SPE 64384
Integrated Stimulation Applications and Best Practices for Optimizing Reservoir
Development Through Horizontal Wells
J.F. Manrique, SPE and A. Husen, SPE, Schlumberger Oilfield Services, S.C. Gupta, SPE and A.V. Raju, SPE, ONGC
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 16–18 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper discusses and summarizes technology innovations
and practical application of Integrated Stimulation
Applications: Matrix Acidizing, Acid Fracturing, Proppant
Fracturing and Water Conformance/Control are discussed with
an emphasis on horizontal wells applications.
Field case histories are presented to illustrate our approach to
develop best practices for optimum reservoir completion
through the use of practical and feasible completion methods.
Damage characterization for vertical and horizontal wells.
Mechanical and chemical diversion techniques (for proper
coverage and acid system distribution along pay zone),
specific fluid systems to minimize influx of acid into water
bearing zones, retarded acid systems for high temperature
applications (that enables deeper live acid penetration) are also
discussed.
Analysis of the production data is intensively and extensively
used to match past performance, forecast production and
quantify estimates of reservoir potential and deliverability.
NodalTM system analysis, advanced well diagnostic procedures
and numerical reservoir simulation (for complex cases provide
means for accurately assessment of reservoir potential and
deliverability. The results provide critical input in the decision
making process for optimization of reservoir completions, and
conform a practical strategy for reservoir management and
development.
The process is applicable to a continuously evolving reservoir
development strategy that aims at improving well/field
economics, productivity and recovery efficiency in new,
existent, and re-development field strategies and for
small/marginal fields or fast tracking reservoir development.
The approach benchmarks currently achieved production and
compares it against optimum achievable production (within
practical and economical limits) and utilizes cost effective -
Integrated Stimulation Applications (Solutions) that address
reserves otherwise left behind.
Introduction
With the advances in formation damage evaluation and
stimulation methods, the proper and most cost effective
treatment can usually be identified. If damage cannot be easily
removed by acidizing, other methods such as acid fracturing
may be required. Acid is used to penetrate the damaged zone
in the near wellbore area below fracturing pressure. The
purpose is to remove the damage (skin) caused by drilling,
completion or workover fluids, precipitation of solids, and
other damage mechanisms. The vast majority of matrix
stimulation treatments involve the use of aqueous HCl
solutions for carbonates, and mixtures of HCl-HF for
sandstones.
Matrix acidizing may not always be effective. Acids tend to
wormhole or follow natural fractures and fissures, and may be
undesirably diverted to non-damaged zones. Consequently,
these treatments also employ various chemical and mechanical
diversion techniques for placement at the desired sections of
the wellbore. Fluid placement is the most critical issue when
trying to stimulate carbonate reservoirs especially horizontal
wells.
Candidate Recognition for Horizontal Well Stimulation
Reservoir stimulation deals with the improvement of well
productivity. A successful stimulation requires accurate
identification of the factors affecting well deliverability and
2 J.F.Manrique, A. Husen, S.C.Gupta and A.V.Raju
evaluation of the effectiveness of stimulation treatments that
can improve production. Examples presented in this paper
followed these principles and their success was possible due to
the implementation of a systematic engineering methodology
for production optimization, that considers reservoir
mechanisms, production dynamics, formation mineralogy and
sensitivity, drilling and completion practices, and other factors
affecting well productivity or injectivity.
The following are the general steps needed in the systematic
engineering methodology:
1. Define Well/Field/Reservoir/TargetZones/Flow Units,
Reservoir Description - Available vs. Required Data
2. Identify Well Mechanical Conditions & Problems
3. Benchmark current completions performance, Evaluation
of Individual Well Completions: Log interpretation, SPF,
perforated zones, stress profile, porosity cutoff, natural
fractures. Perforation strategies, etc.
4. Evaluate Potential for Single and Multiwell System:
Volumetrics and reserves analysis. Perform production
decline analysis. Match current production and forecast
potential production for alternate completions. Production
Analysis/Decline. Estimating the drainage area and
parameters affecting production.
5. Determe difference between current well production and
the potential production upside (upper production limit,
skin = 0). Determining Damage Mechanisms
6. Solutions and Recommendations
• Logging recommendations, pre and post
• Design stimulation treatment (fracturing or acid
treatment)
• Placement techniques and correct volumes (Coiled
Tubing, FoamMAT Diversion, SDA, SXE,
OilSEEKER, etc.).
7. Perform economic evaluation for alternate completions
and investigate “What If Scenarios” for production
increase (NPV, ROI and Financial Risk Analysis)
Damage Characterization - Damage Mechanisms
A wide variety of mechanisms or combination of mechanisms
can be present in a damage situation and may result in a
continuously increasing skin factor over the producing life of
the well. Moreover damage mechanisms are often aggravated
by excessive pressure drop especially in the near wellbore
area.
Damage affects both the near wellbore permeability decrease
and production impairment of the well completion. In general
can be bypassed with a hydraulic fracture treatment that
increases the productive surface area and reduces the fluid
velocity in the rock (which also reduces fines migration) and
mitigates the pressure drop around the wellbore. Some of
these damage mechanisms are: Diagenetic clay deposition
(illite), fines migration, organic scale (asphaltene), or an
inorganic scale.
SPE 64384
Once the damage mechanism is identified, chemical or
mechanical means can be used to remove the damage. In
general matrix treatments target the removal or bypassing of
near wellbore damage. Treatment fluid recommendations are
highly dependent on the type of damage to be remediated.
Fines Migration can be determined from core analysis. Fines
are silts and clays particles of less than 60 microns. Fines
migration can be treated through stimulation with HCl
followed by Mud Acid and overflushed with clay
acid. FinesLOK is also used to address mobile fines.
Scale Deposition can be determined with the help of water
analysis from damaged producers (scaling propensity, fluid
incompatibility, Calcite, BaSO4. HCl, solvents for Calcite
scale or mechanical means (ScaleBLASTER) for sulfite scale.
Asphaltene Content in the crude requires lab work. Usually
this problem develops initially at the wellbore and migrates
into the formation with time.
Horizontal Well Geometry
In a horizontal well, deeper damage penetrations occur
because of longer exposure to drilling and completion fluids.
An acid wash may leave a “collar” of damage around the
wellbore, resulting in substantial production loss.
Just as hole geometry affects well deliverability, it
significantly influences the damage profile and the relative
contribution of the skin effect. Consequently, it has a bearing
on how we design and execute the stimulation treatment. The
simple cylindrical model that characterizes damage in vertical
wells does not apply to horizontal wells.
In a horizontal well, damage penetration is likely to be deeper
near the vertical section due to its longer exposure to drilling
and completion fluids. Also, because friction pressure losses
result in larger reservoir pressure gradients in this part of the
well, the damage profile forms a cone, with the larger cross
sections at the shallower part of the horizontal section.
Damage penetration and profile tend to follow the preferential
flow direction. In an anisotropic environment, the cross-
section of the damage profile is elliptical, with the larger axis
in the direction of the highest permeability (Figure 1). Thus,
the damage profile along and around a horizontal well in an
anisotropic formation is likely to be a truncated cone with an
elliptical cross section.
The proposed model reflects horizontal well conditions more
realistically than the cylindrical damage profile. However, it
does not account for heterogeneities along the horizontal
section, which may influence the damage distribution (natural
fractures or fissures and high permeability streak). Bearing
this limitation in mind, the truncated elliptical cone geometry
allows us to develop easy-to-handle analytical expressions for
pre- and post-treatment skin effects.
SPE 64384 Integrated Stimulation Applications and Best Practices for Optimizing reservoir Development Through Horizontal Wells
More importantly, the truncated cone image has implications
for stimulation treatment design. It offers insights into
optimizing treatments by suggesting the placement of more
stimulation fluids near the vertical section of the well, where
the damage penetration is deeper.
Stimulation Techniques
The major difference between vertical and horizontal wells is
the way in which damage is distributed along the wellbore
and, consequently, the manner in which we place stimulation
fluids. Chemical diverting agents, mechanical isolation
devices and even deliberate blanking of well portions are ways
we can selectively distribute fluids.
Carbonate formations differ fundamentally from sandstones
with respect to the acidizing process and its objectives. While
sandstone treatments remove plugging materials from the pore
throats, carbonate acidizing primarily involves a reaction
between the acid and the rock itself. Whereas in sandstones,
the goal is to restore reservoir permeability, carbonate
acidizing is designed to by pass the damage by creating
secondary permeability, characterized by highly conductive
paths called worm holes.
Bullheading the acid is most likely to generate large leakoff
zones, which take all of the stimulation fluids. It is not a
recommended substitute for proper placement with coiled
tubing. It too often results in the acid being spent near the
vertical section, which then accepts even more stimulation
fluids. Hence, massive leakoff zones develop (especially in
carbonates).
This leakoff potential, combined with the long intervals to be
stimulated, suggests the need to divide the well into several
sequentially treated sections. This allows for optimum
diversion. The treatment’s effectiveness thus depends strongly
on the quality of zonal isolation, which would be most
effective with a cased and cemented completion. The
discussion below will focus mainly on fluid placement and
diversion using proven latest technology.
Mechanical Diversion - Coiled Tubing
Coiled tubing is recommended means of providing additional
mechanical isolation and diversion for horizontal well
stimulation treatments. One technique involves pumping inert
fluid through the annulus (to provide back-pressure) between
the coiled tubing and the completion string, while injecting
stimulation fluids through the coiled tubing.
During this procedure, the coiled tubing is run to the “toe” of
the well, and then gradually withdraws it while pumping the
fluids. Tubing withdrawal rate is calculated to achieve
maximum diversion, based on the injection rate and the
volumetric coverage. The interface between the acid and inert
fluid should move at the same rate as the coiled tubing, so that
it stays close to the injection point at the end of the string. This
3
technique is applicable to all types of completions, including
open holes, slotted liners and cemented and cased wells.
Effective Diversion - Self Diverting Acid (SDATM)
Excessive acid leakoff primarily occurs due to acid selectively
enlarging rock pores to form wormholes. The SDATM system
is a polymer gelled acid base that creates a temporary rigid
gel, which reduces fluid loss during acid treatments, while
spending (reacting) it in wormholes created by a previous acid
stage. It breaks down bto a low viscosity fluid when spent (no
damage). The counterpart fluid for fracturing applications is
known as LCATM - Leak off Control Acid.
The fluid blocks the wormholes growth by temporarily
forming a barrier that halts channel growth, thereby reducing
the loss of fluid from the wormholes. After the acid has spent,
the barrier breaks and the SDATM returns to its original
viscosity. This system is effective in reducing leakoff into
natural fractures and represents an effective non-damaging
temporary diversion process for carbonate reservoirs. This
particular acid formulation contains no solids or particulates
and can be in open hole or slotted liner completions since
diversion occurs in the formation. This acid system has the
greatest potential in treating zones with widely varying
permeabilty streaks, as well as horizontal wells.
The following correspond to typical SDATM field results for a
Middle East, Horizontal well. Oil producer in a Limestone
formation with the following parameters; TMD = 9800 ft,
TVD = 7350 ft, 7” slotted liner completion, kh = 25 md; kv =
12 md, φ = 25%. The well’s stabilized production was 1,000
BOPD at 320 psi whp. Nodal systems analysis suggested a
skin of 10+. The following field results for stabilized oil
production rate, were observed after SDATM treatment; Pre-
Treatment oil rates was 1000 BOPD at 320 psi WHP.
Succesful post-Treatment results show a production increase
up to 3700-4000 BOPD at 260 psi WHP.
Foam Diversion – (FoamMATTM)
The FoamMATTM system is designed to improve the diversion
of treating fluids during matrix acidizing treatments. This
technique is applicable to both, sandstone and carbonate
formations. Diversion is achieved by generating (and
maintaining) a stable foam stage in the higher permeability
zones during the entire treatment. Diversion is achieved by the
foam stages.
The foam forms a stable membrane inside the matrix and in
presence of water bearing zones and does not allow the acid to
interact and stimulate the high water saturation zones. On the
other hand the foam is not stable when in contact with
hydrocarbon, which allows the acid to selectively stimulate
zones with greater hydrocarbon potetntial. The result is
complete zone coverage by the treating fluid and effective
damage removal, even from severely damaged zones.
4 J.F.Manrique, A. Husen, S.C.Gupta and A.V.Raju
Figure 2 shows the performance comparison for FoamMAT
Diversion in a Matrix Acidizing Campaign in Nigeria (16
horizonatl wells). Note the dramatic incremental production in
the wells that undergo FoamMAT diversion (incremental oil
cut) as compared to those where diversion was not achieved.
The later present not only a decrease in oil production (water
cut increase) but also an increase in lifting costs and lost
production. About similar results can be observed in Table 1
corresponding to the field results in the Midale formation.
FoamMAT Case Example – The Midale Formation
The Weyburn Unit produces from the Midale Beds in
Southeast Saskatchewan, Canada. The Midale Marly M1 is a
Dolomitic Limestone and is a member of the Madison Group
from the Mississippian period. Porosity was estimated in the 6
to 10 % range with permeability ranging from 1.2 to 200 md.
There were four types of jobs performed on the 20 wells:
Acid Squeezes, Foam Slugs, FoamMATTM, and Acid Washes.
The 20 wells can be divided into 2 categories, Diversion and
No-Diversion. It should be noted that after the first eight jobs,
four of which were Acid Squeezes and four were Foam Slugs,
the maximum allowable annulus pressure was cut from 7,000
kPa to 3,500 kPa, and the acid volume ratio was decreased.
Mutual solvent post flush was also pumped to enhance well
clean up, due to poor initial results on the first eight wells.
Nine FoamMATTM treatments were performed on the 20
wells. Job procedure was as follows: Circulate a preflush of
mutual solvent and surfactant to clean and add in foam
generation. Foam stages were pumped, 5 to 10 minute shut-in
period, followed by acid stages. The formation was used as
foam generator to create a stable insitu foam. The goal was to
have the foam enter any high permeable thief zones and create
a high pressure differential so that when the acid is pumped it
will enter the lower permeable sections of the reservoir. The
objective of the shut in period was to allow the foam to
stabilize in the water bearing zones. Foams are generally
stable in water zones while oil tends to degrade the foam
rapidly.
Table 1 present the overall field Production Results from 20
Horizontal Wells in the Midale Formation (after SPE 39422).
The nine jobs contributed to 44 % of the incremental oil
production, and 23 % of the incremental water production.
Out of the nine jobs done eight jobs were considered a success
and one a failure. From the nine jobs a 54 % increase in oil
production and a 90 % increase in water production are
observed. FoamMATTM have by far the best success ratio
89%, followed by washes at 67 %, acid squeezes at 50% and
foam slugs at 25%. FoamMATTM has proven to be the most
reliable means of Diversion throughout the project. Using a
2::1 Foam to acid ratio and 50% of the fracture pressure as a
maximum allowable pressure seems to be optimum.
SPE 64384
A total of 13 wells were treated with foam diversion
techniques. These thirteen wells contributed to 83% of the
incremental oil production and 57 % of the incremental water
production. Total cost of the thirteen wells was $1,174,800.
Estimated pay-out of the 13 jobs is approximately 4.5 months
with a ROR of 252%, ROI of 227%, and NPV of $1,492,082.
Super X Emulsion - SXETM
Use of emulsions with acid as the internal phase (acid
completely encapsulated within the oil carrying fluid) is one of
the best ways to retard the acid reaction rate. The oil film
forms a macroscopic physical barrier that prevents the direct
contact between acid and formation. The treatment (SXETM) is
a viscous, highly retarded, concentrated acid system designed
for deep acid penetration, deep damage removal, minimizing
creation of severe wormholing near-wellbore and high
temperature application.
Their delayed nature will create deeper acid penetration and
wormholes. A retardation factor of 14 to 19 times compared to
conventional HCL will by-pass deeper damage especially in
reservoirs with natural fractures/fissures with significant
drilling or completion fluid losses. The high viscosity (10
times the bottomhole viscosity of HCL) helps control fluid
loss, allows efficient and more uniform placement and
diversion along the horizontal section (multilaterlas, slanted or
horizontal wells) in cases where permeability contrast may
create high permeability channels (producers) or thief zones
(injection)
This acid system allows deeper acid penetration laterally
before it spends compared to conventional hydrochloric acid.
Certainly an advantage when the treatment is CT conveyed or
when bullheading the treatment is the only option. Especially
when mechanical diverters are not an option due to well
completion or logistics constraints. Or when the reentry
capability of multi-lateral wells is questionable.
Oil SeekerTM Diverter (OSD) - Water Zone Diversion Service
Special precautions are needed when acidizing horizontal
wells adjacent to nearby water zones or zones with potential
high water saturations or high water cut wells with an OWC
(oil-water-contact). Typically in this situation bullheading acid
(with no diversion capability) will result in high water cut
wells and leaving the oil zone unstimulated.
In these particular situations, the best technique to prevent
acidizing the water zone is mechanical diversion. However, if
mechanical diversion is not operationally feasible the Oil
SeekerTM diverter system can be utilized. The system provides
effective zone coverage and damage removal in horizontal
wells. The non-damaging diverter system does not incorporate
particular diverters or polymer and provides improved
cleanup. Non-polymer base fluids are used to partially plug
the water zone and/or thief zones. Figure XX illustrate the
SPE 64384 Integrated Stimulation Applications and Best Practices for Optimizing reservoir Development Through Horizontal Wells
core flow test results. It describes the fractional flow before
and after Oil SeekerTM Diversion at 150o F.
Production Optimization Example – Bombay High Field
The performance of a field is the outcome of its basic
understanding, development strategy, subsequent monitoring,
mid course corrections based on the data and information
obtained during the course of the field exploitation. A
succesful production optimization in this field was the balance
between strategic field production optiization and the tactical
tools employed during the optimization process.
The Bombay High field is located about 160 Kms. (North-
South) of Mumbai City. Field development and commercial
production from the Bombay High Field (Bombay High North
and Bombay High South) commenced in May 1976. The
general well completion strategy followed a multilayered-
commingled well production and similar for water injection
wells.
The Lower Miocene interval L-III, is considered the main
reservoir. It is a multi-layered, limestone reservoir overlain by
a huge gas cap. The L-III zone is divided into independent
reservoirs (A1, A2, B, C, D and E) that are considered to be
non-communicating reservoirs separated by shale sequences.
The target reservoir A2 is further subdivided into Upper A2 (I,
II, III, IV) and Lower A2 (V, VI, VII). The reservoir
sequences have variable porosity (10-35% range) and with
permeability varying from a few millidarcies to darcies.
Field Stimulation Practices
Typical well stimulation techniques after initial completion (or
workover operations) is the use of 15% HCL with Benzoic
acid flakes as diverting agent. The effectiveness of this
approach is questionable. With varying productivity results
decreasing most of the time and with insignificant and short
lived production gains. Such poor results may be due to
inefficient acid diversion and rather the depleted layer is the
main recipient of the acid treatment.
Production logs from several wells indicate a preferential
depletion of high flow capacity layers in the multilayered
commingled system completion. Similarly for injection wells,
the water movement has been preferential through high
permeability streaks (high kh) or depleted layers.
SDATM Effectiveness: Table 2 demonstrates the nature of the
stimulation treatments and their effectiveness of proper acid
diversion treatments with a SDA treatment for 2 typical wells
in the Bombay High field. In both cases the pre job treatment
oil production rates were 494 and 313 BOPD and after
treatment IP’s of 717 and 676 BOPD and stabilized production
of 786 and 760 BOPD. This corresponds to an increase of
59% and 143% respectively (stabilized production)
5
Field production results are presented in Table 3, which
illustrates the results for 23 wells. Production results are
currently in good agreement with initial prediction for
stabilized production. Benchmark production for 23 reported
wells was around 12,000 BOPD. An average field incremental
production of more than 10,000 BOPD was to be expected due
to SDA stimulation treatments with proper acid diversion
A typical acid stage consisted of Main Acid (HCL 15%) 3000
gals, SXE (300 scf/bbl) 3000 gals and SDA (3%) 3500 gals.
Averaging an acid concentration of 100-150 gals/ft. In all
cases it was recommended to perform emulsion tests between
all the fluids proposed and the crude oil. And Pump at max
rate below the fracturing pressure. Post stimulation analysis
involved monitoring the iron content in the flowback sample;
raw acid 20 mg/l, blender acid 69.8 mg/l. Iron content in
flowback sample just before diverting to platform 126.66
mg/l, 189.89 mg/l.
Crude emulsion tendency was observed and anti-
Sludge/Demulsifier additives were incorporated in the
formulation as well as efficient corrosion inhibitor for
corrosion and pitting, surfactants and iron control agent. For
injection wells include the use of mutual solvents and biocide
treatment. Diversion and acid retardation were confirmed in
ALL stages. Some specific actions were taken in the cases of
high permeability layers as per analysis to control excessive
leakoff. During execution QA/QC procedures were enforced
for every well. Engineered “on the fly” changes were
implemented and pump rate designed to enhance and maintain
diversion
During the post-treatment evaluation in every well, Production
Logging was performed in every as well as selective pressure
transient analysis. The need to analyze the complete system
through an integrated approach and a systematic engineering
methodology proved to be a critical factor for the susccesful
production optimization strategy. This involved redesign of
the production tubulars, gas lift system, water/gas shut off,
scale treatment (SrSO4, BaSO4), water injection strategy–
TM
Early flowback (EverGREEN burner head): shut in for 1/2
TM
to 1 hour after SXE , 3 phase flow meter for enhanced early
analysis. For High water cut wells, generally > 75% the best
TM
option was to use OilSEEKER
Multi-Fractured Horizontal Wells
The conditions under which horizontal wells performance will
be significantly better than conventional wells are variable and
many. Productivity and recovery efficiency need to be
evaluated using mathematical, production and simulation
models for each particular case. Optimization of the fractures
design and spacing should be based on maximizing
performance in terms of net present value (NPV). The number,
size and fracture spacing must be such that prevents
interference, limited fracture width, increased net pressures,
fracture rotation and reorientation.
6 J.F.Manrique, A. Husen, S.C.Gupta and A.V.Raju
Fracturing Mechanics
In the case of a multi-staged-frac slanted/horizontal well, we
fracture orientation, spacing between fractures, stress-
pressure-permeability profiles, fluid leakoff and economic
evaluation.must be carefully considered and modeled.
Hydraulic fracturing may be very effective in overcoming the
near-wellbore damage and. However, if it is needed to create
long fracture wings or interconnect adjacent formations
(layered system) with reduced vertical permeability, then the
global stress distribution needs to be considered. Longitudinal
fractures may tend to turn and twist according to the stress
distribution.
A fracture will propagate, grow and orient accordingly to the
minimun stress principle and along the Preferred Fracture
Plane (PFP). Drilling and particularly fracturing, imposes a
near-wellbore (3 to 5 rw's) stress condition different than the
far field stresses that affects the fracture initiation, breakdown
and friction pressures due to changes in the rock toughness
and pore pressure effects. In the case of a multi-staged-frac
horizontal well, as we move toward the heel of the horizontal
well, we should be able to observe an increase in treating
pressure proportional to the spacing in between stages.
Longitudinal Fractures: will generate if the wellbore is
oriented in direction of the maximum horizontal stress (σHmax).
In general, when the difference between the wellbore azimuth
and the preferred fracture plane orientation is larger than 30o,
the fracture will prefer to originate near the top and bottom of
the perforated interval. Perforating a maximum of 25-50 ft., 4-
8 spf, oriented perforating to 0o or 180o phased top and bottom
is ideal. As a guideline, the number of perforations should be
selected to have less than 25 psi. friction pressure or 2 BPM
per perforation.
Orthogonal Fractures: These fractures are generated when
fracturing in the direction of the minimum horizontal stress
(σHmin). It requires a relatively small perforated interval with
high shot density (“Point Source”) which reduces the
possibility of creating multiple competing fractures as they
initiate at each perforation favoring fracture generation, link-
up and propagation along a single fracture plane. In general,
when deviation angles between the horizontal wellbore and
preferred fracture plane orientation is less than 30o a 120o or
60o phasing is recommended. It is recommended to perforate
only a short perforated interval 2-4 ft., typically with 4-12 spf,
oriented perforating will aid to prevent the creation of multiple
fractures within the perforated interval.
Acid Fracturing is a stimulation process in which acid is
injected into a carbonate formation at pressures above the
formation fracture gradient or capable to open existing natural
fractures. As the acid flows along the fracture, portions of the
fracture face are dissolved due to the non-uniform etching
action of the acid reaction and interaction with the reservoir
SPE 64384
rock. Channels are created which usually remain conductive
when the fracture closes. The effectiveness of the acid
treatment, fracture length and conductivity are determined by
the volume of acid used, its reaction rate, and the acid fluid
loss from the fracture into the formation.
Multi-Fractured Slanted/Horizontal Well Example
A slanted/horizontal well drilled with the intention of
producing through multiple fractures in the inclined horizontal
section (60o). Vertical wells in this field frac at very low
pressures, and no problems were expected with the small frac
job sizes (60,000-75,000 lbs sand). Clustered-point source
perforating was used (120o, 4 SPF).
The first frac stage was initiated at 1 ppa and a rapid near-
wellbore screenout was experienced as the sand stage reached
the perforations. The main difference as compared to the other
wells in the field is due to the well misalignment with respect
to stress field (minimum stress orientation). Possibly multiple
fractures were initiated which turned sharply into the fracture
plane close to the well. The limited fracture width and fluid
leakoff forced the proppant stage to bridge out causing
premature screenout.
A DataFRAC was carried over to determine leakoff, closure
pressures, fracture gradient and friction pressures. Stress
profile from the pilot section was incorporated into the
FracCADE model and higher breakdown and surface treating
pressures were estimated. The job was redesigned and sand
slugs were pumped (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 ppa), working the
treatment up to 1 ppa and increased up to 5-6 ppa. With this
modification 8 additional frac stages were pumped to design
specifications.
Production Optimization Example - Horizontal Wells
A systematic engineering methodology was implemented to
evaluate the potential of stimulating horizontal wells in the
Madison Formation, Mission Canyon and Lodgepole
formations. Current completions appear to be severely
damaged (high skin). Multifracture (acid fracturing) of
horizontal wells and acid stimulation of horizontal wells were
recommended as the preferred completion method for
production enhancement in a naturally fractured system.
The approach involved reviewing past completion history,
decline curve analysis, NODAL systems analysis, log
evaluation, reservoir description, model a pattern, match
pressure and production, forecast production for three
scenarios: a vertical well, a fractured horizontals (4-7 stages)
and acid stimulation. Multiple sensitivities regarding shot
density, skin values, fracture lengths, length of the horizontal
wellbore, acid treatment volumes, reservoir permeability and
declining reservoir pressures. Good agreement was observed
between cross-section, log analysis, lithology description and
the fracture network with healed and partially open fractures.
SPE 64384 Integrated Stimulation Applications and Best Practices for Optimizing reservoir Development Through Horizontal Wells
The analysis procedure suggested significant potential and
suggested that stimulating horizontal wells through acid
diversion and acid fracturing will increase productivity.
Production and log analysis indicated potential for multilateral
completions (4 potential intervals). Multiple simulation
scenarios were simulated using a 3D finite difference reservoir
simulator for performance comparison. The effect of
permeability, unfavorable anisotropy ratio (kz<<kx, ky),
horizontal well lengths, declining reservoir pressure, variable
reservoir permeability and thickness were investigated.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the results and suggests Lw = 1500-
2000 ft. to be optimum lateral length.
The main mechanism for production corresponds to the
natural fracture network and how efficiently it interconnects
with the horizontal wellbore. Our analysis indicates a matrix
permeability ranging from 0.05 to 0.16 md. and an effective
permeability for the fractured system ranging from 1.0 to 1.6
md. The effective length of the horizontal section contributing
to production corresponds to 15~20% of the total length of the
horizontal well.
Blindly perforating and completion of a horizontal well has a
very high level of uncertainty and risk among the
recommendations were to implement seismic interpretation,
structural framework and multi-well analysis all of which
suggested a trend for the orientation of the natural fracture
network. Efforts were made to identify the presence,
frequency extent and density of these fractures. FMI/FMS,
PEx and PL logs were implemented to identify the intersection
with the natural fracture network to proceed with a more
efficient approach for selective stimulation.
Volume Totals: For about 12-15 stages for a total of 61,300
gals of 28% acid, 45,000 gals water and 1,285,000 scf N2
(foam stages only) and a total of 730,000 scf N2 fgor a N2
kick-off at minimum rate possible (+/- 250 scfm).
Acid stimulation was conveyed through Coiled tubing was
implemented in the field. Foam diversion was chosen for
maximum coverage of the horizontal section. A 70 Quality
foam was pumped at maximum rate. At approximately 75
gal/ft. Acid was 28% HCl with inhibitor, iron stabilizer and
chelating agents, surfactant, and Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA).
Table 4 present the results obtained for 3 horizontal wells.
Predictions for the IP and stabilized production were close and
significant production increase was achieved in all 3 cases.
Conclusions
• Implementation of a systematic engineering methodology
proved to be effective and successful for practical
production optimization of horizontal wells around the
world
7
• Understanding of the resevoir mechanics and production
dynamics will determine what the proper stimulation
treatment to follow
• Placement (conveyance) of the stimulation treatment is
critical for all cases
• Location of the horizontal wellbore is of critical
importance for the process efficiency. In addition this
approach has the advantage of accommodating higher
injection rates, volumes and better steam placement.
• A practical criteria for proper horizontal well stimulation
treatments should consider: 1) economic improvement
(favorable NPV response), 2) perform selective
stimulation to improve the production profile or maintain
control of the injectivity profile, 3) improve volumetric
sweep efficiency and recovery, 4) better production
optimization strategy when depleted/desaturated zones are
present.
References
1. Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G: “Reservoir Stimulation”,
Third Edition , Wiley
2. Johnson, L. “Weyburn Acid Project Evaluation” Internal
evaluation, Schlumberger Dowell
3. Thomas, R. et al; “Field Validation of a Foam Diversion Model:
A Matrix Stimulation Case Study” paper SPE 39422, 1998 SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-19 February 1998.
4. Simpson, J.G., Edmunds, A.C., Bittner, T. and Muir, L.;
“Performance Optimization of Horizontal Wells: A Company's
Experience With Horizontal Well Acid Stimulations”, paper
SPE 37120 presented at the SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Canada, 18-20
November
8 J.F.Manrique, A. Husen, S.C.Gupta and A.V.Raju SPE 64384

5000

4000

3000

Pressure, psig
2000
A

1000

1
0
1 2 3 4 5
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Gas Rate, Mscf/D Inflow

Inflow @ Sandface (1) Not Used
Inflow (1) Outflow (A) (1) 100
Case 2 (2) Case 2 (B)
Inflow
(2) 500
Case 3 (3) Case 3 (C) Tunnel length, ft
(3) 1000
Case 4 (4) Case 4 (D)
Case 5 (5) Case 5 (E) (4) 1500
Vertical Well Horizontal Well Cond Unloading Rate Water Unloading Rate (5) 2000
Damage Profile Damage Profile Max Erosional Rate Reg: Jorge Manrique - Dowell Schlumberger

Figure 1 – Damage Profile, Vertical and Horizontal Well Geometry Figure 4 - Production Estimates for Horizontal Well
kx = ky = 0.05 md. kz = 0.005 md., h = 100 ft, pr = 4500 psi

Matrix Acidizing Campaign in Nigeria

60
kx = ky = 0.1 m d. a nd kz = 0 .0 5 m d.
T hickn ess - h = 1 00 ft.

40

G as Production - MC FD
20000 V e rtica l W e ll

A cid S tim ula tion W e ll (S kin R e m o val)

Without Diversion: Post-Job
Oil-Cut Decreased 15% M ulti-F ra cture d W e ll
20
Change in Oil Cut

++++Aqua

0
FoamMAT Diversion Service: Post-Job
Oil-Cut Increased 14% +++$$$$ 10000
-20

-40

-60
0
0 365 730 1095
Figure 2 – Performance Comparison for FoamMAT Diversion Production Tim e - D ays
Matrix Acidizing Campaign in Nigeria
Figure 5 - Gas Cumulative Recovery
kx = ky = 0.1 md. and kz = 0.05 md., h = 100 ft

410 md, 20% Oil Saturation

410 md, 20% Oil Saturation
85
85
90 390
1.20E +7
90 390mm
d,d,77%
77%OO
ililSaturation
Saturation
kx = ky = 0.1 an d kz = 0 .0 5 m d.
T hickn ess - h = 1 00 ft.
C um ulative Production - M CF

80
80
65
65 V e rtica l W e ll
70
70 A cid S tim ulatio n W e ll (S kin R e m o val)

M ulti-F ra ctured H orizon tal W e ll

(%)
Flow(%)

60
60 8.00E +6
FractionalFlow

50
50
35
35
Fractional

40
40

30
30 4.00E +6
15
15
20
20

10
10

00
0.00E +0
Before Oil Seeker Diverter (OSD) After Oil Seeker Diverter (OSD) 0 365 730 1095
Production Tim e - Days
Figure 3 – Performance Comparison OilSeeker Diversion
Figure 6 - Gas Cumulative Recovery
kx = ky = 0.1 md. and kz = 0.05 md., h = 100 ft
SPE 64384 Integrated Stimulation Applications and Best Practices for Optimizing reservoir Development Through Horizontal Wells 9

Table 1 - Production Results, Midale Formation (SPE 39422)

Non-FoamMATTM Treated Wells FoamMAT TM Treated Wells

Pre Job Oil Post Job Oil Water Cut Pre Job Oil Post Job Oil Water Cut
Well bbl/day bbl/day Change % Well bbl/day bbl/day Change %
1 91 0 60% 1 86 229 -10%
Table 4 - Performance Comparison for
2 119 105 65% 2 77 111 -9% Acid Stimulation of Horizontal Wells
3 104 472 20% 3 110 343 16%
4 62 122 22% 4 107 120 -8%
5 132 201 12% 5 245 57 38%
6 125 101 25% 6 114 53 47% qBefore qAfter qStabilized
7 94 108 17% 7 116 197 -12% SCFD SCFD SCFD Action
8 126 76 19% 8 155 333 15%
9 60 172 -14% 1-2 MM 19.0 MM 16.7 MM
Totals 853 1185 10 58 144 -21%
avg per well 107 148 30% 11 105 214 4% 17.7 MM 15.0 MM Acid Stimulation Horizontal
12 103 131 -5% 20.0 MM 18.0 MM
Totals 711 1244
avg per well 89 156 3%

Table 2 –Effectiveness of SDATM Stimulation Treatment

Well No.1 Well No.2

qtotal qoil qtotal qoil
BLPD BOPD BLP BOPD
D
Before Treatment 824 494 Before Treatment 410 312
After treatment 1280** 717 After Treatment 830 676**
FEB11TH 2000 FEB 23RD 2000
FEB 12TH 2000 1035 569 ST
MAR 1 2000 868 783
FEB 16TH 2000 1014 507 MAR 10TH 2000 825 743
FEB 20th 2000 1040 603 TH
MAR 16 2000 825 742
APR 21st 2000 1077 786 MAY 8TH 2000 1056 760
** AFTER SDA JOB

Table 3
Bombay High Field – Results of Field Stimulation Campaign