-.
Gii!B
e
m
.
].%xietyofl%t
roleum Engineers
_..l
SPE 35991
Development
of a Stimulation
Treatment
Integrated Model
Copyright
This
1996
papef
Dallas,
Texas
This paper
mformat)on
presented
SPE
2.5 June
was
contmned
by the
meetings
IIlustratlons
acknowledgment
Box 833636
reviewed
The
subpct
Computer
Conference
may
of where
by an SPE
ot
Program
Commdtee
following
Submnred
by the aumor[s)
of Petroleum
as
Engineers
to publlcatm
Perrnrssm
Richardson
Petroleum
by the Scc@y
mater! al,
of Petroleum
En~lneers
Inc
at the
for presentation
m an abstract
author(s)
are
Engineers
for presentation
held
be
presented
does
!ti off!cers
m mambers
rewew
to copy
The
and by tiom
the paper
TX 75063.3636
U S A
not
rew.w
of
o! the pap.w
as
ad ara subject
to
necessarily
PaWm
reflect
presented
any
at
by Ed,tonal
m restricted
copied
Contents
Engineers
Comrmttee.s
ot ttw Society
of
to an bstraci of not more than 300
abstract
was
should
presented
Wrtte
contain
Llbrarran
con%p!cuous
SPE
Technology
formation.
StimCADEm (Stimulation Treatment Integrated
Model Computer
Aided Design and Evaluation)
was
developed as an integrated software application used to
idcn(i~, prevent and mitigate formation damage. The goal of
StimCADE is to optimize stimulation treatments, rccognizc
failures and maximize job success.
Within ARCO, matrix stimulation treatments fail to
improve productivi~ in one out of three treatments].
A
summary of these failures is shown in Table 1. The current
practices for selecting wells for matrix stimulation arc
evaluating well production/injection
histories. offset WCII
performance
and pressure transient analysis.
Design
techniques to improve the wells pcrtormance arc based on
rules of thumb,
To improve ARCOs matrix treatments a real time
monitoring systcm was dcvclopcd based on Paccaloni 23and
This teehnique calculates a transient or
Provost4~ tiork.
apparent skin w. time as shown in Fig. 1. The adaptation
of this tcchniquc has improved the area of incorrect field
procedures.
Since then several authors have expanded on
these ideas by calculating a derivative skin vs. timc6 and
using an inverse injectivity plot *as diagnostic tools.
To prevent the usc of the wrong fluid, Expert systems
were developed by ARC09 and others 10-13. However, these
tools were based on rules of thumb, providing no analytical
solutions. Past cxpcricncc indicates that knowledge systems
are often discarded by the engineer after a fcw uscs and have
To overcome this
only found utility as teaching tools.
limitation, and to circumvent the loss of cxpcrtisc within the
industry, the expert systems provided within the ncw software
arc integrated to an analytical model.
This paper examines how to optimize matrix treatments
using an integrated design strategy. This softwtarc utilizes
expert systems Iinkcd to analytical acidizing simulators along
with several peripheral tools to achicvc the optimized
treatment.
in
199S
selected
of the So.aety
Petroleum
words
of Petroleum
prepared
co frectfon
pcmtlon
society
was
and Production
P O
fax 01214.952-9435
Abstract
Past publications have indicated (hat matrix (rcatmcnt failures
To improve the succcss rate for
arc in the order of 30%0
matrix trcatmcnis, current work has been on real time field
monitoring
These systems calcrda(c the evolutlon of skin
during matrix stimulations, However, these systems can only
inform you how your treatment is performing. A need for a
syslem that op[imixes fluids prior to pumping is needed so
tha( an cnginccr can take trot advantage of monitoring acid
trcatrncnts.
This paper dcscribcs the dcvciopmcnt of an integrated matrix
stimulation model for sandstone and carborratc formations
that assists in determining formation damage, selection and
optimization of fluid volumes, provides a pressure skin
response of the acid treatment and forecasts the bcncfrt of the
[rcatrncnt. The model includes three expert advisors for (he
novice cnginccr, a kinetic based multilaycr rcscmoir rnodcl
model to dctcrmirre
rock fluid
and a geochemical
cornpatability problems.
Additional modules that provide
support for the user arc a scale predictor, critical drawdown,
ball scaler forccas[cr and a fluid database for the selection of
A production forecast rnodulc is
fluids and additives.
included 10 forecast the bcnctit of the stimulation,
Introduction
Formation damage can occur from nalural or induced
mechanisms that reduce the capability of flow between the
formation and the near wellbore region, (bus giving a rise to a
positive skin. To mitigate this damage, matrix technology
using rcactivc and non reactive fluids are pumped into the
Approach
StirnCADE is an integrated program designed to allow the
user to enter data, calculate and obtain results, Figure 2
75
2
K.M.6artko, C.T. Montgomery,C.L. Boney,V,L.Ward
SPE 35991
provides an overall schematic of the system,
Movement
i.e. they cannot be used to determine the effectiveness of
throughout the program is consistent with Microsoft
solvent systems.
products for ease. of use. The tool and status bar (Fig. 3) is
presented when the user opens the application. Several of the
menus are typical of other Microsofi o applications. The three
Module Description Advisors
distinct menus to this application are 1) StimCADE, 2)
Current Module., and 3) Tools.
By pulling down the
Three advisors which have been written under the Nexpert
StimCADE menu the eleven available modules shown in
shell, are provided for the user, The first advisor is the
Table 2 are displayed. Upon selecting a module the adjacent
Candidate Selection Advisor (CSA), The CSA helps a new or
menu item becomes active within that application. The third
inexperienced user
determine if the well is a suitable
menu Tools provides access to the consistency checker
candidate for stimulation and whether the user should
options, variable editor, unit management, graphics and
preceed with a matrix treatment or a propped fracture
reports. Navigation throughout the module is performed by
treatment. This is determined by running a quick darcy flow
selecting the appropriate buttons. The application is built so
calculation
or using the production
forecast module.
that a user can randomly move from one panel to the next.
Additional
questions
are centered around basic well
The program status bar is at the bottom of the screen. The
knowledge and information
from a pressure transient
status bar provides the user with information about the active
analysis. If damage cannot be determined the user is advised
field. The information provided is the input data, whether the
to perform additional diagnostics on the well such as Nodal
field is calculated or input, locked or unlocked entry, if the
analysis.
The Formation Damage Advisor @A) asks a series of
field is consistent and if the enty is calculated or user
entered, If the user inputs inconsistent data the user has the
questions and determines up to 18 damage mechanisms as
options to change the inconsistency or continue.
shown in Table 4. The FDA knowledge is based on in house
Help is provided within the application by selecting the
experience and ref. 14. This advisor is also built to suggest
question mark in the menu bar or pressing of the F1 key when
additional diagnostic work to further define the damage. For
the cursor is active in a field. Upon selection of the question
example, if a water analysis is not available the program
mark the user is provided help for the entire application,
If
suggests that it be obtained before proceeding. If analysis is
the user selects F1, the help for the specific field is opened.
available, then the user has the option to open the scale
Information within help provides the user with hints on input
predictor module,
parameters.
The Fluid Selection Advisor (FSA) is the third advisor
There are four levels built into the application as shown in
and is provided to determine treatment fluid type and volume,
Table 3, The first level is called the Xerox or photocopy
This advisor requires a damage type which can be obtained by
mode. This mode minimizes the design work for the user by
running the formation damage advisor or directly input by the
user. The expert system requires that the user has knowledge
using the experience gained on previous matrix treatments.
The user simply opens a previous data file, changes the well
of the reservoir. The FSA uses industry experience and rules
name and completion properties of the wellbore and the
of thumb 1617to determine the fluids and volume required.
program calculates the new displacement and treatment
The schedule is then imported into the schedule panel for
volumes.
The second mode uses artificial intelligence
further refinement using the kinetic models.
advisors to build a fluid schedule based on industry rules of
thumb, The system interrogates the user to determine the
suitability of the well for treatment (Candidate Selection
Advisor), damage type (Formation Damage Advisor) and
Matrix Design
The matrix design consists of three modules - Pump Schedule
treatment type and volume (Fluid Selection Advisor). Neither
Generator (PSG), Acid Placement and GeoCHECK,
the photocopy and advisor modes provide optimization or
The pump schedule generator is a 14 single phase design
real time analysis.
The third mode consists of a
module for matrix sandstone and carbonate acidizing which
thermodynamic/kinetic
model which optimizes the schedule
addresses wormholing.
The function of this module is to
by running the simulator through a series of time steps and
optimize the fluid and diverter volumes based upon a damage
examining the resultant
radius or reduction of skin. The skin is either input per layer
The fourth mode is the most difficult level, requiring the
or calculated based on prosity or flow rate per layer. When
running the PSG, step objectives per layer are required, The
user 10 know the damage mechanism as well as the chemical
step objectives are based on fluid invasion or live acid
interaction of the trca{ment fluids and the rock. This mode
invasion requirements. The result of this module is an
uses a geochemical model to determine when and where
optimized schedule based upon a skin reduction vs. time or
secondary reaction precipitation occurs from the treatment, A
volume 18, Diversion of acid is accounted for during the
skin vs. volume and time plot is provided by these two modes,
The model can
optimization of the treatment schedule.
Both modes are applicable only when reactive fluids are used
predict diversion for particulate,
foam, ball sealers and
76
SPE 35991
Discussion
To test the performance of StimCADE various input data sets
have been run. An example run is presented here and is
based on information obtained in ref. 35. Inpu[ data and
information are shown in Table 6, The well has four
sandstone intervals with skin damage varying from 455 to 38.
To determine the skin per layer production data was input
into the skin analysis window. This window calculates a skin
based cm porosity, production/injection
or by directly
inputting a value. The PSG is executed to optimize the
treatment based on damage penetration and skin change. The
example shows that reduction of skin to zero was not
achieved. The simulator warned the user at the end of the
simulation that the treatment objective was not achieved and
the user either accepts the new schedule or cancels. For this
example PSG provided a pump schcdulc as presented in
Table 7.
To determine the effects of the treatment, the acid
placement module is opened and cxccutcd. A summary of the
treatment results are presented in Fig. 7. A final skin of 5.6
However, the model also
was obtained from the treatment.
lndicatcd that the final stage of clay acid was probably not
necessary duc to minimal improvement in skin.
Several
graphs are provided to the user to visually interpret the
simulator results. Two of these graphs arc prcscntcd in Fig 8
and 9.
Figure 7 shows the change in skin per layer by volume of
acid pumped.
The graph indicates that layer 4 requires
To fully
additional acid to remove the remaining damage.
optimize the treatment, the user needs to usc a di~crting agent
to place additional volumes of acid to the lower layer,
Scale Predictor
The Scale Predictor 29-7(model uses the same chemistry as the
GcoCHECK model cxccpt that it is tailored to scale
tendencies. The model is a batch chemistry model which can
hand]c ttvo fluids and accounts for bicarbonate and COJ
evolution, The scale model is accessible through FDA or as a
standalone module. An example of the input panel is shown
in Fig. S. The scale model currently identities eight scales
(Table 5).
Figure
8 is a graph showing
the bottomhole
pressure and
77
Acknowledgments
We thank the management of ARCO E&P Technology and
Schlumberger Dowell for permission to publish this paper.
Wc also thank the StimCADE Team and CAPSHER
Technology for writing the program.
StinlCADEmi M a registered trademark of Schlumbcrger
Dowcll,
of Microsoft
Microsofimr is a registered trademark
Corporation.
References
C. 1,, Jan, Y-M., and Niemeyer, B. L.:
I)evclopment of a Matrix-Acidizing Stimulation Treatment
1. Montgomery,
Evhdion
Paccaloni,
Ilanning
Paccaloui,
Provost, L. P. and Econornidies, M. J.: Applications of RealTimc Matrix Acidizing Method, SPEPE (Nov. 1989) 40 I;
1runs.,AIME, 287.
78
SPE 35991
Development of a Stimulation Treatment Integrated Model
S111lad S\mposium on OIIliclci Chemistry, I louston, TX, Feb.
n-lo
24 f:ogler, 1I S., Lund, K and McCunc, C C, Predicting the
Table 2- Available Modules
Flow and Rcact]on of I [CM [F Ac]d Mixtures in Porous
Sandsknw Cores, .$IW(OCI 1976) 248-60 ;Irms, e.il.111i,261.
General
25 I.und,K and Foglcr, 1I S Acidizing V. The Prediction of the
Candidate Selection Advisor
Movmncnt
of
Acid
and
furncabdity
fronts
In
Formation Damage Advisor
Sa]]dstol]cs,()t,,n~./]g,g$cici.(1976)31,381-92
Fluid Selection Advisor
26 McCunc,C C , Foglcv, 11S., and Ault, J w,: A Ncw Model of
the Ihys].sal and Chemical Changes in Sandstone E)uring
Pump Schedule Generator
Acidizing, W}ll(oct 1975) 361-70.
Acid Placement
27. lhnwl,R.W., Neill, (i. ] I , and Lopm,R.G Faclors Influencing
Geocheck
optlmom f+all Scaicr f]erformancc, JPT (April 1963), 450Production Forecast
454
Critical Drawdown
28 C,abriel, (;.A. and Erbstoesscr, S,R,, paper S1}ll 13085
Scale Predictor
presented at the I)X4 Annual fcchmcal Conference and
Ball Scaler
}khibi[ion, I IoosIon, TX , Scpt 16-24.
29 l.i, Y-I [.: Theories of Chemical Equilibrium Calculations for
PR( J Watdlood
Geochemical Modeling and ARC() Scale
Predictor, ARC() ReporI RR 95-()(]13, May 1995.
30 LI, Y-1I., Crane, S.1). and Coleman, J K., A Novel Approach
Table 3- Design Levels
to Predict the Co-Prcclpitatlon of BaS04 and SrS04, S111
29489 prcsentml at the S111Production C@ations Symposium,
Xerox
[)klahoma Ci[y, OK April 2Jl, 1995,
Advisor
31 Morita, N et.al , A Quick Method to [)etwrninc Subs] dcncc
Empirical/Kinetic
Rcscrwolr Compactma, hi-Situ Stress Induced by Rescrvo]r
Geochemical Based
Dcplctlon> JPT (Jan 1989).
32 Wciogarten, J.S. and Perkins, r.K ,: Prediction of Sand
Produchon in C,as Wells Methods and Gulf of Mexico Case
Studies, SPE paper 24797 presented at the 1992 Annual
Conference, Washington, D.C., Ott. 4-7
Table 4- Formation Damage Types
33 I [urst, V.Il.. The Applicahon of the Lap]ace Transform to
Flow Problems in Ikservmrs, Trans. ALifE, Vol 186, 1949,
Drilling Mud
305-324.
Clay Swelling and Migmtion
34 Mathews, R.: Pressure Testing Build-up and FIOWIrest m
Emulsions
Wells, SPE Monogrf7ph Vol I
35 Schaible, 1) F , Akpan, 13,, and Ayouh, J., A,: Identifictition,
Scales
I:valwlt{om and Treatment of FormatIon Damage, Offshorc
Water Block
l,oulsltina, paper SP1l 14820 presented at the 1986 SPE
Nettability Changes
S!mposlum on Formation l)amagc
Control, [,afaycttc, I.A,
ParatT_rr/Asphaltene Deposits
Feb 26-27
Reason
] Incorrect
Field I 27
I
I
0/0
34
Procedure
Incorrect Design
Wrong Fluid
I Total
Mixed Deposits
Iron Hydroxide
Corrosion
Unfiltered Solids
Bacteria
Fluid Loss Pills
of Failures
1
I 30
] 22
1 79
] 38
I 28
Calcium Carbonate
Iron Carbonate
Magnesium Carbonate
Calcium Sulfate
Gypsum
Strontium Sulfate
Barium Sulfate
Iron Sulfide
79
SPE 35991
4
0,8
8.8
Gravel Pack
psi/ft
in
5580
210
psi
F
160
Fines Migration
526
10
30
acre
0 t --02040
md
md
in
%
%
10
3
2
4.5
0,5
%
%
.
f4801w
. +.+
,20,4Q,,xI,8020D?20
Tim b Mlm.da
DATA INPUT
F D,-A..
yhp
I CALCULATION
~w~
!40
%
?40
YO
39
147
70
455
Damage
Skin
I
5%HC1
790
12%HC1/3% HF ] 1419 I
1789
2% NHrcl
1927
Clay Acid
2075
2% NI-Lcl
74
8.5
8.5
5.76
5,67
RESULTS
[
-,
El!!!!!!9
s.k..
c=
n..,, . V-
P7
%0
Cum.
(bbl)
iii
L=?.k.fi
C.*
..,-
Undamaged
75
5
10
Liquid
BHP
Over
Rate
(psi)
Frac
[ (bpm) ]
I Press
2
] 6000 I No
2
I 5660 ] No 1
2
5660
No
2
5646
No
2
5646
No
80
Ip
SPE 35991
Development of a Simulation
,m
1.-......,=
-i,
.....,JJ--=j
.,..-. - - I
1
+-
,,,,
,7<
,4,,
,,,,
Fig. 7- Skin vs. Volume. The maximum skin change occurred after
the first mud acid. Only marginal improvement seen with the
second stage of clay acid..
m
~ .
~.
T-
,,,
T,
Fig 6. - Scale Predictor Input Panel. Scale predictor can run with
one or two fluids mixed. A sensitivity analysis of percent fluid,
pressure and temperature can be made by selecting the sensitivity
check box,
-,* I }
-[l
-=;-1---1
---1-4--1
,m
~:_.-.l..l...
iJ
> 1 \_.._
,. ..1
m
,!B
la!
,ml,
-H,
Fig. 8- BHP/Rate vs Volume. The model was run with constant rate
checked.
81