SPE 168167

Experience of Carbonate Acidizing in the Challenging Environment

of the Volga-Urals Region of Russia
Rifat Kayumov, Andrey Konchenko, Alexey Bairamov, Artem Klyubin, and Olesya Levanyuk, Schlumberger;
Andrey Chikin, Vladislav Firsov, and Evgeniy Nikulshin, Rosneft

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2628 February 2014.
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 Volga-Urals basin is one of the largest oil-producing regions in Russia. Orenburg region is essential part of Volga-Urals
basin and it represents most of the challenges encountered in the other parts of the basin. More than half the wells produce
exclusively from carbonate formations and require periodic acidizing treatments to maintain economic production. Carbonate
stimulation treatments are usually based on pumping of hydrochloric acid into the formation with use of special diverters to
maximize zone coverage by acid treatment. Some of the formation properties in Volga-Urals basin create additional
challenges for successful acidizing treatments, including significant reservoir pressure depletion, high water cut, formation
heterogeneity with high- and low-permeability strikes, low reservoir temperature, crude with tendency for emulsion and
sludge creation, and enormous thief zones created by previous acidizing treatments. In many cases, uncertainties in the
formation properties make the stimulation more complex.
Carbonate stimulation practices in the Orenburg region have continuously improved during the last 6 years. First,
degradable balls and polymer self-diverting acid were introduced to improve zone coverage. Later, viscoelastic self-diverting
acid was added to eliminate damage associated with the polymer, and a viscoelastic selective diverter was used to minimize
the probability of an increase in water cut after the treatment. Finally, foam was placed as a diversion agent, with and without
coiled tubing (CT), to account for reservoir pressure depletion and help in post-acidizing flowback. Many lessons were
learned, resulting in recommendations for use of various technologies at different reservoir and wellbore conditions.
In addition to the recommendations for technologies, a quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) standard was
developed and implemented for acidizing treatments. Moreover, laboratory work such as core flow testing and proppant
embedment tests has been undertaken to clarify post-treatment aspects.
Most fields in the Orenburg region are old, which implies that quality of well candidates became worse from year to
year. However, with continuous improvement in stimulation practices and rigorous quality control we manage to maintain
production at economic level and even increase work scope compared with previous years. This paper presents the
experience gained during the 6-year of acidizing treatments in Orenburg region with lessons learned, and best practices
adopted.
Introduction
The Volga-Urals basin is one of the oldest and largest oil-producing regions in Russia. The first oil on the western edge of the
Ural Mountains was discovered in 1929, and major development started in the late 1930s. By 1977, decades of climbing
production from Volga-Urals basin were over and a sharp decline had begun. The decline occurred mainly because most of
the resources are concentrated in a few extremely large fields, and the rest are divided among a very large number of small
fields. All giant fields were discovered before 1960 and had become mature by late 1970; the newly explored fields were too
small to reverse the basins production decline. Today, the Volga-Urals basin is no longer Russias premier producer, but the
basin is still responsible for nearly a quarter of Russian oil supply (Grace 2005).
The Orenburg region, an important component of the Volga-Urals basin, is located near other oil- and gas-producing
provinces: Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Samara region, and north Kazakhstan. The geological structure of the Volga-Urals basin
is very complex. The basin formed over the course of more than 200 million years. The stratigraphy within the Orenburg

SPE 168167

region (Table 1) reflects three major sedimentary cycles of deposition. Hydrocarbons have been found in formations from all
the geological periods. The distribution of recoverable reserves is also shown in Table 1 (ONAKO 1997).
TABLE 1. A STATIGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OF ORENBURG REGION.
Geological
period

Permian

Subperiod

Upper

Lower
Upper

Middle

Carboniferous

Lower

Upper
Devonian

Middle
Lower

Formation
index

Lithology

KS

Carbonate

U1

Carbonate

U2

Carbonate

PI - PVII

Carbonate

Recoverable
reserves,
% of the total

24.1

Carbonate

Mch

Carbonate

Pd

Carbonate

Kr

Carbonate

A0

Carbonate

A1 - A3

Sandstone

A4 - A6

Carbonate

Sp

Carbonate

O1 - O6

Carbonate

T1

Carbonate

B0

Carbonate

B1 - B2

Sandstone

CII - CVI

Sandstone

T1 - T3

Carbonate

Zl

Carbonate

DfI - DfV

Carbonate

Dfr1 - Dfr4
Dkt1 Dkt3

Carbonate
Sandstone

Dkn

Sandstone

Dkj

Carbonate

D0 - D1

Sandstone

D2 - D4

Sandstone

D5 - D6

Carbonate

D7

Sandstone

TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF OIL RESERVES IN

ORENBURG REGION BY ACCUMULATION SIZE.
Oil reserves,
millions of
tons

Amount of
reservoirs, %
of total

Recoverable
reserves, % of
total

<1

26.3

4.7

1-5

38.1

21.8
14.5

5 - 10

14.2

10 - 30

21.1

40.1

> 30

0.3

18.9

40.8

35.1
Fig. 1. Fields in the western part of the Orenburg
region

There are more than 100 oil fields scattered in the western part of the Orenburg region (Fig. 1). Table 2 shows
distribution of oil reserves by accumulation size (ONAKO 1997). Distribution shows that 41% of recoverable reserves and
73% of all reservoirs are found in small accumulations with oil reserves from 1 to 30 million tons. Many accumulations
(26.3%) have reserves less than 1 million tons of oil, but they contain only 4.7% of the total recoverable reserves.
Most oil fields in the region belong to the Rosneft oil company, and this paper focuses on these fields. As can be seen
from Table 1, many of the formations are carbonates, especially those of Permian and Carboniferous age. About 60% of
recoverable reserves are in carbonate formations and 75% of wells produce completely or partially from carbonates (Fig. 2).
A total of 98 oil fields are producing from carbonate formations, and their distribution by well count is shown on Fig. 3.
Apart from a few big oil fields, the vast majority of the fields are small: 82 out of 98 fields have fewer than 20 wells
producing from carbonate formations.

SPE 168167

294
Carbonates

455

Sandstone
Both

489
21%

252
22
23
29
33
33
39 41
43

1271
54%

580
25%

163
49 54
70 72

88

Total of 98 fields
Fig. 2. Well count by formation type.

Fig. 3. Well count for oil fields producing from carbonate formations.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

Wells count, % to total

Acidizing treatments, % to total

40%
Pres (current) / Pres (initial)
30%
20%
10%
0%
A0

A4 - A6 O1 - O6

B0

T1 - T3

Zl

Df1 - Df4 D5 - D6

Fig. 4. Formation pressure depletion and distribution of wells and

treatments by carbonate formation.
100%

Average production, m3/day

100.0

80%

80.0
60%
60.0
40%
40.0
20%

20.0
0.0

0%
A4 - A6 O1 - O6

Average Qw, m3/day

B0

T1 - T3

Zl

Average Qoil, m3/day

Df1 - D5 - D6
Df4
Average WC

Fig. 5. Average production and water cut for carbonate formations.

Average water cut, %

120.0

A0

Bobrovskoe
Sorochinsko-Nikolskoe
Pokrovskoe
Samodurovskoe
Pronkinskoe
Ibryaevskoe
Krasnoyarskoe
Sultano-Zaglyadinskoe
Rodinskoe
Dolgovskoe
Kodyakovskoe
Tananykskoe
Tarhanskoe
Kurmanaevskoe
Garshinskoe
Tokskoe
Others (<20 wells)

Acidizing is a well-established method for

stimulation of carbonate reservoirs, and some
important aspects of
these treatments are
described in the next section. Some of the
formation properties in the Orenburg region create
additional challenges for successful acidizing
treatments:
Reservoir pressure depletion. Most of the
carbonate formations have been in development
for many decades and water injection was
established for formation pressure maintenance. It
keeps the average reservoir pressure from sharp
depletion but cannot completely stop this process.
Fig. 4 shows the average reservoir pressure is 60
to 75% of the initial pressure for most of the
carbonate formations. Fig. 4 also shows the
distribution of formations by total well count and
number of acidizing treatments for reference.
High water production. In the Volga-Urals
region, oil-saturated layers are usually located near
water-saturated zones or have active aquifers. It is
not surprising that after decades of production most
of the formations produce at high water cuts. Fig. 5
shows that except for the deep Devonian formations
(D5-D6), average water cut is significantly above
50% and most of the produced fluid is water. The
water sources may be different (from injector wells,
rise of water/oil contact, crossflow behind casing,
natural fissures, unsuccessful stimulation with
breakdown to adjacent water layer, etc.) and are
usually not precisely known.
Low reservoir temperature. Fig. 6 shows
that most carbonate formations in the region have
stable bottomhole static temperatures (BHST) from
30 to 60C. The only formations with BHST above
60C are Devonian, but the number of wells
producing from Devonian formations is much lower
than the number producing from Carboniferous
(Fig. 4 and Table 1).

SPE 168167
40%
35%

Wells count

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
< 30

30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100 > 100

BHST, deg.C
Fig. 6. Distribution of wells by stabilized reservoir temperature (only
carbonate formations)

Formation heterogeneity. The carbonate

formations in Orenburg region are very laminated.
The productive sublayers in one formation may vary
from 3 to 30 and even more. These sublayers are
separated by tight and impermeable streaks with
comparable height. An example of such a formation is
presented in Fig. 7. The presence of water-saturated
zones near the target intervals are highlighted by blue
ovals.
Crude with tendency for emulsion and sludge
creation. In general, the crude in the Volga-Urals
region is heavy and viscous. Fig. 8 showed API
gravity and bottomhole (BH) viscosity values from
wells producing from carbonate formations in the
Orenburg region. Almost all wells are producing
15

45
Oil API gravity

12

Oil API gravity

BH Oil Viscosity
35

30

25

20
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

BH Oil Viscosity, cP

40

0
90% 100%

Cumulative well count

Fig. 8. Oil API gravity and bottomhole viscosity for wells producing
from carbonate formations

a)

Fig. 7. Typical log data for Zl formation in Orenburg region

Fig. 9. Bad (a) and good (b) results of compatibility test

Additive concentration, lt/m3 or kg/m3

12
Recommended max. concentration
10
Actual average concentration
8
6
4
2
0
Non-emulsifier, liquid

Anti-sludge, liquid

b)

Iron control agent, dry

Fig. 10. Comparison of recommended and actual average additives

concentration

black oil with 70% producing hydrocarbon at API

values less than 40. The same chart also shows the BH
viscosity is more than 3 cp for half the wells. It is well
known that viscous black oil has a tendency to create
emulsions and sludge with acids. Fig. 9a and 9b
represent bad and good results of compatibility tests
between crude and 15% HCl for one of the wells in
Orenburg region: the left picture shows sludge creation
as a result of mixing crude sample with acid. To achieve
good compatibility results, some special additives have
to be used. Fig. 10 showed that average concentration
for such additives in Orenburg region is very high and
even higher than the recommended maximum values for
each additive. Such high concentrations of additives
were accepted to minimize the risk of formation
damage during the acidizing treatments.

SPE 168167

Jobs count

30

Multiple acidizing treatments. Each

acidizing treatment dissolves a significant amount of
5th treatment
25
formation rock, thus increasing the contact area with
4th treatment
the formation and potentially creating thief zones
20
3rd treatment
that can consume most of the stimulation fluid
during
subsequent
treatments.
Thus,
the
2nd treatment
effectiveness of the each subsequent treatment will
15
usually decrease. Fig. 11 shows the number of
repeated acidizing treatments from 2007 to 2012. It
10
is clear that the number of re-treated wells is
continuously increasing with time and it is logical
5
that this trend will continue.
Uncertainties in formation properties.
0
Carbonate formations are rarely uniform, and
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
formation properties can vary from one well to
Fig. 11. Repeated acidizing treatments
another even in the same field. As noted previously,
the Orenburg region is characterized by large
numbers of small fields with a variety of formation properties. Well test operations for each field are not
economically feasible, and sometimes impossible because many wells have commingled production from multiple
formations. Additionally, production logging is not performed on every well before and after treatments. This makes
achieving successful acidizing treatments even more complex.

General Discussion of Carbonate Acidizing

Acidizing of carbonate formations is one of the oldest stimulation techniques. First reported cases of carbonate acidizing are
dated 1895. The Standard Oil Company used concentrated hydrochloric acid to stimulate oil wells producing from carbonate
formations in Lima, Ohio, USA. Acid stimulation on a commercial basis started later in 1929 with collaboration of Pure Oil
Company and Dow Chemical Company to treat wells in Michigan, USA; the collaboration resulted in new types of organic
tubing corrosion inhibitors, which had great success and increased the demand for well stimulation (Williams et al. 1979).
Acids dissolve formation minerals and other foreign materials, such as drilling mud and scale precipitates. The extent to
which the dissolution will increase well productivity depends on a number of factors, including the type of treatment chosen.
All treatments can be divided into three main types: acid washing, matrix acidizing, and acid fracturing.
Acid washing is primarily used to remove acid-soluble scales in the wellbore or to open perforations. It is
usually performed by spotting relatively small quantities of acid at a specific location in the wellbore. The acid
can be circulated across the perforations and formation face to accelerate the dissolution process.
Matrix acidizing is the injection of acid into the formation pore spaces at a pressure below that at which a
fracture can be opened. The primary purpose is to remove or bypass damage that is due to scale, mud, clay, or
hydrocarbon deposits and to restore natural formation permeability. Hydrochloric acid is commonly used as
main treating fluid, but if high BHST do not allow effective protection of the tubing from corrosion, other acid
systems can be used (acetic acid, formic acid, citric acid, non-acid chelate systems). Matrix acidizing is often
performed where acid fracturing cannot be used because of the risk of fracture breakthrough into unwanted
intervals (i.e. gas or water bearing sublayers).
Acid fracturing is the injection of acid into the formation at a pressure high enough to overcome tensile and
compressive stresses of the rock and fracture the formation or open and extend existing fractures. Continued
fluid injection increases the fracture length and width. Acid injected into the fracture creates a flow channel that
remains open when the well is placed on production. Although acid fracturing can improve performance in
terms of post-treatment production, its application is usually limited to formations without a significant risk of
fracture breakthrough into adjacent water- or gas-bearing formations. Acid fracturing deals with much more
complex physical and chemical phenomena than matrix stimulation. The first numerical models of acid
fracturing were reported in work by Nierode et al. (1972). Fracture geometry, fluid-loss rate, injection rate, acid
penetration distance, temperature, formation type, acid type, and other parameters must be evaluated to design
acid fracturing treatments and predict post-treatment well performance.
Use of straight acid can cause a number of problems for the well. Pumping acid into the well potentially can corrode
steel tubing and casing; releases fines that can plug formation; forms insoluble inorganic precipitates; forms emulsions; or
creates insoluble sludge. In most cases acids are modified with additives that used to prevent these problems. Such additives
can include corrosion inhibitors, surfactants and suspending agents, iron control agents and many others. Surfactants are used
in acidizing to break undesirable emulsions, reduce surface and/or interfacial tension, alter wettability, speed cleanup,
disperse additives, and prevent sludge formation. Also, they can be used a a foaming agents.
Diverting agents are playing significant role in post-treatment production results after the matrix acidizing. Acid will
usually follow the path of least resistance, usually lesser damaged or higher permeability intervals. All diverting agents are

SPE 168167

designed to equalize the flow so that zones of differing permeability can be treated. Mechanical diverters rely on temporary
physical plugging of intervals with the most injectivity; chemical diverters rely on changing the viscosity of the treating fluid.
When acid is spent, chemical diverters added to the fluid generate temporary viscous pills inside the treated formation, thus
redirecting fluid flow to other parts of the formation. Examples of both types of diverters are provided in another section of
this paper.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Standard for Acid Stimulation
A rigid and comprehensive QAQC standard for acid stimulation was established by the operating company in the Orenburg
region to enable the service companies to perform at a higher service delivery level. This document contains information on
safety and operational requirements as well as stimulation fluid testing procedures.
Acidizing fluids are very dangerous and exposure can be fatal if inhaled or ingested; injury to eyes can be rapid and
severe. During matrix acidizing and especially acid fracturing, acids are pumped at high surface pressures. To minimize the
risk of injury during handling of reactive fluids and high-pressure pumping operations, the QAQC standard contains sections
on safety and operational requirements.
Because improper fluid formulation is one of the main reasons for failed stimulation treatments, the standard describes
the set of obligatory tests procedures for each type of fluids in both district and field laboratories. The requirements to
laboratory equipment are also specified.
Special attention is paid to iron content in the treating fluids. If significant amounts of ferric iron (Fe3+) are dissolved in
acid, it can precipitate in the formation and create damage. Moreover, dissolved iron facilitates creation of sludge and strong
emulsions between formation fluid and acid. Since hydrocarbons in Orenburg region are viscous, high concentrations of
additives are required to provide good compatibility between acid and formation fluid. Iron control became absolutely critical
for treatment success. To eliminate iron consumption from surface, the standard prohibits injection of any acids with more
than 100 ppm of ferric iron. To minimize the negative influence of iron from tubular to formation, pickling procedures are
described. Tubing pickle acid should successfully pass the compatibility tests with formation fluid with addition of 5,000
ppm of ferric iron. The assumption is that all tubing pickle acid will be recovered at surface and will not be injected into the
formation. Volume of tubing pickle should be not less than 2 m3. If a full tubing pickling procedure is performed and the
returned surface acid is measured to contain less than 1,000 ppm of iron, the remaining iron control agents in the acid volume
can be reduced to 1,000 ppm control. Since carbonate reservoirs in Orenburg region are depleted, it is not usually possible to
circulate pickle acid out of the wellbore. If a tubing pickling procedure is not possible or not considered, the first 7 m3 of
acid pumped must contain the amount of iron control agents that will control 5,000 ppm of ferric iron. The remainder of all
acid pumped for that treatment must be able to control a minimum of 2,000 ppm of iron. When acid treatments are performed
with volumes more than 7 m3, the acid blends designed to control 5,000 and 2,000 ppm of Fe+3 are subjected to the full suite
of compatibility tests.
Obligatory tests for any acid-based systems described in standard:
Acid stability testing is designed to check acid stability with all required additives at room and expected bottomhole
temperatures (BHT), with and without presence of ferric iron. If any separation, clouding change, or precipitation is
seen after 30 min on any of the test bottles, the acid will be rejected from pumping. Additionally, all bottles will be
poured through the filter paper to verify that there are no undesirable precipitates.
Emulsion break test is conducted to determine whether proposed acid formulation can effectively destroy emulsion
between treating and formation fluids. All tests are conducted with presence of ferric iron in acid: 5,000 ppm for
pickling acid, 2,000 ppm for the rest of the acid if pickling acid will be injected into formation, and 1,000 ppm for
the rest of the acid if pickling acid will be circulated out. Four different bottles are mixed and placed into water bath
at BHT for emulsion break test: 25% fresh acid + 75% crude oil; 50% fresh acid + 50% crude oil; 75% fresh acid +
25% crude oil; 50% spent acid + 50% crude oil. Acid in all bottles should contain all additives. The acid will be
rejected if the crude oil and acid phases do not separate completely in all bottles during 30 min.
Sludge test is performed to check tendency of sludge creation. The content of the four bottles remaining after
completing the emulsion break test should be poured through the filter paper. Note that the bottle with spent acid
should be filtered after 4 h in water bath at BHT; the other three bottles can be filtered after 30 min in water bath.
This is because spent acid stays in the formation after the treatment for a much longer time than fresh acid. The acid
will be rejected if the filter paper catches sludge or precipitate, or if it fails to pass all the liquid in a reasonable
period of time.
Corrosion rate test is performed to design adequate concentration of corrosion inhibitor. The steel coupon is placed
in the bottle with acid contained all additives at BHT for 12 h. The weight loss should be less than 0.009765 g/cm2
for BHT < 93C and less than 0.024412 g/cm2 for higher BHTs. If weight loss is greater than this, the test will be
considered a failure, corrosion inhibitor must be changed or concentration increased, and then the test repeated until
the limits are achieved. It is expected that a pitting index of 5 or less will be observed after a corrosion rate test.
All these tests should be performed in a district lab first and then repeated in the field with mixed treating fluids just
before pumping. The exemption is the corrosion rate test, which should be performed at the district lab only.
Additionally, QAQC standard has data recording requirements set the minimum list of parameters that must be recorded

SPE 168167

and provided to operating company after each treatment: main line pressure, annulus pressure, flowrate. Recording of other
parameters (temperature, density, etc.) of pumped fluids or stages is not mandatory but welcome. Turbine or magnetic
flowmeters are preferred tools for flow rate measurements. Pump stroke counters can be used only as a backup rate device.

Jobs Count

General Overview of Carbonate Acidizing Treatments in Orenburg Region

Before 2007 only simple carbonate acidizing treatments were performed. These consisted of injecting a small volume of
inhibited HCl at low pump rate and surface pressure and were usually performed during workover operations with little
supervision and without digital recording of treatment parameters. After 2007 the situation drastically changed, and the
QAQC standard was introduced. Since that moment, all acidizing treatments in the region were split into two groups: smallvolume treatments with simplified QAQC requirements (but still much stronger than before) and large-volume treatments in
full compliance with QAQC standard. The small treatments were usually performed by local service companies with some
attention to treating fluid compatibility but little to engineering (no diversion, generalized design approach irrespective to
well conditions). This paper focuses only on the large-volume treatments that included engineering support on design,
execution, and evaluation stages.
At the initial stage of an acidizing project very little information on formation properties has been available. The
following techniques have been successful in obtaining the rest of the necessary parameters:
Nodal analysis has been used to validate each candidate well for stimulation. Reservoir net height is usually well
known from log data, but formation permeability and skin values are unknown. Any kind of well test operation is an
uncommon procedure in the region due to many reasons like commingled production from multiple formations or
completion restrictions. Therefore, average reservoir permeability for each well is estimated by analyzing the
production regime with assumption of zero skin. The planned post-treatment skin is obtained from carbonate
acidizing simulation software. Thus, post-treatment production prediction can be made with nodal analysis and an
economic study can be performed to validate whether the well was an appropriate candidate for stimulation. After
accumulating experience in a particular field, the reservoir permeability values can be derived from actual posttreatment production results on offset wells. But such assumption is rarely applicable for the Volga-Urals region
because too many small oil fields (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) are considered as candidates for stimulation, and there is
limited acidizing experience in each particular field.
At least one short step rate test (SRT) injection has been performed on each field. The aim was to obtain reliable
fracture gradient (FG) values for each field. Later the FG values were used to define maximum allowable pump rate
for matrix treatments and to obtain fracture geometries for acid fracturing treatments. It is not desirable to perform a
SRT before each particular treatment; this test implies the creation of fracture in the formation and most formations
in the region have water-bearing layers near the target zones. Rather, one FG value was obtained for a particular
reservoir in the field, and later this value was used for all other wells in this area without additional SRT injections.
Our experience showed that average FG for carbonate formations in Orenburg region varies from 16 to 19 kPa/m.
As already noted, matrix acidizing treatments are performed at bottomhole pressures (BHP) less than the fracture
closure pressure (derived from FG in previous step) to eliminate the risk of formation breakdown with subsequent
losses of treating fluids and potential connection of pay zone with adjacent water-saturated layers. But BHP cannot
be easily measured during the treatment and only surface pressure is registered in real time. To recalculate BHP
from surface pressure, friction losses in the tubular for each treating fluid should be known. In the Orenburg region
only two tubing sizes are used for acidizing treatments (2.5-in. OD and 3.5-in OD). At the beginning of the project,
memory BHP gauges were often run to obtain reliable friction data for each tubing size. Later, these values were
used for all treatments to recalculate BHP with good confidence.
Special software was used to design total
140
volumes and pump schedules for matrix acidizing
CT Matrix Acidizing
and acid fracturing treatments. The following
120
goals were set for matrix acidizing design: skin
Acid Fracturing
value less than 2, wormholes penetration of more
100
than 0.8 m, and uniform zone coverage during the
Bullhead Matrix Acidizing
treatment. The following goal was set for acid
80
fracturing design: etched fracture length not less
60
than 20 m. If a water zone exists in proximity to
pay zone, only matrix acidizing is applicable. The
40
pump rate for matrix acidizing should be as high
as possible but without overcoming FG. Acid
20
fracturing should be pumped at maximum possible
rate with respect to wellhead and completion
0
pressure limitations.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Fig. 12 shows the distribution of acidizing
Fig. 12. Distribution of acidizing treatments by type of treatment
treatments from 2007 to 2012. Most of the

SPE 168167

performed treatments are bullhead

matrix acidizing. CT placement is
FD+REA
120
rarely performed because of pump rate
FD+VSDA
limitations, but it has some unique
AF/REA
100
benefits that are described in another
VSD+PSDA
section of this paper. The number of
80
VSD+FD
acid fracturing treatments decreased
during the last 2 years because there
VSD+VSDA
60
were few good candidates: most wells
FD
with no water zone nearby were
VSD
40
already fractured and the rest are
VSDA
unsuitable for this technology.
DBS + PSDA
20
Generally speaking, the quality of
AF/GP
candidates is decreasing with time. All
0
PSDA
good candidates were treated in the
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
first years of the project, and, except
for newly drilled wells (mostly to
Fig. 13. Distribution of acidizing treatments by technologies (PSDA: polymer-based
Devonian formations D5-6; see Fig. 4
self-diverting acid; AF/GP: acid fracture with gelled pad; DBS: degradable ball
and Fig. 5), only challenging wells are
sealers; VSDA: viscoelastic self-diverting acid; VSD: viscoelastic selective diverter;
available
for
stimulation.
The
FD: foam diverter; AF/REA: acid fracture with retarded emulsified acid; REA:
challenges are different: high water
retarded emulsified acid; FVSDA: foamed viscoelastic self-diverting acid)
cut, significant depletion, large thief
120%
40%
zones resulting from repeated acidizing, lowtemperature fissured dolomites, several perforated
35%
100%
formations, and many others. To account for these
30%
challenges, different technologies must be applied.
80%
25%
Fig. 13 shows the distribution of performed
treatments by technologies. The easy candidates at
60%
20%
the beginning were treated with the simple
15%
technologies. But with time more advanced
40%
technologies and their combinations had to be used
10%
20%
to achieve treatment goals. The following sections
5%
describe in detail most of the technologies listed in
0%
0%
Fig. 13.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Though it is a very difficult to represent
treatments results on the single chart due to tens of
PI increase
Pre-acidizing WC
Post-acidizing WC
different oilfields with unique reservoir properties
Fig. 14. Average results of treatments performed on old wells
that was treated in period between 2007 and 2012,
attempt was made and the result is presented on
fig. 14. Only wells with preacidizing production history (old wells) were used for this analysis. Bars show the average fluid
productivity index (PI) increase after the stimulation; light blue squares represent water cut before treatment, and dark blue
triangles show post-treatment water cut. Although the quality of candidates has become worse with years, use of suitable
technologies with an engineered approach for each well has kept the significant production incremental at a stable level with
a minor water cut increase. This result enables continuation of the acidizing project and even an increase in the number of
stimulation treatments on carbonate reservoirs from year to year (Fig. 12 and Fig. 13).
140

Average water cut

Average PI increase

Jobs Count

FVSDA

Evolution of Diversion Techniques Used in Orenburg Region

Uniform zone coverage is the most important task for any carbonate acidizing treatment. Fig. 13 shows the technologies
implemented in this region; some were successful and others were cancelled after initial trials. Figs. 15 and 16 provide the
summary of these results for each technology for the most frequently stimulated fields in Orenburg area. Fig. 15 represents PI
increase that resulted from stimulation for the wells with preacidizing production history (old wells). The PI increase was
normalized to the largest value for each field, so the value of 1 on the chart represents the best average result achieved on
particular field. Fig. 16 represents post-acidizing PI for the wells without preacidizing production history (new wells),
usually newly drilled wells, sidetracks, or wells with a change in producing interval. The post-acidizing PI was also
normalized to the maximum value for each field. The black horizontal lines on Figs. 15 and 16 represent the average
normalized PI increase or post-acidizing PI values for each technology. The green dots show the total jobs count for each
technology on particular field and the red dots represent the number of unsuccessful jobs. The reasons for job failure can be
different, but the most common are water breakthrough and inability to unload the well from treating fluids because of low
reservoir pressure. The results presented in Figs. 15 and 16 are discussed in following sections of this paper with experience
gained from each technology.

SPE 168167

1.1

30
Sorochinsko-Nikolskoe
O2-O5
Pronkinskoe A4

1
25

0.9

Dolgovskoe T1

0.8

Kodyakovskoe Zl
20

0.6
15
0.5
0.4

Pokrovskoe A4
Jobs Count

Normalized PI increase

0.7

10

Bobrovskoe T1
Bobrovskoe O3-O6
Tokskoe T1
Samodurovskoe T1

0.3

Kodyakovskoe T1

0.2

Average value

0.1

Total jobs

Unsuccessful jobs

0
PSDA

VSDA

VSD

FD

AF/GP

REA

Fig. 15. Average results of acidizing treatments performed on old wells for the most frequently stimulated oil fields
1.1

10
Bobrovskoe B0

0.9

0.8

Bobrovskoe O3-O6
Bobrovskoe T1
Garshinskoe D5

Davydovskoe D5
6

0.6
5
0.5
4

Jobs Count

Normalized post-acidizing PI

0.7

Dolgovskoe T1
Kodyakovskoe Zl
Pronkinskoe A4

0.4
3

0.3

Pronkinskoe T1

0.2

Sorochinsko-Nikolskoe
O2-O5
Average value

0.1

Total jobs

Unsuccessful jobs

0
PSDA

VSDA

VSD

FD

AF/GP

REA

Fig. 16. Average results of acidizing treatments performed on new wells for the most frequently stimulated oil fields

Degradable ball sealers

Soluble ball sealers are used as a means of selectively sealing perforations and diverting stimulation fluids to other
sections of the formation. They are introduced into the stimulation fluid between the pump and wellhead through special ball
injecting device and are carried to the perforations by the treating fluid, sealing the perforations in a sequence related to the
fluid acceptance. The perforations taking the most fluid are sealed first, thereby diverting fluid into the perforations taking
less fluid. Once in place, the balls are held there by differential pressure. The minimum pump rate limitation exists to pump
the balls. The balls dissolve over time when in contact with live acid or treatment brine at BHT but are insoluble in
hydrocarbons, including crude oils. Ball sealers dissolve within 2 to 6 h, depending on the acid strength and temperature.
At the start of Orenburg acidizing project, four matrix acidizing treatments were designed to use the combination of
degradable ball sealers and polymer self-diverting acid. Ball sealers were pumped as the first diverter stage after some
volume of acid. The idea was to block the potential thief zones so that the next alternating stages of acid and chemical
diverter would treat the rest of the interval. Only one well showed good surface pressure response (sharp increase of 30 atm)
when the balls hit the perforations, but even this pressure gain lasted only a few minutes before declining quickly to the initial

10

SPE 168167

Pump Rate, m3/min

Pressure, atm

level. Two wells showed minor (9 atm) and no pressure increase when balls arrived to perforated interval. On the last well,
injectivity was too low and balls were not pumped at all. In fact, the pressure increase on later chemical diverter stages was
much higher for all three wells that had been injected with ball sealers. Fig. 17 shows a stimulation treatment on one of these
wells. Highlighted intervals showed no pressure increase when balls arrived at perforations and 30 to 32 atm increase when
two stages of chemical diverter were pumped through the perforations.
Suspected reasons for the poor ball
200
2
Treating Pressure
sealer
results are multiple perforations
1.8
Annulus Pressure
and poor cement quality. All three wells,
Pump Rate
1.6
as well as most of the potential
Chemical Chemical
150
diverter,
1.4
candidate wells for acidizing treatments,
Ball Sealers diverter,
stage#2
stage#1
1.2
are already perforated, some of them
perforated multiple times across the
100
1
same interval. The large number of
0.8
perforations make it difficult to design
0.6
the required number of ball sealers.
50
0.4
Also, the cement quality is usually bad,
especially on wells with multiple
0.2
perforation operations. Ball sealers
0
0
21:18
21:33
21:48
22:03
22:18
22:33
22:48
23:03
23:18
divert flow only from holes in casing,
Time
but behind the casing the fluid still may
find the way of least resistance to treat
Fig. 17. Example of combined treatment with ball sealers and chemical diverter.
the same thief interval that was just
blocked by a ball. This probably
happened on the first well, where a good initial pressure increase was followed quickly by a decline to the initial level. After
the four pilot wells, the ball sealers were no longer used and the treatment focus changed to the chemical diverters.

Polymer-based self-diverting acid

The PSDA is a chemical diverter frequently used in the Orenburg region. It consists of HCl mixed with a gelling agent
and a pH-sensitive crosslinker. Initial spending of the acid during leakoff and wormholing produces a rise in pH to 2 to 3,
which initiates crosslinking and a rapid increase in viscosity. This viscosity increase creates a temporary viscous plug in the
stimulated zones and diverts subsequent acid stages to more damaged and less permeable zones. The viscosified PSDA
begins to break when pH increases to 3.5, and at pH above 5 the viscosity is reduced to about 15 cp. PSDA fluid is usually
pumped in several stages alternately with regular acid stages (Fig.17).
Laboratory testing of compatibility between PSDA and crude samples from different fields in Orenburg region showed a
tendency of sludge creation at high HCl concentrations and determined that only 5% HCl with a large volume of additives
could be used for PSDA formulation. Low acid concentration can decrease diverter efficiency by spending faster and a
creating a narrow pH interval for PSDA crosslinking. In fact, under the laboratory conditions it was difficult to observe the
PSDA viscosity gain during the reaction with carbonate material: crosslinking was quick and short lived. A few core flow
tests (CFT) were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the PSDA diversion with a low concentration of base acid.
Permeability and differential pressure between core inlet and outlet were measured while pumping fluids through the cores. A
high inlet pressure increase was observed, which can indicate a good diversion ability of PSDA. But, because of lab
equipment limitations, it was not possible to pump PSDA through the whole core and create reach-through wormholes due to
approaching maximum working pressure for the laboratory equipment. Increasing HCl concentration will increase the chance
of good wormholing with PSDA, but because of incompatibility with crude this was not possible. The polymer nature of
PSDA is another drawback. Polymers can damage the formation if they are not fully flowed back after the treatment. Cleanup
in the Orenburg region is difficult because of the low reservoir pressure, and remaining polymer can deteriorate the
stimulation effect.
Stimulation of old wells represents the major challenge for diverter efficiency because of their previous treatments and the
potential for drained thief zones in pay intervals. Fig. 15 shows productivity after stimulation with PSDA for most fields is
less than 50% of that obtained with other technologies; in fact, the average productivity is the lowest shown. Two oil fields
achieving good results with PSDA (Tokskoe T1 and Samodurovskoe T1) have had only limited numbers of treatments with
other technologies. Results for the new wells (Fig. 16) are better and show the effectiveness of PSDA is comparable to that of
other technologies. This can be explained by two facts: new wells usually have higher reservoir pressure, which can promote
more efficient polymer flowback; and new wells usually require less diversion efficiency than old wells.
Because PSDA has not produced the desired results, its use is decreasing in Orenburg area and very few wells have been
pumped with PSDA in 2011-2012 (fig.13) due to introduction of more efficient diverting technologies.

SPE 168167

11

Viscosity (cp) @ 170 1/sec

Viscoelastic self-diverting acid

VSDA is a polymer-free diverting system. It consists of HCl mixed with a viscoelastic surfactant gelling agent. The
surfactant gels as the acid spends. The increase in viscosity causes temporary plugging of the acid-etched channels to allow
continuous acidizing of the unstimulated zone (Chang et al. 2001, Taylor et al. 2003).
Fig. 18 shows a typical VSDA viscosity profile
250
as a function of HCl spent. A VSDA starts to
develop viscosity when the acid spends from 20%
200
to 12% (corresponds to 8% of HCl spent on the
figure). The fluid maintains a high viscosity as the
150
acid spends, so continuous diversion can be
achieved during pumping. When production
100
resumes, the hydrocarbon effectively breaks the
surfactant and lowers the VSDA viscosity.
50
The application of VSDA in Volga-Ural has
also been described for other parts of the region.
0
Iliasov et al. (2010) described the application of
0
5
10
15
20
25
VSDA and VSD for seven gas wells and three oil
HCl % spent
wells in the Saratov region. The wells showed a PI
increase of 5 times for gas wells and 12 times for oil
Fig. 18. VSDA viscosity development in 20% HCl as function of
wells. Dnistryansky at al (2012) presented data of
percentage of HCl spent.
VSDA stimulation of a horizontal well in Orenburg
region. VSDA was placed via CT. Treatment with VSDA system resulted in a 20% production enhancement.
In a laboratory, VSDA was evaluated by linear core flow experiments using representative core samples from VolgaUral oil fields. The experiment procedure was similar to those described by Lungwitz et al. (2004) and Faizov et al. (2011).
Diversion ability and fluid efficiency were evaluated.
The diversion capability of the VSDA system was evaluated by the concept of maximum pressure drop ratio, dPmax/dP0,
proposed by Lungwitz et al. (2004): a ratio of the maximum pressure drop, dPmax (obtained during the pumping of a diverter)
and a baseline pressure drop, dP0, obtained during measurement of initial permeability (k). In a series of studies, Lungwitz et
al. (2004) showed that ratios greater than 1 indicate viscosity increased to create a temporary plug within wormholes and can
be considered as an indicator of diversion capability. VSDA efficiency was characterized by number of pore volumes of the
acid system required for wormhole to breakthrough (PVBT).
The recommended surfactant concentration in
VSDA is 5 to 10 vol%. Several core flow experiments
were
performed
with
the
recommended
concentrations of the surfactant (Table 3). The tests
revealed that VSDA had good diversion capability for
cores from different formations of the Volga-Ural
region. The ratios obtained varied from 2.47 to 8.01
for different cores. The tests also showed that VSDA
required only 1.2 to 2.6 pore volumes to create a
wormhole that penetrated the length of the cores;
regular acid requires up to 8 pore volumes (Table 4)
in the same conditions because of face dissolution and
lower capability to propagate wormholes. Note that
the
inlet surface of the cores treated with VSDA were
Fig. 19. The inlet core faces after exposure to VSDA: A4 formation
free from any residue, indicating no core damage and
core (left); Zl2 formation core (right).
that diversion had occurred inside the cores (Fig. 19).
Production data provided in this paper refer to VSDA
with surfactant within the recommended concentration
range.
Compatibility tests of VSDA and crude oil were the
essential part of the laboratory testing. Because oil from
the Volga-Ural region has a strong tendency to form
sludge and emulsion when mixed with a stimulation
fluids, iron control, antisludge agents, and demulsifier
were included to achieve the compatibility (Fig. 20) that
conforms to all QAQC requirements.
Fig. 20. Emulsion and sludge tests results for VSDA (spent acid)
and crude oil mixed in 75:25, 50:50, and 25:75 ratios.

12

SPE 168167

TABLE 3. CORE FLOW TESTS WITH RECOMMENDED SURFACTANT CONCENTRATION IN VSDA.

Formation

BHST, C

Surfactant
conc., vol%

Initial
permeability,
md

dP0, psi

dPmax, psi

dPmax/dP0

PVBT

A4

37

60

356.7

3.48

16.9

4.85

2.3

A4

37

75

144.5

56.1

8.01

1.2

Zl

51

60

0.7

399

988

2.47

2.6

T1

47

75

12.53

40.51

219

5.4

0.7

T1

53

60

77

69

7.67

1.5

TABLE 4. CORE FLOW TESTS WITH RECOMMENDED ADDITIVE COMPOSITION FOR 15% HCL
Formation

BHST, C

HCl, vol%

Initial
permeability,
md

dP0, psi

dPmax, psi

dPmax/dP0

PVBT

A4

37

15

191.5

6.3

8.2

1.3

2.4

T1

47

15

280.5

0.79

2.68

3.4

2.56

Zl

51

15

0.04

2695

1218

0.45

8.2

dPmax/dPo
PVBT

In total, 35 VSDA treatments have been performed in Orenburg fields from 2007 to 2012, including 23 on new wells and
12 on producing wells. Most wells have demonstrated better results than offsets treated with other viscosified diverters (Figs.
15 and 16). Although VSDA has shown better results than PSDA or other viscosified diversion techniques for Orenburg
region, it has not become a regional standard for a several reasons. The first and most important is that the depleted
formations in this region often do not have sufficient energy to initiate flow back the viscous fluid after the treatment. Later
VSDA technology was incorporated with nitrogen to form stable viscous foam for diversion and enhance flowback. The
second reason is water cut. VSDA is acidic and did not help reduce or even retain water cut at the pretreatment level. The
need for techniques to retain water-cut levels and effectively stimulate depleted reservoirs was later addressed by foam
diverters.
As a way forward for VSDA, additional core
30
27.8
flow
tests were conducted to determine the impact
dPmax/dP0
of
decreased
surfactant concentration on VSDA
PVBT
25
efficiency to stimulate cores from the Orenburg
region. This step was made to further address the
20
challenge of the fluid flowback when acidizing
14.3
15
13
depleted formations. The surfactant concentration
was decreased to 4 and 2 vol%. Fig. 21 shows
10
diversion performance was not drastically affected
4.67
by reduction of the surfactant concentration. In all
5
3.67
3.3
2.5
2.4
1.5
1.4
experiments dPmax/dP0 was greater than 1. At the
same time, with surfactant concentration 2 vol%, a
0
Dzl1, 5 mD,
Dzl1, 7.6 mD,
T1, 22.3 mD,
T1, 34.5 mD,
T1, 280 mD,
slight decrease of the wormholing efficiency was
2 vol.% VSDA
4 vol.% VSDA
2 vol.% VSDA
4 vol.% VSDA
4 vol.% VSDA
indicated. In particular, for a core with initial
permeability 22.3 md (T1 formation), PVBT was
Fig. 21. VSDA performance with decreased surfactant concentration.
3.3. Such an increase can be caused by higher
leakoff. Generally the laboratory tests with low
surfactant concentration in VSDA showed this approach should be considered beneficial, especially for massive tight
carbonates such as Zl formation and could be applied for future treatments in Orenburg oil fields to accommodate diversion,
wormholing, and flowback issues.

Viscoelastic selective diverter

As noted, wells producing from Orenburg carbonate reservoirs have high water cut (Fig. 5). When acidizing a well with high
water cut or with an oil/water contact (OWC) special precaution is needed to minimize the risk of water cut increase after the
treatment. Typically, because of the acids affinity for water, bull heading the acid without special diverters will result in
stimulating the water zone and leaving the oil zone unstimulated. Historically, these wells were not considered as candidates
for acidizing due to lack of special technologies to divert acid away from water-saturated zones, but this changed in 2008
when VSD was introduced in the Orenburg region.

SPE 168167

13

VSD is used for matrix stimulation to divert acid away from a highwater-saturation zone and into a hydrocarbon-rich
zone. It is a water-based fluid with viscoelastic surfactant and initially has high viscosity. During the matrix acidizing
treatment it is injected into all zones; its viscosity sharply drops when it contacts oil in the hydrocarbon-saturated zones. The
dominate presence of formation brine keeps the viscosity stable in water-saturated intervals, preventing acid from being
injected into water zones and redirecting it from water- to hydrocarbon-saturated sub layers. As a result, oil-producing
formations are stimulated and water-saturated sublayers are temporarily blocked during treatment. No residual damage
remains because the material is no
polymeric. Laboratory tests with this
selective diverter were described by
Chang et al. (1998). The fluids were
pumped through two cores with
different saturations in parallel.
Before the selective diverter was
pumped, the majority of the injected
fluids went through the core with
higher water saturation because of the
relative permeability effect (Fig. 22).
Upon injection of the diverting agent,
a viscous plug was formed in the
highly water-saturated core and
degraded while flowing through the
core with lower water saturation.
Once a viscous plug was formed in
the highly water-saturated core, the
Fig. 22. Fractional flow of aqueous fluid into cores with different oil saturations
acid preferentially entered and
stimulated the core with high
hydrocarbon saturation.
Laboratory tests were performed with core samples from the Kurmanaevskoe oil field to verify applicability of VSD in
typical bottomhole conditions of the Volga-Urals region (Table 5). Two cores with similar permeabilities were used to
perform core flow tests: one was saturated with 2% KCl brine and another with kerosene. The goal was to measure
differential pressure required to initiate flow in water- and kerosene- saturated cores. The following treating schedule was
applied:
1. The initial permeability was measured (2% KCl).
2. The core was saturated with the oil or water phase.
3. Five pore volumes of VSD were injected.
4. Shut down for 10 min.
5. 2% KCl solution was injected.
6. DP required to initiate flow was measured.
High DP values during treatment indicate excellent VSD diversion ability. DP required to initiate flow in water-saturated
core is 1.7 times higher than for kerosene-saturated core. It means that during acid injection it preferably will penetrate oilsaturated layers.
TABLE 5. DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE RESPONSE DURING VSD INJECTION.
Fluid for core
saturation

Initial
permeability (2%
KCl), md

dP0 (2% KCl

injection), psi

dP1 (VSD
injection), psi

dP2 (required to
initiate 2% KCl
flow), psi

Water

20

33.9

1322

859

Kerosene

25

27.7

1276

505

It is common practice in the Volga-Urals region to combine VSD with other diverting technologies during the treatment
(Fig. 13). In this case VSD was pumped as the spearhead stage before any reacting fluids penetrated to the formation. It
blocked potentially water-saturated zones from the following acidizing treatment. After the spearhead, the normal matrix
acidizing treatment continued with alternating stages of acid and chemical diverter. Dnistryansky et al. (2012) showed an
example of using VSD spearhead stages during matrix acidizing of the giant Orenburg oil, gas, and condensate field. While
previous acidizing treatments on the field had caused water breakthrough, no water production was observed on wells treated
with the spearhead VSD stage. Another example of using VSD in the Volga-Urals region was published by Ilyasov et al.
(2010), reporting significant water-cut decrease after six treatments with VSD; on three of them, VSD was pumped as
spearhead stage with subsequent usage of VSDA as the main diverter.

14

SPE 168167

In acidizing treatment of wells with very high water cuts (usually above 70%), VSD is used as the sole diverter for the
entire treatment. Reactive fluid is pumped between VSD stages. The VSD sections on Figs. 15 and 16 represent only the
treatments using VSD as the sole diverter; this is the reason of small VSD job count. The treatments using VSD only as a
spearhead stage are distributed on Figs. 15 and 16 among the other diverting technologies used later in the same treatment.
Well 143 Tokskoe oil field (T1 formation) is a good example of a VSD treatment in a well with high water cut. Before
treatment, the well produced 205 m3/d of fluid with 76% water cut. The source of water was not known. A matrix acidizing
treatment was then performed comprising four VSD stages with 15% HCl stages pumped between them. After the treatment,
stabilized production was 288 m3/d of fluid and water cut dropped to 60%. As a result, post-acidizing oil production more
than doubled, from 42.5 to 99.5 tons of oil per day.
Not all VSD treatments were successful; some resulted in substantial water-cut increases (red dots on Figs. 15 and 16).
The suspected reason is presence of natural fissures or channels in the cement behind the casing that links perforation with
water-saturated intervals. In this case, the size of the pathway to the water is much larger than the porous media that is a
VSD target. It is well known that viscosity is not enough to provide efficient diversion in fissures or channels. Additional
mechanical diversion (i.e., fibers or other particulates) should be considered in such cases to minimize acid flow into watersaturated zones.

Foam diverter
Foam diversion was implemented very early in the history of engineered matrix acidizing. Use of aquatic foam for
diversion is described by Smith et al. (1969). Zerboub et al. (1991) demonstrated improved application for foam diversion
and its benefits for major acidizing challenges: zone coverage, enhanced flowback, and water-cut reduction.
Often foam diversion is not considered because of logistics and equipment limitations. In the Orenburg region, foam
appears to be the most reliable diversion technique in depleted reservoirs with repeated treatments and increasing water cut.
Thus, since 2011 most matrix acidizing treatments have used foam-based diversion (Fig. 13).
Foam minimizes formation damage; diversion, on the other hand, incorporates all producing zones. Nitrogen can be used
to assist flowback of reaction byproducts, kick off the well, and put the well on production straight after the stimulation
treatment. For the best foam diversion performance, the following sequence of stages was recommended for foam diversion
in the Orenburg region:
1. Clean the near-wellbore area if necessary. Use mutual solvent to remove oil from near-wellbore region (oil destroys
foam) and water wet the formation.
2. Inject a preflush containing surfactant. The preflush displaces the mutual solvent (detrimental for foam) and
minimizes the absorption of the surfactant inside the foam.
3. Inject the foam pill. The foam preferentially plugs the high-permeability zones.
4. Shut in the well. Following the foam penetration into the matrix, a short shut-in time is helpful to attain a stabilized
diversion regime quickly.
5. Inject treating fluids containing surfactants. If surfactant is not added, the acid stage destroys foam and the diversion
effect vanished quickly.

Pressure (atm), Nitrogen rate (smc/min)

This sequence was revised for the wells with previous acidizing treatments. Usually, the previous treatments consisted of
bullheading 0.5 to 1 m3 of 14% HCl per meter of perforation with no diverters and were performed by local workover
companies. In acid-treated wells, vugs and face dissolution can exist across the most permeable zones. In this case acidizing
treatment can start from the foam diversion
Effect of
stage. It is recommended to increase the first
possible foam
Foam
degradation
foam preflush and first foam diversion stage
diverter
after 100 min
proportionally to the amount of carbonate rock
dissolved during the previous treatment. For
Foam
Foam
example, 3.78 m3 of 15% HCl dissolves
diverter diverter
approximately 0.3 m3 of limestone rock before
full spending. If 11.36 m3 of 15% HCl were
pumped on the previous treatment, the first foam
preflush and foaming stage should be increased
by approximately 0.9 m3 for downhole
conditions.
A number of treatments have been
performed with memory BHP gauges, which
have demonstrated that foam diversion can be
very efficient and increase bottomhole treating
pressure by up to 100 atm (Fig. 23).
Stability of the foam is another important
Fig. 23. Example of acidizing job with foamed diverter, measured
issue
that should be designed for the treatment.
bottomhole pressure.
Foam stability is measured in lab conditions with

SPE 168167

15

Q oil, tons/day

Average Water Cut

PI, m3/day/atm

a foam half-life test: foaming surfactant is added to the guar-based fluid and blended in a mixer at maximum speed to create
foam. Then, foam is poured into a cylinder and its half-life is measured. The half-life of the foam is the time in minutes taken
for the volume of clear fluid breaking out at the bottom of the foam column to reach 50% of base fluid volume. Depending on
viscosity of the base fluid, foam half-life can vary from 15 to 90 min for regular guar-based fluids with guar loading from 1.2
to 3.6 kg/ m3.
In extended treatments, foam diverter can degrade while the acid stages are being pumped; a sign of this degradation can
be decreasing pressure on the next acid stage (Fig. 23), although the decrease can also indicate acid breaking through the
damage. After evaluation of bottomhole pressure data from a number of wells, the shut-in period after the foamed diverter
stage was significantly decreased in order to gain viscosity yield and not compromise foam stability.
For low-injectivity formations, foamed VSDA is also recommended to increase stability and diversion efficiency. A
surfactant-based fluid, VSDA does not need additional foaming agents and has extended stability of 3 h or more of foam
half-life.
Foam diversion was primarily used with an application of CT placement. Acidizing was performed on different
formations with long production intervals and low reservoir pressure. The treatment sequence as well as a case study for CT
placement of foam diversion are given in the next section of the paper.
Wells producing from a deep Devonian
PSDA
AF/GP
FD
formation (D5) in the Orenburg region were chosen
4.00
140.0
as trial candidates for bullhead acidizing treatments
3.50
120.0
with foam diversion. The formations true vertical
3.00
100.0
depth (TVD) was 4200 to 4300 m, average gross
2.50
height was 3 to 8 m, and typical permeability was
80.0
2.00
from 2 to 5 md. The low reservoir pressure ranged
60.0
from 200 to 300 atm in combination with very light
1.50
40.0
crude of about 48 API. Without stimulation, wells
1.00
were producing at low oil rates and positive skin
20.0
0.50
was estimated from 5 to 15. Although based on
0.00
0.0
nodal analysis wells have shown potential for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
natural flow, conventional acidizing with viscous
PI Before
PI After
Oil incremental
diverters on offset wells did not deliver desired
Fig. 24. Foam diversion productivity results versus other acidizing on
results. Difficulties in flowback on deep wells made
D5 formation.
the final result of the treatment mostly dependent on
quality of flowback and kickoff rather than the
40%
quality of the acidizing treatment itself. Five
35%
Devonian wells were treated in 2010 as a pilot
project for bullhead acidizing with FD in Orenburg
30%
region. Post-treatment production established
average PI increase of 4.4 times and average oil
25%
increment of 48 tons per well (Fig. 24). The success
20%
of these five wells made foam diversion the
regional standard for acidizing. Overall production
15%
Water Cut after acidizing
results on Figs. 15 and 16 showed good
10%
effectiveness of foam diverter on new and old
Water Cut before acidizing
wells.
5%
Zerhboub et al. (1991) demonstrated that
0%
aquatic foam is a selective diverter that can aid in
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
water-cut reduction in post-treatment production. In
the Volga-Urals region, oil-saturated layers are
Fig. 25. Post-acidizing water-cut increase minimized after introduction
usually located near water-saturated zones or have
of foam diverter
active aquifer. Most formations produce at high
water cut and most produced fluid is water. After
2010, most of the acidizing treatments have incorporated foam diversion (Fig. 13); statistics show a trend reduced postacidizing water-cut increases after introduction of foam diversion techniques (Fig. 25).
Using CT for Matrix Acidizing
The conventional method for matrix acidizing is bullheading. The approach is widely used but in some conditions has lower
efficiency because of nonuniform stimulation. CT has advantages over bullheading in matrix acidizing, especially for long
interval treatments:
1. Placement. CT helps place treating fluids across the entire interval. Thomas et al. (1995) using computer simulator
and real case studies showed CT placement in combination with chemical diverters yields good zone coverage in
horizontal and vertical wells completed in massive carbonate reservoirs.

16

SPE 168167

Reduced risk of iron precipitation. CT allows pickling the CT string on the surface before running it in the hole, thus
eliminating the risk of iron invasion into the formation with acid.
3. CT prevents exposing the wellhead or completion tubing to direct contact with corrosive treatment fluids.
4. Integrated treatments. Associated operations can be performed as part of an integrated service prior to the matrix
treatment; for example, fill removal; acid wash or cleanout of the rathole from incompatible fluids. It is imperative
in many matrix treatments to perform the well flowback as soon as possible after the acid job. Nitrogen kickoff can
be performed right after the treatment to recover as much treating fluid from the formation as possible and put the
well into production. Production logging can be performed before and after the treatment.
5. Live well treatments. The CT pressure control equipment configuration allows the treatment on a live well. The
potential formation damage associated with well-killing operations and the corresponding loss of production time
are thereby avoided.
6. Mobile point of injection. Jetting effect can be effective in casing if a proper purpose-built nozzle tool is used.
One of the main disadvantages of CT is the low pump rate available through the string. Only 1.5-in. CT is available in
the Volga-Urals region and high friction pressure limits the maximum pump rate to 150 L/min. Dnistryansky et al. (2012)
showed that in long openhole carbonate
0.025
Zone 1
1
2 3
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5 2 1
2
intervals matrix acidizing with 15% HCl
Zone 2
Zone 3
--- Treatment Fluids --through 1.5-in. CT results in face
1 - Solvent
Zone 4
0.020
dissolution but no wormholes (Fig. 26).
2 - KCl
Zone 5
3 - Selective Diverter
Low reservoir pressure and high
4 - HCl 15%
Zone 6
5 - VSDA
permeability (sometimes hundreds of
Zone 7
0.015
Zone 8
millidarcies) result in high well
Zone 9
injectivity, and the average matrix rate
0.010
for Orenburg region is higher than 1
m3/min. Additionally to difficulties in
wormhole propagation, low pump rate
0.005
significantly increases pumping time. In
the case of PSDA, diverter may break in
situ during the treatment and the required
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
zone coverage may not be achieved.
Volume (m3)
To
handle
all
the
issues
Fig. 26. Wormhole length vs. volume. Short wormhole length indicates
encountered during the first acidizing
predominant surface dissolution when pumping HCl at low rates.
treatments through CT, the dual-string
pumping technique was introduced in the Orenburg region in 2009. With this technique, treating fluids are pumped into both
the CT and the annulus between the CT and tubing in the same treatment. Friction pressure in the annulus is significantly
lower than inside CT, so the pump rate can be increased significantly, increasing wormhole penetration and decreasing
pumping time. If required, diverter and main acid can be pumped at the same time. Acid is pumped at a high rate to the CTtubing annulus and foam is pumped simultaneously through CT across the thief zone. Thus the thief zone is continuously
saturated by foam, providing effective dynamic diversion during treatment and allowing the stimulation to be performed
selectively.
Well 608 in the Efremo-Zykovskoe oil field is one of the examples of using the dual-string pumping technique in the
Orenburg region. This well has four perforated intervals across different formations; Table 6 demonstrates properties of each
formation. The Df formation has appeared to be the thief zone based on pretreatment production logs. Low reservoir pressure,
clear thief zone, and significant depth difference between treated zones made this well an excellent candidate for matrix
acidizing through CT with foam diversion and the dual-string technique.
Wormhole Length (m)

2.

TABLE 6. WELL 608, EFREMO-ZYKOVSKOE OIL FIELD, PRETREATMENT WELL DATA

Formation name
TVD, m

T1

Zl-1

Zl-2

Df

1734

1829

1854

1899

Reservoir pressure, atm

77

87

89

93

Reservoir temperature, C

40

40

40

40

Actual production, m3/d

58

Water cut, %

12

Actual oil production, t/day

44

Production contribution from log, %

18

18

64

Net pay, m

18

11.8

6.4

8.4

Expected permeability, md

25

27

24

85

SPE 168167

17

The treatment design excluded stimulation of the thief Df formation and focused on stimulation of T1, Zl-1, and Zl-2
formations. The following sequence of stages was used:
1. Pickle the CT on surface until returned acid has less than 2,000 ppm iron.
2. Pickle the annulus between the CT and tubing: With CT in hole, establish circulation (2% KCl + N2). Circulate 8 m3
of 15% HCl + N2 with direct circulation to surface.
3. Preflush with mutual solvent through CT across all zones to dissolve heavy hydrocarbons in the near-wellbore zone.
4. Displace wellbore fluid with 15% HCl in the CT-tubing annulus.
5. Pump surfactant solution through CT across all zones.
6. Pump foam through CT across all zones until there is a 10- to 20-atm increase in circulation pressure (sign of
diversion). Shut in for foam stabilization. Place end of CT across Df formation.
7. Pump 15% HCl through CT-tubing annulus and pump foam through CT at the same time.
8. Repeat Stages 6 and 7 until there is no acid in the tanks. Displace fluids in CT and CT-tubing annulus.
9. Kick off the well.
Unfortunately, the production log was not recorded after the treatments, so we cannot directly compare production
profiles before and after the treatment. But production results showed the PI increased more than 3 times: from 1.04 to 3.2
m3/d/atm at the same level of water cut. In general, all treatments performed with the dual-string pumping technique showed
excellent results. The thief zone must be well known before the treatment to maximize benefits of this technique.
Use of REA can help create wormholes even with a low pumping rate through CT. Dnistryansky et al. (2012) provided
an example of using REA for stimulation of depleted horizontal openhole wells through CT in the Orenburg region; gas
production increased after the treatment by 20% when compared with pretreatment data. Other methods to improve the
effectiveness of matrix acidizing through CT are described in Ways Forward section.

PI, m3/day/atm

Acid Fracturing
Typically, acid fracturing is the most effective stimulation method for carbonate reservoirs. During acid fracturing an almost
infinite conductivity fracture is being created because conductivity is formed by nonuniform etching and channeling (viscous
fingering) effect on the fracture face. Although acid fracturing has drawbacks in the Orenburg region, in many cases matrix
acidizing has been considered the preferred method; the most pronounced case is that with proximity to water-saturated
zones. As noted previously, average water cut for the region is over 50% for reasons such as bad cement, injector wells, rise
of OWC, natural fissures etc. In these cases acid fracturing is not applicable because it can increase water cut up to 100%
after stimulation if the fracture break through into a water zone or damages the cement bond (see large number of
unsuccessful jobs for AF/GP on Figs. 15 and 16). Parfenov et al. (2008) has discussed this issue for the nearby Samara region
and considered matrix acidizing to be of lower cost with same efficiency and with consideration of risk of unsuccessful
treatment, obviously more economically viable for Volga-Urals oil province.
Another issue is that Volga-Urals is a tectonically stressed area and often high minimum in-situ stress is observed in
carbonate formations. Jones (1973) performed lab experiments to determine the effect of closure pressure on storage capacity
and fracture flow in carbonate rocks. Based on the results, he concluded fracture conductivity was greatly reduced by
increases in closure pressure.
Since the deep Devonian formations produce with the least water cut, they have been considered as acid fracturing
candidates. Few acid fracturing treatments were performed on the D5 formation (Fig. 24). All have demonstrated rapid
production decline, returning to prestimulation productivity after 1.5 to 2 months. The primary reason is rapid losses in
fracture conductivity under high closure stress load and high applied drawdown pressures.
Well 807 Zorinskoe field is a typical example
1.2
of acid fracturing on the deep Devonian D5
formation. The formation TVD is 4606 m, gross
1.0
height is 28 m, net height is 4 m, estimated
formation permeability is 1 md, reservoir pressure
0.8
is 390 atm with very light crude (51 API and
bubblepoint pressure of 328 atm). The well was
0.6
fractured with 66 m3 of 15% HCl and 17 m3 of
0.4
cross-linked gel on a pad stage. Fracturing closure
pressure was determined with step-rate test of 770
0.2
atm, which represents the normal FG for carbonate
formations in the Orenburg region (around 0.17
0.0
atm/m). According to treatment design and
0
2
4
6
8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
evaluation, 20 m of effective fracture half-length
Time, months
was created with fracture dimensionless
conductivity equal to 18. Initially there was almost
Fig.27. Post-fracturing production history for well 807 Zorinskoe oilfield
no flow after perforating; post-acid fracturing

18

SPE 168167

PI, m3/Day/atm

Oil Incremental, TOPD;

WC, %

production has demonstrated significant productivity increase but PI dropped rapidly after 2 months of production (Fig. 27).
One of the mechanisms suspected for this drop is fracture deterioration under high closure pressure. Abass et al. (2003) has
demonstrated that in case of high in-situ stress, an etched fracture may significantly lose conductivity as a result of creeping
effect.
Although due to risk of water
3.0
180
breakthrough
and
high
stress
Matrix Acidizing
Acid Fracturing
environment acid fracturing has been
160
2.5
replaced by high-volume matrix
140
acidizing in most fields; acid fracturing
2.0
120
on some massive tight formations has
demonstrated good results comparing
100
1.5
to matrix acidizing. The Zl formation
80
on Kodyakovskoe oilfield is a good
1.0
60
example of proper acid fracturing
candidates. Zl is a moderate deep
40
formation (TVD 27002800 m); there
0.5
20
is typically 45 to 60 m of gross height
with average porosity from 5 to 8% and
0.0
0
permeability ranging from 1 to 6 md.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
The reservoir is very heterogeneous
Well
Pre-frac PI
Post-frac PI
Average PI
Oil incremental
with many interbedded tight and porous
WC before
WC after
Average oil incr.
layers. One proper acid fracture
treatment can cover and stimulate all
Fig. 28. Comparison of production results between acid fracturing and matrix
porous sublayers. Fig. 28 shows the
acidizing on Kodyakovskoe field Zl formation
comparison
of
post-fracturing
production for 5 acid fracturing (AF/GP) and 13 matrix acidizing treatments. The comparison shows that in the Zl formation
of Kodyakovskoe field, acid fracturing significantly outperforms matrix acidizing in terms of PI (+33%) and oil incremental
(+50 tons/d). However, acid fracturing is still risky and proper candidate selection should be applied to minimize the risk of
water breakthrough after acid fracturing treatment.

Water cut, %; Oil incremental, t/day

PI, m3/day/atm

Retarded Emulsified Acid

Carbonate formations often have low matrix permeability and can be highly fissured. Long fractures in acid fracturing
treatments or deep wormholes in matrix treatments are necessary to maximize production. Navarrete et al. (1998)
demonstrated that the retarded nature of emulsified acids is useful to generate longer etched fractures or deeper wormholes
when matrix acidizing. Retardation of 14 to 19 times was demonstrated compared to HCl for acid fracturing and 6.6 times for
matrix acidizing. The retardation effect is due to the acid being an inner part of the mixed emulsion and diesel being an
external part, so acid is not spent instantly during treatment. The average droplet size of coarse emulsions is much larger than
the average pore throat size in a carbonate formation. Therefore, coarse emulsions initially attack the formation at the
wellbore surface. As they dissolve rock at the surface, they begin to form wormholes with macroscopic diameters (~0.1 to 1
mm). Once the emulsion enters the wormhole, the retardation mechanism there is similar to that of a fracture because the
average droplet size (~1 to 77 m) is smaller than the wormhole diameter. Retardation provides better convection of acids
hydrogen ions to carbonate formations and tip of the wormholes, which makes them longer. The advantages of emulsified
and retarded acids are generally considered the
7
140
most for cases when the reaction is controlled by
mass transfer of hydrogen ion (H+); e.g.. mid- and
6
120
high-temperature limestone and high-temperature
5
100
dolomites. As demonstrated by Dnistryansky et al.
(2012), it also can be beneficial for acidizing low4
80
temperature limestone when only a low pumping
3
60
rate is available.
In the Orenburg region, REA has demonstrated
2
40
good results in matrix acidizing of the D5
1
20
formation in combination with foam diversion.
Besides the light crude and high stress gradient,
0
0
#1; AF/GP
#2; FD
#3; FD
#4; FD + REA #5; FD + REA
deep Devonian formations have the highest BHST
Well #; Technology
in the region, ranging from 89 to 95C. As
discussed
before, acidizing with foam diversion has
PI after treatment
Oil incremental, t/day
WC after
shown the best results in deep D5 depleted
Fig. 29. Comparison of different acidizing techniques for D5 formation
formations. On several treatments, foam diversion
of Davydovskoe oil field
was combined with REA to propagate longer

SPE 168167

19

wormholes and establish adequate flowback of reaction products. Five treatments were performed in the Davydovskoe oil
field: one acid fracturing, two treatments with foam diversion, and two treatments with emulsified acid and foam diversion.
All the wells were stimulated immediately after drilling, treatments with REA have demonstrated a stable productivity
increase 3 times higher than those for offset wells treated with straight 15% HCl (Fig. 29).
Some acid fracturing treatments with REA performed on shallower formations (i.e. A4 and Zl) did not show significant
advantages compared to results from conventional acid fracturing with a crosslinked gel pad. The reason is that the
formations have quite low BHST (35 to 55C) compared to that of D5, where a significant production increase was recorded,
and acid convection is not the biggest issue here compared to zone coverage and formation pressure depletion. Another
possible reason is that these wells
<< Pnet(BHP)
<< t.dP/dt
<<Pnet(M odel)
Slope >>
have been treated with acid fracturing
Slope
P bars
before and REA was used as a
1.0
remedial stimulation treatment for
0.8
them. Fig. 30 shows recorded
100
bottomhole pressure increase versus
0.6
time in log-log coordinates for one of
slope= 0.65
the remedial acid fracturing job with
0.4
REA on the Zl formation. Pressure
10
behavior can be interpreted as
0.2
reinjecting the fluid into an existing
slope= 0.80
fracture and fissure network. The plot
0.0
demonstrates a pressure slope of 0.6 to
0.8 that can be considered a transition
1
-0.2
0.1
1
10
between storage and linear flow
(min)
t(min) Pumping
after start ofTime
pumping
(Cycle1)
regimes. No new fracture is opened
Fig. 30. Log-log plot of bottomhole pressure versus pumping time
and most probably new areas were not
stimulated.
In spite of results in these few wells, overall production results after acid treatments with REA on new wells (Fig. 16)
showed that in most fields REA provides the highest production compared to that from other technologies. But job count is
not enough to make a final conclusion and, in the case of acid fracturing, all risks associated with this technique are still
applicable for REA treatments.
Proppant Fracturing in Carbonates
There are no set rules of choosing between acid and propped fracturing. The choice is made based on experience of the
previous treatments in the area or similar formations and economic evaluation. Despite numerous fracture acidizing models
developed over the years, we still lack confidence in predicting and accurately modeling the outcome of an acid fracturing
treatment. Fluid leakoff and reaction rate are the most unpredictable variables. On the contrary, predictability of propped
fracturing where nonreactive fluids are pumped is much higher. Several criteria still could be formulated that can help to
choose between two methods. Propped fracturing treatments are more favorable if any of the following criteria are present:
- Solubility of the formation is low.
- The rock has high closure pressure.
- Formations are relatively homogeneous.
- There is a low acid reaction rate (i.e., cool dolomites with BHST less than 65C).
- Low formation permeability requires long fracture length for optimum production.
- The rock softens or creeps after contact with acids, resulting in poor fracture conductivity.
On the contrary, acid fracturing is preferred under the following conditions:
- Formations that are naturally fractured where placing proppant are associated with significant risk of premature
screenout.
- Formation permeability is relatively high.
- The well construction mechanically will not accept proppant.
As stated before, if the zone of interest is close to gas- or water-bearing formations, matrix acidizing will be an optimum
choice over any kind of fracturing operation.
Another risk associated with proppant fracturing in carbonate formation is proppant embedment. If carbonate rock is
weak, proppant granules can be forced into fracture walls, thus reducing propped fracture width. A series of laboratory tests
have been performed on an actual core sample from one of the shallow carbonate formations in the Orenburg region to
evaluate the severity of proppant embedment. An estimated closure stress was applied for 20 h onto two prepared core
samples with a proppant layer between them. After releasing the pressure, a laser profilometer was used to quantify proppant
embedment. Fig. 31 is an example of visualized results for one of the cores. Table 7 shows overall results of performed tests.
Analysis shows that after applying 250 atm pressure to 20/40-mesh proppant, the average embedment into the carbonate core
samples were from 15.4 to 25.6 m. This is negligible compared with 20/40-mesh proppant grain diameter (0.571 mm or
571,000 m) and the conclusion was made that proppant fracturing is applicable in the interval of core sampling.

20

SPE 168167

TABLE 7. PROPPANT EMBEDMENT TEST RESULTS.

Fig. 31. Axonometric perspective of core sample 3

after proppant embedment test

Core sample

Max crosssection depth,

m

Average
cross-section
embedment,
m

64.6

15

48.2

18

57.7

12

65.8

18

64.2

14

69.2

15

52.3

18

56.9

18

59.2

19

100-mm2 area
average
embedment,
m

15.4

17.8

Acid fracturing in most cases is considered safer in

2
67.6
19
terms of operational risks since no proppant is pumped
and there is no inherent risk of proppant flowback. On the
3
88.3
35
other hand, in deep formations with high stress, proppant
3
71.6
22
can create a more conductive (and longer) channel than
can be retained after closure of an acid-etched fracture, so
3
63.7
25
25.6
production decline will not be as sharp as after acid
3
56.1
21
fracturing (Fig. 27). There are many exceptions to the
3
71.9
25
rule of the thumb that fracture acidizing should not be
applied to high-stress conditions. For example, Burgos et
al. (2005) reported successful carbonate acid fracturing results in depths of 4,876 to 5,181 m using surfactant-gelled HCl with
organic acid blends.
To date, authors are aware of only two proppant fracturing treatments on carbonate formations that have been performed
in Orenburg and close-by regions. Both treatments were pumped as designed but failed in terms of post-fracturing
production.
One treatment was pumped in an openhole shallow gas reservoir and resulted in wellbore collapse after the
treatment. Long workover operations were required to clean the wellbore of reservoir debris. These operations
resulted in a few hundred cubic meters of unfiltered workover fluid lost into the depleted gas reservoir. It was
not surprising that production targets were not achieved after the well was put on production.
Another treatment was a combination of acid fracturing with proppant fracturing on an oil well. At the
beginning, a conventional acid fracturing treatment with a viscous pad was pumped followed by proppant
fracturing without interruptions. The aim was to fill the etched fracture with proppant that would minimize risk
of fracture closure and provide long-lasting production. Unfortunately, severe proppant flowback was observed
after the treatment; it limited production and frequent workover operations were needed to clean the wellbore.
We are very limited in the number of potential carbonate well candidates for proppant fracturing in the area, primarily
because of their proximity to the water-bearing formations. However, we still consider this type of treatment because of the
potential benefits that could be achieved in formations with moderate permeability. Recent experience has shown that
candidate well should be cased with good cement bond. Filling of the created acid fracture with proppant should be avoided
because the fracture face will be significantly etched by acid and the formation may not be able to apply enough stress on the
proppant pack to keep it from flowing.
Ways Forward
Not all acidizing aspects have been addressed in Orenburg region over the acidizing project period described in this paper.
High water cut in combination with highly mineralized water (typical formation water specific gravity is 1.17) often results in
formation of inorganic scale that deposits in the critical matrix, perforations, and downhole equipment; the usual
consequences are faster production drop and reduced effect from acidizing treatment. Generally a low-temperature
environment produces rather heavy crudes with paraffin and asphaltenes that can deposit in the critical matrix and
completion.

SPE 168167

21

A number of laboratory tests have confirmed that highwater-cut wells tend to form mixed deposits, inorganic scale plus
organic heavy chains. Figs. 32 and 33 demonstrate mixed deposits from the Sorochinsko-Nikolskoe oil field. Heavy
hydrocarbons and scale crystals are clear on the picture taken by the microscope. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis has
revealed sulfate (gypsum), halite, and carbonate precipitation. The gypsum is almost insoluble in HCl or chelates and should
be inhibited with remedial squeeze treatments or during matrix acidizing. One of the ways forward to properly solve the
problems of mixed deposits is complex treatment with organic solvents or organic solvent emulsions and scale inhibitor
inside the main acidizing fluid. The advantage of having phosphonate inhibitor added to the acid solution is that additional
squeeze treatments are eliminated, and well is protected against scale formation directly after the treatment. The amount of

Fig. 32. Mixed deposits from ESP at SorochinskoNikolskoe oil field under microscope

Fig.33 XRD analysis of scale from Sorochinsko-Nikolskoe field,

O4 formation

inhibitor is calculated based on expected water cut and general water mineralization. Inhibitor return should be monitored
when the well is put on production and squeeze treatments repeated in case the protection ends.
A few years ago a horizontal well drilling project was started in oil fields in Orenburg region. To date, only a few
horizontal wells were stimulated with CT; however, in 2014 16 horizontal wells are planned for stimulation and all of them
will be completed either with matrix acidizing through CT or multistage acid fracturing with sleeved completion systems. For
both of them, a number of options should be available in advance to make this stimulation more effective. Implementation of
a CT string with larger OD of 1.75 or 2 in. can increase the maximum pumping rate through CT, which will be beneficial in
these depleted fields. Seven horizontal wells are planned on depleted A4 formation in the Pronkinskoe oil field, which is a
massive carbonate formation suitable for acid fracturing. However, formation pressure at the moment is only 40 to 60% from
initial and massive acid fracturing treatments on horizontal wells need to be flowed back effectively. For that purpose, acid
fracturing with high-rate nitrogen pumping is planned to aid flowback and ensure proper kick-off after the treatment. Kritzler
et al. (2002) has discussed acid fracturing energized with nitrogen to 60 to 70% foam quality as an optimum stimulation
method for low-pressure, low-temperature carbonates; this helps bring about flowback and longer fracture propagation
because of the retardation effect of energized acid.
CT applications in openhole horizontal wells generally allow more equal stimulation of the horizontal section in a timely
manner. Inflatable packers will be implemented to provide mechanical diversion in long intervals with known thief zones.
Another option for CT applications in horizontal open holes and slotted liners is to combine the acidizing chemical reaction
with wellbore cleanout using jetting energy. Jetting is performed with a jetting nozzle and organic solvent as a wellbore
cleanout stage before the main acidizing treatment.
Conclusions
The paper is summarizing experience gained during six years of acidizing treatments in Orenburg region. Different pumping
techniques and stimulation technologies were implemented to increase effectivness of carbonate acidizing in challenging
environment of this region. The following conclusions can be formulated:
1. A rigid and comprehensive QAQC standard for acid stimulation enables the service companies to perform
consistently at a higher service delivery level.
2. Most of the performed treatments are bullhead matrix acidizing. Coil tubing (CT) placement is rarely performed
because of pump rate limitations, but it has some unique benefits like simultaneous pumping through CT and CTtubing annulus. The number of acid fracturing treatments decreased during the last 2 years because the lack of good
candidates.
3. Degradable ball sealers showed poor diverting efficiency due to multiple perforations and poor cement quality.
4. The polymer-based self diverting acid provides satisfactory results on new wells but failed on old wells comparing
with other diverting technologies.
5. Viscoelastic self-diverting acid has demonstrated better production results than other viscosified diverters but it
needs sufficient energy to to initiate flow back the viscous fluid after the treatment. These challenge can be

22

SPE 168167

overcome by using nitrified VSDA or/and by decreasing the surfactant concentration.

Viscoelastic selective diverter can provide a temporary blockage of water saturated zones during matrix acidizing. In
Volga-Urals region VSD is often combined with other diverting technologies during the treatment. Some treatments
with VSD resulted in substantial water cut increase. The suspected reason is presence of natural fissures or channels
in the cement behind the casing.
7. Foam diverter appears to be the most reliable diversion technique in depleted reservoirs with repeated treatments
and increasing water cut. Overall production results showed good effectiveness of foam diverter on new and old
wells. Additionally, reduction of post-acidizing water cut increases was noticed after after introduction of foam
diversion techniques.
8. The use of coil tubing with foam diverter and dual-string pumping technique provides excellent production results
when location of the thief zone is well known.
9. Most of the reservoirs in Orenburg region are not suitable for acid fracturing due to 2 main reasons: proximity of
water saturated zones and high minimum in-situ stress. However, some massive tight formations demonstrated
better production results after acid fracturing comparing to matrix acidizing. Further implementation of acid
fracturing technique should be focused only on such formations.
10. Retarded emulsified acid in combination with foamed diversion has demonstrated excellent production results for
matrix acidizing of deep and hot D5 formation. Achieved productivity index is 3 times higher than offset wells
treated with straight 15% HCl.
11. Proppant fracturing can be applied on carbonate formation if proper candidate selection and treatment design
considered. Recent experience has shown that candidate well should be cased with good cement bond. Filling of the
created acid fracture with proppant should be avoided because the fracture face will be significantly etched by acid
and the formation may not be able to apply enough stress on the proppant pack to keep it from flowing.
6.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Rosneft and Schlumberger for their support and permission to publish this paper. The authors also
acknowledge the specialists in the Orenburgneft geological departments for their continuous support in implementation of
new technologies in the Orenburg oil fields. The authors express their appreciation to the Schlumberger Well Services and
Well Intervention teams in Buzuluk and particularly to Konstantin Basanov, Evgeniy Klimov, Evgeniy Metlyaev, Rim
Samigullin, and Marina Stepanenko for their work and contribution to this paper. Finally, we acknowledge the team of
Schlumberger Client Support Laboratory in Tyumen for its continuous support of acidizing operations in the Volga-Urals
region, especially Alexey Borisenko, Bernhard Lungwitz, and Sergey Parkhonyuk.
References
Abass, H.H., Al-Mulhem, A.A., Alqam, M.S., et al. 2003. Acid Fracturing or Proppant Fracturing in Carbonate
Formation? A Rock Mechanics View. Paper 102590 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, U.S.A., 2427 September.
Burgos, G., Buijse, M., Fonseca, E., et al. 2005. Acid Fracturing in Lake Maracaibo: How Continuous Improvements
Kept on Raising the Expectation Bar. Paper 96531 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX, U.S.A., 912 October.
Chang, F.F., Thomas, R.L., and Fu, D.K. 1998. A New Material and Novel Technique for Matrix Stimulation in HighWater-Cut Oil Wells. Paper SPE 39592 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 1819 February.
Chang, F.F., Qu, Q., and Frenier, W. 2001. A Novel Self-Diverting-Acid Developed for Matrix Stimulation of Carbonate
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 65033 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, U.S.A.,
1316 February.
Dnistryansky, V., Mokshaev, A., Bogatyrev, O., et al. 2012. Comprehensive Approach to Production Stimulation of
Massive Cold Heterogeneous Carbonate Formation Using Coiled Tubing. Paper SPE 152351 presented at the SPE Middle
East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 2325 January.
Faizov, Y., Levanyuk, O., Fu, D. et al. 2011. Challenges and Solutions of Stimulating Carbonate Reservoirs in TimanoPechora, Russia. Paper OTC 22257 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 4-6
October.
Grace, J.D. 2005. Russian Oil Supply. Performance and Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Jones, F.O. Jr. 1973. A Laboratory Study of the Effects of Confining Pressure on Fracture Flow and Storage Capacity in
Carbonate Rocks. Paper SPE 4569 presented at the SPE AIME 48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A., 30
September 3 October.
Ilyasov, S., Mantrov, A., Konchenko, A., et al. 2010. Chemical Diverters for Production Enhancement and Water Cut
Decrease (in Russian). Oil & Gas Journal Russia May 2010, pages : 6264.
Kritzler, T., Yaseen, M., Dutta, B.K., et al. 2002. A Systematic Approach to Improve the Performance of AcidFracturing Treatments in Lo-Pressure, Low-Temperature Wells. Paper SPE 73746 presented at the SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 2021 February.

SPE 168167

23

Lungwitz, B., Fredd, C., Brady, M., et al. 2004. Diversion and Cleanup Studies of Viscoelastic Surfactant-Based SelfDiverting Acid. Paper SPE 86504 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 1820 February.
Navarrete, R.C., Holmes, B.A., McConnell, S.B., et al. 1998. Emulsified Acid Enhances Well Production in HighTemperature Carbonate Formations. Paper SPE 50612 presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague,
The Netherlands, 2022 October.
Nierode, D.E., Williams, B.B., and Bombardieri, C.C. 1972. Prediction of Stimulation from Acid Fracturing Treatments.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol.11 1972.
ONAKO. 1997. Geological Structure and OilGas Content of the Orenburg Region (in Russian). Orenburg: Orenburg
Book Publisher.
Parfenov, A.N., Sitdikov, S.S., Evseev, O.V., et al. 2008. Particularities of Hydraulic Fracturing in Dome Type
Reservoirs of Samara Area in the Volga-Urals Basin. Paper SPE 115556 presented at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 2830 October.
Smith, C.L., Anderson, L.J., and Roberts, P.G. 1969. New Diverting Techniques for Acidizing and Fracturing. Paper
SPE 2751 presented at the Annual California Regional Meeting of the SPE of AIME, San Francisco, California, U.S.A., 67
November.
Taylor, D., Kumar, P.S, Diankui, F. et al., et al. 2003. Viscoelastic Surfactant-Based Self-Diverting Acid for Enhanced
Stimulation in Carbonate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 82263 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague, The Netherlands, 1314 May.
Thomas, R.L., Saxon, A., and Milne, A.W. 1995. The Use of Coiled Tubing During Matrix Acidizing of Carbonate
Reservoirs Completed in Horizontal, Deviated, and Vertical Wells. Paper SPE 50964 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2022 April.
Williams, B.B., Gidley, J.L., and Schechter, R.S. 1979. Acidizing Fundamentals. Richardson, Texas: USA, Monograph
Series, SPE.
Zerhboub, M., Touboul, E, Ben-Naceur, K. et al. 1994. Matrix Acidizing: A Novel Approach to Foam Diversion. SPE
Production & Facilities 9(2): 121126.