SPE 128115

Combining Selective Stimulation with Tailored Perforating Improves

Injection Profile in a Carbonate Reservoir: A Case Study
Jamal M.A Al-Gub, Tsuneo Horikoshi, and Kazutoshi Ichikawa, Bunduq Co., Ltd., Alan Salsman SPE,
Fardin Ali Neyaei SPE, and Fidias Vasquez SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 1417 February 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In a multi-layer heterogeneous carbonate reservoir in which production and injection is being carried out, one of the
biggest challenges faced is to produce/inject evenly from/to the different layers. At elevated temperatures this heterogeneity
limits the success of conventional stimulation techniques. A novel acid diversion technique involving selective stimulation and
tailored perforation design techniques was applied in an offshore UAE well to improve injectivity in a multi-layered
heterogeneous carbonate reservoir.
The well in question was re-completed from a dual string water injector well to a single string gas injector re-perforated in four
different sub-zones. Well test and production logging data were used to estimate permeability and flow profile before the
workover. These data were then used to run NODAL analysis, stimulation simulation, and perforation simulation models. The
final workover proposal called for:
Perforation over the same interval as was previously perforated using different gun and charge sizes to establish
controlled injection based on the different zones permeability.
Optimized coiled tubing (CT) selective stimulation using high strength retarded acid pumped in stages with a self
diverting acid.
The well injection performance was dramatically improved as evidenced by the gross injection value and the injection profile
obtained in a post treatment production logging run.
This paper details the planning, execution and final evaluation of this job which is unique in that the same interval was tested
twice, before and after workover, after being completed using different perforating and stimulation techniques.
Background
Carbonate reservoirs tend to be complex and often exhibit large variations in permeability over different sections of the
same producing zone1. These variations in the permeability profile create challenges when planning to inject acid (commonly
done in carbonates), produce hydrocarbons, or inject water or gas. It is often the high permeability zones that will dominate
while the lower permeability zones will miss the treatment or not be produced.
In this case study, the well studied was first completed in 2005 as a water injector with a 9 5/8-in. casing. Four layers
identified in the reservoir are continuous and are principally calcite with a large dolomite stringer in layer 2, (Fig.1). The
permeabilities of the layers range from 3.6 to 44.7 md, (Table 1), porosities range from 16 to 22%, and the rock is considered
to be hard and competent.
The four layers were perforated across the entire interval apart from 10 ft at the top of layer 4. Perforation was done through
tubing with 2-in. 60o phase deep penetration guns. After perforation the zone was treated with acid and the well was put on
injection. It was apparent from the production log run after the well was on injection that the injection profile was not optimal.
The bulk of the injection was going into the high permeability zone, (Fig. 2).
In 2009 a workover was scheduled to convert the dual string water injector well to a single string gas injector. This
intervention required a 7-in. liner to be run and cemented inside the 9 5/8-in. casing. The same injection interval was required
2 SPE 128115

to be perforated again. This time an effort was made to improve the injection profile by adjusting the perforating method as
well as the technique used for acid matrix stimulation. It has been shown previously that the perforation job design can have a
significant impact on the flow profile across zones of varying permeability2. Similar techniques could also be applied to this
gas injector well.
Perforation Job Considerations
As part of the preparation to reperforate this section in the 7-in. liner a perforation model was created and several different
scenarios evaluated using each of the reservoir characteristics for the different layers. An assumption was made that the
pressure in the different layers is the same as there is vertical permeability (kv/kh approximately 10 to 20%) connecting all the
layers. Two different gun types were modeled, 4 -in. 5 shots/foot (spf) 72o phase premium deep penetration gun and the 2-
in. 6 spf 60 o phase premium deep penetration gun9.
These two gun systems have very different performance characteristics (Figs. 3 and 4). The average modeled formation
penetration for the 2-in. and 4 -in. gun systems through the two casing ranges from 6.8-in. to 21.3-in. with average casing
entry hole size in the outer casing varying from 0.13 to 0.37 in diameter, respectively. This variation in performance was
used to help control the injection profile.
Based on the reservoir parameters for each layer and the perforation gun performance in overbalance conditions an injection
index (II) was predicted for each layer. Although there were slight changes in penetration in the different layers the differences
are minimal so are averaged, (Table 2).
In an attempt to maintain a consistent II for each interval the decision was made to shoot the 4 -in. gun for layers 1, 3 and 4
and then run the 2-in. gun for layer 2. In both cases the guns were to be shot at slightly overbalanced conditions.
Acid Matrix Stimulation Job Design

Candidate Selection and Nodal Analysis

As defined in several matrix engineering references, a first step toward a successful treatment is candidate selection. However,
the well in question is a special case in that it was not selected from a certain well population, but rather was selected because
the workover had to be done. Nevertheless, a candidate selection exercise was done to confirm that the well was a good
candidate for matrix stimulation. For that NODAL analysis was performed. Since well injection was not possible before the
treatment it was assumed that the well has some damage, and total skin was quantified from perforation, stimulation and
NODAL-analysis modeling to have an average value over the four layers in the range of 30 to 35 3.
Assuming a successful treatment with a skin reduction to zero the well will have an injection potential of 17MMscf/d at
wellhead pressure (WHP) of 3,520 psi and well head temperature (WHT) of 130o F, (Fig.-5).
Treatment Design
Carbonate acidizing is based on bypassing the near wellbore damage by creating efficient wormholes.4 Wormholes are
affected by: temperature, injection rate, treatment volume, chemical type (reaction rate), and diversion. Carbonate stimulation
treatments can be modeled using well known software. Since the first parameter, temperature, is given, a matrix engineering
design is required to output optimum volumes, rates and fluid types. In addition to that, diversion is a big challenge in most
carbonate reservoirs and hence it will be the second major output.
At high temperatures and in heterogeneous reservoirs, wormholing becomes very challenging and requires nontraditional acid
treatments. Software models are available to simulate chemical reactions based on proposed treatment design and fluid
selection. Considering the number of variables a matrix treatment design can produce hundreds of design possibilities.
However, based on experience and previous best practices, a stimulation engineer can limit the sensitivity analysis and focus
the design on only few scenarios. The following sections describe the effort made to fine tune the simulation input parameters.
Fluid and Additives Selection
The most common acid used to treat carbonate formations is HCl. Formic and acetic acids can also be used, mainly in retarded
acid systems or in high-temperature applications. HCl is typically the fluid of choice because of its moderate cost and soluble
reaction products (CaCl2 and CO2). Typically, in this region, it is used at a 15% concentration. This concentration was
originally chosen because of inadequacies in early inhibitors and the difficulty of preventing the corrosion of well tubulars by
more concentrated solutions. However, with the recent development of improved inhibitors, higher concentrations of HCl have
become practical and, in some cases, they provide increased effectiveness.4
The principal disadvantage of HCl is its high corrosiveness on wellbore tubular goods. This high corrosiveness is especially
significant and expensive to control at temperatures above 250o F. However, for this reason and for better placement and
cleanup, CT has been used to place and jet the acid and at the same time limit the exposure of the well tubulars to acid.
SPE 128115 3

The reaction rate of HCl with calcium carbonate is nearly proportional to acid concentration up to 20% HCl. From 20% to
24%, the reaction rate increases to a maximum and above this level the rate appears to be reduced. As the acid spends, the
reaction rate reduces because of the reduced acid concentration. The reaction rate also is affected by reaction products such as
calcium carbonate and carbon dioxide, (Fig. 6). Therefore, although more concentrated acid solutions (e.g. 34% vs. 15% HCl)
may have lower initial reaction rates, they take longer to completely spend and could penetrate the reservoir rock farther
thereby exhibiting a quasi-retarded character.
In general, highly reactive acids tend to form a limited number of wormholes, while less reactive acids form more numerous,
shorter and smaller diameter wormholes.4
For the subject well, bottom hole temperature is expected to be 250o F at gas injection. Taking the worst case scenario, all
treatment options were considered at this elevated temperature. For comparison purpose, 15% HCl was considered as the base
fluid scenario. However, varying the concentrations showed no major difference in rock response hence, a different acid
system, emulsified acid, was considered.
Emulsified acid systems consist of a two phase, internal aqueous system, which is normally HCl acid, and an external oil
phase, which is diesel in this case. The acid/diesel ratio can be anything between 50/50 and 90/10. In our case 70/30 acid/
diesel ratio was selected based on recommendations from previous practices. At elevated temperatures, it becomes very
difficult to hold the emulsion stable for long durations. Hence the selection of the right and well tested emulsifying agent is
vital.5, 6, 7
Acid covered with a film of diesel exhibit a much lower reaction rate and hence the solution becomes retarded. Laboratory
testing on carbonate cores proved that the retardation factor can increase up to 13 times that of normal HCl acid for a given
concentration. In addition to this, emulsified acid brings other advantages:
A higher concentration of HCl can be used at a given temperatures but yet still be easily inhibited.
Less aqueous content needs to be pumped into the formation. This is good in cases of water sensitive formations and
gas reservoirs in which water tends to accumulate close to the wellbore, inhibiting gas flow. This water bank can
be difficult to remove. As an example, if 28% HCl is used in a 70/30 emulsion compared to 15% HCL, the amount of
water in 1000 gallon solution in the emulsion is 504 gallons while for 15% HCl only it is 850 gallons.
On the other hand, using straight acid systems without diversion is not recommended at all as this will treat the most
permeable zone at the expense of the less permeable zones. Chemical diversion has been used extensively in carbonate
stimulation with good results. In this case, the options were limited to polymer based self diverting acid and surfactant based
self diverting acid. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages.
The polymer based system has the advantage of being completely Ph controlled, i.e. the system will cross link at pH of
approximately 3 and breaks back when pH goes to about 4 (Fig.7). This means that the system does not need an external
breaker. On the other hand, it is known that polymer based diverters can leave residual damage in the formation and may not
achieve 100% cleanup.
Surfactant based diversion does not leave residual damage but does require an external breaker. This diversion system is
designed to be broken when the surfactant comes in contact with hydrocarbon, which is the case in oil producing wells.
However for water and dry gas injectors, an external solvent needs to be pumped after (and sometimes before) stimulation to
facilitate breakdown. This deficiency brings another disadvantage, which is incompatibility with emulsion based acid systems,
since the outer phase is oil and contact between the two systems might prematurely break the surfactant based diverter.
Therefore it was decided to use the polymer based self diverter acid and post treatment flush the whole treatment with 15%
HCL to re-bypass any residual damage that might have been created by the polymer system. Also, the lower the
concentration of the acid the faster it spends. Hence, the concentration of the acid within the diverter was selected to be only
5% so that most of cross linking would happen in the face of the formation or after few inches of penetration.
Pumping Schedule
Fortunately, with this well we had a good set of data necessary for designing an engineered matrix stimulation treatment. (Fig.
8) shows the data sheet that was used to gather the information required to simulate a matrix acidizing job. As discussed in the
previous section, three main scenarios were considered, namely: using only 15% HCL, using 15% HCl with 5% polymer self
diverting acid, and using 28% emulsified acid with 5% self diverting acid and 15% HCl as a post treatment flush. All scenarios
considered using CT placement.
Wormholing per zone and fluid radial penetration per zone are the two major outputs compared for the three scenarios. (Figs 9
and 10) show these comparisons with a brief description of each case. The comparison led to the selection of case A, hence
case A will be explained in more detail.
(Fig. 11) shows the pumping schedule. CT was used to place the acid and diverter stages starting from the worst quality layer
and ending up with the best layer (thief zone). Acid and diverter were divided into stages based on interval height. All layers
4 SPE 128115

were good for representing one stage except for layer 3 which was too large and hence was divided into two stages. (Fig. 12)
shows the software prediction of the skin evolution versus treatment stages. It shows that skin was reduced from 30 to -1.9.
H2S, which was reported at 13.7 %, was an added complication to the design of this job. Special corrosion inhibitors were used
for the emulsified acid8. In addition to that CT external inhibitor was proposed to coat the outside surface of the pipe with a
film of inhibitor. This would be done through an injection port in the CT well control stack.
Job Execution
Layers 1, 3 and 4 were perforated using wireline in overbalance conditions in brine with the 4 -in. guns before the
completion was run. After the completion was in place the 2-in. guns were run to shoot layer 2, also in overbalance conditions.
The zones were stimulated with an acid matrix treatment.
(Fig. 13) shows the main stimulation execution chart. The diversion pressure is clear at the first diversion stage and gets
smaller and smaller at the forth (last) stage. This is a good sign that chemical diversion has actually worked and has diverted
the flow to the least permeable zones at the beginning of the pumping. However when more and more tight zones have been
stimulated zones became very close to each other in term of flow resistance and hence the last diversion stage was not so
obvious.
(Fig. 14) shows the injectivity test comparison before the treatment and after the treatment. The injectivity improvement was
the first immediate indication of the success of the job. For instance at an injection rate of 5.5 bbl/min wellhead pressure was
2,085 psi before the job and it dropped to 1,081 psi after the job.
Results
After the matrix stimulation job an injection test was carried out with water to determine the flow profile. Using these results a
second NODAL analysis was performed. Total skin was quantified from stimulation and NODAL analysis models to have an
average value over the four layers in the range of -2 to -3 (Figs. 15 and 12). The operating point in the NODAL analysis was at
WHP of 2000 psi and WHT of 120 F with water flow of 13960 stb/d (Fig. 15).
As indicated in (Fig. 16) the injection profile has improved considerably since 2005 with a much more even injection
distribution across the interval.
For a final check of the procedure it would be useful to conduct a multi-rate production logging tool survey with fall-off tests
to confirm the post treatment skin in each zone.
With a combination of perforating techniques to help promote flow into the lower permeability zones and a well designed acid
matrix stimulation job the objectives of this workover program were met. A good injection rate was achieved and the flow
profile across the four different layers was considerably improved.
Conclusion
In this unusual situation where 2 different completion methods were used on the same intervals of varying permeability in the
same well it was shown that the new approach provided significantly improved results over the original method.
Using the perforating modeling tool to predict the relative II in the different zones with different gun systems led to a fit for
purpose gun selection. The reduced penetration and tunnel sizes with the 2-in. gun were a good fit for the high permeability
zone while the deeper penetration and larger tunnel diameter helped improve injection into the lower permeability zones. This
will have impacted both the final injection profile and also the acid diversion efficiency.
The detailed study of the stimulation fluids and pumping techniques showed clearly the preferred option of the 28% emulsified
acid with 5% self diverting acid and 15% HCl being placed with coiled tubing. Both the fluid picks and the execution
technique were critical to the success of this job.
The final flow profile seen in the production logging run after the workover done in 2009 (Fig. 16) illustrates clearly how
effective this combination of tailored perforating and a well designed selective stimulation program can be.
SPE 128115 5

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bachir Sadaoui, Schlumberger, Abu Dhabi for help preparing the injection profile comparison.
References
1. Middle East and Asia Reservoir Review 09, Schlumberger, Committed to Carbonates
http://www.slb.com/content/services/resources/mewr/num9.asp Downloaded Dec 4th 2009.
2. H. Rodriguez, O. Molina, A. Salazar, A.K. Rondon, M.Mendez, PDVSA, A. Fayard, C.Gama, C.Smitheman, A. Marmol, E.
Cervantes, Schlumberger SPE 103070 Customized Reperforating With New Technologies, for Optimal Field Drainage and
Productivity Enhancement: East Venezuela Applications Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference in SanAntonio,
Texas, 24-27 Sept. 2006
3. R.R. Jackson, SPE, and R. Banerjee, SPE, Schlumberger; SPE # 62917 Advances in Multilayer Reservoir Testing and Analysis
using Numerical Well Testing and Reservoir Simulation.
4. Michael J. Economides, Kenneth G. Nolte- Reservoir Stimulation 3rd Edition;
5. R.C. Navarrete,* SPE, B.A. Holms, SPE, and S.B. McConnell, Dowell, and D.E. Linton, Spirit Energy 76- SPE# 63012:
Laboratory, Theoretical, and Field Studies of Emulsified Acid Treatments in High-Temperature Carbonate Formations
6. H.A. Nasr-El-Din, SPE, H.A. Al-Anazi, SPE, and S.K. Mohamed, Saudi Arabian Oil Co.; SPE# 65069: Stimulation of Water-
Disposal Wells Using Acid-in-Diesel Emulsions: Case Histories
7. H.A. Nasr-El-Din, SPE, J.R. Solares, SPE, S.H. Al-Mutairi, Saudi Aramco, M.D. Mahoney, SPE, Schlumberger; SPE# 71693:
Field Application of Emulsified Acid-Based System to Stimulate Deep, Sour Gas Reservoirs in Saudi Arabia
8. A.S.Ali Al-Habsi, S.Mokhtar, A.Lahmadi Schlumberger; SPE# 107099: Corrosion Inhibition for High-Temperature and High-
H2S Coiled-Tubing Applications
9. From API RP 19B Section 1 at public site http://compositelist.api.org/FacilitiesList.ASP?Fac=Yes&CertificationStandard=API-
19B ; Data: 4.50-in. HSD, PowerJet Omega 4505, HMX, pen: 59.2 in., EH 0.43 in., 2.00-in. HSD, PowerJet Omega 2006, HMX,
Pen 21.8 in., EH 0.22 in.
6 SPE 128115
SPE 128115 7
8 SPE 128115

11

10 15% spending
22% spending
REACTION RATE x 10-4 (lb/ft2/sec)

9
28% spending
8 34\% spending
37% spending
7

1
0 5 10 16 20 25 30 35
% HCl

Figure-6: Reaction rate of hydrochloric acid

SPE 128115 9

Matrix Acidizing Input Data Sheet

Well: EB-XX Company: Bunduq
Field: Bunduq Date: 04-Feb-09

Reservoir Pre@ X449.5 ft TVDss, psig 4,203 Completion Type: Single ST

BHST, F 250 Treatment Path: Coiled Tubing
Surface Temp, F 80 Well Depth ETD X,120MDBRT
Well Spacing, ft (nearest well EB-XX) 1,150 Casing: 7" 26ppf SM2535
Wellbore Diameter, in 12 1/4" CRA110 Vam Top HC
Reservoir Type Carbonate Tubing 4 1/2" 12.6ppf L-80, ID 3.958"
3 1/2" 9.2ppf SM2535, ID 2.991"
Wtr gravity lb/ft3 refer to attachment Packer: 7"halliburton TWD packer
Salinity (Chloride) refer to attachment Perf - Diameter, in 2"HSD
Wtr Saturation 0.28862 Shot Density, spf 6, 3 (only Arab D2)
Gas Gravity 0.85SG Tunnel Length, in 13.04
7" Liner Hanger Gas Saturation (Gas Injector) Phasing, degrees 60, 120 (only Arab D2)
Oil API Gravity (Gas Injector) Gravel Pack Top, ft MD Btm, ft MD
Bubble Point, psig (Gas Injector) .. ..
Initial GOR, SCF/BBL (Gas Injector) MD (ft BRT) TVD (ft BRT) Deviation (deg)
Oil Saturation (Gas Injector) XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Skin Analysis S = -3.566
Tot Inj, BWPD 15,000
FBHP, psi 5,239

Layer # 1 Lithology,% Layer Damage

Layer, MD Top X,755 Btm X,798 Quartz .. ..
Perf, MD Top X,776 Btm X,798 Mica .. ..
Permeability, md 9.48 Calcite 99.62 ..
X,400 ft MDBRT Kh/Kv 6.21 Dolomite 0.38 ..
Porosity, % 18.62 K-Feldspar .. ..
Damage Penetration,in .. Na-Feldspar .. ..
Fracture Gradient, psi/ft 0.86 Kaolinite .. ..
Form Damage Type .. Smectite .. ..
Flow contribution 26% Illite .. ..
X,475 ft MDBRT Glauconite .. ..
Chlorite .. ..

Layer # 2 Lithology,% Layer Damage

Layer, MD Top X,798 Btm X,828 Quartz .. ..
Perf, MD Top X,798 Btm X,828 Mica .. ..
X,776 ft MDBRT
Permeability, md 44.74 Calcite 43.52 ..
Kh/Kv 11.17 Dolomite 56.48 ..
Porosity, % 18.85 K-Feldspar .. ..
Damage Penetration,in .. Na-Feldspar .. ..
Fracture Gradient, psi/ft 0.86 Kaolinite .. ..
Form Damage Type .. Smectite .. ..
Flow contribution 61% Illite .. ..
Glauconite .. ..
Chlorite .. ..

Layer # 3 Lithology,% Layer Damage

Layer, MD Top X,828 Btm X,882 Quartz .. ..
X,882 ft MDBRT Perf, MD Top X,828 Btm X,882 Mica .. ..
Permeability, md 16.15 Calcite 97.64 ..
X,892 ft MDBRT Kh/Kv 4.8 Dolomite 2.46 ..
Porosity, % 22.53 K-Feldspar .. ..
Damage Penetration,in .. Na-Feldspar .. ..
X,912 ft MDBRT
Fracture Gradient, psi/ft 0.86 Kaolinite .. ..
Form Damage Type .. Smectite .. ..
Flow contribution 6% Illite .. ..
7" Liner Shoe
Glauconite .. ..
Chlorite .. ..

12 1/4" Hole Lithology,% porous limestone Damage

Layer # 4
Layer, MD ft Top X,882 Btm X,914 Quartz ..
Perf, MD Top X,892 Btm X,912 Mica .. ..
Permeability, md 3.62 Calcite 99.76 ..
Kh/Kv 4.17 Dolomite 0.34 ..
Porosity, % 16.51 K-Feldspar .. ..
Damage Penetration,in Na-Feldspar .. ..
Fracture Gradient, psi/ft 0.86 Kaolinite ..
Form Damage Type Smectite .. ..
Flow contribution 7% Illite .. ..
Glauconite .. ..
Chlorite .. ..

Figure-8: Basic data used for matrix stimulation treatment

10 SPE 128115

StimCADE* A- 28% 1-2

Emulsified acid + 5%
s da5% with 15%HCL post flus h
02-16-2009
Acid Placement: Wormhole length vs. Volume by Zone
Self diverting Acid +15% HCL
3.0
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3

2.5 --- Treatment Fluids ---

1 - Emusified Acid 28%
2 - Self Diverting Acid 5%
3 - HCl 15%
2.0
Wormhole Length (ft)

Zone 1
1.5
Zone 2
1.0 Zone 3
Zone 4
0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Volume (bbl)

StimCADE*
*Mark of Schlumberger
1-2 HCL ONLY
B-02-15%
16-2009 HCL
Acid Placement: Wormhole length vs. Volume by Zone

3.0
1

2.5
--- Treatment Fluids ---
1 - HCl 15%
2.0
Zone 1
Wormhole Length (ft)

Zone 2
1.5 Zone 3
Zone 4
1.0

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Volume (bbl)

StimCADE* C- 15% HCL + 5% Self

1-2-hcl-sda
02-16-2009
Acid Placement: Wormhole length vs. Volume by Zone
*Mark of Schlumberger
Diverting Acid
1.4
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

1.2
--- Treatment Fluids ---
1 - HCl 15%
1.0 2 - Self Divertng Acid 5%
Zone 1
Wormhole Length (ft)

0.8
Zone 2
Zone 3
0.6
Zone 4
0.4

0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Volume (bbl)

*Mark of Schlumberger

A- Wormholes after the first diverter stage evolutes equally and all layers end up with close
wormhole values (around 2.5 ft)
B- Using only 15% HCL without diverter creates wormholes proportional to zone properties.
Zone 2 which is the thief zone makes 3 ft wormhole but zone 4 which has worst quality rock
properties ends up with 0.5 ft wormhole
C- The diverter succeeds to create wormholes away from the thief zone but the limited
capabilities of 15% HCl create short wormholes

Figure-9: Comparison between the 3 scenarios for wormholing

SPE 128115 11

StimCADE* 1-2 s da5% with 15%HCL post flus h

02-16-2009
Radial Penetration Plot
A 28%
8700

Emuslified Acid 28% Emulsified

Sef Diverting Acid 5% Acid+5%Self
8750
HCl 15% DivertingAcid
+15%HCL
8800
Zone MD (ft)
ZoneMD(ft)

8850

8900

8950
0 1 2 3 4 5
Radial Penetration (ft)
RadialPenetration(ft)
StimCADE*
*Mark of Schlumberger
1-2 HCL ONLY
02-16-2009
Radial Penetration Plot

8700
B 15%HCL
HCl 15%
8750

8800
Zone MD (ft)
ZoneMD(ft)

8850

8900

8950
0 2 4 6 8
Radial Penetration (ft)
RadialPenetration(ft)
StimCADE*
*Mark of Schlumberger
1-2-hcl-sda
02-16-2009
Radial Penetration Plot

8700

HCl 15%
C 15%HCL+5%SDA
8750 Self Diverting Acid 5%
ZoneMD(ft)

8800
Zone MD (ft)

8850

8900

8950
0 2 4 6
Radial Penetration (ft)
RadialPenetration(ft)

A Radialpenetrationofallzonesunifiedataround4ftfromthewellbore.Thegooddiversionisalso
*Mark of Schlumberger

obviousinthepostflush15%HClstagewhereitallstopsatalmostsamedepth(around1ft).

B Usingonly15%HCLwithoutdivertercreatespenetrationproportionaltozoneproperties.Zone2whichis
thethiefzonetakesmorethan7ftoffluidpenetrationwhilezones3and4takelessthan2ftoffluids

C Combination ofdiversionandnonretardedacidcreatesacceptableradialpenetration(similartocaseA)
butstillnotasgooddistribution

Figure10:Comparisonbetweenthe3scenariosintermoffluidradialpenetration
12 SPE 128115

StimCADE* 1-2 sda5% with 15%HCL post flush

02-16-2009
Acid Placement: CT/Annulus Fluid Interface Depth vs. Volume

X8760
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 --- Treatment Fluids ---
1 - SXE 28%
X8780 2 - SDA5

Layer-1 3 - HCl 15%

4 - NH4CL 3%

X8800
CT/Annulus Fluid Interface Depth (ft)

X8820 Layer-2
Depth MD (ft)

X
8840

X8860
Layer-3
Annulus Fluid Interface Depth
CT Depth
X8880

X8900
Layer-4
x 8920
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Volume (bbl)

*Mark of Schlumberger

Figure-11: Pumping schedule shown as CT movement sequence between the zones, 1, 2, 3 annotate Emulsified acid, self
diverting acid and 15% HCl respectively

StimCADE* 1-2 sda5% with 15%HCL post flush

02-16-2009
Acid Placement: Skin vs.Volume

35
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3

30
--- Treatment Fluids ---
1 - Emusified Acid 28%
25 2 - Self Diverting Acid 5%
3 - HCl 15%
20
Skin

Damage Skin
15

10

-5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Volume (bbl)

*Mark of Schlumberger

Fugure-12: Skin evolution versus stages of the treatment.

SPE 128115 13

BUNDUQ
CCAT* EB48
09-April-2009
WH Press.
Pressure and Rate Total Pump Rate
CT Depth
8950
x950 1000 4.0
Diversion deltaP

8925
x925 875 3.5

8900
x900 750 3.0

Total Pump Rate - bbl/min

8875
x875 625 2.5
Pressures - psi
CT Depth - ft

8850
x850 500 2.0

x825
8825 375 1.5

x800
8800 250 1.0

x775
8775 125 0.5

x750
8750 0 0
02:15:16 03:21:56 04:28:36 05:35:16 06:41:56
Time - hh:mm:ss

Schlumberger 1994-2006

Figure-13: Execution chart; pumping rate, CT depth and wellhead pressure versus operational time

2100 6.00

1750 5.00
WellHead Pressure (Psi)

1400 4.00

Rate (bpm)
1050 3.00

700 2.00

350 1.00

0 0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Time

WHP-1 WHP-2 RATE-1 RATE-2

Figure-14: Injectivity test before and after the job, 1 being before and 2 being after the job
14 SPE 128115