 psi. The steps in the treatment procedure are as follows.
1. Inject the treatment into the well. Determine volume of treatment necessary to completely fill the Morrow
fracture; for the Mike this was determined to be 220 barrels. Set the production packer 10-20’ above the M7 zone. In
this application an Arrow Set packer was used. Load hole at a slow rate of 1-2 bpm with the goal to simply place
the treatment at the sand face while keeping treating pressures low.
2. Inject nitrogen to displace liquid from tubing to perforations. The displacement gas pushes any remaining
treatment from the tubing into the fracture. We did not overflush at this point as the goal was to place the treatment
immediately at the perforations. Other chase gases may also be utilized such as CO2 or a dry hydrocarbon gas from
the separator.
3. Shut-in overnight for 10-15 hrs. The shut-in time allows the chemical to interact with the formation. Shutting the
well in over night can be used for convenience, however, laboratory testing shows that a shorter shut-in period
would be sufficient (Bang, 2007).
4. Overflush with a larger additional volume of nitrogen. After the initial shut-in and treatment of the fracture
additional nitrogen was injected in order to push the treatment from the fracture into the formation. We determined
that a volume (at reservoir pressure) of approximately three times the treatment volume would be adequate for this
purpose. For the Mike 5-34 well, the volume of nitrogen was 600 bbls at the treating pressure of 1500-2700 psi and
treating rate of 2-4 bpm. The chase gas adds energy to the reservoir aiding in restarting the well and improving the
flow back rate of the solvents.
5. Shut-in well for 10-15 hours. After the second nitrogen overflush the well was again shut-in overnight allowing
the chemical to interact with the sandstone in the formation’s matrix.
6. Begin gas and liquid production. The following day we opened the well to flow back. It was estimated that the
solvents from the treatment will flow back in the first few days to a week following treatment along with oil,
condensate and gas (Table 1). After the nitrogen content in the produced gas becomes negligible, the well may be
put back on production.

Treatment Results. Production flow back of gas and liquids began the day following the second shut-in. The flow back of
gas and fluids for the first 11 days are shown in Table 1. Initial choke size was 20/64” and gradually opened during the first
day to a 32/64” choke. After five days of production, the choke was increased to 40/64” and gradually over the next three
days increased to 46/64”. The well has been produced over the last 7 months on this choke size.
The first day the flow back was primarily nitrogen. Over the next five days the flow back consisted of treatment solvents,
nitrogen and natural gas. By the 6th day, the produced gas was free of nitrogen and the well was returned to the sales line.
The composition of liquids from the 6th to 10th was approximately 50% solvents and 50% water. However, on the 11th day
the liquid changed to 100% condensate. Condensate has continued flowing thereafter at the rate of about 3 bbls per day.
Comparison of post treatment natural gas and condensate production with the pre-treatment production data from the M7
zone is shown in Fig. 5, which shows that gas production increased substantially. Average gas production for the first 90 days
following treatment was 500 mscfd. Average gas production for the first 180 days following treatment was 425 mscfd.
Previously the M7 zone had not produced condensate. However, the well began flowing condensate on the 11th day
following treatment. Condensate has continued to flow at a fairly steady rate of 3 bbls per day. Considering a baseline of
100 mscfd, there has been a four-fold increase in gas production after six months, as well as condensate production. We are
continuing to monitor the well and collect data. As of the writing of this paper, now almost 7 months into production
following stimulation, the M7 in the Mike well is producing 450 mscfd and 3 barrels per day of condensate.

Conclusions
With one well treated and produced in this area, we are still early in the learning curve for this new chemical stimulation
technology. However, we feel the early results have been outstanding and a zone that would have been prematurely
abandoned is now recovering meaningful reserves of natural gas at rates well in excess of those estimated in laboratory
experiments. The well is also recovering a portion of the liquid hydrocarbon reserves within the M7 sand that were, prior to
treatment, unrecoverable.
The treatment was designed to achieve neutral wetting by changing the contact angle to near 90 degrees which will
greatly reduce the effect of capillary forces within the treated zone. The laboratory and initial field trial indicate that this has
been at least partially achieved. If this assertion proves to be the case in future trials the treatment will have very broad
application because all petroleum reservoirs are influenced by capillary forces that reduce the ability of oil and gas to flow to
the wellbore. To put this into perspective, should the treatment improve a marginal well by a factor of 2 or 3 times (which is
less than that seen at the Mike 5-34 well) then this test area alone could see an additional 3-4 Bscf of monthly gas production.
Consider that 1000 wells multiplied by a 100 mscfd increase in production multiplied by 30 days equals 3 Bscf of additional
gas production per month. Thirty-six Bscf/yr could be very achievable.
4 SPE 125077

The initial test indicates that this chemical treatment is an effective, economically feasible and easily placed treatment for
gas wells that are liquid blocked. Additional tests are being contemplated on newly drilled wells, larger volume wells, water
blocked wells and areas of potentially higher oil production to evaluate other possible applications in this and other areas.

Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Harry Trueblood Jr. for helping to get this diverse group together to attack a difficult problem
in a truly multi-disciplinary way. We would also like to thank the teams at both 3M and The University of Texas at Austin for
their contributions to the development and testing program that made this application possible.

References
Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J. and Bette, S.: “Production Performance of Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of the Arun Field,”
paper SPE 28749 presented at the 1994 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, Nov. 7-10.
Ayyalasomayajula P, Silpngarmlers N and Kamath J: “Well Deliverability Predictions for a Low Permeability Gas Condensate Reservoir,”
SPE 95529, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 9–12, 2005.
Bang V., Kumar V., Ayyalasomayajula P., Pope G.A. and Sharma M.M.:“Relative Permeability of Gas-Condensate Fluids: A General
Correlation,” SPE 102741 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, September 24-27, 2006.
Bang, V., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M, Baran, J.R., Development of a Successful Chemical Treatment for Gas Wells with Water and
Condensate Blocking Damage," SPE 124977 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, October 4-7,
2009.
Bang, V., Yuan, C., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Baran, J.R., Skildum, J.D.. and Linnemeyer, H.C., OTC 19599, "Improving productivity of
hydraulically fractured gas condensate wells", Offshore Techonology Conference, Houston, TX, May 05-08, 2008.
Bang, V: "Development of a successful chemical treatment for gas wells with condensate or water damage", PhD Dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, Dec 2007.
Kumar V: "Chemical Stimulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir: An Experimental and Simulation Study” Ph.D. dissertation, The
University Of Texas At Austin, 2006.
Kumar, V., Pope, G.A. and Sharma, M.M.:"Improving the Gas and Condensate Relative Permeability Using Chemical Treatments", SPE
100529 presented at the 2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 15-17.
Mohan, J: "Modeling of Gas Condensate Wells with and without Hydraulic Fractures", MS Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin,
August 2005.

Table 1—Well Production Following Treatment

Day Gas Rate, mscfd Fluid Produced, bbls Gas Type Comments
1 na 0 N2
2 na 6.5 N2 treatment
3 na 0 N2/gas
4 na 4.5 N2/gas treatment
5 na 5.6 N2/gas tratment
6 263 5.0 gas well back to production
7 596 6 gas 50/50 water/treatment
8 614 6 gas 50/50 water treatment
9 623 3 gas 50/50 water/treatment
10 624 5 gas 50/50 water/treatment
11 624 3 gas 100% condensate
SPE 125077 5

Fig. 1—Map of Morrow M7 sands.

6 SPE 125077

Fig. 2—Stratigraphic cross section - hung on Top Lower Morrow.

SPE 125077 7

Fig. 3—Mike 5-34 well logs – Lower Morrow 7 sand with calculated water saturations.
8 SPE 125077

Fig. 4—Beisel #1 decline curve.

700 12
Gas Before After
Oil
Water
Treatment Treatment
600
10

500
8

400

MSCFD 6 BBLS

300

4
200

2
100

0 0
Aug- Sep- Oct-06 Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr-09 May- Jun-
06 06 06 06 07 07 08 09 09 09 09 09

Fig. 5—Comparison of pre-trial and post-trial gas, oil and water production for Mike 5-34.