SPE 143929

Gravel Packing Depleted Reservoirs

Fady El-Dabi/BP, Roman Bulgachev/BP

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 710 June 2011.

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
Gravel packing, being one of the most reliable and robust downhole sand control techniques, is often the preferred method for
establishing sand control. In reservoirs where the pressure has fallen below the water gradient, gravel placement using water
based fluid will produce a high overbalance leading to excessive losses of fluid that might deeply invade the formation, cause
premature bridging, and fracture the formation. The main focus of this paper is to identify fluids and techniques for gravel
packing a depleted reservoir and evaluate the best technique and a fluids package for a candidate well.

A well candidate in the Mediterranean is planned to be completed with cased hole gravel pack and it is a twin of a cased and
perforated gas well that started producing formation sand after 4 years of production. Continued production from the reservoir
is expected to drive down the pressure to 7.5ppg by the time, when candidate well is completed.

Several techniques for gravel packing a depleted reservoir have been considered which included diesel, alcohol-, oil-, gas- and
water-based fluids. However after extensive lab testing the most suitable fluids package for the well was found to be
conventional water packing. Contrary to expectation, formation damage tests indicated that water based gravel packing caused
less damage than non-viscous oil based fluids for this particular candidate well. Solids-free high-temperature perforation kill
pill and breaker package were also designed for the well to be stable for up to 4 days, which pushed the limits of solids free
kill pills currently available in the industry.

The paper will discuss in detail the gravel packing fluid package selection methodology, and completion fluid, gravel pack
fluid, kill pill and breaker fluids package design and evaluation for the candidate well.

Introduction
When completing reservoirs in weak and sanding-prone sands, oil and gas industry can offer a wealth of knowledge and years
of experience and success stories. Depending on reservoir characteristics and field experience, various completion types may
be appropriate including both open-hole and cased-hole sand control options. However sand control completion is always
technically challenging and expensive choice. Occasioanlly wells drilled into the sanding-prone reservoirs are completed with
no downhole sand control capabilities due to a variety of reasons such as inaccurate prediction of formation strength,
unavailability of sand control equipment or expertise and cost or time constraints. Over time, however, sand production from
the wells becomes unacceptable and the value of downhole sand control is then realized. Delayed intervention may cause the
reservoir pressure to fall below the water gradient.

When reservoir characteristics require gravel pack completion, this indeed becomes the most technically challenging
completion choice. Nowdays however gravel packing of pressurized reservoirs is widely used in the industry and upon
vigorous design and immaculate execution generally yield good results. On the other hand, gravel packing of depleted
reservoirs is not that numerous engineering applications are rearer and each successful case story is an engineering and
technological achievement. Further on in this study gravel packing fluid package selection methodology and fluids design
work for well candidate in the Mediterranean will be discussed.

Well-2 is a twin gas well of the cased and perforated Well-1, that started producing formation sand after 4 years of production.
The reservoir pressure is currently 5,800psi at a depth of 4,311m TVD ORKB, which equates to a pore pressure of 7.9ppg.
Continued production from the reservoir is expected to drive down the pressure to 5,500psi (7.5ppg) by the time when Well-2
is planned to be drilled and completed.
2 SPE 143929

Several sand control options were considered for Well-2 on the early stage of design work and the best option agreed upon was
to install a cased hole gravel pack (CHGP).

The fluid package required to complete a CHGP such as Well-2 encompasses the following fluids:
Completion / perforation fluid
Fluid loss control pill (FLCP)
FLCP breaker
Gravel carrier fluid

A number of techniques available in the industry for depleted reservoirs packing have been identified for feasibility study /
laboratory testing for cased hole application. The techniques identified include:
Gravel packing with diesel based fluid
Gravel packing with alcohol based fluid
Gravel packing with viscous invert oil based emulsion
Gravel packing with non-viscous invert oil based emulsions
Gravel packing with water based fluid (and controlling pressures / losses via pump rates)
Gravel packing with a viscous water based fluid

The criteria that the options have been evaluated were based on:
Applicability to well conditions
Track record
Full fluid system integration
Formation damage
Robustness
Logistics & HSE issues

Reservoir Characteristics of Candidate Well

Both Well-1 and Well-2 target the same reservoir. The reservoir comprises interlayers of over-pressurized shales and depleted
sands. Initially, the reservoir had a virgin pressure of 10,400psi at a depth of 4,311m TVD ORKB, which equates to a pore
pressure gradient of 14.1ppg. The sand fracture gradient was 17ppg and the shale fracture gradient was 18ppg.

Currently the reservoir pressure has dropped to 5,800psi which equates to a pore pressure gradient of 7.9ppg and the sand
fracture gradient is expected to have declined to 13ppg. The shale pore pressure and fracture gradient are expected to have
remained the same at 14.1ppg and 18ppg respectively. No depletion is expected in the shale due to the lack of production
contribution from the shale and its impermeable nature. To control pressure in shales high mud weights are required (~15
ppg). However on completion stage only depleted sands will be perforated into and gravel packed, requiring low density
fluids.

Well-1 is still producing at a reduced rate. If production from the well continues until Well-2 spud date, then the reservoir
pressure is expected to drop to a value between 5,500psi to 5,800psi (7.5ppg to 7.9ppg) based on material balance calculations.

Diesel Based Gravel Packing

Applicability to well conditions. The specific gravity of diesel ranges from 0.805 to 0.965 SG (6.71ppg to 8.05ppg)
depending on its composition and refining process (Song et al., 2000). A 300psi hydrostatic overbalance margin is required to
maintain well control; therefore the required fluid gradient for Well-2 is between 7.9ppg to 8.3ppg. The required fluid
gradient is higher than what is achievable with diesel and lower than what is achievable with water. Therefore a diesel-water
emulsion would be required to achieve the necessary gradient with diesel-water emulsions being common mixtures in the
industry.

The reservoir temperature on Well-2 is 275F, which is relatively high. A gelled diesel would lose all its viscosity when
heated up to this temperature (McCabe et al., 1990). This is not a particular issue because non viscous gravel packing
techniques can be used to perform the gravel pack job with diesel.

A major concern with diesel is its low temperature flash point which varies between 100F to 150 F (Totten et al., 2003).
Downhole, there would not be any oxygen to burn the diesel and even if the downhole temperature exceeds the flash point it
would not combust due to the lack of oxygen. However, diesel returns from circulation could be as hot as 230F which may
combust when they are at surface. A diesel-water emulsion may not be as combustible as diesel alone, but it is still a concern.
SPE 143929 3

Track record. Gelled diesel packing has been used extensively. A lot of improvements have been made in the fluid
formulations, mixing and pumping techniques, which have made the operation much more efficient. Non viscous (Newtonian)
diesel has also been used in the oil and gas industry. Operational application of non viscous diesel based gravel packing would
be simpler than of gelled diesel as the fluid requires fewer additives.

However no record of recent use of diesel as a carrier fluid has been found in the literature. This is most likely caused by the
oil & gas industry trying to phase out its use due to the associated risks and hazards.

Full fluid system integration. The fluid system required to complete a CHGP such as Well-2 encompasses a perforation fluid,
fluid loss control pill and its breaker, and the carrier fluid. The perforation fluid is the fluid which the guns will be fired in.
Diesel, and now hydrocarbon perforation, is a common practice. Perforation is often done in hydrocarbon bearing zones,
therefore perforating in diesel or base oil does not pose any additional safety risks. There is no concern of an underground
blowout because there is little to no oxygen downhole.

Diesel can be used as a fluid loss control pill, not just as the perforation and carrier fluid.The fluid loss control pill is often
solids free and comprises a crosslinked polymer. In the Kupurak field in Alaska, diesel was gelled using an aluminum
crosslinked acid phosphate ester (McCabe et al., 1990). No FLCP breaker was mentioned in this paper, however various
breakers are available on the market that could be used to break the gelled diesel. Diesel based packing was then performed in
the Kupurak field in a cased hole application using a viscous carrier fluid.

Robustness. There have been several improvements in pumping, mixing and fluid formulation of diesel as a carrier fluid. At
first there were issues reported with fluids being excessively viscous on surface and not viscous enough downhole. Pumping
equipment capable of continuous on the fly mixing of the fluids were then developed which allowed surface viscosity to be
reduced and downhole viscosity increased (McCabe et al., 1990).

HSE. Currently diesel completion fluids are being phased out due to the associated risks and hazards that they pose. When
heated they release fumes that are hazardous to rig personnel. At temperatures above their flash point and in the presence of
oxygen they combust and may cause a fire or a blast.

Logistics. Logistics is not necessarily an issue. Diesel fuel is often used to provide power for the rigs. The biggest logistic
issue with diesel based fluid is that it cannot be dumped overboard due to its environmental impact.

Synopsis of Diesel Based Gravel Packing

Diesel based gravel packing cannot be used on Well-2 due to its limited temperature range and HSE hazards. It was not
pursued any further as an option for Well-2.

Alcohol Based Gravel Packing

Applicability to well conditions. The specific gravity of methanol is 0.791 (6.59ppg). Methanol can be mixed with water
without any additional chemicals. Methanol and water do not form emulsions, so there are no emulsion-associated risks.
Methanol has an infinite miscibility with water, so any desired ratio of methanol/water mixture can be mixed (Weast et al.,
1988-1989).

Gelled methanol has been used with reservoir temperatures up to 300F using hydropropyl guar (HPG) (Malone, 2001) which
is higher than the Well-2 reservoir temperature. In order to use methanol at this extremely high temperature considerable
safety precautions had to be taken. The main issue with using methanol at high temperature is its very low flash point, which
is 54F (12C), and its high explosive tendency: 6 vol% methanol vapor mixed in the air is enough to cause an explosion. As
with diesel, the low flash point of methanol is a risk too high to accept. For example, lab test results that measure the effect of
water on the flash point of methanol show that 10 mass% methanol in water has a flash point of 54C which is the same flash
point as that of diesel (Methanex, 2006).

Formation damage. The expectation is that methanol is going to be superb with regards to formation damage. As with diesel,
methanol does not react with swellable clays (Antoci, 2001). In addition to its inertness to clays, it also has other properties
that ensure that the reservoir damage will be minimal. In the case of formation water of high salinity, methanol is known to
cause precipitation of dissolved salts, e.g. NaCl (Tomson et al., 2003), when mixed together, however for the candidate well
this is not a problem, as salinity of formation water is low.

Downhole temperatures are expected to vaporize virtually all the methanol leaving no formation damage. The low surface
tension characteristic of methanol makes it non-damaging as well. When water enters pore spaces the molecules stick to the
surfaces in the pores and to one another. A certain amount of pressure is required to overcome this surface tension and clear
water out of the pores. If reservoir pressure is not high enough to clear the pore then a phenomenon called water block occurs,
4 SPE 143929

which leaves a certain amount of pores blocked from flow. Methanol has 1/3 of waters surface tension and 1/3 of the pressure
is required to clear the methanol and there will be fewer blockages in the pores. The infinite miscibility of methanol and
water combined with methanols low surface tension makes methanol carrier fluid act as a stimulation chemical. When
methanol is injected into the reservoir it mixes with the formation water, which in the pay zone is often in the form of a
wetting surface on the grains. When methanol mixes with water, the surface tension of the mixture becomes an average of
methanol and water surface tensions. This reduced surface tension strips off some of the thickness of the wetting layer and
opens up more area for flow. This reduces the water saturation in the near wellbore area, increases the relative permeability of
hydrocarbons and increases productivity (Malone, 2001; Gupta, et al 1997).

Track record. Methanol has been used as a carrier fluid in water sensitive formations, relatively high temperature wells and
low pressure reservoirs. It has been used on a multitude of wells with a great degree of success. Methanol has been used in
reservoir with a pore pressure as low as 1.3eppg, which is much lower than the expected pore pressure on Well-2. Although
methanol has been used on a great number of wells, its use has been mainly localized in the Americas.

A complete system is available on the market and has been tested and applied successfully. The chemical compositions of the
different fluids required for the operation have been identified in several papers. They have been used at wells with lower
permeability that Well-2, lower pore pressure and highly water sensitive clays with a great degree of success.

Full fluid system integration. Methanol can be used as a perforation solids-free fluid which reduces damage from solids
invasion into the formation. The minimum weight of methanol is 6.59ppg which is less that what is required for Well-2. For
applications in depleted reservoirs the weight of methanol can be increased by mixing it with different low density brines in
order to achieve the desired over- or underbalance. Thus methanol is fit for use as a perforation fluid.

Robustness. Methanol can be gelled with hydroxypropyl guar and crosslinked with an organometallic agent. The crosslinked
fluid has properties and rheologies very similar to crosslinked brine based fluid. This means that crosslinked methanol will
have similar performance as water based FLCP. Conventional ammonium persulfate breaker chemistry has been used to break
crosslinked methanol. Breaker optimization tests indicate that the breaking time is directly proportional to the breaker
concentration (Malone, 2001).

HSE and Logistics. Due to the high safety issues related to using methanol, special pumping equipment needs to be used.
Methanol is a very volatile liquid and low concentrations of it in air would create an explosive environment. Some of the
modifications that have been made to methanol pumping equipment include (Malone, 2001):
Modified frac tanks with inert (CO2 or N2) gas cap instead of air
Blenders modified to have a inert gas blanket
Completely covered system (except for blender)
Pump plungers have water cooling system keep them cool (spontaneous ignition concern)
Spark arrestors on engines

These are all complex modifications to the equipment and are absolutely necessary for the operation. Conventional equipment
would most certainly cause an HSE incident. Methanols vapor density is 1.1 times heavier than air (Makogon, 1997).
Methanol vapor will not rise, but will drop and surround equipment and personnel. To prevent the methanol vapor from
spreading, blenders are modified with a vent line at the top. Inert CO2 or N2 gas is vented continuously from the vent line
which then forms a blanket around the vaporized methanol. Storage tanks are also modified such that they do not contain any
air. Instead CO2 is pumped, which is heavier than air and displaces the air out. As methanol is sucked out of the tank, CO2 is
pumped into the tank to ensure that no air enters the system. All the other equipment are sealed and covered to prevent
methanol gas from escaping (Malone, 2001).

Special PPE will have to be handed out to personnel during the completion phase. Coverall must be fire retardant. Safety
goggles instead of glasses must be used to prevent splashes from entering eyes. Re-breathers must be handled to pumping
personnel due to the inert gas blanket. And fire-fighters must be at close proximity to the operation during working with
methanol.

Logistics will also be a complex and risky. Transport boats will have to have sealed pits filled with an inert gas. Onshore
facilities will also have to have sealed storage and mixing equipment. Conventional open rig pits cannot be used. They will
have to be either modified or special storage tanks will have to be used. If special storage tanks are used, then deck space will
be a concern and if all the pits are modified this will create a lot of critical on line rig modification as the pits are always used
in both the drilling and completion phases.
SPE 143929 5

Synopsis of Alcohol Based Gravel Packing

Although methanol has a lot of advantages with regards to formation damage, it cannot be used on Well-2 due to its very low
flash point and the unavailability of the required pumping equipment locally. The safety and logistics concerns are too high to
be accepted.

Viscous Invert Oil Based Emulsion Gravel Packing

Applicability to well conditions. A viscous invert oil based emulsion developed specifically for gravel packing applications
is available on the market. Unlike invert emulsion oil based drilling mud, which contains more oil than water, gravel packing
fluid contains approximately 70% brine, 28% base oil, and 2% emulsifier. The fluid system contains no solids and its density
is controlled only by the concentration of brine in the emulsion and base oil type. Fluid system technical data show fluid
densities in the range 7.9 15.4ppg can be achieved. Minimum attainable fluid density is 7.9ppg, which is on the higher limit
of the required fluid density for Well-2 (7.5 7.9 ppg). As with most viscous packing fluids, high temperature reduces the
fluid viscosity. The fluid technical data show it can be used at temperature up to 250F (121C) (Schlumberger, 2003), which
is below temperature requirements for gravel packing Well-2 (275 F).

Track record. The gravel packing fluid system is relatively new on the market and has only been used in openhole gravel
packing in reservoirs that are normally or over-pressured. There has been no application of the system in sub-hydrostatic or
cased hole applications as required for Well-2.

Formation damage. It is generally not recommended to use the solids-free viscous oil-based emulsions as perforation fluids.
Perforating in a viscous fluid can cause high formation damage due to viscous fluid penetration deep into the reservoir
(extremely high pressures generated by the perforation guns will push the viscous fluid deep into the reservoir, as well as
natural leak-off of fluid before breaking down will occur). Generally in open-hole completions damage would not be high as
there would be filter cake still in place to protect the reservoir from the fluid invasion. As well reasonable leak-off is required
to successfully gravel pack perforations in the CHGP applications, so a balance is to be achieved between reasonable leak-off
and deep fluid invasion. Since the viscosity of fluid is controlled by the oil water ratio, breaking the fluid would entail
separating the emulsion deep in the reservoir which may cause further damage.

Full fluid system integration. Although the viscous oil-based fluid system is not recommended to be used as a perforation
fluid, non-viscous oil based emulsions can be used. If all the oil based service fluids are solids-free and use the same base oil,
brine phase and similar emulsifying package, there will generally be no fluid compatibility issues expected.

No post perforation fluid loss control pills have been used with the viscous oil-based service fluid on the previous jobs as the
fluid has only been used in openhole applications. However, due to the controllable viscosity of the system, it can exhibit fluid
loss control properties, but using viscous oil-based fluid as fluid loss control pill may not be as effective as using cross-linked
polymers based fluids. It will still most likely provide sufficient fluid loss control in the low permeability Well-2 reservoir and
minimum overbalance pressure, though the question of formation damage will still stand for CHGP application with all the
fluids in the viscous oil-based package. The viscous oil-based gravel pack fluid may generally be broken by producing oil,
which however will not be the case for gas Well-2.

Logistics. Logistics of performing a viscous oil-based fluid system job is different from conventional gravel pack logistics.
Different chemical displacement trains (though simpler) compatible with oil based completion fluids will have to be used to
ensure a properly cleaned well. Oil-based fluid is not a clear fluid, so optical devices to measure fluid cleanliness cannot be
used. Using actual TSS reading from centrifuges is also going to be difficult due to the murkiness of the fluid. The only
viable method to measure solid content of the fluid is using a retort test which is extremely slow. Captured oil-based fluid
cannot be dumped offshore. These means that all dirty returns must be captured into slop tanks. This will complicate surface
rig up and pit management.

Synopsis of Viscous Invert Oil Based Emulsion Gravel Packing

Viscous invert oil-based fluid has been relatively recently available on the market as a gravel packing fluid. The fluid
application is limited to a maximum temperature of 250F and a minimum density of 7.9ppg which are not suitable for Well-2.

Non-Viscous Invert Oil Based fluid Gravel Packing

Applicability to well conditions. A non-viscous (Newtonian) invert oil based emulsion developed specifically for gravel
packing applications is available on the market. The fluid technical data show that it can be mixed to densities as high as
13.0ppg and as low as 6.6ppg . Also, the fluid should be stable up to temperatures of 300F, but the highest temperature
application of the fluid was in a reservoir with a temperature of 180F (Arago et al., 2007).
6 SPE 143929

Track record. The fluid system is relatively new on the market and the field trials of the fluid were done in reservoirs with
overpressure and temperatures less than 200F. These conditions were less severe than the candidate well and all the field
trials were openhole applications.

Full fluid system integration. Non-viscous oil-based fluid in question is a solids free Newtonian oil based emulsion. These
properties make it an ideal fluid for perforating. Its gradient can also be controlled to fit any of the range of requirements for
Well-2, which will provide the required overbalance.

However the fluid will not control losses as it contains no solids. If losses are encountered after perforating, the losses will
continue until they are cured by a FLCP or an alternate. Solids-free requirement for FLCP does not leave many options to
formulate a pill: conventional polymers, e.g. hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) cannot be dispersed in oil based fluids. Visco-
elasatic surfactants (VES) for oil-based fluids are very rare and form very thin fluid again without proper fluid loss control and
cannot be broken by gas.

Thus consideration was given to using non-viscous oil-based fluids package including water based HEC-based FLCP. An
internal time activated breaker cannot be used on the candidate well because the reservoir temperature would cause the breaker
to activate immediately. Only an external breaker can be used. The external breaker activates breaking of the polymer via pH
reduction. It works extremely well in an all water based fluid strategy, but there are several concerns with using both water
based and oil based fluids in the same package. The first and foremost issue is that if the FLCP polymer may become oil wet
(thin layer of oil covering the polymers), then the breaker would not be able to penetrate the oil layer in order to break the
polymer. Another issue is the acid breaker used to break the HEC polymer might cause the oil-based completion fluid to
break. As well having both oil-based and water-based fluids in one system would cause general compatibility issues
(emulsions, not clean displacement, etc.). Using a conventional cross linked polymer in a FLCP might cause high formation
damage, so coreflood tests are to be performed to verify.

Although not a common practice, using sized calcium carbonate oil-based FLCP is a viable, though far not ideal, option. The
solids can be sized such that they build an external filter cake, yet are small enough to flow through the cased hole gravel pack
and screens. A relatively viscous fluid should be used to suspend the sized calcium carbonate. The FLCP viscosity will also
slow down any loss rate if an incomplete filter cake is established. The viscosity will also help in suspending and removing
the perforation debris from the wellbore during its displacement. Though formation damage issues from the thick fluid
possible invasion will still remain.

Calcium carbonate solids can be dissolved using acid. There are breakers available on the market to remove oil-based filter
cakes, 2 main versions of the breaker are available from the gravel pack fluid supplier (both are nano-wash technologies) one
is for use in cased hole applications with small amounts of calcium carbonate (fast reaction) and the other is for use in
openhole applications with thicker filter cakes (slow reaction). Both these fluids are a combination of a nano-wash technology
and a weak acid and both have to be mixed in a water based solution, which means that the gravel packing fluid system will
not be purely an oil based system.

Logistics and HSE. The same logistics and HSE issues that were raised for the use of viscous oil-based fluid system are still
valid when using the non-viscous system. They both are oil based fluids and wellbore cleanout operations are going to be
different from operations during conventional water based completions. Fluid displacements trains will have to be modified
and even additional trips and the bottom hole assembly (BHA) might have to be accommodated to properly swap fluids.
Incorporation of water-based fluids into oil-based system will cause compatibility and displacement issues.

Synopsis of Non Viscous Invert Oil Emulsion Gravel Packing

Although the fluid system is relatively new on the market as well and all the field applications were done successfully under
well conditions less severe than Well-2 in terms of pressure depletion and high reservoir temperature, technical data state that
the fluid package can withstand Well-2 conditions. Non-viscous oil-based gravel packing fluid has also only been used in
openhole applications, which means that additional compatible fluids must be selected and developed for cased hole
applications. The fluid is to be tested further to ensure that it is suitable for Well-2 and other similar wells.

Non Viscous Water Based Gravel Packing

Track record. Water and brines have been the first carrier fluid used in packing wells (Clark, 1938). Their use as a carrier
fluid is well established and has been field proven numerous times. Other carrier fluids have been developed, but none of
those have obsoleted the use of water and brines because they still maintain certain advantages over all newer carrier
technologies.
SPE 143929 7

Applicability to well conditions. When using a non viscous water based fluid, the proppant concentration is often kept at 0.5-
1ppa (pounds proppant added per gallon). The low carrying capacity caused by the non viscous nature of water does not allow
higher concentration proppant transport (Ott et al., 2005).

Fresh water has a density of 8.3ppg. 8.3ppg is higher than the requirement for Well-2, and the overbalance will be higher than
desirable. There are no issues in coping with higher than anticipated reservoir pressure, but lower than anticipated may pose
some problems.

Waters rheological characteristics barely change with temperature. Brine has constant rheological properties above its true
crystallization temperature (TCT). At temperature below TCT, the salt dissolved in the brine would start to crystallize and
form solids which would be detrimental to the completion and compromise the fluid integrity. The TCT of 8.6ppg NaCl brine
is 27F (-2.8C) (Darley et al., 1988), which is acceptable for operations in the Mediterranean.

Since the water fluid density can not be reduced beyond 8.3ppg and Well-2s required fluid may be as low as 7.9ppg, the pump
pressures and rates should be limited to reduce any excess pressure imposed on the reservoir. Reservoir simulators are
available that can calculate the additional pressure created caused by circulation. An acceptable circulating pressure should be
selected based on the surface pressure and pump rates. Limiting the pump pressure and rates is not going to eliminate the
water based fluid leak off, but is going to reduce it to an acceptable level.

Formation damage. Water based fluids are often damaging to shale sections of the reservoir. In clean sand reservoirs using
solids-free brine as a completion / perforation / gravel packing fluid should not pose formation damage problem. However, the
reservoir sections in Well-2 are not clean sands and have some shale streaks. Shale characterization study (cation exchange
capacity and clay minerals characterization by X-ray diffraction) has been performed for Well-2 with offset well core material
and the shales were identified as being moderately reactive. Moreover perforations will be shot preferentially into clean sands.

Robustness. Non viscous water based fluids are pretty robust with regards to temperature. They can handle temperatures
much higher than required for Well-2. The maximum temperature can be handled by non viscous fluid will depend on the
boiling point of water at the wells hydrostatic pressure. Based on standard thermodynamic charts the boiling temperature of
water at Well-2s total depth is approximately 700F. However, water is not as robust with regards to pressure uncertainty.
Water based fluids can be weighted up easily with different types of salt, but density cannot be reduced conventionally beyond
the fresh water gradient.

Logistics. Logistics can be easily managed with water based fluids. Most of the brines used in gravel packing are
environmentally safe and can be dumped. The lighter brines, such as NaCl are cheap and dumping them would be the most
cost effective and efficient approach.

Synopsis of Non Viscous Water Based Gravel Packing

Non viscous water based gravel packing has been field proven and optimized over the years. It is the oldest and still the
optimum technique for some well applications. Although the fluid gradient is higher than required for Well-2, it still can be
considered as an option. Some extra restrictions should be applied to the system such as maintaining low pump pressures and
pump rates to reduce the additional circulation pressure imposed on the reservoir. The fluid is to be tested further to ensure
that it will be suitable for Well-2 and other similar wells.

Viscous Water Based Gravel Packing

Initially viscous packing was developed to increase the proppant concentration in the slurry. According to the early
development of viscous packing, increased concentration would reduce gravel and formation sand intermixing and would
place more gravel deeper into the perforations (Sparlin et al., 1972). As a consequence of the high concentrations, pumping
time was greatly reduced. With increased rig costs, slurry packing started to gain a share of the sand control wells.

Applicability to well conditions. Currently there are 3 main polymer based products used to viscosify completion fluids;
Xanthan gum (also known as XC, polysaccharide secreted by the bacteria genus Xanthomonas campestris), Guar, and
Hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC). Commonly 50-120lbs of XC, Guar or HEC are added to every 1000 gallons of water (Ott et
al., 2005). Adding 120lbs of polymer would make a density of 8.45ppg. Thus the minimum carrier fluid density will only be
slightly higher than the fresh water density of 8.3ppg. This is still higher than the minimum Well-2 required range. However,
the fluid viscosity will reduce the fluid loss rate.

As a chemical compound, XC is stable at high temperatures. Though grades are available that are stable up to 400 F, the
grades used for gravel packing are stable up to 350 F. (Schlumberger, 2003) which is well beyond Well-2s reservoir
temperature. Its viscosity decreases at high temperatures, but the chemical compound does not break down fully. XC in a
completion fluid poses some concerns regarding being unable to flow invaded XC back (Ott, W.K. et al., 2005). Another
8 SPE 143929

biopolymer used for gravel packing and similar in properties to XC is scleroglucan, which is also stable up to 350 F. It is
though used not as widely as XC (Schlumberger, 2003).

Guar gum is stable up to temperatures of 200F. At higher temperatures, the chemical compound breaks down at a molecular
level. When this occurs, the guar mixture loses its viscosity (Schlumberger, 2003). Prior to the break down of the compound,
Guar shows an inverse linear relation between temperature and viscosity. Guar is not stable at Well-2 reservoir temperature
and cannot be used as carrier fluid.

The regular grade HEC chemical compound is stable up to temperatures of 225F. Chemical treatment may make it stable up
to temperatures of 250F, and this is usually the limit for HEC based gravel packing fluids. At temperatures higher than these
values the chemical compound breaks down and loses all its properties (Schlumberger, 2003). Crosslinked products have been
designed stable up to 300 F, however these products are generally too viscous to be used as gravel pack fluids and can be
used as pills only. Also similar to guar, HEC shows an inverse relation between temperature and viscosity. Even the high
temperature conventional modified HEC is not stable at Well-2 elevated reservoir temperature.

VESs temperature stability depends on the type of surfactant used to create the emulsion. Conventional VES fluids are stable
at temperatures up to 200 F. There are VES fluids available on the market stable up to a temperature of 300F (Schlumberger,
2003). However VES does not break with formation gas, so a break down treatment of either oil or water and solvent will
have to be pumped into the formation.

Out of these 4 products VES and Xanthan gum are suitable for Well-2 temperature, but not conventional HEC or Guar.

Formation damage. High formation damage is a concern with viscous gravel packing. XC and Guar have been known to
cause some degree of formation damage. XC causes formation damage by filling the near wellbore pore space. The high XC
viscosity, its stable nature and slow degradability of the long molecular chains prevent the backflow of polymer out of the pore
spaces, leaving the near wellbore area plugged with XC for a long time (Ott, W.K. et al., 2005). During conventional methods
of manufacturing guar gum, the bean shell form solids shreds that remain in the mixture. These shreds contaminate the gravel
slurry and may cause some formation damage and increased mechanical skin (Githen, C.J. et al., 1971). Chemically treated
guar gum has been created such that the damage from the shell shreds is eliminated, but the manufacturing process is often
more expensive than getting non damaging HEC.

HEC is the least damaging of polymer based viscosifiers. It easily breaks at low pH and readily flows back during production.
It leaves the least amount of polymeric residue when broken, but little polymer residue may stay behind which can cause some
formation damage. There is also some experimental evidence that precipitation of HEC might occur in single salt brines (KCl
or NaCl) at temperatures above 150 F (65.6 C) (Hodge, 1998).

VES used in oil wells is the least damaging carrier fluid. It does not have any polymers, which means it does not leave any
residue. Unfortunately surfactant nature of VES is such that it breaks down when it comes in contact with liquid
hydrocarbons. Therefore a breakdown treatment will have to be pumped in gas wells.

Track record. XC, Guar, and HEC have been used in a variety of wells for many years. VES on the other hand has been
recently introduced to the carrier fluid market. Its application has been mainly in oil wells and very little application has been
performed in gas wells.

Unlike water packing, the proppant concentration in the viscous carrier fluid is very critical. A spike in proppant concentration
could bridge at the crossover tool or at an undesired place. Proppant mixing machines such as the proppant optimized density
(POD) or water and sand proportioner (WASP) must be used when slurry packing to accurately control the proppant
concentration (Ott, W.K. et al., 2005).

Full fluid system integration. As mentioned earlier, the fluid gradient of the carrier fluid will be higher than the reservoir
pressure. But this is not a major concern in slurry packing as the slurry will only be pumped as a pill and not a whole well
volume. The perforation fluid will be conventional brine, so the additional pressure caused by the polymer will only take
effect during gravel packing. Even during gravel packing it is not a major concern since the viscosity of the carrier fluid
would reduce the loss rate. However reasonable leak-off is required to successfully gravel pack perforations in the CHGP
applications, so a balance is to be achieved between reasonable leak-off and deep fluid invasion.

Synopsis of Viscous Water Based Gravel Packing

Although the slurry will have a density higher than required for Well-2, it is not a big concern because the viscosity will
reduce the fluid loss rate during gravel packing. There will be no difference between water packs and slurry packs in all the
other phases with regards to fluid density and loss rates. Temperature on the other hand is the major concern with slurry
SPE 143929 9

packing. Conventional HEC, which is the polymer most commonly used to gravel pack wells will not withstand Well-2
reservoir temperature. Guar, which is the most common fluid used in frac packing, will not withstand Well-2 reservoir
temperature either. Only XC and VES are suitable for Well-2s high reservoir temperature but could potentially cause severe
formation damage.

Feasibility Study Summary

So far gravel packing with diesel, alcohol, viscous oil based, non viscous oil based, water based fluids, and slurry have been
evaluated for use on Well-2 based on 6 categories. These 6 categories are: Applicability in Well Conditions, Formation
Damage, Track Record, Full Fluid System Integration, Robustness, Logistics & HSSE Issues. Each one of those fluids has
advantages and disadvantages. Based on those advantages and disadvantages in each category a score was given from 0 to 5
for each packing technique; 0 being unacceptable and 5 being the best alternative. Anything with a 0 in any of the categories
was automatically rejected as it does not meet the minimum well requirements. Out of the fluids evaluated the most suitable
fluid is the non viscous oil based fluid and the second best was conventional water packing. A summary of the results scores
are shown in Table 1.

Laboratory Testing
Baseline Coreflood with Oil-Based Mud
In course of the formation damage study baseline mud damage was evaluated first using outcrop core plug. High density oil-
based mud (15 ppg) was tested. The level of damage was on the high side for oil-based muds (29%), but this was considered to
be acceptable for CHGP completion, moreover the mud formulation and parameters were further revised and adjusted to
reduce fluid loss, filter cake thickness and thus formation damage. Mud filtrate was used further in all the subsequent tests to
simulate invasion of filtrate in cased and perforated well.

Evaluation of Non viscous Invert Oil Based Emulsion

Non-viscous oil-based gravel packing fluid was tested on its own using outcrop core. The fluid placement resulted into high
damage (86%). 10% EGMBE in brine as a remediation treatment was looked into which improved situation slightly reducing
damage to 57%. It is believed that for this particular case the damage mechanism might have been the core pore channels
blockage by aqueous phase droplets inside the continuous oil phase. The fluid was originally designed for open-hole
completions where filter cake protects the reservoir from gravel pack fluid invasion. In the case of CHGP application with no
filter cake in place the fluid invaded deeply causing excessive damage. Moreover, at very low density the fluid required
additional emulsifying package to keep it stable enough, this also contributed to the level of damage. Unfortunately the non-
viscous oil-based gravel packing fluid was not fit for this particular application, remaining however excellent choice of fluid
for different scenarios.

Evaluation of Fluid Loss Control Pills and Breakers

Various FLCP available on the market (with the recommended breakers) have been evaluated using outcrop core plugs. The
pills included both novel technologies and technologies available on the market for a while. The FLCP stability requirement
was to provide sufficient fluid loss control for 3 days minimum at 140 C (284 F). The pills should have been solids free to
prevent solids settling out and perforations and gravel plugging, to be of low formation damage and to be breakable clean with
suitable breakers. Requirement for breaker was to break the FLCP clean and fully within 2 hrs. In the first place, a number of
selected FLCP were evaluated for formation damage in overnight soak tests (16 hrs), followed by breaker application. If fluid
loss from FLCP exceeded 50 g in the first hour, the cell was further shut-in. With some minor operational variations, each of
the tests was carried out including the following sequence of fluids placement at reservoir conditions (after measuring initial
permeability to gas at Swi):

1. OBM filtrate
2. 8.6 ppg NaCl completion / perforation fluid
3. FLCP (overnight placement, 16 hrs)
4. Breaker (2 hrs placement)
5. Placement of 20/40 gravel in 8.6 ppg NaCl gravel pack fluid and 12 g GP screen (overnight placement, 16 hrs)

The FLCP looked into included:

Pill 1: Cross-linked HEC based polymer (breaker 10% acetic acid)

Pill 2: Chemically modified cellulose polymer (breaker acetic nano-wash fluid, 10% acid)
Pill 3: Relative permeability modifying polymer (breaker 5% sodium hypochlorite)
Pill 4: Cross-linked guar gum based polymer (breaker 10% acetic acid)
10 SPE 143929

After gravel pack placement return permeability to gas was measured. As can be seen from Table 2, Pills 1 2 demonstrated
the least damage. These 2 pills were further evaluated in the long term placement tests to monitor stability at reservoir
conditions. It is recognized that to achieve pill stability of at least 3 days at high temperatures and pressures, the pills
formulations had to contain excessive amounts of polymers. Thus Pills 3 4 failed the formation damage tests. However under
less strict conditions and with less polymer loading, all these pills would work very well and cause little damage to the
reservoir, as was proved in formation damage studies with same pills for other projects.

Evaluation of the Long Term Stability of the Selected Pills

Stability of Pill 1 was evaluated using BP proprietary HTHP filter-press type cell. The outcrop core plug was installed and the
volume of fluid was placed on top. Reservoir temperature was maintained at 140 C (285 F), however the pressure was only
500 psi (cell limit), which was nevertheless suitable for the temperature stability testing purposes. As the fluid loss was quite
high and the cell volume was limited to 350 ml, to investigate the pill stability over period of time of several days, the fluid
was shut-in during the test and every 24 hrs the tap was opened and time to flow through 50 g of filtrate was measured (Table
3). When the flow through time was drastically reduced, we considered the pill broken. As the Table 3 demonstrates, the Pill 1
retained its stability within 2+ days, and was broken during the check on the 3rd day. Thus the Pill 1 was opted out of the
further testing.

Pill 2 was tested in the coreflood rig first using outcrop core and at downhole conditions. As Picture 1 shows, breakthrough
happened after 3.8 days, which demonstrated that the Pill 2 met the stability requirement of 3 days. The pill was further left on
soak for 2 days shut-in and the breaker (acetic nano-wash) was applied. The returm permeability result was however
disappointing (82% damage) and flow initiation pressure was high at 35 psi. In attempt to select more aggressive breaker, 10%
formic acid in brine was tested, which reduced the damage to 72%, however flow initiation pressure remained at 35 psi.
Further on soak with 10% HCl was performed, which reduced the damage considerably to 54% and flow initiation pressure
was reduced to 6 psi. This was considered though not brilliant, but optimistic result.

Final Evaluation of the Selected Pill

Following the evaluation of the long pill stability / breaker tests, Pill 2 was selected for final evaluation on the field core from
the offset well. The core plug was wrapped and screened on both sides to maintain its integrity. The pill was applied for 3 days
under downhole conditions and showed perfect stability within the requirements. Fluid loss was somewhat higher than in
previous test, though the trend remained the same. 10% HCl was then placed for 4 hrs. After gravel pack application, return
permeability to gas was measured. The test resulted in 48% damage, though pretty high flow initiation pressure at 40 psi. The
core plug was demonstrating the signs of further slow clean-up with time. Thus the result was considered acceptable, taking
into consideration the severity of test conditions. 4 hrs soak with 10% HCl was agreed to be the way forward. Pictures 2 and 3
show the core plugs after the final tests with Pill 2 the sandface and gravel are clean with no traces of FLCP left. Using
strong acid as a breaker was agreed to be acceptable from the point of view of reservoir rock mechanics and mineralogy.

To verify the cleanniness of the Pill 2 breaking with 10% HCl, bottle tests have been performed at 2 hrs and 24 hrs. The tests
confirmed that the pill was fully broken after 2 hrs, and completely clear solutions were seen after 24 hrs. These were however
done at 70 deg C only, so though these results acceptable, we expect even better results at true reservoir conditions. Bottle tests
were also done with Pill 2, 10% HCl, NaCl brine and formation water, which did not indicate any incompatibility.

Acknowledgments
Several people have helped the authors in running the project and writing this paper. First and foremost we would like to
thank Alistair Roy for his support. We would also like to thank Allan Twynam, Gary Hurst and Peter Wilson for discussions
around the project direction and novel solutions addressed in this paper. We would also like to thank Martin Lear for the
formation damage lab work he carried out in support of this project.

References
1. Song C., Hsu C.S., Mochida I., 2000. Chemistry of Diesel Fuels. London: Taylor & Francis

2. McCabe, M.A., Teracina, J.M., Kunzi, R.A. 1990. Continuously Gelled Diesel Systems for Fracturing Applications.
Paper SPE 21586 presented at the SPE International Technical Meeting, Calgary, Canada, 10-13 June 1990.

3. Totten, G.E, Westbrook, S.R, Shah, R.J. 2003. Fuels and Lubricants Handbook: Technology, Properties,
Performance and Testing. Glen Burnie: ASTM International.

4. Weast R.C., Melvin J.A., Beyer W.H. 1988-1989. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 69th Edition. Boca
raton: CRC Press, Inc..
SPE 143929 11

5. Malone, M.R., 2001. Fracturing with Crosslinked Methanol in Water-Sensitive Formations. Paper SPE 70009
presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery, Midland, Texas, 1516 May 2001

6. Methanex Corporation. September 2006. Technical Information & Safe Handling Guide for Methanol. Version 3.0.

7. Antoci, J.C., Briggiler, N.J., Chadwich, J.A., 2001. Crosslinked Methanol: Analysis of a Successful Experience in
Fracturing Gas Wells. Paper SPE 69585 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2528 March 2001

8. Tomson, M.B., Kan A.T., Fu, G., Al-Thubaiti, M. 2003. Scale Formation and Prevention in the Presence of Hydrate
Inhibitors. Paper SPE 80255 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas,
5-7 February 2003.

9. Gupta, D.V. S., Pierce, R.G., Litt, N.D., 1997. Non-Aqueos Gelled Alcohol Fracturing Fluid. Paper SPE 37229
presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 18-21 February 1997.

10. Makogon Y.F., 1997. Hydrates of Hydrocarbons. Tulsa: PennWell Publishing Company.

11. Schlumberger. 2003. Schlumberger Sand Control Pumping Services Catalog.

12. Aragao, A.F.L., Calderon, A., Lomba, R.F.T., Moreira, J.N.V.C., de Sa, A.N., Martins, A.L., Quintero, L., Moura, E.,
2007. Field Implementation of Gravel Packing Horizontal Wells Using a Solids-Free Synthetic Fluid with Alpha/Beta
Wave Technology. Paper SPE 110440 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim,
California, U.S.A., 11-14 November 2007

13. Clark, B. A., 1938. A Resume of the Application of Gravel Packing to Oil Wells in California. Paper T.P. 1075
Petroleum Technology.

14. Ott, W.K. and Wood, J.D. 2005. World Oil Modern Sandface Completion Practices Handbook. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Company.

15. Darley H.C.H., Gray G.R. 1988. Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Company.

16. Sparlin, D., Copeland, T., 1972. Pressure Packing with Concentrated Gravel Packing. Paper SPE 4033 presented at
the SPE Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonia, Texas, U.S.A., 8-11 October 1972

17. Niemeyer, B.L., Reinart, M.R., 1986. Hydraulic Fracturing of Moderate Permeability Reservoir, Kuparuk River Unit.
Paper SPE 15507 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A., 5-8 October 1986.

18. Githen, C.J., Burnham, J.W., Chemically Modified Natural Gum for Use in Well Stimulation. Paper SPE 5706
available from SPE.

19. Hodge, R.M., HEC Precipitation at Elevated Temperature: An Unexpected Source of Formation Damage, Paper SPE
Drilling and Completion 38155, June 1998.

20. Woodling, G.S., 1987. Recompletion Workover Program at the Kuparuk River Field Paper SPE 16932 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 27-30 September 1987.

21. Hernandez, J.M., Fernandez, C.T., Scianca, N.M., 1994. Methanol as Fracture Fluid in Gas Wells. Paper SPE 27007
presented at the SPE Latin American/Caribbean Conference, Buenos Aires, Brazil, 27-29 April 1994.

22. Wagner, M., Webb, T., Maharaj, M., Twynam, A., Green, T., Salamat, G., Parlar, M., 2004, Open-Hole Horizontal
Drilling and Gravel-packing With Oil-Based Fluids-An Industry Milestone. Paper SPE87648 presented at the SPE
International Formation Damage, Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 18-20 February 2004.

23. Detan, C., Bogi, Z., Zhengze, L., 1986, Sand Control Techniques in Shengli Oilfield, Paper SPE 14840 presented at
the SPE International Petroleum Engineering Meeting, Beijing, China, 17-20 March 1986.

24. Cooke Jr., C.E., 1975, Effect of Fracturing Fluids on Fracture Conductivity. Paper SPE 5114 available from SPE.
12 SPE 143929

25. Tolan, M., Tibbles, R.J., Alexander, J., Wassouf, P., Schafer, L., Parlar, M., 2009, Gravel Packing Long Openhole
Intervals with Viscous Fluids Utilizing High Gravel Concentrations: Toe-to-Heel Packing without the Need for
Alternative Flow Paths. Paper SPE 121912 presented at the 2009 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Jakarta,
Indonesia, 4-6 August 2009.

26. Penberthy Jr., W.L., Gravel Placement Through Perforations and Perforation Cleaning for Gravel Packing, Paper JPT
14161, February 1988.

27. Lawhon, C.P., Evans, W.M., Simpson, J.P., 1967, Laboratory Drilling Rate and Filtrations Studies of Emulsion
Drilling Fluids. Paper SPE 1695 available from SPE.

28. Welling, R., Jonathan, P., Reijnen, P., Samuel, A., 1995, Quantifying the Factors Influencing Gravel Placement and
Productivity of an Internally Gravel Packed Completion Based on Field Data Analysis, Paper SPE 30113 presented at
the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 15-16 May 1995.

29. King, G. E., Wildt, P.J., OConnell, E., 2003, Sand Control Completion Reliability and Failure Rate Comparison with
a Multi-Thousand Well Database, Paper SPE 84262 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver,
Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8 October 2003.

30. Hill, Kenneth E., 1941, Factors Affecting the Use of Gravel in Oil Well, Paper SPE available from SPE

31. Jones, L.G., Yeh, C.S., Yates, T.J., Bryant, D.W., Healy, J.C., Alternative Path Gravel Packing. Paper SPE 22796
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas, 6-9 October 1991.

32. Gupta, D., Bobier, D., 1998, The History and Success of Liquid CO2 and CO2/N2 Fracturing System. Paper SPE
40016 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15-18 March 1998.

33. Blauer, R., Kohlhaas, C., 1974. Formation Fracturing with Foam. Paper SPE 5003 presented at the SPE Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Texas, 6-9 October 1974.

34. Elson, T.D., Anderson, G.W., 1982. Foam Gravel Packing. Paper SPE 11013 presented at the SPE Annual Fall
Technical Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., 26-29 September 1982.

35. Aragoa, A.F., Calderon, A., Lomba, R.F.T., Moreira, J.N.V.C., De Sa, A.N., Martins, A.L., Quintero, L., Moura, E.,
Field Implementation of Gravel Packing Horizontal Wells Using a Solids-Free Synthetic Fluid with Alpha/Beta Wave
Technology. Paper SPE 110440 presented at the Annual Technical Conference, Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11-14
November 2007.

Appendix

Fluid Applicability Damage Track Record Full System Robustness Logistics Total
Diesel 0 4 3 4 0 0 11
Alcohol 0 5 3 3 0 0 11
Viscous Oil Emulsion 0 3 2 5 0 3 13
Non Viscous Oil Emulsion 5 3 3 5 5 3 24
Gas 0 5 4 0 0 0 9
Direct 3 2 0 5 3 3 16
Non Viscous Water Based 1 2 5 5 3 5 21
Viscous Water (XC) 2 0 5 5 1 5 18
Viscous Water (HEC) 0 3 5 5 1 5 19
Viscous Water (Guar) 0 2 5 5 1 5 18
Viscous Water (VES) 2 4 1 5 1 3 16
Table 1: Feasibility Study: Fluids Assessment Results
SPE 143929 13

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6 Test 7 Test 8

Field Core (offset
Core Sample Outcrop Grinshill Light Buff Fine
well)
Initial Gas Perm @ Swi, mD 184 mD 152 mD 155 mD 190 mD 234 mD 348 mD 257 mD 87.2 mD
15ppg OBM:
3000 psi,
Mud / Filtrate Placement OBM Filtrate: Bullheading
dynamic/static,
18.0 g fluid loss
Non-viscous
Completion / Perforation Fluid invert oil-based 8.6 ppg NaCl Brine
emulsion
Pill 1: 10 min Pill 2: 10 min Pill 3: 10 min Pill 4: Pill 1: 3.8 days, Pill 1: 3 days, no
Fluid Loss Control Pill dynamic, 1 hr dynamic, 22 hr dynamic, static 6.5 breakthrough after breakthrough after breakthrough
(FLCP) Placement static, shut-in static hr, shut-in 36 hrs 3.8 days, further
overnight overnight shut-in 2 days
50 g in 1 hr 10 41 g in 22 hr 10 88 g in 6.5 hr 81 g in 25 hr, 88 g in 2.2 days, 228 g in 3 days
Fluid Loss, g min min 146 g in 36 hrs 211 g in 3.8 days No breakthrough
10% Acetic Acid Acetic nano- 5% Sodium 10% Acetic Acid Acetic nano- 10% HCl in
in NaCl brine: 10 wash: 10 min Hypochlorite: 10 in NaCl brine: 2 wash: 15 min brine: 2 hrs, shut-
FLCP Breaker Placement min dynamic, 40 dynamic, shut-in 2 min dynamic, min dynamic, dynamic, shut-in 2 in 2 hrs
min static, shut-in hr shut-in for 2 hr shut-in 1 hr hr
2 hr
Fluid Loss, g 96 g in 50 min 80 g in 10 min 80 g in 10 min 92 g in 2 min 81 g in 15 min 101 g in 2 hrs
20/40 Carbolite 20/40 Carbolite 8.6 ppg NaCl: 8.6 ppg NaCl 8.6 ppg NaCl: 20/40 Carbolite,
in 8.6 ppg NaCl, in 8.6 ppg NaCl, shut-in overnight shut-in overnight 8.6 ppg NaCl, 12
Gravel Pack Placement
12 g screen: shut- 12 g screen: shut- g screen: shut-in
in overnight in overnight overnight
Return Perm, mD 131 mD 21 mD 99 mD 134 mD 70.2 mD 49.7 mD 47 mD 45.7 mD
Flow Initiation Pressure, psi 70 psi 150 psi 12 psi 30 psi 90 psi 30 psi 35 psi 40 psi
Damage % 29% 86% 36% 29% 70% 86% 82% 48%
10% EGMBE in 10% Formic acid
Remediation Treatment 1 8.6 ppg NaCl in brine: 15 min,
brine shut-in 4.6 hrs
Fluid Loss, g 75 g in 35 min 80 g in 15 min
Return Perm, mD 66 mD 71.4 mD
Flow Initiation Pressure, psi 35 psi
Damage, % 57% 72%
10% HCl: 35 min,
Remediation Treatment 2
shut-in 16 hrs
Fluid Loss, g 100 g in 35 min
Return Perm, mD 119 mD
Flow Initiation Pressure, psi 6 psi
Damage, % 54%
Table 2: Formation Damage Testing Results, 140 C (285 F)
14 SPE 143929

Time for 50 g of filtrate to pass

Soak Time Pill Stability
through core plug at 500 psi, s
0 hrs (Freshly Placed Pill) 1 849 s
After 24 hrs (1 day) 906 s The pill was stable within 2+ days
After 48 hrs (2 days) 1 670 s
After 72 hrs (3 days) 238 s
The pill broke after 2+ days
After 96 hrs (4 days) 247 s
Table 3: Long-Term Stability Testing of Pill 1, 140 C (285 F)

Picture 1: Fluid Loss Control Pills Filtration Graphs, 830 psi, 140 C (285 F)

Picture 2: Core Plug Face after
Placement of Pill 2 (3.8 Days),
Acetic Nano-Wash Breaker, 10%
Formic Acid, 10% HCl and NaCl
Brine
Picture 3: Core Plug Face after
Placement of Pill 2 (3 Days), 10%
HCl Breaker and NaCl Brine with
Gravel