SPE 160703

Simultaneous Well Stimulation and Scale Squeeze Treatments in Sandstone

and Carbonate Reservoirs
Jordan, M.M. Nalco Ltd
Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition &Conferenceheld Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11-14 November 2012.

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
In many oilfields the relatively small number of high-cost, highly productive wells, coupled with a carbonate and or sulfate
scaling tendency (upon waterflood breakthrough of injected seawater) requires effective scale management along with removal
of near-wellbore damage in order to achieve high hydrocarbon recovery.

The nature of the well completion strategy in new fields such as frac packs for sand control and acid stimulation for carbonate
reservoirs had resulted in some wells with higher than expected skin values due to drilling fluid losses, residual frac gel, fluid
loss agents, and fines mobilization within the frac packs where applied.

The paper will present how the challenges of managing impaired completions and inorganic scale forced innovation in terms
of when to apply both stimulation and scale inhibitor packages to sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. This paper will outline a
novel process for non-conventional batch chemical applications where bullhead stimulation treatments have been displaced
deep into the formation (>20ft) using a scale inhibitor overflush. Not only does this benefit the stimulation by displacing the
spent acid and reagents away from the immediate wellbore area, but the combined treatment provides cost savings with a
single mobilization for the combined treatment. The paper will describe the laboratory testing that was performed to qualify
the treatments for both sandstone and an HP/HT gas condensate carbonate reservoir. The lessons learned fromcarbonate
corefloodevaluationunder HT/HP conditions when appling stimulation fluids with and without scale inhibitor present in the
treatment stageswill be presented.

Many similar fields are currently being developed in offshore Brazil, West Africa and Middle East, and this paper is a good
example of best-practice sharing from another oil basin.

Introduction
The combining of scale squeeze treatments with matrix stimulations has the potential to bring cost saving to wells that have a
need for stimulation due to either generation of primary production or removal of completion/production related damage and
have a positive scale tendency that cannot be effectively treated by downhole chemical injection if installed. The following
section outlines the mechanism of scale formation and formation damage these treatments are designed to control and remove.

Nature of the Inorganic Scale Problem
Oilfield scales are inorganic crystalline deposits that form as a result of the precipitation of solids from brines present in the
reservoir and production flow system. The precipitation of these solids occurs as the result of changes in the ionic
composition, pH, pressure and temperature of the brine. There are three principal mechanisms by which scales form in oilfield
systems:
1) Decrease in pressure and/or increase in temperature of a brine, leading to a reduction in the solubility of the salt (most
commonly these lead to precipitation of carbonate scales, such as CaCO
3
);
2) Mixing of two incompatible brines (most commonly formation water rich in cations such as barium, calcium and/or
strontium, mixing with sulphate-rich seawater, leading to the precipitation of sulphate scales, such as BaSO
4
);
2 SPE 160703
3) Brine evaporation, resulting in the salt concentration increasing above the solubility limit and leading to salt
precipitation (as may occur in HP/HT gas wells where a dry gas stream may mix with a low rate brine stream resulting in
dehydration and most commonly the precipitation of NaCl).
Details of these mechanisms are given elsewhere
1-5
, as are the reasons why they pose problems in the production well,
near-well areas and surface facilities
6-8
, much less commonly in injection wells
9
, and never deep within the reservoir
10-13
. The
various techniques that may be adopted to meet the challenges of scale control may be divided into four principal categories,
as follows:
1) Selection of injection fluid source
2) Chemical inhibition
3) Chemical/mechanical remediation
4) Flow conformance

Stimulation Treatments
Stimulation treatments can be divided into two groups for the purpose of this paper; (1) treatments applied to ensure
production is possible via stimulation of the rock both carbonate and sandstones via acids or chelant formulations. (2)
treatments applied to regain production decline due to a range of mechanisms from completion induced damage, fines
mobilization, scale formation etc.

Combined Stimulation Squeeze Treatments in Sandstone Reservoirs
Sandstone Acid Plus Inhibitor
The author has already published work
14
on the inclusion of scale inhibitor (acid phosphonate) within a hydrochloric acid
formulation applied to clean perforation tunnels of perforation charge debris (zinc metal). This treatment stage was
overflushed with potassium chloride solution, again treated with the same scale inhibitor, prior to frac packing of the well.
Results from over 20 of these treatments show very effective treatment lifetimes were possible.
14


Sandstone Acid Stage Displaced by Inhibitor Squeeze Stage (Squimulation)
Following the success of the inclusion of acid phosphonate scale inhibitor into the well completion fluids it was decided to see
if it was possible to improve the economics of treatments to wells within the same field.
15
These required stand-alone squeeze
treatments and overtime were showing signs of production decline associated with completion induced damage that could be
removed via matrix acid stimulation treatments.

Six treatments have been applied to date following qualification of the chemicals as outlined in a previous publication.
15
Table
1 shows the treatment programs deployed to four of the wells and Table 2 shows the improvement in oil production observed
following the deployment of the acid stimulation stage displaced by the scale squeeze treatment stage.

Table 1. Stimulation and squeeze treatment volumes applied

Well No
Treatment stage P4 P6 P5 P20
Acid
treatment Preflush 24 bbls SW 100 bbls of mutual solvent 50 bbls mutual solvent 71 bbls of mutual solvent
Preflush II 140 bbls Mutual solvent Not applied 102 bbls of solvent Not applied
Preflush acid 380 preflush acid 435 bbls of preflush acid 481 bbls preflush acid 524 bbls perflush acid
Mud acid Not Applied 100 bbls of mud acid 136 bbls of mud acid 95 bbls of mud acid
Spacer Not Applied 390 of preflush acid 323 bbls of preflush acid 321 bbls of preflush acid
Squeeze
treatment Preflush
300 bb s 0% u ua
solvent, 0.5% scale inibitor
in SW
350 bb s 0% u ua
solvent, 0.5% scale inibitor
in SW
80 bb s 0% u ua
solvent, 0.5% scale inibitor
in SW
50 bb s 0% u ua
solvent, 0.5% scale inibitor
in SW
Main treatment
1250 bbls of 10% scale
inhibitor in SW
650 bbls of 10% scale
inhibitor in SW
1800 bbls of 10% scale
inhibitor in SW
750 bbls of 10% scale
inhibitor in SW
Overflush
3000 bbls 0.1% scale
inhibitor in SW
1600 bbls 0.1% scale
inhibitor in SW
2850 bbls 0.1% scale
inhibitor in SW
1950 bbls 0.1% scale
inhibitor in SW
Design life days 365 days 180 days 365 days 365 days
design life bbls
water to MIC 1,880,000 bbls 785,610 bbls 3,200,000 bbls 1,600,000 bbls







SPE 160703 3


Table 2. Production gains observed for the stimulated/squeezed wells

Well Gain
BOPD
Year Comments
P4 no HF 2000 2010 Doubled PI, some production impaired by G/L valve plugging
P6 1600 2010 First HF treatment, lowered skin 40% and increased KH
P5 1000 2010 20% increase in oil and water production
P20 1200 2010 10% oil increase from squimulation. Prior stimulation (without
scale squeeze) doubled production.
Total 5800

The principle observation from these combined stimulation/squeeze treatments to sandstone reservoirs has been as follows:-
The squeeze treatments displacing the acid stimulation stage of the programs appear to have controlled scale
formation even after acid reflow over adsorbed chemical.

Scale inhibitor retention properties from the combined treatments compare favorably with retention properties from
prior scale squeeze treatments that did not include an acid package. And in some cases the acid appears to have
displaced scale inhibitor from prior squeezes deeper into the reservoir extending squeeze life.
This approach of combining the stimulation and the squeeze (Squimulation) not only benefits the stimulation by
displacing the spent acid and reagents away from the immediate wellbore area, but the combined treatment provides a
cost saving with a single mobilization for the combined treatment.

Based on the above findings for sandstone reservoirs
15
the next logical step is to assess if the inclusion of scale inhibitor within
acid or an acid displacement by inhibitor treatment stage would be effective in carbonate reservoirs given that acid stimulation
are a very common operation in such reservoirs to start production and to enhance production during the life of a well.


Qualification of Scale Inhibitor for Inclusion in Stimulation Treatments for and HP/HT Carbonate Reservoir
As outlined for sandstone reservoirs two possible application environment were identified for the treatment of carbonate
reservoirs in a previous publication.
16
Scale inhibitor (low molecular weight phosphonate
17
) within the stimulation fluid
(organic acid) or applied as in the Squimulation programs for the sandstone reservoirs with the stimulation fluid being
displaced by the inhibitor squeeze stage.

Test Program
Three coreflood studies were carried out within the qualification, (1) acid formulation plus the scale inhibitor (2) Stimulation
fluid only and a (3) conventional scale squeeze treatmentto confirm that if the stimulation fluid was applied and then displaced
by the conventional squeeze treatment there would be no formation damage.

Full details of the coreflood program is presented in Appendices A and B. The core material used was taken from an HP/HT
field (155C) reservoir producing from carbonate (Photographs 1 and 2) with a very low permeability of < 0.5mD, flow regime
was via the matrix to the natural fractures within the rock, filtered field condensate was used, synthetic produced water (Table
3) which appears to be a mixture of formation water and water of condensation, with oxygen free nitrogen as the gas phasewas
also utilized in the study.
The stimulation system was a very mild acid (pH 4 organic acid chelant, neutralized aliphatic amine acid) formulated with the
correct percentage of corrosion inhibitor, non-emulsifier, anti-slugging chemical. This formulation had been applied to
stimulate other wells within the candidate field. The scale inhibitor was a very calcium compatible thermally stable scale
inhibitor applied in many HP/HT sandstone reservoirs to control carbonate and mild sulphate scales.
17,18,19




4 SPE 160703



Photograph 1 Preserved reservoir core body Photograph 2 1.5 inch diameter plug before
trimming


Table 3. Produced water composition used in HT carbonate coreflood study

Ion in mg/l
Typical Produced
Water
Na 2560
Ca 41
Mg 6
K 16
Sr 6
Cl 3779
HCO3 200
SO4 90
pH 6

Coreflood Results
Three tests were carried and assessment was madeof the differential pressure during condensate, gas and produced water
injection (permeability) prior to and after chemical injection along with the differential pressure values recorded during the
injection of the chemical treatment stages. The critical cations (calcium, magnesium, lithium tracer) concentration within the
inhibitor return profile from the production stages was also evaluated.


Test 1Carbonate Stimulation Fluid PlusScale Inhibitor
In order to evaluate applying scale inhibitor within stimulation treatments a coreflood test was conducted using the full test
program is presented in Appendix A. The application of the scale inhibitor within the stimulation acid would eliminate the
need to scale squeeze the well for an extended period of time as any produced water would be treated with scale inhibitor.
Conventional scale squeezes would still be required in the future once stimulation/squeeze treatment chemical has been
exhausted. The following section provides the results from the formation damage/inhibitor retention coreflood giving the
effects of using an organic acid package with 10% low molecular weight phosphonate (LMWP) scale inhibitor blended into it.

Fig. 1 shows the condensate saturation (stages 2.11) this will be used to determine whether there is any impact on condensate
permeability following the inhibitor/acid treatment, Appendix A. Fig. 2 shows the gas saturation (stage 2.13) carried out prior
to injection for the combined organic acid/scale inhibitor treatment stage.

SPE 160703 5

Fig. 1 - Condensate saturation prior to stimulation/scale inhibitor injection, stage 2.11, see appendix A
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (minutes)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Q = 30ml/hour
Q = 60ml/hour

Fig. 2 Gas (Nitrogen) saturation prior to stimulation/scale inhibitor injection, stage 2.13, see appendix A

In Fig. 3 the differential pressure observed when the 0.5 pore volume (pv) of chemical package 10% Low molecular weight
phosphonate (LMWP) within the organic acid stimulation fluid is injected. Half a pore volume of the combined scale
inhibitor/acid package was injected in order to create a worm hole within the core that would not penetrate the full length of
the core, this allows for further condensate, gas and water permeability to be carried out after chemical treatment. The rise in
differential pressure as the combined acid and LMWP formulation hit the core is likely to be due to the excessive precipitation
of the scale inhibitor with the released calcium from the acid digestion of the core. However the slightly higher viscosity of
the stimulation fluid (double that of the synthetic produced water) could also account for a slight rise in pressure but not to the
extent observed in Fig. 3. Compatibility evaluation of the acid formulation with 10% of the LMWP was also conducted to
ensure that the rise in differential pressure was not due to incompatibility between the scale inhibitor and some of the additives
within the organic acid formulation. These tests carried out at 155C showed no incompatibility and hence the theory of
excessive calcium release from the core is the most likely mechanism of the profile present in Fig. 3 during the
stimulation/inhibitor formulation injection.
6 SPE 160703

Fig. 3 - Scale inhibitor plus Stimulation Fluid injection, stage 3.1, see appendix A
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (mins)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Stage 3.1:
10% LMWP + 100ppm Li in organic acid,
pH = 4.02,
Q = 60ml/hour,
T = 155C


Fig. 4 shows the differential pressure observed during the gas saturation of the core post the stimulation fluid/scale inhibitor
injection. The profile post the stimulation treatment looks very similar to that prior to the chemical application (Fig.2).
Condensate was injected into the core following the gas injection (Fig. 5), while the initial period of injection is slightly more
spiky possibly due to displacement of the gas phase rather than brine phase as was present in the conditioning stage (Fig. 1)
the differential pressure appears to steady at a lower value than was measured prior to the stimulation/scale inhibitor
application.

Fig. 4 - Gas (Nitrogen) saturation post inhibitor plus acid chemical treatment, stage 5.1, see appendix A







SPE 160703 7

Fig. 5 Condensate saturation post inhibitor plus acid chemical treatment, stage 5.3, see appendix A
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (minutes)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Q = 30ml/hour
Q = 60ml/hour

Fig. 6 shows the differential pressure observed during the produced water saturation of the core post the stimulation fluid/scale
inhibitor injection and gas followed by condensate saturations. It is clear that the differential pressure steadily falls from an
initial value of 600 Psi to 300 psi over the 72 hour flowback period. The differential pressure profile would suggest that after
initial condensate displacement the steadily declining pressure may be due to dissolution or displacement of the precipitation
phase suggested to have formed during initial stimulation/scale inhibitor stage injection (Fig. 3).

Fig. 6 Produced water saturation post inhibitor plus acid chemical treatment, stage 6.1, see appendix A

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (hours)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Q = 60ml/hour


Coreflood 1, stimulation fluid plus scale inhibitor treatment permeability data assessment. The following table (Table 4)
shows the permeability data calculated at different stages of the coreflood conditioning and chemical injection.
The brine, condensate and gas permeability measured during stages 2.10, 2.12 and 2.14 respectivelywere used to compare the
fluid permeabilies following stimulation/inhibitor chemical injection and produced water flowback. The condensate
permeability post chemical treatment was measured at 0.13mD, this is an increase 18% and after 600PV of produced water
flowback this has further increased to 0.15mD.
The gas permeability showed no initial change following stimulation/inhibitor chemical application staying at 0.13mD but
following a further 600pv of produced water injection it has increased to 0.52mD (400% increase).
8 SPE 160703
Produced water permeability reduced from 0.18mD to 0.11mD (decline of 39%) following stimulation/inhibitor application
but following 600pv of injection rose to 0.19mD (increase of 6% from initial pre chemical application value). The initial
decline in brine permeability following the chemical application and its recovery post produced water injection would suggest
that a brine soluble compound was removed during the extended (600pv) brine injection period.

Table 4. Coreflood 1, permeability date pre and post combined stimulation fluid/scale inhibitor application
!"#$% '() *%+,-./".(0 (1 "2% +"#$% 32%-% 4%#+5-%4%0" "#6%0 7%-4%#8.9.": ;-#,".(0 7%-4%#8.9.": <2#0$%
=)>? 7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" 8-.0% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>A4*
=)>= 7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" ,(0B%0+#"% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>>4*
=)>C 7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" $#+ /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>D4*
In[ect|on, shut-|n and backf|ow of St|mu|at|on f|u|d]Low Mo|. hosphonate Sca|e Inh|b|tor
@)= 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" $#+ /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>D4* >)??
E)C 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" ,(0B%0+#"% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>D4* >)>A
E)= 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" 8-.0% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>>4* ?)E>
I|ood core w|th format|on water for 600 V
F)C 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" $#+ /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)@=4* C)??
F)= 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" ,(0B%0+#"% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>@4* >)DE
A)= 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" 8-.0% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>G4* >)?E


There is clear evidence of formation damage if the organic acid stimulation fluid with 10% LMWP is applied as a blended
stage to the core. The damage will recover with water production as the suspended damaging solid a precipitated inhibitor
calcium complex, re-dissolves.

Scale Inhibitor desorption profiles during combined acid and scale inhibitor treatment injection and back-flow stages. Fig.
7presentes the critical concentration of ions within the flood effluent during produced water displacement of the
stimulation/scale inhibitor fluid and Fig. 8 presents the concentration of phosphonate within the synthetic produced water
during the back production stage of the coreflood test.
Fig. 7shows aninitial spike in calcium and magnesium ion concentration during the injection of the produced water.
Magnesium concentration declines rapidly to injected brine concentration (6ppm, see Table 3)but calcium ion concentration
takes 100pv to decline below 100ppm, the injection brinecontains only 40ppm. This steady decline in calciumfollows the
same trend as the declining inhibitor concentration profile. The higher than input values are most likely due to the release of
precipitated calcium from a calcium phosphonate inhibitor complex formed during injection of the stimulation/scale inhibitor
stage.





























SPE 160703 9
Fig. 7 - Combined inhibitor/stimulation fluidsproduced water desorption profile, stage 6.1, see appendix A

!"#!!
#"!!!
#!"!!!
#!!"!!!
#!!!"!!!
#!!!!"!!!
!"!!! $!"!!! %!"!!! &!"!!! '!"!!! #!!"!!! #$!"!!! #%!"!!! #&!"!!! #'!"!!! $!!"!!!
!
"
#
$
%
#
&
'
(
&
)
"
#

+
,
,
-
.
!/--/0(&)1% 2"'% 3"0/-%4
() *+ ,- ./


The effluent during the three days of brine flowback was collected and analyzed for the concentration of scale inhibitor, Fig.8.
This stage of the program was carried out to assess if the inhibitor within the stimulation fluid would be released from the core
surface. The return profile observed during this simulated production stage clearly shows that if produced wateris flowing
over rock treated with the stimulation/scale inhibitor blend than the inhibitor is released from the rock and returned to surface
within the flowing brine stream. In terms of return profile given the very small volume of inhibitor applied (0.5pv) relative to
a typical coreflood program (5 to 10pv) the return profile shows excellent retention and release characteristics and one that if
reproduced in the field would protect many months of produced water.

Fig. 8 - Combined inhibitor/stimulation acid produced water desorption profile, stage 6.1, see appendix A
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
l
o
g

S
I

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
p
p
m
)
Cumulative Pore Volumes
!"# $%&'(()




10 SPE 160703
Test 2 Carbonate Stimulation Fluid Displaced by Inhibitor
A coreflood was conducted using the stimulation fluids alone without the addition of scale inhibitor. This test was intended to
confirm that the stimulation fluid alone did not negatively impact the core and so implies that if the acid formulation could be
separated from the low molecular weight phosphonate squeeze chemical via a spacer stage it would be safe to apply in the
field.
As with corefloodtest 1 this coreflood was conducted using reservoir conditioned carbonate core from the same core body but
a newly cut 1.5 inch diameter plug. Fig. 9 shows the condensate saturation conducted (stage 2.11, Appendix B) and Fig. 10
shows the gas saturation conducted (stage 2.13, Appendix B); thesevalues will be compared to the measurements made
following injection of the organic acid stage.
Fig. 9 - Condensate saturation prior to stimulation treatment, stage 2.11, Appendix B.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (minutes)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Q = 30ml/hour Q = 60ml/hour

Fig. 10Gas (nitrogen) saturation prior to stimulation treatment, stage 2.13, Appendix B.


Fig. 11 shows the differential pressure observed as the 0.5 PV of stimulation fluid is injected at 60ml/h. The rise in differential
pressure with stimulation fluid injection is very similar to that observed when the stimulation fluid combined with the scale
SPE 160703 11
inhibitor was injected, Figure 3.

Fig. 11 - Stimulation fluid injection, stage 3, Appendix B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (mins)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Stage 3.1
Stimulation fluid only,
Q = 60ml/hour,
T = 155C


Figs. 12, 13 and 14 shows the differential pressure observed as gas, condensate and produced brine respectively are injected
into the core after injection of the stimulation fluid treatment.

Fig. 12 -Gas saturation post stimulation fluid injection, stage 5.1, see appendix B



12 SPE 160703
Fig. 13 Condensate saturation post stimulation injection, stage 5.3, see appendix B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (minutes)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Q = 30ml/hour
Q = 60ml/hour


Fig. 14 Produced water saturation post stimulation injection, stage 5.5, see appendix B
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (minutes)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Q = 30ml/hour
Q = 60ml/hour


Coreflood 2, stimulation acid permeability data assessment. The following table (Table 5) shows the permeability data
calculated at different stages of the coreflood conditioning prior to and following stimulation fluid injection.
The condensate permeability post chemical treatment was measured at 0.15mD, this is an increase of 7% and after 15PV of
produced water flowback it had declined slightly to 0.14mD (decline of 7%).
The gas permeability showed an initial change following stimulation chemical application from 0.11mD to 0.12mD (increase
of 9%) with no change following a further 15pv of produced water injection.
Produced water permeability reduced from 0.13mD to 0.04mD (decline of 69%) following stimulation application and
following 15pv of injection remained unchanged at 0.04mD. The initial decline in brine permeability following the chemical
application and lack of recovery post produced water injection would suggest that the core has become more oil and less brine
wet and that no brine soluble compounds were present in the core.



SPE 160703 13
Table 5. Coreflood 2, permeability data pre and post stimulation fluid application
!"#$% '() *%+,-./".(0 (1 "2% +"#$% 32%-% 4%#+5-%4%0" "#6%0 7%-4%#8.9.": ;-#,".(0 7%-4%#8.9.": <2#0$%
=)>? 7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" 8-.0% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>A4*
=)>= 7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" ,(0B%0+#"% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>@4*
=)>C 7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" $#+ /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>>4*
!"#$%&'(") +,-&.'" /"0 1/%234(5 (3 6&'7-4/&'(" 34-'0
@)= 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" $#+ /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>=4* >)?D
@)C 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" ,(0B%0+#"% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>E4* >)?F
@)E 7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" 8-.0% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)?C4* ?)A>
84((0 %(9$ 5'&, 3(97/&'(" 5/&$9 3(9 :; <=
7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" $#+ /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>=4* >)??
7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" ,(0B%0+#"% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)>C4* ?)DA
7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" 8-.0% /%-4%#8.9.": #" >@@< ?)?C4* ?)A>


It is clear that the stimulation fluid alone increased the permeability of the core to gas and condensate so confirms the findings
in Coreflood test 1 which showed the mixed stimulation fluid and low molecular weight phosphonate would cause damage
due to inhibitor reaction with spent acid and calcium released from the core. It is expected that if the spent organic acid
stimulation fluid and the scale inhibitor were separated by a brine spacer stage then no formation damage would occur within
the core or reservoir.


Test 3 Conventional scale squeeze
Prior to injection of the conventional squeeze treatment chemical (low molecular weight phosphonate) condensate and gas
saturation cycles were conducted with permeability measured at three flow ratesusing the same core that was treated with the
Test 2 stimulation flood only. The differential pressure data recorded during the condensate and gas saturation step is
presented in Figs. 15 and 16 respectively. The pre treatment saturation stages should be compared and contrasted with those
post the squeeze treatment presented in Figs. 18 and 19.

Fig. 15- Condensate saturation prior to chemical injection, stage 5.7, see appendix B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (minutes)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Q = 30ml/hour
Q = 60ml/hour









14 SPE 160703
Fig. 16- Gas (nitrogen) saturation prior to chemical injection, stage 5.9, see appendix B

Fig. 17 shows the differential pressure recorded when the conventional squeeze treatment stage (10% low molecular weight
phosphonate scale inhibitor) is injected. A shut in at 155C overnight followed this stage. It is clear that the differential
pressure steadily rises as the main inhibitor stage is injected into the core. The rise in differential pressure is a similar shape of
profile to that observed for the stimulation fluids alone, Coreflood 2, Fig.11. Inhibitor chemical compatibility assessments
were also conducted prior to the coreflood study to show that the inhibitor and the synthetic produced water were compatible
over a range of mixing ratios up to reservoir temperature of 155C. This inhibitor has application history within reservoir up to
170C and in reservoirs of up to 35,000ppm calcium within the produced water
16,17,18
so bulk precipitation was not expected to
be an issue.

Fig. 17 - Preflush and 10% Low Mol. Wt. phosphonate scale inhibitor injection, stage 6, see appendix B
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (mins)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Stage 3.1
10% Low Mol. Wt. Phosphonate + 100ppm Li in 2% KCl
pH = 3.90,
Q = 60ml/hour,
T = 155C


Displacement of the main treatment stage by gas followed by condensate followed by synthetic produced water is presented in
Figs. 18, 19 and 20 respectively It is clear that the pressure profile for these fluid types recorded before squeeze treatment
application and after are very similar suggesting no significant formation damage was observed with respect to the fluids.

SPE 160703 15
Fig. 18 Gas (nitrogen)saturation post the conventional scale squeeze treatment, stage 8.1, see appendix
B
Fig. 19 Condensate saturation post the conventional scale squeeze treatment, stage 8.3, see appendix B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (minutes)
Differential Pressure (psi)
Q = 30ml/hour
Q = 60ml/hour




















16 SPE 160703
Fig. 20 Produced water saturation post the conventional scale squeeze treatment, stage 8.5, see appendix B
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time (minutes)
Differntial Pressure (bar)
Q = 30ml/hour
Q = 60ml/hour



Coreflood 3, Squeeze treatment permeability data assessment.The following table (Table 6) shows the permeability data
calculated at different stages of the coreflood conditioning prior to and following squeeze chemical injection.
The condensate permeability post chemical treatment was measured at 0.15mD, this is an increaseof 7% over the pre squeeze
measured permeability.
The gas permeability showed an initial change following the squeeze chemical application from 0.12mD to 0.10mD (decrease
of 17%).
Produced water permeability remained unchanged at 0.04mD following squeeze chemical application
The fact that the brine permeability is not reduced by the squeeze chemical a feature that was observed in the
stimulation/squeeze treatment (Table 4) and the stimulation fluid alone (Table 5) would suggest that the stimulation fluid is
reducing the ability of water to pass through the core possibly due to a wettability effect. The squeeze treatment and
stimulation fluid alone and in combination increased the condensate permeability. The gas permeability shows only a slight
negative impact when the squeeze treatment was applied (not observed with the stimulation and stimulation/squeeze
combined) but this slight reduction is expected to be removed rapidly on brine production as was observed in the
stimulation/scale inhibitor coreflood but this stage was not carried out on the squeeze only coreflood.

Table 6. Coreflood 3, permeability data pre and post conventional scale squeeze application
!"#$% '() *%+,-./".(0 (1 "2% +"#$% 32%-% 4%#+5-%4%0" "#6%0 7%-4%#8.9.": ;-#,".(0 7%-4%#8.9.": <2#0$%
7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" 8-.0% /%-4%#8.9.": #" =>>< ?)?@4*
7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" ,(0A%0+#"% /%-4%#8.9.": #" =>>< ?)=@4*
7-% ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" $#+ /%-4%#8.9.": #" =>>< ?)=B4*
In[ect|on, shut-|n and backf|ow of Low Mo|. hosphonate Sca|e Inh|b|tor
7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" $#+ /%-4%#8.9.": #" =>>< ?)=?4* ?)CD
7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" ,(0A%0+#"% /%-4%#8.9.": #" =>>< ?)=>4* =)?E
7(+" ,2%4.,#9 "-%#"4%0" 8-.0% /%-4%#8.9.": #" =>>< ?)?@4* =)??




SPE 160703 17




Conclusions
There are clear differences between the interaction observed between scale inhibitor within acid stimulation fluids based on the
rock type being treated and for this reason the conclusions are split into those for a sandstone reservoir
14,15
and those for a
carbonate reservoir reported here and in previous publications.
19

Sandstone (<5% carbonate grains present) conclusions
For sandstone reservoirs scale inhibitor deployed within the existing perforation wash acid and displacement fluid
program under matrix, radial flow allows effective protection during early water production

Perforation wash acid and overflush fluid treated with phosphonate scale inhibitor has been shown to protect between
190,000 to 2,100,000bbls of produced water, allowing between 210 to 650 days of production. This protection
allowed the water cut to increase without scale formation, reducing/eliminating the risk of squeezing low water cut
wells

The development for sandstone reservoirs of a novel process for non-conventional batch chemical applications where
bullhead stimulation treatments (HCl & HCl/HF) have been displaced deep into the formation (>20ft) using a scale
inhibitor overflush has been proved to be effective in the four wells treated to date.

The squeeze treatments displacing the acid stimulation stage of the programs appear to have controlled scale
formation even after acid reflow over adsorbed chemical within sandstone reservoirs.

Scale inhibitor retention properties from the combined treatments to sandstone reservoirs compare favorably with
retention properties from prior scale squeeze treatments that did not include an acid package. And in some cases the
acid appears to have displaced scale inhibitor from prior squeezes deeper into the reservoir extending squeeze life.

Carbonate conclusions
Based on the carbonate coreflood results presented in this study and in a previous publication
19
it is not advised to
blend phosphonate scale inhibitor with acid or organic chelant stimulation fluids as there is a risk of formation
damage potential under matrix flow conditions. This damage is believed to be due to excessive precipitation of the
scale inhibitor with calcium released from the rock by the action of the acid or organic chelant and the increased pH
at the rock/fluid interface associated with the carbonate dissolution process
Application of the acid or organic chelant stimulation treatment displaced by the scale squeeze with a suitable spacer
volume would give the stimulation required and effective squeeze life without formation damage risk for carbonate
reservoirs.
Scale inhibitor return profiles look excellent for phosphonate scale inhibitors in carbonate reservoirs applied as
conventional squeeze or as part of Squimulation type treatment.

General statement
This approach of deploying the stimulation step and the squeeze step (Squimulation) into one pumping operation
not only benefits the stimulation by displacing the spent acid and reagents away from the immediate wellbore area,
but pumping of the treatments stages provides a cost saving with only a single mobilization now being required for
the combined treatment.


Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Nalco, for permission to publish this work. We also greatly appreciate support and assistance
from Nalcos Aberdeen based laboratory staff and members of Scaled Solutions Ltd who carried out the corefloodapplications
outlined in this paper.

18 SPE 160703

References
1 Oddo, J.E. and Tomson, M.T.: Why Scale Forms in the Oil Field and Methods to Prevent It, SPE Production and Facilities
(Feb. 1994) 47-54.
2 Ramstad, K., Tydal, T., Ellersten, E. and Jakobsen, T.: Precipitation and Deposition of CaCO
3
. Laboratory Studies and Field
Experience, presented at the 1999 NIF Tenth International Oil Field Chemicals Symposium, Fagernes, Norway, Mar. 1-3.
3 Vetter, O.J., Kandarpa, V. and Harouaka, A.: Prediction of Scale Problems due to Injection of Incompatible Waters, JPT (Feb.
1982) 273-284.
4 Jacques, D.F. and Bourland, B.I.: A Study of Solubility of Strontium Sulfate, SPEJ (Apr. 1983) 292-300.
5 Vetter, O.J., Kandarpa, and Phillips, R.C.: Prediction of Deposition of Calcium Sulfate Scale under Down-Hole Conditions, JPT
(Oct. 1970) 273-2841299-1308.
6 White, R., Brookley, J. and Menzies, N.: Practical Experiences of Gel Diversion Technique and an Overview of Scale
Management for the Alba Field, SPE Symposium on Oilfield Scale: Field Applications and Novel Solutions, Aberdeen, Scotland,
27 - 28 January 1999.
7 Mackay, E.J. and Sorbie, K.S.: Brine Mixing in Waterflooded Reservoirs and the Implications for Scale Prevention paper SPE
60193 presented at the SPE 2nd International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, Scotland, 26-27 January 2000.
8 Sorbie, K.S. and Mackay, E.J.: Mixing of Injected, Connate and Aquifer Brines in Waterflooding and its Relevance to Oilfield
Scaling Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (July 2000) 27 (1-2) 85-106
9 Mackay, E.J., Collins, I.R., Jordan, M.M. and Feasey, N.: PWRI: Scale Formation Risk Assessment and Management paper SPE
80385, presented at the SPE 5th International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, Scotland, 29-30 January 2003.
10 Bertero, L, Chierici, G L, Gottardi, G, Mesini, E. and Mormino, G: Chemical Equilibrium Models: Their Use in Simulation the
Injection of Incompatible Waters, SPE Reservoir Engineering, (February 1988) 288-294.
11 Paulo, J. and Mackay, E.J.: Modelling of In-Situ Scale Deposition presented at the 12
th
International Oil Field Chemical
Symposium, Geilo, Norway, 1-4 April 2001.
12 Mackay, E.J.: Predicting In-Situ Sulphate Scale Deposition and the Impact on Produced Ion Concentrations, Trans IChemE
(March 2003) 81 (A) 326-332.
13 Mackay, E.J., Jordan, M.M., Feasey, N., Shah, D., Kumar, P. and Ali, S.: Integrated Risk Analysis for Scale Management in
Deepwater Developments paper SPE 87459, presented at the SPE 6
th
International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen,
Scotland, 26-27 May 2004.
14 Patterson, D., Kendrick, M., Thurston, K., Malondan, J., Riordan, H., Jordan, H., Witort, M. and Morrow, B. Sulfate Scale
Inhibition Via Stimulation Program Carried out During Well Completion, Deepwater, West Africa, presented at NACE 2011,
March 14
th
to 17
th
, Houston USA
15 Patterson, D., Kendrick, M. William, W. and Jordan M.: Squimulation Simultaneous Well Stimulation and Scale Squeeze
Treatments in Deep-Water, West Africa, SPE 151863, presented as the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, USA, 15
th
-17
th
February 2012.
16 Jordan, M.M., Simultaneous Well Stimulation and Scale Squeeze Treatments in Sandstone and Carbonate Reservoirs Part 1
SPE 156804, presented atSPE International Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition in Doha, Qatar, 14-16
th
May
2012.
17 Brockmann, R, Bache, O., Asheim, T.I, Feasey, N.D and Jordan, M.M. CaCO3 Inhibition Efficiency and Thermal Stability of
Generically Different Scale Inhibitors for High Temperature Conditions. Presented at 9
th
International Oilfield Chemicals
Symposium, Geilo 22-25
th
March 1998.
18 Jordan, M.M, Feasey, N., Johnston, C, Marlow, D, and Elrick, M. Biodegradable Scale Inhibitors. Laboratory to Field Evaluation
of Green Carbonate and Sulphate Scale Inhibitors with Deployment Histories in the North Sea. Presented at the Royal Society
of Chemistry, Chemistry in the Oil Industry, Manchester 5-6
th
November 2007.
19 Dyre, S. Orski, K. Menezes, C., Heath, S., MacPherson, C., Simpson, C. and Graham, G. Development of Appropriate Test
Methodologies for the Selection and Application of Lead and Zinc Sulphide Inhibitors for Elgin/Franklin Field SPE 100627,
presented at SPE International Oilfield Scale Symposium, Aberdeen, UK, 30
th
May 1
st
June 2006.

SPE 160703 19

Appendix A Coreflood procedure 1
The procedures used are intended to simulate as closely as is practically possible a real field squeeze treatment, broadly the
same squeeze conditions which would be present in the field for the well to be treated.
To maximize the limited core available for testing two reservoir core plugs (8cm long by 3.75cm diameter) was used for the
three chemical tests. Core plug 1 was used for stimulation fluid/scale inhibitor and core plug 2 was used for the stimulation
fluid and then re used for the stand alone squeeze treatment.





Outline Procedure: Inhibitor Application, Formation Damage and Inhibitor Return

NOTE: Forward Flow (FW) = Formation to Wellbore Direction
Reverse Flow (WF) = Wellbore to Formation Direction

1. Ambient Stages
1. Run dead volume in rig, 45 x 1ml samples with Li and 45 x 1ml samples without Li (per direction).
2. Assemble reservoir core plug in core holder & pressure test overburden to 1500psi
3. Mild solvent cleaning with cyclic saturations of methanol, toluene and methanol
4. Short FW Formation Water Saturation at low rate
5. FW Formation Water Saturation at ambient conditions at 100% Swi
6. FW & WF Formation Water Permeability at ambient conditions at 100% Swi
7. FW Formation Water Saturation to reservoir temperature (T = 155C)

2. Pre-treatment Stages at T = 155C
1. FW Pre-treatment Formation Water Saturation (1) at 100% Sw
2. FW Pore Volume / Porosity (by Li tracer) at 100% Sw
3. FW & WF Pre-treatment Formation Water Multi-rate Permeability (1) at 100% Sw
4. FW Pre-treatment Condensate Oil Saturation (1) to Swr
5. FW & WF Pre-treatment Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability (1) at Swr
6. FW Pre-treatment Gas (OFN) Saturation (1) to Swor
7. FW & WF Pre-treatment Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability (1) at Swor
8. FW Pre-treatment Formation Water Saturation (2) to Sgor
9. FW Pore Volume / Porosity (by Li tracer) at Sgor
10. FW & WF Pre-treatment Formation Water Multi-rate Permeability (2) at Sgor
11. FW Pre-treatment Condensate Oil Saturation (2) to Sgwr
12. FW & WF Pre-treatment Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability (2) at Sgwr
13. FW Pre-treatment Gas (OFN) Saturation (2) to Swor
14. FW & WF Pre-treatment Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability (2) at Swor


3. Main Treatment Application Sequence, WF direction at T = 155C
Acid Application, WF Direction: 0.5 pore volume Organic Acid (as supplied) + 10% LMWP

4. Shut in over 16 hours at T = 155C

5. Flow Back Saturation Stages (Formation Damage)at T = 155C
1. FW Flow Back Gas (OFN) Saturation to Swor
chem

2. FW & WF Flow Back Effective Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability at Swor
chem.

3. FW Flow Back Condensate Oil Saturation to Sgwr
4. FW & WF Flow Back Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability at Sgwr

6. Short Post-flush to Sor at T = 155C
1. FW Post-flush Brine Saturation to Sgor over five days
Test Stages
1 Stimulation fluid/Scale Inhibitor Appendix A Stages 1 to 8
2 Stimulation fluid Appendix B Stages 1 to 5.10
3 Squeeze Appendix B stages 5.11 to 6.8
20 SPE 160703
2. FW & WF Post-flush Brine Multi-rate Permeability at Sgor

7. Post-treatment Stages at T = 155C
1. FW Post-treatment Condensate Oil Saturation to Sgwr
2. FW & WF Post-treatment Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability at Sgwr
3. FW Post-treatment Gas (OFN) Saturation to Swor
4. FW & WF Post-treatment Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability at Swor
8. Post-treatment Stages at T = 155C

1. FW Post-treatment Formation Water Saturation to Sgor
2. FW & WF Post-treatment Brine Multi-rate Permeability at Sgor

Temperature and confining pressure carefully lowered to ambient. Core removed, wrapped and stored prior to CAT
scanning of the core to assess wormhole generation/propagation.

Stage 5 and Stage 7 why repeat the saturation cycles ? Stage 5 cycle of fluid saturation established the permeability after the
main treatment stage has been swept back by the gas and condensate. This is what is believed to be happing during initial
flowback of the well post treatment. With time water production starts (Stage6) and the produced brine flushes and dissolves
water soluble chemical from the mineral surfaces. Stage 7 evaluates the gas and condensate permeability after the onset of
brine production following the treatment. The test determines if the production of brine will improve the permeability to gas
and condensate due to removal of water soluble compounds from the core.


Appendix B Coreflood procedures 2 & 3


NOTE: Forward Flow (FW) = Formation to Wellbore Direction
Reverse Flow (WF) = Wellbore to Formation Direction

1. Ambient Stages
1. Run dead volume in rig, 45 x 1ml samples with Li and 45 x 1ml samples without Li (per direction).
2. Assemble reservoir core plug in core holder & pressure test overburden to 1500psi
3. Mild solvent cleaning with cyclic saturation of methanol
4. Short FW Formation Water Saturation at low rate
5. FW Formation Water Saturation at ambient conditions at 100% Swi
6. FW & WF Formation Water Permeability at ambient conditions at 100% Swi
7. FW Formation Water Saturation to reservoir temperature (T = 155C)

2. Pre-treatment Stages at T = 155C
1. FW Pre-treatment Formation Water Saturation (1) at 100% Sw
2. FW Pore Volume / Porosity (by Li tracer) at 100% Sw
3. FW & WF Pre-treatment Formation Water Multi-rate Permeability (1) at 100% Sw

4. FW Pre-treatment Condensate Oil Saturation (1) to Swr
5. FW & WF Pre-treatment Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability (1) at Swr

6. FW Pre-treatment Gas (OFN) Saturation (1) to Sgor
7. FW & WF Pre-treatment Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability (1) at Sgor

8. FW Pre-treatment Formation Water Saturation (2) at Sor
9. FW Pore Volume / Porosity (by Li tracer) at Sor
10. FW & WF Pre-treatment Formation Water Multi-rate Permeability (2) at Sor

11. FW Pre-treatment Condensate Oil Saturation (2) to Swr
12. FW & WF Pre-treatment Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability (2) at Swr

13. FW Pre-treatment Gas (OFN) Saturation (2) to Sgwor
14. FW & WF Pre-treatment Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability (2) at Sgwor


SPE 160703 21
Stimulation fluid Injection

3. Main Treatment Application Sequence, WF direction at T = 155C
Organic Acid Application, WF Direction: 0.5 pore volume Organic acid (applied as supplied)

4. Shut in over 16 hours at T = 155C

5. Flow Back Saturation Stages (Formation Damage)at T = 155C
1. FW Flow Back Gas (OFN) Saturation (1) to Sgwor
chem

2. FW & WF Flow Back Effective Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability (1) at Sgwor
chem.


3. FW Flow Back Condensate Oil Saturation (1) to Sgwr
4. FW & WF Flow Back Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability (1) at Sgwr

5. FW Brine Saturation to Sgor
6. FW & WF Brine Multi-rate Permeability at Sgor

7. FW Flow Back Condensate Oil Saturation (2) to Sgwr
8. FW & WF Flow Back Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability (2) at Sgwr

9. FW Flow Back Gas (OFN) Saturation (2) to Swor
10. FW & WF Flow Back Effective Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability (2) at Swor
.


Scale Squeeze Injection

6. Main Treatment Application Sequence, WF direction at T = 155C
Squeeze Application, WF Direction: 0.5 pore volume 10% LMWP in 2% KCl

7. Shut in over 16 hours at T = 155C


8. Flow Back Saturation Stages (Formation Damage)at T = 155C
1. FW Flow Back Gas (OFN) Saturation to Sgwor
chem

2. FW & WF Flow Back Effective Gas (OFN) Multi-rate Permeability at Sgwor
chem.


3. FW Flow Back Condensate Oil Saturation to Sgwr
4. FW & WF Flow Back Condensate Oil Multi-rate Permeability at Sgwr

5. FW Brine Saturation to Sgor
6. FW & WF Brine Multi-rate Permeability at Sgor