A s o c ia c i n C o lo m b ia n a d e In g e n ie r o s d e P e t r le o s

XIII CONGRESO COLOMBIANO DE PETRLEO Y GAS

The Challenge of Producing and Stimulating a Deep Sandstone-Carbonate Reservoir

with Combined Organic and Inorganic Formation Damage
J.A. Mora, F.Kondo, Emerald Energy PLC Sucursal Colombia, S.Gonzlez Pinto, Halliburton

Copyright 2009, ACIPET

This paper was selected by the Technical Committee to be presented at XIII CONGRESO COLOMBIANO DE PETRLEO Y GAS organized by ACIPET in Bogot, D.C.,
Colombia from December 1 to 4, 2009.

Abstract
Gigante-1A is a well located in Upper Magdalena Valley in Colombia, South America. It has been producing for almost 10 years.
There are several wells in this area that have been producing from sandstone and carbonate/dolomite reservoirs at different depths for
more than 30 years and are still drawing interest from producers. Based on experiences from Gigante-1A related to drilling,
completion, production stages, reservoir analysis with stimulation techniques, and response-related identification of formation damage
in particular, there is a high interest in new well construction. A second well at the same depth is currently in progress.
The specific condition of water, oil, and gas flowing commingled to surface from the same zone, covering sandstone and carbonate
formations with significant petro-physical differences and reservoir fluids, has allowed for the establishment of best practices and
identified areas of research to get improved responses.
A continuous learning curve focused on improving operational procedures and placement techniques has been built according to
the mechanical status of the well before each intervention. Periodical interventions focused on organic deposition, emulsion blockage
damages, and scaling-related problems have helped to establish operational and treatment-design procedures that contribute to
effective stimulation results.
Continuous improvements related to chemical-treatment designs based on adjustments of formulations, radius of penetration, and
placement techniques have helped to ensure effectiveness. Chemical treatments have focused on organic, nature-related problems
since the beginning. In particular, asphaltene flocculation, has generated pore-throat blockage because of asphaltene deposition and
emulsion blockage. Water-cut increase over time has brought inorganic scaling problems. Corresponding solutions have been
combined with organic stimulation treatments for removal and damage inhibition over time.
There is also a clear learning curve on well lifting, optimizing well production in conjunction with chemical treatments to
maximize oil production over the last seven years.

Introduction
Gigante-1A (G1A) is geographically located in southern Huila, about 26 kilometers southeast of the municipality of Gigante. This
HPHT well produces from the Tetuan formation, where it was completed in May, 1998 for the perforated interval 15,372 to 15,430 ft,
in 5-in. liner N-80, 18 lb/ft, hanged at 14,956 ft., 7-in. casing P-110 29 lb/ft, from surface to casing shoe at 15,349 ft.
Target zone in Gigante-1A well combines sandstone and limestone interval lengths along the perforated interval, where the
bottomhole reservoir temperature has been identified as 268.5F.
A summary of current downhole conditions according to the most recent production report has been compiled in terms of well
characterization related to main reservoir properties, formation fluid data, and current artificial lifting system (Table 1).
Gigante-1A has been periodically stimulated for almost eight years after confirming oil reserves through openhole log analysis,
reservoir studies, hydraulic fracturing responses before a blowout in 2000, PBU indications, and nodal analysis after blowout.
Formation damage has been under consideration since the beginning of stimulation treatments after blowout. The blowout was a
critical event during well history because a significant impact was made on the mechanical configuration at downhole conditions. As a
consequence, water reservoir communication has been highly estimated.
The water influx was expected to come from the carbonate upper aquifer, probably connected with the reservoir through a
channeled cement sheath or through the holes in the casing from 12,066 ft to 12,070 ft and 13,700 ft. Therefore, a circulating squeeze
was planned and executed. The water cut was reduced to 6%.
The following formation damage sources were originally under consideration: (1) Organic deposits (asphaltene and paraffins)
based on formation crude-oil composition, saturates/aromatics/resins/asphaltene analysis, corresponding colloidal instability index and
changes in equilibrium conditions, (2) clay swelling related to lithological composition and corresponding instability because of
contact with water influx after cross-flow from neighbor zones (3) migration as a product of the proppant breakdown under closure
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

stress, or coming from the formation in contact with the proppant pack, (4) water blockage associated with fluid incompatibilities by
water-based treatments used in the past and blowout event, which could have created a probable water source from an upper aquifer
and cross-flow to the formation, disturbing the reservoir equilibrium (5) fracture damage because of crushing, embedment, stress
cycling and geochemical precipitates or fines.
Table 1Reservoir, Formation Fluids and Well Production Conditions in 2008

RESERVOIR

Formation TetunLimestone
Average Porosity 10% sand5% carbonates
Perforated Interval 15,37215,430 ft MD

FORMATION FLUID DATA

Oil 30.5 API / S.G. 0.87

Gas 1.2 S.G.
H2S 5 ppm
CO2 3.0 %
BS+W 57 %

ESP CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS (December 2008)

Production Rate 2200 B/D

Daily Gas ProductIon Ratee 810 MSCF
GOR 852
THP-Wellhead Pressure 35 psi
Wellhead temperature 170F
Downhole Flowing Pressure ( IPR-Dec 08) 3,336 psi at 15,400 ft MD
Reservoir Pressure ( Agos-07 ) 5,170 psi at 15,400 ft MD
Bottomhole temperarture 268.5F

All potential damage factors were systematically analyzed through a comprehensive radial model based on the comprehensive
theory for the complete chemistry and kinetics of sandstone acidizing, which includes ion-exchanging transformation of brines,
decomposition of clays in hydrochloric acid, precipitation of fluosilicates, removal of carbonate to prevent the precipitation of
complex aluminum fluorides, silica-gel filming, colloidal silica-gel precipitation, precipitation of the various complex aluminum
fluorides, asphaltene flocculation, paraffins precipitation, emulsion, and water blockage, mixing between the various stages of the
treatment, damage removal, permeability model, skin evolution, and treatment effectiveness as a function of defined treatment
sequence and placement techniques including selectivity/diversion procedures (Gdanski and Shuchart 1997 and Gdanski et al. 1998).
All chemical considerations and improvements have been effectively potentialized by continuous improvements for well artificial
lifting system. Gigante-1A was originally produced by natural flow. However, it was necessary to improve lifting methodology
because well integrity problems reduce potential well production and hydraulic pumping was not implemented until later. After some
years, this system was not productive enough and an ESP (Electrical Submergible Pump) system was installed in February 2006. The
resulting production increase has been significant.

Geological and Reservoir Description

The Gigante field is an elongated NNW-SSE trending 4-way closed anticline that is approximately 13 km long by 3 km wide. The
field produces from the Tetun sandstones. These sandstones are 20 ft thick in the existing G1A well and have porosity of 10 to 11%.
These sandstones are continuous and homogeneous through the area.
Reservoir initial pressure was 6,673 psi at 15,257 ft TVD, this was determined from a DST test in November 1998. Production
mechanisms are fluid-expansion driven and probably a weak aquifer. According to PVT analysis, the Tetuan oil parameters has a
bubble-point pressure of 1,735 psi, a solution gas ratio (Rs) of 883 scf/bbl, and a volumetric factor (Bo) of 1.7 rb/stb. Pressure has
dropped from 6,673 to 5,700 psi after a cumulative production of 2.2 mmbo indicating the reservoir is still under saturated. Average
effective permeability was estimated to be around 160 mD.
The well is subject to asphaltene precipitation and emulsion blocks. This is treated with chemicals to clean and inhibit the early
accumulation approximately every six months, after which the production peaks at around 1,100 BOPD and subsequently falls
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

gradually after 150,000 bbl. Periodic depositions of scale affected skin factor and lowering the productivity index. This has
periodically been chemically treated, stabilizing production.

Production References
G1A well has a cumulative production of 2.75 mmbo to date. Initial rates, with natural flow, were up to 1,500 BOPD pre-frac and
4,000 BOPD post-frac. With rates up to 4,200 BOPD, and 0% BS&W, were recorded over 24 months. After a workover in 2000,
during which there was a blowout, the production had averaged around 700 BOPD with peaks of 850 BOPD until early 2006. Since
2001, the well has been artificially lifted using first an ESP for a short period, followed by hydraulic pumping for five years, and
reverting to ESP at the beginning of 2006. Since this point, the production averaged 850 BOPD and peaked at 1,000 BOPD. The G1A
well currently produces 31API gravity crude oil.
The well initially produced no water and the water-cut has since risen gradually to its current level of 57% that has kept stable for
the last 14 months. The early water production was demonstrated to be sourced from formations higher in the well and entering
through holes in the casing. These holes were isolated using a straddle-packer mechanism. There remains some uncertainty as to
whether the current produced water is all sourced from the Tetun sandstone reservoir.

Formation Damage Diagnosis

Natural damage occurs as produced reservoir fluids move through the reservoir, while induced damage is the result of external
operations and fluids in the well, such as drilling, well completion, production, workover operations, or stimulation treatments.
Damage induced by production includes phenomena such as fines migration, clay swelling, scale formation, organic deposition,
including paraffins or asphaltene, and mixed organic and inorganic deposition.
Conditions of production operations associated with the stability of fluids in reservoir can cause imbalance in the chemical-
physical characteristics and change the conditions of flow of fluids near wellbore.
The following tools have been employed in the study to establish the damage mechanism in reservoir drainage points:
Drilling and completions data review.
Well history review.
Production history review.
Laboratory-core analysis data review.

Main topics under evaluation were as follows:

Drilling and completions.
Organic scale tendencies.
Emulsion blockage tendencies.
Inorganic scale tendencies.
Sanding and fines migration.
Water production and relative permeability effect.

Drilling and Completions

The well was completed in Tetun formation with perforations in the interval from 15,372 to 15,430. Initial DST results on this zone
done in May 1999 indicated damage with skin of 6.4 and permeability of 20 mD related to fluids and systems used during drilling and
completion operations.

Organic Scale Tendencies

Organic scaling tendencies have been continuously evaluated in wellhead crude oil samples since 2001 in terms of problems generated
by asphaltene flocculation mainly as: (1) asphaltene deposition itself blocking or reducing pore throat channels, and (2) emulsion
blockage because of contact between water and crude oil with asphaltene flocculation tendencies.
Initially, all organic problems were related to paraffin deposition. Paraffins precipitate from the crude oil at an equilibrium
temperature and pressure defined as the cloud point. However, there was no evidence on surface or along the tubing. Temperature
higher than cloud point at different points of production has been confirmed.
It was possible to collect organic samples from the bottom of tanks in 2002, which were analyzed in the laboratory for contact with
different aromatic fluids which covered: (1) xylene, (2) diesel, (3) xylene/diesel mixtures, (4) all of those mixtures combined with an
asphaltene solvent enhancer. Asphaltene deposits are characterized by their insolubility in straight-chain solvents, such as kerosene,
gasoline, and diesel fuel, and they are slowly soluble in aromatic solvents such as toluene and xylene. Laboratory results from
collected samples enabled focusing formation damage control on asphaltene mainly because higher solubility records were obtained in
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

contact with xylene/toluene with asphaltene dissolver enhancer (Tables 2 and 3) and 98% of solubility in contact with single xylene-
based treatments against 26% in contact with single diesel based fluids.

Table 2Typical Tested Formulations for Organic Deposition Rmoval

ADDITIVES Organic Treatment Organic Treatment Organic Treatment Organic Treatment
No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4
Asphaltens Solubility Enhancer 4% 4% 4%
Oil Based Surfactant 1% 1% 1% 1%
Mutual Solvent 5% 5% 5%
Xylene 90% 70% 50%
Diesel 20% 40% 99%

Table 3Solubility Rcords on Formulations in Table No.2

Organic Treatment No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4
Solubility % 98% 94.1% 53.3% 26.6%

This confirmed non-blockage is related to paraffins because paraffins are soluble in almost all type of aromatic solvents.
Crude oil asphaltene flocculation tendencies were more severe in 2001 and have been changing over the years. At normal reservoir
conditions, asphaltene, resins, maltenes, and oil phase are in thermodynamic equilibrium. This equilibrium can be disturbed by
different factors such as pressure reductions, change in temperature, change in crude oil chemical composition, flow of miscible gases,
and liquids. One main reference for defining thermodynamic equilibrium changes is the colloidal instability index (CII), which can be
easily calculated from SARA analysis (saturates, aromatics, resins, asphaltene) as CII = (saturates + asphaltene ) / (resins + aromatics)
according to different studies (Oskui et al. 2008 and Yen et al. 2001). As an average, those studies have defined a CII factor
corresponding to 0.7 or less as a stable crude oil, 0.9 or higher as a very unstable crude oil, and a range between 0.7 and 0.9 as
moderately unstable oil (Kokal et al. 2002).
The Gigante-1A well has been impacted by pressure reductions and flow of miscible gases in particular. This has significantly
increased asphaltene precipitation tendencies. However, this problem has been successfully managed and precipitation tendencies
have been reduced by a consecutive and periodical well-intervention program for asphaltene inhibition from 2001 to 2007.
Basic analysis on asphaltene-inhibitor requirements have been maintained after each intervention. Analysis is based on an
asphaltene dispersant test (ADT) following an n-heptane titration procedure: wellhead crude oil (dead) is titrated with the standard
flocculent (n-heptane) and is compared with an untreated sample under same experimental conditions. Any variation of the physical
aspect and/or flocculation is considered evidence of thermal instability (Garcia et al. 2003).
Following ADT procedure, inhibitor requirements for keeping asphaltene dispersed have been as high as 400 ppm in 2001 and
recently as low as 10 ppm. It has been found that life-of-inhibition treatments are getting longer than the initial design through the
years, if the rock is treated with a constant inhibitor. Production decline was effectively controlled during initial treatments focusing
on a defined cumulative volume of crude oil to be protected. The most recent interventions have shown longer times indicating the
action of some remnant inhibitor in the rock from previous interventions and enhanced by the immediately following inhibition
treatment. As confirmation, the most recent specialized crude oil analysis in 2007 indicated low asphaltene to resin ratio (0.20)
indicating asphaltene are stable. It is also clear that the saturates to aromatics ratio is relatively high as compared to the ratio of the
sum of the saturate and asphaltene to the sum of resins to aromatics. This might indicate a metastable state.
Commercial asphaltene inhibitor contains a chemical polymer which has specific functional groups that interact with asphaltene.
Those inhibitors are synthesized to function in the same manner as the resins, interacting with the asphaltene and stabilizing the
asphaltene micelles in the crude oil. This inhibitor has a stronger association with asphaltene than the natural resin and is capable of
stabilizing asphaltene through significant changes in pressure, temperature, shear, and chemical environment.

Emulsion Blockage Tendencies

Samples at surface have historically recorded emulsion tendencies between crude oil and water, which becomes stable because of
asphaltene precipitation and fines migration. In addition, asphaltene precipitation is normally easier under gas-phase scenarios.
In spite of downhole conditions being less critical for emulsion generation relative to surface (because of high energy between
molecules associated with high down-hole temperature) the target has been avoiding and/or reducing those tendencies at surface.
Historically, emulsion has been getting worse immediately after organic stimulations; however this tendency was successfully handled
during the latest intervention in August 2007. A percentage of emulsion in flowback to surface was reduced from an average of 15%
of emulsion to zero. This was attributed to the introduction of a micro-emulsion agent to the first treatment stage or preflush
conditioner. This agent is capable of significantly reducing interfacial tension because of reduction of capillary pressure and
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

movement of surface toward 90 contact angle (Gdanski 2007). See Fig. 1 for a comparative diagram of conventional contact angles
versus a desired contact angle between a hydrocarbon fluid and water. Fig. 2 illustrates historical emulsion profiles in Gigante-1A and
the highlighted benefit after intervention in August 2007.

Fig. 1Micro-emulsion agent moves surfaces toward 90 contact angle.

Fig. 2Emulsion percentage on returned fluids to surface.

Inorganic Scale Tendencies

There are several potential formation damage mechanisms that need further investigation in this field. This includes inorganic
deposition tendencies. CaCO3 and CaSO4 are the highest potentials.
Based on review of available data, the operators believe inorganic scale encapsulated in organic scales could have been paraffins.
However, all findings related to asphaltene/paraffins/emulsion have indicated the asphaltene presence as the major problem source.
Water and XRD analysis of samples confirm the existence of inorganic scale in the Gigante field. Inorganic scales like CaCO3 and
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

CaSO4 are very likely to be found in this field. Water analysis shows high concentrations of Ca, HCO3 and SO4. Figs. 3A-3D illustrate
scaling from the Gigante-1A well.

Fig. 3AOut of GB water line (February 2006).

Fig. 3B: Tubing exterior (February 2006).

Fig. 3COut of gas separator water valve (November 2006).

 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Fig. 3DFlowline from wellhead (February 2007).

Physical-chemistry water analysis on wellhead-collected samples are also clear indications of scaling tendencies associated with
calcium, sulphates, and alkalinity, generate insoluble compounds at downhole conditions as production drawdown increases. Fig. 4
illustrates historical analysis that confirms inorganic scaling tendencies on water formation.

Fig. 4History related to physical-chemistry analysis for formation water from Gigante-1A wellhead.

Because of potential mineral instability at high downhole temperatures, established acidic fluids for carbonate removal were
defined as organic and acid-based on a mixture between formic and acetic acids. This system was used for carbonate removal during
the intervention in July 2006 even though the treatment was not injected in front of the perforated interval because of limitations
generated by loss of tools downhole (Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7 and Fig. 5).

Sanding and Fines Migration

Consecutive stimulation interventions have been performed through the coiled tubing unit, which have allowed the determination of
the current bottom in each job. Under normal well-configuration conditions, it has always been necessary to detect the current well
bottom for helping to ensure access to the perforation interval and to proceed with sand cleanout operations.
Table 8 indicates maximum CT depths found immediately before each stimulation job to the producing interval. This history
corresponds to well conditions with access to the interval before loss of tools downhole. This sequence does not indicate original,
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

critical sanding problems because the interval was kept open to production and the stimulation job could be executed in front of the
interval. However, it is also important to notice those sanding tendencies were increasing overtime.
In fact, it was necessary to proceed with sand cleanout with crude oil (filtered and treated) for injecting stimulation fluids in front
of perforations. Recent studies have indicated Tetun formation produces formation fines like quartz and shales in average range from
10 to 100 PTB.
It is important to consider critical velocity measurement for representative rock samples. Under balance perforation practices
should be applied as well as continued use of high perforation shot density to help reduce pressure drop into the wellbore.

Table 4History of Well Stimulation Services in G1A

WO
Date
Services
Objective Job Summary / Technology
Start
No.
1 30-June-99 Hydraulic Fracturing Fracturing-Based Fluid Bauxite Proppant
2 11-Mar-01 Chemical Treatment CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment
3 27-July-01 Chemical Treatment CT-Paraffins Cleaner and Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment
4 10-Aug-01 Chemical Treatment CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment
CT-Organic Xylene-Based Treatment and Matrix Organic Acid
5 13-Sep-01 Chemical Treatment for IOR
Treatment
CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene
6 23-Nov-01 Chemical Treatment for IOR
Inhibition + CT-Scaling Inhibition
7 11-July-02 Chemical Treatment for IOR CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment
8 27-Dec-02 Chemical Treatment for IOR CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment
CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene
9 6-Mar-03 Chemical Treatment for IOR and Maintenance
Inhibition
CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene
10 13-Aug-03 Chemical Treatment for IOR and Maintenance
Inhibition
CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene
11 17-Dec-03 Chemical Treatment for IOR and Maintenance
Inhibition
CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene
12 26-May-04 Chemical Treatment for IOR and Maintenance
Inhibition
CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene
13 23-Nov-04 Chemical Treatment for IOR and Maintenance
Inhibition
Chemical Cutting at 14,981 ft.-Chemical CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene
14 11-May-05
Treatment for IOR and Maintenance Inhibition
CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene
15 25-Nov-05 Chemical Treatment for IOR and Maintenance
/Parrraffins Inhibition
Chemical Treatment for IOR and CT-Organic Xylene-Based Cleaning Treatment + Organic Acid
16 21-July-06
Maintenance Carbonates Removal + CT Asphaltene Parraffins Inhibition
Chemical Treatment for IOR and Maintenance + CT-Organic Xylene Based Cleaning Treatment + CT Asphaltene /
17 21-Aug-07
Corrective ESP Parrafins Inhibition

Note: Intervention in bold has recorded the most successful results under well configuration limitation.
Intervention on August 2007 was combined with a micro-emulsion agent for reducing interfacial tension and capillary.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Table 5History of Stimulation Services: Benefits of Asphaltenes Dissolver Enhancer and N2 Unloading

Have asphaltene
dissolution
Was the
properties been Organic removal Radius of penetration Soaking time for
Date well lifted
Objective enhanced in treatment stage for organic removal organic removal
Start with
terms of xylene- volume, bbl treatment stage, ft treatment stage, hr
nitrogen?
based treatment
power? (Note 1)
30-June-99 Hydraulic Fracturing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Yes
11-Mar-01 Chemical Treatment No 142 6.4 6
27-July-01 Chemical Treatment No 142 / 85 6.4 / 4.9 2 Yes
10-Aug-01 Chemical Treatment No 197 7.5 3 Yes
Chemical Treatment Operating Time
13-Sept-01
for IOR
No 83 4.8 No
Only
Chemical Treatment
23-Nov-01
for IOR
No 71.4 4.4 0 Yes
Chemical Treatment
11-July-02
for IOR
Yes 35.7 3.1 6 No
Chemical Treatment
27-Dec-02
for IOR
Yes 35.7 3.1 6 No
Chemical Treatment
6-Mar-03 for IOR and Yes 47.6 3.6 6 No
Maintenance
Chemical Treatment
13-Aug-03 for IOR and Yes 35.7 3.1 6 No
Maintenance
Chemical Treatment
17-Dec-03 for IOR and Yes 35.7 3.1 6 No
Maintenance
Chemical Treatment
26-May-04 for IOR and Yes 40 3.3 6 No
Maintenance
Chemical Treatment
23-Nov-04 for IOR and Yes 71.4 4.5 16 No
Maintenance
Chemical Cutting at
14,981 ft.-Chemical
11-May-05
Treatment for IOR and
Yes 71.4 4.5 16 No
Maintenance
Chemical Treatment
25-Nov-05 for IOR and Yes 71.4 4.5 16 No
Maintenance
Chemical Treatment
21-July-06 for IOR and Yes 58 4 8 Yes
Maintenance
Chemical Treatment
for IOR and
21-Aug-07
Maintenance +
Yes 58 5.9 12 No
Corrective ESP

Note: (1) Asphaltenes dissolver enhancer was mixed just in xylene/toluene based treatments.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Table 6History of Stimulation Services: Records of Asphaltene/Paraffins Inhibition Treatments and Effect of Soaking Time

Date Cumulative Soaking time for

volume of crude Radius of organic
Cumulative volume Organic
Start oil to be penetration for inhibition
of crude oil to be inhibition
protected organic inhibition treatment stage,
Objective protected against treatment
against treatment stage, hr
paraffin formation stage volume,
asphaltene ft
damage, bbl bbl
formation
damage, bbl
30-June-99 Hydraulic
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Fracturing
11-Mar-01 Chemical
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Treatment
27-July-01 Chemical
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Treatment
10-Aug-01 Chemical
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Treatment
13-Sept-01 Chemical
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Treatment for IOR
23-Nov-01 Chemical
60,000 N/A 95.2 5.2 3
Treatment for IOR
11-July-02 Chemical
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Treatment for IOR
27-Dec-02 Chemical
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Treatment for IOR
6-Mar-03 Chemical
Operating Time
Treatment for IOR 60,000 N/A 121.9 5.9
Only
and Maintenance
13-Aug-03 Chemical
Treatment for IOR 30,000 N/A 32.4 2.9 2
and Maintenance
17-Dec-03 Chemical
Treatment for IOR 90,000 N/A 97.4 5.3 2
and Maintenance
26-May-04 Chemical
Operating Time
Treatment for IOR 90,000 N/A 95 5.2
Only
and Maintenance
23-Nov-04 Chemical
Operating Time
Treatment for IOR 90,000 N/A 97.4 5.3
Only
and Maintenance
11-May-05 Chemical Cutting
at 14,981 ft.-
Operating Time
Chemical 90,000 N/A 97.4 5.3
Only
Treatment for IOR
and Maintenance
25-Nov-05 Chemical
Operating Time
Treatment for IOR 120,000 90,000 130 6.6*
Only
and Maintenance
21-July-06 Chemical
Operating Time
Treatment for IOR 60,000 60, 000 63 4
Only
and Maintenance
21-Aug-07 Chemical
Treatment for IOR
60,000 60,000 97 5 3
and Maintenance +
Corrective ESP
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Table 7History of Stimulation Services and Llifting System: Results of Iinterventions in Terms of Production

RIH CT BOPD
Artificial Lift BFPD BSW, %
Start Date Objective Maximum Before After Before After
CT Before After Average 1 Average 1 Average 1 Average 1 Before After
Depth month_pre month_post month_pre month_post
30-June-99 Hydraulic Fracturing NF NF 1,545 3,035 0 0
15,466
11-Mar-01 Chemical Treatment NF NF ND ND ND ND
27-July-01 Chemical Treatment 15,426 NF NF 471 1,383 449 1328 4.5 4
10-Aug-01 Chemical Treatment 15,455 NF NF 514 1,480 491 1388 4.5 6.5
Chemical Treatment for 1,162
13-Sept-01 15,448 NF NF 610 545 1082 11 7
IOR
Chemical Treatment for
23-Nov-01 15,443 NF NF 897 1,081 742 881 17 18
IOR
Chemical Treatment for
11-July-02 15,464 HP HP 937 1,306 649 893 31 32
IOR
Chemical Treatment for
27-Dec-02 15,460 HP HP 943 1,221 630 817 33 33
IOR
Chemical Treatment for
6-Mar-03 15,462 HP HP 1044 1,316 685 855 34 35
IOR and Maintenance
Chemical Treatment for
13-Aug-03 15,422 HP HP 1016 1,331 620 830 39 39
IOR and Maintenance
Chemical Treatment for
17-Dec-03 15,444 HP HP 987 1,303 615 815 38 38
IOR and Maintenance
Chemical Treatment for
26-May-04 15,987 HP HP 1193 1,345 702 795 41 41
IOR and Maintenance
Chemical Treatment for
23-Nov-04 15,002 HP HP 1041 1,411 571 810 45 43
IOR and Maintenance
Chemical Cutting at
14,981 ft.-Chemical
11-May-05 15,392 HP HP 1206 1,453 638 770 47 47
Treatment for IOR and
Maintenance
Chemical Treatment for
25-Nov-05 15,392 HP HP 1201 1,089 585 547 51.2 50
IOR and Maintenance
Chemical Treatment for
21-July-06 9,575 ESP ESP 1305 2,251 621 1,305 52 54
IOR and Maintenance
Chemical Treatment for
21-Aug-07 IOR and Maintenance + 9,575 ESP ESP 2071 2,165 942 1,002 54.5 55.5
Corrective ESP

Table 8Maximum CT Depths Before Each Stimulation Job

Date of Stimulation Job Perforated Interval (ft) CT depth before stimulation job
December 2003 15372-15430 15444
March 2003 15372-15430 15462
December 2002 15372-15430 15460
July 2002 15372-15430 15464
Note: Fluids pumping during the following interventions were performed above the
perforations interval because of lost of tools down-hole restricting CT access.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Fig. 5G1A production profile (BOPD, GOR, API) from July 2006 to October 2007.

Water Production and Relative Permeability Effect

After several data collections and analyses through water production diagnostic plots, it was concluded that water coning is not the
problem in this well. However, water channeling is obviously occurring but it is only occurring in one layer of the channel that is
producing water.
As complementary information, based on historical production, petro-physics by layer and pressure conditions during production,
commercial probabilistic analysis software for establishing a diagnosis of water production have categorized reasons as follows: 60%
related to stimulation into water zones, 23% related to mechanical/integrity problems, and 16% related to water coning. This confirms
the conclusion obtained from diagnostic plots (Fig. 6).
It is always important to determine the critical production at which the wells can be produced or a strategy could be adopted to
manage the fields effectively. Then, critical rate is defined as the maximum production rate at which the production is water free.
Critical rate at Gigante-1A has been established as 1,500 Stb/d according to recent studies.

Historical Background Related to Mechanical Status

Gigante-01 well was drilled to 13,419 feet by the Texas Oil Company in 1991-1992. Despite being the main goal, Caballos zone was
not reached. During this period two interventions were executed for sidetrack because of differential pressures at about 13,500 feet. As
consequence, the well was abandoned.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Fig. 6Water control diagnostic plot for Gigante-1A well.

From May 817 of 1998, the Gigante-01A well was drilled by the Emerald Company from Gigante-01-hole through a side window in
the casing of 9 5/8 in. at 10,890 feet with the main objective of accessing the Caballos formation.
During drilling of the G1A well, there were difficulties at a depth of 13,100 feet because of a fish-related drilling equipment at
12,320 feet. It was then necessary to conduct a sidetrack from 12,058 feet. There were no complications from that depth to a total
depth of 15,790 ft, reaching producing formations Tetuan and Caballos.
The Gigante-01A well began production post-drilling in May 9, 1999. There were several workover operations during the
production stage focusing on different objectives such as well services for stimulation, fracturing, acquisition of information, and
changes of artificial lift system.
A service workover was performed in May 2000 to verify the source of water production. While this service was performed, a
blowout occurred that caused damage to the downhole mechanical condition.
After several remedial works, it was possible to reopen the well to production in March 2002. A hydraulic pumping system was
used as an artificial lifting mechanism. The mechanical configuration included a set of downhole hydraulic packing system, which
isolated a leaking zone on 7-in. casing between 9,658 and 14,962 feet.
It was necessary to proceed with a chemical cutting procedure at 14,981 ft in May 2005 because of a bottleneck generated by
pressure sensors and slickline tools. It was possible to cut approximately 50 ft, dropping in front of perforations.
During a workover to change the artificial lifting system from a jet pump to ESP in Feb 2006, it was necessary to proceed with a
chemical cut at 9,575 ft because of integrity problems in bottomhole assembly. The current downhole mechanical condition of G1A
well is illustrated in Fig. 7.

Historical Background Related to Intervention for Stimulation Services

Based on potential Tetuan production, G1A was hydraulically fractured in 2000. As mentioned previously in the Production
Reference section, initial rates under natural flow conditions were up to 1,500 BOPD pre-frac and 4,000 BOPD post-frac, with
instantaneous rates up to 4,200 BOPD, and 0% BS&W, recorded over 24 months. After a workover in 2000, during which there was a
blowout, the production had averaged around 700 BOPD with peaks of 850 BOPD until early 2006.
The blowout highly restricted new hydraulic fracturing interventions and many assumptions on formation damage diagnosis were
analyzed. Other methodologies, which would recover productivity, were considered. Formation fluids were carefully analyzed to
identify factors of the continuous decline in production. Organic problems were evident and organic treatments were started in July
2001 with successful oil recovery, but decline was significant.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Fig. 7Current Gigante-1A well schematic-downhole.

Organic and inorganic scaling were considered and a combined organic treatment/matrix acidizing was executed in September
2001. Treatment fluids and sequence were carefully evaluated based on formation damage data. Simulations were run through the
comprehensive radial model based on the chemistry and kinetics of sandstone acidizing for determining the best possible estimate of
production enhancement (Gdanski and Shuchart 1997). There was an average increase of 400 BOPD as result. Because of the fast
decline, the well was treated in November 2001 again with asphaltene and scaling inhibition treatment for cumulative water to be
produced in an estimated time frame of six months and a cumulative oil production of 60,000. Follow-up to this intervention was
incomplete because of a month-long, mandatory pressure testing program. Once production conditions were re-established, production
decline was once again significantly high.
Two more organic removal treatments were executed in July and December 2002 with 400 BFPD as average increase and decline.
To maintain the benefits from organic stimulations, a previous removal treatment was combined with an asphlatene inhibition in
March 2003. Six single and periodic asphaltene inhibition treatments were performed by May 2005.
However, in 2003, treatments were injected in front of perforations reciprocating the CT unit in front of the perforated interval.
Following interventions in May and November 2004 were pumped above the interval because of a loss of tools downhole which
restricted access of CT.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

In May 2005, stimulation was attempted by an organic/inorganic pill and chemical cutting focused to access the interval. These
activities were successful and it was possible to reciprocate CT between the intervals of 15,372-15,392 ft. The same interval was
treated in November 2005. Well interventions in July 2006 and August 2007 were executed from 9,575 ft because of a new loss of
tools down-hole.

Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 all record stimulation services executed in the G1A well, including:
Dates of intervention.
Type of intervention/treatment stages.
Enhancement of organic removal stages (asphaltene dissolver enhancer).
Soaking time for organic removal and inhibition.
References of well nitrogen unloading.
Programmed volume of cumulative oil to be protected against organic formation damage.
Lifting system.
Intervention response after one month of average production in terms of BOP, BFPD, BSW.

Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate production profiles related to oil, water, and total fluid production in addition to gas-oil ratio and drawdown
profiles for specific periods of time. Fig. 10 illustrates PIP (pressure intake pump) and Pump Frequency (Hz) from 2006 to 2008,
recording low PIP records in spite of higher frequency, which has occurred because of effective rock treatment and an effective lifting
system.
As a summary of lessons learned after this history of stimulation services, the following issues need to be highlighted:
ESP lifting system has allowed improved well productivity under a controlled condition of formation
damage related to asphaltene.
The volume of the asphaltene inhibition stage needs to be limited because extra volume can generate
temporary blockage during the inhibitor adsorption process. An example of this is the comparison
of treatments from November 2004 to May 2005 and November 2005, where the only difference was the volume of
cumulative oil to be protected in November 2005, 120,000 bbl. Consequently, the volume of the inhibition stage was higher
and the radius of penetration was deeper. The November 2005 treatment has been recorded as the worst response in spite of
the fact that organic removal was the same from the two previous interventions.
Soaking time longer than 12 hours for asphaltene and emulsion blockage removal has been confirmed as
a good recommendation as compared to 3 to 6 hours.
The micro-emulsion agent mixed in the first stages (deeper penetration) was effective for controlling
emulsion returns after stimulations.
In spite of well configuration limitations, job execution above interval-stimulation service in July 2006
has been the most effective, placing fluids through CT from the maximum reached depth (9,575 ft). The same intervention,
bullheading from the surface in August 2007, did not enable the same response considering downhole restriction is at the
same depth (9575 ft). Therefore, CT deployment is still recommended in spite of difficulties to achieve target zone.

Fig. 11 illustrates the most recent sequence of treatment that is not in terms of radius of penetration. The consecutive interventions
confirmed problems related to asphaltene flocculation are not just in the near wellbore area. Precipitation and emulsion blockage tend
to occur in the matrix.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Fig. 8G1A production profile (BFPD, BOPD, BWPD, GOR) from August 2007 to August 2008.

Fig. 9G1A drawdown versus ESP frequency profile from January 2006 to October 2006.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Fig. 10G1A pressure intake pump and frequency profiles overtime (2006 to 2008).

Fig. 11G1A treatment sequence for organic removal and inhibition.

 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

General Treatment Execution

The following is the more common procedure for this type of treatment:
Confirm CT-equivalent volume to corresponding capacity focused on line testing.
Injection of system water has been the fluid for testing lines.
Test of lines resulted in 500 psi by 5 min and 4700 psi by 10 min according to the pre-established best
practices.
RIH and pull tests are made with the equipment tested at surface. It began RIH CT at an average speed of 100 ft/min and making
the corresponding pull test:
RIH from surface to bottom at corrected depth.
Pump oil for bottom cleanout (depending on recorded maximum depth achieved with CT )
Pump organic removal treatment stages (including displacement) below fracture gradient while CT is reciprocated in front of
perforated interval. If annulus pressure increases, it is necessary to modify the injection volume
Pull CT out of hole some feet above perforated interval.
Stop pumping and allow soaking time according to requirements.
Pump organic inhibition treatment stages (including displacement) below fracture gradient while CT is reciprocated in front
of perforated interval.
Stop pumping and allow soaking time according to requirements.
Record pressure decrease.
Rig down equipment and surface lines.

Historical Background Related to Well-lifting Optimization

During well history, it has been necessary to optimize artificial lifting system according to well condition. After drilling, the Gigante-
01A well produced naturally because of its high reservoir pressure at that moment. After two years, it was necessary to design an
artificial lifting system because the reservoir pressure declined until nonproduction occurred under natural flowing. Fluids conditions
such as high GOR, organic and inorganic tendencies, and sand production were the cause of mechanical difficulties for production.
The learning curve has been built through production history, enhanced artificial lifting design, workover and production procedures,
and well monitoring. A summary of the evolution of artificial lifting system installations through well production history is shown in
Table 9.

Inflow Performance
A pressure build up (PBU) test was done on December 2003. It indicated a skin damage corresponding to 28 in Gigante-01A well for
Tetuan formation. Several successful chemical stimulations have been executed after this date for formation damage removal, focused
on well productivity enhancement and production maintenance.
Because of low reservoir pressure declination over time and a constant chemical stimulation program, it has been possible to keep
a productivity index above 1.0 BFPD/psi. This has allowed wells to produce with a constant improvement curve while the artificial
lifting system is optimized under current downhole mechanical condition. Fig. 12 illustrates the most typical inflow performance from
the Gigante-1A well.
J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Table 9Artificial Lifting Design Evolution

 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Fig. 12Injectivity index profile.

Conclusions

It is evident that a combination of an effective lifting system and the proper chemical treatment to the rock matrix are able to
improve the Gigante-1A well production in spite of well configuration limitations.
Well productivity conditions are able to be modified during the well productivity life. Consequently, formation damage
sources, radius of damage, intervention requirements, and lifting systems need to be reviewed and adjusted when needed to
maintain or improve well productivity.
In general, to optimize well productivity after drilling, it is necessary to understand reservoir fluid characteristics, profiles,
and tendencies at the beginning of production. This is useful for artificial lifting system design and reservoir management.
Good chemical stimulation performance is a result of appropriate formation damage identification and job design. This
allows for a proper chemical treatment mechanism.
It is highly recommended to use a preflush as a rock matrix conditioner.
According to stimulation experiences in Gigante-01 A, the volume of the asphaltene inhibition stage needs to be
limited because extra volume can generate temporary blockage during inhibitor adsorption process to the rock. As a result,
inhibition treatments need to be limited for particular volumes of cumulative oil to be protected.
Soaking time longer than 12 hours for asphaltene and emulsion blockage removal has been confirmed as
a good recommendation for effectiveness in this well, compared to 3 to 6 hours.
The microemulsion agent mixed in the first stages (deeper penetration) has been confirmed as effective
for controlling emulsion returns after stimulation. This is especially true in scenarios where strong emulsion are present
between water/crude/solids emulsions.
CT deployment is still recommended in spite of difficulties to achieve a target zone because of
downhole restrictions.
Water and crude oil composition can be distributed throughout a wells production life, and then practices for stimulation
services need to be periodically reviewed to be adjusted according to those changes.
 J.A.Mora, F.Kondo, S.Gonzlez Pinto

Nomenclature

PBU Pressure Build Up

ESP Electrical Sumergible Pump
DST Drill Steam Testing
PVT Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Mmbo Millions of barrels of oil
BS&W Bulk Sand & Water
GB Gun Barrel
PTB Parts per thousand barrels
Stb/d Standard barrel per day

Acknowledgment

The authors thank their collegues who have been involved in these operations and the evolution process for improvement well
responses after chemical and mechanical interventions. The authors also acknowledge the work done by Halliburton Production
Enhancement Laboratory in Colombia by Hibet Gutirrez and the laboratory team. Finally, the authors thank the management of
Emerald Energy (Colombia), Ecopetrol, and Halliburton for their permission to publish this paper.

References
Gdanski, R. and Shuchart, C. 1997. Advanced Sandstone Acidizing Designs Using Improved Radial Models. Paper SPE 38597
presented at the Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October.
Gdanski, R, Jurai, V. and Mohan, R. 1998. Acidizing in the Teak Field: A Comprehensive Approach. Paper SPE 49101 presented at
the Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, New Orleans, Lousina, 27-30 September.
Oskui, R.P, Gholoum, E.F, Salman M.2008. Application of Laboratory Tecnique for Screening Asphaltene Inhibitors for Kuwaiti
Reservoirs. Paper presented at the International Congress of Conventional and Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources in
Cartagena, Colombia. February.
Andrew Yen, Y, R.Yin and S.Asomaning. 2001. Evaluating Asphaltenes Inhibitors: Laboratory Tests and Field Results. Paper SPE
65376 presented at the International Symposium on OilField Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 13-16 February.
Kokal, S., Dawood, N., Fontanilla, J., Al-Ghamdi, AH. NasR-El-Din y Al-Rufaie. 2002. Productivity Decline in Oil Wells related to
Asphaltenes Precipitation and Emulsion Blocks. Paper SPE 77767 presented at the Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, September 29-October 2.
Garca M. del C, Henriquez M. and J.Orta. 2003. Asphaltenes Deposition Prediction And Control in a Venezuelan North Monagas Oil
Filed. Paper SPE 80262 at the International Symposium on OilField Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 5-7 February.
Gdanski, R. 2007. Modelling the Impact of Capillary Pressure Reduction by Surfactants. Paper SPE 106062 presented at the
International Symposium on OilField Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 28 February-2 March.
.