SPE 130060

Surfactant Stimulation to Increase Reserves in Carbonate Reservoir:

A Case Study in Semoga Field
Nova Arthur Rilian, SPE, Meiliza Sumestry, SPE, and Wahyuningsih, Medco E&P Indonesia

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Barcelona, Spain, 1417 June 2010.
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
Semoga field, which produces from Baturaja (carbonate) formation, has experienced a decline in production and has a high
water cut (WC). The current average water cut in Kaji-Semoga field is 86%, while several producing wells have above 95%
WC and even 100%. In 2007, Lemigas conducted a laboratory study to determine the wettability of Baturaja formation (BRF),
the result of which was that BRF indicated very oil wet characteristics. However, after being immersed in surfactant, core
samples became less oil wet. This test shows that trapped oil can be recovered using tertiary recovery methods. One option for
confirming the laboratory test result is to use surfactant huff & puff method in a pilot project.
Surfactant is a surface active agent compound which has the ability to reduce the surface tension between the rocks, produced
water and crude oil so that wettability may change. The surfactant type to be used on BRF formation is non-ionic. The pilot
huff and puff project was conducted on wells X-1 & X-2. High WC wells with low WC at initial (early production) and high
liquid production were selected to minimize risk and to yield more oil. This project was evaluated using pressure build-up test
(transient analysis) and production performance monitoring before and after the surfactant stimulation job. An economic
analysis was also conducted
As a result of employing surfactant stimulation, Semoga Field yielded NPV @ 3 month 24,013 USD with a pay-out time
(POT) of 11 days. Oil gain would be more significant if the technique was implemented on high production wells.
Introduction
Semoga field was discovered in 1996 and is located in Rimau block in South Sumatera. The field consists of three prospect
formations: Telisa Formation (tight sandstone), Baturaja Formation (carbonate) and Talang Akar Formation (sandstone). This
paper will focus on the Baturaja Formation (BRF) in Semoga field, which is a carbonate reservoir with a proven volume of
about 317,856 acre-ft (77ft net pay thickness). There are 127 wells in Semoga BRF: 82 producing wells, 28 water injection
wells, and 17 shut-in wells.
The production operation began in 1997 and oil production peaked at 36,200 BOPD in November, 2001. Since then,
production has declined due to increasing water cut. A water-flood project has been on stream since 2006 and will increase the
recovery factor (RF) by 7 % (from 32% to 39%). Current oil production is about 8,500 BOPD, and the current average water
cut (WC) is 87%, with several producing wells experiencing more than 95% WC, or even 100% WC. It is obvious that the
main concern now is how to maintain oil production while dealing with high water cut and increasing lifting costs, and also
how to recover the oil in water-flood conditions. This problem must be solved promptly.
One method to recover oil from oil-wet carbonate reservoir is to alter the wettability of the reservoir. The surfactant
stimulation method is one of the best and rapid solutions for displacing oil that is glued to the rock surface because it reduces
surface tension between rocks, produced water and crude oil, causing the wettability to change. Huff and puff surfactant
stimulation is the correct method in the current conditions for quick action. Laboratory work to determine reservoir rock
wettability and compatibility tests have been conducted by Lemigas using several brands of surfactant. The result shows that
Baturaja formation is a very oil-wet rock with an initial water contact angle of 78 (oil contact angle of 12).

SPE 130060

This paper discusses the success story of the surfactant stimulation pilot project, based on surfactant selection, reservoir
characteristics (PBU before & after stimulation), production performance and economic analysis.
Methodology
Well and Surfactant Selection Criteria
At Semoga Field, surfactant stimulation was conducted mid-April 2009 in X-1 & X-2 wells as a trial project to increase oil
production by reducing water cut. Wells were selected based on the following criteria
High water cut, with low water cut at initial stage (early production).
High liquid production, to minimize risk and to get more oil gain.
Remaining reserves.
Surfactant is a surface active agent compound which has the ability to reduce surface tension between rocks, produced
water and crude oil so that the wettability may change. Surfactant is usually composed of polymer with a high molecular
weight and has two distinct ends of chemical group. One end is more soluble in water (hydrophilic) and the other more soluble
in oil (hydrophobic), Figure 1 shows a schematic of surfactant molecular.
The surfactant must be screened in advance in order to ensure that it is compatible with the rock and fluid of the reservoir.
Cationic or non-ionic surfactants are the most suitable types for an oil-wet carbonate reservoir (Semoga Field) where the
reservoir has the tendency to positive charge (+). Since the homogeneity of charges in the reservoir cannot be guaranteed,
choosing a cationic surfactant runs the risk of incompatibility with non-positive charge elements in the reservoir. Therefore a
non-ionic surfactant was chosen for this project.
The procedure for measuring the original wettability of Batu Raja formation was to immerse the BRF rock sample into
BRF produced water for 5 days. Pendant Drop was used to measure the contact angle between the rock and the oil drop at rock
surfaces. The following was the sequence of procedures after the rock sample was immersed in the BRF KJ produced water:
Make a chemical solution with BRF KJ produced water
Immerse the rock sample in 0.02% V of scale inhibitor for 3 days.
After 3 days, take out the core and then immerse it in 0.5 % V of surfactant for 3 days.
Take the core out and immerse in 10% V of scale inhibitor for 3 days.
Immerse in 0.06% V of scale inhibitor for 3 days.
Take out the core and measure the wettability by putting oil drops onto the rock sample surfaces and determine
the contact angle using Pendant Drop equipment.
Laboratory test analysis from Lemigas supported this choice and showed that all three non-ionic surfactant brands which
were tested decreased their water contact angle, from an initial 78 to 68 (Brand I), 63 (Brand II) and 61 (Brand III). Brands
II & III have been chosen for those wells, Table 1 and Figure 2.
Surfactant Huff & Puff Operation
Huff & puff is a method used whereby surfactant is injected into a producing well. After injection, the surfactant is given a
few days to soak and become immersed with hydrocarbon before finally producing the hydrocarbon trough at the same well,
(see Figure 3). For this project, the surfactant was soaked for 7 days to allow a reaction with the hydrocarbon. The depth of
penetration depends on the volume of surfactant injected, and the direction of the penetration movement depends on reservoir
heterogeneity. Radial penetration designed for well X-1 & well X-2 was about 21 ft. Huff & Puff consists of the following
three (3) steps:
Pre-flush
The purpose of pre-flush is to displace reservoir brine, which contains potassium, sodium, calcium and magnesium ions
from the near-wellbore area, therefore avoiding adverse interactions with the chemical solution. The other purpose is to adjust
reservoir salinity to favorable conditions for the surfactant (chemical solution). Table 2 below shows the amount of formation
water injected into the reservoir as pre-flush.
Main-flush
This is the main treatment of the stimulation containing a large volume of surfactant. The amount of main-flush injected
into the reservoir determines the area to be treated. Surfactant and fresh water composition can be seen in Table 2 below.
Over-flush
This phase is dominated by the use of formation water to displace the rest of the surfactant away from the wellbore at the
conclusion of the stimulation treatment. The over-flush was formulated from surfactant (at less volume than the main-flush)
and formation water. The over-flush volume should have at least 3 ft [1 m] radial penetration inside the formation to displace
potential problems near the wellbore.
Success Parameters of Surfactant Stimulation
An evaluation of the trial project was based on changes in the reservoir characteristics, comparison of production
performance before and after the job, and an economic yardstick.
Original oil in place (OOIP) was determined using the volumetric approach based on the assumption of 40 acre-ft of
drainage area and 75% & 54% of water saturation for X-1 & X-2 wells, under the same conditions as when the wells were

SPE 130060

initially drilled (data from initial well testing). Any increase in reserves or recovery factor (RF) can be determined from the
cumulative oil gain after surfactant over OOIP.
A pressure build-up (PBU) test is one of the most common methods to evaluate reservoir characteristics5,7,8). A PBU test
before and after surfactant stimulation was conducted to discern any changes in the reservoir characteristics, such as:
Effective oil permeability (before and after job).
Total mobility (before and after job).
Skin factor.
The PBU results were analyzed using pressure transient simulation software12) (Pansys). These basic equations are to
obtain liquid rate (Darcys law), effective permeability (k), skin damage (S) and total mobility (M).
q = 0.00708 kh

(p

ws

p wf

r 3
ln e + s
r 4
w

162.6.q. B
sc
mh
162.6. q B
t t M= k
M=

mh

k=

( )

P2 P2
k

1jam wf
log
+ 3,23
S = 1,151
2
m
C r

t w

(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)

Result and Discussion

Production Performance
X-1 & X-2 wells used gas lift as artificial lift. Gas lift stability depends on several factors (weather, surface facilities & gas
compositions). The degree of gas lift stability can cause the bottom-hole flowing pressure (Pwf), which in turn can cause the
liquid rate to fluctuate, too. Based on Darcys law (Equation 1), if the Pwf drops, the liquid rate will increase. Two distinct
ends of surfactant, hydrophobic and hydrophilic, enable the surfactant to alter the wettability of the reservoir rock from oil wet
to slightly oil wet. This means that oil mobility will increase, whereas water mobility will decrease, resulting in an overall
decrease in total liquid mobility.
The liquid rate for X-1 decreased by about 400 BLPD (998 to 600) immediately after surfactant stimulation, and then
gradually increased. One (1) month after surfactant stimulation, the liquid rate returned to 928 BLPD. The bottom- hole
flowing pressure (Pwf) dropped by about 110 psig (from 762 to 652 psig), although the Pwf is supposed to increase when the
liquid rate drops. The result for X-2 was similar, but the liquid rate dropped sharply, by about half (from 496 to 224 BLPD)
and Pwf by about 200 psig (from 550 to 360 psig). This was due to skin damage that occurred in X-2 well, as can be seen in
the result of PBU analysis below. An increase in oil mobility by surfactant in X-1 & X-2 wells is confirmed by an 8% water
cut decline in production performance. The use of surfactant in X-1 & X-2 wells was successful, as can be seen by the
explanation below regarding changes in the reservoir characteristics as per PBU analysis. The result can be seen in Table 3
below.
Cumulative oil production for X-1 & X-2 wells increased by about 3400 Bbl (qo from 0 to 72 BOPD) and 2400 Bbl (qo
from 19.84 to 52.56 BOPD) respectively. Meanwhile, the water cut for X-1 & X-2 wells decreased by 8% (100% to 92% and
96% to 88%) respectively. This occurred during a period of 3 months after surfactant stimulation (Figure 4 & Figure 5).
Reservoir Characteristic
PBU analysis for X-1 & X-2 wells was run using Pansystem well test simulation software (before & after surfactant). The
test had been conducted a month before, after the surfactant stimulation job. All PBU interpretations use dual permeability
with fair wellbore storage and infinite acting boundary as the reservoir model. This model fits the current geological model for
Semoga field. The matching plot of all PBU interpretations can be seen below in Figure 6 & Figure 7.
PBU analysis of X-1 well shows an improvement in the skin damage from before and after surfactant stimulation (from
4.57 to 2.58), increasing effective oil permeability from 14.45 to 20.9 md and decreasing total mobility from 2158 to 579
md/cp (Table 3 & Figure 6). This means that oil mobility in total fluid increased, but water mobility in total fluid decreased
where reservoir fluid (oil & water) flows constantly in porous media (reservoir), causing the reservoir fluid velocity to
become slower than before, and indicated by the decrease in water cut (from 100% to 92%).

SPE 130060

PBU analysis of X-2 well shows an increase in skin damage from before and after surfactant stimulation job (from 4.2 to
14.22), increasing the effective oil permeability from 3.75 to 9.24 md and increasing the total mobility from 95.5 to
230.46md/cp (Table 3 & Figure 7). There is an anomaly in X-2 well, where increasing oil permeability after stimulation
caused increasing mobility, when normally the mobility should be decreasing. This anomaly is caused by decreasing bottomhole flowing pressure (pwf) on PBU test after stimulation. Contrary to the increasing liquid rate due to pwf decline, the liquid
rate dropped by 50%, from 496 to 224 BLPD. This made the skin factor increase drastically from 3 to 12. The slope of PBU
test after stimulation decline resulted in an increasing mobility value after stimulation. Therefore, PBU analysis of X-2 well
before and after stimulation is incomparable due to the different circumstances. If this happens in similar testing conditions
where pwf after stimulation is close to before stimulation, mobility decline after stimulation will appear. Aside from the
anomaly, oil permeability after stimulation increased dramatically, confirmed by an 8% water cut decline in production
performance where fluid mobility inside the porous media after stimulation is lower than before.
The decrease in water cut is due to the increase in oil mobility after surfactant stimulation indicated by changes in the
reservoir characteristics and production performance. Whereas the decrease in liquid rate after stimulation is due to total liquid
mobility decrease instead of reverse conning effect because the latter does not occur immediately. Table 3 shows the result of
reservoir characteristic changes. An extended study is being conducted to conclude how effective is the surfactant work in this
project and to ensure that a decrease in water cut is due to the surfactant and not to other effects, such as reverse conning etc.
At the moment it can be concluded that a decrease in water cut in these wells is due to surfactant.
Overall, this job has been implemented successfully in Semoga Field and has resulted in a dramatic increase in effective
oil permeability, a decrease in total mobility, and has yielded NPV @ 3 month 24,013 USD and POT in 11 days.
Conclusions
Surfactant works in this project and the changes of wettability in the laboratory are reflected in the field, where the mobility of
oil has improved and the wettability properties changed from oil-wet to slight water wet. In this case, surfactant stimulation
has decreased water cut (WC) by about 8 %, with an increased in cumulative oil production for this project of about 5,800
bbls over a period of 3 (three) months.
An extended study is being conducted to conclude how effective is the surfactant work in this project and to ensure that a
decrease in water cut is due to the surfactant, and not to other effect, such as reverse conning etc. There are commonly used
methods to detect surfactant stimulation influence in reservoir characteristic changes: coring analysis, time lapse saturation log
and single well tracer. the PBU analysis result should be confirmed with those method to minimize "subjectivity" in PBU
analysis..
Overall, the increase in cumulative oil production for this project was about 5,800 bbls over a period of 3 (three) months and
gave an NPV @ 3 month 24,013 USD, NPV @ 1 year 58,189 USD with work-over and material costs att 15,180 USD and
POT in 11 days.
Acknowledment
We would like to thank PT Medco E&P Indonesia, the RMU AED Team, the Chemical & Corrosion Team, the PE Semoga
Team, and everyone else that has been involved in the successful execution of surfactant stimulation and PBU job.
References
1. Bourdet, D., 1985. Pressure Behaviour of Layered Reservoir with Crossflow, SPE-13628.
2. Chan, K. S., 1995. Water Control Diagnostic Plots, Schlumberger Dowell, SPE 30775.
3. Craft, B. C. & Hawkins, M. F., 1991, Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, New Jersey.
4. Graffney, Cline, & Associates., January 2007. Petroleum Reserve Definitions, SPE & World Petroleum Congress
(WPC).
5. Gupta, R., Mohan, K., Mohanty, K, K., 2009. Surfactant Screening for Wettability Alteration in Oil-Wet Fractured
Carbonate, University of Houston & University of Texas Austin, SPE-124822.
6. John Lee, 1972. Well Testing, Society of Petroleum Engineering, Houston, Texas.
7. Lemigas., 2007. Scalling Tendency And Wettability Determination For Baturaja And Talang Akar Formations Report.
8. John Lee, John B Rollins, and John P Spivey, 2003. Pressure Transient Testing, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
9. Lemanczyk Rick, 09-10 May, 2005. PanSystem User Training , Medco E&P Indonesia, Jakarta.
10. Roehl, P.O and Choquette, P.W., 1985. Carbonate Petroleum Reservoir, Springer-Verlag, New York.
11. SPE., WPC., AAPG., Petroleum Resources Classification and Definitions.
12. Tarek Ahmed., Paul D McKinney, 2005. Advanced Reservoir Engineering.
13. Y Wu., P. J. Shuler., M. Blanco., Y. Tang., and W. A. Goddard III., April 2006. A Study of Wetting Behaviour and
Surfactant EOR in Carbonate Reservoir with Model Compounds, California Institute of Technology, SPE-99612.

SPE 130060

Table 1. Laboratory Result of Contact Angle Mesurement of BRF

BRF FORMATION

No

MIXING FLUIDS

FLUID DROP

Deg ()

Produce Water BRF KJ

Water

77

Produce Water BRF KJ

Oil

12

Produce Water BRF KJ + Brand I

Oil

27

Produce Water BRF KJ + Brand II

Oil

22

Produce Water BRF KJ + Brand III

Oil

29

Table 2. Surfactant Dosage

No
1
2

SURFACTANT DOSAGES
X-1 (Bbl)
Pre
Main
Over
Pre
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush

MATERIALS
Produce Water
Surfactant
Total

100
100

451
9
460

127
3
130

X-2 (bbl)
Main
Flush

100

Over
Flush

536
9
545

100

43.35
0.65
44

Table 3. Summary of Production Performance & Reservoir Characteristics Changes

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS
X-1
No

PARAMETERS

X-2

Before
(Feb 18
2009)

After
(May 27
2009)

Before
(Feb 13
2009)

After
(June 22
2009)

md

14.49

20.89

3.79

8.1

UNIT

Eff Oil Permeability (ko)

Total Mobility (M)

md/cp

2158

579

96

202

Skin Damage (Sd)

+/-

4.57

2.58

4.11

12.63

Reservoir Pressure (PR)

Psi

895

943

845

867

Bottom Hole
Pressure (Pwf)

Psi

762

652

550

360

Liquid Rate

BLPD

998

600

496

224

Water Cut (Initial)

100

92

96

88

Liquid rate
1 month after stimulation

BLPD

Water Cut
1 month after stimulation

Flowing

928

438

94

93

Hydrophobic
(Oil soluble end)

Hydrophilic
(Water soluble end)

Figure 1. Schematic of Surfactant Molecular

SPE 130060

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 2. Water Contact Angle at (a) Initial Condition and After immersed with Surfactant (b) Brand I (c)
Brand II and (d) Brand III

Figure 3. Huff & Puff Steps

SPE 130060

Figure 4. Production performance of well X-1

1000

X-2 WELL

After Surfactant Stimulation

100
95

100

B/D

90
85 (%)

10

80
75

70

BOPD

BLPD

WC (%)

Figure 5. Production performance of well X-2

SPE 130060

Radial Flow Plot

X-1_Before::Pressure #1

X-1_After::Pressure #1

X-1_Before::Quick Match Pressure

X-1_After::Quick Match Pressure

20.0

Delta P / Delta Q (psi / STB/day)

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

.01

.1
Equivalent Time (hours)

10

PBU Matching Plot of Well X-1

X-1_Before::Pressure #1

X-1_Before::Pressure #1 Derivative

X-1_After::Pressure #1

X-1_After::Pressure #1 Derivative

X-1_Before::Quick Match Pressure

X-1_Before::Quick Match Derivative

X-1_After::Quick Match Pressure

X-1_After::Quick Match Derivative

Delta P (psi / STB/day)

10

.1

.01

.1
Equivalent Time (hours)

Figure 6. PBU Matching Plot, before & after stimulation in Well X-1

10

SPE 130060

Radial Flow Plot

X2_Before::Pressure #1

X-2_After::Pressure #1

X2_Before::Quick Match Pressure

X-2_After::Quick Match Pressure

Delta P / Delta Q (psi / STB/day)

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0
.01

.1
Equivalent Time (hours)

10

PBU Matching Plot of Well X-2

X2_Before::Pressure #1

X2_Before::Pressure #1 Derivative

X-2_After::Pressure #1

X-2_After::Pressure #1 Derivative

X2_Before::Quick Match Pressure

X2_Before::Quick Match Derivative

X-2_After::Quick Match Pressure

X-2_After::Quick Match Derivative

Delta P / Delta Q (psi / STB/day)

10

.1

.01

.01

.1

1
Equivalent Time (hours)

10

Figure 7. PBU Matching Plot, before & after stimulation in Well X-2