Case Study: Lessons Learned in Attempting to Restore New Well Productivity Via Solid Propellant Technology and Dynamic Underbalance Stimulation

Abstract

In Field A, recently drilled wells D6, D7 and D8 penetrated at reservoir of good quality sands. However, the production rate declined rapidly within a year after wells kicked off. In an effort to restore new wells productivity, solid propellant technology stimulation and dynamic underbalance stimulation were evaluated for their effectiveness in permeability improvement. The candidates for solid propellant technology and dynamic underbalance stimulation were selected based on a screening workflow. Pressure data was retrieved from pressure downhole gauge to confirm skin buildup post production. The sources of production impairment were then investigated from laboratory analysis of core sample. While waiting for the results of laboratory analysis, solid propellant technology and dynamic underbalance stimulation were applied as quick solutions due relatively cheaper cost than chemical stimulation. Solid propellant technology was chosen for Well D8 whereas dynamic underbalance stimulation was selected for Well D6 and D7. Post solid propellant technology at Well D8, tubing head pressure and production rate slightly increased and sustained. On the other hand, dynamic underbalance stimulation at Well D6 and D7 showed positive results as tubing head pressure and production rates were improved. Unfortunately, production gain from dynamic underbalance at Well D7 only lived for a month before seizing to flow. The implementation of solid propellant technology and dynamic underbalance stimulation were successful to improve production performance for a short period of time. Both stimulation strategies were deemed to be repeated and improved to bypass near wellbore damage for these wells. This paper presents on the challenges and lessons learned that will be applicable to oilfields which are having similar situation to improve well productivity via mechanical stimulation.