SPE 54722 Systematic Formation Damage Evaluation of El Furrial Field

Henry A. Ohen, Thais Moreno, Desdebura Marcano, Armando Acosta, Raul Mengual, Jose Gil, Adela Velasquez, Dane Daneshjou, Kosta Leontaritis, Mike Holmgren from 20to 30 API, bubble points from 2,000 to 4,500 psi, asphaltene contents from 2 weight percent (at the top of the reservoir) to 20 weight percent (at the bottom), and about 4 mole percent of CO2. The laboratory study shows that the current average reservoir pressures for the pertinent formations are dangerously close to their respective asphaltene flocculation onset and damaging conditions. On the basis of the laboratory studies, two field pilots were undertaken. One to evaluate the effectiveness of the stimulation recipe designed for the system and the other to test the effectiveness of the drilling mud formulation determined in the laboratory. Removal of asphaltene from the reservoir matrix through the use of InSol A/WTM mixed in xylene was found to be effective as a dispersant/solvent as well as an inhibitor. Well selection and pre-stimulation activities for the first pilot are presented along with the chronological summary of activities. The paper presents the post treatment evaluation, indicating that the increase in productivity is in the range of 250%. The longevity of the treatment was monitored and is also discussed. The drilling pilot was based on a laboratory study which indicated that an invert emulsion mud system, with CaCO3 and barite as bridging agents, would effectively reduce the amount of filtrate lost to the formation and hence reduce the damage caused during drilling. Paramount to the effectiveness of the mud system is the distribution of the solid bridging agents required through the zones of interest. The base line distribution and envelope to maintain this distribution was determined from laboratory studies of pore size and structure. The methodology used and some of the drawbacks encountered with taking the laboratory results to actual practice in the field are highlighted. Post drilling and completion results are summarized with comparisons made to other similar wells in the field that were drilled and completed before and after the pilot.

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 31 May1 June 1999. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract As a result of less than expected productivity from some wells in the El Furrial field in Monagas State in Eastern Venezuela, a systematic study became necessary. The results of the study were aimed at determining formation damage prevention guidelines for existing and future wells, and effective treatment measures for damaged wells. The joint study was undertaken by PDVSA Exploracin & Produccin in Maturin, Venezuela and Core Laboratories Reservoir Optimization Services Group (ROSG) in Houston to determine the existing formation damage mechanisms. The primary objective was to recommend non-damaging drilling, completion and stimulation programs in this troublesome reservoir system. The study included the review of drilling, completion and stimulation records as well as log analysis and well test evaluation for productivity potential estimation. Laboratory analysis to investigate possible sources of formation damage, evaluation of drilling mud systems and the design of a stimulation recipe was also a major part of this study. A description of the laboratory tests employed in the evaluation of the potential and degree of impairment from the different mechanisms is presented along with interpretations and scaling of laboratory data to field operating conditions for pilot application design. The study shows that the dominant damage mechanism in this field is organic scaling and associated problems. The crude oil contained in the reservoirs of this field has gravity ranging

HENRY A. OHEN, ET AL

SPE 54722

We show that the benefit of this integrated systematic approach is that it enabled the design of a drilling mud and stimulation program based on laboratory experiments rather than field trials. Introduction The El Furrial field is located in Monagas State in Eastern Venezuela about 25 km from Maturin. Crude oil is produced from the Naricual and Los Jabillos Formations at depths ranging from 13,000 to 16,000 feet. The recorded average reservoir pressure and temperature of the formations at discovery were approximately 12,000 psi and 308 F respectively. The discovery well, Well-1, was tested in the Naricual formation at an interval of 13,690 to 13,842 feet in March 1986 and indicated a pressure of 11,276 psi at a datum of 13,800 feet.1 The reservoir pressure had dropped to 7,500 psi in the Naricual after eight years of production. That is a loss of about 3,800 psi in the reservoir pressure or an average of 472 psi pressure drop per year. In 1997, after years of experiencing less than expected productivity from the wells in the field, this study was initiated by PDVSA and Core Laboratories for the assessment and control of the observed formation damage problems in the Field. Objectives of the Study The following three main objectives were defined for this study: 1. Determine the dominant formation damage mechanism in the El Furrial Field. 2. Determine non damaging drilling and completion fluid(s) for wells in this field. 3. Determine an effective stimulation recipe for damage removal for wells in the field. To achieve these objectives, following study program was established. Well selection for the study. Selection of core material for laboratory testing. Initial discussions and evaluation of drilling mud for the best possible drill-in fluid. Initial discussions and evaluation of chemicals for the best asphaltene inhibitor and solvent/dispersant. Well by well review of drilling, completion and stimulation processes. Well by well evaluation of petrophysical data and well potential Laboratory static and dynamic testing for damage assessment Recommendation for the stimulation pilot well Recommendation for full scale implementation of the drilling mud pilot well

Formation Damage Analysis To help understand the time, location and mechanisms of formation damage in the field, fourteen wells with completions in the four different formations of the Naricual and Los Jabillos formations were selected for detailed study as shown in Table 1. Rock and fluid samples were also selected for laboratory analytical work. Preliminary Data Evaluation PDVSA s geologists and operation engineers, along with Core Laboratories personnel, selected the wells for the study. The selected wells and the zones of completion are shown in Table 1. Wells within a cross-section of the field that have had some formation damage problems were selected. Drilling, completion and stimulation records, pressure, production and/or injection well histories were obtained for review. Pretrophysical data including well test data were also obtained for review. Available core analysis database was reviewed with the aim of obtaining the most representative samples for dynamic flow study based on the 1996 petrophysical model for the El Furrial field by Core Laboratories2. A systematic review of the well files was initiated with the goal of identifying formation damage problems. The data was collected on a well by well basis. Typically, the drilling reports included mud weight, funnel viscosity, plastic viscosity, yield point, gel strength, percentage of solid-oilwater, pH levels and additive. A complete description of important drilling and completion events was compiled for each well. Review of the production history indicated that most of the wells experienced formation damage during the drilling, completion and production phases of well development. Petrophysical Evaluation by the Hydraulic Units Method In order to determine the potential of a well, the permeability of the completion zone must be know as well as the hydrocarbon properties and the completion configuration. To obtain average permeability and net reservoir sand, the hydraulic units based petrophysical model developed in 1996 by Core Laboratories 2 was used and shown in Flowchart 1. Figure 1 shows the comparison of the well test permeability to Core-Log permeability in wells where well test data were available. The near perfect match validates the method of calculating and averaging permeabilities per zone.

Productivity Index Calculation The radial flow of a single homogeneous liquid of small compressibility contained in a uniform horizontal reservoir into the wellbore can be represented by the following inflow performance equation.

SPE 54722

SYSTEMATIC FORMATION DAMAGE EVALUATION OF EL FURRIAL FIELD

P I =

0 .0 0 7 0 8 2 K h n f r B o l n ( e ) + S rw

----------(1)

Three bottom hole oil samples and four surface oil samples were provided by PDVSA to perform the various tests. The bottom hole samples were restored to 9,000 psi and 300F for one week to allow asphaltene in the oil time to de-flocculate to original equilibrium level. Asphaltene Deposition Envelope- Los Jabillos Formation A two temperature deposition envelope was developed for the sample from the Los Jabillos formation using the Near Infrared (NIR) apparatus5. The upper and lower onset pressures, at 180F and 300F, were determined. The results are summarized below. 180 F Upper Onset 6,200 100psi Lower Onset 900 100 psi Bubble Point 2,200 100 psi 300 F 6,300 50 psi 22550 psi 2,050 50 psi

where3 f p = 1.036 /( 0.9932 +0.7718) Total skin (St) in the above equation includes, in addition to damage skin (Sd), components associated with incomplete penetration and restriction due to perforations. The McKinley4 correlation has been used to determine partial penetration skin (Sp) noting that core analysis data from Well46 indicates an average Kh/Kv of 10 for the Naricual formation and 2 for the Los Jabillos formation: h h Sp = ( t - 1) [ln ( t hp rw kh ) - 2] --------------(2) kv

The following equation was used to describes the relationship between total skin (St) and partial penetration skin (Sp), and formation damage skin (Sd): Sd = (St - Sp) hp ht --------------------(3)

A plot of the four onset pressures for asphaltene flocculation (two upper onsets and two lower onsets) for this reservoir oil, along with two bubble point measurements at 180 F and 300 F are shown in Figure 2. The exhibited behavior is consistent with the results of the previous formation damage study reported for this field 6. In summary, all Los Jabillos (similar to the oil from the sampled well) is expected to start flocculating asphaltene particles at about 6,300 psia. The severity will depend both on the asphaltene particle size distribution and on the formation pore throat size distribution. Also, it is evident from the lower onset of 225 psia that most of the production facilities, including the tubing, will be under asphaltene deposition conditions. Asphaltene Onset Points for Naricual Formation Oil After reviewing results from a previous study 6, It was decided to perform only the upper and lower onset pressure evaluation at 300 F on the oil from from Naricual Superior formation. The summary of the results is: Upper Onset Lower Onset Bubble Point 5,300 100 psi 1,650 50 psi 3,800 100 psi

The above equations have been used to estimate ideal productivity index for all the intervals completed in the chosen wells by assuming a damaged skin of zero. As shown in Table 2a, partial penetration contributes to the observed restriction to flow in these wells. Table 2b includes expected gains from stimulation (reducing damage skin Sd to zero) based on average draw down pressure observed in the field. The effect of flow restriction in the tubing, chokes and flow lines are discussed later. Laboratory Study The laboratory study focused on both rock and fluid analyses. Flowchart 2 shows the laboratory testing procedure. Flowchart 2a shows the fluid analysis modules and the core analysis modules. Reservoir Fluid Analysis The objective of the fluid analysis included (1) the establishment of the asphaltene deposition envelope for the Los Jabillos formation oil; (2) the onset points for asphaltene flocculation for Naricual Superior Formation oil to validate existing data; (3) compositional and SARA analysis; (4) screening tests for chemical inhibitors and dispersants; and (5) static parametric test on drilling fluid filtrates.

The previous study 6 reported the NIR onset pressures at 280 F for an oil sample from the Naricual Superior and another sample from the Naricual Inferior to be 4,880 psig and 5,200 psig respectively. The 5,200 psig value for the Naricual Inferior oil is consistent with the onset value of 5,300 psig obtained in this study for Naricual Superior oil. However, notice that the previous onset value for Naricual Superior oil of 4,880 psig is lower than the 5,300 psig measurement obtained in this study. This is interpreted to be due to gradual changes in reservoir fluid composition, especially on the heavy ends, which dominate the asphaltene phase behavior of the fluid.

HENRY A. OHEN, ET AL

SPE 54722

Compositional Analyses SARA (Saturate, Aromatic, Resin, Asphaltene) and Compositional analyses were performed on three surface oil samples and two bottom hole oil samples in order to characterize the reservoir fluids. The immediate benefit of the characterization is that it enabled us to compare the resin to asphaltene molecular ratios of the different oils and thus extract some information on the relative stability of asphaltene in these oils. This is a qualitative, but useful way to discern the stability of asphaltene5. In this particular case, because a portion of the ADE of the Los Jabillos oil is known, the interpretations were even more useful. The molecular ratio of resins to asphaltene for the different oils are WELL-52 (Las Jabillos): 1.45; WELL16(Naricual Superior): 1.58; WELL-51(Naricual Superior): 3.75; WELL-48(Las Jabillos): 2.94; and WELL-12(Naricual Inferior): 3.3. It is interesting to note that the oil whose ADE is known (WELL-52), has the lowest resin to asphaltene ratio. Hence, based on the above data we can qualitatively say that we expect the onset pressure of the other three oils to be lower than the onset pressure of WELL-52, determined to be 6,300 psia. This prediction was confirmed after the onset measurements for WELL-16 indicated that the upper onset pressure was indeed lower than that of WELL-52. From this result we conclude that the onset pressure for wells WELL-51, -48 and -12 are also below the values measured for wells WELL-52 and WELL-16. This is helpful in managing the pressure maintenance program in this field as we can safely say that the minimum allowable reservoir and bottom hole flowing pressure in the Naricual is 5,300 100 psi. Screening Test for Chemical Inhibitors Four chemicals from four different companies were selected for inhibition and dispersant properties testing. The selected companies and the chemical designations are presented in the table below: Company Name A B C D Chemical Designation CA CB CC CD

results indicate the best chemicals in their ability to inhibit asphaltene flocculation caused by heptane are Chemical CB, manufactured by Company C and Chemical CD, manufactured by Company D As shown in Table 3, the results for Chemical CC were not conclusive and in order to complete our evaluation, a second test was performed on Chemical CC at 250ppm concentration and the results show onset points of below zero. The same criteria were applied to all the curves and after re-evaluation of the Chemical CC sample, Chemical CB and Chemical CD were selected as the best inhibitors. Example of the results of screening test is given in Figure 3. Static Dispersant Testing for the two best Chemicals In this phase of the study the best chemical inhibitors were tested for their dispersant properties. This procedure is shown in Flowchart 3. As the dispersant testing was going on, and the second test on Chemical CC was being performed, it was decided to test three chemicals instead of two chemicals for dispersant properties. The effectiveness of the chemicals were tested at two concentrations of 500 ppm and 1,000 ppm. Figure 4a shows the ranking of the chemicals in terms of effectiveness in dispersing WELL-48 tar at 500 ppm. These are in order: Chemical CD from Company D Chemical CC from Company C Chemical CB from Company B At 1,000 ppm, the three chemicals, perform somewhat closer to each other, although Company B s chemical is now second in effectiveness and the Company C s is third (see Figure 4b). The ranking at 1,000 ppm is: Chemical CD from Company D Chemical CB from Company B Chemical CC from Company C

The above results show that Company D s chemical is more effective in dispersing Los Jabillos s tar than the other two chemicals at both concentrations. The Company C s chemical ranks second at low concentrations whereas the Company B s chemical ranks second at higher concentrations. The chemical found best is InSol A/WTM manufactured by KostaTech. Asphaltene Removal and Permeability Recovery Testing The objective of the study was to determine a chemical that can disperse and dissolve asphaltene deposits and inhibit future flocculation. Live oil from the Naricual Superior formation was used for this testing. In order to create damaging conditions in each core sample, the pore pressure

The results are shown in Table 3. The results were difficult to interpret. Crude oil appears to be flocculated at ambient conditions, hence, when the chemical is added to the oil, it first acts to disperse and de-flocculate the existing asphaltene. Remaining chemical is available to inhibit the re-flocculation of asphaltene when heptane is added. The

SPE 54722

SYSTEMATIC FORMATION DAMAGE EVALUATION OF EL FURRIAL FIELD

was dropped from 7,000 psi to a pressure below the asphaltene flocculation point. A test pressure of 4,000 psi was selected, which is below the upper onset pressure and above the bubble point pressure, to insure asphaltene drop out. Subsequently, xylene with the chemical additive was used to improve permeability and reduce damage due to asphaltene drop out. The injection rate selected for this test (32ft/day =1.0cc/min) is well below the critical velocity (936 ft/day) measured in a previous study 6. Flowchart 4 shows the testing proceedure and the results are shown in Figure 5. Note that the relative effectiveness of the chemical could not be determined as the xylene, as expected at the working condition, basically removed all the damage prior to the introduction of the dispersant.

Dynamic Stimulation Test to Verify the Effectiveness of Chemical The following dynamic test was performed to evaluate a 2cycle asphaltene removal and stimulation process. This test is designed to shows the ability of the InSol A/WTM chemical to clean asphaltene deposition and recover permeability in the rock sample by slug injection process. Restored live crude oil from Naricual Superior was also used to carry out this test. The same procedure was used to damage the core sample as described above. After creating the damage, two slugs of xylene with InSol A/WTM chemical additive were injected with four hour soak periods. The first slug was 0.75 pore volume with 1,500 ppm concentration. After a four-hour soak, permeability was measured. The second slug injection was 1.5 pore volumes at 3,000 ppm concentration followed with another four-hour soak period. After each soak period the permeability of the sample to live crude oil was measured. Flowchart 5 shows the steps used to perform the tests and the results are shown in Figure 6. The experiment was designed to simulate as closely as possible the real field conditions. One clear departure from field conditions is the fact that the flow in the laboratory test was linear whereas in the field it is radial with possibility of more severe and/or faster damage near the wellbore. The primary purpose of the test was to damage the core plug, as it would occur under field conditions, and then find out whether the damage would be removed by a squeeze stimulation treatment that would simulate very closely the field conditions. The squeeze operation was designed to be performed in two phases: Phase-1: remove damage near the wellbore Phase-2: remove damage up to the maximum asphaltene radius

About 10% of the damage was removed after the Phase-1 squeeze. The low effectiveness of this step is more indicative of the low amount of damage in the 75% of the plug from the production side than the effectiveness of the chemical. In the laboratory apparatus, the live oil entering the core plug contains already flocculated asphaltene. Hence, it should be expected that the asphaltene would be filtered out in the first part of the core plug and cause more damage there. The second phase removed nearly all the damage and restored the complete permeability. This leads to two conclusions. First, that most of the asphaltene damage is found within the 25% of the core from the injection side and second that the 3,000 ppm InSol A/WTM in xylene solution was able to remove damage completely. Damage in the field is very likely to be more tenacious and therefore more difficult to remove. Asphalteneinduced formation damage weathers with time under field conditions. Therefore, the field stimulation squeeze treatments are normally started with 5-10% InSol A/WTM in xylene. Depending on the performance of the wells, the InSol A/WTM concentration may be adjusted according to performance to optimize the economics of the operation. Evaluation and Selection of Optimum Drilling Fluid The objective was to evaluate different drilling fluid compositions in order to determine the optimum drill-in fluid. The optimum drill-in fluid should minimize damage from mud solid invasion, asphaltene drop out, and emulsion block from filtrate invasion and ineffective mud cake cleanup. Six mud formulations were obtained from two companies for testing. Company X supplied two water-based drilling muds (CaCl2 Brine and K Formate water-based) and one invert emulsion mud. Company Y also provided two water based drilling muds (Na/K Formate and NaCl/NaBr ) and one invert emulsion mud. The chemical and physical properties of these drilling muds, as supplied by the represented companies, are presented in Table 4. Company X used static filtration testing and return permeability evaluations to formulate their optimum mud system. Example results from such test on one water-based mud is shown in Table 5 for company X. Company Y used thin section petrography as a basis to design the optimum mud system Optimum Bridging agent for fluid lost Mercury injection capillary pressure measurements were performed to help determine the particle sized distribution required for effective bridging of the mud system. Eight core samples were tested, three samples from Los Jabillos and Naricual Superior, respectively, and two samples from Naricual Inferior. The pore size distribution was converted to equivalent bridging size distribution for optimize filter cake. As shown in Figures 7and 8, the median particle sizes (not less than 30 pbb) of bridging agent required for Los Jabillos reservoir are about 7 in size, and 15 for both Naricual Superior and Inferior.

HENRY A. OHEN, ET AL

SPE 54722

Whole Mud Analysis Static Parametric Test on Drilling and Completions Fluids Static parametric test was performed on four water based drilling mud and two oil based drilling mud for screening purposes. The tests were performed according to flowchart 6. Data obtained during the static parametric testing the result in the following ranking 1 1a 2 3 4 5 Oil base mud -Company Y Oil base mud -Company X Na/KHCO2 Water base mud -Company X NaCl/NaBr Water base mud -Company X KHCO2 Water base mud mud -Company Y CaCl2 Water based mud mud -Company Y

mud. Three more thin sections were made from companion samples to compare with the invaded upstream samples in the whole mud testing. Examples of the damaged and undamaged thin sections are shown in Figure 10. The seven core plug samples were analyzed to determine the depth of invasion of drilling mud solids after laboratory whole mud testing. Three of these plug samples were pre-test samples analyzed to determine the nature and distribution of naturally occurring clays as well as other pore-filling cements. Four of the plug samples were used as the upstream sample in the whole mud testing. Each of these plugs was cut in half, perpendicular to its length. A longitudinal thin section was then made of each half. Each sample was compared with the undamaged core plugs to determine the extent of possible drilling mud solids invasion. The documentation of the depth of invasion is shown in the Table 7. Review of the return permeability data shows a great contrast in permeability reduction as a function of the type of drilling mud used. The thin section petrographic data indicate that drilling mud solids invasion is not a significant factor contributing to the return permeability reduction. The amounts of pore-lining clays, which are of illitic or mixedlayer composition, may be a part of the reason for permeability reduction. The fact that the water-based drilling fluids had greater permeability reduction than the oil-based muds also supports possible adverse clay-filtrate reactions. Mineralogical analysis (XRD) previously2 performed in WELL-13 indicates kaolinite, illite and mixed layer illite/smectite are in that order the dominant authigenic clay mineral in these samples. Reservoir Condition Optimization Two static tests were performed to evaluate the effects of mud filtrate on the optimum mud system. The tests were designed to show asphaltene drop out or change the onset pressure of asphaltene flocculation when the mud filtrate comes into contact with the reservoir oil. The Los Jabillos live crude oil was used in all the static tests performed in this section. Two static tests were performed to evaluate the effect of mud filtrate on the crude oil asphaltene flocculation. In the first test a sample of the Los Jabillos live crude oil (30 cc) was restored at 9,000 psi and 300 F for one week. Then, the pressure was lowered to 7,000 psi while the restored live crude oil sample was titrated with the Company Y mud filtrate up to 170 percent by volume. The NIR measurements were recorded continually. No asphaltene flocculation occurred due to addition of mud filtrate at constant pressure above the onset pressure value. This indicates that Company Y drilling mud filtrate will not cause asphaltene drop out as long as the drilling operations are above the flocculation pressure (drilling overbalance). In order to establish the onset value of the mud filtrate and crude oil mixture a second static test was performed. In this

Dynamic Test on Drilling Fluids Los Jabillos oil, being the poorest oil sample, was used for whole mud testing to obtain the worst case scenario. A composite core holder approximately 2 feet long with three pressure taps was used in the test according to the procedure shown in flowchart 7.

Results of Testing. Table 6 is a summary of the leak off, return permeability and breakdown pressure tests for the two water based and two oil based drilling mud systems. Figure 9 is a plot of flow rate versus differential pressure for all the muds tested. As shown in Table 6, mud cake breakdown pressures are 25 psi, 17 psi, 1 psi and 11 psi for Company B calcium chloride (CaCl2) waterbased mud, Company Y K/Na-Formate (Na-KHCO2) waterbased, Company Y oil based, and Company X oil based respectively. These results indicate that the water-based mud is not the best for this rock and fluid system. The best mud system appears to be either of the oil-based mud. However, the Company Y oil based mud cleans up better without the need for mud cake breaker (surfactant, mutual solvent etc). The return permeability at the injection end for Company Y oil based mud is 23% compared with 5.5% for Company X oil based mud. On the basis of these tests, the mud systems are ranked as: Oil base mud (Company Y) Oil base mud (Company X) KHCO2 Water base mud (Company Y) CaCl2 Water based mud (Company X) Thin Section Petrology Thin sections of the cores, after being exposed to drilling mud, were obtained from the upstream samples in the composites to help identify the damaging mechanisms from exposure to

SPE 54722

SYSTEMATIC FORMATION DAMAGE EVALUATION OF EL FURRIAL FIELD

test, 15 cc of mud filtrate was added to 30 cc of restored live crud oil at 7,000 psi and 300 F. Then pressure was reduced to measure the onset value of the mixture. The onset value of the WELL-52 live oil and mud filtrate mixture was measured at 6,150 50 psi which is 800 psi higher than that of the pure WELL-52 Los Jabillos oil. This indicates that the mud filtrate made the asphaltene unstable by increasing the asphaltene onset pressure of WELL-52 live oil and causing the asphaltene to flocculate earlier. The result of this test is presented in Figure 11. Field Pilots Stimulation Pilot Effective removal of asphaltene from the reservoir matrix through the use of InSol A/WTM mixed in xylene, at a concentration of 10%, was one of the major recommendations of the laboratory study. Numerous wells were evaluated using nodal analysis program to determine the productivity increase through the use of this chemical mixture. After careful consideration, the Well 10 Inferior was chosen as a pilot well for stimulation. Figure 12 shows the mechanical condition for the completion of Well 10 Inferior. Flowchart 8 shows the proposed procedure and actual chronology for the field pilot. Post Stimulation Performance Nodal analysis for the well, both pre-treatment and post treatment were prepared. The pre-treatment results are shown in Figure 13. At the producing conditions of 700 BPD, 980 psi well head pressure, a GOR of 1,583, and a choke of , the bottom hole flowing pressure is approximately 3,755 psi. This pressure is well below the flocculation onset pressure of 5,300 psi. The post treatment evaluation for the conditions of 1,470 BPD, 1,240 psi well head pressure, a GOR of 1,583, and a choke is shown in Figure 14. In this case, the flowing bottom hole pressure is approximately 4,575 psi, only 725 psi below the estimated flocculation onset pressure. Figure 15 shows the pre-stimulation rate and three post stimulation rates monitored to investigate the longevity of the treatment. We have shown in the laboratory study of the inhibitor that the flocculation onset would be decreased by some 1,550 psi below the actual onset pressure with InSol A/WTM treatment. This would indicate that a flowing bottom hole pressure of around 4,600 psi would be safe for producing the well. This is close enough to the current estimate of bottom hole pressure to allow production on a choke. Mud Pilot Preliminary Development One of the primary objectives of the study was to evaluate drilling and completion fluids in order to develop nondamaging formulations for use in a pilot well. Results from leak-off tests, return permeability measurements, and breakdown pressure tests also indicated the oil based (Invermul) drilling fluid was better than the water based fluid.

The drilling mud recommended for use in the drilling pilot well, Well-79, was VESADRIL. The mud is an oil-in-water emulsion that has been shown to be very stable in the laboratory at the anticipated formation temperatures and pressures. Addition of calcium carbonate, CaCO3, controls the fluid leak-off and barite controls the mud weight. The mud formulation initially tested in the laboratory is shown in Table 8. This mud formulation results in a drilling mud with a reported weight of 12.0 ppg, viscosity of 37 cps, and a fluid loss of 3.0 to 3.6 ml for a 2,000 psi differential pressure. The key to the success of the mud system is the bridging of pore throats by the CaCO3 and barite. Using a Coulter LS Particle Size Analyzer, the particle size distribution was determined and reported as 1.770 m for D10, 20.24 m for D50, and 72.23 m for D90. Figure 16 shows the base particle size distribution. Design Prognosis and Modifications The use of a 12.0 ppg mud weight had been based upon the premise the well would be drilled through the Los Jabillos formation. However, as the target formation is Naricual, a maximum mud weight of 11.0 ppg was formulated for field application. A portable laser particle size couner unit manufactured by Spectrex, the PC-2000, was used in the field to determine the bridging particle size and ditribution Quality Control Measures Monitoring the drilling mud for the quality control of particle size distribution and conformance to mud weight recommendations were the objectives set forth for CoreLab. Figure 17 shows Figure 16 with lines having circle markers representing the envelope within which the particle size is considered acceptable. This chart is the guideline for checking the mud tests. Five tests for each mud sample were evaluated with the Spectrex. The average result of the five tests was then recorded as the value for the interval. With the eccentricities previously mentioned for the D5 and D95 readings, the D50 reading was used as the determining factor for the time to request addition of CaCO3 or to run the centrifuge. Table 9 is the summary for the mud tests showing the daily mud weight, viscosity, solids, salinity, water loss, and particle size distribution. Below the titles is the acceptable range for each parameter as originally submitted to PDVSA by Company Y. Viscosity, solids, and salinity were consistently below the recommended values and mud weight was consistently higher than recommended. However, there were no adverse problems as a result of the low viscosity, solids, and salinity. The higher mud weight led to concern that excess water loss to the formation might occur. Figure 18 shows the mud weight, hydrostatic pressure of the mud, and reservoir pressure as a function of depth. The formation pressure is from the

HENRY A. OHEN, ET AL

SPE 54722

formation tests taken after logging of the well. The calculated fluid density for the reservoir pressure is about 8.6 ppg. Results The preliminary results reported are that the well was a success having initial production of over 7,000 BOPD. On November 5th and 6th the well was flow tested on three choke sizes then shut in for a pressure buildup test. Figure 19 shows the flow rate for oil and the flowing wellhead pressure. Table 10 shows a comparison of specific productivity indices (SPI) for three pre-pilot wells and two post pilot wells with the pilot well. The results show the superior performance of the pilot well. Figure 19 depicts these results graphically. Conclusions Formation damage problems in El Furrial wells is somewhat related to drilling and completions but is mostly due to production operations. Laboratory tests show water-based drilling fluids have greater permeability reduction than oil-based drilling fluids due to possible adverse clay-filtrate reactions. This is supported by previous mineralogical analysis (XRD) which indicates kaolinite, illite and mixed layer illite/smectite are, in that order, the dominant authigenic clay mineral in these samples. The thin section petrography data performed in this study also indicates significant amounts of pore-lining clays, which are of illitic or mixed-layer composition. Increased productivity can be obtained through the use of a mixture of 10% InSol A/WTM in xylene to remove asphaltene deposits in the formation matrix. Initial production increased from 700 BPD to 1,740 BPD was observed in the pilot well. Pre-treatment removal of asphaltene deposits in the tubing and sump is critical. Without proper pre-treatment cleaning of tublars and sump, production logs and buildup testing can not be carried out. Additionally, knowledge of pre-treatment flowing conditions is essential to properly time the flow back time after each stimulation stage. Use of Calcium Carbonate has been proven effective as a bridging agent against fluid loss; inferring proper particle size distribution of CaCO3 is needed to ensure effective bridging. This is evidenced from the fact that excessive pressure differentials due to high mud weight were maintained throughout the drilling yet apparent damage due to fluid loss to the formation was negligible. The stability of the invert emulsion mud contributed to the limited damage. Recommendations It is recommended that InSol A/WTM mixed at 10% in xylene be utilized as a treatment for removing and inhibiting the formation of asphaltene in the reservoir. Repeat treatments can be scheduled periodically as well flow conditions warrant.

A drilling mud system with rheological properties and stability criteria similar to the one used in the pilot is recommended for future wells in the field. The mud system should contain a distribution of coarse and medium sized Calcium Carbonate for bridging along with barite for weight and filter cake formation.

Nomenclature K PI Bo St Sp Hn re rw ht hp NS NM NI LJ DP CL NIR SPI Permeability in mD Productivity index in bbl/day/psi Formation Volume factor ( rb/stb). Total skin. Partial Penetration Skin Net sand thickness, ft Drainage radius, ft (1800 ft assumed) Wellbore radius, ft Viscosity, cp (perforation density)*(perforation radius) total thickness, ft perforated thickness, ft Naricual Superior Naricual Medio Naricual Inferior Los Jabillos Pressure Drop Core-Log Interpretation Near Infra Red Specific Productivity Index, BPD/psi/ft

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thank PDVSA and Core Laboratories for the permission granted to publish this manuscript. Additional thanks is due Brian Stevens for performing the laboratory tests. REFERENCES
1. Rodolfo Colmenares and Richard W. Smith; Short and Long term Management of El Furrial Field, Venezuela, Paper SPE 38781, P. 321 - 326, presented at the 73rd Annual SPE conference and exhibition, San Anthonio, Texas, October 5rd 8th, 1997. Ohen H.A., Milton M., Uroza C., Jimenez M. Petrophysical Evaluation and Hydraulic Units Zonation of the Naricual and Los Jabillos Formations in the El-Furial Field Final report presented to Lagoven. Advances in Formation Damage Control Strategies, Core laboratories internal publications Saidikowski, R.M. Numerical Simulation of the Combined Effects of wellbore Damaged and partial penetration, SPE 8204. Reichert, C., Fuhr, B. J., and Klein, L. L., "Measurement of Asphaltene Flocculation in Bitumen Solutions." Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Sept.- Oct., 1986, p. 33. 1992 El Furrial Formation Damage Study, Lagoven S.A. and Core Laboratories

2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

Averaging Permeability from Hydraulic Units

The hydraulic units zonation and permeability prediction for each zone w ere estimated

The perforated zones and thickness w ere identified

The RQI v alues w ere calculated for ev ery 0.5 ft from the petrophysical model

By comparing Well Test analysis to petrophysical data, RQI cut off 0.3, 0.4, 0.26 and 0.2 w ere used to determine net sand for each formation

The permeability w as averaged by hydraulic units and the net sand thickness w ere summed up

The average permeability per zone w as obtained as thickness w eighted HU permeability

Flowchart 1

10

HENRY A. OHEN, ET AL

SPE 54722

Asphaltene Inhibitor Testing

Measure Ashaltene Content of Los Jabillos surface sample oil

Titrate Surface oil sample w ith Heptane to determine baseline NIR absorbance

Titrate Surface oil sample w ith 250,500,1000,2000 ppm inhibitor chemical A and measure NIR absorbance

Titrate Surface oil sample w ith 250,500,1000,2000 ppm inhibitor chemical B and measure NIR absorbance

Titrate Surface oil sample w ith 250,500,1000,2000 ppm inhibitor chemical C and measure NIR absorbance

Titrate Surface oil sample w ith 250,500,1000,2000 ppm inhibitor chemical D and measure NIR absorbance

Finally compare the results w ith the untreated base line measurement and select the best concentrations and rank the chemicals using best tw o for dispersant testing

Flowchart 2

SPE 54722

SYSTEMATIC FORMATION DAMAGE EVALUATION OF EL FURRIAL FIELD

11

Reservoir Fluid Analysis Testing

Bottom Hole Samples
Sample 1 2 Well Full-52 Full-16 Formation LJ Sup. Sample 1 2 3

Core Analysis Testing

Drill 57 core plugs

Surface Samples
Well Full-48 Full-51 Full-12 Formation LJ Sup. Inf.

Restoration of two bottom hole samples to 300F and 9000 psi

API Gravity, Compositional and PARA analysis on all three oils

Extraction cleaning and humidity drying of all samples

Static parametric test on four drilling fluids and three crude oil samples.

API Gravity, Compositional and PARA analysis for both bottom hole samples

Asphaltene drop out by extraneous fluids.

Initial screening test for asphaltene inhibitors.

Asphaltene deposition envelop for Full-52 (LJ)

Measure asphaltene content on Full-48 surface virgin oil Test each chemical A250, 500, 1000 and 2000 ppm Measure asphaltene content on 50/50 mixture of Full-48 and two water based drilling filtrates.

Co. X Water Based Mud + Full-48, Full-51 and Full-12 Surface Samples

Measure permeability and porosity by CMS300 at three confining pressures (800, 2000, and NOB press.) on all samples.

Onsets for naricual for Full-16 (Sup.)

Co. A Chem A

Co. X Oil Based Mud + Full-48, Full-51 and Full-12 Surface Samples

Measure liquid permeability at NOB selected samples

Measure asphaltene content on 50/50 mixture of Full-48 and two oil based drilling filtrates.

Co. B Chem B

Co. Y Water Based Mud + Full-48, Full-51 and Full-12 Surface Samples

Co. C Chem C

Select samples for Dynamic Testing

Co. Y Oil Based Mud + Full-48, Full-51 and Full-12 Surface Samples

Co. D Chem D Evaluate the result and select the most compatible mud.

Select the best two chemicals and test for dispersant properties.

Thin section and Hg injection on selected samples

Measure the viscosity of emulsion

Go to Asphaltene Removal and Permeability Recovery

Go to Data Evaluation and Selection of Best Mud

Whole Mud Testing Using four composites and Full 48 Los Jabillos Oil

Full-48 Los Jabillos Oil and Co. X Water based Mud (CaCl2) Composite 1 (C1) = Full-12 Sample 7 & Full-53 Sample 4 (Los Jabillos)

Full-48 Los Jabillos Oil and Co. X Oil based Mud (CaCl2) Composite 2 (C2) = Full-46 Sample 4 & Full-46 Sample 2 (Naricual Inferior)

Full-48 Los Jabillos Oil and Co. Y Water based Mud (KHCO2) Composite 3 (C3) = Full-53 Sample 6 & Full-53 Sample 5 (Los Jabillos)

Full-48 Los Jabillos Oil and Co. Y Oil based Mud Composite 4 (C4) = Full-2 Sample 3 & Full-13 Sample 3 (Naricual Superior)

Data Evaluation and Selection of the Best Mud

Input from Static Parametric Testing

Mud Optimization Tests - using BHS of oils Test #1 Composite 1 (C1) = Full-12 Sample 8 (Los Jabillos) Test #2 Composite 2 (C2) = Full-2 Sample 6 & Full-12 Sample 2 (Naricual Superior)

Selection of the best two chemicals from Initial Screening Test for Asphaltene Inhibitors.

Asphaltene Removal and Permeability Recovery Test

Chemical #1 Comp. #1 = Full-12 Sample 5 & Full-53 Sample 3

Chemical #2 Comp. #2 = Full-12 Sample 4 & Full-53 Sample 2

Select best inhibitor

Optimum Stimulation Testing

using 4 concentrations of mutual solvent Test #1 (OSE1c1) and Test #2 (OSE2C2)

Final data evaluation and selection of the best combinations

Flowchar2

Flowchart 2a

Dispersant Properties Testing

Prepare stock of surface oil sludge (5 mg) and add 1,000 ml xylene

1 ml Stock + 100 ml hexane + 1,000 ml of # 1 Rank Chemical

1 ml Stock + 100 ml hexane + 1,000 ml of # 2 Rank Chemical

Measure transmittance

Measure transmittance

Compare and Rank the Chemicals

Flowchart 3

Asphaltene Removal and Permeability Recovery Testing

Measure permeability to crude oil and age the core samples

Load the composite rock samples in a core holder and charge the system at above the asphaltene onset pressure

Reduce pressure below f locculation pressure and measure permeability to oil continuously in the production direction until permeability reduction is observed

Inject xylene to w ash through several PV of the core to establish baseline for xylene removal

Measure permeability at end of Xylene w ash

Apply the chemical dispersant at selected concentration in xylene to the core samples

Measure sample permeability at end of Chemical treatment

Shut in the core for 24 hours and re-establish flow using xylene

Measure permeability at end of chemical treatment and assess clean by comparing permeability

Flowchart 4

Dynamic Stimulation Test

Measure permeability to dead oil and age the core samples

Load the sample in a core holder and charge the system at above the onset pressure and measure permeability to oil

Reduce pressure below f locculation pressure at specified increments until permeability reduction is observed. Measure permeability to oil continuously in the production direction..

Raise pressure back to above the onset pressure and measure permeability to oil and stop the oil flow after system stabilizes

Inject 0.75 pore volumes of xylene w ith 1,500 ppm InSol A/W chemical additive.from the injection side and let system soak for 4 hours then measure permeability to oil.

Inject 1.5 pore volumes of xylene w ith 3000 ppm InSol A/W chemical additive from the injection side and let system soak for 4 hours then measure permeability to oil

Compare the permeabilities obtained in the different steps above to evaluate the effect of xylene and chemical in removing asphaltene damage

Flowchart 5

Static Parametric Test

Obtain drilling filtrate for all the drilling muds by the centrifuge process.

Prepare a mixture fifty percent by volume of each drilling mud filtrate and three surface oil samples

Mix the samples w ell and shake it for at least 30 minutes then place the samples into an ov en at 300 F.

Let the mix tures settle for tw o w eeks and check for emulsion phase periodically.

Repeat this for all the surface oils and completion fluid (2% KCl)

Identify the sludge if present (size of sludge and asphaltene Content)

Measure v iscosity of the sludge and the light end mix ture.

Flowchart 6

Whole Mud Testing

Flow w hole mud for extended length of time

Flush each sample w ith crude oil and age 8 to 24 hr (production direction)

Measure oil permeability in the production direction

Circulate sample w ith one of the drilling muds for 6 hrs

Shut in the sample for 6hrs

Flush sample w ith the drilling mud for 1 to 2 hrs. (injection direction)

Flush sample w ith oil in production direction using step increases in pressure (starting w ith 2 psi) to get breakdow n pressure

Provide continuous permeability and pressure data and periodic Compositional analysis of collected effluent.

Flowchart 7

Proposed Procedure
Perform Production Test Log (PTL)

Actual Procedure
Attempted Production Test Log (PTL) Failed to get dow n due to asphaltene plugs in tubing

Prepare 10% InSol Mixture

Prepared 10% InSol Mixture

Run Coiled tubing to bottom. Clean out Sump of w ell w ith diesel if required.

Run Coiled tubing to bottom. Jetted Sump and tubing up to 8,000'with diesel.

Fill sump w ith 30 bbl chemical mixture. Soak for 4 hours.

Fill sump and tubing up to 8,000' w ith chemical mix ture. Pull coiled tubing. Soak for 4 hours.

Open w ell and flow back chemical soak mixture.

Open well and flow back chemical soak mixture.

Pull coiled tubing to midperforations and inject 500 bbl chemical mixture at low rate and below frac pressure. SWI for 4 hours.

Run coiled tubing to midperforations and inject 500 bbl chemical mixture at 1 bpm and 3,850 psi pressure. Pull coil tubing. SWI for 4 hours.

Open w ell and flow back chemical squeeze mixture.

Open well and flow back chemical squeeze mixture.

Inject 995 bbl chemical mixture at low rate and below frac pressure. SWI for 4 hours.

Run coiled tubing to bottom and inject 980 bbl chemical mixture in 100 bbl stages at 50' intervals. Pull coil tubing. SWI for 4 hours.

Return well to production

Turn w ell over to PDVSA. Return w ell to production

Test well and run post treatment PTL.

Test well and run post treatment PTL.

Flowchart 8

Comparison of PTA and HU Permeabilities

1000 Core-log Perm., mD

100

10

1 1 10 Well Test Perm., mD 100 1000

Fig. 1- Well test permeability verses core-log permeability

FUL- 52, Las Jabillos 7000

No Solids Present

6000

5000
Solids Present

4000

3000

2000
Solids Present

1000
No Solids Present

0 180 200 220 Bubble Point 240 260 Upper Onset 280 Lower Onset 300 320

Temperature, F

Fig. 2- Asphaltene Deposition Envelope

Asphaltene Flocculation Test Flu-48 STO + 1000 ppm Company D Chemical

1.6 Relative NIR Absorbance 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 Amount of Heptane Added, cc's nC7 per gram Oil Onset at 0.225

Fig. 3- Example of asphaltene screening test

Dispersant Testing at 500 ppm Chemical Additive with Ful-48 Tar in Hexane
0.4

Dispersant Testing at 1000 ppm Chemical Additive with FUL-48 Tar in Hexane

0.6 0.4 Absorbance 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 1500 1550

Note: Higher absorbance means more deposit dispersed

0.2 0 Absorbance -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 1500

Company B Company D Company C Reference

Note: Higher absorbance means more deposit dispersed which means better dispersant.

Company B Company D Company C Reference

1600 Wavelength, nm

1650

1700

1550

1600 Wavelength, nm

1650

1700

Fig. 4a- Ranking of chemicals at 500 ppm

Fig. 4b-Ranking of chemicals at 1000 ppm

Composite1, CB Chemical Composite2, CC Chemical

100.0. 90.0.

Permeability as % of initial permeability

80.0. 70.0. 60.0. 50.0. 40.0. 30.0. 20.0. 10.0. .0.

O il)

Composite2, CC Chemical
Af te (li rP ve re O ss il) ur eD ro p( liv eO il) Xy le ne St ar tp oi nt Xy len e Xy En le d ne po +C in he t m ic al St ar tp Xy oi len nt e+ Ch em ica lE nd po in t

(D ea d

Composite1, CB Chemical
Af te rT es t( liv eO il)

Ag in g Be fo re

Permeability as % of initial permeability

Af te rA gi ng
100.00. 90.00.

Fig. 5-Asphaltene Removal and Permeability Recovery Testing

80.00. 70.00. 60.00. 50.00. 40.00. 30.00. 20.00. 10.00. .00. After aging- Initial base line Permeability(live oil)

After Pressure Drop asphaltene damage(live oil)

S1
After injection of 1500 ppm chemical CC slug

After injection of 3000 ppm chemical CC slug

Fig 6- Dynamic Stimulation Test to Verify the Effectiveness of Chemical

BRIGING PARTICEL SIZE DATA Los Jabillos 0.400 MERCURY SATURATION, FRACTION (FREQUENCY) 0.350 0.300 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000
Ful 53 Sample 6 Ful 12 Sample 8 Ful 12 Sample 7 Average

BRIDGING PARTICEL DIAMETER

Fig. 7- Bridging size distribution for Los Jabillos

BRIGING PARTICEL SIZE DATA Naricual Inferior and Superior 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.0010
Ful 7 Sample 8 (NI) Ful 46 Sample 6 (NI) Ful 46 Sample 2 (NI) Average Ful 12 Sample 10 ( N S ) Ful 13 S a m p l e 3 ( N S )

MERCURY SATURATION, FRACTION (FREQUENCY)

0.0100

0.1000

1.0000

10.0000

100.0000

BRIDGING PARTICEL DIAMETER

Fig. 8- Bridging size distribution for Naricual Superior and Inferior

3.5

3.0

2.5 Flow Rate, ml/min

W hole Mud Test # 3 W hole Mud Test # 1 W hole Mud Test # 4

2.0

1.5

1.0

W hole Mud Test # 2

0.5

0.0 0 20 40 60 D ifferential Pressure, psi 80 100 120

Fig. 9- Flow rate versus differential pressure for all the muds tested

Damaged by invasion

Undamaged by inv asion

Fig. 10 Examples of the damaged and undamaged thin sections

NIR Asphaltene Flocculation Test Ful-52 Reservoir Oil+MI Oil-Based Mud

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

Onset @ 6150 psia

0.05

0 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000

Pressure, psia

Fig. 11- Asphaltene onset due to mud filtrate

MECHANICAL DIAGRAM FUL 10-I
KB = 27.6'

Otis X nipple @ 355' (ID: 2.813") Otis XO circulating sleeve @ 12,999' (ID: 2.437)

9 5/8", 53.5#, P-110 @ 14,099'

3 1/2", 9.3#, P-105, CS HYD

Camco XBID circulating sleeve @14,553' (ID: 2.9375") Blast Joint: 14,557-995' 14,625'

Naricual Medio
14,930' Radioactive collar @ 14,995' Otis WB packer @ 15,000' 2 7/8" extension w/ mule shoe Otis XN nipple @ 15,042' (ID: 2.205")

15,120'

Naricual Inferior
15,627' Top of fish @ 15,532': Otis WB packer with 38' extention tube and one joint of 3 1/2" tubing with Otis XN nipple

7", 35#, P-110 @ 15,697'

Fig. 12 - The mechanical condition for the completion of Ful 10 Inferior

Fig. 13 Pre-Treatment Nodal Analysis

Fig. 14 Post-Treatment Nodal Analysis

2000 1500 1000 500 0

Be fo re Af te r

Rate, BOPD WHP, psi

M os .

Figure 15 Flow Rate and Wellhead pressures for FUL 10I

M os .

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

FUL 79 - Base
100 90 80 Cumulative <, % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.1 1 10 Particle Diameter 100 1000
d10 d50 d90 Min Act. 1.0 1.77 16.0 20.24 50.0 72.20 Max 3.0 32.0 99.0

Figure 16 Base Particle Size Distribution

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

FUL 79
100 90 80 Cumulative <, % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.1 1 10 Particle Diameter 100 1000
d10 d50 d90 Min Act. 1.0 1.77 16.0 20.24 50.0 72.20 Max 3.0 32.0 99.0

Figure 17 Particle Size Distribution Envelope

FUL 79
Mud Weight, Hydrostatic Pressure, Formation Pressure
10.55 10.60 10.65 10.70 9,000 8,000 7,000

10.75 5,000 10.80 4,000 10.85 10.90 10.95 11.00 11.05 13,300 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 14,300

13,400

13,500

13,600

13,700

13,800

13,900

14,000

14,100

14,200

Depth
Mud Weight Hyd. Press. Reservoir Pressure

Figure 18 Mud and formation Pressure Properties

Specific Productivity, BOPD/psi/ft

0.2500 0.2000 0.1500 0.1000 0.0500 0.0000 Well 1 Well 2 FUL-79 Well 4

Figure 19 Comparison of Specific Productivity

Pressure, psi

Mud Weight

6,000

Table 1- Wells Selected for the Study

Well # Upper 10 11 12 17 20 22 23 29 30 40 56 59 61 62 x x x x x

Reservoirs where completed Middle x Lower x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Los Jabillos

Table 2a - Well Test and Core-Log Data on Selected Wells

Well # 10NI 10NM 11J 11J 11J 12NI 12NM 17J 23I 59S-M 59S-M 62NI

Date 05/07/93 07/27/90 10/20/88 11/20/93 06/12/97 06/20/95 11/01/96 07/25/96 02/04/97 07/01/96 04/01/97 02/12/97

PTA Ko mD 99 116 35.3 8.96 1.47 301 154 15.6 105 174 229 84

CORE/LOG Ko mD 38 167 34.5 34.5 34.5 251.97 145.2 18.8 125.6 219.5 219.5 74.5

Measured PI bbl/d/psi 3.9 4.64 2.62 0.22 0.19 3.4 3.5 1.14 4.42 6.28 2.05 21.9

Measured Pr (psi) 10300 10032 10845 9201 6977 7461 6567 6769 6858 7136 6747 7184

Measured BHFP (psi) 7197 9268 8230 6073 5625 5943 5101 5098 5899 6617 5996 6856

Ideal PI bbl/d/psi 8.4 17.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 59.0 13.0 1.5 17.3 19.5 19.5 15.9

DR-CL bbl/d/psi 0.534 0.735 -0.637 0.862 0.881 0.942 0.731 0.255 0.745 0.677 0.895 -0.373

Ideal SPI-CL bbl/d/psi/ft 0.0290 0.0901 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.1415 0.0722 0.0053 0.0560 0.0440 0.0440 0.0502

Change in SPI bbl/d/psi/ft 0.0155 0.0662 -0.0074 0.0101 0.0103 0.1333 0.0528 0.0013 0.0417 0.0298 0.0393 -0.0187

St 58 25.4 2.4 24.9 10.3 448 140 14.5 74 26.1 38.4 4.3

Sp 6.12 8.49 3.74 3.74 3.74 4.65 8.77 5.78 3.11 14.58 14.58 2.61

Sd 26.86 7.25 -0.77 12.13 3.76 264.69 55.32 4.46 48.09 3.75 7.76 1.23

Table 2b-Productivity Prediction

Core-Log Analysis Test Well Date Ko mD 10NI 10NM 11NI 11J 12NI 12NM 17NI 17J 20NS 20NI 22NS 22NM 23NM 23I 29NS 29NI 30NM 30NI 40NM 40NI 56S-M 59S-M 61NI 62NI 7/1/96 12/24/96 2/12/97 10/14/88 10/14/88 12/12/88 12/12/88 12/12/88 12/12/88 6/21/90 6/21/90 1/10/91 1/10/91 6/13/91 6/13/91 7/18/91 7/18/91 7/3/92 7/3/92 12/22/92 12/22/92 9/11/93 9/11/93 38 167 263.6 34.5 251.97 145.2 217.8 18.8 461.1 74.9 500.6 357 114.6 125.6 143.7 88.8 837.6 115.8 243.9 71 130.5 219.5 24 74.5 PI bbl/d/psi 6.09 12.87 25.39 1.10 40.49 9.05 31.77 1.07 55.64 4.99 68.01 24.14 2.73 11.81 12.66 14.31 71.41 12.65 5.92 2.43 8.51 13.03 1.53 8.64 SPI bbl/d/psi/ft 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.16 0.02 0.19 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.23 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 Current Drawdown Conditions Post Stimulation Rate, b/d 5485 11579 22854 1428 36445 8148 28594 1386 50075 4493 61205 21726 2453 10627 11397 12881 64272 11388 5327 2187 7658 11723 1380 7776 Current Rate, b/d 2413 3166 5000 280 4200 4500 4160 2000 6160 780 4860 3900 4380 4835 5350 131 5450 5400 3700 2300 5600 8270 5600 7270 Expexted Gain, b/d 3072 8413 17854 1148 32245 3648 24434 -614 43915 3713 56345 17826 -1927 5792 6047 12750 58822 5988 1627 -113 2058 3453 -4220 506 Optimum Drawdown

Conditions
DP=200 psi Post Stim. Rate (bbl/d) 1219 2573 5079 220 8099 1811 6354 213 11128 998 13601 4828 545 2362 2533 2862 14283 2531 1184 486 1702 2605 307 1728

Net Thickness, Hn 288 194 461 137 417 180 335 290 355 248 351 188 89 309 305 317 311 332 169 265 347 443 274 318

Gross Perf. Thickness, Thickness, Ht Hp 254 169 202 86 400 172 318 210 304 232 280 163 69 328 190 336 175 360 139 236 331 253 268 477 490.5 394.5 637 150 670 408 471.5 411 468 460.5 465 316.5 194 483.5 468 464.5 450 489 338 474.5 767 777 642 658

Sp, sp

type fluid

6.125 8.486 15.676 3.742 4.650 8.773 3.156 5.778 3.523 6.416 4.311 5.782 10.236 3.112 9.556 2.495 10.201 2.356 8.884 6.614 9.253 14.576 9.555 2.607

Invermud Invermud Invermud Invermud Invermud Invermud Invermud Invermud oil-base oil-base Invermud Invermud water-base water-base water-base water-base water-base water-base Invermud Invermud Invermud CaCo3 Saline Mud Saline Mud Invermud CaCo3

* Based on initial well spacing4 of 1200m ** Asumming the discharge makes an entry equal to 0.5" (conservative)

Table 3 Summary of Asphaltene Flocculation Data

Chemical Name CA CB CC CD Pure Oil

Onset at 250 ppm <0 0.08 <0 0.04 <0

Onset at 500 ppm <0 0.05 <0 <0 <0

Onset at 1000 ppm 0.03 <0 <0 0.225 <0

Onset at 2000 ppm 0.08 <0 <0 0.12 <0

Table 4- The Chemical and Physical Properties of the Drilling Muds

COMPANY X DRILLING MUDS

Mud 1: (CaCl2) Products: Amount:

Mud 2: (Potasium Formate) Products: Amount:

Oil Base Mud Composition: Per 350 cc barrel equivalent

CaCl2 Brine Density MIL-CARB W-306 Mag-Ox

0.9 bbls 9.2 ppg 50 ppb 2 gpb 3 ppb Potasium Formate Brine Density 0.94 bbls 9 ppg 55 ppb

Iso-Teq Omni-Mul 11.0 lb/gal CaCl Brine Carbo-Gel Carbo-Trol Milcarb

205.4 cc 8.0 cc 88.0 cc 6 gr 5 gr 128 gr

Density,lbm/gal Rheologies @ F 600 rpm 300 rpm 200 rpm 100 rpm 6 rpm 3 rpm Plastic Viscosity, cps Yield Point, lbf/100 ft2 Initial Gel,lbf/100 ft2 10 min Gel,lbf/100 ft2 API, mls/30 min Ph

9.9 120 57 38 32 23 9 7 19 19 9 14 2.8 10

Density,lbm/gal Rheologies @ F 600 rpm 300 rpm 200 rpm 100 rpm 6 rpm 3 rpm Plastic Viscosity, cps Yield Point, lbf/100 ft2 Initial Gel,lbf/100 ft2 10 min Gel,lbf/100 ft2 API, mls/30 min Ph

9.82 120 45 32 28 20 9 8 13 19 9 15 4.8 9.4 Test Temp.- 120 F 600 rpm rdg 300 rpm rdg 200 rpm rdg 100 rpm rdg 6 rpm rdg 3 rpm rdg PV YP Density,lb/gal 73 44 35 24 11 10 29 15 9.8 Properties:

COMPANY Y DRILLING MUDS Mud 1: ( NaCl-NaBr) Volume per Product KCl(5%) CaCO3 C CaCO3 M CaCO3 F MagOx OS-1L Blended Product Fresh water 100% NaCl 95% NaBr Conc.,ppb 18 10 20 10 1 0.1 5 Amount 0.846 bbl/bbl 55.0 ppb 126.0 ppb 66% Sodium Formate 34% Potasium Formate 10.5 ppg 13.18 ppg Product Oil Water CaCl 2 S.G. 2 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 1.34 1.56 barrel 0.026 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.001 0 0.009 Lab Volume ml 9 3.57 7.14 3.57 0.45 0.07 3.21 Product ml CaCO 3 C CaCO 3 M CaCO 3 F MagOx OS-1L Blended Product 10 20 10 1 0.1 3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 1.34 1.56 A mount 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.001 0 0.005 3.57 7.14 3.57 0.45 0.07 1.92 Conc.,ppb S.G. Mud 2: ( Sodium and Potasium Formate) Volume per barrel Lab Volume ml Product ml CaCO 3 F CaCO 3 M CaCO 3 C VG-69 V.Mod V.Coat V.Mul Lime Barite 0 20 20 7 1 2 6 6 176.72 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.57 0.98 0.968 0.9 2.2 4.2 159.32 gms 79.94 gms 27.02 gms 0 0.02 0.02 0.013 0.003 0.006 0.019 0.008 0.12 Conc.,ppb S.G. Volume per barrel Oil Base Mud

A mount,for liquid fraction

Table 5- Company X Permeability Evaluation of the Mud System

Core Sample (Depth) Ful 7 Sa mple3 (14227.6 ) Ful 12 Sample6 (14986 6) Ful46 Sample14 (15265.4 )

Overbalance, psi 820 690 840

Initial Perm. 193 36.1 15.36

Return perm.(%) Initial- Fina l 112md-164md(85) 12.6-24.6md(68) 8.93-14.6(95)

Table 6- Summary of Leakoff/Return permeability

Net Confining Stress: 4750 psi Temperature: 300F Circulation Temperature: 300F Overbalance: 600 psi Mud Information Total Leakoff Volume, milliliters Return Permeability, percent I-0.5" 0.5-1.5" 1.5"-P

Sample Number

Well

Klinkenberg Permeability, millidarcies

Porosity, fraction

Initial Water Saturation, fraction

Spurt Loss, milliliters

Terminal Leakoff Rate, cm/min

Break Pressure, psi

Terminal Water Saturation, fraction

Composite 1 - Company X CaCl 2 Mud (Water-Based) Injection 7 FUL-12 4 FUL-53 Production 131 107 0.149 0.142 0.095 0.121 0.33 26.8 0.013 25.0 1.6 10.9 14.5 0.300 0.345

Composite 2 - Company Y Na/KHCO 2 Mud (Water-Based) Injection 6 FUL-53 5 FUL-53 Production

70.9 84.8

0.135 0.141

0.119 0.111

0.98

34.7

0.0058

17.0

4.9

16.3

25.2

0.285 0.294

Composite 3 - Company Y (Oil-Based) Injection 3 FUL-2 3 FUL-13 Production

166 260

0.144 0.164

0.110 0.093

0.28

4.80

0.0015

1.0

23.0

83.0

90.9

0.124 0.130

Composite 4 - Company X (Oil-Based) Injection 4 FUL-46 2 FUL-46 Production

163 182

0.131 0.155

0.22

4.79

0.00067

11.0

5.5

78.7

92.4

Table 7 - The depth of invasion of drilling muds

Company Mud Filtrate Sample ID Max . Solid Inv asion Depth Invasion Depth of 95% of Solids Company X CaCl2 FUL-12 Samp le7 3.2 mm 0.7 mm Company X Oil Based FUL-46 Samp le4 1.3 mm 0.1 mm Co mpany Y Na/KHCO2 FUL-53 Sample6 None Thin Coating Co mpany Y Oil Based FUL-2 Sample 3 0.6 mm 0.1mm

Table 8- Initial Mud Formulation

Diesel Water CaCl2 Rheology agent Lime Suspending agent Wetting agent Emulsifier CaCO 3 Mediu m CaCO 3 Course Barite 7 0 % b y v o lume 3 0 % b y v o lume 27.02 ppb 7.00 ppb 6.00 ppb 1.00 ppb 2.00 ppb 6.00 ppb 20.00 ppb 20.00 ppb 176.72 ppb

Table 9 Summary of Mud checks

FUL-79 MUD CHECKS Mud Weight 11-10 11 Viscosity Solids 1830-35 28% 19 14.5 Salinity 250,000 178000 Water loss D95 60<4 99 5.4 63.22 64.00 57.96 48.38 5.4 48.23 59.92 57.08 3.4 56.93 50.70 3.2 52.54 50.50 51.49 64.00 4.4 59.39 52.41 53.38 56.93 49.30 48.53 54.40 3.2 53.33 64.00 57.71 D50 16-32 29.09 31.37 20.66 16.85 16.60 25.22 24.12 26.33 21.53 27.10 22.37 22.67 21.39 31.99 20.91 22.53 23.61 20.17 21.81 21.63 22.21 24.27 23.04 D5 1-3 13.47 14.71 8.73 7.32 6.54 9.39 10.03 13.96 11.57 14.42 11.51 10.71 8.26 19.17 8.91 10.51 10.38 9.08 8.51 7.32 9.23 9.38 9.91

Date 18-Sep 18-Sep 18-Sep 18-Sep 19-Sep 19-Sep 19-Sep 20-Sep 21-Sep 21-Sep 21-Sep 21-Sep 22-Sep 23-Sep 23-Sep 23-Sep 23-Sep 23-Sep 24-Sep 24-Sep 24-Sep 24-Sep 24-Sep

Depth 13,332 13,432 13,482 13,532 13,582 13,582 13,632 13,678 13,678 13,678 13,729 13,729 13,729 13,782 13,832 13,882 13,932 13,982 14,032 14,082 14,132 14,182 14,230

11

17

14.5

178000

10.9 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.7

16.5 16.5

14.5 13.5

181000 181000

14

13

179000

10.6

14

12.5

179000

Readings at high end are supressed due to particle settling Readings at low end are high due to particle attraction D50 is used as indicator of conditions

Readings are at D5, D50 and D95 to conform w ith Spectrex output

Table 10 Comparison of Specific Productivity Indices (SPI)

Well FUL-65 FUL-78 FUL-79 FUL-80 Date Completed Mar-97 Aug-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Thickness, ft 417 326 336 292 PI, BOPD/psi 5.3 26.0 79.0 11.1 SPI, BOPD/psi/ft 0.01271 0.07975 0.23512 0.03801