Matrix Stimulation Engineering

Copyright 2007, NExT, All rights reserved

 Matrix Stimulation Engineering

Day 1: Carbonate
Day 2: Carbonate – Sandstone
Day 3: Sandstone
Day 4: Lab (tentative)
Day 5: Scale

2
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Well Candidate Selection Process

Does data
suggest stimulation No
will improve PI? No Treatment-Side track

Yes

Matrix acid Frac acid

candidate? candidate?

K>10md K<10md
oil well oil well

K>1md K<1md
gas well gas well

3
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Matrix Success Rate

• ARCO study (1990 - 1992 at Thumbs)

• Fracturing failure rate = 5%
• Matrix acid failure rate = 32%
• Amoco study (1994 - 1996 in Permian Basin)
• Acid jobs pay-out < 40% of the time
• Other operators had similar results in the area.
• Agip study: 50 % failure rate in acidizing
• Why?

4
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Why are there failures ?

• Damage characterization
• Placement
• Fluid-fluid incompatibility : Emulsions, Sludge …
• Bad acid design
⇒Precipitation of reaction by-products
⇒Poor fluid selection
⇒Improper acid flowback procedures
• Insufficient acid volume
• Water problem: water block, increase of water cut
• Improper candidate selection
• Artificial lift
5
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Why are there failures : diversion

40
Placement
30

20
Change in Water Cut (%)

POST-JOB WATER CUT

10
Job with diversion: 18.8%
0

-10

WITHOUT DIVERSION
-20
POST-JOB WATER CUT: 45.5%
-30

-40

6
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Why are there failures : artificial lift

ESP installed
• Lift optimization: 33% of all failures occurred because fluid
10000 100

level could
bopd
bwpd
not be reduced. 98

mcfpd 96
1000 fluid above pump
94
Water Cut

Water Cut, (%)

Production

92

100 90

88

86
10
84

82

1 80
3/11/98 4/25/98 6/9/98 7/24/98 9/7/98 10/22/98 12/6/98 1/20/99 3/6/99

7
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Why are there failures : real potential
Reser
v oir

ce
rm l
r fo n ti a
an
Pe t e
ce

Po
Pressure

rfo ing
an
rm
Pe i s t
Ex

Gap
Flow Rate
8
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Effect of Shifting an 80% Damage Collar

100
3-in collar
Percent of original productivity

6-in collar
80 12-in collar
rc-rx = collar thickness
Damage collar
60 rc

40 rx

Wellbore
20 re

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Inner radius of damage (ft)

9
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Change in Damage Skin Factor

• Matrix acidizing
• Sandstone: skin can be reduced to zero at best
• Carbonate: can generate a negative skin
• Fracturing
• A negative skin is possible
Completion Skin
Fracture -6 to -2
Carbonate -2 to +4
OH gravel pack +2 to +10
CH gravel pack +5 to +20
10
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Summary

• Damage in the critical matrix is the target of matrix

stimulation.
• Wells without a performance gap will not respond well to
matrix treatments.
• A successful stimulation treatment is one that yields the
predicted production and ROI/Pay Out.
• Damage characterization
• Fluid selection
• Placement
• etc.
11
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved
 Matrix Treatment Design Methodology

A typical design for a acid job

should involve three major steps
•Candidate Selection : not always done (cut and
paste method )

• Acid treatment design

• Assess Profitability through Productivity

Improvement : not always performed but
mandatory if we want to improve the next design
12
Copyright 2009, NExT, All rights reserved