Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education

and Scientific Research
University of Baghdad
College of Engineering
Department of Petroleum Engineering

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY AND ANALYSIS OF MATRIX

ACIDIZING FOR MISHRIF FORMATION-AHDEB OIL FIELD
A Dissertation
By
USAMA SAHIB SALIH
(MSc 2004)
Submitted to the College of Engineering-Department of Petroleum
Engineering
University of Baghdad
In partial fulfillment of
The requirements for the degree of
DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

Supervised by: Prof. Dr. Ayad Abdulhaleem

July 2022

i
 ‫ميحرلا نمحرلا هللا مسب‬
‫" َوإ ْذ َق َال َ برُّ َك ِللْ َم َلاِئ َك ِة إنِّي َجا ِع ٌل في إ ْل َأ ْرض َجلِي َف ًة ۖ َقا ُلوإ َإ َت ْج َعلُ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ُ‬
‫ِفي َها َمن ُي ْف ِس ُد ِفي َها َو َي ْس ِف ُك ال ِّد َم َاء َو َت ْح ُن يسي ُح ِ ح ْم ِد َك َوي َف ِّدسُ‬
‫ُ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ِّ‬ ‫َ‬
‫َ َ َ َ ِّ َْعلَ ُ َ َ َي ْعلَ ُ َ َ َعلَّ َ َ َ ْ َ ْس َ َ ُك َّ َ ث َُّ‬
‫لك ۖ قال ِإني إ م ما لأ مون* و م إذم إلأ ماء لها م‬
‫ُ‬ ‫َ َض ُ َ َ ْ َ َ َ َ َ ُ َ ْ ََٰ َ كُ‬
‫ع َر ه ْم علي ال َملاِئك ِة فف َال إ ِنبيوني ئاس َم ِاء ه ُول ِأء إن نت ْم َص ِاذ ِفين*َ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ ِ‬
‫َ‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫َّ‬ ‫َ‬
‫َقا ُلوإ ُس ْي َحا َب َك َلأ ِعلْ َم َل َنا إ َّلأ َما لمن َنا ۖ إب َك إن َت ِلتمُ‬
‫ع‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َّ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫ع‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ال ْ َ‬
‫ِكتم” صدق إلله العلي الع يظ‬
‫ج‬

‫سورة اليقرة ‪33/30‬‬

 Supervisor Certification

I certify that the preparation of this dissertation entitled “Experimental

Study and Analysis of Matrix Acidizing for Mishrif Formation-Ahdeb Oil
Field” is being submitted by “Usama Sahib Salih.” It has been carried out
completely under my supervision at the University of Baghdad, College of
Engineering, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctorate of Philosophy in Petroleum Engineering.

Signature:
Name Prof. Dr. Ayad A. Al-Haleem
Date: / /2022

In view of the available recommendations, I forward this dissertation for debate by

the examining committee.
We certify that we have read this dissertation entitled “Experimental Study and
Analysis of Matrix Acidizing for Mishrif Formation-Ahdeb Oil Field” and as
examining committee, examined the student “Usama Sahib Salih” in its contents
and that in opinion it meets the standard of dissertation for the degree of Doctorate
of Philosophy in Petroleum Engineering.

Signature: Signature:
Name: Dr Falih Hassan Mohammed Name: Dr. Ahmed Askar Najaf
Title: Professor Title: Professor
(Chairman) (Member)

Signature: Signature:
Name:Dr. Abdulkareem Abbas Khalil Name: Dr. Hayder A.Rasheid
Title: Assistant Professor Title: Assistant Professor
(Member) (Member)

Signature: Signature:
Name: Dr. Hassan A. Abdul-Hussein Name: Dr. Ayad A. Al-Haleem
Title: Assistant Professor Title: Professor
(Member) (Supervisor)

Approved by the College of Engineering, University of Baghdad.

Signature:
Name: Dr. Saba Jabbar Neamah
Title: Professor
Acting Dean of the Engineering College
Date: / / 2022
 DEDICATION

My prject is fully devoted to the omniscient Allah, my respectable

parents, loving wife, my wonderful kids, Brothers and Sisters without

whose continual support this dissertation was not feasible. They are

always a source of inspiration for me.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Prophet Mohammed (‫ )صل هللا عليه وآله وسل ̚م‬said: He who does not thank the
people is not thankful to Allah.
Prof. Dr. Ayad A. Al-Haleem, my supervisor, has provided me with consistent
direction, care, patience, and support over the last several years, for which I am
indebted and grateful beyond measure.
I value the outstanding courses taught by Prof. Dr. Mohammed S. Al-Jawad,
Prof. Dr. Falih Al-Mahdawi, Prof. Dr. Ahmed Askar, Asst. Prof. Dr. Sameera
Hamdallah, and Asst. Prof. Dr. Hassan Al-Taei, among others. Their classes
gave me crucial and basic topics and opened the door for me.
I would also want to thank Dr. Ahmed Al-Yaseri, Dr. Ahmed Al-Khafaji, Dr.
Najah and Dr. Fadhil Al-Shershahi for their constructive criticism and helpful
suggestions throughout this project. Appreciate your daily assistance in the lab,
which influenced the experimental outcomes of this study.
Thank and acknowledge my colleagues Akram Hamoodi, Ahmed Radhi, Raed
Alway, Ahmed Kareem, and Mustafa Rahseid for their insightful support.
I want to thank the personnel of the Reservoir and Geology Department of Ahdeb,
especially Mr. Ibrahem Alsaadi, for his assistance in supplying the necessary
data for this project. You were quite kind to me. I would also appreciate my heroes
Mr. Saif as well as the IDC staff Anwar and Ammar for great efforts to make this
project to be accomplished. My appreciation goes to Eng. Ali Kareem &
Hammody (Wellsite engineer-ANTON Co.) for supplying the required materials
for lab works.
Special thanks and admiration are extended to Mr. Ali Saadi, Mr. Firas (head of
the Geology Department), and Mr. Ali Shareef, the personnel of Midland Oil
Company, for their assistance. For their great contribution. Without your
assistance, I could not have completed this task.
Thanks, are also given to Schlumberger team Dr. Ahmed Al Saedi (Well
Engineer), Ahmed Ismaail (SIS country manager), and Marwa Al-Delfi (Digital
Account Manager). Appreciation also goes to Gilberto Villela (Fracpro Solutions
Engineer) and KAPPA Engineering team whose assistance made this research
feasible. Trust is one of the most crucial factors motivating me to complete my
dissertation.
 ABSTRACT
Carbonate matrix stimulation technology has progressed tremendously in the last
decade through creative laboratory research and novel fluid advancements. Still,
existing methods for optimizing the stimulation of wells in vast carbonate reservoirs
are inadequate. Consequently, oil and gas wells are stimulated routinely to expand
production and maximize recovery. Matrix acidizing is extensively used because of
its low cost and ability to restore the original productivity of damaged wells and
provide additional production capacity. The Ahdeb oil field lacks studies in matrix
acidizing; therefore, this work provided new information on limestone acidizing in
the Mishrif reservoir. Moreover, several reports have been issued on the difficulties
encountered during the stimulation operation of the Ahdeb oil field, particularly for
the development of the Mishrif reservoir. Since the new core flooding system is built
to operate safely and straightforwardly. This study introduced the results of Matrix
acidizing experiments, covering the most recent developments in linear core
flooding. High-permeability flow pathways are created, and a longer and wider
wormhole was generated at a high acid injection rate (6.67 cc/min). The acid
efficiency curve yielded the lowest pore volume injected at the breakthrough of the
𝑃𝑉bt−opt is 2.73 and the 𝑣𝑖−opt =0.6 cm/min; thus, the optimum injection rate that
results in an optimal possible wormhole and the least quantity of acid being used for
this reservoir is 2.16 cc/min.
This research evaluated the impact of matrix acidizing treatment on acoustic
characteristics, which studies show are lacking or have never been investigated
previously. Furthermore, in the assessment of geomechanical rock properties and
elastic and petrophysical parameters before and after acid injection, one of the new
concepts discovered during the lab experiment observation of the acoustic waveform
before and after acid treatment for the tested rock sample is that the initial arrival
time before acid treatment is 21.6 microseconds, with a delay of 31.2 microseconds
attributed to the wormhole channel and mineral disintegration. CT-Scan applications
in matrix acidizing were investigated in this research; additionally, a 3D view of
plug samples was constructed to represent the wormhole extension via CT-
processing software.
A license of Stimpro Stimulation Software has been used to validate the
experimental work to the field scale, making it the most comprehensive instrument

i
for planning and monitoring matrix acid treatment and utilizing actual data to
provide a far better knowledge of the well's reaction, with methods that represent the
reality of what is happening in the reservoir before, during, and after matrix acid
treatments, through the post-treatment skin factor which is the most often utilized
statistic for analyzing stimulation treatments and relies on the geometry of the
wormholed zone. The acid treatment evaluated for the well AD-12, primarily for the
zone Mi4; matrix acid treatments can have their production behavior predicted or
matched using the reservoir simulation and production analysis option, employing
the numerical simulation license software Petrel (Schlumberger) and Rubis
(KAPPA) to determine the efficacy of previous treatments and the economics
associated with future treatments. The estimated oil gain volume and percentage for
the Mi4 unit in Ad-12 using particularly skin value -3.97 computed from Stimpro
software for real stimulation acid job, it is yield enhancement in production of oil
gain volume 6154 barrels as well as 105% increase of gain percentage for three
months after matrix acidizing.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ iii
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................xi
Chapter 1 (Introduction).........................................................................................1
1.1 Preface ............................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Motivation .......................................................................................2
1.3 The Aim and significance of the study.............................................................3
1.4 Fieldwork and data collection..........................................................................5
1.5 Geological Setting …………...........................................................................5
1.5.1 Formation Summary..............................................................................8
1.5.2 Main Lithologic Characteristics............................................................8
1.5.3 Formation Tops.....................................................................................9
1.5.3.1 Formation Pressure Prediction ...............................................12
1.5.3.2 Characteristics of Fluids.........................................................13

Chapter 2 (Literature review)...............................................................................14

2.1 Early Studies of Acid treatment for Mishrif Formation ..............................15
2.2 Acid–Mineral Reaction Stoichiometry ........................................................15
2.3 Models for the Optimum Matrix Acidizing Determination ..........................16
2.4 Growth and Formation of Wormhole shown by CT-Scan …………….......20
2.5 Impact of Acid on Mechanical Properties of Rocks ..................................22
2.6 Design of Carbonate Matrix Acidizing.........................................................23

Chapter 3 (Theoretical Background and Research Methodology) ……………..26

3.1 Preface..........................................................................................................26
3.2 Stimulation type selection............................................................................28
3.2.1 Acid Type compatibility to the treatments........................................29
3.3 Design of the Stimulation Treatment Sequence...........................................34
3.3.1 Preflush..............................................................................................34
3.3.2 Main (Acid) treatment.......................................................................34
3.3.3 Postflush (overflush) ........................................................................35
3.4 HCl acid carbonate reactions.......................................................................35
3.5 Optimal Injection Rate.................................................................................39
3.6 Wormhole Propagation Global Models.......................................................41

iii
 3.6.1 The Volumetric Model……………………………………………..44
3.6.2 The Buijse-Glasbergen Model...........................................................44
3.6.3 The Furui et al. Model ......................................................................45
3.6.4 Schwalbert Model………………………………………..…………47
3.6.5 Wormholed Region (Radial/Cylindrical) .........................................48
3.6.6 Divergence and heterogeneous rock types………………….……...49
3.6.7 Propagation of Wormhole in Anisotropic Rocks………………...…50
3.7 Well Performance After Treatment…………………………………..……51
3.7.1 Monitoring the performance of acidizing treatment………….…….51
3.7.2 Max. Δp, Max.-Rate-Procedure by Paccaloni……………………...52
3.7.3 Failure of acidifying treatment and the most common reasons …....54
3.8 Impact of Acid Treatment on Acoustic Properties……………………..….55
3.8.1 Determination of Rock Geomechanical Properties……………...…55
3.8.1.1 Young’s Modulus …..…………………………………….56
3.8.1.2 Poisson's ratio …..………………………………………...56
3.8.1.3 Material Index ….…………………………………………57
3.8.1.4 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure at Rest ……………57
3.9 Stimpro Stimulation Software……………………………………………..58
3.9.1 Acidizing Design Mode……………………………………………59
3.9.2 Acidizing Analysis Mode………………………………………….59
3.9.3 Production Analysis Mode………………………………………...59

Chapter 4 (Experimental Work)..…………………………………………….…60

4.1 Introduction……………………………..………………………………….60
4.2 Preparation And Description of Core’s Equipment……………………..….61
4.2.1 Core drilling and cutting……………………………………….…….61
4.2.2 Core Cleaning by Soxhlet Extractor…………………………………63
4.2.3 Core Drying by Oven and Desiccator……………………….……….64
4.2.4 Core Weighting and Dimension ………………….………………….66
4.3 System of Matrix Acidizing (Design and Setup)……………….………….68
4.3.1 System prerequisites…………………………………………...….....70
4.3.2 Components of the system………………………….………………..70
4.3.2.1 Pumps……………………………………………………….70
4.3.2.2 Core-holder………………………………………………….73
4.3.2.3 Accumulators…………………………………….………….73
4.3.2.4 Temperature controllers and heaters…………………….…..74
4.3.2.5 Acquisition of data……………………………………….….75
4.3.3 Methodology for acidizing the matrix in considerable detail……….78
4.3.4 Precautions for Health, Safety, and the Environment…………….....80

iv
 4.4 Ultrasonic Device………………………………………………………….81
4.4.1 Measuring unit………………………………………………………82
4.4.2 Carrying out measurements………………………………………….83
4.4.2.1 Zero-adjustment …………………………………………….83
4.4.2.2 Measuring the Tp of the core samples………………………..84
4.4.2.3 Measuring the Ts of the core samples………………………..85
4.5 Image Processing of Computer Tomography (CT) Scan…………………..86

Chapter 5 (Results and Discussions).……………………………………………..88

5.1 Core measurement analysis ………………..…………………………..….88
5.2 Mineral composition and description…………………………………..….89
5.3 Acid Core Flood Experiments ………………………………………….....95
5.3.1 Basic Properties of Gelled Acid……………………………………..95
5.3.2 Analysis of the Volumetric Dissolving Power (𝝌)……………….....96
5.3.3 How to Get the Optimum Acid Injection Rate……………………...98
5.3.4 Ascertaining the appropriate injection rate………………………...103
5.3.5 Upscaled Global Model for Wormhole Propagation………………107
5.3.6 Monitoring how well the acidizing treatment performance………..110
5.4 Computed Tomography (CT) ……………………………………………111
5.5 Effect of Acid Treatment on The Geomechanical Properties of Rocks….114
5.5.1 Ultrasonic Velocity Sensitivity to Acidized Rock…...…………….114
5.5.2 The Effect of Porosity and Wormhole on the Elastic Characteristics of
Rock………………………………………………………………..117
5.5.3 Impact of Acid Treatment on Acoustic Wave Properties………….119
5.5.4 Effect of Acid Treatment on Rock Mechanical Properties………...123
5.6 Validation of the experimental work to the field scale…………………..128
5.6.1 Pressure Matching …………………………………………………134
5.7 Reservoir Simulation and Production Analysis..…………………………139
5.7.1 Skin impact on production gain……………………………………144

Chapter 6 (Conclusions and Recommendations).……………………….……….153

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..158
APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………...169

v
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Global oil demand between 2018 and 2024…………………………... 1
Figure 1.2: Mishrif carbonate series stratigraphic structure………………..………..3
Figure 1.3: AHDEB Field Location Map…………………………………………...6
Figure 1.4: AD-012 Well Location Map……………………………………………7
Figure 1.5: Stratigraphic Column of Ahdeb Field…………………………………10
Figure 1.6: Pressure profiles of AHDEB…………………………………………..12
Figure 2.1: Work flow chart of selection the optimal acid to overcome the most
prevalent carbonate matrix acidizing difficulties…………….....….….21
Figure 2.2: Three core samples of high-resolution CT scans………………………24
Figure 2.3: Simulation of wormhole flow characteristics numerical methods..…. 25
Figure 3.1: Comparison between fracture acidizing and matrix acidizing………..27
Figure 3.2: Acid Injection through a Perforated Completion Wormholes…………28
Figure 3.3: Candidate selection and Stimulation Methods………………………...29
Figure 3.4: Work flow chart of selection the optimal acid to overcome the most
prevalent carbonate matrix acidizing difficulties. …………………....37
Figure 3.5: In a Large-Scale Block Experiment, Wormholes were Generated…….42
Figure 3.6: At the top is CT-scan for injection rates required to created wormhole..38
Figure 3.7: Morphologies of wormhole at various rates of injection…………….39
Figure 3.10: Treatment of the matrix stimulation design chart…………………….53
Figure 3.11: StimPro's Capabilities………………………………………………..58
Figure 4.1: Schematic diagram of the workflow for the experimental procedure…60
Figure 4.2: Photography of rock core acquired from Mi4 in well AD-12…………61
Figure 4.3: FOBCO core driller press……………………………………………..62
Figure 4.4: Plug shaped from both edges with a cutter machine…………………..62
Figure 4.6: Core cleaning by Soxhlet extractor……………………………………64
Figure 4.7: Drying the plugs up to 100 °C in a humidity-controlled oven .………64
Figure 4.8: Desiccator vessel used to keep plugs from the humidity………………65
Figure 4.9: Digital Balance to measure the weight of plugs……………………….66
Figure 4.10: Vernier caliper for measuring plug sample dimension………………66
Figure 4.11: Core sample saturation system……………………………………….68
Figure 4.12: Laboratory configuration system for matrix acidizing………………69
Figure 4.13: Teledyne LC-5000 Precision syringe pump………………………….71
Figure 4.14: ENERPAC type hydraulic pump…………………………………….72

vi
Figure 4.15: New modified core holder 10 cm diameter by 18 cm long…………..73
Figure 4.16: Piston accumulator…………………………………………………...74
Figure 4.17: Fiberglass rope heater………………………………………………..75
Figure 4.18: Electrical Output Signals Circuit for the pressure sensor……………76
Figure 4.19: KELLER pressure transducers connected to the flow line system…..76
Figure 4.20: Universal Data Logger UDL-100…………………………………….77
Figure 4.21: Connection Diagram…………………………………………………77
Figure 4.22: Data Acquisition Dal08 Program…………………………………….78
Figure 4.23: Sonic Viewer Model 5217A…………………………………………82
Figure 4.24: Zero adjustment of waveform display………………………………..84
Figure 4.25: Software 3D Slicer for image processing…………………………….87
Figure 4.26: Reduce picture noise and improve visual comprehension……………87
Figure 5.1: Work flow of matrix acidizing experiments results in this chapter…….88
Figure 5.2: Extracted plug samples with a diameter from the core section……….89
Figure 5.3: Photomicrographs for the two cored sections of the Mishrif reservoir’s
well Ad-12 (a) for sample 1 ; (b) for sample 6….………………….….90
Figure 5.4: XRD test of plug# 6 before acid injection……………..………………91
Figure 5.5: Typical core flood experiment of plug# 5……………………………..94
Figure 5.6: Four core flooding tests on sample # 1………………………………..95
Figure 5.8: Real record of acid injection for plug#6, time versus pressure drop….100
Figure 5.9: Photographs top-view of plug samples after acid injection (left-hand side
is the inlet face and the right-hand side is the outlet face)……………………….101
Figure 5.10: The propagation effectiveness of wormholes determining in the
laboratory by graphing acid injection rate versus pore volume…………….……103
Figure 5.11: Picking the PV(bt-opt) and vi-opt parameters………………….……….105
Figure 5.12: The findings of the acid flooding test PVbt plotted as a function of the
vi. Data created by modeling using equation 5.10…………..…..……...107
Figure 5.13: Application of wormhole propagation global models to calculate the
wormhole radius versus time for well Ad-12……………………………109
Figure 5.14: Application of wormhole propagation global models to calculate the
skin factor versus time for Well Ad-12………………………………….114
Figure 5.15: CT scan for sample 1; (A) before acidizing; (B) after acidizing with
injection flow rate of 0.667 cc/min……………….……………………..112
Figure 5.17: 3D view of CT-scan at different angles to illustrate wormholes' passage
through plug sample 3……………………………………….…………..113
vii
Figure 5.18: 3D view of CT-scan at different angles for sample 7 after acid treatment
with flow rate injection of 0.667 cc/min…………………..…...………...114
Figure 5.19: Primary and shear velocity for the core sample at different cases (dry ,
wetted and acidized)…………………………………………………….116
Figure 5.20: Bulk density versus the primary velocity acid treatment…………..117
Figure 5.21: density versus the shear velocity before and after acid treatment….117
Figure 5.22: Prior and post acid treatment relationships between the velocity of
compressional waves (VP) and effective porosity……………………….………118
Figure 5.23: Prior and post acid treatment relationships between the velocity of shear
waves (Vs) and effective porosity……………….………………………119
Figure 5.24: Front panle of Ultasonic measurements for plug 1, (a) & (b) is the
primary wave record prior and post acid, respectively, …….…………...121
Figure 5.25 Representative waveforms recorded in a plug sample No.1 for (a) the P-
wave pulses………………………......………………………………….122
Figure 5.26: Primary wave forms of plug# 5, the recorded time in microsecond....123
Figure 5.27: Young's modulus pre- and post-acid treatment of rock samples……125
Figure 5.28: Poisson's ratio pre- and post-acid treatment rock samples………….125
Figure 5.29: Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (Ko) values pre- and post-
acid treatment rock samples…………………………..…………………126
Figure 5.30: Material index pre- and post-acid treatment of rock samples………127
Figure 5.31: Daily Acidizing report for Well Ad-12……………………………..130
Figures 5-32 to 5-38: Acidizing analysis Stimpro Output. ………………….133-138
Figures 5-39 to 5-53: Reservoir Simulation and Production Analysis………139-152

viii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: The formation pore pressure, fracturing pressure and strength were
obtained based on sonic log. ……….…………………………………..13
Table 3-1: Core flooding at high temperatures studies with various acid systems have
distinct experimental features and outcomes……………………………..31
Table 3-2: The parameters of the reaction rate HCl acid with calcite……………..36
Table 3-3: Linear, radial (cylindrical), and spherical……..……………………….50
Table 5-1: Mineral composition of target formation and experimental core samples
obtained using XRD………………………………………………..…….90
Table 5-3: Lists the dimensions and weights of dry and wet core samples……….92
Table 5-4: The pore volume, bulk volume, and effective porosity calculated from the
observed values………………………………………………………..…93
Table 5-5: Basic properties of gelled acid………………………………..………..96
Table 5-6: Examined the volumetric dissolving capability of acids…..………..…98
Table 5-7: All the required data from actual lab experiments and observations in the
field for well Ad-12……………………………………………………..108
Table 5-8: Field reported data for the stimulated wells the build-up test………...111
Tables 5-9 to 5-18: Acidizing parameter for Stimpro input………………….131-132

ix
NOMENCLATURE
𝐴 = Cross-sectional area perpendicular to the wormhole front.
𝐶 = Acid concentration.
𝑐t = Total formation compressibility.
𝐷A = Acid species diffusivity coefficient.
𝑑 = General linear dimension, such as a diameter or a general “scale.”
𝑑core = Core diameter
𝑑e,wh = Equivalent wormhole cluster diameter, parameter in the Furui et al. (2010)
model.
𝑑rep,1 = Parameter of the proposed wormhole global model; representative
scale up to which there is a decrease in 𝑃𝑉bt, opt
𝑑rep,2 = Parameter of the proposed wormhole global model; representative
scale up to which there is a decrease in 𝑣i, opt
𝑑s1 = Scale related to the decrease in 𝑃𝑉bt, opt
𝑑s2 = Scale related to the decrease in 𝑣i, opt
ℎ = Reservoir thickness, net pay
𝐽 = Productivity or injectivity index
𝑘 = Permeability (scalar)
𝑘c = Mass transfer coefficient
𝑘eff = Effective mass transfer coefficient, including reaction and mass
transfer effects
𝐿 = Wellbore length
𝐿rep,1 = Parameter of the proposed wormhole global model; representative
length up to which there is decrease in 𝑃𝑉bt, opt in radial geometry
𝐿rep,2 = Parameter of the proposed wormhole global model; representative
length up to which there is decrease in 𝑣i, opt in radial geometry
𝑙perf = Perforation length
𝑙wh = Wormhole length in a linear geometry
𝑁AC = Acid capacity number
𝑃𝑉bt = Pore volumes to breakthrough, in wormhole propagation
𝑃𝑉bt, opt = Optimum pore volumes to breakthrough, in wormhole propagation
𝑃𝑉bt, opt core = Optimum pore volumes to breakthrough in the core scale, in
wormhole propagation

ix
𝑝 = Pressure
𝑝w = Wellbore pressure
𝑞 = Flow rate (injection or production rate)
𝑞c = Heat flux from the reservoir in the heat transfer analysis
𝑟e = External radius of a drainage region
𝑟w = wellbore radius
𝑟wh = Radius of cylindrical wormholed region
𝑟wh,rep,1 = Parameter of the proposed wormhole global model; representative
radius of the wormholed region up to which there is a decrease in
𝑃𝑉bt, opt in radial geometry
𝑟wh,rep,2 = Parameter of the proposed wormhole global model; representative
The radius of the wormholed region up to which there is a decrease in
𝑣i, opt in radial geometry
𝑠 = Skin factor
𝑇 = Temperature
𝑡 = Time
𝑣i = Interstitial velocity
𝑣i, opt = Optimal interstitial velocity, in wormhole propagation
GREEK
α= Exponent relating wormhole growth with time (𝑟𝑤ℎ ∝ 𝑡 𝛼 )
αz=Parameter in the model by Furui et al. (2010)
β100= Acid gravimetric dissolving power (of the pure, 100% acid)
𝜀1 = Parameter of the proposed wormhole model; exponent relating
decrease in 𝑃𝑉bt, opt as the scale increases
𝜀2 = Parameter of the proposed wormhole model; exponent relating
decrease in 𝑣i, opt as the scale increases
𝜂 = Parameter of the specific surface area evolution model
𝜅 = Thermal conductivity
𝜌acid = Acid solution density
𝜌f = Fluid density
𝜇 = Fluid dynamic viscosity
𝜙 = Rock porosity

x
Introduction
Chapter :1 Introduction
1.1 Preface
Global oil demand will continue to rise between 2018 and 2024 (Figure 1.1),
with the bulk of the growth coming from transportation and aviation and the
petrochemical and residential/commercial/agricultural sectors. Net extra
demand in 2024 is estimated to climb by 1.5 mb/d over 2018 (OPEC, 2019).
Consequently, oil and gas wells are stimulated routinely to expand
production and maximize recovery. Hydraulic fracturing may be a more
expensive option; however, matrix acidizing is extensively used because of
its cheap cost and ability to restore the original productivity of damaged
wells and provide additional production capacity. The overall reserves of
sandstone and carbonate reservoirs are increased due to acidification, which
improves eventual recovery.

Figure 1.1: Global oil demand between 2018 and 2024 (OPEC, 2019)

1
1.2 Research Motivation
Acidizing is one of the most frequently utilized stimulation techniques used
in the petroleum industry (American Petroleum Institute, 2014). Several
reports have been issued on the difficulties encountered during the
stimulation operation of the Ahdeb oil field, particularly for the development
of the Mishrif reservoir, including: (a) high injection pressures, which make
it difficult to inject acid into the reservoir formation; and (b) only a few acid
jobs have been effective in Ahdeb oil wells, while the bulk of the others has
been unsuccessful. This deposit's significant failure rate of oil well
stimulation necessitates more investigations. As the oil and gas industry
works to progressively extract hydrocarbon reserves contained in low
permeability carbonate formations and intercrystalline sandstone, several
concerns have arisen, including the best methods for drilling and completing
horizontal and vertical wells in these systems, as well as the best procedures
for hydraulic or acid fracture of these formations to produce oil (Bennion,
Thomas and Bietz, 1996). The Mishrif carbonate series stratigraphic
structure is depicted in Figure 1.2. Mishrif formation rocks can be divided
into the following groups based on rock lithology and facies (Al-Hashmi,
Qutob and El-Halfawi, 2010):
• In contrast to reservoir rocks, compact limestone does not contain
hydrocarbons that may be recovered. The porosity of this limestone
ranges from 0 to 8.01%, and it is impermeable.
• Despite of its low permeability, chalk limestone possesses tiny grains
and high porosity (about 20 percent) (1.5 md). Fine clay-impregnated
grains, moderate porosity (17%), and poor permeability characterize
Lagoon Limestone (3.7 md).

2
 • Reef limestone is divided into fine and intermediate grains and coarse
and intermediate grains. It has a high porosity (23%) and excellent
permeability(75md).

Figure 1.2: Mishrif carbonate layers stratigraphic structure (Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd.,
2010a).

Accordingly, enhancing existing reservoir performance should be a priority

concern, particularly in chalk and Lagoon limestone. Dissolving or
constructing new channels through these rocks with limited permeability by
well stimulation procedures improves the amount of oil extracted. Hydraulic
fracturing and matrix acidification are the two most often employed methods
of stimulation the formation.

1.3 The Aim and significance of the study

For matrix acidizing treatments, acid is injected below the fracking pressure
to prevent fractures from being produced during the treatments, aiming to
improve permeability in the wellbore area rather than significantly
influencing the reservoir. The acid reacts within a few inches of the wellbore
in sandstones and a few feet of the wellbore in carbonates. The complete
resource of Lagoonal and Chalk limestone is around 33%, which cannot be
extracted using traditional production techniques. Consequently, other

3
stimulation strategies such as matrix acidification must be researched.
Developing a new core flooding system from scratch that operates safely and
reliably is one of the research objectives to displace various fluids under a
wide range of conditions. As a result, this innovative system effort will
execute a core flooding to acidify the matrix. Additionally, this research
includes instructions for conducting testing and troubleshooting solutions for
equipment. Furthermore, we will investigate the experimental work to
explore the effect of acid treatment on the geomechanical parameters of the
Mishrif reservoir's Mi4 unit. The propagation of acid-induced wormholes
and their influence on the rock strength must be analyzed and compared to
intact rocks. Consequently, a CT scan will be performed to determine the
size and shape of the channel (wormholes) created. The data of CT will be
processed to provide 3D images that can be used to precisely characterize
the sample's wormhole shape, direction, and distribution. Additionally, we'll
perform numerical simulations using licensed software and compare them to
experimental data to achieve our goal. Understanding carbonate acid
treatment will be gained, enabling the complete design and implementation
of acidizing operations in the Mishrif reservoir.
Research's significance may be summarized and indicated in the following
points:
• The Ahdeb matrix acidizing has never been studied before; therefore,
this work will provide new information on limestone acidizing in Mi4.
• Due to various damage surrounding the wellbore, many oil wells need
acidizing at least once throughout their lifecycle.
• The results will demonstrate the significance of using the optimal
injection rate while acidifying the matrix.

4
 • It is critical for wormhole formation during matrix acidization that
mineralogy and pore size distribution be considered.
• This research will evaluate the impact of matrix acidizing treatment
on acoustic characteristics, which is never investigating before.
• CT-Scan applications in matrix acidizing will be investigated in this
research; furthermore, this will construct 3D representations of the
wormhole extension via CT-processing software.

1.4 Fieldwork and data collection.

After appropriate approval from the Petroleum Research and Development
Center, Midland Oil Company, to collect the necessary data for the current
research, they authorized a 1.5-meter section from the Mi4 unit of the
Mishrif formation in well Ad-12, an oil-producing well; we could recover 11
plug samples from this section. The logging data from the Ahdeb field is
collected, along with the final well report, geological report, and stimulation
report from the same formation.

1.5 Geological Setting

In the early 1980s, the Ahdeb oil field was discovered in Wasit province,
Figure 1.3. The 2D seismic acquisition for the explored area took place in
1977. Nine exploratory wells have been drilled and analyzed systematically
in the oil-bearing region. Eight of them were showing a flow of oil. The
deepest well was Ad-1, which reached Ratawi formation at a depth of
4057.0m, Lower Cretaceous(Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd., 2010a). In the Middle
of the Cretaceous period, five pay zones were discovered. These pay zones
are Khasib-2, Mishrif-4, Rumaila-1, Mauddud-1, and Rumaila-2b. The
anticline is elongated from NWW to SEE. There are three high points within

5
the anticline: wells 1, 2, and 4. The well one peak is somewhat higher than
the well two and well four peaks (Al-Baldawi, 2020). The field is an
integrated structure, and no flaws were discovered. The anticline has a
modest relief, usually between 55 and 70 meters. The anticline's two sides
are not steep.

Ahdeb Oil Field

Figure 1.3: Ahdeb Field Location Map (Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd., 2010a).

Well Ad-12 is intended to evaluate the five pay zones and construct the
Khasib-2 layer close to Well Ad-1 (Figure 1.4). The main target (Khasib-2)
is anticipated to be -2615m to 20m TVDSS in this well. The reservoir
pressures are expected to be approximately 4422.8 psi, close to the original
field pressure. The total depth (T.D.) of the Ad-12 is -3123,9 m (3140m
MD). The first projected risk production rate for Ad-12 is moreover 1320
bbl/d (The average rate in the first month)(Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd., 2010a).

6
Figure 1.4: AD-012 Contour Map showing the Well Location (Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd., 2009).

7
1.5.1 Formation Summary
The major oil-bearing formations in the Ahdeb field include the upper
Cretaceous Khasib formation, Mishrif, Rumaila, Mauddud formations, and
the middle Cretaceous Mishrif, Rumaila, and Mauddud formations. Oil
reserves are buried at depths ranging from 2600m to 3300m. Laterally, the
Khasib formation's oil-bearing zone spans the whole field, whereas the
Mishrif, Rumaila, and Mauddud formations' oil-bearing zones are primarily
located in the eastern portion.
1.5.2 Main Lithologic Characteristics
The Ahdeb Oil field's formations are marine sedimentary, with large sets of
limestone, marl, bioclastic limestone, and local dolomite developing large
groups of limestone, marl, bioclastic limestone, and local dolomite, mainly
bioclastic limestone rock, grains are very small, primarily calcite mud
crumbs, particle size generally less than 0.3mm, content is 50% to 70%. The
phenomena have a content of 10- 28 percent echinoderms, brachiopods,
foraminifera, algae, and other biological debris, and a tiny quantity of sand
dust, dust, and recrystallization grain of dolomitization is also visible
(Sadooni, 1996).

1.5.3 Formation Tops

Originally, there were nine wells in the Lower Cretaceous in the Ahdeb
oilfield. The un-penetrated Cretaceous well Ad-1 is the deepest, with a TD
of 4057 m. According to Iraq's stratigraphic classification, the penetrated
section may be divided into 18 formations (Figure 1.5) (Al-Waha Pet. Corp.
Ltd., 2010a). Marine facies dominate the Paleogene and Cretaceous systems,
whereas continental-oceanic interaction facies and land facies dominate the
Neogene and Quaternary. The following are their key lithologic features:

8
The Hauterivian, Barrem, Aptain, and Albian stages are primarily found in
the Lower Cretaceous. By lithologic and electric logging characteristics, the
Albian stage (Mauddud formation) may be split into five numbers, the most
important of which is the intercalation of lower interval velocity and lower
natural gamma with high interval velocity and high natural gamma.
Interbedded with intercalation gray, gray-green, soft-plastic mdianarl, and
shale strips in the middle-lower portions is predominantly gray, off-white,
soft-hard limestone, abundant stylolite, and intercalation gray, gray-green,
soft-plastic mdianarl, and shale strips. Brown, hard dolomite, and limestone
dominate the upper section, with bioclastic limestone interbedded with marl
strips and shale strips on the top. The unit has a range of 300-320 meters.
Cenomanian, Turonian, lower Coniacian-lower Santonian, and upper
Companian-Maestrick stages are all found in the Upper Cretaceous.
Rumaila, Ahmadi, and Mishrif formations are located on the Cenomanian
stage (Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd., 2009).

9
 Lower Fars

1500 AC RT
Depth 120 40 0.1 1000
下中新统
System Stage Jerbe/Eup
Group Section Thick GR lithology DEN Petrographi
(m) -50 100 1.95 2.95
1600 The lower part consis
dolomite and semi-plastic
pyrite. The middle part c
Oligocene U.p.Kirkuk 127－194 and sandstone interlayere
1700 marl. The upper part cons
medium to good roundness,
cemented with calcareous,
and limestone stripes in
1800
Brown, soft to hard l
with black spotted oil-be
lower part.The middle par
Mid-Upper 1900 with white limestone with
Eocene Dammam 266－316
and with muddy interlayer
with grey,soft to hard, p
glauconite,fossils and da
2000 chert nodules.

Lower 2100
Grey soft to hard lim
Eocene- Aliji 160－191
glauconite and fossils.
Paleocene
2200
Greenish, soft to har
Shiranish 47－61
with argillaceous limesto

Upper 2300 Lower part consists w

Companian porous limestone. At midd
Hartha 168－213
white shaly limestone. Th
with brown, white, soft t
2400
The lower part mainly
Lower soft to hard limestone se
Sadi 110－126
Coniacian 2500 embedded with marl. At th
consist with white, grey
Grey, greyish green l
Tanuma 53－63
embeddedwith soft to hard
K1 2600 Mainly consists with wh
Upper Turonian K2 and embedded with chalk sed
Cretaceous Khasib K3
102－115 part mainly consists with b
limestone sediments with fo
K4
2700 and with various extent oil
Mi1
Mi2 Lower part consists w
Mishrif Mi3 96－116 and embedded with chalk a
Mi4 part is off-white limesto
Mi5 2800 with mud and shale stripe
part mainly white plastic
Ru1
Upper part mainly con
Senomanian 2900 hard limestone sediments
Rumaila Ru2a 235－247 oil-immersion, embedded w
Ru2b Middle-lower parts mainly
off-white, soft to hard p
Ru3 3000 sediments,partly embedded
Ru4 recrystallization dolomit
Ahamadi AH 30－36 Grey marl sediment em
Ma1 3100
Ma2
Ma3
Mainly consists with
3200 soft to hard, well sortin
part with pyrite embedded
brown shale.
Albian Mauddud Ma4 177－219
3300 In middle- lower part
off-white, soft to hard l
stylolite, embedded with
to plastic marl and shale
3400
Ma5

3500 Mainly consists with

soft to hard, well sortin
Aptian Nahrumr 86－102
part with pyrite embedded
brown shale.
3600

The top part mainly c

Lower in part) porous dolomite,
Cretaceous 3700 oil spot and embedded wit
shale stripe.
The middle part consi
white dolomite and limest
Shuaiba 105－138 3800 with shale stripe.
Lower Group mainly co
dolomite with pyrite and
3900
Lower forma
Barremian- yellow,green mu
Hauterivian grained sandsto
4000 greyish brown m
Zubair fossile and lim
pyrite, silty s

4100
Soft to hard yellow b
Figure 1.5: Stratigraphic Column of Ahdeb Field
Ratawi
4200
(Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd., 2010a). with sandyspherulite, con
crumbs. Thesediment grain

4400

10 4500
 1. The Ahmadi formation is primarily gray, soft-hard marl interbedded
with shale strips, with a thickness of 33 meters and stratigraphic
stability within the studied region.
2. The Rumaila formation may be divided into five strata using electric
characteristic correlation, with a total thickness of 240 to 250 meters.
The middle and lower parts are compensated by limestone strata
characterized as soft-hard porous, off-white, and partially interbedded.
In the higher section, soft-hard limestone strata and medial oil-
impregnation are interbedded with intercalation chalk.
3. Mishrif formation: the bottom layer is brown, soft-hard porous
limestone interbedded with dolomite and chalk sediments; the middle
area is chalk, off-white limestone, and clay and shale strips in part;
and the top level is largely soft-plastic gypsum sediments with shale.
The thickness of the unit ranges from 90 to 110 meters.
1.5.3.1 Reservoir Properties
The highest porosity is 30.2 %, the average porosity is 17.3 %, and the
maximum permeability is 317.6 md; the average permeability is 2.5 md,
according to test results from core samples. With increasing burial depth,
porosity diminishes. The Ahdeb oil field's reservoirs have a moderate
porosity but poor permeability. It is clear that the reservoirs are not uniform,
as they could be drawn from core and test data. However, due to the
inadequacy of well and seismic data, a better understanding of reservoir
heterogeneity is impossible for the time being. When additional data is
available, the relationships between lithology, property, and oil reservoir
distribution should be investigated further. Porosity decreases with burial
depth.

11
1.5.3.2 Formation Pressure Prediction
The formation pore pressure, fracturing pressure, and strength were obtained
based on the sonic log. The result is introduced in Figure 1.6 and table (1-1).
The following table is found on the AD-010H*.

Figure 1.6: Pressure profiles of Ahdeb (Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd., 2010a).

*Waha company naming system: AD 1-5-2H ; AD mean Ahdeb, first number mean the number of dome,
second number mean number of profile on this dome and third number is the well number on this profile H
mean drilling type is horizontal.

12
 Table 1-1: The formation pore pressure, fracturing pressure, and strength were
obtained based on the sonic log. (Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd., 2009)

Geological Pore Collapse Fracture

Formation
Period Pressure（Psi/ft） Pressure（ Psi/ft ） Pressure（ Psi/ft ）
Upper fars 0.446505 0.56355 0.62424
Lower. fars 0.46818 0.6069 0.6936
Jeribe/Eup 0.44217 0.58956 0.715275
Tertiary
UP. Kirkuk 0.45951 0.567885 0.74562
Dammam 0.44217 0.56355 0.77163
Aliji 0.446505 0.5202 0.7803
Shiranish 0.45084 0.48552 0.793305
Hartha 0.46818 0.52887 0.79764
Sadi 0.498525 0.489855 0.801975
Tanuma 0.51153 0.489855 0.801975
Upper Khasib 0.50286 0.52887 0.793305
Cretaceous
Mishrif 0.51153 0.515865 0.80631
Rumaila 0.498525 0.5202 0.82365
Ahamadi 0.51153 0.489855 0.827985
Mauddud 0.481185 0.49419 0.83232

1.5.4 Characteristics of Fluids

a. The saturation pressure is 2900 Psi on average, which is 60% of the initial
reservoir pressure. The reservoir is not fully drained.
b. The initial solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) is typically around 110m3/m3,
with dissolved gas energy. This energy might be employed in the early
stages of development.
c. Viscosity is low at initial reservoir pressure, 1.54 cp @ 4900 Psi.

13
Literature Review
Chapter: 2 Literature review
Acidizing regarded as the oldest in terms of well stimulation techniques,
whereas hydraulic fracturing is a more recent invention. By 1890, HCl had
been used to induce fracture in limestone formations for the first acid jobs. A
scale-removal procedure called acidizing was developed in the 1930s, as were
corrosion inhibitors (Syed A. et al., 2016).
Since oil and gas exploration has relied on carbonate rocks for so much of
its history, it is no surprise that around 60 % of global reserves are found in
these rocks (Burchette, 2019). According to current estimates, carbonate
reservoirs are thought to hold more than 60 % of the oil reserves globally and
40 % of the world's natural gas reserves. Particularly, the carbonate fields in
the Middle East account for around 70 % of total oil moreover to 90 % of total
natural gas reserves (Schlumberger, 2021). The chemical composition of
carbonates allows for successful acid injection stimulation despite variations
in porosity and permeability depending on the location of its deposit. In both
basic and practical terms, the chemical interaction between a fluid and the
porous media through which it travels is of interest. The porous solid is carved
with flow channels as the reactant dissolves the medium. Flow conditions and
response rates influence the structure and behavior of dominating channels.
An understanding of porous media channeling is required in order to forecast
reaction zone or dissolution zone movement (Hoefner & Fogler, 1988).
Physical or chemical techniques might achieve this objective. Various
substances are used in the chemical reduction of reactivity in order to prevent
a fast reaction from occurring. Several researchers investigated the
mechanism of acid-rock reactions, acidizing fluid efficiency, acid flow back
mechanism, acid leakoff, and the acidizing models ( Aljawad et al., 2020;
i

14
Ghommem et al., 2015; Gomaa et al., 2018; N. Li et al., 2015; Lungwitz et
i i i

al., 2007; Yoo et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2015). While others
i i i

investigated the resulting effect of acid treatment on the mechanical rock

structure (Zhang et al., 2020) and the influence of the rock mineralogy on
acidizing efficiency (Martyushev et al., 2022).

2.1 Early Studies of Acid treatment for Mishrif Formation.

It was observed that 28 % HCl acid with fluid loss additives was required for
vuggy core samples, whereas 28 % HCl (retarded) was needed for chalky core
samples (Morrica, 1981) in his experimental study of the promotion of Mishrif
formation in Halfaya field.
(AGIP, 1986) investigated oil well stimulation and water injection wells in
the West Qurna field's Mishrif formation. The researchers' conclusion initially
stimulated the less permeable zone (MA) before moving onto, the more
permeable zone (MB).
Laboratory tests were carried out by (Al-Taii, 1988) to study the impact of
acid concentrations and various additions on the acidification of matrix
samples from the Mishrif formation. It was determined that the optimal acid
and additive concentration yielded the best results and acceptable corrosion
rates for steel.

2.2 Acid–Mineral Reaction Stoichiometry

By injecting acids into the wellbore, matrix acidizing has been routinely
employed to increase well productivity. Acid spreads throughout the rock by
forming wormholes, and channels with high permeability. Reducing the
thickness of the skin around the wellbore increases throughput. According to

15
acidizing recommendations by industry, hydrochloric acid (HCl ) is the most
often utilized acid for carbonate reservoir matrix acidization (McLeod, 1984).
HCl is the acid of preference for acidizing techniques for most carbonate
formations. The base acid is usually combined with other acids such as
hydrofluoric (HF) in most sandstone applications (Alhamad et al., 2020).
The creation of wormholes in carbonate acidizing is essential to the
stimulating effect. Both the acid's reactivity and the rate at which it is injected
are critical to this process. In order to construct the most effective wormholes,
it is necessary to manage the diffusion and reaction rates of HCl and
carbonate. Interstitial velocity (vi) is often plotted against pore volume to
determine how deep a wormhole may go in a wellbore. The deeper the
wormhole goes, the deeper the wellbore is penetrated.

2.3 Models for the Optimum Matrix Acidizing Determination

Numerous scholars have studied wormhole formation during carbonate
acidification to understand the process better and predict the optimal
parameters for obtaining the best outcomes. The earliest model possibly is
introduced by (Schechter & Gidley, 1969), who proposed a model based on
the pore size distribution and its development due to surface reactivity.
(Daccord & Lenormand, 1987) proposed a model of wormhole radial
propagation based on this discovery, in which the wormholes expand in
accordance with the fractal dimension 𝑑𝑓 ≈ 1.6. A difficulty of this model is
that, while it may be excellent at interstitial velocities beyond the optimum
requirement, it fails for tiny, suboptimal velocities.
The inefficient and poor wormhole propagation is not taken into account. In
reality, it does not anticipate an ideal condition and predicts that 𝑟𝑤ℎ → ∞ as
𝑞 Approaches 0.

16
Following that year, (Daccord et al., 1989) developed another model based on
the fractal character of the wormholing phenomena, establishing a
quantitative relationship between the best acidifying conditions. The
wormholed area has no pressure decrease because the wormholes are deemed
endlessly conducive compared to the original reservoir. Daccord et al.
demonstrated via radial propagation experiments that those wormholes form
a fractal structure having fractal dimension 𝑑𝑓 ≈ 1.6. Radius rises with
increasing time, as shown by the formula, 𝑟𝑤ℎ ∝ 𝑡 𝛼 , where ∝≈ 0.7 for 2D
(thin) radial structures and with 3D radial structures the latter having a time
constant of ∝≈ 0.65. This translates a significant fact on wormhole
propagation: in these studies, the value of 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 dropped as the wormholes
spread farther from the center. This would be the case if 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 was constant,
as the injected acid volume is directly proportional to the wormholed volume.
In this situation, 𝑟𝑤ℎ would rise according to the √𝑡, so 𝛼 would be equal to
0.5. In actuality, 𝛼 = 0.65, which suggests that the wormhole propagation
grows more efficient as the wormholes propagate. In other words, the
effective 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 diminishes as 𝑟𝑤ℎ grows. Hence, predicting the wormholed
area is needed to understand how the matrix acidizing treatment would affect
well performance.

Hill introduced and published the volumetric model in (Economides et al.,

1994). It is a very useful and basic model that assumes a constant value of
pore volume at breakthrough (𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 ). An intuitive model offers a
straightforward forecast of the wormhole length to use a single variable, 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 .
Using an average 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 value or a constant interstitial velocity throughout
stimulation ensures accuracy since it implies a fixed value. Wellbore flow is

17
radial in the near-wellbore area; thus, the interstitial velocity falls when acid
travels further from the wellbore. This causes the value of 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 to fluctuate
with injection time, which isn't considered in the volumetric flow model.
(Fredd & Fogler, 1996a) demonstrated that the various dissolving patterns
correlate to certain Damköhler number ranges. The optimum injection
velocity relates to a Damköhler number of around 0.29 overall rocks, acids,
and even chelating agents studied. The ratio of net reaction rate to acid
transport rate via convection is known as the Damköhler number. In slow
reaction systems, including limestones and weak acids and dolomites with
many of these acids at low temperatures, the dissolution might be governed
by the rate of the reaction or the diffusion of the acid or the reaction products.
Damköhler's number explains the conflict between the dissolution rate
(including diffusion phases and reaction) and the acid convection rate.
At a slow injection velocity (high Damköhler number), the acid reacts before
being delivered by convection, resulting in face dissolving. When injection
velocities are too high (low Damköhler number), the acid is carried away by
convection before it has a chance to diffuse to the mineral surface and react,
resulting in very ramified wormholes or uniform disintegration. Convection,
diffusion, and reaction rates are perfectly balanced at the optimum Damköhler
number, and the acid is only delivered farther into the rock by convection,
resulting in a narrow wormhole.
Despite its intriguing theoretical implications, the presence of an ideal
Damköhler number is difficult to implement in acidizing process design due
to a large number of unknown factors (pore diameters and mass transfer
coefficients) involved in its computation.

18
(Gong & El-Rabaa, 1999)'s model for radial wormhole propagation
incorporates the fractal dimension introduced by (Daccord & Lenormand,
1987) but uses a mix of dimensionless numbers to describe both the optimum
and inefficient wormhole propagation at lower flow rates. In fact, (McDuff et
al., 2010) utilized it to match data from tests with enormous blocks of
carbonates, the biggest wormhole experiments recorded to date, and it proved
to be an effective model. However, this model has a dimensional discrepancy:
the length computed does not have length dimensions, but rather a dimension
of a length unit to the power of (2/𝑑𝑓 ). Wormhole propagation requires d𝑓 ≈
1.6, not 2; hence this is not a length dimension. This is a theoretical
contradiction, and in reality, it also leads to misleading computations.
Calculating injection time to attain a certain wormhole length using this
approach, for example, yields a different answer when length units of various
lengths are use.
(Huang et al., 1999) proposed an alternative representation of the Damköhler
number. (M. A. . A. Mahmoud et al., 2011) introduced a Péclet number-based
model. (Dong et al., 2017) developed a novel model based on a statistical
study of pore size distribution. (Fredd & Fogler, 1996a) provided in-depth
analyses of wormhole models. These models were divided by the latter into
seven categories:
• Péclet number models.
• Damköhler number models.
• Capillary tube models.
• Transition pore theory models.
• Averaged continuum (or two-scale) models.
• Network models.
• Semi-empirical models.
19
2.4 Growth and Formation of Wormhole Shown by CT-Scan
Several continuum models use the Darcy-Brinkman-Stokes equation and the
reaction equations and acid transport to simulate the porous medium as a
whole and keep track of how much acid is dissolved in the medium. As the
acid dissolves the rock, the porosity rises, and the model updates the
permeability, pore radius, and specific surface area of the rock to account for
the increased porosity. Numerous studies have used this concept (de Oliveira
et al., 2012; Fredd & Fogler, 1996b; Glasbergen et al., 2009; X. Liu &
Ortoleva, 1996; Maheshwari & Balakotaiah, 2013; Schwalbert et al., 2019;
Soulaine & Tchelepi, 2016). Several of these researchers (de Oliveira et al.,
2012; Maheshwari & Balakotaiah, 2013; Schwalbert et al., 2019) made
significant progress in calibrating the model to match the experimental results
acid efficiency curves.
Additionally, experimental research is devoted to determining the ideal state
by non-destructive measures (without dissolving cores). (Tansey, 2015)
created small-scale pore-network models using CT-scan images of cores to
mimic acid injection. He was able to see the creation of wormholes in the
modeling but did not properly forecast the ideal circumstances. (Zakaria et al.,
2015) performed tracer experiments to determine the relationship between
wormhole development and flowing percent. The procedure seems promising;
however, there are few outcomes yet.
(Al-Duailej et al., 2013; M. Mahmoud, 2017) employed Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance (NMR) to assess the interconnectivity of pores and wormholes and
to link it with the optimal flow rate. Although this is an intriguing approach,
the best findings need NMR analysis of the wormhole's structure, making it a
destructive measurement.

20
 High-resolution images of three acidized Indiana limestone core samples
from the (McDuff et al., 2010) investigation are displayed in Figure 2.1. For
Indiana limestone, the core plugs were chosen in accordance with the
wormhole efficiency curve at various acid flow levels, from the lowest to the
highest.

Figure 2.1: Three core samples of high-resolution CT scans (McDuff et al., 2010)

Despite extensive study and development, the most accurate values for
optimum pore volume at breakthrough (𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 ) and inertial velocity at
breakthrough 𝑉𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 are still acquired empirically by developing acid
efficiency curves through core flooding studies or by matching field data from
matrix acidizing tasks. Because of the significant correlation between 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡
and 𝑉𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 and the diameters of the experimental cores, even experimentally
acquired curves should be utilized with care. This demonstrates the need to
scale laboratory experimental findings to field circumstances with caution
since the cross-sectional areas of the field treatments are many orders of

21
magnitude greater than the cores utilized in the studies. One may argue that
the most trustworthy data would be historical matrix acidizing field data.

2.5 Impact of Acid on Mechanical Properties of Rocks

In radial acid treatment experiments of hollow chalk samples, (Walle &
Papamichos, 2015) showed that acidizing rock samples cause a reduction in
their mechanical strength; this was confirmed by comparing the mechanical
properties of the acid-treated rocks and the intact ones. Mustafa et al. (2022)
studied the impact of an acid wormhole on the mechanical properties of
carbonates (chalk, limestone, and dolomite); they showed that acidizing
reduces the hardness and elastic modulus of rock. The authors noted that
dolomite is the least impacted by acid treatment, while chalk samples were
the most affected. (Barri et al., 2016) investigated the effect of acidizing using
chelating agents (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and
diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)) on the mechanical properties of
carbonate rocks. The outcome shows that elastic properties of weak
carbonates (such as Austin chalk) were most affected, while hard rocks such
as Indiana limestone were not significantly affected. Zhou et al. (2021)
experimentally researched fracture surface strength before and after acid
treatment. The authors argued that several reported mechanical deteriorations
of carbonate after acid etching could not be applied to evaluate fracture
conductivity since such investigations provide information on the mechanical
rock properties of the rock mass rather than the surface of the fracture. They
emphasize that fracture surface strength measurement data before and after
acid etching is necessary for fracture optimization and conductivity evaluation
of the acidizing job. The simulation work of Li & Shi (2021) also showed that
acid fluid fracturing could alter rock strength.

22
There can be no doubt that the acid dissolution of rock minerals would modify
the rock structure, the mineralogy, as well as the mechanical properties of the
artificial fracture surface (M. Liu & Mostaghimi, 2017). Therefore, acidizing
often leads to rock mechanical properties modification around the wormhole,
improving or impairing reservoir quality. A notable body of literature reported
rock weakening due to acidizing as reservoir impairment. However, rock
loosening may mean the establishment of flow paths by acid dissolution of
rock and consequent wormhole propagation into the reservoir.

2.6 Design of Carbonate Matrix Acidizing

Acidification has been studied mathematically using a variety of models,
including the dimensionless model, the capillary tube model, the network
model, and the continuum model (Fredd & Fogler, 1996a; Gdanski, 1999;
Hung et al., 1989; Maheshwari & Balakotaiah, 2013; Schecter & Gidley,
1969). Acidization and dissolution patterns, as determined by 1-D and 2-D
numerical simulations, as well as experimental research by (Bazin et al.,
1999), are illustrated in Figure 2.2 in a qualitative comparison. According to
Figure 2.2, 1-D numerical simulations anticipate greater optimal acid injection
rates and larger pores to breakthrough (PVBT) than 3-D numerical
simulations. A variety of disintegration patterns cannot be predicted using 1-
D numerical simulations (such as conical, wormhole, and ramified). The
transport and reaction factors impacting dissolution may be gleaned through
1-D numerical simulations, which are computationally cheap. Some of the
dissolution patterns seen in the laboratory may be anticipated using 2-D
computational models; however, these models cannot predict the optimal
injection rate and PVBT. Consequently, in order to accurately forecast the
experimental outcomes, we will need to use 3-D numerical simulations. It's

23
been a while since any 3-D numerical studies have been done to understand
better the dissolving process (Cohen et al., 2008; de Oliveira et al., 2012;
Ratnakar et al., 2012). On the other hand, HCl is a fast-acting acid, and these
studies may not be able to anticipate its findings accurately.

Figure 2.2: Dissolution patterns generated by 1-D, 2-D numerical simulations and
experimental research by (Bazin, 2001)were compared to acidization curves (Panga et
al., 2002).

(McDuff et al., 2010) was able to use high-end numerical simulation

models created from the 3-D digital representation of a well's whole 3-D shape
to explore how wormhole changes occur over time. An advanced gridding
method is used to mesh both the near-well rock matrix and the void space
inside the wormholes. Figure 2.3 illustrates how multi-phase flow simulations
may be carried out.

24
 Figure 2.3: Simulation of wormhole flow characteristics using numerical methods
(McDuff et al., 2010).

The findings of this research may be used to improve the recovery of oil
from the Mishrif reservoir. Known as "stimulating treatments," these
techniques pour acid into wells in order to dissolve part of the porous rock
surrounding the wellbore, increasing its permeability or flow capacity.
Following stimulation, the channels created by dissolution allow for easier
movement of oil out of the reservoir.

25
 Theoretical
Background and
Research
Methodology
 Chapter :3 Theoretical Background and Research
Methodology
3.1 Preface
The term "formation damage" refers to a reduction in the permeability of the
original rock as a consequence of some alteration, such as clay swelling, fines
migration, particle clogging, or changes in wettability. Due to scale
precipitation, asphaltene deposition, and other causes, formation damage may
also occur throughout the productive or injective life of the well.
Matrix acidizing treatments restore damage to the formation caused by earlier
well operations. The ultimate objective of these treatments is often to restore
the original formation's permeability. On the other hand, a matrix acidifying
treatment may significantly enhance the formation process in sandstones and
shales. The permeability may be considerably improved to values much larger
than the initial permeability, up to a distance of possibly tens of feet from the
wellbore.
Consequently, while hydraulic fracturing is usually projected to provide better
results in sandstones or shales than matrix acidizing in carbonate rocks, both
procedures are competitive. More work is required to determine the most
effective option.
As described as a technique of well stimulation, matrix acidizing involves
introducing an acid solution into the formation to dissolve a few minerals
present and, as a result, restore or increase permeability around the wellbore,
among other things (Economides et al., 2013). Due to the low velocity of the
acid injection, the pressure is maintained below the formation breakdown
pressure, and as a result, the reservoir rock does not fracture (Figure 3.1).

26
Figure 3.1: Comparison between fracture and matrix acidizing (re-edited by adding the
pressure vs. injection rate) (Leong & Ben Mahmud, 2019).

The fracture acidizing might fail to boost the well performance because the
acid unevenly etches the fracture walls as it moves along the crack. Moreover,
if pressure is removed and the fracture heals, the high fluid flow conductivity
of the fracture will be preserved owing to uneven etching. Acid-fracturing
treatments may also yield wormholes, however undesired, as they promote
fluid leakage and reduce the etched fracture length. As a result of this
treatment, any damaged regions will be bypassed, and in many cases, a highly
negative skin factor will be created. Acid stimulation is often used in
carbonate deposits because it is simple and inexpensive, clearly illustrated in
Figure 3.2.

27
 Figure 3.2: Acid Injection through a Perforated Completion Results in Wormholes.

3.2 Stimulation type selection

Well productivity may be improved by determining the value of enhancing
well productivity and the likely reasons or sources of formation damage after
the well has been recognized as underperforming. The next step is for the
engineer to decide on a course of action. If the issue is in the well design or
operation (e.g., artificial lift or the size of the tube), then stimulation is not
recommended, and the equipment should be updated or fixed instead. Targets
well's Performance must be balanced, i.e., no more should be produced than
can be transported by tubing or lift or processed by facilities. As a result, the
economics of skin effect gradual improvement may be compromised. It is
important to analyze the influence of the skin effect on the economic limit and
the recovery of the reserve. Candidate selection and stimulation methods are
aided by a decision tree (Figure 3.3). The productivity achievement
determines the stimulation approach. To meet the productivity objective,
matrix stimulation should provide a skin effect of 10 % of the initial damage
skin effect for sandstones and 2 to 3 % for carbonates. Aside from hydraulic
fracturing, there is no other stimulation method for sandstone reservoirs. Acid
fracturing may be cost-effective to boost productivity in carbonate reservoirs

28
(limestones or dolomites). In both circumstances, the reservoir experiences a
hydraulic fracture (Economides & Nolte, 2000).

Figure 3.3: Candidate selection and Stimulation Methods(Economides & Nolte, 2000)

3.2.1 Acid Type compatibility to the treatments

The desire to utilize acid to enhance oil and gas flow to the wellbore has
existed from the early days of its utilization. After a useful corrosion inhibitor
was discovered in the early 1930s, acid became generally used. Though a
variety of organic and inorganic acids had been explored by this point, HCl
had become the acid of choice. For (Wilson, 1935)'s work, the most surprising
feature comes from recognizing the harm caused by acid-soluble solids
clogging. A year later, Halliburton attempted to use hydrochloric and

29
hydrofluoric acid to treat sandstone for the first time, but the treatment was
unsuccessful, and Halliburton did not use this method for the following 20
years.
When Dowell Service first launched the "renowned" "Regular Strength Mud
Acid" mix in the late 1930s, its primary goal was the elimination of wellbore
drilling mud filter cake. For correct acid treatment design, McLeod laid forth
the foundations in 1984 based on formation mineralogy, a critical problem
that is frequently disregarded.
Various acidizing fluids such as self-diverting acid (Bazin et al., 1999;
Lungwitz et al., 2007), visco-elastic surfactant (VES) acid, gelled acid, self-
generated acids, and recently, chelating agents (Tariq et al., 2021) have been
developed and investigated both in the laboratory and in field-scale (Gou et
al., 2021; Hassan & Al-Hashim, 2017; Isah et al., 2021; Lai et al., 2021; Li &
Shi, 2021; Melendez et al., 2007; Taylor & Nasr-El-Din, 2001). In the acid
treatment of naturally fractured carbonate formation, VES acid forms more
complex fractures compared to self-generated acid and gelled acid.
However, gelled acid can decrease rock’s breakdown pressure to a large
extent (up to 57% less than that caused by water fracturing); this increases
fracture propagation and enhances efficiency (Gou et al., 2021). Moreover,
gelled acid creates larger fractures than crosslinked acid and consequently
weakens the rock's mechanical properties more than crosslinked acid (Lai et
al., 2021). Stimulation success depends on the length and width of these
wormholes (Al-Arji et al., 2021). Thus, a successful acid treatment operation
requires that the wormhole propagates deep into the formation. The
investigations show in Table 3.1 of core flooding at higher temperatures using
a diversity of acid systems with various experimental characteristics and
results.

30
Table 3-1: Core flooding at high temperatures studies with various acid systems have
distinct experimental features and outcomes (Chacon & Pournik, 2022).

At a temperature of 394.26 K, the injection of HCl led to a conical channel

and the dissolving of the core face. As a result, it needed a comparatively high
PVBT of 4.25. In addition, greater optimum injection rates are necessary for
an efficient acidizing treatment since the acid is expended faster at high
temperatures. The necessity for an acid that retards the acid reaction, needs
lower injection rates, leads to dominating wormholes, and reduces corrosion
rates is the most important consideration in high-temperature conditions.
(Huang et al., 2003) using 15 % acetic acid and injecting it at a velocity of
2.2x10-8m3/s found a PVBT of 9.1 at a temperature of 394.26 K. Wormholes

31
in HAc system have considerable branching, but the main wormhole is the
dominating wormhole. It has been shown that organic acids are more
expensive than HCl for dissolving an equal quantity of rock. Because it has a
greater acidity than other organic acids like acetic and formic,
Methanesulfonic acid (MSA) has been suggested as a stand-alone stimulating
fluid. MSA is a good alternative to organic acids since it possesses soluble
reaction products, is less corrosive, and is hazardous in small quantities.
However, it's a hefty price tag. In order to determine the most cost-effective
acid system, experimental research (Ortega, 2015) was undertaken to find the
ideal acid mix of HCl and MSA.

There are several aspects to consider when selecting an acid, including

pressure, temperature, formation permeability, hydrocarbon composition, as
well as compatibility between acids and additives. Figure 3.4 workflow chart
of significant innovations have been necessary to overcome the most
prevalent carbonate matrix acidizing difficulties. In high-temperature
formations, this problem is exacerbating since the reaction rate rises with
temperature. HCl's rapid chemical reaction rate with carbonates rocks results
in the need for a large amount of acid in acidizing treatments. Due to the quick
interaction of HCl with the formation, it does not generate effective
wormholes since it does not have enough time to penetrate far into the
medium, resulting in more uniform disintegration. Additionally, it was shown
at high temperatures when decreasing the injection rate to maximize contact
time resulting in face dissolving, an inefficient structure for acidifying
treatments (Chacon & Pournik, 2022). Due to the above challenges, an acid
that slows down the acid reaction and reduces corrosion rates must be used to
overcome these obstacles.

32
 Cationic Surfactant-
Based Polymer-
Assisted Emulsified
Surfactant-Based Acid
Emulsified Acids
Non-Ionic
Surfactant-Based
Emulsified Acids

Methanesulfonic
Acid retardation Acid
for HPHT
conditions Organic Acids

Acetic Acid

Especialized Gelled Biopolymeric Resin-

Acid Based Retarded HCl

Polymer-Assisted
Emulsified Acid
Challenges in Diversion for
heterogeneous TN-16235
carbonate matrix
formations Viscoelastic
acidizing Surfactant-Based
Acid
VES and Foam-
Based VES

Alcohol Based
Inhibitors: Propargyl
and Furfuryl Alcohol
Organic Corrosion
Inhibitors

QMQTPH
Corrosion control for
corrosive
environments
Henna Extract

Natural Extracts As
Corrosion Inhibitors
Aqueous Garlic Peel
Extract

Figure 3.4: Work flow chart of selection the optimal acid to overcome the most
prevalent carbonate matrix acidizing difficulties.

33
3.3 Design of the Stimulation Treatment Sequence
The order in which the fluid patches are applied and their precise time are
critical considerations for devising a stimulation treatment. Each well has
been damaged uniquely, necessitating a new approach to repair. After the
procedure, the pre-and-post flush phases are the most common parts of a
treatment sequence. It is important to know how much cement, clays, and
other pore-filling minerals are present in the sandstone before acidizing (Allen
& Roberts, 1978). As a first treatment, a combination of hydrochloric and
hydrofluoric acid is often used.
The next section will explain why a Preflush is so important. We need to know
where the formation is physically located before deciding whether or not to
apply acid system diverting or retarding chemicals. Acid type selection is
simplified in carbonate reservoirs.

3.3.1 Preflush
Preflushes of hydrochloric acid are used to prepare or condition the formation
that will be stimulated so that the acid will be accepted in the most favorable
parts. The primary goal of the Preflush is to displace the brine from the
wellbore to prevent contact between the hydrofluoric acid and the formation
of brine, which contains potassium, sodium, and calcium, which causes
precipitation(Prouvost & Economides, 1989).
3.3.2 Main (Acid) treatment
This stage's goal is to repair the well's damage. The appropriate injection rate
is determined by the acidizing task matrix's acidizing or acid fracturing type.
In carbonates, wormhole propagation speed increases with injection rate, so a
high injection rate is required for rapid wormhole propagation. When

34
acidizing in areas of high-water saturation, low pump rates are also advised.
The maximum permitted pressure for the tubing, the surface equipment, and
the pump must be considered to determine whether the formation can
withstand larger forces (Economides et al., 1994).
3.3.3 Postflush (overflush)
The overflush moves the primary acid flush at least four feet away from the
wellbore (Economides & Nolte, 2000). Since retarded acid's reaction time on
creation is longer than its injection period, it might aid in acid penetration.
Instead of using potassium chloride as a post flush in acidizing sandstone
formations with hydrofluoric acid, ammonium chloride, NH4Cl, is advised.

3.4 HCl acid carbonate reactions

Hydrochloric acid (HCI) and carbonate minerals react due to a hydrogen ion
(H+) interaction with the mineral. When HCI is dissolved in water, it virtually
completely dissociates into hydrogen and chloride ions (Cl). (Cohen et al.,
2008; Fredd & Fogler, 1998; Hoefner & Fogler, 1988) were consulted to
calculate how HCl interacts with calcite and dolomite. In summarizing their
outcomes, (Wang et al., 1993) came to the following conclusion about the
reaction rate (𝑟HCl ) for HCl with different minerals:
𝛼
−𝑟HCl = 𝐸𝑓 𝐶HCl (3.1)
𝛥𝐸
𝐸𝑓 = 𝐸𝑓0 𝑒𝑥𝑝⁡ (− ) (3.2)
𝑅𝑇
𝛥𝐸
The constants α, 𝐸𝑓0 , and are given in Table 3-2. The units are used in
𝑅𝑇

these expressions is international system unit, so 𝐶HCl has units of kg-

mole/m3, and T is in K.

35
 Table 3-2: The parameters of the reaction rate of HCl acid with calcite and dolomite
rocks. (Economides et al., 1994)

𝑘𝑔⁡𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠⁡𝐻𝐶𝑙 𝛥𝐸
Mineral 𝛼 𝐸𝑓0 [ 𝛼] (𝐾)
𝐻𝐶𝑙 𝑅𝑇
𝑚2 − 𝑠 − (𝑘𝑔 − 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 3 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑⁡𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)
𝑚
Calcite
0.63 7.55x103 7.314x 107
(CaCO3)
Dolomite
6.32⁡𝑥⁡10−4 𝑇
(CA Mg 7.9x103 4.48x105
1 − 1.92⁡𝑥⁡10−3 𝑇
(CO3)2)

By deriving the kinetics of a weak-acid carbonate mineral reaction from the

kinetics of an HCl reaction (Schechter, 1992).
𝛼/2 𝛼/2
−𝑟weak acid = 𝐸𝑓 𝐾𝑑 𝐶weak acid (3.3)
where Kd is the weak acid's dissociation constant and Ef is the HCl–mineral
reaction's rate constant. Taking into account mass transfer effects, (M. Buijse
& Glasbergen, 2005) take a more comprehensive method to the total reaction
rate of carbonate minerals with the weak acids.

Hydraulic fracturing and matrix acidizing are the two most often used
stimulation methods. It is possible to boost oil and gas production using
hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting fluids at a pressure greater than
the failure pressure of the reservoir. Acids have been used to improve the
permeability and porosity of the carbonate and sandstone formations around
the wellbore via acidizing. (Ituen et al., 2017). An increase in the permeability
of the reservoir is achieved by dissolving minerals like dolomite and quartz in
the rock, which leads to a rise in the flow rate of hydrocarbon fluids from the

36
formation to the wellbore. In sandstone stimulation, acidizing and fracturing
processes have their benefits and disadvantages (Shafiq et al., 2018).
Carbonate formations have a fundamentally different acidifying mechanism
than sandstones. Clastic formations have slow surface reaction rates, and an
acid front passes over the porous medium homogeneously. The fact that
carbonates have very high surface reaction rates means that mass transfer
often limits the overall reaction rate, resulting in dissolving highly non-
uniform patterns. Due to the non-uniform dissolving of limestone by HCl in a
big block experiment, wormholes, as illustrated in Figure 3.5, are created.
(McDuff et al., 2010).

Figure 3.5: In a Large-Scale Block Experiment, Wormholes were Generated (McDuff et

al., 2010).

The shape of these wormhole patterns is determined by several variables,

including mass transfer rates, reaction kinetics, flow geometry, and injection
rate. Figure 3.5, CT scans of wormholes produced in core floods demonstrate
how the wormholes change from enormous, conical-shaped tubes at low
injection rates to considerably narrower wormholes with few branches at

37
moderate injection rates and eventually to a highly branched morphology at
high injection rates. Experiments like this demonstrate optimum conditions
for acid injection for every carbonate rock and acid combination that result in
the longest wormholes possible with a given amount of acid. Compared to the
rock's initial permeability, all of the dissolution structures in Figures 3.6 and
3.7 are deemed indefinitely conductive.

Figure 3.6: At the top is CT-scan for different injection rates required to created
wormhole (Fredd & Fogler, 1996), while below is the wormhole morphologies at
different injection rates (Sharif, 2019)
Hence, the optimal dissolving pattern to acquire in an acidizing matrix
technique is the one that reaches furthest into the reservoir for a set quantity
of injected acid. The dominating wormhole is an example of this ideal
structure. Due to the narrowness of the channel, it takes the lowest amount of

38
acid to form. As a result, a certain amount of acid injected may penetrate
deeper into the formation.

Figure 3.7: Morphologies of wormhole at various rates of injection introduced by

(McDuff et al., 2010)

Equations (3.4) and (3.5) indicate the straightforward chemical dissolution of

carbonates by acids for limestone and dolomite, respectively.
2𝐻𝐶𝑙⁡ + ⁡ 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3 ⟶ ⁡ 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑙2 ⁡ + 𝐶𝑂2 ⁡⁡ + ⁡ 𝐻2 𝑂 (3.4)
4𝐻𝐶𝑙 + 𝐶𝑎𝑀𝑔(𝐶𝑂3 )2 ⁡ ⟶ ⁡ 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑙2 + 𝑀𝑔𝐶𝑙2 ⁡ + ⁡2𝐻2 𝑂⁡ + ⁡2𝐶𝑂2 (3.5)

3.5 Optimal Injection Rate

According to several studies, there is an acid-flow rate-dependent minimum
quantity of acid necessary to propagate wormholes across the core for a
particular rock/acid system and temperature (Fredd & Fogler, 1996; Hoefner
& Fogler, 1988).
HCl injection into limestone results in the wormholing activity seen in Figure
3.8. A wormhole's volume of acid grows extremely slowly if the flow rate is

39
above the optimal; if the flow rate is below the optimum, the quantity of acid
needed to propagate a particular distance decrease rapidly as the injection rate
increases. This suggests that injecting at a rate greater than the optimal is
preferable to inject at a rate excessively low (M. Buijse & Glasbergen, 2005).

Figure 3.8: A laboratory study of the propagation efficiency of wormholes (M. Buijse &
Glasbergen, 2005)

Pore Volumes to Breakthrough (𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 ) are defined as the acid volume injected
in the core sample during the experiment to develop the wormholes after
breakthrough, divided by the initial volume of the core's pore; it is a
dimensionless quantity. Equation (3.6) specifies that this is a crucial
parameter:
𝑉𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑,𝑏𝑡
𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 = (3.6)
𝜙𝑉𝐵

where 𝑉𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑,𝑏𝑡 denotes the volume of acid injected up to the breakthrough

point, VB represents the core sample’s bulk volume utilized in the experiment,
and 𝜙 means the porosity of specimen. Pore volume at the breakthrough
(𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 ) is a critical metric for predicting the result of matrix acidizing

40
treatments since it allows for the calculation of the depth to which wormholes
penetrate for a given amount of acid injected.
The interstitial velocity (𝑣𝑖 )⁡is calculated by dividing the volumetric rate (𝑞)
by the cross-sectional area of the flow multiplied by the porosity (2𝜋𝑟𝑤 ℎ𝜙).
Thus,
𝑞
𝑣𝑖 = (3.7)
2𝜋𝑟𝑤 ℎ𝜙

3.6 Wormhole Propagation Global Models

Typically, the optimal matrix acidizing conditions may be determined by a
series of flooding experiments in the laboratory. Since each point on the curve
necessitates a full-scale experiment of core flooding, this is a time-
consuming and costly procedure.
Theoretical approaches to wormhole propagation modeling exist; however,
they are difficult to apply in the actual field. Therefore, the presumed global
models are often utilizing for field size treatment planning. Wormhole
propagation rates may be predict using macroscopic semi-empirical models
based on data collected around a wellbore (Economides et al., 2013).
(M. Buijse & Glasbergen, 2005) suggested an empirical correlation that fits
the acid efficiency curve of 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 vs. 𝑣𝑖 (Figure 3.8), using as input just the
coordinates of the optimal point, 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 , and 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 . Its appearances a great
correlation to match experimental data, and it has been employed by various
studies. (M. Buijse & Glasbergen, 2005) also suggested a strategy to leverage
the correlation in the radial geometry, which consists of computing the
interstitial velocity as an average at the front of the wormholed zone.
The only parameters needed for this model are the coordinates of the ideal
point on the acid efficiency curve: 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 and 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 . For interstitial
velocities that are either too high or not perfect, this curve exhibits the same

41
form as what has been found experimentally. The radius of the wormholed
zone may then be estimated using by integrating the velocity over time.
The Buijse and Glasbergen model was used as a foundation for Tardy's novel
concept of self-diverting acids. They also offered a version of Buijse and
Glasbergen's model consisting of increasing that model's 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 by a constant.
The mechanism for upscaling from linear flow and core scale to field size and
radial flow provided by (Tardy et al., 2007) is the same as proposed by Buijse:
utilize the same correlation of 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 ⁡versus 𝑣𝑖 , with 𝑣𝑖 computed as the average
at the wormhole front.
(Talbot & Gdanski, 2008) suggested another model based on Buijse's but
taking other factors into consideration, such as acid content, temperature, and
core aspect ratio. They offered a mechanism to transform 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 and 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡
data recorded with a specific temperature and acid concentration to another
temperature and acid concentration. Length of core divided by cross-sectional
area is used to calculate the aspect ratio in their model. But they do not offer
any way to cope with this aspect ratio when upscaling from core size and
linear flow to field scale and radial flow.
Wellbore scale calculations are carried out using the 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 and 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 values
acquired in core flooding tests (with cores measuring from 1 inch to a few
inches) in Buijse' model and its adaptations. Even the core scale
measurements, as previously indicated, alter dramatically when the diameter
of the core varies. Hence, it should be predicted that values of 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 and
𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 typical for the full wellbore will differ from those recorded using cores.
The reported values of 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 and 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 are strongly reliant on the diameter
of the cores employed to measure them; hence, the influence of core size is an
essential but sometimes overlooked element of wormholing research.

42
According to (M. A. Buijse, 2000), both 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 and 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 decrease in
diameter with increasing core diameter, as illustrated in Figure 3.9 of the
experimental findings utilizing varied core diameters. With the exception of
core diameter, all other characteristics of the samples are the same for all
pieces, including length, acidity, comparable porosity, mineralogy, and
permeability. Some examples of acid-rock combos: ( Furui et al., 2010)
utilized 28 % HCl, and high porosity, ( Buijse, 2000) employed 5 % HCl and
limestone cores and (Dong et al., 2014) utilized 15 % HCl and Indiana
limestone.

Figure 3.9: Data comparing the core dimension of 𝑷𝑽𝒃𝒕,𝒐𝒑𝒕 and 𝒗𝒊,𝒐𝒑𝒕 reported in the
literature(Dong et al., 2014).

43
 According to (Economides et al., 2013), three global models are the
most often used: (M. Buijse & Glasbergen, 2005)'s model, Economides'
volumetric model, and (Furui et al., 2012c)'s model. In addition to (Daccord
et al., 1989), (Tardy et al., 2007) and (Talbot & Gdanski, 2008), many more
global models may be used for comparison.

3.6.1 The Volumetric Model

To figure out how much acid is required to move wormholes a certain
distance, the simplest method assumes that a certain percentage of the rock
punctured will dissolve in the acid. This notion, known as the volumetric
model, was first introduced by (Economides et al., 1994).
As a few wormholes are constructed, only a small percentage of the rock is
dissolved; as more branching wormhole structures are developed, a bigger
matrix fraction is dissolved. The radius at which a wormhole may propagate
is
𝑉
𝑟𝑤ℎ = √𝑟𝑤2 + (3.8)
𝑃𝑉 𝑏𝑡 𝜋𝜙ℎ

The 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 is the only wormhole propagation parameters needed for this
concept in equation 3.8, which may be obtainable from core-flood
experiments.

3.6.2 The Buijse-Glasbergen Model

The empirical model of wormhole propagation proposed by (M. Buijse &
Glasbergen, 2005) is based on the typical dependency of the 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 in acid core
floods on the interstitial velocity. There is a constant functional relationship
between wormhole propagation velocity and the 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 for various rocks and

44
different acid systems. They came up with a function to represent this reliance
based on this premise. Using the Buijse and Glasbergen model, we can say
−𝑦 2 2
𝑑𝑟𝑤 𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖
𝑣𝑤ℎ = =( ) (𝑣 ) {1 − exp 〈−4 ( ) 〉} (3.9)
𝑑𝑡 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡−opt 𝑖−opt 𝑣𝑖−opt

By simply stating the ideal condition, the minimum pore volumes to

breakthrough ⁡(𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡−opt ) value and the optimal interstitial velocity 𝑣𝑖−opt
value; therefore, the 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡−opt –𝑣𝑖−opt relationship may be conveniently
established. A single calibration point is required to fit this model to a specific
acid-rock system.
The wormhole velocity is determined by the 𝑣𝑖−opt at the wormhole front,
𝑟𝑤ℎ , and decreases as the wormhole area front advances away from the
wellbore.

3.6.3 The Furui et al. Model

(Furui et al., 2012b) suggested a new semi-empirical model, based on the
correlation by Buijse and Glasbergen (2005), but with a unique upscaling
approach to describe the wellbore size. In this model, the values of 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡
and 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 at the field scale are different from those observed at the core scale,
and they are not constant, changing during the acid treatment as wormholes
propagate. The assumption of computing interstitial velocity as the average of
the stimulated region's outer area was also adjusted. Observing that the flow
rate is concentrated at the ends of the dominating wormholes via tests and
numerical simulations, they argued that what drives the wormhole
propagation velocity is not the average interstitial velocity⁡𝑣̅𝑖 , but the
interstitial velocity at the tip 𝑣𝑖,𝑡𝑖𝑝 ⁡of the wormholes, which is significantly
more than the average value, particularly at the field scale.

45
 −𝛾 2 2
𝑣𝑖, ip 𝑣𝑖, ip
𝑣wh = 𝑣𝑖, ip 𝑁𝐴𝑐 × ( ) × {1 − exp⁡ [−4 ( ) ]} (3.10)
𝑣𝑖, tip,opt 𝑣𝑖, ip , opt

(Furui et al., 2012a) extended their work and published equations for 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡
for the spherical and radial wormholes propagation. The first is suited for the
acidizing open-hole or highly perforated wells when the radial flow field.
After that, they upgraded the equation to be acceptable for acid injection from
small sites far apart, such as when a limited entry approach is used with a very
modest perforation density when presumed a spherical flow from each hole.
This model predicts a larger wormholing velocity by linking it with the
interstitial tip velocity and guesses a slower falling rate of that velocity. Furui
et al. models predict that for radial wormhole propagation, for example, 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡
1
decreases proportionally to for⁡α𝑧 = 0⁡or⁡does⁡not⁡decline⁡at⁡all⁡(for⁡α𝑧 = ⁡1),
√𝑟𝑤ℎ

whereas the Buijse-Glasbergen model estimates that 𝑣̅𝑖 rises proportionally to

1/√𝑟𝑤ℎ .
These models were utilized by (Furui et al., 2012a & Furui et al.,2012b) and
shown to be more accurate with field data than the Buijse-Glasbergen model
using 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 and 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 measurements obtained in a laboratory. It does,
however, include other changeable factors, such as α𝑧 ⁡, mwh and de,wh, which
have been found to be difficult to predict. Eventually, these factors should also
be historically matched.
A fascinating model, developed by (Furui et al., 2012b), considers the results
collected at various scales and has been effectively used to match field data.
But there are a few drawbacks: (1) it requires input parameters such as
wormhole cluster diameter and wormhole count that are difficult to measure
or estimate; (2) the predicted field results can change when data from different

46
core sizes are used as input; and (3) it does not reverse back to the Buijse and
Glasbergen correlation when representing core scale.
3.6.4 Wormholed Region (Radial/Cylindrical)
Suppose the completion of the well to be acidized is an open-hole or
perforated casing with a high perforation density. In that case, the acid is
anticipating to follow the radial flow field around the well.

In radial flow, the skin factor of a cylindrically stimulated zone surrounding a

well with changed permeability can be calculated using an equation
introduced by (Hawkins, 1956). (Daccord et al., 1989; Economides et al.,
𝑘
2013) apply the Hawkins formula with the assumption that < 1, hence
𝑘𝑤ℎ
𝑘
(𝑘 − 1) ≈ −1, determines the skin factor resulting from a matrix acidized
𝑤ℎ

carbonate if k is the original reservoir permeability and kwh is the permeability

of the wormholed zone.
Typically, the radius of the wormholed zone, rwh, is approximated using a
global model, such as the volumetric model of Buijse- Glasbergen, or Furui
et al.’s model.

3.6.5 Divergence and heterogeneous rock types.

The majority of carbonate rocks are heterogeneous and exhibit large
permeability differences, complicating implementing treatments of matrix
acidizing (Pereira et al., 2012). The wormholes in the more permeable zones
become longer, while those in the less permeable zones get shorter.
Fluid placement or diversion procedures are the approaches to cope with this
challenge and boost the acid penetration in the limited permeability zones
(Economides et al., 2013). Heterogeneous distribution of wormhole

47
penetration may be achieved even using fluid implantation procedures, which
must be considered when calculating the skin factor.
Various models may estimate the amount of acid injected into the multiple
zones. There are two basic methods used in these simulations: discretizing the
neighboring reservoir and the wellbore into separate segments, each with its
permeability, and then computing the acid injection rate into each section over
time. (Furui et al., 2012b) provided an example of a model tailored exclusively
for carbonates. (Doerler & Prouvost, 1987; Hill & Galloway, 1984; Taha et
al., 1989) are models that apply various diverting agents.

As determined by these models, the quantity of acid injected into each

segment is variable; consequently, the wormhole length varies. Each
segment's skin factor is determined using the Hawkins formula, and the total
skin factor is also calculated. For a vertical well, the whole skin factor is
simply determined and is given by Equation (3.11). (Furui et al., 2003)
devised an analytical equation for calculating the total "skin" factor for a
horizontal well.
𝐿
∫0 𝑘(𝑧)𝑑𝑧 𝑟
𝑠𝑒𝑞 = − ln⁡ ( 𝑒 ) (3.11)
𝐿 𝑘(𝑧) 𝑟𝑤
∫0 [ 𝑟 ]𝑑𝑧
ln⁡( 𝑒 )+𝑠(𝑧)
𝑟𝑤

Where 𝑠𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent overall skin factor, 𝑟𝑒 is the drainage area external
radius of the well, and 𝐿 is the length of the horizontal well.

3.6.6 Propagation of Wormhole in Anisotropic Rocks.

According to (Bagrintseva, 2015), carbonate reservoirs may be divided into
two categories: those with highly anisotropic rocks (complex reservoir rocks)
and those that are slightly isotropic (pore-type reservoirs). Natural fractures,

48
layering, or vugs on various scales contribute to the anisotropy of permeability
in complex-type reservoirs. Permeability in these reservoirs is highly
dependent on flow direction and may vary by orders of magnitude
(Bagrintseva, 2015). A smaller vertical permeability is more typical (Lucia,
2007), although natural cracks may create a bigger vertical permeability
(Widarsono et al., 2006) than the horizontal. In certain areas, the vertical
permeability must frequently be set as 100 times less than the horizontal
permeability to match projected and historical performance (Lucia, 2007).
According to what the author is aware of, there is no wormhole model for
anisotropic formations and no discussion of the geometry of the stimulated
zone to be expected in such cases. The distribution of wormholes in
anisotropic carbonates has received little attention in the literature. When
considering damage distribution in horizontal wells in anisotropic rocks, an
elliptical damage distribution has typically been believed to occur; this
assumption was initially proposed by Furui et al. (2003). However, it does not
provide anything about the distribution of wormholes when the formation is
acidifying.

3.6.7 Schwalbert Model

(Schwalbert et al., 2017) improved (M. Buijse & Glasbergen, 2005)'s model
by including scaling factors 𝑓1 and 𝑓2 ⁡that adjust 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡, core and 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 to
the field size. In this new suggested global wormhole model, interstitial acid
velocity 𝑣̅𝑖 is linked to the wormhole front's propagation velocity, 𝑣𝑤ℎ by:
−1/3 2 2
𝑣̅𝑖 𝑣̅𝑖 𝑣̅𝑖
𝑣𝑤ℎ = 𝑃𝑉 ( ) {1 − exp⁡ [−4 (𝑣 ) ]} (3.12)
𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 ×𝑓1 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡, core ×𝑓2 𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡, core ×𝑓2

The scaling factors𝑓1 and 𝑓2 can be calculated as follows:

49
 𝑑core 𝜀1
𝑓1 = ( ) (3.13)
𝑑𝑠1

𝑑core 𝜀2
𝑓2 = ( ) (3.14)
𝑑𝑠2

𝑑𝑠1 ⁡and 𝑑𝑠2 are typical scales for wormhole propagation. 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 and
𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 are widespread to yield the values predicted at any other scale
diameter d:
𝜀1
𝑑core
𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 (𝑑) = 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 ( ) (3.15)
𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑑,𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑝,1 )
𝜀2
𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒
𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡 (𝑑) = 𝑣𝑖,𝑜𝑝𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 ( ) (3.16)
𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑑,𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑝,2 )

Observe that if 𝜀1 =𝜀2 =0, this model reduces back to (M. Buijse & Glasbergen,
2005)'s if the interstitial velocity is estimated as the average at the front of
wormholes, which is represented by 𝑣̅𝑖 . Flow's geometrical characteristics are
influenced by 𝑣̅𝑖 , 𝑣𝑤ℎ , 𝑑𝑠1 ⁡and 𝑑𝑠2 . Different flow patterns are summarized in
table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Linear, radial (cylindrical), and spherical (Schwalbert, 2019).

50
3.7 Well Performance After Treatment
The post-treatment skin factor is the most often utilized statistic for analyzing
stimulation treatments. In matrix acidizing processes in carbonates, the skin
factor relies on the geometry of the wormholed zone.
3.7.1 Monitoring the performance of acidizing
treatment(Economides et al., 2013)
Analyzing the injection rate and pressure during injection is recommended for
monitoring a matrix acidizing treatment in a carbonate reservoir, in the same
way as monitoring a sandstone acidizing treatment is advised. In carbonates,
the pressure loss across the wormhole zone is assumed to be insignificant,
which means that the wormhole impact on the wellbore skin effect is
equivalent to extending the wellbore. The skin's evolution after a carbonate
matrix acidizing treatment may be anticipated using wormhole propagation
models under this assumption.
As the wormhole penetration radius increases in a damaged well with a
permeability k, the skin effect is proportional to the wormhole penetration
radius as follow(Economides et al., 1994):
𝑘 𝑟𝑠 𝑟𝑠
𝑠= 𝑙𝑛⁡ − 𝑙𝑛⁡ (3.17)
𝑘𝑠 𝑟𝑤ℎ 𝑟𝑤

As long as the radius of wormhole penetration is greater than the radius of

damage, Equation (3.17) remains valid. Alternatively, if the well was initially
undamaged or if the wormhole radius was higher than the original damage
radius, the skin effect during acidification is assumed to be infinite, and the
following Equation (3.17) is used to represent this:
𝑟𝑤ℎ
𝑠 = −𝑙𝑛⁡ (3.18)
𝑟𝑤

Equations (3.17) and (3.18), which assume that the injection rate is kept
constant during the treatment for the damaged zone, are used to determine the

51
skin impact expected by the volumetric model during the
injection(Economides et al., 1994),
𝑘 𝑟 2 𝑉 𝑟
𝑠=− 𝑙𝑛⁡ [( 𝑤) + 2 ] − 𝑙𝑛⁡ 𝑟 𝑠 (3.19)
2𝑘𝑠 𝑟 𝑠 𝑃𝑉 𝑏𝑡 𝜋𝑟𝑠 𝜙ℎ 𝑤

furthermore, since wormholes that penetrate beyond the affected zone or there
is no damage(Economides & Nolte, 2000),
1 𝑉
𝑠 = − 𝑙𝑛⁡ [1 + ] (3.20)
2 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 𝜋𝑟𝑠2 𝜙ℎ

Both Buijse-Glasbergen and Furui models are used to calculate the radius of
the wormhole region for discrete injection times. The skin factor is calculated
using Equation 3.17 or Equation 3.18 for each rwh obtained using these
models.
3.7.2 Max. Δp, Max.-Rate-Procedure by Paccaloni
The (Paccaloni et al., 1988) approach estimates a steady-state skin effect in
accordance with Darcy's law to keep track of the development of stimulation
treatments. The two most important components of Paccaloni's maximum Δp,
maximum-rate technique is:
(1) The largest pwf achievable without breaking the formation should be
achieved by injecting the acid at the maximum pace possible.
Treatments should be evaluated in real-time to ensure the maximum rate aim
is fulfilled and detect when enough acid is injected into the formation.

0.00708𝑘ℎ𝛥𝑝 𝑟𝑠
𝑠= − 𝑙𝑛⁡ (3.21)
𝜇𝑞𝑖 𝑟𝑤

where k denotes the formation's permeability, h indicates the

thickness of the pay zone, rw represents the wellbore radius, and rs
defines the radius impacted by acid injection. Typical oilfield units
for all of the variables. Figure 3.10 depicts the treatment of the

52
matrix stimulation design chart. Acid injection rate (qi) and pressure
drop Δp are linked to skin variables in equation 3.21. (Wang et al.,
1993) builds a well head pressure versus injection rate graph using
skin factor as a parameter to track a stimulation treatment.

Figure 3.10: Treatment of the matrix stimulation design chart.(Paccaloni & Tambini,
1993)

A series of parallel lines with varying skin factor values can be seen
on the chart, as long as the skin factor is assumed to be the only
variable under consideration. The wellhead pressure and injection
rate indicate the treatment, and the skin effect may be seen on the
chart. This chart also shows the relationship between fracture

53
pressure and injection rate, keeping the rate as high as feasible
without breaking the formation.
According to (Prouvost & Economides, 1989)and validated by (Paccaloni &
Tambini, 1993), it is possible to overstate the skin impact using the Paccaloni
approach since it neglects transient flow effects. When the pace of change is
sudden, this miscalculation might be catastrophic. However, it's not a big
problem for most treatments since the inaccuracy is pretty constant, and the
development of the skin impact is more essential than its absolute value itself.
(Prouvost & Economides, 1989) developed a method for precisely calculating
the changing skin effect during matrix acidization.
A thorough post-treatment analysis might benefit from using this method if a
defined injection schedule is available. This approach is considered to be
among the most helpful design strategies because of the following advantages:
• It is possible to evaluate the degree of formation damage using an
injection test.
• It is likely to estimate the pumping parameters at starting an acidizing
matrix process.
• Can determine if acid amounts utilized are insufficient, appropriate, or
excessive.
• At the well site, it is possible to make an informed and timely choice,
increasing the likelihood of success.

3.7.3 Failure of acidifying treatment and the most common reasons

The following are some typical causes of treatment failure that should be
considered when designing an acidizing matrix job:
1. Acid type, volume, and concentration are the most important
parameters for dissolving the minerals in the formation.

54
 2. Inadequate perforation of the target zone within the well and the wrong
identification of the formation damage mechanism.
3. The corrosion rate will rise if the acid treatment is too lengthy before
replication. There must be an investigation into how increased
temperatures affect fluid characteristics and different acidizing
treatment processes.

3.8 Impact of Acid Treatment on Acoustic Properties

Shear (S) and primary (P) wave velocities of rock samples may be measured
using the ultrasonic technique in the laboratory, one of the seismic methods.
Many elastic and geotechnical constants may be estimated directly from shear
velocity (Vs) and primary velocity (Vp) information and density
measurements, using many known formulae. Acoustic velocities of rocks are
affected by various parameters, including lithology, grain size, fractures,
porosity, density, stress levels, joints, and mineralogy. These parameters (i.e.,
the seismic velocities) are used to compute the rock geomechanical properties
such as elasticity modulus or Young’s modulus (E), Poison’s ratio (PR), and
rock material index (MI) of rock (Dobrin, 1976).

3.8.1 Determination of Rock Geomechanical Properties

Acoustic velocities, hardness of surface rock, and dynamic elastic parameters
were measured prior and post the acid flooding (treatment). To analyze the
elastic and geotechnical features of the carbonate rocks in this study,
longitudinal (Vp) and transverse (Vs) wave velocities were measured for all
samples before and after acidizing. These measurements were done by the
sonic viewer (Model-5217A). A core plug connects the two transducers, one
of which acts as a transmitter and the other as a receiver. Ultrasonic

55
transducers are installed on both parallel sides in order to measure the core's
transit time (T), which is determined by a series of ultrasonic impulses being
delivered through the core sample (For more information, chapter 4 goes
through the measuring technique in further depth). Sample length (L) is
divided by the transit time (T) of the propagated waves to get the velocity of
the compressional and shear waves (Vp and Vs). All core samples were
analyzed for significant geotechnical characteristics based on the velocities
(Vp and Vs) values. The combination of these findings was utilized to evaluate
the subsurface rock's ability. Analysis of elastic and petrophysical
characteristics before and after acid injection was carried out using
mechanical rock properties:

3.8.1.1 Young’s Modulus (E)

Young's modulus (E) one of the most important geomechanical properties of
rock, it is a measure of rocks stiffness, that is, the materials resistance against
being compressed (or extended) due to applied stress. It is the ratio of the
applied stress to the fractional shortening (or extension) of the sample length
parallel to the compression (or tension). The strain is the linear change in
dimension divided by the original size (Mavko et al., 2020). The Young's
modulus of the rock samples is computed before and after acid treatment using
the compressional and shear waves velocities (Vp and Vs) as:

𝜌⁡𝑉𝑠 2 ⁡(3⁡𝑉𝑝2 −⁡4⁡𝑉𝑠 2 )

𝐸= (3.22)
𝑉𝑝2 −⁡⁡𝑉𝑠 2

3.8.1.2 Poisson's ratio (σ)

In rock mechanics, Poisson's ratio (PR) is another critical rock property, it is
among the most important rock geomechanical parameters. It indicates the
ratio of the lateral expansion (or contraction) deformation to long-term

56
extension deformation. For the majority of mineral deposits, the Poisson's
ratio is in the range of 0 to 0.5, with more rigid, competent, and incompressible
rocks having a lower Poisson's ratio and vice versa (Abd El-Rahman et al.,
1992; Domenico, 1984). The following formula was used to compute the
Poisson’s ratio (PR) for all of the core samples.

0.5(𝑉𝑝/𝑉𝑠)2 −1
𝑃𝑅 = ⁡ (3.23)
(𝑉𝑝/𝑉𝑠)2 −1

3.8.1.3 Material Index (MI)

The degree of materials efficiency is measured by the material index, one of
the key geomechanics metrics. The elasticity of materials is impacted by
several factors, including the content of the material, the degree of
consolidation, joints, fractures, and the presence of liquids in porous
structures, all of which influences the material index (Shirani et al., 2010).
Equation 3.24 is used to compute the material index in terms of velocity ratios.

3−(𝑉𝑝/𝑉𝑠)2
𝑀𝐼 = ⁡ (3.24)
(𝑉𝑝/𝑉𝑠)2 −1

3.8.1.4 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure at Rest (KO)

Another crucial parameter in geotechnical engineering is the lateral earth
pressure at rest coefficient (Ko), which impacts the strength and consolidation
of rocks. It is most often found in the range of 0 – 1 for most materials. As
with the poison's ratio, this coefficient decreases with densely consolidated
sediments and rises with loose, unconsolidated sediments (Al-Awsi &
Khorshid, 2021). The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest is calculated
as follows.

(𝑉𝑝/𝑉𝑠)2 −2
𝐾𝑂 = (3.25)
(𝑉𝑝/𝑉𝑠)2

57
3.9 Stimpro Stimulation Software
The Stimpro system is intended to give the most complete tools for the
planning and analysis of matrix acid treatment. Stimpro's matrix acid
simulator, on the other hand, focuses on the practical use of real treatment
data. The utilization of actual data provides a far better knowledge of the well's
reaction, with methods that represent the reality of what is happening in the
reservoir before, during, and after matrix acid treatments (Figure 3.11).

Figure 3.11: StimPro's Capabilities.(Carbo, 2021)

Operation modes on the Main screen include design and analysis of matrix
acid treatment, as well as reservoir modelling. Acidizing Design Mode,
Acidizing Analysis Mode, and Production Analysis Mode are the three
options available to users(Carbo, 2021).

58
3.9.1 Acidizing Design Mode
Using the Acidizing Design option, a treatment schedule can be generated
rapidly and effectively. Stimpro will develop a pumping schedule after
assisting in the selection of the proper fluids and acids for the reservoir's
damage. The reservoir penetration may also be specified in this mode.

3.9.2 Acidizing Analysis Mode

Pre-treatment design and real-time data analysis are the main priorities of the
Acidizing Analysis mode. The real-data analysis may be done in real-time or
post-job, using treatment data that has already been gathered before the project
started(Al-Ameri & Gamadi, 2020; M. Buijse & Glasbergen, 2005; McDuff
et al., 2010).
3.9.3 Production Analysis Mode
Wells with or without matrix acid treatments may have their production
behavior predicted or matched using the Production Analysis option. Using
this method, Stimpro feeds a reservoir simulator with the acid concentration
profile it generated using its hydraulic fracture propagation and acid transport
models. This is a critical step in establishing the efficacy of previous
treatments and the related economics of future ones(Daccord et al., 1989;
Huang et al., 2003; Shirley et al., 2017).

59
Experimental Work
Chapter :4 Experimental Work

4.1 Introduction
This chapter begins with the preparation of core equipment. It progresses
by explaining the majority of lab devices and the appropriate methods for
each experiment (drilling and cutting plug samples, cleaning, drying,
weighing and dimension measurement, and measuring the petrophysical
prosperities). The second section will cover the latest advancements in
designing and implementing a novel linear core flooding system for matrix
acidization. The last parts include the ultrasonic measuring equipment
technique as well as the Computer Tomography (CT) scan. The overall
experimental approach is shown in flow chart form in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Schematic diagram of the workflow for the experimental procedure
(Alameedy, 2022a).

60
4.2 Preparation and Description of Core’s Equipment
A plug sample is a portion of the core that can be extracted from parts
orientated either vertically or horizontally concerning the complete core
axis or about the bedding planes. The information provided by these plugs
will pertain to the attributes of the matrix. There should be a consistent
number of correct cylinders cut out of the core. Before testing,
unconsolidated, dissolving, or fragile components may need to be
mounted. Samples should be handled as little as possible, regardless of how
much lithification has occurred.

4.2.1 Core drilling and cutting

Plug samples taken from the whole diameter of the core are used for the
majority of routine core analysis (RCA) and specialized core analysis
(SCAL) procedures. Plug samples are generally right cylinders with
diameters of 1 or 1.5 inches and lengths of 1–3 inches. If RCA or SCAL is
utilized, the length of the plug should be one to two times the diameter of
the connector (rubber sleeve that would have a built-in core holder)
(McPhee, Reed and Zubizarreta, 2015). Figure 4.2 depicts the carbonates
(Limestone) as the type of rock utilized in this study of matrix acidizing,
acquired from the Mi4 in well AD-12. Figure 4.3 shows the FOBCO Core
Driller, which uses a diamond-tipped, hollow cylindrical, rotating core's bit
to extract plugs. The output plugs are standard size 1.5 inches in diameter
by 6 inches in length.

Figure 4.2: Photography of rock core acquired from Mi4 in well AD-12.

61
Preparation of different types of core samples should follow the following
procedures:
1. Utilize a suitable drill bit diameter, and drill plugs in the stated
locations. Care must be taken to ensure that the plugs are straight.
While drilling, excessive pressure may cause the bit to bend and
distort the plug.
2. Make sure the ends of the plugs are parallel before trimming them
to the desired length. Trimmings should be kept and labeled.
3. The samples should be labeled, preserved, and/or stored as necessary
(Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.3: FOBCO core driller press.

Figure 4.4: Typical core plug samples.

62
The length of the retrieved plug is not uniform from both sides, with a
microfracture spread among the cores in Figure 4.4. Each plug was shaped
from both edges with a cutter machine to ensure that the surfaces were level
for the subsequent testing (Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5: Plug shaped from both edges with a cutter machine.

4.2.2 Core Cleaning by Soxhlet Extractor

The Soxhlet extractor was initially developed to extract lipid from a solid
substance but is frequently used to eliminate residual oil and brine from
rock samples in the core analysis. A Soxhlet extractor configuration and
assembly are illustrated in Figure 4.6. The major components of the
Soxhlet instrument are:
• Volumetric bottle (flask) holding the solvents.
• The heating mantle warms the volumetric flask's solvents.
• Exposing the rock core sample through the reflux chamber with the
boiling solvent.
• Condense the solvent vapor by the condenser.
Removing impurities from the rock surface and the residual hydrocarbon
is effective before any post-experiments are conducted. Core cleaning is
mainly a procedure in which selecting the appropriate solvents to be used

63
heavily on the experience of certain rocks. Methanol/chloroform,
methanol/toluene, ethanol/toluene, carbon disulfide, and benzene, among
other common solvent combinations (McPhee, Reed and Zubizarreta,
2015). In this research, the benzene-toluene-ethanol variety is employed to
obtain better outcomes.

Figure 4.6: Core cleaning by Soxhlet extractor.

4.2.3 Core Drying by Oven and Desiccator

The specified cleaning time for each plug is 24 hours; this study took four
days for each sample due to our laboratory's power constraint. Plugs are
subsequently dried up to a consistent weight at 100 °C in a humidity-
controlled oven, as shown in Figure 4.7. A routine preparation method is a
conventional oven drying for at least 3 hours in conjunction with Soxhlet
extraction. It can cause clay degradation owing to dehydration of water
contained within or on the mineral structures of clay.

64
 Figure 4.7: Drying the plugs up to 100 °C in a humidity-controlled oven.

When conventional oven drying is combined with hot Soxhlet extraction,

clay may be harmed due to the dehydration of water contained within or
on the mineral structures of the clay. Thus, a subsample should be
evaluated for cleaning efficacy with different solvents before cleaning
samples with unknown minerals and oil characteristics. The preferred
technique for protecting plugs from humidity is to employ a desiccator
vessel. Plugs are put on a stand above Silica gel used to maintain a certain
relative humidity level and maybe kept on standby for the duration of the
desired experiment run (Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.8: Desiccator vessel used to keep plugs from the humidity.

65
4.2.4 Core Weighting and Dimension
A digital balance model Sartorius, illustrated in Figure 4.9, provided the
most precise and accurate results regarding weighting plugs. This tough
balance can endure accidental overloads, strong chemicals, and dust. A
robust metal enclosure and extra coverings protect against dust, splashing
liquids, and severe chemicals.

Figure 4.9: Digital Balance to measure the weight of plugs.

Afterward, the dry and wet plugs will be measured using the digital balance
to determine the rock sample's pore volume, porosity, bulk volume, and
saturation.
A rock sample's surface area and bulk volume may be calculated using the
diameter D and length L measured with a Vernier caliper, as illustrated in
Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10: Vernier caliper for measuring plug sample dimension.

66
Before being flooded with acid, the rock plug samples are saturated with
brine in a vacuum desiccator; moreover, the porosity may be measured
using the saturation method. To avoid bubbles interfering with the
acidifying process, we use a vacuum pump to remove all air from the
porous structure of core samples. Figure 4.11 illustrates the configuration
of the core sample saturation system, which includes the glass bell, vacuum
pump, and specialized jug utilized to saturate the core's vacuum. The
following is the method for soaking the core samples:
1. Weigh the dried Berea plug Wdry and use a caliper to determine its
diameter D and length L. (1 core for each group as described in
section 4.1.4).
2. Place the cores in the big beaker inside the vacuum container and
run the vacuum pump for approximately 5 minutes to remove any
remaining air.
3. Turn off the vacuum pump and close the valve between the large
beaker and pump. Ensure the small cup is filled with brine (36 g/l
NaCl and ρbrine = 1.02g/cm3).
4. Open the valve between the big and small beakers to allow the brine
to flow into the large cup, filling it to the point when the core is
completely submerged in the brine. Then shut off the valve.
5. Now, open the vacuum pump's valve to the big beaker and operate
the pump for 1 hour. The air bubbles will emerge by the vacuum's
pressure, displacing the air packed inside the pores with the
weathering fluid.
6. Continue operating the vacuum pump until the bubble has vanished
and the core is saturated. To ensure complete saturation, place the
sample under vacuum pressure overnight.
7. Weigh the saturated plug Wsat.
This experiment's report and calculations are helpful for:

67
 • determining the saturated brine weight,
Wbrine = Wsat-Wdry (4.1)
• Determine the pore volume (volume of saturated brine),
Vp = Wsat/ρbrine (4.2)
• Determine the bulk volume by the following equation
1
𝑉bulk = 𝐴 ⋅ 𝐿 = 𝜋𝑑 2 ⋅ 𝐿 (4.3)
4
2
Where, A is the area in cm , d is the diameter of the plug-in cm, and L is
the length of the sample in cm.
• Determine effective porosity using the formula
𝑉p
𝜙= × 100% (4.4)
𝑉bulk

Figure 4.11: Core sample saturation system.

4.3 System of Matrix Acidizing (Design and Setup)

The goal of this part is to determine the specifications and components
needed to build the core flooding system, which must be accomplished by
managing the necessary conditions for testing on various dimensions
specimen at flow rates equivalent to those seen in the majority of
sophisticated core flooding laboratories that imitate field conditions
(temperatures and confining pressure). The schematic of the device is
shown in Figure 4.12. In order to perform the tests, the acid and brine are
pumped and heated in the accumulators before being pumped over the

68
specimens in the core holder; this is accomplished via the test technique
and the specific conditions. A hydraulic pump confines the core sample
inward to the core holder with a rubber sleeve. At the end of the operation,
the cup quantifies the amount of discarded acid.
As part of the acidizing matrix experimentation, we use ORDEL software
to monitor the transducer (pressure sensor), which records both analog and
digital pressure data, to determine the acid response curve by measuring
the pressure differential across a rock sample at various points during this
process. The acid fumes are expelled via a laboratory exhaust system
containing all the equipment.

Figure 4.12: Laboratory configuration system for matrix acidizing (Alameedy,

2022b)

69
4.3.1 System prerequisites
The following are the major components deemed necessary for the setup:
• Pumps can be injected at a wide range of flow rates and operate in
constant pressure or steady flow rate modes.
• The core holders are made of a special alloy that resists acid
corrosion, is resistant to high temperatures and pressure, and can run
for an extended period.
• Accumulators hold the liquid and acid mixtures required for the
various runs at varying concentration rates.
• Temperature and heaters regulators employ thermal rope to boost
temperatures to appropriate stages and imitate reservoir conditions.
• Data acquisition system to collect data generated throughout the
acidification process and monitor future studies.
• Flow system tubes are a network for the many liquids utilized in the
experimentation, including acids, oil, or brine.
• Hydraulic pump delivers an appropriate pressure confining around
the plug sample within the core holder.

4.3.2 Components of the system

4.3.2.1 Pumps
A flexible pumping system is necessary for matrix acidizing experiments,
based on the peculiarities of the intended environment and each kind of
treated rock to influence the acidifying process. Most studies require that
the injection rate be constant to calculate pressure variations accurately in
the specimen as the fluids pass over the rock sample. Therefore, this is a
critical criterion to consider when designing a study.
Following an inspection of the petroleum engineering department's
laboratories, we determined that the ISCO LC-5000 PRECISION PUMP

70
is the best solution for our application (Figure 4.13). The ISCO pump is a
syringe-type that operates precisely, making it perfect for a wider variety
of applications, especially for chemical flooding support injection rates of
capable of 400 cc/hr at equipped pressures of 3700 psig; its cylinder
capacity of 5.00cc which qualified to provide a specific one cc/minute for
more than 10 hours on a single fill.

Figure 4.13: Teledyne LC-5000 Precision syringe pump.

The pump (LC-5000 PRECISION) works in a continuous flow mode and

features a digital pressure display in PSI or MPa. The barrel and piston of
the syringe are composed of stainless steel or an optional Nitronic alloy
that is more resistant to corrosive solvents and halogen acids. Pump seals
are made of graphite-filled Teflon. The pump is intended for applications
demanding accurate, pulse-free liquid delivery. The following are the
specifications for the syringe pump (see instruction manual for more details
(ISCO, 1985):
• Capacity: 500 ml.

71
• Flow range: 0.05 - 400 cc/hr in ranges of 1.5, 4, 15, 40, 150 and 400
ml/hr.
• Flow accuracy: ±1% of range ±1.5 µl/min.
• Flow Rate Stability Within a Range: ±2% over the total volume of a
cylinder.
• Flow Rate Repeatability: ±1% of the range over the same cylinder
portion.
• Pressure range (psi): 0 – 3700 (25.5 MPa).
• Pressure Accuracy: ±1% of full-scale.
• Pressure Repeatability: 1%.
• Refill Rate: 0-100 ml/min.
• Ambient Temperature Range: 0 °C to 40.0°C.
• Power Requirements 220 V, 55 Hz. .

• DIMENSOINS: PUMP
. CONTROLLER
Width: 26.0 cm . 26.0 cm. .

Depth: 42.0 cm . 28.0 cm. .

Height: 99.0 cm 23.0 cm.

• WEIGHT - PUMP 45.00 lbs. (20.50 kg) - CONTROLLER 13.30
lbs. (6.00 kg).

Figure 4.14 illustrates the second hydraulic pump, an Enerpac type,

which creates confining pressure around the plug sample within the core
holder. Below are the pump's specifications.
• Maximum Operating Pressure. (psi) 10,000.0
. .

• Pressure Rating (psig) 1st Stage.

. 200
• Cylinder Compatibility
. . Single-acting .

• Usable Oil Capacity. (in3) 20

Figure 4.14: ENERPAC type hydraulic pump.

72
4.3.2.2 Core-holder
The core hlder is arguably the essential component of the system for
. o

acidizing matrix, where it represents the chamber in which the specimen is

under confining to pass liquids through it. Due to the special characteristics
of the liquids to be used, the hydrofluoric and/or acids hydrochloric at
varying temperatures and concentrations, specific alloy material is required
for core holders. Our core-holders were built of Hastelloy TEMCO INC, a
corrosion-resistant material that can endure 10000 psi working pressures
and temperatures of about 300 °F; the core-holder has been upgraded to be
flexible for the size plug sizes 3.5-7.5 cm (the length), 3,78 cm (diameter).
The core holder accessible in the postgraduate laboratory is depicted in
Figure 4.15.

Figure 4.15: New modified core holder 10 cm diameter by 18 cm long.

An innovative temperature-resistant rubber sleeve has been developed

inside the cylinder to restrict the core once it is in use; the core holder has
a standard inlet and exit tip with ports of 3 mm and a distribution pattern
to contact the whole face area of the plug sample.

4.3.2.3 Accumulators
To resist corrosion, the accumulators are made of stainless-steel material
(Figure 4.16). They are made of anti-corrosion material and have capacities

73
of 1 and 2 liters, respectively, with the larger one for brine. The input and
output ports on both accumulators are 1/8".
The brine and acid are displaced by injection pumps, which deliver
hydraulic liquid through a Teflon piston, forcing the acid or brine to the
specimen through the tube network until they reach the top of the sample
and enter the core holder required time pressure and flow rate.
A flask is used to fill a plastic chamber with brine or acid, which is then
used to refill the accumulators. The liquids are then forced into the
accumulators using compressed air at a pressure of 6.9 bar from the
compressor, enabling them to be ready for testing. When the hydraulic
liquid within the accumulators is removed, the hydraulic line on top of the
accumulator must be vented to enable acids or brine to enter the
accumulators. This technique must be carried out for each accumulator on
a different occasion.

Figure 4.16: Piston accumulator.

4.3.2.4 Temperature controllers and heaters

It is commonly accepted that real reservoir temperatures are substantially
greater than laboratory temperatures. To simulate the various conditions
under which acidifying experiments are carried out, temperature becomes

74
an important factor to consider. Furthermore, Thermal effects on the
kinetics of chemical reactions and the reaction rate between acids and
minerals are well documented. Since the temperature affects mineral
dissolution and wormhole patterns, a heater is presumed and installed on
the apparatus to replicate real matrix acidizing conditions.
In Figure 4.25, a rope heater made of fiberglass material manufactured by
OMEGALUX is utilized in the laboratory setup. This rope heater can wrap
around connecting tubes as tiny as 3.3 mm in diameter. Depending on the
configuration, it can be used on either insulators or conductive surfaces. It
can withstand a maximum temperature of 480 C, has a power output of 400
watts at 220 volts, and has a length of one meter.
The rope heater was connected by covering it around the overall flow line
between the accumulator release and the inlet valve before entering the
core holder.

Figure 4.17: Fiberglass rope heater.

4.3.2.5 Acquisition of data

All process parameters, including injection rate, temperature, and pressure
drop through the core sample, must be recorded to keep track of the
acidizing experiments in real-time. Since the acidization investigation is
typically executed at a constant flow rate, the injection pump pressure
variations when the procedure takes place, primarily when the injected
fluid reaches the face of the core sample and also at the exit respectively.
The ISCO syringe pump controller can adjust the flow rate to the precise
amount necessary for the current run. The pressure drop is then determined
using a pressure transmitter sensor from KELLER. This pressure
transmitter includes an internal seal and a high insulation voltage of 300

75
VDC and is resistant to external influences. The advanced compensation
circuit enables a narrow total error band (KELLER, 2013). The following
table summarizes the operating range of the KELLER transducer:
• Pressure range: 0 to 1000 bar
• Total Error Band: ±1,5 %FS @ -10-80 °C
• Interfaces: 4-20 mA, 0-10 V
• Temperature Range: (-40)-(100) °C
The most frequent electrical output signals are shown in Figure 4.26
drawings using a device with a DIN cubic plug. The transmitter connectors
are made of 1/2" Hastelloy C276 tubing. Figure 4.18 shows the pressure
transmitter configuration of the system.

Figure 4.18: Electrical Output Signals Circuit for the pressure sensor (KELLER, 2013)

Figure 4.19: KELLER pressure transducers connected to the flow line system.

76
As seen in Figure 4.19, the device that collects and transmits electrical
signals from transducers and other sensor devices within a computer is
known as a data logger type UDL-100 board. There are 5 I/O channels on
the interface board's direct network interface (Figure 4.20).

Figure 4.20: Universal Data Logger UDL-100 (ORDEL, 2009).

UDL 100 Model devices transform different analogue signals used in

industrial contexts into digital values that may be transmitted to a computer
environment (Figure 4.21). UDL 100 Analog input type:
• 2= -75…+75 mv
• 3 = -15V...+15V
• 4 = -30mA...+30mA
• 5 = Thermocouple (B, E, J, K, L, N, R, S, T, U)

Figure 4.21: Connection Diagram (ORDEL, 2009).

The DAL08 software, which permits setup via computer and saves the
values acquired from the device on the computer, is included with the
device for free. All inputs are separated from the USB line and one another.

77
Figure 4.22 illustrates the recording mode for capturing millivolt signals
and converting them to a laptop (based data gathering system).

Figure 4.22: Data Acquisition Dal08 Program (main window).

4.3.3 Methodology for acidizing the matrix in considerable detail

The experiment may be carried out after the rock type, and treatment
characteristics to be pumped through the specimen have been specified.
The accumulators have been loaded with the appropriate fluids. The
complete technique is as follows:
 Connect the flow tubing, inlet and outlet tips, and pressure access lines
to the core holder after placing the plug sample within the core holder.
Ascertain that all of the connections are secure and that the valves are
positioned correctly.
 Check the pressure valves to pick which pressure gauges will be
employed to receive the signals. Although two scales are available,
we suggest starting with the highest, i.e., the 0-5000 psi range, and

78
 then working your way down to the lower range if this lower range is
below 500 psi.
 Examine the downstream line for by-pass valves that must be closed
and the input valve that must be opened to enable fluids to be
displaced through the core.
 For maximum performance, I have used an ENERPAC pump to raise
the confining pressure to 1500 psi and monitor the Overburden
Pressure display on the front panel to observe this pressure indication.
The hydraulic oil line should be connected to the ports in the core
holder.
 As much as possible, keep the pressure in both accumulators as
consistent as feasible by opening their inflow valves. Also, open the
brine accumulator's output valve.
 Assemble and begin the process by releasing the syringe pump's
discharge valve; next, using a key controller, pick a pump and set its
operational flow rate and maximum pressure. Start the lab exhaust
pump by turning on the exhaust system.
 DAL08 software would be used from the desktop throughout the
flooding experiment to monitor and observe the pressure.
 As the pressure builds at the end of the specimen, the fluids will begin
to flow out and fall into the container, so keep an eye on the flow
conditions and be patient. Make sure there aren't any high-pressure
leaks in the flow pipe. To begin data collection, the procedure must
be stable enough.
 Allow the brine to flow until the pressure decrease reaches a plateau,
indicating the natural permeability.
 To switch the fluids entering the core, open the HCl Preflush -valve
and shut the brine valve. The quantity of HCl required depends on the

79
 number of carbonate minerals present; in general, it is advised to
pump at least twice the volume necessary to dissolve the carbonate
mineral at the utilized acid strength.
 At this point, the HCl accumulator should be closed, and the brine
accumulator opened again to enable the brine to run through the core
and establish the ultimate permeability.

4.3.4 Precautions for Health, Safety, and the Environment

(COMMITTEE, 1995)
Due to the high pressure, high temperature, dangerous chemicals, and
heavy equipment used in laboratories, strict procedures must be followed.
The user is expected to be prepared, organized, and observant at all times
when using this application. Wearing a coverall suit is recommended,
exercising extreme care while handling any liquids, and having a plan for
when aid is needed. There is no acceptance for eating, drinking,
unregulated chemical spills, unlicensed use of equipment, or horseplay in
the laboratory. The laboratory supervisor and instructors must be informed
immediately if a rule is breached so that safety is not compromised.

The safety and attentiveness of correct procedures are best maintained by

having two people in the laboratory during the pre-experiment phase. A
single user should be accountable for all processes and has expertise in
doing core flood experiments before. A successful transfer of knowledge
occurs with the second user. The laboratory should be kept clean, and any
potential trip risks identified. Safety goggles, gloves, a lab coat, long
trousers, and closed-toed shoes are required. When inserting and removing
core holders, it's best to wear shoes with steel toes. An acid mask or face
shield is suggested when making acid mixes or pouring acid into a refill
tank. A cold, dry, ventilated space with strong drainage capabilities is best

80
to keep acid. Acid solutions should never be diluted with water since this
will result in a fast heat buildup.
In the case of an acid incident, follow the steps outlined in the Safety Data
Sheets:

• In the inhalation issue, take a deep breath and exhale slowly. If

someone isn't breathing, they should be given artificial respiration.
Make sure the person can breathe by giving them oxygen if
necessary. The sooner you get medical assistance, the better.
• Don't induce vomiting after ingestion. Large amounts of water or
milk should be given if available. If a person is unconscious, do not
give them anything by mouth. See a doctor as soon as possible.
• Skin Contact: Remove contaminated clothes and shoes and flush
skin for at least 15 minutes after contact. Before reusing a piece of
clothing, make sure it is clean. Before reusing shoes, thoroughly
clean them. The sooner you get help, the better.
• Keep your eyes well-hydrated for at least 15 minutes after any eye
contact, periodically elevating your lower and upper eyelids. As
soon as possible, seek medical help.
• If acid has to be disposed of, put on a mask and proceed to the blue
container. Close the jar when you've finished removing the acid. Do
not inhale vapors from a container that is still open. After using the
beaker or flask, it is instantly sanitized.

4.4 Ultrasonic Device

The new Sonic Viewer Model 5217A (Figure 4.23) can be concurrently
recorded in the laboratory using the transmitter and receiver or in the field
using a sledgehammer and receiver alone for measuring both Primary
(compressional) velocity (Vp) and Shear velocity (Vs). Sonic viewers can

81
boost the signal-to-noise ratio by combining data from many shots to raise
the signal-to-noise ratio to calculate the velocities of compressional
velocity (Vp) and shear velocity (Vs). The following are the new
SONICVIEWER's instrument standard specifications(OYO Corporation
Company, 1981):

4.4.1 Measuring unit

Gain From 10 x to 10,000 x (1, 2, 5 step increments)
Frequency range 1-150, 1-650 KHz (LPF 12db/oct)
A/D conversion 8 bits
Enhancement function Performs any number of additions
Memory size 12 bits x 256 words
12 bits x 512 words
Pulse range 64, 128, 256, 512 pps
Measuring range 20 (1S to 20 mS at 256 words
40 fi S to 40 mS at 512 words

Figure 4.23: Sonic Viewer Model 5217A.

82
4.4.2 Carrying out measurements.
Methods for performing measurements of P and S wave velocities are
discussed in this section. The time it takes for the electric pulse to be
received by the transducer and translated into a seismic pulse is measured
in microseconds. This time delay must be corrected when data is converted
from analog to digital. The technique for doing this change is Zero
adjustments. Because the resonance frequencies of the P wave and S wave
transducers are different, correction must be accomplished independently
for each.

4.4.2.1 Zero-adjustment
(1) Choose between a set of S wave or P wave transducers. One transducer
should be connected to the TRANSMITTER connection, while the other
should be connected to the RECEIVER connector.
(2) Set SAMPLE TIME to 200, PULSE RATE to 512, DISPLAY to x 1
ALL, DISPLAY to A+B, FILTER to OFF, INPUT GAIN to 10 or 20, and
OUTPUT GAIN to 3 or 4.
(3) Turn the POWER button to ON and attach the 12-volt battery to the
POWER connection (T).
(4) Apply Vaseline or other lubricants to the contact surfaces of the
transducers. Please make sure the transducers are in perfect contact by
stacking them face to face.
(5) Press the REPEAT button on the MODE switch. No correction is
required if a waveform is generated with the arrival time completely
aligned to the vertical index line, as shown in Figure 4-24. If you get a
waveform, as in example (1), where the arrival time is to the right of the
index line, move the TIME knob to the left to modify. If you get a
waveform like the one in the example, change it by rotating the knob to the
right.

83
(6) The zero adjustment is now complete.

Figure 4.24: Zero adjustment of waveform display (OYO Corporation Company,

1981).

4.4.2.2 Measuring the Tp of the core samples

1. Connect the P wave transducers and perform the zero-adjustment
procedure.
2. Apply Vaseline or other lubricants to the contact surfaces of
transducers to ensure proper contact with the sample.
3. If the core length is about 10 centimeters, set the SAMPLE TIME
switch to 200 and the PULSE RATE switch to 256.
4. If the core length is more than 10 centimeters, set the SAMPLE
TIME switch to 256. Then set the INPUT GAIN switch to 10 or 20,
the OUTPUT GAIN switch to 3, the DISPLAY switch to x 1 ALL,
the DISPLAY switch A+B, and the SHIFT knob to 0 if necessary
(all the way to the right).
5. Turn the MODE switch to the ENHANCE position. Continue to add
functions until it is no longer feasible to differentiate between the
initial arrival point and the other points.
6. When the initial arrival can be distinguished clearly, move the
MODE switch to the center position to turn off the amplification.
Use the SHIFT adjustor to align the initial arrival with the vertical

84
 index line on the screen. The transmission time is shown at the
bottom of the CRT display.
7. Select the RECORD switch setting and then press the RECORD
switch button when you want a tangible copy of the data.
8. When both a short and a long core sample must be measured with
the same sampling time, that is, at the same degree of temporal
resolution, the memory capacity may be increased from 256 to 512
words (changing DISPLAY switch setting of x 1 ALL to x 2).

4.4.2.3 Measuring the Ts of the core samples

1. As specified in Section 4.3.2.1, connect the S wave transducers and
perform the zero adjustments.
2. The approach for measuring S waves is the same as for measuring
P waves. It's worth noting that distinguishing initial arrival with S
waves is more difficult than with P waves. As a result, determining
the phase is useful.
3. Carry out a zero-adjustment procedure. A channel is used to store
data.
4. After that, save waveforms in the B channel.
5. Calculate propagation speed based on phase differences between A
and B channels.

The following equations were used to calculate the values of compressional

and shear wave velocity (Vp and Vs):
𝐿
𝑉𝑃 = 0.1 (4.5)
𝑇𝑃
𝐿
𝑉𝑆 = 0.1 (4.6)
𝑇𝑆
VP & VS are Primary and Secondary wave velocities (Km/sec),
respectively, L is the length of the sample (cm), and Tp & Ts are transit time
in a microsecond.

85
4.5 Image Processing of Computer Tomography (CT) Scan
Computer Tomography (CT) scanning can be used to properly determine
the shape of interior wormhole propagation in rock samples after acid
injection. Moreover, three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) scans
provide detailed information on the sample's fracture shape, direction, and
distribution. The raw version of the CT scan pictures of the core recorded
in this format is Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine
(DICOM). One way to think about it is that they may be seen as a virtual
representation in the 3D form of the core and its disintegration structures
when combined and processed into a 3D model. There are many pixels in
each image, each corresponding to the density of items scanned using X-
ray CT. Low-density materials have negative pixel values and show in raw
CT scans as black pixels. By contrast, dense materials have high, positive
pixel values and display white pixels in raw CT scans. Thus, when viewing
CT scans of core samples, the black pixels inside the core cross-sectional
region reflect dissolution structures, whereas the white and light grey
pixels show undissolved rock.

Because CT imaging is primarily employed in the medical industry, most

CT image viewing and processing software are designed with medical
applications in mind. Because of this, certain computer programs must be
used for rock analysis. The analysis and processing of DICOM data,
intended for medical use, was carried out using the Software 3D Slicer for
image processing (Figure 4.25).

86
 Figure 4.25: Software 3D Slicer for image processing.

Before creating 3D representations of the wormhole extension, DICOM

data need to be pre-processed. Prior to proceeding to the next processing
stage, the outlying pictures that are not part of the core are cropped using
3D Slicer. The Crop Volume tool specifies each thin slice for the region of
interest inside the plug's cross-sectional area. Pixel values outside the area
of interest are set to the greatest degree of whiteness (2789) to reduce
picture noise and improve visual comprehension (Figure 4.26).

Figure 4.26: Reduce picture noise and improve visual comprehension.

87
Results and
Discussions
Chapter 5: Results and Discussions
5.1 Core measurement analysis
Matrix acidizing experiments results were introduced in this chapter, covering
the most recent developments in linear core flooding. An updated global
wormhole propagation model and new equations for computing the skin factor
as a consequence of matrix acidizing in anisotropic carbonates are among the
latest advances offered by this investigation. Furthermore, the assessment of
rock geomechanical properties and elastic and petrophysical parameters
before and after acid injection, Finally, the design and estimation of the best
feasible result of a matrix acidizing procedure are provided (Figure 5.1).

Impact of Acid
Treatment

Mineral composition and description

CT Scan Reservoir Simulation Validation of the Acid Treatment and

Acid Core Flood
and Production experimental work to Geomechanical
Experiments
Analysis the field scale Properties of Rocks

Properties of Gelled Acid

Velocity Sensitivity to
Acidized Rock

Well Performance after Acidizing Treatment Porosity and

Wormhole relation to
the Elastic
Characteristics of Rock
Get the Optimum Acid Injection Rate
Impact of Acid
Treatment on Acoustic
Upscaled Global Model for Wormhole Propagation Wave Properties

Figure 5.1: Work flow of matrix acidizing experiments results in this chapter.

88
The new core flooding system is built to operate safely and straightforwardly.
The objective is to displace various fluids under diverse circumstances; the
operating technique is outlined in section 4.2. The wetted sections are
constructed of Hastelloy, an acid-resistant alloy; a core holder will be
available for a variety of core sizes, and a syringe precision pump provides
for a broad range of flow rates (from 0.05 to 400 cc/hr) at high pressures (up
to 3700 psi). According to the oil ministry's data release letter, we received a
1.34 m rock core section from the Mi4 unit, more precisely from the Mishrif
formation. The Ahdeb field's operator, CNPC (Al-Waha), has previously
drilled this core section and extracted plug samples with a diameter of 2.5 cm
for the reservoir development plan. Therefore, only a limited number of
specimens (11 plugs) were recovered from this core section with a 3.78-cm
diameter and length variation (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2: Extracted plug samples with a diameter of 2.5 cm from the core section.

5.2 Mineral composition and description

The thin section photomicrographs of the cored sections of Mishrif reservoir's
well Ad-12 used for this study are shown in Figure 5.3, where 11 samples
were extracted from section 2805.68~2805.71 m composed mainly of
echinoderm green algae micrite limestone a texture with biological burrow
texture, the internal ring is composed of echinoderm and core is formed of

89
gastropod, green algae. The overall texture is an echinoderm, green algae
micrite texture, large globigerina, and beehive worm, dominantly consisting
of micrite orbitolina sand grain limestone. Limestone predominated by
orbitolina debrisbystrong solution, also named as orbitolina sand grain, visible
dividual orbitolina and echinoderm with a large amount of sand grain with a
strong solution and dense gathering. The lithology comprises a wide range of
limestone. Both plugs' samples are composed mainly of calcite mineral and 1
– 1.5% clay content; the filling material is micrite. Table 5.1 shows the
mineral composition of the experimental core samples obtained using X-ray
diffraction (XRD) analysis.

Figure 5.3: Photomicrographs for the two cored sections of the Mishrif reservoir’s well
Ad-12 (a) for sample 1 ; (b) for sample 6.

Table 5-1: Mineral composition of target formation and experimental core samples
obtained using XRD

Samples No. Calcite (%) Clay (%) Fluorite (%) Pyrite (%)
12 98 1.0 0.5 0.5
13 98 1.5 0 0.5
Figure 5.4 show XRD test of plug# 6 where the results confirm that the
domain mineral is calcite about 98% while the remain mineral is quartz (3%).
There are 34 zones interpreted in this well; an aggregate of 135.8m is
accumulated with the overall thickness of the 19 oil and poor oil zones. The

90
entire thickness is 57.2m, with seven transition zones. There are eight waters
zones with an overall thickness of 150.8m.

Figure 5.4: XRD test of plug# 6 before acid injection.

Mishrif formation is an oil layer, the effective porosity is around 22 %, the oil
saturation is about 84 %. The petrophysical evaluation based on logging data
for the Mi4 unit in Mishrif reservoir for well Ad-12 is provided in Table 5-2.
It is necessary to distinguish between oil-rich and oil-poor zones.

Table 5-2:Well log interpretation for Mi4-Mishrif Reservoir in well Ad-12.

Depth Permeability Porosity Rock density Lithology
2803.00～2803.03 3.89 10.5 2.41 Brown oil-rich limestone
2803.47～2803.50 12.7 22.2 2.10 Brown oil-rich limestone
2803.84～2803.87 16.7 22.9 2.06 Brown oil-rich limestone
2804.16～2804.19 16.9 22.6 2.08 Brown oil-rich limestone
2804.52～2804.55 37.8 21.1 2.12 Brown oil-rich limestone
2804.86～2804.92 26.0 24.4 2.03 Brown oil-rich limestone
2805.68～2805.71 17.3 24.0 2.04 Brown oil-rich limestone
2805.81～2805.84 8.41 20.4 2.14 Brown oil-rich limestone
2805.84～2805.87 15.6 20.4 2.15 Brown oil-rich limestone
2805.87～2805.90 56.6 23.2 2.07 Brown oil-rich limestone
2805.90～2805.93 3.27 20.7 2.13 Brown oil-rich limestone
The oil-rich zones show higher resistivity, the oil saturation of these zones is
larger than 47 %, the effective porosity is greater than 10.5 %, shale volume

91
of most oil zones is typically less than 10 %. This reservoir's comprehensive
geological and fluid properties are provided in the appendix in Table A1.

The core sample's cutting, cleaning, drying, saturating, and weighting are all
covered in detail with procedures in Chapter 4. Table 5-3 lists the dimensions
and weights of dry and wet core rock samples, as well as the precise depth at
which each specimen was acquired. Due to the delicate nature of the plug
specimen, several of the plugs shattered after applying confining pressure
during the core flooding trials to evaluate permeability. Obviously, any cell
with a red background in Table 5-3 indicates an undamaged plug sample.
Table 5-3: Lists the dimensions and weights of dry and wet core rock samples.
Dry Weight Dry Weight (g) Sat Weight Length Diameter
Plug # Depth
(g) (after cleaning (g) (cm) (cm)
1 2798.37 156.22 155.12 165.5 6.2 3.775
1 2798.37 105.54 102.25 112.5 4.145 3.775
2 2798.43 191.96 190.1 204.22 7.45 3.775
2 2798.43 109.21 108.49 113.5 4.195 3.775
3 2798.76 188.14 187.5 200.93 7.4 3.775
4 2798.81 197.39 196.6 209.8 7.65 3.775
5 2798.975 182.02 180.5 192.93 7.05 3.775
6 2799.125 209.25 208 215 7.03 3.775
7 2799.18 197.23 196.36 204.7 7.335 3.775
8 2799.41 195.38 194.78 205.60 7.325 3.775
9 2799.465 201.56 200.73 211.89 7.575 3.775
10 2799.65 214.62 213.48 225.16 8.135 3.775
10 2799.65 187.69 187.69 201.4 7.2 3.775
10 2799.65 165.63 164.84 171.89 6.25 3.775
11 2799.7 103.1 103.1 109 4.02 3.775

The porosity of the rock sample is being tested using the saturation method
by taking the weight of the plugs, both while they are dry and after they have
been saturated with water. As a consequence of knowing the plug's
dimensions, it is possible to calculate the bulk volume. The porosity is
computed by dividing the pore volume by the core bulk volume. The pore
volume, bulk volume, and effective porosity are calculated from the observed

92
values in Table 5-4 using the equations 4.1 through 4.4 given in Section 4.2.4.
The average porosity presented in Table 5-4 is determined using the
connection between laboratory porosity and log porosity.

Table 5-4: The pore volume, bulk volume, and effective porosity calculated from the
observed values.
Plug # VB Vpore 𝝓 𝝓log 𝝓Avg
1 66 8.831 14.1 12.7 13.4
1 46.41 6.43 15 12.7 13.8
2 83.41 11.72 14.7 13.4 14
2 46.97 5.65 10.7 13.4 12
3 82.86 11.99 15.4 13.5 14.5
4 85.66 11.77 14.5 13 13.7
5 78.94 10.03 13.8 11.6 12.7
6 78.71 6.73 7.3 9.8 8.6
7 82.13 7.92 9.1 10.2 9.6
8 82.01 9.21 12.5 10 11.2
9 84.82 9.53 12.2 10.3 11.2
10 91.09 10.28 11.6 11 11.3
10 69.98 7.05 10.1 11 10.1
11 45.01 5.65 13.1 12 12.6

A typical core flood experiment of plug# 5 is shown in Figure 5.5, with the
pressure differential accumulation curve. The core inlet pressure is
subtracted from the core output pressure, known as the pressure drop across
the plug sample. For the system to be suitable for acid injection, the pressure
difference must be stable, and the permeability may be determined using
Darcy's equation. As indicated in Figure 5.5, the case started with a 5 cc/min
flow, which resulted in a stable pressure of 291.2 psi at time 11:13. When the
brine flow rate was increased to 7 cc/min, the pressure stabilized at time 11:22,
which resulted in stable differential pressure of 340.6 psi.

93
 Figure 5.5: Typical core flood experiment of plug# 5.

The Darcy's Law equation for a linear flow is used to determine rate
permeability. The following is a popular expression:
𝑄𝐴Δ𝑃
𝑘 = 0.068046 (5.1)
𝜇𝐿

Where A is the cross-sectional area of the plug sample in cm2; ΔP is a pressure

drop in psi; L is the core length in cm, µ is the viscosity in cp, and Q is the
flow rate in cc/hr.
Checking for repeatability is an excellent idea for the core flooding system, as
a quality control measure, by varying the flow rate to test whether the
permeability is the same for each run in the same plug sample. The viscosity
of brine water at room temperature is one cp; we performed four core flooding
tests on sample number 1 to determine the permeability value; as shown in
Figure 5.6, there is a strong correlation factor (R=0.99) between flow rate and
pressure drop, so the permeability values for each run were calculated and

94
ranged from 0.19 to 0.25 md. As a result, it is concluded that the core flooding
system performs very well owing to its high repeatability. The permeability
of the other plug samples was determined using the same brine, and results
ranged between 0.17 and 1.52 md, indicating that the permeabilities are
proportionately low with a little variation. A representative core flood
experiment is displayed for each run, and the pressure differential
accumulation versus time graphs are included in appendix A.
700
Plug #1
600
R² = 0.9909

500

400
Δp (Psi)

300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Q (cc/hr)

Figure 5.6: Four core flooding tests on sample # 1.

5.3 Acid Core Flood Experiments

This section describes how to get the optimal acid injection rate from the
experimental data, as well as the outcomes of the experiments.
5.3.1 Basic Properties of Gelled Acid
Acid diversion is critical for stimulating vertical wells with extended target
zones or horizontal wells in carbonates (Bazin, Charbonnel and Onaisi, 1999).
Increased viscosity of the injected acid and a delay in the acid interaction with
the formation are two benefits of in-situ gelled acids; it improves treatment

95
efficiency. In addition, the gel should break down quickly as the acid is
depleted, allowing for better clean-up when the acid treatment is completed
(Taylor and Nasr-El-Din, 2001). Table 5-5 shows the properties of the gelled
acid; the viscosity of reacted acid is only 3 mPa.s (equivalent to that of water).
Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no harm to the fracture and
formation after the matrix acidization operation.
Table 5-5: Basic properties of gelled acid.

Items Test result

Appearance Red-brown viscous uniform liquid
Viscosity, 170s-1, 25℃, mPa·s 45
Viscosity, 170s-1, 90℃, 60min, mPa·s 30
Static corrosion rate, 90℃, g/m2·h 4.79
Surface tension, mN/m 23.75
The capability of stabilizing ferric ion, mg/mL ＞100
The viscosity of reacted acid, mPa.s 3
Chemical’s concentration of the diverting acid: 15% HCl, 1.0% ADH-1 (Corrosion
inhibitor), 1.5 % ADT-1, and 6% ADZ-1.

5.3.2 Analysis of the Volumetric Dissolving Power (𝝌).

In this section, the volumetric dissolving capability of acids was examined. It
is expressed as the mass or volume of mineral that is consumed by a certain
quantity of acid. The dissolving capacity of acid is determined using an
empirical calculation. (Economides et al., 2013) provided the following
gravimetric dissolving power, 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑎 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛:

𝜈mineral 𝑀𝑊rineral
𝛽= (5.2)
𝜈acid 𝑀𝑊acid

𝜈 is the volume of mineral (limestone) and acid (HCL) respectively, MW is

the Molecular Weights mineral (limestone) and acid (HCL) respectively.

96
Consider the reaction of 100% HCl and 100% CaCO3; the gravimetric
dissolving power (𝛽), can be computed using equation 5.2.
(1)(100.1) 𝑙𝑏𝑚 CaCO3
𝛽100 = = 1.37
(2)(36.5) 𝑙𝑏𝑚 HCl
The above outcome (𝛽100 =1.37) can be easily converted to any other
concentration; in our case, we used a 15% concentration of HCl in the core
𝑙𝑏𝑚 CaCO3
treatments; thus, 𝛽15 = (0.15)𝛽100 = (0.15) ∗ 1.37 = 0.21
𝑙𝑏𝑚 HCl

An acid solution's volumetric dissolving power 𝜒 is linked to its gravimetric

dissolving power by the following equation:

𝜌acid solurion
𝜒=𝛽 (5.3)
𝜌mineral

We utilize a 15% HCl solution, which has a specific gravity of 1.07, and
CaCO3 has a density of 169 lbm/ft3. This species' reaction has a volumetric
dissolving power of:

𝑙𝑏𝑚 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3 (1.07)(62.4)(𝑙𝑏𝑚 15%𝐻𝐶𝑙)(𝑓𝑡 3 15%𝐻𝐶𝑙) 𝑓𝑡 3 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3

𝜒15 = 0.21 ( )( ) = 0.082
𝑙𝑏𝑚 15%𝐻𝐶𝑙 169(𝑙𝑏𝑚 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3 )/(𝑓𝑡 3 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3 ) 𝑓𝑡 3 15%𝐻𝐶𝑙

When we compared the volumetric dissolving power derived by Equation 5.3,

which was 0.082, to the average (0.068) volumetric dissolving power of
Gelled Acid used in our testing, we noticed that it was somewhat greater.
Obviously, this variation is more apparent when one looks at the tested plugs
in Table 5-6. For example, plug# 11 has a relatively low injection rate of 0.25
cc/min and dissolving power of 0.069, allowing for more efficient wormhole
propagation than plug# 7, which has a 0.67 cc/min injection rate and a
dissolving strength of 0.041. Furthermore, plugs 6 and 2 display a confused
attitude of extremely high and very low volumetric dissolving power at a high
injection rate. As a result, the volumetric dissolving power value in matrix

97
acidizing treatment does not precisely correspond with the acid injection rate.
Figure 5.7 show XRD test of plug# 6 after acidizing where quartz mineral
eliminated from the plug comparable with intake case shown in Figure 5.4.
Table 5-6: Examined the volumetric dissolving capability of acids.

Weight (gm)
Before After Δw Dissolved Injec. Rate Inject. time Vol. of 𝜒 % (Vol.
Plug#
Acid Acid (g) Vol. (cc) (cc/min) (min) Acid (cc) Rock/Vol.Acid)
1 112.5 107.64 4.86 1.80 2.5 10 25 0.072
2 113.5 112.74 3.2 1.19 3.33 8 26.67 0.044
6 215 189.8 25.2 9.33 6.67 15 100 0.093
7 204.7 189.36 15.34 5.68 0.67 210 140 0.041
8 205.61 194.85 10.76 3.98 1.5 30 45 0.089
11 109 104.95 4.05 1.50 0.25 86.8 21.7 0.069
0.068

Figure 5.7: XRD test of plug# 6 after acid injection.

5.3.3 How to Get the Optimum Acid Injection Rate

Flooding experiments in the lab are often used to determine ideal matrix
acidizing conditions. This requires a lot of effort, a time-consuming and
expensive method since each curve point demands a full-scale investigation

98
of core flooding. The metal cast of a wormhole technique and the pressure
drop detected when acidizing carbonate cores in the laboratory are the most
often used methods for acidizing carbonate cores in the laboratory.
There are several studies on acid flow, yet it is the most straightforward to
regulate (Economides and Nolte, 2000). Several researchers' core flood
experiments have shown an appropriate injection rate for every fluid-mineral
system (as described furtherly in section 3.5). This rate determines the
effectiveness of a carbonate matrix acid treatment. The pore volume for
breakthrough 𝑃𝑉bt is a dimensionless number that measures the mount of acid
a

used to break through the core in terms of the pore volume. It is the ratio of
the volume of the injected acid when the wormholes breakthrough the core
over the pore volume of the core. It can be written as below equation 5.4.
𝑉acid 𝑞⋅𝑡
𝑃𝑉bt = = (5.4)
𝑉pore 𝑉core ⋅𝜙

The pore volume for wormholes’ breakthrough (𝑃𝑉bt ) is calculated based on

the injection rate (q (cc/min)) and injection time (t (min)). The injection rate
is set constant by the syringe pump during an experiment. The injection time
is the time for acid injection minus the time for acid flow from the acid
accumulator to the core inlet. Figure 5.8 shows a real record of plug#6 time
versus pressure drop; the injection time during an experiment can be
calculated by the steps below
1. When the acid flows out of the acid accumulator, record the local time
as t0 =10:33.
2. The homogeneous wormhole between the outlet of the accumulator and
the inlet of the core is calculated by the tubing length to multiply the
tubing void cross-sectional area. Since the tubing is bent, a tape can
measure the length. The tubing diameter and wall thickness can be

99
 looked up from the product information published by the tubing
company, so that the void cross-sectional area can be calculated. The
time for acid flowing out from the acid accumulator to the core surface
is simply calculated by the void volume over the injection rate. This
duration time is marked as t1=11:21.
3. When the wormholes break through the core, record the time as
t2=13:57.
4. When the brine valve is switched open, record the time as t3. When
the acid flows out of the acid accumulator, record the local time as t0.

Figure 5.8: Real record (Dal08) of acid injection for plug#6, time
versus pressure drop
When the acid attacks the core, the wormhole begins to form and the pressure
difference monitored by the transducer begins to decrease due to the
wormhole propagation, So the time for wormholing process is t = t2 - t0 - t1=
156 min, With the time t, the pore volume breakthrough is calculated by
equation 5.4.
Figure 5.9 depicts the plug sample's top-view photographs, which show the
entrance fluid flow on the right and the outlet flooding on the left,
respectively. Acid was injected at a rate of 0.067 cc/min into plug-9, requiring

100
a 14-pore volume of acid to break through the plug and 8 hours to finish the
test; when compared to the wormhole pattern, this run should be classified
face dissolution interaction. While the plug-2 injection rate was 3.33 cc/min,
the wormhole at the breakthrough needed 3.89 PV to achieve. In the acid
injection run for the plug-6, 6.67 cc/min of acid is injected into the wormhole
homogeneous dissolving. The appendix A included photographs of the
remaining specimens and their descriptions.

Plug-9

Plug-1

Plug-6

Figure 5.9: Photographs top-view of plug samples after acid injection (left-hand side is
the inlet face and the right-hand side is the outlet face).

101
The point for wormhole breakthrough can be easily identified because this is
the point when the pressure difference drops to the lowest value. For each
acidizing experiment, the result that is of interest is the pore volume for
wormhole breakthrough (PVbt) under a certain acid interstitial velocity (vi).
For a group of cores, vi is the only different parameter for every experiment
in this group. To calculate interstitial velocity, divide injection rate (q) by flow
area in porous media (𝐴 ⋅ 𝜙). Flow velocity through porous material is defined
as the average velocity of the fluid. It may be expressed in the following
equation:
𝑞
𝑉𝑖 = (5.5)
𝐴⋅𝜙

The evaluation of the dissolving patterns that will be created by the fluid-
mineral system is a critical aspect of planning a successful carbonate matrix
acidizing treatment. Therefore, to reap the potential of an acid stimulation
treatment, injecting the acid at the optimal rates for the specific fluid-mineral
system is essential (Akanni and Nasr-El-Din, 2015). Following acidification
with HCl 15 % weight, the intake face of limestone samples can be viewed
clearly; as can be observed, the wormholes formed as a result of mineral
dissolution are obviously visible. According to Figure 5.10, the intriguing
period where the optimum injection rate should be sought out starts from left
to right; the flow rates used to acidizing these plug samples were 1.5, 2.5, and
4 cc/min, respectively. As can be observed, the lower the flow rate is, the more
uniform the inlet face dissolution seems to be. The acid efficiency curve
yielded the lowest pore volume injected at the breakthrough of the 𝑃𝑉bt−opt
is 2.73; thus, the optimum injection rate that results in an optimal possible
wormhole and the least quantity of acid being used for this reservoir is 2.16
cc/min.

102
 40

35

30

25
Pore volume BT, PV

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Flow rate (cc/min)

Figure 5.10: The propagation effectiveness of wormholes determining in the

laboratory by graphing acid injection rate versus pore volume.

5.3.4 Ascertaining the appropriate injection rate

Choosing a reasonable flow rate of acid injection for each test is critical. There
are three distinct flow zones: the compact dissolving, the wormholes, and the
branching regions. High acid injection rate produces the branching zone; low
acid injection rate produces the compact dissolving part, and medium acid
injection rate creates wormholes.
The maximum injection rate may be determined using Darcy's law. There is
no backpressure (the outlet pressure will 14.7 psi); hence the greatest pressure
drop across the core is 3535.7 psi from the maximum 3550 psi pressure which
the syringe pump can supply. The greatest pressure drop is directly
proportional to the maximum injection rate. The maximum flow rate may be
determine using the core size and fluid viscosity and the rock permeability.
To avoid damaging the syringe pump, the flow rate of the experiment should i

103
be lower than the maximum flow rate necessary to stay within the limits of
the high-pressure pump.
Section 3.6.2 claimed that Buijse and Glasbergen (2005) established a
semiempirical model to estimate the breakthrough volume and wormhole
propagation rate of pores. In this case, their model could match our collected
data curve to find the optimal pore volume that generated the wormhole
(𝑃𝑉bt−opt. ) during the breakthrough and the corresponding optimal interstitial
velocity (𝑣𝑖−opt ). The following equations connect the pore volume at
breakthrough 𝑃𝑉bt and the interstitial velocity 𝑣𝑖 :
1/3
𝑣𝑖
𝑃𝑉bt = (5.6)
𝑊𝑒𝑓𝑓 ⋅𝐵(𝑣𝑖 )
1/3
𝑣𝑖−𝑜𝑝𝑡.
𝑊𝑒𝑓𝑓 = (5.7)
𝑃𝑉bt−opt.

2
𝐵(𝑣𝑖 ) = {1 − exp(−𝑊𝐵 ⋅ 𝑣𝑖2 )} (5.8)
4
𝑊𝐵 = 2 (5.9)
𝑃𝑉𝑖−𝑜𝑝𝑡.

The equations 5.6 to 5.9 can be combined into a single equation by replacing
one variable for the other, yield (Buijse and Glasbergen, 2005):
1/3 2 2
𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖
𝑃𝑉bt = 𝑃𝑉bt−opt ( ) {1 − exp 〈−4 ( ) 〉} = 𝑓(𝑉𝑖 ) (5.10)
𝑣𝑖−opt 𝑣𝑖−opt

From the experiment, it is possible to determine the values of 𝑃𝑉bt and 𝑣𝑖

straightforwardly. With the least squares approach, it is possible to fit the
experimental data, which will also result in 𝑃𝑉bt−opt and 𝑣𝑖−𝑜𝑝𝑡 being
calculated.
2
𝐽 = ∑𝑛𝑖 [𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡
𝑖
− 𝑓(𝑣𝑖𝑖 )] (5.11)
Where J is the difference between the observed and estimated values of pore
volume at breakthrough, and n denotes the number of data points from the

104
experiment. The residue J should be kept to a bare minimum in order to get
the best results. This may be accomplished by choosing the appropriate
𝑃𝑉bt−opt and 𝑣𝑖−opt parameters and applying the equation 5.11. It is possible
to rapidly and easily design the curve in an Excel sheet after the determination
of 𝑃𝑉bt−opt and 𝑣𝑖−opt . Figure 5.11 shows a fitting curve for a set of trials,
including nine plug samples.
Because of experimental error, there may be some degree of ambiguity or
faulty data points. Data like this will impact 𝑃𝑉bt−opt and 𝑣𝑖−opt curve fitting
outcomes and values. The minimum value of J found 3.62 yield the 𝑃𝑉bt−opt
is 2.73 and the 𝑣𝑖−opt =0.6 cm/min.
As a result, it is recommended that the negative data points clearly out of line
with the trend be removed. The curve may need to be recalculated.

Real Data

Fitted Data
Pore volume BT, PV

10

1
0.1 1 10
Interstial velocity, Vi (cm/min)

Figure 5.11: Picking the appropriate 𝑷𝑽𝒃𝒕−𝒐𝒑𝒕 and 𝒗𝒊−𝒐𝒑𝒕 parameters.

Study after study has shown a certain minimum quantity of acid is necessary
to propagate the core wormhole across a particular rock type, acid system,

105
flow rate, and temperature (Wang, Hill and Schechter, 1993; Fredd and
Fogler, 1998; Alameedy, 2022b). Comparing test results from cores with
different porosity and diameter is easier when interstitial velocity (vi) is used
instead of acid injection rate (q). Figure 5.12 shows the results of linear core
flow testing for several parameter combinations (temperature, acid type, and
rock). Our experimental data were redrawn using core samples collected from
the Mi4 unit, while other data were gathered from the literature (Fredd and
Fogler, 1998; Buijse and Glasbergen, 2005). Injection of HCl into limestone
results in this distinctive wormholing effect. Similarities in the curvature of
the curves are noteworthy. There are three unique zones, each defined by a
different kind of dissolution: face dissolution (low velocity), wormhole
dissolution (optimum rate), and uniform dissolution (high velocity):
1. If the injection rate or velocity is low enough, Hcl will quickly expand
on the front of the plug sample, and no or only brief wormholes
develop. Pore volume consumed is high at the time of breakthrough. As
wormholes will not grow lengthy enough to escape the damaged area
during an acid treatment, this must be avoided entirely.
2. When the acid injection rate is increased, wormholes begin to form
because the acid can go deeper before spending all of its energy. The
best injection rate is one that delivers just enough acid to the tip to allow
for the growth of a single wormhole while preventing excessive side
branching. The pore volume required for breakthrough is reduced to its
lowest possible value when the optimal rate of 𝑣𝑖−opt is achieved
(𝑃𝑉bt−opt ).
3. While many wormholes may arise at the wormhole's tip due to a strong
acid flow, the dissolving process is dominated by uniformity. A

106
 decrease in the pace of wormhole expansion will be the consequence of
tip splitting and side branching. Even though large injection rates may
still produce wormholes, the process is less effective than optimal
injection rates.
100

10
Pore volume BT, PV

Buij_Weff=1.3, Wb=25
Freddy_Weff=0.3, Wb=400
Freddy_Weff=1.1, Wb=8
Buij_Weff=1.35, Wb=0.4
0.1
Alameedy_Weff=0.3, Wb=1.68
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Interstitial velocity (vi)

Figure 5.12: The findings of the acid flooding test 𝑷𝑽𝒃𝒕 plotted as a function of the 𝒗𝒊 .
Data were obtained from (Fredd and Fogler, 1998; Buijse and Glasbergen, 2005); our
data was created by modeling using equation 5.10.

Generally speaking, the amount of acid needed to propagate a wormhole

grows slowly when the injection rate rises above the optimum. Still, when the
injection rate is below the optimum, the acid volume necessary to propagate
a wormhole drops fast. This suggests that a higher injection rate is preferable
to a lower injection rate.

5.3.5 Upscaled Global Model for Wormhole Propagation

The global models described in Section 3.6 are the most valuable resources in
designing and understanding acidizing treatments in carbonate rocks. Since

107
these models are based on empirical evidence, they need data from actual lab
experiments or observations in the field, depending on the acid system (Table
5-7). Wormhole propagation around a wellbore may be predicted using the
most prevalent models for upscaling our laboratory research. With such broad
channels, it is often thought that the pressure loss across the wormhole area in
carbonates is low, such that increasing the well's skin effect is equivalent to
creating new wormholes there. Due to this reason, wormhole propagation
models may be used to forecast how carbonate skin would evolve under the
acidic treatment of the matrix.
Table 5-7: All the required data from actual lab experiments and observations in the
field for well Ad-12.
rw (ft) 0.328 PVbt,opt 2.75 rwh,rep1 (ft) 3
φ 0.15 vibt,opt (cm/min) 0.6 rwh,rep2 (ft) 1
h (ft) 45 dcore (in) 1.5 f1 0.143
q (bpm) 2.5 ε1 0.53 f2 0.14
k (md) 15 ε2 0.63 αz 0.35
ks (md) 1.5 Lrep1 1 mwh 12.57
rs (ft) 0.828 Lrep2 1 NAcF 0.0146
βf 0.21 ρmatrix (gm/cc) 2.71 ρacid (gm/cc) 1.07
C0HCL 1 dewh (ft) 0.00183
The linear flow core flooding acidizing experiment was incorporated into the
wellbore upscaling using the four models described in Section 3.6. At the pore
scale, we determined the 𝑃𝑉bt−opt value to be 2.73 and the 𝑣𝑖−opt value to be
0.6 cm/min from Figure 5.11, while the remaining data in Table 5-7 were
obtained from real field reports and acid stimulation job data sheets (Figure
5.31). There is a comparison of rwh and time in Figure 5.13, including all
global models. Appendix B goes into further depth on calculation examples
of rwh for each model using the equations under section 3.6. Both the
volumetric model introduced by (Economides and Nolte, 2000) and (Buijse
and Glasbergen, 2005) model imply less wormhole penetration than the
upscaled models (Schwalbert, Zhu and Daniel Hill, 2017) model and the
(Furui et al., 2012) model). The volumetric model does not reflect the
sensitivity of 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 on acid flow, when injection time rises, the

108
underestimating of wormhole propagation in the non-upscaled models
becomes worse. Depending on the interstitial velocity at the radial distance to
which the wormholes have spread in the Buijse-Glasbergen model, the
wormhole velocity varies (rwh). According to Furui et al., their model can
accurately estimate the analogous wormhole diameter (dewh) of comparable
wormholes as long as the value employed is acceptable. The Schwalbert
model is more realistic than other models because it considers the varying
wormhole outcomes achieved at different sizes, and it utilizes the data
collected using cores of any size as input. Furthermore, it is used to verify its
usefulness in reproducing core flooding studies and at a greater scale near
field settings and to mimic situations that have not yet been tested, such as the
effects of the scale in wormhole propagation and anisotropic formations.
A prediction of wormhole propagation depth into the formation using the pore
volumes required to break through a rock/acid system, as shown by the models
provided. Carbonates rocks with a high degree of heterogeneity, including
naturally vuggy limestones or fractured, have a lower value for this
characteristic than more homogenous rocks.

3
rwh (ft)

Furui
SCHWALBERT
Volumetric
Buijes
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)

Figure 5.13: Application of wormhole propagation global models to calculate the

wormhole radius versus time for well Ad-12.

109
5.3.6 Monitoring how well the acidizing treatment performance.
When calculating and displaying the skin factor as a function of injection time
using the wormhole propagation findings from Figure 5.11, further assuming
the formation has a permeability of 15 md and a damaged zone with a
permeability of 5 md extending 0.5 ft into the formation. By calculating
Equations 3.17 to 3.20 in the manner outlined in Section 3.7.1, if the radius of
total damage (rs) penetrates 0.828 feet into the formation, equation 3.19 is
used to compute the skin for the volumetric model, while equation 3.17 is used
for the other models. Beyond the affected zone (distance of more than 0.828
ft), we calculated the skin factor vs. time using equation 3.20 for the
volumetric model and equation 3.18 for the rest models. The Schwalbert,
Furui, and Buiji Models are used to take a series of time steps and compute
the radius of wormhole propagation from Figure 5.13 at each discrete
injection time. All estimates of skin factor for these models are shown in
Figure (5-14); the acid injection rate in well Ad-12 was 2.5 bpm based on the
acid treatment report. As long as less than 1.88 gal/ft of acid is used to
stimulate this damaged well, wormholes may be propagated across the
damaged zone. As wormholes move deeper into the formation due to the
continued acid injection, the skin factor is expected to decrease with time.
Injecting at a greater pace might result in a more potent deep stimulation.
3
Volumetric
2 Buiji
Furui
1
Schwalbert
Skin Factor

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)

Figure 5.14: Application of wormhole propagation global models to calculate the skin
factor versus time for Well Ad-12.
The recorded data for the stimulated wells are taken from the build-up test
reports and shown in the Table 5-8. Evidently, Ad-12 build-up analysis yields
a skin value of -3.97, which is about comparable to the skin values of the other

110
models but is closer to the Shwalbert model. The models indicated
underestimated values, which may be attributed to the models' inability to
account for transient radial flow pressure analysis, well completion and heat
transfer modeling through real-time treatment.
Table 5-8: Field reported data for the stimulated wells claimed from the build-up test.
Well K (md) φ Skin Date of Test

Ad 2-3 62.54 19.43 -4.75 03/2012

Ad 2-3 13.00 19.43 -3.75 06/2012
Ad 4-1 5.36 19.48 -3.54 10/2012
Ad-12 15.04 19.1 -3.97 12/2011
Ad 5-11H 7.63 21.12 -7.52 03/2016
Ad 0-3H 11.84 20.85 -7.69 09/2018
Ad 3-5 25.94 19.54 -5.66 03/2020

5.4 Computed Tomography (CT)

Through computed tomography (CT) imaging, the internal architecture of
materials may be viewed in 3-D. The effect of acid core flooding was shown
using CT scanning technology. It will be possible to build more effective and
efficient acid stimulation plans for acid fracturing and matrix acidification if
the geometry of wormholes and the amount of dissolution are better
understood and measured. One approach to think about processing the CT
scan data is as a virtual representation in the 3D form of the rock core sample
and its disintegration structures when merged and processed into a 3D model,
as detailed in section 3. Non-destructive 3-D imaging was conducted using
computed tomography. CT-scan images of five acidized rock samples were
reconstructed using 3D Slicer software. A medical CT scanner was used to
scan the chosen plug samples were used to scan each sample before and after
it was subjected to acid treatment, respectively. Typically, the Siemens CT-
scan is configured to helical acquisition at 140kV and 500mAs at best
resolution. However, since the pitch of the helix is 0.35mm, some slices
overlap, and the slice spacing is 0.4mm. The actual slice thickness is 0.6mm.

111
The image reconstruction methods most often used are H70h or H60h, with
good image quality; however, there is some speckle noise and beam hardening
around the sample in the H70h. Contrast and noise reduction were prioritized
while scanning. Core-flooding tests were carried out at various injection rates
on different types of specimens. This causes the wormholes to differ in
structure from specimen to specimen, even within the same rock type. Figure
5.15 shows the CT scan of plug No. 8 where A represent the intake sample
whereas B represent the specimen after acid treatment with flow rate injection
of 1.5 cc/min, where the acid reaction is the dominant mechanism and so falls
into the Face Dissolution (FD) region creating branched wormhole, and
Figure 5.16 belong to plug number No. 1 after acid treatment with flow rate
injection of 2.5 cc/min, where the wormhole channel created as a result of
convection, and therefore falls into the Uniform Dissolution (UD) zone,
respectively.

A B

Figure 5.15: CT scan for sample 8; (A) before acidizing; (B) after acidizing with injection
flow rate of 1.5 cc/min.

A B

Figure 5.16: CT scan for sample 1; (A) before acidizing; (B) after acidizing with injection
flow rate of 2.5 cc/min

112
According to Figure 5.17, eight screenshots were taken from various angles
to illustrate wormholes' passage through plug sample 3, which was generated
by an acid injection that dissolved minerals and formed an open channel.
Moreover, the injection rate was relatively low (0.25 cc/min), which
consumed 33 pore volumes before its breakthrough the mineral matrix,
resulting in the convoluted path. This thrilling spectacle also demonstrates the
face disintegration pattern, as three wormholes were formed, only one of
which penetrated the whole specimen.

Figure 5.17: 3D view of CT-scan at different angles to illustrate wormholes' passage

through plug sample 3.

The similar attitude observed in plug-7 is evident in Figure 5.18; more

wormholes are formed at a higher acid injection rate than in plug 3, which was
0.67 cc/min; additionally, it seems the channel diameter appears larger and
requires approximately 6.9 pore volume to form a wormhole at breakthrough,
which is less than in plug-3. A lack of resident time in pores results in uniform

113
dissolution patterns and ineffective treatment under field situations when
fluids are applied at high rates.

Figure 5.18: 3D view of CT-scan at different angles for sample 7 after acid treatment
with flow rate injection of 0.67 cc/min.

5.5 Effect of Acid Treatment on The Geomechanical Properties of

Rocks
5.5.1 Ultrasonic Velocity Sensitivity to Acidized Rock
Measurements of wave velocity traveling through the medium could infer
changes in density and elastic characteristics, the two material qualities that

114
might impact wave propagation in the medium (Kolymbas and Viggiani,
2009). (Tudisco, 2013) noted that the rate of a wave is inversely related to the
square root of the material's density. The lithology, discontinuities, porosity,
and fluid content in the material's pores are all structural factors that affect the
elastic properties and, as a result, the wave propagation velocity. Elastic waves
travel faster or slower depending on the size and distribution of pores.
Ultrasonic elastic waves' propagation velocity may be affected by preexisting
or newly formed discontinuities (fractures or cracks) (Kranz, 1983). These
elastic velocities may be utilized to determine changes in the physical and
mechanical characteristics of the material owing to changes in the amount and
distribution of micro-cracks at various phases of rock sample deformation
(Butt et al., 2019). The size and form of the wormhole may be responsible for
the change in mechanical and physical characteristics of the rock (Mustafa et
al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2020). The velocity of elastic waves in rocks, and
particularly in reservoir rocks, is complex, with a wide range of factors
influencing the velocity. Various lithologies (sandstone, limestone, and
dolomite) exhibit a range of velocity magnitudes for a given porosity value,
which is represented in the lithology's dependency on the porosity value
(matrix effect). As previously established (Schön, 2015), a change from gas
to water in the pore fluid increases Vp significantly but only slightly decreases
Vs (pore fluid effect) Figure 5.19 . Both P wave and S wave transit times
increased following acid flooding treatments, which indicates that the Vp and
Vs decrease when a new wormhole is formed in a plug sample.

115
 2.400
Dry R² = 0.8354
2.200 Saturated R² = 0.8923
Acid R² = 0.812
2.000

1.800
Vs (km/s)

1.600

1.400

1.200

1.000
2.500 2.700 2.900 3.100 3.300 3.500 3.700 3.900 4.100 4.300 4.500
Vp (km/s)

Figure 5.19: Primary and shear velocity for the core sample at different cases (dry,
wetted and acidized)

Figure 5.20 shows a poor correlation between bulk density and primary
velocity (Vp) for a saturated plug sample before acidization. Still, it's important
to notice that the correlation rose to R2=0.86 after wormhole formation, and
Vp was slower than before treatment for the newly modified density of plug
sample. It's important to note that because of the changes in the porous media
structure caused by acid inundation, the wave propagation path has become
slower due to the presence of two distinct media: a hollow channel filled with
air and a porous matrix filled with brine. Shear velocity (Vs) has a similar
attitude; however, bulk density prior to and post acidizing correlates better
than primary velocity, as shown in Figure 5.21.

116
 5.000
Before R² = 0.5575
4.500 After R² = 0.8604

4.000
Vp (km/s)

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000
2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6

ρb (gm/cc)

Figure 5.20: Bulk density versus the primary velocity before and after acid treatment.

3.000
Before R² = 0.7557

2.500 After R² = 0.8949

2.000
Vs (km/s)

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6
ρb (gm/cc)

Figure 5.21: Bulk density versus the shear velocity before and after acid treatment.

5.5.2 The Effect of Porosity and Wormhole on the Elastic

Characteristics of Rock
An inverse correlation between effective porosity and compressional velocity
(VP) has been established in this work, as shown in Figure 5.22. This has been

117
shown by various investigators in different literary forms (Marques 1998;
Jermy, C.A., Bell 1998). However, rocks with a high porosity prior to acid
treatment but a persistent network of wormholes after acid treatment have a
propagation velocity that is inferior to that of rocks with a higher
predominance of pores as compared to micropores. In general, the higher the
porosity, the lower the propagation velocity. Figure 5.23 illustrates the
relationship between porosity and shear wave; it is consistent with the trend
in compressional velocity before acid treatment, however, the relationship
between porosity and shear wave (Vs) is less obvious after acid treatment. This
is due to the rock structural modification by acid dissolution, as the porosity
increases, Vs shows lower decline as compared to the slope before acid
flooding. Based on the established positive relationship between PVBT and
the relative increase in porosity of the rock plugs, it can be concluded that an
increase in PVBT will results to an increase in porosity and a consequent
decrease in the values of the acoustic properties of the rock

5
R² = 0.9062 After acid flooding

4.5 R² = 0.5643 Before acid flooding

4
Vp (km/s)

3.5

2.5

2
0.08 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.28 0.33 0.38 0.43
Effective Porosity

Figure 5.22: Prior and post acid treatment relationships between the velocity of
compressional waves (VP) and effective porosity

118
 R² = 0.2076 After acid flooding

R² = 0.3591 Before acid flooding

2.2

1.8
Vs (km/s)

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
0.08 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.28 0.33 0.38 0.43
Effective Porosity

Figure 5.23: Prior and post acid treatment relationships between the velocity of shear
waves (Vs) and effective porosity.

5.5.3 Impact of Acid Treatment on Acoustic Wave Properties

Following acid stimulation, it is preferable to ensure wormhole formation and

mechanical stability throughout the reservoir depletion stage. Acidizing

stimulation may be canceled out if a rock compaction failure occurs early or

midway during production. A wellbore stress behavior analysis and

stimulation design optimization are thus important to reduce rock failure as

well as compaction-induced permeability loss. Straight wormholes have the

least impact on rock strength (i.e., optimum injection rate). In contrast, conical

wormholes have the lowest injection rate, while branching wormholes have

the second-lowest injection rate. Acid treatments caused a decrease in YM

119
(surface rock hardness) as porosity rose. Increased porosity lowered density,

which aided in softening the rock. The mechanical qualities of wormholes are

affected by their form, with branching wormholes being less effective than

straight ones. Because of this, a straight wormhole formed by injecting acid

at an optimal pace is the least damaging to the formation.

There are various factors that affect the seismic velocities of rocks, among
which are density, lithology, mineralogy, porosity, weathering, grain size,
stress levels, joints and fractures, pore water, anisotropy, and temperature.
These parameters (i.e., the seismic velocities) are used to compute the rock
geomechanical properties such as elasticity modulus or Young’s modulus (E),
Poison’s ratio (PR), and rock material index (MI) of rock (Dobrin, 1976).
The P and S waves of all plugs were monitored before and after the acid
experiment to confirm that the presence of fractures-altered ultrasonic waves.
A comparison of ultrasonic waveforms with those of acid-treated and intact
saturated samples of rock was performed. The Figure 5.24 illustrates
laboratory measurements of Tp and Ts using the new Sonic Viewer device for
plug #1 before and after acid injection, where (a) represents the main wave
recorded for wetted specimen with brine and the picking first arrival time is
12.8 µs. The second plot (b) illustrates the sample's waveform after being
treated with acid at a 2.5 cc/min rate, which shows a delay time to pick the
first arrival of 14 µs, indicating that the rock characteristics have changed.
Although it is difficult to determine the first arrival time for shear wave
propagation, the same pattern as the primary wave can be recognized when
comparing the first arrival time before and after treatments. In plot (c), the
time was 24 µs and was delayed to 32 µs after acid injection (d).

120
 a b

c d

Figure 5.24: Front panle of Ultasonic measurements for plug 1, (a) & (b) is the
primary wave record prior and post acid treatment, repectivly, wherease (c) & (d)
is the shear wave both recorded before and after acid injection

The Figure 5.24 was reproduced using the GetData software by digitizing all

curves and re-plotting them in Microsoft Excel; the new resulted plots can be

recognized in Figure 5.25. Ultrasonic waveforms for both intact and fractured

specimens are shown in Figure 5.25, illustrating how fracture and fluid flow

alter velocity, amplitude, and frequency for plug sample No.1. The acid-

treated specimen's P-wave arrival time is longer than the intact specimens, and

the S-wave amplitude is significant compared to the intact specimen's

relatively low amplitudes. P-wave signals from intact and fractured samples

have a somewhat differing frequency.

121
 6.000 Tp_Bef_Acid
A Tp_Aft_Acid
4.000
Amplitude
2.000
0.000
-2.000
-4.000
-6.000
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000

Tp µs

4.000 Ts_Bef_Acd
B Ts_Aft_Acd
3.000
2.000
Amplitude

1.000
0.000
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
0.000 200.000 400.000 600.000 800.000 1000.000
Ts µs

Figure 5.25 Representative waveforms recorded in a plug sample No.1 for (a) the P-
wave (blue before acidizing and red after acidizing) and (b) the S-wave (green
before acidizing and orange after acidizing) pulses.

Waveforms of plug # 5 are shown in figure 5.26, which shows the time in a
microsecond that was captured. Before and after acid treatment are shown as
blue and orange, respectively. The acid injection rate was one cc/min, and the
pore volume needed to reach the wormhole during a breakthrough was 3.99,
indicating unequivocally that it is a face dissolving pattern. The initial arrival
time prior to acid treatment is 21.6 microseconds. A delay of 31.2
microseconds can be attributed to the wormhole channel and disintegration of
minerals in the rock. The time difference between these two recorded primary
waves represents the acoustic energy lost by the newly produced porous
medium, which signifies an increase in the number of air-filled pores.

122
 Figure 5.26: Primary wave forms of plug# 5, the recorded time in microsecond. Lines
represent: blue line before acid treatment and orange line after injection of acid.

5.5.4 Effect of Acid Treatment on Rock Mechanical Properties

This section compares the findings of acoustic velocities and dynamic elastic

characteristics, that is, the young’s modulus, Poisson's ratio, lateral earth

pressure at rest coefficient, and material index (Section 3.8.1 explains rock

geomechanical property theory and calculation) obtained before and after the

acidizing. It is possible for formation get damaged by drilling and production

activities, factors such as the migration of fines and mud invasions may alter

the permeability around the wellbore (Shafiq, Ben Mahmud and Arif, 2018).

Completion activities may cause a change in pressure and flow rate in a

wellbore, which is known as a mechanical skin factor (Yildiz, 2006; Furui,

Zhu and Hill, 2008). Damage around the wellbore formation might lead to

further pressure drops in the surrounding region, reducing reservoir

123
production. As a result, acidizing process is used to minimize the damage and

restore the reservoir's productivity by enabling the hydrocarbons to migrate

easily (Ghommem et al., 2015). High-permeability flow pathways are created,

and damage can be removed, to increase the well's performance. However,

during acidizing operations, acid dissolution of rock minerals would modify

the rock structure, the mineralogy, as well as the mechanical properties of the

artificially fractured rocks (Liu and Mostaghimi, 2017).

Therefore, the resulting effects of acid treatment on rock’s Young’s modulus

(E), for the seven rock samples studies are shown in Figure 5.27. The E values

before acid flooding are in the range (1.37x1010 – 2.77x1010), while after

acidizing, the E values are between (8.62 x109– 2.04x1010). This implies that

after acidizing treatment values of E showed a general reduction compared to

the value the pre-acid injection. As a measure of rocks stiffness, materials with

high resistance to being compressed (or extended) due to applied stress shows

larger values of E, while softer, less stiff rocks will have lower E values. Thus,

the results correspond to rocks weakening post-acid flooding. Since this

outcome is for the rock mass, that is, the whole core sample, not only the

fractured surface, it implies that wormhole is created which causes an increase

in void space in the rock and consequently, lower seismic velocities, and thus

Young’s modulus.

124
 Before
acid

3.00E+10

2.50E+10
Young's modulus, E (Pa)
2.00E+10

1.50E+10

1.00E+10

5.00E+09

0.00E+00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 5.27: Young's modulus (E) values pre- and post-acid treatment of rock samples.

The alterations in Poisson's ratio (PR) values are compared between pre- and
post-acid treated rock samples, and the results are shown in Figure 5.28.
Specifically, the findings revealed that the PR values of the rock samples
before acid flooding varied from (0.3–0.37), which corresponded to
moderately competent rocks. When it comes to the batch of acid-treated
samples, the PR values were in the range of (0.36–0.42). Rocks with greater
values suggest fracture or wormhole channel, with less rigidity and
incompressibility, whereas rocks with lower values indicate modestly intact
rocks.

After acid
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Poisson’s ratio

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 5.28: Poisson's ratio (PR) values pre- and post-acid treatment rock samples.

125
In geotechnical engineering, the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
(Ko) is crucial since it influences the strength and consolidation of rocks, as
well as the design of engineered structures such as optimal wellbore direction
to prevent instability. The knowledge of Ko can be used to optimize
stimulation jobs to avoid sanding after acidizing. A similar pattern is noticed
in this coefficient, which decreases in densely-consolidated sediments and
rises in loosely-consolidated strata. Rock samples pre- and post-acid treatment
were examined for changes in the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
values, as illustrated in Figure 5.29. A range of (0.43) to (0.59) was found for
the Ko values of the rock samples before acid flooding, corresponding to rocks
that were moderately consolidated before flooding. The Ko values for the
batch of acid-treated plug samples were in the range of (0.57- 0.73). Fracture
or wormhole channel is indicated by rocks with higher values, while rocks
with lower values show moderately confined micropores.

After acid
0.8
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest

0.7

0.6

0.5
(Ko)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 5.29: Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (Ko) values pre- and post-acid
treatment rock samples.

126
Material index (MI) values before and after acid treatment are shown in Figure
5.30. When compared to the original scenario i.e., intact rock samples, the
parameter's range between -0.2 to -0.49 indicates hard rocks. The values of
this parameter varied from - 0.45 to - 0.63 for the acid treated rock samples,
showing rock weakening as a result of rock mineral disintegration during the
acid reaction.

After Acid
-0.8
Before Acid
-0.7

-0.6
Material Index (IM)

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 5.30: Material index (IM) values pre- and post-acid treatment of rock samples.

The findings revealed that the mechanical qualities of the rock deteriorated
after acidification(Alameedy, 2022a). Longer and broader wormholes were
formed with a high acid injection rate (6.67 cc/min). In acid floods, rock
weakness does not always imply deterioration/sand production/instability;
additional aspects must be considered.

It is desirable to guarantee wormhole formation and mechanical stability

during the reservoir depletion stage after acid stimulation. If a rock
compaction failure occurs early or halfway during production, acidizing
stimulation may be canceled. In order to avoid rock failure and compaction-

127
induced permeability loss, a wellbore stress behavior study and stimulation
design optimization are required. Straight wormholes have the least amount
of influence on rock strength (i.e., optimum injection rate). Conical
wormholes, on the other hand, have the lowest injection rate, while branching
wormholes have the second-lowest injection rate. As porosity increased, acid
treatments reduced YM (surface rock hardness). Increased porosity reduced
density, assisting in the softening of the rock. The mechanical properties of
wormholes are influenced by their shape, with branching wormholes being
less effective than straight wormholes. As a result, forming a straight
wormhole by injecting acid at an ideal rate is the least destructive to the
formation.

5.6 Validation of the experimental work to the field scale

Sandstones and carbonates react differently to acidizing, which is taken into
consideration by Stimpro Software in their acidization model. As a result of
acidizing, new channels (wormholes) are formed in carbonates, bypassing
damage to the wellbore and allowing water to flow into the well. As an
alternative to developing new pore channels, acidizing sandstone displaces the
particles that block the existing channels.

Acid tends to migrate in a front around the wellbore in sandstone reservoirs.

The kinetics of dissolution in sandstones is surface-reaction restricted, which
accounts for a major part of the variance in behavior. Carbonates, on the other
hand, have a considerably more unstable process. HCl and HF acid are often
used in sandstone treatment to reopen and expand pore channels obstructed
by clays and siliceous fines. In order to prevent the clays from extracting
protons from HF, HCl dissolves any carbonates in the matrix, and HF
dissolves slow and fast-reacting silicates and carbonates.

128
The ability to calculate the optimal acid treatment volumes and concentrations
is typically a determining factor in treatment efficacy. The precipitation of
amorphous silica may occur as a consequence of secondary reactions from
spent acid rather than decreasing the skin's appearance. There are times when
excessively powerful acids might weaken and destabilize formation faces.

Engineers may use the Acidizing Design mode to rapidly and effectively
develop a treatment program depending on the requirements of the reservoir.
Stimpro will build a pumping schedule after selecting the proper fluids and
acids for the reservoir damage type. It will then be able to indicate the desired
reservoir penetration.

The order in which the fluid patches are administered and their exact time of
application are essential factors for designing a stimulation treatment. After
the technique of major acid injection, the pre-and post-flushing phases are the
most prevalent components of a treatment sequence. It was decided to do the
acidizing job on Dec. 2nd, 2011, for the well Ad-12 targeting the Mishrif
reservoir, particularly the Mi4 unit, to remove drilling and completion mud
damage to the pay zone and improve the performance of the formation by
enhancing the permeability; consequently, boost oil production. The whole
matrix acidizing job, including the data necessary for operation and the
outcomes in a summary report, is clearly shown in Figure 5.31. The acid job
began with a pre-injection of water. Pump pressure: 12.35-16.90MPa (1791-
2451 psi); Pump flow rate: 0.35m3/min (2.94 bbl/min); Total pre-injected
water volume: 2m3 (16.78 bbl). followed by the first injection of acid fluid
with Pump pressure was 14.48-17.40MPa (2100-2523 psi), pump rate was
0.38-0.42m3/min (3.19-3.522 bb/min), and total acid pumped was 20m3. The
last step was flushed with new water thereafter, by Pump pressure: 12.00-

129
13.00MPa (1740-1885 psi); Pump flow rate: 0.57-0.59m3/min (4.78-4.95
bbl/min); Total volume pumped: 17m3 (142.5 bbl).

In the following scenario, an acidizing carbonate treatment is investigated

with Stimpro to illustrate pressure matching of measured and simulated data,
skin evolution assessment, and a general analysis of an acidizing carbonate
treatment. To begin, create a new file to enter the details such as the well
survey, fluid type and specifications, and treatment schedule. Examine all
inputs by clicking the Next button to go through the various options. A vertical
well Ad-12 with perforated casing completion has a total depth of 3169.37 m
from where the acid operation was pumped into the perforation depths
(2798.0-2808.0) m and (2808.0-2813.0) m. The reservoir (Mi4) was
composed of limestone mainly divided into two sections with a porosity of
0.17-0.19, a pore fluid viscosity of 1.5-1.7 cp, a pore pressure gradient of 0.51
psi/ft, and a fracture pressure gradient of 0.751-0.76 psi/ft respectively. There
was a Preflush of 2 % potassium chloride brine, followed by the pumping of
20 % hydrochloric acid. Before shutting down, the same brine injected to
perform an overflush. The total amount of acid used in the job was 34.5 m3.
Surface pressure and pumping rate were recorded during the job. All the
entered data is shown in considerable detail in tables 5-9 to 5-18.

Table 5-9: Acidizing Summary

Reservoir Temperature (°F) 200 Average Reservoir Pressure (psi) 4,694

Pore Fluid Permeability (mD) 15-60 Porosity 0.190

Reservoir Viscosity (cp) 1.637 Frac Pressure (psi) 6,995

TVD to Top of Open Section (m) 2,798 TVD to Bott. of Open Section (m) 2,813

Figure 5.31: Daily Acidizing report for Well Ad-12

130
 Acidizing Type Carbonate Acid Volume (bbls) 103.9

Avg. Surface Pressure (psi) 2,534 Max. Surface Pressure (psi) 2,627

Initial Skin 0 Final Skin -3.97

Table 5-10: Fluid Parameters

Fluid Name 2% KCl Brine Fresh water 15% HCl Gelled Acid
Preflush/Overflush
Description fresh water Gelled Acid
Fluid

HCl Conc. (% mass) 0.0 0.0 20.0

Fluid Density 1.000 1.000 1.080

Diffusivity (ft²/min) 4.30e-06 4.30e-06 4.30e-06

Retardation factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Filtercake Porosity 0.01 0.01 0.01

Filtercake Permeability (mD) 1.00e-04 1.00e-04 1.00e-04

Initial Viscosity (cp) 1.00 1.00

Initial n' 1.000

Initial k' (lbf·s^n/ft²) 2.10e-05

Wellbore Friction Multiplier 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table 5-11: Formation Layer Parameters

Frac
Top of Pore Fluid Reservoir Compres Pore
Layer Pressu
zone MD Lithology Permeability Viscosity sibility Porosity Pressure
# re
(m) (mD) (cp) (1/psi) (psi)
(psi)
1 0.0 Shale 0.00e+00 2.000 5.00e-06 0.000 3,045 5,000
2 2,798.0 Limestone 15 1.500 5.00e-06 0.170 4,686 6,900
3 2,802.7 Limestone 60 1.700 5.00e-06 0.190 4,698 7,001
4 2,813.0 Shale 0.00e+00 0.030 2.49e-04 0.000 4,015 7,383

Table 5-12: Damage Profile

131
 MD Damage Original Damage Damage Damage
Int
(m) Severity Skin Penetration Depth(ft) Composition
1 Light 0.0 Shallow 0.00 Shale
0
2 2,800 Light 3.0 Shallow 0.20 Limestone
3 2,807 Light 3.0 Medium 0.30 Limestone
4 2,813 Light 0.0 Shallow 0.00 Shale

Table 5-13: Drilled Hole Configuration

Length (m) Segment Type Eff Diam (in) Bit Diam (in)

2,814 Open Hole 8.500 8.500

Table 5-14: Casing Configuration

Length (m) Segment Type Casing ID (in) Casing OD (in) Weight (lb/ft) Grade

2,814 Cemented Casing 6.520 7.000 17.000 N-80

Table 5-15: Surface Line and Tubing Configuration

Length (m) Segment Type Tubing ID (in) Tubing OD (in) Weight (lb/ft) Grade
2,700 Tubing 2.362 2.875 4.600 N-80
2 Packer 2.370 6.500 0.000

Table 5-16: Path Summary

Segment Type Length (m) MD (m) TVD (m) Dev (deg) Pipe ID (in)

Tubing 2,700 2,700 2,700 0.0 2.362

Casing 113 2,813 2,813 0.0 6.520

Table 5-17: Rock Thermal Properties

Rock Type Sandstone Limestone Shale
Specific Gravity (sg) 2.71 2.72 2.71

Specific Heat* 0.260 0.210 0.200

Thermal Conductivity** 2.57 0.910 1.01

Table 5-18: Fluid Thermal Properties

Fluid Name 2% KCl Brine Fresh water 15% HCl Gelled Acid

Specific Gravity (sg) 1.000 1.000 1.08

132
Parameters for Heat Transfer Model
Surface Fluid Temperature 70.00 (°F)
Surface Rock Temperature 70.00 (°F)
Reservoir Temperature (°F) 200 (°F)
Wellbore Heat Transfer Multiplier 1.00

The Stimpro acidizing model considers the intrinsic variances in matrix acid
for carbonates and sandstones. As wormholes grow in carbonates, matrix
stimulation is more effective because it allows the formation to be penetrating
farther than the damaged near-wellbore area allows. Wormhole development
in carbonate acidizing may be calculated using two different models in this
new edition of Stimpro: A semi-empirical method by (Buijse and Glasbergen,
2005) is used as the default model, whereas Péclet number theory is used for
the alternate model (Daccord, Touboul and Lenormand, 1989). Carbonate
matrix acidizing treatment is optimized by considering both the wormhole
skin and the transient radial flow pressure.

5.6.1 Pressure Matching

Once all the necessary data and parameters have been input, we begin the
simulation using the Semi-empirical model with 𝑃𝑉bt−opt = 0.55 and
𝑉𝑖−opt =0.0322 ft/min (Figure 5.32) stored in the Software database (Buijse
and Glasbergen, 2005). Afterward, a comparison of the pressure match plot
between calculated and measured wellhead pressure is performed and a
comparison between calculated and measured bottom-hole pressure.

Figure 5.32: The default input of PVBt and vi, acid empirical parameters stored in the
Software database.

133
Treatment data with bottom hole and fracture pressures may be shown in
Figure 5.33, which displays the results of our studies; fluctuating fluid
diverting effects cause bottom-hole pressure to vary. For matrix acid
treatments, jobs were typically pumping below the hydraulic fracture pressure
of the formation pressure.

Figure 5.33: The pressure match between actual and calculated for surface and
bottom hole of stimulated well Ad-12.

The model's reaction to its experimental work data built-in Software is

overstated since the modeled pressure values are substantially lower than the
actual data. Therefore, the simulated pressure data does not very well match
the observed pressure data. Utilizing our experimental data 𝑃𝑉bt−opt =2.5 and
𝑉𝑖−opt =0.0206 ft/min (Figure 5.34) as input data to enhance the pressure
match. Thus, a more accurate match between estimated and observed surface
pressures is achieved (Figure 5.35).

134
 Figure 5.34: The PVBt and vi parameters from our experiment acid injection.

Once sufficient pressure data has been obtained, the changing skin may be
anticipated. Figure 5.36 demonstrates that the treatment reduced the wellbore
skin from around 3 at the start of the operation to approximately -3.6 at the
end of job. Most likely, deep-penetrated wormholes were generated in the
carbonate formation, ensuring the effectiveness of this acid treatment.

Figure 5.35: The pressure match between actual and calculated for surface and
bottom hole of stimulated well Ad-12, using our data set.

The Figure 5-36 illustrates the estimated skin, injection rate, and acid
concentration of fluid for three phases of treatment, all of which are
proportional to the time spent acidifying the matrix. Referring to the Table 5-

135
8 buildup analysis for Ad-12, the skin value of -3.97 is approximately identical
to or slightly larger than the skin value estimated by the acid treatment
simulation using STIMPRO software.

Figure 5.36: Skin factor computation for well Ad-12.

The depth profile is shown in Figure (5-37) summarises the reservoir

parameters, formation damage, and the model computation of fluid invasion
via the flushed formation in three phases. As can be discriminated, the treated
zones are divided into two layers based on the Formation Layer Parameters
(Table 5-11); the first layer is 4.7 m thick with a permeability of 15 md and a
porosity of 0.17; the second layer is 10.3 m thickness with a permeability of
60 md and a porosity of 0.19. When the simulator was performed, the invading
fluid revealed two distinct depths of investigation inside the treated zone. The
fluid invasion in the bottom area has remained steady at a distance of 95 inches
(7.91 ft) despite the top layer wormhole penetrating to a depth of 32 inches
(2.67 ft).

136
Figure 5.37: Invasion profile, layer properties and model treatments schedule for well
Ad-12.

The effective permeability of two layers is 15-60 md; accordingly, utilizing

Equation (3.21) to compute wellhead or bottom hole injection pressure for
various skin factor (S) values since assuming acid injection rates. As a result,
the computation is shown in the Figure 5.38, which plots many curves of
injection rate vs. wellhead pressure, one for each skin component (s). It is
found that most predicted wellhead pressures are less than the fracture
pressure, indicating that the acid job treatment may be conducted safely
without breaking the formation. The only problem is that if there is formation
damage to the skin of 5, and the injection rate exceeds 5 bpm, the bed will
frack, indicating that the treatment job will fail.

137
 Figure 5.38: Treatment of the matrix stimulation design chart for well Ad-12

5.7 Reservoir Simulation and Production Analysis

In this section, the acid treatment can be evaluated for the well Ad-12,
primarily for the zone Mi4; matrix acid treatments can have their production
behavior predicted or matched using the reservoir simulation and production
analysis option, employing the numerical simulation software Petrel
(SCHLUMBERGER) and Rubis (KAPPA) to determine the efficacy of
previous treatments and the economics associated with future treatments.
According to information collected from the department of reservoirs, the
reservoir model for the Mishrif formation in the Ahdeb field is up to date
concerning drilled wells, petrophysics, geological features, and production
data. The Figure 5.39 has two types of pressures: the actual measured flowing
pressure (points) and the hypothetically simulated pressure (line curve). The
reservoir pressure match is shown in the Figure 5.40 after a history match was
performed on all perforation sets.

138
 Figure 5.39: Flowing bottomhole pressure match of well Ad-12.

Figure 5.40: Reservoir pressure match of well Ad-12.

There was a time when the well was produced from the Maudud layer as well
as the whole Mi zones and Rumaila; the production rate history matches the
Figure 5.41.

139
 Figure 5.41: Oil production rate match for well Ad-12.

After Petrel has matched pressure and production history, the next step is to
choose a wellbore sector with a radius of 1000 m around well Ad-12, then
export this wellbore sector into Kappa (Rubis) software with all of the
petrophysical attributes and reservoir characteristics. Figures (5.42) and (5.43)
show wellbore sectors of Mi4 for the permeability and porosity of the
wellbore, respectively. Even though the range of permeability is shown in
Figure (5.42) as 0 to 100 md, the mean value is 11 md or less. It has been
observed in figure (5.43) that the porosity variance ranges from 0 to 25, with
an average value of 0.21.

140
Figure 5.42: Ad-12 sector- permeability block and histogram.

141
Figure 5.43: Ad-12 sector- porosity block and histogram.

142
5.7.1 Skin impact on production gain
In order to analyze the influence on production gain, the skin effect may now
be utilized in conjunction with the data transferred from Petrel to Rubis
software. As the core data and laboratory test only pertained to the Mi4 zone,
the sensitivity analysis was limited to this unit. Figure 5.44 depicts the well
Ad-12 facies profile and wellbore completion set (perforation depth).

Figure 5.44: Facies profile for Mi4 in well Ad-12.

143
For the purpose of calculating the productivity index and pressure distribution
in the drainage region, different cases with condition control will be
considered, with cases based on the skin factor (0) through (-5), and all of
these cases at constant drawdown.

These five different skin variables were evaluated following matrix acid
treatments, with the investigation of productivity, liquid flow rate, and
pressure depletion predicting for three months, the forecast taking into
account the one month of the job operation. Each case of skin is displayed
individually in figures 5.45 to 5.44, and it can be identified that the
productivity index and production rate will grow after one month of treatment
as the skin lowers, while the pressure drop in the drainage region follows the
same pattern. This trend is evident when comparing all skin instances on a
single graph, similar to the pressure depletion curves in Figure 5.48, the liquid
rate comparison curves in Figure 5.49, the productivity index comparison
curves in Figure 5.50, and production as well as pressure profile Figure 5.51.

144
 A

Figure 5.45: Skin sensitivity in production (A) skin=0 and (B) skin=-1, Mi4 in Ad-12.
145
 A

Figure 5.46: Skin sensitivity in production (A) skin=-2 and (B) skin=-3, Mi4 in Ad-12.
146
 A

Figure 5.47: Skin sensitivity in production (A) skin=-4 and (B) skin=-5, Mi4 in Ad-12.
147
Figure 5.48: Pressure comparison of five cases, Mi4 in Ad-12.

148
Figure 5.49: Liquid rate comparison, Mi4 in Ad-12.

149
Figure 5.50: Productivity index comparison, Mi4 in Ad-12.

150
 Figure 5.51: Production profile of five cases, Mi4 in Ad-12

Following the computations outlined above, the data may be summarized using the two graphs displayed in Figures
5.52 and 5.53, which show oil volume gain and gain percent. To estimate oil gain volume and percentage for the Mi4
unit in Ad-12 using skin value established in section 5.5.1, in particular for -3.97 (estimated skin), it is now possible
to produce 6154 barrels of oil gain volume as well as 105% increase of gain percentage for three months after matrix
acidizing.
151
 9000

8000

7000
Oil volume gain, bbl

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000
3146.4x + 197.5 -2 x141.07y =
0.9904 =² R 1000

0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Skin

Figure 5.52: Oil volume gain vs. Skin (for 3 months forecast).

180%

160%

140%

120%

100%
Gain %

80%

60%
-2
0.0482x + 0.0645 x0.0473y =
40%
0.9906 =² R
20%

0%
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Skin

Figure 5.53: Gain percentage vs. Skin (for 3 months forecast)

152
 Conclusions &
Recommendations
Chapter 6
6.1 Conclusion
1. Several acid-flooding experiments were performed on different rock
samples to study the influence of mineralogy and confirm the outcomes'
consistency. The porosity, permeability, acoustic velocities, rock
strength, and dynamic elastic parameters were computed before and
after the acidizing treatment.
2. The newly designed core flooding system is inspected to check the
measurement quality; it shows a strong correlation factor (R=0.99)
between flow rate and pressure drop, so the calculated permeability
values for each run were almost identical and ranged from 0.19 to 0.25
md. As a result, it is concluded that the core flooding system performs
very well owing to its high repeatability. The Mi4 permeability of the
other plug samples was determined using the same brine, and results
ranged between 0.17 and 1.52 md, indicating that the permeabilities are
proportionately low with a little variation.
3. The propagation of acid-induced wormhole and its effect on rock
strength were analyzed and compared to intact rocks.
4. It's found out that the acid treatment resulted in a considerable increase
in porosity for all the rock samples. A positive relationship between
PVBT and the relative increase in porosity for all rock plugs was
established. It is concluded that an increase in PVBT will likely results
in an increase in porosity and a consequent decrease in the values of the
acoustic properties of the rock.
5. The acid efficiency curve yielded the lowest pore volume injected at
the breakthrough of the 𝑃𝑉bt−opt is 2.73 and the 𝑣𝑖−opt =0.6 cm/min;

153
 thus, the optimum injection rate that results in an optimal possible
wormhole and the least quantity of acid being used for this reservoir is
2.16 cc/min.
6. The results also showed that the mechanical properties exhibit rock
weakening post-acid treatment. The mechanical properties showed that
the rock weakened after acidizing; this is similar to the observed results
by other investigators.
7. One of the new concepts discovered during the lab experiment
observation of the acoustic waveform before and after acid treatment
for the tested rock sample is that the initial arrival time prior to acid
treatment is 21.6 microseconds, with a delay of 31.2 microseconds
attributed to the wormhole channel and mineral disintegration. The
difference in duration between these two recorded primary waves
indicates the acoustic energy lost by the newly formed porous medium,
signifying an increase in the number of air-filled pores.
8. The Young's modulus for the seven rock samples investigated reduces
by 26–37%. While the Poisson's ratio, the coefficient of lateral earth
pressure at rest, and the material index increase by 13% – 20%, 23%–
32%, and 28% – 125%, respectively.
9. The CT scan visually confirmed that the acid treatment effectively
creates a pathway for oil flow from the reservoir to the wellbore. It
further showed that at a low acid flow rate (0.67 cc/min), face
dissolution occurs, and substantial amounts of acids are consumed
before the wormhole can breakthrough at this rate, thus, resulting in
shorter, conical-shaped wormholes. A longer and wider wormhole was
generated at a high acid injection rate (6.67 cc/min).

154
 10.The estimated oil gain volume and percentage for the Mi4 unit in Ad-
12 using skin value, particularly -3.97 computed from Stimpro software
for real stimulation acid job, it is yield enhancement in production of
oil gain volume 6154 barrels as well as 105% increase of gain
percentage for three months after matrix acidizing.
11.Significant challenges are encountered during acid stimulation
operations in the Mishrif reservoir of the Ahdeb oil field, including high
injection pressures, with several acid treatment failures recorded. The
significant failure rate of oil well stimulation in this deposit necessitates
more research. thus, experimental investigations were presented of the
effect of acidizing on the geomechanical properties of the Mi4 unit of
the Mishrif reservoir

6.2 Recommendation
1. In acid flooding, rock weakening does not necessarily mean
deterioration/sand production/instability; it depends on other factors.
For instance, it could be due to acid-induced fracture/wormhole, which
corresponds to porosity enhancement that resulted in lower acoustic
readings and, thus, reduced rock competence. Therefore, we
recommend that independent investigations of the bulk rock and
fractured surface strength be conducted to distinguish these occurrences
clearly.
2. In acid flooding, rock weakening does not necessarily mean
deterioration/sand production/instability; it depends on other factors.
For instance, it could be due to acid-induced fracture/wormhole, which
corresponds to porosity enhancement that resulted in lower acoustic
readings and, thus, reduced rock competence. Therefore, we
155
 recommend that independent investigations of the bulk rock and
fractured surface strength be conducted to make a clear distinction
between these occurrences. Further, following the experimental results
(acid stimulation) presented in this study for the Mi4 formation of the
Mishrif reservoir pre- and post-acid treatment, it showed that despite
the observed rock’s mechanical properties alterations observed which
show wormhole propagation, effective wormholes/flow paths were
created for hydrocarbon flow from the reservoir into the wellbore. The
results presented implied a successful acid treatment of the Ahdeb
oilfield despite the development problems of the Ahdeb oilfield
reported during the stimulation operation of this reservoir formation.
3. Formation permeability greatly governs the choice of reservoir acid
stimulation technique to be employed, either acid fracture or matrix
acidizing. Generally, acid fracturing yield better results in low
permeable hard rocks. While, matrix acidizing is more effective in soft,
high permeability formation. The core and well logs analysis for all
Mishrif units shows that permeability values vary from 0.1 md to 57
md. This offers a broad range of permeability variations. Thus, this
petrophysical property should be prioritized when planning stimulation
operations for the Ahdeb oilfield, particularly for developing the
Mishrif reservoir. Therefore, the high injection pressures reportedly
encountered are likely due to injections into very low permeability
zones, for instance, 0.1 md zones, thus resulting in the injection
difficulties. Moreover, the acidizing jobs failures could also result from
the wrong choice of acid treatment technique; it is therefore
recommended that acid fracturing be applied for low permeability and
hard rock zones, while matrix acidizing should be considered for high
156
 permeability zones of the Mishrif reservoir. Stimulation design
optimization is thus recommended to reduce these failures and
injectivity issues.
4. The comparison of several wormhole development models to compute
production and skin with various acid systems may be done in the
future. The chemical dynamics of acids and how they act at the
molecular level might be subject to better investigation to understand
the chemical mechanism behind the observed findings. If the
simulations and experiments prove accurate, a bigger core flood
experiment may be carried out. It is also possible to compare the
reactivity and diffusion rates of various acids to these new acids. It
would be fascinating to compare the new acids' efficiency to that of
organic acids, which have a comparable dissolving capability but need
a much larger pore space to penetrate. The investigation should involve
comparisons of reaction rates and molecular chemical dynamics. Case
studies for each acid system may also include industry data for flow
rates, rock type, wellbore size, and other parameters. Thus, it is possible
to ascertain when the acid performance is at its peak. With these acids,
sandstone, chalk, dolomite, and other kinds of rock may be examined.
Results may vary dramatically despite the same experimental
technique.
5. It is desirable to guarantee wormhole formation and mechanical
stability during the reservoir depletion stage after acid stimulation. If a
rock compaction failure occurs early or halfway during production,
acidizing stimulation may be canceled. In order to avoid rock failure
and compaction-induced permeability loss, a wellbore stress behavior
study and stimulation design optimization are required.
157
 REFERENCES
Abd El-Rahman, MM and Setto, I and El-Werr, A. (1992). Inferring mechanical
properties of the foundation material at the 2nd industrial zone, Sadat city, from
geophysical measurementsle. Egyptian Geophysical Society, 206, 228.
AGIP. (1986). West Qurna stimulation studies. In SPA- production engineering.
Akanni, O. O., & Nasr-El-Din, H. A. (2015). The accuracy of carbonate matrix-acidizing
models in predicting optimum injection and wormhole propagation rates. SPE
Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, MEOS, Proceedings, 2015-Janua,
618–635. https://doi.org/10.2118/172575-ms
Al-Ameri, A., & Gamadi, T. (2020). Optimization of acid fracturing for a tight carbonate
reservoir. Petroleum, 6(1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2019.01.003
Al-Arji, H., Al-Azman, A., Le-Hussain, F., & Regenauer-Lieb, K. (2021). Acid
stimulation in carbonates: A laboratory test of a wormhole model based on
Damköhler and Péclet numbers. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
203(February), 108593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.108593
Al-Awsi, M. D., & Khorshid, S. Z. (2021). Geophysical and geotechnical evaluation of
tanjero sandstone layers at dokan area using ultrasonic wave method. Iraqi Journal
of Science, 62(7), 2262–2271. https://doi.org/10.24996/ijs.2021.62.7.15
Al-Baldawi, B. A. (2020). Assessment of reservoir properties and Buckles model for
Rumaila Formation in Ahdeb oil field, Central Iraq. Modeling Earth Systems and
Environment, 6(3), 1683–1693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00783-0
Al-Duailej, Y. K., Kwak, H. T., Caliskan, S., & Al-Yami, I. S. (2013, March 26).
Wormhole Characterisation Using NMR. International Petroleum Technology
Conference. https://doi.org/10.2523/17063-MS
Al-Hashmi, L., Qutob, H., & El-Halfawi, S. (2010, November 1). Successful Well
Stimulation Projects Boost Production from Iraq’s South Oil Fields. SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.2118/138726-MS
Al-Taii, S. (1988). Laboratory investigation concerning the stimulation of some Iraqi oil
wells. University of Baghdad.
Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd. (2009). AD-012, GEOLOGICAL PROPOSAL, AHDEB
OILFIELD, IRAQ.
Al-Waha Pet. Corp. Ltd. (2010). AD-012, FINAL GEOLOGICAL REPORT, AHDEB
OILFIELD, IRAQ.
Alameedy, U., & Al-haleem, A. (2022). The Impact of Matrix Acidizing on the
Petrophysical Properties of the Mishrif Formation: Experimental Investigation. Iraqi
Geological Journal, 55(1E), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.46717/igj.55.1E.4Ms-2022-
05-20

158
Alameedy, U., Alhaleem, A. A., Isah, A., Al-Yaseri, A., Mahmoud, M., & Salih, I. S.
(2022). Effect of acid treatment on the geomechanical properties of rocks: an
experimental investigation in Ahdeb oil field. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and
Production Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-022-01533-x
Alhamad, L., Alrashed, A., Al Munif, E., & Miskimins, J. (2020). A review of organic
acids roles in acidizing operations for carbonate and sandstone formations.
Proceedings - SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, 2020-
Febru. https://doi.org/10.2118/199291-ms
Aljawad, M. S., Schwalbert, M. P., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2020). Improving acid
fracture design in dolomite formations utilizing a fully integrated acid fracture
model. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 184, 106481.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PETROL.2019.106481
Allen, T. O., & Roberts, A. P. (1978). Production Operations (3rd printi). Vol.2.
American Petroleum Institute. (2014). Treatment in Oil and Gas Operators. American
Petroleum Institute, 1–5. https://www.api.org/~/media/files/oil-and-natural-
gas/hydraulic-fracturing/acidizing-oil-natural-gas-briefing-paper-v2.pdf
Bagrintseva, K. I. (2015). Carbonate Reservoir Rocks. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119084006
Barri, A., Mahmoud, M., & Elkatatny, S. (2016). Evaluation of Rock Mechanical
Properties Alteration During Matrix Stimulation With Chelating Agents. Journal of
Energy Resources Technology, Transactions of the ASME, 138(3).
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4032546/373272
Bazin, B. (2001). From Matrix Acidizing to Acid Fracturing: A Laboratory Evaluation of
Acid/Rock Interactions. SPE Production & Facilities, 16(01), 22–29.
https://doi.org/10.2118/66566-PA
Bazin, B., Charbonnel, P., & Onaisi, A. (1999, May 31). Strategy Optimization for
Matrix Treatments of Horizontal Drains in Carbonate Reservoirs, Use of Self-
Gelling Acid Diverter. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas. https://doi.org/10.2118/54720-MS
Bennion, D. B., Thomas, F. B., & Bietz, R. F. (1996). Low permeability gas reservoirs:
problems, opportunities and solutions for drilling, completion, stimulation and
production. In SPE Proceedings - Gas Technology Symposium (pp. 117–131).
https://doi.org/10.2523/35577-ms
Buijse, M. A. (2000). Understanding Wormholing Mechanisms Can Improve Acid
Treatments in Carbonate Formations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.2118/65068-PA
Buijse, M., & Glasbergen, G. (2005, October 9). A Semi-Empirical Model To Calculate
Wormhole Growth in Carbonate Acidizing. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas. https://doi.org/10.2118/96892-MS
Burchette, T. (2019). Are Carbonate Reservoirs ‘Difficult’? GEO Ex PRO Magazine, 16.
159
 https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2019/11/are-carbonate-reservoirs-
difficult#:~:text=Despite their reputation%2C carbonate reservoirs,find%2C
interpret and characterise them.
Butt, A., Fragomeni, C., Hedayat, A., & Tudisco, E. (2019). Applicability of Ultrasonic
Tomographic Technique for Progressive Damage Evaluation in Prismatic Rock
Specimen. In 53rd U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium (p. ARMA-
2019-0447).
Carbo. (2021). Tutorial manual (10.11.61.0). www.fracpro.com
Chacon, O. G., & Pournik, M. (2022). Matrix Acidizing in Carbonate Formations.
Processes, 10(1), 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10010174
Cohen, C. E., Ding, D., Quintard, M., & Bazin, B. (2008). From pore scale to wellbore
scale: Impact of geometry on wormhole growth in carbonate acidization. Chemical
Engineering Science, 63(12), 3088–3099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2008.03.021
COMMITTEE. (1995). Prudent Practices in the Laboratory. National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/4911
Daccord, G., & Lenormand, R. (1987). Fractal patterns from chemical dissolution.
Nature, 325(6099), 41–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/325041a0
Daccord, G., Touboul, E., & Lenormand, R. (1989). Carbonate Acidizing: Toward a
Quantitative Model of the Wormholing Phenomenon. SPE Production Engineering,
4(01), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.2118/16887-PA
de Oliveira, T. J., Melo, A. R., Oliveira, J. A., & Pereira, A. Z. (2012, February 15).
Numerical Simulation of the Acidizing Process and PVBT Extraction Methodology
Including Porosity/Permeability and Mineralogy Heterogeneity. SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/151823-MS
Dobrin, M. B. (1976). Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting (McGraw Hill. Int. co
(ed.); Internatio).
Doerler, N., & Prouvost, L. P. (1987). Diverting Agents: Laboratory Study and Modeling
of Resultant Zone Injectivities. SPE 16250.
Domenico, S. N. (1984). Rock Lithology and Porosity Determination From Shear and
Compressional Wave Velocity. Geophysics, 49(8), 1188–1195.
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441748
Dong, K., Jin, X., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2014). The Effect of Core Dimensions on the
Optimal Acid Flux in Carbonate Acidizing. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.2118/168146-MS
Dong, K., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2017). Theoretical and experimental study on optimal
injection rates in carbonate acidizing. SPE Journal, 22(3), 892–901.
https://doi.org/10.2118/178961-pa

160
Economides, M. J., Hill, A. D., & Ehlig-and Economides, C. (1994). Petroleum
Production Systems.
Economides, M. J., Hill, A. D., Ehlig-and Economides, C., & Zhu, D. (2013). Petroleum
Production Systems (SECODN EDI). PENTICE HALL.
Economides, M. J., & Nolte, K. G. (2000). Rerservoir Stimulation (M. J. Economides &
K. G. Nolte (eds.); 3rd ed.). Wiley.
Fredd, C. N., & Fogler, H. S. (1996a, February 14). Alternative Stimulation Fluids and
Their Impact on Carbonate Acidizing. SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Lafayette, Louisiana. https://doi.org/10.2118/31074-MS
Fredd, C. N., & Fogler, H. S. (1996b, February 14). Alternative Stimulation Fluids and
Their Impact on Carbonate Acidizing. SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Lafayette, Louisiana. https://doi.org/10.2118/31074-MS
Fredd, C. N., & Fogler, H. S. (1998). Alternative Stimulation Fluids and Their Impact on
Carbonate Acidizing. SPE Journal, 3(01), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.2118/31074-PA
Furui, K. ., Burton, R. C. . C., Burkhead, D. W. . W., Abdelmalek, N. A. . A., Hill, A. D. .
D., Zhu, D. ., & Nozaki, M. . (2012a). A Comprehensive Model of High-Rate
Matrix-Acid Stimulation for Long Horizontal Wells in Carbonate Reservoirs: Part
I—Scaling Up Core-Level Acid Wormholing to Field Treatments. SPE Journal,
17(01), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.2118/134265-PA
Furui, K., Burton, R. C. . C., Burkhead, D. W. . W., Abdelmalek, N. A. . A., Hill, A. D. .
D., Zhu, D., & Nozaki, M. (2012b). A Comprehensive Model of High-Rate Matrix-
Acid Stimulation for Long Horizontal Wells in Carbonate Reservoirs: Part I—
Scaling Up Core-Level Acid Wormholing to Field Treatments. SPE Journal, 17(01),
271–279. https://doi.org/10.2118/134265-PA
Furui, K., Burton, R. C., Burkhead, D. W., Abdelmalek, N. A., Hill, A. D., Zhu, D., &
Nozaki, M. (2012c). A comprehensive model of high-rate matrix-acid stimulation
for long horizontal wells in carbonate reservoirs: Part II-wellbore/reservoir coupled-
flow modeling and field application. SPE Journal, 17(1), 280–291.
https://doi.org/10.2118/155497-PA
Furui, K., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2003). A Rigorous Formation Damage Skin Factor and
Reservoir Inflow Model for a Horizontal Well. SPE Production & Facilities, 18(03),
151–157. https://doi.org/10.2118/84964-PA
Furui, K., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2008). A New Skin-Factor Model for Perforated
Horizontal Wells. SPE Drilling & Completion, 23(03), 205–215.
https://doi.org/10.2118/77363-PA
Gdanski, R. (1999, May 31). A Fundamentally New Model of Acid Wormholing in
Carbonates. SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague,
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.2118/54719-MS
Ghommem, M., Zhao, W., Dyer, S., Qiu, X., & Brady, D. (2015). Carbonate acidizing:
Modeling, analysis, and characterization of wormhole formation and propagation.
161
 Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 131, 18–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.04.021
Glasbergen, G., Kalia, N., & Talbot, M. (2009). The optimum injection rate for wormhole
propagation: Myth or reality? 8th European Formation Damage Conference 2009 -
New Technologies for Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs, 1, 293–308.
https://doi.org/10.2118/121464-ms
Gomaa, A. M., Nino-Penaloza, A., Cutler, J., & Chaudhary, S. (2018). Insights of
Wormhole Propagation during Carbonate Acidizing: A Comparison between
Constant Injection Pressure Versus Constant Volumetric Rate. Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, 140(10).
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039443
Gong, M., & El-Rabaa, A. M. (1999, March 28). Quantitative Model of Wormholing
Process in Carbonate Acidizing. SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. https://doi.org/10.2118/52165-MS
Gou, B., Zhan, L., Guo, J., Zhang, R., Zhou, C., Wu, L., Ye, J., & Zeng, J. (2021). Effect
of different types of stimulation fluids on fracture propagation behavior in naturally
fractured carbonate rock through CT scan. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 201(January), 108529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.108529
Hassan, A. M., & Al-Hashim, H. S. (2017). Evaluation of carbonate rocks integrity after
sequential flooding of chelating agent solutions. SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show
and Conference, MEOS, Proceedings, 2017-March, 682–696.
https://doi.org/10.2118/183760-ms
Hawkins, M. (1956). A Note on the Skin Effect. Trans. AIME, 207, 356–357.
Hill, A. D., & Galloway, P. J. (1984). Laboratory and Theoretical Modeling of Diverting
Agent Behavior. JPT, 1157–1163.
Hoefner, M. L., & Fogler, H. S. (1988). Pore evolution and channel formation during
flow and reaction in porous media. AIChE Journal, 34(1), 45–54.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690340107
Huang, T., McElfresh, P. M., & Gabrysch, A. D. (2003). Carbonate Matrix Acidizing
Fluids at High Temperatures: Acetic Acid, Chelating Agents or Long-Chained
Carboxylic Acids? In SPE European Formation Damage Conference (p. SPE-
82268-MS). https://doi.org/10.2118/82268-MS
Huang, T., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (1999, May 31). Prediction of Wormhole Population
Density in Carbonate Matrix Acidizing. SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.2118/54723-MS
Hung, K. M., Hill, A. D., & Sepehrnoori, K. (1989). A Mechanistic Model of Wormhole
Growth in Carbonate Matrix Acidizing and Acid Fracturing. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 41(01), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.2118/16886-PA
Isah, A., Hiba, M., Al-Azani, K., Aljawad, M. S., & Mahmoud, M. (2021). A
comprehensive review of proppant transport in fractured reservoirs: Experimental,
162
 numerical, and field aspects. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 88,
103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JNGSE.2021.103832
ISCO. (1985). LC-5000 PRECISION PUMP-INSTRUCTION MANUAL (Issue
September).
Ituen, E., Akaranta, O., & James, A. (2017). Electrochemical and anticorrosion properties
of 5-hydroxytryptophan on mild steel in a simulated well-acidizing fluid. Journal of
Taibah University for Science, 11(5), 788–800.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtusci.2017.01.005
Jardine, D., & Wilshart, J. W. (1982, April 4). Carbonate Reservoir Description.
International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium.
https://doi.org/10.2118/10010-MS
Jermy, C.A., Bell, F. G. (1998). Durability of some dolerites from South Africa. Proc. 8th
Inter. Cong. of IAEG, 2869– 2875.
KELLER. (2013). Operating and Installation Information for Piezoresistive Pressure
Transmitters & LEVEL PROBES (Issue December). www.keller-druck.com
Kolymbas, D., & Viggiani, G. (Eds.). (2009). Mechanics of Natural Solids. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03578-4
Kranz, R. L. (1983). Microcracks in rocks: A review. Tectonophysics, 100(1–3), 449–
480. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(83)90198-1
Lai, J., Guo, J., Ma, Y., Zhou, H., Wang, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). Effect of Acid–Rock
Reaction on the Microstructure and Mechanical Property of Tight Limestone. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-
021-02650-5
Leong, V. H., & Ben Mahmud, H. (2019). A preliminary screening and characterization
of suitable acids for sandstone matrix acidizing technique: a comprehensive review.
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 9(1), 753–778.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-018-0496-6
Li, H., & Shi, Y. (2021). Triaxial experimental investigation into the characteristics of
acid-etched fractures and acid fracturing. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 202, 108431. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PETROL.2021.108431
Li, N., Dai, J., Liu, P., Luo, Z., & Zhao, L. (2015). Experimental study on influencing
factors of acid-fracturing effect for carbonate reservoirs. Petroleum, 1(2), 146–153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2015.06.001
Liu, M., & Mostaghimi, P. (2017). Pore-scale simulation of dissolution-induced
variations in rock mechanical properties. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 111, 842–851.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHEATMASSTRANSFER.2017.04.049
Liu, X., & Ortoleva, P. (1996, October 6). A General-Purpose, Geochemical Reservoir
Simulator. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado.

163
 https://doi.org/10.2118/36700-MS
Lucia, F. J. (2007). Carbonate Reservoir Characterization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72742-2
Lungwitz, B., Fredd, C., Brady, M., Miller, M., Ali, S., & Hughes, K. (2007). Diversion
and cleanup studies of viscoelastic surfactant-based self-diverting acid. SPE
Production and Operations, 22(1), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.2118/86504-pa
Maheshwari, P. ., & Balakotaiah, V. . (2013, March 23). 3-D Simulation of Carbonate
Acidization with HCl: Comparison with Experiments. SPE Production and
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/164517-MS
Mahmoud, M. (2017). Determination of the optimum wormholing conditions in
carbonate acidizing using NMR. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
159, 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.10.004
Mahmoud, M. A. . A., Nasr-El-Din, H. A. . A., De Wolf, C. A. . A., & LePage, J. N. . N.
(2011). Optimum Injection Rate of A New Chelate That Can Be Used To Stimulate
Carbonate Reservoirs. SPE Journal, 16(04), 968–980.
https://doi.org/10.2118/133497-PA
MARQUES, E. A. G. ; V. (1998). Geotechnical characterization of weathering profiles in
biotite gneiss (kinzigites) from Rio de Janeiro City. Engineering Geology : A Global
View from the Pacific Rim = Géologie de l’ingénieur : Une Perspective Globale Du
Cercle Du Pacifique. http://pascal-
francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=6191052
Martyushev, D. A., Govindarajan, S. K., Li, Y., & Yang, Y. (2022). Experimental study
of the influence of the content of calcite and dolomite in the rock on the efficiency
of acid treatment. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 208, 109770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PETROL.2021.109770
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., & Dvorkin, J. (2020). The Rock Physics Handbook. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333016
McDuff, D. R., Shuchart, C. E., Jackson, S. K., Postl, D., & Brown, J. S. (2010).
Understanding wormholes in carbonates: Unprecedented experimental scale and 3-D
visualization. Proceedings - SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3,
2321–2329. https://doi.org/10.2118/134379-ms
McLeod, H. O. (1984). Matrix Acidizing. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 36(12),
2055–2069. https://doi.org/10.2118/13752-PA
McPhee, C., Reed, J., & Zubizarreta, I. (2015). Core Analysis A Best Practice Guide.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63533-4.09989-3
Melendez, M. G., Pournik, M., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2007). The effects of acid contact
time and the resulting weakening of the rock surfaces on acid-fracture conductivity.
SPE - European Formation Damage Conference, Proceedings, EFDC, 2, 700–710.
https://doi.org/10.2118/107772-ms
164
Morrica, G. (1981). Stimulation studies of Halfaya field.
Mustafa, A., Alzaki, T., Aljawad, M. S., Solling, T., & Dvorkin, J. (2022). Impact of acid
wormhole on the mechanical properties of chalk, limestone, and dolomite:
Experimental and modeling studies. Energy Reports, 8(November), 605–616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.11.249
OPEC. (2019). 2019 World Outlook Oil 2040.
https://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/
WOO_2019.pdf
Ortega, A. (2015). Acidizing High-Temperature Carbonate Formations Using
Methanesulfonic Acid. Texas A & M University.
OYO Corporation Company. (1981). Operation Manual of the New Ultrasonic Model –
5217A.
Paccaloni, G., & Tambini, M. (1993). Advances in Matrix Stimulation Technology.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 45(03), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.2118/20623-
PA
Paccaloni, G., Tambini, M., & Galoppini, M. (1988, February 8). Key Factors for
Enhanced Results of Matrix Stimulation Treatments. SPE Formation Damage
Control Symposium, Bakersfield, California. https://doi.org/10.2118/17154-MS
Panga, M. K. R., Balakotaiah, V., & Ziauddin, M. (2002, September 29). Modeling,
Simulation and Comparison of Models for Wormhole Formation During Matrix
Stimulation of Carbonates. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas. https://doi.org/10.2118/77369-MS
Prouvost, L. P., & Economides, M. J. (1989). Applications of Real-Time Matrix-
Acidizing Evaluation Method. SPE Production Engineering, 4(04), 401–407.
https://doi.org/10.2118/17156-PA
Ratnakar, R. R., Kalia, N. ., & Balakotaiah, V. . (2012, May 14). Carbonate Matrix
Acidizing with Gelled Acids: An Experiment-Based Modeling Study. SPE
International Production and Operations Conference & Exhibition, Doha, Qatar.
https://doi.org/10.2118/154936-MS
Sadooni, F. N. (1996). STRATIGRAPHIC AND LITHOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF UPPER CRETACEOUS CARBONATES IN CENTRAL
IRAQ. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 19(3), 271–288.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-5457.1996.tb00434.x
Schechter, R. S., & Gidley, J. L. (1969). The change in pore size distribution from
surface reactions in porous media. AIChE Journal, 15(3), 339–350.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690150309
Schecter, L. J., & Gidley, R. S. (1969). The change in Pore Size Distribution from
Surface Reactions in Porous Media. A.I.Ch.E J., 15(339).
Schlumberger. (2021). Carbonate Reservoirs Overcome challenging heterogeneity.

165
 https://www.slb.com/technical-challenges/carbonates
Schön, J. (2015). Basic Well Logging and Formation Evaluation (1st ed.). bookbooon.
Schwalbert, M. P. (2019). COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF ACID STIMULATION IN
CARBONATES. Texas A&M University.
Schwalbert, M. P., Hill, A. D., & Zhu, D. (2019). A new up-scaled wormhole model
grounded on experimental results and in 2-scale continuum simulations.
Proceedings - SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.2118/193616-ms
Schwalbert, M. P., Zhu, D., & Daniel Hill, A. (2017). Extension of an empirical
wormhole model for carbonate matrix acidizing through two-scale continuum 3D
simulations. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Europec Featured at 79th EAGE
Conference and Exhibition, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.2118/185788-ms
Shafiq, M. U., Ben Mahmud, H. K., & Arif, M. (2018). Mineralogy and pore topology
analysis during matrix acidizing of tight sandstone and dolomite formations using
chelating agents. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 167, 869–876.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.02.057
Sharif. (2019). Stimpro Course. https://www.scribd.com/document/415562312/StimPRO-
Curso
Shirani, M., Mathes, M., & Härkegard, G. (2010). Three dimensional characterization of
defects using x-ray computed tomography. 18th European Conference on Fracture:
Fracture of Materials and Structures from Micro to Macro Scale, 1–6.
Shirley, R. M., Zhu, D., Hill, A. D., & Da Motta, E. P. (2017). Maximizing the Value of
Matrix Acidizing Treatments in Carbonate Reservoirs.
Soulaine, C., & Tchelepi, H. A. (2016). Micro-continuum Approach for Pore-Scale
Simulation of Subsurface Processes. Transport in Porous Media, 113(3), 431–456.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-016-0701-3
Syed A., A., Leonard, K., & Carl T., M. (2016). Acid Stimulation.
Taha, R., Hill, A. D., & Sepehrnoori, K. (1989). Sandstone Acidizing Design Using a
Generalized Model. SPE Production Engineering, 4, 49–55.
Talbot, M. S., & Gdanski, R. D. (2008, June 9). Beyond the Damkohler Number: A New
Interpretation of Carbonate Wormholing. Europec/EAGE Conference and
Exhibition, Rome, Italy. https://doi.org/10.2118/113042-MS
Tansey, J. F. (2015). Pore Network Modeling of Carbonate Acidization [University of
Texas at Austin].
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/32037/TANSEY-THESIS-
2015.pdf?sequence=1
Tardy, P. M. J., Lecerf, B., & Christanti, Y. (2007, May 30). An Experimentally
Validated Wormhole Model for Self-Diverting and Conventional Acids in

166
 Carbonate Rocks under Radial Flow Conditions. European Formation Damage
Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.2118/107854-MS
Tariq, Z., Aljawad, M. S., Hassan, A., Mahmoud, M., & Al-Ramadhan, A. (2021).
Chelating Agents as Acid-Fracturing Fluids: Experimental and Modeling Studies.
Energy & Fuels, 35(3), 2602–2618.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.ENERGYFUELS.0C04045
Taylor, K. C., & Nasr-El-Din, H. A. (2001, September 30). Laboratory Evaluation of In-
Situ Gelled Acids for Carbonate Reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana. https://doi.org/10.2118/71694-MS
Tudisco, E. (2013). Development and application of time-lapse ultrasonic tomography
for laboratory characterization of localized deformation in hard soils/soft rocks.
Walle, L. E., & Papamichos, E. (2015). Acidizing of Hollow Cylinder Chalk Specimens
and its Impact on Rock Strength and Wormhole Network Structure. OnePetro.
Wang, Y., Hill, A. D., & Schechter, R. S. (1993). The Optimum Injection Rate for Matrix
Acidizing of Carbonate Formations. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition (p. SPE-26578-MS). https://doi.org/10.2118/26578-MS
Widarsono, B., Jaya, I., & Muladi, A. (2006, August 31). Permeability Vertical-to-
horizontal Anisotropy In Indonesian Oil and Gas Reservoirs: A General Review.
The International Oil Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, Cancun, Mexico.
https://doi.org/10.2118/103315-MS
Wilson, J. R. (1935). Well Treatment (Patent No. 1990969).
Yildiz, T. (2006). Assessment of Total Skin Factor in Perforated Wells. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, 9(01), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.2118/82249-PA
Yoo, H., Kim, Y., Lee, W., & Lee, J. (2018). An experimental study on acid-rock
reaction kinetics using dolomite in carbonate acidizing. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 168, 478–494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PETROL.2018.05.041
Zakaria, A. S. . S., Nasr-El-Din, H. A. . A., & Ziauddin, M. . (2015). Predicting the
Performance of the Acid-Stimulation Treatments in Carbonate Reservoirs With
Nondestructive Tracer Tests. SPE Journal, 20(06), 1238–1253.
https://doi.org/10.2118/174084-PA
Zhang, H., Zhong, Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Kuang, J., & Yang, B. (2020). Experimental
research on deterioration of mechanical properties of carbonate rocks under acidified
conditions. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 185(May 2019), 106612.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106612
Zhang, R., Hou, B., Zhou, B., Liu, Y., Xiao, Y., & Zhang, K. (2020). Effect of acid
fracturing on carbonate formation in southwest China based on experimental
investigations. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 73(November
2019), 103057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.103057

167
Zhou, B., Jin, Y., Xiong, W., Zhang, J., Lai, J., & Fang, Q. (2021). Investigation on
surface strength of acid fracture from scratch test. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 206(November 2020), 109017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109017
Zhu, H., Deng, J., Jin, X., Hu, L., Engineering, B. L.-R. M. and R., & 2015, U. (2015).
Hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation from wellbore with oriented
perforation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0608-7

168
 Table A1: Mineral composition and description for Mi4.

Reservoir
Constituent (%) Structure constituent (%) AD-12
Space (%)
Sample No.

Sampling Formation

Well Interval (m)

Grain

Total thin section porosity

Mineral component Filing

Matrix-supporeed
Algae Coated Intra Fracture
Biology Algae material

Clay
Fluorite
grain grain clast

Calcite
Dolomite

Pyrite

Total
Rock Name

Terrigenous clast
(Texture、componet

Foraminifer

Orbitolina

Beehive worm

Bioclast

Bryozoon

Gobigerina
Echinoderm

Brachiopoda

Gastropoda

Pelecypoda

Green algae
Red Algae
Algae nodule
Algae pellet

Oolite
Sand grain

Micrite

Sparry

Quantity

Filling degree
or structure)
Cenomanian Mi4

2805.68~ Echinoderm green algae

a 98 1 0.5 0.5 3 10 2 1 3 2 2 5 20 48 52 22.0
2805.71 micrite limestone

2806.70~ Micrite orbitolina sand

b 98 1.5 0.5 1 25 5 2 3 1 5 35 77 23 1 30 22.5
2806.80 grain limestone

Description Photoes

Very complecate texture with biological burrow texture, innternal ring is composed
of echinoderm and core is composed of gastropoda, green algae. Overall texture is
a
echinoderm, green algae micrite texture and large gobigerina and beehive worm in
amount.

Large amount of grain and concentrated in species. Is predominated by orbitolina

debrisbystrong solution, also named as orbitolina sand grain, visible dividual orbitolina
b
is stored in good shape. Another is echinoderm with large amount of sand grain with
strong solution and dense gathering.
a b

169
 ΔP (psi) ΔP (psi)

0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0

0.0
10:00:05
10:03:20 12:31:11
10:06:35 12:31:46
10:09:50 12:32:21
10:13:05 12:32:56
10:16:20 12:33:31
10:19:35 12:34:06
10:22:50
12:34:41
10:26:05
12:35:16
10:29:20
10:32:35 12:35:51
10:35:50 12:36:26

170
10:39:05 12:37:01
10:42:20 12:37:36

Time (hr)
10:45:35

Time (hr)
12:38:11
10:48:50 12:38:46
10:52:05
12:39:21
10:55:20
12:39:56
10:58:35
11:01:50 12:40:31
11:05:05 12:41:06
11:08:20 12:41:41
A. The water flooding and acid injection experiments.

11:11:35 12:42:16

Figure A2: Acid injection for plug#1 (q=2.5 cc/min).

11:14:50 12:42:51
11:18:05 12:43:26

Figure A3: The water flooding for the plug #2, q=3.33 cc/min.
Figure A1: The water flooding for the plug #1, multiple flow rate.
 1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0

ΔP (psi)
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0

13:50:54
13:51:19
13:51:44
13:52:09
13:52:34
13:52:59
13:53:24
13:53:49
13:54:14
13:54:39
13:55:04
13:55:29
13:55:54
13:56:19
13:56:44
13:57:09
13:57:34
13:57:59
13:58:24
13:58:49
13:59:14
Time (hr)
Figure A4: Acid injection for plug#2 (q=3.333 cc/min).

Figure A5: The water flooding for the plug #3, q=2.5 cc/min.

Figure A6: Acid injection for plug#3 (q=0.25 cc/min).

171
Figure A7: The water flooding for the plug #5, multiple flow rate.

Figure A8: Acid injection for plug#5 (q= 1 cc/min).

Figure A9: The water flooding for the plug #6, q=2.5 cc/min.

172
 ΔP (psi) ΔP (psi)

0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1800.0

0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0

09:15:35 10:33:00
09:24:30 10:42:00
09:33:25 10:51:00
09:42:20
11:00:00
09:51:15
11:09:00
10:00:10
10:09:05 11:18:00
10:18:00 11:27:00
10:26:55 11:36:00
10:35:50 11:45:00
10:44:45 11:54:00
10:53:40 12:03:00

173
11:02:35 12:12:00
11:11:30 12:21:00
11:20:25 12:30:00
Time (hr)

Time (hr)
11:29:20 12:39:00
11:38:15 12:48:00
11:47:10
12:57:00
11:56:05
13:06:00
12:05:00
12:13:55 13:15:00
12:22:50 13:24:00
12:31:45 13:33:00
12:40:40 13:42:00
Figure A10: Acid injection for plug#6 (q= 6.667 cc/min).

Figure A12: Acid injection for plug#7 (q= 0.6667 cc/min).

12:49:35 13:51:00
12:58:30 Figure A11: The water flooding for the plug #7, q=2.5 cc/min. 14:00:00
13:07:25 14:09:00
Figure A13: The water flooding for the plug #8, q=0.667 cc/min.

Figure A14: Acid injection for plug#8 (q= 1.5 cc/min).

Figure A15: The water flooding for the plug #9, q=2.5 cc/min.

174
 ΔP (psi) ΔP (psi) ΔP (psi)

0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1800.0
2000.0
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0

11:53:24 14:06:21 11:19:50

11:55:09 14:09:56 11:33:40
11:56:54 14:13:31 11:47:30
11:58:39 14:17:06 12:01:20
12:00:24 14:20:41 12:15:10
12:02:09 14:24:16 12:29:00
12:03:54 14:27:51 12:42:50
12:05:39 14:31:26 12:56:40
12:07:24 14:35:01 13:10:30
12:09:09 14:38:36 13:24:20
12:10:54 14:42:11 13:38:10
12:12:39 14:45:46 13:52:00
12:14:24 14:49:21 14:05:50
14:52:56 14:19:40
12:16:09
14:56:31 14:33:30
12:17:54
15:00:06 14:47:20

175
12:19:39
15:03:41 15:01:10
12:21:24
15:07:16 15:15:00
12:23:09 15:28:50
15:10:51

Time (hr)

Time (hr)
12:24:54
Time (hr)

15:14:26 15:42:40
12:26:39 15:56:30
15:18:01
12:28:24 16:10:20
15:21:36
12:30:09 16:24:10
15:25:11
12:31:54 15:28:46 16:38:00
12:33:39 15:32:21 16:51:50
12:35:24 15:35:56 17:05:40
12:37:09 15:39:31 17:19:30
12:38:54 15:39:146 17:33:20
Figure A16: Acid injection for plug#9 (q= 0.0667 cc/min).

12:40:39 15:39:261 17:47:10

12:42:24 15:39:376 18:01:00

Figure A18:The water flooding for the plug #11, q=0.667 cc/min.
Figure A17: The water flooding for the plug #10, q=0.667 cc/min.
12:44:09 15:39:491 18:14:50
12:45:54 15:39:176 18:28:40
12:47:39 15:39:291 18:42:30
12:49:24 15:39:406 18:56:20
12:51:09 19:10:10
 Table A3: Ultrasonic lab measurement for dry samples.

Length Vs
Plug no Tp (µS) Ts (µS) Vp (km/s)
(cm) (km/s)
1 6.2 19.2 40 3.229 1.550
1 4.145 13.8 27.6 3.004 1.502
2 7.45 24.8 53 3.004 1.406
2 4.195 15 30 2.797 1.398
3 7.4 24 52 3.083 1.423
4 7.65 25.6 56 2.988 1.366
5 7.05 21.6 44 3.264 1.602
6 7.03 19.2 42 3.661 1.674
7 7.335 26.9 58.46 2.727 1.255
8 7.325 20.8 48 3.522 1.526
9 7.575 22.8 49.6 3.322 1.527
10 8.135 20.8 48 3.911 1.695
10 7.2 21.8 49 3.303 1.469
10 6.25 18 38.8 3.472 1.611
11 4.02 11 25 3.655 1.608

Table A4: Ultrasonic lab measurement for saturated sample.

Length
Plug no Tp (µS) Ts (µS) Vp (km/s) Vs (km/s)
(cm)
1 6.2 15 32 3.229 1.550
1 4.145 12.8 24 3.004 1.502
2 7.45 20.8 44 3.004 1.406
2 4.195 14.5 28 2.797 1.398
3 7.4 21 40 3.083 1.423
4 7.65 22.4 44 2.988 1.366
5 7.05 20 38 3.264 1.602
6 7.03 18.7 37 3.661 1.674
7 7.335 21.2 41.8 2.727 1.255
8 7.325 18.2 36.2 3.522 1.526
9 7.575 20.6 40.6 3.322 1.527
10 8.135 18.1 36.2 3.911 1.695
10 7.2 17.5 34.3 4.114 2.099
10 6.25 18.4 36 3.472 1.611
11 4.02 16.4 25.7 3.655 1.608

176
 Plug-2

Plug-8

Plug-3

Figure A19: Inlet and outlet top view of the injected samples with acid.

177
 Table A5: Gathered data PV vs. vi from the previous study as well as our data.

Buij Weff=1.3 Freedy Weff=.3 Freedy_Weff=1.1 Buij_Weff=1.3 Usama

Vi Pvb Vi Pvb Vi Pvb Vi Pvb Vi Pvb
0.183459 2.00136 0.02044 21.1107 0.102525 30.4399 1.12342 4.99661 33.05875 0.154323
0.202703 1.23798 0.030462 5.60202 0.123098 19.265 1.67427 2.29576 2.920747 0.617144
0.206101 1.18263 0.061236 2.14351 0.155359 4.99661 1.8194 1.3566 2.986602 0.702652
0.223965 0.637728 0.071119 2.00136 0.302096 1.7447 2.01025 1.45295 3.532887 1.192398
0.260113 0.637728 0.100835 1.82637 0.30716 2.57393 2.22111 1.23798 3.848528 1.541403
0.292216 0.609212 0.202703 1.86863 0.356736 1.48657 2.41363 1.29593 3.906658 1.61231
0.368797 0.637728 0.51427 2.09504 0.51427 1.12974 2.62284 1.15588 4.505993 2.474023
0.450225 0.698829 5.18563 6.72689 0.717126 1.07923 2.94655 1.07923 4.655716 2.728925
0.549632 0.748466 15.2797 11.3839 0.805633 1.23798 3.31021 1.26663 6.361543 6.961772
0.741372 0.623307 0.819139 0.820176 4.39136 1.29593 Weff 0.309586
1.14225 0.801629 0.905063 1.12974 7.4756 1.55616 WB 1.835387
2.22111 0.919552 1 0.714998 8.82772 1.78507
4.46498 1.18263 1 1.03097
8.68217 1.629 1.51532 0.898757
2.04395 1.23798
2.04395 1.00765
3.04617 1.3566
5.18563 1.26663
10.4244 2.04766
20.6101 4.06698
1 1.03097
1.51532 0.898757
2.04395 1.23798

178
 Table 1: Mineral composition and description for Mi4.

Reservoir
Constituent (%) Structure constituent (%) AD-12
Space (%)
Sample No.

Sampling Formation

Well Interval (m)

Grain

Total thin section porosity

Mineral component Filing

Matrix-supporeed
Algae Coated Intra Fracture
Biology Algae material

Clay
Fluorite
grain grain clast

Calcite
Dolomite

Pyrite

Total
Rock Name

Terrigenous clast
(Texture、componet

Foraminifer

Orbitolina

Beehive worm

Bioclast

Bryozoon

Gobigerina
Echinoderm

Brachiopoda

Gastropoda

Pelecypoda

Green algae
Red Algae
Algae nodule
Algae pellet

Oolite
Sand grain

Micrite

Sparry

Quantity

Filling degree
or structure)
Cenomanian Mi4

2805.68~ Echinoderm green algae

a 98 1 0.5 0.5 3 10 2 1 3 2 2 5 20 48 52 22.0
2805.71 micrite limestone

2806.70~ Micrite orbitolina sand

b 98 1.5 0.5 1 25 5 2 3 1 5 35 77 23 1 30 22.5
2806.80 grain limestone

Description Photoes

Very complecate texture with biological burrow texture, innternal ring is composed
of echinoderm and core is composed of gastropoda, green algae. Overall texture is
a
echinoderm, green algae micrite texture and large gobigerina and beehive worm in
amount.

Large amount of grain and concentrated in species. Is predominated by orbitolina

debrisbystrong solution, also named as orbitolina sand grain, visible dividual orbitolina
b
is stored in good shape. Another is echinoderm with large amount of sand grain with
strong solution and dense gathering.
a b

189
Figure 1: XRD test of plug# 6 before acid injection.

Figure 2: XRD test of plug# 6 after acid injection.

190
 ΔP (psi) ΔP (psi)

0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0

0.0
10:00:05
10:03:20 12:31:11
10:06:35 12:31:46
10:09:50 12:32:21
10:13:05 12:32:56
10:16:20 12:33:31
10:19:35 12:34:06
10:22:50
12:34:41
10:26:05
12:35:16
10:29:20
10:32:35 12:35:51
10:35:50 12:36:26
10:39:05 12:37:01
10:42:20 12:37:36

Time (hr)
10:45:35

Time (hr)
12:38:11
10:48:50 12:38:46
10:52:05
12:39:21
10:55:20
12:39:56
The water flooding and acid injection experiments.

10:58:35
11:01:50 12:40:31
11:05:05 12:41:06
11:08:20 12:41:41

Figure 4: Acid injection for plug#1 (q=2.5 cc/min).

11:11:35 12:42:16
11:14:50 12:42:51
11:18:05 12:43:26

Figure 5: The water flooding for the plug #2, q=0.667 cc/min.
Figure 3: The water flooding for the plug #1, multiple flow rate.

191
 1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0

ΔP (psi)
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0

13:50:54
13:51:19
13:51:44
13:52:09
13:52:34
13:52:59
13:53:24
13:53:49
13:54:14
13:54:39
13:55:04
13:55:29
13:55:54
13:56:19
13:56:44
13:57:09
13:57:34
13:57:59
13:58:24
13:58:49
13:59:14
Time (hr)
Figure 6: Acid injection for plug#2 (q=3.333 cc/min).

Figure 7: The water flooding for the plug #3, q=2.5 cc/min.

Figure 8: Acid injection for plug#3 (q=0.25 cc/min).

192
Figure 9: The water flooding for the plug #5, multiple flow rate.

Figure 10: Acid injection for plug#5 (q= 1 cc/min).

Figure 11: The water flooding for the plug #6, q=2.5 cc/min.

193
 ΔP (psi) ΔP (psi)

0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1800.0

0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0

09:15:35 10:33:00
09:24:30 10:42:00
09:33:25 10:51:00
09:42:20
11:00:00
09:51:15
11:09:00
10:00:10
10:09:05 11:18:00
10:18:00 11:27:00
10:26:55 11:36:00
10:35:50 11:45:00
10:44:45 11:54:00
10:53:40 12:03:00
11:02:35 12:12:00
11:11:30 12:21:00
11:20:25 12:30:00
Time (hr)

Time (hr)
11:29:20 12:39:00
11:38:15 12:48:00
11:47:10
12:57:00
11:56:05
13:06:00
12:05:00
12:13:55 13:15:00
12:22:50 13:24:00
12:31:45 13:33:00
12:40:40 13:42:00
Figure 12: Acid injection for plug#6 (q= 6.667 cc/min).

Figure 14: Acid injection for plug#7 (q= 0.6667 cc/min).

12:49:35 13:51:00
12:58:30 Figure 13: The water flooding for the plug #7, q=2.5 cc/min. 14:00:00
13:07:25 14:09:00

194
Figure 15: The water flooding for the plug #8, q=0.667 cc/min.

Figure 16: Acid injection for plug#8 (q= 1.5 cc/min).

Figure 17: The water flooding for the plug #9, q=2.5 cc/min.

195
 ΔP (psi) ΔP (psi) ΔP (psi)

0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1800.0
2000.0
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0

11:53:24 14:06:21 11:19:50

11:55:09 14:09:56 11:33:40
11:56:54 14:13:31 11:47:30
11:58:39 14:17:06 12:01:20
12:00:24 14:20:41 12:15:10
12:02:09 14:24:16 12:29:00
12:03:54 14:27:51 12:42:50
12:05:39 14:31:26 12:56:40
12:07:24 14:35:01 13:10:30
12:09:09 14:38:36 13:24:20
12:10:54 14:42:11 13:38:10
12:12:39 14:45:46 13:52:00
12:14:24 14:49:21 14:05:50
14:52:56 14:19:40
12:16:09
14:56:31 14:33:30
12:17:54
15:00:06 14:47:20
12:19:39
15:03:41 15:01:10
12:21:24
15:07:16 15:15:00
12:23:09 15:28:50
15:10:51

Time (hr)

Time (hr)
12:24:54
Time (hr)

15:14:26 15:42:40
12:26:39 15:56:30
15:18:01
12:28:24 16:10:20
15:21:36
12:30:09 16:24:10
15:25:11
12:31:54 15:28:46 16:38:00
12:33:39 15:32:21 16:51:50
12:35:24 15:35:56 17:05:40
12:37:09 15:39:31 17:19:30
12:38:54 15:39:146 17:33:20
Figure 18: Acid injection for plug#9 (q= 0.0667 cc/min).

12:40:39 15:39:261 17:47:10

12:42:24 18:01:00

Figure 20:The water flooding for the plug #11, q=0.667 cc/min.
15:39:376
Figure 19: The water flooding for the plug #10, q=0.667 cc/min.
12:44:09 15:39:491 18:14:50
12:45:54 15:39:176 18:28:40
12:47:39 15:39:291 18:42:30
12:49:24 15:39:406 18:56:20
12:51:09 19:10:10

196
 Table 2: Well log interpretation for well Ad-12.

Rock
Depth Lithology Porosity Permeability
density
Brown oil-rich
2803.00～2803.03 2.41 10.5 3.89
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2803.47～2803.50 2.10 22.2 12.7
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2803.84～2803.87 2.06 22.9 16.7
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2804.16～2804.19 2.08 22.6 16.9
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2804.52～2804.55 2.12 21.1 37.8
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2804.86～2804.92 2.03 24.4 26.0
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2805.68～2805.71 2.04 24.0 17.3
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2805.81～2805.84 2.14 20.4 8.41
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2805.84～2805.87 2.15 20.4 15.6
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2805.87～2805.90 2.07 23.2 56.6
limestone
Brown oil-rich
2805.90～2805.93 2.13 20.7 3.27
limestone
Table 3: Ultrasonic lab measurement for dry samples.

Length Vs
Plug no Tp (µS) Ts (µS) Vp (km/s)
(cm) (km/s)
1 6.2 19.2 40 3.229 1.550
1 4.145 13.8 27.6 3.004 1.502
2 7.45 24.8 53 3.004 1.406
2 4.195 15 30 2.797 1.398
3 7.4 24 52 3.083 1.423
4 7.65 25.6 56 2.988 1.366
5 7.05 21.6 44 3.264 1.602
6 7.03 19.2 42 3.661 1.674
7 7.335 26.9 58.46 2.727 1.255
8 7.325 20.8 48 3.522 1.526
9 7.575 22.8 49.6 3.322 1.527
10 8.135 20.8 48 3.911 1.695
10 7.2 21.8 49 3.303 1.469
10 6.25 18 38.8 3.472 1.611
11 4.02 11 25 3.655 1.608

197
 Table 4: Ultrasonic lab measurement for saturated sample.

Length
Plug no Tp (µS) Ts (µS) Vp (km/s) Vs (km/s)
(cm)
1 6.2 15 32 3.229 1.550
1 4.145 12.8 24 3.004 1.502
2 7.45 20.8 44 3.004 1.406
2 4.195 14.5 28 2.797 1.398
3 7.4 21 40 3.083 1.423
4 7.65 22.4 44 2.988 1.366
5 7.05 20 38 3.264 1.602
6 7.03 18.7 37 3.661 1.674
7 7.335 21.2 41.8 2.727 1.255
8 7.325 18.2 36.2 3.522 1.526
9 7.575 20.6 40.6 3.322 1.527
10 8.135 18.1 36.2 3.911 1.695
10 7.2 17.5 34.3 4.114 2.099
10 6.25 18.4 36 3.472 1.611
11 4.02 16.4 25.7 3.655 1.608

Plug-2

Plug-8

198
Plug-3

Figure 21: Inlet and outlet top view of the injected samples with acid.

199
 Table 5: Gathered data PV vs. vi from the previous study as well as our data.

Buij Weff=1.3 Freedy Weff=.3 Freedy_Weff=1.1 Buij_Weff=1.3 Usama

Vi Pvb Vi Pvb Vi Pvb Vi Pvb Vi Pvb
0.183459 2.00136 0.02044 21.1107 0.102525 30.4399 1.12342 4.99661 33.05875 0.154323
0.202703 1.23798 0.030462 5.60202 0.123098 19.265 1.67427 2.29576 2.920747 0.617144
0.206101 1.18263 0.061236 2.14351 0.155359 4.99661 1.8194 1.3566 2.986602 0.702652
0.223965 0.637728 0.071119 2.00136 0.302096 1.7447 2.01025 1.45295 3.532887 1.192398
0.260113 0.637728 0.100835 1.82637 0.30716 2.57393 2.22111 1.23798 3.848528 1.541403
0.292216 0.609212 0.202703 1.86863 0.356736 1.48657 2.41363 1.29593 3.906658 1.61231
0.368797 0.637728 0.51427 2.09504 0.51427 1.12974 2.62284 1.15588 4.505993 2.474023
0.450225 0.698829 5.18563 6.72689 0.717126 1.07923 2.94655 1.07923 4.655716 2.728925
0.549632 0.748466 15.2797 11.3839 0.805633 1.23798 3.31021 1.26663 6.361543 6.961772
0.741372 0.623307 0.819139 0.820176 4.39136 1.29593 Weff 0.309586
1.14225 0.801629 0.905063 1.12974 7.4756 1.55616 WB 1.835387
2.22111 0.919552 1 0.714998 8.82772 1.78507
4.46498 1.18263 1 1.03097
8.68217 1.629 1.51532 0.898757
2.04395 1.23798
2.04395 1.00765
3.04617 1.3566
5.18563 1.26663
10.4244 2.04766
20.6101 4.06698
1 1.03097
1.51532 0.898757
2.04395 1.23798

200
 1. The rw calculations by the Volumetric Model
Table B1: Volumetric model parameters.

q (bpm) 2.5 φ 0.15 rw (ft) 0.328 h (ft) 45

PVbt,opt 2.75

The radius at which a wormhole may propagate is

𝑉
𝑟𝑤ℎ = √𝑟𝑤2 + (1)
𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡 𝜋𝜙ℎ

The 𝑉 is the only wormhole propagation parameters needed for this

concept in equation 1, which may be obtainable from equation 2, and
assuming time step for the wormhole propagation:

𝑉 = 𝑞 × ∆𝑡 × 5.61 (2)
𝑏𝑏𝑙
𝑉 = 2.5 × 0.1 𝑚𝑖𝑛 × 5.61 𝑓𝑡 3 /𝑏𝑏l =1.404 𝑓𝑡 3
𝑚𝑖𝑛

1.404 𝑓𝑡 3
𝑟𝑤ℎ = √0.3282 𝑓𝑡 2 + =0.36283 ft
2.75× 𝜋×015×45 𝑓𝑡

And so on for the next time step.

2. The rw calculations by the Buijse-Glasbergen Model

The below table is the most frequent parameters used in this model

Table B2: Buijse-Glasbergen model parameters.

q (bpm) 2.5 φ 0.15 rw (ft) 0.328 h (ft) 45

PVbt,opt 2.75 vi,bt,opt 0.6 k 15 ks 5 rs 0.828

𝑞
𝑣𝑖 = (3)
2𝜋𝑟𝑤 ℎ𝜙

−1/3 2 2
𝑑𝑟𝑤 𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖
𝑣𝑤ℎ = =( ) (𝑣 ) {1 − exp 〈−4 ( ) 〉} (4)
𝑑𝑡 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡−opt 𝑖−opt 𝑣𝑖−opt

179
 (𝑟𝑤ℎ )𝑛+1 = (𝑟𝑤ℎ )𝑛 + 𝑣𝑤ℎ Δ𝑡 (5)

The wormhole (vwh) and at t=0, then rwh= rw=0.328 ft, by applying equation
3 to calculate the initial interstitial velocity vi

𝑓𝑡3 𝑐𝑚
2.5 𝑏𝑏𝑙 ×5.615 ( )×30.48( )
𝑏𝑏𝑙 𝑓𝑡
𝑣𝑖 = =30.54312 cm/min
2𝜋×0.328 ft ×45 ft ×0.15

Now use equation 4 to calculate the wormhole velcity 𝑣𝑤ℎ

2
30.54/30.48 30.54/30.48 −1/3 30.54/30.48 2
𝑣𝑤ℎ = (
2.75
)( 0.6
) {1 − exp 〈−4 ( 0.6
) 〉} =

0.09897 ft/min

Then the whormhole radius can be determined by equation 5, by assuming

time step Δ𝑡 = 0.1 𝑚𝑖𝑛

ft
(𝑟𝑤ℎ )𝑛+1 = 0.328 ft + 0.09897 × 0.1min =0.337897 ft
min

For the new time step the recaluclate the wormhole (vwh) and at t=0.1 min,
then rwh= 0.337897 ft, by applying equation 3 to calculate the initial
interstitial velocity vi

𝑓𝑡3 𝑐𝑚
2.5 𝑏𝑏𝑙 ×5.615 ( )×30.48( )
𝑏𝑏𝑙 𝑓𝑡
𝑣𝑖 = = 29.64851 cm/min
2𝜋×0.337897 ft ×45 ft ×0.15

Also, the new 𝑣𝑤ℎ can be estimate by equation 4

2
29.64/30.48 29.64/30.48 −1/3 29.64/30.48 2
𝑣𝑤ℎ = ( )( ) {1 − exp 〈−4 ( ) 〉} =0.097028 ft/min
2.75 0.6 0.6

ft
(𝑟𝑤ℎ )𝑛+1 = 0.337897ft + 0.097028 × 0.1min =0.347599813ft.
min

This loop of calculations continue until the end of proposed time step
like after (0.1+.01……=30 min).

180
 3. The rw calculations by The Furui et al. Model

Table B3: Furui et al. Model estimated and constant parameters.

0
𝜌𝐹 2.71 𝜌acid 1.07 𝐶HF 0.15 f1 1
0.0021948 de,wh 0.000754
𝛽𝐹 0.21 NAcF
(ft)
f2 1

dcore
(in)
1.5 q 2.5 𝜙 0.15 rwh 0.328 thick(L)
45
PVbt,opt 2.75 vi,bt,opt 0.6 𝛼𝑧 0.35 mwh 12.57
k 15 ks 5 rs 0.828

0
𝜙𝛽𝐹 𝐶HF 𝜌acid
𝑁Ac,𝐹 = (6)
(1−𝜙)𝜌𝐹

𝑑𝑒,𝑤ℎ = 𝑑core 𝑁𝐴𝐶 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 (7)

𝑞 1 1
𝑣𝑖,𝑡𝑖𝑝 = [(1 − 𝛼𝑧 ) + 𝛼𝑧 ( )] (8)
𝜙ℎ √𝜋𝑚𝑤ℎ √𝑑𝑒,𝑤ℎ 𝑟𝑤ℎ 𝑑𝑒,𝑤ℎ

−1/3 2 2
𝑣𝑖, ip 𝑣𝑖, ip
𝑣wh = 𝑣𝑖, ip 𝑁𝐴𝑐 × ( ) × {1 − exp [−4 ( ) ]} (9)
𝑣𝑖, tip,opt 𝑣 𝑖, ip , opt

First of all, calculate the constants that must be input for the equations 8
and 9, as example 𝑁𝐴𝑐 and 𝑑𝑒,𝑤ℎ .

Let start with the 𝑁𝐴𝑐 can be determined by equation 6:

0.15×0.21×0.15×1.07 𝑔𝑚/𝑐𝑐
𝑁Ac,𝐹 = (1−0.15)×2.71 gm/cc
= 0.0021948

Using the values of 𝑑core , 𝑁𝐴𝐶 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑉𝑏𝑡,𝑜𝑝𝑡 in table 3 to calculate the

𝑑𝑒,𝑤ℎ by equation 7.

de,wh = 1.5 × 0.0021948 × 2.75 =0.000754

181
Now equation 8 used to estimate the 𝑣𝑖,𝑡𝑖𝑝

𝑏𝑏𝑙 5.615𝑓𝑡
2.5 ∗ ∗30.28𝑐𝑚/𝑚𝑖𝑛 1
𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑏𝑙
𝑣𝑖,𝑡𝑖𝑝 = [(1 − 0.35) +
0.15×45√𝜋12.57 √0.000754×0.328
1
0.35 (0.000754)] =5061.401 cm/min

Then submitting this value to the equation 9 to determine the 𝑣wh yield:

5061.4 −1/3
𝑣wh = 5061.4 𝑐𝑚/𝑚𝑖𝑛 × 𝑓𝑡/30.28𝑐𝑚 × 0.0021948 × ( ) ×
0.6
2
5061.4 2
{1 − exp [−4 ( 0.6
) ]} =0.098983 ft/min

The wormhole radius can be calculated by equation 5

(𝑟𝑤ℎ )𝑛+1 = 0.328 + 0.098983 ft/ min× 0.1 =0.337898 ft
Using the new (𝑟𝑤ℎ )𝑛+1 (0.337898 ft) and re do the above calculations to

calculate new vaule for wormhole radius until the time 30 min and then
stop the calculations.

182
 ‫جمهورية العراق‬
‫وزارة التعليم العالي والبحث العلمي‬
‫جامعة بغداد‪ /‬كلية الهندسه‬
‫قسم هندسة النفط‬

‫دراسة وتحليل مختبرية طرق التحميض الحشو الصخري لتكوين مشرف‪-‬‬

‫حقل االحدب النفطي‬

‫أطروحه‬
‫مقدمة الى كلية الهندسة في جامعة بغداد‬
‫كجزء من متطلبات نيل درجة الدكتوراه‬
‫في فلسفة هندسة النفط‬

‫من قبل‬

‫أسامة صاحب العميدي‬

‫)ماجستير هندسة نفط ‪ 2004‬م(‬

‫بأشراف‬

‫أ‪.‬د‪ .‬اياد عبد الحليم‬

‫‪ 2022‬ميالدي‬ ‫‪ 1443‬هجري‬
 ‫الخالصة‬
‫لقد تطورت تقنية تحفيز حشو الصخور الكربونية بشكل كبير في العقد الماضي من خالل األبحاث المختبرية‬
‫اإلبداعية والتطورات الجديدة في السوائل‪ .‬ومع ذلك ‪ ،‬فإن األساليب الحالية لتحسين التنشيط األمثل لآلبار‬
‫غير كافية في مكامن ذات الصخور الكربونية الشاسعة‪ .‬وبالتالي ‪ ،‬يتم تحفيز آبار النفط والغاز بشكل روتيني‬
‫خيارا أكثر تكلفة ؛ وبالتالي ‪ ،‬يتم استخدام‬
‫ً‬ ‫لتوسيع اإلنتاج وتعظيم االسترداد‪ .‬قد يكون التكسير الهيدروليكي‬
‫تحميض حشو الصخري على نطاق واسع بسبب انخفاض تكلفته وقدرته على استعادة اإلنتاجية األصلية‬
‫لآلبار المتضررة وتوفير طاقة إنتاجية إضافية‪ .‬لم يتم دراسة تحميض حشو الصخري لحقل االحدب من قبل‬
‫؛ لذلك ‪ ،‬قدم هذا العمل معلومات جديدة عن تحميض الحجر الجيري في مكمن مشرف‪ .‬عالوة على ذلك ‪،‬‬
‫صدرت عدة تقارير حول الصعوبات التي تمت مواجهتها أثناء تشغيل التنشيط لحقل النفط األحدب ‪ ،‬ال سيما‬
‫فيما يتعلق بتطوير مكمن مشرف‪ .‬تم تصميم و بناء منظومة حقن مختبرية امنة و جديدة يمكن من خاللها‬
‫إزاحة السوائل المختلفة في ظل ظروف متنوعة‪ .‬غالبية أجهزة المختبر والطرق عمل المناسبة لكل تجربة تم‬
‫شرحها في هذه االطروحة‪ .‬تم إنشاء ثقب دودي الحد النماذج طويل وواسع بمعدل حقن حمض عالي (‪6.67‬‬
‫سم مكعب ‪ /‬دقيقة)‪ .‬أسفر منحنى كفاءة الحمض عن أقل حجم حامض تم حقنه عند اختراق النموذج الصخري‬
‫هو ‪ 2.73‬وبمقدار سرعة في الوسط المسامي ‪ 0.6‬سم ‪ /‬دقيقة ؛ وبالتالي ‪ ،‬فإن معدل الحقن األمثل الذي ينتج‬
‫عنه ثقب دودي أمثل وأقل كمية من الحمض المستخدم لهذا التكوين هي ‪ 2.16‬سم مكعب ‪ /‬دقيقة‪.‬‬

‫قيم هذا البحث تأثير معالجة تحميض حشو الصخرة على الخصائص الصوتية ‪ ،‬والتي لم يتم التحقيق فيها من‬
‫قبل‪ .‬عالوة على ذلك ‪ ،‬في تقييم خصائص الصخور الجيوميكانيكية والمعايير المرنة والبتروفيزيائية قبل وبعد‬
‫الحقن الحمضي ‪ ،‬فإن أحد المفاهيم الجديدة التي تم اكتشافها أثناء التجربة المعملية مالحظة الشكل الموجي‬
‫الصوتي قبل وبعد المعالجة الحمضية لعينة الصخور المختبرية هو أن الوصول األولي الوقت قبل المعالجة‬
‫بالحمض هو ‪ 21.6‬ميكروثانية ‪ ،‬مع تأخير قدره ‪ 31.2‬ميكروثانية يعزى إلى قناة الثقب الدودي وانحالل‬
‫المعادن‪ .‬في هذا البحث تم فحص تطبيقات التصوير المقطعي المحوسب في تحميض الصخري‪ .‬باإلضافة إلى‬
‫ذلك ‪ ،‬تم إنشاء عرض ثالثي األبعاد لعينات المكونات لتمثيل امتداد الثقب الدودي عبر برنامج المعالجة‬
‫المقطعية‪.‬‬
‫تم استخدام ترخيص ‪ Stimpro Stimulation Software‬للتحقق من صحة العمل التجريبي على النطاق‬
‫الميداني ‪ ،‬مما يجعله األداة األكثر شموالً لتخطيط ومراقبة معالجة تحميض الصخري واستخدام البيانات‬
‫الفعلية لتوفير معرفة أفضل بكثير عن تفاعل البئر ‪ ،‬مع األساليب التي تمثل حقيقة ما يحدث في المكمن قبل‬
‫وبعد المعالجة ‪ ،‬من خالل عامل البشرة بعد العالج والذي يُعد اإلحصاء األكثر استخدا ًما لتحليل عالجات‬
‫التحفيز‪ .‬تم تقييم للبئر ‪ ، AD-12‬بشكل أساسي للمنطقة ‪ Mi4‬؛ يمكن أن يتم توقع سلوك إنتاج معالجات‬
‫حمض الصخري أو مطابقته باستخدام خيار محاكاة المكامن وتحليل اإلنتاج ‪ ،‬باستخدام برنامج ترخيص‬
‫المحاكاة الرقمية )‪ Petrel (Schlumberger‬و )‪ Rubis (KAPPA‬لتحديد فعالية العالجات السابقة‬
‫واالقتصاد المرتبط بالعالجات المستقبلية‪ .‬حجم ونسبة زيادة الزيت المقدرة لوحدة ‪ Mi4‬في ‪ Ad-12‬باستخدام‬
‫قيمة البشرة بشكل خاص ‪ 3.97-‬المحسوبة من برنامج ‪ Stimpro‬لوظيفة حمض التحفيز الحقيقي ‪ ،‬وهي‬
‫زيادة العائد في إنتاج حجم كسب الزيت ‪ 6154‬برميل باإلضافة إلى زيادة ‪ ٪105‬من نسبة الكسب لمدة ثالثة‬
‫أشهر بعد التحميض‪.‬‬