Benson Oghenovo Ugbenyen

AN Approach to stimulation candidate selection
and optimization
A
Research Thesis
Presented to the Department of Petroleum Engineering,
African University of Science and Technology,
Abuja
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Master of

Science (MSc)
in
Petroleum Engineering
By
BENSON OGHENOVO UGBENYEN

Abuja, Nigeria
November, 2010
An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

By
Benson Oghenovo Ugbenyen
RECOMMENDED:
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
APPROVED:
________________________________
Supervisor:
Prof. (Emeritus) David O. Ogbe
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Date
iii | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
ABSTRACT
Well stimulation consists of several methods used for enhancing the natural producing ability of
the r eservoir when p roduction rate declines. A de tailed l iterature r eview of s ome of t he well
published stimulation models are discussed in this research. This d iscussion wa s preceded wi th
an introduction t o f ormation damage concepts and an o verview o f well stimulation m ethods.
Production decline curve analysis is combined with economic discounting concepts to develop a
model that can be used for optimizing stimulation decisions. The model is presented in the form
of a no n-linear programming pr oblem subject t o t he constraints imposed by t he p roduction
facilities, reservoir productivity and the stimulation budget approved by management. Production
data from f our stimulation ca ndidate wells, o ffshore Niger Delta was used to validate the m odel
developed by s etting up a m aximization problem. S olution to the p roblem w as ob tained using
non-linear o ptimization software. The r esult o btained was v erified u sing Wolfram R esearchs
Mathematica 7.0. The results s how that the o ptimization m odel c an be c ombined w ith
stimulation t reatment modules, de veloped f rom i ndustry w ide models, t o q uantify s timulation
benefits. C andidate w ells w ere t hen r anked ba sed on stimulation c ost, p ayout t ime a nd
stimulation b enefit. Hence, th e m odel i s valid f or stimulation ca ndidate s election; and i s
therefore recommended for use in optimizing stimulation decisions.
iv | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to my Lord Jesus Christ who has been, and will ever be the best role
model anyone could find. And also, to the good people of the Niger Delta.
v | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish t o sincerely a ppreciate G od Almighty for H is l ove, c are a nd wonderful works t hat a re
made m anifest i n m y life each da y. Also, m y s incere thanks go to my supervisor, Prof.
(Emeritus) David O. Ogbe for guiding me to success in this work, Dr. Samuel Osisanya and Prof.
Peters Ekwere f or s erving in m y thesis committee, and m y m other, M rs. G race Ugbenyen f or
being there always for me.
The following persons, among others, who contributed in no small measure to the success of this
work deserved to be acknowledged.
My friends: Lymmy B ukie O gbidi, Akpana Paul, R aymond Agav, Habibatu Ahmed, and
Christopher M udi who paid m e several v isits a t A UST t o c heer me u p. T he members o f H ope
Hall Parish, Redeemed C hristian C hurch of G od, Galadimawa, Abuja, who have always been a
warm family to me. Nature will not forgive me if I fail to thank Miss Esther Akinyede who was
kind to provide me with a laptop to continue this work when lightning storm damaged my laptop
on 14 th July 2010 a t Julius N yerere Hall, AUST, Abuja, and I got no help from t he University
even t hough I pl eaded f or assistance. I w ill n ot f ail to m ention Mr. Alfred Emakpose who
assisted me in no small measure to keep things straight when the odds were against me. Finally, I
would like to thank my wonderful new friends, who would be mad at me if I fail to mention their
names; Hatem, Adel, Amar, Fauzan and Andrew, who are here with m e as I write these lines at
The Beaches Hotel, Prestatyn, North Wales, where I neglected some of my schedule to put most
parts of this work together.
vi | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT......iii
DEDICATION.....iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....v
TABLE OF CONTENT...vi
LIST OF FIGURES......x
LIST OF TABLESxi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Near Wellbore Condition......1
1.1.1 The Composite Skin Effect......1
1.2 Well Stimulation: Definition and Objectives....1
1.2.1
Well Stimulation Objectives.1
1.3 Well Stimulation Methods....2

1.3.1
Matrix Stimulation....2
1.3.1.1 Matrix Acidizing Fluid Selection and Treatment Additives ....3

1.3.1.2 Benefits and Limitations of Matrix Acidizing Processes......4
1.3.2
Fracture Acidizing........4
1.3.3
Hydraulic Fracturing.....6
1.3.4
Recompletion....7
1.4 Gravel Packing......7

1.5 Stimulation Economics and Candidate Selection.....8
1.6 Objective and Procedure of the Study..8
1.7 Limitation of the Study.....9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Review of Formation Damage Mechanism..........10
2.1.1 Definition..10
2.1.2 Causes of Formation Damage..10
2.1.3 Quantifying Formation Damage...11
2.1.3.1 Skin Factor....11
vii | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

2.1.3.2 Depth of Damage.13
2.1.3.3 Damage Ratio...14
2.1.3.4 Flow Efficiency....16
2.1.3.5 Permeability Variation Index...16
2.1.4 Economic Impact of Formation Damage on Reservoir Productivity
.....17
2.2 Matrix Acidizing Models.....17
2.2.1 Sandstone Acidizing Models...18
2.2.2 Carbonate Acidizing Models...22
2.3 Acid Fracturing Models...26
2.4 Hydraulic Fracturing Models...28
2.5 Literatures on Stimulation candidate Selection....30
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Well Screening Technique...33
3.2 Design of Stimulation Treatment Models....34
3.2.1 Matrix Acidizing Design Model..38
3.2.1.1 Summary..38
3.2.2 Recompletion Design Model...38
3.2.3 Gravel-Pack Design Model..40
3.3 Development of a Model for Optimizing Stimulation Decisions...44
3.3.1 Optimization Model Assumptions...45
3.3.2 Stimulation Productivity Ratio....46
3.3.3 The Present-value Discount Factor......46
3.3.4 Defining the Objective Function, Q D ..46
3.4 Optimization Model Constraints.....50
3.4.1 Constraint 1: Break-even Requirement....51
3.4.2 Constraint 2: Remaining Reserve Limitation..51
3.4.3 Constraint 3: Flow String capacity..52
3.4.4 Constraint 4: Budget Allocation..53
3.4.5 Constraint 5: Maximum Formation Productivity ratio....53
3.4.6 Constraint 6: Productivity Improvement.54
viii | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

3.5 Stimulation Cost and Productivity Ratio Relationship...54
3.6 Summary of the Optimization Model..55
3.7 Solution to the Optimization Model....56
CHAPTER FOUR: MODEL VALIDATION, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Sensitivity Analysis.....58
4.1.1 Effect of Price of Oil....58
4.1.2 Effect of Discount Rate...58
4.1.3 Effect of Decline Rate.58
4.1.4 Effect of Pre-Stimulation Production rate...............63
4.1.5 Effect of Abandonment Rate..63
4.1.6 Effect of Stimulation Time..66
4.2 Model Validation: Case Study 1 ........66
4.2.1 Formulation of the Bestfield Model.....66
4.2.2 Solution of the Well BU 3 Model.....72
4.2.3 Discussion of the Well BU 3 Model Result.73
4.2.4 Application of the Model Result in Candidate Selection....74
4.2.5 Effect of Price of Oil on Well BU 3 Model Result..74
4.3 Model Validation: Case Study 2.77
4.3.1 Formulation of Well BU 5 Model....77
4.3.2 Solution of the Well BU 5 Model.80
4.3.3 Discussion of the Well BU 5 Model Result......81
4.3.4 Effect of Oil Price on Well BU 5 Model Result...82
4.3.5 Using Case Study 2 Model Result in Candidate Selection..82
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion...84
5.2 Recommendation.85
REFERENCES..87
NOMENCLATURE..95
APPENDIX A: A SIMPLE WELL SCREENING FLOW CHART...98
ix | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

APPENDIX B: STIMULATION COST AND PERFORMANCE.....99
APPENDIX C: SOLVER RESULTS.100
APPENDIX D: WHATS BEST 10.0 RESULTS...115
APPENDIX E: MATHEMATICA 7.0 RESULTS..120
APPENDIX F: DERIVATION OF THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION FOR OTHER
DECLINE CASES...124
x | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1 Production Decline Profile for a Stimulated Well. .45
4.1 Effect of oil price on the objective function ...60
4.2 Effect of discount rate on the objective function ....61
4.3 Effect of decline rate on the objective function ..62
4.4 Effect of pre-stimulation production rate on the objective function....64
4.5 Effect of abandonment rate on the objective function ............65
4.6 Effect of stimulation time.....67
4.7 Cost Versus Productivity Ratio Plot for Well BU 3.....71
4.8 Effect of oil price on Well BU 3 model result...76
4.9 Cost Versus Productivity Ratio Plot for Well BU 5 .79
4.10 Effect of oil price on Well BU5 model result.83
xi | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1:
Input Data for Sensitivity Analysis...59
Table 4.2:
Bestfield Model Data..68
Table 4.3:
Bestfield Model Summary..75
Table 4.4:
Well BU 5 Model Data...78
1 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1
The Near Wellbore Condition
Permeability reduction i n t he r egion near t he wellbore in a producing zo ne i s r eferred t o a s

damage. The damaged region i s c alled s kin z one w hile the term skin e ffect refers t o a
dimensionless parameter used to quantify the extent of damage. Reduction in permeability in the
near-wellbore region results in lower productivity due to increased pressure drop, hence damage
is not desirable.
1.1.1
The Composite Skin Effect
The skin effect can be o btained from a w ell te st. It m easures t he extent of da mage in t he n earwellbore z one. The total skin effect obtained from the well test is a composite parameter which
consists of s kin c omponents d ue to mechanical c auses a di sturbance of t he fluid f low
streamline n ormal t o t he w ell, o r formation damage - alteration o f t he natural r eservoir
permeability. It is very important to be able to identify the formation damage component of the
skin s ince t his c an b e r educed by b etter operational practices, or possibly, b e r emoved or
bypassed by stimulation treatments. Formation damage can result from many different operations
such a s dr illing, cementing, perforating, completion/gravel pa cking, production, i njection,
workover, stimulation, etc.
1.2
Well Stimulation: Definition and Objectives
Well stimulation is a way of increasing well productivity by removing (or by passing) formation
damage in t he n ear-wellbore r egion or by superimposing a highly conductive structure onto the
formation.
1.2.1 Well Stimulation Objectives

The objectives of w ell s timulation can be di vided into technical ob jectives and e conomic
objectives.
Technical Objectives
Remove, reduce or b ypass t he f ormation damage, reduce sand production and cl eaningup the perforations.
Economic Objectives
Increase flow rate and optimize production from the reservoir.
1.3
Well Stimulation Methods
Several stimulation t echniques e xist bu t t he commonly u sed methods i nclude matrix a cidizing,
fracture a cidizing, fracpack, ex treme o verbalance operations and hy draulic fracturing. These
methods h elp t o optimally increase well or reservoir productive c apacity by providing a net
increase in the productivity index. This increase in productivity index can then be used either to
increase t he p roduction r ate o r t o d ecrease the dr awdown pressure differential. Increase i n
production rate will eventually increase productivity. A decrease in drawdown can help prevent
sand pr oduction and water or gas c oning and/or s hift the p hase e quilibrium in the near-wellbore
region t owards s maller f ractions of condensate. Some of the m ost c ommon s timulation
techniques are discussed in the following sections.
1.3.1
Matrix Stimulation
Matrix stimulation is injecting an acid/solvent into the formation at below the fracturing pressure
of t he formation to d issolve/disperse materials th at im pair well production i n sandstone
reservoirs or to create new, unimpaired flow channels in carbonate r eservoirs. Mineral acids are
most c ommonly us ed in matrix s timulation hence t his t echnique is f requently ca lled ma trix
acidizing. Matrix acidizing is a near-wellbore treatment, with all of the acid reacting within a few
to perhaps as much as 10 ft of the w ellbore in carbonates. Matrix a cidizing l ower permeability
limit is 10mD for oil wells and 1mD for gas wells.
In s andstone, only a small f raction o f the m atrix i s soluble hence r elatively s low r eacting acid
dissolves the permeability-damaging minerals. Carbonate formations are different in that a large
fraction of the matrix is soluble (usually > 50%), hence acid will react rapidly with flow channels
and pores and creates new flow paths by dissolving the formation rock.
As a rule o f thumb, matrix acidizing i s a pplied only in situations where a well has a large skin
effect t hat cannot b e attributed t o mechanical, o peration o r surface p roblems. The r emoval of
damage by matrix a cidizing r equires t hat t he t ype ( or c ause) a nd location of t he damage be
identified before its removal is attempted. The damage identification process involves:
Examining t he well r ecords to i dentify o perations t hat might ha ve r esulted in formation

damage
Carrying out specific laboratory testing, such as a reservoir core flushing, to determine if
the identified operations did indeed lead to core damage for the particular combination of
the fluids in question and the reservoir formation
Examining t he da maged core with sophisticated a nalytical techniques s uch a s t he

scanning electron microscope to confirm the damage type a nd the damage location and
hence develop ideas on how to remove it.
1.3.1.1. Matrix Acidizing Fluid Selection and Treatment Additives

The t ype of a cid u sed for a s timulation j ob i s a function of t he da mage t ype. Generally, a cid
selection guidelines are based on temperature, mineralogy a nd petrophysics. The most common
acids u sed a re h ydrochloric a cid ( HCl) a nd a m ixture o f hydrochloric a nd h ydrofluoric a cids
(HF/HCl) usually know n a s mud a cid. HCl is s uitable f or li mestone, d olomite, f ormation w ith
iron m aterials a nd C aSO 4 . H F i s mostly us ed i n s andstone, c lay, f eldspar, s and (spent on
material, n ot quartz or sand), a nd it is not used in carbonate formations. Acid m ixtures s uch as
acetic-hydrochloric a nd formic-hydrochloric a cids a re u sed i n high temperature ca rbonate
formation w hile t he formic-hydrofluoric a cid mixture i s us eful i n high t emperature sandstone
formation.
Additives help make acid treatments more e ffective. They are mixed w ith the treating fluids to
modify a pr operty of t he fluid (e.g., co rrosion, p recipitation, emulsification, s ludging, s caling, f ines
migration, clay swelling tendency, surface tension, flow per l ayer, friction pressure). The treating fluid
is d esigned t o e ffectively r emove or b ypass t he damage, whereas a dditives a re u sed t o prevent

excessive c orrosion, p revent s ludging and e mulsions, pr event iron pr ecipitation, improve
cleanup, improve c overage o f the z one and pr event pr ecipitation of reaction products. A dditives
are a lso u sed i n preflushes a nd overflushes t o stabilize clays a nd di sperse pa raffins a nd

asphaltenes. Types of a dditives include: acid corrosion inhibitors, aromatic solvents, Iron stabilizers,
surfactants, mutual s olvents, diverters, scale i nhibitors, clay stabilizers, aluminum stabilizer, retarders,
nitrogen and alcohols.
1.3.1.2. Benefits and Limitations of Matrix Acidizing Processes

Matrix a cidizing is usually very economically a ttractive (low c ost), because r elatively s mall
treatments may improve the well performance considerably.
Some pr oblems a ssociated with matrix a cidizing a re: difficulty to i dentify the type of damage,
multiple damages with completing remedies, detrimental by-products o f stimulation, frequently,
ineffective o r p artially e ffective treatments. It involves complex chemical a nd t ransport
phenomena t hat, w hile effective i n r emoving one k ind o f damage, may cr eate a nother o ne.
HCL/HF blends ca n cr eate early damage in formations, however the lower the HF concentration
in t he b lend t he l ess chance there i s for damage creation. Acid placement and damage r emoval
from l aminated f ormations w here s ome perforations pe netrate very h igh-permeability la yers is
especially problematic.
Successful m atrix treatments r equire correct c hoice of fluid t o a ttack damage an d u niform
placement o f the s elected treating f luid. Improper f luid pl acement i ncreases reservoir
heterogeneity. Misapplied stimulation treatments a re costly a nd ineffective, o ften creating more
problems than they solve.
It is i mportant to note that not all da mage can b e removed by matrix acidizing. Whenever there
are insoluble scales (e.g. BaSO4) or acid s ensitive s andstones, other s timulation m ethods (such
as acid fracturing to bypass scales) are considered.
1.3.2 Fracture Acidizing

In this method of acidizing, acid is injected into the formation at a rate high enough to generate
the pressure required t o fracture t he formation. T he r apid i njection produces a buildup i n the
wellbore pressure until it is large enough to overcome compressive earth stresses and the rocks
tensile strength. At this p ressure, t he r ock fails, a llowing a c rack ( fracture) t o be formed.
Continued fluid injection increases the fracture length and width. The injected acid differentially
etches t he formation fracture faces as it r eacts, r esulting i n t he formation of h ighly c onductive
etched channels that remain open after the fracture closes. Two procedures are commonly u sed.
Acid alone i s i njected, or a fluid ( called a pad) that will create a lo ng, wide fracture is injected
and followed by a n a cid. A c onventional fracture a cidizing treatment involves pumping a n a cid
system after fracturing. It may be preceded by a nonacid preflush and usually is overflushed with
a nonacid fluid.
Acid s olubility of th e f ormation is a key f actor i nfluencing w hether f racture acidizing or
proppant treatments should be employed. If the formation is less than 75% acid soluble, proppant
treatments should be used. For acid solubilities between 75 and 85%, special lab work can help
define w hich a pproach should be u sed. Above 85 % acid solubility, fracture acidizing would b e
the most effective approach.
Treatment v olumes for fracture a cidizing a re m uch l arger t han for matrix acidizing t reatments,
being as high as 1,000 to 2,000 gal/ft of perforated interval.
As a ge neral guideline, fracture a cidizing i s us ed on formations with > 80% hyd rochloric a cid
solubility. Low-permeability carbonates ( >20 md) a re t he b est candidates for t hese treatments.
Fluid loss to the matrix and natural fractures can also be better controlled in lower permeability
formations.
The su ccess of t he acid f racturing treatment depends on two ch aracteristics o f t he etched
fracture: effective fracture length (which is a function of the rate of acid consumption, acid fluid
loss ( wormhole formation) a nd acid convection a long t he fracture) a nd e ffective fracture
conductivity (a function of the etched pattern, vo lume of r ock di ssolved, r oughness of etched
surface, rock strength and closure st ress). The acidized fracture length and fracture conductivity
are therefore controlled largely by the treatment design and formation strength.
1.3.3
Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic Fracturing consists of pu mping a viscous fluid at a sufficiently high pressure (greater
than the formation fracture pressure) into the completion interval so that a two winged, hydraulic
fracture is formed. This fracture is then filled with a high conductivity, proppant which holds the
fracture open (maintains a high conductivity path to the wellbore) after the treatment is finished.
Propped hydraulic fracturing is aimed at raising the well productivity by increasing the e ffective
wellbore radius f or w ells c ompleted i n low p ermeability c arbonate or clastic f ormations.
Hydraulic fracturing i s t o improve productivity i n l ow-permeability f ormations, or to pe netrate
near-wellbore damage or for sand control in higher permeability formations.
Hydraulic fracturing is a mechanical process hence it is only necessary to know that formation
damage is present when designing such a treatment. When a well is hydraulically fractured, most
pre-treatment skin e ffects such a s f ormation da mage, perforation skins a nd s kins d ue t o
completion and partial penetrations are bypassed and have no e ffect on the post-treatment w ell
performance. Phase-and r ate-dependent skins effects a re either eliminated or c ontributes i n the
calculation of the fracture skin effects. Generally pre-treatment skin effects are not added to postfracture skin effects.
Hydraulic fracturing differs from fracture acidizing in that hydraulic fracturing fluids usually are
not c hemically r eactive, a nd a pr oppant i s placed i n the f racture t o keep the f racture open and
provide conductivity.
The Inflow P erformance of a Fracture Stimulated w ell i s c ontrolled by a q uantity k nown a s t he
dimensionless fracture conductivity which depends on the fracture permeability conductive
fracture w idth, f ormation permeability and the conductive fracture single wing length. The
fracture c onductivity i s i ncreased by an i ncreased fracture width, a n i ncreased proppant
permeability ( large, more spherical p roppant grains ha ve higher permeability), a nd m inimizing
the permeability damage to the proppant pack from the fracturing fluid.
Propped hy draulic f racture w ell s timulation s hould onl y be c onsidered when the: well i s
connected to adequate produceable r eserves; reservoir pressure is h igh e nough to maintain flow
when producing t hese r eserves ( or i t i s economically ju stifiable to i nstall a rtificial li ft);

production s ystem can pr ocess t he e xtra pr oduction; professional, experienced p ersonnel are
available for t reatment de sign, e xecution a nd supervision t ogether with h igh quality pu mping,
mixing and blending equipment.
1.3.4 Recompletion
For wells with certain t ypes of da mage such a s pa rtially or t otally p lugged p erforations,
insufficient perforation de nsity o r low de pth of pe rforation, it m ay b e s ufficient t o r ecommend
recompletion technique. Hence the idea of recompletion is to increase the perforation density or
to increase the depth of perforations. The overall aim of this method is to increase production by
bypassing t he da mage. R ecompletion i s a lso u sed effectively in reducing w ater p roduction. I n
this approach t he w ell i s re-perforated at a new hi gher z one w hile t he pe rforations i n t he wa ter
zone are plugged off.
1.4 Gravel Packing

Gravel packing is used in w eak formations that have been producing sand or have the tendency
of producing s and. The gr avel m ixed in a ba se f luid is pu mped as sl urry to f ill all p erforation
tunnels and t he s creen/casing a nnulus. Productivity a nd l ife of t he gravel pack depends on
packing t he perforations w ith gr avel. If not pa cked, f ormation f ines c an invade t he tunnels
impairing productivity a nd also reducing the area open to flow. Re-completions in low pressure
reservoirs w here formation s and ha s be en pr oduced, can accept l arge volumes o f additional
gravel.
1.5 Stimulation Economics and Candidate Selection

The evaluation of the economics of stimulation treatment must consider ma ny factors including:
treatment cost, initial increase in production rate, additional reserve that may be produced before
the well r eaches i ts e conomic limit, r ate of pr oduction d ecline b efore and a fter s timulation, and
reservoir and mechanical problems that could cause the treatment to be unsuccessful.
Selection of the optimum size of a stimulation treatment is based primarily on economics. The
most c ommonly used m easure of e conomic e ffectiveness is t he n et present v alue (NPV). The
NPV is the difference between the present value of all receipts and costs, both current and future,
generated a s a r esult of t he stimulation treatment. Future r eceipts a nd costs a re converted i nto
present va lue u sing a discount rate a nd taking i nto a ccount the y ear in which t hey will a ppear.
Another measure of t he economic e ffectiveness i s t he p ayout period (PO); t hat is, t he t ime i t
takes for the cumulative present value of the net well revenue to equal the treatment costs. Other
indicators i nclude i nternal rate of r eturn (I RR), profit-to-investment ratio ( PIR) and gr owth rate
of return (GRR). The NPV (as well as other indicators) is sensitive to the discount rate and to the
predicted future hydrocarbon pr ices. A s with a lmost a ny other e ngineering a ctivities, costs
increase almost li nearly with t he size of t he stimulation tr eatment but (after a certain point) t he
revenues increase onl y marginally or may even decrease. This suggests that there is an optimum
size of t he t reatment t hat will maximize t he N PV. Hence it i s i mportant to select stimulation
candidate wells that have potentials for maximum benefit.
Candidate Selection (Recognition) is the process of identifying a nd selecting wells for treatment
which have the capacity for hi gher production and better economic return. Hence in stimulation
candidate w ell s election, t he w ell s timulation treatment yielding the hi ghest di scounted rate o f
return is the treatment which, in principle, should be carried out first.
1.6
Objective and Procedure of the Study
The goal o f t his r esearch i s to present a
model for i dentifying s timulation candidates,
recommending stimulation treatment option and optimizing the stimulation process selected. The
model i s a lso u sed to rank stimulation candidates ba sed o n e conomics. Hence this research will
attempt to answer the question: given the need to stimulate several wells in a field, how do we
rank the wells ba sed on s timulation b enefit and w hat stimulation approach to use in or der to g et
the highest e conomic returns? To answer these questions, a m erit function is developed based
on production decline curve a nalysis and economic discounting concepts. In combination with a
good stimulation treatment module, the model can be used for ranking stimulation candidates.
The research procedure begins i n c hapter one with a n introduction to the c oncept o f skin factor
and w ell s timulation methods. S everal lit eratures o n f ormation da mage a nd s timulation models
are r eviewed in chapter t wo. Chapter t hree c ontains a w ell s creening m odule, design o f s ome
selected stimulation m odules and an o ptimization model w hich c onsists of an objective function
with constraint. The optimization model combines the concept of production decline curves with
economic d iscounting. The m odel de veloped i n chapter three is va lidated in c hapter f our using
actual field data from the Niger Delta.
1.7
Limitation of the Study
This research is intended for stimulation candidate selection in the Niger Delta. Matrix acidizing
technique is the main stimulation technique that has been used up to date in the Niger Delta due
to t he g ood permeability of t he N iger D elta formation. H ence only matrix a cidizing t echnique,
recompletion and gravel packing are considered in the methodology presented in chapter three of
this research. Acid fracturing and hydraulic fracturing are not considered.

Chapter Two
Literature Review
In or der t o properly select s timulation candidate w ells, i t i s n ecessary t o first ha ve a n i n-depth
understanding of t he c oncepts of f ormation d amage and w ell s timulation. A lot of researches
conducted o n formation da mage and w ell stimulation methods can be f ound in literatures. We ll
stimulation i s c onsidered a m ajor ke y t o proper r eservoir m anagement, he nce several a uthors
made valid contributions.
2.1
Review of Formation Damage Mechanism
2.1.1 Definition
Civan1 defined formation d amage a s a g eneric t erminology r eferring t o t he i mpairment o f t he
permeability of petroleum bearing formations by various adverse processes. It is an undesirable
operational a nd e conomic problem t hat c an o ccur du ring t he va rious p hases of oi l a nd ga s
recovery f rom s ubsurface r eservoirs including d rilling, production, hydraulic f racturing, and
workover operations. Bennion2 viewed formation da mage as any process that causes a reduction
in t he natural inherent pr oductivity of a n o il a nd ga s pr oducing formation, or a reduction i n the
injectivity o f a water or gas in jection well. Bennion also pointed out that the formation da mage
issue is often overlooked because of ignorance and apathy. In many cases, the operators are not
seriously c oncerned w ith f ormation d amage because of t he b elief t hat i t can be circumvented
later o n, simply b y a cidizing a nd/or h ydraulic fracturing. B ut P orter3 and M ungan4 argued t hat
because formation damage is usually nonreversible, it is better to avoid formation damage rather
than deal with it later on using expensive and complicated procedures.
2.1.2 Causes of Formation Damage

Amaefule et al.5 classified the various factors causing formation damage as following:
Invasion of f oreign f luids, s uch as w ater and c hemicals used for i mproved
recovery, drilling mud invasion, and workover fluids;
Invasion o f foreign particles and mobilization of indigenous particles, such a s

sand, mud fines, bacteria, and debris;
Operation conditions s uch a s w ell flow r ates a nd wellbore pr essures a nd

temperatures;
Properties of the formation fluids and porous matrix.
Amaefule et al.5 further grouped these factors in two categories:
Alteration of formation properties by various processes, including permeability reduction,

wettability a lteration, lithology c hange, r elease of mineral p articles, pr ecipitation of
reaction-by products, and organic and inorganic scales formation
Alteration of fluid properties by various processes, including viscosity alteration by

emulsion block and effective mobility change.
2.1.3 Quantifying Formation Damage

Terms used in quantifying formation damage as presented by various authors include:
2.1.3.1 Skin Factor
Van Everdingen and Hurst6 defined skin effect or skin factor as a mathematically dimensionless
number which r eflects t he altered permeability d ue to damage , at a d istance r d , causing a
steady-state pressure difference. A relationship between the skin effect, s, reduced permeability,
and altered zone radius, r d may be expressed as:
R
1 ......2.1
Equation 2.1 is k nown a s Hawkins7 formula. From t he e quation i t can be deduced t hat If <
the well is damaged and > 0; conversely, if > , then < 0 and the well is stimulated. For = 0,
the near-wellbore permeability is equal to the original reservoir permeability.
Generally, certain well logs may enable calculation of the damaged radius, r d , whereas pressure
transient analysis may provide the skin effect, s, and reservoir permeability, k. Equation 2.1 may
then be used to calculate the value of the altered permeability .
In the absence of production log data, Frick and Economides8 postulated that, an elliptical cone
is a more plausible shape of da mage distribution along a horizontal well. They developed a skin
effect expression, analogous to the Hawkins formula:
2
4
,

+1
3
+ 1
....2.2
where is the equivalent skin effect, is t he i ndex of a nisotropy a nd , is the

horizontal axis of the ma ximum ellipse, normal to the well trajectory. The maximum penetration
of d amage is n ear t he vertical section of t he well. T hey stated t hat the shape of t he el liptical
cross-section will depend greatly on t he i ndex of a nisotropy. The i ndex of anisotropy is
defined as:
= ...2.3
with being the horizontal permeability and is the vertical permeability.
Piot and Lietard9 expressed the total skin of a well as a sum of the pseudoskin of flow lines from
the f ormation face to t he pi peline and the true s kin du e to f ormation da mage. Economides and
Nolte10 shown t hat t he t otal skin effect i s a c omposite of a n umber of factors, most of which
usually cannot be altered by conventional matrix treatments.
The total skin effect may be written as:
= + + + +
...............2.4
The last term in the right-hand side of Eq. 2.3 represents an array of pseudoskin factors, such as
phase-dependent a nd r ate-dependent e ffects that c ould b e altered b y hy draulic f racturing
treatments. The other three terms are the common skin factors. The th ird term refers to the
damage skin e ffect as defined in equation 2.1. The fi rst term + is the skin effect caused by
partial completion and slant. Cinco-Ley et al.11 documented a detailed approach of estimating the
skin f actor du e t o partial completion a nd slant. T he pa rameters needed for t he estimation a re:
completion t hickness, r eservoir thickness, elevation, a nd penetration r atio. An e xample t o

illustrate the c alculation o f this s kin e ffect is do cumented b y Economides and Nolte10. The
second term represents the skin e ffect resulting from perforations. It is described by Harris12
and also expounding the concept, Karakas and Tariq13 have shown that:
= + + ..2.5
In e quation 2. 5, t he ho rizontal ps eudoskin factor, is a f unction of t he pe rforation ph asing

angle and the wellbore radius. The vertical pseudoskin factor and the wellbore skin effect
are functions of some dimensionless v ariables. A us eful definition of t hese v ariables a nd t he

application of equation 2.5 are also documented by Economides and Nolte14 .
Karakas and Tariq13 also shown t hat a combination of the damage and p erforation skin e ffects
( ) can be approximated, for a case where the perforations terminate inside the damaged zone,
by:
( ) =
+ = ( ) +
....2.6

is the damaged zone radius, and ( ) is the equivalent openhole skin effect (Eq. 2.1)
According to Economides and Nolte10, it is of extreme importance to quantify the components of

the s kin e ffect in o rder to e valuate t he e ffectiveness of s timulation tr eatments. I n fact, t he
pseudoskin effects can overwhelm the skin effect caused by damage. They explained that it is not
inconceivable to obtain extremely large skin effects after matrix stimulation. This may be
attributed to the usually irreducible configuration skin factors.
2.1.3.2 Depth of Damage

Yan et al.15 correlated t he depth of invasion of drilling a nd completion f luids by regression
analysis of e xperimental data o btained by means of the s lice cutting of d amaged c ore plugs.
Their empirical correlation is given by:
= 1.612
0.521
0.271
(0.043) .2.7

where is the invasion depth in cm, p is the pressure i n MPa, is the cumulative filtrate loss
in 3 , is porosity in percentage, and is permeability in 2 (~ Darcy).
McLeod a nd C oulter16 used t he a pproximate s olution t o t he diffusivity e quation for

dimensionless time, greater than 100,
(, ) = +
162.6
3.23) .......2.8
to obtain an expression that can be used to estimate the damaged radius, ,
1690
1
2
2.9
In equation 2.9, is the time at w hich the two straight lines representing the damage zo ne and
undamaged formation intersect on a plot of log .
Appendix B of t he pa per pr esented b y Raymond and Hudson17 also contained a detailed

approach of estimating the radius of the damaged zone.
2.1.3.3 Damage Ratio

Amaefule et al18 expressed the damage ratio (DR) as a change in production du e to the effect of
the damage.

=1
....2.10
where and the undamaged and damaged standard flow rates, respectively.
Using Muskat19 equation for the undamaged flowrate:
2 ( )
...2.11
and, also, Amaefule et al18 equation for the damaged flowrate:
2( )
....2.12
Civan20 expressed equation 2.10 in terms of 2.11 and 2.12 as:
.....2.13
where and in Equations 2.11 and 2.12 are the fluid viscosity and formation volume factor.
and are t he u ndamaged a nd damaged effective permeabilities, is t he thickness of t he

effective pay zone, and are the wellbore and reservoir drainage boundary fluid pressures,
and are t he wellbore and reservoir drainage r adii, and is the r adius of t he d amaged
region.
Combining equation 2.1 a nd 2.13, t he damage r atio can be e xpressed i n t erms o f the effective
skin factor , as:
....2.14
is as defined in equation 2.1. Equation 2.14 gives the production loss by alteration of formation
properties. Leontaritis21 stated t hat r apid flow o f o il a nd water i n t he near-wellbore r egion
promote mixing a nd e mulsification. T his causes a r eduction in t he hy drocarbon e ffective

mobility , because emulsion viscosity is several fold greater than oil and water viscosities. The
mobility is defined by:
..2.15
and are respectively the absolute and relative permeabilities. High viscosity emulsion forms
a stationary block which resists flow. It is usually called emulsion block. If and represent
the v iscosities of oil a nd e mulsion, r espectively, a nd a s teady-state and i ncompressible r adial
flow i s considered, t he t heoretical u ndamaged a nd damaged flow rates a re g iven, r espectively,

by:
and,
2( )
....2.16

=
2( )
....2.17
where represents the formation volume factor of the emulsion.
Civan22 substituted Equations 2.16 and 2.17 into Eq. 2.10 to obtain the following e xpression for
the damage ratio:
=
...2.18
Equation 2.18 gives a means to calculate the production loss by alteration of fluid properties.
The viscous skin effect is also expressed similar to Zhu et al23 as:

1 .2.19
2.1.3.4 Flow Efficiency
Flow efficiency ( FE) i s defined a s the r atio o f t he damaged t o u ndamaged formation flow
(production or injection) indices.
=
.................2.20
where and denote t he a verage reservoir fluid and flowing well bottom hole pressures,
respectively, and is the additional pressure loss by the skin effect.
Mukherjee a nd Economides24 presented the f low ef ficiency o f v ertical w ells f or radial and
incompressible fluid flow at a steady-state condition as:

=
..2.21
Where , the effective skin factor is as defined by Hawkins7 in equation 2.1.

2.1.3.5 Permeability Variation Index
Civan25 presented a n i ndex which can be u sed t o express t he variation i n pe rmeability due t o
near-wellbore d amage. This index known a s permeability variation (or reduction) index can be
expressed mathematically as:

=
= 1
2.22
where and denote the formation permeabilities before and after damage, respectively.
2.1.4 Economic Impact of Formation Damage on Reservoir Productivity

Amaefule et al.18 presented a model that can estimate the economic impact of formation damage
on r eservoir pr oductivity, in t erms o f t he a nnual r evenue l oss by formation da mage per well
(FD$L) at a given price of oil, p, as:
$ = 365
.2.23
Li e t al26 and a lso L ee a nd Kasap27 stated t hat b ecause t he d egree o f damage variation in t he
near-wellbore region, i t is more appropriate to express t he total skin, used in any of the
equations above as a s um of t he individual s kins ov er consecutive c ylindrical s egments of t he

formation as:
=1
=1
= =
..2.24
where is the number of cylindrical segments considered.
2.2
Matrix Acidizing Models
The optimal volume of a cid for a particular acidizing job may b e selected ba sed on a laboratory
acid response curve or an acidizing model28. These models consider both the modification of the
pore structure as it dissolves and the change in acid concentration as a function of both time and
position within the pore system.29
Dullien30 presented a c omprehensive literature r eview of t he models a nd the methods us ed t o
determine p ore-size d istributions i n a po rous medium. Scheidegger31 reviewed capillary models
and concluded that to predict quantities that relate to the geometric structure of a porous medium,
such as permeability and capillary pressure, an empirical correlation factor called tortuosity must
be introduced. Scheschter and Gidley32 proposed a capillary model to describe matrix acidizing.

In their model pores are assumed to be interconnected so that a fluid can flow through the matrix
under the influence of a p ressure g radient, and as the acid reacts with the matrix the pores
increase in size.
2.2.1 Sandstone Acidizing Models

Very m any models of the sandstone acidizing pr ocess have been pr esented ov er t he y ears. The
models o nly differ i n t he d etail in w hich they d escribe the chemical interactions b etween t he
acids and the formation minerals and the extent to which they handle or model complexities such
as multiple reservoir zones, diversion methods, wellbore flow e ffects, and other factors. T he
acidizing m odels c an be di vided i nto equilibrium m odels a nd kinetic models. T he equilibrium
models33-35 assume a ll c hemical r eactions a re a t e quilibrium a nd have been u sed p rimarily t o
study t he t endencies f or precipitation r eactions t o occur in a cidizing. T he ki netic models3640
consider the kinetics of the relatively slow reactions occurring in sandstones.
The two-mineral model
The t wo-mineral m odel l umps all m inerals i nto on e of t wo c ategories: f ast reacting and s low
reacting species; a nd it i s t he m ost c ommon model i n u se today.
36, 41 -42
Schechter43 categorizes
fieldspars, a uthogenic clays, a nd a morphous silica a s fast-reacting, w hile d etrital c lay p articles
and qu artz gr ains are the pr imary s low-reacting mi nerals. This model a s presented by
Economides a nd N olte44 consists o f material b alances ap plied t o t he H F a cid a nd r eactive
minerals, which for linear flow, such as in core-flood, can be written as:
( )
= , + , (1 ) ..2.25
[(1 ) ] =
[(1 ) ] =
.....2.26
.2.27
where is the concentration of hydrofluoric acid (HF) in solution and is its molecular
weight, is t he a cid flux, is th e d istance, and are the s pecific s urface a reas p er unit

volume of solids, and are the volume fractions, , and , are the reaction rate constants
(based on the rate of consumption of HF), and are the molecular weights, and
are t he dissolving pow ers of 100% H F, a nd and are t he densities of t he fast- and s lowreacting minerals, respectively, denoted by the subscripts F and S.
When t he e quations above are m ade d imensionless f or a c ore-flood of l ength with c onstant
porosity, two dimensionless groups were observed for each mineral: the Damkohler number
and the acid capacity number . These two groups d escribe the kinetics and t he stoichiometry of the
HF-mineral reactions. The shape of the acid reaction front depends on t he Damkhler number . The
acid ca pacity n umber regulates h ow m uch l ive acid reaches t he f ront, in ot her w ords, it
affects the frontal propagation rate directly.
The Damkhler number is the ratio of the rate of acid consumption to the rate of acid convection,
which for the fast-reacting mineral is:
()
(10 )0 ()
...2.28
The acid capacity number is the ratio of the amount of mineral dissolved by the acid occupying a
unit vol ume o f rock por e s pace to the amount o f m ineral present in the u nit vol ume o f rock,
which for the fast-reacting mineral is:
()
....2.29
(10 )0
In equation 2.29, the acid concentration

is in weight fraction (not moles/volume).
The dimensionless form of equations 2.25 through 2.27 can onl y b e solved nu merically in t heir
general f orm, th ough a nalytical s olutions a re p ossible for certain simplified situations.
Schechter 43 presented an a pproximate solution to these equations that is valid for relatively high
Damkhler number ( () > 10). Numerical m odels providing solutions t o t hese equations,
such as that presented by Taha et al.36are frequently used for sandstone acidizing design.
The two-acid, three-mineral model
Bryant45, and also, da Motta et al.46 shown that at elevated temperatures the sandstone acidizing
process i s n ot well d escribed by t he t wo-mineral m odel. These studies suggest that the r eaction
of fluosilicic acid with aluminosilicate (fast-reacting) minerals may be quite significant. Thus, an
additional acid and mineral must be considered to accommodate the following reaction, which is
added to the two-mineral model:
H 2 SiF 6 + fast-reacting mineral
Si(OH) 4 + Al fluorides
...2.30
The practical implications of the s ignificance o f this reaction a re th at le ss H F is required to

consume the fast-reacting minerals with a given volume of acid because the fluosilicic a cid also
reacts with t hese m inerals a nd t he r eaction product of silica gel ( Si(OH) 4 ) p recipitates. T his
reaction allows live HF to penetrate farther into the formation; however, there is an added risk of
a possibly damaging precipitate forming. An example presented by Sumotarto47 shows improved
performance with t he t wo-acid, t hree-mineral model when compared with t he one -acid, twomineral model. This is an example of a kinetic model.
Precipitation Models
Though t he t wo-acid, t hree-mineral model c onsiders th e p recipitation o f silica g el i n it s

description of t he a cidizing process, yet o ther numerous r eaction pr oducts t hat may precipitate
were not considered.
Walsh et al.33 described a local equilibrium model, a common type of geochemical model (that
considers a large number of possible r eactions) u sed t o study sandstone a cidizing. T his model
assumes that all reactions are in local equilibrium; i.e., all reaction rates are infinitely fast.
Sevougian et al.34 presented a geochemical model that includes kinetics for both dissolution and
precipitation r eactions. T his model shows t hat p recipitation d amage will be l essen i f either the

dissolution or the precipitation reactions are not instantaneous (i.e. if the reaction rate decreases,
the amount of precipitate formed will also decrease).
Permeability Models
Predicting permeability change a s acid dissolves some of the formation minerals and precipitate
is f ormed i s a necessary s tep n eeded to predict the f ormation response to acidizing. The
permeability increases a s t he pores a nd pore t hroats a re enlarged b y mineral dissolution. At th e
same t ime, small particles ar e r eleased a s c ementing m aterial i s dissolved, a nd some of t hese
particles lodge (perhaps temporarily) in pore throats, reducing the permeability. Any precipitates
formed a lso t end t o d ecrease the permeability. T he formation of carbon d ioxide ( CO 2 ) a s
carbonate mi nerals a re dissolved m ay a lso cause a t emporary r eduction i n t he r elative
permeability t o li quids.48The complex n ature o f the p ermeability response h as m ade its
theoretical pr ediction f or r eal sandstones impractical. For t his r eason empirical correlations
relating the permeability increase to the porosity change during a cidizing are u sed. Guin et al.49
however a chieved s ome s uccess when a more i deal systems su ch a s si ntered disks was
considered. Labrid50 presented the following useful relationship:

= ..................2.31
The correlation presented by Lambert51 is:
= [45.7( )] ..2.32
Lund and Fogler52 correlation is:
2.33
In Eq. 2.31 through 2.33, and are the initial permeability and porosity and and are the
permeability and porosity after acidizing. and are empirical constants. In Eq. 2.33, and
are reported to be 1 a nd 3 for Fontainbleau sandstone. I n E q. 2 .32, = 7 .5 a nd = 0.08
best fit data f or pha coides s andstone. The b est a pproach i n u sing t hese correlations i s t o select

the e mpirical c onstants b ased o n c ore f lood responses, if s uch ar e a vailable; a nd a lso, lacking
data for a particular formation, equation 2.31 will yield the most conservative design.48
2.2.2 Carbonate Acidizing Models

Mcleod53 shown t hat t he fundamental di stinguishing f eature of a r ock t reatment i s t he H Cl
soluble fraction; a nd that for formation rocks largely soluble i n H Cl, carbonate a cidizing u sing
HCl (without H F) is recommended. For rocks with H Cl solubility less than 20%, sandstone
acidizing using mud acid is recommended.
Shaughnessy a nd K unze54, a nd a lso, Schechter43 have shown t hat he c hemistry of c arbonate
acidizing processes is much simpler than that of sandstone acidizing because there is no tendency
of precipitate being formed (the r eaction products CO 2 and CaCl 2 are both quite water soluble).
But the physics i s complex because t he surface r eaction r ates i n carbonates a re ve ry hi gh, so
mass t ransfer o ften l imits the overall r eaction r ate, l eading t o hi ghly n on-uniform d issolution
pattern. Hofefner and Fogler55 have shown that due to the non-uniform dissolution of limestone
by HCl, a few large channels called wormholes are created. This unstable wormholing process is
not completely understood, but the knowledge of the depth of penetration of wormholes and the
physics o f wormhole growth i s n eeded t o predict t he effectiveness o f c arbonate a cidizing
processes.
Pore Level Model
Schechter and Gidley32 used a m odel o f pore growth and collision to study the natural tendency
for wormholes to form when r eaction i s mass transfer l imited. I n t his model, t he c hange i n the
cross-sectional area of a pore is expressed as:
= 1 2.34
where is the pore cross-sectional area, is the time, and is a pore growth function that does
depend on t ime. If > 0, s maller pores gr ow faster than l arger p ores a nd wormhole cannot
form; when < 0, larger pores grow faster than smaller pores and wormhole will develop. They

showed that if = 12, surface reaction rate controls the overall reaction rate, and if = 1,
diffusion controls the overall reaction rate. This m odel does not give a c omplete picture of the
wormholing process because it does not include the effect of fluid loss from the pores.
Mechanistic Models
Hung et al.56 considered fluid loss in their cylindrical model of the wormhole gr owth, a nd also
took i nto a ccount a number o f factors, i ncluding t he c ontributions of both a cid diffusion a nd
convection resulting from fluid l oss t o t he walls of t he wormhole where t he a cid reacts. They
found t hat the w ormhole velocity i ncreases linearly w ith the i njection rate i nto the w ormhole,
implying that t he v olume of a cid needed to pr opagate a
wormhole a gi ven distance i s
independent of injection rate. The model also predicts that wormhole velocity will be constantly
decreasing because t he a cid flux t o t he end of t he wormhole i s de creasing a s t he wormhole
length increases ( grows). The w ormhole ve locity is e xpressed in t erms o f the acid ca pacity
number (which had been defined for a fast-reacting mineral in Eq. 2.29) as:
= ...2.35
where and are the flux a nd a cid c oncentration ( mass fraction), t he subscript o refers to th e
initial condition, the subscript e refers to conditions evaluated at the e nd or tip o f the w ormhole,
and L is the length of the wormhole.
Network Models
Hofefner and Fogler55 presented n etwork m odels in which the porous medium is approximated
as a
collection of i nterconnected capillaries. T o model wormhole b ehavior, t he a cid
concentration i n each capillary is calculated a nd the radii of the capillaries are i ncreased as
dissolution oc curs. These models a ppear t o give t he b est r epresentation o f w ormhole b ehavior
over a wide range of conditions, but they are difficult to generalize for treatment design.
Stochastic Models
Daccord et al.57recognized t he importance of propagating the wormhole to the fullest extent

possible; hence, ba sed o n laboratory experiments they p roposed a m odel of w ormhole
propagation that c onsidered the s tructures o f w ormhole ob served w hen f luid loss-limited
behavior o ccurs. Daccord et al.s model for the rate o f wormhole propagation in l inear systems
is:
2 3
..2.36
where a is a constant determined experimentally, D is the molecular diffusion coefficient, A is

the cr oss-sectional a rea o f t he wormhole and is th e injection rate. This model considers t he
influence of acid diffusion but does not take into account fluid loss; therefore, this equation does
not indicate a plateau value as the wormhole lengthens. Thus, the equation is only applicable to
short w ormholes where fluid loss i s n ot a factor, and it should not be u sed for t he pr ediction of
wormhole penetration l ength. For a c onstant i njection r ate, t he skin e ffect pr edicted b y t he
Daccord et al.s model is:
If there is a damaged zone,
=
13
23
...2.37
If there is no damaged zone or if the wormholes penetrated beyond the damaged region,
= 1 +
13
23
...2.38
where b is a constant, ex perimentally reported t o be 1.5 105 in S I un its, is th e fractal
dimension equal to about 1.6 and is the cumulative volume of acid injected. Eq. 2.37 and 2.38
do not apply if the injection rate is changing during the treatment because of the dependence of
the wormhole velocity on injection rate in the Daccord et al.s model.

Pichler et al.58 presented a stochastic m odel of wormhole growth b ased on diffusion-limited
kinetics and included pe rmeability anisotropy, permeability h eterogeneity a nd na tural fractures.
This model predicts the branched wormhole structures found in carbonate acidizing.
Volumetric Model
Economides et al.59 proposed a n empirical volumetric model t o predict t he volume of a cid

required t o pr opagate wormholes a gi ven distance, a ssuming t hat a cid will di ssolve a c ertain
fraction of the r ock penetrated. F or r adial flow, the r adius of wormhole pe netration is
expressed as:
= 2 +
.....2.39
where , the w ormholing e fficiency, is de fined as the fraction of r ock d issolved in the r egion
penetrated by the acid, mathematically expressed as:
= .2.40
where is the number of pore volumes of acid injected at the time of wormhole breakthrough
at the end of the core. The skin effect during injection is expressed as:
If there is a damaged zone,
....2.41
If there is no damaged zone or if the wormholes penetrated beyond the damaged region,
1
= 1 +
2
..2.42
Generalized Carbonate Dissolution Model
In or der t o p resented a generalized d escription o f carbonate d issolution process which a ccount

for the various transport and reaction processes that may influence the rate of dissolution, Fredd
and Fogler60 modeled the overall carbonate dissolution mechanism as three sequential processes
of the mass transfer of reactants to the surface, reversible surface reactions and mass transfer of
products a way from t he surface. In t he generalized m odel, t he rate of reactant c onsumption
can then be expressed as:
..2.43
Where is the s toichiometric ratio of reactants consumed to pr oducts pr oduced, is th e

effective equilibrium constant,
is the initial reactant concentration a nd is t he o verall
dissolution rate constant which depends on the sum of resistances in series, i.e.
1+
1
1
1
+
+
1 3
....2.44
Kr is the effective surface reaction constant. K1 and K3 are the mass transfer coefficients for the
reactants a nd products, r espectively. Eq. 2 .43 and 2. 44 can be u sed t o determine t he r ate of
carbonate dissolution in any flow geometry, provided that a n appropriate expression for the rate
of mass transfer is available.
2.3
Acid Fracturing Models
The f ollowing e quations d escribed linear flow of a cid dow n a fracture, with fluid l eakoff a nd
acid diffusion to the fracture walls.
( )
= 0 2.45
(, , = 0) = 0 2.46
( = 0, , ) = () .2.47
= (1 ) ....2.48
where is the acid concentration, is the flux along the fracture, is the transverse flux due
to fluid loss, is an effective diffusion coefficient, is the injected acid concentration, is
the r eaction rate co nstant, is t he or der of the r eaction, a nd is porosity. Ben-Naceur a nd
Economides61, L o a nd D ean62, and Settari63 provided complex nu merical s olutions t o t he a bove

equations considering c omplications s uch as t he temperature d istribution along the f racture,
viscous fingering o f l ow-viscosity a cid through a vi scous pad, the e ffect of the a cid o n leak-off
behavior, a nd va rious fracture geometries. Neerode and Williams64 also pr esented a solution t o
the a bove e quations by a ssuming a steady state, laminar flow of a N ewtonian fluid between
parallel plates with constant fluid loss flux along the fracture. They presented the solution for the
concentration p rofile as a f unction of t he leakoff P eclet n umber. At l ow Peclet n umbers,
diffusion controls a cid propagation, while a t hi gh P eclet numbers, fluid l oss i s t he c ontrolling
factor.
The conductivity ( ) of an acid fracture depends on a stochastic process. Nierode and Kruk65
presented the following correlation for the acid fracture conductivity based on the ideal fracture
width
,
where
and for
= 1 2 .2.49
1 = 1.47 107 2.47 2.50
< 20,000 psi: 2 = (13.9 1.3 ) 103 .2.51

> 20,000 psi: 2 = (13.9 1.3 ) 103 ....2.52
In Eq. 2. 49 t hrough 2. 52, is the f racture closure s tress and is the r ock e mbedment
strength. The average ideal fracture width is defined as:
2(1)
2.53
where is the volumetric dissolving power of the acid, is the total volume of acid injected,
is t he fracture height, a nd is the f racture h alf-length. The conductivity varies a long t he
fracture; hence B ennet66 defined a n a verage conductivity (

) that can be used to estimate the
productivity of the acid fracture well.
0 ..2.54
For lower values of Peclet number (< 3), this average overestimate the well productivity, hence
Ben-Naceur and Economides67 presented a harmonic a verage which better a pproximates the
behavior of the fractured well as:
0 /
..2.55
Ben-Naceur and Economides67 also presented a series of performance type curves for a cidfractured wells producing at a constant bottomhole flowing pressure of 500 psi.
2.4
Hydraulic Fracturing Models
Hydraulics fractures c an b e c lassified a ccording to one of three m odels: infinite conductivity

model (assuming no pressure loss in the fracture), uniform flux model (assumes a slight pressure
gradient i n t he fracture), a nd finite c onductivity m odel (assumes co nstant a nd l imited
permeability i n the fracture f rom proppant crushing o r p oor pr oppant distribution). Every
hydraulic fracture i s characterized b y its l ength, c onductivity a nd r elated e quivalent skin effect.

The fracture length, which is the conductive length and not the hydraulic length, is assumed to be
consisting of t wo e qual half-lengths, in e ach s ide of the w ell. Prats68 provided p ressure
profiles in a fractured r eservoir as a function of t he f racture h alf-length and t he relative
capacity, a, which he defined as:
..2.56
where is the r eservoir p ermeability, is t he fracture permeability, a nd is t he propped
fracture w idth. A rgawal et al.69 and C inco-Ley a nd Samaniego70 introduced t he dimensionless

fracture conductivity, which is defined as:
.. ...2.57
The dimensionless fracture conductivity is related to the relative capacity by:
....2.58
Prats68 showed t hat for a s teady-state f low, a fracture affects productivity t hrough t he
dimensionless equivalent (effective) wellbore r adius
which i s related t o the fracture h alf-
length or penetration by the dimensionless fracture conductivity .
...2.59
where is expressed in terms of the equivalent skin effect and the wellbore radius as:
= ...................................................................................2.60
For infinite conductivity fractures, Prats68 showed that:
= 0.5 .2.61

Cinco-Ley et al.71 integrated t his i nto a full description of r eservoir r esponse by i ncluding
transient f low and pseudoradial flow ( where t he pressure-depletion r egion >> but i s not
affected by e xternal boundaries). Cinco-Ley et al.s descriptions presented in form of charts can
be used a s powerful reservoir engineering tools to assess p ossible post-fracture p roductivity

benefits from propped fracturing. The productivity index in the pseudosteady state flow regime
is expressed as:

ln 0.472 +0.5 +0.5 + +
....................................2.62
= 1.6, is t he optimum value of the dimensionless fracture conductivity for which the
productivity index is maximum.
2.5 Literatures on Stimulation Candidate Selection

Several techniques for stimulation candidate selection e xist in l iteratures a nd a lso i n practice i n
the i ndustries. Stimulation jobs ha ve w itnessed bot h s uccesses and f ailures, and in s ome c ases
yield less than the expected result. Stimulation failure is usually due to poor candidate selection,
inaccurate treatment de sign or improper f ield pr ocedures72. Nnanna et al.73 cautioned t hat
applying t he b est t reatment d esign a nd field pr ocedures t o t he w rong candidate w ill r esult i n a
failure, while a poor treatment design and good field procedures on the right candidate will also
result i n a failure. T hey a dded that t hough treatment design a nd field pr ocedures a re fairly well
understood, candidate selection ha s b een approached in different ways b y va rious o perators and
service companies.
Nitters et al.74 presented a structured a pproach t o stimulation candidate selection and treatment
design. T hey i solated t he r eal skin caused b y da mage ( the p ortion o f t he t otal skin t hat c an b e
removed by matrix treatment) from the total skin as follows:
= + + + +
...2.63

where is the skin du e to formation damage, is the total skin factor (Eq. 2 .1), is
the skin resulting from limited perforation height, is the skin due to turbulent (non-Darcy)
flow, is t he skin du e t o wellbore deviation, is the skin due to gravel packing, and
is the skin resulting from a small perforation. Nitters et al then suggested the ranking of
stimulation candidates based on the magnitude of the damage skin factor.

Jones75 presented a nalytical r elationship which i s convenient t o estimate productivity
improvement achievable by skin removal. At equal pressure and also approximating ( ) to
7, Jones defined the ratio of rates before and after stimulation (the stimulation ratio, ) as:
2
1
7+1
7+2
.2.64
where is flow ra te, is the s kin factor, and t he s ubscripts 1 an d 2 r efer t o before an d a fter
stimulation.
To properly interpret t he skin a nd t herefore determine t he a ppropriate r emedial a ction r equires

analysis of t he contributing factors. Nnanna and Ajienka76 used the simplified approach for
determining the c ompletion s kin f actor as developed b y A l Qahtani a nd A l Shehri77 in
combination w ith t he non-linear summation r elationship between the pseudoskins a nd the t otal
skin as demonstrated by Yildiz78 to present a method for stimulation candidate selection. Nnanna
and Ajienka expressed the removable skin factor in the form presented by Lee79 as:
( + + ) 2.65
where + is the skin factor due to partial penetration and deviation, is the total skin
factor as d eternmined f rom a w ell t est. is t he pe rforation skin factor. h p is th e perforation

interval thickness and h is the thickness of the oil sand. They used the stabilized inflow equation,
approximating the natural logarithm of t he ratio of drainage radius t o wellbore radius a s 8 , a nd
the cu t-off of O nyekonwu80 to define a simplified R -factor which c an b e used for c andidate
selection. The factor is defined as:
8+
............................................. 2.66
They concluded that if R 0.6, then the well is a good stimulation candidate in the Niger Delta.
Afolabi et al.81 also presented candidate selection criterion that is based on minimum economic
reserve, productivity Index (PI) of less than 10bpd/psi, flow efficiency of less than 0.5 and the PI
decline rate that is greater than 30%.
Jennings82 presented a
methodology for candidate selection ba sed o n w ell c apacity a nd
concluded that well stimulation tr eatments in high-productivity wells a llow better r eservoir
management through sustained productivity and more uniform reservoir depletion throughout the
life of the well, and that good wells make better candidates for matrix stimulation.
Kartoatmodjo et al.83 presented a risk-based c andidate selection a pproach by c onsidering the
range of probability of all the possible outcomes in a stimulation campaign u sing Monte Carlo
simulation technique. They concluded that decision risk analysis is a valuable tool for candidate
selection. Stimulation c andidate selection c ampaign ba sed on highest expected ga in a nd/or
lowest expected risk has also been reported.84
The published literatures reviewed did not consider a detailed and efficient optimization process
for s timulation candidate selection, especially i n t he N iger D elta, a nd hence t he n eed f or this
study.

Chapter Three
Methodology
This methodology is a modification of the modular approach to stimulation decisions presented
by S inson et al.85 The m odels pr esented are de rived f rom i ndustry-wide a ccepted well
stimulation procedures and techniques.
3.1
Well Screening Technique
It i s a ssumed that from well t est da ta, t he well pr oblem could b e diagnosed a nd then m atched
with either of acidizing, gravel-packing or re-completion. It is also assumed that all wells can be
acidized, recompleted or gravel-packed successfully if necessary.
Diagnose each well pr oblem. For w ells w ith s kin va lues s howing formation da mage problems,
acidizing i s t he r ecommended t reatment. Wells with m echanical pr oblems s uch a s pa rtially or
totally plugged perforations, i nsufficient perforation density, l ow de pth of perforation o r w ater
production, r e-completion i s r ecommended. I f t he pr oblem i s sand production, t hen gravel
packing i s r ecommended. A s imple screening module flow chart f or t his s ection i s s hown i n
Appendix A.
3.2
Design of Stimulation Treatment Models
The treatment m odels p resented in t his s ection are to b e used f or the s timulation t reatment
design. The choice of which model to use is dependent on the nature of well problem diagnosed
and the result of the screening module.
3.2.1 Matrix Acidizing Design Model

The e xtent t o w hich a cid will penetrate a rock is dependent on both the rock properties a nd the
local acid reaction rate. The reaction rate in turn depends on matrix properties and other variables
like temperature, pressure, and composition of the reacting fluids.

The m odel p resented here i s a c ombination o f t he a pproaches presented b y S chechter a nd
Gidley32 and E conomides a nd N olte86. I n t his model, pores ar e a ssumed to be i nterconnected
such that the acid can flow through the matrix under the influence of a pressure gradient.
The Niger Delta formation is c hiefly made up of sandstone. S andstone formations are of ten
treated with a mixture of hydrochloric a cid (HCl) a nd h ydrofluoric a cid ( HF) c ommonly called
mud acids. T he t reatment is done at l ow injection rate to prevent fracturing. The mud acid,
chosen because of its ability to dissolve the clay found in drilling mud, also will react with most
constituent of naturally occurring sandstones, including silica, feldspar, and calcareous materials.
The following steps are presented for sandstone acidizing design:
Determine the present fracture gradient for the well. If the instantaneous shut-in
pressure value is not available, use the following equation to calculate the fracture
gradient:
= + ( )
where:
..3.1
= fracture gradient, psi/ft

= 0.33 to 0.50 psi/ft
= overburden gradient (1.0 psi/ft for formation depth less than 10,000ft or 1.2 psi/ft
for depth greater than 10,000ft)
= reservoir pressure, psi
= depth of formation, ft
Predict the maximum possible injection rate that does not fracture the formation
using:
where:
, =
4.917106
, = injection rate, bbl/min
.3.2

= effective permeability of the undamaged formation, md
= net pay thickness, ft
= safety margin for the pressure, psi (usually 200 to 500 psi)
= viscosity of the injected fluid, cp
= drainage radius, ft
= wellbore radius, ft
= skin factor, dimensionless
= formation volume factor, bbl/STB (it has a value of 1 for incompressible fluids)
Using Equation 3.2 with zero value for the skin effect gives the maximum pump rate during the
treatment.
Estimate the pipe or coil tubing friction pressure gradient
If the injection fluid is N ewtonian, and at pumping rates that a re le ss than 9 bbl/min, t he coil
tubing friction pressure can be calculated using:
where:
0.518 0.79 1.79 0.207

4.79
...3.3
= frictional pressure, psi/ft
= specific gravity of the acid (or density of acid in g/cc)
= pump rate, bbl/min
= diameter of pipe, inches

This friction pressure component should be ignored if the pumping rate is greater than 9 bbl/min.
Predict maximum surface pressure.
If p ipe or c oil tubing f riction pressure is co nsidered, the maximum s urface p ressure f or w hich
fluids can be injected without fracturing the formation is calculated using:
, = + ...3.4
where:
= acid hydrostatic gradient, psi/ft
If pipe or coil tubing friction pressure is ignored, then
, = ..3.5
Determine the volume of mud acid to use
It i s a ssumed that t he a cid volume r equired is equal to the pore volume of t he damaged zone.
Also, i t i s a ssumed that a cid flows t hrough the porous media with a front t hat i s u niform a nd
stable, then the acid injection is piston-like and the first acid in is the last acid out. The mud acid
volume is estimated using:
where:
= 7.48[(2 2 )] ...3.6
= volume of mud acid, gal/ft

= porosity, fraction
= damaged radius (displaced section), ft

In formations where the HCl solubility is moderate to high more HCl is necessary. The following
equation is used to calculate this volume and address the HCl-soluble materials:
where:
= 7.48
(1) [2 2 ]
= volume of HCl required, gal/ft
..3.7

= fraction of the bulk rock dissolved by HCl
= dissolving coefficient, expressed as amount of rock dissolved per gallon of acid
Specify the acid treatment

a. Preflush
Normally, inject 50 gallons of regular acid per foot of perforation interval.
b. Mud Acid
Inject the volume of mud acid calculated from Equation 3.6.
c. Afterflush
In oil wells, inject a volume of diesel oil or hydrochloric a cid equal to the mud a cid
volume.
Calculate cost of sandstone matrix acidizing
where:
= ..3.8
= cost of acid used per unit volume, $/gal
Calculate the maximum productivity ratio
In sandstone it is difficult to increase the permeability above the natural state because of reaction
kinetics li mitations, r eaction stoichiometry a nd economics. In th is th esis, the maximum
formation productivity r atio for sandstone a cidizing, given s ome s et of reservoir parameters, is
defined b y the reciprocal of the flow efficiency, and is approximated from Equation 2.21, using
the semi-steady state definition:
where:
0.472
+

..3.9
0.472

= maximum productivity ratio, dimensionless
= skin factor (defined in Equation 2.1), dimensionless
3.2.1.1 Summary
1.
Determine the present fracture gradient for the well.
2.
Predict the maximum possible injection rate that does not fracture the formation.
3.
Estimate the pipe or coil tubing friction pressure gradient.
4.
Predict maximum surface pressure.
5.
Determine the volume of mud acid to use.
6.
Specify the acid treatment.
7.
Calculate cost of sandstone matrix acidizing
8.
Calculate the maximum productivity ratio.
3.2.2 Recompletion Design Model

The approach considered in this section assumes that the well is already completed. The concept
of recompletion is either t o increase the p erforation d ensity or increase the depth of perforation
penetration in order to increase production. The procedure presented below is based on the works
of Strubhar et al.87
Calculate the skin due to perforation geometry
where:
2 .3.10
= total formation thickness, ft
= perforated interval length, ft
= wellbore radius, ft
Calculate the perforation damage
where:
...3.11
= + 0.5 ..3.12

and:
0.03
..3.13
= depth of penetration in rock, ft

= number of perforations
= radius of compacted zone around the perforations, ft

= radius of perforation in rock, ft
= reservoir permeability, md
= permeability of compacted zone around perforation in rock, md
Calculate the total skin
= + 3.14
Calculate cost of recompletion
where:
= ...3.15
= cost per perforation, $
= number of perforations
The productivity index for a semi-steady state condition is u sed to define the productivity ratio,
and hence, defining the productivity ratio as the reciprocal of the flow efficiency, it is expressed
as:
where:
0.472
+

0.472

...3.16
= total skin factor calculated from Equation 3.14
3.2.3 Gravel-Pack Design Model

The f ollowing gravel pa ck d esign m odule is modified from Schlumbergers gravel pack design
and c alculation m anual. The vo lume of g ravel r equired i s de pendent o n t he formation
permeability, to tal l ength o f t he in terval a nd t he c ondition of th e well ( i.e. whether it i s a n ew
well or an old well). The ideal situation is that all perforation tunnels and screen casing a nnulus
be filled with gravel. The gravel pa ck d esign c onsidered is for re-completion of zones that ha ve
produced sands. The following steps are considered in the design.
Calculate the blank/casing annular volume
100% or less of t his volume m ay be c onsidered as the e xcess g ravel. T his volume e nsures
complete screen/formation coverage by the gravel.
where:
1 =
4144
2
2

3.17
1 = blank/casing annular volume, ft3
= inner diameter of the casing string, inches
= outer diameter of the blank string, inches

= length of the blank string, ft
Calculate the screen/casing annular volume
This volume must be filled up completely with gravel in order to have an efficient pack.
2 =
where:
4144
2
2

.3.18
2 = screen/casing annular volume, ft3
= outer diameter of the screen, inches

= length of the screen, ft
Calculate the volume of gravel to be injected into perforations
This is the volume of gravel required to pack the perforations.
3 = ..3.19
where:
3 = volume of gravel injected into perforations, ft3
= 0.5 1.5 ft3/ft (for the zones that have produced sands).
= vertical height of perforated interval, ft
Calculate total volume of gravel needed
= 1 () + 2 + 3 3.20
where:
= total volume of gravel needed, ft3
= fraction of the blank/casing annulus needed to be filled (in this thesis, taken to
be 60% - 90%)
Calculate the weight of gravel needed
= 7.48 3.21
where:
= weight of gravel, lbs
= bulk density of gravel, ppg. (It is the density of the bulk that includes the air
between the grains).
Calculate the carrier fluid volume
where:
42
....3.22
= volume of the carrier fluid (base fluid), bbls
= pounds of proppant (gravel) per gallon added (i.e. pounds of gravel in 1

gallon of the carrier fluid).
Calculate the slurry volume
where:
= ..3.23
= 1 +
...3.24
= slurry (gravel + carrier fluid) volume, bbls
= absolute proppant (gravel) density, ppg. ( of pacsan 22.1ppg)
Calculate the slurry density
..3.25
where:
= slurry density, ppg
= density of the carrier fluid (base fluid), ppg
Calculate the gravel-pack skin factor
where:
96
..3.26
= skin factor due to Darcy flow through the gravel-pack, dimensionless

= net pay thickness, ft
= permeability of the gravel-pack gravel, md

= reservoir permeability, md
= length of flow path through gravel pack, inches

= number of perforations open
= diameter of perforation tunnel, inches
Calculate cost of gravel packing
= + .3.27
where:
= cost of gravel packing, $
= cost of gravel, $/ft3
= cost of carrier fluid (base fluid), $/bbl
3.3
0.472
+

0.472

.3.28
Development of a Model for Optimizing Stimulation Decisions
At s ome point du ring the pr oducing l ife o f a w ell, t he pr oduction rate m ay become s o low and
well diagnosis may result in th e need f or well stimulation. Figure 3. 1 s hows the production
profile (production rate vs. t ime) of a well t hat a t some point during its producing l ife was
profitably stimulated. This figure shall serve a s the theoretical basis for the model developed in
the following sections.
Consider F igure 3.1. T he curve ABC r epresents t he well pre-stimulation decline curve profile.
The w ell initial p roduction r ate is . At point B, t he w ell is c onsidered f or s timulation. T he
curve DEF i s t he r esulting pos t-stimulation production pr ofile. The p roduction r ate is the
abandonment rate of the w ell. The t ime is th e a bandonment t ime o f th e well if i t is n ot

considered f or a s timulation t reatment. The s timulation treatment i s in itiated at ti me
corresponding to the production rate . At time the stimulated w ell i s open for production.
Thus, t he difference between t he t imes and is the d uration of t he stimulation job. The
production l oss du e t o t he duration of the stimulation j ob i s r epresented by the shaded a rea
BCHI. The i nitial production r ate a fter stimulation i s r epresented b y which c orresponds t o
point D in Figure 3.1. The well is now produced along the curve DEF until the abandonment rate
is r eached a t t ime corresponding t o point F i n t he figure shown. T he a rea DEFH

represents the incremental production due to stimulation treatment.
The model formulated in the following section u ses the production profile described above and
an e xponential decline curve analysis with e conomic concept of c ontinuous discounting. The
derivation of the model for several cases of hyperbolic decline is presented in Appendix F.
Production Rate, stb/day
A
D
E
C
Time, days
Fig. 3.1 Production decline profile for a stimulated well.
3.3.1 Optimization Model Assumptions

The following assumptions are used in the development of the model.
1. The stimulation will result in improved productivity.
2. The well could be operated profitably if stimulated.
3. The factors t hat c ontrol p roduction i n t he past will continue to control pr oduction i n the
future.
4. The well production-rate versus time decline profile is exponential.
5. The well pre-stimulation decline profile will be the same as the post-stimulation profile.

6. The n ominal d ecline r ate c onstant is the s ame f or bo th t he pr e-stimulation a nd poststimulation profile.
7. The abandonment rate of the well is the same for both the p re-stimulation and poststimulation profile.
3.3.2 Stimulation Productivity Ratio

The stimulation productivity ratio is defined a s the ratio of the initial (maximum) production
rate obtained a fter stimulation t o t he p roduction r ate a t which t he well w as considered for
stimulation. From Figure 3.1,
...3.29
3.3.3 The Present-Value Discount Factor

The pr esent va lue i nterest factor () for c ontinuous or daily c ompounding i s u sed i n the
following derivations and it is defined as:
= ..3.30
where is t he effective i nterest (discount) rate p er day, an d is t he time period considered in

days.
3.3.4 Defining the Objective Function,
The u ltimate g oal o f well stimulation i s to exploit t he r eservoir p rofitably. I n optimizing well
stimulation processes, the measure of effectiveness is the net i ncremental post-stimulation
production subject to the limitations imposed by the system. Therefore an objective function will
be defined to maximize the net post-stimulation production. The objective function is defined as:
= ............................................................................3.31
where is the discounted production from stimulation, is the discounted production loss
from stimulation, and is the discounted production equivalent to total stimulation cost.
The e xponential d ecline curve analysis s hall b e used to derive the mathematical expressions for
each of the components of Equation 3.31. Before proceeding with the derivation, it is necessary
to define some of the variables in Figure 3.1. First, let us shift the time axis such that the time at
the start of the stimulation job is set to zero. Then let be the duration of the stimulation job
and be the abandonment time of the post-stimulation production profile.
A. Discounted Incremental Post-Stimulation Production,
The discounted incremental production resulting from the stimulation process is derived from the
area enclosed by DEFH in Figure 3.1 by:
= ( ) () ..3.32
where is the exponential decline rate per day. Substituting for and from Equations
3.29 and 3.30, Equation 3.32 is expressed as:
= ( ) ..3.33
Evaluating the integral on the right hand side of equation 3.33 yields:

()
()

()
() () ...3.34
The abandonment production rate for the post-stimulation production forecast is given by:
= ( ) .3.35
Substituting for from E quation 3. 29 and r earranging Equation 3 .35, the economic l ife
resulting from the stimulation treatment can be expressed as:

1
=
1
= + .3.36
Putting Equation 3.36 into 3.34 gives:

()
( )
+()
() ..3.37
Using mathematical i ndices t ransformation of t he f orm: + = ( 1) and
rearranging the terms, Equation 3.37 can be written as:
=
=
( )
()
( )
()
( )
()
.3.38
B. Discounted Production Loss Due to Stimulation,
The concept of production loss is similar to the idea of opportunity cost. The production loss is
an essential component of the ob jective f unction that t akes care of the z ero-production time
during stimulation.

The discounted production loss du ring the stimulation pr ocess is derived from the area enclosed
by BCHI in Figure 3.1 by:
= 0 ()
= 0 .3.39
Evaluating the integral gives:
= ()
() 0
= ()
() 1 ..3.40
C. Discounted Stimulation Cost,
The t otal stimulation c ost, which includes site preparation cost, equipment mobilization &
demobilization cost a nd the stimulation tr eatment cost, can be c onverted to i ts e quivalent
discounted production as:
= .......................................................................................3.41
where is the total cost of the stimulation treatment in dollars, and is the price (in dollars) per
barrel of oil.
Substituting Equations 3.38, 3.40 and 3.41 into 3.31 gives:
( )
()
( )
()
()
() 1 ...3.42
Let
.3.43
1 = ()
.3.44
2 = 3.45
3 = () ...3.46
4 =
...3.47
(1)
5 =

......3.48
Therefore the objective function as defined in Equation 3.42 can be expressed in the form:
3.4
= 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 1 (3 1) .3.49
Optimization Model Constraints
To o btain a p ractical s olution t o t he ob jective function, t he f ormulation m ust i nclude some

constraints. In this study, a budgetary constraint is imposed such that the cost of the stimulation
does n ot e xceed the budget as determined by top management. Also, a break-even condition is
imposed such t hat t he r evenue obtained from t he stimulation is at least equal to the stimulation
cost. The reservoir sets a limit on the maximum cumulative production. Ex isting facilities, both

in the sub-surface and surface, limit production rates that ca n be obtained from the choice of the
stimulation treatment. These constraints are developed mathematically below.
3.4.1 Constraint 1: Break-even Requirement

The discounted revenue from any stimulation decision should be greater than or at least equal to
the discounted cost of the project. That is:
+ ..3.50
Using the definitions of Equations 3.33, 3.39 and 3.41; Equation 3.50 can be expressed as:
( ) + 0 ..3.51
By examining Equations 3.42 through 3.49, this constraint can be expressed as:
1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 + 1 (3 1) .....3.52
In a practical sense, this constraint is satisfied if and only if the value o f the o bjective function
is positive, that is:
0 ..3.53
3.4.2 Constraint 2: Remaining Reserve Limitation
The recovery from the stimulation should not e xceed the r emaining produceable oil i n pl ace
(reserve). Mathematically, this constraint can be expressed as:
( ) .3.54
where is t he remaining oil reserve in place during stimulation. Solving Equation 3.54 we
get:
[ ] 3.55
Applying the definition of given in Equation 3.36 to Equation 3.55 gives:

....3.56
Simplifying,

.....3.57
....3.58
....3.59
Let
1 =
2 =
Substituting Equations 3.58 and 3.59 into 3.57, this constraint can be written as:
1 2 ...3.60
3.4.3 Constraint 3: Flow String Capacity
The pr oduction r ate a fter s timulation should n ot e xceed t he maximum d esign capacity o f t he
flow string. In the case of gas wells, this constraint is imposed by the gas pipeline capacity.

The exponential decline equation for the post-stimulation production rate can be expressed as:
= ( )
= ( ) ..3.61
The m aximum production rate is obtained w hen the well is opened f or production just after
stimulation, i.e. at time = (see Fig. 3.1). Using this substitution in Equation 3.61, constraint
3 can then be formulated as:
therefore:
....3.62
where is the maximum design capacity (flow rate) for the well tubing string.
3.4.4 Constraint 4: Budget Allocation

The total cost of s timulation s hould not exceed the maximum budget allocated by management
for the job. This constraint is formulated mathematically as:
..3.63
where is the maximum budget allocated by management for stimulation.
3.4.5 Constraint 5: Maximum Formation Productivity Ratio

Given a s et of r eservoir a nd t reatment pa rameters, t he r eservoir c ould o nly be stimulated t o a
certain maximum extent.
3.64
where is the m aximum productivity ratio t hat c an be o btained given the reservoir a nd
treatment pa rameters. I t i s t he productivity ratio obtained from t he d esign module pr esented i n

section 3.2.1 through 3.2.3.
3.4.6 Constraint 6: Productivity Improvement

The stimulation must, at l east, result i n a n i mprovement i n t he productivity r atio and must not
itself cause m ore damage to the formation. This constraint is imposed on the productivity ratio
such that it must not be less than one or negative. It can be formulated mathematically as:
3.5
1 .3.65
Stimulation Cost & Productivity Ratio Relationship
From t he design module pr esented i n section 3 .21 t hrough 3.23, i t c ould be observed t hat t he
input design parameters determine the stimulation cost (C) a nd t he maximum pr oductivity ratio
(F). For e xample, f rom the acidizing d esign m odule in s ection 3.21, it c ould b e seen that t he
stimulation c ost depends o n t he vo lume of acid pumped, and also the volume of a cid pumped
will d etermine t he extent o f damage r emoval ( productivity r atio). T his discussion shows t hat a
relationship can be formulated between the stimulation cost and the productivity ratio based on
the de sign m odule. Hence, in order to use the model presented in section 3 .3 as a n optimization
model, it i s necessary t o develop a stimulation cost v ersus productivity ratio r elationship ba sed
on the design module presented.
The combined effects of the treatment and reservoir variables are lumped into a stimulation cost
versus productivity equation of the form:
= ...3.66

where and are obtained from the power equation of the trend line of a log-log plot of
stimulation cost v ersus p roductivity r atio. It is this equation that in corporates the stimulation
option into the optimization model. Hence we must substitute Equation 3.66 into Equation 3.49
in order to use the model.
3.6
Summary of the Optimization Model
Combining the objective function a nd the constraints, the optimization model formulated can be
summarized as:
Maximize:
= 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 1 (3 1) .3.49
subject to:
1. Break-even Requirement:
1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 + 1 (3 1) ....3.52
2. Remaining Reserve Limitation:
1 2 ...3.60
3. Flow String Capacity:
4. Budget Allocation:
...3.62
...3.63
5. Maximum Formation Productivity Ratio:
.3.64

6. Productivity Improvement:
1 ...3.65
The constants , 1 , 2 , 3, 4 and 5 are as defined in Equation 3.43 through 3 .48; 1 and 2
are defined in Equation 3.58 and 3.59; and are from Equation 3.66.
It is important to note that the optimization model is a non-linear programming (NLP) problem.
The o bjective function consists o f t wo variables, na mely productivity r atio and total
stimulation cost . The two variables are related based on the discussion presented in section 3.5.
This research investigated the matrix stimulation cost and performance data presented by Vogt et
al.88 An a ttempt was ma de to obtain a relationship between total stimulation cost and
productivity ratio . The data is presented in Table 1 of Appendix B. A regression analysis on the
data using M icrosoft Excel s hows a trend between pr oductivity r atio a nd t otal stimulation c ost
similar to the form presented in Equation 3.66. Therefore, to use this model, the stimulation cost
versus productivity ratio constants and must be obtained from the design module. The design
and op timization m odel included i n t he a ccompany compact di sk ( CD) of t his t hesis only
requires the input, stimulation design parameters, to generate the constants.
3.7
Solution to the Optimization Model
In this research, the model was solved u sing the Solver in Microsoft Excel and also Whats Best
10.0 LINDO S ystems o ptimization so ftware. The r esults obtained w ere v erified b y c omparing
the solution with t hat ob tained by us ing Mathematica 7.0 software developed by Wolfram
Research. The Solver i mplemented i n E xcel ( developed by Frontline Systems) u ses numerical
iterative methods (generalized reduced gr adient m ethod) to s olve e quations a nd t o o ptimize
linear and n onlinear functions w ith e ither c ontinuous or i nteger variables. But Solver has some
limitations hence t he ne ed t o verify t he r esults. Wolframs Mathematica 7.0 on t he ot her ha nd
uses several numerical algorithms for constrained no nlinear optimization. T he a lgorithms ar e
categorized into gradient-based methods and direct search methods. Gradient-based methods use
first d erivatives ( gradients) or second d erivatives ( Hessians). Examples a re t he sequential

quadratic programming ( SQP) m ethod, t he a ugmented Lagrangian method, a nd t he ( nonlinear)
interior point method. D irect search methods do no t us e de rivative i nformation. E xamples a re
Nelder Mead, genetic algorithm and d ifferential e volution, and s imulated a nnealing. The most
general m ethod used b y Mathematica 7.0 for e xact c onstrained op timization problems is based
on the cylindrical algebraic decomposition (CAD) algorithm. Mathematica 7.0 can automatically
choose a lgorithm based on t he nature o f t he problem - a quality which makes it the preferred
choice for verification of the Solvers results.
Based on the stimulation modules presented in this chapter, a computer model is developed using
Microsoft Excel. This model is intended for use in the Niger Delta and as such it is assumed that
all w ells can either be acidized, g ravel-packed or r e-completed. T he screening module i s n ot
included in the computer model because it is assumed that prior to the use of this model, the well
must have been matched with one of acidizing, gravel-packing or re-completion. Also, hydraulic
fracturing is not considered in this m odel because t he N iger D elta formation is made up o f
sandstone with good permeability.
Chapter Four
Model Validation, Results and Discussion

To s tudy t he b ehavior o f t he o ptimization model t o changes i n i nput parameters, a s ensitivity
analysis was carried out on the acidizing model. Some published data from the Niger Delta were
also used to validate the model. The results obtained are discussed in the following section.
4.1
Sensitivity Analysis
The parameters i n t he following section were va ried a nd the values of t he o ptimal objective
function obtained are plotted against the productivity ratio f or e ach parameter va lue. The input
data used for the sensitivity analysis are presented in Table 4.1.
4.1.1
Effect of Price of Oil
The p rice o f o il d etermines the amount of revenue derived from the s timulation. T herefore an
increase in the price of oil is a ccompanied with a n increase in the optimal point of the objective
function a s shown in Fig. 4.1. The price of oil is purely an e conomic input to the optimization
model. T he decision t o perform well s timulation depends o n t he current price o f oil. H ence t he
higher t he p rice of oil, t he greater t he benefit derived from s timulation. It is important to n ote
that b elow a pr oductivity ratio o f a bout 3 .2, the di scounted pr oduction will not c hange w ith the
price of oil, but the overall monetary benefit will reduce when the price of oil falls.
4.1.2 Effect of Discount Rate
Fig. 4.2 illustrates the effect of the interest rate on t he objective f unction. The value of t he
discount rate was varied from 5% to 20%. The discounted production decreases with an increase
in t he discount r ate. The di scount rate can be viewed a s a n a dditional cost of stimulation. T he
higher the discount rate, the higher the cost of money and well stimulation, and consequently, the
lower the benefit to be derived from the stimulation job.
4.1.3 Effect of Decline Rate
The effect of the exponential decline rate on the objective function is shown in Fig. 4.3. For this
analysis, the value of the decline constant was varied between 0.032/yr and 0.32/yr. It is noticed
that the smaller the exponential decline rate, the higher the stimulation benefit. The exponential
Table 4.1 Input Data for Sensitivity Analysis

Average Reservoir Pressure, Pr
2200 psi
Drainage Radius, r e
1053 ft
Wellbore Radius, r w
0.3 ft
Net Pay Thickness, h
20 ft
Depth of Formation
12000 ft
Damaged Zone Radius r d
7 ft
Undamaged Reservoir Permeability, k
200 md
Damaged Zone Permeability, k d
20 md
Porosity
25%
Formation Volume Factor
1 bbl/stb
Acid Hydrostatic Gradient
0.45 psi/ft
Specific Gravity of Acid
1.04
Viscosity of Injected Acid
0.57 cp
Pump Rate
2 bbl/min
Safe Margin for Injection Pressure
200 psi
Diameter of Coil Tubing
1.75 inches
Cost of Acid Per Unit Volume
$ 38 per gal
0.4 psi/ft
Current Production Rate, q o
1000 stb/d
Abandonment Rate, q a
200 stb/d
Exponential Decline Rate, D
0.32 per day
Duration of Stimulation, t s
2 days
Remaining Recoverable Reserve, ROIP
3 MM stb
Price Per Barrel of Oil, P
80 $/stb
Effective Discount Rate Per Day, I
10%
Tubing Maximum Design Flowrate, q max
10000 stb/d
Maximum Stimulation Budget, C max
1.2 MM $
6000
Discounted Production, bbl
5000
4000
Oil Price = $50/bbl

Oil Price = $60/bbl
3000
Oil Price = $70/bbl

Oil Price = $80/bbl
2000
Oil Price = $90/bbl
1000
0
0
Productivity Ratio (F)
Figure 4.1 Effect of oil price on the objective function
8000
7000
6000
5000
I = 5%
4000
I = 10%
3000
I = 15%
I = 20%
2000
1000
0
0
Figure 4.2 Effect of discount rate on the objective function
30000
25000
20000
15000
D = 0.032/yr
D = 0.16/yr
10000
D = 0.32/yr
5000
0
0
Figure 4.3 Effect of decline rate on the objective function
decline rate is the parameter that controls the concavity of the objective function. The smaller the
value of the exponential decline constant for a w ell pr oduction pr ofile, the more the benefit we
could get if such well i s considered f or s timulation. In pr actice, w e ha ve no c ontrol ov er the
value of the decline rate constant. H owever, it gives u s a direct i nsight i nto candidate selection
for stimulation decisions. Smaller decline rate is desirable for profitable stimulation decisions.
4.1.4 Effect of Pre-Stimulation Production Rate
The effect of pre-stimulation production rate on t he objective function is illustrated i n F ig. 4 .4.
The value of the pre-stimulation production rate was varied from 500stb/d to 1500stb/d. A higher
pre-stimulation pr oduction r ate indicates a higher r eservoir energy dr ive. T he main goal of
stimulation i s t o i ncrease pr oduction u sing t he r eservoir e nergy a s t he driving force in moving
the o il from th e r eservoir i nto th e wellbore. If t he r eservoir h as litt le or n o e nergy, stimulation
benefit w ill b e small. Th is is clearly illustrated in the figure. Since a higher pre-stimulation
production will give a higher optimal point in the objective function, therefore, from the figure, a
higher p re-stimulation production rate will give a higher optimal stimulation benefit. This
suggests that as production declines during production, there should be an optimal time in which
it is best to initial stimulation jobs. Because of the huge impact of this pre-stimulation production
rate on t he ob jective function, this pa rameter must be given a major attention in the selection of
stimulation candidates
4.1.5 Effect of Abandonment Rate
The e ffect of t he a bandonment r ate o n t he stimulation d ecision i s shown i n F ig. 4. 5. The
abandonment r ate i s v aried b etween 100stb/d a nd 50 0stb/d. I t i s observed t hat i ncreasing t he
abandonment r ate r esults i n decrease i n t he overall s timulation b enefit. The a bandonment r ate
can be i nterpreted in terms of t he r emaining r ecoverable o il i n t he r eservoir. A hi gher
abandonment r ate m eans a h igher a mount of r ecoverable oil r emaining i n t he r eservoir. B ut a
reduced incremental production is expected because when the abandonment rate is set high, the
incremental p roduction w ill be reduced since w e h ave a l imit t o w hich w e ca n produce.
Consequently, a reduced incremental production will eventually decrease the optimal point of the
objective function. Therefore, the abandonment rate is a major factor that influences the choice
of stimulation candidate selection.
12000
10000
8000
6000
qo = 500stb/d
qo = 1000stb/d
qo = 1500stb/d
4000
2000
0
0
Figure 4.4 Effect of pre-stimulation production rate on the objective function
6000
5000
4000
3000
qa = 100stb/d
qa = 300stb/day
qa = 500stb/d
2000
1000
0
0
Figure 4.5 Effect of abandonment rate on the objective function
4.1.6 Effect of Stimulation Time

The stimulation time r epresents the duration of time the stimulation job is performed. The effect
of the s timulation time on the optimal point of the objective function is s hown in Fig. 4.6. The
stimulation time is varied between 1 day and 3 days. The optimal point of the objective function
lowers as the stimulation time increases. This means that if more time is spent on the stimulation
job, t he p roduction l oss du ring t he du ration of s timulation will i ncrease, a nd hence, l owers t he
overall benefit d erivable f rom the s timulation j ob. Therefore i t i s b eneficial i f t he duration of
stimulation is reduced to possibly a day in order to get a higher return from stimulation.
4.2
Model Validation: Case Study 1
In this section, the optimization model is applied with the acidizing treatment model to quantify
stimulation benefit derivable from four typical acidizing jobs, and also, to rank the w ells f or the
stimulation process. Production data from four wells: Well BU 1, Well BU 2, Well BU 3 and Well
BU 4 were u sed t o va lidate t he model. The four w ells completed i n M ay 200 4 are l ocated in
Bestfields, offshore Niger Delta. This high permeability field is located in a water depth of 200m.
The a verage pe ak p roduction recorded i n J anuary 2006 from e ach of t he four wells i s
7000stb/day. Production d ecline s tarts a fter a 3 -year peak pr oduction period. The a vailable
production data f or each o f t he four wells shows t hat t he d ecline pr ofile for e ach w ell i s
exponential. The wells are being considered as potential candidates for acidizing after a well test
confirms the presence of acid removable damage. The field data is presented in Table 4.2. These
data s erved a s input da ta for t he a cidizing d esign a nd optimization model. A dditional da ta used
were t aken from published l iteratures by Ofoh a nd H eikal89, Nnanna et al.73, Nnanna an d
Ajienka76, and Onyekonwu80.
The data in Table 4.2 are used to formulate the Bestfield Model, which gives an insight into how
the model ca n be used to optimize acidizing candidate w ell s election process in the Niger Delta.
The design and optimization model is available in the included CD.
4.2.1 Formulation of the Bestfield Model
In combination with the data provided in Table 4.2, lets assume that the remaining recoverable
reserve is 500 MM bbls, and the tubing maximum design flow rate for each well is 12500stb/d.
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
Stim. Time = 1 day
3000
Stim. Time = 2 days

Stim. Time = 3 days
2000
1000
0
0
Figure 4.6 Effect of stimulation time on the objective function
Table 4.2 Bestfield Model data

Well BU 1
Well BU 2
Well BU 3
Well BU 4
Average Reservoir Pressure, Pr (psi)
3200
3200
3200
3200
Drainage Radius, r e (ft)
1000
1000
1000
1000
Wellbore Radius, r w (ft)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Net Pay Thickness, h (ft)
120
85.6
148.29
68.2
Depth of Formation, D f (ft)
9000
9060
8950
9000
6.8
6.4
6.5
Undamaged Reservoir Permeability, k (md)
3500
3300
4600
3500
Damaged Zone Permeability, k d (md)
900
450
510
580
Porosity (%)
25
25
25
25
Formation Volume Factor (bbl/stb)
1.159
1.159
1.159
1.159
Acid Hydrostatic Gradient (psi/ft)
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
Viscosity of Injected Acid (cp)
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
Pump Rate (bbl/min)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Safe Margin for Injection Pressure (psi)
200
200
200
200
Diameter of Coil Tubing (inches)
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Cost of Acid Per Unit Volume ($ per gal)
30
30
30
30
(psi/ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Current Production Rate, q o (stb/d)
4000
4100
3900
5200
Abandonment Rate, q a (stb/d)
250
250
250
250
0.000519
0.000568
0.000547
0.000533
Damaged Zone Radius, r d (ft)
Exponential Decline Rate, D (per day)

Duration of Stimulation, t s (day)
Also lets assume an average oil price of $80/bbl, effective discount rate of 10% and a maximum
acidizing budget of $1200000 per well.
Using these data, the model is formulated as follows:
Step A: Enter each well data given into the Acidizing Design and Optimization Model and
generate the Cost versus Productivity-Ratio relationship for each well.
The Cost versus Productivity-Ratio plots for each of the four wells was generated by the design
model. T he a nalysis i n t he following section is for Well BU 3. The a nalysis for t he Well BU 1,
Well BU 2 and Well BU 4 is similar, h ence o nly t he results w ere discussed. T he C ost ve rsus
Productivity-Ratio plot for the Well BU 3 data is shown in Fig. 4.7.
Step B: Obtain the relationship between the stimulation cost (C) and productivity ratio (F) in
form of power equation of a trendline through a log-log regression of the data.
For the Well BU 3 input data, the equation is obtained as:
= 87.156.499 .................4.1
The above relationship, a s presented in Equation 4.1 was obtained from a regression analysis o f
the simulated data generated by the design model using Microsoft Excel. The design model used
the Well BU 3 input data to account f or c ost as s hown in Equation 4.1 ba sed on t he damaged
radius of the well, which is one of the parameters with greatest influence on the acidizing design.
The acidizing design and optimization model will generate this equation once the data input step
is completed.
Step C: Use Equations 3.49, 3.52, 3.60, 3.62, 3.63, 3.64 & 3.65 to formulate the objective
function and its constraints.
The constants needed to define the objective function can be calculated easily using the equation
listed a bove. It i s i mportant t o point ou t that w hile u sing the a cidizing a nd d esign model
included in the CD, one does not need to calculate the objective function as presented below. The
program is designed to calculate the objective function, set up the constraints and then awaits the
user t o call a s olver pr ogram f or t he o ptimization step. Hence, S tep C i s only i ncluded for t he
purpose of proper understanding of how the model and its constraints were formulated.
The non linear programming model formulated a s a maximization problem using the Well BU 3
data is presented below.
:
= 1.7008 10215 182.82 + 3.5097 104

:
0.98576.499 3710.3427 .................................4.2
1. Break-even Constraint:
1.7008 10215 182.82 + 3.5097 104

2. Remaining Reserve Constraint:
0.9857 6.499 + 3710.3427 .4.3
7.1298 457038.391 500000000 4.4
3. Flow String Capacity Constraint:
3.21 ...4.5
4. Budget Allocation Constraint:
87.156.499 1000000 ..4.6
5. Productivity Improvement Constraint:
1 4.7
6. Maximum Formation Productivity Ratio Constraint:
4.20 4.8
From t he non-linear programming optimization problem presented a bove i t c ould b e seen t hat,
simply, we seek an optimum value for the productivity ratio which ha s a lower and upper bound
of 1 and 3.21 respectively. This is true because the limit sets by the facility constraints (Equation
4.5) is more binding than the maximum productivity r atio a ttainable given t he r eservoir a nd
treatment parameters (Equation 4.8).
Figure 4.7 (a) and (b): Cost versus Productivity Ratio plots for Well BU 3
Cost-Productivity Ratio Plot
(Cartesian Plot)
3000000.00
2500000.00
Cost, $
2000000.00
1500000.00
1000000.00
500000.00
0.00
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Productivity Ratio, F
(a)
Cost-Productivity Ratio Plot
(Log-Log Plot)
10000000.00
Cost, $
1000000.00
100000.00
10000.00
C = 87.15F 6.499
1000.00
1.00
10.00
(b)
Step D: Find a solution to the non-linear programming model formulated in Step C above.
In this research, two different solvers, which use different a lgorithms, were used to get an
optimum solution to the model. The solvers are: Frontline Systems Microsoft Excel Solver and
Whats Best 10.0 LINDO S ystems op timization s oftware. T he solution t o t he model was t hen
verified u sing t he W olfram R esearchs Mathematica 7.0. The results a re discussed i n t he
following sections.
4.2.2 Solution of the Well BU 3 Model
The Well BU 3 Model was solved u sing t he Microsoft Excel Solver and Whats Best 10.0, the
results a re presented i n Appendix C and D . The s olutions gave the same r esult for t he optimal
point.
The value of the objective function at optimal point is:
= 106868.12
The v alue o f t he productivity r atio a t th e o ptimal p oint i s g iven a s t he f inal value o f t he

adjustable cell. The optimal productivity ratio is equal to 3.21.
The o bjective function b ehaviour is viewed in the vicinity of the lower a nd upper bound of its
constraint. Mathematica 7.0 is us ed t o ge nerate t he pl ot shown i n A ppendix E . Also,
Mathematica 7.0 is us ed t o s olve t he non -linear pr ogramming op timization problem. The
functions NMaximize and Maximize are u sed a nd t he r esult for t he objective function i s
107012.6.7 bbls, w hile the va lue o f the pr oductivity ratio at the optimal point is 3.21. The input
syntax for Mathematica 7.0 is also included in Appendix E.
The slight variation i n t he r esults obtained is du e t o t he fact t hat approximated values a re
inputted i nto Mathematica 7.0 for the optimization. Also, Mathematica 7.0 uses the Cylindrical
Algebraic Decomposition algorithm to s eek i ts optimal point while EXCEL o r L INDO solver
uses the conjugate gradient method. This result is only used to know that the solution obtained is
in the correct range. It is important to note that both results are the same when corrected to three
significant figures. The plot in Appendix E gives a better picture of the optimal point.
The results obtained using the Microsoft Excel Solver and Whats Best 10.0, is taken as the actual
value of the objective function at the optimal point. Hence, the following discussions are based
on this result.
4.2.3 Discussion of the Well BU 3 Model Result
This optimal v alue of the objective f unction is 106868.12bbls, meaning that i f this well i s
considered for s timulation, given that t he a ssumptions c onsidered i n section 4 .2.1 a re binding,
the benefit derivable is 106868.12bbls of oi l. The life of the well is estimated to be 19.6 years.
The payout time on the acidizing cost is also estimated to be 0.94 day.
The A nswer R eport for Well BU 3 in Appendix C, Section 1, shows t hat five o ut of t he six
constraints are not binding. The only binding constraint is the tubing string capacity. H ence, the
optimal solution was f ound within th e lim its o f a ll t he constraints. That is t o s ay th at a ll
constraints are satisfied. No constraint is violated.
The tubing string capacity constraint is binding, meaning that if the tubing f low capacity is
increased, there will be more benefit from this project, but on the other hand, this extremely high
rate w ill kill o ur w ell s ooner than la ter. In g eneral, f or a c onstraint to b e bi nding m eans any
movement to the right would still give a better result to the objective function.
From the sensitivity report it could be seen that the value of the Lagrange Multiplier associated
with th e flow string c apacity c onstraint is 31221.9668. T his gi ves a n i dea of t he fractional
change of the ob jective f unction i f t he flow s tring c apacity c onstraint c hanges b y 1stb/day.
Hence, if the flow string capacity is increased by 1stb/day, the benefit derivable from stimulation
will increase by 31221.9668 bbls. Hence, the v alue o f t he Lagrange Multiplier will help th e
stimulation design engineer to know i f it is necessary to increase the stimulation benefit by
adjusting the constraints. It also gives the estimate of the derivable benefit.
Considering Well BU 1, t he u ltimate s olution obt ained is s hown in A ppendix C, S ection 2 . All
constraints are n ot b inding, m eaning that t he optimum po int of the objective f unction w as
attained before any of the constraint bound was reached. Hence any shift to the right or left of the
optimum point will only decrease the stimulation benefit.
4.2.4 Application of the Model Result in Candidate Selection

This m odel can be u sed e asily t o r ank stimulation candidates based on t he be nefits derivable
from t he stimulation operation and t he pa yout time. Since the ultimate goal of stimulation is to
increase pr oduction, the well with th e h ighest stimulation benefit and shortest pa yout t ime is
considered first for s timulation. Hence wells ar e r anked first to last in t he d ecreasing order o f
their stimulation b enefits (profits), provided the payout i s a cceptable b y management. The w ell
ranked first is then selected for stimulation before the one ranked second and so on.
The t able below gives a s imple stimulation ca ndidate selection c harts for the four w ells i n
Bestfield, offshore N iger D elta. Table 4. 3 is generated u sing t he a cidizing de sign a nd
optimization model. Each s olution p oint as o btained by t he model i s shown i n t he figures i n
Appendix C, Section 1 & 2. It is important to note that the payout time calculated by the model is
based on the stimulation design cost, site preparation cost (including equipment mobilization and
demobilization cost). The lease operating costs, federal and state taxes should also be considered
in calculating the actual payout time for this project.
Assuming a lease operating cost (LOE) of $4000 per month, the summary table for the Bestfield
Model i s shown i n T able 4. 3. The choice of which well is selected first for s timulation,
considering the stimulation benefit and the payout time w ill de pend on t he op erating companys
guidelines and criteria for making reservoir management decisions. The payout time for the wells
in th e Bestfield Model are fairly close, hence, i n th is research, th e stimulation benefit i s u sed t o
rank the wells. Well BU 3 will be selected first for stimulation before selecting Well BU 4, then
Well BU 2, and finally Well BU 1.
4.2.5 Effect of Price of Oil on Well BU 3 Model Result

The price of oil is varied between $40 and $80 per barrel, and its effect on the objective function
is studied. Figure 4.8 shows the result obtained. From the result it is seen that the higher the price
of o il, the m ore the be nefits de rivable from the s timulation. However, w ith f acility c onstraint,
binding on the objective function, there is little or no difference in the benefit derivable from the
stimulation jobs. This suggests that if the price of oil increase, more benefits can be derived from
stimulation if the capacity of the production string is adequate. At productivity ratios less than 3,
the discounted production is insensitive to the price of oil.
Table 4.3 Besfield Model summary

Life of
Well
Discounted
Production
Forcast
Oil Price
Payout
(days)
Stimulation
Benefit ($)
Ranking
4000
18.6
64936.28
80
1.62
5194902.4
4th
736662.37
4000
18.9
106275.38
80
0.74
8502030.4
3rd
1200000
1058634.07
4000
19.6
106868.12
80
1.06
8549449.6
1st
1200000
626820.32
4000
20.1
106652.90
80
0.63
8532232.0
2nd
Well
Stimulation
Budget ($)
Stimulation
Cost ($)
($/month)
BU1
1200000
1096162.22
BU2
1200000
BU3
BU4
LOE
(years)
(bbls)
($)
160000
140000
120000
100000
Oil Price = $40/bbl
80000
Oil Price = $50/bbl

Oil Price = $60/bbl
60000
Oil Price = $70/bbl

Oil Price = $80/bbl
40000
20000
0
0
Figure 4.8 Effect of oil price on Well BU 3 model result
4.3
Model Validation: Case Study 2
The data used for this case study was taken from published literatures by Nnanna et al.73, Nnanna
and A jienka76, a nd Onyekonwu80. T hese data ar e u sed to formulate t he Well BU 5 Model. The
data for Well BU 5 is presented in Table 4.4.
4.3.1 Formulation of the Well BU 5 Model
Lets assume that the remaining recoverable reserve in the drainage area of this well is 2.5 MM
bbls, and the tubing maximum design flow rate is 10000 stb/d. Also lets assume that the price of
oil is $80/bbl, the effective discount rate is 10% and the maximum budget for the acidizing job is
set at $1000000.
The model is formulated as follows:
Step A: Enter t he da ta gi ven i nto t he A cidizing Design and Optimization Model and ge nerate
the Cost versus Productivity-Ratio data .
The Cost versus Productivity-Ratio plot for Well BU 5 is shown in Fig. 4.9.
Step B: Obtain t he relationship be tween the s timulation c ost (C) a nd productivity ratio (F) in
form of power equation of a trendline through a log-log regression of the data.
For the input data, this equation is obtained as:
= 27.826.187 .................4.9
The above relationship, a s presented in Equation 4.1 was obtained from a regression analysis of
the model generated cost data using Microsoft Excel.
Table 4.4 Well BU 5 Model data

Average Reservoir Pressure, Pr
3850 psi
Drainage Radius, r e
1000 ft
Wellbore Radius, r w
0.3 ft
Net Pay Thickness, h
68.2 ft
Depth of Formation
12100 ft
Damaged Zone Radius r d
6 ft
Undamaged Reservoir Permeability, k
1050 md
Damaged Zone Permeability, k d
100 md
Porosity
25%
Formation Volume Factor
1.159 bbl/stb
Acid Hydrostatic Gradient
0.45 psi/ft
1.04
Viscosity of Injected Acid
0.57 cp
Pump Rate
2 bbl/min
Safe Margin for Injection Pressure
200 psi
Diameter of Coil Tubing
1.75 inches
Cost of Acid Per Unit Volume
$ 30 per gal
0.4 psi/ft
Current Production Rate, q o
500 stb/d
Abandonment Rate, q a
150 stb/d
Exponential Decline Rate, D
0.04 per day
Duration of Stimulation, t s
1 day
Price Per Barrel of Oil, P
80 $/stb
1400000.00
1200000.00
1000000.00
Cost, $
800000.00
600000.00
400000.00
200000.00
0.00
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Figure 4.9 Cost versus Productivity Ratio plot for Well BU 5.
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Step C: Using Equations 3.49, 3.52, 3.60, 3.62, 3.63, 3.64 & 3.65, the non linear programming
model can be formulated as a maximization problem as presented below.
:
= 47.792.5 + 3231.562 0.41141636.187 466.5777 ...........4.10
1. Break-even Constraint:
47.79 2.5 + 3231.562 0.4114163 6.187 + 466.5777 ...4.11
2. Remaining Reserve Constraint:
12500 3750 2500000 ..4.12
3. Flow String Capacity Constraint:
20 .4.13
4. Budget Allocation Constraint:
27.826.187 1000000 ....4.14
5. Productivity Improvement Constraint:
1 ..4.15
6. Maximum Formation Productivity Ratio Constraint:
4.79 ..4.16
In t his pr oblem, we s eek a n o ptimum value for t he productivity r atio with a l ower a nd upp er
bound of 1 and 4.79 respectively. Equation 4.16 is more binding than Equation 4.13.
4.3.2 Solution of the Well BU 5 Model
The Well BU 5 Model was solved u sing t he Microsoft Excel Solver and Whats Best 10.0, t he
results are presented in Appendix C and D, Case Study 2. The solutions gave the same result for
the optimal point. The value of the objective function at optimal productivity ratio is:
= 10846.95
The o ptimal p roductivity r atio i s e qual to 4 .18. The o bjective function be havior i s vi ewed
Mathematica 7.0. The plot generate i s shown i n Appendix E . Also, using Mathematica 7.0 to
solve t he n on-linear pr ogramming optimization pr oblem, the r esult for t he ob jective function i s
10276.7 bbls, while the value of the productivity ratio at the optimal point is 3.97. The solution
using Mathematica 7.0 is also shown in Appendix E.
The slight variation in the results obtained is due to same reasons as discussed in section 4.2.2.
4.3.3 Discussion of the Well BU 5 Model Result
This op timal v alue of t he o bjective f unction i s 10846.95 bbls, meaning th at i f th is well i s
considered f or s timulation, gi ven t hat the assumptions considered in s ection 4.3.1 a re binding,
the benefit derivable from the stimulation equals ($80/bbl 10846.95 bbls ), i.e. $867,756.
The Answer Report for Case Study 2 Section 1, in Solvers Result section of Appendix C shows
that t he six c onstraints a re n ot bi nding. T his m eans t hat t he o ptimal solution was f ound within
the limits of all the constraints. Hence no constraint is violated.
If we a ssume t hat t he stimulation budget a pproved by management i s $185, 000 for t his well,
then t he ou tput o f t his model will be a s shown i n Appendix C , Case Study 2 - Section 2 . T he
Answer Report Section shown that the budget allocation constraint is now binding. This means
that if management is willing to allocate more money to this project, there will be more benefit.
From the sensitivity report it could be seen that the value of the Lagrange Multiplier associated
with the budget allocation constraint is 0.0004047. H ence i f the stimulation budget is increased
by $1, the benefit derived from stimulation will increase by 0.0405%. This can be interpreted in
a much better sense a s $ 1 increase i n stimulation budget will r esult i n a n additional production
benefit of 0.0004047 bbls.
The a mount in d ollars, X, needed to be added to the present budget in order to get an optimum
result can be roughly approximated with the following relationship (valid only for this case):
100
1100
..4.17
where M is t he s timulation budget in $ a nd is th e Lagrange M ultiplier a ssociated w ith th e
budget allocation constraint. is obtained from the optimization model sensitivity result.
For the above result the amount needed to be a dded i n order to get an op timum benefit i s
estimated as:
1000.000405185000
(11000.000405)
$7809
4.3.4 Effect of Price of Oil on Well BU 5 Model Result

The effect of t he price o f oi l on the o bjective f unction is s tudied by varying the pr ice o f oi l
between $40 and $80 per barrel (Figure 4.11). From the figure it is seen that if productivity ratio
is less t han 3 , t he di scounted production obtained from t he stimulation will b e independent o f
price o f o il. H owever, for pr oductivity r atios gr eater t han 3 , t he pr ice o f o il b ecomes a
determining factor, i.e. the higher the price of oil, the higher the discounted production, hence the
more the benefits derivable from the stimulation. From Figure 4.11, if the price of oil is $40/bbl,
the d iscounted production w ill be 9000bbls, a nd t he t otal benefit would equal ( $40/bbl
9000bbls), i.e. $360,000.
4.3.5 Using Case Study 2 Model Result in Candidate Selection

As di scussed in pr evious s ections, this model c an b e used t o r ank s timulation c andidates based
on t he benefits derivable from the stimulation operation. The well with th e h ighest stimulation
benefit is considered first for stimulation. The knowledge of the stimulation benefit to be derived
if a constraint i s a djusted will a lso have gr eat i nfluence on t he c hoice of which candidate i s
selected first. As seen i n section 4 .3.3, ba sed o n t he v alue of t he Lagrange Multiplier,
management m ay be w illing t o allocate m ore m oney to the s timulation job, and this w ill ha ve
great in fluence o n which candidate i s selected first. But th e u ltimate decision will b e b ased on
the companys guidelines and criteria for making reservoir management decisions
12000
10000
8000
Oil Price = $40/bbl
6000
Oil Price = $50/bbl

Oil Price = $60/bbl
Oil Price = $70/bbl
4000
Oil Price = $80/bbl
2000
0
0
Figure 4.10 Effect of oil price on Well BU 5 model result
84 |An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization
Chapter Five
Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusion
This r esearch seeks a method to quantify stimulation benefits derivable from different candidate
wells, a nd us e the result t o rank economically profitable candidates. To achieve t his, a d esign
module was developed for a cidizing based o n t he works o f Schechter a nd G idley32 , a nd
Economides and Nolte86 . O ther design m odules were a lso developed f or gravel packing a nd
recompletion stimulation techniques.
The o ptimization model derived i n t his r esearch c ombines the o utput from t he stimulation
treatment de sign m odule w ith production de cline c urve analysis and economic c ontinuous
discounting c oncepts. The o bjective f unction is f ormulated in the f orm of
a no n-linear
programming pr oblem with some c onstraints. Hence, a constrained optimization p roblem is

presented. The s olution o f the objective function seeks a m aximum di scounted production t hat
satisfies the constraints. The c onstraints considered i nclude those imposed b y the r emaining
recoverable oil i n p lace, t ubing string c apacity, maximum formation productivity a nd t he
stimulation budget approved by management.
To solve the objective function, a non-linear programming solver in Microsoft Excel and LINDO
Systems What is Best 10 were used to g et an optimum s olution. In all similar cases considered,
the s ame o ptimum s olutions were ob tained us ing either of t he t wo s olvers. Wolframs
Mathematica 7.0 was used to verify the solvers results. They were found to be within acceptable
significant figures. Hence the results are correct and meaningful.
Field data ob tained f rom Bestfield offshore N iger D elta were u sed t o validate t he model. F our
candidate wells were selected for acidizing based on a well test data. The four wells are: Well BU
1, Well BU 2, Well BU 3 and Well BU 4. The application of the model to quantify the stimulation
benefits for each of t he four wells r eveals t hat t he Well BU 3 will h ave the g reatest e conomic
returns. Hence, Well BU 3 was ranked first for the stimulation treatment. In all cases, when using
this mo del, stimulation decisions should be based on the cost of the project, payout time and the
stimulation benefit.
A sensitivity a nalysis on t he r esults of t he m odel w as a lso performed. B ased on t he s ensitivity
analysis and the results of the Bestfield Model, it can be concluded that:
1. The proposed methodology and models can be quantitatively used to estimate the benefits
derivable from stimulation options like: acidizing, gravel-packing and recompletion.
2. The mo del and non -linear o ptimization model can be u sed t o r ank c andidate w ells for
selective stimulation. Hence it can be used for stimulation candidate well selection.
3. Below a p roductivity r atio of 3, t he di scounted pr oduction from a cidizing does n ot
depend on the price of oi l. H owever, the ove rall m onetary be nefit derived fro m
stimulation depends on price of oil.
4. The o ptimization m odel can a lso b e u sed to study t he effect o f t he treatment parameters
on the objective function.
5.2 Recommendation
The following recommendations are presented to highlight areas of additional research to
improve the methodology and models developed in this research.
It is recommended that the model be used t o quantify stimulation be nefit derivable from a
stimulation decision o nce a well has been matched t o either of acidizing, gravel packing or
recompletion. F or e ffective use o f the model, i t i s r ecommended t hat t he l ease o perating cost
(LOE) and also, federal and state taxes be considered before ranking the wells for stimulation.
The effect of t he pr e-stimulation p roduction rate on t he o ptimal point of t he objective function
(Fig. 4 .4) needs further investigations. S uch study will help to k now optimal t ime to initiate
stimulation jobs during the producing life of a well.
It i s al so r ecommended, for f urther s tudy, that a nother a pproach, other t hat t he pr oduction
decline curve analysis, that can be used to quantify the stimulation benefit be investigated. This
approach m ay combine inflow performance r elationship and other pressure da ta to obtain a

model that can be used to optimize the stimulation process.
It is further recommended that stimulation optimization correlations be developed, based on the
results of this model, that has a wide range of applications in the Niger D elta and other oil and
gas producing basins.
References
1. Civan, F .: Reservoir Formation Damage Fundamentals, Modeling, Assesment
and Mitigation, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas (2000) p.1
2. Bennion, B ., Formation D amageThe I mpairment o f th e I nvisible, b y the
Inevitable and Uncontrollable, R esulting i n an Indeterminate Reduction of t he
Unquantifiable! Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, V ol. 3 8, No. 2,
February 1999, pp. 11-17.
3. Porter, K. E ., An O verview of F ormation D amage, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 41, No. 8, 1989, pp. 780-786.
4. Mungan, N ., Discussion o f an Overview o f F ormation D amage, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 41, No. 11, Nov. 1989, p. 1224
5. Amaefule, J. O., Ajufo, A., Peterson, E., & Durst, K., "Understanding Formation
Damage Processes: An E ssential I ngredient for I mproved Measurement a nd
Interpretation o f R elative P ermeability Data," SPE 16232 p aper, SPE Production
Operations Symposium, 1987, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
6. Van Everdingen, A.F. a nd H urst, W .: The Application o f the L aplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305
324.
7. Hawkins, M.F.: A Note on the Skin Effect, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(December 1956) 8, 356357.
8. Frick, T .P. a nd Economides, M .J.: Horizontal We ll Damage Characterization
and Removal, SPE Production & Facilities (February 1993) 8, No. 1, pp.1522.
9. Piot, B . M., & L ietard, O . M ., Nature of Formation Damage in Reservoir
Stimulation, in Economides, M. J. & Nolte, K. S., (eds.), Reservoir Stimulation,
Schlumberger Education Services, Houston, Texas, 1987.
10. Economides, M.J., and N olte, K.G., Reservoir Simulation, Third Edition. Wiley,
N.Y. (hardbound) 2000, Chapter One, p. 1-12
11. Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Miller, F.G.: Pseudoskin Factors for Partially
Penetrating D irectionally D rilled Wells, paper SPE 5589, presented a t t he S PE
Annual Technical C onference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (September
28October 1, 1975a).
12. Harris, M.H.: The Effect o f P erforating o n Well Productivity, paper SPE 1236,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (April 1966) 18, pp. 518528.
13. Karakas, M. a nd T ariq, S .: Semi-Analytical Productivity M odels for P erforated
Completions, paper S PE 18247, p resented a t t he S PE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA (October 25, 1988).
14. Economides, M.J., a nd N olte, K.G., Reservoir Simulation, T hird E dition. W iley,
N.Y. (hardbound) 2000, Chapter One, p. 1-13
15. Yan, J ., J iang, G ., & Wu, X., Evaluating o f F ormation D amage C aused by
Drilling a nd Completion Fluids i n H orizontal W ells, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 36, No. 5, 1997, pp. 36-42.
16. McLeod, Jr., H. O a nd C oulter, Jr., A. W.: The Stimulation T reatment P ressure
Record An Overlooked Formation Evaluation Tool Journal of Petroleum
Technology (August, 1969) p. 952
17. Raymond, L . R . a nd H udson, J . L .: Short-Term Well Te sting to D etermine
Wellbore Damage, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Oct. 1966) 1363-1370
18. Amaefule, J. O., Kersey, D. G., Norman, D. L., & Shannon, P. M., Advances in
Formation Da mage Assessment a nd C ontrol Strategies, CIM P aper No. 88 -3965, Proceedings of t he 39th Annual T echnical Meeting o f P etroleum S ociety of
CIM an d C anadian G as P rocessors Association, Ju ne 1 2-16, 1988, C algary,
Alberta, 16 p. 65-2
19. Muskat, M., The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media, McGrawHill Book Co., New York, New York, 1937
21. Leontaritis, K. J ., Asphaltene Ne ar-Wellbore F ormation D amage Modeling,
SPE 39446 p aper, P roceedings of t he 1998 S PE Formation Damage C ontrol
Conference, February 18-19, 1998, Lafayette, Louisiana, pp. 277-288.
23. Zhu, D ., H ill, A. D ., & Morgenthaler, L . N ., Assessment o f M atrix Ac idizing
Treatment R esponses i n G ulf of M exico W ells, Proceedings of t he 199 9 S PE
Mid-Continent O perations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA,
March 28-31, 1999.
24. Mukherjee, H ., & E conomides, M. J ., A P arametric Co mparison of Horizontal

and Vertical Well Performance, SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1991, pp. 209216.
26. Li, Y -H., F ambrough, J . D ., & Montgomery, C. T ., Mathematical M odeling of
Secondary P recipitation f rom Sandstone A cidizing, SPE Journal, December
1998, pp. 393-401
27. Lee, J ., & Kasap, E ., Fluid S ampling from D amaged Formations, SPE 39817
paper, P roceedings of t he 1998 S PE P ermian B asin O il a nd G as Recovery
Conference, March 25-27, 1998, Midland, Texas, pp. 565-570.
28. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, C.A.: Petroleum Production
Systems, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall (1994) p.350
29. Williams, B . B ., G idley, J . L . a nd S chechter, R . S .: Acidizing Fundamentals,
Monograph Series vol. 6, SPE, Dallas, TX, (1979), p. 68
30. Dullien, F. A. L.: Pore Structure Analysis, paper presented at the ACS State-ofthe-Art Summer S ymposium, Div. Ind. Eng. C hem., Washington, D. C. (June,
1969).
31. Scheidegger, A. E: The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media, The Macmillian
Co., New York (1960).
32. Schechter, R. S. a nd G idley, J . L.: The Change i n P ore Size D istribution From
Surface Reactions in Porous media, AIChE Journal (May 1969) 15, pp. 339-350
33. Walsh, M. P ., L ake, L . W ., a nd S chechter, R . S .: A D escription o f C hemical
Precipitation Mechanism and Their Role in Formation Damage during
Stimulation b y H ydrofluoric Acid, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
(September 1982) pp. 2097-2112.
34. Sevougian, S . D ., L ake, L . W ., a nd S chechter, R . S .: A N ew G eochemical
Simulator to Design More Effective Sandstone Acidizing Treatment, SPE paper
24780, 1992.
35. Quinn, M . A., Lake, L arry W . a nd S chechter, R obert S.: "Designing E ffective
Sandstone A cidizing Treatments Through Geochemical Modeling," S PE 38173
presented at the 1997 European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, June
2-3, 1997.

36. Taha, R ., H ill, A. D ., a nd S epehmoori, K., Sandstone Acidizing D esign with a
Generalized Model, SPE Production Engineering, (Feb. 1989), pp. 49-55.
37. Hekim, Y ., Fogler, H . S., a nd M cCune, C . C .: The Radial M ovement of
Permeability F ronts a nd M ultiple R eaction Z ones i n P orous Media, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, pp. 99-107, February 1982
38. da Motta, E . P ., P lavnik, B., and Schechter, R . S .: Optimizing Sandstone
acidizing, SPE Reservoir Engineering, (February 1992a), pp. 149-153,.
39. Sumotarto, U ., Hill, A . D ., and S epehrnoori, K .: An Integrated S andstone
Acidizing Fluid Selection a nd Simulation to O ptimize Tr eatment D esign, S PE
paper 30520 presented at t he SPE Annual T echnical C onference & Exhibition
held in Dallas, TX, U.S.A., (Oct., 1995) pp. 22-25.
40. Gdanski, R. D ., a nd S huchart, C . E.: Advanced Sandstone Acidizing D esigns
With Improved R adial M odels, S PE paper 52397 p resented at the 199 7 SPE
Annual T echnical Conference a nd E xhibition h eld i n S an A ntonio, T exas,(Oct.
1998), pp. 5-8.
41. Hill, A. D., Lindsay, D . M ., Silberberg, I . H., a nd S chechter, R. S.: Theoretical
and E xperimental S tudies of Sandstone A cidizing, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, (Feb. 1981), pp. 30-42.
42. Hekim, Y ., Fogler, H . S., a nd McCune, C . C., The R adial Movement of
Permeability Fronts a nd Multiple R eaction Zones i n Porous M edia, Journal,
(Feb. 1982), pp. 99-107.
43. Schechter, R. S., Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.
N.Y. (hardbound) 2000, Chapter 13, p. 16-13.
45. Bryant, S.L.: An I mproved Model of Mud A cid/Sandstone Chemistry, paper
SPE 22855, presented a t the S PE Annual T echnical C onference a nd E xhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA (October 69, 1991).
46. da M otta, E.P., Plavnik, B ., S chechter, R .S. a nd H ill, A.D.: The Relationship
Between Reservoir M ineralogy a nd O ptimum Sandstone A cid T reatment, pa per
SPE 23802, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA (February 2627, 1992b).
47. Sumotarto, U .: Sandstone A cidizing S imulation: Development of an E xpert
System, PhD dissertation, T he University of T exas a t Austin, Au stin, T exas,
USA (1995).
49. Guin, J.A., Schechter, R.S. and Silberberg, I.H.: Chemically Induced Changes in
Porous Media, Ind. & Eng. Chem. Fund. (February 1971) 10, No.1, pp. 5054.
50. Labrid, J .C.: Thermodynamic and Kinetic Aspects of Argillaceous S andstone
Acidizing, paper S PE 5165, Journal of Petroleum Technology (April 1975), pp.
117128.
51. Lambert, M.E.: A Statistical Study of Reservoir Heterogeneity, MS thesis, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA (1981).
52. Lund, K. a nd Fogler, H .S.: Acidization V. T he Prediction of t he M ovement o f
Acid a nd P ermeability F ronts i n S andstone, Chemical Engineering Science
(1976) 31, No. 5, pp. 381392.
53. McLeod, H .O. J r.: Matrix Acidizing, paper SPE 13752, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (December 1984) 36, pp. 20552069.
54. Shaughnessy, C.M. and Kunze, K.R.: Understanding Sandstone Acidizing Leads
to Improved Field Practices, paper SPE 9388, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(July 1981), pp. 11961202.
55. Hoefner, M.L. and Fogler, H .S.: Pore Evolution a nd Channel Formation During
Flow and Reaction in Porous Media, AIChEJ. (Jan., 1988) 34, No.1, pp. 4554.
56. Hung, K.M., Hill, A.D. and Sepehrnoori, K.: A Mechanistic Model of Wormhole
Growth i n Carbonate M atrix A cidizing a nd Acid Fracturing, paper SPE 16886,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, (January 1989) 41, No. 1, 5966.
57. Daccord, G ., T ouboul, E . a nd L enormand, R .: Carbonate A cidizing: T oward a
Quantitative M odel of t he Wormholing Phenomenon, p aper SPE 16887, SPE
Production Engineering (February 1989), pp. 6368.
58. Pichler, T., Frick, T.P., Economides, M.J. and Nittmann, J.: Stochastic Modeling
of W ormhole Growth i n C arbonate A cidizing with B iased R andomness, pa per
SPE 25004, p resented a t t he S PE European P etroleum C onference, Cannes,
France (November 1618, 1992).
60. Fredd, C.N. and Fogler, H.S.: Influence of Transport and Reaction on Wormhole
Formation in Porous Media, AIChE J. (September 1998b), pp. 19331949.
61. Ben-Naceur, K., E conomides, M . J .: The E ffectiveness of Acid Fractures an d

Their Production Behaviour, Spe Paper 18536, 1988.
62. Lo, K. K., a nd Dean, R . H.: Modeling of Acid Fracturing, SPE Production
Engineering, (May, 1989), pp. 194-200.
63. Settari, A.: Modelling of Acid Fracturing Treatment, paper SPE 21870, 1991.
64. Nierode, D .E. a nd Williams, B.B.: Characteristics of Acid R eactions in
Limestone Formations, paper SPE 3101, presented at the SPE Annual Meeting,
Houston, Texas, USA (Oct. 4-7, 1971); also in Journal of Petroleum Technology
(Dec., 1971), pp. 408-418.
65. Nierode, D.E. a nd Kruk, K.F.: An Evaluation of A cid F luid Loss A dditives,
Retarded Acids and Acidized Fracture Conductivity, paper SPE 4549, presented
at the SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (Sept. 30Oct. 3, 1973).
66. Bennett, C . O .: Analysis Fractured W ells, P h. D. t hesis, University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1982.
67. Ben-Naceur, K., an d E conomides, M. J .: Acid Fracture Propagation an d
Production i n Reservoir Stimulation, M . J . E conomides a nd K. G . N olte, e ds.,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Chap. 18, 1989.
68. Prats, M.: Effects of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behaviour Incompressible
Fluid Case, paper SPE 1575-G, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (June 1961) 1,
No. 1, pp. 105-118; also in Trans., AIME (1961) 222.
69. Agarwal, R . G., Carter, R. D., a nd P ollock, C. B.: Evaluation a nd Prediction o f
Performance o f L ow-Permeability Gas We lls S timulated b y M assive Hydraulic
Fracturing, Journal of Petroleum Technology (March, 1979), Trans. AIME, 267,
pp 362-372.
70. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured
Wells, paper S PE 7490, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September 1981b)
33, 17491766.
71. Cinco-Ley, H ., Samaniego-V., F . an d D ominguez, N .: Transient P ressure
Behavior for a W ell with a F inite-Conductivity V ertical F racture, paper SPE
6014, p resented a t the SPE Annual T echnical C onference a nd E xhibition, N ew
Orleans, L ouisiana, USA ( October 3 6, 1976) ; a lso i n Journal of Petroleum
Technology (August 1978) 18, 253264.

72. Rae, P., and Di Lullo, G.: Achieving 100 Percent Success in Acid Stimulation of
Sandstone R eservoirs, paper S PE 77808, presented a t the SPE A sia Pacific O il
Conference and Exhibition held in Melbourne, Australia (Oct. 8-10, 2002).
73. Nnanna E., O suagwu M., a nd O kereke O .: Important C onsiderations i n Matrix
Stimulation Candidate Selection in Niger Delta, paper SPE 128604 presented at
the 2009 SPE Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja (Aug 3-5).
74. Nitters, G., Roodhart, L., Jongma, H., Yeager, V., Buijse, M., Fulton, D., Dahl, J.,
and J antz, E. : Structured Approach t o Advanced C andidate Selection a nd
Treatment Design of Stimulation Treatments, paper SPE 63179, presented at the
2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference a nd Exhibition held in D allas, T exas
(Oct. 1-4).
75. Jones, L . G.: c ourse no tes, Formation Damage School, Mobil, Duncan, OK
(March 1989).
76. Nnanna, E; Ajienka, J : Critical Success Factors for W ell Stimulation, p aper
SPE 98823 p resented a t t he 2005 N igerian Annual C onference & E xhibition,
Abuja (August 1-3).
77. Al Qahtani, A., and Al Shehri, D.: The Ec-Factor: A Correlation for Optimizing
Completion Efficiency, paper SPE 81490 presented at the 2003 SPE Middle East
Oil Show, Bahrain (April 5-8).
78. Yildiz, Y .: Assessment of T otal Skin Factor i n Perforated W ells, p aper S PE
82249 presented a t t he 2 003 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague (May 13-14).
79. Lee, W. J.: Well Testing, Society of Petroleum Engineers Textbook (1982).
80. Onyekonwu, M. O.: Principles of Bottomhole Pressure Testing, L aser Publishers
Ltd, Port Harcourt. p 91.
81. Afolabi, A, O pusunju A , H enri J , O nyekwere C letus, O nyekwere C hris a nd
Davalos J.: Increasing Production in a Brown Field with Heavy Crude and Fines
Problem by Application of a N ew H F-Acid S ystem: C ase H istories paper SPE
112558 p resented a t the 2008 S PE I nternational S ymposium on Formation
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana (Feb 13-15).
82. Jennings, A. R .: Good Wells M ake th e B est C andidates for W ell Stimulation,
SPE Production Engineering (Nov., 1991), pp 371-376.
83. Kartoatmodjo, G ., C aretta, F ., F lew, S ., J adid, M .: Risk-Based C andidate
Selection W orkflow I mprove Acid S timulation S uccess R atio i n M ature F ield,
paper SPE 109278 presented at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference,
Jarkata, Indonesia (Oct. 30 to Nov. 1st).
84. Al-Araimi, M ., M ahajan, M.: Successful Revival o f L ong-term C losed-in Ga s

Well by Right Matrix Stimulation Treatment, paper SPE 96735 presented at the
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, TX (Oct. 9-12).
85. Sinson, C . M ., O gbe, D . O ., D ehghani, K., Optimization of W ell Stimulation
Strategies in Oil and Gas Fields, paper SPE 17792, 1988.
N.Y. (hardbound) 2000, Chapter Eighteen, p. 24-25.
87. Strubhar, M. K., Blackburn, J. S., and Lee, J. W.: Production Operations Course
II: Well Diagnosis, Lecture Notes for a Video-Tape Course, SPE, Dallas (1972),
pp. 525-544.
88. Vogt, T. C., Anderson, M. L.: Optimizing the Profitability o f Matrix Acidizing
Treatments, pa per SPE 4 550 (preprint) presented at th e S PE AIME 4 8th Annual
Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30- Oct. 3, 1973. (Revised manuscript, May
13, 1974).
89. Ofoh, E . P ., and Heikal S.: Reservoir M anagement Optimization through a
Systematic Removal of Formation D amage, a C ase Study of Okpoho F ield in
Niger-Delta, paper presented at the 30th Annual SPE I nternational Technical
Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, July 31- August 2, 2006.
Nomenclature
cost of gravel packing, $
cost of carrier fluid (base fluid), $/bbl
C max
Maximum Stimulation Budget, $
cost of acid used per unit volume, $/gal
cost of gravel, $/ft3
cost of perforation, $
diameter of perforation tunnel, inches
maximum productivity ratio, dimensionless
diameter of pipe, inches
decline rate, per day
stimulation productivity ratio, dimensionless
fracture gradient, psi/ft
q max
tubing maximum design flowrate, stb/day
thickness of the oil sand, ft
perforated interval length, ft
effective discount rate per day, %
index of anisotropy
inner diameter of the casing string, inches
vertical permeability, md
horizontal permeability, md
reservoir permeability, md
permeability of compacted zone around perforation in rock, md
permeability of the gravel-pack gravel, md
reservoir permeability, md
length of the screen, ft
depth of penetration in rock, ft
number of perforations open
outer diameter of the screen, inches
maximum surface pressure, psi
Pr
average reservoir pressure, psi
price per barrel of oil, $
damaged flow rate, stb/day
length of flow path through gravel pack, inches
length of the blank string, ft
number of perforations
outer diameter of the blank string, inches
damaged standard flow rates, stb/day
the production rate, stb/day
initial production rate, stb/day
reservoir drainage radius, ft
wellbore radius, ft
damaged zone radius, ft
radius of compacted zone around the perforations, ft
ROIP
remaining recoverable reserve, bbl
skin effect caused by partial completion and slant, dimensionless
radius of perforation in rock, ft
skin effect, dimensionless
equivalent skin effect, dimensionless
skin factor due to Darcy flow through the gravel-pack, dimensionless
abandonment time, day
skin due to gravel packing
duration of the stimulation job, days
abandonment time of the post-stimulation production, days
total volume of gravel needed, ft3
volume of mud acid, gal/ft
volume of the carrier fluid (base fluid), bbls
slurry (gravel + carrier fluid) volume, bbls
weight of gravel, lbs
volume of HCl required, gal/ft
fraction of the bulk rock dissolved by HCl
porosity, fraction
density of the carrier fluid (base fluid), ppg
slurry density, ppg
porosity, fraction
specific gravity of the acid (or density of acid in g/cc)
Appendix A
A Simple Well Screening Flow Chart
Evaluate well problems
No
No
No
No
Re-evaluate
well problem
Positive
skin effect?
Mechanical
problems?
(e.g plugged perf.)
Yes
high water
production?
Yes
high sand
production?
Yes
Yes
gravel
packing
recompletion
recompletion
matrix
acidizing
Benson Best Ugbenyen, 2010
Appendix B
Stimulation Cost and Performance

(After Vogt et. al, 1973)
Appendix C
Solver Results
CASE STUDY 1
Well BU 1 Model output result
Solver Answer Report for Well BU 1 Model
Solver Sensitivity Report for Well BU 1 Model
Solver Limits Report for Well BU 1 Model
Solver Answer Report for Well BU 3 Model
Solver Sensitivity Report for Well BU 3 Model
Solver Limits Report for Well BU3 Model
CASE STUDY 2 Section 1
Solver answer report for Well BU 5 model
Solver sensitivity report for Well BU 5 model
Solver limit report for Well BU 5 model
CASE STUDY 2 Section 2
(a)
(b)
Appendix D
Whats Best 10.0 Results
CASE STUDY 1
CASE STUDY 2
Appendix E
Mathematica 7.0 Results
CASE STUDY 1
Mathematica 7.0 plot of the objective function for Well BU 3 Model
Mathematica 7.0 input syntax and results for Well BU 3 Model
Mathematica 7.0 inpretation of input data and results for Well BU 3 Model
CASE STUDY 2
Appendix F
Derivation of the Objective Function for Other Decline Cases
The derivation of the optimization model presented in this section is modified from the published
work of Sinson et al.85 Let u s start by deriving t he o ptimization model for the ge neral de cline
curve analysis.
F.1
General Decline Curve Optimization

The general decline curve equation is given by:
() =
Where:
(F.1)
[1+ ]
= hyperbolic constant
= initial decline rate
The general form for the discounted production from stimulation, , is expressed as:
[1+ ( )]
If we denote the denominator of (F.2) by , and solving for :

= 1 + ( )
=
(F.3)
(F.4)
( 1 + )
(F.2)
(F.5)
Substituting (F.4) and (F.5) into the original equation (F.2):

=
1
1+ ]

1

Since, , and are constants, we can express the equation as:

=
Similarly the general form of the production loss component, , is:
(F.6)
(F.7)
= 0
[1+ ( )]
(F.8)
Using equation (F.3), (F.4), and (F.5) and simplifying, we obtain:

=
(F.9)
Note that the general form of the solution for and using integral transformations is of
the form:

= 2
= 1
(EXPONENTIAL DECLINE CASE)
(F.11)
(HARMONIC DECLINE CASE)
(F.12)
+ () (HYPERBOLIC DECLINE CASE)
(F.13)
= ()

2
(F.10)
A closed form solution exists when:

= 0
1 1
Note that equation (F.13) is the most common form of hyperbolic decline curve.
Let:
1
(F.14)
= ,
and =
(F.15)
Harmonic Decline Optimization
F.2
F.2.1 Objective Function,

Where:
= discounted production from stimulation

= discounted production loss
= discounted equivalent production cost
1. The discounted production from stimulation is:
(F.16)
=
Where:
1+ ( )
(F.17)
= the production rate before stimulation
= the productivity ratio
= the nominal decline rate before stimulation

Changing variables, we get:
Such that:
and
(F.18)
= 1 +
(F.19)
( 1 + )
(F.20)
Substituting (F.19) and (F.20) into the original equation, (F. 17):
Integrating:
( )
( )
(F.21)
(1 + )

Simplifying:
and:
=
( )
( )
(F.23)
(F.24)
(F.22)
Note that the time to reach the economic limit is:
(F.25)
Where:
= abandonment production rate
Therefore equation (F.24) becomes:

=
( )
(F.26)
2. The discounted production lost during stimulation is:

= 0
1+
(F.27)
Using the same change of variable:
Such that:
(F.18)
= 1 +
=
and
(F.19)
( 1 + )
We get:
and
Therefore:
(F.28)
(1 + )

(F.20)
(F.29)
(F.30)
(F.31)
3. The discounted equivalent production from stimulation cost is:
With the above derivations, can now be written as:
= 1 (2 3 ) 1 (4 ) 6 5
(F.32)
(F.33)
Where:

1 =
( )
2 =
3 =
4 =
5 =
F.2.2 Constraints
(F.34)
(F.35)
(F.36)
6 =
(F.37)
(F.38)
(F.39)
The same constraints formulated in the exponential case also applied here.
Constraint 1. Break-even point
The incremental revenue from any stimulation decision should be greater than or at least equal to
the cost of the project.
(1 + ) + 0 1+
(F.40)
Performing the integration and using the definition of given in equation (F.25) and using the
constants above, we get:
1 (2 3 ) 1 (4 ) 6 5
(F.41)
Constraint 2. Recoverable oil in place
The recovery from the stimulation cannot exceed the remaining oil in place.

(1 +
)
The integral is equal to:
[ ]
(F.42)
(F.43)
Using the definition of and substituting in the equation:

and:
where:
(F.44)
7 (8 9 ) 10
(F.45)
ln
7 =
8 =
9 =
10 =
(F.46)
(F.47)
(F.48)
(F.49)
Constraint 3. Flow string capacity

The pr oduction r ate a fter s timulation should n ot e xceed the maximum d esign capacity o f t he
flow string, i.e.,

(F.50)
Where is the maximum design capacity of the flowing string.

Constraint 4. Budget limitation
The cost of the stimulation should not exceed the budget.

Where is the budget for the stimulation job.

Constraint 5. Reservoir productivity ratio constraint
(F.51)
The maximum attainable pr oductivity ratio from stimulation de pends on t he reservoir pr operties
and treatment parameters.

(F.52)
Where is the maximum attainable productivity ratio.

Constraint 6. Cost productivity ratio equation
The cost and productivity ratio relationship can be formulated into the following equation.
= 100 1
(F.53)
Where 0 and 1 are the intercept and slope of a regression line through the data.
F.2.3 Form of the NLP
Equations (F.33) and (F.53) define the NLP model for the harmonic case.
Maximize:
= 1 (2 3 ) 1 (4 ) 6 5
(F.33)
Subject to:
1 (2 3 ) 1 (4 ) 6 5
7 (8 9) 10

= 100 1
(F.41)
(F.45)
(F.50)
(F.51)
(F.52)
(F.53)
F.3 Hyperbolic Decline Optimization

To develop a closed form solution to the model, we shall consider only the case when = 2.
The solution form to the general case is given in equation (F.13).
F.3.1 Objective Function,
The objective function is formulated as:

(F.16)
Where:
= discounted production from stimulation

= discounted production loss
= discounted equivalent production cost

1. The discounted production from stimulation is:
1+ 2 ( )
(F.54)
Changing variables, we get:
= 1
Such that:
and
(F.55)
(F.56)
(F.57)
( 1 +
=
)
2
Substituting equations (F.55), (F.56) and (F.57) into (F. 54), then simplifying:
=
(F.58)
The economic life is:

2
0.5
(F.59)
Integrating equation (F.58), then substituting equation (F.59) and simplifying:
0.5
2
2 +
where:
2
1 =
2 = +
3 =
(F.60)
+ 1 3 2 3
0.5
2 0.5
(F.61)
(F.62)
(F.63)
2. The discounted production lost during stimulation is:

= 0
1+ 2
(F.64)
Using similar variable change and simplifying:
1+
2

1+ 2
1 +
Simplifying further:
1+ 2
This expression for is constant.
(F.65)
(F.66)
We can define:
4 =
1+ 2
(F.67)
1. The discounted equivalent production from stimulation cost is:
We can define:
5 =
Therefore:
(F.69)
(F.70)
= 5
The objective function can now be written as:

Where:
6 =
3 8 6
0.5
9 + 7 0.5
+ 1 3 2 3 4 5
0.5
7 =

0.5
8 =
F.3.2 Constraints
9 =
(F.32)
(F.71)
(F.72)
(F.73)
(F.74)
(F.75)
The same constraints formulation as in previous cases applies here.

Constraint 1. Break-even point
The incremental revenue from any stimulation decision should be greater than or at least equal to
the cost of the project.
1+ 2 ( )
+ 0
1+ 2
(F.76)
Evaluating:
0.5
2

0.5
+
2
+ 1 3 2 3 4 + 5
(F.77)
Constraint 2. Recoverable oil in place

The recovery from the stimulation cannot exceed the remaining oil in place.
1+ 2 ( )
(F.78)
Evaluating the left hand side:
1+ 2 2
Simplifying using the definition of and the defined constants:

10
Where:
7 0.5 1 1
7 0.5 9
10 =
(F.79)
(F.80)
(F.81)
Constraint 3. Flow string capacity

The pr oduction r ate a fter stimulation should n ot e xceed t he maximum d esign capacity o f t he
flow string, i.e.,

Where is the maximum design capacity of the flowing string.
(F.82)
Constraint 4. Budget limitation

The cost of the stimulation should not exceed the budget.
(F.51)
Where is the budget for the stimulation job.

Constraint 5. Reservoir productivity ratio constraint
The ma ximum attainable pr oductivity ratio from stimulation de pends on t he reservoir pr operties
and treatment parameters.
(F.52)
Where is the maximum attainable productivity ratio.

Constraint 6. Cost productivity ratio equation
The cost and productivity ratio relationship can be formulated into the following equation.
= 100 1
(F.53)
Where 0 and 1 are the intercept and slope of a regression line through the data.
A.3.3 Form of the NLP
The equation (F.71), together with all the constraints considered, can be summarized as:
Maximize:
Subject to:
3 8 6
0.5
9 + 7 0.5
+ 1 3 2 3 4 5
(F.71)
0.5
2

0.5
+
2
10
7 0.5 1 1
7 0.5 9
+ 1 3 2 3 4 + 5

F.4
Summary
= 100 1
(F.77)
(F.80)
(F.82)
(F.51)
(F.52)
(F.53)
The s timulation optimization models de veloped i n this section of t he a ppendix can be us ed i n

place of the exponential model used in the thesis. The solution procedure is the same.

Benson Oghenovo Ugbenyen

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Benson Oghenovo Ugbenyen

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

AN Approach to stimulation candidate selection

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Master of

BENSON OGHENOVO UGBENYEN

An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

Prof. (Emeritus) David O. Ogbe

iii | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

iv | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

v | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

vi | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Well Stimulation Objectives.1

1.3 Well Stimulation Methods....2

1.3.1.1 Matrix Acidizing Fluid Selection and Treatment Additives ....3

1.4 Gravel Packing......7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

vii | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

viii | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

CHAPTER FOUR: MODEL VALIDATION, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

ix | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

x | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

xi | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

Input Data for Sensitivity Analysis...59

Bestfield Model Data..68

Bestfield Model Summary..75

Well BU 5 Model Data...78

1 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

The Near Wellbore Condition

Permeability reduction i n t he r egion near t he wellbore in a producing zo ne i s r eferred t o a s

The Composite Skin Effect

Well Stimulation: Definition and Objectives

1.2.1 Well Stimulation Objectives

2 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

Well Stimulation Methods

3 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

Examining t he well r ecords to i dentify o perations t hat might ha ve r esulted in formation

Examining t he da maged core with sophisticated a nalytical techniques s uch a s t he

1.3.1.1. Matrix Acidizing Fluid Selection and Treatment Additives

is d esigned t o e ffectively r emove or b ypass t he damage, whereas a dditives a re u sed t o prevent

4 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

are a lso u sed i n preflushes a nd overflushes t o stabilize clays a nd di sperse pa raffins a nd

nitrogen and alcohols.

1.3.1.2. Benefits and Limitations of Matrix Acidizing Processes

1.3.2 Fracture Acidizing

5 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

6 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

7 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

when producing t hese r eserves ( or i t i s economically ju stifiable to i nstall a rtificial li ft);

1.4 Gravel Packing

1.5 Stimulation Economics and Candidate Selection

8 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

Objective and Procedure of the Study

The goal o f t his r esearch i s to present a

model for i dentifying s timulation candidates,

9 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

Limitation of the Study

10 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

Review of Formation Damage Mechanism

2.1.2 Causes of Formation Damage

11 | An Approach to Stimulation Candidate Selection and Optimization

Invasion o f foreign particles and mobilization of indigenous particles, such a s

Operation conditions s uch a s w ell flow r ates a nd wellbore pr essures a nd

Properties of the formation fluids and porous matrix.