Academy journal for Basic and Applied Sciences (AJBAS) special issue # 2 July 2023 (civ. Arch. Bio.

Chm. E.mang)

First Libyan International Conference on Engineering Sciences & Applications (FLICESA_LA)

13 – 15 March 2023, Tripoli – Libya

Selection of the best acid formulation for acidizing

dolomite formation in Gialo-59 oil field
Salim Aburaqibah Abdulhadi Elsounousi Khalifa Mouna Mohamed Marghani
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Department of Petroleum Engineering Department of Petroleum Engineering
College of Engineering Technology College of Engineering Technology College of Engineering Technology
Janzur Janzur Janzur
Tripoli ,Libya Tripoli ,Libya Tripoli ,Libya
[email protected] Department of Georesources and Department of Georesources and
Environmental Engineering Environmental Engineering
National School of Engineers. National School of Engineers.
Sfax,Tunisia Sfax,Tunisia
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract-- Acidizing is a process of restoring the original damage located just around the well bore. The flow rate is
permeability around the wellbore which was reduced by the also limited to prevent fracturing of the formation, which
damaging effect resulting from either drilling or production would result in uncontrollable stimulation of only part of the
mechanism. The acid treatment is dependent on the extent and reservoir. When using acid for removal of suspected damage,
magnitude of the damage near the wellbore. The treatment
process consists of specifying the required acid volume, the acid
scale, clays, or some formation rock may be dissolved from
concentration, the acid injection rate, and the acid injection the existing flow channels. Only small increases in
pressure. In this study, the screening process was aided to productivity will result unless damage exists [4].
determine the most suitable acid injection parameters needed
II. Overview of Gialo oil field
for the optimization of performance in restoring the well
original permeability, this study was approached by selecting Gialo oil field is located in the western part of the sirte
two producing oil wells that experienced formation damage. The basin in north central at Libya as shown in figure 1.
screening was done by comparing the oil production rate from Geographically it’s located between Latitude / longitude: 29°
these wells before and after the acid treatment. The outcome of 1’ 60" N / 21° 33’ 0 ”EN. [5]
this investigation demonstrates that the skin factor has a
limiting value that regulates the pace of acid injection and that
the volume of acid injection is inversely related to the acid
concentration. 15% was found to be the ideal acid concentration
for the dolomite acid treatment. It was discovered that limiting
the value of 20 skin factors was the maximum value for
maximum acid performance because this value makes the acid
injection rate very as a result, in high acid injection time, which
causes the acid to spend more time near the wellbore and less
time covering the entire damage area.
Keywords: Stimulation, Acidizing treatment, Well damage.
I. Introduction
Matrix stimulation is a technique that has been used
extensively since the 1930s to improve production from oil Figure 1: Gialo oil field [5]
and gas wells and to improve injection into injection wells.
[1] When a well is not producing as expected, the formation
may be "damaged”. If the evaluation indicates of reservoir Reservoir description and properties
can deliver more fluid, stimulation may be needed. If the The jakhira reservoir lies at depth of about 3200 ft. K.B.
reservoir permeability is low, the well is a candidate for in the Gialo field. Production from it was initiated in august
stimulation by hydraulic fracturing.[2] However, if the
damage has reduced the well's productivity matrix acidizing 1972. The Jakhira limestone is composed of bio-calcarenite,
is the appropriate treatment. Typically, damage is associated nummulitic and calcilutite material with good integer
with a partial plugging of the formation around the wellbore. Vanular and excellent vuggy and chalky porosity. It shows a
[3] This reduces the original permeability in the damaged uniform, light brown oil stain. The structure is defined on its
area. Either this damage must be removed or new bypassing north flank by a major fault. The mean objective of this study
channels, such as "wormholes" must be created. To remove is to find out the beast acid treatment for the Oil wells in
damage, fluids are injected into the natural porosity of the
Waha Field if their damaged by scales the scenario of acid
reservoir at '' matrix''/sub fracturing/ rates and pressures. This
relatively low rates and pressures are necessary to remove the treatment done by varying of acid parameters such acid type,

131
FLICESA-LA-1315032023-CPE015
 Academy journal for Basic and Applied Sciences (AJBAS) special issue # 2 July 2023 (civ. Arch. Bio. Chm. E.mang)

acid formulation acid injection rate and acid injection sandstone. 𝑉s : Minimum volume of acid required to dissolve
pressure with change in the value of skin factor. [5] the rock. gal/ft
Matrix acidizing of carbonate Acid injection rate
The (H+) ion of a dissociated acid is the active species The maximum acid injection rate which we used to inject
that attacks a carbonate mineral. An acid reacts with a the acid without fracture the formation was calculated using
carbonate to form calcium or magnesium chloride (CaCl2) or the Equation2: The maximum acid injection rate calculated
(MgCl2), carbon dioxide gas (CO2), and water. The reaction for sever times by assume different values of skin factor
products are soluble and pose no reprecipitation
Qinj = 4.917 × 10−6 × K × h(Pfrac − Psafty − Phyd) βacid
problems.[5]. For example, when HCl acid reacts with calcite
× µacid × ln ( rs rw + s) … . Eq.2
or dolomite, the balanced reactions are:
Where K: average formation permeability, md. h:
CaCO3 + 2HCl → CaCl2 + H2O + CO2
perforated interval, ft. Pfrac: fraction pressure, psi. Phyd:
CaMg (CO3)2 + 4HCl → CaCl2 +MgCl2+ 2H2O + 2CO2 hydrostatic pressure, psi. Psafty:safty pressure =100psi. µ:
Except for special applications, HCl acid should be used acid viscosity’s. s: skin factor. Qinj: acid injection flow rate,
for matrix acidizing of carbonates. Normally, 15% HCl is bbl/min.
used but 28% is sometimes preferred in lower permeability Acid injection pressure
formations. A 28% HCl may also provide some benefit in that
the spent acid contains a higher concentration of CaCl2 or The maximum pressure to inject the acid can be
CaCl2/MgCl2. The increase in concentration results in a calculated by using the Equation 3.
higher viscosity, which partially reduces fluid leak-off from Pmax = ∆Pfric + Pfrac − 𝑃hyd + ∆𝑃𝑝𝑒𝑟 … Eq.3
the wormhole. The primary advantages of HCl acid are its Where Pmax : Maximum injection pressure, psi ∆Pfric :
moderate cost and complete spending at reservoir conditions. Pressure difference due to friction, psi Pfrac: Fracture
The principal disadvantage of HCl acid is its corrosivity. HCl pressure, psi 𝑃hyd: Hydrostatic pressure, psi ∆𝑃𝑝𝑒𝑟: Pressure
is more corrosive than other acids and generates a pitting type difference due to perforation, psi Pressure drop due frication
of corrosion. In addition, corrosion inhibition of HCl acid can be calculate using Equation 4 and Equation 5 used to
above 250°F is difficult. Also, aluminum, chrome, or zinc calculate the velocity of acid inside the tubing. ∆Pfric = 𝜇 ×
plated metals (often found on pumps) are severely attacked 𝑣𝑒 1500𝑑 2 … … …. . Eq.4
by HCl acid. [5]
𝑉𝑒 = 𝑄𝐼𝑁𝐽 2.448𝑑 2 … … … … … Eq.5
III. Methodology and Analysis of Results
Fracture pressure can be calculated using total depth and
In This study we analysis two wells (E-74,E-349,) in fracture gradient pressure by using Equation 6.
Gialo Field. The our analysis done by using sensitivity
analysis by varying the acid concentration to the get the best 𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐 = 0.78 × 𝐷 … … Eq.6
acid treatment for those wells which lead to generate the data Hydrostatic pressure can be calculated using total depth of
base which reduce any additional cost when we want to do well and specific gravity of the acid by using Equation 7&8.
acid stimulation design in future for these wells.
𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑 = 𝛾 × 62.4 × 𝐷 144. … . … .. Eq.7
Design procedure of acid treatment
∆𝑃𝑝𝑒𝑟 = 0.237 × 𝜌𝑡𝑜𝑡 × 𝑞𝑖𝑛𝑗 𝑐𝑝 × 𝑁 × 𝑑 2. …………..Eq.8
Acid volume
The Minimum volume of acid required to dissolve the Where µ: acid viscosity,cp. Ve: acid velocity,ft/sec d:
rock Vs calculated using Equation 1 the calculation done be perforation diameter, inch D: formation depth,ft. N:total
assume different penetration radius and different acid number of shot CP : perforation coefficient. The value of (∆𝑃
concentrations. perforation) were assumed to be zero where it’s value didn’t
exceed 20 psi for all wells)
Vs = π(rs 2 − rw 2 ) (Øtotal + (1 − Øeff)( Xmineral Xacid ))
… … … … . . . Eq.1 Pump pressure to inject finally, the required pump
pressure was calculated at different bottom hole pressures
Where
using the following Equation9. PPUMP = ∆𝑃perf + ∆Pfric −
rs: radius of damaged zone, ft. rw: well, bore radius, ft. 𝑃hyd + Pbottom ……..Eq.9
Øtotal: Total porosity. Øeff: effective porosity. 𝑋mineral: the
volume fraction of the rock that is soluble in acid. 𝑋acid:
dissolving power of HCl or HF acid with carbonate or

132
FLICESA-LA-1315032023-CPE015
 Academy journal for Basic and Applied Sciences (AJBAS) special issue # 2 July 2023 (civ. Arch. Bio. Chm. E.mang)

Where: Pump injection pressure, psi Pbottom : Bottom Table 6: Maximum pressure of injected acid at different skin
pressure, psi Phyd : Hydrostatic pressure, psi ∆𝑃perf : values for well E-74.
Pressure difference due to perforation.
Well by well Analysis
Well (E-74)
Table 1: Volume of acid needed at different concentrations
for well E-74

The procedure of sensitivity analysis

We calculate the minimum acid volume required to cover the
damage zone by using equation.1 the sensitivity done by
varying the acid concentration which reflects in change
Table 2: Injected acid flow rate at different skin values for dissolving power value.
well E-74

Table 3: Velocity of acid at different skin values for well E-

74.

Figure 2: Acid volume vs penetration radius of acid with

different acid concentration.

The volume of acid needed to penetrate the damage zone to

4 ft for acid concentration 15 % is equal 420 gal/ft while at
same damage radius if we select acid concentration 22% is
equal to 370 gal/ft the volume of acid is less but the cost of
acid increase with concentration .
Table 4: Pressure drop due to fraction Dpf different skin
values for well E-74. The second step in sensitivity analysis we calculate the acid
injection rate by varying the skin factor value for different
values 0, 5, 10,20,30,40 and 50 and we assume the damage
zone is radius 5 ft.

Table 5: Fraction and hydraulic pressures for well E-74.

133
FLICESA-LA-1315032023-CPE015
 Academy journal for Basic and Applied Sciences (AJBAS) special issue # 2 July 2023 (civ. Arch. Bio. Chm. E.mang)

Figure 3: Acid injection rate vs penetration radius of acid

with different acid concentration.

The result from sensitivity analysis shown the acid injection

rate has Exponential curve for skin factor equal to 10 but for
the skin factor equal to 5 and 10 there are inversely relation
between acid injection rate and penetration radius ,the acid
injection rate almost constant from skin value equal to 20 up
to 50 for all penetration radius.
The third step in sensitivity analysis we calculate the acid
injection pressure by varying the skin factor value for
different values 0, 5, 10,20,30,40 and 50 and we assume the
damage zone is radius 5 ft. The result from sensitivity Figure 4: Volume and flow rate of acid at
analysis shown the acid injection pressure has Exponential
curve for skin factor equal to 10 but for the skin factor equal different skin values vs skin radius for well E74.
to 5 and 10 there are inversely relation between acid
injection pressure and penetration radius, the acid injection Table 7: Bottom hole pressure and required acid
pressure almost constant from skin value equal to 20 up to pump pressure for well E-74.
50 for all penetration radius.

134
FLICESA-LA-1315032023-CPE015
 Academy journal for Basic and Applied Sciences (AJBAS) special issue # 2 July 2023 (civ. Arch. Bio. Chm. E.mang)

Well E-349
Table 8: Volume of acid needed at different concentrations
for well E-349.

Table 9: Injected acid flow rate at different skin values for

Figure 5: Bottom hole pressure vs acid pump pressure for well E-349.
well E-74.

Table 10: Velocity of acid at different skin values for well E-

349.

Figure 6: The optimum injection rate vs optimum acid

penetration radius at different dissolving power for well E-
74.

Table 11: Pressure drop due to fraction Dpf different skin

values for well E-349.

Figure 7: the optimum dissolving power vs optimum

penetration radius at optimum injection for different skin
factor for well E-74.

135
FLICESA-LA-1315032023-CPE015
 Academy journal for Basic and Applied Sciences (AJBAS) special issue # 2 July 2023 (civ. Arch. Bio. Chm. E.mang)

Table 12: fraction and hydraulic pressures for well E-349. Table 14: Bottom hole pressure and required acid pump
pressure for well

Table 13: Mmaximum pressure of injected acid at different

skin values for well E-349.

Figure 9: Bottom hole pressure vs acid pump pressure for

well E-349.

Figure 10: The optimum injection rate vs optimum acid

penetration radius at different dissolving power for well E-
349.

Figure 8: volume and flow rate of acid at different skin

values vs skin radius for well E349.

136
FLICESA-LA-1315032023-CPE015
 Academy journal for Basic and Applied Sciences (AJBAS) special issue # 2 July 2023 (civ. Arch. Bio. Chm. E.mang)

4. . Selection of suitable acid chemicals for matrix stimulation: A

Malaysian Brown field scenario, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 2020
5. Waha oil company, drilling department Quality control well
history 2022.

Figure 11: The optimum dissolving power vs optimum

penetration radius at optimum injection for different skin
factor for well E-349.

IV. Conclusions
1. The result of this study indicates that as the skin value
increased, the acid injection rate decreased.
2. It was also found that there is a limiting value for the
skin factor which controls the acid injection rate.
3. It was also found that the acid injection volume is
inversely proportional to the acid concentration.
4. The best optimum acid concentration was found to be
15 % for the dolomite acid treatment.
5. It was found that limiting the value of 20 skin factors
was the maximum value for maximum acid
performance.
6. This 20 skin value makes the acid injection rate to be
very slow which in turn results in high acid injection
time causing the acid to spend near the wellbore as not
covering the entire damage area.
V. Recommendation
1. We recommend that laboratory work should be
conducted in order to confirm our analysis.
2.After acidizing job is conducted for these wells, post
buildup test analysis should be made in order to make
sure that treatment of acid is effective.
Acknowledgment
We like to convey thanks to the staff members of Waha
Oil Company, for providing us with data and
information.
References
1. B.b Williams, J.I. Gigley ,R.S. Schechter, Acidizing
Fundamentals ,SPE of AIME Monograph Volume 6, Dallas (1979).
2. Development of Selective Acidizing Technology for an Oil Field
in the Zechstein Main Dolomite, Energies 2020.
3. R.S. Schechter, Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice –Hall, New York
City (1992). 4. M. J. Economides, K.G. Nolte Reservoir stimulation
.3rd Edition, Schlumberger Dowell, Texas (2000)

137
FLICESA-LA-1315032023-CPE015