SPE 121928

Field Development and Productivity Improvement in Offshore Mexico:

An Engineering and Laboratory Synergistic Approach to Carbonate
Fracture Acidizing
Antonio Inda and Octavio Steffani, PEMEX, and Eduardo Soriano and Fernando Robles, Halliburton

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
The marine light crude (CLM) project in offshore Mexico is a group of 12 oil fields located 75 km off the coast of southern
Mexico (Jurassic and Cretaceous period). The fields have been under development since 2003, are high-temperature (160°C
or >300°F) carbonate formations producing gas and condensate with permeability that ranges from 1 to 6 mD, and are
naturally fractured. These fields were experiencing considerable drawdown, which slowed down the return on investment
and, in one case, could have potentially led to well abandonment. Established dogma dictates that carbonate formations in
Mexico are best treated by matrix stimulation rather than fracture-stimulation techniques. The two case studies discussed in
this paper demonstrate the effective implementation of a production-optimization design and execution methodology that has
translated into productivity increase. The design resulted in up to 80% removal of the pressure drop experienced in the
formation face, accomplished by establishing a linear flow path, bypassing the formation damage. After treatment, a
production increase of 50% more than conventional treatments is the best proof of concept, validating the synergistic
approach, entailing data collection and analysis, field and laboratory work, and engineering design and simulation. The
selection of appropriate candidates was performed by analyzing productivity data (drillstem testing), which indicated a skin
factor of zero but, nevertheless, a remnant and considerable pressure drop caused by the formation’s low permeability. Fluid
optimization and placement techniques were combined with core studies and rock mechanics in the job design. Candidate
wells for acid fracturing had permeability of 1 to 20 mD, while matrix stimulation candidates had 20 to 50 mD, and 50-m
etched fractures appear to have provided optimum results. The methodology signifies less risk of incurring damage caused by
condensate formation in the formation. As a result, fracture acidizing in Mexico’s offshore fields is a completely viable
alternative to production improvement.

Introduction
The use of various fracturing methods for stimulation of wells has become a common procedure in the oil and gas industry.
Fracture treatments are performed on wells with varying potential to help increase production and reduce the drop pressure
on the face formation. Many hydrocarbon-bearing carbonate formations are routinely stimulated by fracture acidizing, and
the use of fracture acidizing to enhance the production of carbonate formations continues to be an effective process.
Numerous authors have investigated the factors that affect the production increase of a fractured well, including special acid
systems and placement techniques, etc. However, to achieve a successful fracture-acidizing treatment, three fundamental
issues must be addressed: (1) reactivity control, (2) fluid-loss control, and (3) conductivity generation (Gdansky 2005). The
desire for increased production is concurrent with the need to optimize treatment designs and predict what increases might be
expected.

Reactivity Control
The first fundamental issue is that of reactivity control. Dissolution of carbonate is the means by which conductivity is
generated. The dissolution is controlled by reactivity, which is affected by both carbonate composition and temperature. An
improper understanding of reactivity might lead to a choice of fluid that is inappropriate for the reservoir conditions. There
was a time when almost everyone considered reactivity control to be the single most important issue when providing
effective fracture-acidizing treatments. This conclusion was based on the combination of (1) an improper understanding of
limestone reactivity, and (2) the lack of effective fluid-loss control measures provided by synthetic polymer-gelled acids.
Currently, reactivity control is sufficient that fluid-loss control has been clearly exposed as the dominant barrier to effective
2 SPE 121928

fracture-acidizing treatments. Guidelines have been developed for choosing an appropriate method for achieving reactivity
control. Low-reactivity carbonates at cool reservoir conditions need acid systems that have not further lowered the acid
reaction-rate constants. Foamed-acid and surfactant gelled acids are examples of systems known to be effective in low-
reactivity carbonates. Moderate-reactivity carbonates can also be treated with foamed acid and surfactant gelled acids, but
synthetic-polymer gelled acids provide a level of reactivity control and fluid-loss control that makes them widely applicable.
Treatments on high-reactivity carbonates or moderate-reactivity carbonates at high temperatures should generally employ
acid systems using synthetic polymers to viscosify the acid. These systems provide excellent reactivity control and mass
transport control.

Fluid-Loss Control
The second fundamental issue involved in successful fracture-acidizing treatments is fluid-loss control. This is perhaps the
primary cause of failure for many fracture-acidizing treatments. In sand fracturing, excessive fluid loss can result in
“screenouts” and a premature shutdown of the treatment. In acid fracturing, a screenout is incredibly difficult to achieve and
only rarely occurs, even with excessive fluid loss. The absence of the feedback provided by a screenout has made it easy for
the industry to ignore the issue of excessive fluid loss during fracture-acidizing treatments. Yet, if fluid efficiency drops to
the point that the treating pressure no longer stays above fracture-extension pressure, it indicates that all the acid is leaking
off into the formation. When this happens, the treatment has become a large matrix-acidizing treatment, and the etched length
will be short. The result will be a well that gives a high-flush production but quickly falls to a much lower value over the long
term. The property that gives good, long-term production increase is etched length of sufficient conductivity. Etched length is
different from created length. Nonacid fluids might be used to create a long fracture, but if the acid has excessive fluid loss,
the etched length will be short and the long-term production increase will be disappointing. The single most significant step
to improve fluid-loss control in fracture-acidizing treatments is to viscosify the acid. All other efforts to improve fluid-loss
control will be relatively useless, unless the first step is using viscous acid. There are a number of factors in the
viscosification of acid, some of which are listed below.
• Natural polymers
• Synthetic polymers
• Surfactants
• Foams
• Emulsions

Laboratory testing using hollow limestone cores, even under severe test conditions, has clearly demonstrated that
viscosity has a powerful effect on providing the first level of fluid-loss control. This first level of fluid-loss control can be
achieved with as little as 20 cP of viscosity at 511/sec at BHST. This benchmark viscosity provides a good guideline for
deciding how much viscosity is enough for first-level fluid-loss control. It is generally sufficient viscosity in situations where
matrix permeability is less than 1 mD. Under such conditions, the choice of viscosifier will largely be driven by the reactivity
issues mentioned earlier. Some formation conditions require even more fluid-loss control than what is provided by first-level
approaches and might require a second level of fluid-loss control. The second level of improved fluid-loss control can be
achieved by using either large solids or much higher fluid viscosities. Studies have shown that large solids can be effective in
providing this second level of fluid-loss control. The solids should be at least 100 mesh in size, and can easily be 40- to 60-
mesh solids. The solids must be large because of the relatively larger diameters of wormholes caused by acid leakoff
compared to the original pore throats. Pore throats can be bridged with particles of a few microns in diameter, but wormholes
require much larger particles. The solids can be sand, oil-soluble resins, or anything else deemed useful. Concentrations
should start at 0.25 lb/gal and should be increased in 0.25-lb/gal increments if an acid stage that does not maintain fracture-
extension pressure. Fracture-acidizing treatments using 1 to 2 lb/gal of solids have been successfully conducted and provided
significantly improved sustained production increases. If higher viscosities are chosen for achieving the second level of fluid-
loss control, the target viscosities should be in the range of a few hundred centipoises, perhaps 100 to 300 cP under downhole
conditions. This can be achieved with live-acid crosslinkers, such as zirconium and near-spent acid crosslinkers. Live-acid
crosslinkers provide high viscosity in the fracture itself, while near-spent acid crosslinkers provide high viscosity in the
matrix after leakoff and at the leading edge of acid flow in the fracture. Foams and emulsions can also provide these higher
viscosities. The choice of fluid can depend on such factors as acceptable friction pressures in the tubing, the availability of
materials such as nitrogen, and whether leakoff is perceived to be dominated by matrix loss or natural fracture loss. The
higher live-acid viscosities might be preferable when leakoff is dominated by natural fractures.

Conductivity Generation
The third fundamental issue in successful fracture-acidizing treatments is the generation of acceptable conductivity. Proper
reactivity control and proper fluid-loss control are prerequisites for obtaining good conductivity. In fracture acidizing,
fracture conductivity is generated by the nonuniform dissolution of rock from the formation face. This process is referred to
as “differential etching.” The two primary factors influencing the resultant conductivity are the quantity of rock removed and
the pattern of rock removal. While kinetic parameters govern the amount of rock removed in each segment of the fracture,
SPE 121928 3

formation characteristics dominate the conductivity resulting from the acidizing process. The mineralogical composition of a
formation has the greatest influence on its resultant conductivity because the etching pattern is a direct result of the degree of
heterogeneity in the fracture face. Any rock characteristic that contributes to heterogeneity in the formation will enhance
differential etching. As shown earlier, the physical and chemical composition of the formation rock will influence the
reaction rates of acid; as a result, some areas will be dissolved to a greater extent than others. Once differential etching is
achieved, formation hardness and fracture-closure stress influence the resultant conductivity. As with propped fractures, the
conductivity of an etched fracture decreases as closure stress increases. The magnitude of reduction in conductivity depends
on the hardness of the formation and the ratio of supporting area to etched area (Gdansky 2005).
To achieve a differential etching, several techniques are available. The one used on the stimulation of the wells referenced
in this paper was to pump a viscous pad fluid ahead of the acid and behind an optional nonviscous, cooldown prepad. As the
viscous pad is pumped, it generates fracture geometry (Fig. 1). Because the acid that follows it is less viscous, it “fingers”
through the viscous pad. This fingering process limits the acid contact to the formation face, which creates etched and
nonetched areas. This process results in longer acid-penetration distance and possibly more effective conductivity at a greater
distance along the induced fracture (Halliburton 1998). An additional etching period was conducted to simulate what is
referred to as closed-fracture acidizing (CFA) (Fredrickson 1986). CFA can be considered a technique to enhance fracture
conductivity. The technique basically involves pumping acid at low rates below fracture reopening pressure, through the
previously created fractures. The acid will follow the path of least resistance, selectively etching only a portion of the fracture
face and creating deeper etching patterns than would normally be achieved using conventional etching procedures.

Fig. 1—Differential etching inside the fracture.

One of the most important of Mexico’s offshore projects is CLM (Fig 2). This project consists of the development of 12
fields in two distinctive phases: early production and integral development.
Field A is has been undergoing development for four years, and is located in the continental platform of the Gulf of
Mexico, as opposed to the coasts of the State of Tabasco, approximately 75 km northwest of the Marine Terminal of Dos
Bocas. This field is in an anticlinal structure of NE-SW direction, limited in its flank by an inverse fault, with 10 to 12°
thrown that runs parallel to the axis of the structure. Toward the NW, its closing is by a dip of the structure, with thrown of
8°. Whereas toward the SW, it is limited by an inverse fault that cuts its main axis perpendicularly. Geologically, the field is
located in the denominated Campeche Bay Basin. The field is constituted by two reservoirs that present important differences
with respect to the petrophysical characteristics and fluids. For the Cretaceous formation, the rock trap is constituted of
carbonates and the trap is of fundamentally structural character, with closing by presence of inverse faults and lateral
displacement. The produced oil has a density of 30° API (Soriano et al. 2007).
For the Upper Jurassic reservoir, the dominant rocks are dolomites in the base and limestones toward the middle and the
top. The trap is in the Medium Cretaceous; it is combined by influence of sedimentologics variations as much vertical as
horizontal. The oil has a density of 41° API. The subject wells of this study are located on both reservoirs.
4 SPE 121928

Fig. 2—Location of the fields in the CLM area.

Stimulation Challenges
Most of the wells located in Field A are producing in low-permeability formation ranging from 1 to 50 mD. BHSTs in these
wells are often above 300°F; this high temperature enhances acid reactivity and limits penetration into the formation.
Established dogma dictates that carbonate formations in offshore Mexico are best treated by matrix stimulation rather than
fracture-stimulation techniques. This has been established and practiced during the last 20 years of development of fields
offshore Mexico based on previous formations being high permeability carbonates ranging from 100 to 5,000 mD.
Traditional acid-stimulation jobs in this area were mixtures of solvents/HCl/organic blends, designed to overcome sludge
precipitation and high BHST as a way to distribute acid along the producing intervals. Often, viscosified acids are used as
diverter systems with some regular success; however, high reservoir pressure in these fields limit the pumping rates most of
the time. Recently, an acid-fracturing campaign started in these fields reported outstanding results and is described in this
paper.
The first step performed was selecting the right candidates to fracture acidize from those that only needed matrix
treatments. The well production or injection rate is related to the bottomhole flowing pressure by the inflow performance
relationship (IPR). It was observed from the data gathered from a drillstem test performed on one of the exploratory wells
drilled in this area, after a re-evaluation of a buildup test and a production analysis of the IPR curve, that even when a skin
factor of 0.1 was present on the formation, a large drop in pressure remained on the formation face. This value was almost
5,000 psi for a choke size of ¼ in., and increased even more as the choke size was increased. An evident signal of the low
permeability of the formation was indicated in the buildup test of 1.1 mD (black dots on the red IPR show the real rates
during the test). By simulating an IPR under fracturing conditions (black IPR), the benefit of acid fracturing was evident; oil
production was forecasted to almost double, and the pressure drop reduced by almost half of the original value (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3—Log analysis of the derivative from the buildup test and the corresponding production analysis of the IPR curve comparing
the benefit of fracturing the formation.

Production Analysis
The previous analysis led to review and establishment of which formations and wells could be fractured, and which wells
only needed to be matrix stimulated. By using data available from a buildup test again, then calibrating synthetic logs where a
“kh” calculation was added, and finally using again the IPR analysis, it was established that those wells with permeabilities
from 1 to 20 mD were candidates for fracture treatments and those with permeabilities above 20 mD were candidates for
matrix treatments. This can be better understood by viewing the IPR family on the left side of Fig. 4. The separation of the
SPE 121928 5

IPR under matrix conditions (black IPR) and fracturing conditions (green IPR) is evident. This means more production and
less pressure drop. On the right side of Fig. 4, it is appreciable that both conditions of matrix and fracturing scenarios are
forecasting quite similarly (blue IPR for matrix and green IPR for fracturing).

Fig. 4—Using the IPR analysis to select the right candidates for matrix acidizing or fracture acidizing.

The IPR analysis is one of the most powerful tools in production engineering. It can be used as an aid in both the design
and optimization of well hydraulics and IPR modification by analyzing sensitivity of different variables. Once the candidates
for fracturing were identified, a sensitivity scenario was analyzed by reviewing which fracture length was needed. In most
cases, by increasing length, the production expected was also increased (left side of Fig. 5). In a few cases, short fractures
proved to be the optimum target because no substantial increase of production was noticed and the drop pressure eliminated
was almost the same with each different length run (right side of Fig. 5).

Fig. 5—IPR analysis of sensitivity of the length of the fracture.

Laboratory Core Testing

In 1986, Frederickson presented a method to measure the etched conductivity resulting from acid reaction with formation
cores. These tests use circular core wafers cut so that the surface exposed to acid is in the same plane as a vertical fracture.
The wafers are mounted in lead, and the face of the sample is turned flat with a lathe. Acid is injected through a hole in the
center of the core and is allowed to flow radially between the core and a steel plate. After a specified time interval, the acid is
displaced, closure stress is applied to the core face, and the etched conductivity is measured using kerosene as the flowing
medium.
It is possible to correlate laboratory-measured, etched conductivities to the weight loss per unit area predicted by a
fracture-acidizing simulator. In this procedure, the weight loss per unit area predicted for the proposed treatment is correlated
back through the laboratory measurements to predict conductivity. The procedure assumes that the conductivity is a strong
function of weight loss, and only a weak function of changing acid strength and reactivity. Implementation of this procedure
depends on the ability of the fracture-acidizing simulator to predict the spending of acid in the laboratory etching test as well
as in the fracture (Van Domelen 1992)
Several formation cores from the field under study were submitted for analysis with the results to be used to optimize the
acid treatment. X-ray-diffraction analysis indicated that some cores were primarily calcite, and a minor percentage were
dolomite with traces of quartz, anhydrite, and pyrite. Some traces also detected ilite and mixed-layer clay. The HCl
solubilities ranged from 97.6 to 98.4%. Scanning-electron microscope (SEM) examinations revealed a framework of
interlocking and intergrown, fine crystalline. Porosity appeared to be good with an abundance of large open pores throughout
6 SPE 121928

the sample. The right side of the Fig. 6 illustrates more detail of a pore space and the small crystals that make up the larger
grains of calcite.

Fig. 6—SEM examination.

Acid-etched fracture, flow-capacity tests were conducted comparing HCl/acetic blend and HCl/acetic gelled with 1%
synthetic polymer. In each test, the acid-etched fracture conductivities were measured under a series of increasing closure
stresses. The first readings were taken at zero closure stress. These values, along with the amount crushed and removed, can
be used to compare the amount of rock removed during a specified etching period. Notice that all of the zero closure-stress
conductivities are high, indicating adequate reaction and that the gelled acid removed less rock than the plain acid. These
results are indicative of the retardation achieved with the gelled-acid system. As closure stress is increased, the pattern of
rock removal, rather than just the absolute volume of rock removed, becomes important. The hardness of the sample will also
be important because the resistance to crushing is dependent on the rock hardness. The relative difference between the zero
closure-stress reading and the conductivities under closure gives a quantitative indication of the degree of differential etching.
Based on the data in Fig. 7, good differential etching was achieved. The results of the etching tests illustrate the potential
benefit of a CFA treatment. Note that, in all the etching tests, flowing acid while closure stress was applied to the core
resulted in significant increases in conductivity. Extremely high conductivities were maintained, even at 5,500 psi closure
stress.
The good differential etching on the core face with deeper and longer channels achieved with the HCl/Acetic+1%
synthetic polymer versus the HCl/acetic blend alone can also be observed in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7—Conductivity achieved during the etching test with the formation cores.
SPE 121928 7

Rotating disk tests (Anderson 1991) were performed for the purpose of determining the surface reaction-rate
characteristics (reaction-rate constant, reaction order, and activation energy) of the formation cores. These values, in
conjunction with an acidizing simulator, can be used to optimize fracture-acidizing treatments. The reaction-rate constant and
the order of reaction are calculated. These terms are used in the acid simulator to convert the laboratory data into design data
at the bottomhole conditions of the treatment that is being performed (Fig. 8).
The reaction-rate constant (k) has the units of moles transformed per unit time, per unit volume. In the case of
heterogeneous reactions, it is appropriate to define the reaction rate in terms of the interfacial area available for reaction. The
chief significance of rate functions such as these is that they provide a satisfactory framework for the interpretation and
evaluation of experimental kinetic data. Determining the reaction rate expression involves a two-step procedure. First, the
concentration dependence (reaction order, n) is determined at a fixed temperature. Then, the temperature dependence of the
reaction-rate constant (activation energy, Ea) is evaluated to give a complete reaction-rate expression.

Fig. 8—Reactivity data generated from the core samples and its use for the fracture simulator.

Rock-properties tests were performed to estimate the hardness of the formation and for use in hydraulic-fracture
simulations (Fig. 9). All the submitted cores had variable properties with Young’s modulus ranging from 2.13 to 9.11 E6 psi
and Poisson’s ratio of 0.21.

Fig. 9—Core sample after rock-mechanic test.

8 SPE 121928

Results
After all the previous analysis and study was generated and the candidates for acid fracturing were selected, the fracturing
campaign began. The wells treated were drilled and perforated at depths around 5,500 m (18,000 ft) and 6,000 m (19,700 ft).
They were completed with 5- and 5 ½-in. liners and production tubing of 3 ½- or 4 ½-in., bottomhole temperatures oscillating
around 320°F, and reservoir pressure of 12,000 psi.
The acid system was selected based on the results of the reactivity and etching tests, a preflush of solvent was always
used, and the fracturing gel was prepared with seawater. The common treatment schedule was as follows.
• 13,000 gallons of solvent
• 21,000 to 26,000 gallons of fracturing gel
• 53,000 to 65,000 gallons of acid
• Seawater for displacement according to the well volume

Fracturing rates were determined based on a step-rate test because this area was unknown from the formation breaking
down standpoint, and uncertainty remained regarding whether the surface and pumping equipment available were capable to
perform these jobs for the first time in the area. Because this is an offshore area, all the operations were carried out by means
of a stimulation boat. The fracture-extension rate was 6 to10 bbl/min, and the final rate used in the treatments was in the
range of 18 to 20 bbl/min, allowing the fracture to extend into the formation (Fig. 10).

Figure 10—Step-rate test for determining the frac-extension rate.

Table 1 shows the results of the fracturing treatments performed on the first eight wells from this field. The red circle
highlights those wells that produced nothing after they were completed; however, as can be seen in the table, they finally
produced a significant amount of oil and gas after they were acid-fractured. The last column shows the return of the inversion
of the treatment in days of oil producing, considering the barrel of oil price at $30. As can be seen, some wells recover the
inversion as fast as a couple of days, and eight days in the worst of the cases, which is not bad at all.

Table 1—Production Summary of Wells Fractured

Well Qg Before, Qo Before, Qg After, Qo After, DQo, ROI,
MMscf BOPD MMscf BOPD bbl days
1 11 1,700 25 5,800 4,100 2.1
2 3 1,800 3 3,100 1,300 7.5
3 11 1,500 25 5,700 4,200 2.1
4 3 750 3 1,800 1,050 8.2
5 0 0 30 10,000 10,000 1.1
6 0 0 29 10,200 10,200 1.1
7 0 0 2 3,200 3,200 3.5
8 0 0 2 7,328 7,328 1.6
SPE 121928 9

Fig. 11 illustrates a typical example of a completion in this field, and the synthetic log on the center is generated and
calibrated from buildup analysis. The last track of the log shows a calculated potential of the formation (kh). This data is then
used along with the core-test results for optimizing the fracture design on the simulator. Once a synthetic log is calibrated,
this data can be used for wells where enough information is not available.

Fig.11—Typical completion with the calibrated synthetic log in the center.

Fig. 12 illustrates the behavior history of production for the field under study and the remarkable contribution of the
fracturing treatments. Production increased almost three-fold in less than four months after this campaign was started.

Fig. 12—Production history of the field showing the contribution of the fracture treatments.
10 SPE 121928

Conclusions
The following conclusions are a result of this work.
• The effective implementation of a production-optimization design and execution methodology has translated into a
productivity increase.
• The reactivity values used as input for a fracture-acidizing simulator will have a significant effect on the acid
spending, estimated etched width, and conductivity profiles. Reactivity data generated with cores from the formation
of interest is required to accurately simulate the acid-spending process and allow a more accurate estimate of the
resultant fracture parameters.
• Etching tests with formation cores are key factors in achieving the best selection of acid blend for the particular
formation.
• This case study featured the results of core testing, well logs, and pressure-buildup data. Using data from various
sources allowed increased confidence in the optimization process.
• Fracture acidizing in Mexico’s offshore fields is a completely viable alternative for production improvement.

Nomenclature
mD = millidarcies
m = meters
BHST = bottomhole static temperature

Acknowledgements
The authors thank PEMEX and Halliburton for their support and permission to publish this work.

References
Anderson, M. 1991. Reactivity of San Andres Dolomite. SPE Prod Engineering, 6 (2): 227–232. PA. DOI: 10.2118/20115-PA.
Fredrickson, S. 1986. Stimulating Carbonate Formations Using a Closed Fracture Acidizing Technique. Paper SPE 14654 presented at the
East Texas Regional Meeting, Tyler, Texas, April. DOI: 10.2118/14654-MS.
Gdansky, R. 2005. Recent Advances in Carbonate Stimulation. Paper IPTC 10693 presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November.
Halliburton, 1998. Fracture Acidizing Best Practices. H-01275. Houston, Texas, 18 pages, October.
Soriano, E., Robles, F., Inda, A., and Steffani, O. 2007. Relative-Permeability Modifiers and Their Use in Acid Stimulation in HP/HT Low-
Permeability Carbonate Formations: Offshore Mexico Cases. Paper SPE 107584 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15–18 April. DOI: 10.2118/107584-MS.
Van Domelen, M. 1992. Optimizing Fracture Acidizing Tteatment Design by lntegrating Core Testing, Field Testing, and Computer
Simulation. Paper SPE 22393 presented at the 1992 International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, 24–27 March.
DOI: 10.2118/22393-MS.
Van Domelen, M., Gdansky, R., and Finley, D. 1994. The Application of Core and Well Testing to Fracture Acidizing Treatment Design:
A Case Study. Paper SPE 27621 presented at the European Production Operations Conference and Exhibition, Aberdeen, Scotland,
15–17 March. DOI: 10.2118/27621-MS.