Carbonate Matrix Acidizing Treatments

Introduction

Design guidelines for carbonate matrix acidizing treatments are limited at best. A review
3,4 5-9
of SPE literature and commonly used reference manuals provides little guidance
except for the most basic treatments. While several research groups (University of
Michigan,10-13 University of Texas,14,15 Mining University Leoben,16-18 Institute Francais
du Petrole,19-21 Halliburton 22,23
) have studied acid reaction in porous media, few have
been able to apply this knowledge to treatment design. Many operators have presented
field studies that verify the most successful treatment techniques for their given areas.
These studies, while practical and useful, do not provide guidelines for optimizing
treatments. This Best Practices document provides guidelines for designing successful
matrix acidizing treatments.

Purpose of Matrix Acidizing

Matrix acidizing enhances well productivity by reducing the skin factor. The skin factor can
be reduced if near-wellbore damage is removed or if a highly conductive structure is
super-imposed onto the formation. In either case, the result is a net increase in the
productivity index (Q/DP), which can be used either to increase the production rate or to
decrease the drawdown pressure differential.

Although the benefits of an increased production rate are evident, the benefits of reduced
drawdown are often overlooked. Decreased drawdown can help prevent formation
collapse in weak formations, reduce water or gas coning, minimize both organic and
mineral scaling, and/or shift the phase equilibrium in the near-wellbore zone toward
smaller fractions of condensate or solution gas. A reduced drawdown pressure can also
help ensure that a greater percentage of the completed interval contributes to production.

Acidizing Considerations

Acidizing chemistry in limestone and dolomite formations is usually more direct and less
complex than in sandstone acidizing. A significant percentage of carbonate treatments use
hydrochloric acid (HCl). The dissolution products of the HCl-calcite or HCl-dolomite
reaction are completely soluble. Even in applications in which the formation is not
completely soluble, additives and acid systems can help suspend insoluble fines and
particulates to prevent them from interfering with the treatment.

Additional design considerations include candidate selection, well completion, and

treatment design and execution. When horizontal wells or large intervals in carbonate
reservoirs must be treated, zonal coverage becomes a crucial, complicated design factor.

Candidate Selection

Carbonates tend to be significantly less homogeneous than sandstones. Large

permeability and porosity contrasts can exist in a single interval, often within a few feet or
inches. Figure 1 illustrates variations in rock structure in a single formation core. These
samples (both primarily calcite) were taken within 1 ft of each other, and are shown
under the same magnification (2000×). The variations in crystal size, the irregular pore
structure, and the significant difference in the visible porosity make uniform fluid
placement difficult.

In many carbonate formations, the presence of natural fractures is an important

consideration during reservoir or well evaluation. Natural fractures are visible in most
carbonate core samples brought to the surface. Under downhole conditions, however,
these fractures may not be productive if they are infilled or closed because of high
stresses. Pressure buildup tests or production history matches will not detect closed
natural fractures. Well logs may detect the fractures, even if they are closed, depending
on the logging techniques used. For more information about logging techniques for
natural fractures, see the Best Practices document, Natural Fracture Identification.

Figure 1: Variations in Rock Structure Within a Single Formation Core

Acidizing can effectively open natural fractures. Figure 2 shows photos of a naturally
fractured formation core before and after etching with acid. In this case, the natural
fractures were infilled with a material of higher reactivity than the bulk of the core face.
The acid readily dissolved the infill material and effectively opened the fractures. Opening
natural fractures often accounts for the unexpected high production rates that occur after
some matrix acidizing treatments.

Figure 2: Acid Etching of Natural Fractures in a Formation Core

Matrix Acidizing Applications

Matrix acidizing should only be considered when the formation's native permeability can
provide hydrocarbon flow at economical rates after damage has been removed; it is not a
solution to poor reservoir quality. Typically, the lower permeability limit for matrix
production is about 10 md for an oil well, or about 1 MD for a gas well. These guidelines
are only general, since an evaluation of the permeability thickness is more appropriate
than an evaluation of permeability alone. In addition, fluid viscosity, multiphase flow, and
pressure influence well productivity.

Since the flow channels and pores in carbonates are acid-soluble, permeability can
increase significantly in the part of the formation that the acid contacts. As a result,
negative skin values are routinely observed when pressure tests are performed in
carbonate intervals that have been effectively acidized, contrary to the results observed
after matrix acidizing in sandstone formations, where an effective treatment results in
zero skin.

Acid can create long, dominant wormholes in carbonates; it cannot create wormholes in
sandstones. Therefore, acid can improve matrix permeability for several feet from the
wellbore in carbonates but only for a few inches in sandstones. As a result, acid
treatments in sandstones only remove damage, while acid treatments in carbonates
remove damage and stimulate the well.

As shown in Figure 3, reducing the skin factor from 5 to 0 has a bigger impact on the
production of a typical oil well than reducing it from 25 to 20. Reducing the skin factor
below zero has significantly more impact on well productivity. This simple example is
powerful; recognizing that the skin/productivity relationship is nonlinear is fundamental to
effective candidate selection and optimized treatment design.

Figure 3: Oilwell Productivity As a Function of Skin Value

Two curves are shown in Figure 3, one for a ratio of drainage radius (R c) to wellbore
radius (R w) of 6,400 and the other for a ratio of 640. For positive skin values, drainage
radius has little influence on the relative productivity curve. For negative skin values, as
the drainage radius decreases, the influence of skin increases. The smaller the well
spacing, the greater the benefit of the negative skin resulting from matrix acidizing in
carbonate formations.
Table 1 illustrates the magnitude of skin normally associated with various types of
completions/stimulations in carbonate formations. Similar tables have been presented by
Fair1 and Spivey et al.2 To determine the most appropriate treatment for a carbonate
formation, engineers must base the design on the magnitude of skin reduction necessary
after the formation is stimulated.

Table 1: Skin Factors for Various Completions or Stimulations

Types of Matrix Acidizing Treatments

Four types of matrix acidizing treatments can be performed: wellbore cleanouts, near-
wellbore stimulations, intermediate matrix stimulations, and extended matrix acidizing
treatments.

Wellbore Cleanout

A wellbore cleanout (WCO) treatment connects the wellbore to the formation. In

openhole, slotted, or preperforated liner completions, this treatment generally involves
removing mud and filter cake. In cased completions, the treatment usually consists of
perforation cleanup and/or breakdown. Wellbore cleanout treatments include spotting,
soaking or circulating acid, or small bullhead treatments that could momentarily exceed
fracturing rates. Volumes typically range from 10 to 25 gal/ft.

Near-Wellbore Stimulation

Near-wellbore stimulation (NWS) is achieved through matrix treatments that generally

use acid volumes of 25 to 50 gal/ft of interval. If properly designed, these treatments
typically improve the permeability within 2 to 3 ft of the wellbore and may result in skin
factors ranging from 0 to -2.
Intermediate Matrix Stimulation

Intermediate matrix stimulation (IMS) treatments use acid volumes of 50 to 150 gal/ft of
interval. If properly designed with adequate diversion, these treatments typically improve
the permeability within 3 to 6 ft of the wellbore, and may result in skin factors ranging
from -2 to -3.

Extended Matrix Acidizing

Extended matrix acidizing (EMA) treatments are complicated and use larger volumes of
acid than other treatments-often as much as 150 to 500 gal/ft of interval. If applied
properly in the correct formations, however, EMA treatments can result in production
improvement comparable to hydraulic fracturing. These treatments may result in skin
factors from -3 to -5, depending on the density of natural fractures, matrix porosity,
acidizing fluids used, acid volumes, and the zonal coverage method.

Candidate Selection and Treatment Justification

The high degree of reservoir uncertainty caused by the heterogeneous nature of

carbonate formations makes candidate selection difficult. If multiple wells are being
evaluated, they should be ranked according to skin or productivity index (Q/DP). High-
skin wells are obvious choices for matrix stimulation. The productivity index must be
normalized for zone thickness to help differentiate between deliverability problems caused
by damage, and low productivity caused by poor permeability. The "Well Select" option
under Stim 2001 provides a useful tool for ranking multiple stimulation candidates.

When evaluating a single well, service engineers must review the well's history and
reservoir parameters to determine if it 1) is a stimulation candidate, 2) should be matrix-
or fracture-acidized, and (3) which (if any) matrix treatment is most appropriate. See the
Candidate Selection for the Stimulation of Carbonate Formations Best Practices document
for data-gathering templates and a concise candidate selection/evaluation process
decision tree.
RESULTS Program

Description

Halliburton's RESULTS program is useful for determining whether treatments are justified.
RESULTS is a Windows-based, single-phase, analytical simulator that was developed
primarily for well-test design. It can provide quick, consistent simulations of radial and
fractured production (or injection) in vertical or horizontal wells. The effect of skin
damage or stimulation on a well's performance can be evaluated under multiple scenarios.
The basic procedure includes the following steps:

1. Model the production (or injection) rate at a given set of conditions.

2. Compare various skin factors, using several positive and negative values.

3. If the interval is large, evaluate the effect of partial zonal coverage during
stimulation.

4. Compare to the predicted production rate following acid fracturing, if applicable.

Example

The following example illustrates how the RESULTS program can help users select
treatment type. A typical continental North American oil well with a moderate depth,
pressure, temperature, permeability, and zone thickness contains a small, high-
permeability (thief) zone at the top. Below that zone is a much larger, lower-permeability
interval. During drilling, the upper interval is severely damaged while the lower interval
experiences only shallow, insignificant damage. Pertinent reservoir data used in the
RESULTS simulation is included in Table 2.

Table 2: Reservoir Data in RESULTS

Figure 4 presents the anticipated flow rates, compared under the same drawdown
pressure, for the well in its initial damage state and following four different treatment
scenarios. After 3 months with no acidizing, the production is approximately 170 BOPD.
Four scenarios for acid treatment are compared:

1. Only the large, low-permeability interval is treated, resulting in Skin 2

= 0 (Skin 1
remains at 25).
 2. Only the small, high-permeability interval is treated, resulting in Skin 1
= 0 (Skin 2
remains at 1).

3. Both intervals are treated for damage removal, resulting in Skin 1

= Skin 2
= 0.

4. Both intervals are treated for stimulation, resulting in Skin 1

= Skin 2
= -2.

Figure 4: Acidized Productivity Compared to Damaged Productivity

The RESULTS program predicts the well's production at 3 months to be approximately 185
BOPD, 250 BOPD, and 265 BOPD for the first three scenarios, illustrating the importance
of zonal coverage. If the high-permeability interval was so severely damaged that the acid
could not enter that zone to remove the damage (Scenario 1), then little production
increase would be achieved. On the contrary, if the high-permeability interval acts as a
thief zone and no attempts at diversion are made, then damage removal from the tighter
zone may not be achieved (Scenario 2). A notable production increase is achieved, but
recovery of the reserves in the lower-permeability interval may be sacrificed.

Scenario 3 represents a wellbore cleanout treatment with good zonal coverage. In this
case, damage removal resulted in a skin factor of 0 in both intervals. The benefit of true
stimulation, such as when the skin factor is reduced below 0 to -2 (Scenario 4) illustrates
the benefit of a near-wellbore stimulation treatment. In this case, the superposition of a
higher-permeability region around the wellbore resulted in an approximate two-fold
increase of production from the original damaged production of 170 BOPD to 350 BOPD at
Skin = -2.

Design Process
The most common matrix acidizing treatments include 15 to 28% HCl combined with the
required system additives. Generally, treatment volumes range from 50 to 200 gal/ft of
interval. The treatment is pumped at the highest rate possible without fracturing the
formation. The injection rate varies, depending on formation conditions. In low-volume
treatments, pickling the tubing can improve treatment results. Spotting acid ahead of a
bullhead treatment can also enhance treatments. If possible, some type of acid diversion
treatment should be performed; if no attempts at diversion are made, zonal coverage is
often very poor. When possible, coiled tubing should be used for placing the treatment,
especially in large intervals and horizontals.

Formation Characteristics

The key to successful treatment design is to analyze formation characteristics, including

the rock that is present and that which is not (the pore spaces). A better understanding of
the formation characteristics leads to a higher probability for success. The most important
parameters are the rock composition and structure.

Rock Composition

Rock composition includes the mineralogical breakdown (the percentage of calcite,

dolomite, clays, etc.), the average HCl solubility in each interval, and the minerals that
could cause problems. Reservoir engineers think of rock structure as the permeability and
porosity profile. From a geological perspective, rock structure is better described by the
following terms: microcrystalline, oolitic, vuggy, fractured, chalk, etc.

Rock Structure

Permeability vs. Porosity

Understanding rock structure is more important in carbonate treatment design than it is in

sandstone design because the correlation between permeability and porosity in sandstone
formations generally has a reasonable relationship. Often, a reasonable relationship is not
the case in carbonate formations. A North Sea Ekofisk chalk might have porosity as high
as 40%, yet the effective permeability may be less than 1 Md. A southern Mississippi
Smackover dolomite might have less than 5% porosity, yet the permeability may be as
high as 20 Md.

Solubility

Another example of the importance of rock structure is related to solubility. A San Andres
dolomite might have an overall solubility of 80% with the insoluble portion of the rock
being anhydrite localized in patches or nodules. In this case, the presence of insoluble
material does not significantly impact treatment design. In the North Sea, the Barremian
limestone may also have an overall solubility of 80%, yet the presence of 20% quartz and
clay distributed throughout the matrix of the rock would require a modified design.

Formation Description

Even the formation description may be misleading. Figures 5A and 5B show SEM
photomicrographs of two formations described as "chalky": the Ekofisk in the Norwegian
sector of the North Sea and the Mishrif, located offshore near Dubai. Both formations are
primarily calcite with an HCl solubility of about 95% and a Young's modulus of about 10 6
psi. Under low magnification (300× to 600×), these two formations appear to be similar.
On a microscopic scale, however, the rock structures are very different. The Ekofisk
sample at 3000× magnification has ultrahigh porosity and still contains many fossil
remnants. Little or no cementation is present. The Mishrif sample at 1500× magnification
is much denser as a result of a high degree of recrystallization. These significantly
different pore structures require different treatment techniques.

Figure 5A: North Sea Ekofisk at 3000x/600x

Figure 5B: Arabian Gulf Mishrif at 1500x/300x
Acid Reaction in Porous Media

10-22
Over the past decade, several research groups have studied the flow and reaction of
acid in carbonate formations. Although the experimental techniques and numerical models
advocated by each group may vary, all agree that three distinct dissolution regimes exist:
compact dissolution, uniform dissolution, and wormhole formation.

Compact Dissolution

Compact dissolution occurs when the acid spends on the face of the formation. In this
case, the live acid penetration is limited to within centimeters of the wellbore.

Uniform Dissolution

Uniform dissolution occurs when the acid reacts under the laws of fluid flow through
porous media. In this case, the live acid penetration will be, at most, equal to the
volumetric penetration of the injected acid.
Wormhole Formation

Wormholes form when the invasion or flow of the reactive fluid through the porous media
is nonuniform. Figure 6 shows the "skeleton" of a wormhole, which is an epoxy casting of
the dissolved pore space or wormhole formed in a carbonate core as a result of matrix
acidization. The original core was the size of the gray area. Acid was injected under
conditions to achieve wormholing. After the wormhole was filled with epoxy, the
remaining core was dissolved, leaving behind only the wormhole skeleton.

Wormholing is the preferred dissolution process for matrix-acidizing carbonate formations

because it efficiently forms highly conductive channels. Large permeability increases can
be achieved with fractional pore volumes of acid, so the live acid penetration can be
significantly greater than the average radial fill around a wellbore, resulting in a greater
reduction in skin factor for an equivalent volume of acid pumped.

Wormhole Efficiency

Experimental research has shown that the process of wormholing depends mainly on
three parameters: 1) surface reaction rate, 2) acid diffusion rate, and 3) acid injection
rate.

Surface Reaction Rate

The surface reaction rate determines how fast acid reacts with carbonates at the rock
surface. This rate is a function of the rock properties (composition and crystallinity).

Acid Diffusion Rate

The acid diffusion rate indicates how fast acid is transported from the bulk of the fluid to
the rock surface. The diffusion rate is a function of the acid system. Both of these
parameters are also a function of temperature. Either the surface rate or the diffusion rate
may control the overall acid spending rate, though both are always in balance with each
other. Wormholes form when the overall acid spending rate is diffusion-limited, which
results from a high surface reaction rate or a low diffusion rate.

Under conditions that do not inherently favor wormhole formation, increasing the acid
injection rate can allow wormholes to initiate and grow. More correctly, increasing the
fluid velocity allows live acid to be transported deeper into the formation. In laboratory
core flow tests, an optimum injection rate can be determined. This rate will vary according
to the sample configuration, test temperature, properties of the rock, and acid system
injected. For any given set of conditions, a critical velocity exists. Injection rates below
this velocity will result in compact dissolution; injection rates greater than this velocity will
result in wormholes.

For example, at 175°F, with a 99.5% pure limestone under linear flow conditions, the
critical velocity for wormhole formation is 1.43 cm/s for plain 15% HCl and 0.29 cm/s for
emulsified 15% HCl.23 The absolute magnitude of the critical velocities is not as significant
as the fact that emulsified acid is five times less reactive than plain acid. Therefore, the
choice of fluid system can optimize matrix acidizing treatments. Retarded acid systems
can offset pump rate limitations imposed by low permeability, high pressures, or
equipment constraints.

Figure 6: Wormhole Formed by Acid Reaction in Carbonate Rock

Completion methods can also affect wormhole efficiency. Table 3 compares a cased and
perforated completion to an openhole completion. In both cases, an acid injection rate of
2 bbl/min is assumed, and the total interval length is 100 ft of a 20% porosity, high-
reactivity carbonate. The cased-hole completion has 0.25 in. perforations at 1 shot/ft for a
total of 100 perforations. The openhole completion has an 8-in. diameter. These
parameters translate to a fluid velocity at the wellbore of 828 cm/s in the cased/
perforated completion and 0.13 cm/s in the openhole completion.

Guidelines for wormhole formation are given in Buijse and Van Domelen's paper.23 If the
entire interval uniformly accepts injected acid, wormholes will form in the perforated
completion, regardless of the acid system selected. In the openhole completion, however,
compact dissolution will occur with plain HCl because the fluid velocity is below the critical
velocity for wormhole formation. As a consequence, only part of the openhole interval will
accept acid under wormholing conditions, resulting in poor zonal coverage. A retarded
acid system, such as emulsified acid, would favor wormhole generation across the entire
openhole interval.

Table 3: Effect of Well Completion on Wormhole Efficiency

Fluid Selection

Fluid selection for any acidizing treatment should begin with a review of the formation
characteristics: rock composition, structure, permeability, porosity, and strength. The
properties of the reservoir fluids are the next variables to be considered. Bottomhole
temperature, pressure, and any limitations on injection rates must always be evaluated.
Any or all of these parameters may influence the choice of a base acid or additive
package.
Base Acids

Because it is cost effective and generally leaves no insoluble reaction products, HCl is the
most commonly used acid in carbonate stimulation operations. Formic and acetic acid are
also used, both as additives and as base acid systems. Formic acid (HCOOH) and acetic
acid (CH3COOH) are weakly ionized, slow-reacting organic acids. For field use, acetic acid
solutions are normally diluted to 15% or less. At concentrations above 17%, one of the
reaction products, calcium acetate, can precipitate because of its limited solubility.
Similarly, the concentration of formic acid is normally limited to 13% because of the
limited solubility of calcium formate. Organic acids are generally used in higher-
temperature applications or when the formation rock or reservoir fluid is incompatible with
HCl.

Formation Rock

High-porosity rocks such as chalks, tend to have large pore spaces connected by relatively
small pore throats. In this case, a weaker acid solution (10 to 15% HCl) is preferred,
because the acid only needs to widen the pore throat. Too much reaction and rock
dissolution can destroy the framework/matrix and cause rock failure. However, hard,
dense, low-porosity rocks such as dolomite, often have little intergranular porosity. The
framework grains must be dissolved (to some degree), which increases effective porosity
and thereby increases permeability. In this case, a stronger acid solution (20 to 28% HCl)
is preferred. If significant amounts of acid-insoluble fines exist, limiting the acid strength
can help limit the amount of fines released on a per-gallon basis. Many of these issues are
discussed in the Laboratory Testing of Carbonates best practices manual.

Reservoir Fluids

Reservoir fluids may also influence base acid selection. Generally, the concern is highest
in heavier crudes or any crude that displays sludging or severe emulsification properties.
Generally, strong acids cause more problems than weaker ones. Limiting the HCl
concentration to 20% is effective in many cases. Other times, the use of organic acids or
an appropriate additive package may be required to prevent acid sludge or emulsification.

Bottomhole Temperature (BHT)

The base acid should be selected by the process of elimination. If the BHT is very high,
corrosion concerns may be the primary design parameter. The inability to provide long-
term corrosion protection might limit the maximum HCl concentration possible. If the BHT
is extremely high, HCl may be precluded and organic acids might be preferred. If the
formation has very low reactivity, as in the case of a cold dolomite, a more aggressive
acid (28% HCl) might be preferred.
Additives

Because hundreds of acid additives are available, the additive selection process can be
overwhelming. Two additives should be included in every carbonate stimulation
treatment: an acid corrosion inhibitor and a surfactant, which functions as either a
nonemulsifier, a surface-tension reducing agent, or both. While iron control is less a
concern in large stimulation treatments (because of the large volume of rock removed), it
is nevertheless important. The most appropriate iron-control package will be based on
temperature and whether the well is sweet or sour.

Carbonate 20/20 Acidizing Systems

Carbonate 20/20 acidizing systems help simplify the fluid selection process by providing
versatile acid systems that are "fit for purpose" for most conditions encountered in
carbonate formations throughout the world. Table 4 describes the available acid systems.
Corrosion inhibitor packages will vary based on BHT, required contact time, and tubular
metallurgy. Job designers should always conduct emulsion tests with a representative
crude sample to ensure that the appropriate surfactant loadings are used.

Table 4: Carbonate 20/20 Acidizing Systems

Treatment Optimization with C-MAP

The Carbonate Matrix Acidizing Program (C-MAP) provides a systematic approach to

matrix acidizing treatment design for carbonate reservoirs. An analogous program, SS-
MAP has significantly increased the success rate of sandstone acidizing treatments. C-MAP
is not an expert system; it is a design tool that allows the user to evaluate the impact of
changes in a treatment program. C-MAP's required input data are readily available to the
average geologist, reservoir, production or completion engineer.

C-MAP is not intended to replace a comprehensive matrix acidizing simulator; it does

however, simplify an extremely complicated mathematical process. The result is a user-
friendly program that operates similarly to a spreadsheet program. C-MAP performs the
following steps in matrix acidizing treatment design on the following "sheets":

z Customer and basic well information

 z Formation or rock characteristics
z Permeability, porosity, and skin profiles
z Pressure and stress properties
z Treatment schedule
z Flow simulation, wormhole generation, skin reduction, and pressure response

Figure 7 shows the results of a C-MAP simulation for a horizontal, openhole well in a
formation with four layers. Table 5 contains layer information for the formation. C-MAP
can monitor as many as 10 layers and 25 fluid stages. Each stage may be a Carbonate
20/20 acid system, a nonreactive fluid, or an alternative user-selected acid system. For
this discussion, however, a very simple example treatment is sufficient. The treatment is
pumped at a constant 10 bbl/min and uses 250 bbl of nongelled 15% HCl. Four plots are
shown.

Table 5: Layer Information for C-MAP Example

Figure 7: C-MAP Flow-simulation Screen

Fluid-Invasion Profile

The fluid-invasion profile (Figure 7), the most important profile, shows that most of the
acid was injected into Layers 2 and 3. The average fluid penetration radius was about 1.2
ft in these layers. Layers 1 and 4 took very little fluid; in fact, acid did not contact the
lower half of Layer 4.

This plot shows that this layered formation requires a diversion method for successful
stimulation. The "Diversion Advisor" in Stim 2001 is a probability-based expert system
that helps users select the most appropriate diversion techniques for given well
conditions. The Diversion of Matrix Acidizing Treatments Best Practices document provides
detailed guidelines on applying the chosen diversion technique.

The problem of acid penetration and optimum wormhole growth is directly linked to acid
placement. Figure 7 shows that wormholes were generated in Layers 2 and 3 (cross-
hatched area), but not in Layer 1 (even though some acid did enter Layer 1). Low-
permeability or high-skin sections tend to accept little acid, so the velocity of the injected
acid in such sections may be too low for wormholes to form. Therefore, all acid will spend
on the wellbore wall, with little or no live acid penetrating deeper into the formation. This
compact dissolution phenomenon does not significantly reduce skin.

Skin plots appear to the right of the fluid invasion plot in Figure 7. The top plot shows the
skin profile along the hole; the bottom plot shows total skin as a function of treatment
time. In Layer 1, the skin remains positive, hardly varying from the original skin value.
Good skin reduction is achieved in Layers 2 and 3, although it could be improved; the skin
values vary from a slightly positive value down to only about -1. As with Layer 1, little or
no skin reduction was achieved in Layer 4.

The danger of evaluating a matrix acidizing treatment based on total skin alone is
demonstrated by the lower skin plot. In this case, the treatment appears to be optimized,
since the total skin value reaches 0 just as the last acid is injected. If the individual zones
were tested, or a PLT were run, it would be apparent that only Layers 2 and 3 contribute
significantly to production.

Other Scenarios

C-MAP allows users to evaluate an infinite number of scenarios using parameters such as
1) the use or retarded acid or viscous, nonreactive fluid, 2) pump rate, 3) wellhead or
horsepower limitations, or 4) original permeability.

C-MAP requires only input data that are readily available. Default parameters for fluid
rheology, friction pressures, formation reactivity, critical wormhole velocities, etc. are
embedded into the code, allowing users to evaluate all potential treatment scenarios with
very little time or effort. The combination of C-MAP and the Carbonate 20/20 acid system
allows the more effective design of carbonate matrix acidizing treatments.

References

1. Fair, W.B.: "Pressure Buildup Analysis With Wellbore Phase Redistribution," SPEJ
(April 1981) 259-270.

2. Spivey, J.P. et al.: "Selecting A Reservoir Model for Well Test Interpretation," Pet.
Eng. Int'l (Dec. 1997) 83-88.

3. Williams, B.B., Gidley, J.L. and Schechter, R.S.: Acidizing Fundamentals, SPE
Monograph Vol. 6 (1979) 88-89.

4. Bradley, H.B. et al.: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, SPE (1987) 54-10 and 54-
11.

5. Allen, T.O. And Roberts, A.P.: Production Operations, Vol. 2 (Oil & Gas Consultants
Int'l, Inc.) (1978) 125-129.

6. Economides, M.J. Et al.: Reservoir Stimulation, Prentice Hall (1989) 13-12 and 13-
13.

7. Schechter, RS: Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice Hall (1992) 396-401.

8. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, C.: Petroleum Production

Systems, Prentice Hall (1994) 402-405.

9. Economides, M.J. Et al.: Petroleum Well Construction, John Wiley & Sons (1998)
504-505.

10. Hoefner, M.L. and Fogler, H.S.: "Pore Evolution and Channel Formation During
Flow and Reaction in Porous Media," AIChEJ Vol. 34-1 (1988) 45-54.

11. Jasti, J.K. And Fogler, H.S.: "Application of Neutron Radiography to Image Flow
Phenomena in Porous Media," AIChEJ Vol. 38-4 (1991) 19-26.

12. Hoefner, ML and Fogler, H.S.: "Fluid Velocity and Reaction-Rate Effects During
Carbonate Acidizing: Application of Network Model," SPEPE (Feb. 1989) 56-62.

13. Fredd, C.M., Tjia, R., and Fogler, H.S.: "The Existence of an Optimum Damkohler
Number for Matrix Stimulation of Carbonate Formations," paper SPE 38167
presented at the 1997 European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Jun.
2-3.

14. Wang, Y., Hill, AD, and Schechter, RS: "The Optimum Injection Rate for Matrix
Acidizing of Carbonate Formations," paper SPE 26578 presented at the 1993
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.

15. Huang, T., Hill, AD, and Schechter, RS: "Reaction Rate and Fluid Loss: The Keys
to Wormhole Initiation and Propagation in Carbonate Acidizing," paper SPE 37312
presented at the 1997 International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston,
Feb. 18-21.

16. Frick, T.P., Kurmayr, M. and Economides, J.M.: "Modelling of Fractal Patterns in
Matrix Acidizing and Their Impact on Well Performance," SPEPF (Feb. 1994) 61-68.

17. Frick, T.P., Mostofizadeh, B. and Economides, M.J.: "Analysis of Radial Core
Experiment for Hydrochloric Acid Interaction with Limestones," paper SPE 27401
presented at the 1994 International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Feb. 7-10.

18. Mostofizadeh, B. and Economides, M.J.: "Optimum Injection Rate From Radial
Acidizing Experiments," paper SPE 28547 presented at the 1994 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 25-28.

19. Bazin, B., Roquw, C., and Bouteca, M.: "A Laboratory Evaluation of Acid
Propagation in Relation to Acid Fracturing: Results and Interpretation," paper SPE
30085 presented at the 1995 European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague, May 15-16.

20. Brazin, B, et al.: "Improvement in the Characterization of the Acid Wormholing by

In-Situ X-Ray CT Visualizations", paper SPE 31073 to be presented at the 1996
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Feb. 14-15.
 21. Brazin, et al.: "Acid Filtration in Dynamic Conditions to Mimic Fluid Loss in Acid
Fracturing," paper SPE 38168 presented at the 1997 European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, Jun. 2-3.

22. Buijse, M.A.: "Understanding Wormholing Mechanisms Can Improve Acid

Treatments in Carbonate Formations," paper SPE 38166 presented at the 1997
European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Jun. 2-3.

23. Buijse, MA and Van Domelen, M.S.: "Novel Application of Emulsified Acids to
Matrix Stimulation of Heterogeneous Formations," paper SPE 39583 presented at
the 1998

24. International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Feb. 18-19.

Send questions or comments about this site

to Halliburton Service Center or
www.Halliburton.com call U.S. (877) 263-6071 or outside U.S.
(281) 983-4900.
Copyright © 2008 Halliburton. All Rights
10/2/2008 Reserved.
Terms and Conditions Privacy