SPE 164434

Wellbore Asphaltene Cleanout Using a New Solvent Formulation in a

Horizontal Open Hole Oil Producer in Carbonate Reservoir of North Ghawar
FieldScripting a Success Story
S. Murtaza, SPE, A.A. Al-Ruwaily, SPE, A.A. Taqi, SPE, and S.S. Qahtani, Saudi Aramco; Alejandro Chacon,
Alexys Jose Gonzalez and Ernesto Bustamante, Halliburton
Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 1013 March 2013.

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
An organic deposit cleanout job was successfully performed on a horizontal openhole Arab-D reservoir oil well and a high oil
rate was restored from the dead well. The well was treated with a proprietary chemical solvent using bullheading and coiled
tubing (CT) jetting technique to have maximum coverage of the wellbore from the tubing to long open hole horizontal
sections. The treatment performed for this job representedthe first application of this chemical in a carbonate field of North
Ghawar.

A few wells in this area, lying within the boundary of a gas cap, have experienced asphaltene/paraffin problems that resulted in
productivity decline and wellbore inaccessibility. A high gas-oil ratio (GOR) has been thought to be the main reason for
asphaltene/paraffin precipitation inside the wellbore and near the formation. Organic depositswere observed to have
accumulated in the wellhead and shallow tubing depth.

This well was drilled in 2007 on the periphery of the south gas cap of the field and died after being on production for three
years at a relative low watercut. The well was reported with a high GOR and water cut around 2% to 3% before dying.
Analysis of a downhole sample confirmed 100% hydrocarbon with 81% asphaltic presence. The asphaltene/paraffin deposition
was identified as the main reason for the death of this well.

Chemical/solvent treatment using a CT jetting/pulsating mechanism was employed to have a maximum benefit. The solvent
was proven in the lab to be very effective in dissolving asphaltene/paraffin and had a higher flash point. The job was
performed in two stages. In the first stage, about one tubing volume of the solvent was bullheaded and left for soaking for 24
hours. In the second stage, the solvent was placed using 2 CT in the open hole section.

This paper describes in detail the nature of the asphaltene problem in this area, the formation mechanism, treatment selection,
design and execution, and future prevention approach to avoid recurrence.

Introduction
Organic deposits are a common source of oil field formation damage. Such organic deposits generally occur from changes in
the production environment and may result in partial or total loss of productivity as reported for many cases worldwide. Some
wells in the northwestern part of the Ghawar field (Field-AN) have experienced this problem where a partial or total decline in
productivity was reported due to organic deposition.The objective of this paper is to present a successful cleanout treatment
that was performed on a horizontal openhole well using a new solvent formulation. The paper also discusses the evaluation of
different solvents and anticipated mechanisms of asphaltene precipitation in Well-A.

History of Well-A
Well-A was drilled as a horizontal openhole oil producer in a carbonate reservoir of the giant Ghawar field. The well was
drilled in 2007 through the gas cap area with a 6 directional hole to 10,073 ft measured depth (MD) and 6,640ft true vertical
depth (TVD). The well was completed with a 7 packer with 4 tubing. The final shut-in wellhead pressure (SIWHP)
was1,500 psi.
2 SPE 164434
The well was reported dead after a gas-oil separation plant (GOSP) shut down in January 2011. In March 2011, 3.7 and 3.5
gauge cutters (GCs) were run and stopped at depths of 70 ft and 80 ft, respectively. In May 2011, a sample was collected from
the obstruction depth (70 ft) and sent for lab analysis. In October 2011, another wireline GC (2) was run and reached until
52 at 6,612 ft inside the tubing. In February 2012, a 3 GC was run and stopped at a depth of 150 ft from where a downhole
sample was collected for lab analysis.

Mechanism of Asphaltene-Induced Formation Damage
Asphaltene is the heaviest polar component of crude oils. The remaining polar components in crude oils are aromatics and
resins (Kokal et al., 1995; Michell et al., 1973). Both asphaltene and resin molecules have a molecular weight range of 500 to
1,000 g/mole. In contrast, asphaltene aggregates can have a molecular weight of 10
3
to 10
5
g/mole (Thawer et al., 1990). These
aggregates, which are found in crude oils as micelles or colloidal particles, are stabilized by resins. There is no definite
structure for asphaltene. Asphaltene can be defined as the oil fraction that is soluble in benzene, but is insoluble in n-heptane
or n-pentane.

Crude oil, a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, can be a source of formation damage. Asphaltene precipitates from crude oil
due to different factors, such as temperature, pressure, chemical changes or combinations of the above. Additionally,
asphaltene deposition might be due to other factors such as mixing of different crudes in the formation, gas migration or
breakout, shearing effect while flowing in the rock and wellbore, and electric charge changes generated by the flow of the
hydrocarbon itself (Lightford et al., 2006). Asphaltene deposition can damage the formation in several ways. It can block the
pore throats or adsorb on the rock surface, sochanging its wettability (Ring et al., 1994). It can also precipitate in the
production tubing andrestrict oil flow. It can also stabilize water-in-oil emulsions during stimulation, especially in the presence
of iron ions where iron-asphaltene sludge can form (Jacobs and Thorne, 1986;FiguerowOrtiz et al., 1996). This sludge is very
viscous, and can severely reduce well productivity. Agglomeration of asphaltenes at the water-oil interface can result in
formation of tight emulsions (Kokal and Juraid, 1998).

Asphaltene deposition is a common problem in several oil fields. Asphaltene deposition in the wellbore area usually starts with
the flocculation of asphaltene particles (Leontaritis et al., 1994). Recent microscopic and spectroscopic observations revealed
that the process of asphaltene flocculation is random. Flocculation rearranges the asphaltene micelles, by losing (or gaining)
resin molecules and forming larger entities. According to Leontaritiset al. (1994) asphaltene particles larger than 0.1 mm in
size are formed after flocculation.

Asphaltene Precipitation in Well A
The cause of asphaltene precipitation in Field-AN is the stripping of the asphaltene from the crude oil by gas (Kokal et al.,
2003).Even though the oil reservoir is undersaturated, the two gascaps in Field-AN are attributed to gas injection during the
1960s and 1970s. A number of wells in Field-AN showed high gas-oil ratio(GOR) in the gas cap area; several of these wells
showed GORs approaching 1,000 scf/stb. Kokal et al.(2003) conducted asphaltene precipitation experiments at reservoir
conditions using a special pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) apparatus and found that asphaltene precipitation and
deposition increase with increasing GORs.

The reason for precipitation is the stripping of asphaltene from crude oil by gas. When gas is added to the crude (as may
happen during production from the gas-cap wells) the composition of the crude changes and may lead to precipitation. This is
the same mechanism observed during de-asphalting of crude oil in a refinery where propane and butane are used for stripping
the asphaltenes. The precipitated asphaltenes deposit near or in the wellbore, which may result in partial or total loss of well
productivity. Figure1 shows the production data of Well-A where the increase in GOR was associated with decrease of oil rate
as an indication of asphaltene precipitation.

Asphaltene Removal Techniques
Due to its adverse impact on production, numerous remediation methods have been developed for removal and dissolution of
asphaltene. These include mechanical removal, heat, dispersants and solvents (Krueger, 1986;Trbovich and King, 1991; Abdul
Fatah and Nasr-El-Din, 2010). The solvent-based solutions normally include hydrocarbon-based materials such as xylene or
toluene thatare used to remove formation damage due to organic deposits. The efficiency of aromatic solvents can be enhanced
by adding small amounts of alcohols or co-solvents. These co-solvents may be aromatic derivatives such as alkyl benzene,
sulfonic acid or amine compounds (Chang and Fogler, 1996). Trbovich et al. (1991) reported that an aromaticcontaining co-
solvent system offered advantages compared with the use of a straight aromatic solvent.

Abdul Fatah and Nasr-El-Din (2010) reported four cases in which acid emulsified in xylene was used effectively to remove
asphaltene deposition and enhance well productivity. Ibrahim and Ali(2005) presented a two-pack chemical system developed
to remove organic deposits inand around the wellbore (skin) and production tubing to enhance the production rate. The two-
SPE 164434 3
pack chemical system reacts to produce in-situ heat with a reaction product. Boswood and Krech(2011)presented case studies
and laboratory testing results for fully miscible miler acidizing solvents that showed superiority and were more economical
compared with xylene.

The current development in solvents for asphaltene removal is directed toward more environmentally friendly solvents such as the
naturally-occurring terpenes (Curtis, 2003). In general, the solvent systems with the more favorable health, safety and environment
(HSE) properties have not had the same dissolving power for asphaltene as the traditional solvents. A basic understanding of
asphaltene structure and properties is an essential requisite for designing a solvent system for asphaltene dissolution. Frost et al.
(2008) presented laboratory evaluations of an emulsified solvent system that hada high flash point and exhibited comparable or better
dissolving power than xylene; and had an additional benefit of leaving the formation strongly waterwet.

In terms of the compatibility or difference in performance of the dissolvers in carbonate or sandstone formations, there is
minimal information available. This is likely due to the fact that the performance of the chemical system is more dependent on
the nature and composition of the formation fluid produced, rather than on the type of reservoir. A case history of an operation
performed in Southern Italy in a naturally fractured carbonate formation using an emulsified system with a washoil comprising
distillates (coal tar), naphtalene oils, and methyl-naphthalene fractions, proved that the blend is compatible with that type of
formation, being able to restore production to pre-asphaltene deposition rates (Lightford et al., 2006). Therefore, in the case of
this particular well completed across a prolific carbonate formation, it was decided to use the same naphtaleneoil-based
dissolver, albeit without the emulsifier.

Experimental Studies
The experimental work conducted forthis study included identification of the organic deposit obtained from Well-A. The effect
of soaking time and temperature on the solubility of the organic deposit in different solvents was also investigated.

Chemicals and SolventFormulations
Different solvents and chemicals were used in this study including xylene, mutual solvent and formulations provided by
different vendors. Diesel and mutual solvent, provided by Saudi Aramco, were used in most of the examined formulations.
The different solvent formulations examined in this study are depicted in Tables 2 to 4.Formulation 1 is a naphtalene oil-based
solvent and it has no BETX (benzene, toluene, xylene).

Solubility Test Procedure
Prepare the required concentrations of the solvent to be examined.
1. Weigh the empty 50 mL glass bottle and record the weight.
2. Put 2 grams of organic deposit in the glass bottle.
3. Add to the bottle 20 grams of the prepared solvent.
4. Close the bottle and place it in the oven at 220 F for the specified time.
5. Weigh and label 0.45 m filter papers accordingly before filtering the organic deposit/solvent solution from the bottles.
6. Filter the solution in a bottle using the labeled 0.45 m filter paper.
7. Rinse any residual particles in the bottle using 20 mL of the prepared solvent solution and filter it through the 0.45 m
filter paper.
8. Put the labeled filter paper and the glass bottle in the oven and leave overnight to dry.
9. Measure the weight of each glass bottle and filter paper after drying and record data on the solubility sheet (XL sheet)
provided to calculate the solubility.
10. Calculate the organic deposit solubility using the following equation:
100
deposit(g) organic of weight Original
(g) weight residual - (g) weight Original
(%) Solubility x = (1)


Asphaltene Content Measurement
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) recommended procedure for separating asphaltenes from crude oil
(ASTM D2007-80) was used to determine the asphaltene content in the oil samples. To the oil volume, an equivalent of 40
times of n-pentane was added and the mixture is aged and filtered as described in the ASTMD2007-80. The asphaltene content
was then calculated by dividing the weight of dried obtained asphaltene by the weight of the oil.

Results and Discussions
In this section of the paper, the characterization and identification of the bailer sample, solubility tests performed, field
application and post treatment analysis results will be addressed.
4 SPE 164434
Characterization and Identification of Bailer Samples
Figure2 shows photos of the bailer samples obtained from Well-A. The bailer samples were collected at a depth of 150 ft on
February 22, 2012. As shown in Fig.2, the bailer sample contains solid material and oil. The sludgy material was separated
from the sample and subjected to asphaltene and paraffin content measurement. Table1 shows that the organic deposit
contained mainly asphaltene (81 wt%) and associated paraffin (11 wt%). The analysis results suggest that we should look for a
solvent thatis capable of dissolving both asphaltene and paraffin. Figure3 shows a photo of deposited organic material in the
wellhead of Well-A.

Solubility of Organic Deposits Separated from the Bailer Sample
The solubility tests were performed on the organic deposits obtained from Well-A at different temperatures, including a
reservoir temperature of 220F and different soaking times. The tests were conducted at static condition, without agitation.

Table5providesa summary of the solubility tests performed for Well-A organic deposits in different solvents. The results
revealed that Formulation 1 exhibited the best performance among the examined solvent mixtures. Formulation 1 was able to
dissolve 94 wt% of the organic deposits after aging for 6 hours at 220F and 500 psi while Formulation 3 at the same
conditions dissolved only 70 wt%. A mixture of 50 vol% xylene and 50 vol% diesel was able to dissolve 77 wt%.

The effect of temperature and soaking time on the performance of Formulation 1 was investigated as shown in Figs. 4 and 5,
respectively. The results showed that solubility of Well-A organic deposits in Formulation 1 increased from 82 wt%, at a
temperature of 25C, to 94 wt% at reservoir temperature (104C). Both temperature and soaking time tended to enhance the
performance of Formulation 1. Figure 5 shows that the solubility of the organic deposits reached nearly plateau level after a
soaking time of 4 hours. The results suggest that a soaking time of 4 hours is enough to dissolve the organic deposits, although
a soaking time of 6 hours might be recommended to allow for a safety margin.

Operational Design

For the design of this specific intervention, several factors were taken into account to fine-tune the treatment to perform it in
the most cost-effective and assertive manner. The first step was to check the well history and see where the deposition of
asphaltene commenced after the well production had dropped to 0 BOPD. A 3 outer diameterGC was run about six months
prior to the intervention, and it tagged asphaltene deposition at 150 ft below the surface. Samples recovered from the GC run
were analyzed to determine their composition,and were subjected to solubility tests in different asphaltene dissolvers to
determine the best suited solvent for this case.

An infrared spectroscopy analysis indicated that the deposit was mainly hydrocarbon based with 81% content of asphaltenic
residue and 11% aliphatic hydrocarbon residue. As for the solvents that were examined, it was determined that the best
dissolution performance at 220 F and 500 psi was obtained from Formulation 1, the naphtalene oil-based solvent system.The
naphtalene oil-based solvent system was combined with an n-methylpyrrolidone co-solvent for more effective dissolution and
de-sorption. This solvent system was able to dissolve up to 94 wt% of the asphaltene sample under the aforementioned
conditions. Additionally, the need to get this flagship well back on production meant that the job was to be carried out at the
end of thesummer, where temperatures may reach 50 C. The use of xylene-based systems would pose a safety risk, given the
low flash point (~82 F) of the chemical when handled and mixed, while on the other hand the naphtalene oil-based dissolver
has a flash point of ~151 F, making for a much safer operation. With these premises, it was decided to follow the laboratory
tests and HSE prevention measures and design the operation with the naphtalene oil-based dissolver system.

The next step was to review the well completion and determine the areas of focus where it was believed that the highest
deposit concentration was located. The well was completed with a 4 tubing section down to 7,256 ft, a 7 liner down to
7,416 ft, and a horizontal 6 openhole section reaching a total depth (TD) of 10,073 ft. The treatment was split in two stages
the first stage involved bullheading solvent from the wellhead to clean the tubing portion and the second stage comprised
using coiled tubing (CT) to spot solvent in the open hole section.

In the first stage of treatment, 100 bbl of solvent, equivalent to one tubing volume was bullheaded and left in the tubing for 24
hours for soaking deposit. The time allowed was enough for dissolving asphaltene. In the meantime, CT rig-up was completed
for the second stage treatment.
In the second stage of the treatment, CT was used for placing the solvent in the openhole section. A pumping schedule,Fig. 7,
was prepared based on the openhole volume for use with an alternate solvent, with treated diesel, while run in hole (RIH) with
CT. The fluidic oscillation tool,Fig. 6,was used as a bottom-hole assembly (BHA) for generating pressure pulses to impart
mechanical impact forces on organic deposits. If, while traversing the tubing section or the openhole section, a hard fill was
SPE 164434 5
found, a 2 bbl pill of dissolver would be spotted, CT would pull out of hole (POOH) 10 ft and the pills squeezed (with the
choke closed) until achieving 1,000 psi, to force the dissolver into the obstruction and have it react positively. Once CT
reached TD, it would spot the naphtalene oil-based solvent on its upward travel at a rate and speed calculated in such a manner
to completely cover the open hole volume (~ 120bbl). CT would POOH and let the treatment soak for 12 hours before opening
the well up for production, to have the dissolver system dissolve any asphaltene deposit that could be adsorbed to the rock. A
nitrogen lifting operation was considered as a contingency in case the well did not flow back by itself after the intervention.

Job Execution
The execution of the job was made as per the operational design. The pumping units and tanks were rigged up, the fluids
mixed and the bullheading job was completed at 3.5-4bpm, maintaining a wellhead pressure (WHP) between 900 psi and
1,100 psi (below the limitation of the 3,000 psi wellhead rating). After the 100 bbl of solvent were pumped, the pressure was
bled off and the well was closed. In the meantime, the 1 CT unit was rigged up for the second phase of the operation. CT
then started RIH and, at 590 ft, the circulation pressure and WHP started to increase; the choke manifold was opened further in
an attempt to bleed off the pressure, but no pressure decrease was seen. It was determined that the flowback lines and choke
had asphaltene deposits as well. The CT was POOH to surface and the well was closed. The choke manifold was then
disconnected from the flow line and it was discovered that the lines were completely plugged off,Fig. 3.The decision then was
made to connect the return line from the flowback equipment to a first section of production flowline and flush it with the
naphtalene oil-based dissolver and let it react for a couple of hours. The second section of plugged flowline was flushed the
same way. After the soaking time, the lines were tested and were found to be free of any obstruction, so the operation with
RIH CT in the well continued once more.

CT was able to traverse the entire tubing section of the well without encountering any obstruction, showing the effectiveness
of the bullheadingtreatment. The schedule that was proposed included alternating batches of treated diesel and dissolver as per
the pumpingschedule on Fig. 7. CTperformed the cleanout sweeping stages at the shallow portion of the open hole section
before tagging the first hard fill at 9,030 ft (TD:10,073 ft). Below the aforementioned depth, CT encountered several hard tags,
where 2 bbl pills and later 5 bbl pills of dissolver were spotted with enough soaking time to dissolve the obstruction. Further
tags were encountered at 9,362 ft, 9,374 ft, 9,080 ft and 9,386 ft, where no more progress was observed. The CT simulations
for the 1 string were run, and no lockup was predicted, meaning that the obstruction at 9,386 ft was very dense. During the
sweeping stages the WHP was kept at around 1,000 psi, especially during the soaking stages, when trying to pass the
obstructions.

After CT reached 9,386 ft, and was not able to RIH further, it was decided to POOH the CT while pumping the last batch of
solvent in the openhole section up to the liner shoe, located at 7,416 ft. The well was closed for 12 hours and opened for
flowback to the pit. During the flowback, treated diesel, the naphtalene oil-based dissolver and oil were observed in the pit.
After 24 hours of continuous flowback at a stable WHP, it was decided to release the CT unit as there was no need for a
nitrogen lift contingency.

Post-Treatment Result andFlow Back Analysis

Following the cleanout treatment, the well regained its full production capacity to what it was prior to the organic damage. The
post-treatment reported production rate indicated that the treatment was very effective in removing organic deposition from
Well-Aand restoring its productivity. Asphaltene content measurements of flowback samples collected during the treatment
supports this finding. Typical asphaltene content in Well-A oil is around 1 wt%, although theasphaltene content in the
flowback samples collected from Well-A reached 16 wt%,Fig. 8. This revealed that the solvent was able to dissolve large
amounts of precipitated asphaltene and the overall cleanup treatment was very effective in removing asphaltene deposition
from Well-A.

Conclusions
1. Well-A was damaged due to organic depositioncomprising asphaltene and paraffin. The cause of asphaltene precipitation
in Well-A wasthe high GOR attributed to the presence of an artificial gas cap.
2. Lab results revealed that Formulation 1 was a very effective solvent mixture in dissolving organic deposits found inWell-
A. It dissolved more than 90 wt% of the organic deposits after a soaking time of 4 hours at reservoir temperature (220F).
3. A mixture of 50 vol% xylene in diesel was able to dissolve 77.4wt% of Well-A organic deposits for a condition of 220F,
500 psi and a soaking time of 6 hours.
4. The operation was carried out successfully. Although CT was not able to reach TD, it was able to cover over 75% of the
open hole section and was able to thoroughly clean the tubular and open hole section.
6 SPE 164434
5. The high flash point of the fluid system proved to be a determining factor in reducing HSE risks associated with mixing
and pumping at 45+ C. This was compared to commonly usedBETX-based solvent systems for whichflash points are
below the ambient temperatures experienced in the Middle East during thesummertime.
6. The naphtalene oil-based solvent proved to be highly effective even at ambient temperature, given the fact that it was able
to clean the plugged flowline and valves completely at the well manifold.
7 . Finally, the cleanup treatment of Well-A using Formulation 1 (naphtalene oil-based solvent system) was very effective in
removing organic deposits and restoring well productivity.
Recommendations
Produce oil wells in this area withina gas cap at as low a GOR as possible. This may help in alleviating asphaltene
deposition problems and in reducing the amount of asphaltene precipitation and subsequent deposition.
Perform continuous monitoring of asphaltene buildup in the wellbores for prompt remedial intervention when necessary.
This monitoring should be done by running GC or bailers periodically to target the problem in the early stages of
deposition.
Consider some inhibition strategy, based on more research and data collection, for long-term protection against asphaltene
precipitation in this area. (An asphalteneinhibition program is under development in collaboration betweenSaudi Aramco
advanced laboratories/EXPEC ARC and production engineering).
Nomenclature

bbl- barrel
BHA bottom-hole assembly
BOPD - barrel oil per day
CT -coiled tubing
GC -gauge cutter
GOR - gas-oil ratio
GOSP -gas-oil separation plant
MD measured depth
RIH - run in hole
SIWH -shut-in wellhead pressure
TD - total depth
TVD - true vertical depth
WHP - wellhead pressure

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Saudi Aramco management for granting permission to publish this paper. Special thanks and
appreciation go to EXPEC ARC scientists for carrying out various lab analyses. We would also like to give special thanks to
the field personnel and service companythat ran this operation successfully.

References
1. Kokal,S.L. and Sayegh, S.G. 1995. Asphaltenes: The Cholesterol of Petroleum, SPE 29787 paper presented at the 6th MEOS,
Bahrain, March 1995.
2. Michell, D.L. and Speight, J.G. 1973. The Solubility of Asphaltenes in Hydrocarbon Solvents,Fuel, Vol. 53,pp. 149-152.
3. Abdul Fatah, W. and Nasr-El-Din, H.A. 2010. Acid Emulsified in Xylene: A Cost-Effective Treatment To Remove
AsphalteneDeposition and Enhance Well Productivity, SPE Production and Operations, May 2010.
4. Al-Eid, M. and Kokal, S. 2003. Investigation of Increased Gas-Oil Ratio in Ain Dar Field, paper SPE 81425, presented at theSPE
13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain,5-8 April 2003.
5. Boswood, D.W. and Kreh, K.A. 2011. Fully Miscible Micellar Acidizing Solvents vs. Xylene, the Better Paraffin Solution,paper SPE
140128, presented at the Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 27-29 March.
6. Curtis, J. 2003. Environmentally Favorable Terpene Solvents Find Diverse Applications in Stimulation, Sand Control andCementing
Operations, paper SPE 84214, presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8
October.
7. Chang, C. and FoglerH.S. 1996 Stabilization and Dissolution of Asphaltenes Using Amphiphile Solutions, Department ofChemical
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Personal Communication.
SPE 164434 7
8. Figuerow-Ortiz, V., Cazares-Robles, F. and Fragachan, F.E. 1996. Controlling Organic Deposits andSludge in a Severe Hostile
Environment, paper SPE 3112, presented in the Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14-15 February.
9. Frost, K.A., Daussain, R.D. and van Domelen, M.S. 2008. New, Highly Effective Asphaltene Removal System with FavorableHSE
Characteristics, paper SPE 112420, presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 13-15 February.
10. Ibrahim, J.M. and Ali, K. 2005. Thermo-Chemical Solution for Removal of Organic Solids Build-Up In-and-Around
Wellbore,Production Tubing & Surface Facilities, paper SPE 93844, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 5-7 April.
11. Jacobs, I.C. and Thorne, M.A. 1986Asphaltene Precipitation during Acid Stimulation Treatments, paper SPE14823, presented atthe
Seventh SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26-27 February.
12. Kokal, S. and Juraid, J. 1998. Reducing Emulsion Problems by Controlling Asphaltene Solubility and Precipitation, paper SPE48995,
presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September.
13. Kokal, S., Al-Ghamdi, A. and Krinis, D. 2003. Asphaltene Precipitation in High Gas-Oil Ratio Wells, paper SPE 81567, presented at
the SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain, 5-8 April.
14. Krueger, R.F. 1986. An Overview of Formation Damage and Well Productivity in Oilfield Operations, J. Pet. Tech., February 1986,
pp.132-151.
15. Leontaritis, K.J., Amaefule, J.O. and Charles, R.E. 1994. A Systematic Approach for the Prevention and Treatment of
FormationDamage Caused by Asphaltene Deposition, SPE Production and Facilities, August 1994, pp.157-164.
16. Lightford, S., Pitoni, E., Armesi, F., et al.2006. Development and Field use of a Novel Solvent Water Emulsion for the Removal of
Asphaltene Deposits in Fractured Carbonate Formations, Paper SPE 101022, presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September.
17. Ring, J.N., Wettenbarger, R.A., Keating, J.F., et al. 1994. Simulation of Paraffin Deposition in Reservoirs, SPEProduction and
Facilities, February,pp.36-42.
18. Thawer, R., Nicoll, D. and Dick, G. 1990. Asphaltene Deposition in Production Facilities, SPE Production Engineering, November
1990, pp. 475-480.
19. Trbovich, M.G. and King, G.E.1991. Asphaltene Deposit Removal: Long-Lasting Treatment with a Co-solvent, paper SPE21038,
presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Anaheim, California, 20-22 February.



























8 SPE 164434
Table1: Chemical composition of organic deposit obtained from the bailer sample collected from Well-A on February 22, 2012
Compounds Asphaltene Paraffin Aromatic and Resins
Concentration, wt% 81.0 11.0 8.0

Table2:Formulation1
Additive
Asphaltene Specific
solvent
Diesel Surfactant
Paraffin Specific
solvent
Concentration, Vol% 50 38 2 10

Table3: Formulation2
Additive
Asphaltene Specific
solvent
Diesel Surfactant
Paraffin Specific
solvent
Concentration, vol% 30 58 2 10


Table4: Formulation3
Additive solvent Mutual Solvent (SA-64)
Concentration, vol% 93 7

Table5: Summary of solubility tests for Well-A organic deposit in several solvent formulations
Chemical
Temp. (C) Soaking Time (hr) Solubility% Observations/Pressure (psi)
Formulation 1 ambient 2 76.0 atm.
Formulation 1 ambient 4 86.0 atm.
Formulation 2 ambient 2 45.0 atm.
Formulation 2 ambient 4 70.0 atm.
Formulation 3
ambient
2 58.0 atm.
Formulation 3 ambient 4 58.0 Hard to pass through the filter paper
Formulation 1
50
2 78.0 atm.
Formulation 1 50 4 83.0 atm.
Formulation 2 50 2 45.0 atm.
SPE 164434 9
Formulation 2 50 4 70.0 atm.
Formulation 1 50 6 86.0 atm.
Formulation 1 70 4 91.0 atm.
Formulation 1 104 1 77.1 at500 psi
Formulation 1 104 2 86.4 at500 psi
Formulation1 104 4 93.0 at500 psi
Formulation 1 104 6 94.0 at500 psi
Formulation 3 104 6 68 at500 psi
25 vol% xylene in
diesel
104 6 33.98 at500 psi
50 vol% xylene in
diesel
104 6 77.40 at500 psi





Fig.1: Production history of Well-A (oil rate,GOR,FWHP).

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
G
O
R
,

S
C
F
/
S
T
B
W
H
P
,

p
s
i
g
/
O
i
l

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

b
b
l
s
/
d
a
y
Prduction Time, days
FWHP
Oil Produciton Rate
GOR
10 SPE 164434


Fig.2: Bailer sample collected from Well-A.



Fig.3: Organic deposit found in well manifold during the cleanout job.


Fig.4: Effect of temperature on the solubility of Well-A organic deposit in Formulation1.

SPE 164434 11

Fig.5: Effect of soaking time on the solubility of Well-Aorganic deposits in Formulation1 at 220F.


Fig.6: BHAschematic.


Fig.7: Cleanout schedule with CT.

Fuid Type Direction
Distance
(ft)
CT Speed
(ft/min)
Pump Rate
(bbl/min)
Naphtalene oil-based dissolver system 210 30 1
Naphtalene oil-based dissolver system 50 30 1
Treated Diesel 210 30 1
Treated Diesel 50 30 1
Treated Diesel 210 30 1
Treated Diesel 50 30 1
Naphtalene oil-based dissolver system 210 30 1
Naphtalene oil-based dissolver system 50 30 1
Treated Diesel 210 30 1
Treated Diesel 50 30 1
Naphtalene oil-based dissolver system TD (10,070') 30 1
Naphtalene oil-based dissolver system Liner shoe 30 1
12 SPE 164434


Fig.8: Asphaltene content in post-treatment flowback.