SPE 122353

Fluid Diversion Monitoring: The Key to Treatment Optimization

Gerard Glasbergen, Valerie Yeager, and Robert Reyes, SPE, Halliburton, and Don Everett, SPE,
Oxy Permian Ltd.

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 27–29 May 2009.

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 stimulation and injection treatments for removing or preventing formation damage, placement of the injected fluids is
essential. Throughout the years, several diversion and placement techniques have been applied to obtain a desired fluid
placement. A recent development is the application of distributed temperature sensing (DTS) to monitor the temperature
profiles along the wellbore in real time during these treatments. Recent case histories showed that fluid placement can be
quantified. Quantification of fluid distribution enables one to determine the flow distribution both before and after a diverter
stage so that the diversion effect can be quantified.
This paper discusses several case histories where DTS was applied to quantify the effectiveness of different diverters. The
effects of chemical diverters, such as relative permeability modifiers (RPM) and in-situ crosslinked acids (ICAs), and more
traditional diverters, such as rock salt, are discussed. Because of the advanced monitoring used with the temperature profiles,
both the immediate and the sustained effect of the diverters can be measured. The changes in the flow distribution are not
limited to diverters. Reactive fluid or changes in flow rate can change the flow distribution as well. These effects were
measured during the stimulation treatments.
The post-treatment analysis of the measured temperature profiles in combination with treatment pressures and flow rate
information resulted in accurate knowledge of the effectiveness of the different diverters and stimulation effects over time.
This knowledge will be used in future treatments to help optimize volumes, rates, fluid systems, and the selection of the
appropriate diverter.

Introduction
Effective fluid placement and full zonal coverage has been a challenge to the industry. The applications where fluid
placement and zonal coverage is important include but are not limited to:
• Matrix-acidizing treatments
• Scale-inhibitor squeeze treatments
• Water-control treatments
• Water injection for enhanced recovery
• Hydraulic-fracturing treatments
• Injection of sand-consolidation materials

This paper focuses on matrix-acidizing treatments, but several of the techniques discussed can also be applied to some of
the other applications. During matrix-acidizing treatments, the goal is to remove or bypass damage in the near-wellbore area.
Throughout the long history of acidizing, several fluid-diversion and placement techniques have been applied to ensure this
goal is achieved over the entire zone of interest. Without effective fluid diversion, the injected fluids will follow the path of
least resistance and will only stimulate the zones with the highest permeability, lowest reservoir pressure, or the least
damage.
In most cases, the described local stimulation is undesired. It causes an increase in productivity in producers, but typically
only for a short period of time. Large portions of the reservoir that should have been treated and have a large portion of the
reserves are not treated and have no connection to the wellbore (Fulton et al. 2005). For (water) injectors, in many cases there
are only one or a few places where the fluid is injected. This is illustrated in Fig. 1 by three consecutive temperature profiles
in time after shut in. These profiles indicate that the velocity of the injected water decreases to almost none after the first few
2 SPE 122353

perforations. In fact, there is a channel from the injector into the reservoir. In these cases, the goal is to divert the acid across
the entire zone and to remove damage in other places so that the sweep efficiency can be improved.
Many examples of diversion materials and methods have been described in the literature, (Erbstoesser 1980; Nitters and
Davies 1989; Rossen 1994; Paccaloni 1995; Lietard 1997; Parlar 1995). These include but are not limited to:
• Use of particulates to build up a filter cake on the parts of the reservoir with low resistance
• Perforation balls that will block off the perforation tunnels that access the low resistance parts of the formation
• Chemical diverters that build up resistance in those parts of the reservoir that are easily accessible
• RPMs that restrict the flow for water
• Foams

The industry’s challenge is to understand which diverters work under what conditions. In an acid treatment, the fluid
diversion design is often based on guidelines, rules-of-thumb, and an intuitive idea on how diversion "works." Models are
available to predict diversion effects but not always used, and uncertainty on input parameters will affect the results
(Glasbergen and Buijse 2006; Hill and Rossen 1994). Measurements of effective fluid diversion are almost always limited to
changes in surface treating pressure; an increase in treating pressure is an indication that diversion was effective, whereas no
treating-pressure response implies ineffectiveness or no diversion (McCloud and Coulter 1969; Paccaloni 1979). In this
paper, rules-of-thumb will be validated.
The focus in this paper is on the effectiveness of three different diverters. They are: (1) ICA, which is a chemical diverter,
(2) rock salt, a particulate diverter, and (3) RPM, a relative permeability modifier. For each of the three diverters, a few
treatments were monitored using DTS technology that enables both qualification and quantification of fluid placement. A
case history for each one of the diverters is described in detail.

Description of the Diverter Mechanisms

Diverting materials function in a variety of methods but have as a common purpose: the attempt to control the distribution of
treating fluids more uniformly across a zone or from one zone to another. Without diversion, fluid placement tends to occur
in zones of highest permeability, highest solubility, or lowest pressure; many of which have previously been acidized or
swept, and are not the target for complete zonal coverage that results in contact with additional hydrocarbon reserves. The
mechanisms of diversion investigated during this study included a soluble particulate, a RPM, and ICA.
The first diverter evaluated was a graded rock-salt particulate. This granular sodium chloride solid can be used at most
temperatures, is most effective in gelled water-based solutions at less than 180°F, consist of 60% 2/8-mesh and 40% 8/12-
mesh particle sizes, and are especially helpful in vugular and/or naturally fractured reservoirs. Effects of rock salt will be
temporary if subsequent aqueous fluids following the diverter stages are not salt saturated.
In the next three treatments, the use of a low-viscosity, hydrophilic polymer with insoluble, hydrophobic modifications
that tend to associate with each other were evaluated. This associative polymer technology (APT) or use of a RPM resulted in
adsorption to the rock and a desired reduction in effective water permeability by at least 80% without a significant reduction
in effective oil permeability which, if placed in the matrix, will be permanent unless removed with an oxidizer. Multiple field
and laboratory examples illustrating the effectiveness of this material in both carbonate and sandstone and in both RPM and
diversion applications have previously been published (Eoff et al. 2003).
Finally, the in-situ crosslinking capabilities of gelled acid were used as a third diversion mechanism. The ICA is
dependent on the spending of the acid so that the pH of the fluid rises to 3–4. At this pH range, the polymer crosslinks,
viscosity increases, and resistance to penetration of the matrix increases significantly, thus allowing fluid to be a diverter to
other areas. Acid concentrations are recommended to be less than 15% so that spending occurs, and in cool, less-reactive
formations that can be as low as 3% to ensure that crosslinking occurs. (MaGee et al. 1997; Yeager and Shuchart 1997).

Diversion Monitoring Using DTS

DTS is a relatively new technology that can be used for fluid-placement monitoring. It uses a fiber-optic distributed
temperature-monitoring system to provide continuous temperature profiles throughout the entire length of the well. DTS has
been applied for production profiling and, in those applications, it is important to measure a stable and accurate temperature
profile (Johnson et al. 2006). In the application for stimulation treatments, measuring many temperature profiles is more
important than the quality of the profiles; the transient effects are used to determine the injection-flow profile. Comparing
and analyzing temperature profiles over time provides direct indications of injection distribution at various points in the
wellbore. The data interpretation can be both qualitative and quantitative.
Individual DTS profiles are temperature surveys on the entire wellbore, including the completed interval. Because no
cable movement is needed and measurement is done by optics, many temperature surveys can be measured during a given
period of time. For this campaign, the sample time was typically between 20 and 30 seconds, so during a 3 hour treatment,
around 500 temperature profiles were measured. A single temperature profile can give some information on the flow
distribution if it is a stable, steady-state profile. An example is given in Fig. 2. The yellow and red curves are temperature
profiles measured respectively before and during the treatment at the depth of the perforations; the perforations are indicated
by the vertical orange lines. Slope changes indicate major fluid leakoff at the depth of the slope change; temperature increase
SPE 122353 3

is typically caused by the lack of cold fluid flowing to that point. A slope change is, therefore, an indication that less cold
fluid flows below that point, caused by a point of major leakoff. In Fig. 2, a first slope change is shown at a depth of 6,480 ft,
a second one is at a depth of 6,540 ft, a third slope change is t 6,620 ft, and the last one is at 6,670 ft. The last slope change
indicates nearly no fluid is injected in the bottom set of perforations.
More qualitative information can be retrieved from the temperature profiles in different and distinct ways. Most of them
have been discussed in previous publications (Glasbergen et al. 2009). In summary, four main techniques can be used: (1)
temperatures lower than the baseline temperature at a certain depth in the profile indicate that fluid flows until that depth at a
velocity high enough to cause cooling, (2) migration of these lower temperatures to deeper depths is an indication that fluid
flows to deeper depths (3) a slope change in a single temperature profile is an indication of major velocity change, often
caused by a major point of leakoff, and (4) temperature restoration at a certain depth is an indication that the fluid velocity at
that depth is decreasing, so less fluid flows to that depth. It is key to combine that information with flow rate information to
determine if the decrease in fluid velocity is caused by flow-rate reduction or a changed leakoff profile. The qualitative
analysis can be simplified by using advanced visualization tools. The use of colormaps, techniques for visualizing multiple
profiles in one plot, and the combination of treatment data with DTS data will help make a quicker analysis.
At higher fluid velocities, wellbore cooling might limit the ability to analyze these events when multiple zones are taking
fluid simultaneously. Also, when all fluid leaks off to the toe of the formation, cooling will be seen to the toe, but it has not
been qualitatively shown that no flow leaks off to the heel. In these scenarios, selective wellbore-temperature disturbances
can be created to give a better visual indication of fluid placement. These disturbances in temperature can be monitored over
time and the changes in location will provide the velocity of the fluid. Such a disturbance is shown in Fig. 3. Three
temperature profiles (blue, red, and green) at three distinct times are shown, and the disturbances per profile can be identified
as a sudden slope change; this disturbance is in fact the front between two different fluid stages. When tracking this front, it
can be seen that it moves 208 m in 54 seconds. The used tubing ID is 1.85 in., so this translates to a flow rate equal to 2.52
bbl/min. On the other hand, at the event of measuring these temperature profiles the flow meter reading was 2.5 bbl/min,
which demonstrates that the methodology of using disturbances in temperature profiles provides an accurate flow-rate
measurement. It will be clear now that when a decrease in velocity is observed without a change in injection flow rate, it is an
indication of fluid leakoff. Such a decrease can qualitatively been observed by displaying multiple temperature profiles with
an invariant timestep between the profiles. A decrease in distance is then an indicator for a decrease in fluid velocity.
Quantitative information can be obtained in a similar way. The method for fluid-velocity qualification described in the
previous paragraph can also be used to quantify the fluid velocity across the completed interval. During this quantitative
analysis, many continuously measured temperature profiles are used to quantify the injection distribution exiting the
wellbore. The completed interval will be divided into many separate sections. A fluid velocity will be calculated for each
section based on the dynamics of the generated disturbance in the temperature profile. Thus, the created velocity profile can
relatively easily be transformed to a leakoff profile. This quantitative analysis is described in detail in Glasbergen et al. 2009;
Glasbergen et al. 2007; and Sierra et al. 2008.
For a quick quantification, the earlier mentioned color map can be used. In Fig. 4, a color map is shown. With time on the
horizontal axis and depth on the vertical axis, the color shades represent the temperatures varying from 86°F (blue) to 106°F
(red). The wellbore diagram is shown on the left-hand side. The different slopes that are drawn in the color map are
representations of a temperature anomaly caused by a disturbance. The slope is a direct measure of the fluid velocity. It can
be seen that the velocity is significantly higher in the tubing compared to the casing, but that the flow rate is identical. At a
depth of 4,890 ft, another slope change is shown. This slope change is an indication for a velocity decrease caused by leakoff.
In fact, the velocity reduces to only 10% of its earlier velocity. So 90% of the total injected fluid has leaked off at a depth
above 4,890 ft.
The color map can be used and is a visual representation of temperature in the time-space domain. The description in the
previous paragraph shows one application. Another application is to visualize an entire treatment in a color map. Fig. 5
illustrates an example. Again, the horizontal axis represents the time and the vertical axis represents the depth along the
wellbore. The wellbore and the locations of the perforations are shown on the left-hand-side. The different colors in the color
map on the right-hand-side indicate the temperature at the given time and depth. Red represents warm temperatures and dark
blue represents cold ones. In this example, red is 100°F and dark blue 64°F. Orange, yellow, green, and light blue represent
temperatures in between. During the pre-job shut-in period, the red color at the bottom of the color map indicates higher
temperatures toward the bottom of the perforations. A slight dark blue shade indicates cold temperatures at the top. During
this period stable, almost linear, temperature profile are typically observed. At the start of the acid treatment, cooler
temperatures indicate injection of colder fluids that migrate down the wellbore. The fact that dark blue colors fade to light
blue and green starting at the end of the acid treatment is an indication that no more fluids are injected and temperatures
recover because of shut in.
Another leak-off profile quantification method can be applied in some cases. It is the method to solve the inverse problem
that is described in previous publications (Glasbergen et al. 2009; Sierra et al. 2008). In this quantification method, a forward
temperature model is used to determine a temperature profile for a given, hypothetical leak-off distribution. Applying a
minimization routine will automate the process to find a leak-off distribution that will produce a temperature profile identical
to the measured one. When the fluid velocities are not too high or when only a small amount of the fluid is injected in the toe,
this method has good applications. When the fluid velocity is high and the wellbore cools toward the toe, it is more difficult.
4 SPE 122353

It is the combination of the methods described that will maximize the value of the DTS analysis during a stimulation
treatment. All of the described methods were combined with pressure, flow rate, and fluid-property information for this
study.

Case Histories
A total of nine acid treatments were performed in west Texas with the goal to both evaluate the methodology of monitoring
and analyzing DTS data during acid-stimulation treatments and to evaluate the effectiveness of diverters. During the
campaign, it was confirmed that not every well is a good candidate for DTS monitoring during injection of acid. Aside from
criteria that excludes wells with tubing restrictions or limited rathole for the bottomhole assembly (BHA), an additional
candidate selection criterion was developed by defining a dimensionless DTS number NDTS:

ID 2 ⋅ h
N DTS = ………………………………………………………………………………Eq. 1
C ⋅ TDTS ⋅ QBH

In this equation, ID is the inner diameter of the completion in inches, h the total measured length of the completion in feet,
TDTS is the data acquisition time in seconds between two consecutive DTS profiles, QBH is the bottomhole rate in bbl/min,
and C a unit conversion constant equal to 17.1582. The DTS number is in fact a measure for the number of times an anomaly
would be shown in the completed interval in case the flow rate would be constant to the bottom of the completion. Fig. 6
gives a flow chart that can be used for candidate selection; it shows that DTS numbers larger than 2.5 are typically good
candidates for stimulation monitoring with DTS.
Three case histories are discussed in detail, each one using one of the diverters discussed previously. The results of other
case histories will be summarized in tabular form.
The three wells discussed in detail are located in the GoldSmith Landreth Deep Unit, the Rhodes Cowden Unit, and the
Blakeney Unit. The geographical location of these units is shown in Fig. 7.

Case History 1—GLDU33

GLDU 33 is a water injector. A matrix-acid treatment with RPM diverter stages was designed with a two-fold goal: (1)
remove damage to increase the injectivity index, and (2) change the injection profile during water injection to improve the
sweep efficiency. The treatment was pumped at rates high enough to obtain zonal coverage, but staying below fracture
pressure. The formation is a cold dolomite and the selected fluid system was 15% hydrochloric acid. The treatment schedule
is shown in Table 1. An overview of the completion with small-diameter tubing and two different sized diameter casings in
the completed interval is given in Table 2. The data-acquisition time for the individual temperature profiles was set to 28
seconds. For this well, NDTS was 7.2, so it was a good candidate for DTS monitoring. Unfortunately, bottomhole pressure was
not measured in this well because of tubing restrictions.
An overview of the treatment is given in Fig. 8. The color map representing the DTS data is lined up with the completion
diagram on the depth axis and the pressure and flow-rate data are on the time axis. The color map shows that during initial
pumping, cooling can be observed to the bottom of the perforations. Both the start of pumping and the shut-in can be
observed in this combined figure. The treating pressure shows a slight decrease starting at 14:40, but no increase caused by
diversion can be observed. A more detailed analysis of the data is needed for further evaluation.
The color map shows several blue traces that are caused by disturbances in the temperature profile and were used for flow
profiling. The results of the analysis of two of these temperature disturbances moving along the completed interval are shown
in Figs. 9 and 10. In Fig. 9, a total of six different temperature profiles over time are shown. A clear anomaly in the
temperature profile can be tracked and is indicated by a small arrow. The decrease in velocity of this anomaly leads to a flow
distribution causing around 15% of the fluid to leak off to the top set of perforations, and 85% to the lower set of
perforations, and the majority of the 85% leak off in a zone at depths of 6,060–6,090 ft. These profiles are measured before
the first diversion stage. Fig. 10 shows temperature profiles toward the end of the treatment. At that moment, 65% of the total
flow leaks off to the top set of perforations and only 35% flows all the way to the bottom set of perforations. Thus, significant
change can be observed. Table 3 shows the evolution of the changes in the flow distribution. It is clear that the major change
took place after the first diverter stage was at the perforations. The response was not immediate, but that was not expected
because the RPM first needed to be attached in the matrix before the mechanism worked. Based on the initial and final flow
distribution, the conclusion can be made that the RPM diverter has been injected into the zone that initially received much of
the fluid and actually diverted that flow to the top set of perforations. It should be observed that the DTS data shows a clear
and major diversion effect, but the surface treating pressure does not. The data in Table 3 shows that major diversion
occurred between 14:30 and 14:45; however, in Fig. 8, no change at all in the surface-treating pressure can be observed
during this time frame.
At the moment of shut in, significant cross flow from the lower part of the reservoir to the upper part of the reservoir
could be observed. This is visualized in the color map in Fig. 5 where, during the post-treatment shut-in, immediate warm
fluid can be seen that migrates to the top set of perforations. It is a clear indication that the lower part of the reservoir has a
higher pressure compared to the upper part. The fact that most fluid was initially injected in the lower portion of the reservoir
SPE 122353 5

is an indication that the upper part was significantly damaged. The effective diversion forced the acid into the upper portion
of the reservoir so that the damage was removed.
To answer the question of whether the change in flow distribution was sustained, DTS data was obtained both
immediately following the treatment and several weeks later. Following the treatment, the well was back on injection. Not
only was the injectivity index increased by 50%, but also nearly all flow was injected in the upper interval. This can be seen
in Fig. 5, where the post-treatment injection is shown on the right-hand-side of the color map. From the red colors in the right
bottom corner, it is clear that no cooling is observed toward the bottom part of the well during the post-treatment injection.
The injectivity index was still at the same level several weeks later. The DTS data recorded that now around 65% of the fluid
was injected into the top set of perforations and 35% toward the lower set of perforations, which showed a sustained flow
profile change. The difference can be contributed to the fact that both the injection flow rate and the injection pressure had
been increased so that the higher pressures in the bottom portion of the reservoir were overcome.

Case History 2—RCU A17

RCU A17 is a producer with an oil production of 6 B/D and water production of 260 B/D before the treatment. A fracture-
acidizing treatment with a total of 9,000 gal of 15% iron-control acid was planned. Two stages of rock salt were used for
diversion. An overview of the actual pumped schedule is shown in Table 4. Before the treatment, new perforations were
created. The perforation and completion details can be found in Table 5. Temperature profiles were measured during the
treatment. Furthermore, a bottomhole memory gauge was deployed to determine bottomhole pressure changes during the
treatment. Real-time temperature profiles were used for real-time analysis and decisions. Both temperature and bottomhole-
pressure information was used for a post-treatment analysis. An overview of the DTS, pressure, and rate information during
the treatment is given in Fig. 11.
A detailed analysis of DTS temperature data was performed when a disturbance in the temperature profiles could be
detected. Fig. 12 shows three temperature profiles in time and several different disturbances are tracked. The resulting flow
profile is represented by the red bars and identifies that the majority of the flow (60%) was injected at a depth around 5,200
ft. A limited amount of fluid was injected in the toe below 5,215 ft where new perforations were placed. Diversion with rock
salt was not effective to divert the flow from the thief zone. A second stage of rock salt also did not result in diversion of the
flow and the flow distribution was virtually unchanged.
The planned fracture was not initiated. The measured bottomhole pressure data did not show a break during the build-up
test. Apparently, the entire treatment was placed under matrix conditions. The bottomhole pressure showed a sharp drop at
the moment that acid hit the formation. In Fig. 11 this is marked with the dotted line around 16:17. This is an indication that a
small portion of the formation was treated significantly. Unfortunately, the diverter did not change the flow distribution and
consequently only one portion of the formation was treated well. Almost no acid was placed in the new perforations below
5,220 ft. Post-treatment simulations were run to analyze the fluid placement in more detail. Input for this model was log
information. The results are shown in Fig. 13 and are in good agreement with the flow distribution from the DTS data in Fig
12.
Major pressure differences are probably causing cross flow during shut-in periods. The cross flow is an explanation for
the quick temperature restoration in the wellbore during these shut-in periods. This can be identified on the color map in Fig.
11, particularly during the shut ins starting at 17:15 and at 19:00. Warm fluids in the formation moved into the wellbore and
migrated to the lower pressure zones.
Post-production data showed an increase to 18 BOPD. The increase in production can be attributed to stimulation of a
small portion of the formation around 5,200-ft depth. Diversion was unsuccessful and also several of the newly shot
perforations were not stimulated adequately.

Case History 3—Blakeney OA 10

Blakeney OA 10 is a water injector to the offsets Blakeney OA 2, OA 3, OA 5, OA 8, and OA 6 producers. This is a 5-spot
injection pattern. The field is located in north Ector County, Section 23, Block 43, T1N. The well was cased with 5.5 in.,
15.5- lbm/ft casing to 5,410 ft. Treatment would be down 2.375-in. tubing with a packer at 5,110 ft. The formations were the
Holt and Glorietta. The Holt had perforations at 5,120–5,126 ft and 5,132-5,196 ft with 4 spf density, 24 and 256 holes
respectively (total 280 holes). The Glorietta was perforated at 5,210–5224 ft; 5,234–5260 ft and 5,264-5,280 ft with 2 spf
density, 28; 52 and 32 holes respectively (total 112 holes).
The acid treatment was designed at 5 bbl/min, pumping alternating stages of 17% iron-control acid and 10% ICA. Total
volumes for each acid were 6,000 gallons of iron control and 6,000 gallons of ICA. The design was to pump neat 17% acid,
then go to 10% ICA, then follow with 17% neat acid again. The crosslinked ICA acid was to divert acid in wormholes as the
acid spends. This allows for the fresh acid behind the spent acid to be diverted to another location instead of following in the
wormhole. Lowering this acid to 10% allows the acid to spend more completely and initiate crosslink. A wellbore volume of
flush was followed. This group of acids was pumped three times while in between, or during flush, it would be determined if
diversion was achieved using DTS sensing. If diversion was achieved, then an overflush would be pumped and the job
finished. If there was not adequate diversion, the next acid stages would be pumped. The operator was asked to have a
volume of acid on location. The volume would incorporate extra acid in the event it was shown there was no diversion.
6 SPE 122353

Before the treatment (October 2008), injection rate and pressure were 90 bbl/day and 953 psi respectively. After the
treatment (February 2009), the injection rate was 1,500 bbl/day at 653 psi. A NDTS of 0.50 was calculated. Although the
treatment showed to have made a significant improvement, this low NDTS predicts that the well is not a good candidate to get
good data from DTS sensing. The lack of availability of wells to run DTS cable in was the reason it was decided to perform
DTS sensing in this well with a low NDTS.
The color map is shown in Fig. 14. The yellow and red to the left, or earlier in time, illustrate the region before pumping
began. The yellow and red uphole shows higher temperature there, while the green deeper, or at perforations, this region is
cooler. This is opposite of what a typical temperature gradient would show. This was caused because the cooler fluid that had
been recently injected into perforation was now in the near-wellbore region and cooling this area. As the fiber cable is
followed uphole where there was no injected cool fluid, the wellbore warms closer to the thermal gradient. The green and
blue region moved as one later in time, corresponding to the red rate curve below showing pumping at 5 bbl/min. In this
region, fluid was being pumped. The blue streaks are at the 17% HCl acid stages. This was pumped with friction reducer and
is cooler (blue on color map) than other fluids. This phenomenon goes all the way to the lowest data reading or depth. The
flow continued below this, but the DTS fiber cable did not go to total depth, so there were perforations below the DTS fiber.
Fig. 15 illustrates flow below this point. DTS sensing shows that there was not ICA diversion, so during pumping, it was
determined to continue with the next acid groups in an attempt to get fluid entry into the top perforation groups. All the acid
was pumped.
The job chart in Fig. 16 shows pumping at 5 bbl/min at surface pressures ranging from 3,200–2900 psi. This indicated the
fluid/acid was leaking off as is expected with acid. With the crosslinking acid, a surface pressure response is sometimes
desired if there are no other means to determine diversion. The surface pressure response often can be masked by friction,
and downhole DTS sensing is a more accurate way to determine if diversion is achieved. The job showed no diversion. The
calculated bottomhole pressure had an increase in pressure of 600–800 psi when ICA was staged. A bottomhole pressure
gauge would show this as erroneous friction calculated in the bottomhole calculation.
In the analysis, it was determined that diversion could not be detected by DTS sensing. A low NDTS was calculated, so
temperature tracers were limited in their effectiveness. Also, the DTS fiber was not run to total depth. The injector did
increase in rate, while injection pressure was lowered significantly.

Other Case Histories

Several of the other case histories showed similar results. An overview is given in Table 6. For each case history, the used
diverters, actual treatment type, diverter effectiveness, as well as the maximum injection rate are listed. In general, it can be
observed that diversion was observed in only a few cases.
In the case history for Well B, rock salt initially showed diversion but only for a very short period of time; several
minutes after diversion occurred, the majority of the flow returned to its original leak-off pattern. Only with repeated RPM
and rock salt diversion stages was the flow diverted and sustained.
In Well A, the diversion was in fact caused by the combination of acid and diverter. It could be identified that acid
stimulated a zone simultaneously with the diverter blocking another zone. Furthermore, Well C was interesting because no
diversion occurred, as could be observed with the DTS data, but the surface treating pressure increased when the diverter
stages were at the perforations.

Discussion
The case histories provided much information and several lessons were learned during the campaign. Knowledge gained
from both the traditional measurement techniques and diverter effectiveness is discussed and evaluated below.

Traditional Measurement Techniques

Because diversion is usually associated with acid and conformance treatments performed in the near-wellbore area at slower
rates and less cost, a rise in surface treating pressure at the time when the diverter should be at the formation is often
considered a positive indication of a corresponding rise in bottomhole pressure, validation that diversion has occurred, and
evidence that subsequent fluid is being placed in other areas. For surface treating pressure to be the only criteria for diversion
“success,” it requires two basic assumptions: (1) the changes in surface pressure caused by changes in hydrostatic head and
pipe and perforation friction pressure are accurately known and therefore, bottomhole pressure can be calculated, and (2)
changes in fluid placement with all diverters results in an increased pressure differential large enough to observe with surface
monitoring. Neither of these is true in all cases.
Many examples of stimulation monitoring of actual bottomhole pressure have shown that there can be significant
differences between measured and calculated bottomhole pressure derived from surface pressures (Keck et al. 2000). In
addition, laboratory testing with different diversion mechanisms, such as the RPM diverter, indicate that hundreds of pore
volumes of material can be injected and provide diversion with little or no increase in pressure (Eoff et al. 2003).
Use of bottomhole pressure and distributed temperature survey information in combination during this study indicated
evidence of both: (1) surface treating-pressure increases that did not correspond to diversion, and (2) diversion where no
corresponding rise in surface treating pressure occurred. The latter phenomenon was observed earlier and described in a foam
SPE 122353 7

diversion case history with ball sealers (Glasbergen et al. 2007). Therefore, surface-treating pressure is questionable not only
in high-rate fracture applications, but also as a reliable indication of diversion.

Diverter Effectiveness
Based on the case histories, it can be concluded that diversion is difficult in these wells. For the matrix-acidizing treatment,
two good diversion cases were observed i.e., Well GLDU-33 and Well B and the latter only after repeatedly injecting
different types of diverter. In general, both rock salt and ICA demonstrated poor performance. Rock salt is soluble, and
therefore its poor performance can be contributed to solubility issues. The fact that surface-pressure increases were seen
without actual diversion can be contributed to the fact that rock salt was injected in higher viscosity fluids.
The mechanism for ICA is that the fluid crosslinks when the acid is spent. Poor diversion performance has been observed
as a result of both the high percentage of hydrochloric acid that was used and the fact that the wells were not shut in after the
diversion stage was at the formation. Applying a lower acid concentration and performing shut in at the formation are
subjects of further investigation. The RPM material had good performance, particularly in Well GLDU-33, but in Well A and
B, the diversion was also attributed to the combination of acid and rock salt, respectively.

Conclusions
The following conclusions were determined as a result of this study.
• Fluid diversion can occur without any visible increase in surface pressure.
• An increase in surface pressure is not necessarily an indication for diversion.
• The surface treating pressure is often an unreliable indicator for diversion.
• The RPM diverter was successful in treatments with good matrix permeability. In cases where major caves were
expected, the effectiveness was reduced.
• ICA did not show effective diversion in cold, dolomite formations.
• The ICA mechanism most likely requires application of lower acid concentrations in combination with shut in when
it is invading the reservoir to ensure the acid is spent and the fluid crosslinks.
• Rock salt appeared not to be effective in two of the three cases. In combination with RPM, diversion was
temporarily seen and later sustained.
• Combining different diverters creates better chance of success.
• Shooting new perforations is not a guarantee for increased connectivity with the reservoir.
• When monitoring diversion using DTS, a candidate-selection process is necessary to achieve the best results.

References
Eoff, L., Dalrymple, D., and Reddy, B.R. 2003. Development of Associative Polymer Technology for Acid Diversion in Sandstone and
Carbonate Lithology. Paper SPE 89413 presented at the Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17–21 April.
DOI: 10.2118/89413-MS.
Erbstoesser, S.R. 1980. Improved Ball Sealer Diversion. J. Pet Tech. 32 (11): 1,903–1,910. SPE-8401-PA.
Fulton, D., Lizek, K., and Van Domelen, M. 2005. Front End Engineering Studies for Carbonate Stimulation Optimization. Paper IPTC
10697 presented at at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November.
Glasbergen, G. and Buijse, M.A. 2006. Improved Acid Diversion Design using a Placement Simulator. Paper SPE 102412 presented at the
Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 3–6 October. DOI: 10.2118/102412-MS.
Glasbergen, G., Gualtieri, D., Trehan, R., Van Domelen, M.S., and Nelson, M. 2007. Real-Time Diversion Quantification and Optimization
using DTS. Paper SPE 110707 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 11–14
November. DOI: 10.2118/110707-MS.
Glasbergen, G., Gualtieri, D., van Domelen, M., and Sierra, J. 2009. Real-Time Fluid Distribution Determination in Matrix Treatments
Using DTS. SPE Prod & Oper 24 (1): 135-146. SPE-107775-PA.
Hill, A.D. and Rossen, W.R. 1994. Fluid Placement and Diversion in Matrix Acidizing. Paper SPE 27982 presented at the University of
Tulsa Centennil Petroleum Engineering Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 29-31 August. DOI: 10.2118/27982-MS.
Johnson, D.O., Sierra, J., Kaura, J., and Gualtieri, D. 2006. Successful Flow Profiling of Gas Wells Using Distributed Temperature Sensing
Data. Paper SPE 103097 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 24–27 September.
DOI: 10.2118/103097-MS.
Keck, R., Reiter, D., Lynch, K., and Upchurch, E. 2000. Analysis of Measured Bottomhole Treating Pressures During Fracturing: Do Not
Believe Those Calculated Bottomhole Pressures. Paper SPE 63033 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October. DOI: 10.2118/63033-MS.
Lietard, O. 1997. Matrix Treatment in Horizontal Openhole Wells: Design of Viscous Diverter Slugs and Treatment Fluid Placement
Optimization. Paper SPE 38201 presented at the European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2–3 June.
DOI: 10.2118/38201-MS.
McLeod, H.P. and Coulter, A.W. 1969. The Stimulation Treatment Pressure Record–An Overlooked Formation Evaluation Tool. J. Pet
Tech. 8 952–960.
MaGee, J., Buijse, M.A. and Pongratz, R. 1997. Method for Effective Fluid Diversion when Performing a Matrix Acid Stimulation in
Carbonate Formations. Paper SPE 37736 presented at the Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 15–18 March. DOI: 10.2118/37736-MS.
Nitters, G. and Davies, D.R. 1989. Granular Diverting Agents Selection, Design, and Performance. Paper SPE 18884 presented at the
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 13–14 March. DOI: 10.2118/18884-MS.
8 SPE 122353

Paccaloni, G. 1995. A New, Effective Matrix Stimulation Diversion Technique. SPE Production and Facilities. 10 (3).
Paccaloni, G.1979. Field History Verifies Control, Evaluation. Oil and Gas Journal 11 61–65.
Parlar, M, Parris, M.D., Jasinski, R.J., and Dowell, R. J. 1995. An Experimental Study of Foam Flow Through Berea Sandstone With
Applications to Foam Diversion in Matrix Acidizing. Paper SPE 29678 presented at the Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield,
California, 8–10 March. DOI: 10.2118/29678-MS.
Rossen, W.R. 1994. Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery in Foams: Theory, Measurement and Application. R.K. Prud’homme and S. Khan
ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Sierra, J., Kaura, J., Gualtieri, D., Glasbergen, G., Sarkar, D., and Johnson, D. 2008. DTS Monitoring Data of Hydraulic Fracturing:
Experiences and Lessons Learned. Paper SPE 116182 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, USA, 21–24 September. DOI: 10.2118/116182-MS.
Yeager, V. and Shuchart, C. 1997. In Situ Gels Improve Formation Acidizing. Oil & Gas Jour. 95 (3): 70–72.

Fig. 1—Water injector. Three profiles in time (brown, dark blue, and light blue) show dramatic velocity decrease.
SPE 122353 9

Fig. 2—Slope changes in completed interval.

Fig. 3—Temperature disturbance in tubing.

10 SPE 122353

Fig. 4—Color map showing velocity changes.

Fig. 5—Color map used to visualize an entire treatment.

SPE 122353 11

N DTS > 2.5 No 1.25< N DTS <=2.5 No N DTS > 0.62 No No Candidate
Yes Yes Yes
Majority flow
expected in heel?
No
Candidate if other
Candidate Yes
criteria success

Fig. 6—Flow chart for candidate selection.

Fig. 7—Overview area with location case-history units.

Fig. 8—Overview DTS, rate, and pressure information for Case History 1, GLDU 33.
12 SPE 122353

Fig. 9—Flow distribution before diverter in formation for Case History 1, GLDU 33.

Fig. 10—Flow distribution after diverter was injected for Case History 1, GLDU 33.
SPE 122353 13

Fig. 11—Overview DTS, rate, and pressure information for Case History 2, RCU A17.

Fig. 12—Flow distribution estimate for Case History 2, RCU A17.

14 SPE 122353

Fig. 13—Fluid placement result for Case History 2, RCU A17.

Fig. 14—Color map of pumping before 14:00 of cool fluids or blue streakes; shut down after 15:30.
SPE 122353 15

Fig. 15—Flow below lowest reading. Anomalies in curves are at same times. No fluid entry. All fluid movement 5 bbl/min below
lowest reading.

Fig. 16—Job chart rate (white), surface pressure (green), calculated BH pressure (red).
16 SPE 122353

Table 1—Treatment Schedule Details for Case History 1, GLDU 33

Stage Description Fluid Slurry Flow Rate,
Number System Volume, bbl/min
gal
1 Load well Brine 264 2.0
2 Acid 15% HCl 1,492 2.0
3 Diverter RPM 172 2.0
4 Acid 15% HCl 1,497 2.5
5 Diverter RPM 175 2.5
6 Acid 15% HCl 1,493 2.5
7 Diverter RPM 176 2.5
8 Acid 15% HCl 1,199 3.0
9 Diverter RPM 205 3.0
10 Flush Brine 1,313 3.0
11 Overflush Brine 1,275 3.0
Total 9,260

Table 2—Completion Details for Case History 1, GLDU 33

Hardware Top MD, Bottom OD, ID,
ft MD, in. in.
ft
Tubing 0.0 5,538.0 2.375 1.853
Packer 5,538.0 5,540.0 1.900
Casing 0.0 6,106.0 5.500 5.012
Liner 5,905.0 6,249.0 4.500 4.000
Perforations 5,602.0 5,688.0
Perforations 6,052.0 6,054.0
Perforations 6,068.0 6,070.0
Perforations 6,076.0 6,078.0
Perforations 6,090.0 6,092.0
Perforations 6,106.0 6,249.0

Table 3—Flow Distribution Changes Over Time for Case History 1, GLDU 33
Time Stage at Flow Flow Flow Rate,
Bottom Fraction Fraction bbl/min
Top Top
14:14:23 1 0% 100% 2.0
14:17:36 2 5% 95% 2.0
14:31:53 3 15% 85% 2.0
14:46:08 5 65% 35% 2.5
14:54:00 6 74% 26% 2.9
15:06:07 8 72% 28% 3.0
15:14:01 10 65% 35% 3.0
17:05:00 NA >95% <5% 0.3

Table 4—Treatment Schedule for Case History 2, RCU A17

Stage Volume, Flow Rate,
Description Fluid
Number gal bbl/min
1 Load well Treated water 1,003 3.1
2 Pad Treated water 1,005 3.6
3 Acid 15% HCl 3,000 4.0
4 Spacer Gel 990 2.9
5 Diverter Gel 1,020 1.8
6 Flush Gel 2,005 4.3
7 Acid 15% HCl 3,008 4.6
8 Spacer Gel 1,005 3.8
9 Diverter Gel 1,004 2.4
10 Flush Gel 2,005 5.9
11 Acid 15% HCl 3,011 6.2
12 Flush Gel 2,001 4.3
13 Overflush Treated water 1,008 4.1
Total 22,064
SPE 122353 17

Table 5—Completion Details for Case History 2, RCU A17

Top MD, Bottom MD, OD, ID,
Hardware
ft ft in. in.
Packer 5,049.0 5,050.0
Tubing 0.0 5,050.0 2.875 2.441
Casing 0.0 5,289.0 5.500 5.012
Depth MD, Nr. of Perfs, Shot ID,
Description
Ft ft in
5,167
5,176
5,191
Existing perforation 5,195
8 0.41
interval 5,197
5,209
5,213
5,215
5,168
5,177
New perforated 5,187–5,201
Interval 5,210 44 0.320
5,220
5,223
5,230

Table 6—Overview of Diversion Effectiveness in All Case Histories

Well Diverter Type Diverted Max flow rate,
bbl/min
GLDU-33 RPM Matrix Y 3
RCU A17 Rock Salt Matrix N 5
Blakeney OA 10 ICA Matrix N 5
Well A RPM Matrix Y 2.5
Well B Rock salt and RPM Matrix Temporary rock salt 6.5
sustained RPM
Well C Rock salt Matrix N 5
Well E ICA Frac N 5
Well F ICA Matrix N 1.8
Well G ICA Frac N 5