SPE 68306

Identification of Downhole Scales Using a Multi-Stage Stimulation Treatment

C.A. Franco, J.A. Leal and P.S. Smith, BP
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE 3rd International Symposium on Oilfield
Scale held in Aberdeen, UK, 3031 January 2001.
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, as
presented, 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
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 by 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
Scale control has been a significant challenge for the
management of well performance for several years in the
Cusiana field in Colombia. Physical evidence of scale has been
found in very few wells, but circumstantial evidence, including
increases in gamma ray across productive zones and
production declines inconsistent with reservoir properties has
been widespread. Scale prediction, from water analysis, and
the actual analysis of the limited scale samples suggested that
carbonate scales were dominant, along with small quantities of
barium sulphate scale. However, there was significant
variation in the scale analysis, with both calcium and iron
carbonates being identified as the major component.
Furthermore, stimulation treatments to remove carbonate scale
were not always successful and gamma ray readings often
continued to increase after scale inhibition treatments designed
for carbonate scales.
Several theories were developed based on this background
information. These included the presence of mixed scales, with
the sulphate scales not being removed during stimulation
treatments and theories of near wellbore evaporation due to the
high GOR of the produced fluids. This evaporation of connate
water could lead to higher scaling potentials for conventional
scales, or even the deposition of halite and other salts, and
could induce the inhibition of further connate water into the
evaporated zone.
In order to obtain direct evidence of the downhole scales, a
multi-stage stimulation treatment was designed for a selected
well. This paper describes this treatment, including operational
details and data analysis. Clear evidence of both carbonate and
sulphate scales downhole was found, however there was no
evidence of halite deposition. It was not possible to conclude

the presence of downhole iron carbonate scale, as corrosion

products appeared to dominate the observed iron in flowback
samples. Lessons learnt for future stimulation treatments in
wells with suspected multiple scales are also discussed.
Background
The Cusiana field has three productive horizons, the Mirador,
Barco and Guadalupe reservoirs. The majority of the
production is from the Mirador formation, a quartz arenite
sandstone. Scale was first suspected as a damage mechanism in
the field when it was observed that an otherwise unexplained
decline in production coincided with an increase in gamma ray
in the producing intervals. The evidence for scale deposition
was not conclusive, but there was significant circumstantial
evidence that suggested that it could still be the cause of
decline.
Scale predictions from water analyses in each reservoir,
using various models, 1-2 showed that scale deposition was
expected. The water analyses for each reservoir are shown in
Table 1, with the associated scale predictions in Table 2.
Calcium carbonate was the predominant scale predicted for all
three reservoirs, with both iron carbonate and barium sulphate
also being predicted in varying amounts. The quantity of scale
actually deposited is clearly dependent upon both the scaling
tendency and the volume of water produced. A common
characteristic of the Cusiana wells was that the decline in
production occurred at very low water cuts, including wells
with less than 0.5% water cut.
The characteristics of the quartz arenite sandstone in the
Mirador formation have previously been described 3. Due to
the porosity-permeability relationship for quartz arenite
sandstones, see Figure 1, any reduction in effective porosity
can result in a significant reduction in permeability.
Consequently, small amounts of scale deposited in the near
wellbore region could cause a significant production loss.
Scale deposition is the suspected damage mechanism when
the decline rate of a well is much higher than the underlying
reservoir decline rate, having accounted for changes in GOR
and water cut on the tubing performance. Acid treatments have
been used to stimulate wells where scale was suspected. In
general these treatments were successful in restoring some of
the lost productivity, but rarely returned wells to their
maximum potential. Some acid treatments failed to give good

C.A. FRANCO, J.A. LEAL AND P.S. SMITH

response, which could be due to no scale being present, or due

to the presence of acid insoluble scales.
With time, several downhole scale samples have been
recovered, but still from very few wells. These samples,
however, are the best direct evidence of scale deposition in the
Cusiana field. The analysis of the solid samples, see Table 3,
exhibits a significant variation in composition. In most samples
calcium carbonate is shown to be the predominant scale, but
the importance of other scales changes significantly. In one
sample, iron carbonate is the dominant component.
For most wells, several gamma ray logs have been taken
several times during the life of the well. In the majority of the
production wells an increase in near wellbore radioactivity is
evident when gamma ray logs are taken after periods of
production and directly compared (see Figure 2). This gamma
ray increase is the best evidence of scale deposition in the
majority of wells and is usually supported by water analysis
(and scale predictions). Scale samples are generally not
available to confirm the presence of scale.
The gamma ray increase is due to the deposition of
naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in the near
wellbore region. NORM has been founded in a number of
areas of the world, and is well documented, 4-7 in part due the
implications for health and safety. The radioactivity associated
with scale deposition in the petroleum industry is normally a
result of the co-precipitation of naturally occurring radium
along with barium or strontium sulphate scales, 4 however,
radioactivity associated with calcium carbonate deposition has
been also reported. 8 Radium-226 and radium-228 are the
decay products of uranium-238 and thorium-232, which have
been detected in Cusiana oil producer wells, both via logs and
solid scale sample analysis (which also found U-235, see Table
4). Consequently, although the increase in gamma ray may be
a good indicator of scale deposition, it does not allow the type
of scale to be confirmed: both carbonates and sulphates could
still.be present.
As no direct confirmation of the type of scale is available,
an understanding of the mechanisms of formation allows all
possible scales to be considered. The mechanism for carbonate
scale deposition is well understood, however, the deposition of
sulphate scales from formation water alone is not so well
documented. The main theory for increasing the scaling
tendency of barium sulphate, and and other scales, in the near
wellbore region is related to the loss of connate water due to
vaporization, which has been reported. 9-10 The vaporization
theory not only applies to sulphate scales, but also could
support near wellbore halite (and other scale) deposition.
Hence, although some of the predicted scales may be more
probable, theoretically the productivity of Cusiana wells could
be impacted by the deposition of carbonate, sulphate or halite
scales.
Job Design
One of the main objectives of the multi-stage stimulation
treatment was to obtain information in order to verify the types

SPE 68306

of scales being formed, and therefore also confirm the

mechanism of scale deposition. The job design therefore
needed to address the dissolution of several potential scales,
and to allow the best chance of confirming the presence of
each scale. No single stimulation option could guarantee the
dissolution of all scales; therefore a multi-stage treatment was
planned. This would be the first attempt in Cusiana to verify
and quantify the type of scales present in-situ.
A brine stage was planned in order to assess the presence
of halite (or other water soluble scales). The well would then
be flowed, prior to pumping an acid stage to assess the
presence of carbonate scales. Lastly, after flowing the well, a
scale dissolver stage would be pumped to assess the presence
of sulphate scales. In order to minimise contamination of the
treatment fluids it was decided to pump a tubing pickle prior to
the multi-stage treatment.
Laboratory Tests
A series of laboratory experiments, including core flood tests,
were performed to ascertain the best fluids to pump in each
treatment stage. It was decided to limit chemical selection to
chemicals available in Colombia and, depending upon job
results, chemical optimisation would be performed later.
2% KCl brine and 5% NH4Cl brine were considered for the
brine stage. 7.5% HCl was planned for the acid stage, with
laboratory tests being used to confirm the additive package. A
commercially available product was used for the barium
sulphate dissolver stage.
Mutual solvent, 2%v/v, was used in the brines to be tested,
based upon previous field experience demonstrating reduced
damage and enhanced clean up when it was used. Some
evidence of formation damage was found when the KCl brine
was tested, but no such problem was seen with the NH4Cl
brine. The cause of the damage from the KCl brine is not
known. The NH4Cl brine was selected for the multi-stage
treatment.
The initial acid system tested generated a black precipitate
due to thermal instability of an iron control additive. This was
resolved by modifying the formulation. Revised formulations
were assessed using both the compatibility and coreflood tests.
A total of four coreflood tests were performed. It was
concluded that the acid should be pre-flushed and overflushed
with a mutual solvent and that a xylene-acid mixture should be
used if the presence of a hydrocarbon coating was suspected
on the solids downhole. This had been observed on some solid
samples recovered in the field, and could impact acid
effectiveness. Another finding of the coreflood study was that
in addition to carbonate scales, the acid dissolved other
minerals. Silicon, barium and especially iron and sodium were
detected in the effluent.
The Barium sulphate dissolver stage (including fluids to
use in preflush and overflush sub-stages) was also tested and
optimised. The available barium sulphate dissolver was found
to be incompatible with iron when the concentration exceeded
5000 ppm. A significant potential to generate emulsions was

SPE 68306

IDENTIFICATION OF DOWNHOLE SCALES USING A MULTI-STAGE STIMULATION TREATMENT

also observed, if the barium sulphate dissolver contacted the

acid.
Candidate Well
After significant evaluation, with considerable reservoir
engineering input, the most appropriate candidate well was
finally chosen to perform the multi-stage job. The well was a
Mirador oil producer, completed in Nov 98. A 30 feet interval
was perforated at 4 spf and then fracture stimulated. Additional
zones were perforated after the fracture treatment. A
production rate of 15,000 bopd was achieved from the well,
however, in less than one year the production declined to less
than 4000 bopd, despite adding further zones and reperforating some of the old zones. The well died at the end of
1999. The typical reservoir decline rate of 3.5%/month does
not account for the performance of the well, consequently the
probable cause of decline was damage in the near wellbore
region. Scale was suspected, based upon water analysis, scale
predictions and an increase in gamma ray in the reservoir
interval (see production history in figure 3)
Job Execution.
In order to meet the main job objectives, and taking into
account the difficulty to keep the well on production (to ensure
enough flow to collect samples after each treatment stage), the
job was planned in several stages.
Prior to any production improvement work, the well was
flowed to frac tanks by artificially lifting with nitrogen. A
wellhead temperature of 154 F and a wellhead pressure of
410 psi were recorded. The shut-in wellhead pressure was
1067 psi. The well was then returned to production, before
performing the multi-stage stimulation treatment. This was
achieved by performing a liner clean-out treatment, using a
rotating jetting nozzle and solid beads for erosion, followed by
a re-perforating job. No solid scale samples were recovered at
surface after the liner clean-out. The fluids returned to surface
were measured for radioactivity. Normal levels were recorded.
The first chemical treatment performed used a xylene-HCl acid
blend, pumped to a shallow depth (about 2 feet). This
treatment was not selectively placed, as the straddle packer
elastomers were not compatible with xylene.
A PLT taken after xylene-HCl acid stage showed that lower
Mirador intervals were producing at very high water cut and at
high rate. A water shut-off stage was added to the original
plan, so as to improve wellbore hydraulics, and therefore well
production.
The NH4Cl brine stage, with 2% with mutual solvent, was
then pumped selectively, using a straddle packer. This stage
was pumped to a 10 feet radius. The well was then backflowed
and sampled. The next stage was an HCl stage, designed to
penetrate 5 feet into the formation. This stage was also placed
selectively using a straddle packer, the well backflowed and
sampled. The final chemical stage was a barium sulphate
dissolver, designed for 5 feet of penetration, which was also
performed selectively with the straddle packer. Once again, the

well was backflowed and sampled. During the backflow it was

apparent that a tight emulsion had been formed after pumping
the barium sulphate dissolver. An additional treatment stage,
using a non-ionic surfactant, was deployed to resolove the
emulsion problem.
Results
The principal aim of this job was to acquire enough
information to determine types of scales and the predominant
mechanism depositing scales, to achieve this an extensive
sampling process was performed during the flowback of each
stage of the stimulation treatment. Analysis of this data would
assist in the optimisation of future stimulation and inhibition
treatments in the Cusiana and Cupiagua fields. Analysis of
production data was used to verify the benefit of each stage of
the job.
The interpretation methodology used was based on the
methods recommended by Abel 11 and Schmidt.12 The
following steps were used:
Ion Baseline Construction.
Water samples, taken in
December-1999 before the well died and water samples taken
during coreflood displacement tests, were analyzed and ion
baselines were constructed. In order to use the Abel method11,
the baselines were based upon ion ratios which were used to
assess whether any significant evidence of specific scale
species was found. Table 5 shows the baseline ion ratios that
were used.
Minerals removed. In order to identify the mineral being
removed in each stage of multistage job, seven key graphs
were built up including the respective baseline: Fe:Mg, Fe:Ca,
Al:Si, Al:K, Fe:Mn, Na and Ba.
Mass Balance. The amount removed of each ion was
calculated for each stage by using the following equation:
AR = 0.000159*w*Vw*PPMion
Xylene-HCl Acid Stage Results. This stage was performed on
January 29th to 30th, 2000 by injecting with coiled tubing the
stimulation fluids in the following sequence:
Preflush
: 91 Bbls of diesel plus surfactant.
Main
: 93.5 Bbls of 50/50 xylene/HCl blend
Overflush
: 51.7 BBls of diesel plus surfactant.
After 8 hours of soaking time the well was put in production
with N2 assistance. A total of 26 water samples were taken
during the backflow period (15.5 hours). Figures 4-11 show
the ion:ion performance during this period. Figure 12 shows
the differential of amount of each ion removed.
The graphs show significant removal of iron deposits
(corrosion and associated minerals) as well as a smaller
quantity of calcium minerals. The removal of a small quantity
of alumino-silicate compounds were also observed, which
confirms the coreflood analysis in which some removal of Al

C.A. FRANCO, J.A. LEAL AND P.S. SMITH

SPE 68306

and Si was observed during the deployment of acid stage.

Barium sulphate was also removed but in very low quantities.
Table 6 shows the stabilized well tests taken before and
after the aromatic/acid stage. From the significant increase in
water rate it was concluded that the majority of the acid blend
went to the water zone. The main reason for this was that no
mechanical diversion technique was used. A water shut-off
treatment was performed after this stage, to combat the
increased water. The stabilized production tests taken before
and after WSO are shown in Table 7.
After the WSO, a significant reduction in water production
was detected, and it was possible to flow the well directly to
gathering line without N2 assistance.

Table 13 shows the production well tests taken before and

after the barium sulphate dissolver stage. The well test after
this treatment stage was performed by flowing the well to frac
tanks. This was necessary as it was not possible to keep the
well flowing to the gathering line, probably due to the
emulsion formed during this stage.

Brine Stage Results. This stage was performed selectively by

using a straddle packer and injecting NH4Cl brine (see details
in Table 8). No evidence of halite deposits was found during
backflow analysis (see Figure 13). The well production tests
taken before and after brine stage show no benefit in well
performance. Instead some reduction in oil production was
observed (see table 9).

In summary, interpretation of the ion analysis suggested the

following:

HCl Stage Results. This stage was performed selectively on

February the 10th, using the straddle packer and injecting the
volumes shown in Table 10. Figures 14 through 21 show the
ion:ion ratios in the backflow samples. Figure 22 shows the
amount of each ion removed in this stage.
During the HCl stage, the major compounds removed were
iron based (corrosion and other type of iron compounds,
probably siderite and pyrite). Although calcium compounds
were removed, the quantity was low, indicating that the
majority of calcium deposits were removed during
aromatic/HCl stage. This implies that any calcium-based scales
had been deposited close to the wellbore.
There was also evidence of the removal of alumino-silicate
compounds, as expected from the coreflood tests. Potassium
and magnesium ions were also removed, which probably
indicates the dissolution of kaolinite and dolomite. Very low
quantities of barium sulphate were measured.
Table 11 shows the well test values measured before and
after the HCl stage. The test confirmed the low presence of
calcium carbonate deposits in the wellbore - no benefit in oil
production rate was measured after HCl stage.
Barium Sulphate Dissolver Stage Results. This stage was
performed on 22nd February, with seven straddle packer sets.
The volumes per set are shown in Table 12. Figures 23
through 30 show the performance measured in the seven key
ion:ion graphs. Figure 31 shows the amount of material
removed. As expected, this stage removed the major amount of
barium sulphate when compared with the acid stages. Again a
high amount of iron and aluminum compounds were measured
in this stage. The high amount of sodium is due to the
presence of NaOH in the barium sulphate dissolver.

Figure 32 is a summary of the ions measured during the acid

and barium sulphate dissolver stages. The significant materials
that were removed are associated with scales of barium
sulphate, calcium carbonate and iron carbonate as expected.
The presence of aluminum is associated with alumino-silicate
minerals.

Calcium: Low levels of calcium were detected in the returns

from the multistage treatment. The majority of calcium was
observed in the returns from the liner wash, with small
quantities also been seen in the main acid stage. The level of
calcium measured in the brine stage is probably due to residual
calcium removed during the acid wash stage.
Iron: A high concentration of iron was observed in the returns
from all of the treatment stages, but was highest after the acid
stages. This iron appears to be a result of a corrosion process
during the stimulation treatment.
Other sources of iron may also have been present. Pyrite,
Goethite and siderite were predicted when scaling models were
run, using concentrations measured during the backflows.
Barium and sulphate: Both Barium and Sulphate were found
in the flowback samples after all of the treatment stages, with
the highest concentrations being observed after the scale
dissolver stage. This last stage was the only stage that should
have dissolved barium sulphate. It is thought that the elevated
levels observed after the acid stages is due to the release of
fine barium sulphate particles, that had been co-precipitated
with an acid soluble scale. The explanation of the response
seen after the brine stage is not clear, but could be related to
solid remnants left in-situ after the initial acid stage.
Further analysis should be performed in order to verify the
high presence of aluminum, magnesium and silicon detected
during all of the backflows.
As was mentioned previously, an emulsion was detected
during backflow of barium sulphate dissolver stage. The most
probable cause of emulsion formation during barium sulphate
dissolver stage was caused by contact of the dissolver with a
zone containing high levels of iron. This may have caused
precipitation of the iron, and the emulsion generated may have
reduced the efficiency of the scale dissolver.

SPE 68306

IDENTIFICATION OF DOWNHOLE SCALES USING A MULTI-STAGE STIMULATION TREATMENT

Conclusions
1. Calcium carbonate scale was evident from the reponse of
the acid treatment and the back flow analysis. It appears to
be deposited in the well or the very near wellbore region,
as it was all removed by acid washing.
2. Barium sulphate was evident from the backflow analyses
both after pumping the acid and after the barium sulphate
scale dissolver. The liberation of barium sulphate during
the acid treatment suggests that some co-precipitation with
a carbonate scale had occurred. The response after the
scale dissolver shows that some barium sulphate was
deposited directly on the rock matrix.
3. The presence of iron carbonate scale was not confirmed,
as corrosion products during the treatment dominated the
returned iron concentration. The analysis of the returned
chromium confirmed the presence of corrosion products.
4. No evidence was found for the downhole deposition of
halite scale.
Nomenclature
AR
= Amount removed, Kg
w
= Water density, gr/cc
Vw
= Water volume, Bbls
PPMion = Ion Concentration, ppm
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank BPAC Exploration Operating
Company, Ecopetrol, Total and Triton. We are also grateful
for the help and cooperation of members of NEEC Colombia,
ICP Lab (Piedecuesta), Halliburton, Baker Petrolite and PTS.
References
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.

6.
7.

Oddo, J and Tomson, M.: Methods Predicts Well bore

Scale, Corrosion. Oil and Gas Journal, June 8, 1998.
Linz, D and Marshall, R.: Simulation of Aqueous
Chemical System Facilities Better Development
Decisions. Gas TIPS (Summer 2000), 36-40.
Smith, P.S. et al: Drilling Fluid Design to Prevent
Formation Damage in High Permeability Quartz Arenite
Sandstones, paper SPE 36430 presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.,
6-9 October 1996.
Smith, A.L.: Radioactive-Scale Formation . JPT, June
1987 (697-705).
Krishnan, C et al: Discovery of radioactive Barium
Sulphate Scale in PanCanadian Petroleum Producing
Operations in Southeastern Alberta. JCPT, December
1994 (49-54).
Ford, W.G. et al: Solvent removes Downhole NORMcontaminated BaSO4 Scale. Oil and Gas Journal, April
22, 1996, Vol. 94 Issue 17.
Nikolay, E.Z.: Ukrainian Oil Field NORM contamination
examined. Oil and Gas Journal, June 14, Vol 97 Issue 24.

8.

Patton, C.: Applied Water Technology, Campbell

Petroleum Series, 1997.
9. Chaverra, M. et al.: A Non-Conventional Formation
Damage Cusiana Field. BPX Colombia internal report,
30th October 1998.
10. Lee, Sheng-Tai and Lin, C.Y: Investigation on Water
Vaporization in Cupiagua Production Well, BP internal
communication, Houston, October 1999
11. Abel, J.C.: Acidizing Flowback Analysis, ARCO Alaska
Inc., Internal communication.
12. Schmidt, T. et al. Optimizing Stimulation Treatments of
Gravel Packed Wells by Analysis of Back Produced
Fluids After Stimulation. Paper SPE 31077.
SI Metric Conversion Factors.

Bbl x 1.589873
ft3 x 2.831685
in. x 2.54*
psi x 6.894757

Conversion factor is exact.

E-01 = m3
E-02 = m3
E+00 = cm
E+00 = kPa

C.A. FRANCO, J.A. LEAL AND P.S. SMITH

SPE 68306

TABLE 1 : Formation Water Analysis

Ion
mg/lt
Alk as mg/lt
CaCO3
SO4=
Fe+2
Na++
K+
Ca++
Mg++
Ba++
Sr++
SiO2
PO4-3
Cl-

Guadalupe
Well Cus-K7
720

Barco
Well Cus-V8
580

Mirador
Well Cus-T3
600

65
1.4
4857
173
658
95
1.7
50.5
164.6
0.1
10727

19
5.7
5136
148
1453
157
18
105.9
101.8
0.9
13281

9.5
0.9
971
30
184
15.2
2.5
12.4
173.2
0.5
2447

Scale Predicted
Calcium Carbonate, Iron Carbonate and Barium
Sulphate
Calcium Carbonate, Barium sulphate
Iron Carbonate, Barium Sulphate and Calcium
Carbonate

Guadalupe
Barco

TABLE 3 : Analysis of Some Recovered Scale Samples

Well

Identified Solid Sample, %

Cus-V8
BA-X11
Cus-TC14
Cus-K19

CaCO3
7.7
84
52.8
100

BaSO4
0.3
0.1
6.5
0

FeCO3
63.5
0.7
0
0

MgCO3
1.1
5
0
0

Others
27.4
10.2
40.7
0

TABLE 4 : Radioactive Components of Recovered Scale

Element
U-238
U-235
Th-232

Radioactivity (Bq)
9.43
0.76
9.06

Table 5 : Water Baseline Ratios for Each Stage.

Ratio
Fe:Mg
Fe:Ca
Al:Si
Al:K
Fe:Mn
Ba
Na

FBL
0.03
0.0053
ND
ND
3.29
4.4
806

CFBLB
1.76
0.96
0.0475
0.0364
ND
0.73
55.95

CFBLP
21.36
24.41
4.0
3.67
ND
0.6
1083

CFBLH
8.5
113.5
0.89
0.0068
ND
2.12
134

Parameter
Date
BOPD
BWPD
MMscfd
GOR
BS&W
Choke Size
WHP, psi
WHT, F

Before
Jan-29-2000
2644
1620
4.0
1520
38.0
75/64
666
167

After
Jan-31-2000
1491
2080
2.6
1740
58.3
78/64
389
163

Table 7 : Production Well Tests Before and After WSO job.

TABLE 2 : Scale Prediction by Reservoir

Reservoir
Mirador

Table 6 : Production Well Tests Before and After Aromatic/HCl

Stage

CFBLS
73.71
56.6
6.75
1.05
ND
3.03
395

FBL: Ion measured in wellhead water samples during before well died.
CFBLB: Ion measured in water collected during brine coreflood displacement.
CFBLP: Ion measured in water collected during aromatic/acid blend coreflood
displacement.
CFBLH: Ion measured in water collected during HCl stage coreflood
displacement
CFBLS : Ion analysis in water collected during Barium sulphate stage
coreflood displacement.

Parameter
Date
BOPD
BWPD
MMscfd
GOR
BS&W
Choke Size
WHP, psi
WHT, F

Before
Jan-31-2000
1491
2080
2.6
1740
58.3
78/64
389
163

After
Feb-04-200
1401
51
1.9
1388
3.5
48/64
1023
129

Table 8 : Volumes by interval of Brine injected in NH4Cl Stage.

Set #

Interval

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

15484-15469
15469-15454
15454-15439
15439-15424
15373-15358
15358-15343
15343-15328

Volume Injected
Bbls
80
80
80
30
70
70
70

Table 9 : Production Tests Before and After Brine Stage.

Parameter
Date
BOPD
BWPD
MMscfd
GOR
BS&W
Choke Size
WHP, psi
WHT, F

Before
Feb-04-2000
1401
51
1.9
1388
3.5
48/64
1023
129

After
Feb-10-2000
1062
55
1.4
1353
4.89
121/64
944
131

SPE 68306

IDENTIFICATION OF DOWNHOLE SCALES USING A MULTI-STAGE STIMULATION TREATMENT

Table 10 : Volumes injected in HCl Stage.

Preflush
Bbls

Main
BBls

Overflush
Bbls

15484-15469
15469-15454
15454-15439
15439-15424
15373-15358
15358-15343
15343-15328

5
5
10
5
10
10
10

30
30
25
10
25
25
25

10
10
10
5
10
10
10

Table 11 : Production Well Tests Before and After HCl Stage

Cusiana/Cupiagua Core Data

Kh vs PHI

Permeability, md

Interval

10000

139 um

1000

53 um

100

20 um

10

8 um

3 um

0.1

1 um

0.01

0.4 um

pore size0.16 um

0.001

Parameter
Before
After
Date
Feb-10-2000 Feb-16-2000
BOPD
1062
1093
BWPD
55
3
MMscfd
1.4
1.4
GOR
1353
1266
BS&W
4.89
0.31
Choke Size
121/64
120
WHP, psi
944
964
WHT, F
131
132

0.06 um

0.0001
0

12

13

14

15

Figure 1 : Quartz Arenite Porosity-Permeability Realtionship

Interval

Preflush
Bbls

Main
BBls

Overflush
Bbls

15484-15469
15469-15454
15454-15439
15439-15424
15373-15358
15358-15343
15343-15328

5
5
10
5
10
10
10

30
30
25
10
25
25
25

10
10
10
5
10
10
10

Table 13 : Well Tests Production Before and After Barium

Sulphate Dissolver Stage

After
Feb-27-99
2481
253
3.5
1430
9.27
72
306
133

11

Porosity, %

Table 12 : Volumes Injected in Barium Sulphate Dissolver Stage.

Parameter
Before
Date
Feb-16-2000
BOPD
1093
BWPD
3
MMscfd
1.4
GOR
1266
BS&W
0.31
Choke Size
120
WHP, psi
964
WHT, F
132

10

Figure 2 : Typical Gamma Ray Evolution

C.A. FRANCO, J.A. LEAL AND P.S. SMITH

3,000

1,200

ADD: 15578-598,
04-Jun-99

Frac Job on:

15454-15484
Nov-13-98

0
7-Oct-98

Add: 1543415454, 1532515373

Nov-16-98

26-Nov-98

15-Jan-99

6-Mar-99

BOPD from well allocation

BWPD from well test

Pickled Job
04-Jul-99

8000

Add : 15550-565,
15568-578
Apr-20-99

1,800

25-Apr-99
14-Jun-99
DATE

600

3-Aug-99

22-Sep-99

11-Nov-99

0
31-Dec-99

Calcium concentration, ppm and Fe:Ca ratio

2,400

12000

4000

1000

GOR, SCF/BBL

Well dead

Acid Ball Out

06-Aug-99

Reperf: 15550-578, 15427484, 15325-373

01-Jun-99

Well Completed on:

15454-15484
Nov-08-98

16000
OIL & WATER PRODUCTION, BPD

Reperf:
15550-578,15427-484,
15325-373, (Dic-14-98)

PLT and Static Test

9-Sep-99

20000

100

Coreflood Aromatic/ Acid Baseline Fe:Ca

10

0.1

Field Baseline Fe:Ca Ratio

0.01

0.001
1

BWPD from well allocation

GOR from well allocation

SPE 68306

10

100

BOPF from well test

GOR from well test

1000

10000

100000

Iron Concentration, ppm

Ca

Figure 3 : Cus-TC14 - Well Production History.

Fe:Ca

Figure 6 : Fe:Ca Ratio for Aromatic/HCl stage

100000

1000
1000

100

10

0.1
1/30/00 12:00 1/30/00 14:24 1/30/00 16:48 1/30/00 19:12 1/30/00 21:36 1/31/00 0:00
PH

Ca+

Fe +2

Cl-

Ba

SO4

Na

1/31/00 2:24
K

1/31/00 4:48

Sr

Mg

1/31/00 7:12
Mn

Cr

1/31/00 9:36 1/31/00 12:00

Al

Si

Figure 4 : Aromatic/HCl Stage - General Performance of Main Ions

During Back Flow

Silice Concentration, ppm and Al:Si Ratio

Ion Concentration in Back Flow, PPM

10000

100

10

Coreflood Aromatic/Acid Baseline Al:Si Ratio

0.1

0.01
1

10

100

1000

10000

Alum inium concentration, ppm

Silice

1000

AL:Si Ratio

Figure 7 : Al:Si Ratio for Aromatic/HCl stage

100

1000

10

0.1

Field Baseline Fe:Mg Ratio

0.01
1

10

100

1000

Iron Concentration, ppm

Mg

Fe:Mg Ratio

10000

Potasium concentration, ppm and Al:K

ratio

Mg concentration, ppm and Fe:Mg Ratio

Coreflood aromatic/Acid Baseline Fe:Mg

Coreflood Aromatic/ Acid Baseline Al:K Ratio

100

10

0.1

0.01
1

10

100

1000

Alum inum concentration, ppm

Figure 5 : Fe:Mg Ratio for Aromatic/Acid stage

Al:K Ratio

Figure 8 : Al:K Ratio for Aromatic/HCl Stage.

10000

SPE 68306

IDENTIFICATION OF DOWNHOLE SCALES USING A MULTI-STAGE STIMULATION TREATMENT

150

-50

Backflow Minus FBL

Sr

Mn

Ba

SO4

Cr

Fe

-150

Mg

-100
Si

Field Baseline Fe:Mn Ratio

Al

10

50

Ca

100

100

Na

Differential of Amount
Removed, Kg

Mn Concentration, ppm and Fe:Mn Ratio

1000

Backflow Minus CFBL Aromatic/Acid

0.1
1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Iron Concentration, ppm

Mn

Figure 12 : Ion Removed for Aromatic/HCl Stage.

Fe:Mn Ratio
1000

Figure 9 : Fe:Mn Ratio for Aromatic/HCl Stage.

Field Baseline Na

10000

Sodium, ppm

Sodium, ppm

Coreflood Aromatic/Acid Baseline Na concentration

100

Core Flood Brine Na

1000

10
1000

10000

Field Baseline Na Concentration

100
1000

10000

100000

Chloride, ppm

100000

Figure 13 : Na Performance for Brine Stage.

Chloride Concentration, ppm

100000

Figure 10 : Na Performance for Aromatic/HCl Stage.

Ion Concentration in Back Flow, PPM

10000

Barium Concentration, ppm

100

10

Field Baseline Ba Concentration

100

10

Coreflood Aromactic/Acid Baseline Ba concentration

0.1
1000

1000

0.1
2/11/00 12:00

2/12/00 0:00
PH

10000

Ca+

2/12/00 12:00
Fe +2

2/13/00 0:00
Cl-

Ba

2/13/00 12:00
SO4

Na

2/14/00 0:00
K

Sr

2/14/00 12:00
Mg

Mn

2/15/00 0:00
Cr

2/15/00 12:00
Al

Si

100000

Chloride Concentration, ppm

Figure 11 : Ba Performance for Aromatic/HCl Stage.

Figure 14 : HCl Stage - General Performance of Ions

During BAckflow

10

C.A. FRANCO, J.A. LEAL AND P.S. SMITH

10000

1000

K, ppm and Al:K Ratio

Mg, ppm and Fe:Mg Ratio

1000
100
10
Coreflood HCl Acid Baseline Fe:Mg Ratio
1
0.1

Field Baseline Fe:Mg Ratio

100
10
1
0.1
Coreflood HCl Acid Baseline Al:K Ratio

0.01
0.001

0.01
1

10

100
1000
Iron Concentration, ppm
Mg

10000

0.1

100000

10

100

1000

10000

Al, ppm
K

Fe:Mg

Al:K

Figure 18 : Al:K Ratio for HCl Stage.

Figure 15 : Fe:Mg Ratio for HCl Stage

10000
Mn, ppm and Fe:Mn Ratio

1000
100
Ca, ppm and Fe:Ca Ratio

SPE 68306

Core Flood HCl Acid Baseline Fe:Ca Ratio

10
1
0.1
Field Baseline Fe:Ca Ratio
0.01

1000

100

10

Field Baseline Fe:Mn Ratio

1
0.001

1
1

10

100

1000

10000

100

1000

10000

100000

Fe, ppm

Iron Concentration, ppm

Ca

10

100000

Mn

Fe:Mn Ratio

Fe:Ca

Figure 19 : Fe:Mn Ratio for HCl Stage.

Figure 16 : Fe:Ca Ratio for HCl Stage.

1000

10000
10

1000

1
Coreflood HCl Acid Baseline Al:Si Ratio

Na, ppm

Si, ppm and Al:Si Ratio

100

0.1
0.01

Field Baseline Na
100

Coreflood HCl Acid Baseline Na

10

0.001
0.1

10

Al, ppm

100

Si

Figure 17 : Al:Si Ratio for HCl Stage.

1000
Al:Si

10000

1
10000

100000
Cl, ppm

Figure 20 : Na Performance for HCl Stage.

SPE 68306

IDENTIFICATION OF DOWNHOLE SCALES USING A MULTI-STAGE STIMULATION TREATMENT

11

100

10

Ca, ppm and Fe:Ca Ratio

100000

Ba, ppm

Field Baseline Ba

Coreflood HCl Acid Baseline Ba

0.1
10000

10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1

Coreflood Barrage Baseline Fe:Ca Ratio

Field Baseline Fe:Ca Ratio

0.01

100000
Cl, ppm

0.001

100

Figure 21 : Ba Performance for HCl Stage.

Fe:Ca

Figure 25 : Fe:Ca Ratio for Barium Sulphate Dissolver

Stage.

200
150

100
100
50

Si, ppm & Al:Si Ratio

Differential of Amount Removed, Kg

1000

Iron Concentration, ppm

Ca

0
-50

Coreflood Barrage Baseline Fe:Mg Ratio

10

-100
Fe

Al

Na

Ca

Mg

Cr

Si

Backflow minus FBL

Mn

Ba

SO4

Sr

Backflow minus CFBL HCl

1
1

10

100

1000

Al, ppm

Figure 22 : Amount removed for HCl Stage.

Si

Figure 23 : Barium Sulphate Dissolver Stage - General

Performance of Ions During Backflow

Al:Si

Figure 26 : Al:Si Ratio for Barium Sulphate Dissolver

Stage.

100000
10000

1000

1000
K, ppm & Al:K Ratio

Mg, ppm and Fe:Mg Ratio

Coreflood Barrage Baseline Fe:Mg Ratio

100
10

100
10
1
Coreflood Barrage Baseline Al:K Ratio
0.1
0.01

0.001
1

0.1

Field Baseline Fe:Mg Ratio

0.01
100

1000
Iron Concentration, ppm
Mg

10

Fe:Mg

Figure 24 : Fe:Mg Ratio for Barium Sulphate Dissolver

Stage

Al, ppm

100

1000

Al:K

Figure 27 : Al:K Ratio for Barium Sulphate Dissolver

Stage.

12

C.A. FRANCO, J.A. LEAL AND P.S. SMITH

SPE 68306

40

100

Differential of Amount Removed, Kg

Mn, ppm & Fe:Mg Ratio

30

10

Field Baseline Fe:Mn Ratio

1
100

20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50

1000
-60

Iron Concentration, ppm

Mn

Na

Fe

Al

SO4

Mg

Ba

Si

Backflow minus FBL

Fe:Mn Ratio

Figure 28 : Fe:Mn Ratio for Barium Sulphate Dissolver

Stage.

Cr

Mn

Ca

Sr

Backflow minus CFBL Barrage

Figure 31 : Amount Removed for Barium Sulphate

Dissolver Stage.
1000

Amount Measured during backflow, Kg

10000

Sodium, ppm

1000

100
Coreflood Barrage Baseline Na Concentration
10
Fluidl Baseline Na Concentration

10000

100000

Chlorides, ppm

1000
Coreflood Barrage Baseline Ba Concentration

Barium, ppm

Fluid Baseline Ba Concentration

10

10000

Fe

Al
Xyl./Acid Stage

Figure 29 : Na Performance for Barium Sulphate Dissolver

Stage.

1
1000

10

0.1

1
1000

100

100

100000

Chloride , ppm

Figure 30 : Ba Performance for Barium Sulphate Dissolver

Stage.

Mg

Ba
Acid Stage

SO4

Ca

Bar. Sulphate Stage

Figure 32 : Summary of Amount measured in Backflows

Regarding Main Ions.