SPE 150760
Efficient Methodology for Stimulation Candidate Selection and Well
Workover Optimization
Benson Oghenovo Ugbenyen, SPE, David O. Ogbe, SPE, and Samuel O. Osisanya, SPE, African University
of Science & Technology, Abuja, Nigeria
Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International
Conference and Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 30 July–3 August 2011.
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
Nigeria is endowed with huge proven gas reserves
estimated to be 184 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). It ranks as
the seventh holder of natural gas reserves in the world,
and the largest in Africa. Nigeria also flares more
natural gas than any other country; it accounts for
12.5% of the world’s annual gas flared equivalent to
$2.0 billion of annual revenue wasted. There is crucial
need, therefore, to reduce gas flaring and its
environmental impacts, and to derive maximum
economic benefits from gas production.
Abstract
Well stimulation consists of several methods used for
enhancing the natural producing ability of the reservoir
when production rate declines. The purpose of the study
is to present a methodology and models for the
selection, design and optimization of well stimulation.
Production decline curve analysis is combined with
economic discounting concepts to develop a model that
can be used for optimizing stimulation decisions. The
model is presented in the form of a non-linear
programming problem subject to the constraints
imposed by the production facilities, reservoir
productivity and the stimulation budget approved by
management. Production data from four stimulation
candidate wells, offshore Niger Delta was used to
validate the model developed by setting up a
maximization problem. Solution to the problem was
obtained using non-linear optimization software. The
results show that the optimization model can be
combined with stimulation treatment modules,
developed from industry wide models, to quantify
stimulation benefits. Candidate wells were then ranked
based on stimulation cost, payout time and stimulation
benefit. Proposed methodology and models can be
used for stimulation candidate selection, ranking
workover programs in a field and in optimizing
stimulation decisions.
Introduction
Well stimulation is a series of methods used to increase
well productivity by removing (or bypassing) formation
damage in the near-wellbore region or by
superimposing a highly conductive structure onto the
formation. The technical objectives of well stimulation
are to remove, reduce or bypass the formation damage,
reduce sand production and cleaning-up the
perforations. The economic objectives are to increase
flow rate and optimize production from the reservoir.
Several stimulation techniques exist but the commonly
used methods include matrix acidizing, fracture
acidizing, re-perforation, fracpack and hydraulic
fracturing.
Stimulation candidate selection or identification is the
process of recognizing and selecting wells that have
potential for higher production and better return on
investment after the stimulation treatment. Selection of
the optimum size of a stimulation treatment is based
primarily on economics but the candidate selection
process must consider the stimulation budget, treatment
cost, initial increase in production rate, additional
reserves that may be produced before the well reaches
its economic limit, rate of production decline before
2 Benson O. Ugbenyen, David O. Ogbe and Samuel O. Osisanya
and after stimulation, and also, reservoir and
mechanical problems that could cause the treatment to
be unsuccessful.
Several techniques for selecting stimulation candidates
exist in the literature and also in practice in the industry
(Sinson et al., 1988; Jones, 1989; Jennings, 1991;
Onyekonwu, 1997; Nitters et al., 2000; Rae and Di
Lullo, 2002; Nnanna and Ajienka, 2005; Kartoatmodjo
et al., 2007; Afolabi et al., 2008; Nnanna et al., 2009).
Stimulation failure is usually due to poor candidate
selection, inaccurate treatment design or improper field
procedures (Rae and Di Lullo, 2002). Nnanna et al.
(2009) cautioned that applying the best treatment
design and field procedures to the wrong candidate will
result in a failure, while a poor treatment design and
good field procedures on the right candidate will also
result in a failure. They added that though treatment
design and field procedures are fairly well understood,
candidate selection has been approached in different
ways by various operators and service companies. A
review of the literature indicated the lack of detailed
and efficient optimization workflows for stimulation
candidate selection, especially in the Niger Delta, and
hence the need for this paper.
This paper presents a model for identifying stimulation
candidates, recommending stimulation treatment option
and optimizing the stimulation process selected. The
model is also used to rank stimulation candidates based
on economics.
Methodology and Model Development
The method employed in the study is a modification of
the modular approach to stimulation decisions
presented by Sinson et al (1988). It includes sub-
modules for screening candidate wells for stimulation;
designing the stimulation treatment identified from the
screening module; and optimization of the stimulation
process selected.
Well Screen
It is assumed that from well test data, the well problem
could be diagnosed and then matched with either of
acidizing, gravel-packing or re-completion. It is also
assumed that all wells can be acidized, recompleted or
gravel-packed successfully if necessary. For wells with
skin values showing formation damage problems,
acidizing is the recommended treatment. Wells with
mechanical problems such as partially or totally
plugged perforations, insufficient perforation density,
low depth of perforation or water production, re-
completion is recommended. If the problem is sand
production, then gravel packing is recommended. A
SPE 150760
simple screening module flow chart for this model is
shown in Figure 1.
Stimulation Treatment Module
The models presented are derived from industry-wide
accepted well stimulation procedures and techniques.
The choice of which model to use is dependent on the
nature of well problem diagnosed and the result of the
screening module.
Matrix Acidizing Design Model
This model is a combination of the approaches
presented by Schechter and Gidley (1969) and
Economides and Nolte (2000). In this model, pores are
assumed to be interconnected such that the acid can
flow through the matrix under the influence of a
pressure gradient. The extent to which acid will
penetrate a rock is dependent on both the rock
properties and the local acid reaction rate. The reaction
rate in turn depends on matrix properties and other
variables like temperature, pressure, and composition of
the reacting fluids. The Niger Delta formation is chiefly
made up of sandstone. Mud acid (3% HF + 12% HCl)
is chosen because of its ability to dissolve the clay
found in drilling mud, also will react with most
constituents of naturally occurring sandstones,
including silica, feldspar, and calcareous materials.
Ugbenyen (2010) documented the detailed step-by-step
procedure used in the design of the matrix acidizing
model.
Recompletion Design Model
The approach considered in this section assumes that
the well is already completed. The concept of
recompletion is either to increase the perforation
density or increase the depth of perforation penetration
in order to increase production. The procedure
presented below is based on the works of Strubhar et al
(1972). The detailed steps are presented in Ugbenyen
(2010).
Gravel-Pack Design Model
The gravel pack design is modified from
Schlumberger’s gravel pack design and calculation
manual. The volume of gravel required is dependent on
the formation permeability, total length of the interval
and the condition of the well (i.e. whether it is a new
well or an old well). The ideal situation is that all
perforation tunnels and screen casing annulus be filled
with gravel. Ugbenyen (2010) presented the detailed
procedure used in designing the gravel-pack model.
3 Efficient Methodology for Stimulation Candidate Selection and Well Workover Optimization SPE 150760

Development of a Model for Optimizing Stimulation An objective function is defined to maximize the net
Decisions post-stimulation production subject to the limitations
Figure 2 shows the production profile (production rate imposed by the system. Therefore:
vs. time) of a well that at some point during its !! ! !!" ! !!"# ! !!" (1)
producing life was profitably stimulated. This figure
shall serve as the theoretical basis for the model where !!" is the discounted production from
developed in the following sections. The curve ABC stimulation, !!"# is the discounted production loss
represents the well pre-stimulation decline curve from stimulation, and !!" is the discounted production
profile. The well initial production rate is!!! . At point equivalent to total stimulation cost.
B, the well is considered for stimulation. The curve
DEF is the resulting post-stimulation production In Figure 2, let us shift the time axis such that the time
profile. The production rate !! is the abandonment rate at the start of the stimulation job !! is set to zero. Then
of the well. The time !! is the abandonment time of the
let !! be the duration of the stimulation job and !!" be
well if it is not considered for a stimulation treatment.
the abandonment time of the post-stimulation
The stimulation treatment is initiated at time !!
production profile. Exponential decline curve analysis
corresponding to the production rate!!! . At time !! the
is used to derive the mathematical expressions for each
stimulated well is open for production. Thus, the
of the components of Equation 1.
difference between the times !! and !! is the duration of
the stimulation job. The production loss due to the As shown in Appendix A, combining the components
duration of the stimulation job is represented by the of the objective function, Equation 1 can be written as:
shaded area BCHI. The initial production rate after
stimulation is represented by !! which corresponds to !! !!
point D in Figure 2. The well is now produced along ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! !
the curve DEF until the abandonment rate !! is reached !! !
at time !!" corresponding to point F in the figure !! ! ! !!
!!! !!!! !!
shown. The area DEFH represents the incremental !"! ! ! !
production due to stimulation treatment. The model !
formulated in the following section uses this production
!! ! !
!! !!!! !! !
profile together with exponential decline curve analysis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! (2)
!!!! !
with economic concept of continuous discounting.
Similar derivations for several cases of hyperbolic
where ! is the total cost of the stimulation treatment in
decline are presented in Ugbenyen (2010) and Sinson et
al (1988). dollars; ! is the exponential decline rate per day; ! is
the stimulation productivity ratio; ! is the effective
Model Assumptions interest (discount) rate per day; and ! is the price (in
The following assumptions are used in the development dollars) per barrel of oil. The stimulation productivity
of the model: ratio, ! is defined as:
1. The stimulation will result in improved !!
!!
(3)
productivity. !!

2. The well could be operated profitably if stimulated.
3. The factors that control production in the past will
continue to control production in the future.
4. The well production-rate versus time decline
profile is exponential.
5. The well pre-stimulation decline profile will be the
same as the post-stimulation profile.
6. The nominal decline rate constant ! is the same
for both the pre-stimulation and post-stimulation
profile.
7. The abandonment rate of the well is the same for
both the pre-stimulation and post-stimulation
profile.
Defining the Objective Function,!!
where qs is the production rate after stimulation and q0
is the production rate before stimulation.
Equation 2 is the objective function of the optimization
model used in this work.
Optimization Model Constraints
To obtain a practical solution to the objective function,
the formulation must include some constraints. In this
paper, a budgetary constraint is imposed such that the
cost of the stimulation does not exceed the budget as
determined by management. Also, a break-even
condition is imposed such that the revenue obtained
from the stimulation is at least equal to the stimulation
cost. The reservoir sets a limit on the maximum
cumulative production, and existing facilities, both in
the sub-surface and surface, limit production rates that
can be obtained from the stimulation treatment. These
4 Benson O. Ugbenyen, David O. Ogbe and Samuel O. Osisanya SPE 150760

constraints are developed mathematically as presented
below.
1. Break-even Requirement
The discounted revenue from any stimulation decision
should be greater than or at least equal to the discounted
cost of the project. i.e.,
!!" ! !!"# ! !!"
In a practical sense, this constraint is satisfied if and
only if the value of the objective function !! is
positive, that is, if:
where !!"# is the maximum productivity ratio that can
be obtained given the reservoir and treatment
parameters. It is the productivity ratio obtained from the
treatment design module discussed above.
6. Productivity Improvement Constraint
The stimulation must, at least, result in an improvement
(4) in the productivity ratio and must not itself cause more
damage to the formation. This constraint is imposed on
the productivity ratio such that it must not be less than
one or negative. It can be formulated mathematically
as:

!! ! ! (5) !!! (11)

2. Remaining Reserve Limitation Stimulation Cost & Productivity Ratio Relationship

From the treatment design module discussed above, it is
The recovery from the stimulation should not exceed observed that the input design parameters determine the
the remaining producible oil in place (reserve). stimulation cost (C) and the maximum productivity
Mathematically expressed as: ratio (F). For example, from the acidizing treatment
!!"
design, it is noted that the stimulation cost depends on
!!
!"! ! !! !!!! !" ! !"#$ (6) the volume of acid pumped, and also the volume of acid
pumped will determine the extent of damage removal
where !"#$ is the remaining oil reserve in place during (productivity ratio). Hence, a relationship can be
stimulation. Integrating Equation 6 yields: formulated between the stimulation cost and the
productivity ratio based on the treatment design module
! !!!
!"! ! !!! !! !" !!! in order to use the model as an optimization model.
! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !"#$ (7)
!! The relationship is:
3. Flow String Capacity Constraint ! ! !! ! (12)
The production rate after stimulation should not exceed
the maximum design capacity of the flow string. In the where ! and ! are obtained from the power equation of
case of gas wells, this constraint is imposed by the gas the trend line of a log-log regression of stimulation cost
pipeline capacity. That is versus productivity ratio. This relationship can be
!!"# derived from historical data of stimulations in mature
!! (8) fields or by analogy in new fields. A spreadsheet
!!
model has been developed to generate the constants for
where !!"# is the maximum design capacity (flow a given set of input parameters (Ugbenyen, 2010).
rate) for the well tubing string.

4. Budget Allocation Constraint General Form of the Optimization Model

The total cost of stimulation should not exceed the Combining the objective function and the constraints,
maximum budget allocated by management for the job. the optimization model formulated can be summarized
This can be expressed as: as a non-linear programming (NLP) problem:

! ! !!"# (9)
Maximize:
where !!"# is the maximum budget allocated by
management for stimulation. !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !
!!! !! ! ! (13)

5. Maximum Formation Productivity Ratio subject to:

Given a set of reservoir and treatment parameters, the
1. Break-even Requirement:
reservoir can only be stimulated to a certain maximum
extent. Mathematically, !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !
! ! !!"# (10) ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !
5 Efficient Methodology for Stimulation Candidate Selection and Well Workover Optimization SPE 150760

(14) Sensitivity Analysis

2. Remaining Reserve Limitation: The input data used for the sensitivity analysis are
presented in Table 1.
!! ! ! !! ! !"#$ (15)
3. Flow String Capacity: 1. Effect of Price of Oil
!!"# The price of oil determines the amount of revenue
!! (16) derived from the stimulation. An increase in the price of
!!
oil is accompanied with an increase in the optimal point
4. Budget Allocation: of the objective function as shown in Figure 3. The
decision to perform well stimulation depends on the
! ! !!"# (17)
current price of oil. Hence, the higher the price of oil,
5. Maximum Formation Productivity Ratio: the greater the benefit derived from stimulation. It is
important to note that below a productivity ratio of
! ! !!"# (18) about 3.2, the discounted production from acidizing
6. Productivity Improvement: will not change with the price of oil, but the overall
monetary benefit will reduce when the price of oil falls.
!!! (19)
where: 2. Effect of Discount Rate
!! Figure 4 illustrates the effect of the interest rate on the
!! (20) objective function. The discounted production
!
!! decreases with an increase in the discount rate. The
!! ! (21) discount rate can be viewed as an additional cost of
!!!!
stimulation. The higher the discount rate, the higher the
!! ! ! !!! (22) cost of money and well stimulation, and consequently,
!!!! !!
the lower the benefit to be derived from the stimulation
!! ! ! (23) job.
! !!!!
!! ! (24) 3. Effect of Decline Rate
!
The effect of the exponential decline rate on the
!! !!! objective function is shown in Figure 5. The smaller
!! ! (25) the value of the exponential decline constant for a well
!!
!!
production profile, the more the benefit derived if such
!! ! (26) well is considered for stimulation. In practice, we have
!
no control over the value of the decline rate constant.
!!
!! ! (27) However, it gives us a direct insight into candidate
! selection for stimulation decisions.

Solution to the Optimization Model 4. Effect of Pre-stimulation Production Rate

In this paper, the model was solved using the Solver in
Microsoft Excel in addition to What’s Best 10.0 LINDO
Systems optimization software (LINDO, 2010). The
results obtained were verified by comparing the
solution with that obtained using Wolfram’s
Mathematica 7.0 (Wolfram, 2010). A spreadsheet
application has also been developed for this model.
Model Validation & Discussion of Results
To study the behavior of the optimization model, a
sensitivity analysis was carried out on the acidizing
model by changing the input parameters. Published
data from the Niger Delta were also used to validate the
model. The results obtained are discussed in this
section.
The effect of pre-stimulation production rate on the
objective function is illustrated in Figure 6. A higher
pre-stimulation production rate indicates higher
reservoir drive energy. The main goal of stimulation is
to increase production using the reservoir energy as the
driving force in moving the oil from the reservoir into
the wellbore. If the reservoir has little or no energy,
stimulation benefit will be small. From Figure 6, a
higher pre-stimulation production rate will give a
higher optimal stimulation benefit. This suggests that as
production declines during production, there should be
an optimal time in which it is best to initiate stimulation
jobs.
5. Effect of Abandonment Rate
This is shown in Figure 7. The abandonment rate can
be interpreted in terms of the remaining recoverable oil
in the reservoir. A higher abandonment rate means a
6 Benson O. Ugbenyen, David O. Ogbe and Samuel O. Osisanya
higher amount of recoverable oil remaining in the
reservoir. But a reduced incremental production is
expected because when the abandonment rate is set
high, the incremental production will be reduced since
there is a limit to which the well can produce.
Consequently, a reduced incremental production will
eventually decrease the optimal point of the objective
function.
6. Effect of Stimulation Time
The stimulation time represents the duration of time the
stimulation job is performed. The effect of the
stimulation time on the optimal point of the objective
function is shown in Figure 8. The optimal point of the
objective function lowers as the stimulation time
increases. This means that if more time is spent on the
stimulation job, the production loss during the duration
of stimulation will increase, and hence, lowers the
overall benefit derivable from the stimulation job.
Model Application
The optimization model is applied with the acidizing
treatment module to quantify stimulation benefit
derivable from four typical acidizing jobs, and also, to
rank the wells for the stimulation process. Production
data from four wells: Well BU 1, Well BU 2, Well BU 3
and Well BU 4 were used to validate the model. The
four wells completed in May 2004 are located in
Bestfield, offshore Niger Delta. This high permeability
field is located in a water depth of 200m. The average
peak production recorded in January 2006 from each of
the four wells is 7000 stb/d. Production decline starts
after a 3-year peak production period. The available
production data for each of the four wells shows that
the decline profile for each well is exponential. The
wells are being considered as potential candidates for
acidizing after a well test confirms the presence of
formation damage. The field data is presented in Table
2. These data served as input data for the acidizing
design and optimization model. Additional data used
were taken from published literature by Ofoh and
Heikal (2006), Nnanna et al. (2009), Nnanna and
Ajienka (2005). The data in Table 2 are used to
formulate the Bestfield Model, which gives an insight
into how the model can be used to optimize and rank
acidizing candidates.
In addition, let’s assume that the remaining recoverable
reserve is 500 MM bbl, and the tubing maximum design
flow rate for each well is 12500 stb/d. Also let’s assume
an average oil price of $80/bbl, effective discount rate
of 10% and a maximum acidizing budget of $1200000
per well.
Using these data, the model is formulated. Well BU3 is
considered for the following analysis.
SPE 150760
Step 1: Enter each well data given into the Acidizing
Design and Optimization Model and generate the Cost
versus Productivity-Ratio relationship for each well.
Step 2: Obtain the relationship between the stimulation
cost (C) and productivity ratio (F) in form of power
equation of a trend line through a log-log regression of
the data.
For the Well BU 3 input data, the equation is obtained
as shown in Figure 9:
! ! !"!!"! !!!"" (28)
Step 3: Use Equations presented in the section titled
“General Form of the Optimization Model” to
formulate the objective function and its constraints as:
Maximize:
!! ! !!!!""#!!"!!"# ! !!"#!!" ! !!!"#$!!"! !
!!!!"#$! !!!"" ! !"#$!!"#$! (29)
Subject to:
1. Break-even Constraint:
!!!!""#!!"!!"# ! !!"#!!" ! !!!"#$!!"! !
! !!!"#$! !!!"" ! !"#$!!"#$ (30)
2. Remaining Reserve Constraint:
!!!"#$! ! !"#$%&!!"# ! !!!"! !!!!
(31)
3. Flow String Capacity Constraint:
! ! !!!" (32)
4. Budget Allocation Constraint:
!"!!"! !!!"" ! !"""""" (33)
5. Productivity Improvement Constraint:
!!! (34)
6. Maximum Formation Productivity Ratio:
! ! !!!" (35)
From the non-linear programming optimization
problem presented above it could be seen that, simply,
we seek an optimum value for the productivity ratio
which has a lower and upper bound of 1 and 3.21,
respectively. This is true because the limit sets by the
facility constraints (Equation 32) is more binding than
the maximum productivity ratio attainable given the
reservoir and treatment parameters (Equation 35).
It is important to note that the spreadsheet application
developed for this model will only use the input
parameters to generate the optimization results. Hence,
the steps above are only presented for better
understanding of how the model and its constraints are
formulated.
7 Efficient Methodology for Stimulation Candidate Selection and Well Workover Optimization
Discussion of the Well BU 3 Model Result
The spreadsheet application which uses Excel Solver
and LINDO System’s What’s Best 10 optimization
software are employed to solve this problem. This
optimal value of the objective function is 106868 bbl,
meaning that if this well is considered for stimulation,
given that the assumptions stated earlier are binding,
the benefit derivable is 106868 bbl of oil. The life of the
well is estimated to be 19.6 years. The payout time on
the acidizing cost is also estimated to be 1 day. The
tubing string capacity constraint is binding, meaning
that if the tubing flow capacity is increased, there will
be more benefit from this project, but on the other hand,
this extremely high rate could “kill” our well sooner
than later.
The model sensitivity report give the value of the
Lagrange Multiplier associated with the flow string
capacity constraint as 31222. This gives an idea of the
fractional change of the objective function if the flow
string capacity constraint changes by 1stb/d. Hence, if
the flow string capacity is increased by 1stb/d, the
benefit derivable from stimulation will increase by
31222 bbl. Hence, the value of the Lagrange Multiplier
will help the stimulation design engineer to know if it is
necessary to increase the stimulation benefit by
adjusting the constraints. It also gives the estimate of
the derivable benefit.
For Well BU 1 however, all constraints are not binding,
meaning that the optimum point of the objective
function was attained before any of the constraint
bound was reached. Hence any shift to the right or left
of the optimum point will only decrease the stimulation
benefit.
Application to Candidate Well Selection
This model can be used easily to rank stimulation
candidates based on the benefits derivable from the
stimulation operation and the payout time. Since the
ultimate goal of stimulation is to increase production,
the well with the highest stimulation benefit and
shortest payout time is selected first for stimulation.
Hence wells are ranked first to last in the decreasing
order of their stimulation benefits (profits), provided the
payout is acceptable by management. The well ranked
“first” is then selected for stimulation before the one
ranked “second” and so on.
A simple stimulation candidate ranking table for the
four wells in Bestfield, offshore Niger Delta is shown in
Table 3. A lease operating cost (LOE) of $4000 per
month, is assumed for each well. The results were
obtained using the acidizing design and optimization
spreadsheet model. In addition to the stimulation design
cost, site preparation cost (including equipment
SPE 150760
mobilization and demobilization cost), the lease
operating costs, federal and state taxes should also be
considered in calculating the payout time.
The choice of which well is selected first for
stimulation, considering the stimulation benefit and the
payout time, will depend on the operating company’s
guidelines and criteria for making reservoir
management decisions. The payout time for the wells in
the Bestfield Model are fairly close, hence, in this paper,
the stimulation benefit is used to rank the wells. Well
BU 3 will be selected first for stimulation before
selecting Well BU 4, then Well BU 2, and finally Well
BU 1.
Effect of Price of Oil on Well BU 3 Model Result
The price of oil is varied between $40 and $80 per
barrel, and its effect on the objective function is
studied. Figure 10 shows the result obtained. It is
observed that the higher the price of oil, the more the
benefits derivable from the stimulation. However, with
facility constraint, binding on the objective function,
there is little or no difference in the benefit derivable
from the stimulation jobs. This suggests that if the price
of oil increases, more benefits can be derived from
stimulation if the capacity of the production string is
adequate. At productivity ratios less than 3, the
discounted production is insensitive to the price of oil.
Conclusions
1. The proposed methodology and models can be
quantitatively used to estimate the benefits derived
from stimulation options like: acidizing, gravel-
packing, and recompletion.
2. The model can be used to rank candidate wells for
selective stimulation. Hence it can be used for
stimulation candidate well selection.
3. Below a productivity ratio of 3, the discounted
production from acidizing does not depend on the
price of oil. However, the overall monetary benefit
derivable from stimulation depends on price of oil.
4. The optimization model can also be used to study
the effect of the treatment parameters on the
objective function.
Recommendations
1. The model must be used to quantify stimulation
benefits derived from a stimulation decision once a
well has been matched for either of acidizing,
gravel packing or recompletion.
8 Benson O. Ugbenyen, David O. Ogbe and Samuel O. Osisanya SPE 150760

2. For effective use of the model, the lease operating a New HF-Acid System: Case Histories” paper
cost (LOE), federal and state taxes must be SPE 112558 presented at the 2008 SPE
considered before ranking the wells for stimulation. International Symposium on Formation Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana (Feb 13-15).
Acknowledgments
2. Al Qahtani, A., and Al Shehri, D.: “The Ec-Factor:
The authors wish to thank Dr. Ebere P. Ofoh of NPDC A Correlation for Optimizing Completion
for providing the some of the data used for this
Efficiency,” paper SPE 81490 presented at the
research, and Schlumberger Nigeria Limited, for
reviewing the optimization spreadsheet application 2003 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain (April 5-
developed in this work. 8).
3. Al-Araimi, M., Mahajan, M.: “Successful Revival
Nomenclature of Long-term Closed-in Gas Well by Right Matrix
bbl barrel Stimulation Treatment,” paper SPE 96735
Cmax maximum stimulation budget, $ presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical
! decline rate, per day Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, TX (Oct. 9-12).
!!"# maximum productivity ratio 4. Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G., Reservoir
! stimulation productivity ratio Simulation, Third Edition. Wiley, N.Y. 2000,
gal gallon
Chapter Eighteen, p. 24-25.
h thickness of the oil sand, ft
I effective discount rate per day, % 5. Jennings, A. R.: “Good Wells Make the Best
! permeability of undamaged zone, md Candidates for Well Stimulation,” SPE Production
!! permeability of damaged zone, md Engineering (Nov., 1991), pp 371-376.
P price per barrel of oil, $ 6. Jones, L. G.: Course Notes, Formation Damage
Pr average reservoir pressure, psi School, Mobil, Duncan, OK (March 1989).
!! well standard flow rate, stb/d 7. Kartoatmodjo, G., Caretta, F., Flew, S., Jadid, M.:
!! ! abandonment flow rate, stb/d
“Risk-Based Candidate Selection Workflow
!!! initial production rate, stb/d
qmax tubing maximum design flow rate, stb/d Improve Acid Stimulation Success Ratio in Mature
!! the production rate, stb/d Field,” paper SPE 109278 presented at the 2007
!! damaged zone radius, ft SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Jarkata,
!! reservoir drainage radius, ft Indonesia (Oct. 30 to Nov. 1st).
!! wellbore radius, ft 8. Lee, W. J.: Well Testing, Society of Petroleum
ROIP remaining recoverable reserve, bbl Engineers Textbook (1982).
stb stock tank barrel
9. Lindo, 2010: http://www.lindo.com/
!! duration of the stimulation job, days
!! abandonment time, day 10. Nitters, G., Roodhart, L., Jongma, H., Yeager, V.,
!!" abandonment time of the post-stimulation Buijse, M., Fulton, D., Dahl, J., and Jantz, E.:
production, days “Structured Approach to Advanced Candidate
! pressure gradient, psi/ft Selection and Treatment Design of Stimulation
Treatments,” paper SPE 63179, presented at the
Subscripts 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
a abandonment Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas (Oct. 1-4).
d damaged zone 11. Nnanna E., Osuagwu M., and Okereke O.:
i initial condition
“Important Considerations in Matrix Stimulation
max maximum
o oil Candidate Selection in Niger Delta”, paper SPE
r reservoir 128604 presented at the 2009 SPE Annual
s stimulation International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja
(Aug 3-5).
References 12. Nnanna, E; Ajienka, J: “Critical Success Factors
1. Afolabi, A, Opusunju A, Henri J, Onyekwere for Well Stimulation”, paper SPE 98823 presented
Cletus, Onyekwere Chris and Davalos J.: at the 2005 Nigerian Annual Conference &
“Increasing Production in a Brown Field with Exhibition, Abuja (August 1-3).
Heavy Crude and Fines Problem by Application of 13. Ofoh, E. P., and Heikal S.: “Reservoir
Management Optimization through a Systematic
9 Efficient Methodology for Stimulation Candidate Selection and Well Workover Optimization
Removal of Formation Damage, a Case Study of
Okpoho Field in Niger-Delta”, paper presented at
the 30th Annual SPE International Technical
Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, July
31- August 2, 2006.
14. Onyekonwu, M. O.: Principles of Bottomhole
Pressure Testing, Laser Publishers Ltd, Port
Harcourt (1997). p 91.
15. Rae, P., and Di Lullo, G.: “Achieving 100 Percent
Success in Acid Stimulation of Sandstone
Reservoirs,” paper SPE 77808, presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil Conference and Exhibition
held in Melbourne, Australia (Oct. 8-10, 2002).
16. Schechter, R. S. and Gidley, J. L.: “The Change in
Pore Size Distribution From Surface Reactions in
Porous media,” AIChE Journal (May 1969) 15, pp.
339-350.
SPE 150760
17. Sinson, C. M., Ogbe, D. O., Dehghani, K.,
“Optimization of Well Stimulation Strategies in Oil
and Gas Fields,” paper SPE 17792, 1988.
18. Strubhar, M. K., Blackburn, J. S., and Lee, J. W.:
“Production Operations Course II: Well
Diagnosis,” Lecture Notes for a Video-Tape
Course, SPE, Dallas (1972), pp. 525-544.
19. Ugbenyen, B.O.,” An Approach to Stimulation
Candidate Selection and Optimization,” MSc
Thesis, African University of Science and
Technology, Abuja, Nigeria, 2010.
20. Wolfram, 2010:
http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica
21. Yildiz, Y.: “Assessment of Total Skin Factor in
Perforated Wells,” paper SPE 82249 presented at
the 2003 SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague (May 13-14).
10 Benson O. Ugbenyen, David O. Ogbe and Samuel O. Osisanya SPE 150760

Appendix A: Derivation of the Objective

Function of the Optimization Model Substituting for !! and !"#$ in Equation A.2, and
integrating:
!"! ! !!! !!!! ! !!"
The detailed derivation of the objective function used in !!" ! !
the optimization model is presented in this section. !!!! !!
Figure 2 shall serve as the theoretical basis for the !"! ! !!! !!!! !!" !!!! !!
! ! !! (A.5)
proposed optimization model. !!!!

Defining the economic life resulting from the

Deriving the Objective Function, !!
stimulation treatment, !!" as:
An objective function is defined to maximize the net
! !!
post-stimulation production subject to the limitations !!" ! ! !" ! !! (A.6)
! !!!
imposed by the system. Therefore:
Equation A.5 can be expressed as:
!! ! !!" ! !!"# ! !!" (A.1)
!!!
!!!!
!"! ! !!! !! !!!! !! !! !
where !!" is the discounted production from !!" ! ! ! !!
!!!! !!
stimulation, !!"# is the discounted production loss !! !!!
from stimulation, and !!" is the discounted production ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !
equivalent to total stimulation cost.
!
!! ! ! !!
In Figure 2, let us shift the time axis such that the time !"! ! ! ! !!!!
!!! !!
!
at the start of the stimulation job !! is set to zero. Then !! ! !
let !! be the duration of the stimulation job and !!" be (A.7)
the abandonment time of the post-stimulation
production profile. Exponential decline curve analysis Discounted Production Loss Due to
is used to derive the mathematical expressions for each Stimulation, !!"#
of the components of Equation (A.1).
This is the area enclosed by BCHI in Figure 2.
!!
Discounted Incremental Post-Stimulation Production, !!"# ! !! ! !!" ! !"#$ !" (A.8)
!
!!"
Making substitutions from Equations (A.3) and (A.4),
and integrating:
This is the area enclosed by DEFH in Figure 2.
!! !!!! ! !!
!!" !
!!"
!! ! !! !!!! ! !"#$ !" (A.2) !!"# ! ! !
!! !!!!
!! !!!! !!
where ! is the exponential decline rate per day. ! ! !! (A.9)
!!!!
Defining the present value interest factor for continuous
or daily compounding, !"#$, and also, the stimulation
productivity ratio, ! as: Discounted Stimulation Cost, !!"
!"#$ ! ! !!" (A.3) The total stimulation cost, which includes site
!!
!!
(A.4) preparation cost, equipment mobilization &
!!
demobilization cost and the stimulation treatment cost,
where in Equation (A.3), ! is the effective interest can be converted to its equivalent discounted
(discount) rate per day. production as:
!
!!" ! ! ! !!!! (A.10)
!

where ! is the total cost of the stimulation treatment in

dollars, and ! is the price (in dollars) per barrel of oil.
 11 Efficient Methodology for Stimulation Candidate Selection and Well Workover Optimization SPE 150760

Combining the components, Equation A.1 can be

written as: Table 1: Input Data for Sensitivity Analysis
!"#$%&#'(#)#$"*+$',$#))-$#.'!"' //00'#$%'
!! !!
! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! 1$%+2%&#'(%3+-).'"&' 4056'''('
!! !
!! ! ! !! 7#889*$#'(%3+-).'")' 0:6''('
!"! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !!
! ;#<',%='>?+@A2#)).'*' /0''('
!! ! !
1#B<?'*C'D*$E%<+*2' 4/000''('
!! !!!! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!
!!!! ! 1%E%&#3'F*2#'(%3+-)'"+' G''('
(A.11) H23%E%&#3'(#)#$"*+$',#$E#%9+8+<=.',' /00'-+'

Equation (A.11) is the same as Equation 2 used in the 1%E%&#3'F*2#',#$E#%9+8+<=.',+' /0'-+'

calculation of the objective function of the optimization
,*$*)+<=' /5I'
model developed in this work.
D*$E%<+*2'J*8-E#'D%@<*$' 4'../0$(.'
!@+3'K=3$*)<%<+@'L$%3+#2<' 0:M5'#$%0'('
NB#@+C+@'L$%"+<='*C'!@+3' 4:0M'

J+)@*)+<='*C'O2P#@<#3'!@+3' 0:5G'1#'
,-EB'(%<#' /'../0-%2'
N%C#'Q%$&+2'C*$'O2P#@<+*2',$#))-$#' /00'#$%'
1+%E#<#$'*C'R*+8'>-9+2&' 4:G5'%21*&$'

R*)<'*C'!@+3',#$'H2+<'J*8-E#'' S'6T'#&"345/'

!'' 0:M'#$%0'('
R-$$#2<',$*3-@<+*2'(%<#.'67' 4000'$(.0+'
!9%23*2E#2<'(%<#.'65' /00'$(.0+'

UVB*2#2<+%8'1#@8+2#'(%<#.'8' 0:6/'#&"3+59'
1-$%<+*2'*C'N<+E-8%<+*2.3($' /'+59$'
(#E%+2+2&'(#@*"#$%98#'(#)#$"#.':;<!' 6'==3$(.'
,$+@#',#$'W%$$#8'*C'X+8.'!' T03>0$(.'
UCC#@<+"#'1+)@*-2<'(%<#',#$'1%=.'<' 40I'
>-9+2&'Q%V+E-E'1#)+&2'D8*Y$%<#.'6-5?' 40000'$(.0+'
Q%V+E-E'N<+E-8%<+*2'W-3&#<.'@-5?' 4:/'==3>'
12 Benson O. Ugbenyen, David O. Ogbe and Samuel O. Osisanya SPE 150760

Table 2: Bestfield Model data

Table 3: Bestfield model ranking table

 13 Efficient Methodology for Stimulation Candidate Selection and Well Workover Optimization SPE 150760

Fig. 2: Production decline profile for a stimulated well

Fig. 1: A simple well screening flowchart

Fig. 3: Effect of oil price on the objective function Fig. 4: Effect of discount rate on the objective function

Fig. 5: Effect of decline rate on the objective function Fig. 6: Effect of pre-stimulation production
rate on the objective function
14 Benson O. Ugbenyen, David O. Ogbe and Samuel O. Osisanya SPE 150760

Fig. 7: Effect of abandonment rate on the Fig. 8: Effect of stimulation time on the
objective function objective function

Fig. 9: Cost versus productivity ratio plot for Well BU 3 Fig. 10: Effect of oil price on Well BU 3 model result