Evaluation of acid treatments

Treatment evaluation leads to problem identification and to continuously improved treatments. The
prime source of information on which to build an evaluation are the acid treatment report and the
pressure and rate data during injection and falloff. The tasks of execution and evaluation go hand in
hand. Proper execution, quality control, and record keeping are prerequisites to the task of accurate
evaluation. Evaluation of unsatisfactory treatments is essential to recommending changes in
chemicals and/or treating techniques and procedures that will provide the best treatment for
acidizing wells in the future.
Contents

1 Evaluation process

2 Measuring productivity after treatment

o

2.1 Injectivity index

2.2 Overflush injection

2.3 Falloff pressures

3 Underachieved or failed results

4 Intended removal of damage

5 Achieved results

6 Reporting

7 Continuous improvement
o

7.1 Strategy for acidizing

8 References

9 Noteworthy papers in OnePetro

10 External links

11 See also

12 Category

Evaluation process
The evaluation process encompasses six major areas on which to focus when assessing job
performance and acid treatment success:

Injection rate and pressure.

Final fall-off pressure record.

Well production analysis (nodal analysis).

Produced fluid samples.

Post-treatment investigation concerning damage incurred during injection, acid removal of

damage, post-treatment damage (precipitates), and verbal communications.

Recommendations for continuous improvement.

Measuring productivity after treatment

The most important measure of the treatment is the productivity of the well after treatment. When
the productivity stabilizes at the same production rate as before treatment, the flowing bottomhole
pressure should be estimated from fluid levels or from measured flowing pressures. Static
bottomhole pressure should be measured following any long shut-in periods. A well flow analysis
should show whether the designed productivity was obtained. The pressure charts from the
treatment, including both accurate injection rates and recorded injection pressures, can be analyzed
using transient pressure analysis to determine when or if the wellbore damage was removed by the
treatment.
Injectivity index
An injectivity index can be calculated for the well both before and after the HF-acid stage.
Overflush injection
The final overflush injection pressures and rates should give a fairly accurate measure of the well
productivity before the well is ever returned to production. A useful source of information is the
final pressure falloff after the treatment.
Falloff pressures
If the pressure exists at the wellhead, the falloff pressures should be recorded on site until the well
goes on vacuum. If the well goes on vacuum too soon, fluid levels can be shot with a sonolog device
until the level falls to near the static bottomhole pressure. These final falloff pressures can be used
to estimate the wellbore condition after the acid treatment. If this analysis shows that the acid
treatment removed all wellbore damage and later well production analysis shows that no post-acid
precipitation occurred, the treatment is potentially successful. An example of this type analysis is
shown in the example provided by McLeod. [1]
Underachieved or failed results
If the well injectivity or productivity (after the well returns to injection or production) is not close to
that predicted by the falloff analysis, some damage probably occurred to the formation after the
acid treatment ended. Subsequent damage after the treatment may be caused by precipitation of
acid reaction products in the formation or by return of fines to the wellbore with internal pore
plugging at or near perforations. This is especially true in gravel packed wells. Often, unsatisfactory
performance results from imperfect coverage during the treatment. A change in the acid placement
technique may be necessary for the next acid treatment in the field. If solid diverting agents were
employed, changes in concentrations may be necessary, or perhaps another diversion technique
would work better. Feasibility and economic analysis from the expected well production increase
determine whether these changes are worthwhile. Usually, the damage during an acid treatment
occurs at the time the first acid hits the formation. This first acid damage is usually caused by solids
removed from the tubing walls prior to the acid reaching the formation. Also, acid may react
adversely with some of the minerals in the formation, and perhaps a different acid or solvent (such
as acetic acid or an aromatic solvent) should be used to first contact the formation. Many acid
failures are caused by the elimination of needed wellbore preparations prior to the acid treatment.
Intended removal of damage

It is important to know that the treatment removed the damage in the wellbore during treatment as
intended. If damage occurred after the treatment, steps can be taken to prevent that damage in a
later treatment of that well or others in the reservoir by such steps as utilizing different additives to
keep reaction products in solution, overflushing the reaction products deeper into the formation,
using different acids or acid concentrations to prevent the excess precipitation of acid reaction
products, or using stabilizers to prevent fines from returning to the wellbore and reducing
productivity.
Achieved results
If the anticipated productivity was achieved, the acid treatment worked as designed. If not, the
entire treatment should be reviewed to analyze the causes.
Reporting
The engineer evaluating the treatment should individually discuss the treatment with the service
company supervising engineer and the operating company supervisor. Their observations lead to
future treatment improvements.
The acid treatment report and the pressure/rate treatment charts are the best sources of
information. The engineer can observe and follow the injectivity during the entire process to see
whether the injectivity decreased during the treatment. Plugging or reduced injectivity during the
first injection into the wellbore can be traced to solids suspended in injected fluids at the beginning
of the treatment. The condition of the well, well preparation, and QC sampling can reveal the source
of these plugging solids.
Continuous improvement
Nitters et al.[2] present a systematic approach for candidate selection, damage evaluation, and
treatment selection and design using a recently developed integrated software package. They
recognize the importance of evaluating skin factors from well tests to determine what could be
improved. After identifying damage mechanisms, they used an expert system and geochemical
simulator to select appropriate treatment fluids. They also developed software for the evaluation
and design of acid placement.
Strategy for acidizing
Hashem et al.[3] produced an excellent example of a complete strategy for acidizing. Well analysis
and sampling identified the damage mechanisms that were removed by the appropriate acid
systems and additives that were selected using:

Formation mineralogy

Extensive laboratory testing with core flood studies

Acid and additive testing

Well preparation, job supervision, and on-site monitoring played key roles in the success of the acid
treatments. Treatment evaluations were performed to identify problems with some acid treatments,
which led to improved additive formulations and improved spent-acid cleanup procedures. These
steps resulted in an 86% success rate in treatment of water-injection wells and significantly
improved water injectivity.

Successful acidizing is assured by proper treatment design, well preparation, and execution, which
includes significant practices:

Acid cleaning of tubing

Acid type and concentration designed for the mineralogy and the permeability of the
formation

Acids, additives, and solvent flush designed for proper acid/reservoir fluid compatibility

Properly prepared wellbore and effective acid coverage

Sufficient time provided for acid contact and penetration of all perforations

Precipitation prevented or flushed away from the wellbore