Factors Causing Emulsion Upsets in Surface

Facilities Following Acid Stimulation

C. P. Coppel,

SPE-AlME, Chevron Oil Field Research Co.

Introduction
Frequently, severe emulsion upsets occur in surface treating facilities following acid stimulation. Such upsets usually occur after production from the stimulated well is
commingled with other production from nonstimulated
wells. These emulsions have been extremely difficult to
treat and have resulted in loss of considerable oil produced
as an untreatable emulsion and a reluctance, in some
areas, to use acid stimulation.
Results presented in this paper show that acids partially
spent on formation solids contain, in solution, potentially
precipitable materials. As the pH of the produced acid
increases upon commingling with other production, fine
solids are precipitated; these solids are capable of stabilizing extremely tight emulsions. The stability of such emulsions is far greater than that of emulsions stabilized by fine
particles loosened from the formation or by oil-wet formation particles. Preventing upsets in the field requires using
optimum demulsifiers and eliminating, or at least
minimizing, the formation of precipitates from partially
spent acids. Examples are given for handling such problems in the field. A novel technique for the reproducible
formation and the study of emulsions in the laboratory is
presented. The use of the technique in selecting optimum
demulsifiers for the field is described.

Background
Historically, emulsion treatment has played a significant
role in petroleum production. Much of the world's oil is
produced with water and, in many cases, stable water in
oil emulsions occurs. An entire technology has been de-

veloped for treating such emulsions. Types of treatment

include thermal, electrical, and chemical treatments.
Most oilfield emulsions are stabilized by small amounts of
naturally occurring, surface-active materials present in
either the oil or the water, and usually can be treated with
nominal amounts of chemicals or by other means. Such
emulsions generally are observed at the wellhead and are
believed to form either in the wellbore or in the formation.
Emulsions observed following acid stimulation are significantly different. First, they do not always show up at
the wellhead, but generally form only after production
from the acid-treated well is commingled with production
from untreated wells. Second, they are extremely difficult
to treat, requiring either large amounts of chemical
demulsifiers or unusually long separation times. Such
emulsions are a particularly serious problem in offshore
operations, where it is usually impractical to separate
production from individual wells and where an entire
field's production may be commingled before treatment.
Emulsion upsets under such circumstances can result in
thousands of barrels of nonpipeline-quality oil. The problem has been particularly acute in Gulf Coast fields, but
also has been noticed recently to a lesser degree in production from offshore California. As more production comes
from offshore and more acid stimulation is used in such
areas, occurrence of severe emulsion problems can be
expected to increase.
The work reported here was related to sandstone acidizing with HCI-HF acid. Similar problems could occur in
acidizing carbonate formations with HCl where produced

Severe emulsion upsets in surface treating facilities following acid stimulation frequently
occur after production from the stimulated well is commingled with o"ther production.
Preventing such upsets requires using optimum demulsifiers at high concentrations and
eliminating, or at least minimizing, the formation of precipitates.
1060

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

spent acid and oil are commingled with production from

other wells before treatment. We are not aware of areas
where this practice is commonly used.
The earliest work on the acid-emulsion upset problem
was reported by Gidley and Hanson. 1 They considered the
effect of both acidizing and sand-consolidation well
treatments on terfflinal upsets and concluded that the
major source of the problem was produced formation
particles loosened by the acid treatment and the tendency
of such particles to be oil wet. Their solution to the
problem was to use high concentrations of the appropriate
demulsifier and a mutual solvent, such as ethylene glycol
monobutyl ether (EGMBE). Use of such chemicals,
together with a large wash tank for improved oil-water
contact, is reported to have solved the terminal upset
problem at Grand Isle. Gidley and Hanson's study did not
explain emulsion problems that occur primarily after
commingling and not at the wellhead.
Recently, Green et al. 2 suggested that unspent acid
leads to low interfacial tension, oil-wet fines, and filmforming agents, all of which can contribute to emulsion
stability. Their solution was to incorporate additives in the
acid that will assure in-situ neutralization. Their suggested mechanisms do not explain why emulsions do not
occur at the wellhead. Furthermore, their solution, although supported by some successful field results, may be
risky because acid may prespend on the additives before contacting the formation, leaving the acid ineffective
for stimulation. Also, complete spending of the
acid in the formation may result in precipitates, which
can be damaging.
Our investigation was made because (1) emulsion upsets continued to occur in the field, even with chemical

Fig. 1 SEPTEMBER, 1975

treatments at high concentrations of effective demulsifiers; (2) one of the most successful applications of
hydroxy-aluminum was as a post-acid stimulation treatment, 4,5 and there was concern that hydroxy-aluminum
might aggravate the emulsion problem or that continued
emulsion upsets might hamper full development of the
hydroxy-aluminum application; and (3) it had not yet been
demonstrated why the emulsion upsets were aggravated
by commingling.
The results of our investigation show that produced
formation fines and pr~cipitates formed after commingling, with the latter being the dominant factor, are the
major sources of emulsion upsets. The critical effect of the
precipitated material explains why the post-acid emulsion
problem may not occur at the wellhead.
The study shows that to avoid emulsion upsets one
should (1) select and use an effective demulsifier at high
concentrations, (2) avoid commingling, and (3) minimize
the amount of fines andjprecipitates in thelsystem at any
one time where it is not possible to avoid commingling.

Experimental Methods
Emulsification was accomplished using the emulsator illustrated in Fig. 1. Such an instrument was first described
by Becher. 6 The emulsator is essentially a homogenizer
consisting of two 10-ml hypodermic syringes connected
by a double-hubbed, 18-gauge needle. The two syringes.
are held in a cradle while an air-actuated ram forces the
liquids back and forth through the needle orifice. The
energy input can be modified by adjusting the air pressu~e
on the arm; the orifice size can be varied by using needles
of varying gauge; and the processing time can be controlled by varying the number of passes of the liquids through

Emulsator.
1061

the orifice as recorded on an electrical counter. All emulsions reported in this study were prepared using 40-psi
gauge pressure for 100 cycles.
This method has the advantages of (1) allowing the use
of small volumes, (2) highly reproducible energy input,
and (3) avoiding introduction of air into the emulsion.
In practice, 7.5 ml of oil were placed in one syringe,
and 2.5 ml of the aqueous phase were placed in the other
syringe. Additives such as demulsifiers and fines then
were added to the aqueous phase before emulsification
was started. After emulsification, the fluids were transfered to plastic tubes and demulsification was observed as
a function of time and temperature. All results in this
study report percent of water breakout.
Spent acid was prepared by reacting one volume of
solids with two volumes of 12-percent HCl/3-percent HF
in plastic containers for 24 hours. Clear spent acid was
removed by centrifuging in polypropylene tubes. Solids
used for acid spending were either actual field core material or a substitute solid composed of 50-percent silica flour
and 50-percent bentonite. Fines were added to the clear
spent acid at a ratio of 0.25 gm/2.5-ml aqueous phase.
Simulated commingled spent acid was obtained by diluting spent acid and adding sodium hydroxide solution to
bring the pH to either 3.0 or 7.0, as determined by a pH
meter. The concentration of precipitated solids obtained
this way may be somewhat higher than similar materials
occurring in the field, but it adequately demonstrates the
nature of the problem.

otherwise indicated, show data for similar test conditions.

It is apparent from these results that the presence of
hydroxy-aluminum does not increase emulsion stability
with this particular crude. Emulsions made with
hydroxy-aluminum solutions are only moderately stable,
quite comparable to emulsions made with fresh water, and
are easily treated with low concentrations (1 percen) of
either of the two demulsifiers tested. These results and
similar tests with other crude oils show that hydroxyaluminum does not aggravate emulsification tendencies
and should not be considered a primary source of emulsion upset problems.
Emulsions considerably more stable were observed in
systems containing spent acid and formation fines. The
system shown in Fig. 3, using acid spent on actual core
material, produced stable emulsions evenin the presence
of low concentrations of the two demulsifiers. Higher
concentrations (5 percent) of both demulsifiers tested
were effective in treating these emulsions. Finally, the
system containing acid spent on the substitute core material, as described earlier, was somewhat more stable and
distinguished between the two demulsifiers tested. Demulsifier B, selected as most effective in this laboratory
study, also has been shown to be quite field effective.

SAMPLING POINTS

FREEWATEA
KNOCKOUT (IN)

WELL

HEATER

]1:

Laboratory Results and Discussion

Verification of Field Observation
A series of field samples taken after acid jobs and at
various locations in the surface facilities was studied to
see if the laboratory procedure simulated field observations. Samples were taken at the wellhead, at the inlet to
the free-water knockout, and at the inlet to the heater
treater. Samples frQm the last two locations represent
commingled production. Emulsions were prepared after
separating oil and aqueous phases. Shown in Fig. 2 is the
emulsion stability data on samples from two wells in the
Main Pass Block 69 field. Emulsions were prepared and
the percent water separated at 3 hours, 24 hours, and after
an additional 24 hours at 140F was observed. The results
show that the wellhead samples formed emulsions considerably less stable than the two downstream commingled
samples. Wellhead samples had a pH from 3 to 4 and
commingled samples had a pH from 6 to 7. These results
show that using the laboratory technique on field samples
gives relative emulsion stabilities comparable to field
observations.
Effect of Aqueous Phase and Formation Fines
Fig. 3 is a condensed version of results showing the effect
of factors such as water composition and presence of
formation fines on emulsion stability of Main Pass Block
41 crude. Aqueous systems studied were fresh water,
hydroxy-aluminum solution, mud acid spent on core material, and mud acid spent on the substitute core material.
Two demulsifiers at two concentrations (1 and 5 percent)
were evaluated. The spent acid systems contained formation fines as described earlier. Fig. 3 shows the percent of
water demulsified after 3 hours, 24 hours, and an additional 24 hours at 140F. All subsequent figures, unless
1062

MAIN PASS 69-A

1 OAY AFTER)
( ACIO JOB)

100

MAIN PASS 69-B

3 DAYS AFTER)
( ACID JOB

50

TIME

Fig. 2 -

24 HR.E;;l24 HR.@1400F)

Emulsion stability following acid jobs.

DEMULSIFIER

(03 HR. D

NONE

1%

B
1%

A
5%

B
5%
100

50

HCI-HF
120/0-3%
SPENT/CORE
ADD FINES

1-----1

I.-!.-1..-J

HCI-HF
120/0-3%
SPENT/SUB
ADD FINES
TIME (03 HR., 024 HR., [Zh4 HR.@1400 F)

Fig. 3 -

Emulsion stability -

Main Pass Block 41.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Figs. 4 and 5 show similar, but more extensive, evaluation of demulsifiers on Main Pass Block 41 and West
Delta Block 30 crude oil emulsions. Fig. 4 shows that
hydroxy-aluminum systems are no more difficult to treat
than fresh-water systems. Also shown is the high degree
of demulsifier selectivity of the systems employing acid
spent on the substitute core material. Of the nine demulsifiers tested, four (Demulsifiers A, B, C, and D) were
effective on systems containing acid spent on actual core
material, but only one (Demulsifier B) was effective on
systems containing acids spent on the substitute core material. Fig. 5, for a crude oil from a different area, again
generally shows only moderate emulsion problems with
systems containing hydroxy-aluminum that were easily
treated by many demulsifiers. Emulsions consisting of
this crude oil and acid spent on the substitute core material
were effectively treated by two of the tested demulsifiers
(Demulsifiers C and F). Demulsifier B, which had been
most effective on crude oil systems from Main Pass Block
41, did not appear to treat successfully West Delta Block
30 emulsions. Demulsifier C has been used successfully
on West Delta Block 30 emulsions.
Laboratory results such as these, along with service
company recommendations, have lead to the successful
field use of certain new and economically competitive
demulsifiers. Fig. 6 shows the results of a comparison of
two new demulsifiers (Demulsifiers J and K) on six Gulf
Coast crude oils. All emulsions in this comparison were
made with 12-percent HCl/3-percent HF acid spent on
substitute core material and contained added fines. Demulsifier J was tested up to 10 percent because its significantly lower cost made it feasible to consider using such a
concentration. It can be seen in several cases, that Demulsifier J was not as effective as the material being used in
the field (Demulsifier B); however, for Main Pass Blocks
69 and 144, Demulsifier J appeared to be the more effective demulsifier and is currently being considered for field
application. These results also show that Demulsifier J

pH OF RETURNS FOLLOWING ACID HYDROXY

ALUMINUM JOB
Days on production
o 1/3 1 2 5 6 9
pH
6.9 3.0 2.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0

TABLE 1 -

can over-treat. For example, in systems with crude oil

from Main Pass Block 69, demulsification was less effective at 10 percent than at 5 percent. Demulsifier K was the
most effective for West Delta Block 30 systems.

Effect of pH Changes and Precipitated Fines

The previously discussed results confirm the findings by
Gidley and Hanson 1 that spent acid and produced fines are
significant factors in emulsion stabilization. These results
do not, however, show why the emulsion upset problem is
aggravated by commingling with other production after
leaving the acid-treated well.
It is known that significant pH changes occur when
spent acid is produced and commingled with otherproduction. As mentioned earlier, typical pH's at the wellhead
following an acid job were 3 to 4, whereas the pH of the
commingled fluids near the treating facilities on the same
day were 6 to 7. Table 1 lists the pH at the wellhead
before, and for 9 days following, an acid hydroxyaluminum treatment in the South Pass Block 24 field. The
pH of the produced fluid for several days ranged from 3 to
4. Such post-acid hydroxy-aluminum treatments must be
designed to insure that the returning spent acid has a pH no
lower than 3 to avoid stripping the hydroxy-aluminum
treatment. In straight acid stimulations, the pH of the
returning fluid can be as low as zero. For either type of
job, large changes in pH will occur in surface facilities.
As the pH of acid spent on formation material increases, dissolved materials precipitate. In most acid
stimulation jobs, spent acid is produced back as quickly as
possible to avoid such complete spending and the possibility of damage to well productivity by dissolved material
precipitated in the formation.

100
ROMERE
PASS

~-rE1-rfij
_w...fl -~ _J1:d _JYj _~ _JL1

-n

50

_L-1-L.J

_L-L....L..l

_~

_L...L...L.J

_L.-L-.1.....J

_L-L...L..J

_~

_L.l..J...J

~-

50
100

TIMEID3HR.,Cl24 HR.,024 HR.@1400F)

Fig. 4 -

Demulsifier study -

W.OELTA
BLOCK 30
L..J-...L..J

Main Pass Block 41.

0
100

~~~CHANO ~ ~L.l. J. .J ~~ ~~ ~wJ:A ~ Jim ~LLU ~ uld :0

100

MAIN
PASS 69

~
MAIN
PASS 41
HYDROXY
ALUMINUM
O.3M

_L.l..J...J

_L...L1.J

SEPTEMBER. 1975

West Delta Block 30.

TIME (D 3 HR.,

TIMEID3HR.,D24HR,,[ZJ24HR,@1400F)

Demulsifier study -

VJ _L.l.....C2I

_L..LLI_L.L.LJ _L..L..LJ

- Fi1
-UJij

~ ~L..LLI ~J ~J ~L..LLI ~J ~L.L.LJ =JJ

~ ~L.l. J. .J ~J ~J ~L.l. J. .J ~e-JJ =L.L.LJ =JJ
-

MAIN
PASS 144

Fig. 5 -

Fig. 6 -

50
0
100

:0

100

50

E:J 24 HR., E:2I24 HR.@ 140F)

Demulsifier study -

Gulf Coast fields.

1063

Shown in the upper part of Fig. 7 are five systems

before emulsification, two of which contain such spent
acid precipitates. The systems contain an oil phase, aqueous phase, and, in four cases, a solid phase. The oil in
each case is crude oil from Main Pass Block 41. The first
tube contains spent acid (12-percent HCl/3-percent HF)
with a pH of 0.0. The second tube additionally contains
simulated fonnation fines (the 50-50 bentonite-silica flour
mixture). The third tube contains spent acid whose pH has
been raised to 3.0. Precipitated fines have been removed.
The solids in this last tube are the simulated fonnation
fines. This system simulates returning spent acid in a
typical post-acid hydroxy-aluminum job, assuming that
any precipitates fonned have been filtered out by the
fonnation. The last two samples contain precipitates resulting from an acid neutralization. The additional solids

present in the fourth tube formed when the pH of the spent

acid was increased from 0.0 to 3.0. The last tube contains solids that precipitated from clear spent acid at a
pH of 3.0 when the pH was raised to 7.0. Solids similar to
these last two precipitates have been seen in actual
field samples.
.
The precipitates are complex mixtures of hydroxides
and fluosilicates. Specific identification was not attempted in this study. Limited attempts to prevent fonnation of precipitates at pH's of 3.0 to 7.0 with complexing
agents were unsuccessful. It is doubtful that the materials
can be kept in solution at these pH's.
In the lower part of Fig. 7 the degree of separation of
these systems following emulsification is shown. The first
system with only spent acid and no solids present was
separated easily with 1 percent of demulsifier. The second

BEFORE
EMULSifiCATION

100 -

WJ

u...

en
....J
::::J

:liE
WJ

~ 50-

a:::
w

0...

0OEMULS1FIEH

B (1'Y;,J

B (5f,~/ol

B (5%)

B\5%.. )

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

pH

00

0,0

3.0

3,0

],0

PAFCIPfTATFS

NO

NO

NO

YES

YFS
{FILTEREO
AT pH 3,0)

Fig. 7 1064

BHi%)

FORMATION FINES

Effects of pH and precipitates on emulsion stability.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

system containing formation fines required 5 percent of

the same demulsifier for good separation. The third system had a higher pH, but still had only formation fines
present. It also was treatable with 5 percent of demulsifier. However, the two systems containing both formation fines and precipitates from spent acid showed little or
no separation with 5 percent of the most effective demulsifier. We have surveyed many demulsifiers and, in general, have found that these emulsions containing precipitated material are extremely difficult to treat. It is doubtful
that they can be treated with chemicals alone, short of
reacidizing. It would be highly preferable to avoid formation of these precipitates or at least to minimize the
amount of such material formed in the surface facilities.
The latter could be accomplished by performing only one
acid job at a time.

tions where such things as corrosion inhibitors and sandconsolidation-system components are capable of leaving
surfaces strongly oil wet. Certainly, such oil-wetting tendencies can influence relative saturations in the formation
and return relative permeabilities following stimulation
jobs. Also, systems with oil-wetting tendencies (crude
oils) can show greater tendencies for emulsion stabilization in produced fluids. However, our results have shown
that emulsion stabilization can occur without the oil wetting and may result from just the presence of either produced or precipitated fines.
Additional tests have been made on systems containing
5- and 1O-percent EGMBE. Where precipitated fines were
present, the addition of EGMBE did not appreciably affect the demulsification tendencies.

Effect of Wettability
It has been reported both that wettability of fines was a
major factor in emulsion stabilityl,2 and that wettability of
fines was of minor importance in emulsion stability in the
presence of nonemulsifying surfactants. 3 We found the
effect of wettability to be less critical than the presence of
formation fines or the presence of precipitates fro~8pent
acid.
Fig. 8 is a comparison of demulsification studies on two
systems: (1) a water-wet system where the oil phase was a
pure, refined, white oil, and (2) a system using a Gulf
Coast crude that has moderate oil-wetting tendencies.
Strongly oil-wetting systems were not studied, nor were
systems where oil-wet surfaces were created during
acidization.
For the systems containing only oil and spent acid with
no demulsifier, a very definite effect of wettability was
seen. The water-wet system showed moderately good
separation, whereas the oil-wet system showed no separation. However, with the addition of 1 percent of demulsifier, the crude oil and white oil systems are quite similar
in their demulsification characteristics. Also, with formation fines with and without demulsifiers present, the two
systems show similar behavior. These results agree with
the findings of Sutton and Lasater. 3 As the pH of the spent
acid is increased and in the presence of the resulting precipitates, the effect of wettability disappears altogether. Even in very clean water-wet systems,
the precipitates from spent acid can form extremely
stable emulsions.
Wettability may be a significant factor in field opera-

Since early 1972, Chevron Calco has been successfully

handling post-acid emulsion problems using the techniques suggested in this study. Specific ways of handling
the problem have depended somewhat on location.

B-%

0%

5%

ACID-pH
ACID ppt
FINES

0.0

7.0
YES
YES

WHITE OIL

rnJ: [ill :jJ : Etil ~ _[0 : ~ : ~ - ~ -~

.

CRUDE
OIL

mJ-

EFFECT
WITH
DEMULSIFIER

mJ-~ ~
EFiECT
WITH
FINES
PRESENT

EFFECT
AT pH 3.0

50

EFFECT
WITH
PRECIPITATES
PRESENT

TIME (3 HR., 24 HR., 24 HR.@ 140 0 FI

D WATER WET
~

Fig. 8 -

DILWET

Effect of wettability on emulsion stability.

SEPTEMBER, 1975

::0
100

Field Applications

Bay Marchand Area

Until early 1972, severe emulsion upsets were encountered at several terminals in the Bay Marchand area. Some
of these terminals lacked excess storage and treating
capacity and could not handle major upsets from acidized
wells. Experimentation with several demulsifiers produced very erratic results and did not suggest that chemical treatment could guarantee elimination of emulsion
upsets.
Production in this area is relatively near to shore and it
is feasible to circumvent commingling. Current practice is
to produce early returns from an acidized well to separate
facilities such as a barge, treat the acidized fluids separately, and return the oil to credit the proper lease. Treatment of the separated acidized fluids has proven to be
relatively simple. Small amounts of chemicals and heat
readily produce clean oil and water.
The cost of separately handling production from acidtreated wells is comparable with using large amounts of
demulsifiers. Separate handling has eliminated the occurrence of major emulsion upsets in this area.
Delta Area
This area includes the Breton Sound, Main Pass, South
Pass, and West Delta fields. Since early 1972, numerous
acid stimulations have been done and many have been
followed by hydroxy-aluminum treatment. In general, it
is not practical to separate returns from jobs in this area.
Adding demulsifiers to the treatment fluid (such as high
concentrations of Demulsifier B) and injecting into the
produced fluids at the wellhead until the well has cleaned
up, are two procedures that have been used. In addition,
the amount of solids present in the commingled streams at
anyone time has been minimized by doing only one acid
job at a time. Although some terminal difficulties are still
experienced, their frequency and severity has been reduced. As a result, no "bad oil" has had to be burned, nor
have any fields had to be shut in because of emulsion
problems.
In addition to using high concentrations of demulsifiers
where acidized wells are commingled, wells are switched
directly to the pit, where possible, until most of the acid
1065

has been produced. This practice also has avoided emulsion upset problems. Both procedures can act to emulsify
oil in water and may require additional water treatment
to assure maintaining water of acceptably low oil content.

Summary
Laboratory results have shown the following.
1. Severe emulsion problems following acid treatment
are caused by the presence of solid materials. Precipitates
formed in the spent acid after commingling are the most
serious problem. Produced formation fines also contribute
significantly to the problem.
2. The presence of hydroxy-aluminum does not contribute to the emulsion problem. In fact, produced fluids
following post-acid hydroxy-aluminum jobs should have
less fines and should produce less precipitates upon commingling. The latter is because job design is such that acid
must be more fully spent in the formation than in straight
acid jobs.
3. A laboratory screening method has been developed
that helps select optimum demulsifiers for given fields.
The method shows that demulsifier concentrations have to
be high (about 5 percent) to be effective in emulsions
containing solids.
4. Field observations that report greater emulsion
stabilization after commingling production than at the
wellhead of the treated well have been simulated in the
laboratory using field samples.
5. In the presence of fine solids, oil wettability is not a
necessary condition for emulsion stabilization.
Using these laboratory results has successfully resolved
the field problem. Where possible, commingling is completely avoided and noncommingled, acid-job returns are
treated separately and handled easily. Where it is not
possible to avoid commingling, laboratory-selected demulsifiers at appropriate concentrations are being used

1066

and acid jobs are being done routinely without major

upsets. In such cases, the amount of solids present in the
commingled streams at anyone time has been minimized
by doing only one acid job at a time.
Using large amounts of demulsifiers may require additional treatment to maintain an acceptable low oil content
of the water.

Acknowledgments
I wish to acknowledge the contributions and active support of all those who have furnished materials and information. I especially wish to thank F. R. Daigle and W. J.
Kuebler of Chevron Oil Co. for their summaries of field
operations.
References
1. Gidley, J. L. and Hanson, H. R.: "Prevention of Central Terminal
Upsets Related to Stimulation and Sand Consolidation Treatments, "
paper SPE 4551 presented at the SPE-AIME 48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 3D-Oct. 3, 1973.
2. Green, E. B., Lybarger, J. H., and Richardson, E. A.: "In-Situ Acid
Neutralization System Solves Facility Upset Problems," J. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 1974) 1153-1155.
3. Sutton, G. D. and Lasater, R. M.: "Aspects of Acid Additive
Selection in Sandstone Acidizing, paper SPE 4114 presented at the
SPE-AIME 47th Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, Tex., Oct.
8-11, 1972.
4. Coppel, C. P., Jennings, H. Y., Jr., and Reed, M. G.: "Field Results
From Wells Treated With Hydroxy-Aluminum," J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1973) 1108-1112.
5. Blevins, T. R., Cotten, W. R., and Dugas, E. J.: "OH-Al Treatments Sustain Acid Stimulated Production," World Oil (Aug. I,
1973) 26-29.
6. Becher, P.: "Effect of Preparation Parameters on the Initial Size
Distribution Function in Oil-in-Water Emulsions," J. Coli. and Int.
Science (1967) 24, 9196.
JPT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Aug. 12,
1974. Revised manuscript received July 10, 1975. Paper (SPE 5154) was first
presented at theSPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houston, Oct. 6-9,
1974. Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY