A NEW CHEMICAL TECHNIQUE FOR SAND MANAGEMENT.

ENI EXPERIENCE IN THE ADRIATIC FIELDS

G. Burrafato, G. Caremi, S. Grifantini, G. Ripa, M. Colombo, eni E&P

S. Giordanella, A. Duncan, Weatherford

th
This paper was presented at the 11 Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 20-22, 2013.
It was selected for presentation by OMC 2013 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the author(s). The Paper as presented at OMC 2013 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT

Completing oil and gas wells in unconsolidated (or poorly consolidated) sand may be a
challenging task, but many effective solutions to control sand production are available, and
range from Expandable Screens, Stand-Alone Screens to standard gravel packs, high rate
water packs or frac packs, based on well and reservoir constraints.
In specific situations, such as dual selective completions in combination with multiple
reservoirs or brown fields, conventional sand control methods may be too complex or not
cost effective. As a result, some of the levels have to be completed without any sand control
and therefore experience sand production during the life of the well, usually mitigated
reducing the rate.
Sand production from conventional completions is a problem that eni E&P had to face in the
past and many attempts had been made to find suitable chemical products for rigless
remedial jobs.
This paper presents a new sand conglomeration treatment that creates an ionic attraction
between the sand grains and fines using non damaging water base fluid. Besides the ability
to mitigate sand production, it contributes in reducing/stopping fines migration and, therefore,
minimizing near wellbore damage and allowing to increase the Maximum Sand Free Rate
(MSFR).
After testing this new chemical product in clean sand environments, in Congo (oil producer)
and Egypt (gas producer), eni E&P decided to try this technology in the multilayer gas-
bearing Adriatic formation characterized by a sequence of sand strata interbedded with shale
that provides an average gas permeability lower than 20 mD.
In the first part of the paper the chemical product will be shortly described, then four
applications will be presented, with particular reference to field aspects, lessons learned and
economic impact.

INTRODUCTION

From a geological point of view most of Adriatic reservoirs are multilayers, sometimes quite
wide, made of a series of sandy and silty-sandy levels.
In particular, S1 series are characterized by succession of large sandy levels (1-5 m) and
thin silty or shaly-silty levels (0.5-2 m).
S2 and S3 series are, instead, described as a sequence of tight sandy-silty levels with
presence of shale having a thickness of 0.5-4 m.

The Italian scenario can be described as very complex and difficult to treat with standard
techniques for the following reasons:

x reservoirs are composed by multilayered formation showing an alternation of

sandstone and shale layers (sometimes very thin);

1
 x most of the wells have double completions in 7” casing with small tubing ID, being 2”
3
/8 tubing OD the most common;
x each string is completed in many layers, up to 7 in the more complex wells;
x in each string sand control (WP, F&P, …..) and conventional completions are present
at the same time;
x selective production occurs through SSD valves.

The typical completion scheme for the depicted scenario is reported below with reference to
the well C 20

Fig 1: Typical completion scheme

From the above description clearly appears that some layers have to be produced without
any mechanical sand control and, therefore, with very high risk of sand production during the
well life.
In fact, many strings must be choked down to avoid sand production at surface or to delay as
much as possible this occurrence. In both cases this results in a production reduction and a
loss of reserves.

Among the wells affected (really or potentially) by sand production, three categories can be
identified:

2
 1. Wells that in the past have produced a large amount of sand (it is possible to imagine
a relatively “big cave” behind the casing);
2. Wells choked down immediately after the very early sand appearance at surface (no
cave or just a small cave could be predicted behind casing);
3. Wells intentionally produced below their possibilities to avoid any presence of sand at
surface (no cave behind casing is expected).

Case histories covering all the mentioned categories will be presented in the following
discussion.

ZETA POTENTIAL ALTERING SYSTEM (ZPAS)

Zeta potential modification in itself is not new and has been used in the oilfield industry for
many years. Typical examples are corrosion and scale inhibition, as well as use in drilling
fluids to improve solid dispersion. It is also used in several other industries. Some examples
of applications include but are not limited to:

• The mineral and ore industry: to separate copper, lead, zinc, and tungsten from
ground ore, or to minimize the viscosity of coal slurries;
• The pharmaceutical industry: to extend shelf life of products by improving or
preventing coagulation/cake forming of particles;
• The paint industry: to ensure pigment particles stay dispersed;
• Wastewater industry: to reduce the zeta potential to allow suspended/dispersed
particles to coagulate and then be separated.

The active ingredient of the ZPAS system presented in this paper is an inner salt of a very
low-molecular-weight polymer, that when added to the base fluid disperses and rapidly coats
any metal oxide substrate, such as sandstone or any other anionic subterranean formation. It
also contains a component capable of disrupting the water layer that coats solid surfaces in
the formation.
It is not an absolute sand-control solution, such as an expandable screen, gravel pack or a
frac pack, but it creates an ionic attraction between the sand and fines grains and modifies
the relative permeability of the formation [1] leaving the formation in a water-wet state. The
major features of the system include:

• Enables an increase in the Maximum Sand Free Rate (MSFR);

• Eliminates or significantly reduces fines migration;
• Reduces the water cut in some reservoirs but for very short period (less than 3
weeks);
• Increases fluid rates.

A ZPAS treatment is a matrix treatment and works by modifying the zeta potential of the
anionic formation particles. By modifying the zeta potential to a value between 0 and -20 mV
an ionic attraction is created. On sandstone, ZPAS can repeatedly achieve a zeta potential of
-3 to -7 mV. [1, 2, 3]

ZPAS works on any anionic substrate and modifies the zeta potential of most fines. As such
it reduces or stops fines migration and prevents or significantly reduces near wellbore
damage caused by fines [3, 4]. This benefit in turn should enable better contribution from the
complete interval and can increase the productivity index (PI).

ZPAS itself is mostly cationic and adsorbs to anionic substrates. After the ZPAS chemicals
are adsorbed, the formation will be mostly cationic and additional ZPAS is no longer
adsorbed to the already treated formation. This process implies:

3
 • A ZPAS treatment exhibits very low risk to the reservoir. ZPAS reduces permeability
less than 1% [1];
• More volume pumped means deeper treatments; not thicker coating;
• Simple pumping techniques, such as rate diversion, can be used without risk of over-
treating;
• Longer intervals may be treated.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The design considerations for a sand conglomeration job using ZPAS are similar to a
conventional matrix treatment, and various design parameters are considered:

Lithology – The specific ZPAS chemicals discussed in this paper require an anionic
substrate such as sandstone. Cationic formations such as carbonate reservoirs are not
suitable. Because the ZPAS treatment is a matrix treatment and works on all anionic
particles, particle size distribution (PSD) or sieve analysis are not required. This advantage is
important in existing wells or fields where PSDs are sometimes obtained from
produced/bailed sand samples; such samples may not be representative for the actual
formation at hand. The impact of sand-size distribution on the achievable MSFR after a
ZPAS treatment is not fully known, but it has very little impact on the design of the job.
Additional lab testing are been planned to study the impact of different PSDs on the MSFR.

Completion design – When considering a ZPAS sand conglomeration treatment in an

existing well, the design of the existing completion typically determines the placement
method. Often the completion enables the zone of interest to be isolated; thereby the
treatment can be bull-headed down the production tubing. In other cases coiled tubing needs
to be used or artificial-lift equipment (PCPs, ESPs or rod pumps) removed from the well
before the treatment. Gas-lift valves can remain in the completion. To date many wells have
been treated, varying from single-selective completions to dual completions with six or more
zones.

Interval length – The limit on the length of the interval that can be treated depends on the
possibility of the use of the “Max ΔP, Max Rate” technique [5], but from a practical
perspective, diverter tools sometimes have to be used. Viscosified fluids can extend the
above interval length limit but actually, lab tests are still on going to identify a proper
chemical. The decision to use diverter tools is driven by the maximum allowable pump rate in
combination with the maximum downhole pressure that can be applied without exceeding the
formation fracture pressure. To date up to 35 m of perforations have been treated in a single
flush without the use of any diverter tools. In this case history, 14.5 m of perforations were
treated by a simple bullhead down the production tubing. No diverter tools were used.

Permeability and porosity – These factors are considered to determine the total volume
and concentration of the ZPAS treatment but are typically not a limiting factor. To date many
wells have been treated with permeability ranging from a few millidarcys to several darcys.
The permeability may impact the designed treatment rate and the concentration of the ZPAS
in relation to the base fluid.

Pumping procedure - Most ZPAS treatments are performed through a rate diversion, which
implies the pump rate needs to be sufficiently high to allow for the fluids to enter all producing
portions of the zone being treated. Using rate diversion, the portions of the zone with the
highest permeability receives the deepest treatment.
At the end of 2011 a 3 stage process was introduced, rather than a single stage treatment.
One third of the ZPAS is pumped followed by one third of the post flush and this is repeated
3 times. The 3 stage process is done to enhance the agglomeration properties by optimizing
the zeta potential effect by taking the ZPAS back to the optimal concentration during the post
flush process.

4
In this case history(s), the pump rate varied from 30 to 250 l/min and three out of four wells
were treated in 3 stages. A leak off model can be used to optimally choose the best rate with
the given well parameters.

Base fluid compatibility with the reservoir - ZPAS has been successfully placed using
formation water, seawater, and several types of brines. Not all formation water or brines are
suitable, and there are some limitations to the maximum allowable total dissolved solids
(TDS). Any fluid should be verified for compatibility with the reservoir and should not
contribute or induce scaling or other adverse reactions such as clay swelling or
emulsification. In most cases, 3 to 6% KCl is a good base fluid to use. In all cases, the base
fluids must be filtered with an absolute filter system to remove solids larger than 1/6 of the
average pore size of the productive formation.
To optimize the chemical dispersion, brine temperature must be 15 °C minimum. An
appropriate heating system must be available in case of lower ambient temperature.

2011 FIRST TREATMENT: TESTING THE TECHNOLOGY

The first treatment with ZPAS was performed in May 2011 on well W 1 Short String.
In December 2009 the well was open to production from the level named S1_1 through the
SSD valve.
Formation and well data are reported in the tables below:

Tab. 1: W 1 SS Reservoir and well data

Reservoir data Well data
Level S1_1 Level S1_1
Perforated interval 8 m
Formation fluid Gas
Top perforations (MD) 2642.5 m
Gas permeability 69 mD
Bottom perforations (MD) 2650.5 m
Liquid permeability (estimated) 13.8 mD
Top perforations (TVD) 2274.5 m
Porosity 0.21
Bottom perforations (TVD) 2281.5 m
Reservoir Temperature 42 °C
Production casing 7 inch
Conductivity 110.4 mD*m Production casing ID 6.184 inch
2
Frac Gradient 1.54 kg/cm /10m Tubing 2.375 inch
2
Frac Pressure 351 kg/cm Tubing ID 1.995 inch
2
Pore Pressure Gradient 1.06 kg/cm /10m SSD depth (MD) 2627 m
Reservoir Pressure 240 kg/cm 2 Deviation at SSD depth 2 deg

Initial production was about 120 kSm3/d with FTHP=170 bar and Qwater=0.3-0.5 m3/d. In
October 2010 water production increased up to 1.5 m3/d and, due to excessive sand
production, the gas rate was reduced to 50 kSm3/d.
After one month (November 2010) sand production was not manageable, with further Qwater
increase up to 5 m3/d. At that point it was not possible to maintain the string in production
even reducing the gas rate to 10-15 kSm3/d and the well was closed.
In March 2011, before the ZPAS treatment, a production test was performed to check the
well condition. The test showed Qgas=32 kSm3/d and FTHP=146 bar but was stopped due to
high sand and fines production.

5
 W 1 SS
THP Gas Rate Water Rate
[bar] [kSm3/d] [m3/d]
200 10

180 9

160 8

Gas Rate [kSm /d] - THP [bar]

140 7

Water Rate [m3/d]

120 6
3

100 5

80 4

60 3

40 2

20 1

0 0

Apr-10

Aug-10
Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Sep-10

Oct-10

Dec-10
May-10

Nov-10
Mar-10

Date

Fig 2: W 1 SS Production data before intervention

Before the intervention, the well was calibrated with 38 and 47.5 mm “sample bailer/gauge
cutter” to 2627 mMD (SSD depth) sampling fine sand at the bottom.

Since the sand conglomeration treatment would be pumped in bullheading (BH), the first part
of the intervention consisted in the tubing pickling (via CT) to avoid the dirt injection into the
formation. It was followed by an injection test (to check the formation injectivity); it was
decided to pump in BH an acid pill (5% acetic acid) and then repeat the injection test.
According to the design (see paragraph “design considerations”), the ZPAS treatment was
prepared in batch and the following sequence was pumped:

Tab. 2: W 1 SS Fluids injected

3
Stage Description m N2 kscf
1 Acid - Injectivity test 7.3
2 Pre flush 6.4
3 Main treatment 23.4
4 Over flush 11.7
5 Displacement 40
6 TOTAL 48.8 40

Pre flush and over flush were a 0.4% solution of RF surfactant in 3% KCl while in the main
treatment 6% of ZPAS was added to the previous brine formulation. The final displacement
was partially done (2/3 of the tubing volume) with nitrogen leaving the well in the best
condition for the flow back.
A period of about 12 hours was selected as the necessary shut-in time to allow complete
interaction between ZPAS and formation before re-opening the well.

6
 W 1 SS
THP Gas Rate Water Rate
[bar] [kSm3/d] [m3/d]

200 10

180 9

160 8

Gas Rate [kSm /d] - THP [bar]

140 7

Water Rate [m3/d]

120 6
3

100 ZPAS treatment 5

80 4

60 3

40 2

20 1

0 0
Apr-10

Aug-10

Apr-11

Aug-11
Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Sep-10

Oct-10

Dec-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

Jun-11

Jul-11

Sep-11

Oct-11

Dec-11
May-10

Nov-10

May-11

Nov-11
Mar-10

Mar-11
Date

Fig 3: W 1 SS. Post job production data

After the job the well was slowly re-opened at low production rate, about 30 kSm3/d. From
June to September production continued with presence of sand at surface managed by
reducing gas rate to 20 kSm3/d. Unfortunately, also at this very low gas rate, sand production
was not acceptable and the well was closed.

Even if the first treatment response was quite questionable, it was deemed possible to
achieve good results working on the following topics:

x candidate selection (avoiding wells with high sand production before the job);
x new pumping schedule consisting of alternate injection of overflush and main
treatment;
x “on the fly” main treatment mixing.

2012 JOB CAMPAIGN: EXTENDING THE KNOWLEDGE

Candidates for the 2012 campaign were selected among wells with no or very little sand
production during their life.

Well W 1 LS production started in Jan 2010 with a gas rate of 130-140 kSm3/d. In November
2011 water production increased and it was agreed to choke down the well (to 90 kSm3/d) to
avoid any sand appearance at surface. A further reduction to 75 kSm3/d was necessary in
February 2012 due to an additional raise in water production. Intervention was executed in
March 2012.

Well Z 1 LS started-up in May 2007 producing 200 kSm3/d and in September 2011 it was
closed because of communication between short and long strings. The gas rate before shut-
in was 130-140 kSm3/d.
When the well was reopened (gas rate 40 kSm3/d), very early sand was detected at surface
and frequent cleaning operations were necessary. To avoid these problems from September
2011 the well was run at a gas rate of 20-25 kSm3/d. Intervention was executed in March
2012.

Well C 20 SS is an example of well maintained at low gas rate to avoid sand production,
based on experience of other wells.

7
Production of Level “S8_2 + S9 + S10” started in March 2012 at 90 kSm3/d and in September
2012, when the job was executed, the well was producing 70 kSm3/d with no evidence of
sand.

Well and formation data for the three mentioned wells are reported in the table below:

Tab. 3: 2012 Campaign reservoir and well data

Well W 1 LS Z 1 LS C 20 SS

Level S1_2 S2 S8_2+S9+S10

Gas permeability, mD 63 10 3.5
Porosity 0.25 0.20 0.27
Reservoir Temperature, °C 43 55 49
2
Reservoir Pressure, kg/cm 240 150 210
Perforated interval, m 14.5 12 13
Production casing, in 7 7 7
Tubing, in 2.375 2.375 2.375
SSD depth (mMD) 2792 2995 2753
Deviation at SSD depth, deg 1.2 2 59

Also in the 2012 jobs an initial tubing pickling (via CT), injection test, acid stimulation (if
necessary) and final injection test were scheduled. With the exception of tubing pickling, all
the operations were performed in bullheading.

The pumping schedules for the three wells are reported below:

Tab. 4: 2012 Campaign fluids injected

Well W 1 LSa Z 1 LSb C 20 SSc

3
Acid treatment, m 4 3 3
3
Pre flush, m 17.8 12.9 13.9
3
Main treatment, m 34.9 22.5 26.1
3
Over flush, m 17.5 11.1 16.8
3
Displacement, m 5.7 2.4 0
Displacement with N 2 , kscf No 20 20
3
Total pumped volume, m 79.9 51.9 59.8
a
Main treatment (6% and 5%) and overflush in 3 stages in 2 days
b
Main treatment (5%) and overflush in 3 stages in 1 days
c
Main treatment (5%) and overflush in 3 stages in 2 days

As described in paragraph “design considerations” the pumping schedule was modified

dividing the main and post-flush stage in 3 steps each and injecting them alternatively. These
stages were pumped in 1 or 2 days depending on injectivity and considering daylight
operations.

Pre flush, over flush and displacement were a 0.4 or (0.5) % solution of RF surfactant in 3%
KCl, while in the main treatment 5 or 6 % of ZPAS (depending on formation permeability)
was added to the previous brine formulation. For wells Z 1 LS and C 20 SS the final
displacement was partially done (2/3 of the tubing volume) with nitrogen leaving the well in the
best condition for the flow back.
A period of about 12 hours was selected as the necessary shut-in time to allow complete
interaction between ZPAS and formation before re-opening the well.

8
In the graph below production data before and after ZPAS treatment in well W 1 LS are
reported:

W 1 LS
THP Gas Rate Water Rate
[bar] [kSm3/d] [m3/d]

200 20

180 18

160 16
Gas Rate [kSm /d] - THP [bar]

140 14
ZPAS treatment

Water Rate [m /d]

3
120 12
3

100 10

80 8

60 6

40 4

20 2

0 0
Apr-12

Aug-12
Jan-12

Feb-12

Jun-12

Jul-12

Sep-12

Oct-12
May-12

Nov-12
Mar-12

Date

Fig 4: W 1 LS. Pre and post job production data

The treatment was performed in March and the well re-opened at low rate (Qgas = 45 kSm3/d)
to verify the formation response. In about 2 weeks it has been raised up to 110 kSm3/d with a
45 % increase compared to pre-job rate. In the same time Qwater showed a fourfold increase
from 1 to 4 m3/d.
It was decided to keep the well flowing in that condition to check the long-term treatment
effectiveness.
From mid-March to mid-October gas rate was maintained constant and sand production was
manageable and acceptable considering the huge increment both in gas and water
production.
After 7 months sand production became hard to handle and the well was choked down: 7
months was therefore considered the life treatment under the imposed conditions.

Well Z 1 LS showed a similar behaviour.

Z 1 LS
THP Gas Rate Water Rate
[bar] [kSm3/d] [m3/d]

120 24

110 22

100 20
Gas Rate [kSm /d] - THP [bar]

90 18

80 16
Water Rate [m /d]
3

70 14
3

60 12
ZPAS treatment
50 10

40 8

30 6

20 4

10 2

0 0
Apr-12

Aug-12
Jan-12

Feb-12

Jun-12

Jul-12

Sep-12

Oct-12
Mar-12

May-12

Nov-12

Date

Fig 5: Z 1 LS. Pre and post job production data

9
After the job, the well was re-opened at low rate (Qgas = 25 kSm3/d) and slowly choked up to
85 kSm3/d. After each step the new rate was maintained for at least one month and sand
production carefully monitored.
Differently from the previous well, enough information were available to calculate, with a
Nodal Analysis simulator, the bottom hole pressure for each step and, then, the variations in
ΔP. These data are reported in the following table:

Tab. 5: Z 1 LS. Nodal Analysis simulation results

QGAS ΔQGAS FTHP FBHP SBHP ΔP
Date 3
[kSm /g] [%] [bar] [bar] [bar] [%]
11/2011 27 0 102 141.4 147 4% Pre job
04/2012 53 99 92 126.8 144 12%
05/2012 66 145 84 120.1 144 17%
07/2012 68 154 79 115.0 142 19% Post job
08/2012 78 191 71 107.5 142 24%
09/2012 90 233 60 98.9 142 30%

In October the well started to produce sand again, indicating that the ZPAS effectiveness
limit was reached and to manage the associated problems the well was choked down to 40
kSm3/d. The treatment life is estimated in 7 months also in this case.

It is important to point out that in the two examples above the strategy was to stress as much
as possible the production to identify the “new technology limits”. In Z 1 LS the ΔP applied at
the bottom was increased from 4% before the treatment up to 30% (more than a seven fold
increase) while the gas rate raised from 27 to 90 kSm3/d.

The third well treated in 2012 is C 20 SS.

Level named “S8_2 + S9 + S10” was opened in March 2012 and the treatment performed in
September 2012. In this period there was no evidence of sand.
Gas rate, tubing head pressure (THP) and water production are reported in the graph below:

C 20 SS
THP Gas Rate Water Rate
[bar] [kSm3/d] [m3/d]

200 10

180 9
ZPAS treatment
160 8
Gas Rate [kSm /d] - THP [bar]

140 7
Water Rate [m /d]
3

120 6
3

100 5

80 4

60 3

40 2

20 1

0 0
Aug-12
Apr-12

Jun-12

Jul-12

Sep-12

Oct-12

Nov-12
May-12
Mar-12

Date

Fig 6: C 20 SS. Pre and post job production data

As already mentioned, the well was intentionally produced below its possibility to avoid sand
production, according to similar wells’ behaviour.

10
The job was executed in September and the well slowly re-opened. It produced 65 kSm3/d
during the flow back phase (about 2 weeks) and then, step by step, was increased up to 100
kSm3/d and finally maintained.
Also in this case available data allowed the calculation (using Nodal Analysis) of bottom hole
pressure and ΔP before the intervention. The calculated ΔP was about 5%.
Similar calculations were done also after the treatment but, because it was not possible to
measure the actual bottom hole pressure, the ΔP values are affected by a certain degree of
uncertainty.
Nevertheless these calculations are reported in the following table:

Tab. 6: C 20 SS. Nodal Analysis simulation results

QGAS ΔQGAS FTHP FBHP SBHP ΔP
Date
[kSm3/g] [%] [bar] [bar] [bar] [%]
09/2012 68 0 134 156.9 165.3 5% Pre job
10/2012 85 24% 123 145.4 161.7 10%
10/2012 103 51% 110 132.6 154.3 14% Post job
11/2012 90 32% 102 122.6 142.0 14%

The actual bottom-hole ΔP is about 14% and in this case it was decided to keep the well
producing in this condition to evaluate C20 performance in comparison with Z1 and W1.

Comparing job executions and results between the 2011-2012 campaign the following can
be stated:

• Mixing on the fly is the best way to prepare the main treatment. This guarantees
homogeneous fluid characteristics and the possibility to change formulation very
quickly;
• Designing the treatment in 3 steps allows splitting the job in 2 days. This is
particularly important in case of low injectivity;
• Using the appropriate equipment it is possible to heat and maintain at the desired
temperature the base fluid resulting in very good dispersion.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

In addition to the technical assessment, an economic evaluation of each ZPAS application

was carried out, analysing costs and profits in terms of gas production and cash income.
The economic analysis is always required for determining the success of an intervention;
moreover, it is particularly recommended in those cases where treatment benefits are limited
in time, in order to ensure that the gas revenues overcome the job expenses.

For every ZPAS application, the following variables have been calculated and taken into
account for the economic evaluation:
x cost of intervention;
x incremental cumulative volume: the additional gas volume produced after the
treatment in respect to the gas volume that would have been produced without
treatment (“do-nothing” scenario);
x gas price: an average Italian market gas price of about 289 €/kSm3 has been
considered;
x revenue: money income associated to incremental cumulative volume (according to
gas price shown above);
x payback: production after treatment needed for balancing revenue and cost of
intervention (hence incremental cumulative volume after payback generates net
revenue).

11
As deeply discussed in previous paragraphs, four ZPAS applications were planned and
carried out in Italy between 2011 and 2012.
The first application was performed on well W 1 SS in 2011, for an overall cost of 350 k€.
The intervention resulted in a short-lasting, sand-free production at low gas rates for four
months (May-September 2011). Since the well was closed before the treatment, all the gas
produced after treatment can be considered as incremental cumulative volume.
Though payback time took half of the total well lifetime after job, the economic results are
interesting: an incremental cumulative volume of 2.5 MSm3 was generated and total net
revenue (after payback) of almost 400 k€ was achieved (see Table 7).
This means that even a short-lasting intervention may be sustainable from an economic point
of view.

Based on the encouraging economics of W 1 SS, three new ZPAS applications were
performed in 2012. The improved design of intervention (according to field experience and
lab test) allowed achieving even better economic results than W 1 SS well.
Two ZPAS interventions were executed on wells Z 1 LS and W 1 LS in March 2012; the
intervention cost was fairly comparable to the previous job in 2011: 385 k€ each, +10%,
mostly due to longer time of execution.
The successful treatments allowed to strongly increase the gas rate by 200% for well Z 1 LS
and 50% for well W 1 LS, resulting in high incremental cumulative volumes, respectively 8.4
and 5.8 MSm3 after 7 months of production (October 2012). Payback time was less than two
months for both wells, and the cumulative net revenue obtained was 3.3 M€ (see Table 7).
Payback time of Z 1 LS job was longer than W 1 LS because gas rate has been slowly
increased after treatment.
The last ZPAS treatment was executed on well C 20 SS in September 2012 for a total cost of
435 k€. Despite the higher cost, the resulting payback time of 60 days is not much longer
than those of the previous jobs.
Net revenue generated by C 20 SS intervention was 145 k€ at the end of November. It must
be taken into account that the observed period is less than three months, not a reasonable
time interval to finalize an economic evaluation.
It is expected to obtain a total net revenue similar to the previous jobs in case of comparable
intervention lifetime.

The economic results of ZPAS jobs executed in 2011 and 2012 are reported below:

Tab. 7: Project economics

Incremental
Cost of Net
Job Cumulative Volume Gas Price Revenue Pay Back
Well Intervention Revenue
Execution @ Nov. 2012
3 3 3
[k€] [kSm ] [€/kSm ] [k€] [kSm ] [days] [k€]
W 1 SS May 2011 348.6 2570 288.7 742.0 1207 53 393.4
W 1 LS Mar. 2012 385.0 5810 288.7 1677.5 1333 48 1292.5
Z 1 LS Mar. 2012 385.0 8430 288.7 2434.0 1333 57 2049.0
C 20 SS Sept. 2012 433.8 2005 288.7 578.9 1502 60 145.1
TOTAL 1552.4 18815.0 5432.5 3880.1

The same results are shown, for the Z 1 LS case, in the following graphs in which gas rate
and gas volume are reported as a function of time:

12
 Z 1 LS
Incremental Volume Payback Do-Nothing Volume

120

110

100
Payback Obtained
90

80
Gas Rate [kSm /d]
3

70
ZPAS treatment
60

50

40
INCREMENTAL VOLUME

30

20
DO-NOTHING SCENARIO
10

0
Apr-12

Aug-12
Jan-12

Feb-12

Jun-12

Jul-12

Sep-12

Oct-12
May-12

Nov-12
Mar-12

Date

Fig 7: Z 1 LS. Gas rate evolution

Z 1 LS
Incremental Volume Payback Do-Nothing Volume

19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000
13000
Gas Volume [kScm]

Payback Obtained
12000
11000
10000
9000 INCREMENTAL VOLUME
8000 ZPAS treatment
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
DO-NOTHING SCENARIO
1000
0
Apr-12

Aug-12
Jan-12

Feb-12

Jun-12

Jul-12

Sep-12

Oct-12
May-12

Nov-12
Mar-12

Date

Fig 8: Z 1 LS. Cumulative produced gas volume

13
CONCLUSIONS

x A new chemical system for sand control has been successfully applied as a remedial
treatment when mechanical methods are not possible/feasible;
x The new technology can also be used to put in production level otherwise left closed
due to the high tendency to produce sand/fines;
x The execution of four applications has allowed a continuous improvement in candidate
selection, operations design and execution;
x Results indicate that higher sand free production can be achieved with a treatment life
up to seven months;
x Good returns on investment have been obtained in all the jobs performed with payback
time in the range of 50-60 days and a total net revenue (until the end of November
2012) of about 4,000,000 €.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the management of eni and Weatherford for their support
and permission to publish this paper.
Special thanks to all the people in DICS (Central Northern District, Ravenna) and eni HQ
who permitted the successful candidates selection and job execution.

REFERENCES

1. WALKER, T., FANGUE, E.J., VAN PETEGEM, R. AND CARLINE, B : “GOM operator
uses New Sand - Control Chemistry to increase maximum Sand Free Rate with simple Thru-
Tubing application”, presented at Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference, September, 13-16,
2010

2. KAKADJIAN, S., ZAMORA, F., AND VENDITTO, J.: “Zeta Potential Altering System for
Increased Fluid Recovery, Production and Fines Control”, SPE 106112 presented at the
2007 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, USA, Feb. 28 to
March 2 2007

3. JOHNSON, D., SCHOPPA, D., GARZA, J., ZAMORA, F., KAKADJIAN, S. AND
FITZGERALD. E.: Enhancing Gas and Oil Production with Zeta Potential Altering System”,
SPE 128048 presented at the 2010 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 10–12 February

4. MAINI, B., WASSMUTH, F. AND SCHRAMM, L.L.: Suspensions: Fundamentals and

Applications in the Petroleum Industry, Chapter 7. Fines Migration in Petroleum Reservoirs,
American Chemical Society Books, Washington DC, May 5, 1996, 321-375

5. PACCALONI, G., TAMBINI, M.: Advances in Matrix Stimulation Technology”, SPE 20623
presented at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, New Orleans, LA,
September 23-26, 1990

14